Delhi District Court
Cbi vs . 1 Ram Kumar, on 5 November, 2012
IN THE COURT OF MANOJ JAIN: SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT) (CBI)
SOUTH DISTRICT: SAKET DISTRICT COURTS
NEW DELHI
CC No. 34/2011
RC-SIA/2000/E0001/SIU-X
U/s 120B r/w 420, 468, 471 IPC & 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) PC Act
CBI Vs. 1 Ram Kumar,
Son of Late Sh. Rameshwar Dayal,
Resident of 87, Hari Nagar, Meerut, UP.
2 Praful Kumar,
Son of Sh. Shankar Lalji,
Resident of 371/A/1, New Govindpuri,
Kankar Khera, Meerut, UP.
(Proclaimed Offender)
3 Manjeet Kumar Anand Shera,
Son of Hari Kishan Lalji,
Resident of 1/4981-82, Shiv Nagar,
Karol Bagh, New Delhi.
4 Rekha Dubey,
Wife of Sh. Rakesh Dubey,
Resident of J/34-A, Vikaspuri,
New Delhi.
(Proclaimed Offender)
5 Uma Bhatla,
Wife of Sh. Jaspreet Singh,
Daughter of Smt. Rekha Dubey,
Resident of J/34-A, Vikaspuri,
New Delhi.
i) Date of Institution :24.12.2002
ii) Date on which case was received on
Transfer by this Court :20.10.2011
iii) Date of framing of charge :11.08.2008
iv) Date of conclusion of arguments :16.10.2012
v) Date of Judgment :05.11.2012
CC No. 34/11 CBI Vs. Ram Kumar etc. 1 of 74
Memo of Appearance
Sh. Jagbir Singh, learned Public Prosecutor for CBI.
Sh. Ikrant Sharma, learned Defence Counsel for accused Ram Kumar
Sh.Yogesh Verma, learned Defence Counsel for accused Manjeet
Kumar Anand
Sh.Rajan Bajaj, learned Defence Counsel for accused Uma Bhatla
JUDGMENT
STORY OF PROSECUTION 1.0 Oriental Bank of Commerce was having its one branch at Mataur, Meerut, UP. Sh. Dinesh Kumar Tyagi was Branch Manager in the year 1999. He was assisted by two officers namely accused Ram Kumar and accused Praful Kumar.
1.1 Accused Ram Kumar was Incharge of hall and strong room being Second Man in the branch and it was his duty and responsibility to keep security forms including demand drafts in safe custody. There was one almirah in strong room of Mataur branch in which all security papers including blank draft books used to be kept and one key of such almirah used to be with accused Ram Kumar. As per the charter of duties, in the absence of accused Ram Kumar, accused Praful Kumar used to perform all the duties as Second Man meaning thereby that all such security papers used to be under his control and care during absence of Ram Kumar.
1.2 Blank demand draft books bearing no. 086851 to 086900 and 260401 to 260500 had been supplied to Mataur branch for use. These were duly received at the branch and were under the custody of accused Ram Kumar.
CC No. 34/11 CBI Vs. Ram Kumar etc. 2 of 74
1.3 Accused Praful Kumar had one friend Suresh Pawar of M/s
Madhu Transport, Meerut and during February-March 1999, Sh. Suresh Pawar requested accused Praful Kumar to arrange for few blank draft books against consideration. Suresh Pawar then arranged one meeting in which accused Praful Kumar happened to meet accused Smt. Rekha Dubey. Such meeting took place at Hotel Grand situated near Begum Bridge, Meerut. A deal was struck and it was agreed that Sh. Praful Kumar would be paid Rs. 50,000/- for each blank demand draft book. Accordingly, accused Praful Kumar arranged two blank draft books and delivered the same to accused Rekha Dubey for Rs. one lac. It is interesting to note that by that time accused Ram Kumar was not in picture at all and was not part of any illegal agreement/conspiracy.
1.4 Later on, in the month of May 1999, accused Ram Kumar also connived with accused Praful Kumar and pursuant to such active collusion and conspiracy, they both illegally removed four more blank draft books bearing no.260401 to 260500 from the bank and handed over the same to accused Rekha Dubey as per the prior arrangement through conduit Sh. Suresh Pawar.
1.5 It is also worthwhile to mention here that when earlier a sum of Rs. one lac had been paid by accused Rekha Dubey to accused Praful Kumar against supply of two blank draft books, a sum of Rs.10,000/- was pocketed by Suresh Pawar as his commission and remaining sum of Rs. 90,000/- was then decided to be shared equally by accused Ram Kumar and accused Praful Kumar. Accused Praful Kumar had also deposited a sum of Rs.20,000/- in his current account and sum of Rs.25,000/- in the account of his wife Smt. Nirmala Devi.
CC No. 34/11 CBI Vs. Ram Kumar etc. 3 of 74
1.6 Accused Ram Kumar falsified the bank record i. e. DD issue
register in order to show that such draft books had been rather issued in the normal course of banking business. The object was to conceal the factum of illegal removal of such draft books.
1.7 Now comes the second part of the story.
1.8 Accused Rekha Dubey got possession of blank draft books but these were also required to be used to obtain money.
1.9 Here enters her daughter i.e. accused Uma Bhatla. Uma, as per plan, went to OBC, Vishal Enclave, New Delhi and prayed for preparation of demand drafts in April 1999 and July 1999 and obtained drafts from OBC, Vishal Enclave, New Delhi. One such draft of Rs.5,000/- was in the name of one Suresh Kumar. Such draft was prepared under the signatures of one of the authorized signatories' i. e. Smt. Kusum Bagga. Object of procuring such genuine drafts was to have access to the signatures of authorized signatories and then to trace and forge those.
1.10 Accused Rekha Dubey knew accused Manjeet Kumar Anand who was running jewellery business under the name and style of M/s Shivani Jewellers in Karol Bagh, New Delhi. She visited his shop number of times during 1999 and talked to him in a clandestine manner.
1.11 Said six illegally removed draft books contained 150 leaves in all and 140 draft leaves were shown used for purchasing gold from accused Manjeet Kumar Anand during the period May 1999 till November 1999. According to accused Manjeet Kumar Anand , he had sold gold to customers i. e. Sardar Rajender Singh, Smt. Manpreet Kaur, Sh. G. P. Singh, Sh. Amrik CC No. 34/11 CBI Vs. Ram Kumar etc. 4 of 74 Singh, Sh. Mohan Lal and Sh. R. K. Gupta who all were from Ludhiana and while purchasing gold, they all had made payment through said drafts.
1.12 Curiously, all such 140 demand drafts, containing forged signatures of authorized signatories, were cleared for payment by the Service Branch of OBC, New Delhi.
1.13 Accused Manjeet Kumar Anand was having two bank accounts i. e. SBI Branch of Ajmal Khan Road and Laxmi Villas Bank, Gurdawara Road Branch, New Delhi and out of 140 demand drafts, 67 drafts aggregating Rs.3,87,88,400/- were deposited in SBI and remaining 73 drafts aggregating to Rs.4,13,19,600/- with Laxmi Villas Bank. All these drafts were cleared and the money was credited in the account of M/s Shivani Jewellers.
1.14 Astonishingly, no one even got wind of the matter till the inspection was conducted by Inter Branch Reconciliation Department.
1.15 It is noteworthy to mention here that all such 140 drafts were purported to have been issued by Oriental Bank of Commerce, Chaura Bazar Branch, Ludhiana, Punjab but as per the schedule received from said branch of Ludhiana, there was no corresponding entry and thus none of the 140 drafts had, in fact, been issued by Ludhiana branch.
1.16 On the basis of complaint of Sh. S. K. Singh, Chief Vigilance Officer, Oriental Bank of Commerce dated 17.1.2000, FIR was registered on 2.2.2000 in SIU(X) branch of CBI vide number RC-SIA/2000/E0001.
CC No. 34/11 CBI Vs. Ram Kumar etc. 5 of 74
1.17 Matter was investigated and it was learnt that addresses of all
such gold-buyers were false and forged. According to investigating agency, none of the alleged purchaser of the gold could be located and investigation signified that accused Manjeet Kumar Anand had deliberately and dishonestly attempted to put on view that he had sold the gold to some customers against the consideration received in the shape of 140 drafts whereas actually, all these transactions were sham and bogus and there was no sale of gold at all by him. Genuine demand drafts, got prepared by Uma Bhatla from OBC, Vishal Enclave, New Delhi, were also recovered during the house search of accused Rekha Dubey in one another case pertaining to DD fraud case registered as RC2/98-SIU(X)/CBI/New Delhi. When house of Rekha Dubey was searched in the present case also, two slips were recovered which were containing some numbers. These were, in fact, found to be a code and when decoded it was learnt that these numbers indicated date, draft no. and amount. At the time of such house search of residential premises of accused Rekha Dubey, accused Uma Bhatla was also present. Specimen handwriting of all concerned was taken and forensic report also indicated that the hand writing appearing on such slips in numerical code was of Rekha Dubey and that requisition-slips for obtaining genuine drafts were in the hand of Uma Bhatla.
1.18 Thus as per the investigating agency both the bank officials i. e. accused Ram Kumar and Praful Kumar abused their official position as public servants and conspired with accused Manjeet Kumar Anand, Rekha Dubey and Uma Bhatla and some other persons and Demand-Drafts books were illegally removed and bank record was falsified and with the help of traced signatures of Ms. Kusum Bagga, 140 of such demand drafts were used and thereby caused loss to the extent of Rs.7,98,08,000/- to the bank. It was also claimed by the investigating agency that a supplementary charge CC No. 34/11 CBI Vs. Ram Kumar etc. 6 of 74 sheet would be filed as and when other accused, involved in the fraud, were nabbed. Fact, however, remains that no supplementary charge sheet has been filed in the present matter so far.
1.19 It will be also important to mention here that accused Praful Kumar absconded during the pendency of the matter and was declared proclaimed offender on 08.09.2011 and so did accused Rekha Dubey who was declared proclaimed offender on 16.4.2012.
COGNIZANCE AND CHARGES 2.0 Charge sheet was filed in the court on 24.12.2002 and cognizance was taken on 10.04.2003 and all the accused were ordered to be summoned accordingly.
2.1 Charges were ascertained vide order dated 07.08.2008 and framed on 11.08.2008. All the accused were ordered to be charged u/s 420 r/w 120 B IPC. Accused Ram Kumar was also ordered to be charged u/s 409/477A IPC r/w 120 B IPC and u/s 13 (2) R/w 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act r/w 120 B IPC. Accused Praful Kumar was also ordered to be additionally charged u/s 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act along with 120 B IPC.
2.2 Needless to mention that all the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
WITNESSES FOR PROSECUTION 3.0 Prosecution was directed to adduce evidence and has examined 28 witnesses.
CC No. 34/11 CBI Vs. Ram Kumar etc. 7 of 74
3.1 Witnesses can be classified as under:-
Witnesses posted at Mataur Branch of OBC
(i) PW18 Sh. Anil Kumar, Senior Clerk.
(ii) PW20 Sh. Dinesh Kumar Tyagi, Branch Manager,
(iii) PW24 Sh. Gokaran Singh, Clerk.
(iv) PW25 Sh. Raj Kumar, Clerk-cum-Cashier.
Witness posted at Dabathuwa Branch of OBC
(i) PW23 Sh. Vijay Kumar, Peon-cum-Daftary.
Witnesses related to sale of gold to M/s Shivani Jewellers.
(i) PW3 Sh. M.L. Khanna. (ii) PW10 Sh. Suresh Khandelwal. (iii) PW15 Sh. Suraj Prakash. (iv) PW22 Sh. Ajay Kumar Sharma.
Witnesses whose signatures were forged on 140 drafts.
(i) PW2 Ms. Kusum Bagga.
(ii) PW13 Sh. Ravinder Kumar Bhalla.
(iii) PW19 Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma.
Other witnesses of Oriental Bank of Commerce.
(i) PW9 Sh. A.B. Chakrabarty.
(ii) PW21 Sh. B.R. Thukral.
Other witnesses
(i) PW4 Sh. Vikas Gupta. (He never applied for any Draft)
(ii) PW5 Sh. Pankaj Mittal. (Chartered Accountant of M/s Shivani)
CC No. 34/11 CBI Vs. Ram Kumar etc. 8 of 74
(iii) PW6 Sh. Karan Singh.
(iv) PW7 Sh. Satya Prakash Saini.
(v) PW12 Sh. Deepak Kumar Arya (To show link between Rekha
Dubey and Manjeet Anand)
(vi) PW14 Sh. Rupinder Singh.
Witnesses related to search and investigation
(i) PW1 Sh. S.A. Siddiqui
(ii) PW8 Sh. C. Chandrashekhar.
(iii) PW11 Sh. Jagdish Kumar Saini.
(iv) PW16 Sh. A.K. Bhardwaj.
(v) PW17 Sh. Amar Nath.
(vi) PW26 Sh. Komal Singh (Part Investigating Officer).
(vii) PW27 Sh. S.V. Raman (Main Investigating Officer).
Witness related to sanction
(i) PW28 Sh. Suresh Chandra Sharma, GM, OBC.
STANCE OF ACCUSED AS PER STATEMENTS U/S 313 CR.P.C. 4.0 Statements of all the accused persons were recorded u/s 313 Cr. PC and they were also given liberty to file written statements, if any, u/s 313 (5) Cr. PC.
4.1 Accused Ram Kumar did not dispute that he was posted in Mataur Branch. His stance is, however, to the effect that he was looking after the loan department and used to be out of the branch most of the times CC No. 34/11 CBI Vs. Ram Kumar etc. 9 of 74 and he was neither Hall Incharge nor the Incharge of strong room and such duty used to be performed by Manager Sh. D. K. Tyagi and his co accused Sh. Praful Kumar. He also claimed that when Sh. Praful Kumar joined the Mataur Branch, he had requested Sh. D. K. Tyagi to either transfer him or Sh. Praful Kumar due to malevolent activity of Praful Kumar. As regards falsification of records, he came up with the answer that though the initials in the register were his yet he had appended the same on the instructions of Mr. Tyagi and higher officers i. e. Mr. Thukral and Sh. Sengar who had come to the branch for inspection and while signing Mr. Tyagi had even told him that everything had been checked and was alright.
4.2 Accused Manjeet Kumar Anand has admitted in his statement u/s 313 Cr. PC that he was proprietor of M/s Shivani Jewellers, Ajmal Khan Road. He also admitted that he had purchased Ten Tola (TT) Gold Bars on various occasions from various wholesalers. He also does not dispute his account books regarding purchase of gold bars. He did admit that he had received 140 drafts in question from different customers who approached him at different times who had given him drafts for purchase of gold Bars and he, accordingly, deposited such drafts in his accounts and as and when such drafts were encashed and credited in his account, he had sold gold to such customers against Pucca bills. He also admitted that he was having accounts in Laxmi Villas Bank and SBI of Karol Bagh and he deposited such drafts in his such accounts. He pleaded innocence claiming that merely because CBI could not find out the persons who had purchased gold from him, he had been made an accused. According to him, draft was accepted norm of purchasing gold.
4.3 He also filed written statement u/s 313 (5) Cr. PC which has been exhibited as Ex.DX.
CC No. 34/11 CBI Vs. Ram Kumar etc. 10 of 74
4.4 As far as accused Uma Batla is concerned, she also claimed
that she had been falsely implicated. She admitted that draft Ex.PW2/B (D16) in the name of Sh. Suresh Kumar was got prepared by her through Vishal Enclave Branch of OBC situated at Rajouri Garden, New Delhi but according to her, she had got the same prepared on the basis of the request coming from her mother. She claimed that Suresh Kumar was driver of her mother and her mother wanted such draft for the purposes of admission of his sister in Meerut University. She also admitted that search had taken place at the house of her mother but supplemented that she had no idea as to what was kept by her mother and what was recovered by CBI from such house as such house belonged to her mother and she completely disowned the recovery effected from such house. To the most of the questions put to her u/s 313 Cr. PC, she answered that she had no knowledge as the question did not pertain to her. She claimed that over writing on one such draft might have been deliberately got done by CBI so as to link her with her mother/co- accused Rekha Dubey and in order to create some circumstantial evidence against her.
4.5 Accused Manjeet Kumar Anand examined DW1 Sh. Hansraj Kohli in his defence in order to show that gold or gold ornaments could be purchased or sold against drafts.
CONTENTIONS OF CBI 5.0 Ld. PP has contended that prosecution has been able to prove its case to the hilt.
CC No. 34/11 CBI Vs. Ram Kumar etc. 11 of 74
5.1 According to him, there is sufficient incriminating evidence on
record clearly and unquestionably suggesting the involvement and
association of all the accused.
5.2 It has been argued that accused Ram Kumar and Praful Kumar
were officers in the Mataur Branch and the security papers including draft books used to be under their control and possession. Sh. Ram Kumar was senior to Praful Kumar and therefore, he was Hall Incharge/second man and in his absence Sh. Praful Kumar used to take care of all such security papers including draft books. He has argued that they both had malafide intention and they both, unlawfully and against illegal gratification, handed over blank draft books to their co accused Rekha Dubey through one Suresh Pawar.
5.3 Ld. PP has further contended that Rekha Dubey sought assistance of her daughter Ms. Uma Batla who helped her mother and herself procured genuine drafts from Vishal Enclave Branch of OBC, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi. These drafts were never actually utilized which affirms the involvement of accused Uma. These were rather recovered later on from the house search of Rekha Dubey and one such draft was having over writing over the signatures of authorized signatory Kusum Bagga. This over-writing is actually an act of tracing and with the help of such traced signatures, the accused had tried to acquire expertise for forging signatures of Kusum Bagga and accordingly 140 demand drafts were misused.
5.4 Ld. PP fairly admits that prosecution was not in a position to decipher pin-pointedly as to who had actually forged such signatures but the evidence brought on record clearly shows involvement of all the accused persons.
CC No. 34/11 CBI Vs. Ram Kumar etc. 12 of 74
5.5 It has also been argued that accused Manjeet Kumar Anand
was also made part of the conspiracy. Rekha Dubey used to meet him frequently and in terms of conspiracy, he attempted to show that he had received these drafts in normal course of business from some customers whereas the investigation established that there was no such customer. It has been thus argued that the prosecution has been able to prove its case against all the accused persons.
5.6 Needless to say that all the aforesaid contentions have been refuted by respective defence counsels and I would be dealing with the same while considering the role of each individual.
ROLE AND INVOLVEMENT OF ACCUSED RAM KUMAR 6.0 Sh. Ikrant Sharma, learned defence counsel has defended accused Ram Kumar.
6.1 He admits that accused was posted in Mataur branch. However, there is vehement contention to the effect that accused Ram Kumar was handling the loan department exclusively and therefore, used to be out of the branch throughout the day and Manager D. K. Tyagi and accused Praful Kumar were the actual custodian of the draft books. It has also been argued that even D. K. Tyagi admitted that Praful Kumar was involved in nefarious activities and Ram Kumar had even requested him to transfer Ram Kumar himself or Sh. Praful Kumar. He has also argued that Ram Kumar had signed on the draft book issuance register at the instructions of Sh. Tyagi and the inspecting officers and never falsified any record. He has also contended that there was no angle of conspiracy and accused Ram Kumar CC No. 34/11 CBI Vs. Ram Kumar etc. 13 of 74 never knew any of his other alleged co accused and never ever met them i. e. Manjeet Kumar Anand, Uma Batla and Rekha Dubey. It has also been argued that there was never any question of obtaining any illegal gratification and even when his premises was searched, the investigating agency failed to find out any material suggesting his involvement or any money which was unaccounted.
6.2 Let me now straightaway come to the testimony of Sh. Dinesh Kumar Tyagi.
6.3 PW20 Dinesh Kumar Tyagi was branch incumbent/branch manager of Mataur Branch during the relevant period. He has deposed that Sh. Ram Kumar and Praful Kumar were officers of said branch and Ram Kumar was senior to Praful Kumar. In his deposition, he claimed that Ram Kumar was looking after the loan department, security papers including draft books, transfer payment orders, cumulative deposit receipts during the whole tenure and Praful Kumar used to deal with savings current account, first signatory of draft, CDR etc. He also claimed that draft books used to be received from stationery godown of Faridabad and used to be entered in the relevant registers i. e. OF 266 and OF 264.
6.4 Relevant draft books in question are bearing serial numbers 086851 to 086900 and 260401 to 260500. These had been supplied to OBC Mataur Branch and were also received by the Mataur Branch. Fortunately, accused Ram Kumar does not dispute such fact at all. Register (D4) has been proved by the prosecution in this regard.
6.5 As regards supply of demand draft books from serial no.260001 to 260500, entry is at page no.13 which shows that such draft books were CC No. 34/11 CBI Vs. Ram Kumar etc. 14 of 74 supplied to Mataur Branch on 28.5.99. Such entry has been proved as Mark Y-1.
6.6 Regarding the other set of draft books, the entry is contained in page no. 161 of same register D4 and has been proved as Mark Y-2.
6.7 Three things need to be highlighted here straight off regarding Mark Y-2.
6.8 Said Register D-4 must have been maintained by stationery branch of Faridabad which used to supply draft books to the various branches all over India. No one from stationery branch has been examined and these entries have been got proved through PW2 Ms. Kusum Bagga who had no concern with respect to the entries appearing in such record. She is neither from said office nor maker of the entries.
6.9 Secondly, as per D5 and D6 which are draft book issuance registers, all these draft books were containing 25 leaves each but if D4 register is to be believed, whereby the draft books from serial no. 086851 to 086900 had been issued, these books were of 50 leaves each. Reference be made to mentioning of such fact at the top of page 161.
6.10 Thirdly and most importantly, the dates of issuance of such draft books from serial no. 086851 to 086900 are reflected as 6.8.99 and 7.8.99 and were not meant for Mataur Branch at all, if I have been able to read the corresponding columns correctly. It is impossible as these draft-books had been received by the Mataur Branch in 1998 itself. The prosecution has miserably failed to explain such anomaly. May be the prosecution is relying upon some wrong entry and relevant register of 1998 was never produced CC No. 34/11 CBI Vs. Ram Kumar etc. 15 of 74 before the court.
6.11 Fact, however, remains that such fact of receipt of all such blank draft- books from Faridabad is not at all disputed by accused Ram Kumar and therefore, I need not embark on any further discussion on this score but prosecution should have taken the requisite care and caution for proving such material fact in the desired manner.
6.12 Proceeding further, PW20 Dinesh Kumar Tyagi has deposed that on 12.6.99, Sh. Raj Kumar, clerk in his branch came to him and informed that the draft book, which was already in operation, had finished and requested for issuance of fresh draft book. At that time, Sh. Ram Kumar was not present in the branch and Sh. Praful Kumar was busy with customers and he( Mr. Tyagi) obtained keys from Praful Kumar and handed over next draft book to Raj Kumar after taking out the same from the strong room. He issued draft book having serial no. from 086901 to 086925 but when he checked up the record and saw register no. OF266, it was revealed that the draft books from serial no. 086851 to 086900 were not available in the bank. He had, therefore, issued next demand draft book starting from serial no.086901 and made entry in the register and signed the same.
6.13 I have seen page no. 49 of Register Ex.P2 (D6). Serial no. 35, 36 and 37 are important for our purpose. Serial no.35 is with respect to draft book from serial no.086851 to 086875 and serial no.36 is for 086876 to 086900 and these two draft books, according to Sh. D. K. Tyagi were not available in the branch and therefore, he had issued the next DD book as per serial no. 37. Date of issuance is shown as 12.6.99 against serial no.37 which also bears signatures of D. K. Tyagi at point B. CC No. 34/11 CBI Vs. Ram Kumar etc. 16 of 74 6.14 It is very important to mention here that even as per Sh. D. K. Tyagi that day i. e. on 12.6.99 Sh. Ram Kumar was not in the branch and he had collected the draft books from the strong room after obtaining the keys from Sh. Praful Kumar. He further deposed that when Ram Kumar returned from his field duty in the evening same day, he inquired about non availability of said demand draft books to which Ram Kumar replied that the aforesaid two draft books had been issued to Khatoli branch of OBC against one letter which could be placed on record after the same was located. Sh. Tyagi believed him as according to him, Sh. Ram Kumar was a sincere officer. However, Ram Kumar did not inform Sh. Tyagi regarding aforesaid two draft books at any subsequent point of time.
6.15 Thus it becomes very much apparent that Mr. D. K. Tyagi, who was the branch head, came to know that the two draft books were missing at least on 12.6.99. Surprisingly despite that he did not take any action whatsoever against anyone. It is not explained by the prosecution as to why despite being the head of the branch he did not sense the urgency of the situation and why he did not haul up his subordinates for missing of draft books. This was not a small matter from any angle. He rather took the matter very very casually and carelessly and did not contemplate any action whatsoever against anyone.
6.16 Sh. Tyagi, yet again, is to be blamed. A bare perusal of the aforesaid register Ex.P2 (D6) would reveal that the branch officials were not in the habit of maintaining the register in the desired manner. There is requirement of signing it by the authorized issuing officer. Name of the recipient officer and signatures of such recipient are also required to be obtained at the time of receipt. Page no. 49 has the first entry of date of issuance as 17.4.99. Second entry is of 22.4.99. Third entry is of 28.4.99 CC No. 34/11 CBI Vs. Ram Kumar etc. 17 of 74 and so on but fact remains that neither the authorized officer (issuing officer) bothered to sign against such entry nor the recipient ever troubled to sign in token of receiving such draft books. Thus the branch Incharge was least bothered about the maintenance of register.
6.17 Moreover, on one know who made such entries at page 49 of register Ex P2. CBI did not find any necessity of obtaining any forensic opinion qua entries available on such page. To me, somehow, it looks that entries regarding dates of issuance of draft-books appearing on said page no. 49 are in the hand of Mr. Tyagi which would not amuse CBI at all.
6.18 I also don't find any reason as to why such branch was maintaining two separate registers for issuance of draft-books. There are entries regarding issuance of draft books in both registers. No one has bothered to throw any light on this score either.
6.19 On 12.6.99, at least, Mr. Tyagi must have come to know that the registers were not maintained properly and that two draft books were missing. Despite that he did not take any step. Moreover, it was not the case that he had joined the branch in June 99. As per his own admission, he remained posted in the branch as branch incumbent from September 98 till January 2000. I have seen various previous entries of the preceding period and it is noticed that the dates are not mentioned in various previous entries as well. At page 43, name of the official, to whom the draft book had been issued, has been mentioned as Ram Kumar. Signatures of recipient are also there at some places but the authorized official who had actually issued these draft books was none other than D. K. Tyagi. At page 43, I have come across signatures of D. K. Tyagi and he had signed in capacity of issuing officer. At page 44, there are no signatures either of issuing officer or of the CC No. 34/11 CBI Vs. Ram Kumar etc. 18 of 74 recipient barring one small initial. At page 45, again, there is one initial which the prosecution has not bothered to explain belong to whom. Similarly, at page 46 and 47, there are initials but the prosecution has not attempted to clarify as to who had signed and in what capacity. These are definitely not of Ram Kumar. At page 48 again, there are no signatures of the person who had actually issued the draft books though signatures of Ram Kumar are found to be there as if he had received the draft books. It is essential to mention here that his signatures seem to be made in token of receiving the draft books and not in token of issuing the draft books. Confusion has cropped up as the register was not maintained properly and it might be possible that even the issuing official had been signing in the different column and the signatures of the recipient had never been obtained in the register.
6.20 I would also like to comment that even before 12.6.99, there was some sort of inspection in the branch. Sh. Tyagi has deposed that on 9.6.99 the officials of the headquarters of the bank had visited the branch and checked the security papers by physical verification and Sh. N. C. Jain the then Dy. Chief Manager had put his signatures in token of having verified the entries. I have seen page 49 again and such signatures of Sh. N. C. Jain are at point C. This means that as per inspection done by Sh. N. C. Jain on 9.6.99, security papers were physically checked and verified and were found to be in order. This is not in consonance with the case of prosecution. Sh. N. C. Jain has, however, not been cited as witness at all and, therefore, it will not be possible for this court to comment as to what sort of inspection was carried out by him. Fact remains that some of the drafts had already been misused in the month of May 99 whereas these were supposedly in the branch on 09.06.99 when the inspection has been carried out. This again is creating bewilderment.
CC No. 34/11 CBI Vs. Ram Kumar etc. 19 of 74
6.21 Let me now come to another draft issuance register. It is D5
and has been proved as Ex.P1. This, in fact, is cheque book issuance register which was being used for maintaining record regarding issuance of draft books. Again Mr. Tyagi should not have permitted anyone to use such register for making entries of issuance of draft books. And as already noticed above- Why two separate registers?
6.22 Relevant entries are at pages 50-51 (PW18/A). It contains entries with respect to issuance of draft books from 260001 to 260500. Last 4 entries are very vital for our purpose and as per these entries, draft book from serial no. 260401 to 260425 was issued by accused Ram Kumar on 17.9.99. Next draft book from serial no. 260426 to 260450 was issued on 26.9.99. Next draft book of serial no. 260451 to 260475 issued on 1.10.99 and the next draft book of serial no. 260476 to 260500 was issued on 10.10.99. This, according to CBI, is falsification of record.
6.23 According to Sh. Ikrant Sharma, accused Ram Kumar was posted in Mataur Branch but he was looking after Loan Department only. He was not involved either with the process of receiving the security forms or of issuance of the same which used to be done by the Branch Manager Sh. D.K. Tyagi and Sh. Praful Kumar. I have already made reference to the testimony of Sh. D.K. Tyagi. He was the branch incumbent and he has categorically claimed that Sh. Ram Kumar was senior to Praful Kumar. He was working as officer and was looking after the Loan Department as well as security papers including drafts books during his whole tenure. Undoubtedly, Dinesh Kumar Tyagi also admitted in his cross-examination that Ram Kumar used to go to field job in connection with loan and in his absence, Praful Kumar used to look after his work and there was only a verbal direction in this regard.
CC No. 34/11 CBI Vs. Ram Kumar etc. 20 of 74
6.24 It is apparent that after Sh. Dinesh Kumar Tyagi, Sh. Ram
Kumar was the senior-most officer in the Mataur Branch and he cannot run away from such apparent and basic fact. Naturally, therefore, he was the second man. As a second-man, it was his duty to take charge of security forms. He has baldly tried to assert that he was never concerned with the security forms and his job was only to look after the Loan Department. However, this does not seem to be believable and digestible at all. Surprisingly, when D.K. Tyagi was cross-examined on 24.05.2012, a suggestion was put to him to which he answered as hereunder:
"It is wrong to suggest that whatever used to be done by Praful Kumar in absence of Ram Kumar used to be later on signed by Ram Kumar in routine".
6.25 This rather shows that Ram Kumar was least concerned or bothered about his job. This also depicts that he used to casually sign even if the entries had been made by Praful Kumar in his absence. But, naturally, if he is signing, then, he must have been under obligation to do so. Else there was no requirement of his signing such registers meant for security forms. I can imagine that whenever Ram Kumar used to be on field job or on leave, Praful Kumar might have been authorized to deal with the security papers but that does not mean that Ram Kumar was never involved with the upkeep of security forms.
6.26 According to accused Ram Kumar, when Praful Kumar joined the branch, keeping in mind his wicked activities, he made request to Sh. D.K. Tyagi to either transfer him or to transfer Praful Kumar as he was not in a position to look into the security papers. This stand was taken by accused Ram Kumar even in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. It automatically means that CC No. 34/11 CBI Vs. Ram Kumar etc. 21 of 74 when Praful Kumar joined the branch, Ram Kumar was looking after the security papers. If Ram Kumar was involved with loan duty only then there was, obviously, no necessity of his making any request for his transfer. This rather strengthens the case of CBI and confirms that Ram Kumar was looking after security forms and belies his stand.
6.27 Let me again come to the draft issuance registers.
6.28 D-5 has been proved as Ex. P-1 and the relevant entries are at page 50 & 51. Such page has been proved as Ex. PW18/A. It contains signatures of Ram Kumar and when this fact was put to accused Ram Kumar in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C., in response to Q. No. 8, he admitted that the entries contained in such registers related to the issuance as well as dispatch and entries were bearing his initials. He, however, supplemented that he had put his initials on the instructions of his manager and higher officers i.e. Mr. B.R. Thukral and Mr. Sengar who had come to the branch for inspection. He claimed that during the course of inspection, inspecting officers were also told about the activities of Praful Kumar and despite that after inspection, Mr. Thukral and Mr. Sengar, in the presence of Mr. D.K. Tyagi ordered him to sign on the registers claiming that they had checked everything and that everything was alright. Thus, he does not dispute his initials on the registers. He, however, disowns contents by claiming that he had signed as per the instructions of his seniors.
6.29 Sh. Ram Kumar was not a petty clerk. He was a senior officer in the bank and he should not have signed at the asking of anyone. If it was not part of his duty to maintain the draft book registers or if the drafts and security papers were not under his charge, he should have point-blank refused to have signed anywhere on such registers. On the contrary, he signed without CC No. 34/11 CBI Vs. Ram Kumar etc. 22 of 74 any murmur. He did not attempt to even protest as to why he was being asked to sign the registers. Four drafts books falling between serial no. 260401 to 260500 were issued on 17.09.99, 26.09.99, 07.10.99 & 10.10.99. These are incorrect entries as most of these drafts had already been used much before 17.09.99. I am not inclined to hold that he had signed merely at the asking of senior bank officers. He had signed because it was his duty to maintain the record. However, falsification of record is regarding the dates of issuance at page 50-51 of Ex P1 (D-5). Draft numbers were mentioned on such page as well. These were marked as Q 434 and a specific opinion was sought whether these were in the hand of Ram Kumar. Expert, however, could not give any opinion regarding such a crucial fact much to the disliking of CBI. But, loss stands made up as accused Ram Kumar does not dispute his initials. Meaning thereby, he is owning up these entries.
6.30 Qua other register Ex. P-2 (D-6), drafts from serial no. 086826 to 086850 was issued on 09.06.99 and thereafter there is no entry with respect to the succeeding two draft books from serial no. 086851 to 086875 and 086876 to 086900. Again there are signatures of Sh. Ram Kumar at point A (Q435) on page no. 49 (Ex. PW18/B) and according to Ram Kumar, again, he was made to sign as he was instructed in this regard by Manager Sh. D.K. Tyagi. He admitted that entries were made by him at page no. 49 in the third column but the date of issuance of draft books were not in his handwriting and were rather in the handwriting of D.K. Tyagi. As already observed, no forensic opinion was sought as to who had made entries regarding date of issuance and though bare eyes suggest these to be in hand of Mr. Tyagi yet Ram Kumar cannot run away from the fact that being second man, all such security papers were under his prime control and it was his duty to issue the draft book as per the requirement of the bank. He was under obligation to CC No. 34/11 CBI Vs. Ram Kumar etc. 23 of 74 maintain the register and to sign it regularly and punctually. He should have himself brought it to the notice of his seniors that draft books were missing instead of merely signing the registers without caring to verify physically. He showed complete laxity in maintaining the register and rather put dates regarding issuance of four draft books in register D-5 at page 51 whereas most of the leaves of these four draft books had already been mis-utilized. Sh. D.K. Tyagi, when cross-examined by accused Manjeet Kumar and Praful Kumar, admitted that Ram Kumar was second man of the branch and security papers used to be kept in almirah and strong room and one key used to be with Ram Kumar.
6.31 PW21 Sh. B.R. Thukral was posted as Assistant Regional Manager during the relevant period and he used to visit branches periodically as per advice of Regional Manager. He also visited Mataur Branch in the year 1999. He has deposed that during inspection, he was shown security register Ex. P-2 which was kept and maintained in the normal course of official business in Mataur Branch of OBC and it was pointed out to him that no date of issue had been mentioned and that no official had appended signatures regarding issuance of draft books at serial no. 35 & 36 and accordingly, he called the concerned man on duty and got the register signed at point A and then he submitted his visit report. Prosecution failed to prove such inspection report. During inspection, Sh. Thukral was assisted by one Mr. Sengar who has not even been cited as witness. Fact, however, remains that it was Ram Kumar who had signed at point A. 6.32 Sh. Ikrant Sharma has contended that there is no question of falsification of record as accused Ram Kumar was made to only sign at the behest of his Branch Manager and inspecting officers. In view of my forgoing discussion, it will be too hard to exonerate Ram Kumar though Mr. Tyagi CC No. 34/11 CBI Vs. Ram Kumar etc. 24 of 74 should have also shared the blame equally with him and Praful Kumar. His initials ipso facto say a lot. In register Ex P-2(D-6), there is no entry regarding drafts in question and, therfore, there is no falsification. In the other register, no forensic report is forthcoming against Ram Kumar but I cannot be oblivious to the fact that his initials are there. He might be a gullible fellow who used to sign believing others. He had to lose his job because of his such bad quality. It is quite possible that other officials took advantage of his such trait and therfore, he found himself in such a big mess but then, he himself is liable as well.
6.33 Sh. Ikrant Sharma has also contended that testimony of several other witnesses clearly indicate that activities of Sh. Praful Kumar were other than bonafide and since he was also having access to the security papers, there is every possibility that Praful Kumar might have removed all such six draft books with some ulterior motive. In this regard my attention has again been drawn towards the cross-examination of Sh. D.K. Tyagi, wherein Sh. D.K. Tyagi has admitted that it might be possible that Praful Kumar was responsible for the loss of draft book as he was a notorious person. I have also seen testimony of PW23 Vijay Kumar and PW24 Sh. Gokaran Singh. Undoubtedly, they both have raised accusing finger towards accused Praful Kumar and their testimony do indicate that Praful Kumar wanted to get some draft books in an illegal manner. I, however, feel that accused Ram Kumar cannot dig out any advantage from their testimony. Their testimony rather reinforces the view that security papers were under the control of Ram Kumar as well. If version of Ram Kumar is to be believed then all the draft books were under the exclusive control of Praful Kumar. Naturally, in such a situation, Praful Kumar would not have asked anyone to get the same for him in lieu of money as he himself was in-charge and custodian of security papers. He could have, all by himself, removed draft books. Undeniably, CC No. 34/11 CBI Vs. Ram Kumar etc. 25 of 74 testimony of said two witnesses indicates the malafide intention on the part of Praful Kumar but I need not deal with such aspect in detail because as of now accused Praful Kumar is absconding. All I can say is that their testimony rather indicates that Praful Kumar was also having control over the draft books in absence of second man. Certainly, Praful Kumar had nexus with other co-accused Rekha Dubey as per CBI's own version. He might have exploited the characteristic of Ram Kumar being credulous and in the absence of Ram Kumar, he might have removed these draft books. I cannot be oblivious of the fact that there is direct allegation against accused Praful Kumar regarding taking illegal gratification and such ill-gotten money being reflected in his bank accounts.
6.34 Sh. Sharma has also claimed that activities of Praful Kumar were nefarious and, therefore, Ram Kumar had made request for re- assignment of duties. Sh. D.K. Tyagi has admitted in his cross-examination that Ram Kumar did ask him to change his duty and to relieve him from the charge of security but he claimed that such request had come because Ram Kumar had claimed that he was overburdened with the work. Sh. D.K. Tyagi also admitted that as per office order, he had changed the duty and duty of security papers was assigned to Praful Kumar but Sh. Praful Kumar denied such duty claiming that it was the job of second man only. This again shows that Mr. Tyagi had no control over his subordinates at all.
6.35 It is not in dispute that departmental proceedings were initiated against Sh. Ram Kumar, Praful Kumar as well as against Sh. D.K. Tyagi. It will be worthwhile to mention here that such departmental proceedings are not part of the proved judicial record. These were directed to be shown to the court after conclusion of final arguments.
CC No. 34/11 CBI Vs. Ram Kumar etc. 26 of 74
6.36 As far as Sh. D.K. Tyagi is concerned, departmental
proceedings were initiated against him as despite his being Branch Incumbent, he failed to ensure that the draft books received in the branch were properly recorded in the security register and were placed in the safe custody and also because despite knowing the fact that two draft books had gone missing, he failed to take steps to safeguard the security papers and did not report the matter to the higher authorities and failed to take any action to prevent misuse of missing draft books. Sh. D.K. Tyagi was held guilty in departmental proceedings and was imposed minor penalty of reduction of one stage low in the time scale of pay for a period of one year and his basic pay was accordingly reduced.
6.37 Sh. Ram Kumar failed to exercise effective control over the bank's security papers i.e. draft books and was held accountable for removal of blank draft books from the bank and was removed from the service. He was held custodian of security forms. Inquiring Authority also concluded that preponderance of probabilities pointed to distinct possibility that he was aware about removal of draft books and its fraudulent misuse either through himself or in connivance with some other. I am cognizant of the fact that there is no element of inference and possibility in a criminal trial. Standard of proof is much higher here.
6.38 I would also like to mention that as far as accused Praful Kumar is concerned, departmental proceedings were lying stayed. During the course of the proceedings, learned counsel for Oriental Bank of Commerce appeared and apprised the Court that appropriate steps were being taken for revival of such departmental proceedings against accused Praful Kumar who had already absconded.
CC No. 34/11 CBI Vs. Ram Kumar etc. 27 of 74
6.39 Be that as it may, it becomes very much apparent that Sh. Ram
Kumar was the second-man in the branch. It was his duty to keep security forms/papers including draft books under proper care and control. He was supposed to maintain the registers in this regard. He was supposed to make entry on regular basis. He did not take up his job in the right earnest. He also did not put branch stamp on such blank draft books which also could have prevented its potential misuse. Thus he was utterly negligent.
6.40 Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 reads as under:
13. Criminal misconduct by a public servant (1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct,-
(a)..
(b) ..
(c) ..
(d) if he,-
(i) by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or
(ii) by abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or
(iii) while holding office as a public servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest;
6.41 Its not a case where there is any evidence suggesting any corrupt or illegal means adopted by Ram Kumar. There is nothing to indicate that he had obtained any pecuniary advantage by abusing his office. Search of his premises did not lead to recovery of any incriminating material. He was not found in possession of any unexplained money either. He was holding public office. And, he was undeniably irresponsible and neglectful. Now, it remains to be seen whether by his such imprudence and incautiousness, did he obtain pecuniary advantage for any other person. In other words, was it CC No. 34/11 CBI Vs. Ram Kumar etc. 28 of 74 probable for him to foresee the things which have happened? Could he have prevented the potential misuse had he been careful? According to Sh. Sharma, to hold him a co-conspirator and to hold him responsible for removal of draft-books would be too fanciful in view of the testimony on record.
6.42 I, however, do not agree. He displayed obstinate indifference to the consequences of his acts and omissions. Misconduct can be by specific act as well as by omission. Present is a classic case of omission. He had showed scant or should I say no respect to the most responsible job. He was least concerned about making entries. He was second-man. He signed the registers without raising any eyebrow. It cannot be heard that he had signed under compulsion or ignorance. He too knew that draft-books were missing. He did not raise any hue and cry.There was some sort of astonishing apathy on the part of Mr. Tyagi which aggravated the entire scenario. Had he been vigilant, things would have been different? His co-accused Praful Kumar took advantage and without coming in forefront on papers, might have also connived with others and obtained pecuniary advantage and might have been instrumental in removal of draft books. But Ram Kumar cannot be permitted to take shelter behind the alleged acts done by Praful Kumar. He himself is accountable and answerable as well.
6.43 Adjudication, on some occasions, requires commonsensical inferences. Absolute certainty is rarely achieved. In every criminal trial, some probability factor always comes into play. In the case in hand, inference is inescapable and irresistible. Testimony on record proves him to be the custodian of security forms. His initials are there against relevant entries. These entries were apparently incorrect. He did not intimate anyone about loss of draft-books either. Mens rea has no place when it comes to sec 13(1)
(d) (iii) PC Act. In the case of RUNU GHOSH VS. CBI CRL.APPEAL.
CC No. 34/11 CBI Vs. Ram Kumar etc. 29 of 74 482/2002 DECIDED ON: 21.12.2011 by HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT, it has been observed that when a public servant's decision exhibits complete and manifest disregard to public interest with the corresponding result of a third party obtaining pecuniary advantage or valuable thing, he is fastened with responsibility for "criminal misconduct" under Section 13 (1) (d) (iii). It was also held that there was nothing reprehensible in such interpretation, because the "act" being "without public interest" was the key, the controlling expression, to such offence and offence- under Section 13 (1) (d) (iii) did not require proof of intent, or mens rea. It was also observed, in Para 79, as under:-
"What then is the behaviour or act which attracts such opprobrium as to result in criminal responsibility? It is not every act which results in loss of public interest, or that is contrary to public interest, that is a prosecutable offence. There can be no doubt that all acts prejudicial to public interest, can be the subject matter of judicial review. In those cases, courts consider whether the decision maker transgressed the zone of reasonableness, or breached the law, in his action. However, it is only those acts done with complete and manifest disregard to the norms, and manifestly injurious to public interest, which were avoidable, but for the public servant's overlooking or disregarding precautions and not heeding the safeguards he or she was expected to, and which result in pecuniary advantage to another that are prosecutable under Section 13(1) (d) (iii). In other words, if the public servant is able to show that he followed all the safeguards, and exercised all reasonable precautions having regard to the circumstances, despite which there was loss of public interest, he would not be guilty of the offence. The provision aims at ensuring efficiency, and responsible behaviour, as much as it seeks to outlaw irresponsibility in public servant's functioning which would otherwise go unpunished. The blameworthiness for a completely indefensible act of a public servant, is to be of such degree that it is something that no reasonable man would have done, if he were placed in that position, having regard to all the circumstances. It is not merely a case of making a wrong choice; the decision should be one such as no one would have taken."
6.44 Here, Ram Kumar did not follow any safeguard at all. All the rules and norms were sent packing. He could have averted the CC No. 34/11 CBI Vs. Ram Kumar etc. 30 of 74 mammoth loss had he taken up his job industriously, solemnly and fervently. Thus he is found to be guilty of criminal misconduct u/s 13(1)
(d)(iii) PC Act simplicitor. There is nothing to show that he was having any prior concert with his co-accused Uma Batla or Manjeet Anand. In fact, he never met them or Rekha Dubey at any point of time during the relevant period. There is no evidence to such effect either. Things about absconding accused Praful Kumar are different as he had allegedly met Rekha Dubey and there was unaccounted money in his bank account and bank account of his wife. Thus, the element of conspiracy, so far as it relates to Ram Kumar, is missing. Since, accused Ram Kumar has been found grossly negligent and element of mens rea is found lacking, he cannot be held guilty for falsification of record, misappropriation and cheating.
6.45 Resultantly, accused Ram Kumar is held guilty u/s 13(2) read with sec 13(1)(d)(iii) PC Act only and is convicted thereunder.
ROLE AND INVOLVEMENT OF ACCUSED UMA BATLA 7.0 Sh. Rajan Bajaj has defended accused Uma Batla and his prime contentions can be enumerated as under:-
a) There is no direct or indirect allegation or evidence suggesting her involvement or association in the present matter as a co-conspirator.
b) She cannot be labelled as co-conspirator merely due to the fact that she happens to be the daughter of A4 Rekha Dubey who has absconded and who, according to the investigating agency, is the prime accused in the present case.
c) There is no material depicting her to be a direct or indirect beneficiary.
CC No. 34/11 CBI Vs. Ram Kumar etc. 31 of 74
d) She has neither caused any wrongful loss to the bank in any manner by her act or conduct nor has she obtained any wrongful gain in any manner whatsoever.
e) Conviction cannot be handed out to her merely on the basis of assumption or inference and prosecution has failed miserably to place on record reliable and trustworthy evidence of impeccable nature.
f) Merely because Uma Batla had got prepared one demand draft in the name of one Sh. Suresh Kumar at the request of her mother and merely because such demand draft was subsequently recovered by the CBI in some search conducted at the house of Sh. Rakesh Kumar Dubey, step father of accused Uma Batla, accused Uma Batla cannot be labelled as co-accused or co-conspirator. Moreover, even such aspect of search has not proved in the desired manner.
7.1 Ld. PP has, on the other hand, refuted all the aforesaid defence contentions. He has asserted that accused Uma Batla has not been made accused because of her mother being a key accused in the instant case. According to Ld. PP, she is the biggest facilitator as she had obtained few genuine bank drafts from Oriental Bank of Commerce. These genuine bank drafts were obtained by accused Uma Batla for ulterior purpose i.e. for copying and tracing the signatures of authorized bank officials. Once the expertise was achieved with respect to forging the signatures, signatures of such authorized officials were put on 140 draft leaves and then those were misused. He has also argued that Uma Batla was all along living with her mother Rekha Dubey and when their house situated in Vikas Puri was searched, two paper slips were recovered which were containing some numericals and after comprehensive investigation, these numericals were decoded and it was found that these numericals were representing draft number, amount withdrawn under such drafts as well as the date.
CC No. 34/11 CBI Vs. Ram Kumar etc. 32 of 74
7.2 Admittedly, initially, the investigating agency did not have any
sort of suspicion over Ms. Uma Batla. After the case was registered, search warrants were obtained. I have seen the application moved by prosecution seeing issuance of search warrants. Such application is dated 9.3.2000 and is at page 107 of part C-II of judicial file. By virtue of said application, request was made to permit search of the premises of Ram Kumar, Charan Singh, Manjeet Kumar Anand, Rekha Dubey, Praful Kumar and Sh. D. K. Tyagi.
7.3 Smt. Rekha Dubey was shown resident of J 34 A, Vikas Puri, New Delhi and the search was carried out there on 14.3.2000 by PW 27 IO Inspector Sh. S. V. Raman in the presence of two independent witnesses PW1 Sh. S. A. Siddiqui and PW8 Sh. C. Chander Shekhar. Search list in relation to such search has been proved as Ex.PW1/1. PW8 Sh. C. Chander Shekhar has deposed that the raiding party proceeded to the house of Rekha Dubey at 6AM on 14.3.2000 but they could not enter the premises till 1PM as the house was found locked. Thereafter, Rekha Dubey, Uma, her son and her daughter-in-law arrived between 1.00PM and 2.00PM and immediately on their arrival the search proceedings were started and several articles were recovered from their bed room and some items from the hand bag of Rekha Dubey and panchnama was prepared. He also identified his signatures on such panchnama i. e. search list Ex. PW1/1. Similarly, Sh. S. A. Siddiqui PW1 has also identified his signatures on search list. However, he has not whispered even a word about recovery of any paper slip. He has also failed to identify the accused. He even does not know whether such premises was at ground floor or first or second.
7.4 IO PW27 Sh. S. V. Raman has also deposed that search was conducted on 14.3.2000 and during search of the house of Rekha Dubey, two slips were recovered.
CC No. 34/11 CBI Vs. Ram Kumar etc. 33 of 74
7.5 These slips are Ex.PW8/A and Ex.PW8/B and these are part of
D9. These contain code numbers.
7.6 I have seen search list Ex.PW1/1 and as per such search list
also, two slips of envelope/cover bearing following numericals were recovered.
19-55-572 19-53-591 16-50-576 19-54-596 7.7 One exercise note book (D8) Ex.PW27/Z-10 containing some account was also, inter alia, seized in such search.
7.8 According to PW27 IO Sh. S. V. Raman, during the course of investigation of one other case i. e. RC 2/98, SIU-10, he had searched the same residence of Rekha Dubey and during that search also, he had recovered certain papers which included some unutilized drafts and a paper containing some figures. Such paper is contained in D10 and has been marked as Mark AX. According to Ld. PP, this paper also contained numericals in a coded form and it was also decoded and was showing a direct bearing with the drafts, dates and the amount.
7.9 Curiously, search list of said other case RC 2/98 SIU-10 was never proved by the prosecution. It was not even placed on record. In order to have complete precision with respect to the said aspect, I asked my CC No. 34/11 CBI Vs. Ram Kumar etc. 34 of 74 prosecutor to apprise the court about the status of such other case. Ld. PP produced the case diary of said case for perusal of the court. It is case diary of case FIR RC.SIA.1998E0002, which was against Sh. Rakesh Verma, Ravi Chopra and some unknown persons.
7.10 In that case on 27.7.99 a search was conducted at the residence of Sh. Rakesh Kumar Dubey situated at J34A , Vikas Puri, New Delhi in which several articles including said piece of paper (Mark AX) and following unutilized drafts were recovered:-
Sol. Draft No. Dated Amount In favour of No. 1 144732 28.4.99 Rs.5000 Suresh Kumar 2 281323 14.7.99 Rs.1000 Lucknow Flying Club 3 281303 10.7.99 Rs.500 Bombay Flying Club 4 281295 9.7.99 Rs.15,000 Meerut University 7.11 It would not be out of place to mention here that Rakesh Kumar
Dubey is the step father of Uma Batla as he happens to be the second husband of Rekha Dubey. Interestingly, said case is still under investigation and lying dormant.
7.12 Be that as it may, the search list dated 27.7.99 has not been proved by the prosecution. So much so, the independent witnesses who were part of the search team of such search dated. 27.7.99 have not been cited witnesses in the present case. This seems to be a serious lapse on the part of the investigating agency. Prosecution is trying to build up its case against Uma Batla on the basis of unutilized drafts recovered in the search conducted on 27.7.99 in RC SIA1998 E0002 and trying to nail her down primarily on the basis of such unutilized drafts and therefore, investigation agency should CC No. 34/11 CBI Vs. Ram Kumar etc. 35 of 74 have ensured that such vital fact was also duly proved through the concerned independent witnesses.
7.13 Such drafts are, however, made part of record of this case.
7.14 Prosecution is heavily relying on one draft of Rs.5,000/- prepared in the name of Suresh Kumar. It is D16 and has been proved as Ex.PW2/B. It is dated 28.4.1999 and it was prepared on the basis of requisition slip filled by none other than accused Uma Batla. Such requisition slip has been proved as Mark Ex.PW2/DA (D11). There is no dispute even by accused Uma Batla that she had applied for such draft in the name of Suresh Kumar. According to her, Suresh Kumar was driver under her mother Rekha Dubey who wanted a draft for admission of sister of Suresh Kumar in Meerut University. Such draft has over-writing over the signatures of authorized signatory Ms. Kusum Bagga. According to prosecution, this over writing was made for the purposes of tracing signatures of Kusum Bagga. I have carefully perused the aforesaid draft Ex.PW2/B and it needs no discerning eyes to note that there is over-lapping writing as if someone has tried to copy the signatures for tracing purposes. Such draft could not have been encashed by anyone because of such over lapping signatures and Ld. PP claims that this itself indicts accused Uma Batla.
7.15 Undoubtedly, there is some over lapping on the signatures of Ms. Kusum Bagga, the authorized signatory and nobody knows as to who is responsible for such over-writing. Forensic opinion was also sought. Such forensic opinion did not prove to be of any use to the prosecution as in report Ex. PW27/Z-2, the forensic experts categorically observed that there were marks of over-writing at portion Q432 on D16 but it was not possible to fix the CC No. 34/11 CBI Vs. Ram Kumar etc. 36 of 74 authorship of the original or the subsequent signatures therein. I don't find any absurdity about such opinion. It is naturally impossible for anyone to give any categoric and specific opinion nailing down the author of such over- writing.
7.16 Ld. PP states that since the draft had been procured by accused Uma Batla, it has to be automatically and necessarily inferred that she had obtained the same for the purpose of tracing the signatures of such authorized signatory Ms. Kusum Bagga. This argument needs to be gone into comprehensively.
7.17 I have seen all the 140 drafts and the signatures appearing on all such 140 drafts are not identical with the signatures appearing on draft Ex.PW2/B (D16). Undoubtedly, there is some over-writing over the signatures of Kusum Bagga but if prosecution wants me to believe that such over-writing is for the purpose of tracing then the signatures on all the 140 drafts should have been virtually replica of the signatures appearing on draft D16. But on careful perusal of all 140 drafts, I find that these cannot be said to be the replica or traced signatures as per the signatures appearing on draft D16. But, recovery of unutilized drafts is likely to raise eyebrow of any reasonable man. Copy of signatures should not necessarily be ditto. Once, anyone has access to such signatures, then there are various ways to copy the same. After tracing once, expertise can be obtained with continuous practice so as to show that signatures were done with a natural flow to eliminate possibility of any detection.
7.18 According to Sh. Rajan, prosecution has not bothered to explain as to why anyone would copy the signatures of one authorized signatory only. He contends that there were two more authorized signatories and there is no CC No. 34/11 CBI Vs. Ram Kumar etc. 37 of 74 material to show that there was any sort of attempt of tracing or copying or forging signatures of the other two authorized officials of Oriental Bank of Commerce. This argument does not hold any water.
7.19 I cannot be oblivious that it is not impossible to obtain drafts posing as non-existing or fictitious person. CBI recovered few drafts from the house of accused Rekha Dubey. These were unutilized drafts. These are, inter alia, Ex PW 27/Z3 (D-105) and Ex PW 27/Z4(D-106). When bank was contacted and requisitions slips were traced out, it was learnt that these had been applied by one Vikas Kumar. On the basis of address mentioned in requisition slips, CBI did find one Vikas but, such Vikas claimed that he never applied for these drafts at all. His version remained the same before the court as well. I feel that it was for the accused Uma Batla and Rekha Dubey to have explained as to why these drafts were lying in their house. There is no explanation. Only logical inference is that these were deliberately obtained by them by making request in the name of some fictitious or non-existing person.
7.20 Interestingly, Sh. A.K. Sharma happens to be one of the signatory on these two drafts. Thus, accused Rekha Dubey and her daughter Uma were having access to signatures of one more signatory. As regards availability of signature of Sh. R. K. Bhalla, again, draft Ex PW 27/Z5( D-107) proves to be handy. Accused Uma does not dispute that she applied for such draft favouring Bombay flying club. She did not use that draft at all as there is endorsement in the reverse for cancellation of draft and for crediting the account in her account number 15704. This fact is admitted by accused Uma Batla. This draft assumes importance as it was containing signature of Sh. R. K. Bhalla. Thus, all three signatures were within reach of accused Uma Batla and Rekha Dubey.
CC No. 34/11 CBI Vs. Ram Kumar etc. 38 of 74
7.21 There is one more aspect of the case. I am once again
compelled to refer to the opinion given by hand writing expert. Such report of Government Examiner is not in dispute and has been admitted by the defence. During course of investigation, specimen signatures of Kusum Bagga were also taken. These are contained in S-1 to S-11 sheets which have been proved as Ex.PW2/A1 to A11. These were sent for comparison along with her admitted signatures and CFSL had compared these specimen signatures and admitted signatures with the signatures of Kusum Bagga as appearing on all such 140 drafts and came to a categorical opinion that person who had made the specimen and admitted signatures had not written/made the signatures appearing on such 140 drafts. Similar opinion was expressed with respect to the specimen signatures of Sh. A. K. Sharma and Sh. R. K. Bhalla, the other two authorized officials. It will be also important to mention that Smt. Kusum Bagga appeared before the court as PW2 and when she was shown all such 140 drafts, she claimed that signatures appearing on such drafts were not her signatures and someone had copied her signatures. PW13 Sh. Ravinder Bhalla and PW19 Sh. Anil Sharma have also disowned their signatures appearing on such 140 drafts claiming those to be forged signatures. It is indeed surprising as to how when all these officials have disowned their signatures and when the forensic opinion also indicates that these signatures were forged signatures, Sh. Charan Singh, the passing officer cleared the drafts without any fuss. Bare eye though does not show these signatures to be any different. Anyone could have been befooled the manner in which these were made. But, certainly, the signature book which was with service Branch should have been made part of record.
7.22 As I have already noticed above, Ms. Uma Batla does not dispute that she had applied for the draft in the name of Sh. Suresh Kumar.
CC No. 34/11 CBI Vs. Ram Kumar etc. 39 of 74 This draft had been recovered by the prosecution when search was conducted in some other matter. Inspector S. V. Raman (I.O.) has deposed in this regard and supported the case of prosecution.
7.23 Undoubtedly, CBI has made a mess by not placing on record such Search List but fact remains that I.O. has proved such vital fact by virtue of his oral deposition. No reason exists to disbelieve him as he himself had conducted search in that case as well.
7.24 I would also like to say that in that search dated 27.7.99, prosecution had come across one paper which was also containing some numericals and that was also decoded and was found hinting towards the drafts in question. Such piece of paper has not been proved in accordance with law and has been merely marked as Mark AX. Reference to that piece of paper was made by PW20 Sh. Dinesh Kumar Tyagi but prosecution should have proved said fact as well in accordance with law and in desired manner.
7.25 Now let me come to the decoding aspect. When the house of accused Rekha Dubey and Rekha Dubey was searched in the present case, two paper slips were recovered. These have been proved as Ex.PW8/A and Ex.PW8/B. These are part of D9. The hand writing contained therein have been marked as Q430 and Q431 and as per the expert report such hand writing Q430 and Q431 were of accused Rekha Dubey.
7.26 Ex.PW8/A bears numbers as under:
19-55-572 19-53-591 CC No. 34/11 CBI Vs. Ram Kumar etc. 40 of 74 7.27 Ex.PW8/B bears numericals as under:
16-50-576 19-54-596 7.28 investigating agency decoded the pieces Ex. PW8/A and Ex.
PW8/B by reading those with drafts and according to investigating agency and also as per PW20 D.K. Tyagi and PW9 A.B. Chakarbarty, "19-55-572" as appearing in Ex. PW8/A was indicative of date-draft number-amount as draft Mark BX-45 is draft dated 19/7/99 having number 260455 and is of Rs. 5,72,000/- and similarly 19-53-591 correspond with draft Mark BX-47 which is dated 19/7/99 having number as 260453 and for Rs. 5,91,000/-. Similarly figures appearing in Ex. PW8/B i.e. 16-50-576 is indicative of draft Mark BX-50 which is dated 16/7/99, draft no. 260450 of Rs. 5,76,000/- and 19-54-596 matches up with draft Mark BX-46 dated 19.07.99 having no. 260454 and of Rs. 5,96,000/-.
7.29 Ld. PP had thus contended that such decoding, in itself, is sufficient to infer the complicity of Uma Batla and her mother. This has been strongly countered by Sh. Bajaj. However, on careful perusal of testimony on record and entire facts and circumstances, I am unable to hold that Uma Batla has no role to play. She had obtained drafts from OBC. She never utilized these drafts. These were recovered from the house where she was residing with her mother. She has nowhere asserted that she was residing at any different place or that she had no concern with the premises where her mother was residing. On the contrary, at the time of both the search, she was seen with her mother.
7.30 When IO was cross examined by accused Uma Batla, he
CC No. 34/11 CBI Vs. Ram Kumar etc. 41 of 74
deposed that the draft which was containing over-writing had been seized from the residence of Rekha Dubey and therefore, Uma Batla must have been also aware of the aforesaid transaction and therefore, she was made party to the criminal conspiracy. I don't feel that prosecution has stretched itself pointlessly. This seems very much plausible. She cannot be permitted to say that she has no concern with any such recovery. She had got the drafts prepared and these were recovered from the house in which she was residing with her mother. Now, since her mother has absconded, she has found an easy way out and has chosen to blame her mother for this entire muddle whereas proceedings indicate that they both were represented by a common counsel as long as her mother was appearing in the court.
7.31 As regards recovery of two paper slips, PW1S.A. Siddiqui was never shown these important paper slips. He never made a mention of same in his deposition and these were, for totally mystical reasons, never got proved through him. Fact though remains that he did depose about search proceedings and such part is unshaken. Another independent witness though proved the recovery part in his examination-in-chief yet he did no good to the case of CBI by claiming in cross examination that raiding team was divided in two and probably the other team, of which, he was not the member, had recovered such slips. He deposed that some police official had handed over these slips to DSP and then CBI told him about recovery of these slips. However, fact remains that he did claim about recovery of slips from said house. I.O. has, as already noted, supported the case of prosecution in this regard and has deposed about recovery of these slips and prosecution has been able to make up the loss. Thus recovery of slips stand proved.
7.32 According to Sh. Rajan, CBI has not been able to point out any
CC No. 34/11 CBI Vs. Ram Kumar etc. 42 of 74
evidence suggesting any sort of meeting between Uma Batla and her other co-accused. It will not be out of place to mention that during investigation, prosecution had recorded statements of Sh. A. K. Gupta and Sh. Umesh Gupta. They both had claimed before Sh. Komal Singh, inspector CBI that Rekha Dubey along with her husband used to visit their hotel in Meerut where two persons had come to meet them. Surprisingly, investigating agency did not find any requirement of ascertaining as to who were these two persons who had come to meet Rekha Dubey. No photograph of any of the bank officials was shown to A. K. Gupta and Umesh Gupta. If at all such persons were bank officials, then it would have been a very clinching piece of evidence confirming conspiracy between bank officials and Rekha Dubey. Unfortunately, when process was sent to these two important witnesses, the same returned unserved with the remarks that they were not residing at the given addresses. Court does not have the benefit of their deposition, therfore.
7.33 Investigating Agency should have also obtained statement of account of bank account which Uma Batla was having with OBC. Court was more than anxious to see the cash inflow in such account and also whether she had got prepared any other draft or not.
7.34 Sh. Bajaj has relied upon few judgments. I have seen those. There cannot be any dispute or debate with respect to the settled legal proposition contained therein but fact remains that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case in hand, defence cannot dig out any advantage from any of these judgments.
7.35 First such judgment is GHUREY LAL VS. STATE OF MP (Criminal Appeal no. 155/2006 Date of Decision 30.7.2008 Supreme Court). Reliance is primarily based on the observation appearing therein that if two CC No. 34/11 CBI Vs. Ram Kumar etc. 43 of 74 reasonable, probable and evenly balanced views of the evidence are possible then one must necessarily concede that there existed a reasonable doubt. Sh. Bajaj has contended that in the present case there is strong element of reasonable doubt. There cannot be any qualm with respect to the settled legal position but in the case in hand, I have not been able to conclude that there is any doubt much less reasonable doubt with respect to the involvement of accused Uma Batla. Testimony appearing on record seems to be reliable and trustworthy. Conspiracy is normally hatched in privacy and that there is rarely a direct and specific evidence to establish conspiracy and, therefore, I am of the view that the substratum of the evidence led by the prosecution and all the links of circumstantial evidence clearly indicate the involvement of accused Uma Batla.
7.36 Further reliance has been placed on MANOJ PATEL VS. STATE OF MP (Decided on 22.2.2011 by High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur in Criminal Appeal No.496/2002) wherein it was observed that there was no element of conspiracy. That case was decided on the basis of peculiar and individualistic facts of that case which related to conspiracy and kidnapping. Even in said case, there is reference to one judgment of Bhagwan Swaroop Vs State of Maharashtra (AIR 1965 SC 682) in which also it has been held that agreement related to conspiracy can be proved by direct evidence or may be inferred from the act and conduct of the parties. I have already commented above that conspiracy is not hatched out in open and if courts starts insisting upon direct and specific evidence for proving any agreement to conspire then there would hardly ever any conviction. It is very intricate to adduce direct evidence of conspiracy. It is not necessary to prove the same in actual words of communication nor actual meeting of two persons is necessary. Evidence as to transmission of thoughts sharing the unlawful design may be even sufficient. Reference in CC No. 34/11 CBI Vs. Ram Kumar etc. 44 of 74 this regard be made to Kehar Singh Vs. State (Delhi Administration) AIR 1988 SC 1883.
7.37 Similarly, reliance on BALWANT VS. STATE (Decided on 1.2.2010 by High Court of Rajasthan, Jodhpur in Criminal Appeal no. 831/2003) is misplaced as in that case the prosecution had not produced cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence and therefore, benefit of doubt was given.
7.38 I cannot be mindful of the fact that accused Uma Batla was all along living with her mother Rekha Dubey. Prosecution has been able to establish that draft D16 i. e. Ex. PW2/B was got prepared by accused Uma Batla. It remained unutilized as this particular draft had been recovered from the house search of accused Rekha Dubey though conducted in some other case. At the time of recovery of such draft, Uma Batla was also present with her mother and, therfore, it can be easily inferred that she was in the thick of the things. Such draft contained over-writing. There is no explanation from accused Uma as to who did the same. It appears to me that she has no answer to such a serious fact. She cannot pass on the buck to her absconding mother. Recovery of other unutilized drafts from their house is also a very serious circumstance. The two paper slips, which were containing the numericals in coded form, were found to be in the hand of Rekha Dubey. These writings were not attributed to accused Uma Batla but recovery was from the house where accused Uma was residing with her mother. Decoding has been done very commendably by CBI. Decoding suggests that she and her mother had possession of blank drafts and they then got the same filled up and used the same and caused loss to the bank. Even if, CBI could not find out as to who had filled up these drafts, it cannot come to the rescue of these two accused. They both are evidently responsible for getting the same CC No. 34/11 CBI Vs. Ram Kumar etc. 45 of 74 encashed. Paper slips clearly denote to the draft number, date and amount to be withdrawn. Uma and her mother were having access to signatures of all the three authorized signatories as well. All these things, on a conjoint appreciation, are clear pointer towards the involvement of accused Uma Batla. Thus, Uma Batla was clearly a co-conspirator with her mother Rekha Dubey and they both cheated and caused massive loss to the bank.
ROLE AND INVOLVEMENT OF ACCUSED MANJEET KUMAR ANAND 8.0 Accused Manjeet Kumar Anand happens to be the final link as far as the conspiracy in question is concerned.
8.1 Sh. Yogesh Verma, learned counsel has contended that accused Manjeet Kumar Anand, who is facing charge u/s 420 read with Section 120-B IPC, should have been, instead, made a witness and for totally inexplicable reasons, he has rather been made an accused.
8.2 Facts with respect to the alleged involvement of accused Manjeet Kumar Anand are otherwise very constricted in nature. Accused Manjeet Kumar Anand contends that he had received these drafts from various customers from Punjab. As per accused Manjeet Kumar Anand, such persons wanted to purchase gold bars of 10 Tola each and accordingly he placed orders upon various other wholesalers and procured TT (Ten Tola) gold bars from such wholesalers and once the drafts, given by such persons from Punjab, were duly encashed and credited in his bank accounts, he, after obtaining gold from wholesalers, sold such gold bars to such persons of Punjab. Thus, he admits receiving of drafts. He admits purchasing gold bars CC No. 34/11 CBI Vs. Ram Kumar etc. 46 of 74 from wholesalers and selling such gold bars further.
8.3 Sh. Yogesh Verma has contended that accused Manjeet Kumar Anand had only earned commission which might not be exceeding Rs. 4 or Rs. 5 lacs in all. He has also argued that there was nothing wrong or illegal in accepting drafts as draft was also an accepted norm of receiving payment. Rather draft was a better mode of payment as compared to cheque. It has been argued that Manjeet Kumar Anand seems to be a victim of the circumstances if at all such drafts were ultimately found to be forged drafts. It has also been contended that since the drafts were duly deposited by accused with his bank and since bank duly credited the amount and such drafts were duly cleared, accused had no occasion to suspect anyone and, therefore, he did not develop any doubt whatsoever with respect to such customers from Punjab. Such drafts were accepted by him in the normal course of business and as and when payment was credited in his bank on clearance of drafts, he booked gold and delivered the same. It has also been argued that premises of accused were thoroughly searched during investigation and no incriminating material was recovered which might hint out about any element of conspiracy or his association with any other co- accused. It has thus been argued that he is neither a beneficiary nor part of any conspiracy and he has been merely charge-sheeted as during investigation, investigating agency could not lay its hands upon such customers from Punjab. Sh. Verma has finally argued that merely because such addresses of customers of Punjab were found to be forged, accused cannot be held liable as there was no legal requirement of keeping any ID proof of such buyers.
8.4 Learned PP has refuted all the aforesaid contentions. He has
CC No. 34/11 CBI Vs. Ram Kumar etc. 47 of 74
contended that accused Manjeet Kumar Anand was very much part of a larger conspiracy. It has been argued that accused Manjeet Kumar Anand was having virtually no business prior to May 1999 and, all of a sudden, he got orders worth Rs. 8 crores and it would be hardly believable that he would accept such orders without even bothering to know the antecedents of such persons. Learned PP has also argued that the drafts were in sequence and even a layman would be in a position to know such fact. Cheques can be given in a sequence. But it would have certainly created suspicion in the mind of any reasonable man as to why drafts are being brought in a sequence. Accused Manjeet Kumar Anand did not raise any doubt and kept on accepting the drafts which itself indicates his involvement.
8.5 Let me now see the evidence produced before the Court.
8.6 At the outset, I would say that one serious blow, to the case of CBI, has been given by PW12 Deepak Arya. When Deepak Arya was examined by CBI during investigational stage, he came up with a very startling revelation. He was working as accountant with M/s Shivani Jewellers and he told CBI that he had seen Rekha Dubey visiting M/s Shivani Jewellers and she used to discuss with Mr. Manjeet Kumar Anand number of times and she used to come at shop along with strangers and they used to talk secretly.
8.7 PW12 Sh. Deepak Arya has, however, not stuck to his version in any manner whatsoever. On the contrary, he deposed before the Court that he merely used to maintain accounts books of various firms in the area of Karol Bagh including that of M/s Shivani Jewellers but he did not have any knowledge about Rekha Dubey and he never saw her visiting M/s Shivani Jewellers. He was declared hostile and was grilled by the prosecution but CC No. 34/11 CBI Vs. Ram Kumar etc. 48 of 74 despite his exhaustive grilling, he failed to show any sort of connection between accused Manjeet Anand and Rekha Dubey. He was duly confronted with various portions of his earlier statement Ex. PW12/1 but he categorically denied any sort of connection between them and reiterated that he had never made any such statement regarding Rekha Dubey visiting M/s Shivani Jewellers.
8.8 There is no dispute that accused had purchased gold from the wholesalers. In this regard reference be made to the testimony of PW3 Sh. M.L. Khanna of M/s Banarsi Dass & Sons, PW10 Sh. Suresh Khandelwal (Manager with M/s Jindal Dychem Indus Pvt. Ltd.), PW15 Sh. Suraj Prakash (from M/s Shri Mahalakshmi Jewellers) and PW22 Sh. Ajay Kumar Sharma (Manager of M/s New Kailash Jewellery House). They all have claimed that TT bars of gold were sold by them to M/s Shivani Jewellers. Such fact is not in dispute at all. When statement of accused was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C., accused himself admitted purchasing gold from them. Reference in this regard be made to answers given by him with respect to question no. 29 to question no. 59. It would be, however, pertinent to mention that as per charge-sheet and as per case set up by prosecution, accused had purchased gold from the following jewellers:-
(i) New Kailash Jewellers, Karol Bagh, New Delhi.
(ii) Jindal Jewellers, Akbar Road, C.P., New Delhi.
(iii) D.S.K. N. Jewellers, Shakti Nagar, New Delhi.
(iv) U.S.K. N. Jewellers, Chandni Chowk, New Delhi.
(v) Banarsi Dass Jewellers, Chandni Chowk, New Delhi.
(vi) Shri Mahalakshmi Jewellers, Karol Bagh, New Delhi.
8.9 Prosecution has not bothered to apprise the Court as to why it CC No. 34/11 CBI Vs. Ram Kumar etc. 49 of 74 did not cite any one as witness from M/s D.S.K. N. Jewellers and M/s U.S.K. N. Jewellers from whom, as well, accused had purchased gold bars. Be that as it may, during course of arguments Sh. Yogesh Verma has very fairly admitted that purchasing gold from said six gold jewellers was not in dispute. Account books in this regard have also been duly proved. Therefore, there is no requirement of entering into any further discussion with respect to purchases made by accused from such wholesalers.
8.10 I have gone through the bank statements of accused Manjeet Anand which he admits and also the other material on record and the following statement would show the inflow and outflow of money:-
Sr. Credited Debited Draft No. Cheque In favour of Instrument Amount Amount No. on on no. Date (credited) (debited) in Rs.
1 05.05.99 086851 28.04.99 Rs. 3,70,000/-
2 06.05.99 098144 Mahalakshmi 05.05.99 1,69,428.93 3 07.05.99 086852 28.04.99 Rs. 4,61,000/-
4 08.05.99 086855 01.05.99 Rs. 3,72,000/-
5 08.05.99 098145 Mahalakshmi 08.05.99 1,05,800 6 08.05.99 098146 Pay order 08.05.99 5,07,814.80 7 10.05.99 098148 Pay order 10.05.99 3,05,039 8 11.05.99 086856 05.05.99 Rs. 5,22,000/-
9 11.05.99 086859 05.05.99 Rs.4,77,000/-
10 12.05.99 098149 Pay order 12.05.99 10,51,685 11 14.05.99 086863 10.05.99 Rs.4,46,000/-
12 14.05.99 086865 10.05.99 Rs.4,33,000/-
13 14.05.99 147951 Pay order 14.05.99 7,00,305 14 15.05.99 098150 Mahalakshmi 14.05.99 2,09,227 15 15.05.99 245274 SBI Pay order 15.05.99 9,93,599 16 15.5.99 086860 07.05.99 Rs. 5,27,000/-
17 15.5.99 086861 07.05.99 Rs.4,66,000/-
18 18.05.99 086871 12.05.99 Rs. 3,92,000/-
19 19.05.99 086866 11.05.99 Rs. 5,72,000/-
20 19.05.99 086869 12.05.99 Rs. 4,65,000/-
CC No. 34/11 CBI Vs. Ram Kumar etc. 50 of 74 21 19.05.99 147952 Mahalakshmi 16.05.99 2,65,345 22 19.05.99 147953 Pay order 19.05.99 98,291 23 19.05.99 245275 Pay order 19.05.99 10,31,020 SBI 24 20.05.99 086876 14.05.99 Rs. 5,92,000/- 25 20.05.99 086880 15.05.99 Rs. 4,66,000/- 26 21.05.99 147955 Pay order 21.05.99 10,36,960 27 22.05.99 086870 14.05.99 Rs. 4,65,000/- 28 22.05.99 086872 14.05.99 Rs. 5,69,000/- 29 22.05.99 245277 Pay order 22.05.99 10,32,247 SBI New Kailash 30 24.05.99 086877 15.05.99 Rs. 4,75,000/- 31 24.05.99 086882 17.05.99 Rs. 4,66,000/- 32 25.05.99 245279 Pay order 25.05.99 4,91,546 SBI 33 25.05.99 245278 BSP 23.05.99 4,54,965 SBI 34 26.05.99 086885 18.05.99 Rs. 5,53,500/- 35 26.05.99 086889 18.05.99 Rs. 4,73,100/- 36 27.05.99 086883 17.05.99 Rs. 5,73,100/- 37 27.05.99 086884 17.05.99 Rs. 5,64,300/- 38 27.05.99 147957 Pay order 27.05.99 10,23,459 39 27.05.99 245280 Pay order 27.05.99 11,19,813 SBI 40 29.05.99 086890 20.05.99 Rs. 5,96,000/- 41 29.05.99 086891 20.05.99 Rs. 5,72,000/- 42 31.05.99 086892 24.05.99 Rs. 5,77,000/- 43 31.05.99 086895 25.05.99 Rs. 5,96,000/- 44 01.06.99 086886 18.05.99 Rs. 5,91,000/- 45 01.06.99 086888 18.05.99 Rs. 5,92,000/- 46 01.06.99 086893 24.05.99 Rs. 5,95,000/- 47 01.06.99 086894 24.05.99 Rs. 5,73,000/- 48 01.06.99 147958 Pay order 31.05.99 23,39,336 49 01.06.99 245281 Pay order 31.05.99 23,37,001 SBI 50 03.06.99 086896 25.05.99 Rs. 5,92,000/- 51 03.06.99 086899 25.05.99 Rs. 5,91,000/- 52 04.06.99 086898 25.05.99 Rs. 5,72,000/- 53 04.06.99 147960 Pay order 04.06.99 12,06,718 54 05.06.99 086887 20.05.99 Rs. 5,96,000/- 55 05.06.99 245282 Pay order 05.06.99 5,74,443 SBI CC No. 34/11 CBI Vs. Ram Kumar etc. 51 of 74 56 07.06.99 086874 14.05.99 Rs. 4,92,000/- 57 07.06.99 086881 15.05.99 Rs. 4,77,000/- 58 07.06.99 245283 Pay order 07.06.99 5,74,443 SBI 59 08.06.99 086873 14.05.99 Rs. 4,91,000/- 60 08.06.99 086875 14.05.99 Rs. 4,77,000/- 61 08.06.99 147961 Pay order 08.06.99 9,58,360 62 09.06.99 245284 Pay order 09.06.99 9,51,567 SBI 63 15.06.99 086854 04.05.99 Rs. 5,95,000/- 64 15.06.99 086858 04.05.99 Rs. 5,92,000/- 65 16.06.99 086864 10.05.99 Rs. 5,92,000/- 66 16.06.99 086868 11.05.99 Rs.5,76,000/- 67 16.06.99 147962 Pay order 16.06.99 11,78,959 68 17.06.99 086853 04.05.99 Rs. 5,96,000/- 69 17.06.99 086862 10.05.99 Rs. 5,77,000/- 70 17.06.99 147964 Pay order 17.06.99 11,78,959 71 17.06.99 245285 Pay order 17.06.99 11,77,783 SBI 72 16.07.99 260429 09.07.99 Rs. 5,95,000/- 73 16.07.99 260427 09.07.99 Rs. 5,96,000/- 74 17.07.99 260428 09.07.99 Rs. 5,92,000/- 75 17.07.99 260426 09.07.99 Rs. 5,77,000/- 76 17.07.99 147967 Pay order 17.07.99 11,58,507 77 19.07.99 260430 10.07.99 Rs. 5,77,000/- 78 19.07.99 260433 10.07.99 Rs. 5,91,000/- 79 20.07.99 260434 10.07.99 Rs. 5,75,000/- 80 20.07.99 260436 10.07.99 Rs. 5,63,000/- 81 20.07.99 260438 12.07.99 Rs. 5,74,000/- 82 20.07.99 245286 Pay order 19.07.99 23,03,032 SBI 83 21.07.99 260435 10.07.99 Rs. 5,92,000/- 84 22.07.99 260432 10.07.99 Rs. 5,96,000/- 85 22.07.99 260431 10.07.99 Rs. 5,92,000/- 86 22.07.99 147968 Pay order 22.07.99 23,14,091 87 23.07.99 260439 14.07.99 Rs. 5,90,000/- 88 23.07.99 260442 14.07.99 Rs. 5,95,000/- 89 23.07.99 245287 Mahalakshmi 19.07.99 1,97,975 SBI 90 24.07.99 260443 14.07.99 Rs. 5,96,000/- 91 24.07.99 260446 15.07.99 Rs.5,77,000/- 92 24.07.99 147969 Pay order 24.07.99 12,55,921 CC No. 34/11 CBI Vs. Ram Kumar etc. 52 of 74 93 24.07.99 245289 Pay order 24.07.99 10,68,791 SBI 94 26.07.99 260440 14.07.99 Rs. 5,92,000/- 95 26.07.99 260445 15.07.99 Rs. 5,65,000/- 96 26.07.99 260444 15.07.99 Rs. 5,95,000/- 97 26.07.99 260447 15.07.99 Rs. 5,76,000/- 98 28.07.99 245290 USKN 27.07.99 23,17,636.8 SBI 0 99 29.07.99 147971 USKN 28.07.99 11,60,568 100 02.08.99 260448 16.07.99 Rs. 5,96,000/- 101 02.08.99 260451 16.07.99 Rs. 5,72,000/- 102 03.08.99 260449 16.07.99 Rs. 5,91,000/- 103 03.08.99 260452 19.07.99 Rs. 5,72,000/- 104 04.08.99 147972 USKN 03.08.99 11,65,817 105 05.08.99 260450 16.07.99 Rs. 5,76,000/- 106 05.08.99 245291 USKN 04.08.99 11,70,191 SBI 107 08.08.99 260454 19.07.99 Rs. 5,96,000/- 108 09.08.99 260453 19.07.99 Rs. 5,91,000/- 109 09.08.99 260455 19.07.99 Rs. 5,72,000/- 110 09.08.99 147974 USKN 07.08.99 11,69,899 111 11.08.99 245292 USKN 07.08.99 11,69,899 SBI 112 12.08.99 260459 28.07.99 Rs. 5,92,000/- 113 12.08.99 260462 29.07.99 Rs. 5,95,000/- 114 14.08.99 260457 28.07.99 Rs. 5,92,000/- 115 14.08.99 260461 29.07.99 Rs. 5,77,000/- 116 14.08.99 245293 Sale Tax 13.08.99 1,24,286 SBI 117 16.08.99 260458 28.07.99 Rs. 5,61,000/- 118 16.08.99 260463 29.07.99 Rs. 5,96,000/- 119 17.08.99 260456 28.07.99 Rs. 5,61,000/- 120 17.08.99 260460 29.07.99 Rs. 5,77,000/- 121 18.08.99 147975 USKN 17.08.99 23,64,876 122 18.08.99 245294 USKN 17.08.99 23,64,876 SBI 123 19.08.99 260464 09.08.99 Rs. 5,92,000/- 124 19.08.99 260467 09.08.99 Rs. 5,96,000/- 125 20.08.99 260465 09.08.99 Rs. 5,72,000/- 126 20.08.99 260469 10.08.99 Rs. 5,92,000/- 127 21.08.99 260466 09.08.99 Rs. 5,91,000/- 128 21.08.99 260471 10.08.99 Rs. 5,76,000/- CC No. 34/11 CBI Vs. Ram Kumar etc. 53 of 74 129 21.08.99 260470 10.08.99 Rs. 5,91,000/- 130 21.08.99 260468 10.08.99 Rs. 5,96,000/- 131 21.08.99 147977 USKN 20.08.99 11,82,438 132 23.08.99 260473 14.08.99 Rs. 5,92,000/- 133 23.08.99 260475 16.08.99 Rs. 5,91,000/- 134 23.08.99 147978 USKN 21.08.99 11,82,438 135 23.08.99 245295 USKN 21.08.99 11,82,438 SBI 136 24.08.99 260472 14.08.99 Rs. 5,96,000/- 137 24.08.99 260474 16.08.99 Rs. 5,96,000/- 138 25.08.99 245296 USKN 24.08.99 23,61,960 SBI 139 26.08.99 147979 USKN 25.08.99 11,75,148 140 02.09.99 260476 23.08.99 Rs. 5,96,000/- 141 02.09.99 260478 24.08.99 Rs. 5,91,000/- 142 06.09.99 260480 20.08.99 Rs. 5,96,000/- 143 06.09.99 260482 21.08.99 Rs. 5,92,000/- 144 06.09.99 147980 USKN 03.09.99 11,64,942 145 07.09.99 260479 24.08.99 Rs. 5,92,000/- 146 07.09.99 260477 23.08.99 Rs. 5,92,000/- 147 07.09.99 260483 21.08.99 Rs. 5,92,000/- 148 07.09.99 260481 20.08.99 Rs. 5,96,000/- 149 08.09.99 245297 USKN 04.09.99 11,66,400 SBI 150 09.09.99 260484 24.08.99 Rs. 5,92,000/- 151 09.09.99 260488 25.08.99 Rs. 5,92,000/- 152 10.09.99 260486 24.08.99 Rs. 5,92,000/- 153 10.09.99 260485 24.08.99 Rs. 5,91,000/- 154 10.09.99 260489 25.08.99 Rs. 5,91,000/- 155 10.09.99 260491 25.08.99 Rs. 5,92,000/- 156 10.09.99 147981 USKN 08.09.99 11,67,858 157 10.09.99 245300 Sale Tax 10.09.99 1,50,000 SBI 158 10.09.99 245299 USKN 08.09.99 11,67,858 SBI 159 11.09.99 260487 24.08.99 Rs. 5,96,000/- 160 11.09.99 260490 25.08.99 Rs. 5,96,000/- 161 11.09.99 147883 USKN 10.09.99 1,74,856 162 11.09.99 147882 USKN 09.09.99 11,74,856 163 11.09.99 869451 USKN 10.09.99 10,00,000 SBI 164 14.09.99 260493 27.08.99 Rs. 5,91,000/- CC No. 34/11 CBI Vs. Ram Kumar etc. 54 of 74 165 14.09.99 260496 28.08.99 Rs. 5,92,000/- 166 14.09.99 147984 USKN 11.09.99 10,33,874 167 15.09.99 260494 27.08.99 Rs. 5,96,000/- 168 15.09.99 260492 27.08.99 Rs. 5,92,000/- 169 15.09.99 260497 28.08.99 Rs. 5,91,000/- 170 15.09.99 260498 28.08.99 Rs. 5,96,000/- 171 15.09.99 869452 USKN 14.09.99 11,74,856 SBI 172 16.09.99 260499 28.08.99 Rs. 5,96,000/- 173 16.09.99 260495 27.08.99 Rs. 5,96,000/- 174 16.09.99 147985 USKN 15.09.99 11,74,856 175 17.09.99 147987 USKN 16.09.99 11,74,856 176 18.09.99 869453 USKN 17.09.99 23,45,922 SBI 177 12.10.99 260401 22.09.99 Rs. 5,92,000/- 178 13.10.99 260404 22.09.99 Rs. 5,96,000/- 179 13.10.99 869454 Procall Ltd 07.10.99 57,000 SBI 180 14.10.99 260411 01.10.99 Rs. 5,92,000/- 181 14.10.99 260407 23.09.99 Rs. 5,91,000/- 182 14.10.99 260405 23.07.99 Rs. 5,91,000/- 183 14.10.99 260402 22.09.99 Rs. 5,96,000/- 184 15.10.99 260408 23.09.99 Rs. 5,92,000/- 185 15.10.99 260410 23.09.99 Rs. 5,96,000/- 186 16.10.99 147988 USKN 15.10.99 16,85,915 187 16.10.99 147989 USKN 15.10.99 7,00,000 188 16.10.99 869456 USKN 15.10.99 12,00,000 SBI 189 21.10.99 260412 01.10.99 Rs. 5,92,000/- 190 21.10.99 260406 01.10.99 Rs. 5,96,000/- 191 21.10.99 869457 USKN 20.10.99 11,61,100 SBI 192 22.10.99 147991 DSKN 22.10.99 12,00,000 193 23.10.99 260416 11.10.99 Rs. 5,95,000/- 194 23.10.99 260417 12.10.99 Rs. 5,96,000/- 195 23.10.99 260413 04.10.99 Rs. 5,95,000/- 196 23.10.99 260414 04.10.99 Rs. 5,96,000/- 197 26.10.99 260415 11.10.99 Rs. 5,92,000/- 198 26.10.99 260418 12.10.99 Rs. 5,92,000/- 199 26.10.99 260409 22.09.99 Rs. 5,95,000/- 200 26.10.99 869458 DSKN 24.10.99 12,00,000 SBI CC No. 34/11 CBI Vs. Ram Kumar etc. 55 of 74 201 27.10.99 869459 Sale Tax 25.10.99 63,027 SBI 202 28.10.99 260419 14.10.99 Rs. 5,92,000/- 203 28.10.99 260421 15.10.99 Rs. 5,95,000/- 204 28.10.99 147992 Pay order 28.10.99 12,02,400 205 28.10.99 869460 Pay order 28.10.99 15,19,230 SBI 206 30.10.99 260422 15.10.99 Rs. 5,92,000/- 207 30.10.99 260420 14.10.99 Rs. 5,96,000/- 208 01.11.99 147993 DSKN 29.10.99 12,00,000 209 01.11.99 869461 DSKN 30.10.99 14,00,000 SBI 210 02.11.99 260423 16.10.99 Rs. 5,95,000/- 211 02.11.99 260424 20.10.99 Rs. 5,96,000/- 212 02.11.99 260425 20.10.99 Rs. 5,96,000/- 213 05.11.99 147994 DSKN 03.11.99 17,50,000 214 25.11.99 869462 Sale Tax 25.11.99 70,000 SBI 8.11 Let me now come to the sale vouchers. 8.12 First sale voucher pertaining to draft in question is voucher no.
019 dated 06.05.1999. It shows sale of ornaments to one Mr. Rajinder Singh Ji of Ludhiana, Punjab and the worth of gold ornaments was Rs. 3,74,000/-
out of which Rs. 3,70,000/- was paid by way of draft and Rs. 4000/- was paid in cash. Next sale voucher is serial no. 020 dated 08.05.99 and has been proved as Ex. PW27/H. It is again in the name of Sh. Rajinder Singh Ji, Ludhiana, Punjab and 24 carat gold bars were sold to him by accused Manjeet Kumar Anand and in lieu, he had accepted one draft no. 086852 of Rs. 4,61,000/-. Then again there is sale in the name of same Sardar Rajinder Singh Ji vide voucher serial no. 022 dated 09.05.99 which has been proved as Ex. PW27/I. Then there is sale to one Mrs. Manpreet Kaur wife of Sardar Rajinder Singh of Ludhiana, Punjab vide voucher serial no. 023 dated 12.05.99. Similarly, gold bars were sold to one Sardar Amrik Singh of CC No. 34/11 CBI Vs. Ram Kumar etc. 56 of 74 Ludhiana, Punjab and to Sh. Ram Kumar Gupta resident of Ludhiana, Punjab. In sale vouchers, address of Ram Kumar Gupta has been mentioned as 508, Model Town, Ludhiana, Punjab and of Sh. Rajinder Singh as B-194, Guru Nanak Pura, Ludhiana, Punjab. In one another sale voucher, address of Sardar Amrik Singh has been mentioned as 217-B, New Model Town, Ludhiana, Punjab. Similarly, gold bars were sold to Sh. G.P. Singh Sethi resident of B1/504, Shahi Mohalla, Ludhiana, Punjab. All such sale vouchers have not been disputed by the accused. As already noticed above, his version is simple. According to him, he had received all these drafts in the normal course of business and he entertained such customers and received drafts from them and then sold gold bars to them after purchasing them from the wholesalers after due encashment of drafts.
8.13 According to prosecution, all such addresses are forged and there are paper transactions only.
8.14 According to IO-PW27 S.V. Raman, accused Manjeet Kumar Anand had attempted to show that gold had been sold to such persons from Punjab. He deposed that investigation revealed that all such persons to whom gold has been shown sold were not existing at the addresses mentioned in the vouchers and these addresses were found bogus. In his cross- examination, he admitted that during investigation, he had come to know that accused Manjeet Anand had purchased gold from various shopkeepers of Karol Bagh and sold such gold to various persons against invoices. He admitted that he did not come across any fact that accused Manjeet Kumar had violated any provision of sale tax or income tax. He also admitted that there was no necessity to enquire about the details of the purchasers of gold bars. He also admitted that drafts of the gold were encashed first and thereafter the gold was delivered. He also admitted that sketch of the CC No. 34/11 CBI Vs. Ram Kumar etc. 57 of 74 persons to whom such gold was sold by accused Manjeet Kumar Anand was prepared with the co-operation of accused Manjeet Anand. He also claimed that it was correct that accused Manjeet Anand had fully co-operated in preparing the sketch and tracing the persons. He also admitted that there was no writing/initial/signatures of any such draft which could be attributed to accused Manjeet Kumar Anand. He, however, denied that he had not made any effort to arrest the persons to whom gold had been sold.
8.15 To me also, it appears that if a person or customer comes with a draft, it rather lends credence and some sort of reassurance in the mind of the seller. Draft is certainly better than cheque. I do not find anything unusual in acceptance of draft as such but its not a case of there being only one or few drafts. Here we are concerned with 140 drafts.
8.16 As per table already extracted above, first the drafts were cleared and amount credited in his bank and then accused Manjeet Anand had made purchases of Gold Bars from wholesalers and then, as per accused Manjeet, he had sold gold bars to some persons from Punjab. However, addresses recorded in sale vouchers were found to be forged. IO- S.V. Raman has also deposed so. I would, however, like to comment that CBI should have examined some persons of that locality and should have cited them as witnesses in order to give further impetus to its case with respect to said assertion. However, testimony of I.O. cannot be said to be insufficient in this regard.
8.17 Besides the fact that forged addresses were mentioned in the sale-vouchers, there are three other crucial circumstances which I cannot resist commenting upon and which belies the defence version totally. These are as under:-
CC No. 34/11 CBI Vs. Ram Kumar etc. 58 of 74
a) Manjeet Anand having virtually zero business prior to May'99.
b) Entertaining strangers and accepting drafts worth crores from them
and retaining such drafts with him without any corresponding consideration till those were cleared by the bank.
c) Acceptance of several drafts in sequence.
8.18 Accused was having no real business prior to May 99. It is really intriguing as to how some unknown customers came to him only and handed over drafts worth crores to him. Any person, who was having no business at all, could have got stunned by such a spate of business in no time. As a jeweller, he could have entertained them but there are so many reputed jewellery houses in Karol Bagh and it is indeed not graspable as to why any genuine buyer would go to a small time jeweller of virtually no repute for purchasing such a huge quantity of gold bars amounting to crores. Such act of these strangers does not click to commonsense at all. There can be, therefore, only two eventualities. Either accused knew them or there were only paper transactions. Both the situations are prejudicial to accused.
8.19 Moreover, if such buyers were strangers, would accused Manjeet explain as to why they reposed so much faith in him and left drafts with him and collected gold only after clearance of drafts? Why any stranger would show such huge a confidence in him? In normal situation, no one would have left high-valued drafts with any seller not known at all. Here, all such alleged buyers left drafts at his mercy and then waited for encashment. No stranger would have done that as in such a situation, any jeweller could have also misappropriated the draft amount and could have refused to sell the gold. This means that either accused Manjeet knew those persons or these are sham and paper transactions only.
CC No. 34/11 CBI Vs. Ram Kumar etc. 59 of 74
8.20 Then, the circumstance of acceptance of several drafts in
sequence also cannot be taken nonchalantly. A bare glimpse would have shown that all drafts were issued from same bank and were from same set of draft-books. These were in sequence though not presented actually in a sequence. But still, it could have caused some element of doubt and disbelief in the mind of any reasonable seller as to how a person or set of persons were coming to him with drafts issued by same branch having signatures of same officials almost in a sequence. As already noted above, there is nothing to demonstrate that accused Manjeet Anand was a jeweller of big repute and was having substantial turnover prior to April 1999 and his fame attracted persons from Punjab.
8.21 Manjeet Kumar Anand deposited these drafts in his two bank accounts. He was having bank accounts in SBI and Laxmi Vilas Bank of Ajmal Khan Road, Branch.
8.22 D-111 happens to be current account opening form through which M/s Shivani Jewellers had opened one account no. 35/64784 with SBI, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. Statement of account is contained in D-112 and D-113.
8.23 D-114 is the account opening form along with specimen signatures card with respect to the current account no. 9427 which M/s Shivani Jewellers had opened with Laxmi Vilas Bank, Main Ajmal Khan Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi.
8.24 Unfortunately, prosecution has neither proved the account
CC No. 34/11 CBI Vs. Ram Kumar etc. 60 of 74
opening form nor statement of account of said two bank accounts. Luckily, during arguments, Sh. Yogesh Verma did not dispute the fact that said two accounts belonged to accused Manjeet Anand and all such drafts had been deposited in said two accounts. Once the drafts were deposited in such accounts, these were, naturally, sent for clearance. All these 140 drafts were to be cleared by Service Branch, New Delhi, it was shown Drawee Branch in all the 140 drafts. When all these drafts landed at Service Branch, New Delhi for clearance, all the drafts were cleared by the Service Branch.
8.25 Mr. Verma agitates that since drafts were cleared, there was no chance of accused Manjeet getting any hint about the fact that such drafts were forged. Unquestionably, to a very fairly large extent, Service Branch of Oriental Bank of Commerce is also liable for the loss in question.
8.26 I would like to mention here that when earlier, FIR was registered, it was also directed against one Charan Singh, Passing Officer of the Service Branch as he had allegedly cleared all the 140 drafts without tallying the signatures of issuing officer and also did not bother to obtain Draft Issue Advice from the Issuing Branch before clearing the drafts. FIR has been proved as Ex. PW27/A by the IO. However, when investigation was concluded, Sh. Charan Singh was put in column no. 2 and was not sent up to face trial as per charge-sheet. In the entire charge-sheet, it has nowhere been mentioned as to why finally Sh. Charan Singh was exonerated and why he was not sent up to face trial. Prosecution has perhaps exonerated him on the basis of statement of one A.B. Chakrabarty who was Deputy Chief Officer with OBC, Inspection Department. He has been examined as PW9 and has deposed before the Court that Service Branch has no concern or connection with the parties and CC No. 34/11 CBI Vs. Ram Kumar etc. 61 of 74 its job to was to credit the amount in the account and at the time of passing drafts, Passing Officer has to see date of issue, amount in words and figures, branch name and its code, tape on the figures, punching mark on the draft and to tally signature of issuing official and branch control number. He also deposed that signatures book on all India basis used to be with Service Branch which used to contain the signatures of authorized signatories and such signatures used to be tallied on random basis.
8.27 According to CBI, Passing Officer Sh. Charan Singh was not liable as he merely tallied the signatures from the signature book and cleared the drafts.
8.28 I have seen all the drafts and these drafts are signed by Kusum Bagga and on 43 drafts, Sh. R.K. Bhalla has also signed as second signatory and on remaining drafts, Sh. A.K. Sharma has signed as second signatory. Following chart would show the same.
Sr. No. Draft No. Dated Amount Purported to be Purported to be Exhibit No. Signed by (i) Signed by (ii) 1 086851 28.04.99 Rs. 3,70,000/- Kusum Bagga at R.K. Bhalla at Mark P-01 Point Q291 Point Q290 2= 086852 28.04.99 Rs. 4,61,000/- Kusum Bagga at R.K. Bhalla at Mark P-02 Point Q294 Point Q293 3 086853 04.05.99 Rs. 5,96,000/- Kusum Bagga at R.K. Bhalla at Mark P-03 Point Q297 Point Q296 4 086854 04.05.99 Rs. 5,95,000/- Kusum Bagga at R.K. Bhalla at Mark P-04 Point Q300 Point Q299 5 086855 01.05.99 Rs. 3,72,000/- Kusum Bagga at R.K. Bhalla at Mark P-05 Point Q303 Point Q302 6 086856 05.05.99 Rs. 5,22,000/- Kusum Bagga at R.K. Bhalla at Mark P-06 Point Q306 Point Q305 7 086858 04.05.99 Rs. 5,92,000/- Kusum Bagga at R.K. Bhalla at Mark P-07 Point Q309 Point Q308 8 086859 05.05.99 Rs.4,77,000/- Kusum Bagga at R.K. Bhalla at Mark P-08 Point Q312 Point Q311 CC No. 34/11 CBI Vs. Ram Kumar etc. 62 of 74 9 086860 07.05.99 Rs. 5,27,000/- Kusum Bagga at R.K. Bhalla at Mark P-09 Point Q315 Point Q313 10 086861 07.05.99 Rs.4,66,000/- Kusum Bagga at R.K. Bhalla at Mark P-10 Point Q318 Point Q317 11 086862 10.05.99 Rs. 5,77,000/- Kusum Bagga at R.K. Bhalla at Mark P-11 Point Q321 Point Q320 12 086863 10.05.99 Rs.4,46,000/- Kusum Bagga at R.K. Bhalla at Mark P-12 Point Q324 Point Q323 13 086864 10.05.99 Rs. 5,92,000/- Kusum Bagga at R.K. Bhalla at Mark P-13 Point Q327 Point Q326 14 086865 10.05.99 Rs.4,33,000/- Kusum Bagga at R.K. Bhalla at Mark P-14 Point Q330 Point Q329 15 086866 11.05.99 Rs. 5,72,000/- Kusum Bagga at R.K. Bhalla at Mark P-15 Point Q333 Point Q332 16 086868 11.05.99 Rs.v5,76,000/- Kusum Bagga at R.K. Bhalla at Mark P-16 Point Q336 Point Q335 17 086869 12.05.99 Rs. 4,65,000/- Kusum Bagga at R.K. Bhalla at Mark P-17 Point Q339 Point Q338 18 086870 14.05.99 Rs. 4,65,000/- Kusum Bagga at R.K. Bhalla at Mark P-18 Point Q342 Point Q341 19 086871 12.05.99 Rs. 3,92,000/- Kusum Bagga at R.K. Bhalla at Mark P-19 Point Q345 Point Q344 20 086872 14.05.99 Rs. 5,69,000/- Kusum Bagga at R.K. Bhalla at Mark P-20 Point Q348 Point Q347 21 086873 14.05.99 Rs. 4,91,000/- Kusum Bagga at R.K. Bhalla at Mark P-21 Point Q351 Point Q350 22 086874 14.05.99 Rs. 4,92,000/- Kusum Bagga at R.K. Bhalla at Mark P-22 Point Q354 Point Q353 23 086875 14.05.99 Rs. 4,77,000/- Kusum Bagga at R.K. Bhalla at Mark P-23 Point Q357 Point Q356 24 086876 14.05.99 Rs. 5,92,000/- Kusum Bagga at R.K. Bhalla at Mark P-24 Point Q360 Point Q359 25 086877 15.05.99 Rs. 4,75,000/- Kusum Bagga at R.K. Bhalla at Mark P-25 Point Q363 Point Q362 26 086880 15.05.99 Rs. 4,66,000/- Kusum Bagga at R.K. Bhalla at Mark P-26 Point Q366 Point Q365 27 086881 15.05.99 Rs. 4,75,000/- Kusum Bagga at R.K. Bhalla at Mark P-27 Point Q369 Point Q368 28 086882 17.05.99 Rs. 4,66,000/- Kusum Bagga at R.K. Bhalla at Mark P-28 Point Q372 Point Q371 29 086883 17.05.99 Rs. 5,73,100/- Kusum Bagga at R.K. Bhalla at Mark P-29 Point Q375 Point Q374 CC No. 34/11 CBI Vs. Ram Kumar etc. 63 of 74 30 086884 17.05.99 Rs. 5,64,300/- Kusum Bagga at R.K. Bhalla at Mark P-30 Point Q378 Point Q377 31 086885 18.05.99 Rs. 5,53,500/- Kusum Bagga at R.K. Bhalla at Mark P-31 Point Q381 Point Q380 32 086886 18.05.99 Rs. 5,91,000/- Kusum Bagga at R.K. Bhalla at Mark P-32 Point Q384 Point Q383 33 086887 20.05.99 Rs. 5,96,000/- Kusum Bagga at R.K. Bhalla at Mark P-33 Point Q387 Point Q386 34 086888 18.05.99 Rs. 5,92,000/- Kusum Bagga at R.K. Bhalla at Mark P-34 Point Q390 Point Q389 35 086889 18.05.99 Rs. 4,73,100/- Kusum Bagga at R.K. Bhalla at Mark P-35 Point Q393 Point Q392 36 086890 20.05.99 Rs. 5,96,000/- Kusum Bagga at R.K. Bhalla at Mark P-36 Point Q396 Point Q395 37 086891 20.05.99 Rs. 5,72,000/- Kusum Bagga at R.K. Bhalla at Mark P-37 Point Q399 Point Q398 38 086892 24.05.99 Rs. 5,77,000/- Kusum Bagga at R.K. Bhalla at Mark P-38 Point Q402 Point Q401 39 086893 24.05.99 Rs. 5,95,000/- Kusum Bagga at R.K. Bhalla at Mark P-39 Point Q405 Point Q404 40 086894 24.05.99 Rs. 5,73,000/- Kusum Bagga at R.K. Bhalla at Mark P-40 Point Q408 Point Q407 41 086895 25.05.99 Rs. 5,96,000/- Kusum Bagga at R.K. Bhalla at Mark P-41 Point Q411 Point Q410 42 086896 25.05.99 Rs. 5,92,000/- Kusum Bagga at R.K. Bhalla at Mark P-42 Point Q414 Point Q413 43 086898 25.05.99 Rs. 5,72,000/- Kusum Bagga at R.K. Bhalla at Mark P-43 Point Q417 Point Q416 44 086899 25.05.99 Rs. 5,91,000/- Kusum Bagga at R.K. Bhalla at Mark P-44 Point Q420 Point Q419 45 260498 28.08.99 Rs. 5,96,000/- Kusum Bagga at A.K. Sharma at Mark BX-1 Point Q6 Point Q5 46 260499 28.08.99 Rs. 5,96,000/- Kusum Bagga at A.K. Sharma at Mark BX-2 Point Q3 Point Q2 47 260497 28.08.99 Rs. 5,91,000/- Kusum Bagga at A.K. Sharma at Mark BX-3 Point Q9 Point Q8 48 260496 28.08.99 Rs. 5,92,000/- Kusum Bagga at A.K. Sharma at Mark BX-4 Point Q12 Point Q11 49 260495 27.08.99 Rs. 5,96,000/- Kusum Bagga at A.K. Sharma at Mark BX-5 Point Q15 Point Q14 50 260494 27.08.99 Rs. 5,96,000/- Kusum Bagga at A.K. Sharma at Mark BX-6 Point Q18 Point Q17 CC No. 34/11 CBI Vs. Ram Kumar etc. 64 of 74 51 260493 27.08.99 Rs. 5,91,000/- Kusum Bagga at A.K. Sharma at Mark BX-7 Point Q21 Point Q20 52 260492 27.08.99 Rs. 5,92,000/- Kusum Bagga at A.K. Sharma at Mark BX-8 Point Q24 Point Q23 53 260491 25.08.99 Rs. 5,92,000/- Kusum Bagga at A.K. Sharma at Mark BX-9 Point Q27 Point Q26 54 260490 25.08.99 Rs. 5,96,000/- Kusum Bagga at A.K. Sharma at Mark BX-10 Point Q30 Point Q29 55 260489 25.08.99 Rs. 5,91,000/- Kusum Bagga at A.K. Sharma at Mark BX-11 Point Q33 Point Q32 56 260488 25.08.99 Rs. 5,92,000/- Kusum Bagga at A.K. Sharma at Mark BX-12 Point Q36 Point Q35 57 260487 24.08.99 Rs. 5,96,000/- Kusum Bagga at A.K. Sharma at Mark BX-13 Point Q39 Point Q38 58 260486 24.08.99 Rs. 5,92,000/- Kusum Bagga at A.K. Sharma at Mark BX-14 Point Q42 Point Q41 59 260485 24.08.99 Rs. 5,91,000/- Kusum Bagga at A.K. Sharma at Mark BX-15 Point Q45 Point Q44 60 260484 24.08.99 Rs. 5,92,000/- Kusum Bagga at A.K. Sharma at Mark BX-16 Point Q48 Point Q47 61 260483 21.08.99 Rs. 5,92,000/- Kusum Bagga at A.K. Sharma at Mark BX-17 Point Q51 Point Q50 62 260482 21.08.99 Rs. 5,92,000/- Kusum Bagga at A.K. Sharma at Mark BX-18 Point Q54 Point Q53 63 260481 20.08.99 Rs. 5,96,000/- Kusum Bagga at A.K. Sharma at Mark BX-19 Point Q57 Point Q56 64 260480 20.08.99 Rs. 5,96,000/- Kusum Bagga at A.K. Sharma at Mark BX-20 Point Q60 Point Q59 65 260479 24.08.99 Rs. 5,92,000/- Kusum Bagga at A.K. Sharma at Mark BX-21 Point Q63 Point Q62 66 260478 24.08.99 Rs. 5,91,000/- Kusum Bagga at A.K. Sharma at Mark BX-22 Point Q66 Point Q65 67 260477 23.08.99 Rs. 5,92,000/- Kusum Bagga at A.K. Sharma at Mark BX-23 Point Q69 Point Q68 68 260476 23.08.99 Rs. 5,96,000/- Kusum Bagga at A.K. Sharma at Mark BX-24 Point Q72 Point Q71 69 260475 16.08.99 Rs. 5,91,000/- Kusum Bagga at A.K. Sharma at Mark BX-25 Point Q75 Point Q74 70 260474 16.08.99 Rs. 5,96,000/- Kusum Bagga at A.K. Sharma at Mark BX-26 Point Q78 Point Q77 71 260473 14.08.99 Rs. 5,92,000/- Kusum Bagga at A.K. Sharma at Mark BX-27 Point Q81 Point Q80 CC No. 34/11 CBI Vs. Ram Kumar etc. 65 of 74 72 260472 14.08.99 Rs. 5,96,000/- Kusum Bagga at A.K. Sharma at Mark BX-28 Point Q84 Point Q83 73 260471 10.08.99 Rs. 5,76,000/- Kusum Bagga at A.K. Sharma at Mark BX-29 Point Q87 Point Q86 74 260470 10.08.99 Rs. 5,91,000/- Kusum Bagga at A.K. Sharma at Mark BX-30 Point Q90 Point Q89 75 260469 10.08.99 Rs. 5,92,000/- Kusum Bagga at A.K. Sharma at Mark BX-31 Point Q93 Point Q92 76 260468 10.08.99 Rs. 5,96,000/- Kusum Bagga at A.K. Sharma at Mark BX-32 Point Q96 Point Q95 77 260467 09.08.99 Rs. 5,96,000/- Kusum Bagga at A.K. Sharma at Mark BX-33 Point Q99 Point Q98 78 260466 09.08.99 Rs. 5,91,000/- Kusum Bagga at A.K. Sharma at Mark BX-34 Point Q102 Point Q101 79 260465 09.08.99 Rs. 5,72,000/- Kusum Bagga at A.K. Sharma at Mark BX-35 Point Q105 Point Q104 80 260464 09.08.99 Rs. 5,92,000/- Kusum Bagga at A.K. Sharma at Mark BX-36 Point Q108 Point Q107 81 260463 29.07.99 Rs. 5,96,000/- Kusum Bagga at A.K. Sharma at Mark BX-37 Point Q111 Point Q110 82 260462 29.07.99 Rs. 5,95,000/- Kusum Bagga at A.K. Sharma at Mark BX-38 Point Q114 Point Q113 83 260461 29.07.99 Rs. 5,77,000/- Kusum Bagga at A.K. Sharma at Mark BX-39 Point Q117 Point Q116 84 260460 29.07.99 Rs. 5,77,000/- Kusum Bagga at A.K. Sharma at Mark BX-40 Point Q120 Point Q119 85 260459 28.07.99 Rs. 5,92,000/- Kusum Bagga at A.K. Sharma at Mark BX-41 Point Q123 Point Q122 86 260458 28.07.99 Rs. 5,61,000/- Kusum Bagga at A.K. Sharma at Mark BX-42 Point Q126 Point Q125 87 260457 28.07.99 Rs. 5,92,000/- Kusum Bagga at A.K. Sharma at Mark BX-43 Point Q129 Point Q128 88 260456 28.07.99 Rs. 5,61,000/- Kusum Bagga at A.K. Sharma at Mark BX-44 Point Q132 Point Q131 89 260455 19.07.99 Rs. 5,72,000/- Kusum Bagga at A.K. Sharma at Mark BX-45 Point Q135 Point Q134 90 260454 19.07.99 Rs. 5,96,000/- Kusum Bagga at A.K. Sharma at Mark BX-46 Point Q138 Point Q137 91 260453 19.07.99 Rs. 5,91,000/- Kusum Bagga at A.K. Sharma at Mark BX-47 Point Q141 Point Q140 92 260452 19.07.99 Rs. 5,72,000/- Kusum Bagga at A.K. Sharma at Mark BX-48 Point Q144 Point Q143 CC No. 34/11 CBI Vs. Ram Kumar etc. 66 of 74 93 260451 16.07.99 Rs. 5,72,000/- Kusum Bagga at A.K. Sharma at Mark BX-49 Point Q147 Point Q146 94 260450 16.07.99 Rs. 5,76,000/- Kusum Bagga at A.K. Sharma at Mark BX-50 Point Q150 Point Q149 95 260449 16.07.99 Rs. 5,91,000/- Kusum Bagga at A.K. Sharma at Mark BX-51 Point Q153 Point Q152 96 260448 16.07.99 Rs. 5,96,000/- Kusum Bagga at A.K. Sharma at Mark BX-52 Point Q156 Point Q155 97 260447 15.07.99 Rs. 5,76,000/- Kusum Bagga at A.K. Sharma at Mark BX-53 Point Q159 Point Q158 98 260446 15.07.99 Rs.5,77,000/- Kusum Bagga at A.K. Sharma at Mark BX-54 Point Q162 Point Q161 99 260445 15.07.99 Rs. 5,65,000/- Kusum Bagga at A.K. Sharma at Mark BX-55 Point Q165 Point Q164 100 260444 15.07.99 Rs. 5,95,000/- Kusum Bagga at A.K. Sharma at Mark BX-56 Point Q168 Point Q167 101 260443 14.07.99 Rs. 5,96,000/- Kusum Bagga at A.K. Sharma at Mark BX-57 Point Q171 Point Q170 102 260442 14.07.99 Rs. 5,95,000/- Kusum Bagga at A.K. Sharma at Mark BX-58 Point Q174 Point Q173 103 260440 14.07.99 Rs. 5,92,000/- Kusum Bagga at A.K. Sharma at Mark BX-59 Point Q177 Point Q176 104 260439 14.07.99 Rs. 5,90,000/- Kusum Bagga at A.K. Sharma at Mark BX-60 Point Q180 Point Q179 105 260438 12.07.99 Rs. 5,74,000/- Kusum Bagga at A.K. Sharma at Mark BX-61 Point Q183 Point Q182 106 260436 10.07.99 Rs. 5,63,000/- Kusum Bagga at A.K. Sharma at Mark BX-62 Point Q186 Point Q185 107 260435 10.07.99 Rs. 5,92,000/- Kusum Bagga at A.K. Sharma at Mark BX-63 Point Q189 Point Q188 108 260434 10.07.99 Rs. 5,75,000/- Kusum Bagga at A.K. Sharma at Mark BX-64 Point Q192 Point Q191 109 260433 10.07.99 Rs. 5,91,000/- Kusum Bagga at A.K. Sharma at Mark BX-65 Point Q195 Point Q194 110 260432 10.07.99 Rs. 5,96,000/- Kusum Bagga at A.K. Sharma at Mark BX-66 Point Q198 Point Q197 111 260431 10.07.99 Rs. 5,92,000/- Kusum Bagga at A.K. Sharma at Mark BX-67 Point Q201 Point Q200 112 260430 10.07.99 Rs. 5,77,000/- Kusum Bagga at A.K. Sharma at Mark BX-68 Point Q204 Point Q203 113 260429 09.07.99 Rs. 5,95,000/- Kusum Bagga at A.K. Sharma at Mark BX-69 Point Q207 Point Q206 CC No. 34/11 CBI Vs. Ram Kumar etc. 67 of 74 114 260428 09.07.99 Rs. 5,92,000/- Kusum Bagga at A.K. Sharma at Mark BX-70 Point Q210 Point Q209 115 260427 09.07.99 Rs. 5,96,000/- Kusum Bagga at A.K. Sharma at Mark BX-71 Point Q213 Point Q212 116 260426 09.07.99 Rs. 5,77,000/- Kusum Bagga at A.K. Sharma at Mark BX-72 Point Q216 Point Q215 117 260425 20.10.99 Rs. 5,96,000/- Kusum Bagga at A.K. Sharma at Mark BX-73 Point Q219 Point Q218 118 260402 22.09.99 Rs. 5,96,000/- Kusum Bagga at A.K. Sharma at Mark BX-74 Point Q222 Point Q221 119 260404 22.09.99 Rs. 5,96,000/- Kusum Bagga at A.K. Sharma at Mark BX-75 Point Q225 Point Q224 120 260405 23.07.99 Rs. 5,91,000/- Kusum Bagga at A.K. Sharma at Mark BX-76 Point Q228 Point Q227 121 260406 01.10.99 Rs. 5,96,000/- Kusum Bagga at A.K. Sharma at Mark BX-77 Point Q231 Point Q230 122 260407 23.09.99 Rs. 5,91,000/- Kusum Bagga at A.K. Sharma at Mark BX-78 Point Q234 Point Q233 123 260408 23.09.99 Rs. 5,92,000/- Kusum Bagga at A.K. Sharma at Mark BX-79 Point Q237 Point Q236 124 260409 22.09.99 Rs. 5,95,000/- Kusum Bagga at A.K. Sharma at Mark BX-80 Point Q240 Point Q239 125 260410 23.09.99 Rs. 5,96,000/- Kusum Bagga at A.K. Sharma at Mark BX-81 Point Q243 Point Q242 126 260411 01.10.99 Rs. 5,92,000/- Kusum Bagga at A.K. Sharma at Mark BX-82 Point Q246 Point Q245 127 260412 01.10.99 Rs. 5,92,000/- Kusum Bagga at A.K. Sharma at Mark BX-83 Point Q249 Point Q248 128 260413 04.10.99 Rs. 5,95,000/- Kusum Bagga at A.K. Sharma at Mark BX-84 Point Q252 Point Q251 129 260414 04.10.99 Rs. 5,96,000/- Kusum Bagga at A.K. Sharma at Mark BX-85 Point Q255 Point Q254 130 260415 11.10.99 Rs. 5,92,000/- Kusum Bagga at A.K. Sharma at Mark BX-86 Point Q258 Point Q257 131 260416 11.10.99 Rs. 5,95,000/- Kusum Bagga at A.K. Sharma at Mark BX-87 Point Q261 Point Q260 132 260417 12.10.99 Rs. 5,96,000/- Kusum Bagga at A.K. Sharma at Mark BX-88 Point Q264 Point Q263 133 260418 12.10.99 Rs. 5,92,000/- Kusum Bagga at A.K. Sharma at Mark BX-89 Point Q267 Point Q266 134 260419 14.10.99 Rs. 5,92,000/- Kusum Bagga at A.K. Sharma at Mark BX-90 Point Q270 Point Q269 CC No. 34/11 CBI Vs. Ram Kumar etc. 68 of 74 135 260420 14.10.99 Rs. 5,96,000/- Kusum Bagga at A.K. Sharma at Mark BX-91 Point Q273 Point Q272 136 260421 15.10.99 Rs. 5,95,000/- Kusum Bagga at A.K. Sharma at Mark BX-92 Point Q276 Point Q275 137 260422 15.10.99 Rs. 5,92,000/- Kusum Bagga at A.K. Sharma at Mark BX-93 Point Q279 Point Q278 138 260423 16.10.99 Rs. 5,95,000/- Kusum Bagga at A.K. Sharma at Mark BX-94 Point Q282 Point Q281 139 260424 20.10.99 Rs. 5,96,000/- Kusum Bagga at A.K. Sharma at Mark BX-95 Point Q285 Point Q284 140 260401 22.09.99 Rs. 5,92,000/- Kusum Bagga at A.K. Sharma at Mark BX-96 Point Q288 Point Q287 8.29 All 140 drafts were having stamp of Chaura Bazar Ludhiana
Branch. Indubitably, as per evidence led by prosecution, it becomes apparent that none of these three bank officers i.e. Kusum Bagga, A.K. Sharma and R.K. Bhalla ever remained posted at Chaura Bazar, Ludhiana Branch. Again accused Ram Kumar is to be blamed as being custodian of the security forms and draft books, it was his primary duty to have put stamp of Mataur Branch on all such draft books immediately when he received the same in custody after these were received from Stationery Branch Faridabad. He did not bother to put his stamp of Mataur Branch on such blank draft books. Had he been vigilant in the first instance, who knows there might not be any loss to the bank?
8.30 However, the job of Passing Officer seems to be much more serious and onerous. His job is not limited to verify and tally the signatures of authorized signatories on random basis. He should have also sought confirmation from Ludhiana Branch whether all such drafts had in fact been issued by such branch or not. Naturally, these drafts had not been issued by Ludhiana Branch, and, therfore, the copy of advice could not have been there with Service Branch. Thus, Service Branch was not having any copy of the CC No. 34/11 CBI Vs. Ram Kumar etc. 69 of 74 advice of the drafts at any point of time. In such a situation, Passing Officer should not have cleared the drafts merely on the basis of casual verification of the signatures after tallying the same from the signature book. He should have obtained confirmation from the concerned branch of Ludhiana. Passing Officer never took any step in this direction. It is not a case where the entire transaction had completed in a day. Drafts were presented during a period of five of six months and at no point of time, Passing Officer thought it prudent to have any sort of confirmation from the Ludhiana Branch. He should have obtained draft issue advice from the issuing branch. He should have prepared a statement with respect to the drafts so received and should have waited for reconciliation before releasing the payment. Nothing of that sort was done. Since he was indicted initially as his name figured in the FIR, I made queries from my learned Prosecutor as to whether any departmental action was initiated against him or not and then it was apprised by my learned Prosecutor that there was departmental action against such Charan Singh.
8.31 As per the article of charge framed against Charan Singh in departmental proceedings, while working as an officer at service branch, Delhi, he released payment of 140 drafts in absence of related advice and without verifying the signatures of authorized officers of issuing branch. Interestingly Sh. Charan Singh did not contest such charges and accepted the same unconditionally. He, however, supplemented that he had been promoted to the rank of officer from Peon and clerical cadre and since the number of drafts which used to be received daily and which were required to be passed within hours was voluminous, it was not always possible to closely examine the signatures of authorized officers. He also claimed before disciplinary authority that he singularly could not be held responsible and in clearing the drafts he might be held liable for contributory negligence. He also claimed that no malafide was involved. In view of his CC No. 34/11 CBI Vs. Ram Kumar etc. 70 of 74 pleading guilty, he was imposed penalty of reduction to initial stage in the time scale of pay for five years and held not entitled to earn increment of pay during the period of reduction and on the expiry of such period, the reduction would have the effect of postponing his future increment. Thus the passing officer was held liable for his acts and omissions. He failed to detect that drafts were bearing forged signatures. He failed to obtain the related advice. He failed to notice that the drafts were issued serially in the name of single party and that these should have been dealt with meticulously.
8.32 In view of my aforesaid discussion, it becomes perceptible that accused Manjeet Kumar Anand was having virtually no business prior to May, 1999. Moreover, he had been given opportunity to lead evidence and if he really wanted to show that he was having any substantial business for period prior to May, 1999, he could have very easily placed on record any material to prove such fact. Nothing of that sort has been done. It is not feasible to believe that he would entertain strangers and accept drafts worth lacs and millions and would keep those with him till the same were cleared and till the amount was credited in his account. His such version is not probable as no one would leave behind high valued drafts with any unfamiliar person where there is every chance of its getting encashed with no corresponding consideration. All such drafts were in serial. There are 140 drafts in all and though all the drafts were not, strictly speaking, submitted in strict sequence yet it was very easy to have seen and noticed that these formed part of the same draft book. Despite that, accused Manjeet Anand accepted these drafts which only indicates that sale invoice were only paper transactions and he must have got the possession of such drafts through his co-accused and it is not a case of his merely pocketing a small commission consequent to sale of gold-bars. There is something more than what meet the eyes.
CC No. 34/11 CBI Vs. Ram Kumar etc. 71 of 74
8.33 Moreover, investigating officer has also categorically deposed
that addresses of all such alleged customers were found to be forged. Proof does not mean a rigid mathematical demonstration. It only means evidence to be of such a nature as would induce any reasonable mind to come to one and only one conclusion. In reaching the ultimate conclusion, any criminal court can legitimately draw inference from the facts and circumstances to presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened. In such a situation, court can make reference to common course of natural events, human conduct, public or private business viz a viz the facts of the case. Judicial evaluation can be arrived at by assessing direct evidence, gathering inference borne out from the circumstances, evaluating human conduct and minutely scrutinizing the way in which any particular public or private business has been handled. I cannot be oblivious of the fact that proof beyond reasonable doubt is a guideline only and not a fetish. Reference in this regard be made to Inder Singh Vs State AIR 1978 SC 1091.
8.34 Since there is no charge against accused Manjeet Anand of forging account books to be evidence for sale of Gold Bars, I cannot punish him for that. It is indeed not clear as to which co-accused handed him such drafts. But, one thing is certain that these drafts were with accused Uma Batla and her mother. Decoded slips clearly prove that fact. And then, these drafts landed with Manjeet Anand. Again, their association and complicity has to be necessarily inferred. Absconding accused(s), Uma Batla and Manjeet Anand conspired to cause loss of Rs. 7,98,08,000/- to bank and they all had malafide intention. I would also say that who knows even the remaining 10 drafts had been used by them and bank may not even know that or may not have deliberately reported that. Thus, accused Uma Batla and Manjeet Anand have committed offence u/s 420 IPC read with sec 120 B IPC.
CC No. 34/11 CBI Vs. Ram Kumar etc. 72 of 74
CONCLUSION
9.0 Before parting, I would like to say that investigation was lacking
at some places.
9.1 Nobody knows as to how CBI wanted to demonstrate that a
meeting took place between accused Rekha Dubey and accused Praful Kumar. Two independent hotel witnesses, during investigation, were not confronted with photographs of bank officials. No sincere effort was made to nab one other alleged person Suresh Pawar. No coercive process was obtained against him either. No official from Faridabad stationery branch was cited as witness. No reason of exoneration of Charan Singh and D.K. Tyagi was brought on record. Signature book was not seized. Persons from concerned locality of Ludhiana were not examined to lend re-assurance to the fact that these addresses were forged. Search witnesses pertaining to previous case were never cited as witness here and Search Memo was also not placed on record.
9.3 It is,however, settled legal position that any discrepancy or irregularity in investigation need not necessarily lead to the rejection of the case of the prosecution. Reference be made to Visveswaran v State (2003) 6 SCC 73.
9.4 In view of my foregoing discussion, I hereby convict accused Ram Kumar u/s 13(2) read with 13(1)(d)(iii) of Prevention of corruption Act.
9.5 Accused Uma Batla and Manjeet Anand are held guilty u/s
CC No. 34/11 CBI Vs. Ram Kumar etc. 73 of 74
420 IPC read with sec 120 B IPC.
9.6 File would be, however, liable to be revived as and when
other two accused, who are absconding at the moment, are re-arrested.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT On this 5th Day of November 2012.
(MANOJ JAIN)
Special Judge (PC Act) (CBI)
South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi
CC No. 34/11 CBI Vs. Ram Kumar etc. 74 of 74
CBI Vs. Ram Kumar etc.
CC No. 34/2011
Tuesday, November 06 2012
Present: Sh. Jagbir Singh, learned Public Prosecutor for CBI.
Convict Ram Kumar with Sh. Ikrant Sharma, Ld. Counsel. Convict Manjeet Kumar Anand with Sh. Naresh Kumar Ld. Proxy Counsel for Sh. Yogesh Kr. Verma.
Convict Uma Bhatla with Sh. Rajan Bajaj, Ld. Counsel. Pairvi Officer-SI Vishal.
1 I have heard arguments on sentence.
2 Sh. Jagbir Singh, Ld. PP for CBI has contended that all the convicts are worthy of maximum dosage of punishment as the loss in question is colossal and huge. He has emphasized that because of the criminal misconduct of convict Ram Kumar, 6 blank draft books got vanished from the bank which were ultimately utilized by his co-accused and a sum of Rs. eight crores approximately was illegally siphoned off. He has underlined and stressed that convict Manjeet Kumar Anand and Uma Bhatla had pivotal role to play as Uma Bhatla was the key facilitator being instrumental in procuring the signatures of authorized signatories and convict Manjeet Anand tried to befool all by churning a concocted story.
3 All the aforesaid contentions have been refuted by the convicts and, they all have, once again, pleaded innocence.
4 I need not re-embark upon the merits of the case as such. That chapter stands sealed now.
CC No. 34/11 CBI Vs. Ram Kumar etc. 75 of 74
5 I cannot, however, be unmindful of the fact that the modus
operandi was atypical and unusual. Though the case was registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as well but fact remains that it's primarily and principally a case of cheating.
6 Convict Ram Kumar was grossly negligent. Undoubtedly, he does not seem to be a gainer at all. There is every chance of his co-accused Praful Kumar grabbing undue advantage of his ingenuousness and naïve working style. He does not seem to have done any overt act. Element of mens rea is also missing qua him. That would certainly be a mitigating circumstance. He has no previous bad antecedents and he lost his job because of his irresponsible style of functioning. He is reportedly 65 years of age and Sh. Sharma has contended that he is undergoing the agony of trial since 2003.
7 Convict Uma has also no previous criminal history. She had been living with her mother all along. Her mother re-married one Rakesh Dubey who was having criminal background. Her mother and step-father seem largely responsible for putting her in such a big mess though she herself is to be blamed as well for shaping her own destiny as she knowingly and dishonestly arranged genuine drafts for the purpose of copying signatures. Sh. Bajaj has prayed for lenient view claiming that her matrimonial life was in complete disarray because of this case as her NRI husband has deserted her and it has also been argued that her two children, who are still pursuing studies though major, are dependent upon her.
8 Convict Manjeet has also reportedly no previous involvement. His puckish act made the bank poorer by whopping eight crores rupees though the imprudent and senseless working demonstrated by complainant CC No. 34/11 CBI Vs. Ram Kumar etc. 76 of 74 Bank i.e. Oriental Bank of Commerce, Mataur Branch and Service Branch of New Delhi, the loss was on the cards. Had these branches been vigilant and watchful, despite the devilish planning, the bank would not have been a sufferer? His counsel has, however, prayed that his wife and two unmarried daughters and one unemployed son are totally dependent upon him. It has also been contended that he is heart patient and has already undergone angiography and also that his wife is also suffering from serious back problem and is required to be operated upon.
9 Taking stock of all the aforesaid facts, keeping in mind the nature of the case and overall circumstances, I do not find any reason to extent benefit of probation or admonition to any of the convict. Keeping in mind all the mitigating and aggravating circumstances, I hereby sentence the convicts as under:-
(i) Convict Ram Kumar is sentenced to undergo SI for a period of one year for offence u/s 13 (2) r/w Section 13 (1) (d) (ii) PC Act and fined Rs. 20,000/-. In default he would further undergo SI for a period three months.
(ii) Convict Uma Bhatla is sentenced to undergo RI for a period of three years and fined Rs. 25,000/- for offence u/s 420 IPC. In default, she would further undergo SI for a period of six months. For offence 120- B IPC also the substantive sentence as well as the monetary punishment would remain the same.
Sentences would, however, run concurrently.
(iii) Convict Manjeet Kumar Anand is sentenced to undergo RI for a period of three years and fined Rs.
25,000/- for offence u/s 420 IPC. In default, he would further undergo SI for a period of six months. For offence 120-B IPC also the substantive sentence as well as the monetary punishment would remain the same.
Sentences would, however, run concurrently.
CC No. 34/11 CBI Vs. Ram Kumar etc. 77 of 74
10 Needless to say that all the convicts would be entitled to benefit
of Section 428 Cr.P.C.
11 A copy of judgment & order on sentence be given to all three convicts
free of cost.
12 Ahlmad is directed to paginate and book-mark the file as
per the circular so as to enable digitization of the entire record.
13 File be consigned to record Room. It will not be, however, destroyed and would be revived as and when the absconding accused
(s) are apprehended.
Announced in the open Court
on this 6th day of November, 2012. (MANOJ JAIN)
Special Judge (PC Act) (CBI)
South Distt: Saket Courts: New Delhi
CC No. 34/11 CBI Vs. Ram Kumar etc. 78 of 74