Central vs . 1. Joginder Singh on 26 August, 2013

[Cites 50, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

Central vs . 1. Joginder Singh on 26 August, 2013

IN THE COURT OF DINESH KUMAR SHARMA,
SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT), CBI 01,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI

CC No. 49/11
Unique Case ID No. 02401R0446662007

Central Vs. 1. Joginder Singh
Bureau of S/o Sh. Gurbachan Singh
Investigation R/o 71, Shivam Appartment,
Sector 15, Rohini, Delhi 85.

Permanent residents of :
1478/15, Gali Dakonti, Quila Sangla
Amritsar, Punjab.

Village & PO Ramsar, Near Sahida
Sahib Gurudwara, Amritsar, Punjab.

RC No. : 2(E)/2005EOUVII
u/Ss. : Sec. 409, 467, 471 IPC r/w S.13(2) r/w S.13(1) (c) of POC
Act, 1988

Judgment announced on : 21.08.2013
Date of Order on sentence : 26.08.2013

CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr. CC No.49/11 Page 1 of 7
2

ORDER ON SENTENCE

Present: Sh DK Singh, Ld. PP for CBI.

Convict Joginder Singh in person with Sh. Rajpal

Singh, Adv.

1.0 Convict Joginder Singh was convicted for the offence u/S 409,

467, 471 IPC and Sec. 13(1)(c) r/w 13(2) of the POC Act, 1988 for opening

certain fictitious loan accounts and making false entries with a dishonest

intention to cause wrongful loss to the bank and wrongful gain to himself.

2.0 Sh. DK Singh, Ld. PP for CBI has submitted that the convict has

proved to have been committed a very serious offence and thus maximum

punishment may be awarded to him. Ld. PP submits that corruption has

become a major problem for this country and the root cause for poverty is

rampant corruption amongst the public servants. Ld. PP for CBI has relied

upon State of Maharashtra through CBI Vs. Mahesh G. Jain in Crl.

Appeal No. 2345 of 2009 dtd. 28/5/2013 wherein it was interalia held as

under:
"corruption is a disquiet disease for healthy governance. It has the
potentiality to stifle the progress of a civilized society. It ushers in
an atmosphere of distrust. Corruption fundamentally is perversion

CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr. CC No.49/11 Page 2 of 7
3

and infectious and an individual perversity can become a social
evil."

Ld. PP has also relied upon State of Gujarat & Anr Vs.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice RA Mehta (Retd) & Ors., (2013) 3 SCC 1 wherein it

was interalia held as under:
"Corruption in a civilised society is a disease like cancer, which if
not detected in time, is sure to spread its malignance among the
polity of the country, leading to disastrous consequences. Therefore,
it is often described as royal thievery. Corruption is opposed to
democracy and social order, as being not only anti people, but also
due to the fact that it affects the economy of a country and destroys
its cultural heritage. It poses a threat to the concept of
Constitutional governance and shakes the very foundation of
democracy and the rule of law. It threatens the security of the
societies undermining the ethical values and justice jeopardizing
sustainable development. Corruption devalues human rights,
chokes development, and corrodes the moral fabric of society. It
causes considerable damage to the national economy, national
interest and the image of the country.
The adverse impact of lack of probity in public life leads to a
high degree of corruption. Corruption often results from patronage
of statutory/higher authorities and it erodes quality of life, and it
has links with organized crimes, economic crimes like money
laundering etc., terrorism and serious threats to human security to
flourish. Its impact is disastrous in the developing world as it hurts
the poor disproportionately by diverting funds intended for
development. Corruption generates injustice as it breeds inequality
and become major obstacle to poverty alleviation and development.
United Nation Convention Against Corruption, 2003, envisages the
seriousness and magnitude of the problem. December 9 has been
designated as International AntiCorruption Day. India is a party to
the said convention with certain reservation."

CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr. CC No.49/11 Page 3 of 7
4

2.1 Sh. Rajpal Singh, Ld. Counsel for the convict Joginder Singh

submitted that convict is infact a victim of circumstances. Ld. Counsel

submits that accused is more than 60 years of age and his wife Mrs.

Balwinder Kaur is also above 60 years of age and is suffering from various

ailments. The convict is the sole support of his old and ailing wife. He has

also to support his daughter who is having matrimonial problems and is

living with her parents only. Sh. Rajpal Singh, Ld. Counsel for the convict

has also pointed out that convict has been facing trial since 2005. He has

been quite regular and is not a previous convict and has clean antecedents.

Ld. Counsel submitted that the department has already punished the convict

and he has been dismissed from the service. In respect of the money

allegedly misappropriated, the bank has also filed a civil suit which is

pending in the Hon'ble High Court and in that issues have already been

framed.

3.0 I have considered the submissions of both the sides and have

perused the record carefully.

4.0 There cannot be any doubt to the submissions made by the Ld.

PP for CBI that corruption has become a major disease for the economy of

CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr. CC No.49/11 Page 4 of 7
5

this country. The corruption has the potentiality of destroying the tenets of

not only the economy, but also democracy and social fibre of the society. The

corruption in any form adversely affects the health of the country and it also

reduces the energy of the people who believe in honesty. There is no doubt in

the mind of this Court that such cases are to be dealt with a heavy hand and

the punishment so awarded in such cases should be a lesson to the people

who dare to indulge in such activities. The corruption in any form is

deplorable, but what the convict has done in the present case is an extreme

case. He was a senior officer of the bank and was entrusted with the duty of

dealing with the public money. The convict was not a naive, he had already

served the bank for 30 years after which he got a promotion and was posted

as Manager (Loan) in a reputed Chandni Chowk branch of Delhi. The public

servants on whom the trust regarding public money is bestowed have to be

extremely responsible and honest in discharge of their duty. I have mentioned

while passing the judgment also that public at large deposit their money in

the bank presuming that their money would remain safe. If such money is

misappropriated by the bank officials itself, it is an extreme betrayal of trust

and faith. The convict has not only cheated his bank, account holders whose

accounts were tampered, he has also dared to play with the public money

only to fulfill his lust for more money and more wealth. The convict by his

acts has diminished the glory of the banking system and has abused his

CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr. CC No.49/11 Page 5 of 7
6

official position. I consider that the facts in hand do not deserve any

leniency. This Court is also of the view that a heavy fine should be imposed

upon the convict as the duty of the Court is also to ensure that the State who

has taken all the pains and efforts to prove their case must be compensated.

The Apex Court of the land also in Niranjan Hemchandra

Sashittal Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 4 SCC 642, inter alia held as

under:
"Corruption has been treated to have the potentiality of corroding
the marrows of the economy. There are cases where the amount is
small and in certain cases, it is extremely high. The gravity of the
offence in such a case, in our considered opinion, is not to be
adjudged on the bedrock of the quantum of bribe. An attitude to
abuse the official position to extend favour in lieu of benefit is a
crime against the collective and an anathema to the basic tenet of
democracy, for it erodes the faith of the people in the system. It
creates an incurable concavity in the Rule of Law. Corruption is not
to be judged by degree, for corruption mothers disorder, destroys
societal will to progress, accelerates undeserved ambitions, kills the
conscience, jettisons the glory of the institutions, paralyses the
economic health of a country, corrodes the sense of civility and
mars the marrows of governance. Immoral acquisition of wealth
destroys the energy of the people believing in honesty, and history
records with agony how they have suffered."

5.0 In the facts and circumstances, convict Joginder Singh is

sentenced to RI for 10 Years and a fine of Rs 20 lakhs in default of

payment of fine SI for 02 Years u/s 409 IPC.

Convict Joginder Singh is also sentenced to RI for 10 Years

CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr. CC No.49/11 Page 6 of 7
7

and a fine of Rs 05 Lakhs in default of payment of fine SI for 01 Year

u/s 467 IPC.

Convict Joginder Singh is further sentenced to RI for 07

Years and a fine of Rs 05 lakhs in default of payment of fine SI for 01

Year u/s 471 IPC.

Convict Joginder Singh is further sentenced to RI for 07

Years and a fine of Rs 20 lakhs in default of payment of fine SI for 02

Years u/s 13(1) (c) r/w Section 13 (2) of POC Act.

Benefit of Section 428 Cr PC be given to the convict.

All the sentences shall run concurrently.

6.0 A copy of the judgment alongwith the order on sentence be

supplied to the convict free of cost.

The judgment and order on sentence has also been uploaded on

the server and shall be available on www.delhidistrictcourts.nic.in.

7.0 File be consigned to RR.

Announced in Open Court (Dinesh Kumar Sharma )
on 26.08.2013 Spl. Judge (PC Act) : CBI01
Saket Courts : New Delhi.

CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr. CC No.49/11 Page 7 of 7
8

IN THE COURT OF SH. DINESH KUMAR SHARMA,
SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT), CBI 01,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI

CC No. 49/11
Unique Case ID No. 02401R0446662007

Central Vs. 1. Joginder Singh
Bureau of S/o Sh. Gurbachan Singh
Investigation R/o 71, Shivam Appartment,
Sector 15, Rohini, Delhi 85.

2. Balwinder Kaur
W/o Sh. Joginder Singh
R/o 71, Shivam Appartment,
Sector 15, Rohini, Delhi 85.

Both permanent residents of :
1478/15, Gali Dakonti, Quila Sangla
Amritsar, Punjab.

Village & PO Ramsar, Near Sahida
Sahib Gurudwara, Amritsar, Punjab.

RC No. : 2(E)/2005EOUVII
u/Ss. : 120B r/w S.201/409/467/471 IPC r/w S.13(2) r/w S.13(1)
(c) of POC Act, 1988 and substantive charge u/S.467/471
409/201/411 and 13(1)(c) r/w S.13(2) of POC Act, 1988.

CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr. CC No.49/11 Page 8 of 7
9

Chargesheet filed on : 28.04.2007
Received by transfer on : 02.11.2011
Arguments Concluded on : 06.08.2013
Date of Decision : 21.08.2013

Appearances:
Sh. DK Singh, Ld. PP for CBI.
Sh. Rajpal Singh, Ld. counsel for both accused

JUDGMENT

1.0 Accused Joginder Singh (A1) on being promoted was posted as Manager (Loan) on 3/12/01 at Punjab & Sindh Bank, Chandni Chowk Branch, Delhi. Being Incharge of the loan section, A1 was the custodian of Loan documents, had dominion and access to all the records of the bank and his duty included to safeguard the property / interest of the customers. The loan documents used to be kept inside the Vault under lock and key, except A1 Joginder Singh nobody else had access to the loan documents kept in the vault, key of which used to be in possession of the accused. The accused was provided with computers with Automatic Ledger Posting Module (ALPM) system / package for business transaction during office hours and he was provided with a unique password exclusively known to him coupled with his User ID Code 02660. Allegedly, accused entered into criminal conspiracy with his wife Smt. Balwinder Kaur (A2) and in pursuance of the said CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr. CC No.49/11 Page 9 of 7 10 criminal conspiracy, A1 Joginder Singh opened certain fictitious loan accounts and made false entries with a dishonest intention to cause wrongful loss to the bank and wrongful gain to himself. The allegation against the A1 Joginder Singh was that from the said fictitious accounts, amounts were transferred to the accounts of M/s Maxim Invest Care and M/s Vivek Financial Focus Ltd., for investing the amount in shares in the name of his wife Balwinder Kaur (A2). A1 Joginder Singh is alleged to have misappropriated Rs. 44,20,321/ approx., during the relevant period. 1.1 During the period 2003 to 2005, A1 Joginder Singh primarily opened following fictitious loan accounts:

(1) Term Loan Account No. 5102 on 12/1/04 in the name of Gurbachan Singh and credited Rs.15,50,000/ from the said account on different dates and diverted this amount to purchase shares from M/s. Maxim Invest Care and M/s. Vivek Financial Focus Ltd. in the name of his wife A2 Balwinder Kaur.\ (2) Term Loan Account No. 7/167 on 15/06/04 in the name of Sandeep Kumar and fraudulently debited a sum of Rs.3,40,000/. (3) Term Loan Account No. 5127 on 15/9/04 in the name of M/s PSSI on the basis of same DP No.33/04 earlier allotted to A/c No. 5123 and debited a total sum of Rs.22,36,494/, from the said account on different dates and CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr. CC No.49/11 Page 10 of 7 11 dishonestly converted the amount for his own use i.e for the purchase of shares from M/s. Maxim Invest Care and M/s. Vivek Financial Focus Ltd. in the name of his wife A2 Balwinder Kaur.

Besides this, A1 Joginder Singh also fraudulently debited a sum of Rs. 1,75,000/ to loan account No.7/138 of MK Nigam and Radha Nigam on 15/12/03 without knowledge of the account holder and fraudulently issued a Manager's Cheque of Rs.1,75,000/ favouring M/s. Maxim Invest Care. To balance this entry A1 Joginder Singh debited Rs. 1,75,000/ to CA 37087 of PSSI on 07/05/04 and credited to TL A/c No.5100 of MK Nigam and Radha Nigam to adjust the account.

(A) Sh. Gurubachan Singh TL A/c No. 5102:

The prosecution has alleged that M/s Gurunank Financial Co. Ltd. had kept two FDRs bearing Nos. 0089912/125/94 and 0089913/125/94 for Rs. 2,50,000/ each dtd. 2/9/94 in the names of Sh. Gurbachan Singh and Surjit Kaur, under bank's lien against the cash credit limit. These two FDRs were, in due course and time renewed several times and ultimately two new FDRs bearing Nos. 514436 dtd. 8/1/04 for Rs. 6,24,045/ and 514437 dtd. 8/1/04 for Rs. 6,24,045/ were issued. A1 Joginder Singh being Manager (Loan) was the custodian of these FDRs. Allegedly, A1 Joginder Singh visited the house of Sh. Gurbachan Singh and obtained the signatures of Sh. CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr. CC No.49/11 Page 11 of 7 12 Gurbachan Singh and Smt. Surjit Kaur on the reverse side of the FDRs and on the printed application form No. 108(A) (revised) dtd. 12/1/04 and on the debit vouchers and credit voucher on the pretext of renewal of the FDRs. It has been alleged that A1 Joginder Singh on 12/1/04 dishonestly removed these two FDRs of M/s Gurunank Finance Co. Ltd., without knowledge or authorization of account holder, opened LABD ( loan against bank document) A/c No. 5102 in the name of Sh. Gurbachan Singh against security of FDR and issued false loan for Rs. 9,50,000/ by keeping these FDRs as security. Investigation revealed that this loan amount was not disbursed to Gurbachan Singh, rather it was fraudulently paid to the share broker.

Date Credit Debit (Rs.) Remarks (Rs.) 12/01/04 9,50,000/ The false loan was issued against the FDRs which were already under bank lien.

08/04/04 1,00,000/ do 01/06/04 45,400/ A1 Joginder Singh transferred this amount from the CC A/c 37087 of M/s PSSI without any authorization.

04/06/04 20,000/ A1 Joginder Singh on 02/06/04 issued instructions on the Credit Voucher to credit a sum of Rs. 20,000/ received through Clearing vide Cheque No. 069097 issued by UTI Bank, pertaining to M/s Bhagwan Sales Corporation to Sundry Creditors A/c of the branch. A1 Joginder Singh on 4/6/04 fraudulently debited the Sundry Creditors A/c for Rs. 20,000/ and instead of CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr. CC No.49/11 Page 12 of 7 13 crediting it to the account of M/s Bhagawan Sales Corporation, fraudulently diverted the amount to the A/c 5102 held in the name of Gurbachan Singh.

10/06/04 5,000/ This amount was deposited in cash, but the pay in slip was found missing during investigation. A certificate to this effect was obtained.

14/06/04 39,000/ A1 Joginder Singh mentioned in the statement as credited by Cheque but the instruments were not found during investigation. A certificate was issued by the Bank. The certified copy of statement of A/c 31004 held in the name of M/s Dharam Industries, a sister concern of M/s PSSI has been shown debited to the account on the date.

15/06/04 9,200/ This amount was also credited by cash but the pay in slip/ instrument was not found.

30/06/04 46,425/ A1 deducted the amount from loan A/c 5075 of M/s PSSI towards the interest on loan. This amount was required to be deposited in the Bank's Revenue Head. But he fraudulently diverted the amount to credit to this A/c 5102 with ulterior motive to adjust the loan.

13/7/04 19,590/ A1 had deducted a sum of Rs. 19,590/ dtd.

13/7/04 from the loan A/c 7138 held in the name of MK Nigam. This amount was supposed to be credited to the Revenue Head of the bank.

But A1 Joginder Singh fraudulently diverted the money and credited to this A/c 5102.

14/07/04 1,00,000/ The false loan was issued against the FDRs which were already under bank lien.

31/07/04 11,106/ A1 Joginder Singh had deducted the amount from loan A/c 7/170 of Mitter Kaur which was supposed to be credited to the Revenue Head of CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr. CC No.49/11 Page 13 of 7 14 the bank. But A1 Joginder Singh fraudulently diverted the money and credited it to this A/c to adjust the loan.

06/11/04 1,00,000/ The documents relating to this transaction were not found, therefore, it could not be detected to which account it was debited. However, this is the reversal of the debit entry dtd. 14/7/04.

20/11/04 52,474/ MG Rajan obtained a Bank Guarantee vide No. 3/83 and he had kept FDR No. 514544 dtd.

17/2/04 for Rs. 59,974/ under Bank's Lien towards the commission of the Bank Guarantee.

The date of maturity of the said FDR was 17/2/07 and maturity value was Rs. 59,974/. On 20/11/04, A1 issued instructions on the FDR to cancel the FDR. The proceeds of the FDR were required to be deposited in the Revenue Head of the bank. But A1 fraudulently diverted the amount to credit to TL A/c 5102.

22/11/04 27,000/ M/s Sunder Lal & Co were maintaining a CC A/c 37061 with the branch. Smt. Mitter Kaur and Sh. Ajay Chugh were the partners of the firm.

They were maintaining several Term Loan A/cs viz: TL 5119, TL 5131 and TL 5138 with the said branch. On 22/11/04, A1 Joginder Singh without any authorization debited a sum of Rs. 85,000/ to the said CC A/c. Thereafter, he credited other accounts belonging to Sh. Ajay Chugh and Smt. Mitter Kaur as given below:

TL 5119 dtd. 22/11/04 - Rs. 23,000/ .

TL 5131 dtd. 22/11/04 Rs.21,000/.

TL 5138 dtd. 22/11/04 - Rs. 14,000/.

The rest of the amount Rs. 27,000/ was also required to be deposited in one of the TL A/c held in the name of Smt. Mitter Kaur and Sh.

Ajay Chugh. But A1 on 22/11/04, fraudulently diverted Rs. 27,000/ and credited it to Loan A/c CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr. CC No.49/11 Page 14 of 7 15 5102 held in the name of Gurbachan Singh with a view to adjust the loan balance.

11/12/04 1,00,000/ M/s Sahil Farma (P) Ltd. was having a FDR bearing No. 53115 for Rs. 7,47,417/ maintained in the FDR A/c 38758 with the branch. On 10/12/04 A1 Joginder Singh debited the FDR for Rs. 7,47,417/ for renewal. The total amount should have been deposited in the account of M/s Sahil Farma P. Ltd., but he fraudulently issued a new FDR for Rs. 6,07,522/ only in the name of Sahil Farms P. Ltd. maintained in FDR A/c 38758 with the branch. He credited the rest of amount to Banks Revenue 901 System for Rs.

39,895/ and Rs. 1,00,000/ to the Sundry Creditors A/c of the branch. Later on 11/12/04 A1 Joginder Singh debited the Sundry Creditors A/c and credited the amount to this loan account to adjust the loan.

11/12/04 37,680/ A1 Joginder Singh on 11/12/04 deducted the amount of Rs. 37,680/ towards the overdue interest from the CC A/c 37234 of SRK Overseas, which was required to be credited it to Revenue Head of the Bank, but he fraudulently credited it to TL 5102 of Gurbachan Singh in order to reduce the loan.

16/12/04 15,518/ A1 Joginder Singh on 16/12/04 deducted a sum of Rs. 15,518/ from the CC A/c 37219 of M/s Trading Corporation (India) towards the Bank Guarantee charges. This amount was required to be deposited in the Revenue Head of the bank.

But Sh. Joginder Singh (A1) fraudulently credited it to TL 5102 of Gurbachan Singh to adjust the loan balance.

04/01/05 20,000/ Cheque No. 592191 dtd. 24/12/04 of City Bank favouring KS Chand was received in the branch.

The proceeds of the cheque were required to be CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr. CC No.49/11 Page 15 of 7 16 credited to the party's account. As it could not be ascertained the account of the party at that time, therefore, A1 Joginder Singh instructed to concerned officer to credit the amount to Sundry Creditors A/c of the bank, so that when the account of the party would be detected, the said amount would be deposited in that A/c. But A1 Joginder Singh on 4/1/05 debited the Sundry Creditors A/c for Rs. 20,000/ and fraudulently credited to this A/c 5102 of Gurbachan Singh with motive to adjust the loan balance.

05/01/05 90,490/ The Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Management Committee was having FDRs bearing No. 514539 for Rs. 38,781/ and No. 514540 for Rs.

51,709/. A1 Joginder Singh on 5/1/05 instructed to debit the FDRs and to credit the proceeds to Sundry Creditors A/c of the bank. After credit of the amount (Rs. 51,709/ + Rs. 38,781/ = Rs.

90,490/) Rs. 90,490/ in the Sundry A/c, A1 Joginder Singh on 5/1/05 fraudulently transferred the amount to TL A/c 5102 of Sh.

Gurbachan Singh with a view to adjust the loan balance.

07/01/05 4,00,000/ The false loan was issued against the FDRs which were already under bank lien.

17/01/05 2,200/ On 17/1/05, a sum of Rs. 2,200/ was deducted from the CC A/c 42016 of M/s PS Tourist towards the processing charge by A1 Joginder Singh. This amount was supposed to be credited to the Revenue Head of the bank. But A1 Joginder Singh fraudulently diverted the money and credited it to this TL A/c 5102 of Gurbachan Singh with a view to adjust the loan balance.

Investigation revealed that A1 Joginder Singh debited a total CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr. CC No.49/11 Page 16 of 7 17 sum of Rs. 16,30,342/ (including interest) to this account.

(B) Sh. Sandeep Kumar TL A/c 7167:

The prosecution has alleged that A1 Joginder Singh opened a fictitious TL A/c 7167 in the name of Sh. Sandeep Kumar on 15/6/04 for Rs. 3,40,000/ against the LIC Policy with false DP No. 21/04. Investigation revealed that A1 Joginder Singh created the debit vouchers in his own handwriting and on the reverse side of the debit voucher A1 Joginder Singh forged the signature of Sh. Sandeep Kumar, in token of receipt of the money. A1 misused a blank cheque handed over to him previously by Sandeep Kumar and fraudulently issued the cheque in the name of M/s Maxim Invest Care, a share broker firm to purchase shares in the name of his wife.

Date         Credit    Debit (Rs.)                             Remarks 
              (Rs.)
15/6/04                 3,40,000/ A1 Joginder Singh opened a fictitious TL A/c 7167 
                                   in the name of Sh. Sandeep Kumar on 15/6/04 for Rs.

3,40,000/ against the LIC Policy with false DP No. 21/04.

14/7/04 8,000/ This amount was deposited by Sandeep Kumar for repayment (EMI) of Housing Loan to the A/c 5082 and this amount was required to be deposited in the said account. But A1 Joginder Singh fraudulently diverted this amount to credit TL A/c No. 7167 with an ulterior motive to adjust the loan balance.

04/10/04 11,750/ A1 Joginder Singh charged Rs. 1,750/ to the A/c 7138 of Sh. MK Nigam and Radha Nigam towards CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr. CC No.49/11 Page 17 of 7 18 the penal interest and debited the account. This amount was required to be deposited in the Revenue Head of the bank. But he fraudulently diverted the amount to the loan A/c 7167 of Sandeep Kumar with ulterior motive to adjust the false loan.

06/10/04 41,000/ Cheque No. 914313 dtd. 5/10/04 issued by Indian Bank for Rs. 41,000/ was received in the branch. A1 Joginder Singh had deposited the said cheque in the loan account with motive to adjust the false loan. 09/11/04 2,80,000/ A sum of Rs. 2,80,000/ was issued as loan to M/s PSSI on 9/11/04 and this amount was fraudulently credited to this account with ulterior motive to adjust the false loan. This transaction had already been mentioned in the TL A/c No. 5127 held in the name of PSSI.

(C) M/s. Punjab Stainless Steel Industries (PSSI) TL A/c No. 5127:

The prosecution has alleged that accused opened fictitious TL A/c No. 5127 in the name of M/s Punjab Stainless Steel Industries (PSSI) on 15/9/04, and made several debit and credit entries, which are as follows: Date Credit (Rs.) Debit (Rs.) Remarks 15/09/04 6,00,000/ A1 Joginder Singh debited a false loan of Rs. 6,00,000/ on 15/9/04 to TL A/c No. 5127 of M/s PSSI without authorization / knowledge of the firm M/s PSSI. He obtained the approval on the Debit voucher by dishonest means and on a false pretext of disbursement of part payment of loan installment of PSSI against DP No. 33/04.

CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr. CC No.49/11 Page 18 of 7 19

He also destroyed the Credit voucher signed by Sh. NPS Dhami, the then Branch Manager which was issued in favour of PSSI and fraudulently replaced it with another Credit voucher with instructions to issue Managers Cheque (MC) bearing No. 198368 in favour of M/s Vivek Financial Focus Ltd. to purchase shares in the name of Smt. Balwinder Kaur, his wife. The amount was utilized to purchase shares in the name of Smt. Balwinder Kaur.

24/09/04 20790/ A1 Joginder Singh deducted a sum of Rs.

20,970/ towards the BG charge from the CC Account No. 37087 of PSSI but credited the amount in the False Loan A/c 5127 with an ulterior motive to reduce / adjust the loan, instead of Bank Revenue Head. 29/09/04 57,365/ A1 deducted the interest of Rs. 57,365/ from the account TL A/c 5123 on 29/9/04. This amount was required to be deposited in the Revenue Head of the bank. But Sh. Joginder Singh (A1), instead, fraudulently credited the amount to this TL A/c 5123 with a view to adjust the loan amount of this account.

12/10/04 48,616/ A1 Joginder Singh fraudulently debited this TL A/c for Rs. 48,616/ on 12/10/04 favouring M/s Vivek Financial Focus Ltd. for purchase of shares in the name of his wife Smt. Balwinder Kaur A2.

18/10/04 93,217/ A1 deducted the amount from Loan A/c 5123 of M/s PSSI towards the interest of the loan, which was required to be deposited in Bank's Revenue Head but he, fraudulently and dishonestly transferred the amount to loan A/c 5127 with an ulterior motive to CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr. CC No.49/11 Page 19 of 7 20 adjust the loan.

30/10/04 1,48,745/ The amount was debited to another loan Account 7/84 (5075) of PSSI towards the interest of loan and was required to be credited in the Revenue head of the bank. But A1 Joginder Singh fraudulently transferred this amount to false TL A/c 5127 with ulterior motive to adjust loan balance. 04/11/04 90,000/ A1 fraudulently debited this TL A/c for the amount and issued MC bearing No. 198907 for Rs. 90,000/ dtd. 4/11/04 favouring M/s Vivek Financial Focus Ltd. for purchase of shares in the name of his wife A2 Balwinder Kaur.

09/11/04 2,80,000/ A1 fraudulently debited this TL A/c for the amount and dishonestly credited the amount to TL A/c No. 7/167 of Sandeep Kumar to adjust another false loan account. 10/11/04 3,90,000/ A1 fraudulently debited a sum of Rs.

3,90,000/ to the CC A/c No. 37087 of M/s PSSI without authorization of the party and credited the amount to this account TL 5127, with a view to adjust the loan balance. 20/11/04 1,00,000/ A1 fraudulently debited the marginally noted amount but the credit of the amount, could not be traced out.

25/11/04 90,000/ A1 fraudulently debited the marginally noted amount and fraudulently credited the amount to SB A/c No. 28864 of Gurpal Singh and 19702 of Surender Pal Singh (Khurana) for Rs. 45,000/ each without any authorization. A1 had taken a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/ as a friendly loan from Sh. Surender Pal Singh, customer holding SB A/c No. 19702 and this credit was made to CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr. CC No.49/11 Page 20 of 7 21 adjust the loan.

30/11/04 2,44,688/ A1 deducted the amount from another loan A/c 5075 (7/84 old) for Rs. 2,44,688/ on 30/11/04 towards the interest. This amount was required to be deposited to the Revenue Head of the bank. But he fraudulently credited part amount to this loan account to adjust the loan.

03/12/04 2,08,000/ A1 fraudulently debited the marginally noted amount and issued a Pay Order / Managers' Cheque (MC) bearing No. 199157 in favour of Maxim Invest Care. The said Pay Order was deposited in the Union Bank of India, Janakpuri, New Delhi on 06/12/04 in Current A/c No. 532801010320020 held in the name of M/s Maxim Invest Care for purchase of shares.

03/12/04 55,774/ A1 debited Rs. 10,000/ dtd. 7/12/04 to TL A/c 5100 of MK Nigam and Radha Nigam, towards the penal charges. This amount was required to be credited to the Income Head of the Bank but Joginder Singh (A1) fraudulently credited it to TL 5127 of M/s PSSI to adjust the loan.

07/12/04 10,000/ A1 debited Rs. 10,000/ dtd. 7/12/04 to TL A/c 5100 of MK Nigam and Radha Nigam, towards the penal charges. This amount was required to be credited to the Income Head of the Bank but Joginder Singh (A1) fraudulently credited it to TL 5127 of M/s PSSI to adjust the loan.

20/12/04 1,05,000/ A1 fraudulently debited the marginally noted amount and credited to Housing Loan A/c No. 7/107 of Sandeep Kumar. The A/c No. 7/107 is a genuine account held in the CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr. CC No.49/11 Page 21 of 7 22 name of Sandeep Kumar. Sh. Sandeep Kumar had previously obtained a loan of Rs. 6,00,000/ on 26/6/03 and he was repaying the EMI for Rs. 8,000/ regularly. But on 30/10/04 another false loan for Rs. 2,00,000/ was shown issued to Sh. Sandeep Kumar without the knowledge / authorization of Sh. Sandeep Kumar. In order to repay / minimize the loan amount in the said A/c 7107, A1 had issued loan from the TL A/c No. 5127 and credited to A/c No. 107 with a view to minimize / adjust the loan balance.

18/01/05 22,590/ A1 debited a sum of Rs. 48,183/ to the CC A/c 37087 of M/s PSSI towards BG charges and credited the amount to A/c 618 , a Banks Revenue Head. But Sh. Joginder Singh (A1) on the same day fraudulently debited a sum of Rs. 22,590/ from the Bank's Revenue Head A/c 618 and credited to TL A/c 5127 of PSSI without any authorization. The motive of such transfer of money was to adjust the loan balance in the account.

24/01/05 8,100/ A1 charged a sum of Rs. 19,200/ towards the commission for opening an LC to CC A/c 37211 M/s Kesho Ram Industries. The amount Rs. 19,200/, in full, was required to be credited in the Banks Revenue Head A/c

618. But Sh. Joginder Singh (A1) fraudulently credited only a part of the amount of Rs. 11,100/ in the Banks A/c 618 and rest of the amount Rs. 8,100/ credited to the false A/c 5127 of PSSI. The motive of such transfer of money was to adjust the loan balance in the account.

CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr. CC No.49/11 Page 22 of 7 23 25/01/05 2,56,000/ A1 fraudulently debited marginally noted amount and credited the amount to C/A 33936 (Old No. 3936) of M/s Jai Mata Bangles without any authorization of the party. Thereafter, the amount for Rs.

2,55,000/ was fraudulently transaferred by misusing the A/c Payee Cheque bearing No. 283472 dtd. 27/1/05 taken from Sh.

Mahinder Singh Negi on false pretex to Gurmeet Kaur Partner of M/s Maxim Invest Care for purchase of share in the account of his wife Smt. Balwinder Kaur.

28/01/05 10,000/ A1 charged a sum of Rs. 10,000/ towards the LC amendment charges to CC A/c 37087 of M/s PSSI. The amount Rs.

10,000/ was supposed to be credited in the Revenue Head of the bank. Sh. Joginder Singh (A1) fraudulently credited the amount to TL A/c 5127 of PSSI. The motive of such transfer of money was to adjust the loan balance in the account.

07/02/05 15,000/ A1 charges a sum of Rs. 15,000/ towards the LC amendment charges to CC A/c 37211 of PSSI. The amount Rs. 15,000/ was required to be credited in the Banks Revenue Head A/c 618. But Sh. Joginder Singh (A1) debited the account for Rs.

15,000/ and fraudulently credited to TL 5127 of PSSI.

07/02/05 13,880/ A1 had charged the firm Rs. 34,690/ towards the commission to issue of BG.

This amount Rs. 34,690/, in full, was supposed to be deposited in the Bank's Revenue Head. But Sh. Joginder Singh (A1), debited the CA 31004 for Rs. 34,690/ CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr. CC No.49/11 Page 23 of 7 24 and deposited a sum of Rs. 20,810/ to Bank's Revenue Head and fraudulently transferred the rest of amount Rs. 13,880/ to this false A/c 5127 with a view to minimize the loan balance.

17/02/05 25,000/ A1 fraudulently debited the amount to the Loan Account and credited the amount to SB Account No. 19702 of Surender Pal Singh (Khurana) to repay the friendly loan taken previously from Sh. Surender Pal Singh for Rs. 2,00,000/.

24/02/05 2,98,502/ M/s PSSI had kept FDR No. 515122 for Rs.

2,96,401/ which was scheduled to be matured on 19/12/04. This document was under custody of Sh. Joginder Singh (A1).

On 2/2/05, A1 issued instruction in writing on the FDR to renew the FDR for 3 years.

The said FDR was maintained in FDR A/c 38083 in the branch. After renewal of this FDR a new FDR bearing No. 515253 for Rs.

2,98,502/ was issued. Sh. Joginder Singh (A1) on 24/2/05, issued instruction to the concerned officials to debit the FDR and credited the proceeds Rs. 2,98,502/ to this false A/c 5127 with a view to adjust the loan balance. The branch could not trace out the Original FDR bearing No. 515253 for Rs.

2,98,502/. The computer generated vouchers show that Joginder Singh (A1) had instructed to the concerned official to process the debit and credit the FDR No. 515253 maintained in FDR A/c 38083 held in the name of M/s PSSI. The firm M/s PSSI had claimed the unauthorized debit and Bank repaid the amount in full.

CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr. CC No.49/11 Page 24 of 7 25 25/02/05 1,25,000/ A1 Joginder Singh fraudulently debited the loan account and credited the amount to SB A/c No. 42024 of M/s Babu Ram Rajesh Kumar to repay the friendly loan taken previously from Sh. HK Sharma, owner of the firm for Rs. 1,25,000/.

11/03/05 5,08,215/ M/s Mohinder Impex had kept FDR No. 515332 for Rs. 5,08,215/ under Banks Lien (No. 230), which was scheduled to be matured on 3/3/08. This document was under custody of A1 Joginder Singh. On 3/3/05, Sh. Joginder Singh dishonestly cancelled the lien and on 8/3/05 he instructed the concerned officer to credit the proceeds to Sundry Creditors Account. A1 Joginder Singh on 11/3/05 debited the Sundry Creditors Account and credited the amount to TL A/c 5127 to adjust the loan.

12/03/05 17,000/ A1 Joginder Singh debited a sum of Rs.

35,560/ to CC 37087 towards Bank Guarantee and other charges. The amuont of Rs. 35,560/ was supposed to be credited in the Revenue Head of the bank A/c 618. On 12/3/05 A1 Joginder Singh debited a sum of Rs. 35,560/ to the CC A/c 37087 of M/s PSSI (towards BG & Other Charges) but fraudulently credited a part of Rs. 18,560/ to the Revenue Head of the Bank A/c 618 (NULL) instead of Rs. 35,560/ and credited the rest of the amount of Rs. 17,000/ to the false TL A/c 5127 of PSSI with the motive to reduce the loan.

CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr. CC No.49/11 Page 25 of 7 26 16/3/05 52,500/ M/s Arjun Impex was maintaining loan CC A/c 5092 and the branch had A1 Joginder Singh charged a sum of Rs. 52,500/ to CC A/c 5092 of M/s Arjun Impex towards the processing fees. This amount was supposed to be deposited in the Revenue Head of the bank. But A1 Joginder Singh debited a sum of Rs. 52,500/ to TL A/c 5092 of M/s Arjun Impex Pvt. Ltd., and instead of crediting it to the Revenue Head of the bank, he fraudulently diverted the amount to this false loan TL 5127 to reduce the loan.

24/03/05 2,95,500/ M/s PSSI was maintaining a CC A/c 37087 with the branch. On 24/3/05 A1 Joginder Singh fraudulently and without authorization, debited a sum of Rs.

2,95,500/ to this A/c and credited it to the false term loan account TL 5127.

24/03/05 2,90,000/ On the same day i.e. 24/3/05, he again debited the false TL 5127 for Rs. 2,90,000/ and credited it to SB A/c 29565 (old 115565) held in the name of Sandeep Kumar with the branch. Again on the same day i.e., 24/3/05, he transferred the amount of Rs.

2,90,000/ by misusing the blank Cheque leaf previously taken over from Sandeep Kumar, to Sh. Gurdial Singh for purchase of shares.

24/03/05 1,012/ Amount credited being balance left in the account.

27,485/ Interest and various charges debited on various dates.

CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr. CC No.49/11 Page 26 of 7 27 24/03/05 1,933/ A1 Joginder Singh charged interest of Rs.

1,933/ x 3 to this false loan A/c TL 5127 and debited Rs. 1,933/ three times to this account. But during calculation, A1 Joginder Singh found that he had charged excess of Rs. 1,933/. So he reversed one entry on the same day i.e., showed credit of Rs. 1,933/ in order to balance the account.

The whole loan amount was fraudulently adjusted with a view to avoid the detection of the fraud. A1 Joginder Singh fraudulently debited total sum of Rs. 22,63,979/ to the false TL A/c 5127 during the period . He further made fraudulent credit entries for Rs. 22,63,979/ by transferring the amount from different accounts of other parties, under his domain, without authorization, adjusted the loan and closed the account on 24/3/05, so as to evade the detection of fraud.

(D) M/s MK Nigam and Radha Nigam TL A/c 7/138 (new TL 5100):

Prosecution alleged that A1 Joginder Singh fraudulently debited a sum of Rs. 1,75,000/ to the loan A/c 7/138 held in the name of MK Nigam and Radha Nigam on 15/12/03 without knowledge of the account holder and fraudulently issued a MC for Rs. 1,75,000/ favouring M/s Maxim Invest Care. A1 on 07/05/04 fraudulently debited Rs. 1,75,000/ to CA 37087 of PSSI and credited it to TL A/c 5100 of MK Nigam and Radha Nigam to CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr. CC No.49/11 Page 27 of 7 28 adjust the loss to MK Nigam.

1.2 Investigation revealed that the total fraudulent debit entries against each account were as follows:

Sl. No.                  A/c No. & Name                              Total Amount
1.        TL A/c 5127 of PSSI                               (Rs.22,35,494/   +   27,485 
                                                            interest) = Rs. 22,63,979/

2. TL A/c 7/138 of MK Nigam and Radha Nigam Rs. 1,75,000/ (without interest)

3. LABD A/c 5102 of Gurbachan Singh (Rs. 15,50,000/ + interest 80,342/) = Rs. 16,30,342/

4. TL 7/167 of Sandeep Kumar (Rs. 3,40,000/ + 11,133/ interest) = 3,51,133/ Total Rs. 44,20,321/ 1.3 The total fraudulent credit is given below:

Sl. No. A/c No. & Name                                      Total Amount
1.        TL A/c 5127 of PSSI                               Rs. 22,63,979 fully repaid and 
                                                            A/c closed.

2. Debited Rs. 1,75,000/ to the loan A/c 7/138 of Rs. 1,75,000/ MK Nigam and Radha Nigam on 15/12/03. Fully repaid by transferring the Adjusted the debit by transferring the amount amount from CC 37087 of from CC37087 of PSSI 7/5/04 credited o A/c PSSI on 7/5/04 credited to A/c 5100 of MK Nigam. 5100 of MK Nigam.

3. LABD A/c 5102 of Gurbachan Singh Rs. 4,28,393/ (outstanding Rs.

12,01,949/)

4. TL 7/167 of Sandeep Kumar Rs. 3,40,000/ (fully repaid and account closed) CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr. CC No.49/11 Page 28 of 7 29 1.4 It is pertinent to mention here that initially a case was registered by PS Kotwali, Delhi Police vide FIR No. 164/05 dtd. 3/5/05 u/Ss 420, 468, 471 IPC. The CBI had also registered RC NO. 2(E)/05 on 18/5/05 against A1 Joginder Singh, A1 Balwinder Kaur and Sandeep Kumar (not chargesheeted) for the commission of offences punishable u/Ss 120B r/w 467, 471 IPC and Sec. 13 (2) r/w 13(1) (c) of the PC Act, 1988. Subsequently, upon the request being made the investigation was transferred to CBI after having being approved by Hon'ble LG, Delhi vide letter No. 3324551/C&T (ACIII) dtd. 27/6/05.

Investigation revealed that A1 Joginder Singh in conspiracy with his wife A2 Balwinder Kaur perpetrated the said acts of commission and omission and therefore, committed an offence punishable u/Ss 120B r/w 201, 409, 467, 471 IPC and Sec. 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) of the PC Act, 1988 and substantive offences u/Ss 201, 409, 467, 471 IPC and Sec. 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) of the PC Act, 1988.

1.5 Chargesheet was filed in the court on 28/4/2007 and cognizance was taken on 16/07/07.

CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr. CC No.49/11 Page 29 of 7 30 CHARGE 2.0 Being a prima facie case, charge u/S.120B IPC r/w Sec. 201, 409, 467, 471 IPC r/w Sec. 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) of the POC Act, 1988 was framed against both the accused persons : substantive charge u/S 467, 471, 409, 201 IPC and Sec. 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) POC Act, 1988 was framed against accused Joginder Singh : subsequent charge u/S 411 IPC was framed against accused Balwinder Kaur. Charges were framed against the accused persons on 07/02/08 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. PROSECUTION EVIDENCE 3.0 Prosecution has examined 37 witnesses in order to substantiate the charge framed against the accused persons.

3.1 CBI has examined PW1 PS Sikka, PW2 Sh. Madan Sain, PW5 Sh. GS Sachdeva, PW12 Sh. Shashi Kumar Wahi, PW21 Sh. Pritam Singh, PW25 Sh. Inderjeet Singh Walia, PW35 Sh. HPS Lakra and PW36 Sh. Narender Pal Singh Dhami, the bank officials posted in Punjab & Sindh Bank Chandni Chowk Branch at the relevant time. These witnesses have deposed regarding the fictitious loan accounts opened by the accused No.1 and also proved the documents regarding wrong and false entries made by A1 Joginder Singh in the said accounts and other bank account. CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr. CC No.49/11 Page 30 of 7 31

In regard to the ALPM and TBA package system, CBI has examined PW15 Sh. Surender Singh. In respect of the special audit conducted in the year 2005, CBI has examined PW18 Karan Kumar Arora.

The case of the CBI is that the ill gotten money was siphoned off to M/s. Vivek Financial Focus Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Maxim Invest Care. In respect of these, prosecution has examined PW4 Sh. Ashok Kumar Sharma and PW16 Sh. Tarun Kumar Gupta.

The officials from other banks where the pay orders issued in favour of above said share trading firms were being deposited have also been examined by the prosecution and same are PW3 Sh. OP Sharma, Branch Manager, Union Bank of India, PW6 Sh. Amarjit Singh, Chief Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce, PW7 Sh. Prem Prakash, Sr. Manager, Canara Bank and PW14 Sh. Kuldeep Kumar, Manager, Indian Bank, Janpath.

CBI has also examined the private parties whose accounts have allegedly been forged by A1 Joginder Singh. In this category of witnesses, CBI has examined PW9 Sh. Hari Kishan Sharma partner of M/s. Babu Ram Rajesh Kumar, PW10 Sh. Mahender Singh, Proprietor of Jai Mata Di Bangles Cutter, PW11 Sh. Arvinder Singh S/o Ms. Surjit Kaur, Partner in M/s. Guru Nanak Finance Co., PW13 Sh. Gurpal Singh, employee of PSSI, PW19 Harvinder Singh, Partner of PSSI, PW22 Sh. SPS Khurana, employee of PSSI, PW26 Sh. Sandeep Kumar, PW27 Ms. Radha Nigam from M/s. MK CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr. CC No.49/11 Page 31 of 7 32 Nigam and Radha Nigam, PW30 Sh. Debesh Sharma partner of Trading Corporation of India, PW31 Sh. Dev Dutt Mishra, employee of MK Nigam and Radha Nigam, PW33 Sh. Ajay Chugh and PW34 Sh. Harvinder Singh, employee of Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Committee.

The case of the CBI is that an internal inquiry was conducted by the bank before registration of the case, in which accused Joginder Singh also participated. This internal inquiry was conducted by PW20 Sh. Inderjit Singh Sidhu, PW23 Sh. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal and PW32 Sh. RPS Mann.

CBI has also examined PW8 Dr. Rajiv Gupta who had examined Gurbachan Singh and had certified that he was suffering from Alzhemer's disease (A disease of brain) since 2003.

Sh. Balvinder Singh (PW17) from personal department of Punjab National Bank proved the promotion order and posting order of A1. PW24 Sh. Pritam Singh, GEQD proved the handwriting report. PW28 SI Joginder Singh was the IO of case FIR No.164/05, PS Kotwali. PW29 SI Yashpal was part IO of CBI and filed the chargesheet. PW37 Insp. Thapa conducted the investigation.

The prosecution witnesses, as detailed herein above, have deposed in an elaborate manner and the testimony of these witnesses can be summarized as under :

The accused was offered the post of typist cum clerk vide CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr. CC No.49/11 Page 32 of 7 33 communication dated 07.05.75, Ex.PW17/C and he was subsequently promoted as Executive Asstt. (Spl. Category) w.e.f. 12.11.2001 vide communication dated 20/11/01 and was posted at Branch Office Delhi, Chandni Chowk Branch vide communication dated 20/11/01, Ex.PW17/B. The accused was given the charge of Manager (Loan) and his duty was to scrutinize the loan applications and thereafter, to put up before the Chief Manager for sanction. After sanction, the accused was supposed to enter the applications in the Manager Discretionary Power (MDP) Register and in another register called Drawing Power (DP) Register.

It has come in the evidence that pursuant to a complaint of fraud made to the Zonal office, an inspection was conducted in the branch by PW20 Sh. Inderjit Singh Sandhu, the then AGM, PW23 Sh. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, the then Manager and PW32 Sh. RPS Mann, the then Sr. Manager in Inspection Department, and submitted the preliminary report Ex.PW1/B. During inspection, it was found that A1 had created some fictitious loan accounts and during inquiry A1 also admitted to have committed the fraud stating that he would return the amount within 34 months and also mentioned that no other staff has been involved in the fraud. The bank filed a complaint, Ex.PW1/A on 28.04.2005 at PS Kotwali regarding fraud upon which FIR No.164/05 was registered. However, subsequently, the case was transferred to CBI vide order, Ex.PW37/A, on which case RC No.2(E)/05, CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr. CC No.49/11 Page 33 of 7 34 Ex.PW37/L was registered.

It has come in the evidence of PW20, PW23 and PW32 that the fraud was committed by A1 and the whole amount was paid to some broker under the name of A2 and number of fictitious accounts were opened. The bank officials deposed that the bank gives different types of loan i.e. term loan is given against some fixed assets ; working capital loan is given against current assets i.e., raw material ; Loan given against FDRs, LIC Policies etc. If a loan is to be granted against FDR then request application i.e Form 108A is obtained from the borrower i.e, the person in whose name the FDR exists. If the FDR is in the name of some other person, and the loan is being taken by another person, then the consent of the person in whose name the FDR exists is to be taken. Such application is in the form of prescribed proforma of the bank i.e. Form108B. The bank officials also deposed that before sanctioning of the loan, the approval of the branch manager is taken and thereafter, the loan manager makes entry in two registers i.e. 1) Drawing Power Register (DP register) where all the details of loan particulars are mentioned serial wise and 2) Security Document Register (SD register) where all the security documents alongwith the application for loan are mentioned. As per the procedure, after making entries, the Manager loan puts initials on those entries and thereafter, those entries are counter initialled by the branch manager and two vouchers i.e. debit voucher and CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr. CC No.49/11 Page 34 of 7 35 credit voucher are prepared. The debit voucher has to be counter signed by the branch manager and on the credit voucher either the loan manager or branch manager has to authorize as to where that particular credit has to go. If the borrower is having the account in the bank, then the loan amount is credited in his account. If the borrower is not having the account in the bank, then the pay order is to be issued in his name. The prosecution witnesses have deposed that pay order can be made in the name of any person only on the instructions of the borrower.

In regard to the fictitious term loan account opened in the name of M/s. Punjab Stainless Steel Industries (PSSI), the prosecution has proved that M/s. PSSI had a TL Account No.5123 and proved the certified copy of statement of account for the period 05.08.2000 to 20.011.2004 as Ex.PW1/C. 3.2 PW1 PS Sikka proved that PW5 GS Sachdeva gave a certificate Ex.PW1/D that A1 Joginder Singh while working as Manager (Loan) Chandni Chowk Branch, P&SB, opened a false TL A/c No.7/178 (5127) on 15.09.2004, in the name of PSSI and wrongly debited a sum of Rs.6 lacs to this account. DP No.33/04, on the basis of which loan account was opened, was also false and no sanction was taken for this loan. It also came in the evidence that TL A/c No.5123 was also sanctioned on the basis of DP No. 33/04 and it is not possible to open two loan accounts on the basis of same CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr. CC No.49/11 Page 35 of 7 36 DP. PW1 proved that A1 prepared the debit voucher, Ex.PW1/E dated 15.09.2004 under his signatures, in respect of TL A/c No.5127 of PSSI in the sum of Rs.6 lakhs for the loan against machinery. PW1 stated that accused issued a credit voucher, Ex.PW1/F dated 15.09.04 in favour of M/s. Vivek Financial Focus Ltd. under his signatures, pursuant to which pay order Ex.PW1/J dated 15.09.04 in favour of M/s. Vivek Financial Focus Ltd. was issued. It came in the testimony of prosecution witnesses / bank officials that whenever a term loan is granted against the security of machinery then quotations are obtained from the supplier of the machinery and the pay order is made in the name of its supplier, whereas in the present case, the pay order, Ex.PW1/J was prepared in the name of M/s. Vivek Financial Focus Ltd. which was a share broker company. The prosecution witnesses proved the photocopy of loan sanction register (D6), Ex.PW1/G in which against DP No.33/04, there was no entry in relation to loan advanced to PSSI on 05.08.2004, whereas in the statement of account of TL A/c No.5127 for the period 15.09.2004 to 20.11.2004, Ex.PW1/H, there is a debit voucher of 6 lacs vide DP No.33/04 dated 15.09.04. The prosecution also proved the certificate u/S.2A of the Bankers Book of Evidence Act, Ex.PW1/K. PW1 deposed on oath that without preparing any debit and credit voucher in the register, a pay order / Manager's Cheque (MC) Ex.PW1/L dated 12.10.04 in the sum of Rs.48,616/ in favour of M/s Vivek Financial Focus Ltd. was CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr. CC No.49/11 Page 36 of 7 37 prepared. On this pay order, accused was one of the signatory and the pay order was presented for clearance through Canara Bank on 14.10.2004. It is also pertinent to mention here that as per statement of Account, Ex.PW1/H, the TL A/c No.5127 was also debited with this amount on 12.10.2004. The entry of this pay order / MC also reflected in the long book for MC. The certified copy of which has been proved as Ex.PW1/M and Ex.PW1/N. On Ex.PW1/M, an endorsement was made that debit vouchers and credit vouchers were not available. It also came in the evidence of prosecution witnesses that Sh. Madan Sain PW2 is another signatory on the pay order, Ex.PW1/M. In the statement of account Ex.PW1/H, there is another debit entry dated 04.11.2004 of Rs.90,000/ for TL A/c No.5127 and on the same date, the pay order in the sum of Rs.90,000/, Ex.PW1/O was issued in favour of M/s. Vivek Financial Focus Ltd. The entry of this pay order also finds mention in long book, Ex.PW1/E. It came in the evidence that debit voucher and credit voucher in this respect were also not made. The TL A/c No.5127 was again debited for a sum of Rs.2,80,000/ on 09.11.2004, as per statement of account Ex.PW1/H and this amount of Rs.2,80,000/ was credited on the same day in the loan account No.7/167 in the name of Sh.

Sandeep Kumar, as per statement of account Ex.PW1/Q. It came in the evidence that debit and credit vouchers were also not prepared for this entry and the accused made this entry unauthorizedly. In order to tally the general CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr. CC No.49/11 Page 37 of 7 38 ledger of the relevant period, Ex.PW1/R, the accused prepared the debit and credit vouchers, Ex.PW1/S and Ex.PW1/S1 dated 10.11.04 under his signatures. It is pertinent to mention here that on these vouchers only the signatures of A1 are appearing.

It further came in the evidence of the prosecution that further there is a debit entry of Rs.1 lac in TL A/c No.5127 on 20.11.2004 (statement of account, Ex.PW1/H). In regard to this entry also, the debit and credit vouchers were not found available. It further came in the evidence that a debit entry in the sum of Rs.90,000/ was made in TL A/c No.5127 as per statement of account for the period 22.11.04 to 30.07.05, Ex.PW1/T and this amount was unauthorizedly transferred equally in A/c No.19702 of Sh. SPS Khurana (PW22) and in A/c No.28864 of Sh. Gurpal Singh (PW13) vide voucher Ex.PW1/U2. This voucher was also created and approved by A2 himself and there was no second approval on the voucher. It was also proved that there was credit of Rs.45,000/ in account of Sh. Gurpal Singh as per statement of A/c, Ex.PW1/U and in account of Sh. SPS Khurana, as per statement of A/c, Ex.PW1/U1.

It also came in the prosecution evidence that Chandni Chowk branch, where accused was posted was totally modernized and was converted from ALPM package to Total Branch Automation Package (TBA). In this new system, the debit and credit vouchers were made through computer and CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr. CC No.49/11 Page 38 of 7 39 the signatures of the concerned official were not necessary. However, the person making and authorizing the voucher is reflected in the voucher itself. In ALPM system the entry made in a particular section was isolated and could not accessed by other sections i.e. even by the Branch Manager. Only after Total Branch Automation (TBA) was implemented on 22.11.2004, all the computers of the branch were inter linked and any section can have access to data available in the main server. As per prosecution evidence, the TBA system is a highly secured system and the operations are recorded with user ID and is traceable. In TBA system, vouchers are created by the computer terminal operator under his own password and the entry was authorized by the officer concerned under his own password. It also came in the evidence that in case amount is more than Rs.75,000/ the entry is required to be authorized by second official who is either second man of the branch or the branch Incharge. PW1 proved the ID Code No. of accused and PW36 NPS Dhami proved his own ID code No. and ID Code No. of PW25 IS Walia, as per certificate given by GS Sachdeva, which has been proved as Ex.PW1/V. It also came in the evidence that in new system, a person who is making the debit and credit voucher has to put his PF No. along with his password and the same is duly reflected in debit and credit voucher and it was not possible for any person to use the password of the accused in computer for preparation of debit and credit voucher. It further came in the CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr. CC No.49/11 Page 39 of 7 40 evidence that accused was given a personal computer with ALPM w.e.f, May 2002, and access to the said computer and data was controlled exclusively by the accused only with a unique user ID No. and password known to him only and only accused was authorised to use the same.

The prosecution witnesses stated that accused was entrusted with the duty to keep the safe custody of the documents entrusted to him and the loan documents were kept in safe custody in the vault under his lock and key. It came in the evidence that as per statement of A/c, Ex.PW1/T, there is a debit entry of Rs.2,08,000/ on 03.12.2004 and on the same day, a pay order, Ex.PW1/W in the sum of Rs.2,08,000 was issued in favour of M/s. Maxim Invest Care and A1 was one of the signatory of the pay order and the pay order was presented for clearance to Union Bank of India on 06.12.2004. The voucher in relation to this transaction, Ex.PW1/X was created by the accused and first approval was also granted by him only and second approval was granted by PW35 NPS Dhami.

It further came in the evidence that TL A/c No.5127 was again debited for a sum of Rs.1,05,000/ on 20.12.2004, as per statement of account Ex.PW1/T and this amount of Rs.1,05,000/ was credited on 20.12.2004 in the loan account No. TL 5082 (old No. TL7/107) of Sh. Sandeep Kumar, as per statement of account Ex.PW1/Y. It further came in the evidence that TL A/c No.5127 in the name CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr. CC No.49/11 Page 40 of 7 41 of M/s. PSSI was debited for a sum of Rs.2,56,000/ on 25.01.2005, as per statement of A/c, Ex.PW1/T and this amount was transferred and a credit entry was made wrongly in Current A/c No.33936 of Jai Mata Di Bengal's Cutter, as per statement of account Ex.PW1/1. A1 also created the voucher, Ex.PW1/Z in relation to this entry and first and second approval was also granted by accused only.

3.3 PW10 Sh. Mahender Singh, Proprietor of Jai Mata Di Bengal's Cutter deposed that on the introduction of A1 Joginder Singh, CC Account No.3936 with a CC limit of Rs.10 lakh was opened. Later on A1 approached PW10 and asked for some donation for Gurudwara. PW10 deposed that he gave a blank signed cheque Ex.PW1/2 to A1 and this cheque was issued in favour of Gurmeet Kaur, partner of M/s. Maxim Invest Care for a sum of Rs. 2,55,000/ and this cheque was duly cleared after being presented through Indian Bank.

It has further come in the evidence that TL A/c No.5127 was again debited on 25.02.2005 as per statement of account Ex.PW1/T and this amount was transferred and credited in the account No.42024 of M/s. Babu Ram Rajesh Kumar, as per statement of account Ex.PW1/4. In this regard, the voucher Ex.PW1/3 was generated. This voucher was created by A1 himself and first and second approval was also granted by A1 only. CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr. CC No.49/11 Page 41 of 7 42 3.4 PW9 Hari Kishan Sharma stated on oath that A1 Joginder Singh had demanded a loan of Rs.1,25,000/ on interest for a short period in January 2005 on which PW9 gave A1 a cheque, Ex.PW1/5, which was only crossed and signed by HK Sharma and later on it was filled in in favour of M/s. Vivek Financial Focus Ltd. PW9 also stated that after sometime A1 told him that he i.e. A1 had deposited Rs.1,25,000/ in his account and again took a cheque of Rs.1,25,000/ in favour of "Yourself" which he never returned. PW12 Sh. Shashi Kumar Wahi stated that this cheque was handed over to him by A1 and the cheque was duly cleared on being presented through Canara Bank. It further came in the evidence that TL A/c No.5127 was again debited with a sum of Rs.2,90,000/ on 24.03.2005 as per statement of Account, Ex.PW1/T and this amount was transferred and a credit entry was made in Current A/c No.29565 of Sh. Sandeep Kumar, as per statement of account Ex.PW1/7. The entry in this regard, Ex.PW1/6 was created by A1 himself. First and second approval was also granted by A1 only. It also came in the evidence of prosecution witnesses that the cheque dated 24.03.2005, Ex.PW1/8 purportedly issued by Sandeep Kumar in favour of Sh. Gurdiyal Singh for a sum of Rs.2,90,000/. The cheque was duly cleared on being presented through Oriental Bank of Commerce. However, it was brought on record that as on 12.03.2005, there was credit balance of only in the sum of CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr. CC No.49/11 Page 42 of 7 43 Rs.404/ in the account No.29565 of Sh. Sandeep Kumar and his account was credited with Rs.2,90,000/ on 24.03.2005 itself. Therefore, Sh. Sandeep Kumar could not have issued the cheque on 24.03.2005 itself. The prosecution brought on record that account No.37087 of PSSI was debited in the sum of Rs.2,95,500/ on 24.03.2005 as per the statement of account, Ex.PW1/10 and the credit entry was made on 24.03.2005 itself in fictitious TL A/c No.5127, as per statement of account Ex.PW1/T. In this regard, the voucher Ex.PW1/9 was created by A1 himself and first and second approval was also granted by A1. The prosecution has also brought on record that in case of term loan, the withdrawal are limited only upto 23 times but TL A/c No.5127 was operated like a current account. It also came on the record that this entry was later on reversed on the complaint being made. It further came in the evidence that TL A/c No.5127 was debited for Rs.25,000/ on 17.02.05 as per statement of account Ex.PW1/T and the credit was given in SB A/c No.19702 of Sh. SPS Khurana, as per statement of account Ex.PW1/U1. In this regard, the voucher Ex.PW1/11 was created by A1 himself and first approval was also granted by the accused. There was no second approval in this voucher. It also came in the evidence that in the statement of account, Ex.PW1/H of TL A/c No.5127 in the name of PSSI for the period 15.09.04 to 20.11.04, five credit entries were wrongly made. The prosecution proved that the debit voucher dated 24.09.2004, Ex.PW1/11 was prepared by the accused CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr. CC No.49/11 Page 43 of 7 44 himself whereby CC account No.37087 of PSSI was debited on account of bank guarantee charges and credit of Rs.20,790/ was given to TL A/c No. 5127 of PSSI vide credit voucher, Ex.PW1/13, as per statement of account Ex.PW1/H. On 29.09.2004, a further debit entry of Rs.180/ was made to reconcile as on 24.09.2004, TL A/c No.5127 was credited with a sum of Rs. 20,970/. PW1 deposed on oath that account No.5123 of PSSI was debited with Rs.57,365/ on 29.09.2004 on account of interest as per statement of Account, Ex.PW1/13 and the same account was again debited with a sum of Rs.93,217/ on 18.10.2004 on account of interest from 01.10.2004 to 18.10.2004 and instead of crediting the bank revenue account, TL A/c No. 5127 was credited with Rs.57,365/ and Rs.93,217/ on 18.10.04 and 29.09.2004, as per statement of Account, Ex.PW1/H. PW1 also proved that statement of account of TL A/c No.5075 of PSSI, Ex.PW1/15 on account of interest as per which this account was debited with a sum of Rs.1,48,745/ and instead of crediting the bank revenue head, the credit was given to TL A/c No.5127 on 30.10.2004 itself, as per statement of account, Ex.PW1/H. It also came in the evidence that A/c No. CC 87 was debited with a sum of Rs. 3,90,000/ on 10.11.2004 as per statement of A/c, Ex.PW1/18 and corresponding entry was made in TL A/c No.5127, as per statement of account, Ex.PW1/H. It was also proved that the vouchers in this regard, Ex.PW1/16 and Ex.PW1/17 were prepared by A1 and PW1 proved the CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr. CC No.49/11 Page 44 of 7 45 statement of account of A/c No.5075 of PSSI, Ex.PW1/20, as per which this account was debited with a sum of Rs.2,44,688/ on 30.11.2004 on account of interest and instead of crediting the bank revenue head, TL A/c No.5127 was credited as per statement of Account, Ex.PW1/T. In respect of this transaction, voucher, Ex.PW1/19 was created by accused himself and first & second approval was also granted by him only.

It further came in the evidence of prosecution witnesses that as per statement of Account, Ex.PW1/21 of A/c No.37087 of PSSI, this account was debited with a sum of Rs.48,183/ on 18.01.2005 on account of LC opening charges and on the same day the bank revenue Account was initially credited in the sum of Rs.48,183/ as per statement of account, Ex.PW1/22. However, on the same day a debit entry in the sum of Rs.22,590/ was made on account of refund of commission extra charge and TL A/c No.5127 was given a credit in the sum of Rs.22,590/ as per statement of account, Ex.PW1/T. In this regard, voucher Ex.PW1/23 was created by A1 himself and first approval was also granted by him. There was no second approval on this voucher.

3.5 PW1 proved that A/c No.37211 of M/s. Kesho Ram Industries was debited with a sum of Rs.19,200/ on 24.01.2005 on account of LC opening charges as per statement of account, Ex.PW1/24 and on the same CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr. CC No.49/11 Page 45 of 7 46 day, bank revenue Account was credited only with a sum of Rs.11,100/ as per statement of account Ex.PW1/22 and a credit entry in the sum of Rs. 8,100/ was made in TL A/c No.5127 as per statement of account, Ex.PW1/T. The voucher in this regard, Ex.PW1/24 was created by A1 himself. A1 also accorded first approval and there was no second approval on this voucher. PW1 proved that the vouchers Ex.PW1/25 & Ex.PW1/26 vide which account of M/s. Kesho Ram Industries was debited with a sum of Rs.15,000/ on 07.02.2005 on account of LC opening charges and correspondingly a credit entry was made to TL A/c No.5127 on the same day. The voucher Ex.PW1/26 was created by A1 and first approval was also granted by him only. There was no second approval on this voucher. It has also been proved that there is no corresponding credit entry in the bank revenue account on 07.02.2005 as per statement of account, Ex.PW1/22.

It further came in the evidence of PW1 that A/c No.31004 in the name of M/s. Dharam Industries was debited with a sum of Rs.34,690/ on 17.02.2005 on account of BG Extension charges as per statement of account, Ex.PW1/27. However, the bank revenue account was credited with a sum of Rs.20,810/ as per statement of account Ex.PW1/22 and on the same day TL A/c No.5127 was credited with a sum of Rs.13,880/. In this regard, voucher Ex.PW1/28 was created by A1 himself and first approval was also granted by him only and there was no second approval on this voucher. CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr. CC No.49/11 Page 46 of 7 47

PW1 proved that FDR Ex.PW1/29 was issued on 04.12.2004 in favour of M/s. PSSI which was kept under bank lien, as per endorsement made on the front of the FDR, however, A1 gave direction of renewal of this FDR for 3 years on 02.02.2005, as per endorsement Ex.PW1/30 and on the directions of A1, the FDR was renewed for Rs.2,98,502/ including interest and TL A/c No.5127 was credited with a sum of Rs.2,98,502/ on 24.02.2005 as per statement of account Ex.PW1/T. The voucher in this regard Ex.PW1/31 was also prepared. The prosecution witnesses stated that the renewed FDR was not placed in the record and this transaction was carried out at the directions of A1.

PW1 stated that on 03.03.2005 FDR No.515332, Ex.PW1/32 was issued in the sum of Rs.5,08,215/ which was kept under bank lien as per endorsement made on front of the FDR. However, A1 canceled the lien as per endorsement appeared at point A and A1 made an endorsement as appearing at Ex.PW1/33 to cancel the FDR and the amount to be kept in Sundry Creditors Account. This transaction was carried out vide voucher Ex.PW1/34. However, thereafter, A1 created another voucher Ex.PW1/35 on 11.03.2005. First approval was granted by A1 and this amount was transferred to TL A/c No.5127 and the credit was given in the sum of Rs. 5,08,215/, as per statement of account, Ex.PW1/T. It was also stated by the prosecution witnesses that fictitious entries were made in TL A/c No.5127 so CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr. CC No.49/11 Page 47 of 7 48 as to settle the balance.

It came in the evidence of prosecution witnesses that MK Nigam and PW27 Radha Nigam had only availed a loan of Rs.11 Lakhs vide DP No. 100/03 account No.5100, the statement of account of which is Ex.PW1/69 and besides this firm M/s. MK Nigam & Radha Nigam had never taken any loan of Rs.1,75,000/. As per statement of account, Ex.PW1/36, this account was wrongly debited with Rs.1,75,000/ on 15.12.2003 and a pay order / MC, Ex.PW1/37 was issued in favour of M/s. Maxim Invest Care. A1 was also one of the signatory and the cheque was presented through Global Trust Bank and was duly cleared on 17/12/03. Admittedly, no vouchers were available in the file in regard to this transaction. PW1 proved voucher Ex.PW1/38 which was created by A1 and first approval was also granted by him. As per this voucher, CC No.37087 of PSSI was debited with a sum of Rs. 35,560/ on account of bank guarantee and other charges. However, only Rs.18,560/ was credited in the bank revenue account and remaining amount of Rs.17,000/ was credited TL A/c No.5127 as per statement of account Ex.PW1/T. PW1 also proved the voucher dated 16.03.2005, Ex.PW1/39 vide which TL A/c No.5092 of Arjan Impax Pvt. Ltd. was debited for a sum of Rs.52,500/ on account of processing fees. However, the corresponding credit entry was made in TL A/c No.5127 of PSSI. The voucher Ex.PW1/39 was prepared by A1 himself and first approval was also granted by him only. CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr. CC No.49/11 Page 48 of 7 49 There was no second approval on this voucher.

PW1 proved the statement of account of Guru Nanak Finance Co. bearing account No.3173 as Ex.PW1/40. It came in the evidence that CC limit of Rs.45 lakhs was sanctioned to Guru Nanak Finance Co. Sh. Gurbachan Singh and Ms. Surjit Kaur kept two FDRs dated 08.01.04 in the sum of Rs.6,24,045/ under bank lien which are Ex.PW1/42 and Ex.PW1/43. These FDRs were kept as security in the said CC account and no further loan could be sanctioned against these FDRs. PW5 also proved the certificate Ex.PW5/K given by him that FDR No.514436 & 514437 dated 08.01.04 were issued to Gurbachan Singh and Surjit Kaur. It was proved that FDRs were pledged and kept with the loan documents of CC Account No.37182 of M/s. Guru Nanak Finance Co. and A1 being loan Manager was custodian of these documents. The certificate Ex.PW5/K which has duly been proved on record read that these FDRs were pledged and kept with the loan documents of CC Account No.37182 of M/s. Guru Nanak Finance Co. and the same were under custody / lock and key of A1 and A1 wrongly again pledged these FDRs in account No.5102 of Sh. Gurbachan Singh against loan of Rs. 9,50,000/ sanctioned on 12.01.04 by A1. It was proved that accused fraudulently got a letter dated 12.01.04, Ex.PW1/41 having forged signature of Gurbachan Singh and Surjit Kaur and on the basis of this letter sanctioned a loan of Rs. 9,50,000/ to Gurbachan Singh and Surjit Kaur vide letter CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr. CC No.49/11 Page 49 of 7 50 Ex.PW1/44 issued under the signatures of A1. Prosecution witnesses stated that as per norms, loan of Rs.9,50,000/ could have been sanctioned by Chief Manager but letter, Ex.PW1/44 was signed by A1 only. The debit and credit vouchers, Ex.PW1/51 and Ex.PW1/52 were also prepared in respect of this transaction by A1 himself whereby the account No.5102 in the name of Gurbachan Singh was debited, as reflected from the statement of account Ex.PW1/54. As per credit voucher, Ex.PW1/52, MC / pay order in favour of Gurdial Singh, Ex.PW1/56 was issued and A1 was one of the signatory. It came in the evidence that these FDRs i.e. Ex.PW1/42 & Ex.PW1/43, were in custody of A1 being Incharge of loan department. He himself misutilized the same and opened a fictitious LABD A/c No.105/03, without the knowledge of competent authority and Gurbachan Singh and Surjit Kaur. It also came in the evidence that accused and CS Bindra had gone to the residence of Gurbachan Singh and Surjit Kaur for renewal of certain debit entries and got signatures on 5 / 6 documents and also got signatures on the back of voucher Ex.PW1/51 and at that time the voucher was blank. It also came in the evidence that accused got renewed the FDRs in the name of Gurbachan Singh and Surjit Kaur dated 08.01.04 in the sum of Rs.3,04,600/, Ex.PW1/45 and Ex.PW1/46, which were under bank lien as a security in the account of Guru Nanak Finance Co. and A1 being custodian of the above said FDR got renewed the same without any authorization of the CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr. CC No.49/11 Page 50 of 7 51 beneficiaries and created a new fictitious LABD document and misutilized the funds. It further came in the evidence that TL account No.5102 was again debited with a sum of Rs.1 lakh on 08.04.04, as per statement of account, Ex.PW1/44. The corresponding voucher, Ex.PW1/58 was prepared by A1 in the sum of Rs.1 lakh in favour of Mr. Gurmeet Kaur, partner of M/s. Maxim Invest Care, a share broker firm and pay order, Ex.PW1/57, in the sum of Rs.1 lakh in favour of Gurmeet Kaur was issued.

It further came in the evidence that TL A/c No.5102 of Gurbachan Singh was again debited with a sum of Rs.1,00,000/ on 14.07.04 as per statement of account, Ex.PW1/54. However, corresponding credit voucher was not found available. TL A/c No.5102 was again debited with a sum of Rs.4 lacs on 07.01.05 as per statement of account, Ex.PW1/55 and the corresponding debit and credit voucher, Ex.PW1/59, was created by A1 himself and the amount was transferred to Saving Bank Account No.29565 of Sandeep Kumar. First and second approval on this voucher was granted by A1 himself.

It further came in prosecution evidence that in the saving bank account of Sandeep Kumar, generally there used to be very low balance and the cheque, Ex.PW1/62, which was kept as post dated cheque, towards adjustment of the housing loan account was misused by A1 and issued the same in favour of M/s. Vivek Financial Focus Ltd. and got it cleared through CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr. CC No.49/11 Page 51 of 7 52 Canara Bank. This entire transaction was without any knowledge of PW22 Sandeep Kumar.

It further came in evidence that credit voucher Ex.PW1/63 was prepared by A1 whereby a sum of Rs.20,000/ was credited in Sundry Creditors account on account of one LIC cheque received in the account of Puran Chand and the relevant entries were made in the Sundry Creditors Ledger, Ex.PW1/64. However, A1 prepared debit and credit vouchers, Ex.PW1/65 & Ex.PW1/66, dated 04.06.04, in his own handwriting and gave a credit of Rs.20,000/ in the account of Gurbachan Singh. Both the debit and credit vouchers were signed by A1 and were not authorized by any competent authority. Thus, this amount of Rs.20,000/ instead of being credited in the account of Puran Chand, was credited in the TL A/c No.5102 of Gurbachan Singh, as per statement of Account, Ex.PW1/54. It further came in the evidence that the credit of Rs.39,000/ was given in the TL A/c No.5102 of Gurbachan Singh on 14.06.2004 and correspondingly the account No.31004 of M/s. Dharam Industries was debited with a sum of Rs.39,000/ as per statement of account, Ex.PW1/67.

PW1 also proved the statement of account of A/c No.5075 (ALPM A/c No.84) of PSSI, Ex.PW1/68, as per which this account was debited in the sum of Rs.46,425/ on 30.06.2004 on account of interest applied and instead of bank revenue head, this amount was credited in the TL CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr. CC No.49/11 Page 52 of 7 53 A/c No.5102 of Gurbachan Singh, as per statement of account, Ex.PW1/54. It further came in the evidence that A/c No.5100 of MK Nigam & Radha Nigam was debited with a sum of Rs.19,590/ on 13.07.04 on account of interest panel charged as per statement of account, Ex.PW1/69 and instead of crediting the bank revenue head, TL A/c No.5102 of Gurbachan Singh was credited with this amount on the same date. It further came in evidence that ALPM A/c No.170 was debited with a sum of Rs.11,106/ on account of interest applied on 31.07.2004, as per statement of account, Ex.PW1/70 and instead of crediting the bank revenue head, TL A/c No.5102 was credited with this amount, as per statement of account, Ex.PW1/54.

PW1 also proved the FDR, Ex.PW1/71 dated 17.02.04 in favour of M.G. Rajan which was under bank lien. The FDR was canceled by accused on 19.11.04 vide endorsement Ex.PW1/72. A1 prepared debit and credit vouchers, Ex.PW1/73 & Ex.PW1/74, and this amount was credited in the fictitious TL A/c No.5102 as reflected in statement of account Ex.PW1/54. The transaction details of the above said FDR is Ex.PW1/75. PW1 proved the voucher dated 22.11.04, Ex.PW1/76 as per which CC Account No.37061 of Sunder Lal & Co. was debited for a sum of Rs.85,000/ and TL A/c No.5102 of Gurbachan Singh was credited for a sum of Rs. 27,000/ and three other accounts were also credited with the remaining amount. The voucher Ex.PW1/76 was created by A1 and 1st approval was CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr. CC No.49/11 Page 53 of 7 54 also granted by A1. There was no 2nd approval on this voucher.

PW1 proved the voucher dated 10.12.04, Ex.PW1/77 vide which FDR account of Sahil Farms P. Ltd. was debited with a sum of Rs.7,47,417/ and corresponding credit entries were also made. However, on the same day, A1 created another voucher Ex.PW1/78 and granted approval vide which a credit of Rs.1 lakh was given to Gurbachan Singh, TL A/c No.5102. There was no 2nd approval on this voucher. The statement of account of Sundry Creditors and Sundry Debtors, Ex.PW1/79 was also proved vide which there was no credit in Sundry Creditors account.

It further came in the evidence that account of Essar Kay Overseas bearing No. 37234 was debited with a sum of Rs. 37,680/ on 11/12/04 on account of overdue interest and instead of crediting the bank revenue head, this amount was credited in the TL A/c No.5102 of Gurbachan Singh as per statement of account Ex.PW1/55. The vouchers in this regard, Ex.PW1/81 was created by A1 himself and first approval was also granted by the accused and there was no second approval on this voucher. It further came in the evidence of PW1 that A/c No.37219 of Trading Corporation of India was debited with a sum of Rs.15,518/ on account of bank guarantee charges vide voucher Ex.PW1/83 and TL A/c No.5102 of Gurbachan Singh was credited with this amount. This voucher was created by A1 himself and first approval was also granted by him. There was no second approval on this CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr. CC No.49/11 Page 54 of 7 55 voucher also.

PW1 PS Sikka proved internal credit voucher, Ex.PW1/84 as having been prepared by A1 himself whereby a sum of Rs.20,000/ was credited to Sundry Creditors Account and on the same day, accused created another voucher Ex.PW1/85 and gave credit of this amount to TL A/c No. 5102 of Gurbachan Singh vide voucher Ex.PW1/84. First approval was given by accused himself and there was no second approval on this voucher. PW1 further proved that vide voucher Ex.PW1/86, the FDR A/c No.38197 of Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Management Committee was debited with a sum of Rs. 52,003/ and Sundry Creditor A/c was duly credited vide voucher Ex.PW1/87. However, vide voucher dated 05.01.2005, Ex.PW1/88, the amount of both of the above said vouchers was credited to TL A/c No.5102 of Gurbachan Singh vide voucher Ex.PW1/88. It has been proved that voucher Ex.PW1/88 was created by A1 himself and first approval was also granted by A1 only and there was no second approval on this voucher. In this regard, PW34 Sh. Parvinder Singh Bhatia deposed that amount received in donation was used to be invested in FDR and out of that interest, the money was used to be spent for the purpose for which the donation had been made by the Donor. Witness stated that as per procedure, no money from the account of Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Management Committee could go in the account of an individual until and unless authorized by President and CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr. CC No.49/11 Page 55 of 7 56 General Secretary. PW34 further stated that as per his memory, no resolution was passed regarding authorization of the transfer of Rs.90,490/ from the account of Committee to the account of Sh. Gurbachan Singh.

PW1 proved that vide voucher Ex.PW1/89 created by accused and approved by him only (no second approval), the A/c No. 42106 of PS Tourist Service was debited with the sum of Rs.3,000/ on 17/1/05 on account of Processing Fee and Other charges, whereas loan processing fee account was given a credit of Rs.800/ only and TL A/c No.5102 was given credit of Rs.2,200/. The account statement of PS Tourist Service, Ex.PW1/90 also shows that its account was debited with a sum of Rs.3,000/. PW1 proved the sanction of housing loan in favour of PW26 Sh. Sandeep Kumar and all other loan documents as Ex.PW1/91 to Ex.PW1/99 and the statement of account, Ex.PW1/100. The debit voucher in respect of this transaction has been proved as Ex.PW1/101. Copy of MDP register in respect of this loan, Ex.PW1/102 has also duly been proved. The witness stated that accused being Manager Loan, the supervisory powers were vested in him.

PW1 further proved that as per statement of account, Ex.PW1/Q, a loan of Rs.3,40,000/ was granted to Sh. Sandeep Kumar in A/c No.7/167 on 15.06.2004 vide DP No.21/04, as per statement of account, Ex.PW1/Q, whereas against DP No.21/04, the loan was granted to one Sh. Rajinder Singh on 14.06.2004 as per certified copy of MDP register, CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr. CC No.49/11 Page 56 of 7 57 Ex.PW1/104. Witness also proved that vide voucher Ex.PW5/R7 prepared by A1 himself, a sum of Rs.5,000/ was debited in the loan account of Rajinder Singh and on the same day, vide another voucher prepared by A1 himself, Ex.PW5/R8, the loan account of Rajinder Singh was credited with a sum of Rs.5,000/. The statement of account of Rajinder Singh, Ex.PW5/R6 has also been proved, as per which, a loan of Rs.5,000/ was sanctioned on 14.06.2004 vide DP No.21/04. The prosecution witnesses further proved that vide debit voucher Ex.PW1/105, A1 debited a sum of Rs.3,40,000/ and vide credit voucher, Ex.PW1/106 prepared by A1 himself, the saving bank account No.115565 was credited with the same amount. It came in the evidence that A1 misused the blank cheque given by PW26 Sh. Sandeep Kumar and filled the same in the name of M/s. Maxim Invest Care in the sum of Rs.3,40,000/ and the cheque was collected by Global Trust Bank and this amount was debited in SB account of Sandeep Kumar on 16.06.2004. PW1 stated that account No.7/138 of MK Nigam and Radha Nigam was debited for a sum of Rs.11,750/ on account of penal charges as per statement of account Ex.PW1/36, however, instead of crediting the Bank Revenue Head, the loan account of Sandeep Kumar was given a credit as per statement of account, Ex.PW1/Q. Prosecution witness also deposed that loan account of Sandeep Kumar was given a wrong credit of Rs.41,000/ vide voucher Ex.PW1/110 on the basis of cheque No.914312 dated 05.10.2004 of CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr. CC No.49/11 Page 57 of 7 58 Indian Bank.

Witness proved that account No.7/78 of PSSI was wrongly debited with a sum of Rs.2,80,000/ on 09.11.2004 as per statement of account, Ex.PW1/111 and the loan account of Sandeep Kumar was given the credit of this amount as per statement of account Ex.PW1/Q. It came in the evidence that if a lien is marked on a FD, it is kept in safe custody of the bank and A1 being the loan manager, was in custody of such FDRs i.e. Ex.PW1/42, Ex.PW1/43, Ex.PW1/35 and Ex.PW1/36. It was also proved that as per statement of account of M/s. Maxim Invest Care, Ex.PW3/B, there was a credit entry of Rs.2,08,000/ on 06.12.2004 on clearance of cheque, Ex.PW1/W. 3.6 PW4 Ashok Kumar Kakkar, Managing Director of M/s. Vivek Financial Focus Ltd. deposed on oath that his company is a member of National Stock Exchange which deals in sale and purchase of shares listed companies. PW4 also stated that M/s. Maxim Invest Care was their sub broker from 1997 to 2005 and Ltd. Col. Gurdial Singh was the Proprietor of M/s. Maxim Invest Care. The witness stated that as a broker, they used to allot a number to each client. PW4 stated that after 2003, SEBI made it compulsory that each client account should be reflected in the records of main broker and sub broker will continue to receive his brokerage. It came in CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr. CC No.49/11 Page 58 of 7 59 his evidence that A2 Balwinder Kaur was client of sub broker M/s. Maxim Invest Care. He also proved the client registration application form of A2 Balwinder Kaur as Ex.PW4/A and identified the signatures of Gurdial Singh, Proprietor of M/s. Maxim Invest Care. PW4 deposed on oath that a pay order of Rs.6 lakhs, Ex.PW1/J, pay order of Rs.48,616, Ex.PW1/K, pay order of Rs.90,000/ Ex.PW1/O and one cheque of Rs.4 lacs, Ex.PW1/62 were received from Sh. Gurdial Singh, Proprietor of M/s. Maxim Invest Care in lieu of settlement of accounts of his clients. It also came in his evidence that account between the broker and sub broker is settled on consolidated basis at the end of the day.

3.7 In this regard, PW16 Sh. Tarun Kumar Gupta has also stated that Gurdial Singh opened individual account with M/s. Vivek Financial Focus Ltd. in his name, in the name of his wife Smt. Gurmeet Kaur, in the name of his daughter Amandeep and in the name of one Balwinder Kaur i.e. A2. Witness also proved the statement of account of A2 Balwinder Kaur as Ex.PW16/C (Ex.PW16/J7). The statement of account of M/s. Maxim Invest Care with M/s. Vivek Financial Focus Ltd. has also been proved as Ex.PW16/J1 to J4. In the cross examination, PW16 had stated that account of A2 Balwinder Kaur was opened on 03.04.2003 on the instructions of Gurdial Singh who was sub broker of M/s. Vivek Financial Focus Ltd. CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr. CC No.49/11 Page 59 of 7 60 3.8 It came in the evidence of prosecution witnesses that certain vouchers relating to TL A/c No.5127 were not found in the records of the branch as mentioned in the certificate Ex.PW5/H1. PW5 gave a certificate wherein, it was specifically mentioned that A1 was duty bound to prepare such vouchers. The prosecution also proved the special audit report Ex.PW37/B. In the said audit report, all the entries were examined and it was concluded that accused had committed the fraud over a period of 2 years and he had been heavily investing in shares in the name of his wife Balwinder Kaur (A2). PW5 proved the voucher dated 20.12.2004, Ex.PW5/N2 which was created by A1 himself and first and second approval was also granted by him. Vide this voucher, TL A/c No.5127 of PSSI was debited with a sum of Rs.1,05,000/ and TL A/c No.5182 of Sandeep Kumar was debited with this amount as per statement of account Ex.PW5/M1. PW5 further proved the voucher dated 07.12.2004, Ex.PW5/Q1 created by A1 and first approval was also granted by him vide which the account of MK Nigam and Radha Nigam was debited with a sum of Rs.10,000/ on account of transfer penal charges and instead of crediting the bank revenue account of TL A/c No.5127 of PSSI credited with this amount. There was another transaction vide same voucher, vide which the account of Manish Fincon Pvt. Ltd. was debited with a sum of Rs.55,000/ and TL A/c No.5100 of MK Nigam and Radha Nigam was CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr. CC No.49/11 Page 60 of 7 61 credited with this amount. Similarly, another voucher Ex.PW5/Q2 is also created and approved by A1 himself vide which TL A/c.5127 of PSSI was debited with a sum of Rs.10,000/ and credit of the same was given to TL A/c No.5121 of Darshan Devi and Ors. Prosecution witnesses have also proved the statement of account of A/c No.36182 as Ex.PW5/R, the statement of account of Sandeep Kumar of account No.29565 as Ex.PW5/R1, the statement of account of PSSI of account No.37087 as Ex.PW5/R2, the statement of account of Gurbachan Singh of TL account No.5102 as Ex.PW5/R3 and the statement of account of Sahil Firms Pvt. Ltd. of account No.38758 as Ex.PW5/R4.

It also came in the evidence that PSSI was duly compensated for the wrong withdrawal allegedly made by A1 Joginder Singh from account of PSSI. The accused had also made an extra judicial confession. The photocopy of the same has been proved on record as Ex.PW5/S and Ex.PW5/S2. The communication of Oriental Bank of Commerce to CBI regarding statement of account No.1704106441 of Gurdial Singh and Gurmeet Kaur and Account No.1704101806 of Maxim Invest Care was proved as Ex.PW6/C. The account opening form of Gurdial Singh and Gurmeet Kaur has been proved as Ex.PW6/D and other documents, Ex.PW6/E to Ex.PW6/F2, were also proved.

CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr. CC No.49/11 Page 61 of 7 62 3.9 PW7 Sh. Prem Prakash, an official from Canara Bank proved the certified copy of statement of account of M/s. Vivek Financial Focus Ltd. as Ex.PW7/B1 to B4. The pay in slips Ex.PW7/D1 to D5 relating to M/s. Vivek Financial Focus Ltd. and Canara Bank were proved as such. 3.10 PW13 Sh. Gurpal Singh deposed on oath that in November / December 2004, A1 made a telephone call to him and informed that by mistake cash Rs.45,000/ has been transferred in his account from other account and on 02.12.2004, PW13 returned Rs.45,000/ to A1 and thereafter, in April or May, 2004, the account of PW13 was debited by the bank twice firstly for Rs.27,000/ and secondly for Rs.18,000/. 3.11 PW14 Sh. Kuldeep Kumar Anand, an official from Indian Bank proved that vide forwarding letter Ex.PW14/A, photocopy of pay in slip Ex.PW14/B and statement of account of SB A/c No.3549 of Gurdial Singh and Gurmeet Kaur, Ex.PW14/C alongwith certificate u/S.2A of Bankers Book of Evidence Act was forwarded to the CBI. Similarly, documents relating to account opening form of Gurdial Singh and Gurmeet Kaur, Ex.PW14/E1 & E2 were also forwarded vide letter Ex.PW14/D. CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr. CC No.49/11 Page 62 of 7 63 3.12 PW15 Sh. Surender Singh Bola, Chief Manager, Punjab And Sindh Bank proved that the specimen signatures of A2 Balwinder Kaur was taken on sheets Ex.PW15/A1 to A12.

3.13 PW16 Sh. Tarun Kumar Gupta proved the client commitment report of M/s. Maxim Invest Care in respect of A2 Balwinder Kaur as Ex.PW16/K1, K2 , K3 and K4.

The documents relating to details of NSE Trading Terminal have been proved as Ex.PW16/K5. PW16 also proved the receipts being duly signed by A2 Balwinder Kaur in relation to M/s. Maxim Invest Care as Ex.PW16/L1 to L5. The client commitment report of A2 Balwinder Kaur has been proved as Ex.PW16/L9 to L25.

3.14 PW17 Sh. Balvinder Singh proved the initial appointment letter of A1 Joginder Singh as Ex.PW17/C and promotion letter as Ex.PW17/B. 3.15 PW19 Sh. Harvinder Singh partner of PSSI deposed on oath that he has no knowledge of TL A/c No.5127. PW19 stated that PSSI had never applied for loan against this account and TL account No.5127 is forged one. The witness also stated that the debit and credit entries did not pertain CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr. CC No.49/11 Page 63 of 7 64 to PSSI. He also stated that he had not taken any loan of Rs.6 lacs on 15.09.04, Rs.48,616/ on 12.10.04, Rs.90,000/ on 04.11.2004, Rs.2,80,000/ on 09.11.2004 and Rs.1 lakh on 20.11.2004.

3.16 PW21 Sh. Pritam Singh an official from Punjab & Sindh Bank stated that he used to work under the instructions of A1 Joginder Singh and his duties were to issue FDRs / Pay order / Draft, on the basis of approval of Manager or Competent Authority. It also came in his evidence that A1 Joginder Singh had given the FDR Ex.PW1/32 to him (PW21) for making the entry and also made an endorsement "lien cancel" and also made an endorsement "cancel FDR and kept in Sundry Creditors Account". PW21 also stated that A1 Joginder Singh had given the FDR bearing No.514510 to him and instructed him to debit the FDR and credit the Sundry Creditors Account vide vouchers Ex.PW1/86 and Ex.PW1/87.

3.17 PW22 Sh. Surender Pal Singh Khurana an employee of PSSI deposed on oath that he gave a friendly loan of Rs.2,40,000/ in October 2004 and the same was repaid through his saving A/c No. 19702 vide credit entries as reflected in statement of account, Ex.PW1/U1. 3.18 PW24 Sh. MC Joshi, GEQD deposed on oath that the CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr. CC No.49/11 Page 64 of 7 65 documents of this case were assigned to him for scientific examination and comparison and after examination, he gave his opinion Ex.PW24/F, Ex.PW24/G and Ex.PW24/H alongwith detailed reasons Ex.PW24/J to L. It also came in the evidence of prosecution witnesses that the amount fraudulently created in the account of M/s. Maxim Invest Care and M/s Vivek Financial Focus Ltd. was passed on to A1 Joginder Singh and his wife A2 Balwinder Kaur and the actual beneficiary of these amount are the accused persons. It also came in the evidence that if the FDR is kept under bank lien, the same FDR cannot be used as a Collateral Security for securing another loan till either first loan has been repaid or security has been discharged.

STATEMENT OF ACCUSED PERSONS.

4.0 In his statement u/S.313 Cr.P.C., A1 Joginder Singh stated that though he was posted as Executive Assistant, but had no knowledge of loans and operation and he was assigned the said duty without any training. Accused admitted that a preliminary inspection was conducted in the branch however, he stated that he was not given any complaint and therefore, it was taken as routine inspection. Accused stated that all the accounts were created by his seniors i.e. Branch Manager / 2nd Man and as a desk officer Incharge and middle level officer he merely processed the same and forwarded the CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr. CC No.49/11 Page 65 of 7 66 same to his seniors for approval. Accused stated that he was pressurised to give in writing and to take entire blame on him. The complaint filed against him is false and frivolous and has been made with malafide intention. The entries shown in the enquiry were false and have been imputed with malafide intention. His wife A2 Balwinder Kaur has no account with any share broker. Accused also stated that the signatures on account opening form were not found to be of his wife Smt. Balvinder Kaur and she even does not know any broker and never visited his office place. Accused stated that normally preapproval of Branch Manager is taken. However, sometime when Branch Manager is in field for business development, the loan is sanctioned after taking telephonic / verbal permission by the Desk Officer and middle level officer. In the evening the Branch Manger confirms the same in DP Register, day book and General Ledger Slip. Accused stated that being middle man officer, the debit/credit vouchers were prepared by him at the instance of Branch Manager / 2nd Man and after putting initials, the same were sent to them for approval at their end who were the final authority. Accused admitted that from the borrower a specific request is to be obtained for crediting the amount in his account and according to the instructions of the borrower, the pay order can be made in the name of any person. Accused denied that account No. 7/178 (New A/c No.5127) was opened by him. Accused stated that this must have been opened by his Senior Branch CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr. CC No.49/11 Page 66 of 7 67 Manager / 2nd Man. Accused admitted to have prepared the debit voucher, Ex.PW1/E under his signatures in respect of term loan of PSSI for a sum of Rs. 6 lakhs on15/9/04 for loan against machinery. However, he stated that he has prepared the same at the clear instructions of Branch Manager / 2nd Man and on this vouchers Branch Manager / 2nd Man have also put their signatures. Accused also admitted that he issued credit voucher, Ex.PW1/F in favour of M/s. Vivek Financial Focus Ltd. under his signatures. However, he stated that after approval of debit voucher by Branch Manager / 2nd Man, credit voucher was also issued with the consent of Branch Manager and on that voucher 2nd Man has duly given his approval and this transaction was also approved by Branch Manager in day book/general ledger/long book.

In respect of issuance of pay order in favour of M/s. Vivek Financial Focus Ltd., accused stated that he being middle level officer has to follow instructions of Branch Manager / 2nd Man. Accused stated that so he issued the pay order in the name of M/s. Vivek Financial Focus Ltd. at their instructions.

In respect of term loan of Rs.6 lacs given to PSSI, accused stated that he himself has done this at the guidance / instructions of Branch Manager / 2nd Man. However, accused took a plea that Branch Manager signed the long book, day book and general ledger after seeing all the voucher at the end of the day. Accused stated that it is not possible that CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr. CC No.49/11 Page 67 of 7 68 vouchers of day transaction are missing. He stated that after closing of business hours, daftari (record keeper) collects the vouchers alongwith long book of all desks, tally the same and put it before the day book writer for writing of day book. Accused stated that suppose, if any voucher is missing, day book working cannot run further and matter has to be sorted out then and there. Then day book is written on the basis of all vouchers / long books. If there is any anomaly, it is rectified by 2nd man. After tally of Day book, 2nd man put his signatures on it and then send the General Ledger prepared by day book writer and original vouchers and day book to branch manager. Accused further stated that the Branch Manager initials each and every entry and vouchers, and then Branch Manager gives the vouchers to Daftari for stitch, seal and wax and entering in the voucher register giving details thereon like cash vouchers, transfer vouchers and clearing vouchers with their totals. So in this method of practicing there are no chances of vouchers being not available.

In respect of pay order Ex.PW1/L dated 12.10.2004, for a sum of Rs.48,616/ which was allegedly issued without any debit voucher, accused stated that it is not at all possible to prepare pay order without debit / credit vouchers. Accused stated that whenever pay order is prepared. concerned desk officer sees the vouchers first, verifies these and thereafter issue pay order. Accused stated that moreover, to issue pay order is duty of another CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr. CC No.49/11 Page 68 of 7 69 officer and Sh. Madan Sain (PW2) was Incharge of Pay order Section.

In respect of evidence that TL account No.5127 was debited with a sum of Rs.48,616/ on 12.10.2004, accused stated that as per instructions of Branch Manager and 2nd Man, he prepared the voucher and sent the same for approval / signature. In respect of debit vouchers made in TL A/c No.5127, accused took a similar stance that entries were made as per instructions of Branch Manager / 2nd Man. Accused admitted that it was not disputed that TL A/c No.5102 (house loan) was opened at his instructions.

Accused admitted that he had introduced loan A/c No.5082 (Old No.107) in the name of Sh. Sandeep Kumar. He stated that Sh. Indjerjeet Singh, Fatherinlaw of Sh. Sandeep Kumar known to him for many years and at the request of Sh. Inderjeet Singh he introduced the saving bank account. However, accused denied to have opened the loan account in favour of Sh. Sandeep Kumar. Accused stated that loan account must have been opened at the instructions of Branch Manager / 2nd Man and now he has been falsely named. Accused also denied that PW26 Sh. Sandeep Kumar gave him 67 blank cheques for the purpose of repayment of loan amount. Accused stated that in his branch there was a practice to open saving bank account and transfer the amount of loan installment from saving account to loan account which in this case was followed. A1 Joginder Singh stated that the advance cheques were taken for collection of installment amount. CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr. CC No.49/11 Page 69 of 7 70

A1 stated that he had never taken any advance from PW26 Sh. Sandeep Kumar and PW26 had issued all the cheques on his own. Accused stated that PW26 and M/s. Maxim Invest Care knew each other and M/s. Maxim Invest Care had also issued two cheques for Rs. 41,000/ and Rs. 1,10,000/ in his favour on different dates and the same were duly credited in Sandeep Kumar's account.

In respect of the debit entries in TL A/c No.5127 on 09.11.2004 and corresponding entry in loan A/c No.7/167 in the name of PW26 Sandeep Kumar, A1 stated that Branch Manager or 2nd Man has unauthorizedly used his code with malafide intention. Accused further stated that the vouchers were prepared at the instance of Branch Manager / 2nd Man, who have verified / approved the vouchers by way of long book / day book/ general ledger and the same were even audited by concurrent auditors. Accused has made a similar reply in respect of debit entry in the sum of Rs.1 lac on 20.11.2004 ; in the sum of Rs.90,000/ on 25.11.2004 in TL A/c No.5127 and the corresponding entry in the account of PW22 Sh. SPS Khurana and PW13 Sh. Gurpal Singh, respectively.

In respect of the mechanism in TBA system, accused admitted that operations are recorded with User ID. However, he stated that Branch Manager / 2nd Man have the secret powers to use any of the user ID Code and same has been done in his case. Accused admitted that entries beyond the CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr. CC No.49/11 Page 70 of 7 71 sum of Rs.1 lac are required to be authorized by the 2nd official who is either the 2nd man of the branch or the branch manager. Accused stated that code number of all staff members were known to Branch Manager / 2nd Man. Accused denied that it was not possible for anyone to use the password of the accused in the computer for preparation of debit and credit voucher. Accused stated that Branch Manager / 2nd Man knew the password of all the staff members. Accused admitted that he was given a personal computer with ALPM w.e.f. May 2002 and access to the said computer and data was controlled by him exclusively with a unique user ID No. and password known to A1 only and only A1 was authorised to use the same. However, A1 stated that the report at the end of the day could be generated with the two passwords either that one of A1 and 2nd of Branch Manager. In regard to the loan documents, accused stated that the loan documents were kept in joint custody of keys with branch manager, as per guidelines of head office of bank. In regard to the debit voucher made in respect of TL A/c No.5127 on 03.12.2004 for a sum of Rs.2,08,000/ and pay order of the same issued in favour of M/s. Maxim Invest Care, accused stated that he was not aware of the same. Accused stated that in voucher relating to this transaction, second approval was given by PW36 NPS Dhami. He stated that voucher was created by PW36 himself as in the capacity of Branch Manager / 2nd Man he could use the code No. of all the staff members. In respect to the debit CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr. CC No.49/11 Page 71 of 7 72 voucher in TL A/c No. 5127 on 20.12.2004 for a sum of Rs.1,05,000/ ; on 25.01.2005 for a sum of Rs.2,56,000/ and corresponding credit entries in TL A/c No.5102 of Sandeep Kumar and Current A/c No.33936 of Jai Mata Di Bengles Cutter, respectively, accused stated that he is not aware of any such entries and Branch Manager / 2nd Man might have used his code. Same is the reply of A1 regarding debit entry in TL A/c No.5127 for a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/ on 25.02.2005 and corresponding credit entry in current A/c No. 42024 of M/s. Babu Ram Rajesh Kumar and debit entry of Rs.2,90,000/ on 24.03.2005 and corresponding credit entry in A/c No.29565 of PW26 Sandeep Kumar. In respect of cheque Ex.PW1/2 issued by PW10 Mahender Singh in favour of Ms. Gurmeet Kaur ; cheque Ex.PW1/5 issued by PW9 HK Sharma in favour of M/s. VFFL and cheque Ex.PW1/8 issued by PW26 Sh. Sandeep Kumar on 24.03.05 in favour of Sh. Gurdial Singh, accused stated that the cheques were issued by PW10, PW9 and PW26 themselves.

In respect of debit entry in CC account No.37087 in the name of M/s. PSSI on 24.03.2005 in the sum of Rs.2,95,500/ and corresponding entry in fictitious TL A/c No.5127 accused stated that he is not aware of any such entries and Branch Manager / 2nd Man might have used his code. In respect of debit entry in the sum of Rs.25,000/ on 17.02.2005 in TL A/c No. 5127 of M/s. PSSI and corresponding credit entry in SB A/c No.19702 of Sh. CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr. CC No.49/11 Page 72 of 7 73 Surender Pal Singh Khurana, accused stated that Sh. Surender Pal Singh Khurana being accountant of PSSI gave him instructions to transfer Rs. 25,000/ from the above said account in his saving account, which he later returned back to bank.

In respect of debit credit entries dated 24.09.2004 in CC A/c No.37087 and TL A/c No.5127, accused stated that voucher Ex.PW1/12 was initially made by PW12 Mr. Shashi Wahi under his signatures and consequent entries was effected as per banking norms and finally approved by the Branch Manager or 2nd Man in the day book and general ledger at the end of the day. In respect of debit entry in A/c No.5123 of PSSI for a sum of Rs.57,365/ and Rs.93,217/ on 29.09.2004 and 18.10.2004 and wrongful credit entry in TL A/c No.5127, A1 stated that the interest on loan A/c is charged as per instructions of Branch Manager / 2nd Man and these entries were finally approved by them at the end of the day in day book and general ledger.

In respect of debit entry in account No.5075 (ALPM A/c No.84) of M/s. PSSI for a sum of Rs.1,48,745/ on 30.10.2004 on account of interest and corresponding credit entry in fictitious TL A/c No.5127 on 30.10.2004 for the similar amount, accused stated that the interest in the loan account is charged as per instructions of the branch manager or the 2nd man which entries are finally approved and signed by them at the end of the day in day CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr. CC No.49/11 Page 73 of 7 74 book and general ledger.

In respect of debit entry made in CC A/c No. 37087 of M/s. PSSI on 10.11.2004 for a sum of Rs.3,90,000/ and corresponding credit entry in fictitious TL A/c No.5127 of M/s. PSSI, accused stated that CC A/c No. 37087 is a CC account under the control of PW12 Mr. Shashi Wahi and voucher was initially made by PW12 Mr. Shashi Wahi under his signatures and approved by PW35 Sh. HPS Lakra, the 2nd Man. Similarly, voucher Ex.PW1/17 was also approved by PW12 Mr. Shashi Wahi and finally signed in the day book / general ledger by the branch manager / 2nd man in the evening. Accused stated that he has no knowledge about the reversal entry of Rs. 3,90,000/.

In respect of debit entry made in A/c No.5075 (A/c No.7/84) of M/s. PSSI for a sum of Rs.2,44,688/ on 30.11.2004 on account of interest and corresponding credit entry in fictitious TL A/c No.5127 for the similar amount, accused stated that the interest in the loan account is charged as per instructions of the branch manager or the 2nd man which entries are finally approved and signed by them at the end of the day in day book and general ledger. Accused stated that in voucher Ex.PW1/19, his code being known to the branch manager and 2nd man has been misused during TBA system and finally, signed by the branch manager and 2nd man in the day book and general ledger in the evening.

CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr. CC No.49/11 Page 74 of 7 75

Similar was the reply of the accused in respect of debit and credit entries made in A/c No.37087 in the name of PSSI and TL A/c No. 5127 in the name of M/s. PSSI respectively in the sum of Rs.48,183/ on 18.01.2005. He also made similar reply about debit entry of Rs.19,200/ on 24.01.2005 in account No.37211 of M/s. Kesho Ram Industries and corresponding credit entries in the sum of Rs.11,100/ in Bank Revenue Head and of Rs.8,100/ in fictitious TL A/c No.5127.

In respect of renewal of FDR Ex.PW1/29 A1 stated that the renewal of the FDR was done on the document already under bank lien as per banking norms as the FDR had matured on 19/12/04. Accused stated that he had no concern with the voucher, Ex.PW1/31 and the same had been prepared with code of PW21 Sh. Pritam Vaid and first and second approval has been given with the code of PW1 Mr. PS Sikka, the 2nd man of the branch.

In respect of voucher Ex.PW1/32, accused stated that on maturing of the FDR, since the customer was not traceable, hence, on the instructions of the Branch Manager, the amount was kept in Sundry Creditors Account under the signatures of concerned officer. In respect of debit and credit entries made in the account of MK Nigam & Radha Nigam, accused Joginder Singh stated that he had no knowledge about the same. In respect of the debit entries made in CC account 37087 of PSSI of Rs. CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr. CC No.49/11 Page 75 of 7 76 35,560/ on 12.03.2005 and the corresponding entry in TL A/c No.5127 of PSSI ; and the debit entry made in A/c No.5092 of Arjan Impax Pvt. Ltd., of Rs. 52,500/ on 16.03.2005 on account of processing fee and creation of vouchers, Ex.PW1/39 and corresponding credit entry in fictitious TL A/c No. 5127, accused denied the same and stated that his PF Code being known to the Branch Manager and Second Man must have been misused during TBA system.

In respect of FDR Ex.PW1/42 and Ex.PW1/43, in the name of Sh. Gurbachan Singh and Ms. Surjeet Kaur and opening of fictitious TL A/c No.5102, accused denied and stated that on the written and signed advices of customers and on the inspection and approval of the Branch Manger, further loan can be granted and on the same line, the loan in TL A/c No.5102 was granted. Accused denied that he had got signatures of Sh. Gurbachan Singh and Ms. Surjeet Kaur forged. Accused stated that the loan was duly applied and the same was duly approved by the Branch Manager. Accused stated that the vouchers were signed by the customers on its backside as endorsement in favour of third party.

In respect of the renewal of FDR, Ex.PW1/45 & Ex.PW1/46, accused stated that these FDRs were overdue for renewal since 02.03.2003 and has never been misutilized by him.

In respect of pay order, Ex.PW1/57 in the sum of Rs.1 lakh, CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr. CC No.49/11 Page 76 of 7 77 accused stated that the corresponding voucher, Ex.PW1/58 had been approved by PW35 HPS Lakra. Accused also denied to have wrongly debited A/c No.5102 with a sum of Rs.1 lakh on 14.07.2004. In respect of the debit entry in A/c No.5102 of Gurbachan Singh in the sum of Rs.4 lakhs on 07.01.2005 and credit entry in A/c No.29565 of Sh. Sandeep Kumar accused denied and stated that his signatures have been misused on these documents during TBA system. In respect of the debit credit voucher Ex.PW1/63 and Ex.PW1/65, whereby a sum of Rs.20,000/ was created in TL A/c No.5102 of Sh. Gurbachan Singh, A1 denied and stated that the sundry account is controlled by Branch Manager and 2nd Man who take action about the amount on being approached by the customers. In respect of debit / credit entry made in CC A/c No.31004 of M/s. Dharam Industries and TL A/c No. 5102 of Gurbachan Singh, respectively, accused stated that CC No.31004 is CC Account and he had no control on debit and credit in this account and the same was under the control of PW12 Mrs. Shashi Wahi.

In respect of the debit entry made in A/c No.5075 of PSSI in the sum of Rs.46,425/ on 30/6/04 on account of interest and corresponding credit entry in fictitious TL A/c 5102 of Gurbachan Singh, accused stated that the interest part is calculated at the end of the month and approved by the Branch Manager being the major income head of the bank. Similar was the reply of the accused in respect of the debit voucher made in A/c No.5100 CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr. CC No.49/11 Page 77 of 7 78 of MK Nigam & Radha Nigam and A/c No.5100 of Mittar Kaur and Ajay Chugh.

In respect of FDR, Ex.PW1/71, accused stated that FDR under bank lien is canceled prematurily as per the instructions of the customer. In respect of the debit / credit voucher Ex.PW1/76 vide which CC A/c No. 37061 was debited with a sum of Rs.85,000/ and the corresponding credit entry in the sum of Rs.27,000/ in TL A/c No.5102, accused stated that in this case also, his PF code has been misused by the other officials. Similar was the reply of the accused in relation to debit / credit voucher, Ex.PW1/77, Ex.PW1/81, Ex.PW1/83, Ex.PW1/87 and Ex.PW1/89. Accused stated that the money going to sundry creditor account is controlled by the Branch Manager and Second Man and reiterated that his PF code has been misused during TBA system. In respect of the home loan in the sum of Rs.6 lacs taken by PW26 Sh. Sandeep Kumar, accused stated that the relevant vouchers were finally approved by PW36. Accused denied that he was supervisor officer in respect of the housing loan of PW26 Sh. Sandeep Kumar. Accused stated that he was only a Mid Level Process officer and the entry was approved by the Branch Manager under his signatures who has the actual supervisory power. In respect of alleged fictitious TL A/c No.7/167 in the name of Sh. Sandeep Kumar issued under the DP No.21/04, accused stated that on application of the customer, loan account is opened and CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr. CC No.49/11 Page 78 of 7 79 approved by the Branch Manager and then total sanctioned loan is entered in MDP register duly approved and signed by the Branch Manager and only thereafter, consequent vouchers are prepared. Thereafter, relevant entry is made in DP Register for disbursement of loan amount and then the vouchers along with loan file and DP Register is sent for signature of Branch Manger. Accused stated that no direct entry was made in DP Register if the loan sanctioned falls within the power of Branch Manger and the loan in question i.e. of Rs.3,40,000/ was within the power of Branch Manager. Accused denied that the cheque, Ex.PW1/107 was given by PW26 Sh. Sandeep Kumar towards monthly installment of housing loan and the same was misused by him. Accused denied to have debited the account No.7/138 of MK Nigam and Radha Nigam for a sum of Rs.11,750/ on account of penal charges and corresponding credit entry in the loan account of Sh. Sandeep Kumar. In respect of the credit entries made in loan account of PW26 Sh. Sandeep Kumar, accused Sandeep Kumar stated that cheque in question had been issued by M/s. Maxim Invest Care in favour of Sandeep Kumar and the same was duly deposited in the account.

Accused also denied to have made the debit entry in account No. 7/78 of PSSI for a sum of Rs.2,80,000/ on 09.11.2004 and corresponding credit entry in the loan account of Sh. Sandeep Kumar. Accused also denied that FDRs Ex.PW1/42, Ex.PW1/43, Ex.PW1/35 and Ex.PW1/36 was in his CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr. CC No.49/11 Page 79 of 7 80 custody. Accused also denied that M/s. Vivek Financial Focus Ltd. and M/s. Maxim Invest Care were share brokers firm. Accused also denied that his wife A2 Balwinder Kaur was client of M/s. Maxim Invest Care, accused stated that his wife A2 Balwinder Kaur has no account either with M/s. Vivek Finacial Focus Ltd. and with M/s. Maxim Invest Care. Accused expressed his ignorance about missing of debit / credit vouchers. Accused denied that in the special audit, he was found involved in the fraud. In respect of the voucher Ex.PW5/N1 and N2, accused stated that his code was misused in Ex.PW5/Q1 and Ex.PW5/Q2.

Accused denied to have written the letter Ex.PW5/S and S2. Accused Joginder Singh also denied that he had demanded a loan of Rs. 1,25,000/ on interest for a short period in January 2009 from PW9. He also denied that PW9 HK Sharma gave him a cheque, Ex.PW1/15 which was only crossed and signed by PW9 which was later on issued by him in favour of M/s. Vivek Financial Focus Ltd. Accused also denied that after sometime he told PW9 that he had deposited Rs.1,25,000/ in his account but then again took a cheque of Rs.1,25,000/ in favour of "Yourself". Accused denied that he approached PW10 Mahender Singh and asked for some donation for Gurudwara on which PW10 gave him a blank cheque Ex.PW1/2, which he illegally filled up and handed over the same to PW12 Sh. Shashi Kumar Wahi. Accused denied that in November / December 2004, he made a CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr. CC No.49/11 Page 80 of 7 81 telephone call to PW13 Sh. Gurpal Singh and had informed him that by mistake cash Rs.45,000/ has been transferred in his account from other account and on 02.12.2004. Accused expressed his ignorance about the later debit entry on the account of PW13. Accused denied his ignorance about the documents submitted by M/s. Vivek Financial Focus Ltd. and M/s. Maxim Invest Care relating to account of A2 Balwinder Kaur. Accused also denied his ignorance about the money received by M/s. Maxim Invest Care in respect of A2 Balwinder Kaur which was Ex.PW16/L1 to L5. Accused expressed his ignorance about TL A/c No.5127, accused stated that on application of the customer, the loan account was opened and approved by the Branch Manager. As per A1, loan of Rs.6 lacs has been approved by PW35 HPS Lakra and PW36 during ALPM System.

In regard to the debit entries made in said account on 12.10.2004, 04.11.2004 and 20.11.2004, A1 stated that he cannot say without seeing the relevant vouchers. However, accused stated that the transaction is always finally approved by the Branch Manager / 2nd Man at the end of the day. Accused Joginder Singh denied that PW21 Pritam Singh was under his control and instructions. In respect of FDR, Ex.PW1/32, accused stated that when on maturity of the FDR the customer is not traceable, on instructions of the Branch Manager, and therefore the amount is kept in sundry creditors account vide Ex.PW1/34. A1 stated that the sundry creditors account is CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr. CC No.49/11 Page 81 of 7 82 under the control of Branch Manager and Second Man.

In respect of vouchers Ex.PW1/86 & 87, accused stated that he had no nexus with the same. The vouchers Ex.PW1/86 was prepared by PW21 and Ex.PW1/87 was approved by PW1 PS Sikka. Accused denied to have taken a friendly loan of Rs.2,40,000/ from PW22. However, he expressed his ignorance about the credit entries in A/C. No. 5127. Accused stated that the witnesses produced by the prosecution are interested witnesses and have deposed against him on account of enemical terms and the bank witnesses have deposed to save their own skin and made him a victim of the circumstances. Accused stated that he had not helped PW1 Mr. P.S. Sikka and PW36 Mr. NPS Dhami for their promotion during the tenure when accused was posted in Head Quarter Zonal Office as a Stenographer. Accused stated that he has been implicated in false case. Accused stated that he was promoted and posted as a special cadre candidate from Stenographer stream of the bank and the requisite training for operational side was to be imparted in such cases, but he was posted as Loan Manager on operational side without imparting the proper training and had to obey the command of his seniors being a public servant. Accused stated that his duties were only as a Mid level officer to process the documents and submit the same to the Branch Manager and Second Man who were having the final authority to sanction and approve the loan in favour of the customer. Accused further CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr. CC No.49/11 Page 82 of 7 83 stated that the sundry creditors account in the bank is always in the control of Branch Manager and Second Man who authenticate the transaction in that account. All the banking transaction of the day are finally checked and signed in the Day Book and General Ledger by the Branch Manager and Second Man in the evening. The concurrent audit, zonal audit, special audit by Vigilance Branch and RBI team etc. are regularly done in the bank with the help of the Branch Manager and the Second Man. The keys of the safe are in joint custody of the Branch Manager and the Loan Manager. Accused stated that during TBA system, PF code of every bank employee was known to the Branch Manager and Second Man and as such his PF Code seems to have been misused taking benefit of his nontraining in operation stream of the bank. The total loan sanctioned entry is made in MDP and DP register as per the banking rules and regulations. All the vouchers and relevant documents are kept in safe custody of Daftari and verified and checked by the Branch Manager and Second Man and in case of any voucher missing qua relevant entry, then the normal banking work will not be closed on the end of the day nor the same can be put in operation on the following date. The voucher, if found missing, then the anamoly can be detected immediately and the day book and general ledger could not be tallied in absence of the vouchers.

CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr. CC No.49/11 Page 83 of 7 84 4.1 In her statement u/S.313 Cr.P.C., A2 Balwinder Kaur expressed her ignorance and stated that she being a housewife does not know anything. A2 Balwinder Kaur denied that the whole amount was paid to some broker under her name. A2 denied to have registered herself with M/s. Maxim Invest Care at any point of time. She stated that she had no account either with M/s. Vivek Financial Focus Ltd. or with M/s. Maxim Invest Care. A2 Balwinder Kaur expressed her unawareness about any amount being paid to some broker under her name. A2 Balwinder Kaur stated that Account No. 16012 with M/s. Maxim Invest Care does not belong to her. A2 stated that she had never opened any account with any bank or non banking institution or in any other office. She stated that she had no nexus with M/s. Maxim Invest Care. She was never registered with the same. A2 denied to have received any amount at any point of time. A2 stated that she has been falsely implicated on the basis of surmises and conjectures as she happened to be wife of A1 Joginder Singh. A2 denied to have opened any bank account in her name in any bank or any non banking institution or with M/s. Vivek Financial Focus Ltd. or M/s. Maxim Invest Care.

DEFENCE EVIDENCE 5.0 A1 Joginder Singh also examined 4 witnesses in his defence.

DW1 Sh. Jatender Pal Singh produced the board note, CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr. CC No.49/11 Page 84 of 7 85 Ex.DW1/A regarding promotion from specialized category. DW1 also produced list Ex.DW1/B in which name of A1 Joginder Singh was duly appeared. DW1 also proved the letter Ex.DW1/C whereby he was promoted from JMSG - I to MMGS - II. The service record of A1 of place of his posting has been proved as Ex.DW1/D. The record of training imparted to A1 during his service has been proved as Ex.DW1/E. DW2 Sh. Ajit Singh produced the photocopy of bank guidelines as per ID circular No.1420 dated 02.07.94 and proved the same as Ex.DW2/B. This circular is regarding the custody of security documents.

DW3 Sh. RK Bajaj produced the photocopy of circular No.622 dated 03.03.83 and proved the same as Ex.DW3/A and also produced the proved the circular No.816 dated 11.02.85 as Ex.DW3/B regarding holding of cash keys.

DW4 Sh. Inderjeet Kukreja, an official from Punjab & Sindh Bank, Chandni Chowk Branch, Delhi, who incidentally was posted in same branch during the year 2003 to 2005, produced and proved the photocopy of relevant extract of DP register from December 2003 to 2005 running into 17 pages as Ex.DW4/A. He also proved and produced the MDP register for the period December 2003 to December 2005 running into 24 pages as Ex.DW4/B. The photocopy of general ledger of 09.08.2004 running into 10 pages has been proved as Ex.DW4/C and photocopy of general ledger of CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr. CC No.49/11 Page 85 of 7 86 23.08.2004 running into 10 pages has been proved as Ex.DW4/D. The photocopy of general ledger of 12.10.2004 running into 10 pages has been proved Ex.DW4/E . The photocopy of general ledger of 18.10.2004 running into 10 pages has been proved as is Ex.DW4/F. The photocopy of general ledger of 25.10.2004 running into 10 pages has been proved as Ex.DW4/G. The photocopy of general ledger of 30.10.2004 running into 10 pages has been proved as Ex.DW4/H. The photocopy of general ledger of 04.11.2004 running into 10 pages has been proved as is Ex.DW4/J. The photocopy of general ledger of 08.11.2004 running into 10 pages has been proved as Ex.DW4/K. The photocopy of general ledger of 10.11.2004 running into 10 pages has been proved as Ex.DW4/L. DW4 also proved the photocopy of day book running into 3 pages each, of 12.10.2004 as Ex.DW4/M ; of 18.10.2004 as Ex.DW4/N ; of 25.10.2004 as Ex.DW4/O ; of 30.10.2004 as Ex.DW4/P ; of 04.11.2004 as Ex.DW4/Q ; of 08.11.2004 as Ex.DW4/R and of 10.11.2004 as Ex.DW4/S. DW4 further proved photocopies of day book of 08.12.2003 running into 3 pages as Ex.DW4/S1 ; of day book of 15.12.2003 running into 3 pages as Ex.DW4/S2 ; of day book of 12.01.2004 running into 2 pages as Ex.DW4/S3 ; of day book of 19.01.2004 running into 3 pages as Ex.DW4/S4; of day book of 09/02/2004 running into 3 pages as Ex.DW4/S5 ; of day book of 23.02.2004 running into 2 pages as Ex.DW4/S6 ; of day book of 08.03.2004 CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr. CC No.49/11 Page 86 of 7 87 running into 3 pages as Ex.DW4/S7 ; of day book of 22.03.2004 running into 3 pages as Ex.DW4/S8 ; of day book of 02.06.2004 running into 2 pages as Ex.DW4/S9 ; of day book of 04.06.2004 running into 3 pages as Ex.DW4/S10.

DW4 further proved the photocopy of day book of 15.06.2004 running into 3 pages as Ex.DW4/S11 ; the photocopy of day book of 19.07.2004 running into 2 pages as Ex.DW4/S12 ; the photocopy of day book of 26.07.2004 running into 3 pages as Ex.DW4/S13 ; the photocopy of day book of 09.08.2004 running into 3 pages as Ex.DW4/S14 ; the photocopy of day book of 23.08.2004 running into 2 pages as Ex.DW4/S15 ; the photocopy of day book of 15.09.2004 running into 3 pages as Ex.DW4/S16 ; the photocopy of day book of 27.09.2004 running into 3 pages as Ex.DW4/S17 ; the photocopy of day book of 18.01.2005 running into 2 pages as Ex.DW4/S18 ; the photocopy of day book of 24.01.2005 running into 2 pages as Ex.DW4/S19 ; the photocopy of day book of 25.01.2005 running into 2 pages as Ex.DW4/S20 ; the photocopy of day book of 07.02.2005 running into 2 pages as Ex.DW4/S21 (OS&R).

DW4 also produced and proved the photocopy of the general ledger dtd. 08.12.03 running into 11 pages as Ex.DW4/T1 ; the photocopy of the general ledger dtd. 15.12.03 running into 10 pages as Ex.DW4/T2 ; the photocopy of the general ledger dtd. 12.01.04 running into 10 pages as CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr. CC No.49/11 Page 87 of 7 88 Ex.DW4/T3 ; the photocopy of the general ledger dtd. 19.01.04 running into 10 pages as Ex.DW4/T4 ; the photocopy of the general ledger dtd. 09.02.04 running into 10 pages as Ex.DW4/T5 ; the photocopy of the general ledger dtd. 23.02.04 running into 10 pages as Ex.DW4/T6 ; the photocopy of the general ledger dtd. 17.05.04 running into 10 pages as Ex.DW4/T7 ; the photocopy of the general ledger dtd. 02.06.04 running into 10 pages as Ex.DW4/T8 ; the photocopy of the general ledger dtd. 15.06.04 running into 10 pages as Ex.DW4/T9 ; the photocopy of the general ledger dtd. 19.07.04 running into 10 pages as Ex.DW4/T10 ; the photocopy of the general ledger dtd. 26.07.04 running into 10 pages as Ex.DW4/T11 ; the photocopy of the general ledger dtd. 18.01.05 running into 03 pages as Ex.DW4/T12 ; the photocopy of the general ledger dtd. 24.01.2005 running into 03 pages as Ex.DW4/T13 ; the photocopy of the general ledger dtd. 25.01.2005 running into 03 pages as Ex.DW4/T14 ; the photocopy of the general ledger dtd. 04.06.2004 running into 16 pages as Ex.DW4/T15 ; the photocopy of the general ledger dtd. 08.03.2005 running into 3 pages as Ex.DW4/T16 ; the photocopy of the general ledger dtd. 11.03.2005 running into 03 pages as Ex.DW4/T17 ; the photocopy of the general ledger dtd. 14.03.2005 running into 03 pages as Ex.DW4/T18.

DW4 also proved the photocopy of day book dated 17.05.2004 running into 3 pages as Ex.DW4/U1 ; the photocopy of day book dated CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr. CC No.49/11 Page 88 of 7 89 08.03.2005 running into 2 pages as Ex.DW4/U2 ; the photocopy of day book dated 11.03.2005 running into 2 pages as Ex.DW4/U3.

The photocopy of the general ledger dtd. 01.06.2004 running into 10 pages has been proved as Ex.DW4/V1 ; the photocopy of the general ledger dtd. 03.12.04 running into 3 pages has been proved as Ex.DW4/V2 ; the photocopy of the general ledger dtd. 13.12.04 running into 05 pages has been proved as Ex.DW4/V3. The photocopy of day book dated 01/06/04 running into 3 pages has been proved as Ex.DW4/W1.

SUBMISSIONS 6.0 Sh. Rajpal Singh, Ld. Counsel for A1 Joginder Singh and A2 Balwinder Kaur, made detailed and intensive arguments. He primarily submitted that prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the accused persons, mainly, on the ground that prosecution has led insufficient evidence to prove the charge and secondly, that actually the fraud was committed by other officers of the bank and accused has been implicated falsely on account of the fact that such senior officials were nursing grudge against the accused and they had also exploited the fact that accused had recently been promoted from a special category and did not have any training. Sh. Rajpal Singh, Ld. counsel submitted that the transactions relevant to the present case took place between December 2003 to March CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr. CC No.49/11 Page 89 of 7 90 2005. In this case, preliminary enquiry was held by the bank on the basis of which present case was registered and initially, FIR was lodged at PS Kotwali and subsequently, the present RC was lodged. Ld. counsel raised the question that whether the second FIR can be lodged when the first FIR was already under investigation. Sh. Rajpal Singh, Ld. counsel submitted that Hon'ble Lieutenant Governor, Delhi had no power to transfer the investigation from local police to CBI. In respect of A2 Balwinder Kaur, Ld. Counsel submitted that the case of the CBI is that the money was transferred from the bank account to Balwinder Kaur whereas prosecution has not examined any witness or proved any document regarding the fact that A2 Balwinder Kaur had any account in any bank. Ld. counsel further submitted that Sh. Gurdial Singh, alleged subbroker has not been examined by the prosecution despite being cited as a witness which accounts to withholding of material evidence. In regard to the alleged share transactions, prosecution has examined only PW4 Sh. Ashok Kumar Kakkar and PW16 Sh. Tarun Kumar Gupta. PW4 has proved the Client Registration Opening Form in respect of A2 Balwinder Kaur as Ex.PW4/A. However, it has been proved by the FSL expert that the signature on such Client Registration Form Ex.PW4/A are not of A2 Balwinder Kaur. Ld. counsel submitted that CBI intentionally did not send the specimen signature of Gurdial Singh. It has further been submitted that Ex.PW16/J1 to J8 are the fictitious documents. CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr. CC No.49/11 Page 90 of 7 91 A2 Balwinder Kaur had never opened any account in M/s Vivek Financial Focus Ltd. and this fact has been proved by the testimony of PW4 Sh. Ashok Kumar Kakkar and PW16 Sh. Tarun Kumar Gupta. Ld. counsel submitted that there is not even an iota of evidence regarding complicity of A2 Balwinder Kaur in the crime.

Sh. Rajpal Singh, Ld. counsel invited the attention of the court that prosecution has examined 37 witnesses. The case of the prosecution is that fictitious loan accounts were created and money was transferred from other accounts and in this manner there was diversion of funds. In respect of sanction of loan, Ld. counsel submitted that the relevant witnesses are PW1 Sh. PS Sikka, PW35 Sh. Harvinder Pal Singh Lakhra and PW36 Sh. Narender Pal Singh Dhami. Ld. counsel argued in detail regarding the procedure of maintenance of Long book and Day book and the procedure regarding the maintenance of vouchers. Ld. counsel submitted that Long Book is prepared at the end of business and this Long Book alongwith the corresponding voucher is handed over to the daftari. The daftari hands over all the vouchers and Long book to Day Book Clerk, who would then prepare the Day Book tallying with every entry from the voucher. This Day book is sent to the IInd man who would then check all the entries and sign the same. Simultaneously, the General Ledger Print is taken out. It is submitted that in Long Book entry of all the voucher is made and in Day book only CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr. CC No.49/11 Page 91 of 7 92 consolidated entry is made. Sh. Rajpal Singh, Ld. counsel submitted that unless the Branch Manager signs the DP and MDP register, loan cannot be disbursed and therefore, only Loan Manager cannot disburse the loan, unless approved by the Branch Manager. In respect of loan against FDR, Ld. counsel has read the relevant portions of the testimony of PW1 Sh. PS Sikka, PW32 Sh. RPS Maan, PW35 Sh. HPS Lakhra, PW36 Sh. NPS Dhami and PW5 Sh. GS Sachdeva to bring home the point that only Loan Manager cannot grant term loan and no loan can be disbursed unless it is duly sanctioned by the Branch Manager. In respect of alleged fictitious loan account TL No. 5127, Ld. counsel submitted that the voucher Ex.PW1/E (D8) has duly been approved by Branch Manager PW36 NPS Dhami at point B. There also appears signature of Sh. HPS Lakhra PW35 at point C. Similarly, credit voucher Ex.PW1/F (D9), has duly been approved by PW35 Sh. HPS Lakhra at point B. In respect of Manager Cheque, in favour of M/s Vivek Financial Focus Pvt. Ltd., in the sum of Rs. 6 lakhs Ex.PW1/J, it has duly been admittedly signed by PW36 Sh. NPS Dhami at point A. Ld. counsel also relied upon Ex.DW4/S16, Day book of the relevant date which contains debit and credit entry of Rs. 6 lakhs and the same has been signed by PW36 Sh. NPS Dhami. Similarly, Ld. counsel has relied upon the General Ledger as on 10/11/04 Ex.PW1/R (D18) / Ex.PW4/L in which the entries have duly been verified. Ld. counsel has also relied upon Day book of CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr. CC No.49/11 Page 92 of 7 93 10/11/04 Ex.PW4/S wherein the entry of Rs. 2,80,000/ has duly been verified. Sh. Rajpal Singh, Ld. counsel submitted that A1 Joginder Singh joined the bank in 1995 as Clerk cum Typist, after 23 years, he became stenographer and continued to work as steno till 2001. The accused was promoted as Executive Assistant (Manager Scale II) on 20/11/01 and posted to Chandni Chowk branch. The accused was assigned duty of Manager (Loan) in mid 2002, till then he was working as steno with Branch Manager. However, Sh. Rajpal Singh, Ld. counsel submitted that from 21/4/05 to 27/4/05, the preliminary enquiry was conducted by PW20 Sh. Inderjeet Singh, PW23 Sh. Ashok Kumar Agarwal, PW32 Sh. RPS Maan. Ld. counsel submitted that PW3 Sh. OP Sharma, PW6 Sh. Amarjit Singh, PW7 Sh. Prem Prakash, PW14 Sh. Kuldeep Kumar Anand, PW4 Sh. Ashok Kumar Kakkar, PW16 Sh. Tarun Kumar Gupta, PW8 Dr. Rajiva Gupta, PW30 Sh. Devesh Sharma, PW28 SI Joginder Singh and PW29 SI Yashpal Singh are formal witnesses. Ld. counsel submitted that from Punjab and Sindh Bank, 14 witnesses have been examined. In respect of the fact that vouchers were received by daftari and were kept in safe custody, Ld. counsel has relied upon testimony of PW21 Sh. Pritam Singh, PW23 Sh. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, PW25 Sh. Inderjeet Singh Walia, PW32 Sh. RPS Maan, PW35 Sh. HOS Lakhra and PW36 Sh. NPS Dhami. In respect of custody of documents, Ld. counsel has relied upon the testimony of PW1 Sh. PS Sikka and PW5 Sh. GS CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr. CC No.49/11 Page 93 of 7 94 Sachdeva. Ld. counsel submitted that the certificate given by PW5 Sh. GS Sachdeva regarding missing of documents (Ex.PW5/H) is a wrong document, as the vouchers which are stated to be missing are actually available on record. Ld. counsel submitted that PW18 Sh. Kiran Kumar Arora who had conducted the special audit, admitted in his evidence that nothing wrong was found during the audit. In respect of the constant monitoring and regular audit being done Ld. counsel has relied upon the testimony of bank officials and read out the relevant portion of their evidence. Ld. counsel submitted that it has been admitted by the witnesses from the bank that no exception report was prepared. Ld. counsel further submitted that the officials from bank have deposed that constant auditing and monitoring was done and nothing was found against the accused. Ld. counsel relied upon the testimony of PW1 Sh. PS Sikka who has stated that in the bank various kinds of audits are conducted which include annual inspection, short inspection etc and RBI team also gets the audit conducted by Chartered Accountant. Ld. counsel submitted that Total Branch Automation (TBA) system came to effect on 22/11/04. It was not disputed that before that, Branch was working in ALPM system. In TBA all the desks are inter connected. In respect of the fact that security documents remained in the joint custody, Ld. counsel relied upon testimony of PW5 Sh. GS Sachdeva, PW25 Sh. Inderjeet Singh Walia and PW36 Sh. NPS Dhami. Ld. CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr. CC No.49/11 Page 94 of 7 95 counsel submitted that it has come in the evidence of prosecution witnesses that safe could be opened only jointly with the keys. In regard to the safe custody of security documents, Ld. counsel relied upon the circular proved as Ex.DW2/B. Ld. counsel submitted that sundry credit account was used to be dealt only by the Manager or the second man. In this regard, the Ld. counsel read out the relevant portion of the testimony of PW21 Sh. Pritam Singh, PW25 Sh. Inderjeet Singh Walia, PW36 Sh. NPS Dhami, PW35 Sh. HPS Lakhra and PW1 Sh. PS Sikka that sundry account is the impersonal banking account of the bank. In respect of the sundry account entries, Ld. counsel submitted that entry dtd. 2/6/04 Ex.PW1/63 (D92) was checked by the accused at point 'B' and approved by Sh. HPS Lakhra PW35 at point 'C' who should be held responsible in respect of voucher Ex.PW1/77 (D108). Ld. counsel submitted that second approval was granted by PW1 PS Sikka. However, Ld. counsel conceded that voucher Ex.PW1/78 (D109) was created and approved by the accused only. Similar was the stand taken by the Ld. Counsel for the accused in respect of voucher Ex.PW1/84 (D114), Ex.PW1/86 (D116), Ex.PW1/88 (D118). In respect of voucher Ex.PW1/35 (D66) Ld. counsel submitted that second approval was granted by PW36 Sh. NPS Dhami.

In respect of the loan sanctioned to PSSI, vide TL A/c No. 5127, Ld. counsel submitted that loan of Rs. 6 lakhs was approved and sanctioned CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr. CC No.49/11 Page 95 of 7 96 by PW36 Sh. NPS Dhami and debit voucher Ex.PW1/E (D8) was approved by PW36 Sh. NPS Dhami and the credit voucher Ex.PW1/F (D9) was approved by PW35 HPS Lakhra at point 'B'. In respect of loan procedure, preparation of vouchers etc., Ld. counsel read out the relevant portion of the testimony of PW21 Sh. Pritam Singh, PW35 Sh. HPS Lakhra and PW36 Sh. NPS Dhami. Ld. counsel reiterated that without approval of the Branch Manager, the loan of Rs. 6 lakhs could not have been sanctioned. It was noted that loan of Rs. 6 lakhs was released vide DP No. 33/04 whereas, as per document D6, the TL of Rs. 1.5 crore in favour of PSSI was also sanctioned under same DP No.. Ld. counsel submitted that the document D6 (Ex.PW1/G) did not relate to the period 15/9/04 when the loan was granted. Ld. counsel also placed reliance on Ex.DW4/S16 Day book of 15/9/04, where entries were checked and rechecked. Sh. Rajpal Singh, Ld. counsel submitted that the general ledger Ex.PW1/R, Ex.DW4/L (D18) of 10/11/04 have also been signed by PW36 Sh. NPS Dhami. Ld. counsel submitted that there is no document on the record to connect the accused with the entry "H", "J" and "G" in statement of account Ex.PW1/H. Ld. counsel submitted that in regard to the entry of Rs. 48,616/ in statement of account Ex.PW1/H, there is debit entry in the Long book Ex.PW1/N (D14). It has been submitted that it indicates that all the entries had duly been checked and cross checked by the 2nd man and Branch Manager. Similarly, the general ledger of CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr. CC No.49/11 Page 96 of 7 97 12/10/04 Ex.DW4/E and Day book of the same date Ex.DW4/M has also been proved on record. Similarly, in respect of Manager Cheque Ex.PW1/10 (D16) in favour of M/s Vivek Financial Focus Pvt. Ltd., Ld. counsel proved the general ledger of 4/11/04 Ex.DW4/J which has duly been checked and verified by PW36 Sh. NPS Dhami. The Day book of 4/11/04 Ex.DW4/Q has also been proved. Ld. counsel submitted that prosecution has not been able to produce any evidence to connect the accused with the entry at point "E" on Ex.PW1/H. Similar was the submission in respect of entry dtd. 9/11/04 of Rs. 2,80,000/. In respect of the entry of Rs. 2,80,000/ on Ex.PW1/H, Ld. counsel submitted that Ex.PW1/Q has duly been proved as well the day Ex.DW4/S and general ledger has also been proved on record, whereas, as per case of the prosecution voucher was not traceable. It has been submitted that Day book duly bears the signature of PW35 Sh. HPS Lakhra. It was duly admitted by the Ld. counsel for the accused, during the course of arguments that vouchers relating to Bank Revenue Account D56 Ex.PW1/23, D58 Ex.PW1/24, D60 Ex.PW1/26, D61 Ex.PW1/28, D67 Ex.PW1/38, D68 Ex.PW1/39, D113 Ex.PW1/53 and D50 Ex.PW1/19 were created and approved by the accused. Ld. counsel also submitted that the documents where only PF No. of the accused is appearing are D38 Ex.PW1/9 dtd. 24/3/05, D53 Ex.PW5/Q dtd. 7/12/04, D56 Ex.PW1/23 dtd. 18/1/05, D60 Ex.PW1/26 dtd. 7/2/05, D61 Ex.PW1/28 dtd. 17/2/05, D67 Ex.PW1/38 dtd. CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr. CC No.49/11 Page 97 of 7 98 12/3/05, D68 Ex.PW1/39 dtd. 16/3/05, D109 Ex.PW1/78 dtd. 11/12/04, D111 Ex.PW1/81 dtd. 11./12/04, D113 Ex.PW1/83 dtd/ 16/12/04, D115 Ex/PW1/85 dtd. 4/1/05, D118 Ex.PW1/88 dtd/ 5/1/05, D120 Ex.PW1/89 dtd. 17/1/05, D58, Ex.PW1/24 dtd. 24/1/05. Ld. counsel for the accused also admitted that the vouchers D28 Ex.PW1/2, D32 Ex.PW1/11, D55 Ex.PW1/3, D39 Ex.PW1/6, D88 Ex.PW1/59 and D54 Ex.PW5/Q2 were created by the accused and approvals were granted by him only. Ld. counsel pointed out voucher Ex.PW1/87 relating to the entry of Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Management Committee was neither created nor approved by the accused. However, it is a matter of record that the voucher Ex.PW1/88 was created and approved by the accused only. Sh. Rajpal Singh, Ld. counsel for the accused submitted that PW10 Sh. MS Negi has admitted that he did not institute any proceedings against Smt. Gurmeet Kaur. It was also verified that Gurmeet Kaur is the wife of Sh. Gurdial Singh and has no concern with the accused. In respect of entry dtd. 3/12/04 as reflected in statement of account Ex.PW1/T, Ld. counsel submitted that this entry has wrongly been attributed to the accused. Similarly, in respect of entry dtd. 3/12/04, the voucher (D25) Ex.PW1/X , it had the approval of PW36 Sh. NPS Dhami and the pay order issued against this entry Ex.PW1/W has duly been signed by PW12 Sh. Shashi Kumar Wahi and PW2 Sh. Madan Sain alongwith A1 Joginder Singh. Ld. counsel pointed out that Long Book and Day book in CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr. CC No.49/11 Page 98 of 7 99 regard to this entry has not been produced by the bank despite being summoned and the perusal of the general ledger Ex.DW4/V2 shows that all the entries have duly been checked and verified. Sh. Rajpal Singh, Ld. counsel vehemently refuted the allegation of CBI that PW26 Sh. Sandeep Kumar had merely handed over the signed blank cheques to A1 Joginder Singh for the purpose of payment of installments. Ld. counsel submitted that general ledger of 15/6/04 Ex.DW4/T9 shows that it has duly been signed by PW36 Sh. NPS Dhami and PW35 Sh. HPS Lakhra. Similarly, final day book as on 15/6/04 Ex.DW4/S11 has been signed by PW35 Sh. HPS Lakhra. Sh. Rajpal Singh, Ld. counsel submitted that this Court must invoke Section 73 of Indian Evidence Act and compare the signatures of PW35 Sh. HPS Lakhra, PW36 Sh. NPS Dhami and PW2 Sh. Madan Sain with the signatures and handwriting appearing on the record. Ld. counsel submitted that Sh. Sandeep Kumar has not given any advance cheque to the accused and in this respect relied upon the testimony of PW25 Sh. Inderjeet Singh Walia, PW36 Sh. NPS Dhami and PW35 Sh. HPS Lakhra. Ld. counsel submitted that in the loan document Ex.PW1/91, there is no mention of advance cheque being given by PW26 Sh. Sandeep Kumar at the time of disbursement of loan. Ld. counsel pointed out that as per FSL report Ex.PW24/L, the specimen / questioned handwriting of accused persons have not matched with Q8 body of cheque Ex.PW1/2, Q9 body of cheque Ex.PW1/107, Q10 body of cheque CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr. CC No.49/11 Page 99 of 7 100 Ex/PW1/62, Q11 body of cheque Ex/PW1/Q. Ld. counsel submitted that it has come in the evidence of FSL expert that Q13, Q14, Q15, Q16 have matched with the signature of PW26 Sh. Sandeep Kumar. In regard to the entries in statement of account D70 Ex.DW1/54, Ld. counsel submitted that accused has no connection with these entries and similarly, in respect of credit entries dtd. 1/6/04 except Ex.PW5/R2. Similarly, Ld. counsel submitted that for the remaining credit entries except D95 Ex.PW1/66, no other document has been produced. Ld. counsel further submitted that in regard to entry of Rs. 3,70,000/ signature of PW12 Sh. Shashi Kumar Wahi and PW35 Sh. HPS Lakhra are also appearing on Ex.PW1/16. Ld. counsel submitted that document D48 Ex.PW1/18 which apparently dtd. 3/12/04 shows that PSSI was very much aware about the entries made in the account but they did not take any action. Ld. counsel submitted that on document D63 Ex.PW1/31, it was prepared by PW21 and first and second approval was given by PW1. Sh. Rajpal Singh, Ld. counsel further reiterated that existence of Long Book and Day book of the relevant date indicates that debit and credit vouchers were duly available as the Long Book can be prepared only with the debit and credit vouchers and in case the vouchers are not available exception voucher and mistake register would have been prepared. The fact that exceptional report of missing vouchers has not been prepared indicates that vouchers were duly available and are intentionally been withheld. Sh. CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr. CC No.49/11 Page 100 of 7 101 Rajpal Singh, Ld. counsel submitted that alleged extra judicial confession made by the accused cannot be relied upon as the prosecution has even withheld the original of this document. Ld. counsel further submitted that PW5 Sh. GS Sachdeva has admitted that he has not seen A1 Joginder Singh writing in his presence and he also admitted that he has no personal knowledge about the facts of this case. Ld. counsel further submitted that even prosecution has not produced the original special audit report and preliminary enquiry report. It has been pointed out that even on the copy of report, the signature of PW20 Sh. Inderjeet Singh Sidhu and PW23 Sh. Ashok Kumar Agarwal are not appearing. Sh. Rajpal Singh, Ld. counsel submitted that PW22 Sh. Surender Pal Singh Khurana is not a reliable witness and his testimony cannot be admitted. Sh. Rajpal Singh, Ld. counsel also raised a legal objection on registration of the case by CBI while the investigation was underway in FIR No. 164/05 at PS Kotwali. Ld. counsel submitted that even as per document Ex.PW37/A, the investigation was transferred on 21/6/05, whereas CBI registered the case on 18/5/05. It has been submitted that even approval of Hon'ble LG is not on record. Sh. Rajpal Singh, Ld. counsel argued vehemently that Hon'ble LG had no authority to transfer the investigation and relied upon The Delhi Cloth & General Mills Company Ltd (now Shriam Industrial Enterprises Ltd.) and Anr. Vs. The Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors., DRJ 1992 Vol. 24. Sh. Rajpal CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr. CC No.49/11 Page 101 of 7 102 Singh, Ld. counsel has also heavily relied upon the provision of The Banker's Book Evidence Act, 1891. Ld. counsel submitted that none of the documents produced by the prosecution has been certified in accordance with the provisions of Banker's Book Evidence Act. Ld. counsel submitted that certificate as required u/S 2(A) of the Banker's Book Evidence Act has not been produced. It has been submitted that certificate Ex.PW1/K signed by PW5 Sh. GS Sachdeva is undated and at the best, this document fulfills only the part condition of Banker's Book Evidence Act. Similarly, another certificate proved by the prosecution is also not in accordance with the Banker's Book Evidence Act. In support of his contentions, Ld. counsel has relied upon Keshub Mahindra etc Vs. State of MP, III (1996) CCR 181 SC and Amitabh Anilchandra Shah Vs. CBI & Anr., IV (2013)SLT 555. 6.1 Sh. DK Singh, Ld. PP for CBI, submitted that there is enough material on record and prosecution has successfully proved its case against the accused persons. In respect of the case registered by the CBI, Ld. PP submitted that CBI has only taken over the investigation. Ld. PP relied upon Sec. 2(3) of DSPE Act, 1946 and Sec. 4 & 5 of DSPE Act, 1946. Ld. PP submits that no prejudice has been caused to the accused. In respect of the applicability of Banker's Book Evidence Act, Section 2(A), Ld. PP submitted that during the trial the accused has never raised this issue. The documents CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr. CC No.49/11 Page 102 of 7 103 have duly been proved by the prosecution and no prejudice has been caused to the accused. Ld. PP submitted that on the mere technicalities, the otherwise reliable case of the prosecution cannot be thrown out. Ld. PP submitted that PW1 Sh. PS Sikka has duly proved the extra judicial confession made by the accused at the initial stage. Ld. PP has also heavily relied upon the testimony of PW20 Sh. Inderjeet Singh, PW23 Sh. Ashok Kumar Agarwal, PW32 Sh. RPS Maan who had conducted the preliminary enquiry and found the accused guilty. Ld. PP submitted that the defence has not cross examined the witnesses regarding the contents of the report. Ld. PP submitted that the accused in his statement u/S 313 Cr.PC has admitted that preliminary enquiry was duly conducted. The accused has also not raised the plea anywhere that extra judicial confession was procured forcibly. Sh. DK Singh, Ld. PP submitted that defence taken by the accused is an after thought and therefore, cannot be taken into consideration and is liable to be rejected. In support of his contention, Ld. PP has relied upon Chandradhar Goswami & Ors Vs. Gauhati Bank Ltd., AIR 1967 SC 1058, PC Purushothama Reddiar Vs. S. Perumal, AIR 1972 SC 608, Javer Chand & Ors Vs. Pukhraj Surana, AIR 1961 SC 1655, State Bank of India Vs. Yumnam Gouramani Singh, AIR 1994 SC 1644, Bank of India Vs. Yeturi Maredi Shanker Rao & Anr., AIR 1987 SC 821, Mohd. Arid @ Ashfaq Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2011) 13 SCC 621, State of Orissa Vs. Sapneswar CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr. CC No.49/11 Page 103 of 7 104 Thappa, 1987 CRLJ 612, Pranenda Mohan Das Vs. Central Bank of India, AIR 1978 Calcutta 55, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kiran Singh & Ors., (2004) 10 SCC 649, Kari Choudhary Vs. Mst. Sita Devi & Ors., (2002) 1 SCC 714, Naryan Singh & Ors. Vs. State of MP, (1985) 4 SCC 26, State of Karnataka by HAL Airport Police Vs. Thangaraj, AIR 1995 SC 2124, Pakkirisamy Vs. State of TN, (1997) 8 SCC 158, Pancho Vs. State of Haryana, (2011) 10 SCC 165, Podyami Sukada Vs. State of MP, AIR 2010 SC 2977 and Sahadevan & Anr. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2012) 6 SCC 403.

6.2 In rebuttal, Sh. Rajpal Singh, Ld. counsel for the accused submitted that prosecution has intentionally and malafidely withheld the primary evidence. The documents produced by the prosecution are inadmissible and are in violation of Banker's Book Evidence Act. The statement of PW1 PS Sikka is not above board. Ld. counsel submitted that PW1 PS Sikka and PW36 NPS Dhami were also prosecuted and punished for the irregularities conducted by them in the departmental proceedings. Sh. Rajpal Singh, Ld. counsel submitted that there was direct transaction between M/s Maxim Invest Care and PW26 Sh. Sandeep Kumar. Ld. counsel concluded that the documents which favoured the accused, have been intentionally withheld by the prosecution. Ld. Counsel for accused CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr. CC No.49/11 Page 104 of 7 105 submitted that prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the accused persons and, therefore, accused persons are entitled to be acquitted. APPRECIATION OF CITED JUDGMENTS 7.0 In respect of the FIR registered by CBI Sh. D.K. Singh, Ld. PP has relied upon Kari Choudhary Vs. Sita Devi and Ors, (2002) 1 SCC 714. In this case it was interalia held that ultimate object of every investigation is to find out whether the offence alleged have been committed and if so who have committed it. Ld. PP submitted that in the present case there was no impediment for the CBI to proceed with the investigation, even if the FIR has earlier been lodged by the local police. Ld. PP further submitted that the facts of present case are distinguishable from the facts mentioned in Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah Vs. CBI and Anr, IV(2013) SLT 555, in this case it was interalia held that Second FIR in respect of the offence in course of same prosecution is unwarranted. It was held that filing of supplementary chargesheet in this regard will suffice cause.

I have gone through the Amitbhai's case (supra) wherein it was interalia held that the investigation is commenced as per the provisions of Cr.P.C. on coming to know about the commission of cognizable offence. The police is not precluded from conducting further investigation, if they come into possession of the further information or material. In such a case CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr. CC No.49/11 Page 105 of 7 106 there is no need to register fresh FIR and second FIR in respect of same offence / event is not required. The present case is entirely on different facts. Initially an FIR was lodged with the local Police but in view of the gravity of the matter, the investigation was transferred to the CBI. The CBI simply took over the investigation from the local Police. It was not a case where two FIRs were registered and parallel investigation was conducted. The contention of Ld. counsel for the accused that Hon'ble Lt. Governor of Delhi had no authority to transfer of the case is noted only to be rejected.

CBI has also heavily relied upon the extra judicial confession made by the accused during the course of department enquiry. In support of its contention CBI has relied upon Narayan Singh and Others Vs. State of M.P., (1985) 4 SCC 26. Ld. PP submitted that several prosecution witnesses have corroborated the extra judicial confession and proved the circumstances, therefore the reliance can be placed upon the extra judicial confession made by the accused. Reliance has been placed upon Pakkirisamy Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (1997) 8 SCC 158, Pancho Vs. State of Haryana:(2011) 10 SCC 165, Podyami Sukada Vs. State of M.P., AIR 2010 SC 2977, Sahadevan and Another Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2012) 6 SCC 403.

Sh. Raj Pal Singh, Ld. counsel for the accused has taken strong plea that in absence of certificate as required under Section 2A of the CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr. CC No.49/11 Page 106 of 7 107 Bankers Book Evidence Act 1891 documents produced by the prosecution cannot be read in the evidence. CBI has controverted the same and has submitted that accused cannot be allowed to take this plea at this stage in view of the fact that during the course of trial the accused has not taken any such plea. CBI has relied upon Chandradhar Goswami and others Vs. Gauhati Bank Ltd., AIR 1967 SC 1058. It has been submitted that the correctness of the record has not been challenged by the accused at any point of time and the documents relating to the bank have properly been admitted during the course of evidence and now it is not open for the accused to object to the admissibility of the documents which have duly been marked as exhibit without any objection from the side of the accused. Reliance has been placed upon P.C. Purushothama Reddiar Vs. S. Perumal, AIR 1972 SC 608 and Bhagat Ram Vs. Khetu Ram, AIR 1929 PC 110 (V16). Reliance has also been placed upon full bench judgment of Supreme Court in Javer Chand and others Vs. Pukhraj Surana, AIR 1961 SC 1655.

Ld. PP submitted that when a document has once been admitted in evidence, such admission cannot be called in question at any stage of the suit or the proceedings on the ground.

In State Bank of India Vs. Yumnam Gouramani Singh, AIR 1994 SC 1644, it was interalia held that if entry made in the book of account produced by the bank have been corroborated by the Branch Manager and CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr. CC No.49/11 Page 107 of 7 108 other bank officials, it is a sufficient proof of loan transaction. Ld. PP for CBI submitted that prosecution witnesses have corroborated the fictitious entries made by the accused and therefore, at this stage no objection can be raised.

Sh. D.K. Singh, Ld. PP submitted that it has been conclusively proved that accused has signed at point Q on Ex.PW1/105, purporting to be signature of Sandeep Kumar, and therefore the accused used the document knowing it to be forged thus he is liable to be convicted for the offence u/s 467 IPC. Reliance has been placed upon Bank of India Vs. Yeturi Maredi Shanker Rao and another, AIR 1987 SC 821.

I have carefully gone through the judgment cited by the Ld. Counsel for the accused. The judgment cited by the Ld. defence counsel are respectfully distinguished on the facts and circumstances of the case. It is a settled proposition that one additional or different fact may make a world of difference between the conclusions in two cases and blindly placing reliance on a decision is never proper. It is trite that while applying ratio, the Court may not pick out a word or sentence from the judgment divorced from the context in which the said question arose for consideration. (Reference may be [(2005) 4 SCC 649] .) In this made to Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India regard, the following words of Lord Denning, quoted in Haryana Financial CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr. CC No.49/11 Page 108 of 7 109 Corpn. v. Jagdamba Oil Mills [(2002) 3 SCC 496], are also quite apt: (SCC p. 509, para 22) "22. ... 'Each case depends on its own facts and a close similarity between one case and another is not enough because even a single significant detail may alter the entire aspect. In deciding such cases, one should avoid the temptation to decide cases (as said by Cardozo) by matching the colour of one case against the colour of another. To decide, therefore, on which side of the line a case falls, the broad resemblance to another case is not at all decisive.' "

CONCLUSION 8.0 Accused persons have been charged for the offence u/S.120B r/w 201, 409, 467, 471 IPC r/w S.13(1)(c) r/w S.13(2) of POC Act, 1988. A1 Joginder Singh has also been separately charged for the offence u/S.467, 471, 409, 201 IPC and S.13(1)(c) r/w S.13(2) of POC Act, 1988. A2 Balwinder Kaur has also been individually charged for the offence u/S.411 IPC.

Section 13(1)(c) of POC Act, 1988 reads as under :

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

(c) if he dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriates or otherwise converts for his own use any property entrusted to him or under his control as a public servant or allows any other person to do so."

There has been a discussion that whether section 405 / 409 IPC and S.13(1)(c) are distinct or identical in nature. However, Hon'ble Supreme Court has settled that section 405 IPC and section 13(1)(c) of POC Act are CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr. CC No.49/11 Page 109 of 7 110 not identical in essence, import and content. It has been said that there are points of difference between S.405 IPC and S.5(1)(c) of POC Act, 1947 (equivalent to S.13(1)(c) of POC Act, 1988). The dishonest misappropriation contemplated in S.405 IPC is different, from u/S.5(1)(c) POC Act. The latter section is much wider in in amplitude than the former. In section 405 IPC, the words used are "in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, of any legal contract, express or implied." There is no such expression in S.13(1)(c) of POC Act, 1988. Reference can be made to Om Prakash Gupta Vs. State of UP, AIR 1957 SC 458. Similarly in State of M.P. Vs. Veereshwar Rao Agnihotri, AIR 1957 SC 592, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the offence of criminal misconduct punishable u/S.5(2) of POC Act, 1947 is not identical in essence, import and content with an offence under S.409 IPC. It is also pertinent to mention here that in K. Narasimhan Vs. State, 1978 Cri.L.J. (NOC) 175 (Goa), it was held that conviction u/S.409 IPC and also u/S.5(2) of POC Act, 1947 equivalent to S.13(2) of POC Act, 1988, is not illegal. S.5(1)(c) of POC Act, 1947 (Equivalent to S.13(1)(c) of POC, 1988) is distinct then S.409 IPC, in respect to mensrea, which is enlarged for the purposes of S.13(1)(c) of POC Act, 1988. The elements which make an act fraudulent are deceit or intention to deceit and in some cases even mere secrecy. Where there is neither the intention to deceive, nor secrecy, the act though dishonest is not CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr. CC No.49/11 Page 110 of 7 111 fraudulent.

The word "dishonestly" has been defined u/S.24 IPC and "fraudulently" has been defined u/S.25 IPC, which read as under :

"24. Dishonestly Whoever does anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another person, is said to do that thing "dishonestly"."

"25. Fraudulently - A person is said to do a thing fraudulently if he does that thing with intent to defraud but not otherwise."

8.1 Accused No.1 herein, was a Senior Bank Manager and was posted as Manager (Loans). The question herein may arise that whether he was entrusted with the money which he misappropriated. In Som Nath Puri Vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1972 SC 1490, it was held that before a public servant can be convicted u/S.5(1)(c) of POC Act, 1947 or u/S.409 IPC, the property which is said to have been misappropriated must be entrusted to him.

Section 405 IPC defines criminal breach of trust which reads as under :

"405. Criminal breach of trust - Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or coverts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or wilfully suffers any other person so to do, commits "criminal breach of trust"." CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr. CC No.49/11 Page 111 of 7 112

It is pertinent to mention here that S.409 IPC provides as under:

"409. Criminal breach of trust by public servant, or by banker, merchant or agent - Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property in his capacity of a public servant or in the way of his business as a banker, merchant, factor, broker, attorney or agent, commits criminal breach of trust in respect of that property, shall be punished with [imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."

A bare perusal of the provision would indicate that the law does not provide that the entrustment of the property should be by someone or amount received must be property of the person on whose behalf it is received. If the accused is given the possession of the property for a specific purpose or to deal with it in a particular manner, the ownership being in some person other than the accused, accused can be said to be entrusted with the said property and accused is duty bound to apply the same in accordance with the terms of entrustment and for the benefit of the owner. 8.2 It has been inter alia held in Kailash Kumar Sanwatia Vs. State of Bihar & Anr., (2003) 7 SCC 399, that in order to sustain conviction under Section 409, two ingredients are to be proved. They are:

1. the accused, a public servant, or banker or agent was entrusted with property for which he is dutybound to account for; and,

2. the accused has committed criminal breach of trust. CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr. CC No.49/11 Page 112 of 7 113

What amounts to criminal breach of trust is provided in Section 405 IPC. The basic requirement to bring home the accusations under Section 405 are the requirements to prove conjointly (1) entrustment, and (2) whether the accused was actuated by dishonest intention or not; misappropriated it or converted it to his own use to the detriment of the persons who entrusted it.

It has come in the evidence of the prosecution that accused was supervisory officer in regard to the loan advanced and he was also custodian of the loan documents. Thus, in the capacity of the Manager (Loan) he was entrusted with the duty of disbursing the loan as per procedure. 8.3 In Rabindra Kumar Dey Vs. State of Orissa, AIR 1997 SC 170, the Apex Court held that in a case under Section 5(1)(c) of POC Act, 1947 although the onus lies on the prosecution to prove the charge against the accused, yet where the entrustment is proved or admitted it will be difficult for the prosecution to prove the actual mode or manner of misappropriation and in such a case the prosecution would have to rely largely on the truth or the falsity of the explanation given by the accused. It is a settled proposition that onus always lies affirmative on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and it is not contemplate that accused should prove his case CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr. CC No.49/11 Page 113 of 7 114 with the same strictness and rigour as the prosecution is required to prove a criminal charge. It would be sufficient for the accused to prove his case by the standard of preponderance of probabilities as as to throw the doubt in the story of prosecution.

In the present case, the prosecution has consistently proved on record that accused was posted as Manager (Loan) and he was supervisor of the loan accounts being maintained in the Branch and was also custodian of the loan documents. Once the prosecution has proved it then being the Loan Manager the fact that how the fictitious loan accounts were created, the onus would shift upon the accused to disclose before the court that how and in what circumstances, these accounts were opened. It is pertinent to mention here that PW19 Harvinder Singh and PW26 Sh. Sandeep Kumar have specifically stated that they have not taken any such loan, then it was for the accused to explain that how and under what circumstances, these loan accounts were opened. The accused in his defence has produced catena of day book, general ledger book so as to show that some of the entries which are part of the charge against the accused, have been duly proved and authenticated by the senior officers. The question would be that, if other officers of the bank have been negligent, whether illegality or irregularity committed by the accused would come to an end. The court will have to find CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr. CC No.49/11 Page 114 of 7 115 the answer that if other officers of the bank have not been brought to the book, can the accused be allowed to go scotfree. It is pertinent to mention here that accused has not disputed about the opening of alleged fictitious loan account or creation and approval of other vouchers, his defence is that he acted at the instructions of his superior officers or his secret code has been misused by the senior officers.

8.4 There is no doubt in the mind of the court that it seems that at the relevant period, the supervision in Punjab & Sindh Bank, Chandni Chowk Branch was almost non existent, and it was free for all. The accounts of the private parties were being tampered with at the regular intervals with all impunity without any fear of law or punishment. The senior officers of the bank who have also appeared as the prosecution witnesses, have also been admittedly found guilty during departmental proceedings. They were sitting with closed eyes and mechanically authenticated the documents placed or produced by the accused.

The plea of the accused that he had done all the work on the instructions of his senior officers cannot exonerate him. No public servant is expected or allowed to commit illegality, if he has been directed by his senior officers to do so. Accused has not made any complaint at any point of time to CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr. CC No.49/11 Page 115 of 7 116 any forum regarding the illegal instructions / directions given to him by his senior officers.

The plea of the accused that he has done all the work on the instructions / directions of his senior officers, makes one thing clear that he was party to the irregularities or fraud being committed in the bank. It is a settled proposition that to establish the charge of criminal breach of trust, the prosecution is not obliged to prove the precise mode of conversion, misappropriation or misapplication by the accused of the property entrusted to him or over which he has dominion. The principal ingredient of the criminal breach of trust being dishonest misappropriation or conversion may not be proved by a matter of direct proof. Thus, failure in breach of an obligation may justifiably lead to an inference of dishonest misappropriation or conversion. In such cases, the intention of the accused has to be seen. The prosecution cannot be expected to eliminate all possible defences or circumstances which may exonerate the accused. If the certain facts are within the knowledge of the accused, it is for him to prove the same. If the accused is saying that he has done this under the instructions or guidelines of the senior officers then it is for the accused to come in open and tell the name of those persons and to prove on record such instructions / directions. CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr. CC No.49/11 Page 116 of 7 117

Accused stated that his PF code has been misused by other officers. Merely saying so cannot take the accused out of the charge. He has to atleast prove some material on the record which could throw a doubt in the story of the prosecution. Any statement made on whims and fancy by the accused, cannot displace the otherwise reliable case of the prosecution. 8.5 This Court has gone through the entire record produced by the prosecution, testimony of the witnesses as well the statement of accused, defence witnesses and documents produced by the defence witnesses. The defence taken by the accused that he has merely acted on the instructions of his superiors and his secret code has been misused by the Branch Manager / 2nd Man, seems to be an after thought and is liable to be rejected. The accused was a senior official in the bank. He was at a very sensitive position. Being Manager (Loan) he was entrusted a heavy responsibility of maintaining the loan accounts. The perusal of the record indicates that Chandni Chowk branch was a busy branch and had high volume accounts. This job expected highest degree of integrity, sincerity, dedication and commitment from the accused. It seems that accused failed on all the counts and did not carry out his responsibilities. Ld. Counsel for the accused has also taken an objection that the record produced by the prosecution relating to the bank transactions cannot be read in evidence, in absence of certificate CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr. CC No.49/11 Page 117 of 7 118 as required u/S 2(A) of Banker's Book of Evidence Act. I consider that this objection taken by the Ld. Counsel for the accused at the fag end is also liable to be rejected. The objective of the Bankers Book Evidence Act is to inspire the confidence of the litigants and to enable the bank to produce the certified copies of relevant extracts from its books, in view of the fact that the records maintained by the bank are voluminous as well sensitive in nature, thus, not safe to have frequent movement from the bank to the various courts. The various safeguards provided by the Bankers Book Evidence Act, 1891 as amended from time to time is only to ensure that no party can be allowed to abuse the process by tampering with the records. In the present case, it has never been the defence of the accused that the record produced by the bank during the course of evidence was tampered with, or forged, or fabricated by the prosecution or his own department. The defence is that his secret code has been misused by his erstwhile superior colleagues. Thus, on the face of it, there is no doubt as to the authenticity of the documents or no dispute has been raised that the records produced before the court are different from the records maintained in the bank in the usual course of business. The accused never raised any objection while the documents were being exhibited and on this count also he is precluded and estopped from questioning admissibility thereof at a later stage. CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr. CC No.49/11 Page 118 of 7 119 8.6 Sh. Rajpal Singh, Ld. Counsel for the accused has painstakingly took this Court during the course of marathon arguments, to each and every document including the hundred's of vouchers. Ld. Counsel for the accused in all fairness admitted that on number of vouchers, there are signature of accused only. The journey of the Court through the document has also shown that numerous vouchers were created by the accused only and either first or second approval was granted by the accused or there is no approval by any officer other than the accused. The following table shows the summary of vouchers which itself depicts that accused himself has engineered the fraud, forged the documents and had been fraudulently manipulating the bank records:

S. DATE NAME DEBIT NAME CREDIT CREAT 1st 2nd EXHIBI N. OF THE (Rs.) OF THE (Rs.) ED BY APPRO APPRO T NO.

                PARTY              PARTY                VAL VAL

1     25/11/04 PSSI TL      90000 SPS             45000 J02660 J02660       NO PW1/V2
               A/C 5127           Khurana
                                  Gurpal          45000
                                  Singh
2     25/1/05   PSSI TL    256000 Jai Mata      256000 J02660 J02660 J02660  PW1/Z
                A/C 5127          Di 
                                  Bengals 
                                  Cutt.
3     25/2/05   PSSI  TL  125000 Babu           125000 J02660 J02660 J02660 PW1/3
                A/C 5127         Ram 
                                 Rajesh 
                                 Kumar
4     24/3/05   PSSI TL    290000 Sandeep       290000 J02660 J02660 J02660 PW1/6
                A/C 5127          Kumar



CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr.                 CC No.49/11                   Page 119 of 7
                                             120

5   24/3/05    PSSI  CC  295500 PSSI TL  295500 J02660 J02660 J02660 PW1/9
               A/C              A/C 
               37087            5127
6   17/2/05    PSSI TL      25000 SPS             25000 J02660 J02660    No.     PW1/11
               A/C 5127           Khurana
7   24/9/04                       PSSI TL         20790 J02660      NO. NO       PW1/13
                                  A/C 
                                  7/178
8   10/11/04                      Loan      390000 J02660           NO. NO.      PW1/17
                                  A/C NO. 
                                  1/178 OF 
                                  PSSI
9   30/11/04 PSSI TL       244688 PSSI TL  244688 J02660 J02660 J02660 PW1/19
             A/C NO.              A/C NO. 
             5075                 5127
10 18/1/05     Commissi     22590 PSSI TL         22590 J02660 J02660   NO       PW1/23
               on on              A/C NO. 
               Guarantee          5127
11 24/1/05     Kesho        19200 Commis          11100 J02660 J02660  NO.       PW1/24
               Ram Inds.          sion on 
                                  Guarante
                                  e
                                  PSSI             8100
                                  TL A/C 
                                  5127
12 28/1/05     PSSI CC      10000 PSSI TL         10000 J02660 J02660 NO.        PW 
               37087              A/C                                            1/25
                                  5127
13 07/02/05 Kesho           15000 PSSI TL         15000 J02660 J02660 NO.        PW1/26
            Ram Inds.             A/C 
                                  NO. 
                                  5127
14 17/2/05     Dharam       34690 Commis          20810  J02660 J02660 NO.       PW1/28
               Inds.              sion on 
                                  Guarante




CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr.                CC No.49/11                       Page 120 of 7
                                             121

                                    e 
                                    PSSI TL       13880
                                    A/C 
                                    5127
15 12/03/05 PSSI CC         35560 Commis          18560 J02660 J02660 No       PW1/38
            A/C NO.               sion on 
            37087                 Guarante
                                  e
                                    PSSI TL       17000
                                    A/C 
                                    5127
16 16/3/05     Arjan        52500 PSSI            52500 J02660 J02660 NO.      PW 
               Impex              TL A/C                                       1/39
               Pvt. Ltd.          NO. 
                                  5127
17 12/01/04 LABD           950000                         J02660   NO. NO.     PW1/51
            Gurbacha
            n (Debit 
            Voucher)
18 07/01/05 Gurbacha       400000 Sandeep        400000 J02660 J02660 J02660 PW1/59
            n                     Kumar
19 04/06/04 Sr.        200000                             J02660   NO. NO.     PW1/65
            Creditors 
            A/c 
            (Debit 
            Voucher)
20 04/06/04                         Term         200000 J02660     NO. NO.     PW1/66
                                    Loan 
                                    A/c
21 22/11/04 Sunder          85000 Gurbach         27000 J02660 J02660 NO.      PW1/76
            Lal & Co.             an Singh
                                    Mitter        23000
                                    Kaur & 
                                    Ajay TL 
                                    A/C 




CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr.                  CC No.49/11                   Page 121 of 7
                                            122

                                    5119
                                    Mitter        21000
                                    Kaur & 
                                    Ajay TL 
                                    A/C 
                                    5131
                                    Mitter        14000
                                    Kaur TL 
                                    A/C 
                                    5138 
22 11/12/04 Sundry         100000 Gurbach 100000 J02660 J02660 NO.             PW1/78
            Creditors             an Singh 
                                  TL A/C 
                                  5102
23 11/12/04 S.R.K.          37680 Gurbach         37680 J02660 J02660 NO.      PW1/81
            Overseas              an Singh 
                                  TL A/C 
                                  5102
24 16/12/04 Trading         15518 Gurbach         15518 J02660 J02660 NO.      PW 
            Corp. Of              an Singh                                     1/83
            India                 TL A/C 
                                  5102
25 01/01/05 Sundry          20000                         J02660   NO. NO.     PW1/84
            Creditors(
            debit 
            Voucher)
26 04/01/05 Sundry          20000 Gurbach         20000 J02660 J02660 NO.      PW1/85
            Creditors             an Singh 
                                  TL A/C 
                                  5102
27 05/01/05 Sundry          38781 Gurbach         90490 J02660 J02660 NO.      PW1/88
            Creditors             an Singh 
                                  TL A/C 
                                  5102
               Sundry       51709




CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr.                  CC No.49/11                   Page 122 of 7
                                                 123

               Creditors
28 17/1/05     P.S.             3000 Loan               800 J02660 J02660 NO.       PW1/89
               Tourist               Processi
               Service               ng Fee
                                       Gurbach         2200
                                       an Singh 
                                       TL A/C 
                                       5102
29 15/6/04     Loan A/c  340000                               J02660    NO NO       PW 
               Sandeep                                                              1/105
               (Debit 
               Voucher)
30 13/7/04     SB A/c           8000                          J02660   NO. No.      PW1/10
               Sandeep                                                              8
31 05/10/07                            Loan           41000      NO. J02660 NO.     PW1/11
                                       A/c                                          0
                                       Sandeep 
                                       7167
32 20/12/04 PSSI           105000 Sandeep            105000 J02660 J02660 J02660 PW5/N
                                  Kumar                                          2
33 07/12/04 M.K.            10000 M.K.                55000 J02660 J02660 No.       PW5/Q
            Nigam &               Nigam                                             1
            Radha                 & Radha 
            Nigam                 Nigam
               Manish       55000 PSSI                10000
               Fincon. 
               Pvt.Ltd.
34 07/12/04 PSSI            10000 Darshan             10000 J02660 J02660  NO.      PW 
                                  Devi                                              5/Q2
35 14/6/04     Loan A/c         5000                          J02660   NO. NO.      PW 
               Rajinder                                                             5/R7

The bare glance of the above said list would make it clear that at CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr. CC No.49/11 Page 123 of 7 124 35 instances, as mentioned above, accused Joginder Singh himself created the vouchers and granted both the approvals, or granted first approval himself and second approval was not taken from anybody. Therefore, on numerous occasions A1 Joginder Singh created the vouchers himself and did not take first or second approval from other officers. The table produced herein above fortifies the case of the prosecution and an elaborate discussion on the table would only add to the volume of the judgment. The perusal of this table clearly shows that A1 Joginder Singh had been playing with TL No. 5127 of PSSI as well the account of Sh. Gurubachan Singh and TL No. 7/167 of Sh. Sandeep Kumar. It also shows that accused had also been manipulating the Sundry Creditors Account and Bank Revenue Head of the bank and shifted the entry from one place to another only to balance the accounts. The defence of the accused that Day Book and General Ledger had been signed by the superior officers would also not reduce the criminality of the accused. It is correct that strict supervision and vigilance of the Branch Manager / 2nd Man could have prevented the fraud but accused, having long experience in banking transactions manipulated the accounts in such a manner that it was not easy also to detect the same. The accused actually abused the system itself and ensured that corresponding debit and credit entries are made in the account so that there is proper reconciliation at the end of the day. It would not be expected that superior Branch Manager / 2nd CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr. CC No.49/11 Page 124 of 7 125 Man at the time of tallying the Day Book or General Ledger would check with the parties that actually this transaction has been carried out or not. The perusal of the Day Book and General Ledger would verify that there are number of transactions in the bank on a given date and therefore, it would be next to impossible to verify the correctness or authenticity of each and every transaction. The accused ensured that entries are made in accordance with the prevailing accounting system, he ensured that if an account is debited with a particular amount, another account is credited with the similar amount. The accused cannot claim negative equality. It does not lie in the mouth of the accused to say that since some other persons, who could have been part of the offence have been let of, therefore, he should also be let off.

It is a settled proposition that defect in the investigation cannot be used as a premium to the accused. Reliance can be placed on Kashinath Mondal Vs. State of West Bengal, (2012) 7 SCC 699 and NV Subba Rao Vs. State, (2013) 2 SCC 162. It was inter alia held that if there is sufficient evidence to establish the substratum of the prosecution case, then irregularities which occur due to remissness of the investigating agency, which do no effect the substratum of the prosecution case, should not weigh with the court. Therefore, the plea of the accused that investigating agency has not properly conducted the investigation and left many lacuna's, is liable to be rejected in view of the fact that prosecution has led cogent and creditworthy evidence to CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr. CC No.49/11 Page 125 of 7 126 prove their case.

8.7 Broadly, the fraudulent transactions / entries were made during the period 2003 to 2005. The accused firstly opened fictitious loan account 5102 in the name of Sh. Gurubachan Singh on 12/1/04 and continued with this account till 17/1/05, TL A/c No. 7/167 in the name of Sandeep Kumar on 15/6/04 and continued till 9/11/04, thereafter, TL A/c No. 5127 in the name of PSSI was opened on 15/9/04 and continued till 24/3/05. Prior to all this, A1 Joginder Singh had fraudulently debited a sum of Rs. 1,75,000/ to TL A/c No. 7/138 of M/s MK Nigam and Radha Nigam on 15/12/03. Thus, the accused started acting sinister in December 2003 and continued till January 2005. The plea of the prosecution is that misappropriated amounts from these accounts were used for purchase of shares in the name of A2 Balwinder Kaur. Accused has taken a plea that his wife A2 Balwinder Kaur had never opened an account with any share broker firm. In this regard the prosecution has duly proved on record the individual client registration form of M/s Maxim Invest Care in the name of Balwinder Kaur and proved the same as Ex.PW4/A. However, the accused has taken the plea that signature on this form at Q1 has not matched with specimen signature of A2 Balwinder Kaur. It is pertinent to mention that the form Ex.PW4/A do bear the photograph of A2 Balwinder Kaur on the same. It would be not CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr. CC No.49/11 Page 126 of 7 127 believable that somebody else, other than A1 himself or A2 herself would submit the client registration form having the photograph of A2 Balwinder Kaur on the same. The fact that signatures have not matched with the specimen / admitted handwriting of A2 Balwinder Kaur, rather makes this Court to think that A1 Joginder Singh was having a malafide intention since inception. It cannot be ruled out that only inorder to safeguard the detection of the crime in future, A1 Joginder Singh ensured that A2 Balwinder Kaur herself do not sign the form and he got the form signed from somebody else. There is no reason that M/s Maxim Invest Care would open an account in the name of Balwinder Kaur w/o Joginder Singh with the same address and the photograph without the consent of the accused persons. There can be a possibility that A1 Joginder singh got this account opened without the knowledge of A2 Balwinder Kaur. It is pertinent to mention here that A2 Balwinder Kaur is a housewife and in the kind of society prevailing in the middle class families, husbands sometimes carry out the business or trading, particularly government servants, in the name of their spouse without their actual participation and even knowledge, and, therefore wife may not be party to the decision so taken.

The essential ingredient of the offence of "criminal conspiracy", defined in Section 120A IPC, is the agreement to commit an offence. In a case where the agreement is for accomplishment of an act which by itself CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr. CC No.49/11 Page 127 of 7 128 constitutes an offence, then in that event, unless the statute so requires, no overt act is necessary to be proved by the prosecution because in such a fact situation criminal conspiracy is established by proving such an agreement. In other words, where the conspiracy alleged is with regard to commission of a serious crime of the nature as contemplated in Section 120B read with the proviso to subsection (2) of Section 120A IPC, then in that event mere proof of an agreement between the accused for commission of such crime alone is enough to bring about a conviction under Section 120B and the proof of any overt act by the accused or by any one of them would not be necessary. (See Suresh Chandra Bahri v. State of Bihar [1995 Supp (1) SCC 80 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 60] .) The conspiracy is an independent offence and therefore, prosecution for purpose of bringing the charge of criminal conspiracy read with the provision of PC 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 the accused. In order to establish the guilt, what is necessary to show the meeting of mind of two or more persons for doing an illegal act or an act by illegal means. 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. Reference can be made to State of MP Vs. Sheetla Sahai, (2009) 8 SCC 617 and N.V. Subba CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr. CC No.49/11 Page 128 of 7 129 Rao Vs. State, (2013) 2 SCC 162. In the present case, the prosecution has alleged conspiracy between A1 and A2. The case of the prosecution is that A1 by opening fictitious loan accounts and by making false entries diverted the public money for trading into shares in the name of his wife A2 Balwinder Kaur. In order to establish the charge of conspiracy, the prosecution is required to prove that the accused persons, who are allegedly in the conspiracy, should be particips criminus. Thus, there should be meeting of mind regarding the illegal act or an act by illegal means. The mere knowledge of the accused would not make himself or herself liable for the act of conspiracy, unless and untill there is a substantive evidence to prove that the accused persons had been moving in tandem and there was a common design and a common intention of both to work in furtherance of the common design. To held a person liable for conspiracy it has to be proved that the conspirator played his or her separate part in one integrated and united effort to achieve the common purpose. The perusal of the record indicates that there is no occular or documentary evidence to prove that A2 was in conspiracy with A1. It has to be kept in mind that A2 Balwinder Kaur is wife of A1 Joginder Singh and there is a strong possibility that A2 Balwinder Kaur, though in knowledge of the act, may not be partner in crime committed by the accused. It has been conclusively proved on record that account opening form Ex.PW4/A has not been signed by A2 Balwinder CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr. CC No.49/11 Page 129 of 7 130 Kaur. Rather it seems that A1 Joginder Singh has betrayed the trust and faith of his wife A2 Balwinder Kaur and has misused her name for trading into the shares. The receipts Ex.PW16/L1 and Ex.PW16/L2 on which the signatures of A2 Balwinder Kaur have been proved, are too insignificant and cannot be held sufficient to make A2 Balwinder Kaur liable for conspiracy. 8.8 The prosecution has also proved the statement of account regarding the share transactions in the name of A2 Balwinder Kaur as Ex.PW16/J7 and further Ex.PW16/K1 to Ex.PW16/K4. The statement of account Ex.PW16/K1 is for the period 15/6/04 to 16/6/04, 6/1/05 to 10/1/05 and 12/1/04 to 14/1/04. The perusal of the statement of account for the period 12/1/04 to 14/1/04 Ex.PW16/K3 indicates that there is a credit entry of Rs. 9,50,000/ having been received by pay order by M/s Maxim Invest Care on 12/1/04. The credit of this account has been given to A2 Balwinder Kaur. It is pertinent to mention here that TL A/c No. 5102 was also opened on 12/1/04 in the sum of Rs. 9,50,000/ and on the same day a pay order in the sum of Rs. 9,50,000/ was made in the name of Sh. Gurdial Singh Ex.PW1/56. It cannot be a mere coincidence. There is further credit entry of Rs. 4 lakh on 8/1/05 as per which in the account of Balwinder Kaur it has been shown that cheque No. 447388 Ex.PW1/62 has been received for Vivek Financial Focus Ltd and a credit of Rs. 4 lakh has been given to the account CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr. CC No.49/11 Page 130 of 7 131 of Balwinder Kaur. It is pertinent to mention here that cheque Ex.PW1/62 purported to have been issued by PW26 Sandeep Kumar in favour of M/s Vivek Financial Focus Ltd has been denied to have been issued by PW26 Sandeep Kumar. PW26 Sandeep Kumar stated that he was instructed by A1 Joginder Singh to hand over to him blank cheques with his signature to ensure uninterrupted repayment of loan. PW26 Sandeep Kumar has also deposed on oath in his testimony that the body writing on the cheque Ex.PW1/62 is not his. It again cannot be a coincidence that the blank cheque which was given by PW26 Sandeep Kumar at the instructions of A1 Joginder Singh was credited in the account of Balwinder Kaur with M/s Maxim Invest Care. The statement of account from 15/6/04 to 16/6/04 Ex.PW16/K1 also shows a credit entry in the sum of Rs. 3,40,000/, as per this the cheque No. 447386 was received on 15/6/04. This cheque again is one of those cheques which PW26 Sandeep Kumar had given blank at the instructions of A1 Joginder Singh and were later on misused by the accused. Accused has simply stated that these records produced by the prosecution are fictitious. It is a settled legal proposition that mere suggestions do not carry any evidentary value. PW16 Tarun Kumar Gupta an employee of Vivek Financial Focus Ltd. has duly proved these records. PW16 specifically denied the suggestion that A2 Balwinder Kaur had no transaction with Vivek CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr. CC No.49/11 Page 131 of 7 132 Financial Focus Ltd. PW16 has also denied the suggestion that a fictitious account was opened in the name of A2 Balwinder Kaur. It also came in the evidence of PW16 that during the relevant period, opening of Dmat account was not necessary and there was no necessity to show Pan Card at the time of share transactions. The documents produced on the record show that there had been a constant loss in the share transactions and it seems that A1 Joginder Singh inorder to make up with the loss played with the public money and had been issuing the pay order / Manager cheque to the share holder firms against the share transactions in the name of his wife. The details of such pay orders are as follows:

SR.NO.       DATE                IN FAVOUR OF         AMOUNT             EXHIBIT NO.


     1       15/12/03            Maxim Invest.                1,75,000         PW1/37
     2       12/01/04            S. Gurdial Singh             9,50,000       PW1/56/1/52
     3       08/04/04            Gurmeet Kaur                 1,00,000         PW1/57
     4       15/09/04            Vivek Financial              6,00,000          PW1/J
     5       12/10/04            Vivek Financial                 48616          PW1/K


     6       04/11/04            Vivek Financial                90000           PW1/O
     7       03/12/04            Maxim Invest.                2,08,000          PW1/N

The perusal of statement of account maintained by Vivek Financial Focus Ltd. in the name of Balwinder Kaur Ex/PW16/J7 shows that CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr. CC No.49/11 Page 132 of 7 133 there is a credit of Rs. 48,616/ given to her on 12/10/04. This entry also coincides with the entry dtd. 12/10/04 in TL A/c No. 5127. TL A/c No. 5127 was debited with Rs. 48, 616/ on 12/10/04. It has also come on record that in the Term Loan, the loan is advanced only once or twice, however, term Loan accounts allegedly opened by A1 Joginder Singh were being operated like a current account.

8.9 It has come in the evidence of prosecution witnesses that it was not possible for any person to use the password of accused in computer for preparation of debit and credit voucher and the accused was given a personal computer with ALPM and access to the said system and data was controlled exclusively by the accused only with a unique ID No. and password known to him only. The prosecution has also proved that accused was entrusted with the duty of keeping the safe custody of the documents entrusted to him and the loan documents were kept in safe custody in the vault under his lock and key. The accused granted the loan against the DP No. on which another loan had already been granted or proved to have been issued. 8.10 The case of the prosecution is that the FDRs against loan, which were under the custody of the accused, had been unauthorisedly renewed by the accused and fresh loan was released against them. The details of such CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr. CC No.49/11 Page 133 of 7 134 FDRs are as follows:

SR. FDR NO. ISSUED IN THE PRINCIPAL DATE OF ISSUE EXHIBIT NO. NAME OF AMOUNT NO.

1 515122 PSSI 2,95,885 04/12/04 PW1/29 2 515332 Mohinder Impex. 5,08,215 03/03/05 PW1/32 3 514436 Gurbachan Singh 6,24,045 08/01/04 PW1/42 4 514437 Gurbachan Singh 6,24,045 08/01/04 PW1/43 5 278989 Gurbachan Singh 3,04,600 02/12/96 PW1/45 6 278990 Gurbachan Singh 3,04,600 02/12/96 PW 1/46 7 514544 M.G. Rajan 50534 17/02/04 PW1/71 8 514062 PSSI 9,24,471 14/07/03 PW5/P It came in the evidence that if a lien is marked on the FD, it is kept in the safe custody of the bank and A1 being Loan Manager was in custody of such FDRs. It has also come in the evidence that if FDR is kept in bank lien, it cannot be used as a collateral security for securing another loan till the first loan has been repaid or collateral security has been discharged.

Thus, A1 Joginder Singh had used these documents, which were in his custody unauthorisedly and illegally for opening fictitious accounts. The accused had been taking inconsistence defence. He took the plea that no loan can be approved without prior sanction of the Branch Manager, whereas in his statement of accused, the accused admitted that sometime when the CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr. CC No.49/11 Page 134 of 7 135 Branch Manager is in field for business development, the loan is sanctioned after taking telephonic / verbal permission of the Desk Officer and Middle Level Officer. It is a settled proposition that statement u/S 313 Cr.PC can be a relevant consideration for the Courts to examine, particularly, when the prosecution has been able to establish the chain of events. Reliance can be placed upon N.V. Subba Rao v. State, (2013) 2 SCC 162 The accused has not disputed the release of Rs. 6 lakhs loan to PSSI. However, he stated that he himself has done this at the guidance / instructions of the Branch Manager / 2nd Man which on the face of it does not seem to be reliable. The handwriting report Ex.PW24/J has proved on record that purported signatures of Sandeep Kumar at Q2 and Q2A in the voucher dtd. 15/6/04 in the sum of Rs. 3,40,000/ is actually of accused A1 Joginder Singh. Thus, the forensic report has also put the seal on the case of the prosecution and falsified the defence taken by the accused.

8.10 The prosecution has heavily relied upon the preliminary enquiry conducted from 21/4/05 to 27/4/05. This enquiry was conducted by PW20 Sh. Inderjeet Singh Sidhu, PW23 Sh. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal and PW32 Sh. RPS Maan. The accused has raised an objection that the enquiry report Ex.PW1/B cannot be read against him as the original of the same has not been produced. It is pertinent to mention here that the accused has not denied CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr. CC No.49/11 Page 135 of 7 136 the factum of that enquiry. I consider that merely because the original document has not been produced, the finding of the report cannot be brushed aside. In such an enquiry, the accused was found guilty on all the counts. It is also noteworthy that accused had duly participated in that enquiry. The cross examination of PW20 Sh. Inderjeet Singh Sidhu, PW23 Sh. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal and PW32 Sh. RPS Maan, the defence has merely cross examined on the ground that the copy of report Ex.PW1/B does not bear their signature. A mere suggestion was given to PW20 Sh. Inderjeet Singh that he did not carry out the preliminary enquiry in a fair manner. This suggestion was denied by PW20 Sh. Inderjeet Singh. It may be reiterated that mere suggestion have no evidentary value. Similarly, in the cross examination of PW23 Sh. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, there is nothing which could prove that no preliminary enquiry was conducted or the same was not carried out or conducted fairly. There is no cross examination as to the authenticity or fairness of the report Ex.PW1/B. The defence chose to put only a suggestion to PW32 Sh. RPS Maan that in the preliminary enquiry report findings were given against the accused under the instructions of Chief Manager. This suggestion was also denied by PW32 Sh. RPS Maan. The defence was not able to shatter the testimony of these witnesses. CBI has also sought to place reliance upon extra judicial confession made by the accused. However, I consider that the prosecution has failed to prove the cogent and creditworthy CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr. CC No.49/11 Page 136 of 7 137 evidence in respect of the extra judicial confession. Even the originals of such extra judicial confession have not been produced before the Court. 8.11 The accused was a senior officer of the bank. The bank officials, by virtue of their duties deal with the public money. The public at large have a blind faith upon the banks and they deposit their hard earned money with a justified and legitimate expectation that their money would remain safe and secure in their accounts. The bank officials on account of their nature of job have great power of control over property entrusted to them. The breach of trust by such persons may often result in serious public or private calamity. Thus, high morality is expected of these persons and the bank officials are supposed to discharge their duties only. Reliance can be placed upon Venkateshwara Krishnan Vs. CBI, (2009) 11 SCC 737.

It's apt to note that despite searching cross examination, none of the witnesses has given way to any tergiversation. The testimony of the prosecution witnesses has not been varied from any spectrum, therefore, there is no reason to discard them.

8.12 In view of the discussions made here in above, I consider that prosecution has successfully proved that A1 Joginder Singh being a public servant / banker was entrusted with the dominion over the public money CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr. CC No.49/11 Page 137 of 7 138 being the Manager (Loan) and he by opening fictitious loan accounts and by making such false entries has committed criminal breach of trust as punishable u/S 409 IPC. The accused has misappropriated and converted the public money to his own use in violation of the legal directions. The dishonest intention of the accused is writ large on its face. The prosecution has also successfully proved that accused has forged the signature of PW26 Sh. Sandeep Kumar on voucher dtd. 15/6/04 Ex.PW1/105 and has thus committed the offence u/S 467 IPC. The accused has also used many vouchers in order to make transactions and entries in the various records knowing it to be forged and thus, committed an offence punishable u/S 471 IPC. The prosecution has also successfully proved that accused being a public servant has dishonestly and fraudulently misappropriated and converted the public money under his control for his own use and thus, committed an offence punishable u/S 13(1) (c) r/w 13(2) of the POC Act, 1988. However, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charge of conspiracy between A1 Joginder Singh and A2 Balwinder Kaur as well prosecution has failed to prove the charge u/S 201 IPC and 411 IPC against both the accused persons.

Hence, A1 Joginder Singh is convicted for the offence punishable u/Ss 409, 467, 471 IPC and Sec. 13(1)(c) r/w 13(2) of the POC Act, 1988 in RC No. 2(E)/2005EOUVII.

CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr. CC No.49/11 Page 138 of 7 139

However, A1 Joginder Singh and A2 Balwinder Kaur are acquitted of the charge punishable u/Ss 120B, 201 and 411 IPC in RC No. 2(E)/2005EOUVII.

A2 Balwinder Kaur is on bail. Her surety bond / bail bond is cancelled. Surety is discharged. Original documents, if any, on record may be returned to them against proper acknowledgment.

Announced in Open Court                          (Dinesh Kumar Sharma )
on 21.08.2013                                  Spl. Judge (PC Act) : CBI01
                                                 Saket Courts : New Delhi.




CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr.            CC No.49/11                   Page 139 of 7
                                 140




CBI Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr.   CC No.49/11   Page 140 of 7

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi District Court

Central vs . 1. Joginder Singh on 26 August, 2013