Bangalore District Court
Central Bureau Of Investigation vs In 1. Sri. D.V. Kunder @ on 25 March, 2022
KABC010206832002
IN THE COURT OF XLVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE FOR CBI
CASES, BENGALURU (CCH48)
Dated this the 25th day of March, 2022
PRESENT
Smt. E. CHANDRAKALA., B.Sc, LL.M.,
XLVII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge
and Special Judge for CBI cases,
Bengaluru
SPL.CC.NO.245/2002
C/W
SPL.CC.NO.84/2008
COMPLAINANT: Central Bureau of Investigation,
Bank Securities and Fraud Cell
Bangalore.
(By Public Prosecutor)
/Vs/
ACCUSED IN 1. Sri. D.V. Kunder @
SPL.CC.245/2002: Dharmapal V. Kunder
S/o Late V.M. Salian
Former Manager (Deposits)
Canara Bank, Malleshwaram
Branch,
R/o. Devi Krupa, Karnad Bypass,
Mulki, Mangalore Taluk,
Karnataka574154
2 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
2. Sri. Karunakar Vijay (Abated)
3. Sri.M.N.Nayeem @ Md. Nurullah
Nayeem, S/o Sri.M. Noorulla
Sharief, (Private Person)
Advocate & Legal advisor,
M/s Emvee Group of Companies,
R/o No.58, KHB Colony,
2nd B1 Cross, 5th Block,
Near Punjab National Bank,
Koramangala,
Bangalore560095.
4. Sri. Krishnaswamy Sridhar S/o
Late Sri.K. Krishnaswamy
Iyengar, (Private Person) R/o
No.42, Thimmaiah Layout,
II Floor, Basaweshwar Nagar,
Bangalore73.
5. Sri. Mufid Abdullah Suleiman
(Abated)
6. Mrs. Meena Vijay
W/o Sri. Karunkar Vijay (A2)
Director of M/s Emvee Comforts &
Travels Ltd.,and other EMVEE
Group of Companies,
(Private Person)
R/o Pai Towers,
C/o Pai Associates,
Seedina Gudda,Udupi576101,
New Address: No.21, Unity Road,
Ikeja, Lagos, Nigeria.
7. Sri. S.K. Paramesh,
S/o Sri. Sabu,
(Private Person), Advocate,
Director, M/s. Punarvasu
Commodities and Stocks Ltd.,
3 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
Bangalore.
R/at No.132, 16th Cross,
1st Main, G.D. Park Extension,
Vyalikaval Bangalore03. (Judicial
Custody )
8. M/s EMVEE Comforts & Travels
Ltd, (Accused Ltd. Company)
Represented by its Managing
Director Smt. Meena Vijay (A6)
9. M/s Dhanapriya Housing and
Finance Ltd.,
(Accused Ltd., Company)
Represented by its Managing
Director Smt. Meena Vijay (A6)
ACCUSED IN 10. Sri. Harish Chandulal Patel
SPL.CC.84/2008 : S/o Sri. Late Chandulal Maganlal
Proprietor,
M/s Jagruthi Drug House,
Sardar Patel Wadi,
Shantha Vashahath, Raopura
Vadodara39001
R/at Shree Dwarakesh,
Wadi Vachali Pole, Wadi
Vadodara390017, Gujarat.
11. Sri. Manubhai Shiv Shankar
Trivedi (Abated)
12. Sri.Kanubhai Kesavalal Patel
@ Lalchand Mulchand Waya
S/o Sri Late Kesavalal
Manicklal Patel,
Watchman,
M/s. Honest Security Agency,
Anand Cloth Market,
Sarangpur, Ahmedabad1,
4 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
Gujarat.
R/at Shanthi Apartments,
Flat No.102, Taluk Dhaskoi,
Ghuma Village,
Near Sainath Hospital.
(By Sri.R.G.K Advocate for
A1,3,and4,
By Sri.S.G.R, Advocate for A6,
By Sri.P.C.S, Advocate for A7,
A8,9 FirmsNo representation
By Sri.V.N.N, Advocate for A10,12)
*****
1.Date of Commission of 19982000
Offence :
2. Date of Report of Offence : 22122000
3. Arrest of Accused : 14022001
4. Name of the complainant : C.B.I
5. Date of recording of 07022005
Evidence :
6. Date of closing Evidence : 26072012
7. Offences complained of : Under Sections 120(B)
R/w Sec.409, 420, 468,
IN C.C 245/2002 469, 471, 474 and 477A
of IPC and Sec.13(2) r/w
Sec.13(1) (c) and (d) of
PC Act,1988
IN C.C 84/2008 Under Sections 120(B)
R/w Sec. 420, 467, 468,
471 of IPC and Sec.13(2) r/w
Sec.13(1) (c) and (d) of
PC Act, 1988.
5 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
8. Opinion of the Judge : Accused Nos.1,3,4,6,7,8,9,10 and
12 are not found guilty of the
offences U/s.120(B) R/w Sec.409,
420, 467, 468, 469, 471, 474 and
477A of IPC and Sec.13(2) r/w
Sec.13(1) (c) and (d) of
PC Act,1988
(E.CHANDRAKALA)
XLVII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge and
Special Judge for CBI cases,
Bengaluru.
*****
COMMON JUDGMENT
The Inspector of Police of CBI (Bank Securities and
Fraud Cell) laid a charge sheet against the accused Nos.1
to 9 for the offences punishable under Sections 120B
r/w Sec.409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 474 and 477 A IPC and
Sec.13(2) r/w Sec.13(1) (c) and (d) of PC Act, and
substantive offences under Sec.409, 420, 469, 468, 471,
474 and 477(A) IPC and Sec.13(2) r/w Sec.13 (1) (c) and
(d) of PC Act,1988 against accused No.1 and under
Sections.420, 467, 468, 471, 474 and 477 A IPC against
A2, A4 and A5 and under Sec.420 IPC against A3, A6,
A7, A8 and A9, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of
IPC against A10, under Section 420 of IPC against A11
6 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
and under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC against
A12.
2. The sum and substance of the prosecution case is
that the accused Nos.1 to 9 entered into criminal
conspiracy at Bangalore during the period 19982000 to
cheat the Canara Bank, Malleshwaram Branch,
Bengaluru, with dishonest and fraudulent intention
misrepresented the facts, diverted the Bank funds by
forging documents and valuable securities such as FCNR
deposit receipts, power of attorney documents and using
the same as genuine to part with the proceeds of loan
availed against the securities without the knowledge of
concerned depositors in favour of K. Vijay(accused No.2)
now deceased and transferred the amounts to the
account of accused Nos.8 and 9 companies and caused
wrongful loss to the Canara Bank more than Rs.6.60
Crores and wrongful gain for themselves and thereby
commits the charge sheeted offences.
3. During pendency of the trial, the Inspector of Police
CBI, submitted supplementary charge sheet against
accused No.10 to 12 for the offences punishable under
Sections 120B r/w Sec.420, 467, 468, 471 IPC.
4. The substance of the supplementary charge sheet is
that the accused No. 10 to 12 entered into criminal
conspiracy with the other accused No. 1 and 2 and
7 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
represented themselves as power of attorney holders of
NRI depositors and availed loan against the security of
FCNR deposits by submitting false and forged documents
and transferred the amount to the account of the Group
of Companies of K. Vijay(accused No.2) and received part
of commission from him and caused wrongful loss the
bank and wrongful gain for themselves and thereby
commits the offences punishable under Sections.120B
r/w Sec. 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC and substantive
offences thereof.
5. After appearance of accused persons, they have
been enlarged on bail. The copies of charge sheet have
been furnished by compliance of the provision of Sec.207
of Cr.P.C. After hearing the both sides the charge framed
against accused persons and they pleaded not guilty and
claimed to be tried.
6. During pendency of trial, the K. Vijay(accused No.2)
died on 19/07/2003 and the case is abated against him
vide order dated 03/08/2004. Accused No.5 Mufie
Abdula Suleman is died on 04/06/2013 and the case is
abated against him vide order dated 08/07/2013.
Accused No.11 Manubai Shivshankar Trivedi died on
01/01/2022 and the case is abated against him vide
order dated 24.02.2022.
8 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
7. The supplementary charge sheet against accused
Nos.10 to 12 in Spl.CC.No.84/2008 was clubbed with
Spl.CC.No.245/2002 for the purpose of recording of
evidence in the main case vide order dated 05.07.2012.
8. The prosecution in order to bring the guilt of the
accused persons has examined the witnesses as PW1 to
PW35 and got marked documents as Ex.P.1 to
Ex.P.272. The accused Nos.1,3,4,6,7,10,12 have been
examined under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C., wherein they have
denied the incriminating material appeared against
them. The accused No.1,3,4,6,8,9,10, and 12 did not
choose to lead evidence on their behalf. The accused
No.7 examined as D.W.2. The accused have summoned
and examined one witness as D.W.1 and got marked
documents as per Ex.D1 to D.40.
9. The Ld. Public Prosecutor submitted oral and
written arguments. Heard Sri. R.G.K Advocate for
accused No. 1,3,4 and Sri.VNN Advocate for A10 and A
12. Both Ld. Counsels submitted written arguments.
Memo with Citations filed. The counsel for A6 filed
written arguments. A7 himself has submitted
arguments through V.C.
10. The learned PP relied on the following decision :
1. Muralilal V/s State of MP AIR 1980 SC 531
9 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
The learned counsel for accused Nos.1,3,4 has
relied on the following decisions :
1. 2013 4 AIR (Kar) (R) 776, 2013 3 KCCR 2368 K.
Vaadaraja Pai and others Vs State by CBI (entire
judgment)
2. (2012) 5 SCC 661 (Aneeta Hada V/s Godfather
Travels and Tours private limited )
3. (2015) 4 SCC 609 (Sunil Bharti Mittal V/s CBI)
4. Crl.Appeal No.1571 of 2021 (SLP (Crl.) No.5438 of
2020) (Praveen @ Sonu, V/s The State of Haryana)
5. (2004) 11 SCC 585 (Esher Singh V/s State of AP)
6. AIR 1925 Nagapur 440 (Digambar V/s Emperor)
7. Crl.P.No.274/2008 (Mahindra and Mahindra
Financial Service Ltd., and Anr., V/s Delta Classic
Pvt. Ltd.)
8. (2014) 2 S.C.C 1 (Lalitha Kumari V/s Government of
UP & others)
11. Perused, the charge sheets, charge, evidence and
documents placed on record.
12. In the light of above material on record, the points
that arise for consideration of the court are as follows:
1. Whether prosecution obtain sanction under law
to prosecute accused No.1?
2. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond
reasonable doubt that the accused No.1 has
10 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
furtherance of their criminal conspiracy, has
committed the offence of criminal breach of
Trust with regard to FCNR deposits of (1) Sri.
Suresh Purswaney and Mrs.Karen Purswaney (2)
Sri.Diwanchand Bhagwandas and Mrs.Meenu
Diwanchand Bhagwandas (3) Sri.Prakash
Narsinghdas Panjabi and Sri.Tej Narsinghdas
Navalrai (4) Bhagwan T.Mirchandani & Kundan
Lall T.Mirchandani (5) Sri.Hirachand Bhagwanji
Waya and Mrs.Shantha Hirachand Waya (6)
Smt.Geeta Naraingdas Khiani and Sri.Naraindas
Gianchand Khiani held in the Malleshwaram
Branch of Canara Bank and thereby has
committed the offence punishable under
Section 409 of IPC ?
3. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond
reasonable doubt that all the accused persons in
furtherance of their criminal conspiracy, the
accused No. 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 and 9,10 and 12 to
commit the offences have cheated the Canara
Bank, Malleshwaram Branch to the tune of
Rs.6.60 Crores with regard to the FCNR deposits
of (1) Sri. Suresh Purswaney and Mrs.Karen
Purswaney (2) Sri.Diwanchand Bhagwandas
and Mrs.Meenu Diwanchand Bhagwandas (3)
Sri.Prakash Narsinghdas Panjabi and Sri.Tej
Narsinghdas Navalrai (4) Bhagwan
T.Mirchandani & Kundan Lall T.Mirchandani (5)
Sri.Hirachand Bhagwanji Waya and
Mrs.Shantha Hirachand Waya (6) Smt.Geeta
Naraingdas Khiani and Sri.Naraindas
Gianchand Khiani with regard to sanction and
availment of loan on FCNR deposits without the
knowledge of depositors and and thereby they
have committed the offence punishable under
Section 420 of IPC ?
11 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
4. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond
reasonable doubt that the accused persons in
furtherance of the criminal conspiracy to commit
the offence, the accused No.1,4, 10 and 12 have
committed the offence of forgery with regard to
FCNR receipts issued by Canara Bank,
Malleshwaram Branch in the name of (1) Sri.
Suresh Purswaney and Mrs.Karen Purswaney (2)
Sri.Diwanchand Bhagwandas and Mrs.Meenu
Diwanchand Bhagwandas (3) Sri.Prakash
Narsinghdas Panjabi and Sri.Tej Narsinghdas
Navalrai (4) Bhagwan T.Mirchandani & Kundan
Lall T.Mirchandani (5) Sri.Hirachand Bhagwanji
Waya and Mrs.Shantha Hirachand Waya (6)
Smt.Geeta Naraingdas Khiani and Sri.Naraindas
Gianchand Khiani and also with regard to power
of attorney purported to be executed in the
name of Suresh Peter, Harish Chandulal Patel
the accused No.10 and Sri.Kanubhai
Kesavalal Patel @ Lalchand Mulchand Waya the
accused No.12 and the account opening forms
pertaining to the above said depositors and also
letters purported to be written by the said
depositors and thereby committed offence of
forgery punishable under Section 467 of the
IPC ?
5. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond
reasonable doubt that the accused persons in
furtherance of the criminal conspiracy to commit
the offence, the accused Nos.1,4 10 and 12
have committed the offence of forgery for the
purpose of cheating, with regard to FCNR
receipts issued by Canara Bank, Malleshwaram
Branch in the name of (1) Sri. Suresh
Purswaney and Mrs.Karen Purswaney (2)
Sri.Diwanchand Bhagwandas and Mrs.Meenu
Diwanchand Bhagwandas (3) Sri.Prakash
Narsinghdas Panjabi and Sri.Tej Narsinghdas
12 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
Navalrai (4) Bhagwan T.Mirchandani & Kundan
Lall T.Mirchandani (5) Sri.Hirachand Bhagwanji
Waya and Mrs.Shantha Hirachand Waya (6)
Smt.Geeta Naraingdas Khiani and Sri.Naraindas
Gianchand Khiani and also with regard to power
of attorney purported to be executed in the
name of Suresh Peter, Harish Chandulal Patel
the accused NO.10 and accused Sri.Kanubhai
Kesavalal Patel @ Lalchand Mulchand Waya the
accused No.12 and the account opening forms
pertaining to the above depositors and thereby
committed offence of forgery for the purpose of
cheating Canara Bank, Malleshwaram Branch
punishable under Section 468 of IPC ?
6. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond
reasonable doubt that all the accused persons in
furtherance of the criminal conspiracy to commit
the offence, the accused Nos. 1 and 4 had used
forged FCNR receipts of the deposits and also
power of attorneys, account opening forms and
also the letters purported to have been written
by the depositors as genuine documents though
they knew that they are the forged documents
and thereby committed offence punishable
under Section 471 of IPC ?
7. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond
reasonable doubt that all the accused persons in
furtherance of the criminal conspiracy to commit
the offence, the accused No.1 willfully and with
an intention to defraud, has committed the
offense of falsification of loan accounts in the
names of GPA holders purported to be executed
by depositors and destroyed FCNR deposit
receipts and thereby committed the offence
punishable under Section 477(A) of IPC ?
13 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
8. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond
reasonable doubt that all the accused persons in
furtherance of the criminal conspiracy to commit
the offence, the accused No.1 being the Manager
(Deposits) of Canara Bank, Malleshwaram
Branch has abused his official position as Public
Servant, with an object to obtain pecuniary
advantage in the matter of facilitating,
sanctioning of loans, forged GPA documents,
letters and valuable securities and used them as
genuine and obtained Maruti Zen Car from
accused No.4 and thereby committed the
offence of criminal misconduct punishable
under Section 13(2) R/w Sec.13(1)(d) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ?
9. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond
reasonable doubt that all the accused persons in
furtherance of the criminal conspiracy to commit
the offence, the accused No.1 and 4 with the
connivance of K. Vijay and were in possession
of parallel fake FCNR receipts, account opening
forms and FCNR deposit receipts with an intent
to use it as genuine and thereby committed the
offence punishable under Section 474 of IPC ?
10. Whether the prosecution further proves
beyond reasonable doubt that the accused
No.1,3,4,6,7,8,9, 10 and 12 in this case have
committed the offence of criminal conspiracy
punishable under Section 120(B) of IPC ?
11. What Order ?
13. My findings on the above points are as
hereunder:
Point No.1 : Not required.
14 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
Point No.2 : In the Negative
Point No.3 : In the Negative
Point No.4 : In the Negative
Point No.5 : In the Negative
Point No.6 : In the Negative
Point No.7 : In the Negative
Point No.8 : In the Negative
Point No.9 : In the Negative
Point No.10 : In the Negative
Point No.11 : As per final order for the following:
REASONS
14. Before, adverting to the Prosecution case, it is
necessary to discuss on the first and foremost point
raised by the learned counsel for the accused Nos.1, 3
and 4 on the point of jurisdiction. It is urged that in
view of Section 4(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988, ( hereinafter referred as PC Act) the Central
Government has to make notification to try the case by
Special Court for the area within which it was
committed, or where there are more Special Judges than
one for such area.
15. Now, it is better to reiterate the provision of
Section 4(2) of PC, Act, which reads thus:
Section 4. Cases triable by Special Judges :
(1) : xxxxxxx
15 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
(2) : Every offence specified in subsection (1) of
Section 3 shall be tried by the Special Judge for
the area within which it was committed, or, as
the case may be, by the Special Judge appointed
for the case, or where there are more Special
Judges than one for such area, by such one of
them as may be specified in this behalf by the
Central Government.
(3) : xxxxxxx
(4) : xxxxxxx
On careful reading of the aforesaid provision of law,
it clearly enumerates that every offence specified in
subsection (1) of Section 4, shall be tried by Special
Judge for the area within which it was committed, or,
as the case may be, the Special Judge appointed for the
case, or where there are more Special Judges than one
for such area, by such one of them as may be specified
in this behalf by the Central Government.
16. The Notification issued by the Principal Special
Judge, Bangalore vide No.PSJ(CBI) AOW/1/12 dated
22/02/2012, depicts with regard to distribution of work
among the courts constituted for trying the cases
registered under P.C Act, 1988. The aforesaid
notification was by virtue of the Government
Notification No.HD 186 PCR 10 dated 29/06/2011 and
on the basis of the letter issued by the Hon'ble High
Court of Karnataka in GOB(1) 265/2002 dated
10/01/2012.
16 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
17. By virtue of above Notification, the jurisdiction of
this Court is fixed with regard to cases instituted by
Delhi Special Police Establishment for the areas Kolar,
Chikkaballapura, Tumkur, Hassan, Chikmagalur, Haveri
and Koppala. Admittedly, the area in which present
case has been instituted certainly do not fall within the
jurisdiction of this Court to try the case. However, by
virtue of notification issued in Karnataka Gazette in
No.HD 186 PCR 10, Bangalore dated 10/12/2010 and
Gazette dated 20/01/2011, the Government of
Karnataka appoints Sessions Judges as Special Judges
in respect of areas specified in thereof to deal with the
cases instituted by the Delhi Special Police
Establishment in respect of the P.C Act. By virtue of said
notification, this Court has jurisdiction to try the cases
assigned by the Principal Special Judge, Bangalore. It is
to be noted that by virtue of Principal Special Judge,
Bangalore vide No.PSJ(CBI) AOW/2/2012 dated
22/02/2012, the case in C.C 245/2002 and as per the
notification No.PSJ(CBI) AOW/2/2012 dated
22/02/2012, the Spl.CC.No.84/2008 were transferred
to this Court to try the same. Therefore, the contention
of the learned counsel for the accused that this Court
has no jurisdiction to try the case as per Sec.4(2) of P.C s
Act, 1988 is not acceptable one. This Court has
jurisdiction to try the case.
17 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
18. POINT NO.1: . The prosecution case is that
accused No.1 is the former Manager of Deposits, Canara
Bank, Malleshwaram Branch, Bengaluru. The point that
arise is with regard to valid sanction to prosecute the
case against the accused No.1 as he has abused his
official position as Public Servant by corrupt or illegal
means for obtaining pecuniary advantage for himself
and facilitated sanctioning of loans against security
deposits. Admittedly, the accused No.1 worked as
Manager (Deposits), Canara Bank, Malleshwaram
Branch, Bangalore as public servant during 1998 2000.
As such, it is necessary to consider whether sanction
under Sec.19(1) of P.C Act and under Sec.197 of Cr.P.C
is required or not.
19. The Ld.P.P would submit that the accused was
not in service at the time of filing of charge sheet and
under old PC Act, sanction is not necessary to prosecute
the accused No.1 for the offenses under PC Act and so
also IPC.
20. At this stage, I would like to cite the decision of
Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in Prakash Singh Badal
and Others v/s State of Punjab and others' case. It was
held thus:
"34. xx The offence of cheating under Section 420 or
for that matter offences relatable to Section 467,
18 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
468, 471 and 120B can by no stretch of imagination
by their very nature be regarded as having been
committed by any public servant while acting or
purporting to act in discharge of official duty. In
such cases, official status only provides an
opportunity for commission of the offence."
On careful reading of the aforesaid decision, it is
clear that the protection is given only when the alleged
act done by the public servant is reasonably connected
with the discharge of his official duty and is not merely a
cloak for doing the objectionable act. It is to be noted
that alleged indulgence of accused No.1 in cheating the
Canara Bank, Malleshwaram Branch, Bangalore cannot
be said to be in discharge of his official duties.
21. In so far as the sanction under Section 19 of PC
Act is concerned, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Station
House Officers and another CBI/ACB/Bengaluru v/s
B.A. Srinivasan and another 2020(2) SCC 153 has held
that the protection under the provision of Section 19
would not be available to a public servant after he had
demitted his office or retired from service.
22. In another decision the Hon'ble Apex Court in
Labh Singh Case it was observed that:
"9. In the present case the public servants in
question had retired on 13.12.1999 and
30.04.2000. The sanction to prosecute them
was rejected subsequent to 6 [1958] SCR 1037
Criminal Appeal No.1837 of 2019 (@SLP(crl.)
No.61006 of 2019) Station House Officer,
CBI/ACB/ Bengaluru v/s B.A. Srinivasan their
19 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
retirement i.e., first on 13.09.2000 and later on
24.09.2003. The public servants having retired
from service there was no occasion to consider
grant of sanction under Section 19 of the PC
Act. The law on the point is quite clear that
sanction to prosecute the public servant for the
offences under the PC Act is not required if the
public servant had already retired on the date
of cognizance by the court. In S.A
Venkataraman v/s State 6 while construing
Section 6(1) of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1947 which provision is in pari materia
with Section 19(1) of the PC Act, this Court
held that no sanction was necessary in the case
of a person who had ceased to be the public
servant at the time the court was asked to take
cognizance. The view taken in S.A
Venkataraman 6 was adopted by this Court in
C.R. Bansi v.s State of Maharashtra 7 and in
Kalicharan Mahapatra v/s State of Orissa 2 and
by the Constitution Bench of this Court in
K.Veeraswami v/s Union of India 8. The High
Court was not therefore justified in setting
aside the order passed by this Special Judge in
sofar as charge under the PC Act was
concerned."
23. As laid down in the above decisions, the public
servants having seized to hold the same office which they
held as public servants at the time of taking cognizance,
the sanction for prosecution is not necessary. The
protection available to a public servant while in service
should not available after his retirement.
24. In the case on hand, the accused No.1 was retired
from his office prior to filing of the chargesheet. Hence,
20 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
he cannot be considered as public servant at the time of
taking cognizance of the offence. Thus, the sanction
under Sec.19 of P.C Act and under Sec.197 of Cr.P.C., for
prosecuting accused No.1 is not required in the case.
Hence, I answer the point accordingly.
25. POINT NOs.2 TO 10 : These points are taken
together for common discussion, in order to avoid
repetition of facts and reasoning.
It would be relevant to briefly narrate the substance
of the prosecution case. The accused No.1 is the former
Manager of Deposits, Canara Bank, Malleshwaram
Branch, Bengaluru, K.Vijay (accused No.2) was the
Chairman and Managing Director of M/s.EMVEE Group of
Companies, accused No.3 is Advocate and Legal Advisor of
M/s.EMVEE Group of Companies and also close associate
of K.Vijay, accused No.4 is a private person, who had
worked with K.Vijay, accused No.5 was the private person
who arranged Suresh Peter as the power of attorney
holder of depositors as per the instructions of K.Vijay, the
accused No.6 is the wife of K. Vijay(accused No.2) and also
the Director of M/s.EMVEE Group of Companies,
accused No.7 is the Director of M/s.Punarvasu
Commodities and Stocks Ltd., accused No.8 is a company
namely M/s.EMVEE Comforts and Travels Ltd., accused
No.9 is a public limited company namely M/s.Dhanapriya
Housing and Finance Ltd., represented by K. Vijay, the
21 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
accused No.10 is the power of attorney holder of depositor
who availed loan against security of FCNR deposits at the
instigation of accused No.11. The accused No.11 was a
private person, who acts at the instigation of K.Vijay who
induced the accused Nos.10 and 12 to forge the
documents as they are GPA holders of NRI depositors and
the accused No.12 is the GPA holder of NRI depositor.
26. The Ld. Counsel for accused argued that there is
mistake in the charge framed against the accused persons
with regard to the name of the bank and no specific
charges against accused No.8 and 9. Percontra, the
Ld.P.P submitted that there is clerical mistake in the
charge and it is not a material effect as per Sec.215 of
Cr.P.C. On careful reading of the Sec.215 of Cr.P.C., it
says that any particulars of the offence required to be
stated in the charge is omitted and those particulars shall
be regarded at any stage of the case as material, unless
the accused was infact misled by such error or omission,
the Court may infer that such omission or error is a
failure of justice. In the case on hand, the material
particulars of the offence has been stated clearly in the
charge except the name of bank in some places. As such,
the same shall have no material effect and it has not
occasioned a failure of justice. It is alleged that all the
accused persons entered into criminal conspiracy at
Bangalore, during the period of 19982000 to cheat
22 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
Canara Bank, Malleshwaram Branch with dishonest and
fraudulent intention by misrepresenting the facts to the
Bank and diverted the Bank funds by forging documents
against the securities such as parallel fake FCNR deposit
receipts, Power of Attorney documents, using the same
as genuine and raising loans against the security of FCNR
receipts without knowledge and consent of depositors and
transferred the amount to the account of accused Nos.8
and 9 companies and siphoned off the Bank funds.
27. It is further alleged that the accused No.1, the
then Manager of Deposits, Canara Bank, Malleshwaram
Branch, who was entrusted with the Deposits section,
has abused his official position as public servant, by
corrupt or illegal means, disbursed the loan amount
sanctioned against the FCNR deposits of NRI and diverted
the amount to the account of accused Nos.8 and 9
companies and further the accused No.1 knowingly with
dishonest and fraudulent intention had replaced the
original account opening forms of NRI depositors with
Canara Bank, Malleshwaram Branch and send parallel
fake FD receipts to the depositors, placed fake account
opening forms which contain forged signatures, forged
passports in Bank records and raised loans against
valuable securities without the knowledge of depositors
on the basis of the fake letter, false power of attorney and
23 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
diverted funds to the accused Nos.8 and 9 companies and
committed criminal breach of trust.
28. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that
witnesses i.e., PWs'1, 2, 4 to 11 have categorically
deposed that accused No.1 was the Manager (Deposits)
during the relevant point of time. He was the person
who introduced K. Vijay to arrange GPA holders Suresh
Peter and accused Nos.10 and 12 to the Bank and he
was the front person in getting loans in the names of
GPA holders. There is abundant material to show that
accused No.1 was the custodian of documents and he
played active role in facilitating to sanction the loans on
the deposits of NRIs.
29. On the other hand, Sri.R.G.K Advocate, the
Ld. Counsel for accused No.1 has submitted that, there
is no iota of evidence to illustrate the aspect that
accused No.1 infact was entrusted with the property
i.e., security items and he removed the forms and
replaced with other fabricated forms to attract the
offense under Sec.409 of IPC. The accused No.1 was
third level Manager and there are 45 superior level
Managers above him and he had no active role to play in
the banking transactions. None of the witnesses have
stated the accused No.1 was custodian of any of the
security items and fake FCNR deposits were sent to
depositors by him. It was CW33, K.P.Upadhyaya who
24 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
was the custodian of FCNR deposits and the
prosecution intentionally not examined the said witness
and not cited Krishnan, who was also joint custodian of
the documents during that relevant period. As such the
prosecution failed to prove the ingredients of Sec.409 of
IPC.
30. The first and foremost ingredient of Sec.409 of
IPC is entrustment with the property or with any
dominion over property. Secondly, misuses the property
with dishonest intention or converts to his own use.
Thirdly, Acts in violation of any direction of law
prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be
discharge. The prosecution, to prove the offence
punishable under Sec.409 of IPC against accused No.1,
has examined the Bank officials of Canara Bank,
Malleshwaram Branch, Bengaluru as Pws1,2,7,8 and
29.
31. PW1 is the then Chief Manager, who worked
during the year 19992000. PW2 was the Senior
Manager during the year 19982001. P.W.7 was the
Manager in charge of deposit section during 19972000.
All these witnesses have categorically deposed that
accused No.1 was working as Manager (Deposits) in
Canara Bank during the year 19982000. PW1 has
deposed that there is key responsibility area document
which describes the specific duties to the Managers and
25 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
officers. Further, security items were not exclusively
entrusted to one officer and it was entrusted jointly to
the two officers.
32. PW2 stated that, branch receives the security
items from the printers in the first instance. The key
holders of the branch are joint custodians of the strong
room. The key holders are responsible for maintain the
security item register. After receipt of security items, they
will enter into a register and keep the security items in a
double lock cupboard inside the strong room. Further,
to meet day today requirements of the department, small
quantities are released from the stock and they are hand
over to concerned officer under the acknowledgement.
The security items are cheques, DDs, Deposit receipt,
pay orders, Bank advises in blank forms. The particular
department will be handling the security items during
the course of the day today business. M.G. Sharma
P.W.7 was in charge of deposit section for some time and
he has the responsibility to issue FDRs to the depositors.
Further, in the deposit section, the accused No.1 and
CW33 having access to the said cupboard and key was
with CW33. It has further stated that the officer in
charge of cash department and the Manager
administration are the joint key holders. During relevant
time C.W.33 K.P. Upadhyaya was the Manager
administration.
26 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
33. PW7 has stated about role of accused No.1 with
regard to charge, movement, custody and destruction of
FD receipts. He has also narrated the procedure of
issuing FD receipts to the customers. During his tenure,
the accused No.1 was Manager in Deposits. Whenever,
the customer approaches the Bank to deposit the
amount, the Bank will issue application to the customer
to fill up the required information by the depositors.
Later on the Bank official will receive the application
alongwith voucher of the deposit amount. Thereafter,
the official will put his signature on the deposit receipt
and will obtain the signature of the Manager(Deposits)
and the enter the same in the register. Later, they used
to obtain the signature of depositors to the register for
having received the deposit receipt. He further stated
that during office hours, the Bank deposit forms used to
be ordinarily in the custody of the concerned clerk of the
deposit section and at the end of the office hours, he
used to handover the same to the Manager of Deposit
Section. PW7 during his tenure, used to attend the
deposit amount of ordinary deposit amount and accused
No.1 used to handle the deposits of Corporate and NRI.
In the crossexamination has stated, one officer in the
branch will be entrusted with the responsibilities and
custodian of the said deposit forms.
27 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
34. PW8 has stated that there will be a chart
maintained in the Bank with regard to mention of the
name of the officers to whom the responsibility of blank
FD receipts have been entrusted. Further, CW33 and
one Krishnan are the officers of the security items. PW2
has admitted as per Ex.P.123, there is an entry to the
effect that CW33 and Krishnan had been authorized to
make entry in Ex.P.8 with regard to loss of security
items.
35. PW29 has stated, CW33 K.P Upadyaya was
incharge of the security items during the relevant period
and he was holding one key of safe locker and
Mr.Krishnan was another officer holding another key and
they jointly operate the locker during period. In the
course of cross examination has stated during
investigation has seized the Key Responsibility Area
document which reveals about the duties assigned to
each of the officers of the bank. But, there is no such
document placed before the court to prove that the
accused No.1 was the custodian of security items.
36. It is to be noted that during the course of cross
examination of PWs1, 2, 7 and 29, it was elicited that
there is 'Key Responsibility Area' document maintained
in the Bank, which disclose with regard to assignment
of duty and responsibilities to the officers of the bank.
The said document plays an important role to establish
28 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
that the accused No.1 was assigned the responsibility of
security items. Non seizure of the afore said document
certainly affects the case of prosecution to prove the
entrustment of security items to the accused No.1.
37. Ex.D.1 was produced marked during the cross
examination. The said document is a letter dated
29/09/1999 issued from HROD Section (Personal Wing)
Head Office, Bangalore, pertaining to the restructuring
of very large branches. This document was admitted by
PW1 and PW2 in their crossexamination. On careful
reading of the document, it depicts about the duties and
responsibilities assigned to the Chief Manager and other
officials of the Bank. It came into effect from
01/11/1999. So, it is the duty of Mr. K.S.V.Shenoy,
the Chief Manager to assign duty and responsibilities to
his subordinate officers and staff.
38. From the above evidence, it is clear that the
security forms are got printed by the Head Office and
thereafter they are supplied to the branches. Once the
branch receives the security items, its movement will be
constantly monitored and recorded the officer to whom
the responsibility has been entrusted and the officers'
are alone accountable until the same is converted into
FD receipts. Further, whenever the custodian parts with
the possession of issuing FD receipts to the officer
29 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
concerned, the acknowledgement will be taken from the
said officer to whom it has been handedover for issuing
FD receipts and who was incharge of the security items
at the relevant point of time. The evidence further reveal
that who are joint custodians of security items and they
are authorised to destroy the missing security items and
should report the same to their superior authorities.
Whenever the security stationery is found missing, lost
or destructed, it will be entered into a register like
Ex.P.8. The officer to whom the security documents
have been entrusted is accountable for lost or
destruction of the same. The movements of security
items constantly is monitored as disclosed in Ex.P.123.
The evidence of above witnesses it is clear that accused
No.1 was Manager (Deposits) during 199899 and he
was not the custodian of the security items, on the other
hand C.W.33 and Krishnan are the joint custodian of
security items.
39. The prosecution has examined the witnesses
PW7 to PW10, who are officials of Canara Bank,
Malleshwaram Branch, Bengaluru to prove the charge,
movements, custody and destruction of security items.
The prosecution case rests on the deposits made by the
NRIs and loans raised against the FCNR deposits. As
per the charge sheet, there are 6 depositors, who have
deposited their amount with Canara Bank,
30 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
Malleshwaram Branch on various dates. It is correct to
state the details of the depositors for discussion, which
are as follows:
1. Sri. Suresh Purswaney and Mrs.Karen
Purswaney: The documents are marked as Ex.P.1 to
Ex.P.21. Ex.P.1 is the letter received from Canara
Bank, Foriegn Department regarding the deposit of
US dollars 5,00,000 in the joint names of Sri. Suresh
Purswaney and Mrs.Karen Purswaney. Ex.P.6 is the
original FCNR receipt bearing No.2039866 issued in
favour of the aforesaid depositors for US Dollars
5,00,000 on 07/05/1999. Ex.P.7 is the alleged
parallel FD receipt bearing No.2039771 dated
07/05/1999 issued in the name of the aforesaid
depositors for US Dollars 5,00,000. Ex.P.9 is the
alleged GPA dated 06/05/1999 alleged to have been
executed by the depositors in favour of Suresh Peter.
Ex.P.10 is the alleged request letter by the depositors
to avail loan/OD facility on the deposits submitted by
GPA holder. Ex.P.11 is the letter issued by the
depositors to the Manager, Canara Bank regarding
loan against FCNR deposits. Ex.P.15 is the statement
of accounts pertaining to VSL Account No.99035 for
the period from 01/01/1999 to 03/05/2001. Ex.P.17
is the statement of accounts for having transferred
the amount of Rs.1,57,50,00,000/ to A8Company.
31 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
Ex.P.18 is the cheque issued by the alleged GPA
holder in favour of A8Company. Ex.P.20 is the copy
of fax regarding communication of FCNR deposits
signed by the depositor Suresh Purswaney.
2. Sri.Diwanchand Bhagwandas and Mrs.Meenu
Diwanchand Bhagwandas : The documents are
marked as Ex.P.22 to Ex.P.40. Ex.P.27 is the original
FCNR deposit No.2039869 dated 04/05/1999 issued
for US Dollars 1,29,990 in the names of
Sri.Diwanchand Bhagwandas and Mrs.Meenu
Diwanchand Bhagwandas. Ex.P.40 is the alleged
parallel FD receipt bearing No.2039772 for US
Dollars 1,29,990 issued in the name of above
depositors. Ex.P.28 is the alleged GPA executed by
the depositors in favour of Suresh Peter. Ex.P.22 is
the letter issued by Canara Bank, Foreign
Department, Bangalore regarding FCNR deposits.
Ex.P.29 is the alleged request letter for loan dated
07/05/1999 submitted by the alleged GPA holder.
Ex.P.32 is the alleged account opening form in the
name of depositors. Ex.P.34 is the statement of
account in respect of loan account No.99036 raised
in the name of the depositors. Ex.P.36 is the
statement of account regarding transfer of loan
amount to the account of A8Company. Ex.P.37 is
the cheque issued by GPA holder in favour of A8
32 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
Company for Rs.41,00,000/. Ex.P.39 is the letter
written by the depositors to the Manager, Canara
Bank regard to maturity of the FD No.2039772 for
USD 1,29,990.
3. Sri.Prakash NarsinghDas Panjabi and Sri.Tej
NarsinghDas Navalrai : The documents are marked
as Ex.P.41 to Ex.P.66. Ex.P.46 is the original FD
receipt bearing No.2039884 dated 08/05/1999
issued for USD 3,70,000 in favour of Sri.Prakash
Narsinghdas Panjabi and Sri.Tej N.Navalrai. Ex.P.58
is the alleged cheque deposit receipt bearing
No.2039932 dated 06/05/1999 issued for UDS
3,70,000 in the name of the above depositors.
Ex.P.41 is the letter written by Canara Bank, Foriegn
Department regarding NRI deposits. Ex.P.47 is the
alleged GPA dated 06/05/1999 executed in favour of
depositors in favour of Suresh Peter. Ex.P.48 is the
alleged request letter for loan dated 08/05/1999 for
Rs.1,16,50,000/ by depositors. Ex.P.51 is the
alleged account opening form in the name of
depositors bearing SB Account No.69617. Ex.P.53 is
the statement of account regarding VSL Account
No.99038. Ex.P.55 is the statement of account
pertaining to transfer of Rs.1,10,00,000/ to A8
Company. Ex.P.54 is the alleged cheque bearing
No.563102 dated 08/05/1999 issued by GPA holder
33 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
for Rs.1,10,00,000/. Ex.P.56 is the cheque bearing
No.563103 dated 11/05/1999 issued for
Rs.6,43,900/ by GPA holder. Ex.P.60 is the letter
issued by SBI, Hong Kong branch to Canara Bank,
Malleshwaram Branch regarding maturity of the
deposits. Ex.P.66 is the letter issued by the
Managing Director, Peter Pan Tailors Ltd., Hong Kong
regarding maturity of the FD receipt.
4. Bhagwan T.Mirchandani & Kundan Lall
T.Mirchandani : The documents are marked as
Ex.P.67 to Ex.P.94. Ex.P.72 is the original FD receipt
bearing No.2036217 dated 01/01/1998 issued for
Rs.45,00,000/ in favour of the above depositors.
Ex.P.74 is the original FD receipt bearing No.2036218
dated 01/01/1998 for Rs.38,22,339/ issued in the
names of the above depositors. Ex.P.76 is the alleged
GPA executed by the depositors in favour of accused
No.10, Hareesh Chandulal Patel. Ex.P.78 is the letter
written by GPA holder to the Manager, Canara Bank
requesting loan against FDR receipt No.98/1607.
Ex.P.81 is the statement of account of VSL Account
No.98201. Ex.P.82 is the statement of account
regarding transfer of Rs.61,00,000/ and
Rs.1,70,00,000/ to the Company of accused No.9.
Ex.P.90 is the FD receipt bearing No.3746508 dated
08/01/2001 issued for Rs.52,16,354/ in favour of
34 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
above depositors. Ex.P.91 is the renewal FD receipt
bearing No.3746509 issued for Rs.61,41,159/ in the
names of the above depositors. Ex.P.92 is the notice
issued by the advocate of depositors. Ex.P.94 is the
reply notice issued by the Bank explaining the
fraudulent acts committed by the accused persons.
5. Sri.Hirachand Bhagwanji Waya and
Mrs.Shantha Hirachand Waya : The documents are
marked as Ex.P.95 to Ex.P.106. Ex.P.96 is the copy
of the FD receipt issued in favour of above depositors
for USD 5,35,816.36. Ex.P.99 is the alleged
fabricated parallel receipt bearing No.2037200 issued
by USD 67,506.79 in the names of the above
depositors. Ex.P.106 is the statement of account
regarding sanction of loan of Rs.1,70,00,000/ and
the same was transferred to A9Company. Ex.P.102
is the alleged letter written by depositors requesting
for loan on FD receipts.
6. Smt.Geeta Naraingdas Khiani and
Sri.Naraindas Gianchand Khiani : The documents
are marked as Ex.P.107 to Ex.P.116. The original
FD receipt bearing Nos.2036598 and 2036599 for
Rs.29,38,390/ and Rs.41,40,353 are Exs.P.111 and
112. Ex.P.107 is the alleged account opening form in
favour of the depositors. Ex.P.116 is the account
35 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
register extract of depositors regarding credit of
amount of Rs.53,00,000/ to the loan account of
depositors. Ex.P.116(a) is the entry regarding
transfer of Rs.53,00,000/ in favour of A9Company.
40. Amongst 6 depositors, only 3 depositors
Hirachand Bhagavanji Waya, Prakash Narasingdas
Panjabi and Suresh Purswaney @ Steve Purswaney are
cited as witnesses as C.W.2, 3, and 41 respectively.
Further, it is the case of the prosecution that accused
persons in furtherance of conspiracy, have created
parallel FD receipts and forged GPA, loan papers and
letters to avail loans in the names of the depositors
without their knowledge and transferred the entire loan
amount to the account of A8 and A9Companies and
caused loss to the Bank. To prove the forgery, usage of
forged documents and possession of the same, the
prosecution examined the witnesses.
41. P.W.1 and 7 have deposed that deposit forms
will be regularly monitored in the bank. The custodian of
those fixed deposit forms whenever parts with the
possession of those forms for issuing FD receipts to the
officer concerned, acknowledgment will be taken from
such officer to whom it has been handed over for issuing
FD receipts. So, the books maintained relating to the
above, is important to prove that the accused No.1 was
the custodian of the unused FD receipts which are later
36 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
created as parallel FCNR forms. When the branch has
maintained the register for possession of blank FD
receipts, what prevented the IO to seize the same. The
entire charge sheet documents does not find place about
the said register. Non production of the said books
creates doubt that the accused No.1 was holding blank
FD forms in his possession during relevant period.
42. PW7 deposed that during the month of
February, 1998 he came to know about missing of the
blank deposit receipts and he searched for the same, but
not traced. So, he informed the accused No.1 and he
gave one bunch of blank deposit receipt forms and asked
him the continue the regular work. One Mohan Prakash
and Vijayendra were working in the deposit section
when blank receipt forms missing. He identified his
writing in Ex.P.122, the Deposit Receipt Register as per
Ex.P.122(a) and Ex.P.122(b). According to the evidence
of this witness, the official who actually receive the Bank
deposit forms, he is the custodian of the same till the
same is converted into FD receipt The witness denied
the statement given by him before the I.O as per Ex.D.4
that the almirah in which security items were kept was
under the custody of K.P.Upadhya (CW33). He denied
the suggestion of accused No.1 counsel that A1 was not
the custodian of almirah in which security items were
kept. He further denied the contention of the defence
that CW33 alone was the custodian of the Bank deposit
37 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
forms. He states that there was no entry made in the
register with regard to missing of 7 blank FD forms. He
states that accused No.1 was the custodian of the FD.
He also states that if any of the FD forms are found
missing or destroyed, could be mentioned in the register
Ex.P.122. The entry Ex.P.122(c) had not been made by
him as destroyed. Then who made the entry in the
register about missing of 7 FDs. This fact is not
established by the prosecution. The evidence of this
witness is contradictory with regard to possession of
security items either by accused No.1 or C.W.33.
43. PW4 to 8 deposed that accused No.1 was the
Manager (Deposits) and he was having access to strong
room where security items were kept in the locked
cupboard. In the cross examination have stated the
accused No.1 was custodian of FD receipts (security
items) alongwith PW6, the Senior Manager.
44. PW8 the clerk, who worked during the period
19931999 in the deposit section with accused No.1 has
stated about the procedure of issuing FD receipts to the
customers. According to her evidence, every day the
Manager of Deposit section used to give a bundle of
blank forms for issuing FD receipts and unused blank
forms were to be returned in the evening by entering the
same in the register. Further, it is the duty of the
Manager to enter in the computer with regard to serial
38 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
numbers of the FD forms which was issued to the
Clerks for preparation of the FD receipts and unused
deposit forms will be kept in the double lock room and it
is in the custody of the Manager (Deposits). P.W.8 used
to put her signature in the deposit forms as she
prepared the document. She identified the deposit issue
register as per Ex.P.8 of the relevant period as per
Ex.P.8(a).
45. P.W.8 further stated, on 15/05/1999 PW10,
Revathi was handling the computer to make entries and
to take out the print of FD receipts. On the said day,
P.W.10 asked her to take out the print of one FD
receipt and when she was taking print out, noticed that
next 3 numbers mentioned in the receipts were missing
and she physically verified the FD forms. Later she
informed the accused No.1 with regard to missing of the
FD forms. In turn, the accused No.1 instructed her to
enter in the computer as destroyed and continue the
work. Accordingly, she entered in the computer as
destroyed as per the instructions. It is quite interesting
to state that PW8 further deposed that in order to enter
in the computer as destroyed, the concerned Manager
has to give authorization by entering the password. She
approached CW33 and informed what transpired
between her and accused No.1 and requested to
authorise the said entry. So, CW33 entered the
39 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
password to make entry in the computer. Thereafter,
she entered in the computer that FD receipts are
destroyed in the inventory movement register as per
Ex.P.123(a). Thereafter, she made entry in the deposit
issue register as per Ex.P.8(a) to Ex.P.8(c). In the
crossexamination has admitted there will be a chart in
the Bank with regard to entrustment of the blank FD
receipts to the officials. So, there is register which
shows that the accused No.1 handed over bundle of
blank FD forms to take out print and remaining unused
forms returned to him. She denied the suggestion that
accused No.1 never orally authorised her for entering in
the computer as destroyed or missing FD receipts. The
evidence of this witness would goes to show that she
made entry in the computer as per Ex.P.123(a) to (c)
with regard to missing of the 3 FD forms and she also
made corresponding entry in the Ex.P.8. According to
her evidence, she made entry in the register that 3 FDs
were missing or destroyed only as per the instructions
of accused No.1, why C.W.33 and Krishnan put their
password with out verifying or asking the accused No.1.
Here in the case, except Ex.P.8 and 123, there are no
other register extract or books to support the evidence
of P.W.8. Further, when the concerned Manager
(Deposit) is authorized to enter the password, why
C.W.33 and Krishnan entered the password to make
entry as destroyed pertaining to FD No.203993.
40 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
Ex.123 clearly depicts that CW.33 Upadyaya and
Krishnan are authorised to put password. The
question remains why the IO has not seized the said
books and it creates doubt that who was authorized to
keep the unused FD forms
and to use password to enter in the computer as
Missing or Destroyed. So, it not safe to believe that
accused No.1 was authorized to keep unused FD forms
and he has to enter the password in the computer as
destroyed.
46. PW9 is the Clerk, who worked during the year
199500 in Canara Bank, has stated about Ex.P.111,
112 and 122. She deposed that when she was working
in the deposit section, accused No.1 was maintaining all
deposits. Whenever she used to work as Supervisor,
she has been authorised to sign on the FD receipts.
After seeing the entries made at Page Nos.67 and 68 in
Ex.P.122, she deposed that FD receipt No.2036598
Ex.P.111 and 2036599 Ex.P.112 are missing since
there is no continuation number and reference number
issued to the FD receipts. She was unable to state the
entries made in Ex.P.122 with regard to missing of the 7
FD forms. This witness in the crossexamination has
admitted that clerks used to make entries in the deposit
issue receipt (Ex.P.8) after handing over the FD receipt
to the customer and they used to obtain signature of the
41 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
customer to the register in Ex.P.8. the evidence of this
witness does not disclose who authorised to make
entries in the register as Missing. Thus, the evidence of
this witness is also does not support the case of
prosecution that the accused No.1 instructed her make
entry in the register Ex.P122 as Missing.
47. PW10 who worked as Clerk in Canara Bank
during the period 29/07/1998 to 14/07/2004, has
deposed with regard to her role in deposit section. She
deposed that on 22/04/1999 was on leave and on the
next day i.e., on 23/04/1999 when she reported to
duty, PW11 was working in her section. So, she asked
the accused No.1 about the same. She had been told to
attend the work in her section. As soon as she started
to work in her section, PW11, who was taking print of 3
FD receipts had handedover the same to her. She
entered the numbers of the 3 FD receipts, which was
issued previous day 22/04/1999. She made entries in
the deposit register (Ex.P.8) as per Ex.P.8(a),(b),(c) and
(d). The deposit receipt numbers are 9773, 9774 and
9775. She further deposed that on 15/05/1999, she
had taken print of FD receipts bearing No.9931. When
she verified with reference to the actual FD receipt
number, the same was not tallied and found three
blank receipts pertaining Nos.9932, 9933 and 9934
missing. She immediately reported to PW8, who in
42 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
turn reported to accused No.1 and accused No.1
instructed PW8 to make entry in the computer and
register as destroyed. Accordingly, herself and PW8
entered the same in the computer register as destroyed.
She identified the entry in Ex.P.123. Further, when
Ex.P.122 is taken by the IO with regard to other FDs,
what prevented him take the document pertaining to 3
FD receipts No.9932,9933,and 9934 available in the
bank. Moreover, IO has not seized Inventory Movement
between locations to show that the accused No.1 was
authorised to make entry in the register as missing or
destroyed. On perusal of E.P.8(a),(b),(c) and (d) it does
not disclose that the accused No.1 authorised to make
such entries in the register as destroyed. Thus, the
evidence of this witness is not acceptable.
48. PW11 who worked in Canara Bank
Malleshwaram Branch during the year 19962001, has
deposed that on 22/04/1999, she worked in the
deposit section as incharge of PW10. As per the
instructions of the Manager, P.W.11 could not take the
print of 3 FD receipts on 22/04/1999. So, on the next
day she about the take print of 3 FD receipts bearing
Nos.9771, 9772 and 9773, PW10 returned to duty,
thereby she handedover 3 FDs to PW10 to make
entries in the register. She further stated due to hurry,
she could not physically verify the corresponding FD
43 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
receipts on which she has taken the print out. She has
not stated about missing of 2 FDs 9771 and 9772. She
also pleaded ignorance with regard to the name
mentioned in Ex.D.39. Testimony of this witness does
not disclose that accused No.1 was instructed to make
entries in the register as missing or destroyed.
49. PWs1,2,7,8,9,10,11 and 29 have stated that
accused No.1 was Manager in deposits section. The
said witnesses in their crossexamination have
categorically stated CW33 Upadhaya and one
Krishnan are the custodians of security items. They
also stated about key area management register. The
evidence of witnesses reveal that they used to
handover the blank FDRs to accused No.1 after office
hours, but as per the evidence of other witnesses, it
would goes to show that CW33 and Krishnan are the
custodians of the blank security items. The evidence of
the above witness further reveal that it is not
necessary to make entry of each and every blank FD
receipt for getting the printout of FD receipt. Therefore,
it is not safe to place reliance on the above evidence.
50. It is pertinent to note that as per the evidence of
P.W.1,2,7,8 and 29, C.W.33 and Krishnan were the
joint custodians of security items and they are
44 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
accountable until the same is converted into FD
receipts. It is admitted by P.W.1,2,7 and 29 that there
is Key Responsibility area document which assigns the
duty and responsibility to the Officers' and staff. The
said document is important one to prove the
entrustment of work to the accused NO.1 in the Bank.
But for the best reasons known to IO has not seized
the same. Further, whenever the custodian give the
possession of FD receipts to the concerned staff or
officer, acknowledgment will be taken from such officer.
The moment the branch receives the security items the
same is constantly monitored and record in the books.
If security stationery found missing or lost, the same
will be brought to the notice of higher authorities and
will be entered in the register. The Joint custodians
are the authorised persons to make entires in the
Inventory Movement between locations. C.W.33 and
Krishnan gave their password to make entry in
Ex.P.123 regarding destruction of missing of receipts.
As per Ex.D.39 one Mohan authorised to make entry in
the register regarding missing FDs No.2036594 to
2036600. P.W.2 and 7 evidence disclose that missing
of security items never came to their knowledge.
Likewise, One Vijeyandra and Nandini made entries in
the register with regard missing of FD receipt
No.2037200. The IO PW.29 at page 90 has deposed
that during his investigation has not revealed that
45 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
accused No.1 has authorised for destruction of
documents in the computer. According to the evidence
of P.W.1, when the in charge of section is authorised to
make entry in the register regarding missing of FD
receipts , how can believe the version of prosecution
case that the accused No.1 has authorised for
destruction of security items. More importantly, the
witness Upadhaya though cited as witness, the
prosecution failed to examine before the court and
Krishnan who was the joint custodian of security items
not arrayed as witness and not examined in the case. .
In the absence of any acknowledgement or document,
it is not proper to accept the contention of the
prosecution that the Bank has entrusted the charge of
custody of the security items to the accused No.1 and
he was the authorised person to make entries in the
register regarding missing or lost FD receipts and the
he dishonestly misappropriates the property to his
own use and use of other accused persons. Thus, Iam
of the opinion that the prosecution failed to prove that
the security items were entrusted with the accused
No.1 and he was in possession of the same and created
parallel FDRs by placing cogent and corroborative
evidence.
51. Next coming to the replacement of account
opening forms and its enclosures by the accused No.1
46 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
and 4, the prosecution has examined the witnesses
P.W.1, 7, and 29. P.W.1 deposed that the branch has
maintained tappal register for inward, outward letter
correspondence and post. Every letter sent by the
bank and received from outside will be entered in the
said register. P.W.7 also deposed that the letters
received by the bank will be entered in the tappal
register.
52. The financial consultant of two depositors
namely Gopal Tharumal Melwani examined as P.W.31
has stated that he received bunch of blank account
opening forms directly from Canara bank and
handedover to the depositors Diwanchand, T.N.
Navalrai, Prakash Panjabi and Suresh Puruswaney.
Later, he transmitted the filled account opening forms
and its enclosures of Diwanchand and T.N.Navalrai to
the Canara bank on their behalf. He stated only in
respect of above four depositors. P.W.31 never
doubted with regard to A/c opening forms transmitted
by him. Further, none of the bank officials have
deposed that the bank sent the A/c opening forms to
NRIs and received of the filled forms for further
transaction. None of the depositors uttered that they
received forms from the bank directly or through their
financial consultants and they transmitted through
post or through their consultants.
47 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
53. The IO P.W.29 has stated that the A/c opening
forms and connected documents has originated from
outside India. According to his evidence, the depositors
during investigation have informed that they sent the
A/c opening forms and it enclosures through posts and
some other depositors sent it through financial
consultants. The IO has failed to secure any document
from post office or bank or from financial consultants to
show that the forms and it enclosures transmitted
through post or through financial consultants of the
depositors. The evidence of PW31 contradicts with the
statement given by depositor CW3 before IO. There is
no material on record to show that who actually
transmitted filled account opening forms and its
enclosures to Canara Bank.
54. PW31 has stated that Canara Bank had sent
the original FD receipts to him and in turn, he
handedover the same to the depositors. But there is no
entry in deposit register for having sent the original FD
receipts to PW31. More importantly, the bank has not
maintained any register or book to show that to whom
the bank sent the original FDRs, over the A/c opening
forms and its enclosures. Admittedly, C.W.33 was in
charge of Administration, but he was not examined.
PW29 he has not seized the Tappal register of Canara
Bank to show the corresponding inward and outward
48 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
correspondence of the Bank except Ex.P.57, the letter
which came from Hong Kong SBI Branch to Canara
Bank, Bangalore. Generally, the letters received by the
bank will be entered in the Tappal register and
thereafter it will be dispatched to the concerned section.
So, the Tappal register maintained with Canara Bank,
Malleshwaram Branch is important document to prove
that accused No.1 and 4 replaced the original A/c
opening forms and its enclosures and placed forged
papers. The I.O has not seized any of the above stated
documents to show that accused No.1 has been
entrusted with the property of security items including
unused blank FD receipts and was in possession of A/c
opening forms and its enclosures to replace the same for
commission of forgery. Further, none of the bank
officials stated that the accused No.4 was present at the
time of process the loan applications. Therefore there is
no impediment to state that the prosecution failed to
prove beyond doubt that the accused No.1 and 4
replaced the A/c opening forms and it enclosures.
55. On coming to registration of case, P.W.1 deposed
that the Canara bank came to know about the fraud
committed with regard to FCNR deposits when she
assumed charge as Chief Manager. FIR was registered
in RC.5(E)/2000/CBI/BSFC/BLR as per Ex.P.255. On
careful perusal of the document, the case was registered
49 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
on 22.12.2000 by Superintendent of Police,CBI, BS&FC,
Bangalore. The case registered on the basis of Source
Information against the present accused No.1,K.Vijay,
and K.S.V.Shenoy, the then Chief Manager during
relevant period. The document got marked through
P.W.29 IO.
56. Sri.R.G.K Advocate for the accused has argued
that prior to filing of FIR, a complaint was lodged by the
then Deputy General Manager D.W.1 before concerned,
with GEQD report against the accused and depositors,
but no action was taken on the complaint. Later
SP,CBI, registered FIR. Even before that has not made
any inquiry to explain the delay. Non registration of
case on the complaint creates doubt. He relied upon the
decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2014) 2
SCC 1 Lalitha Kumari Vs Government of UP &
others. Which reads thus:
A. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973Ss.154, 155, 156 and 157
FIR in cognizable case Registration of - Whether is
mandatory or police officer has option, discretion or
latitude of conducting preliminary inquiry before
registering FIR Mandatory registration of FIR on receipt
of information disclosing a cognizable offence as the
general rule Situations/cases in which preliminary
inquiry is permissible Scope of, and safeguards to be
followed in cases where such preliminary inquiry(time
bound) is permissible.
C. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Ss.154,155 and 172 FIR
Promptness in filing FIR Compulsory registration of
earliest information as FIR Twofold objective - Criminal
process is set in motion and is well documented from very
start preventing embellishments later Ensures
50 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
transparency in the criminal justice delivery system and
functioning of police, providing for an efficient means to
check powers of police as also for judicial oversight of the
same Police Act, 1861S.44 Rule of Law.
57. On the other hand, Ld.P.P repelled that there is
no delay in registering the FIR. After obtaining
permission from the concerned immediately case was
registered.
58. The accused have summoned and examined the
then Deputy General Manager, Legal and Recovery
section, Circle office, Canara Bank, Bangalore as DW1.
It is the contention of the accused that prior to
registration of the case by SP, HCSP, CBI, Bangalore as
per Ex.P.255, DW1 gave complaint to the SP, CBI on
11/12/2000 as per Ex.D.7, but no FIR was registered
and investigation conducted on the said complaint. So,
in order to substantiate that intentionally a false FIR
was registered against accused, have examined DW1 in
the case.
59. DW1 is the Deputy General Manager in Legal
and Recovery section, Circle office, Canara Bank during
the relevant period when the alleged offence was
committed. He deposed that he conducted internal
enquiry about the frauds committed in the Canara Bank,
Malleshwaram Branch and on the basis of the enquiry
report and GEQD report, he lodged complaint as per
51 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
Ex.D.7. He identifies the compliant and signature on it.
After lodging the complaint, the CBI officials did not
contact him in respect of the said complaint. According
to him, the power of sanction of loan of Rs.11 Crores,
given to Chief Manager, Sri.K.S.V.Shenoy who worked in
Malleshwaram Branch during the period May, 1999 to
June, 2000. He also stated that there will be 34
Managers under the Chief Manager dealing with each
deposits, advances and general matters. He specifically
stated that Subordinate Managers cannot sanction the
loan. He identifies the reply letter sent by Canara Bank
to Secretary, office of Banking ombudsmen, RBI,
Bengaluru.
60. In view of the above referred decision, the
general rule is that registration of the FIR is mandatory
under Sec.154, if information disclose commission of
cognizable offence and no preliminary enquiry is
permissible in such situation. The rule is to strictly
complied with. FIR is a prominent document in the
criminal law procedure and its main object from the
point of view of the informant is set the criminal law in
motion. It is further held that where information
received does not disclose the cognizable offence, a
preliminary inquiry may be conducted to ascertain
whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court has also discussed the role and
52 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
duty of police in respect of FIR. It is held that police
officer cannot avoid his duty of registering the FIR if the
cognizable offence is disclosed. It has also held that the
CBI Crime Manual cannot supersede Cr.P.C.
61. In the case on hand, Ex.D.7 is the covering
letter addressed to DIG of Police, CBI, BSFC, Bengaluru
regarding missing of blank FDR receipts and fraudulent
availment of loans against deposit receipts at
Malleshwaram branch, Bengaluru dated 11.12.2000.
DW1, the Deputy General Manager has stated the
details of the depositors, amount, loans availed by the
persons. He also stated the names of accused persons.
The entire complaint prima facie disclose about fraud
committed by the accused persons whose names stated
in the complaint. The amount is more than
Rs.25,00,000/. The said complaint was submitted on
11/12/2000. Alongwith complaint, DW1 has also
annexed the GEQD report regarding forgery of
handwritings and signatures of the depositors by the
accused persons. Inspite of receipt of the complaint, the
CBI has not registered the case against the accused
persons till 22/12/2000. The DIG holding charge of SP
has registered a FIR on 22.12.2000 as per Ex.P.255.
62. P.W.29 was cross examined with reference to
Ex.D.7. He stated that on Ex.D.7 preliminary enquiry
was not done and only verification has been made. It is
53 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
brought to the notice of the court about the objection
filed by the prosecution to the application filed by the
accused. Wherein , it has stated that documents were
not sent to GEQD before registering the case. It is to
be noted that, if that is the case, then what about the
complaint made by D.W.1 as per Ex.D.7. The complaint
which clearly unveil that GEQD report was obtained by
the bank prior to lodging of the complaint. As stated
supra, the bank obtained GEQD report before filing
complaint against the accused including the names of
depositors and Chief Manager. More importantly, the
hand writing expert P.W.19 has also stated that before
he received the requisition from CBI for examination of
documents, he had received similar requisition from the
bank in respect of some of the questioned documents.
He had also given report to the bank on questioned
documents. P.W.2 also stated that the bank had sent
some of the signatures to the expert. Though P.W.29
came to know about the GEQD report received by the
bank, but he ignored Ex. D.7 and not enquired with
D.W.1. D.W.1 categorically stated that the hand writing
expert opinion obtained by the bank in the matter from
GEQD confirmed forgery. He further stated that internal
enquiry was conducted and there will be report to that
effect. P.W.29 has also not made any efforts to secure
GEQD and internal report from the bank. So, it creates
cloud about the case of prosecution in registering the
54 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
FIR. It is the duty cast on the officer who received the
complaint to register the FIR if the information disclose
cognizable offense. In the case on hand, the CBI took
nearly 10 days for registration of FIR. The papers does
not disclose about preliminary enquiry conducted before
registering the case. The SP,CBI who registered the FIR
as per EX.P.255 has not cited as witness in the charge
sheet to explain for non registering the FIR.. If the
concerned authority would have registered the FIR at
the moment of receipt of complaint, then the criminal
process is set in motion and is well documented from
very start preventing embellishments later. Not
registering the FIR on the complaint Ex.D.7 and non
examination of the person who registered the case
creates some cloud in this regard. The prosecution has
failed to explain the delay in registering the FIR.
63. According to the case of prosecution, the General
Power of Attorney holders of NRI depositors availed
loans against the security of deposits of NRIs without
their knowledge. The question is who was the loan
sanctioning authority and the Manager, to process the
advance applications of NRIs. On FCNR deposits, six
loans were sanctioned and among which four loans of
Kundan.T.Mirchandani and Bhagwan.T Mirchandani,
Geetha Narayandas Khaini and Narayandas Gian
Chand Khaini, Hirachand Bhagawanji Waya and Shanta
55 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
Hirachand Waya and Diwanchand Bhagawandas and
Meenu Diwanchand loan accounts closed. The alleged
loans of Suresh Purswaney and Karen Purswaney and
Prakash Narasingdas Punjabi and T.N. Navalrai are not
closed.
64. P.W.1 in her evidence stated that the five loans
were sanctioned by the then Chief Manager K.S.V
Shenoy and one loan was sanctioned by the then senior
Manager H.G.Kedliya P.W.6. She further stated that the
Manager Advances and Credit has certain powers to
sanction loans. The Chief Manager can reject the loan
applications if he has suspicion. Generally, the loan
papers passes through the senior Manager to the Chief
Manager. The IO has not cited sanctioning authority
the Chief Manager K.S.V. Shenoy as a witness, though
he was included as accused in the FIR. So, inclined to
peruse the evidence of bank officials who are involved in
processing the alleged loan applications.
65. PW2 Senior Manager, has deposed that
Mr. K.S.V.Shenoy has introduced the K. Vijay(accused
No.2) to him as he was the Managing Director of accused
No.9 company and the said Company was having
current account with the Canara Bank, Malleshwaram
Branch, since 1997. He was the valued customer of the
branch and had secured many NRI deposits from his
business associates to his branch and he was also
56 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
bringing one million US dollar amount by way of
deposits from his business associates. He was executing
some projects in India and his business associates were
funding him by raising loans against the deposits. The
above evidence which clearly goes to show that K.S.V
Shenoy knew K.Vijay (Accused No.2) very well before
processing the loans on FCNR Deposits. It is further
clear that the accused No.2 (Now deceased) was the front
fore person to bring the FDs from NRIs and to avail
loans against FCNR receipts. The loan proceeds was
debited to one account and later credited to the
beneficiary account.
66. PW2 was instructed by K.S.V Shenoy to get the
approval of draft of power of attorney document from
Recovery and Legal Section of Circle office, Canara
Bank. On the basis of power of attorney documents
executed by the depositors infavour of Suresh Peter, the
Canara Bank granted loans against three deposits i.e.,
Prakash N.Panjabi and Naval Roy, Diwanchand and
Meena, Suresh Puruswaney and Karen Puruswaney. He
deposed that the loan papers were signed by the GPA
holder namely Suresh Peter and loan proceeds were
credited to NRI account of the party and later it was
credited to accused No.8 Company.
67. PW4 the Senior Manager (Advance and Credit)
section during 199600 has deposed that, he was
57 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
dealing with granting of loans and also loan against
deposits. He narrated the procedure regarding the
sanctioning of loan. According to his evidence, on
07/05/1999, the Power of Attorney holder, Suresh Peter
submitted the loan application as per Ex.P.10. The loan
application was already filled when K.S.V.Shenoy called
P.W.4 to his chamber. By that time one K. Vijay, Suresh
Peter and accused No.1 were present and they have
been introduced to him by the Chief Manager. The Chief
Manager asked him to prepare loan applications relating
to depositors Karen Puruswaney, Diwan Chand and
Meenu Diwan Chand Bhagavan Das. Since, it was 4.00
p.m., the office hours about close and no clerical staff
available to prepare documents, he informed the Chief
Manager, pleading inability to process the loan
application. But, the Chief Manager instructed him to
prepare the documents on the same day as the
depositors are going abroad.
68. On the same day, the Chief Manager instructed
PW4 to process one more document with regard to loan
of Mr.Prakash Narasimhadas Punjabi and T.N Navalrai
for Rs.1,16,50,000/. The GPA holder produced Ex.P.49
letter, FD receipt Ex.P46, Power of Attorney, Ex.P.47. On
the basis of the said documents, he processed the loan
application and obtained the signatures of GPA holder
Suresh Peter on Ex.P.48 the request for loan facility at
58 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
Ex.P.48(a) to (c). He also obtained the signature of
accused No.1 on the backside of FD receipt and pronote.
He obtained signature of accused No.1 as per Ex.P.6(a),
signature of GPA holder Suresh Peter as per Ex.P.6(b)
and signature of PW2 as per Ex.P.6(c) and signature of
PW11 as per Ex.P.6(d). Ex.P.6 is the FCNR deposit
receipt bearing No.2039866 dated 05/05/1999 for
5,00,000 US dollars issued in the name of Mr.Suresh
Paraswaney and Mr.Karen Purswaney. Ex.P.12 is the
pronote dated 07/05/1999 executed by GPA holder
Suresh Peter. PW4 put his signature to Ex.P.12,
Pronote. Ex.P.14 is the debit slip dated 07/05/1999 for
grant of loan of Rs.1,57,50,000/ and credited to the
account of VSL99035. As per Ex.P.16. The loan amount
was credited to accused No.8 Company on 08/05/1999.
There is a entry as per Ex.P.17(a). The statement of
account reveals about credit of loan amount to the
account of accused No.8 Company. Ex.P.16 disclose
about full payment of loan amount on 05/05/2000.
K.S.V. Shenoy prepared debit slip Ex.P.52. The debit
slip bears the signatures of Shenoy and Suresh Peter.
[
69. During cross, has stated that when he entered
the Chief Manager's chamber, the incoming Chief
Manager PW1, Senior Manager PW2 and accused No.1
were present. He has responsibility to scrutinize the
loan documents. He processed the loan applications
59 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
under the instructions of CW32 and Chief Manager.
This witness has denied the statement given before the
I.O as per Ex.D.38,38(a) and 38(b). PW4 has stated
before the I.O that one Jitendra called him in the year
1998 and informed that loan is required for depositors.
On 10/05/1999, after deducting the interest, the
balance amount was credited to the accused No.8
company. There was quarrel between himself, accused
No.1, K.S.V.Shenoy and PW6. From this testimony, it is
crystal clear that as per the instructions of the Chief
Mnager, PW4 has processed the applications of three
depositors was processed. It further makes clear that
the GPA Holder Suresh Peter was very much present in
the bank on the said day. Further, K.S.V Shenoy had
played an important role in sanctioning the loans to
the alleged GPA Holder of depositors.
70. PW5 worked in the loan section has stated that
on 03/01/1998, the then Chief Manager, K.S.V.Shenoy
called him to the chamber and asked to scrutinize the
documents and directed him to get the details through
clerical staff basing on Ex.P.79 request letter for loan by
the GPA Holder of depositors Bhagwan T. Mirchandani
and Kundanlal.T. Mirchandani. Ex.P.77 is the letter
dated 02/01/1998 from Harish C.Patel, Mumbai to the
Manager, Canara Bank, Bengaluru regarding loan
against FDR No.198/1606, Ex.P.78 is the letter from
60 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
Harish C.Patel the Accused No.10 requesting to transfer
the loan amount against FDR No.98/1607. On the basis
of Ex.P.77, 78, the Chief Manager and accused No.1,
asked PW5 to prepare documents and to get it
computerised. The request for loan of Rs.61,00,000/
from GPA holder of afore said depositors, the Pronote
and other documents were signed by GPA holder. The
evidence of PW5 depicts that at the time of processing
the documents and computerising the same, the GPA
holder of the aforesaid depositors i.e., accused No.10
and accused No.1 were not present. The accused No.1
informed PW5 that he will bring the GPA holder later
and ask to process the documents.
71. P.W.5 during cross has denied that he processed
the application in the presence of executant. He has not
verified the documents as his superior officers already
done the scrutiny and the same was told by K.S.V
Shenoy. The evidence of this witness also goes to show
that K.S.V Shenoy played an important role in
sanctioning the loans on the guise of GPA of depositors
Bhagwan T.Mirchanani and Kundanlal T.Mirchandani.
The act of Mr. K.S.V Shenoy creates doubt that how he
instructed to process the loan applications without
presence of alleged GPA holder and verifying the
documents. This aspect is to be clarified by the said
Chief Manager only.
61 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
72. PW6 is important witness to the case of
prosecution. He is the Senior Manager of the Canara
Bank, who worked during 199498. He is the
immediate superior officer to the Chief Manager. He
stated about sanction of loan application of Hirachand
Bhagwanji Waya. He processed the application as per
Ex.P.104 on 04/06/1998. The Chief Manager Mr.Shenoy
and Jitendra were present on the said day. As per
instructions of accused No.1, he sanctioned the loan by
processing the applications as per Ex.P.102 to Ex.P.105.
By that time, GPA was not present. He further stated
that since accused No.1 had scrutinized the loan
application, he had not scrutinized the same and he only
sanctioned the loan as incharge Manager. He admitted in
the crossexamination with regard to procedure followed
in the Bank to consider the loan applications in the
absence of Chief Manager and Senior Manager. He
denied the suggestion that he granted the loan only at
the instance of K.S.V.Shenoy. He admitted in the cross
that the person who sanction the loan and prepared the
documents is responsible. He put his initials on the
documents as he checked the papers. He also admitted
that sanctioning of loan without GPA is irregular. He did
not make any efforts to verify whether the GPA in fact
had been collected or not. Further, he has not
informed or enquire with the Chief Manager before
sanctioning the loan. He do not know who wrote Pronote.
62 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
It is not safe to believe the testimony of this witness that
only at the instructions of accused No.1 he sanctioned
the loan of Hirachand Bhagwanji Waya in the absence of
GPA being superior Officer and in charge of Chief
Manager.
73. The IO P.W.29 deposed that the power of
sanctioning the loan against deposits vests with the
Chief Manager and it does not require the approval from
Head Office. The initials on debit slip Ex.P.52 and
pronote Ex.P.12, 31 and 50 matches with the initials of
Mr. K.S.V Shenoy. Further, the loan application of
Bhagawandas was put up by Eshwar Prasad. The chief
manager instructed Eshwar Prasad to process the loan
application and believing his words has prepared the
loan documents. C.W.16 gave statement before IO
stating that Mr.K.S.V Shenoy has not given time to
process. According to this witness, K.S.V Shenoy has
the duty to confirm the sanction of loans and to verify
the correctness of documents before sanctioning the
loan. P.W.6 also stated in his statement that K.S.V
Shenoy was interested in granting valuable security
loans in favour of K.Vijay. The IO has recorded the
statement of K.S.V Shenoy but he has not subjected
along with charge sheet. If the statement is produced
before the court and cite him as witness, certainly it
would throw light to come to the conclusion that whether
63 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
the accused No.1 facilitated the bank officials to
sanction the loan against FCNR deposits.
74. The testimony of afore said witnesses would goes
to show that K. Vijay(accused No.2) was the customer of
Canara Bank, Malleshwaram Branch and he was
heading M/s.EMVEE Group of Constructions and
M/s.Dhanapriya Housing and Finance Ltd., having
account with Canara Bank, Malleshwaram Branch.
These witnesses have stated about the procedure with
regard to consideration of proposal of loan applications
on deposits. As per Ex.P.121 the Manual of Instructions
on Valuable Securities, Canara Bank, the relevant page
Ex.P.121(a) describe the procedure to be followed by the
bank officials while considering the loan applications.
The first and foremost duty of the Bank officials is to
verify whether the applicant is the applicant/borrower is
the depositor of the said Bank or not. Thereafter, they
have to ask the borrower or the applicant to sign on the
paper on deposit of FD receipts and said FD receipt will
be sent for comparison of signature to FD department
and thereafter if the FD department replies positively the
said concerned FD depositor will be asked about the
purpose of loan, the quantum of loan and thereafter they
would get execution of documents such as promissory
note etc. After receipt of the application, the receipt will
be prepared and the loan amount sanctioned will be
credited to the SB account of said borrower/depositor as
64 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
per instructions of the concerned customer. On receipt
of those documents, the same will be sent to legal section
of the head office. After verification of the reports, the
loan application will be processed. Further, the details
of granting of loan has to be mentioned in the register. If
the representative of the depositor applies for grant of
loan, such person should be the GPA holder and he has
to produce said GPA alongwith consent letter of the
depositor. Further, while sanctioning the loan, once
again the signature of PA holder and signature on loan
application will be compared and verified. Thereafter,
the sanction amount will be debited first to the
applicant's loan account and thereafter credited to
applicant's SB account.
75. In the case on hand, the prosecution has placed
the material before the Court to show that the Bank
officials including the then Chief Manager, Mr.
K.S.V.Shenoy had committed several irregularities in
processing the loan applications of NRI depositors.
Departmental enquiry was also conducted against the
officials. The loan amount directly credited the account
of accused No. 8 and 9 companies. All the debit and
credit slips are not seized by the IO. The debit and credit
slips pertaining to the account of C.Ws.3 and 41 was
seized. The said slips, pronotes are attested by K.S.V
Shenoy and Eswar Prasad. There is no material to
65 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
believe that the accused No.1 facilitated the officials to
sanction the loans. The witnesses categorically stated
that at the instructions of Mr. K.S.V Shenoy, the loan
applications processed and amount credited to accused
No.8 and 9 companies. The Chief Manager and Manger
(Advance) and (Credit) section have failed to scrutinize
the papers before sanctioning the loans. At the cost of
repetition, I have no hesitation to say that the IO failed to
cite Mr. K.S.V Shenoy as a witness in the case. If he
would have been examined, certainly it establishes that
under what circumstance he processed the applications
without verification. Even for sake of argument if it is
assumed that the accused No.1 facilitated for sanction
of loans, the responsibility casts on the Chief Manager
and Manger Advance and Credit section to reject the loan
proposals if they were not satisfied. But in this case, Mr.
K.S.V Shenoy and P.W.6 have not rejected any loan
applications which were submitted without GPA.
Therefore, the prosecution failed to place the material
that the accused No.1 facilitated the bank officials to
part with bank funds.
76. The prosecution alleged that the accused
persons in furtherance of conspiracy, created parallel FD
receipts, GPA, A/c opening forms, to avail VSL credit
facilities by forging the documents with out knowledge
of depositors. The burden lies on the prosecution to
66 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
prove the offense of conspiracy. At this stage, it is correct
to reiterate the definition of Criminal Conspiracy.
Sec.120(A) of IPC, which reads thus :
120A. Definition of criminal conspiracy.--When two or more
persons agree to do, or cause to be done,--
(1) an illegal act, or
(2) an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an
agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy:
Provided that no agreement except an agreement to
commit an offence shall amount to a criminal
conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is
done by one or more parties to such agreement in
pursuance thereof.
Provided that no agreement except an agreement to
commit an offence shall amount to a criminal
conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is
done by one or more parties to such agreement in
pursuance thereof.
Explanation.--It is immaterial whether the illegal act
is the ultimate object of such agreement, or is
merely incidental to that object.
77. On careful reading of the above provision of law,
it manifest that there should be an agreement between
persons who are alleged to conspire and the said
agreement should be for doing an illegal act or for doing
by illegal means an act which itself may not be illegal.
Therefore, the essence of criminal conspiracy is an
agreement to do an illegal act and such an agreement can
be proved either by direct evidence or by circumstantial
evidence or by both, and it is a matter of common
experience that direct evidence to prove conspiracy is
67 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
rarely available. Therefore, the circumstances proved
before, during and after the occurrence have to be
considered to decide about the complicity of the accused.
By keeping the above provision of law in mind, I peruse
the entire material on record.
78. P.W.1 has stated that after she reporting duty,
came to know about non recoveries of loans availed
against FCNR receipts. She met K.Vijay, accused No.3
and 6 with regard to VSL loans. P.W.2, 4,5,6, deposed
that the accused Nos. 1 and 2 were present in the
chamber of Chief Manager. PW12, who has worked as
Company Secretary in the company of accused No.8, the
EMVEE Group of Companies during the year 19992000,
has deposed that when he was working in the accused
No.8 Company, the accused No.3 was introduced as
Legal Advisor of A8Company and in the absence of
Directors, accused No.3 was looking after the supervision
and administration work of the Company. He further
deposed that accused No.7 was also introduced through
Srinivas, Stenographer of the said Company. Further,
PW12 had received one e.mail from K. Vijay(accused
No.2), who was in abroad and said email was with regard
to payment of certain amount due to A8company. This
witness was not crossexamined by accused
Nos.1,5,6,7,8 and 9 but crossexamined by accused
Nos.3, 10 and 12. The evidence of this witness would
68 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
goes to show that accused No.3 and 7 were participating
in the administration work of accused No.8 company as
legal advisor and the Proprietor of the sister company of
A8.
79. PW13 is the Accountant in the A9Company.
He deposed that in the year 1990, he joined A9
Company, Dhanapriya Housing and Finance Company
Ltd., He was processing loan papers and maintaining
accounts of the Company. He knew accused No.6, who
is one of the Director of A9Company and also Veejay
Dairy products. He stated that when he was doing work
in the said company, accused No.1 was attending A8, 9
Company work and accused No.3 was also attending the
office as legal advisor of the company. He knew
accused No.7, who was also coming to A8,9Company to
attend the work and he is also one of the Director of
Punervasu Commodities. Further the son of accused
No.1 namely Mohit was attending the work of the
Company as computer maintenance, supply of
computers and computer peripherals required to the
office. This witness in the crossexamination admitted
that accused No.3 was attending the Court cases of the
Company. The evidence of this witness would goes to
show the connection between the accused Nos.1,2,
3,4,5,7 and son of Accused No.1.
69 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
80. PW20 is the friend of accused No.4, K.Sridhar.
He is the resident of Chennai. He deposed that in the
year 1999, he came to Bangalore alongwith accused No.4
and visited the office of A8Company. He stated in his
statement about the business meet that had taken place
at hotel and he met accused Nos.1,2,3 and 7 alongwith
accused No.4. But, he denied the statement given before
the I.O as per Ex.P.186 to 197. This witness has been
treated as hostile. Even during crossexamination, the
prosecution has not elicited any material evidence to
prove that he met accused Nos.1 to 3,4 and 7 in the
hotel for business meet in the year 1999. As such, the
evidence of this witness is not helpful to the prosecution
to prove conspiracy.
81. PW27 is the Chartered Accountant in the office
of EMVEE Group of Companies. He joined the company
of K.Vijay as Consultant on 01/11/1999. He attended
the work of the EMVEE Group of Companies situated in
Queens road and also the work of Vijay Dairy Project
situated at Nelamangala. As per the instructions of
accused No.6, he attended the Bank work and also the
paper work of the finance to the project. The accused
No.6 instructed him to sell the mango grove situated at
Tirupathi for finance to the project. He stated that
accused No.6 was managing the affairs of EMVEE Group
of Companies and accused Nos.3 and 7 use to visit
70 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
EMVEE Group of Companies situated at Queens road.
The accused No.3 was introduced as legal advisor of
EMVEE Group of Companies. In the cross has deposed
that he had not come across with any illegal transaction
of the Company and so also company was financing in
accordance with rules of the Companies and no one has
complained against EMVEE Group of Companies. He
stated that EMVEE Group of Companies had used its
finance for lawful purpose and said Vijay Diary products
was also a lawful project. He stated that on
09/02/2001, the CBI conducted search of his house and
seized the sale deeds of Tirupathi properties marked as
Ex.P.234 to Ex.P.238. Those documents was given by
accused No.6 to deal with the property. According to
the defence, PW27 was appointed to the Amreen Plastics
Private Ltd., and he was full time employee of the said
company. But the witness has denied the aforesaid
contention and stated that he was attending the work of
EMVEE Group of companies where he saw accused
Nos.1 and 3. He pleaded ignorance that accused No.3
was dealing with cases of EMVEE companies relating to
NI Act cases and suits of various matters at Karnataka.
The evidence of this witness would goes to that accused
No.6 was the Managing Director of EMVEE Group of
Companies had also dealings with several companies
including Vijay Diary products. Further, in the absence
of accused No.6, accused No.3 was also looking after the
71 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
affairs of the companies The accused No.1, the
Manager of the Canara Bank, use to visit K.
Vijay(accused No.2) office. These factors manifest that
accused Nos.1,2, 3 and 6 have business meetings of
EMVEE Group of Companies. That apart, it does not
unveil that the above accused met together to do
unlawful act or lawful act by illegal means.
82. PW31 is the financial consultant of some of the
NRI depositors who have made investments in India
during 19992000 with Canara Bank, Malleshwaram
Branch. This witness knew the accused No.4 who
went to Hongkong for soliciting deposits. Accused No.3
and 6 met him at HongKong to settle the deposits. He
also contacted K.Vijay over phone for payment towards
the VSL loans availed on FCNR deposits. This witness
has not stated anything about conspiracy that hatched
between the accused persons to bring deposits from NRIs
and to avail loan against FCNR receipts. At the same
time, P.W.31 has stated that he and K.Vijay opened
partnership firm at HongKong. He admits that he
canvased, advised and encouraged and procured the
depositors to invest amount in Canara Bank for over and
above interest of the bank.
83. PW35 is practicing advocate at Ahmedabad. He
deposed that A11 was the Director of Mary Time Board
during the year 1978 to 1982. A11 house is situated
72 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
near his residence. In the year 1998 A11 called him to
his residence and informed that his friend was coming
from Bangalore and asked to come to Junagadh.
Accordingly, he and A11 proceeded to Junagadh wherein
they met accused No.4. The accused No.4 purchased
stamp paper and prepared document in English and
approached Notary for executing the document. When the
Notary questioned who is Lalchand Mulchand Waya,
accused No.12 told he is not the said person, therefore
Notary refused to notarise the document. Then they
returned to Ahmedabad. After sometime, he was
informed that accused No.4 provided job to accused
No.12 and took him to Bangalore. Thereafter, accused
No.12 informed him that he was not satisfied with the job
in Bangalore and left the said job. The accused No.11
introduced K. Vijay(accused No.2) as a business man. In
his crossexamination, has stated that he was
interacting with accused No.11 when he was working in
M/s.Mary Time Board. He did not know about the
nature of the document, which was prepared by accused
No.4. He never visited Bangalore alongwith accused No.4
and he pleaded ignorance that who was the person he
met him as Vijay. The evidence of this witness would
goes to show that accused No.11 had contact with
accused No.4. The evidence of this witness is not
sufficient to come to the conclusion that accused No.4
73 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
and 11 hatched conspiracy with the accused No.1 and
K.Vijay to commit an offense.
84. The prosecution, to prove the conspiracy hatched
between the accused persons has examined PW2, the
Senior Manager, PW4, the Manager in Advance section,
PW5, Bank officer, PW7, the officer in deposit section,
PW6, Senior Manager, they deposed before the Court
that accused No.2 had current account with Canara
Bank, Malleshwaram Branch and he used to visit Canara
Bank to avail loan on FCR deposits. Accused Nos.1, 2
and the Chief Manager, K.S.V.Shenoy were talking in the
chamber. PW12, who worked in the office of A8
Company, PW13 as Accountant in A9company have
stated that accused Nos.1,3,4,5,7 use to visit the A2
Company. PW21, the friend of accused No.4 deposed,
he met the accused Nos.1,2,3, and 7 in hotel for
business transactions. PW27, the Chartered Accountant
of A8Company deposed that accused Nos.1,3,6,7 used to
visit A2 Company. PW31 also stated that accused
Nos.3,6 met him in a hotel as per the instructions of
K.Vijay.
85. It is well settled law that, to prove the charge of
conspiracy, within the ambit of Section 120B, it is
necessary to establish that there was an agreement
between the parties for doing an unlawful act. At the
same time, it is to be noted that it is difficult to establish
74 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
conspiracy by direct evidence at all, but at the same time,
in absence of any evidence to show meeting of minds
between the conspirators for the intended object of
committing an illegal act, it is not safe to hold a person
guilty for offences under Section 120(B) of IPC on few bits
here and there on which prosecution relies, cannot be
held to be adequate for connecting the accused with the
commission of crime of criminal conspiracy. In the case
on hand, though the above witnesses have stated that
accused Nos.1,2,3,4 and 7 use to meet together for
business transaction, but it is not safe to believe that
there is active participation of accused persons in
conspiring to cheat the depositors and the bank.
86. PW21 the Senior Manager of Canara Bank,
Circle office, Bengaluru, has stated the fraud was
committed in Malleshwaram Branch by K. Vijay(accused
No.2), the Managing Director of A8Company in
connivance with the Bank officials of Canara Bank,
Malleshwaram Branch with fraudulent intention, availed
loan against the valuable security FCNR deposits. He
further deposed that out of 6 FCNR deposits, 4 matters
were temporary misappropriation and remaining two
depositors had filed complaint against the Bank with
banking ombudsmen of Karnataka alleging misuse of
their fund. The banking ombudsmen had passed an
award against the Bank and Bank has paid
75 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
Rs.3,61,62,519/ to the said two depositors. In the
crossexamination, has stated he had no personal
knowledge about the fraud played with the Canara Bank.
He denied the suggestion that Bank has not at all
sustained any financial loss and further denied that the
Bank has not paid any amount to the depositors. He
pleaded ignorance with regard to the proceedings before
the ombudsmen and Ex.D.7, the complaint lodged by the
Chief Manager of Canara Bank, Malleshwaram Branch.
From the evidence of this witness, it would goes to show
that the fraud was committed by the bank officials and
caused loss to the bank to the tune of Rs.3,61,62,519/
as per the orders passed by banking ombudsmen. But it
does not disclose the fact that accused persons in
connivance with each other have committed the charge
sheet offenses.
87. The learned P.P submitted that the GPA holder
Suresh Peter and accused No.10 and 12 acted as GPA
holders of depositors and on the guise of that they forged
the documents and used the same for availment of loan
on FD receipts without the knowledge of depositors and
caused loss to the bank. Ex.P 9,28,47,and 76 are alleged
GPA and forged the A/c opening forms, pronotes,
request letters for loan, authorization letters are
fabricated by the accused persons. Suresh Peter is
absconding and not secured. The passport Ex.P.175
76 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
disclose the number A30991198 belongs to PW15 and
the photo appearing on the passport belong to Suresh
Peter.. In the passport, the seal regarding to arrival
from Hong Kong on 02/05/99 and departure on
05/05/1999 and reaching Chennai on 07/05/1999
reveals that Suresh Peter has travelled from Hong Kong
to Bengaluru and Chennai. The handwriting expert has
submitted opinion that all the questioned documents
Exs.P.3,9,11,13,19,43,47,49,51,62,24,28, 30, 32 and 38
are in the handwriting and signature of accused No.4,
K.Sridhar. So, it is submitted that accused No.1 is
having access to cupboard where FD receipts were kept,
in connivance with other accused persons, had forged the
FD receipts and sent the same to the depositors by
abusing his official position in the Bank. The prosecution
relied on the decision reported in 1980(1) 1 S.C.C 704 in
the case of Murari Lal V/s State of Madhya Pradesh.
Which reads thus:
Evidence Act, 1872 Sections 45, 46, 73 and 3
Evidence of handwriting expertHeld, need not be
invariably corroborated It is for the Court to decide
whether to accept such an uncorroborated evidence
or not Court should approach the question
cautiously and after examining the reasonings
behind the expert opinion and considering, all other
evidence should reach its conclusion Even where
there is no expert court has power of compare the
writings itself and decide the matter On facts,
Courts below on such comparison concurring with
the expert's view and the defence raising no doubts
against the reasons given by the expert for his
77 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
opinion Held, opinion evidence acceptable without
any corroboration.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that expert
testimony is made relevant by Sec.45 of the Evidence Act,
where the court has to form an opinion upon a point as
to identity of handwriting, the opinion of a person
'specially skilled' in question as to identity of
handwriting, is expressly made a relevant fact. In view
of the aforesaid decision, there can be no hard and fast
rule to believe the opinion of a expert, but it is for the
Court to consider the opinion of the expert or on other
relevant evidence and decide finally to accept or reject it.
88. Percontra Sri. R.G.K Advocate for accused
submitted that expert report is only an opinion and it is
not conclusive. PW29 had not sent certain documents
which are necessary for examination. Therefore, the
report requires corroboration. The accused relied on the
decision reported in 2013 4 AIR (Kar) (R) 776, 2013 3
KCCR 2368 (K. Vaadaraja Pai and others V/s State by CBI).
Which reads thus:
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 Section
374: Anand Byrareddy, J) Appeal against conviction
under Sections 120B, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC
Appeal by Accused Nos.1 and 3 Accused1 was a
Senior Branch Manager of Corporation Bank,
Accused 2,3,6 and 7 were Directors of Accused
Nos.8 to 11 which were Companies and Accused
Nos.4 and 5 were Legal Advisor of Company and
Directors Accused persons advanced loans to
companies against security of Deposits made by NRI
clients of Bank Created power of attorneys in
78 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
favour of nonexistent persons authorizing agents to
transact with Bank in respect of deposits to offer
FCNR deposits as security for the loans Created
new accounts, Authorisations and false FCNR
receipts and sent to NRI depositors while originals
were pledged with Bank as security for the loans
Mischief was discovered when one of the depositors
sought refund of deposit Accused No.2 died
pending trial Accused Nos.4 to 11 were acquitted
Accused1 and A3 were convicted Pending Appeal,
Accused1 dies His widow was granted leave to
prosecute appeal On repappreciation of entire
evidence, held, therefore, the manner in which the
trial Court has held that the entire transactions
have been proved to be fraudulent and on the basis
of allegedly forged documents cannot be accepted.
It certainly cannot be said that the prosecution has
established its case against the present appellants
in these two appeals, beyond all reasonable doubt.
The appeals are allowed. The judgment in so far as
the conviction of these appellants is concerned is
set aside. The appellants are acquitted and the fine
amount if any paid by the appellants shall be
refunded.
On careful reading of the judgment, our Hon'ble High
Court has relied on the decision of Fakhruddin V/s State
of M.P reported in AIR 1967 S.C 1326, has held that
conviction cannot be based solely on the evidence of
handwriting expert and before acting upon such evidence,
the Court must always try to see whether it is
corroborated by other evidence, direct or circumstantial.
89. Let me peruse the evidence placed by the
prosecution with regard to forgery, falsification of
documents and possession by the accused persons. The
evidence of PW1 reveal that there are two FD receipts for
same amount, one is genuine and another one is
79 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
fabricated. She identified the documents before the court,
which are marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.116. P.W.1 issued
reminders to the borrowers. Pursuant to such reminder,
one of the representative of borrower came to the Bank
and informed that NRI depositor had not availed loan
against FD receipt and he has shown copy of the original
deposit receipt. Then, she came to know that the same
was issued from stationery of the Bank and on
verification, found that number of the FD receipts were
shown as missing or destroyed in the registers Exs.P.8
and 122. So, she tried to find out as to who was the
beneficiary of loans and knew that K. Vijay(accused No.2)
was beneficiary of the said loan. When she questioned
K.Vijay about the loan and he assured the NRIs are his
business associates and definitely the Bank would get
repayment. PW1 visited the office of K. Vijay(accused
No.2), and met accused No.6 the wife of K. Vijay who also
assured the entire amount will be repaid. Thereafter,
accused No.7 approached the Bank and assured he would
make arrangements to repay the money in respect of
various loans. She informed the above fact to the higher
authorities.
90. According to the evidence of PW1, the basic
requirement for opening NRI account is that money should
come from abroad and the account holder should be a Non
Resident of India (NRI) and the Bank will obtain the
80 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
documents regarding identity of the customer's status,
passport or any other document by which they could be
satisfied about their status. Thereafter the loan
applications will be processed. Further, it reveals that loan
sanctioned amount will be first debited to the loan account
of the borrower and thereafter it is credited to SB account
of the customer. In the case on hand, some of the loan
amounts were directly credited to the accused Nos.8 and 9
companies and K Vijay(accused No.2) who was the
Managing Director of the said companies. It further reveal
that several irregularities are committed while processing
the loan applications.
91. As could be seen from the record it depicts that
there are 6 NRI depositors. It is correct to discuss each
deposit one by one. Firstly, I have taken the deposit of
Mr.Suresh Purswaney and Mrs. Karen Puruswaney. The
documents are marked as Ex.P.1 to 21. Ex.P.1 is the letter
of Advice from Canara Bank, Foreign Department Dated
06.05.1999 regarding FCNR Deposits of US Dollars
5,00,000, Ex.P.2 is FCNR Memo Dated 07.05.1999 from
Canara Bank, Malleshwaram to Canara Bank, Foreign
Department, Ex.P.3 is Account Opening Form for Non
Resident Indians bearing No.FCKD99/26 of Mr.Suresh
Purswaney and Mrs.Karen Purswaney, Ex.P.4 is Copy of
1st Page of Passport of Sri.Suresh Purswaney, Ex.P.5 is
Copy of 1st Page of Passport of Mrs.Karen Purswaney,
81 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
Ex.P.6 is FCNR Deposit Receipt bearing No.2039866 Dated
05.05.1999 of Canara Bank for US Dollars 5,00,000 of
Mr.Suresh Purswaney and Mrs.Karen Purswaney, Ex.P.7
is FCNR Deposit Receipt bearing No.2039771 Dated
07.05.1999 of Canara Bank for US Dollars 5,00,000 of
Mr.Suresh Purswaney and Mrs.Karen Purswaney, Ex.P.8
is Extract of Deposit Issue Register for the period from
20.04.99 to 15.5.99, Ex.P.8(A) is Original Deposit Register
of Ex.P.8 containing Sl.Nos.1 to 202 for the period from
12.12.98 to 5.9.2000 pertaining to Canara Bank, H.O.,
Bengaluru, Ex.P.9 is General Power of Attorney dated
6.5.99 executed by Sri.Suresh Puraswany & Smt.Karen
Puraswany in favour of Sri.Suresh Peter, Ex.P.10 is
AnnexureIRequest for Loan/OD Facility Dated
07.05.1999 from Sri.Suresh Puraswany & Smt.Karen
Puraswany, Hong Kong to The Manager/Senior Manager,
Canara Bank, Malleshwaram, Ex.P.11 is Letter Dated
06.05.1999 from Sri.Suresh Purswaney, Hongkong to the
Manager, Canara Bank, Malleshwaram Branch, Bengaluru
regarding Loan against FCNR Deposit, Ex.P.12 is ProNote
Dated 07.05.1999 for Rs.1,57,50,000/ pertaining to
Sri.Suresh Purswaney & Smt.Karen Purswaney, Ex.P.13 is
Account Opening Form for NonResident Indians bearing
No.NRO/SB/69615 of Mr.Suresh Purswaney and
Mrs.Karen Purswaney, Ex.P.14 is Debit Slip Dated
07.05.1999 for Rs.1,57,50,000/ pertaining to A/c.
No.VSL99035, Ex.P.15 is Statement of Account dated
82 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
3.5.01 for the period from 1.1.99 to 3.5.01 bearing A/c
No.GA VSL/99035 of Mr.Suresh Purswaney and
Mrs.Karen Purswaney, Ex.P.16 is Credit Slip dated 7.5.99
for Rs.1,57,50,000/ pertaining to A/c.No.VSL99035,
Ex.P.17 is Statement of Account dated 3.5.01 for the
period from 1.1.99 to 3.5.01 bearing A/c No.SB000069615
of Mr.Suresh Purswaney and Mrs.Karen Purswaney,
Ex.P.18 is Cheque No.562853 dated 7.5.99 for
Rs.1,57,50,000/ in favour of M/s.Emvee Comforts &
Travels Limited issued from Sri.Suresh Purswaney,
Ex.P.19 is Letter dated 05.05.2000 from Sri.Suresh
Purswaney & Mrs.Karen Purswaney, Hong Kong to the
Manager, Canara Bank, Malleshwaram Branch, Bengaluru
regarding closure of VSL No.99035 against FCNR Deposit
No.MVM7614/2039866 dated 7.5.99, Ex.P.20 is Fax Copy
of Communication regarding FCNR Deposit
No.MVM7614/2039866 dated 7.5.99 signed by Sri.Suresh
Puruswaney, Ex.P.21 is the letter dated 22.9.2000, sent by
the depositor requesting the Canara bank to pay the
amount on maturity of FD receipt. Suresh Puruswaney
cited as C.W.41 in the charge sheet. As per the request of
the Manager, Canara Bank, Foreign Department,
Residency road Branch, Bangalore, FCNR for US dollars
5,00,000/ issued in the name of above depositors for a
period of one year. Accordingly, FD receipt No.2039866
was issued on 7.5.1999. It contains the signature of bank
officials and Manager. The account opening forms marked
83 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
as Ex.P.3 and 13, GPA Ex.P.9, request letter for loan as
per Ex.P.10,11 and letter for closure of VSL account
Ex.P.19 are disputed by the depositors. The statement of
C.W.41 recorded by the IO disclose that the depositors
denied the availment of loan through GPA and FD receipt
is denied.
92. P.W.2 deposed that K.Vijay (the accused No.2)
brought the GPA holder Suresh Peter to the bank. The loan
papers signed by the GPA holder. The loan account was
opened. The original FD was handed over to GPA holder.
He executed the pronote. P.W.4 deposed that the loan
application was submitted by GPA holder, Ex.P.10 the
request letter for loan and loan papers processed by him
as per the request of the Chief Manager. GPA holder singed
all loan papers in front of him. The purpose of loan was
entered by him . P.W.8 stated that she did not signed
Ex.P.7 parallel FD No.2039771. P.W.10 deposed that Mrs.
Kiran Pai P.W.11 handed over 3 FD receipts bg
No.9773,9774 and 9775. She noticed that two FDs 9771
and 9772 were missing while entering the register Ex.P.8.
As per the instructions of C.W.33 and Krishnan she
entered the register as "missing". P.W.10 did not enquire
with PW11 with regard to FD receipts 9771 and 9772.
93. P.W.11 deposed that on 23/4/99 she took the
print of 3 FD receipts bg Nos.9771,9772 and 9773. She
has signed Ex.P.7. PW8's specimen signatures were
84 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
taken as per Ex.P.124, PW9's specimen signature was
taken as per Ex.P.125, PW10's specimen signatures are
marked as Ex.P.126 and Ex.P.127 is the specimen
signatures of PW11. According to evidence of these
witnesses, they did not sign to the parallel FD receipts
and forged by someone else. From the above evidence, it
is clear that the bank staff took the print of FDs Ex.P.6
and 7 as per instructions of accused No.1 and processed
the loan papers as per the direction of the Chief Manager.
94. PW23 is the Senior Manager of Vijaya Bank. He
deposed that on 21/08/2001 the CBI called him to office
and asked him to be a witness to the mahazar drawn as
per Ex.P.182. The CBI introduced one Mr.Suresh
Purswaney and asked him to make writings and
signatures in 7 sheets. He witnessed the specimen
handwritings and signatures of Suresh Purswaney and the
said documents was marked as Ex.P.182.
95. In respect of Diwanchand Bhagawandas and
Meena Diwanchand Bhagwandas depositors is concerned
Ex.P.23 to 40 were marked. Ex.P.23 is the memo sent to
Canara Bank, Foreign Department, Bangalore regarding
opening of FD account No.99/27 in the name of above
depositors. Ex.P.24 is the account opening form, which
contains the questioned signatures of depositors. Ex.P.25
and 26 are the copies of the passports of depositors.
Ex.P.27 is the original FD receipt No. 2039867 bearing
85 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
account No. 99/27 dated 07/05/1999 issued in the name
of depositors. Ex.P.28 is the original GPA dated
06/05/1999 executed by the depositors in favour of
Suresh Peter. Ex.P.29 is the request for loan facility
submitted by GPA holder on 07/05/1999. Ex.P.30 is the
letter Dated 06.05.1999 from Sri.Diwanchand, Hongkong
to the Manager, Canara Bank, Malleshwaram regarding
Loan against FCNR Deposit. Ex.P.31 is the Pronote dated
07.05.1999 for Rs.40,94,000/ pertaining to
Sri.Diwanchand & Mrs.Meenu Diwanchand Bhagwandas.
Ex.P.32 is the Account Opening Form for of
Sri.Diwanchand & Mrs.Meenu Diwanchand Bhagwandas
bearing A/c.No.NRO/SB69614 with questioned
signatures of depositors. Ex.P.33 is the Debit Slip dated
7.5.99 for Rs.40,94,000/ pertaining to A/c.No.VSL99036
of Sri.Diwanchand & Mrs.Meenu Diwanchand
Bhagwandas. Ex.P.34 is the Statement of Account dated
3.5.01 in respect of Loan Account No.GA VSL/99036 of
Sri.Diwanchand & Mrs.Meenu Diwanchand Bhagwandas
for the period from 1.1.99 to 3.5.01. Ex.P.35 is the Credit
Slip dated 07.05.1999 for Rs.40,94,000/. Ex.P.36 is the
Statement of Account dated 3.5.01 of Sri.Diwanchand &
Mrs.Meenu Diwanchand Bhagwandas for the period from
1.1.99 to 3.5.01 pertaining A/c.No.SB000069614, which
shows entry of withdrawal of Rs.40,94,000/ and
Rs.41,00,000/ on 7th and 8th May, 1999. Ex.P.37 is
Cheque No.562861 dated 07.05.1999 for Rs.41,00,000/
86 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
issued in favour of M/s.Emvee Comfort & Travels Ltd.
from Sri.Diwanchand. Ex.P.38 is letter dated 04.05.2000
from Sri.Diwanchand & Mrs.Meenu Diwanchand
Bhagwandas, Hongkong to the Manager, Canara Bank,
Malleswaram Branch, Bengaluru regarding closure of VSL
No.99036 against FCNR deposit No.MVM 7615/2039867
dated 7.5.99, which contains questioned signatures of
depositors. Ex.P.39 is the letter dated 06.06.2000 from
Sri.Diwanchand & Mrs.Meenu Diwanchand Bhagwandas,
Hongkong to the Manager, Canara Bank, Malleswaram
Branch, Bengaluru regarding FCNR Deposit
No.CDMB2039772 for US$129,990.00 matured on
4.5.2000. Ex.P.40 is the FNCR Deposit Receipt bearing
No.2039772 dated 04.05.1999 of Canara Bank for US
Dollars 1,29,990.00 pertaining to Sri.Diwanchand &
Mrs.Meenu Diwanchand Bhagwandas with questioned
signatures of bank officials.
96. The another depositor is Prakash Panjabi and
T.N. Navalrai. Prakash Panjabi cited as C.W.3 in the
charge sheet. The documents pertaining to above
depositors were marked as Ex.P.42 to Ex.P.66. Ex.P.41 is
the letter of Advice from Canara Bank, Foreign
Department dated 08.05.1999 regarding FCNR Deposits of
US Dollars 3,70,000. Ex.P.42 is the FCNR Memo dated
08.05.1999 from Canara Bank, Malleswaram Branch,
Bengaluru to Canara Bank, Foreign Department,
87 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
Bengaluru regarding FD receipt No.FCKD 99/30
pertaining to Prakash Panjabi and Tej. N.Navalrai. Ex.P.43
is Account Opening Form bearing No.FCKD99/30 in the
name of Sri.Prakash Narsingdas Panjabi & Sri.Tej
Narsingdas Navalrai with their questioned signatures.
Ex.P.44 and Ex.P.45 are the copies of 1 st Page of Passport
of Sri.Prakash Narsingdas Panjabi and Tej Narasingdas
Navalrai. Ex.P.46 is the FCNR Deposit Receipt
No.2039884 dated 08.05.1999 for US$3,70,000.00 in the
name of Sri.Prakash.N.Panjabi and Sri.Tej.N.Navalrai.
Ex.P.47 is the General Power of Attorney dated
06.05.1999 executed by the aforesaid despositors in
favour of Sri.Suresh Peter. Ex.P.48 is the letter dated
08.05.1999 requesting for Loan Facility of
Rs.1,16,50,000/ by GPA holder on behalf of depositors
Ex.P.49 is the letter dated 06.05.1999 regarding Loan
against FCNR Deposit with questioned signature of
Prakash Panjabi. Ex.P.50 is the ProNote dated
08.05.1999 of executed by GPA holder for
Rs.1,16,50,000/. Ex.P.51 is Account Opening form
pertaining to depositors bearing A/c.No.SB69617 having
questioned signatures of depositors. Ex.P.52 is the Debit
Slip dated 8.5.99 for Rs.1,16,50,000/ in respect of Loan
No.VSL99038 pertaining to depositors . Ex.P.53 is the
Statement of Account dated 3.5.01 pertaining A/c.No.GA
VSL99038 for the period from 1.1.99 to 3.5.01 with debit
entry of Rs.1.16,50,000/. Ex.P.54 is the Cheque
88 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
No.563102 dated 08.05.1999 for Rs.1,10,00,000/ issued
by GPA hodlder in favour of M/s.Emvee Comforts &
Travels Ltd., A8 company with signature of GPA. Ex.P.55
is the Statement of Account dated 3.5.01 pertaining
A/c.No.SB000069617 for the period from 1.1.98 to 3.5.01.
Ex.P.56 is the Cheque No.563103 dated 11.05.1999 for
Rs.6,43,900/ issued by GPA holder in favour of A8
company. Ex.P.57 is the letter dated 12.04.2000 from
State Bank of India, Hongkong Branch to the Branch
Manager, Canara Bank, Malleswaram, Bengaluru
regarding FCNB Receipt No.2039932 due on 06.05.2000
M.V.USD3,88,854.51. Ex.P.58 is FCNR Deposit Receipt
No.2039932 dated 06.05.1999 for US$3,70,000.00 in the
name of depositors. Ex.P.59 is the letter dated 7.4.2000
from Tej Narsingdas Panjabi to the Branch Manager,
Canara Bank, Malleswaram, Bengaluru regarding FCNR
Deposit Receipt No.CDMB2039932 DR No.AUFCKD 99/30
due on 6.5.2000 maturity value USD388854.51. Ex.P.60
is the letter dated 27.04.2000 from State Bank of India,
Hongkong Branch, to the Branch Manager, Canara Bank,
Malleswaram, Bengaluru regarding FCNB Receipt
No.2039932 06.05.2000 M.V.USD3,88,854.51 of
depositors.
97. Ex.P.46 is the original FD bearing No.20398884
dated 08/05/1999. Ex.P.58 is the parallel fake FD
receipts bearing Nos.2039932 and 2039933. The deposit
89 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
was made for USD 3,70,000. On the basis of the said FD
receipts, loan of Rs.1,16,50,000/ was availed and
amount of Rs.1,10,00,000/ was transferred to the
account of A8Company. The loan was sanctioned on the
basis of GPA, Ex.P.47 dated 6.5.1999. The deposit was
made on 08/05/1999 and loan was also sanctioned on
the same day.
98. PW8 in her evidence has stated that on
15/09/1999 PW10 the clerk, who was handling the
computer and took print out of FDs. As per the entry
made in Ex.P.123, FD receipt No.2039932, 2039933 and
2039934 missing and as per the instructions and
password used by Mr.Upadhaya, the entry was made in
the register Ex.P.8 as "destroyed". PW7, the officer of the
Bank has deposed that Upadhaya, CW33 are the
custodian of the almirah, which was kept behind his
counter and it was in that almirah those forms were kept.
Further, stated that during office hours, the blank deposit
receipt used is to be originally in the custody of the
concerned clerk of the deposit section and at the end of
the office hours, he used to handover the same to
Manager, Deposits section. PW11, the clerk of the Bank
deposed that on 22/04/1999, he had taken print out of 3
FD receipts bearing Nos.9771, 9772 and 9773, but he did
not physically check about the numbers of the
corresponding FD receipts of which print was taken. He
90 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
identified the 3 FD receipts, Exs.P.7,40 and 58. He denied
his signature on the aforesaid FDs.
99. Further, PW18, the Assistant General Manager,
SBM, Mumbai deposed, Prakash Panjabi and T.Navalrai
had account in Hong Kong Bank. The depositors
submitted letter as per Ex.P.57 alongwith FD receipt as
per Ex.P.58 requesting to deposit the matured FD
amount to their Bank account. This witness has denied
the letter Ex.P.62 alleged to have been written by the
depositors.
100. PW22 is the Officer who worked in SBM, Mysore,
has deposed that on 28/05/2001, the CBI called him to
their office and took the specimen handwriting and
signatures of accused No.4, K.Sridhar in 17 pages which
are marked as Ex.P.181 and 201.
101. PW31 deposed that he had received FCNR
deposit receipts of DiwanChand Bhagwandas, Prakash
Panjabi and Suresh Puruswaney, in turn handedover the
same to the depositors CWs3,41 and Diwan Chand
Bhagwandas. He received the filled up forms from
depositors above named and transmitted the forms and
its enclosures to the bank. If that is so, there must be
documents with the Canara bank for having receipt of
A/c opening forms and its enclosures from Hong Kong.
But, there is no such acknowledgment to support the said
91 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
contention. However, Ex.P.66 disclose that C.W.3
Prakash Punjabi has remitted the amount through his
banker Robo Bank, Asia limited. C.W.3 in has not stated
the A/c opening form filled by his father and handed over
to P.W.31.
102. The IO himself not definite that Ex.P.43 A/c
opening form of Prakash Panjabi is fabricated or genuine.
Ex.D.37 is the Xerox copy of the front sheet of A/c
opening form of C.W.3 and his father for deposit of
amount. This document is confronted to IO, where the
witness never confirmed with C.W.3 with regard to the
signatures of the depositors.
103. PW29 IO has deposed that, had enquired with
CW 41 the depositor on 21/8/2001. The initials in
Ex.P.12 on pronote is matching the initial of the Chief
Manager. He seized the passport Ex.P.4 from the Canara
bank. Ex.P.4 was not belonged to CW41. He did not
ascertain about the passport referred by the wife of CW
41 in her declaration at Ex.D.31. He also stated that he
recorded the statement of CW41 in India. Ex.P.4
discloses the name of Melwani Arjun Das Tharmool, but
he did not ask Arjun Das about the said document that
how his name was appearing in the passport. Ex.D.33 is
the passport of Arjun Das Melwani. Ex.P.4 and Ex.D.33
are different, but looks similar. He did not question CW
5 with regard to Ex.P.4, passport in which is name was
92 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
found. He also did not ascertain from CW5 as to how
his photo and passport came to Canara Bank,
Malleshwaram Branch. He has not made any efforts to
find out which passport is genuine. He had not sent the
documents for comparison since the same were xerox
copies,
104. PW31 in his evidence has stated that he received
all the three deposit receipts from Canara Bank in his
address and later handedover to depositors. He further
stated that he received the filled account opening forms
from depositors and transmitted the same to the Canara
Bank. When such being the case, how the account
opening form Ex.P.43 came to the Canara Bank,
Malleshwaram branch. This evidence is contrary to the
register Ex.P.8, where the signature of GPA holder finds
place for having receipt of FD receipts. Further, PW31
has denied the passports of CW3 and his father as per
Ex.P.44 and Ex.P.45. The copies of the passport were
also marked through defence as per Ex.D.35 and
Ex.D.36. The GPA holder has produced the GPA and
availed loan of Rs.1,16,50,000/. PW31 was the person
who advised the depositors to make deposits in Canara
Bank. This fact was also admitted by the I.O PW29. It
also depicts from the evidence of PW31 that he offered
and paid extra rate of interest to the depositors for deposit
in Canara Bank. He was the partner of K.Vijay (accused
93 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
No.2) in Hong Kong. The IO for the best reasons known
to him has not taken the specimen signatures of PW31 to
send the same for comparison. Further, the I.O has also
not taken passports of CW3 and his father to compare
the same with Ex.D.35 and Ex.D.36. Further, P.W.31
stated that Diwanchand is resident of USA at the time of
transaction and he made deposit in the name of
Diwanchand. How can he made transaction in the name
of Diwanchand. P.W.31 did not know why the bank sent
FD receipts of Suresh Purswaney and Prakash Panjabi to
his address. So, the evidence of this witness creates
doubt regarding receipt of FDRs and account opening
forms from the bank and later he transmitted the filled
documents to the bank.
105. PW18 is the Assistant General Manager of SBI,
Mumbai. He deposed that from 19/01/1991 to June
2003 he was working as Manager in Deposits section,
Hongkong. Mr. Prakash Panjabi and T.N.Navalrai of
Hongkong have deposited account in the SBI, Hongkong.
He stated that in the month of April, 2000, the said
Prakash Panjabi and Naval Rai have requested the Bank
to release the deposit receipts amount from Canara Bank,
Malleshwaram Branch, Bangalore. Accordingly, he wrote
a letter to Canara Bank, Malleshwaram Branch to release
FD amount as per Ex.P.57. He further stated that on
27/04/2000 again the depositor Navalrai came to the
94 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
branch and requested to recall the said FCNR receipt as
per Ex.P.61. He forwarded the said letter to Canara Bank,
Malleshwaram Branch. On 28/06/2000, he received the
message that FCNR receipt was encumbered to a loan
account under the Power of Attorney of Mr.Prakash
Panjabi. So, he informed the depositors writing a letter as
per Ex.P.64. This witness was crossexamined, but
nothing has been elicited to discredit his testimony. The
entire evidence reveal that Prakash Panjabi and
T.N.Navalrai had handedover the receipt (Ex.P.58) to SB
Bank, Hongkong requesting to get transfer the FD
amount from Canara Bank, Malleshwaram Branch,
Bangalore, who in turn wrote a letter to Canara Bank and
later came to know that FD receipt was rendered and loan
was availed by the GPA holder. As per evidence of PW18,
the NRI depositors never wrote the letter regarding giving
consent to raise the loan by GPA holder. This evidence is
not corroborated with the evidence of P.W.31.
106. P.W 23 attested the specimen writings and
signatures of one Prakash Narasingadas Panjabi as per
Ex.P.183 and signatures of accused No.1 as per Ex.P.185.
This witness was not crossexamined by the accused
except accused Nos.10 to 12. During the course of cross
examination, the witness denied the suggestion that I.O
dictated to the said Suresh Purswaney, Prakash
Narasingadas Panjabi and accused No.1 to write and sign
95 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
in a particular way. He denied the suggestion that he did
not attest the specimen signatures of the said persons and
deposed as per the say of the I.O. The evidence of this
witness would goes to show that I.O had taken specimen
handwriting and signature of Suresh Purswaney,
Praskash Narasingadas Panjabi and accused No.1 as per
Exs.P.182, 183 and 185. The accused No.1 has not cross
examined the witness. So there is no dispute with regard
to specimen signature of accused No.1 obtained by the
I.O.
107. PW15 is private person. He had passport bearing
No.A 3099198 and obtained the same in Hyderabad.
One Balakrishna, the subagent who sends the people to
the foreign countries, had assured PW15 to send him
abroad and took his original passport. The said subagent
prolonged the days, but ultimately repaid the amount of
Rs.9,000/ to the witness. The agent did not return his
original passport. After some period, he received the letter
from passport office, Hyderabad stating his passport has
been forged. The said passport is marked subject to
objection as per Ex.P.175. On perusal of Ex.P.175, it
finds the name of one Baldwin Suresh Peter the alleged
GPA holder of three NRI depositors. From this, it would
goes to show that GPA holder Suresh peter has forged the
passport of PW15. This document was marked subject
96 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
objection, as the original was not placed. The IO has not
made any enquiry with this passport.
108. PW1 speaks about Ex.P.33 and Ex.P.35. Ex.P.30
is a letter dated 06/05/1999 written by Sri.Diwanchand
address of Hong Kong Manager, Canara Bank requesting
for loan against FCNR. According to prosecution, this
letter is fabricated by the accused persons. Ex.P.31 is
Pronote dated 07/05/1999 executed by the GPA holder on
behalf of Sri.Diwanchand and Mrs.Meenu Diwanchand
Bhagawandas. Ex.P.32 is the account opening form of
NRI Sri.Diwanchand and Mrs.Meenu Diwanchand.
Ex.P.33 reveals that an amount of Rs.40,94,000/ was
debited to loan account VSL99036 of Diwanchand and
Meenu Diwanchand. Ex.P.35 is the credit slip, which
depicts with regard to credit of loan amount to accused
No.8 Company. The amount was debited to accused No.8
through cheque bearing No.5621861 dated 07/05/1999
issued by the GPA holder Suresh Peter in favour of
accused No.8 Company and on behalf of Diwanchand. So,
from the evidence of PW4, it would goes to show that he
has processed the two loan applications of Puruswaney
and Diwanchand Bhagawan Das at the instructions of
Chief Manager, Shenoy and accused No.1.
97 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
109. P.W.31 is the financial consultant of the above
three depositors. He stated before the court that he
deposited the amount in the Corporation Bank, Bangalore
and he advised his friends who stayed in Hongkong to
make deposits in the Corporation Bank, Bangalore. His
brother Arjundas Melwany and his friend Suresh
Purswaney, Prakash Panjabi made investments in India.
He further deposed that initially he withdrew the deposits
after maturity and he has not faced any problem in
withdrawal of the said deposits. On second deposit, there
was some problem with Prakash Panjabi, who made
application for repatriation of the deposit amount. He
came to know that loan was availed on the deposit with
knowledge of the depositor. He enquired with other friends
who made similar deposits. The said depositors have also
faced same problem. So, he enquired with banker and
came to know that loans were taken on the deposits
basing false documents. Hence, he contacted K.Vijay(A
2), who was the boss of accused No.4. K. Vijay confirmed
that he had taken loans on the basis of the fabricated
documents and also assured him that he would discharge
liability and sought for accommodation. He was also told
by K.Vijay that accused No.6 will visit the Hongkong with
some diamonds and she would propose to sell the
diamonds and later she would pay the proceeds to
discharge bank liability.
98 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
110. PW31 further deposed that accused No.6, and 3
came to Hongkong and met him in a hotel at Kimberley
wherein the accused No.6 had shown two pieces of uncut
diamonds and assured to pay the sale proceeds. The
accused No.3 also assured to repay the loan with 10%
interest if accommodation is given to him. Accused No.3
requested PW31 to convey the same to all other
depositors. Likewise, PW31 forwarded the messages to
all other depositors. PW31 sent the deposits, A/c opening
forms and its enclosures of Diwanchand and Meenu
Diwanchand to Canara Bank, Malleshwaram Branch
through K. Vijay. He stated that signatures on Ex.P.24 is
not the signatures of Diwanchand and Meenu
Diwanchand. He also denied the photo in Ex.P.25 and
the name shown in the passport also not correct. Though
the photo pasted on Ex.P.26 passport belonged to his wife,
the passport does not belong to his wife. He stated that
Diwanchand never borrowed loan on FD receipts nor he
authorized anybody to borrow the loan on his behalf. He
denied the Post Box number found in Exs.P.30,32 and 38.
He identified the signatures of Diwanchand and Meenu
Diwanchand as per Ex.P.39 and Ex.P.40. He sent fax
message to the Bank as per Ex.P.258 and he received the
fax message as per Ex.P.259. He identified the accused
Nos.3 and 4 before the Court.
99 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
111. In the crossexamination P.W.31 has admitted
that he and K.Vijay(accused No.2) opened partnership firm
in the name and style M/s. Migwana Traders at Hong Kong
on 17/06/1999. But no trade was done in the said firm
and closed immediately after realizing that K. Vijay played
fraud. He was doing tailoring business for more than 36
years and K.Vijay came to Hong Kong with a vision of
export and import business. So, he entered into
agreement.
112. P.W.31 further admitted that Diwan Chand
Bhagawandas and his wife are residing in USA for more
than 10 years. He made deposits in their names in Canara
Bank. He sent the deposits by telegraphic transfer. He
received bunch of blank account opening forms and sent
it to Diwan Chand. Later he transmitted the filled forms
to the Canara Bank. He stated never he handed over the
copies of his passport and his wife's passport to
K.Vijay(accused No.2)) or accused No.4. Initially, PW31
denied suggestions that he offered 2% interest over and
above the Bank interest to CW3, 41 and Diwan Chand,
but he stated "whatever accused Vijay offered, I was passing on to
the said persons. I conveyed them whatever was offered by Vijay. It
may be 1 ½ to 2% over and above the Bank interest. I was helping my
friends to get something more than what the Bank normally offers".
He further stated that based on his offer for extra interest,
the NRIs deposited in Canara Bank, Bangalore. So from
100 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
this, it would goes to show that PW31 advised NRI
depositors to make investments for over and above the
Bank interest.
113. Further, P.W31 denied the receipt of amount of
Rs.25,20,000/ through cheque bearing No.0489528
dated 07/06/1999, Rs.62,00,000/ through cheque
bearing No.489506 dated 11/05/1999, Rs.3,00,000/
through cheque bearing No.499530 dated 02/05/2000.
He also denied the contention of the accused that he met
Mr. K.S.V.Shenoy, the Chief Manager, Canara Bank and
himself and his brother Arjandas Melwani were benefited
to the extent of Rs.3,04,88,000/ by fraudulent means. He
further denied the defence that he obtained account
particulars of CW3 and 41 through PW18, the Bank
officer of SBI based in Hong Kong, and fabricated the
documents to get the amount by fraudulent means.
114. The entire evidence of P.W.31 falsifies the case of
prosecution and it is clear that he is front fore person who
advised NRI depositors to make investment in India for
higher interest. Accordingly, Diwan Chand Bhagawan Das
and Meenu Chand Bhagwan Das, Prakash Panjabi and
T.N. Navalrai, Suresh Puruswaney and Karen Puruswaney
deposited the amount with Canara Bank, Malleshwaram
Branch. Further, the bank sent FD receipts to the address
of P.W.31 who in turn handedover the receipts to the
depositors. When that such being the case, how far it is
101 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
believable that the depositors received fake receipts. The
depositors knew the fact that the K.Vijay availed loans on
FCNR and they agreed for over and above interest of the
bank. Only to get higher rate of interest, the NRIs
deposited the amount with Canara bank and consented
K.Vijay on avail loans.
115. It is quite important to state that all the three
alleged loan transactions are on the basis of GPA alleged
to have been executed by the depositors. GPA Ex.P.9,28
and 47 are executed by the depositors' at Hong Kong on
6.5.99. These GPAs identified by Nicholas Associates of
Nathan road, Hong Kong where P.W.31 also residing. The
IO has not made any efforts to enquire with the persons in
whose presence the documents were executed though he
suspected about GPAs . Even it was not confronted to
P.W.31. GPA holder is not traced and also not arraigned
him as a accused in the charge sheet. Even the
prosecution is not definite that whether the GPA holder
Suresh Peter is in existence or not. More importantly, the
person who scrutinized the papers before sanction has not
verified the papers properly and the loan process occurred
as per the direction of the Chief Manager. The act of
Chief Manager and other bank staff creates doubt.
116. It is important to state that the GPA holder
Suresh Peter was very much present in the chamber of the
102 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
Chief Manager while opening the account and so also
processing the loan applications such as execution of
pronote, request for loan. When GPA holder signed the
papers i.e., Exs.P.3,11,13, 24, 30, 32, 43, 48, 49, 50, 51 in
the bank, how it could be believed that the signatures
found to be are in the handwriting of accused No.4 as per
the report of handwriting expert Ex.P.180. It is not the
case of prosecution that the accused No.4 represented
himself as Suresh Peter and signed the papers. The
GPA holder not secured by the IO. More importantly, the
FD receipts bg No.99/26 and 99/27, 99/30 are handed
over to the GPA holder on 7.5.1999 and 08.05.1999 as per
the entry made in Ex.P.8. The GPA alleged to be executed
by the depositors Suresh Purswaney and Karen
Pursawaney Ex.P.9 and Diwanchand Bhagwandas and
Meenu Diwanchand Bhagwandas as per Ex.P.28 and by
the Prakash Panjabi and T.N.Navalrai as per Ex.P.47 on
6.5.1999. The documents were executed before Indian
High Commission, Hong Kong. When the GPA holder was
present before authority on 6.5.99, how could be present
in the bank on 7.5.99. This fact was not investigated by
the IO. Moreover, the sanctioning authority also did not
made any enquiry in this aspect. More importantly, when
C.W.41 the depositor has not examined before the court to
deny the fact on oath that he availed loan on FCNR
thorugh GPA holder. Further, the depositors Diwanchand
Bhagwandas and his wife are not examined by the I.O and
103 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
not cited as witnesses in the charge sheet. There is no
primary evidence of denial of execution of questioned
documents by the depositors. The admitted signatures of
the depositors marked as A4 to 8, A10 to 12 are not
available in the file as per the say of P.W.19. The request
letter for loan submitted on 6.5.99 before depositing the
amount. The question is who submitted and received
Exs.P.11, 24, 28, 29, 30, 32, 38 in the bank. The above
documents does not disclose who attested the pronotes
and signature on FD receipts. There is no evidence in this
regard. Why the signatures of Suresh Peter was not sent
for examination when GPA holder submitted the
questioned documents to the bank, how for it is possible to
believe that the accused No.4 signed the questioned
documents in the bank. All these factors creates doubt to
believe the case of prosecution.
117. Further, IO not questioned CW3 and 41 with
regard to Exs.P.19, 20 and 21. CW41 in his statement
has denied his signature appearing in Ex.P.19 and
Ex.P.20, but admitted the signature in Ex.P.21. Ex.P.20,
which is questioned document was not sent to GEQD.
There is no material in charge sheet with regard to fax
message as to from where Ex.P.20 was originated. IO also
failed to produce the documents to show that how the
blank account opening forms and FCNR deposits reached
CW3 in Hong Kong from Bengaluru. CW3 in his
104 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
statement has stated that his father has filled up the
account opening forms and deposit forms. But this fact
was not ascertained from PW31. The alleged Exs.P.44
and 45, the account opening forms were also not sent for
GEQD examination. There is no material before the Court
to show how the FDRs reached the depositors. Ex.D.37
the front sheet of the A/c opening form of C.W.3 and his
father marked through IO. It was seized during
investigation. The back side of the form is blank. The
alleged document was sent by P.W.31 to the bank. The IO
failed to confront the document to the depositors for
confirmation of their signatures on it. Further, IO himself
not definite about Ex.P.43 the A/c opening from of
Prakash N. Punjabi and T.N. Navalrai whether it is
fabricated or genuine. Ex.D35 and 36 are the Xerox copies
of passport of C.W.3 and his father. The IO has not
compared EX.P.44,45 with Ex.D.35 and 36 passports
with regard to its correctness.
118. Further, the loan amount was transferred to the
S.B.NRO account of the respective depositors. The
cheques Ex.P.18,37,54,56 were issued by the GPA holder
Suresh peter in favour of A8 company. A sum of
Rs.3.14,93,900/ was credited to the account of A8
company. The statement of account of A8 company reveal
that a sum of Rs.5 lakh was credited on 8.5.99. There is
no investigation in this regard. This statement was not
105 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
confronted to P.W.31 though it was seized before
examining the witness. As per the document a sum of
Rs.3,11,55,000/ was withdrawn by P.W.31 who is
financial consultant of above depositors. The accused also
produced statement of account as per D.28(a) and 30
which would goes to show that P.W.31 received the
payments from other companies belonged to K.Vijay(A2).
It is quite interesting to say that though P.W.29 IO knew
that P.W.31 and his brother C.W.5 Arjun Melwaney are the
beneficences of the amount of Rs.3,08,055,000/ has not
questioned them to elicit the truth and no investigation
was carried out. P.W.31 denied in his cross about receipt
of the amount. This also creates doubt with regard to
transfer of amount to the A/c of P.W.31 and his brother.
119. As could be seen from the statement of A/c
Ex.P.19 and 21 it depicts that the details mentioned in the
documents are one and the same. According to
prosecution the details mentioned in Ex.P.19 is false. But,
C.W.41 confirms in his letter Ex.P.21 dated 22.9.2000
that he received part payment from Canara bank. The IO
has not done any investigation in this aspect that how
Suresh Puruswaney received the part payment. P.W.29
the IO himself has admitted in the cross that he has not
drawn the attention of depositor to Ex.P.19 and 20.
According to IO, the Canara bank repatriated the amount
out of the FD amount after deducting loan amount.
106 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
120. As could be seen from the record that passports
of C.W.3 and 41 are seized by the IO and the same are
marked as Ex.D.31 and 32. On careful perusal of the
same it does not disclose that C.W.41 came to India on
21082001 to give statement before IO. There are two
passports of C.W.41 bearing No. A9153065 and Z1003668.
Ex.D.32 was sent to GEQD. But IO did not ascertain from
C.W.41 with regard to genuineness of the passports.
Further there are similarities in the passports of C.W.5
Arjun Melwaney and C.W.41 Suresh Puruswaney. The
passport number, date of birth, date of issue, photo in
both Ex.P.4 and Ex.D.33 are one and the same. The IO has
not done investigation with regard to its genuineness. The
Passport EX.P.25 do not belong to Diwanchand but the
photo belongs to him. The witness P.W.31 has denied the
passport and details in it. Further,Ex.P.26 passport bears
the photo of wife of P.W.31 but it do not belongs to her as
per the evidence of P.W.31. When P.W.31 did not hand
over the copies of passport of him and his wife, how
Ex.P.25 and 26 came into existence. At the same time IO
did not seized the passport of P.W.31 and his wife.
Further, the IO has not obtained the specimen signature
an writing of P.W.31 to sent for GEQD as he is the front
person for deposits. Interestingly, P.W.31 knew about the
loans availed by K.Vijay on deposits. He was the business
partner of K.Vijay. He informed the depositors regarding
rate of interest and repayment. The depositor Diwanchand
107 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
submitted to the Canara bank that his banker ROBO
bank received the funds and disregraded the FD receipt
as null and void as per Ex.D.26. The IO did not enquire
with the depositor about Ex.D.26. Ex.P.38 and 39
disclose the bank details of the account of Diwanchand.
Both documents sezied from the Cananra bank. The IO
did not examine Diwanchand. P.W.31 new the details of
the account of Diwanchand. As per Ex.P.38 the
Diwanchand and his wife request the bank to adjust the
loan and remit the balance to ROBO bank. They also
confirmed receipt of US Dollors 93,000/ as stated by
P.W.29 in the cross. As such there is no impediment to say
that the depositors had knowledge of the acts committed
by P.W.31 and K.Vijay. Therefore, it creates doubt with
regard to conduct of the depositors.
121. In respect of the depositors Sri.Kundan.
T.Mirchandani and Sri.Bhagwan.T.Mirchandani are
concerned Ex.P.67 to 94 are marked. Ex.P.67 is the letter
dated 23.12.1997 issued depositors regarding NRI
Deposits for the period 3 years. Ex.P.68 is Certificate
dated 23.12.1999 issued by the Central Bank of India,
Kalina Branch, regarding 10 Bankers' Cheques amounting
to Rs.83,22,339/. Ex.P.69 is the Account Opening Form
bearing No.KD198/1606 & KD198/1607 pertaining to
depositors Ex.P.70 is the xerox copy of Passport of
Bhagawan T. Mirchandani. Ex.P.71 is the xerox copy of 1 st
108 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
page of Passport of Sri.Kundanlal T. Mirchandani. Ex.P.72
is Deposit Receipt bearing No.2036217 dated 1.1.98 for
Rs.45,00,000/ pertaining to depositors Ex.P.73 is the
Account Ledger Inquiry dated 3.5.01 for the period from
2.1.1998 to 8.1.01 pertaining to A/c.No.AUKD98/1606 of
Sri.Bhagwan. T.Mirchandani. Ex.P.74 is the Deposit
Receipt bearing No.2036218 dated 1.1.98 for
Rs.38,22,339/ pertaining to depositors Ex.P.75 is the
Account Ledger Inquiry dated 3.5.01 for the period from
2.1.1998 to 8.1.01 pertaining to A/c.No.AUKD98/1607 of
Sri.Bhagwan. T.Mirchandani. Ex.P.76 is the General
Power of Attorney dated 29.12.1997 executed between
depositors in favour of Sri.Hareesh Chandulal Patel
accused No.10. Ex.P.77 is letter dated 2.1.98 from A10 to
the Manager, Canara Bank, Bengaluru regarding Loan
against FDR No.98/1606 dated 1.1.97. Ex.P.78 is Letter
dated 2.1.98 from A10 Mumbai to the Manager, Canara
Bank, Bengaluru regarding Loan against FDR No.98/1607
dated 1.1.97. Ex.P.79 is AnnexureI/Request for Loan/OD
Facility dated 2.1.98 for Rs.61 Lakhs from depositors to
the Manager/Senior Manager, Canara Bank, Bengaluru.
Ex.P.80 is Pronote dated 3.1.98 for Rs.61 Lakhs executed
by depositors Ex.P.81 is the Statement of Accounts dated
4.5.01 for the period from 1.1.98 to 4.5.01 pertaining to
depositors in respect of A/c.No.GA VSL/98201 of Canara
Bank, Malleswaram, Bengaluru showing withdrawal entry
dated 03.01.1998 for Rs.61,00,000/. Ex.P.82 is
109 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
Statement of Account dated 9.5.01 for the period from
25.10.97 to 9.5.01 pertaining to M/s.Dhanapriya Housing
& Finance Ltd., in respect of A/c.No.CA 000003823 of
Canara Bank, Malleswaram, Bengaluru having deposit
entries dated 03.01.1998 and 04.06.1998 for
Rs.61,00,000/ and Rs.1,70,000/ respectively. Ex.P.83 is
the Letter dated 3.2.2000 from M/s.Royal Sports, Export
Import, Spain to the Manager, Canara Bank, Malleswaram,
Bengaluru regarding FD/NRE/MVM6017/A/c.No.1606 &
1607 dated 1.1.98 for 3 years. Ex.P.84 is the letter dated
10.2.2000 from Canara Bank, Malleswaram, Bengaluru to
depositors Spain, regarding FD/NRE/MVM
6017/A/c.No.1606 & 1607 dated 1.1.98 matured on
1.1.01. Ex.P.85 is the letter dated 28.2.2000 from
M/s.Royal Sports, ExportImport, Spain to the Manager,
Canara Bank, Malleswaram, Bengaluru regarding
FD/NRE/MVM6017/A/c. No.1606 & 1607 maturing on
1.1.01. Ex.P.86 is the letter dated 30.3.2000 from
M/s.Royal Sports, ExportImport, Spain to the Manager,
Canara Bank, Malleswaram, Bengaluru regarding
FD/NRE/MVM6017/A/c.No.1606 & 1607 matured on
1.1.01. Ex.P.87 is the Letter dated 16.10.2000 from
M/s.Royal Sports, ExportImport, Spain to the Manager,
Canara Bank, Malleswaram, Bengaluru regarding
FD/NRE/MVM6017/A/c.No.1606 & 1607 maturing on
1.1.01. Ex.P.88 is the letter dated 11.12.2000 from
M/s.Royal Sports, ExportImport, Spain to the Manager,
110 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
Canara Bank, Malleswaram, Bengaluru regarding
FD/NRE/MVM6017/A/c.No.1606 & 1607 maturing on
1.1.01. Ex.P.89 is the letter dated 10.1.2001 from Canara
Bank, Malleswaram, Bengaluru to depositors regarding
FD/NRE/MVM6017/A/c.No.1606 & 1607 maturing on
1.1.01. Ex.P.90 is the FD Receipt bearing No.3746508
dated 8.1.01 for Rs.52,16,354/ pertaining to depositors
Maharashtra of Canara Bank, Malleswaram, Bengaluru.
Ex.P.91 is the FD Receipt bearing No.3746509 dated
8.1.01 for Rs.61,41,159/ pertaining to depositors.
Ex.P.92 is the Letter dated 8.1.2001 from Sri.Mohan
Singh, Advocate, Agra to the Chairman/Managing Director
and the Chief Manager, Canara Bank, Bengaluru. Ex.P.93
is the Letter dated 1.2.2001 from Sri.Mohan Singh,
Advocate, Agra to Sri.P.V.Subba Rao, the Chief General
Manager, RBI, Mumbai regarding NonResident Deposits
with Canara Bank, Malleshwaram Branch, Bengaluru.
Ex.P.94 is the Letter dated 16.2.2001 from Canara Bank,
Malleswaram, Bengaluru to Sri.Mohan Singh, Advocate,
Agra regarding Notice dated 8.1.01.
122. According to the case of prosecution, the above
depositors made deposits with Canara bank and bank
issued FDRs. The accused No.10 availed loan against
FCNR under the guise of GPA without the knowledge of
depositors. On perusal of GPA Ex.P.76, it reveal that the
aforesaid depositors authorised the accused No.10 to look
111 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
after the affairs of the bank account and other business
interests. The document was alleged to have been executed
on 29121997. The document was notarized at Mumbai in
the presence of witnesses. It bears the signatures of
depositors and identified by the Advocate A.N.Pande. This
document is purportedly false as per the case of
prosecution. To prove the genuineness of the document,
the depositors are not examined by the IO. The IO even
has not made efforts to enquire with the witnesses or the
Advocate who identified the executants. This document
sent to GEQD to find out the questioned signature of
accused No.10. The IO did not ask the expert to submit
opinion on the signatures of depositors. So, it is not safe
to believe that depositors have not executed Ex.P.76.
123. As per letter dated 23121997 Ex.P.67 the
depositors requested the Canara bank to issue two FDs for
Rs.45,00,000/ and Rs.38,22,339/. It is further
requested to send all the correspondence to Mr.Nanik
Aidasani. This letter also contains the signatures of
depositors. The letter not disputed by the prosecution.
A/c opening form contains the signatures of depositors.
Ex.P 83 letter disclose that the depositors requested the
bank to close the account as lien was cleared. So, they
had knowledge about lien on their deposits and FD
receipts are with the bank only. After th lien was
discharged, they sought for premature close of the FDRs.
112 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
This document was seized by the IO from bank. This
document also contains the signatures of depositors. The
letter correspondences between the depositors and bank
as per Ex.P.85 to 88 bears the signatures of depositors.
These documents were not sent for GEQD for comparison
of admitted signature of depositors with the alleged
questioned signatures in GPA and request letter. The
signatures of accused No.10 was examined with
questioned documents. The IO has stated that he has
not sent the admitted signatures for examination since no
documents were available. As discussed above, there are
documents which bears the signature of depositors which
are not disputed by them, the IO failed to send the
documents for GEQD.
124. It is quite important to note that PW1 and PW29
clearly stated that the depositors are the business
partners of K.Vijay (accused No.2). Further, on perusal of
Exs.P.77 and 78, the aforesaid depositors requested with
Canara Bank to sanction loans on their deposits and to
credit the loan amount to accused No.9 Company. PW29
had failed to question the depositors with regard to
purchase of equity shares from K.Vijay . PW2 in the
evidence has stated that two persons representing
Bhagwanji Mirchandani came to the Bank and met PW1.
The original deposit receipts was with the party in Spain.
According to him, the copies of the deposits which are
113 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
produced by the representatives are printed from the Bank
stationery, but the same was not issued by the Bank. The
FDs receipts renewed as per Ex.P.90 and 91.
125. PW32 is the Chief Manager, Canara Bank,
Raopura, Vadodara, has deposed that in the month of
March, 2004, the I.O visited the branch and requested to
produce documents pertaining to current account of
M/s.Jagruthi Drug House. He produced documents such
as current account opening form, proprietorship
letter,Form No.21(C), Form No.C, tax paid receipt
pertaining to M/s.Jagruthi Drug House. As per the
Proprietorship letter, accused No.10 was the owner of
M/s.Jagruthi Drug House. He further stated that accused
No.9 has addressed a letter to Canara Bank, Raopura
Branch dated 03/01/1998 requesting to issue DD and Pay
Order from their account No.3823. Accordingly, DD, pay
inslip for Rs.15 lakhs in favour of M/s.Jagruthi Drug
House, DD, payinslip for Rs.6 lakhs favouring Winner
Pharmaceuticals Ltd., as per Ex.P.261 were issued. He
identified the cheques bearing Nos.524127, 524126,
524128, 524132 marked as Ex.P.263. The receipt issued
by M/s.Ambai Das Patel and Company for Rs.5,74,000/
in favour of Winner Pharmaceuticals Ltd., C/o Jagruthi
Drug House. The another receipt issued by the same
company for Rs.5,74,000/ in favour of Jagruthi Drug
House as per Ex.P.264. The cheque bearing No.391562
114 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
was drawn by Devraha FinLease Pvt. Ltd., for
Rs.6,00,000/ as per Ex.P.265. The statement of accounts
pertaining to Current A/c No.5141 of M/s.Devraha Fin
Lease Pvt. Ltd., issued as per Ex.P.267.
126. This witness further deposed that I.O has taken
specimen signatures and handwritings of accused No.10
in his presence as per Ex.P.269. But, in the cross
examination, has pleaded ignorance with regard to details
of proprietorship, licence of Jagruthi Drug House. He did
not make any enquiry as to whether amount has been
debited to the account of Jagruthi Drug House as per
letter issued by A9Company. He also pleaded ignorance
that who was Manager of A9Company and the address of
the Jagruthi Drug House. The evidence of this witness
depicts that as per the letter issued by A9Company, Pay
order was issued in favour of Jagruthi Drug House,
Vadodara and also in favour of Winner Pharmaceuticals
Ltd., C/o Jagruthi Drug House. Further, the I.O had
taken specimen handwritings and signatures of accused
No.10.
127. PW33 is the business man, resident of Vadodara,
has deposed that he was Director of Devrah Finlease Pvt.
Ltd. His company was mainly dealing with cheque
discounting. Ambai Das Patel and company had handed
over DD for Rs.6 lakhs on 05/01/1998 for encashment
115 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
and on the same day, it was presented to Bank and
encashed. The amount was paid to Ambai Das Company
after deducting the commission. Thereafter, Ambai Das
Company paid the amount to Venus Pharmaceutical Ltd.,
for taking its commission. This witness identified the DD
for Rs.6 lakhs as per Ex.P.261, payinslip and cheque as
per Ex.P.265 and Ex.P.266. This witness in the cross
examination, has stated that he do not know who was the
drawer and payee of the cheque. Only as per Ex.P.265 to
Ex.P.267, they discounted the cheque and paid the
remaining amount. He denied the the other contention of
accused Nos.10 to 12 that voucher Ex.P.268 was not
pertaining to his Company and Exs.P.265 to 267 are not
in the handwriting of his father. The evidence of this
witness clearly goes to show that PW33 is the Director of
Devrah Finlease Pvt. Ltd., which was dealing with the
cheque discounting. He has discounted the cheque and
paid the amount to Ambai Das Company, in turn paid the
same to Venus Pharmaceutical Limited. It further reveals
that said Pay order was issued in favour of Ambai Das
Company as per the instructions of A9Company.
128. PW34 is business man who is proprietor of
M/s.Ambai Das Patel. He knew the accused No.10. On
05/01/1998, accused No.10 approached him with DD for
Rs.6 lakhs for discounting. He obtained the signature of
accused No.10 on the discount form and paid
116 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
Rs.5,95,000/ after deducting the commission and
handed over the same to accused No.11, who
accompanied the accused No.10. He further deposed that
on the same day, accused No.10 has also given DD for
Rs.15 lakhs issued in favour of M/s.Jagruthi Drug House
and deposited the DD to the account. On 06/01/1998,
accused Nos.10 and 11 both came with self cheque for
Rs.9 lakhs and they encashed the same in the Bank.
The amount of Rs.5,75,000/ was paid to accused No.10
after deducting commission. He identified pay slip, DD as
per Exs.P.261(a),(b),(c) and Ex.P.263. He also stated
about cheque of Rs.18,660/ issued by accused No.10 for
clearing old dues.
129. In the crossexamination has stated that he has
not maintained any register. He came to know accused
No.11 through accused No.10. The evidence of goes to
show that accused Nos.10 and 11 met PW34 and
presented DDs for encashment. PW34 after discount has
paid the amount to accused Nos.10 and 11. The said DDs
were issued by Canara Bank, Raopura Branch, Vadodara
at the instructions of A9Company.
130. In the written arguments submitted by accused
No.10, has denied that he is the owner of Jagruthi Drug
House. Further denied the entire case of prosecution that
the accused No.10 and 12 received amount from K.Vijay.
P.W.29 in the cross has stated that Harish .C. Patel was
117 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
the owner of the said drug house. But, Ex.P.260 reveal
that on Hareesh Kumar Chandulal Patel was the owner of
the said drug house. Further the said drug house is not
working in the said address. IO had not visited the shop
to verify who is the owner of the shop. IO stated that he
do not know whether there was any person by name
Hareesh Kumar Chndulal Patel. The IO did not collect any
document to show that accused No.10 was the owner of
drug house. Thus, it is difficult to believe the version of
prosecution that accused No.10 is the owner of drug
house and he received the amount.
131. As per Ex.P.122, the FDs received by one Patel
H.C. This signature was not sent for GEQD to establish
that the accused No.10 received the FD receipts. P.W.1
has stated that two persons met her in the bank with
copy of FD receipts. The said persons are the father of
Mirchandani. Further the loan proceeds are credited to
the A/c of accused No.9 company. In this case, no
parallel FD was sent to the depositors. When the original
was kept in the bank to sanction the loan, how the
depositors got the receipts. At the cost of repetition, I
would like to state that the FD. Numbers mentioned in
the letter Ex.P.63 and in FD receipts Ex.P.72 and 74 are
one and the same. So, in view of the above discussion, it
can be said that the depositors had knowledge of lien on
FDs.
118 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
132. In respect of Mirachand Bhagavanji Waya and
Shantha Hirachand Way deposits are concerned, the
prosecution got marked Ex.P.95 to 106 . Ex.P.95 is the
letter dated 28.4.98 from Sri.Hirachand Bhagwanji Waya,
Dubai to Canara Bank, Overseas Branch, Tripur
regarding transfer amount pertaining to FCNR Deposit
No.9700020 to Canara Bank, Malleswaram Branch,
Bengaluru. Ex.P.96 is the Copy of FD Receipt bearing
No.FCNR9700020 dated 23.4.97 for US$s.535816.36
pertaining to depositors Ex.P.97 is FCNR Memo dated
8.5.98 from Canara Bank, Malleswaram, Bengaluru to
Canara Bank, Foreign Department, Bengaluru. Ex.P.98 is
Account Opening Form for NonResident Indians
pertaining to depositors bearing A/c.No.98/2138. Ex.P.99
is the FD Receipt bearing No.2037200 dated 8.5.98 for
US$s.5,67,506.79 pertaining to depositors. Ex.P.100 is
certified copy of extract of FD Receipt Issue Register of
Pages94 & 100 of Canara Bank. Ex.P.101 is the Account
Ledger Inquiry dated 8.5.01 for the period from 8.5.98 to
10.5.99 pertaining to A/c.No.AUFC98/2138 of Canara
Bank. Ex.P.102 is the letter dated 3.6.98 from depositors
to the Manager, Canara Bank, Malleswaram Branch,
Bengaluru regarding loan against FCNR Deposit on
98/2138 dated 8.5.98. Ex.P.103 is Identification
Certificate dated 27.5.98 issued by the Head of Chief
Registrar, Gujarat pertaining to identification of photo
119 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
and signature of Sri.Lalchand Mulchand Waya. Ex.P.104
is Letter/Annexure1 dated 4.6.98 from depositors to
Manager/Senior Manager, Canara Bank, Malleswaram
regarding request for Loan/OD Facility. Ex.P.105 is the
ProNote dated 4.6.98 signed by Sri.Hirachand Bhagwanji
Waya for Rs.1,70,00,000/. Ex.P.106 is Account Ledger
Inquiry dated 8.5.01 for the period from 4.6.98 to 10.5.99
in respect of A/c.No.AUGAVSL/98971 pertaining to
Sri.Hirachand Bhagwanji Waya having credit entry dated
4.6.98 of Rs.1,70,00,000/ in Ex.P.106.
133. It is alleged that the accused No.12 availed loan
against FCNR under the guise of GPA without the
knowledge of depositors. The entire charge sheet do not
find alleged GPA. Ex.P.99 is alleged fake FD receipt bg
No.2037200. As Ex.P.100 the FD No.2037200 shown as
"Missing, Destroyed on 30598." Further, as per entry
in the deposit register the FD receipt handed over to
someone who signed in Gujrathi language. The IO did not
send the entry to GEQD for comparison of signature
either with the signature of depositor or accused No.12
to find out who received the FD receipt. The prosecution
has not produced the original receipt. The loan papers
are all executed by the authorised person. There is no
authorisation letter from the depositors to sanction the
loan, inspite of that the bank authorities sanctioned the
loan of Rs.1,70,00,000/. The Bank officials including
120 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
the Chief Manager have categorically stated that granting
of loan without GPA is irregular one and the person who
sanction the loan is held responsible for that.
134. P.W.6 the Senior Manager has sanctioned the
loan in the name of accused No.12 in the absence of any
documents. He stated that on 4.6.98 the Chief Manager
and Jitendra the manager (Advances) was on leave. He
was in charge. Accused No.1 approached him and asked
to sanction the loan. When GPA was not there on
verification of documents, he was told that the party will
produce it later. So, he sanctioned the loan with out
documents and verification. In the cross has admitted
that Eshwar Prasad had the responsibility of scrutinizing
the loan documents. He further stated that " It is true to
suggest that the sanctioning of the loan against deposits
without GPA is irregular". It is quite important to note
that P.W.6 being Senior Manager, had responsibility and
knowing the consequences has sanctioned the loan of
Rs.1,70,00,000/ only on the request of accused No.1
without obtaining the basic documents and verifying the
same. So, it is not safe to place reliance on the evidence
of this witness.
135. As could be seen from Ex.P95 and 96 the
amount was transferred from Tirupur to Bangalore.
These documents came from another branch. Then how
121 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
and who erased the signatures of depositors on the afore
said documents. C.W.2 Heerachand Bhagavanji Waya in
his statement before IO has admitted his signatures on
Ex.P.99 FD receipt marked as Q68 and 69. Though FD
receipt seized by the IO was not sent for GEQD. As
stated by bank officials, the above depositors never
complained the bank that they have not availed loan
against deposits. More importantly, though the depositor
made as witness in the charge sheet as C.W.2 the
prosecution failed to examine the witness before the court
on oath to prove the guilt against the accused persons.
136. P.W.22 deposed that on 12/07/2001, CBI took
the specimen signature and writings of Hirachand
Bhagawanji Waya as per Ex.P.184. In the cross the
witness unable to state who was the person gave
specimen signatures. As discussed above, when there is
admitted signatures of the depositor, the IO did not send
the same to GEQD. But he sent the specimen signatures
of the depositor and accused No.12 for comparison. This
creates doubt that why the admitted signatures of
depositors are not sent for examination.
137. CW2 was examined on 12/07/2001 by the IO.
When he was enquiring CW2, he did not obtain xerox
copy of passport of CW2. He obtained xerox copy of
passport of CW3 and his father. According to statement
of CW2 the account opening form reached him in filled
122 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
manner from Karan Sanghani's office, who is resident of
Dubai. The I.O had not examined Karan Sanghani who is
financial consultant of the depositor. As per Ex.D.14,
P.W.31 is the recipient of the amount which was credited
to accused NO.8 and 9 companies.
138. In respect of the depositors Geeta Naraindas
Khiani and Nariandas Gianchand Khaiani is concerned
the prosecution has got marked Ex.P.107 to 118.
Ex.P.107 and 109 are is Account Opening Form
pertaining to afore said depositors bearing
A/c.No.714/98. Ex.P.108 is xerox copy of Passport of
Smt.Geeta Naraindas Khiani. Ex.P.110 is xerox copy of
Passport of Sri.Naraindas Gianchand Khiani. Ex.P.111 is
the FD Receipt bearing No.2036598 dated 7.4.98 issued
for Rs.29,38,390/ pertaining to Smt.Geeta N Khiani &
Naraindas G Khiani. Ex.P.112 is the FD Receipt bearing
No.2036599 dated 7.4.98 for Rs.41,40,353/ pertaining
to Smt.Geeta N Khiani & Naraindas G Khiani. Ex.P.113
is the Account Ledger Inquiry dated 8.5.01 for the period
from 7.4.98 to 13.5.99 in respect of
A/c.No.AUKD98/2025 pertaining to depositors. Ex.P.114
is the Account Ledger Inquiry dated 8.5.01 for the period
from 7.4.98 to 13.5.99 in respect of
A/c.No.AUKD98/2026 pertaining to Smt.Geeta N Khiani
& Naraindas G Khiani. Ex.P.115 is the Account Ledger
Inquiry dated 8.5.01 for the period from 12.4.98 to
123 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
11.5.99 in respect of A/c.No.AUGAVSL/98244 pertaining
to Smt.Geeta N Khiani & Naraindas G Khiani, which
shows debit entry dated 12.4.98 for Rs.53,00,000/ in
Ex.P.115. Ex.P.116 is the Account Ledger Inquiry dated
8.5.01 for the period 12.4.98 in respect of
A/c.No.AUSB000068790 pertaining to Smt.Geeta N
Khiani & Naraindas G Khiani. Ex.P.117 is the certified
copy of Fax Letter dated 29.3.2000 from M/s.Dhanapriya
Housing & Finance Limited to the Executive Director,
Canara Bank, Head Office, Bengaluru regarding
Clearance of FCNR loans from VSL Nos. 99035, 99036
and 99038. Ex.P.118 is the certified copy of Fax Letter
dated 29.3.2000 from M/s.Dhanapriya Housing &
Finance Limited to the Executive Director, Canara Bank,
Head Office, Bengaluru regarding Clearance of FCNR
loans from VSL Nos. 99035, 99036 and 99038.
139. According to the case of prosecution, the
depositors did not availed loans against FCNR receipts.
The charge framed against accused NO.10 and 12 by
alleging that they represent themselves as GPA holders of
depositors Sri. Bhagawan T. Mirchandani, Kundanlal .T
Mirchandani, Hirachand Bhagawanji Waya and Santa
Hirachand Bhagawanj Waya and availed loan of Rs.1.70
Crores against FCNR receipts and the amount credited to
accused No.9 company. The Ld.P.P in the written
arguments at page 5 has submitted that the signatures
124 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
on the back side of the FDRs were not tallying with the
signatures available with the bank. Two sets of FDRs are
in existence in respect of same deposits. On back of the
FDRs the name of depositors mentioned. But it did not
disclose that who signed on the back of FDs. The
signatures of depositors in Ex.P.11 and 112 were not sent
for GEQD for examination. Furthermore, no documents
which shows admitted or specimen signatures of
depositors Geetha Khaini and Narangidas Khaini placed
before the court. More importantly, none of the bank
officials stated which accused availed loan against FDRS
of afore said depositors. In the absence of necessary
documents, the Chief Manager sanctioned the loan and
credited to accused No.9 company. None of the
questioned documents of these depositors sent for
GEQD. More importantly, the loan was closed before due
date. The depositors are not examined by the IO. There
is no primary evidence on oath by the depositors. IO not
examined the depositors or their financial consultant.
Therefore, there is no impediment to say that the
prosecution failed to prove that the accused persons
availed loans against the FDRs of Geetha Khaini and
Narangidas Khaini.
140. The prosecution based its case on the evidence
of P.W.19 and the report. He is an important witness
to the case of the prosecution to prove the questioned
125 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
handwriting and signatures in the case. On requisition
of the CBI, BSFC, the witness examined certain
documents pertaining to this case and expressed his
opinion as per Ex.P.180 and 272. He examined the
questioned writings, signatures in the case. He deposed
in respect of the writings and signatures pertaining to
Ex.P.3, 9, 11, 13, 19, 43, 47, 49, 51,62, 24,28, 30, 32,
38, 262 and 264. He opined that questioned documents
was not written by the persons Suresh Puruswaney,
Prakash Narasinghdas Panjabi, H.B.Waya, Diwanchand
and Meenu Diwanchand, Kiran N.Pai and Malini G.D. He
opined that those questioned documents was written
and identified to be handwritings of one K.Sridhar the
accused No.4.
141. PW19 submitted another report in regard to
the questioned and disputed handwriting and signatures
of accused Nos.10 to 12. On examination of questioned
documents with specimen and admitted signatures and
handwritings, which are marked as Exs.P.72, 74, 76, 77,
78, 79, 80, 103, 105, 263 and 264, stated that the
person, who wrote writings and put signatures on
questioned documents are one and the same person who
wrote specimen and writings and signatures as per
Ex.P.272. He stated that questioned writings and
signatures belonged to accused Nos.10 to 12.
126 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
142. This witness cross examined at length and
tested his expertisation in respect of the procedure of
examination of handwriting and signatures. According to
him, the execution of writings means the production of a
particular letter or group of letters on the documents in a
particular manner. The basis for the science of
handwriting examination is the evaluation of the writing
habits of writer, which remain highly individualized.
Evaluation of writing and signatures depend upon he
characteristics of the movement, nature of
commencement of stokes, overall skill, speed, alignment,
slant, relative size and proportion of characters etc. The
witness has expressed all the above characteristics are
required to compare the handwriting and signatures. He
has not expressed his opinion with regard to the age of
the writings and signatures in the case as IO did not
sought for.
143. During the course of cross examination by
learned counsel for accused Nos.10 to 12, has stated
with regard to procedure of examining the documents. It
is suggested that script depends on the comparison of the
documents, but the witness has stated that script does
not makes or depends on the comparison if the suitable
materials supplied for examination and it has nothing to
do with the script. He further stated that the
background, pressure, pen does not makes any point for
127 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
examination of the documents. He categorically deposed
that he has considered all the factors, which require for
examination of documents. He also considered the
alignment, space, similarities and dissimilarities found in
the letters, which reflects the writing habits of the writer
as to the movement formation of the letters. The
evidence of PW19, it would goes to show that as per
Ex.P.180, the questioned documents writing and
signatures belongs to accused No.4.
144. It is to be noted that the admitted signatures
marked as A4 to 8 pertaining to K.Suresh Purswaney are
not available in the file as per the evidence of P.W.19.
Further, the admitted signatures marked as Ex.P.21(a) is
a xerox copy. P,W.19 has given opinion that the
accused No.4 had signed the questioned documents Q1,2
4 to 11,12 13,14,16 19 (a) (b), the alleged documents of
the depositor Suresh Puruswaney and Karen
Puruswaney. The questioned signature and handwritings
in Ex.24,28,30,32,38, pertaining to the deposits of Diwan
Chand Bhagwan Das are made by the accused No.4.
Further, the handwriting and signatures in
Ex.P.47,49,51,62 pertaining to deposits of Prakash
Punjabi are made by the accused No.4. The I.O had
taken the signatures and writing from accused No.4 in
the names of depositors. But the specimen signatures of
the aforesaid depositor are taken in the presence of the
witnesses at Bengaluru on 04/08/2001.
128 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
145. As could be seen from the report of expert, the
specimen signatures of Prakash Punjabi was taken by
the IO on 21.08.2001 at Bangalore, as per Ex.P.183. The
admitted signature and writing as marked as A21/1,22
27,63,64,66. All the admitted signatures are Xerox copies.
The expert has not produced enlarged photos of the
admitted and questioned writings and signatures of the
depositors with his report to show that he has examined
the questioned documents with the admitted documents.
146. The IO has taken the specimen signature and
handwritings of P.W.9 Malini. D as per Ex.P.125, P.W.8
Latha as per Ex.P.24, P.W.10 Revathi as per Ex.P.126 and
P.W.11 Kiran Pai as per Ex.P.127. He expressed the
opinion only in respect of the Exs.P.3, 9, 11, 13, 19
stating the person who signed the specimen signatures S
54 to 60 did not wrote the questioned documents Exs.P.3,
9, 11, 13 and 19. The expert has not expressed his
opinion on the rest of the items on the basis of material at
hand. He has not stated the reason why he could not
examine those questioned documents.
147. The IO obtained specimen signatures of accused
No.10 as per Ex.P.269 on 22.3.2004 in the presence of
P.W.32 at Canara Bank, Raopura branch, Baroda. The
accused has denied this contention. According to the
opinion of expert as per Ex.P.272, the questioned
129 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
documents were signed by accused No.10 to 12. More
importantly, the IO who filed supplementary charge sheet
has not cited one Grazy D'souza who is the witness to the
specimen signatures of accused No.12 as per Ex.P.271.
When the accused denied the alleged specimen
signatures, it is for the prosecution to prove the same.
But in the case on hand, the witness has not cited in the
charge sheet.
148. Before examining the documents sent by the
CBI, expert already gave opinion to the bank with
reference to the same questioned documents. This fact is
admitted by the witness. But he unable to answer
whether both opinions are one and the same or not. He
has taken enlarged photographs for the purpose
examination, but the same are not part of opinion.
According to him, the similarities or dissimilarities in the
writings will decide the authorship of the writings. He
found some peculiarities in the wittings. He has not
described the nature of alignment in his report. If the
prosecution could have produced the GEQD report of the
bank, certainly it would through some light in the matter.
When there are two reports on the questioned documents,
it is difficult to place sole reliance on the report of the
expert. Further, the science of identification of
handwriting is not nearly so perfect and the risk is higher.
Therefore, on the facts of this case, the evidence of expert
require corroboration. Thus, in view of the decision of the
130 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
Hon'ble Supreme Court, the opinion of expert cannot be
acceptable when the doubts raised by the defense not
cleared by the prosecution. Therefore, the corroborative
evidence is required to believe the report of expert.
149. P.W.13 is the accountant in accused No.9
company. He identified the signatures and handwriting
of accused Nos.2 and 6 on cheques issued on behalf of
Company. He identified the documents Ex.P.128 to 142.
The said documents are the cheques issued on behalf of
the Company in favour of A4, and in the name of Mohit
son of accused No.1 pertaining to Corporation Bank.
P.W. 13 deposed that the son of accused was
maintaining the computers in the office of K.Vijay. So, it
is not correct to come to the conclusion that the son of
accused No.1 got monetary benefit from accused No.8
and 9 companies.
150. PW14 is the Bank Officer of the Corporation
Bank, where the account of accused No.9 Company is in
existence. The branch where she was working is
exclusively dealing with foreign exchange transactions of
the Corporation Bank, Bangalore and other branches.
The branch used to issue foreign travelers cheques. She
identified the cheques issued by Corporation Bank as per
Ex.P.147 to Ex.P.170. There is no dispute with regard to
issuance of the foreign travelers cheques by Corporation
Bank, Bangalore as per Ex.P.147 to Ex.P.170. From
131 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
these documents, it is clear that accused Nos.2 and 4
have taken foreign travelers cheques from Corporation
Bank as the evidence of this witness not denied by
accused No.4.
151. PW24 is the Manager of Indian Bank. He
deposed that on 08/02/2001, his higher officer has
directed him to assist the CBI to investigate in the case.
Accordingly, on 09/02/2001, he and one Uday Kumar
and the IO went to the house of accused No.3 wherein a
search was conducted in their presence and seized
documents as per Ex.P.203 to Ex.P.222 under Ex.P.202.
He identified the seized documents before the Court. The
seized documents are boarding passes, flight tickets,
paper writings, letters and vouchers of the Company. He
also identified the signature of another witness Uday
Kumar. This witness in the crossexamination made by
accused No.3 Counsel has pleaded ignorance who were
present in the house at the time of search. He denied the
contention that said search list was prepared in the office
of CBI and not conducted search in the house of accused
No.3. This witness was also crossexamined by accused
Nos.10 to 12 wherein he pleaded ignorance with regard to
the rooms and cupboards of the house and details of the
documents which were seized under the search. Though
this witness was crossexamined, but nothing is elicited
132 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
to discredit his testimony with regard to seizure of
Ex.P.203 to Ex.P.222 from the house of the accused No.3.
152. PW25 is the Chief Manager of Syndicate Bank.
As per the request of CBI, he and his assistant
B.A.Sheshagiri went to the office of CBI on 09/02/2001
at about 7.00 a.m., and later went to the house of
K.Vijay(accused No.2) and conducted search. The I.O
seized certain documents such as diaries, file, Articles of
Association of 2 companies which are marked at
Ex.P.118, 119, 224 to 226 under the search list
Ex.P.223. This witness was not crossexamined by
accused No.2 in whose house the search was conducted,
but he was crossexamined by accused No.6, 10 to 12.
The witness pleaded ignorance with regard to door
number, house street, cross road where the house is
situated. He denied the contention that no search was
taken place on 09/02/2001. The evidence of this
witness is no way helpful to the prosecution since
K.Vijay died and the case against him was abated.
153. PW16 is the Manager of M/s.Unitech Ltd.,
Bangalore, who is Land Developers and undertake
apartment constructions. One Mrs. Laju Melwany, who
owned the building in Parkway Apartment situated at
West of Chord road, Bangalore. She transferred the flat
to another's name and signed all the transfer papers
and blank forms and handover to the broker Manzoor
133 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
Khan, who in turn handover the same to one
Faratunnisa the mother of accused No.3. The letter
marked as Ex.P.176. The witness was crossexamined
by accused Nos.3, and 10 to 12. During the cross
examination, denied by PW16 that he was not present
when Mrs. Laju Melwany handover the blank forms to
the broker. The evidence of this witness, goes to show
that Mrs. Laju Melwany owned apartment in Parkway
apartments and he got transferred the building in the
name of Faratunnisa, the mother of accused No.3.
154. PW17 is the friend of Arjundas Melwany, who
owned building in Parkway Apartment. Mr. Arjundas
Melwany requested the witness to find a buyer to his
flat. In this regard, a letter was written as per Ex.P.178.
Basing on the instructions of the Mr. Arjundas
Melwany, PW17 handedover the key of the flat to
K.Vijay(accused No.2) and obtained acknowledgement as
per Ex.P.179. This witness was not crossexamined by
accused persons except accused Nos.10 to 12. The
evidence of this witness clearly goes to show that the flat
standing in the name of Faratunnisa, the mother of
accused No.3, belonged to Mr. Arjundas Melwany, who
handover the key to K. Vijay(accused No.2) and in turn
he got transferred the flat in the name of Faratunnisa by
transferring all the papers from the name of Mrs. Laju
Melwany. The accused No.3 has not denied the fact that
134 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
the flat situated in Parkway Apartment standing in the
name of his mother. But he denied that he was favoured
by K.Vijay. It is quite interesting to say that the
original owner Mr. Arjun Melwaney is none other than
the brother of P.W.31. As discussed supra, the IO has
not questioned C.W.5 Arjun Melwany in regard to
transfer of house to the name of K.Vijay. As such it is
difficult to believe that the K.Vijay favoured accused
No.3 in transferring the house.
155. PW26 is the Senior Manager, who attested the
search list as per Ex.P.227. He deposed that as per the
request of CBI, he and his assistant one Vasu went to
CBI office on 09/02/2001 and later I.O took them to the
house of accused No.1 and conducted search as per
Ex.P.227. The I.O seized the documents as per Ex.P.228
to 232. At that time, the accused No.1 and his wife were
present in the house. After due procedure, the I.O
conducted search. Ex.P.228 is the letter written by K.
Vijay(accused No.2) to accused No.1 stating he was in
some financial crisis and he will come out from the said
problem. So from this, it would goes to show that
accused Nos.1 and 2 knew each other. Ex.P.229 is the
letter written by accused No.1 to the Deputy General
Manager with regard to FCNR receipts Ex.P.230 is the
letter issued by the Deputy General Manager to the
accused No.1. Ex.P.231 is the letter written by accused
135 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
No.1 to the accused No.3. The contents of the letter
would goes to show that accused Nos.1 and 2 were in
cordial terms and they knew each other. The evidence of
bank officials would also reveal that the accused No.1 to
3 knew each other. The afore said letters seized in the
house of accused does not disclose any incriminating
material that accused No.1 obtained any favour from
K.Vijay.
156. PW28 is the Assistant Manager of Central Bank
of India, who is witness to the search conducted in the
office of K. Vijay(accused No.2). He deposed that as per
the request of the I.O, on 09/02/2001, he had been to
the office of CBI and later he was taken to the office of
K. Vijay(accused No.2) at Queens road. The I.O
conducted search and seized certain documents under
Ex.P.240. The documents seized under the mahazar are
Ex.P.241 to Ex.P.245. The said documents are Articles of
Association and other company papers. This witness in
the crossexamination has admitted that documents
mentioned at Sl.Nos.20, 35 shown at Ex.P.240 of search
list were seized from chamber of the PW27 Nagesh Pai.
He denied the suggestion that he was not present at the
time of conducting search and deposed at the instance of
CBI. The evidence of this witness makes crystal clear
that I.O conducted search in the office of K. Vijay(accused
No.2) and seized documents as per Ex.P.241 to
136 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
Ex.P.245. These documents are pertaining to EMVEE
Group of Companies. At the same time, the said
documents does not reveal about incriminating evidence
which supports the case of prosecution.
157. The accused No.7 is examined as DW2. He
deposed that he is practicing Advocate. During 1998
2000 he was functioning as a Director of M/s.Punarvasu
Commodity and Stocks Limited alongwith K. Vijay
(accused No.2) and accused No.6. He has not received
cheques issued by accused No.6 and K. Vijay(accused
No.2). He did not encash the same. He has not
committed any offence and he has not involved in any of
the affairs of other accused in the case. In the cross
examination, has denied the entire contention of the
prosecution that he is involved in preparing false Power
of Attorney in the name of accused No.10 and in
connivance with K. Vijay(accused No.2), a name sake
Company was started to defraud Canara Bank and he
had received Rs.7,00,000/ and Rs.6,50,000/ as a share
for carrying out fraudulent acts. The evidence of P.W.12
and 13 reveal that accused No.7 used to visit accused
No.8 and 9 companies. M/s.Punarvasu Commodity and
Stocks Limited., is sister concern of accused No.8
company. The documents reveal that the said Punarvasu
firm situated in the premises belong to K.Vijay. But there
137 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
is no material to show that accused No.7 involved in
fraudulent acts with K.Vijay.
158. PW30 is the Inspector of Police, C.B.I. who filed
supplementary charge sheet against accused No.10 to 12.
He recorded the statement of PW18, Naresh Malhotra
on 21/05/2002 as the I.O Mr.Satish has referred to
record the statement and also collected certain
documents as per Ex.P.58(a), Ex.P.59, Ex.P.59(aa),
Ex.P.64, Ex.P.64(aa). Later he filed supplementary
chargesheet against accused Nos.10 to 12. In the cross
examination, has stated he was the I.O in
Cr.No.RC.4(E)/2000, which is corresponded to
Spl.CC.No.190/2002. He further states that except
recording statement of PW18, he do not know anything
about the documents and the statements recorded by I.O
Satish. Except filing of the charge sheet, he did not know
anything in the case. From the evidence of this witness, it
would goes to show that he filed only supplementary
charge sheet against accused Nos.10 to 12. Therefore,
evidence of this witness is no way helpful to the
prosecution.
159. Lastly, the prosecution examined P.W.35. He
speaks about accused No. 2,4,11 and 12. He is practicing
advocate at Ahmedabad. His house situated near to the
house of accused No.11(Now dead). According to his
evidence, he and accused No.12 went to the house of
138 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
accused No.11, who informed about coming of accused
No.4 from Bangalore to go Junagadh. Next day, they
went to Junagadh and met accused No.4. The accused
No.4 purchased stamp paper and prepared document in
English and approached Notary for execution. Notary
enquired and refused to notarise the document as
Lalchand Mulchand Waya was not present. In the cross
examination, has unable to state the nature of document
whether it was GPA, or affidavit or any other document.
In the chief examination has also not stated about any of
the document purportedly prepared by accused No.4.
Further he do not know about the document which was
refused by the notary to notarise it. Thus, his evidence is
no way helpful to the prosecution to prove that the
accused No.12 represented as Lalchand Mulachand Waya
and forged the document.
160. PW29 the IO deposed about the registration of
FIR pertaining to this case by the then DIG, who was
holding incharge of Superintendent of Police. He
identified the FIR registered on 22/12/2000 as per
Ex.P.255. On the same day, he was entrusted to conduct
investigation of the case. During the preliminary
investigation, he came to know that accused No.4 was
involved in the commission of offence and later he
arrested accused Nos.1 to 4 and 6 and conducted the
search at 8 places including the houses of accused
139 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
Nos.1,3 and office of accused Nos.2 and 3, locker of K.
Vijay(accused No.2), office of accused Nos.6 and 4. He
recorded the statement of witnesses and also conducted
seizure mahazar. He obtained the documents from
Canara Bank, Malleshwaram Branch to show the loss
caused to the Bank due to fraudulent acts of the
accused persons. He also seized certain documents from
Corporation Bank, Bangalore pertaining to A9company.
He seized the documents from Central Bank of India,
Raopura regarding transactions between the accused
persons. He recorded the statements of accused
Nos.1,3,4 and seized RC book from accused No.1, diary
from accused No.3. He filed charge sheet against accused
Nos.1 to 9. During the investigation, he could not trace
Mr.Suresh Peter, who is alleged Power of Attorney holder
of NRI depositors. He also could not point out the
accused Nos.10 and 12 during the investigation. Hence,
he submitted charge sheet alongwith documents.
161. PW29 has received some credible information
about accused Nos.10 to 12 who have forged and created
certain documents. He summoned accused Nos.10 to 12
and obtained specimen signatures in the presence of
witnesses as per Ex.P.269, 271. He seized certain
documents from Canara Bank and CW62, who was the
partner of M/s.Devrah Finlease Private Limited. He has
also seized documents from Suresh Raoji Bhai Patel,
140 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
CW63, who is the partner of M/s.Ambai Das Patel and
Company. He obtained the specimen signature of CW
63. He sent the specimen signatures to handwriting
expert for comparison.
[
162. PW29 has admitted that Mr. K.S.V Shenoy was
interested in sanction of loan to K.Vijay(accused No.2)).
IO has not examined CW3 Prakash Panjabi to prove that
account opening form is not filled by his father. Except
H.B.Waya and Prakash Panjabi, none of the depositors
met K.Vijay(accused No.2) and accused No.4. This
witness in the crossexamination has pleaded inability to
state about Exs.P.35 and 37. Ex.P.35 is the credit slip
dated 07/05/1999 for Rs.40,94,000/. Ex.P.37 is the
cheque issued by GPA holder in favour of A8Company.
He did not ascertained whether the said cheque was
cleared and who was the person issued 62 cheques. He
had not made any enquiry regarding genuine transaction
of above cheques.
163. It is to be noted that IO has seized Ex.D.14(a)
from the office of K.Vijay. But he has not stated
anything about the entries made in Ex.D.14 and 15. He
totally pleaded inability to state with regard to amount,
which was mentioned in Ex.D.15 paid to PW31, Gopal
Melwany from A8company. He has not made enquiry
regarding credit of the amount mentioned in Ex.D.15(a)
141 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
why the amount credited to the account of PW31 as per
Ex.D.28(a), Exs.D.29(a), 30(a) and 15.
164. The IO knew that PW31 in his statement
has stated accused No.4 offered 1.5% to 2% over and
above interest to the depositors. He has not made any
enquiry with depositors whether the accused paid over
and above interest on the deposit amount to them or
not. He further admitted that Chief Manager, Mr.K.S.V
Shenoy and K.V.R. Kumar have sanctioned loans. The
Advance Manager was the competent person to
recommend the sanction of loans. According to his
evidence, K.P.Upadhaya and one Krishnan were the
officers holding the charge of security items during the
relevant point of time. He has also stated that Eshwar
Prasad, the Bank official has processed the file for
sanction of loans in the case. He further admitted that
on the advise of PW31, some of the depositors have
deposited in Canara Bank, Malleshwaram Branch. He
has not made any investigation why the deposit of
Hirachand Bhagwanji Waya came to Canara Bank,
Malleshwaram Branch from Tripura. He did not
question PW31 regarding Ex.P.9, GPA alleged to have
been executed in favour of Suresh Peter. He also did not
enquire about the photos appearing on Exs.P.25 and 26
passports of Diwanchand and his wife. He pleaded
ignorance that accused No.3 was the legal advisor for
142 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
K.Vijay(accused No.2) and he was looking after the cases
filed under Sec.138 of NI Act. He was aware of the
irregularities committed by Chief Manager,
K.S.V.Shenoy and recommended for departmental
enquiry.
165. It is pertinent to note that though the I.O has
taken the statement of Mr.K.S.V.Shenoy that he has
verified all the loan papers and its enclosures before
sanctioning the loan, he has not placed before the Court
as a part of charge sheet. He stated only the details of
the statement given by Sri.K.S.V.Shenoy with regard to 6
depositors and loans of NRIs. Mr. K.S.V.Shenoy was
highest officer in the branch and was responsible for
sanction of loan. It is his duty to confirm the sanction of
loans and also his duty to inform to the Circle Office.
PW29 did not ascertain from C.Ws3,5 and 41 how they
received all the deposits receipts and applications from
Canara Bank. As I have discussed supra, IO has not
seized the Tappal inward and outward register to show
that Canara Bank had sent parallel FD receipts to the
depositors. If the I.O had produced the said statement of
Mr. Shenoy certainly, it would throw light to to know the
alleged acts committed by the accused persons.
166. As per the statement of account, the amount
was transferred to A8 and A9 Companies. IO has not
made any efforts to confront the documents to CW2
143 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
with regard to agreement Ex.D.14 with A9Company.
Under the said agreement Bhagwanji Waya and his wife
entered into agreement and agreed to purchase equity
shares of A8Company. The said agreement also not
subjected as document in the charge sheet. He has also
not verified whether Diwanchand and his wife have
purchased shares from A8Company or not.
167. Further, the IO failed to find out the signatures
made in Gujarati language on FDR and register.
Ex.D.26 letter written by Bhagawan Das to the Canara
bank, was not sent to GEQD to find out the genuineness
of the signature of depositor. The IO admitted that the
depositors Kundan T. Mir Chandani, Hirachand
Bhagawanji Waya, Diwanchand Bhagawan, Meenu
Diwanchand's alleged loans were sanctioned on the
strength of GPA. In the case of Hirachand Bhagawanji
Waya, loan was sanctioned based on the authorisation
letter, Ex.P.103, In the case of Geetha Khiani, loan was
sanctioned without any authorisation or Power of
Attorney. According to evidence of bank manager
without authorisation letter, no loan against deposits
could be obtained. But CW19, Sri.Kedilaya the Senior
Manager, has sanctioned loan in the case of Hirachand
Bhagawanji Waya in the absence of necessary
documents.
168. On careful scrutiny of the evidence and
documents placed by the prosecution and as discussed in
144 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
above paras, at first, it is clear that the loan accounts of
Geetha Narayan Das Khaini and Narayan Das Gian
Chand Khaini, Kundan T. Mirchandani and Bhagavan
T.Mirchandani, Heerachand Bhagawanji Waya and
Shantha Hirachand Waya, Diwanchand Bhagawandas
and Meenu Diwanchand were closed and loan accounts
of Suresh Puruswaney and Karen Puruswaney and
Prakash Narasinghdas Panjabi and T.N. Navalrai were
not closed.
169. The IO has examined the depositors CW.2
Hirachand Bhagawanji Waya, C.W.3 Prakash Panjabi and
C.W.41 Suresh Purswaney. But not examined the
remaining depositors Diwanchand Bhagawandas and
Mrs. Meenu Bhagawanchand, Bhagawan T. Mirchandani
and Mr Kundanlal T.Mirchandani, Mrs. Geetha Khaini
and Mr.Naraian G. Khaiani are not examined by the IO
to know whether they themselves deposited the amount
and have executed GPA in favour of Suresh Peter and
Accused No.10 and 12 or not. The depositors C.W. .2,3
and 41 have also not examined before the Court to state
the facts on oath. They are very important and primary
witnesses to the prosecution. Non examination of the
depositors in the case, certainly it is fatal to the case of
prosecution to bring home the guilt of accused.
170. Secondly, IO has not recorded the statement of
one Karan Sanghani, who was the financial consultant of
Hirachand Bhagwan Waya who received the account
145 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
opening form of CW2. It is also not forthcoming from
the records that how the FDR receipts reached Karan
Sanghani, which belonged to CW2. He has not
examined N.R.Thaker, who identified the photos and
signatures of Lalchand Mulchand Waya as per Ex.P.103
as the persons who executed Ex.P.103 are not in
existence. The advocate Mr.Pandey and the witnesses to
GPA, Ex.P.76 were also not examined by the I.O. The
person, who transferred the flat in favour of accused No.3,
mother Faratunissa namely Mrs. Laju Melwani or Arjun
Melwaney were not examined. Mr.Jacob, Dy.S.P,
Mr.T.C.Chacko, B.L.Singhad, Dy.SP who have conducted
the search in the office of accused No.3 are also not cited
as witnesses in the charge sheet.
171. Thirdly, the I.O has not enquired about the
passport of K.M.Bhagwan Das as per Ex.P.70 and
Ex.P.71. He has not questioned the depositor
T.N.Navalrai about the letter as per Exs.P.64 and 65.
He unable to state whether signatures of Geetha
N.Khiani are genuine or not in Exs.P.107, 109, 111
and 112. The I.O has not seized the original loan
application and pronote pertaining to the loan raised
on the deposit of Geetha N.Khiani. He has not
verified the passport of K.Sridhar. He has not made
any efforts to find out the payinslip, Ex.P.35 is in
whose handwriting it is. Thus, it creates doubt in
the mind of court to believe the version of
prosecution.
172. Fourthly, the Ld. Counsel for accused Nos.1,3
and 4 submitted that I.O PW29 has not arraigned the
Chief Manager, Mr. K.S.V.Shenoy as accused in this case,
146 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
who was present during the relevant period. He further
submitted that the evidence of PWs1,2,5 and 29 clearly
goes to show that the Chief Manager was involved in
commission of offence and he is the person who
sanctioned the loans against FCNR deposits.
173. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor
submitted that investigation could not establish the
participation of Chief Manager in alleged criminal
conspiracy of cheating the Bank. However, he was found
liable for procedural irregularities. Accordingly,
Departmental action was taken against Mr. K.S.V.Shenoy
for his irregularities. The charge sheet filed only on the
basis of tangible evidence collected during the course of
investigation. It is further submitted that application
filed by the accused Nos.10 to 12 in Spl.C.C.No.84/2008
was dismissed by this Court to array Mr. K.S.V.Shenoy
as accused in this case.
174. It unveils from the material that
Mr.K.S.V.Shenoy was heading the branch as the
Chief Manager during the relevant point of time when
the alleged offence was committed. Further, in the
FIR Ex.D.7 Mr.K.S.V.Shenoy and CW23 Nagesh Pai
are arrayed as accused, but in the charge sheet
Sri.Nagesh Pai cited as witness CW23, and
Mr.K.S.V.Shenoy even not cited as a witness in the
case. The material of record is forthcoming that 6
loans were granted on the strength of fixed deposits.
147 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
As per the evidence of PW1, her successor to
K.S.V.Shenoy had sanctioned 5 loans among 6
loans. The Senior Manager, Sri. H.G. Kedlaya P.W.6
had sanctioned one loan while he was incharge of
the Chief Manager. It depicts from the evidence of
PW1 that loan papers will be routed from the Senior
Manager to Chief Manager and if the Chief Manager
had any suspicion, he/she can reject the loan
application.
175. Further, Mr. K.S.V.Shenoy has not credited the
proceeds of loan of NRO's SB Account and committed
several irregularities. PWs2,4,5,6, the Bank officials who
worked during the relevant point of time, have deposed
that Mr.K.S.V.Shenoy introduced K. Vijay(accused No.2)
to them as valued customer of the Bank and asked to
process the loan applications on the strength of FCNR
deposits. Further, Mr. K.S.V.Shenoy and accused No.1
have verified the GPA documents and asked the staff to
make entries in the register. The accused No.1 was in
the chamber of Mr. K.S.V.Shenoy when the witnesses
were called and instructed to process the loan
applications. Further, said Mr. K.S.V.Shenoy was
punished in departmental enquiry. So, when the accused
No.1 arrayed as accused in the case, why Mr. K.S.V
Shenoy even not cited as a witness in the case as he was
the sanctioning authority and responsible person for
148 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
sanction of the loans. If Mr. K.S.V.Shenoy could have
examined by the prosecution, then it would have through
light with regard to every acts committed by accused
Nos.1 and 2 with the Bank while getting sanction of the
loans on FCNR deposits. But for the best reason known
to PW29, has not made Mr.Shenoy as witness in the
charge sheet. Though the application filed by the accused
to include Mr. K.S.V Shenoy as accused in the case, but
what was the hindrance for the prosecution to cite him
as a witness. Mr.K.S.V Shenoy is the main person in
sanctioning of the loans without necessary documents.
Thus, non citing Mr.K.S.V Sehnoy as witness and non
examination before the court is fatal to the case of
prosecution.
176. Fifthly, the learned counsel for the accused has
also relied upon the decision of Varadaraj Pai's case,
which was filed against the judgment passed by the
Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge , Bangalore with same
set of facts and some of the accused were also one and
the same. On the other hand, Ld.P.P repelled that the
said judgment is not applicable to the case as there is no
discussion on merits.
177. In the above referred case, the Additional City
Civil and Sessions Court convicted the Bank Manager and
another as one of the depositor gave evidence. The
Hon'ble High Court has set aside the judgment and
acquitted the accused. In the case on hand, none of the
149 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
depositors have examined in the case. As such, as rightly
argued by the Ld. Counsel for accused Varadaraj Pai case
can be considered.
178. Sixthly, the evidence pertaining to two FD
receipts of Suresh Purswaney and his wife, Prakash
Panjabi and T.N.Navalrai made deposits with Canara
Bank, Malleshwaram branch reveal that on the basis of
the GPA, the loan was sanctioned against FCNR deposits.
The GPA was executed by the parties in presence of
notary public and certified. The document was also
witnessed by 2 witnesses. Thus, on perusal of
documents and comparison of signatures of the
depositors in the passport and GPA, the bank considered
GPA to sanction the loan. Further, the identity of GPA
holder was correctly established by verifying the xerox
copy of driving licence. The loan papers were executed by
the GPA holder in the presence of the officers, who were
looking after the advance department. So, when GPA
holder was very much present in the bank at the time of
availing the loan, he was not traced by the IO and the
depositors were not examined before the Court to
establish that depositors have not executed any GPA in
favour of Suresh Peter as per Ex.P.9 and Ex.P.47.
Further, the depositors have not denied their signatures
on alleged documents on oath. Thus, it is not probable to
accept the contention of the prosecution that depositors
did not availed loan with Canara Bank against deposits
150 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
for the reason that the financial consultant PW31
himself has advised the depositors to make deposits in
Canara Bank to get over and above interest against the
Bank interest. So, it creates doubt in the mind of the
Court that why depositors themselves to get higher rate
of interest, have permitted to avail loans on FDR receipts.
179. Seventhly, as per the evidence of the Bank
officials, though the accused No.1 was Manager (Deposit)
section during the relevant period of time, he was not the
custodian of the blank FD receipts. On the other hand,
one Upadhaya and Krishnan were the custodians of the
blank FD receipts and by using their password only, the
entries were made in Ex.P.8 and Ex.P.122 registers
regarding missing and destroy of the blank FD receipts.
Though CW33 and Krishnan cited as witness in the
case, have not examined before the Court. Importantly,
the Chief Manager Mr. K.S.V.Shenoy has given reply to
the notice issued by the Canara Bank as per Ex.D.24,
wherein has stated he received the deposit amount
through proper banking channel and the branch has
followed the procedure prescribed for opening NRE FDR.
All the loan papers are prepared by clerks and scrutinized
by the officers and no irregularities have been committed
in sanctioning the loan against FD receipts. At the same
time, the accused No.1 has also given reply to the notice
issued by Canara Bank wherein has admitted that he
151 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
has introduced A9Company to open current account
with Canara Bank, Malleshwaram branch on full enquiry
at Chickpet branch where the account of A9Company
already exists. He states that he was not the custodian of
the safe deposit almirah key where unused deposit
receipts were kept and had no access to any of the place
where security items were kept and he has no role to
sanction the loan to GPA holder against FCNR deposits.
The Manager of Advance branch, Eshwara Prasad P.W.4
has stated in reply notice that he played minimum role
in granting loan against the security of FCKDRs. Since
the GPA was registered and attested by Indian High
commission in Hong Kong and signature on GPA was
identified by High Commission and after verification of the
GPA by the Chief Manager had decided to sanction the
loan and he was instructed by the Chief Manager to
process the loan application, he recommended for loan.
The Bank officials PWs5,8,10 have given reply to the
notice issued by Canara Bank wherein they have stated
that as per instructions of the Chief Manager, they
processed the loan applications and they made entries in
the register as per the instructions of higher officers.
That apart they have no role to play in sanctioning or
verifying the loan documents. When that such being the
case, how for it is acceptable that the accused No.1
facilitated the Chief Manager and other bank officials to
process the loan applications.
152 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
180. D.W. 1 the crossexamination, admits that if a
depositor seeks loan on his deposit, the Manager in
charge of such deposits has the responsibility to verify all
the documents pertaining to that deposit and
genuineness of the documents. So, from this it is clear
that accused No.1 being the Deposit manager has the
responsibility to verify all the documents pertaining to the
deposit. Only after verifying and satisfying about the
documents, he can recommend for sanction of loans.
Admittedly, all original receipts are with the bank at the
time of grant of loan. On overall perusal of evidence of
prosecutional witnesses with regard to above two facts, it
manifests that prosecution failed to place material before
the Court to show that accused No.1 by misusing his
official capacity had misused the blank FD receipts and
created parallel FD receipts and facilitated the other
accused persons to sanction the loans against FD
receipts.
181. Eighthly, the name of Arjundas Melwani was
found in the fake passport Ex.P.4, but the same was not
sent for GEQD examination. Ex.P.44 and Ex.P.45 are
fake passports, are also did not sent for examination. The
admitted and disputed signatures of Hirachand
Bhagwanji Waya not sent for examination. CW41 and
his wife are accused in the written complaint Ex.D.7.
The IO had not drawn the attention of depositors about
153 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
Ex.D.7. On perusal of Ex.P.21, which is letter written by
CW41 to Canara Bank discloses that he had received the
deposit receipt from Malleshwaram branch with covering
letter. However, PW31 stated that he has received all the
FD receipts from Canara Bank and letter handed over to
CW41. PW29 has seized Ex.D.34, copy of the account
opening form of CW41 during the course of investigation
from CW41. On perusal of the said document, it goes to
show that depositor CW41 instructed the Canara Bank
to send his deposit receipt to the address as mentioned in
front side of the account opening form. But PW31 had
received receipt. The depositor CW41 never doubted PW
31 when he handedover the deposit receipt. From this it
would goes to show that CW41 has consented PW31 to
receive his FD receipt. In this regard, PW29 has not
made enquiry with CW41 the depositor. CW41 has
handed over his passport copy to the IO as per Ex.D.32.
Ex.D.31 is the declaration on oath given by the wife of
CW41. This document discloses that wife of CW41 is not
only identified, but also recognized as she is wife of CW
41. It is very important to state that depositor CW41
himself has dissolved his deposit receipt as null and void
as per Ex.P.20. Though investigation reveal the
signatures at Ex.P.20 is similar to Ex.P.21, the I.O never
sent the signatures at Ex.P.20 to GEQD for examination.
The reason assigned by the I.O was that since it is xerox
copy and GEQD in earlier times was not giving its opinion
154 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
on xerox copies. Unless he sent the documents for
examination, he himself cannot come to the conclusion
that GEQD could not express its opinion on xerox copies.
182. It is pertinent to state that Ex.P.4 is the alleged
fake passport of CW41. But it finds the name of
Arjundas Melwany, CW5. Ex.D.33 is his passport. The
I.O has not sent Ex.P.4 and Ex.D.33 for comparison by
the GEQD to know which one is genuine and how the
accused persons got the photo of Arjundas Melwany. The
I.O has not taken the signature of CW5, PW33 and
finance consultant, Karan Sanghani and sent the same
for GEQD. When PW31 has not given passport to
anybody, how his brother's photo came on Ex.P.4. PW31
has stated the same in his crossexamination that
Ex.D.35 and Ex.D.36 are the passports of CW3 and his
father. Exs.P.44 and 45 are the fake passport of aforesaid
CW3 and his father. The I.O has not sent the aforesaid
original and fake passport for GEQD examination. PW
22, 23 and 25 are the witnesses who deposed with regard
to taking the specimen signatures and handwriting of
Suresh Purswany and Prakash Panjabi and accused No.1.
The handwritings and signatures obtained by I.O would
goes to show that same are obtained from accused No.4 in
the manner of Suresh Purswaney and Prakash Panjabi.
PW19 had given opinion on the basis of the signatures of
accused No.4, which are marked as Exs.P.181, 182, 183
155 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
and 184. The material documents were not sent for
examination, hence it is difficult to accept the version of
prosecution.
183. The Counsel for accused has argued that charge
framed in the case against the accused persons is
different from the evidence let in by the prosecution. He
has relied upon the decision reported in AIR 1925 Nagpur
440 in Digambar V/s Emperor, which reads thus :
(a) Penal Code, Ss.467 and 471 A forger using as
genuine a forged document cannot be punished
under S.471 as well as S.467 but only under
S.467.
On careful reading of the said decision, it has held that
the person who being himself the forger thereof, has used
as genuine a forged document, cannot be punished under
Sec.471 as well as for the forgery under Sec.467, but can
be punished only under Sec.467.
184. The learned counsel has relied upon another
decision reported in 2009 S.C.C 636 of Gauhati High
Court ( Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd.,
and another v/s Delta classic Pvt. Ltd.),, wherein the
Hon'ble High Court has differentiated the offence under
Secs.420 and 409 of IPC.
185. In the said decision, it has discussed that the
accused comes into possession of the property without
156 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
dishonest intention and develops dishonest intention
subsequent to his taking into possession of the property
and converts to his own use. In the said case, the
intention of the accused cannot be dishonest when he
comes into possession of the property. But in case of
cheating, dishonest exists from the very commencement
of the transaction. Therefore, criminal breach of trust is
different from the offence of cheating.
186. On coming into the documents relied by the
accused, which are marked as Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.40, it
reveal that the Bank Manager, PW7, who worked in
Administrative section of the Canara bank,
Malleshwaram Branch has given statement before the IO.
But in the evidence has denied the statement as per
Ex.D.3 and Ex.D.4. He has stated that at the end of the
day after ensuring that all the deposit receipt is issued
for all the deposits, unused deposit receipt is handed
back to staff Manager for keeping in his safe custody.
The evidence of bank officials does not disclose that who
was the staff Manager authorised to keep the unused
deposit receipts in his safe custody. Further, PW7 has
also denied the statement given before the IO that the
almirah in which the role of security form kept at the end
of every day, it was under the custody of
Mr.K.P.UpadhyayaCW33. The evidence of PW7
contradicts with his statement as per Ex.,D.3 and Ex.D.4
157 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
in regard to material fact that who was the custodian of
unused FD receipts. Thus, it is not safe to place reliance
on the evidence of PW7.
187. As per Ex.D.5, PW27 Nagesh Pai has given
statement before the Magistrate under Sec.164 of Cr.P.C.
In the said statement has stated about the functions of
A8 Company. He has also stated that A7 was the
Proprietor of Punarvasu Commodities Ltd., A8Company
has several sister concerns in the name of Unicorn
Polymers Pvt. Ltd., Amreen Plastic Pvtl Ltd., EMVEE
Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Sona Rexim Pvt. Ltd., and
Punarvasu Commodities Ltd. As discussed supra, this
witness has stated that accused Nos.1, 3 and 7 used to
meet accused Nos.2 and 6 in A8company for business
transactions. This witness in the crossexamination has
stated that Ex.P.234 to Ex.P.238 were not given to him by
accused No.3 as stated in Ex.D.5. Exs.P.234 to 238 are
the copies of the sale deeds executed in favour of A8
Company. This witness was deputed to sell the property
of company situated at Tirupati. Thus, the evidence of
this witness is not helpful to prove the conspiracy
between the accused persons.
188. As discussed above, the IO has not taken note of
the complaint Ex.D.7 before investigating the matter.
Even during the course of investigation has not
158 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
considered the complaint given by the Canara Bank. The
IO has also not obtained GEQD report from the bank to
know the true state of facts.
189. It is very important to state that as per account
statement of A8 company maintained with Corporation
Bank, Bengaluru as per Exs.D.15, 28 and 29, the amount
of Rs.3,00,00,000/ and above was got transferred to
G.T.MelwaniPW31 and Prakash Panjabi. For the best
reasons known to the IO, has not made any enquiry with
PW31 in regard to the transactions made in Exs.D.15, 28
and 29. As such, there is no impediment on the part of
Court to accept the contention of learned counsel for
accused that PW31 was the receiver of the loan amount,
which was credited to A8 and 9 companies from the
accounts of depositors.
190. It is admitted by the IO that accused No.3 is the
legal advisor of A8 and A9companies as he has issued
notices on behalf of the company as per Exs.D.21, 22, 23.
As per Ex.P.256, the RC was transferred to the name of
accused No.1 from accused No.4 in respect of the vehicle
bearing No.KA02M.1017. It is the case of the
prosecution that accused No.1 obtained favour from
accused No.2 in connivance to cheat the Canara Bank.
The document does not discloses that the accused No.1
obtained the vehicle Maruti Zen car as monetary benefit
159 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
from accused No.2. Thus, it is not safe to place reliance
on the contention of the prosecution.
191. The prosecution has contended that the accused
persons knowingly used the forged documents as genuine
to part the bank funds. As referred in the above decision,
the person who committed forgery under Sec.467 of IPC,
cannot be convicted for the offence under Sec.471 of IPC.
Moreover, the prosecution failed to prove the ingredients
of cheating and forgery beyond reasonable doubt. The
prosecution has also made allegations against accused
No.1 that he has destroyed FCNR deposit receipts, which
were sent to the bank by depositors on maturity. On
overall perusal of the evidence of prosecutional witnesses,
none of the witness stated that accused No.1 has
destroyed the original FCNR receipts, which were sent to
the bank by the depositors on maturity. Further, at the
cost of repetition, the court has no hesitation to say that
depositors did not turned before the Court and stated on
oath that they have sent the original FD receipts to the
bank after maturity. Therefore, there is no material to
come to the conclusion that accused No.1 has committed
the offence under Sec.477A of IPC.
192. Further, the prosecution has contended that the
accused No.1 committed the offence of misconduct as
public servant. In view of the above discussion and
160 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
reasoning, I have reached to the conclusion that the
accused No.1 was not the custodian of the security items
and he is not the person who sanctioned the loans
without documents. Therefore, it is not proper to accept
the contention of the prosecution that accused committed
the offence of criminal misconduct by abusing his official
position.
193. It is also alleged by the prosecution that accused
No.1 while functioning as Manager, Deposits in
connivance with K.Vijay, accused No.4 and Mufid Abdulla
Suleman (A5), now deceased were in possession of the
forged documents. As discussed above, accused No.1
was not the custodian of the account opening forms and
FCNR deposit receipts to sanction the loans. None of the
witness uttered before the court that the accused No.1
and 4 were in possession of forged documents to attract
the offence under Sec.474 of IPC.
194. The learned counsel for the accused Nos.1,3 and
4 submitted that the prosecution failed to include the
representatives of A8 and A9Companies to whose
account the entire amount was transferred. They are the
principal offenders and are artificial juridical persons.
Now the question arose before the Court is whether
accused Nos.8 and 9 Companies represented by its
Directors or not. The K.Vijay(accused No.2) was
161 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
representing A8 and A9companies and now he is no
more and the case against him is abated.
195. The Court has directed the accused No.4 to
represent accused Nos.8 and 9 companies by its order
dated 04/07/2018. The accused No.4 had challenged the
orders of this Court before the Hon'ble High Court of
Karnataka in Crl.P.No.5697/2018. The Hon'ble High
Court has allowed the petition and held that this Court
has no power to direct any person to represent the
accused Nos.8 and 9 companies. As such, it is for the
prosecution to take necessary steps to represent the
accused Nos.8 and 9 companies.
196. The learned P.P has submitted that as per Sec.63
of Cr.P.C, summons were duly served on accused Nos.8
and 9 companies and it is for the said companies to
represent on its behalf. On the otherhand, Sri.RGK,
Advocate has repelled that though the summons were
served on accused Nos.8 and 9 companies at the first
instance, now accused No.2 is no more, who was
representing accused Nos.8 and 9 companies. As such,
prosecution cannot prosecute the case against accused
Nos.8 and 9, who are juridical persons in the case.
197. At this stage, it is necessary to peruse the
provisions of Sec.63 of Cr.P.C. :
63. Service of summons on corporate bodies and societies :
162 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
Service of a summons on a corporation may be
effected by serving in on the secretary, local
manager or other principal officer of the
corporation, or by letter sent by registered post,
addressed to the chief officer of the corporation in
India, ion which case the service shall be deemed to
have been effected when the letter would arrive in
ordinary course of post.
On careful reading of said provision of law, summons
to be served on the corporate bodies to prosecute against
them.
198. The learned counsel for accused argued that
there is no material on record to show that summons was
duly served on A8 and A9companies after the death of
K.Vijay(accused No.2) and relied on the principle of 'alter
ego' by referring the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court
reported in 2015(4) SCC 609 in the case of Sunil Bharti
Mittal v/s CBI. The said decision reads thus :
A. Corporate Laws Company Law Corporate criminal
liability Principle that criminal intent of person(s)
controlling company can be imputed to company
based on principle of "alterego" Held, reverse
application of principle is not permissible (as
purported to be done by Magistrate in present case)
When company is accused, its Directors can be
roped in only if (a) there is sufficient incriminating
evidence against them coupled with criminal intent
or; (b) the statutory regime attracts the doctrine of
vicarious liability Companies Act, 1956 S.34
Companies Act, 2013 S.9Criminal Procedure Code,
1973, Ss.200 to 204.
199. On careful reading of the said decision, the
Hon'ble Apex Court has observed with regard to
applicability of the principle of 'alter ego' both on the
163 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
company and persons controlling the companies in the
cases of offences punishable under IPC and other special
statutes. In the referred case, the appellants who were
arraigned as accused by Special Judge under Sec.319 of
Cr.P.C. have questioned the order. It has urged that for
the act committed by the company the vicarious liability
cannot be attributed to the appellants as they represent
the company. In the said case, the principle applied in an
exactly reverse scenario. Therefore, the Hon'ble Apex
Court has held that "Commission of an offense by
raising legal fiction or by creating a vicarious liability in
terms of the provisions of a statute must be expressly
stated. Managing Director or the Directors of the
Company, thus cannot be said to have committed an
offense only because they are holders of offices". It is
also held that if the person or group of persons who
control the affairs of the company commit an offense with
a criminal intent, their criminality can be imputed to the
company as well as they are "alter ego" of the company.
200. Now, it would be relevant whether a company
could be prosecuted for an offense which requires mens
rea. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Standard Chartered
Bank v/s Directorate of Enforcement (2005) 4 SCC
530,has held that a Company is liable to be prosecuted
and punished for criminal offences which requires a
minimum sentence of imprisonment.
164 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
201. The Section 11 of Cr.P.C defines the word 'person'
which includes any Company or Association or body of
persons, whether incorporated or not. The word 'alter ego'
means a person or entity vicariously liable for another.
The main intention of the offence was to deceive. No,
doubt, a corporate entity is an artificial person which acts
through its officers, directors, managing director,
chairman etc. The criminal liability of a corporation would
arise when an offense is committed in relation to the
business of the corporation by person or body of persons
in control of affairs. When the company is the offender,
vicarious liability of the Directors cannot be imputed
automatically.
202. In the case on hand, K.Vijay was the Managing
Director of A8 and A9Companies as per the case of
prosecution. Admittedly he is no more and no one is
representing the companies. As per the order of Hon'ble
High Court of Karnataka, the Court cannot direct any of
the accused to represent A8 and A9Companies. On
perusal of the record, it revealed that the A8 and A9 were
not examined by the Court under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C for
the reason that the accused No.6 submitted that she was
not representing the above companies and the
representatives of the companies refused to answer the
questions as per the note made by the Court on
02.07.2007. As argued by Ld.PP, if the summons was
165 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
duly served on the companies, certainly it is for the
company to represent through its Directors or Members.
But the summons was duly served on first instance when
K.Vijay(accused No.2) was representing A8 and A9
Companies. After death of K.Vijay and after the orders
passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, no
summons were issued to A8 and A9Companies. As
such, the proceedings suffer from an incurable legal
defect and the case cannot be prosecuted against A8 and
A9Companies as per Sec.305 of Cr.P.C.
203. The entire evidence of prosecutional witnesses
does not disclose the incriminating evidence appearing
against Accused Nos.3, 6 and 7, except they met PW31 at
HongKong. Further, there is no material to show that
accused No.7 was also involved in the commission of
fraudulent acts, except he was the proprietor of sister
concern of A8Company. Therefore, it is difficult to
believe the case of prosecution against accused Nos.3,6
and 7.
204. The prosecution in the charge sheet has alleged
that the Canara Bank sustained loss to the tune of
Rs.6.60 Crores due to the fraud committed by the
accused persons. It is pertinent to note that in the FIR,
Ex.P.255 it was mentioned that Rs.5.02 Crores loss
caused to the Bank. But PW21, the Manager has
deposed that as per Ex.P.198, the letter the Bank suffered
166 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
financial loss to the tune of Rs.3,61,62,519/. As per the
evidence of prosecutional witnesses and the evidence of
PW1, out of 4 FCNR deposits and loans, 4 matters were
temporary misappropriation and remaining two
depositors filed the complaint against the bank with
banking ombudsmen, Karnataka alleging misuse of fund.
As per the evidence of PW21, the ombudsmen had
passed an award directing the bank to pay a sum of
Rs.3,61,62,519/ to the complainants/depositors. So
there is discrepancy with regard to the amount of loss
caused to the bank due to the alleged acts committed by
the accused persons.
204. On perusal of the entire evidence of prosecutional
witnesses, it would goes to show that NRIs had made
substantial deposits with Canara Bank at Malleshwaram
branch on the guise of their financial consultants i.e.,
PW31 and Karen Sanghani to get over and above rate of
interest. It further reveals that the depositors knew very
well about the lien made on their deposits. Therefore,
they did not appear before the Court to state the true
state of facts on oath. The prosecution has failed to prove
that the seals found on the questioned documents are
forged by the accused persons.
205. As discussed supra, the core case of prosecution
was that the accused persons with dishonest and
fraudulent intention, availed loans without the knowledge
167 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
of depositors. At the cost of repetition, I would like to
state that the mode of proof that the prosecution adopted
is only circumstantial one and basing on handwriting
expert reports. The prosecution failed to place
substantive evidence by examining the depositors to
corroborate the documents. The prosecution withheld
the best primary evidence before the Court. Thus, the
incriminatory material found here and there cannot be a
basis to come to the conclusion that prosecution has
proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, in
view of the above discussion and reasoning and also in
view of the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in
Varadaraj Pai case, I have reached to the conclusion that
the prosecution failed to place sufficient primary, cogent,
corroborative and convincing evidence to prove the guilt of
accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, the
benefit of doubt would goes to accused and consequently
the accused are entitled for acquittal. Hence, I answer
the above Point Nos.2 to 10 in the Negative.
206. POINT NO.11 : In view of the above findings, I
proceed to pass the following :
ORDER
Acting U/Sec.235(1) of Cr.P.C., Accused Nos.1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9 in Spl.CC.No.245/2002 are acquitted for the offences punishable under Secs.120(B) R/w Sec.409, 420, 469, 468, 168 Spl.CC.No.245/2002 C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008 471, 474 and 477A of IPC and Sec.13(2) r/w Sec.13(1) (c) and (d) of PC Act,1988.
Acting U/Sec.235(1) of Cr.P.C., Accused Nos.10 and 12 in Spl.CC.No.84/2008 are acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 120(B) R/w Sec. 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC and Sec.13(2) r/w Sec.13(1) (c) and (d) of PC Act, 1988.
The bail bond and surety bonds of the accused stand cancelled.
U/Sec.437(A) of Cr.P.C., complied by the accused Nos.1,3,4,6,10 and 12 as per order dated 25.01.2016 and 03.02.2016.
The copy of the Judgment shall be kept in Spl.CC.No.84/2008.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed and computerized by her and corrected, revised, signed and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 25th day of March, 2022.) (E.CHANDRAKALA) XLVII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI cases, Bengaluru.
***** ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION :
PROSECUTION CHARGE WITNESS NAME 169 Spl.CC.No.245/2002 C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008 WITNESS WITNESS NUMBER NUMBER P.W.1 C.W.1 Smt.Rohini Raghavendra. P.W.2 C.W.6 Sri.K.V.R.Kumar. P.W.3 C.W.13 Sri.T.N.Sreenivas. P.W.4 C.W.16 Sri.D.R.Eswara Prasad. P.W.5 C.W.18 Sri.S.Balasubramanyam. P.W.6 C.W.19 Sri.H.G.Kedlaya. P.W.7 C.W.20 Sri.M.G.Sharma. P.W.8 C.W.27 Smt.Latha Chandrashekar.
P.W.9 C.W.28 Smt.Malini.
P.W.10 C.W.29 Smt.G.Revathy.
P.W.11 C.W.30 Smt.Kiran Pai.
P.W.12 C.W.15 Sri.B.V.Ramesh.
P.W.13 C.W.14 Sri.Rangaswamaiah.
P.W.14 C.W.21 Smt.S.Rajalakshmi.
P.W.15 C.W.26 Sri.K.Venkata Rao.
P.W.16 C.W.22 Sri.Raghu.
P.W.17 C.W.25 Sri.Vinod Gokaldas.
P.W.18 C.W.34 Sri.Naresh Malhotra.
P.W.19 C.W.42 Sri.C.H.Gandhi.
P.W.20 C.W.11 Sri.Nandagopal.
P.W.21 C.W.35 Sri.V.Mohan.
P.W.22 Additional Sri.Krishna Rao.D.V.
Witness
P.W.23 Additional Sri.S.Narayan Shibaraya.
Witness
P.W.24 C.W.53 Sri.Nakshathram.
P.W.25 C.W.50 Sri.C.S.S.Reddy.
P.W.26 C.W.44 Sri.Vigneshwar.
P.W.27 C.W.23 Sri.Nagesh Pai.
P.W.28 C.W.51 Sri.Prabhakar Rao.
P.W.29 C.W.59 Sri.Sathish.P.M.
P.W.30 C.W.60 Sri.T.V.Joy.
P.W.31 C.W.4 Sri.Gopal Tharumal Melwani.
P.W.32 C.W.66 Sri.J.G.Parmar
(Spl.CC.84/08)
P.W.33 C.W.62 Sri.Deepak Devang.
(Spl.CC.84/08)
P.W.34 C.W.63 Sri.Suresh.R.Patel.
170 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
(Spl.CC.84/08)
P.W.35 C.W.64 Sri.DushyantTulsibhaiPrabhu
(Spl.CC.84/08)
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED THROUGH PROSECUTION :-
Ex.P.1 Advice from Canara Bank, Foreign Department Dated 06.05.1999 regarding FCNR Deposits of US Dollars 5,00,000.
Ex.P.2 FCNR Memo Dated 07.05.1999 from Canara Bank, Malleshwaram to Canara Bank, Foreign Department.
Ex.P.3 Account Opening Form for Non-Resident Indians bearing No.FCKD-99/26 of Mr.Suresh Purswaney and Mrs.Karen Purswaney.
Ex.P.3(a) Identified Signature of A-1 in Ex.P.3. Ex.P.3(b) Signature of Sri.Suresh Purswaney in Ex.P.3 marked as Q-1.
Ex.P.3(c) Signature of Sri.Karen Purswaney in Ex.P.3 marked as Q-2.
Ex.P.4 Copy of 1st Page of Passport of Sri.Suresh Purswaney.
Ex.P.5 Copy of 1st Page of Passport of Smt.Laren Purswaney.
Ex.P.6 FCNR Deposit Receipt bearing No.2039866 Dated 05.05.1999 of Canara Bank for US Dollars 5,00,000 of Mr.Suresh Purswaney and Mrs.Karen Purswaney.
Ex.P.6(a) Signature of Manager of Canara Bank in Ex.P.6.
Ex.P.6(b) Signature of Sri.Suresh Peter in Ex.P.6. Ex.P.6(c) Signature of P.W.2 in Ex.P.6. Ex.P.6(d) Signature of P.W.11 in Ex.P.6. Ex.P.7 FCNR Deposit Receipt bearing No.2039771 Dated 07.05.1999 of Canara Bank for US Dollars 5,00,000 of Mr.Suresh Purswaney and Mrs.Karen Purswaney.
Ex.P.8 Extract of Deposit Issue Register for the period from 20.04.99 to 15.5.99.171 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008 Ex.P.8(a) Entry dated 22.4.95 pertaining to No.9771 in Ex.P.8.
Ex.P.8(b) Entry dated 22.4.95 pertaining to No.9772 in Ex.P.8.
Ex.P.8(c) Entry dated 15.5.99 pertaining to No.9932, 33, 34 in Ex.P.8.
Ex.P.8(A) Original Deposit Register of Ex.P.8 containing Sl.Nos.1 to 202 for the period from 12.12.98 to 5.9.2000 pertaining to Canara Bank, H.O., Bengaluru.
Ex.P.8-A(a) Entry dated 15.5.99 in Ex.P.8(A) at Page-45. Ex.P.8-A(b) Entry dated 22.4.95 in Ex.P.8(A) at Page-39 pertaining to Sl.No.9773.
Ex.P.8-A(c) Entry dated 22.4.95 in Ex.P.8(A) at Page-39 pertaining to Sl.No.9774.
Ex.P.8-A(d) Entry dated 22.4.95 in Ex.P.8(A) at Page-39 pertaining to Sl.No.9775.
Ex.P.8-A(e) Entry dated 22.4.95 in Ex.P.8(A) at Page-39 pertaining to Sl.No.9771.
Ex.P.8-A(f) Entry dated 22.4.95 in Ex.P.8(A) at Page-39 pertaining to Sl.No.9772.
Ex.P.9 General Power of Attorney dated 6.5.99 executed by Sri.Suresh Puraswany & Smt.Karen Puraswany in favour of Sri.Suresh Peter.
Ex.P.9(a) to Signatures of Sri.Suresh Puraswany & Ex.P.9(h) Smt.Karen Puraswany marked as Q-4 to Q-
11 in Ex.P.9.
Ex.P.10 Annexure-I-Request for Loan/OD Facility Dated 07.05.1999 from Sri.Suresh Puraswany & Smt.Karen Puraswany, Hong Kong to The Manager/Senior Manager, Canara Bank, Malleshwaram.
Ex.P.10(a) to Signatures of Sri.Suresh Peter in Ex.P.10. Ex.P.10(d) Ex.P.10(e) Signature of P.W.4 in Ex.P.10. Ex.P.11 Letter Dated 06.05.1999 from Sri.Suresh Purswaney, Hongkong to the Manager, Canara Bank, Malleshwaram Branch, Bengaluru regarding Loan against FCNR 172 Spl.CC.No.245/2002 C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008 Deposit.
Ex.P.11(a) Signature of Sri. Suresh Purswaney marked as Q-12 in Ex.P.11.
Ex.P.12 Pro-Note Dated 07.05.1999 for Rs.1,57,50,000/- pertaining to Sri.Suresh Purswaney & Smt.Karen Purswaney. Ex.P.12(a) Signature of Sri.Suresh Peter in Ex.P.12. Ex.P.12(b) Signature of P.W.4 in Ex.P.12. Ex.P.13 Account Opening Form for Non-Resident Indians bearing No.NRO/SB/69615 of Mr.Suresh Purswaney and Mrs.Karen Purswaney.
Ex.P.13(a) Signature of A-1 in Ex.P.13. Ex.P.13(b) Signature of Sri. Suresh Purswaney marked as Q-13 in Ex.P.13.
Ex.P.13(c) Signature of Mrs.Karen Purswaney marked as Q-14 in Ex.P.13.
Ex.P.14 Debit Slip Dated 07.05.1999 for Rs.1,57,50,000/- pertaining to A/c. No.VSL- 99035.
Ex.P.14(a) Initials of P.W.4 in Ex.P.14. Ex.P.15 Statement of Account dated 3.5.01 for the period from 1.1.99 to 3.5.01 bearing A/c No.GA VSL/99035 of Mr.Suresh Purswaney and Mrs.Karen Purswaney.
Ex.P.15(a) Entry dated 7.5.99 for Rs.1,57,50,000/- in Ex.P.15.
Ex.P.16 Credit Slip dated 7.5.99 for Rs.1,57,50,000/-
pertaining to A/c.No.VSL-99035. Ex.P.16(a) Initials of P.W.4 in Ex.P.16. Ex.P.17 Statement of Account dated 3.5.01 for the period from 1.1.99 to 3.5.01 bearing A/c No.SB000069615 of Mr.Suresh Purswaney and Mrs.Karen Purswaney.
Ex.P.17(a) Entry dated 7.5.99 for Rs.1,57,50,000/- in Ex.P.17.
Ex.P.17(b) Entry Dated 08.05.1999 in Ex.P.17 for Rs.1,57,50,000/- regarding passing of Ex.P.18.
Ex.P.18 Cheque No.562853 dated 7.5.99 for 173 Spl.CC.No.245/2002 C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008 Rs.1,57,50,000/- in favour of M/s.Emvee Comforts & Travels Limited issued from Sri.Suresh Purswaney.
Ex.P.19 Letter Dated 05.05.2000 from Sri.Suresh Purswaney & Mrs.Karen Purswaney, Hong Kong to the Manager, Canara Bank, Malleshwaram Branch, Bengaluru regarding closure of VSL No.99035 against FCNR Deposit No.MVM7614/2039866 dated 7.5.99.
Ex.P.19(a) Signature of Sri. Suresh Purswaney marked as Q-16 in Ex.P.19.
Ex.P.19(b) Signature of Mrs.Karen Purswaney marked as Q-17 in Ex.P.19.
Ex.P.20 Fax Copy of Communication regarding FCNR Deposit No.MVM7614/2039866 dated 7.5.99 signed by Sri.Suresh Puruswaney. Ex.P.21 Letter Dated 22.09.2000 from Sri.Suresh Purswaney, Hong Kong to Smt.Mohini Raghavendra, Canara Bank, Malleshwaram Branch, Bengaluru regarding FCNR No.2039771 for USC 500.000 Maturity 5 May 2000.
Ex.P.21(a) Identified Initials of P.W.1 in Ex.P.21. Ex.P.22 Letter Dated 06.05.1999 from Canara Bank, Foreign Department, Bengaluru to the Senior Manager, Canara Bank, Malleshwaram, Bengaluru regarding FCNR Deposits.
Ex.P.23 FCNR Memo Dated 07.05.1999 from Canara Bank, Malleshwaram, Bengaluru to Canara Bank, Foreign Department, Bengaluru. Ex.P.24 Account Opening Form for Non-Resident Indians of Sri.Diwanchand & Mrs.Meenu Diwanchand Bhagwandas bearing A/c.No.FCKD-99/27.
Ex.P.24(a) Signature of A-1 in Ex.P.24. Ex.P.24(b) Signature of Sri.Diwanchand Bhagwandas marked as Q-42 in Ex.P.24.
Ex.P.24(c) Signature of Smt.Meenu Diwanchand 174 Spl.CC.No.245/2002 C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008 Bhagwandas marked as Q-43 in Ex.P.24. Ex.P.25 Copy of 1st Page of Passport of Sri.Diwanchand.
Ex.P.26 Copy of 1st Page of Passport of Sri.Diwanchand & Mrs.Meenu Diwanchand Bhagwandas Ex.P.27 FCNR Receipt No.2039867 dated 4.5.99 for 1,29,990 US Dollars pertaining to Sri.Diwanchand & Mrs.Meenu Diwanchand Bhagwandas.
Ex.P.27(a) Signature of A-1 in Ex.P.27. Ex.P.27(b) Signature of Sri.Suresh Peter in Ex.P.27. Ex.P.27(c) Signature of P.W.2 in Ex.P.27. Ex.P.28 GPA Dated 06.05.1999 executed by Sri.Diwanchand & Mrs.Meenu Diwanchand Bhagwandas in favour of Sri.Suresh Peter. Ex.P.28(a) to Signatures of Sri. Diwanchand Bhagwandas Ex.P.28(h) and Smt.Meenu Diwanchand Bhagwandas marked as Q-45 to Q-52 in Ex.P.28. Ex.P.29 Annexure-I-Request for Loan/OD Facility Dated 07.05.1999 from Sri.Diwanchand & Mrs.Meenu Diwanchand Bhagwandas, Hong Kong to the Manager/Senior Manager, Canara Bank, Malleshwaram.
Ex.P.29(a) Signature of P.W.4 in Ex.P.29. Ex.P.29(b) to Signatures of Sri.Suresh Peter in Ex.P.29. Ex.P.29(e) Ex.P.30 Letter Dated 06.05.1999 from Sri.Diwanchand, Hongkong to the Manager, Canara Bank, Malleshwaram regarding Loan against FCNR Deposit.
Ex.P.30(a) Signature of Sri.Diwanchand marked as Q-
53 in Ex.P.30.
Ex.P.31 Pro-note Dated 07.05.1999 for Rs.40,94,000/-
pertaining to Sri.Diwanchand & Mrs.Meenu Diwanchand Bhagwandas.
Ex.P.31(a) Signature of P.W.4 in Ex.P.31. Ex.P.31(b) Signature of Sri.Suresh Peter in Ex.P.31. Ex.P.32 Account Opening Form for Non-Resident Indians of Sri.Diwanchand & Mrs.Meenu Diwanchand Bhagwandas bearing 175 Spl.CC.No.245/2002 C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008 A/c.No.NRO/SB-69614.
Ex.P.32(a) Signature of A-1 in Ex.P.32. Ex.P.32(b) Signature of Sri.Diwanchand marked as Q-
54 in Ex.P.32.
Ex.P.32(c) Signature of Smt.Meenu Diwanchand marked as Q-55 in Ex.P.32.
Ex.P.33 Debit Slip dated 7.5.99 for Rs.40,94,000/-
pertaining to A/c.No.VSL99036 of Sri.Diwanchand & Mrs.Meenu Diwanchand Bhagwandas.
Ex.P.33(a) Initial of P.W.4 in Ex.P.33. Ex.P.34 Statement of Account dated 3.5.01 in respect of Loan Account No.GA VSL/99036 of Sri.Diwanchand & Mrs.Meenu Diwanchand Bhagwandas for the period from 1.1.99 to 3.5.01.
Ex.P.34(a) Entry dated 7.5.99 for Rs.40,94,000/- in Ex.P.34.
Ex.P.35 Credit Slip Dated 07.05.1999 for Rs.40,94,000/-.
Ex.P.35(a) Initial of P.W.4 in Ex.P.35. Ex.P.36 Statement of Account dated 3.5.01 of Sri.Diwanchand & Mrs.Meenu Diwanchand Bhagwandas for the period from 1.1.99 to 3.5.01 pertaining A/c.No.SB000069614. Ex.P.36(a) Entry dated 7.5.99 for Rs.40,94,000/- in Ex.P.36.
Ex.P.36(b) Entry dated 8.5.99 in Ex.P.36 for Rs.41,00,000/-.
Ex.P.37 Cheque No.562861 Dated 07.05.1999 for Rs.41,00,000/- issued in favour of M/s.Emvee Comfort & Travels Ltd. from Sri.Diwanchand.
Ex.P.38 Letter Dated 04.05.2000 from Sri.Diwanchand & Mrs.Meenu Diwanchand Bhagwandas, Hongkong to the Manager, Canara Bank, Malleswaram Branch, Bengaluru regarding closure of VSL No.99036 against FCNR Deposit No.MVM 7615/2039867 dated 7.5.99.
176 Spl.CC.No.245/2002C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008 Ex.P.38(a) Signature of Sri.Diwanchand marked as Q-
57 in Ex.P.38.
Ex.P.38(b) Signature of Smt. Meenu Diwanchand marked as Q-58 in Ex.P.38.
Ex.P.39 Letter Dated 06.06.2000 from Sri.Diwanchand & Mrs.Meenu Diwanchand Bhagwandas, Hongkong to the Manager, Canara Bank, Malleswaram Branch, Bengaluru regarding FCNR Deposit No.CDMB2039772 for US$129,990.00 matured on 4.5.2000. Ex.P.40 FCNR Deposit Receipt bearing No.2039772 Dated 04.05.1999 of Canara Bank for US Dollars 1,29,990.00 of Sri.Diwanchand & Mrs.Meenu Diwanchand Bhagwandas. Ex.P.41 Advice from Canara Bank, Foreign Department Dated 08.05.1999 regarding FCNR Deposits of US Dollars 3,70,000.
Ex.P.42 FCNR Memo Dated 08.05.1999 from Canara Bank, Malleswaram Branch, Bengaluru to Canara Bank, Foreign Department, Bengaluru.
Ex.P.43 Account Opening Form for Non-Resident Indians bearing No.FCKD-99/30 in the name of Sri.Prakash Narsingdas Panjabi & Sri.Tej Narsingdas Navalrai.
Ex.P.43(a) Signature of A-1 in Ex.P.43. Ex.P.43(b) Signature of Sri.T.N.Navalrai marked as Q-18 in Ex.P.43.
Ex.P.43(c) Signature of Sri.Prakash Panjabi marked as Q-19 in Ex.P.43.
Ex.P.44 Copy of 1st Page of Passport of Sri.Prakash Narsingdas Panjabi.
Ex.P.45 Copy of 1st Page of Passport of Sri.Tej Narsingdas Navalrai.
Ex.P.46 FCNR Deposit Receipt No.2039884 Dated 08.05.1999 for US$3,70,000.00 in the name of Sri.Prakash.N.Panjabi and Sri.Tej.N.Navalrai.
Ex.P.46(a) Signature of A-1 in Ex.P.46. Ex.P.46(b) Signature of Sri.Suresh Peter in Ex.P.46.
177 Spl.CC.No.245/2002C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008 Ex.P.46(c) Signature of P.W.2 in Ex.P.46. Ex.P.47 General Power of Attorney Dated 06.05.1999 executed by Sri.Prakash Narsingdas Panjabi & Sri.Tej Narsingdas Navalrai in favour of Sri.Suresh Peter.
Ex.P.47(a) to Signatures of Sri.Prakash Narsingdas Panjabi Ex.P.47(h) & Sri.Tej Narsingdas Navalrai marked as Q-
21 to Q-28 in Ex.P.47.
Ex.P.48 Annexure-1-Request for Loan/OD Facility Dated 08.05.1999 of Rs.1,16,50,000/- from Sri.Prakash Narsingdas Panjabi & Sri.Tej Narsingdas Navalrai to the Manager/Senior Manager, Canara Bank, Malleswaram, Bengaluru.
Ex.P.48(a) to Signatures of Sri.Suresh Peter in Ex.P.48. Ex.P.48(c) Ex.P.48(d) Signature of P.W.4 in Ex.P.48. Ex.P.48(e) Signature of Sri.K.S.V.Shenoy in Ex.P.48. Ex.P.49 Letter Dated 06.05.1999 from Sri.Prakash Narsingdas Panjabi, Hongkong to Manager, Canara Bank, Malleswaram, Bengaluru regarding Loan against FCNR Deposit. Ex.P.49(a) Signature of Sri.Prakash Narsingdas Panjabi marked as Q-29 in Ex.P.49.
Ex.P.50 Pro-Note Dated 08.05.1999 of Sri.Prakash Narsingdas Panjabi & Sri.Tej Narsingdas Navalrai for Rs.1,16,50,000/-. Ex.P.50(a) Signatures of Sri.Suresh Peter in Ex.P.50. and Ex.P.50(b) Ex.P.50(c) Signature of P.W.4 in Ex.P.50. Ex.P.51 Account Opening Form for Non-Resident Indians of Sri.Prakash Narsingdas Panjabi & Mr.Tej Narsingdas Navalrai bearing A/c.No.SB-69617.
Ex.P.51(a) Signature of A-1 in Ex.P.51. Ex.P.51(AA) Ex.P.51(b) Signature of Sri.Prakash Narsingdas Panjabi marked as Q-30 in Ex.P.51.
Ex.P.51(c) Signature of Mr.Tej Narsingdas Navalrai 178 Spl.CC.No.245/2002 C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008 marked as Q-31 in Ex.P.51.
Ex.P.52 Debit Slip dated 8.5.99 for Rs.1,16,50,000/-
in respect of Loan No.VSL-99038 pertaining to Sri.Prakash Narsingdas Panjabi & Mr.Tej Narsingdas Navalrai.
Ex.P.52(a) Signature of Sri.Suresh Peter in Ex.P.52. Ex.P.53 Statement of Account dated 3.5.01 pertaining A/c.No.GA VSL-99038 for the period from 1.1.99 to 3.5.01.
Ex.P.53(a) Debit Entry Dated 08.05.1999 of Rs.1,16,50,000/- in Ex.P.53.
Ex.P.54 Cheque No.563102 Dated 08.05.1999 for Rs.1,10,00,000/- issued from Sri.Prakash Narsingdas Panjab in favour of M/s.Emvee Comforts & Travels Ltd.
Ex.P.55 Statement of Account dated 3.5.01 pertaining A/c.No.SB000069617 for the period from 1.1.98 to 3.5.01.
Ex.P.55(a) Credit Entry Dated 08.05.1999 of Rs.1,16,50,000/- in Ex.P.55.
Ex.P.55(b) Debit Entry Dated 11.05.1999 of Rs.1,10,00,000/-.
Ex.P.55(c) Debit Entry Dated 13.05.1999 of Rs.6,43,900/-.
Ex.P.56 Cheque No.563103 Dated 11.05.1999 for Rs.6,43,900/- issued from Sri.Prakash Narsingdas Panjab in favour of M/s.Emvee Comforts & Travels Ltd.
Ex.P.57 Letter dated 12.04.2000 from State Bank of India, Hongkong Branch to the Branch Manager, Canara Bank, Malleswaram, Bengaluru regarding FCNB Receipt No.2039932 due on 06.05.2000 M.V.USD3,88,854.51 of Sri.Prakash Narsingdas Panjabi & Mr.Tej Narsingdas Navalrai.
Ex.P.57(a) Signature of P.W.18 in Ex.P.57.
Ex.P.57(AA) Copy of Ex.P.57. Ex.P.58 FCNR Deposit Receipt No.2039932 Dated
06.05.1999 for US$3,70,000.00 in the name 179 Spl.CC.No.245/2002 C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008 of Sri.Prakash Narsingdas Panjabi & Mr.Tej Narsingdas Navalrai.
Ex.P.58(a) Entry regarding due discharge on the reverse side of Ex.P.58 made by P.W.18.
Ex.P.58(b) Signature of Prakash Panjabi in Ex.P.58. Ex.P.58(c) Signature of Navalrai in Ex.P.58.
Ex.P.58(AA) Copy of Ex.P.58 Ex.P.59 Letter dated 7.4.2000 from Tej Narsingdas
Panjabi to the Branch Manager, Canara Bank, Malleswaram, Bengaluru regarding FCNR Deposit Receipt No.CDMB2039932 DR No.AUFCKD 99/30 due on 6.5.2000 maturity value USD388854.51.
Ex.P.59(AA) Copy of Ex.P.59. Ex.P.60 Letter dated 27.04.2000 from State Bank of
India, Hongkong Branch to the Branch Manager, Canara Bank, Malleswaram, Bengaluru regarding FCNB Receipt No.2039932 due to 06.05.2000 M.V.USD3,88,854.51 of Prakash Narsingdas Panjabi & Mr.Tej Narsingdas Navalrai. Ex.P.60(a) Signature of P.W.18 in Ex.P.60. Ex.P.61 Letter dated 27.4.2000 from Peter-Pan Tailors Ltd., Hong Kong to State Bank of India, Hong Kong Branch regarding Kamadhenu- FCNR(US$) DR.No.AUFCKD 99/30 due on 6.5.00 maturity value US$388,854.51. Ex.P.62 Letter dated 6.5.2000 from Sri.Prakash.N.Panjabi & Mr.Tej.N.Navalrai to the Manager, Canara Bank, Malleswaram, Bengaluru regarding closure of VSL No.99038 against FCNR Deposit No.MVM7618/2039884 dated 08.05.1999. Ex.P.62(a) Signature of Sri.Prakash N.Punjabi marked as Q-34 in Ex.P.62.
Ex.P.63 Letter dated 30.06.2000 from State Bank of India, Hongkong Branch to the Branch Manager, Canara Bank, Malleswaram, Bengaluru regarding FCNR508/137 and FCKD99/30.
180 Spl.CC.No.245/2002C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008 Ex.P.63(a) Signature of P.W.18 in Ex.P.63. Ex.P.64 Letter dated 29.6.2000 from Peter-Pan Tailors Ltd., Hong Kong to the Manager, State Bank of India, Hong Kong regarding your Letter No.DA/2000/3361 dated 28.6.2000. Ex.P.64(AA) True Copy of Ex.P.64. Ex.P.65 Fax Copy of Letter dated 15.07.2000 from Peter-Pan Tailors Ltd., Hong Kong to the Branch Manager, Canara Bank, Malleswaram Branch, Bengaluru regarding payment received by Sri.Tej.N.Naval Roy. Ex.P.66 Letter dated 27.9.2000 from Prakash Panjabi-
Managing Director, Peter Pan Tailors Ltd., Hong Kong to Chief Manager, Canara Bank, Bengaluru regarding MVM7618 CDMB 2039932 US$ 3,70,000:Maturity 6.5.2000.
Ex.P.67 Letter dated 23.12.1997 from
Sri.Kundan.T.Mirchandan &
Sri.Bhagwan.T.Mirchandan, Mumbai
regarding Nre Deposits for the period 3 years.
Ex.P.68 Certificate dated 23.12.1999 issued by the Central Bank of India, Kalina Branch regarding 10 Bankers' Cheque amounting to Rs.83,22,339/-.
Ex.P.69 Account Opening Form for Non-Resident
Indians bearing No.KD198/1606 &
KD198/1607 pertaining to
Sri.Kundan.T.Mirchandani &
Sri.Bhagwan.T.Mirchandani.
Ex.P.70 Xerox Copy of Passport of Bhagawan Thawerdass Mirchandani.
Ex.P.71 Xerox Copy of 1st page of Passport of Sri.Kundanlal Thawerdass Mirchandani. Ex.P.72 Deposit Receipt bearing No.2036217 dated 1.1.98 for Rs.45,00,000/- pertaining to Sri.Bhagwan.T.Mirchandani & Kundanlall.T.Mirchandani.
Ex.P.73 Account Ledger Inquiry dated 3.5.01 for the period from 2.1.1998 to 8.1.01 pertaining 181 Spl.CC.No.245/2002 C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008 to A/c.No.AUKD98/1606 of Sri.Bhagwan.T.Mirchandani.
Ex.P.74 Deposit Receipt bearing No.2036218 dated 1.1.98 for Rs.38,22,339/- pertaining to Sri.Bhagwan.T.Mirchandani & Kundanlall.T.Mirchandani.
Ex.P.75 Account Ledger Inquiry dated 3.5.01 for the period from 2.1.1998 to 8.1.01 pertaining to A/c.No.AUKD98/1607 of Sri.Bhagwan.T.Mirchandani.
Ex.P.76 General Power of Attorney dated 29.12.1997
executed between
Sri.Kundan.T.Mirchandani &
Sri.Bhagwan.T.Mirchandani in favour of Sri.Hareesh Chandulal Patel.
Ex.P.77 Letter dated 2.1.98 from Sri.Harish.C.Patel, Mumbai to the Manager, Canara Bank, Bengaluru regarding Loan against FDR No.98/1606 dated 1.1.97.
Ex.P.78 Letter dated 2.1.98 from Sri.Harish.C.Patel, Mumbai to the Manager, Canara Bank, Bengaluru regarding Loan against FDR No.98/1607 dated 1.1.97.
Ex.P.79 Annexure-I/Request for Loan/OD Facility dated 2.1.98 for Rs.61 Lakhs from Sri.Kundanlall.T.Mirchandani & Sri.Bhagwan.T.Mirchandani to the Manager/Senior Manager, Canara Bank, Bengaluru.
Ex.P.79(a) Signature of P.W.5 in Ex.P.79. Ex.P.80 Pronote dated 3.1.98 for Rs.61 Lakhs executed by Sri.Bhagwan.T.Mirchandani & Sri.Kundanlall.T.Mirchandani. Ex.P.80(a) Signature of P.W.5 in Ex.P.80. Ex.P.81 Statement of Account dated 4.5.01 for the period from 1.1.98 to 4.5.01 pertaining to Sri.Bhagwan.T.Mirchandani & Sri.Kundanlall.T.Mirchandani in respect of A/c.No.GA VSL/98201 of Canara Bank, Malleswaram, Bengaluru.
182 Spl.CC.No.245/2002C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008 Ex.P.81(a) Withdrawal Entry dated 3.1.98 for Rs.61,00,000/- in Ex.P.81.
Ex.P.82 Statement of Account dated 9.5.01 for the period from 25.10.97 to 9.5.01 pertaining to M/s.Dhanapriya Housing & Finance Ltd., in respect of A/c.No.CA 000003823 of Canara Bank, Malleswaram, Bengaluru. Ex.P.82(a) Deposit Entry dated 3.1.98 for Rs.61,00,000/-
in Ex.P.82.
Ex.P.82(b) Deposit Entry dated 4.6.98 for Rs.1,70,000/-
in Ex.P.82.
Ex.P.82(c) Deposit Entry dated 12/04/1998 for Rs.53 lakhs in Ex.P.82.
Ex.P.83 Letter dated 3.2.2000 from M/s.Royal Sports, Export-Import, Spain to the Manager, Canara Bank, Malleswaram, Bengaluru regarding FD/NRE/MVM- 6017/A/c.No.1606 & 1607 dated 1.1.98 for 3 years maturing.
Ex.P.84 Letter dated 10.2.2000 from Canara Bank,
Malleswaram, Bengaluru to
Sri.B.T.Mirchandani/Sri.Kundan Lal
T.Mirchandani, Spain, regarding
FD/NRE/MVM-6017/A/c.No.1606 & 1607 dated 1.1.98 maturing on 1.1.01. Ex.P.84(a) Identified Signature of P.W.1 in Ex.P.84. Ex.P.85 Letter dated 28.2.2000 from M/s.Royal Sports, Export-Import, Spain to the Manager, Canara Bank, Malleswaram, Bengaluru regarding FD/NRE/MVM- 6017/A/c.No.1606 & 1607 maturing on 1.1.01.
Ex.P.86 Letter dated 30.3.2000 from M/s.Royal Sports, Export-Import, Spain to the Manager, Canara Bank, Malleswaram, Bengaluru regarding FD/NRE/MVM-6017/A/c.No.1606 & 1607 maturing on 1.1.01.
Ex.P.87 Letter dated 16.10.2000 from M/s.Royal Sports, Export-Import, Spain to the Manager, Canara Bank, Malleswaram, 183 Spl.CC.No.245/2002 C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008 Bengaluru regarding FD/NRE/MVM- 6017/A/c.No.1606 & 1607 maturing on 1.1.01.
Ex.P.88 Letter dated 11.12.2000 from M/s.Royal Sports, Export-Import, Spain to the Manager, Canara Bank, Malleswaram, Bengaluru regarding FD/NRE/MVM- 6017/A/c.No.1606 & 1607 maturing on 1.1.01.
Ex.P.89 Letter dated 10.1.2001 from Canara Bank,
Malleswaram, Bengaluru to
Sri.B.T.Mirchandani/Sri.Kundan Lal
T.Mirchandani, Spain, regarding
FD/NRE/MVM-6017/A/c.No.1606 & 1607 maturing on 1.1.01.
Ex.P.90 FD Receipt bearing No.3746508 dated 8.1.01 for Rs.52,16,354/- pertaining to Sri.Bhagwan.T.Mirchandan & Kundan Lall.T.Mirchandan, Maharashtra of Canara Bank, Malleswaram, Bengaluru. Ex.P.91 FD Receipt bearing No.3746509 dated 8.1.01 for Rs.61,41,159/- pertaining to Sri.Bhagwan.T.Mirchandan & Kundan Lall.T.Mirchandan, Maharashtra of Canara Bank, Malleswaram, Bengaluru. Ex.P.92 Letter dated 8.1.2001 from Sri.Mohan Singh, Advocate, Agra to the Chairman/Managing Director and the Chief Manager, Canara Bank, Bengaluru.
Ex.P.93 Letter dated 1.2.2001 from Sri.Mohan Singh, Advocate, Agra to Sri.P.V.Subba Rao, Chief General Manager, RBI, Mumbai regarding Non-Resident Deposits with Canara Bank, Malleshwaram Branch, Bengaluru. Ex.P.94 Letter dated 16.2.2001 from Canara Bank, Malleswaram, Bengaluru to Sri.Mohan Singh, Advocate, Agra regarding Notice dated 8.1.01.
Ex.P.95 Letter dated 28.4.98 from Sri.Hirachand Bhagwanji Waya, Dubai to Canara Bank, 184 Spl.CC.No.245/2002 C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008 Overseas Branch, Tripur regarding transfer the maturity amount pertaining to FCNR Deposit No.9700020 to Canara Bank, Malleswaram Branch, Bengaluru. Ex.P.96 Copy of FD Receipt bearing No.FCNR-
9700020 dated 23.4.97 for US$s.535816.36 pertaining to Sri.Hirachand Bhagwanji Waya and Shanta Hirachand.
Ex.P.97 FCNR Memo dated 8.5.98 from Canara Bank, Malleswaram, Bengaluru to Canara Bank, Foreign Department, Bengaluru. Ex.P.98 Account Opening Form for Non-Resident Indians pertaining to Sri.Hirachand Bhagwanji Waya & Waya Shanta Hirachand bearing A/c.No.98/2138.
Ex.P.98(a) Identified Signature of A-1 in Ex.P.98. Ex.P.99 FD Receipt bearing No.2037200 dated 8.5.98 for US$s.5,67,506.79 pertaining to Sri.Hirachand Bhagwanji Waya and Shanta Hirachand, Dubai.
Ex.P.100 Certified Copy of Extract of FD Receipt Issue Register of Pages-94 & 100 of Canara Bank. Ex.P.100(a) Entry dated 30.5.98 pertaining to FD Receipt No.2037200 in Ex.P.100 at Page-100. Ex.P.101 Account Ledger Inquiry dated 8.5.01 for the period from 8.5.98 to 10.5.99 pertaining to A/c.No.AUFC98/2138 of Canara Bank. Ex.P.102 Letter dated 3.6.98 from Sri.Hirachand Bhagwanji Waya and Waya Shanta Hirachand, Gujarat to the Manager, Canara Bank, Malleswaram Branch, Bengaluru regarding Loan against FCNR Deposit on 98/2138 dated 8.5.98.
Ex.P.103 Identification Certificate dated 27.5.98 issued by the Sub-Registrar, Gujarat pertaining to identification of Photo and Signature of Sri.Lalchand Mulchand Waya. Ex.P.104 Letter/Annexure-1 Dated 4.6.98 From Sri.Hirachand Bhagwanji Waya And Shanta H Waya to The Manager/Senior Manager, 185 Spl.CC.No.245/2002 C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008 Canara Bank, Malleswaram Regarding Request for Loan/OD Facility.
Ex.P.104(a) Signature of P.W.6 in Ex.P.104. Ex.P.105 Pro-Note dated 4.6.98 signed by Sri.Hirachand Bhagwanji Waya for Rs.1,70,00,000/-.
Ex.P.105(a) Signature of P.W.6 in Ex.P.105. Ex.P.105(b) Signature of A-1 in Ex.P.105. Ex.P.106 Account Ledger Inquiry dated 8.5.01 for the period from 4.6.98 to 10.5.99 in respect of A/c.No.AUGAVSL/98971 pertaining to Sri.Hirachand Bhagwanji Waya. Ex.P.106(a) Credit Entry dated 4.6.98 of Rs.1,70,00,000/-
in Ex.P.106.
Ex.P.107 Account Opening Form for Non-Resident Indians pertaining to Smt.Geeta Naraindas Khiani & Naraindas Gianchand Khiani bearing No.WRNR/KD/98/2025 A/c.No.714/98.
Ex.P.108 Xerox Copy of Passport of Smt.Geeta Naraindas Khiani.
Ex.P.109 Account Opening Form for Non-Resident Indians pertaining to Smt.Geeta Naraindas Khiani & Naraindas Gianchand Khiani bearing No.WRNR/KD/98/2026 A/c.No.714/98.
Ex.P.110 Xerox Copy of Passport of Sri.Naraindas Gianchand Khiani.
Ex.P.111 FD Receipt bearing No.2036598 dated 7.4.98 for Rs.29,38,390/- pertaining to Smt.Geeta N Khiani & Naraindas G Khiani.
Ex.P.111(a) Authorizing Signature by A-1 in Ex.P.111. Ex.P.112 FD Receipt bearing No.2036599 dated 7.4.98 for Rs.41,40,353/- pertaining to Smt.Geeta N Khiani & Naraindas G Khiani.
Ex.P.112(a) Authorizing Signature by A-1 in Ex.P.112. Ex.P.113 Account Ledger Inquiry dated 8.5.01 for the period from 7.4.98 to 13.5.99 in respect of A/c.No.AUKD98/2025 pertaining to Smt.Geeta N Khiani & Naraindas G Khiani.
186 Spl.CC.No.245/2002C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008 Ex.P.114 Account Ledger Inquiry dated 8.5.01 for the period from 7.4.98 to 13.5.99 in respect of A/c.No.AUKD98/2026 pertaining to Smt.Geeta N Khiani & Naraindas G Khiani. Ex.P.115 Account Ledger Inquiry dated 8.5.01 for the period from 12.4.98 to 11.5.99 in respect of A/c.No.AUGAVSL/98244 pertaining to Smt.Geeta N Khiani & Naraindas G Khiani. Ex.P.115(a) Debit Entry dated 12.4.98 for Rs.53,00,000/-
in Ex.P.115.
Ex.P.116 Account Ledger Inquiry dated 8.5.01 for the
period 12.4.98 in respect of
A/c.No.AUSB000068790 pertaining to
Smt.Geeta N Khiani & Naraindas G Khiani. Ex.P.116(a) Credit Entry dated 12.4.98 for Rs.53,00,000/-
in Ex.P.116.
Ex.P.117 Certified Copy of Fax Letter dated 29.3.2000 from M/s.Dhanapriya Housing & Finance Limited to the Executive Director, Canara Bank, Head Office, Bengaluru regarding Clearance of FCNR loans from VSL Nos. 99035, 99036 and 99038.
Ex.P.118 Diary 1998 pertaining to M/s.R.V.Electrical Enterprises, No.3, 1st Cross, Cambridge Road, Ulsoor, Bengaluru-08.
Ex.P.118(a) Entries dated 27.02.1998 and 28.02.1998 which are in the handwriting of A-2 in Ex.P.118.
Ex.P.118(b) Identified Signature of P.W.25 in Ex.P.118. Ex.P.118(c) Identified Signature of Sri.Sheshagiri in Ex.P.118.
Ex.P.119 Diary 1996 pertaining to M/s.The West Coast Paper Mills Ltd.
Ex.P.119(a) Entries dated 06.03.1996 and 07.03.1996 which are in the handwriting of A-6 in Ex.P.119.
Ex.P.119(b) Identified Signature of P.W.25 in Ex.P.119. Ex.P.119(c) Identified Signature of Sri.Sheshagiri in Ex.P.119.
Ex.P.120 Letter dated March-1999 from M/s.Amreen 187 Spl.CC.No.245/2002 C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008 Plastics Private Limited, Bengaluru to the Manager, Corporation Bank, Foreign Exchange Department, M.G.Road, Bengaluru regarding Issue of Foreign Exchange in US$ to Sri.Krishnaswamy Sridhar and Sri.Karunakara Vijay. Ex.P.121 Book of Manual of Instructions on Valuable Security Loans (Revised till 30.9.96) issued from Canara Bank, Manuals Compilation & Revision Section Inspection Wing, HO, Spencer Towers, 86, M.G.Road, Bengaluru-1 Ex.P.121(a) Pages-17 to 47 in Ex.P.121. Ex.P.122 Deposit Receipt Issue Register containing page Nos.1 to 200 pertaining to Canara Bank, H.O., Bengaluru.
Ex.P.122(a) Entry at Page-67 (Sl.Nos.2036566 to 2036593) in Ex.P.122.
Ex.P.122(b) Entry at Page-68 (Sl.Nos.2036601 to 2036612) in Ex.P.122.
Ex.P.122(c) Entry at Page-68 as "7 FDRs Missing" in Ex.P.122.
Ex.P.123 Inventory Movement between Locations dated 3.5.01 pertaining to Smt.Revathy.G. Ex.P.123(a) Entry pertaining to Sl.Nos.2039932 to 2039934 in Ex.P.123.
Ex.P.123(b) Entry as "Modified By LATHAC" in Ex.P.123. Ex.P.124 Specimen Signatures of P.W.8 in 6 Sheets. Ex.P.125 Specimen Signatures of P.W.9 in 6 Sheets. Ex.P.125(A) Admitted signatures of Mrs.Malini.G.D. marked as A-45 to A-50 in Ex.P.125. Ex.P.126 Specimen Signatures of P.W.10 in 6 Sheets. Ex.P.127 Specimen Signatures of P.W.11 in 6 Sheets. Ex.P.127(A) Admitted signatures of Mrs.Kiran.N.Pai marked as A-57 to A-62 in Ex.P.127. Ex.P.128 Corporation Bank Cheque No.489501 dated 03.05.99 for Rs.4,50,000/- issued by M/s.Emvee Comforts & Travels Ltd. in favour of Sri.Sridhar.
Ex.P.128(A) Identified Signature of Sri.Vijay in Ex.P.128. Ex.P.129 Corporation Bank Cheque No.489545 dated 188 Spl.CC.No.245/2002 C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008 11.06.99 for Rs.3,00,000/- issued by M/s.Emvee Comforts & Travels Ltd. in favour of Sri.Krishnaswamy.
Ex.P.129(A) Identified Signature of Sri.Vijay in Ex.P.129. Ex.P.130 Corporation Bank Cheque No.151351 dated 12.08.99 for Rs.2,00,000/- issued by M/s.Emvee Comforts & Travels Ltd. in favour of Sri.Sridhar.
Ex.P.130(A) Identified Signature of Sri.Vijay in Ex.P.130. Ex.P.131 Corporation Bank Cheque No.151398 dated 02.11.99 for Rs.5,00,000/- issued by M/s.Emvee Comforts & Travels Ltd. in favour of Sri.Krishnaswamy.
Ex.P.131(A) Identified Signature of Sri.Vijay in Ex.P.131. Ex.P.132 Corporation Bank Cheque No.489547 dated 29.06.99 for Rs.2,00,000/- issued by M/s.Emvee Comforts & Travels Ltd. in favour of Sri.K.Vijay.
Ex.P.132(A) Identified Signature of Sri.Vijay in Ex.P.132. Ex.P.133 Corporation Bank Cheque No.151349 dated 12.08.99 for Rs.2,70,000/- issued by M/s.Emvee Comforts & Travels Ltd. in favour of Sri.A.Vijay Kumar.
Ex.P.133(A) Identified Signature of Sri.Vijay in Ex.P.133. Ex.P.134 Corporation Bank Cheque No.075102 dated 08.08.00 for Rs.3,00,000/- issued by M/s.Emvee Comforts & Travels Ltd. in favour of Sri.K.Vijay.
Ex.P.134(A) Identified Signature of Sri.Vijay in Ex.P.134. Ex.P.135 Corporation Bank Cheque No.075121 dated 17.08.00 for Rs.70,000/- issued by M/s.Emvee Comforts & Travels Ltd. in favour of Sri.Vijayakumar.
Ex.P.135(A) Identified Signature of Sri.Vijay in Ex.P.135. Ex.P.136 Corporation Bank Cheque No.489531 dated 07.06.99 for Rs.2,20,000/- issued by M/s.Emvee Comforts & Travels Ltd. in favour of Sri.Mofid Abdulla.
Ex.P.136(A) Identified Signature of Sri.Vijay in Ex.P.136. Ex.P.137 Corporation Bank Cheque No.151307 dated 189 Spl.CC.No.245/2002 C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008 07.07.99 for Rs.80,000/- issued by M/s.Emvee Comforts & Travels Ltd. in favour of Sri.Naiheem.
Ex.P.137(A) Identified Signature of Sri.Vijay in Ex.P.137. Ex.P.138 Corporation Bank Cheque No.151379 dated 09.09.99 for Rs.2,00,000/- issued by M/s.Emvee Comforts & Travels Ltd. in favour of Sri.Nayeem.M.N. Ex.P.138(A) Identified Signature of Sri.Vijay in Ex.P.138. Ex.P.139 Corporation Bank Cheque No.151321 dated 16.07.99 for Rs.36,800/- issued by M/s.Emvee Comforts & Travels Ltd. in favour of Sri.Mohith.
Ex.P.139(A) Identified Signature of Sri.Vijay in Ex.P.139. Ex.P.140 Corporation Bank Cheque No.151338 dated 03.08.99 for Rs.16,500/- issued by M/s.Emvee Comforts & Travels Ltd. in favour of Sri.Mohith.
Ex.P.140(A) Identified Signature of Sri.Vijay in Ex.P.140. Ex.P.141 Corporation Bank Cheque No.151348 dated 11.08.99 for Rs.50,000/- issued by M/s.Emvee Comforts & Travels Ltd. in favour of Sri.Mohith.
Ex.P.141(A) Identified Signature of Sri.Vijay in Ex.P.141. Ex.P.142 Nature of Calculation in a Sheet made by A6. Ex.P.143 Certified Copy of Letter dated 15.12.98 from M/s.Amreen Plastics Private Limited to The Manager, Corporation Bank, Cantonment Branch, Kamaraj Road, Bengaluru requesting to issue Travelers Cheque for US$9,000 each.
Ex.P.144 Copy of Passport of Sri.Krishnaswamy Sridhar.
Ex.P.145 Copy of VISA of Sri.K.Sridhar bearing No.CC308819.
Ex.P.146 Copy of Passport of Sri.Karunakara Vijay. Ex.P.147 Copy of VISA of Sri.Karunakara Vijay bearing No.CC311651.
Ex.P.148 Certified Copy of Travelers Cheque Issue Register dated 15.12.98 pertaining to 190 Spl.CC.No.245/2002 C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008 Sri.Krishnaswamy Sridhar maintained in Corporation Bank.
Ex.P.149 Certified Copy of Travelers Cheque Issue Register dated 15.12.98 pertaining to M/s.Amreen Plastics Private Limited maintained in Corporation Bank. Ex.P.150 Certified Copy of Letter dated 23.03.99 from M/s.Amreen Plastics Private Limited to The Manager, Corporation Bank, Foreign Exchange Department, M.G.Road, Bengaluru regarding issue of Foreign Exchange in US$.
Ex.P.151 Certified Copy Passport of Sri.Krishnaswamy Sridhar.
Ex.P.152 Certified Copy VISA of Sri.K.Sridhar. Ex.P.153 Certified Copy Flight Ticket of Cathay Pacific Airways bearing No.4-160-4479920945-5 dated 23rd March in favour of Sri.K.Sridhar. Ex.P.154 Certified Copy Flight Ticket of Cathay Pacific Airways bearing No.1-160-4479920945-0 dated 23rd March in favour of Sri.K.Sridhar. Ex.P.155 Certified Copy Flight Ticket of Cathay Pacific Airways bearing No.4-160-4479920945-5 dated 23rd March in favour of Sri.K.Sridhar. Ex.P.156 Certified Copy of Passport of Sri.K.Karunakara.
Ex.P.157 Certified Copy of VISA of Sri.K.Vijay. Ex.P.158 Certified Copy Flight Ticket of Essvee Airlinkss bearing No.2-098-4418637719-0 dated 17th March in favour of Sri.Karunakara/Vijay.M.R. Ex.P.159 Certified Copy of Travelers Cheque Issue Register dated 23.03.99 pertaining to Sri.Krishnaswamy Sridhar maintained in Corporation Bank.
Ex.P.160 Certified Copy of Travelers Cheque Issue Register dated 23.03.99 pertaining to Sri.K.Vijay maintained in Corporation Bank. Ex.P.161 Certified Copy of Letter dated 29.02.00 from M/s.Sona Exim Private Limited to The 191 Spl.CC.No.245/2002 C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008 Manager, Corporation Bank, M.G.Road Branch, Bengaluru requesting to allot Travelers Cheque for US$14,500 and US$500.
Ex.P.162 Certified Copy Passport of Sri.Karunakara. Ex.P.163 Certified Copy VISA of Sri.Karunakara Vijay. Ex.P.164 Certified Copy Flight Ticket of Essvee Airlinkss bearing No.1-6894871350-0 dated 25.02.2000 in favour of Sri.Vijay/Mrs.Meena.
Ex.P.165 Computerized Copy of Travelers Cheque Issue Register dated 09.05.01 maintained in Corporation Bank, M.G.Road, Bengaluru pertaining to Sri.K.Vijay.
Ex.P.166 Certified Copy of Letter dated 29.02.99 from M/s.Amreen Plastics Private Limited to The Manager, Corporation Bank, M.G.Road, Bengaluru request to allot Travelers Cheque for US$14,500 and US$500.
Ex.P.167 Certified Copy of Passport of Mrs.Meena Vijay.
Ex.P.168 Certified Copy of VISA of Mrs.Meena Vijay. Ex.P.169 Computerized Copy of Travelers Cheque Issue Register dated 09.05.01 maintained in Corporation Bank, M.G.Road, Bengaluru pertaining to Mrs.Meena.
Ex.P.170 Certified Copy of Travelers Cheque Issue Register dated 29.02.00 pertaining to Mrs.Meena/Sri.K.Vijay maintained in Corporation Bank.
Ex.P.171 Certified Copy of Letter dated 17.04.00 from M/s.Sona Bio-Tech Private Limited to Manager, Corporation Bank, M.G.Road Branch, Bengaluru requesting to allot Travelers Cheque for US$5,000 and US$500.
Ex.P.172 Certified Copy of Passport of Mrs.Meena Vijay.
Ex.P.173 Certified Copy Flight Ticket of Essvee Airlinkss bearing No.1-6296876600-4 dated 192 Spl.CC.No.245/2002 C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008 17.04.2000 in favour of Sri.Vijay/Mrs.Meena.
Ex.P.174 Computerized Copy of Travelers Cheque Issue Register dated 09.05.01 maintained in Corporation Bank, M.G.Road, Bengaluru pertaining to Mrs.Meena.
Ex.P.175 Certified Copy of Passport of Sri.Baldwin Suresh Peter bearing No.A3099198. Ex.P.176 Letter dated 8.1.01 from M/s.Unitech Limited to Mrs.Laju Melwani, Hong Kong regarding Flat No.S-202 in Parkway Apartments.
Ex.P.177 Letter dated 8.1.01 from M/s.Unitech Limited to Mrs.Farhathunisa, Bengaluru regarding Flat No.S-202 in Parkway Apartments.
Ex.P.178 Xerox Copy of Facsimile Message Letter dated 10.3.99 from Sri.Larmel (H.K) ENT/Sri.Arjan Melwani, Hong Kong to Sri.Kishinchand & Sri.Vinod Gokaldas authorize to hand over the Keys of Bengaluru Flat of Sri.Arjan Melwani to Sri.K.Vijay of M/s.Amreen Plastics Private Limited.
Ex.P.178(a) Acknowledgement of Sri.Vijay in Ex.P.178. Ex.P.178(b) Acknowledgement of P.W.17 in Ex.P.178. Ex.P.178(c) Identified Signature of Sri.Vijay in Ex.P.178. Ex.P.178(d) Endorsement reg. handed over Ex.P.178 to CBI Officer in Ex.P.178.
Ex.P.179 Acknowledgement obtained from Sri.Vijay by P.W.17 regarding handed over 7 documents to Sri.Vijay.
Ex.P.179(a) Identified Signature of Sri.Vijay in Ex.P.179. Ex.P.179(b) Endorsement reg. handed over Ex.P.179 to CBI Officer in Ex.P.179.
Ex.P.180 GEQD Opinion dated 31.01.2002. Ex.P.180(a) Identified signature of P.W.19 in the Last Page of Ex.P.180.
Ex.P.180(b) Identified signature of Sri.Vijay Shankar in the Last Page of Ex.P.180.
193 Spl.CC.No.245/2002C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008 Ex.P.180(A) Reasons to Ex.P.180. Ex.P.180 (A- Identified Signature of P.W.19 in Ex.P.180.
a) Ex.P.181 Handwritings/Signatures of Sri.K.Sridhar in the documents marked by P.W.19 as S-7 to S-42.
Ex.P.181(a) Signature of P.W.22 in the Last Page of Ex.P.181.
Ex.P.182 Handwritings/Signatures of Sri.Suresh Puruswaney in the documents marked by P.W.19 as S-54 to S-60.
Ex.P.182(A) Letter dated 25.09.2000 from Sri.Suresh Purswaney, Hong Kong to Canara Bank, Malleswaram, Bengaluru marked as A-65 by P.W.19.
Ex.P.182(B) Letter dated 10.10.2001 from Sri.Suresh
Purswaney, Hong Kong to
Sri.V.C.Krishnamurthy, RBI, Bengaluru
marked as A-68 by P.W.19.
Ex.P.182(c) Signature of P.W.23 in the Last Page of
Ex.P.182.
Ex.P.183 Handwritings/Signatures of Sri.Prakash
Narasinghdas Panjabi in the documents marked by P.W.19 as S-61 to S-66. Ex.P.183(A) Admitted Signature of Sri.Prakash Panjabi in the Copy of Account Opening Form for Non- Resident Indians pertaining to Sri.Prakash Narasinghdas Panjabi marked as A-16 to A- 21, A-21/1, A-22 to A-27 by P.W.19. Ex.P.183A (a) Signature of General Manager, Canara Bank Ex.P.183(b) Signature of P.W.23 in the Last Page of Ex.P.183.
Ex.P.184 Handwritings/Signatures of Sri.H.B.Waya in the documents marked by P.W.19 as S-67 to S-69.
Ex.P.184(a) Signature of P.W.22 in the Last Page of Ex.P.184.
Ex.P.185 Handwritings/Signatures of A-1- Sri.Dharmpal.V.Kundar in the documents marked by P.W.19 as S-70 to S-75.
194 Spl.CC.No.245/2002C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008 Ex.P.185(a) Signature of P.W.23 in the Last Page of Ex.P.185.
Ex.P.186 Portion of Statement of P.W.20 recorded by the CBI Officer.
Ex.P.187 Portion of Statement of P.W.20 recorded by the CBI Officer.
Ex.P.188 Portion of Statement of P.W.20 recorded by the CBI Officer.
Ex.P.189 Portion of Statement of P.W.20 recorded by the CBI Officer.
Ex.P.190 Portion of Statement of P.W.20 recorded by the CBI Officer.
Ex.P.191 Portion of Statement of P.W.20 recorded by the CBI Officer.
Ex.P.192 Portion of Statement of P.W.20 recorded by the CBI Officer.
Ex.P.193 Portion of Statement of P.W.20 recorded by the CBI Officer.
Ex.P.194 Portion of Statement of P.W.20 recorded by the CBI Officer.
Ex.P.195 Portion of Statement of P.W.20 recorded by the CBI Officer.
Ex.P.196 Portion of Statement of P.W.20 recorded by the CBI Officer.
Ex.P.197 Portion of Statement of P.W.20 recorded by the CBI Officer.
Ex.P.198 Letter dated 02.04.02 from Canara Bank, Bengaluru to Sri.P.M.Satish, Inspector of Police, CBI, BS&FC, Bengaluru regarding details of financial loss of Bank on account of renewal of FCNR Deposits.
Ex.P.198(a) Signature of P.W.21 in Ex.P.198. Ex.P.199 Xerox Copy of Letter dated 25.11.99 from A-
1 to the General Manager, Canara Bank, SSO Co., Bengaluru regarding Alternative Employment.
Ex.P.200 Xerox Copy Letter dated 13.01.2000 from Staff Section (Officers), Circle Office, MG Road, Bengaluru to Sri.D.V.Kundar, Bengaluru reg. Employment.
195 Spl.CC.No.245/2002C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008 Ex.P.201 Specimen Signatures and Writings of A-4- Sri.K.Sridhar obtained by the CBI Officer. Ex.P.201(a) Identified Signature of P.W.22 in the Last Page of Ex.P.201.
Ex.P.202 Search List dated 9.2.01. Ex.P.202(a) Identified Signature of P.W.24 in Ex.P.202. Ex.P.202(b) Identified Signature of Sri.Udaya Kumar in Ex.P.202.
Ex.P.203 Boarding Pass of Cathay Pacific dated 31.03.00 from Singapore to Hong Kong pertaining to Sri.Vijay.
Ex.P.203(a) Identified Initial of P.W.24 in Ex.P.203. Ex.P.204 Boarding Pass of Cathay Pacific dated 31.03.00 from Singapore to Hong Kong pertaining to Sri.Nayeem.
Ex.P.204(a) Identified Initial of P.W.24 in Ex.P.204. Ex.P.205 Boarding Pass of Jet Airways dated 24.04.00 from Bengaluru to Chennai pertaining to Sri.Nayeem.
Ex.P.205(a) Identified Initial of P.W.24 in Ex.P.205. Ex.P.206 Boarding Pass of Singapore Airlines dated 27.04. to Singapore pertaining to Sri.Nayeem.
Ex.P.206(a) Identified Initial of P.W.24 in Ex.P.206. Ex.P.207 Boarding Pass of Singapore Airlines dated 27.04. to Maa pertaining to Sri.Nayeem. Ex.P.207(a) Identified Initial of P.W.24 in Ex.P.207. Ex.P.208 Boarding Pass of Jet Airways dated 17.11.99 to Hyderabad pertaining to Sri.Nayeem. Ex.P.209 Flight Ticket Booklet of Jet Airways bearing No.589:4256:274:246:0 Ex.P.209(a) Identified Initial of P.W.24 in Ex.P.209. Ex.P.210 Xerox Copy of Passport of Sri.Mohammed Noorullah.
Ex.P.210(a) Identified Initial of P.W.24 in Ex.P.210. Ex.P.211 Boarding Pass to Hong Kong of Singapore Airlines pertaining to Sri.Nayeem. Ex.P.211(a) Identified Initial of P.W.24 in Ex.P.211. Ex.P.212 Boarding Pass to Singapore of Singapore Airlines pertaining to Sri.Nayeem.
196 Spl.CC.No.245/2002C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008 Ex.P.212(a) Identified Initial of P.W.24 in Ex.P.212. Ex.P.213 Paper containing certain Writings. Ex.P.213(a) Identified Initial of P.W.24 in Ex.P.213. Ex.P.214 Document dated 7.5.2000 issued from United Arab Emirates, Ministry of Interior to A-1. Ex.P.214(a) Identified Initial of P.W.24 in Ex.P.214. Ex.P.215 Paper containing certain Writings. Ex.P.215(a) Identified Initial of P.W.24 in Ex.P.215. Ex.P.216 Xerox Copy of Printed Letter addressed to Sri.Kunder(A-1).
Ex.P.216(a) Identified Initial of P.W.24 in Ex.P.216. Ex.P.217 Xerox Copy of Voucher of AJ Razouki International Exchange Co.(LLC), Dubai dated 2.5.00 pertaining to Sri.Ajwan Chand for Rs.52,825/-.
Ex.P.217(a) Identified Initial of P.W.24 in Ex.P.217. Ex.P.218 Letter without containing name of the Addressee and Addressor.
Ex.P.218(a) Identified Initial of P.W.24 in Ex.P.218. Ex.P.219 Visiting Card of Sri.M.N.Nayeem, Advocate with a pinned Photograph.
Ex.P.219(a) Identified Initial of P.W.24 in Ex.P.219. Ex.P.220 Pay-in-Slip for Rs.1,00,000/- dated 18.9.00 of Punjab National Bank pertaining to Sri.M.N.Nayeem.
Ex.P.220(a) Identified Initial of P.W.24 in Ex.P.220. Ex.P.221 Pay-in-Slip for Rs.80,000/- dated 18.9.00 of Punjab National Bank.
Ex.P.221(a) Identified Initial of P.W.24 in Ex.P.221. Ex.P.222 Pay-in-Slip for Rs.45,000/- dated 15.12.99 of ICICI Banking Corporation Limited pertaining to Sri.M.N.Nayeem. Ex.P.222(a) Identified Initial of P.W.24 in Ex.P.222. Ex.P.223 Search List dated 9.2.01 pertaining to Residential Premises of Sri.K.Vijay @ Sri.Karunakar Vijay.
Ex.P.223(a) Identified Signature of P.W.25 on the Last Sheet of Ex.P.223.
Ex.P.223(b) Identified Signature of Sri.Sheshagiri on the Last Sheet of Ex.P.223.
197 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
Ex.P.224 File
Ex.P.224(a) Identified Signature of P.W.25 on the Front
Cover of Ex.P.224.
Ex.P.224(b) Identified Signature of P.W.25 on the First
Sheet of Ex.P.224.
Ex.P.224(c) Identified Signature of P.W.25 on the Last
Sheet of Ex.P.224.
Ex.P.224(d) Identified Signature of Sri.Sheshagiri on the
Front Cover of Ex.P.224.
Ex.P.224(e) Identified Signature of P.W.25 on the First
Sheet of Ex.P.224.
Ex.P.224(f) Identified Signature of P.W.25 on the Last
Sheet of Ex.P.224.
Ex.P.225 Memorandum and Articles of Association of
M/s.Dhanapriya Housing and Finance
Limited.
Ex.P.225(a) Identified Signature of P.W.25 on the Front
Cover of Ex.P.225.
Ex.P.225(b) Identified Signature of P.W.25 on the Last
Page of Ex.P.225.
Ex.P.225(c) Identified Signature of Sri.Sheshagiri Rao on
the Front Cover of Ex.P.225.
Ex.P.225(d) Identified Signature of Sri.Sheshagiri Rao on
the Last Page of Ex.P.225.
Ex.P.226 Memorandum and Articles of Association of
M/s.Emvee Constructions Private Limited. Ex.P.226(a) Identified Signature of P.W.25 on the Front Cover of Ex.P.226.
Ex.P.226(b) Identified Signature of P.W.25 on the Last Page of Ex.P.226.
Ex.P.226(c) Identified Signature of Sri.Sheshagiri Rao on the Front Cover of Ex.P.226.
Ex.P.226(d) Identified Signature of Sri.Sheshagiri Rao on the Last Page of Ex.P.226.
Ex.P.227 Search List dated 9.2.01 pertaining to Residential Premises of Sri.D.V.Kunder(A-1). Ex.P.227(a) Identified Signature of P.W.26 on the Last Page of Ex.P.227.
Ex.P.227(b) Identified Signature of Sri.Gabriel on the Last Page of Ex.P.227.
198 Spl.CC.No.245/2002C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008 Ex.P.228 Seized Document at the time of Search -E-
mail Letter dated 04.11.2000 from Sri.Suresh Poojari to Sri.Kunder reg. Message from Vijay.
Ex.P.228(a) Identified Signature of P.W.26 in Ex.P.228. Ex.P.228(b) Identified Signature of Sri.Gabriel in Ex.P.228. Ex.P.229 Seized Document at the time of Search -
Letter dated June, 2000 to The Deputy General Manager, Staff Section Officer, Bengaluru Circle Office, Canara Bank, M.G.Road, Bengaluru.
Ex.P.229(a) Identified Signature of P.W.26 in Ex.P.229. Ex.P.229(b) Identified Signature of Sri.Gabriel in Ex.P.229. Ex.P.230 Seized Document at the time of Search -
Letter dated 30.05.2000 from Canara Bank, Staff Section (Officers), Bengaluru Circle Office, M.G.Road, Bengaluru to Sri.D.V.Kunder, Malleswaram, Bengaluru reg. NRE KDR for Rs.45,00,000/- and Rs.38,22,339/-.
Ex.P.230(a) Identified Signature of P.W.26 in Ex.P.230. Ex.P.230(b) Identified Signature of Sri.Gabriel in Ex.P.230. Ex.P.231 Handwritten Letter to Sri.Nayeem. Ex.P.231(a) Identified Signature of P.W.26 in Ex.P.231. Ex.P.231(b) Identified Signature of Sri.Gabriel in Ex.P.231. Ex.P.232 Copy of Passport of Sri.Dharmapal Veerappa Kunder (A-1).
Ex.P.232(a) Identified Signature of P.W.26 in Ex.P.232. Ex.P.232(b) Identified Signature of Sri.Gabriel in Ex.P.232. Ex.P.233 Letter dated 6.10.99 from M/s.Amreen Plastics Private Limited, Bengaluru to Sri.B.Nagesh Pai, Bengaluru reg. Appoint as a Financial Consultant.
Ex.P.234 Sale Deed dated 17.8.99 executed by Smt.Reddyvari Leelavathamma in favour of M/s.Emvee Comforts & Travels Limited. Ex.P.235 Sale Deed dated 17.8.99 executed by Sri.Reddyvari Vishnu Reddy @ Vishnu Vardhan Reddy in favour of Mrs.Meena Vijay.
199 Spl.CC.No.245/2002C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008 Sale Deed dated 17.8.99 executed by Ex.P.236 Sri.Reddyvari Rajasekhar Reddy in favour of Sri.K.Vijay.
Ex.P.237 Sale Deed dated 17.8.99 executed by Sri.Reddyvari Rajasekhar Reddy in favour of M/s.Emvee Comforts & Travels Limited. Ex.P.238 Sale Deed dated 17.8.99 executed by Sri.Reddyvari Vishnu Reddy @ Vishnu Vardhan Reddy in favour of M/s.Emvee Comforts & Travels Limited.
Ex.P.239 Search List dated 9.2.01 pertaining to Residential Premises of Sri.B.Nagesh Pai. Ex.P.239(a) Identified Signature of P.W.27 in the Last Page of Ex.P.239.
Ex.P.240 Search List dated 9.2.01 pertaining to Office Premises of Sri.K.Vijay @ Karunakar Vijay. Ex.P.240(a) Identified Signature of P.W.27 in the Last Page of Ex.P.240.
Ex.P.241 to Five Files
245
Ex.P.241(a) Signatures of PW 28
to 245(a)
Ex.P.246 to Memorandum of Articles (five in number)
254
Ex.P.246(a) Signatures of PW 28
to 254(a)
Ex.P.255 Original FIR
Ex.P.255(a) Signature of PW 29
Ex.P.256 RC Book
Ex.P.257 Delivery list dated 12.05.1999
Ex.P.258 Fax message
Ex.P.258(a) Signature of PW 31
Ex.P.258(A) Xerox copy of Ex.P.258
Ex.P.259 Original Fax message
Ex.P.259(a) Signature of PW 31
Ex.P.259(A) Xerox copy of Fax message
Ex.P.260 Current Account opening form A/c 1842 in
the name of Jagruti Drug House
Ex.P.261 Letter of Dhanapriya Housing & Finance Ltd.,
dated 03.01.1998 to Manager Canara Bank, 200 Spl.CC.No.245/2002 C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008 Malleshwaram Branch along with 2 DDs pay in slips at 03.01.1998 Ex.P.261(a) DD No.500192 dated 03.01.1998 for Rs.15,00,000/-
Ex.P.261(b) DD No.400193 dated 03.01.198 for Rs.6,00,000/-
Ex.P.261(c) Pay in slip for depositing Rs.15,00,000/- in current account No.1842 of M/s Jagruti Drug House dated 05.01.1998 Ex.P.264 Receipts issued by M/s Ambai Das & Co.
dated 05.01.1998 Rs.5,95,000/- in favour of Winner Pharmaceutical Co., receipt dated 06.01.1998 for Rs.5,74,000/-
Ex.P.265 Cheque No.391562 dated 05.01.1998 drawn by Devraha Fin-lease Pvt. Ltd., for Rs.6,00,000/-
Ex.P.266 Pay in slip of Baroda Peoples Co. Ltd dated 05.01.1998 for Rs.6,00,000/- in the current A/c No.5141 of Devrana Fin- lease Ex.P.267 The copy of statement of A/c No.5141 of M/s Devrana Fin- lease issued Baroda peoples Co. Ltd.
Ex.P.268 Receipt issued by Devrana Fin- lease on 05.01.1998 for Rs.6,00,000/-
Ex.P.269 Specimen Writings of Sri.Harish Chandulal Patel marked as S-100 to S-110.
Ex.P.270 Specimen Writings of Sri.Suresh Raoji Bhai Patel marked as S-125 to S-129.
Ex.P.271 Specimen Writings of Sri.Kanubhai Keshavlal Patel marked as S-111 to S-124.
Ex.P.272 Supplementary Opinion. Ex.P.272(a) Reasons for Supplementary Opinion (Ex.P.272).
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE :
DEFENCE WITNESS WITNESS NAME NUMBER D.W.1 Sri.B.V.Pai.201 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008 D.W.2 Sri.S.K.Paramesh.202 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008 LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE :
Ex.D.1 Letter dated 29.9.99 from HR&OD Section (Personal Wing), Head Office, Bengaluru to the Chief Manager, Canara Bank regarding Restructuring of VLBs(Very Large Branches). Ex.D.2 Letter dated 29.5.2000 from Sri.S.Balasubramaniam, Officer, Canara Bank, Malleshwaram Branch, Bengaluru to the Asst. General Manager, Canara Bank, Staff Section (O), Bengaluru Circle Office, Bengaluru regarding VBL 98201 for Rs.61 Lakhs granted on 3.1.98.
Ex.D.3 Portion of Statement of P.W.7 recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C.
Ex.D.4 Portion of Statement of P.W.7 recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C.
Ex.D.5 Statement under Sec.164 Cr.P.C recorded before IV ACMM, Bengaluru by PW-27 Ex.D.6 Relevant portion of statement of PW 27 Ex.D.7 Covering letter with complaint Ex.D.7(a) Relevant Endorsement with signature Ex.D.7(b) Signature of DW-1 Ex.D.7(c) Complaint (Annexure-I) Ex.D.7(d) Signature on DW-1 Ex.D.8 Application dated 07.02.2001 filed by I.O for issue of search warrants Ex.D.8(a) Signature of PW 29 Ex.D.8(b) Annexure to Ex.D.8 Ex.D.9 Application dated 07.02.2001 filed by I.O for issue of arrest warrants.
Ex.D.9(a) Signature of PW 29
Ex.D.10 Search list
Ex.D.11 Search list
Ex.D.12 Arrest warrant of D.V.Kunder
Ex.D.13 Arrest warrant of Nagesh Pai
203 Spl.CC.No.245/2002
C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008
Ex.D.14 Entire file
Ex.D.14(A) Relevant page
Ex.D.15 Bank account extract
Ex.D.16 to Minutes of Board Meeting held on 10/06/2000 by 21 M/s.Sona Exim Pvt. Ltd., Emvee Constructions Pvt.Ltd., Unicorn Polymers Pvt. Ltd.,Amreen Plastics Pvt. Ltd.,Emvee Comforts and Travels Ltd., & Sona Bio-tech Pvt. Ltd.
Ex.D.22 Letter from A3 on behalf of M/s.Dhanapriya Housing and Finance Ltd., to Chairman of Canara Bank, Bengaluru.
Ex.D.23 Reply Letter to Advocate S.K.Dey by A3 Ex.D.24 Letter dated 04/01/2001 to Eshwar Prasad regarding irregularities in FCNR Ex.D.25 Service particulars of Sri.K.S.V.Shenoy, Divisional Manager, Canara Bank. Ex.D.26 Xerox copy of letter dated 22.06.2000 to Manager, Canara Bank by Diwanchand Bhagwandas.
Ex.D.27 Xerox copy of notice U/s 138 of NI ACT Ex.D.28 Statement of account Sona Biotech Pvt. Ltd. A/c No.CA/01/002124 Ex.D.28(a) Relevant entry dated 05.01.2000 Ex.D.29 Statement of account of Sona Exim Pvt. Ltd. A/C No. Ca/01/002133 Ex.D.29(a) Relevant entry dated 07.01.2000 Ex.D.30 Statement of account Veejay Diary Products current A/c No. CA/01/00/2118 Ex.D.30(a) Relevant entry dated 28.04.200 Ex.D.31 Declaration regarding passport Ex.D.32 Xerox copies of passport of Suresh Purswaney Ex.D.33 Xerox copy of passport of CW 5, Arjundas T. Melwani Ex.D.34 Xerox copy of account opening form of Suresh Purswaney and Karen Purswaney Ex.D.35 Xerox copy of passport of Prakash Panjabi Ex.D.36 Xerox copy of passport of T.N. Navalrai Ex.D.37 Xerox copy of frontsheet of A/c opening form of Prakash Panjabi and T.N.Navalrai Ex.D.38 Portion of statement of P.W.4 204 Spl.CC.No.245/2002 C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008 Ex.D.38(a) Portion of Statement of P.W.4 recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C.
Ex.D.38(b) Portion of Statement of P.W.4 recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C.
Ex.D.39 Inventory movement between locations dated 03/05/2001.
Ex.D.40 Attested Copy of Reply Letter dated 17.5.01 from Canara Bank, Sri.K.V.R.Kumar, Recoveries & Legal Section (Legal), Circle Office, Bengaluru to the Secretary, Office of the Banking Ombudsman, RBI Building, Bengaluru. Ex.D.40(a) Signature of Sri. M.P.Nayar on Ex.D.40 LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION & DEFENCE :
- NIL -
(E.CHANDRAKALA) XLVII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI cases, Bengaluru.Digitally signed by E CHANDRAKALA DN: cn=E CHANDRAKALA,o=GOVER
E CHANDRAKALA NMENT OF KARNATAKA,st=Karnataka, c=IN Date: 2022.03.26 15:06:59 IST 205 Spl.CC.No.245/2002 C/w Spl.CC.No.84/2008