Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

­: 11 :­ vs State Of Kerala on 9 March, 2017

                                     ­: 1 :­
                                                           CBI case No.: 13/16
                                     CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.


        IN  THE  COURT  OF  SHRI  HARISH  DUDANI
              SPECIAL  JUDGE (PC ACT) (CBI)­1
       DISTRICT  COURTS(SW), DWARKA, NEW DELHI.


In the matter of :­

CBI case No. : 13/16 (old CC No.: 33/11)
RC No. : 072  2009(E)  0007/CBI/EOU­III/New Delhi


Central Bureau of Investigation, 
EOU­III, New Delhi.

         Versus

1.  Rajesh Kumar(A1) s/o Sh. Kewal Krishan @ Rajesh Kapoor
     s/o  Sh. S. B. Kapoor, 
      R/o : H. No. 640, Village - Mundka, Nangloi, Delhi.
      Permmanent R/o : H. No.68, Vijay Nagar colony, 
      District Kapoorthala, Punjab.

2.   Rajiv Gupta (A2)
     s/o late Sh. Suresh Kumar,
     R/o : E­1/64, Sector­7, Rohini, New Delhi 
     also R/o : 354 R, Model Town, Yamuna Nagar, 
     Haryana - 135001.

3.  Chander Mohan Bansal(A3)
  s/o late Shri Babu Ram
    R/o : I­79, First Floor, Lajpat Nagar­1,
    New Delhi­110 024.


   CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors             Page No.1 of 336
                                       ­: 2 :­
                                                                 CBI case No.: 13/16
                                      CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.


4.  Ashok Kumar(A4)
    s/o Shri Beshesar Dass,
    R/o : Flat No. 210­211, Second Floor, F­1, Sector 16, 
    Rohini, Delhi.
    Also  R/o : H. No. 53, Pocket­9, 
    Sector 21, Rohini, New Delhi.

5.  Ramesh Kumar Wadhera(A5)
    s/o late Shri Bashesar Dass, 
    R/o : B747­A, Sushant Lok, 
    Phase­1, Gurgaon, Haryana.

6.  Narender Kumar @ Sanjay Kumar (A6)
    s/o late Shri Satpal Singh, 
    R/o:B­39, A Block, Ram Vihar, 
    Village­Johari Pur, Delhi­94.

7.  Dev Kumar(A7) (Proclaimed Offender)
    s/o  Shri Baldev Raj,
    R/o : 4/150, Sector­8, Rohini, Delhi.

8.   Sufiyan Ashraf Rajwani(A8)
     s/o Shri Ashraf Ismail Rajwani, 
     R/o : 105, Abrar Tower, Shalimar Society,
     Adajan Patia, Surat, Gujarat­395009.               .......Accused persons

Date of Institution : 01.11.2010
Date on which Judgment Reserved : 20.02.2017 
Date on which Judgment Pronounced : 25.02.2017

                                  JUDGMENT

1. At   the   very   outset,   it   is   pertinent   to   mention   that CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.2 of 336 ­: 3 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

accused persons, Sanjay Kumar(A6) & Dev Kumar(A7) were also sent for trial but accused Sanjay Kumar(A6) & Dev Kumar(7) were absconding   and   were   declared   PO   vide   order   dated   30.01.2012.

However,   during   pendancy   of   proceedings,   accused   Narender Kumar   @   Sanjay   Kumar(A6)   was   arrested   30.01.2013   and   a supplementary challan was filed against accused Narender Kumar @ Sanjay Kumar (A6) before the court on 15.4.2013 and trial was proceeded against him in accordance with law.

2. This is a corruption case under section 13(1) (d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 & section 120B IPC r/w 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC registered by EOU­III/DLI i.e. a branch   of   CBI,   relating  to   fraud   which  has   been   perpetrated  by accused Rajesh Kapoor & others on Indian Bank, Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi under the conspiracy with public servant i.e. accused C. M. Bansal, who was the then Branch Manager of the said bank at that   time   and   a   wrongful   loss   to   the   tune   of   Rs.125   lacs CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.3 of 336 ­: 4 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

approximately  has been caused to the said Public Sector Bank i.e. Indian Bank, Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi.

3. The case as alleged by the prosecution, in brief, is that the  present   case   was   registered  on  11.09.2009  on   the  complaint made by Shri Malay Mukherjee, General Manager & Circle Head, Indian Bank, WTC Babar Road, New Delhi against the accused Rajesh   Kapoor   and   accused   Rajiv   Gupta   and   other   unknown persons including Bank Officials.

4.   Accused Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor, who was the proprietor of  M/s India Fab  in conspiracy with other above named   accused   persons,   opened   an   account   in   the   name   of proprietorship firm, namely, M/s India Fab being its proprietor as Rajesh Kapoor with Indian Bank, Shalimar Bagh Branch on the reference of accused Rajiv Gupta and  OCC limit of Rs.125 lacs was sanctioned on 29.06.2009 against the Hypothecation of Stocks CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.4 of 336 ­: 5 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

and book debts and collateral security of Equitable Mortgage of property   situated   at   B­354,   Phase­1,   Mangolpuri   Industrial   area, New   Delhi   which   was   valued   at   Rs.304   lacs   and   the   borrower withdrew Rs.125 lacs on various dates from the said OCC limit and Rs.1,24,71,516/­ was the debit balace in the said account at the time of lodging of the complaint. 

5.   It is alleged that in August, 2009 bank official visited the office of M/s India Fab but the same was found vacated and on further   enquiries,   the   Credit   Report   from   Karur   Vysya   Bank, Prashant Vihar, Rohini Branch, Delhi and the Statement of Account pertaining to account of M/s India Fab from the said bank to be were   found  fake.     The   audit   balance   sheets   prepared   as   on 31.03.2007, 31.08.2008 and 31.03.2009 were also found  fake  as M/s Naresh Jindal and Associates,  Charterned Accountants were found not existing at the given address and the equitable mortgage, which   was   created   on   the   basis   of   conveyance   deed   dated CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.5 of 336 ­: 6 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

01.04.2009   was   also   found   fake   and   fabricated.       It   is   further alleged that accused Rajiv Gupta, who had referred the account of M/s India Fab and who oftenly used to do transactions on behalf of accused Rajesh Kapoor is absconding and the stocks, which were stored   at   B354,   Phase­I,   Mangol   Puri,   Delhi   have   also   been removed and against the said property of Mangol Puri, Ratnakar Bank Ltd. and Bank of India had also sanctioned the limits.  

6.   It is the case of the prosecution that Rajiv Gupta was residing alongwith  his family as a tenant at BC 56, Ist Floor, West Shalimar Bagh, Delhi­88 and on 19.06.2008 accused Rajiv Gupta, showing himself to be engaged in the business of fabric, opened SB Account No.777212398 in a newly opened branch of Indian Bank, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi, where accused Chandra Mohan Bansal was posted   as   Branch   Manager,   who   permitted   the   opening   of   said account of accused Rajiv Gupta without any introduction.    

CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.6 of 336 ­: 7 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

7.   That on  23.05.2009  a current account No.835982833 in the name of M/s  India Fab, Proprietor accused Rajesh Kapoor s/o   Shri   S.B.   Kapoor   R/o   QU­27­C,   Second   Floor,   Pitam   Pura, Delhi having its business at 5063, Gali No. 1, Desh Bandu Gupta Road Sant Nagar, Karol Bagh New Delhi was opened and in the said account accused Rajesh Kapoor projected himself that he was trading in fabric and alongwith the account opening application, he enclosed various  fake and forged documents i.e. photocopy of rent agreement   of   5063,   Gali   No.1,   Desh   Bandu   Gupta   Road,   Sant Nagar,   Karol   Bagh,   New   Delhi,   purported   to   be   executed   on 01.1.2007   between   accused   Rajesh   Kapoor   as   tenant   and   Shri Shyam Arora(owner) and photocopy of the said fake and forged rent agreement was accepted by accused C. M. Bansal without any self   attestation/initials.   However,   as   per   original   rent   agreement, which was seized from said Shyam Arora during investigation, the accused   Rajesh   Kapoor   had   taken   the   said   shop   on   rent   on 17.02.2009.   At the time of opening of account of accused Rajesh CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.7 of 336 ­: 8 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

Kumar,   accused   C.M.   Bansal   also   accepted   the   uncertified photocopies   of   PAN   Card,   Driving   Licence   of   accused   Rajesh Kapoor son of Shri Shyam Bhushan Kapoor which were fake and fabricated as it was revealed during investigation that the actual name   of   accused   Rajesh   Kapoor   is   Rajesh   Kumar   Bawa   son   of Kewal Krishan.  

8.   It is further alleged that immediately  after opening of the Account of M/s India Fab, accused Rajesh Kapoor applied for Cash   Credit   Limit   of   Rs.150   vide   his   application   dated   Nil mentioning   therein   false   &   frivolous   facts   and   projecting   that account   is   being   maintained   with   Karur   Vysya   Bank   and   also offered collateral security of Plot No.­354, measuring 200 Sq. Mtrs situated at Mangol Puri Industrial area, Phase­I, Delhi.  Alongwith the   said   request,   accused   Rajesh   Kapoor   also   submitted   various fake   &   forged   documents   viz­a­viz   photocopy   of   Statment   of Account of M/s India Fab purpoted to be issued from Karur Vysya CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.8 of 336 ­: 9 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

Bank Ltd., Rohini, Delhi; photocopy of audited balance sheets for the ended years 2007, 2008 & 2009 purported to be audited by M/s Naresh Jaindal & Associates, Chartered Accountant; List of Sundry Debtor, unsecured Loan and Sundry creditor, Allotment Letter  and Handing over of possession on the letterhead of DDA regarding Plot No.354, Block No.B, Mangolpuri, Phase­I addressed to M/s Bhagwati   Plastic;   GPA   and   SPA   purported   to   be   exeucuted   in favour   of   accused   Rajesh   Kapoor   regarding   plot   No.B­1/125, Ashok   Vihar,   Phase­II,   Delhi;   original   Agreement   to   Sell   & Agreement   to  appoint  Arbitrator;  Affidavit;  Possession  letter  for handing   over   the   possession   to   accused   Rajesh   Kapoor;   receipt regarding sale consideration of industrial property; original deed of Will,   Perpetual   Lease   Conveyance   Deed   dated   20.4.2007, Conveyance   Deed   01.4.2009,   property   tax   receipt   No.2033181 dated 16.04.2009 & Statement of Assets   &   Liability dated Nil bearing the seal of M/s Naresh Jindal & Associates.     During the investigation, all the aforesaid documents were found to be fake CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.9 of 336 ­: 10 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

and forged.   

9.   During investigation, it was revealed that plot no. B­ 354, Industrial Area, Phase­I, Delhi was originally alloted to Shri Bhagwati   Prasad   Singhania,   proprietor   of   M/s   Bhagwati   Plastic Industry on  24.08.2006  by DDA and the same was purchased by Smt. Archana Mittal w/o Shri Naresh Kumar from Bhagwati Prasad Singhania in the month of April, 2007 and lateron, the said property was rented out to M/s India Fab through a property dealer, Shri Mohan   Bansal   for   11   months   vide   Rent   Agreement   dated 10.04.2009  and the necessary payment towards security and rent was made through cheques duly issued by accused Rajesh Kapoor.

Thus accused Rajesh Kapoor apparently  prepared or got prepared the   fake   and   forged   documents     of   the   aforesaid   property   and mortgaged   the   same   with   Indian   Bank.     On   17.08.2009,   Shri Sukheja, the Valuer of Allahabad Bank visited the office of said property dealer Shri Mohan Bansal and informed that Shri Rajesh CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.10 of 336 ­: 11 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

Kapoor, who is the owner of the aforesaid property wanted to avail loan from Allahabad Bank by mortgaging the said property.   The property dealer Mohan Bansal immediately informed Shri Naresh Mittal, who was apprised about the complete facts and aforesaid property   was   got   vacated   from   accused   Rajesh   Kapoor   on 18.08.2009 and the material was shifted under the supervision of accused persons, namely, Rajiv Gupta, Dev Kumar, Sanjay Kumar etc. in the presence of the said property dealer Shri Mohan Bansal who has identified the photographs of aforesaid accused persons affixed on the account opening form shown to Shri Mohan Bansal during investigation.

10.  During   investigation,   it   was   revealed   that   for   the purpose   of   getting   the   conyeyance   deed   dated   01.04.2009   to   be executed in his favour for conversion of lease hold plot into free hold plot, the applicant submits the application form, Undertaking, Affidavit,   Indemnity   Bond,   specimen   signatures   alongwith   4 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.11 of 336 ­: 12 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

photograph, copy of lease deed,  copy of allotment letter, copy of Possession   Slip,   Bond(Indemnity   Bond),   copy   of   Santioned Building Plan, copy of Agreement to Sale, copy of GPA, copy of Receipt HTA, copy of factory licence, copy of ID proof, C Form, D Form,   etc.   and   after   receipt   of   necessary   documents,   the   file   is referred to finance department for calculation   of dues and after payment   of   dues   by   the   applicant,   the   case   is   submitted   to Director(Land)   for  approval  of   conversion and  after  approval of Director(Land), 5 sets of  Conveyance Deed Proforma are prepared by Dealing Assistant without photograph of applicant and without seal   and   signature   of   DDA   Office   and   4   sets   of   those   deed Proforma were issued to the applicant  alongwith forwarding letter for   payment   of   stamping   fees   to   the   Collector   of   Stamps,   INA, Vikas   Sadan,   New   Delhi.       After   receiving     the   4   sets   of   said proforma, the applicant pastes his photograph on first page of all said   proforma   and   encloses   the   complete     chain   of   GPA   and agreement to sale and copy of lease deed etc. After receiving these CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.12 of 336 ­: 13 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

documents, Collector of Stamps retains all sets of documents and Challan of stamp duty was issued to the applicant for depsoit of necessary  stamp duty with the bank and the concerned bank on deposit of necessary stamp duty retained two copies of challan and returned   other   two   copies   of   the   challan   to   the   applicant,   who deposited one copy of the challan duly authenticated by bank and after seven days, Collector of Stamps returned the three copies of conveyance deed to the Unit duly stamped  by Collector  of stamps showing the details of file, deposit of amount, etc. and  one copy of conveyance   deed   was   retained     by   the   Collector   of   Stamps   and three copies of the said deed   was deposited by the applicant   in Diary Section   of LSB(I) Branch of DDA and thereafter,   a letter under   the   signatures   of   Asstt.   Director   was   issued     for   the unit/applicant   for   appearing   in   the   DDA   for   execution   of   the Conveyance   Deed   and   applicant   appears   in   the   LSB(I)   Branch alongwith   required   documents   and   after   comparison   with   the original documents, the LSB(I) Branch executed the Conveyance CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.13 of 336 ­: 14 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

Deed and the applicant alongwith his two witnesses signs the same and one copy of the deed was retained by the LSB(I) Branch and remaining  two    copies  were  handed  over   to the  applicant  under receipt. Thereafter, the applicant submitts two copies of the said conveyance   deed   to   the   Sub   Registrar,   who   registers   the   said conveyance deed as per the procedure   and retains one copy and other copy is supplied to the applicant.  During investigation, it was also revealed that at the time of registration of conveyance deed dated 01.04.2009 submited by Rajesh Kapoor, Sub Registrar, INA checked the signatures of Collector  of Stamps however there was no   arrangement   to   the   confirm   the   signatures   of   Lease Administration   Officer   and   it   was   further   revealed   that   accused Rajesh Kapoor got prepared the said conveyance deed without its having  been executed  by LSB(I) DDA as it has been confirmed by LSB(I) DDA that the said conveyance deed was not executed by their branch.  

CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.14 of 336 ­: 15 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

11.  The   panel   advocate   of   the   bank   had   submitted   its Report on the basis of Record  of Sub Registrar, INA, DDA as per practice.     It   is   further   revealed   during   investigation   that   after receving necessary documents, accused C. M. Bansal sent a letter on 28.5.2009 to Karur Vysya Bank Ltd., Prashant Vihar, Rohini through courier, however office copy   of the said letter was not found available  in the record of  Indian  Bank. M/s  Karur  Vysya Bank   Ltd.   made   available   copy   of   the   letter   dated   27.05.2009 issued   under   the   signatures   of   accused   C.   M.   Bansal   thereby requesting for credit opinion of Account of M/s India Fab and the same   was   called     through   accused   Rajesh   Kapoor     which   was against the banking norms.   M/s Karur Vysya Bank did not issue any letter dated 28.05.2009 and copy of Statement of Account of M/s   India   Fab,     for   the   period   01.04.2008   to   30.04.2009   (as available   on   the   record   of   Indian   Bank)   as   M/s   India   Fab   was maintaining its account with Karur Vysya Bank w.e.f. 31.01.2009 only   and   accordingly,   Karur   Vysya   Bank   furnished   the   opinion CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.15 of 336 ­: 16 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

vide letter dated 12.06.2009 which was received by accused C. M. Bansal   on   13.06.2009   clearly   mentioning   that   M/s   Karur   Vysya Bank   was   maintaining   account   form   31.01.2009   only,   however, accused C.M. Bansal  misappropriated the said letter  to cover up his misdeeds with the intent to favour the borrower in purusance of criminal conspiracy and accused C. M. Bansal also did not verify the   Balance   Sheet   submitted   by   the   borrower   with   the   CA concerned.  Accused C.M. Bansal by abusing his official position, opened   the   account   of   M/s   India   Fab   without   authentication   of documents and did not verify the genuineness of the balance sheet and also did not enquire the background while visited the property at   Mangolpuri   and   projected   the   networth   of   accused   Rajesh Kapoor to be Rs.5 crores merely on the statement of accused Rajiv Gupta and accused C. M. Bansal acknowledged the courier slip in token of receipt of confidential report from Karur Vyasa Bank but willfully   did   not   place   the   same   on   the   record   and   did   not communicate to the circle office that account of M/s India Fab was CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.16 of 336 ­: 17 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

opened recently.   Accused  C. M. Bansal wrongfully facilitated the accused persons and forwarded the proposal dated 06.06.2009 vide covering letter dated 11.06.2009 to Circle Office for sanction of Secured OD Limit of Rs.125 lacs to M/s India Fab and the same was   sanctioned.     After   doing   inspection   of   the   property   to   be mortgaged   and   after   execution   of   necessary   documentation, accused   Rajesh   Kapoor   deposited   original   documents   of   the property No. 354, BlockB, Mangolpuri Industrial   Area, Phase­I, Delhi   for   creating   mortgage   on   03.07.2009   and   on   04.07.2009 mortgage was created and permission for release of the limit was obtained   from   Circle   Office   vide   letter   14.07.2009   under   the signature of B. P. Ray, Chief Manager and the funds were released.

12.  It is also the case of the CBI that during investigation it was revealed that accused Ashok Kumar in pursuance of criminal conspiracy opened a Current Account in the name of M/s K. G. Fabric, proprietor Ashok Kumar s/o Sh. Rur Singh by submitting various self attested fake and forged documents with Dena Bank, CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.17 of 336 ­: 18 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

Rohini by misrepresenting his parentage as he projected himself to be son of Shri Rur Singh instead of Basheshar Das and the said account was subsequently  transferred to Dena Bank, Pitampura at his request made vide letter dated 24.07.2009 and an amount of Rs.73,60,879 which was fraudulently obtained from Indian Bank was credited in this account of accused Ashok Kumar and the said amount was withdrawn in cash through cheques by accused Ashok Kumar under the criminal conspiracy with co­accused persons.

13.  It  is further alleged that accused  Sanjay Kumar(A6) opened   a   current   account   No.4102135481   in   the   name   of   M/s Ganpati   Overseas,   Proprietor   Sanjay   Kumar   on   17.07.2009   with Karur   Vysya   Bank   Ltd.,   Lawrence   Road,   Keshav   Puram   by utilising   fake   documents   such   as   CA   certificate   of   M/s   Naresh Jindal & Associates, a non existing firm, PAN card, etc. and Rs.7 lacs   and  Rs.2.5   lacs  were  credited  on  21.07.2009  &  23.07.2009 respectively in his account through RTGS  from the account of M/s India Fab and Rs.4 lacs was withdrawn by accused Sanjay Kumar CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.18 of 336 ­: 19 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

on 21.07.2009 itself and amount of Rs.1 lac and Rs.2 lacs were transferred to the account of M/s Max Overseas and Sai Garments respectively and on 23.07.2009 Rs.2 lacs were transferred in the account of Sai Garments.  It is alleged that accused Sanjay Kumar is the  beneficiary of the funds fraudulently obtained.

14.  It   is   further   alleged   that   during   investigation   it   is revealed that on 25.04.2009 M/s Khatri Traders, Proprietor Dinesh Khatri opened a current account in Syndicate Bank, Kirti Nagar and on 17.07.2009 a sum of Rs.16.80 lacs was credited in this account through   RTGS   from   the   account   of   M/s   India   Fab   and   was withdrawn   in   cash   through   cheque   No.399268   dated   17.07.2009 favouring Tarun Verma  and Dinesh Khatri supplied durries to Shri Ramesh Wadhera.  

15.   Investigation   further   revealed   that   an   amount   of Rs.one lac was credited   in the account of M/s Eskor   Solutions through RTGS from the account of M/s India Fab on 15.07.2009 which was paid for supply of ties  to accused Ramesh Wadhera.  

CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.19 of 336 ­: 20 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

16.  It is further revealed in the investigation that a sum of Rs.21,20,000/­ was transferred from the account of M/s India Fab to the  account of K. Company on 14.07.09 and funds were paid to this firm at the instance of accused Ramesh Wadhera.

17.  It   is   further   revealed   during   the   investigation   that   a sum of Rs.5.90 lacs were credited by M/s India Fab in the account of   M/s   Garima   Enterprises   Prop.   Ved   Prakash   Sachdeva   who immediately withdrawn the said amount and said fund was paid at the instance of accused Ramesh Wadhera for supply   of different type of lady shoes.

18.  It   is   further   alleged   that   during   investigation   it   was revealved that accused Sufiyan Ashraf Rajwani opened a current account   No.7267000300204301   with   Karnataka   Bank,   Surat   on 04.04.2007 in which  amounts of Rs.4.5 lacs and Rs.10 lacs were credited   through   RTGS   from   the   account   of   M/s   India   Fab   on 16.07.2009 and  03.08.2009 and  the  said  amount was   withdrawn through   cheques   by   accused   Sufiyan   Ashraf   Rajwani   who CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.20 of 336 ­: 21 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

transferred an amount of Rs.2.50 lacs through RTGS in the account of   M/s   Royal   Impex,   whose   proprietor   was   accused   Ramesh Wadhera  and Rs.7 lacs was also tranferred in favour of  M/s Royal Impex,   Prop.   Ramesh   Wadhera   having     account   No. 388801010035599 maintained with UBI, Gurgaon. It is alleged that accused Sufiyan Ashraf Rajwani, Proprietor of M/s United Syntex, in   furtherance   of   criminal   conspiracy   with   accused   Ramesh Wadhera, received Rs.14.5 lacs in his account through RTGS from the funds which was fraudulently obtained in the account of M/s India   Fab   and   thereafter,   accused   Sufiyan   Ashraf   Rajwani transferred an amount of Rs.9.5 lacs in the account of M/s Royal Impex   maintained   with   Union   Bank   of   India,   Railway   Road, Gurgaon, proprietor of which was accused Ramesh Wadhera, who utilised the funds for purchasing of BMW car, however, regarding an   amount   of   Rs.5   lacs   which   remained   with   accused   Sufiyan Ashraf   Rajwani,   no   evidence   regarding   its   bonafide   utilization could be produced by accused Sufiyan Ashraf Rajwani.

CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.21 of 336 ­: 22 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

19.  It is further alleged  that from the account of M/s India Fab,   amount   of   Rs.13,45,201   and   Rs.5,50,140   were   credited through   outwarding   clearing     instruments   on   16.07.2009   and 17.07.2009   respectively   in   the   account   of   M/s   Vipul   Traders bearing account No.122911023792 which was opened by accused Dev  Kumar   on  09.04.2009  in    Dena  Bank,   Wazirpur    by  using original CA Certificate purported to be issued by Naresh Jindal & Associates,   a   non­existing   firm,   which   shows   that   accused   Dev Kumar was also in criminal conspiracy with borrower and he was also a witness to Rent Agreement of Keshav Puram Property taken on rent by accused Ashok Kumar and was also a witness to fake & forged conveyance deed dated 1.04.2009 in the name of accused Rajesh Kapoor. 

20.  It   is   revealed   during   the   investigation   that   on 13.06.2009 accused Rajesh Kapoor fraudulently opened a Current Account   in   the   name   of   M/s   India   Fab   with   Bank   of   India, Parliament Street, New Delhi projecting to be in trading of denim CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.22 of 336 ­: 23 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

fabric and  got sanctioned working capital limit of Rs.150 lacs on 24.07.2009 on the basis of fake and forged collateral security of property of Mangolpuri and got disbursed Rs.89,36,462/­ from the said bank and caused loss for the said amount.   On  25.02.2010, Bank of India lodged a complaint with Economic Offences Wing of Delhi Police. 

21.    It   is   also   alleged   that   it     was   revealed   during investigation M/s India Fab Proprietor Rajesh Kapoor   opened an CC Account No.100713520000019 on 18.07.2009 with Ratnakar Bank Ltd., Karol Bagh, Gurdwara Road, New Delhi and on the request of the company, working capital limit of Rs.250 lacs was sanctioned  by Shri S. G. Kutte, MD and CEO of Bank and against the said limit, property No.B­354, Block B, Mangolpuri, Industrial Area,   Phase­I,   Delhi   83   was  mortgaged  and   various   property documents   viz   conveyance   deed   dated   1.4.2009,   perpetual   lease dated 20.04.2007, etc. were submitted by accused Rajesh Kapoor CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.23 of 336 ­: 24 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

and approximately  Rs.150 lacs  was disbursed from 24.07.2009 to end of August, 2009 for which the said  Ratnakar Bank suffered loss.

22.  It   is   alleged   that   accused  Ramesh   Wadhera  was beneficiary  of the funds and  played active role  in commision of crime and was instrumental in transferring the funds, which were received in the account of M/s India Fab from the bank, in favour of different firms i.e. M/s Khatri Traders, M/s K. G. Fabric, M/s Eskor  Solutions, M/s K. Co. Partner, M/s Garima Enterprises, M/s   Ganpati   Overseas,   M/s   United   Syntex   and   M/s   Royal Impex etc.

23.       It is alleged that during investigation it was clealy established  accused  Rajesh  Kapoor, Rajiv Gupta, Ashok Kumar, Sufiyan Ashraf Rajwani, Ramesh Kumar Wadhera, Sanjay Kumar and Dev Kumar entered into a criminal conspiracy with accused Chander Mohan Bansal, the then Branch Manager, Indian Bank, CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.24 of 336 ­: 25 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi to  defraud  the said Indian Bank for obtaining OCC Limit of Rs.125 lacs in favour of M/s India Fab on the basis of fake and forged documents & false representation and   misutilized   the   santioned   fund   in   connivance   with   accused Chander   Mohan   Bansal,   who   abused   his   official   position   and dishonestly facilitated the borrower   and caused wrongful loss to the   bank   and   corresponding   gain   to   themselves   and   thereby committed offences under sections 120­B IPC read with sections 420, 467, 468 & 471 IPC  and sections  13(2) read with 13(1) (d) of  Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988  and substantive offences thereof.   After obtaining sanction of prosecution against accused Chander   Mohan   Bansal   from   the   competent   authority   and   after completion of investigation of the case, charge sheet has been filed in the court by CBI praying for taking action as per law against all the accused persons. 

24.  During the course of trial, accused Sanjay Kumar and Dev Kumar were declared Proclaimed Offenders vide order of ld CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.25 of 336 ­: 26 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

Predecessor   dated  30.01.2012.   However,   during   pendancy   of proceedings,   accused   Sanjay   Kumar(A6)   was   arrested   on 30.01.2013 and a supplementary challan qua accused Narender Kumar  @  Sanjay  Kumar(A6)   was   filed   in   the   court   on 15.04.2013.  

25.  In   the  supplementary   charge   sheet  filed   against accused  Narender   Kumar   @   Sanjay   Kumar  in   the   court   on 15.04.2013, it is alleged that during investigation it was revealed that accused Sanjay Kumar s/o Ram Kumar is actually Narender Kumar s/o late Satpal Singh and is resident of B­39, A Block, Ram Vihar,   Village   Joharipur,   Delhi   94.     It   is   further   alleged   that accused Narender Kumar @ Sanjay Kumar had  opened  a current account No.4102­135­481 in Karur Vysya Bank, Lawrence Road Branch, Keshav Puram, Delhi on 17.07.2009 by impersonation in the   name   of   Sanjay   Kumar   s/o   Ram   Kumar,   Proprietor  M/s Ganpati Oveseas on the basis of forged documents and signed as CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.26 of 336 ­: 27 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

Sanjay Kumar on the account opening form and the said account was opened on the introduction of one Shri Ganga Kant Mishra, who introduced accused Narender Kumar @ Sanjay Kumar  at the request of bank officials and for opening of the said current account accused   Narender   Kumar   @   Sanjay   Kumar   had   submitted   self certified copies of PAN Card in name of Sanjay Kumar son of Ram Kumar and CA certificate of M/s Naresh Jindal Associates, a non­ existing   firm,   Voter   Identity   Card,   etc.   and   the   amounts   as mentioned   in   the   charge   sheet   submitted   before   the   court   on 30.10.2010 were received in the account of M/s Ganpati Overseas which were subsequently transferred as per allegations made in the charge   sheet.     It   is   further   alleged   that   specimen   signatures/ handwriting   of     accused   Narender   Kumar   @   Sanjay   Kumar alongwith Questioned  documents were sent to CFSL  and as  per CFSL expert report, the comparison of  specimen handwriting and signatures   marked   as   S1   to   S29   with   questioned   writing   and signatures Q1 to Q16 shows that same  are of   Narender Kumar @ CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.27 of 336 ­: 28 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

Sanjay Kumar.   Reiterating the same allegations, as levelled in the main charge sheet, it is urged by CBI that aforesaid acts disclose the commission of offence under section  120­B  r/w sections 419, 420, 467 and 471 IPC and section 13(2) r/w section 13(1) (d) of the Prevetion of Corruption Act, 1988 and prayed for taking action in accordance with law against accused Narender Kumar @ Sanjay Kumar(A6). 

26.    After hearing both, the prosecution and the defence, my ld. Predecessor, finding a prima facie case against the accused persons,   framed   charge   against   all   the   accused   persons   on 24.03.2012.     The   accused   persons,   namely,  Rajesh   Kumar  @ Rajesh Kapoor, Rajiv Gupta, Chander Mohan Bansal, Ashok Kumar, Ramesh Kumar Wadhera & Sufiyan Ashraf Rajwani, were charged under Section 120B IPC read with section 13(2) read with section 13 (1) (d) of PC Act, 1988 and section 420 IPC read with Section 120B IPC read with section 13(2) read with section 13 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.28 of 336 ­: 29 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

(1)   (d)  of   PC  Act,  1988.      Accused  Rajesh   Kumar  @   Rajesh Kapoor was additionally charged under sections 467, 468 and 471 IPC r/w section 120B IPC  r/w section 13(2) read with section 13 (1) (d) of PC Act, 1988.   Accused  Chander Mohan Bansal  has also   been   additionally   charged   under   Section  13(2)  r/w   section 13(1)(d)  of the  Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988  r/w section 120B IPC and under section  471  IPC read with sections 120B & 420   IPC.   Accused  Ashok   Kumar  has   also   been   additionally charged under section 471 IPC read with section 120B & 420 IPC.

They all pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.  

 

27.   Vide   order   dated  18.05.2013,   my   ld.   Predecessor found a prima facie case against the accused Narender Kumar @ Sanjay   Kumar(A6)  and   framed   charge   against   him.       He   was charged under sections 120B IPC read with section 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC & section 13(2) read with section 13(1) (d) of the CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.29 of 336 ­: 30 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and section 420 IPC read with Section 120B IPC read with section 13(2) read with section 13(1)

(d) of PC Act, 1988 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.  

28.  To   prove   its   case   against   the   accused   persons,   the prosecution has in all examined 69 witnesses.

29.    Shri  Malay Mukherjee, who was posted as General Manager and Circle Head, Indian Bank, Delhi, has been examined as  PW1  and   he   deposed   that   on   10.09.2009   he   submitted complaint,  Ex.PW1/A(D1)  to SP, CBI,  Economic Offenc Wing, Lok   Nayak   Bhawan,   New   Delhi   stating   accused   Rajesh   Kapoor committed a fraud to the tune of Rs.1.25 crore by submitting fake and fabricated documents  in Indian Bank, Shalimar Bagh Branch, New Delhi. 

30.  Shri   P.   Seshagiri,   the   then   Assistant   General Manager, Indian Bank, Head Office­Chennai  has   been CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.30 of 336 ­: 31 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

examined as PW2 and he deposed that in the capacity of Assistant General Manager he was the competent authority and after perusal of CBI report, Statement of witnesses and other documents and he accorded   the   sanction   for   prosecution   against   Chander   Mohan Bansal   and   proved   the  sanction  order  dated  29.10.2010 Ex.PW2/A, vide which PW2 accorded sanction for prosecution of accused  Chander  Mohan Bansal (C.M. Bansal),  the then Branch Manager, Shalimar Bagh Branch, Indian Bank.  He also proved the the  circular  dated 15.9.2010,  Ex.PW2/B  under the   signatures of V. Sriniwasan, General Manager, HRM, Indian Bank Head Office.

31.  PW3  Shri   Pramod   Juneja,   who   was   working   as Clerk­cum­ Cashier in Indian Bank, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi at the relevant  time, proved the  Account Opening Form  of India Fab Ex.PW3/A(D4)  and   its   attached   documents  Ex.PW3/B­1   to Ex.PW3/B­4  bearing   the   signatures   of   accused   C.M.   Bansal,   as Branch Manager  at point A on Ex.PW3/A and that of    accused Rajesh   Kumar   @   Rajesh   Kapoor   at   point   B   on   each   page   of CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.31 of 336 ­: 32 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

documents attached with account opening form, Ex.PW3/A.   He also identified signatures of accused Rajesh Kapoor on Sanction Ticket   dated   26.09.2009   Ex.PW3/C(colly).   PW3   also   identified signatures   of   accused   C.   M.   Bansal   on   application   for   advance dated 06.06.2009 of M/s India fab Ex.PW3/D

32.  Smt.   Anita   Sachdeva,   the   then   Manager,   Zonal/ Circle Office, Indian Bank has entered in the witness box as PW4 and proved the seizure memo dated 29.09.2009, Ex.PW4/A(D80) vide which certain documents mentioned therein were seized by PW69   S.   L.   Garg   from   PW54   Shri   B.   P.   Ray,   the   then   Chief Manager, Indian Bank, New Delhi.  She also proved the file of M/s India   Fab(containing   pages   from   1   to   213)  as  Ex.PW4/B maintained at the Circle Office, Indian Bank. She has also proved proposal for sanction of credit limit in the name of M/s India Fab as  Ex.PW4/C  which  was  processed   in the  Circle Office, Indian Bank   by   PW4   in   the   file  Ex.PW4/B    and   certain   documents received from  Shalimar  Bagh Branch as    Ex.PW4/D.   She also CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.32 of 336 ­: 33 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

proved the  Preliminary Information Memorandum  (page 164­ 167   of   file   Ex.PW4/B)   and  Proposal  (page   153­163   of   file Ex.PW4/B)  under Trade Well Scheme as  Ex.PW4/E   Ex.PW4/F. She further deposed that after the sanction, a sanction ticket dated 26.06.2009   Ex.PW4/G  alongwith   its   Terms   and   Conditions, Ex.PW4/H  was   issued.   PW4   also   proved   the  Legal   Scrutiny Report  [part   of   Ex.PW4/C   (D62)]   as  Ex.PW4/J,       Valuation Report(D61)   in   respect   of   industrial   plot   No.354,   Block­B, Mangolpuri, Phase­1, New Delhi which was given by PW13 M.L. Nasa as  Ex.PW4/K, Credit Report(D81) as Ex.PW4/L and Pre Sanction Visit Report(D73) as Ex.PW4/M.

33.    PW5 Shri Navneet Gupta, who alongwith his father is   the  joint   owner   of   the   house   No.  38,   Saket  Kunj,   Plot  No.8, Sector 9, Rohini, New Delhi since the year 2007, has deposed that they are living the in said premises and no part of the said premises was ever given to anybody on rent and they never allowed any CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.33 of 336 ­: 34 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

Naresh   Jindal   &   Associates,   Chartered   Accountants     to   use   his address i.e. H. No.38, Saket Kunj, Plot No.8, Sector 9, Rohini, New Delhi as official address of Naresh Jindal & Associates and the said firm never worked from the aforesaid address of house of PW5 during   the   year   2007,   2008,   2009   or   afterwards.     PW5   further deposed that he does not know any Naresh Jindal, however around the   year   2008­09   when   enquiries   were   made   by   some   bank officials about Naresh Jindal from PW5, he downloaded the details about Naresh Jindal & Associates from internet and got printed the same which has been proved as  Ex.PW5/A by him. 

34.  Shri   Pramod   Garg,   the   then   Single   Window Operator,  PNB,   Sainik  Vihar,  Pitam  Pura,   New  Delhi,  has   been examined as PW6 and he proved the letter dated 22.5.2010(D233) as  Ex.PW6/A,  certified photocopy of account opening form and specimen   signature   card  as  Ex.PW6/B1  &  Ex.PW6/B2 respectively and the Statement of Account as  Ex.PW6/B­3.

CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.34 of 336 ­: 35 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

35.   Smt. Kewal Sabharwal, who is the owner of  H. No. BC56, West Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi­88  has been examined as PW7.     During   her   testimony,   she   proved   the  Rent   Agreement Ex.PW7/A (D­224) in respect of aforesaid premises i.e. IInd Floor of the house of PW7 i.e. H. No. BC56, West Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi­88   executed   between   her   and   Smt.   Shashi   Bala   and   the registry papers as Ex.PW7/B­1 & Ex.PW7/B­2 

36.  Shri  Vitaysh Koser  is  PW 8  who was  running the business of trading of stock lots in the name and Style of M/s Eskor Solutions at the relevant time.   He deposed that an order of 5000 pieces   of   men's   neck   tie   was   given   to   him   by   accused   Rajesh Kapoor   and   accused   Ramesh   Wadera   and   he   also   received   an advance payment of Rs.one lac   from   M/s India Fab of accused Rajesh Kapoor through RTGS in his account no. 10032320000044 HDFC   Bank,   Bali   Nagar   Branch,   Delhi   and   he   had   started CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.35 of 336 ­: 36 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

preparing the order for delivery but all of a sudden after about  one month he was intimated by the bank that his  account was frozen.

He  has   correctly  idenfied  the  accused  Rajesh  Kapoor  @  Rajesh Kumar, present in the court at that time.

37.    PW9   Shri   Swinder   Singh  deposed   that   he   knows accused Ramesh Wadhera  for more than 20 years and stated that his father's name is  Shri Besheshar Das, who has already expired and he also knows his brother, Yash, sister and another brother.

38.  PW10 Shri Kamal Bisaria  from Indian Bank in his testimony deposed that a scheme of Tradewell for financing trade was introduced in the year 2000­01 and the same has been modified from time to time and by this scheme bank used to finance working capital requirements and term loan requirements of the traders and proved   the   circular   No.ADV59/2008­09   dated   7.7.2008   (D213) regarding   Modification   to   scheme   of   financing­"Tradewell"

CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.36 of 336 ­: 37 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

alongwith   its   annexures   as  Ex.PW10/A   (colly).       He   further deposed  that   for  securing  term loan/working capital  the  security was immovable property/NSC/KVP/IVP and in the scheme limit above ten lakhs to five crores, primary securities was hypothecation of   stocks   and   book   debts(upto   90   days   )   with   15%   margin   and collateral securities is immovable property value of which should be 100 per cent of the limit sanctioned and in the OCC limit, upto 25 lakhs submission of stocks and book debts statement is once in a year   and   for   others   stock   and   book   debts   statement   once   in   a quarter and stock inspection is to be conducted once in a quarter.

He   also   proved   the   certified   copy   of   Chapter   6   of   Subject   of Current Account (D214) from page 6.1 to 6.4 with regard to the aspect of introduction of the current account as  Ex.PW10/B  and certified copy of chapter I of the Deposit Manual(D215) relating to aspect of "know your customer" as  Ex.PW10/C  (colly).   He has also   deposed   about   various   other   circulars   viz.   Circular No.ADV/24/2007­08   (D216),   Manual   of   Conventional   Advance CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.37 of 336 ­: 38 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

Chapter12(D217)   and   Circular(D218)   Ex.4/1­D   and Circular(D219) alongwith annexure­II. 

39.  Shri   Shyam   Arora,   who   is   owner   of   Flat   No.19, Ashoka Apartment, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi, has been examined as PW11.  He, during his testimony, deposed that prior to aforesaid address, he was residing at Flat No.6A, Green Apartment, Block 63,   Pashchim   Vihar,   New   Delhi   and   he   is   also   owner     of   the property No. 5063/1, Ground Floor Sant Nagar, Opposite Prahlad Market,   Karol   Bagh,     New   Delhi­5   and   proved   the   Seizure Memo(D102) dated 29.09.2009 as Ex.PW11/A, vide which certain documents mentioned therein were handed over by him.   He also proved   the  Rent   Agreement   dated  19.2.2009(D­103)   alongwith Security  Receipt,   executed   between   him   and   accused   Rajesh Kapoor as Ex.PW11/B. He also proved the The Electricity Bill of BSES   Yamuna   Power   Ltd.   for   the   month   of   August,   2009   for Rs.7,830   as  Ex.PW11/C  which  was   in  the   name  of   PW11  Shri Shyam   Arora   for   the  property  No.5063,   Gali  No.1,   Sant  Nagar, CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.38 of 336 ­: 39 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

Karol   Bagh,   New   Delhi.       He   has   further   deposed   that   on 17.02.2009 he rented out the property No.5063, Gali No.1, Sant Nagar, Karol Bagh, New Delhi to accused Rajesh Kapoor through a Property Dealer Rakesh Kumar Bansal at the rate of Rs.15000/­ per month for a period of eleven months and a security of Rs.50,000/­ was given by accused Rajesh through cheque and the said property was   vacated   on   20.08.2009   by   removing   all   the   belongings.   He further   deposed  that  he   had  given  the  original  electricity  bill  of BSES   Yamuna   Power   Ltd.   to   accused   Rajesh   Kapoor   for installation of telephone connection however the photocopy of the said bill does not bear the impression of his signatures.     He has further   deposed   that   the   Rent   Agreement   dated   January   2007 executed between him and   accused Rajesh Kapoor does not bear the   impression   of   his   signatures   as   he   never   executed   the   same however the same bears the signatures of accused Rajesh Kapoor as he had put the signatures in the agreement executed between him and accused Rajesh Kapoor.  

CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.39 of 336 ­: 40 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

40.  Shri   Vinoth   Kumar,   who   was   working   as   Sr. Manager in Karur Vysya Bank, Rohini Branch in the year 2007, has been examined as  PW12  and during his testimony he proved the  Seizure­cum­Production  Memo  dated   03.11.2009   as Ex.PW12/A(D132).     He   deposed   that   vide   his  letter  dated 30.10.2009,  Ex.PW12/B(D133)  written to S.L. Garg, he supplied to CBI the documents related to M/s India Fab, proprietor of which was accused Rajesh Kapoor having account No.41041159033.  He also   proved   the  Account   Opening   Form  of   the   Account No.41041159033   in   the   name   of   India   Fab,   Proprietor   accused Rajesh   Kumar   as  Ex.PW12/C  and   stated   that   Rajesh   Kapoor produced  the  self  attested   copies  of  several  documents  viz­PAN Card, Driving Licence, CA Certificate by Ashwani Bajaj & Co., a Letterhead of the Company, rent agreement of the property.   He also proved the computer generated Statement of Account of M/s CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.40 of 336 ­: 41 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

India Fab of the account No.41041159033 for the period 1.1.2009 to 30.10.2009  as Ex.PW12/E(D135) and also proved letter dated 18.2.2010   (D136A)  Ex.PW12/G  vide   which   he   provided   the photocopies of  two cheques  as mentioned therein,   to Mr. S. L. Garg, Inspector, CBI.    He also proved the letter dated 18.02.2010 duly signed by him addresed to S. L. Garg as Ex.PW12/I (D136C) with which annexures mentioned therein were annexed.   He also proved   the   letter   dated   23.02.2010(D136D)   as  Ex.PW12/J  and proof of delivery of Confidential Report to Indian bank which was given to Inspector S. L. Garg as Ex.PW12/K.  He further deposed that   the   Credit   Information   Report(D46),  Ex.PW12/N  and   letter dated 28.07.2009(D70) Ex.PW12/O do not pertain to their bank. 

 

41.  Shri M. L. Nasa, who was a Government Valuer and was on the panel of Indian Bank as Valuer at the relevant time, has stepped in the witness  box as PW13.   During his testimony, he CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.41 of 336 ­: 42 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

proved   his  Valuation   Report(D61),  Ex.PW4/K  in   respect   of Industrial plot No.354, Block B, Mangolpuri, Phase­I, New Delhi dated   08.06.2009   and   proved   the  Bill  dated   8.6.2009   as Ex.PW13/A(D63)   for   valuation   of   the   said   property.       He   has deposed that he prepared the said Valuation Report Ex. PW 4/K on the   request   of   C.   M.   Bansal,   Branch     Incharge,   Indian   Bank, Shalimar  Bagh  Branch and in preparing the said report, he also took the help of his suryeyor Mukesh Kumr   who informed that accused   Rajesh   Kumar   was   present   at   the   said   premises   when Mukesh Kumar visited the same.

42.  PW14 Shri Vikas Chopra, who is an advocate and was on the panel of the Indian Bank at the relevant time proved the Legal Search Report dated 01.06.2009 as  Ex.PW4/J  and the Bill dated   8.6.2009   as  Ex.PW14/A  in   respect   of   property   No.354, Block B, Mangolpuri, Phase­I, New Delhi.  He further deposed that he     inspected   the   register   containing   the   details   of   registered CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.42 of 336 ­: 43 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

documents i.e. Lease Deed & Conveyance Deed and verifed the scanned copy of the said documents at Sub­Registrar Office, INA and  proved the inspection receipt regarding the said inspection as Ex.PW14/B.  He also proved two letters both dated 06.07.2009 as Ex.PW14/C & Ex.PW14/D  addressed to Branch Manager, Indian Bank,   Shalimar   Bagh,   New   Delhi   regarding   valid   equitable mortgage/document genuineness certificate.   He also deposed that the bank has shown him documents including allotment letter dated 06.07.2000,   handing   over   possession   letter   dated   13.9.2000, Possession Slip dated 20.09.2000 GPA, SPA Agreement to Sell, Agreement to appoint arbitrator, Affidavit of Shri Bhagwati Prasad Singhania, Possession Letter, Receipt, deed of Will, perpetual lease deed in the name of Bhagwati Plastic Industries dated 20.04.2007 Conveyance Deed dated 01.04.2009 in favour of accused Rajesh Kapoor and the perpetual lease deed dated 20.04.2007 was found registered vide Registration No.7085 Book No. 1, Volume No.2491 on page 64 to 66 and the conveyance deed dated 01.04.2009 was CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.43 of 336 ­: 44 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

registered vide registration No.4873, Book No.1, Volume No. 3339 in favour of accused Rajesh Kapoor.  

43.   Shri  Naresh   Kumar,   who   is   husband   of   Mrs. Archana   Mittal,   has   been   examined   as  PW15.     He,   during   his testimony,   proved   the  Seizure   /Production   Memo  dated 13.10.2009 as PW15/A vide which the documents mentioned at Sl.

No.1 to 10 were given   to S. L. Garg, CBI and also proved the Allotment Letter of plot No.354, Block B, Mangolpuri Industrial Area,   Phase­I,   New   Delhi   as  Ex.PW15/B,  copy   of  Challan  as Ex.PW15/C, copy of Perpetual Lease Deed as Ex.PW15/D, copy of Agreement to Sell as Ex.PW15/E, copy of General Power of Attorney  as  Ex.PW15/F,   copy   of  Rent   Agreement  as Ex.PW15/G.     He   deposed   that   a   cheque     was   taken     as security/advance rent from the lessee.    He further     proved   the copy     of   Receipt  of   free   hold   conversion   form   in   the   name   of CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.44 of 336 ­: 45 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

Archana   Mittal  as  Ex.PW15/J,  copy   of  cash   memo  dated 27.8.2009   as  Ex.PW15/K.     PW15   deposed   that   he   received   the letter No.F­4(59)W­76(LSB)(i)/2498 dated 19.08.2009 which was addressed to M/s Bhagwati Plastic Industries. During his testimony, he   further   proved   the  possession  slip  bearing   the   file No.F2(1135)88/ HC/Legal issued by DDA in the name of Bhagwati Prasad Singhania as Ex.PW15/M. He further deposed that accused Rajesh   Kapoor   vacated   the   premises   by   taking   away   all   his belongings  without informing  and did not pay rent for about two months.  He further deposed that he never gave the property papers to anyone and the same remained  with him or with his wife  and the   property   was   never   hypothecated   to   any   bank   and   he   has purchased the property from the original owner. He deposed that that documents(D47 to D59) do not pertain to their property No. B­ 354,   Mangolpuri   Industrial   Area,   Phase­1,   Delhi   and   are   not genuine documents. 

CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.45 of 336 ­: 46 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

44.  PW16 Shri Vijay Singhania son of Bhagwati Prasad Singhania, who is doing business of plastic manufacturing, during his testimony has identified his signatures and the signatures of his father on the documents Ex.PW15/C & Ex.PW15/D.  He has also proved the deed related details as Ex.PW16/B.  He further deposed that the Perpetual Lease Deed was executed in his presence  and the said   plot   No.B354,   Mangolpuri   Industrial   Area,   Phase­1,   Delhi was sold by his father, Proprietor of M/s Bhagwati Plastic to Smt. Archana Mittal for Sale Consideration of Rs.38,00,000/­   and the said property was not sold to any other person except   Archana Mittal and the  documents(D47 to D59) do not pertain to  property No. B­354, Mangolpuri Industrial Area, Phase­1, Delhi and are not genuine documents. 

45.  PW17   Shri   Amarjit   Singh   Oberoi,  who   was   the Branch  Manager,   Dena  Bank,   Rohini,    Sector   3,  at  the  relevant time, has deposed that on 15.09.2009, he had handed over to CBI CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.46 of 336 ­: 47 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

some   documents   Ex.PW11/H(colly)   vide  Seizure   Memo   dated Ex.PW17/A. He also proved the  Statement of Account  of K. G. Fabric   as  Ex.PW17/B,   Seizure   Memo     as     Ex.PW17/C,   vide which on 22.09.2009 he handed over documents including eight cheques,   which   have   been   proved   as   Ex.PW11/K(colly)  & Ex.PW17/D1 to Ex.PW17/D8. He has also proved the Statement of Account  as  Ex.PW17/E  & four  cheques  as  Ex.PW17/F­1 to Ex.PW17/F­4 vide the said Seizure Memo, Ex.PW17/C.   

46.   PW18  is  Shri Ashwani Kumar, who was posted in Dena Bank, Rohini Branch during the period from February 2009 to June 2009. During his testimony, he deposed that he permitted the opening of the Current Account  of M/s K.G. Fabric, Proprietor accused   Ashok   Kumar   and   identifed   the   signatures   of   accused Ashok   Kumar,   introducer     and   photograph   of   accused   Ashok Kumar on the Account Opening Form and proved the  Specimen CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.47 of 336 ­: 48 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

Signature Card Ex.PW18/A  bearing the photograph of accused Ashok Kumar alongwith rubber stamp.  He further deposed that  at the time of opening of account, accused Ashok Kumar furnished various   documents   i.e.   Identity   document,     copy   of   PAN   Card Ex.PW11/J,   copy   of   electricity   bill   Ex.PW11/B   and   blank letterhead   of   M/s   K.G.   Fabric.     During   his   testimony,   he   also proved the Account Opening Form of Account No.122911023770 of   Bhaskar   Industries,   Proprietor   Rajesh   Kapoor   which   is   Ex.

PW11/K and Ex. PW11/L Rent Agreement, PAN Card PW11/M. He also proved the  Account Opening Form  of  the account No. 122911023792  as  Ex.PW18/B(colly)  of Vipul Traders, Proprietor Dev   Kumar   and   identified   the   signatures   and   photograph   of accused Dev Kumar.   He also proved the   Specimen Signatures Card    containing   the   photograph   and   specimen   signatures   of accused Dev Kumar as  Ex.PW18/C and Rent Agreement bearing signatures   of   accused   Dev   Kumar  as   Ex.PW18/D,   the   request letter  bearing  signatures  of accused Dev Kumar  as Ex.PW18/E CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.48 of 336 ­: 49 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

and copy of PAN Card bearing signatures of accused Dev Kumar as Ex.PW18/F.  

47.  Shri  Budh Ram, the then Deputy Director, Industrial Branch,   Vikas   Sadan,   DDA   has   been   examined   as  PW19.     He deposed   that   as   per   Allotment   Letter   Ex.   PW15/B   regarding allotment of plot No. 354, Block B, Mangol Puri, Industrial Area, Phase­1 and the possession slip Ex.PW15/M, the property should have been handed over to the allottee.   

48.  Shri  Yogeshwar   Singh   Negi,   Sr.   Manager,   Indian Overseas Bank, Connaught Place, New Delhi has stepped in the witness box as PW20 and during his testimony, he proved his letter dated 24.04.2010 addressed  to S. L. Garg, CBI  as Ex. PW20/A vide which he submitted the certified  copies of several documents which   are   Ex.PW20/B(colly)  i.e.   Account   Opening   Form   of account No.8052 in the name of M/s India Fab Proprietor Rajesh CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.49 of 336 ­: 50 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

Kumar,   Rent   Agreement,   Address   Proof,   one   Letterhead   of   the company, KYC Form, copy of Driving Licence and PAN Number, statement   of   account   from   1.4.2009   to   23.4.2010,   etc.   He   also deposed   that   the   said   account   was   opened   by   him   and   as   per Statement   of   Account   on   15.9.2009   a   credit   amounting   to Rs.3,87,575   and   Rs.4,36,595   were   received   from   SBI,   Mumbai through RTGS.

49.    Ms.   Annapurna   Saraswat,   who   was   posted   as Assistant Manager in Syndicate Bank, Kirti Nagar, Delhi during the relevant time, has been examined as PW21. She, in her testimony, proved the  letter  dated 31.10.2009(D201) as   Ex.PW21/A, vide which   certain   documents   were   sent   from   Syndicate   Bank,   Kirti Nagar   Branch   to   CBI   office.     She   also   proved   the    Specimen Signature   Card  relating   to   M/s   Khatri   Traders   as Ex.PW21/B(D202)   bearing the signature of Shri Dinesh Khatri.

She   also   proved   the  Account   Opening   Form    of   account CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.50 of 336 ­: 51 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

No.903910100115111   in   the   name   of   M/s   Khatri   Traders   as   as Ex.PW21/C(wrongly mentioned as Ex.PW20/C), Form 30 as  Ex.

PW21/D  (wrongly   mentioned   as   Ex.PW20/D),  Personal Information   Form   of   customer   as   Ex.   PW21/E(wrongly mentioned as Ex.PW20/E), Photocopy of  Voting Card  of PW46 Mr. Dinesh Khatri as  Ex.PW21/F(wrongly typed as 20/F),    Copy of PAN Card of PW46 Dinesh Khatri   as  Ex.PW21/G  (wrongly typed   as   20/G),   cheque   dated   17.07.2009(D204)   amounting   to Rs.16,50,000/­, duly issued by PW46  in favour of Tarun Verma as Ex.PW21/H  (wrongly   typed   as   20/H)   and     the  Statement  of Account(D205)   bearing the signatures of Sr. Manager, Shri R. L. Sethi with his stamp at point A as  Ex.PW21/I(wrongly typed as 20/I). 

50.  Shri  Pradeep Kumar Garg, who joined as  Branch Manager,  Indian  Bank,   Shalimar,  Delhi  after   the  accused   C.  M. CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.51 of 336 ­: 52 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

Bansal   has   been   examined   as  PW22.   He,   during   his   testimony, proved   the  seizure  memo  dated  12.9.2009(D3)  as    Ex.PW22/A vide which he had handed over certain documents to Shri S. L. Garg, Inspector, CBI, Statement of Account  of M/s India Fab of the   Account   No.   839562833   for   the   period   23.5.2009   to 12.8.2009(D7)  as  Ex.PW22/B   (colly),    Seizure   Memo  dated 14.09.2009(D­9),   as  Ex.PW22/C,  vide which he handed over 16 cheques/deposits   slip/RTGS   slips(D10­D30)   to   Shri   S.   L.   Garg, Inspector CBI, another  Seizure Memo dated 23.09.2009(D­32) as Ex.PW22/D,   vide   which     certain   documents   mentioned   therein were handed over by him to Shri S. L. Garg, Inspector CBI.   He also   proved   the   various   documents   such   as  Statement   of Account(D78)   of   SB   Account   No.777212398   of   accused   Rajiv Gupta from 19.06.2008 to 26.08.2009 as Ex.PW22/E(colly),  letter 26.02.2010(D206)   written   by   him   for   submission   of   certain documents   to   CBI     as  Ex.PW22/F,   certified   copy   of   dispatch CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.52 of 336 ­: 53 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

register(D207)  for the period from 21.5.2009 to 28.5.2009 and the courier  receipt  dated 29.05.2009 as  Ex.PW22/G & Ex.PW22/H respectively.  He further proved the letter dated 27.05.2009 written to Chief Manager, Karur Vysya Bank for obtaining Credit Opinion for   account   of   M/s   India   Fab   as  Ex.PW12/DX  and      POD addressed to Indian Bank for supply of documents relating to M/s India Fab as Ex.PW22/I.

51.   PW 23 Shri Amar Pal Singh was posted as LDC in Land Sales Branch Industry(LSB) (I) Branch   from 14.09.2009 to 13.06.2010. During his deposition, proved the file for conversion of property into free hold in respect of property No.B 354, Mangol Puri,   Industrial   Area   Phase­1   of   M/s   Bhagwati   Plastic   as Ex.PW23/A  which   was   sent   to   CBI     through  letter   dated 09.3.2010 alongwith Index which are Ex.PW23/B & Ex.PW23/C. He   also   proved   the  Allotment  Letter  dated  24.08.2006  as Ex.PW23/D  and   the   allotment   letter(D47)   which   is   forged   and CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.53 of 336 ­: 54 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

fabricated   letter   as  Ex.PW23/E  and   it   does   not   match   with   the original letter on file and  Handing­over Possession letter  dated 17.10.2006 as   Ex.PW23/F, Possession letter which is forged and fabricated letter (D48) as it does not match with the original letter on file as Ex.PW23/G, possession slip dated 18.10.2006 issued by Shri  K. S. Rana JE, LSB(I) in favour of Bhagwati Prasad as  Ex.

PW23/H,  document(D49) which is shown as Possession Slip and which is  forged  and  fabricated slip  as it does not match with the original  slip  on file as  Ex.PW23/I,   the  Perpetual  Lease  Deed dated  20.04.2007  issued by Harsharan, LAO, LSB(I) in favour of M/s Bhagwati Plastic Industry which is  Ex.PW23/J.   He further deposed   that   document   which   is   shown   as   Conveyance   Deed Ex.PW23/K  (D58)  is forged and fabricated as the same was not issued from DDA.

52.   PW   24  Shri  Rajesh   G.,   who   was   working   in   the CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.54 of 336 ­: 55 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

Karnataka Bank in the year 1997 proved the letter dated 18.09.2009 of   Branch   Manager   as  Ex.PW24/A  through   which   certain documents,   as   mentioned   therein   were   sent   to   CBI.       He   also proved the Account Opening Form (D117A) as  Ex.PW24/B  vide which account No.20430 of M/s United Syntex, Proprietor accused Suffiyan Ashraf Rajwani was opened. He also proved the Signature Card   of   Unitex   Syntex   duly   signed   by   accused   Suffiyan   Ashraf Rajwani  as  Ex.PW24/C,  PAN card  of  accused  Suffiyan Ashraf Rajwani   as  Ex.PW24/D  which  bears   photograph   of   accused Sufiyan   Ashraf   Rajwani,  Certificate   of   Importer   -   Exporter Code(IEC)  of accused  Suffiyan Ashraf Rajwani as  Ex.PW24/E, copy of Statement of Account (D117B) duly certified by   Branch Manager Gopi Chand Bhalal as   Ex.PW24/E.  He further deposed during   his   testimony   that   vide   seizure   memo   dated 26.10.2009(D118) Ex.PW24/G, he handed over the documents, as mentioned therein to CBI through Ashish Kumar, Legal Officer, CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.55 of 336 ­: 56 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

Regional Officer, Delhi and proved the letter dated 16.10.2009 of Shri Gopi Chand Bhalal, Branch Manager (D118A) sent to CBI as Ex. PW24/H.  He further proved six cheques (D119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124) as Ex. PW24/I, which have been issued in favour of 'self' & 'Apple Fabric' by accused Suffiyan Ashraf Rajwani, Proprietor of United   Syntex   and   payment   of   which   were   encashed.     PW24 further proved the Money Quick Application Form as Ex.PW24/J submitted by accused Suffian Ashraf Rajwani, Proprietor of United Syntex for RTGS facility. 

53.  PW25  is  Shri Ved Prakash Sachdeva. He deposed that   he   alongwith   his   father   was   doing   the   business   of manufacturing of shoes in the name of Garima Enterprises which was situated at Khandari, Agra.   During his testimony, he further deposed that he and accused Ramesh Wadhera both were carrying the   business   of   shoes     and   in   the   year   2009   accused   Ramesh Wadhera called him to visit a shop at Karol Bagh, where he met CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.56 of 336 ­: 57 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

accused Rajesh Kapoor and Ashok Jain and accused Rajesh Kapoor placed an order and accordingly, he made the supply.  During his deposition,   identified   the   accused   Ramesh   Kumar   Wadhera   and accused Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor correctly and proved the certified   copy   of  Bank  Account  Opening  Form(D­127)   as Ex.PW25/A, vide which on  18.10.2006  he had   was opened an account in State Bank of India, Jajpur House Branch, Agra.   He further   proved   the   application  dated   18.10.2006   as  Ex.PW25/B and his PAN Card as Ex.PW25/C, certified copy of  telephone bill as  Ex.PW25/D   and   certified   copy   of     Rent   Agreement   as Ex.PW25/E   and   identified   his   signatures   on   certified   copy   of Cheques(D129, 130, 131) issued by him and on the certified copy of deposit slip(D131). 

54.  Shri   Ajay   Krishanji   Bhatwadakar,  who   was   an employee of Union Bank at the relavant time, has stepped in the CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.57 of 336 ­: 58 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

witness   box   as  PW26  and   during   his   deposition,   proved   the document(D186)   as  Ex.PW26/A  and   letter   dated 14.10.2009(D187)   as  Ex.PW26/B,   Account   Opening   Form   of M/s   K.   Company   as   Ex.PW26/C    which   was   opened   by   its partners   Kumar Kamlesh & Madan Kumar, Specimen Signatures Card of Kamlesh Kumar having the photograph of Kamlesh Kumar as  Ex.PW26/D.    He   further   proved   the   documents   which   were enclosed   with   the   Account   Opening   Form   by   the   party  as Ex.PW26/E, Statement of Account(D189) as Ex.PW26/F, cheques (D190­200)   duly   issued   by   the   party   and   were   encashed   as Ex.PW26/G1   to   Ex.PW26/G11  and     deposed   that   cheque(D10) Ex. PW10/DX was credited in the account of the said company through RTGS and proved the Slip by which the said cheque(D10) was filed.

55.   Shri Shyam Sunder Chhabra, who was UDC in the office   of   Collector   of   Stamps   at   the   relevant   time,   has   been CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.58 of 336 ­: 59 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

examined   as   PW27.   During   his   testimony,   he   proved   the challan(D244) as Ex. PW27/A and the file which was maintained in his office as PW27/B.  He has also identified the signatures of Shri S. K.   Hari, the then SDM on the notarized document(D109), Ex.

PW15/D and further deposed that the document Ex. PW23/K does not bear the genuine signatures of Shri  S. K. Hari, the then SDM and said signatures appeares to have been forged and fabricated.

56.  Shri   Vijay   Kumar   Dabas,   who   has   entered   in   the witness   box   as  PW28,     was   posted   as   UDC   in   the   Office   of Collector of Stamps at the relevant time  and during his deposition, he has  proved the Seizure Memo dated 14.06.2010 (D243)  vide which documents mentioned therein were handed over to CBI by Shri   As   Mohd.   as  Ex.PW28/A,     letter   duly   signed   by   accused Rajesh   Kapoor   as  Ex.PW28/B,   the   documents   which   were submitted alongwith letter Ex.PW28/B for the purpose of Stamp Duty as  Ex.PW28/C, certified copy of Conveyance Deed (D185) CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.59 of 336 ­: 60 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

bearing   the   seal   of   the   office   as  Ex.PW28/D.     He   has   further deposed that genuineness of the documents filed with conveyance deed was required to be seen by DDA.

57.  Shri  Zile Singh, the then Asstt. Director, Land Sale Branch Industrial, DDA, has been examined as PW29.  During his testimony, he deposed that at the relevant time, his function was to execute the leasehold and free hold of the industrial property and he used to sign on conveyance deed on behalf of DDA.   He further deposed that document(D59), Ex.PW23/L is fake and forged as the same   does  not  bear  his  signatures  at  any  point  and  only  rubber stamp of his name appears at point A & B.   

58.  Shri   Krishan   Kant,   who   was   Sub­Registrar   VI­C, Saraswati Vihar in the year 2010, has stepped in the witness box as PW30 and proved his letter  dated 25.05.2010 which he has written to Inspector CBI in reference to their letter as Ex. PW30/A and vide CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.60 of 336 ­: 61 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

this letter he had provided the certified copy of Agreement to Sell & General Power of Attorney which are Ex.PW30/B (colly) and proved the General Power of Attorney as  Ex.PW30/C (Colly).

59.  PW31   Shri   J.   S.   Guleria,   the   then   Sr.   Branch Manager, Syndicate Bank, Ashok Vihar, New Delhi deposed that he   had   sent   to   CBI   the   certified   copies   of   the   Statements   of Accounts(D­234) which is  Ex.PW31/A(colly) in respect of Current Account No.90601010002429 of M/s Bhagwati Plastic Industries by registered post. 

60.  PW32 Sh. Ramphal, who was Sr. Manager in Union Bank   of   India,   Gurgaon   Branch   in   the   year   2009,   during   his deposition proved the Seizure Memo(D­163) dated 24.12.2009 as Ex.PW32/A  vide   which     he  had   handed   over   to   CBI     the documents   mentioned   therein   (   D­166   to   D­180)    which   are Ex.PW32/B   (   Colly).     He   also   proved   the  Account   Opening CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.61 of 336 ­: 62 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

Form(D­164)  of  account   No.388801010035599  opened   in   the name of  M/s Royal Impex  by Shri B. B. Gupta, the then Branch Manager as  Ex.PW32/B­1, Statement of Account of Union Bank of  India of  M/s Royal Impex  as  Ex.PW32/B­2.  He has  further proved   various   other   documents   i.e.   D170,   D175   and  Account Statement of Union Bank of India pertaining to account of Ramesh Kumar   Wadhera/Rahul   Wadhera(D180)  as  Ex.PW32/B­3, Ex.PW32/B­5 & Ex.PW32/B­5 (colly). 

61.  PW33   Shri   Rahul   Joshi,   the   then   Officer,   Karur Vysya   Bank,   Keshav   Puram   Branch,   Delhi   proved   the   seizure memo   dated   03.11.2009   (D­137)   as  Ex.PW33/A  vide   which   he had handed over to CBI the documents mentioned therein (D138­ D148) which he has proved as Ex.PW33/B (colly).  He has further deposed that   account in the name of M/s Ganpati Overseas was opened   vide  Account   Opening   Form(D134)   and   proved   the CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.62 of 336 ­: 63 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

documents   such   as   Certificate   of   Chartered   Accountant   as Ex.PW33/B­2, Statement of Account  as Ex.PW33/B­3, copies of Account   Opening   Form(D146)   as    Ex.PW33/B­4(colly), Statement   of   Account(D147)  of     M/s     Max   Overseas  as Ex.PW33/B­5,  Account   Opening   Form  of     M/s   Sai   Garments alongwith   its   enclosures(D148)   as  Ex.PW33/B­6(Colly)  and   the letter (D138) as Ex.PW33/B­7.

62.    PW34 Shri Roshan Lal Lamba, who was posted as clerk   in   Indian   Bank,   Zonal   Office,   Babar   Road,   World   Trade Centre, New Delhi deposed that on 05.11.2009 he had gone to CBI office from there   he alongwith 5­6 perons had gone   to conduct search to the spot i.e. house of accused Ashok Kumar in Rohini Delhi at about 7.30am and CBI conducted a search in his presence and     proved   the     Search   List   which   has   been   prepared   in   his presence as  Ex.PW34/A (D227).   He also proved the documents CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.63 of 336 ­: 64 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

which     have   been   seized   and   mentioned   in   the   Search   List   as Ex.PW34/B(colly),  Driving   Licence  (D229)  which   has   been seized during   search as  Ex.PW34/C.     He further deposed that search was completed by 12.00 pm to 1:00 pm and thereafter they conducted search at the house of accused Rajesh Kumar @ Bawa Kapoor   at   village   Mundka   and     proved   the   Search   List(D225) which has been prepared in his presence as  Ex. PW34/D  and the PAN Card(D226) which is Ex.PW34/E.

63.    PW35 Shri R. K. Aggarwal, the then Asstt. Manager, Indian Bank, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi deposed in his statement that on the official direction he had gone to the CBI office  and from there alongwith Shri Pramod another Official of bank went to the house of accused Rajiv Gupta at First Floor, Sector 7 Rohini and the CBI conducted   search.   During   his   statement,   he   proved   the  Search List(D222) as  Ex.PW35/A, documents (D223),  which have been seized  during the  said  search  as  Ex.PW35/B(colly).   He  further CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.64 of 336 ­: 65 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

deposed that documents Ex. PW7/B­1, PW7/B­2,  Ex. PW7/A were also seized during the said search and he correctly identified the accused Rajiv Gupta in the court.

64.  PW36 Shri Satish Kumar Arora, who was posted as Manager   in   Sydicate   Bank,   Bhagwan   Das   Road   New   Delhi deposed that he alongwith other CBI officials and C. K. Grover from his bank had gone to the house of accused Ramesh Wadhera at   Shushant   Lok,   Gurgaon     and   a   search   was   conduced   in   his presence  and in presence  of Shri C. K. Grover  and proved   the Search   List(D230)   as  Ex.PW36/A  vide   which   documents mentioned   therein   were   seized   in   his   presence.   He   has   further deposed that apart from the documents, a BMW car was also seized during search.

65.  Shri T. R. Subramanian, who was posted as Chief Manager in Indian Overseas Bank, Janpath, New Delhi, has been CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.65 of 336 ­: 66 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

examined  as  PW37.    He   deposed   during   his   testimony   that   the letter Ex. PW20/A  was written by him. 

66.  PW38 Shri Vinod Thakur, who was posted as Chief Manager in  Bank of India, New Delhi at the relevant time,  proved the  seizure memo  (D181) as  Ex.PW38/A  vide which documents (D182 to D185) were seized. 

67.  Shri   Man   Singh,   who   was   Assistant   Director   in Industrial Department of DDA in the year 2010 appeared in the witness box as PW39 and he deposed that he had written the letter Ex.PW23/B   to   S.   L.   Garg,   Inspector,   CBI   vide   which   he   had handed over the file (D247 to D248) Ex.PW23/A  containing index of documents Ex. PW23/C alongwith certified attested copy. 

68.  Shri As­Mohammed, who was working as Reader to Collector   Stamps   in   the   office   of   Deputy   Commissioner,   New CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.66 of 336 ­: 67 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

Delhi in the year 2010, has been examined as  PW40.  During his testimony, he proved the documents, which he had handed over to CBI, as Ex.PW40/A­1, Ex.PW40/A­2 & Ex.PW40/A­3, which have been  seized  by  CBI  vide  Seizure Memo(D243)   Ex.PW28/A.  He further deposed that he had also handed over the documents Ex.

PW40/A­4   (colly)   from   the   records   of   the   Office   of   colletor   of Stamps.

69.  Shri   A.   K.   Narang,   the   then   Sr.   Manager,   PNB, Shakur Basti, Delhi has entered in the witness box as  PW41  and during his deposition, he deposed that vide letter(D233) which has been   proved   as   Ex.   PW6/A,   he   had   sent   certified   copy   of   the Account Opening Form, Specimen Signature Card and Statement of Account, which have been proved as Ex.PW6/B­1, Ex. PW6/B­2 & Ex.PW6/B­3 respectively.  

70.  PW42 is Shri Premson, the then Sub Registrar, SR CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.67 of 336 ­: 68 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

VII (INA), who during his testimony, proved the office copy of the perpetual lease dated 20.04.2007 (D245) as Ex.PW42/A (colly). He deposed that difference between the office copy of perpetual lease and customer's copy is that the signatures of Sub Registrar in the office copy is appearing at only one place whereas at three places in the customer's copy.   He further deposed that documents(D58) Ex. PW23/K  are the foged documents as he had never signed those documents at any point of time at points A, B & C.   

71.    PW 43  is  Shri   Puneet   Nagpal,   who    proved   the Seizure Memo dated 14.06.2010(D241) as Ex.PW43/A vide which certain   documents   mentioned   therein,   were   seized   from   him   by CBI. He proved the Rent Agreement(D242), which was registered with Sub Registrar VI A on 16.05.2009, as Ex.PW43/B vide which he   had   rented   out   his   flat   for   Rs.12,500   per   month   for   office purpose to accused Ashok Kumar, who had vacated the same after 2­3 months only.     He proved the PAN Card of accused Ashok CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.68 of 336 ­: 69 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

Kumar   as Ex. PW43/C, tenant verification form as Ex. PW43/D and   has   also   identified   the   accused   Ashok   Kumar   in   the   court correctly. 

72.  PW44 Shri Mohan Bansal  deposed in his testimony that he was a Property Dealer and had been working as such under the name and style of Mohan Bansal Property Dealer since the last ten years and deposed that the Agreement to Sell(D110) which has been proved as Ex.PW15/E, was executed in his presence between Bhagwati Prasad Singhania and Archana Mittal for the property i.e. Industrial Plot 354, Block B, Mangol Puri, Industrial area, Phase­1, Delhi measuring 200 sq meters. He further deposed that General Power of Attorney made by Bhagwati Prasad Singhania in favour of Archana Mittal(D111), which has been proved as   Ex.PW15/F and the Rent  Agreement between Archana Mittal and M/s India Fab which has been proved as PW15/G, have been executed before him and he had signed the same.   He further deposed that Mittal CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.69 of 336 ­: 70 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

family had constructed the building on the said plot and he had rented out the same to the accused persons, namely Rajesh Kapoor and   Ashok   Kumar,   who   were   evicted   by   the   landlord   as   the landlord came to know that the tenants had availed loan on the basis of forged documents of tenanted premises. 

73.  PW45   Shri Chander Prakash Taneja, who was in Ratnakar Bank Ltd. during the relevant time, proved the letter dated 23.04.2010(D210)   which   he   had   written   to   CBI   as Ex.PW45/A(colly) vide which he had handed over to CBI certain documents duly certified by Shri G.P. Mishra, Branch Manager, Ratnakar Bank, New Delhi and the letter dated 06.05.2010 (D211) as  Ex.PW45/B(colly)   vide  which  he  had   submitted  the  annexed documents including   the   sanction of   credit   facility   of Rs.250 lacs to M/s India Fab. He further deposed that vide Relationship Form of Account No.1007135020000019 in the name of M/s India Fab   mentioning   the   address   as   B354,   Industrial   Area,     Phase­1, CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.70 of 336 ­: 71 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

Mangol Puri, Delhi was opened by Mr. Shivang Sharma, officer of the bank on the introduction of Mr. Manoj Tomar.

74.  PW46  Shri  Dinesh Khatri  deposed  that he used to supply fabric/dari to M/s India Fab, which used to make payment to him in cash and identified his signatures on Account Opening Form of Syndicate Bank, Ex.PW21/C and   his signatures & photograph on the Specimen Signature card Ex.PW21/B, his signatures on the document   Ex.PW21/D   and   his   signatures   &   photograph   on   the document   Ex.PW21/E   and   his   signatures   on   the   documents Ex.PW21/F &   Ex.PW21/G.   He also identified the Statement of Account of his Current account Ex.PW21/I and his cheque dated 17.07.2009 for Rs.16,50,000/­ in the name of Tarun Verma which was issued by him.

75.  Shri Pradeep Singh, who was posted as Sr. Manager in Allahabad Bank, East Patel Nagar, Delhi has been examined as CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.71 of 336 ­: 72 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

PW47.   During   his   deposition   he   proved   the  letter  dated 29.4.2010(D209)   alongwith   whcih   he   had   handed   over   the documents to CBI as Ex.PW47/A(colly), Account Opening Form alongwith its annexures of  accused Rajesh Kapoor as Ex.PW47/B vide which he authorised to open the account under his signatures, Statement of Account of  M/s India  Fab for the period July, 2009 to April, 2010  duly certified  by  him  as  Ex.PW47/C,   the  letter dated 12.8.2009 issued by him regarding  Proposal    for working capital   limit   of  Rs.100   Lacs  to   M/s   India   Fab   as  Ex.PW47/D, security documents as Ex.PW47/E(colly). He further deposed that their   Valuer,   Mr.   J.   K.   Sukhija   pointed   some   irregularities   and stopped the bank for disbursing the account and accordingly, they stopped the payment in the account of M/s India Fab.

76.  Shri   Harsaran,   who   was   Asstt.   Director,   LSB(I), DDA from March 2004 to May 2007, has been examined as PW48.

CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.72 of 336 ­: 73 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

He  deposed  that  notary  attested  copy of   te perpetual  lease  deed between President of India and Bhagwati Plastic Industries, which has   been   proved   as   Ex.   PW15/D(D109)   bears   his   signatures   at points  D and  is  genuine.  He further   deposed  that the  signatures appearing on Perpetual Lease Deed  (D58), Ex.PW23/K are not his signatures   and   someone   has   foged   his   signatures   and     said Perpetual Lease Deed  (D58), Ex. PW23/K is forged one as he had never signed the same at any point of time.

77.  PW49 Shri Prem Kant Mishra, from SBI deposed that  letter  dated  24.10.2009(D126)   was   written   by   Mr.Tirath Kumar, the then Branch Manager and proved the same  alongwith certain documents, annexed to it as  Ex.PW49/A(colly),   cheque dated  15.7.2009(D­13) amounting to Rs.5,90,050/­ passed by Shri A. K. Jain, the then Accountant of the bank,  which was credited by RTGS in the account No.30085610174 of M/s Garima Enterprises as  Ex.PW49/B and the annexed document(D13) i.e. Pay in slip of CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.73 of 336 ­: 74 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

the cheque, Ex.PW49/B has been proved as  Ex.PW49/C.

78.    PW50   is   Sh.   Kamlesh   Kumar   Srivastava  and during his examination he deposed that he was in the business of trading and liasoning of garments under the name and style of M/s K.   Company   in   the   year   2009   and   he   knew   accused   Ramsesh Wadhera   who   was   a   garment   exporter     and   accused  Ramesh Wadhera was working under the name and style of M/s India Fab , Vipul Traders and Pooja Exports.   He proved the various documents such as   the seizure memo dated 16.12.2009(D149) as Ex.PW50/A  vide which certain documents as   mentioned therein were seized by CBI,  certificate of Importer­Exporter Code (IEC) (D150) in the name of M/s India Fab which was given by accused Ramesh Wadhera to him for export purpose in the name of M/s India   Fab     as  Ex.PW50/B,    Visiting   Card  of   accused   Rajesh Kapoor,   Proprietor   of   India   Fab,   which   was   given   to   him   by accused Ramesh Wadhera for export purposes of the garments as CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.74 of 336 ­: 75 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

Ex.PW50/C, copies of PAN Card and Driving Licence(D151) of accused   Rajesh   Kapoor   as    Ex.PW50/D(colly),  Shipping Bills(D152)    for the export issued by Customs for export of the garments   under   the   name   of   M/s   India   Fab   as  Ex.PW50/E  and other various  Shipping Bills  of export in name of M/s India Fab alongwith   its   enclosures  (D153),   (D154),   (D155)   &   (D156)  as Ex.PW50/F(Colly) to Ex.PW50/J(Colly).  He further proved the letter  dated   24.08.2009  (D158)   written   to   his   company   M/s   K. Company  by accused Rajesh Kapoor, Proprietor of M/s India Fab as    Ex.PW50/K,   attested   copy   of   two   undated   cheques(D158) issued by accused Rajesh Kapoor being proprietor of M/s India Fab in favour of M/s K. Company for Rs.16,50,000/­ and Rs.5 lakhs which were given to him by accused Ramesh Wadhera against the payment due as Ex.PW50/L (colly), Statement of Account(D159) of his company M/s K. Company for the period from 26.6.2008 to 13.12.2009   as  Ex.PW50/M,    Courier   Receipt  dated CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.75 of 336 ­: 76 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

18.07.2009(D160)   vide which he sent   CHA papers to M/s India Fab   at   the   instructions   of   accused   Ramesh   Wadhera   as Ex.PW50/N.     He   further   deposed   that   he   had       exported   the garments for about Rs.70 lakhs in the name of M/s India Fab, M/s Vipul Traders & M/s   Pooja Exports and he still had to collect a sum of Rs.21 lacs from accused Ramesh Wadhera and   accused Ramesh   Wadhera   had   told   him   that  he   (accused   Ramesh Wadhera) was owner of the said companies i.e. M/s India Fab, M/s Vipul Traders & M/s  Pooja Exports.  During his deposition, PW50   further   deposed   that   he   has   given   to   CBI   the   documents which is a File (D­161) regarding Vipul Traders for export of the garments   which is  Ex.PW50/O(colly)  and documents   regarding shipping bills for export of garments of     M/s   Pooja Exports as Ex.PW50/P(colly).

79.  PW51 Shri A. Viswanadhan, Manager(Law) Karur Vysya Bank, Karol Bagh, New Delhi proved the account opening form CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.76 of 336 ­: 77 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

Ex.PW51/A  in   the   name   of   Sanjay   Kumar,   Proprietor   of   M/s Ganpati Overseas and duly identified the signatures of Sh. T.R.L. Rao   who   confirmed   the   signatures   of   introducer   in   the   account opening form and signatures of  Sh. Shiv Kumar on the account opening form.   He has also proved the cheques(D­141 to D145) Ex.51/B(colly) issued from the account bearing no.4102.135.481 of M/s Ganpati Overseas signed by Sanjay Kumar, Proprietor.  

80. PW52 Sh. Kishore Kumar  has deposed that during the   year   2008­09   he   was   posted   as   Assistant   Branch   Manager, Indian   Bank   at   Shalimar   Bagh   and   at   that   time   accused   C.   M. Bansal   was   their   Branch   Manager.     In   his   testimony,   he   has deposed   about   the  Account   Opening   Form(D4)   of   accused Rajesh   Kapoor,   proprietor   of   India   Fab  Ex.PW3/A   & Ex.PW11/D,  Sanction   Ticket  dated   29.06.2009(D5)   as Ex.PW3/C,   and   has   proved   the   Sanction   Ticket   as Ex.PW52/A(D6). During his examination, PW52 has also proved CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.77 of 336 ­: 78 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

the various cheques, credit vouchers of the account of M/s India Fab.  He has also proved the various paying slips for depositing the cash amounts in Indian Bank by M/s India Fab.     PW52 has also proved the cheque  bearing No.920409 dated 14.07.2009 of Indian Bank for a sum of Rs.4 lakhs in favour of 'self' as  Ex.PW52/B which was issued by M/s India Fab bearing signatures of accused Rajesh   Kapoor   at   point   A   and   was   passed   by   him   bearing   his signatures at points B and C.

81.    PW52   has   also   proved   the   cheques   bearing   No. 920410   dated   15.07.2009   for   a   sum   of   Rs.   31,50,879/­   as  Ex.

PW52/C which was issued in favour of 'yourself' for RTGS credit voucher   dated   15.07.2009  Ex   PW52/D,   cheque   bearing   No. 920411 dated 15.07.2009 for a sum of Rs.one lac as  Ex.PW52/E which was issued in favour of 'yourself' for RTGS credit voucher dated 15.07.2009  Ex  PW52/F, cheque bearing No. 920406 dated 16.07.2009 for a sum of Rs.4,50,025/­ as  Ex.PW52/G  which was issued   in   favour   of   'yourself'   for   RTGS   credit   voucher   dated CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.78 of 336 ­: 79 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

16.07.2009  Ex.PW52/H,   cheque   bearing   No.920414   dated 17.07.2009 for a sum of Rs.15,10,050/­ as Ex.PW52/I which was issued   in   favour   of   'yourself'   for   RTGS   credit   voucher   dated 17.07.2009  Ex   PW52/J,   cheque   bearing   No.   920415   dated 17.07.2009 for a sum of Rs.16,80,050/­ as Ex.PW52/K which was issued   in   favour   of   'yourself'   for   RTGS   credit   voucher   dated 17.07.2009  Ex.PW52/L,   cheque   bearing   No.   920417   dated 20.07.2009 for a sum of Rs. 2,00,025/­ as Ex.PW52/M which was issued   in   favour   of   'yourself'   for  RTGS   credit   voucher   dated 20.07.2009  Ex.PW52/N,   cheque   bearing   No.920420   dated 21.07.2009   for   a   sum   of   Rs.7   Lakh   as  Ex.PW52/O  which   was issued   in   favour   of   'yourself'   for  RTGS   credit   voucher   dated 21.07.2009  Ex.PW52/P,   cheque   bearing   No.920419   dated 21.07.2009 for a sum of Rs.10 Lakh as  Ex. PW52/Q  which was issued   in   favour   of   'yourself'   for  RTGS   credit   voucher   dated 21.07.2009  Ex   PW52/R,   cheque   bearing   No.   920422   dated CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.79 of 336 ­: 80 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

23.07.2009 for a sum of Rs.2,50,000/­ as  Ex.PW52/S  which was issued   in   favour   of   'yourself'   for  RTGS   credit   voucher   dated 23.07.2009  Ex.PW52/T,   cheque   bearing   No.   920424   dated 03.08.2009 for a sum of Rs. 10 Lakh as  Ex.PW52/U  which was issued   in   favour   of   'yourself'   for  RTGS   credit   voucher   dated 03.08.2009  Ex   PW52/V,   cheque   bearing   No.   920626   dated 11.08.2009 for a sum of Rs.15,00,050/­ as Ex.PW52/W which was issued   in   favour   of   'yourself'   for  RTGS   credit   voucher   dated 12.08.2009 Ex PW52/X, all drawn on Indian Bank, Shalimar Bagh Branch.         PW52   has   proved   the  Pay­in   Slip  dated   23.05.2009 Ex.PW52/Y     (D24)  of   Indian   Bank   for   depositing   cash   of Rs.25,000/­ by M/s India Fab in bank in account No.835962833.

PW52   has   proved   the   Pay­in­Slip   dated   02.07.2009 Ex.PW52/Z(D25)  of Indian Bank for depositing cash of Rs.One lakh by M/s India Fab in the bank in account No.835962833. PW52 has proved the Pay­in­Slip dated 17.07.2009 Ex.PW52/Z1(D26) of CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.80 of 336 ­: 81 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

Indian   Bank   regarding   clearance   of   cheques   amounting   to Rs.14,45,380/­ by M/s India Fab in account No.835962833, which is signed by PW52 at point A. PW52 has further proved the two Pay­in­Slips dated 21.07.2009  Ex.PW52/Z2  (D27) & 24.07.2009 Ex.PW52/Z3 (D28) of Indian Bank regarding clearance of cheque, amounting to Rs.Two Lakhs and Rs.79,850/­ respectively by M/s India  Fab in  account  No.835962833. PW52  has  also  proved the Pay­in­Slip dated 03.08.2009  Ex.PW52/Z4(D29) of Indian Bank for depositing cash of Rs.10 lakhs by M/s India Fab in account No.835962833,   which   is   signed   by   PW52   at   point   A,   duly identified by PW52. PW52   has   also   proved   the   Pay­in­Slip dated 11.08.2009 Ex.PW3/D2(D30) of Indian Bank for depositing cash   of   Rs.15   lakhs   by   M/s   India   Fab   in   bank   in   account No.835962833,   which   is   signed   by   PW52   at   point   A,   duly identified by PW52.    PW52 has identified the signatures of Rajiv Gupta and Rajesh Kapoor on the power of attorney, book debts and other receivables, executed by Rajesh Kapoor, proprietor of M/s CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.81 of 336 ­: 82 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

India Fab given in favour of bank for Rs. 1,25,00,000/­.

82. PW53 is Sh. P.N. Swarup, the then Vigilance Officer in   Zonal   Office,   Delhi.     In   his   testimony,   he   has   proved   the complaint   dated   10.09.2009  Ex.PW1/A   and   has   identified   the signature   of   accused   Sh.   C.M.   Bansal   on   the   Current   Account Opening Form Ex.PW3/A in which there is no introducer.   He has further deposed that the copy of PAN Card and Driving Licence of Mr. Rajesh Kapoor Mark PW11/E do not bear the signatures of anyone   and   rent   agreement   Mark   PW11/F   does   not   bear   the signature   of   Branch   Manager   of   Indian   Bank,   Shalimar   Bagh Branch.  He has proved the letter(D33) as Ex.PW53/A addressed to Branch Manager, Indian Bank, Shalimar Bagh Branch requesting for sanction  of  Cash Credit Limit of  Rs.150 lacs by Sh. Rajesh Kapoor, as authorized signatory of India Fab and the application dated   23.05.2009   for   advance   to   traders   by   Rajesh   Kapoor   as Ex.PW53/B.    PW53   has   further   proved   letter   dated  11.06.2009 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.82 of 336 ­: 83 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

Ex.PW53/C  issued by Branch Manager of Indian Bank, Shalimar Bagh   Branch   to   the   Assistant   General   Manager,   Indian   Bank, Circle   Office,   Credit   Department,   New   Delhi   recommending sanction of secured OD limit/Title deed to M/s India Fab for Rs.

125 lacs,   page No.209(D80  & D81)  of  file ExPW4/B  of   Indian Bank Circle Office, New Delhi thereby permitting the branch to release the sanctioned limit to M/s India Fab as  Ex.PW53/D  and note  dated   13.07.2009  Ex.PW53/E  on   page   208   of   the   file Ex.PW4/B   which   was   prepared   by   Indian   Bank,   circle   Office, Credit Department, New Delhi for considering request for release of credit facility in the account of M/s India Fab with Shalimar Bagh Branch.   He has further proved the letter dated 13.07.2009 signed  by accused  C.  M.  Bansal   as  Ex.PW53/F,  Documents  on pages   196   to   206   as  Ex.PW53/G(Colly),   the   letter   dated 10.07.2009 as Ex.PW53/H which was  sent by AGM(Credit) to Sr. Manager,   Indian   Bank,   Shalimar   Bagh   Branch,   the   letter   dated 09.07.2009 at page 194 of file D80 signed by Sh. C.M. Bansal as CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.83 of 336 ­: 84 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

Ex.PW53/I  which was  addressed  to Assistant  General Manager, Credit Department, Circle Office, New Delhi and Pre­release Audit report as Ex.PW53/J which is annexure to letter dated 09.07.2009 Ex.PW53/I. PW53 has also proved the account opening form of Sh.

Rajiv Gupta which is signed by Sh. C.M. Bansal as Ex.PW53/K (Colly).

83. PW54 Shri B. P. Ray, the then Chief Manager, Indian Bank,   Circle   Office,   Babar   Road,   New   Delhi   has   proved   the seizure  memo  Ex.PW4/A(D­80) vide which documents on pages 127 to 149 of Ex.PW4/B were handed over to the CBI. He has also proved the letter dated 29.06.2009 (at page 178 of Ex.PW4/B) as Ex.PW54/A.   He   has   further   proved   the   documents Ex.PW54/B(colly) on pages 127 to 149 of Ex.PW4/B bearing the signatures   of   accused   C.M.   Bansal,   the   then   Manager,   Shalimar Bagh,  letter  dated  07.07.2009  Ex.PW54/C  bearing  signatures   of Sh. S. K. Kaushal and letter dated 20.09.2009 Ex.PW54/D bearing CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.84 of 336 ­: 85 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

the   signatures   of   Sh.   Malay   Mukherji,   General   Manager,   Circle Head. 

84. PW55 Sh.  Gopichand Ballal M. who was  the then Branch Manager in Karnataka Bank Ltd., Surat has deposed that he had   sent   the   documents   along   with   his   letter   dated     18.09.2009 Ex.PW24/A   on   asking   of   CBI.     He   has   proved   the   Account Opening   Form   Ex.PW24/B,   Specimen   Signatures   Card Ex.PW24/C, photocopy of PAN Card of accused Suffian Ashraf Rajwani Ex.PW24/D, photocopy of certificate of importer­exporter Code in respect of United Syntax Ex.PW24/E, attested   statement of account Ex.PW24/F from 01.07.2009 to 17.09.2009 of account no.7262000100204301 of United Syntax   bearing his signatures.

PW55   has   further   deposed   that   he   has   also   sent   some   other documents   Ex.PW24/I(colly)   i.e.   six   cheques,   one   debit   slip pertaining to  the account of  M/s United  Syntax to CBI through his letter dated 16.10.2009  Ex.PW24/H . He has also deposed that CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.85 of 336 ­: 86 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

RTGS application form related to account no.7262000100204301 of   United   Syntax   Ex.PW24/J   was   also   forwarded   to   the   CBI through his letter Ex.PW24/H.

85. PW56 Sh. Naresh Jindal  has deposed that he is the Chartered Accountant by profession under the name and style of M/s Naresh Jindal & Associates.   During his examination, he has proved the letter dated 28.5.2010(D246) as Ex.PW56/A which was addressed to Inspector, CBI bearing his signatures at point A and the   photocopy   of   Certificate   issued   by   Institute   of   Chartered Accountant   of   India   as  Ex.PW56/B  enclosed   alongwith   letter Ex.PW56/A.     He has further deposed that he does not know Mr. Rajesh Kapoor @ Rajesh Kumar Proprietor of M/s India Fab nor he has audited the financial statement of the same and he has never had any office at 38, Saket Kunj, Sector­9, Rohini, Delhi. He has further   deposed   that   certificate   of   Chartered   Accountant Ex.PW33/B­2 is not his letterhead and does not bear his signatures CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.86 of 336 ­: 87 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

at point B and the same is forged one and he has never issued the same.     PW56 Naresh Jindal has further stated that the copy of Certificate Ex.PW56/C (i.e. enclosure of Account Opening Form, Ex.PW33/B4) and copy of certificate Ex.PW56/D (i.e. enclosure of Account Opening Form, Ex.PW33/B­6 colly) issued in the name of Naresh Jindal & Associates, are not the copy of his letterhead and the   signatures   appearing   at   point   B   on   the   same   are   not   his signatures and the same is forged as he had never issued the same.

PW56   has   further   deposed   that   the  Audit   Reports   Ex.PW56/E (colly),  Ex.PW56/F(Colly) & Ex.PW56/G(Colly), under section 44AB of the Income Tax Act of M/s India Fab, purportedly issued on   7.5.2007,   15.05.2008   and   25.05.2009   respectively   by   M/s Naresh Jindal & Associates, Chartered Accountants are forged as he had never issued and signed the said reports. 

86.  PW57   Sh.   Harish   Rohmetra,  the   then   Assistant Manager, SBI, Jaipur House Branch, Agra   has deposed that the CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.87 of 336 ­: 88 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

letter dated 24.10.2009 and its enclosures Ex.PW49/A (Colly) were handed over to the CBI vide seizure memo/production memo dated 26.10.2009 which has been proved as Ex.PW57/I.   He has further deposed   that   the   enclosures   along   with   letter   dated   24.10.2009 Ex.PW25/A to Ex.PW25/G bear his signatures at point B and the same have been attested by him. 

87.          PW58 is Ms. Seema   Gerotra  who was working as Deputy Director(Members and Students Section) in the Institute of Chartered Accountant of India, Delhi at the relevant time.   In her deposition,   she   has   proved   the   letter   dated   07.04.2010   as Ex.PW58/A  bearing   her   signature   at   point   A   sent   to   CBI   vide which   she   had   provided     the   information   regarding   M/s   Naresh Jindal   &   Associates   (No.008244N),   38   Saket   Kunj,   Sector   9, Rohini, Delhi.   PW58 has also proved the letter dated 15.06.2010 bearing her signatures at point A as  Ex.PW58/B  vide which she had furnished the information to CBI. 

CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.88 of 336 ­: 89 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

88.  PW59 Sh. Devendara Singh Tomar  is  the then Sub Registrar, Office of Sub­Registrar VII, C Block, Vikas Sadan, INA, New   Delhi.   In   his   testimony,   he   has   proved   the   letter   dated 05.03.2010 as Ex.PW59/A(Colly) bearing his signatures at point A vide   which   information   regarding   perpetual   lease   deed   and conveyance deed in respect of Plot No. 354, Block No. B, Mangol Puri Industrial Area, Phase I, Delhi  was provided to the CBI. 

89. PW60 Sh. Sanjay Kumar  is the brother of accused Narender Kumar (A6) who, during his examination, has identified his   brother   accused   Narender   Kumar   and   has   proved   the photograph   of   his   brother   accused   Narender   Kumar(A6)   at   the portion encircled X on the Account Opening Form of Karur Vysya Bank Ex.PW51/A. He has also proved the Election Identity Card of accused Narender Kumar @ Sanjay Kumar(A6) as Ex.PW60/1 and identified the photograph of his brother accused Narender Kumar CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.89 of 336 ­: 90 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

(A6) on the same in the portion encircled X.

90.   Shri   Hemant   Bhatia,     who   was   posted   as   Record Keeper in office of Sub­Registrar­I, Kashmere Gate, Delhi during the   relevant   time,   has   been   examined   as  PW61  and   proved   the Specimen Handwriting & Signatures encircled  in S1 to S29 (D6 of   Suppy.   Charge   Sheet)   taken   from   the   accused   Sanjay   in   his presence as PW61/A (colly). 

91.  PW62   is   Shri   Vijay   Kumar,   who   was   Election Officer (ER) in the office of Chief Electoral Officer, Delhi in the year   2013   and   in   his   testimony,   he   proved   his   letter   dated 14.02.2013(D4   of   Supplementary   Charge­sheet)   as Ex.PW62/A(colly)  vide   which   he   had   provided   to   CBI   the information regarding the name of  Shri Narender  Kumar  son of Shri Satpal in the Voters List on the basis of data obtained from Electoral Roll Management System (ERMS). 

CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.90 of 336 ­: 91 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

92.  Shri Ganga Kant Mishra, who is  PW63, was Unit Sales   Manager(Bank   Insurance)   in   Birla   Insurance   Company Limited at Delhi. During his testimony, he deposed that he used to visit   Karur   Vyasa   Bank,   Lawrence   Road   on   account   of   official business  and he had introduced the person whose  photograph is affixed at portion encirled X on page 5 by sigining at point C on page   3   of   Account   Opening   Form   which   has   been   proved   as PW51/A(D139) on the asking of some bank officials. 

93.  PW64 is Shri A. S. Nehra, who was Deputy Director of Income Tax(Systems)  at the relevant time.  He deposed that the information sought by CBI was  furnished to the CBI regarding the PAN   No.BIYPK5266R   on   the   basis   of   PAN   Card   Data   Base available in his office by way of his letter dated 21.02.2013 (D5 of Supplementary Charge­sheet) which he proved as Ex.PW64/A. CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.91 of 336 ­: 92 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

94.  Shri Shiv Kumar, who was posted as Chief Manager in Karur Vysya Bank, Lawrence Road, New Delhi in the year 2008 to 2011, has been examined as  PW65  and in his examination, he deposed that some documents were sent to CBI through Shri Rahul Joshi vide letter dated 03.11.2009(D138) which has been proved as PW33/B7.     He   further   deposed   that   account   of   M/s   Ganpati Overseas through Shri Sanjay Kumar was authorized to be opened by him vide Account Opening Form(D139) which has been proved as Ex.PW51/A.

95.    PW 66 Shri B. S. Jha deposed that in the year 2009­ 10 he was working as Inspector, EO­1, CBI, Delhi and proved the FIR(D2) as Ex.   PW66/A.   He further deposed that the case was investigated by Shri S. L. Garg, Inspector  and after transfer of Shri S.  L.  Garg,  the   case   was   handed   over   to  him   alongwith  all   the documents  of  investigation  conducted  by Shri S.  L.  Garg.      He received the Sanction Order in respect of accused Chander Mohan CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.92 of 336 ­: 93 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

Bansal,   the   then   Branch   Manager,   Indian   Bank,   Shalimar   Bagh Branch, Delhi and prepared the charge sheet and after perusal of the entire records, the charge sheet was filed against the accused persons. 

96.  PW67   is   Shri   Jeet   Singh,   who  is   Senior   Scientific Officer,   CFSL,   CBI.     He   deposed   that   CBI   had   sent   some documents   for   examination   through   letter   dated   11.02.2013   to Director,   CFSL(D3)   and   he   had   examined   the   signatures   and handwritings   as   appearing   at   S1   to   S29   with   the   Questioned signatures & handwritings as appearing at Q1 to Q16 and arrived at the opinion that the signatures and the handwritings as appearing at S1 to S29 and Q1 to Q16 are of one and the same person and he prepared his report No.CFSL2013/D128 dated 28.02.2013 which he proved as  Ex.PW67/A and sent the same to SP, CBI through Director, CFSL vide letter dated 05.03.2013 which he proved as Ex.PW67/B. CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.93 of 336 ­: 94 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

97.  PW68   is   Jitender   Sharma,   who   was   Inspector/IO, EO­1, CBI, New Delhi in the year 2013. He deposed during his testimony that further investigation of the case was assigned to him by Shri Ravi Kant, the then Head of Branch/DIG, EO1 and during investigation he arrested the accused Narender Kumar @ Sanjay Kumar son of late Satpal Singh on 30.01.2013 vide Arrest Memo which  he  proved  as  Ex.PW68/A  (D1  of   Supplementary  Charge­ Sheet).     He   also   deposed   that   he   obtained   the   Specimen Handwriting & Signatures of accused Narender Kumar @ Sanjay S1 to S29 which has been proved as Ex.PW61/1(colly). He further deposed that he obtained the original documents (D139 & D141 to D145)   from   the   court   and   sent   them   alongwith   the   Specimen handwriting   and   signatures   (D6   Supplementary   charge   sheet), Ex.PW61/1(colly) to CFSL through letter dated 11.02.2013 (D3 of supplementary   charge)   of   Shri   P.   V.   Hari   Krishna,   the   then   SP which is  Ex.PW68/B  alongwith the annexures I, II & III, which CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.94 of 336 ­: 95 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

have been proved by him as Ex.PW68/C (colly). 

 

98.  IO   of   the   case,   Shri   S.   L.   Garg,   Inspector,   CBI, EOW­II,   New   Delhi   has   entered   in   the   witness   Box   as  PW69.

During his testimony, he deposed that after registration of the case, investigation   of   the   case   was   entrusted   to   him   and   during investigation, he collected/seized various documents  from different persons and various authorities and recorded statement of witnesses and   conducted   searches   at   various   places.   He   also   identied   the signatures of Shri Bhupinder Kumar, the then SP on the FIR dated 11.09.2009 which has been proved as Ex. PW66/A(D2). During his statement, he  further  deposed  that various documents  have been seized   from   various   banks/authorities   and   persons     vide   various seizure memos  which have been proved as Ex. PW22/A(D3), Ex.

PW22/C(D9),   Ex.   PW4/A(D80),   Ex.   PW17/A(D82), Ex.PW17/C(D85),   Ex.PW11/A(D102),   Ex.PW15/A   (D105), Ex.PW24/G (D118), Ex.PW57/I (D125), Ex. PW12/A(D132), Ex.

CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.95 of 336 ­: 96 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

PW33/A(D137),   Ex. PW50/A(D149), Ex.PW32/A (colly) (D163), Ex.PW38/A (D181), Ex.PW43/A (D241) and Ex. PW28/A (D243) on all of which he has identified his signaures.  He further deposed that he also conducted searches at the residence of accused Rajiv Gupta on 12.02.2009 and   at the residences of accused persons, namely Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor   and Ashok Kumar on 05.11.2009   and   documents   recovered   in   the   aforesaid   searches were seized vide respective Search Lists which have been proved as  Ex.PW35/A(D222),   Ex.PW34/D(D225)  and  Ex.PW34/A (D227)  which   all   bear   his   signatures.     He   further   deposed   that during the course of investigation,   he had sent letters to various authorities   for collection of necessary documents and proved the letter 08.04.2010 of Assistant General Manager,   Union Bank of India, Gurgaon Main Branch, Gurgaon as Ex.PW69/A(colly) vide which   he   received   the   certified   copies   pertaining     to   car   loan account   of   accused   Ramesh   Kumar.     He   also   deposed   that   he obtained   the   Sanction   for   Prosecution   against   accused   Chander CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.96 of 336 ­: 97 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

Mohan Bansal and correctly recorded the Statement under section 161 Cr. PC   of  Shri Shiv Kumar, Chief  Manager, Karur  Vysya Bank,   Lawrence   Road,   New   Delhi   which   has   been   proved   as PW69/B     duly   signed   by   him   and   thereafter,   on   account   of   his transfer to Anti­Corruption Branch, New Delhi, he handed over the further   investigation   of   the   case,   alongwith   all   the   documents collected during investigation and statement of witnesses recorded by him to Inspector B. S. Jha, EOU­III, CBI, New Delhi.

99. After  closure of  prosecution evidence, statements  of accused persons under section 313   Cr.PC was recorded in which accused persons denied allegations against them.

100. In support of their  defence  evidence, the accused C. M.   Bansal   examined   himself   as  DW1,   accused   Sufiyan   Ashraf Rajwani examined himself as DW2 and accused Ramesh Wadhera examined his son Shri Rahul Wadhera as DW3.

CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.97 of 336 ­: 98 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

101.  The accused Chander Mohan Bansal(A3) in order to disprove   the   case   of   prosecution   and   in   support   of   his   defence, examined himself as DW1.  During his testimony, he has deposed about the process/procedure he followed and deposed that he has followed the norms of the banks. He further deposed that he had not complied with the requirements mentioned in the portion A to A   on   circular   Ex.   PW4/1D(D218)   as   the   said   circular   was   not within his knowledge.   During his testimony, he deposed that he has   to   admit   that   somebody   played   mischief   with   their   bank's dispatch   system   and   planted   a   forged   letter   dated   28.05.2009 purportedly to be of Karur Vysya Bank.  He denied that he violated any norms in regard to disbursement of the loan without ensuring the end use and stated there was no such condition that he was to monitor   the   end   use   of   the   loan.     DW1   stated   that   he   had recommended the loan to M/s India Fab but the sanction was given by the Circle Office and he had discharged his duties in good faith CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.98 of 336 ­: 99 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

and with full diligence and charges against him are false. 

102.   Accused Sufiyan Ashraf Rajwani(A8) in support of his   defence,   examined   himself   as  DW2  and   deposed,   in   his testimony,   that   he   is   running   the   business   in   the   name   of   M/s United   Syntex   and   deposed   about   Registration   Certificate, electricity bill for year 2001, foreign Bills Transaction Advise and proved the Insurance Premium Receipt as Ex.DW2/1, Bill of Entry dated   15.10,2008   as  Ex.DW2/2,  letter  dated   28.11.2011   of Indusind   Bank   as  Ex.DW2/3,   Bill   of   lading   as  Ex.DW2/4  and further deposed that he has nothing to do with transactions of the present case. 

103.  Accused  Ramesh   Wadhera(A5)  in   support   of   his defence, has examined his son Shri Rahul Wadhera as DW3, who during his testimony, deposed that he is Director of M/s Featherline Impex Pvt. Ltd., since the year 2009 and he knows Shri Kamlesh CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.99 of 336 ­: 100 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

Kumar of M/s K. Company who used to get their consignments cleared   from   Mumbai   and   proved   the   several  Shipping   Bills bearing   No.8527266   dated   04.06.2010,   No.8527531   dated 04.06.2010, No.8527271 dated 04.06.2010 and No.8527233 dated 04.06.2010 as  Ex.DW3/A to Ex.DW3/D. He further deposed that his father Ramesh Wadhera is Manager of M/s Featherline Impex Pvt. Ltd. and is Proprietor of M/s Global Overseas Inc. and both companies are managed as family business and accused Ramesh Wadhera   was   dealing  with   M/s   K.   Company   in  respect   of   their business dealings with them.     

 

104.  I   have   heard   Ld.   Counsels   for   accused   persons   and Ld.PP for CBI and carefully perused the record.

105.  The   present   case   was   registered   on   the   basis   of complaint   dated   10.09.2009   of   Sh.   Malay   Mukherjee,   General Manager and Circle Head in Indian Bank , WTC, Babar Road, New Delhi.   Sh. Malay Mukherjee appeared in witness box as PW1 and CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.100 of 336 ­: 101 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

proved   his   complaint   dated   10.09.2009   submitted   to   SP,   CBI   , Economic   Offences   Wing,   Lok   Nayak     Bhawan,   New   Delhi bearing his signatures at point A on each page as Ex.PW1/A ( D­1).

OPENING OF ACCOUNTS & SUBMISSION OF FORGED   DOCUMENTS 

106. As per allegations of the prosecution, the sequence of events started with opening of current account no. 835982833 in Indian Bank, Shalilmar Bagh Branch  on 23.05.2009 in the name of M/s India Fab by accused Rajesh Kapoor  S/o Sh. S.B. Kapoor as proprietor   and the said account was authorized to be opened by accused   C.M.   Bansal,   the   then   Branch   Manager,   Indian   Bank, Shalimar Bagh Branch. The allegations of the prosecution are that at the time of  opening of aforesaid current account no. 835982833, accused Rajesh Kapoor had furnished photocopy of rent agreement in respect of shop at 5063, Gali No.1, Deshbandhu Gupta Road, Sant Nagar, Karol Bagh, New Delhi purported to be executed  on 01.01.2007 between Rajesh Kapoor (tenant) and Sh. Shyam Arora (owner), photocopy of PAN  Card No.AYGPK1020L in the name of Rajesh Kapoor S/o Sh. Shyam Bhushan Kapoor and photocopy of Driving Licence no. DL ­08220090013364 (P) in the name of Rajesh Kapoor S/o Sh. Shyam B. Kapoor which were found to be fake/forged.   It is   also alleged that   the actual name of accused CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.101 of 336 ­: 102 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

Rajesh Kapoor is Rajesh Kumar Bawa S/o Sh. Kewal Krishan. 

107.  The prosecution examined PW3 Sh. Promod Juneja, the then clerk cum Cashier in Indian Bank, Shalimar Bagh Branch who   identified signatures of accused   C.M. Bansal at point A on account   opening   form   Ex.PW3/A   (also   marked   as   Ex.PW11/D) ( D­4) and of   accused Rajesh Kapoor  at point B on each page of the documents attached with the  account opening form Ex.PW3/A (also marked as Ex.PW11/D) ( D­4) . 

108.  In the statement under Section 313 (1) ( a) Cr.P.C. recorded on   25.11.2016 , accused   Rajesh Kapoor was     put question that account   opening   form   Ex.PW3/A   (also   marked   as   Ex.PW11/D) ( D­4) and its attached  documents  PW3/B­1 to PW3/ B­4 bear his signatures to which he replied by stating that   he had opened the account with Indian Bank, Shalimar Bagh Branch as proprietor of M/s India Fab and he had signed the account opening form and the documents  for opening the account were given by  accused Rajiv Gupta   and accused Rajiv Gupta had taken him to Indian Bank, Shalimar     Bagh   Branch   for   opening   the   account   and   only   his signatures  were obtained on the documents. Hence, accused Rajesh Kapoor    has admitted opening of  current account  no.835982833 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.102 of 336 ­: 103 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

with  Indian  Bank,   Shalimar   Bagh   Branch  as   Proprietor   of     M/s India Fab. 

109.    The allegation of prosecution is   that   the actual name of Rajesh  Kapoor is  Rajesh Kumar Bawa S/o Sh. Kewal Krishan but he   had   opened   the   current   account   no.   835982833   with     Indian Bank, Shalimar Bagh Branch in   the name of Rajesh Kapoor S/o Sh. Shyam Bhushan Kapoor  as proprietor of M/s  India  Fab and at   the   time   of   submitting     bail   bond   also     the   accused   Rajesh Kapoor     had   mentioned   the   name   of   his   father   as   Shri   Kewal Krishan. While recording statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 26.02.2016 and   Statement under Section 313 (1) (a) Cr.P.C. on 25.11.2016, the accused Rajesh Kapoor  stated his name as Rajesh Kumar @  Rajesh Kapoor S/o Sh. Kewal Krishan. However,  as per account opening form Ex.PW3/A ( D­4), the current account no. 835982833 was   opened by   accused  Rajesh   Kumar   representing himself as  Rajesh Kapoor   S/o Sh. Shyam Bhushan Kapoor  and the    photocopy of   the     PAN card  which was  submitted  by  him along   with   the     account   opening   form       bears   name   of   Rajesh Kapoor S/o Sh. Shyam Bhushan Kapoor and the photocopy of the Driving Licence submitted along with   the account opening form Ex.PW3/A (also marked as Ex.PW11/D) ( D­4)   bears   name of Rajesh Kapoor S/o Sh. Shyam B. Kapoor.  The perusal of bail bond CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.103 of 336 ­: 104 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

furnished on  16.02.2010 also shows that the same  was furnished in the name of Rajesh Kumar S/o Sh.  Kewal Krishan. 

110.  As per allegations of   prosecution , accused   Rajesh Kapoor  had also furnished copy of the rent agreement in respect of shop at 5063, Gali No. 1, Deshbandhu Gupta Road, Sant Nagar, Karol Bagh, New Delhi purported to be executed   on 01.01.2007 between Rajesh Kapoor ( tenant) and  Sh. Shyam Arora (owner) as per which Rajesh Kapoor had taken the shop on rent  at the rate of Rs.   15000/­  per   month  w.e.f.  01.01.2007  for   three   years    and  a security   of   Rs.   50,000/­   was   also   paid   to   the   owner.   But   the investigation revealed that  the Rajesh Kapoor  ( A1) had taken the said  shop   on  rent   from  Sh.  Shyam  Arora  w.e.f.  17.02.2009  and accused no. 1   Rajesh Kapoor did not submit   the photocopy of actual   rent   deed   but   he     submitted   photocopy   of   forged   and fabricated rent agreement to the bank indicating that he is running the said shop w.e.f. 01.01.2007. 

111.  The prosecution examined Sh. Shyam Arora as PW11 who stated that  he rented the property bearing no. 5063, Gali no.1, Sant Nagar, Karol Bagh on 17.02.2009 to accused Rajesh Kapoor on rent of Rs. 15000/­ per month and  the Agreement between him CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.104 of 336 ­: 105 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

and   Rajesh   Kapoor   was   executed   for   11   months   and   accused Rajesh Kapoor had also given a security amount of Rs. 50,000/­ vide   cheque.   PW11   Sh.   Shyam   Arora     further   stated   that   the original rent agreement dated 19.02.2009 executed   between him and the Rajesh Kapoor along with the receipt of security amount is Ex.PW11/B ( Colly) ( D­103) and   the same bears   signatures of accused Rajesh Kapoor at points A and A1 and his signatures at points   B   and   B1.     PW11   Sh.   Shyam   Arora   further   stated   that accused   Rajesh   Kapoor   vacated   the   tenanted   premises   on 20.08.2009 by removing all his belongings from the said premises. 

112.  As   per   testimony   of   PW11   Sh.   Shayam   Arora   the property   no.     5063,   Gali   No.   1,   Deshbandhu   Gupta   Road,   Sant Nagar,   Karol   Bagh,   New   Delhi   was   let   out   to   accused   Rajesh Kapoor     on   17.02.2009     and     rent   agreement   dated   19.02.2009 Ex.PW11/B ( Colly) ( D­103) was executed between Sh. Shyam Arora   and   accused   Rajesh   Kapoor   and     accused   Rajesh   Kapoor vacated the said premises on 20.08.2009. However,  along with the Account Opening Form  for opening current account no.835962833 Ex.PW11/D ( D­4), accused Rajesh Kapoor submitted copy of  the rent agreement  purportedly executed on 01.01.2007  between Sh. Shyam   Arora   and   accused   Rajesh   Kapoor   regarding   creation   of tenancy   of     property   no.   5063,   Gali   No.   1,   Deshbandhu   Gupta CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.105 of 336 ­: 106 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

Road, Sant Nagar, Karol Bagh, New Delhi   in favour of accused Rajesh   Kapoor     stating   therein   that   the   said   tenancy   has commenced from 01.01.2007.  PW11 Sh. Shyam Arora was shown the   copy   of   the   rent   agreement   dated   01.01.2007   submitted   by accused   Rajesh   Kapoor     along   with   the   account   opening   form Ex.PW11/D ( D­4) and he stated that  the said agreement was not executed   by   him   and   it   does   not   contain   impressions   of   his signatures   and   the said rent agreement has been shown to have been made on 01.01.2007.   It is to be noted that   as per the rent agreement  Ex.PW11/B ( Colly) ( D­103), the tenancy in respect of property   no.     5063,   Gali   No.   1,   Deshbandhu   Gupta   Road,   Sant Nagar, Karol Bagh, New Delhi  was created in  favour of accused Rajesh Kapoor   w.e.f. 17.02.2009 and as per testimony of PW11, accused Rajesh Kumar vacated the said premises on 20.08.2009. The evidence on record   proves that   the accused Rajesh Kapoor was   not   in   possession   of   property   no.     5063,   Gali   No.   1, Deshbandhu Gupta Road, Sant Nagar, Karol Bagh, New Delhi on 01.01.2007 and   he remained in possession  of  the said property from 17.02.2009 to 20.08.2009 and  the copy of the rent agreement purportedly executed on 01.01.2007  submitted by accused Rajesh Kapoor   along   with   the   account   opening   form   Ex.PW11/D   (also marked as Ex.PW3/A) (D­4)  is a fabricated document.  

CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.106 of 336 ­: 107 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

113.  In   the   statement   under   Secton   313   (1)   (a)   Cr.P.C. recorded on 24.11.2016, accused    Chander Mohan Bansal ( A3) was put question regarding account opening form Ex.PW3/A ( D­4) and its attached documents   Ex.PW3/B1 to Ex.PW3/B4 to which A3 C.M. Bansal  stated that it is correct, however, it was done in the   ordinary   course   of   his   duties   without   any   knowledge   or intention of wrong doing and he authorized opening of the account only after verification of all the original documents submitted by Rajesh Kumar  as to his identity  and his address.   

114.  The evidence adduced by the prosecution also proves that  the name of accused no. 1  is  Rajesh Kumar S/o Sh. Kewal Krishan, however   he opened current account no. 835962833   in Indian Bank, Shalimar Bagh Branch in the name of M/s India Fab representing himself as Rajesh Kapoor   S/o Sh. Shyam Bhushan Kapoor , proprietor of  India Fab.      

115.    The   allegations     of   the   prosecution   are     that   immediately after opening of current account no. 835962833 in the name of  M/s India Fab  at  Indian Bank, Shalimar Bagh Branch, accused no. 1 Rajesh Kapoor  requested the Branch Manager vide his letter dated nil for   credit facility by way of cash credit limit of Rs. 150 lacs claiming   that M/s India Fab is a proprietorship firm dealing in CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.107 of 336 ­: 108 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

denim fabric for the last  6 to 7 years  having office at 5063, Gali No.  1,   Deshbandhu   Gupta   Road,   Sant  Nagar,   Karol  Bagh,   New Delhi   and   accused no. 1 further projected that during the year 2007  they had achieved the sales target of Rs. 904.88 lacs  which increased to 1085.86 lacs   during the year 2008 and estimate for 2009   was   put   at   Rs.   1330.30   lacs.     It   is     further   alleged     by prosecution     that   accused   No.   1   Rajesh   Kapoor   submitted   duly filled   bank   proforma   dated   23.05.2009   for   "   Application   for Advances to Traders"   and in the said proforma , accused no. 1 projected that he  was maintaining account with Karur Vysya Bank and offered collateral security of plot no. B­354 measuring 200 Sq. yards   situated   at   Mangolpuri   Industrial   Area   Phase­I,   Delhi   and primary security of hypothecation of stocks and book debts   and along with the said proforma , accused no. 1 submitted  photocopy of statement of account of M/s India  Fab for the period 01.04.2008 to 30.04.2009   purported to   have been issued by   Karur Vysya Bank Ltd., Rohini Branch, Delhi , photocopy of   audited balance sheet  for the year ended 31.03.2007, 31.03.2008 and 31.03.2009 of M/s   India   Fab   purported   to   be   audited   by   Naresh   Jindal   and Associates   which were  found to be  forged and fabricated. 

116.   The  application of M/s India Fab  for Credit Facility in the shape of Cash Credit Limit  addressed to Branch Manager, Indian CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.108 of 336 ­: 109 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

Bank,   Shalimar   Bagh   Branch     signed   by     accused     A1   Rajesh Kapoor as Authorized Signatory of M/s India Fab is Ex.PW53/A ( D­33). In the statement under Section 313 ( 1) (a) recorded on 25.11.2016,   accused   Rajsh   Kapoor   (   A1)   was   put   question regarding letter  Ex.PW53/A ( D­33) of  M/s India  Fab addressed to Branch Manager, Indian Bank, Shalimar Bagh Branch requesting for sanction of cash credit limit of Rs. 150 lacs signed by him  as Authorized Signatory of M/s India Fab to which   accused no. 1 Rajesh Kapoor answered by stating that letter Ex.PW53/A ( D­33) was   signed by him   but   the same was signed at the instance of accused Rajiv Gupta, Ashok Jain and Sandeep Jain.  Hence in the statement   under   Section   313   (1)   (a)   Cr.P.C.     recorded   on 25.11.2016 , accused no. 1 Rajesh Kapoor   admitted signing and submitting letter Ex.PW53/A ( D­33) of  M/s India  Fab addressed to Branch Manager, Indian Bank, Shalimar Bagh Branch requesting for sanction of cash credit limit of Rs.150 lacs.   

117.  The   "Application   for   Advance   to   Traders"   dated 23.05.2009 submitted by   accused Rajesh Kapoor as proprietor of M/s India  Fab with Indian Bank, Shalimar Bagh is Ex.PW53/B (D­

74).  In the statement recorded under section 313(1) (a) Cr.PC on 25.11.2016  accused   Rajesh   Kapoor(A1)   was   put   question   to  the effect   that   he   had   submitted   application   dated   23.05.2009   for CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.109 of 336 ­: 110 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

Advance to Traders, Ex. PW53/B(D74) which is signed by him to which accused Rajesh Kapoor(A1) answered   by stating that the said application dated 23.05.2009(D74) is signed by him but the same was signed by him at the instance of accused Rajiv Gupta, Ashok   Jain   and   Sandeep   Jain.     Hence,   the   accused   Rajesh Kapoor(A1) has  admitted signing and submitting the application for Advance to Traders dated 23.05.2009, Ex. PW53/B(D74).   

118.  The prosecution examined Sh. Vinoth Kumar, the then Sr. Manager, Karur Vysya Bank, Rohini Branch as PW12 who stated that   account   opening   form     of   account   no.   41041159033   in   the name of M/s India Fab, proprietor Rajesh Kapoor  of Karur Vysya Bank, Rohini Branch is Ex.PW12/C(D­134).  The account opening form of account no. 41041159033 in the name of M/s India Fab, proprietor Rajesh Kapoor   of Karur Vysya Bank, Rohini Branch  is dated   29.01.2009.     PW12   Sh.   Vinoth   Kumar   stated   that   the Account  Opening Form Ex.PW12/C (D­134)  bears  signatures of Sh.   Gaurav   Dutt   Prashar,   the   then   Officer   at   Rohini   Branch   of Karur Vysya Bank  at point A  on pages 3 and 5 of the said form.

119.    Accused  Rajesh Kapoor ( A1) was put question in the statement   under   Section   313   (1)   (   a)   Cr.P.C.   recorded   on 25.11.2016 regarding opening of account no. 41041159033 in the CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.110 of 336 ­: 111 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

name of   M/s India Fab vide Account Opening Form Ex.PW12/C (D­134)   to   which   he   answered   by   stating   that   it   is   a   matter   of record.     As   per     account     opening   form     of   account   no. 41041159033   in   the   name   of   M/s   India   Fab,   proprietor   Rajesh Kapoor of Karur Vysya Bank, Rohini Branch, the said account was opened on 29.01.2009. The Statement of Account of account no. 41041159033   in   the   name   of   M/s   India   Fab,   proprietor   Rajesh Kapoor       of   Karur   Vysya   Bank,   Rohini   Branch   for   the   period 01.01.2009 to 31.10.2009 is Ex.PW12/E ( D­135).  As per evidence adduced on record , the current account no. 41041159033 in the name of M/s India Fab, proprietor Rajesh Kapoor   of Karur Vysya Bank, Rohini Branch was opened on 29.01.2009. As per allegations of the prosecution , accused Rajesh Kapoor had submitted  copy of the   Statement   of   the   Account   for   the     period   01.04.2008   to 30.04.2009 of M/s India Fab  purportedly issued  by Karur Vysya Bank, Rohini Branch to the Indian Bank, Shalimar Bagh Branch along   with   the   letter   for   sanction   of   cash   credit   limit Ex.PW53/A(D­33).  But as per  evidence  on record the account  in the name of M/s India Fab, proprietor Rajesh Kapoor was opened in Karur Vysya Bank, Rohini on 29.01.2009 which proves that the copies of the statements of account for the period 01.04.2008 to 30.04.2009(D­34)  purportedly issued  by Karur Vysya Bank which were submitted  to Indian Bank, Shalimar Bagh Branch  by accused CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.111 of 336 ­: 112 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

Rajesh Kapoor were fabricated documents as M/s India Fab had no account   with   Karur   Vysya   Bank,   Rohini   Branch     prior   to 29.01.2009. 

120. As   per   allegation   of   the   prosecution,   the   accused Rajesh   Kapoor(A1)   has   also   submitted   photocopy   of   audited Balance   Sheets   for   the   year   ended   31.03.2007,   31.03.2008     & 31.03.2009 of M/s India Fab purported to be audited by Naresh Jindal & Associates, Chartered Accountants for the facility of Cash Credit   Limit   and   same   were   found   to   be   forged   and   fabricated documents.  Shri Naresh Jindal, Chartered Accountant appeared in the witness box as PW56 and stated that he does not know Rajesh Kapoor   @   Rajesh   Kumar,   Proprietor   of   M/s   India   Fab   nor   he audited the Financial Statement of the same.   PW56 Shri Naresh Jindal was shown the copy of Audit Reports, Ex. PW56/E (Colly) (D35)   dated   07.05.2007,   Ex.PW56/F(Colly)   (D36)   dated 18.05.2008 & Ex.PW56/G (Colly) (D37) dated 25.05.2009,  under section 44 AB of the Income Tax Act of M/s India Fab issued by M/s Naresh Jindal & Associates, Chartered Accountants and PW 56 stated that he has never issued the said reports nor he has signed the same  at any point.    

121.  It   is   to   be   noted   that   in   the   Audit   Reports,   Ex.   PW56/E CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.112 of 336 ­: 113 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

(Colly)  (D35), Ex.PW56/F (Colly)  (D36)  & Ex.PW56/G (Colly) (D37), the address of M/s Naresh Jindal & Associates (Chartered Accountants)  is   mentioned  as  38,  Saket   Kunj,  Sector  9,  Rohini, Delhi 85. The prosecution examined PW5 Shri Navneet Gupta R/o H.   No.38,   Saket   Kunj,   Plot   No.8,   Sector   9,   Rohini,   Delhi,   who stated that he alongwith this father is the joint owner of the house no.38, Saket Kunj, Plot No.8, Sector 9, Rohini, Delhi and they have been living in the said house since the time of purchase of said house in May 2000 and no part of the said house has been given to anybody on rent.  PW5 Shri Navneet Gupta has further stated that he   does   not   know   any   Naresh   Jindal   &   Associates   (Chartered Accountants) and they have never worked from his address in the year 2007, 2008, 2009 or afterwards.  The accused persons did not prefer to put any question to PW5 in the cross examination and the testimony of PW5 has remained un­rebutted.  

122.   In the statement under section 313(1)(a) Cr.PC  recorded on 25.11.2016 accused Rajesh Kapoor(A1) was put questions to the effect   that   PW56   Naresh   Jindal   stated   that   copies   of   the   Audit Reports, Ex. PW56/E(colly) (D35),  Ex. PW56/F(colly) (D36) and Ex. PW56/G(colly) (D37)  are forged and he has never issued and signed   the   said   reports   to   which   accused   Rajesh   Kapoor(A1) answered   by   stating   that   he   has   never   met     Shri   Naresh   Jindal, CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.113 of 336 ­: 114 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

Chartered Accountant and he never got issued any Audit Report in favour of M/s India Fab and no such certificate was submitted by him in Indian Bank, Shalimar Bagh Branch or any other bank. It is also to be noted  that  in the  cross  examination of  PW56 Naresh Jindal, accused Rajesh Kapoor(A1) has asked question as to who has   forged   the   said   documents   i.e.   Audit   Reports,   Ex. PW56/E(colly)   (D35),     Ex.   PW56/F(colly)   (D36)   and   Ex. PW56/G(colly) (D37) to which PW56 Shri Naresh Jindal answered by   stating   that   he   cannot   say   that   who   has   forged   the   said documents. Hence, by putting this question to PW56 in the cross examination that who forged the audit reports and by stating in his statement under section 313(1)(a) Cr. PC recorded on 25.11.2016 that   he   did   not   get   the   said   reports   issued   accused   Rajesh Kapoor(A1) has admitted   that Audit Reports, Ex. PW56/E(colly) (D35),   Ex. PW56/F(colly) (D36) and Ex. PW56/G(colly) (D37) are forged and fabricated documents.  

123.  In   the   statement   under   section   313   (1)(a)   Cr.   PC recorded on 25.11.2016, accused Rajesh Kapoor (A1) has pleaded that Audit Reports, Ex. PW56/E(colly) (D35),  Ex. PW56/F(colly) (D36) and Ex. PW56/G(colly) (D37) were not submitted by him to Indian   Bank,   Shalimar   Bagh   Branch.   But   accused   C.   M. Bansal(A3) stated in the statement under section 313 (1)(a) Cr. PC CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.114 of 336 ­: 115 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

recorded on 24.11.2016 that the said reports i.e. Ex. PW56/E(colly) (D35),   Ex. PW56/F(colly) (D36) and Ex. PW56/G(colly) (D37) were   submitted   by   accused   Rajesh   Kumar   @   Rajesh   Kapoor together with other documents accompanying the loan applications and the documents were certified by Chartered Accountant hence, he   had   no   reason   or   cause   to   believe   that   there   was   something wrong with the said documents and he(C. M. Bansal) accepted the same in good faith. Hence, the accused Rajesh  Kapoor(A1)  and accused C. M. Bansal(A3) have taken contradictory pleas regarding submission   of   Audit   Reports,   Ex.   PW56/E(colly)   (D35),     Ex. PW56/F(colly) (D36) and Ex. PW56/G(colly) (D37) in Shalimar Bagh Branch of Indian Bank. 

124.  As per allegations of the prosecution along with the request   proforma   for   cash   credit   limit,   accused     Rajesh   Kapoor ( A1) also submitted a list of  sundry debtors , unsecured loans and sundry creditors as on 31.03.2008 and 31.03.2009 on the letterhead of   India   Fab   and   the   addresses   of   sundry   debtors   and   sundry creditors were not available on record and Branch Manager accused C.M. Bansal ( A3) did not object to the same. The application for Advances  to Traders  is  Ex.PW35/B( D­74)  and along with the said   application   ,   there   is   a     list   of     sundry   debtors     as   on 30.06.2009  submitted by India Fab mentioning  the names of M/s CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.115 of 336 ­: 116 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

Shah Enterprises, M/s S.R. Garments, M/s Sai Exports, M/s Roma Garments, M/s Prince Traders, M/s Loin Textiles, M/s Sidh Sale Cor. and M/s  J K & Sons.  However  , the addresses    and  other details  of the said sundry debtors are not mentioned in the said list. Hence as per the list of sundry debtors as on 30.06.2009 submitted by   M/s   India   Fab   along   with   the   application   for     Advances   to Traders,  it  can  not be  ascertained  whether   the    organizations   as mentioned   in   the   said   list   exist   and   they   had   any   business relationship with M/s India Fab and  the debts as mentioned against their   names   are   actually   reflected   in   the   books   of   accounts maintained by   M/s India   Fab in   its usual   course of business. Accused No. 1 Rajesh Kapoor has not adduced any evidence to the effect that   M/s India Fab   was having any business   relationship with   the   organizations   as   mentioned   in   the     said   list   of   sundry debtors as on 30.06.2009. Accused C.M. Bansal ( A3) has also not proved that he raised any objections on the sundry list of debtors as on 30.06.2009, as submitted by M/s India Fab and had asked  M/s India Fab to furnish details of the said organizations in order to verify that the said organizations exist and had business relations with M/s India Fab and were actually debtors of India Fab to the tune of amounts as mentioned in the said list. 

125. Another   allegation   of   the   prosecution   is   that     for CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.116 of 336 ­: 117 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

availing   the   cash   credit   limit,   accused   Rajesh   Kapoor(A1)   also furnished   Letters   No.   F.2(1135)88/HC/Legal/1771   dated 06.07.2000,   F.2(1135)88/HC/Legal/   228   dated   13.09.2000   and F.2(1135)88   dated   29.09.02   on   the   letter   head   of   Delhi Development Authority, New Delhi  regarding Plot No. 354, Block No.   B,   Mangolpuri,   Phase­I,   addressed   to   M/s   Bhagwati   Plastic Industries,   B­1/225,   Ist   Floor,   Ashok   Vihar,   Phase­II,   Delhi   in respect of its allotment, handing over of possession, etc. , Original GPA, Original Special Power of Attorney, Original Agreement  to Sell ,   original  Agreement to appoint Arbitrator purported to be executed by Sh. Bhagwati Prasad Singhania in favour of Sh. Rajesh Kapoor in respect of aforesaid property   regarding Plot No. 354, Block No. B, Mangolpuri, Phase­I . It is further  alleged that along with   aforesaid     documents   accused   Rajesh   Kapoor   (   A1)   also submitted original possession letter  for handing over possession of the said industrial property to Sh. Bhagwati  Prasad Singhania  on 09.02.2001 , original  receipt  regarding receipt of  Rs. 37,20,000/­ from Rajesh Kapoor by Bhagwati Prasad Singhania   on 09.02.2001 as sale consideration of aforesaid property ,  original deed of Will executed     by   Sh.   Bhagwati   Prasad   Singhania     executed   on 09.02.2001   ,   Original     perpetual   lease   conveyance   deed   dated 20.04.2007   &   Original   Conveyance   Deed   dated   01.04.2009 purported to be under the signature of Lease Admn, Officer, DDA CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.117 of 336 ­: 118 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

in favour of Bhagwati Plastic Industries, Prop. Sh. Bhagwati Prasad Singhania   and   Original   Receipt   printed     No.2033181   dated 16.04.2009 regarding payment of property tax by   Rajesh Kapoor to MCD for   the said industrial property for the year 2009­2010 which were found to be fake and forged.    

126.  The   case   of   the   prosecution   is   that   during   the   course   of investigation, it was revealed that M/s Bhagwati Plastic Industries was allotted plot No. B­354,  Mangol Puri Industrial Area, Phase­1, Delhi   on   24.08.2006   by   DDA   for   an   amount   of   Rs.34,50,995/­ which was deposited through pay order dated 19.09.2006 and the handing over possession letter was issued on 17.10.2006 and the possession slip was issued on 18.10.2006 and the perpetual lease deed was executed on 20.04.2007 between Shri Bhagwati Prasad Singhania, Proprietor Bhagwati Plastic Industry and Shri Harsaran, LAO/LSB(I), DDA.  Thereafter the said plot No. B­354,  Mangol Puri   Industrial   Area,   Phase­1,   Delhi   was   purchased   by   Smt. Archana Mittal from Shri Bhagwati Prasad Singhania in the month of April, 2007 for a sum of Rs.38 lacs vide Agreement to Sell and GPA dated 30.04.2007 which were registered with Sub Registrar­ VI, Rohini, Delhi and Mittal family constructed building on the said plot in the month of March, 2009 and it was given on rent to M/s India Fab through Shri Mohan Bansal, Property Dealer for 11 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.118 of 336 ­: 119 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

months vide Rent Agreement dated 10.04.2009.  

127.   It   is   alleged   by   the   prosecution   that   the   accused Rajesh Kapoor(A1) prepared or caused to be prepared the fake and forged documents of property No. B­354, Mangol Puri Industrial Area, Phase­1, Delhi and mortgaged the same with Indian Bank and others for sanction of limits to his firm.    

128. PW23 Shri Amar Pal Singh, who was posted as LDC in LSB (I) Branch, DDA produced file relating to property No. B­ 354,   Mangol   Puri   Industrial   Area,   Phase­1,   Delhi,   Ex. PW23/A(D247, D248) and the said file contained Allotment Letter dated 24.08.2006 Ex. PW23/D bearing the signatures of Shri Budh Ram,   the   then   Deputy   Director(Industry)   and   as   per   the   said Allotment Letter, the plot no.354 Block B, Mangol Puri Industrial Area, Phase­1, Delhi was allotted to M/s Bhagwati Plastic Industry for an amount of Rs.34,63,200/­. PW23 further stated that the file Ex.PW23/A(D247,   D248)   contains   a   letter   dated   17.10.2006   of Handing Over Possession of Plot No. 354 Block B, Mangol Puri Industrial   Area, Phase­1, Delhi,  Ex.  PW23/F.   As   per   letter   Ex. PW23/F, the possession of the Plot No. 354 Block B, Mangol Puri Industrial Area, Phase­1, Delhi was handed over to Shri Bhagwati Prasad   Singhania,   Prop.   M/s   Bhagwati   Plastic   Industries.   PW23 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.119 of 336 ­: 120 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

further   stated   that   the   file   Ex.PW23/A(D247,   D248)   contains   a Possession Slip dated 18.10.2006, Ex. PW23/H. As per Possession Slip dated 18.10.2006, Ex. PW23/H, the possession of Plot No. 354 Block B, Mangol Puri Industrial Area, Phase­1, Delhi was handed over   to   Shri   Bhagwati   Prasad   Singhania,   Prop.   M/s   Bhagwati Plastic Industries on 18.10.2006.  PW23 further stated that the file Ex.PW23/A(D247, D248) contains a Perpetual Lease Deed dated 20.04.2007,   Ex.   PW23/J   in   favour   of   M/s   Bhagwati   Plastic Industries.   

129. PW23   Sh.   Amar   Pal   Singh     was   shown     the documents   pertaining to property no. 354 Block B, Mangol Puri Industrial Area, Phase­1, Delhi which were submitted by accused Rajesh Kapoor ( A1)  for availing the  cash credit limit  and PW23 stated that allotment letter dated 06.07.2000 Ex.PW23/E ( D­47) which is shown to be purportedly issued by DDA in favour of  M/s Bhagwati Plastic Industries does not match with the original  letter of allotment Ex.PW23/D  which has been brought by him and  the letter of allotment dated 06.07.2000   Ex.PW23/E ( D­47)   bears forged signatures of Sh. Jai Singh, Deputy Director at point A  and the   said   letter   Ex.PW23/E   is   a   forged   and   fabricated   document. PW23   Sh.   Amar   Pal   Singh   was   also   shown     possession   letter Ex.PW23/G( D­48) purportedly issued by DDA regarding handing CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.120 of 336 ­: 121 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

over possession of plot no. 354 Block B, Mangol Puri Industrial Area, Phase­1, Delhi   submitted by  the accused Rajesh Kapoor to the Indian Bank, Shalimar Bagh Branch and PW23 stated that the same   does   not   match   with   the   original   letter   of   possession Ex.PW23/F  brought by him   and  the  letter  Ex.PW23/G ( D­48) bears forged signatures of Sh. Jai Singh, Deputy Director  at point A and Ex.PW23/G  is a forged and fabricated document. PW23 Sh. Amar Pal Singh  was also shown  possession slip  Ex.PW23/I ( D­

49) of Plot No.354 Block B, Mangol Puri Industrial Area, Phase­1, Delhi  which was submitted by  the accused Rajesh Kapoor  to the Indian Bank, Shalimar Bagh Branch and  PW23 stated that the said possession   slip   Ex.PW23/I     does   not   match   with   the   original possession   slip   Ex.PW23/H   brought   by   him   and     the   same   is   a forged and   a fabricated   document.   PW23 Sh. Amar Pal Singh was also shown perpetual lease deed   Ex.PW23/K (D­58) of Plot No.354   Block   B,   Mangol   Puri   Industrial   Area,   Phase­1,   Delhi which was submitted by  the accused Rajesh Kapoor  to the Indian Bank, Shalimar Bagh Branch and PW23 stated that the said lease deed Ex.PW23/K(D­58) does not match with the original perpetual lease deed dated 20.04.2007 Ex.PW23/J brought by him and   the perpetual   lease   deed   Ex.PW23/K   is   a   forged   and   fabricated document. PW42 Sh. Premson stated that lease deed Ex.PW23/K is shown to have been signed by  him at points A , B and C  but  he CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.121 of 336 ­: 122 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

has never signed the same and these are his scanned signatures and the same are forged and he has never executed the said documents. PW48   Sh.   Harsaran   also   stated   that   the   perpetual   lease   deed Ex.PW23/K does not bear his signatures at point B  and someone has forged his signatures on this document and the perpetual lease deed Ex.PW23/K  is a forged and fabricated document. PW23 Sh. Amar Pal Singh was shown the conveyance deed Ex.PW23/L(D­

59)   purportedly   issued   by   DDA   which   was   submitted     by     the accused Rajesh Kapoor  to the Indian Bank, Shalimar Bagh Branch and PW23 stated that the said conveyance deed is a forged and fabricated document and it was not issued by the DDA. 

130.                 In the statement under section 313 (1) (a) Cr.P.C. recorded on 24.11.2016 , accused  C.M. Bansal ( A3)   was   put questions on the documents Ex.PW23/E( D­47), Ex.PW23/G ( D­

48), Ex.PW23/I( D­49). Ex.PW23/K ( D­58) and Ex.PW23/L ( D­

59)    to which he  answered by stating  that   he had no cause  or reason to believe that any of these documents   filed by accused Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor were forged and fabricated and therefore he  had  processed  them  in a  bona­fide  manner  and  the advocate   had   also   not   pointed   out   any   suspicion   about   these documents in his report and he had expressly certified that all the documents are in order. In the statement under Section 313 (1) (a) CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.122 of 336 ­: 123 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

Cr.P.C. recorded on 25.11.2016, accused Rajesh Kapoor (A1)  was put questions on the documents Ex.PW23/E( D­47), Ex.PW23/G ( D­48), Ex.PW23/I( D­49) . Ex.PW23/K ( D­58) and Ex.PW23/L ( D­59)  to which he answered by stating that he cannot say  whether PW3 has stated correctly or incorrectly as he has no knowledge about  the said documents i.e. Ex.PW23/E( D­47), Ex.PW23/G ( D­

48), Ex.PW23/I( D­49). Ex.PW23/K ( D­58) and Ex.PW23/L (D­

59) . It is to be noted that  in his written statement Ex.C1 filed on 26.02.2016, accused Rajesh Kapoor (A1)  stated that he has no role in opening of current account   in the name of M/s India Fab and furnishing   of   documents   and   the   property   no.   No.354   Block   B, Mangol Puri Industrial Area, Phase­1, Delhi was never in his name and he has been shown as owner of the said property falsely and fraudulently. Although  accused Rajesh Kapoor has pleaded that  he has been falsely and fraudulently shown the owner of property no. No.354 Block B, Mangol Puri Industrial Area, Phase­1, Delhi but he has not  explained that who has falsely and fraudulently shown him   the   owner   of   the   said   property   and   how   the   forged   and fabricated   documents   Ex.PW23/E(   D­47),   Ex.PW23/G(D­48), Ex.PW23/I(D­49).   Ex.PW23/K   (D­58)   and   Ex.PW23/L   (D­59) were created.            

131.  Prosecution examined PW15 Shri Naresh Kumar, who CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.123 of 336 ­: 124 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

is husband of Smt. Archana Mittal, who is stated to have purchased Plot No.354 Block B, Mangol Puri Industrial Area, Phase­1, Delhi from Shri Bhagwati Prasad Singhania.  PW15 Shri Naresh Kumar stated that he had purchased Plot No.354 Block B, Mangol Puri Industrial   Area,   Phase­1,   Delhi   in   the   name   of     his   wife   Smt. Archana Mittal from Shri Bhagwati Prasad Singhania through Shri Mohan  Bansal,   Property  Dealer   and  he  has   brought  the  original documents pertaining to property No. 354 Block B, Mangol Puri Industrial Area, Phase­1, Delhi and the copy of Allotment Letter is Ex.PW15/B, copy of challan is Ex. PW15/C, Perpetual Lease Deed is Ex. PW15/D, Copy of Agreement to Sell is Ex. PW15/E, copy of General   Power   of   Attorney   is   Ex.   PW15/F,   copy   of   Receipt   of Freehold Conversion in the name of Smt. Archana Mittal is Ex. PW15/J, copy of possession of slip is Ex. PW15/M.   

132.  PW 15 Shri Naresh Kumar further stated that property No. 354, Block B, Mangol Puri Industrial Area, Phase­1, Delhi was let   out   to   accused   Rajesh   Kapoor   vide   Rent   Agreement   Ex. PW15/G   and   accused   Rajesh   Kapoor   gave   four   cheques   out   of which   last   three   were   monthly     rent   for   the   said   premises   and Rajesh Kapoor vacated the said premises after about 4 to 5 months without informing by taking away his belongings.  The perusal of statement   of   account   of   M/s   India   Fab   in   Karur   Vysya   Bank, CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.124 of 336 ­: 125 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

Rohini, Delhi, Ex.PW12/E(D­135) shows that payments of Rs.One Lac   and   Rs.Four   Lacs   were   made   to   Ms.   Archana   Mittal   vide cheque nos.0000208811 and 0000208810 which were cleared on 09/04/2009. 

133.  PW 15 Shri Naresh Kumar further stated that he never gave   the   papers   of   aforesaid   property   to   anyone   and   the   same remained   with   him   or   his   wife   and   this   property   was   never hypothecated to any bank.  Accused Rajesh Kapoor did not prefer to   put   any   question   to   PW15   Shri   Naresh   Kumar   in   the   cross examination and the testimony of PW15 Shri Naresh Kumar has remained unrebutted. In the statement under Section 313 (1) (a) recorded on 25.11.2016, accused Rajesh Kapoor was put question on the documents Ex.PW15/B to Ex.PW15/K to which he answered by stating that he has no knowledge about the said documents.  It is to be noted that  PW15 specifically stated that the property no. 354, Block B, Mangol Puri Industrial Area, Phase­1, Delhi was let out to accused  Rajesh  Kapoor  vide rent agreement  Ex.PW15/G and he vacated the said premises after about 4­5 months and in the cross examination     of   PW15,   no   suggestions   were   given   by   accused Rajesh Kapoor (A1) to the effect that property no. 354, Block B, Mangol   Puri   Industrial   Area,   Phase­1,   Delhi     was   not   rented   to accused  Rajesh Kapoor (A1) vide rent Agreement Ex.PW15/G or CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.125 of 336 ­: 126 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

that Rajesh Kapoor ( A1) had never been in the possession of the said property but in his statement under Section 313(1) (a) recorded on 25.11.2016 , accused Rajesh Kapoor has pleaded that he has no knowledge about the rent agreement Ex.PW15/G ( D­112).   The prosecution   has   proved   that   the   accused   Rajesh   Kapoor   had submitted forged and fabricated   documents i.e. Ex.PW23/E( D­

47),  Ex.PW23/G  (  D­48),  Ex.PW23/I(D­49).  Ex.PW23/K  (D­58) and Ex.PW23/L ( D­59) of property no. 354 Block B, Mangol Puri Industrial Area, Phase­1, Delhi,   to Indian Bank, Shalimar Bagh Branch for availing cash credit facility and accused Rajesh Kapoor had   occupied the said property   as a tenant under Smt. Archana Mittal  W/o Sh. Naresh  Kumar  Mittal  vide rent agreement dated 10.04.2009 Ex.PW15/G(D­112) and he vacated   the said property after about  4­5 months of  occupying the same as a tenant under Smt. Archana Mittal.    

SIPHONING OF FUNDS Role of accused Ashok Kumar(A4)

134.  The allegations of prosecution  are  that in order to siphon off the amount    which was  got released  by accused  Rajesh  Kapoor ( A1) from Indian Bank, Shalimar Bagh Branch,   accused Ashok Kumar in conspiracy with   Rajesh Kapoor ( A1) opened current account no. 122911023785 on 31.03.2009  in the name of M/s K.G. CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.126 of 336 ­: 127 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

Fabric   in   Dena   Bank   ,   Rohini   representing   himself   i.e.   Ashok Kumar S/o Rur Singh   as the proprietor and for opening of said account, accused Ashok Kumar  submitted self attested copy of rent agreement dated 30.03.2009 in respect of property no.  5063, Gali No.  1,   Deshbandhu   Gupta   Road,   Sant  Nagar,   Karol  Bagh,   New Delhi and self attested copy of PAN card in the name of   Ashok Kumar   S/o  Rur   Singh,  PAN   No.  AYXPK   5668H,    self   attested copy of electricity bill in the name of Sh. Shyam Arora, 5063, Gali No.1, Sant Nagar, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, blank letterhead of M/s K.G. Fabric and the said account of M/s K.G. Fabric was opened on the introduction of accused Rajesh Kapoor (A1) proprietor of M/s Bhaskar Industries, holder of account no. 122911023770 in the same bank. The  allegations of the prosecution are that for opening the aforesaid account of M/s K.G. Fabric in Dena Bank, the copy of fake and forged rent agreement dated 30.03.2009 was filed and M/s K.G. Fabric was projected to be operating from the said address from  where   M/s   Bhaskar  Industries  was  operating.    It  is  to be noted   that   M/s   India   Fab   which   had   opened   account   in     Indian Bank, Shalimar Bagh Branch was also shown to be operating from the same address. After opening of the account of M/s K.G. Fabric in     Dena   Bank,   Rohini   ,   application   was   submitted   by   accused Ashok   Kumar   for   transfer   of   the   said   account   to   Dena   Bank   , Pitampura, Delhi.

CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.127 of 336 ­: 128 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

135.  PW17 Sh. Amarjit Singh Oberoi   stated that   he had handed over to CBI  the original account opening form of current account no. 122911023785 in the name of M/s K.G. Fabric along with  specimen signature card, self certified copy of PAN Card of accused Ashok Kumar , copy of   electricity bill in the name of Shyam Arora dated 17.12.2008, original letterhead of K.G. Fabric and original  request letter dated 24.07.2009 on letterhead of K.G. Fabric  requesting the branch to  transfer the account to Dena Bank, Pritam Pura vide seizure memo Ex.PW17/A ( D­82).    

136.  The prosecution examined PW18 Sh. Ashwani Kumar who stated that he had opened current account no. 122911023785 of     M/s   K.G.   Fabric,   proprietor   Ashok   Kumar   and   the   account opening   form     is   Ex.PW11/H     (   Colly)   (   D­83)   and   he   also identified signatures of accused Ashok Kumar on the said account opening form. PW18 Sh. Ashwani Kumar stated that he had signed as Branch Manager and permitted the opening of the said account of M/s K.G. Fabric and the   accused Ashok Kumar had put his photograph   and   signatures   on   the   account   opening   form     in   his presence and PW18 Sh. Ashwani Kumar identified accused Ashok Kumar in the court as the same person who had opened the current account   No.   122911023785   in   the   name   of   M/s   K.G.   Fabric   as CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.128 of 336 ­: 129 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

proprietor. PW18 Sh. Ashwani Kumar further stated that accused Ashok   Kumar   had   furnished   self   attested   copies   of   identity documents.  As per seizure memo  Ex.PW17/A ( D­82) , the letter dated 24.07.2009 on the  letterhead of M/s K.G. Fabric signed by accused   Ashok   Kumar   (   A3)   as   proprietor   of   M/s   K.G.   Fabric thereby requesting transfer of account   no. 122911023785 in the name of M/s K.G. Fabric   from Dena Bank ,   Rohini   to Dena Bank , Pritam Pura  was also handed over to the CBI and the  said letter has   been filed on record along with account opening form Ex.PW11/H ( Colly) ( D­83)           

137.     PW18   Sh.   Ashwani   Kumar   further   stated   that   accused Rajesh Kapoor  had opened current account no. 122911023770 as proprietor of M/s  Bhaskar  Industries  vide account opening form Ex.PW11/K ( Colly)   and   accused Rajesh Kumar had signed the said account opening form in his presence  and he had authorized the opening of the said account of M/s Bhaskar Industries. PW18 identified accused Rajesh Kapoor (A1) as the same person who has signed   account   opening   form   Ex.PW11/K   (   colly)   (   D­94)   of account   no.   122911023770   of   M/s   Bhaskar   Industries   in   his presence. The accused persons did not prefer to put  any  question to PW18 in the cross examination  and the testimony of PW18 has remained unrebutted.   

CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.129 of 336 ­: 130 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

138. In  the  statement    under   Section  313  (1)  (a)  Cr.P.C. recorded   on   25.11.2016,   accused   Ashok   Kumar   (   A4)     was questioned   regarding   opening   of   current   account     no. 122911023785 by him as proprietor of M/s K.G. Fabric to which accused Ashok Kumar (A4) answered by stating that he had opened the  current account no. 122911023785  as proprietor of M/s K.G. Fabric but the said account was opened on the asking of accused Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor and the said account was operated by accused Rajesh Kumar.  In the statement under Section 313 (1)

(a) Cr.P.C. recorded on 25.11.2016, accused Rajesh Kapoor ( A1) was   put   question   regarding   opening   of   current   account   no. 122911023770 by him   as proprietor of   M/s Bhaskar Industries vide account opening from Ex.PW11/K ( Colly) ( D­94) and the accused Rajesh Kapoor   admitted the opening of the said account by him.

139.   PW11 Sh. Shyam Arora  stated that he had rented out the property no. 5063, Gali No. 1, Sant Nagar, Karol Bagh, New Delhi  to accused Rajesh Kapoor  on 17.02.2009. PW11 was shown the photocopy of self attested electricity bill submitted by accused Ashok Kumar  to Dena Bank, Rohini along with account opening form Ex.PW11/H ( Colly) and   PW11 stated that original of the CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.130 of 336 ­: 131 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

said electricity bill was given by him  to accused Rajesh Kumar for installation of telephone connection. PW11 Sh. Shyam Arora was also shown   the self attested   photocopy of rent agreement dated 30.03.2009 submitted by   accused Ashok Kumar to Dena Bank, Rohini and PW11 Shyam Arora  stated that the same does not bear impression of his signatures   and   also does not bear the correct name of his father. Accused Ashok Kumar did not prefer to put any question to PW11 in the cross examination. 

140.  It  is   to  be  noted  that  in  the    account  opening  form Ex.PW11/H   (   Colly),   accused     Ashok   Kumar   has   represented himself as son of Sh. Rur Singh.  As per allegations of prosecution, search was conducted at the residence of Ashok Kumar (A4)   by CBI  on 05.11.2009  in presence of PW34 Sh. Roshan Lal Lamba vide search list  Ex.PW34/A and along with the said  search  list, there   is   copy   of   ration   card  of   accused   Ashok   Kumar   in   which name of his father is mentioned as Sh. Bashehwar Dass. Accused Ashok Kumar ( A4) did not prefer to put any question to PW34 Sh. Roshan Lal Lamba and his testimony has remained unrebutted.  In the bail bond   which was furnished by accused Ashok Kumar on 11.02.2010 , he has stated name of his father as Beshesar Dass. In the   statement   recorded   under   Section   313   (5)   Cr.P.C.   on 26.02.2016 and in the statement recorded under Section 313 (1) (a) CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.131 of 336 ­: 132 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

on 25.11.2016, accused  Ashok  Kumar  (  A4)  stated name of  his father as Beshesar  Dass.  

141.  The   prosecution     has   proved   that     accused   Ashok Kumar   had   opened   current   account   no.   122911023785     as proprietor of M/s K.G. Fabric representing  himself to be son of Sh. Rur Singh and the said account was opened on the introduction of accused Rajesh Kapoor as proprietor of M/s Bhaskar Industries and in the account opening form of  current account no.  122911023785 of   M/s   K.G.   Fabric   ExPW   11/H   (   Colly)   ,   the   accused   Ashok Kumar ( A4) had given the address    of   5063, Gali No.1, Sant Nagar, Karol Bagh, Delhi   which premises were taken on rent by accused Rajesh Kapoor  from PW11 Shyam Kapoor.

142.  The allegations of the prosecution are that an amount of Rs. 73,60,879/­ fraudulently obtained in the account of M/s India Fab from Indian Bank, Shalimar Bagh Branch was credited in the account of M/s K.G. Fabric, Dena Bank and was siphoned off by accused Rajesh Kapoor ( A1) in conspiracy with   accused Ashok Kumar (A4).The prosecution  examined PW52 Sh. Kishore Kumar who   proved   the   cheque   no.   920410   dated   15.07.2009   for   Rs. 31,50,879/­   Ex.PW52/C(D­12),   cheque   no.   920414   dated 17.07.2009   for   Rs.   15,10,050/­   Ex.PW52/I(D­16),   cheque   no.

CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.132 of 336 ­: 133 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

920417 dated 20.07.2009 for Rs. 2,00,025/­ Ex.PW52/M (D­18), cheque   no.   920419   dated   21.07.2009   for   Rs.   10,00,000/­ Ex.PW52/Q(D­20)   and   cheque   no.   920626   dated   11.08.2009   for Rs. 15,00,050/­ Ex.PW52/W(D­23), all     drawn on   Indian Bank, Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi, issued by accused Rajesh Kapoor as proprietor of M/s India Fab for transfer of amounts in favour of M/s K G Fabric vide  RTGS credit vouchers Ex.PW52/D, Ex.PW52/J, Ex.PW52/N,   Ex.PW52/R   and   Ex.PW52/X.     Accused   Rajesh Kapoor (A1)   and   Ashok Kumar (A4) did not prefer to put any question to PW52 in the cross examination.   

143.  In the statement    recorded under  Section 313(1)  (a) Cr.P.C.   on   25.11.2016,   questions   were   put   to   accused     Rajesh Kapoor   on   the   chques   Ex.PW52/C(D­12),   Ex.PW52/I(D­16), Ex.PW52/M (D­18), Ex.PW52/Q(D­20) and Ex.PW52/W(D­23) to which   accused     Rajesh   Kapoor   answered   by   stating   that   his signatures were obtained on blank cheuqes and he does not know how the said cheques were used   by accused Rajiv Gupta, Ashok Jain and Sandeep Jain. In the statement   recorded under Section 313(1) (a) Cr.P.C. on 25.11.2016, questions were put to accused Rajesh   Kapoor   on   the   RTGS   credit   vouchers   Ex.PW52/D, Ex.PW52/J,   Ex.PW52/N,   Ex.PW52/R,   Ex.PW52/X   to   which accused   Rajesh   Kapoor   answered   by   stating   that     he   has   no CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.133 of 336 ­: 134 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

knowledge about the same.  

144.  In the statement    recorded under  Section 313(1)  (a) Cr.P.C.   on   25.11.2016,   questions   were   put   to   accused   Ashok Kumar (A4) on the chques Ex.PW52/C(D­12), Ex.PW52/I(D­16), Ex.PW52/M (D­18), Ex.PW52/Q(D­20) and Ex.PW52/W(D­23) to which accused  Ashok Kumar  answered by stating that he has no knowledge   about   the   transactions     and   he   also   stated   that   the account  of M/s K.G. Fabric was opened by him on the asking of accused   Rajesh   Kapoor   and   the   said   account   was   operated   by accused   Rajesh   Kapoor   and   accused   Rajesh   Kapoor   had   taken blank signed cheques of the said account from him   and accused Rajesh Kapoor used to fill the contents in the said cheques and he (Accused   Ashok   Kumar   )     is   not   aware   about   the   transactions which took place in the said current account of  M/s K.G. Fabric. Hence in the statements recorded under Section 313 (1) (a) Cr.P.C., accused   Rajesh   Kapoor   (A1)   has   pleaded   that     the   cheques Ex.PW52/C(D­12),   Ex.PW52/I(D­16),   Ex.PW52/M   (D­18), Ex.PW52/Q(D­20)   and   Ex.PW52/W(D­23)   vide   which   amounts were transferred from the account of M/s India Fab in Shalimar Bagh Branch to  the account of M/s  K.G. Fabric, Dena Bank were got singed in blank from him by accused Rajiv Gupta , Ashok Jain and Sandeep Jain and accused Ashok Kumar(A4) has pleaded that CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.134 of 336 ­: 135 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

the transactions in the account of M/s K.G. Fabric   at Dena Bank were being done by accused Rajesh Kapoor ( A1).    

145.  In order to prove the transfer of  amounts of cheques Ex.PW52/C(D­12),   Ex.PW52/I(D­16),   Ex.PW52/M   (D­18), Ex.PW52/Q(D­20)   and   Ex.PW52/W(D­23)   from   the   account   of M/s   India   Fab   in   Indian   Bank,   Shalimar   Bagh   Branch   to   the account of M/s K. G. Fabric, the prosecution  examined PW17 Sh. Amarjit   Singh   Oberoi   who   proved   the   statement   of   account   of current account no. 122911023785 of  M/s K.G. Fabric, Dena Bank Ex.PW17/B (D­84) . As per Statement of account Ex.PW17/B ( D­

84),     the   amounts   of   cheques   Ex.PW52/C(D­12),   Ex.PW52/I(D­

16), Ex.PW52/M (D­18), Ex.PW52/Q(D­20) and Ex.PW52/W(D­

23)   vide   RTGS   credit   vouchers   Ex.PW52/D,   Ex.PW52/J, Ex.PW52/N,   Ex.PW52/R   and   Ex.PW52/X   were   received   in   the current  account of current account no. 122911023785 of  M/s K.G. Fabric, Dena Bank, Pitampura, Delhi.   The Statement of Account of   account   of   M/s   K.   G.   Fabrics   Ex.PW17/B   (D84)   shows   that huge amounts  of cash were withdrawn from the said account by accused Ashok Kumar Proprietor of M/s. K. G.Fabric and sums of Rs.6.5 lacs, Rs.5,68,000/­ and Rs.4.5 lacs were transferred to M/s Vipul on 11.08.2009, 12.08.2009 and 13.08.2009 respectively.

CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.135 of 336 ­: 136 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

146.  In the statement recorded under Section 313 (1) (a) Cr.P.C. on 25.11.2016, accused   Ashok Kumar  was  put question on the statement of account Ex.PW17/B to which he answered by stating that he has not done any transactions  in the current account of M/s K.G. Fabric and the said account was being operated by Rajesh Kapoor.  Accused Rajesh Kapoor (A1) and Ashok Kumar ( A4) have neither pleaded nor proved  that there were any genuine business   transactions   between   M/s   India   Fab   and   M/s   K.G. Fabric and on that account the amounts were transferred from the account of  M/s India Fab in  Indian Bank, Shalimar Bagh Branch to   account   of     M/s   K.G.   Fabric   in   Dena   Bank   by   cheques Ex.PW52/C(D­12),   Ex.PW52/I(D­16),   Ex.PW52/M   (D­18), Ex.PW52/Q(D­20)   and   Ex.PW52/W(D­23)   vide   RTGS   credit vouchers   Ex.PW52/D,   Ex.PW52/J,   Ex.PW52/N,   Ex.PW52/R   and Ex.PW52/X.   The   prosecution   has   proved   that  there   were   no genuine business transactions between M/s India Fab and M/s K.G. Fabric   and the amounts which were transferred from the account of M/s India Fab in  Indian Bank, Shalimar Bagh Branch to account of  M/s K.G. Fabric in Dena Bank were siphoned off for the purpose other than for which  the said amount was sanctioned by Indian Bank, Shalimar Bagh Branch.  

CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.136 of 336 ­: 137 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

    

Role of accused Sufiyan Ashraf Rajwani(A8)

147.  The allegations of prosecution are that on 04.04.2007 accused Sufiyan Ashraf Rawani(A8) as Proprietor of M/s United Syntex   opened   Current   Account   No.7267000300204301   with Karnataka   Bank,   Surat   and   in   the   said   account     sums   of Rs.4,50,000/­ and Rs.10 lacs were credited through RTGS from the account of M/s India Fab on 16.07.2009 and 03.08.2009 and out of the   funds   obtained   from   the   account   of   M/s   India   Fab,   accused Sufiyan(A8) transferred through RTGS an amount of Rs.9.5 lacs to the   account   of   M/s   Royal   Impex   with   Union   Bank   of   India, Railway Road, Gurgaon of which accused Ramesh Wadhera (A5) is the Proprietor, who utilized the said funds for the purchase of BMW car and as regards the amount of Rs.5 lacs that was held back in the account of M/s United Syntex, accused Sufiyan Ashraf Rajwani(A8)   could   not   produce   any   evidence   of   its   bonafide utilization.  

148.  The prosecution examined PW24 Shri Rajesh G. from Karnataka   Bank,   who   stated   that   Account   Opening   Form   of Karnataka Bank, Surat pertaining to M/s United Syntex of which accused   Sufiyan   Ashraf   Rajwani   is   the   Propreitor,   is   Ex. PW24/B(D117A)   and   the   same   is   signed   by   accused   Sufiyan CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.137 of 336 ­: 138 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

Ashraf   Rajwani(A8)   at   point   A   on   each   page   and   same   is   also signed by him at point C and the specimen signature card is Ex. PW24/C and the certified copy of the Statement of Account is  Ex. PW24/F(D117B).     PW24   Shri   Ramesh   G.   identified   accused Sufiyan Ashraf Rawani (A8) in the court.  PW24 Shri Ramesh G. stated   that   Cheque   Nos.980060   dated   16.07.2009   for   Rs.4   lacs drawn   in   favour   of   self   (D119),   980061   dated   18.07.2009   for Rs.30,000/­ drawn in favour of M/s Apple Fabrics(D120), cheque No.980062 dated 22.07.2009 for Rs.20,000/­  drawn in favour of self   (D121),   cheque   No.980065   dated   03.08.2009   for   Rs.7   lacs drawn   in   favour   of   yourself   (D122),   cheque   No.980064   dated 01.08.2009   for   Rs.83,000/­   drawn   in   favour   of   Sufiyan   Ashraf Rajwani(D123),   cheque   No.980066   dated   03.08.2009   for Rs.2,15,000/­   drawn   in   favour   of   self   (D124)   all   drawn   on Karnataka   Bank   Ltd.,   Surat,   Ex.PW24/I(colly)   were   issued   by accused Sufiyan Ashraf Rajwani, Proprietor of M/s United Syntex. PW24 further stated that quick Money   Quick Application Form submitted by M/s United Syntex through Proprietor Sufiyan Ashraf Rajwani for RTGS is Ex. PW24/J.   As per Statement of Account Ex. PW 24/F a sum of Rs.2.5 lacs was transferred on 24.07.2009 from the account of M/s United Syntex to the account of M/s Royal Impex.   As per Statement of Account Ex. PW 24/F and Money Quick Application Form   a sum of Rs.7 lacs was transferred on CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.138 of 336 ­: 139 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

03.08.2009 from the account of M/s United Syntex to the account of M/s Royal Impex, Union Bank of India, Gurgaon.  

149. In   the   Statement   under   section   313(1)(a)   Cr.   PC recorded on 28.11.2016, accused Sufiyan Ashraf Rajwani was put question on the Account Opening Form Ex. PW24/B (D117A) to which he answered by stating that the said Account Opening Form pertains to account of M/s United Syntex of which he is Proprietor and same bears his signatures at point A and his photograph.  In the Statement under section 313(1)(a) Cr.PC recorded on 28.11.2016, accused Sufiyan Ashraf Rajwani was put question on the Statement of Account Ex. PW24/F (D117B) to which he answered by stating that it is correct. In the Statement under section 313(1)(a) Cr.PC recorded on 28.11.2016, accused Sufiyan Ashraf Rajwani was put question   on   the   issuance   of   six   cheques   (D119   to   D124)   Ex. PW24/I (colly) by him to which he answered by stating that it is correct and the said cheques were issued in the course of normal business transactions. 

150.    In  the  written  statement,   Ex.C7   filed  on  26.02.2016 accused   Sufiyan   (A8)   has   stated   that   accused   Ramesh   Kumar Wadhera (A5) and Sufiyan Ashraf Rajwani (A8) have the business dealings since the year 2002   and accused Rajesh Kapoor of M/s CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.139 of 336 ­: 140 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

India Fab contacted accused  Sufiyan Ashraf  Rajwani(A8)  in the year 2009 with reference of accused Ramesh Wadhera (A5) and asked   for   textile  material   and  since   accused   Rajesh   Kapoor   had approached through the reference of accused Ramesh Wadhera(A5) hence, accused Sufiyan Ashraf Rajwani (A8) agreed to supply the textile material to accused Rajesh Kapoor(A1) and Rajesh Kapoor transferred an amount of Rs.4.5 lacs on 16.7.2009 in the account of M/s United Syntex of which accused Sufiyan Ashraf Rajwani is the proprietor and against the said amount, goods worth of Rs.2 lacs were supplied and before the remaining supplies could be made the accused Rajesh Kapoor cancelled the remaining supply order and asked to refund the remaining amount of Rs.2.5 lacs in the account of   M/s   Royal   Impex   of   accused   Ramesh   Wadhera(A5)   and accordingly, the amount of  Rs.2.5  lacs  was transferred from the account of M/s United Syntex to the account of M/s Royal Impex on 24.07.2009.  

151.   It is further stated in the written statement, Ex.C7 filed on 26.02.2016 by accused Sufiyan Ashraf Rajwani(A8) that about one   day   prior   to   03.08.2009,   accused   Rajesh   Kapoor(A1)   again called accused Sufiyan Ashraf Rajwani (A8) and asked to supply textile   material   worth   Rs.3   lacs   and   accused   Sufiyan   Ashraf Rajwani   (A8)   asked   for   advance   payment   and   accused   Rajesh CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.140 of 336 ­: 141 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

Kapoor (A1) transferred an amount of Rs.10 lacs in the account of M/s United Syntex and within one hour of transferring of the said amount,   accused   Rajesh   Kapoor   (A1)   called   accused   Sufiyan Ashraf Rajwani (A8) and told that the said amount of Rs.10 lacs has been accidently transferred and asked him to transfer back the amount of Rs.7 lacs in the account of accused Rajesh Kapoor(A1) to   which   accused   Sufiyan   Ashraf   Rajwani   agreed   and   accused Sufiyan   Ashraf   Rajwani   asked   accused   Rajesh   Kapoor(A1)   to provide   the   details   of   his   bank   account   and   accused   Rajesh Kapoor(A1) informed accused Sufiyan Ashraf Rajwani (A8) after about half an hour that he is away from his   office and he is not having   the   bank   documents   with   him   and   accused   Rajesh Kapoor(A1) told accused Sufiyan Ashraf Rajwani  (A8) to transfer Rs.7   lacs   in   the   account   of   M/s   Royal   Impex   as   he   has   to   pay substantial   amount   to   accused   Ramesh   Wadhera(A5)   and   after getting confirmation from accused Ramesh Wadhera(A5) a sum of Rs.7 lacs was transferred by accused Sufiyan Ashraf Rajwani (A8) to the account of M/s Royal Impex of accused Ramesh Wadhera and supplies were made by accused Sufiyan Ashraf Rajwani (A8) to accused Rajesh Kapoor(A1) for the balance amount of Rs.3 lacs.

152. The   contention   of   the   Ld.   Counsel   for   the   accused Sufiyan   Ashraf   Rajwani   (A8)   is   that   accused   Sufiyan   Ashraf CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.141 of 336 ­: 142 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

Rajwani (A8) is a genuine businessman who has been conducted his business honestly and the amount of Rs.4.5 lacs and Rs.10 lacs which were received from M/s India Fab were on account of the business transactions with M/s India Fab and the details of the said transactions  have been explained by the accused Sufiyan Ashraf Rajwani (A8)  in his written statement Ex.C7 filed on 26.02.2016. It is further contended by Ld. Counsel for accused Sufiyan Ashraf Rajwani   (A8)   that   role   attributed   to   accused   Sufiyan   Ashraf Rajwani (A8) is the same as that of Shri Viteysh Koser, Shri Ved Prakash Sachdeva,   Shri Dinesh Khatri and Shri Kamlesh Kumar Srivastava but the said persons   have   been examined by CBI   as prosecution witnesses while Sufiyan Ashraf Rajwani (A8) has been impleaded as an accused and IO has acted in malafide manner by exercising  his discretion in arbitrary manner.

153.  Accused   Sufiyan   Ashraf   Rajwani(A8)   examined himself under section 315 Cr.PC as DW2.  Accused Sufiyan Ashraf Rajwani(A8)/DW2   stated   that   he   is   running   business   under   the name   and   style   of   M/s   Unitex   Syntex   which   business   was   in existence since the year 1988 and was taken over by him in the year 2001.     In   the   cross­examination   accused   Sufiyan   Ashraf Rajwani(A8)/DW2  stated that he had account in Karnataka Bank, Surat and   in the said account he had received payments through CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.142 of 336 ­: 143 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

RTGS from the account of M/s India Fab and he has transferred money through RTGS from his account in Karnataka Bank to the account of M/s Royal Impex in Union Bank of India, Gurgoan.  

154.  In the   written statement Ex.C7 filed on   26.02.2016, accused   Sufiyan   Ashraf   Rajwani   (   A8)   has   admitted   having received the sum of Rs. 4.5 lacs  on 16.07.2009 and a sum of Rs. 10 lacs on 03.08.2009 in the account of M/s United Syntex of which he is the proprietor from the account of M/s India Fab and  out of the said amount, transferring amount of Rs. 2.5 lacs on 24.07.2009 and Rs. 7 lacs on 03.08.2009  to the  account of M/s Royal Impex of   accused Ramesh Wadhera(A5).   However the plea which has been raised by accused Sufiyan Ashraf Rajwani (A8) is that the other   persons   namely   Shri   Viteysh   Koser,   Shri   Ved   Prakash Sachdeva   ,   Shri   Dinesh   Khatri   and     Shri   Kamlesh   Kumar Srivastava   were     similarly   situated     as   accused   Sufiyan   Ashraf Rajwani (A8) and  they had also received money from the account of M/s  India Fab  but  they were not impleaded as accused persons while accused Sufiyan Ashraf Rajwani (A8) has been impleaded as accused .  

155.  The contention of Ld. Sr. PP for CBI   is that   in the course of investigation, the investigations were also conducted on CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.143 of 336 ­: 144 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

the transactions   of   Viteysh Koser of M/s Eskor Solutions, Ved Prakash Sachdeva of M/s Garima Enterprises, Dinesh Khatri   of M/s of Khatri Traders and  Kamlesh Kumar Srivastava of  M/s K. Company   and   the prosecution   did not find any criminality on their part which could justify their prosecution as accused persons and   accordingly   they   were   examined   by   prosecution   as   PW8, PW25, PW46 and PW50.  Ld. Sr. PP for CBI has further contended that previously also   accused Sufiyan Ashraf Rajwani ( A8) had filed an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. dated 03.12.2015 for summoning Dinesh  Khatri, Ved  Prakash  Sachdeva   and  Viteysh Koser   as accused persons  and the said application was dismissed vide order dated 23.09.2016 and Ramesh Wadhera ( A5) had also filed an application  under Section 319 Cr.P.C. dated  03.12.2015 for summoning Kamlesh Kumar Srivastava as accused  and the said application was also dismissed vide order dated 23.09.2016.   Ld. Sr.   PP   for   CBI   has     further   contended   that     the   orders   dated 23.09.2016 passed on the applications under Section 319 Cr.P.C dated 03.12.2015  of  accused Ramesh Wadhera (A5) and accused Sufiyan Ashraf Rajwani ( A8) have attained  finality as they were not   challenged   by   accused   Ramesh   Wadhera   (A5)   and   accused Sufiyan Ashraf Rajwani ( A8)  . Ld. Sr. PP for  CBI  has further contended that    raising of    such  arguments    that   other  persons were also involved in the offence and  they were not prosecuted by CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.144 of 336 ­: 145 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

CBI are of no help  to accused Sufiyan Ashraf Rajwani (A8) as the same will not mitigate  the offence committed by accused Sufiyan Ashraf Rajwani ( A8). 

156.  Ld. Counsel for  accused Sufiyan Ashraf Rajwani (A8) has   contended   that   orders     dated   23.09.2016   passed   on   the applications   under   Section   319   Cr.P.C.   dated   03.12.2015     of accused   Ramesh   Wadhera   (A5)   and   accused   Sufiyan   Ashraf Rajwani ( A8)   were not challenged as accused Ramesh Wadhera (A5)   and   accused   Sufiyan   Ashraf   Rajwani   (   A8)     were   not aggrieved by the said orders.   However,   the argument regarding letting off Shri Viteysh Koser, Shri Ved Prakash Sachdeva ,  Shri Dinesh Khatri and  Shri Kamlesh Kumar Srivastava has been raised as the accused Sufiyan Ashraf Rajwani ( A8) feels that the action of IO  in  not  impleading  them  as   accused  persons     and  impleading Sufiyan   Ashraf   Rajwani   (   A8)   as   accused   is   unjustified   and arbitrary.  

157.  Accused     Sufiyan   Ashraf   Rajwani   (   A8)   has   raised plea   that Shri Viteysh Koser, Shri Ved Prakash Sachdeva ,  Shri Dinesh Khatri and   Shri Kamlesh Kumar Srivastava were placed similarly   as   that   of   him   but   they   have   not   been   impleaded   as accused  persons but he has been impleaded as accused. It is to be CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.145 of 336 ­: 146 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

noted  that  act of every person accused of an offence  has to  be examined independently  on the merits of the allegations  as proved against him. 

158.    The  prosecution has proved  that the accused Sufiyan Ashraf Rajwani ( A8) had received the sum of Rs. 4.5 lacs   on 16.07.2009 and a sum of Rs. 10 lacs on 03.08.2009 in the account of   M/s   United   Syntex   of   which   he   is   the   proprietor   from   the account   of   M/s   India   Fab   and     out   of   the   said   amount,   he transferred  amount of Rs. 2.5 lacs on 24.07.2009  and Rs. 7 lacs on 03.08.2009     to   the     account   of   M/s   Royal   Impex   of       accused Ramesh Wadhera( A5). 

159.  The plea which has been raised by accused Sufiyan Ashraf Rajwani ( A8) is that the said sums of Rs. 2.5 lacs and 7 lacs were transferred to the account of M/s Royal Impex on the asking of accused  Rajesh Kumar and on  confirmation of accused Ramesh Wadhera( A5) and   the remaining amount which was retained by him   was   for   genuine   business   transactions   which   took   place between him    and M/s  India Fab.   The  accused  Sufiyan Ashraf Rajwani   (   A8)   has     also   raised   plea   that   he   was   in   business relationship with   accused Ramesh Wadhera ( A5) since the year 2002   and   he   had   supplied   goods   to   him   many   times   .     Hence CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.146 of 336 ­: 147 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

accused Sufiyan Ashraf Rajwani ( A8)   has raised pleas that the amount of  Rs. 2 lacs  which was retained by him out of the amount of Rs. 4.5 lacs which was received from the account of M/s India Fab   on     16.07.2009     and   the   amount   of   Rs.   3   lacs   which   was retained by him out of the amount of Rs. 10 lacs received from the account   of   M/s   India   Fab   on   03.08.2009   were   on   account   of genuine business transactions . Accused Sufiyan Ashraf Rajwani ( A8) examined himself as DW2 and in order to prove that he is carrying on business in the name of United Syntex filed  on record copies of electricity bills , insurance premium receipt, foreign bills transaction advise  , bill of entry , letter of Indus Ind Bank , bill of lading   ,   copy   of   receipt   from   Surat   Municipality.   But     accused Sufiyan Ashraf Rajwani ( A8) /DW2 did not file any document  to prove that he had supplied  any goods to M/s India Fab against the money   which was retained by him from the amounts   received from the account of  M/s India Fab on 16.07.2009 and 03.08.2009. Accused Sufiyan Ashraf Rajwani ( A8)  has not proved any books of accounts maintained by him in his regular course of business or any other document in order to prove that  he had made supplies to M/s India Fab in respect of the payments received from  M/s India Fab and that  there were genuine business transactions between M/s United Syntex of which he is the proprietor and M/s India Fab. Accused Sufiyan Ashraf  Rajwani ( A8) has also not proved the CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.147 of 336 ­: 148 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

source of purchasing goods which were allegedly supplied by him to M/s India Fab against the payments received from M/s India Fab on 16.07.2009 and 03.08.2009 and that he had made any payments to the supplier of the said goods.  Accused Sufiyan Ashraf Rajwani (   A8)   has   failed   to   prove   his   defence   that   there   were   genuine business transactions between M/s United Syntex of which he is the proprietor   and   M/s   India   Fab.   Accused   Sufiyan   Ashraf Rajwani(A8)  has  also not adduced any evidence to prove that he was in business relationship with accused Ramesh Wadhera since the year 2002 as pleaded by him.  

160.  Although accused Sufiyan Ashraf Rajwani ( A8) has pleaded that there were genuine business transactions between M/s United Syntex of which he is a proprietor and M/s India Fab and on account of business transactions, he had received money from M/s India Fab but in the statement  under Section 313 (1) ( a)  Cr.P.C. recorded on 25.11.2016,   accused Rajesh Kapoor ( A1)   was put question on the cheque nos. 920406 dated 16.07.2009 Ex.PW52/G ( D­15)     and   920424   dated   03.08.2009     Ex.PW52/U   (   D­22)   by which  sum   of   Rs.   4.5  lacs   and  Rs.   10  lacs   were   transferred   by RTGS from the account of  M/s India Fab to M/s United Syntex to which   accused   Rajesh   Kapoor   answered   by   stating   that   his signatures were obtained on blank cheques and he does not  know CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.148 of 336 ­: 149 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

how   they   were   used   by   accused   Rajiv   Gupta,   Ashok   Jain   and Sandeep Jain.  The answer to the question on cheques Ex.PW52/G (D­15) and Ex.PW52/U ( D­22) by accused Rajesh Kapoor in his statement under Section 313 (1) (a) also shows that there were no business transactions  between M/s India Fab and M/s United Syntex  and the amounts which were transferred from the account of  M/s India Fab to the account of M/s United Syntex were only for the purposes of siphoning off the amount which was received in the account of M/s India Fab from  Indian Bank, Shalimar Bagh Branch. 

Role of accused Ramesh Kumar Wadhera(A5)

161.    The   contention   of   Ld.   Sr.   PP   for   the   CBI   is   that Accused Ramesh Wadhera ( A5)  was  instrumental  in taking the premises  at Mangolpuri on rent  for  M/s India Fab and was also instrumental in transfer of   funds from the accounts of M/s India Fab to M/s Khatri Traders, M/s Eskor Solutions , M/s K. Company, M/s   Garima   Enterpries,   M/s   Unted   Syntex   etc   .   It   is   further contended   by Ld. Sr. PP for CBI that in pursuance of criminal conspiracy, accused Ramesh Wadhera( A5) had opened  account of M/s   Royal   Impex     as   proprietor   with   United   Bank   of   India, Gurgaon   and   for   opening   of   said   account   ,   accused   Ramesh CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.149 of 336 ­: 150 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

Wadhera misrepresented   his parentage and he received Rs. 24.5 lacs  by RTGS from the account of  M/s United Syntex, Surat and M/s   K.   Company   of   Mumbai   out   of   the   amount   which   was transferred to   them   from the account of M/s India Fab   and the amount   so   received   by   accused   Ramesh   Wadhera   (A5)     was misused by him for purchasing a BMW car. 

162.  The contention of Ld. Counsel for   accused Ramesh Wadhera (A5)  is that  accused Rajesh Kapoor ( A1) is resident of native village of  accused Ramesh Wadhera ( A5)  and in the year 2009 accused Rajesh Kapoor   (A1) approached accused Ramesh Wadhera (A5) and sought help in the business as he wanted to enter into export business and accused Rajesh Kapoor   also asked for consignment of garments from   accused Ramesh Wadhera ( A5) and accused Ramesh Wadhera ( A5)  supplied garments worth Rs. 15 lacs    to accused  Rajesh  Kapoor ( A1) and   in order  to help accused   Rajesh   Kapoor   (A1),     accused   Ramesh   Wadhera   (A5) introduced accused Rajesh Kapoor (A1) to Sh. Vitaysh Kosar of Eskor   Solutions,Sh.   Ved   Prakash   Sachdeva   of   M/s   Garima Enterprises, Sufiyan Ashraf Rajwani ( A8) of M/s United Syntex and Kamlesh Kumar of M/s K. Company.  It is further contended by Ld. Counsel for A5 that  accused Ramesh Wadhera (A5) had no role   in   the   transactions   between   Rajesh   Kapoor   (   A1)   and     Sh.

CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.150 of 336 ­: 151 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

Vitaysh Kosar of Eskor Solutions, Sh. Ved Prakash Sachdeva of M/s   Garima   Enterprises,   Sufiyan   Ashraf   Rajwani   (   A8)   of   M/s United   Syntex     and   Kamlesh   Kumar   of   M/s   K.   Company.   Ld. Counsel   for   A5   has   contended   that   Dinesh   Khatri   had   never supplied any material to accused Ramesh Wadhera ( A5) and there was independent business relations between  Rajesh Kapoor ( A1) and   Kamlesh   Kumar   of   K.   Company.     Ld.   Counsel   for   A5   has contended that   accused Ramesh Wadhera ( A5) had long business relations with   accused Sufiyan Ashraf Rajwani ( A8) and   after some time of introducing accused Rajesh Kapoor ( A1) to  accused Sufiyan   Ashraf   Rajwani   (   A8),   he   (   A5)   was     told   by     Rajesh Kapoor ( A1)  that some extra payments have been made by him to Sufiyan Ashraf Rajwani ( A8) and he   is asking   Sufiyan Ashraf Rajwani ( A8) to return the said extra amount to him ( A5) which shall   be   adjusted     towards   the   outstanding   liability   of   Rajesh Kapoor ( A1) to  Ramesh Wadhera ( A5) and  accordingly a sum of Rs. 9.5 lacs was received by  accused Ramesh Wadhera ( A5) from accused Sufiyan Ashraf Rajwani(A8). 

163. Ld.   Counsel   for   accused   Ramesh   Wadhera(A5)   has further   contended   that   the   evidence   adduced   by   the   prosecution shows that prosecution has not proved that there was  direct transfer of money from the account of M/s India Fab to  M/s Royal Impex CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.151 of 336 ­: 152 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

of which   Ramesh Wadhera (A5) is proprietor.   Ld. Counsel for accused   Ramesh   Wadhera   (A5)   has   contended   that   for   basing conviction on the circumstantial evidence , the prosecution has to prove that individual circumstances point to the guilt of the accused and the entire circumstances so proved   should form a chain   so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that crime was committed by the accused and none­else. It is further contended on behalf   of   accused   Ramesh   Wadhera   (   A5)   that     circumstantial evidence should not only be incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis     than     the   guilt   of   the   accused   but   also   should   be inconsistent with his innocence.   

164.   Ld. Counsel for accused Ramesh Wadhera ( A5) has relied on decisions in Vithal Tukaram More and others  v. State of   Maharashtra,  AIR   2002   Supreme   Court   2715,  State   of Rajasthan   v.   Rajaram,   AIR   2003   Supreme   Court     3601, Majendran Langeswaran v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr., AIR 2013 Supreme Court 2790 and Ramreddy Rajesh Khanna Reddy v. State of A.P., (2006) 10 Supreme Court Cases 172.  

165.   In   Vithal Tukaram More and others   v.  State of Maharashtra, AIR 2002 Supreme Court 2715, Hon'ble Supreme CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.152 of 336 ­: 153 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

Court has been pleased to hold:

12.   In the case of State of U.P. v. Dr. Ravindra Prakash Mittal, (AIR 1992 SC 2045), this Court has   held   that   the   essential   ingredients   to   prove guilt   of   an   accused   by   circumstantial   evidence are:   (a)   the   circumstances   from   which   the conclusion is drawn should be  fully  proved,  (b) the circumstances should be conclusive in nature;

(c)   all   the   facts   so   established   should   be consistent   only   with   the   hypothesis   of   guilt   and inconsistent with innocence, (d) the circumstances should   to   a   moral   certainty,   exclude   the possibility  of guilt of any person other than the accused.

166.   In State of Rajasthan v. Rajaram, AIR 2003 Supreme Court    3601, Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold : 

16.   A   reference   may   be   made   to   a   later decision in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1984 SC 1622). Therein, while dealing with circumstantial evidence.  It has been held   that   onus   was   on   the   prosecution   to   prove that   the   chain   is   complete   and   the   infirmity   or CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.153 of 336 ­: 154 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

lacuna in prosecution   cannot be cured by false defence or plea. The conditions precedent in the words   of   this   Court,   before   conviction   could   be based on circumstantial   evidence, must be fully established. They are: 

(1)  the circumstances from which  the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.

The circumstances concerned must or should and not may be established: 

(2)   the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypotheses except   that the accused is guilty. 

(3)   the circumstances   should be of a conclusive nature and tendency: 

(4)  they should  exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved ; and  (5)  there must be a chain of evidence so complete as   not   to   leave   any   reasonable   ground   for   the conclusion   consistent   with   the   innocence   of   the accused   and   must   show   that   in   all   human probability  the  act must  have  been  down by  the accused. 

CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.154 of 336 ­: 155 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

167. In Majendran Langeswaran v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr., AIR 2013 Supreme Court 2790, Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold :  

20. Last but not least, in the case of Brajendrasingh v.

State of M.P., ( 2012) 4 SCC 289: (AIR 2012 SC 1552 :

2012 AIR SCW 1865),   this Court   while reiterating the above principles further added that :

"28. Furthermore, the rule which needs to be observed by the court while dealing with the cases of circumstantial evidence is that the best evidence must be adduced  which the nature of the   case   admits.   The   circumstances   have   to   be   examined cumulatively. The court has to examine the complete chain of events and then see whether all the material facts sought to be established  by the prosecution to  bring home the guilt of the accused, have been proved   beyond reasonable doubt. It has to be kept in mind that all these principles are based  upon one basic canon of our criminal jurisprudence that the accused is innocent till proven guilty and that the accused is entitled to a just and fair trial.   ( Ref. Dhananjoy Chatterjee v. State of W.B., (1994) 2 SCC 220 : ( 1995 AIR SCW 510);  Shivu v. High Court of Karnataka, ( 2007) 4 SCC 713 : ( AIR 2007 SC ( Supp) 556 : 2007 AIR SCW 1808) and Shivaji v. State of Maharashtra, ( 2008) 15 SCC 269 : ( AIR 2009 SC 56 : 2008 AIR SCW 6925)". 

168.       In   Ramreddy  Rajesh  Khanna Reddy  v. State   of CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.155 of 336 ­: 156 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

A.P.,   (2006)   10   Supreme   Court   Cases   172,  Hon'ble Supreme Court  has been pleased to hold : 

26.  It is now well settled  that with a view to base a conviction   on   circumstantial   evidence,   the   prosecution must establish all the pieces of incriminating circumstances by  reliable  and clinching evidence and the  circumstances so   proved   must     form   such  a   chain   of   events   as   would permit no conclusion other than one of guilt of the accused.

The circumstances cannot be on any other hypothesis. It is also well settled that suspicion, however grave it may be, cannot be a substitute for a proof and the courts shall take utmost precaution in finding an accused guilty only on the basis of the circumstantial evidence. 

169.   The plea which has been raised by accused Ramesh Wadhera (A5) is that he had supplied   material   worth Rs.15 lacs to accused   Rajesh Kapoor (A1) in the year 2009 and as accused   Rajesh   Kapoor   (A1)   had   made   extra   payments   to Sufiyan Ashraf Rajwani (A8), hence instead of receiving the said   extra   payments   in   the   account   of   M/s   India   Fab   ,   the accused     Rajesh   Kapoor   (A1)   told   Sufiyan   Ashraf   Rajwani ( A8) to transfer the said extra payments of Rs. 2.5 lacs and 7 lacs in the account of  M/s Royal Impex, Union  Bank of India, Gurgaon  of which  he is the proprietor. 

CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.156 of 336 ­: 157 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

170.  The   allegations   of   the   prosecution   are   that     in conspiracy of accused persons  sums of Rs. 4.5 lacs and Rs. 10 lacs   respectively   were   transferred   on   16.07.2009   and 03.08.2009 from the account of  M/s India Fab, Shalimar Bagh Branch to the account of  M/s United Syntex of which accused Sufiyan Ashraf Rajwani ( A8)  is the proprietor and accused Sufiyan   Ashraf   Rajwani   (   A8)   in   turn   transferred   sums   of Rs.2.5   lacs   and   Rs.7   lacs   respectively   on   24.07.2009   and 03.08.2009   to   the   account   of   M/s   Royal   Impex   of   which accused  Ramesh Wadhera ( A5) is proprietor.     

171.  As   per   Statement   of   Account   of   account   no.

7262000100204301 of M/s United Syntex, Karnatka Bank Ltd, Surat   Ex.PW24/F   (   D­117B)   ,   a   sum   of   Rs.   2.5   lacs   was transferred by RTGS to the account of M/s Royal Impex on 24.07.2009 and a sum of Rs. 7 lacs was transferred by RTGS to the account of Royal Impex on 03.08.2009.   In the statement under   Section   313   (1)   (a)   Cr.P.C.   recorded   on   26.11.2016   , accused Ramesh Wadhera ( A5) was put questions on cheques Ex.PW52/G and Ex.PW52/U by which   sums of Rs. 4.5 lacs and Rs.10 lacs were transferred from the account  of M/s India Fab to M/s United Syntex of  Sufiyan Ashraf Rajwani ( A8) to CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.157 of 336 ­: 158 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

which accused Ramesh Wadhera ( A5) answered by stating that he knows Sufiyan Ashraf Rajwani ( A8) prorprietor of   M/s United  Syntex  since   the   year   2003  due  to  business  dealings with him and since Rajesh Kapoor of M/s India Fab wanted some garments for export , hence he ( A5) referred him( A1) to Sufiyan Ashraf Rajwani ( A8) and thereafter  Rajesh  Kapoor ( A1) independently dealt with Sufiyan Ashraf Rajwani ( A8) and   he   (   A5)   had   no   interference   in   the   business   of   Rajesh Kapoor   (   A1).     In   the   statement   under   Section   313   (1)   (a) Cr.P.C.     recorded   on   26.11.2016,   accused   Ramesh   Wadhera (   A5)   further   stated   that     he   had   supported   accused   Rajesh Kapoor (A1)  in  his business by supplying goods on credit  and for the same , accused Rajesh Kapoor ( A1) was liable to pay substantial   amount   to   him   (   A5)     ,   hence   on   two   occasion accused   Rajesh   Kapoor   (A1)   partially   settled   his   dues   by arranging some refund   from M/s United Syntex of   Sufiyan Ashraf Rajwani ( A8) to the tune of  Rs. 9.5 lacs and  accused Rajesh Kapoor ( A1) still owes him ( A5) about Rs. 10 lacs for the goods supplied to him.

172.  In the written statement Ex. C­5 filed on  26.02.2016, accused   Ramesh     Wadhera   (   A5)   has   pleaded   that   he   had supplied   garments   worth   Rs.   15   lacs     to     accused   Rajesh CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.158 of 336 ­: 159 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

Kapoor ( A1) and  Rajesh Kapoor ( A1) told him that since he has made extra payment to Sufiyan  Ashraf Rajwani ( A8), he ( A1) is asking Sufiyan Ashraf Rajwani ( A8) to return  extra amount to him ( A5)  which shall be adjusted towards liability of  Rajesh Kapoor (A1) against the goods supplied to him ( A1) by Ramesh Wadhera ( A5) and accordingly  about Rs. 9.5 lacs were received by accused Ramesh   Wadhera ( A5) from the account   of   M/s     United   Syntex     on   which   Sufiyan   Ashraf Rajwani ( A8) is the proprietor.   In written statement Ex.C5 filed   on   26.02.2016   ,   accused   Ramesh   Wadhera   (   A5)   has stated that accused Rajesh Kapoor (A1) owed him Rs. 15 lacs on account of the goods supplied to him and a sum of Rs. 9.5 lacs was received by  him ( A5) from accused Rajesh Kapoor  ( A1)  by way of RTGS  from the account of M/s United Syntex due to excess payment made by Rajesh Kapoor ( A1) to  M/s United Syntex. But  in the statement under Section 313 (1) (a) Cr.P.C.   recorded   on   26.11.2016   ,   accused   Ramesh   Wadhera ( A5) has stated that after receipt of amount of Rs. 9.5 lacs from Rajesh Kapoor ( A1) through   the account of M/s United Syntex, accused Rajesh Kapoor ( A1) is still liable to pay a sum of Rs. 10 lacs. 

173.      Although     accused   Ramesh   Wadhera   (   A5)     has CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.159 of 336 ­: 160 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

pleaded   that     he   had   received     a   sum   of   Rs.   9.5   lacs   from Rajesh Kapoor ( A1) through the account of M/s United Syntex of   Sufiyan Ashraf Rajwani ( A8)   on account of   previous business   transaction   of   Rs.   15   lacs   which   had   taken   place between   him   (   A5)   and   accused   Rajesh   Kapoor   (   A1)     but accused Ramesh Wadhera ( A5) has not adduced any evidence to the   effect that he had supplied goods worth Rs.15 lacs   to accused Rajesh Kapoor ( A1)  and after receipt of sum of Rs. 9.5 lacs  through the account of  M/s United Syntex , accused Rajesh Kapoor is still liable to pay a sum of Rs. 10 lacs  to him.

174.  Accused Ramesh Wadhera ( A5) examined his son Sh.

Rahul  Wadhera    as DW3   and    DW3 stated  that    he is the Director   of   M/s   Featherline   Impex   Pvt.   Ltd     and     accused Ramesh   Wadhera   (A5)   is   working   as     Manager   with   M/s Featherline  and accused Ramesh Wadhera ( A5) is proprietor of M/s Global Overseas Inc.  and in the cross examination , Sh. Rahul  Wadhera ( DW3)  stated that he has heard the name of M/s Royal Impex which was company of his father accused Ramesh Wadhera ( A5) and he has no knowledge about the business transactions  of M/s Royal Impex.  As per testimony of   Sh.   Rahul   Wadhera   (   DW3),   accused   Ramesh   Wadhera (   A5)     is  running  the   business   in   the   name   of     M/s   Global CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.160 of 336 ­: 161 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

Overseas and M/s Royal Impex  and he is  working as Manager of   M/s   Global   Overseas   Inc.   but   accused   Ramesh   Wadhera ( A5) has not explained that   the goods   worth Rs., 15 lacs which he alleges to have supplied to M/s India Fab of Rajesh Kapoor ( A1)   , were supplied from which of his companies and  accused Ramesh Wadhera ( A5)  has also not proved the books of accounts and the account   details of his company in order to prove  that  he had supplied  goods worth Rs. 15 lacs to M/s India Fab and the source of procuring the said goods and also the dates and bills of supplying the said goods to M/s India Fab.   Accused   Ramesh   Kumar   Wadhera(A5)   has   also   not adduced   any   evidence   to   prove   that   he   was   in   business relationship with M/s United Syntex of accused Sufiyan Ashraf Rajwani(A8) since the year 2003 as pleaded by him.  

175.  Ld.   Sr.   PP   for   CBI   has   contended   that   a   sum   of Rs.21,20,000/­    was  transferred from M/s  India Fab through RTGS on 14.07.2009 in the account of  M/s K. Company  with Union   Bank   of   India,   Nerul   Branch   ,   Nerul   of   which     Sh. Kamlesh Kumar and Sh. Madan Kumar are the partners   and M/s  K. Company  effected  export of consignments on behalf of M/s India Fab against which duty draw back was received in the account of M/s India Fab maintained with Indian Overseas CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.161 of 336 ­: 162 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

Bank , Janpath , New  Delhi and the funds  to M/s K. Company were paid  at the instance of accused Ramesh Wadhera ( A5). It is further contended by Ld. Sr. PP for CBI that  a sum of Rs. 15 lacs   was received by accused   Ramesh Wadhera ( A5) from M/s K. Company   by way of RTGS in the   account of M/s Royal Impex , Union Bank of India, Gurgaon although there was no transaction   of the said amount of Rs.15 lacs between M/s K. Company and M/s Royal Impex and by way of  the said transaction,   the   amount   which   was   received   by   M/s   K. Company from the account of M/s India Fab was transferred to the account of  M/s  Royal Impex of which Ramesh Wadhera (A5)   is   the   proprietor   which   shows   that   accused   Ramesh Wadhera (A5)  is the beneficiary  of the credit facility granted to M/s India Fab by  Indian Bank, Shalimar Bagh Branch.        

176. Ld. Counsel for  accused Ramesh Wadhera ( A5) has contended that Ramesh Wadhera ( A5)  had business relations with M/s K. Company through Kamlesh Kumar and   accused Ramesh Wadhera ( A5) used to supply garments/fabric to M/s K.   Company   but   on   account   of   financial   disputes   ,   their relations   were     deteriorated   and   Kamlesh   Kumar   of   K. Company   did   not   pay   any   balance   of   Rs.   30   lacs   for   the supplies made to him by Ramesh Wadhera ( A5) and Kamlesh CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.162 of 336 ­: 163 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

Kumar of K. Company required some garments urgently   and on asking by  accused Ramesh  Wadhera ( A5), only a sum of Rs.  15  lacs  out of  the  balance  of     Rs.  30  lacs  was  paid  by Kamlesh   Kumar   of   M/s   K.   Company   to   Ramesh   Wadhera ( A5) in the year 2009 and thereafter Ramesh Wadhera ( A5) stopped   making   supplies   to     Kamlesh   Kumar   of   M/s   K. Company   and on that account   Kamlesh Kumar /PW50 has deposed falsely against  accused Ramesh Wadhera ( A5).

177.  The prosecution examined PW52 Sh. Kishore Kumar from  Indian Bank who produced the cheque no. 920408 dated 14.07.2009   for   Rs.   21,20,050/­     drawn   on     Indian   Bank, Shalimar Bagh Branch Ex.PW10/DX ( D­10)   issued   by M/s India Fab through its proprietor Rajesh Kapoor and stated that the same was passed by accused C.M. Bansal ( A3) and  PW52 further   stated   that     Ex.PW26/H   (   part   of   D­10)   is   the application   for   remittance   of   amount   of   Rs.   21,20,000/­   in favour of  M/s K. Company. The Statement of Account of  the account   of       M/s   India   Fab   ,   Shalimar   Bagh   Branch   is Ex.PW22/B ( Colly) ( D­7) and as per the same, an amount of Rs.   21,20,050/­   of   cheque   no.   920408   has   been   cleared   for remittance  to M/s K. Company.  The Statement of account  of the account of M/s K. Company, Union Bank of India, Nerul, CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.163 of 336 ­: 164 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

Navi   Mumbai   for   the   period   26.06.2008   to   03.12.2009   is Ex.PW50/M ( Colly) (D­159) and as per the same, a sum of Rs.21,20,000/­ was received on 14.07.2009  by RTGS from the account of M/s India Fab .  In the statement under Section 313 (1)   (a)     Cr.P.C.   recorded   on   26.11.2016,   accused   Rajesh Kapoor was put question regarding transfer of money by RTGS from the account of M/s India Fab to the account of M/s K. Company   vide     cheque   Ex.PW10/DX   (   D­10)   through     slip Ex.PW26/H   to   which   accused   Rajesh   Kapoor   answered   by stating that blank cheques were obtained from him by accused Rajiv  Gupta, Ashok  Jain   and Sandeep  Jain  and  he does   not know  about the transactions between  M/s India Fab and M/s K. Company. 

178.      The prosecution examined Sh. Ramphal from Union Bank of India   who produced the account opening form   of account   no.   388801010035599   in   the   name   of   M/s   Royal Impex   Ex.PW32/B   (   Colly)   (   D­164)   .   As   per   the   account opening form Ex.PW32/B ( Colly) (D­164), the said account in the name  of M/s Royal Impex was opened on 02.04.2009  by accused Ramesh Wadhera ( A5)  as proprietor.  The statement of account  of  the account of M/s Royal Impex , Union Bank of India, Gurgaon for the period 01.04.2009 to 22.12.2009  is CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.164 of 336 ­: 165 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

Ex.PW32/B2 ( D­169) and as per the same,   sums of Rs. 10 lacs and 5 lacs respectively were received on 01.08.2009 and 12.08.2009 from the account of M/s K. Company, Nerul. As per   statement   of   account   of     M/s   K.   Company   Ex.PW50/M (   Colly)     (   D­159),   the   sums   of   Rs.   10   lacs   and   5   lacs respectively   were   transferred   from   the   account   of   M/s   K. Company. In the written statement Ex.C5 filed on 26.02.2016 , accused   Ramesh   Wadhera   (   A5)   has   stated   that   he   had business relations with K. Company through Kamlesh Kumar and he (A5) used to supply garments/fabric to M/s K. Company and   there were certain financial disputes between them and Kamlesh   Kumar   did   not   pay   the   balance   amount   of   the supplies   made   to   him     and     once   Kamlesh   Kumar   required some garments urgently and  he (A5) told Kamlesh Kumar to return   the   previous   balance   of     about   Rs.30   lacs   on   which Kamlesh   Kumar   paid   Rs.15   lacs   in   2009   and   requested   for another supply.  Hence,  the plea of accused Ramesh Wadhera ( A5) is that  the sum of Rs. 15 lacs which was received by him from  Kamlesh Kumar of K. Company in the account of  M/s Royal   Impex,   Union   Bank   of   India,   Gurgaon   vide   RTGS transfer of Rs. 10 lacs and 5 lacs respectively on 01.08.2009 and 12.08.2009 was on account of  previous outstanding.   

CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.165 of 336 ­: 166 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

179.  The   prosecution   examined   Sh.   Kamlesh   Kumar   as PW50. PW50 Sh. Kamlesh Kumar stated that in the year 2009 he was in the business of trading and liasoning of garments under the name of  M/s K. Company and stated that he knows Sh. Ramesh Wadhera (A5) who was a garment exporter. PW50 further stated that Ramesh Wadhera (A5) was working under the name and style of   M/s India Fab, M/s Vipul Traders and M/s   Pooja   Exports.   PW50   Kamlesh   Kumar   stated   that   the Certificate of Importer­Exporter Code ( IEC) Ex.PW50/B ( D­

150) in the name of M/s India Fab was given to him by accused Ramesh   Wadhera   for   export   purpose   in   the   name   of   his company i.e. M/s India Fab. PW50 further stated that visiting card   Ex.PW50/C   of   Rajesh   Kapoor   (A1),   proprietor   of   M/s India Fab was also given to him by   Ramesh Wadhera (A5) . PW50 stated that the undated cheques for Rs. 16,50,000/­ and Rs. 5 lacs Ex.PW50/L ( Colly) ( D­158) issued in favour of M/s K. Company by Rajesh Kapoor ( A1) proprietor of M/s India Fab were given to him   by accused Ramesh Wadhera ( A5) against the payment due and the originals of the said cheques are  lying with him and the said cheques could not be encashed as  his account was frozen by CBI.  PW50  stated that statement of   account   of   his   company   i.e.   K.   Company   for   the   period 26.06.2008 to 13.12.2009 Ex.PW50/M ( D­159)  was provided CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.166 of 336 ­: 167 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

by him to CBI after collecting the same from the bank. PW50 stated that vide courier receipt Ex.PW50/N ( D­160), he had sent   CHA   papers   to   M/s   India     Fab   on   the   instructions   of accused   Ramesh   Wadhera   (A5).   PW50   stated   that   accused Ramesh Wadhera (A5) told  that he was the owner of M/s India Fab, M/s Vipul  Traders and M/s Pooja Exports.

180. In the cross examination, PW50 Sh. Kamlesh Kumar stated that  he was in the business of  trading and liasioning of garments   in   the   year   2008   and   he   worked   as   an   agent   or middleman and facilitated exporting   the goods of the traders through Custom House Agent ( CHA) and in the process he used to take 1% to 3 %  as an incentive. PW50 further stated in cross examination that he knew Ramesh Wadhera ( A5) since the year 2008 . PW50 denied suggestion of  Ramesh Wadhera ( A5) in the cross examination that  prior to deal as stated by him also he has worked for accused Ramesh Wadhera (A5) or that accused Ramesh Wadhera ( A5) supplied him the goods earlier also.   By   giving   this   suggestion   to   PW50   in   the   cross examination, accused Ramesh Wadhera ( A5) has pleaded that PW50 Kamlesh Kumar  has worked for him and he ( A5) had supplied goods to PW50 earlier also. PW50 stated in the cross examination that on the basis of documents  i.e. Ex.PW50/B to CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.167 of 336 ­: 168 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

Ex. PW50/D , Rajesh Kapoor ( A1) was the proprietor of M/s India   Fab.   Thereafter     PW50   voluntarily   stated   in   the   cross examination that he had nothing to do with the owner and he was only dealing with accused Ramesh Wadhera ( A5). In the cross   examination     PW50   denied   suggestion   of     accused Ramesh Wadhera ( A5) that accused Ramesh Wadhera ( A5) did not have anything to do with the ownership of M/s India Fab.  PW50 further stated in the cross examination that  for all practical   purposes   ,   accused   Ramesh   Wadhera   (   A5)     was dealing with him as the owner.  

181.  PW50 Sh. Kamlesh Kumar Srivastava further stated in cross examination by accused  Ramesh Wadhera ( A5)  that  he cannot   say     whether   during   the     aforesaid   deal,   Ramesh Wadhera ( A5) came to Mumbai or not but thereafter PW50 voluntarily stated that accused Ramesh Wadhera ( A5) visited Mumbai at the time of initiation of deal  and Ramesh Wadhera ( A5) had also  met him  in  Mumbai  after CBI had frozen his account.   PW50 Sh. Kamlesh Kumar Srivastava further stated in the cross examination that when   Ramesh Wadhera ( A5) came to Mumbai during initiation of deal,  he ( PW50)  and his partner    met   Ramesh  Wadhera  (  A5)  at  the  hotel  about  4­5 times for 30 to 45 minutes each time.  In the cross examination, CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.168 of 336 ­: 169 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

PW50  Sh. Kamlesh Kumar Srivastava was  given  suggestion by accused Ramesh  Wadhera ( A5)  to the effect  that  meeting took place   in the hotel and they never met outside the hotel during     meeting   at   the   time   of     initiation   of   deal   to   which PW50 Sh. Kamlesh Kumar Srivastava answered by stating that it is correct.  

182.  Ld.  Counsel for accused Ramesh Wadhera ( A5) has contended that  in the cross examination , PW50 Sh. Kamlesh Kumar Srivastava has stated that he had received  Rs. 53 lacs against   the   consignment   and   there   was   balance   of   Rs. 21,50,000/­ and the PW50 Sh. Kamlesh Kumar Srivastava has also stated in the cross examination that he has not received any payment of about 30­40 lacs other than the above said 53 lacs from the bank account of   M/s India Fab in Bank of India and PW50 Sh. Kamlesh Kumar   Srivastava also stated about receiving various amounts and has stated that he has received an amount of Rs. 60 lacs   against the   deal in question and various     amounts   as   stated   by   PW50   Sh.   Kamlesh   Kumar Srivastava   in   the   cross   examination     throw   doubt   on   his testimony. 

183.  In   the   examination   in   chief,   PW50   Sh.   Kamlesh CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.169 of 336 ­: 170 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

Kumar Srivastava  stated that  he had exported garments in the name   of   M/s   India   Fab,   M/s   Vipul   Traders   and   M/s   Pooja Exports for about Rs. 70 lacs and he still has to collect sum of Rs.21 lacs from accused Ramesh Wadhera ( A5). In the cross examination  of PW50 Sh. Kamlesh Kumar Srivastava, accused Ramesh Wadhera ( A5) has given suggestion to the effect that PW50 Sh. Kamlesh Kumar Srivastava has not   received any payment of about 30 to 40 lacs other than the above said 53 lacs  from the bank account of M/s India Fab in Bank of India. PW50 Sh. Kamlesh Kumar Srivastava further stated in cross examination that  probably he might have received about 60­70 lacs other than 53 lacs from Ratnakar Bank account of   M/s India Fab and PW50 Sh. Kamlesh  Kumar Srivastava  further stated that whatever money he has received is reflected in the statement of account of his bank  which is Ex.PW50/M.   In the cross  examination  of   PW50 Sh.  Kamlesh  Kumar  Srivastava, accused Ramesh Wadhera ( A5) has given suggestion to the effect   that   accused   Ramesh   Wadhera   (   A5)     did   not   have anything     to do with the ownership of M/s India Fab, which was denied by PW50 Sh. Kamlesh Kumar Srivastava.   It is to be   noted   that     accused   Ramesh   Wadhera   (   A5)   has   given suggestion   to   PW50   Sh.   Kamlesh   Kumar   Srivastava   in   the cross examination  that he ( A5)  is not the owner of M/s India CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.170 of 336 ­: 171 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

Fab but no suggestion has   been given to PW50 Sh. Kamlesh Kumar   Srivastava   in   the   cross   examination   that     accused Ramesh Wadhera ( A5) has not conducted any business dealing with PW50 Sh. Kamlesh Kumar Srivastava on behalf of   M/s India Fab, M/s Vipul Traders and M/s Pooja Exports. Rather in the cross examination   PW50 Sh. Kamlesh Kumar Srivastava stated   that   he   confirms   that     he   has   not   dealt   with   accused Ramesh Wadhera ( A5) except for the above said deal with respect to three firms   i.e. M/s India Fab, M/s Vipul Traders and   M/s   Pooja   Exports   and   to   the   limit   of     Rs.75   lacs approximately.  

184.     It is pleaded on behalf of accused No. 5 Ramesh Wadhera   that   PW50   Sh.   Kamlesh   Kumar   Srivastava   has deposed falsely in order to   falsely implicate accused Ramesh Wadhera (A5) on account of previous business disputes  as per which PW50 Sh. Kamlesh Kumar Srivastava was to pay a sum of Rs. 30 lacs to accused Ramesh Wadhera ( A5), out of which Rs. 15 lacs was paid in the year 2009 and remaining amount has not been paid.  The  accused no. 5 Ramesh Wadhera  has not given suggestion  to PW50 Sh. Kamlesh Kumar Srivastava in the cross examination thereby controverting  that he ( A5)  is not carrying on any business in the name of M/s Vipul Traders CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.171 of 336 ­: 172 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

and M/s Pooja Exports.  DW3 Sh. Rahul Wadhera  who is son of accused Ramesh Wadhera ( A5)   stated that his father Sh. Ramesh   Wadhera   (   A5)   had   business   dealing   with   M/s   K. Company during the period 2010­2011 and the total value of consignments   which   were   got   cleared   through   M/s   K. Company   was   about   20   to   30   crores   and   they     had   made payments of about Rs. 80 to 90 lacs to the K. Company  during the period 2010­2011 . It is to be noted that as per  Statement of account  of  the account of M/s Royal Impex , Union Bank of India,   Gurgaon   for   the   period   01.04.2009   to   22.12.2009 Ex.PW32/B2   (   D­169),     sums   of   Rs.   10   lacs   and   5   lacs respectively were received on 01.08.2009 and 12.08.2009 from the account of M/s K. Company, Nerul.  Hence the testimony of DW3  does not prove that  accused Ramesh Wadhera ( A5) had   any     independent   business   dealings   with     PW50   Sh. Kamlesh Kumar Srivastava of M/s K. Company other than  that of   M/s India Fab, prior to the year 2010­2011.   In the cross examination DW3 stated that   he has heard the name of M/s Royal Impex  which was company of his father and he has no knowledge   with   whom     M/s   Royal   Impex   had   business dealings and he has no knowledge about business transactions of M/s Royal Impex.  DW3 Sh. Rahul Wadhera has not proved the defence  of  accused   Ramesh   Wadhera regarding business CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.172 of 336 ­: 173 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

transactions of accused Ramesh Wadhera ( A5) with M/s K. Company  and that M/s K. Company was liable to pay a sum of Rs. 30 lacs to  accused Ramesh Wadhera ( A5), out of which sums of Rs. 10 lacs and 5 lacs respectively were received on 01.08.2009   and   12.08.2009   from   the   account   of   M/s   K. Company, Nerul  and  M/s K. Company  is still liable to pay  a sum   of   Rs.   15   lacs     to     accused   Ramesh   Wadhera   (   A5). Accused   Ramesh   Wadhera   (   A5)   has     not   produced   any evidence to the effect that  he was having business transactions independent of  M/s India Fab  with  M/s K. Company and  that M/s K. Company  defaulted in making payment of Rs.30 lacs and   sums   of   Rs.10   lacs   and   5   lacs   respectively   which   were received on  01.08.2009 and  12.08.2009  from the  account   of M/s K. Company, Nerul were towards   part payment of   the defaulted amount of Rs.30 lacs.  

185.  In the written statement Ex.C­5 filed on 26.02.2016, accused Ramesh Wadhera(A5) has stated that accused Rajesh Kapoor(A1) is resident of his native village and on that account he(A5)   knew   him(A1)   for   long   time   and   in   order   to   help accused Rajesh Kapoor(A1) in his business, he(A5) introduced accused Rajesh Kapoor to (PW8) Shri Vitaysh Koser of M/s Eskor Solution, PW50 Kamlesh Kumar of M/s K. Company, CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.173 of 336 ­: 174 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

Sufiyan Ashraf Rajwani(A8) of M/s United Syntex and PW25 Shri Ved Prakash of M/s Garima Enterprises and he had no role in the business which was conducted between M/s India Fab, Proprietor   Rajesh   Kapoor   and   the   said   persons,   who   were introduced  by  him  to accused   Rajesh   Kapoor(A1).     As  per aforesaid discussions, the real name of accused Rajesh Kapoor is Rajesh Kumar s/o Kewal Krishan but he (A1) represented himself as Rajesh Kapoor s/o Shri Shyam Bhushan Kapoor in Indian Bank, Shalimar Bagh Branch and opened account in the name of M/s India Fab, Proprietor Rajesh Kapoor.  In the entire written   statement,   Ex.   C5   filed   on   26.02.2016   and   in   the statement   under   section   313(1)   (a)   recorded   on   26.11.2016, accused Ramesh Kumar Wadhera(A5) has address the name of accused(A1) as Rajesh Kapoor. Since, accused Rajesh Kapoor belongs native place of accused Ramesh Kumar Wadhera(A5) and is known to accused Ramesh Kumar Wadhera(A5) for a very   long   time,   as   stated   by   accused   Ramesh   Kumar Wadhera(A5) then accused Ramesh Kumar Wadhera(A5) must be aware of real name of accused(A1) as Rajesh Kumar son of Shri Kewal Krishan but accused Ramesh Kumar Wadhera has nowhere   pleaded   that   he   had   disclosed   the   corret   name   of accused(A1) to the person who were introduced by him(A5) to accused(A1) for business purposes. 

CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.174 of 336 ­: 175 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

186.    It is to be noted that perusal of testimony of PW8 Shri Vityash Koser  shows  that he stated  that order  for  supply  of neck   ties   was   given   to   him   by   Rajesh   Kapoor   and   Ramesh Wadhera and in his cross­examination, no suggestion has been given by accused Ramesh Kumar Wadhera(A5) to the effect that he(A5) had disclosed the correct name of accused (A1) to PW8   Shri   Vityash   Koser   as   Rajesh   Kumar.     PW25   Ved Prakash Sachdeva also stated that he(PW25) had met accused Rajesh Kapoor at the instance of accused Ramesh Wadhera and in   his   cross­examination,   no   suggestion   has   been   given   by accused Ramesh Kumar Wadhera(A5) to the effect that he(A5) had disclosed the correct name of accused (A1) to PW25 Ved Prakash   Sachdeva     as   Rajesh   Kumar.   PW50   Shri   Kamlesh Kumar Srivastava also stated that the certificate of IEC in the name of  M/s India Fab, visiting card of  Rajesh  Kapoor  and photocopies of PAN Card and Driving Licence were given to him   by   accused   Ramesh   Kumar   Wadhera   and   in   his   cross­ examination, no suggestion has been given by accused Ramesh Kumar Wadhera(A5) to the effect that he(A5) had disclosed the correct name of accused (A1) to PW50 Shri Kamlesh Kumar Srivastava as Rajesh Kumar.  The conduct of accused Ramesh Kumar   Wadhera  shows   that  he  had  introduced  accused(A1), whose   real   name   is   Rajesh   Kumar   to   different   persons   as CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.175 of 336 ­: 176 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

Rajesh Kapoor.  

187.   PW25   Shri   Ved   Prakash   Sachdeva   stated   that   he   is carrying the business of manufacturing of shoes and he knows accused   Ramesh   Wadhera   as   they   both   were   carrying   the business of shoes and he had met accused Rajesh Kapoor at the instance of accused Ramesh Wadhera.   As per record, a sum of Rs.5,90,000/­  was transferred from the account of  M/s  India Fab, Indian Bank,  Shalimar  Bagh Branch to account of  M/s Garima Enterprises vide cheque Ex. PW49/B(D13).  It is to be noted   that   credit   facility   was   extended   to   M/s   India   Fab   by Indian Bank, Shalimar Bagh Branch for the business of denim fabric however, the amount which has been transferred to M/s Garima Enterprises for the purpose of business of shoes which was unconnected with the business of M/s India Fab. It is also to be noted that in the cross examination of PW25 Shri Ved Prakash Sachdeva, no suggestions has been given by accused Ramesh   Kumar   Wadhera   to   the   effect   that   accused   Ramesh Kumar   Wadhera   was   not   known   to   PW25   or   that   accused Ramesh Kumar Wadhera was not in the business of shoes or that PW25 had not met accused Rajesh Kapoor at the instance of accused Ramesh Kumar Wadhera and the payment which was received from M/s India Fab was not for the supplies of CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.176 of 336 ­: 177 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

shoes and the same was for supply of any other articles/goods which were connected with the business of M/s India Fab.  It is also to be noted that PW50 Shri Kamlesh Kumar stated that accused Ramesh Kumar Wadhera was  carrying the business in the name of M/s India Fab, M/s Vipul Traders and M/s Pooja Exports   and   in   the   cross­examination   of   PW50,   accused Ramesh Kumar Wadhera(A5) has not given any suggestions to the effect that accused Ramesh Kumar Wadhera (A5) was  not doing   business   in   the   name   of   M/s   Vipul   Traders   and   M/s Pooja Exports.     As per Statement of Account of account of M/s K. G. Fabric, Proprietor  Ashok Kumar(A4) Ex.PW17/B (D84),   M/s   K.   G.   Fabric   had   received   amounts   from   the account   of   M/s   India   Fab,   Shalimar   Bagh   Branch   and   apart from cash withdrawals from the said account, accused Ashok Kumar(A4) also transferred amounts of Rs.6.5lacs, Rs.5.68 lacs and Rs.4.5 lacs to M/s Vipul on 11.08.2009, 12.08.2009 and 13.08.2009   respectively.     As   per   Statement   of   Account   Ex. PW33/B3(D140)   of   M/s   Ganpati   Overseas,   Prop.   Sanjay Kumar, cheques bearing Nos.890554(D143) dated 22.07.2009 for Rs.2lacs & and cheque No.890556(D144) dated 23.07.2009 Rs.2.5   lacs   were   issued   in   favour   of   M/s   Sai   Garments   by accused   Narender   Kumar   @   Sanjay   Kumar(A6).   As   per Statement of Account Ex. PW32/B5 (colly) (D180) of account CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.177 of 336 ­: 178 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

No.388802010058743   in   the   name   of   Ramesh   Kumar Wadhera(A5)/   Rahul   Wadhera,   a   sum   of   Rs.1,30,000/­   has been   transferred   to   M/s   Sai   Garments   on   22.07.2009   vide cheque   no.102836.     The   evidence   on   record   proves   that accused   Ramesh   Wadhera   (A­5)   has   not   merely   introduced accused   Rajesh   Kapoor(A1)   to   various   persons   for   business purposes   as   pleaded   by   him(A5)   rather   accused   Ramesh Wadhera(A5) was conducting business of M/s India Fab for his own benefit and was the beneficiary of OCC Limit sanctioned to   M/s   India   Fab   by   Indian   Bank,   Shalimar   Bagh   Branch, Delhi. In view of the direct evidence against accused Ramesh Kumar Wadhera(A5) of being part of conspiracy to defraud the Indian   Bank,   Shalimar   Bagh   Branch,   I   find   no   force   in   the contention of Ld. Counsel for accused Ramesh Wadhera(A5) that   the   case   is   based   on   circumstantial   evidence   against accused Ramesh Wadhera(A5).   

Role of accused Narender Kumar @ Sanjay Kumar(A6) 

188.  The allegations of prosecution are that accused Sanjay   Kumar   (A6)   S/o   Ram   Kumar   was   arrested   on 30.01.2013  and his actual name is Narender Kumar S/o Late Sh. Satpal Singh.   It is alleged by prosecution that accused Narender   Kumar   S/o   Late   Sh.   Satpal   Singh   R/o   B­39,   A CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.178 of 336 ­: 179 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

Block, Ram Vihar, Village Johripur, Delhi­94 has opened a current   account   no.4102­135­481   in   Karur   Vysya   Bank   , Lawrance Road Branch, Keshav Puram, Delhi on 17.07.2009 by   impersonating   as   Sanjay   Kumar   S/o   Ram   Kumar, Proprietor   M/s   Ganpati   Overseas   on   the   basis   of   forged documents   and   he also signed   as Sanjay on the account opening form.   It is further alleged that  for opening the said current   account   no.4102­135­481   in   Karur   Vysya   Bank   , Lawrance Road Branch, Keshav Puram, Delhi, the accused Sanjay   Kumar ( A6) submitted self certified copy of PAN Card no. BIYPK 5266R in the name of Sanjay Kumar S/o Ram   Kumar   and   he   also     utilized   CA   certificate   of     M/s Naresh Jindal & Associates, a non existent firm and in the said   account   sums   of   Rs.   7   lacs   and     Rs.   2.5   lacs   were credited on 21.07.2009 and 23.07.2009  on account of RTGS from the account of M/s India Fab.  It is further alleged that accused Sanjay Kumar (A6)   utilized the funds so credited by  withdrawing  cash  of  Rs.   4 lacs   on 21.07.2009  besides transfer of funds to the account of M/s Sai Garments and M/s Max Overseas which are connected with the accused persons and accused Sanjay Kumar ( A6) is the beneficiary of the funds fraudulently obtained in the account of M/s India Fab from Indian Bank, Shalimar Bagh Branch.  

CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.179 of 336 ­: 180 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

189.  The   contention   of     Ld.   Counsel   for   accused No.6 is that accused  Narender Kumar @ Sanjay Kumar(A6) has been falsely implicated  in this case.   It is contended on behalf of   accused Narender Kumar @ Sanjay Kumar(A6) that   accused   Narender   Kumar   @   Sanjay   Kumar(A6)   had joined M/s India Fab as Field and Office Executive   in the month of June, 2009 and was given responsibility of  various fields   jobs   as   well   as   office   job     and   accused   Rajesh Kapoor(A1) proprietor of M/s India Fab had asked accused Narender Kumar @ Sanjay Kumar(A6) to submit passport size photographs and same were accordingly submitted and the   officials of M/s India Fab also obtained signatures of accused   Narender   Kumar   @   Sanjay   Kumar(A6)   on   blank papers and the same  have been misused by accused Rajesh Kapoor ( A1) proprietor of M/s India Fab.   

190.  The   prosecution   examined     PW51   Sh.   A. Viswanadham  from Karur Vysya Bank  who stated that the current account opening form of account  no. 4102­135­481 in   Karur   Vysya   Bank,   Lawrance   Road   Branch,   Keshav Puram, Delhi in the name of   Sanjay Kumar, proprietor of M/s Ganpati Overseas Ex.PW51/A ( D139)  is signed by Sh.

CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.180 of 336 ­: 181 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

T.R. L. Rao  at points A and B and by Sh. Shiv Kumar  at point   C   and     the   photocopy   of   the   PAN   card   of     Sanjay Kumar is attested by T.R.L. Rao.  

191.  As   per   Account   Opening   Form   Ex.PW51/A ( D139) Sh. Ganga Kant Mishra   having account no. 4104­ 155­25211 has introduced the opening of account no. 4102­ 135­481   in   Karur   Vysya   Bank,   Lawrance   Road   Branch, Keshav   Puram,   Delhi   in   the   name   of   Sanjay   Kumar   , proprietor of M/s  Ganpati Overseas. Prosecution examined Sh. Ganga Kant Mishra as PW63. PW63 Sh. Ganga Kant Mishra stated that   the account opening form Ex.PW51/A ( D139)  is signed by him as introducer and the same bears his name, customer ID and  account number.  PW63  further stated that  he had introduced the person whose photograph is affixed at portion encircled X on page 5 of Ex.PW51/A ( D139).  In the statement  recorded under Section 313 ( 1)

(a)   on   24.11.2016   ,   accused     Sanjay   Kumar   @   Narneder Kumar ( A6)  was put question on the account opening form Ex.PW51/A ( D139)   to which he answered by stating that he has never approached Karur Vysya Bank  for opening any account and he has not tendered  any document to the bank for the purpose of opening of account and other co accused CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.181 of 336 ­: 182 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

in this case has misused his address and has prepared false and fabricated documents   of his address. Accused Sanjay Kumar   @   Narender   Kumar   (   A6)   further   stated   in   his statement under Section 313 (1) (a) recorded on 24.11.2016 that during the relevant period he was employee of M/s India Fab  and being  employee of the company, he had bonafidely submitted   his   profile   to   the   company   for     seeking employment   and   he   has   apprehension   that     company   has misused his name. The   prosecution examined   Sh. Sanjay Kumar   S/o   Late   Sh.   Satpal,   brother     of   accused   Sanjay Kumar @ Narender Kumar ( A6) as PW60  who  was shown account opening form Ex.PW51/A ( D139) and PW60 stated that   the page 5 of the said form bears photograph of his brother Narender ( A6) at portion encircled X.  

192.    The   contention   of   accused   Sanjay   Kumar   @ Narender Kumar ( A6) is that PW63 Sh. Ganga Kant Mishra is not known to him and PW65 Sh. Shiv Kumar also stated that  Sanjay Kumar  had never appeared before him and the prosecution   has not proved that the account no. 4102­135­ 481 in Karur Vysya Bank, Lawrance Road Branch, Keshav Puram, Delhi in the name of Sanjay Kumar , proprietor of M/s  Ganpati Overseas was opened by him. 

CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.182 of 336 ­: 183 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

193.  Sh.   Ganga Kant Mishra   PW63   stated in his examination in chief  that  the person who was introduced by him     in   the   account   opening   form   Ex.PW51/A   was   not previously   known   to   him   and   he   had   introduced   the   said person  on the asking of bank officials whose names he does not    remember now. In the cross  examination by accused Sanjay Kumar @ Narender Kumar (A6) ,  PW63 stated that when he signed the   account opening form   Ex.PW51/A as introducer   ,   the     Sanjay   Kumar   whose   account   was introduced   by   him   was   present   in   the   bank   and   he     was carrying the documents of his identification i.e. PAN card and   some   CA   certificate.     It   is   to   be   noted   that     PW63 specifically   stated   that     the       Sanjay   Kumar   who   was introduced   by   him   for     opening   the   account   vide   account opening from Ex.PW51/A was present in the bank and was carrying   documents   of   his     identification   and   PW63 identified the photograph as appearing at portion encircled X on page 5 of  Ex.PW51/A as the person who was introduced by him.   In the cross examination of PW63, no suggestion has   been   given   by   accused   Sanjay   Kumar   @   Narender Kumar  (A6) to the effect that  the person  whose photograph is affixed in the portion   encircled X on page 5 of account CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.183 of 336 ­: 184 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

opening form Ex.PW51/A( D139) is not the same person i.e. Sanjay Kumar   who was present in the bank at the time of opening   of   the   account   vide   account   opening   form Ex.PW51/A ( D139).  

194.    Prosecution   has examined PW60 Sh. Sanjay Kumar   S/o   Late   Sh.   Satpal     who   is     brother   of   accused Sanjay   Kumar   @   Narender   Kumar   (A6)     and   PW60 identified the photograph as appearing   at portion encircled X on page 5 of  Ex.PW51/A (D139)  as the photograph of his brother     Narender   (A6).     The   accused   Sanjay   Kumar   @ Narender   Kumar(A6)   also   signed   the   Statement   under section   313(1)(a)   Cr.PC     on   24.11.2016     as   'Narender Kumar'.   The   accused   Sanjay   Kumar   @   Narender Kumar(A6) has also furnished the Bail Bond under section 437A Cr.PC before this court as Narender Kumar son of Shri Satpal Singh and signed as Narender Kumar.     Prosecution also examined  Sh. Shiv Kumar , the then Chief Manager in Karur Vysya Bank,  Lawrance Road, New Delhi as PW65 who   stated   that     the     account   in   respect   of   M/s   Ganpati Overseas through Sanjay Kumar vide account opening form Ex.PW51/A(D139) was  authorized to be opened by him and same   bears   his   signatures   at   point   X1   and     he   does   not CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.184 of 336 ­: 185 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

identify  the person whose photograph is affixed at point X in the said form and   the Sanjay Kumar   had not appeared before him.   PW65 Sh. Shiv Kumar was cross examined by Ld. Sr. PP for CBI and in the cross examination  by Ld. Sr. PP   for   CBI,   PW65   stated   that     account   opening   form Ex.PW51/A bears signature of   Sh. Ram Lingeshwar Rao , officer of the bank  at point A  and on the basis of the same, he   authorized   opening   of   the   account   .   PW65   Sh.   Shiv Kumar further admitted  in cross examination by Ld. Sr. PP for CBI  that in the portion Y to Y on page 5  of the account opening   form   Ex.PW51/A   where   he   had   signed     while authorizing the opening of account, it is mentioned that  all the   signatories   of   the   form   have   put   signatures   in   his presence.   PW65 Sh. Shiv Kumar   futher   stated in cross examination by Ld. Sr. PP for CBI   that   the   copy of the PAN Card  appended along with form Ex.PW51/A is signed by him at point B and the certificate of Naresh Jindal and Associates Ex.PW32/B2  is also signed by him at point A.  

195.    The   prosecution   examined   Sh.   A. Viswanadham   from   Karur   Vysya   Bank   as   PW51   who produced     the   five   cheques   which   were   issued   from     the account No.     4102­135­481 of M/s Ganpati Overseas   in CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.185 of 336 ­: 186 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

Karur Vysya Bank, Lawrance Road Branch, Keshav Puram, Delhi   in   the   name   of   Sanjay   Kumar,   proprietor   of   M/s Ganpati Overseas  and the said cheques are Ex.PW51/B ( D­ 141 to D­145) .    

196.    The prosecution also examined Sh. Jeet Singh, Sr. Scientific Officer as PW67. PW67 Sh. Jeet Singh stated that  he has seen specimen handwriting and signatures from S1   to   S29   Ex.PW61/1   (   Colly)   (   D­6   of   supplementary charge sheet) and  he has also  seen  signatures as appearting at Q1 to Q3 on page 4 and 5 of the account opening form Ex.PW51/A   ( D139)   and the   signatures as appearing at point Q4 on the copy of the PAN Card   and he has also seen the handwriting and signatures  as  appearing at Q5 to Q16 on the cheques  Ex.PW51/B ( Colly) ( D­141 to D­145) and he   scientifically   examined   the   signatures   and   handwriting appearing  at S1 to S29  with the questioned signatures and handwriting at appearing   at Q1 to Q16   and arrived at the opinion that signatures and handwriting as appearing at S1 to S29  and Q1 to Q16  are of  one and the same person and he prepared   his report Ex.PW67/A ( Colly).   In the statement recorded under Section 313 (1) (a) Cr.P.C. on 24.11.2016, accused Sanjay Kumar @ Narender Kumar ( A6) was put CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.186 of 336 ­: 187 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

question   on   the   taking   of     handwriting   and   signatures encircled in S1 to S29 Ex.PW61/1 ( Colly) and  sending of the same to CFSL for comparison with questioned signatures and handwriting as appearing at Q1 to Q16 and report of CFSL Ex.PW67/A   to which he answered by stating that IO of the case has taken his signaturs on blank papers and IO has never taken his specimen handwriting for the purpose of sending of  CFSL.  In the statement recorded under Section 313 (1) (a) Cr.P.C. on 24.11.2016, accused   Sanjay Kumar @   Narender   Kumar   (   A6)   was   also   put   question   on   the handwriting and signatures as appearing in the portions Q5 to Q16 on the cheques Ex.PW51/B ( Colly ) ( D­141 to D­

145) to which he ansered by stating that   he has not issued any cheques as alleged and he has not signed on the cheques as proproietor and he had never opened any bank account bearing   no.   4102­135­481   in   the   name   of   M/s   Ganpati Overseas   as   proprietor   and   he   has   never   formed   any company in the name of M/s Ganpati Overseas.       In the cross examination of PW67 Sh. Jeet Singh, only suggestion has   been   given   by   accused   Sanjay   Kumar   @   Narender Kumar ( A6) that signatures and handwriting as appearing at S1 to S29   and as appearing at Q1 to Q16   are not of   the same person, which was denied by PW67 Sh. Jeet Singh.

CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.187 of 336 ­: 188 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

Nothing has been brought on record by A6   to prove that report   Ex.PW67/A   (   Colly)     is   not     based   on   scientific reasons and is not correct.         

197.  The   evidence   adduced   by   the   prosecution proves that the accused  Sanjay Kumar @ Narender Kumar ( A6) had opened the account bearing no.4102­135­481 in the   name   of   M/s   Ganpati   Overseas   as   proprietor     vide account opening form Ex.PW51/A (D139)  and   the accused Sanjay Kuamr @ Narender Kumar also submitted copies of the PAN Card  bearing no.BIYPK 5266R and the  certificate purportedly     issued   by   Naresh   Jindal   and   Associates Ex.PW33/B­2.        

198.  The   allegation   of   the   prosecution   are   that   sums   of Rs.Seven Lakhs and 2.5 lacs were credited on 21.7.2009 and 23.07.2009   by   RTGS   in   the   account   No.4102­135­481   of M/s Ganpati Overseas from the account of M/s India Feb. The prosecution has examined PW52 Shri Kishore Kumar from Indian Bank, Shalimar Bagh Branch, who stated that the   cheque   bearing   No.920420   dated   21.07.2009  Ex. PW52/O (D19) for the sum of Rs.7 lacs issued by M/s India Fab through its Propreitor accused Rajesh Kumar was passed CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.188 of 336 ­: 189 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

by him by signing at point A and the said cheque was issued for   RTGS   transfer   in   favour   of   M/s   Ganpati   Overseas. PW52 Kishore Kumar further stated that the cheque bearing No.920422 dated 23.07.2009 Ex.PW52/S(D21)  for the sum of Rs.2.5 lacs issued by M/s India Fab through its Propreitor accused   Rajesh   Kumar   was   passed   by   him   by   signing   at point A and the said cheque was issued for RTGS transfer in favour of M/s Ganpati Overseas. The Statement of Account of the account of M/s India Fab, Shalimar Bagh Branch is Ex. PW22/B (colly)(D7) and as per the same, amounts of Rs.7 lacs and Rs.2.5 lacs were transferred to M/s Ganpati Overseas on 21.07.2009 and 23.07.2009 respectively.   The Statement   of   Account   of   the   account   of   M/s   Ganpati Overseas   in   Karur   Vysya   Bank,   Rohini   is Ex.PW33/B3(D140) and as per the same, sums of Rs.7 lacs and   Rs.2.5   lacs   were   received   in   the   said   account   on 21.07.2009 and 23.07.2009 respectively. 

199.    The   allegations   of   the   prosecution   are   that   accused Sanjay Kumar @ Narender Kumar (A6)  withdrew a sum of Rs.4   lacs   in   cash   on   21.07.2009   by   way   of   cheque   no. 890553,   transferred   a   sum   of   Rs.one   lac   to   M/s   Max CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.189 of 336 ­: 190 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

Overseas   by way  of  cheque  No.890552  dated  21.07.2009, transferred an amount of Rs.2 lacs to the account of M/s Sai Garments   by   way   of   cheque   no.890554   on   22.07.2009, transferred an amount of Rs.2.5 lacs to the account of M/s Sai Garments by way of cheque no.890556 on 23.07.2009 and on 23.07.2009 a sum of Rs.2.4 lacs was withdrawn by way of self cheque bearing no.890555 from the account of M/s Ganpati Overseas. 

200.   Prosecution   examined   PW51   Shri   A.   Vishwanadhan from   Karur   Vysya   Bank,   who   stated   that     the   cheque Nos.890552,   890553,   890554,   890556   &   890555,   Ex. PW51/B (colly) (D141 to D145) have been issued from the account bearing No.4102­135­481 of M/s Ganpati Overseas and the same are signed by the Proprietor of M/s Ganpati Overseas.     The   cheques   bearing   No.890552(D141)   dated 21.07.2009 for Rs. One lac has been issued in favour of Max Overseas,   Cheque   No.890553(D142)   dated   21.07.2009   for Rs.4   lacs   has   been   issued   in   favour   of   'self',   cheque   no. 890554(D143)   dated   22.07.2009   for   Rs.2   lacs   has   been issued in favour of Sai Garments, cheque No.890556(D144) dated 23.07.2009 for Rs.2.5 lacs has been issued in favour of Sai   Garments     &   cheque   no.   890555(D145)   dated CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.190 of 336 ­: 191 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

23.07.2009   for   Rs.2.4   lacs   has   been   issued   in   favour   of 'self'.   The Statement of Account of account No.4102­135­ 481 of M/s Ganpati Overseas in Karur Vysya Bank is Ex. PW33/B3   (D140).     As   per   Statement   of   Account   Ex. PW33/B3(D140),   the   amounts   of   the   cheques   Ex. PW51/B(colly)   (D141   to   D145)   have   been   debited   in   the accounts of M/s Ganpati Overseas in favour of drawees of the said cheques.   In the statement recorded on 24.11.2016 under   section   313(i)   (a)   Cr.PC   accused   Sanjay   Kumar   @ Narender Kumar(A6) was put questions on the cheques Ex. PW51/B (colly) (D141 to D145) to which he answered by stating that he had never opened the account No.4102­135­ 481 in the name of M/s Ganpati Overseas as a Proprietor and he has not issued the said cheques.

201.   PW61   Shri   Hemant   Bhatia   stated   that   Specimen Handwriting   and   Signatures   of   accused   Sanjay   (A6) encircled in S1 to S29 (D6 of Supplementary charge sheet) Ex.PW61/1(colly)   were   taken   in   his   presence.   PW67   Shri Jeet Singh, Senior Scientific Officer stated that he has seen the five cheques, Ex. PW51/B (colly) (D141 to D145) and he has seen the writing and signatures as appearing at Q5 to Q16 on the said cheques and he scientifically examined the CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.191 of 336 ­: 192 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

specimen handwriting and signatures as appearing at S1 to S29   with   the   questioned   signatures   and   handwriting   as appearing at Q1 to Q16 and arrived at the conclusion that the signatures and the handwriting at S1 to S29 and Q1 to Q16 are of one and the same person. In the Statement recorded on 24.11.2016 under section 313 (i) (a) Cr. PC accused Sanjay Kumar @ Narender Kumar (A6) has stated that IO has taken his   signatures   on   blank   papers   and   IO   never   took   his specimen handwriting for the purpose of CFSL. But in the cross   examination   of   PW68   Inspector   Jitender   Sharma,   in whose presence the specimen handwriting & signatures S1 to S29   Ex.PW61/1   (colly)   were   taken,     suggestion   has   been given   to   the   effect   that   he   (PW68)   had   obtained   the signatures   of   accused   Sanjay   Kumar   @   Narender Kumar(A6) on blank papers.   The prosecution has proved that   the   cheques   Ex.PW51/B(colly)   (D141   to   D145)   have been issued by accused Sanjay Kumar @ Narender Kumar (A6) under his handwriting and signatures as Proprietor of M/s Ganpati Overseas.   

202. Accused Narender Kumar @ Sanjay Kumar(A6) and Rajesh   Kamar(A1)   have   not   proved   that   there   were   any business transaction between M/s India Fab and M/s Ganpati CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.192 of 336 ­: 193 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

Overseas on account of which sums of Rs.7 lacs & Rs.2.5 lac were credited on 21.07.2009  & 23.07.2009 by RTGS in the account No.4102­135­481 of M/s Ganpati Overseas from the account   of   M/s   India   Fab,   Shalimar   Bagh   Branch. Prosecution   has   proved   that   accused   Narender   Kumar   @ Sanjay   Kumar(A6)   had   opened   account   in   the   name   of Ganpati Overseas in Karur Vysya Bank, in conspiracy with other accused persons, to siphon off the amount received in the account of M/s India Fab from Indian Bank, Shalimar Bagh Branch.

 

203.  The Account Opening Form of Account No.4102­115­ 17730   of   M/s   Max   Overseas   in   Karur   Vysya   Bank,   Ex. PW33/B4(D146) and alongwith the said Account Opening Form, one certificate Ex. PW56/C purportedly issued by M/s Naresh Jindal & Associates is filed.  The Account Opening Form of account No. 4102­115­17543 of M/s Sai Garments is   Ex.   PW33/B6   (colly)   and   alongwith   the   said   Account Opening Form also, one certificate Ex.PW56/D purportedly issued   by   M/s   Naresh   Jindal   &   Associates   is   filed   and alongwith   the   Account   Opening   Form   of   M/s   Ganpati Overseas   also   one   certificate   Ex.PW33/B2   purportedly issued by M/s Naresh Jindal & Associates is filed.   PW56 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.193 of 336 ­: 194 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

Shri Naresh Jindal stated that Ex. PW33/B2, Ex.PW56/C & Ex. PW56/D are not on his letterhead and do not bear his signatures and he has never issued the said certificates and the same are forged.  It is to be noted that PW56 Shri Naresh Jindal also stated that Audit Reports under section 44 AB of the   Income   Tax   Act   of   M/s   India   Fab   Ex.PW56/E(colly), Ex.PW56/F(colly)   and   Ex.PW56/G(colly)   were   also   not issued   by   him   and   the   same   are   forged   documents.   The evidence   on   record   proves   that   accused   persons   in conspiracy with each other  have fabricated the documents projecting the same to be issued by M/s Naresh Jindal and Associates and the same have been used for opening various bank accounts for siphoning off the amount received in the account of M/s India Fab from Indian Bank, Shalimar Bagh Branch.

Role of accused Rajiv Gupta(A2)

204.   Ld. Sr. PP for CBI has contended that  accused Rajiv Gupta  ( A2)  was residing as a  tenant  at BC­56 , First Floor, West   Shalimar   Bagh,   Delhi   and   he   opened   SB   account   no. 777212398   on 19.06.2008 in   the Shalimar Bagh Branch of Indian Bank where  accused Chandra Mohan Bansal ( A3) was CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.194 of 336 ­: 195 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

posted   as   Branch   Manager   and     accused   Rajiv   Gupta   (A2) developed  good relations with accused C.M. Bansal (A3)  and in conspiracy with accused Rajiv Gupta ( A2), accused C.M. Bansal   (A3)   opened   account   of     M/s   India   Fab   through accused   Rajesh   Kapoor   (A1)   without   any   introduction   in violation of the circulars, regulations and orders of   the bank and   accused   Rajiv Gupta ( A2)   falsely projected   the net worth of   accused Rajesh Kapoor ( A1) as five crores   at the time of recommending the proposal  of  M/s India Fab for cash credit limit of Rs. 1.25 crores  by the branch to the circle office. Ld. Sr. PP for CBI has further contended that   accused Rajiv Gupta ( A2) was also instrumental in taking the Mangolpuri premises by M/s India Fab on rent and   accused Rajiv Gupta ( A2)   accompanied   accused Rajesh Kapoor ( A1) whenever the amount  was withdrawn  from the account of M/s India Fab and   accused   Rajiv     Gupta   in   conspiracy   with   other   accused persons misappropriated  the amount received in the account of M/s India Fab from Indian Bank, Shalimar Bagh Branch.  

205.  The   contention   of   Ld.   Counsel   for     accused   Rajiv Gupta ( A2) is that  he has been falsely implicated in this case and prosecution has not  produced any evidence  to substantiate allegations against  accused Rajiv Gupta ( A2).   Ld. Counsel CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.195 of 336 ­: 196 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

for   accused     Rajiv   Gupta   (   A2)   has   contended   that     the allegations of the prosecution are   that accused Rajiv Gupta ( A2) was instrumental in taking the Mangol Puri premises on rent by M/s India Fab   and   when the   valuer of Allahabad Bank visited the office of the property dealer through whom property was taken on rent by M/s India  Fab for ascertaining the fair value of the property as per market rate, accused Rajiv Gupta ( A2) ran away from the spot as he was aware of the fact that     valuer  had  called  the real  owner   of   the  property.    Ld. Counsel   for   accused   Rajiv   Gupta   (   A2)   has   contended   that PW44   Sh. Mohan Bansal who is the property dealer through whom  the Mangolpuri Property was taken on rent by accused Rajesh Kapoor from Archana Mittal has not stated that accused Rajiv   Gupta   (   A2)   was   also   involved   in   the   said   deal   and prosecution has not examined valuer from the Allahabad bank in order to prove the allegations of accused Rajiv Gupta ( A2) running away from the spot.   

206.  Ld. Counsel for accused Rajiv Gupta (A2) has further contended that prosecution has not proved  that  accused Rajiv Gupta (A2) has signed the account opening form of M/s India Fab   as   introducer     and   that   accused   Rajiv   Gupta   (   A2)   has given   any   opinion   in   writing   regarding   net   worth   as   Rs.   5 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.196 of 336 ­: 197 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

crores   of   accused   Rajesh   Kapoor   (   A1).     Ld.   Counsel   for accused Rajiv Gupta ( A2) has contended that accused Rajiv Gupta has not introduced the opening of  account by M/s India Fab through Rajesh  Kapoor  (  A1)  in Indian Bank,  Shalimar Bagh Branch. It is  further contended by Ld. Counsel for Rajiv Gupta ( A2) that there is allegation against the accused Rajiv Gupta ( A2) that he was frequently visiting the   Indian Bank, Shalimar Bagh Branch but  the same is not an evidence which can lead to presumption that  accused Rajiv Gupta ( A2) was in conspiracy with  other accused persons . Ld. Counsel for  Rajiv Gupta ( A2) has contended that accused Rajiv Gupta ( A2) and his   family   members   were   having   account     in   Indian   Bank, Shalimar   Bagh   Branch   and   on   that   account   accused   Rajiv Gupta ( A2) used to visit the said bank and  merely visiting the bank   will   also   not   raise   presumption   against   accused   Rajiv Gupta   (   A2)   that   he   was   in   conspiracy   with   other     accused persons.     Ld.   Counsel   for     accused   Rajiv   Gupta   (   A2)   has further contended that the only document   which is stated to have   been   signed   by   accused   Rajiv   Gupta   is     the   Power   of Attorney   for     collection   of   bills,   book   debts   and   other receivables   but   the   said   documents   have   been   signed   by accused Rajiv Gupta ( A2) as a witness and same will not raise any presumption against accused Rajiv Gupta ( A2) being in CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.197 of 336 ­: 198 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

conspiracy   with   other   accused   persons.     Ld.   Counsel   for accused Rajiv Gupta ( A2) has contended that prosecution has not adduced any evidence to prove that   accused Rajiv Gupta ( A2) was beneficiary  of  the amount received in the account of M/s India Fab from Shalimar Bagh Branch  of Indian Bank. Ld. Counsel  for accused Rajiv Gupta ( A2) has contended that prosecution has not proved that  there was any mens rea on the part of accused Rajiv Gupta ( A2) or any of the acts of  Rajiv Gupta ( A2)  were criminal in nature.  Ld. Counsel for accused Rajiv   Gupta(A2)   has   relied   on   decisions   in  K.R. Purushothaman v. State of Kerala,  2005 (12) SCC 631 and Saju Vs. State of Kerala, 2001 (1) SCC 378. 

207.  In K.R. Purushothaman v. State of Kerala, 2005 (12) SCC 631, Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold : 

10.  The   conviction   of   the   appellant   is   based     on   the conspiracy which is alleged to have been entered into between the appellant and accused No. 3. We shall advert to the law of conspiracy,   with   its   definition,   the   essential   features   and required proof. 

13.  To constitute a conspiracy, meeting of mind of two or more persons for doing an illegal act or an act by illegal means is the first and primary condition and it is not necessary that all the conspirators must know each and every detail of conspiracy.

CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.198 of 336 ­: 199 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

Neither it is necessary that every one of the conspirators takes active part in the commission of each and every conspiratorial Acts. The agreement amongst the conspirators can be inferred by necessary implications. In most of the cases, the conspiracies are proved by the circumstantial evidence, as the  conspiracy is seldom   an   open   affair.   The   existence   of   conspiracy   and   its objects are usually deducted from the circumstances of the case and   the   conduct   of   the   accused   involved   in   the     conspiracy. While     appreciating   the   evidence     of   the   conspiracy,   it   is incumbent on the Court   to keep in mind the well­known rule governing   circumstantial   evidence   viz.,     each   and   every incriminating   circumstance   must   be   clearly   established   by reliable evidence and the circumstances proved   must form a chain of events from which the only irresistible conclusion about the     guilt   of   the   accused   can   be   safely   drawn,   and   no   other hypothesis against the guilt is possible. The criminal conspiracy is an independent offence in Indian Penal Code. The unlawful agreement  is sine quo non for constituting offence under  Indian Penal Code and not an accomplishment. Conspiracy consists of the scheme  or adjustment between  two or more persons which may be express or implied of partly  express and partly implied. Mere knowledge, even discussion, of the Plan  would not per se constitute conspiracy. The offence of conspiracy shall continue till the termination of agreement.

14.  The suspicion cannot take the place of a legal proof and prosecution   would     be   required   to   prove   each   and   every circumstance in the chain of circumstances so as to complete the chain. It is true that in most of the cases, it is not possible   to prove   the   agreement   between   the   conspirators   by     direct CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.199 of 336 ­: 200 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

evidence but the same  can be inferred from the circumstances giving   rise   to   conclusive   or   irresistible     inference   of   an agreement between two or more persons to commit an offence. It is held in Noor Mohd. vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1971 SC 885 that :

"....   in   most   cases   proof   of   conspiracy   is   largely   inferential though   the   inference   must   be   founded   on   solid   facts. Surrounding   circumstances   and   antecedent   and   subsequent conduct, amount other factors constitute relevant material."

208.  The   allegations   of   the   prosecution   are   that   in conspiracy with other accused persons,   accused Rajiv Gupta (A2)   facilitated   opening   of   the   account   of   M/s   India   Fab through accused Rajesh Kapoor (A1) as introducer.  However, accused   Rajiv   Gupta   (   A2)   has   pleaded   that     he   has   not introduced the opening of account of M/s India Fab through accused   Rajesh   Kapoor   (   A1)   in   Shalimar   Bagh   Branch   of Indian Bank.  The prosecution has examined PW3 Sh. Pramod Juneja who produced the account opening form of account no. 835962833   of   M/s   India   Fab,   proprietor   Rajesh   Kapoor   of Indian Bank, Shalimar Bagh Branch Ex.PW3/A (D­4) and the said   account   opening   form   does   not   bear   signatures   or particulars   of   accused   Rajiv   Gupta   (   A2)   in   token   of introducing M/s India Fab through proprietor  accused Rajesh Kapoor ( A1) in opening the said account.  

CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.200 of 336 ­: 201 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

209.  In the written statement Ex. C2 filed on 26.02.2016, accused Rajiv Gupta (A2) has stated that he never introduced the account of M/s India Fab and/or Rajesh Kapoor (A1) in Indian   Bank,   Shalimar   Bagh   Delhi.     In   the     Statement recorded  under Section  313 ( 1) (a) Cr.P.C.  on 25.11.2016, accused Rajesh Kapoor ( A1) stated that  he had opened the said account of M/s India Fab   with Indian Bank, Shalimar Bagh Branch and had signed the account opening form and he had  signed the account opening form  at the instance of accused Rajiv Gupta ( A2)  and the documents for opening the account were given by accused   Rajiv Gupta ( A2).   In the Statement recorded under Section   313 ( 1) (a) Cr.P.C. on 24.11.2016, accused C.M. Bansal ( A3)   stated that   he had authorized the  opening of the account of M/s India Fab in the ordinary course of the duties  after verification of  all original   documents   submitted   by   accused   Rajesh   Kapoor (   A1)   as     to   his   identity   and     address.       In   the   written statement  Ex.C3 filed on 26.02.2016 , accused C.M. Bansal ( A3)  has stated that  as a matter of general practice for all newly opened branches, fresh accounts were allowed to be opened   by   taking   oral   reference   of   existing   /known customers   and   documentary   evidence   of   proof   of   identity CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.201 of 336 ­: 202 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

and address proof.   In the written statement  Ex.C3 filed on 26.02.2016   ,   accused   C.M.   Bansal   (   A3)     has   stated   that reference   of   Rajiv   Gupta     was   relied   as   he   was   existing customer of branch for some considerable time and turn over in his account was also good and his family members were having accounts with branch and they were regular visitors to the branch. Accused C.M. Bansal ( A3) examined himself as DW1  and  in his examination in chief also, he stated that for opening  the account of  M/s India Fab, Sh. Rajiv Gupta ( A2) had introduced the opening of the account. In the cross examination DW1/ accused C.M. Bansal ( A3) stated that he   left   the   column   of   introducer   blank   in   the   current account   opening   form   (D4)  as   he   had   taken     oral introduction of Sh. Rajiv Gupta ( A2) for opening of account of M/s India Fab.  

210.  Accused Rajiv Gupta ( A2)  has taken the plea that he   has not introduced   the opening of account of M/s India Fab   in Shalimar Bagh Branch of   Indian Bank and accused     Rajesh   Kapoor   (   A1)   has   pleaded   that   the   said account   of   M/s India Fab was opened at the instance of accused Rajiv Gupta ( A2) and accused C.M. Bansal ( A3) CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.202 of 336 ­: 203 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

has   taken   the   plea   that   reference   of   accused   Rajiv   Gupta ( A2) was relied   who was existing customer of the branch for some considerable time.  Accused C. M. Bansal(A3) has not   explained   that   if   reference     of   Rajiv   Gupta   (A2)   was relied for opening account of M/s India Fab vide Account Opening   Form   Ex.   PW3/A   (D4)   then   why   signature   of accused Rajiv Gupta(A2) were not obtained  on the same in token   of   his(A2)   introducing   the   opening     of   the   said account. 

211.  Section 133 of the Evidence Act,1872 reads as :

133.Accomplice.­ An accomplice shall be a competent witness against an accused person; and a conviction is not illegal merely because   it   proceeds   upon   the   uncorroborated   testimony   of  an accomplice.                   

212.  Illustration (b) to Section 114 of the Evidence Act, 1982 reads as : 

114.   Court may presume existence of certain facts.  ­   The Court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely   to   have   happened,   regard   being   had   to   the   common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case.  

Illustrations  The Court may presume:­  CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.203 of 336 ­: 204 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

(a) ­­­­­­­­­­­

(b)   That     an   accomplice   is   unworthy   of   credit,   unless   he   is corroborated in material particulars;     

­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

213.  In  Bhuboni Sahu v. Emperor, AIR  1949 PC 257,   it   was   held   that   a   reading   of     Section   133   of   the Evidence   Act     with   illustration   (b)   to   Section   114   of   the Evidence Act shows that   it is not illegal to act upon the uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice  but  it is a rule of prudence so universally followed  as to amount  almost to a rule of law that it is unsafe to act upon the evidence of an accomplice unless it is corroborated  in material respect so as to implicate the accused and further that   the evidence of one accomplice cannot be used to corroborate the evidence of another accomplice.      

214.  In  Saju   Vs.   State   of   Kerala,   2001   (1)   SCC 378, Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold: 

8.  In   a   criminal   case   the   onus   lies   on   the prosecution  to prove affirmatively that the accused was directly   and   personally   connected   with   the   acts   or omissions attributable to the crime committed by him. It is settled position of law that act  or action  of one of the accused     cannot   be   used   as   evidence   against   other.

CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.204 of 336 ­: 205 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

However,   an exception   has been carved out under S. 10 of the Evidence Act in the case of   conspiracy. To attract the applicability of S. 10   of the Evidence Act, the Court must  have  reasonable ground to believe that two   or   more   persons   had   conspired   together   for committing an offence. It is only then that the evidence of   action     or   statement   made   by   one   of   the   accused could be used as evidence against  the other. This Court in Kehar Singh Vs.   The State ( Delhi Admn.) , AIR 1988 SC 1883: ( 1989 Cri LJ 1) has held: 

"Section 120­A provides for the definition of criminal conspiracy   and   it   speaks   of   that   when   two   or   more persons agree to do or cause to be done an act which is an illegal act and S. 120­B provides for the punishment for a criminal conspiracy and it is interesting to note that in order to prove  a  conspiracy it has always been felt that it was not easy to get direct evidence. It appears that considering this experience abut the proof of conspiracy that   S.   10   of   the   Indian   Evidence   Act   was   enacted. Section 10 reads: 

"Things   said   or   done   by   conspirator   in   reference   to common design - when there is reasonable ground to believe   that   two   or   more   persons   have   conspired together to commit an offence or an actionable wrong, anything   said,   done   or   written   by   any   one   of   such persons in reference to   their   common intention, after the  time  when  such  intention was  first  entertained  by any one of them,  is a relevant fact as against each of the persons believed   to be so conspiring, as well for the purpose of proving the existence of the conspiracy   as for the purpose of showing that any such person was a party to it."   

This section mainly could be divided into two:  the first part talks of where there is reasonable ground to believe that two ore more persons have conspired to commit an CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.205 of 336 ­: 206 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

offence   or an actionable  wrong,  and it is  only when this condition precedent is satisfied that the subsequent part   of   the   section   comes   into   operation   and   it   is material to note that this part of the   section   talks of reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons have conspired together and this evidently has reference to S. 120­A where it is provided " when two   or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done".  This further has   been   safeguarded   by   providing   a   proviso   that   no agreement  except an agreement to commit  an offence shall amount to criminal conspiracy. It will be therefore necessary that a prima facie case of conspiracy has to be established for application of S. 10. The second part of section talks of anything said, done or written by any one   of   such   persons   in     reference   to   the   common intention after the time when such intention was   first entertained by any one of them is relevant fact against each of the  persons believed to be so conspiring as well for   the   purpose   for   proving   the     existence   of   the conspiracy as for the purpose of showing that any such person was a party to it. It is clear that this second part permits the use  of evidence which otherwise could not be used against the accused persons. It is   well settled that act or action of one of the accused could not be used as evidence against the other. But   an exception   has been carved out in S. 10   in cases   of conspiracy. The second part operates only when the first part of section is   clearly   established   i.e.   there     must   be   reasonable ground   to   believe   that   two   or   more   persons   have conspired together in the light of the    language of S. 120­A.   It   is   only   then   the   evidence   of   action   or statements  made by one of the accused, could be used as   evidence  against the   other.   In  Sardar Sardul  Singh Caveeshar vs. State of Maharashtra, ( 1964) 2 SCR 378 , Subba Rao, J. ( as he then was) analysed the provision of S. 10 and made the following observations:   

CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.206 of 336 ­: 207 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

"This section, as the opening words indicate will come into   play   when   the   Court   is   satisfied   that   there   is reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons have   conspired   together   to   commit   an   offence   or   an actionable  wrong, that is to say, there should be a prima facie   evidence   that   a   person     was   a   party   to   the conspiracy before his acts can be used against his co­ conspirators.   Once   such   a   reasonable   ground   exits, anything   said,   done     or   written   by   one   of   the conspirators in reference  to the common intention, after the said intention was entertained,is relevant against the others, not  only for the purpose of proving the existence of the conspiracy but also for   proving that the other person was a party to it. The evidentiary value of   the said acts is limited  by  two circumstances, namely, that the acts shall have reference  to their common intention and   in   respect   of   a   period   after   such     intention   was entertained   by   any   one   of   them.   The   expression   in reference   to   their   common   intention   is   very comprehensive and it appears to have been  designedly used   to   give   it   a   wider   scope   than   the   words   "   in furtherance   of     in   the   English   law;   with   the   result, anything said, done or written by a  co­conspirator, after the conspiracy was formed, will be evidence against the other before he entered the field of conspiracy or after he left it. Another   important limitation implicit in the language   is   indicated   by   the   expressed     scope   of   its relevancy.   Anything   so   said,   done   or   written   is   a relevant     fact     only   '   as   against     each   of   the   person believed to be so conspiring  as well for  the purpose of proving   the   existence   of   the   conspiracy   as   for   the purpose of  showing that any such person was a party to it'.  It can be used only for the  purpose of proving the existence of the conspiracy  or that the other person  was a party to it. It cannot be said in favour   of the other party or for the  purpose of showing that such a person CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.207 of 336 ­: 208 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

was not a party to the conspiracy. In  short, the Section can be analysed   as follos: (1)   There shall be a prima facie evidence affording a reasonable ground for a Court to believe that   two or more persons are members of a conspiracy;   (2)   if   the   said   condition     is   fulfilled, anything said, done or written by any one of them in reference   to   their   common   intention   will   be   evidence against the other;  (3) anything said,  done or written by him should   have been said , done or written by him after the intention was formed  by any one of them; (4) it would also be relevant   for the said purpose against another who entered the conspiracy whether it was said, done or written before he entered the conspiracy or after he   left   it;   (5)     it   can   only   be   used   against   a   co­ conspirator and not in his favour." 

It was further held:  

"From an analysis of the section, it will be seen that Sec. 10 will come into play only when the  Court is satisfied that there is reasonable ground to   believe that two or more   persons   have   conspired   together   to   commit   an offence. There should be, in other words, a prima facie evidence that the person was a party to the  conspiracy before his acts can be used   against his co­conspirator. One   such   prima   facie   evidence   exists,   anything   said, done or  written by one of the conspirators  in reference to  the   common  intention,   after  the   said  intention   was first   entertained,   is   relevant   against   the   others.   It     is relevant   not   only   for   the   purpose   of   proving   the existence   of  conspiracy,   but  also   for   proving   that   the other   person   was   a   party   to   it.   It   is   true   that   the observations   of   Subba   Rao,   J.   in   Sardul   Singh Caveeshar vs. State of Maharashtra, ( 1964) 2 SCR 378 lend support  to the contention that the  admissibility of evidence   as   between   co­conspirators   would   be   liberal than in English Law. The learned Judge said ( at 390): 

"The evidentiary value of the said acts is limited by two CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.208 of 336 ­: 209 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

circumstances,   namely,   that   the   acts     shall   be   in reference to their common intention and in  respect of a period after such intention was entertained by any one of them. The expression "in reference to their common intention" is very  comprehensive and it appears to have been designedly used to give it a  wider scope than the words   "in   furtherance   of"   in   English   Law,   with   the result anything said, done or written by a co­conspirator, after   the   conspiracy   was   formed,   will   be   evidence against   the   other   before   he   entered   the   field   of conspiracy or after he left it........"  

But, with respect, the above observations that the words of S.  10    have  been  designedly used  to  give  a wider scope than the concept of conspiracy in English Law, may not be accurate. This particular aspect of the law has   been   considered   by     the   Privy   Council   in   Mirza Akbar vs.  King ­Emperor, AIR  1940 PC 176 at P.180 :

(1940 (41) Cri LJ 871),   where Lord Wright said that there is no difference in  principle in Indian Law in view S. 10 of the Evidence Act. 

The decision of the Privy Council in Mirza Akbar's case has   been   referred   to   with   approval   in   Sardul   Singh Caveeshar vs. State  of Bombay, (1958) SCR 161 at P. 193, where Jagannadhadas, J. said: 

"The   limits   of   the   admissibility   of   evidence   in conspiracy case under S. 10 of the Evidence Act have been  authoritatively laid down by the Privy Council in Mirza King vs.   King Emperor ( supra) . In that case their Lordships of the Privy Council hald that Sec. 10 of the Evidence Act must be construed in  accordance with the principle that the thing done, written or spoken was something done in carrying out the conspiracy and was receivable as a step  in the proof of the conspiracy. They notice   that   evidence   receivable   under   S.   10     of   the CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.209 of 336 ­: 210 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

Evidence Act of "anything said , done or written, by any one of such persons: ( i.e. conspirators)   must be "in reference   to   their   common     intention".     But   their Lordships held that in the context (notwithstanding the amplitude of the above phrase) the words therein are not capable of being widely construed having regard to the well known principle above enunciataed." 

10.  It has thus to be established that the accused charged with criminal conspiracy had agreed to pursue a course of conduct which he knew leading to the   commission of a crime by one or more persons to   the agreement, of that offence. Besides the fact of agreement the necessary mens rea  of the crime is also required to be established. 

13.   The   other   important   circumstance   relied   by   the prosecution  and believed both the trial and the High Court is the presence of the appellant in the company of accused No. 1 near or about  the place of occurrence on the date of incident.   It   is     true   that   a   number   of   witnesses   have deposed that they had seen both the accused  together on the   date   of   occurrence   but   it   is   equally   true   that   such meeting was not  unusual as admittedly they were working together in the plantation. Mere  meeting  would by itself not   be   sufficient   to   infer   the   existence   of   the   criminal conspiracy.   There   is   no   suggestion,   much   less   legal evidence   to   the   effect   that   both   the   accused   were   so intimate which would have compelled accused No. 1   to agree to  be a conspirator for the killing of the deceased at the instance of the appellant. The accused No.1 is also not stated to be a habitual criminal. There is no suggestion of the accused No.1 being  hired for the purpose of killing the deceased. 

215.  Apart from plea of accused Rajesh Kapoor  that the account of  M/s India Fab was opened in  Shalimar Bagh Branch of Indian Bank at the instance of   accused Rajiv CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.210 of 336 ­: 211 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

Gupta ( A2) and plea of accused C.M. Bansal ( A3)  to the effect that reference of   accused   Rajiv Gupta ( A2) was relied who was existing customer for some considerable time , there is no evidence to the effect that accused Rajiv Gupta ( A2) introduced the opening of account   of M/s India Fab through proprietor Rajesh Kapoor ( A1) .

216.   Another   allegation   of   prosecution   is   that     the accused Rajiv Gupta ( A2)  falsely projected  the net worth of  accused Rajesh Kapoor ( A1) as five crores  at the time of recommending   the   proposal     of     M/s   India   Fab   for   cash credit  limit of  Rs.  1.25 crores  by the branch to the circle office. The contention of  accused  Rajiv Gupta ( A2) is that he has not  projected the net worth of accused Rajesh Kapoor (A1) as 5 crores and the prosecution  has not produced any evidence to prove this allegation against him. 

217.  Ld.   Sr.   PP   for   CBI   has   contended   that   the prosecution has proved  the  credit report Ex.PW4/L ( D81) which was sent  by accused C.M. Bansal ( A3)  to  the circle office  and in the same  the worth of  Rajesh Kapoor   (A1) is projected   as 5 crores on the basis of   opinion of accused CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.211 of 336 ­: 212 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

Rajiv Gupta ( A2). 

218.  In the statement recorded under Section 313 (1) ( a) Cr.P.C. on 24.11.2016 , accused  C.M. Bansal ( A3) was put question  on credit report Ex.PW4/L ( D81) to which he answered by stating that   the same is correct and the same was submitted as per format prescribed by the bank.  In the statement   recorded   under   Section   313   (1)   (a)   Cr.P.C.   on 26.11.2016, accused Rajiv Gupta was also put question on the credit report   Ex.PW4/L ( D81)   to which he answered by stating that  he has no knowledge of the same. 

219.   The Credit Report Ex. PW4/L (D81) reads as :     

          Indian Bank   Shalimar Bagh Branch  CREDIT REPORT   Individuals. 

1. Name:  Rajesh Kapoor                (If proprietor concern, the name of the concern        also should be given) 

2. Full address:  QU­ 27C, Pitampura, Delhi

3. Nature of business and when established:  Dealing in Trading of    Denim Fabrics     If the party is doing other business, give details    Prop: India Fab      of the trade name/s and address/es of such      business: 

CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.212 of 336 ­: 213 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

4. Particulars of Means: 

    1(A) Immovable Properties: 

(1) Value of Lands as per Manager's estimate : Rs.  (2) Value of Building as per Manager's Estimate : Rs. 225.00 (3) Book value of Plant and Machinery, if any  : Rs. 

5.  ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

8.  ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

9.  The name/s and Address/es of Person/s, Bank/s, from whom I made enquiries as      follows:   

Date of  Name   and   address   of   the His/their estimate of  Is the  opinion person/   Bank   from   whom the worth of the Party  information  opinion received  (verbatim report should given orally or be given, if from bank) in writing?

              1/6/09    Sh. Rajeev Gupta                        5 crore             Orally 
                        BC - 56 
                        Shalimar Bagh
                        Delhi­88
                        Tel : 9310593505

            10. ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

                ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­


         Dated: ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­                                               MANAGER
           

220.   Accused C.M. Bansal (A3) examined himself as DW1   and   in   his   examination   in   chief,   he   stated   that   in Ex.PW69/DA( D66) he has mentioned the estimate of the worth   of   the   party   as   5crores   which   is   peripheral information and the same is mentioned by him on the basis of     inquiries   made   by   him.   The   contention   of   accused Rajiv   Gupta   (   A2)   is   that     he   has   never   mentioned   the networth of  accused Rajesh Kapoor ( A1) as 5 crores  and it has been falsely imputed on him that he has mentioned CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.213 of 336 ­: 214 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

the networth of  accused Rajesh Kapoor ( A1) as 5 crores.  

221.         Apart   from   credit   report   Ex.PW4/L   (D81)   in which  it is mentioned by  accused C.M. Bansal ( A3) that  as per oral information   from accused Rajiv Gupta ( A2), the networth of  accused  Rajesh Kapoor ( A1) is 5 crores , there is  no  other   evidence  to this  effect. No  evidence  has  been adduced   to   corroborate   the   contention     of   accused   C.M. Bansal ( A3) that accused Rajiv Gupta ( A2) had mentioned the networth of accused Rajesh Kapoor as 5 crores  and  on that account this information was incorporated by accused C.M.   Bansal   (A3)   in     column   no.   9   of   Credit   Report Ex.PW4/L ( D81)  which was sent to the  Circle office.   

222.  Another   allegation   of   the   prosecution   is   that accused Rajiv Gupta ( A2) facilitated the taking of Mangol Puri   property   on   rent   by   M/s   India   Fab   through   accused Rajesh   Kapoor   (   A1)   .   As   per   case   of   prosecution,   the property   no.   B­354,   Mangolpuri   Industrial   Area,   Phase­I, Delhi   was   taken   on   rent   by   M/s   India   Fab   through   its proprietor accused Rajesh Kapoor ( A1)  from  Ms. Archana Mittal   vide  Rent  Agreement  Ex.PW15/G  (  D112)   through Sh. Mohan Bansal, Property Dealer.   Sh. Naresh Kumar , CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.214 of 336 ­: 215 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

husband of  Smt. Archana Mittal appeared in the witness box as PW15 and stated that the rent deed in respect of property no. B­354, Mangolpuri Industrial Area, Phase­I, Delhi was arranged by Sh.  Mohan Bansal, property dealer. In the cross examination of PW15, accused Rajesh Kapoor ( A1) did not prefer to put any questions and the testimony of PW15 to this   effect   has   remained   unrebutted.       The   prosecution examined Sh. Mohan Bansal  as PW44 who stated that  he is working   as   property   dealer   under   the   name   and   style   of Mohan   Bansal   Property   Dealer   and   the   rent   agreement Ex.PW15/G ( D112) between  Archana Mittal and M/s India Fab, proprietor of which is Sh. Rajesh Kapoor( A1),   was executed before him and he had signed the same at point C and   PW44   also   identified   accused   Rajesh   Kapoor   (   A1). Neither   PW15   Sh.   Naresh   Kumar   nor   PW44   Sh.   Mohan Bansal have  stated that the property no. B­354, Mangol Puri Industrial area, Phase­I, Delhi was rented to accused Rajesh Kapoor ( A1) proprietor of  M/s India Fab  through  accused Rajiv   Gupta   (   A2)   or   accused   Rajiv   Gupta   (   A2)   was involved   in   deal   of   taking   the   property   no.   B­354, Mangolpuri   Industrial   Area,   Phase­1   on   rent   by   accused Rajesh Kapoor (A1), proprietor of M/s India Fab. 

CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.215 of 336 ­: 216 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

223.  The contention of Ld. Sr.  PP for CBI is that accused Rajiv Gupta ( A2)  was  part of conspiracy of siphoning off the amount of   cash credit limit received in the account of M/s India Fab  from Shalimar Bagh Branch of Indian Bank and the  Power of Attorney for collection of bills, book debts and   other   receiables   Ex.PW52/Z5   (   D31)   executed   by accused Rajesh  Kapoor ( A1) in favour of Indian Bank bears signatures of  accused Rajiv Gupta( A2).      Accused Rajiv Gupta   (   A2)   has   contended   that   there   is   no   evidence   on record     which   will   suggest     that   he   was     part   of   the conspiracy  of siphoning  off  the amount of cash credit limit received   in   the   account   of   M/s   India   Fab   from   Shalimar Bagh Branch of Indian Bank  and   the Power of Attorney Ex.PW52/Z5  has been signed by him as a witness only and the same  does not prove his involvement in any offence. 

224.  The   prosecution   examined   Sh.   Pramod   Juneja PW3   from   Indian   Bank     who   stated   that   one   Rajiv Gupta( A2)  used to come along with accused Rajesh Kapoor (   A1)   and   at   the   time   of   withdrawal   by   accused   Rajesh Kapoor ( A1) often  accused Rajiv Gupta ( A2) accompanied him and on different occasions  the amounts were transferred through   RTGS   to   different   bank   accounts   .   In   the   cross CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.216 of 336 ­: 217 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

examination PW3 stated that accused Rajiv Gupta ( A2) was also having   an   account in the same bank since long and other family members of Rajiv Gupta ( A2) were also having account   in the same bank and   accused Rajiv Gupta ( A2) used   to   do   transactions   on   behalf   of     himself     and   other family members. Thereafter PW3 Sh. Pramod Juneja further stated   in   the   cross   examination   that   he     cannot   say   as   to whether Rajiv Gupta ( A2) has ever withdrawn any money from   the   account   of   accused   Rajesh   Kapoor   (   A1)     and without seeing the documents, he cannot say whether there is any document or  deposit or withdrawl of money by accused Rajiv Gupta (A2).

225.   Prosecution   examined     another   witness   from Indian Bank i.e. Sh. Pradeep Kumar Garg as PW22   who stated   that     the   Statement   of   Account   of     account no.835962833 of M/s India Fab  for the period 23.05.2009 to 12.08.2009  is Ex.PW22/B ( Colly) (D7) and the Statement of   Account     of   account   of     account   No.   777212398   of accused   Rajiv   Gupta   (A2)   for   the   period   19.06.2008   to 26.08.2009 is Ex.PW22/E ( Colly) (D78).   PW22 stated in the   cross   examination   that     he   cannot   say   whether   any transaction has taken place between the account of M/s India CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.217 of 336 ­: 218 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

Fab   and     account   of   accused   Rajiv   Gupta   (   A2)   and thereafter   after   seeing   the   vouchers     from   D10   to   D38 relating to M/s India Fab, PW22 Sh.   Pradeep Kumar Garg stated that   no money was transacted from the account of M/s India Fab  to  account of  Rajiv Gupta ( A2) .  

226.  Prosecution   examined     Sh.   Kishore   Kumar PW52   from   Indian   Bank   who   produced   the   Power   of Attorney     for   collection   of   bills,   book   debts   and   other receivables     Ex.PW52/Z5   (   D31)     executed   by   accused Rajesh  Kapoor  , proprietor  of M/s India Fab in favour  of Indian   Bank   and   identified   signatures   of   accused   Rajesh Kapoor ( A1) at points A, B and C on the same and  that of witness    Rajiv  Gupta (  A2)  at point D.   In the statement under Section 313 ( 1) ( a) Cr.P.C. recorded on 26.11.2016, accused  Rajiv Gupta ( A2)  was put question  on the Power of   Attorney     for   collection   of   bills,   book   debts   and   other receivables  Ex.PW52/Z5 ( D31)  to which he answered by stating that document is correct and  he signed the Power of Attorney   as   a   witness   at   the   request   of     Bank   Manager accused   C.M.   Bansal   (   A3)   .   The   contention   of     accused Rajiv Gupta ( A2) is that  he had merely signed the Power of Attorney   for     collection   of   bills,   book   debts   and   other CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.218 of 336 ­: 219 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

receivables  Ex.PW52/Z5 ( D31)   as a witness at the  request of  Bank Manager accused C.M. Bansal ( A3) and  the same does not prove that he was part of any conspiracy or   had withdrawn any money from the account of M/s  India Fab in Indian Bank, Shalimar Bagh Branch or was beneficiary of the credit facility   given to   M/s India Fab   by the Indian Bank, Shalimar Bagh Branch.  The Ex.PW52/Z5 (D31) is the Power of Attorney   for   collection of bills, book debts and other receivables executed by  accused Rajesh Kapoor ( A1) as proprietor of  M/s  India Fab   in favour  of Indian Bank thereby authorizing the Indian Bank to   take actions on his behalf   as   mentioned   in   the   said   Power   of   Attorney     and accused Rajiv Gupta ( A2) has signed the same as a witness. The signing of   Power of Attorney for   collection of bills, book debts and other receivables  Ex.PW52/Z5 ( D31)   by accused Rajiv Gupta ( A2) as a witness does not prove that accused Rajiv Gupta ( A2) had withdrawn any amount from the   account   of   M/s   India  Fab   maintained   in  Indian  Bank, Shalimar Bagh Branch or  that he has  received   any other financial benefit  from   the said account of M/s India Fab. The prosecution has not adduced any cogent evidence which could   prove   that   accused   Rajeev   Gupta   (A2)   introduced opening   of   account   of   M/s   India   Fab   in   Indian   Bank, CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.219 of 336 ­: 220 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

Shalimar Bagh Branch or that he was involved any business activity for which amount was withdrawn from the account of M/s India Fab or that he performed any act for promoting business activity of M/s India Fab.  Prosecution has also not proved that the funds received in the account of M/s India Fab from Indian Bank, Shalimar Bagh Branch, Delhi, were utilized by accused Rajeev Gupta(A2) in any manner for his own business activities or that he (A2) received any money from the said account of M/s India Fab.  The prosecution has not adduced sufficient evidence which could prove beyond reasonable doubts that the accused Rajiv Gupta(A2)was part of  the  conspiracy  to commit  fraud  upon the  Indian  Bank, Shalimar Bagh Branch, Delhi.

    Role of accused Chander Mohan Bansal (A3)

227.     The allegations of the prosecution are  that  the accused  C.M. Bansal ( A3) was posted as Branch Manager of Indian Bank, Shalimar Bagh  at the relevant time  and he authorized opening of the account no. 835962833 of   M/s India   Fab   through   accused   Rajesh   Kapoor   (A1)   on 23.05.2009   without     any   introduction   of   existing   account holder.   It is alleged that immediately after opening of the said account, accused Rajesh Kapoor, proprietor of M/s India CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.220 of 336 ­: 221 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

Fab  requested the Branch Manager vide his letter for credit facility   by way of cash credit limit of Rs. 150 Lakhs and accused Rajesh Kapoor (A1) also submitted duly filled bank proforma dated 23.05.2009  for  "Application for Advances to Traders".  It is further alleged that in the said proforma, it was mentioned that M/s India Fab was maintaining account with Karur Vysya Bank and accused Rajesh Kapoor ( A1) also offered collateral security of plot no.  B­354, measuring 200 Sq. Mt. situated at Mangolpuri Industrial Area, Phase -I, New   Delhi       and     accused   Rajesh   Kapoor     (A1)   also submitted   fake   and   forged   documents   i.e.     photocopy   of Statement   of   Account   of   M/s   India   Fab     for     the   period 01.04.2008 to 30.04.2009 purported to be issued by Karur Vysya   Bank   Ltd,   Rohini   Branch   Delhi   and   accused   C.M. Bansal (A3) made no efforts to ascertain the genuineness of the   same   although   the   said   bank   account   in   Karur   Vysya Bank  was opened  w.e.f. 31.01.2009 only.   

228.  It is further alleged by the prosecution that the accused   Rajesh   Kapoor(A1)   had   also   submitted   the photocopies of the audited balance sheets  for the year ended 31.03.2007,   31.03.2008   and   31.03.2009   of   M/s   India   Fab purported to be audited by  Naresh Jindal and  Associates but CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.221 of 336 ­: 222 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

accused C.M. Bansal ( A3)  did not follow the bank norms and did not verify the same and the said balance sheets were found to be fake and forged.   It is further alleged by the prosecution   that     accused   Rajesh   Kapoor   (   A1)   had   also submitted   the   list   of   sundry   debtors   ,   unsecured   loan   and sundry   creditors   as   on   31.03.2008   and   31.03.2009   on   the letterhead of M/s India Fab and the addresses of the Sundry debtors   and     creditors   were   not   available   on   record   and accused     C.M.   Bansal   did   not     object   to   the   same.     The prosecution has alleged that accused C.M. Bansal  permitted the equitable mortgage of property no.   B­354, measuring 200 Sq. Mt. situated at Mangolpuri Industrial Area, Phase -I, New Delhi to be created on the basis of   fake and forged documents     of   the   said   property     submitted   by   accused Rajesh Kapoor ( A1). 

229.    The prosecution has  alleged that  accused C.M. Bansal   (A3)   ,   the   then   Branch   Manager,   Indian   Bank, Shalimar Bagh Branch   had   placed on record   the original opinion   letter dated 28.05.2009 purported to be issued by Karur Vysya Bank Ltd., Prashant Vihar, Delhi in favour of M/s India Fab wherein it was mentioned that  M/s India Fab proprietor Rajesh Kapoor was maintaining account with the CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.222 of 336 ­: 223 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

said bank since June, 2007 and account classification   was good . But the investigation revealed that   as per dispatch register   of   Indian   Bank,   there   is   an   entry   on   28.05.2009 regarding   dispatch   of   letter   addressed   to   Chief   Manager, Karur Vysya Bank, Rohini   and the said letter   was sent to Kaur Vysya Bank, Rohini through M/s Professional Courier as per their receipt 2222196 dated 29.05.2009  and the copy of  the letter    which was  sent   to Karur  Vysya  Bank  Ltd, Rohini     was   not   available   on   record   with   Indian   Bank, Shalimar Bagh Branch and the Karur Vysya Bank Ltd made available copy of letter dated 27.05.2009 issued under the signatures of   C.M. Bansal   ( A3) , Branch Manager vide which   he   requested   for   credit   opinion   of   account   of   M/s India Fab , proprietor Rajesh Kapoor ( A1) through Rajesh Kapoor   and to verify that     the account is standard for the last two years . The investigation   revealed that the Karur Vysya   Bank   Ltd.,   Prashant   Vihar,   Rohini   denied   having issued the opinion giving letter dated 28.05.2009 and also denied having issued the photocopy of statement of account of M/s India Fab for the period 01.04.2008 to 30.04.2009 as available on the record of Indian Bank  since  M/s India Fab was not maintaining account with them from 01.04.2008 and instead     M/s   India   Fab   was   maintaining   its   account   with CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.223 of 336 ­: 224 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

them from 31.01.2009 and the said letter of opinion dated 28.05.2009 was found to be fake and forged. 

230.    It   is   further   alleged   by   the   prosecution   that Karur Vysya Bank Ltd, Prashant Vihar, Rohini furnished the opinion   vide   their   letter     dated   12.06.2009   which   was received   by   accused   C.M.   Bansal   (   A3)   on   13.09.2006 through courier as per courier receipt collected from   Karur Vysya Bank Ltd.  It is alleged that in the opinion letter dated 12.06.2009 the Karur Vysya Bank had stated that M/s India Fab was maintaining account with them from 31.01.2009 but the said opinion letter dated 12.06.2009  was not placed on record     by   accused   C.M.   Bansal   (A3)   and   the   said   letter dated   12.06.2009   of   Karur   Vysya   Bank   Ltd   was misappropriated  by  accused C.M. Bansal ( A3) to cover up his misdeeds with intent to favour the borrower in pursuance to the criminal conspiracy.   

231.  It   is   further   alleged   by   the   prosecution   that accused   C.M.   Bansal   willfully     did   not   verify   the genuineness   of   the   balance   sheets   submitted   by   accused Rajesh Kapoor (A1) at the time of appraisal /recommending the   proposal     to   Circle   Office   for   sanction   of   financial CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.224 of 336 ­: 225 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

assistance and   during his visit   to the property   at Mangol Puri, the accused  C.M. Bansal ( A3) did not enquire about the background  in which it was in possession of M/s India Fab. It is further alleged   that accused C.M. Bansal ( A3) projected networth of accused Rajesh Kapoor ( A1) to be Rs. 5 crores  merely on the basis of statement of Rajiv Gupta. 

232.   The contention of Ld. Counsel for the accused no. 3 C.M. Bansal   is that there are no allegations of any misconduct  against  accused no. 3   in the complaint dated 10.09.2009  of Sh.  Malay Mukherjee  on the basis of which the present case  has been registered.

233.    It   is   further   contended   on   behalf   of   A3   that prosecution has alleged that   immediately after opening of the   current   account   of   M/s   India   Fab   by   accused   Rajesh Kapoor,   as   proprietor,   credit   facility   of   Rs.   125   lacs   was granted  to M/s India Fab on the basis of equitable mortgage of   forged   documents   of   property   No.   354,   Block­B, Mangolpuri, Phase­I, Delhi but perusal of the records would show that accused C.M. Bansal   had exercised due caution and it could not have been made out  that the documents of the property no. 354, Block­B, Mangolpuri, Phase­I, Delhi CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.225 of 336 ­: 226 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

which were submitted to the bank were forged as the office of the Sub Registrar and panel advocate   of the bank also stated   that   same   were   registered   with   the   office   of   Sub Registrar    and in the circumstances,  accused  C.M. Bansal had no means  to discover that some fraud has been played with the office of Delhi Development Authority  or  office of Sub Registrar in fabrication of those documents. 

234.  It   is   further   contended   on   behalf   of   accused C.M. Bansal (A3) that allegation  against him is that accused C.M. Bansal ( A3) obtained the copy of  rent agreement  of the premises  No.   5063, Gali No. 1, Desh  Bandhu  Gupta Road, Sant Nagar, Karol bagh, New Delhi purported  to be executed on 01.01.2007  between Shyam Arora and accused Rajesh   Kapoor,   copy   of   PAN   Card   and   copy   of   driving licence   without  attestation by  accused Rajesh Kapoor and accused C.M. Bansal also did not put his signatures  on the same.

235.  Ld. Counsel for A3  C.M. Bansal has contended that as per banking regulations, there is no requirement of taking of self attested photocopies from the person  opening the account and same are not required to be attested by the CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.226 of 336 ­: 227 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

person authorising the opening of  account.

236.  The  contention   of  Ld.  Counsel   for   A3  is  that PAN Card and Driving Licence which were submitted by accused Rajesh Kapoor   at the time of opening   of account of   M/s   India   Fab   were   original   documents   issued   by   the concerned authorities   and in the circumstances , there was no reason   to believe that the same are false or have been obtained     fraudulently     from   the   concerned     Government Authorities.

237.  Ld.   Counsel   for   A3   has   contended   that   there   was   no suspicion   regarding the rent agreement which was submitted by accused  Rajesh Kapoor to the bank for opening of account  of M/s India Fab and there was no reason for accused C.M. Bansal  to go beyond the said rent deed.

238.    It   is   contended   by   Ld.   Counsel   for   accused   C.M. Bansal (A3) that prosecution has alleged that  accused C.M. Bansal (A3) authorized the opening  of account of M/s India Fab without any introduction.  The contention of Ld. Counsel for accused C.M. Bansal   (A3)     is   that   the   question   of   taking     introduction     for opening of a new account is to be seen in terms of regulations  of the bank  and as per regulations of the bank, it is not necessary  to CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.227 of 336 ­: 228 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

take   introduction     for   opening   of   a   new   account   in   all circumstances. 

239.  Ld. Counsel for A3 has contended that   para 11.6.5 of the manual   of   the     bank  Ex.PW10/C    (   D­215)   provides   that   for opening of   account in a newly opened branch, the introduction from other respectable and  known person may be accepted and Sh. Rajiv Gupta was the account holder of the bank and other family members also of Rajiv Gupta  had account in  the same branch and on the basis of introduction   of Rajiv Gupta and after satisfying from the documents as submitted by accused Rajesh Kapoor i.e. PAN  Card, Driving Licence and Rent  Deed,  the account  of M/s India   Fab   through     proprietor   Rajesh   Kapoor     was   opened   and accused   C.M.   Bansal     had   not     committed   any   impropriety   in opening of account of M/s India Fab.

240.  Ld.   Counsel   for     accused   C.   M.   Bansal   (A3)   has   further contended that PW52 Sh. Kishore Kumar who was an officer   of the   Indian   Bank   also   stated   in   the   cross   examination     that   the introduction part for newly opened   account in a new branch   is somewhat   relaxed   and   on     oral   introduction   of   the   existing customer, as a general practice, a new account can be   opened in case that person had all authentic documents.

CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.228 of 336 ­: 229 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

241.  It is contended by Ld. Counsel for A3 that PW3 Sh. Pramod Juneja  who is also an official of the Indian Bank stated in the cross examination that  current accounts can be opened without reference specially in new branches for promotion of business.   Hence, no introduction was required for opening of new current account of M/s India Fab but   with the introduction of Rajiv Gupta   and on production of the required documents and on being satisfied  about the genuineness of parties, A3 opened the account of   M/s India Fab.

242.  The contention of Ld. Counsel for A3 is that   at the relevant time, A3 was the Branch Manager and the allegations as mentioned in the charge sheet pertain to the banking practices and as per  the allegations  it cannot be said that A3 had committed any offence as per Section 13(1)(d) and Section 13(2) of the PC Act.

243.   Ld. Counsel for accused C. M.Bansal (A3) has relied on decision in C.K. Damodaran Nair  v. Govt. of India, AIR 1997 SC 551, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold: 

12.   The position will, however, be different so far as an offence under   Section   5(1)(d)     read   with   Section   5   (2)   of   the   Act   is concerned. For such an offence prosecution has to prove that   the CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.229 of 336 ­: 230 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

accused   'obtained'   the   valuable   thing   or   pecuniary   advantage   by corrupt or illegal means or by otherwise  abusing his position as a public   servant   and   that   too   without   the   aid   of   the   statutory presumption under Section 4 (1) of the Act  as  it is available only in respect  of offences under Section 5(1)(a) and(b)­ and  not under Section 5(1)(c), (d) or (e) of the Act. 'Obtain' means to secure or gain (some­thing) as the result of request or effort ( Shorter Oxford Dictionary). In case of obtainment the initiative vests in the person who receives and in that context a demand or request from  him will be a primary requisite for an offence under Section 5 (1)(d) of the Act unlike an offence under Section 161 I.P.C.,  which, as noticed above,   can   be,   established   by   proof   of   either   'acceptance'­   or 'obtainment.' 

244. Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 deals with criminal misconduct by a public servant. Section 13(1)

(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 provides: 

"13. Criminal misconduct by a public servant.­  (1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct,­  ..........

 ..........

(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 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.230 of 336 ­: 231 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

(iii) while holding office as a public servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest;"

245.   Ld. Counsel   for accused Chander Mohan Bansal(A3) has relied   on  following  observations   in  decision   in  Runu   Ghosh  v. CBI,  Crl.   A.482/2002,   Crl.A.509/2002,  wherein  Hon'ble   High Court of Delhi has been pleased to hold:

78.   In a previous part of this judgment, what  constitutes "public in­ terest" and the trust element, which informs every decision of a public servant or agency, was discussed and emphasized. The State in its myriad functions enters into contracts, of various kinds, involves itself in regula­ tion, awards   or grants largesse, and holds property. Each action of the State must further the social or economic goals sought to be achieved by the policy. Therefore, when a public servant's   decision exhibits   com­ plete and manifest disregard to public interest with the corresponding re­ sult of a third party obtaining pecuniary advantage or valuable thing, he is fastened with responsibility for "criminal misconduct" under   Section 13(1) (d) (iii). There is nothing reprehensible in this interpretation, be­ cause the "act" being "without public interest" is the key, the controlling expression, to this offence. If  one contrasts this with " abuse" of office resulting   in   someone   "obtaining"   "pecuniary   advantage   or   valuable thing", it is evident that Section 13(1) (d) (ii) may or may not entail the act  being without  public interest. This offence­ under Section 13(1)(d)

(iii) advisedly does not require proof of intent, or mens rea, because what Parliament intended was to punish public servants for acts which were without public interest. This kind of offence is  similar  to those intended to deal with other social evils, such as food and drug adulteration, ( of ­ CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.231 of 336 ­: 232 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

fences under Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, Section 13(1), Drugs and Cosmetics Act; Section 7 (1) Essential Commodities Act, 1955, Sec­ tion 25, Arms Act, 1959), possession of  explosives, air and water pollu­ tion, etc.

79.    What then is the behaviour or act which attracts such oppro­ brium  as to result in criminal responsibility?  It is not every act which re­ sults in loss of public interest, or that is contrary to  public  interest,  that is   prosecutable offence. There can be no doubt that all acts prejudicial to public   interest,   can   be   the   subject   matter   of   judicial   review.   In   those cases, courts consider whether the decision maker transgressed the zone of reasonableness, or breached the law, in his action. However,  it is only those acts done  with complete and manifest disregard to the norms, and manifestly injurious to public interest, which were avoidable, but for the public servant's overlooking or disregarding  precautions and not heeding the safeguards he or she was expected to,  and which result in pecuniary advantage to another that are prosecutable under Section 13(1)(d) (iii) . In  other  words, if the public servant is able to show that he followed all the safeguards, and exercised all reasonable precautions having regard to the  circumstances,   despite   which there   was  loss   of   public  interest,  he would not be guilty  of the offence. The provision aims at ensuring effi­ ciency, and responsible behaviour,   as much as it seeks to outlaw irre­ sponsibility in public servant's   functioning which would otherwise go unpunished. The blameworthiness for a completely indefensible  act of a public servant, is to be of such degree that it is something that  no reason­ able man would have done, if  he were placed in that position, having re­ gard to all the circumstances. It is not merely a case of making a wrong choice; the decision should be one such as no one would have taken.

81. As noticed previously, the silence in the statute, about the state of mind, rules out applicability of the mens rea or intent standard, (i.e. the CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.232 of 336 ­: 233 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

prosecution does not have to prove that the accused intended the conse­ quence, which occurred or was likely to occur). Having regard to the ex­ isting law Section 13 (1) (e) (which does not require proof of criminal in­ tent) as well as the strict liability standards prevailing our system of law, therefore, a decision is said to be without public interest, (if the other re­ quirements of the provision, i.e. Section 13 (1) (d) (iii) are fulfilled) if that action of the public servant is consequence of his or her manifest failure to observe those reasonable safeguards against detriment to the public interest, which having regard to all circumstances, it was his or her duty to have adopted. 

246. In  State of Madhya Pradesh  Vs.  Sheetla Sahai and Ors. MANU/SC/1425/2009,   Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold:

53.  *.........................................

             .........................................* In Inspector Prem Chand v. Govt. of N.C.T. Of Delhi and Ors. 2007 AIR SCW 2532, this Court observed:

In State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Singh Ex. Constable MANU/SC/0426/1992 : 1992 (4) SCC 54, it was stated:

Misconduct has  been  defined in  Black's  Law  Dictionary, Sixth Edition at page 999, thus:

'A transgression of some established and definite rule of ac­ tion, a forbidden act, a dereliction from duty, unlawful be­ haviour, wilful in character, improper or wrong behaviour, its   synonyms   are   misdemeanor,   misdeed,   misbehavior, delinquency, impropriety, mismanagement, offense, but not negligence or carelessness.' Misconduct in office has been defined as: Any unlawful behaviour by a public officer in relation to the   duties   of   his   office,  willful  in   character.     Term   em­ CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.233 of 336 ­: 234 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

braces acts which the officer holder had no right to per­ form, acts performed improperly, and failure to act in the face of an affirmative duty to act.

In P. Ramanatha Aiyar's Law Lexicon, 3 rd edition, at page 3027, the term 'misconduct' has been defined as under: The term  'misconduot'  implies, a wrongful intention, and not a mere error of judgment.

Misconduct is not necessarily the same thing as conduct in­ volving moral turpitude.

The word 'misconduct' is a relative term, and has to be con­ strued with reference to the subject matter and the context wherein the term occurs, having regard to the scope of the Act or statue which is being construed. Misconduct literally means wrong conduct or improper conduct.

247.     In  Runu   Ghosh  Vs.   C.B.I.  CRL.A.   482/2002, CRL.A. 509/2002, CRL. M.A. 1839/2002 & CRL.A. 536/2002, Hon'ble Delhi High Court has been pleased to hold:

"68. Before embarking on a discussion of the case law cited, and the submissions regarding the interpretation of Section 13 (1) (d), it would be essential, at this stage to notice the Statement of Ob­ jects and Reasons for the 1988 Act.  They are extracted below:

The Bill is intended to make the existing anti­corruption laws more effective by widening their coverage and by strengthen­ ing the provisions.

2. The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, was amended in 1964 based on the recommendations of the Santhanam Com­ mittee.  There are provisions in Chapter IX of the Indian Pe­ nal Code  to deal with public servants and those who abet them by way of criminal misconduct.  There are also provi­ sions in the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944, to enable attachment of ill­gotton wealth obtained through cor­ CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.234 of 336 ­: 235 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

rupt means, including from transferees of such wealth.  The Bill seeks to incorporate all these provisions with modifica­ tions so as to make the provisions more effective in combat­ ing corruption among public servants.

3. The Bill, inter alia, envisages widening the scope of the definition of the expression public servant, incorporation of offences  under  Section 161  to  165­ A  of the Indian Penal Code, enhancement of penalties provided for these offences and incorporation of a provision that the order of the trial court upholding the grant of sanction for prosecution would be final if it has not already been challenged and the trial has commenced.  In order to expedite the proceedings, provi­ sions for day­to­day trial of cases and prohibitory provisions with regard to grant of stay and exercise of powers of revi­ sion on interlocutory orders have also been included.

4. Since the provisions of Section 161 to 165­A are incorpo­ rated in the proposed legislation with an enhanced punish­ ment, it is not necessary to retain those sections in the Indian Penal Code. Consequently, it is proposed to delete those sec­ tions with the necessary saving provision.

5. The notes on clauses explain in detail the provisions of the Bill. 

*..................................* *...................................*

130. Now, the expression "abuse" of office by an accused is not new; it has been in the lexicon ­ in the context of corruption laws, for over six and a half decades.  The best exposition of what action would be "abuse" is to be found in Narayana Nambiar (supra):

The juxtaposition of the work otherwise' with the words corrupt or illegal means', and the dishonest implicit in the word abuse' indicate the necessity for a dishonest in­ tention on his part to bring him within the meaning of the clause.   Whether he abused his position or not depends upon the facts of each case."

CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.235 of 336 ­: 236 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

248. The prosecution   has relied on   the guidelines of the bank regarding 'Know Your Customer'   as contained in   Ex.PW10/C ( D­215).  

The Para 2.4 of    of the guidelines of the bank Ex.PW10/C ( D­

215) regarding   Know Your Customer reads as under:

2.4 Objectives of KYC Guidelines  2.4.1   The main objective of  KYC guidelines is to prevent banks from   being   used,   intentionally   or   unintentionally,   by   criminal elements for money laundering activities. KYC   procedures   also enable banks to know and understand their customers and their financial dealings better which in turn help them manager their risks prudently.

2.4.2.  Know Your Customer is the principle on which the banking system  operates  to   avoid    the   pitfalls  of  operational,  legal  and reputation   risks   and   consequential   losses   by   scrupulously adhering   to   the   various   procedures   laid   down  for   opening   and conduct of accounts. 

2.4.3 While prudent procedures existed in the banking system for opening of an account with a bank, these measures have come into greater   focus   with   increased   cross   border   transactions   and   the unequivocal   acceptance   of   proceeds   of   a   crime   as   undesirable money   by   the   financial   system.   Thus,   the   KYC   guidelines     go beyond   merely   establishing   the   identity   of   the   person   and satisfying   about     his credentials  by obtaining an introductory CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.236 of 336 ­: 237 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

reference from a known person. 

2.4.4  The due diligence expected under KYC involves going in to the   purpose   and   reasons   for   opening   the   account,   anticipated turnover   in   the   account,   source   of   wealth   (   net   worth)     of   the person opening the account and sources of funds flowing into the account. Thus, this is   not a responsibility, which ends with the opening   of   the   account   and   monitoring   of   transactions   in   the initial few months of opening of the account, as was the practice in vogue in our country. Ongoing monitoring is an essential element of effective KYC procedures.

2.4.5   Other objectives in stipulating KYC guidelines are:

i.  To obtain protection under Section 131 of Negotiable  Instruments Act. 

                    ii.    To minimize frauds 
                    iii.   To check  misappropriations 
                    iv.    To weed out undesirable customers
                    v.     To prevent money laundering 
                    vi.    To minimize risks on account of any inadvertent overdrafts

vii.  To   satisfy   that   the   proposed   customer   is   not   an undischarged insolvent viii. To   avoid   opening   of   accounts   in   anonymous   or benami/fictitious names and addresses    

249. The  Para   7  of  the   guidelines   of   the   bank Ex.PW10/C(D­215)  regarding  Identification   Documents   for Medium /High Risk Customers reads as under:

7. Identification Documents for Medium /High Risk Customers 7.1   In respect of medium/high risk customers, branches shall call for additional information and documentary  evidence. ( Besides the CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.237 of 336 ­: 238 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

normal  documents  prescribed   in  para   6.2  (b)  above)  which    may include Type   of Additional Customers/accounts  Information/Documents For   opening   Non Introduction   in   the   form   of Resident accounts  passport   and//or     by   another bank/Indian     Embassy/Notary Public/Person   known   to   the account opening branch  For   opening In   addition   to   obtention   of accounts   of   other documents/information   for than   NRIs   under identity     and   location   of   the Medium   and   High customer   branch   in   terms   of Risk  categories Para   No.   6.2(b),  introduction For   current by an existing account holder accounts   in  all   risk or by a person known to the categories Bank.   

                     For     accounts   of
                     other                than
                     individuals in all risk
                     categories  


           7.2 ­­­­­­­­­­­­
           ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
           7.3  ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
           ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
           7.4      If     the business or residential address of the prospective

account holder is outside the area of operation of the branch or if the introducer is an account holder of another branch,  proper enquiries should be made about the reason for opening of the account at his branch and without verifying the genuineness of the signature of the introducer, no cheque book should be issued. The Branch Manager has to make more enquiries than usual to test the credentials of the CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.238 of 336 ­: 239 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

prospective customer, before allowing to open the account.  7.5  Additional  care should be exercised in opening accounts in the names of sole­proprietorship concerns. If the request is to open accounts in impersonal names (e.g.  Venus Traders) or in any name other than the sole proprietor's own name, the fact that the applicant is really the sole­proprietor of the concern should be verified from independent sources.

250. Ld. Sr. PP for CBI has contended that as per Chapter 6 of   the   Manual   of   the   bank   dealing   with   current   accounts Ex.PW10/B( D­214), the accused C.M. Bansal ( A3) was  required to take  introduction  properly   and  was  to record    the  details  of introduction in the account opening form but  accused C.M. Bansal (   A3)   has   not   followed   the   same.   Para   3.2.2   of   Chapter   6 Ex.PW10/B ( D­214) regarding Current Accounts  reads as : 

3.2  Adherance to KYC Norms  3.2.1.   ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ 3.2.2.     The accounts  should  be properly introduced. The details  of introduction must be recorded in the account opening form. 

3.2.3  All   the   forms   obtained   from   the   prospective   depositor should be checked to ensure that they are complete in all respects and the Asst. Manager/Manager/Senior Manager/Chief Manager who is authorized   to open deposit accounts should     authorize opening of the account.  

251. From   the   objectives   of   the     KYC   guidelines   as CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.239 of 336 ­: 240 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

contained   in  Ex.PW10/C  (D­215)   ,   it   is   apparent   that   the   said guidelines   have   been   framed   from   protecting   the   banks     being exposed   to   criminal   elements   ,   to   minimize   frauds   ,   to   check misappropriation  and to avoid opening of accounts  in anonymous or   benami/fictitious   name     and   addresses.     The     Para   3.2.2   of Ex.PW10/B   (   D­214)   pertaining   to   adherence   to   KYC   norms provides the necessity of   proper introduction of accounts and it requires  that the details of introduction are recorded in the account opening form.  The perusal of account opening form of M/s India Fab,   Proprietor   Rajesh   Kapoor   of   Indian   Bank,   Shalimar   Bagh Branch Ex.PW11/D (alsoEx.PW3/A)  (D­4)shows  that it  does not contain   any details of the introducer   or that enquires have been made from any existing customer of the bank   or introduction has been obtained from any other   respectable or known person. 

252.  In the statement recorded on 24.11.2016 under Section 313 (1) (a) Cr.P.C, accused C.M. Bansal (A3)  was put question on the account opening form Ex.PW3/A ( D­4)  to which he answered by stating that it was done in the ordinary course of duties without any knowledge or intention of any wrong doing  and he had authorized the opening of the account only after verification of all original documents   submitted   by   accused   Rajesh   Kapoor   (A1)   as   to   his identity   and     address.   However,   in   his   written   statement   Ex.C3 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.240 of 336 ­: 241 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

filed on 26.02.2016 , accused C.M. Bansal has stated  that reference of  Rajiv Gupta was relied as he was existing customer of branch for some considerable time .   In his submissions made before the court also, C.M. Bansal ( A3) has stated that he ( A3) opened the account     of     M/s   India     Fab   ,   proprietor   Rajesh   Kapoor   after introductory reference from Rajiv Gupta who by bank's standard was a respectable account holder of the bank and was carrying  the same business of fabrics.  

253.  Accused   C.M.   Bansal(A3)   examined   himself   under Section 315 Cr.P.C. as DW1  and  stated  in his testimony that  as Branch Manager, he has authorized opening of current account of M/s India Fab  which was a proprietory concern of Rajesh Kapoor ( A1) after complying with all the norms of the bank  and  Sh. Rajiv Gupta   had introduced the opening of the said account who was already having account in the said branch. It is to be noted that accused C.M. Bansal ( A3) has pleaded that  accused  Rajiv Gupta had  introduced the opening  of account  of M/s India Fab through proprietor Rajesh Kapoor   but accused   Rajiv Gupta has denied giving his introduction for opening the account of  M/s India Fab in Indian Bank, Shalimar Bagh Branch.  Accused C.M. Bansal ( A3) has not explained that if  Rajiv Gupta  had  introduced the account of  M/s India Fab then why  signatures of  accused Rajiv Gupta as CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.241 of 336 ­: 242 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

introducer   were   not   obtained     on   the   account   opening   form Ex.PW3/A ( D­4). 

254.  In order to meet the contention of the prosecution  that the accused C.M. Bansal (A3)  did not  follow the rules of the bank in opening account of M/s India Fab through proprietor accused Rajesh Kapoor (A1), the accused C.M. Bansal (A3) has relied on para   11.6.5  of   the   guidelines   of   the   bank  Ex.PW10/C   (D­215) regarding Method of obtaining introduction which reads as :

11.6.5.   It may be difficult for newly opened branches to enforce   rigidly   the   rule   that   new   accounts   should   be introduced   by   bank's   account   holders   or   customers   of good standing. They may accept introduction from other respectable   and   known   persons,   but     should   exercise caution against undesirable accounts being opened, as it is   often   difficult   to   get   rid   of   trouble­some   and undesirable accounts later.  

255.    The accused C.M. Bansal has relied upon para 11.6.5 of   the   guidelines   of   the   bank  Ex.PW10/C   (   D­215)  regarding Method of obtaining introduction and on testimony of    PW52 Sh. Kishore Kumar and PW3 Sh. Pramod Juneja for justifying his act of opening of the account of M/s India Fab  vide  account opening CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.242 of 336 ­: 243 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

form Ex.PW3/A ( D­4) contending that  the Shalimar Bagh Branch of Indian Bank was a new branch  and  on that account the norms for opening the  accounts in the said branch  were relaxed.  Ld. Sr. PP for CBI has contended that Shalimar Bagh Branch of Indian Bank   was     opened   in   March,   2008   as   stated   by   PW3   and   the account of M/s India Fab was opened on 23.05.2009  vide account opening form Ex.PW3/A ( D­4) and in the circumstances it cannot be said that it was a new branch. Ld. Counsel for accused   C.M. Bansal ( A3) has contended that  for a period of 2­3 years from the date of opening, the  branch is considered as new branch.  

256.     Accused C.M. Bansal ( A3)  has relied on para  11.6.5 of Ex.PW10/C ( D­215) which provides that  a newly opened branch may accept introduction from other respectable  and known person as obtaining of introduction by bank's account holders or customers of good standing may be difficult. But  para 11.6.5 of Ex.PW10/C ( D­215)   further   provides     that   the   bank   should   exercise   caution against undesirable accounts being opened as it is often difficult  to get rid of troublesome and undesirable accounts later .   On one hand   accused   C.M.   Bansal   (   A3)   is   relying   on     para   11.6.5.   of Ex.PW10/C ( D­215) in order to   justify his act of   opening the account of M/s India Fab vide account opening form Ex.PW3/A ( D­4) without taking introduction     but on the other hand   he is CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.243 of 336 ­: 244 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

pleading that he had taken  reference of  Sh. Rajiv Gupta who was existing customer of the bank.  Accused C.M. Bansal ( A3) has not explained that  if Sh. Rajiv Gupta, an existing customer of the bank knew accused Rajesh Kapoor ( A1) and had introduced him then what   prevented   accused   C.M.   Bansal   from   obtaining     the appropriate  introduction from  accused Rajiv Gupta in the account opening form Ex.PW3/A ( D­4).   Accused C.M. Bansal has also relied on oral testimony of PW52 Sh. Kishore Kumar and PW3 Sh. Pramod Juneja to justify his act of opening the current account of M/s India Fab vide Ex.PW3/A ( D­4) without taking appropriate introduction,   however     it   is   to   be   noted   that     PW53   Sh.     P.N. Swarup   who   is   also   an   officer   of   Indian   Bank     stated   in   cross examination that   there are guidelines of Indian Bank to the effect that it is mandatory to obtain introduction for opening of current account   and   these   guidelines   are   contained   in   Manual   of instructions ( Deposits) of Indian Bank and he further stated that there   is   no   exception     to   taking   of   introduction   in   opening   of current account  even in a new branch  of bank in any locality.   In view of  the guidelines of the bank as contained in Ex.PW10/B ( D­

214) and Ex.PW10/C ( D­215) and testimony of PW53 Sh.   P.N. Swarup  the oral testimony of  PW52 Sh. Kishore Kumar and PW3 Sh. Pramod Juneja is of no help to accused C.M. Bansal ( A3). Accused C.M. Bansal ( A3) has also not   proved that he   made CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.244 of 336 ­: 245 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

more  enquiries than usual to test  the credential of  accused Rajesh Kapoor ( A1) and    that he verified from the independent sources that   Rajesh Kapoor ( A1) is the really the sole proprietor of M/s India Fab in terms of Paras 7.4 and 7.5 of   the guidelines of the bank as contained in  Ex.PW10/C ( D­215). 

          

257.    The prosecution  has also  relied on the circular of the bank   bearing no. DEP. 05/2007­2008 dated 25.04.2007 ( D­220) regarding Introduction for Opening of Accounts by branches ( D­

220)  and the said circular provides the documents to be accepted for photo identity  and  a proof of residence/address and  the note appended  to the category of documents reads as :

Note: Original should be produced  for verification and copy, duly attested by the verifying official, should be kept along with the account opening form. 

 

258.      The  act of  accused C.M. Bansal ( A3) in opening the account of M/s India Fab   vide account opening form Ex.PW3/A ( D­4) clearly shows that he has failed to follow the guidelines  of the bank  in this regard and has not exercised due caution.

                            

259.  The allegations of the prosecution are that along with the application for sanction   of credit facility Ex.PW53/A (D­33), CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.245 of 336 ­: 246 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

accused Rajesh Kapoor   submitted audited reports under Section 44AB of the  Income Tax Act, 1961 as on 31.03.2007 Ex.PW56/E (Colly)   (   D­35),   31.03.2008   Ex.PW56/F   (   Colly)   (   D­36)   and 31.03.2009 ( D­37) Ex. PW56/G ( Colly) purportedly issued by M/s Naresh Jindal and Associates Chartered Accountants  and the same were found to be fake documents and  as per circular of the bank Ex.PW4/1D   (   D­218)   accused   C.M.   Bansal     was   to   verify     the authenticity     of   the   said   audited   financial   statements   from   the Chartered Accountant and obtain their confirmation but   accused C.M. Bansal did not verify the  same.

260.  The contention of Ld. Counsel for A3 is that accused C.  M.  Bansal(A3)   is  not  challenging  the authenticity  of   circular Ex.PW4/1D but the   same was not within his knowledge and on that   account   A3   did   not   verify   from   the   Chartered   Accountant concerned   the   audited   financial   statements   Ex.PW56/E   (Colly), Ex.PW56/F ( Colly)  & Ex.PW56/G ( Colly)  submitted by accused Rajesh Kapoor  to the Indian Bank  for grant of cash credit limit.

261.    Ld. Counsel for accused C. M. Bansal(A3) has further contended that the Shalimar Bagh Branch where account of M/s India Fab was opened is a newly opened branch and the circular Ex.PW4/1D was not available there and the said circular was also CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.246 of 336 ­: 247 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

not available   on the website   of the bank and moreover the said circular  was not within the knowledge of officials of Zonal Office also as at the time of processing of proposal of M/s India Fab in the Zonal   Office,   no   objections   were   raised   by   the   Zonal   Office regarding non authentication of the said documents and moreover PW4 Smt. Anita  Sachdeva who was  posted in the Zonal Office during the relevant period also stated in the cross examination that she   is   not   sure   whether   she   was   aware   of   the   circular   dated 03.11.2005   Ex.PW4/1D   when   she   processed   the   application   for loan  of M/s India Fab  in the Zonal Office.

262. The  circular   of   Indian   Bank   dated   03.11.2005 Ex.PW4/1D (D­218) reads as:

Indian Bank                CREDIT ADMIN DEPARTMENT  CIRCLE OFFICE  NEW DELHI DATED : 03.11.2005  CO/CAD/CIR/728/2005­06  ALL BRANCHES IN DELHI CIRCLE  Sub:   CAUTION ON FRAUD­ FORGING THE SIGNATURE/STAMP OF  CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT BY BORROWER. 

It   has   been   informed   by   the   Head   Office   that   RBI   had   come   across   an instance   of a borrower obtaining a loan from a bank based on fraudulent attestation and  signatures of a chartered accountant  on the balance sheet of his company. RBI has cautioned to guard against such possible fraud. 

CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.247 of 336 ­: 248 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

Audited   Financial Statements lend   authenticity to the accounts presented therein   and   any   fraudulent   attestation   of   the   Chartered   Accountant's signature/stamp by a borrower defeats the purpose of authenticity. 

Hence,   field   level   functionaries   are   requested   to   discreetly   and independently verify the authenticity of the audited financial  statements from the chartered accountant and obtain their confirmation. Also please ensure that the audited   accounts/annual audited booklet submitted by the borrowing   entity   carries   the   notation   "   True   Copy"   duly   signed   by   that entity's senior level   officials/authorised signatory/company secretary ( c.s. applicable   in   cases     of   large   companies   where   appointment   of   Company Secretary is mandatory as per the companies Act).

In addition to the above branch to put branch seal   and authenticate each paper/documents/enclosure of the proposal  before  submission to the  Circle office/Head Office. 

 Please bring this to the notice of credit appraising officers. 

GENERAL MANAGER (DELHI CIRCLE)            

263. In his written statement Ex.C3 filed on   26.02.2016, accused C.M. Bansal ( A3) has stated that there was no practice  to verify   the genuineness of the balance sheets   from the Chartered Accountant   who   has   signed   the   same   and   the   circular   dated 03.11.2005 was not available in the branch as it was opened in the year   2008    and  in  the  written  statement  Ex.C­3,  accused   C.  M. Bansal(A3) has further stated that  had it been the practice  to verify balance sheet from Chartered Accountant , the higher officials of the bank  would have sought its confirmation from the branch. In his examination in Chief , accused C.M. Bansal /DW1 stated that CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.248 of 336 ­: 249 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

he had not complied  with the  requirements as at portion Mark A to A on  the circular  dated 03.11.2005 Ex.PW4/1D  (D­218) as the said circular  was not within his knowledge. 

264.  It is to be noted that  the reason furnished by accused C.M.   Bansal   (   A3)     for   non   compliance   of     the   directions   as contained in circular dated 03.11.2005 Ex.PW4/1D ( D­218) is that same  was not within  his knowledge moreover the Senior Officers of the bank also did not object to the same.  

265.  The prosecution has proved the Proposal for   Fresh/ Review/Renewal/enhancement/modification  Ex.PW54/B  (Colly) submitted by  accused C.M. Bansal ( A3)  bearing signatures of Sh. C.M. Bansal (A3) and in  Annexure­I  of the same accused C.M. Bansal (A3) has furnished details regarding financial indicators of M/s India Fab for the year ending   31.03.2007 , 31.03.2008 and 31.03.2009 and also projection  for 31.03.2010 and  as per note to Deputy   General Manager Ex.PW4/F, the   circle office has relied on  the financial  indicators  of M/s India Fab for the year ending 31.03.2007 , 31.03.2008 and 31.03.2009 and also projection   for 31.03.2010 as furnished by   accused C.M. Bansal (A3) under his signatures     vide     Ex.PW54/B(   Colly).     While   processing     the CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.249 of 336 ­: 250 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

proposal     vide  Ex.PW4/F,   the   Circle   Office   has     observed   in column IX (a) regarding Summary of assessment of Short Term Bank Credit as   'Assessment as per turnover method. Branch has accepted the estimates as on 31.03.2010 at Rs. 1824.24 lakhs for assessment of eligible working capital limits'.        It is to be noted that in  Ex.PW4/F  the  Senior Officials of the bank  have relied on the  financial indicators of M/s India Fab  as submitted by accused C.M. Bansal (A3) vide Ex.PW54/B ( Colly).  It is to be noted that accused C.M. Bansal (A3) was a Senior Officer of the bank  and  in the circumstances, there is no reason  for the Officers in the circle office to disbelieve  the  financial indicators of M/s India Fab  as submitted by accused C.M. Bansal(A3). Hence, it is not open for accused   C.M.   Bansal   (A3)   to   plead   that   officers     in   the   Circle Office   did   not   object   to     the   non­verification   of   the     reports submitted by the  accused Rajesh Kapoor ( A1)  purportedly  issued by  Naresh Jindal and  Associates, Chartered Accountant.   Accused C.M. Bansal (A3) failed to discharge his duties in discreetly and independently   verifying the authenticity of   the audited financial statements     from   the   Chartered   Accountant   and     to   obtain   their confirmation   in   terms   of   circular   dated   03.11.2005   Ex.PW4/1D (D218).   

CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.250 of 336 ­: 251 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

266.  As per allegation of prosecution, a Credit Information Report  dated   28.05.2009  Ex.PW12/N (D46) purportedly issued by Karur Vysya Bank, Prasant Vihar, Rohini where  M/s India Fab was stated  to be maintaining another account and as per which the account classification  of M/s  India Fab  as good was sent to Circle Office by accused C.M. Bansal  in order to mislead   the   Circle Office and to obtain  the credit facility in favour of M/s India Fab. 

267.  The contention of Ld. Sr. PP for CBI is that A3 had written one letter dated 27.05.2009   Ex.PW12/DX ( D­136C) to Karur Vysya Bank  thereby seeking credit information of  account of   M/s   India   Fab     maintained   in   the   said   bank   and   reply   dated 12.06.2009   Ex.PW12/DY ( D­136D)   to the same was received from Karur Vysya Bank , as per which  no statement of account of M/s India Fab was furnished by Karur Vysya Bank as it was only a current     account   but     A3   did   not   place   the   same   in   the   file   of proposal   of M/s India Fab which was sent to Circle Office and rather one fabricated report dated 28.05.2009 Ex.PW12/N ( D­46) purportedly   issued by Karur Vysya Bank was placed in the file which   was   sent   to   the   Circle   Office   in   which   the   account classification of M/s India Fab  in Karur Vysya bank was stated to be  satisfactory,  in  order   to  obtain   financial  sanction  from  Zonal Office in  favour of M/s India Fab. 

CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.251 of 336 ­: 252 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

268.  The letter dated 27.05.2009   sent by   accused C. M. Bansal(A3) to Chief Manager, Karur Vysya Bank, Rohini  thereby seeking   credit   opinion     of   account   of   M/s   India   Fab     is Ex.PW12/DX(D­136C)   and   copy   of     dispatch   register   dt:

28/05/2009  of  the  Indian  Bank   thereby  showing   the  dispatch   of aforesaid   letter   to   Karur   Vysya   Bank   dated   28.05.2009   is Ex.PW22/G   (D­207)   and   the   copy   of   courier   receipt   dated 29.05.2009 by which the said letter was dispatched to Karur Vysya Bank   is   Ex.PW22/H   (   D­208)   .     Hence,   as   per   courier   receipt Ex.PW22/H(D­208), the letter dated 27.05.2009 Ex.PW12/DX was dispatched   to   Karur   Vysya   bank   on     29.05.2009.   The   Credit Information   Report   dated   28.05.2009   Ex.PW12/N(D­46) purportedly   issued   by   Karur   Vysya     Bank     Ltd,   Prasant   Vihar, Rohini to Manager, Indian Bank , Shalimar Bagh Branch thereby mentioning account classification of M/s India Fab as 'Good' is Ex.PW12/N   (   D­46).   PW12   stated   that   the   Credit   Information report Ex.PW12/N (D­46)   does not pertain to their bank . In the cross   examination   by   accused   C.   M.   Bansal(A3),     PW12     Sh.

Vinoth Kumar denied that   PW12/N   was sent from their bank . Thereafter PW12 voluntarily stated in the cross examination that PW12/N is not the format   maintained at their branch.   The letter dated 12.06.09  received from Karur Vysya bank, Prashant   Vihar Branch is Ex.PW12/DY ( D­136 D). 

CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.252 of 336 ­: 253 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

269.  The contention  of Ld. Counsel for A3 C.M. Bansal  is that possibility of manipulation being committed in Indian Bank, Shalimar Bagh Branch by lower staff in placing the fabricated letter dated 28.05.2009  Ex.PW12/N (D­46)  cannot be ruled out and it is by   the   manipulation   of   lower   staff,   it   appears   that   letter   dated 28.05.09   of the Karur Vysya Bank   was placed before A3 C.M. Bansal  and accused C. M. Bansal(A3) believed the same to be the letter issued by Karur Vysya Bank, Prashant Vihar Branch  and on that   account   he   sent   the   same   to   Zonal   Office   along   with   the proposal of  India Fab. 

270. Ld.   Counsel   for   A3   C.M.   Bansal     has       further contended that it appears that some mischief  has taken place with respect to letter  dated  28.07.2009  Ex.PW12/O (D­70)  which has also   been   purportedly    issued   by   Karur   Vysya   Bank     by  which information was  furnished that the account of M/s India Fab  in the said branch has been closed on 28.07.2009. Ld. Counsel for A3 C.M. Bansal has contended that A3 C.M. Bansal  was not required to obtain the credit information report from Karur Vysya Bank in terms of para 3.8.9. of chapter  6 dealing with processing of credit facility   of the Manual of the bank ( D­221) which requires  credit confirmation report to be obtained only in those cases where the CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.253 of 336 ­: 254 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

borrower is enjoying    credit facilities from the other bank and in this case M/s India   Fab   was not enjoying credit facility   from Karur Vysya Bank hence no credit information report  was required to be obtained  but A3 acted cautiously  and  in order to protect the money of Indian Bank, he called for the said report. 

271.    Para 3.8.9.  of chapter   6 of the Manual of bank (D­

221) reads as under: 

In the event of the prospective borrower enjoying credit facilities with other banks, confidential report should be obtained  from such banks and a certified true copy of the same   should   be   sent   to   the   appropriate     sanctioning authority along with the proposal.  

272.       The   plea   which   has   been   raised   by   accused   C.M. Bansal (A3) is that since  accused  Rajesh Kapoor was not enjoying credit facilities from Karur Vysya Bank, hence he was not under obligation   to   call   for   the   credit   information   report   from   Karur Vysya   Bank     but   the   said   report   was   called   by   him   as   a precautionary measure.   The   account   of M/s India Fab through proprietor Rajesh Kapoor was  authorised to be opened by accused C.M. Bansal on 23.05.2009 vide account opening form Ex.PW3/A (   D­4).   The   column   C   of   the   Annexure   2,   Ex.PW3/B1   of   the CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.254 of 336 ­: 255 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

account   opening   form   Ex.PW3/A   (D­4)   provides   for   obtaining information   about   the   Existing   Bankers/Credit   Cards   and   in   the said column, accused Rajesh Kapoor has furnished the name of the bank   and   branch   as     Karur   Vysya   Bank,   Rohini   ,   however   the column of Type (s) of  account/facilities has been left blank.  It is to be noted that while authorising the account  of M/s India Fab to be opened     vide   account   opening   form   Ex.PW3/A   (   D­4),   accused C.M. Bansal has not obtained the account number  of the account of M/s India Fab in Karur Vysya Bank, Rohini and accused C.M. Bansal also did not obtain the information whether  the M/s India Fab was enjoying  any credit facilities or not  from the said  bank. As per Application for Advance to Traders   Ex.PW53/B ( D­74), the   application   for   credit   facility     was   made   by   accused   Rajesh Kapoor to the Karur Vysya Bank on 23.05.2009 i.e. on the same day   the account   of M/s India Fab was opened in Indian Bank, Shalimar Bagh Branch.  Accused C.M. Bansal has not pleaded that on 23.05.2009 itself or before 27.05.2009 when he sent letter dated 27.05.2009 Ex.PW12/DX to Karur Vysya Bank he (A3) had made any discreet enquiries on account of which he came to know that M/s   India   Fab   proprietor   Rajesh   Kapoor   was   not   enjoying   any credit   facilities   from   Karur   Vysya   Bank,   Rohini.     In   the circumstances, it is not open for accused C.M. Bansal to plead that he   was   not   required   to   obtain   the   Credit   Information   Report   of CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.255 of 336 ­: 256 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

account of M/s India Fab from   Karur Vysya Bank and the same was  done by him as a matter of precaution. 

273.    The   Proposal   for   Fresh   /Review/   Renewal/ Enhancement/Modification   signed   by   accused   C.M.   Bansal   is Ex.PW54/B ( Colly)   and along with the same , a copy of the credit information report dated 28.05.2009  in respect of  M/s India Fab purportedly issued by Karur Vysya Bank, Prashant Vihar, Rohini, Delhi indicating the account classification as good has been sent to circle  office. In column II  regarding Position of  Account of  the proposal   Ex.PW54/B(Colly),   following   information   has   been submitted by accused C.M. Bansal (A3):  

Details   of   Credit   Information   obtained   from   other Banks/Financial Institutions:             

              Name   of   the           Date of the        Details   of
              Bank/F1                   Opinion            Credit
                                                           Opinion 
              Karur   Vysya             28.05.2009         Satisfactory
              Bank                                         ASCA­1



CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors             Page No.256 of 336
                                  ­: 257 :­
                                                           CBI case No.: 13/16
                                  CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

274.      Prosecution   examined   PW22   Sh.   Pradeep   Kumar Garg  who  stated  that  the  letter  dated  27.05.2009    Ex.PW12/DX ( D­136C) bears signatures of C.M. Bansal ( A3) at point A   and the said letter was written to Chief Manager, Karur Vysya Bank for obtaining credit opinion for account of M/s India Fab.  The copy of dispatch register of the period 21.05.2009 to 28.05.2009  of  Indian Bank  is Ex.PW22/G  ( D­207)  and  as per the same  the letter Ex.

PW12/DX  was sent to Chief Manager, Karur Vysya Bank and the said letter was dispatched through professional courier vide receipt dated 29.05.2009 ( D­208)  on 29.05.2009.  As per Courier receipt Ex.PW22/H ( D­208) , the letter dated 27.05.2009 Ex.PW12/DX was dispatched to Chief Manger, Karur Vysya Bank on 29.05.2009.

 

275.  The prosecution examined PW12 Sh. Vinoth Kumar from Karur Vysya Bank who stated in the cross examination by A3 C.M. Bansal that the letter dated 27.05.2009 Ex.PW12/DX thereby seeking credit opinion from Indian Bank was given to him by his staff.   The   PW12   further   stated   that     Credit   Information   Report dated   28.05.2009 Ex.PW12/N ( D­46)   does not pertain to their bank . PW12 Vinoth Kumar further stated that the  certificate dated 28.07.2009   purportedly   issued   by   Karur   Vysya   Bank   ,   Rohini Branch Ex.PW12/O ( D­70) does not pertain to their bank and the stamp and the signatures on the said   document do not pertain to CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.257 of 336 ­: 258 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

their bank.  PW12  stated that  the proof of delivery of confidential report to Indian Bank which was acknowledged by Indian Bank  is Ex.PW12/K (D­136D).  In the cross examination of  PW12, A2, A5 and   A8   have   given   suggestion   to   the   effect   that   the   original confidential  report which was sent to Indian Bank by the Karur Vysya   Bank   is   Ex.PW12/DY   and     the   same     was   sent   through Professional   Courier   vide   receipt   dated   12.06.2009   Ex.PW12/K ( D­136D) which was   admitted by PW12 to be correct.     In the cross examination of PW12, accused C.M. Bansal (A3) has given suggestion to the effect that letter  dated 28.05.2009 Ex.PW12/N (D­46)   was sent   to   the Manager, Indian Bank, Shalimar Bagh Branch  through the Postal Receipt Ex.PW12/K which was denied by PW12. 

276.    As per evidence adduced on record, the letter dated 27.05.2009   Ex.PW12/DX   (D­136C)   signed   by   accused   C.   M. Bansal thereby seeking credit information report regarding account of   M/s  India Fab   from Karur   Vysya  Bank  was   dispatched    on 29.05.2009   vide courier receipt   Ex.PW22/H ( D­208)   and the Karur Vysya Bank sent their reply dated 12.06.2009  Ex.PW12/DY ( D­136D)  to the letter dated 27.05.2009 of Indian Bank, Shalimar Bagh Branch thereby giving status of account of  M/s India Fab as 'Only current account and hence not applicable' and mentioning CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.258 of 336 ­: 259 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

the date of opening of account of M/s India Fab as 31.01.2009, through   Professional   Courier   vide   receipt   of   courier   dated 12.06.2009 Ex.PW12/K ( D­136D).  The evidence produced by the prosecution   has   proved   that   letter   dated   28.05.2009   Ex.PW12/N (D­46) purportedly issued by Karur Vysya Bank, Prashand Vihar, Rohini, Delhi  was not issued by the Karur Vysya Bank, Prashant Vihar, Rohini , Delhi and the same is a forged and fabricated letter and the copy of the same was sent by accused C.M. Bansal along with the proposal Ex.PW54/B ( Colly) to the Circle Office.  

277.    The   plea   of   accused   C.M.   Bansal   (   A3)   is   that   the confidential report dated 12.06.2009  Ex.PW12/DY of Karur Vysya Bank was not received by him  and  it appears that somebody has played   mischief   and     the   confidential   report     dated   28.05.2009 Ex.PW12/N   purported to be issued by Karur Vysya Bank   was placed in   his records and on that account he was misled and   he sent the proposal  to  the circle office basing the same on  the letter dated   28.05.2009   Ex.PW12/N   purportedly   received   from   Karur Vysya Bank.   In his examination in chief, accused C.M. Bansal /DW1  stated that he had called for credit report of M/s India Fab from Karur Vysya Bank, Rohini by sending a letter on 27.05.2009 and   he had received a reply dated 28.05.2009 from Karur Vysya Bank,   Rohini   on   13.06.2009.     DW1   further   stated     in   his CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.259 of 336 ­: 260 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

examination in chief that   he has to admit   that somebody played mischief with  their  bank's  dispatch system and planted a forged letter dated 28.05.2009 purportedly   of Karur Vysya Bank. In the cross examination  C.M. Bansal /DW1  admitted that Karur Vysya Bank   had   sent   information   through   courier     and   the   said information was received by him through courier on   13.06.2009 and     admitted   that     the   initials   as   appearing   at   point   A   on   the courier receipt Ex.PW12/K   appear to be   his initials. Thereafter C.M. Bansal ( A1) /DW1 further stated in the cross examination that the report/letter which was received from Karur Vysya Bank on   13.06.2009   was   personally   given   by   him   along   with   entire proposal of  M/s India Fab to the Circle Office on 16.06.2009.   

278.    The  plea  which has   been raised     by    accused  C.M. Bansal is that  on 13.06.2009 vide courier receipt Ex.PW12/K  he had received the letter dated 28.05.2009 Ex.PW12/N   purportedly issued by  Karur Vysya Bank and the same was personally given by him to the Circle Office on 16.06.2009.   

279.  PW4   Smt.   Anita   Sachdeva   who   was   posted   in   the circle   office   at   the   relevant   time     stated   that   they   received     a proposal for sanction of credit limits in the name of M/s India Fab from Shalimar Bagh Branch  which is Ex.PW4/C  and along with the same,   documents  collectively  Ex.PW4/D  were  received.  The proposal   Ex.PW4/C   is   dated   11.06.2009    and   it   is   signed   by CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.260 of 336 ­: 261 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

accused   C.M.   Bansal   at   point   A.     In   the   proposal   Ex.PW4/C   , accused C.M. Bansal has mentioned   'We have obtained  Credit Opinion   from   Karur   Vysya   Bank   which   is   satisfactory'. Accused C.M. Bansal has not explained that if  he had received the letter dated 28.05.2009 Ex.PW12/N from Karur Vysya Bank vide courier   Receipt   Ex.PW12/K   on   13.06.2009   then   how   in   the proposal dated 11.06.2009 he has mentioned  that  he has obtained opinion from Karur Vysya Bank which is satisfactory. The contents of proposal Ex.PW4/C show that  accused C.M. Bansal had already processed the proposal for credit limit of 125 lakh to M/s India Fab prior to 13.06.2009   and accused C.M. Bansal has raised a false plea   that   the   letter   dated   28.05.2009   was   received   by   him   on 13.06.2009.       

280.  PW4 Smt. Anita Sachdeva stated that along with the proposal,   Ex.PW4/C   documents   collectively   Ex.PW4/D   were received.     The     Application   for   Advance  Ex.PW4/D  is     dated 06.06.2009. It is to be noted that   accused C.M. Bansal who was Branch   Manager   at   the   relevant   time   admitted   in   his   cross examination as DW1  that  the letter  from the  Karur Vysya Bank vide   Courier   receipt   Ex.PW12/K   was   received   by   him   on 13.06.2009   by   signing   the   said   courier   receipt.   In   the circumstances, as accused C.M. Bansal had himself   received the CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.261 of 336 ­: 262 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

letter  from Karur Vysya Bank  vide courier receipt Ex.PW12/K, it is not open for  him to plead that somebody had played mischief in his office and replaced  the letter dated 12.06.2009 Ex.PW12/DY of Karur   Vysya   Bank   by   the   letter   dated   28.05.2009   Ex.PW12/N purportedly issued by Karur Vysya Bank. 

281.    Another contention of accused C.M. Bansal ( A3) is that   he   was   only   a     recommending   authority   who   had   sent   his recommendations   based on various documents made available to him by the parties  and on the basis of  reports collected from Panel advocate and Panel valuer , he had sent his recommendations and he had   followed   the process diligently on 16.06.2009 when the proposal was sent to the circle office and thereafter on the second occasion   for   release   of   limit   on   18.07.2009   and   on   both   the occasions  sanction was accorded by a process involving series of officers scrutinizing the documents and all of them found no fault with the documents for the proposal.   It is further   contended by accused C.M. Bansal ( A3)   that     he did not show any haste   in processing the proposal and  releasing the limit  as the application for   loan   was   received   by   the   branch   on   23.05.2009     and   the proposal was sent to the Circle office on 16.06.2009, the loan was sanctioned by circle office on 24.06.2009 and limit was released on 14.07.2009   and the limit was released after complying with all terms and conditions of   sanction ticket and getting pre -release CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.262 of 336 ­: 263 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

audit conducted by circle office/sanctioning authority.   

282.        The  proposal dated 11.06.2009 regarding credit facility of Rs.125 lacs to M/s India Fab sent by accused C.M. Bansal to Circle Office is Ex.PW4/C and PW4 Smt. Anita Sachdeva stated that alongwith the said proposal documents collectively Ex. PW4/D were also received from Indian Bank, Shalimar Bagh Branch.  The perusal   of   proposal   Ex.   PW4/C   and   the   documents   Ex.   PW4/D (colly)   shows   that   accused   C.   M.   Bansal   had   also   sent   Credit Report   Ex.   PW4/L   to   the   Circle   Office   in   which   he   has   stated regarding   obtaining   the   estimate   of   worth   of   M/s   India   Fab, Proprietor   Rajesh   Kapoor   as   Rs.Five   crores   on   oral   information from accused Rajiv Gupta. Accused Rajiv Gupta has denied giving any oral information regarding net worth of M/s India Fab as Rs. Five Crore.   As per the documents Ex. PW4/D(colly), the proposal Ex. PW4/C is based on the Credit Opinion Report dated 28.05.2009 from Karur Vysya Bank which as per aforesaid discussion has been found   to   be   a   forged   report.   In   the   proposal   Ex.   PW4/C,   the financial indicators as in Column VI of   Ex. PW54/B(colly) are based   on   the   audited   reports   for   the   years   ended   31.03.2007, 31.03.2008,   31.03.2009   Ex.PW56/E   (   Colly)   to   Ex.PW56/G ( Colly)  and projected balance sheet as on 31.03.2010 purportedly issued by Naresh Jindal & Associates, Chartered Accountants and as per the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the said reports CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.263 of 336 ­: 264 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

have not been issued by M/s Naresh Jindal & Associates and the same are forged and fabricated documents.   

283.   It is to be noted that accused C. M. Bansal has pleaded that he had also taken copy of the ITR of accused Rajesh Kapoor. As   per   copy   of   acknowledgement   receipt   of   ITR   for   the Assessment Year 2007­2008 in the name of Rajesh Kapoor sent to the Circle Office as part of documents Ex.PW4/D(colly), the  gross total  income of  Rajesh  Kapoor  is  reflected  as Rs.3,55,402/­    on which a tax of Rs.26,390/­ has been purportedly paid.  Accused C. M.   Bansal   has   not   explained   whether   the   gross   total   income   of accused Rajesh Kapoor, as reflected in the copy of ITR was taken into consideration while recommending the proposal for financial assistance   of   Rs.125   lacs   to   M/s   India   Fab,   Proprietor   Rajesh Kapoor   (A1).   The   statement   of   account   of   M/s   India   Fab   in Shalimar Bagh Branch is Ex.PW22/B ( Colly) (D­7)  and as per the same, a sum of Rs. 25,000/­ was deposited in cash on 23.05.2009 i.e. on the day the said account was opened and subsequently a sum of Rs. 1 Lakh in cash was deposited on 02.07.2009 and prior to 14.07.2009  i.e. the date when financial assistance was  sanctioned to M/s  India Fab by Indian Bank,  Shalimar  Bagh  Branch, there were no other deposits which could prove that any regular business activity   was   being   conducted   by   M/s   India   Fab.   Accused   C.M. CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.264 of 336 ­: 265 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

Bansal   (A3)   has   not   pleaded   that   he   had   considered   the transactions   in   the   account   of   M/s   India   Fab   which   took   place during the period 23.05.2009 to 13.07.2009   before   releasing the financial assistance to M/s India Fab w.e.f. 14.07.2009. 

284.                  The plea which has been raised by accused C. M. Bansal is that he had obtained the report of Panel Advocate and Panel Valuer regarding property No.B­354, Mangol Puri, Phase­I, Delhi and the same did not raise any suspicion and on that basis he processed   the   proposal   of   M/s   India   Fab.       The   Preliminary Information Memorandum dated 23.06.2009, Ex.PW4/E, prepared at   the   Circle   Office   shows   that   while   processing   the   proposal received from the   Indian Bank, Shalimar Bagh Branch following observations  were made on the said memorandum Ex.PW4/E: 

Observations: 

As per estimated balance sheet as on 31.03.10, unsecured loans ( apparently from friends and relatives) are   reduced to Rs. 17.05 lakhs from Rs. 107.78 lakhs as on 31.03.09 . Interest is paid on the unsecured loans as indicated in the P/L  account for FYs 2008/2009.  So far  the  party has not availed any facilities with their existing banker. Enduse of the  funds is to be ensured so that there is no diversion of short term funds.  Turnover   in   the   Karur   Vysya   Bank   account   is   Rs.   716.64   Lakhs     only   as against  sales  of    Rs.  1303.03  lakhs   as  on  31.03.09  (  ABS).   Branch    is  to ascertain/inform reasons for the low turnover. 

CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.265 of 336 ­: 266 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

Branch is to send unit/property visit report.   

285.           The Note to the Deputy General Manager  is Ex.PW4/F and in Column -II, Position of  Account is stated  as :

b.­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ c. With Financial Institutions:

Details of Credit Information obtained from other Banks/Financial Institutions: 

               Name of the            Date   of   the              Details   of
               Bank/F1                Opinion                      Credit
                                                                   Opinion 
               Karur                  28.05.2009                   Satisfactory
               Vysya Bank

286. In Column VII, IX and X1X of  Ex.PW4/F following observations have been made:         

VII Comments in brief on Financial Indicators and performance vis­a­ vis projections: 

­­­­­­­­­­­ ­­­­­­­­­­­ As per statement   of account of Karur Vysya Bank, turnover in the account during  FY 2008­09 is Rs. 716.64 lakhs as against actual sales of Rs. 1303.03 lakhs. Most transactions are cash transactions.  ­­­­­­­­­­­ ­­­­­­­­­ So far the party has not availed any facility with their existing banker, Karur Vysya Bank. 

Limits   recommended   by   branch   are   Rs.125.00   lakhs,   however   WC/ Bank borrowings  as per  estimated balance sheet is Rs. 150.00 Lakhs.  End use of funds needs to be ensured by branch, so that there is no diversion of short term funds for long term uses.

CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.266 of 336 ­: 267 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

IX Break up of eligible current assets and current liabilities taken for the purpose of assessment ­­­ IX a) Summary of assessment of Short Term Bank Credit:   Assessment as per turnover method. Branch has accepted the estimates as   on   31.03.2010   at   Rs.   1824.24   lakhs   for   assessment   of   eligible working  capital limits. 

­­­­­­­­­ Security Cover: 

Branch has recommended the w.c. facility as a Secured OD facility under the Tradewell Scheme. Since  Secured OD is  permissible under Trade   Well   Scheme   upto   Rs.   100.00   Lakhs   only,   the   facility   to   be allowed   as   OCC   only   against   primary   security   of   stocks   and   book debts, and collateral of  EM of property.     ­­­­­­ BM has informed that presently the party is   operating   from Karol Bagh office, and plans to shift operations from Mangolpuri premises.   XIX Observations/Recommendations: Limit recommended by  branch is a Secured OD facility  for Rs. 125.00 Lakhs. However, under tradewell scheme , we may sanction as OCC only since the limit recommended is more than Rs. 100.00 lakhs. ­­­­­­­­­­ ­­­­­­­­­­ We may seek the following clarifications from branch before according sanction:

1.­­­­

2.­­­­

3. ­­­­­

4. Unsecured loans are proposed to be withdrawn during FY  2009­10.

How the  branch proposes to ensure endues  of working capital so that there is no diversion of funds. 

5. BM's  visit report on unit/property.    

287.      The   processing   of   the   proposal   dated   11.06.2009 Ex.PW4/C   for   sanctioning   of   Sec   OD/Title   Deed   (Under   Trade Finance Scheme)  to M/s India Fab  proprietor Sh. Rajesh Kapoor for Rs.125 Lacs, in the circle office shows that   the circle office CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.267 of 336 ­: 268 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

has relied on  the financial indicators  and the  assessments  of the Shalimar Bagh Branch regarding  estimates as on 31.03.2010 at Rs. 1824.24 Lakhs for the assessment of  eligible working capital limits and  also on the  fact reported by the  Shalimar Bagh Branch that the Karur Vysya Bank has given credit information report dated 28.05.2009  in which  the  position of the account of M/s India  Fab in  Karur Vysya Bank is stated to be satisfactory.  The processing of the proposal of M/s India Fab in the Circle Office shows that the circle office   had given   sanction for the OCC   against primary security of stocks  and book debt and collateral of EM of property as   the OD facility under the Tradewell Scheme was permissible upto   Rs.100   Lakhs   only.       Accused   C.M.Bansal(A3)   being   an officer   of   the   bank   was   well   aware   that   under   the   Tradewell Scheme the OD facility was permissible upto Rs.100 Lacs only and knowing that he sent the proposal for secured OD facility of Rs. 125 Lacs realising that the same will be converted into OCC Limit by the circle office being not permissible under Tradewell Scheme. Hence, there is no force in the arguments of accused C.M. Bansal ( A3)  that  he had recommended the secured OD facility but it is the   circle   office   which   allowed   the   OCC   against   the   primary security of stocks  and book debt and collateral of EM of property. 

288. As   per   observations   in   Ex.PW4/F,   the   circle CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.268 of 336 ­: 269 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

office had recommended  for the report of Branch Manager  on his visit  to the unit/property.  The pre sanction visit report  of accused C.M.   Bansal,   the   then   Sr.   Manager     (BM)   dated   01.07.2009   is Ex.PW4/M   (D­73).   As   per   pre   sanction   visit   report   dated 01.07.2009 Ex.PW4/M ( D­73), accused C.M. Bansal had visited the   property   no.   354,   Block­B,   Mangol   Puri,   Industrial   Area   , Phase­I,   Delhi   at   5.30   PM   on   01.07.2009   and   the   relevant information  furnished in the said report is as: 

PRE/SANCTION VISIT REPORT Name of the officer who visited : C.M. Bansal SR No. : 12136 Designation : Senior Manager ( BM) Date of Visit :

           Time of Visit                       :        01.07.2009
           Address of the location visited :            5.30 PM, 354, Block B,
                                                        Mangolpuri Ind. Area,
                                                        Phase-I, Delhi.
           Type of building/property           :
           Owner's Name                        : Sh. Rajesh Kapoor
           Occupied By                         : Self
           Status/Condition of property        : Newly construction GF,
                                                   Basement & 2 storyed.

Estimated value of the property : Rs. 3 crore Whether any commercial activity undertaken : No for office & godown purpose.

If so, details thereof -

           Machinery available if any, condition,
           And Estimated value              :     -Nil-


CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors                Page No.269 of 336
                                  ­: 270 :­
                                                            CBI case No.: 13/16
                                  CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

           Stocks available if any, conditions,
           type, age & Estimated value          : Stock of Denim febric stored
                                                  in Basement.
           Whom met during the visit ( Name) :          Rajesh Kapoor Address
                                                        Owner
           Phone/Mobile No.
           How related to owner/occupant
           Visit in connection with applicant/                  M/s    India    Fab
           Borrower
           Name
           Address
           If an existing loan, details thereof
           Name of the borrower
           Account type and Account No.                 : OCC
           Limit Sanctioned/Availed                     : 125.00 lacs OCC
           Drawing Limit ( as on date of visit)         :

Balance outstanding ( as on date of visit) : Not released yet Any other comments Sd/- C.M. Bansal (Signature of the Visiting Officer) Branch Manager Dated: 01.07.2009

289.   It   is   to   be   noted   that   Pre   Sanction   Visit   Report Ex.PW4/M has been prepared in view of observations of the circle office as contained  in Ex.PW4/F. A perusal of Pre Sanction Visit Report  Ex.PW4/M  shows  that   in  the same    the   accused   C.M. Bansal has mentioned the stock available as stock of denim fabric and estimated value of the same  has not been mentioned.  As per Pre Sanction Visit Report Ex.PW4/M, accused C.M. Bansal   has CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.270 of 336 ­: 271 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

not made enquiries regarding value of the   stocks available at the time of Pre Sanction Visit. Accused C.M. Bansal has not explained that   he   had   seen   any   books   of   accounts   of   M/s   India   Fab maintained in its usual course of business to satisfy himself that M/s India Fab was actually in the business of Denim Fabric and the books of accounts confirmed the details of   the accounts of M/s India Fab submitted with the bank  and that the projection for the year 2009­2010 is Rs. 1824.24 lakhs as mentioned  by him  in the annexure to his proposal dated 11.06.2009  Ex.PW4/C and that the said projection   for the year 2009­2010 as Rs. 1824.24 lakhs has been correctly sent by him   to the circle office for processing the credit facility   to M/s India Fab.   Accused C.M. Bansal   has not stated that  he had seen  any other books  maintained by M/s India Fab which reflected the   number of employees working with M/s India Fab and that   M/s India Fab was complying with statutory requirements  and was paying wages and benefits  to its employees as per mandate of various legislations.   Accused C.M. Bansal had also   not   stated   in   his   report   Ex.PW4/M   that   any   other officer/official of the bank also accompanied him at the time of Pre Sanction Visit of M/s India Fab.  It is to be noted that Proforma of pre   sanction   visit   report   contains   space   for   signatures   of   two officers i.e. visiting officer and Branch Officer and the pre sanction visit   report   Ex.PW4/M     has   been   signed   by   accused   C.M. CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.271 of 336 ­: 272 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

Bansal(A3) at the place of  visiting officer which shows that  since he (accused C. M. Bansal) was himself Branch Manager, hence he did not assign the duty of  conducing pre sanction visit of M/s India Fab to any other officer of the  bank and preferred to conduct the said inspection himself.   In the cross examination , accused C.M. Bansal   /DW1   stated   that   he   had   made   enquiring   regarding ownership of  property situated at Mangolpuri from the neighbour and he   does not remember the names of the said neighbour and stated that names of the said neighbours  have not been mentioned in the pre sanction visit report dated 01.07.2009 Ex.PW4/M. C.M. Bansal/ DW1 denied suggestion of  Ld. Sr. PP for CBI that  he has not   visited   the     Mangol   Puri   Property   and   he   had   not   enquired regarding ownership of the said property from the neighbours and on that account names of the neighbours have not been mentioned in   the   report   Ex.PW4/M   .   Accused   C.M.   Bansal/DW1   further denied  suggestion of Ld. Sr. PP for CBI in the cross examination to   the   effect   that     the   pre   sanction   visit   report   Ex.PW4/M   was prepared  by him without visiting the said property at Mangol Puri.

290.  It is to be noted that  the date of pre sanction visit as per report Ex.PW4/M is 01.07.2009  and the same has to be seen in the  background  of    letter  dated  12.06.2009  Ex.PW12/DY  which was received from Karur Vysya bank in response to   letter dated CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.272 of 336 ­: 273 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

27.05.2009 Ex.PW12/DX of   accused C.M. Bansal   whereby   he had sought credit opinion on the account  of M/s India Fab . As per letter   dated   12.06.2009   of   Karur   Vysya   Bank   Ex.PW12/DY, accused   C.M.   Bansal   (   A3)   had   received   information   that     M/s India   Fab had a nominal current account in Karur Vysya Bank, Prashant Vihar, Rohini and the said letter was   not forwarded by accused   C.M.   Bansal   to   the   circle   office   for   processing   the application of  M/s India Fab for credit facility and rather accused C.M.   Bansal   had     placed   one   fabricated   letter   dated   28.05.2009 Ex.PW12/N( D­46) purportedly issued by Karur Vysya Bank,   in the proposal of M/s India Fab which was sent to the circle office. The   pre   sanction   visit   report   Ex.PW4/M   has   been   prepared   by accused C.M. Bansal   in order to support his proposal Ex.PW4/C for   grant   of     financial   assistance   to     M/s   India   Fab.   In   the circumstances, I find no force in the contention of accused C.M. Bansal   that     pre   release   audit   was   also   got   conducted   from   Sh. Kuldeep Kumar Anand and he had  also not raised  any objections. The   pre   release   audit   report     was   forwarded   by   accused   C.M. Bansal vide his letter Ex.PW53/I   to the circle office   and in the letter     Ex.PW53/I,   accused   C.M.   Bansal   has   observed   that   'We have   perused   the   report   and   do   not   find   any irregularity/discrepancy.' It is  to be noted that in the pre release CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.273 of 336 ­: 274 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

audit   report   dated   09.07.2009   Ex.PW53/J,   Sh.   Kuldeep   Kumar Anand  has  relied on    Pre sanction visit  report  dated 01.07.2009 of C.M. Bansal.

291.    The contention of  Ld. Sr.PP for CBI is that  after  the sanction   of   credit   facility   to   M/s   India   Fab   by   Indian   Bank, Shalimar   Bagh   Branch   on   14.07.2009,   huge   amounts   were withdrawn in a short period of time and accused C.M. Bansal did not discharge the duty of ensuring the end use of  funds sanctioned by  Indian Bank, Shalimar Bagh Branch.  Accused C.M. Bansal has contended that there was  no condition  that he was to  ensure the end use of the  funds  released to M/s India Fab and there was no lack of diligence in overseeing the account as all transactions took place through banking channel.  

292.    The perusal of statement of account  of account of M/s India   Fab     in   Indian   Bank,   Shalimar   Bagh   Branch   Ex.PW22/B (Colly) ( D­7) shows that a sum of Rs. 25,000/­ was deposited in cash   in the said account on 23.05.2009 i.e. on the day when the said account was opened  and a sum of Rs.One Lac was deposited in cash on 02.07.2009 and as per letter of the Circle Office dated 14.07.2009     Ex.PW53/D,   the   OCC   facility   was   ordered   to   be released to M/s India Fab w.e.f. the said date i.e. 14.07.2009 and as CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.274 of 336 ­: 275 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

per   the   said  letter   dated  14.07.2009    Ex.PW53/D,   the  limit  was sanctioned subject to  submitting the feed­back report by the branch by 29.07.2009. PW3 Shri Pramod Juneja stated that the sanction ticket dated 29.06.2009 signed by accused Rajesh Kapoor at point A on each page in token of accepting the terms and condition of the loan   is   Ex.PW3/C(colly)(D5).     Smt.   Anita   Sachdeva   stated   that circle   office   copy   of   the   sanction   ticket   dated   29.06.2009   is Ex.PW4/G.     The   specific   terms   and   conditions   of   the   sanction ticket Ex. PW3/C read as:­ Specific terms and conditions:

1. ______

2. Branch to closely monitor the account to ensure all transactions are routed through our bank account. 

3. Branch   to   ensure   endues   of   working   capital   so   that   there   is   no diversion of funds (unsecured loans are shown to be withdrawn during FY   2009­10.)   Branch   to   take   an   undertaking   from   the   party   that unsecured loans will not be withdrawn/repaid during the pendency of our advance.

4.       ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

15.   Feedback/Compliance Certificate to be submitted to CO within one month. 

­­­­­­­

293.     The perusal of conditions of sanction ticket Ex.PW3/C and     Ex.PW4/G   show   that   the     Shalimar   Bagh   Branch     was   to CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.275 of 336 ­: 276 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

closely monitor the account   of M/s India Fab and was to ensure the end use of the working capital. The   perusal of   Statement of Account of  account of  M/s India Fab proprietor Rajesh Kapoor in Indian Bank, Shalimar Bagh Branch Ex.PW22/B ( Colly) ( D­7) shows   that     a   sum   of   Rs.   25,000/­   was   deposited   in   cash   on 23.05.2009 i.e. the day   when the said account was opened and another sum of Rs. One lakh was deposited in cash  on 02.07.2009 and the   balance in the said account   on 13.07.2009 was Rs. 22, 619/­.   The OCC facility was sanctioned to   M/s India Fab w.e.f. 14.07.2009   vide letter Ex.PW53/D .   The   Statement of Account of     account of M/s India Fab Ex.PW22/B ( Colly) ( D­7) shows that after sanction of OCC facility w.e.f. 14.07.2009  huge amounts were withdrawn from the said account and   on 27.07.2009 there was  debit balance of Rs. 1,23,99,171/­  in the said account  which shows that   within a short period of   13 days, almost the entire OCC facility  was withdrawn by   M/s India Fab.    Accused C.M. Bansal has not pleaded that  he was closely monitoring the account of M/s India Fab  and  ensured the end use of the working capital for the purpose for which  it was sanctioned.  Rather accused C.M. Bansal has pleaded that he was not to ensure end use of working capital sanctioned by Indian Bank, Shalimar Bagh Branch. 

294.  The plea which has been raised by accused C.M. Bansal is that while opening the account, accused Rajesh Kapoor had showed CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.276 of 336 ­: 277 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

him the original of his driving licence and PAN Card and  he had seen the originals of  property no.354, B Block, Mangol Puri, Phase I, Industrial Area, Delhi and Panel Advocate and Panel Valuer have also proved the authenticity of the documents of the property.  

295.  The   para   4.3   of   Chapter   12   relating   to   Advance   against immovable property(D­217) of the bank reads as  :

4.3 Valuation by Bank's Officials 4.3.1.  In   addition   to   obtention   of   approved   engineer's     valuation report,   branch   officials   should   also   verify   the   correctness   of   such reports by making market enquiry, cross­checking with the guideline values available at the Sub­Registrar's office etc. 4.3.2   A record of such cross verification shall form part of the loan appraisal. The property must be inspected by the Branch Manager or by an official authorized by him.        

296. Although accused C.M. Bansal has pleaded   that   the panel valuer   and   panel   advocate   had   given   reports   regarding   the documents of property no.354 , Block­B,   Mangol Puri, Phase­I, Industrial   Area,   Delhi   but   C.M.   Bansal   has   not   proved   that   he complied with  the guidelines of the bank as stated in para 4.3. of Chapter 12 relating to Advance against immovable property ( D­

217).   By raising the plea regarding  showing of  original Driving Licence and PAN Card by accused Rajesh Kapoor and  verification of  documents of Mangolpuri property by  Panel Valuer and Panel CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.277 of 336 ­: 278 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

Advocate, accused C.M. Bansal at the most can plead that he was misled regarding name of the accused   and the   ownership of the property.  But the acts of omission and commission of the accused C.M. Bansal  as discussed  above clearly prove his active role in misleading the circle office in sanctioning OCC facility of Rs. 125 Laks to M/s India Fab on the basis of proposal submitted by him.

297.  It is also to be noted that as per letter dated 14.07.2009 Ex.PW53/D  of the  circle office by which Indian Bank, Shalimar Bagh Branch was permitted to release  the limit sanctioned to M/s India Fab,  the branch was to   submit the   feed back report by 29.07.2009.  As per statement of account  of  account of M/s India Fab, Shalimar Bagh Branch Ex.PW22/ B ( Colly) ( D­7) , M/s India Fab   had   withdrawn   the   most   of   the   amount   of   the   OCC   limit sanctioned to them and  as on 27.07.2009 there was a debit balance of Rs.1,23,99,171/­ in the said account. Accused C.M. Bansal ( A3) has not pleaded that  he had sent any feed back report to  the circle office by 29.07.2009 in terms of  the directions contained in the letter dated 14.07.2009 Ex.PW53/D of the circle office. 

298.  Another plea which has been raised by  accused C.M. Bansal ( A3) is that  he broke the information that bank has been defrauded by the accused persons  after his post sanction visit  and CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.278 of 336 ­: 279 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

if   he   was   an   accomplice   ,   he   would   not   have   done   the   same. Although   accused C.M. Bansal has pleaded that he informed the bank  about the fraud played by the accused persons  but  neither in his examination in the court as DW1 nor  in his written statement Ex.C3   filed   on   26.02.2016   and   neither     in   his   statement   under Section 313 (1) (a) recorded on 24.11.2016, accused C.M. Bansal has stated that he has informed the bank about the fraud played by the accused persons.  Accused C. M. Bansal(A3) has also not given any   suggestion   to   PW1   Shri   Malay   Mukherji,   who   had   made complaint, Ex.PW1/A to the effect that the said complaint has been made at the instance of accused C. M Bansal(A3).  Accused C.M. Bansal has not proved that  as to when he informed the  bank about the  fraud played by the accused persons with the bank. Rather  in his   written   statement   Ex.C3   filed   in   the   court   on   26.02.2016   , accused C.M. Bansal has stated  that  inspite of high pressure  by one   D.P. Singh ( who was DGM at the circle office in the year 2009 ) to forward the proposal at the earlier, he followed all rules and regulations as per bank's standard practice and mandate.

299.   The contention has been raised on behalf of accused C. M. Bansal(A3) that the Sanctioning Authority has not applied its mind while according sanction  for prosecution against accused C. M. Bansal. 

CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.279 of 336 ­: 280 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

300.  Section   19   of   the   Prevention   of   Corruption   Act, 1988  provides necessity of previous sanction for prosecution of a public servant.  

301.  A public servant occupies office which renders him a public servant and occupying the office carries with it the powers conferred on the office.   Power generally is not conferred on an individual person.   In a society governed by rule of law power is conferred   on   office   or   acquired   by   statutory   status   and   the individual   occupying   the   office   or   on   whom   status   is   conferred enjoys the power of office or power flowing from the status. The holder   of   the   office   alone   would   have   opportunity   to   abuse   or misuse   the   office.       It   is   holding   of   the   office   which   gives   an opportunity to use it for corrupt motives.     Therefore, the corrupt conduct is directly attributable and flows from the power conferred from the office.   This interrelation and interdependence between individual and the office he holds is substantial and not severable.   

302.  In  Prakash   Singh   Badal   and   another  v.  State   of Punjab and others, (2007) 1 Supreme Court Cases 1, Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold :

CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.280 of 336 ­: 281 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

"20. The principle of immunity protects all acts which the public servant has to perform in the exercise of the functions of   the   Government.     The   purpose   for   which   they   are performed   protects   these   acts   from   criminal   prosecution. However,   there   is   an   exception.     Where   a   criminal   act   is performed under the colour of authority but which in reality is for the public servant's own pleasure or benefit then such acts   shall   not   be   protected   under   the   doctrine   of   State immunity.

21. In other words, where the act performed under the colour of   office   is   for   the   benefit   of   the   officer   or   for   his   own pleasure Section 19(1) will come in.  Therefore, Section 19(1) is time and offence related.

..........

.......... 

47.  The sanctioning authority is not required to separately specify   each   of   the   offences   against   the   accused   public servant. This is required to be done at the stage of framing of charge.  Law  requires  that before  the  sanctioning authority materials   must  be   placed so that  the  sanctioning  authority can apply his mind and take a decision. Whether there is an application of mind or  not would depend on the  facts and circumstances   of   each   case   and   there   cannot   be   any generalised guidelines in that regard."

CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.281 of 336 ­: 282 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

303. The   Sanctioning   Authority   Shri   P.   Seshagiri   Rao appeared   in   witness   box   as   PW2   and   stated   that   before according   sanction,   he   had   gone   through   the   statements   of witnesses recorded by CBI, documents & CBI Report and he has also applied his mind and accorded sanction for prosecution vide Sanction Order Ex.PW2/A.   PW2 has also stated that Assistant General   Manager   was   the   competent   authority   to   remove   an officer of the rank of Branch which the accused C. M. Bansal was   holding   at   that   time   and   being   the   Assistant   General Manager, he(PW2) was designated as Disciplinary Authority by the   Head   Office   and   was,   as   such,   competent   to   accord   the sanction for prosecution against accused C. M. Bansal.   

304. In   the   statement   recorded   under   section   313   (1)(a) Cr.PC, accused C. M. Bansal(A3) has pleaded that sanction for prosecution has been given  without application of mind and he has   further   stated   that   the   same   Sanctioning   Authority exonerated   him   in   Departmental   Enquiry.     PW2   Shri   P. Seshagiri   Rao   stated   in   the   cross­examination   that   there   was internal enquiry regarding role of accused C. M. Bansal done by Indian Bank and the said enquiry was not done by him.  In the cross   examination,   PW2   was   confronted   by   accused   C.   M. Bansal(A3)   with   copy   of   page   31   of   order   dated   30.10.2010 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.282 of 336 ­: 283 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

Ex.PW2/D1 and PW2 stated that the same is signed by him.  Ex. PW2/D1 is copy of Page 31 of the Orders of AGM/ Concurrent DA at Head Office on the punishment imposed on Mr. Chander Mohan   Bansal,   SRNo.:12136,   SM   (under   suspension)   Hauz Khas   branch   in   respect   of   the   charge   sheet   dated   05.04.10 issued to him for the irregularities in the account of M/s India Fab at Shalimar Bagh branch during his tenure as BM.  It is to be   noted   that   accused   C.   M.   Bansal(A3)   hs   confronted   PW2 only with one page i.e. page 31of  the order dated 30.10.2010 and the complete order dated 30.10.2010 has not been placed on record   by   accused   C.   M.   Bansal(A3).     In   Ex.PW2/D1,   it   is observed:

Conclusion:  

'In conclusion, I (Disciplinary Authority) record that the charges proved  against the CSO are serious in nature involving violation of and non­ adherence   to   laid   down norms like KYC compliance, need for due  verification about   borrower,   guarantor   and   property   offered   as security as well as the credit worthiness of borrower and guarantor from  independent   source   of   information, need   for   confirming   genuineness   of   documents   relied upon   for   consideration   of   the   credit   proposal   and adequate monitoring of the operations in the account in CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.283 of 336 ­: 284 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

order to ensure proper and appropriate end use of funds. The   lapses   have   been   instrumental   to   the   non­ recoverability of the advance and the fraud also having been perpetrated on the bank for a huge amount.'

305. As   per   Ex.PW2/D1,   which   is   page   31   of   the   order dated 30.10.2010, a lenient view was taken by AGM / Concurrent Disciplinary   Authority   and   the   punishment   of   'Reduction   to   a lower Grade from the present MMG­Scale­III to MMG­Scale­ II' was imposed on accused C.M. Bansal(A3).  

306.  In   view   of   the   aforesaid   discussion,   I   find   that   the Sanctioning Authority had accorded the sanction to prosecute the accused C. M. Bansal with due application of mind and on correct appreciation of the facts and material placed before it and there is no illegality or malafide in the grant of sanction for prosecution of accused C. M. Bansal(A3).

307. The contention of Ld. Counsel for A3 is that A3 has been   charged   for   the   offence   under   Section   120B   IPC   on   the allegation   that   he   entered   into   criminal   conspiracy     with   other accused persons and in pursuance of the same committed offences punishable under Sections 420/471 IPC r/w Section 13(1) (d)  and Section 13(2) of PC Act.

CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.284 of 336 ­: 285 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

308.  Ld.   Counsel   for   A3   has   contended   that     criminal conspiracy   in   terms   of   Section   120   B   IPC   is   an   independent offence and is punishable separately and the offence under Section 120B IPC   is to be proved   by the prosecution applying the legal principles which are applicable for the purpose of proving  criminal misconduct on the part of the accused.   

309.  Ld.   Counsel   for   A3   has   relied   on   decision  R. Venkatakrishnan     v.   CBI,   Criminal   Appeal   No.76   of   2004, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold: 

The ingredients of the offence of criminal conspiracy are :

(i) an agreement between two or more persons;

(ii) the agreement must relate to doing or causing to be done either

(a) an illegal act;

(b) an act which is not illegal in itself but is done by illegal means.

Condition precedent, therefore, for holding accused persons guilty of a charge of criminal conspiracy must, therefore, be considered on the anvil of a fact which must be established by the prosecution, viz., meeting point of two or more persons for doing or causing to be done an illegal act or an act CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.285 of 336 ­: 286 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

by illegal means.

The courts, however, while drawing an inference from the materials brought on record to arrive at a finding as to whether the charges of the criminal conspiracy have been proved or not, must always bear in mind that a conspiracy is hatched in secrecy and it is, thus, difficult, if not impossible, to obtain direct evidence to establish the same.

The manner and circumstances in which the offences have been committed and the level of involvement of the accused persons therein are relevant factors. For the said purpose, it is necessary to prove that the propounders had expressly agreed to or caused to be done the illegal act but it may also be proved otherwise by adduction of circumstantial evidence and/or by necessary implication. [ See Mohammad Usman Mohammad Hussain Maniyar & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra ( 1981) 2 SCC 443] .

-------------------------------

-----------------------------

--------------------------------

We may also notice a decision of this Court being State ( NCT) of Delhi v. Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru [(2005) 11 SCC 600], commonly known as the Parliament Attack case, wherein upon taking note of various earlier decisions of this Court, it was opined that as conspiracy is mostly proved by circumstantial CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.286 of 336 ­: 287 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

evidence, usually both the existence of conspiracy and its objects have to be inferred from the circumstances and the conduct of the accused, stating:

"101. One more principle which deserves notice is that the cumulative effect of the proved circumstances should be taken into account in determining the guilt of the accused rather than adopting an isolated approach to each of the circumstances. Of course, each one of the circumstances should be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Lastly, in regard to the appreciation of evidence relating to the conspiracy, the Court must take care to see that the acts or conduct of the parties must be conscious and clear enough to infer their concurrence as to the common design and its execution.

---------------------

---------------------

Recently, in Yogesh @ Sachin Jagdish Joshi v. State of Maharashtra [(2008) 6 SCALE 469] , a Division Bench of this Court held:

"23. Thus, it is manifest that the meeting of minds of two or more persons for doing an illegal act or an act by illegal means is sine qua non of the criminal conspiracy but it may not be possible to CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.287 of 336 ­: 288 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

prove the agreement between them by direct proof. Nevertheless, existence of the conspiracy and its objective can be inferred from the surrounding circumstances and the conduct of the accused. But the incriminating circumstances must form a chain of events from which a conclusion about the guilt of the accused could be drawn. It is well settled that an offence of conspiracy is a substantive offence and renders the mere agreement to commit an offence punishable even if an offence does not take place pursuant to the illegal agreement."

310.  Ld. Counsel for accused C. M. Bansal (A3) has relied on following observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. Nalini and others, 1999 V AD(S.C.) 1:

A charge of conspiracy may prejudice the accused because it is forced them into a joint trial and   the court may consider the entire mass of evidence  against every accused. Prosecution has to produce evidence  not only to show that each of the accused has     knowledge   of   object   of   conspiracy   but   also   of   the agreement. In the charge of conspiracy court  has to guard itself against the danger of unfairness to the accused. Introduction of evidence against some may result in the conviction of all, which is to be avoided. By means of evidence in conspiracy, which is otherwise   inadmissible   in   the   trial   of   any   other   substantive CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.288 of 336 ­: 289 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

offence prosecution tries to implicate the accused not only in the conspiracy itself but also in the substantive crime of the  alleged conspirators. There is  always  difficulty  in tracing the precise contribution of each member   of the conspiracy but then there has to be cogent and  convincing evidence against each one of the   accused     charged   with   the   offence   of   conspiracy.   As observed     by   Judge   Learned     Hand   that   "this   distinction   is important today when many prosecutors seek to sweep   within the dragnet of conspiracy all those who have been associated in any degree whatever with the main offenders".    

311. All accused persons have been charged for the offence under section 120B IPC for entering into criminal conspiracy for the   purpose   of   causing   wrongful   loss   to   Indian   Bank,   Shalimar Bagh,   New   Delhi   and   wrongful   gain   to   themselves   and   in pursuance   of   the   same,   forged   and   fabricated   the   documents   of identity   i.e.   PAN   Card,   Driving   Licence   &   Rent   Agreement purportedly   executed   on   01.01.2007   were   submitted   by   them   to Indian Bank, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi for opening of Account in name of   M/s   India   Fab,   Proprietor   Rajesh   Kapoor   and   forged   & fabricated   Audit   Reports   of   M/s   India   Fab   for   years   ended 31.3.2007,   31.03.2008   &   31.03.2009   purportedly   issued   by   M/s Naresh   Jindal   &   Associates,   Chartered   Accountants,   forged   and fabricated documents of the property no.354, Phase­I, Mangol Puri, CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.289 of 336 ­: 290 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

Industrial area, New Delhi and letter dated 28.05.2009 purportedly issued   by   Karur   Vysya   Bank   were   submitted   for   grant   of   Cash Credit   Limit   of   Rs.150   lacs   and   Indian   Bank   was   thereby dishonestly   and   fraudulently   induced   to   sanction   OCC   Limit   of Rs.125 lacs.

312.  In  State of Madhya Pradesh  Vs.  Sheetla Sahai and Ors.  MANU/SC/1425/2009,   Hon'ble   Supreme   Court   has   been pleased to hold:

49.Criminal conspiracy has been defined in Section 120A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 to mean:

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, 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 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.290 of 336 ­: 291 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

merely incidental to that object.

Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code provides for punishment for criminal conspiracy.

50. Criminal conspiracy is an independent offence.

It is punishable separately.   Prosecution, therefore, for the purpose of bringing the charge of criminal conspiracy read with the aforementioned provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act was required to establish   the   offence   by   applying   the   same   legal principles   which   are   otherwise   applicable   for   the purpose of bringing a criminal misconduct on the part of an accused.

51.   A   criminal   conspiracy   must   be   put   to   action inasmuch   as   so   long  a   crime   is   generated  in   the mind of an accused, it does not become punishable. What is necessary is not thoughts, which may even be   criminal   in   character,   often   involuntary,   but offence   would   be   said   to   have   been   committed thereunder only when that take concrete shape of an agreement to do or cause to be done an illegal act or an act which although not illegal by illegal means   and   then   if   nothing   further   is   done   the agreement would give rise to a criminal conspiracy. Its ingredients are

(i) an agreement between two or more persons;

CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.291 of 336 ­: 292 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

(ii) an agreement must relate to doing or causing to be done either (a) an illegal act; (b) an act which is not illegal in itself but is done by illegal means. What is, therefore, necessary is to show meeting of minds of two or more persons for doing or causing to be done an illegal act or an act by illegal means.

52. While saying so, we are not oblivious of the fact that often conspiracy is hatched in secrecy and for proving the said offence substantial direct evidence may not be possible to be obtained.   An offence of criminal   conspiracy   can   also   be   proved   by circumstantial evidence.

In  Kehar   Singh   and   Ors.  v.  State   (Delhi  Administration)   MANU/SC/0241/1988   :   1988   (3) SCC   609   at   731,   this   Court   has   quoted   the following   passage   from   Russell   on   Crimes   (12 th Edn. Vol 1):

The gist of the offence of conspiracy then lies,   not in doing the act, or effecting the purpose for which the conspiracy is formed, nor in attempting to do them, nor in inciting others to do them, but in the forming of the scheme or agreement between the parties. Agreement is essential.   Mere Knowledge, or even discussion, of the plan is not, per se enough.

In  State (NCT)  of Delhi  v.  Naviot Sandhu @ CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.292 of 336 ­: 293 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

Afsan Guru  MANU/SC/0465/2005 : (2005) 11 SCC 600, this Court stated the law, thus:

101.   One   more   principle   which   deserves notice is that the cumulative effect of the proved circumstances should be taken into account   in   determining   the   guilt   of   the accused rather than adopting an isolated approach to each of the circumstances.  Of course,   each   one   of   the   circumstances should   be   proved   beyond   reasonable doubt.   Lastly,   in   regard   to   the appreciation   of   evidence   relating   to   the conspiracy,   the   Court   must   take   care   to see that the acts or conduct of the parties must   be   conscious   and   clear   enough   to infer their concurrence as to the common design and its execution." 

313.       Accused C. M. Bansal (A3) has contended that it has not been proved that he obtained any pecuniary advantage and his case can be considered as an error of judgment and he is entitled to benefit   of   doubt.     However,   this   contention   of   accused   C.   M. Bansal is of no help to him as he abused his official position in CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.293 of 336 ­: 294 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

criminal   conspiracy   with   other   accused   persons   by   opening   the account of M/s India Fab without following the guidelines of the bank as discussed above and on the basis of forged and fabricated documents and he (accused C. M. Bansal) even misled the Circle Office   by   sending   forged   and   fabricated   letter   dated   28.05.2009 purportedly issued by Karur Vysya Bank in order to obtain grant of Credit facility in favour of M/s India Fab and accused C. M. Bansal failed to ensure the end use of the funds sanctioned to M/s India Fab as result of which almost the entire OCC Limit sanctioned to M/s India Fab was withdrawn during the short of period of 13 days between the sanction of OCC limit i.e. 14.07.2009 and 27.07.2009 and debit balance in the account of M/s India Fab as on 27.07.2009 was Rs.1,23,99,171/­ .

314.  The evidence on record has proved that all the accused persons   had   entered   into   criminal   conspiracy   in   order   to   cause wrongful   loss   to   Union   Bank   of   India   and   wrongful   gain   to themselves   and   in   pursuance   of   criminal   conspiracy,   accused Ashok Kumar(A4), Narender Kumar @ Sanjay Kumar (A6) had opened separate accounts in the names of M/s K. G. Fabrics and M/s   Ganpati   Overseas   on   the   basis   of   forged   and   fabricated documents and by impersonating themselves as Ashok Kumar s/o CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.294 of 336 ­: 295 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

Rur Singh and Sanjay Kumar s/o Ram Kumar, as discussed above and OCC limit sanctioed by Indian Bank, Shalimar Bagh Branch was siphoned off to the accounts of accused Ashok Kumr (A4), Ramesh   Kumar   Wadhera(A5),   Narender   Kumar   @   Sanjay Kumar(A6) and Sufiyan Ashraf Rajwani(A8) and accused C. M. Bansal(A3),   being   Branch   Manager   facilitated   the   opening   of account   of   M/s   India   Fab   in   Indian   Bank,   Shalimar   Bagh     and securing sanction of  OCC  limit of  Rs.125  lacs  from the   Circle Office. The prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubts the criminal conspiracy hatched by the accused persons Rajesh Kumar @   Rajesh   Kapoor(A1),     accused   C.   M.   Bansal(A3)   Ashok Kumar(A4),   Ramesh   Kumar   Wadhera(A5),   Narender   Kumar   @ Sanjay   Kumar(A6)   and   Sufiyan   Ashraf   Rajwani(A8). Consequently, accused persons, namely Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor(A1),   accused   C.   M.   Bansal(A3)   Ashok   Kumar(A4), Ramesh   Kumar   Wadhera(A5),   Narender   Kumar   @   Sanjay Kumar(A6)   and   Sufiyan   Ashraf   Rajwani(A8)   are   liable   to   be convicted for the offence punishable under section 120B IPC.    

315.  Accused Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor(A1) and accused Narender Kumar @ Sanjay Kumar(A6) have also been charged for the offences under section 467 IPC & 468 IPC.  Section CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.295 of 336 ­: 296 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

467 IPC provides punishment for person who forges the documents which purport to be a valuable security or a will, or an authority to adopt a son, or which purports to give authority to any person to make or transfer any valuable security, or to receive the principal, interest   or   dividends   thereupon,   or   to   receive   or   to   deliver   any money, movable property, or valuable security, or any document purporting   to   be   an   acquittance   or   receipt   acknowledging   the payment of money, or any acquittance or receipt for the delivery of any movable property or valuable security.    

316.  Section   468   IPC   provides   that   whoever   commits forgery, intending that the documents or electronic record forged shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.  

317.   During   the   course   of   arguments,   Ld.   PP,   CBI   has conceded that offences under sections 467 IPC & 468 IPC are not proved  against   the   accused   persons   @   Rajesh   Kapoor(A1)   and Narender Kumar @ Sanjay Kumar(A6) as prosecution has not been able to prove that the documents in question were forged by them as there is evidence of using forged documents by them. 

CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.296 of 336 ­: 297 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

318.  Accused Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor(A1) C. M. Bansal(A3),   Ashok   Kumar(A4)   and   Narender   Kumar(A6)   have also been charged for offence under section 471 IPC for using as genuine   the   forged,   false   and   fabricated   documents.     The prosecution   has   succeeded   in   proving   that   the   accused   Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor(A1)   has dishonestly & fraudulent used as genuine forged and fabricated documents such as PAN Card, Driving Licence & Rent Agreement dated 01.01.2007 in respect of property   No.5063,   Gali   No.1,   Desh   Bandhu   Gupta   Road,   Sant Nagar, Karol Bagh, forged & fabricated documents of property No. 354, Mangol Puri, Industrial Area, Phase­I, New Delhi and Audit Reports   purportedly   issued   by   Naresh   Jindal   &   Associates   for opening   the   account     in   the   name   of   M/s   India   Fab   and   for obtaining OCC limit of Rs.125 lacs and thereby accused  Rajesh Kumar   @   Rajesh   Kapoor   (A1)   has   committed   the   offence punishable under section 471 IPC.

319.  The has also proved that accused  C. M. Bansal(A3) has dishonestly used as genuine forged & fabricated letter dated 28.05.2009 purportedly issued by Karur Vysya Bank for obtaining sanction from circle office for  credit facility in favour of M/s India Fab and thereby committed the offence punishable under section CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.297 of 336 ­: 298 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

471 IPC.

320.   The prosecution has also proved that accused Ashok Kumar also dishonestly & fraudulently used  as genuine the forged and fabricated documents i.e. PAN Card, Rent Agreement dated 30.03.2009   in   respect   of   property   No.5063,   Gali   No.1,   Desh Bandhu Gupta Road,  Sant Nagar, Karol Bagh for opening account in the name of M/s K. G. Fabric in  Dena Bank, Rohini and thereby committed the offence punishable under section 471 IPC.

321.   The   prosecution   has   also   proved   that   accused Narender Kumar @ Sanjay Kumar also dishonestly & fraudulently used   as   genuine   the   forged   and   fabricated   documents   i.e.   PAN Card,   Certificate   purportedly   issued   by   M/s   Naresh   Jindal   & Associates   for   opening   account   in   the   name   of   M/s   Ganpati Overseas in Karur Vysya Bank, Lawrence Road Branch, Keshav Puram, Delhi and thereby committed the offence punishable under section 471 IPC.    

322.  Accused Narender Kumar @ Sanjay Kumar(A6) has also   been   charged   for   the   offence   under   section   419   IPC   for impersonating himself as Sanjay Kumar s/o Shri Ram Kumar for opening account in name of M/s Ganpati Overseas, in Karur Vysya CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.298 of 336 ­: 299 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

Bank, Lawrence Road Branch, Keshav Puram, Delhi although his actual name is Narender Kumar s/o Shri Satpal Singh. 

323.  Although, formal charge for offence under section 419 IPC has not been framed against accused persons, namely, Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor(A1) and Ashok Kumar (A4) but in the chargesheet it has been mentioned that accused Rajesh Kumar s/o Shri   Kewal   Krishan(A1)   impersonated   as   Rajesh   Kapoor   s/o Shyam Bhushan Kapoor and opened account in the name of M/s India   Fab,   Proprietor   Rajesh   Kapoor   in   Indian   Bank,   Shalimar Bagh   branch   and   Ashok   Kumar   s/o   Shri   Basheshar   Das impersonated as Ashok Kumar s/o Rur Singh and opened account in the name of M/s K. G. Fabric in Dena Bank, Rohini, accordingly the charge for the offence under section 419 IPC is made against accused Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor (A1) and Ashok Kumar (A4)   and   evidence   has   been   adduced   on   the   said   charge   and accused  Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor (A1) and Ashok Kumar (A4) have been given opportunity to rebut the said charge by cross­ examining the prosecution witnesses. Moreover, in their statements recorded under section 313(1) (a) Cr.PC accused Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor(A1) & Ashok Kumar(A4) have admitted that their actual names are Rajesh Kumar  s/o Shri Kewal Krishan and Ashok Kumar   s/o   Sh.   Basheshar   Das   and   they   opened   accounts   in   the CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.299 of 336 ­: 300 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

names   of   M/s   India   Fab,   Prop.   Rajesh   Kapoor   in   Indian   Bank, Shalimar Bagh and M/s K. G. Fabric, Prop. Ashok Kumar s/o Rur Singh in Dena Bank, Rohini respectively.  Hence, no prejudice has been caused to accused   Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor(A1) & Ashok Kumar(A4) for not framing formal charge for offence under section 419 IPC.  Accused  Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor(A1) & Ashok Kumar(A4) have been explained the allegations of section 419 IPC against them and they have been heard on the charge of section 419 IPC as imputed against them. 

324.  Section 419 IPC reads as:

"419.   Punishment   for   cheating   by   personation.­ Whoever   cheats   by   personation   shall   be   punished with   imprisonment  of   either   description   for   a  term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both." 

325.  Section 416 IPC reads as:

"416. Cheating by personation.­ A person is said to "cheat by personation" if he cheats by pretending to be some other person, or by knowingly substituting one person for another, or representing   that he or any other person is a person other than he or such other person really is.

Explanation.­   The   offence   is   committed   whether   the   individual personated is a real or imaginary person."

326.   The evidence adduced by prosecution has proved that CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.300 of 336 ­: 301 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

accused Narender Kumar s/o Shri Satpal Singh had impersonated himself as Sanjay Kumar s/o Shri Ram Kumar and thereby opened account as Proprietor of M/s Ganpati Overseas in   Karur Vysya Bank,   Lawrence   Road   Branch,   Keshav   Puram,   Delhi   for   the purpose   of   cheating   the   Indian   Bank,   Shalimar   Bagh   Branch   in criminal conspiracy with other accused persons and received funds from the OCC limit sanctioned to M/s India Fab by Indian Bank, Shalimar   Bagh   branch   and   thereby   committed   an   offence punishable under section 419 IPC. 

327.               It is to be noted that allegation against accused Rajesh Kapoor is that his actual name is Rajesh Kumar s/o Shri Kewal Krishan and he impersonated himself as Rajesh Kapoor s/o Shri Shyam Bhushan  Kapoor and opened the current account of M/s India   Fab   Proprietor   Rajesh   Kapoor,   in   Indian   Bank,   Shalimar Bagh   Branch.   The   evidence   adduced   by   prosecution   has   proved that   accused   Rajesh   Kumar   s/o   Shri   Kewal   Krishan   had impersonated himself as Rajesh Kapoor s/o Shri Shyam Bhushan Kapoor and thereby opened account as Proprietor of M/s India Fab in Indian Bank, Shalimar Bagh Branch for the purpose of cheating the Indian Bank,Shalimar Bagh Branch in criminal conspiracy with other   accused   persons   and   received   funds   from   the   OCC   limit sanctioned to M/s India Fab by Indian Bank, Shalimar Bagh branch CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.301 of 336 ­: 302 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

& thereby committed an offence punishable under section 419 IPC.

328. It is to be noted that allegation against accused Ashok Kumar is that his actual name is Ashok Kumar s/o shri Basheshar Das and he impersonated himself as Ashok Kumar s/o Shri Rur Singh   and   opened   the   current   account   of   M/s   K.G.   Fabric Proprietor   Ashok   Kumar,   in   Dena   Bank,   Rohini.   The   evidence adduced by prosecution has proved that accused Ashok Kumar s/o Shri Basheshar Das had impersonated himself as Ashok Kumar s/o Shri Rur Singh and thereby opened account as Proprietor of M/s K. G. Fabric in Dena Bank, Rohini for the purpose of cheating the Indian Bank, Shalimar Bagh Branch in criminal conspiracy with other   accused   persons   and   received   funds   from   the   OCC   limit sanctioned to M/s India Fab by Indian Bank,Shalimar Bagh branch & thereby committed an offence punishable under section 419IPC.

329.  All the accused persons have been charged for offence under section  420  IPC for commission of acts of cheating which resulted in wrongful loss to Indian Bank, Shalimar Bagh Branch, and wrongful gain to the accused persons.

330. Section 415 IPC reads as :

"415. Cheating.­ Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.302 of 336 ­: 303 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

or   dishonestly   induces   the   person   so   deceived   to   deliver   any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat".

Explanation.­   A   dishonest   concealment   of   facts   is   a   deception within the meaning of this section. 

331.    Section 420 IPC reads as :

"420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.­  Whoever   cheats   and   thereby   dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or  destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is 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."  

332. The evidence adduced  by  the prosecution  has proved that   accused   persons,   namely   Rajesh   Kumar   @   Rajesh Kapoor(A1),   accused   C.M.   Bansal(A3)   Ashok   Kumar(A4), Ramesh   Kumar   Wadhera(A5),   Narender   Kumar   @   Sanjay Kumar(A6) and Sufiyan Ashraf Rajwani(A8) in pursuance of their criminal   conspiracy   submitted   fake,   forged   documents   and   in CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.303 of 336 ­: 304 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

pursuance of the same, account of M/s India Fab, proprietor Rajesh Kapoor   was   opened   in   Indian   Bank,   Shalimar   Bagh   branch  and OCC limit of Rs.125 lacs was got sanctioned in the account of M/s India Fab and   the said amount was converted by  accused persons, namely   Rajesh   Kumar   @   Rajesh   Kapoor(A1),   accused   C.M. Bansal(A3)   Ashok   Kumar(A4),   Ramesh   Kumar   Wadhera(A5), Narender   Kumar   @   Sanjay   Kumar(A6)   and   Sufiyan   Ashraf Rajwani(A8)   to their own use and thereby, the accused persons, namely   Rajesh   Kumar   @   Rajesh   Kapoor(A1),   accused   C.M. Bansal(A3)   Ashok   Kumar(A4),   Ramesh   Kumar   Wadhera(A5), Narender   Kumar   @   Sanjay   Kumar(A6)   and   Sufiyan   Ashraf Rajwani(A8) caused wrongful loss to Indian Bank and wrongful gain to themselves.       Consequently, the accused persons, namely Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor(A1), accused  C.M. Bansal(A3) Ashok   Kumar(A4),   Ramesh   Kumar   Wadhera(A5),   Narender Kumar @ Sanjay Kumar(A6) and Sufiyan Ashraf Rajwani(A8) are liable to convicted for the offence punishable under section 420 IPC.  

333.    Accused C. M. Bansal, who was a public servant, was also charged for offences under section 13(2) read with section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for criminally misconducting himself being a public servant and by abusing his position as a public servant and obtained pecuniary advantage for CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.304 of 336 ­: 305 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

co­accused persons and thereby, caused huge loss to public sector bank   i.e.   Indian   Bank,   Shalimar   Bagh   Branch,   Delhi   and dishonestly and fraudulently by criminally misconducting himself and   by   abusing   his   official   position   as   public   servant   allowed opening   of   Current   Account   of   M/s   India   Fab   without   proper introduction   and   authentication   of   required   documents   and subsequently recommending and got sanctioned the OCC limit of Rs. 125 lacs in favour of M/s India Fab on the basis of fake, forged and   fabricated   documents   including   false   site   visit/verification report,   documents   of   property   No.B­354,   Phase­I,   Mangol   Puri, Industrial   Area   and   he   prepared/got   prepared   forged/false documents purported to have been furnished by Karur Vysya Bank and got sanctioned OCC limit of Rs.125 lacs in favour of M/s India Fab.

334.  The evidence on record has proved that the accused C.M. Bansal, dishonestly & fraudulently authorized opening of the current   account   of   M/s   India   Fab,   proprietor   Rajesh   Kapoor   in Shalimar   Bagh   branch,   Delhi   where   he   was   posted   as   Branch Manager on the basis of forged and fabricated documents without proper introduction and authentication of required documents and recommended and got sanctioned OCC limit of Rs.125 lacs in the account   of   M/s   India   Fab   on   the   basis   of   forged   &   fabricated CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.305 of 336 ­: 306 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

documents and site visit report/pre­sanction report and the letter dated   28.5.2007   purportedly   issued   by   Karur   Vysya   Bank. Consequently, accused C. M. Bansal(A3) is liable to be convicted for the offence punishable under section  13(2)  read  with  section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

335. Accordingly,   accused  Rajesh   Kumar   @   Rajesh Kapoor(A1)  is  convicted  for   the  offences  punishable   under sections 120B, 419, 420 & 471 IPC. 

336.   Accused  Ashok   Kumar(A4)  is  convicted  for   the offences punishable under sections 120B, 419, 420  & 471 IPC.

337.   Accused Ramesh Kumar Wadhera(A5) is convicted for the offences punishable under sections  120B & 420 IPC.

338.  Accused Narender Kumar @ Sanjay Kumar(A6) is convicted  for the  offences  punishable under  sections 120B, 419, 420 & 471 IPC.

339.   Accused  Sufiyan  Ashraf  Rajwani(A8)  is  convicted for the offences punishable under sections  120B & 420 IPC.

340.  Accused  C.   M.   Bansal(A3)  is  convicted  for   the CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.306 of 336 ­: 307 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

offences punishable under sections 120B, 420 & 471 IPC and also for the offence punishable under section 13 (2) read with 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

341.   The   prosecution   has   not   succeeded   in   proving   the allegations against the accused Rajiv Gupta(A2) beyond reasonable doubts. Consequently, accused Rajiv Gupta(A2) is acquitted for the offences charged i.e. under sections 120B & 420 IPC read with section(13)(2) read with section (13)(1) (d) of the PC Act, 1988. The bail bond furnished by accused Rajiv Gupta(A2) is cancelled and his surety is discharged.   However, the bail bond furnished by accused Rajiv Gupta(A2) under Section 437A Cr. PC shall remain in force for a period of six months. 

      Announced in the open court                     (HARISH DUDANI)        today on 25th February, 2017.            Special Judge (PC Act) CBI­1,                              District Courts(SW), Dwarka        New Delhi.

CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.307 of 336 ­: 308 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

IN  THE  COURT  OF  SHRI  HARISH  DUDANI  SPECIAL  JUDGE (PC ACT) (CBI)­1 DISTRICT  COURTS(SW), DWARKA, NEW DELHI.

In the matter of :­ CBI case No. : 13/16 (old CC No.: 33/11) RC No. : 072  2009(E)  0007/CBI/EOU­III/New Delhi Central Bureau of Investigation,  EOU­III, New Delhi.

   Versus

1.  Rajesh Kumar(A1) s/o Sh. Kewal Krishan @ Rajesh Kapoor      s/o  Sh. S. B. Kapoor,        R/o : H. No. 640, Village - Mundka, Nangloi, Delhi.

Permmanent R/o : H. No.68, Vijay Nagar colony,  District Kapoorthala, Punjab.

2.  Chander Mohan Bansal(A3)   s/o late Shri Babu Ram R/o : I­79, First Floor, Lajpat Nagar­1, New Delhi­110 024.

3.  Ashok Kumar(A4) s/o Shri Beshesar Dass, R/o : Flat No. 210­211, Second Floor, F­1, Sector 16,  Rohini, Delhi.

Also  R/o : H. No. 53, Pocket­9,  Sector 21, Rohini, New Delhi.

CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.308 of 336 ­: 309 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

4.  Ramesh Kumar Wadhera(A5) s/o late Shri Bashesar Dass,  R/o : B747­A, Sushant Lok,  Phase­1, Gurgaon, Haryana.

5.  Narender Kumar @ Sanjay Kumar (A6) s/o late Shri Satpal Singh,  R/o:B­39, A Block, Ram Vihar,  Village­Johari Pur, Delhi­94.

6.   Sufiyan Ashraf Rajwani(A8) s/o Shri Ashraf Ismail Rajwani,  R/o : 105, Abrar Tower, Shalimar Society, Adajan Patia, Surat, Gujarat­395009.  

                        .............Convicts Date of Institution : 01.11.2010 Date on which Judgment Reserved : 20.02.2017  Date on which Judgment Pronounced : 25.02.2017 Date on which Order on Sentence announced : 09.03.2017      ORDER   ON   SENTENCE

1.   By this order, I shall dispose off the contentions, raised on behalf of the parties, on the point of sentence.

2. In   the   present   case,   convicts,   namely,  Rajesh   Kumar   @ Rajesh Kapoor, Ashok   Kumar and convict Narender Kumar @ CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.309 of 336 ­: 310 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

Sanjay Kumar have been convicted for the offences punishable under sections   120B,   419,   420   &   471   IPC.   Convicts,   namely  Ramesh Kumar Wadhera and Sufiyan Ashraf Rajwani  have been convicted for the offences punishable under sections 120B & 420 IPC.   Convict C. M. Bansal has been  convicted  for the offences punishable under sections  120B, 420 & 471 IPC  and in addition, also for the offence punishable   under   section  13(2)  read   with   section  13(1)(d)  of   the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.   

3. It has been strongly contended by the Ld. Sr. PP for the CBI that  all  the convicts  had entered into a well­planned  conspiracy, in pursuance of which, convict C.M. Bansal abused his official position as   Branch   Manager   of   Indian   Bank,   Shalimar   Bagh   branch,   Delhi recommended and procured sanction of the OCC Limit of Rs.125 lacs in favour of M/s India Fab of convict Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor on the basis of forged & fabricated documents, by fabricating the false reports and as a result of aforesaid conspiracy of the convicts, huge wrongful loss was caused to the Public Sector Bank i.e. Indian Bank, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi and wrongful gain was caused to all the convicts and such cases have to be dealt with sternly as all the convicts have caused loss to public exchequer.  

CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.310 of 336 ­: 311 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

4. It is further contended by Ld. Sr. PP for CBI that convict Ramesh Kumar Wadhera has the history of previous conviction and he has been convicted in one case i.e. case FIR No.342/2000, under section   325IPC,   PS   Mandir   Marg,   for  one   year   RI  and   a   fine   of Rs.500/­   on   29.01.2009.   Case  FIR   No.115/2009  under   sections 420,466,471,406, 120B IPC, PS Karol Bagh is pending at Tis Hazari Courts,   Delhi   and   two   cases   registered   by   CBI   i.e.   case   RC No.12/2004/EOW­I/CBI/DLI is also pending at Tis Hazari Courts & RC No.:09/2005/EOU­IX/DLI under Telegraph Act is pending before CJM,   Ambala  in   which   convict  Ramesh   Kumar   Wadhera   projected himself as Harish Sharma.  It is further contended by Ld. Se. PP, CBI that a case bearing RC No.:09/2005/EOU­IX/DLI under Telegraph Act registered   by   CBI   against   convict   Sufiyan   Ashraf   Rajwani   is   also pending   before   CJM,   Ambala   in   which   convict   Sufiyan   Ashraf Rajwani projected himself as Sameer Mehta.

5. It has been further contended by the Ld. Sr.PP for CBI that maximum punishment prescribed for the offences be handed over to all the convicts in order to send a clear message to the society that such cases are being taken seriously and are dealt with sternly. 

6. Convict Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor has prayed that CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.311 of 336 ­: 312 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

a lenient view be taken on the ground that apart from this case, there is no history of previous conviction.   He has further contended that he is 41 years of age and is the sole bread earner in the family and he has old aged parents who are about 70 years of age and there is nobody else in the family to look after them as his wife is house­wife and he has no issue.     It is further contended that he does not know English language and he is a small fish and he has been made a scape goat and prays that minimum sentence may be awarded.

7. Convict  C.   M.   Bansal  has   contended   that   a   great discretion has been invested in the judge while imposing sentence and judge must exercise his discretionary power taking into consideration many factors  i.e. nature of offence, extenuating or aggravating factors, previous criminal  record of the convict, age and background of the convict and social condition of the convict.   Ld. Counsel for convict C.M. Bansal has further contended that apart from the above stated circumstances, while imposing sentence particular role played by the convict in the crime and the facts & circumstance in which the said crime took place are also important factors, which should be taken into consideration.   It is further contended on behalf of the convict that the educational back ground of the convict, home life and his emotional & mental   condition   should   also   be   looked   into   while   imposing sentencing.     Ld.   Counsel   for   the   convict   C.   M.   Banal   has   further CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.312 of 336 ­: 313 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

contended that family condition of the convict should also be looked into while sentencing  as the sentence stands to affect the entire family of the convict.  Ld. Counsel for the convict C. M. Bansal relied on the decision in  Mohd. Giasuddin v. State of A.P., AIR 1977 SC 1926, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to observe: 

14. ...................  

      ....................

Likewise Shri Justice Dua (as he then was) of the Punjab High Court had indicated the guidelines on the application of the rehabilitative theory in Lekhraj v. State (AIR 1960 Pujn 482) where the learned Judge had pointed out the relevance of the of fender's circumstances and social milieu, apart from the daring and reprehensible nature of the offence.   The Law Commission of India (in its 47th  Report) has summed up the components of a proper sentence:

"A proper sentence is a composite of many factors, including  the nature of the offence,  the circumstances  - extenuating   or   aggravating   -   of   the   offence,   the   prior criminal   record,   if   any,   of   the   offender,   the   age   of   the offender,   the   professional   and   social   record   of   the offender, the background of the offender with reference to education, home life, sobriety and social adjustment, the emotional   and   mental   condition   of   the   offender,   the prospect   for   the   rehabilitation   of   the   offender,   the possibility of a return of the offender to normal life in the community, the possibility of the treatment  or of training of the offender, the possibility that the sentence  may serve as a deterrent  to crime by this offender, or by others, and the present community need, if any, for such a deterrent in respect to the particular type of offence involved."

   

CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.313 of 336 ­: 314 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

8.   It is further contended on behalf of convict C. M. Bansal that he is 62 years of age and has retired a Manager of the Bank and occupies   a   social   status   and   his   family   comprises   only   of   three members including him, his wife and one daughter and there is no other male member in the family to look after them and there is no history of previous conviction from any agency. It is further contended that daughter of convict C.M. Bansal is 30 years of age and the convict is looking for arranging her marriage and incarceration of convict will spoil marriage prospects of his daughter.  It is further contended that looking   into   the   circumstance,   his   age   and   gravity   of   the   offence, convict C. M. Bansal a lenient view be taken.

9. Convict  Ashok Kumar  has also prayed for a lenient view.  He has submitted that he is a senior citizen aged 64 years and is suffering   from   various   diseases   like   acute   diabetes   and   high   blood pressure and his wife is also seriously ill and cannot walk and is totally dependent   upon   the   convict.     It   is   further   stated   on   behalf   of   the convict that he has not been previously convicted and he is not a harm to the society.  

10. Ld. Counsel for of convict  Ramesh  Kumar Wadhera  has contended   that   case  FIR   No.342/2000  under   section   325IPC,   PS Mandir Marg, in which he has  been convicted for  one year RI,  is CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.314 of 336 ­: 315 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

under challenge and appeal is pending before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.   It is further submitted that in case registered by CBI bearing RC   No.12/2004/EOW­I/CBI/DLI   sections   467   &   468   have   been removed and only section 420 IPC is pending against him and in case FIR No.115/2009, he has been put in the Khana no.12 and he is under the process of settling all these cases and there is no other fraud case against him.   It is further contended that he has already deposited an amount of Rs.9.5 lacs at the time of his bail.  It is further contended on behalf of convict Ramesh Kumar Wadhera that he is 62 years of age and his wife is also suffering from various ailments.   It is contended that he has two sons out of them one is settled and other is unsettled. He has prayed that a lenient view be taken.   

11. On   behalf   of   convict  Narender   Kumar   @   Sanjay Kumar,  it  is  submitted  that he  is  41 years  of  age  and  he  has  two children, who are 17 & 18 years old and both are studying in class XI and he is the sole bread earner in the family and there is nobody else to look after his wife and children.  It is further contended that he has no record of previous conviction.   It is also submitted that he was only employee in India Fab and he has been made a scape goat.   He has prayed for mercy and states that a lenient view be taken.   

CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.315 of 336 ­: 316 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

12.   Ld. Counsel for convict Sufiyan Ashraf Rajwani has contended that he has been cheated by an agent and the case, which is registered   by   CBI   and   pending   at   Ambala   under   Telegraph   Act,   is outcome of the mischief done by the agent.  It is further submitted that he is the sole bread earner in his family comprising of his old aged parents, wife and three children.  That his father is 69 years of age and is suffering from various diseases and has recently undergone bye­pass surgery and his mother, who is 64 years old, is also suffering from various ailments and has also been operated recently.   He has three small children who are 8 years, 5 years & 4 months of age and the youngest baby of 4 months is also suffering from disease of hernia. He has prayed for taking a lenient view.    

13. The contentions, raised by the convicts, have met stiff and very strong opposition on behalf of the State.  

14. It is contended by Ld. Sr. PP for CBI that from the very beginning, convict C. M. Bansal, the then Branch Manager was in conspiracy with other convicts and he dishonestly & fraudulently by abusing his official position authorized opening of current account of M/s   India   Fab,   Proprietor   of   which   was   convict   Rajesh   Kumar   @ Rajesh Kapoor in his branch i.e. Indian Bank, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi on the   basis   of   forged   and   fabricated   documents   without   proper CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.316 of 336 ­: 317 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

introduction   and   authentication   of   required   documents   and recommended and got sanctioned OCC limit of 125 lacs in the account of M/s India Fab on the basis of forged and fabricated documents and thereafter the said amount of OCC limit was siphoned off through the accounts of other convicts who used the amount for their personal use and caused a huge lass to the public sector bank.  Thus, convict C. M. Bansal has played active role in the whole  crime. It is, therefore, urged that this convict deserves maximum punishment.  

15. It is contended by Ld. Sr. PP for CBI that convict  Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor in conspiracy with other convicts made a firm in the name of M/s India Fab impersonating himself as Rajesh Kapoor whereas his actual name is Rajesh Kumar and opened current account in the name of that firm i.e. M/s India Fab on the basis of forged   documents   and   got   sanctioned   the   OCC   Limit   from   Indian Bank, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi.   It is stated that convict Rajesh Kumar submitted   the   forged   and   fabricated   documents   to   Indian   Bank, Shalimar Bagh branch alongwith his application and he also submitted fake,   forged   and   fabricated   title   deeds   of   properties   as   collateral securities and obtained the OCC Limit of 125 lacs in the account of M/s India Fab which was siphoned off in different accounts of other convicts.   It is further contended by Ld. Sr. PP that convict Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor not only cheated the Indian Bank but also CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.317 of 336 ­: 318 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

cheated two other  banks  i.e. Ratnakar  Bank,  Karol Bagh branch & Bank   of   India,   Parliament   Street   branch   by   fraudulent   means   and caused a huge loss to the public exchequer.

 

16. Regarding the convict Ashok Kumar it is stated by CBI that he  was   also  involved  in  the  conspiracy   with  other  convicts  and  he opened bogus firm in the name of M/s K. G. Fabric by misrepresenting his   parentage   as   he  projected   himself   to   be  son   of   Shri  Rur   Singh instead of Bashesar Das and facilitated in siphoning off the amount of OCC Limit which was received in the account of M/s India Fab, Prop. Rajesh Kapoor through the accounts of his firm M/s K. G. Fabric and he is not entitled to any mercy or compassion.  

17. Regarding the convict Narender Kumar @ Sanjay Kumar, it is stated by CBI that he in the conspiracy with other convicts opened bogus firm in the name of M/s Ganpati Overseas by impersonating himself as Sanjay Kumar  on the basis fake and fabricted documents whereas   his   actual   name   is   Narender   Kumar  and   facilitated   in siphoning off the amount of OCC Limit which was received in the account of M/s India Fab, Prop. Rajesh Kapoor through the accounts of firm M/s Ganpati Overseas of which he was shown as proprietor.  It is further contended that convict Narender Kumar @ Sanjay Kumar absconded for a long time during the course of investigation and was CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.318 of 336 ­: 319 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

declared Proclaimed Offender. 

18. Regarding   the   convict  Sufiyan   Ashraf   Rajwani,   it   is contended by CBI that he joined the criminal conspiracy with other convicts  and  facilitated  in  siphoning  off  the  amount of  OCC   Limit which was   received  in  the account  of  M/s   India  Fab, Prop. Rajesh Kapoor   through   the   accounts   of   his   firm  M/s   United   Syntex  by showing the transactions as business transactions. 

19. It is contended by Sr. PP that in this case, convict  Ramesh Kumar Wadhera  is the  King­pin  of whole conspiracy and he has done all the  ill­acts behind the veil  by using other convicts.   It is further contended by Sr. PP that convict  Ramesh Kumar Wadhera has played key role in hatching the criminal conspiracy and getting sanctioned the OCC Limit from Indian Bank, Shalimar Bagh in the name of M/s India Fab by conspiring with other convicts.  It is stated that   convict   Ramesh   Kumar   Wadhera   introduced   convict   Rajesh Kumar as Rajesh Kapoor to various persons and became instrumental in taking the premises at Mangolpuri on rent for M/s India Fab and in opening the account in name of M/s India Fab through convict Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor and in fraudulently obtaining the OCC limits from the Indian Bank, Shalimar Bagh.  It is stated that he facilitated in CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.319 of 336 ­: 320 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

siphoning off the amount of OCC Limit which was received in the account of M/s India Fab, Prop. Rajesh Kapoor through the accounts of   his   several   firms   i.e.   M/s   Royal   Impex,   etc.   by   showing   the transactions as business transactions.  It is further stated that in fact, he was doing the business of M/s India Fab and was the beneficiary of the loin's share of the OCC limit received in the accounts of M/s India Fab and   he   is   not   entitled   to   any   mercy   or   compassion   and   deserves maximum punishment.

20. It is further urged on behalf of the CBI that most of the pleas taken by the convicts are routine and stock pleas and in any case, in the case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, these pleas cannot be considered as mitigating circumstances. 

21. In  Subramanian   Swamy  v.  Manmohan   Singh   and another,   (2012)3   Supreme   Court   Cases   64,  the  Hon'ble   Supreme Court  has been pleased to observe:

68. Today, corruption in our country not only poses a   grave   danger   to   the   concept   of   constitutional governance, it also threatens the very foundation of the  Indian  democracy  and  the  Rule  of  Law.    The magnitude   of   corruption   in   our   public   life   is incompatible with the concept of a socialist secular CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.320 of 336 ­: 321 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

democratic   republic.     It   cannot   be   disputed   that where corruption begins all rights end. Corruption devalues   human   rights,   chokes   development   and undermines   justice,   liberty,   equality,   fraternity which are the core values in our Preambular vision. Therefore,   the   duty   of   the   court   is   that   any   anti­ corruption law has to be interpreted and worked out in such a fashion as to strengthen the fight against corruption.        ..............

................................................................................

69.   Time   and   again   this   Court     has   expressed   its dismay and shock at the ever­growing tentacles of corruption   in   our   society   but   even   then   situations have not improved much.

22. In  Narendra   Champaklal   Trivedi  v.  State   of   Gujarat, (2012) 7 Supreme Court Cases 80,  the  Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to observe:

30.   .............................................................................

....................    It   should   be   paramountly   borne   in mind that corruption at any level does not deserve either sympathy or leniency.   In fact, reduction of the sentence would be adding a premium.  The law CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.321 of 336 ­: 322 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

does   not   so   countenance   and,   rightly   so,   because corruption corrodes the spine of a nation and in the ultimate eventuality makes the economy sterile.  

 

23. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in  State of Madhya Pradesh   v. Sheikh Shahid, Criminal Appeal No. 660 of 2004, has been pleased to observe:

   14. 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 per se require exemplary treatment.  Any liberal attitude by imposing meager sentences or taking too sympathetic a view merely on   account   of   lapse   of   time   in   respect   of   such offences   will   be   result­wise   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.

CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.322 of 336 ­: 323 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

24.  It was observed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Jai Bhagwan  v.  State (NCT of  Delhi), (2008) 150 DLT 46 (Delhi):

8.  ...............................................................................

...............  A corrupt man is not complained against because the giver of bribe and taker of bribe both gain advantage.   It is only in rare cases where the taker   of   bribe   becomes   so   bold   that   he   starts demanding   bribe   without   giving   any   unlawful advantage, even for lawful works that the giver of bribe approaches the law machinery.   The person caught is not always a first­timer corrupt.   He may have   been   indulging   into   corrupt   activities   for   a long number  of years.   It is to his advantage that the   trial   is   prolonged,   hearing   of   appeals   is prolonged.     He spends  a fraction of the amount, earned   by   corrupt   practices   on,   litigations   and professionals   to   see   that   ultimately   he   makes criminal justice system as a laughing stock.  In this process, the entire legislative purpose of punishing a corrupt, stands defeated.

25.  In State of J and K   v. Vinay Nanda, AIR 2001 Supreme CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.323 of 336 ­: 324 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

Court  611, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to observe:

2.  Corruption at any level, by any person, of any magnitude is condemnable which cannot be ignored by the judicial Courts, when proved.  No leniency is required   to   be   shown   in   proved   cases   under   the Prevention of Corruption Act which  itself  treats the offences under it of a special nature to be treated differently   than   the   general   penal   offences.     The convicts     of   the   offences   under   the   Act   are   to   be dealt with heavy   hand   and deterrent   rod.     No populous     or   sympathetic   approach     is   needed   in such cases.

............................................................................. ............................................................................

14.     ......................     The   fact   that   the   convict   had reached his superannuation is not a special reason. Similarly   pendency   of   criminal   case   for   over   a period of time can also not be treated as a special reason.     Prolonged   litigation   in   the   country   is admittedly a general reason in criminal cases.

26.   In  State   of   M. P. and others   v.  Ram Singh,  AIR 2000 Supreme Court 870,  the  Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.324 of 336 ­: 325 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

observe:

7. Corruption in a civilised  society  is a disease like cancer,  which  if not detected   in time   is sure  to maliganise   the   polity   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   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.

27.   In  A.   B.   Bhaskara   Rao  v.  Inspector   of   Police,   CBI, Visakhapatnam,   Criminal   Appeal   No.650   of   2008,  the  Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to observe:

"19.   ........................................................................... ..................................................................................... ....

CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.325 of 336 ­: 326 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

b) Long delay in disposal of appeal or any other factor   may   not   be   a   ground   for   reduction   of sentence,   particularly,   when   the   statute prescribes   minimum sentence.      ..................................

c)   In   a   case   of   corruption   by   public   servant, quantum of amount is immaterial.  Ultimately it depends upon the conduct of the delinquent and the   proof   regarding   demand   and   acceptance established by the prosecution.

d) Merely because the delinquent lost his job due to   conviction   under   the   Act   may   not   be   a mitigating   circumstance   for   reduction   of sentence,   particularly,   when   the   Statute prescribes minimum sentence."

28.   I   have   thoroughly   and   carefully   considered   the contentions   of   the   parties.     I   have   also   examined   the   asserted mitigating and aggravating circumstances, pointed out by the parties. All the convicts had conspired in pursuance of which huge wrongful loss was caused to the public exchequer.   Although, all the convicts have pleaded for lenient view citing various reasons but sight cannot be lost  of  the fact  that convicts  had made wrongful gain from the CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.326 of 336 ­: 327 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

public sector bank which was hard­earned money of public, of which convict   C.   M.   Bansal   was   the   custodian.     Convict   C.   M.   Bansal instead   of   performing   his   duty   as   a   guardian   of   public   money, plundered   the   said   public   exchequer   in   conspiracy   with   all   other convicts and all convicts have been benefited from the money which belonged to citizens of the country.  A clear message is to be sent to the society that plunder of public exchequer cannot be permitted at any cost as the said money belongs to people of the country and is meant  for  the development of the nation and any attempt to cause wrongful loss to public exchequer has to be dealt with sternly.  

29. Considering all the aspects of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the following sentences shall be appropriate to meet the ends of justice:

(i)  The convict, namely, Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor,   is   awarded   sentence   of  six   months  rigorous imprisonment  and   a   fine   of  Rs.10,000/­  (Rupees   ten thousand only), in default,  15 days  simple imprisonment for the offence punishable under section 120B IPC.  It is to be noted that the account in the name of M/s India Fab, Prop.

Rajesh Kapoor in Indian Bank, Shalimar  Bagh  branch   in which   OCC   Limit   was   got   sanctioned,   was   opened   by CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.327 of 336 ­: 328 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

convict Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor and he was linchpin of the entire conspiracy. In the circumstances, for the offence punishable under section 420 IPC, he is awarded sentence of five years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2 lacs/­ (Rupees   two   lacs   only),   in   default,  six   months   simple imprisonment and for the offence punishable under section 419 IPC, he is awarded  sentence  of  three years  rigorous imprisonment  and   a   fine   of  Rs.50,000/­  (Rupees   Fifty thousand   only),   in   default,  two   months   simple imprisonment.    He   is   further   awarded  sentence   of  three years  rigorous   imprisonment  and   a   fine   of  Rs.50,000/­ (Rupees fifty thousand only), in default, three month simple imprisonment for the offence punishable under section 471 IPC. 

(ii)  The   convict,   namely,  Ashok   Kumar,   is awarded   sentence   of  six   months  rigorous   imprisonment and   a   fine   of  Rs.10,000/­  (Rupees   ten   thousand   only),   in default,  15   days  simple   imprisonment  for   the   offence punishable under section 120B IPC. It is to be noted that in pursuance of criminal conspiracy convict Ashok Kumar s/o Shri Bashesar Das had opened account in the name of M/s CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.328 of 336 ­: 329 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

K . G. Fabric in Dena Bank, Rohini under assumed name of Ashok Kumar s/o Shri Rur Singh, in order to siphon off the amount of OCC Limit received in the account of M/s India Fab,   Prop.   Rajesh   Kapoor   and   actively   participated   in siphoning off the huge amount of money.   For the offence punishable under section 420 IPC, he is awarded sentence of four years rigorous imprisonment  and a fine of  Rs.2 lacs (Rupees   two   lacs   only),   in   default,  six   months   simple imprisonment and for the offence punishable under section 419 IPC, he is awarded  sentence  of  three years  rigorous imprisonment  and   a   fine   of  Rs.50,000/­  (Rupees   fifty thousand   only),   in   default,  two   months   simple imprisonment.  He is further awarded sentence of two years rigorous imprisonment  and a fine of  Rs.20,000/­  (Rupees twenty   thousand   only),   in   default,  one   month  simple imprisonment for the offence punishable under section 471 IPC. 

(iii) The   convict,   namely,  Narender   Kumar   @ Sanjay Kumar, is awarded sentence of six months rigorous imprisonment  and   a   fine   of  Rs.10,000/­  (Rupees   ten thousand only), in default,  15 days  simple imprisonment CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.329 of 336 ­: 330 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

for the offence punishable under section 120B IPC. It is to be  noted   that   in   pursuance   of   criminal  conspiracy   convict Narender Kumar s/o Shri Satpal Singh had opened account in the name of M/s Ganpati Overseas in Karur Vysya Bank, Lawrence   Road   Branch,   Keshav   Puram,   Delhi   under assumed   name  of   Sanjay   Kumar   s/o   Shri   Ram   Kumar,  in order to siphon off the amount of OCC Limit received in the account of M/s India Fab, Prop. Rajesh Kapoor and actively participated   in   siphoning   off   the   money.   For   the   offence punishable under section 420 IPC, he is awarded sentence of four years rigorous imprisonment  and a fine of  Rs.2 lacs (Rupees   two   lacs   only),   in   default,  six   months   simple imprisonment and for the offence punishable under section 419 IPC, he is awarded  sentence  of  three years  rigorous imprisonment  and   a   fine   of  Rs.50,000/­  (Rupees   fifty thousand   only),   in   default,  two   months   simple imprisonment.  He is further awarded sentence of two years rigorous imprisonment  and a fine of  Rs.20,000/­  (Rupees twenty   thousand   only),   in   default,  one   month  simple imprisonment for the offence punishable under section 471 IPC. 

           (iv)           The   convict,   namely,  Ramesh   Kumar

CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors                 Page No.330 of 336
                                  ­: 331 :­
                                                          CBI case No.: 13/16
                                  CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

Wadhera  is   awarded   sentence   of  six   months  rigorous imprisonment  and   a   fine   of  Rs.10,000/­  (Rupees   ten thousand only), in default,  15 days  simple imprisonment for   the   offence   punishable   under  section   120B   IPC.  The convict   Ramesh   Kumar   Wadhera   was   the   kingpin   of   the entire conspiracy and the business of M/s India Fab in the account   of   which   OCC   Limit   was   obtained   from   Indian Bank, Shalimar Bagh branch was being carried by him for his own benefit and he is the beneficiary of the amount of the OCC limit received from the Indian Bank, Shalimar Bagh branch. In the totality of the circumstances, for the offence punishable under section 420 IPC, he is awarded sentence of five years rigorous imprisonment  and a fine of  Rs.2 lacs (Rupees   Two   only),   in   default,  six   month   simple imprisonment.  

Looking   at   the   extent   of   involvement   of   convict   Ramesh Kumar Wadhera and that he has acquired the lion's share of the OCC limit sanctioned by Indian Bank, Shalimar Bagh branch in the account of M/s India Fab and that the amount of said OCC limit has become non­recoverable as stated in Ex.PW2/D1,   it   would   be   appropriate   that   convict   Ramesh Kumar Wadhera is directed to compensate the Indian Bank, CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.331 of 336 ­: 332 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

Shalimar Bagh Branch for the part of the  losses suffered by the said bank.   The order of payment of compensation by convict   Ramesh   Kumar   Wadhera   to   Indian   Bank   is necessary   in   order   to   give   a   clear   message   to   such perpetrators of fraud that by serving the jail sentence only they cannot own the public money which has been acquired by them by illegal means.  The contention of convict Ramesh Kumar   Wadhera   is   that   at   the   time   grant   of   bail,   he   had deposited   a   sum   of   Rs.9.5   lacs.     As   per   record,   convict Ramesh Kumar  Wadhera was  admitted to bail by my Ld. Predecessor   vide   order   dated   10.05.2010   and   Manager's cheque   for   the   sum   of   Rs.9.5   lacs   deposited   by   Ramesh Kumar Wadhera was ordered to be kept on record.   Vide order dated 17.08.2010, my Ld. Predecessor was pleased to direct that the said sum of Rs.9.5 lacs deposited by convict Ramesh   Kumar   Wadhera   be   released   in   favour   of   Indian Bank.     In   the   totality   of   the   circumstances,   it   is   hereby directed that convict  Ramesh Kumar Wadhera shall pay another   sum   of   Rs.50   lacs  (Rupees   fifty   lacs   only)   as compensation  to  Indian   Bank(a   public   sector   bank)  in order to meet the part of the losses suffered by the said bank. The compensation amount of Rs.50 lacs as stated above shall CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.332 of 336 ­: 333 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

be   deposited   by   convict   Ramesh   Kumar   Wadhera   in   the court by way of pay order/demand draft drawn in favour of Chairman, Indian Bank within a period of one month from today.   In default of payment of compensation amount  of Rs.50 lacs as aforesaid, the convict Ramesh Kumar Wadhera shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of another one year. As per allegations of prosecution, convict Ramesh Kumar   Wadhera   had   purchased   on   BMW   car   out   of   the funds illegally acquired by him from OCC limit sanctioned in   the   account   of   M/s   India   Fab,   Prop.   Rajesh   Kapoor   in Indian Bank, Shalimar Bagh.   As per order dated 21.07.2010 of my Ld. Predecessor, the said BMW car bearing No.DL­ 1TY­8487, which was seized by the CBI, was ordered to be released to convict Ramesh Kumar Wadhera on furnishing superdaginama in the sum of Rs.26 lacs. The Superdaginama of   Rs.26   lacs   executed   in   pursuance   of   order   dated 21.07.2010 in respect of BMW car No. DL­1TY­8487 shall subsist till the entire compensation amount of Rs.50 lacs as awarded above is paid.

(v)  The convict, namely, Sufiyan Ashraf Rajwani, is awarded sentence of six months rigorous imprisonment and   a   fine   of  Rs.10,000/­  (Rupees   ten   thousand   only),   in CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.333 of 336 ­: 334 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

default,  15   days  simple   imprisonment  for   the   offence punishable   under  section   120B   IPC  .     For   the   offence punishable under section 420 IPC, he is awarded sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2 lacs (Rupees   Two   lacs),   in   default,  six   months   simple imprisonment. 

(vi)  The convict, namely, C. M. Bansal is awarded sentence of  six months  rigorous imprisonment  and a fine of  Rs.10,000/­  (Rupees   ten   thousand   only),   in   default,  15 days simple imprisonment for the offence punishable under section 120B IPC.  For the offence punishable under section 420  IPC, he is awarded sentence of  three years rigorous imprisonment  and   a   fine   of  Rs.2   lacs  (Rupees   Two   lacs only), in default,  six months simple imprisonment.   He is further   awarded  sentence  of  two   years  rigorous imprisonment  and   a   fine   of  Rs.20,000/­  (Rupees   Twenty thousand only), in default, one month simple imprisonment for the offence punishable under section 471 IPC.    For the offence punishable under section 13(2) read with section 13 (1) (d)  of the  Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, he is awarded  sentence  of  three years rigorous imprisonment CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.334 of 336 ­: 335 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

and a fine of  Rs.50,000/­  (Rupees Fifty thousand only), in default, two months simple imprisonment.   All the aforesaid sentences shall run concurrently.  

30. As per  report received  from the Office of  Superintendent, Central Jail  Rohini,  Delhi convict Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor, has   remained   in   JC   in   this   case   from   13.11.2009   to   18.02.2010, convict   Ashok   Kumar   has   remained   in   JC   in   this   case   from 13.11.2009 to 11.02.2010 and convict Ramesh Kumar Wadhera has remained in JC in this case from 26.04.2010 to 10.05.2010 and as per report of Ahlmad also, convict Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor, has remained in JC in this case from 13.11.2009 to 18.02.2010  and he has been   again  sent  to  JC  from  13.07.2016  to  till  date,  convict  Ashok Kumar has remained in JC in this case from 13.11.2009 to 11.02.2010 and convict Ramesh Kumar Wadhera has remained in JC in this case from 26.04.2010 to 10.05.2010.  As per report received from Deputy Superintendent, Central Jail No.1, Tihar, New Delhi, convict Narender Kumar   @   Sanjay   Kumar   has   remained   in   JC   in   this   case   from 31.01.2013 to 07.05.2013 and as per report of Ahlmad also, convict Narender Kumar @ Sanjay Kumar has remained in JC in this case from 31.01.2013 to 07.05.2013. 

31.  Benefit of section 428 Cr.P.C. is extended to the convicts.

CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.335 of 336 ­: 336 :­ CBI case No.: 13/16 CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors.

32. A copy of the judgment and order on sentence be given to all the convicts, free of cost, forthwith. 

33. File be consigned to Record Room.   

         Announced in the open court                     (HARISH DUDANI)           today on 09th March, 2017.               Special Judge (PC Act) CBI­1,                   District Courts(SW), Dwarka      New Delhi.

CBI v. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor & Ors Page No.336 of 336