Bangalore District Court
Central Bureau Of Investigation vs Late Sri.K.A.Subramanya on 29 September, 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE XLVII ADDITIONAL CITY
CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE
FOR CBI CASES (CCH-48) AT BENGALURU
Dated this the 29th day of September 2016
PRESENT:
SRI.ASWATHA NARAYANA, B.Sc., LL.M.,
XLVII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge
and Special Judge for C.B.I. Cases,
Bengaluru.
SPECIAL CRIMINAL CASE No.144/2010
COMPLAINANT: Central Bureau of Investigation,
Represented by Inspector of
Police, Anti Corruption Branch,
Bengaluru.
(By Smt.K.S.Hema, Public Prosecutor.)
-Vs-
ACCUSED-1 : Late Sri.K.A.Subramanya,
S/o. Sri.K.V.Ananthapadmanabhaiah,
Proprietor, M/s.SCT Builders and
Developers, Kaggadasapura Main
Road, Vignana Nagara Post,
Bengaluru.
(Abated - since dead.)
ACCUSED-2: Sri.H.Dinakar Shetty,
S/o. Late Sri.Annappashetty,
Retired Senior Manager,
Vijaya Bank, Bengaluru.
R/o. No.1/C, Temple Trees
Apartment, Vinay Marg,
Opposite Siddartha Nagara,
Mysuru.
(By Sri.B.J.Prakash Singh, Advocate.)
2 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J]
ACCUSED-3: Sri.K.Ratnakar Shetty,
S/o.Sri.Seenappa Shetty,
Retired Assistant Manager,
Vijaya Bank, No.604, E-Block,
Raheja Park, Magadi Road,
Bengaluru.
(By Sri.R.Nagendra Naik,
Advocate.)
ACCUSED-4: Sri.P.N.Shivamurthy,
S/o. Late Sri.P.Nagappa,
Retired Assistant Manager,
No.148, Shivakrupa,
2nd Block, 2nd Stage,
Nagarabavi,
Bengaluru-560 072.
(By Sri.C.G.Sundar, Advocate.)
ACCUSED-5: Sri.K.A.Aswathnarayana @ Aswath,
S/o. Sri.K.V.Ananthapadmanabhaiah,
Flat No.401,
Vijayalakshmi Apartments,
B-Block, Abbayya Reddy Layout,
Kaggadasapura,
Bengaluru.
(By Sri.M.P.Damodhar &
Sri.R.Vidyasagar, Advocates.)
ACCUSED-6: Sri.Nagaraj,
S/o.Sri.Venkaiah,
Flat No.403, A-Block,
Vijayalakshmi Apartments,
4th Cross, Abbayya Reddy Layout,
Kaggadasapura,
Bengaluru-93.
(By Sri.C.G.Sundar, Advocate.)
ACCUSED-7: Sri.M.V.Sheshadri,
S/o.Late Sri.Vaidyappa,
R/o.No.858, "Narasimhaprasad",
3 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J]
15th Main, 3rd Block,
Rajajinagara,
Bengaluru-560 010.
(By Sri.M.P.Damodhar &
Sri.R.Vidyasagar, Advocates.)
ACCUSED-8: Sri.R.Ravi @ Ravi Kumar,
S/o.Sri.Raghavendraiah,
Door No.76, Ajjipura Village
and Post, Kollegal Taluk,
Chamarajanagara District.
(By Sri.M.P.Damodhar &
Sri.R.Vidyasagar, Advocates.)
ACCUSED-9: Sri.K.A.Badarinarayana,
S/o.Sri.K.A.Ananthapadmanabhaiah,
No.306, Vijayalakshmi Apartments,
B-Block, 4th Cross, Abbayya Reddy
Layout, Kaggadasapura,
C.V.Raman Nagara Post,
Bengaluru-560 093.
(By Sri.M.P.Damodhar &
Sri.R.Vidyasagar, Advocates.)
ACCUSED-10: Smt.B.S.Kanakalakshmi,
W/o.Sri.K.A.Aswathnarayana,
Flat No.401, Vijayalakshmi
Apartments, B-Block, 4th Cross,
Abbayya Reddy Layout,
Kaggadasapura,
C.V.Raman Nagara Post,
Bengaluru.
(By Sri.M.P.Damodhar &
Sri.R.Vidyasagar, Advocates.)
ACCUSED-11: Sri.Lakshmi Venkatesh Prasad
@ L.V.Prasad,
S/o.Late Sri.G.Narayana Iyer,
C/o.627/E-1, 1st C-Main,
4 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J]
Vijayanagar, II Stage,
Bengaluru-560 040.
(By Sri.M.P.Damodhar &
Sri.R.Vidyasagar, Advocates.)
1. Nature of Offence: Offence punishable under
Sections 120-B r/w. 420,
467, 468 and 471 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860
and Sections 13(2) r/w.
13 (1)(d) of the Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1988
and substantive offences
thereof.
2. Date of Commission of
Offence: 2003-2004.
3. Date of First Information
Report: 28.04.2007/31.03.2009.
4. Date of Arrest of Accused-2 to 11: Not
the Accused-2 to 11: arrested.
5. Date of Commencement
of Evidence: 10.10.2011.
6. Date of Closure of
Evidence: 12.06.2013.
7. Date of Pronouncement
29.09.2016.
of Judgment:
8. Result of the Case : Convicted.
(ASWATHA NARAYANA)
XLVII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge
and Special Judge for CBI Cases,
Bengaluru.
-o0o-
5 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J]
JUDGMENT
This Charge Sheet is filed alleging that, during the year 2003-2004 at Bengaluru, the Accused-1 to 11 entered into a Criminal Conspiracy to cheat the Vijaya Bank, HAL III Stage Branch, Bengaluru (for short, 'the Bank') and that in pursuance of the said Criminal Conspiracy, they got opened 21 SB Accounts in the names of employees of the SCT Institute of Technology, Kaggadasapura Main Road, C.V.Raman Nagara Post, Bengaluru (for short, 'the SCTIT') and other private persons between 20.08.2003 and 30.08.2003 with a dishonest intention to avail housing loans in their names, prepared false documents in the names of those employees and private persons, applied for housing loans in the names of those persons for purchasing flats constructed by the Accused-1 and that the Accused-2 to 4, who were Public Servants working in the Bank, sanctioned and disbursed the said housing loans without verifying the documents and that by colluding with the other Accused, the Accused-1 sold those flats mortgaged to the Bank to the third parties without informing the Bank and that thereby, the Accused-1 to 11 caused wrongful loss to the tune of Rs.1.81 Crores plus corresponding interest to the Bank and corresponding wrongful gain for themselves and that thus, the Accused-1 to 11 have committed the offence punishable under Sections 120-B r/w. 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'the IPC') and Sections 13(2) r/w. 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, 'the PC Act') and substantive offences thereof.
6 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J]
2. On 24.05.2010, the then Presiding Officer of this Court took cognizance and issued summons to the Accused-1 to 11. After appearance of the Accused-1 to 11 before the Court, Copies of Charge Sheet and other documents relied upon by the Complainant were furnished to them.
3. As the Accused-1 died, on 30.11.2010, an Order was passed abating the case against the Accused-1.
4. After hearing the learned Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Complainant and the learned Counsels appearing on behalf of the Accused-2 to 11, on 13.9.2011, the then Presiding Officer of this Court framed Charge for the offence punishable under Section 120-B of the IPC against the Accused-2 to 11, for the offence punishable under Sections 13(2) r/w. 13(1)(d) of the PC Act against the Accused-2 to 4, for the offence punishable under Sections 120-B r/w. 420 of the IPC against the Accused-2 to 11, for the offence punishable under Sections 120-B r/w. 467 of the IPC, 120-B r/w. 468 of the IPC and 120-B r/w. 471 of the IPC against the Accused-5 to 11. When the said Charge was read over and explained to the Accused-2 to 11, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. During trial, the Complainant got examined 69 Witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.69 and got marked 224 Documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.224 on his behalf. With that evidence, the Complainant closed his side.
7 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J]
6. On examination of the Accused-2 to 11 under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., 1973, they did not admit the case of the Complainant. The Accused-2 to 7 filed their Written Statement also by denying the case of the Complainant. The Accused-2 to 11 did not examine any witnesses on their behalf. However, they got marked 20 Documents as Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.20 on their behalf, while Cross-examining the witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant. With that evidence, the Accused-2 to 11 also closed their side.
7. During the course of arguments, the Complainant filed Application seeking amendment of Charge. After hearing both the sides, this Court passed an Order amending the Charges-1 and 3 to 6 as under:
"Inserting the words "and the Accused- 1: K.Subramanaya" in the first Charge at Page-4 and Line-13 after the words 'Technology, Bangalore' and deleting the words "120-B r/w" in Charges-3, 4, 5 and 6."
By virtue of the said amendment, the Charge framed is for the offence punishable under Sections 120-B and 420 of the IPC against the Accused-2 to 11, for the offence punishable under Sections 13(2) r/w. 13(1)(d) of the PC Act against the Accused-2 to 4 and for the offence punishable under Sections 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC against the Accused-5 to 11. When the said amended 8 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] Charge was read over and explained to the Accused-2 to 11, they pleaded not guilty to the same and claimed to be tried. Though an opportunity was given to both the sides for adducing additional evidence, if any, on the amended Charge, both the parties did not choose to adduce any additional oral or documentary evidence.
8. Heard arguments of both the sides. Perused the records, including the Written Arguments filed by both the parties.
9. The Points that arise for determination in this case are as follows:
1. Whether the Accused-2 to 11 entered into an Agreement illegally with the Accused-1 to Cheat the Bank and thereby committed an offence of Criminal Conspiracy punishable under Section 120-B r/w. Section 420 of the IPC, as alleged?
2. Whether the Accused-5 to 11 committed Forgery of Employment Certificates, Salary Certificates, Pay Slips and Form No.16 for the purpose of cheating and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 468 of the IPC, as alleged?
3. Whether the Accused-5 to 11 committed Forgery of Sale Deeds and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 467 of the IPC, as alleged?
9 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J]
4. Whether the Accused-5 to 11 used the forged documents as genuine documents knowing or having reason to believe that those documents were forged and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 471 of the IPC, as alleged?
5. Whether the Accused-2 to 11 cheated and dishonestly induced the Bank to sanction and disburse housing loans in the names of the Accused-5 to 10, P.W.19 to P.W.29, P.W.62, P.W.69, C.W.33 and Sri.Sudhir Kumar Singh and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC, as alleged?
6. Whether the Accused-2 to 4 abused their position as Public Servants to obtain pecuniary advantage for themselves or others and thereby committed an offence of Criminal Misconduct punishable under Sections 13(2) r/w.13(1)(d) of the PC Act, as alleged?
7. What Order?
10. Findings of this Court on the above Points are as follows:
Point-1: Partly in the Affirmative and Partly in the Negative against the Accused-2 to 4;
Affirmative against the Accused-5 to 11;
Point-2: Affirmative;
Point-3: Affirmative against the Accused-5, 6 and 8;
Negative against the Accused-7, 9, 10 & 11;
10 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] Point-4: Affirmative;
Point-5: Partly in the Affirmative and Partly in the Negative against the Accused-2 to 4;
Affirmative against the Accused-5 to 11;
Point-6: Affirmative;
Point-7: See final portion of this Judgment.
REASONS UNDISPUTED FACTS
11. The Accused-2 was working as Branch Manager of the Bank from 27.09.2001 to 14.05.2005. He retired from service on 31.08.2008. His service particulars are in Ex.P.134. The Accused-3 was working as Assistant Manager of the Bank from 01.07.2001 to 29.05.2004. He retired from service on 30.11.2009. His service particulars are in Ex.P.135. The Accused-4 was working as Assistant Branch Manager of the Bank from 30.01.2001 to 28.05.2005. He retired from service on 31.12.2008. His service particulars are in Ex.P.136.
12. The Accused-1 was the Chairman of the SCTIT and Proprietor of the SCT Builders and Developers (for short, 'the SCTBD'). The Accused-5 and 9 are the brothers of the Accused-1. The Accused-10 is the wife of the Accused-5. The Accused-7 was working as Principal of the SCTIT from 2002 to June 2004 and subsequently, he worked as Vice-Principal of the SCTIT. P.W.15- Sri.Y.S.Kumaraswamy was working as Principal from July 11 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] 2004 to April 2005. The Accused-11 was working as Lecturer in the SCTIT from 2002 to 2005. He also worked as In-charge Principal in the absence of the Accused-7.
13. P.W.3-Sri.B.S.Shivaprasad was working as Chief Manager of the Bank from June 2006 to April 2007. On 28.04.2007, he lodged Complaint as per Ex.P.108 to Jeevan Bheema Nagara Police Station alleging cheating against the Accused-1 and others. C.W.70-Sri.Hitendra was the Police Sub-Inspector of that Police Station at that time. On the strength of Ex.P.108, he registered the case in Crime No.115/2007 for the offence punishable under Sections 420 and 471 r/w. 120-B of the IPC and submitted FIR as per Ex.P.217. P.W.66-Sri.D.Kumar was working as Police Inspector from 19.09.2008 to 24.06.2011. He took up investigation of the case registered by C.W.70. In the meanwhile, the case was transferred to the Complainant. As per the Order dated 31.03.2009 of the Police Commissioner, Bengaluru, P.W.66 transferred the records to the Complainant through a Covering Letter-Ex.P.218.
14. On such transfer of the case, on 31.03.2009, Sri.Narasimha Komar, Superintendent of Police of the Complainant registered this case in RC.5(A)/2009 and submitted FIR as per Ex.P.188. Investigation of the case was entrusted to P.W.65-Sri.R.K.Shivanna, the then Inspector of Police of the Complainant. After completing investigation, he filed Charge Sheet.
12 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] POINTS-1 TO 6
15. As all these Points are interlinked to each other, in order to avoid repetition of facts, evidence and contentions, it is just, proper and convenient to determine all these Points by considering together. On considering the rival contentions of both the parties, it appears just, proper and convenient to determine these Points under the following Heads:
1. Search, Production & Seizure;
2. Opening of Current Account No.1560 in the Bank;
3. Opening of Current Account No.1590 in the Bank;
4. Opening of 21 SB Accounts in the Bank;
5. Creating of False Employment Certificates, Salary Certificates, Pay Slips and Form No.16:
Non-employees of the SCTIT and their Documents:
• Documents relating to the Accused-
5, 6, 9, 10 & P.W.28.
Employees of the SCTIT and their
Documents:
• Documents relating to the Accused-
7, 8, P.Ws.-19 to 29, P.W.62, P.W.69,
C.W.33, & Sri.Sudhir Kumar Singh.
Documents relating to Guarantors;
Conclusion.
6. Construction of Vijayalakshmi Apartments;
13 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J]
7. Creation of Forged Building Plan;
8. Loans of Bank of India;
9. Loans of Canara Bank;
10. Loans of Syndicate Bank;
11. Housing Loans of Vijaya Bank:
• Application for Housing Loans;
• Process, Scrutiny and Sanction;
• Receiving Plan and Sale Deed;
• Fake Agreements;
• Creating False Sale Deeds;
• Diversion of Funds;
• Subsequent Sale of Flats;
• Loss and Gain.
12. Conclusion.
1. Search, Production & Seizure
16. P.W.65 has deposed that on 02.06.2009, he conducted Search on the residential premises of the Accused-1 and that he seized 5 incriminating documents as per Search List-Ex.P.192. He has further deposed that he entrusted Search Warrant to Sri.K.R.Jaboy, CBI Police Inspector, who conducted Search and seized 3 incriminating documents as shown in Search List-Ex.P.193.
This Search pertains to the house of the Accused-2. P.W.65 has further deposed that as per his direction under Section 165 of the Cr.P.C., Sri.T.V.Joy, CBI Police Inspector conducted Search at the residential premises of the Accused-9 and that he seized 7 incriminating documents as shown in Search List-Ex.P.194. P.W.65 has further deposed that as per his direction, P.W.64 14 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] conducted Search in the office premises of the SCTIT and that he seized documents as shown in Search List- Ex.P.187. P.W.64 has also deposed the said fact. P.W.63- Sri.E.P.Suresh Kumar, CBI Police Inspector has deposed that as per authorization under Section 165 of the Cr.P.C., by P.W.65, he conducted Search in the house of the Accused-5 and that he seized 6 bundles of documents as shown in Search List-Ex.P.185. He has further deposed that on 23.07.2009, he accompanied P.W.65 to assist him in search in the residential premises of Sri.Subramanya Sharma, who conducted Search as per Search List- Ex.P.186. Contents of Ex.P.185 to Ex.P.187 and Ex.P.192 to Ex.P.194 corroborate the evidence of P.W.63, P.W.64 and P.W.65. These witnesses have stood well in the test of Cross-examination and there is no reason to disbelieve their evidence. From the said evidence, it is clear that on Search, documents and materials were seized as shown in Ex.P.185 to Ex.P.187 and Ex.P.192 to Ex.P.194. Details of those documents will be referred in the later part of the Judgment at appropriate place for the sake of convenience.
17. P.W.4-Sri.P.Varadan, the then Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, has deposed that as per the Requisition of the CBI Officer, he furnished List of Employees of the SCTIT, their Salary Statements and original Wage Register of the Employees of the SCTIT as per Ex.P.12, Ex.P.13 and Ex.P.15.
18. P.W.5-Sri.A.Sridhara Murthy, the then Chief Manager of Service Branch, Vijaya Bank, K.G.Road, 15 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] Bengaluru, has deposed that as per the request of the CBI Officers, he produced Demand Drafts as per Ex.P.16 and Ex.P.17.
19. P.W.37-Sri.Krishna S.Nayak, the Sub-Registrar of K.R.Puram Sub-Registrar's Office, has deposed that as per the request of the CBI, he furnished 12 Certified Copies of the Sale Deeds as per Ex.P.123 and a Letter dated 18.08.2009 as per Ex.P.124 stating that GPA No.1618/2003-2004 dated 17.01.2003 was not registered in his Office.
20. P.W.39-Sri.G.Ramesh, the Assistant Manager of Bank of India, Jeevan Bheema Nagara Branch, Bengaluru, has deposed that as per the request of the CBI Officer, he furnished 24 documents as shown in List-Ex.P.127 in respect of the housing loans sanctioned to the staff of the SCTIT, Statement of SB Account of the SCTIT as per Ex.P.128 and Cheque-Ex.P.129.
21. P.W.40-Sri.T.Ayyathurai, Chief Manager of Bank of India, Jeevan Bheema Nagara Branch, has deposed that he gave a Letter as per Ex.P.130 stating that his Bank has not received any tax from the SCTIT from 2002 to 2004.
22. P.W.41-Sri.Joseph Abraham, Manager, SBM, NGEF Branch, Bengaluru, has deposed that as per the request of the CBI, he furnished Challans for applying the Stamp Papers through a Covering Letter and Seizure Memo as per Ex.P.131.
16 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J]
23. P.W.42-Smt.C.R.Roshni, Manager, Legal Department, Head office, Vijaya Bank, Bengaluru, has deposed that as per the request of the CBI Officer, she furnished Bank Guidelines regarding Legal Scrutiny Report as per Ex.P.132.
24. P.W.48-Dr.K.V.A.Balaji, Registrar of Visweshwaraiah Technology, has deposed that as per the request of the CBI Officer, he furnished details regarding teaching and non-teaching staff of the SCTIT as per Ex.P.14.
25. P.W.49-Sri.H.N.Swaroop, Personal Manager, Head Office, Vijaya Bank, has deposed that as per request of the CBI, he furnished Working Details of the Accused-2 to 4 as per Ex.P.134 to Ex.P.136.
26. P.W.59-Sri.R.Vishwanathan, Manager, Administration & Services, Bank of India, Jeevan Bheema Nagara Branch, has deposed that as per the request of the CBI Officer, he produced Ex.P.144 to Ex.P.153 relating to SB Accounts of the Accused-1, 8, 9 and 10, Sri.M.G.Vinod Kumar-P.W.69, Sri.Omkar Swamy-P.W.62, Sri.C.S.Srinivas-P.W.24, Current Account of the Accused-1, Pay-in-Slips of the Accused-7, 9 and 10, Sri.C.S.Srinivas-P.W.24, Smt.D.Anitha-P.W.22, Sri.Ramesh-P.W.25, Sri.Suja.K-P.W.21, Sri.Omkara Swamy- P.W.62, Sri.Gangappa B.Kittur-P.W.20, Sri.S.Jagadish- P.W.19 and Sri.Srinivas-P.W.29.
27. P.W.60-Sri.D.R.Devendra Raju, the then Branch Manager, Syndicate Bank, K.G.Halli Branch, Bengaluru, 17 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] has deposed that as per the request of the CBI, he produced housing loan documents of the Accused-5 to 10, Sri.S.M.Vijay Kumar-P.W.23, Sri.Omkara Swamy-P.W.62, Sri.M.G.Vinod Kumar-P.W.69, Sri.H.Venktesha-C.W.33 and Sri.Sudhir Kumar Singh, as per Ex.P.154 to Ex.P.164, Ex.P.167, Current Account Opening Form of the Accused-1 along with Statements of Account as per Ex.P.165 and Certified Copy of Mortgage Deed of Smt.Vijaya Lakshmi as per Ex.P.166.
28. P.W.61-Sri.Jayavantha Rao, Chief Manager, Canara Bank, BTM Layout, has deposed that as per the request of the CBI, he handed over Ex.P.168-SB Account Opening Form relating to the Accused-5, Ex.P.169-SB Account Opening Form of the SCTBD and Ex.P.170-Loan Repayment Challans.
29. P.W.65 has also deposed about seizure and collection of documents from P.W.4, P.W.37, P.W.39, P.W.40, P.W.41, P.W.42, P.W.48, P.W.49, P.W.59, P.W.60 and P.W.61 as per Seizure Memos-Ex.P.127, Ex.P.189, Ex.P.190, Ex.P.191, Ex.P.211, Ex.P.213, Ex.P.214, Ex.P.215 and Ex.P.224 and also through a Covering Letter- Ex.P.14. P.W.65 has also deposed about seizure of Ex.P.221, which was submitted by the Accused-1 to the Provident Fund Office, from the Office of the Assistant Commissioner of Provident Fund under Seizure Memo- Ex.P.208. Contents of all these documents corroborate the evidence of P.W.65, which fortifies the evidence of P.W.4, P.W.37, P.W.39, P.W.40, P.W.41, P.W.42, P.W.48, P.W.49, 18 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] P.W.59, P.W.60 and P.W.61. All these witnesses have stood well in the test of Cross-examination and there is no reason to disbelieve their evidence. On considering the said undisturbed evidence available on behalf of the Complainant, it is clear that P.W.65 has collected and seized documents. These documents will also be referred in the later part of the Judgment at appropriate place.
2. Opening Of Current Account No.1560 In The Bank
30. According to the Complainant, the Accused-1 opened a Current Account bearing No.1560 in the name of the SCTIT on 22.08.2003 in the Bank and the Accused-2 and 4 verified and permitted to open that Account without proper introduction. Opening of the Current Account No.1560 by the Accused-1 in the name of the SCTIT, verifying the particulars by the Accused-4 and permission given by the Accused-2 to open that Account are not in dispute. Ex.P.4 is the Current Account Opening Form and Ex.P.5 is the Statement of Account pertaining to that Account.
31. P.W.1-Sri.Jayanth Pai was working as Chief Manager, Vijaya Bank, Regional Office, Bengaluru, during 2004 and the Bank was coming under his supervision. He has identified Ex.P.4 as the Current Account Opening Form of the SCTIT and Ex.P.5 as the Statement of Account pertaining to that Current Account. Though he has stated that the Account was introduced by Sri.V.P.Raghavan-SB Account Holder, he has not stated that introduction by 19 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] Sri.V.P.Raghavan was not proper or defective. However, he has vaguely stated as, "in some of the Current Account Opening Forms, an introduction was taken from SB Account Holder, whose Account was again reported to be inoperative which is not in order." The said Statement of P.W.1 does not specifically refer to Sri.V.P.Raghavan or the Current Account No.1560. This witness has not stated anything against the Accused-2 and 4 to the effect that the Accused-2 and 4 verified and permitted to open the said Current Account without proper introduction.
32. P.W.57-Sri.P.A.Seetharam was the Chief Manager of the Bank from 03.05.2008 to 15.05.2009. He has also deposed that the Current Account of the SCTIT was introduced by an inoperative Savings Bank Account Holder and that normally, the Bank insists that Current Account should be introduced by the Current Account Holder. Ex.P.3 is the Manual of Instructions relating to deposits. Chapter-III of this Manual deals with Current Accounts. Page-57 of this Manual narrates about introduction. As per Para-32(ii) in that Page, any person having Account for more than 6 months is eligible for introducing the Current Account, however, introduction of an Account by an inoperative Account Holder is prohibited. As per the said Para, introduction by a Current Account Holder is not required for opening a Current Account.
33. Though it is stated by P.W.1 and P.W.57 that the Current Account was introduced by an inoperative Account Holder, nothing is produced by the Complainant to show 20 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] that Introducer's Account was inoperative at that particular point of time. In his Cross-examination, P.W.1 has stated that he does not know that the Account Introducer- Sri.V.P.Raghavan was having deposit of Rs.16,000/-. This Statement of P.W.1 shows that he has no knowledge about the Introducer's Account. However, he has stated that Introducer's Account was not closed.
34. P.W.16-Sri.Raghavan is the said introducer. In his Cross-examination, he has stated that his SB Account No.915 at Vijaya Bank is in operation for the last 10 years and that he has kept Rs.16,000/- as Term Deposit. This evidence of P.W.16 shows that his SB Account was in operation even as on the date of his deposition as well as at the time of opening of the Current Account. On considering this evidence and in the absence of any documentary evidence on behalf of the Complainant to show that the Account of P.W.16 was inoperative when the Current Account No.1560 was opened, it is not possible to accept the bare statement of P.W.1 and P.W.57 that the Current Account No.1560 was introduced by an inoperative Account Holder. As such, and as P.W.16 being an Account Holder in the Bank, whose Account was in operation at that time, was eligible to introduce the Current Account as per Ex.P.3, it cannot be said that Accused-2 and 4 permitted to open the Current Account without proper introduction.
21 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J]
3. Opening Of Current Account No.1590 In The Bank
35. According to the Complainant, the Accused-1 opened Current Account No.1590 in the Bank on 09.03.2004 in the name of the SCTBD and the Accused-5 has signed as introducer claiming to be the authorized signatory to the Current Account No.1560 held in the name of the SCTIT, though he was not the authorized signatory to that Account. According to the Complainant, the Accused-4 has verified the introducer's signature and the Accused-2 permitted to open that Account without any verification in order to accommodate the Accused-1. Opening of the Current Account No.1590 by the Accused-1 in the name of the SCTBD, verifying the introducer's signature by the Accused-4 and permitting to open that Account by the Accused-2 are not in dispute. Ex.P.114 contains Account Opening Form and other related documents pertaining to that Account.
36. P.W.57 has deposed that Current Account of the SCTBD was introduced by the Accused-5 and that as per the Trust Deed, he did not have any authority to introduce or operate the Current Account by the SCTIT. Account Opening Form of Current Account No.1590 indicates that the Accused-5 introduced that Account by mentioning his Account number as '1560' and by putting his signatures, which are marked as Q-3520 and Q-3521 by the Investigating Officer and the Handwriting Expert.
22 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J]
37. P.W.65-the Investigating Officer, has deposed that on 23.07.2009, he interrogated the Accused-5 and that he obtained his specimen signatures and handwriting in the presence of the witnesses as per Ex.P.200. P.W.67- Sri.P.Vijay Shankar is the Handwriting Expert working at CFSL, Hyderabad. He has deposed that he compared Q- 3520 and Q-3521 in Ex.P.114 with the Specimen Signatures-S16 to S36 of the Accused-5 taken in Ex.P.200 and his admitted signatures-A4 & A5 available in Ex.P.115 and that he is of the opinion that all those writings and signatures are written by one and the same person. He has also stated the said fact in Ex.P.219-GEQD Opinion. The said document contains Reasons given by P.W.67 in respect of his Opinion. The said Reasons show detail analysis of the questioned signatures, specimen signatures and admitted signatures of the Accused-5 and on considering various similarities, P.W.67 has given his Opinion that all these signatures are made by one and the same person. By exercising powers under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, this Court also compared those questioned, specimen and admitted signatures with the help of a powerful magnifying lens with reference to the Reasons given by P.W.67. On such comparison, this Court noticed similarities in size, construction, alignment, slant and style of letters, space in between the letters, pen lifts, speed and movement of those letters and also the line quality of the writings of all those questioned, specimen and admitted signatures of the Accused-5 as found by P.W.67, which indicates that all those signatures 23 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] are made by one and the same person. This observation fortifies the Opinion given by P.W.67. The said evidence of P.W.67 remained unchallenged and there is no reason to disbelieve his evidence. On considering the undisturbed evidence of P.W.67 and the contents of Ex.P.219 as well as observation of this Court and in the absence of anything contrary on behalf of the Accused-5, it has to be inferred that Q-3520 and Q-3521 are the signatures made by the Accused-1 during introduction for the purpose of opening of Current Account No.1590. In fact, the Accused-5 has also not disputed his introduction to that Account.
38. As observed above, Ex.P.4 is the Current Account Opening Form relating to Current Account No.1560. The said document contains Copy of Trust Deed, Copy of Resolution of the Members of the Trust relating to operation of Current Account etc. As per the Trust Deed and the said Resolution, the Accused-1 was the sole authorized person to operate that Current Account and the Accused-5 is unconcerned with that Current Account. In spite of the same, by showing that Account Number, he has introduced the Accused-1 for the purpose of Opening of Current Account No.1590. This evidence shows that the Accused-5 has given false information during introduction of the Current Account No.1590. In spite of the same, the said particulars are not verified and noted by the Accused- 4 and without any such verification, the Accused-2 has permitted to open that Account by the Accused-1.
24 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J]
4. Opening Of 21 SB Accounts In The Bank
39. According to the Complainant, all the Accused got opened 21 SB Accounts in the names of employees of the SCTIT and other private persons between 20.08.2003 and 30.08.2003 and the Accused-1 transferred amounts as Monthly Salary Income to those SB Accounts from the Current Account No.1560. Opening of 21 SB Accounts in the Bank between 20.08.2003 and 30.08.2003 is not in dispute. Relevant particulars of those Accounts are as follows:
Sl. Status in No. Name this Case Document 1. Sri.K.A.Aswathnarayana Accused-5 Ex.P.10 2. Sri.Nagaraj Accused-6 Ex.P.11 3. Sri.M.V.Seshadri Accused-7 Ex.P.35 4. Sri.R.Ravi Accused-8 Ex.P.18 5. Sri.K.A.Badarinarayana Accused-9 Ex.P.20 6. Smt.B.S.Kanakalakshmi Accused-10 Ex.P.31 7. Sri.S.Jagadish P.W.19 Ex.P.28 8. Sri.Gangappa P.W.20 Ex.P.23 9. Smt.K.Suja P.W.21 Ex.P.32 10. Smt.D.Anitha P.W.22 Ex.P.33 11. Sri.S.M.Vijay Kumar P.W.23 Ex.P.21 12. Sri.C.S.Srinivas P.W.24 Ex.P.19 13 Sri.K.Ramesh P.W.25 Ex.P.22 14. Sri.V.V.Ramana P.W.26 Ex.P.27 15. Sri.Gopal Krishna P.W.27 Ex.P.34 16. Sri.J.Krishnappa P.W.28 Ex.P.25 17. Sri.K.Srinivas P.W.29 Ex.P.36 18. Sri.Omkaraswamy P.W.62 Ex.P.30 19. Sri.M.G.Vinod Kumar P.W.69 Ex.P.24 20. Sri.H.Venkatesh C.W.33 Ex.P.26 21. Sri.Sudhir Kumar Singh - Ex.P.29
40. P.W.19 to 29, P.W.62 and P.W.69 have identified their respective SB Account Opening Forms and stated that 25 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] the Accused-1 has taken their signatures on Bank documents. P.W.16 is the introducer for all those SB Accounts. He has stated that as the Accused-1 told that the Account Holders were his staff members, he signed as Introducer. He has also stated that as the Accused-1 was a respected person, he obliged him and that he signed on the Account Opening Forms as an Introducer. It is also the contention of the Accused-5 to 10 that at the instance of the Accused-1, they have signed on the Bank documents. As such, from the evidence available on record, it is clear that at the instance of the Accused-1, all the 21 SB Accounts were opened in the Bank.
41. The documents mentioned in Column No.4 shown above contain SB Account Opening Forms and Statements of Accounts in respect of those SB Accounts and other relevant papers. Those documents show that all the 21 Account Holders were described as the employees of the SCTIT. Those Statements of Accounts and Ex.P.5, which is the Statement of Account of Current Account No.1560, indicate that the Accused-1 has transferred amounts under the Head of Salary from the Current Account No.1560 to the SB Account of those 21 persons every month starting from 02.09.2003 for about 1½ years.
42. Thus, it is clear that 21 SB Accounts were opened in the Bank at the instance of the Accused-1 and that the Accused-1 has transferred amounts under the Head of Salary to those 21 SB Accounts every month from 26 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] his Current Account No.1560 for about 1½ years starting from 02.09.2003.
5. Creation Of False Employment Certificates Salary Certificates, Pay Slips & Form No.16
43. It is not in dispute that on the Loan Applications filed in the names of the Accused-5 to 10, P.W.19 to P.W.29, P.W.62, P.W.69, C.W.33 and Sri.Sudhir Kumar Singh, the Bank granted housing loans. Ex.P.10, Ex.P.11, Ex.P.18 to Ex.P.36 are the Loan Files pertaining to those persons. According to the Complainant, though the Accused-5, 6, 9 and 10 and also P.W.28 were not the employees of the SCTIT, the Accused-1, 5, 7, 8 and 11 prepared false Employment Certificates, Salary Certificates, Pay Slips & Form No.16 in the names of the Accused-5, 6, 9, 10 and P.W.28 and their Guarantors for the purpose of availing housing loans from the Bank and the Accused-5, 6, 9 and 10 have also falsely signed as employees of the SCTIT knowing fully well that they were not the employees as such and that they were not getting any salary income. According to the Complainant, the Accused-1, 5 to 11 prepared false Salary Certificates, Pay Slips, Form No.16 etc., mentioning high sound designations and inflated salaries in the names of P.W.19 to P.W.27, P.W.29, P.W.62, P.W.69, C.W.33 and Sri.Sudhir Kumar Singh and their Guarantors for the purpose of availing housing loans from the Bank. The alleged false documents are in the Housing Loan Files referred to above.
27 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J]
5.A: NON-EMPLOYEES OF THE SCTIT:
a) Documents relating to the Accused-5:
44. Ex.P.10 contains Employment Certificate, Pay Slip, Salary Certificate and Form No.16 in the name of the Accused-5 showing that he was working in the SCTIT as Manager, he was drawing salary of Rs.24,632/- p.m., as on 05.03.2004, he had gross salary income of Rs.2,29,656/- for the years 2002 and 2003 and that Income Tax of Rs.2,700/- p.m., in those years was remitted through Bank of India, Jeevan Bhima Nagara Branch, Bengaluru. According to the Complainant, Employment Certificate, Pay Slip and Form No.16 are issued by the Accused-7, who was the Principal of the SCTIT at that time, the Accused-5 is also the signatory to Pay Slip and Form No.16, and Salary Certificate is issued by the Accused-11, who was the Lecturer and In-charge Principal of the SCTIT.
45. P.W.69-Sri.M.G.Vinod Kumar was working as Computer Operator in the SCTIT. He has deposed that the Accused-1 and 5 were giving directions to him to do the work, the Accused-5 was giving duplicate Forms of Salary Certificates and Form No.16, the Accused-5 was asking him to prepare the Forms, he used to prepare the Forms by filling contents on the direction given by the Accused-5 and that he was taking printout of those documents. He has further deposed that the Accused-7 was the Principal, the Accused-11 was the HOD, Form No.16 in the File- Ex.P.10 contains the signatures of the Accused-5 and 7 28 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] and that the Accused-11 has signed as Principal in the Salary Certificate of the Accused-5. In the Cross-
examination, he has denied that he had actively participated in the forgery and that fearing that the CBI would apprehend him, he fled to Dubai. He has also denied that he cannot identify the signatures of any employees of the SCTIT and also the signatures of the Accused. However, he has admitted that at the time, when he was doing the works for the Accused-5, he was knowing that he was doing wrong. This witness has stood well in the test of Cross-examination and there is no reason to disbelieve his evidence. As per the said evidence of P.W.69, on the directions given by the Accused-1 and 5, he was doing the work in the SCTIT and as per the direction and information given by the Accused-5, he was preparing Salary Certificates, Pay Slips and Form No.16, Form No.16 relating to the Accused-5 contains the signatures of the Accused-5 and 7, Employment Certificate of the Accused-5 bears the signature of the Accused-7 and Salary Certificate of the Accused-5 contains the signature of the Accused-11.
46. As observed above, P.W.65 has collected the specimen signatures of the Accused-5 as per Ex.P.200. The evidence of P.W.65 also shows that he collected the specimen signatures of the Accused-7 as per Ex.P.197 and that those of the Accused-11 as per Ex.P.209. The evidence of P.W.67 and contents of Ex.P.219 show that P.W.67 compared the specimen signatures of the Accused- 5, 7 and 11 with their respective questioned signatures in the Employment Certificate, Pay Slip, Salary Certificate 29 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] and Form No.16 available in Ex.P.10, examined them and that he has given clear Opinion that those questioned signatures are of the Accused-5, 7 and 11. On Examination of those questioned signatures and specimen signatures with reference to the Reasons given by P.W.67, this Court also found various similarities between those signatures, which support the Opinion of P.W.67. The Accused-5, 7 and 11 have not disputed those signatures. On the other hand, it is their contention that as per the directions of the Accused-1, they have made those signatures. Thus, from the above evidence, it is clear that the Accused-5 got prepared Employment Certificate, Salary Certificate, Pay Slip and Form No.16 through P.W.69 and that he has signed on Form No.16 and Pay Slip, the Accused-7 has issued Employment Certificate and Form No.16 in the capacity of Principal and that the Accused-11 has issued Salary Certificate in the capacity of In-charge Principal and that all these persons have acted on the directions of the Accused-1.
47. According to the Complainant, though the Accused-5 was not an employee of the SCTIT, in the Employment Certificate, Pay Slip, Salary Certificate and Form No.16, it is falsely shown that he was working as Manager of the SCTIT, he was drawing salary, his Income Tax was remitted and as such, those documents are false documents. In support of his contention, the Complainant has relied upon the evidence of P.W.4, P.W.69, P.W.48, P.W.40 and also Ex.P.12 to Ex.P.15, Ex.P.130 and Ex.P.221.
30 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J]
48. As observed above, P.W.4 has produced List of Employees of the SCTIT and their Salary Statements as per Ex.P.12, Ex.P.13 and Ex.P.15 from his office. P.W.69 has deposed that Smt.Suja was the Cashier and that she was preparing the actual salary drawn by the staff of the college and that Ex.P.13 is the actual Salary Statement prepared by Sri.Hanumantha Rao and Smt.Suja. As observed above, P.W.48 has produced Ex.P.14, which contains the details of teaching and non-teaching staff of the SCTIT. As observed above, P.W.65 has seized Ex.P.221, which is the Salary Statements of the employees of the SCTIT for the years 2001-2002 to 2004-2005. Contents of Ex.P.12 to Ex.P.15 and Ex.P.221 do not show that the Accused-5 was working as Manager at any time between 2003-2004 and 2007-2008. In fact, those contents do not show even the existence of a post of Manager in the SCTIT. Thus, contents of Ex.P.12 to Ex.P.15 and Ex.P.221 fortify the contention of the Complainant that the Accused-5 was not an employee of the SCTIT.
49. In the Cross-examination, P.W.69 has stated that the Accused-5 was working in the capacity of the Manager in the college. P.W.21 has stated that the Accused-5 was looking after the management of the college. In the Cross-examination, P.W.23 and P.W.28 have stated that the Accused-5 was working as Manager in the SCTIT. On the basis of these answers, it is the argument of the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of 31 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] the Accused-5, 7 to 11 that the Accused-5 was working as Manager of the SCTIT and that the documents are not false documents. If at all, the Accused-5 was working as Manager of the SCTIT, there should have been entries in this regard in Ex.P.12 to Ex.P.15 and Ex.P.221, which are official documents. But, as observed above, there is nothing in Ex.P.12 to Ex.P.15 and Ex.P.221 to show that the Accused-5 was working as Manager in the SCTIT. There is no basis to accept the bare statements of P.W.21, P.W.23, P.W.28 and P.W.69 that the Accused-5 was working as Manager as against the contents of Ex.P.12 to Ex.P.15 and Ex.P.221. This circumstance negatives the contention of the Accused-5, 7 to 11 and hence, it is not fit to accept the bare arguments of the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Accused-5, 7 to 11.
50. It is not in dispute that the Accused-5 is the brother of the Accused-1. P.W.22 has deposed that the Accused-5 was accompanying the Accused-1. P.W.25 has stated that the Accused-5 is the younger brother of the Accused-1 and that the Accused-5 was also visiting the office. P.W.29 has also deposed that the Accused-5 was visiting the office. Majority of the employees of the SCTIT examined as witnesses in this case have stated that the Accused-5 was used to take signatures on the documents. P.W.21 has stated that the Accused-1 and other Trustees including the Accused-5 were running the Institution jointly. As per this evidence, it appears that in the capacity of brother of the Accused-1, the Accused-5 was visiting the 32 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] office of the SCTIT and that he was assisting the Accused- 1 in his work.
51. As observed above, contents of Ex.P.12 to Ex.P.15 and Ex.P.221, which are the official documents of the SCTIT, do not show that the Accused-5 was working as Manager of the SCTIT. In fact, as observed above, contents of those documents do not show even the existence of a post of Manager in the SCTIT. Contents of those documents do not in any way show that the Accused-5 was an employee of the SCTIT in any capacity. As the Accused-5 was not an employee of the SCTIT, question of drawing salary by him from the SCTIT and payment of Income Tax through Bank of India by the SCTIT does not arise. As observed above, P.W.40 has produced Ex.P.130. His evidence and contents of Ex.P.130 also show that Income Tax for the years 2002 to 2004 in respect of the employees of the SCTIT was not remitted through Bank of India. This evidence falsifies the contents of Form No.16. But, the Accused-5 got prepared the Employment Certificate, Salary Certificate, Pay Slip and Form No.16 through P.W.69 and he has signed on Form No.16 and Pay Slip knowing fully well that those documents are false documents. In the capacity of the Computer Operator, P.W.69 has prepared those documents knowing fully well that he was doing wrong. So also, the Accused-7 in the capacity of the Principal of the SCTIT and the Accused-11 in the capacity of In-charge Principal of the SCTIT have signed on those documents knowing fully well that those documents are false documents. Thus, it is clear 33 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] that the Accused-1, 5, 7 and 11 and also P.W.69 have created false Employment Certificate, Salary Certificate, Pay Slip and Form No.16 in the name of the Accused-5. It is also clear from the evidence available on record that taking advantage of his relationship with the Accused-1, the Accused-5 has participated in the said acts, though he was not an employee of the SCTIT.
b) Documents relating to the Accused-6:
52. Ex.P.11 contains Employment Certificate, Pay Slips for the months of January 2004 and February 2004, Salary Certificate and Form No.16 in the name of the Accused-6 showing that he was working as HOD in Electrical Department of the SCTIT, he was drawing salary of around Rs.23,000/- p.m., as on February 2004, he had gross salary income of Rs.2,29,656/- for the year 2003-
2004 and that Income Tax was remitted for that year by the SCTIT through Bank of India, J.B.Nagara Branch, Bengaluru. According to the Complainant, Employment Certificate, Pay Slips and Form No.16 are issued by the Accused-7, the Accused-6 is also the signatory to Form No.16 and Salary Certificate is issued by the Accused-11.
53. As observed above, it is the evidence of P.W.69 that he was working under the directions of the Accused-1 and 5 and that the Accused-5 was getting prepared Salary Certificates and Form No.16 through him. He has identified the signatures of the Accused-7 in the Pay Slips and Form No.16 and also the signature of the Accused-11 in the Salary Certificate, which are in Ex.P.11. The evidence of 34 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] P.W.65 shows that he collected the specimen signatures of the Accused-6 also as per Ex.P.195. The evidence of P.W.67 and contents of Ex.P.219 show that P.W.67 compared the specimen signatures of the Accused-6, 7 and 11 with their respective questioned signatures in the Employment Certificate, Pay Slips, Salary Certificate and Form No.16 available in Ex.P.11, examined them and that he is of clear Opinion that those questioned signatures are of the Accused-6, 7 and 11. On Examination of those questioned signatures and specimen signatures with reference to the Reasons given by P.W.67, this Court also found various similarities between those signatures, which support the Opinion of P.W.67. The Accused-6, 7 and 11 have not disputed those signatures. On the other hand, it is their contention that as per the directions of the Accused-1, they have made those signatures. Thus, from the above evidence, it is clear that the Accused-5 got prepared Employment Certificate, Pay Slips, Salary Certificate and Form No.16 through P.W.69 and that the Accused-6 has signed on Form No.16, the Accused-7 has issued Employment Certificate, Pay Slips and Form No.16 in the capacity of Principal and that the Accused-11 has issued Salary Certificate in the capacity of In-charge Principal and that all these persons have acted on the directions of the Accused-1.
54. According to the Complainant, the Accused-6 was an associate of the Accused-1 and though the Accused-6 was not an employee of the SCTIT, in the Employment Certificate, Pay Slips, Salary Certificate and 35 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] Form No.16, it is falsely shown that he was working as HOD in Electrical Department of the SCTIT and as such, those documents are false documents. In support of his contention, the Complainant has relied upon Ex.P.12 to Ex.P.15, Ex.P.130 and Ex.P.221. Ex.P.12 to Ex.P.15 and Ex.P.221, which are the official documents of the SCTIT, do not show that the Accused-6 was working as HOD in Electrical Department of the SCTIT at any time between 2003-2004 and 2007-2008. In fact, those contents do not even show that the Accused-6 was an employee of the SCTIT in any capacity.
55. In his evidence, P.W.69 has stated that while working in the said college, he came to know Sri.Aswathnarayana, Sri.Seshadri, Smt.Kanaka Lakshmi, Sri.Ravi, Sri.Bhadri Narayana, Sri.Nagaraj and other staff, who were working in the college. On the basis of this answer, the learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the Accused-5 to 11 have contended that the Accused-6 was working as HOD in Electrical Department of the SCTIT and that the documents are not forged documents. P.W.69 has not stated that the Accused-6 was working as HOD in Electrical Department. In fact, he has not stated specifically that the Accused-6 was working in the SCTIT as an employee. His evidence indicates that when he was working in the college, he came to know the Accused-5 to 11 and other staff. If at all the Accused-6 was working as HOD or in any capacity in the SCTIT, there should have been entries in this regard in Ex.P.12 to Ex.P.15 and 36 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] Ex.P.221. But, contents of Ex.P.12 to Ex.P.15 and Ex.P.221 do not show such entries. As such, it is not fit to accept the bare arguments of the Advocates appearing on behalf of the Accused-5 to 11 that the Accused-6 was working as HOD in Electrical Department of the SCTIT.
56. P.W.21 has stated that the Accused-6 was also coming along with the Chairman to the college. P.W.29 has deposed that the Accused-1 was the Chairman and that the Accused-5 and 6 were also visiting the office. This evidence indicates that the Accused-6 was a close associate of the Accused-1 and that in that capacity only, he was visiting the office of the SCTIT along with the Accused-1. As observed above, contents of Ex.P.12 to Ex.P.15 and Ex.P.221 do not show that the Accused-6 was an employee of the SCTIT in any capacity much less in the capacity of HOD in Electrical Department. As such, question of drawing salary by him from the SCTIT and remittance of Income Tax by the SCTIT through Bank of India does not arise. The evidence of P.W.40 and Ex.P.130 show that no such Income Tax has been remitted as shown in Form No.16. But, the Accused-5 got prepared Employment Certificate, Pay Slips, Salary Certificate and Form No.16 in the name of the Accused-6 through P.W.69 and knowing that it was wrong, P.W.69 has prepared those documents and the Accused-6 has signed on Form No.16 knowing fully well that it is a false document. So also, knowing fully well that those documents are false documents, the Accused-7 and 11 have signed on those documents in the capacity of the Principal and In-charge 37 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] Principal of the SCTIT respectively. As such, it is clear that though the Accused-6 was not an employee of the SCTIT, as he being a close associate of the Accused-1 was visiting the office of the SCTIT, the Accused-5, 6, 7 and 11 and also P.W.69 have acted on the directions of the Accused-1. Thus, it is clear that the Accused-1, 5, 6, 7 and 11 and also P.W.69 have created false Employment Certificate, Salary Certificate, Pay Slips and Form No.16 in the name of the Accused-6. It is also clear from the evidence available on record that taking advantage of his close association with the Accused-1, the Accused-6 has participated in the said acts, though he was not an employee of the SCTIT.
c) Documents relating to the Accused-9:
57. Ex.P.20 contains Employment Certificate, Pay Slips for the months of January 2004 and February 2004, Salary Certificate and Form No.16 for the years 2002-2003 in the name of the Accused-9 showing that he was an employee of the SCTIT, he was drawing salary of around Rs.22,000/- p.m., as on February 2004, he had gross salary income of Rs.2,29,656/- for the years 2003-2004 and that Income Tax was remitted for those years by the SCTIT through Bank of India, J.B.Nagara Branch, Bengaluru. In the Employment Certificate, it is shown that the Accused-9 was working as Accounts Officer. But, in other documents, it is shown that he was working as Admin Officer. According to the Complainant, Employment Certificate, Pay Slips and Form No.16 are issued by the
38 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] Accused-7, the Accused-9 is also signatory to Form No.16 and Salary Certificate is issued by the Accused-11.
58. As per the evidence of P.W.69, as observed above, he was working under the directions of the Accused-1 and 5, and the Accused-5 was getting prepared Salary Certificates and Form No.16 through him. P.W.69 has identified the signatures of the Accused-7 in the Pay Slips and Form No.16 and the signature of the Accused-11 in the Salary Certificate, which are in Ex.P.20. As per the evidence of P.W.65, he collected specimen signatures of the Accused-9 also as per Ex.P.203. As per the evidence of P.W.67 and contents of Ex.P.219, P.W.67 compared the specimen signatures of the Accused-7, 9 and 11 with their respective questioned signatures in the Employment Certificate, Pay Slips, Salary Certificate and Form No.16 available in Ex.P.20, examined them and he is of a clear Opinion that those questioned signatures are of the Accused-7, 9 and 11. On examination of those questioned signatures and specimen signatures with reference to the Reasons given by P.W.67, this Court also found various similarities between those signatures, which also support the Opinion of P.W.67. The Accused-7, 9 and 11 have not disputed those signatures. On the other hand, it is their contention that as per the directions of the Accused-1, they have made those signatures. Thus, from the above evidence, it is clear that the Accused-5 got prepared Employment Certificate, Pay Slips, Salary Certificate and Form No.16 through P.W.69 and that the Accused-9 has signed on Form No.16, the Accused-7 has issued 39 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] Employment Certificate, Pay Slips and Form No.16 in the capacity of Principal and that the Accused-11 has issued Salary Certificate in the capacity of In-charge Principal and that all these persons have acted on the directions of the Accused-1.
59. It is not in dispute that the Accused-9 is also the brother of the Accused-1. According to the Complainant, though the Accused-9 was not an employee of the SCTIT, in the Employment Certificate, Pay Slips, Salary Certificate and Form No.16, it is falsely shown that he was working as Accounts Officer and Admin Officer of the SCTIT and as such, those documents are false documents. Contents of Ex.P.12 to Ex.P.15 and Ex.P.221, which are the official documents of the SCTIT, support the contention of the Complainant as those documents do not in any way show that the Accused-9 was an employee of the SCTIT in any capacity much less as Admin Officer or Accounts Officer. Though P.W.69 has stated that he came to know the Accused-5 to 10 and other staff, while he was working in the college, it is not his specific evidence that the Accused- 9 was working in the SCTIT as Accounts Officer or Admin Officer or as an employee in any capacity. As such, his evidence is of no assistance to the Accused-5, 7, 9 and 11 to substantiate their contention that the Accused-9 was also an employee of the SCTIT and that the documents in the name of the Accused-9 are not forged documents. On the other hand, as the evidence on record shows that the Accused-9 was not an employee of the SCTIT, question of drawing salary by him from the SCTIT and remittance of 40 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] Income Tax by the SCTIT through Bank of India does not arise. The evidence of P.W.40 and Ex.P.130 shows that no such Income Tax has been remitted as shown in Form No.16. But, knowing fully well of the said fact, the Accused-5, 7, 9 and 11 and also P.W.69 have prepared false Employment Certificate, Salary Certificate, Pay Slips and Form No.16 in the name of the Accused-9. As such, it is clear that the Accused-1, 5, 7, 9 and 11 and also P.W.69 have created false Employment Certificate, Salary Certificate, Pay Slips, Form No.16 in the name of the Accused-9. It is also clear from the evidence available on record that taking advantage of the relationship between the Accused-1, 5 and 9, the Accused-9 has participated in the said acts, though he was not an employee of the SCTIT.
d) Documents relating to the Accused-10:
60. It is not in dispute that the Accused-10 is the wife of the Accused-5. Ex.P.31 contains Employment Certificate, Pay Slips for the months of February and June 2004, Salary Certificate and Form No.16 for the years 2002 to 2004 in the name of the Accused-10 showing that she was working as Accountant in the SCTIT, she was drawing salary of around Rs.24,000/- p.m., as on June 2004, she had gross salary income of Rs.3,22,440/- for the years 2003-2004 and that Income Tax was remitted for those years by the SCTIT through Bank of India, J.B.Nagara Branch, Bengaluru. According to the Complainant, Employment Certificate, Pay Slips, Salary
41 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] Certificate and Form No.16 are issued by the Accused-7 and the Accused-10 is also signatory to the Pay Slip issued for the month of February 2004.
61. As observed above, as per the evidence of P.W.69, he was working as per the directions of the Accused-1 and 5, and the Accused-5 was getting prepared Salary Certificates and Form No.16 through him. P.W.69 has identified the signatures of the Accused-7 in the Pay Slips and Form No.16 and Salary Certificate, which are in Ex.P.31. As per the evidence of P.W.65, he collected specimen signatures of the Accused-10 also as per Ex.P.202. As per the evidence of P.W.67 and contents of Ex.P.219, P.W.67 compared the specimen signatures of the Accused-7 and 10 with their respective questioned signatures in the Employment Certificate, Pay Slip, Salary Certificate and Form No.16 available in Ex.P.31, examined them and he is of a clear Opinion that those questioned signatures are of the Accused-7 and 10. On examination of those questioned signatures and specimen signatures with reference to the Reasons given by P.W.67, this Court also found various similarities between those signatures, which also support the Opinion of P.W.67. The Accused-7 and 10 have not disputed those signatures. On the other hand, it is their contention that as per the directions of the Accused-1, they have made those signatures. Thus, from the above evidence, it is clear that the Accused-5 got prepared Employment Certificate, Pay Slips, Salary Certificate and Form No.16 through P.W.69 and that the Accused-10 has signed on Pay Slip for the month of 42 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] February 2004, the Accused-7 has issued Employment Certificate, Pay Slips, Salary Certificate and Form No.16 in the capacity of Principal of the SCTIT and that all these persons have acted on the directions of the Accused-1.
62. According to the Complainant, though the Accused-10 was not an employee of the SCTIT, in the Employment Certificate, Pay Slips, Salary Certificate and Form No.16, it is falsely shown that she was working as Accountant of the SCTIT and as such, those documents are false documents. Contents of Ex.P.12 to Ex.P.15 and Ex.P.221, which are the official documents of the SCTIT, support the contention of the Complainant as those documents do not in any way show that the Accused-10 was an employee of the SCTIT in any capacity much less as Accountant. Though P.W.69 has stated that he came to know the Accused-5 to 10 and other staff, while he was working in the college, it is not his specific evidence that the Accused-10 was working in the SCTIT as Accountant or as an employee in any capacity. As such, his evidence is of no assistance to the Accused-5, 7 and 10 to substantiate their contention that the Accused-10 was also an employee of the SCTIT and that the documents in the name of the Accused-10 are not forged documents. On the other hand, as the evidence on record shows that the Accused-10 was not an employee of the SCTIT, question of drawing salary by her from the SCTIT and remittance of Income Tax by the SCTIT through Bank of India does not arise. The evidence of P.W.40 and Ex.P.130 show that no such Income Tax has been remitted as shown in Form 43 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] No.16. But, knowing fully well of the said fact, the Accused-5, 7 and 10 and also P.W.69 have prepared false Employment Certificate, Salary Certificate, Pay Slips and Form No.16 in the name of the Accused-10 at the instance of the Accused-1.
63. According to the Complainant, in Form No.16, TAN number is falsely shown as 'W-0252-CC-BOL'. P.W.51-Sri.K.Parashivaiah is the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax. It is his evidence that as per the request of the CBI Officer to give information in respect of TAN No.W-0252-CC-BOL pertaining to the SCTIT, he verified the records and found that such an Account was not in existence and that accordingly, he issued a Letter as per Ex.P.138. Ex.P.138 shows that the said TAN number was invalid and that such a TAN number was not allotted to the SCTIT. This evidence of P.W.51 remained unchallenged. This evidence also shows that Form No.16 issued by the Accused-7 is a false document.
64. Thus, from the above evidence, it is clear that the Accused-1, 5, 7 and 10 and also P.W.69 have created false Employment Certificate, Salary Certificate, Pay Slips and Form No.16 in the name of the Accused-10. It is also clear that taking advantage of the relationship between the Accused-1, 5 and 10, the Accused-10 has participated in the said acts, though she was not an employee of the SCTIT.
44 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J]
e) Documents relating to P.W.28:
65. Ex.P.25 contains Employment Certificate, Pay Slips for the months of January 2004 and February 2004, Salary Certificate and Form No.16 in the name of P.W.28-
Sri.J.Krishnappa showing that he was working as Instructor in the Electrical Department of the SCTIT, he was drawing salary of around Rs.16,000/- p.m., as on February 2004, he had gross salary income of Rs.2,31,120/- for the years 2003-2004 and that Income Tax was remitted for those years by the SCTIT through Bank of India, J.B.Nagara Branch, Bengaluru. According to the Complainant, Employment Certificate is issued by the Accused-7 and Pay Slips, Form No.16 and Salary Certificate are issued by the Accused-11.
66. As per the evidence of P.W.69, as observed above, he was working as per the directions of the Accused-1 and 5, and the Accused-5 was getting prepared Salary Certificates and Form No.16 through him. P.W.69 has identified the signatures of the Accused-11 in the Pay Slips, Form No.16 and Salary Certificate, which are in Ex.P.25. P.W.28 has deposed that the Principal has issued Pay Slip and Salary Certificate in his name mentioning as Instructor in Electrical Department. As per the evidence of P.W.67 and contents of Ex.P.219, P.W.67 compared the specimen signatures of the Accused-7 and 11 with their respective questioned signatures in the Employment Certificate, Pay Slips, Salary Certificate and Form No.16 available in Ex.P.25, examined them and he is of a clear 45 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] Opinion that those questioned signatures are of the Accused-7 and 11. On examination of those questioned signatures and specimen signatures with reference to the Reasons given by P.W.67, this Court also found various similarities between those signatures, which also support the Opinion of P.W.67. The Accused-7 and 11 have not disputed those signatures. On the other hand, it is their contention that as per the directions of the Accused-1, they have made those signatures. Thus, from the above evidence, it is clear that the Accused-5 got prepared Employment Certificate, Pay Slips, Salary Certificate and Form No.16 through P.W.69, the Accused-7 has issued Employment Certificate in the capacity of Principal and that the Accused-11 has issued Pay Slips, Form No.16 and Salary Certificate in the capacity of In-charge Principal and that all these persons have acted on the directions of the Accused-1.
67. According to the Complainant, though P.W.28 was not an employee of the SCTIT, in the Employment Certificate, Pay Slips, Salary Certificate and Form No.16, it is falsely shown that he was working as Instructor in the Electrical Department of the SCTIT and as such, those documents are false documents. P.W.28 has deposed that during 2002, the Accused-5 told him that he would give electrical piece work in the SCTIT and that accordingly, he worked for 2 years in that Institution. He has further deposed that regular payment was not made to him and that so, he left the Institution. He has also deposed that salary shown in the Pay Slips and Salary Certificate were 46 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] not given to him at any time. In the Cross-examination, he has stated that from 2001 to 2003, he worked as Electrician in the SCTIT, he was doing piece contract work in that college, he used to receive weekly payment and that he cannot work as a Teacher. This evidence of P.W.28 shows that he was not a regular employee much less Instructor in the SCTIT, he was doing piece contract work in the SCTIT at the instance of the Accused-5 and that he never received salary as shown in the Salary Certificate and Pay Slips issued by the Accused-7 and 11. As such, this evidence supports the contention of the Complainant that P.W.28 was not an employee of the SCTIT as shown in the documents issued by the Accused-7 and 11. Contents of Ex.P.12 to Ex.P.15 and Ex.P.221, which are the official documents of the SCTIT, also support the contention of the Complainant as those documents do not in any way show that P.W.28 was an Instructor of the SCTIT. Thus, it is clear that P.W.28 was not an employee of the SCTIT and that he never received salary from the SCTIT. As such, question of remitting Income Tax by the SCTIT through Bank of India does not arise. The evidence of P.W.40 and Ex.P.130 also show that no such Income Tax has been remitted as shown in Form No.16. But, knowing fully well of the said fact, the Accused-1, 5, 7 and 11 and also P.W.69 have prepared false Employment Certificate, Salary Certificate, Pay Slips and Form No.16 in the name of P.W.28. Though TAN No.W-0252-CC/BOL was not allotted to the SCTIT, Form No.16 shows that such a number is 47 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] mentioned in Form No.16, which also shows that Form No.16 is a false document.
5.B: EMPLOYEES OF THE SCTIT:
a) Documents relating to the Accused-7:
68. Ex.P.35 contains Employment Certificate, Pay Slips, Salary Certificate and Form No.16 in the name of the Accused-7 showing that he was working as Principal in the SCTIT, he was drawing salary of around Rs.30,000/- p.m., from November and December 2004, he had gross salary income of Rs.4,14,072/- for the years 2003-2004 and that Income Tax was remitted for those years by the SCTIT through Bank of India, J.B.Nagara Branch, Bengaluru.
According to the Complainant, Employment Certificate was issued by the Accused-7 himself and Pay Slips, Form No.16 and Salary Certificate bearing No.SCTIT/SC/155/2005 dated 25.01.2005 were issued by the Accused-1. As per the evidence of P.W.69, as observed above, he was working as per the directions of the Accused-1 and 5, and the Accused-5 was getting prepared Salary Certificates and Form No.16 through him. As per the evidence of P.W.65, he collected specimen signatures of the Accused-1 as per Ex.P.210. The evidence of P.W.67 and contents of Ex.P.219 show that P.W.67 compared the specimen signatures of the Accused-1 and 7 with their questioned signatures in the Employment Certificate, Pay Slips, Form No.16 and Salary Certificate available in Ex.P.35, examined them and he is of a clear Opinion that those questioned signatures are of the Accused-1 and 7. On 48 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] examination of those questioned signatures and specimen signatures with reference to the Reasons given by P.W.67, this Court also found various similarities between those signatures, which also support the Opinion of P.W.67. The Accused-1 is no more and the Accused-7 has not disputed those signatures. On the other hand, it is his contention that as per the directions of the Accused-1, he has made those signatures. Thus, it is clear that the Accused-5 got prepared Employment Certificate, Pay Slips, Salary Certificate and Form No.16 through P.W.69 and that the Accused-7 has issued Employment Certificate, the Accused-1 has issued Pay Slips, Salary Certificate and Form No.16.
69. According to the Complainant, though the Accused-7 was not working as Principal of the SCTIT subsequent to July 2004 and he was not drawing salary as shown in the Pay Slips, Salary Certificate and Form No.16, high sound designation and inflated salary are mentioned falsely in those documents and as such, those documents are false documents. As per the evidence of P.W.15, from July 2004 to April 2005, he was working as the Principal of the SCTIT and the Accused-7 was his Predecessor-in- Office. As such, the Accused-7 was the Principal of the SCTIT only upto the end of June 2004. Contents of Ex.P.12 to Ex.P.14 also show the said fact. Those contents and contents of Ex.P.221 do not show that the Accused-7 was drawing salary around Rs.30,000/- p.m., and that he was working as Principal in the months of November and December 2004 as shown in the documents referred to 49 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] above. On the other hand, contents of Ex.P.13 and Ex.P.221 show that subsequent to July 2004, the Accused- 7 was working as Vice Principal and that he was drawing salary of Rs.13,500/- p.m., only. This evidence falsifies and negatives the contents of Employment Certificate, Pay Slips, Salary Certificate and Form No.16, which are issued by the Accused-1 and 7. Further, though TAN No.W-0252- CC/BOL does not pertain to the SCTIT, said number is shown in Form No.16. The evidence of P.W.40 and contents of Ex.P.130 show that Income Tax as shown in Form No.16 was not remitted through Bank of India. This evidence also shows that contents of Form No.16 are false. Thus, it is clear that the Accused-1, 5 and 7 and also P.W.69 have created false Employment Certificate, Pay Slips, Salary Certificate and Form No.16 in the name of the Accused-7.
b) Documents relating to the Accused-8:
70. Ex.P.18 contains Employment Certificate, Pay Slips for the months of January 2004 and February 2004, Salary Certificate and Form No.16 for the years 2002 to 2004 in the name of the Accused-8 showing that he was working as Instructor in the Physics Department of the SCTIT, he was drawing salary of around Rs.22,000/- p.m., as on February 2004, he had gross salary income of Rs.2,29,656/- for the years 2003-2004 and that Income Tax was remitted for those years by the SCTIT through Bank of India, J.B.Nagara Branch, Bengaluru. According to the Complainant, Employment Certificate, Pay Slips and 50 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] Form No.16 are issued by the Accused-7, the Accused-8 is also signatory to Form No.16 and Salary Certificate is issued by the Accused-11.
71. As per the evidence of P.W.69, as observed above, he was working as per the directions of the Accused-1 and 5, and the Accused-5 was getting prepared Salary Certificates and Form No.16 through him. P.W.69 has identified the signatures of the Accused-7 in the Pay Slips and Form No.16 and the signature of the Accused-11 in the Salary Certificate, which are in Ex.P.18. He has also identified the signatures of the Accused-8 in the loan documents including Form No.16, which are available in Ex.P.18. As per the evidence of P.W.65, he collected specimen signatures of the Accused-8 also as per Ex.P.198. As per the evidence of P.W.67 and contents of Ex.P.219, P.W.67 compared the specimen signatures of the Accused-7, 8 and 11 with their respective questioned signatures in the Employment Certificate, Pay Slips, Salary Certificate and Form No.16 available in Ex.P.18, examined them and he is of a clear Opinion that those questioned signatures are of the Accused-7, 8 and 11. On examination of those questioned signatures and specimen signatures with reference to the Reasons given by P.W.67, this Court also found various similarities between those signatures, which also support the Opinion of P.W.67. The Accused-7,
8 and 11 have not disputed those signatures. On the other hand, it is their contention that as per the directions of the Accused-1, they have made those signatures. Thus, from the above evidence, it is clear that the Accused-5 got 51 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] prepared Employment Certificate, Pay Slips, Salary Certificate and Form No.16 through P.W.69 and that the Accused-8 has signed on Form No.16, the Accused-7 has issued Employment Certificate, Pay Slips and Form No.16 in the capacity of Principal and that the Accused-11 has issued Salary Certificate in the capacity of In-charge Principal and that all these persons have acted on the directions of the Accused-1.
72. According to the Complainant, though the Accused-8 was not working as Instructor and he was not drawing salary as shown in the Pay Slips, Salary Certificate and Form No.16, high sound designation and inflated salary are mentioned falsely in those documents and as such, those documents are false documents. Contents of Ex.P.12 to Ex.P.14 and Ex.P.221 do not show that the Accused-8 was working as Instructor and that he was drawing salary of about Rs.22,000/- p.m., as shown in the documents referred to above. On the other hand, contents of Ex.P.12 and Ex.P.14 show that the Accused-8 was working as Attender only and contents of Ex.P.12 and Ex.P.221 show that he was drawing salary of Rs.2,500/- p.m., only in the month of January and February 2004. As such, contents of Ex.P.12, Ex.P.14 and Ex.P.221 support the contention of the Complainant. This evidence remained unchallenged. There is no reason to disbelieve the said evidence. This evidence falsifies and negatives the contents of Employment Certificate, Pay Slips, Salary Certificate and Form No.16. The evidence of P.W.40 and contents of Ex.P.130 show that Income Tax as shown in 52 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] Form No.16 was not remitted through Bank of India. This evidence also shows that contents of Form No.16 are false. Thus, it is clear that the Accused-1, 5, 7, 8 and 11 and also P.W.69 have created false Employment Certificate, Pay Slips, Salary Certificate and Form No.16 in the name of the Accused-8.
c) Documents relating to P.W.19:
73. Ex.P.28 contains Employment Certificate, Pay Slip, Salary Certificate and Form No.16 in the name of P.W.19-Sri.S.Jagadish showing that he was working as Instructor in the Electronics Department of the SCTIT, he was drawing salary of around Rs.20,000/- p.m., as on April 2004, he had gross salary income of Rs.3,06,192/- for the years 2003-2004 and that Income Tax was remitted for those years by the SCTIT through Bank of India, J.B.Nagara Branch, Bengaluru. According to the Complainant, Employment Certificate, Pay Slip, Salary Certificate and Form No.16 are issued by the Accused-7.
74. As per the evidence of P.W.69, as observed above, he was working as per the directions of the Accused-1 and 5, and the Accused-5 was getting prepared Salary Certificates and Form No.16 through him. P.W.69 has identified the signatures of the Accused-7 in the Pay Slip, Salary Certificate and Form No.16, which are in Ex.P.28. As per the evidence of P.W.67 and contents of Ex.P.219, P.W.67 compared the specimen signatures of the Accused-7 with his questioned signatures in the
53 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] Employment Certificate, Pay Slip, Salary Certificate and Form No.16 available in Ex.P.28, examined them and he is of a clear Opinion that those questioned signatures are of the Accused-7. On examination of those questioned signatures and specimen signatures with reference to the Reasons given by P.W.67, this Court also found various similarities between those signatures, which also support the Opinion of P.W.67. The Accused-7 has not disputed those signatures. On the other hand, it is his contention that as per the directions of the Accused-1, he has made those signatures. Thus, from the above evidence, it is clear that the Accused-5 got prepared Employment Certificate, Pay Slip, Salary Certificate and Form No.16 through P.W.69 and that the Accused-7 has issued all those documents in the capacity of Principal and that all these persons have acted on the directions of the Accused-1.
75. According to the Complainant, though P.W.19 was not working as an Instructor and he was not drawing salary as shown in the Pay Slip, Salary Certificate and Form No.16, high sound designation and inflated salary are mentioned falsely in those documents and as such, those documents are false documents. P.W.19 has deposed that earlier he worked as labourer in the hostel, later as Attender in the office, he has not worked as Instructor in the Electronics Department, he was drawing salary of Rs.1,500/- p.m., and that he was not drawing salary of Rs.20,168/- p.m., as shown in the Salary Certificate. Contents of Ex.P.12 to Ex.P.14 and Ex.P.221 show that P.W.19 was drawing salary of Rs.2,000/- to Rs.2,500/-
54 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] p.m., in the year 2004 by working as an Attender. As such, contents of Ex.P.12 to Ex.P.14 and Ex.P.221 corroborate the evidence of P.W.19. In the Cross- examination, P.W.19 has stated that initially salary was paid to him directly and that subsequently, salary was disbursed through the Bank. However, his evidence about quantum of salary and nature of his job remained unchallenged. There is no reason to disbelieve his evidence. This evidence falsifies and negatives the contents of Employment Certificate, Pay Slip, Salary Certificate and Form No.16, which are issued by the Accused-7. Further, though TAN No.W-0252-CC/BOL do not pertain to the SCTIT, said number is shown in Form No.16. The evidence of P.W.40 and contents of Ex.P.130 show that Income Tax as shown in Form No.16 was not remitted through Bank of India. This evidence also shows that contents of Form No.16 are false. Thus, it is clear that the Accused-1, 5 and 7 and also P.W.69 have created false Employment Certificate, Pay Slip, Salary Certificate and Form No.16 in the name of P.W.19.
d) Documents relating to P.W.20:
76. Ex.P.23 contains Employment Certificate, Pay Slips, Salary Certificate and Form No.16 in the name of P.W.20-Sri.Gangappa showing that he was working as Instructor in the Civil Department of the SCTIT, he was drawing salary of around Rs.22,000/- p.m., as on February 2004, he had gross salary income of Rs.2,29,656/- for the years 2003-2004 and that Income Tax was remitted for
55 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] those years by the SCTIT through Bank of India, J.B.Nagara Branch, Bengaluru. According to the Complainant, Employment Certificate was issued by the Accused-7 and other documents were issued by the Accused-11. As per the evidence of P.W.69, as observed above, he was working as per the directions of the Accused-1 and 5, and the Accused-5 was getting prepared Salary Certificates and Form No.16 through him. P.W.69 has identified the respective signatures of the Accused-7 and 11 in all those documents issued in the name of P.W.20, which are in Ex.P.28. As per the evidence of P.W.67 and contents of Ex.P.219, P.W.67 compared the specimen signatures of the Accused-7 and 11 with their respective questioned signatures in the Employment Certificate, Pay Slips, Salary Certificate and Form No.16 available in Ex.P.28, examined them and he is of a clear Opinion that those questioned signatures are of the Accused-7 and 11. On examination of those questioned signatures and specimen signatures with reference to the Reasons given by P.W.67, this Court also found various similarities between those signatures, which also support the Opinion of P.W.67. The Accused-7 and 11 have not disputed those signatures. On the other hand, it is their contention that as per the directions of the Accused-1, they have made those signatures. Thus, from the above evidence, it is clear that the Accused-5 got prepared Employment Certificate, Pay Slips, Salary Certificate and Form No.16 through P.W.69 and that the Accused-7 and 11 have issued all those documents in the capacity of 56 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] Principal and In-charge Principal and that all these persons have acted on the directions of the Accused-1.
77. According to the Complainant, though P.W.20 was not working as an Instructor and he was not drawing salary as shown in the Pay Slips, Salary Certificate and Form No.16, high sound designation and inflated salary are mentioned falsely in those documents and as such, those documents are false documents. P.W.20 has deposed that he was working as House Keeper in the SCTIT and that his salary was Rs.1,000/- p.m. This evidence of P.W.20 remained unchallenged. Contents of Ex.P.12 to Ex.P.15 and Ex.P.221 do not show that P.W.20 was working as Instructor and that he was drawing salary around Rs.22,000/- p.m., as shown in the documents, referred to above. This evidence falsifies and negatives the contents of Employment Certificate, Pay Slip, Salary Certificate and Form No.16, which are issued by the Accused-7 and 11. The evidence of P.W.40 and contents of Ex.P.130 show that Income Tax as shown in Form No.16 was not remitted through Bank of India. This evidence also shows that contents of Form No.16 are false. Thus, it is clear that the Accused-1, 5, 7 and 11 and also P.W.69 have created false Employment Certificate, Pay Slips, Salary Certificate and Form No.16 in the name of P.W.20.
e) Documents relating to P.W.21:
78. Ex.P.32 contains Employment Certificate, Pay Slips, Salary Certificate and Form No.16 in the name of P.W.21-Smt.K.Suja showing that she was working as FDC 57 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] in the SCTIT, she was drawing salary about Rs.21,000/- p.m., as on July 2004, she had gross salary income of Rs.2,87,016/- for the years 2003-2004 and that Income Tax was remitted for those years by the SCTIT through Bank of India, J.B.Nagara Branch, Bengaluru. According to the Complainant, Employment Certificate, Pay Slips, Salary Certificate and Form No.16 were issued by the Accused-7. As per the evidence of P.W.69, as observed above, he was working as per the directions of the Accused-1 and 5, and the Accused-5 was getting prepared Salary Certificates and Form No.16 through him. P.W.69 has identified the signatures of the Accused-7 in all those documents issued in the name of P.W.21. In the Cross-examination, P.W.21 has stated that Pay Slips and Salary Certificate bear the signatures of the Accused-7. As per the evidence of P.W.67 and contents of Ex.P.219, P.W.67 compared the specimen signatures of the Accused-7 with his questioned signatures in the Employment Certificate, Pay Slips, Salary Certificate and Form No.16 available in Ex.P.32, examined them and he is of a clear Opinion that those questioned signatures are of the Accused-7. On examination of those questioned signatures and specimen signatures with reference to the Reasons given by P.W.67, this Court also found various similarities between those signatures, which also support the Opinion of P.W.67. The Accused-7 has not disputed those signatures. On the other hand, it is his contention that as per the directions of the Accused-1, he has made those signatures. Thus, from the above evidence, it is clear that the Accused-5 got prepared Employment Certificate, 58 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] Pay Slips, Salary Certificate and Form No.16 through P.W.69 and that the Accused-7 has issued all those documents in the capacity of Principal and that all these persons have acted on the directions of the Accused-1.
79. In the Employment Certificate, it is shown that P.W.21 was working as FDC i.e., First Division Clerk in the SCTIT. P.W.21 has deposed that she is working as Clerk in the SCTIT since 2000. She has not disputed the nature of her designation. Contents of Ex.P.12 to Ex.P.15 also show that she was working as FDC in the SCTIT. As such, there are no false facts in the Employment Certificate issued by the Accused-7.
80. According to the Complainant, though P.W.21 was not drawing salary as shown in the Pay Slips, Salary Certificate and Form No.16, inflated salary is mentioned falsely in those documents and as such, those documents are false documents. P.W.21 has deposed that initially salary of Rs.2,500/- was paid to her and that salary of Rs.17,803/- shown in the Pay Slips and Salary Certificate were not given to her in any month. Contents of Ex.P.12 to Ex.P.14 and Ex.P.221 show that P.W.21 was drawing salary of Rs.5,000/- p.m., in the year 2004 by working as FDC. However, those contents do not show that she was drawing salary around Rs.21,000/- p.m., as shown in the documents referred to above. As such, contents of Ex.P.12 to Ex.P.14 materially corroborate the evidence of P.W.21. This evidence remained unchallenged. There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.21. This evidence falsifies 59 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] and negatives the contents of Pay Slips, Salary Certificate and Form No.16, which are issued by the Accused-7. Further, though TAN No.W-0252-CC/BOL does not pertain to the SCTIT, said number is shown in Form No.16. The evidence of P.W.40 and contents of Ex.P.130 show that Income Tax as shown in Form No.16 was not remitted through Bank of India. This evidence also shows that contents of Form No.16 are false. Thus, it is clear that the Accused-1, 5 and 7 and also P.W.69 have created false Pay Slips, Salary Certificate and Form No.16 in the name of P.W.21.
f) Documents relating to P.W.22:
81. Ex.P.33 contains Employment Certificate, Pay Slips, Salary Certificate and Form No.16 in the name of P.W.22-Smt.D.Anitha showing that she was working as FDC in the SCTIT, she was drawing salary of about Rs.20,000/- p.m., as on July 2004, she had gross salary income of Rs.2,86,704/- for the years 2003-2004 and that Income Tax was remitted for those years by the SCTIT through Bank of India, J.B.Nagara Branch, Bengaluru.
According to the Complainant, Employment Certificate, Pay Slips, Salary Certificate and Form No.16 were issued by the Accused-7. As per the evidence of P.W.69, as observed above, he was working as per the directions of the Accused-1 and 5, and the Accused-5 was getting prepared Salary Certificates and Form No.16 through him. P.W.69 has identified the signatures of the Accused-7 in all those documents issued in the name of P.W.22. In her evidence, P.W.22 has stated that Principal has issued 60 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] Salary Certificates in her name. In her Cross-examination, she has stated that the Accused-7 was the Principal and that Salary Certificate bears the signature of the Accused-
7. As per the evidence of P.W.67 and contents of Ex.P.219, P.W.67 compared the specimen signatures of the Accused- 7 with his questioned signatures in the Employment Certificate, Pay Slips, Salary Certificates and Form No.16 available in Ex.P.33, examined them and he is of a clear Opinion that those questioned signatures are of the Accused-7. On examination of those questioned signatures and specimen signatures with reference to the Reasons given by P.W.67, this Court also found various similarities between those signatures, which also support the Opinion of P.W.67. The Accused-7 has not disputed those signatures. On the other hand, it is his contention that as per the directions of the Accused-1, he has made those signatures. Thus, from the above evidence, it is clear that the Accused-5 got prepared Employment Certificate, Pay Slips, Salary Certificates and Form No.16 through P.W.69 and that the Accused-7 has issued all those documents in the capacity of Principal and that all these persons have acted on the directions of the Accused-1.
82. According to the Complainant, though P.W.22 was not working as FDC and she was not drawing salary as shown in the Pay Slips, Salary Certificates and Form No.16, high sound designation and inflated salary are mentioned falsely in those documents and as such, those documents are false documents. P.W.22 has deposed that from 2003 to 2005, she worked as Clerk in the SCTIT, 61 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] Rs.2,000/- was paid to her as salary and that salary of Rs.16,811/- and Rs.18,499/- shown in the Salary Certificates were not given to her in any month. Contents of Ex.P.12 to Ex.P.14 and Ex.P.221 show that P.W.22 was working as SDC and not as FDC and that she was drawing salary of Rs.2,340/- to Rs.2,500/- p.m., in the year 2004. However, those contents do not show that she was drawing salary around Rs.20,000/- p.m., as shown in the documents referred to above. As such, contents of Ex.P.12 to Ex.P.14 and Ex.P.221 materially corroborate the evidence of P.W.22. This evidence remained unchallenged. There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.22, which is supported by the documentary evidence. This evidence falsifies and negatives the contents of Employment Certificate, Pay Slips, Salary Certificates and Form No.16, which are issued by the Accused-7. Further, though TAN No.W-0252-CC/BOL does not pertain to the SCTIT, said number is shown in Form No.16. The evidence of P.W.40 and contents of Ex.P.130 show that Income Tax as shown in Form No.16 was not remitted through Bank of India. This evidence also shows that contents of Form No.16 are false. Thus, it is clear that the Accused-1, 5 and 7 and also P.W.69 have created false Employment Certificate, Pay Slips, Salary Certificates and Form No.16 in the name of P.W.22.
g) Documents relating to P.W.23:
83. Ex.P.21 contains Employment Certificate, Pay Slips, Salary Certificate and Form No.16 in the name of 62 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] P.W.23-Sri.S.M.Vijay Kumar showing that he was working as Lecturer in Physics Department of the SCTIT, he was drawing salary of about Rs.21,000/- p.m., as on March 2004, he had gross salary income of Rs.2,29,656/- for the years 2003-2004, and that Income Tax was remitted for those years by the SCTIT through Bank of India, J.B.Nagara Branch, Bengaluru. According to the Complainant, Employment Certificate was issued by the Accused-7 and other documents were issued by the Accused-11. As per the evidence of P.W.69, as observed above, he was working as per the directions of the Accused-1 and 5, and the Accused-5 was getting prepared Salary Certificates and Form No.16 through him. P.W.69 has identified the respective signatures of the Accused-7 and 11 in all those documents issued in the name of P.W.23, which are in Ex.P.21. As per the evidence of P.W.67 and contents of Ex.P.219, P.W.67 compared the specimen signatures of the Accused-7 and 11 with their respective questioned signatures in the Employment Certificate, Pay Slips, Salary Certificate and Form No.16 available in Ex.P.21, examined them and he is of a clear Opinion that those questioned signatures are of the Accused-7 and 11. On examination of those questioned signatures and specimen signatures with reference to the Reasons given by P.W.67, this Court also found various similarities between those signatures, which also support the Opinion of P.W.67. The Accused-7 and 11 have not disputed those signatures. On the other hand, it is their contention that as per the directions of the Accused-1, 63 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] they have made those signatures. Thus, from the above evidence, it is clear that the Accused-5 got prepared Employment Certificate, Pay Slips, Salary Certificate and Form No.16 through P.W.69 and that the Accused-7 and 11 have issued all those documents in the capacity of Principal and In-charge Principal and that all these persons have acted on the directions of the Accused-1.
84. According to the Complainant, though P.W.23 was not working as Lecturer and he was not drawing salary as shown in the Pay Slips, Salary Certificate and Form No.16, high sound designation and inflated salary are mentioned falsely in those documents and as such, those documents are false documents. P.W.23 has deposed that earlier he had hired his bus to the SCTIT for picking up the students, the Accused-1 sold that bus to somebody and that thereafter, he was taken in the said college as Admission Officer and that salary of Rs.5,000/- was given to him. He has also stated that he was not working as Lecturer in that Institution and that salary of Rs.16,601/-
shown in the Pay Slips and Salary Certificate was not given to him and that his job has been falsely shown as Lecturer in the Certificate issued by the Principal. Contents of Ex.P.12 to Ex.P.15 and Ex.P.221 do not show that P.W.23 was working as Lecturer and that he was drawing salary around Rs.21,000/- p.m., as shown in the documents, referred to above. This evidence remained unchallenged and there is no reason to disbelieve the said evidence. This evidence falsifies and negatives the contents of Employment Certificate, Pay Slips, Salary Certificate and 64 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] Form No.16, which are issued by the Accused-7 and 11. The evidence of P.W.40 and contents of Ex.P.130 show that Income Tax as shown in Form No.16 was not remitted through Bank of India. This evidence also shows that contents of Form No.16 are false. Thus, it is clear that the Accused-1, 5, 7 and 11 and also P.W.69 have created false Employment Certificate, Pay Slips, Salary Certificate and Form No.16 in the name of P.W.23.
h) Documents relating to P.W.24:
85. Ex.P.19 contains Employment Certificate, Pay Slip, Salary Certificate and Form No.16 in the name of P.W.24-Sri.C.S.Srinivas showing that he was working as Accountant in the SCTIT, he was drawing salary of about Rs.21,000/- p.m., as on March 2004, he had gross salary income of Rs.2,29,656/- for the years 2003-2004 and that Income Tax was remitted for those years by the SCTIT through Bank of India, J.B.Nagara Branch, Bengaluru.
According to the Complainant, Employment Certificate, Pay Slip and Form No.16 were issued by the Accused-7 and Salary Certificate was issued by the Accused-11. As per the evidence of P.W.69, as observed above, he was working as per the directions of the Accused-1 and 5, and the Accused-5 was getting prepared Salary Certificates and Form No.16 through him. P.W.69 has identified the respective signatures of the Accused-7 and 11 in all those documents issued in the name of P.W.24, which are in Ex.P.19. As per the evidence of P.W.67 and contents of Ex.P.219, P.W.67 compared the specimen signatures of the Accused-7 and 11 with their respective questioned 65 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] signatures in the Employment Certificate, Pay Slip, Salary Certificate and Form No.16 available in Ex.P.19, examined them and he is of a clear Opinion that those questioned signatures are of the Accused-7 and 11. On examination of those questioned signatures and specimen signatures with reference to the Reasons given by P.W.67, this Court also found various similarities between those signatures, which also support the Opinion of P.W.67. The Accused-7 and 11 have not disputed those signatures. On the other hand, it is their contention that as per the directions of the Accused-1, they have made those signatures. Thus, from the above evidence, it is clear that the Accused-5 got prepared Employment Certificate, Pay Slip, Salary Certificate and Form No.16 through P.W.69 and that the Accused-7 and 11 have issued all those documents in the capacity of Principal and In-charge Principal and that all these persons have acted on the directions of the Accused-1.
86. According to the Complainant, though P.W.24 was not working as Accountant and he was not drawing salary as shown in the Pay Slip, Salary Certificate and Form No.16, high sound designation and inflated salary are mentioned falsely in those documents and as such, those documents are false documents. P.W.24 has deposed that from 2001, he was working as Clerk and that now he is working as Office Superintendent in the SCTIT and that salary of Rs.4,000/- was given to him in the beginning. He has also stated that Principal has issued Salary Certificate in his name mentioning his salary as Rs.18,031/- and that salary amount shown in the Salary Certificate and Pay 66 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] Slips was not given to him. Contents of Ex.P.12 to Ex.P.15 and Ex.P.221 do not show that P.W.24 was working as Accountant and that he was drawing salary around Rs.21,000/- p.m., as shown in the documents, referred to above. On the other hand, those documents show that P.W.24 was working as Office Superintendent and that he was drawing salary of Rs.5,000/- in the year 2004. The said evidence remained unchallenged and there is no reason to disbelieve the said evidence. This evidence falsifies and negatives the contents of Employment Certificate, Pay Slip, Salary Certificate and Form No.16, which are issued by the Accused-7 and 11. The evidence of P.W.40 and contents of Ex.P.130 show that Income Tax as shown in Form No.16 was not remitted through Bank of India. This evidence also shows that contents of Form No.16 are false. Thus, it is clear that the Accused-1, 5, 7 and 11 and also P.W.69 have created false Employment Certificate, Pay Slip, Salary Certificate and Form No.16 in the name of P.W.24.
i) Documents relating to P.W.25:
87. Ex.P.22 contains Employment Certificate, Pay Slips, Salary Certificate and Form No.16 in the name of P.W.25-Sri.K.Ramesh showing that he was working as Lecturer in Mathematics in the SCTIT, he was drawing salary of about Rs.20,000/- p.m., as on March 2004, he had gross salary income of Rs.2,37,348/- for the years 2003-2004 and that Income Tax was remitted for those years by the SCTIT through Bank of India, J.B.Nagara Branch, Bengaluru. According to the Complainant,
67 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] Employment Certificate was issued by the Accused-7 and Salary Certificate, Pay Slips and also Form No.16 were issued by the Accused-11. As per the evidence of P.W.69, as observed above, he was working as per the directions of the Accused-1 and 5, and the Accused-5 was getting prepared Salary Certificates and Form No.16 through him. P.W.69 has identified the respective signatures of the Accused-7 and 11 in all those documents issued in the name of P.W.25, which are in Ex.P.22. As per the evidence of P.W.67 and contents of Ex.P.219, P.W.67 compared the specimen signatures of the Accused-7 and 11 with their respective questioned signatures in the Employment Certificate, Pay Slips, Salary Certificate and Form No.16 available in Ex.P.22, examined them and he is of a clear Opinion that those questioned signatures are of the Accused-7 and 11. On examination of those questioned signatures and specimen signatures with reference to the Reasons given by P.W.67, this Court also found various similarities between those signatures, which also support the Opinion of P.W.67. The Accused-7 and 11 have not disputed those signatures. On the other hand, it is their contention that as per the directions of the Accused-1, they have made those signatures. Thus, from the above evidence, it is clear that the Accused-5 got prepared Employment Certificate, Pay Slips, Salary Certificate and Form No.16 through P.W.69 and that the Accused-7 and 11 have issued all those documents in the capacity of Principal and In-charge Principal and that all these persons have acted on the directions of the Accused-1.
68 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J]
88. In the Employment Certificate, it is shown that P.W.25 was working as Lecturer in Mathematics Department in the SCTIT. P.W.25 has also deposed that he was working as Lecturer of Mathematics in the SCTIT from 2001 to 2005. Contents of Ex.P.12 to Ex.P.15 also show that he was working as Lecturer of Mathematics in the SCTIT. As such, there are no false facts in the Employment Certificate issued by the Accused-7.
89. According to the Complainant, though P.W.25 was not drawing salary as shown in the Pay Slips, Salary Certificate and Form No.16, inflated salary is mentioned falsely in those documents and as such, those documents are false documents. P.W.25 has deposed that salary of Rs.5,000/- was paid to him and that Principal has issued Salary Certificate and Pay Slips in his name mentioning his salary as Rs.16,807/- and Rs.16,811/- and that salary amount shown in the Salary Certificate and Pay Slips was not given to him at any time. Contents of Ex.P.12 to Ex.P.15 and Ex.P.221 do not show that P.W.25 was drawing salary around Rs.20,000/- p.m., as shown in the documents, referred to above. On the other hand, those documents show that P.W.25 was drawing salary of Rs.5,000/- in the year 2004. The said evidence remained unchallenged and there is no reason to disbelieve the same. This evidence falsifies and negatives the contents of Pay Slips, Salary Certificate and Form No.16, which are issued by the Accused-11. The evidence of P.W.40 and contents of Ex.P.130 show that Income Tax as shown in Form No.16 was not remitted through Bank of India. This 69 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] evidence also shows that contents of Form No.16 are false. Thus, it is clear that the Accused-1, 5 and 11 and also P.W.69 have created false Pay Slips, Salary Certificate and Form No.16 in the name of P.W.25.
j) Documents relating to P.W.26:
90. Ex.P.27 contains Employment Certificate, Pay Slips, Salary Certificate and Form No.16 in the name of P.W.26-Sri.V.V.Ramana showing that he was working as Instructor in the Mechanical Department of the SCTIT, he was drawing salary of around Rs.21,000/- p.m., as on May 2004, he had gross salary income of Rs.2,94,168/- for the years 2003-2004 and that Income Tax was remitted for those years by the SCTIT through Bank of India, J.B.Nagara Branch, Bengaluru. According to the Complainant, Employment Certificate, Pay Slips, Salary Certificate and Form No.16 were issued by the Accused-7.
As per the evidence of P.W.69, as observed above, he was working as per the directions of the Accused-1 and 5, and the Accused-5 was getting prepared Salary Certificates and Form No.16 through him. P.W.69 has identified the signatures of the Accused-7 in all those documents issued in the name of P.W.26. In his evidence, P.W.26 has stated that the Principal has issued Salary Certificate and Pay Slips in his name mentioning that he was Instructor in the Mechanical Department. In his Cross-examination, he has stated that the Accused-7 was the Principal. As per the evidence of P.W.67 and contents of Ex.P.219, P.W.67 compared the specimen signatures of the Accused-7 with his questioned signatures in the Employment Certificate, 70 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] Pay Slips, Salary Certificate and Form No.16 available in Ex.P.27, examined them and he is of a clear Opinion that those questioned signatures are of the Accused-7. On examination of those questioned signatures and specimen signatures with reference to the Reasons given by P.W.67, this Court also found various similarities between those signatures, which also support the Opinion of P.W.67. The Accused-7 has not disputed those signatures. On the other hand, it is his contention that as per the directions of the Accused-1, he has made those signatures. Thus, from the above evidence, it is clear that the Accused-5 got prepared Employment Certificate, Pay Slips, Salary Certificate and Form No.16 through P.W.69 and that the Accused-7 has issued all those documents in the capacity of Principal and that all these persons have acted on the directions of the Accused-1.
91. According to the Complainant, though P.W.26 was not working as Instructor and he was not drawing salary as shown in the Pay Slips, Salary Certificate and Form No.16, high sound designation and inflated salary are mentioned falsely in those documents and as such, those documents are false documents. P.W.26 has deposed that from 2002, he is working as Attender in the SCTIT, Rs.1,500/- was paid to him as salary and that salary of Rs.17,440/- and Rs.17,461/- as shown in the Salary Certificate and Pay Slips was not given to him at any time. Contents of Ex.P.12 to Ex.P.14 and Ex.P.221 show that P.W.26 was working as Attender and not as Instructor and that he was drawing salary of Rs.2,750/- in the year 2004.
71 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] Those contents do not show that he was drawing salary around Rs.21,000/- p.m., as shown in the documents referred to above. As such, contents of Ex.P.12 to Ex.P.14 and Ex.P.221 materially corroborate the evidence of P.W.26. This evidence remained unchallenged. There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.26, which is well supported by the documentary evidence. This evidence falsifies and negatives the contents of Employment Certificate, Pay Slips, Salary Certificate and Form No.16, which are issued by the Accused-7. Further, though TAN No.W-0252-CC/BOL does not pertain to the SCTIT, said number is shown in Form No.16. The evidence of P.W.40 and contents of Ex.P.130 show that Income Tax as shown in Form No.16 was not remitted through Bank of India. This evidence also shows that contents of Form No.16 are false. Thus, it is clear that the Accused-1, 5 and 7 and also P.W.69 have created false Employment Certificate, Pay Slips, Salary Certificate and Form No.16 in the name of P.W.26.
k) Documents relating to P.W.27:
92. Ex.P.34 contains Employment Certificate, Pay Slips, Salary Certificate and Form No.16 in the name of P.W.27-Sri.Gopal Krishna showing that he was working as Instructor in the Mechanical Department of the SCTIT, he was drawing salary around Rs.22,000/- p.m., from November 2004 to January 2005, he had gross salary income of Rs.3,09,792/- for the years 2003-2004 and that Income Tax was remitted for those years by the SCTIT
72 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] through Bank of India, J.B.Nagara Branch, Bengaluru. According to the Complainant, Employment Certificate, Pay Slips and Salary Certificate were issued by the Accused-7. As per the evidence of P.W.69, as observed above, he was working as per the directions of the Accused-1 and 5, and the Accused-5 was getting prepared Salary Certificates and Form No.16 through him. P.W.69 has identified the signatures of the Accused-7 in all those documents issued in the name of P.W.27. As per the evidence of P.W.67 and contents of Ex.P.219, P.W.67 compared the specimen signatures of the Accused-7 with his questioned signatures in the Employment Certificate, Pay Slips and Salary Certificate available in Ex.P.34, examined them and he is of a clear Opinion that those questioned signatures are of the Accused-7. On examination of those questioned signatures and specimen signatures with reference to the Reasons given by P.W.67, this Court also found various similarities between those signatures, which also support the Opinion of P.W.67. The Accused-7 has not disputed those signatures. On the other hand, it is his contention that as per the directions of the Accused-1, he has made those signatures.
93. In his evidence, P.W.27 has stated that the Principal has issued Salary Certificate and Pay Slips in his name mentioning that he was Instructor in the Mechanical Department. In his Cross-examination, he has stated that P.W.15-Sri.Kumara Swamy was the Principal of the SCTIT at that time. He has also stated that Form No.16 bears the signature of P.W.15 as per Ex.P.34(d). P.W.15 has 73 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] deposed that from July 2004 to April 2005, he was working as the Principal of the SCTIT and that at the request of the Accused-1, he issued Pay Slips and Salary Certificate of P.W.27 and that Salary Certificate of P.W.27 available in Ex.P.34 bears his signatures. Pay Slips and Salary Certificate bear the signatures of P.W.15 along with the Accused-7, which indicate that both P.W.15 and the Accused-7 have issued those documents. Form No.16 also bears the signature of P.W.15, which indicates that it has been issued by P.W.15.
94. Thus, from the above evidence, it is clear that the Accused-5 got prepared Employment Certificate, Pay Slips, Salary Certificate and Form No.16 through P.W.69 and that the Accused-7 has issued Employment Certificate, the Accused-7 and P.W.15 have issued Pay Slips and Salary Certificate and that P.W.15 has issued Form No.16 in the capacity of Principal and that all these persons have acted on the directions of the Accused-1.
95. According to the Complainant, though P.W.27 was not working as Instructor and he was not drawing salary as shown in the Pay Slips, Salary Certificate and Form No.16, high sound designation and inflated salary are mentioned falsely in those documents and as such, those documents are false documents. P.W.27 has deposed that from 2001, he was working as Attender in the SCTIT and that from 2007, he is working as Lab Assistant in the SCTIT and that Rs.1,200/- was paid to him as salary and that salary of Rs.17,687/- and Rs.17,693/- as shown in the 74 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] Salary Certificate and Pay Slips was not given to him at any time. Contents of Ex.P.12 to Ex.P.14 and Ex.P.221 show that earlier P.W.27 was working as Attender and that in the year 2003-2004, he was working as Lab Assistant and that from 2008 onwards, he is working as Instructor and that in the year 2004, he was drawing salary of Rs.3,500/- p.m. Those contents do not show that he was drawing salary around Rs.21,000/- p.m., and that he was working as Instructor in between November 2004 and January 2005 as shown in the documents referred to above. As such, contents of Ex.P.12 to Ex.P.14 and Ex.P.221 materially corroborate the evidence of P.W.27, which supports the contention of the Complainant. This evidence remained unchallenged. There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.27, which is well supported by the documentary evidence. This evidence falsifies and negatives the contents of Employment Certificate, Pay Slips, Salary Certificate and Form No.16, which are issued by the Accused-7 and P.W.15. Further, though TAN No.W- 0252-CC/BOL does not pertain to the SCTIT, said number is shown in Form No.16. The evidence of P.W.40 and contents of Ex.P.130 show that Income Tax as shown in Form No.16 was not remitted through Bank of India. This evidence also shows that contents of Form No.16 are false. Thus, it is clear that the Accused-1, 5 and 7 and also P.W.15 and P.W.69 have created false Employment Certificate, Pay Slips, Salary Certificate and Form No.16 in the name of P.W.27.
75 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J]
l) Documents relating to P.W.29:
96. Ex.P.36 contains Employment Certificate, Pay Slips, Salary Certificate and Form No.16 in the name of P.W.29-Sri.K.Srinivas showing that he was working as Librarian in the SCTIT, he was drawing salary of around Rs.22,000/- p.m., from November 2004 to January 2005, he had gross salary income of Rs.2,99,028/- for the years 2003-2004 and that Income Tax was remitted for those years by the SCTIT through Bank of India, J.B.Nagara Branch, Bengaluru. According to the Complainant, Employment Certificate, Pay Slips and Salary Certificate were issued by the Accused-7. As per the evidence of P.W.69, as observed above, he was working as per the directions of the Accused-1 and 5, and the Accused-5 was getting prepared Salary Certificates and Form No.16 through him. P.W.69 has identified the signatures of the Accused-7 in all those documents issued in the name of P.W.29. As per the evidence of P.W.67 and contents of Ex.P.219, P.W.67 compared the specimen signatures of the Accused-7 with his questioned signatures in the Employment Certificate, Pay Slips and Salary Certificate available in Ex.P.36, examined them and he is of a clear Opinion that those questioned signatures are of the Accused-7. On examination of those questioned signatures and specimen signatures with reference to the Reasons given by P.W.67, this Court also found various similarities between those signatures, which also support the Opinion of P.W.67. The Accused-7 has not disputed those signatures. On the other hand, it is his contention that as
76 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] per the directions of the Accused-1, he has made those signatures.
97. In his evidence, P.W.29 has stated that the Principal has issued Salary Certificate and Pay Slips in his name mentioning that he was Assistant Librarian. P.W.15 has deposed that at the request of the Accused-1, he issued Pay Slips and Salary Certificate of P.W.29 and that Salary Certificate and Pay Slips of P.W.29 available in Ex.P.36 bear his signatures. Pay Slips and Salary Certificate bear the signatures of P.W.15 along with the Accused-7, which indicate that both P.W.15 and the Accused-7 have issued those documents. Form No.16 bears the signature of P.W.15, indicating that it has been issued by P.W.15.
98. Thus, from the above evidence, it is clear that the Accused-5 got prepared Employment Certificate, Pay Slips, Salary Certificate and Form No.16 through P.W.69 and that the Accused-7 has issued Employment Certificate, the Accused-7 and P.W.15 have issued Pay Slips and Salary Certificate and that P.W.15 has issued Form No.16 in the capacity of Principal and that all these persons have acted on the directions of the Accused-1.
99. In the Employment Certificate issued by the Accused-7 and in Form No.16 issued by P.W.15, it is shown that P.W.29 was working as Librarian. But, in the Pay Slips and Salary Certificate issued by the Accused-7 and P.W.15, it is shown that P.W.29 was working as 77 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] Assistant Librarian. According to the Complainant, though P.W.29 was not working as Librarian or Assistant Librarian and he was not drawing salary as shown in the Pay Slips, Salary Certificate and Form No.16, high sound designation and inflated salary are mentioned falsely in those documents and as such, those documents are false documents. P.W.29 has deposed that during 2001 to 2006, he was working as Library Assistant in the SCTIT and that Rs.2,000/- was paid to him as salary and that salary of Rs.18,426/- and Rs.18,306/- as shown in the Salary Certificate and Pay Slips was not given to him at any time. Contents of Ex.P.12, Ex.P.13 and Ex.P.221 show that P.W.29 was working in the Library Section and that he was drawing salary of Rs.4,500/- p.m. Those contents do not show that he was drawing salary around Rs.22,000/- p.m., and that he was working as Librarian or Assistant Librarian in between November 2004 and January 2005 as shown in the documents referred to above. As such, contents of Ex.P.12, Ex.P.13 and Ex.P.221 materially corroborate the evidence of P.W.29, which supports the contention of the Complainant. This evidence remained unchallenged. There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.29, which is well supported by the documentary evidence. This evidence falsifies and negatives the contents of Employment Certificate, Pay Slips, Salary Certificate and Form No.16, which are issued by the Accused-7 and P.W.15. Further, though TAN No.W-0252-CC/BOL does not pertain to the SCTIT, said number is shown in Form No.16. The evidence of P.W.40 and contents of Ex.P.130 show 78 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] that Income Tax as shown in Form No.16 was not remitted through Bank of India. This evidence also shows that contents of Form No.16 are false. Thus, it is clear that the Accused-1, 5 and 7 and also P.W.15 and P.W.69 have created false Employment Certificate, Pay Slips, Salary Certificate and Form No.16 in the name of P.W.29.
m) Documents relating to P.W.62:
100. Ex.P.30 contains Employment Certificate, Pay Slips, Salary Certificate and Form No.16 in the name of P.W.62-Sri.Omkaraswamy showing that he was working as Instructor in the Physics Department of the SCTIT, he was drawing salary of around Rs.22,000/- p.m., as on April 2004, he had gross salary income of Rs.2,81,016/- for the years 2003-2004 and that Income Tax was remitted for those years by the SCTIT through Bank of India, J.B.Nagara Branch, Bengaluru. According to the Complainant, Employment Certificate and Salary Certificate were issued by the Accused-7 and Pay Slips were issued by the Accused-11 and Form No.16 were issued by the Accused-7 and 11. As per the evidence of P.W.69, as observed above, he was working as per the directions of the Accused-1 and 5, and the Accused-5 was getting prepared Salary Certificates and Form No.16 through him. P.W.69 has identified the respective signatures of the Accused-7 and 11 in all those documents issued in the name of P.W.62, which are in Ex.P.30.
P.W.62 has deposed that the Accused-7 has issued Salary Certificate for Rs.21,079/-. As per the evidence of P.W.67 and contents of Ex.P.219, P.W.67 compared the specimen 79 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] signatures of the Accused-7 and 11 with their respective questioned signatures in the Employment Certificate, Pay Slips, Salary Certificate and Form No.16 available in Ex.P.30, examined them and he is of a clear Opinion that those questioned signatures are of the Accused-7 and 11. On examination of those questioned signatures and specimen signatures with reference to the Reasons given by P.W.67, this Court also found various similarities between those signatures, which also support the Opinion of P.W.67. The Accused-7 and 11 have not disputed those signatures. On the other hand, it is their contention that as per the directions of the Accused-1, they have made those signatures. Thus, from the above evidence, it is clear that the Accused-5 got prepared Employment Certificate, Pay Slips, Salary Certificate and Form No.16 through P.W.69 and that the Accused-7 and 11 have issued all those documents in the capacity of Principal and In-charge Principal and that all these persons have acted on the directions of the Accused-1.
101. According to the Complainant, though P.W.62 was not working as an Instructor and he was not drawing salary as shown in the Pay Slips, Salary Certificate and Form No.16, high sound designation and inflated salary are mentioned falsely in those documents and as such, those documents are false documents. P.W.62 has deposed that from 2002 to 2004, he was working as Attender in the SCTIT and that initially his salary was Rs.1,000/- p.m., which was subsequently raised to Rs.2,450/- p.m. This evidence of P.W.62 remained unchallenged. Contents of 80 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] Ex.P.12 to Ex.P.15 and Ex.P.221 do not show that P.W.62 was working as Instructor and that he was drawing salary around Rs.22,000/- p.m., as shown in the documents, referred to above. On the other hand, those contents show that P.W.62 was working as Lab Assistant and that his salary was Rs.2,500/- p.m., in the year 2004. This evidence falsifies and negatives the contents of Employment Certificate, Pay Slips, Salary Certificate and Form No.16, which are issued by the Accused-7 and 11. Further, though TAN No.W-0252-CC/BOL does not pertain to the SCTIT, said number is shown in Form No.16. The evidence of P.W.40 and contents of Ex.P.130 show that Income Tax as shown in Form No.16 was not remitted through Bank of India. This evidence also shows that contents of Form No.16 are false. Thus, it is clear that the Accused-1, 5, 7 and 11 and also P.W.69 have created false Employment Certificate, Pay Slips, Salary Certificate and Form No.16 in the name of P.W.62.
n) Documents relating to P.W.69:
102. Ex.P.24 contains Employment Certificate, Pay Slips, Salary Certificate and Form No.16 in the name of P.W.69-Sri.M.G.Vinod Kumar showing that he was working as Lecturer in Computer Science Department of the SCTIT, he was drawing salary of around Rs.21,000/- p.m., as on February 2004, he had gross salary income of Rs.2,12,551/- for the years 2003-2004 and that Income Tax was remitted for those years by the SCTIT through Bank of India, J.B.Nagara Branch, Bengaluru. According to
81 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] the Complainant, Employment Certificate was issued by the Accused-7 and other documents were issued by the Accused-11. As per the evidence of P.W.69, as observed above, he was working as per the directions of the Accused-1 and 5, and the Accused-5 was getting prepared Salary Certificates and Form No.16 through him. P.W.69 has identified the respective signatures of the Accused-7 and 11 in all those documents issued in his name, which are in Ex.P.24. As per the evidence of P.W.67 and contents of Ex.P.219, P.W.67 compared the specimen signatures of the Accused-7 and 11 with their respective questioned signatures in the Employment Certificate, Pay Slips, Salary Certificate and Form No.16 available in Ex.P.24, examined them and he is of a clear Opinion that those questioned signatures are of the Accused-7 and 11. On examination of those questioned signatures and specimen signatures with reference to the Reasons given by P.W.67, this Court also found various similarities between those signatures, which also support the Opinion of P.W.67. The Accused-7 and 11 have not disputed those signatures. On the other hand, it is their contention that as per the directions of the Accused-1, they have made those signatures. Thus, from the above evidence, it is clear that the Accused-5 got prepared Employment Certificate, Pay Slips, Salary Certificate and Form No.16 through P.W.69 and that the Accused-7 and 11 have issued all those documents in the capacity of Principal and In-charge Principal and that all these persons have acted on the directions of the Accused-1.
82 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J]
103. In the Employment Certificate issued by the Accused-7, it is shown that P.W.69 was working as Instructor. But, in Pay Slips, Salary Certificate and Form No.16 issued by the Accused-11, it is shown that P.W.69 was working as Lecturer in Computer Science. According to the Complainant, though P.W.69 was not working as an Instructor or Lecturer and he was not drawing salary as shown in the Pay Slips, Salary Certificate and Form No.16, high sound designation and inflated salary are mentioned falsely in those documents and as such, those documents are false documents. P.W.69 has deposed that he was working as Computer Operator in the SCTIT and that his salary was Rs.3,500/- to Rs.5,000/- p.m. He has further deposed that he did not work as Lecturer, he has not drawn salary of Rs.17,804/- and Rs.20,813/- from the SCTIT at any time as shown in the Salary Slips, Salary Certificate and Form No.16. This evidence of P.W.69 remained unchallenged. Contents of Ex.P.12 to Ex.P.15 and Ex.P.221 do not show that P.W.69 was working as Instructor or Lecturer and that he was drawing salary around Rs.21,000/- p.m., as shown in the documents, referred to above. On the other hand, those contents show that P.W.69 was working as SDC and Computer Operator and that his salary was Rs.3,500/- p.m., in the year 2004. This evidence falsifies and negatives the contents of Employment Certificate, Pay Slips, Salary Certificate and Form No.16, which are issued by the Accused-7 and 11. The evidence of P.W.40 and contents of Ex.P.130 show that Income Tax as shown in Form No.16 was not remitted 83 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] through Bank of India. This evidence also shows that contents of Form No.16 are false. Thus, it is clear that the Accused-1, 5, 7 and 11 and also P.W.69 have created false Employment Certificate, Pay Slips, Salary Certificate and Form No.16 in the name of P.W.69.
o) Documents relating to C.W.33:
104. Ex.P.26 contains Employment Certificate, Pay Slips, Salary Certificate and Form No.16 in the name of C.W.33-Sri.H.Venkatesh showing that he was working as Instructor in the Mechanical Department of the SCTIT, he was drawing salary of around Rs.21,000/- p.m., as on April 2004, he had gross salary income of Rs.3,06,192/- for the years 2003-2004 and that Income Tax was remitted for those years by the SCTIT through Bank of India, J.B.Nagara Branch, Bengaluru. According to the Complainant, Employment Certificate, Pay Slip for the month of April 2004, Salary Certificate and Form No.16 were issued by the Accused-7 and Pay Slips for the months of January to March 2004 were issued by the Accused-11.
As per the evidence of P.W.69, as observed above, he was working as per the directions of the Accused-1 and 5, and the Accused-5 was getting prepared Salary Certificates and Form No.16 through him. P.W.69 has identified the signatures of the Accused-7 and 11 in all those documents issued in the name of C.W.33. As per the evidence of P.W.67 and contents of Ex.P.219, P.W.67 compared the specimen signatures of the Accused-7 and 11 with their questioned signatures in the Employment Certificate, Pay Slips, Salary Certificate and Form No.16 available in 84 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] Ex.P.26, examined them and he is of a clear Opinion that those questioned signatures are of the Accused-7 and 11. On examination of those questioned signatures and specimen signatures with reference to the Reasons given by P.W.67, this Court also found various similarities between those signatures, which also support the Opinion of P.W.67. The Accused-7 and 11 have not disputed those signatures. On the other hand, it is their contention that as per the directions of the Accused-1, they have made those signatures. Thus, from the above evidence, it is clear that the Accused-5 got prepared Employment Certificate, Pay Slips, Salary Certificate and Form No.16 through P.W.69 and that the Accused-7 and 11 have issued all those documents in the capacity of Principal and In-charge Principal respectively and that all these persons have acted on the directions of the Accused-1.
105. According to the Complainant, though C.W.33 was not working as Instructor and he was not drawing salary as shown in the Pay Slips, Salary Certificate and Form No.16, high sound designation and inflated salary are mentioned falsely in those documents and as such, those documents are false documents. Contents of Ex.P.12 to Ex.P.15 and Ex.P.221 do not show that C.W.33 was working as Instructor and that he was drawing salary of about Rs.21,000/- p.m., as shown in the documents referred to above. On the other hand, contents of Ex.P.14 show that C.W.33 was working as Attender only and that contents of Ex.P.12 and Ex.P.221 show that he was drawing salary of Rs.2,415/- p.m., only in the month of 85 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] April 2004. As such, contents of Ex.P.12 to Ex.P.15 and Ex.P.221 support the contention of the Complainant. This evidence remained unchallenged. There is no reason to disbelieve the said evidence. This evidence falsifies and negatives the contents of Employment Certificate, Pay Slips, Salary Certificate and Form No.16, which are issued by the Accused-7 and 11. Further, though TAN No.W- 0252-CC/BOL does not pertain to the SCTIT, said number is shown in Form No.16. The evidence of P.W.40 and contents of Ex.P.130 show that Income Tax as shown in Form No.16 was not remitted through Bank of India. This evidence also shows that contents of Form No.16 are false. Thus, it is clear that the Accused-1, 5, 7 and 11 and also P.W.69 have created false Employment Certificate, Pay Slips, Salary Certificate and Form No.16 in the name of C.W.33.
p)Documents relating to Sri.Sudhir Kumar Singh:
106. Ex.P.29 contains Employment Certificate, Pay Slips, Salary Certificate and Form No.16 in the name of Sri.Sudhir Kumar Singh showing that he was working as Instructor in the Electrical Department of the SCTIT, he was drawing salary of around Rs.22,000/- p.m., as on April 2004, he had gross salary income of Rs.2,77,968/- for the years 2003-2004 and that Income Tax was remitted for those years by the SCTIT through Bank of India, J.B.Nagara Branch, Bengaluru. According to the Complainant, Employment Certificate, Salary Certificate and Form No.16 were issued by the Accused-7 and Pay
86 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] Slips were issued by the Accused-11. As per the evidence of P.W.69, as observed above, he was working as per the directions of the Accused-1 and 5, and the Accused-5 was getting prepared Salary Certificates and Form No.16 through him. P.W.69 has identified the signatures of the Accused-7 and 11 in all those documents issued in the name of Sri.Sudhir Kumar Singh. As per the evidence of P.W.67 and contents of Ex.P.219, P.W.67 compared the specimen signatures of the Accused-7 and 11 with their questioned signatures in the Employment Certificate, Pay Slips, Salary Certificate and Form No.16 available in Ex.P.29, examined them and he is of a clear Opinion that those questioned signatures are of the Accused-7 and 11. On examination of those questioned signatures and specimen signatures with reference to the Reasons given by P.W.67, this Court also found various similarities between those signatures, which also support the Opinion of P.W.67. The Accused-7 and 11 have not disputed those signatures. On the other hand, it is their contention that as per the directions of the Accused-1, they have made those signatures. Thus, from the above evidence, it is clear that the Accused-5 got prepared Employment Certificate, Pay Slips, Salary Certificate and Form No.16 through P.W.69 and that the Accused-7 and 11 have issued all those documents in the capacity of Principal and In-charge Principal respectively and that all these persons have acted on the directions of the Accused-1.
107. According to the Complainant, though Sri.Sudhir Kumar Singh was not working as Instructor and 87 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] he was not drawing salary as shown in the Pay Slips, Salary Certificate and Form No.16, high sound designation and inflated salary are mentioned falsely in those documents and as such, those documents are false documents. Contents of Ex.P.12 to Ex.P.15 and Ex.P.221 do not show that Sri.Sudhir Kumar Singh was working as Instructor and that he was drawing salary of about Rs.22,000/- p.m., as shown in the documents referred to above. On the other hand, contents of Ex.P.12 and Ex.P.221 show that Sri.Sudhir Kumar Singh was working as Attender only and that he was drawing salary of Rs.2,000/- to Rs.3,390/- p.m., only in the year 2004. As such, contents of Ex.P.12 to Ex.P.15 and Ex.P.221 support the contention of the Complainant. This evidence remained unchallenged. There is no reason to disbelieve the said evidence. This evidence falsifies and negatives the contents of Employment Certificate, Pay Slips, Salary Certificate and Form No.16, which are issued by the Accused-7 and 11. Further, though TAN No.W-0252- CC/BOL does not pertain to the SCTIT, said number is shown in Form No.16. The evidence of P.W.40 and contents of Ex.P.130 show that Income Tax as shown in Form No.16 was not remitted through Bank of India. This evidence also shows that contents of Form No.16 are false. Thus, it is clear that the Accused-1, 5, 7 and 11 and also P.W.69 have created false Employment Certificate, Pay Slips, Salary Certificate and Form No.16 in the name of Sri.Sudhir Kumar Singh.
88 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J]
5.C: Documents relating to Guarantors:
108. Loan Files-Ex.P.10, Ex.P.11, Ex.P.18 to Ex.P.36 show that the Accused-1 stood as 1st Guarantor to all the loans and that apart from him, one more person is shown as 2nd Guarantor for each of those loans.
109. As per Ex.P.35, Sri.S.R.Ravi is the 2nd Guarantor to the loan of the Accused-7. Ex.P.35 contains Pay Slip, Salary Certificate and Form No.16 of Sri.S.R.Ravi issued by P.W.15 showing that Sri.S.R.Ravi was working as Lecturer in Civil Department and that his salary income was around Rs.23,000/- p.m., as on December 2004, his gross salary income was Rs.3,20,052/- for the year 2003-
2004 and that Income Tax was remitted by the SCTIT through Bank of India for those years. P.W.15 has admitted that he has issued the said Salary Certificate and attested Form No.16 as directed by the Accused-1. But, it is not his evidence that Sri.S.R.Ravi was working as Lecturer and that he had income as shown in the Pay Slip, Salary Certificate and Form No.16. Contents of Ex.P.12 to Ex.P.15 and Ex.P.221 also do not show that Sri.S.R.Ravi was working as Lecturer and that he had income as shown in Pay Slip, Salary Certificate and Form No.16. Further, though TAN No.W-0252-CC/BOL does not pertain to the SCTIT, said number is shown in Form No.16. The evidence of P.W.40 and Ex.P.130 show that Income Tax was not remitted as shown in Form No.16. Thus, it is clear that Pay Slip, Salary Certificate and Form No.16 are false documents.
89 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J]
110. As per Ex.P.25, P.W.24 is the 2nd Guarantor to the loan of P.W.28. Ex.P.25 contains Pay Slip of P.W.24 issued by the Accused-7 showing that P.W.24 was working as Accountant and that his salary income was around Rs.21,000/- p.m., as on January 2004. Ex.P.25 also contains Form No.16 issued by the Accused-11 showing his Annual Income of Rs.2,29,656/- for the year 2003-2004 and Rs.2,03,376/- for the year 2002-2003 and that Income Tax was remitted by the SCTIT through Bank of India. As observed above, he was not working as Accountant, his salary was not around Rs.21,000/- at that time and Income Tax was not remitted as shown in Form No.16. Thus, it is clear that his Pay Slip and Form No.16 are false documents.
111. As per Ex.P.28, C.W.33 is the 2nd Guarantor to the loan of P.W.19. Ex.P.28 contains Pay Slips and Form No.16 of C.W.33 issued by the Accused-7 showing that C.W.33 was working as Instructor in the Mechanical Department, his salary income was around Rs.21,000/- p.m., as on April 2004 and that Income Tax was remitted by the SCTIT through Bank of India. As observed above, he was not working as Instructor, his salary was not around Rs.21,000/- at that time. Further, though TAN No.W-0252-CC/BOL does not pertain to the SCTIT, said number is shown in Form No.16. The evidence of P.W.40 and Ex.P.130 show that Income Tax was not remitted as shown in Form No.16. Thus, it is clear that Pay Slip and Form No.16 relating to C.W.33 are false documents.
90 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J]
112. As per Ex.P.23, P.W.19 is the 2nd Guarantor to the loan of P.W.20. Ex.P.23 contains Pay Slips and Form No.16 of P.W.19 issued by the Accused-11 showing that P.W.19 was working as Instructor in the Electronics Department, his salary income was around Rs.21,000/- p.m., as on February 2004 and that Income Tax was remitted by the SCTIT through Bank of India. As observed above, he was not working as Instructor and his salary was not around Rs.21,000/- p.m., at that time. The evidence of P.W.40 and Ex.P.130 show that Income Tax was not remitted as shown in Form No.16. Thus, it is clear that his Pay Slips and Form No.16 are false documents.
113. As per Ex.P.33, the Accused-10 is the 2nd Guarantor to the loan of P.W.22. Ex.P.33 contains Salary Certificate, Pay Slips and Form No.16 of the Accused-10 issued by the Accused-7 showing that the Accused-10 was working as FDC, her salary income was around Rs.24,790/- p.m., as on July 2004 and that Income Tax was remitted by the SCTIT through Bank of India. As observed above, she was not an employee of the SCTIT in any capacity much less as FDC or Accountant and her salary was not around Rs.24,790/-. Further, though TAN No.W-0252-CC/BOL does not pertain to the SCTIT, said number is shown in Form No.16. The evidence of P.W.40 and Ex.P.130 show that Income Tax was not remitted as shown in Form No.16. Thus, it is clear that her Salary Certificate, Form No.16 and Pay Slips are false documents.
91 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J]
114. As per Ex.P.21, P.W.25 is the 2nd Guarantor to the loan of P.W.23. Ex.P.21 contains Salary Certificate, Pay Slips and Form No.16 of P.W.25 issued by the Accused-11 showing that P.W.25 was working as Lecturer in the Mathematics Department, his salary income was around Rs.20,000/- p.m., as on February 2004 and that Income Tax was remitted by the SCTIT through Bank of India. As observed above, he had no salary income of around Rs.20,000/- at that time. The evidence of P.W.40 and Ex.P.130 show that Income Tax was not remitted as shown in Form No.16. Thus, it is clear that his Salary Certificate and Form No.16 are false documents.
115. As per Ex.P.19, P.W.69 is the 2nd Guarantor to the loan of P.W.24. Ex.P.19 contains Salary Certificate of P.W.69 issued by the Accused-11 showing that P.W.69 was working as Lecturer in the Computer Science Department and that his salary income was Rs.20,790/- p.m., as on February 2004. Ex.P.19 also contains Form No.16 issued by the Accused-7 showing Annual Salary Income of P.W.25 was Rs.1,92,643/- and Rs.2,29,656/- in the years 2003 and 2004 respectively and Income Tax was remitted by the SCTIT through Bank of India for those years. As observed above, he was not working as Lecturer, his salary was not Rs.20,790/- and Income Tax was not remitted as shown in Form No.16. Thus, it is clear that his Salary Certificate and Form No.16 are false documents.
116. As per Ex.P.22, P.W.20 is the 2nd Guarantor to the loan of P.W.25. Ex.P.22 contains Salary Certificate and 92 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] Pay Slips of P.W.20 issued by the Accused-11 showing that P.W.20 was working as Instructor in the Civil Department and that his salary income was around Rs.22,000/- p.m., as on February 2004. As observed above, he was not working as Instructor and his salary was not Rs.21,968/-. Thus, it is clear that his Salary Certificate and Pay Slips are false documents.
117. As per Ex.P.27, P.W.19 is the 2nd Guarantor to the loan of P.W.26. Ex.P.27 contains Pay Slips and Form No.16 of P.W.19 issued by the Accused-7 showing that P.W.19 was working as Instructor in the Electronics Department, his salary income was Rs.20,168/- p.m., as on March 2004 and that Income Tax was remitted by the SCTIT through Bank of India. As observed above, he was not working as Instructor and his salary was not Rs.20,168/- at that time. Further, though TAN No.W-0252- CC/BOL does not pertain to the SCTIT, said number is shown in Form No.16. The evidence of P.W.40 and Ex.P.130 show that Income Tax was not remitted as shown in Form No.16. Thus, it is clear that his Pay Slips and Form No.16 are false documents.
118. As per Ex.P.34, P.W.29 is the 2nd Guarantor to the loan of P.W.27. Ex.P.34 contains Pay Slip of P.W.29 issued by the Accused-7 and P.W.15 showing that P.W.29 was working as Assistant Librarian and that his salary income was around Rs.22,000/- p.m., as on November 2004. Ex.P.34 also contains Form No.16 issued by P.W.15 in the name of P.W.29 showing his annual gross income as 93 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] Rs.2,02,476/-for the year 2002-2003 and Rs.2,99,028/- for the year 2003-2004 and that Income Tax was remitted by the SCTIT through Bank of India for those years. As observed above, P.W.29 was not working as Assistant Librarian, his salary was not around Rs.22,000/- at that time, though TAN No.W-0252-CC/BOL does not pertain to the SCTIT, said number is shown in Form No.16 and Income Tax was not remitted as shown in Form No.16. Thus, it is clear that his Pay Slip and Form No.16 are false documents.
119. As per Ex.P.36, Sri.D.Murthy is the 2nd Guarantor to the loan of P.W.29. Ex.P.36 contains Salary Certificate of Sri.D.Murhty issued by the Accused-7 and P.W.15, and Form No.16 issued by P.W.15 showing that Sri.D.Murthy was working as Instructor in Electrical Department, his salary income was around Rs.21,000/- p.m., as on December 2004, his gross salary income was Rs.1,84,602/- for the year 2002-2003 and Rs.3,01,308/- for the year 2003-2004 and that Income Tax was remitted by the SCTIT through Bank of India for those years. P.W.15 has admitted that he has issued the said Salary Certificate and attested Form No.16 as directed by the Accused-1. Contents of Ex.P.12 to Ex.P.15 and Ex.P.221 do not show that Sri.D.Murthy was working as Instructor and that he had income as shown in Salary Certificate and Form No.16. Further, though TAN No.W-0252-CC/BOL does not pertain to the SCTIT, said number is shown in Form No.16. The evidence of P.W.40 and Ex.P.130 show that Income Tax was not remitted as shown in Form 94 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] No.16. Thus, it is clear that Salary Certificate and Form No.16 are false documents.
120. As per Ex.P.30, Sri.Sudhir Kumar Singh is the 2nd Guarantor to the loan of P.W.62. Ex.P.30 contains Pay Slips of Sri.Sudhir Kumar Singh issued by the Accused-11 showing that Sri.Sudhir Kumar Singh was working as Instructor in the Electrical Department and that his salary income was around Rs.23,000/- p.m., as on April 2004. Ex.P.30 also contains Form No.16 issued by the Accused-7 showing that Sri.Sudhir Kumar Singh had gross salary income of Rs.2,77,968/- for the year 2003-2004, TAN number of the SCTIT was W-0252-CC/BOL and that Income Tax was remitted by the SCTIT through Bank of India for those years. As observed above, Sri.Sudhir Kumar Singh was not working as Instructor, he had no salary income of around Rs.23,000/- at that time as shown in Pay Slips, SCTIT had no TAN number and Income Tax was not remitted as shown in Form No.16. Thus, it is clear that his Pay Slips and Form No.16 are false documents.
121. As per Ex.P.24, P.W.28 is the 2nd Guarantor to the loan of P.W.69. Ex.P.24 contains Pay Slips, Salary Certificate and Form No.16 of P.W.28 issued by the Accused-11 showing that P.W.28 was working as Instructor in the Electrical Department and that his salary income was around Rs.16,000/- p.m., as on February 2004, his annual income was Rs.2,02,476/- for the year 2002-2003 and Rs.2,29,656/- for the year 2003-2004 and that Income Tax was remitted by the SCTIT through Bank 95 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] of India for those years. As observed above, he was not working as Instructor, he had no salary income of around Rs.16,000/- at that time and Income Tax was not remitted as shown in Form No.16. Thus, it is clear that his Pay Slips, Salary Certificate and Form No.16 are false documents.
122. As per Ex.P.26, P.W.26 is the 2nd Guarantor to the loan of C.W.33. Ex.P.26 contains Pay Slips of P.W.26 issued by the Accused-7 showing that P.W.26 was working as Instructor in the Mechanical Department and that his salary income was around Rs.21,000/- p.m., as on April 2004. As observed above, he was not working as Instructor and he had no salary income of around Rs.21,000/- at that time as shown in Pay Slips. Thus, it is clear that his Pay Slips are false documents.
123. As per Ex.P.29, P.W.62 is the 2nd Guarantor to the loan of Sri.Sudhir Kumar Singh. Ex.P.29 contains Pay Slip of P.W.62 issued by the Accused-11 showing that P.W.62 was working as Instructor in Physics Department and that his salary income was around Rs.22,000/- p.m., as on April 2004. As observed above, P.W.62 was not working as Instructor and he had no salary income of around Rs.22,000/- at that time as shown in Pay Slip. Thus, it is clear that his Pay Slip is a false document.
124. As observed above, from the evidence of P.W.15 and P.W.69, it is clear that the Accused-1, 5, 7 and 11, P.W.15 and P.W.69 have prepared the above Pay Slips, 96 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] Salary Certificates and Form No.16 and as such, they are responsible for preparation of all those false documents.
5.D: Conclusion:
125. The learned counsels for the Accused-5 to 11 have contended that as salaries of the Accused-5 to 10, P.W.19 to 29, P.W.62, P.W.69, C.W.33 and Sri.Sudhir Kumar Singh and their Guarantors, as shown in Pay Slips and Salary Certificates, have been credited to their respective SB Accounts every month for almost 1½ years starting from 02.09.2003 from the Current Account No.1560 of the SCTIT, it has to be held that those Pay Slips and Salary Certificates are not false documents. But, from the oral and documentary evidence available on record, as observed above, it is clear that the Accused-5 to 10, P.W.19 to 29, P.W.62, P.W.69, C.W.33 and Sri.Sudhir Kumar Singh were not drawing salary as shown in Pay Slips and Salary Certificates and that in fact, the Accused-
5, 6, 9 and 10 and also P.W.28 were not even the employees of the SCTIT. There is no reason at all to disbelieve the same. This evidence rebuts the contents of the SB Accounts relating to salaries of the Accused-5 to 10, P.W.19 to 29, P.W.62, P.W.69, C.W.33 and Sri.Sudhir Kumar Singh. As such, it is not fit to accept the arguments of the learned Counsels appearing on behalf of the Accused-5 to 11.
126. On considering all the facts, circumstances and oral as well as documentary evidence, referred to above, it 97 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] is clear that the Accused-1, 5 to 11, P.W.15 and P.W.69 have created false Employment Certificates, Salary Certificates, Pay Slips and Form No.16 in the names of the Accused-5 to 10, P.W.19 to 29, P.W.62, P.W.69, C.W.33 and Sri.Sudhir Kumar Singh. As observed above, the Bank has granted housing loans in their names on the basis of those documents. Thus, it is clear that for obtaining housing loans from the Bank, the said documents are created.
6. Construction Of Vijayalakshmi Apartments
127. According to the Complainant, the Accused-1 obtained General Power of Attorney (for short, 'GPA') from Smt.Vijayalakshmi on 26.02.2004 for construction of residential apartments namely, Vijayalakshmi Apartments, in the land bearing Sy.No.49/2 of Kaggadasapura Village, Bengaluru. It is not in dispute that the land bearing Sy.No.49/2 measuring 21 guntas of Kaggadasapura Village belonged to P.W.32-Smt.Vijayalakshmi, who is the wife of P.W.31-Sri.Lokesh Reddy. The evidence of P.W.31 and P.W.32 shows that P.W.32 entered into Joint Agreement with the Accused-1 for construction of residential flats in the said land bearing Sy.No.49/2, a GPA was executed by P.W.32 in favour of the Accused-1, 32 flats were constructed in 'B' Block, remaining flats were constructed in 'A' Block, 'A' Block flats were given to P.W.32 and 'B' Block flats were retained by the Accused-1. P.W.31 and P.W.32 have identified the said GPA in the File-Ex.P.114, 98 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] which contains GPA and other property documents. Through the said GPA, the Accused-1 was empowered to alienate 32 flats in 'B' Block.
7. Creation Of Forged Building Plan
128. Ex.P.114 contains Xerox Copy of Building Plan said to have been prepared by Maark Vision, Architects Engineering and Interior Designing, Bengaluru and approved by the Commissioner of City Municipal Council, Krishnarajapura, Bengaluru in LP No.1243/2003-2004. According to the Complainant, the said document is a false document. In support of his contention, the Complainant has relied upon the evidence of P.W.45 and P.W.55.
129. P.W.45-Sri.H.R.Ravi Kumar is the Director of the Maark Vision, Architects Engineering and Interior Designing. He has deposed that his Company prepared the Plans of Vijayalakshmi Apartments. But, he has stated that Plan available in Ex.P.114 does not bear his signature or signature of the Consultant. This evidence of P.W.45 remained unchallenged. This evidence indicates that Plan available in Ex.P.114 was not prepared by Maark Vision Company, though it bears the seal and signature said to be those of Maark Vision Company.
130. P.W.55-Sri.M.Liyakath is the Assistant Director of Town Planning, BBMP, Mahadevapura, K.R.Puram, Bengaluru. As per his evidence, on enquiry by CBI Officers, a Letter as per Ex.P.140 was given by his office stating 99 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] that Building Plan of Vijayalakashmi Apartments was not approved by the CMC. Contents of Ex.P.140 also fortify the said evidence. Though this witness has been Cross- examined on behalf of the Accused-2, his evidence about non-approval of Plan of Vijayalakshmi Apartments by the CMC, Krishnarajapura remained undisturbed.
131. There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.45 and P.W.55, which shows that Building Plan available in Ex.P.114 is a false document. However, there is no evidence to show as to who actually created this false document.
8. Loans Of Bank Of India
132. According to the Complainant, the Accused-1 obtained loans from Bank of India, Jeevan Bheema Nagara Branch, Bengaluru, by submitting inflated Salary Certificates, false Form No.16, false Employment Certificates etc., relating to his employees and others. P.W.38-Smt.Hemalatha, P.W.39-Sri.G.Ramesh and P.W.59- Sri.R.Vishwanathan are the officers of the Bank of India, Jeevan Bheema Nagara Branch, Bengaluru. As per their evidence, the Accused-1 had opened SB Account in his name, Current Account in the name of the SCTIT and also SCTBD in that Branch. Their evidence also shows that the Accused-1 got opened SB Accounts of staff of the SCTIT including those of the Accused-5 to 10, P.W.19 to P.W.29, P.W.62 and P.W.69. Their evidence also shows that housing loans were taken in the years 2003 and 2004 for purchasing flats from Vijayalakshmi Apartments in the 100 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] names of the Accused-5 to 10, P.W.19 to P.W.29, P.W.62 and P.W.69 and that those housing loans were cleared subsequently. Ex.P.67, Ex.P.68, Ex.P.70, Ex.P.73, Ex.P.74, Ex.P.77, Ex.P.78, Ex.P.82, Ex.P.85, Ex.P.89, Ex.P.94, Ex.P.102, Ex.P.105, Ex.P.106, Ex.P.113, Ex.P.125, Ex.P.126, Ex.P.128, Ex.P.144 to Ex.P.153 are the documents relating to all those Accounts. But, none including P.W.38, P.W.39 and P.W.59 has stated that by producing false documents, the Accused-1 obtained loans from Bank of India. There is no other evidence also in support of the said contention of the Complainant. Hence, the Complainant has failed to prove his contention relating to Bank of India housing loans.
9. Loans Of Canara Bank
133. According to the Complainant, the Accused-1 obtained loans from Canara Bank, BTM Layout Branch, Bengaluru, by submitting inflated Salary Certificates, false Form No.16, false Employment Certificates etc., relating to his employees and others. P.W.61-Sri.Jayavantha Rao is working as Chief Manager of Canara Bank, BTM Layout Branch, Bengaluru. As per his evidence, the Accused-5 had SB Account and the SCTBD had Current Account in that Bank and, Ex.P.168 and Ex.P.169 are the Account Opening Forms with Annexures in respect of those Accounts. P.W.43-Sri.Vishwanath was the Manager of Housing Finance Centre, Canara Bank, BTM Layout Branch, Bengaluru, from 2004 to 2007. As per his evidence, 5 employees of the SCTIT had availed housing loans from his 101 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] Bank, P.W.25 and P.W.26 are 2 borrowers among those 5 persons, Ex.P.91 and Ex.P.96 are the loan documents relating to those 2 persons and all those loans are cleared now. As per the evidence of P.W.61, Ex.P.170 are the Loan Repayment Challans. P.W.25 and P.W.26 have also identified Ex.P.91 and Ex.P.96 respectively. Ex.P.91 and Ex.P.96 show that for purchasing flats from Vijayalakshmi Apartments belonging to the SCTBD, housing loans were taken in the names of P.W.25 and P.W.26 in the month of December 2004. According to P.W.25 and P.W.26, the Accused-1 took their signatures on the loan papers. But, none including P.W.25, P.W.26, P.W.43 and P.W.61 has stated that by producing false documents, the Accused-1 obtained loans from Canara Bank. There is no other evidence also in support of the said contention of the Complainant. Hence, the Complainant has failed to prove his contention relating to Canara Bank housing loans.
10. Loans Of Syndicate Bank
134. According to the Complainant, the Accused-1 obtained loans from Syndicate Bank, K.G.Halli Branch, Bengaluru, by submitting inflated Salary Certificates, false Form No.16, false Employment Certificates etc. P.W.60- Sri.D.R.Devendra Raju was working as Senior Branch Manager of Syndicate Bank, K.G.Halli Branch, Bengaluru. His evidence indicates that housing loans were taken from his Bank in the names of the Accused-5 to 10, P.W.23, P.W.25, P.W.62, P.W.69, C.W.33 and Sri.Sudhir Kumar Singh, Current Account was maintained in the name of the 102 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] Accused-1 and that Ex.P.154 to Ex.P.164 and Ex.P.167 are the documents relating to all those Accounts. His evidence also indicates that on 24.04.2003, an Equitable Mortgage was created by the Accused-1 as per Ex.P.166 in favour of the Syndicate Bank in respect of the land bearing Sy.No.49/2 of Kaggadasapura Village for the purpose of availing housing loans, referred to above. Ex.P.166 also shows deposit of original Title Deeds and other documents relating to Sy.No.49/2 of Kaggadasapura Village by the Accused-1 as a Power of Attorney Holder of Smt.Vijayalakshmi on 24.04.2003 at Syndicate Bank, K.G.Halli Branch. The evidence of P.W.19, P.W.20, P.W.21, P.W.22, P.W.24 to P.W.29 indicates that SB Accounts were opened in their names in the same Bank and Ex.P.69, Ex.P.71, Ex.P.75, Ex.P.79, Ex.P.86, Ex.P.90, Ex.P.95, Ex.P.99, Ex.P.101 and Ex.P.107 are the Certified Copies of SB Account Opening Forms and other documents relating to Housing Loan Accounts pertaining to them in that Bank. Ex.P.154 to Ex.P.164 and Ex.P.167 also show that housing loans were taken in the names of P.W.23, P.W.25, P.W.62, P.W.69, C.W.33, Sri.Sudhir Kumar Singh and the Accused- 5 to 10 from Syndicate Bank. The said evidence on record also shows that those housing loans were taken for purchasing flats of Vijayalakshmi Apartments to be constructed in Sy.No.49/2 belonging to SCTBD from P.W.32-Smt.Vijayalakshmi through her GPA Holder-the Accused-1 in the year 2003. But, none from Syndicate Bank including P.W.60 has stated that by producing false documents, the Accused-1 obtained loans from Syndicate 103 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] Bank. There is no other evidence also in support of the said contention of the Complainant. Hence, the Complainant has failed to prove his contention relating to Syndicate Bank housing loans. However, the evidence on record shows that the housing loans were taken in the names of the Accused-5 to 10, P.W.23, P.W.25, P.W.62, P.W.69, C.W.33 and Sri.Sudhir Kumar Singh, from Syndicate Bank for purchasing flats of Vijayalakshmi Apartments to be constructed in the land bearing Sy.No.49/2 of Kaggadasapura Village from Smt.Vijayalakshmi through her GPA Holder-the Accused-1 and that for the purpose of those loans, the Accused-1 created an Equitable Mortgage on 24.04.2003 in favour of Syndicate Bank by depositing original title deeds and other documents pertaining to Sy.No.49/2 measuring 21 guntas of Kaggadasapura Village.
11. Housing Loans Of Vijaya Bank 11(a). Application for Housing Loans:
135. As observed above, it is not in dispute that the Bank granted housing loans in the names of the Accused-5 to 10, P.W.19 to P.W.29, P.W.62, P.W.69, C.W.33 and Sri.Sudhir Kumar Singh and that Ex.P.10, Ex.P.11 and Ex.P.18 to Ex.P.36 are the loan files pertaining to those loans. It is also not in dispute that those loans were for purchasing flats in Vijayalakshmi Apartments from the Accused-1.
104 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J]
136. P.W.19 to P.W.29, P.W.62 and P.W.69 have deposed in their evidence that they did not apply for housing loans, they signed on the loan documents at the instance of the Accused-1 and that they did not utilize the said loan proceeds. P.W.20 has deposed that the Accused- 5 also took his signatures on the Loan Application. P.W.21 has also stated that she had not been to any Bank, not availed any kind of loan from the Bank and that no flat was given to her. P.W.22 has deposed that the Accused-5 also accompanied the Accused-1, when her signatures were taken to loan documents in the office. She has denied that she visited Vijaya Bank along with the staff and that she has signed on the documents in Vijaya Bank. P.W.23 has also stated that loan amount was not given to him and that flat was also not given to him. P.W.24 has stated that for improvement of college, his signatures were taken on the Loan Application. P.W.25 has also deposed that in the office, the Accused-1 has taken his signatures on the loan documents. In the Cross-examination, he has stated that the Accused-1 and 5 informed him and other staff that for improvement of college and construction of quarters, they have applied for housing loan and that they asked to sign on the bank documents. P.W.26 has also deposed that in the office, the Accused-1 has taken his signatures on the loan documents. He has denied that he gave Statement before the Investigating Officer that the Accused-1 took him to Vijaya Bank and took his signatures on all the loan documents. P.W.27 has also deposed that in the office, the Accused-1 has taken his signatures on the loan 105 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] documents. P.W.28 has also deposed that in the office, the Accused-1 has taken his signatures on the loan documents to improve the college. In his Cross-examination, he has stated that the Accused-1 had brought all the loan documents to the college. P.W.29 has also deposed that in the office, the Accused-1 has taken his signatures on the loan documents to improve the college. P.W.62 has stated that the Accused-5 took his signatures on some Bank Forms in the college, he did not visit the Bank and receive money from the Bank. In his Cross-examination, he has stated that as per the say of the Accused-1, he has signed on all the documents. P.W.69 has stated that the Accused- 8 was doing the Bank related work i.e., taking signatures of the staff on the loan papers and obtaining loan from the Bank. He has further stated that the Accused-5 took his signatures on the loan papers and that contents of those documents were filled up by the Accused-8. He has also stated that he did not visit the Bank for any loan transactions and that no Bank Officer of Vijaya Bank enquired with him in connection with the loan transactions.
137. In their Cross-examination, P.W.23 and P.W.24 have stated that they have not stated before the Investigating Officer that the Accused-1 and 5 took them and other staff to Vijaya Bank and that in the Chambers of Manager, Manager called one by one and that he obtained their signatures on the loan documents. In his Cross-
examination, P.W.27 has stated that he has not stated before the Investigating Officer that the Accused-1 took him and other staff members to Vijaya Bank and taken 106 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] signatures on the loan documents. In his Cross- examination, P.W.28 has stated that he has not stated before the Investigating Officer that the Accused-1 took him to Vijaya Bank and taken his signatures on the loan documents. In his Cross-examination, P.W.62 has stated that he has not stated before the Investigating Officer that the Accused-1 and 5 took him to the Bank and obtained his signatures on the loan documents. The Accused-3 got marked the said portion of Statements as contradictions as per Ex.D.1, Ex.D.2, Ex.D.3, Ex.D.4 and Ex.D.15. But, P.W.23, P.W.24, P.W.27, P.W.28 and P.W.62 have denied about giving of such Statements. However, the said Statements are not proved through the Investigating Officer. As such, Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.4 and Ex.D.15 are of no assistance to the Accused-3.
138. In the Cross-examination made on behalf of the Accused-3, P.W.3 has stated that all the 21 borrowers visited the Bank and executed documents. On the basis of this answer, it is the contention of the learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the Accused-2 to 4 that all the 21 borrowers including the Accused-5 to 10 had come to the Bank, executed loan documents in the Bank itself and that as such, they had voluntarily applied for loan. P.W.3 worked in the Bank from June 2006 to 2007 and he was not working in the Bank, when those loans were granted or atleast during process of loan papers. He himself has stated in the Cross-examination that he was not present at that time in the Bank and that he has no personal knowledge about the loan transactions. As such, he is not 107 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] a proper person to speak about the presence of all the 21 borrowers in the Bank for the purpose of execution of loan documents. Hence, on the basis of the answer of P.W.3 and in view of the undisturbed evidence of witness- borrowers, as observed above, it is not fit to accept the bare argument of the learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the Accused-2 to 4 that the witness-borrowers had also appeared in the Bank for the purpose of execution of loan papers.
139. From the above evidence, it is clear that these witness-borrowers did not apply to the Bank for housing loans, they did not go to the Bank for that loan purpose, their signatures to the loan documents were taken by the Accused-1, 5 and 8 in the office of the SCTIT and that at the instance of the Accused-1, all these persons signed on the loan documents. Further, as per the evidence of P.W.69, Bank Officer or Bank Manager did not enquire him in respect of the loan in his name.
140. In their Examination under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., the Accused-5, 9 and 10 have admitted that they have executed loan documents seeking housing loan from the Vijaya Bank. But, the Accused-7 has stated that he did not apply for loan. In the Written Statement, the Accused- 5 and 7 have stated that as per the directions of the Accused-1, they have signed on all those documents and that they are not the beneficiaries of the housing loans. Though the Accused-6 and 8 have denied about applying for housing loans, they have not given any explanation 108 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] about the loan documents in their names. However, it is not at all the contention of the Accused-5 to 10 that they did not go to the Bank for execution of loan documents. As observed above, the Accused-5, 6, 9 and 10 were not the employees of the SCTIT, they have pretended as employees of the SCTIT in the loan documents and knowing fully well of the said fact, the Accused-7 and 11 have issued Pay Slips, Salary Certificates, Employment Certificates and Form No.16 for the purpose of seeking housing loans. Though the Accused-7 and 8 were not drawing salaries as shown in the Pay Slips, Salary Certificates and Form No.16, as observed above, the Accused-7 and 11 have issued false documents for the purpose of seeking housing loans and the Accused-7 and 8 have acted upon those documents. Considering all these facts, status of the Accused-5 to 10 and nature of their work, it has to be inferred that they applied to the Bank seeking housing loans at the instance of the Accused-1.
11(b). Process, Scrutiny and Sanction:
141. According to the Complainant, Housing Loan Documents of the Accused-5, 6, 8 and 9, P.W.19, 20, 23, 25, 26, 28, 62, 69, C.W.33 and Sri.Sudhir Kumar Singh were processed by the Accused-3, scrutinized by the Accused-4 and 2, and loans were sanctioned by the Accused-2. Similarly, according to the Complainant, Housing Loan Applications of the Accused-7, 10, P.W.21, 22 and P.W.29 were processed by the Accused-4, scrutinized by P.W.50-Sri.T.K.Suresh, who was the
109 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] Assistant Branch Manager of the Bank during June 2004 to June 2009, and the Accused-2, and loans were sanctioned by the Accused-2. The evidence of P.W.3-Sri.B.S.Shiva Prasad, who was the Chief Manager of the Bank from June 2006 to April 2007, P.W.50 and P.W.68-Sri.Jayaram, who was the Clerk of the Bank during 2002 to 2005, and contents of Ex.P.10, Ex.P.11, Ex.P.18 to Ex.P.36, which contain Credit Appraisal Forms, support the said contention of the Complainant. The Accused-2 to 4 have not disputed the said evidence. On the other hand, in his Statement filed under Section 243(1) of the Cr.P.C., the Accused-3 has admitted the said fact. Even the Statements filed by the Accused-2 and 4 also fortify the said contention of the Complainant. Thus, from the above evidence, it is clear that the Accused-2 to 4 have participated in the process and scrutiny of the loan documents and sanction of loans to the persons mentioned above.
142. According to the Complainant, the Accused-2 to 4 did not verify and scrutinize the loan documents during process and scrutiny and without such scrutiny, the said loans have been granted in violation of Circular and Guidelines of the Bank. P.W.57-Sri.P.A.Seetharam, the then Chief Manager of the Bank from 03.05.2008 to 15.05.2009, has deposed that in case of an employee- borrower, Salary Certificate, Form No.16 and IT Returns of that person have to be scrutinized to assess his income for considering sanctioning of housing loan. He has also deposed that similar documents have to be scrutinized relating to Guarantor to assess his income. He has further 110 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] deposed that there are irregularities in verification and scrutiny of those income documents in respect of the loans, which are in dispute in this case. He has further deposed that TAN number of the Institution and PAN number of the borrowers and guarantors are not mentioned in Form No.16 and that salary shown in Salary Slips does not tally with the salary reflected in Form No.16. P.W.1 has also deposed that Income Tax details shown in Form No.16 do not match with the corresponding details in the Salary Certificate. So also, P.W.2-Sri.S.Ananthaswamy, who was the AGM of the Bank, has deposed about defects in Salary Slips and Form No.16. Thus, the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 materially corroborate the evidence of P.W.57. Ex.P.1 is the Circular dated 29.10.2002 issued by the Head Office of the Bank regarding housing loans. As per Check List available at Page-10 of Ex.P.1, Copies of Income Tax Assessment Order or Income Tax Return submitted and duly receipted by the IT Authorities of the Applicant and Guarantor for the last 2 years and latest Salary Certificate of the Applicant and Guarantor have to be obtained and scrutinized for the purpose of proof of income. Thus, as per Ex.P.1, it is mandatory to the Sanctioning Authorities to confirm themselves about sufficiency of income of the Applicant and Guarantor by scrutiny of the documents i.e., Salary Certificate, Income Tax Assessment Order or Income Tax Return etc., before sanctioning loans.
143. As observed above, Ex.P.10 is the File pertaining to housing loan in the name of the Accused-5.
111 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] Loan Application and other documents available in that file show that the Accused-5 is the main borrower, the Accused-10 is the Co-Applicant, the Accused-1 is the 1st Guarantor and the Accused-8 is the 2nd Guarantor to the said loan. As observed above, the evidence on record shows that loan documents were processed by the Accused-3, scrutinized by the Accused-4 and 2, and that loan was sanctioned by the Accused-2. Credit Appraisal Form available in that file shows that the Accused-3 has made entries in respect of the income of the Accused-1, 5, 8 and 10 and that he recommended for sanction of the housing loan to the Accused-5. The said document further indicates a Certificate of the Accused-2 and 4 that all the particulars of that document were verified and found correct by them, they personally interviewed the Applicant, they satisfied about the loan proposal and sanctioned loan to the Accused-5.
144. Though the said file contains Salary Certificate, Pay Slip and Form No.16 in the name of the Accused-5, it does not contain Income Tax Assessment Order or Income Tax Return. It also does not contain any documents showing the income of the Accused-1, 8 and 10. Though it is stated in the Credit Appraisal Form of Ex.P.10 by the Accused-3 that the Accused-1, 8 and 10 had monthly income of Rs.30,000/-, Rs.21,000/- and Rs.23,630/- respectively, no basis is found for the same in the file. That document does not contain any reference about verification of income documents to make such entry. As observed above, the Accused-5 and 10 were not the 112 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] employees of the SCTIT. There is nothing to show that, at the relevant point of time, they were working in any other Institution and getting salary as shown in the Credit Appraisal Form. As observed above, the Salary Certificates, Employment Certificates, Pay Slips and Form No.16 issued in the name of the Accused-5, 8 and 10 are false documents. Income shown in the Salary Certificate and Pay Slip of the Accused-5 do not tally with the income shown in Form No.16. Form No.16 issued for the entire year 2002-2003 indicates gross salary income of Rs.2,29,656/- in respect of the Accused-5. Whereas Form No.16 issued for just 6 months i.e., for the period from 01.04.2003 to 31.09.2003 also shows the same gross salary income of Rs.2,29,656/-. Even TAN number of the SCTIT and PAN number of the Accused-5 are not mentioned in Form No.16. As observed above, though it is mentioned in Form No.16 about remittance of Income Tax through Bank of India, no such tax is remitted. It is not in dispute that the Accused-2 himself had granted Personal Loan of Rs.3 Lakhs in PRL No.23025 to the Accused-5 on 21.11.2003. Ledger Extract of that loan is at Page-82 of Ex.P.10. Contents of that document show that there was balance of Rs.2,84,619/- in that loan Account as on 11.03.2004 and that the said loan was closed on that day. As per Credit Appraisal Form as well as other documents of Ex.P.10, process, appraisal and scrutiny were made on 10.03.2004 and loan was granted on 10.03.2004 itself. In the Credit Appraisal Form, it is shown as "PRL A/c 23025 Closed". As such, as per the said entry, PRL Account of 113 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] the Accused-5 was closed as on 10.03.2004 itself. But, this fact is contrary to the contents of Ledger Extract of the said Personal Loan Account. This circumstance clearly shows that a false entry is made by the Accused-3 in Credit Appraisal Form and the Accused-2 and 4 have made a false Statement in Credit Appraisal Form to the effect that they have verified the particulars and that they found that those particulars were correct. If at all the Accused-2 to 4 had verified and scrutinized the documents relating to income and also relating to Personal Loan Account and if at all they had personally interviewed the Accused-1, 5, 8 and 10 as stated in Credit Appraisal Form, they would have known about all those defects. All these facts and circumstances clearly show that without appraisal and scrutiny of the documents and without confirming themselves about the income of the Accused-1, 5, 8 and 10, the Accused-2 to 4 have illegally recommended sanction of housing loan to the Accused-5 and that in pursuance of that illegal recommendation, the Accused-2 has sanctioned loan to the Accused-5 illegally.
145. Similarly, on perusal of Ex.P.11, Ex.P.18 and Ex.P.20, which pertain to the housing loans of the Accused-6, 8 and 9 respectively, similar illegalities committed by the Accused-2 to 4 are found in respect of appraisal, scrutiny and sanction. So also, on perusal of Ex.P.31 and Ex.P.32, which pertain to the Accused-10 and P.W.21, similar illegalities committed by the Accused-2 and 4 and also P.W.50, are found.
114 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J]
146. Ex.P.19 is the File pertaining to housing loan in the name of P.W.24. Loan Application and other documents available in that File show that P.W.24 is the main borrower, the Accused-1 is the 1st Guarantor and P.W.69 is the 2nd Guarantor to the said loan. As observed above, the evidence on record shows that loan documents were processed by the Accused-3, scrutinized by the Accused-4 and 2, and that loan was sanctioned by the Accused-2. Credit Appraisal Form available in that file shows that the Accused-3 has made entries in respect of the income of P.W.24, the Accused-1 and P.W.69 and that he recommended for sanction of the housing loan in the name of P.W.24. The said document further shows a Certificate of the Accused-2 and 4 that, all the particulars of that document were verified and found correct by them, they personally interviewed the Applicant, they satisfied about the loan proposal and sanctioned loan in the name of P.W.24.
147. Though the said file contains Salary Certificate, Pay Slip and Form No.16 in the name of P.W.24 and also Pay Slip and Form No.16 in the name of P.W.69, it does not contain Income Tax Assessment Order or Income Tax Return. It also does not contain any documents showing the income of the Accused-1. Though it is stated in the Credit Appraisal Form of Ex.P.19 by the Accused-3 that the Accused-1 had monthly income of Rs.30,000/-, no basis is found for the same in the file. Though Pay Slip of P.W.69 indicates his gross salary as Rs.20,790/- p.m., in the Appraisal Form, it is mentioned that P.W.69 had monthly 115 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] income of Rs.24,000/-. As observed above, designations and salary of P.W.24 and P.W.69 are falsely shown in Pay Slips, Salary Certificate and Form No.16. Income shown in the Salary Certificate and Pay Slip of P.W.24 and P.W.69 do not tally with the income shown in Form No.16. Even TAN number of the SCTIT and PAN number of P.W.24 and P.W.69 are not mentioned in Form No.16. As observed above, though it is mentioned in Form No.16 about remittance of Income Tax through Bank of India, no such tax is remitted. All these circumstances clearly show that a false entry is made by the Accused-3 in Credit Appraisal Form and that the Accused-2 and 4 have made a false Statement in Credit Appraisal Form to the effect that they have verified the particulars and that they found that those particulars were correct. If at all the Accused-2 to 4 had verified and scrutinized the documents relating to income and if at all they had personally interviewed the Accused- 1, P.W.24 and P.W.69 as stated in Credit Appraisal Form, they would have known about all those defects. As observed above, the evidence on record shows that P.W.24 and P.W.69 had not even visited the Bank for loan purpose. Hence, it is clear that without appraisal and scrutiny of the documents and without confirming themselves about the income of the Accused-1, P.W.24 and P.W.69, the Accused-2 to 4 have illegally recommended sanction of housing loan to P.W.24 and that in pursuance of that illegal recommendation, the Accused- 2 has sanctioned loan to P.W.24 illegally.
116 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J]
148. Similarly, on perusal of Ex.P.20 to Ex.P.30, which pertain to the housing loans of the Accused-9, P.W.23, P.W.25, P.W.20, P.W.69, P.W.28, P.W.26, C.W.33, P.W.19, Sri.Sudhir Kumar Singh and P.W.62 respectively, similar illegalities committed by the Accused-2 to 4 are found in respect of appraisal, scrutiny and sanction. So also, on perusal of Ex.P.35, Ex.P.33, Ex.P.34 and Ex.P.36, which pertain to the Accused-7, P.W.22, P.W.27 and P.W.29, similar illegalities committed by the Accused-2 and 4 and also P.W.50 are found. In some of Form No.16 relating to all these files, though TAN number of the SCTIT is mentioned, as observed above, the said TAN number does not pertain to the SCTIT. In some of Form No.16 relating to all these files, though it is mentioned about remittance of Income Tax by salary deduction, amount shown in such Form No.16 do not tally with the concerned Pay Slips. For example, in the Pay Slips of P.W.69 available in Ex.P.24, it is shown that Rs.1,250/- was deducted in the month of January 2004 towards Income Tax and that Rs.1,400/- was deducted in the month of February 2004. But, in Form No.16 relating to the period from 1.4.2003 to 31.3.2004, which is available in Ex.P.24, though it is shown that Rs.6,197/- was remitted towards Income Tax in the month of February 2004, no tax was remitted in the month of January 2004. Similar discrepancies are noticed in the file relating to Ex.P.25 and Ex.P.27 also. These facts and circumstances also fortify the contention of the Complainant that without appraisal and scrutiny, the disputed housing loans are sanctioned.
117 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J]
149. The learned counsels for the Accused-2 to 4 have strongly contended that as per Ex.P.1, production of Income Certificate/Proof of Income etc., was relaxed and that as per the evidence of P.W.3, obtaining of the Salary Certificate is only a formality and that as salaries of all those borrowers as shown in Pay Slips and Salary Certificates were being credited to their SB Accounts in the Bank for more than 6 months prior to grant of housing loans, there was no occasion to disbelieve the salary income of those borrowers and that further, as Letter of Undertaking was given by the Accused-1 undertaking the responsibility to repay the dues, there is no illegality on the part of the Accused-2 to 4 in sanctioning the housing loans by relying upon Pay Slips, Salary Certificates and Undertaking Letters. Though, as per Ex.P.1 (Page-2, Clause-8), production of Income Certificate/Proof of Income was relaxed in order to encourage housing loans, it is further sated therein as under:
"Branch Head/Sanctioning Authorities having confirmed of sufficient income of the Applicant to service the requested loan, can sanction Vijaya Home Loan."
This Clause has not removed the responsibility of the Branch Head or the Sanctioning Authority to confirm about sufficiency of the income of the borrower before sanctioning loan. It is true that in the Cross-examination, P.W.3 has stated that Salary Certificate is only a formality. But, it is not his evidence that the Accused-2 to 4 had no responsibility to verify and confirm about the income of the 118 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] borrowers. It is true that Undertaking Letters are issued on behalf of the SCTIT by the Accused-1 undertaking to deduct monthly loan installments from the salary payable to the employee-borrowers and that to remit the same to the Bank till the loan is closed. Records show that those Undertaking Letters are attested by the Accused-7 in respect of the loans of the Accused-8 to 10, P.W21, P.W.22, P.W.24, P.W.26, P.W.27, P.W.29, C.W.33 and Sri.Sudhir Kumar Singh and by the Accused-11 relating to the loans of the Accused-5 to 7, P.W.20, P.W.23, P.W.25, P.W.27 and P.W.69 and by P.W.15 relating to the loan of P.W.29. However, these Undertaking Letters do not in any way show or confirm the actual income of the borrowers or guarantors. It is true that contents of Ex.P.5, which is the Statement of Account of Current Account of the SCTIT, and Statements of Account of the SB Accounts of all the borrowers indicate about credit of salary as shown in Pay Slips and Salary Certificates from that Current Account to the respective SB Accounts standing in the name of the borrowers starting from 02.09.2003 for more than 6 months prior to grant of housing loans. As observed above, all those borrowers were not receiving salary as shown in the Pay Slips and Salary Certificates and some of the borrowers including the Accused-5, 6, 9 and 10 were not even working in the SCTIT and false high sound designations are shown in the documents in respect of other borrowers. On scrutiny of the contents of Ex.P.5, it shows that salary amount was shown to be credited to the SB Accounts of the borrowers by debiting the said amount 119 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] from the Current Account as debt and that except for payment of salary to the borrowers and to make up the said debt, the said Current Account was not used for any other purpose. As such, it appears that the transactions in between that Current Account and SB Accounts of the borrowers are made only for the purpose of showing high salary income to claim loan. As observed above, contents of Pay Slips and Salary Certificates do not tally with the contents of Form No.16 and the said discrepancies are apparent on the face of those documents, which any one can notice very easily. But, the Accused-2 to 4 did not consider those defects. During the years 2003 to 2005, even Class-I Government Officer was not getting salary more than Rs.15,000/- to Rs.16,000/-. But, in the salary documents referred to above, it is shown that even Accountants, Instructors and Clerks etc., were drawing salary more than Rs.20,000/- p.m., at that time. It is a matter of common knowledge that in Un-aided Private Educational Institutions, salary paid will be very less compared to Government Institutions. It is not in dispute that the SCTIT is an Un-aided Private Educational Institution. As observed above, actual salary of the borrowers did not even cross Rs.10,000/- p.m. The Accused-2 to 4 ought to have considered all these facts, circumstances, defects in salary documents and ought to have suspected Pay Slips, Salary Certificates and Form No.16 and thereby, they ought to have secured Income Tax Assessment Orders or Income Tax Returns, as per Ex.P.1, to ensure genuineness of all those documents 120 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] including salary income shown in SB Accounts of the borrowers. If at all the Accused-2 to 4 had actually interacted with the borrowers, they would have known all these defects. But, they have not done so. Under these circumstances, it is not fit to accept the explanation offered on behalf of the Accused-2 to 4 that they believed regular credit of salary to the SB Accounts of the borrowers and the Undertaking Letters given by the Accused-1 and that as such, there are no lapses on their part in appraising, processing, recommending and sanctioning housing loans to the borrowers. On the other hand, the evidence on record shows that there is gross violation of the Guidelines issued as per Ex.P.1 on the part of the Accused-2 to 4 in ensuring about the salary income of the borrowers as shown in salary documents and that as such, there is gross illegality on the part of the Accused-2 to 4 in processing, recommending and sanctioning housing loans to the borrowers.
150. According to the Complainant, the Accused-2 did not verify and confirm the own contribution of borrowers to an extent of 20% of the cost of the property to be purchased under Housing Loan Scheme and thereby, there is violation of the Guidelines of the Bank. But, there is no evidence to substantiate the said allegation of the Complainant. On the other hand, in the Cross-examination, P.W.1 has admitted that at the time of sanction of loan, 20% margin was maintained. This admission negatives the contention of the Complainant about non-confirming on the part of the Accused-2 about the margin money 121 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] contribution of the borrowers. As such, it is not fit to accept the said contention of the Complainant.
151. The learned Public Prosecutor has contended that the disputed housing loans are group housing loans, the Accused-2 had power to sanction housing loan upto Rs.10 Lakhs only and that as the aggregate of the group housing loans exceed Rs.10 Lakhs, the Accused-2 ought to have taken permission from the Head Office before sanctioning housing loans. In this regard, she relied upon Ex.P.2-Booklet on Delegation of Powers. The said document shows that the Accused-2 had power to sanction housing loan upto Rs.10 Lakhs only. In that document at Page-3 under the head-INTRODUCTION, it is stated as under:
"Even though the individual credit limits proposed to be sanctioned to a party are within the delegated powers, if the aggregate limits proposed exceed the maximum per party limit, such proposals should be forwarded to the appropriate sanctioning authority for consideration."
It is not stated in the above cited condition that in case of group loans, if the aggregate limits exceed the delegated power, it is necessary to take permission from the appropriate sanctioning authority. On the other hand, the above condition shows that several credit limits may be sanctioned to a party and that though individual credit 122 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] limits proposed to be sanctioned to that party are within the delegated power, if the aggregate of the credit limits proposed to sanction to that party exceed the delegated power, then only it is necessary take permission of the appropriate sanctioning authority. In the case on hand, the disputed housing loans are sanctioned to 21 individual borrowers and the loan amount to each borrower has not exceeded Rs.10 Lakhs. It is not at all a group loan. In fact, in his Cross-examination, P.W.3 has admitted that all the 21 borrowers are individual borrowers. As such, the Accused-2 himself had power to sanction those individual loans and it was not required to send the proposals to the Head Office or to obtain permission from the Head Office before sanctioning those loans. Hence, it is not fit to accept the bare argument of the learned Public Prosecutor that the Accused-2 exceeded his sanctioning power.
152. From the above discussion, it is clear that though there is no illegality on the part of the Accused-2 in the matter of taking 20% margin amount from the borrowers and about exceeding power of sanction of loans, there is illegality on the part of the Accused-2 to 4 in the matter of processing, appraising, recommending and sanctioning housing loans, to all the 21 borrowers including the Accused-5 to 10 and in relying upon false income documents in violation of Circular and Guidelines. 11(c). Receiving Plan and Sale Deed:
153. As observed above, it is not in dispute that P.W.32 was the owner of 21 guntas of land in Sy.No.49/2. She purchased that land on 14.12.2001 through a 123 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] registered Sale Deed. As observed above, she executed a GPA in favour of the Accused-1 for construction of flats in that land. It is not in dispute that the Accused-1 produced title deeds and other documents before the Accused-2 for the purpose of sanction of housing loans, which are in dispute in this case. It is also not in dispute that the Accused-2 sought Legal Opinion from P.W.46- Sri.N.Sukumar Jain, Legal Adviser of the Bank, about the marketable title of Smt.Vijayalakshmi over the said property and also as to whether the Accused-1 can execute Sale Deeds in respect of flats to be constructed in that property. P.W.46 has deposed about giving of Legal Opinion dated 25.10.2003 stating that Smt.Vijayalakshmi had marketable title over the said property. That Legal Opinion is in Ex.P.114. It is also his evidence that, subsequently after 3-4 months, he gave individual Legal Opinions in respect of housing loans relating to borrowers of this case for purchasing flats of Vijayalakshmi Apartments in their individual name. Those Legal Opinions are in the Loan Files-Ex.P.10, Ex.P.11, Ex.P.18 to Ex.P.36. This evidence is also not in dispute.
154. According to the Complainant, the Accused-1 produced Copy of forged Building Plan of 'B' Block flats of Vijayalakshmi Apartments to the Bank and the Accused-2 accepted the same without securing its original or verifying its genuineness with CMC, K.R.Puram, Bengaluru. Copy of Plan is in Ex.P.114. As observed above, the evidence on record shows that it is a forged document. But, neither Ex.P.1 nor any other document speaks about securing of 124 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] original building Plan or verifying its genuineness by the Bank Manager. According to the Accused-2, the said document was verified by P.W.46 and based on that document, Legal Opinion was given by him and as such, he accepted that document. Legal Opinion shows about scrutiny of License and Plan by P.W.46. The said Plan bears seal and signature of those said to be of the Commissioner of CMC, Krishnarajapura, Bengaluru. On the face of it, the said document does not show anything to suspect its genuineness. After scrutiny of that document and other documents, Legal Adviser has given his green signal to proceed further to grant loan. As such, there was no occasion to suspect the Accused-2 about the genuineness of that document. Hence, it was not necessary to verify genuineness of that document with CMC. Furthermore, original Plan requires to be kept with the Accused-1 or P.W.32 for construction of flats. As such, question of insisting by the Accused-2 to produce original Plan does not arise. As observed above, Circular-Ex.P.1 or any other document does not specify about securing original Plan. Under these circumstances, it is fit to accept the explanation given by the Accused-2 about the Plan.
155. The learned Public Prosecutor has contended that, the Accused-1, 5 to 10 have suppressed about surrender of original Sale Deed dated 14.12.2001, which is a mother-deed relating to title of P.W.32 pertaining to Vijayalakshmi Apartments, before Syndicate Bank, K.G.Halli Branch, Bengaluru, on 24.04.2003 in connection 125 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] with housing loans availed in the names of the Accused-5 to 10, P.W.23, P.W.25, P.W.62, P.W.69, C.W.33 and Sri.Sudhir Kumar Singh for purchasing same 'B' Block flats of Vijayalakshmi Apartments and that though the Accused- 2 to 4 have received a Copy of the Sale Deed dated 14.12.2001, they have not verified the existing liabilities of those persons with that Bank and that they have committed illegality in not receiving the original Sale Deed for the purpose of disputed housing loans.
156. As observed above, housing loans were availed in the names of the Accused-5 to 10, P.W.23, P.W.25, P.W.62, P.W.69, C.W.33 and Sri.Sudhir Kumar Singh from Syndicate Bank, K.G.Halli Branch, Bengaluru, in the year 2003 for purchasing 'B' Block flats of Vijayalakshmi Apartments from P.W.32 through the Accused-1. As observed above, as a GPA Holder of P.W.32, the Accused-1 created Equitable Mortgage on 24.04.2003 over the land bearing Sy.No.49/2 belonging to P.W.32 in favour of the Syndicate Bank by depositing title deeds. Ex.P.166 shows that original Sale Deed dated 14.12.2001, which is the mother-deed relating to title of P.W.32 over Vijayalakshmi Apartments, was deposited in the Syndicate Bank on 24.04.2003. Loan Files-Ex.P.10, Ex.P.11, Ex.P.18 to Ex.P.36 show that the Accused-1, 5 to 10 have not disclosed about the Syndicate Bank housing loans, referred to above, and the Accused-1 has produced only Copy of the Sale Deed dated 14.12.2001 for the purpose of housing loans relating to this case.
126 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J]
157. It is the contention of the Accused-2 to 4 that they have relied upon and followed the Legal Opinion of P.W.46 and that as such, there is no illegality on their part in receiving Copy of the Sale Deed instead of original Sale Deed. The evidence of P.W.46 and his Legal Opinion dated 25.10.2003 show that he verified and scrutinized the original Sale Deed dated 14.12.2001 for giving his Legal Opinion about the marketable title of P.W.32 over the flats to be sold to the borrowers of this dispute. The Accused-2 got marked Ex.D.5, which is a Copy of Letter dated 09.07.2008 written by P.W.46 to the Bank. P.W.46 has admitted that Letter. Contents of that Letter also show about verification of original Sale Deed i.e., mother-deed dated 14.12.2001 by P.W.46 before giving his Legal Opinion. But, that original mother-deed was not taken by the Accused-2 to 4, though they have taken original GPA executed by P.W.32 in favour of the Accused-1. There is nothing in Ex.P.10, Ex.P.11, Ex.P.18 to Ex.P.36 and Ex.P.114 as to why that original mother-deed was not taken by the Accused-2 to 4 for the purpose of granting housing loans, though the said document was available as per the evidence of P.W.46. It is not the opinion of P.W.46 that Copy of that mother-deed may be taken instead of original mother-deed. If at all the Accused-2 to 4 had questioned the Accused-1, 5 to 10 about that original mother-deed during appraisal, scrutiny or atleast while executing loan papers or creating Equitable Mortgage, about non-production of original mother-deed or the reason for production of Copy of mother-deed, they would 127 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] have come to know about grant of housing loans by the Syndicate Bank for purchasing same flats of Vijayalakshmi Apartments in the names of the Accused-5 to 10, P.W.23, P.W.25, P.W.62, P.W.69, C.W.33 and Sri.Sudhir Kumar Singh in the year 2003 itself. But, the Accused-2 to 4 have not done so and there is no acceptable explanation from them in this regard. This circumstance also shows that the Accused-2 to 4 committed illegality in appraisal, scrutiny and sanction of loan without ascertaining the loan liabilities in the names of the Accused-5 to 10, P.W.23, P.W.25, P.W.62, P.W.69, C.W.33 and Sri.Sudhir Kumar Singh with Syndicate Bank.
11(d). Fake Agreements:
158. It is not in dispute that Agreements of Sale and Construction Agreements for the purpose of construction and sale of flats by the Accused-1 and purchase of said flats by the borrowers were executed in between 21 borrowers of this dispute and the Accused-1 and that Tripartite Agreements were entered into between the said borrowers, the Accused-1 and the Accused-2 on behalf of the Bank for the purpose of granting and disbursing of housing loans to those 21 borrowers. According to the Complainant, stamp papers used for those Agreements were purchased much after the execution of those Agreements and as such, all those Agreements are fake Agreements. In support of the said contention, the learned Public Prosecutor has relied upon the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.8, P.W.10, P.W.41 and P.W.57.
128 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J]
159. All those Agreements are available in Ex.P.10, Ex.P.11 and Ex.P.18 to Ex.P.36. Those documents show that stamp papers used for preparing those Agreements were purchased from State Bank of Mysore, NGEF Branch and Seshadripuram Branch, Bengaluru. As observed above, the evidence of P.W.41 shows that under Ex.P.131, he produced the Challans used for purchasing those stamp papers. Ex.P.6 to Ex.P.8 and Ex.P.61 are those Challans. P.W.8-Sri.Subhash, the then Accountant working in SBM, NGEF Branch, Bengaluru and P.W.10-Sri.D.S.Vinod, the then Special Assistant of SBM, Seshadripuram Branch, have deposed that stamp papers used for preparing Agreements, which are available in Ex.P.10, Ex.P.11 and Ex.P.18 to Ex.P.36, were sold by their Banks on the dates mentioned in those stamp papers. The Accused-2 to 10 have not disputed the said evidence of issue of stamp papers by those Banks.
160. P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.57 have deposed that stamp papers used for the Agreements have been purchased much after the date of execution of those Agreements. As per the evidence of P.W.8 and P.W.10, contents of Ex.P.6 to Ex.P.8 and Ex.P.61 and also the contents of the Agreements available in Ex.P.10, Ex.P.11, Ex.P.18 to Ex.P.36, the date of purchase of stamp papers and the date of execution of the Agreements on those stamp papers are as under:
129 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] Ex.No. Date of Purchase of Date of Execution of of Stamp Papers Agreements Loan Agreement Construction Tripartite Agreement Construction Tripartite File of Sale Agreement Agreement of Sale Agreement Agreement P.10 31.01.04 20.01.040 08.01.04 02.01.04 02.01.04 02.01.04 (1st Sheet) 20.01.04 (2nd Sheet) P.11 31.01.04 20.01.040 08.01.04 28.01.04 28.01.04 28.01.04 (1st Sheet) 20.01.04 (2nd Sheet) P.18 31.01.04 31.01.040 08.01.04 04.01.04 04.01.04 04.01.04 P.19 31.01.04 31.01.040 Purchase 27.01.04 27.01.04 27.01.04 date not c clear.
P.20 31.01.04 31.01.040 08.01.04 02.01.04 02.01.04 02.01.04 P.21 31.01.04 31.01.040 08.01.04 01.01.04 01.01.04 01.01.04 P.22 31.01.04 31.01.040 08.01.04 03.01.04 03.01.04 03.01.04 P.23 31.01.04 31.01.040 08.01.04 05.01.04 05.01.04 05.01.04 P.24 31.01.04 31.01.040 08.01.04 03.01.04 03.01.04 03.01.04 P.25 31.01.04 31.01.040 08.01.04 03.01.04 03.01.04 03.01.04 P.26 12.03.04 12.03.040 12.03.04 04.02.04 04.02.04 04.02.04 P.27 12.03.04 12.03.040 12.03.04 04.02.04 04.02.04 04.02.04 P.28 12.03.04 12.03.040 12.03.04 04.02.04 04.02.04 04.02.04 P.29 12.03.04 12.03.040 12.03.04 04.02.04 04.02.04 04.02.04 P.30 12.03.04 12.03.040 12.03.04 04.02.04 04.02.04 04.02.04 P.31 12.03.04 12.03.040 12.03.04 04.02.04 04.02.04 04.02.04 P.32 12.03.04 12.03.040 12.03.04 04.02.04 04.02.04 04.02.04 P.33 12.03.04 12.03.040 12.03.04 04.02.04 04.02.04 04.02.04 P.34 12.03.04 12.03.040 12.03.04 04.02.04 04.02.04 04.02.04 P.35 12.03.04 12.03.040 12.03.04 04.02.04 04.02.04 04.02.04 P.36 12.03.04 12.03.040 12.03.04 04.02.04 04.02.04 04.02.04 The above table shows that except stamp papers used for Construction Agreement and Tripartite Agreement relating to Ex.P.11, all other stamp papers have been purchased 130 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] much after the date of execution of the Agreements, which supports the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.57. As such, it is clear that the Agreements are not executed on the date mentioned in those documents, which also supports the contention of the Complainant that those Agreements are fake documents. Though the Accused-2 is not a party to the Agreements of Sale and Construction Agreements, he has participated on behalf of the Bank in the execution of Tripartite Agreements. Though the execution of those Tripartite Agreements was not done on the dates mentioned in those Agreements, except relating to Ex.P.11, the Accused-2 has signed on those documents as if they were executed on the dates mentioned in those documents. This circumstance shows that the things did not happen as stated in those Agreements and that the Accused-2 has gone out of the way in execution of Tripartite Agreements for the purpose of granting loans. While processing and scrutinizing loan papers during recommendation and sanction of the loans to the 21 borrowers, if the Accused-2 to 4 had verified and scrutinized the Agreements of Sale and Construction Agreements, they could have easily detected that those Agreements were fake as execution of those Agreements did not take place on the dates mentioned in those Agreements as stamp papers of those Agreements were purchased much after those dates. This circumstance also shows that there was no verification and scrutiny of the documents by the Accused-2 to 4 before granting housing loans to the 21 borrowers.
131 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J]
161. It is the contention of the Accused-2 that Sale Agreements are irrelevant as Sale Deeds are executed subsequently and that Construction Agreements are also irrelevant as flats were constructed by the SCTBD as per Plan and License. It is also his contention that P.W.46, who gave Legal Opinion, and Smt.Latha Shetty, who conducted Legal Scrutiny, did not give any adverse remarks about all those Agreements and that as such, there is no illegality in accepting those Agreements. In support of his contention, the Accused-2 produced Ex.D.11-Copy of Certificate dated 03.03.2006 issued by Smt.Latha Shetty. Merely because Sale Deeds were executed as per the Sale Agreements subsequently and flats were constructed as per Plan and License, illegalities committed in execution of those Agreements will not vanish. It is true that though P.W.46 has given his Legal Opinion by considering Agreements of Sale along with other documents, he has not observed glaring illegality regarding date of purchase of stamp papers and date of execution of the Agreements, though on the face of the Agreements, the said illegality is visible. Ex.D.11 relates to Legal Scrutiny conducted by Smt.Latha Shetty, Advocate, relating to the documents pertaining to the housing loan of P.W.62. Though it is stated in that Certificate that Legal Scrutiny has been done strictly in terms of instructions contained in the Manual of Instructions/Guidelines/Head Office Circulars and certified that there are no errors and omissions in the documents and that those documents are valid and enforceable, she 132 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] has also failed to observe glaring illegality regarding date of purchase of stamp papers and the date of execution of Agreements, inspite of the fact that the said glaring illegality is clearly visible on the face of the documents. This circumstance shows that P.W.46 as well as Smt.Latha Shetty did not scrutinize the documents properly and as such, they have failed to mention about the illegalities in their Opinion and Certificate. Merely because, they did not mention about the illegalities in their Opinion due to lack of proper scrutiny, illegalities appearing in the execution of those documents will not vanish and as such, contention of the Accused-2 is fit to be rejected as it is untenable.
162. Thus, from the available evidence, it is clear that the Agreements of Sale, Construction Agreements and Tripartite Agreements are fake, the Accused-2 has also participated in execution of fake Tripartite Agreements on behalf of the Bank by going out of the way and that the Accused-2 to 4 have accepted those fake Agreements without any scrutiny for the purpose of granting housing loans in the names of the Accused-5 to 10, P.W.19 to P.W.29, P.W.62, P.W.69, C.W.33 and Sri.Sudhir Kumar Singh.
11(e). Creating False Sale Deeds:
163. It is not in dispute that in pursuance of sanction of loan in the names of the Accused-5 to 10, P.W.19 to P.W.29, P.W.62, P.W.69, C.W.33 and Sri.Sudhir Kumar Singh and as per Tripartite Agreements, loan amounts 133 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] were released to the Accused-1 and that the Accused-1 executed Sale Deeds in the names of all those borrowers in respect of flats of Vijayalakshmi Apartments and that an Equitable Mortgage was created over those flats in favour of the Bank by depositing those Sale Deeds in the Bank as security to the loans given by the Bank. According to the Complainant, Sale Deeds executed in the names of the Accused-8, P.W.20, P.W.69 and P.W.28 are false and fake documents. Ex.P.18(c), Ex.P.23(c), Ex.P.24(c) and Ex.P.25(c) are those documents, according to the Complainant. According to the Complainant, the Accused-5 to 11 have created those false Sale Deeds. However, during the course of arguments, the learned Public Prosecutor fairly submitted that there is no evidence about the said allegations against the Accused-7, 9, 10 and 11 and contended that the Accused-1, 5, 6 and 8 have created those false and fake Sale Deeds. In support of her contention, she has relied upon the evidence of P.W.52 and P.W.69.
164. P.W.52-Sri.N.Anand Kumar was working as Head Quarters Sub-Registrar at K.R.Puram during 2003- 2006. He has deposed that Page No.3 of Sale Deeds- Ex.P.23(c), Ex.P.24(c) and Ex.P.25(c) do not bear the seal and signature of Sub-Registrar, K.R.Puram and that seal and signature appearing on that Page are fake. He has further deposed that the said Page-3 in all those Sale Deeds have been replaced by inserting fake stamp paper after registration. He has identified Ex.P.23(d), Ex.P.24(e) and Ex.P.25(e) as those Page-3 of the said Sale Deeds.
134 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] P.W.36-Sri.Mahadevaiah was working as Sub-Registrar at K.R.Puram Sub-Registrar's Office during 2003-2005. As per his evidence, Sale Deeds-Ex.P.18(c), Ex.P.23(c) to Ex.P.25(c) were registered in his office and that the Accused-5 has signed as witness to all those Sale Deeds knowing the transactions of those Sale Deeds. He has deposed that Page-3 of Ex.P.18(c) was replaced and that the said Page-3 does not bear his signature. On scrutiny of Ex.P.18(c), Ex.P.23(c) to Ex.P.25(c), it is clear on the face of those documents that stamp paper used, seals and signatures put on the Page-3 of those documents do not tally with those of other Pages of those documents. This fact fortifies the evidence of P.W.36 and P.W.52. These 2 witnesses have stood well in the test of Cross-examination and there is no reason to disbelieve their evidence. As such, it is clear that Page-3 of Ex.P.18(c), Ex.P.23(c) to Ex.P.25(c) are fake documents. Thus, it has to be held that Ex.P.18(c), Ex.P.23(c) to Ex.P.25(c) are false documents.
165. As observed above, as per the evidence of P.W.69, he was doing work in the office as per the directions of the Accused-1 and 5. He has further deposed that Bank related work i.e., taking signatures of the staff on the loan papers and obtaining loan from the Bank was being done by the Accused-8. He has further deposed that the Accused-5 was giving him the work of preparing Sale Deeds by giving formats and that he used to give the names of the staff, ask him to prepare Sale Agreements and that accordingly, he used to do that work. He has 135 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] further deposed that he was doing all the works as directed by the Accused-1, the Accused-5 and the Accused-8 in the house of the Accused-5 on the Computer. In the Cross-examination, he has stated that in the usual course, whenever the Accused-5 or 8 used to bring papers and asked him to sign, he was putting his signatures. P.W.23 has deposed that the Accused-5 was also coming to the Institution. In his Cross-examination, he has deposed that he has stated before the Investigating Officer that the Accused-1 and 5 took him to the Sub-Registrar's office and that they took his signatures on Agreements/Deeds and that they also took his thumb impressions on those documents. P.W.28 has deposed that the Accused-1, 5 and 6 took him to Sub-Registrar's office, asked him to sign on all the documents and that by assuring him that they would give flat to him, they obtained his signature on all the documents. All these witnesses have stood well in the test of Cross-examination. From the said evidence of P.W.23, P.W.28 and P.W.69, it has to be inferred that the Accused-1, 5, 6 and 8 have actively participated in obtaining signatures of the borrowers to the loan papers, Agreements and Sale Deeds and that they have taken lead role in preparing Sale Deeds and registration of those documents. The evidence of P.W.58-Arun Kalgijuikar, the then Sub-Registrar of K.R.Puram working from 2002 to 2005, also shows that the Accused-5 and 8 have taken active role in registration of Sale Deeds-Ex.P.62, Ex.P.72, Ex.P.98, Ex.P.104 and Ex.P.122, which have been executed in respect of flats of 136 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] Vijayalakshmi Apartments. As such, as the Accused-1, 5, 6 and 8 have taken lead role in preparation and registration of documents and as there is no explanation from the Accused-5, 6 and 8 about Page-3 of Ex.P.18(c), Ex.P.23(c) to Ex.P.25(c), the only inference that could be drawn under the circumstances is that the Accused-1, 5, 6 and 8 have created the said false documents. As those documents are used for the purpose of taking housing loans from the Bank, it is clear that the Accused-1, 5, 6 and 8 have created those documents for the purpose of taking housing loans from the Bank.
166. It is not in dispute that those Sale Deeds- Ex.P.18(c), Ex.P.23(c) to Ex.P.25(c) have been accepted by the Accused-2 to 4 for creation of Equitable Mortgage as security for the housing loans given to the concerned borrowers. But, they have failed to note or observe the forgery that has been committed in respect of those Sale Deeds. If the Accused-2 to 4 had carefully scrutinized or verified those documents, they would have noticed that forgery. As they have not done so, it is clear that without any scrutiny or verification, the Accused-2 to 4 have accepted those forged Sale Deeds.
167. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Accused-4 has contended that as per Ex.D.6, except obtaining the loan papers, there is no question of appraising the loan proposals on the part of the Accused-4 and that as such, the Accused-4 has not committed any illegality in the process of the loan papers. Ex.D.6 is the 137 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] Circular regarding duties and responsibilities of Assistant Branch Managers. It is not in dispute that Accused-4 was working as Assistant Branch Manager at the relevant point of time. As per Ex.D.6, apart from other work, the Assistant Branch Manager shall:
i) scrutinize loan paper including guarantees, Letter of credit etc., and should sign the relative Certificate of loan papers obtained;
ii) conduct either independently or along with Branch Manager credit investigation in respect of credit proposals;
iii) assist the Branch Manager in processing of the credit proposals.
Thus, it is clear that it is the duty and responsibility of the Assistant Branch Manager to scrutinize loan papers, conduct investigation in respect of credit proposals and assist the Branch Manager in processing of the credit proposals. In that capacity only, the Accused-4 has worked in the Bank and attended the work of process, scrutiny and appraisal of the loan papers pertaining to the housing loans relating to the borrowers of this case. As observed above, the Accused-4 has failed to discharge his duty and responsibility in the said work and thereby, he has committed illegality. Hence, it is not fit to accept the argument advanced on behalf of the Accused-4 that he has not committed any illegality.
138 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] 11(f). Diversion of Funds:
168. According to the Complainant, DD No.726836 Dated 03.09.2004 for Rs.5,50,000/-, DD No.726839 Dated 03.09.2004 for Rs.5,50,000/-,DD No.576769 Dated 21.03.2005 for Rs.5,50,000/-, DD No.576766 Dated 21.03.2005 for Rs.5,50,000/- and DD No.576772 Dated 21.03.2005 for Rs.5,50,000/- issued by the Bank in favour of the Accused-1 out of the loan amount disbursed in favour of 21 Borrowers of this dispute were deposited in the Current Account No.CD-10535 held in the name of the SCTBD with Bank of India, Jeevanbhima Nagara Branch, Bengaluru, the Accused-1 used the said amount for repaying the loan availed from Bank of India, Jeevanbhima Nagara Branch, Bengaluru and the Accused-2 and other Officers of the Bank have allowed such diversion of funds.
Ex.P.16 contains those 5 Demand Drafts. Records show that those 5 Demand Drafts were issued to the Accused-1 out of the Housing Loans granted by the Bank in the names of the Accused-7, P.W.21, P.W.22, P.W.27 and P.W.29 by virtue of Tripartite Agreements. Ex.P.126 is the Statement of Account of the Current Account No.CD- 10535, referred to above. Though that document indicates that on 24.03.2005, 3 Demand Drafts Dated 21.03.2005, referred to above, were deposited in that Current Account, it does not show about deposit of remaining 2 Demand Drafts Dated 03.09.2004 in that Current Account. That document also does not show about using of that amount for repayment of Housing Loans relating to Bank of India. P.W.39, P.W.40 and P.W.59 are the Officers of the Bank of 139 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] India. They have not stated anything about using of those Demand Draft amounts by the Accused-1 for repayment of Housing Loans of their Bank. So also, none of the Officers of the Bank i.e., Vijaya Bank has stated about diversion of funds relating to those Demand Drafts and allowing of such diversion by the Accused-2 to 4. Even, P.W.65, who is the Investigating Officer and who is the proper and competent person to speak about such diversion, has not even whispered about the same. Tripartite Agreements executed in between the Accused-1, Borrower and the Bank through the Accused-2 do not direct the Accused-1 to use the loan amount in a particular manner. Merely because, Demand Drafts were deposited in the Account of the SCTBD at Bank of India, it can't be said that there was diversion of funds. Absolutely, there is nothing on behalf of the Complainant to substantiate the said allegation of diversion of funds. Hence, it is clear that the Complainant has failed to prove the alleged diversion of funds and lapses on the part of the Accused-2 to 4.
11(g). Subsequent Sale of Flats:
169. As per Ex.P.10, Ex.P.11, Ex.P.18 to Ex.P.36 and also Sale Deeds relating to those Files, the flats sold by the Accused-1 relating to the housing loans given by the Bank to the 21 borrowers are as under:
Sl. Status in
No. Name this Case Flat No.
1. Sri.K.A.Aswathnarayana Accused-5 GF-106
2. Sri.Nagaraj Accused-6 GF-101
3. Sri.M.V.Seshadri Accused-7 FF-203
4. Sri.R.Ravi Accused-8 GF-103
140 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J]
5. Sri.K.A.Badarinarayana Accused-9 GF-102
6. Smt.B.S.Kanakalakshmi Accused-10 FF-205
7. Sri.S.Jagadish P.W.19 SF-303
8. Sri.Gangappa P.W.20 GF-108
9. Smt.K.Suja P.W.21 FF-202
10. Smt.D.Anitha P.W.22 SF-302
11. Sri.S.M.Vijay Kumar P.W.23 GF-104
12. Sri.C.S.Srinivas P.W.24 GF-105
13 Sri.K.Ramesh P.W.25 FF-201
14. Sri.V.V.Ramana P.W.26 GF-116
15. Sri.Gopal Krishna P.W.27 SF-308
16. Sri.J.Krishnappa P.W.28 FF-208
17. Sri.K.Srinivas P.W.29 SF-304
18. Sri.Omkaraswamy P.W.62 FTF-401
19. Sri.M.G.Vinod Kumar P.W.69 FF-207
20. Sri.H.Venkatesh C.W.33 SF-301
21. Sri.Sudhir Kumar Singh - FF-206
It is not in dispute that the above flats were mortgaged to the Bank as security to the loans advanced by the Bank.
It is also not in dispute that after construction of those flats, P.W.18-Sri.Appi Reddy, who is the approved Valuer of the Bank, issued Completion/Final Valuation Report as per Ex.P.65 in respect of those flats. Ex.D.10 is Copy of such Valuation Report given in respect of the Loan Account relating to P.W.27. According to P.W.18, as per showing of the spot by the Accused-2 and 5, he gave the said Report.
170. According to the Complainant, subsequent to creation of mortgage in favour of the Bank, by colluding with the other Accused, the Accused-1 sold 19 flats to third parties without the knowledge or consent of the Bank and thereby, the housing loans given to 21 borrowers were left without any security. The evidence of P.W.19 to P.W.29, P.W.62 and P.W.69 show that except putting signatures to the loan papers, they did not deal with the housing loans 141 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] or the flats in any manner and that they did not get flats as per loan documents and the Sale Deeds. Majority of those witnesses have deposed that on the representation that their signatures were required for the purpose of taking loan to improve the Institute, they have put their signatures. There is nothing to show that flats were given to all these witnesses, C.W.33 and Sri.Sudhir Kumar Singh.
171. P.W.9-Sri.M.Mohan Acharya, P.W.11-Sri.N.Naganna, P.W.12-Sri.Rahul Thompkinson, P.W.13-Smt.Shrijayanthi, P.W.14-Sri.Jagadish L.Damam, P.W.44-Sri.G.S.Ananda Babu, P.W.47-Sri.Praveen Kumar, P.W.54-Sri.Brig.M.M.Ashok Cariappa and P.W.56-Sri.Benoy Wilson are some of the subsequent purchasers of those flats. Their evidence and the contents of Ex.P.60, Ex.P.62, Ex.P.63, Ex.P.64, Ex.P.123(a), Ex.P.123(b), Ex.P.123(c) and Ex.P.133 and also the contents of Ex.P.10, Ex.P.11, Ex.P.18 to Ex.P.36 show sale of flats, which were mortgaged to the Bank in respect of the housing loans of P.W.20, P.W.21, P.W.22, P.W.23, P.W.25, P.W.27, the Accused-8 and Sri.Sudhir Kumar Singh, by the Accused-1 subsequent to creation of mortgage in favour of the Bank and that those purchasers have possession over those flats.
172. P.W.65 has deposed that on 08.06.2009, he conducted Spot Verification Proceedings at Vijayalakshmi Apartments in the presence of Vijaya Bank Officers, Revenue Officer and independent witnesses to find out the actual owners and inmates of flats mortgaged to the Bank 142 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] and that Ex.P.9 is the Spot Verification Proceedings in this regard. P.W.2 and P.W.7, who are the Officers of the Bank, have also deposed about Spot Verification Proceedings and preparation of Ex.P.9 in their presence. Their evidence corroborates the evidence of P.W.65. Contents of Ex.P.9 also fortify the evidence of P.W.2, P.W.7 and P.W.65. P.W.2 has deposed that except the brothers of the Secretary, none of the borrowers financed by the Bank was residing in any of the flats. Contents of Ex.P.9 indicate that the Accused-5 is residing in flat No.401, he is the owner of flat No.304 and flat No.404 and his tenants are residing in those flats, the Accused-9 is the owner in possession of flat No.306 and none other borrowers of the Bank is residing in the remaining flats. If the evidence of P.W.2 is read along with the contents of Ex.P.9, it is clear that except the Accused-5 and 9, who are the brothers of the Accused-1 i.e., the Secretary of the SCTIT, none other borrowers of the Bank is residing in the flats financed by the Bank. As per the loan documents, the Accused-5, his wife-the Accused-10 and his brother, the Accused-9 took housing loans from the Bank for purchasing flat No.106, flat No.205 and 102 respectively. But, the Accused-5, 9 and 10 did not explain as to what happened to those flats. As per the loan documents, loans were granted by the Bank in the names of P.W.29 and P.W.62 for purchasing flat No.304 and 401 respectively. The Accused-5, 9 and 10 did not explain as to how the Accused-5 is residing in flat No.401, he is the owner of flat No.304 and flat No.404 and that the Accused-9 is the owner in possession of flat 143 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] No.306. As per Ex.P.11, housing loan was granted by the Bank to the Accused-6 for purchasing flat No.101. But, as per the evidence of P.W.54 and Ex.P.123(b), wife of P.W.54 has purchased that flat No.101 on 21.01.2006 and it is in her possession. As per Ex.P.11, Smt.Vandana Nagaraj i.e., the wife of the Accused-6 is the Co-Applicant for the said housing loan taken by the Accused-6. She is cited as C.W.62 in the Charge Sheet. Charge Sheet shows that the Accused-6 and his wife are residing in flat No.403 of Vijayalakshmi Apartments. The Accused-6 has not disputed the said address. As such, it is clear that the Accused-6 and his wife have possession over flat No.403 of Vijayalakshmi Apartments. There is no explanation from the Accused-6 as to what happened to his flat No.101 and as to how he has possession over flat No.403. All these circumstances show subsequent alienation of the mortgaged properties. Contents of Ex.P.9 fortify the evidence of P.W.9, P.W.11, P.W.12, P.W.13, P.W.14, P.W.44, P.W.47, P.W.54 and P.W.56 about purchase of flats from the Accused-1 and possessing of those flats by them. This evidence also supports the contention of the Complainant that the Accused-1 sold the flats, which were mortgaged to the Bank, subsequent to the mortgage.
173. Contents of Ex.P.9 show that there are 8 flats i.e., flat No.001 to 008 in the ground floor, 8 flats i.e., flat No.101 to 108 in the first floor, 8 flats i.e., flat No.201 to 208 in the second floor, 8 flats i.e., flat No.301 to 308 in the third floor and 4 flats i.e., flat No.401 to 404 in the fourth floor of Vijayalakshmi Apartments. The evidence of 144 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] P.W.9, P.W.11, P.W.12, P.W.13, P.W.14, P.W.47, P.W.54 and P.W.56 as well as Sale Deeds relating to those persons and also contents of Ex.P.10, Ex.P.11, Ex.P.18 to Ex.P.36 and Sale Deeds relating to these Files show that by changing the flat numbers of the properties mortgaged to the Bank, the Accused-1 has sold the same flats subsequent to creation of mortgage. As per Ex.P.27, flat No.GF-116 was sold in the name of P.W.26- Sri.V.V.Ramana and the same flat has been mortgaged to the Bank as security for housing loan. But, no such flat is in existence in the ground floor or in any other floors of Vijayalakshmi Apartments as per Ex.P.9.
174. As observed above, from the evidence of P.W.23, P.W.28, P.W.58 and P.W.69, the Accused-1, 5, 6 and 8 have taken lead role in preparation and registration of documents. As observed above, P.W.44 purchased flat from the Accused-1. Ex.P.133 is the Sale Deed in this regard. As per the evidence of P.W.44 and Ex.P.133, he purchased flat No.108 situated in first floor. As per Ex.P.23 and Ex.P.23(c), the said flat was purchased and mortgaged to the Bank in the name of P.W.20, but, by showing that it is situated in ground floor. The evidence on record shows that flat No.108 is not situated in the ground floor, but, it is situated in the first floor. The Accused-5 is an Attester to Ex.P.23(c) as well as Ex.P.133. As per the evidence of P.W.36, as observed above, by knowing the transactions, the Accused-5 has signed on the Sale Deed as a witness. On considering this evidence and the evidence on record that the Accused-1, 5, 6 and 8 have taken lead role in 145 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] preparation and registration of documents and also the relationship in between the Accused-1, 5, 6 and 8, it has to be inferred that subsequent sales of mortgaged flats are made by the Accused-1 by colluding with the Accused-5, 6 and 8.
175. As observed above, the evidence on record shows that housing loans were taken in the names of the Accused-5 to 10, P.W.23, P.W.25, P.W.62, P.W.69, C.W.33 and Sri.Sudhir Kumar Singh from Syndicate Bank also for purchasing flats of Vijayalakshmi Apartments situated in the same land bearing Sy.No.49/2 of Kaggadasapura Village from Smt.Vijayalakshmi through her GPA Holder- the Accused-1 in the year 2003 and that for the purpose of those loans, the Accused-1 created an Equitable Mortgage on 24.04.2003 in favour of Syndicate Bank by depositing original title deeds and other documents pertaining to Sy.No.49/2 measuring 21 guntas of Kaggadasapura Village. So also, as security for repayment of those housing loans, Equitable Mortgages have been created over those flats of Vijayalakshmi Apartments in favour of the Syndicate Bank in the names of the Accused-5 to 10, P.W.23, P.W.25, P.W.62, P.W.69, C.W.33 and Sri.Sudhir Kumar Singh. On perusal of those documents relating to Syndicate Bank housing loans, i.e., Ex.P.69, Ex.P.71, Ex.P.75, Ex.P.79, Ex.P.86, Ex.P.90, Ex.P.95, Ex.P.99, Ex.P.101, Ex.P.107, Ex.P.154 to Ex.P.167, it is clear that by changing the flat numbers of those flats, the Accused-1 has sold the same flats in the names of the borrowers relating to this case, which have been sold subsequently to 146 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] P.W.9, P.W.11, P.W.12, P.W.13, P.W.14, P.W.44, P.W.47, P.W.54, P.W.56 and others. As the first Charge over those flats is with the Syndicate Bank and as those flats are sold to P.W.9, P.W.11, P.W.12, P.W.13, P.W.14, P.W.44, P.W.47, P.W.54, P.W.56 and others subsequent to creation of mortgage in favour of the Bank and as those purchasers have possession over those flats and as flat No.GF-116 registered in the name of P.W.26-Sri.V.V.Ramana is not in existence and the borrowers of the Bank do not possess the flats for which the housing loans were granted by the Bank, it is clear that the housing loans sanctioned by the Bank in the names of the borrowers of this case are left without any security. However, the evidence on record shows that the Accused-5 is the owner of 2 flats and that another one flat is in his possession and that the Accused- 6 and 9 are the owners in possession of 1 flat each in Vijayalakshmi Apartments. The Accused-10 being the wife of the Accused-5 is the Co-Applicant in the housing loan taken by the Accused-5 and she herself has taken one housing loan for purchasing flat. Though there is no evidence as to what happened to that flat, as she is the wife of the Accused-5 and as she is residing along with the Accused-5, it has to be inferred that another flat possessed by the Accused-5, which he and the Accused-10 did not explain as to how he got it, belongs to the Accused-10. 11(h). Loss and Gain:
176. The Bank granted housing loans of Rs.9.70 Lakhs each in the names of 21 borrowers relating to this case and the total amount of loans so granted is Rs.2.03 147 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] Crores. Statements of Account available in Ex.P.10, Ex.P.11, Ex.P.18 to Ex.P.36, Ex.D.7, Ex.D.12, Ex.D.17 and Ex.D.18 show that repayment of just around Rs.83 Lakhs in all has been made in respect of all the 21 loans as per the undertaking given by the SCTIT through its Current Account and that subsequent payments are not made. As per those documents, from all the 21 Loan Accounts, a sum of Rs.1,81,07,304/- and interest is due to the Bank.
Ex.D.19 shows that suits were filed and action under SARFAESI Act were taken, but, even by the end of 2011, the Bank could not recover its dues and that possession of flats could not be taken as those flats were not identifiable. As observed above, due to prior mortgage in favour of the Syndicate Bank and subsequent sales and also non- existence of a flat No.G-116, the housing loans are left without any security. Added to this, the Accused-1, who was the mastermind and Guarantor to all these loans, is dead. This fact also has come in the way of recovery of dues by the Bank. As such, virtually, the Bank has suffered loss to an extent of Rs.1,81,07,304/- and interest, which remained unpaid by the borrowers and which has become difficult to recover by the Bank. This loss is due to creation of false documents by the Accused-1, 5 to 11, using of those documents for the purpose of taking housing loans, accepting of those housing documents without check or scrutiny and also due to illegality in the process and appraisal of documents by the Accused-2 to 4 and sanction of loans by the Accused-2. As per the Tripartite Agreements, loan amounts of all the 21 loans were given 148 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] to the Accused-1 by crediting to his Current Account. As such, he is the beneficiary of those housing loans. The Accused-5 to 10 had applied to the Bank seeking housing loans at the instance of the Accused-1 for purchasing flats in Vijayalakshmi Apartments. The Accused-5, 6, 9 and 10 are holding flats in Vijayalakshmi Apartments. Copy of the Judgment in O.S.No.837/2010 on the file of 10th Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, shows that the Court decreed the suit filed for recovery of the housing loan amount due by the Accused-7 and his Guarantors on the ground that the Accused-7 availed housing loan for purchasing the property. In that case, it is not at all the defence of the Accused-7 that he is not the beneficiary of the housing loan. Apart from it, the Accused-5, 9 and 10 are the close relatives and the Accused-6 is a close associate of the Accused-1. As observed above, the Accused-1, 5, 6 to 10 have taken lead role in obtaining housing loans in the name of the Accused-5 to 10 and also in the name of other borrowers. As such, it has to be inferred that the Accused-1, 5 to 10 are the beneficiaries of the housing loans. P.W.19 to 29, P.W.62 and P.W.69 did not apply to the Bank for housing loans, they did not go to the Bank for the loan purpose and their signatures to the loan documents were taken by the Accused-1, 5 and 8 in the office of the SCTIT under the guise of improvement of the SCTIT or giving of flats to them. There is nothing to show that they are the beneficiaries under the housing loans taken by the Bank. On considering all these facts and circumstances, the relationship in between the 149 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] Accused-1, 5 to 10 and the role played by those Accused in the matter of taking loans, it has to be inferred that the loss sustained by the Bank is a gain or pecuniary advantage to the Accused-1, 5 to 10.
12. Conclusion
177. From the above discussion, by appreciating the facts, circumstances and the evidence available on record, it is clear that:
The Accused-1 opened Current Account in the name of the SCTBD in the Bank and the Accused-5 introduced that Account by giving false information that he was the sole authorized person to operate the Current Account No.1560, which stands in the name of the SCTIT, and though the Accused-4 said to have verified the particulars of the Accused-5, has not verified and noted about the false information furnished by the Accused-5 and without such verification, the Accused-2 has permitted the Accused-1 to open that Account. As no other transaction, except the housing loan transactions relating to this case that too just receiving the loan amounts disbursed by the Bank, is made in that Current Account, it is clear that the said Current Account was opened only for the purpose of borrowing housing loans and that the Accused-2 and 4 have 150 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] helped the Accused-1 and 5 to open that Current Account without any verification.
21 SB Accounts were opened in the Bank in the name of the Accused-5 to 10, P.W.19 to 29, P.W.62, P.W.69, C.W.33 and Sri.Sudhir Kumar Singh at the instance of the Accused-1 and the Accused-1 transferred amounts under the head of the Salary to those 21 Accounts every month from his Current Account No.1560 though all those persons were not having such salary income and the said transfer was only for the purpose of taking housing loans from the Bank. Though the Accused-5, 6, 9 and 10 were not the employees of the SCTIT, they opened their SB Accounts by falsely describing themselves as the employees of the SCTIT.
The Accused-5 to 10 had applied to the Bank seeking housing loans at the instance of the Accused-1. P.W.19 to 29, P.W.62 and P.W.69 did not apply to the Bank for housing loans, they did not go to the Bank for the loan purpose and their signatures to the loan documents were taken by the Accused-1, 5 and 8 in the office of the SCTIT under the guise of improvement of the SCTIT or giving of flats to them.
151 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J]
The Accused-1, 5 to 11 created false
Employment Certificates, Salary Certificates, Pay Slips and Form No.16 in the names of the Accused-5 to 10, P.W.19 to P.W.29, P.W.62, P.W.69, C.W.33 and Sri.Sudhir Kumar Singh for the purpose of obtaining housing loans from the Bank. False Undertaking Letters are issued on behalf of the SCTIT by the Accused-1, which are attested by the Accused-7 and 11, undertaking to deduct monthly loan installments from the salary payable to the borrowers and to remit the same to the Bank till the loan is closed, though those borrowers had no such salary income. As all these false documents are created in order to obtain housing loans from the Bank i.e., to support the claim of loan or causing the Bank to part with loan money, it is clear that the Accused-1, 5 to 11 have forged all those documents for the purpose of cheating the Bank and that they have used those documents as genuine documents knowing fully well that those documents are forged documents.
The Accused-1, 5, 6 and 8 created 4 false Sale Deeds, which are valuable securities, for the purpose of taking housing loans from the Bank in order to create an Equitable 152 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] Mortgage as security for those loans. As all these 4 false Sale Deeds are created in order to obtain housing loans from the Bank i.e., to support the claim of loan or causing the Bank to part with loan money, it is clear that the Accused-1, 5, 6 and 8 have forged those Sale Deeds for the purpose of cheating the Bank and that they have used those documents as genuine documents knowing fully well that those documents are forged documents.
By colluding with the Accused-5, 6 and 8, the Accused-1 sold some of the flats mortgaged to the Bank, subsequent to mortgage, and flat No.G-116, which is also mortgaged to the Bank, is not at all in existence and as such and in view of prior mortgage in favour of the Syndicate Bank, housing loans given by the Bank are left without any security.
The Accused-2 to 4 committed gross illegality in the matter of processing and appraising the loan papers and also in the matter of recommending and sanctioning housing loans, by making false entries and false certification in the Loan Appraisal Forms, in the names of all the 21 borrowers including the Accused-5 to 10 and accepting 153 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] forged income documents, fake Agreements and forged Sale Deeds without any scrutiny or verification and even without making any personal interaction with the witness- borrowers, in gross violation of Circular and Guidelines of the Bank. They also committed serious illegality in not receiving the original mother-deed and in not ascertaining the loan liabilities of the borrowers with the Syndicate Bank with reference to that mother-deed. The Accused-2 had gone out of the way in the matter of execution of Tripartite Agreements in the stamp papers that were purchased subsequent to the date of execution of those Agreements. Thus, there is clear abuse of their position as Public Servants by the Accused-2 to 4 to help the Accused-1, 5 to 10.
The illegal acts, referred to above, of the Accused-1 to 11 have deceived the Bank and induced the Bank fraudulently and dishonestly to part with the loan amounts in the name of all the borrowers including the Accused-5 to 10 to the Accused-1 and thereby, there is cheating by the Accused-1 to 11.
154 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] The Bank has suffered loss to an extent of Rs.1,81,07,304/- and subsequent interest as the said amount could not be recovered, due to the illegalities committed by the Accused-1 to 11. The said loss is wrongful gain or pecuniary advantage to the Accused-1, 5 to 10. For the said loss to the Bank and wrongful gain or pecuniary advantage to the Accused-1, 5 to 10, there is contribution on the part of the Accused-2 to 4 by way of abuse of their position as Public Servants. Except the relationship of Bank Officers and Customers in between the Accused-2 to 4 on the one hand and the Accused-1, 5 to 10 on the other hand, there is no other relationship between them. As such and on considering the manner in which the Accused-2 to 4 abused their official position, it has to be inferred that except to obtain pecuniary advantage for themselves, there could not be any other purpose or motive or intention for the Accused-2 to 4 in granting loans to the Accused-5 to 10 and in the names of other borrowers, by going out of the way and violating banking norms. Hence, it is clear that the Accused-2 to 4 also obtained pecuniary advantage by misusing or 155 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] abusing their position as Public Servants by way of granting housing loans.
Without prior meeting of minds of the Accused-1 to 11, it is impossible to do the illegal acts referred to above. Role played by the Accused-1 to 11 starting from opening of Current Account by the Accused- 1 with a false introduction by the Accused- 5, permitting to open that Account without verification and certifying false verification by the Accused-2 and 4 and all other illegalities committed by the Accused-1 to 11 in respect of the housing loans and all other facts and circumstances of the case, as observed above, clearly indicate such a meeting of minds and agreement between the Accused-1 to 11 for cheating the Bank.
178. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Accused-4 has contended that as the Investigating Officer did not take permission from the Court for investigating the IPC offences, prosecution of the Accused of this case in respect of the IPC offences is not maintainable and that as such, the Accused cannot be held as guilty for the IPC offences. In support of his argument, he has relied upon a decision in the case of Christy Fried Gram Industry, Bengaluru and Another -Vs- State of Karnataka and Others, reported in 2016 Crl.L.J.482, wherein at Para- 47, it is observed as follows:
156 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] "As per Section 4(3) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the Special Judge is empowered to try an offence under Prevention of Corruption Act. Section 17 of the PC Act permits the Police Official to investigate the offences punishable only under PC Act. For investigating other offences i.e., IPC offences, the Police Officials are mandated to obtain permission from the Special Judge. This procedure has not been followed in this case, which clearly establishes that without the Orders of the Special Judge, the Police Officers investigated the other offences, which is illegal and gross violation of law."
179. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has argued that though under the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, the Police Officers have no power to investigate the IPC offences, by virtue of Notifications issued under Sections 3, 5 and 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, the CBI Officers have power to investigate the IPC offences and that as such, question of obtaining permission from the Special Judge to investigate the IPC offences does not arise and that hence, there is no illegality in investigating the IPC offences also in this case.
157 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J]
180. In the case-Christy Fried Gram Industry, referred to above, criminal proceedings initiated by the Karnataka Lokayuktha Police were sought to be quashed. In that case, though the offences alleged were falling under Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, without invoking the provisions and complying the procedure of the said Act, Lokayuktha Police registered a case under the IPC offences even without bringing to the notice of Lokayuktha or Upalokayuktha as required under Rule-5(3) of the Karnataka Lokayuktha Rules, 1985. In that case, though some of the Accused were not Public Servants and though the offences alleged were not punishable under Sections 7 and 11 of the PC Act, provisions of the PC Act were invoked against those Accused. In that case, the allegations against the Accused were relating to breach of contract for supply of substandard food, which were civil in nature only and did not attract the penal provisions to initiate criminal action against them. In that case, though, in the initial stage, Dy.S.P., started investigation, later Inspector of Lokayukta took over investigation. Under Section 17 of the PC Act, Inspector of Lokayukta being an Officer below the rank of Dy.S.P., had no power even to investigate any offence under the provisions of the PC Act without an Order from the Metropolitan Magistrate or the Magistrate of First Class. Sections 7, 8 and Second Schedule of the Karnataka Lokayuktha Act, 1986 deal with the matters, which can be investigated under the provisions of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1986. The said Sections and Schedule do not empower the Lokayukta 158 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] Officers to investigate the IPC offences. In that case, though, preliminary enquiry had to be completed within 7 days as per the decision in the case of State of U.P., -Vs- Bhagawant Kishore Joshi, reported in AIR 1964 SC 221, the Inspector took 18 months for completing preliminary enquiry and submitting report and there was inordinate delay in lodging FIR. Under such circumstances, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka quashed the criminal proceedings among other grounds and by also observing that the Police Officer, who investigated the case, had no power to investigate the offences without Order from the Special Judge.
181. As per the Notifications issued by the Central Government under Sections 3, 5 and 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, CBI Officers are empowered to investigate all types of cases under different State and Central Acts including the cases involving IPC offences relating to Central Government Servants or Officers belonging to Public Sector Undertaking under the Central Government. Such a power is not given to the Officers of the Karnataka Lokayukta. As such, question of taking permission from the Court or Special Judge by the CBI Officers for investigating the cases of IPC offences does not arise at all. Facts, circumstances and the questions involved in the decision relied upon by the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Accused-4 are entirely different from those of the case on hand. As such, the said decision is of no assistance to substantiate the arguments of the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of 159 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] the Accused-4. For all these reasons, it is not fit to accept the argument addressed by the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Accused-4 with reference to the said decision.
182. The learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the Accused-2 to 4 have contended that though Sanction of the Competent Authority under Section 19 of the PC Act to prosecute the Accused-2 to 4 for the offence punishable under Sections 13(2) r/w. 13(1)(d) of the PC Act is not required as the Accused-2 to 4 are retired from the service, as the offences alleged against the Accused-2 to 4 are punishable under the provisions of the IPC also, valid Sanction under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C., to prosecute the Accused-2 to 4 for the offence punishable under Sections 120-B, 420 of the IPC is necessary and that as the Complainant has not obtained such a Sanction, the prosecution of the Accused-2 to 4 is illegal and that on this ground alone, the Accused-2 to 4 are entitled for acquittal for the IPC offences. In support of his Arguments, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Accused-4 has relied upon a decision in the case of N.K.Ganguly
-Vs- CBI, New Delhi, reported in 2016 Crl.L.J. 371. In that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the Order of the Special Judge taking cognizance of an offence punishable under Section 120-B of the IPC against Public Servant without previous Sanction under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C., is illegal as the allegations made against that Public Servant were that the alleged offences were 160 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] committed while discharging his official duty. In that case, it is observed as under:
"For the purpose of obtaining previous Sanction from appropriate Government under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C., it is imperative that alleged offence is committed in discharge of official duty by the Accused".
vvv vv
183. As per Section 197(1) of the Cr.P.C., without previous Sanction of the Competent Authority, the Court shall not take cognizance of any offence alleged to have been committed by a person, who is or was a Public Servant, while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty. This Court noticed a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Criminal Appeal No.2168/2010 (State of Punjab -Vs- Labh Singh), which was disposed on 17.12.2014 and ordered as 'Reportable'. As per facts of that case, though the Competent Authority relating to the Accused-Public Servants had refused to accord Sanction to prosecute the Accused, Charge Sheet was filed against those Accused on the premise that no Sanction was required after retirement of those Accused-Public Servants. In respect of that Charge Sheet, the Trial Court framed Charge against those Accused for the offence punishable under Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act as well as for the offences punishable under the IPC also. Aggrieved by the said Order, those Accused approached the Hon'ble High Court 161 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] of Punjab and Haryana, which quashed the Charge framed against the Public Servants, by observing as follows:
"These Petitioners and others have been charged for the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act and also for the offences under the Indian Penal Code. Section 197 Cr.P.C., bars cognizance by the Court of an offence by a Public Servant even after retirement."
In the Appeal filed against the said Order of the Hon'ble High Court, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India upheld the Order of the Hon'ble High Court so far as the IPC offences are concerned, by observing as under:
"However, as regards Charges for the offences punishable under the IPC concerned, the High Court was absolutely right in setting aside the Order of the Special Judge. Unlike Section 19 of the POC Act, the protection under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C., is available to the concerned Public Servant even after retirement."
Thus, it is clear that so far as the offences punishable under the IPC are concerned, which are alleged to have been committed by a Public Servant while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, Sanction under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C., is necessary to 162 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] prosecute him, irrespective of his retirement from the service.
184. In the case on hand, the offences alleged to have been committed by the Accused-2 to 4 are punishable under Sections 120-B and 420 of the IPC and also the offence punishable under Sections 13(2) r/w. 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. It is not in dispute that though Sanction is required under Section 19 of the PC Act to prosecute a Public Servant, who alleged to have been committed an offence punishable under Sections 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 of the PC Act, such Sanction is not necessary to prosecute a Public Servant, who is retired from the service, for those offences under the PC Act. However, as observed above, Sanction under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C., is required to prosecute a Public Servant, who alleged to have committed the offences punishable under the IPC, irrespective of his retirement from the service. In the case on hand, as the Accused-2 to 4 are retired from the service well prior to filing of the Charge Sheet, Sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act to prosecute them for the offence punishable under Sections 13(2) r/w. Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act is not required. As such, taking of cognizance of the said offence and prosecution of the Accused-2 to 4 for the said offence are valid and legal. But, as Sanction under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C., is not obtained from the Competent Authority to prosecute the Accused-2 to 4 for the offences punishable under Section 120-B and 420 of the IPC, taking of cognizance for those offences and prosecution of the Accused-2 to 4 for those offences are 163 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] invalid and illegal. Hence, the Accused-2 to 4 cannot be held guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 120- B and 420 of the IPC.
185. The learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the Accused-2 to 4 have contended that in the Departmental Enquiry Proceedings in respect of the same Charge of Misconduct as charged in this case, the Accused- 2 to 4 have been exonerated and that as such, the Accused-2 to 4 cannot be held as guilty for the offence of Criminal Misconduct in this case. In support of their arguments, they have relied upon the Investigation Report dated 20.06.2007 submitted by the Bank Investigating Officer-Sri.S.Seetharam Shetty to the Deputy General Manager of the Bank, Written Brief of the Presenting Officer and Findings of the Enquiring Officer- Sri.B.Arunachala Hegde.
186. The Investigation Report dated 20.06.2007, referred to above, indicates that an internal investigation was conducted by Sri.S.Seetharam Shetty, the Investigating Officer of the Bank, regarding irregularities in respect of 21 Housing Loan Accounts relating to this case. In that Report, it is observed that the Bank has followed most of the Guidelines/Circulars while processing/sanctioning and releasing the loans and that irregularities/fraudulent acts were committed by the Accused-1 and that there is no staff involvement/collusion with the borrowers as well as the Accused-1.
164 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J]
187. In his Enquiry Report, Sri.B.Arunachala Hegde, the Assistant General Manager of the Bank, who conducted a Departmental Enquiry about the Charges against the Accused-2 for the lapses relating to the said housing loans, has observed that the Accused-1 and the Principal of the SCTIT have indulged in the perpetration of fraud by submitting fabricated Salary Certificates, he (Enquiry Officer) did not observe any laxity on the part of the Accused-2, the Accused-2 has taken utmost care/precaution to safeguard the interest of the Bank. However, he has clearly observed that the Accused-2 has committed lapse in not ascertaining the genuineness of the Salary Certificates submitted by the borrowers as stipulated in HO Circular No.217/03. By observing so, he has held that Charge against the Accused-2 is partly proved. Similar finding is given by the same Enquiry Officer- Sri.B.Arunachala Hegde in the Departmental Enquiry held against the Accused-3.
188. Though such are the observations and findings in the Internal Investigation and Departmental Enquiry, it is not made clear by the Accused-2 to 4 as to whether the Disciplinary Authority accepted the said findings and as to what was the final Order passed by the Disciplinary Authority on those observations and findings. They have not produced the Order of the Disciplinary Authority exonerating them from the Charges leveled against them as contended by them. On the other hand, the observation and finding of the Enquiry Officer, about lapses of the Accused-2 to 4 in not ascertaining the 165 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] genuineness of the Salary Certificates submitted by the borrowers as stipulated in HO Circular No.217/03, supports the case of the Complainant about the illegalities in the process, scrutiny and sanction. Further, as the Bank has lodged Complaint to prosecute the Accused-2 to 4 along with other Accused of this case, it is clear that the Disciplinary Authority did not exonerate the Accused-2 to 4 on the basis of the said findings and observations. As such, it is not fit to accept the bare arguments of the Accused-2 to 4 that they are exonerated from the Charges in the Departmental Enquiry.
189. In support of his arguments, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Accused-4 has relied upon the following citations:
1. Radheshyam Kejriwal -Vs- State of West Bengal and Another [2011 Crl.L.J. 1747(SC)];
2. Prakash @ Prakash K.Dongre -Vs-
State of Karnataka [Judgment in Criminal Appeal No.2274/2009 disposed on 30.11.2009].
In the first case, Adjudication Proceedings were held under Section 51 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (for short, 'the FERA') against the Accused of that case for contravention of the provisions of the FERA and those Accused were exonerated in the said Proceedings. In respect of the same allegations, criminal prosecution was also launched against those Accused by virtue of Section 56 of the FERA. Under such circumstances, the Hon'ble 166 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] Supreme Court held that as the Accused were exonerated in the Adjudication Proceedings under Section 51 of the FERA, continuation of prosecution for the same Charge under Section 56 of the FERA would be abuse of the process of the Court. In the case on hand, Internal Investigation and Departmental Enquiry were held against the Accused-2 to 4 under the provisions of the Vijaya Bank Officers' Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulation, 1981, whereas this Criminal Case is filed for the contravention of the provisions of the IPC and the PC Act after investigation under the provisions of the Cr.P.C., and the PC Act. The facts, circumstances and the questions involved in the case relied upon by the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Accused-4 are totally different from those of the case on hand. As such, the said decision is of no assistance to the Accused-2 to 4 to substantiate their contention.
190. In the second case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India quashed the Order of issuing Summons to the Accused in the Criminal Case by observing as follows:
"It may be mentioned here that the
standard of proof in a departmental
proceeding is like that in a civil case i.e., preponderance of probabilities. On the other hand, the standard of proof in a criminal case is proof beyond reasonable doubt. Since, the standard of proof in a civil case and a departmental proceeding 167 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] is lower than that of a criminal case and since the appellant has been found innocent in the departmental inquiry, we fail to see how he can be convicted in a criminal case where the standard of proof is higher."
In that case, at the stage of issuing Summons itself, proceedings in criminal case were challenged before the Hon'ble High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., and ultimately, before the Supreme Court on the ground of exoneration in Departmental Enquiry on the same Charge. But, the case on hand is altogether different. The Accused- 2 to 4 did not take such steps in this case. On the other hand, after holding trial by examining several witnesses, receiving several documents and hearing arguments, this case is now in the final stage of pronouncing Judgment. Furthermore, there is no Order of the Disciplinary Authority exonerating the Accused-2 to 4 from the Charges leveled against them. The Charge in this case is not at all based on the finding given in the Departmental Enquiry. It is not the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that finding given in the Departmental Enquiry is binding on the Criminal Proceedings. As such, the said decision relied upon by the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Accused-4 is of no assistance to him to substantiate his argument.
191. Departmental Enquiry relates to maintenance of discipline in the service, whereas, a criminal case relates to 168 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] commission of crime in violation of law. Nature of proceedings and appreciation of evidence in both these cases are altogether different. As such, finding given in the Departmental Enquiry will not be binding on the criminal proceedings. This Court noticed a decision in the case of State (NCT of Delhi) -Vs- Ajay Kumar Tyagi, reported in (2012) 9 Supreme Court Cases 685, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held as follows:
"Exoneration in the Departmental Proceedings ipso facto would not result in the quashing of criminal proceedings. However, if the Prosecution against an Accused is solely based on a finding in a proceeding and that finding is set aside by the superior authority in the hierarchy, the very foundation goes and the Prosecution may be quashed. But, that principle will not apply in the case of the Departmental Proceedings as the criminal trial and the Departmental Proceedings are held by 2 different entities and they are not in the same hierarchy".
All these principles are aptly applicable to the case on hand, which negative the contention of the Accused-2 to 4 that they cannot be held guilty for the offence of Criminal Misconduct in this case. As such, it is not fit to accept the arguments advanced on behalf of the Accused-2 to 4.
169 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J]
192. By relying upon the decisions in the cases of Major S.K.Kale -Vs- State of Maharashtra [1977 Crl.L.J.604] and S.P.Bhatnagar -Vs- State of Maharashtra [1979 Crl.L.J.566], the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Accused-4 has contended that as the prosecution has not proved affirmatively that the Accused-4 by corrupt or illegal means or by abusing his position as Public Servant obtained pecuniary advantage, the Accused-4 cannot be held as guilty for the offence of Criminal Misconduct. In the 1st case, the Trial Court had wrongly placed onus of proof regarding abuse of official position on the Accused instead of the Prosecution. In the 2nd case, the Prosecution failed to examine some material witnesses and the circumstantial evidence on record was not conclusive as to guilt of the Accused. The principles laid down in those cases are not disputed by the learned Public Prosecutor. In the case on hand, the evidence on record clearly shows that the Accused-2 to 4 abused their position as Public Servants to grant housing loans to the advantage of the Accused-1, 5 to 10, which is nothing but obtaining of pecuniary advantage for others by the Accused-2 to 4 by abusing their official position. Apart from that, the facts and circumstances of the case show that the Accused-2 to 4 have also obtained pecuniary advantage in order to help the Accused-1, 5 to 11 by abusing their official position. The facts, circumstances and the questions involved in the cases relied upon by the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Accused-4 are entirely different from those of the case on hand. As such, 170 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] they are of no assistance to substantiate the arguments advanced on behalf of the Accused-4.
193. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Accused-4 has contended that the Accused-4 has not misappropriated any amount of the Bank and that at the most the act of the Accused-4 may amount to dereliction of duty and that as such, the Accused-4 cannot be convicted and sent to jail. In support of his arguments, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Accused-4 has relied upon a decision in the case of V.Jagannathan
-Vs- State by Deputy Superintendent of Police [Criminal Appeal No.104/97 disposed on 10.09.1998], wherein it is observed as follows:
"......It is also not the case of the prosecution that they were not able to file a suit for recovery of the amount from P.W.12's firm. It is stated that a civil suit has already been filed by the bank against P.W.12 and his father in O.S.No.7290/80, which is still pending.
The different exhibits produced by the prosecution disclose that certain entries which are bound to be made in the bank registers have not been made. Mere not making the entries in the registers, cannot prove embezzlement of the amount. The prosecution has to further show that no cause of action survives to 171 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] them for recovery of the amounts from the concerned parties. Here in this case, both the amounts alleged to have been misappropriated by the Accused are shown in the credit of customers account and none of the registers show that the Accused has made any entries showing discharge of those loans. It is the prosecution case that at the time when the Accused credited the two amounts to the account of P.W.12 and the joint account of P.W.12 and others the Accused had criminal intention of misappropriating the amount that is to say, that he had mens rea to commit an offence, then I am afraid to say no such evidence has been placed before the Court by the Prosecution. Even if the entire prosecution case is to be accepted, it would only prove that the Accused had not been diligent in managing the affairs of the bank and getting the required entries made in the relevant registers and for the said dereliction of duty, the Accused cannot be convicted and sent to jail."
That was a case alleging the offence punishable under Section 409 of the IPC and Sections 5(2) r/w. 5(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 against the Accused and the Accused was found guilty by the Trial Court. In 172 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] that case, the lapses of the Accused that were noticed were that the Accused was not diligent in managing the affairs of the Bank and getting the required entries made in the relevant registers. But, there was no evidence to show that the Accused misappropriated the amount and that there was also no evidence to show that the Bank was not able to recover the loss by filing suits. Under such circumstances, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka acquitted the Accused. The case on hand is not in respect of misappropriation by the Accused-4. It is also not in respect of the allegation that the Accused-4 was not diligent in managing the affairs of the Bank and getting the required entries in the relevant registers. On the other hand, the evidence on record shows that the Accused-4 made false entries while processing the loan documents by abusing his position as Public Servant, which became pecuniary advantage to the Accused-1, 5 to 10 and wrongful loss to the Bank. Evidence on record further shows that though suits were filed and action was initiated under SARFAESI Act, the Bank could not recover its dues. As such, facts, circumstances and questions involved in the case relied upon by the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Accused-4 are totally different from those of the case on hand. Hence, the said decision is of no assistance to substantiate his arguments.
194. The learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the Accused-1 to 11 have contended that the investigation conducted by P.W.65 is biased as he has not made P.W.15 and P.W.50 as the Accused, though the role played by 173 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] P.W.15 is similar to the Accused-7 and 11 and that the role played by P.W.50 is similar to the Accused-2 to 4 and that similarly, the role of witness-borrowers and that of the Accused-5 to 10 as borrowers are one and the same. It is their further argument that as P.W.65 did not find any fault in the role played by P.W.15, P.W.50 and other witness-borrowers, the Accused-2 to 11 are also cannot be held as guilty of the alleged offences.
195. It is true that in the capacity of Principal, P.W.15 has issued Salary Certificates, Employment Certificates and Form No.16, which are forged documents, in respect of some of the borrowers and that his role is similar to the Accused-7 and 11 in issuing those documents. So also, the role of P.W.50 in scrutinizing some of the loan documents is similar to the role of the Accused-2 to 4. As observed above, the evidence on record shows that P.W.15 and P.W.69 have also participated in forging the documents. In fact, as observed above, P.W.69 himself has admitted that at the time of doing the acts, he was aware that those acts were wrong. So also, the evidence on record shows that there are serious lapses on the part of P.W.50 in scrutinizing some of the loan papers. But, Charge Sheet is not filed against P.W.15, P.W.50 and P.W.69 by P.W.65. Though the name of P.W.50 was included in the list of the Accused during investigation, at the time of filing of Charge Sheet, his name was left out by P.W.65 on the ground of lack of sufficient evidence. But, the evidence on record shows sufficient evidence against him also. No explanation is given by P.W.65 for not filing 174 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] Charge Sheet against P.W.15 and P.W.69, though there is sufficient evidence against them. As such, it is clear that it is not fair on the part of P.W.65 or the Complainant in not filing Charge Sheet against P.W.15, P.W.50 and P.W.69 inspite of material available against them. However, it is settled principle of law that only on the ground of some of the lapses on the part of the Investigating Officer in conducting investigation, other evidence of guilt available against the Accused cannot be discarded. As such, merely because P.W.65 did not file Charge Sheet against P.W.15, P.W.50 and P.W.69, the evidence available on record about the illegalities committed by the Accused-2 to 11 cannot be discarded and hence, it is not fit to accept their contention that they are not guilty as alleged by the Complainant.
196. No doubt, housing loans were sanctioned in the names of witness-borrowers also along with the Accused-5 to 10. But, the evidence on record shows that those witness-borrowers were lower grade employees of the SCTIT drawing a meager and negligible salary, they did not go to the Bank for loan purpose, they did not apply to the Bank seeking loan voluntarily, their signatures were taken to the loan papers by the Accused-1, 5 and 8 in the office of the SCTIT on the ground of improvement of the SCTIT or on false promise made by the Accused-1, 5 and 8 to give flats to them and that even there was no interaction between them and the Accused-2 to 4 in respect of those loans. There is nothing to show that flats were given to them or they availed any benefit under 175 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] those loans. On the other hand, the Accused-5, 9 and 10 were the close relatives of the Accused-1, the Accused-6 was a close associate of the Accused-1, the Accused-8 being an employee of the SCTIT was attending Bank related work, the Accused-7 and 11 were holding responsible and higher posts as Principal and Lecturer- cum-In-charge Principal respectively. Status and position of the Accused-5 to 11 was comparatively higher than the witness-borrowers. The Accused-5 to 11 have taken lead role along with the Accused-1 in preparing forged documents. The Accused-5 to 10 are the beneficiaries along with the Accused-1 under those housing loans. They have also taken similar housing loans from Syndicate Bank and Bank of India. On considering all these facts and circumstances as well as status and position of the Accused-5 to 11 and their role relating to this case, it cannot be said that the role of the Accused-5 to 11 and that of the witness-borrowers is one and the same and as such, it is not fit to accept the arguments advanced on behalf of the Accused-5 to 11 that they are also not guilty as that of the witness-borrowers.
197. The learned counsels appearing on behalf of the Accused-5 to 11 have contended that the Accused-1 was whole and sole of the SCTIT, the Accused-5 to 11 were employees under the Accused-1, the Accused-1 was compelling and forcing the Accused-5 to 11 to do all the acts as per his whims and fancies, failing which, the Accused-1 used to threat the Accused-5 to 11 that he would remove them from their job and that as such, 176 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] without any alternative, the Accused-5 to 11 had to oblige the Accused-1 in the alleged illegal acts and that hence, the Accused-5 to 11 cannot be held as guilty of the alleged offences. As observed above, the Accused-5, 6, 9 and 10 were not the employees of the SCTIT and on the other hand, the Accused-5, 9 and 10 are the close relatives of the Accused-1 and the Accused-6 is a close associate of the Accused-1. As such, question of their removal from the job by the Accused-1 or giving threat to them does not arise. As observed above, the Accused-7, 8 and 11 were in high and responsible position in the SCTIT and they had good rapport with the Accused-1 in doing all the acts including borrowing amount from other Banks also. As such, question of their removal from the job by the Accused-1 or giving threat to them also does not arise. There is no evidence to show that these Accused-5 to 11 were under threat and due to that threat, they did all the acts. On considering the status and position of the Accused-5 to 11, there was no impediment at all for them to take legal steps against the Accused-1 for the alleged threat or compulsion by the Accused-1 for doing the illegal acts. But, the Accused-5 to 11 have not taken any such action against the Accused-1 inspite of action taken by the Bank against them by filing suits, initiating proceedings under SARFAESI Act and also by lodging Complaint to the Police. Judgment Copy of the suit in O.S.No.8371/2010 filed by the Bank against the Accused-7, his Guarantor and legal heirs of the Accused-1 for recovery of Bank dues, shows that the Accused-7 did not whisper anything about 177 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] the said threat or compulsion or the force used by the Accused-1 for the purpose of getting illegal work done from the Accused-7. The said Judgment shows that even after the death of the Accused-1, the Accused-7 or any other Accused among the Accused-5 to 11 did not raise their finger against the Accused-1. This circumstance negatives the contention of the Accused-5 to 11 that they did the acts due to threat posed by the Accused-1. Only in this criminal case, the Accused-5 to 11 have taken such a stand. Furthermore, the alleged threat was not a threat of causing death to the Accused-5 to 11. As such, the said threat does not fall within the purview of Section 94 of the IPC to claim exception. Hence, it is not fit to accept the contention of the Accused-5 to 11 that due to threat of the Accused-1, they did the alleged acts.
198. In the case of M.G.Agarwal-Vs-State of Maharashtra, reported in AIR 1963 SC 200, while dealing with the doctrine of 'benefit of doubt', the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India considered the principles of Criminal Jurisprudence and Law of Evidence regarding the manner of proof of 'circumstances' or 'basic facts' and the basis on which circumstantial evidence could lead to the finding of guilt of the Accused and held as follows:-
"....it is necessary to distinguish between facts which may be called primary or basic on the one hand and inference of facts to be drawn from them on the other. In regard to 178 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] the proof of basic or primary facts, the court has to judge the evidence in the ordinary way, and in the appreciation of evidence in respect of basic or of primary facts there is no scope for the application of the doctrine of benefit of doubt. The Court considers the evidence and decides whether the evidence proves a particular fact or not. When it is held that a certain fact is proved, the question arises whether the fact leads to an inference of guilt of the Accused person or not and in dealing with this aspect of the problem, the doctrine of benefit of doubt would apply and an inference of guilt can be drawn only if the proved fact is wholly inconsistent with the innocence of the Accused and is consistent only with his guilt. It is in the light of this legal position that the evidence in the present case has to be appreciated."
(Underlined by this Court) Similar view is taken in the cases of G.Parshwanath
-Vs- State of Karnataka reported in AIR 2010 SC 2914, Kishore Chand-Vs-State of Himachal Pradesh, reported in AIR 1990 SC 2140 and Balu Sonba Shinde
-Vs- State of Maharashtra, reported in AIR 2002 SC 3137. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, as observed above, it is clear that the requirement of 'proof beyond reasonable doubt' does not apply to proof of 'basic 179 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] or primary facts' in Criminal Cases or to defence in Criminal Cases and that those facts can be proved in the ordinary way as explained in Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. In order to show that the Accused is guilty of an offence, those proved facts must lead to an inference of guilt of the Accused beyond reasonable doubt and while drawing such an inference, the doctrine of benefit of doubt would apply.
199. In the case on hand, from the proved facts, as observed above, the one and only inference that could be drawn is that the Accused-2 to 11 entered into an illegal agreement with the Accused-1 to Cheat the Bank within the meaning of Criminal Conspiracy defined under Section 120-A of the IPC, which is punishable under Sections 120-B r/w. 420 of the IPC; and that in pursuance of that Criminal Conspiracy, the Accused-5 to 11 along with the Accused-1 forged the documents relating to income of the Accused-5 to 10 and other borrowers for the purpose of cheating the Bank, which is an offence punishable under Section 468 of the IPC; and that the Accused-5, 6 and 8 along with the Accused-1 committed forgery of valuable securities i.e., Sale Deeds to cheat the Bank, which is an offence punishable under Section 467 of the IPC; and that the Accused-5 to 11 fraudulently and dishonestly used forged documents as genuine documents knowing fully well that those documents were forged for the purpose of cheating the Bank, which is an offence punishable under Section 471 of the IPC; and that by their illegal acts, the Accused-2 to 11 along with the Accused-1 cheated the 180 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] Bank by dishonestly inducing the Bank to part with housing loan money in the name of the Accused- 5 to 10 and other borrowers, which remained unpaid and unrecovered resulting in wrongful loss of Rs.1,81,07,304/- and subsequent interest to the Bank, which is an offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC and that the Accused-2 to 4 obtained pecuniary advantage for themselves, as well as the Accused-1, 5 to 10, by misusing their position as Public Servants within the meaning of Criminal Misconduct defined under Section 13(1)(d)(ii) of the PC Act, which is punishable under Section 13(2) of the PC Act. All the facts, which are proved against the Accused-2 to 11, are wholly inconsistent with the innocence of the Accused-2 to 11 as contended by them and on the other hand, they are consistent only with their guilt. In the said evidence placed on record by the Complainant, it is not possible to pin point any doubt, which cuts the root of the case of the Complainant. As such, question of giving benefit of doubt to the Accused-2 to 11 does not arise.
200. But, as observed above, as Sanction under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C., is not taken to prosecute the Accused-2 to 4 for the IPC offences i.e., Sections 120-B r/w. 420 and Section 420 of the IPC, prosecution against them for those offences is not maintainable and as such, they cannot be held guilty for those IPC offences.
201. For all the above reasons, it is clear that the Accused-2 to 4 are guilty of the offence punishable under 181 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] Sections 13(2) r/w.13(1)(d)(ii) of the PC Act; the Accused- 5 to 11 are guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 120-B r/w. 420 and Sections 468, 471 and 420 of the IPC and the Accused-5, 6 and 8 are guilty of the offence punishable under Section 467 of the IPC. Further, it is also clear that the Accused-2 to 4 are not guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 120-B r/w. 420 and Section 420 of the IPC and that the Accused-7, 9, 10 and 11 are not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 467 of the IPC. Accordingly, Point-1 and Point-5 are answered Partly in the Affirmative and Partly in the Negative against the Accused-2 to 4 and in the Affirmative against the Accused-5 to 11; Point-2, Point-4 and Point-6 are answered in the Affirmative and Point-3 is answered in the Affirmative against the Accused-5,6 & 8 and in the Negative against the Accused-7, 9, 10 & 11.
POINT-7
202. In view of the above findings given on the Points-1 to 6, it is clear that the Accused-2 to 4 are not guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 120-B r/w. 420 and Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the Accused-7, 9, 10 and 11 are not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and hence, they are entitled for acquittal for those offences. But, the Accused-2 to 4 are guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 13(2) r/w. 13 (1)(d)(ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; the Accused-5 to 11 are guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 120-B 182 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] r/w. 420 and Sections 468, 471 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the Accused-5, 6 and 8 are guilty of the offence punishable under Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Hence, they are liable for conviction and punishment for those offences. In the result, the following Order is passed:
ORDER
1. Under Section 248(1) of the Cr.P.C., 1973, the Accused-2 to 4 are acquitted from the Charge for the offence punishable under Sections 120-
B r/w. 420 and Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. So also, the Accused-7, 9, 10 and 11 are acquitted from the Charge for the offence punishable under Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2. Under Section 248(2) of the Cr.P.C., 1973:
i. The Accused-2 to 4 are convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 13(2) r/w. 13(1)(d)(ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988;
ii. The Accused-5, 6 & 8 are convicted for the offence punishable under Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860;
iii. The Accused-5 to 11 are convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 120-B r/w. 420 and Sections 468, 471 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
183 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J]
3. Sentence will be passed after hearing the Accused-2 to 11 on the question of sentence.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 29th day of September, 2016.) (ASWATHA NARAYANA) XLVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bengaluru.
(P.T.O.) 184 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] Again called. The following Order on the question of sentence is pronounced:
ORDER ON SENTENCE
203. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor, the Accused-2 to 11 and their Counsels regarding sentence to be imposed on the Accused-2 to 11. Records Perused.
204. The learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the Accused-2 to 4 submitted that the Accused-2 to 4 are retired from the service and that they being the senior citizens are the first offenders, they have no criminal background, they are having wife and children, the Accused-2 and 3 are suffering from various ailments, wife of the Accused-4 is suffering from serious illness, they have already suffered punishment by attending the Court since 2010 and that as such, lenient view may be taken while imposing sentence on the Accused-2 to 4. The learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the Accused-5 to 11 submitted that the Accused-5 to 11 are also first offenders, they have also no criminal background, they are having wife and children, the Accused-5, 7 and 9 are suffering from various ailments, mothers of the Accused-6 and 11 are bed ridden, the Accused-5 and 10 are having small children, except the Accused-5 to 11, there are no other persons to take care of their family and that they have also already suffered punishment by attending the Court since 2010, the alleged beneficiary in respect of this case i.e., the Accused-1 is dead and that as such, lenient view may be taken while imposing sentence on the
185 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] Accused-5 to 11. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that as all the Accused-2 to 11 have committed grave economic offence, which has caused huge loss to the Bank, they are not entitled to any lenience and that maximum punishment provided in the Sections has to be imposed on them.
205. While rejecting the prayer for leniency in sentence in respect of an offence punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh -Vs- Shambhu Dayal Nagar, reported in (2006) 8 SCC 693, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held as follows:
"The corruption by public servants has become gigantic problem, large scale of corruption retards the nation building activities and every one has to suffer on that count and that the efficiency in public service would improve only when the public servant does his duty truthfully and honestly".
206. In the case on hand, the Accused-2 to 4 were working as Officers of a Nationalized Bank. They abused their position as Public Servants, joined hands with the other Accused and sanctioned loans illegally without verification and by making false entries and thereby, officially favoured the Accused-1, 5 to 10 causing loss of Crores of Rupees to the Bank. They are also benefited 186 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] from the said illegal acts. The Bank is dealing with the funds of the general public. Cheating the Bank is nothing but misappropriation of the funds of the general public. Now a days, banking business is playing a major role in the economic development of the general public as well as the whole country. People have more faith in the banking business. If the Bank Officers themselves collude with others to cheat the Bank, the people will loose faith in the banking business and they may afraid to deal with the Bank and in such an event, the Banks will loose their existence itself, which definitely affects the economy of the country seriously. The Accused-7 and 11 were in high respectable position as Principal and In-charge Principal in an Educational Institute and they should have been model to students and others. But, by indulging in illegal activities, they damaged the reputation of those posts. The Accused-8, though an employee of the SCTIT, not only cheated the Bank, but also played fraud on his colleagues i.e., borrowers other than the Accused. The Accused-5, 6, 9 and 10, though not the employees of the SCTIT, taking undue advantage of their relationship and association with the Accused-1, they also cheated the Bank by their illegal activities. Though the Accused-5 to 10 are benefited from the housing loans, they should have made an attempt to repay the housing loans, if at all they had no intention to cheat the Bank. Forgetting that the Banks are the assets of the people and nation, all the Accused acted in a selfish manner to make wrongful gain for themselves. On considering all these facts and circumstances, nature and 187 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] gravity of offences that the Accused-2 to 11 have committed, it is not a fit case to show mercy on them, either showing leniency in imposing punishment or extending the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. If any such leniency is shown, a wrong message will go to the Society to the effect that, it is easy to escape from the punishment even after committing serious offences also. Such a wrong message will have serious repercussions on the Society in these hard days, where there is severe increase in the crime rate especially relating to corruption and economic offences. However, the Accused-2 to 11 are attending the Court since 2010. By doing so, they have suffered some punishment already. Having regard to this fact, nature and gravity of the offence committed by the Accused-2 to 11, their status and all other facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the ends of justice would be met if the Accused-2 to 11 are sentenced as under:
1. The Accused-2 to 4 to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 5 years each and to pay fine of Rs. 5,00,000/- each and in default to pay fine, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 1 year each, for the offence punishable under Sections 13(2) r/w. 13(1)(d)(ii) of the PC Act;
2. The Accused-5 to 11 to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 6 months each and to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/- each and in
188 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] default to pay fine, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 1 month each, for the offence punishable under Sections 120-B r/w. 420 of the IPC;
3. The Accused-5 to 11 to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 5 years each and to pay fine of Rs.2,00,000/- each and in default to pay fine, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 1 year each, for the offence punishable under Section 468 of the IPC;
4. The Accused-5, 6 and 8 to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 5 years each and to pay fine of Rs.2,00,000/- each and in default to pay fine, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 1 year each, for the offence punishable under Section 467 of the IPC;
5. The Accused-5 to 11 to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 5 years each and to pay fine of Rs.2,00,000/- each and in default to pay fine, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 1 year each, for the offence punishable under Section 471 of the IPC;
189 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J]
6. The Accused-5 to 11 to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 5 years each and to pay fine of Rs.2,00,000/- each and in default to pay fine, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 1 year each, for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC;
207. In the result, the following Order is passed:
ORDER Under Section 248(2) of the Cr.P.C., 1973, the Accused-2 to 11 are convicted and sentenced as under:
1. The Accused-2 to 4 shall under go Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 5 years each and pay fine of Rs.5,00,000/- each and in default to pay fine, they shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a further period of 1 year each, for the offence punishable under Sections 13(2) r/w. 13(1)(d)(ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988;
2. The Accused-5 to 11 shall undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 6 months each and pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/- each and in default to 190 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] pay fine, they shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a further period of 1 month each, for the offence punishable under Sections 120-B r/w. 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860;
3. The Accused-5 to 11 shall undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 5 years each and pay fine of Rs.2,00,000/- each and in default to pay fine, they shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a further period of 1 year each, for the offence punishable under Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860;
4. The Accused-5, 6 and 8 shall undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 5 years each and pay fine of Rs.2,00,000/- each and in default to pay fine, they shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a further period of 1 year each, for the offence punishable under Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860;
5. The Accused-5 to 11 shall undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period 191 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] of 5 years each and pay fine of Rs.2,00,000/- each and in default to pay fine, they shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a further period of 1 year each, for the offence punishable under Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860;
6. The Accused-5 to 11 shall undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 5 years each and pay fine of Rs.2,00,000/- each and in default to pay fine, they shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a further period of 1 year each, for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860;
7. Sentences of imprisonment in respect of all the offences shall run concurrently.
Furnish free Copy of the Judgment to the Accused-2 to 11 forthwith.
[Computerized by the Judgment Writer to my dictation, corrected, revised and then signed by me on this the 29th day of September 2016.] (ASWATHA NARAYANA) XLVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bengaluru.
192 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] ANNEXURE
1. LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT WITH THE DATES OF THEIR EXAMINATION:
P.W.1 : Sri.Jayanth Pai 10.10.2011.
P.W.2 : Sri.S.Ananth Swamy 10.10.2011.
P.W.3 : Sri.B.S.Shivaprasad 10.10.2011,
12.10.2011,
11.11.2011,
05.06.2012.
P.W.4 : Sri.P.Varadan 12.10.2011.
P.W.5 : Sri.A.Sridhara Murthy 12.10.2011.
P.W.6 : Sri.V.M.Aiyappa 12.10.2011.
P.W.7 : Sri.Ashok B.Nayak 12.10.2011.
P.W.8 : Sri.Subash Gopal Mutgekar 12.10.2011. P.W.9 : Sri.M.Mohana Acharya 13.10.2011.
P.W.10 : Sri.D.S.Vinod 13.10.2011.
P.W.11 : Sri.N.Naganna 13.10.2011.
P.W.12 : Sri.Rahul Thompkinson 13.10.2011.
P.W.13 : Smt.Shree Jayanthi 14.10.2011.
P.W.14 : Sri.Jagadish Kumar 14.10.2011.
L Daman
P.W.15 : Sri.Y.S.Kumaraswamy 14.10.2011.
P.W.16 : Sri.V.P.Raghavan 14.10.2011,
15.11.2011.
P.W.17 : Sri.B.Hanumantha Rao 14.10.2011,
15.11.2011.
P.W.18 : Sri.K.Appi Reddy 14.10.2011.
P.W.19 : Sri.S.Jagadish 14.10.2011,
15.11.2011.
P.W.20 : Sri.Gangappa 14.10.2011,
19.11.2011.
193 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J]
P.W.21 : Smt.K.Suja 15.10.2011,
19.11.2011.
P.W.22 : Smt.D.Anitha 15.10.2011,
19.11.2011.
P.W.23 : Sri.S.M.Vijay Kumar 15.10.2011,
19.11.2011,
30.03.2012.
P.W.24 : Sri.C.S.Srinivas 15.10.2011,
19.11.2011,
30.03.2012.
P.W.25 : Sri.K.Ramesh 15.10.2011,
19.11.2011.
P.W.26 : Sri.V.V.Ramana 15.10.2011,
19.11.2011,
30.03.2012.
P.W.27 : Sri.Gopal Krishna 15.10.2011,
19.11.2011,
14.12.2015.
P.W.28 : Sri.J.Krishnappa 15.10.2011,
19.11.2011,
30.03.2012.
P.W.29 : Sri.K.Srinivas 15.10.2011.
P.W.30 : Sri.B.Venugopal 15.11.2011.
P.W.31 : Sri.S.Lokesh Reddy 08.03.2012,
02.05.2012.
P.W.32 : Smt.Vijayalakshmi 08.03.2012,
02.05.2012.
P.W.33 : Sri.K.V.Suryanarayanaiah 08.03.2012,
19.04.2012.
P.W.34 : Smt.A.P.Hamsalatha 08.03.2012,
19.04.2012.
P.W.35 : Sri.K.S.Raghavendra 08.03.2012,
Prasad 19.04.2012.
P.W.36 : Sri.Mahadevaiah 09.03.2012,
19.04.2012.
194 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J]
P.W.37 : Sri.Krishna S.Nayak 09.03.2012.
P.W.38 : Smt.Hemalatha 09.03.2012,
Shyamsunder 19.04.2012.
P.W.39 : Sri.Ramesh G.Munnari 12.03.2012,
19.04.2012.
P.W.40 : Sri.T.Ayyathurai 12.03.2012.
P.W.41 : Sri.Joseph Abraham 12.03.2012.
P.W.42 : Smt.Roshni C.R. 12.03.2012.
P.W.43 : Sri.Vishwanath M.V. 12.03.2012,
19.04.2012.
P.W.44 : Sri.G.S.Anand Babu 12.03.2012,
19.04.2012.
P.W.45 : Sri.Ravi Kumar H.R. 12.03.2012,
19.04.2012.
P.W.46 : Sri.N.Sukumar Jain 13.03.2012,
02.05.2012.
P.W.47 : Sri.C.M.Praveen Kumar 13.03.2012.
P.W.48 : Sri.K.V.A.Balaji 13.03.2012.
P.W.49 : Sri.H.N.Swaroop 13.03.2012.
P.W.50 : Sri.T.K.Suresh 13.03.2012,
02.05.2012.
P.W.51 : Sri.K.Parashivaiah 13.03.2012.
P.W.52 : Sri.N.Anand Kumar 14.03.2012.
P.W.53 : Sri.H.Ashok Shetty 14.03.2012,
05.06.2012.
P.W.54 : Brig Retd.M.M.Ashok 29.06.2012.
Cariappa
P.W.55 : Sri.M.Leyakath 29.06.2012.
P.W.56 : Sri.Binoy Wilson 29.06.2012.
P.W.57 : Sri.P.A.Seetharaman 29.06.2012,
27.07.2012,
28.07.2012.
P.W.58 : Sri.Arun Kalgijuikar 30.06.2012.
195 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J]
P.W.59 : Sri.R.Vishwanathan 30.06.2012.
P.W.60 : Sri.D.R.Devendra Raju 30.06.2012.
P.W.61 : Sri.Jayawanth Rao 30.06.2012.
P.W.62 : Sri.Omkarswamy 30.06.2012.
P.W.63 : Sri.E.P.Suresh Kumar 28.07.2012.
P.W.64 : Sri.T.P.Ananda Krishnan 16.08.2012.
P.W.65 : Sri.R.K.Shivanna 16.08.2012,
18.09.2012,
28.09.2012.
P.W.66 : Sri.D.Kumar 16.08.2012.
P.W.67 : Sri.P.Vidyashankar 16.08.2012.
P.W.68 : Sri.B.P.Jayaram 15.09.2012.
P.W.69 : Sri.M.G.Vinod Kumar 12.06.2013.
2. LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT:
Ex.P.1 : True Copy of Circular No.131/02 Dated 29.10.02 of Vijaya Bank.
Ex.P.2 : Booklet of Delegation of Powers of Vijaya Bank.
Ex.P.3 : Manual of Instructions-Deposits of Vijaya Bank.
Ex.P.4 : Current Account Opening Form bearing A/c No.1560 of M/s.SCT Institute of Technology.
Ex.P.5 : True Copy of Statement of Account of M/s.SCT Institute of Technology for the period from 01.01.2003 to 31.03.2009.
Ex.P.6 : 5 Stamp Paper Purchase Vouchers of SBM, NGEF Branch Dated 08.0.2004.
196 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] Ex.P.7 : 10 Stamp Paper Purchase Vouchers of SBM, NGEF Branch Dated 31.1.04.
Ex.P.8 : 22 Stamp Papers Purchase Vouchers of SBM, NGEF Branch Dated 12.3.04.
Ex.P.9 : Spot Verification Mahazer Dated 08.06.09.
Ex.P.9(a) : Signature of P.W.2 in Ex.P.9.
Ex.P.10 : SB A/c Opening Form bearing
No.12009 along with other
documents of Sri.Aswathnarayana.
Ex.P.10(a) : Stamp Paper Dated 31.01.2004 purchased at SBM, NGEF Branch for Rs.100/-.
Ex.P.10(b) : Stamp Paper Dated 08.01.2004 purchased at SBM, NGEF Branch for Rs.50/-.
Ex.P.10(c) : 3 Stamp Papers Dated 20.01.04 of Rs.100/- each purchased at SBM, Seshadripuram Branch.
Ex.P.10(d) : Presentation Report of Loan Papers Credit Appraisal Report Dated 10.12.04.
Ex.P.11 : SB A/c Opening Form bearing
No.12020 along with other
documents of Sri.Nagaraj.
Ex.P.11(a) : Stamp Paper of Rs.100 purchased at SBM, NGEF Branch Dated 02.09.2003.
Ex.P.11(b) : Stamp Paper purchased at SBM, NGEF Branch for Rs.50/- Dated 8.1.04.
Ex.P.11(c) : 3 Stamp Papers Dated 20.01.2004 for Rs.100/- each purchased at SBM, Seshadripuram Branch.
197 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] Ex.P.11(d) : Presentation Report of Loan Papers Credit Appraisal Report Dated 29.09.2005.
Ex.P.12 : File containing List of Employees and Salary Statement of M/s.SCT Institute of Technology.
Ex.P.13 : File containing Salary Statement of Employees of M/s.SCT Institute of Technology.
Ex.P.14 : True Copy of Salary Statement of Employees of M/s.SCT Institute of Technology from 2002-03 to 2008-09 along with seat matrix.
Ex.P.15 : Wages Register of Employees of M/s.SCT Institute of Technology for the period from September-2007 to August-2008.
Ex.P.16 : 20 DD's issued in favour of A-
1:Sri.K.A.Subramanya.
Ex.P.17 : 41 DD's issued in favour of the Sub-
Registrar, K.R. Puram.
Ex.P.18 : SB Account Opening Form bearing A/c. No.12017 along with other documents of Sri.R.Ravi.
Ex.P.18(a) : 4 Stamp Papers of Rs.100/- each Dated 31.01.2004 purchased at SBM, NGEF Branch.
Ex.P.18(b) : 2 Stamp Papers of Rs.50/- each purchased at SBM, NGEF Branch.
Ex.P.18(c) : Original Sale Deed Dated 16.03.2004 executed in favour of Sri.R.Ravi.
Ex.P.18(d) : Seal and Signature of P.W.34 in Ex.P18(c).
Ex.P.18(e) : Credit Appraisal Reports Certificate of Loan Paper Presentation and Inspection relevant documents.
198 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] Ex.P.19 : SB Account Opening Form bearing A/c No.12029 along with other documents of Sri.C.S.Srinivas.
Ex.P.19(a) : 4 Stamp Papers Dated 31.01.04 for Rs.100/- each purchased at SBM, NGEF Branch.
Ex.P.19(b) : Stamp Paper Dated 02.09.03 for Rs.100/- purchased at SBM, NGEF Branch.
Ex.P.19(c) : Stamp Paper Dated 02.09.03 for Rs.50/- purchased at SBM, NGEF Branch.
Ex.P.19(d) : Credit Appraisal Report of Individual Housing Loan Dated 13.03.04.
Ex.P.20 : SB A/c Opening Form bearing A/c.
No.12063 along with other documents of Sri.K.A.Bhadrinarayana.
Ex.P.20(a) : 2 Stamp Papers of Rs.100/- and Rs.50/- each Dated 02.09.03 purchased at SBM, NGEF Branch.
Ex.P.20(b) : 5 Stamp Papers Dated 31.01.04 for Rs.100/- purchased at SBM, NGEF Branch.
Ex.P.20(c) : Certificate of Loan Papers Credit Appraisal Report Dated 27.03.04 along with relevant documents.
Ex.P.21 : SB A/c Opening Form bearing A/c
No.12040 along with other
documents of Sri.S.N.Vijay Kumar.
Ex.P.21(a) : 5 Stamp Papers of Rs.100/- each in different Dates purchased at SBM, NGEF Branch.
Ex.P.21(b) : 2 Stamp Papers Dated 08.01.04 for Rs.50/- purchased at SBM, NGEF Branch.
199 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] Ex.P.21(c) : Certificate of Loan Papers, Credit Appraisal Report Dated 27.03.04 along with relevant documents.
Ex.P.22 : SB A/c Opening Form bearing A/c.
No.12028 along with other loan documents of Sri.K.Ramesh.
Ex.P.22(a) : 5 Stamp Papers of Rs.100/- each
purchased at SBM, NGEF Branch.
Ex.P.22(b) : 3 Stamp Papers of Rs.50/- each
purchased at SBM, NGEF Branch.
Ex.P.22(c) : Certificate of Loan Papers Obtained Dated 27.03.04 along with relevant documents.
Ex.P.23 : SB A/c Opening Form bearing A/c.
No.12021 along with other documents of Sri.Gangappa.B.Kittur.
Ex.P.23(a) : 5 Stamp Papers of Rs.100/- each in different dates purchased from SBM, NGEF Branch.
Ex.P.23(b) : 3 Stamp Papers of Rs.50/- each in different dates purchased at SBM, NGEF Branch.
Ex.P.23(c) : Original Sale Deed Dated 27.03.04 executed in favour of Sri.Gangappa.B.Kittur.
Ex.P.23(d) : Page No.3 of Ex.P.23(c).
Ex.P.23(e) : Certificate of Loan Papers Obtained Dated 27.03.04 along with relevant documents.
Ex.P.24 : SB A/c Opening Form bearing A/c.
No.12027 along with other loan documents of Sri.M.Vinod Kumar.
Ex.P.24(a) : 4 Stamp Papers Dated 31.01.04 of Rs.100/- each purchased at SBM, NGEF Branch.
200 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] Ex.P.24(b) : 2 Stamp Papers Dated 08.01.04 in different dates of Rs.50/- each purchased at SBM, NGEF Branch.
Ex.P.24(c) : Sale Deed dated 11.03.2004
executed in favour of Sri.Vinod
Kumar.
Ex.P.24(d) : Seal and Signature of P.W.34 in Ex.P.24(c).
Ex.P.24(e) : Page No.3 of Ex.P24(c).
Ex.P.24(f) : Certificate of Loan Papers and relevant documents.
Ex.P.25 : SB A/c Opening Form bearing A/c No.12010 along with other loan documents of Sri.J.Krishna.
Ex.P.25(a) : 4 Stamp Papers Dated 31.01.04 of Rs.100/- each purchased at SBM, NGEF Branch.
Ex.P.25(b) : 2 Stamp Papers Dated 08.01.04 of Rs.50/- each purchased at SBM, NGEF Branch.
Ex.P.25(c) : Sale Deed executed in favour of Sri.J.Krishna.
Ex.P.25(d) : Seal and Signature of P.W.34 in Ex.P.25(c).
Ex.P.25(e) : Page No.3 of Ex.P25(c).
Ex.P.25(f) : Certificate of Loan Papers Obtained Dated 11.05.04 and relevant documents.
Ex.P.26 : SB A/c Opening Form bearing A/c No.12014 along with other loan documents of Sri.H.Venkatesh.
Ex.P.26(a) : 4 Stamp Papers Dated 12.03.04 of Rs.100/- each purchased at SBM, NGEF Branch.
201 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] Ex.P.26(b) : 2 Stamp Papers Dated 12.03.04 of Rs.50/- each purchased at SBM, NGEF Branch.
Ex.P.26(c) : Certificate of Loan Papers Obtained Dated 18.05.04.
Ex.P.27 : SB A/c Opening Form bearing A/c
No.12007 along with other
documents of Sri.V.V.Ramana.
Ex.P.27(a) : 2 Stamp Papers Dated 12.03.04 of Rs.100/- each purchased at SBM, NGEF Branch.
Ex.P.27(b) : 2 Stamp Papers Dated 12.03.04 of Rs.50/- each purchased at SBM, NGEF Branch.
Ex.P.27(c) : Certificate of Loan Papers Obtained Dated 18.05.04.
Ex.P.28 : SB A/c Opening Form bearing A/c No.12008 along with other loan documents of Sri.S.S.Jagadish.
Ex.P.28(a) : 4 Stamp Papers Dated 12.03.04 of Rs.100/- each purchased at SBM, NGEF Branch.
Ex.P.28(b) : 2 Stamp Papers Dated 12.03.04 of Rs.50/- each SBM, NGEF Branch.
Ex.P.28(c) : Certificate of Loan Papers Obtained Dated 19.05.04.
Ex.P.29 : SB A/c Opening Form bearing A/c No.12042 along with other loan documents of Sri.Sudheer Kumar Singh.
Ex.P.29(a) : 4 Stamp Papers in different dates of Rs.100/- each purchased at SBM, NGEF Branch.
202 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] Ex.P.29(b) : 2 Stamp Papers Dated 12.03.04 of Rs.50/- each SBM, NGEF Branch.
Ex.P.29(c) : Certificate of Loan Papers Obtained Dated 28.05.04.
Ex.P.30 : SB A/c Opening Form bearing A/c No.12032 along with other loan documents of Sri.Omkara Swamy.
Ex.P.30(a) : 4 Stamp Papers Dated 12.03.04 of Rs.100/- each purchased at SBM, NGEF Branch.
Ex.P.30(b) : 2 Stamp Papers Dated 12.03.04 of Rs.50/- each purchased at SBM, NGEF Branch.
Ex.P.30(c) : Certificate of Loan Papers Obtained Dated 28.05.04.
Ex.P.31 : SB A/c Opening Form bearing A/c No.12025 along with other loan documents of Smt.Kanakalakshmi.
Ex.P.31(a) : 4 Stamp Papers Dated 12.03.04 of Rs.100/- each purchased at SBM, NGEF Branch.
Ex.P.31(b) : 2 Stamp Papers Dated 12.03.04 of Rs.50/- each purchased at SBM, NGEF Branch.
Ex.P.31(c) : Certificate of Loan Papers Obtained Dated 12.08.04.
Ex.P.32 : SB A/c Opening Form bearing A/c No.12018 along with other loan documents of Smt.K.Suja.
Ex.P.32(a) : 4 Stamp Papers Dated 12.03.04 of Rs.100/- each purchased at SBM, NGEF Branch.
Ex.P.32(b) : 3 Stamp Papers of different dates for Rs.50/- each purchased at SBM, NGEF Branch.
203 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] Ex.P.32(c) : Certificate of Loan Papers Obtained Dated 03.09.04.
Ex.P.33 : SB A/c Opening Form bearing A/c No.12011 along with other loan documents of Smt.D.Anitha.
Ex.P.33(a) : 5 Stamp Papers Dated 12.03.04 of Rs.100/- each purchased at SBM, NGEF Branch.
Ex.P.33(b) : Stamp Paper of Rs.50/- purchased at SBM, NGEF Branch.
Ex.P.33(c) : Certificate of Loan Papers Obtained Dated 03.09.04.
Ex.P.34 : SB A/c Opening Form bearing A/c No.12060 along with other loan documents of Sri.Gopal Krishna.
Ex.P.34(a) : 4 Stamp Papers Dated 12.03.2004 of Rs.100/- each purchased at SBM, NGEF Branch.
Ex.P.34(b) : 3 Stamp Papers in different dates of Rs.50/- each purchased at SBM, NGEF Branch.
Ex.P.34(c) : Certificate of Loan Papers Obtained Dated 21.03.2005.
Ex.P.34(d) : Identified Signature of P.W.15- Sri.Kumara Swamy at Page-8 of Ex.P.34.
Ex.P.35 : SB A/c Opening Form bearing A/c No.12019 along with other loan documents of Sri.M.V.Seshadri.
Ex.P.35(a) : 5 Stamp Papers Dated 12.03.04 of Rs.100/- each purchased at SBM NGEF, Branch.
204 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] Ex.P.35(b) : 3 Stamp Papers Dated 12.03.04 of Rs.50/- each purchased at SBM, NGEF Branch.
Ex.P.35(c) : Certificate of Loan Papers Obtained Dated 21.03.05.
Ex.P.36 : SB A/c Opening Form bearing A/c.
No.12047 along with other loan documents of Sri.K.Srinivas.
Ex.P.36(a) : 4 Stamp Papers Dated 12.03.04 of Rs.100/- each purchased at SBM, NGEF Branch.
Ex.P.36(b) : 2 Stamp Papers Dated 01.03.05 of Rs.50/- each purchased at SBM, NGEF Branch.
Ex.P.36(c) : Certificate of Loan Papers Obtained Dated 21.03.05.
Ex.P.37 : Specimen Signature of Smt.Vandana.
Ex.P.38 : Specimen Signature of Smt.Shylaja.
Ex.P.39 : Specimen Signature of Sri.Omkar Swamy.
Ex.P.40 : Cheque Dated 31.03.2006 for Rs.8,94,000/- issued from M/s.SCT Institute of Technology along with Statement of Accounts.
Ex.P.41 : Debit Voucher Dated 13.07.2006 for Rs.2,34,000/- of M/s.SCT Institute of Technology along with Statement of Accounts.
Ex.P.42 : Debit Voucher Dated 14.08.06 for Rs.2,40,000/- along with Statement of Accounts of M/s.SCT Institute of Technology.
205 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] Ex.P.43 : Debit Voucher Dated 30.10.06 for Rs.4,85,000/- along with Statement of Accounts of M/s.SCT Institute of Technology.
Ex.P.44 : Debit Voucher Dated 11.10.06 for Rs.2,75,000/- along with Statement of Accounts of M/s.SCT Institute of Technology.
Ex.P.45 : Credit Voucher Dated 15.11.06 for Rs.2.00 Lakhs along with Statement of Accounts of M/s.SCT Institute of Technology.
Ex.P.46 : Debit Voucher Dated 06.09.06 for Rs.4,15,000/- along with Statement of Accounts of M/s.SCT Institute of Technology.
Ex.P.47 : Debit Voucher Dated 30.04.07 for Rs.1,75,000/- along with Statement of Accounts of M/s.SCT Institute of Technology.
Ex.P.48 : Debit Voucher Dated 13.06.07 for Rs.2,45,000/- along with Statement of Accounts of M/s.SCT Institute of Technology.
Ex.P.49 : Debit Voucher 13.7.07 Rs.2,31,000/-
along with Statement of Accounts of M/s.SCT Institute of Technology.
Ex.P.50 : Debit Voucher 13.9.07 Rs.2,25,000/-
along with Statement of Accounts of M/s.SCT Institute of Technology.
Ex.P.51 : Debit Voucher 28.9.07 Rs.2,31,000/-
along with Statement of Accounts of M/s.SCT Institute of Technology.
Ex.P.52 : Debit Voucher 2.11.07 Rs.2,31,000/-
along with Statement of Accounts of M/s.SCT Institute of Technology.
206 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] Ex.P.53 : Debit Voucher 29.11.07 Rs.2,40,000/-
along with Statement of Accounts of M/s.SCT Institute of Technology.
Ex.P.54 : Debit Voucher 31.12.07 Rs.1,40,000/-
along with Statement of Accounts of M/s.SCT Institute of Technology.
Ex.P.55 : Debit Voucher 26.6.08 Rs.1,80,000/-
along with Statement of Accounts of M/s.SCT Institute of Technology.
Ex.P.56 : Debit Voucher 30.6.08 Rs.2,40,000/-
along with Statement of Accounts of M/s.SCT Institute of Technology.
Ex.P.57 : Debit Voucher 16.8.08 Rs.2,49,267/-
along with Statement of Accounts of M/s.SCT Institute of Technology.
Ex.P.58 : Debit Voucher 20.8.08 Rs.2,32,800/-
along with Statement of Accounts of M/s.SCT Institute of Technology.
Ex.P.59 : Debit Voucher 14.6.06 Rs.2,04,000/-
along with Statement of Accounts of M/s.SCT Institute of Technology.
Ex.P.59 : Debit Voucher Dated 14.6.06 Rs.2,04,000/- along with Statement of Accounts of M/s.SCT Institute of Technology.
Ex.P.60 : Certified copy of Sale Deed (Rectification Deed) executed in favour of Sri.Mohan Acharya and Smt.Shashikala.M.Acharya.
Ex.P.61 : Challan Dated 20.01.04 pertaining to purchase of Stamp Paper at SBM.
Ex.P.62 : Original Sale Deed Dated 03.09.04 executed in favour of Smt.Anitha.
207 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] Ex.P.62(a) : Seal and Signature of P.W.33 in Ex.P.62.
Ex.P.63 : Certified Copy of Sale Deed Dated 21.03.05 executed in favour of Smt.Latha Naganna.
Ex.P.64 : Certified Copy of Sale Deed Dated 19.02.06 executed in favour of Smt.ShreeJayanthi.
Ex.P.65 : 21 Final Valuation Reports of Vijaya Bank.
Ex.P.66 : Original Sale Deed Dated 19.04.04 executed in favour of Sri.Jagadish.S. Ex.P.67 : Personal Information and Declaration of Guarantor of Sri.Jagadish.S. pertaining to Bank of India.
Ex.P.68 : SB A/c Opening Form of Sri.S.Jagadish pertaining to Bank of India along with other documents.
Ex.P.69 : Certified Copy of A/c Opening Form
of Sri.S.Jagadish pertaining to
Syndicate Bank along with other
documents.
Ex.P.70 : Account Opening Form of
Sri.Gangappa.B. Kittur pertaining to Bank of India.
Ex.P.71 : Certified copy of A/c Opening Form of Sri.Gangappa.B.Kittur pertaining to Syndicate Bank.
Ex.P.72 : Original Sale Deed Dated 03.09.04 executed in favour of Smt.K.Suja.
Ex.P.72(a) : Seal and Signature of P.W.33 in Ex.P.72.
208 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] Ex.P.73 : Loan Application pertaining to Bank of India for Purchase of Flat in the name of Smt.K.Suja.
Ex.P.74 : SB Account Opening Form of
Smt.K.Suja at Bank of India.
Ex.P.75 : Certified copy of Housing Loan
Application of Syndicate Bank of
Smt.K.Suja.
Ex.P.76 : Specimen Signature of Smt.K.Suja.
Ex.P.77 : Housing Loan Application of Bank of
India of Smt.D.Anitha.
Ex.P.78 : Account Opening Form of Bank of
India of Smt.D.Anitha.
Ex.P.79 : Certified Copy of Loan Application in
the name of Smt.D.Anitha at
Syndicate Bank.
Ex.P.80 : Specimen Signature of Smt.D.Anitha.
Ex.P.81 : Original Sale Deed Dated 27.03.04
executed in favour of Sri.S.M.Vijay
Kumar.
Ex.P.81(a) : Seal and Signature of P.W.33 in Ex.P.81.
Ex.P.82 : Housing Loan Application at Bank of India of Sri.S.M.Vijay Kumar .
Ex.P.83 : Specimen Signature of Sri.S.M.Vijay Kumar.
Ex.P.84 : Original Sale Deed Dated 16.03.04 executed in favour of Sri.C.S.Srinivas.
Ex.P.84(a) : Seal and Signature of P.W.34 in Ex.P.84.
Ex.P.85 : Housing Loan Application of Bank of India of Sri.C.S.Srinivas.
209 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] Ex.P.86 : Certified Copy of Loan Application of Syndicate Bank of Sri.C.S.Srinivas.
Ex.P.87 : Specimen Signature of
Sri.C.S.Srinivas.
Ex.P.88 : Original Sale Deed Dated 27.03.04
executed in favour of Sri.K.Ramesh.
Ex.P.88(a) : Seal and Signature of P.W.33 in Ex.P.88.
Ex.P.89 : Housing Loan Application of Bank of India of Sri.K.Ramesh.
Ex.P.90 : Certified Copy of SB A/c Opening Form and Loan Application of Sri.K.Ramesh.
Ex.P.91 : SB Account Opening Form and Loan Application at Canara Bank of Sri.K.Ramesh.
Ex.P.91(a) : File-containing Loan Documents.
Ex.P.92 : Specimen Signature of Sri.K.Ramesh in 16 Sheets.
Ex.P.93 : Original Sale Deed Dated 19.04.04 executed in favour of Sri.V.V.Ramana.
Ex.P.93(a) : Seal and Signature of P.W.33 in Ex.P.93.
Ex.P.94 : Personal Information Guarantor Form of Sri.V.V.Ramana.
Ex.P.95 : Certified Copy of Loan Application and SB A/c Opening Form of Syndicate Bank of Sri.V.V.Ramana.
Ex.P.96 : Certified Copy of Account Opening Form with Loan application of V.V. Ramana at Canara Bank.
Ex.P.96(a) : File-containing Loan Documents.
210 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J]
Ex.P.97 : Specimen Signature of
Sri.V.V.Ramana.
Ex.P.98 : Original Sale Deed Dated 16.03.05
executed in favour of Sri.Gopal
Krishna.
Ex.P.98(a) : Seal and Signature of P.W.34 in
Ex.P.98.
Ex.P.99 : Certified Copy of Housing Loan
Application and Account Opening
Form of Sri.Gopal Krishna of
Syndicate Bank.
Ex.P.100 : Specimen Signature of Sri.Gopal
Krishna.
Ex.P.101 : Certified Copy of Loan Application
and A/c Opening Form of
Sri.J.Krishnappa at Syndicate Bank.
Ex.P.102 : Housing Loan Application at Bank of India of Sri.J.Krishna.
Ex.P.103 : Specimen Signature of
Sri.J.Krishnappa.
Ex.P.104 : Original Sale Deed Dated 16.03.05
executed in favour of Sri.K.Srinivas.
Ex.P.104(a) : Seal and Signature of P.W.34 in Ex.P.104.
Ex.P.105 : Housing Loan Application at Bank of India of Sri.K.Srinivas.
Ex.P.106 : SB Account Opening Form of
Sri.K.Srinivas at Bank of India.
Ex.P.107 : Certified Copy of Account Opening
Form and Loan Application of
Syndicate Bank of Sri.K.Srinivas.
211 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J]
Ex.P.108 : Complaint Dated 28.04.07 lodged
before SHO, J.B.Nagar PS, Bengaluru
from Vijaya Bank, HAL III Stage,
Bengaluru.
Ex.P.109 : Specimen Signature of P.W.15-
Sri.Y.S.Kumar Swamy.
Ex.P.110 : Specimen Signature of P.W.18-
Sri.K.Appy Reddy.
Ex.P.111 : Specimen Signature of P.W.19-
Sri.S.Jagadish.
Ex.P.112 : Specimen Signature of P.W.20-
Sri.Gangappa.B.Kittur.
Ex.P.113 : Housing Loan Application of
Sri.Gangappa.B.Kittur.
Ex.P.114 : File-containing Original General Power
of Attorney of Smt.Vijaylakshmi along with other documents.
Ex.P.114(a) : Signature of P.W.31 in Ex.P.114.
Ex.P.114(b) : Signature of P.W.32 in Ex.P.114.
Ex.P.115 : Original Sale Deed Dated 10.03.04 executed in favour of Sri.K.Aswath Narayana by Smt.Vijayalakshmi.
Ex.P.115(a) : Signature and Seal of P.W.33 in Ex.P.115.
Ex.P.116 : Original Sale Deed Dated 10.03.04 executed in favour of Sri.Nagaraj by Smt.Vijayalakshmi.
Ex.P.116(a) : Signature and Seal of P.W.33 in Ex.P.116.
Ex.P.117 : Original Sale Deed Dated 10.03.2004
executed in favour of
Sri.H.Venkatesh executed by
Smt.Vijayalakshmi.
212 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J]
Ex.P.117(a) : Seal and Signature of P.W.33 in Ex.P.117.
Ex.P.118 : Original Sale deed Dated 16.03.2004
executed in favour of
Sri.Badrinarayana.
Ex.P.118(a) : Seal and Signature of P.W.34 in Ex.P.118.
Ex.P.119 : Original Sale Deed Dated 28.04.04 executed in favour of Sri.Omkar Swamy by Smt.Vijaylakshmi.
Ex.P.119(a) : Seal and Signature of P.W.34 in Ex.P.119.
Ex.P.120 : Original Sale Deed Dated 12.08.04
executed in favour of
Smt.Kanakalakshmi.B.S. by
Smt.Vijayalakshmi.
Ex.P.120(a) : Seal and Signature of P.W.34 in Ex.P.120.
Ex.P.121 : Original Sale Deed Dated 16.03.05 executed in favour of M.V.Sheshadri by Smt.Vijayalakshmi.
Ex.P.121(a) : Seal and Signature of P.W.34 in Ex.P.121.
Ex.P.122 : Original Sale Deed Dated 28.04.04 executed in favour of Sri.Sudhir Kumar Singh by Smt.Vijayalakshmi.
Ex.P.122(a) : Seal and Signature of P.W.34 in Ex.P.122.
Ex.P.123 : Certified Copies of Sale Deeds registered before the Sub-Registrar, K.R.Puram, Bengaluru.
Ex.P.123(a) : Certified Copy of Sale Deed Dated 21.01.06.
213 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] Ex.P.123(b) : Certified Copy of Sale Deed Dated 21.01.06.
Ex.P.123(c) : Certified Copy of Sale Deed Dated 17.05.06.
Ex.P.124 : Letter Dated 18.08.09 from Sub-
Registrar, K.R.Puram, Bengaluru to CBI.
Ex.P.124(a) : Signature of P.W.37 in Ex.P.124.
Ex.P.125 : Housing Loan Applications in different names.
Ex.P.126 : Statement of Accounts of M/s.SCT Builders and Developers pertaining to Bank of India.
Ex.P.127 : Production/Seizure Memo Dated 05.05.2009.
Ex.P.128 : Statement of Account of M/s.SCT Institute of Technology at Bank of India for the period from 10.01.2006 to 22.09.2009.
Ex.P.129 : Cheque No.171976 Dated 25.07.06 for Rs.92,41,818 in the name of M/s.SCT Institute of Technology.
Ex.P.130 : Letter Dated 10.09.2009 from Bank of India to CBI.
Ex.P.131 : Letter Dated 21.05.2009 from SBM to CBI.
Ex.P.132 : Certified Copy of Circular Dated 16.06.2003 of Vijaya Bank.
Ex.P.133 : Certified Copy of Sale Deed Dated
02.11.2004 executed in favour of
P.W.44-Sri.Anand Babu.G.S. by
Smt.Vijaya Lakshmi.
214 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J]
Ex.P.134 : Personal Information of the Accused-
2-Sri.Dinakar Shetty.
Ex.P.135 : Personal Information of the Accused-
3-Sri.Rathnakar Shetty.
Ex.P.136 : Personal Information of the Accused-
4-Sri.P.N.Shivamurthy.
Ex.P.137 : 6 Files-containing Loan Disbursement Vouchers of various borrowers.
Ex.P.138 : Letter Dated 16.10.09 from Income Tax Department to CBI.
Ex.P.139 : Specimen Signature and Handwriting of P.W.52-Sr.N.Anand Kumar.
Ex.P.140 : Letter Dated 18.05.09 from BBMP to CBI.
Ex.P.141 : 8 Pay-In-Slips of Vijaya Bank.
Ex.P.142 : Credit Slips, Debit Slips and Demand Draft Advices of Vijaya Bank.
Ex.P.143 : Credit Slips, Debit Slips and Demand Draft Advices of Vijaya Bank.
Ex.P.144 : SB Account Opening Form bearing A/c No.4676 at Bank of India along with enclosures of Sri.K.A.Subramanya.
Ex.P.145 : Current Account Opening Form bearing A/c No.CD10535 at Bank of India along with enclosures of M/s.SCT Builders & Developers.
Ex.P.146 : SB Account Opening form bearing A/c No.10138 at Bank of India along with enclosures of Sri.Vinod Kumar M.G. Ex.P.147 : SB Account Opening Form bearing A/c No.5521 at Bank of India along with enclosures of Sri.Omkar Swamy.
215 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] Ex.P.148 : SB Account Opening Form bearing A/c No.5526 at Bank of India along with enclosures of Sri.R.Ravi.
Ex.P.149 : SB Account Opening Form bearing A/c No.10094 at Bank of India along with enclosures of Sri.C.S.Srinivas.
Ex.P.150 : SB Account Opening Form bearing A/c No.5846 at Bank of India along with enclosures of Smt.Kanakalakshmi.
Ex.P.151 : SB Account Opening Form bearing Account No.12382 at Bank of India along with enclosures of Sri.K.A.Bhadrinarayana.
Ex.P.152 : 11 Pay-in-Slips of Bank of India in different names.
Ex.P.153 : System Generated Vouchers bearing OD Account No.849627100300056 of M/s.SCT Institute of Technology.
Ex.P.154 : True Copy of Housing Loan
Documents of Sri.Vijayakumar.S.M.
Ex.P.155 : True Copy of Housing Loan
Documents of Sri.K.A.Badrinarayana.
Ex.P.156 : True Copy of Housing Loan
Documents of
Sri.K.A.Aswathnarayana.
Ex.P.157 : True Copy of Housing Loan
Documents of Sri.Omkar Swamy.
Ex.P.158 : True Copy of Housing Loan
Documents of Sri.R.Ravi.
Ex.P.159 : True Copy of Housing Loan
Documents of Sri.Vinod Kumar.M.G.
Ex.P.160 : True Copy of Housing Loan
Documents of Smt.Kanakalakshmi.
216 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J]
Ex.P.161 : True Copy of Housing Loan
Documents of Sri.H.Venkatesh.
Ex.P.162 : True Copy of Housing Loan
Documents of Sri.Sudhir Kumar
Singh.
Ex.P.163 : True Copy of Housing Loan
Documents of Sri.Nagaraj.
Ex.P.164 : True Copy of Housing Loan
Documents of Sri.M.V.Seshadri.
Ex.P.165 : True Copy of Current Account Opening Form along with enclosures of Sri.K.A.Subramanya.
Ex.P.166 : True Copy of Mortgage Register of Smt.Vijayalakshmi of Syndicate Bank.
Ex.P.167 : Statement of Accounts of Borrowers from 2001 to 2008 of Syndicate Bank.
Ex.P.168 : SB Account Opening Form bearing Account No.10120 of Sri.K.A.Aswathnarayana along with documents.
Ex.P.169 : SB Account Opening Form bearing Account No.CA545 of M/s.SCT Builders and Developers.
Ex.P.170 : Loan Repayment Challans.
Ex.P.171 : 11 Instruments-Debit Slips, Credit Slips, Office Copy of DD of ML Account No.24024 of Sri.K.A.Badrinarayana.
Ex.P.172 : 11 Instruments-Debit Slips, Credit Slips, Office Copy of DD of ML 24022 of Sri.R.Ravi.
217 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] Ex.P.173 : 11 Instruments-Debit Slips, Credit Slips, Office Copy of DD of ML 24023 of Sri.C.A.Srinivas.
Ex.P.174 : 11 Instruments-Debit Slips, Credit Slips, Office Copy of DD of A/c 24026 of Sri.K.Ramesh.
Ex.P.175 : 10 Instruments-Debit Slips, Credit Slips, Office Copy of DD of ML A/c 24027 of Sri.Gangappa.B.Kittur.
Ex.P.176 : 11 Instruments-Debit Slips, Credit Slips, Office Copy of DD of ML A/c 24025 of Sri.S.M.Vijaykumar.
Ex.P.177 : 11 Instruments-Debit Slips, Credit Slips, Office Copy of DD of ML A/c 23026 of Sri.J.Krishna.
Ex.P.178 : 11 Instruments-Debit Slips, Credit Slips, Office Copy of DD of ML A/c 24035 of Sri.M.G.Vinod Kumar.
Ex.P.179 : 8 Instruments-Debit Slips, Credit Slips, Office Copy of DD of ML A/c 24038 of Sri.V.V.Ramana.
Ex.P.180 : 8 Instruments-Debit Slips, Credit Slips, Office Copy of DD of ML A/c 24039 of Sri.H.Venkatesh.
Ex.P.181 : 11 Instruments-Debit Slips, Credit Slips, Office Copy of DD of ML A/c 24040 of Sri.Jagadish.
Ex.P.182 : 11 Instruments-Debit Slips, Credit Slips, Office Copy of DD of ML A/c 24045 of Sri.Omkarswamy.
Ex.P.183 : 11 Instruments-Debit Slips, Credit Slips, Office Copy of DD of ML A/c No.24044 of Sri.Sudhir Kumar Singh.
218 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] Ex.P.184 : 9 Instruments Pay-in-Slips and Credit Slips of Current A/c No.1590 of M/s.SCT Builders and Developers.
Ex.P.185 : Search List Dated 02.06.09 of Residence of Sri.K.A.Aswathnarayana.
Ex.P.186 : Search List Dated 23.07.09 of Residence of Sri.Subramanya Sharma.
Ex.P.187 : Search List Dated 02.06.09 of Office premises of M/s.SCT Institute of Technology.
Ex.P.188 : FIR Dated 31.03.09 along with Copy of State Government Notification Dated 03.03.09.
Ex.P.189 : Seizure Memo Dated 20.04.09.
Ex.P.190 : Seizure Memo Dated 30.04.09.
Ex.P.191 : Seizure Memo Dated 04.05.09.
Ex.P.192 : Search List Dated 02.06.09 of residence of A-1 along with Acknowledgment Dated 02.06.09 of RFO.
Ex.P.193 : Search List Dated 02.06.09 of Residence of A-2.
Ex.P.194 : Search List Dated 02.06.09 of Residence of A-9.
Ex.P.195 : Specimen Signatures and Handwriting of A-6-Sri.Nagaraj.
Ex.P.196 : Letter Dated 03.07.09 from Bank of India to CBI.
Ex.P.197 : Specimen Signature and Handwriting of A-7-Sri.M.V.Seshadri.
Ex.P.198 : Specimen Signature and Handwriting A-8-Sri.R.Ravi.
219 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] Ex.P.199 : Specimen Signature of C.W.43- Sri.Vinod Kumar.
Ex.P.200 : Specimen Signature and Handwriting of A-5-Sri.K.A.Aswathnarayana.
Ex.P.201 : Specimen Signature and Handwriting of Sri.H.Venkatesh.
Ex.P.202 : Specimen Signature of A-10- Smt.Kanakalakshmi.
Ex.P.203 : Specimen Signature of A-9- Sri.K.A.Badrinarayana.
Ex.P.204 : Specimen Signature of P.W.34- Smt.A.P.Hamsalatha.
Ex.P.205 : Specimen Signature of P.W.29- Sri.K.Srinivas.
Ex.P.206 : Specimen Signature & Handwriting of P.W.46-Sri.N.Sukumar Jain.
Ex.P.207 : Specimen Signature and Handwriting of P.W.36-Sri.Mahadevaiah.
Ex.P.208 : Seizure Memo Dated 25.08.09.
Ex.P.209 : Specimen Signature and Handwriting of A-11-Sri.L.V.Prasad.
Ex.P.210 : Specimen Signature and Handwriting of A-1-Sri.K.A.Subramanya.
Ex.P.211 : Seizure Memo Dated 11.09.09.
Ex.P.212 : Letter Dated 28.08.09 from Syndicate Bank to CBI.
Ex.P.213 : Seizure Memo Dated 16.09.09.
Ex.P.214 : Seizure Memo Dated 25.09.09.
220 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] Ex.P.215 : Seizure Memo Dated 02.10.09.
Ex.P.216 : Specimen Handwriting and Signature of A-4-Sri.P.N.Shivamurthy.
Ex.P.217 : FIR Dated 28.04.07.
Ex.P.218 : Letter Dated 31.03.09 from J.B.Nagar Police Station, Bengaluru to CBI.
Ex.P.219 : GEQD Opinion Dated 31.05.2010 along with Reasons.
Ex.P.220 : Letter Dated 31.03.06 from M/s.SCT Institute of Technology to Vijaya Bank.
Ex.P.221 : Salary Statement of Employees of M/s.SCT Institute of Technology for the period from 2001-02 to 2004-05.
Ex.P.222 : Letter Dated 15.05.09 from Vijaya Bank to CBI.
Ex.P.223 : Statement of Credit received from the Pro-note Loan Accounts of M/s.SCT Employees.
Ex.P.224 : Seizure Memo Dated 29.04.09.
3. LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT:
-NIL-
4. LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE ACCUSED WITH DATE OF EXAMINATION:
-NIL-
221 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J]
5. LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE ACCUSED :
Ex.D.1 : Portion of Statement of P.W.23-Sri.S.M.Vijay Kumar.
Ex.D.2 : Portion of Statement of P.W.24- Sri.C.S.Srinivas.
Ex.D.3 : Portion of Statement of P.W.27- Sri.Gopalkrishna.
Ex.D.4 : Portion of Statement of P.W.28- Sri.J.Krishnappa.
Ex.D.5 : Notarized Copy of Letter Dated 09.07.2008 from Sri.N.Sukumar Jain to Chief Manager, Vijaya Bank.
Ex.D.6 : Notarized Copy of Circular Dated 12.09.2001 from Vijaya Bank regarding Duties and Responsibilities of the Assistant Branch Managers.
Ex.D.7 : Notarized Copy of Letter Dated 21.11.2006 from Vijaya Bank, Branch/Office to the Regional Manager, RO, Bengaluru.
Ex.D.8 : Sanction Inspection Report of P.W.53 Dated 29.07.2005.
Ex.D.9 : Attested Xerox Copy of Circular Dated 26.02.1988 regarding Guidelines for the Incoming Branch Manager to take charge of the Branch.
Ex.D.10 : True copy of Final Valuation Report Dated 15.06.2006 by Engineer-Sri.K.Appi Reddy.
Ex.D.11 : True copy of Certificate Dated 03.03.2006 from Smt.Latha Shetty to the Branch Manager, Vijaya Bank.
Ex.D.12 : Attested Xerox Copy of Letter Dated 27.11.2006 from Vijaya Bank, HAL III Stage Branch to the Regional Manager, RO, Bengaluru.
222 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J] Ex.D.13 : Attested Xerox Copy of Letter Dated 14.02.2007 from Vijaya Bank, HAL III Stage Branch to the Regional Manager, RO, Bengaluru.
Ex.D.14 : True copy of Circular Dated 04.07.2006 from Vijaya Bank, Head Office to all Branches and Offices of Vijaya Bank regarding Partial modifications to the existing Guidelines contained in HOC 06/03 Dated 11.01.2003 and Chairman's Special Circular No.02/2002 Dated 01.10.2002.
Ex.D.15 : Portion of Statement of Sri.Omkarswamy.
Ex.D.16 : True Copy of Circular No.124/05 Dated 01.07.2005 of Vijaya Bank, Head Office regarding Action under Securitisation Act 2002.
Ex.D.17 : True Copy of Letter Dated 12.07.2008 from Vijaya Bank, Head Office to the Chief Vigilance Officer, Vigilance Department, HO, Bengaluru.
Ex.D.18 : True Copy of Letter Dated 03.07.2008 from Vijaya Bank, HAL III Stage Branch to the General Manager, RO, Bengaluru South.
Ex.D.19 : True Copy of Inter-Office-Memo Dated 19.11.2011 regarding 21 Housing Loan sanctioned to Employees of M/s.SCT Institute of Technology at HAL III Stage Branch, now pending before the CBI Court from Credit (R&R) Dept., Head Office to the General Manager, RO, Bengaluru South.
Ex.D.20 : True Copy of Circular No.131/2002 Dated 29.10.2002 regarding Launching of New Loan Product "VIJAYA HOME LOAN".
(ASWATHA NARAYANA) XLVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bengaluru.
223 [Spl.C.C.144/2010-J]