Bangalore District Court
Cbi Bs And Fc Blr vs Reddy M Tv on 6 February, 2025
1
KABC010150712012
IN THE COURT OF LXXXI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH 82)
Present:
Sri Santhosh Gajanan Bhat, B.A.L., LL.B.,
LXXXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City (CCH-82)
(Special Court exclusively to deal with criminal cases
related to former and elected MPs/ MLAs in the State of
Karnataka)
Dated this the 6th day of February, 2025
Spl.CC. No. 41 / 2012
COMPLAINANT: State of Karnataka by CBI,
Bank Securities and Frauds
Cell, Bengaluru
(Sri B.R.Shivananda Perla, learned
Senior Public Prosecutor)
V/s
ACCUSED: 1. Sri M.T.V.Reddy
S/o late Thimmi Reddy
Aged about 74 years
Formerly Chief Manager
State Bank of Mysore
Specialized Personal
Banking Branch
Gandhinagar, Bangalore
(Dismissed from service on
22.8.2008)
2 Spl.CC. No.41/2012
R/at. No.E-1/16, 1st Cross,
Syndicate Bank Colony,
J.P.Nagar, 7th Phase
Bangalore-560 078
2. Shi S.N.Krishnaiah Setty
S/o Late S.Narayan Setty
Aged about 65 years
Proprietor
M/s.Sree Balaji Krupa
Enterprises, Bangalore
R/at. No.456, 64th Cross
5th Block, Rajaji Nagar
Bangalore-560 010
3. Sri K.Muniraju
S/o late Kempanna
Aged about 58 years
Real Estate Business
R/at. H.No.2231/1, D- Block
Sahakara Nagara
Bangalore-560 092
4. Sri K.Srinivas
S/o B.Krishnappa
Aged about 55 years
Agriculturist
R/at. H.No.30, II Cross
Ayyappa Garden
Adugodi, Bangalore-560 030
5. Sri Biddappa
S/o late Bajappa
(Abated)
3 Spl.CC. No.41/2012
Date of offence During the period of 2003-
2004
Date of report of offence 01.02.2008
Name of the complainant Sri Ramadass Naidu
S/o D.Natarajan
Chief Vigilance Officer
State Bank of Mysore
K.G.Road, Head Officer
Bangalore
Date of commencement of 13.09.2023
recording of evidence
Date of closing of evidence 17.09.2024
Offences complained of U/s.120-B r/w 409, 420, 467,
468 and 471 of IPC and
Sec.13(1)(c) & (d) r/w 13(2) of
P.C.Act, 1988
Opinion of the Judge Accused No.1 to 4 are found
guilty
State represented by Learned Senior Public
Prosecutor
Accused defended by Sri R.Nagendra Naik, Learned
Senior Counsel appearing for A1
and 2, Sri Bipin Hegde,
Advocate for A3
Sri N.Sriram, Advocate for A4
*****
CHAPTER HEADING PAGE Nos.
I ALLEGATIONS AGAINST THE 5-10
ACCUSED
II CHARGE FRAMED AGAINST THE 10-17
4 Spl.CC. No.41/2012
ACCUSED PERSONS
III EVIDENCE 17-69
IV STATEMENT OF ACCUSED 69-72
PERSONS RECORDED UNDER
SECTION 313 OF Cr.P.C.
V SUBMISSIONS/ARGUMENTS 72-85
MADE BY BOTH PARTIES:
VI POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION: 86-89
VII REASONS 90
Onwards
VIII ENTERING INTO CRIMINAL 98-109
CONSPIRACY AND ALSO ACT OF
COMMITTING CHEATING AND
OTHER OFFENCES AS ALLEGED.
IX THE GENESIS OF THE ACT OF 109-183
CONSPIRACY AND COMMITTING
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SEC.420, 468, 471 OF IPC.
X WHETHER THE PROVISIONS OF 183-237
SECTION 420 OF IPC AND
SECTION 409 OF IPC CAN BE
CONSIDERED TOGETHER WITH
FORGING AND FABRICATING OF
DOCUMENTS.
XI WHETHER THE PROVISIONS OF 237-298
SECTION 409 OF IPC CAN BE
5 Spl.CC. No.41/2012
INVOKED ALONG WITH SECTION
420 OF IPC?
XII WHETHER REPAYMENT OF LOAN 298-310
WITH INTEREST WILL ABSOLVE
THE ACCUSED SINCE NO
EFFECTIVE LOSS WOULD BE
CAUSED TO THE BANK
SUMMATION 310-320
ORDER 320-321
JUDGMENT
The Inspector of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, Bank Securities & Frauds Cell, Bangalore has filed the charge sheet before this court against accused No.1 to 4 for commission of offences punishable under Sec.120(B) r/w 409, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC and Sec.13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ('P.C.Act' for short).
CHAPTER-I ALLEGATIONS AGAINST THE ACCUSED 6 Spl.CC. No.41/2012
2. It is the case of the prosecution that a written information came to be filed by the Chief Manager of the then State Bank of Mysore, Specialized Personal Banking Branch, Gandhinagar, Bengaluru against accused No.1 Sri M.T.V.Reddy, who was the then Chief Manager, SBM and against accused No.2 Sri Maluru ES.EN.Krishnaiah Shetty, who was the proprietor of M/s.Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises, accused No.3 Sri K.Muniraju, who was the real-estate business man and also GPA Holder, accused No.4 K.Srinivas and accused No.5 Sri Biddappa (who had died during the pendency of the case and case against him was abated) contending that the accused No.1 M.T.V.Reddy, the then Branch Manager of SBM had colluded with owners of the property at Sy.No.98, Nagavara, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk and had entered into criminal conspiracy with an intention to cheat and defraud the Bank in the matter pertaining to sanctioning / 7 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 availing House Building Loans in the name of various existing and non-existing borrowers, to purchase site and house property from M/s. Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises. It has been submitted in the complaint that the Branch Manager in his official capacity had entered into criminal conspiracy with accused No.2 who was the Proprietor of M/s. Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises and had sanctioned loan without verifying the documents and the materials in favour of existing and non-existing customers. It is submitted that the accused No.3 K.Muniraju who was the GPA Holder on behalf of land owners-accused No.4 and 5, had submitted documents which were not in accordance with law and even though they had not developed any sites nor obtained any permissions from the competent authorities, had purported the same as approved layout for development which was canvassed by the accused No.2 through his office and with the support of accused No.1 necessary loan came 8 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 to be sanctioned to the extent of 15.61 Crores towards house building loans. It is submitted that the accused No.1 in the name of several existing and non-existing employees of various public sector undertakings had accepted the forged papers and on the basis of such forged documents, he had acted upon as genuine and accused No.2 had availed financial accommodation and thereby caused loss of Rs.1.47 Crores to State Bank of Mysore Specialized Personal Banking Branch, Gandhinagar, Bangalore. It is further narrated that M/s. Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises had engaged various brokers to bring prospective customers to sell plots in the projects of their enterprises namely at Kuduregere, Hegganahalli and Sampigehalli, Marath Halli and Nagavara. The brokers had got in touch with various employees of public sector enterprises and other private firms, promising that they would get incentive money and also would provide cheap sites at reasonable amount. Though the borrowers were low 9 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 level employees like drivers, mechanics, who were not having eligible financial status to purchase the same, the documents were forged and fabricated so as to ensure that the loan would be disbursed in their favour by inflating their Gross pay in the salary slip.
3. It has been submitted that accused No.1 M.T.V.Reddy did not intentionally verify the payslips/ salary certificates of the borrowers with the concerned authorities who had purportedly issued the same and he had not verified the signatures nor made any enquiry in this regard. Though it was mandatory for the Branch manager to verify the credential of the prospective loanees, he had not adhered to the same. It is also been submitted that out of 263 house building loans to an extent of 15.61 Crores, the non- existent development costs availed by accused No.2 was Rs.5.07 crores and the site costs released to accused No.3 K.Muniraju was to an extent of Rs.53 lakhs. Even though the house building loans were in 10 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 the name of various individual borrowers and accused No.2 was not the guarantor of these loans, accused No.2 S.N.Krishnaiah Shetty after detection of the illegal activities by the Bank, had started to repay the loan amount, in fact he had also requested for returning the original document to his name after canceling the registered deed in the name of employees. On columniation of the investigation, since sufficient materials were available against the accused persons, the charge sheet came to be filed.
CHAPTER-II CHARGE FRAMED AGAINST THE ACCUSED PERSONS
4. On filing of the charge sheet, necessary cognizance was taken by my predecessor in office and summons came to be issued against the accused persons for their appearance. In pursuance of the same, the accused No.1 to 5 had appeared before this court and after completing the statutory bound 11 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 obligations, the court had appreciated the existence of sufficient materials to frame charges and accordingly, charges came to be framed against accused by my predecessor in office, and the same is extracted herein for brevity and the same reads as follows:
CHARGE "I, V. Srishananda, B.Sc., M.L. XX1 Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bangalore City, do hereby charge you,
1) Shri M.T.V.Reddy
2) Shri S.N.Krishnaiah Setty
3) Shri K.Muniraju
4) Shri K.Srinivas
5) Shri Biddappa as follows:Firstly, that you accused No.1 to 5
entered into criminal conspiracy at Bangalore during the period 2003-04 and in furtherance of criminal conspiracy, you A1 while functioning as public servant along with other accused entered into an illegal agreement to cheat the State Bank of 12 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 Mysore, Specialised Personal Banking Branch, in the matter of sanctioning/availing House Building Loans in the name of various existing and non- existing borrowers, to purchase site and houses from M/s. Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises and thereby all of you have committed an offence punishable under section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and within my cognizance.
Secondly, that in pursuance of said criminal conspiracy you A1 had sanctioned 263 house building loans aggregating to sum of Rs.15.61 Crores to various existing & non-existing employees of various public sector undertakings by accepting the forged documents submitted by you A2 as Proprietor of M/s Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises and that you A1 & A2 thereby have committed offences punishable U/s 120-B r/w Sections 467, 468, 471 of Indian Penal Code within my cognizance.
Thirdly, in furtherance of the said criminal conspiracy you A1 has fraudulently released the entire loan 13 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 amount to A2 at once even before completion of the project by ignoring the existing bank rules that the loan proceeds be released in installments on stage wise development/construction of the houses & thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 120-B r/w Sec. 409, 420 IPC within my cognizance.
Fourthly, you A1 has fraudulently discounted number of cheques presented by A2 during the period 10-10-2003 to 28- 9-2005 by Ignoring banking procedures & on few occasions beyond your discretionary powers, despite the fact that the cheques discounted on earlier occasions were returned unpaid & thereby you A1 has committed an offence punishable u/s 120- B r/w Sec. 409, 420 IPC within my cognizance.
Fifthly, you A1 fraudulently utilized the cheque No.187267 issued by M/s Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises amounting to Rs.20,000/- and you were in possession of a blank cheque bearing No.245027 of SBM, Chikballapur branch pertaining to the 14 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 account of M/s. Sri Balaji Promoters & Developers signed by A2 as Managing Director and thereby you A1 & A2 committed offences punishable u/s 120-B r/w Sec.420 IPC within my cognizance.
Sixthly, that you A2 in furtherance of the above criminal conspiracy, fraudulently engaged brokers and hoodwinked the employees of various Public Sector Undertakings & other private firms & represented to them that they need not repay the loans taken by them from State Bank of Mysore and obtained their signatures on respective documents and paid a sum of Rs.12.00 lakhs to the brokers through Shri Hanumanthalah and thereby you A2 committed the offence punishable u/s 420 of IPC and within my cognizance.
Seventhly, that you A3, In pursuance of the above criminal conspiracy fraudulently & with criminal intention to cheat the State Bank of Mysore had signed the tripartite agreement as the GPA holder in respect of the property bearing Sy. No.98, Nagavara Village, Kasaba Hobli, 15 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 Bangalore North Taluk on 27.01.2004 and 02.02.2004 even before GPA was executed in your favour and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 120-B r/w Section 420, 468 & 471 and within my cognizance.
Eighthly, that you A4 & A5 In pursuance of the above criminal conspiracy fraudulently & with criminal intention to cheat the State Bank of Mysore, executed the GPA on 03.02.2004 in favour of Shri K. Muniraju (A-3), representing that you have the valid title over the property beaing Sy. No.98, Nagavara Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, despite the knowledge of the fact that said property was acquired by KIADB published in Gazette & thereby you A4 & A5 have committed an offence punishable u/s 120- B r/w Section 420, 468 & 471 of IPC and within my cognizance.
Ninthly, you A1 while serving as public servant being the Chief Manager of State Bank of Mysore, Specialized Personal Banking Branch, Gandhinagar, Bagnalore, 16 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 abused your official position and defrauded said bank by dishonestly and fraudulently sanctioning 263 house building loans aggregating to Rs.15.61 Crores in the name of various existing and non-existing borrowers to purchase site and houses from M/s.Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises and thereby committed an offence punishable under Sec.13(2) read with 13(1)
(c) and (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and within my cognizance.
And I hereby direct that you A1 to A5 be tried by this court for the above mentioned charges.
Dated this the 11th day of February 2014.
Sd/-
5. In pursuance of framing and read over the charges, the accused persons had pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. The accused persons had knocked the doors of the Hon'ble High court of Karnataka at the 17 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 beginning the proceedings were stayed and later on the stay was vacated and it was directed for the trial court to conclude the trial expeditiously. During the course of trial it was noticed that the accused No.2 Mr. S.N.Krishnaiah Shetty was a former elected Member of Legislative Assembly and hence, the case came to be transferred to this court, which is a Special Court established for trial of criminal cases against sitting and former MPs / MLAs in the State of Karnataka. The prosecution in order to establish their case had examined totally 86 witnesses as PW1 to PW86 and got marked documents as per Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.1393.
CHAPTER III EVIDENCE
7. The evidence of the prosecution can be classified into group of witnesses such as evidence of Bank officers, evidence of borrowers who were the employees of BMTC, evidence of the officers who had 18 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 worked at independent private agency, evidence of officers who had verified salary slips, revenue officials, registered valuer of the Bank, land owners and evidence of the officers who had deposed about non- issuance of NOC and consent certificates, evidence of Sub-Registrar and other witnesses and lastly the evidence of Investigating officers. For the sake of convenience, table of such witnesses has been drawn out and extracted at the relevant paragraphs during the course of discussion in the judgment below.
8. The first group of witnesses classified are that of the Bank Officers and they are as follows:
BANK OFFICERS PW CW NAME Particulars of Exhibits EW/ witness marked MW/IO etc. PW-1 CW1 K.R.Vasudeva Vigilance 1 to 112 Material Manager,SBM witness PW-2 CW8 B.C. Murali Chief 113-291 /do/ dhar manager,SBM PW-3 CW3 R.D. Naidu Chief Vigilance 292 /do/ Officer, SBM 19 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 PW-4 CW6 Shankar Rao Chief 293-506 /do/ Manager,SBM PW-5 CW V. Sundara Deputy /do/ 12 rajan Manager, Zonal office PW-6 CW Nagendra N Assistant 507-508 /do/ 15 Manager, SBM PW-7 CW M.L. Chandra Chief Manager, 509-511 /do/ 13 s hekar Audit PW-8 CW M. Sankaran Chief Manager 512-513 /do/ 14 (Audit-Mobile) PW-9 CW5 B. Rama Regional /do/ Krishna Manager, SBM PW10 CW7 Krishna Deputy /do/ murthy Manager PW83 CW4 Venugopal Asst. General 1329 officer Manager,SBM
9. At the first instance entire evidence if recapitulated indicates that the criminal case came to be set into motion on the basis of the written information filed by the State Bank of Mysore to the CBI. In the aforesaid case PW1 K.R.Vasudeva was the Chief Manager of the SBM at relevant point of time and he has deposed about the illegalities which he had noticed in the bank when he was deputed as 20 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 Vigilance Officer to the Bank. In his evidence he has identified the extract of the cheques, credit vouchers which were marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P-111. He was subjected to lengthy cross-examination, during which it was elicited from him that he has filed report independently and not based on the report of one Mr.Venkatesh Murthy. He has also deposed that at the time of opening of new branches duties and responsibilities will be cast upon the Brach Manager to bring the bank to the ambit of profitability. It was also admitted by the witness that loan officers were entrusted to verify and prepare loan documents and he does not know the name of the officer who had worked in that position at that point of time. He has also admitted of conducting periodical audit in the bank and the earlier observations of not furnishing sufficient staff to the Branch were also not complied. Further he has admitted that about 110 control returns were furnished as per the Audit Report and 21 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 during the tenure of accused No.1 M.T.V.Reddy about 367 housing loans were sanctioned.
10. PW2 B.C.Muralidhar was the successor to accused No.1 M.T.V.Reddy at State of Bank of Mysore and he has also deposed in consonance with the evidence of PW1. It is his evidence that they had inquired with the developers who had stated that the documents which were furnished to the bank were not original. Thereafter, they had issued notice to the borrowers, who had visited their Branch and feigned their ignorance of borrowing loan and some of them had stated that they had borrowed loan for purchasing sites, but they were not aware of putting up of any construction. Further, it is also been submitted that some of the borrowers were ready and willing to repay the loan amount and had requested for return of original documents. The witness further deposed that the developers had requested them not to return the hypothecated documents and they had 22 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 convened joint meeting of the developers and the borrowers in order to sort out the difference and later an authorization was furnished by the developers on behalf of the borrowers and as such they had cleared all the loan and original documents were returned to the developer i.e., Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises. He has also identified his signature in the mahazar at Ex.P.113, Ex.P.114 and Ex.P.115 wherein he has deposed of visiting projects at Kuduregere, Hegganahalli and Mallathahalli and he has also identified his signature to the mahazar Ex.P.116 and Ex.P.117. The witness has also identified all the account opening forms and other documents pertaining to the relevant period of time which included the housing loan accounts and the same were marked as per Ex.P.118 to Ex.P.290.
11. During the course of cross-examination, PW2 has deposed that he does not know about the previous Audit Report of 3 years and he has also 23 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 admitted that the Chief Manager was required to do the field officer work since no such officer was appointed in their branch and the Manager was to completely rely upon the opinion of the Legal Practitioner. He has also admitted that after transfer of accused No.1, he was deputed to sort out the irregularities. Further, he has admitted that the loan which was sanctioned was a composite loan which was towards purchase of site and construction of house which was having a period of 19 months to commence construction of building and repayment of loan would commence only after the gestation period of 19 months. He has also admitted of corresponding with the employer to verify the salary extracts and he has specifically deposed that he had not corresponded, but as per rule it was required to accused No.1 to correspond.
12. PW3 R.D.Naidu, another Branch Officer has deposed of lodging complaint with respect to the 24 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 irregularities and accordingly the complaint was marked as per Ex.P.292. He has also deposed that 181 housing loans amounting to Rs.7.17 Crores were sanctioned in the name of several existing and non- existing employees of different firms and the housing loans were sanctioned by using forged and created salary certificate of several employees who had denied furnishing the salary certificates by their employees. He has also deposed that the then Chief Manager had discounted cheques pertaining to M/s. Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises without any sanction limit and beyond his discretionary powers.
13. It is the evidence of PW3 that at the time of lodging of the complaint total outstanding loan amount was to an extent of Rs.3.53 Crores. During the course of cross-examination he has deposed that the Manager was advised not to exceed his limits and he does not remember whether the aforesaid advisories were attached to the complaint or not. He 25 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 has also categorically deposed that he had not seen any communication expressing displeasure by the higher authorities.
14. PW4 Shankar Rao is another Branch Officer who has deposed about being present at the time of drawing mahazar as per Ex.P.113 to Ex.P.117 and also of furnishing various documents to Investigation Agency. During the course of cross-examination he has feigned ignorance with respect to Field Officers being appointed prior to his tenure and it is his evidence that when he had taken charge of the concerned branch, a second line officer was deputed. He has also deposed that he has not verified the audit report when he had taken the charge and has admitted that in all the housing loan account, the borrowers had gestation period of 1 ½ years and all the loans were cleared prior to completion of gestation period.
26 Spl.CC. No.41/2012
15. PW5 V.Sundararajan was the Deputy Manager and Zonal Officer of the then SBM and he has deposed of visiting various offices in order to ascertain the veracity of the salary slips. It is his evidence that majority of the salary slips were not genuine and in some cases the borrowers were not existing and accordingly, he has deposed of furnishing report as per Ex.P.460. During the course of cross-examination he has admitted that he had not mentioned how many salary certificates were handed over to him and he had also not mentioned the name of the officials whom he had met to ascertain the genuineness of the salary certificates. Further, the witness has deposed that he cannot say how many housing loans were sanctioned during his tenure as Manager and he has not obtained any written communication from employer with respect to issuance of salary certificate to the borrower. 27 Spl.CC. No.41/2012
16. PW6 Nagendra.N was the Assistant Manager of the then SBM, Specialized Personal Banking Branch (SPBB for short), Gandhinagar, Bangalore and he has deposed that he was deputed to conduct inquiry and verification of the salary certificates which were collected towards sanctioning of the housing loans. It is his evidence that he has visited several offices like BMTC, KSRTC, BEML, HAL, Foremen Training Institute, KAR Mobiles, BESCOM, etc., and had noticed several discrepancies in the salary certificates which were furnished to the bank and in all the cases it was stated that they were not being issued by the concerned organizations. Further, he has deposed of visiting M/s. KAR Mobiles India Ltd., and to his surprise he has not found any factory at the place mentioned in the salary certificate, but garbage was being dumped in that place. Lastly, he has deposed of furnishing report as per Ex.P.507 and Ex.P.508. During the course of cross-examination he 28 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 has admitted that he was not specifically directed to verify the salary certificate, but as a Field Officer he had verified the salary certificates which were around 100 numbers and he had also met 8-9 employers whose details were furnished in his report.
17. PW7 M.L.Chandrashekar was the Chief Manager, Audit at Head Office of the then SBM, Bengaluru at relevant point of time. He has deposed that in the year 2006 they had conducted audit at SPBB and at the time of inspection, they found irregularities with respect to the loan sanctioned in favour of M/s.Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises. As such they had visited the ongoing project at Kuduregere, Hegganahalli and found that no developmental activities and the lands were all in agricultural status itself. He has also deposed that in majority cases, the borrowers had not obtained individual katha to their name nor they had obtained any permission to put up construction. Further, it was noticed that the 29 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 borrowers were only required to be paid with 85% of the actual site cost and registration cost. However, a separate entity of development cost was also provided which were not in accordance with the Banking Regulations. He has also deposed that on perusal of legal opinion, it was noticed that the Panel Advocate had cleared title of the developer, but not cleared the title of the individual borrowers. Further, it is his evidence that the Developer should not have been provided with development cost and as such he had enjoyed lower rate of interest. The witness has also deposed about identifying another lacuna with respect to release of the loan amount. Since, the loan amount required to be released based on stage wise. However, the loan amount was released at once including the developmental cost, for which he has substantiated by producing circular Ex.P.510 and Ex.P.511. He has also identified Kuduregere project and also mahazar at Ex.P.113 to Ex.P.118. During the course of cross- 30 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 examination, he has admitted that the Control Returns were filed to bring to the notice of the controlling authority about the ongoing affairs of the Branch. Further, the witness has admitted that the Controlling Authority owed a duty to rectify and correct the irregularities. However, he has admitted that in all loan files a separate agreement of sale and build were noticed and as per the agreement it was resolved between the parties and builders to sell the site at the first instance and to build the house thereafter.
18. PW8 M.Sankaran who was Chief Manager (Audit-Mobile) at SPBB branch and he has identified the Audit Report with respect to M/s. Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises as per Ex.P.512 and 513. It is his evidence that income of the documents, the guarantors name and address were not forthcoming and they had obtained mutual guarantees. It is also deposed by him that equitable mortgage confirmation 31 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 letter were not made available in many cases during auditing. During the course of cross-examination he has admitted that control return submitted were not acknowledged even after 8-9 months and has also admitted that the builder had got the sale deed executed in favour of the borrowers and had handed over the documents to the Bank. He has also further admitted that as per the statement construction costs were not released to the borrowers. However, he has denied that the irregularities which were noticed were misnomer.
19. PW9 B.Ramakrishna who worked as Regional Manager of SBM, has deposed that certain loan accounts which were sanctioned by accused No.1 M.T.V.Reddy during his tenure had turned into NPA and also many of the borrowers were having doubtful credentials and without ascertaining their genuineness, advances were being made. He has also deposed that as per the reports, it was noticed that in 32 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 the absence of developmental activities, loan was sanctioned and in some cases margin amounts were not collected. He has also deposed that some of the accounts were turned into NPA at that point of time. During the course of cross-examination he has admitted that after issuance of notice majority of the loans were closed and still there were some NPA accounts. Apart from that nothing much was elicited from him.
20. PW10 Krishna Murthy was the Deputy Manager, who has deposed that he was required to verify loans files and other applications pertaining to the loan application and for filling up the same remuneration was being paid by the builders. Further, he has deposed that he can identify accused No.1 M.T.V.Reddy and it is his specific contention that during the month of March or April, accused No.1 had requested him to visit his branch to do clerical work and where he was instructed that the developer 33 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 Mr.Krishnaiah Setty of Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises had availed loan and the documents pertaining to the loan applications were to be filled up. It is his evidence that he has filled application and had returned back to the branch he was being paid with Rs.500/- for each application. He has also identified the loan applications which were filled up by him as per Ex.P.118 to Ex.P.290. During the course of cross- examination by accused No.1 and 2, he has deposed that he worked on part time basis for 5 branches of SBM and in the all the said branches his remuneration was being paid by the borrowers. He has also deposed that all borrowers would appear before the concerned Branch Manager and they used to affix their signatures to the loan documents. He has also admitted that there were no Field Officers at the branch at that point of time and loan documents and eligibility criteria were decided by him as per the guidelines given by the Branch Manager. 34 Spl.CC. No.41/2012
21. PW83 Venugopal was the Asst. General Manager of the then SBM and has deposed that he was required to look in to the functioning of SPBB branch, Gandhinagar and at that time, accused No.1 was the Branch Manager. It is also been deposed by him that he had noticed that the branch had exceeded the cheque discounting limit and the same had come his knowledge. Though the Manager was given necessary directions, the same had continued and as such they were forced to withdraw the discretionary power of the Branch. It is his evidence that at that time the Branch Manager was having discretion to purchase local cheques and to sanction housing loan to an extent of Rs.15 lakhs. He has also identified the control returns at Ex.P.1329. During the course of cross-examination by accused No.1 and 2, he has admitted that they maintain control returns in the regional office of their branch and it would be submitted to the higher officers to bring it to their 35 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 notice with respect to exercising of discretionary power.
22. The other compartment of witnesses which are classified as per the case of the prosecution is that of BORROWERS who were working either as drivers or conductors of BMTC and KSRTC and witnesses are tabulated as follows:
BORROWERS OF BMTC/KSRTC PW CW NAME Particulars of Exhibits EW/ witness marked MW/IO etc. PW11 CW18 Fakrubi Conductor, 184a,b Material BMTC witness PW12 CW19 Muniraju Driver,BMTC 249a,b,c,, /do/ 514 PW13 CW20 P.G. Nagaraj Driver,BMTc 185a, /do/ 533a PW14 CW21 Nagendra /do/ 183a,b /do/ PW15 CW24 Mariswamy Conductor, 130a,b /do/ BMTC PW16 CW26 R. Naushad Security 118a,b /do/ Khan Hawaldar, 515 BMTC PW17 CW27 Rangaraju conductor/ 186a,b /do/ BMTC 36 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 PW18 CW28 Manjunath Conductor, 127A,b /do/ Pategar BMTC PW19 CW29 Ravishankar Conductor, 128a,b /do/ M.V. BMTC PW20 CW34 Upendra Driver, BMTC 289a,b /do/ B.E. PW21 CW30 K.B. Chikke Driver.BMTC 119a,b /do/ Gowda PW22 CW22 N. Shiva /do/ 250a /do/ murthy PW23 CW31 Smt. Saira Conductor 275a,b /do/ Banu PW24 CW35 Venkateshw Driver 121a,b /do/ aran B.R. PW25 CW36 D. Ananda Driver 286a,b,4 /do/ Krishna 90a PW29 CW25 Nanjundasw Conductor, 120a,b /do/ amy BMTC PW30 CW38 Krishna K.H. Driver,BMTC 126b /do/ PW69 CW59 B. Vincent Helper,KSRTC 157a, /do/ depot, Majestic 528a,
23. PW11 Fakrubi is the conductor, BMTC has deposed that she had come in contact with Mr.Dominic who had assured her to get a site at Bengaluru and requested her to give her payslip, Aadhar Card, Departmental I.D.Card, which she had given to him. Later on, she was taken to some bank at 37 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 Gandhinagar where her signature was obtained. It is also been deposed by her that after some period of time loan application was brought by Mr.Dominic who had requested her to affix her signature. Subsequently she was taken to Sub-Registrar office at Devanahalli, wherein site came to be registered in her name even though she had never seen the site. It is also been deposed by her that later on she had received notice from the Bank to remit Rs.8 lakhs of loan which she had allegedly borrowed and as such she had visited the branch with Dominic and inquired about the same and later on Dominic had explained that due to some litigation the site was required to be re-conveyed and after that the site came to be re- conveyed in favour of the vendor by her by visiting Sub-Registrar Office again. It is her evidence that she does not know anything about M/s. Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises, but she had identified her loan application and also her pay-slip, wherein she has 38 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 specifically stated that the pay-slip which was enclosed with the loan application do not belong to her, since she was not receiving said amount as narrated in the pay-slip. She was also shown with the original pay-slip which she had admitted. During the course of cross-examination she has admitted of visiting Sub-Registrar office and also getting a sale deed executed in her name. She has also admitted that the site was registered in her name and also the Bank officials had explained about the procedures of availing the loan.
24. PW12 Muniraju who is also Driver, BMTC, has deposed in similar manner of that of PW11 and he was considered as partly hostile and during the course of cross-examination by the learned Senior Public Prosecutor he has admitted about appraisal being made by Mr.Dominic and also giving statement before the Investigating Agency. Again during the course of cross-examination he has admitted of 39 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 having handed over the I.D.Card, address proof, etc., for availing loan from the bank and he has not given statement that he was required to appear in the bank for affixing signature. He was also cross-examined about his knowledge with respect to the banking activities and the witness has admitted that he was aware of the fact that the loan was required to be returned after availing the same. However, he has denied the suggestion that he was unable to repay the loan amount and hence he had got the site re- conveyed at the request of Dominic.
25. PW13 P.G.Nagaraj, Driver, PW14 Nagendra, Driver, PW15 Mariswamy, Conductor, PW16 R.Naushad Khan, Security Hawaldar, PW17 Rangaraju, Conductor, PW18 Manjunath, Pategar, Conductor, PW19 Ravishankar K.V., Conductor, PW20 Upendra B.E., Driver, PW21 K.B.Chikkegowda, Driver, PW22 N.Shivamurthy, Driver, PW23 Smt.Saira Banu, Conductor, PW24 Venkateshawaran, Driver, 40 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 PW25 D.Ananda Krishna, Driver, PW29 Nanjundaswamy, Conductor, PW30 Krishna K.H., Driver of Bengaluru Metropolitan Transport Corporation Ltd (BMTC for short) and PW69 B.Vincent, Helper, KSRTC depot, Bengaluru have all in unison have deposed that they were approached by Mr.Dominic by stating that he would get sites at Bengaluru for concessional rate and had obtained their I.D. Card, Pay-slip, etc., and later on they were taken to SBM, Gandhinagara, wherein their signature was obtained on some forms and subsequently they were taken to various Sub-Registrar office across Bengaluru to get the site registered in their name. In their evidence they have deposed that they have not seen the site even after getting the sale deed executed and later on when it was insisted by them to show the site, Mr.Dominic had stated about some legal hurdle and had requested them to re-convey site to the vendor, as such they had once again reached the Sub- 41 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 Registrar and got the sale deed re-conveyed. In the examination in chief they have deposed of identifying their salary slips, however, it is their specific assertion that the gross salary and net salary as shown in the salary slip was not correct and in fact they were not drawing such high salary at that point of time. They were also confronted with their original salary slip which they have identified and the same was marked for the purpose of identification. During the Course of their cross-examination the learned counsel for accused No.1 and 2 has suggested of giving statement before CBI about the representation being made by Mr. Dominic and also of visiting Sub-Registrar Office to get the sale deed executed. All the said suggestions have been answered in the affirmative and several suggestions have been made to the witnesses with respect to their knowledge about banking activities, which are once again answered in the affirmative by the witnesses. It is noticed from the entire tenure of 42 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 cross-examination of the aforesaid witnesses that it was being elicited from their mouth that they had visited bank along with Mr.Dominic and other employees of their department. Apart from that nothing much has been elicited and only with respect to evidence of PW21 Chikkegowda, he has deposed about Mr.Dominic showing him the site near ITC Factory at Bengaluru wherein no development activities had taken place.
26. The other compartment which has been classified for the purpose of convenience is with respect to the other borrowers and the table of said witnesses is as follows:
OTHER BORROWERS PW CW NAME Particulars of Exhibits EW/ witness marked MW/IO etc. PW46 CW79 Krishnappa Driver, with 232 Borrower T various travel agencies PW48 CW70 M.R. Fitter, 515 579, Borrower Balakrishna Army Base 579a 43 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 Workshop, Blr.
PW49 CW71 V. Dhanika Technical 580,580a Borrower
chalam Assistant,
Indian Army
Base workshop,
Banglore
PW50 CW42 V. Indrajith Electrician, 153a Borrower
ITI,Banglore (hostile)
PW51 CW51 Sridhar Machinist, HAL, 581,581a Borrower
Banglore ,
PW52 CW52 M. Shekhar Sheet Metal 582, Borrower
worker, HAL, 582a
Banglore
PW70 CW76 Harish G. Agriculturist, 245 Borrower
Unemployed
PW71 CW77 Raghu M Driver in travel 247 Borrower
agency
PW36 CW62 Ramanja Attender, 290a Borrower
nulu Syndicate Bank
PW37 CW60 Nemiraj Junior 254, Borrower
Inspection 254a
officer, BEL
PW43 CW98 Sriraj Representative 552-559 Borrower
of Krishnaiah loan
Shetty, appln-
Proprietor of 222
M/s. Balaji
Krupa
Enterprises
PW57 CW93 N.Hanuman Head 1297- Hostile
thaiah Constatble 1300
44 Spl.CC. No.41/2012
27. The prosecution has examined PW46
Krishnappa.T who was professional driver, deposed of availing loan for purchase of site and once again stated that Mr.Dominic had represented him to get a site at Hegdenagara and shown him an vacant site and later on he was taken to State Bank of Mysuru wherein some signatures were obtained and thereafter they had visited Sub-Registrar Office and got the site registered. After some days, once again Mr.Dominic had requested him to re-convey the site due to some legal problem and hence he had got it re-conveyed. He was confronted with the document at Ex.P.232 wherein he has deposed of affixing his signature and has specifically deposed that he had never worked at M/s KAR Mobiles nor he had furnished any pay-slip.
During the course of cross-examination it was once again suggested to the witness that he had given statement before the CBI about Dominic representing him to get site of 30X40 ft., and also of constructing a 45 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 house. He has also admitted that since the bank authorities were pressurizing him to repay the loan amount, he had decided to re-convey the same.
Further, it was suggested to him that he had visited the Bank and at that point of time the bank officials had obtained signature to the document in the presence of employees of M/s Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises and he had also admitted of re-conveying site along with Harish, Raghu and Ravi.
28. PW48 M.R.Balakrishna was working as Fitter, 515 Army Base Workshop, Bangalore and as he was looking for purchasing site, he was introduced to Mr.Swaroop, to whom he has handed over his pay-
slip, ID proof and other documents. Subsequently, he had visited the Bank. It is also deposed by him that he had visited Sub-Registrar office along with Mr.Swaroop and Mr.Dhanikachalam and got the document registered. However, he was not shown with the same. Further, he has also deposed that a sum of 46 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 Rs.5,30,000/- was probably sanctioned in his name and has identified the loan application and has once again disputed the figures shown in the salary slip. During the course of cross-examination, it was suggested to him that he was introduced to Mr.Swaroop through Mr.Dhanikachalam who had assured him of getting site at Mallathahalli and hence, they had visited Sub-Registrar office. Further, it was suggested to him that he had given statement before the I.O. that he was told by Mr.Swaroop that M/s. Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises would undertake the construction of house and put up construction of house on the site and then hand over the possession. He has also admitted the suggestion that he had availed loan to purchase site and since he was unable to repay, he had executed re-conveyance deed in favour of Mr.Swaroop.
29. PW49 V.Dhanikachalam who had worked as Technical Assistant at Indian Army Base Workshop 47 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 at Bengaluru, has deposed that he came in contact with Mr.Swaroop who had stated that they had developed site at Mallathahalli, Bengaluru and requested him to provide with documents such as salary slip, I.D.Card, Form No.16, etc., which were promptly handed over to him and later on they had visited SBM, Gandhinagar Branch and Sub-Registrar office at Peenya and got the sale deed registered and thereafter it was once again re-conveyed to Mr.Swaroop, since, it was stated to him that he had availed loan of Rs.5,80,000/- towards purchase and also towards construction of house and as he had expressed his inability to carry on with the construction activity, the sale deed came to be canceled and he has also disputed the figures shown in his salary slip.
30. PW50 V.Indrajith who worked as Electrician, ITI, Bengaluru had deposed in similar manner of that of other witnesses. He was considered 48 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 as partly hostile. During the course of cross- examination he has admitted of giving his statement before the CBI.
31. PW51 Sridhar, who worked at HAL, has deposed of availing housing loan to construct house at Mallathahalli, Bengaluru from SBM, Gandhinagar Branch and there he was informed by his friend Mr.Selvaraj that the developer M/s. Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises would provide site and would also help to obtain loan and also for putting up construction. He had visited Bank and had furnished necessary documents. It is his evidence that he had visited the office of M/s Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises after getting sale deed executed in his favour since he was not shown with the site. However, they had stated that they would clear the outstanding loan amount and close the loan account due to some issues. He has also disputed the figures shown in his salary slip. During the course of cross-examination it was 49 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 suggested to him that Mr.Shekar, Edwin George, Parameshwaraiah, Jakie Akmal were working with him and they had all met Shree Raj to obtain site and he had assured them to get the loan documents processed and had taken the responsibility till the end. Apart from that nothing much was elicited from him.
32. PW52 M.Shekar who had worked as Technician at HAL, Bengaluru had deposed that he has met one Mr.Sriraj, who had canvassed about M/s Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises developing a layout and since he had shown interest and agreed to purchase site at Mallathahalli and handed over the documents and after processing of loan account he had visited Sub-Registrar, Peenya and got the sale deed executed. However, he was not given the copy of the sale deed and after about 3-4 months he had visited the Bank and inquired about the loan amount which was pending in his name and after that he had met 50 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 Mr.Sriraj who has assured to close the loan account and got the re-conveyance deed executed. He has also disputed the figures shown in his salary document.
33. PW70 Harisha has deposed that he was an employee during the year 2004-05, at that time he came in contact with Mr.Dominic who was residing near his house had proposed to get a site allotted in his name. It is his evidence that later on they had visited SBM, Gandhinagar Branch and he had not provided with any site. After about 6 months he has visited Sub-Registrar office and got a deed executed. He has identified his loan application at Ex.P.245. During the course of cross-examination he has feigned his ignorance to the suggestion that whether he was shown with site No.29 before the concerned police.
34. PW71 Raghu.M was an independent driver working at Travel Agency, has deposed of coming in 51 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 contact with Mr.Dominic and also he visited SBM, Gandhinagar Branch wherein they had opened account and also they had visited Sub-Registrar office at Yelahanka wherein he got a site executed in his name. After about 6 months he was requested to visit Sub-Registrar to get re-conveyance deed executed and as such he had executed the same. He has identified his loan application at Ex.P.247. During the course of cross-examination he has admitted and given his statement before CBI as narrated by him.
35. PW36 Ramanajanulu had worked as attender at the then Syndicate Bank, Bengaluru. He has also deposed about a person approaching him to get site sanctioned in his name and also he would make arrangements towards loan. It is his evidence that he has handed over his I.D.Card and other documents and later on he was requested to come to the Bank and there the application form were filled up and it was submitted to bank. He has also deposed of 52 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 visiting Sub-Registrar office at Basaveshwara Nagar to get the sale deed executed and after that he was not shown with site nor any amount was disbursed to him. He too has disputed the figures mentioned in his salary certificate. During the course of cross- examination he was suggested of giving statement before the CBI with respect to affixing his signature to 5 applications for which he has feigned his ignorance. He has also admitted that as per the request of Mr.Dominic he has visited Sub-Registrar office at Basaveshwara Nagara and no site was registered in his name. But he has executed GPA at the instance of Mr.Dominic.
36. PW37 Nemiraj had worked as Junior Inspection Officer, BEL and has deposed of Mr.Dominic approaching him to arrange loan from SBM towards purchasing house and accordingly, he had furnished of salary slip. However, he has denied of visiting Sub-Registrar office and had identified 53 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 salary slip at Ex.P.254 (A). He was considered as hostile witness and during the course of cross- examination, he has admitted of visiting Sub- Registrar office at Yelahanka and getting site registered in his name. During the course of cross- examination by the learned counsel for accused, he has admitted of giving his statement before CBI with respect to Mr.Dominic stated of developing sites at Sampigehalli.
37. PW57 N.Hanumanthaiah was the Head Constable who has deposed that in the year 2004 he has retired from Service. At that time, his son had advised him to canvass with respect to layout being formed by Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises and as such he has introduced one Mr.Shekar to his friends who was into Real Estate business. However, he had feigned his ignorance with respect to Mr.Dominic and M/s. Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises. He was considered as hostile witness and during the course of 54 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 cross-examination he had categorically admitted of tendering his statement under Sec.161 of Cr.P.C. but has feigned his ignorance with respect to the statement made therein.
38. The prosecution has examined the other branch of witness who were the officers who had verified salary slips and for the sake of benefit, all the officers who had verified salary slips of employees of BMTC are tabulated and the same is extracted as herein:
OFFICERS WHO VERIFIED SALARY SLIPS -BMTC PW CW NAME Particulars of Exhibits EW/ witness marked MW/IO etc. PW26 CW40 M. Suresh Stores BMTC Babu officer,BMTC officer abt salary slips PW27 CW54 A.T. Jeeva Accounts 228a,516 Pay slips kumar Officer Grade- ,516a, 1,HAL 228a,b, 287a, 517, 517a, 287b 55 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 PW28 CW55 N. Eruchan Deputy 518,518a officer Manager, HAL
39. PW26 M.Suresh Babu has deposed about working as Stores Officer during 2003-09 and in his chief-examination he has explained the procedure for issuance of salary slip and has also deposed that at earlier instance he had given a statement after verifying salary slips furnished by CBI stating that the contents of the salary slip does not belong to that documents. However, the material of the salary slip belongs to their office. During the course of cross- examination he has feigned his ignorance with respect to the person who was the custodian of the salary slip at that time.
40. PW27 A.T.Jeevakumar has deposed of working as Accounts Officer Grade-1 at HAL and has deposed that he has verified the salary slip of one Mr.Hanumanthaiah and another person. It is his 56 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 specific evidence that the contents of the salary slip did not match with their records. During the course of cross-examination nothing much was elicited from him.
41. PW28 N.Eruchan was the Deputy Manager- Accounts at Foundry and Forge Division of HAL. He has deposed in consonance with the evidence of PW27 A.T.Jeevakumar.
42. The other officers who had verified the salary slips are classified are as hereunder:
OTHER OFFICERS WHO VERIFIED SALARY SLIPS PW CW NAME Particulars of Exhibits EW/ witness marked MW/IO etc. PW31 CW53 B.V. Manager, 519-525 Pay slips Bhaskara Finance(pay role), HAL PW32 CW59 D. Abdul Accounts 526-531 Officer Khuddus Officer, BMTC PW33 CW39 Arun Kumar Accounts 532-537 officer T.L. Officer, BMTC PW34 CW64 Mohammed Accounts 538 Officer Bakhaulla Officer, BESCOM 57 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 PW35 CW61 V. Sudheer Deputy 539, officer Manager (HR) 539a Bharath Electronics ltd PW38 CW73 K.R. Oman Army Base 541,542 officer Kuttan Workshop, Bengalur PW39 CW65 A.S. Gopal Senior Manager, 543,544 officer Rao BWSSB PW40 CW69 N.V. Rama Office of 545,546 officer Krishna Accountant General, Blr PW41 CW63 S. Shiva Senior Manager, 547,547a Officer Prasad Syndicate Bank PW42 CW87 V. Krishna Seventh Day 548-551 officer/ murthy Adventist 226a,b, auditor University 264a,b, College, 238a,b Bengaluru PW44 CW49 D.K. Manager,HR, 560-571 officer Anjaneya ITI,Blr PW45 CW56 Bimbadhar Accounts officer 572-577 Pradhan (Pay Rolls), HAL, Blr.
PW47 CW91 Narayana BEO, 578, Officer Bengaluru 578a Zone-I PW53 CW75 B. Ravi Manager, 583, officer chandran M/s.KAR 583a, Mobiles Ltd 584 PW68 CW Ashwath Principal of 1312 Salary 170 Narayan Govt PU slip College, Madhugiri PW73 CW D. Asst. Personal 1317 officer 171 Keshavalu Officer, SW 58 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 Railway, PW74 CW Thejas SDA, BEO 1318 Clerk 172 office, Magadi PW75 CW K.G.Anjana BEO, Blr North 1319 officer 173 ppa PW76 CW Shashikala BEO 1320 Officer 174 R.N.
43. The aforesaid witnesses have all deposed of identifying the salary slips which are produced before the court and it is their specific evidence that though the salary slips are printed on the department material itself, the contents of the salary slip does not tally with the records and have deposed that the Gross salary and the net salary have been inflated which was not tallying with their records.
44. The other set of witnesses who have been examined by the prosecution are the Revenue Officials and their classified together for the sake of convenience are tabulated as follows: 59 Spl.CC. No.41/2012
REVENUE OFFICIALS PW CW NAME Particulars of Exhibits EW/ witness marked MW/IO etc. PW54 CW S. Ravi Revenue 113, 113c Revenue 134 kumar Inspector, official Banglore South PW55 CW G. Narendra Assistant town 585 Govt 138 Singh Planner, official Banglore.
International Airport Area Planning Authority PW56 CW Suresh Asst. Director, 586,586a BDA 137 Prathap Town Planning, officer Singh BDA, Banglore PW58 CW Krishnamur Revenue 116c Revenue 131 thy Inspector official PW59 CW K.R. Asst. Director, Officer 135 Puttaswamy Town Planning, Gowda RR Nagar,BBMP PW60 CW H.Narayana Secretary, Panchaya 142 ppa Tippur village th officer Panchayath PW61 CW R.Narasimh Panchayath 1301, Panchaya 143 amurthy Secretary, 1301a th officer Bettahalasur V.P. PW62 CW Rajanna Secretary, 299 /do/ 144 Jalige V.P. 60 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 PW65 CW Nagaraju SLAO-II, 1310- Officer 156 N.R KIADB,Blr 1311 PW72 CW Sridhara Deputy 1313,131 Officer 168 Conservator of 4 Forest
45. PW54 S.Ravikumar was the Revenue Inspector at Jala Hobli and has deposed of assisting the CBI in identifying the land in Sy.No.50 of Kuduregere village, Jala Hobli, Bengaluru North Addl. Taluk and has deposed that they had noticed that it was barren agricultural land and no un-authorized constructions were put up over the aforesaid place. The witness has also identified mahazar drawn at that time as Ex.P.113. During the course of cross- examination it was suggested that the land surrounding the Mahazar schedule properties were subject to unauthorized constructions which was denied by the witness and nothing much was elicited from him.
61 Spl.CC. No.41/2012
46. PW55 G.Narendra Singh has deposed that the layout formed at Kuduregere and Hegganahalli village of Devanahalli Taluk were within the jurisdiction of Bangalore Internal Airport Area Planning Authority ('BIAAPA' for short) and as on that day no permission was accorded by their authority towards building plan or construction and nothing as such was submitted to their office.
47. PW56 Suresh Prathap Singh was the Assistant Director of Town Planning, BDA, Bengaluru, has also deposed that the land at Sampigehali, Yalahanka Hobli, Nagavara village, kasaba obli and lands in Mallathahalli village, Yeshavanthapura Hobli come within their jurisdiction and in order to form a layout necessary permission was required from their authority. However, no such permission was obtained.
48. PW58 Krishnamurthy was the Revenue Inspector at relevant point of time and it is his 62 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 evidence that on 26.11.2008 he had assisted the CBI officials to draw mahazar at Sy.No.58/4 and Sy.No.96/6 situated at Mallathahalli, as per Ex.P.116.
49. PW59 K.R.Puttaswamy Gowda, was the Assistant Director of Town Planning, who has deposed that he had given statement to CBI that necessary permission was required to be obtained for forming Layout in Sy.No.58 of Mallathahalli village.
50. PW60 H.Narayanappa, was the Secretary at Tippur Village Panchayath and has deposed about giving statement that they had not issued any layout approval or building plan approval to M/s. Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises during his tenure. During the course of cross-examination it was elicited from him that he has produced 'To and From' Register to CBI and had issued Form No.10 and also receipt towards payment of taxes.
63 Spl.CC. No.41/2012
51. PW61 R.Narasimhamurthy, was the Panchayath Secretary, at Bettahalasur village and has deposed that their Panchayath was not competent authority to accord permission to Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises.
52. PW62 Rajanna was the Secretary of Jalige Village Panchayath and has deposed that as per the records at Sy.No.84 of Hegganahalli village they had not issued any approval during his tenure.
53. PW65 Nagaraju N.R. was the SLAO-II at KIADB, Bengaluru, has deposed that he was enquired with respect to acquisition of land in Sy.No.98 of Nagavara village and he was shown with notification by CBI and he had confirmed the acquisition proceedings as per Ex.P.1310. It is his evidence that since the parties had refused to accept the Award and as there was dispute, they had deposited the compensation amount to the Prl. Senior Civil Judge 64 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 Court, Bengaluru as per Ex.P.1311. During the course of cross-examination by accused No.3 and 4, he has feigned his ignorance of Mr.Biddappa challenging the acquisition proceedings before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka.
54. The other witnesses who have been examined by the prosecution is PW63 Satish Babu who was the Registered Valuator and also Proprietor of M/s.Thammaiah Associates, has deposed that in the year 2004-06 he has furnished Valuation Report pertaining to the Project of M/s. Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises of Mallathahalli at Sy.No.58/4 as per Ex.P.1302 and also Valuation Report with respect to Sampigehalli village and Kuduregere village as per Ex.P.1303 and 1304.
55. The prosecution has also examined the land owners who are classified as follows: 65 Spl.CC. No.41/2012
LAND OWNERS PW CW NAME Particulars of Exhibits EW/ witness marked MW/IO etc. PW64 CW Krishnappa Land owner Land 157 B owner PW66 CW S.N. Land owner Land 152 Ramesh owner PW67 CW V. Swaroop Supervisor and Private 153 Manager work M/s.Balaji Krupa Enterprises
56. PW64 Krishnappa.B has deposed that the land in Sy.No.98 measuring 3A 32 Guntas at Nagavara village, was purchased by his parents and they had stated to him of executing a GPA in favour of accused No.3 K.Muniraju. Though he has deposed of seeing the GPA, he had now feigned his ignorance to identify the same due to his advanced age and he has also deposed that the lands were acquired by KIADB and against the same they had approached Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka which is pending for 66 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 adjudication and they were in possession over the said property. He was not subjected to cross- examination.
57. PW66 S.N.Ramesh is the brother of accused No.2 Krishnaiah Setty and has deposed that he was owner of the land in Sy.No.50 of Kuduregere village measuring 3acres and land in Sy.No.84 measuring 6Acres 12 guntas of land in Hegganahalli village jointly with his brother Mr.S.N.Balaram. It is his evidence that his elder brother Accused No.2 Mr. S.N.Krishnaiah Setty had proposed to form a layout on the said land and as such they had agreed for the formation of layout. The sites were registered in the name of the purchasers and after some days, his brother-accused No.2 S.N.Krishnaiah Setty stated to him that there was some problem with the loan accounts and hence, the sites were re-conveyed. He 67 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 has also deposed of repaying the loan amount to the Bank. He was not subjected to cross-examination.
58. PW67 V.Swaroop had worked as Supervisor and Manager at M/s. Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises and has deposed that the said firm belonged to Mr.S.N.Krishnaiah Setty and at that time they were carrying out project works at Mallathahalli, Sampigehalli and Devanahalli and he was looking after the construction of houses and also the development of the layout. It is his evidence that the loan accounts were converted into NPA for which M/s.Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises themselves had repaid the loan amount and customers used to provide necessary documents to avail loan. He has also deposed that they had enchased certain cheques which were issued towards vendor payments and for developmental activities of the layout. He was not subjected to cross-examination. 68 Spl.CC. No.41/2012
59. The prosecution has also examined the following witnesses who deposed about non-issuing of NOC / Consent certificates, who are classified as follows:
OFFICERS WHO SPEAK ABOUT NON-ISSUE OF NOC AND CONSENT CERTIFICATES PW CW NAME Particulars of Exhibits EW/ witness marked MW/IO etc. PW77 CW D.Thimme Superintendent 1321 Officer 176 gowda Engineer, about BESCOM NOC not issued PW78 CW Basavanna /do/ 1322 /do/ 177 C PW79 CW Shivakumar Executive 1323 /do/ 178 Engineer, BESCOM PW80 CW Venkatesh Chief Engineer, 1324 /do/ 179 S.V. BESCOM PW82 CW Raju N.R. Senior 1326 Not 180 Environmental issued Officer, K.S. consent Pollution Board certificate
60. The other witnesses who have been examined as PW84 Ravi J.Kale who had worked as Sub-Registrar, Jala Hobli and also PW81 Dayanand, 69 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 Medical Officer of BBMP who has deposed of issuing Death Certificate of Mr.Dominic wherein he has deposed that Mr.Dominic died on 20.12.2007.
61. That apart the prosecution has examined the I.O.s i.e., PW85 Prithvi Nesaraj and PW86 Ravi Kumar.N, who on completion of investigation have filed charge sheet before the court.
CHAPTER-IV STATEMENT OF ACCUSED PERSONS RECORDED UNDER SECTION 313 OF Cr.P.C.
62. On completion of the evidence of the prosecution, the statement of the accused persons came to be recorded under section 313 of Cr.P.C, wherein the accused persons have denied all the incriminating evidence available against them. At the time of recording of the statement the Accused No.1 has filed his written submission as contemplated under Section 313(5) of Cr.P.C. The main contention which has been urged by Accused No.1 in his written 70 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 submission is that he had put in a long unblemished service at State Bank of Mysore and on many occasions, he was considered to be the Best banker. Further he has explained in his written submission that wherever he was posted he had achieved excellence and in fact the Bank had profited from his business activities. That apart he has also explained that he came in contact with Accused No. 2 S N Krishnaiaha Shetty only when he was posted to Gandhinagar Branch at Bangalore since Accused No.2 was holding important portfolio Housing and Muzurai at that point of time. He has also contended that he had tried to generate miscellaneous expenditure of the Bank through Accused No.2. Further he has submitted his application which he had filed before his higher authorities requesting them to show leniency as he was dismissed from the services of the Bank. The Accused No.1 has also furnished the documents indicating of his explanation which he had 71 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 offered towards crediting amount to the account of M/s Balaji Krupa Enterprises of Accused No.2 and also holding a cheque with him.
63. The Accused No.2 has also filed his statement under section 313(5) of Cr.P.C, wherein he has contended that projects were being taken care by his brother's son Mr.Swaroop and as he was in his constituency to take care of election, he was not looking after the development of layout. Further he has contended that the loan was sanctioned to the borrowers in Loan Mela of the Bank and later on they had purchased the site and since they were not inclined to own the property and to repay the loan, he had paid the loan amount on behalf of the borrowers and had closed the account. It is his contention, that he had never forged or fabricated any document nor he was aware of the Acquisition proceedings against one of the property and hence he has sought for 72 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 acquitting him. The other accused persons have not come forward to file any written submissions and they have all denied the incriminating materials available against them. The Accused persons have not preferred to lead any defence evidence.
CHAPTER V SUBMISSIONS/ARGUMENTS MADE BY BOTH PARTIES
64. In the instant case, the prosecution has specifically contended that the act of accused No.1 M.T.V.Reddy, who was the Manager of SBM, SPBB, Gandhinagara at relevant point of time and he had entered into criminal conspiracy with accused No.2 - S.N.Krishnaiah Setty who was the Proprietor of M/s. Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises. It is the specific case of the prosecution that accused No.2 had proposed to develop Layout at Mallathahalli, Sampigehalli, Hegganahalli and Devanahalli and as such they had fetched certain loans. It is also been contended by the 73 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 prosecution that accused No.1 who was holding office at the relevant point of time has exceeded his discretionary limit to sanction housing loan in favour of borrowers who had entered into Tripartite Agreement with accused No.2 S.N.Krishnaiah Setty, Proprietor of M/s. Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises, accused No.3- Muniraju, the GPA holder and accused No.4 Srinivas and also with accused No.5 Biddappa (A5 died during the pendency of the case and hence, case against him abated). Further, the prosecution has contended that accused No.1 M.T.V.Reddy in furtherance of the criminal conspiracy had sanctioned loan amount without adhering to the banking norms and procedures and in many instances, had released loan amount without adhering to stage wise release of the amount. It is also been submitted by the prosecution that the act of accused No.1 to sanction loan in favour of borrowers without verifying the documents of their title would clearly indicate of 74 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 conspiracy which was hatched between accused persons. It is also submitted by the prosecution that accused No.2 to 4 though they did not had any intention to develop the layout, had come forward by submitting falsely before the authorities of development of layout for workers and other persons and by engaging touts had sold certain sites to the employees. It is the contention of the prosecution that at the time of sanctioning of the loan, the Branch Manager had not verified the salary slips and other materials and had proceeded to sanction loan amount even though the salary slips were all forged, created to suit to the needs of the borrowers. The prosecution has contended that even though the accused No.2 and his M/sSree Balaji Krupa Enterprises had repaid the loan amount subsequently, the same will not exonerate the act for the reason that the intention of availment of loan was completely defeated and in fact 75 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 the accused No.2 had benefited from the entire transaction.
65. The learned counsel for accused No.1 and 2 have filed written synopsis and also orally argued before the court. Learned counsel Sri R.Nagendra Naik has vehemently argued that the act of accused No.1 M.T.V.Reddy in sanctioning the loan would in no manner attract the rigors of Sec.420 of IPC or committing the offence under Sec.13 of P.C.Act. It is his submission that the Branch of SBM at Gandhinagara was newly established branch and at that time a severe thrust was given by the banking authorities to improve the banking transactions and an enormous pressure was exerted on the Manager to bring in new customers. It is also been vehemently submitted that as per the evidence by the bank officials it was elicited them that the scrutiny of the loan applications were not being done personally by the Manager, but it was the second rung of officers 76 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 who were required to look in to the same. It is also been argued that as per the evidence of the bank officials, no second line of officer was provided to accused No.1 and as such the entire responsibility was cast upon accused No.1 himself. It is his submission that accused No.1 M.T.V.Reddy had relied upon the opinion furnished by the Legal advisor and acting on the same he had collected the documents which were provided by the customers and had released the amount. As such no illegality could be attributed against the act of accused No.1. It is also been submitted that in the entire report nowhere aspersions have been created against the then Manager accused No.1 and also it was admitted during the course of cross-examination of PW2 B.C.Muralidhar that there were lapses in the investigation. The learned counsel has also taken this court through the categorically admissions given by the PW3 R.D.Naidu with respect to the discounting of 77 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 cheques and also the same exceeded limits imposed upon the branch. The learned counsel for accused has also vehemently argued that exercising of discretion with respect to discounting of cheque was a norm in banking parlance and whenever the discounting was to be made the same was to be brought to the notice of higher authorities by filing Control Returns. It is pointed out that on several occasions the control returns were filed by the accused No.1 which was an admitted fact elicited during the course of cross-examination. 66. The learned counsel for accused No.1 and 2 with respect to disbursal of loan amount has argued that out of Rs.15.61 Crores, sanctioned towards the 4 projects which were undertaken by accused No.2 through his M/s. Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises, only an extent of Rs.9 Crores were released and the same was repaid subsequently by the accused No.2 through his Company. It is pointed out that as per Ex.P.456 a 78 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 request was made by the bank for foreclosure of the defaulted accounts and on the basis of such request, M/s. Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises had paid entire loan amount which were forthcoming through Ex.P.457 and Ex.P.458. It is also argued that they had repaid the entire 137 accounts and as such no loss was caused to the bank. By pointing out to the charges which has been framed by my predecessor in office, it is submitted by the learned counsel that no specific charge was framed with respect to the actual loss caused to the Bank and it is noticed from the records that a stray allegation of causing loss due to differential rate of interest has been leveled. It is also been argued that there are no materials to indicate that accused No.2 S.N.Krishnaiah Shetty had specific knowledge with respect to fabricating and forging of records, since it is nobody's that accused No.2 himself had concocted and created the salary slip of the borrowers. The learned counsel has also referred to 79 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 the Circular at Ex.P.510 which speaks about the personal segment advances and the care which was required to be taken. It is submitted that the accused No.1 had taken care of all the requirements and necessities as per the said circular and in spite of the same, he was framed intentionally. The defense has also taken this court through the evidence of PW10 Krishnamurthy, Deputy Manager, who has deposed about the filing up of application and also receiving remuneration from the builder and also by pointing out to the evidence of PW83 Venugopal, who has deposed about discounting of cheques, it is submitted that no materials have been produced by the prosecution with respect to causing loss to the Branch. The learned counsel has also taken this court to the charge No.5 which has been framed with respect to obtaining or receiving gratification from accused No.2 Company. It is his contention that the explanation was rendered in their statement recorded 80 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C., and as such no motive could be attributed against them.
67. The defence has also taken this court to the fact that there were no materials to indicate that the acquisition proceedings were within the knowledge of accused No.1 and 2. It is his submission that the GPA at Ex.P.1380 was executed on 3.2.2004 and all the loans pertaining to Nagavara village were granted subsequently thereafter. By pointing out the aforesaid aspects, it is vehemently argued by the learned counsel for accused that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove their case, beyond reasonable doubt. The learned counsel has also filed a written synopsis which indicates of that in the absence of any specific loss being caused to the bank, the allegations under Sec.415, 420, 405 of IPC cannot be sustained or under the provisions of the P.C.Act. It is also his submission that during the period of accused No.1 himself the Bank was able to achieve 81 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 the targets set by their higher authorities and the court has to take into account into account of the fact that the repayment was made within a short period of time, even though the period which was granted for repayment was 10 to 15 years. The learned counsel has also prepared the entire chart with respect to the amount borrowed by the borrowers and it is his submission that the loan was advanced under priority sector advance for which the repayment period was about 180 months. That apart the gestation period was 24 months and the rate of interest was floating rate at 2.5% at that point of time. It is submitted that for pre-closure an interest of 2% or 2.1% was to be imposed which was indeed imposed by branch themselves. The learned counsel refuting the submissions of the prosecution that in certain cases the amount which was released was exceeding the stage wise limits. The Learned counsel has also prepared a chart which would indicate about the total 82 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 extent of loan amount which was sanctioned, date of its release and also the remarks which was mentioned with respect to its utilization. By pointing out all the aforesaid aspects he has vehemently argued that there are no materials to convict the accused No.1 and accused No. 2 and hence, sought for their acquittal.
68. The learned counsel for accused No.3 Sri B.H.Advocate has vehemently argued that the charge No.7 is relevant to this case and he was the GPA holder for accused No.4 and Accused No. 5. It is his contention that as per Ex.P.283 a Tripartite Agreement was entered on 27.1.2004 and he was only the holder of GPA and the allegation of title cannot be attributed to him, since he was acting on behalf of his principal. It is also been submitted that as per Ex.P.1310 a Gazette Notification were issued and as per the notification dated 3.3.2003, the lands were still standing in the name of Krishna Rao and 83 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 Chandravathi Rao and absolutely no connecting documents were produced to show that the lands were purchased by the present vendors. He has also argued that in the absence of any proof to indicate entering of criminal conspiracy, the charge under Sec.120B of IPC fails and inadvertently the other allegations also stand nullified.
69. Sri N.Sriram, Advocate for accused No.4 has vehemently argued that no role of the land owner has been attributed in the entire case and the only allegation which can be made against the land owner was of the dishonest or malafide intention which was not successfully proved by the prosecution.
70. Lastly, the learned counsel for accused No.1 and 2 has once again submitted that mere irregularity will not automatically amount to cheating as contemplated under the law and also the prosecution has utterly failed to find out who had act 84 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 of forging the salary certificates and the letter dated 19.4.2005 would clarify the entire statement wherein the Head Office after inspection on the basis of news report in daily news paper had given clean chit to the then Manager-accused No.1. It is also been submitted that as per the list prepared by the prosecution it indicates that no accounts were credited with the loan amount on the same day of filing the application. By submitting all the aforesaid aspects and also adopting the arguments rendered by the accused No.1 and 2, they have sought for acquitting the accused.
71. List of authorities relied by advocate for A1 and A2:
1) (2012) 9 SCC 512 (Central Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad Vs. K.Narayan Rao)
2) 1995 Supp (3) SCC 289 (Inderjit Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and others) 85 Spl.CC. No.41/2012
3) (2009) 6 SCC 77 (S.V.L. Murthy Vs. State represented by CBI, Hyderabad)
4) (2009) 8 SCC 617 (State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Sheetla Sahai and others)
5) (2005) 12 SCC 631 (K.R. Purushothaman Vs. State of Kerala)
6) (2016) 12 SCC 273 (A. Sivaprakash Vs. State of Kerala)
7) (2021) 18 SCC 70 (N.Raghavender Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh)
72. The learned counsel for accused No.1 and 2 has later on relied upon the following decisions:-
(1) Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2022 (1) KarLJ 351 (Ashoo Surendranath Tewari Vs. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, EoW, CBI and another) (2) Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2696 (Tarina Sen Vs. Union of India and another) 86 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 CHAPTER-VI POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
73. Based on the charge sheet which has been placed before the court and also appreciating the rival contentions urged by the parties and on perusal of the evidence which is lead before this court, the following points arise for my consideration which are as follows:
1) Whether it is required for the prosecution to obtain necessary sanction under Sec.19 of the P.C.Act to prosecute accused No.1 M.T.V.Reddy who was public servant at relevant point of time?
2) Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that accused No.1 to 5 had entered into criminal conspiracy during the period of 2003- 04 wherein accused No.1 being public servant and acting as Manager had entered into illegal agreement to cheat and defraud the then State Bank of Mysore with respect to availing / sanctioning housing loans to existing and non-existing borrowers and thereby committed offence punishable 120-B of IPC?
3) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that 87 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 accused No.1 had sanctioned 263 house building loans aggregating to Rs.15.61 crores to various existing and non-existing employees of public sector undertakings (PSU's for short) and other private firms as per the forged document submitted by accused No.2 through M/s. Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises and thereby the accused No.1 and accused No.2 committed offence punishable under Sec.467, 468 and 471 of IPC?
4) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that in furtherance of criminal conspiracy accused No.1 had fraudulently released the loan amount without adhering to the stages of releasing as per banking norms and thereby committed offences punishable under Sec.120-B r/w 409, 420 of IPC?
5) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that accused No.1 had fraudulently discounted cheques presented by accused No.2 between the period 10.10.2003 to 28.09.2005 by ignoring banking procedures and exceeding his discretionary powers and thereby committed an offence punishable under Sec.120-B r/w 409, 420 of IPC?
6) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that accused No.1 had utilised cheque No.187267 issued by M/s. Sree Balaji 88 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 Krupa Enterprises amounting to Rs.20,000/- and thereby committed an offence punishable under Sec.120- B r/w 420 of IPC?
7) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused No.2 in furtherance of criminal conspiracy had engaged brokers and hoodwinked employees of PSUs and other private firms and obtained signatures on loan documents and had paid a sum of Rs.12 Lakhs to the Brokers and thereby accused No.2 committed offences punishable under Sec.120-B r/w 420 of IPC?
8) Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that accused No.3 in pursuance of criminal conspiracy and with fraudulent and criminal intention to cheat and defraud the bank had signed Tripartite Agreement as General power of Attorney holder with respect to sn.98 of Nagavara Village on 27.1.2004 and 2.2.2004 even before entering GPA and thereby committed offences punishable under Sec.120-B r/w 420, 468 and 471?
9) Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that in furtherance of criminal conspiracy accused No.3 had represented to have valid title over the land in Sy.No. 98 having knowledge that it was acquired 89 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 by Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board (KIADB for short) as per Gazette Publicaton and thereby accused No.4 and 5 have committed offence punishable under Sec.120-B r/w 420, 468 and 471 of IPC?
10) Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that accused No.1 being the Chief Manager of the then SBM, had abused his official power by sanctioning 263 house building loans aggregating to 15.61 Crores in the name of various various existing, non-existing / non-eligible borrowers and thereby committed offence punishable under Sec.13(2) r/w 13(1)(c)(d) of P.C. Act?
11) What order?
74. After hearing the argument of both the parties and on considering the oral and documentary evidence on record and also the principles of law laid down in the decisions relied on by both the parties, my findings on the above points are as hereunder:
Point No.1: In the Negative
Point No.2: In the Affirmative
Point No.3: In the Affirmative
Point No.4: In the Affirmative
Point No.5: In the Affirmative
90 Spl.CC. No.41/2012
Point No.6: In the Affirmative
Point No.7: In the Affirmative
Point No.8: In the Affirmative
Point No.9: In the Affirmative
Point No.10: In the Affirmative
Point No.11: As per final order for the
following:
CHAPTER VII
REASONS
75. Point No.1: The first point which is required to be addressed by the court is with respect to obtaining prior sanction as contemplated under Sec.19 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred as P.C.Act in short). In the instant case, accused No.1 M.T.V.Reddy had discharged his duty as Manager of the then State Bank of Mysore during the relevant point of time i.e., 2003-2006. Admittedly, the bank for which he was working was public sector undertaking and he was to be termed as public servant. At the same time what is 91 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 required to be considered is whether the accused No.1 M.T.V.Reddy was continued to be a public servant at the time of filing of Final Report. As noticed from the records, accused No.1 M.T.V.Reddy was discharged from service/ dismissed from service as per the order passed by the State Bank Mysore dated 22.08.2008. As such the provision of Sec.19 of the Act would clearly indicate that there was no necessity to obtain necessary sanction to prosecute him. In this regard, the court has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2016) 9 SCC 598 (L.Narayanaswamy Vs. State of Karnataka) wherein it is held as:
17. With this, we now address the second question i.e. whether the public servant not being in the same post, when the offence was allegedly committed, though continuing as a public servant, loses the protection under Section 19(1) of the PC Act? The contention of the respondents was that sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act is not required as the appellants have been transferred from the post which 92 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 they were holding at the relevant time. In support of their plea that even on transfer/promotion, the appellants remain public servant, such a sanction was required, it was submitted that the object of Section 19 of the PC Act is to protect public servant from harassment and, therefore, exercise of powers under Section 19 of the PC Act is not an empty formality.
Since the Government, as a sanctioning authority, is supposed to apply its mind to the entire material and evidence placed before it and on examination thereof, it is to reach the conclusion as to whether the sanction is accorded or not. It was also argued that sanction is a weapon to ensure discouragement of frivolous and vexatious prosecution and is a safeguard for the innocent but not a shield for the guilty. In support of the aforesaid arguments, reliance was placed on State of H.P. v. Nishant Sareen [State of H.P. v. Nishant Sareen, (2010) 14 SCC 527 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 836] and Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan v. State of Gujarat [Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan v. State of Gujarat, (1997) 7 SCC 622 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1120 :
1997 SCC (L&S) 1784] .
18. The aforesaid judgments referred to by the appellants state the general proposition of law and purpose behind Section 19 of the PC Act. On the other hand, so far as the question that needs to be answered is concerned, we find that the 93 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 same very question came up for consideration in Abhay Singh Chautala v. CBI [Abhay Singh Chautala v. CBI, (2011) 7 SCC 141 :
(2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 1 : (2011) 2 SCC (L&S) 735] . In that case, the appellants were MLAs when charges under the PC Act were framed against them. However the charges pertained to wrongdoing committed during earlier periods of time during which they had also been MLAs or MPs. The charges did not pertain to their current tenure as MLAs during which the charges were framed and trial initiated. On the date when charges were framed no sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act was obtained. An objection regarding the absence of sanction was raised before the Special Judge, who in the common order held that the charge-sheet did not contain the allegation that the appellants had abused their current office as MLAs and, therefore, no sanction was necessary. The High Court by the impugned order under Section 482 CrPC did not interfere with the said prosecution. This Court put its imprimatur to the aforesaid view of the High Court thereby dismissing the appeals. After discussing a catena of judgments, it was held that even when the appellants in that case held more than one office during the check period which they are alleged to have abused; however, there will be no requirement of sanction if on the date when the cognizance is taken, they 94 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 are not continuing to hold that very office.
It was held that the relevant time is the date on which the cognizance is taken. If on that date, the appellant was not a public servant, there was no question of any sanction. It was also held that even if he continues to be a public servant but in a different capacity or is holding a different office than the one which is alleged to have been abused, still there would be no question of sanction. This can be found from the reading of paras 54 and 56 of the judgment in Abhay Singh Chautala [Abhay Singh Chautala v. CBI, (2011) 7 SCC 141 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 1 :
(2011) 2 SCC (L&S) 735] which we reproduce below: (SCC p. 166) "54. The learned Senior Counsel tried to support their argument on the basis of the theory of "legal fiction". We do not see as to how the theory of "legal fiction" can work in this case. It may be that the appellants in this case held more than one offices during the check period which they are alleged to have abused;
however, there will be no question of any doubt if on the date when the cognizance is taken, they are not continuing to hold that very office. The relevant time, as held in S.A. Venkataraman v. State [S.A. Venkataraman v. State, AIR 1958 SC 107 : 1958 Cri LJ 254] , is the date on which the cognizance is taken. If on that date, the appellant is not a public servant, there will be no question of any sanction. If he 95 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 continues to be a public servant but in a different capacity or holding a different office than the one which is alleged to have been abused, still there will be no question of sanction and in that case, there will also be no question of any doubt arising because the doubt can arise only when the sanction is necessary. In case of the present appellants, there was no question of there being any doubt because basically there was no question of the appellants' getting any protection by a sanction .***
56. Thus, we are of the clear view that the High Court was absolutely right in relying on the decision in Parkash Singh Badal v. State of Punjab [Parkash Singh Badal v. State of Punjab, (2007) 1 SCC 1 :
(2007) 1 SCC (Cri) 193] to hold that the appellants in both the appeals had abused entirely different office or offices than the one which they were holding on the date on which cognizance was taken and, therefore, there was no necessity of sanction under Section 19 of the Act as held in K. Karunakaran v. State of Kerala [K. Karunakaran v. State of Kerala, (2007) 1 SCC 59 : (2007) 1 SCC (Cri) 251] and the later decision in Parkash Singh Badal v. State of Punjab [Parkash Singh Badal v. State of Punjab, (2007) 1 SCC 1 : (2007) 1 SCC (Cri) 193] . The appeals are without any merit and are dismissed."96 Spl.CC. No.41/2012
19. In the aforesaid extracted para 54 there is a reference to the judgment of this Court in S.A. Venkataraman [S.A. Venkataraman v. State, AIR 1958 SC 107 : 1958 Cri LJ 254] . In that case, the issue was considered in the context of the PC Act wherein the relevant provision, corresponding to Section 19 of the present PC Act, was Section 6. Interpreting the provisions of Section 6, this Court held that even when a purported offence is committed by a person at the time he was a public servant, but he ceases to be a public servant on the date when cognizance of the offence alleged to have been committed is taken by the court, no such sanction was required.
21. It clearly follows from the reading of the judgments in Abhay Singh Chautala [Abhay Singh Chautala v. CBI, (2011) 7 SCC 141 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 1 :
(2011) 2 SCC (L&S) 735] and Parkash Singh Badal [Parkash Singh Badal v. State of Punjab, (2007) 1 SCC 1 :
(2007) 1 SCC (Cri) 193] that if the public servant had abused entirely different office or offices than the one which he was holding on the date when cognizance was taken, there was no necessity of sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act. It is also made clear that where the public servant had abused the office which he held in the check-up period, but had ceased to hold 97 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 "that office" or was holding a different office, then sanction would not be necessary. Likewise, where the alleged misconduct is in some different capacity than the one which is held at the time of taking cognizance, there will be no necessity to take the sanction. However, one discerning factor which is to be noted is that in both these cases the accused persons were public servants in the capacity of Member of Legislative Assembly by virtue of political office. They were not public servants as government employees. However, a detailed discussion contained in these judgments would indicate that the principle laid down therein would encompass and cover the cases of all public servants, including government employees who may otherwise be having constitutional protection under the provisions of Articles 309 and 311 of the Constitution.
76. As per the said judgment, Hon'ble Apex Court has clearly held that when an accused is not a public servant, the principles laid down under section 19 of the Act would not be applicable. Under the circumstances, the Point No.1 is answered in the Negative.
98 Spl.CC. No.41/2012
CHAPTER VII ENTERING INTO CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY AND ALSO ACT OF COMMITTING CHEATING AND OTHER OFFENCES AS ALLEGED.
77. Point No.2 to 10: Since the aforesaid points are interconnected as the question of entering of conspiracy requires to be considered along with the materials available on record which would further enable to ascertain the question of committing offence of cheating, breach of trust and also committing the act of cheating and fraud, the same is taken up together for consideration. However sub classifications are made in the later part of my judgment for the purpose of convenience.
78. With respect to the allegation of entering into criminal conspiracy the court is required to consider the entire materials which have been placed before it. It is settled principle of law that entering 99 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 into criminal conspiracy is to be considered with the attending facts and circumstances of the case.
79. The provisions of Sec.120-B of Indian Penal Code clearly stipulates that whenever an act is intended to be done in a manner which is illegal or which is legal in an illegal manner, the same attracts the rigors of Sec.120-B of IPC. It is the settled principles of law that the concept of criminal conspiracy cannot be proved in normal circumstances by way of direct evidence. However, the same may be proved by indicating the circumstances which would lead to draw inference that it was not a minor irregularity but indeed it was an act of criminal conspiracy. In the instant case as noticed above, many irregularities were being committed by accused No.1 who was the Branch Manager and it is alleged that the said irregularities cannot be considered as minor misnomer but it was committed in furtherance of criminal conspiracy entered between other accused 100 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 persons. Under the circumstances, the moot aspect which is required to be determined is whether such irregularity amounts to entering into criminal conspiracy. In this regard, the authority which has been relied upon by the learned Public Prosecutor is required to be considered which is reported in (2002) 7 SCC 334 (Mohammed Khalid Vs. State of West Bengal) wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as follows:
"17. It would be appropriate to deal with the question of conspiracy. Section 120B of IPC is the provision which provides for punishment for criminal conspiracy. Definition of 'criminal conspiracy' given in Section 120A reads as follows:
"120A-When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done,- (1) all 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 101 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof.' The elements of a criminal conspiracy have been stated to be: (a) an object to be accomplished, (b) a plan or scheme embodying means to accomplish that object, (c) an agreement or understanding between two or more of the accused persons whereby, they become definitely committed to co-operate for the accomplishment of the object by the means embodied in the agreement, or by any effectual means, (d) in the jurisdiction where the statute required an overt act. The essence of a criminal conspiracy is the unlawful combination and ordinarily the offence is complete when the combination is framed. From this, it necessarily follows that unless the statute so requires, no overt act need be done in furtherance of the conspiracy, and that the object of the combination need not be accomplished, in order to constitute an indictable offence. Law making conspiracy a crime, is designed to curb immoderate power to do mischief which is gained by a combination of the means. The encouragement and support which co- conspirators give to one another rendering enterprises possible which, if left to individual effort, would have been impossible, furnish the ground for visiting conspirators and abettors with condign punishment. The conspiracy is held to be continued and renewed as to 102 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 all its members wherever and whenever any member of the conspiracy acts in furtherance of the common design. (See: American Jurisprudence Vol. II Sec. 23, p.
559). For an offence punishable under section 120-B, prosecution need not necessarily prove that the perpetrators expressly agree to do or cause to be done illegal act; the agreement may be proved by necessary implication. Offence of criminal conspiracy has its foundation in an agreement to commit an offence. A conspiracy consists not merely in the intention of two or more, but in the agreement of two or more to do an unlawful act by unlawful means. So long as such a design rests in intention only, it is not indictable. When two agree to carry it into effect, the very plot is an act in itself, and an act of each of the parties, promise against promise, actus contra actum, capable of being enforced, if lawful, punishable if for a criminal object or for use of criminal means.
18. No doubt in the case of conspiracy there cannot be any direct evidence. The ingredients of offence are 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 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 103 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 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 rarely available. Therefore, the circumstances proved before, during and after the occurrence have to be considered to decide about the complicity of the accused."
80. On appreciating the above said dictum, it is clear that the prosecution is required to prove the circumstances under which an offence is committed which would be construed as conspiracy i.e., there should be an object to be accomplished, plan or scheme embodying means to accomplish the object, an agreement or understanding between 2 or more accused persons and in the juxtaposition where the statue is required to commit an overt act. In other words, the essence of criminal conspiracy is the unlawful combination and ordinarily the offence is complete when the combination is framed. In the instant case it requires to be considered that whether 104 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 the sanctioning of the loan with irregularities would amount to conspiracy. Time and again it has been held by various dictum's that the criminal conspiracy is an independent offence. Further the prosecution is required to prove the same by producing necessary materials to indicate criminal misconduct on the part of the accused. In other words, the acts, which have been committed by the accused persons, should be the one, wherein the accused has to take definite steps to an agreement which they had entered upon to do an illegal act or to do an act which is legal, but with illegal means. Hence, in simple manner the concept of conspiracy can be explained if it consists following ingredients.
a) that there should be an agreement between 2 or more persons
b) that the said agreement should be for doing of an illegal act or for doing by illegal means an act which by itself may not be illegal.
105 Spl.CC. No.41/2012
81. When the said ingredients are established, then only the prosecution may contend that the accused persons had entertained an intention to commit an offence. At this juncture it would be appropriate to appreciate and rely upon the passage of Russell on Crimes (12th Edition a Volume No.1) which reads as follows:
"The gist of the offence of conspiracy then lies, not in doing the act, or effecting the purpose for which the conspiracy is formed, nor in attempting to do them, nor in inciting others to do them, but in the forming of the scheme or agreement between the parties.
Agreement is essential. Mere knowledge, or even discussion, of the plan is not, per se enough".
82. It is well settled principles of law that criminal conspiracy will be hatched up in darkness and will be executed for which there will not be any direct evidence. It is also relevant to appreciate that when criminal conspiracy is alleged, the same is required to be considered on the basis of the materials 106 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 available on record and at times, the circumstantial evidence is also required to be looked into.
83. With the above aspect the court at the time of considering the materials is also required to consider the other materials which have been leveled against the accused persons. For the sake of convenience the allegations which have been leveled against accused No.2 S.N.Krishnaiah Setty who is Proprietor of M/s. Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises is to be considered. It is admitted that Sri S.N.Krishnaiah Setty being the Proprietor had entered into Tripartite Agreement with the land owner's and borrowers towards putting up construction over the site which the borrower had intended to purchase from the land owner. It is the definite case of the prosecution that the Tripartite Agreement itself was a fraud being played upon the bank, since the land owners did not had a clear and marketable title as depicted in the documents pertaining to the land in Sy.No. 98 of 107 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 Nagavara village wherein the land was subjected to acquisition proceedings. In respect of the same, the accused No.3 Sri K.Muniraju who was the GPA holder for accused No.4 Sri K.Srinivas and accused No.5 Biddappa who were the land owners, had knowledge about the dispute with respect to the title of their property which was subjected to Tripartite Agreement with builder and the borrowers. In this regard main reliance is placed by the prosecution on the Tripartite agreement which was entered into by Accused No.2 S N Krishnaiah Setty with Accused No.3 Muniraju the GPA Holder for Accused No.4 Srinivas and Accused No.5 Biddappa( case is abated) towards sale of sites at Nagawara village, since the land was subjected to acquisition proceedings and even the compensation was determined by the competent authority. It is further submitted that the role of accused No.2 was forthcoming after execution of the Tripartite Agreement, since he was the one who was required to 108 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 put up construction over the site property so as to utilize the loan amount as disbursed by the Bank. As such, the question of making allegations under Sec.420, 468 and 471 of IPC is also to be examined along with the charge of conspiracy.
84. As noticed from the records, the question of conspiracy itself goes hand in hand with the allegation of cheating and also creating forged and fabricated documents since it is contended that the act of cheating and also the act of fabricating documents had taken place only in furtherance of criminal conspiracy entered into by the parties. Hence the aforesaid aspects are all appreciated conjointly and it is noticed that on the basis of the loan sanctioned to existing and non-existing employees and in-eligible persons the Accused No.2 had profited illegally.
109 Spl.CC. No.41/2012
85. At the first instance, the settled principle of law with respect to appreciation of materials for the offence of criminal conspiracy is required to be looked into. It has been held in various dictums that the allegations of criminal conspiracy need not be proved by direct evidence and it can also be proved by looking into the attending circumstances and also on the basis of circumstantial evidence. The concept of criminal conspiracy would clearly indicate that always the conspiracy would be hatched in darkness and hence there would not be any direct materials to indicate about entering the same.
CHAPTER-IX THE GENESIS OF THE ACT OF CONSPIRACY AND COMMITTING OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SEC.420, 468, 471 OF IPC.
86. The entire case of the prosecution was initiated on the basis of the written information which came to be filed by the then Chief Vigilance Officer of 110 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 SBM, Bengaluru on 30.01.2008. It has been narrated in the written information which is marked as Ex.P.1331 that the housing loans availed by some individuals through M/s Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises by submitting fabricated salary certificates during the tenure of Accused No.1 M.T.V.Reddy between August-2003 to 2006 was to be investigated since on 28.12.2005 Regional office at the time of perusing the salary certificate enclosed to the Control Returns submitted that the branch was having various housing loans being sanctioned at the branch. On the basis of it, the FIR came to be registered in Cr.No.3/2008 on 1.2.2008. In fact the FIR was lodged against accused No.1 M.T.V.Reddy and accused No.2 Krishnaiah Setty at that point of time for the offences punishable under Sec.120-B r/w 409, 419, 420, 467 and 471 of IPC.
87. In the instant case, it has been submitted by the prosecution that M/s. Sree Balaji Krupa 111 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 Enterprises was the builder who had proposed for developing sites at Nagavara, Kuduregere, Sampigehalli, Malathahalli and Hegganahalli. It is the contention of the prosecution that the loans were being availed by the employees of various PSUs i.e., BMTC, Army Base Unit, HAL and also from employees of private firms like M/s KAR Mobiles etc., who were allured by M/s. Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises and were made to open accounts at SBM, SPBB Branch, Gandhinagara, Bengaluru. It is pertinent to note that at that point of time accused No.1 Sri M.T.V.Reddy was the Manager of the concerned Branch and he was the one who had sanctioned various loans to the borrowers. As already discussed in the above paragraphs of my judgment, the court has segregated the witnesses who were the borrowers who worked in various PSUs and private firms, i.e., the evidence of PW11 to PW30 who were the employees of BMTC such as Drivers and Conductors, the other borrowers were 112 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 examined as PW36, PW37, PW43, PW46, PW48 to 49, PW57, PW70, PW71 who were private drivers, employees of Army Base Workshop, HAL, attender in Syndicate Bank, etc. It is relevant to note that during the course of their chief-examination, the witnesses have specifically deposed that they came in contact with Mr.Dominic who was working as Mechanic at KSRTC and had assured to the employees that they would be able to get site at very low cost which was being developed by M/s. Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises. It is relevant to note that all the witnesses have deposed consistently that after the inducement given by Mr.Dominic, they had handed over their salary slips and other documents to him and subsequently, they had visited SBM, Gandhinagar Branch and had affixed their signature to the application forms. In the case of all the witnesses who were the borrowers have consistently deposed of visiting the Sub-Registrar office and a sale 113 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 deed being executed in their favour, except with respect to one or two witnesses, the remaining borrowers of BMTC, KSRTC, and other PSUs as well as the private firms have deposed consistently that they were not shown with any sites nor they had repaid the loan amount. Only two witnesses have deposed of receiving notice from the Bank calling upon them to repay the loan amount and immediately, thereafter, they had consulted Dominic who had advised them to get a re-conveyance deed executed.
88. I have also appreciated the chief- examination which is recorded in this regard and all the witnesses have specifically deposed that the salary slips along with their loan application though bears name of their organization, does not belongs to them since the amount mentioned is not tallied with their actual Gross Salary and Net Salary and in short the salary particulars were all inflated to grant loans. For 114 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 the sake of convenience some of the witnesses whose documents have been produced have been categorically noted below. For instance the evidence of PW16 Naushad Khan, who has deposed that he was working as Security Hawaldar and had applied for loan for purchasing site in the year 2004. He has identified the salary slip at Ex.P.118A and has deposed that the gross salary which is depicted as Rs.12174/- does not belongs to him and in fact he has identified the correct salary slip which was collected by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation at Ex.P.118-B as the one which the depict the salary as Rs.6331.46. Even otherwise, the statement of PW21 Chikkegowda who was the driver at BMTC has identified his loan application at Ex.P.119 and has deposed that his correct gross salary was Rs.6583/- and not Rs.13,791/- as per Ex.P.119A. The aforesaid two instances would indicate that the gross salary was inflated only to suit 115 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 the needs and to enhance and raise the eligibility criteria of the borrowers with respect to availing loans. As per the guidelines of RBI and also the circular issued by the Bank the disbursing of loan was on the basis of the salary which was being drawn by the employees. Based on their repaying capacity and also on their salary the loans were to be disbursed. In the aforesaid two instances, it is noticed that the gross salary was nothing but the double the amount which they were actually drawing. In other words the gross salary was inflated nearly 100% so as to bring them within the bracket of loan eligibility criteria. For instance the loan application at Ex.P.118 pertaining to Mr.Naushad Khan indicates that he was sanctioned loan amount of Rs.6.3 lakhs which was sanctioned on 24.5.2004 and the amount released at the first instance was Rs.3,68,000/-. Likewise, PW21 Chikkegowda was sanctioned with loan amount of Rs.5.9 lakhs and at the inception a sum of 116 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 Rs.3,59,000/- came to be released. The aforesaid figures assumes importance that the loan were being sanctioned to ineligible persons and if only the eligibility criteria was strictly adhered to, then the question of sanctioning loan to the extent as disbursed would not arise at all. In simple words it would indicate that the salary slips were fabricated and forged only to ensure that the borrowers were made eligible to avail the aforesaid amount. The above discussion can be better understood by way of the table wherein the original slip and the fabricated salary slips are compared to know to what extent their figures in the salary slips were inflated to bring the borrowers within the bracket of eligibility.
PW Name Gross salary as Gross salary % of inflation
per salary slip as per
produced along admitted
with loan salary slip
application
in
Ex.P. /and Rs. Ex.P /and Rs.
11 Fakrubi 184a 10797/- 184b 7000 154%
117 Spl.CC. No.41/2012
to
8000/
12 Muniraju 249(b) 249(c)
13 P.G.Nagaraj 185A 533(a)
14 Nagendra 183a 14258/- 183b 4384/- 325%
15 Mariswamy 130(A) 10797/- 130(B) 7600.2 142%
Ex.P.130(A), 3
130(B)
16 R.Naushad 118a 12174/- 118b 6331/- 192%
Khan
17 Rangaraju 186a 11797/- 186b 6097/- 193%
18 Manjunath 127a 11797/- 127b 2476/- 476%
pategar
19 Ravshankar 128a 12174/- 128b 7404/- 164%
M.V
20 Umendra B.E. 289a 14622/- 289b 9624/- 152%
21 K.B.Chikkegow 119a 13791/- 119b 6583/- 209%
da
22 N.Shivamurthy 250a 10929/- - -
23 Smt.Saira Banu 275a 15185/- 275b 2266/- 670%
24 Venkateshwara 121a 12814/- 121b 7566/- 169%
n.B.R.
25 D.Ananda 286a 13436/- 286b 8014/- 168%
Krishna
29 Nanjundaswam 120a 12174/- 120b 7443/- 163%
y
30 Krishna K.H. 126a 12609/- 126b 9609/- 131%
48 M.R.Balakrishn 579 17808/- - 7800/- 278%
a as per
eviden
dce
49 V.Dhanikachala 580a 15029/- - 7000 215%
m to
8000/-
50 V.Indrajith 153a 12212/- - Depose
d gross
salary
was
very
less
69 B.Vincent 157a 12343/- 528a 8977/- 137%
118 Spl.CC. No.41/2012
89. When the aforesaid table is carefully
appreciated with the circular issued by the SBM, it would clearly indicate that the salary slip was inflated so as to bring the borrowers within the ambit of loan eligibility criteria. For instance, PW11- Fakrubi has identified her actual salary slip indicating that she was drawing gross salary of Rs.7000 to 8000 p.m. during the relevant point of time and as per the salary slip which was annexed along with the loan application at Ex.P.184-A which indicated that she was drawing of salary Rs.10797/-, based on the same the loan eligibility was determined which was 60 times of the monthly income as per the circular. In other words there is increase of 154% with respect to her salary.
90. Likewise, PW14 Nagendra has deposed that he was drawing salary of Rs.4384/- at relevant point of time and for which he has admitted the salary slip at Ex.P.183B and whereas the salary slip which was 119 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 enclosed along with loan application Ex.P.183 indicated that he was drawing salary of Rs.14258/-. In other words, the inflated salary was to the extent of 325%. I have also bestowed my anxious reading to the cross-examination made to the aforesaid witnesses. The Court is not discussing the cross-examination of all the employees who were the borrowers, for the reason that the suggestions which were put forth to those witnesses were all similar in nature and even the chief-examination which was placed before the court only indicated by all the said borrowers that they had obtained the loan at the behest of one Dominic who had assured them to get sites being developed by M/s. Sri Balaji Krupa Enterprises. In other words the common inference which can be drawn from the entire evidence is that the borrowers were made to believe that they would obtain site which was being developed by M/s Sri Balaji Krupa Enterprises for which Mr.S.N.krishnaiah Setty was 120 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 the Proprietor. During the course of cross- examination of PW14 it was suggested that he had given statement before CBI that Dominic had induced them to get site at Hegganahalli village and he has also admitted that the site was registered in his name and loan was being availed from the Bank. Apart from that nothing much has been elicited and in fact the evidence which indicated about the difference in the admitted gross salary and the salary slip which was produced before the Bank authorities had remained unchallenged by any of the persons. Though it is submitted that accused No.2 was nowhere concerned about the same since it is the bounden duty of the prosecution to establish the facts of the case beyond reasonable doubt, the fact which remains is that accused No.1 had accepted such a salary slips without verification and also the loan was ultimately repaid by the Developer i.e., M/s.Sri Balaji Krupa Enterprises though he was not having any personal 121 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 interest in the repayment of loan. With respect to the evidence of PW11 Fakrubi a similar suggestion were put forth to her and also she has admitted of receiving salary slip for the month at the time of obtaining the salary.
91. Even if a definite stand is taken by the defence that they were not involved in the entire process of fabricating documents, the fact of presenting documents to the bank is required to be considered from another point of view also. Though the accused No.2 may take up a contention that he was not at all responsible for producing such a document, it is to be kept in mind that the ultimate beneficiary of the entire transaction was accused No.2 himself and in fact he was the one who had come forward to repay the loan amount immediately after registration of FIR and in many cases when the fact of default was noticed by him he had got re conveyance deed executed in his favour/ owner. It is worth to note 122 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 that in three projects his own brothers Mr. S N Balaram and Pw-26 S N Ramesh were the owners. If at all the accused No.2 S.N.Krishnaiah Setty submits that he was not at all having any interest over the said aspect, then he has to offer an explanation that why he had repaid the loan of all the borrowers, though he was only a developer of the property. The Role of developer would diminish with the development of the layout and further, if he undertakes for construction, it would be marginalized or reduced further when the construction work is completed and when the remuneration towards the same is paid to him. However, interestingly in the above case no construction activities were made in the aforesaid project areas and all of a sudden the amount came to be repaid by the developer himself on behalf of the Borrowers and interestingly the Accused No.2 S N Krishniaha Setty himself has addressed letter to the Bank requesting to handover all original 123 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 documents to him and later on GPA was produced on his behalf to collect the original documents of the borrowers from the Bank. It is not a stray incident wherein the role of accused No.1 can be cordoned off by holding that it was a sheer mistake of fact or appreciation of facts, since it is vehemently argued by the learned Counsel for accused that due non availability of sufficient staff at the Branch, the Manager Mr MTV Reddy had accepted the documents furnished and had also acted upon the same in bonafide faith and intention that it was true and correct. In order to go into the depth of the aforesaid aspect the court has taken into account of the aforesaid chart which is mentioned above wherein PW23 Saira Banu has deposed of working in BMTC and drawing salary of Rs.2266/- at relevant point of time and the salary slip which was submitted along with the loan application at Ex.P.275 was Rs.15185/-. In other words the figure which has been inflated is 124 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 more than 670% and why the aforesaid act has been made or committed is required to be considered. As per the loan application which is more fully marked at ExP.510 at Sl.No.5 the margin for loan proposal has been described which is extracted as follows:-
"The total amount she
applied was Rs.6.4 lakhs
towards purchase and
construction of house at
Mallathahalli and legal opinion was obtained on 15.1.2005, whereas the loan was sanctioned on 3.1.2005"
92. The same would indicate a severe lapse on the part of the Bank to sanction the loan prior to getting clearance on the title of the property. That apart the loan amount which was released was Rs.4.5 lakhs and as part of the first installment a sum of Rs.4.1 lakh came to be released on 13.1.2005 which is once again prior to obtaining the legal opinion. The 125 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 aforesaid account was closed subsequently on 30.10.2006. When the aforesaid act is appreciated with the margin amount which was required to be maintained by the borrower, it would indicate that the loan proposal for purchase of land alone, a margin of 15% of the cost of land for construction of dwelling unit which would include registration fee and stamp duty etc., has to be maintained and loan proposal amount upto Rs.1 Crore, the margin of 15% is to be maintained. If for the sake of arguments, the contention of the accused persons is to be accepted that it was all a genuine documents produced by the borrowers, then obviously 15% of the loan amount i.e., for 6.4 lakhs would amount to Rs.96,000/-. However, the amount in her account at the time of release of the loan would clearly indicate that no such margin amount was maintained. I have also carefully appreciated the loan application of PW23 Saira Banu which would clearly indicate that she had filed her 126 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 application before the concerned branch on 12.1.2005, wherein she had requested for housing loan to an extent of Rs.6.4 lakhs and the total estimation for acquiring / constructing house was estimated at Rs.8 lakhs. It is very curious to note that in Sl.No.9 of the Form No.1917 - Housing Loan for public - Statement giving all the information/ papers/ documents for availment of the loan, wherein the following description has been made:
9. Whether the society's/ land Yes lords/vendors title to the The legal opinion of property/ flat/ house is clear Advocate on our panel is and marketable, free from enclosed.
encumbrances and doubts: Sri P.A.Krishna Reddy.
93. This is a classic case wherein a fraud has been played by the concerned Manager and also the accused persons since the application itself was filed on 12.1.2005 and housing loan application was processed on 13.1.2005 which indicated that the disbursement of loan towards construction were to be 127 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 in 3 installments of 30%, 40% and 30% and interestingly the legal opinion was obtained on 15.1.2005. If the title deed is scrutinized by the panel advocate on 15.1.2005, how the Branch Manager can give a positive assertion that they had obtained legal opinion with respect to clear title prior to the same. It is also relevant to note that in the very same exhibit a recommendation is made by the Chief Manager at Column No.15, which is as follows:
"That the property offered as security is scritunised and cleared by the Bank Advocate Sri P.A.Krishna Reddy. The same may be accepted as security by way of equitable mortgage or deposit of title deeds".
94. Further, in the Inspection Report the concerned Branch Manager clearly states that he visited the site on 7.1.2005 and Smt.Saira Banu was available at the time of inspection and the layout is 128 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 situated at Mallathahalli, adjacent to Bangalore University was fully developed, the civic amenities like road, sanitaries were available, water and electricity will be made in due course. The entire contents of the submission and loan recommendation made by the concerned Branch Manager i.e., Accused No.1 M.T.V.Reddy, itself is a fraud being played upon the Branch. At the cost of repetition, it is relevant to note that the loan recommendation letter itself is a fraudulent and concocted document wherein reckless entries have been made with respect to the public funds being utilized. Further in Column No.9 it has been specified by the Branch manager that the plan of the house was approved by the competent authority i.e., Development Authority / Corporation and the sanction would be furnished later. With these materials, the evidence of PW23 Saira Banu is to be revisited, in her entire chief examination it is her specific contention that Mr.Dominic had represented 129 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 to provide her with a site which was being developed by "M/s. Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises". She has also deposed of visiting Sub-Registrar office at Peenya and also she has deposed that she was not at all being shown the site and at the time of registration, Mr.Dominic was accompanied by one Mr.Swaroop who was also examined before the court as PW67 and he has specifically deposed that he worked for M/s. Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises at that point of time. Curiously, during the course of cross-examination it is not disputed that accused No.1 had sanctioned loan nor there is any dispute with respect to formation of layout by M/s. Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises or with respect to execution of the sale deed. Last but not the least, I have also carefully appreciated the re-conveyance deed which came to be executed on 30.10.2006 (Document No.2017), which would clearly indicate that the first Party therein i.e., Smt.Saira Banu had purchased site which was 130 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 converted by the order of Special Deputy Commissioner Bengaluru District on 5.2.2003 was being re-conveyed to the Second Party and it is curious to note that the second party who was the vendor had made an endorsement that he had received the entire sale consideration of Rs.2 lakhs and accordingly a sale deed was executed on 15.1.2005 and after lapse of 3 years the second party had re-conveyed the same to the very same owner by paying the very same amount of Rs.2 lakhs. All though the reason for executing re-conveyance deed has been narrated as that she was not interested to carry on with the ownership of the schedule property and the owner had desired to regain the schedule property, the same doesn't seems to be proper since there are no traces to indicate that indeed the Builder had made any efforts to put up development activities after entering into Tripartite Agreement. In other words, it is nothing but an act to swindle with public 131 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 money, that after lapse of 3 years when and where a person will re-convey the property for the very same amount for which it was purchased. There cannot be any iota of doubt that the entire transaction was a fraudulent one for which the connivance and active role of accused No.1 M.T.V.Reddy was played in order to aid and support the interest of other accused persons. It is pertinent to note that as per the loan application the entire amount which was sanctioned was Rs.6.4 lakhs and as discussed above, the loan amount was disbursed prior to obtaining of legal opinion itself. This would indicate that at the time of considering the loan application the Accused No.1 had indeed entertained the malafide intention.
95. This is not a sole incident wherein an excessive act has been played by the accused persons. The court is pointing out to the circumstances, which would indicate of a definite overt act being played by the accused persons. At the cost of repetition, once 132 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 again the court has taken up the discussion of the applications which has been filed before the court in a random manner.
96. For instance, the court has also taken up the application of PW17 Rangaraju, who has worked as Conductor at Depot No.8 of BMTC and he in his chief-examination stated that one Mr.Dominic who was mechanic in their Depot had represented to him that he would provide sites developed by M/s. Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises for Rs.1.25 lakh and he could avail loan assistance. It is his evidence that he had furnished documents to him and later on a loan was sanctioned and he had visited Sub-Registrar office at Devanahalli to get a Sale deed executed. As per the documents produced before the court the gross salary during the relevant period of time was Rs.6097/-. However, the salary slip which was enclosed along with his loan application depicted of Rs.11797/- which indicated inflation of 193% of his 133 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 actual salary. It is curious to note that the loan application was filed by him stating that he was intending to purchase site bearing No.159 at Hegganahalli, Devanahalli Tq, Bengaluru District and he had narrated in his application that he requested for Rs.6.3 lakhs. In Sl.No.2 of the loan application further clarification has been made which indicated that the total cost of site was Rs.0.90 lakhs, cost of development was Rs.4 lakhs and cost of construction was Rs.4.80 lakhs. In all he was required to accumulate 9.70 lakhs. Further in column No.9 it has been stated that the legal opinion of the Panel Advocate was obtained and the margin amount was Rs.3.4 lakhs. Thereafter, the proposal has been forwarded by the concerned Branch Manager wherein it is stated that for availing the loan it was required for him to produce the following documents i.e., 1) sanction communication 2) Mid-term loan agreement
3) Guarantor Agreement and 4) Agreement to 134 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 mortgage. In the recommendation at para-15, the concerned Branch Manager i.e., accused No.1 has clarified of obtaining legal opinion from Mr.Krishna Reddy. It is interesting to note that the loan application was filed on 25.11.2004, the recommendations were being made by the Branch Manager stating that he has visited the site on 30.11.2004 and the applicant was very much present at the place of site. It is also relevant to note that the Branch Manager had signed a letter which indicated of assessing his movable properties wherein it is narrated that the applicant / borrower had possessed gold ornaments worth Rs.40,000/-, PF worth Rs.80,000/-, other electronic equipments worth Rs.10,000/-, totally amounting to Rs.1.03 lakhs. This is also a document which is created for the purpose of sanctioning the loan since there are no supporting documents to justify the same and also legal opinion which has been produced accompanying the 135 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 application would indicate that the present owners of the property i.e., S.N.Balaram and S.N.Ramesh had purchased property at Hegganahalli through 2 deeds which was registered in the office of Sub-Registrar at Devanahalli. Further, it has been opined that the land was duly converted for non-agricultural residential purpose as per the orders of the Assistant Commissioner, Doddaballapura dated 30.9.2004 and layout plan was duly approved by the local authorities. The aforesaid aspect is required to be revisited with the evidence of PW-62 Rajanna who had worked as Secretary at Jalige village Panchayath within whose limits the Heganahalli was situated has deposed that the layout plan at EXP 299 indicates that the Village Panchayath was not the competent authority to sanction the formation of layout since the said project comes within the jurisdiction of BIAPA. I have also appreciated the lay out plans at EX P300 to EX P302 which would indicate that the same was 136 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 submitted by M/s Balaji Krupa Enterprises. Even otherwise the court has appreciated the evidence of PW61 R Narasimha Murthy the Panchayath Secretary of Bettahalasur, PW-60 H Narayanappa who was working as Secretary at Tippur Village panchayath wherein the aforesaid layout were proposed to be developed. In all their evidence, they have unequivocally have deposed that the permission was to be accorded by Bangalore International Airport Authority (BIAAPPA in short) and not the village panchayath and curiously they were not subjected to any cross examination. In fact legal opinion furnished by the Panel Advocate is also false opinion and acting on the same, the loan clearance has been made by the concerned Branch Manager. Not only the aforesaid aspect, I have also taken into account of the Tripartite Agreement which was executed by the borrower in favour of accused No.2. Curiously the Tripartite Agreement is undated one and the stamp paper would 137 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 indicate that it was purchased on 29.10.2004. If for the purpose of convenience once again loan application is appreciated it indicates that the prior to entering into Tripartite Agreement itself, he had requested for loan i.e., on 25.10.2004 and loan application was forwarded to the higher authorities i.e., Asst. General Manager on 26.10.2004 wherein it was narrated that the borrower was salaried employee at BMTC and had requested for loan of Rs.6.3 lakhs to put up construction on the layout formed by M/s. Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises. Once again the legal opinion which is furnished would indicate that the site was converted into non-agricultural purpose at the behest of the owners i.e., S.N.Balaram and S.N.Ramesh. It is also curious to note that the aforesaid persons are none-other than the brothers of Accused no.2 S.N.Krishnaiah Setty. Even otherwise the agreement of sale and build would indicate that the cost of the site was Rs.90,000/-. However, there is 138 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 no such description being classified in the application or in the loan proposal forwarded by the concerned Branch Manager. All the aforesaid aspects had taken place within a span of 3 to 4 days and in fact the Manager himself valued the site at Rs.4 lakhs at the time of placing his recommendation. When the developer himself values the site at Rs.90,000/-, and the sells the same for Rs.90,000/-, how the Manager can determine the value of the site at Rs.4 lakhs. Even otherwise in the application itself, it has been mentioned that the development cost would be Rs.4 lakhs. For the sake of benefit, when the recommendation is appreciated it indicates that the site is fully developed site and whereas the Tripartite Agreement indicates that the Development cost of Rs.4 lakh was to be paid by the borrower. In other words all the aforesaid documents were concocted and created for the purpose of availing loan. Even otherwise I have also appreciated the re-conveyance 139 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 deed which indicates that after lapse of many years the site is re-conveyed to the owner without including the development cost.
97. The court also has considered the fact the manner in which the applications were recommended by the accused No.1 in order to favour accused No.2 S.N.Krishnaiah Setty who was the Proprietor of M/s. Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises. As per the recommendations, the Manager has opined that the site with respect to S.Rangaraju who had purchased site No.159 at Hegganahalli village is to be appreciated. As per the Tripartite Agreement which is undated, Mr.S.N.Ramesh and Mr.S.N.Balaraj were the owners of the site property which was carved out of Sy.No. 84 measuring 6A 12 guntas of land at Hegganahalli village, Kundana Hobli, Devanahalli Tq. It is relevant to note that the prosecution had examined S.N.Ramesh as PW66. Mr.S.N.Ramesh in his chief examination has deposed that he owned land 140 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 in Sy.No. 50 of Kuduregere village measuring 3Acre and 6A12 guntas in Sy.No.84 at Hegganahalli village jointly with his brother S.N.Balaram. It is his evidence that his elder brother S.N.Krishnaiah Setty had proposed to form a layout and hence, they agreed for developing site and after that it was sold to purchasers. It is also been deposed by him that after some days, accused No.2 S.N.Krishnaiah Setty had stated to him that there was some problem with the loan account and as such it was to be re-conveyed and he had agreed upon them and re-conveyance deed was executed in their favour. He was not subjected to cross-examination by the accused persons. The crucial link which is required to be considered is out of 4 projects which M/s. Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises had intended to develop was pertaining to Hegganahalli and Kuduregwre projects and both these projects the land owners were none other than the siblings of accused No.2 141 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 S.N.Krishnaiah Setty. With this evidence when the loan application filed by PW17-Mr.S.Rangaraju is appreciated it would indicate that the land was entrusted to accused No.2 for its development. The recommendations which were made by the Branch Manager (A1) would indicate that he had inspected the site on 30.11.2004 and it was very close to Devanahalli International Airport and also it was stated that the developer had to arrange for Civil Amenities and the layout was fast developing into a good residential locality. Now with this, if the mahazar which was drawn by the CBI subsequently is appreciated, then the real development activities or the inspection which was allegedly made by the accused No.1 M.T.V.Reddy would be clarified. The mahazar which is drawn as per Ex.P.114 indicates that the CBI officials i.e., R.K.Shivanna, P.Shankar Rao, B.C.Muralidhar, Chandrashekar, Chikkamayigaiah and Mr.K.Shyamprasad had visited 142 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 the aforesaid place out of which Chikkamayigaiah was the Revenue Inspector and K.Shyamprasad was the Accountant at Kundanahalli Grama Panchayath. In the said mahazar which is hand-written it is narrated that the project was being made by M/s. Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises and on reaching the spot the same was identified by Chikkamayigaiah and K.Shyamprasad and it has been observed that the land was totally barren and no developmental work was done on the same and that no construction of any sort of structure had come up. Further, the lands have been mentioned with the schedule which is described as:
East by : Sy.No. 50 of Kuduregere village West by: Sy.No. 85 of Chowdamma Ramareddy North by: Sy.No.3 of T.Radha South by: Government Road
98. However, the said schedule of entire 6A 12 guntas of land is not at all tallying with the schedule 143 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 mentioned in the Tripartite Agreement which is made as part and parcel of the loan application. It is also been observed that a display board was erected over the said lands depicting that a suit was pending in O.S.2082/2006-07. The Managers who had inspected the said land were examined before the court as PW4 Shankar Rao is to be appreciated. In his chief- examination also he has deposed in consonance with the mahazar. During the course of cross-examination he was examined in detail with respect to furnishing of the audit report and also with respect to codified circular which were issued by the Bank. Further, he has admitted that totally accused No.1 had sanctioned 263 housing loans and out of which 33 loans were pending and in all the said loans the borrowers had a gestation period of 1 ½ years. He has also admitted that they had not mentioned specific site No. in the mahazar which was drawn at Ex.P.113 to Ex.P.117. I have also considered evidence of PW2 144 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 B.C.Muralidhar who has also deposed about visiting the aforesaid place and also drawing of the mahazar. During his cross-examination it was suggested that the Manager would rely upon the report of the legal practitioner who had submitted his opinion. However interestingly in the above case, prior to obtaining of the legal opinion itself the loan was sanctioned and also a recommendation was made by the Branch Manager. If the said suggestion is considered with the documents which are available on record, in majority of the cases the Manager had acted upon the application and recommended for loan prior to obtaining of the legal opinion. It was also suggested that accused 2 Krishnaiah Setty had called upon the meeting of all the borrowers and had got the loan account closed after obtaining GPA from the borrowers. However, nothing was suggested with respect to the mahazar which was drawn by the concerned witness. If for a moment, the drawing of 145 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 the mahazar is appreciated when the particular mahazar itself is not denied or its contents, then it would lead to a conclusion that no developmental activities had taken place and entire transaction was made only for the benefit of the accused No.2. I have also bestowed my anxious reading to the evidence of PW82 Raju N.R. who was Senior Environmental Officer, who has deposed that they had not given any consent certificate in the year 2009 in favour of M/s. Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises with respect to Sy.No. 84 of Hegganahalli village, Sy.No. 34, Sy.No. 33/1 and 2 of Sampigehalli village, Sy.No. 50 of Kuduregere and Sy.No. 98 of Nagavara and sy.No.58/4 at Mallathahalli village. He has specifically deposed that they had not issued any clearance certificate to the aforesaid projects. Further, the evidence of Venkatesh.S.V. who was the Chief-Engineer of BWSSB has deposed of not issuing any NOC for the project areas and PW79 Shivakumar was the Executive 146 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 Engineer of BESCOM has specifically deposed that they had not issued any NOC to M/s. Balaji Krupa Enterprises with respect to the layout allegedly formed at Sy.No. 84 of Hegganahalli village. And likewise PW78 Basavanna C has deposed in similar manner with respect to land in Sy.No. 58/4 and PW77 D.Thimmegowda had deposed in similar manner with respect to the project at Sampigehalli and Nagavara.
99. With reference of PW62 Rajanna who was Secretary of Village Panchayath Jalige has specifically deposed that they had not approved any layout with respect to Sy.No. 84 of Hegganahalli village and necessary approval were to be obtained from BIAAPPA (Bengaluru International Airport Area Planning Authority) and not from the Village Panchayath. All the aforesaid aspects would cast a serious question mark with respect to the manner in which the public funds are meddled with.
147 Spl.CC. No.41/2012
100. With the aforesaid aspect, once again the court has appreciated the guidelines which are laid down by the Bank as per Ex-510 to consider the loan application. Column No.6 of the loan application speaks about the security check obtained for the purpose of granting housing loan. For the sake of convenience, the same is extracted which reads as follows:
"7. Security:
7.1. Primary Ordinarily an equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds of the immovable property should be obtained to sale high cost of legal expenses involved in registered mortgage. The title deeds of the landed property/ flat/ house etc., myst be examined by the Bank's advocate who should certify in the search report that the mortgagor's title to the property is clear and that a valid equitable mortgage can be created. Where title deeds are not available or where it is considered necessary by the sanctioning authority, a registered mortgage of the immovable property should be obtained."
101. Further, in the same application, the papers and documents which are to be submitted along with 148 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 the loan application is also narrated which is extracted and reads as follows:
"13. Papers/Documents to be submitted along with loan application.
13.1. List of papers/documents applicable to all applicants:
● Application for loan.
● Proof of identity (photo copies of Voters ID
Card/Passport/Driving License/IT PAN Card).
● Passport size photograph.
● Proof of residence (photo copies of recent
Telephone Bills/Electricity
● Bill/Property tax receipt/Passport/Voters
ID Card).
● Proof of business address for non-
salaried individuals.
● Sale Deed/Agreement of Sale.
● Statement of Bank Account/Pass Book for
last 6 months.
● Letter of allotment from Housing
Board/Society, etc., (wherever
applicable).
● Copy of approved plan (wherever
applicable).
● Permission for construction (wherever
applicable).
149 Spl.CC. No.41/2012
● Estimate/Valuation Report from approved
valuers in respect of the property to be financed (wherever applicable).
● In case of conversation of agricultural land, a copy of the relative order. ● Search Report/Non-encumbrance certificate for 13 years.
● NOC under the provision of ULC Regulation Act. 1976 in original. 13.2. Papers/Documents to be submitted by salaried persons:
● Salary certificate from employer ● TDS Certificate on Form 16 or Copy of IT Return for last 2 financial years, duly acknowledged by ITO.
● Where check-off is proposed:
i) Irrevocable letter of authority
ii) Letter from employers
iii) Irrevocable Letter of Authority where
applicant himself is Drawing and Disbursing Officers."
102. When the aforesaid aspect is carefully appreciated it indicates that none of the requisites are adhered with by the concerned Branch. For instance, the primary security was to create equitable mortgage 150 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 of deposit of title deeds and also where the title deeds were not available or where it was considered it to be necessary registered mortgage of immovable properties were to be created. As noticed from the loan application of all the 261 accounts and also legal opinion, it is noticed that the legal advisor had opined that only the vendor was having the title and there are no materials to indicate that subsequently after executing the registered sale deed in favour of the Borrowers, an equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds were created. That apart the documents which were required to be submitted along with the loan application consisted of the sale deed or agreement of sale. I have pointed out earlier in my judgment that in some case there is no Tripartite Agreement at all.
Even if a Tripartite Agreement is furnished, the same will not substitute the agreement to sell and also the document did not consisted of any approved plan or permission for putting up construction. If only, it is to 151 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 be accepted that the Tripartite Agreement was entered between the parties then it would be apparent on the builder to furnish necessary documents of approval for putting up construction from the competent authorities. Even otherwise, apart from salary certificate from the employer, TDS certificate or Form No.16 or copy of I.T. returns for the last 2 financial years were to be collected and also letter from the employer were to be collected. If it is assumed that in a race to out-wit other branches the Manager had acted in a hasty manner, the same requires explanation that why he had acted in a similar manner in all 261 cases and that too in all 261 cases where the builder was Mr.S.N.Krishnaiah Setty of M/s. Balaji Krupa Enterprises. The aforesaid aspect would clearly establish the fact that a serious financial illegality and fraud was being played due to the hatching of criminal conspiracy between the parties.
152 Spl.CC. No.41/2012
103. I have also bestowed my anxious reading to the other 3 projects in order to ascertain whether any criminal conspiracy was hatched between the parties and also to ascertain whether the prosecution has successful in proving beyond reasonable doubt that the criminal conspiracy and act of cheating was entertained right from the inception.
104. With respect to the Kuduregere project for the sake of random check the following documents are highlighted.
Sl. Name Loan Site Loan Legal Loan Closing
No. Sancti No. Sancti opinio amount date
oned on date n date released
Rs. in
Lakh
1. Krishna 4.9 2 1.6.20 2,39,40 11.10.200
Reddy 04 0/- 7
2. B.R.Venka 4.9 4 1.6.20 1.6.20 2,85,50 13.3.2008
teshwaran 04 04 0/-
105. In the above case loan application of Krishna Reddy, employee of BMTC wherein he had claimed loan for Rs.4.9 lakhs, towards site No.2 and 153 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 in that cost of site has been shown as 70,000/-, whereas development cost is mentioned as 2.72 lakhs and cost of construction is depicted as 2.78 lakhs. The margin money is also shown to be Rs.1.3 lakhs. The concerned Branch Manager after verifying the same had submitted his recommendation for granting loan to the higher authorities stating in column No.15 that the property which is offered as security is scrutinized and cleared by the Bank's Panel Advocate Sri P.A.Krishna Reddy and the same is accepted as security by way of equitable mortgage. Further, the Branch Manager accused No.1 M.T.V.Reddy has recommended that he has inspected the site on 23.5.2004 and the site was very near to Bengaluru International Airport and 4 lane roads leading to International Airport connected the layout and the site was valued at Rs.3 lakhs. The aforesaid statement itself is a farrago for the reason that the legal opinion was obtained on 1.6.2004 and if at all the legal 154 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 opinion was not available, then how the Manager could submit to the higher authorities that the title deed was cleared by the Panel Advocate. Even otherwise the account extract which has been enclosed along with the loan application indicates that as on the date of sanction of the loan, no amount was credited by the borrower i.e., it was a zero balance account being maintained. In other words when the amount is credited it was transferred in to the pocket of accused No.2's firm M/s Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises. Even the agreement to sell which is a Tripartite Agreement indicates that it was a total package scheme which was for Rs.6.20 lakh and there is no mention about the fact that how much amount was to be shared to the builder and the owner. Once again at the cost of repetition, if the earlier evidence is to be reconnected, PW66 S.N.Ramesh had appeared before this court and deposed the manner in which he had entered into agreement with the parties. All the 155 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 aforesaid aspects clearly point out to the illegalities and fraud being played by accused No.1 and 2.
106. I have also carefully appreciated the cancellation of the sale deed dated 22.3.2007 which was executed by Sri S.N.Krishnaiah Setty wherein it has been mentioned that the purchaser was not in a position to look after the property and safeguard the same in proper and effective manner. At the cost of repetition it would be appropriate to recall the manner in which the cross-examination of the borrowers was made. During the course of cross-examination it was suggested to the borrowers that they were aware of the banking transactions and since they are not in a position to repay the loan amount they had decided to execute the re-conveyance deed. In majority of the cases the witnesses had indeed admitted of knowing the banking transactions and also they had admitted of financial constraints to retain the said property. Interestingly, in all the relinquishment deed no such 156 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 averment is forthcoming and all that it has been mentioned is that they were not in a position to safeguard the property. In the instant matter, Krishna Reddy had executed relinquishment deed on 22.3.2007. Even otherwise, as per the loan application which is also discussed supra, the amount was required to be released in installments and also on completion of certain stages. However, at the inception a sum of Rs.2,39,400/- was released out of the sanctioned amount of Rs.4.9 lakhs, in other words, 50% of the loan amount was released in the first installment itself and thereafter till the relinquishment deed was executed in the year 2007 no releases were made nor there were any constructions being put up. All the aforesaid aspects would cast a serious question mark over the manner in which the public money has been meddled by the accused No.1 M.T.V.Reddy and accused No.2 M/s. Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises represented by 157 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 S.N.Krisnaiah Setty. Even there is no iota of materials to indicate that the entire transaction was genuine transaction and a genuine effort was made by the then Manager i.e., A1 M.T.V.Reddy.
107. With respect to the other properties also the court has considered the loan applications which were scrutinized by the accused No.1 and forwarded for the purpose of clearing the loan. In the judgment, I am only narrating about one or two applications from each project which is the subject matter of this case for the reason that in all applications similar aspects are forthcoming.
108. With respect to the land at Hegganahalli, the borrower Mallaiah had applied for loan of Rs.8.5 lakh out of which the cost of site was shown as Rs.90,000/- and development cost was depicted as Rs.4 lakhs and cost of construction was shown as 3.6 lakh. Out of which a sum of Rs.5lakh was sanctioned. 158 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 It is pertinent to note that the loan application was filed on 25.10.2004, recommendation was made by accused No.1 Branch Manager on 3.11.2004 wherein it has been narrated that the Manager had visited the site on 29.9.2004 and the site was valued at Rs.4 lakhs. The legal opinion was furnished on 26.10.2004 and in the opinion column it has been stated that the land was fully converted for non-agricultural purpose and the owners Sri S.N.Balaram and Sri S.N.Ramesh were having marketable title. It was also recommended that the borrower shall make equitable mortgage of property after its purchase. It is curious to note that the concerned Advocate has stated of verifying the layout plan which was approved by the secretary of Hegganahalli Village Panchayath. However, the witnesses who had stated before the court i.e., Panchayath authorities have specifically deposed that they had not approved any layout plan, since it comes within BIAAPA. Even otherwise the 159 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 account extract which is furnished also indicates that as on the date of availing the loan, no balance was maintained by the borrower and in fact it was a zero balance account and on the same day of the recommendation i.e., on 3.11.2004 a sum of Rs.2.90 lakh was credited and withdrawn. For the sake of convenience the guidelines and the circular issued by the Bank is appreciated it requires that the amount is to be released in a phased manner. However, without adhering to the same, the majority portion of the loan amount i.e., out of 5 lakhs, 2.90 lakh was sanctioned and released by the concerned Branch Manager, which in any way was a favour being made to accused No.2. It is also relevant to note that as per the evidence of PW66-Mr. S.N.Ramesh who is none other than the brother of accused No.2 S.N.Krishnaiah Setty has deposed that it was Mr. Krishnaiah Setty who has offered to develop layout by entering into agreement. The Joint Development Agreement which 160 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 is placed in the file indicates that it was only a copy and the original agreement is not forthcoming, which is clear violation of Banking norms and procedure. That apart since from 3.11.2004 on the day on which the amount was released till the date of execution of cancellation deed dated 15.3.2007, no development activities had taken place and in fact the evidence of PW2 B.C.Muralidhar and PW4 P.Shankar Rao would indicate of drawing mahazar on 24.11.2008. In fact it has been observed that the said land at Hegganahalli was subjected to litigation as depicted in the display board and also it was vacant barren land. In the circumstances, the submissions made by the accused No.1 about his innocence that he has not at all colluded with accused No.2 cannot be accepted.
109. Even otherwise, it is curious to note that in all these matters the accused No.2 S.N.Krishnaiah setty is the beneficiary who has obtained the amount towards the cost of the site and also towards land 161 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 development. Accused No.1 has to offer an explanation that how the amount towards site cost can be disbursed directly in to the account of the builder. It is of common parlance that when the amount is to be released to the purchaser, the demand Draft or Bankers Cheque will be issued in their favour and not in favour of the builder. In all cases, the amount was released in favour of builder who was having only right over the development costs. It is not in dispute that all the property belonged to S.N.Balaram and S.N.Ramesh who is none other than the brothers of accused No.2 S.N.Krishnaiah Setty. It would be appropriate to consider the fact that Sri S.N.Balaram and S.N.Ramesh were entitled only to the extent of cost of the site. However, in the cancellation deed it is noticed that they had executed relinquishment deed by stating that they had refunded the amount which they had received. If that is the case, then what made the accused No.2 162 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 S.N.Krishnaiah Setty to return the development cost which he had collected is not forthcoming. It is not the entire transaction was completed within few weeks or months. But in this particular case of Mr.Mallaiah the loan was applied on 26.10.2004, which was sanctioned and the amount was credited on 3.11.2004 and cancellation deed was executed on 16.3.2007. After that the account came to be closed on 12.10.2007. No explanation is forthcoming that after executing the relinquishment deed on 16.3.2007 why the developer has come forward to close the account of the borrower on 12.10.2007 ie., after lapse of around 7 months. If for the sake of argument it is to be accepted that the accused No.2 had very limited role to play, then he has to offer an explanation as to why he has come forward to repay the loan after about 7 months. In this regard, I have bestowed my anxious reading to Ex.P.456 which is letter addressed by M/s. Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises on 3.4.2009 to 163 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 the Chief Manager, SBM, SPBB Branch wherein it has been stated that some of the customers had defaulted in making payments, company of accused No.2 had come forward to purchase the said property and in fact it has been stated as follows:
"Considering the bank request and owing to business morality, we have pre-closed these default loan accounts and repurchased the properties subsequent to the closure of account you had issued us an NOC vide reference No.STB/ADV/SKE/54 dated 8.7.2008 stating that all the loan accounts are closed. Meanwhile the above referred complaint is under investigation by the CBI, you are requested to withdraw the complaint as the loan account is already closed and the transaction is fully completed without any balance."164 Spl.CC. No.41/2012
110. The aforesaid letter once again clearly indicates the culpability of accused No.2 S.N.Krishnaiah Setty as he has specifically stated that the accounts were closed and the properties were repurchased. As per the Tripartite Agreement it is stated that he is only a developer who is entitled for development cost and towards construction charges. However, in the said the letter it has been stated that they have repurchased the property. As such, it would be apparent that right from the inception a culpable act was involved in the minds of accused No.2 who was supported by the accused No.l M. T.V Reddy and also by accused No.3 K Muniraju and Accused No.4 Srinivas and Accused No.5 Late Biddappa. As per Ex.P.458, the developer on 9.4.2009 had sought list of members, their account extracts and their account numbers which was furnished by the Chief Manager. It is curious to note that even the Branch Manager or the Chief Manager had not thought about the privacy 165 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 of the customers and straight away the Manager had furnished the customers details, account and also the old account and new account Number, which is in my humble opinion a height of breach of privacy of the customers. If the aforesaid acts are carefully appreciated it would only lead to drawn an inference that the act of the accused No.2 in requesting for the details of the borrowers, their account number and that too being furnished by the subsequent Chief Manager of the SBM would indicate of clandestine agreement between the Bank authorities and also the customers i.e., accused No.2 Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises. At no stretch of imagination it can be presumed that it was a bonafide act and as per the developer to settle the dues of the customer or whom he had vouched to put up construction which had not taken place. The only question which lingers at this stage is that what happened to the properties after closure of the loan accounts. Admittedly, after 166 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 execution of the re-conveyance deed, the property was transmitted to the original owner. But in the instant case they were none other than the brothers of accused No.2 and they were one who had benefitted from the entire transaction. Since in the year 2004 the lands on which lay out were being proposed were only agricultural lands and after lapse of 4 years obviously the value of the land would be escalated.
111. I have also considered the claim which is made with respect to Sampigehalli Project. With respect to the same one Sri Abdul Khalid approached the bank for availing loan of Rs.9.25 lakhs, out of which housing loan was sanctioned to the extent of Rs.6.7 lakhs. It is interesting to note that the loan application came to be filed on 6.12.2003 and in the loan application it has been specifically narrated that in column No.6(c)(iv) 167 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 "Developers have fully developed the site. Project cost including cost of development".
112. Further, in the very same application it has been stated that they have enclosed the copy of the legal opinion. However, the legal opinion which is enclosed along with the application indicates that it was furnished on 8.12.2003 i.e., after about 2 days. The application itself states of obtaining the legal opinion on 6.12.2003. However, it was obtained subsequently. It is rather astonishing to note that a sum of Rs.3.5 lakh came to be released at the first instant on 8.12.2003 and even in this case also the loan account which was maintained was a zero balance account and wherein no amount was credited by the borrower towards margin amount. It is also interesting to note that the agreement to sell and build is furnished which would indicate that on 168 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 6.12.2003 the purchaser Mr.Abdul Khalid had entered into agreement of sale and build and the vendor shown is Lakshmana S/o Chikkanna who had executed GPA in favour of accused No.2 S.N.Krishnaiah Setty. In other words accused No.2 in the instant case was playing a dual role of representing the vendor and also the person who was developing the site. It is relevant to note that the loan account was subsequently closed on 30.4.2008. I have also bestowed my anxious reading to the cancellation deed which indicates that only the sale consideration was returned and there is no mention of the development cost.
113. The court has also considered another application filed by K.H.Irfanulla more fully marked as Ex.P.205. In the loan application which he had filed on 5.4.2004 he had requested for a loan of Rs.6.8 lakh which was sanctioned by the Bank authorities wherein it was narrated in column No.15 that the loan 169 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 for purchase of site would be disbursed first and loan for construction would be disbursed in 3 stages. If the same is considered, it is to be noted that on 6.4.2004 i.e., on the immediate next day a sum of Rs.3.40 lakhs was credited to the account of the applicant and even the account extract would indicate that it was a zero balance account. In the entire file no development agreement was furnished. It is pertinent to note that legal opinion with respect to the property was obtained on 6.4.2004 i.e., on the very same day the loan was sanctioned and amount to an extent of 50% was credited to his account. Curiously, the Manager had recommended that the applicant was a permanent employee of M/s.KAR Mobiles India Ltd., and he had entered into an agreement with M/s. Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises to purchase site and to construct house. However, it is mentioned by the Manager that he had inspected the site on 3.4.2004 and the applicant was available at the time of 170 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 inspection. If the facts are recollected, it is relevant to note that the applicant has submitted his application on 6.4.2004 and prior to filing of the application itself the Manager had visited the site and had conducted spot inspection. All the aforesaid applications, their presentation to the bank and obtaining of the legal opinion are nothing but playing fraud on the bank and also with public amount. Thereafter, it is noted that the loan amount was not at all repaid and on 14.9.2006 the loan account came to be closed and after that on 27.11.2006 re-conveyance deed was executed. For the sake of benefit the re-conveyance deed is appreciated, which was executed on 27.11.2006 itself, it is noticed that the vendor name is shown as L.Narendra Prasad S/o C.V.L. Shastri who was being represented by his GPA holder accused No.2 S.N.Krishnaiah Setty. It is also pertinent to note in the re-conveyance deed it was narrated that the second party i.e., Irfanulla has expressed his inability 171 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 to own, possess and enjoy the schedule property as he was not in a position to use it and look after the same, he had intended to re-convey the same. The consideration amount which was shown was entire sale consideration amount of Rs.1 lakh. Admittedly, the sale deed was executed in the year 2004 and the re-conveyance deed was executed in the year 2007. It is nothing but playing fraud on the public money and after lapse of 3 to 4 years the property was being re- conveyed to the vendor through Accused No.2 as GPA Holder which again raises suspicion about the role of Accused No.2 S N Krishnaiaha Setty by narrating that it was towards the sale consideration. If for a moment the loan application is revisited, it is mentioned that the Bank was required to release only the cost towards site and thereafter, the construction charges were to be released in phased manner. However, at the inception itself a sum of Rs.3.40 lakhs i.e., more than 50% of the loan amount was released wherein 172 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 the site cost was only Rs.1 lakh i.e., without obtaining any security the accused No.1 had ventured to release the amount to the extent of Rs.3.4 lakhs which was more than 200% of the site value. Even the recommendations made by accused No.1 does not inspire confidence of the Court all that it can be said that the property revolved back to accused No.2 himself after lapse of 3 years. It is in this manner the white collar economic crimes are being carried out.
114. With respect to the loan advanced at Mallathahalli project, I have appreciated the documents for instance marked as Ex.P.278 pertaining to K.Nagaraj, who had claimed to be driver at BMTC. He had applied for loan on 12.1.2005 wherein loan of Rs.6.4 lakh was sanctioned and remaining 1.6 lakh was to be the margin amount. In his application it has been stated that a legal opinion was obtained from Panel Advocate and title deed was cleared. More particularly at Sl.No.9 it is submitted 173 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 that "the legal opinion of the Advocateon our Panel is enclosed, P.A.Krishna Reddy'. However, it is relevant to note that the legal opinion itself was obtained on 15.1.2005 i.e., after about 3 days. In other words, the mention of the description in the application itself was erroneous. That apart, I have also appreciated the recommendation made by the accused No.1 Manager. In his recommendation it is to be noticed that the he himself has not affixed his signature nor he has explained on which date he has visited the site for inspection. In fact a question mark has been put down at the place where the Manager was required to fill the application of recommendation. Even in the recommendation letter which was issued on 12.1.2005 itself, it is stated that the title was cleared by the Panel Advocate. The account extract indicates that it was also a zero- balance account and on 17.1.2005 a sum of Rs.4,10,000/- came to be credited to his account 174 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 which was released on the very same day. It is also relevant to note that as on 14.3.2007 when the loan was cleared a total balance of Rs.5,46,000/- was shown. I have also perused the tripartite agreement which was executed in favour of applicant by the vendor Purushotham S/o Lakshminarayan who was first party and M/s. Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises who was builder. It is relevant to note that the agreement to sell and build was executed on 12.6.2005. Though in the words it is mentioned as 12.1.2005, the explanation has been specifically mentioned as 12th June 2005. In any other column it is not been mentioned about the date and as such the figure is required to be accepted and the same indicates that the agreement to sale was executed much subsequently i.e., after about 6 months of the loan amount released in favour of the borrower. The act of accused No.1 and 2 is clearly indicate of playing fraud upon the public money.
175 Spl.CC. No.41/2012
115. The court has also perused another application of Mallathahalli project pertaining to one Mr.Ramesh Kumar S/o K.N.V.Ramanna at Ex.P.280 indicates that the applicant Ramesh Kumar had sought for loan of Rs.6 lakh from the bank on 8.2.2005 and the recommendation was made by the accused No.1 stating that he had visited the site on 1.2.2005 which was at Sy.No.58/4 of Mallathahalli bearing No.215/A and it was a fully developed site with civic amenities like road, sanitary and water and electricity connection. The amount was credited to an extent of Rs.3,80,000/- on 10.2.2005 and it is needless to mention that it was also a zero-balance account. The legal opinion with respect to said property was obtained on 10.2.2005 i.e., after filing of the loan application and its sanction. Even otherwise, the loan application indicates that the panel advocate had cleared the title. In the loan application, the cost of the site is shown as Rs.2 lakh, Development 176 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 charges are shown in Rs.3.6 lakhs. In other words, the amount released was much more than the value of the site and as such a clear fraud is played by accused No.1 and 2 on the Bank.
116. The court has also considered the other project of Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises which they had developed at Nagavara village. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused No.2 had developed a layout at Nagavara and for developing the same several loan applications came to be filed by the employees. It is relevant to note that at this juncture when the court has to examine the records in perfunctory manner with respect to some of the witnesses who had availed loan from Nagavara Project. If the evidence of PW20 Upendra B.E. is appreciated it indicates that he had worked as BMTC Employee, Yeshavanthapura Depot, Bangalore and had applied for loan for purchasing and construction 177 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 of house on 10.2.2004 and he had requested for loan of Rs.5.75 lakhs. The description of the property which is mentioned is site No.15A at Sy.No.98 and it is also pertinent to note that in column No.15 it has been stated that the loan was for purchase of site and hence the cost of site and also towards its development loan amount will be released at first and towards construction loan would be disbursed in three stages. Further, it has been stated that the legal opinion of the Panel Advocate was not at all obtained at that point of time and in fact the record indicates that it was furnished on 16.2.2004 i.e., after about a week from the date of filing of the application. In the meantime the accused No.1 the then Manager had accepted the loan application and in fact he has made a recommendation on 07.02.2004 wherein he has stated that the title deed was scrutinized and cleared by the Panel Advocate P.A.Krishna Reddy and it is narrated that on 16.2.2004 itself he had conducted 178 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 site inspection and it was well developed layout. The tripartite agreement indicates that it was entered between Sri Biddappa (A5), Smt.Gowramma and K.Srinivas i.e., Accused No.4 who were being represented by their GPA holder accused No.3 K.Muniraju. In the Tripartite Agreement it is stated that the land measuring 3A 32G in Sy.No. 98 was schedule land wherein the site was developed and it was narrated that the site cost was Rs.1.20 lakh and development coast Rs.2.95 lakhs and remaining amount towards construction.
117. I have carefully appreciated the account extracts which has been produced in this regard. The account extracts indicate that the same was zero balance account as on 17.2.2004 and a sum of Rs.3.15 lakh came to be credited. The document would indicate that the amount disbursed was Rs.3.15 lakh and even if it accepted for the sake of 179 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 arguments that instead of 4.15 lakh towards site and development cost to be released, but only Rs.3.15 lakh was released, even then the accused has to point out how he had paid Rs.1 lakh margin amount by himself. Even otherwise the document does not indicate of any concrete development of the property being made by accused No.2.
118. PW36 Ramanjanulu is appreciated it indicates that he had requested for loan to an extent of Rs.6.15 lakhs on 10.2.2004, wherein he had intended to purchase site bearing No.45 carved out of Sy.No. 98 of Nagavara Village. It is also been narrated in column No.15 that the loan was for purchase of site and towards development would be disbursed first and the title of the applicant was secured from any legal infirmity as per the opinion of Panel Advocate. The documents also indicate that the concerned Branch Manager i.e., accused No.1 had recommended for sanctioning the aforesaid loan in favour of 180 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 applicant on 17.2.2004 and in fact the legal opinion was obtained on 16.2.2004. If it is recalled that the loan application was submitted on 10.2.2004 itself wherein it was narrated of having clear marketable title as per the legal opinion, then the opinion furnished by the Panel Advocate cannot be considered as proper one, as in the application it is already mentioned of obtaining a clear title opinion from the Panel Advocate. The manner in which the applications are filed and also the manner in which the opinion are framed by the Accused No.1 M T V Reddy with respect to the property being developed by Accused no.2 S N Krishnaiaha Setty would clearly indicate of conspiracy and also playing fraud upon the system. It is also relevant to note that as per the account extract on 17.2.2004 i.e., on the very same day a sum of Rs.3.10 lakh was released and the application also indicates that the cost of the site was Rs.1.10 lakh and development cost was Rs.2.95 lakhs in all the total 181 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 sum was to be incurred was 4.10 lakhs. It is relevant to note that on the very same day a sum of Rs.3.10 lakh came to be released. However, there are no materials to indicate that the margin amount was paid by the borrower Ramanjanulu at that point of time.
119. It is curious to note that the agreement of sale and build was executed on 14.2.2004 i.e., after filing of the loan application before the bank. In fact the application indicates of entering into tripartite agreement on 10.2.2004 itself. All these aforesaid aspects could not have been done without the connivance of accused No.1 M.T.V.Reddy and accused No.2 S.N.Krishnaiah Setty.
120. The court has also taken into account of the mahazar Ex.P.115 which was drawn by the Bank officials i.e., PW2 Muralidhar and PW4 Shankar Rao who had visited the spot at Nagavara. During the course of mahazar apart from the Bank officials, 182 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 K.B.Chandrashekaraiah, Revenue Inspector of BBMP, Thanisandra was also present. It is mentioned in the mahazar that no sites were demarcated nor stones were found and as per the photographs and also as per the inspection no development activities nor any construction work coming up in the land and the entire land was surrounded by drainage on the northern side and on East side there was private property and on the West it was surrounded by coconut garden and also on south it was bounded by a private vacant land. All the aforesaid aspects would only indicate that no developmental activities had indeed taken place till the date of execution of the re- conveyance deed. No doubt it may be submitted by the learned counsel for the accused that the entire loan amount which was borrowed was repaid, the court will have to appreciate the circumstances under which the repayment was being made. Why the aforesaid aspect requires to be considered stringently 183 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 is for the reason that the public funds are meddled and disbursed in haphazardly manner by the bank authorities as if they were dealing with their own amount.
CHAPTER- X WHETHER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 420 OF IPC AND SECTION 409 OF IPC CAN BE CONSIDERED TOGETHER WITH FORGING AND FABRICATING OF DOCUMENTS.
121. In order to better appreciate the committing fraud and fraudulent activities, already it is pointed out that at the time of filing of application in majority of the cases no opinion with respect to title deeds were obtained by the concerned Branch manager A1- M.T.V.Reddy. In all the above cases the beneficiary was the accused No.2 Developer S.N.Krishnashetty. In the earlier part of my judgment, I have discussed in detail with respect to the land owners and in some cases it is noticed that in particularly with respect to 3 projects S.N.Balaram and S.N.Ramesh were the 184 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 land owners who were none other than the brothers of accused No.2. I have also discussed in detail in my earlier part of the judgment that a re-conveyance deed was subsequently executed in favour of the owner i.e., after lapse of nearly 4-5 years. Further, I have discussed in detail about the fabrication of the documents i.e., salary slips which were all inflated. In fact, the employees/ borrowers of BMTC and other private sector undertakings have specifically identified the salary slips issued by their department and they have consistently deposed that the gross pay and other details which were narrated in the salary slip did not belong to them. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to revisit the cross-examination of the borrowers wherein it has been elicited that the salary particulars which are shown in the pay slips indicate the name of their organization. Absolutely there is no dispute with respect to the fact that the figures of the salary i.e., their basic pay, gross-pay, net pay were all 185 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 printed genuine pay-slip of their organization. The learned counsel for accused Sri R.Nagendra Naik has vehemently argued that it is the duty of the prosecution to point out that who had fabricated the salary slips. Admittedly, in the above case the borrowers have not been arraigned as accused persons for the reason that they were not the one who had forged or fabricated the salary slips. All the borrowers have consistently deposed before the court of handing over their salary slips and other KYC documents to one Mr.Dominic. However, as already discussed said Dominic had died in the year 2007 for which necessary death certificate was produced and marked as Ex.P.1325. Now it is submitted that the entire allegation of fabrication and forging documents is to be made upon Mr.Dominic who is no more before the court. It is true to certain extent, if only Dominic was alive, he could have been arraigned as necessary accused or a witness in the above case who would be 186 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 the appropriate person to disclose about the commission of offence. In his absence, now the court is required to look in to the materials available before it. Admittedly, Mr.Dominic had collected the original pay-slips which as per the contention of the witnesses is not in dispute. Even the aforesaid fact is not disputed by the learned counsel for accused during the course of cross examination. Thereafter, along with the loan application the inflated forged salary slips were produced and the same was accepted by the Manager and the benefit was given to accused No.2 S.N.Krishnaiah Shetty who was the builder in the instant case. If the aspect of producing forged salary slip is seen from an isolated angle, the submission of accused No.1 and 2 could be accepted. However, when the entire factual aspects of the case is appreciated by looking in the manner in which a criminal conspiracy was entered between the parties and the larger conspiracy is looked into, it would 187 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 indicate of the Manager had accepted the salary slips without subjecting it to verification. The main question that requires to be answered is why in all the cases belonging to Accused No.2 S N Krishnaiaha Setty, the Branch Manager Accused No.1 M T V Reddy had not subjected documents to verification or why he was not even bothered to collect necessary documents with respect to title deeds. Further it is relevant to note that in many instances, the loan application and recommendations were being made by Accused No.1 prior to obtaining the legal opinion. For the sake of arguments, if it is accepted that there was staff shortage to verify the documents, then also the Manager was entrusted with certain responsibilities which he cannot not shrug off easily. It is also required to be appreciated that why the Branch Manager had released the amount prior to depositing of margin amount by the borrowers. In fact, in all the loan applications which are produced before the 188 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 court, it indicates that majority of the loan came to be sanctioned on the very same day of filing of the application and in some cases, within a span of 2-5 days the loan was sanctioned and even disbursed and withdrawn on the very same day. The lightning speed in which the applications filed, processed and approved and amount disbursed would only indicate of entering in to a conspiracy and also the court is required to look in to the evidence of the employees who were examined before the court with respect to salary slips.
122. In the earlier part of my judgment I have classified the evidence of the witnesses who have deposed about verifying the salary slips into a separate category i.e., PW31 B.V.Bhaskar had deposed about issuing of salary slips with respect to his employees. When the evidence of PW31 is carefully appreciated it indicates that about 4 pay slips were furnished to him by the CBI authorities as per 189 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 Ex.P.520. He had had furnished his opinion stating that the material on which the pay-slips were printed on the materials which belonged to their company, however the figures and amount mentioned did not tally with their records. During the course of cross examination, it is elucidated from him that the stationery from which the pay slips were printed were to be in the custody of the Stores Manager. Apart from that nothing has been elicited from him.
123. Likewise, I have also considered the evidence of PW32 Abdul Khuddus who was the Accounts Officer of KSRTC and he has also deposed in consonance with the evidence of PW31. During the course of cross-examination he has deposed that the Stores Department will be having custody of the blank pay slips. A very similar evidence has been tendered by PW33 Arun Kumar G.N. who was also Accounts Officer of BMTC and PW34 Mohammed Bakhaulla the Accounts Officer of BESCOM and also evidence of 190 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 PW53 D.Ravichandran who was the Manager of M/s.KAR Mobiles Limited during the relevant period. In his evidence he has specifically deposed that on perusing the documents and on verifying the records, he had narrated that the PF number and ESI number mentioned in pay slips were not belonging to their Company and in fact it is his evidence that the pay slips were not at all issued by their Company. During the course of cross-examination nothing much elicited from him. With this evidence once again the evidence of the person who was deputed by the Bank Authorities to verify the salary slips is to be considered.
124. In fact the evidence of PW6 Nagendra N. the then Assistant Manager of SBM is to be appreciated. He has deposed before the court that in the month of June July-2006 he was directed by the DGM of SBM, Mysore Zone to conduct an inquiry and verification of the salary slips which were collected by accused No.1 191 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 M.T.V.Reddy towards sanctioning of housing loans. He has specifically deposed of visiting several offices like BMTC, HAL, KSRTC, KAR Mobiles, Bengaluru etc. With respect to M/s.KAR Mobiles it is his evidence that when he has visited Industrial Plot No.58 of Yeshavanthapura, he did not find any factory in the said place and it was a place where garbage was dumped. However, adjacent to the said plot, he had visited the premises and enquired with them by submitting the salary certificates / salary slips for which it was stated that no such employees were on existence on their rolls and they have not borrowed the loan. If for the sake of arguments, the court is to appreciate the documents which are filed by the accused No.1 M.T.V.Reddy wherein he had recommended to sanction loan in favour of the employees, it is observed by the Manager that they were the employees of M/s.KAR Mobiles. The report at Ex.P.507 and 508 would clearly indicate that a false 192 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 and forged documents were produced to the Bank which was conveniently accepted by accused No.1 M.T.V.Reddy to sanction loan and interestingly the loan amounts were also disbursed on the very same day for which the beneficiary was none other than the accused No.2 S.N.Krishnaiah Setty. There is no other alternative for the court to draw such an inference for the reason that the accused No.2 had not put up any constructions for more than 3 to 4 years period of time and in fact when the case was lodged, immediately, he had come forward to settle the loans of all the borrowers on the premise of maintaining a healthy banking relationship. The act of accused No.2 raises several questions to be answered for the reason that why he had kept quiet for more than 3-4 years and why no construction was commenced. In all the applications it is noticed that on the date of recommending the loan application the loan was sanctioned, amount was credited and even it was 193 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 disbursed on the same day. In all the cases the amount was disbursed to the account of accused No.2
- builder - developer. All the aforesaid aspects would cast a finger towards him. Even otherwise nothing much was elicited during the course of cross- examination of PW6 would point out the report which he had furnished was not proper. It is also noticed from the cross-examination that categorically it was accepted by the accused persons that the salary certificates which were furnished before the court did not tally with the actual figures. In that event the contention of the prosecution of furnishing forged documents and also the false certificates, is required to be accepted. I have also bestowed my anxious reading to the submission made by the learned counsel for Accused No.1 and Accused No.2 with respect to finding out the person responsible for forging the documents. It is vehemently argued that only if the prosecution identifies the person as the one 194 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 who had forged the salary slips, and if the same indicates of any role on the part of the present accused persons then the charges under section 468 and Sectio 471 of IPC can be sustained. In order to better appreciate the same, I have relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex court wherein the legal requirement to prove the aforesaid offences has been narrated. In the judgment reported in (2004)11 SCC 576 (A S Krishnan V State of Kerala) it has been held as:
8. The essential ingredients of Section 471 are : (i) fraudulent or dishonest use of document as genuine, and (ii) knowledge or reasonable belief on the part of person using the document that it is a forged one. Section 471 is intended to apply to persons other than the forger himself, but the forger himself is not excluded from the operation of the section. To attract Section 471, it is not necessary that the person held guilty under the provision must have forged the document himself or that the person independently charged for forgery of 195 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 the document must of necessity be convicted, before the person using the forged document, knowing it to be a forged one can be convicted, as long as the fact that the document used stood established or proved to be a forged one. The act or acts which constitute the commission of the offence of forgery are quite different from the act of making use of a forged document. The expression "fraudulently and dishonestly" are defined in Sections 25 and 24 IPC respectively. For an offence under Section 471, one of the necessary ingredients is fraudulent and dishonest use of the document as genuine. The act need not be both dishonest and fraudulent. The use of document as contemplated by Section 471 must be a voluntary one. For sustaining conviction under Section 471 it is necessary for the prosecution to prove that the accused knew or had reason to believe that the document was a forged one. Whether the accused knew or had reason to believe the document in question to be forged has to be adjudicated on the basis of materials and the finding recorded in that regard is essentially factual.
9. Under IPC, guilt in respect of almost all the offences is fastened 196 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 either on the ground of "intention" or "knowledge" or "reason to believe".
We are now concerned with the expressions "knowledge" and "reason to believe". "Knowledge" is an awareness on the part of the person concerned indicating his state of mind. "Reason to believe" is another facet of the state of mind. "Reason to believe" is not the same thing as "suspicion" or "doubt" and mere seeing also cannot be equated to believing. "Reason to believe" is a higher level of state of mind. Likewise "knowledge" will be slightly on a higher plane than "reason to believe". A person can be supposed to know where there is a direct appeal to his senses and a person is presumed to have a reason to believe if he has sufficient cause to believe the same. Section 26 IPC explains the meaning of the words "reason to believe" thus:
"26. 'Reason to believe'.--A person is said to have 'reason to believe' a thing, if he has sufficient cause to believe that thing but not otherwise."
10. In substance, what it means is that a person must have reason to believe if the circumstances are such that a reasonable man would, by probable reasoning, conclude or infer regarding the nature of the thing 197 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 concerned. Such circumstances need not necessarily be capable of absolute conviction or inference; but it is sufficient if the circumstances are such as creating a cause to believe by chain of probable reasoning leading to the conclusion or inference about the nature of the thing. These two requirements i.e. "knowledge" and "reason to believe" have to be deduced from various circumstances in the case. (See Joti Parshad v. State of Haryana [1993 Supp (2) SCC 497 : 1993 SCC (Cri) 691 : AIR 1993 SC 1167] .)
11. As noticed by the High Court in great detail, the factual position leaves no manner of doubt that the accused-appellants had not only the knowledge, but also had reason to believe that the document was a forged one before they used it.
125. In the aforesaid judgment the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that in order to attract the provisions of Section 471 of IPC it is required to prove the following ingredients namely:
(i) fraudulent or dishonest use of document as genuine, and 198 Spl.CC. No.41/2012
(ii) knowledge or reasonable belief on the part of person using the document that it is a forged one.
126. If for a moment, the aforesaid ingredients are appreciated with the facts of the case, it is noticed from the materials which is available before the court that Mr Dominic had vigorously campaigned for the project of M/s Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises, for which reference can be found in the evidence of all the borrowers. Majority of the borrowers have specifically deposed that it was Mr Dominic who had canvassed to purchase site developed by the firm of Accused No.2 and also it is observed that during the course of evidence, it was elucidated that Mr Swaroop on behalf of the firm of Accused No.2 was present at the time of execution of the registered sale deed. Further the evidence of PW67 Swaroop would indicate that he had worked for M/s Balaji Krupa Enterprises and had canvassed for their projects. It is the case of the prosecution that the documents were collected by Mr 199 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 Dominic and was submitted to the firm of Accused No.2 who had later on submitted to Accused No.1. The aforesaid act is also not denied by the Accused persons. Now when the ingredients are applied to the case on hand, if the borrowers had furnished their original salary slips, probably they would not have been sanctioned with the loan, as their salary didn't meet the basic criteria. Even otherwise, the evidence of PW 67 Swaroop indicates that they had paid huge commission to the persons who had canvassed for their projects. Further records indicates that PW 57 N Hanumanthaiaha, who after his retirement from Police Department had worked for Accused No.2 and the huge cash withdrawal from his account indicates of incentive being paid by Accused No.2. Under the circumstances, the real beneficiary would be accused No.2 in the entire transaction. Even other wise it is of common knowledge that a driver or a conductor or even for that matter private car driver would not be 200 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 drawing salary as mentioned in the salary slip which were produced to the Bank. It is also pointed out in the Audit report that in some instances loans were being sanctioned to such persons, who were not having adequate number of years of service to repay the loan amount. Hence, the question of knowledge and also the intention can be deciphered from the aforesaid act itself. It is also relevant to note at this juncture that whether the present accused No.1 and 2 can be roped in for committing the aforesaid offence without indicate the person who infact had forged the same. In the afore relied upon judgment of the Hon'ble Apex court it is clear that in order to attract the provisions of Section 471 of IPC, it is not necessary that the person held guilty must have forged the document himself or the person independently charged for forgery of the document of necessity be convicted before the person using the forged document, knowing it to be a forged one can be 201 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 convicted. In order to better appreciate the aforesaid aspects reliance is placed on another judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment reported in (2003)3 SCC 641 ( Ram Narayan Popli V CBI) wherein it is held as:
361. To constitute an offence of criminal breach of trust, there must be an entrustment, there must be misappropriation or conversion to one's own use, or use in violation of a legal direction or of any legal contract; and the misappropriation or conversion or disposal must be with a dishonest intention. When a person allows others to misappropriate the money entrusted to him, that amounts to a criminal breach of trust as defined by Section 405. The section is relatable to property in a positive part and a negative part. The positive part deals with criminal misappropriation or conversion of the property and the negative part consists of dishonestly using or disposing of the property in violation of any direction and of law or any contract touching the discharge of trust.
374. In order to constitute an offence of forgery the documents must be made dishonestly or fraudulently. But dishonest or fraudulent are not 202 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 tautological. Fraudulent does not imply the deprivation of property or an element of injury. In order to be fraudulent, there must be some advantage on the one side with a corresponding loss on the other.
Every forgery postulates a false document either in whole or in part, however small.
375. The intent to commit forgery involves an intent to cause injury. A person makes a false document who dishonestly or fraudulently signs with an intent or cause to believe that the document was signed by a person whom he knows it was not signed.
376. A false description makes a document of forgery when it is found that the accused by giving such false description intended to make out or wanted it to believe that it was not he that was executing the document but another person.
377. The accused persons have tried to take shelter behind what they have described as "market practices". Such practices even if existing, cannot take the place of statutory and regulatory functions. There is no public interest involved in such practices and they cannot be a substitute for compliance with the regulatory or statutory prescriptions. An attempt was made to show that there was subsequent disapproval of the market practices; at the point of time when the transactions 203 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 took place there was no embargo. It is their stand that the practices were a part of accepted norms. We do not find anything plausible in these explanations. A practice even if was prevailing, if wrong, is not to be approved. The subsequent clarifications do not in any way put seal of approval on the practices adopted in the past, on the other hand it condemns it.
127. The aforesaid authority would clearly show the path to appreciate the act of forgery. It is held that A false description makes a document of forgery when it is found that the accused by giving such false description intended to make out or wanted it to believe that it was not he that was executing the document but another person. In the instant case the documents which are produced before the Bank would indicate that salary slips were inflated and even in the loan applications endorsement was made by the Branch Manager of obtaining legal opinion with respect to validity of title deed when in deed he had 204 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 not obtained the legal opinion and in some cases, it is mentioned that the site visit was made by the Branch Manager, which was prior to filing of application by the borrowers and also it is noticed that GPA which was executed by Accused No.4 and Accused No.5 in favour of Accused No. Muniraju was much later that the date of execution of Tripartite agreement and he had infact prior to execution of GPA had entered into Tripartite agreement. All the aforesaid circumstances indicate the knowledge on the part of Accused No.1 M T V Reddy and also on the part of Accused No.2 S N Krishnaiaha Setty.
128. With respect to the role of accused No.3 and 4 in the instant case, it is relevant to note that accused No.3 Muniraju is depicted as the GPA holder of accused No.4 Srinivas and accused No.5 Biddappa. The manner in which the GPA s is executed and the tripartite agreement is entered into is a curious aspect which is required to be considered. The GPA which is 205 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 marked as Ex.P.1380 was executed by accused No.5 Biddappa (Abated) and his wife Smt.Gowramma along with accused No.4 K.Srinivas, wherein accused No.3 K.Muniraju was appointed as an Attorney holder. It is narrated in the GPA that they had formed a layout in Sy.No.98 of Nagavara village, measuring 3A 32 G of land under Grama Tana of Nagavara and the property consisting of site Nos. 1 to 49 of different dimensions were approved by competent authority and also the lay out plan was approved by Nagavara panchayth. Further, it was narrated that they were not in a position to provide all civic and other amenities and hence, they were executing power of attorney in favour of A3-Muniraju. Further, the GPA empowers Accused No.3 to negotiate on terms and agree to enter into and conclude agreement to sell, and sell the sites so formed in the layout or to put up constructions over the said properties. The aforesaid GPA was executed on 3.2.2004. It is curious to note that the 206 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 loan application of one Mrs.Sunitha Setty w/o S.N.Krishnaiah Setty came to be filed before the concerned branch on 30.1.2004. In the loan application it has been submitted that M/s. Balaji Krupa Enterprises have formed and developed layout at Nagavara and in fact she had entered into agreement with the developer and land owner to purchase site No.41. Further, she had sought for housing loan of Rs.8 lakhs, which was sanctioned on that day itself. It is further curious note that agreement to sell and build came to be executed on 27.1.2004 by Biddappa, Gowramma and K.Srinivas through GPA holder accused No.3 K.Muniraju. In other words, the GPA was executed on 3.2.2004 and prior to execution of GPA which empowered accused No.3 to enter into agreement to sell and to develop the layout, he had executed an agreement to sell and build which is nothing but a farrago and fraud played upon the banking authorities. It is rather astonishing 207 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 to note that a legal opinion was also furnished on 31.1.2004 by the very same panel advocate Mr.Krishna Reddy confirming a good marketable title to site No.41.
129. The other curious aspect which would be looked in to is the accused No.4 or for that matter accused No.5 was not having any authority over the lands to enter into such agreement since the land was subject to land acquisition held as per section 28(2) of KIADB Act, 1966 the Government had acquired the land vide Notification No.PI 123/NCQ/2001 dt.3.3.2003. In other words, prior to entering to GPA and also entering into agreement to sale, the ownership of the land vest with Government.
130. In order to better appreciate the same, the evidence of PW65 Nagaraju N.R. is required to be looked into. It is his evidence that he had worked as SLAO(II) at KIADB, Bengaluru from 2009-2010 and he has deposed that by looking into the documents he 208 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 had confirmed the acquisition proceedings and since some parties had refused to accept the award they had deposited the compensation amount before the Prl. Senior Civil Judge Court, at Bengaluru. The document at Ex.P.1311 which is an endorsement issued by SLAO, KIADB indicates that as per the award dated 19.10.2006 the land in Sy.No. 98 measuring 3A 32 guntas was subjected to acquisition proceedings and a sum of Rs.59,42,004/- was determined and since they had not come forward to accept the same, it was deposited before the Prl. Senior Civil Judge Court at Bengaluru. Even after that another letter dated 30.10.2006 addressed to the Court indicates of publishing of an official Gazettee on 3.3.2003 and thereafter depositing the same. In fact, the document indicates of the statement showing the cost of land, extent, solatium determined and also the market trend and structure value determined. Further, it is remarked in the document that 209 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 Radhakrishna Rao S/o Rama Rao had alienated the property and hence, no compensation amount was paid to him. Now when the aforesaid aspect is compared with the legal opinion furnished by the Panel Advocate Krishna Reddy in column No.4 it indicates that he has scrutinized registered will dated 1.8.1984 executed by C.Rama Rao in favour of R.Radha Krishna Rao and thereafter the land had fallen to the share of Radha Krishna Rao and it is also mentioned that the sale deed was executed by Radhakrishna Rao on 31.1.2003 in favour of accused No.5 Biddappa, Gowramma and accused No.4 K.Srinivas. Once again if the notification is perused it indicates that by that time, the acquisition proceedings had commenced and in spite of the same, accused No.4 and 5 had purchased the property and though final notification was issued, they had entered in to an agreement to sell and had executed a GPA in favour of Accused No.4 and 210 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 accused No.4 in turn had searched for prospective buyers and all the truncated documents were filed before the Bank i.e., accused No.1 who had accepted the same by closing his eyes and had sanctioned and disbursed the loan amount on the very same day of their application in favour of builder i.e., accused No.2 S.N.Krishnaiah Setty. The records also indicates that in some papers wife of accused No.2 is also shown as beneficiary. Under the circumstances, it is a clear case of fraud being played upon public money, Government exchequer by accused No.4 K.Srinivas who clearly knew of the acquisition proceedings. If for the sake of arguments, the submits that he had challenged the acquisition proceedings, then also he could have specified in his GPA or in any other subsequent documents. All that it is noticed that prior to execution of the GPA itself, accused No.3 in a cavalier manner executed agreement to sell and the concerned Manager did not even bothered to verify 211 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 the dates of the GPA or that of agreement to sell. It is also noticed from the cross-examination of PW65 that Biddappa had challenged the acquisition proceedings. However, the witness has feigned his ignorance with respect to the same.
131. I have also appreciated the evidence of B.Krishnappa who is the son of accused No.4 Biddappa. It is his evidence that his father, mother and his son accused No.4 K.Srinivas had purchased land in Sy.No. 98 measuring 3A 32 guntas of land in Nagavara village. When he was specifically confronted with the GPA, he had feigned his ignorance with respect to its identification by quoting that he was aged 82 years, but he has categorically deposed that he has seen the GPA on earlier instance. It is his evidence that he had approached Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka against acquisition proceedings which were pending for adjudication and still they were having possession over the property. Curiously he was 212 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 not subject to cross-examination by the counsel for accused No.3 and 4. For the sake of argument, if only it is accepted that they had challenged the acquisition proceedings and had obtained stay over the same or they were in possession of the property, nothing prevented accused No.3 Srinivas to produce documents in this regard. Even otherwise the documents indicate that the land was subjected to acquisition and also the compensation was determined by the SLAO and he had deposited the same before the learned Prl. Senior Civil Judge Court, Bengaluru. In that event it was bounden duty of accused No.3 or for that matter accused No.4 to produce necessary documents if they contend of obtaining an order of stay by the superior Constitutional Courts. The law is well settled that with respect to the principles laid down under Sec.106 of the Indian Evidence Act wherein it is required for the person having special knowledge 213 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 about the same to offer an explanation. In this regard, I have relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 1261 (Balvir Singh V State of Uttarkhand) wherein it is held as:
PRINCIPLES OF LAW GOVERNING THE APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 106 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT
33. Section 106 of the Evidence Act, states as under:
"106. Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge.-- When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.
Illustration
(a) When a person does an act with some intention other than that which the character and circumstances of the act suggest, the burden of proving that intention is upon him.
(b) A is charged with travelling on a railway without a ticket. The burden of proving that he had a ticket is on him."
34. Section 106 of the Evidence Act referred to above provides that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden 214 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 of proving that fact is upon him. The word "especially" means facts that are pre-eminently or exceptionally within the knowledge of the accused. The ordinary rule that applies to the criminal trials that the onus lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused is not in any way modified by the rule of facts embodied in Section 106 of the Evidence Act. Section 106 of the Evidence Act is an exception to Section 101 of the Evidence Act.
Section 101 with its illustration (a) lays down the general rule that in a criminal case the burden of proof is on the prosecution and Section 106 is certainly not intended to relieve it of that duty. On the contrary, it is designed to meet certain exceptional cases in which it would be impossible or at any rate disproportionately difficult for the prosecution to establish the facts which are, "especially within the knowledge of the accused and which, he can prove without difficulty or inconvenience".
35. In Shambhu Nath Mehra v. The State of Ajmer, AIR 1956 SC 404, this Court while considering the word "especially" employed in Section 106 of the Evidence Act speaking through Vivian Bose, J., observed as under:
"11. ... The word "especially" stresses that. It means facts that are pre-215 Spl.CC. No.41/2012
eminently or exceptionally within his knowledge. If the section were to be interpreted otherwise, it would lead to the very startling conclusion that in a murder case the burden lies on the accused to prove that he did not commit the murder because who could know better than he whether he did or did not.
It is evident that that cannot be the intention & the Privy Council has twice refused to construe this section, as reproduced in certain other Acts outside India, to mean that the burden lies on an accused person to show that he did not commit the crime for which he is tried. These cases are Attygalle v. The King, AIR 1936 PC 169 (AIR V 23) (A) and Seneviratne v. R, [1936] 3 All ER
36 at p. 49 (B)."
36. The aforesaid decision of Shambhu Nath (supra) has been referred to and relied upon in Nagendra Sah v. State of Bihar, (2021) 10 SCC 725, wherein this Court observed as under:
"22. Thus, Section 106 of the Evidence Act will apply to those cases where the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the facts from which a reasonable inference can be drawn 216 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 regarding the existence of certain other facts which are within the special knowledge of the accused. When the accused fails to offer proper explanation about the existence of said other facts, the court can always draw an appropriate inference.
23. When a case is resting on circumstantial evidence, if the accused fails to offer a reasonable explanation in discharge of burden placed on him by virtue of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, such a failure may provide an additional link to the chain of circumstances. In a case governed by circumstantial evidence, if the chain of circumstances which is required to be established by the prosecution is not established, the failure of the accused to discharge the burden under Section 106 of the Evidence Act is not relevant at all. When the chain is not complete, falsity of the defence is no ground to convict the accused."
(Emphasis supplied)
37. In Tulshiram Sahadu Suryawanshi v. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 10 SCC 373, this Court observed as under:
"23. It is settled law that presumption of fact is a rule in law of evidence that a fact otherwise doubtful may be 217 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 inferred from certain other proved facts. When inferring the existence of a fact from other set of proved facts, the court exercises a process of reasoning and reaches a logical conclusion as the most probable position. The above position is strengthened in view of Section 114 of the Evidence Act, 1872. It empowers the court to presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened. In that process, the courts shall have regard to the common course of natural events, human conduct, etc. in addition to the facts of the case. In these circumstances, the principles embodied in Section 106 of the Evidence Act can also be utilised. We make it clear that this section is not intended to relieve the prosecution of its burden to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, but it would apply to cases where the prosecution has succeeded in proving facts from which a reasonable inference can be drawn regarding the existence of certain other facts, unless the accused by virtue of his special knowledge regarding such facts, failed to offer any explanation which might drive the court to draw a different inference. It is useful to quote the following observation in State of W.B. v. Mir Mohammad Omar [(2000) 218 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 8 SCC 382 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 1516] :
(SCC p. 393, para 38)
"38. Vivian Bose, J., had observed that Section 106 of the Evidence Act is designed to meet certain exceptional cases in which it would be impossible for the prosecution to establish certain facts which are particularly within the knowledge of the accused. In Shambu Nath Mehra v. State of Ajmer [AIR 1956 SC 404 : 1956 Cri LJ 794] the learned Judge has stated the legal principle thus : (AIR p. 406, para 11) '11. This lays down the general rule that in a criminal case the burden of proof is on the prosecution and Section 106 is certainly not intended to relieve it of that duty. On the contrary, it is designed to meet certain exceptional cases in which it would be impossible, or at any rate disproportionately difficult for the prosecution to establish facts which are "especially" within the knowledge of the accused and which he could prove without difficulty or inconvenience.
The word "especially" stresses that. It means facts that are pre-eminently or exceptionally within his knowledge.'"
(Emphasis supplied) 219 Spl.CC. No.41/2012
132. The aforesaid authority clearly shows a definite role on the person having special knowledge.
When the evidence of PW64 is compared with that PW65 it would clearly indicate that Mr.Krishnappa S/o Biddappa was deposing to the aspect of acquisition proceedings being stayed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and they were in possession over the said property. If not PW64 Krishnappa was directly involved with the case, it was accused No.4 K.Srnivas who is directly connected by the case, has deposed nothing in this regard. Nor he had furnished any materials to indicate that he was in possession of the lands or the proceedings of acquisition was stayed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. I have also carefully appreciated the statement recorded under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. wherein a specific question was posed at Question No.150 and 151 to accused No.4 K.Srinivas with respect to the evidence of PW64 of obtaining stay. Wherein he had feigned his ignorance 220 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 about the same. The answer tendered by accused No.4 can be considered as chain of link to connect his overt act with respect to entering into conspiracy with other accused persons. The court is fully aware of the answers tendered by the accused persons. The court is fully aware of the fact that the answers tendered by the accused in his statement recorded under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C., cannot be a sole basis for recording conviction. However, at the same time, the answers tendered by him shall be considered as connecting material to link the chain of circumstances, In this regard, learned counsel for accused No.1 and 2 has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2013)5 SCC 722 ( Rajkumar Sing V State of Rajasthan) wherein it is held as:
30. In a criminal trial, the purpose of examining the accused person under Section 313 CrPC is to meet the requirement of the principles of natural justice i.e. audi alteram partem. This means that the accused may be asked to furnish some explanation as regards 221 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 the incriminating circumstances associated with him, and the court must take note of such explanation. In a case of circumstantial evidence, the same is essential to decide whether or not the chain of circumstances is complete. No matter how weak the evidence of the prosecution may be, it is the duty of the court to examine the accused, and to seek his explanation as regards the incriminating material that has surfaced against him. The circumstances which are not put to the accused in his examination under Section 313 CrPC, cannot be used against him and have to be excluded from consideration.
31. In State of Maharashtra v. Sukhdev Singh [(1992) 3 SCC 700 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 705 : AIR 1992 SC 2100] this Court observed as under : (SCC p. 741, para 49) "49. ... if there is no evidence or circumstance appearing in the prosecution evidence implicating the accused with the commission of the crime with which he is charged, there is nothing for the accused to explain and hence his examination under Section 313 of the Code would be wholly unnecessary and improper. In such a situation the accused cannot be questioned and his answers cannot be 222 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 used to supply the gaps left by witnesses in their evidence."
32. In Mohan Singh v. Prem Singh [(2002) 10 SCC 236 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 1514 : AIR 2002 SC 3582] this Court held : (SCC p. 245, para 30) "30. The statement of the accused under Section 313 CrPC is not a substantive piece of evidence. It can be used for appreciating evidence led by the prosecution to accept or reject it. It is, however, not a substitute for the evidence of the prosecution. ... if the exculpatory part of his statement is found to be false and the evidence led by the prosecution is reliable, the inculpatory part of his statement can be taken aid of to lend assurance to the evidence of the prosecution. If the prosecution evidence does not inspire confidence to sustain the conviction of the accused, the inculpatory part of his statement under Section 313 CrPC cannot be made the sole basis of his conviction."
41. In view of the above, the law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that statement under Section 313 CrPC is recorded to meet the requirement of the principles of natural justice as it requires that an accused may be given an opportunity to furnish explanation of the incriminating material which had come against him in the trial. However, his statement 223 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 cannot be made a basis for his conviction. His answers to the questions put to him under Section 313 CrPC cannot be used to fill up the gaps left by the prosecution witnesses in their depositions. Thus, the statement of the accused is not a substantive piece of evidence and therefore, it can be used only for appreciating the evidence led by the prosecution, though it cannot be a substitute for the evidence of the prosecution. In case the prosecution evidence is not found sufficient to sustain conviction of the accused, the inculpatory part of his statement cannot be made the sole basis of his conviction. The statement under Section 313 CrPC is not recorded after administering oath to the accused. Therefore, it cannot be treated as an evidence within the meaning of Section 3 of the Evidence Act, though the accused has a right if he chooses to be a witness, and once he makes that option, he can be administered oath and examined as a witness in defence as required under Section 315 CrPC. An adverse inference can be taken against the accused only and only if the incriminating material stood fully established and the accused is not able to furnish any explanation for the same. However, the accused has a right to remain silent as he cannot be 224 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 forced to become a witness against himself.
133. The aforesaid judgment would clearly indicate that though the statement of accused even if he had tendered false answer, would not be a ground for conviction, but still can be considered for causing as additional link with the materials produced by the prosecution. On conjoint reading of the aforesaid act clearly indicate that the fact that the accused persons had indeed entered into criminal conspiracy. Learned counsel for accused No.1 and 2 has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2005) 12 SCC 631 (K.R.Purushotham Vs. State of Karnataka) wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as:
13. To constitute a conspiracy, meeting of minds of two or more persons for doing an illegal act or an act by illegal means is the first and primary condition and it is not necessary that all the conspirators must know each and every detail of the conspiracy.
Neither is it necessary that every one of the conspirators takes active part in the 225 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 commission of each and every conspiratorial acts. The agreement amongst the conspirators can be inferred by necessary implication. In most of the cases, the conspiracies are proved by the circumstantial evidence, as the conspiracy is seldom an open affair. The existence of conspiracy and its objects are usually deduced from the circumstances of the case and the conduct of the accused involved in the conspiracy. While appreciating the evidence of the conspiracy, it is incumbent on the court to keep in mind the well-known rule governing circumstantial evidence viz. each and every incriminating circumstance must be clearly established by reliable evidence and the circumstances proved must form a chain of events from which the only irresistible conclusion about the guilt of the accused can be safely drawn, and no other hypothesis against the guilt is possible. Criminal conspiracy is an independent offence in the Penal Code. The unlawful agreement is sine qua non for constituting offence under the Penal Code and not an accomplishment.
Conspiracy consists of the scheme or adjustment between two or more persons which may be express or implied or partly express and partly implied. Mere knowledge, even discussion, of the plan would not per 226 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 se constitute conspiracy. The offence of conspiracy shall continue till the termination of agreement.
19. On scrutiny of the entire facts led by the prosecution, the charge of conspiracy cannot stand as there is no link to show that the conspirators agreed to misappropriate the gold while the gold ornament was being prepared.
20. The appellant-accused was convicted under Sections 13(1)(c) and
(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. To constitute an offence under clause (c) of Section 13(1) of the Act, it is necessary for the prosecution to prove that the accused has dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriated any property entrusted to him or under his control as a public servant or allows any other person to do so or converts that property for his own use. The entrustment of the property or the control of the property is a necessary ingredient of Section 13(1)(c). On the findings arrived at by the High Court, it is obvious that the property was neither entrusted nor was under the control of the appellant-accused and thus the appellant-accused could not have been convicted under the section. 227 Spl.CC. No.41/2012
134. The aforesaid authority is carefully appreciated there can be any qualms with respect to the dictum laid down therein. The Hon'ble Apex Court has specifically held in para-11 with respect to criminal conspiracy and in fact the Hon'ble Apex Court has relied upon its earlier judgment and has held that the gist of the offence was an agreement to break the law and the parties of such an agreement will be guilty of criminal conspiracy though the illegal act agreed to be done so was not done. In the instant case, it is not a stray incident wherein the Manager in his zeal to obtain higher credit and appreciation from the higher authorities had sanctioned loan, but in fact the documents which have been produced before the court indicates that it was about 263 Bank loan accounts which would indicate that he had accepted the submissions made by the borrowers without even caring to look in to the applications and hence a serious question mark is raised against his conduct. 228 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 It is also been pointed out by this court that the concerned Branch Manager accused No.1 M.T.V.Reddy had not even verified the documents nor made a spot inspection which was mandatory for him to do so prior to sanctioning the loan amount. If only, the Manager (A1) was diligent person who had acted in good faith would not have ventured to make recommendation in a blatant manner that the aforesaid projects were all developed layout. The aforesaid observations were made by the concerned Bank manager in his own hand-writing in majority of the cases and that to declaring of making spot inspection prior to sanctioning of loan in the year 2003-04 and 2005. Whereas when the mahazar were drawn as Ex.P.113 to 117 in the year 2009 it is noticed that no such developmental activities were found and in fact it is evidence of PW2 Muralidhar and PW4 Shankar Rao that the said lands were all barren agricultural lands over which no construction 229 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 activities were found, except one or two construction being put up. If only for the sake of arguments it is to be accepted that the act of A1 M.T.V.Reddy was only an attempt made in the zeal to achieve higher status and reap awards from his higher authorities, it is to be reminded that he was the custodian of public account. Further in the written submission made by Accused no.2 has specifically stated that they had never intended to develop layout but they had only intended to provide basic necessity of drainage, sewage and water connection. If only the admission of Accused No.2 in his statement is to be accepted, once again the contention urged by Accused No.1 with respect to his bonafides will fall down as a pack of cards.
135. The learned counsel for accused No.1 and 2 has vehemently argued that no ingredients of cheating has been made out by the prosecution and it is his submission that in order to attract rigors of Sec.420 of 230 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 IPC, the prosecution is required to prove the malafide criminal intention right from the inception. It is his submission that at most the act of accused No.1 M.T.V.Reddy could be construed as a one which was made in negligent manner and without adhering to the norms which he should have done. However, the blatant violations which he had made has been pointed out by this court in the earlier part of the judgment. In this regard, the court has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex court wherein it is indicated that the act of the Accused No.1 was not only a minor misnomer which could be construed as the one attracting a Departmental Enquiry. In this regard, the court has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in reported in (2009) 15 SCC 643 (Mir Nagvi Askari vs C.B.I) wherein it is held as:
62. The courts, however, while drawing an inference from the materials brought on record to arrive at a finding as to whether the charges of the criminal conspiracy have been 231 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 proved or not, must always bear in mind that a conspiracy is hatched in secrecy and it is difficult, if not impossible, to obtain direct evidence to establish the same. The manner and circumstances in which the offences have been committed and the accused persons took part are relevant. For the said purpose, it is necessary to prove that the propounders had expressly agreed to it or caused it to be done, and it may also be proved by adduction of circumstantial evidence and/or by necessary implication. (See Mohd.
Usman Mohammad Hussain
Maniyar v. State of
Maharashtra [(1981) 2 SCC 443 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 477] .)
64. In some cases, intent of unlawful use being made of the goods or services in question may be inferred from the knowledge itself. This Court in State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa [(1996) 4 SCC 659 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 820] opined that it is necessary for the prosecution to establish that a particular unlawful use was intended, so long as the goods or services in question could not be put to any lawful use, stating: (SCC p. 668, para 24) "24. The aforesaid decisions, weighty as they are, lead us to conclude that to establish a charge of conspiracy knowledge about indulgence in either an illegal act or a 232 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 legal act by illegal means is necessary.
In some cases, intent of unlawful use being made of the goods or services in question may be inferred from the knowledge itself. This apart, the prosecution has not to establish that a particular unlawful use was intended, so long as the goods or service in question could not be put to any lawful use. Finally, when the ultimate offence consists of a chain of actions, it would not be necessary for the prosecution to establish, to bring home the charge of conspiracy, that each of the conspirators had the knowledge of what the collaborator would do, so long as it is known that the collaborator would put the goods or service to an unlawful use."
(emphasis in original) Further in another judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2009) 11 SCC 737 (R.Venkatakrishna Vs. CBI) wherein it is held as:
162. The ingredients of sub-clause (iii) of Section 13(1)(d) contemplate that a public servant who while holding office obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest would be guilty of criminal misconduct. Sub-section (2) of Section 13 provides for the punishment 233 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 for such criminal misconduct. Minimum sentence is prescribed under Section 13(2) of the 1988 Act and a public servant who abuses his position as such for obtaining for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage cannot be punished for a term of imprisonment, which is less than for the duration of one year.
163. For convicting the person under Section 13(1)(d)(iii), there must be evidence on record that the accused "obtained" for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public advantage.
164. In Dalpat Singh v. State of Rajasthan [AIR 1969 SC 17] , while interpreting an analogous provision in the unamended Prevention of Corruption Act, this (sic Court) opined:
(AIR p. 18) "The ingredients of the offence under Section 5(1) (d) are: (1) that the accused should be a public servant, (2) that he should use some corrupt or illegal means or otherwise abuse his position as a public servant, (3) that he should have obtained a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage, and (4) for himself or any other person."
165. The Madras High Court in B. Ramachandran and S.S. Abdul Hameed v. State [ Criminal Appeal 234 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 No. 553 of 2000 decided on 23-3-2007] noted thus: "Section 13(1)(d) of the said Act also deals with the criminal misconduct by a public servant by means of corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or by abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or while holding office as a public servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest."
166. In the light of the provisions already enumerated by us we as per the law laid down therefore hold that the accused, A-1 to A-3 (officials of UCO Bank) and A-6 (official of NHB) are guilty of criminal misconduct under the Prevention of Corruption Act. For the reasons already mentioned by us we do not find sufficient evidence to bring in the involvement of A-7 Suresh Babu within the fold of the said transaction.
167. All the accused were at the relevant time public servants. Each one of them played a specific role in diversion of funds from NHB to the account of Harshad Mehta, all ostensibly under a call money transaction. They thereby in our opinion facilitated Harshad Mehta to 235 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 obtain pecuniary advantage within the meaning of the section. The acts were anything but intended to be in public interest. On the contrary the public loss and suffering occasioned thereby was immeasurable. Though it is true, as has been argued before us that all the funds diverted have subsequently been returned to NHB and no actual loss has been occasioned thereby either to UCO Bank or NHB. But it must not be forgotten that white collar crimes of such a nature affect the whole society even though they may not have any immediate victims. We, accordingly, hold accused A-1 to A-3 and A-6 guilty of criminal misconduct under Section 13(1)(d)(iii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act
136. When the aforesaid authorities are reconciled with the facts of the case, it indicates that the borrowers who had applied for loan were not the actual borrowers and as per the circular issued by SBM and also by RBI a duty is cast upon the concerned branch Manager to verify the loan account and also back ground of the borrowers. In the instant case with respect to huge loan, the Branch Manager 236 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 had not adhered to the same and he has not even adhered to verify the documents. As already pointed out by this court in many instances, the loan application was filed prior to entering into agreement to sell/ tripartite agreement and in some instances the Manager himself has noted that the title was cleared by the Panel Advocate which indeed was not correct. It is also noticed that the legal opinion from the Panel Advocate was obtained subsequently after the recommendation was made by A1 -Branch Manager and in some cases on the very same day when the legal opinion was furnished. Prior to furnishing of the legal opinion, the Manager has observed of making a spot inspection and also certifying that the projects were fully developed by M/s. Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises. All the aforesaid observations would unerringly indicate of entering into criminal conspiracy with accused No.2 Krishnaiah Setty who was none other than the 237 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 beneficiary and also developer. In respect to 3 project areas of Hegganahalli, Mallathahalli and Sampigehalli, his brothers S.N.Balaram and S.N.Ramesh were the owners who in turn had entered into an agreement to build with builder S.N.Krishnaiah Setty. The aforesaid aspects would only indicate of the impugned act being played by accused No.2 in order to make unlawful gain.
CHAPTER-XI WHETHER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 409 OF IPC CAN BE INVOKED ALONGWITH SECTION 420 OF IPC?
137. The other aspect which is required to be addressed is whether the provisions of section 409 of IPC can be invoked along with section 420 of IPC. The Court has also taken into account the role of accused No.1 with respect to committing offence under Sec.409 of IPC. The learned Counsel Sri R.Nagendra Naik has vehemently argued on behalf accused No.1 and 2 that it was the duty of prosecution to prove 238 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 their case beyond reasonable doubt and they have utterly failed to point out the fact that who had forged or fabricated the document. In order to better appreciate the same, I have carefully appreciated the entire cross-examination which were made by the learned counsel. Repeatedly, it was suggested to the witnesses that it was Mr.Dominic who had represented them to get site and later on at his instance, the borrowers had reconveyed the site. It is relevant to note that Mr.Dominic had died prior to registration of FIR and as per the death certificate which was produced at Ex.P.1325 he had died on 20.12.2007 i.e., prior to the registration of complaint against him. All the aforesaid acts would only indicate a role being played by the developer and also by the seller of the property. The court in detail will deal with the tampering of the documents and also the act of the accused persons in the subsequent part of the judgment.
239 Spl.CC. No.41/2012
138. It is also relevant to note that during the course of cross-examination it was elucidated from majority of the witnesses that they were aware of the banking transactions and the loan availed by them from the bank was to be repaid which in fact they had not repaid. It was also elucidated from them that the amount was repaid by M/s. Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises as they were unable to repay the same. Though the aforesaid submission would seem to be attractive at the first instance, it is required to be considered the fact that why repayments were being made by the accused No.2 S.N.Krishnaiah Setty at the inception of the case. In order to better appreciate the same, once again the court is required to go in to the depth of the case to look at the manner in which public money was fiddled by the accused persons. Only if the prosecution is able to establish the fact that the banking norms and guidelines were not adhered to, then the question of entering into criminal 240 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 conspiracy can be established through circumstantial materials, since in matters pertaining to economic offence there cannot be any direct materials and only on the basis of circumstantial materials the court will have to consider the same. I have also taken into account of the submissions made at Bar by the learned counsel for accused No.1 and 2 that it was elicited during the cross-examination of bank employees that the branch in which the accused No.1 M.T.V.Reddy was working was a busy branch and also it was a newly established branch wherein he was saddled with a task to develop the bank by bringing in huge deposits and also by disbursing loan. No doubt the said directions of the higher authorities seems to have caused certain imbalances in the bank, the same cannot be the criteria to give a go bye to all the settled law and also the banking norms and directions of the RBI. The rules are being framed by the superior authorities only to see that a fair banking process is 241 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 adopted by the concerned branch. The loan amounts which were sanctioned by the Branch Manager without verifying the documents also raises a finger of suspicion towards their act. At the cost of repetition, it is clarified that the court is not drawing any presumption on the basis of suspicious circumstances.
139. In order to appreciate the entire factual aspects of allegations of fraud and cheating and also the question of breach of trust, it would be required to consider the entire materials which has been produced in the case and also the statement recorded under section 313 of Cr.P.C. The accused No.1 at the time of recording his statement under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C., has filed his written synopsis contending that he had played active role for the development of the bank and in fact it was observed in the Audit Report that the bank requires additional hands. I have thoroughly examined the Audit Report which is placed 242 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 on record and particularly the Audit Report dt.14.10.2004 which is marked as Ex.P.1333 indicates that a recommendation was made by the Chief Manager (Audit) stating that the Housing Loans of 168 account were pending by the concerned bank and the branch was not provided with a Field Officer. It is also been observed that unless a Field Officer is provided the branch was likely to commit lapses in conducting advances. By pointing out the said aspect and also by pointing out to the suggestions made to PW83 Venugopal and also PW2 Muralidhar and PW4 Shankar Rao it is submitted that they have admitted about the work pressure in the branch. No doubt the said submissions made at the time of recording the statement under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C., and also the Audit Report seems to be acceptable at the first instance, however, when the same is considered in the wake of the allegations of entering into conspiracy and with a pinch of salt when the contentions are 243 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 appreciated, it does indicate of entering into conspiracy. In order to consider the same the written submissions which has been filed by accused No.1 in his 313 statement is to be revisited. In his 313 Statement, the accused No.1 M.T.V.Reddy has filed his written statement as contemplated under Sec.313(5) of Cr.P.C. In fact, in the said statement, he has given explanation with respect to discounting of cheques and also forwarding of loan account. In particularly at page No.3 para No.4 he has narrated that accused No.2 S.N.Krishnaiah Setty, the Ex- Minister was not at all a customer of the branch till the loan applications were forwarded to the Bank's Regional Office which was received in a loan mela. After that he had given importance to Mr.Krishnaiah Setty as he was a Cabinet Minister with Important Portfolio of Housing and Mujarayi. The aforesaid specific assertion made in the written synopsis itself indicates of accused No.1 M.T.V.Reddy showing 244 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 certain bias towards accused No.2 S.N.Krishnaiah Setty. Just because the loan application which were received in the loan mela were forwarded by the Bank authorities the Branch Manager was not supposed to act in clandestine manner to accept the proposals. In fact, the provisions of Sec.409 of IPC itself defines that how the trust which is placed on a public servant is to be discharged. For the sake of benefit the provision of Sec.409 of IPC is extracted herein which reads as follows: -
409. Criminal breach of trust by public servant, or by banker, merchant or agent.-- Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property in his capacity of a public servant or in the way of his business as a banker, merchant, factor, broker, attorney or agent, commits criminal breach of trust in respect of that property, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description 245 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
140. When the above said provision is appreciated it indicates that a person is entrusted with a property or with dominion of a property and when he commits criminal breach of trust with respect to the same, he is to be punished in accordance with the aforesaid provision. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to consider what exactly amounts to an act which would be brought within the purview of Section 409 IPC. The provision of Section 409 clearly indicates that there must be an entrustment of property to a public servant in the normal course of business and the said public servant in the way of his business should commit criminal breach of trust. What amounts to criminal breach of trust has been succinctly explained U/s. 405 IPC wherein it states that when a person is entrusted with 246 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 a property or within his dominion, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property or dishonestly uses or disposes that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged commits breach of trust. In other words, what could be construed for attracting the provision of Section 409 of IPC could be culled out as follows:
a. Person entrusted with property should be a public servant.
b. He should be entrusted with property c. The property should be entrusted in the way of his business d. The public servant commits breach of trust
141. When the aforesaid provision is appreciated it indicates that he has dishonestly used or disposed the property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust was to be 247 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 discharged. In other words, the Bank Manager was the custodian of the public money and he was required to discharge his duty as per the rules and guidelines which were laid down by the bank. There cannot be any doubt with respect to the fact that the Accused No.1 was entrusted with public funds by the Bank and when the same is divested in him, it is the duty of the public servant to take note of the same in prudent manner and in normal parlance he should discharge his duty in utmost care and caution. No doubt in his written statement he has produced the records which would indicate that throughout his career, but for the aforesaid allegation he was considered as an achiever and outstanding employee of the bank. All that it matters is that one black mark would be sufficient to destroy the clean image of the person. The fact which remains is that he had sanctioned number of loans without adhering to the banking norms and principles and as discussed supra 248 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 the fact of sanctioning loan and also making recommendation in a disdain manner would clearly indicate of entering into a conspiracy with other accused persons who were beneficiaries of the release of amount. In fact the further explanation given by the accused No.1 that he gave importance to accused No.2 S.N.Krishnaiah Setty that he was Cabinet Minister with important portfolio of Housing and Mujarayi itself casts a shadow of doubt. In fact, the accused No.2 being a Mujarayi and Housing Portfolio Minister should not have ventured to influence the Bank or for that matter should not have taken advantage of the fact of being minister to allure the public of providing housing facilities and that too to conspire with other person. As already discussed above, the question of conspiracy is required to be looked in to from attending materials and also from the circumstances which is pointed out. Here in the case though the court is not entirely relying upon the 249 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 statements made under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C., as already discussed above, the submissions and the materials furnished under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C., can be considered as chain link. Even otherwise, the accused No.1 himself has further narrated that he had developed contact with accused No.2 to mobilize deposits and miscellaneous income for the bank which was newly opened and required more deposits and advances with high value income. The aforesaid assertion itself would clarify that what kind of miscellaneous income for a Nationalized Bank was being generated by accused No.1. If at all the bank required any further funds or miscellaneous incomes, the concerned Branch Manager should have corresponded with his higher authorities in order to ascertain the same. Just because it was newly opened Branch, the same does not give any authorization to the Manager to flaunt and violate all the rules and procedures. Apart from that I have also appreciated the Audit Report on 250 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 which several references were being made by the learned counsel for accused No.1 and 2. The Audit report at Ex.P..1333 indicates that a recommendation was made for furnishing sufficient staff to Specialized Personal Banking Branch so as to enable the Manager to discharge his duties. A serious thrust was made on the recommendation wherein it was stated that the higher authorities were required to appoint such officers who match to the speed and zeal of the accused No.1. Even if it is accepted, the same does not indicate that the Audit Report had given a clean chit to accused No.1 M.T.V.Reddy. In his report dated 14.10.2004 in the beginning itself it has been narrated that the several lapses were found in the housing loan accounts and it has been mentioned that the Branch was not provided with a Field Officer. Further, it has been mentioned that the Branch was purchasing high value cheques regularly beyond discretion and suitable arrangements were to be made 251 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 to facilitate the business and safeguarding the bank's fund. The underlining word in the aforesaid audit report is the observation made by the Chief Manager (Audit) to "Safe Guard the Banks Fund". Even in the instant case though the higher authorities of the Bank might have pressurized the concerned branch Manager to improve the business, but that does not mean that he has to improve the business at the cost of neglecting the rules, norms and guidelines of the Bank and RBI. After all the Manager was there to take care of the interest of the public fund which was entrusted to him. Obviously, the Branch Manager was not acting for the benefit of the higher authorities, but he was the custodian of public funds. Time and again it has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court and also by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka that when a person is entrusted with public fund, he should act in extra cautious manner and diligently so that no room can be left out for allegations. Even in 252 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 the said Audit Report at page No.4, it has been observed as under:
"Branch has considered large number of loans for purchase of plots and construction of houses in Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises layout. Agreement of sale and build is entered into between vendor, builder and purchaser. The Chief Manager is single handedly attending to all the works relating to advances. As such it is humanly impossible to attend the work without lapses."
142. The aforesaid observations would indicate that certain discrepancies were pointed out in the Audit Report and though at that point of time, the Chief Manager (Audit) had not suspected any role of the concerned Branch manager since he was considered to be an extraordinary employee/ performer who was awarded with various mementos and achievements. That apart it is also to be observed 253 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 by the auditor that in most of the house building loan accounts the loan tenure was mentioned as 180 months even though borrower did not have such a length of service. In the absence of an undertaking from the employer there was no guarantee that the loan account will be closed at the time of retirement of the borrower and the project was required to safeguard against such an eventuality. It was also observed that the branch was holding photo copies of the document like salary certificate and in some cases the branch did not hold any original records at all. All the aforesaid aspects would once again requires answer from accused No.1 M.T.V.Reddy that what was the necessity for him to go to such an extent of ignoring all the rules and procedures. It was not the intention of the banking authorities that the targets were to be achieved at the cost of sacrificing the rules and procedures and also the public fund. If for the moment the observations made in the Audit Report as 254 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 back as 14.10.2004 is considered the concerned Branch Manager should have got himself alerted and should have done acts that would be befitting his innocence. As already discussed above some of the loan accounts were released in the year 2005 and even when the observations were made in the Audit Report on 14.10.2004, the then Manager had completely ignored the same and he had not taken any steps to verify the salary certificates produced. Probably the reason for not acting was for the reason of entering into conspiracy with accused No.2. If it was an ordinary prudent man who was not having any allegiance or had not entered into any criminal conspiracy then obviously in the wake of audit report, he would have taken necessary steps to resurrect his image and also to prevent the down fall of the banking interest. Surprisingly, the concerned Manager did not even care to look into the same and also the report. Further, the court has also considered the verification 255 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 report of house building loan sanction from 1.1.2005 by the concerned branch which was submitted on 8.5.2006. The said report is marked as Ex.P.1334. Even in the said verification report an observation has been made in all the house building loans sanctioned by the branch, no authentication of the salary certificate was obtained. In fact, the project wise details were maintained with respect to other project also, which is not subject matter of this case. In the last column it has been stated that the concerned officer had brought about the discrepancies to the knowledge of the chief Manager i.e., M.T.V.Reddy with respect to salary certificate of employees of some borrower accounts and also compliance and creation of equitable mortgages. He has also furnished project wise list. Thereafter on 31.8.2006 the Manager (Adv) has also submitted a report to the DGM of SBM which is at Ex.P.1335 wherein he has discussed that the concerned employers who had allegedly issued the 256 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 salary slips and in that he has specifically mentioned that the salary slips which were furnished were not authenticated by their Department. If for the sake of arguments, the accused No.1 M.T.V.Reddy claims to be an innocent person, then nothing prevented him to alerted when the first Audit Report itself was filed. In the first Audit Report itself some discrepancies were pointed out. However, the concerned Manager had ignored the same and has continued his association with accused No.2 S.N.Krishnaiah Setty. Probably the answer which has been given in the written synopsis by accused No.1 that he had got close to accused No.2 S.N.Krishnaiah Setty who was the Housing and Mujarayi Minister seems to be the answer for such an aggressive banking without following the procedures. At the cost of repetition, once again it is to be reminded that M/s. Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises themselves had voluntarily come forward to repay the loan amount when the criminal case came to be filed. 257 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 All the aforesaid acts would only fortify the case of prosecution that the act of accused No.1 was not a minor misnomer nor a minor discrepancy.
143. The act of accused No.1 M.T.V.Reddy is also directly attracts of Sec.13(1)(c) and (d) and also Sec.13(2) of the P.C.Act, 1988. The learned counsel for accused No.1 and 2 has vehemently argued that in fact the act of accused No.1 was to be considered as minor mistake wherein he had not adhered to certain rules and regulations. In order to buttress his submissions, the learned counsel for accused has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2006) 12 SCC 631 (K.R.Purushothaman Vs. State of Kerala) wherein it was held as:
To constitute an offence under clause (c) of Section 13(1) of the Act, it is necessary for the prosecution to prove that the accused has dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriated any property entrusted to him or under his control as a public servant or allows any 258 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 other person to do so or converts that property for his own use. The entrustment of the property or the control of the property is a necessary ingredient of Section 13(1)(c). On the findings arrived at by the High Court, it is obvious that the property was neither entrusted nor was under the control of the accused-appellant and thus the accused- appellant could not have been convicted under the Section.
To attract the provisions of Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, public servant should obtain for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage by corrupt or illegal means or by abusing his position as a public servant. Therefore, for convicting a person under the provisions of Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, there must be evidence on record that the accused has obtained for himself or for any other person, any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage by corrupt or illegal means or by abusing his position as a public servant obtained for himself, or for 259 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 any person, or obtain for any person, any valuable thing, or pecuniary advantage without any public interest
144. In the aforesaid judgment Hon'ble Apex Court has held that unless the prosecution establishes that the accused has dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriated any property entrusted to him or which was in his control and converts that for his own use or for the benefit of others, he cannot be prosecuted for the same. That apart the learned counsel for accused has also relied upon another judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2016) 12 SCC 273 (A. Sivaprakash vs State Of Kerala) wherein it was held as:
7. Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act reads as under:
"13. Criminal misconduct by a public servant.--(1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct--260 Spl.CC. No.41/2012
***
(d) if he--
(i) by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage;
or
(ii) by abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or
(iii) while holding office as a public servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest; or"
18. The prosecution has sought to cover the case of the appellant under sub-clause (ii) of Section 13(1)(d) and not under sub-clause (i) and sub-clause
(iii). Insofar as sub-clause (ii) is concerned, it stipulates that a public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct if he, by abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other 261 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage. Thus, the ingredients which will be required to be proved are:
(1) The public servant has abused his position.
(2) By abusing that position, he has obtained for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage.
19. It was not even the case set up by the prosecution that the appellant had taken that money from some person and had obtained any pecuniary advantage thereby. It was the obligation of the prosecution to satisfy the aforesaid mandatory ingredients which could implicate the appellant under the provisions of Section 13(1)(d)
(ii). The attempt of the prosecution was to bring the case within the fold of sub- clause (ii) alleging that he misused his official position in issuing the certificate utterly fails as it is not even alleged in the charge-sheet and not even an iota 262 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 of evidence is led as to what kind of pecuniary advantage was obtained by the appellant in issuing the said letter.
20. In C. Chenga Reddy v. State of A.P. [C. Chenga Reddy v. State of A.P., (1996) 10 SCC 193 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 1205] , this Court held that even when codal violations were established and it was also proved that there were irregularities committed by allotting/awarding the work in violation of circulars, that by itself was not sufficient to prove that a criminal case was made out. The Court went on to hold: (SCC p. 207, para 22) "22. On a careful consideration of the material on the record, we are of the opinion that though the prosecution has established that the appellants have committed not only codal violations but also irregularities by ignoring various circulars and departmental orders issued from time to time in the matter of allotment of work of jungle clearance on nomination basis and have 263 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 committed departmental lapse yet, none of the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are of any conclusive nature and all the circumstances put together do not lead to the irresistible conclusion that the said circumstances are compatible only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the appellants and wholly incompatible with their innocence. In Abdulla Mohammed Pagarkar v. State (UT of Goa, Daman and Diu) [Abdulla Mohammed Pagarkar v. State (UT of Goa, Daman and Diu), (1980) 3 SCC 110 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 546] , under somewhat similar circumstances this Court opined that mere disregard of relevant provisions of the Financial Code as well as ordinary norms of procedural behaviour of government officials and contractors, without conclusively establishing, beyond a reasonable doubt, the guilt of the officials and contractors concerned, may give rise to a strong suspicion but that cannot be held to establish the guilt of the accused. The established 264 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 circumstances in this case also do not establish criminality of the appellants beyond the realm of suspicion and, in our opinion, the approach of the trial court and the High Court to the requirements of proof in relation to a criminal charge was not proper."
145. In aforesaid judgment the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the conviction under Sec.13(1)(d)
(ii) could not be sustained unless the prosecution establishes that what kind of pecuniary advantage was obtained by the accused person. In order to revisit the said aspect and also to consider the same it would be appropriate to look in to the evidence which has been lead before the court. It is pertinent to note that on 29.4.2009 accused No.1 himself has addressed a letter wherein he had stated that on 2.4.2009 he had intended to withdraw Rs.20,000/- for his family use and he has brought certain cheques which had fallen down in the branch and had 265 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 submitted one of the cheques. However, the amount was not disbursed and later on he came to know that the amount was debited to his account and he has also stated that the cheque belonged to M/s. Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises. The aforesaid aspect has been narrated by accused No.1 himself in his statement recorded under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C., In fact he has furnished copy of the cheque pertaining to account No.64041976227 wherein he had issued a cheque in favour of M/s. Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises for Rs.20000/-. If for the sake of argument a cheque pertaining to aforesaid account was presented to the Bank as narrated by the accused No.1 M.T.V.Reddy is accepted, then what prevented him from inquiring with the branch there itself when the amount was debited to his account is not explained. Admittedly, he had visited the bank to withdraw the amount, but it is his case that the cheque was presented to the bank and amount was 266 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 debited to the account of the M/s. Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises. Further, an explanation has been given since there were numerous NPA accounts, he had collected some cheques from M/s Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises to get it deposited. However, in the instant case the cheque was presented to the bank to get the amount credited to the account of Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises. The author of the cheque was Mr. M.T.V.Reddy himself. Even otherwise it is to be noticed that the concerned Branch Manager was making payment for the borrower which seems to be something unusual. Further on 15.3.2012 it was specifically narrated by the concerned bank by enclosing statement of account stating that a cheque bearing No.1443555 was debited to his current account and later on said amount was credited to the account of M/sSree Balaji Krupa Enterprises. All the aforesaid incident would indicate that indeed the Accused No.1 had derived certain pecuniary benefits. 267 Spl.CC. No.41/2012
146. The further allegation which was leveled against accused No.1 is that he was in possession of blank cheque bearing No.245027 for Rs.20,000/- issued by M/s. Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises. It has been submitted during the course of his statement recorded under section313 of Cr.P.C that some of the accounts had turned NPA and he had collected certain cheques of Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises. However, the said cheque was recovered during the search conducted on his premises by the CBI for which explanation was has been given. In my humble opinion the said explanation does not holds water and the same requires to be rejected. All the aforesaid act once again indicates of attracting the ingredients of Sec.13(1)(c) and (d) of P.C.Act.
147. The learned counsel for accused has also vehemently argued that the provision of Sec.409 and 420 of IPC cannot go together. In this regard, this court has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex 268 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 Court reported in (2021) 18 SCC 70 (N.Raghavendra Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh) wherein it was held as:
47. It ought to be noted that the crucial word used in Section 405IPC is "dishonestly" and therefore, it pre-
supposes the existence of mens rea. In other words, mere retention of property entrusted to a person without any misappropriation cannot fall within the ambit of criminal breach of trust. Unless there is some actual use by the accused in violation of law or contract, coupled with dishonest intention, there is no criminal breach of trust. The second significant expression is "misappropriates" which means improperly setting apart for ones use and to the exclusion of the owner.
48. No sooner are the two fundamental ingredients of "criminal breach of trust"
within the meaning of Section 405IPC proved, and if such criminal breach is caused by a public servant or a banker, merchant or agent, the said 269 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 offence of criminal breach of trust is punishable under Section 409IPC, for which it is essential to prove that:
(i) The accused must be a public servant or a banker, merchant or agent;
(ii) He/She must have been entrusted, in such capacity, with property; and
(iii) He/She must have committed breach of trust in respect of such property.
49. Accordingly, unless it is proved that the accused, a public servant or a banker, etc. was "entrusted" with the property which he is duty-bound to account for and that such a person has committed criminal breach of trust, Section 409IPC may not be attracted.
"Entrustment of property" is a wide and generic expression. While the initial onus lies on the prosecution to show that the property in question was "entrusted" to the accused, it is not necessary to prove further, the actual mode of entrustment of the property or misappropriation thereof. Where the 270 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 "entrustment" is admitted by the accused or has been established by the prosecution, the burden then shifts on the accused to prove that the obligation vis-à-vis the entrusted property was carried out in a legally and contractually acceptable manner.
Ingredients necessary to prove a charge under Section 420IPC
50. Section 420IPC, provides that whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces a person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy, the whole or any part of valuable security, or anything, which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be liable to be punished for a term which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.
51. It is paramount that in order to attract the provisions of Section 420IPC, the prosecution has to not only prove that the accused has cheated someone but also that by doing so, he 271 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 has dishonestly induced the person who is cheated to deliver property. There are, thus, three components of this offence i.e. (i) deception of any person, (ii) fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person to deliver any property to any person, and (iii) mens rea of the accused at the time of making the inducement. It goes without saying that for the offence of cheating, fraudulent and dishonest intention must exist from the inception when the promise or representation was made.
52. It is equally well-settled that the phrase "dishonestly" emphasises a deliberate intention to cause wrongful gain or wrongful loss, and when this is coupled with cheating and delivery of property, the offence becomes punishable under Section 420IPC. Contrarily, the mere breach of contract cannot give rise to criminal prosecution under Section 420 unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction. It is equally important that for the purpose of holding a person guilty under Section 272 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 420, the evidence adduced must establish beyond reasonable doubt, mens rea on his part. Unless the complaint showed that the accused had dishonest or fraudulent intention "at the time the complainant parted with the monies", it would not amount to an offence under Section 420IPC and it may only amount to breach of contract.
148. Further in the aforesaid judgment Hon'ble Apex Court has further discussed at para No.41 to 43 as follows:
41. We may point out that in the case before us, neither the trial court or the High Court has discussed the ingredients of Sections 409, 420, or 477-AIPC, nor have they made any effort to refer to the specific evidence which may satisfy such ingredients.
There is no gainsaying that the role of the trial court and the High Court is not just to decipher and bring to light the relevant evidence, but also to apply the relevant laws to the factual matrix before it. It further appears that the courts below have interchanged and 273 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 mixed up the allegations against the appellant. While the charges were framed primarily with respect to the issuance of the three loose cheques and the alleged unlawful withdrawal of Rs 10 lakhs from Account No. 282, the courts below have proceeded to convict the appellant on the ground that he prematurely and fraudulently enchased the two FDRs, which stood in the name of B. Satyajit Reddy.
149. In the said judgment Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the trial court nor the High Court therein have discussed the ingredients of Sec.409 and 420 of IPC and had made any effort to refer to the specific evidence which may satisfy the ingredients. In order to better appreciate the same and examine whether the provisions of section 420 of IPC and section 409 of IPC can go together, I have relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka reported in 2022 SCC Online Kar 1855 (J Kannan V State by CBI) wherein it is held as: 274 Spl.CC. No.41/2012
21. As this aspect has not been cleared, analysis of two sections is necessary to answer this point of argument. Entrustment of property or having dominion over a property in the capacity of a public servant or in the way of his business as a banker, merchant, factor, broker, attorney or agent is the essential ingredient of Section 409 which has its origin in Section 405IPC which requires proof of dishonest misappropriation or conversion or dishonest use of property entrusted to him or over which he has dominion, or disposal of property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged.
23. Now a comparison of Sections 409 and 420IPC makes it amply clear that offences covered under them are distinct and independent, they are mutually exclusive and do not go together. But it does not mean that a person cannot be charged together for these two offences.
The same transaction must disclose these two offences being committed, and the 275 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 prosecution must produce independent evidence for the said offences.
Independent evidence does not mean that a witness should not tender evidence in relation to two offences, but it cannot be said that if one offence is proved, the other also stands proved.
24. Here in this case, accused No. 1 is a public servant working in the capacity of Assistant Manager of Syndicate Bank, Yeshwantpur Branch, Bengaluru. It is not in dispute that he in the capacity of Assistant Manager had dominion over funds of the bank. All the transactions that led to his inculpation only indicate diversion of funds to his benefit. The diversion might have resulted in causing loss to the bank, but there is no evidence which shows that he deceived the bank in order to induce it to deliver property within the meaning of Section 415IPC. Though element of fraud is there in the acts committed by accused No. 1, it cannot be brought within the scope of Sections 415 and 420IPC. It is a clear case of misappropriation or diversion of the funds 276 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 of the bank. Evidence of PW25 shows that he was asked to sign on withdrawal slips. It is not his evidence that the money withdrawn by accused No. 1 by using the withdrawal slips belonged to him. It was a misrepresentation to PW25 for diversion of funds of the bank. The Trial Court appears to have proceeded on the footing that misappropriation or diversion of the funds also resulted in bank being cheated. Common parlance thinking may indicate two offences being committed, but given a legal analysis, only offence that stands proved is the one punishable under Section 409IPC. There is no separate proof for the offence under Section 420IPC.
25. Third point is as to conviction for which of three offences namely 468, 471 and 477A is sustainable. Section 468IPC is the penal provision for committing forgery for the purpose of cheating. That means forged document must be used for the purpose of cheating. This takes further meaning that Section 420IPC should also be proved. Indeed there is evidence of PW41 that accused No. 277 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 1 had forged the signature of accused No. 2 on one cheque and also the signatures of P. Krishna Murthy and Nirmala. Forged signatures are found in Ex.P169, PI70 and Ex.P171. P.Krishna Murthy has adduced evidence as PW39 and stated that he had not drawn the amount mentioned in Ex.P170 and the signature on the back of the cheque is not his signature. PW39 was not cross examined by accused. Therefore even though evidence for forgery is available, it does not constitute an offence under Section 468, for the forged documents were not used for cheating.
However the forgery thus proved constitutes an offence under Section
471IPC. The reason being that all the forged documents were dishonestly or fraudulently used by accused No. 1 as genuine for misappropriation or diversion of the funds of the bank. The argument of Sri Nagamuthu that accused No. 1 should not have been held guilty of offence under Section 471IPC cannot be accepted. 278 Spl.CC. No.41/2012
150. In the aforesaid authority the Hon'ble High court has held that on analysis of two sections it is to be established that the public servant was entrusted with the dominion of the property in his capacity as a public servant or in the way of his business as banker is the essential ingredient and the genesis is the requisite of proof of dishonest misappropriation or conversion or dishonest use of property entrusted to him. When the aforesaid aspect is carefully analyzed with the facts of the case it indicates that Accused No.1 MTV Reddy was the Branch Manager at relevant point of time and he was entrusted with the dominion of public funds which he was required to use in proper prudent manner. Further as already discussed, the records indicate that he had misused the public funds by fraudulently granting loan to non-eligible and in other words non-existent customers without even verifying their salary slips or documents and in all the cases the loan amount was released in favour 279 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 of Accused No.2 in utter disregard to the banking norms and procedures. Hence, the prosecution has established the attracting of the provisions of section 409 of IPC.
151. Further in the aforesaid judgment the ingredients necessary for attracting the provision of section 420 of IPC is discussed. It is held that in order to attract the provisions, a dishonest inducement of a person is to be established and further the said inducement should be made to the person to deliver any property to any person or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of valuable security. Further the Hon'ble High Court has held that though the aforesaid offences covered under them are distinct and independent, they are mutually exclusive and do not go together. Further the Hon'ble High Court has held that the same doesn't mean that a person cannot be charged together for these two offences, but the 280 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 same is required to be established by independent witness.
152. In order to better appreciate the same, the court has once again looked into the materials which is placed before it. In the instant case the court has pointed out right from the inception the manner in which the loan applications being filed, the manner in which it was processed, the manner in which the amount was released and in some instances with respect to Nagavara Project the land itself was subject to acquisition proceedings and later on the compensation determined and deposited to the Court. In spite of all the aforesaid irregularities, the accused No.1 M.T.V.Reddy without bothering to any settled principles of law had accepted the salary certificates which were allegedly given by the borrower. In fact in his statement recorded under section 313 of Cr.P.C he has narrated that he himself had verified the salary certificates and pay-slips which were furnished by the 281 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 borrowers. If for the sake of arguments, the same is considered, then again, the accused will be at loss to explain that why he had not obtained any report from the employers with respect to the genuineness or otherwise. It is not the accused No.1 the then Branch Manager was not having sufficient period of time. In fact, it is relevant to note that right from 2004 he was the Branch Manager and till the filing of complaint in the year 2008, no attempt was made by him to verify the records. It is not that in one particular case such a mistake had happened, but repeatedly in over 261 applications if similar act is to be done, then it has to be concluded that it was a wanton act wherein accused No.1 had entered into conspiracy and the records which are available before the court would only indicate of the aforesaid aspects. As such the entrustment of property to the public servant and its misuse of funds can be traced and further it is clear that the aforesaid incident was not a stray incident, 282 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 but it was repeated on numerable occasions by the Branch Manager and in all the instances, the Accused No.2 was the beneficiary. Further the act of accepting the loan application in utter disregard to the provisions and also giving go by to the Banking norms would only vindicate the case of prosecution. With respect to cheating also it is noticed that in three projects the owners were the brothers of Accused No.2 and later on the accused No.2 had benefited from release of loan amount since no development activities had taken place and Accused No.1 Manager had recommended for sanction of loan and had also released the same on the same day of filing application and making antedated entries in the application of making visit to the site are all clear instances of committing an act of cheating. 153. The learned counsel for accused No.1 and 2 has also argued at length that the prosecution has failed to establish the fact that who had forged and 283 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 fabricated the salary slips. In order to better appreciate the same, it is relevant to note that in the instant case, the salary slips were produced to the bank were printed on the materials of the concerned Department where the employees were working. However, the figures of gross salary and net pay salary did not tally with the actual admitted salary slips. Though it has to be held that the prosecution has not pointed out a particular person who had fabricated the same, the entire evidence which is brought before the court would only point out the finger towards Mr.Dominic who had died in the year 2007. It is also relevant to note that if only he was alive, then he would be the appropriate person to explain who had forged and fabricated the document. That apart, curiously it is not in dispute that Mr.Dominic was always working for the benefit of M/s. Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises and he was the one who was bringing the customers to the Branch to 284 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 open the accounts. Even during the course of cross- examination repeated suggestions were made with respect to Mr.Dominic taking the borrowers to SBM and obtaining their signatures to various documents. If for a moment the said aspect is appreciated, then obviously it indicates that accused No.1 Branch Manager and accused No.2 S.N.Krishnaiah Setty who was the beneficiary played an active role in accepting the same without verifying it. Duplicating and fabricating the document is one aspect, but accepting the same without verifying the document and making recommendations on the basis of the same was not at all required for the concerned Branch Manager. It is also relevant to note that on the basis of such recommendations the public fund was released in favour of accused No.2 S.N.Krishnaiah Setty. In fact it is relevant to note that Mr. S.N.Krishnaiah Setty though as a builder was not entitled for developmental cost of the layout, he had received the 285 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 same and a classification was made in the loan application that certain amount was to be released towards site cost, certain portion of amount was to be released towards development cost. In fact, the sale deed was executed towards cost of the site mentioned therein and once again a loss to the Government exchequer was caused since the development costs was directly paid to the developer. All these aspects would squarely attract the provisions of Sec.120B, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC against accused No.1 M.T.V.Reddy and accused No.2 S.N.Krishnaiah Setty.
154. Last but not the least the amount being paid by accused No.2 S.N.Krishnaiah Setty to various agents is to be considered. The evidence of PW.67 Swaroop is appreciated which indicates that he worked as Supervisor of M/s SreeBalaji Krupa Enterprises. In his chief examination he has deposed of carrying out the project works at Mallathahalli, Sampigehalli and Devanahalli and he was also looking 286 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 after the construction of houses and development of layout. It is his evidence that they had availed loan facilities from SBM and Birla Housing Finance, etc. Further, he has deposed that he had en-cashed certain cheques which were utilized for vendor payment, for developmental activities of the layout. Said witness was not subjected to cross-examination and when the same is once again appreciated with the mahazar at Ex.P.113 to 117 which were drawn at the place where the layout has been formed, it would indicate that no substantive development activities had taken place. I have also carefully appreciated the evidence of PW57 N.Hanumanthaiah, who in his evidence has deposed that he had worked for the Police Department and had retired from service from 30.6.2004 and thereafter he was requested by some of his friends to canvass towards the layout being formed by M/s Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises. It is his evidence that he had introduced one Mr.Shekar who 287 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 was a real estate agent and they had stated to him that for successful introduction of customers, he would be paid with certain amount. With respect to the other aspects, he has feigned his ignorance and he was treated as hostile. During the course cross- examination he has feigned his ignorance of giving any statement of taking deposits being made by him at SBM, Gandhinagar Branch. However, the records indicate that he had withdrawn a sum of Rs.12,90,500/- and though he had denied the handing over the same to Mr. Dominic, it is pertinent to note that he had withdrawn the amount of Rs.60 lakhs through 5 cheques and handing over the same to Mr. Dominic. However, he has admitted of tendering his statement before CBI. All the aforesaid aspect would once again indicate that the witness was won over by the accused persons. How the concept of won over can be appreciated by relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex court reported in 288 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 (2017)1 SCC 729 (Ramesh V State of Haryana) wherein it is held as:
39. We find that it is becoming a common phenomenon, almost a regular feature, that in criminal cases witnesses turn hostile. There could be various reasons for this behaviour or attitude of the witnesses. It is possible that when the statements of such witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the police during investigation, the investigating officer forced them to make such statements and, therefore, they resiled therefrom while deposing in the court and justifiably so. However, this is no longer the reason in most of the cases.
This trend of witnesses turning hostile is due to various other factors. It may be fear of deposing against the accused/delinquent or political pressure or pressure of other family members or other such sociological factors. It is also possible that witnesses are corrupted with monetary considerations.
289 Spl.CC. No.41/2012
41. Likewise, in Zahira Habibullah Sheikh (5) v. State of Gujarat [Zahira Habibullah Sheikh (5) v. State of Gujarat, (2006) 3 SCC 374 : (2006) 2 SCC (Cri) 8] , this Court highlighted the problem with the following observations : (SCC pp. 396-98, paras 40-41) "40. "Witnesses" as Bentham said:"are the eyes and ears of justice". Hence, the importance and primacy of the quality of trial process. If the witness himself is incapacitated from acting as eyes and ears of justice, the trial gets putrefied and paralysed, and it no longer can constitute a fair trial. The incapacitation may be due to several factors, like the witness being not in a position for reasons beyond control to speak the truth in the court or due to negligence or ignorance or some corrupt collusion. Time has become ripe to act on account of numerous experiences faced by the court on account of frequent turning of witnesses as hostile, either due to threats, coercion, lures and monetary considerations at the instance of those in power, their henchmen and 290 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 hirelings, political clouts and patronage and innumerable other corrupt practices ingeniously adopted to smother and stifle truth and realities coming out to surface.... Broader public and societal interests require that the victims of the crime who are not ordinarily parties to prosecution and the interests of the State represented by their prosecuting agencies do not suffer.... There comes the need for protecting the witness. Time has come when serious and undiluted thoughts are to be bestowed for protecting witnesses so that the ultimate truth presented before the court and justice triumphs and that the trial is not reduced to a mockery. ...
41. The State has a definite role to play in protecting the witnesses, to start with at least in sensitive cases involving those in power, who have political patronage and could wield muscle and money power, to avert trial getting tainted and derailed and truth becoming a casualty. As a protector of its citizens it has to ensure that during a trial in court the witness could safely depose the truth 291 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 without any fear of being haunted by those against whom he had deposed. Every State has a constitutional obligation and duty to protect the life and liberty of its citizens. That is the fundamental requirement for observance of the rule of law. There cannot be any deviation from this requirement because of any extraneous factors like caste, creed, religion, political belief or ideology. Every State is supposed to know these fundamental requirements and this needs no retaliation (sic repetition). We can only say this with regard to the criticism levelled against the State of Gujarat. Some legislative enactments like the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (in short "the TADA Act") have taken note of the reluctance shown by witnesses to depose against people with muscle power, money power or political power which has become the order of the day. If ultimately truth is to be arrived at, the eyes and ears of justice have to be protected so that the interests of justice do not get incapacitated in the sense of 292 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 making the proceedings before the courts mere mock trials as are usually seen in movies."
44. On the analysis of various cases, the following reasons can be discerned which make witnesses retracting their statements before the court and turning hostile:
(i) Threat/Intimidation.
(ii) Inducement by various means.
(iii) Use of muscle and money power by the accused.
(iv) Use of stock witnesses.
(v) Protracted trials.
(vi) Hassles faced by the witnesses during investigation and trial.
(vii) Non-existence of any clear-cut legislation to check hostility of witness.
48. Apart from the above, another significant reason for witnesses turning hostile may be what is described as "culture of compromise". Commenting upon such culture in rape trials, Pratiksha Bakshi [ "Justice is a Secret :
Compromise in Rape Trials" (2010) 44, 293 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 Issue 3, Contributions to Indian Sociology, pp. 207-233.] has highlighted this problem in the following manner:
"During the trial, compromise acts as a tool in the hands of defence lawyers and the accused to pressurise complainants and victims to change their testimonies in a courtroom. Let us turn to a recent case from Agra wherein a young Dalit woman was gang-raped and the rapist let off on bail. The accused threatened to rape the victim again if she did not compromise. Nearly a year after she was raped, she committed suicide. While we find that the judgment records that the victim committed suicide following the pressure to compromise, the judgment does not criminalise the pressure to compromise as criminal intimidation of the victim and her family. The normalising function of the socio- legal category of compromise converts terror into a bargain in a context where there is no witness protection programme. This often accounts for why prosecution witnesses routinely turn hostile by the time the case comes on 294 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 trial, if the victim does not lose the will to live.
In other words, I have shown how legality is actually perceived as disruptive of sociality; in this instance, a sociality that is marked by caste based patriarchies, such that compromise is actively perceived, to put it in the words of a woman Judge of a District Court, as a mechanism for 'restoring social relations in society'.
155. When the aforesaid judgment is considered with the facts of the case, it would indicate that the witness who had initially given the statement before the CBI during the course of his investigation has now feigned his ignorance with respect to the facts of the case. However, it is curious to note that he had specifically admitted of tendering his statement before the investigating officer, which in other words would fortify the case of prosecution. The manner in which the witness has cleverly shrugged from his responsibility is also appreciated. During the course 295 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 of his evidence there was no material to indicate that he was suffering from amnesia or any other diseases which would tender him to forget particular acts. He does admit of tendering his statement before investigating officer, but candidly feigns his ignorance towards the transaction amounting to Rs60 lakhs made in his account. It is of common knowledge that the witness was not a businessmen and before attaining superannuation he had worked in Police Department and when there was transaction to an extent of Rs 60 lakhs had taken place in the year2004-2005 which is very high valued amount at that point of time, there cannot be any reasons to forget the same. However, the evidence of Mr Swaroop fortifies the case of prosecution, wherein he has deposed of paying amount to agents and other persons who had worked for canvassing of sale of sites in the layout developed by Accused No.2 296 Spl.CC. No.41/2012
156. The court has also considered the other aspect that whether the provision of section 409 of IPC and Section 13(1)(d) R/w Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act can be appreciated together since both speaks about similar offences being committed. It would be appropriate to note that the purport of section 26 of General Clauses Act would clarify the same wherein it is held that an offender can be punished only for the offence which falls within the definition of two or more laws. In this regard reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court reported in 2022 SCC Online Kar 1855 discussed supra wherein it is held as:
28. The purport of Section 26 of General Clauses Act is that an offender can be punished for only one offence which falls within the definition of two or more laws. Here, first accused is found guilty of Section 409IPC and also Section 13(2) read with Section 13 (1)(c) of PC. Act. In order to decide as to in respect of which offence he can be sentenced, it is necessary to trace the 297 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 changes in law. In the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, Section 5 (1)(c) was the provision analogous to Section 13(1)(c) under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. An amendment was brought to Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 in the year 1952 (with effect from 12th August 1952) enacting sub-Section (4) to Section 5 which reads as follows:
"The provision of this section shall be in addition to and not in derogation of, any other law for time being in force, and nothing contained herein shall exempt any public servant from any proceeding which might, apart from this section, be instituted against him."
29. Till the amendment came into force, view taken by the High Court of Punjab in State v. Gurcharan Singh [AIR 1952 Punj 89.] , was, "As long as Section 5 of P.C Act remained in force, the provision of Section 409IPC (so far as they concerned offences by public servants) were pro tanto repealed by clause (c) of this Act. So a public servant who committed an offence triable under Section 409IPC would be tried not under Section 409IPC but clause (c) of this Act for which sanction as provided in Section 6 of the Act would be necessary before 298 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 the Court could take cognizance of the offence."
157. The aforesaid judgment would clearly indicate that though the provisions of Section 409 of IPC is invoked, still the provisions of Section 13(1)(c ) of the P.C.Act would be applicable.
CHAPTER-XII WHETHER REPAYMENT OF LOAN WITH INTEREST WILL ABSOLVE THE ACCUSED SINCE NO EFFECTIVE LOSS WOULD BE CAUSED TO THE BANK
158. Lastly it is vehemently argued that there is no effective loss caused to the Bank, since the Accused No.2 had paid the entire loan consideration along with interest to the Bank. The learned counsel for Accused No.1 and 2 has also argued that in some cases, the Bank had imposed penal interest and hence, the contention of the prosecution that the Accused persons had benefitted by obtaining Housing loan under 'P' segment category wherein the rate of 299 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 interest was much lower than the commercial rate of interest is not justified. I have given my anxious reading to the aforesaid submissions made at Bar. In order to consider the same, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2022 SCC Online SC1186 (P Dharamaraj V Shanmugam) wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as follows:
159. 48. Then came the decision in State of Maharashtra v. Vikram Anantrai Doshi [State of Maharashtra v. Vikram Anantrai Doshi, (2014) 15 SCC 29 : (2015) 4 SCC (Cri) 563] , where this Court was concerned with an order [Vikram Anantrai Doshi v. State of Maharashtra, 2010 SCC OnLine Bom 2242] of the High Court of Bombay quashing the criminal proceedings for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468 and 471 read with Section 120-BIPC. It was a case involving credit facilities provided by the Banks and the failure of the borrowers to repay the loan. After the debts due to the bank were assigned in favour of an asset reconstruction company, a settlement was reached and the borrower took a "no-dues 300 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 certificate". Therefore, relying upon the decisions of this Court in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab [Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab, (2008) 4 SCC 582 : (2008) 2 SCC (Cri) 464] and CBI v. A. Ravishankar Prasad [CBI v. A. Ravishankar Prasad, (2009) 6 SCC 351 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1063] , the High Court of Bombay quashed the proceedings on the ground that no useful purpose would be served by allowing the matter to proceed for trial. It is interesting to note that Madan Mohan [Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab, (2008) 4 SCC 582 : (2008) 2 SCC (Cri) 464] , as seen from the last paragraph of the order, was passed in the peculiar facts of the case. But insofar as A. Ravishankar Prasad [CBI v. A. Ravishankar Prasad, (2009) 6 SCC 351 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1063] is concerned, the High Court quashed [A. Ravishankar Prasad v. State of T.N., 2008 SCC OnLine Mad 1434] the proceedings on the basis of a settlement reached between the borrowers and Indian Bank. But the decision of the High Court was overturned, by a two-Judge Bench of this Court even after taking note of B.S. Joshi [B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, (2003) 4 SCC 675 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 848] and Nikhil Merchant [Nikhil Merchant v. CBI, 301 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 (2008) 9 SCC 677 : (2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 858] . In para 46 of its decision, this Court said in A. Ravishankar Prasad [CBI v. A. Ravishankar Prasad, (2009) 6 SCC 351 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1063] : (A. Ravishankar Prasad case [CBI v. A. Ravishankar Prasad, (2009) 6 SCC 351 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1063] , SCC p. 363)
160. "46. Before parting with the case we would like to observe that mere repayment of loan under a settlement cannot exempt the accused from the criminal proceeding in the facts of this case."
161. 49. Therefore, in Vikram Anantrai Doshi [State of Maharashtra v. Vikram Anantrai Doshi, (2014) 15 SCC 29 : (2015) 4 SCC (Cri) 563] , this Court took note of the aforesaid decisions and held in para 26 as follows : (SCC p. 42)
162. "26. We are in respectful agreement with the aforesaid view. Be it stated, that availing of money from a nationalised bank in the manner, as alleged by the investigating agency, vividly exposits fiscal impurity and, in a way, financial fraud. The modus operandi as narrated in the charge- sheet cannot be put in the compartment of an individual or personal wrong. It is a social wrong and it has immense 302 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 societal impact. It is an accepted principle of handling of finance that whenever there is manipulation and cleverly conceived contrivance to avail of these kinds of benefits it cannot be regarded as a case having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil character. The ultimate victim is the collective. It creates a hazard in the financial interest of the society. The gravity of the offence creates a dent in the economic spine of the nation. The cleverness which has been skillfully contrived, if the allegations are true, has a serious consequence. A crime of this nature, in our view, would definitely fall in the category of offences which travel far ahead of personal or private wrong. It has the potentiality to usher in economic crisis.
Its implications have its own seriousness, for it creates a concavity in the solemnity that is expected in financial transactions. It is not such a case where one can pay the amount and obtain a "no dues certificate" and enjoy the benefit of quashing of the criminal proceeding on the hypostasis that nothing more remains to be done. The collective interest of which the Court is the guardian cannot be a silent or a mute spectator to allow the proceedings to be withdrawn, or for that matter yield to the ingenuous dexterity of the accused persons to 303 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 invoke the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution or under Section 482 of the Code and quash the proceeding. It is not legally permissible. The Court is expected to be on guard to these kinds of adroit moves. The High Court, we humbly remind, should have dealt with the matter keeping in mind that in these kinds of litigations the accused when perceives a tiny gleam of success, readily invokes the inherent jurisdiction for quashing of the criminal proceeding. The Court's principal duty, at that juncture, should be to scan the entire facts to find out the thrust of allegations and the crux of the settlement. It is the experience of the Judge that comes to his aid and the said experience should be used with care, caution, circumspection and courageous prudence. As we find in the case at hand the learned Single Judge has not taken pains to scrutinise the entire conspectus of facts in proper perspective and quashed the criminal proceeding. The said quashment neither helps to secure the ends of justice nor does it prevent the abuse of the process of the court nor can it be also said that as there is a settlement no evidence will come on record and there will be remote chance of conviction. Such a finding in our view would be difficult to record. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the social 304 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 interest would be on peril and the prosecuting agency, in these circumstances, cannot be treated as an alien to the whole case. Ergo, we have no other option but to hold that the order [Vikram Anantrai Doshi v. State of Maharashtra, 2010 SCC OnLine Bom 2242] of the High Court is wholly indefensible."
163. 50. In Parbatbhai Aahir [Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC 641 : (2018) 1 SCC (Cri) 1] , referred to by the High Court in the impugned order [Shanmugam v. State of T.N., 2021 SCC OnLine Mad 16517] , a three-
member Bench of this Court again summarised the broad principles on this question in para 16. Paras 16.6 and 16.8 to 16.10 of the decision read as follows : (SCC pp. 653-54, para 16)
164. "16. ... 16.6. In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature 305 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences.
165. ***
166. 16.8. Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute.
167. 16.9. In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and
168. 16.10. There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions 16.8. and 16.9. above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the State have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The 306 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance."
169. 51. Thus it is clear from the march of law that the Court has to go slow even while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution in the matter of quashing of criminal proceedings on the basis of a settlement reached between the parties, when the offences are capable of having an impact not merely on the complainant and the accused but also on others.
170. 53. It is needless to point out that corruption by a public servant is an offence against the State and the society at large. The Court cannot deal with cases involving abuse of official position and adoption of corrupt practices, like suits for specific performance, where the refund of the money paid may also satisfy the agreement holder. Therefore we hold that the High Court was completely in error in quashing the criminal complaint.
171. In the aforesaid judgment the Hon'ble Apex court has clearly held that mere repayment of loan cannot be a ground to absolve the accused person. 307 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 Even in the above case, what is required to be considered is the manner in which the Accused No.1 MTV Reddy had fiddled with the public money. At the cost of repetition, it is to be stated that the loan was sanctioned towards alleged layouts being formed by M/s Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises to existing and non existing customers. It is clarified that after scrutiny it was noticed the some of the borrowers were not at all in existence and as already discussed above in three of the layouts to be formed, the land owners were none other than the brothers of Accused No.2 S N Krishnaiah Setty who was the builder. It is relevant to note that all the loan applications were sanctioned immediately after its presentation to Bank and in majority of the cases, the loan was sanctioned on the same day of filing and also ignoring the title deed report by the Panel Advocate. Further endorsement was also made by the Accused No.1 of visiting the site for inspection and as mentioned supra the alleged site 308 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 visit was made prior to filing of loan application and obtaining of legal opinion. It is also noticed that the amount was credited on the same day and was released to the borrowers and after lapse of nearly three years re-conveyance deed was executed in favour of the vendors for the same sale consideration for which the site was sold about three years back and the loan amount was repaid by Accused NO.2 S N Krishnaiaha Setty and hence it is nothing but a novel type of economic fraud being played to convert ill gotten money into white money. RBI, the regulator of banks in India, defines banking fraud as "A deliberate act of omission or commission by any person, carried out in the course of a banking transaction or in the books of accounts maintained manually or under computer system in banks, resulting into wrongful gain to any person for a temporary period or otherwise, with or without any monetary loss to the bank". Even in the instant case also the money was 309 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 lent by the Bank for a particular segment i.e. 'P' segment which was intended to help the middle class employees to purchase site and construct houses. However, the amount was transferred to the account of the Builder, i.e. Accused No.2 S N Krishnaiaha Setty and though it is mentioned in the loan application that development of sites are to be made, no actual development was made and infact to overcome the Stamp Duty payable to the Government, the sale deed indicated the price of the site and whereas in the loan application, the loan amount was divided into cost towards site and much more than that another slab was introduced as development charges and last part was towards construction cost, which was never implemented. After taking advantage of the public money for nearly three years and that too after registration of FIR the loan amount was repaid by the builder himself, instead of borrowers and there is no explanation that why he repaid the 310 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 loan of borrowers if the sites were to be re-conveyed to the original vendors. All the aforesaid acts would indicate of definite role of Accused no.1 and Accused NO.2 with the help of Accused No.3 GPA Holder and Accused No.4 Srinivas who was the owner of lands at Nagawara village which was acquired by KIADB. When all these aspects are carefully appreciated it is crystal clear that the prosecution have clearly established their case beyond reasonable doubt.
SUMMATION:
172. Before adverting to the aforesaid allegations, the rival contentions and the arguments submitted by both the parties, the last aspect which is required to be considered is whether any actual loss has been caused to the bank. Repeatedly, it has been projected by the defence is that no actual loss has been caused to the concerned bank since entire loan amount has been repaid. The learned counsel for 311 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 accused No.1 and 2 has also prepared a chart which would indicate that the loans which were borrowed were all repaid with interest to the bank. Question which is required to be answered is whether the repayment of the borrowed amount itself wound exonerate and absolve the accused persons or whether diverting the public funds in a bank would attract the rigors of provisions of the P.C.Act. I have already discussed the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex court in this regard. Even in that case though the amount came to be repaid to the bank, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that mere repayment itself would not absolve the accused person and also the court is required to consider the fact from the aspect of having dishonest intention to cheat and defraud the bank. It is already pointed out by me that though it is submitted that accused No.1 and 2 or accused No.3 and 4 did not had any intention to cheat and defraud the bank, the question which requires to be answered 312 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 is in majority of projects the accused No.2 S.N.Krishnaiah Setty, Proprietor of M/s. Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises was the builder wherein a tripartite agreement came to be entered into between the borrowers, builder and owners of the land. At the cost of repetition it is pointed out that in fact when the project had commenced the lands were all barren agricultural lands and in 3 projects pertaining to Hegganahalli, Sampigehalli and Kuduregere, one Sri S.N.Balaram and S.N.Ramesh were land owners who had benefited from the aforesaid transactions who are none other than the brothers of accused No.2 S.N.Krishnaiah Setty. With respect to Nagavara Project, the accused No.4 and 5 who were the owners who had executed GPA in favour of accused No.3 Muniraju contending it to be a property having clear marketable title though the same was subject to acquisition proceedings.
313 Spl.CC. No.41/2012
173. In cases of money laundering and the proceeds of crime, the court is required to appreciate the white collared crimes not only from the terms and conditions mentioned in the applications, but also from the point of view as to how the black money was inducted to the system and being converted into a white money. It is relevant to note that at the inception the loans were sanctioned in favour of existing and non-existing customers and in fact they have to be termed as non-existing customers since they were all introduced by Mr.Dominic on behalf of M/s. Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises and the proposals were sent to the higher authorities of SBM by the then Manager - A1- M.T.V.Reddy on the very same day of submitting the application. In all loan application segregation was made with respect to cost of site, development cost and towards construction charges. It is relevant to note that as per the banking guidelines, the loan amounts are required to be 314 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 released in a phased manner and in stage wise developmental activities. However, in majority of the cases more than 50% of the loan amount came to be released on the date of approval of the loan application on the premise of being released towards cost of the site and developmental costs. In fact the sale deed was executed and stamp duty was paid towards the cost of the site and whereas the developmental charges were more than the double of the cost of the site. In other words it was a clever and calculated act on the part of the developer and also the land owners, who had obtained some money by circumventing the provision of Registration Act in order to enure the Government from collecting the correct registration charges.
174. That apart, it is also noticed that they had enjoyed the loan amount for more than 2-3 years and only when the criminal case came to be registered the amount was being repaid by the accused No.2 315 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 S.N.Krishnaiah Setty on behalf of M/s. Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises. Though it is submitted that they had repaid the loan together with interest, it is relevant to note that at the inception of the loan, no documents were furnished and in fact all the 263 loan accounts were unsecured loan accounts and in fact the builder had received majority chunk of the amount in the name of development charges, which he did not utilized in its real sense and he kept quiet for more than 3-5 years till the police complaint was lodged in this regard. It is also relevant to note that none of the borrowers had the capacity to borrow the loan since they were not having requisite salary amount for availing such a loan. In order to overcome the same, certain forged and fabricated salary slips were furnished wherein inflated salary and net pay were depicted and on the basis of such forged documents without even getting the legal opinion done, the concerned Branch Manager had released 316 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 the loan amount in Majority of the cases on the very same day of filing the loan application and amount was credited to the borrowers account without adhering to the condition of margin amount being deposited by the customers. Once again the rules were flouted so as to favour the interest of the developer and all the aforesaid accounts were zero balance accounts which were opened for the purpose of loan transaction and all of this was within the knowledge of the concerned Branch manager i.e., A1 M.T.V.Reddy. It is relevant to note that subsequently the amount was paid by M/s Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises and in fact a joint meeting of borrowers and builder was conveyed and he had come forward to repay the loan amount and also re-conveyance deed came to be executed. Whereas the re-conveyance deed was executed that too after lapse of 4 years for the value for which the sale deed was executed, it would clearly indicate of playing fraud on the system. It is 317 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 common knowledge that the land value would be appreciated manifold after 3-4 years and in spite of the same, the loans were re-conveyed for the amount for which the sale deed was executed in the year 2003-04. But interestingly the amount was repaid by M/s Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises for which there cannot be any answer that why a builder has come forward to repay the loan of the borrowers for which he was only supposed to put up construction by collecting the construction costs. In other words the black money was converted into white money through this process.
175. That I have also carefully considered the evidence of PW83 Venugopal wherein he has specifically deposed that the lending rate for P- segment customers for housing loan was much more less than the lending rate for commercial activities. In fact the catch is that the loan was obtained with unsecured document. In other words without offering 318 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 any security a huge extent of rs.15.61 crores were obtained by M/s. Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises under the guise of providing housing sites to various customers and later on cleverly it was repaid after 3-4 years and had retained the sites which were to be developed. All the aforesaid aspects would only indicate of transactions done to legalize circulation of black money. Time and again it has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court that corruption is the main enigma which is causing harm to the society and the same requires to be weeded out. As such the submissions made with respect to repayment of the loan would absolve the accused persons is not accepted.
176. Lastly, it is noticed that right from inception accused No.1 M.T.V.Reddy accused No.2 S.N.Krishnaiah Setty had entered into criminal conspiracy and in furtherance of the same they had entered into criminal conspiracy with accused No.4 319 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 K.Srinivas and accused No.5 Biddappa who were the land owners of Sy.No.98 of Nagavara village to form it into a layout and though the aforesaid land was subjected to acquisition proceedings much prior to the proposal of layout, they had executed GPA in favour of accused No.3 Muniraju, who in furtherance of the same had introduced customers and had entered into tripartite agreements and further the other 3 housing projects were proposed at Mallathahalli, Sampigehalli and Hegganahalli and also at Kuduregere by accused No.2 wherein the said 3 projects his own brothers Sri S.N.Balaram and S.N.Ramesh were the owners and had benefited from the transaction. The accused No.1 M.T.V.Reddy who was the custodian of the amount had breached the trust which was reposed in him by the bank and also on several occasions had discounted cheques which were presented to the bank ignoring the directions of 320 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 the higher authorities. Though it is submitted that the same was brought to the notice of the controlling authority, the same will not absolve the accused from the said act. Under the circumstances, the points for consideration mentioned in Point No.2 to 10 are to be answered in the Affirmative.
177. Point No.11: From the discussion made herein above, it is clear that the accused No.1 M.T.V.Reddy, Accused No.2 S.N.Krishnaiah Setty, accused No.3 Muniraju.K., accused No.4 Srinivas.K, are held to be guilty and I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting under Sec.235(2) of Cr.P.C., the accused No.1 M.T.V.Reddy is held guilty for the offences punishable under 120B R/W 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC and under Sec.13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) of 321 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 the Prevention of Corruption of Act, 1988.
Accused No.2 S.N.Krishnaiah Setty is held guilty for the offences punishable under Sec.120B R/W 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC.
Accused No.3 Muniraju.K and accused No.4 Srinivas.K, are held guilty for the offences punishable under 120B R/W 420, 468, 471 of IPC.
The bail bonds executed by the accused persons and the surety bonds shall stand canceled.
(Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I, transcribed and typed by him, revised and corrected by me and then pronounced in the Open Court on this the 6th day of February, 2025) (SANTHOSH GAJANAN BHAT) LXXXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-82) (Special Court exclusively to deal with criminal cases related to former and elected MPs/ MLAs in the State of Karnataka) ==================== 322 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 ORDER REGARDING QUANTUM OF SENTENCE
1. Heard the Learned Public Prosecutor on behalf of CBI authorities and also the Learned Counsel for accused persons.
2. The Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently argued that in the instant case, the accused No.1 Sri M.T.V.Reddy, being the Manager of the then State Bank of Mysore had permitted loan to be disbursed to accused No.2 Mr.S.N.Krishnaiah Setty who was the developer in the instant case and the lands without being developed the loan was released in favour of existing and non-existing borrowers and also it is submitted that they had misused the public money. It is his submission that accused No.3 Muniraju.K. being the GPA holder had assisted accused No.2 to borrow loan with respect to land in Sy.No.98 of Nagavara village which was subjected to acquisition by KIADB for which the accused No.4 323 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 Srinivas.K. and accused No.5 Biddappa (abated) were the owners. It is submitted that due to the high handed act of the accused persons, a huge loss was caused to the public money and in fact a strong message is to be conveyed to the society with respect to committing economic offences. Hence, he has sought for imposing maximum punishment.
3. Per contra, the learned counsel for Accused No.1 and 2 Sri R.Nagendra Naik in his usual fairness to the court has submitted that the entire loan which was availed was duly repaid by the accused No.2 when the allegation of non-payment of loan surfaced.
He has also argued that at the time of repayment, additional rate of interest were imposed which was also duly paid. It is his submission that accused No.1 M.T.V.Reddy had served the Bank for more than 30 years and he was considered to be the Best Employee on several occasions for which several citations were 324 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 provided by the bank. He has also argued that at present accused No.1 is suffering from various health ailments as he is aged more than 75 years and was also discharged in the year 2008 itself wherein all his benefits were declined. It is his contention that he requires continuous medical care and since the entire loan amount is repaid, no actual loss is caused to the bank.
4. With respect to accused No.2 S.N.Krishnaiah Setty he has argued that he is aged about 66 years suffering from various ailments viz., he has lost his one eye, having a heart blockage, suffered a brain stroke and even otherwise the prosecution has not quantified the actual loss that is caused to Government exchequer. It is also been argued that accused No.2 is two time MLA and had also served as a Minister and was having a good reputation in the society. By considering the peculiar 325 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 health conditions and also by taking into account that the allegations leveled against they had taken place about 21 years back, during which period they were made to undergo mental trauma, he has requested the court to take a lenient view and to impose minimum sentence as contemplated under law.
5. The learned Counsel Sri B.K. Advocate has submitted that the accused No.3 Muniraju.K. had affixed his signature to a blank GPA which was filled up later on by accused No.2 to suit his needs. It is also submitted that the accused No.3 had not derived any pecuniary benefit from the entire transaction and hence has sought for imposing minimum punishment.
6. The learned counsel sri M.S., Advocate for accused No.4 Srinivas has submitted that the accused No.4 is suffering from various health ailments and is also suffering from psychological disorders and hence has sought for taking lenient view. 326 Spl.CC. No.41/2012
7. The court had also afforded an opportunity to Accused No.1 to 4 to make their submissions with respect to quantum of sentence and they have submitted in par with the submission of their counsel. The accused No.1 has submitted that he had put in unblemished service of 38 years and due to the allegations in the above case he was dismissed from service denying his terminal benefits. The accused No.2 himself has submitted the medical records. Accused No.3 Muniraju has submitted that he is doing yeomen service to the society by providing free medical aid and treatment at his medical college by name Akash Medical College at Devanahalli. It is also his submission that around 1000 employees were working in his institution and hence he has sought to take a lenient view. The accused No.4 had not made much submissions.
327 Spl.CC. No.41/2012
8. Heard the parties and the accused have reiterated the submissions of their counsels and the point that requires to be considered is what would be the appropriate sentence that could be imposed on the accused persons.
9. Time and again, it has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court that in the matters pertaining to awarding sentence, the court should be cautious and sift and weigh the factors which are relevant for arriving at a just conclusion. It is also the cardinal principle of law that the nature and gravity of the crime is important than the criminality. The court at the time of passing an order on quantum of sentence has to look in to the materials in a different manner than that of the appreciating evidence for passing of judgment. The court is not against the criminal but against the criminal act and at the time of considering the quantum of sentence, the court is required to look 328 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 into the manner in which the crime is committed. There are no specific legislation with respect to passing of quantum of sentence. However, the parameter which is required to be considered is based on the case laws which are required to be looked in to. Apart from that the Hon'ble Apex Court has also held that at the time of passing of sentence, an exercise has to be made by the court by pointing the aggravating and mitigating factors and balance has to be secured in order to appreciate the appropriate sentence that could be imposed upon the parties. In the aforesaid authorities, the Hon'ble Apex Court has also held that the economic offences have to be considered as a class apart, which cannot be equated with any other ordinary criminal case. Though the allegations may not look severe, in terms of physical harm being made, at the same time, the matters pertaining to economic offences would have a deep socio-economic effect on the society at large. By 329 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 keeping the same in mind, I have bestowed my anxious reading to the submissions made by the Learned Counsel for the accused, Learned Public Prosecutor and also the submissions of the accused persons. What could be the criteria for imposing just and appropriate sentence is laid down by the Hon'ble Apex court in the judgment rendered in (2022) 7 SCC 628 (Jaswinder Singh V Navjot Singh Sidhu) wherein it is held as:
25. We would like to deliberate a little more in detail on the necessity of maintaining a reasonable proportion between the seriousness of the crime and the punishment. While a disproportionately severe sentence ought not to be passed, simultaneously it also does not clothe the law courts to award a sentence which would be manifestly inadequate, having due regard to the nature of the offence, since an inadequate sentence would fail to produce a deterrent effect on the society at large. Punishments are 330 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 awarded not because of the fact that it has to be an eye for an eye or a tooth for a tooth, rather having its due impact on the society; while undue harshness is not required but inadequate punishment may lead to sufferance of the community at large. [Jai Kumar v. State of M.P., (1999) 5 SCC 1 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 638]
26. An important aspect to be kept in mind is that any undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to justice system and undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law. The society cannot long endure under serious threats and if the courts do not protect the injured, the injured would then resort to private vengeance and, therefore, it is the duty of every court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed. [Sumer Singh v. Surajbhan Singh, (2014) 7 SCC 323 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 184] It has, thus, been observed that the punishment to be awarded for a crime must not be irrelevant but it should conform to and be consistent 331 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 with the atrocity and brutality with which the crime has been perpetrated. [Ravji v. State of Rajasthan, (1996) 2 SCC 175 :
1996 SCC (Cri) 225]
27. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in State of Karnataka v. Krishnappa [Sta te of Karnataka v. Krishnappa, (2000) 4 SCC 75 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 755] while discussing the purpose of imposition of adequate sentence opined in para 18 that : (SCC p. 83) "18. ... Protection of society and deterring the criminal is the avowed object of law and that is required to be achieved by imposing an appropriate sentence."
28. The sentencing philosophy for an offence has a social goal that the sentence has to be based on the principle that the accused must realise that the crime committed by him has not only created a dent in his life but also a concavity in the social fabric. [Shyam Narain v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2013) 7 SCC 77 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 1] While opportunity to reform has to be kept in mind, the principle of proportionality 332 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 also has to be equally kept in mind.
29. Criminal jurisprudence with the passage of time has laid emphasis on victimology, which fundamentally is a perception of a trial from the viewpoint of the criminal as well as the victim. Both are viewed in the social context and, thus, victim's rights have to be equally protected [Rattiram v. State of M.P., (2012) 4 SCC 516: (2012) 2 SCC (Cri) 481] . It would be useful to rely on the observations of this Court in Gopal Singh v. State of Uttarakhand [Gopal Singh v. State of Uttarakhand, (2013) 7 SCC 545 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 608] that just punishment is the collective cry of the society and while collective cry has to be kept uppermost in mind, simultaneously the principle of proportionality between the crime and punishment cannot be totally brushed aside. Thus, the principle of just punishment is the bedrock of sentencing in respect of a criminal offence. No doubt there cannot be a straitjacket formula nor a solvable theory in mathematical 333 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 exactitude. An offender cannot be allowed to be treated with leniency solely on the ground of discretion vested in a court.
Similarly, in Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra [Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 2 SCC 648 : (2012) 1 SCC (Civ) 848 :
(2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 953 : AIR 2012 SC 3802] , the twin objective of the sentencing policy to be kept in mind was emphasised as deterrence and correction and, thus, principle of proportionality in sentencing a convict were held to be well entrenched in the criminal jurisprudence.
30. We may also take note of the recent judgment of this Court decided by a three-Judge Bench on 18-4-2022 in Jagjeet Singh v. Ashish Mishra [Jagjeet Singh v. Ashish Mishra, (2022) 9 SCC 321 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 453] albeit, on the issue of bail. It emphasised the victim's right to be heard. What is relevant for us to note is that the victim being the de facto sufferer of a crime had no participation in the adjudicatory process. The current ethos of 334 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 criminal justice dispensation to prevent and punish crime had surreptitiously turned its back on the victim. No doubt in the present case at every stage the victim has been heard and the present application is also by the victim. The near and dear ones whether as guardians or legal heirs are required to be treated as victims. It was, thus, observed in SCC para 22 as under:
"22. It cannot be gainsaid that the right of a victim under the amended CrPC are substantive, enforceable, and are another facet of human rights. The victim's right, therefore, cannot be termed or construed restrictively like a brutum fulmen. We reiterate that these rights are totally independent, incomparable, and are not accessory or auxiliary to those of the State under the CrPC.
The presence of "State" in the proceedings, therefore, does not tantamount to according a hearing to a "victim" of the crime."
31. In the similar vein in Criminal Appeal No. 579 of 2022 titled State of Rajasthan v. Banwari 335 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 Lal [State of Rajasthan v. Banwari Lal, (2022) 12 SCC 166 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 428] , this Court has again frowned upon the tendency of courts to reduce the sentence to the period already undergone. An earlier judgment of this Court in Soman v. State of Kerala [Soman v. State of Kerala, (2013) 11 SCC 382 :
(2012) 4 SCC (Cri) 1] was referred to, more specifically para 27, which reads as under : (Soman case [Soman v. State of Kerala, (2013) 11 SCC 382 :
(2012) 4 SCC (Cri) 1] , SCC p.
393) "27.1. Courts ought to base sentencing decisions on various different rationales -- most prominent amongst which would be proportionality and deterrence.
27.2. The question of consequences of criminal action can be relevant from both a proportionality and deterrence standpoint.
27.3. Insofar as proportionality is concerned, the sentence must be commensurate with the 336 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 seriousness or gravity of the offence.
27.4. One of the factors relevant for judging seriousness of the offence is the consequences resulting from it.
27.5. Unintended consequences/harm may still be properly attributed to the offender if they were reasonably foreseeable. In case of illicit and underground manufacture of liquor, the chances of toxicity are so high that not only its manufacturer but the distributor and the retail vendor would know its likely risks to the consumer. Hence, even though any harm to the consumer might not be directly intended, some aggravated culpability must attach if the consumer suffers some grievous hurt or dies as result of consuming the spurious liquor."
37. In a nutshell, the aspects of sentencing and victimology are reflected in the following ancient wisdom:
337 Spl.CC. No.41/2012
It means : The person dispensing justice as per Dharmashastra should prescribe a penance appropriate to the age, the time and strength of the sinner, the penance being such that he may not lose his life and yet he may be purified. A penance causing distress should not be prescribed.
10. The court has also taken into account of the submissions made by the learned counsel for accused that the accused persons are suffering from various health ailments and also they were appearing before the court for a long period of time. It is their contention that since they were made to under the sword of punishment for more than two decade, a lenient view may be taken. However, I have relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court with respect to considering the fact of imposing lesser sentence on the ground of long pendency of the matter. In this regard, the judgment of the Hon'ble 338 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 Apex Court reported in (2003) 8 SCC 13 (State of M.P. Vs. Ghanshyam Singh) wherein it is held as follows:
10. The crucial question which needs to be decided is the proper sentence and merely because of lapse of time, whether the accused is to be waived from undergoing it. It is to be noted that the sentences prescribed for offences relatable to Section 304 Part I are imprisonment for life or up to a period of 10 years. It is true that no minimum sentence has been prescribed. The sentences can be compared with prescription of similar sentences and other provisions like Section 326 IPC and Section 307 IPC when hurt is caused. Section 304 Part I is a species of homicidal death. It is statutorily described as culpable homicide though not amounting to murder as defined under IPC. Taking note of the purpose for which a sentence is imposed, it cannot be laid down as a rule of universal application that a long passage of time in all cases would justify minimal sentence. Long pendency of a matter by itself could not justify lesser sentence.
11. The law regulates social interests, arbitrates conflicting claims and demands. Security of persons and property of the people is an essential function of 339 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 the State. It could be achieved through instrumentality of criminal law. Undoubtedly, there is a cross-cultural conflict where living law must find an answer to the new challenges and the courts are required to mould the sentencing system to meet the challenges.
The contagion of lawlessness would undermine social order and lay it in ruins. Protection of society and stamping out criminal proclivity must be the object of law which must be achieved by imposing appropriate sentence.
Therefore, law as a cornerstone of the edifice of "order" should meet the challenges confronting the society. Friedman in his Law in Changing Society stated that, "State of criminal law continues to be -- as it should be -- a decisive reflection of social consciousness of society." Therefore, in operating the sentencing system, law should adopt the corrective machinery or the deterrence based on factual matrix. By deft modulation sentencing process has to be stern where it should be, and tempered with mercy where it warrants to be. The facts and given circumstances in each case, the nature of the crime, the manner in which it was planned and committed, the motive for commission of the crime, the conduct of the accused, the nature of weapons used and all other attending circumstances are 340 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 relevant facts which would enter into the area of consideration. For instance, a murder committed due to deep-seated mutual and personal rivalry may not call for penalty of death. But an organised crime or mass murder of innocent people would call for imposition of death sentence as deterrence. In Mahesh v. State of M.P. [(1987) 3 SCC 80 : 1987 SCC (Cri) 379 : (1987) 2 SCR 710] this Court while refusing to reduce the death sentence observed thus :
(SCC p. 82, para 6) It will be a mockery of justice to permit the accused to escape the extreme penalty of law when faced with such evidence and such cruel acts. To give the lesser punishment for the accused would be to render the justicing system of the country suspect. The common man will lose faith in courts. In such cases, he understands and appreciates the language of deterrence more than the reformative jargon.
12. Therefore, undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law and society could not long endure under such serious threats. It is, therefore, the duty of every court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed etc. This 341 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 position was illuminatingly stated by this Court in Sevaka Perumal v. State of T.N. [(1991) 3 SCC 471 : 1991 SCC (Cri) 724 : AIR 1991 SC 1463]
13. Criminal law adheres in general to the principle of proportionality in prescribing liability according to the culpability of each kind of criminal conduct. It ordinarily allows some significant discretion to the Judge in arriving at a sentence in each case, presumably to permit sentences that reflect more subtle considerations of culpability that are raised by the special facts of each case. Judges, in essence, affirm that punishment ought always to fit the crime; yet in practice sentences are determined largely by other considerations. Sometimes it is the correctional needs of the perpetrator that are offered to justify a sentence, sometimes the desirability of keeping him out of circulation, and sometimes even the tragic results of his crime. Inevitably, these considerations cause a departure from just deserts as the basis of punishment and create cases of apparent injustice that are serious and widespread.
14. Proportion between crime and punishment is a goal respected in principle, and in spite of errant notions, it remains a strong influence in the determination of sentences. The practice of 342 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 punishing all serious crimes with equal severity is now unknown in civilized societies, but such a radical departure from the principle of proportionality has disappeared from the law only in recent times. Even now for a single grave infraction drastic sentences are imposed. Anything less than a penalty of greatest severity for any serious crime is thought then to be a measure of toleration that is unwarranted and unwise. But in fact, quite apart from those considerations that make punishment unjustifiable when it is out of proportion to the crime, uniformly disproportionate punishment has some very undesirable practical consequences.
11. In the aforesaid judgment the Hon'ble Apex Court has clearly held that undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law and society do not endure such threats. Once again at the cost of repetition, it is to be recalled that the above case was a classic case wherein blatant violation of law and procedures were 343 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 made by mighty and powerful people. At any stretch of imagination a minute deviation towards the integrity and economic independence of the Nation cannot be tolerated and it has to be severely punished so as to cause a deterrent. I am also fortified in this regard by the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in (2006) 10 SCC 673 (Siddarama and others Vs. State of Karnataka) wherein it is held as follows:-
9. Law regulates social interests, arbitrates conflicting claims and demands. Undoubtedly, there is a cross-cultural conflict where living law must find answer to the new challenges and the courts are required to mould the sentencing system to meet the challenges.
The contagion of lawlessness would undermine social order and lay it in ruins. Friedman in his Law in Changing Society stated that, "State of criminal law continues to be -- as it should be
--a decisive reflection of social consciousness of society".
Therefore, in operating the sentencing system, law should adopt the corrective machinery or the deterrence based on factual matrix. By deft modulation, sentencing process be stern where 344 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 it should be, and tempered with mercy where it warrants to be.
The facts and given circumstances in each case, the nature of the crime, the manner in which it was planned and committed, the motive for commission of the crime, the conduct of the accused, and all other attending circumstances are relevant facts which would enter into the area of consideration.
10. Undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system, to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law and society could not long endure under such serious threats. It is, therefore, the duty of every court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed, etc. This position was illuminatingly stated by this Court in Sevaka Perumal v. State of T.N. [(1991) 3 SCC 471 : 1991 SCC (Cri) 724 : AIR 1991 SC 1463]
12. Proportion between crime and punishment is a goal respected in principle, and in spite of errant notions, it remains a strong influence in the determination of sentences. The practice of punishing all serious crimes with equal severity is now unknown in civilised societies, but such a 345 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 radical departure from the principle of proportionality has disappeared from the law only in recent times. Even now for a single grave infraction drastic sentences are imposed. Anything less than a penalty of greatest severity for any serious crime is thought then to be a measure of toleration that is unwarranted and unwise. But in fact, quite apart from those considerations that make punishment unjustifiable when it is out of proportion to the crime, uniformly disproportionate punishment has some very undesirable practical consequences.
13. After giving due consideration to the facts and circumstances of each case, for deciding just and appropriate sentence to be awarded for an offence, the aggravating and mitigating factors and circumstances in which a crime has been committed are to be delicately balanced on the basis of really relevant circumstances in a dispassionate manner by the court. Such act of balancing is indeed a difficult task. It has been very aptly indicated in Dennis Councle McGautha v. State of California [402 US 183 : 28 L Ed 2d 711 (1971)] that no formula of a foolproof nature is possible that would provide a reasonable criterion in determining a just and 346 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 appropriate punishment in the infinite variety of circumstances that may affect the gravity of the crime. In the absence of any foolproof formula which may provide any basis for reasonable criteria to correctly assess various circumstances germane to the consideration of the gravity of crime, the discretionary judgment in the facts of each case, is the only way in which such judgment may be equitably distinguished.
14. The object should be to protect the society and to deter the criminal in achieving the avowed object to law by imposing appropriate sentence. It is expected that the courts would operate the sentencing system so as to impose such sentence which reflects the conscience of the society and the sentencing process has to be stern where it should be.
15. Imposition of sentence without considering its effect on the social order in many cases may be in reality a futile exercise. The social impact of the crime e.g. where it relates to offences relating to narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances which have great impact not only on the health fabric but also on the social order and public interest, cannot be lost sight of and per se require exemplary treatment. Any liberal 347 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 attitude by imposing meagre sentences or taking too sympathetic view merely on account of lapse of time or personal inconveniences in respect of such offences will be resultwise counterproductive in the long run and against societal interest which needs to be cared for and strengthened by a string of deterrence inbuilt in the sentencing system.
12. By relying upon the aforesaid authorities the Court is required to prepare a chart consisting of aggravating and mitigating circumstances. The following aggravating factors can be noticed in the instant case.
13. Aggravating Factors:
1. The accused No.1 to 4 had entered in to a conspiracy and accused No.1 being the custodian of public money and reposed with public faith had blatantly violated the same and had issued loan to non-eligible customers and had also sanctioned and 348 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 released the amount on the same day itself. It is also submitted that the accused No.1 had conspired with accused No.2 towards the release of loan and instead of rendering his service for the benefit of the society, he had ignored the same and had benefited accused No.2 on the basis of fraudulent documents.
2. The accused No.2 being the Minister at the relevant point of time had obtained benefit of the bank under guise of developing 5 projects and disbursing loan to non-existing customers and on their behalf several forged documents were produced in the form of salary slips and even commission was paid to several persons towards the same.
3. The accused No.1 and 2 had released loan to the applicants, who did not had 349 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 any marketable title and in some cases, prior to filing of loan application, it is submitted that the manager had conducted the spot verification and in some cases, the loan amount was released much prior to executing the documents which would indeed cause a severe prejudice to the banking activities.
3. The act of accused persons has clearly indicated of diversion of funds and though they claim to have repaid the amount, the same will not exonerate them.
4. The accused No.3 and 4 without having any ownership of the lands of the property and though their lands were subjected to acquisition proceedings by KIADB, had entered into agreement suppressing the aforesaid facts.350 Spl.CC. No.41/2012
5. Though the loan has been repaid with interest, the meddling with the public money and funds would indicate of white collared offences and interestingly the sites were re-conveyed by the alleged borrowers in favour of accused No.2 after lapse of 3-4 years for the very same sale consideration.
6. The act of accused persons erodes the faith and belief of general public in the financial transaction.
7. If any lenient view is to be taken, the act would further erode the faith and may lead to draw an inference that the economic offences would be dealt liberally.
14. Mitigating Factors:
a. The accused persons are not habitual offenders.
b. The accused persons could not have any criminal antecedents.351 Spl.CC. No.41/2012
c. The accused persons had to take care of their family and they are suffering from various ailments.
d. The accused persons are having deep roots in the society and had enjoyed good reputation in the society.
e. The entire loan amount is repaid and alleged incident is more than 21 years. f. The prosecution is unable to point out the actual loss caused to the bank.
15. By looking into the aforesaid aggravating and mitigating factors and also on consideration of the materials which has been produced before the Court, it indicates that the act of accused persons could be construed as a economic offence which leads to economy of the nation. Further, the maxim "Nullum crimen sine lege" which means, the principle of legality in the rule of construing criminal statute is to be in favour of citizens and also the approach towards the social welfare. The important aspect of socio-economic offence is to be emphasized 352 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 with the gravity of the harm caused to the society and also the nature of the offences themselves. In many instances, the gravity of the offence cannot be easily deciphered and same requires to be considered in a manner which would indicate the mode of execution in secrecy by shrewd and snollygoster person with sophisticated means. Time and again, it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the cry of the victim is also to be appreciated at the time of imposing punishment. In the instant case, the society at large is to be considered as the main victim due to the fraudulent act of the accused person. I have bestowed my anxious reading to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2012) SCC 384 (State of Maharashtra through CBI Vs. Balakrishna Dattatreya Kumbar) wherein, Hon'ble Apex Court has held as follows:
"The aforesaid order is therefore, certainly not sustainable in law if examined in light of the 353 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 aforementioned judgments of this Court. Corruption is not only a punishable offence but also undermines human rights, indirectly violating them, and systematic corruption, is a human rights' violation in itself, as it leads to systematic economic crimes. Thus, in the aforesaid backdrop, the High Court should not have passed the said order of suspension of sentence in a case involving corruption. It was certainly not the case where damage if done, could not be undone as the employee/respondent if ultimately succeeds, could claim all consequential benefits. The submission made on behalf of the respondent, that this Court should not interfere with the impugned order at such a belated stage, has no merit for the reason that this Court, vide order dated 9.7.2009 has already stayed the operation of the said impugned order."
16. When the said principles are applied to the facts of the case on hand, it indicates that accused persons entered into a criminal conspiracy which is punishable under Section 120-B of IPC to cheat and defraud the State. In the instant case, it is noticed that all the accused persons had conspired with each 354 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 other and they had availed loan and also they had diverted the funds. Though it is stated that they had not gained anything, the court is required to consider the fact that after availing loan in the name of non- existing borrowers, wherein the salary slips were inflated and in some instances to an extent of 700% would clearly indicate of malafide intention. The amount which were to be reserved and utilised for the benefit of general public, could not have been utilised due to the borrowing made by the accused No.2. The accused No.1 in ignoring the guidelines of RBI, it would indicate of scant respect shown by him to the authorities.
17. It is to be kept in mind of the apt quote of Lord Denning wherein it is stated as "Be ye never so high, the law is above you".
18. Though the accused persons at this juncture claim to be suffering from various ailments, 355 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 the same will not be a mitigating factor. In this regard, the court has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in AIR 1996 SC 361 (A. Wati Ao vs The State Of Manipur), wherein it has been held as follows:
"This takes us to the question of the sentence. A perusal of the trial court's judgment shows that the sentence of imprisonment till rising of the court was awarded because of : (1) the appellant being a senior IAS Officer and holding of different high posts, which showed that he is a very respectable person; (2) the appellant having a number of dependents; (3) the certainty of appellant's losing his job and requiring him to earn a living for himself and his family members; (4) the present being first offence committed by him; and (5) the spectre of the incident hanging on his head for about half a decade.
According to us, none of these factors (except the last, to some extent) make out a case for awarding sentence less than the minimum prescribed by the aforesaid Act - the same being imprisonment for one year. The fact that the appellant is a senior IAS Officer really requires a 356 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 serious view of the matter to be taken, instead of soft dealing. The fact that he has a number of dependents and is going to lose his job are irrelevant considerations inasmuch as in almost every case a person found guilty would have dependents and if he be a public servant, he would lose his job. The present being the first offence is also an irrelevant consideration. Though the delay has some relevance, but as in cases of the present nature, investigation itself takes time and then the trial is prolonged, because of the type of evidence to be adduced and number of the witnesses to be examined, we do not think that the fact of delay of about five years could have been a ground to award the sentence of imprisonment till rising of the court, which really makes a mockery of the whole exercise.
We, however, think that the delay does require some reduction from the minimum prescribed; and on the facts of this case, ends of justice would be met, according to us, if at this length of time, pursuant to notice of enhancement issued by this Court, a sentence of imprisonment for six months is awarded."
19. In the above said judgment, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the conviction of IAS Officer 357 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 charged with misuse of office could not be let of leniently since it would give an wrong message to the society at large. Even in the instant case, the act of the accused persons are to be viewed seriously. Under the circumstances, the act of misconduct against accused No.1 would be viewed seriously. However, the court has also taken into account of the long pendency of the case and also the fact of repayment of the principle amount. Even though the accused No.2 had made the repayment after registration of the FIR, the court is also required to consider the other submissions made by the accused persons.
20. Before parting it would be appropriate to place appreciation to the assistance rendered by Mr.Shivanand Perla, Mr.Satish and the prosecution team and also to Mr.R.Nagendra Naik the learned counsel for accused No.1 and 2, who in all fairness has taken pain by preparing various charts of each 358 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 and every individual borrowers to elucidate the facts of the case. By considering the aforesaid aspects and the rival submissions made at Bar it would be appropriate to state that at the inception of the case the public money which was required to be released in favour of eligible borrowers were released in favour of non-existing customers or the borrowers who had not furnished their actual salary slips. Taking advantage of the situation the accused No.2 had obtained developmental charges in order to cause loss to the Government exchequer wherein the sale depicted a lesser site value and though the amount was paid after about 3-4 years i.e., after registration of FIR, the same cannot be ignored as minor misnomer. In fact the act of accused persons would clearly indicate of meddling with the public money and also interfering with the economic activities of the country. The corrupt practices which are being adopted is causing severe imbalance to the economic activity of the 359 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 country. I have also taken into account of the ill- health alleged by the accused persons and also the other grounds urged by them. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER The accused No.1 Sri.M.T.V.Reddy, accused No.2 Mr.S.N.Krishnaiah Setty, accused No.3 Muniraju.K and accused No.4 Srinivas.K. are hereby convicted for the offences under Section 120-B of IPC., and they are hereby sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Three years and imposed with a fine of Rs.25,000/- each (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand each) and in default of payment of fine, they shall undergo a Simple Imprisonment for a period of ONE month.
The accused No.1 Sri.M.T.V.Reddy, accused No.2 Mr.S.N.Krishnaiah Setty, accused No.3 Muniraju.K and accused No.4 Srinivas.K. are hereby convicted for 360 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 the offences under Section 420 of IPC., and they are hereby sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Three years and imposed with a fine of Rs.2,00,000/- each (Rupees Two Lakhs each) and in default of payment of fine, they shall undergo a Simple Imprisonment for a period of ONE month.
The accused No.1 Sri.M.T.V.Reddy, accused No.2 Mr.S.N.Krishnaiah Setty, accused No.3 Muniraju.K and accused No.4 Srinivas.K. are hereby convicted for the offences under Section 468 and 471 of IPC., and they are hereby sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Three years and imposed with a fine of Rs.2,00,000/- each (Rupees Two Lakhs each) and in default of payment of fine, they shall undergo a Simple Imprisonment for a period of ONE month. The accused No.1 Sri.M.T.V.Reddy, accused No.2 Mr.S.N.Krishnaiah Setty are hereby 361 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 convicted for the offences under Section 467 of IPC and they are hereby sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Three years and imposed with a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- each (Rupees One Lakh each) and in default of payment of fine, they shall undergo a Simple Imprisonment for a period of ONE month.
The accused No.1 Sri.M.T.V.Reddy, is hereby convicted for the offences under Section 409 of IPC and he is hereby sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Three years and imposed with a fine of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo a Simple Imprisonment for a period of ONE month.
The accused No.1 Mr.M.T.V.Reddy is hereby convicted for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(c) R/w Sec.13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act 362 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of One year and with a fine of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of ONE year.
The sentences ordered shall run concurrently and accused Nos.1 to 4 shall be entitled for the period of set off as contemplated under Section 428 of Cr.P.C., for the period of detention they have already undergone, if any as Under Trial Prisoners in the above case.
Acting under Section 357(A) of Cr.P.C., suitable compensation requires to be ordered to the victim i.e., the State and hence, the entire amount shall be ordered to be forfeited to the State.
Office is hereby directed to furnish the copy of the Judgments to the accused Nos.1 to 4 forthwith.
363 Spl.CC. No.41/2012
The bail bonds and surety bonds executed by the accused Nos.1 to 4 shall stand canceled.
(Dictated to Stenographer Grade-I directly on computer, typed by him, revised and corrected by me and then pronounced in open court on this the 6th day of February, 2025) (SANTHOSH GAJANAN BHAT) LXXXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-82) (Special Court exclusively to deal with criminal cases related to former and elected MPs/ MLAs in the State of Karnataka) 364 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 Annexure
1.List of witnesses examined on behalf of Prosecution:-
PW CW NAME PW-1 CW1 K.R.Vasudeva PW-2 CW8 B.C. Muralidhar PW-3 CW3 R.D. Naidu PW-4 CW6 Shankar Rao PW-5 CW12 V. Sundararajan PW-6 CW15 Nagendra N PW-7 CW13 M.L. Chandrashekar PW-8 CW14 M. Sankaran PW-9 CW5 B. Ramakrishna PW-10 CW7 Krishnamurthy PW-11 CW18 Fakrubi PW-12 CW19 Muniraju PW-13 CW20 P.G. Nagaraj PW-14 CW21 Nagendra PW-15 CW24 Mariswamy PW-16 CW26 R. Naushad Khan PW-17 CW27 Rangaraju PW-18 CW28 Manjunath Pategar PW-19 CW29 Ravishankar M.V. 365 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 PW-20 CW34 Upendra B.E. PW-21 CW30 K.B. ChikkeGowda PW-22 CW22 N. Shivamurthy PW-23 CW31 Smt. Saira Banu PW-24 CW35 Venkateshwaran B.R. PW-25 CW36 D. AnandaKrishna PW-26 CW40 M. Suresh Babu PW-27 CW54 A.T. Jeevakumar PW-28 CW55 N. Eruchan PW-29 CW25 Nanjundaswamy PW-30 CW38 Krishna K.H. PW-31 CW53 B.V. Bhaskara PW-32 CW59 D. Abdul Khuddus PW-33 CW39 Arun Kumar T.L. PW-34 CW64 Mohammed Bakhaulla PW-35 CW61 V. Sudheer PW-36 CW62 Ramanjanulu PW-37 CW60 Nemiraj PW-38 CW73 K.R. Oman Kuttan PW-39 CW65 A.S. Gopal Rao PW-40 CW69 N.V. Ramakrishna PW-41 CW63 S. Shivaprasad PW-42 CW87 V. Krishnamurthy PW-43 CW98 Sriraj PW-44 CW49 D.K. Anjaneya PW-45 CW56 Bimbadhar Pradhan PW-46 CW79 Krishnappa T PW-47 CW91 Narayana PW-48 CW70 M.R. Balakrishna 366 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 PW-49 CW71 V. Dhanikachalam PW-50 CW42 V. Indrajith PW-51 CW51 Sridhar PW-52 CW52 M. Shekhar PW-53 CW75 B. Ravichandran PW-54 CW134 S. Ravikumar PW-55 CW138 G. Narendra Singh
PW-56 CW 137 Suresh Prathap Singh PW-57 CW93 N.Hanumanthaiah PW-58 CW 131 Krishnamurthy PW-59 CW 135 K.R. Puttaswamy Gowda PW-60 CW 142 H.Narayanappa PW-61 CW 143 R.Narasimhamurthy PW-62 CW 144 Rajanna PW-63 CW 147 Sathish Babu PW-64 CW 157 Krishnappa B PW-65 CW156 Nagaraju N.R PW-66 CW152 S.N. Ramesh PW-67 CW 153 V. Swaroop PW-68 CW 170 Ashwath Narayan PW-69 CW59 B. Vincent PW-70 CW76 Harish G. PW-71 CW77 Raghu M PW-72 CW168 Sridhara PW-73 CW 171 D. Keshavalu PW-74 CW 172 Thejas PW-75 CW 173 K.G.Anjanappa PW-76 CW 174 Shashikala R.N. PW-77 CW 176 D.Thimmegowda 367 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 PW-78 CW 177 Basavanna C PW-79 CW 178 Shivakumar PW-80 CW 179 Venkatesh S.V. PW-81 CW 175 Dayanand PW-82 CW 180 Raju N.R. PW-83 CW4 Venugopal PW-84 CW 127 Ravi J Kale PW-85 CW 182 Prithvi Nesaraj PW-86 CW 183 Ravikumar N.
2. List of documents marked on behalf of prosecution side:
Ex.P.1 - report dated 04.11.2006 furnished by PW1 Ex.P.2 - true copy of the cheque purchase register extract maintained by the then manager Sri M.T.V. Reddy.
Ex.P.3- Transfer debit dated 08.09.2003 pertaining to M/S Balaji Kripa Enterprises Ex.P.4 - Transfer debit dated 08.09.2003 pertaining to M/S Balaji Kripa Enterprises Ex.P.5 - Transfer debit dated 22.09.2003 pertaining to M/S Balaji Kripa Enterprises Ex.P.6 - Transfer debit dated 03.10.2003 pertaining to M/S Balaji Kripa Enterprises Ex.P.7 - Transfer debit dated 03.10.2003 pertaining to M/S Balaji Kripa Enterprises Ex.P.8 - Transfer debit dated 10.10.2003 pertaining to M/S Balaji Kripa Enterprises 368 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 Ex.P.9 - Transfer debit dated 10.10.2003 pertaining to M/S Balaji Kripa Enterprises Ex.P.10 - Transfer debit dated 16.10.2003 pertaining to M/S Balaji Kripa Enterprises Ex.P11 - Transfer debit dated 20.10.2003 pertaining to M/S Balaji Kripa Enterprises Ex.P12 - Transfer debit dated 21.10.2003 pertaining to M/S Balaji Kripa Enterprises Ex.P13 - Transfer debit dated 24.10.2003 pertaining to M/S Balaji Kripa Enterprises Ex.P14 - Transfer debit dated 25.10.2003 pertaining to M/S Balaji Kripa Enterprises Ex.P15 - Transfer debit dated 03.01.2003 pertaining to M/S Balaji Kripa Enterprises Ex.P16 - Transfer debit dated 03.11.2003 pertaining to M/S Balaji Kripa Enterprises Ex.P17 - Transfer debit dated 05.11.2003 pertaining to M/S Balaji Kripa Enterprises Ex.P18 - Transfer debit dated 21.11.2003 pertaining to M/S Balaji Kripa Enterprises Ex.P19 - Transfer debit dated 21.11.2003 pertaining to M/S Balaji Kripa Enterprises Ex.P20 - Transfer debit dated 27.11.2003 pertaining to M/S Balaji Kripa Enterprises Ex.P21 - Transfer debit dated 01.12.2003 pertaining to M/S Balaji Kripa Enterprises Ex.P22 - Transfer debit dated 10.12.2003 pertaining to M/S Balaji Kripa Enterprises 369 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 Ex.P23 - Transfer debit dated 13.12.2003 pertaining to M/S Balaji Kripa Enterprises Ex.P24 - Transfer debit dated 17.12.2003 pertaining to M/S Balaji Kripa Enterprises Ex.P25 - Transfer debit dated 29.12.2003 pertaining to M/S Balaji Kripa Enterprises Ex.P26 - Transfer debit dated 29.12.2003 pertaining to M/S Balaji Kripa Enterprises Ex.P27 - Transfer debit dated 07.01.2004 pertaining to M/S Balaji Kripa Enterprises Ex.P28 - Transfer debit dated 11.01.2004 pertaining to M/S Balaji Kripa Enterprises Ex.P29 - Transfer debit dated 19.01.2004 pertaining to M/S Balaji Kripa Enterprises Ex.P30 - Transfer debit dated 24.01.2004 pertaining to M/S Balaji Kripa Enterprises Ex.P31- Transfer debit dated 09.02.2004 pertaining to M/S Balaji Kripa Enterprises Ex.P32 - Transfer debit dated 25.02.2004 pertaining to M/S Balaji Kripa Enterprises Ex.P33 - Transfer debit dated 26.02.2004 pertaining to M/S Balaji Kripa Enterprises Ex.P34 - Transfer debit dated 28.02.2004 pertaining to M/S Balaji Kripa Enterprises.
Ex.P35 - Transfer debit dated 06.03.2004 pertaining to M/S Balaji Kripa Enterprises Ex.P36 - Transfer debit dated 28.09.2004 pertaining to M/S Balaji Kripa Enterprises 370 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 Ex.P37 - Transfer debit dated 05.10.2004 pertaining to M/S Balaji Kripa Enterprises Ex.P38 - Transfer debit dated 03.10.2004 pertaining to M/S Balaji Kripa Enterprises Ex.P39 - Transfer debit dated 10.04.2004 pertaining to M/S Balaji Kripa Enterprises Ex.P40 - Transfer debit dated 17.04.2004 pertaining to M/S Balaji Kripa Enterprises Ex.P41 - Transfer debit dated 31.05.2004 pertaining to M/S Balaji Kripa Enterprises Ex.P42 - Transfer debit dated 03.06.2004 pertaining to M/S Balaji Kripa Enterprises Ex.P43 - Transfer debit dated 22.06.2004 pertaining to M/S Balaji Kripa Enterprises Ex.P44 - Transfer debit dated 17.05.2004 pertaining to M/S Balaji Kripa Enterprises Ex.P45 - Transfer debit dated 14.08.2004 pertaining to M/S Balaji Kripa Enterprises Ex.P46 - Transfer debit dated 14.08.2004 pertaining to M/S Balaji Kripa Enterprises Ex.P47 - Transfer debit dated 25.11.2004 pertaining to M/S Balaji Kripa Enterprises Ex.P48 - Transfer debit dated 24.01.2005 pertaining to M/S Balaji Kripa Enterprises Ex.P49 - Transfer debit dated 01.02.2005 pertaining to M/S Balaji Kripa Enterprises Ex.P50 - Transfer debit dated 03.02.2005 pertaining to M/S Balaji Kripa Enterprises 371 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 Ex.P51 - Transfer debit dated 04.02.2005 pertaining to M/S Balaji Kripa Enterprises Ex.P52 - Transfer debit dated 25.04.2005 pertaining to M/S Balaji Kripa Enterprises Ex.P53 - Transfer debit dated 01.07.2005 pertaining to M/S Balaji Kripa Enterprises Ex.P54 - Transfer debit dated 23.03.2005 pertaining to M/S Balaji Kripa Enterprises Ex.P55 - Transfer debit dated 28.09.2005 pertaining to M/S Balaji Kripa Enterprises Ex.P56 - Transfer debit dated 05.04.2004 pertaining to M/S Balaji Kripa Enterprises Ex.P57 - Transfer debit dated 09.10.2004 pertaining to M/S Balaji Kripa Enterprises Ex.P58 - Credit cash voucher transfer credit dated 08.09.2003 pertaining to M/S Balaji Kripa Enterprises Ex.P59 - Credit cash voucher transfer credit dated 18.09.2003 pertaining to M/S Balaji Kripa Enterprises Ex.P60 - Credit cash voucher transfer credit dated 22.09.2003 pertaining to M/S Balaji Kripa Enterprises Ex.P61 - Credit cash voucher transfer credit dated
03.10.2003 pertaining to M/S Balaji Kripa Enterprises Ex.P62 - Credit cash voucher transfer credit dated 03.10.2003 pertaining to M/S Balaji Kripa Enterprises 372 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 Ex.P63 - Credit cash voucher transfer credit dated 09.10.2003 pertaining to M/S Balaji Kripa Enterprises Ex.P64 - Credit cash voucher transfer credit dated 10.10.2003 pertaining to M/S Balaji Kripa Enterprises Ex.P65 - Credit cash voucher transfer credit dated 15.10.2003 pertaining to M/S Balaji Kripa Enterprises Ex.P66 - Credit cash voucher transfer credit dated 20.10.2003 pertaining to M/S Balaji Kripa Enterprises Ex.P67 - Credit cash voucher transfer credit dated 21.10.2003 pertaining to M/S Balaji Kripa Enterprises.
Ex.P68 - Credit cash voucher transfer credit dated 24.10.2003 pertaining to M/S Balaji Kripa Enterprises Ex.P69 - Credit cash voucher transfer credit dated 23.10.2003 pertaining to M/S Balaji Kripa Enterprises.
Ex.P70 - Credit cash voucher transfer credit dated 03.11.2003 pertaining to M/S Balaji Kripa Enterprises Ex.P71 - Credit cash voucher transfer credit dated 03.11.2003 pertaining to M/S Balaji Kripa Enterprises.
Ex.P72 - Credit cash voucher transfer credit dated 05.11.2003 pertaining to M/S Balaji Kripa Enterprises 373 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 Ex.P73 - Credit cash voucher transfer credit dated 27.10.2003 pertaining to M/S Balaji Kripa Enterprises Ex.P74 - Credit cash voucher transfer credit dated 01.12.2003 pertaining to M/S Balaji Kripa Enterprises Ex.P75 - Credit cash voucher transfer credit dated 10.12.2003 pertaining to M/S Balaji Kripa Enterprises Ex.P76 - Credit cash voucher transfer credit dated 13.12.2003 pertaining to M/S Balaji Kripa Enterprises Ex.P77 - Credit cash voucher transfer credit dated 17.12.2003 pertaining to M/S Balaji Kripa Enterprises Ex.P78 - Credit cash voucher transfer credit dated 27.12.2003 pertaining to M/S Balaji Kripa Enterprises Ex.P79 - Credit cash voucher transfer credit dated 29.12.2003 pertaining to M/S Balaji Kripa Enterprises Ex.P80 - Credit cash voucher transfer credit dated 07.01.2004 pertaining to M/S Balaji Kripa Enterprises Ex.P81 - Credit cash voucher transfer credit dated 24.01.2004 pertaining to M/S Balaji Kripa Enterprises Ex.P82 - Credit cash voucher transfer credit dated 09.02.2004 pertaining to M/S Balaji Kripa Enterprises 374 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 Ex.P83 - Credit cash voucher transfer credit dated 25.02.2004 pertaining to M/S Balaji Kripa Enterprises Ex.P84 - Credit cash voucher transfer credit dated 26.02.2004 pertaining to M/S Balaji Kripa Enterprises Ex.P85 - Credit cash voucher transfer credit dated 28.02.2004 pertaining to M/S Balaji Kripa Enterprises Ex.P86 - Credit cash voucher transfer credit dated 06.03.2004 pertaining to M/S Balaji Kripa Enterprises Ex.P87 - Credit cash voucher transfer credit dated 28.09.2004 pertaining to M/S Balaji Kripa Enterprises Ex.P88 - Credit cash voucher transfer credit dated nil pertaining to M/S Balaji Kripa Enterprises Ex.P89 - Credit cash voucher transfer credit dated 03.04.2004 pertaining to M/S Balaji Kripa Enterprises Ex.P90 - Credit cash voucher transfer credit dated nil pertaining to M/S Balaji Kripa Enterprises Ex.P91 - Credit cash voucher transfer credit dated 07.04.2004 pertaining to M/S Balaji Kripa Enterprises Ex.P92 - Credit cash voucher transfer credit dated 31.05.2004 pertaining to M/S Balaji Kripa Enterprises Ex.P93 - Credit cash voucher transfer credit dated 06.03.2004 pertaining to M/S Balaji Kripa Enterprises 375 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 Ex.P94 - Credit cash voucher transfer credit dated 22.06.2004 pertaining to M/S Balaji Kripa Enterprises Ex.P95 - Credit cash voucher transfer credit dated 15.07.2004 pertaining to M/S Balaji Kripa Enterprises Ex.P96 - Credit cash voucher transfer credit dated 13.08.2004 pertaining to M/S Balaji Kripa Enterprises Ex.P97 - Credit cash voucher transfer credit dated 14.08.2004 pertaining to M/S Balaji Kripa Enterprises Ex.P98 - Credit cash voucher transfer credit dated nil pertaining to M/S Balaji Kripa Enterprises Ex.P99 - Credit cash voucher transfer credit dated 22.01.2005 pertaining to M/S Balaji Kripa Enterprises Ex.P100 - Credit cash voucher transfer credit dated 01.02.2005 pertaining to M/S Balaji Kripa Enterprises Ex.P101 - Credit cash voucher transfer credit dated 03.02.2005 pertaining to M/S Balaji Kripa Enterprises Ex.P102 - Credit cash voucher transfer credit dated 04.02.2005 pertaining to M/S Balaji Kripa Enterprises Ex.P103 - Credit cash voucher transfer credit dated 25.04.2005 pertaining to M/S Balaji Kripa Enterprises 376 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 Ex.P104 - Credit cash voucher transfer credit dated 01.07.2005 pertaining to M/S Balaji Kripa Enterprises Ex.P105 - Credit cash voucher transfer credit dated 23.03.2005 pertaining to M/S Balaji Kripa Enterprises Ex.P106 - Credit cash voucher transfer credit dated 28.09.2005 pertaining to M/S Balaji Kripa Enterprises Ex.P107 - Credit cash voucher transfer credit dated 08.03.2005 pertaining to M/S Balaji Kripa Enterprises Ex.P108 - Credit cash voucher transfer credit dated 10.11.2003 pertaining to M/S Balaji Kripa Enterprises Ex.P109 - Credit cash voucher transfer credit dated 25.04.2005 pertaining to M/S Balaji Kripa Enterprises Ex.P110 - Credit cash voucher transfer credit dated 09.03.2005 pertaining to M/S Balaji Kripa Enterprises Ex.P.111 - Credit cash voucher transfer credit dated 22.04.2005 pertaining to M/S Balaji Kripa Enterprises Ex.P.112 -letter letter dated 05.01.2006 addressed by the Assistant General Manager of SBM to the Chief Manager, SPB, Gandhinagar.
Ex P-113 m - Credit cash voucher transfer credit dated nil pertaining to M/S Balaji Kripa Enterprises 377 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 Ex.P89 - Credit cash voucher transfer credit dated 03.04.2004 pertaining to M/S Balaji Kripa Enterprises Ex.P90 - Credit cash voucher transfer credit dated nil pertaining to M/S Balaji Kripa Enterprises Ex.P91 - Credit cash voucher transfer credit dated 07.04.2004 pertaining to M/S Balaji Kripa Enterprises Ex.P92 - Credit cash voucher transfer credit dated 31.05.2004 pertaining to M/S Balaji Kripa Enterprises Ex.P93 - Credit cash voucher transfer credit dated 06.03.2004 pertaining to M/S Balaji Kripa Enterprises Ex.P94 - Credit cash voucher transfer credit dated 22.06.2004 pertaining to M/S Balaji Kripa Enterprises Ex.P95 - Credit cash voucher transfer credit dated 15.07.2004 pertaining to M/S Balaji Kripa Enterprises Ex.P96 - Credit cash voucher transfer credit dated 13.08.2004 pertaining to M/S Balaji Kripa Enterprises Ex.P97 - Credit cash voucher transfer credit dated 14.08.2004 pertaining to M/S Balaji Kripa Enterprises Ex.P98 - Credit cash voucher transfer credit dated nil pertaining to M/S Balaji Kripa Enterprises Ex.P99 - Credit cash voucher transfer credit dated 22.01.2005 pertaining to M/S Balaji Kripa Enterprises 378 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 Ex.P100 - Credit cash voucher transfer credit dated 01.02.2005 pertaining to M/S Balaji Kripa Enterprises Ex.P101 - Credit cash voucher transfer credit dated 03.02.2005 pertaining to M/S Balaji Kripa Enterprises Ex.P102 - Credit cash voucher transfer credit dated 04.02.2005 pertaining to M/S Balaji Kripa Enterprises Ex.P103 -ahazar dated 24.11.2008 Ex P-113 (a) the signature of PW2 Ex.P.113(b) -signature of PW4 Ex P-113(c) -signature of PW54 Ex P-114 -mahazar dated 24.11.2008 Ex P-114(a)- signature of PW2.
Ex.P.114(b) -signature of PW4 Ex P-115 -mahazar dated 24.11.2008 drawn at Sy. No.98 at Naghavara Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk Ex P-115(a)- signature of PW2 Ex.P.115(b) -signature of PW4 Ex P-116 - mahazar dated 26.11.2008 which was drawn at Sy.No.93/6 Mallathahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk Ex P-116(a)- signature of PW2 Ex.P.116(b) -signature of PW4 379 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 Ex P-116(c) - signature of PW58 Ex P-117 - mahazar dated 26.11.2008 which was drawn at Sy. No.33/1 and Sy. No.33/2 at Sampigehalli Village, Hegde Nagar, Bengaluru North Taluk Ex P-117(a)- signature of PW2 Ex.P.117(b)- signature of PW4 Ex P-118 -Account pertaining to Noushad Khan (31 sheets) (collectively marked) Ex P-118(A) - salary slip annexed along with the loan application Ex P-118(B) - certified copy of the payslip of PW16 for the month of March 2004 Ex P-119 - Account pertaining to Chikkegowda (36 sheets) (collectively marked) Ex P-119(A) salary slip enclosed along with the loan application at Ex P-119 Ex P-119(B) - Another payslip for the month of March 2004 issued by BMTC Ex P-120 - Account pertaining to Nanjunda Swamy (36 sheets) (collectively marked) Ex P-120(A) - salary slip enclosed along with the loan application at Ex P-120 Ex P-120(B) - another payslip for the month of January 2004 Ex P-121 -Account pertaining to Venkateshwara B.R. (35 sheets) are (collectively marked) Ex P-121(A) - salary slip enclosed along with the loan application at Ex P-121 380 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 Ex P-121(B) - another payslip for the month of April 2004 Ex P-122 - Account pertaining to Krishna Reddy (35 sheets) (collectively marked) Ex P-123 - Account pertaining to Chandra Mohan (33 sheets) (collectively marked) Ex P-124 - Account pertaining to Parashivamurthy (36 sheets) (collectively marked) Ex P-125 - Account pertaining to Vishwanath Setty S.N. (36 sheets) (collectively marked) Ex P-126 - Account pertaining to Krishna K.H. (27 sheets) (collectively marked) Ex.P 126 (A) - salary slip annexed along with loan application Ex.P126 Ex.P 126 (B) - another pay slip for the month of April 2004 .
Ex P-127 - Account pertaining to Manjunath Pategar (20 sheets) (collectively marked) Ex P-127(A)-payslip of PW18 for the month of April 2004 annexed along with Ex P-127 Ex P-127(B)-Another payslip of PW18 for the month of April 2004 reflecting gross pay of Rs.2476.72/- Ex P-128 - Account pertaining to Ravishankar M.V. (40 sheets) (collectively marked) Ex P-128(A) - payslip for the month of April 2004 annexed along with Ex P-128 Ex P-128(B) - payslip of PW19 for the month of April 2004 reflecting gross pay of Rs.7,404.23/- 381 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 Ex P-129 - Account pertaining to Syed Ismail (34 sheets) (collectively marked) Ex P-130 - Account pertaining to Mariswamy H.G. (39 sheets) (collectively marked) Ex P-130(A) -salary slip annexed along with the loan application Ex P-130(B) - certified copy of the payslip of PW15 for the month of May 2004 Ex P-131 - Account pertaining to Ashok Kumar (28 sheets)(collectively marked) Ex P-132 - Account pertaining to Thomas K.J. (35 sheets) (collectively marked) Ex P-133 - Account pertaining to Venkatesh D.S. (31 sheets)(collectively marked) Ex P-134 - Account pertaining to Manjunatha D.K. (35 sheets) (collectively marked) Ex P-135 - Account pertaining to Prabhu Murthy (35 sheets) (collectively marked) Ex P-136 - Account pertaining to Srinivas G (35 sheets) (collectively marked) Ex P-137 - Account pertaining to Hanumatha (36 sheets) (collectively marked) Ex P-138 - Account pertaining to Nanjundaswamy H.N. (24 sheets) (collectively marked). Ex P-139 - Account pertaining to Siddaraju S. (38 sheets) are (collectively marked) Ex P-140 - Account pertaining to Krishnaswamy G (38 sheets) (collectively marked) 382 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 Ex P-141 - Account pertaining to Arunachalam K (33 sheets) (collectively marked) Ex P-142 - Account pertaining to Anthuraiah (40 sheets) (collectively marked) Ex P-143 - Account pertaining to Ananth H.K. (38 sheets) (collectively marked) Ex P-144 - Account pertaining to Somesh (40 sheets) (collectively marked) Ex P-145 - Account pertaining to Venkatesh T.R. (32 sheets) (collectively marked) Ex P-146 - Account pertaining to Rajeev Rao (38 sheets) (collectively marked) Ex P-147 - Account pertaining to Sheik Mehaboob (38 sheets) (collectively marked) Ex P-148 - Account pertaining to Sadiq Basha (35 sheets) (collectively marked) Ex P-149 - Account pertaining to Gopalakrishnan C.M. (35 sheets) (collectively marked) Ex P-150 - Account pertaining to Muninarasaiah (35 sheets) (collectively marked) Ex P-151 - Account pertaining to Dalu G.A. (40 sheets) (collectively marked) Ex P-152 -Account pertaining to Poobalan (35 sheets) (collectively marked) Ex P-153 - Account pertaining to Indrajith (35 sheets) (collectively marked) Ex P-153(a) - salary slip attached with loan application 383 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 Ex P-154 - Account pertaining to Janarthan (35 sheets) (collectively marked) Ex P-155 - Account pertaining to Prabhakar A.N. (40 sheets) (collectively marked) Ex P-156 - Account pertaining to Sankarappa (37 sheets) (collectively marked) Ex P-157 - Account pertaining to Vincent B (33 sheets) (collectively marked) Ex P-157(A) - salary certificate of B.Vincent Ex P-158 - Account pertaining to Putta Shyamappa (34 sheets) (collectively marked) Ex P-159 - Account pertaining to J.S. Doddaiah (33 sheets) (collectively marked) Ex P-160 - Account pertaining to Chinnappa (43 sheets) (collectively marked) Ex P-161 - Account pertaining to Swaroop V (25 sheets) (collectively marked) Ex P-162 - Account pertaining to C. Chandrashekaraiah and Jayashree (30 sheets) (collectively marked) Ex P-163 - Account pertaining to Shayanakumari (38 sheets) (collectively marked) Ex P-164 - Account pertaining to Sunitha (39 sheets) (collectively marked) Ex P-165 - Account pertaining to Selvaraj (34 sheets) (collectively marked) Ex P-166 - Account pertaining to Vijayakumar (33 sheets) (collectively marked) 384 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 Ex P-167 - Account pertaining to Suresh K (33 sheets) (collectively marked) Ex P-168 - Account pertaining to Gangaiah K (33 sheets) (collectively marked) Ex P-169 - Account pertaining to Padmanabha Rao (38 sheets) (collectively marked) Ex P-170 - Account pertaining to Nagaraju K (17 sheets) (collectively marked) Ex P-171 -Account pertaining to Chandrashekar A (37 sheets) (collectively marked) Ex P-172 - Account pertaining to Ravi Arasu A (37 sheets) (collectively marked) Ex P-173 - Account pertaining to Syed Nadeer Mulla (36 sheets) (collectively marked) Ex P-174 - Account pertaining to R. Nagappa (37 sheets) (collectively marked) Ex P-175 - Account pertaining to K. Kamala Kannan (37 sheets) Ex P-176 - Account pertaining to Mallaiah H (37 sheets) Ex P-177 - Account pertaining to Subhash (37 sheets) Ex P-178 - Account pertaining to Devaraj (37 sheets) Ex P-179 - Account pertaining to Rajappa (37 sheets) Ex P-180 - Account pertaining to Rama (37 sheets) Ex P-181 - Account pertaining to Arun Kumar S (37 sheets) Ex P-182 - Account pertaining to Venkatesha Reddy B.N. (37 sheets) 385 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 Ex P-183 - Account pertaining to Nagendra (38 sheets) Ex P-183(A) - salary slip of PW14 for the month of September 2004 annexed along with the loan application Ex P-183(B) - salary slip of PW14 pertaining to the month of September-2004 Ex P-184 - Account pertaining to S. Fakrubi (38 sheets) Ex P-184(a) - signature of the witness PW11 Ex P-184(B) - attested copy of original salary slip of PW11 Ex P-185 - Account pertaining to Nagaraj P.G. (33 sheets) Ex P-185(A) - salary slip for the month of October 2004 annexed along with the loan application at Ex P- 185 Ex P-186 - Account pertaining to Rangaraju S (37 sheets) Ex P-186(A) - Payslip of PW17 for the month of October 2004 Ex P-186(B)- Another payslip of PW17 for the month of October 2004 Ex P-187 - Account pertaining to Shivanand M (37 sheets) Ex P-188 - Account pertaining to Somashekar (29 sheets) Ex P-189 - Account pertaining to Syed Isaiqh (37 sheets) Ex P-190 - Account pertaining to Basavaraju (36 sheets) Ex P-191 - Account pertaining to Nanda Kumar (37 sheets) Ex P-192 - Account pertaining to Shivamallaiah (30 sheets) 386 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 Ex P-193 - Account pertaining to Hanumantharayappa (37 sheets) Ex P-194 - Account pertaining to Suresh Rao Shelkey (34 sheets) Ex P-195 - Account pertaining to Chennarayappa (37 sheets) Ex P-196 - Account pertaining to Srinivasan G (35 sheets) Ex P-197 - Account pertaining to Subbarama shetty (36 sheets) Ex P-198 - Account pertaining to Krishna (37 sheets) Ex P-199 - Account pertaining to M. Krishnappa (29 sheets) Ex P-200 - Account pertaining to Mohammed Aslam (31 sheets) Ex P-201 - Account pertaining to D.K. Lokesh (16 sheets) Ex P-202 - Account pertaining to Jameeluddin (41 sheets) Ex P-203 - Account pertaining to Abdul Kaleed Masjid (26 sheets) Ex P-204 - Account pertaining to Padmaraj C (16 sheets) Ex P-205 - Account pertaining to Irfanulla Khan (29 sheets) Ex P-206 - Account pertaining to Gopala Renuka (29 sheets) Ex P-207 - Account pertaining to Putta Hanumaiah (37 sheets) Ex P-208 - Account pertaining to Venkateshappa (37 sheets) 387 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 Ex P-209 - Account pertaining to Venkatesh H and Aruna H (27 sheets) Ex P-210 -Account pertaining to Janaki R (31 sheets) Ex P-211 - Account pertaining to Lal Sangi (24 sheets) Ex P-212 - Account pertaining to Gurla Hosur G.C. (21 sheets) Ex P-213 - Account pertaining to James J and Lalitha Kumari (19 sheets) Ex P-214 - Account pertaining to Choudappa Raju (38 sheets) Ex P-215 - Account pertaining to Ramanjaneyalu K (29 sheets) Ex P-216 - Account pertaining to Nagabhushan (36 sheets) Ex P-217 - Account pertaining to Rangaswamy (29 sheets) Ex P-218 - Account pertaining to Nagaraj, Shyamsundar and Sitakala (29 sheets) Ex P-219 - Account pertaining to Chikkanna (18 sheets) Ex P-220 - Account pertaining to Lakshman J.A. (37 sheets) Ex P-221 - Account pertaining to Sathyanarayana P (27 sheets) Ex P-222 - Account pertaining to Sharadamma C and Sriraj (27 sheets) Ex P-223 - Account pertaining to Nagaraju D.M. (28 sheets) Ex P-224 - Account pertaining to Girish B.K. (30 sheets) 388 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 Ex P-225 - Account pertaining to Kushal Kumar and Pavithra (23 sheets) Ex P-226 - Account pertaining to John Celvin (39 sheets) Ex P-226(A) and Ex P-226(B) - salary slips enclosed along with loan application at Ex P-226 Ex P-227 - Account pertaining to Jagadish B.H. and Lakshmamma (17 sheets) Ex P-228 - Account pertaining to Hanumanthaiah B.M. (22 sheets) Ex P-228(A)- payslip pertaining to Hanumanthaiah ExP-228(B)-computer generated payslip of Hanumanthaiah pertaining to the month of March 2004 Ex P-229 - Account pertaining to Susheelamma G.S. (29 sheets) Ex P-230 - Account pertaining to Ramachandra P. (37 sheets) Ex P-231 - Account pertaining to Subramanya P (37 sheets) Ex P-232 - Account pertaining to Krishnappa T (38 sheets) Ex P-233 - Account pertaining to Vishwanath Gupta (34 sheets) Ex P-234 - Account pertaining to Parashivamurthy S.S. (34 sheets) Ex P-235 - Account pertaining to Kesavan V (38 sheets) Ex P-236 - Account pertaining to Raghunathan (35 sheets) Ex P-237 - Account pertaining to Rachaiah N (31 sheets) 389 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 Ex P-238 - Account pertaining to Dileep Simpson (43 sheets) Ex P-238(A) and Ex P-238(B) salary slip which is enclosed with Ex P-238 pertaining to Sri. Dileep Simpson Ex P-239 - Account pertaining to Uday Kumar (37 sheets) Ex P-240 - Account pertaining to Muniraja (31 sheets) Ex P-241 - Account pertaining to Vijay Kumar and Radha Vijay (23 sheets) Ex P-242 - Account pertaining to Lakshmaiah (33 sheets) Ex P-243 - Account pertaining to Harish K and Premalatha K.G. (21 sheets) Ex P-244 - Account pertaining to Yusuf Khan (39 sheets) Ex P-245 - Account pertaining to Harish G (39 sheets) Ex P-246 - Account pertaining to Ravi M (39 sheets) Ex P-247 - Account pertaining to Raghu M (39 sheets) Ex P-248 - Account pertaining to Sheshachala S (40 sheets) Ex P-249 - Account pertaining to Muniraju G (39 sheets) Ex P-249(a) - signature of PW12 Ex P-249(B)- salary certificate along with the loan application of PW12 Ex P-249(C)- attested copy of another salary slip of PW12 pertaining to the month of March-2004 Ex P-250 - Account pertaining to Shivamurthy (31 sheets) 390 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 Ex P-250(A) - salary slip enclosed along with the loan application at Ex.P.250 Ex P-251-Account pertaining to Mohammed Rehamathulla (31 sheets) Ex P-252 - Account pertaining to Mallikarjuna S Munney (39 sheets) Ex P-253 - Account pertaining to Babu (38 sheets) Ex P-254 - Account pertaining to N Nemiraj (37 sheets) Ex P-254(A) - pay slip of N.Nemiraj Ex P-255 - Account pertaining to Harrybai (24 sheets) Ex P-256 - Account pertaining to Abdul Majid (29 sheets) Ex P-257 - Account pertaining to Kamalamma (35 sheets) Ex P-258 - Account pertaining to T. Pandurangan (34 sheets) Ex P-259 - Account pertaining to Shivappa (39 sheets) Ex P-260 - Account pertaining to K. Mohan Kumar (36 sheets) Ex P-261 -Account pertaining to Pushparaj and Subbaraju (19 sheets) Ex P-262 - Account pertaining to S. Usha (29 sheets) Ex P-263 - Account pertaining to D.R. Anantharam and Hema (19 sheets) Ex P-264 - Account pertaining to Raju C (30 sheets) Ex P-264(A) and Ex P-264(B) - salary slips enclosed with loan application Ex P-264 391 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 Ex P-265 -Account pertaining to Fakhir Goud G Shivanna (23 sheets) Ex P-266 - Account pertaining to Dharmapal (43 sheets) Ex P-267 - Account pertaining to K. Kumar (31 sheets) Ex P-268 - Account pertaining to K. Prashanth Parasora (11 sheets) Ex P-269 - Account pertaining to Mukram Ali Baig (21 sheets) Ex P-270 - Account pertaining to Anwar Pasha (28 sheets) Ex P-271 - Account pertaining to M. Ramakrishnan (20 sheets) Ex P-272 - Account pertaining to D. Ravikumar and Smt. Sarala (30 sheets) Ex P-273 - Account pertaining to Firoz Pasha (29 sheets) Ex P-274 - Account pertaining to Dakshayini and K.V. Ravindra (27 sheets) Ex P-275 - Account pertaining to Saira Banu (37 sheets) Ex.P.275(A) - salary slip enclosed along with the loan application at Ex P-275 Ex P-275(B) - another payslip for the month of November 2004 Ex P-276 - Account pertaining to Raju (34 sheets) Ex P-277 - Account pertaining to Venkataramaiah (38 sheets) Ex P-278 - Account pertaining to K. Nagaraj (30 sheets) Ex P-279 - Account pertaining to Krishnappa (19 sheets) 392 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 Ex P-280 - Account pertaining to Ramesh Kumar (24 sheets) Ex P-281 - Account pertaining to Sheshagiri (21 sheets) Ex P-282 - Account pertaining to G.H. Divakar Reddy (21 sheets) Ex P-283 - Account pertaining to Abhinandan A.H. and P.A. Lakshmamma (27 sheets).
Ex P-284 - Account pertaining to P.N. Mohan Kumar (18 sheets) Ex P-285 - Account pertaining to K.V. Hanumappa Reddy (26 sheets) Ex P-286 - Account pertaining to D. Ananda Krishna (13 sheets) Ex P-286(A) - salary slip enclosed along with the loan application at Ex P-286 Ex P-286(B) -another payslip for the month of January 2004 Ex P-287 - Account pertaining to N. Narayanaswamy (17 sheets) Ex P-287(A) - payslip of Sri C. Narayanaswamy for the month of January 2004 Ex P-287(B) - computer generated payslip of C.Narayanaswamy Ex P-288 - Account pertaining to Abdul Rehaman (26 sheets) Ex P-289 - Account pertaining to B.E. Upendra (25 sheets) Ex P-289(A)-payslip for the month of January 2004 annexed along with Ex P-289 393 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 Ex P-289(B) - payslip of PW20 for the month of January 2004 reflecting gross pay of Rs.9624.06/- Ex P-290 - Account pertaining to Ramanjuneyalu (28 sheets) Ex P-290(A)- Salary slip of PW36 attached with loan application Ex P-291 -100 Photographs collectively marked as Ex P-
291. Ex P-292 - complaint dated 30.01.2008 (The complaint is of 21 sheets) Ex P-292(a) - the signature of PW3 Ex.P.293 -letter dated 16.02.2009. Ex.P.293(a) - signature of PW4.
Ex.P 294 - statement of accounts pertaining to the current account of M/s Sri. Balaji Kripa Enterprises Ex.P 295 - the certificate issued under Bankers Book of Evidence Act Ex.P 295(a) - the signature of PW4 Ex.P. 296- current account statement pertaining to M/s Balaji Kripa Enterprises for the period 11.08.2003 to 01.12.2008 which is of 28 sheets Ex.P.297-various circulars and also Book of instructions (collectively marked) Ex P-298 - seizure memo dated 18.02.2009 Ex P-298(a) - the signature of PW4 Ex P-299 to Ex P-302 -copy of the layout plans respectively 394 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 Cheques which were drawn on the account of Sri.Balaji Krupa Enterprises which are as follows; Ex P-303 - Cheque bearing No.375525 dated 07.08.2007 Ex P-304 - Cheque bearing No.375526 dated 07.08.2007 Ex P-305 - Cheque bearing No.375530 dated 10.08.2007 Ex P-306 - Cheque bearing No.375527 dated 09.08.2007 Ex P-307 - Cheque bearing No.375529 dated 09.08.2007 Ex P-308 - Cheque bearing No.375531 dated 13.08.2007 Ex P-309 - Cheque bearing No.375532 dated 14.08.2007 Ex P-310 - Cheque bearing No.375533 dated 01.10.2007 Ex P-311 - Cheque bearing No.375535 dated 11.01.2008 Ex P-312 - Cheque bearing No.375537 dated 13.03.2008 Ex P-313 - Cheque bearing No.375538 dated 25.03.2008 Ex P-314 - Cheque bearing No.375539 dated 27.03.2008 Ex P-315 -Cheque bearing No.375540 dated 30.06.2008 Ex P-316 - Cheque bearing No.375541 dated 07.07.2008 Ex P-317 - Cheque bearing No.375542 dated 08.07.2008 Ex P-318 - Transfer debit dated 04.03.2008 Ex P-319 - Transfer debit dated 01.10.2007 Ex P-320 - Transfer debit dated 10.08.2007 Ex P-321 - Transfer debit dated 27.03.2008 Ex P-322 - Transfer debit dated 30.03.2008 395 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 Ex P-323 - Transfer debit dated 31.03.2008 The below mentioned Ex P-324 to Ex P-351 vouchers are pertaining to Hegganahalli Project Ex P-324 - Transfer vouchers/Branch cash voucher dated 13.09.2007 Ex P-325 - Transfer vouchers/Branch cash voucher dated 20.09.2007 Ex P-326 - Transfer vouchers/Branch cash voucher dated 01.10.2007 Ex P-327 - Transfer credit voucher dated 06.10.2007 Ex P-328 - Transfer vouchers/Branch cash voucher dated 10.01.2008 Ex P-329 - Transfer vouchers/Branch cash voucher dated 07.02.2008 Ex P-330 - Transfer vouchers/Branch cash voucher dated 04.03.2008 Ex P-331 - Transfer vouchers/Branch cash voucher dated 08.03.2008 Ex P-332 - Transfer vouchers/Branch cash voucher dated 14.03.2008 Ex P-333 - Transfer vouchers/Branch cash voucher dated 24.03.2008 Ex P-334 - Transfer vouchers/Branch cash voucher dated 31.03.2008 Ex P-335 - Transfer vouchers/Branch cash voucher dated 30.06.2008 Ex P-336 - Transfer vouchers/Branch cash voucher dated 07.07.2008 396 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 Ex P-337 - Transfer vouchers/Branch cash voucher dated 08.07.2008 Ex P-338 - Transfer vouchers/Branch cash voucher dated 26.03.2008 Ex P-339 - Transfer vouchers/Branch cash voucher dated 11.10.2007 Ex P-340 - Transfer vouchers/Branch cash voucher dated 12.01.2008 Ex P-341 - Transfer vouchers/Branch cash voucher dated 14.01.2007 Ex P-342 - Transfer credit dated 07.03.2007 Ex P-343 - Transfer vouchers/Branch cash voucher dated 26.03.2008 Ex P-344 - Transfer vouchers/Branch cash voucher dated 30.06.2008 Ex P-345 - Transfer vouchers/Branch cash voucher dated 01.10.2007 Ex P-346 - Transfer vouchers/Branch cash voucher dated 01.10.2007 Ex P-347 - Transfer vouchers/Branch cash voucher dated 31.01.2008 Ex P-348 - Transfer vouchers/Branch cash voucher dated 12.02.2008 Ex P-349 - Transfer vouchers/Branch cash voucher dated 30.06.2008 Ex P-350 - Transfer vouchers/Branch cash voucher dated 11.10.2007 397 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 Ex P-351 - Transfer vouchers/Branch cash voucher dated 30.01.2008 Credit challans pertaining to Sampigehalli project which are as below;
Ex P-352 - Bank Credit Challan dated 26.09.2007 Ex P-353 - Bank Credit Challan dated 26.11.2007 Ex P-354 - Bank Credit Challan dated 25.02.2008 Ex P-355 - Bank Credit Challan dated 06.08.2007 Ex P-356 - Bank Credit Challan dated 30.01.2008 Ex P-357 - Bank Credit Challan dated 23.01.2008 Ex P-358 - Bank Credit Challan dated 19.02.2008 Ex P-359 - Bank Credit Challan dated 10.01.2008 Ex P-360 - Bank Credit Challan dated 07.08.2007 Ex P-361 - Bank Credit Challan dated 10.08.2007 Bank credit challans pertaining to Mallathahalli Project are as follows;
Ex P-362 - Bank Credit Challan dated 30.01.2008 Ex P-363 - Bank Credit Challan dated 30.06.2008 Ex P-364 - Bank Credit Challan dated 26.03.2008 Ex P-365 - Bank Credit Challan dated 30.06.2008 Ex P-366 - Bank Credit Challan dated 18.12.2007 Ex P-367 - Bank Credit Challan dated 12.01.2008 Ex P-368 - Bank Credit Challan dated 30.06.2008 398 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 Ex P-369 - Bank Credit Challan dated 30.01.2008 Ex P-370 - Transfer Credit Voucher dated 13.02.2008 Bank cash credit vouchers pertaining to Kuduregere sites are as follows;
Ex P-371 - Bank Credit Challan dated 07.08.2007 Ex P-372 - Bank Credit Challan dated 26.03.2008 Ex P-373 - Bank Credit Challan dated 11.10.2007 Ex P-374 - Bank Credit Challan dated 07.08.2007 Ex P-375 - Bank Credit Challan dated 13.03.2008 Ex P-376 - Bank Credit Challan dated 01.10.2007 Ex P-377 - Bank Credit Challan dated 11.10.2007 Ex P-378 - Bank Credit Challan dated 26.03.2008 Ex P-379 - Bank Credit Challan dated 07.08.2007 Ex P-380 - Bank Credit Challan dated 26.03.2008 Ex P-381- Bank Credit Challan dated 07.07.2008 Ex P-382 - Bank Credit Challan dated 30.01.2008 Ex P-383 - Bank Credit Challan dated 12.02.2008 Ex P-384 - Bank Credit Challan dated 30.06.2008 Ex P-385 - Bank Credit Challan dated 07.08.2007 Ex P-386 - Bank Credit Challan dated 26.03.2008 Ex P-387 - Bank Credit Challan dated 07.08.2007 Ex P-388 - Bank Credit Challan dated 01.10.2007 399 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 Ex P-389 - Bank Credit Challan dated 01.10.2007 Ex P-390 - Bank Credit Challan dated 01.10.2007 Ex P-391 - Bank Credit Challan dated 11.10.2007 Ex P-392 - Bank Credit Challan dated 07.08.2007 Ex P-393 - Transfer Credit Voucher dated 07.03.2007 Ex P-394 - Bank Credit Challan dated 26.03.2008 Ex P-395 - Bank Credit Challan dated 26.03.2008 Ex P-396 - Bank Credit Challan dated 07.08.2007 Ex P-397 - Bank Credit Challan dated 26.03.2008 Ex P-398 - Bank Credit Challan dated 07.08.2007 Ex P-399 - Bank Credit Challan dated 01.10.2007 Ex P-400 - Bank Credit Challan dated 11.10.2007 Ex P-401 - Bank Credit Challan dated 26.03.2008 Ex P-402 - Bank Credit Challan dated 07.08.2007 Ex P-403 - Bank Credit Challan dated 26.03.2008 Ex P-404 - Bank Credit Challan dated 30.06.2008 Ex P-405 - Bank Credit Challan dated 26.03.2008 Ex P-406 - Bank Credit Challan dated 07.08.2007 Ex P-407 - Bank Credit Challan dated 13.03.2008 Ex P-408 - Bank Credit Challan dated 13.03.2008 Ex P-409 - Bank Credit Challan dated 07.08.2007 Ex P-410 - Bank Credit Challan dated 01.10.2007 400 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 Ex P-411 - Bank Credit Challan dated 11.10.2007 Ex P-412 - Bank Credit Challan dated 07.08.2007 Ex P-413 - Bank Credit Challan dated 26.03.2008 Ex P-414 - Bank Credit Challan dated 07.07.2008 Ex P-415 - Bank Credit Challan dated 13.03.2008 Ex P-416 - Bank Credit Challan dated 04.03.2008 Ex P-417 - Bank Credit Challan dated 08.08.2007 Ex P-418 - Bank Credit Challan dated 26.03.2008 Ex P-419 - Bank Credit Challan dated 26.03.2008 Ex P-420 - Bank Credit Challan dated 26.03.2008 Ex P-421 - Bank Credit Challan dated 26.03.2008 Ex P-422 - Bank Credit Challan dated 26.03.2008 Ex P-423 - Bank Credit Challan dated 13.03.2008 Ex P-424 - Bank Credit Challan dated 13.03.2008 Ex P-425 - Bank Credit Challan dated 07.08.2007 Ex P-426 - Bank Credit Challan dated 26.03.2008 Ex P-427 - Bank Credit Challan dated 07.07.2008 Ex P-428 - Bank Credit Challan dated 26.03.2008 Ex P-429 - Bank Credit Challan dated 30.06.2008 Ex P-430 - Bank Credit Challan dated 07.08.2007 Ex P-431 - Bank Credit Challan dated 13.03.2008 Ex P-432 - Bank Credit Challan dated 26.03.2008 401 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 Ex P-433 - Bank Credit Challan dated 26.03.2008 Ex P-434 - Bank Credit Challan dated 07.08.2007 Ex P-435 - Bank Credit Challan dated 04.03.2008 Ex P-436 - Bank Credit Challan dated 26.03.2008 Ex P-437 - Bank Credit Challan dated 07.08.2007 Ex P-438 - Bank Credit Challan dated 13.03.2008 Ex P-439 - Bank Credit Challan dated 11.10.2007 Ex P-440 - Bank Credit Challan dated 07.08.2007 Ex P-441 - Bank Credit Challan dated 13.03.2008 Ex P-442 - Bank Credit Challan dated 11.10.2007 Ex P-443 - Bank Credit Challan dated 07.08.2007 Ex P-444 - Bank Credit Challan dated 13.03.2008 Ex P-445 - Bank Credit Challan dated 04.03.2008 Ex P-446 - Bank Credit Challan dated 11.10.2007 Ex P-447 - Bank Credit Challan dated 11.10.2007 Ex P-448 - Bank Credit Challan dated 13.03.2008 Ex P-449 - Bank Credit Challan dated 07.08.2007 Ex P-450 - Bank Credit Challan dated 13.03.2008 Ex P-451 - Bank Credit Challan dated 11.10.2007 Ex P-452 - Bank Credit Challan dated 07.08.2007 Ex P-453 - Bank Credit Challan dated 04.03.2008 Ex P-454 - Transfer Credit Voucher dated 06.03.2007 402 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 Ex P-455 - letter 08.07.2008 by PW4 addressed to M/s Sri Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-455(a) - signature of PW4 Ex P-456 - letter dated 03.04.2009 from Sri. Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-457 - Reply letter dated 11.04.2009 by Bank to M/s Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-457(a) - signature of this PW4 Ex P-458 - letter dated 09.04.2009 of M/s Balaji Krupa Enterprises which had enclosed the list along with the statement of loan account of their customers Ex P-459 - letter dated 06.01.2010 along with the abstract of total sanction and release of amount in all the projects of M/s Sri. Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-459(a) - Signature of PW4 Ex P-460 - true copy of the report submitted by PW5 Ex.P.461 - SB Account opening form in the name of H. Prashanth Reddy along with copy of PAN card and Driving Licence Ex.P.462 - account opening form in the name of A.N. Siddaraju along with Form No.60 Ex.P.463 - SB Account opening form of P.M. Mohan Kumar along with copy of his PAN card Ex.P.464- The statement of accounts of Muniraju. K for the period 03.02.2004 to 01.01.2005 and another statement of account from 03.02.2004 to 01.01.2010 along with the Certificate issued under Sec.2(A) of Banker's Book Evidence Act (collectively marked) 403 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 Ex.P.465 - Pay-in-slip dated: 07.02.2004 pertaining to K. Muniraju Ex.P.466 - Pay-in-slip dated: 12.02.2004 pertaining to K. Muniraju Ex.P.467 - Pay-in-slip dated: 12.02.2004 pertaining to K. Muniraju Ex.P.468 - Pay-in-slip dated: 20.02.2004 pertaining to K. Muniraju Ex.P.469 - Cheque No.919601 dated: 13.02.2004 Ex.P.470 - Cheque No.919605 dated: 14.02.2004 Ex.P.471 - Cheque No.919602 dated: 13.02.2004 Ex.P.472 - Cheque No.919608 dated: 2002.2004 Ex.P.473 - Cheque No.919613 dated: 21.02.2004 Ex.P.474 - Cheque No.919609 dated: 20.02.2004 Ex.P.475 - Cheque No.919604 dated: 23.02.2004 Ex.P.476 - Cheque No.919610 dated: 20.02.2004 Ex.P.477 - Cheque No.919611 dated: 20.02.2004 Ex.P.478 - Cheque No.919612 dated: 20.02.2004 Ex.P.479 - Cheque No.919606 dated: 01.03.2004 Ex.P.480 - Cheque No.919603 dated: 11.03.2004 Ex.P.481 - Cheque No.925952 dated: 20.03.2006 Ex.P.482 - Cheque No.925951 dated: 20.03.2006 Ex.P.483 - Cheque No.925954 dated: 21.03.2006 Ex.P.484 - Cheque No.925953 dated: 21.03.2006 404 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 Ex.P.485 - Cheque No.925957 dated: 06.04.2006 Ex.P.486 - Pay-in-slip dated Nil Ex.P.487 - Pay-in-slip dated: 16.03.2004 Ex.P.488 - Pay-in-slip dated: 05.03.2004 Ex.P.489 - Cheque No.925958 dated: 06.04.2006 Ex.P.490 - Cheque No.925959 dated: 06.04.2006 Ex P-490(a) - signature of PW25 -D.Anand Krishna Ex.P.491 - Cheque No.925955 dated: 06.04.2006 Ex.P.492 - Cheque No.925956 dated: 06.04.2006 Ex.P.493 - Cheque No.925961 dated: 29.05.2006 Ex.P.494 - Cheque No.925960 dated: 29.05.2006 Ex.P.495 - Cheque No.925966 dated: 06.07.2006 Ex.P.496 - Cheque No.925965 dated: 05.07.2006 Ex.P.497 - Cheque No.925968 dated: 07.07.2007 Ex.P.498 - Cheque No.925972 dated: 07.09.2007 Ex.P.499 - Cheque No.925971 dated: 07.08.2007 Ex.P.500 - Cheque No.925970 dated: 11.07.2007 Ex.P.501 - Cheque No.925969 dated: 11.07.2007 Ex.P.502 - Pay-in-slip dated: 24.05.2006 Ex.P.503 - Pay-in-slip dated: 17.03.2007 Ex.P.504 - Pay-in-slip dated: 15.04.2006 Ex.P.505 - Transfer Debit dated: 16.10.2006 405 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 Ex.P.506 - Transfer Debit dated: 16.10.2006 Ex P-507 - True copy of report dated 31.07.2006 submitted by PW6 Ex P-508 - true copy of hand written report by PW6 explaining the details of the borrowers and their credentials Ex P-509 - Certified copy of the Management letter dt.28.01.2007 describing the audit report submitted by PW7 Ex P-510 - circular dated 01.04.2005 Ex P-511- circular dated 06.05.2004 Ex P-512 - Management letter dated 30.12.2005 Ex P-513 - audit report submitted by PW8 Ex P-514 - the portion of the statement of PW12 Ex P-515 - Portion of statement given by PW16 before the CBI authorities Ex P-516 - payslip of Hanumanthaiah along with a covering letterdated 18.11.2008 Ex P-516(a) - signature of PW27 A.T.Jeevakumar Ex P-517 - computer extracted payslip of C Narayanaswamy pertaining to the month of January 2004 along with covering letter addressed by PW27 Ex P-517(a) - signature of PW27 Ex P-518 - payslip of Mr.Dayanand pertaining to the month of November 2004 406 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 Ex P-518(A) - Correct pay slip of Mr. Dayananda for the month of November 2004 Ex P-519 - Covering letter dated 10.12.2008 addressed by PW31 to the CBI authorities.
Ex P-519(a) - Signature of PW31 Ex P-520 - statements furnished by PW31 with respect to the salary being drawn by the employees of whom the details were sought by the CBI authorities (collectively marked) Ex P-520(a)- signature of PW31 Ex P-521 - salary details of M.K. Parameshwaraiah Ex P-521(a) -signature of PW31 Ex P-522 - Salary slip of Edwin George furnished along with the loan application Ex P-523 - salary slip pertaining to S.Sridhar for the month of November 2004 Ex P-524 - salary slip of M. Shekar Ex P-525 - salary slip of Mohammed Zaki Akmal Ex P-526 - letter dated 23.09.2008 issued by our Divisional Controller furnishing the details with respect to the salary slip of the employees Ex P-527 - another report given to the CBI through a covering letter dated 05.09.2008 Ex P-528 - letter dated 03.10.2008 enclosing the certified copy of the payslips of the employees as requested by the CBI authorities Ex P-528(A) - salary certificate for the month of May 2004 407 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 Ex P-529, Ex P-530 and Ex P-531- The salary slips which were enclosed with the application of Venkataramana N.S., Nagaraju and Arasoji Rao pertaining to the month of December 2004 and January 2005 Ex P-532 - covering letter dated 29.11.2008 consists of the signature of Deputy Chief Accounts Officer furnishing totally 58 payslips of employees as sought for.
Ex P-533 - remaining pay slips furnished by PW33 are all collectively marked Ex P-533(a) - True copy of the salary slip of PW13 Ex P-534 letter dated 17.09.2008 wherein PW33 had given information with respect to scrutiny of salary slip Ex P-535-the scrutiny report by PW33 Ex P-536 - letter dated 03.02.2009 Ex P-537 - salary slip of Syed Nadeemulla and Noushad Khan Ex P-538 - letter dated 14.11.2008 pertaining to payslip of Sri. Venkateshappa Ex P-539 - letter dated 22.11.2008 having report of PW 35 along with the original pay slip pay slip of N. Nemiraj.
Ex P-539(a) - signature of PW35 Ex P-540 - salary slip of N. Nemiraj for the month of December 2003 Ex P-541 - covering letter dated 12.11.2008 Ex P-541(a)- the signature of PW38 408 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 Ex P-542 - Pay slips of Sri. Venkatesh, D.S.Dhanickachalam and Balakrishna M.R. (collectively marked) Ex P-543 - report dt.10.11.2008 with respect to Smt. Sharadamma Ex P-544- Salary certificate of Smt.Sharadamma for the month of August 2005 Ex P-545 -report dated 30.01.2009 with respect to Sri. Ramesh Kumar Ex P-546 - Salary certificate of Ramesh Kumar for January 2005 Ex P-547 -letter of PW41 dated 16.12.2008 Ex P-547(a)- the signature of PW41 Ex P-548 -covering letter addressed by Principal Seventh Day Adventist University College, Bengaluru Ex P-549 -salary particulars of Sri. John Calvin for the month of December 2003 and January 2004 Ex P-550 -salary particulars of Sri. Padmaraj C for the month of December 2003 and January 2004 Ex P-551 -pay slip of Dileep Simpsaom Ex P-552 - joint account opened by PW43 along with Sri. Ramamurthy Ex P-553 -Cheque bearing No.909286 dated 12.04.2004 Ex P-554 - Cheque bearing No.183306 dated 10.11.2004 Ex P-555 -Cheque bearing No.909476 dated 20.12.2004 Ex P-556 - Challan dated 12.11.2004 which are two in numbers (collectively marked) 409 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 Ex P-557 -Challan dated 20.12.2004 Ex P-558 - the statement of account of PW43 Ex P-559 - the portion of statement of the witness PW43 Ex P-560 - covering letter dated 05.09.2008 Ex P-560(a) - signature of PW44 Ex P-561- list of employees which were enclosed along with the covering letter dt.5.9.2008 Ex P-562 - covering letter dated 29.10.2008 Ex P-562(a) - the signature of PW44 Ex P-563 - the details of the list of employees enclosed along with letter dt.29.10.2008 Ex P-564 -letter dated 07.11.2008 furnishing the details of the salary slips Ex P-564(a) -the signature of PW44 Ex P-565 - details of the list of employees enclosed along with the letter dt.7.11.2008 Ex P-566 - covering letter dt.05.01.2009 Ex P-566(a) - the signature of PW44 Ex P-567- list of employees enclosed along with the letter dt.5.1.2009 Ex P-568 - another covering letter dated 29.01.2009 Ex P-568(a) - the signature of PW44 Ex P-569- the details of the list of employees enclosed along with covering letter dt.29.1.2009 Ex P-570 - letter dt.08.11.2008 410 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 Ex P-570(a) - the signature of PW44 Ex P-571 - the details of the list of employees enclosed along letter dt.08.11.2008 Ex P-572 -covering letter dated 18.11.2008 Ex P-573- the documents enclosed pertaining to K.P. Vasantha Kumar, N. Ravishankar, B. Srinivas and R. Rakesh (all collectively marked) Ex P-574 -salary certificate of N. Ravishankar for the month of November 2004 Ex P-575 - salary certificate of Vijaykumar Ex P-576 -salary certificate of B. Srinivas Ex P-577 - Salary certificate of R. Rakesh Ex P-578 - salary particulars Smt. Shayana Kumari Ex P-578(a)- signature of PW47 Ex P-579 - the loan application of PW48 along with the documents Ex P-579(a) - the signature of PW48 Ex P-580 - document with signature of PW49 Ex P-580(a) - salary slip of PW49 Ex P-581 - loan application of PW51 Ex P-581(a) - signature of PW51 Ex P-582 - loan application of PW52 Ex P-582(a) - the signature of PW52 Ex P-583 - covering letter dated 26.11.2008 411 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 Ex P-583(a) - signature of PW53 Ex P-584 - the specimen salary slip enclosed along with the covering letter Ex P-585 -letter dated 05.02.2009 addressed by Member Secretary of BIAAPA Ex P-586 - letter dated 02.01.2009 Ex P-586(a)-the signature of PW56 Ex P- 587 SBM Cheque No 361452 dated 19.08.03 for Rs. 10000/- in favour of Mr. ANANTHA BABU C D. issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P- 588 SBM Cheque No 361451 dated 18.08.03 for Rs. 10000/- in favour of Ms. P.R. MEENAKSHY issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P- 589 SBM Cheque No 361453 dated 19.08.03 for Rs. 10000/- in favour of Ms. LATHA MANJUNATH issued by the Proprietor for Sree Bataii Krupa Enterprises Ex P- 590 SBM Cheque No 361455 dated 23.08.03 for Rs. 25000/- in favour of Mr. BUSHAN issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P- 591 SBM Cheque No 361456 dated 26.08.03 for Rs. 18000/- in favour of Birla Home Finance Ltd. issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P- 592 SBM Cheque No 361457 dated 29.08.03 for Rs. 25000/- in favour of Mr. KRISHNASWAMY issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises 412 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 Ex P- 593 SBM Cheque No 361460 dated 04.09.03 for Rs'. 339726/- in favour of P &. T Employees Credit Co operative Society Pvt Ltd. issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises.
Ex P- 594 SBM Cheque No 361462 dated 08.09.03 for Rs. 10000/- in favour of Mr. RAMESH issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises.
Ex P- 595 SBM Cheque No 361464 dated 08.09.03 for Rs. 20000/- in favour of SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P- 596 SBM Cheque No 361463 dated 08.09.03 for Rs. 22022/- in favour of Yourself issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P- 597 SBM Cheque No 361852 dated 08.09.03 for Rs. 7,10,000/- in favour of SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises.
Ex P- 598 SBM Cheque No 361461 dated 10.09.03 for Rs. 50000/- in favour of M/s. Saptagiri Brick Works issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises.
Ex P- 599 SBM Cheque No 361853 dated 12.09.03 for Rs. 30000/- in favour of Mr. A, BHARATHRAJ issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaii Krupa Enterprises.
413 Spl.CC. No.41/2012Ex P- 600 SBM Cheque No 361476 dated 22.09.03 for Rs. 350000/- in favour of SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises.
Ex P- 601 SBM Cheque No 361470 dated 22.09.03 for Rs. 10000/- in favour of Mr. PRADEEP issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises.
Ex P- 602 SBM Cheque No 361473 dated 22.09.03, for Rs. 2080/- in favour of GANESH ENTERPRISES issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises.
Ex P- 603 SBM Cheque No 361475 dated 22.09.03 for Rs. 400000/- in favour of SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises.
Ex P- 604 SBM Cheque No 361465 dated 14.09.03 for Rs. 50000/- in favour of Mr. G.N. SADASHIVAPPA issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises.
Ex P- 605 SBM Cheque No 361474 dated 23.09.03 for Rs. 9200/- in favour of Sree Securities issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises 414 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 Ex P- 606 SBM Cheque No 361471 dated 22.09.03 for Rs. 10000/- in favour of Mr. B.C. LOKESH issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises.
Ex P- 607 SBM Cheque No 361472 dated 22.09.03 for Rs. 10000/- in favour of Mr. GAJANNAN R GONDHALI issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises.
Ex P- 608 SBM Cheque No 361477 dated 29.09.03 for Rs. 40000/- in favour of Mr. SWAROOP issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P- 609 SBM Cheque No 361482 dated 03.10.03 for Rs. 55000/- in favour of Mr. RAMESH BABU issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P- 610 SBM Cheque No 361484 dated 06.10.03 for Rs. 50000/- in favour of Mr. RAMESH BABU issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P- 611 SBM Cheque No 361479 dated 30.09.03 for Rs. 9000/- in favour of Mr. Y ARAVIND REDDY issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P- 612 SBM Cheque No. 361485 dated 8.10.03 for Rs. 250000/- in favour of Mr. SWAROOP.V issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P- 613 SBM Cheque No 361483 dated 7.10.03 for Rs. 25000/- in favour of Mr. B.H. BHUSHAN issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji 415 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 Krupa Enterprises Ex P- 614 SBM Cheque No. 361487 dated 10.10.03 for Rs. 240000/- in favour of Mr. SWAROOP issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P- 615 SBM Cheque No 361489 dated 13.10.03 for Rs. 45000/- in favour of Mr. R. RAMESH BABU issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P- 616 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs.
150000/- dated 14.10.03 for CP 31 Ex P- 617 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs.
100000/- dated 14.10.03 for CP 30 Ex P- 618 SBM Cheque No 361478 dated 30.09.03 for Rs. 328767/- in favour of P & T Employee Cooperative Society Ltd. issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P- 619 SBM Cheque No 361492 dated 20.10.03 for Rs. 200000/- in favour of SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P- 620 SBM Cheque No 361486 dated 14.10.03 for Rs. 10000/- in favour of Mr. SANDEEP M MAHALATKAR issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P- 621 SBM Cheque No 361869 dated 21.10.03 for Rs. 140000/- in favour of SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P- 622 SBM Cheque No 361494 dated 22.10.03 for Rs. 170000/- in favour of SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa 416 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 Enterprises Ex P- 623 SBM Cheque No 361495 dated 22.10.03 for Rs. 150000/- in favour of SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P- 624 SBM Cheque No 361489 dated 20.10.03 for Rs. 50000/- in favour of Sapthagiri Brick Works issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P- 625 SBM Cheque No 361493 dated 20.10.03 for Rs. 41,993/- in favour of GARUDA ALLIED FORCES issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P- 626 SBM Cheque No 361496 dated 25.10.03 for Rs. 60000/- in favour of SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P- 627 SBM Cheque No 361500 dated 3.11.03 for Rs. 140000/- in favour of Mr. RAMESH BABU issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-628 SBM Cheque No 361497 dated 03.11.03 for Rs. 150000/- in favour of SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-629 SBM Cheque No 366653 dated 5.11.03 for Rs. 30000/- in favour of SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-630 SBM Cheque No 366654 dated 05.11.03 for Rs. 500000/- in favour of Yourself issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-631 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs.150000/- 417 Spl.CC. No.41/2012
dated 06.11.03 for local clearing A/c Ex P-632 SBM Cheque No 366651 dated 04.11.03 for Rs. 15000/- in favour of SWAROOP issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-633 SBM Cheque No 361877 dated 05.11.03 for Rs. 600000/- in favour of B.C. VENU issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-634 SBM Cheque No 366656 dated 05.11.03 for Rs. 100000/- in favour of B.C. HONAPP issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-635 SBM Cheque No 361878 dated 07.11.3 for Rs. 125000/- In favour of SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-636 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs.76695/-
dated 07.11.03 for issuing of various bankers cheques.
Ex P-637 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs.500000/-
dated 08.11.03 for crediting CP 87&CP88 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs,500000/- Ex P-638 dated 15.11.03 (4 Slips). Ex P-639 SBM Cheque No 366666 dated 17.11.03 for Rs. 70000/- in favour of SELF issued by the-Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises.
Ex P-640 SBM Cheque No 366671'dated 21.11.03 for Rs. 250000/- in favour of SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa 418 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 Enterprises.
Ex P-641 SBM Cheque No 366672 dated 21.11.03 for Rs. 100000/- in favour of A.K. PATEL issued by- the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-642 SBM Cheque No 366674 dated 22.11.03 for Rs. 20000/- in favour of LAXMINARYANA. issued by the Proprietorfor Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises SBM Cheque No 366657 dated 22.11.03 for Rs. .475000/- in favour of SELF issued by Ex P-643 the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-644 SBM-Cheque No 366665 dated 22.11.03 for Rs. 40d00/- in favour of Sapthagiri Brick Works issued, by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-645 SBM Cheque No 366675 dated 22.11.03 for.
Rs.35000/- in favour of S. NAGALAXMI issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-646 SBM Cheque No 366668 dated 21.11.03 for Rs.30000/- in favour of K.UMASHANKARI issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-647 SBM Cheque No 361887 dated 27.11.03 for Rs.200000/- in favour of SELF issued by the Proprietorfor Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-648 SBM Cheque No 366673 dated 22.11.03. for Rs. 10000/- in favour of L. RAJASHEKAR issued by the Proprietor for Sree Baiaji 419 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 Krupa Enterprises Ex P-649 SBM Cheque No 366677 dated 25.11.03 for Rs. 200000/- in favour of A.K.PATEL issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-650 SBM Cheque No 366670 dated 22.11,03 for-
Rs. 100000/- in favour of S.V.HARISH KUMAR issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-651 SBM Cheque No 366679 dated 01.12.03 for Rs. 25000/- in favour of SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-652 SBM Cheque No 366680 dated 01.12.03 for Rs. 105000/- in favour of SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises.
Ex P-653 SBM Cheque No 366678 dated 25.11.03 for Rs. 150000/- in favour of ASHWATH NARAYANA REDDY issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-654 SBM Cheque No.366151 dated 06.12.03 for Rs. 34660/- in favour of Yourself issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-655 SBM Cheque No 366152 dated 06.12.03 for Rs.300000/- in favour of SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-656 SBM Cheque No 366153 dated 06.12,03 for Rs. 300000/- in favour of SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-657 SBM Cheque No 366154 dated 6.12.03 for 420 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 Rs. 50000/- in favour of ASHWATH NARAYANA REDDY issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-658 SBM Cheque No 366681 dated 03.12.03 for Rs. 10000/- in favour of M.JAYAPRAKASH issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-659 SBM Cheque No 366156 dated 08.12.03 for Rs. 10825/- in favobr of Yourself issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-660 SBM Cheque No 366155 dated 06.12.03 for Rs. 200000/- in favour of K.V. HANUMAPPA REDDY issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises SBM Cheque No 366157 dated 08.12.03 for Rs. 130000/- in favour of SELF issued by Ex P-661 the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-662 SBM Cheque No 366158 dated 08.12.03 for Rs. 200000/- in favour of SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-663 SBM Cheque No 361893 dated 10.12.03 for Rs. 100000/- in favour of SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-664 SBM Cheque No 366683 dated 10.12.03 for Rs. 100000/- in favour of SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-665 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs. 1015/- 421 Spl.CC. No.41/2012
dated NIL for crediting CP 104.
Ex P-666 SBM Cheque No 366159 dated 13.12.03 for Rs. 350000/- in favour of SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-667 SBM Cheque No 366160 dated 13.12.03 for Rs. 100000/- in favour of K.V. HANUMAPPA REDDY issued by the Proprietor for. Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-668 SBM Cheque No 366687 dated 17.12.03 for Rs: 210000/- in favour of SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-669 SBM Cheque No 356162 dated 17.12.03 for Rs. 250000/- in favour of SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-670 SBM Cheque No 366682 dated 03.12.03 for Rs. 10000/- in favour of NEERAJ LAL issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-671 SBM Cheque No 366685 dated 16.12.03 for Rs. 9735/- in favour of Sree Security Services issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-672 SBM Cheque No 366688 dated 18.12.03 for Rs. 500000/- in favour of Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-673 SBM Cheque No 366164 dated 22.12.03 for Rs. 100000/- in favour of SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa 422 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 Enterprises Ex P-674 SBM Cheque No 366161 dated 17.12.03 for Rs. 492516/- in favour of BIRLA SUNLIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD. issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises. Ex P-675 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs. 1234/-
dated 27.12.03 for crediting CP 117 Charqes. (2 Sheets).
Ex P-676 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs.450000/-
dated 27.12.03 for crediting charges CP 117 chq. Returned.
Ex P-677 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rsl500/-
dated 27.12.03 for CP 117 cheque return charges.
Ex P-678 SBM Cheque No 366692 dated 27.12.03 for Rs. 175000/- in favour of SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-679 SBM Cheque No. 366165 dated 29.12.03 for Rs. 800000/- in favour of SELF issued bv the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises SBM Cheque No 366163 dated 23.12.03 for Rs. 15439/- in favour of Birla Home Finance Ex P-680 Ltd. issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-681 SBM Cheque No. 366691 dated 26.12.03 for Rs. 25000/- in favour of MANOJ ENTERPRISES Vishweshwaraiah. Co-op Bank, Gayathrinagar Branch A/c No.1108 issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises 423 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 Ex P-682 SBM Cheque No 366166 dated 30.12.03 for Rs. 200000/- in favour of SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-683 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs. 69720/-
dated 31.12.03 credited to the loan account of VASANTHKUMAR.
Ex P-684 SBM Cheque No 366695 dated 31.12.03 for Rs. 360000/- in favour of SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-685 SBM Cheque No 366167 dated 31.12.03. for Rs. 600000/- in favour of Yourself issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-686 SBM Cheque No 366693 dated 04.01.04 for Rs. 20000/- in favour of PRABHU issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-687 SBM Cheque No 366694 dated 06.01.04 for Rs. 400000/- in favour of SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-688 SBM Cheque No 366172 dated 07.01.04 for Rs. 100000/- in favour of SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-689 SBM Cheque No 366169 dated 07.01.04 for Rs. 100000/- in favour of SELF issued by the: Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-690 SBM Cheque No 366170 dated 07.01.04 for Rs. 34660/- in favour of Yourself issued by 424 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-691 SBM Cheque No 366171 dated 07.01.04 for Rs. 30000/- in favour of SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-692 SBM Cheque No 366168 dated 06.01.04 for Rs. 100000/- in favour of SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-693 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs 500000/-
dated 10.01.04 Ex P-694 SBM Cheque No 366697 dated 10.01.04 for Rs. 200000/- in favour of SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises.
Ex P-695 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs 4513/-
dated 12.01.04 for CP138.
Ex P-696 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs 800000/-
dated 12.01.04 for CP 138 Ex P-697 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs 404000/-
dated 13.01.04 for DD &. CHQ ISSUE. Ex P-698 SBM Cheque No 201461 dated 14.01.04 for Rs. 41000/r.in favour of SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-699 SBM Cheque No 366696 dated 11.01.04 for Rs. lOOOO/- in favour of MOHAN issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-700 SBM Cheque No 366173 dated 14.01.04 for Rs. 75000/- in favour of SELF issued by the 425 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-701 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs 710000/-
dated 16.01.04 in respect of C/A No. 01050055005 Ex P-702 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs 1500/-
dated 16.01.04 for CHQ RETURNED CHARGES Ex P-703 SBM Cheque No 366175 dated 19.01.04 for Rs. 475000/- in favour of SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises.
Ex P-704 SBM Cheque No 201466 dated 24.01.04 for Rs. 250000/- in favour of SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-705 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs 250000/-
dated 29.01.04 for CP 204.
Ex P-706 SBM Cheque No 201469 dated 29.01.04 for Rs. 280000/- in favour of SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-707 SBM Cheque No 366180 dated 25.01.04 for Rs. 5000/- in favour of DEVEERAMMANNI, Ex P-708 SBM Cheque No 366184 dated 03.02.04 for Rs. 100000/- in favour of GANESH KAMATH issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-709 SBM Cheque No 366183 dated 03.02.04 for Rs. 400000/- SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises. Ex P-710 SBM Cheque No 366185 dated 03.02.04 for 426 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 Rs. 300000/- fvg yourselves (A/c Income Tax) issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-711 SBM Cheque No 366186 dated 04.01.0,4 for Rs. 15000/- in favour of THONTADARYA issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-712 SBM Cheque No 366187 dated 04.02.04 for Rs. 100000/- in favour of SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-713 SBM. Cheque No 366182 dated 31.01.04 for Rs. 15000/- in favour of KRISHNAREDDY. P A issued by the Proprietor for S.ree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-714 SBM Cheque No 366698 dated 13.01.04 for Rs. 10000/- in favour of HOSA DHIGANTHA PATHRIKE issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-715 SBM Cheque No 366191 dated 04.02.04 for Rs. 860000/- for SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises. Ex P-716 SBM Cheque No 366192 dated 04.02.04 for Rs. 200000/- for SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-717 SBM Cheque No 366193 dated 06.02.04 for Rs. 50000/- for SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-718 SBM Cheque No 366188 dated 04.02.04 for Rs. 300000/- in favour of K K CHANDRAPPA issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises 427 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 Ex P-719 SBM Cheque No 366196 dated 06.02.04 for Rs. 90000/- for SELF issued by. the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-720 SBM Cheque No 366195 dated 06.02.04 for Rs. 240000/- for Yourself issued by the Proprietor fpr Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-721 SBM Cheque No 366197 dated 06.02.04 for Rs. 125000/- for SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-722 SBM Cheque No 366198 dated 07.02.04 for Rs. 87438/- for Yourself issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-723 SBM Cheque No 366200 dated 07.02.04 for Rs. 250000/- for SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-724 SBM Cheque No 202976 dated 07.02:04 for Rs. 100000/- in favour of GANESH KAMATH issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises SBM Cheque No 201474 dated 09.02.04 for Rs. 600000/- for SELF issued by the Ex P-725 Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises.
SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs 225225/- Ex P-726 dated 10.02.04 Ex P-727 SBM Cheque No 201475 dated 10.02.04 for Rs. 100000/- in favour of SELF issuod by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-728 SBM Cheque No 366194 dated 06.02.04 for Rs. 31311/- in favour of LIC of Ind ia issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa 428 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 Enterprises Ex P-729 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs 200000/-
dated 10.02.04 for SB A/C OF K. APPAIAH RAMMANNA.
Ex P-730 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs 6500/-
dated 10.02.04 for UPFRONT FEE TOWARDS MTL A/C;
SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs 7500/- Ex P-731 dated 10.02.04 for 1% FEE.
SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs 5400/- Ex P-732 dated 10.02.04 for 1% UPFRONT FEE. Ex P-733 SBM Cheque No 203327 dated 10.02.04 for Rs. 200000/- in favour of SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-734 SBM Cheque No 203328 dated 11.02.04 for Rs. 1000000/- in favour of SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-735 SBM Cheque No 202977 dated 11.02.04 for Rs. 118200/- in favour of Yourself issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-736 SBM Cheque No 202978 dated 11.02.04 for Rs. 55000/- in favour of SWAROP V. issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-737 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs 7000/-
dated 11.02.04.
Ex P-738 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs 5500/- 429 Spl.CC. No.41/2012
dated 11.02.04 Ex P-739 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs 5400/-
dated 11.02.04 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs 4700/- Ex P-740 dated 11.02.04 Ex P-741 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs 10000/-
dated 12.02.04 Ex P-742 SBM Cheque No 202983 dated 12.02.04 for Rs. 600000/- in favour of SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-743 SBM Cheque No 202987 dated 13.02.04 for Rs. 400000/- in favour of SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs 4100/- Ex P-744 dated 13.02.04 for 1% UPFRONT FEE.
SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs 5250/- Ex P-745 dated 13.02.04 for 1% UPFRONT FEE. Ex P-746 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs 5350/-
dated 13.02.04 for 1% UPFRONT FEE. Ex P-747 SBM Cheque No 202988 dated 14,02.04. for Rs. 200000/- in favour of SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-748 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs 8300/-
dated 14.02.04 for 1% UPFRONT FEE. Ex P-749 SBM Cheque No 366181 dated 25.01.04 for Rs. 5000/- in favour of S MOHAN issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa 430 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 Enterprises Ex P-750 SBM Cheque No 202984 dated 13.02.04 for Rs. 25000/- in favour of BIZ NEEDS issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-751 SBM Cheque No 202981- dated 13.02.04 for Rs. 11500/- in favour of SREE SECURITY SERVICES.issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-752 SBM transfer debit Voucher fbr Rs 600000/-
dated 16.02.04 for CP 245 RETURNED Ex P-753 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs 6000/-
dated 16.02.04 for 1% UPFRONT FEE. Ex P-754 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs 6300/-
dated 16.02.04 for 1% UPFRONT FEE. Ex P-755 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs 8100/-
dated 16.02.04 for 1% UPFRONT FEE. Ex P-756 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs 6500/-
dated NIL in respect of M/s. Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises passed for 1% UPFRONT FEE.
Ex P-757 SBM Cheque No 366178 dated 23.01.04 for Rs. 100000/- in favour of NADEEM issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-758 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs 3615/-
dated 13.02.04 for creditinq CP240 Ex P-759 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs 45350/-
dated 17.02.04 for ISSUE OF BANKER CHQ FOR SUB REGISTER.
431 Spl.CC. No.41/2012Ex P-760 SBM Cheque No 202990 dated 17.02.04 for Rs. 100000/- in favour of SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-761 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs 5750/-
dated 17.02.04 for 1% UPFRONT FEE, MTL OF B.K. GIRISH.
Ex P-762 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs.5750/-
dated 17.02.04 in respect of Sree Baiaji Krupa Enterprises passed towards 1% UPFRONT FEE OF MTL a/c. of B.e:
UPENDRA Ex P-763 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs 6150/-.dated 17.02.04 for 1% UPFRONT FEE Ex P-764 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs 5000/-.
dated 17.02.04 for 1% UPFRONT FEE.
Ex P-765 SBM Cheque No 202992 dated 19.02.04 for.
Rs. 50000/- in favour of VIJAY issued by the Proprietor for Sree Baiaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-766 SBM Cheque No .202991 dated 18.02.04 for Rs. 25000/- in favour of KRISHNA MOHAN issued by the Proprietor for Sree Baiaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-767 SBM Cheque No 202994 dated 19.02.04 for Rs. 250000/- in. favour of SWAROP issued by the Proprietor for Sree Baiaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-768 SBM Cheque No 202993 dated 19.02.04 for Rs. 168030/- in favour of Yourself issued by the Proprietor for Sree Baiaji Krupa Enterprises 432 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 Ex P-769 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs 15000/-
dated 19.02.04 for to KOTT.REDDY Ex P-770 SBM Cheque No 202998 dated 19.02.04, for Rs. 200000/- in favour of SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Baiaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-771 SBM Cheque No 202997 dated 19.02.04 for Rs. 50000/- in favour of A K PATEL, issued by the Proprietor for Sree Baiaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-772 SBM Cheque No 202996 dated 20.02.04 for Rs. 10400/-. in favour of GARUDA ALLIED FORCES issued by the Proprietor for Sree Baiaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-773 SBM Cheque No 202980 dated 16.02.04 for Rs. 50000/- in favour of VASAVI YUVAKARA SANGHA.
Ex P-774 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs 5000/-
dated 23.02.04 for 1% UPFRONT FEE.
Ex P-775 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs 7000/-
dated 23.02.04 for 1% UPFRONT FEE. SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs 51.10/- Ex P-776 dated 23.02.04 for 1% UPFRONT FEE. Ex P-777 SBM Cheque No 203333 dated 25'.02;04 for Rs. 200000/- in favour of NADEEM issued by the Proprietor for Sree Baiaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-778 SBM Cheque No 203926 dated 25.02.04 for Rs. 300000/- for SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Baiaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-779 SBM Cheque No 203000 dated 23.02.04 for Rs. 50000/- in favour of C P INDUMATHI, 433 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 Proprietor of Sri. Mookambika travels.
Ex P-780 SBM Cheque No 203927 dated 26.02.04 for Rs: 150000/- in favour of FAIZ AHMED issued by the Proprietor for Sree Baiaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-781 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs 5450/-
dated 26.2.2004 for 1% UPFRONT FEE.
Ex P-782 SBM Cheque No 203928 dated 26.02.04 for Rs. 100000/- for SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Baiaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-783 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs.
100000/- dated 28.02.04 for VARIOUS ACCOUNTS.
Ex P-784 SB.M transfer debit voucher for Rs 5750/-
dated 28.02.04 for 1% UPFRONT FEE.
Ex P-785 SBM Cheque No 202989 dated 14.02.04 for Rs. 750000/- in favour of SATHISH REDDY issued by the Proprietor for Sree Baiaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-786 SBM Cheque No 203331 dated 23.02.04 for.Rs. 1000000/- for SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Baiaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-787 SBM Cheque No 203930 dated 03.04.04 for Rs. 330000/- for Yourself issued by the Proprietor for Sree Baiaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-788 SBM Cheque No 203931dated 04.03.04 for.Rs. 200000/- for SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Baiaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-789 SBM Cheque No 203929 dated 06.03.04 for Rs. 25000/- in favour of LAXMINARAYAN issued by the Proprietor for Sree Baiaji 434 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 Krupa Enterprises Ex P-790 SBM Cheque No 203934 dated 06.03.04 for Rs. 500000/- for SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Baiaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-791 SBM Cheque No 203932 dated 06.03.04 for Rs. 10000/- in favour of K. BALAKRISHNA issued by the Proprietor for Sree Baiaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-792 SBM Cheque No 203936 dated 8.03.04 for Rs. 50000/- in favour of SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Baiaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-793 SBM Cheque No 203935 dated 9.03.04 for Rs. 13000/- in favour of A. Harry Bai. issued by the Proprietor for Sree Baiaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-794 SBM Cheque No 203933 dated 09.03.04 for Rs. 100000/- in favour of SWARUP issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises.
Ex P-795 SBM Cheque No 203941 dated 10.03.04 for Rs. 50000/- in favour of SELF issued bv the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises.
Ex P-796 SBM Cheque No 203939 dated 08.03.04 for Rs. 11500/- in favour of SHREE SECURITY SERVICES.
Ex P-797 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs 330000/-
dated 10.03.04 for crediting DD in favour of P&T EMPLOYEES SOCIETY LTD.
Ex P-798 SBM Cheque No 203946 dated 11.03.04 for Rs. 10000/- for SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises 435 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 Ex P-799 SBM Cheque No 203947 dated 12.03.04 Rs.
50000/- for SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-800 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs 2015/-
dated 08.03.04 for CP 268 SHORT CLAIM.
Ex P-801 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs 20700/-
dated 10.03.04 for CREDITING 1% UPFRONT FEE.
Ex P-802 SBM Cheque No 203948 for Rs. 200000/-
dated 13.03.04 for SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-803 SBM Cheque No 203940 for Rs. 25000/-
dated 11.03.04 for C MOHAN issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-804 SBM Cheque No 203949 for Rs. 100000/-
dated 13.03.04 for SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-805 SBM Cheque No 203950 for Rs. 330000/-
dated 15.03.04 for SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-806 SBM Cheque No 203943 dated for Rs.
50000/- 12.03.04 for in favour of B VIJENDRA issued by the Proprietor, for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-807 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs 15900/-
dated 16.03.W for 1% UPFRONT FEE.
Ex P-808 SBM Cheque No 204351 for Rs. 50000/-
dated 17.03.04 for SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-809 SBM Cheque No 203944 dated for Rs.
50000/- 15.03.04 for in favour of B 436 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 VIJENDRA issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-810 SBM Cheque No 204352 for Rs. 45700/-
dated 17.03.04 for SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-811 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs 810000/-
dated 18.03.04 in respect of C/A No. 01050055005, Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises passed for CP 275 RETURNED.
Ex P-812 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs 3455/-
dated 18.03.04 in respect of C/A No. 01050055005 passed for CP 275 RETURNED-VPP CHARGES Ex P-813 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs 90630/-
dated 18.03.04 for TL A/C OF VARIOUS. (2 sheets) Ex P-814 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs 6000/-
dated 18.03.04 for 1% UPFRONT FEE.
Ex P-815 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs 4600/-.
dated NIL for 1% UPFRONT FEE, MTL A/C. K. NAGARAJ Ex P-816 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs 5600/-
dated 19.03.04 for 1% UPFRONT FEE.
Ex P-817 SBM Cheque No 204354 for Rs. 115000/-
dated 20.03.04 for - for SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-818 SBM Cheque No 204353 dated 18.03.04 for for Rs. 130000/- for SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-819 SBM Cheque No 204355 dated 22.03.04 for for Rs. 200000/- for SELF issued by the 437 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-820 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs 5250/-
dated 22.03.04 for 1% UPFRONT FEE.
Ex P-821 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs 4700/-
dated 22.03.04 for 1% UPFRONT FEE.
Ex P-822 SBM Cheque No 203945 for Rs. 42716/-
dated 18.03.04 for B VIJENDRA issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-823 SBM Cheque No 204357 dated 23.03.04 for Rs. 350000/- for SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-824 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs 5400/-
dated 23.03.04 for 1% UPFRONT FEE.
Ex P-825 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs 5400/-
dated 23.03.04 for 1% UPFRONT FEE.
Ex P-826 SBM Cheque No 203937 dated 11.03.04 for Rs; 50000/- in favour of SAPTHAGIRI BRICK WORKS issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises.
Ex P-827 SBM Cheque No 204364 for Rs. 250000/-
dated 24.03.04 for SELF issued by the Proprietor fof Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs 4500/- Ex P-828 dated 24.03,04 for 1% UPFRONT FEE.
Ex P-829 SBM Cheque No 204376 dated 25,03.04 Rs;
300000/- for SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-830 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs 5000/-
dated 27.03.04 for 1% UPFRONT FEE.438 Spl.CC. No.41/2012
SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs 6400/- Ex P-831 dated 27.03.04 for % UPFRONT FEE.
Ex P-832 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs 7800/-
dated 27.03.04 for 1%. UPFRONT FEE.
Ex P-833 SBM Cheque No 204377 dated 27.03.04 for Rs. 400000/- for SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree- Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-834 SBM Cheque No 204366 dated 29.03.04 for for Rs. 25000/- in favour of SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-835 SBM Cheque No 204362 dated 24.03.04 for Rs. 25000/- for M SOMESH issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-836 SBM Cheque No 204359 dated 24.03.04 for Rs. 25000/- for ANANTH. H K issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-837 SBM Cheque No 204358 dated 24.03.04 for.
Rs. 25000/- for ANTHURAIAH H K. issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-838 SBM Cheque No 204360 dated 24.03.04 for Rs. .25000/- for PRABHAKAR A N. issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-839 SBM Cheque No 204361 dated 24.03.04 for Rs. 25000/- for G. A. DALU issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-840 SBM Cheque No 204403 dated 2.03.04 for for Rs. 75000/- for SWARUP issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises 439 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 Ex P-841 SBM Cheque No 204365 dated 02.04.04 for for Rs. 100100/-' for Yourself issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-842 SBM Cheque No 204404 dated 03.04.04 for Rs. 250000/- for SWARUP issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-843 SBM Cheque No 204407 dated 05.04.04 for Rs. 90000/- for SWARUP.V issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-844 SBM Cheque No 204405 dated 05.04.04 for Rs. 1140000/- for SWARUP.V issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-845 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs 6700/-
dated 05.04.04 for 1% UPFRONT FEES.
Ex P-846 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs 5000/-
dated 05.04.04 for 1% UPFRONT FEES Ex P-847 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs 6700/-
dated 05.04.04 passed for 1% UPFRONT FEES.
Ex P-848 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs 6700/-
dated 05.04.04 for 1% UPFRONT FEES.
Ex P-849 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs 6600/-
dated 05.04.04 for 1% UPFRONT FEES Ex P-850 SBM Cheque No204368 dated. 06.04.2004 for Rs.650000/- for SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-851 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs.6800 dated (DATE NOT CLEAR) for UPFRONT FEE
- IFRANULLA KHAN Ex P-852 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs.5700 440 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 dated 06.04.2004 for .1% UPFRONT FEE T KRISHNAPPA Ex P-853 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs.5400 dated 06.04.2004 1% UPFRONT FEE - RAGHU Ex P-854 SBM Cheque No 204381 dated 07.04.2004 for Rs.600000 in favour of SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-855 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs.5900 dated 07.04.2004 for 1% UPFRONT FEE Ex P-856 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs. 6800 dated 07.04.2004 in respect of Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises passed. for 1% UPFRONT FEE Ex P-857 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs. 250000 dated 07.04.2004 Ex P-858 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs. 6000 dated 07.04.2004 SBM transfer debit voucher for 6000 dated Ex P-859 07.04.2004 for 1% UPFRON i FEtS Ex P-860 SBM Cheque No 204383 dated 10.04.2004 for Rs.900000/- for SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-861 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs. 5900 dated 10.04.2004 for 1% UPFRONT FEES Ex P-862 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs. 6000 dated 10.04.2004 for 1% UPFRONT FEES Ex P-863 SBM Cheque No 204370 dated 12.04.2004 for Rs. 15000/- for SWARUP V issued bv the 441 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-864 SBM Cheque No 204371 dated 12.04.2004 for Rs.50000/- for SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-865 SBM Cheque No 204372 dated. 12.04.2004 for Rs.800000/- for SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises.
Ex P-866 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs.5200/-
dated 12.04.2004 for 1% UPFRONT FEES Ex P-867 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs.5800/-
dated 12.04.2004 for 1% UPFRONT FEES Ex P-868 SBM transfer debit voucher for RS.7000/-
dated 12.04.2004 for 1% UPFRONT FEE Ex P-869 SBM Cheque No 204384 dated 13.04.2004 for Rs.500000/- for SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-870 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs. 6300 dated 13.04.2004 for 1% UPFRONT FEES Ex P-871 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs. 5700/-
dated 13.04.2004 for 1% UPFRONT FEES - MTLA/c. Ramakrishna Ex P-872 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs. 6800 dated 13.04.2004 for 1% UPFRONT FEES .
Ex P-873 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs. 6200 dated 16.04.2004 for 1% UPFRONT FEES Ex P-874 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs. 4900/-
dated (not clear) for 1% UPFRONT FEES Ex P-875 SBM Cheque No 204385 dated 15.04.2004 for Rs.650000/- for SELF issued by the 442 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-876 SBM Cheque No 204386 dated 16.04.2004 for Rs.400000/- for SWARUP.V issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-877 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs. 5600/-
dated 16.04.2004 for 1% UPFRONT FEE Ex P-878 SBM Cheque No 204373 dated 17.04.2004 for Rs. 100000/- for SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises.
Ex P-879 SBM Cheque No 204374 dated 17.04.2004 for Rs.500000/-.for SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree'Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-880 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs.5800/-
dated 17.04.2004 in respect of M/s Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises passed for 1% UPFRONT FEE Ex P-881 SBM Cheque No 204375 dated 19.04.2004 for for. Rs.550000/- in favour of SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-882 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs.5800/-
dated 19.04.2004 for 1% UPFRONT FEE - Babu Ex P-883 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs.5500 dated 19.04.2004 for 1% UPFRONT FEE - Abdul Majid Ex P-884 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs.500000/-
dated 22.04.2004 for CP 19 RETD Ex P-885 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs.5000/-443 Spl.CC. No.41/2012
dated 22.04.2004 for 1% UPFRONT FEE Ex P-886 SBM Cheque No 204379 dated 23.04.2004 for Rs.100000/- for SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-887 SBM Cheque No 204387 dated 23.04.2004 for Rs.136050/- for Yourself issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-888 SBM Cheque Nd 204388 dated 23.04.2004 for Rs. 1200000/- for SWAROOP issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-889 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs.3400/-
dated 24.04.2004. for. 1%. UPFRONT FEE against MTL A/c. Subramanya.
Ex P-890 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs.3400/-
dated 24.04.2004 for. .1% UPFRONT FEE- P. Ramachandra.
Ex P-891 SBM Cheque No 204389 dated 24.04.2004 for Rs.600000/- for SWARUP.V issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-892 SBM Cheque No 204427 dated 26.04.2004 for for Rs. 117970/- in favour of Yourself issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-893 SBM Cheque No 204390 dated 27.04.2004 for Rs. 100000/- in favour of SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-894 SBM Cheque No 204392 dated 27.04.2004 for Rs.300000/- in favour of SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa 444 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 Enterprises Ex P-895 SBM Cheque No 204410 dated 27.04.2004 for Rs.15000/- in favour of THONTADARAYA issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-896 SBM Cheque No 204408 dated 26.04.2004 for Rs.70000/- in favour of HEERA HARDWARE issued by the Proprietor, for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-897 SBM Cheque No 204391 dated 27.04.2004 for Rs.200000/- fav. SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-898 SBM Cheque No 204394 dated 29.04.2004 for Rs.50000/- fav. SELF issued by the Proprietor for. Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises.
Ex P-899 SBM Cheque No 204395 dated 29.04.2004 for Rs.32550/- fog. Yourself issued'by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-900 SBM Cheque No 204398 dated 29.04.2004 for Rs. 125000/- fog. self issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-901 SBM Cheque No 204411 dated 26.04.2004 for RST5000/- fav. HANUMANTHA issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises.
Ex P-902 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs. 3400/-
dated 29.04.2004 for 1% UPFRONT FEE SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs.3400/- Ex P-903 dated 29.04.2004 for 1% UPFRONT FEE Ex P-904 SBM Cheque No 204400 dated 30.04.2004 for Rs.500000/- fog. SELF issued by the 445 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises;
Ex P-905 SBM Cheque No 204418 dated 03.05.2004 for Rs.90000/- fog. SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-906 SBM Cheque No 204419 dated.03.05.2004 for Rs.75000/- fog. SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-907 SBM Cheque No 204431 dated 06.05.2004 for Rs.1400.00/- fog. SWARUP.V issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs.5200/- Ex P-908 dated 06.05.2004 for 1% UPFRONT FEE Ex P-909 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs.4800/-
dated 06.05.2004 for 1% UPFRONT FEE SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs.5800/- Ex P-910 dated 06.05.2004 for 1% UPFRONT FEE Ex P-911 SBM Cheque No 204416 dated 04.05.2004 for Rs.20000/- in favour of P SATYANARAYANA. issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises.
Ex P-912 SBM Cheque No 204426. dated 27.04.2004 for Rs.500000/-in favour of P&T Employees Co-operative Society issued'by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises.
Ex P-913 SBM Cheque No 204367 dated 06.04.2004 for Rs.50000/- fog. SELF issued by the Proprietor, for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-914 SBM Cheque No 204369 dated 8.04.2004 for Rs.25000/- fog. SELF issued by the 446 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-915 SBM Cheque No 203942 dated 11.03.2004 for Rs.20000/- fog. D.M. Shivanna. issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-916 SBM Cheque No 204434 dated 17.05.2004 for Rs.15000/- fog. SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-917 SBM Cheque No 204414 dated 1.05.2004 for Rs.100000/- fog. Andrew Sunderraj issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises SBM Cheque No 204436 dated 17.05.2004 Ex P-918 for Rs.300000/- fvg. SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-919 SBM Cheque No 204435 dated 17.05.2004 for Rs. 100030/- for Yourself issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-920 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs.5900/-
dated 17.05.2004 in respect of M/s Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises passed for 1% UPFRONT FEES Ex P-921 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs.6000/-
dated 17.05.2004 for 1% UPFRONT FEES Ex P-922 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs.6300/-
dated 17.05.2004 for 1% UPFRONT FEES Ex P-923 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs.5200/-
dated 17.05.2004 for 1% UPFRONT FEES Ex P-924 SBM Cheque No 204437 dated 18.05.2004 for Rs.150000/- fvg.
the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa 447 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 Enterprises Ex P-925 SBM Cheque No 204440 dated 19.05.20.04 for Rs.30000/- fvg. SWARUP.V issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-926 SBM Cheque No 204439 dated 19.05.2004 for Rs.27210/- fvg. YOUR SELVES issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-927 SBM Cheque No 204441 dated 19.05.2004 for Rs.200000/- fvg. SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-928 SBM Cheque No 204442 dated 20.05.2004 for Rs.100000/- fvg. SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises.
Ex P-929 SBM Cheque No 204438 dated 18.05.2004 for Rs.69654/- fvg. BAJAJ ALLIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-930 SBM Cheque No 204443 dated 22.05.2004 for Rs.500000/- fvg. SWARUP. V issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-931 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs.6000/-
dated 22.05.2004 for 1% UPFRONT FEES Ex P-932 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs.6000/-
dated 22.05.2004 for 1% UPFRONT FEES Ex P-933 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs.6000/-
dated 22.05.2004 for 1% UPFRONT FEES Ex P-934 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs.6100/-448 Spl.CC. No.41/2012
dated- 22.05.2004 for 1% UPFRONT FEES Ex P-935 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs.4950/-
dated 22.05.2004 for 1% UPFRONT FEES Ex P-936 SBM Cheque No 204449 dated 24.05.2004 for Rs.30000/- fvg. MOHAN issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs.190190/- Ex P-937 dated 24.05.2004 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs.6300/- Ex P-938 dated 24.05.2004 for 1% UPFRONT FEE SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs.5850/- Ex P-939 dated 24.05.2004 for 1% UPFRONT FEE Ex P-940 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs.4800/-
dated 24.05.2004 for 1% UPFRONT FEE Ex P-941 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs.6700/-
dated Nil for 1% UPFRONT FEE Ex P-942 SBM Cheque No 204450 dated 25.05.2004 for Rs.109800/- fvg. SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-943 SBM Cheque No 204393 dated 28,04.2004 for Rs.50000/- fvg. SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-944 SBM Cheque No 182427 dated 25.05.2004 for Rs. 100000/- fvg. SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-945 SBM Cheque No 182426 dated 25.05.2004 for Rs.200000/- fvg. BK CHANDRASHEKAR issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises 449 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 Ex P-946 SBM Cheque No 182428 dated 25.05.2004 for Rs.135120/- fvg. YOURSELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-947 SBM Cheque No 204430 dated 25.05.2004 for Rs.25000/- fvg. S MUKUNDHA RAO issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-948 SBM Cheque No 182430 dated 26.05.2004 for Rs.75000/- fvg. TO KOTT REDDY issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs.189183/- Ex P-949 dated 26.05.2004 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs.53205/- Ex P-950 dated 27.05.2004. (2 Sheets).
Ex P-951 SBM Cheque No 182431 dated 28.05.2004 for Rs.25000/- fvg. SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-952 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs.
15,01,500/- dated 28.05.2004 for favouring P&T Employees Co-operative Society.
Ex P-953 SBM Cheque No 182432 dated 29.05.2004 for Rs.100000/- fvg. SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-954 SBM Cheque No 182601 dated 31.05.2004 for Rs.225000/- fvg. SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-955 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs.4900/-
dated Nil for 1% UPFRONT FEE Ex P-956 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs.4900/-450 Spl.CC. No.41/2012
dated Nil for 1% UPFRONT FEE Ex P-957 SBM transfer debit voucher for. Rs.6950/-
dated Nil for 1% UPFRONT FEE Ex P-958 SBM Cheque No 182433 dated 02.06.2004 for Rs.400000/- in favour of SWARUP. V issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-959 SBM Cheque No 182434 dated 02.06.2004 for Rs.45045/- in favour of Yourself issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-960 SBM Cheque No 182436 dated 03.06.2004 for Rs.25000/- in favour of SWARUP.V issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-961 SBM Cheque No 182435 dated 03.06.2004 for Rs.310330/- fvg. Yourself issued by the. Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-962 SBM Cheque No 182429 dated 04.06.2004 for Rs.25000/- fvg. SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises.
Ex P-963 SBM Cheque No 204380 dated 13.04:2004 for Rs. 115000/- fvg. SELF issued by the Proprietor for SreeJ3alaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-964 SBM'Cheque No 182438 dated 05.06.2004 for Rs.150000/- fvg. Yourself issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-965 SBM Cheque No 182439 dated 08.06.2004 for Rs.300000/- fvg. SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-966 SBM Cheque No 182440 dated 08.06.2004 451 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 for Rs.25000/- fvg. SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-967 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs.4100/-
dated 08.06.2004 fot 1% UPFRONT FEE Ex P-968 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs.6250/-
dated 08.06.2004 for 1% UPFRONT FEE Ex P-969 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs.5400/-
dated 08.06.2004 for 1% UPFRONT FEE SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs.300000/- Ex P-970 dated 09.06.2004 for CP 91 RETD Ex P-971 SBM Cheque No 182437 dated 04.06.2004 for Rs.40000/- fvg. M ARVIND & CO. issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji. Krupa Enterprises Ex P-972 SBM Cheque No 182444 dated 10.06.2004 for Rs.60000/- fvg. SELF issued by the Proprietor for. Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-973 SBM Cheque No 182443 dated 11.06.2004 for Rs.10000/- fvg. PRASANTH issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-974 SBM Cheque No 182441 dated 11.06.2004 for Rs.1001000/- fvg. Yourself issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-975 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs.1215/-
dated 10.06.2004 in respect of Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises passed for CP 88 Ex P-976 SBM Cheque No 182442 dated. 12.06.2004 for for Rs.107000/- in favour of BP VENKATA MUNIYAPPA issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises 452 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 Ex P-977 SBM Cheque No 182602 dated 8.06.2004, for Rs.10200/- fvg. RAVIKUMAR.S issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-978 SBM Cheque No 182445 dated 16.06.2004 for Rs. 100000/- fvg. SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-979 SBM Cheque No 182446 dated 16.06.2004 for Rs.600000/- fvg. SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-980 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs.6000/-
dated 16.06.2004 for 1% UPFRONT FEES SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs.7800/- Ex P-981 dated 16.06.2004 for 1% UPFRONT FEES Ex P-982 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs.4250/-
dated 16.06.2004 for 1% UPFRONT FEES Ex P-983 SBM Cheque No 182447 dated 17.06.2004 for Rs.75000/- fvg. SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-984 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs.4250/-
dated 17.06.2004 for 1% UPFRONT FEES Ex P-985 SBM Cheque No 182448 dated 18.06.2004 for Rs.150000/- fvg. SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-986 SBM Cheque No 182449 dated 18.06.2004 for Rs. 100000/- fvg. SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-987 SBM Cheque No 182450 dated 22.06.2004 for Rs.300000/- fvg. Self issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises 453 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 Ex P-988 SBM Cheque No 182604 dated 24.06.2004 for Rs.50000/- fvg. SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-989 SBM Cheque No 182605 dated 24.06.2004 for Rs.50000/- fvg. SRINIVASA REDDY issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-990 SBM transfer debit voucher, for Rs.8150/-
dated 25.06.2004 for 1% UPFRONT FEES Ex P-991 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs.4850/-
dated 25.06.2004 for l°/o UPFRONT FEES Ex P-992 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs.6000/-
dated 25.06.2004 for 1% UPFRONT FEES Ex P-993 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs.5300/-
dated 25.06.2004 for 1%. UPFRONT FEES Ex P-994 SBM Cheque No. 366174 dated 17.06.2004 for Rs.500000/- for SWARUP. V issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-995 SBM Cheque No 182626 dated 26.06.2004 for Rs.600000/- fvg. SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-996 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs.6000/-
dated 25.06.2004 for 1% UPFRONT FEES Ex P-997 SBM Cheque No 182603 dated 24.06.2004 for Rs.50000/- for AKILA BHARATH SREE VASAVI PENAGONDA TRUST issued by the Proprietor for Srfee Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-998 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs.500000/-
dated 30.06.2004 for CP 123 RETD 454 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 Ex P-999 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs.2775/-
dated 30.06.2004 for CP 123 RETD Ex P-1000 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs.34710/-
dated 01.07.2004 for ECS-DR /0119/04 Ex P-1001 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs.3750/-
dated 01.07.2004 of M/s Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises passed TO TL UDYA KUMAR Ex P-1002 SBM Cheque No 182627 dated 03.07.2004 for for Rs.42042/- in favour of Yourself issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1003 SBM Cheque No 182606 dated 05.07.2004 for Rs. 100000/- in favour of SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1004 SBM Cheque No 182628 dated 06.07.2004 for Rs.5000/- in favour of TO SRI D HARM ASH ASTA AYYAPPA TEMPLE TRUST Ex P-1005 SBM Cheque No 182610 dated 08.07.2004 for Rs.50000/- in favour of SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1006 SBM Cheque No 182611 dated 10.07.2004 for Rs.300000/- in favour of SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1007 SBM Cheque No 182836 dated 10.07.2004 for' Rs.200000/- in favour of SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1008 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs.5250/-455 Spl.CC. No.41/2012
dated 12.07.2004 for 1% UPFRONT FEES Ex P-1009 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs.6100/-
dated 12.05.2004 for 1% UPFRONT FEES Ex P-1010 SBM Cheque No 182609 dated 13.07.2004 for for Rs.500000/- in favour of SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1011 SBM Cheque No 182629 dated 15.07.2004 for for Rs.200000/- in favour of SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1012 SBM Cheque. No 182630 dated 19.07.2004 for for Rs.200000/- in favour of. SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1013 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs.4800/-
dated 23.07.2004 for 1% UPFRONT FEES Ex P-1014 SBM Cheque No 182613 dated-23.07.2004 for Rs.25000/- fvg. SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1015 SBM Cheque No 182631 dated 23.07.2004 for Rs.250000/- fvg. BK CHANDRASHEKAR issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji'Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1016 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs.4700/-
dated 23.07.2004 - 1% UPFRONT FEES Ex P-1017 SBM Cheque No 182614 dated 28.07.2004 for Rs,200000/-. in favour of SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1018 SBM Cheque No 182616 dated 29.07:2004 456 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 for Rs.200000/- fvg. KOTI REDDY issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1019 SBM Cheque No 182608 dated 13.07.2004 for Rs.500000/- fvg. SELF issued by. the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs.6000/- Ex P-1020 dated NIL for 1% UPFRONT FEES SBM transfer debit voucher for' Rs.5000/- Ex P-1021 dated Nil for 1% UPFRONT FEES SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs.5000/- Ex P-1022 dated Nil for 1% UPFRONT FEES Ex P-1023 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs.6000/-
dated 29.07.2004 for 1% UPFRONT FEES Ex P-1024 SBM Cheque No 182617 dated 30.07.2004 for Rs.50000/- fvg. SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree- Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1025 SBM Cheque No 182618 dated 30.07.2004 for Rs.50000/- fvg. SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1026 SBM Cheque No 182615 dated 29.07.2004 for Rs.50000/- for NAMMURA HOTEL PVT LTD. issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises.
Ex P-1027 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs.34710/-
dated 02.08.2004 for ECS DR/0141/04 Ex P-1028 SBM Cheque No 182619 dated.02.08.2004 for Rs.50000/- fvg. SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1029 SBM Cheque No 182633 dated 04.08.2004 457 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 for Rs. 100000/- fvg. SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1030 SBM Cheque No 182621 dated 06.08.2004 for Rs. l25000/-for SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1031 SBM Cheque No 182632 dated 7.08.2004 for Rs.5400/- fvg. KRISHNA REDDY issued by the-Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1032 SBM Cheque No 182620 dated 3.08.2004 for Rs.10000/- fvg. SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1033 SBM Cheque No 182636 dated 09.08.2004 for Rs.50000/- for SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1034 SBM Cheque No 182622 dated 13.08.2004 for Rs.200000/- fvg. SWARUP. V issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1035 SBM Cheque No 182623 dated 14.08.2004 for Rs.300000/- fvg. SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1036 SBM Cheque No 182635 dated 14.08.2004 for Rs.200000/- fvg. SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1037 SBM Cheque No 182624 dated 16.08.2004 for Rs.550000/- fvg. SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1038 SBM Cheque No 182625 dated 21.08.2004 for Rs.150000/- fvg. SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises 458 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 Ex P-1039 SBM Cheque No 182637 dated 26.08.2004 for Rs. 100000/- fvg. SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1040 SBM Cheque No 364252 dated 31,08.2004 for Rs.215500/- fvg. SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1041 SBM Cheque No 364253 dated 31.08.2004 for Rs.100000/- fvg. SELF issued toy the Proprietor for Sree Baiaii Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1042 SBM Cheque No 364256 dated 01.09.2004 for Rs.100000/- fvg. SELF issued toy the Proprietor for Sree Baiaii Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1043 SBM Cheque No 182634 dated 09.08.2004 for Rs.150000/- fvg. SELF issued toy the Proprietor for Sree Baiaii Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1044 SBM Cheque No 182639 dated 15.09,2004 for Rs.560000/- fvg SELF issued by tbie Proprietor for Sree Baiaii Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1045 SBM Cheque No 182653 dated 17.09.2004 for Rs.280000/- fvg SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Baiaii Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1046 SBM Cheque No 182654 dated 17.09.2004 for for Rs. 100000/- in favour of SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Baiaii Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1047 SBM Cheque No 182655 dated 20.09.2004 for Rs.341875/- fvg SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1048 SBM Cheque No 182659 dated 27.09.2004 for Rs.300000/- fvg SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Baiaii Krupa Enterprises 459 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 Ex P-1049 SBM Cheque No 182660 dated 28.09.2004 for Rs.417000/-fvg SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Baiaii Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1050 SBM Cheque No 364268 dated 28.09.2004 for for Rs.400000/- in favour of SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Baiaii Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1051 SBM Cheque No 182662 dated 28.09.2004 for Rs. l00000/-fvg SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Baiaii Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1052 SBM Cheque No 182664 dated 05.10.2004 for Rs.75000/-fvg SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Baiaii Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1053 SBM Cheque No 182665 dated 05.1O.2004;
for Rs.200000/- fvg SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Baiaii Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1054 SBM Cheque No 182666 dated 06.9.2004 for Rs.300000/-fvg SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Baiaii Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1055 SBM Cheque No 182667 dated 09.10.2004 for Rs.300000/- fvg SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1056 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs.34710/-
dated 9.10.2004 in respect of Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises passed for ICICI EMI SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs.350000/- Ex P-1057 dated 12.10.2004 for CP 306 RETD Ex P-1058 SBM Cheque No 182668 dated 14.10.2004 for Rs.25000/- fvg SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1059 SBM Cheque No 182669 dated 14.10.2004 460 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 for Rs. l00000/-fvg SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1060 SBM Cheque No 182671 dated 15.10.2004 for Rs.35000/-fvg SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1061 SBM Cheque No 182670 dated 15.10.2004 for Rs.20000/- fvg SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1062 SBM Cheque No 365402 dated 16.10.2004 for Rs.100000/- fvg SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1063 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs.350000/-
dated 18.10.2004 for Clq chq retd Ex P-1064 SBM Cheque No 365401 dated 18.10.2004 for Rs.340000/- fvg SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1065 SBM Cheque No 365403 dated 18,10.2004 for Rs. 105000/- fvg SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1066 SBM Cheque No 182674 dated 15.10.2004 for Rs.13000/- for SREE SECURITY Services issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1067 SBM Cheque No 182673 dated 15.10.2004 for Rs.22000/- for GLOBEL AGENCIES INDIA issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1068 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs.200000/-
dated 20.10.2004 to S N KRISHNAIAH SHETTY Ex P-1069 SBM Cheque No 365404 dated 20.10.2004 461 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 for Rs.300000/- fvg SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1070 SBM Cheque No 365405 dated 21.10.2004 for Rs.200000/- fvg SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1071 SBM Cheque' No 365406 dated 21.10.2004 for Rs.100000/- fvg SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1072 SBM Cheque No 365407 dated 25.10.2004 for Rs.25000/- fvg SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1073 SBM Cheque No 365415 dated 26.10.2004 for Rs. 150000/- fvg SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1074 SBM Cheque No 365410 dated 26.10.2004 for Rs.8600/- fvg P A KRISHNA REDDY issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1075 SBM Cheque No 365408 dated 26.10.2004 for Rs.250000/- fvg B.K. CHANDRASHEKAR issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1076 SBM Cheque No 182641 dated 30.10.2004 for Rs. 100000/- fvg SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1077 SBM Cheque No 182642 dated 29.10.2004 for Rs. 100000/- for SUNDRESH & CO issued by. the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1078 SBM Cheque No 365418 dated 01.11.2004 for Rs.15000/- fvg SELF issued by the 462 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1079 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs.34710/-
dated 02.11.2004 for ICICI EMI- ECS DEBIT Ex P-1080 SBM Cheque No 183301 dated 02.11.2004 for Rs.30000/- in favour of SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1081 SBM Cheque No 183302 dated 02.11.2004 for Rs.200000/- in favour of SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1082 SBM Cheque No 183303 dated 03.11.2004 for Rs.25000/- in favour of PRESIDENT, SHREE MARUTI SEVA TRUST, B.M. HALLY Ex P-1083 SBM Cheque No 364286 dated 06.11.2004 for for Rs.200000/- in favour of SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1084 SBM Cheque No. 183305 dated 09.11.2004 for for Rs.200000/- in favour of SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1085 SBM Cheque. No 183304 dated 09.11.2004 for for Rs.147240/- in favour of YOURSELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1086 SBM Cheque No 183307 dated 10.11.2004 for Rs.l25000/-.for BHAGYA LAKSHMI CONSTRUCTIONS issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1087 SBM Cheque No 364288 dated 10.11.2004 (Loose Leaf Issued) for Rs.225000/- in 463 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 favour of SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1088 SBM Cheque No 183311 dated 12.11.2004 for Rs.100000/- fvg SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1089 SBM Cheque No 183310 dated 12.11.2004 for Rs.30060/-.fvg YOURSELF (DD on Bangalore FvgJustice S. Venkatraman issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1090 SBM Cheque No 183306 dated 10.11.2004 for Rs.50000/- for RAMMURTHY & SRIRAJ issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1091 SBM Cheque No 183309 dated 12.11.2004 for Rs.45000/- for SRINIVAS KARANTH issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1092 SBM Cheque No 183313 dated 16.11.2004 for Rs.150000/- fvg SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises ' Ex P-1093 SBM Cheque No 365414 dated 26.10.2004.
for Rs. 1450300/- fvg SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1094 SBM Cheque No 365419 dated 18.11.2004 for Rs.40000/- fvg SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa. Enterprises Ex P-1095 SBM Cheque No .183315 dated 18.11.2004 for Rs.470000/- fvg SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1096 SBM Cheque No 365413 dated 18.11.2004 for Rs.628000/-fvg SELF issued by the 464 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1097 SBM Cheque No 365420 dated 19.11.2004 for Rs.50000/- fvg SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs.15000/- Ex P-1098 dated 19.11.2004 for OA favouring SBM, Bnqalore Zone.
Ex P-1099 SBM Cheque No 183317 dated 20.11.2004 for Rs.18360/- fvg GLOBAL AGENCIES INDIA issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1100 SBM Cheque No 183326 dated 20.11.2004 for Rs.100000/- fvg SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1101 SBM Cheque No 183327 dated 20.11.2004 for Rs.250000/- fvg B K CHANDRASHEKAR REDDY issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1102 SBM Cheque No 183318 -dated 22.11.2004 for Rs.6400/- fvg GARUDA ALLIED FORCES issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1103 SBM Cheque No 183316 dated 22.11.2004 for Rs.14400/- fvg SHREE SECURITY SERVICES issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1104 SBM Cheque No 183328 dated 23.11.2004 for Rs.50000/- fvg SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1105 SBM Cheque No 183329 dated 24.11.2004 for Rs.6600/- for PA KRISHNAREDDY issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji 465 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1106 SBM Cheque No 183331 dated 25.11.2004 for Rs. 113000/-fvg SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1107 SBM Cheque No 364293 dated 25.11.2004 for Rs.286769/- fvg Yourself (Pay order on Bangalore Fvg. SBM) Ex P-1108 SBM Cheque No 364295 dated 26.12.2004 for Rs.50000/- in favour of SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1109 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs.400000/-
dated 29.11.2004 for CP 356/CLG RETND Ex P-1110 SBM Cheque No 183314 dated 16.11.2004 for Rs.8000/- for PRINCIPAL JSS ATE, BANGALORE Ex P-1111 SBM Cheque No 365422 dated 01.12.2004 for Rs. 175000/- fvg SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1112 SBM Cheque No 365423 dated NIL for Rs.25000/- fvg CHOKKIREDDY issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1113 SBM Cheque No 183319 dated 27.11.2004 for Rs.75000/- fvg SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1114 SBM Cheque No 183322 dated 02.12.2004 for Rs.6600/- fvg KRISHNAMURTHY. Issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1115 SBM Cheque No 183323 dated 02.12.2004 466 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 for Rs. 12000/- for P A KRISHNA REDDY issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1116 SBM Cheque No 183334 dated 04.12.2004 for Rs. 175000/- fvg SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1117 SBM Cheque No 183336 dated 08.12.2004 for Rs.180000/- fvg SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1118 SBM Cheque No 183324 dated 09.12.2004 for Rs.15000/- for PUKRAJ issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1119 SBM Cheque No 183339 dated 09.12.2004 for Rs.460000/ fvg SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1120 SBM Cheque No 183338 dated 09.12.2004 for Rs.410000/- fvg SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1121 SBM Cheque No 365412 dated 09.12.2004 for Rs.1372000/-fvg SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1122 SBM Cheque No 365411 dated 09.12.2004 for Rs.300000/- fvg SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1123 SBM Cheque No 183325 dated 10.12.2004 for Rs. 100000/- in favour of BHAGYA LAKSHMI CONSTRUCTIONS issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1124 SBM Cheque No 365426 dated 11.12.2004 for Rs.75000/- in favour of SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa 467 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 Enterprises Ex P-1125 SBM Cheque No 183341 dated 13.12.2004 for Rs.6600/- fvg KRISHNAMURTHY issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1126 SBM Cheque No 183335 dated 7,12.2004 for Rs.200000/- fvg SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1127 SBM Cheque No 182661 dated 10.12.2004 for Rs.5030/-fvg Yourself (DD on Bangalore Fvg. The Commissioner, BMP) issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises.
Ex P-1128 SBM Cheque No 183340 dated 13.12.2004 for Rs.10200/- for P A KRISHNAREDDY issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises.
Ex P-1129 SBM. transfer debit voucher for Rs.51400/-
dated 15.12.2004 issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1130 SBM Cheque No 182643 dated 4.11.2004 for Rs.150000/- fvg SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1131 SBM Cheque No 183342 dated 16.12.2004 for Rs.50000/- fvg SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1132 SBM Cheque No 182645 dated 18.12.2004 for-Rs. 125000/- in favour of SRIRAJ AND RAMAMURTHY issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1133 SBM Cheque No 183343 dated 22.12.2004 for Rs.200000/- fvg SELF issued by the 468 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1134 SBM Cheque l^o 182644 dated 18.12.2004 for Rs.70000/- fvg SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1135 SBM Cheque No 183344 dated 23.12.2004 for Rs.50000/- fvg SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1136 SBM Cheque No 183345 dated 24.12.2004 for Rs.150000/- fvg SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1137 SBM Cheque No 183346 dated 27.12.2004 for Rs.25000/- fvg SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1138 SBM Cheque No 183347 dated 29.12.2004 for for Rs.50000/- in favour of SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1139 SBM Cheque No 183348 dated 29.12.2004 for Rs.153255/- fvg Yourself issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs.20000/- Ex P-1140 dated 30.12.2004 Ex P-1141 SBM Cheque No 365427 dated. 30.12.2004 for Rs,6600/- for KRISHNAMURHTY issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1142 SBM Cheque.No 365429 dated. 30.12.2004 for Rs.100000/- fvg SELF Ex P-1143 SBM Cheque No 364297 dated 30.12.2004 for Rs.9000/- for P A KRISHNAREDDY issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji 469 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 Krupa Enterprises SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs.34710/- Ex P-1144 dated NIL for ECS DT ICICI EMI Ex P-1145 SBM Cheque No 365432 dated 01.01.2005 for Rs. 1103000/- fvg SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1146 SBM Cheque No 365433 dated 10.01.2005 for Rs.280000/- in favour of SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1147 SBM Cheque No 182656 dated 11.01.2005 for Rs. 100000/- fvg SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises.
Ex P-1148 SBM Cheque No 365436 dated 12.01.2005 for Rs.560000/- fvg SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1149 SBM Cheque No 365435 dated 12.01.2005 for Rs.100000/- fvg SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1150 SBM Cheque No 182607 dated 15.01.2005 for Rs.200000/- in favour of SELF issued by the Proprietor for SFee Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1151 SBM Cheque No 365437 dated 15.01.2005 for Rs.l00000/-fvg SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1152 SBM Cheque No 365438 dated 17.01.2005 for Rs.905000/- fvg SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1153 SBM Cheque No 183349 dated 18.01.2005 for Rs.225000/- fvg SELF issued by the 470 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1154 SBM Cheque No 183350 dated-19.01.2005 for Rs.300414/- fvg Yourselves issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1155 SBM Cheque No 369962 dated 19.01.2005 for Rs.100000/- tvg SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1156 Xerox copy of SBM Cheque No 365441 dated 20.01.2005 for Rs.60000/- fvg s VELUTHAM issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1157 SBM Cheque No 365416 dated 05.11.04 for Rs.500000/- fvg Ambabai K.Patel. issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs.591709/-
Ex P-1158 dated 20.1.05.
Ex P-1159 SBM Cheque No 365448 dated 24.01.2005 for Rs.700965/- fvg SELF, issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1160 SBM Cheque No 365449 dated 24.01.2005 for Rs.50000/- fvg SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1161 SBM Cheque No 365439 dated 20.01.2005 for Rs.729000/- fvg SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1162 SBM Cheque No 204421 dated 27.01.2005 for Rs.200000/-fvg SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1163 SBM Cheque No 365450 dated 29.01.2005 for Rs.90000/- for SELF issued by the 471 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1164 SBM.Cheque No 182647 dated 31.01.2005 for for Rs.500000/- in favour of SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1165 SBM Cheque No 182649 dated 01.02.2005 for Rs.400000/- fvg SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises .
Ex P-1166 SBM Cheque No 182650 dated 03.01.2005 for Rs.700000/- fvg SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1167 SBM Cheque No 365421 dated 01.12.2004 for Rs.500000/- fvg SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1168 SBM Cheque No 204424 dated 04^02.2005 for Rs.75000/- fvq SEl-F Ex P-1169 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs.500000/-
dated 07.02.2005 for CLG CP 471 RETD SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs. 1477/- Ex P-1170 dated 05.02.2005 for CP 443 Ex P-1171 SBM Cheque No 184627 dated 16.02.2005 for Rs,100080/-fvg SELF issued by the Proprietor for'Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1172 SBM Cheque No 184629 dated 07.02.2005 for Rs.200000/-.fvg SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1173 SBM Cheque No 184631 dated 18.02.2005 for Rs.100000/- in favour of SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji 472 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1174 SBM Cheque No 184630 dated 18.02.2005 for Rs.22200/- in favour of P.A- KRISHNA REDDY issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1175 SBM Cheque No .184632 dated 22.02.2005 for Rs.100000/- fvg SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1176 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs.500000/-
dated 10.02.2005 for CP 463 RETD Ex P-1177 SBM Cheque No 183332 dated 03.12.2004 for Rs.50P00/- fvg SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1178 SBM Cheque No 184635 dated 01.03.2005 for Rs. 100000/- fvg B K CHENDRASHEKAR REDDY issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1179 SBM Cheque No 185403 dated 09.03.2005 for Rs.400000/- fvg SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1180 SBM Cheque No 185404 dated 12.03.2005 for Rs. 145000/- fvg SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1181 SBM Cheque No 185405 dated 15.03.2005 for Rs. 100000/- fvg SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1182 SBM Cheque No 185402 dated 12.03.2005 for Rs.220168/- fvg SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1183 SBM Cheque No 185407 dated 17.03.2005 for Rs.47815/- fvg Yourself issued by the 473 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1184 SBM Cheque No 185408 dated 18.03.2005 for Rs.350000/- in favour of SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1185 SBM Cheque No 185409 dated 19.03.2005 for Rs. 100000/- fvg SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1186 SBM Cheque No 185411 dated 23.03.2005 for Rs.200000/- in favour of SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1187 SBM Cheque No 185401 dated 23.03.2005 for Rs.1094600/- in favour of SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1188 SBM Cheque No 185413 dated 24J03.2005 for Rs. 50000/- in favour of SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises .
Ex P-1189 SBM Cheque No 185414 dated 29.03.2005 for Rs.25000/- in favour of SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1190 SBM transfer debit Voucher for Rs,25000/-
dt.31/3/05, Credit voucher dated 31.03.2005 for Rs.10,000/- and dt.31/3/05 for Rs.15.000/- credited to Venkatmuniyappa and Girish A/c. (3 Slips). Ex P-1191 SBM Cheque No 185412 dated 23.03.2005 for Rs.520000/- in favour of SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa 474 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 Enterprises Ex P-1192 SBM transfer debit voucher for. Rs.96000/-
dated 07.04.2005 for VARIOUS H L A/C Ex P-1193 SBM Cheque No 185415 dated 08.04.2005 for Rs.50000/- in favour of SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1194 SBM Cheque No 204425 dated 11.04.2005 for Rs. 150000/- in favour of SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1195 SBM Cheque No 184636 dated 15.04.2005 for Rs.500000/- in favour of SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1196 SBM Cheque No 184637 dated 15.04.2005 for Rs.25000/- in favour of SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1197 SBM Cheque No 185416 dated 19.04.2005 for Rs.5400/- in favour of P A KRISHNA REDDY issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1198 SBM Cheque No 185417 dated 21.04.2005 for Rs.100000/- in favour of SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprise's.
Ex P-1199 SBM Cheque No 185419 dated 22.04.2005 for Rs.75000/- in favour of SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1200 SBM Cheque. No 185420 dated 25.04.2005 475 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 for Rs. 150000/- in favour of SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1201 SBM Cheque No 184638 dated 26.04.2005 for Rs.200000/- in favour of SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs.34710/- Ex P-1202 dated 02.05.2005 for ECS - ICICI EMI Ex P-1203 SBM Cheque No 184639 dated 09.05.2005 for Rs. 100000/- in favour, of SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1204 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs.200000/-
dated 10.05.2005 for DDP 823 RETURNED Ex P-1205 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs.2000/-
dated 10.05.2005 for CP 823 RETURN CHGS.
Ex P-1206 SBM. Cheque No 184640 dated 16.05.2005 for Rs.150000/- in favour of SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1207 SBM Cheque No 185422 dated 31.05.2005 for Rs.300000/- fvg SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1208 SBM Cheque No 185421 dated 27.05.2005 for Rs,300000A fvg SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1209 SBM Cheque No 365445 dated 10.02.2005 for Rs.200000/- in favour of AMBABHAI K PATEL issued by the Proprietor for Sree 476 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1210 SBM Cheque No 184642 dated 27.06.2005 for Rs. 150000/- in favour of SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1211 SBM Cheque No 184643 dated 01.07.2005 for Rs.500000/- in favour of SELF issued by the Proprietor for- Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1212 SBM Cheque No 184644 dated 05.07.2005 for Rs.200000/- in favour of SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1213 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs. 10030/-
dated 07.07.2005 for DDP 2182 RETURN CHARGES Ex P-1214 SBM Cheque No 184646 dated 13.08.2005 for Rs.75000/- fvg SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1215 SBM Cheque No 184647 dated 17.08.2005 for Rs.330000/- in favour of SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1216 SBM Cheque No 184648 dated 18.08.2005 for Rs. 100000/- in favour of SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises.
Ex P-1217 SBM Cheque No 187252 dated 18.08.2005 for Rs.76000/- in favour of Yourself issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1218 SBM Cheque No 184650 dated 18.08.2005 477 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 for Rs. 100000/- in favour of SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1219 SBM Cheque No 187253 dated 23.08.2005 for Rs.226,000/- in favour of SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1220 SBM Cheque No 185423 dated 23.08.2005 for Rs.400,000/- in favour of SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1221 SBM Cheque No 185424 dated 25.08.2005 for Rs.100,000/- in favour of SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1222 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs,500000/-
dated 30.08.2005 for clearing cheque returned.
Ex P-1223 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs.500000/-
dated 02.69.2005 for clearing cheque returned.
Ex P-1224 SBM Cheque No 375501 dated 10.09.2005 for Rs.100000/- in favour of SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1225 SBM Cheque No 187254 dated 05.09.2005 for Rs.25000/- in favour of SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1226 SBM Cheque No 375502 dated 20.09:2005 for Rs.100000/- in favour of SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa 478 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 Enterprises Ex P-1227 SBM Cheque No 187256 dated 28.09.2005 for Rs.330000/- in favour of SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1228 SBM Cheque No 187255 dated 28.09.2005 for Rs.201089/- in favour of SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs. 10000/- Ex P-1229 dated 01.10.2005 for D/L A/C SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs. 1470/- Ex P-1230 dated 18.10.2005 for DDP 2469 Ex P-1231 SBM Cheque No 187258 dated 28.10.2005 for Rs. 15000/- in favour of SEL issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1232 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs.86000/-
dated 9.11.2005 for Loan A/c. D. Narayana. Ex P-1233 SBM Cheque No 187257 dated 7.11.2005 for Rs.15000/- in favour of The Principal, JSSATE issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1234 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs.
116000/- dated 14.11.2005 for Various Loan Accounts.
Ex P-1235 SBM Cheque No 375504 dated 16.11.2005 for Rs.14000/- in favour of Yourself issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1236 SBM Cheque No 375505 dated 26.11.2005 479 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 for Rs.106399/- in favour of SEL issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1237 SBM Cheque No 187259 dated 28.11.2005 for Rs.65000/- in favour of SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1238 SBM Cheque No 375506 dated 13.12.2005 for Rs.500000/- in favour of SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises.
Ex P-1239 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs.34710/-
dated 02.01.2006 for DEBIT ENTRY OF SUSPENSE ON 1.10.2004 REVERSED.
Ex P-1240 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs.16000/-
dated 05.01.2006 for T/L NO. 54001130415
- VENKATAMUNIAPPA Ex P-1241 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs.71050/-
dated 18.01.2006 for VARIOUS LOAN ACCOUNTS Ex P-1242 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs.30000/-
dated 18.01.2006 for T/L NO.
54001130936- HANUMAPPA REDDY Ex P-1243 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs. 16000/-
dated 16.02.2006 for T/L NO. 54001130415
- VENKATAMUNIAPPA Ex P-1244 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs.30510/-
dated 28.03.2006 for T/L NO. 54001128054
- S N KRISHNAYYA SHETTY Ex P-1245 SBM Cheque No 375508 dated 27.03.2006 for. Rs.252600/- in favour of SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa 480 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 Enterprises Ex P-1246 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs.6610/-
dated 21.04.2006 passed for HOUSING LOAN ACCOUNTS 54001131442 & 54001131453 Ex P-1247 SBM Cheque No 365446 dated 12.05.2006 for Rs.200000/-. in favour of AMBABHAI K- PATELiSsued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1248 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs.5000/-
dated 31.05.2006 in respect of Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises passed TOWARDS loan A/c. 54001130379 S.N. KRISHNAIAH SHETTY Ex P-1249 SBM Cheque No 375509 dated 8.06.2006 for Rs.66000/- in favour of THE COMMISSIONER, BMP issued by the' Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1250 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs.5051/-
dated 4.07.2006 Ex P-1251 SBM Cheque No 375510 dated 4.07.2006 for Rs. 15,00,000/- in favour of SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs. 1500/- Ex P-1252 dated 4.07.2006 Ex P-1253 SBM Cheque No 185425 dated 6.07.2006 for Rs.100000/- in favour of SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1254 SBM Cheque No 375511 dated 6.07.2006 for Rs.200000/- in favour of SELF issued by the 481 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1255 SBM Cheque No 375512 dated 7.07.2006 for Rs.700000/- in favour of SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1256 SBM Cheque No 375513 dated 12.07.2006 for Rs.9500000/- in favour of SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1257 SBM transfer debit voucher for.Rs.9500/-
dated 12.07.2006 Ex P-1258 SBM Cheque No. 375515 for Rs.398137/-
dated 12.07.2006 fvg, yourself issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1259 SBM Cheque No. 375516 for Rs.495550/-
dated 19.08.2006, for Metlife Insurance Co. Pvt Ltd. issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1260 SBM Cheque No. 375517 for Rs. 100000/-
dated 25.08.2006 fvg. Akhila Bharatha Sri Vasali Penugonda Trust, issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1261 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs.2914108/- dated 02.08.2006 passed for various HL A/c.
Ex P-1262 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs.40000/-
dated 4.9.2006 passed for B.P. Venkata muniyappa. 54001130415.
Ex P-1263 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs.65000/-
dated 4.9.2006 Ex P-1264 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs.414167/- 482 Spl.CC. No.41/2012
dated 4.9.2006 Ex P-1265 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs.9000/-
dated 12.9.2006 Ex P-1266 SBM Cheque No 375519 dated 5.09.2006 for Rs.100000/- in favour of AKHILA BHARATH SRI VASAVSI PERUGONDA TRUST issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises.
Ex P-1267 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs.34,29,704/- dated 14.09.2006 passed for VARIOUS LOAN ACOUNTS.
Ex P-1268 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs. 13,000/-
dated 29.09.2006 passed AGAINST 64000207996 Ex P-1269 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs.9,000/-
dated 29.09.2006 passed AGAINST A/C. OF B.P. VENKETA MUNIAPPA Ex P-1270 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs.84,72,305/- dated 22.12.2006 passed AGAINST 21 LOAN ACCOUNTS Ex P-1271 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs.2042544/-dated. 01.01.2007 Ex P-1272 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs.3765528/- dated 10.01.2007 for VARIOUS A/C Ex P-1273 SBM Cheque No 375521 dated 10.01.2007 for Rs.3765528/-- in favour of SELF issued by.the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1274 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs.371760/-
dated 22.01.2007 passed for HBL A/C NO 483 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 54001132559 Ex P-1275 SBM Cheque No 187266 dated 25.01.2007 for Rs.6253262/- in favour of Yourselves issued, by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises.
Ex P-1276 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs.34710/-
dated 01.02,2007 for ECS - ICICI Ex P-1277 SBM Cheque No 375522 dated 05.02.2007 for Rs.4534259/- in favour of SELF issued, by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1278 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs.4535/-
dated 06.02.2007 for BCCT- CASH TRANSACTION TAX Ex P-1279 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs.34710/-
dated 01.03.2007 for ECS -- ICICI Ex P-1280 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs.14000/-
dated 01.03.2007 AGAINST LOAN A/CNO 54001130379 Ex P-1281 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs.349270/-
dated 06.03.2007 for AVARIOUS LOAN ACCOUNTS.
Ex P-1282 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs.359996/-
dated 06.03.2007.
Ex P-1283 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs.
1959450/- dated 07.03.2007 for DEBIT TO VAROIUS LOANS Ex P-1284 SBM Cheque No 375524 dated 14.03.2007 for Rs. 11835185/- in favour of SELF issued by the Proprietor for Sree Balaji Krupa 484 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 Enterprises Ex P-1285 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs.36000/-
dated 14.03.2007 AGAINST A/C NO.54001132638 Ex P-1286 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs.795150/-
dated 29.03.2007 AGAINST LOAN ACCOUNTS.
SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs.50000/- Ex P-1287 dated 30.03.2007 Ex P-1288 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs.34710/-
dated 03.04.2007 for ECS - ICICI BANK SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs.24610/- Ex P-1289 dated 07.04.2007 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs.862938/- Ex P-1290 dated 09.04.2007.
Ex P-1291 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs.34710/-
dated 02.05.2007 in respect of 54001115352 Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Passed for ECS -- ICICI Ex P-1292 SBM transfer debit voucher for Rs.34710/-
dated 01.06.2007 passed for ECS - ICICI BANK Ex P-1293 Chit dt. dt.30.6.08 mentioning 20 borrowers names thereon with the amount mentioned against each name which totals to Rs.77,95,468/- and signed by Sh Swarup V. (Attached to SBM cheque No.375540 dt.30.6.08 for Rs.77,95468/- drawn on " pay yourself'9 Ex P-1294 Chit containing loan a/c details for closure mentioning 7 borrowers names thereon with 485 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 the amount mentioned against each name which totals, to Rs.24,46,889/- and signed by Sh Swarup. (Attached to SBM cheque No.375541 dt.7.7.08 for Rs.24,46,889/-) Ex P-1295 Letter dt.10.01.07 signed by Sh Es.En.Krisshnaiah Setty, Proprietor, Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises addressed to Chief Manager, SBM, Gandhi Nagar enclosing list of 8 borrowers names their account numbers and loan amount to be closed. Credit Vouchers (collectively marked) Ex P-1296 SBM Cash /Transfer Voucher dated 11.08.03 for credit of Rs. 1000/- in CA No.010500055005 of Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1297 - account opening form along with KYC document of PW57 Ex P-1298 - 18 cheques are collectively marked Ex P-1299- 7 vouchers are collectively marked Ex P-1300 - the statement of account of PW57 Ex.P.1301 - letter dated 20.01.2009 Ex.P.1301(a) - signature of PW61 Ex P-1302 - valuation report pertaining to Malathahalli project of Sy. No.58/4 Ex P-1302(a)- signature of PW63 on the certificate Ex P-1303 - another valuation report pertaining to Sampigehalli,Yalahanka, Bengaluru Ex P-1303(a) - signature of PW63 486 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 Ex P-1304 -valuation report pertaining to Sy. No.50 of Kuduregere village Ex P-1304(a) - signature of PW63 Ex P-1305 to Ex P-1309- documents pertaining to the application filed under Sec.294 of Cr.P.C., on 18.03.2024. Hence, the documents are marked with consent as follows:
Ex P- 67 LOAN VOUCHERS (HEGGANAHALLI 1305 Project) Collectively marked as D-1240 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 03.11.04 for Rs. 330000/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan bearing a/c no. 0159C005643 of Smt. M.KAMALA KANNAN D-1241 SBM Credit Challan dated (date not clear) for Rs. 1,200/- by way of cash credited into the account No. 54001132876 of Smt. M. Kamala Kannan.
D-1242 SBM Credit Challan dated 28.09.05 for Rs.
661/- by way of cash credited into the account No. 54001132876 of Smt. M. Kamala Kannan.
D-1243 SBM Credit Challan dated 28.11.05 for Rs.
600/- by way of cash credited to account No. 54001132876 of Smt. M. Kamala Kannan.
D-1244 SBM Transfer Credit Challan dated 07.03.07 for Rs. 33000/- by way of transfer credited to account No. 54001132876 of Smt. M. Kamala Kannan.
D-1245 SBM Credit Challan dated 14.03.07 for Rs.
374356/- by way of cash credited to account No. 54001132876 of Smt. M. Kamala Kannan.
D-1246 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 03.11.04 for Rs. 290000/- pertaining to the debit of 487 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 housing loan bearing a/c no. 01590005653 of Sh. MALLAIAH H .
D-1247 SBM Credit Challan dated 28.09.05 for Rs.
1625/- by way of cash credited to account No. 54001132912 of Sh. H. Malaviah.
D-1248 SBM Credit Challan dated 28.11.05 for Rs.
1500/- by way of cash credited to account No. 54001132912 of Sh. H. Malaviah D-1249 SBM Credit Challan dated 07.03.07 for Rs.
21000/- by way of transfer credited to account No. 54001132912 of Sh. H. Mailaiah.
D.-1250 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 03.11.04 for Rs. 290000/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan bearing a/c no. 0159C005654 of Sh. SUBASH .
D-1251 SBM Credit Challan dated 24.03.05 for Rs.
1000/- by way of cash credited into the account No. 54001132923 of Sh. Subhash.
D-1252 SBM Credit Challan dated 28.09.05 for Rs.
625/- by way of cash credited to account No. 54001132923 of Sh. Subhash.
D-1253 SBM Credit Challan dated 28.11.05 for Rs.
600/- by way of cash credited to account No. 54001132923 of Sh. Subhash.
D-1254 SBM Transfer Credit Challan dated 07.03.07 for Rs. 22000/- by way of transfer credited to account No. 54001132923 of Sh. Subhash.
D-1282 SBM Credit Challan dated 28.11.05 for Rs.
600/- by way of cash credited to account No. 54001133132 of Shri B.N. Venkatesh Reddy.
D-1283 SBM Credit Challan dated 07.03.07 for Rs.
21000/- by way of transfer credited to 488 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 account No. 54001132990 of Shri B.N. Venkatesh Reddy.
D-1285 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 07.12.04 for Rs. 290000/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan bearinq a/c no. 0159C005683 of Shri NAGENDRA.
D-1286 SBM Credit Challan dated (date not clear) for Rs. 1200/- by way of cash credited to account No. 54001133143 of Shri NAGENDRA. .
D-1288 SBM Credit Challan dated 28.11.05 for Rs.
600/- by way of cash credited to account No. 54001133143 of Shri NAGENDRA.
D-1289 SBM Credit Challan dated 07.03.07 for Rs.
24000/- by way of transfer credited to account No. 54001133143 of Shri NAGENDRA.
D-1290 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 07.12.04 for Rs. 290000/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan bearing a/c no. 0159C005811 of Shri FAKRUBI S. D-1291 SBM Credit Challan (date not clear) for Rs.
1000/- by way of cash credited to account No. 54001133982 of Shri FAKRUBI S. D-1292 SBM Credit Challan dated 28.11.05 for Rs.
663/- by way of cash credited to account No,.54001133982 of Shri FAKRUBI S. D-1293 SBM Credit Challan dated 28.09.05 for Rs.
663/- by way of cash credited to account No. 54001133982 of Shri FAKRUBI S. D-1294 SBM Credit Challan dated 07.03.07 for Rs.
20000/- by way of transfer credited to account No. 54001133982 of Shri FAKRUBI 489 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 S. D-1295 SBM Credit Challan dated 14.03.07 for Rs 344913/- by way of cash credited to account No. 54001133982 of Shri FAKRUBI S. D-1296 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 07.12.04 for Rs. 300000/- pertaining to the debit of housinq loan bearinq a/c no. 0159C005814 of Shri NAGARAJ P.G D-1297 SBM Credit Challan dated 07.03.07 for Rs.
19000/- by way of transfer credited to account No. 54001134012 of Shri NAGARAJ P.G. D-1298 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 07.12.04 for Rs. 300000/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan bearing a/c no. 0159C005815 of Shri RANGARAJU S D-1299 SBM Credit Challan dated 07.03.07 for Rs.
21000/- by way of transfer credited to account No. 54001134023 of Shri RANGARAJU S. D-1306 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 08.11.04 for. Rs. 330000/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan bearing a/c no. 0159C005730 of Shri SOMASHEKAR. towards release of housing term loan.
D-1307 SBM Credit Challan dated 07.03.07 for Rs.
26000/- by way of transfer credited to account No. 54001133405 of Shri Somasekhar.
D-1310 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 08.11.04 for Rs. 290000/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan bearing a/c no. 0159C005731 of Sh. SYED ISAIQH 490 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 D-1311 SBM Credit Challan dated 07.03.07 for Rs.
19000/- by way of transfer credited to account No. 54001133416 of Sh. SYED ISAIQH.
D-1312 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 07.12.04 for Rs. 300000/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan bearing a/c no. 0159C005810 of Shri BASAVARAJU .
D-1313 SBM Credit Challan dated 07.03.07 for Rs.
21000/- by way of transfer credited to account No. 54001133971 of Shri. Basavaraju.
D-1302 SBM transfer debt of Rs.33000/-
D-1314 SBM Credit Challan dated 14.03.07 for Rs.
356305/- by way of cash credited to account No. 54001133971 of Shri. Basavaraju.
D-1315 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 07.12.04 for Rs. 290000/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan bearing a/c no. 0159C005812 of Shri. NANDA KUMAR R. D-1316 SBM Credit Challan dated 24.08.06 for Rs.
41567/- by way of transfer credited to account No. 54001133993 of Shri. NANDA KUMAR R. D-1317 SBM Credit Challan dated 07.03.07 for Rs.
24000/- by way of transfer credited to account No. 54001133993 of Shri. NANDA KUMAR R. D-1318 SBM Credit Challan dated 14.03.07 for Rs.
341558/- by way of Cash credited to account No.54001133993 of Shri. NANDA KUMAR R .491 Spl.CC. No.41/2012
D-1319 SBM transfer debit voucher dated Nil for Rs.
280000/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan bearing a/c no. 0159C005618 of SHIVAMALLAIAH.
D-1320 SBM Credit Challan dated 07.03.07 for Rs.
27000/- by way of transfer credited to account No. -54001132661 of Sh. SHIVAMALLAIAH.
D-1321 SBM Credit Challan dated 14.03.07 for Rs.
324271/- by way of cash credited to account No. 54001132661 of Sh. SHIVAMALLAIAH.
D-1322 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 08.12.04 for Rs. 290000/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan bearing a/c no. 0159C005818 of Shri HANUMANTHARAYAPPA D-1323 SBM Credit Challan dated 07.03.07 for Rs.
14000/- by way of transfer credited to account No. 54001134045 of Shri HANUMANTHARAYAPPA.
D-1326 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 14,10.04 for Rs. 280000/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan bearing a/c no. 0159C005614 of Shri.SURESH RAO SHELKEY D-1327 SBM Credit Challan dated 07.03.07 for Rs.
27000/- by way of transfer credited to account No. 54001132627 of Shri.SURESH RAO SHELKEY D-1328 SBM Credit Challan dated 14.03.07 for Rs.
323723/- by way of cash credited to account No. 54001132627 of Shri.SURESH RAO SHELKEY D-1329 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 14.10.04 for Rs. 280000/- pertaining to the debit of 492 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 housing loan bearing a/c no. 0159C005616 of Shri CHANNARAYAPPA.
D-1330 SBM Credit Challan dated 07.03.07 of Rs.
27000/- by way of transfer credited to account No. 54001132649 of Shri CHANNARAYAPPA.
D-1331 SBM Credit Challan dated 14.03.07 for Rs.
323840/- by way of cash credited to account No. 54001132649 of Shri CHANNARAYAPPA D-1332 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 14.10.04 for Rs. 280000/- pertaining to the debit of housinq loan bearinq a/c no. 0159C005620 of Shri SRINIVASAN G. D-1334 SBM Credit Challan dated 14.03.07 for Rs.
315049/- by' way of cash credited to account No. 54001132638 of Shri Subbarama Shetty.
D-1335 SBM Credit Challan dated 14.03.07 for Rs.
36000/- by way of transfer credited to account of Shri Subbarama Shetty by M/s. Balaji Kripa D-1337 SBM transfer debit voucher date not clear for Rs. 260000/- pertaining to the debit of housinq loan bearinq a/c. no. 0159C005645 of Shri KRISHNAPPA M..
D-1339 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 08.11.04 for Rs. 290000/- pertaining to the debit of housinq loan bearinq a/c no. 0159C005660 of Shri MOHAMMED ASLAM D-1340 SBM Credit Challan dated 07.03.07 for Rs.
20000/- by way of transfer credited to account No. 54001132978 of Shri MOHAMMED ASLAM.
D-1341 SBM Credit Challan dated 14.03.07 for Rs.493 Spl.CC. No.41/2012
336962/- by way of cash credited to account No. 54001132978 of Shri MOHAMMED ASLAM.
D-1342 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 18.11.04 for Rs. 298150/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan bearing a/c no. 0159C005670 of Shri. D.K. LOKESH towards release of housing term. loan.
D-1343 SBM Credit Challan dated 07.03.07 for Rs.
20000/- by way of transfer credited to account No. 54001133063 Shri. D.K. LOKESH.
D-1344 SBM Credit Challan dated 14.03.07 for Rs.
347092/- by way of cash credited to account No. 54001133063 Shri. D.K. LOKESH.
D-1345 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 08.12.04 for Rs. 300000/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan bearing a/c no. 0159C005813 of Shri. JAMEELUDDIN towards release of housing term loan.
D-1346 SBM Credit Challan dated 07.03.07 for Rs.
17000/- by way of transfer credited to account No^ 54001134001 of Sh. K.H. Jamaluddin.
D-1347 SBM Credit Challan dated 14.03.07 for Rs.
360603/- by way of cash credited to account No. 54001134001 of Shri Jamaluddin;
Ex P- 100 debit vouchers of Sampanahalli Projects 1306 collectively marked as D-1348 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 23.03.04 for Rs. 300000/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan bearing a/c no. 0159C005389 of Shri. PADMARAJ C. 494 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 D-1349 SBM Credit Challan dated 06.03.07 for Rs.
359996/- by way of transfer credited to account No. 54001131747 of Shri. PADMARAJ C. D-1350 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 06.04.04 for Rs. 340000/- pertaining to the debit of housinq loan bearing a/c no. 0159C005409 of Shri IRFANULLA KHAN D-1351 SBM Credit Challan dated 14.09.06 for Rs.
3429704/- by way of transfer credited to account No. 54001131816 of Shri IRFANULLA KHAN. (This challan contains details of HBL accounts of variosu borrowers, mentioned overleaf) D-1352 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 06.05.04 for Rs. 350000/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan bearing a/c no. 0159C005445 of Shri GOPALA RENUKA towards release of housing term loan.
D-1353 SBM Credit Challan dated 08.06.05 for Rs.
10000/- by way of cash credited to account No. 54001132106 of Shri H.Gopal Renuka.
D-1354 SBM Credit Challan dated 23.08.05 for Rs.
10000/- by way of cash credited to account No. 54001132106 of Shri H.Gopal Renuka.
D-1355 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 05.11.03, for Rs. 220000/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan bearing a/c no. 0159C005217 of Smt. JANAKI R. towards release of housing term loan.
D-1356 Xerox copy of SBM transfer debit voucher dated 08.11.03 for Rs. 31470/-
D-1357 SBM Credit Challan dated 30.03.07 for Rs.495 Spl.CC. No.41/2012
15000/- by way of cash credited to account No. 54001131168 of Smt. JANAKI R. D-1366 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 29.11.03 for Rs. 2500/- pertaining to the debit of housinq loan bearinq a/c no. 0159C005206 of Shri GURLAHOSSUR G.C. .
D-1367 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 13.12.03 for Rs. 75000/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan bearing a/c no. 0159C005206 of Shri GURLAHOSSUR G.C. D-1368 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 04.03.04 for Rs. 23500/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan bearing a/c no. 0159C005206 of Shri GURLAHOSSUR G.C. D-1369 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 13.02.04 for Rs. 280000/- pertaining to the debit of housinq loan bearing a/c no. 0159C005334 of Shri CHOWRAPPA RAJU D-1372 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 07.11.03 for Rs. 200000/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan bearing a/c no. 0159C005222 of Shri RAMANJANEYALU K. D-1373 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 08.11.03 for Rs. 31,470/-
D-1374 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 04.10.04.for Rs. 50000/- pertaining to the debit of housinq loan bearinq a/c no.
0159C005222 of Shri RAMANJANEYALU K. D-1375 SBM Credit Challan dated 29.03.07 for Rs.
43000/- by way of transfer credited to account No. 54001131204 of Shri RAMANJANEYALU K. D-1376 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 07.11.03 496 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 for Rs. 175000/- pertaining to the debit of housinq loan bearing a/c no. 0159C005218 of Shri RANGASWAMY Xerox copy of SBM transfer debit voucher D-1377 dated 08.11.03 for Rs. 31470/- D-1378 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 29.01.04 for Rs. 300000/- pertaining to the debit of housinq loan a/c of S.NAGARAJ, SYAMASUNDAR 8i SITAKALA D-1379 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 02.11.04 for Rs, 50000/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan bearing a/c no. 0159C005309 of S.NAGARAJ, SYAMASUNDAR &. SITAKALA D-1380 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 10.1.05 for Rs. 125000/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan bearing a/c no. 0159C005309 of S.NAGARAJ .
D-1381 SBM Credit Challan dated 30.01.06 for Rs.
10000/- by way ofcash credited to account No. 54001131419 of Shri Naqaraj . S D-1382 SBM Credit Challan dated 02.05.06 for Rs.
15000/- by way of cash credited to account No. 54001131419 of Shri Naqaraj . S D-1383 SBM Credit Challan dated 29.03.07 for Rs.
715899/- by way of transfer credited to account No. 54001131419 of Shri Naqaraj . S D-1384 SBM voucher dated 23.01.04 for Rs.
250000/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan bearing a/c no. 0159C005307 of Shri CHIKKANNA K.C. D-1385 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 23.01.04 for Rs. 3750/- pertaining to the debit of 497 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 housinq loan a/c of shri CHIKKANNA K.C. D-1386 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 30.03.04 for Rs. 125000/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan bearing a/c no. 0159C005307 of shri CHIKKANNA K.C. D-1387 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 13.02.04 for Rs. 300000/- pertaining to the debit of housinq loan bearing a/c no. 0159C005335 of Shri LAKSHMAN J.A. D-1388 SBM Credit Challan dated'24.08.06 for Rs.
66062/- by way of transfer credited to account No. 54001131486 of Sh. LAKSHMAN J.A. D-1389 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 23.03.04 for Rs. 300000/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan bearing a/c no. 0159C005388 of Sh. JOHN CELVIN. towards release of housinq term loan.
D-1390 SBM transfer debit voucher dated Nil for Rs.
350000/- pertaining to the debit of housinq loan a/c of HANUMANTHAIAH B.M. D-1391 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 22.04.04 for Rs. 300000/- pertaining to the debit of housinq loan a/c of SUSHELAMMA G.S. D-1392 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 24.04.04 for Rs. 180000/- pertaining to the debit of housinq loan bearing a/c no. 0159C005435 of Shri RAMACHANDRA P D-1393 SBM Credit Challan dated 08.11.06 for Rs.
209698/- by way of transfer credited to account No. 54001132037 of Shri. P. Ramachandra.
D-1394 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 06.04.04 498 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 for Rs. 300000/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan bearing a/c no. 0159C005413 of Shri KRISHNAPPA T. D-1395 SBM Credit Challan dated 02.09.06 for Rs.
345533/- by way of transfer credited to account No. 54001131849 of Shri. Krishnappa. T D-1396 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 08.09.04 for Rs. 120000/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan bearing a/c no. 0159C005460 of Shri VISHWANATHA GUPTA K.L. D-1397 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 08.09.04 for Rs. 130000/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan bearing a/c no. 0159C005460 of Shri VISHWANATHA GUPTA K.L. D-1398 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 08.09.04 for Rs. 115000/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan bearing a/c no. 0159C005460 of Shri VISHWANATHA GUPTA K.L. D-1399 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 08.09.04 for Rs. 7000/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan bearing a/c no. 0159C005460 of Shri VISHWANATHA GUPTA K.L. D-1400 SBM Credit Challan dated 06.06.06 for Rs.
100000/- by way of transfer credited to account No.54001132184 of Shri VISHWANATHA GUPTA K.L. D-1403 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 26.02.04 for Rs. 300000/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan bearing a/c no. 0159C005354 of Shri KESVAN V. D-1404 SBM Credit Challan dated 29.03.07 for Rs.
60000/- by way of transfer credited to 499 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 account No. 54001131555 of Shri KESVAN V. D-1405 SBM Credit Challan dated 30.1.08 for Rs.
330648/- by way of cash credited to account No. 54001131555 of Shri KESVAN.
D-1406 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 24.03.04 for Rs. 300000/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan bearing a/c of Shri DILIP SIMPSON towards release of housinq term loan.
D-1407 SBM Credit Challan dated 29.03.07 for Rs.
37000/- by way of transfer credited to account No. 54001131758 of Shri DILIP SIMPSON D-1409 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 06.12.03 for Rs. 300000/- pertaining to the debit of housinq loan bearing a/c no. 0159C0Q5244 of shri LAKSHMAIAH .
D-1412 SBM transfer debit voucher dated Nil for Rs.
370000/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan account of Shri YUSUF KHAN M. D-1413 SBM Credit Challan dated 04.09.06 for Rs.
414167/- by way of transfer credited to account of Shri Yousuf khan. M D-1414 SBM transfer debit.voucher dated. Nil for Rs.
370000/- pertaining to the debit of housing, loan account of Shri HARISH G. D-1415 SBM Credit Challan dated Nik for Rs. 10000/-
by way of cash credited to account No. 01541005406 of Shri Harish. G D-1416 SBM Credit. Challan dated 08.06.05 for Rs.
15000/- by way ofcash credited to account No. 54001131781 of Shri Harish . G 500 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 D-1417 SBM Credit Challan dated 23.08.05 for Rs.
15000/- by way of cash credited to account No. 54001131781 of Shri Harish. G D-1418 SBM Credit Challan dated 02.09.06 for. Rs.
424681/- by way of transfer credited to account No. 54001131781 of Shri Harish. G. D-1419 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 07.04.04 for Rs. 340000/- pertaining to the debit of housinq loan account of RAVI M. D-1420 SBM Credit Challan dated 02.09.06 for Rs.
382082/- by way' of transfer credited to account No. 54001131872;
D-1421 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 06.04.04 for Rs. 270000/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan bearing a/c no. 0159C005414 of Shri RAGHU M. D-1422 SBM Credit Challan dated 08;06.05 for Rs.
10000/- by way of cash credited, to account No. 54001131850 of Shri Raqhu D-1423 SBM Credit Challan dated 23.08.05 for Rs.
10000/- by way of Cash credited to account No.'54001131850 of Shri Raghu D-1424 SBM 'Credit Challan dated 02.09.06 for Rs.
293963/- by way of transfer credited to account No. 54001131850 of-Shri Raqhu M D-1425 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 07.04.04 for Rs., 300000/- pertaining to the debit of housinq loan account of Shri SESHACHALLA S. D-1426 SBM Credit Challan dated 02.09.06 for Rs.
332051/- byway of transfer credited to account No. 54001131883 Shri 501 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 SESHACHALLA S. D-1427 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 12.04.04 for Rs. 320000/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan account of Shri MUNIRAJU G. D-1428 Xerox copy'of SBM Credit Challan dated 14.09.06 for Rs. 3429704/- by way of transfer credited to account No. 54001131861 of Shri MUNIRAJU G. D-1429 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 17.04.04 for Rs. 350000/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan account of Shri SHIVAMURTHY N. D-1430 Xerox copy of SBM Credit Challan dated 14.09.06 for Rs. 3429704/- by way of transfer credited to account No. 54001131996 of Shri SHIVAMURTHY N..
D-1431 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 10.04.04 for Rs. 320000/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan account of Shri MOHAMMED REHAMATULLA -
D-1432 SBM Credit Challan dated 02.09.06 for Rs.
352515/- by way of transfer credited to account No. 54001131894 of Shri MOHAMMED REHAMATULLA.
D-1433 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 16.04.04 for Rs. 300000/- pertaining to the debit of housinq loan account of Shri MALLIKARJUNA MUNNEI D-1434 SBM Credit Challan dated 08.06.05 for Rs.
10000/- by way of cash credited to account No. 54001131985 of Shri MALLIKARJUNA.MUNNEI D-1435 SBM Credit Challan dated Nil for Rs. 10000/- 502 Spl.CC. No.41/2012
by way of cash credited to account No. 54001131985 of Shri MALLIKARJUNA MUNNEI D-1436 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 19.04.04 for Rs. 350000/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan bearing a/c no. 0159C005433 of Shri BABU towards release of housinq term loan.
D-1437 SBM Credit Challan dated 08.06.05 for Rs.
13000/- by way of cash credited to account No. 54001132015 of Babu.
D-1438 SBM Credit. Challan dated Nil for Rs. 13000/-
by way of cash credited to account No. 54001132015 Of Shri Babu.
D-1439 Xerox copy of SBM Credit Challan dated 14.09.06 for Rs. 3429704/- by way of transfer credited to account No. 54001132015 of Shri Babu.
D-1440 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 13.02.04 for Rs. 250000/-. pertaining to the debit of housing loan bearing a/c no. 0159C005333 of Shri N. NAMI RAJ SBM Credit Challan dated 25.03.06 for Rs. D-1441 25000/- by way of cash credited to account No. 54001131464 of Shri N. NAMI RAJ D-1442 SBM Credit Challan dated 02.05.06 for Rs.
15000/- by way of cash credited to account No. 54001131464 of Shri N. NAMI RAJ D-1443 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 07.04.04, for Rs. 370000/- pertaining to tine debit of housinq loan bearing a/c no. 0159C005240 of Shri A. HARRY BAI 503 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 D-1444 SBM Credit Challan dated 23.08.05 for Rs.
10000/- by way of cash credited to account No. 54001131259 of Shri N. NAMI RAJ D-1445 SBM. transfer debit voucher dated 19.04.04 for Rs. 300000/- pertaining to tine debit of housinq loan bearinq a/c no. 0159C005432 of Shri ABDUL MAJID D-1446 SBM transfer debit voucher dated Nil for Rs.
300000/- pertaining to the debit of housinq loan bearinq a/c of Shri G. SHIVAPPA D-1447 SBM Credit Challan dated 08.06.05 for Rs.
10000/- by way of cash credited to account No. 54001131918 of Shri G. SHIVAPPA. D-1448 SBM Credit Challan dated Nil for Rs. 10000/-
by way of cash credited to account No. 5400113.1918 of Shri G. SHIVAPPA D-1449 SBM transfer debit voucher dated Nil for Rs.
300000/- pertaining to the debit of housinq loan bearinq a/c no. 0159C005428 of Smt. S. USHA .
D-1450 Xerox copy of SBM Credit Challan dated 14.09.06, of Rs. 3429704/- by way of transfer credited to account No. 54001131974 of Smt. S. Usha.
D-1451 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 07.04.04 for Rs. 300000/- pertaining to tf~ie debit of housing loan bearing a/c no. 0159C005142 of Shri RAJU C D-1452 SBM Credit Challan dated 18.01.06 for Rs.
12500/- by way of transfer from M/s. Balaji Kripa & credited to account No. 54001131838 of Shri Raju. C D-1453 SBM Credit Challan dated 18.12.06 for Rs. 504 Spl.CC. No.41/2012
10000/- by way of cash credited to account No. 54001131838 of Shri Raju.
D-1454 SBM transfer debit voucher dated Nil for Rs» 340000/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan bearinq a/c no. 0159C005426 of Shri FAKHIR GOUD G. SHIVANNA D-1455 Xerox copy of SBM Credit Challan dated 14.09.06 for Rs. 3429704/- by way of transfer credited to account No. 54001131952 of Shri FAKHIR GOUD G.SHIVANNA... . .
D-1456 SBM Credit Challan dated 02.09.Q6 for Rs.
405701/- by way of transfer credited to account No. 54001131792 of Shri MUKARAM ALI BAIG .
D-1457 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 10.04.04 for Rs. 340000/- pertaining to tfie debit of housing loan bearinq a/c no. 0159C005421 of Shri ANWAR PASHA D-1458 SBM Credit Challan dated 08.06.05 for Rs.
10000/- by way of cash credited to account No. 54001131907 of Shri Anwar Pasha. D-1459 SBM Credit Challan dated 23.08.05 for Rs.
1000Q/- by way of cash credited to account No. 54001131907 of Shri Anwar Pasha. D-1460 SBM Credit Challan dated 02.09.06 for Rs.
377582/- by way of transfer credited to account No. 54001131907 of Shri Anwar Pasha 505 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 D-1461 SBM transfer debit voucher dated Nil for Rs.
340000/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan account of Shri M. RAMAKRISHNAN D-1462 Xerox copy of SBM Credit Challan dated 1,4.09.06 for Rs. 3429704/- by way of transfer credited to account No. 54001131941 of Shri M. RAMAKRISHNAN Ex P- 128 vouchers of Mallathahalli Project 1307 collectively marked as D-1463 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 13.01.05 for Rs. 8000/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan bearing a/c no. 0159C005879 of Smt. SAIRA BHANU D-1464 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 13.01.05 for Rs. 410000/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan bearing a/c no. 0159.C005879 of Smt. SAIRA BHANU D-1465 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 13.0r.05, for Rs. 18080/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan bearing a/c no. 0159C005879 of Smt. SAIRA BHANU D-1466 SBM Credit Challan dated 18.12.06 for Rs.
15000/- by way ofcash credited to account No. 54001134501 of Smt.SAIRA BHANU D-1467 Xerox copy of SBM Credit Challan dated 22.12.06 for Rs. 8472305/- by way of transfer credited to account No. 54001134501 of Smt. SAIRA BHANU.
D-1468 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 13.01.05 for Rs. 410000/- pertaining to the debit of housinq loan bearinq a/c no. 0159C005877 of Shri. RAJU D-1469 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 13,01.05 506 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 for Rs. 8125/- .pertaining-to the debit of housinq loan bearinq a/c no. 0159C005877 of Shri RAJU D-1470 SBM transfer debit-voucher dated 13.01.05 for Rs. 18080/- pertaining to the debit of housinq loan, bearinq a/c no. 0159C005877 of Shri RAJU.
D-1471 SBM Credit Challan dated 18.12.06 for Rs.
10000/- by way of cash credited to account No. 54001134498 of Shri. RAJU .' D-1472 SBM Credit Challan dated 14.03.07 for Rs.
530930/- by way of transfer credited to account No. 54001134498 of Shri. RAJU. D-1473 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 13.01.05 for Rs. 8000/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan bearinq a/c no. 0159C005886 of Shri VENKATARAMAIAH T.V.
D-1474 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 13.01.05 for Rs. 410000/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan bearing a/c no. 0159C005886 of Shri VENKATARAMAIAH T.V.
D-1475 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 13.01.05 for Rs. 18080/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan bearinq a/c no. 0159C005886 of Shri VENKATARAMAIAH T.V.
D-1476 SBM Credit Challan dated 18.12.06 for Rs.
10000/- by way of cash credited to account No. 54001134545 of Shri VENKATARAMAIAH T.V.
D-1477 Xerox copy of SBM Credit Challan dated 22.12.06 for Rs. 8472305/- by way of transfer credited to account No. 54001134545 of Shri VENKATARAMAIAH T.V.
507 Spl.CC. No.41/2012D-1478 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 17.01.05 for Rs. 410000/- pertaining to the debit.of housing loan .bearinq a/c no. 0159C005865 of Shri NAGARAJU K..
D-1479 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 17.01.05 for Rs. 8000/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan bearing a/c no; 0159C005865 of Shri NAGARAJU K..
D-1480 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 17.01.05 for Rs. 20080/- pertaining to the debit of housinq loan bearinq. a/c no. 0159C005865 of Shri NAGARAJU K, D-1481 SBM Credit Challan dated 18.12.06 for Rs.
10000/- by way of cash credited to account No. 54001134409 of Shri K. Naqaraju. D-1482 SBM Credit Challan dated 14.03.07 for Rs.
546320/- by way of transfer credited to account No. 54001134409 of Shri K. Naqaraju.
D-1483 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 23.02.05 for Rs. 360000/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan bearing a/c no. 0159C005963 of.Shri KRISHNAPPA M. D-1484 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 23.02.05 for Rs. 8250/- pertaining to the debit of housinq loan bearing.a/c no. 0159C005963 of Shri KRISHNAPPA M. D-1485 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 23.02.05 for Rs. 20080/- pertaining to the debit of housinq loan bearing a/c no. 0159C005963 of Shri KRISHNAPPA M. D-1486 SBM Credit Challan dated 18.12.06 for Rs.
10000/- by way of cash credited to account 508 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 No. 54001135061 of Shri KRISHNAPPA M. D-1487 SBM Credit Challan dated 27.01.07 for Rs.
489198 by way of transfer credited to account No. 54001135061 of M.Krishnappa D-1488 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 18.01.05 for Rs. 400000/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan bearing a/c no. 0159C005866 of Shri VENKATESH M D-1489 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 18.01.05 for Rs. 8000/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan bearing a/c ho. 0159C005866 of Shri VENKATESH M towards release of housinq term loan.
D-1490 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 18.01.05 for Rs. 20080/- pertaining to the debit of* housing loan bearing a/c of Shri VENKATESH M towards release of housing term loan. D-1491 SBM Credit Challan dated 18.12.06 for Rs.
10000/- by way of cash credited to account No. 54001134410 - VENKATESH M. D-1492 SBM Credit Challan dated 27.01.07 for Rs.
529535/- by way of transfer credited to account No. 54001134410 of M.Venkatesh. D-1493 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 18.01.05 for Rs. 410000/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan bearing a/c no. 0159C005867 of Shri DAYANANDA M. D-1494 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 18.01.05 for Rs. 8000/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan bearing a/c no. 0159C005867 of Shri DAYANANDA M towards release of housinq term loan.
D-1495 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 18.01.05 509 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 for Rs. 20080/- pertaining to the debit of housinq loan bearinq a/c no. 0159C005867 of Shri DAYANANDA M. D-1496 SBM Credit Challan dated 18.12.06 for Rs.
10000/- by way of cash credited to account No. 54001134421 - DAYANANDA M. D-1499 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 10.02.05 for Rs. 360000/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan bearing a/c no. 0159C005935 of Shri VIJAYAKUMAR.
D-1500 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 10.02.05 for Rs. 8000/- pertaining to the debit of housinq loan bearinq a/c no. 0159C005935 of Shri VIJAYAKUMAR D-1501 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 10.02.05 for Rs. 20080/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan bearing a/c no. 0159C005935 of Shri VUAYAKUMAR.
D-1505 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 10.02.05 for Rs. 360000/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan bearing a/c no. 0159C005936 of Shri RAVISHANKAR N. D-1506 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 10.02.05 for Rs. 8000/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan bearing a/c no. 0159C005936 of Shri RAVISHANKAR N..
D-1507 SBM transfer debit voucher dated Nil for Rs.
2OO80/- pertaining to the debit of housinq loan bearinq a/c no. 0159C005936 of Shri RAVISHANKAR N. D-1508 SBM Credit Challan dated 18.12.06 for Rs.
10000/- by way of cash credited to account No. 54001134908 - Shri RAVISHANKAR N. 510 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 D-1509 Xerox copy of SBM Credit Challan dated-
22.12.06 for Rs. 8472305/- by way of transfer credited to account No. 54001134908. D-1510 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 18.02.05 for Rs. 340000/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan bearing a/c no. 0159C005971 of Shri BALAKRISHNAN M.R..
D-1511 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 18.02.05 for Rs. 8000/- pertaining to the debit of housinq loan bearing a/c no. 0159C005971 of Shri BALAKRISHNAN M.R. D-1512 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 18.02.05 for Rs. 20080/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan bearinq a/c no. 0159C005971 of Shri BALAKRISHNAN M.R. D-1513 SBM Credit Challan dated 18.12.06 for Rs.
10000/- by way of cash credited to account No. 54001135118 deposited by NAME NOT IDENTIFIED.
D-1514 Xerox copy of SBM Credit Challan dated 22.12.06 for Rs. 8472305/- by way of transfer credited to account No. 54001135118. D-1515 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 23.02.05 for Rs. 360000/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan account of Shri VASANTH KUMAR K.P. D-1516 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 23.02.05 for Rs. 8000/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan bearing a/c no. 0159C005973 of Shri VASANTH KUMAR K.P. D-1517 SBM transfer debit°voucher dated 23.02.05 for Rs. 20080/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan bearing a/c no. 0159C005973 of 511 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 Shri VASANTH KUMAR K.P. D-1518 SBM Credit Challan dated 27.01.07 for Rs.
500568/- by way of transfer credited to account No. 54001135130 Vasantha Kumar K.P D-1519 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 13.01.05 for Rs. 410000/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan bearing a/c no. 0159C005889 of Shri VENKATANARAYANA N.S. D-1520 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 13.01.05 for Rs. 8000/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan bearing a/c no. 0159C005889 of Shri VENKATANARAYANA N.S..
D-1521 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 13.01.05 for Rs. 18080/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan bearing a/c no. 0159C005889 of Shri VENKATANARAYANA.
D-1522 SBM Credit Challan dated 18.12.06 for Rs.
10000/- by way of cash credited to account No. 54001134578- VENKATANARAYANA M.S. D-1523 Xerox copy of SBM Credit Challan dated .
22.12,06-for- Rs, 8472305/-. by way of transfer credited to account No. 54001134578.
D-1524. SBM transfer debit voucher, dated 13,01.05 for Rs. 410000/- pertaining to the debit of housinq loan bearing a/c no. 0159C005887 of Shri NAGARAJU.
D-1525 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 13.01.05 for Rs. 8000/- pertaining, to the debit of housing loan bearing a/c no. 0159C005887 of Shri NAGARAJU D-1526 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 13.01.05 512 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 for Rs. 18080/- pertaining to the debit of housinq loan bearing a/c no. 0159C005887 of Shri NAGARAJU.
D-1527 SBM Credit Challan dated 18,12.06 for Rs.
10000/- by way of cash credited to account No. 54001134556- Nagaraju.
D-1528 SBM Credit Challan dated 08.12.07 for Rs.
20000/- by way of cash credited to account No. 54001134556 - Nagaraju D-1532 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 18.02.05 for Rs. 340000/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan bearing a/c no. 0159C005972 of Shri ARASOJIRAO K.P. D-1533 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 18.02.05 for Rs. 8000/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan bearing a/c no. 0159C005972 of Shri ARASOJIRAO K.P..
D-1534 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 18.02.05 for Rs. 20080/- pertaining to the debit of housinq loan bearing a/c no. 0159C005972 of Shri ARASOJIRAO K.P..
D-1535 SBM Credit Challan dated 18.12.06 for Rs.
5000/- by way of cash credited to account No. 54001135129 of Shri ARASOJIRAO K.P. D-1536 SBM Credit Challan dated 27.01.07 for Rs.
4642Q7/- by way of transfer credited to account No. 54001135129-of Shri ARASOJIRAO K.P. D-1537 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 23.02.05 for Rs. 300000/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan bearing a/c no. 0159C005979 of Shri DANIKACHALAM V. D-1538 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 23.02.05 513 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 for Rs. 7250/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan bearing a/c nd. 0159C005979 of Shri DANIKACHALAM V..
p-1539 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 23.02.05 for Rs. 20080/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan bearing a/c no. 0159C005979 of Shri DANIKACHALAM V. D-1540 Xerox copy of SBM Credit Challan dated 22.12.06 for Rs. 8472305/- by way of transfer credited to account No. 54001135152. D-1541 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 18.12.04 for Rs.4,00,000/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan bearing a/c no. 0159C005830 of Shri SRIDHAR S. D-1542 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 18.12.04 for. Rs. 7125/- pertaining to the debit of housinq, loan bearinq a/c no. 0159C005830 of Shri SRIDHAR S. D-1543 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 18,12.04 for Rs. 18080/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan bearing a/C no. 0159C005830 of Shri SRIDHAR S. D-1544 SBM Credit Challan dated 18.12.06 for Rs.
10000/- by way of cash credited to account No. 54001134158 - Shri SRIDHAR S. D-1545 SBM Credit Challan dated 05.02.07 for Rs.
495817/- by way of transfer credited to account No. 54001134158.-Shri SRIDHAR S. D-1546 SBM'transfer debit voucher dated 18;12.04 for Rs. 350000/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan bearing a/c no. 0159C005831 of Shri SHEKAR M. D-1547 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 18.12.04 514 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 for Rs. 7125/- pertaining to the debit of housinq loan bearing a/c no, 0159C005831 of Shri SHEKAR M. D-1548 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 18.12.04 for Rs. 18080/- pertaining to the debit of housinq loan bearing a/c no. 0159C005831 of Shri SHEKAR M. D-1549 SBM Credit Challan dated 18.12.06 for Rs.
10000/- by way of cash credited to account No. 54001134169 of Shri SHEKAR M. D-1550 SBM Credit Challan dated 05.02.07 for Rs.
436611/- by way of transfer credited to account No. 54001134169 of Shri SHEKAR M. D-1551 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 18.12.04 for Rs. 350000/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan bearing a/c no. 0159C005832 of Shri A.EDWIfcl GEORGE..
D-1552 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 18.12.04 for Rs. 7125/- pertaining to the debit of housina loan bearinq a/c no. 0159C005832 of Shri EDWIN GEORGE.
D-1553 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 18.12.04 for Rs. 18080/- pertaining to the debit of housinq loan bearinq a/c no. 0159C005832 of Sh. A.EDWIN GEORGE.
D-1554 SBM Credit Challan dated 18.12.06 for Rs.
10000/- by way of cash credited to account No. 54001134170 of Sh. EDWIN GEORGE. D-1555 SBM Credit Challan dated 05.02.07 for Rs.
435696/- by way of cash credited to account No. 54001134170 of Sh. EDWIN GEORGE. D-1556 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 18.12.04 for Rs. 400000/- pertaining to the debit of 515 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 housing loan bearing a/c no. 0159C005833 of Shri MOHAMMED ZAKI AKMAL.
D-1557 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 18.12.04 for Rs. 7625/- pertaining to the debit of housinq loan bearinq a/c no. 0159C005833 of Shri MOHAMMED ZAKI D-1558 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 18.12.04 for Rs. 18080/- pertaining to the debit of housinq loan bearinq a/c no. 0159C005833 of Shri MOHAMMED ZAKI AKMAL.
D-155.9 SBM Credit Challan dated 18.12,06 for Rs.
10000/- by way of cash credited to account No. 54001134181 of Shri MOHAMMED ZAKI. D-1560 SBM Credit Challan dated 05.02.07 for. Rs.
495855/- by way of gash credited to account No. 54001134181 of Shri MOHAMMED ZAKI AHAMED.
D-1561 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 23.02.05 for Rs. 370000/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan bearing a/c no. 0159C005960 of Sh. SYED MOHAMMED SHARIFF.
D-1562 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 23.02.05 for Rs. 8500/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan bearing a/c no. 0159C005960 of Sh. SYED MOHAMMED SHARIFF.
D-1563 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 23.02.05 for Rs. 20080/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan bearing a/c no. 0159C005960 of Sh. SYED MOHAMMED SHARIFF.
D-1564 SBM Credit Challan dated 18.12.06 for Rs.
10000/- by way of cash credited to account No. 54001135049 of Sh. SYED MOHAMMED SHARIFF.
516 Spl.CC. No.41/2012D-1565 Xerox copy of SBM Credit Challan dated 10.01.07 for Rs. 3765528/- by way of transfercredited to account No. 54001135049 of Sh. SYED MOHAMMED SHARIFF.
D-1566. SBM transfer debit voucher dated 22.02.05 for Rs. 340000/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan bearinq a/c no. 0159C005952 of Shri R.RAKESH D-1567 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 23.02.05 for Rs. 8000/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan bearinq a/c no. 0159C005952 of Shri R.RAKESH D-1568 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 23.02.05 for Rs. 20080/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan bearinq a/c no.0159C005952 of Shri R.RAKESH D-1569 SBM Credit Challan dated 18.12.06 for Rs,.
10000/- by way of cash credited to account No. 54001134986 of Shri R.RAKESH . D-1570 Xerox copy of.SBM Credit Challan dated 22.12.06 for Rs. 8472305/- by way of transfer credited to account No. 54001134986. D-1571 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 23.02.05 for Rs. 340000/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan bearinq a/c no. 0159C005954 of Shri D.SRINIVASA D-1572 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 23.02.05 for Rs. 8000/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan bearing a/c no. 0159C005954 of D.SRINIVASA D-1573 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 23.02.05 for Rs. 20080/- pertaining'to the debit of housing loan bearing a/c no. 0159C005954 of 517 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 Shri D.SRINIVASA D-1574 SBM Credit Challan dated 18.12.06 for Rs.
10000/- by way of cash credited to account No. 540011350.05 of D.SRINIVASA. D-1575 SBM Credit Challan dated 05.02.07 for Rs.
424026/- by way of cash credited to account No. 54001135005 of Sh.D.SRINIVASA. D-1576 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 18.01.05 for Rs. 400000/- pertaining to the debit of MTL account of Shri JAMEED AHEMED. D-1577 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 18.01.05 for Rs. 7500/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan bearing a/c no. 0159C005907 of JAMEED AHEMED.
D-1578 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 18.01.05 for Rs. 20080/- pertaining to the debit of housinq loan bearinq a/c no. 0159C005907 of Shri JAMEED AHEMED D-1579 SBM Credit Challan dated 18.12.06 for Rs.
10000/- by way of cash credited to account No. 54001134715 of Sh.K.M. JAMEEL AHEMED D-1580 SBM Credit Challan dated 27.01.07 for Rs.
527846/- by way of cash credited to account No. 54001134715 of Sh. K.M JAMEEL AHEMED D-1581 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 18.12.04 for Rs. 350000/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan bearing a/c no. 0159C005829 of Shri M.K. PARAM ESH WARAIAH D-1582 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 18.12.04 for Rs. 7125/- pertaining to the debit of housinq loan bearing a/c no. 0159C005829 of 518 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 Shri M.K. PARAM ESH WARAIAH.
D-1583 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 18.12.04 for Rs. 18080/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan bearing a/c no. 0159C005829 of Shri M.K. PARAM ESH WARAIAH.
D-1584 SBM Credit Challan dated 18,12.06 for Rs.
10000/- by way of cash credited to account No. 54001134147 of Shri. PARAM ESH WARAIAH D-1585 SBM Credit Challan dated 05.02.07 for Rs.
438807/- by way of cash credited to account No. 54001134147 of Shri M;K. PARAMESHWARAIAH D-1586 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 18.02.05 for Rs. 340000/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan bearing a/c no. 0159C005956 of shri CHANDRASHEKAR D-1587 SBM transfer <^ebit voucher dated 18.02.05 for Rs. 20080/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan bearinq a/c no. 0159C005956 of Shri CHANDRASHEKAR D-1588 SBM transfer debit voucher dated ,18.02.05 for Rs. 8000/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan bearing a/c no. 0159C005956 of Shri CHANDRASHEKAR D-1589 SBM Credit Challan dated 10.01.07 for Rs.
1365528/- by way of transfer credited to account No. 54001134956.
D-1590 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 10.02.05 for Rs. 380000/- pertaining to the debit of housinq loan bearinq a/c no. 0159C005945 of Shri RAMESH KUMAR D-1591 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 10.02.05 519 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 for Rs. 7500/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan bearing a/c no. 0159C005945 of Shri RAMESH KUMAR D-1592 SBM transfer, debit voucher dated Nil for Rs.
20080/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan bearing a/c no. 0159C005945 of Shri RAMESH KUMAR D-1593 SBM Credit Challan dated 18.12.06 for Rs.
10000/- by way of cash credited to account No. 54001134942 of Shri RAMESH. KUMAR D-1595 SBM Credit Challan dated (date not clear) for Rs. 515967/- by way of transfer Credited to account No. 54001134942 of Shri RAMESH KUMAR.
D-1596 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 18.02.05 for Rs. 340000/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan bearinq a/c no. 0159C005970 of Shri SHESHAGIRI .
D-1597 SBM transfer debit voucherdated 18.02.05 for Rs. 8000/- pertaining to the debit of housinq loan bearinq a/c no. 0159C005970 of SHESHAGIRI D-1598 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 18.02.05 for Rs. 20080/- pertaining to the debit of housinq loan bearing a/c no. 0159C005970 of Shri H. SHESHAGIRI D-1599 SBM Credit Challan dated 22.12.06 of Rs.
8472305/- by way of transfer credited to account No. 54001135107 of Shri H. SHESHAGIRI .
Ex P- 36 debit vouchers of NAGAVARA Project 1308 collectively marked as
D-1600 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 06.02.04 520 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 for Rs. 650000/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan bearing a/c no. 0159C005321 of Shri G.H. DIVAKARA REDDY .
D-1601 SBM Credit Challan dated 18.11.04 for Rs.
13594/- by way of cash credited to account No. 0159C005321 Shri DIVAKARA REDDY D-1602 SBM Credit Challan dated 14.09.06 for Rs.
360000/- by way of cash credited to account No. 54001131431 Shri G.H. DIVAKARA REDDY D-1603 SBM Credit Challan dated 08.09.06 for Rs.
240000/- by way of transfer credited to account No. 54001131431 Shri DIVAKARA REDDY D-1604 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 14.02.04 for Rs. 546000/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan bearing a/c no. 0159C005336 of Shri ABHINANADAN A.H. & Smt. LAKSHMAMMA P.A. D-1605 SBM Credit Challan dated 18.11.04 for Rs.
11361/- by way of cash credited to account No. 0159C005336 of Shri Abhinandhan 8< Lakshmiamma.
D-1606 SBM Credit Challan dated 25.03.06 for Rs.
10000/- by way of cash credited to account No. 540011314987- Shri A.H.Abhinandhan. D-1607 SBM Credit Challan dated 02.05,06 for Rs.
10000/- by way .of cash credited to account No. 540011314987- Shri A.H.Abhinandhan D-1608 SBM Credit Challan dated 01.01.07 for Rs.
640433/- by way of transfer credited to account No. 540011314987- Shri Abhinandhan 521 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 D-1609 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 04.02.04 for Rs. 550000/- pertaining to the debit of housinq loan bearing a/c no. 0159C005314 of Shri P.M.MOHAN KUMAR .
D-1610 SBM Credit Challan dated Nil for Rs. 11468/-
by way of cash credited to account No. 0159C005314 of Shri. P.M.MOHAN KUMAR. D-1611 SBM Credit Challan dated 25.3.2006 for Rs.
10000/- by way of cash credited to account No. 54001131420 - of Shri. P.M.MOHAN KUMAR.
D-1612 SBM Credit Challan dated 02.05.06 for Rs.
12500/- by way of cash credited to account No. 54001131420 of Shri. P.M. MOHAN KUMAR.
D-1613 SBM Credit Challan dated .01.01.06 for Rs.
646843/- by way of transfer credited, to account No. 54001131420 of Shri. P.M. MOHAN KUMAR.
D-1614 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 03.02.04 for Rs. 661000/- pertaining to the debit of housinq loan account of Shri. HANUMAPPA REDDY.
D-1615 SBM Credit Challan dated 18.11.04 for Rs.
22000/- by way of cash credited to account No. 0159C005041- Shri. K.V. HANUMAPPA REDDY.
D-1616 SBM Credit Challan dated 13.12.05 for Rs.
50000/- by way of transfer credited to account No. 54001130936- Shri. K.V. HANUMAPPA REDDY D-1617 SBM Credit Challan dated 18.01.06 for Rs, 30000/- by way of transfer credited to 522 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 account No. 54001130936- Shri. K.V. HANUMAPPA REDDY.
D-1618 SBM Credit Challan dated 2.5.2006 for Rs.
10000/- by way of cash credited to account No. 54001130936- Shri. K.V. HANUMAPPA REDDY.
D-1619 SBM Credit Challan dated 01.01.07 for Rs.
713238/- by way of transfer credited to account No. 54001130936- Shri K.V. HANUMAPPA REDDY D-1620 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 11.02.04 for Rs. 488000/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan bearing a/c no. 0159C005326 of Shri. ANANDA KRISHNA. (2 Sheets). ' D-1621 SBM Credit Challan dated Nil for Rs. 10170/-
by way of cash credited to account No. 0159C005326'.of Shri. D. ANANDA KRISHNA D-1622 SBM Credit Challan dated 23.03.05 for Rs.
501000/- by way of cash credited to the account of Shri. ANANDA KRISHNA . . D-1623 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 11.02.04 for Rs. 375000/- 'pertainihg to the debit -of housing loan bearing a/c no. 0159C005329 of Shri. NARAYANA SWAMY (2 Sheets).
D-1624 SBM Credit Challan dated 23.03.05 for Rs.
377000- by way of cash credited to account. No. 0159C005329 of Shri. NARAYANA SWAMY D-1625 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 16.02.04 for Rs. 430000/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan bearing a/c no. 0159C005337 of Shri. ABDUL REHAMAN.
D-1626 SBM Credit Challan dated 29.03.06 for.Rs.
180000/- byway ofcaSh credited to account 523 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 No. .54001131500 of Shri. ABDUL REHAMAN D-1627 SBM Credit Challan dated 04.05.06 for Rs.
315333/- by way of cash credited to account No. 54001131500 of Shri. ABDUL REHAMAN D-1628 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 17.02.04 for Rs. 315000/- pertaining to the debit of housinq loan bearing a/c no. 0159C005344 of Shri. UPENDRA B.E. D-1629 SBM Credit Challan dated 22.03.06 for Rs.
120000/- by way of transfer credited to account No. 54001131522.- UPENDRA B.E. D-1630 SBM Credit Challan dated 29.03.06 for Rs.
226293/- by way of cash credited to account No. 54001131522 - UPENDRA B.E. D-1631 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 17.02.04 for Rs. 310000/- pertaining to the debit of housinq loan bearinq a/c no. 0159C005347 of Shri RAMANJANEYA .
D-1632 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 26.06.04 for Rs. 37500/- pertaining to the debit of housinq loan bearinq a/c no. 0159C005347 of Shri RAMANJANEYA.
D-1633 SBM Credit Challan dated Nil for Rs.
110000/- by way of transfer credited to account No. 54001131533 of Shri RAMANJANEYA .
D-1634 SBM Credit Challan dated 29.03.06 for Rs.
13707/- by way of cash credited to account No. 54001131533 of Shri RAMANJANEYA . D-1635 SBM Credit Challan dated 01.06.06 for Rs.
284578/- by way of cash credited to account No.- 54001131533 of Shri RAMANJANEYA .
524 Spl.CC. No.41/2012
Ex P- 182 debit vouchers of Kuduregeru Project
1309 collectively marked as
D-1636 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 24.05.04 for Rs. 318000/- pertaining to the debit of housipq loan bearinq a/c no. 0159C005450 of Shri R.NAUSHAD KHAN.
D-1637 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 31.08.04 for Rs. 50000/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan bearing a/c no..' 0159C005450 of Sh. NAUSHAD KHAN. (2 Sheets).
D-1638 SBM Credit Challan dated 28.09.05 for Rs.
2325/- by way of cash credited to account No. 54001132139 of Sh. NAUSHAD KHAN D-1639 SBM Credit Challan dated 02.05.06 for Rs.
1000/- by way of cash credited to account No. 54001132139 of Sh. NAUSHAD KHAN D-1640 SBM Credit Challan dated 06.03.07 for Rs.
60200/- by way of transfer credited to account No. 54001132139 Naushad . D-1643 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 17.05.04 for Rs. 309000/- pertaining to the debit of housinq loan bearing a/c no. 0159C005449 of shri CHIKKEGOWDA K.B. D-1644 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 18.11.04 for Rs. 50000/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan bearing a/c no. 0159C005449 of Shri CHIKKEGOWDA K.B. D-1645 SBM Credit Challan dated Nil for Rs. 3500/-
by way of cash credited to account No. 54001132128 of Shri CHIKKEGOWDA K.B. D-1646 SBM Credit Challan dated 06.03.07 for Rs. 525 Spl.CC. No.41/2012
51600/- by way of transfer credited to account No. 54001132128 of Shri CHIKKEGOWDA K.B. D-1648 SBM transfer debit volicher (date not clear) for Rs. 235500/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan bearinq a/c no. 0159C005486 of Shri VENKATESWARA B.R. D-1649 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 01.02.05 for<>Rs. 50000/- pertaining to the debit Of housinq loan bearinq a/c no. 0159C005486 of Shri VENKATESWARA B.R..
D-1650 SBM Credit Challan dated Nil of Rs. 3900/-
by way of transfer credited to account No. 54001132242 of Sh. Shri VENKATESWARA B.R D-1651 SBM Credit Challan dated 07.03.07 for Rs.
45450/- by way of transfer credited to account No. 54001132242 of Sh.
VENKATESWARA B.R. D-1654 SBM transfer debit voucher dated Nil for Rs.
239400/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan bearing a/c no. 0159C005447 of Shri KRISHNA REDDY N.S. D-1655 SBM Credit Challan dated 07.03.07 for Rs.
45000/- by way of transfer credited to account No. 54001132253 of Shri KRISHNA REDDY N.S. D-1658 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 28.07.04 for Rs. 300000/- pertaining to the debit of housinq loan bearinq a/c no. 0159C005557 of Shri CHANDRAMOHAN S. D-1659 SBM Credit Challan dated 07.03.07 for Rs.
45000/- by way of transfer credited to 526 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 account No. 54001132537 of Shri CHANDRAMOHAN S D-1661 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 28.07.04 for Rs. 300000/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan bearing a/c no. 0159C005552 of shri PARASHIVAMURTHY M. D-1662 SBM Credit Challan dated-28.09.05 for Rs.
1921/- by way of cash credited to account No. 54001132504 of Shri PARASHIVAMURTHY M. D-1667 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 28.07.04 for Rs. 300000/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan bearing a/c no. 0159C005561 of Shri VISHWANATHA .
D-1671 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 08.06.04 for Rs. 220000/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan bearinq a/c no. 0159C005491 of Shri KRISHNA K.H. D-1672 SBM Credit Challan dated 23.08.05 for Rs.
900/- by way of cash credited to account No. 54001130380 of Sh. KRISHNA K.H. D-1673 SBM Credit Challan dated 07.03.07 for Rs.
20000/- by way of transfer credited to account No. 54001130380 of Sh. KRISHNA K.H. D-1676 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 12.07.04 for Rs. 300000/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan bearing a/c no. 0159C005534 of Sh. MANJUNATHA PATEGAR.
D-1677 SBM Credit Challan dated 28.09.05 for Rs.
1928/- by way of cash credited to account No. 54001132457 of Sh. MANJUNATHA PATEGAR.
D-1678 SBM Credit Challan dated 07.03.07 for Rs. 527 Spl.CC. No.41/2012
45000/- by way of transfer credited to account No. 54001132457 of Sh.
MANJUNATHA PATEGAR.
D-1682 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 01,06.04 for Rs. 239400/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan bearing a/c no. 0159C005488 of Shri RAVISHANKAR M.V. D-1683 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 01.02.05 for Rs. 50000/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan bearinq a/c no. 0159C005488 of Sh. RAVISHANKAR M.V. D-1684 SBM Credit Challan dated 07.03.07 for Rs.
46000/- by way of transfer credited to account No. 54001132264 of Sh.
RAVISHANKAR M.V. D-1687 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 08.06.04 for Rs. 372000/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan bearinq a/c no. 0159C005496 of Shri SYED ISMAIL.
D-1688 SBM transfer, debit voucher dated 01.02.05 for Rs. 50000/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan bearing a/c no. 0159C005496 of Shri SYED ISMAIL D-1689 SBM Credit Challan dated 23.08.05 for Rs.
1500/- by way of cash credited to account No. 54001130404 of Shri SYED ISMAIL D-1692 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 17.06.04 for Rs. 209000/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan bearinq a/c no. 0159C005501 of MANISWAMY H.G. D-1693 SBM Credit Challan dated 23.08.05 for Rs.
2500/- by way of cash credited to account No. 528 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 54001132300 of Shri MUNISWAMY D-1694 SBM Credit Challah dated ,07.03.07 for Rs.
32000/- by way of transfer credited to account No. 54001132300 of Shri MARIS\ A/AMY H.G. D-1696 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 12.07.04 for Rs. 300000/- pertaining to. the debit of. housing loan bearing a/c no. 0159C005540 of Sh. ASHOK KUMAR D-1697 SBM Credit Challan dated. 28.09.05 for Rs.
1967/- by way of cash credited to account No. 54001132480 of Sh. ASHOK KUMAR D-1698 SBM Credit Challan dated 07.03.07 for Rs.-
45000/- by way of transfer credited to account No. 54001132480 of Sh. ASHOK KUMAR.
D-1701 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 08.06.04 for Rs. 380000/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan bearing a/c no. 01592005495 of Shri THOMAS KJ.
D-1702 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 01.02.05 for Rs. 50000/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan bearing a/c no. 01592005495 of Shri THOMAS KJ.
D-1703 SBM Credit Challan dated 23.08.05 for Rs.
1500/- by way of cash credited to account No. 54001130391 of Sh. THOMAS KJ.
D-1704 SBM Credit Challan dated 07.03.07 for Rs.
22000/- by way of transfer, credited to account No. 54001130391 of Sh. THOMAS KJ.
D-1708 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 29.07.04 for Rs. 300000/- pertaining to the debit of 529 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 housing loan bearing a/c no. 0159C005503 of Shri VEKATESH D.S. D-1709 SBM Credit Challan dated 23.08.05 for Rs.
3000/- by way of cash credited to account No. 54001132322 of Sh. VEKATESH D.S. D-1710 SBM Credit Challan dated 07.03.07 for Rs.
42000/- by way of transfer credited to account No.. 54001132322 of Sh. VEKATESH D.S. D-1712 SBM transfer debit voucher dated Nil for Rs.
250000/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan bearing a/c no. 0159C005551 of Shri MANJUNATHA D.K. D-1713 SBM Credit Challan dated 28.09.05 for Rs.
1600/- by way of cash credited to account No. 54001132491 of Sh. MANJUNATFiA D.K. D-1714 SBM Credit Challan dated 07.03.07 for Rs.
37000/- by way of transfer credited to account No. 54001132491 of Sh.
MANJUNATHA D.K. D-1718 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 01.06.04 for Rs. 382200/- pertaining to the debit of housinq loan bearinq a/c no. 0159C005493 of Shri PRABHU MURTHY R. D-1719 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 24.12.04 for Rs. 50000/- pertaining to the debit of housinq loan bearinq a/c no. 0159C005493 of Shri PRABHU MURTHY R. D-1720 SBM Credit Challan dated 07.03.07 for. Rs.
66000/- by way of transfer credited to account No. 54001132275 of Shri PRABHU MURTHY R. D-1722 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 25.06.04 530 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 for Rs. 380150/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan bearinq a/c no. 0159C005515 of Shri. SRINIVASA G. D-1723 SBM Credit Challan dated Nil for Rs. 2000/-
by way of cash credited to account No. 54001132377 of Sh. SRINIVASA G. D-1724 SBM Credit Challan dated 07.03.07 for Rs.
41000/- by way of transfer credited to account No. 54001132377 of Sh.SRINIVASA G..
D-1727 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 09.07.04 for Rs. 275000/- pertaining to the debit of housinq account of Shri HANUMANTHA . D-1728 SBM Credit Challan dated 23.08.05 for Rs.
3000/- by way of cash credited to account No. 54001132413 of Shri HANUMANTHA D-1729 SBM Credit Challan dated 07.03.07 for Rs.
37000/- by way of transfer credited to account No. 54001132413 of shri HANUMANTHA.
D-1731 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 29.07.04 for Rs. 250000/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan bearing a/c no. 0159C005558 of Shri NANJUNDASWAMY H.N. D-1732 SBM Credit Challan dated 07.03.07 for Rs.
37000/- by way of transfer credited to account No. 54001132548 -
NANJUNDASWAMY.H.N. D-1736 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 24.05.04 for Rs. 310000/- pertaining to the debit of housinq loan bearing a/c no. 0159C005482 of Shri SIDDARAJU D-1737 SBM Credit Challan dated 23.08.05 for Rs. 531 Spl.CC. No.41/2012
2500/- by way of cash credited to account No. 54001132231 of Shri Siddaraju.
D-1738- SBM Credit Challan dated 29.06.06 for Rs.
1000/- by way of transfer credited to account No. 54001132231 of Shri Siddaraju. D-1739 SBM Credit Challan dated 06.03.07 for Rs.
61100/- by way of transfer credited to account No. 54001132231 of Shri Siddaraju. S D-1743 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 24.05.04 for Rs. 280000/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan bearing a/c no. 0159C005461 of Shri. KRISHNASWAMY G. D-1744 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 19.11.04 for Rs. 50000/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan bearing a/c no. 0159C005461 of Shri KRISHNASWAMY G. D-1745 SBM Credit Challan dated -23.08.05 for Rs.
3500/- by way of cash credited to account No. 54001132195 of Shri KRISHNASWAMY G. D-1746 SBM Credit Challan dated 06.03.07 for Rs.
41700/- by way of transfer credited to account No. 54001132195 of KRISHNASWAMY G. D-1748 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 05.08.04 for Rs. 265000/- pertaining to the debit'of housing loan account of Shri ARUNACHALAM K D-1749 SBM Credit Challan dated 28.09.05 for Rs.
1694/- by way of cash credited to account No. 54001132468 of Shri ARUNACHALAM K D-1750 SBM Credit Challan. dated 28.11.05 for Rs.
1500/- by way of cash credited to account No. 532 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 54001132468 of Shri ARUNACHALAM K D-1751 SBM Credit Challan dated 13.10.06 for Rs.
8000/- by way of cash credited to account No. 54001132468 of Shri ARUNACHALAM K D-1752 SBM Credit Challan dated 07.03.07 for Rs.
27000/- by way of transfer credited to account No. 54001132468 of K.Arunachalam. D-1754 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 15.03.04 for Rs.318100/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan account'of Shri ANTHURAIAH D-1755 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 01.02.05 for Rs. 50000/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan bearing a/c no. 0159C005375 of'Shri K. ANTHURAIAH D-1756 SBM Credit Challan dated 23.08.05 for Rs.
3000/- by way of cash credited to account No. 54001131656 of Shri K. ANTHURAIAH D-1757 SBM Credit Challan dated 02.05.06 for Rs.
5000/- by way of cash credited to account No. 54001131656 of Shri K. ANTHURAIAH D-1758 SBM Credit Challan dated 29.03.07 for Rs.
50000/- by way of transfer credited to account No. 54001131656 of Shri K. ANTHURAIAH D-1761 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 15.03.04 for Rs. 327850/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan bearing a/c no. 0159C005368 of Shri ANANTH H.K. D-1762 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 01.02^05 for Rs. 50000/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan bearing a/c no. 0159C005368 of Shri ANANTH H.K. 533 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 D-1763 SBM Credit Challan dated 23.08.05 for Rs.
3000/- by way of cash credited to account No. 54001131634 of Sh. ANANTH H.K. D-1764 SBM Credit Challan dated 02.05.06 for Rs.
5000/- by way of cash credited to account No. 54001131634 of Sh. ANANTH H.K. D-1765 SBM Credit Challan dated 29.03.07 for Rs.
50000/- by way of transfer credited to account.No. 54001131634 of Sh. ANANTH H.K. D-1768 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 16.03.04 for Rs. 318098/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan bearing a/c no. 0159C005373. of Sh. SOMESH D-1769 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 28.08.04 for Rs. 50000/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan bearing a/c no. 0159C005373 of Sh. SOMESH (2 Sheets).
D-1770 SBM Credit Challan dated 23.08.05 for Rs.
1500/- by way of cash credited to account No. 54001131645 of Sh. SOMESH.
D-1771 SBM Credit Challan dated 02.05.06 for Rs.
5000/- by way of cash credited to account No. 54001131645 of Sh. SOMESH.
_ D-1772 SBM Credit Challan dated 29.03.07 for Rs.
47000/- by way of transfer credited to account No. 54001131645 of Sh. SOMESH. D-1775 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 29.07.04 for Rs. 300000/- pertaining to the debit of housinq loan bearing a/c no. 0159C005560 of Sh. VENKATESH T.R. D-1776 SBM Credit Challan dated 28.09.05 for Rs. 534 Spl.CC. No.41/2012
1920/- by way of cash credited to account No. 54001132559 of Sh. VENKATESH T.R. D-1777 SBM Credit Challan dated 28.11.05 for Rs.
1500/- by way of cash credited to account No. 54001132559 of Sh. VENKATESH T.R. D-1778 SBM Credit Challan dated 22.01.07 for Rs.
371760/- by way of transfer credited to account No. 54001132559 of Sh.
VENKATESH T.R. D-1779 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 16.06.04 for Rs. 460000/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan bearinq a/c no. 0159C005498 of Sh. RAJIV RAO D-1780 SBM Credit Challan dated 23.08.05 for Rs.
4500/- by way of cash credited to account No. 54001132286 of Sh. RAJIV RAO D-1781 SBM Credit Challan dated 29.06.06 for Rs.
1000/- by way of transfer credited to account No. 54001132286 of Sh. RAJIV RAO.
D-1782 SBM Credit Challan dated 07.03.07 for Rs.
61000/- by way of transfer credited to account No. 54001132286 of Sh. RAJIV RAO. D-1783 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 17.05.04 for Rs. 318200/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan bearinq a/c no. 0159C005456 of Sh. SHEIK MEHABOOB D-1784 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 18.11.04 for Rs. 50000/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan bearing a/c no. 0159C005456 of Shri SHEIK MEHABOOB.
D-1785 SBM Credit Challan dated 23.08.05 for Rs.
3500/- by way of cash credited to account No. 535 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 54001132173 of Sh. SHEIK MEHABOOB D-1786 SBM Credit Challan dated 06.03.07 for Rs.
45800/- by way of transfer credited to account No. 54001132173 of Sh. SHEIK MEHABOOB D-1788 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 22.05.04 for Rs. 300000/- pertaining to the debit of housinq loan bearing a/c no. 0159C005467 of Shri SADIQ PASHA D-1789 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 18.11.04 for Rs. 50000/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan bearing a/c no. 0159C005467 of Shri SADIQ PASHA D-1790 SBM Credit Challan dated (date not clear) for Rs. 1500/- by way of cash credited to account No. 54001130324 of Sh.SADIQ PASHA. D-1791 SBM Credit Challan dated 06.03.07 for Rs.
58500/- by way of transfer credited to account No. 54001130324 of Sh.SADIQ PASHA.
D-1792 SBM Credit Challan dated 26.03.07 for Rs.
100000/- by way of transfer credited to account No. 54001130324 of Sh.SADIQ PASHA.
D-1793 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 22.05.04 for Rs. 300000/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan bearing a/c no. 01592005471 of Shri GOPALA KRISHNAN C.M. D-1794 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 24.12.04 for Rs. 50000/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan bearing a/c no. 01592005471 of Sh. GOPALA KRISHNAN C.M. .
D-1795 SBM Credit Challan dated 23.08.05 for Rs. 536 Spl.CC. No.41/2012
1500/- by way of cash credited to account No. 54001130346 of Sh. GOPALA KRISHNAN D-1796 SBM Credit Challan dated 06.03.07 for. Rs.
47330/- by way of transfer credited to account No. 54001130346 of Sh. GOPALA KRISHNAN C.M D-1798 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 24.05.04 for Rs. 295000/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan bearing a/c no. 0159C005466 of Sh. MUNINARASAIAH K.C. D-1799 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 18.11.04 for Rs. 50000/- pertaining to the debit of housinq loan bearing a/c no. 0159C005466 of Shri MUNIMARASAIAH K.C. D-1800 SBM Credit Chailan dated 23.08.05 for Rs.
3500/- by way of cash credited to account No. 54001132208 of Sh. MUNINARASAIAH K.C. D-1801 SBM Credit Chailan dated. 06.03.07 for Rs.
46500/- by way of transfer credited to account No. 54001132208 of Sh.
MUNINARASAIAH K.C. D-1805 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 16.03.04 for Rs. 318100/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan bearing a/c no. 0159C005376 of Sh. DALU G.A. D-1806 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 01.02.05 for Rs. 50000/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan bearing a/c no' 0159C005376 of Sh. DALU G.A. .
D-1807 SBM Credit Chailan dated 23.08.05 for Rs.
1500/- by way of cash credited to account No. 54001131667 of Sh. DALU G.A. D-1808 SBM Credit Chailan dated 24.03.06 for Rs. 537 Spl.CC. No.41/2012
4700/- by way of cash credited to account No. 54001131667 of Sh. DALU G.A. D-1809 SBM Credit Chailan dated 02.05.06 for Rs.
5000/- by way of cash credited to account No. 54001131667 of Sh. DALU G.A. D-1810 SBM Credit Chailan dated 29.03.07 for Rs.
50000/- by way of transfer credited to account No;-54001131667 of Sh. DALU G.A. D-1813 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 22.05.04 for Rs. 300000/- pertaining to. the debit of housing loan bearing a/c no. O159CO05469 of Sh. . POOBALAN.S D-1814 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 18.11.04 for Rs. 50000/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan bearing a/c no. 0159C005469 of Sh. POOBALAN. S D-1815 SBM Credit Chailan dated 28.09.05 for Rs.
2315/- by . way of cash credited to account No. 54001130335 of Sh. POOBALAN.
D-1816 SBM Credit Chailan dated 02.05.06 for Rs.
1000/- by way of cash credited to account No. 54001130335 of Sh. POOBALAN. S D-1817 SBM Credit Chailan dated 06.03.07 for Rs.
57200/- by way of transfer credited to account No. 54001130335 of Sh.
POOBALAN.S D-1820 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 22.05.04 for Rs. 300000/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan bearing a/c of Sh. INDRAJIT D-1821 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 19.11.04 for Rs. 50000/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan bearing a/c no J0159C005468 538 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 of Sh. INDRAJIT.
D-1822 SBM Credit Chailan dated 23.08.05 for Rs.
3500/- by way of cash credited to account No. 54001132219 of Sh. INDRAJIT V D-1823 SBM Credit Chailan dated Nil for Rs. 50000/-
by way of transfer credited to account No. 54001132219 of Sh. INDRAJIT.V D-1826 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 22.05.04 for Rs. 300000/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan bearing a/c no. 0159C005470 of Sh. T.JANARTHAN D-1827 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 18.11.04 for Rs. 50000/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan bearing a/c nd. 0159C005470 of Sh. JANARTHAN.
SBM Credit Challan dated 28.09.05 for Rs. D-1828 2285/- by way of cash credited to account No. 54001132220 of Sh. JANARTHAN T D-1829 SBM Credit Challan dated 06.03.07 for Rs.
58200/- by way of transfer credited to account No. 54001132220 of Sh.
JANARTHAN.
D-1832 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 16.03.04 for Rs. 318100/- pertaining to the debit of housinq loan bearing a/c no. 0159C005377 of Sh. PRABHAKAR A.N. D-1833 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 18.11.04 for Rs. 50000/- pertaining to the debit of housinq loan bearing a/c no. 0159C005377 of Sh.PRABHAKAR A.N. D-1834 SBM Credit Challan dated 23.08.05 for Rs.
1500/- by way of cash credited to account No. 539 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 54001131678 of Sh. PRABHAKAR A.N. D-1835 SBM Credit Challan dated 25.03.06 for Rs.
4500/- by way of cash credited to account No. 54001131678 of Sh. PRABHAKAR A.N. D-1836 SBM Credit Challan dated 02.05.06 for Rs.
4500/- by way of cash credited to account No. 54001131678 of Sh. PRABHAKAR A.N. D-1837 SBM Credit Challan dated 29.03.07 for Rs.
45000/- by way of transfer credited to account No. 54001131678 of Sh.
PRABHAKAR A.N. D-1839 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 22.03.04 for Rs. 300000/- pertaining to the debit of housinq loan bearinq a/c no. 0159C005385 of Sh. SHANKARAPPA. A, D-1840 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 24.12.04 for Rs.-50000/- pertaining to the debit of housinq loan bearinq a/c no. 0159C005385 of Sh. SHANKARAPPA. A. D-1841 SBM Credit Challan dated 28.09.05 for Rs.
2190/- by way of cash credited to account No. 54001131725 of Sh. SHANKARAPPA A. D-1842 SBM Credit Challan dated 25.03.06 for Rs.
5100/- by way of cash credited to account No. 54001131725 of Sh. SHANKARAPPA A. D-1843 SBM Credit Challan dated 02.05.06 for Rs.
5000/- by way of cash credited to account No. 54001131725 of Sh. SHANKARAPPA A. D-1844 SBM Credit Challan dated 02.05.06 for Rs.
3000/- by way of cash credited to account No. 54001131725 of Sh; SHANKARAPPA A. D-1845 SBM Credit Challan dated 29.03.07 for Rs. 540 Spl.CC. No.41/2012
45000/- by way of transfer credited to account No. 54001131725 of Sh.
SHANKARAPPA A. D-1848 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 25.06.04 for Rs. 309000/- pertaining to the debit of housinq loan bearinq a/c no. 0159C005516 of Sh. B.VINCENT D-1849 SBM Credit Challan dated 23.08.05 for Rs.
2500/- by way of cash credited to account No. 54001132388 of Sh. B.VINCENT D-1850 SBM Credit Challan dated 07.03.07 for Rs.
48000/- by way of transfer credited to account No. 54001132388 of Sh. B.VINCENT. SBM transfer debit voucher dated 09.07.04 D-1852 for Rs.3 -lacs Sh. PUTTASHAMAPPA D-1853 SBM Credit Challan dated 07.03.07 for Rs.
43000/- by way of transfer credited to account No. 54001132479 of.Sh.
PUTTASHAMAPPA .
D-1856 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 25.06.04 for Rs. 309000/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan bearing a/c no. 0159C005513 of Sh. DODDAIAH J.S. D-1857 SBM Credit Challan dated 23.08.05 for Rs.
3000/- by way of cash credited to account No. 54001132355 of Sh. DODDAIAH J.S. D-1858 SBM Credit Chaiian dated 29.06.06 for Rs.
1000/- by way of transfer credited to account No. 54001132355 of Sh. DODDAIAH J.S. D-1859 SBM Credit Challan dated 07?03.07 for Rs.
47000/- by way of transfer credited to account No. 54001132355 of Sh. DODDAIAH 541 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 J.S. D-1861 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 09.07.04 for Rs. 308150/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan account of Sh. CHINNAPPA M. D-1862 SBM Credit Chaiian dated 28.09.05 for Rs.
2020/- by way of cash credited to account No. 54001132435 of Sh. CHINNAPPA M. D-1863 SBM Credit Challan dated 07.03.07 for Rs.
45000/- by way of transfer credited to account No.'54001132435 of Sh,. CHINNAPPA M. D-1866 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 03.02.04 for Rs. 740000/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan bearing a/c no. 0159C005209 of Sh. SWAROOP D-1867 SBM Credit Chaiian dated 02.05.06 for Rs.
10000/- by way of cash credited to account No. 54001131124 of Sh. SWAROOP .V. D-1868 SBM Credit Challan dated 16.10.06 for Rs.
800000/- by way of transfer credited to account No. 54001131124 Of Sh.
SWAROOP .V D-1869 SBM Credit Challan d^ted 01.01.07 for Rs.
42030/- by way of transfer credited to account No. 54001131124 of Sh.
SWAROOP .V D-1870 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 25.06.04 for Rs. 308150/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan bearing a/c no. 0159C005514 of Shri C.CHANDRASHEKARAIAH & Smt.N.JAYASHREE D-1871 SBM Credit Challan dated 23.08.05 for Rs.
3000/- by way of-cash credited to account No. 542 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 54001132366 of Sh.
C.CHANDRASHEKARAIAH & Smt.
JAYASHREE
D-1872 SBM Credit Challan dated 29.06.06 for Rs.
1010/- by way of transfer credited to account No. 54001132366 of Sh. C. CHANDRASHEKARAIAH D-1873 SBM Credit Challan dated 07.03.07 for Rs.
46000/- by way of transfer credited to account No. 54001132366 of Sh. C. CHANDRASHEKARAIAH.
D-1875 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 16.06.04 for Rs. 340000/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan bearing a/c no. 0159C005502 of Sh. SHAYANA KUMARI V.B. D-1876 SBM Credit Challan dated 23.08.05 for Rs.
4000/- by way of cash credited to account. No. 54001132311 of Sh. SHAYANA KUMARI V.B. D-1877 SBM Credit Challan dated 07.03.07 for Rs.
46000/- by way of transfer credited to account No. 54001132311 of Sh. SHAYANA KUMARI V.B. D-1879 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 16.06.04 for Rs. 231000/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan bearing a/c no. 0159C005500 of Smt. SUNITHA V.B. D-1880 SBM Credit Challan dated (date not clear) for Rs. 2500/- by way of cash credited to account No. 54001132297 of Smt. SUNITHA V.B. D-1881 SBM Credit Challan dated 07.03.07 for Rs.
33000/- by way of transfer credited to account No. 54001132297 of Smt. SUNITHA 543 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 V.B. D-1883 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 17.05.04 for Rs. 320000/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan bearing a/c no. 0159C005455 of Sh. SELVARAJ R. D-1884 SBM Credit Challan dated 23.08.05 for Rs.
2500/- by way of cash credited to account No. 54001132162 of Sh. SELVARAJ R. D-1887 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 25.06.04 for Rs. 258000/- pertaining to the debit of housinq loan bearinq a/c no. 0159C005517 of Sh. M.VIJAYA KUMAR.
D-1888 SBM Credit Challan dated 28.09.05 for Rs.
1664/- by way of cash credited to account No. 54001132399 Sh. M.VIJAYA KUMAR D-1889 SBM Credit Challan dated 28.11.05 for Rs.
1500/- by way of cash credited to account No. 54001132399 of Sh. M.VIJAYA KUMAR D-1890 SBM Credit Challan dated 07.03.07 for Rs.
40000/- by way of transfer credited to account No. 54001132399 of Sh. M.VIJAYA KUMAR.
D-1893 SBM transfer debit voucher dated 12.07.04 for Rs. 275000/- pertaining to the debit of housing loan bearing a/c no. 0159C005531 of Sh. SURESH K.H D-1894 SBM Credit Challan dated 23.08.05 for Rs.
3000/- by way of cash credited to account No. 54001132424 of Sh; SURESH K.H D-1895 SBM Credit Challan dated 07.03,07 for Rs.
36000/- by way of transfer credited to account No. 54001132424 Sh. SURESH K.H 544 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 D-1897 SBM Credit Challan dated 28.09.05 for Rs.
1590/- by way of cash credited to account No. 54001132515 of Sh.GANGAIAH K. D-1898 SBM Credit Challan dated 28.11.05 for Rs.
1500/- by way of cash credited to account No. 54001132515 of Sh. GANGAIAH K. D-1899 SBM Credit Challan dated 07.03.07 for Rs.
35000/- for crediting into the account No. 54001132515 of GANGAIAH:
Ex P-1310 -acquisition notification Ex P-1311 - endorsement along with other documents are collectively marked Ex P-1312 - 3 salary certificates of D.M. Nagaraj for the month of July-2003, August-2003 and October- 2003 along with the covering letter (collectively marked) Ex P-1313 - letter dated 21.11.2008 Ex P-1314 letter dated 05.11.2008 Ex P-1315 - the opinion dated 29.01.2010 Ex P-1316 - the notification's which are general circulars are marked with consent Ex P-1317 - Fax Letter furnishing information pertaining to Mr. Jameel Ahmed and Mr. B.K. Girish Ex P-1318 - letter dated 17.12.2008 along with salary particulars of Smt. N. Jayashree for the month of April 2004 Ex P-1319 - letter dated 26.12.2008 consist of the salary particulars of Smt. G.N. Susheelamma for the month of January 2004 545 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 Ex P-1320 - letter dated 13.03.2009 consist of the salary particulars of Smt. V.B. Suneetha for the month of May 2002 Ex P-1321 - letter dated 27.02.2009 issued by Superintending Engineer Mr. B.J. Umesh Ex P-1322 letter dated 13.03.2009 issued by Superintending Engineer Mr. Nagesh Ex P-1323 - letter dated 19.03.2009 issued by Superintending Engineer Mr. Nagarjun Ex P-1324 - letter dated 20.03.2009 issued by then Chief Engineer Mr. T. Venkataraju Ex P-1325 - letter dated 22.12.2008 along with the death certificate of B.R. Dominic Ex P-1326 -letter dated 17.03.2009 of Karnataka State Pollution Board Ex P-1327 - 143 cancellation deeds which were executed in the office of Sub-Registrar Jala Hobli, Bengaluru (collectively marked)(marked by consent) Ex P-1328 - document No.2237 to 2387 are collectively marked with consent Ex P-1329 - control returns along with other documents (PW83) Ex P-1330 - FIR registered in RC No.3/2008 Ex P-1330(a) & Ex-1330(b) - signature of Mr. R. Hithendra who had registered the FIR Ex P-1331 - complaint dated 30.01.2008 Ex P-1332 - search report and search warrant being returned back to the court (collectively marked) 546 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 Ex P-1333 - Certified copy of SBM Audit Report No.MKR/Adu/04/09 dated 14.10.2004 conducted by Shri M.K Rajan, Chief Manger Audit. (17 Sheets) which are at D-6 Ex P-1334 - True copy of Verification Report dated 08.05.06 conducted by Shri G.P Prabhuswamy, Chief Manger (Adv), SBM (ll Sheets) which are at D-9 Ex P-1335 - True copy of Verification Report ' dated 31.08.06 conducted by Shri C.A Balasubramanyam, Manger (Adv), SBM. (7 Sheets) at D-10 Ex P-1336 - True copy of Chief Manager, SBM, SPB Gandhi Nagar letter dated 25.08.06 addressed to AGM (IV), Bangalore. (2 Sheets) which are at D-12 Ex P-1337 - Chief Manager SBM, SPB Gandhi Nagar letter No.CBI/BK/130 dated 28.01.09. (1sheet) which are at D-14 Ex P-1338 - True Copy of SBM Circular . No.0070/2007-
08 dated 13.08.07 of Scheme of Delegation of Financial Powers (6 Sheets) which are at D-17 Ex P-1339 - Chief Manager Gandhi Nagar letter No.Spbb/CBI dated 10.10.08. (3 Sheets) which are at D-20 Ex P-1340 - Orginal account opening form of CA No.0105055005 elated 11.08.2003 in respect of Shri S.N Krishnaih Setty, Proprietor of M/s Balaji Krupa Enterprises. (1 Sheet) which are at D-23 Ex P-1341 - BMTC Bangalore Dy. Chief Accounts Officer letter No.BMTC/CO/ACC/ PADT/2733/08-09 dted. 16.10.08 along with the list of scrutiny of salary slip submitted to SBM, Gandhinagar Br. 547 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 For housing loan in respect of BMTC Employees (5 Sheets) which are at D-33 Ex P-1342 - Graphite India Ltd. Letter no.P-51/703/2008 dated 10.11.2008. (1 Sheet) which are at D-44 Ex P-1343 - HAL Helicopter Division Letter No. H/PR/CBI/662/2009 dated 29.01.09 along with the Certified copy of Pay Slip of Shri H Seshagiri for the month of Jan 2005. (2 Sheets) which are at D-50 Ex P-1344 - Letter No.16/2008-09 dated 17.QI.09 from Jalege Panchayat Secretary, Bangalore. (1 Sheet) which are at D-75 Ex P-1345 - Letter No.BBMP/BTC/JC/PR/2008-09 dated 26.02.09 from the Joint Commissioner, BBMP, Byatarayanapura Zone, B'lore 92. ( 1 sheet) which are at D-77 Ex P-1346 - Letter No. 167/2008-09 dated 27.01.09 from BBMP, Rajarajeswari Nagar, B'lore along with the details of Mallathahalli Sy.No.93/6 and true copies of tax paid receipts. (26 Sheets) which are at D-78 Ex P-1347 - Letter No.RKCR 1190/2008-09 dated 23.03.09 from the O/o the DC, Bangalore District, Bangalore. (1 Sheet) which are at D-89 Ex P-1348 - Letter No.RKCR 1190/2008-0.9 dated 19.03.09 from the O/o the DC, Bangalore District, Bangalore along with the certified copies of the letter No.103/98-99 dt.12.10.1999 and 576/2004-05 dt.5.4.2005 (3 Sheets) which are at D-90 Ex P-1349 - Letter No.A.L.N.SR/04-05 dated 20.03.09 from the Sub Divisional Officer, Bangalore North Sub-Division, Bangalore along with the certified 548 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 copies of order No.37/2004-05 dt.4.3.2005, 38/2004-05 dt.4.3.2005, 39/2004-05 dt.4.3.2005 and 18/2004-05 dt.20.10.2004. (5 Sheets) which are at D-91 Ex P-1350 - Cheque No.365441 dated 20.01.2005 for Rs.60,000/- issued by for Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises (Account No.01050055005) favouring S.Velutham which are at D-120 Ex P-1351 - Original SBM Account Opening Form dated 25.01.05 in respect of SB'Account No.01190005958. in the name of N.S'.Velayudamialong 'with Xerox copies of Election I.D.Card and Form No.60 (6 Sheets) which are at D-121 Ex P-1352 - Receipt Memo dated 09.02.09 for collecting 11 photo copies of cash vouchers (1 Sheet) which are at D-122 Ex P-1353 - Receipt Memo dated 09.02.09 for collecting 7 copies of receipts (1. Sheet) which are at D-124 Ex P-1354 - 32 loan vouchers pertaining to Hegganahalli Project which are all collectively marked Loan application forms collected from the alleged borrowers from the Bank which are as follows; Ex P-1355 - HBL A/c No. Old: O159COO5866 New:
54001134410 of Shri Venkatesh.M Ex P-1356 - HBL A/c No. Old; O159COO5867 New:
54001134421 of Shrj Davananda.M Ex P-1357 - HBL A/c No. Old: O159COO596O New:
54001135049 of Shri Sved Mohammed Shariff Ex P-1358 - HBL A/c No. Old: 0159C005973 New:
54001135130 of Shri Vasanth Kumar K.P. 549 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 Ex P-1359 - HBL A/c No. Old: O159COO59O7 New:
54001134715 of Shri K.M. Jameel Ahamed Ex P-1360 - HBL A/c No. Old: 0159C005829 New:
54001134147 of Shri M.K.Parameswaraiah Ex P-1361 - HBL A/c No. Old: O159COO5956 New:
54001135027 of Shri Chandrashekar Ex P-1362 - Certified copy of statement of accounts for CA A/c No.2654 of M/s Balaji Krupa Enterpries for the period from 29.10.03 to 24.12.03. (2 Sheets) Ex P-1363 - Certified copy of statement of accounts for SB A/c No. 27948 of Sh. Mahantha Shivacharya Swamy, Bellavi Mutt, for the period from 01.02.05 to 19.05.07. (2 Sheets) Ex P-1364 - Original DD No. 312312 dated 15.10.2003 for Rs.137500/- issued at Vijaya Bank, Rajaji Nagar, payable at our Service Branch, Bangalore in favouring M/s. Balaji Kurpa Enterprises Ex P-1365 - Vysya Bank Ltd, Manchenahalli Branch Cheque No. 349620 dated 21/10/2003 of Savings Bank A/c No. 1117 for Rs. 1,50,000/- drawn on. M/s Baiaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1366 - Vysya Bank Ltd, Manchenahalli Branch Cheque No. 349619 dated 21/10/2003 of Savings Bank A/c No. 1117 For Rs. 3,00,000/- drawn on M/s Bharat Raj Ex P-1367 - Vysya Bank Ltd., Manchenahalli Branch Cheque No. 234551 dated 03/11/2003 of Savings Bank A/c No. 1117 For Rs. 2,00,000/- drawn on M/s Baiaji Krupa Ex P-1368 - Vysya Bank Ltd. Manchenahalli Branch Cheque No. 234553 Dated 01/12/2003 of 550 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 Savings Bank A/c No. 1117 For Rs. 1,10,000/- drawn oh M/s Baiaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1369 - Vysya Bank Ltd., Manchenahalli Branch Cheque No. 234554 dated 27/11/2003 of Savings Bank A/c No. 1117 For Rs. 2,50,000/- drawn on M/s Baiaji Krupa Ex P-1370 - Vysya Bank Ltd. Manchenahalli Branch Cheque No. 234556 Dated 09/12/2003 of Savings Bank A/c No. 1117 for Rs. 2,00,000/- drawn on M/s Baiaji Krupa Ex P-1371 - Vysya Bank Ltd., Manchenahalli Branch Cheque No. 234557 dated 09/02/2004 o Savings Bank A/c No. 1117 for Rs. 9,00,000/- drawn on M/s Baiaji Krupa enterprises Ex P-1372 - Certified Copy of Account statement of Savings Bank Account No.9278 for the period from 07/10/2003 to 08/06/2004 and from 27/08/2004 to 13/11/04, account holder being Shri G.Mohan Prasad, S/o. Gopalakrishnaiah. (4 Sheets) Ex P-1355 - HBL A/c No. Old: O159COO5866 New:
54001134410 of Shri Venkatesh.M Ex P-1356 - HBL A/c No. Old; O159COO5867 New:
54001134421 of Shrj Davananda.M Ex P-1357 - HBL A/c No. Old: O159COO596O New:
54001135049 of Shri Sved Mohammed Shariff Ex P-1358 - HBL A/c No. Old: 0159C005973 New:
54001135130 of Shri Vasanth Kumar K.P. Ex P-1359 - HBL A/c No. Old: O159COO59O7 New:
54001134715 of Shri K.M. Jameel Ahamed 551 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 Ex P-1360 - HBL A/c No. Old: 0159C005829 New:
54001134147 of Shri M.K.Parameswaraiah Ex P-1361 - HBL A/c No. Old: O159COO5956 New:
54001135027 of Shri Chandrashekar Ex P-1362 - Certified copy of statement of accounts for CA A/c No.2654 of M/s Balaji Krupa Enterpries for the period from 29.10.03 to 24.12.03. (2 Sheets) Ex P-1363 - Certified copy of statement of accounts for SB A/c No. 27948 of Sh. Mahantha Shivacharya Swamy, Bellavi Mutt, for the period from 01.02.05 to 19.05.07. (2 Sheets) Ex P-1364 - Original DD No. 312312 dated 15.10.2003 for Rs.137500/- issued at Vijaya Bank, Rajaji Nagar, payable at our Service Branch, Bangalore in favouring M/s. Balaji Kurpa Enterprises Ex P-1365 - Vysya Bank Ltd, Manchenahalli Branch Cheque No. 349620 dated 21/10/2003 of Savings Bank A/c No. 1117 for Rs. 1,50,000/- drawn on. M/s Baiaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1366 - Vysya Bank Ltd, Manchenahalli Branch Cheque No. 349619 dated 21/10/2003 of Savings Bank A/c No. 1117 For Rs. 3,00,000/- drawn on M/s Bharat Raj Ex P-1367 - Vysya Bank Ltd., Manchenahalli Branch Cheque No. 234551 dated 03/11/2003 of Savings Bank A/c No. 1117 For Rs. 2,00,000/- drawn on M/s Baiaji Krupa Ex P-1368 - Vysya Bank Ltd. Manchenahalli Branch Cheque No. 234553 Dated 01/12/2003 of Savings Bank A/c No. 1117 For Rs. 1,10,000/- drawn oh M/s Baiaji Krupa Enterprises 552 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 Ex P-1369 - Vysya Bank Ltd., Manchenahalli Branch Cheque No. 234554 dated 27/11/2003 of Savings Bank A/c No. 1117 For Rs. 2,50,000/- drawn on M/s Baiaji Krupa Ex P-1370 - Vysya Bank Ltd. Manchenahalli Branch Cheque No. 234556 Dated 09/12/2003 of Savings Bank A/c No. 1117 for Rs. 2,00,000/- drawn on M/s Baiaji Krupa Ex P-1373 - Vysya Bank Ltd, Manchenahalli'Branch Cheque No.234929 dated 31/05/2004 of Savings Bank A/c. No. 9278 for Rs. 3,00,000/- drawn on M/s Baiaji Krupa Ex P-1374 - Account statement of Savings Account No.1111 for the period from 11/10/2005 To 07/03/2006-account-holder being Shri B N Prakash. (2 Sheets) Ex P-1375 - Vysya Bank Lytd., Manchenahalli Branch Cheque No. 152710 dated 28/09/05 of Savinqs Bank A/c No.llll) for Rs. 3,30,000/-
Ex P-1376 - Orginal SB account opening form of SN Account No.01190005209 dated. Nil of Shri Swarup V, C/o S.N.Krishnaiah Setty, No.456, 64th Cross, 5th Block, Rajajinagar, Bangalore-10 (1 Sheet) Ex P-1377 - Statement of Savings Bank account No.01190005209 (new 54001118182) of Shri Swarup V, for the period from 02.08.03 to 31.03.05 and 29.10.2003 to 07.07.2008 No.01190005209) (8 Sheets) Ex P-1378 - Certified true copy of Notice U/s.28(2) dated 25.04.2001 addressed to Chandravathi Bai, W/o Ramarao, Ramakrishnarao, S/o Ramarao and Krishnamurthy S/o Ramarao, Naqavara. (1 sheet) 553 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 Ex P-1379 - Certified True Copy of In the Supreme Court of India, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction, for review of the order of this Hon'ble Court dated 13.09.2004 passed in SLP (Civil) No.18084 of 2004 between Biddappa @ Doddabiddappa & ors and State of Karnataka and ors. (12 Sheets) Ex P-1380 - Notarized General Power of Attorney dated 03.02.2004 given by Shri Biddappa S/o Late Bajjappa, Smt Gowramma- W/o Sri Biddappa and Shri K.Srinivas S/o Krishnappa to Shri K.Muniraju S/o Late Kempanna, pertaining - to the property bearing Survey No.98 of Nagavara Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, which is executed admitted before Shri B.L.Chidambara Reddy, Advocate & Notary, No.12, 5th Main Road, Hebbal, Bangalore. (2 Sheets) Ex P-1381 - State Bank of Mysore, SPBB Gandhinagar Branch, SB Account No.54001119027 dated 31.01.2004 in the name- of Smt. Sunitha K Setty along with Form No. 60 dated 31.01.2004 submitted by Smt. Sunitha K Setty and Xerox copy of Passport NO.E1699674 in the name of Smt. Sunitha Krishnaiah Setty issued on 23.04.2002 by Shri P.M.Jainubunnisha for Passport Officer, Bangalore (4 Sheets) Ex P-1382 - Loan application file pertaining to Sunitha K. Shetty Ex P-1383 - Loan application file pertaining to M.N. Javanth Ex P-1384 - loan application file pertaining to M.K. Vishwanath Shetty Ex P-1385 - Self cheque dated 02.02.2009 for Rs.20,000/-
Ex P-1386 - certified copy of check book issue register 554 Spl.CC. No.41/2012 Ex P-1387 - the account opening form in the name of Muniraju K Ex P-1388 - cheque in favour of S. Appaiah for Rs.1 lakh Ex P-1389 - letter dated 09.04.2009 of Sri. Balaji Krupa Enterprises addressed to the Bank Ex P-1390 - letter dated 20.04.2009 of State Bank of Mysore along withe the details of houses constructed by Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1391 - abstracts of Additional loans and release in favour of Sri. Balaji Krupa Enterprises Ex P-1392 - letter dated 25.01.2010 of Karnataka Rajya Kaigarika Vanijya Sahakara Bank Niyamitha addressed to the I.O.
Ex P-1393 - account opening form in the name of K. Srinivas
3. List of witnesses examined on behalf of accused :- Nil
4. List of documents marked on behalf of accused: - Nil (SANTHOSH GAJANAN BHAT) LXXXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-82) (Special Court exclusively to deal with criminal cases related to former and elected MPs/ MLAs in the State of Karnataka) Digitally signed by SANTHOSHGAJANANABHAT SANTHOSHGAJANANABHAT Date: 2025.02.10 15:38:24 +0530