Delhi District Court
Cc No.85/11, Rc No.48(A)/95 Cbi vs . Ashok Pasrija on 18 July, 2012
IN THE COURT OF ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA,
SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT), CBI-08, CENTRAL DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
CC No. : 85/2011
PS : CBI/ACB/ND
Unique ID No. 02401R0055041998
RC No. : 48(A)/95-DLI
U/s 120B r/w 420 IPC & 420/477A IPC
& Sec. 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) PC Act, 1988
CBI
Versus
Shri Ashok Pasrija,
Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce,
Rajgarh Colony Branch,
Delhi.
At present r/o D-140, Bathla Apartment,
Patparganj, Delhi.
Date of FIR : 16.06.1995
Date of Institution : 29.07.1998
Arguments heard on : 13.07.2012
Date of Judgement : 18.07.2012
JUDGEMENT
1. Accused Ashok Pasrija is facing trial before this Court in three separate cases registered by CBI vide RC No. 46(A)/95 (CC No. 83/11), RC No. 47(A)/95 (CC No. 84/11) and RC No. CC No.85/11, RC No.48(A)/95 CBI vs. Ashok Pasrija 48(A)/95 (CC No. 85/11). Another case registered by CBI vide RC No. 49(A)/95 is informed to be pending in the Court of Shri Pradeep Chaddah, Special Judge, CBI, Delhi. It is alleged that during 1992 to 1994 accused Ashok Pasrija working as Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Rajgarh Colony Branch, Delhi defrauded and cheated the bank by making unauthorized transactions in various accounts. In RC No. 46(A)/95, the accused is alleged to have made false credit entries in SB Account no. 3988/15 of Shri Pawan Kumar Rawat without actually receiving the amount. Further, vide unauthorized transactions amount was transferred from account no. 3988 to other accounts i.e. account no. 11610 belonging to S. K. Raheja; account no. 12151 (a fictitious account in the name of S. K. Raheja); account no. 12136 belong to L. M. Kapoor and Smt. Malti Kapoor; account no. 12557 a benami account opened and operated by Ashok Pasrija and account no. 12990 an account in the name of Sushila Devi Kapoor.
In RC No. 47(A)/95 (CC No. 84/11), accused is alleged to have cheated the bank by making false entries in account no. 12169/47 of Shri L. M. Kapoor and Sushila Devi and account no. 12136/47 belonging to L. M. Kapoor and Malti Kapoor. Accused also made unauthorized transactions in account no. 11914 in the name of Shri L. M. Kapoor and also opened fictitious account no. 11898 in the name of L. M. Kapoor and account no. 11899 in the name of Malti Kapoor.
In RC No. 48(A)/95 (CC No. 85/11), accused is alleged to have defrauded the bank by opening fictitious account in the CC No.85/11, RC No.48(A)/95 CBI vs. Ashok Pasrija name of Yograj Grover and Suman and further made false and fictitious entries in joint account no. 12123/47. Accused also opened a fictitious account no. 12557/49 in the name of one Suman Arora. Further, accused allegedly made various unauthorized entries in account no. 12123 by transferring amount from other accounts i.e. CA2515 belonging to Satpal Makkar; account no. 12169 belonging to L. M. Kapoor and Sushila Devi Kapoor and from account no. 12476.
It may also be appropriate to mention that apart from the common witnesses from the bank, the account holders Shri Lalit Mohan Kapoor, Shri Satpal Makkar, Shri Yograj Grover are common in some of the cases which have been taken up together for disposal [{i.e. RC No. 46(A)/95 (CC No. 83/11) - PW6 Shri Lalit Mohan Kapoor, PW 9 Brig. K. C. Sukhija}, {RC No. 47(A)/95 (CC No. 84/11) PW13 Shri Yograj Grover, PW18 Lalit Mohan Kapoor, PW20 Brig. K. C. Sukhija, PW22 Shri Satpal Makkar} {RC No. 48(A)/95 (CC no. 85/11) - PW6 Lalit Mohan Kapoor, PW8 Brig. K. C. Sukhija, PW9 Shri Yograj Grover, PW18 Shri Satpal Makkar}]. Apart from above, Brig. K. C. Sukhija is a common witness in all the three cases before whom the accused made admissions in writing in respect of illegal acts committed by him alongwith unauthorized entries made in the account of Neeraj Sukhija s/o Brig. K. C. Sukhija and the same have been investigated in RC 49(A)/95.
2. In the aforesaid background, the facts of the present case may be briefly adverted. As per case of prosecution CC No.85/11, RC No.48(A)/95 CBI vs. Ashok Pasrija accused Ashok Pasrija during the period 1992-94 while working as Manager in the Oriental Bank of Commerce, Rajgarh Colony Bank, Delhi entered into a criminal conspiracy with Sh. Yog Raj Grover, Suman Grover wife of Yog Raj Grover and Suman Arora with the object to cheat the OBC, Rajgarh Colony, Delhi by making false and fictitious entries in the joint A/c No. 12123/47 of Sh. Yog Raj Grover and Mrs. Suman and false credit entries in SB A/c No. 12557/49 of Smt. Suman Arora and also withdrew the amount from the said accounts.
It may be appropriate to reflect at this stage itself that though accused Ashok Pasrija is alleged to have entered into conspiracy with Shri Yog Raj Grover, Smt. Suman wife of Shri Yog Raj Grover and Smt. Suman Arora at the stage of registration of FIR but the subsequent investigation did not establish the involvement of Shri Yog Raj Grover, Smt. Suman. Further account of Suman Arora was found to be fictitious and as such they were placed in column no. 2 of the charge-sheet and not sent up for trial.
Further, during investigation specimen signature/writings of accused Ashok Pasrija, Sh. Yog Raj Grover and Smt. Suman Grover and admitted writings of Sh. Ashok Pasrija & Sh. Yog Raj Grover were taken and expert opinion obtained. The expert confirmed signatures of Suman to have been made by Sh. Ashok Pasrija. The opinion on signatures as Yog Raj was found to be consistent with those made by accused Ashok Pasrija. Also Pass Book for a/c no.12123/47 and 12557/49 CC No.85/11, RC No.48(A)/95 CBI vs. Ashok Pasrija could not be recovered reflecting that accounts were fictitious and operated by Ashok Pasrija. The Chief Manager, OBC Rajgrah Colony also sent a letter dated 29.6.96 confirming that 6 credit entries in a/c no.12123 and 12 credit entries in a/c no. 12557 were fake credit entries without voucher. Investigation also revealed that Sh. Ashok Pasrija used to keep ledger no. 47 and 49 with him directly or indirectly at the time of tallying to avoid detection of his acts of omission and commission.
3. Charge-sheet was accordingly filed after investigation u/s 420, 468, 471, 477A IPC and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of PC Act, 1988. Since Sh. Ashok Pasrija had been removed from the service by the bank prior to filing of chargesheet, sanction for prosecution was not obtained u/s 19 of the PC Act, 1988.
4. Charge was framed against the accused Ashok Pasrija u/s 409/420/467, 468 & 477A IPC and section 13(2) r/w 13(1)
(d) of PC Act, 1988.
5. In support of its case, prosecution examined 28 witnesses namely :-
PW1 Mrs. Neena Malhotra (Clerk-cum-Cashier, Oriental Bank of Commerce);
PW2 Shri R.P. Singh (Scale-1 Officer, Oriental Bank of Commerce);
PW3 Shri Ghanshyam Dass (Postman, Shahdara Post Office); PW4 Shri Anant;
CC No.85/11, RC No.48(A)/95 CBI vs. Ashok Pasrija PW5 Shri C.B. Dubey (Head Cashier, Oriental Bank of Commerce);
PW6 Shri Lalit Mohan Kapoor;
PW7 Smt. Om Wati;
PW8 Brigadier K.C. Sukhija;
PW9 Sh. Yuvraj Grover;
PW10 Shri Bhajan Lal Gupta;
PW11 Shri Prem Kumar Vohra;
PW12 Smt. Suman Grover;
PW13 Sh. Mansa Ram;
PW14 Shri Ram Parshad Gupta;
PW15 Shri Raj Kumar (Manager Grade-II, Oriental Bank of Commerce);
PW16 Sh. H.N. Tandon;
PW17 Shri S.P. Jain;
PW18 Sh. Satpal Makkar;
PW19 Sh. K.L. Bhutani, AGM Oriental Bank of Commerce; PW20 Shri L.N. Sharma;
PW21 Dr. M.A. Ali;
PW22 Sh. Anurag Gupta;
PW23 Shri K.L. Kapoor (Chief Manager, OBC); PW24 Sh. A.K. Kapoor;
PW25 Shri J.C. Sharma;
PW26 Shri R.S. Tokas;
PW27 Inspector Virender Thakran (Anti Corruption Branch, GNCT, Delhi);
PW28 Smt. Malti Kapoor;
CC No.85/11, RC No.48(A)/95 CBI vs. Ashok Pasrija The following witnesses were examined from the bank to prove the relevant entries and documents relating to the transactions.
(a) PW1 Mrs. Neena Malhotra stated that she was working as clerk-cum-Cashier Rajgarh colony Branch. She proved various documents and also deposed with reference to the entries relating to accounts under consideration.
•On seeing the ledger sheet in respect of account no. 12557 (Ex.PW1/A) in name of Suman Arora, she stated that the name of account holder was originally written by her as Suman Sharma and was later on changed to Suman Arora. She further identified the entry dated 25.07.1992 in her hand which relates to credit by transfer for sum of Rs.100/-. •On seeing ledger sheet of account no. 12123 in name of Yograj and Suman (Ex.PW1/B) she was unable to point out any entry in hand of accused in the ledger sheet. However, she stated that account opening form in respect of account no. 12123 (Ex.PW1/C) bears signatures of accused at point X. This witness was cross-examined on behalf of CBI as she resiled from her statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. However, even during cross-examination, the witness could not confirm if the various entries were in the hands of accused Ashok Pasrija.
(b) PW2 Sh. R. P. Singh stated that he was posted as Special Assistant at Rajgarh Colony Branch wherein Shri B. R. Jain was the Branch Managar and accused Ashok Pasrija was the second incharge. He proved various documents as detailed under and also identified the signatures of accused. •He identified signatures of Ashok Pasrija on debit voucher Ex.PW2/C, credit transfer voucher Ex.PW2/A1, debit transfer voucher Ex.PW2/A2, Ex.PW1/C (account opening form), specimen signatures card Ex.PW2/A3, signatures of Ashok Pasrija on cheques Ex.PW2/A4 to A7, withdrawal slips Ex.PW2/A8 to A9, transfer voucher Ex.PW2/A10, Ex.PW2/A11 to A16, Ex.PW2/A17 to A19, account opening form Ex.PW2/A20 of Suman Arora alongwith specimen CC No.85/11, RC No.48(A)/95 CBI vs. Ashok Pasrija signatures card Ex.PW2/A21, transfer vouchers Ex.PW2/A22 to A27, transfer vouchers Ex.PW2/A28 to A30, specimen signatures card of Omwati Ex.PW2/A31, transfer vouchers Ex.PW2/A32 to A34, cheque Ex.PW2/A35, account opening form of Smt. Shashi Sharma Ex.PW2/A36 alongwith specimen signatures card Ex.PW2/A37, transfer vouchers Ex.PW2/A38 to A40, cheque of account no. 12901 (Ex.PW2/A41), cheque Ex.PW2/A42 to A44, transfer vouchers Ex.PW2/A45 to A48, account opening form Ex.PW2/A49 and specimen card of account holder Ex.PW2/A50, transfer vouchers Ex.PW2/A51 to A82, account opening form of Neeraj Sukhija Ex.PW2/A83 bearing signatures of accused, Ex.PW2/A84 i.e. specimen signatures card of account holder and bearing signatures of Ashok Pasrija, transfer vouchers Ex.PW2/A85 to A124 bearing signatures of accused.
(c)PW5 Sh. C. P. Dubey stated that he was working as Cashier in Oriental Bank of Commerce, Rajgarh Colony Branch during 1988 to 1995 and Shri Ashok Pasrija was the overall incharge of the branch as Manager. He identified his signatures on cheques Ex.PW5/A and Ex.PW5/B, Ex.PW2/A5 and Ex.PW2/A7. He further stated that all the aforesaid cheques were self cheque and on the reverse had the signatures of single account holder. He further deposed that signature at the time of giving the payment was not obtained by him as the token alongwith the slip was sent by accused Ashok Pasrija through peon for payment and before that telephonic direction was given to make the payment. He further clarified that he had never seen the account holder as he had not personally visited for receiving payments. He also identified his signatures on cheque Ex.PW5/C and stated that payment of this cheque was also made by him through peon at instance of Ashok Pasrija.
CC No.85/11, RC No.48(A)/95 CBI vs. Ashok Pasrija
(d)PW13 Sh. Mansa Ram stated that he was posted at Rajgarh Colony Branch from 1986 to 2005 and accused was whole incharge of the branch but he did not recollect the exact dates. He identified his signatures on seizure memo Ex.PW13/A and various documents as detailed below:
•He proved certified copy of cheque book issue register showing issue of cheque book 620691 to 625000 (Ex.PW13/B). He further identified entry showing issue of cheque no. 620741 to 620750 in respect of account no. 12136 to one S. K. Raheja as per entry Ex.PW13/B. •He further identified cheque book issue register showing issuing of cheque book no. 616611 to 820940 (Ex.PW13/C) and the entry in respect of cheque no. 820851 to 820860 in respect of account no. 12123 in handwriting of accused. •He further identified cheque book issue register showing issuing of cheque book no. 627341 to 628000 and 616501 to 616610 (Ex.PW13/D) and the entry in respect of cheque no. 627661 to 627677 in respect of account no. 12123 in handwriting of accused.
•He further identified cheque book issue register showing issuing of cheque book no. 822391 to 826360 (Ex.PW13/E) and the entry in respect of cheque no. 826291 to 926300 in respect of account no. 12557 in handwriting of accused. •He further identified cheque book issue register showing issuing of cheque book no. 976361 to 976800 (Ex.PW13/F) and the entry in respect of cheque no. 976801 to 976850 and 618011 to 616160.
(e) PW15 Sh. Raj Kumar, PW15 Shri Raj Kumar stated that he was working as Head Cashier in Rajgarh Colony Branch from 1983 till 1996. The accused was Hall Incharge and second man in the branch but could not specify the period . He further stated that his duty was to make payments to the customers on the basis of cheques/withdrawal slip. He further explained that whenever a cheque or withdrawal form used to come for payment, he used to make the payment and put the stamp on the cheue or withdrawal and make initials in token of making the payment. He also clarified that at the time of CC No.85/11, RC No.48(A)/95 CBI vs. Ashok Pasrija making payment, he used to obtain second signatures of the drawer on the reverse of the cheque or the withdrawal form but sometimes it happened when the token is received and the drawer of cheque is known to some employee of the bank, then the payment is made to the person who is present for payment of cheque for collection. Further in some cases, staff of the bank themselves came to collect the payment and in such circumstances, the second signatures of the drawer were not obtained on the reverse of the cheque. He further identified various cheques and documents handled during the course of duties as follows:
● He identified his signatures on the cheque (Ex.PW2/A4). Further the payment of the cheque was made to the accused who was Hall Incharge.
● He further stated that cheque Ex.PW2/A4 bears the single signatures on the reverse of the cheque. He further explained that accused himself being the Hall Incharge used to come and collect the amount personally. Further, the cheques which bear double signatures on reveres of the cheques are got encashed by the party himself but in the cheques bearing single signatures, the Hall Incharge himself used to come to collect the amount.
● He further identified his signatures on cheque (Ex.PW2/A), the amount for which had been paid by him. He further stated that the cheque had been passed by accused as per signatures appearing at point B & C and since the reverse of the cheque bears single signatures of the party, the amount of the cheque had been paid to the accused.
● He further identified his signatures on cheque (Ex.PW12/D), the amount of which had been paid by him. He further stated that cheque had been passed for payment by Shri C. K. Dhawan. He further clarified that reverse of the cheque bears single signatures but could not say to whom the payment was made. He also stated that since the cheque does not contain the token number, the concerned person who received the payment was a staff member.
CC No.85/11, RC No.48(A)/95 CBI vs. Ashok Pasrija ● He further stated that cheque Ex.PW12/F (D19) was passed for payment by accused and the payment had been made by him (witness). He further stated that payment had been made to accused and explained that accused who was the Incharge used to ask him to make the payment of the passed cheques and the payment was made as he was an Officer.
● He further identified the signatures of accused as passing Officer on
- Cheque Ex.PW2/A6 (D20), Ex.PW5/B (D21), Ex.PW2/A7 (D22).
- Withdrawal form for payment of Rs.35,000/- from account no. 12123 (Ex.PW2/A9)
- Debit transfer voucher Ex.PW2/A10 vide which amount of Rs.10,000/- had been debited to account no. 12123 and transferred to account no. 13013 without debit confirmation.
- Cheque for Rs.40,000/- of 19.09.1992 (D69) (Ex.PW15/C)
- Cheque dated 23.09.92 for Rs.2,000/- (D70), cheque dated 07.10.92 for Rs.22,000/- (D71), cheque dated 23.01.94 for Rs.5,900/- (D73), cheque dated 06.02.94 for Rs.21,000/- (D74), cheque dated 11.06.94 for Rs.32,000/- (D75), cheque dated 26.06.194 for Rs.22,000/- (D76), cheque dated 17.07.94 for Rs.23,000/- (D77), cheque dated 10.08.94 for Rs.16,000/- (D78), cheque. The cheques D71 to D78 are Ex.PW15/D1 to Ex.PW15/D8. He also clarified that payment of aforesaid cheques had been paid to accused as he used to collect the amount and the said cheques pertain to account no. 12557.
- Withdrawal form dated 04.10.92 for Rs.1,100/- (Ex.PW15/E) in respect of account no. 12557. He further stated that amount had been paid to the accused.
(f) PW16 Sh. H. N. Tandon stated that he was posted at Rajgarh Colony Branch during 1995 wherein Shri P. L. Bhatnagar was the Chief Manager who has since expired. He identified his signatures on seizure memo dated 04.07.1995 (Ex.PW16/A), signatures of Shri P. L. Bhatnagar on seizure memo dated 12.08.1995 (Ex.PW16/B), signatures of Shri P. L. Bhatnagar on seizure memo dated 25.10.1995 (Ex.PW16/C), signatures of Shri P. L. Bhatnagar on letter dated 29.06.1996 CC No.85/11, RC No.48(A)/95 CBI vs. Ashok Pasrija (Ex.PW16/D), signatures of Shri P. L. Bhatnagar on letter dated 21.04.1997 (Ex.PW16/E).
(g) PW17 Sh. S. P. Jain stated that he joined Rajgarh Colony Branch as Manager at the end of 1994 and remained posted till his retirement. He identified his signatures on seizure memo dated 07.07.1995 (Ex.PW17/A), day long book (Ex.PW1/D) (D106), long book and day book dated 30.11.1993 (D107) (Ex.PW17/B collectively), long book and day book dated 140.12.1993 (D108) (Ex.PW17/C), long book and day book dated 01.02.1994 (Ex.PW17/D), long book and day book dated 03.04.1994 (D110) (Ex.PW17/E), long book and day book dated 10.06.1992 (D100) (Ex.PW17/F), long book and day book dated 09.12.1993 (D101) (Ex.PW17/G), long book and day book dated 07.01.1994 (D102) (Ex.PW17/H), long book and day book dated 31.07.1994 (D104) (Ex.PW17/J), balance book of account no. 49 (Ex.PW17/K).
(h) PW19 Sh. K. L. Bhutiani stated that during 1993 to 1995, he was working in inspection department as Deputy Chief Manager in OBC. Further, during December, 1994 he conducted inspection in OBC branch, Rajgarh as per instructions of Head Office, it was revealed that Ashok Pasrija (Manager) had defrauded the bank with an amount of Rs.6.50 lakhs approximately by way of making false entries without debiting he account and transferring the amount from one account to other without any confirmation/instructions of the CC No.85/11, RC No.48(A)/95 CBI vs. Ashok Pasrija depositors.
(i)PW22 Sh. Anurag Gupta stated that the was working as Clerk in Rajgarh colony Branch during the year 1991 to 1993 and accused was working as Officer Hall Incharge as number 2 in the branch. He further stated that he handed over documents to IO on 07.04.1997 as per seizure memo Ex.PW22/A.
(j) PW23 Sh. K. L. Kapoor stated that he was posted as Manager, Rajgarh Colony Branch from 1994 to 1999 and during aforesaid period Shri Ashwini Chanana, P. L. Bhatnagar, S. P. Jain were posted as Senior Manager, Chief Manager and Manager respectively. He identified and proved the following documents:
•Letter dated 04.12.1997 (Ex.PW23/1) vide which documents were submitted to CBI •Letter dated 23.06.1998 (D61) under signatures of Ashwini Chanana. •Letter dated 08.04.1997 (D60) (Ex.PW23/C) bearing signatures of Shri P. L. Bhatnagar.
He further proved the various entries maintained in the bank records as under:
•He stated that there is no credit entry of Rs.16,000/- in respect of account no. 12557 in Ex.PW1/D. •He further stated that Ex.PW17/B (certified copy of the long book dated 30.11.1993) did not contain debit entry in respect of account no. 12557 .
•He further stated that there is no credit or debit entry in respect of account no 12557 in entries dated 14.12.1993.
•He further stated that Ex.PW17/G which is long book 09.12.1993 did not contain any credit entry in respect of account no. 12557. •He further stated that Ex.PW17/P which is long book dated 01.02.1994 did not CC No.85/11, RC No.48(A)/95 CBI vs. Ashok Pasrija contain any credit entry in respect of account no. 12557 and 12590. •He further stated that Ex.PW17/F which is long book dated 10.06.1992 contain credit entry of Rs.15,000/- against account no. 12123 but it was also mentioned that there was no voucher in support of same. •He further stated that long book dated 31.07.1994 (Ex.PW17/J) did not contain credit or debit entry in respect of account no. 12123 or 12557. •He further stated that long book dated 14.12.1993 (Ex.PW17/C) did not contain credit or debit entry in respect of account no. 12557 but there were two debit entries of Rs.1,000/- and Rs.2.000/- on respect of account no. 12590. •He further stated that long book dated 31.07.1994 (Ex.PW17/J) did not contain credit or debit entry in respect of account no. 12123.
6. PW6 Sh. Lalit Mohan Kapoor, PW7 Smt. Omwati and PW9 Sh. Yuvraj Grover are the witnesses whose accounts were operated by the accused for transfer entries. PW8 Brig. K. C. Sukhija proved the written admissions made by accused admitting his fault and account of his son Neeraj Sukhija was operated by the accused.
(a) PW6 Sh. Lalit Mohan Kapoor holder of account no. 12136 OBC, Rajgarh Colony Branch deposed that he had not given any instructions for transfer of Rs.12,000/- to account no. 12123, Rs.100/- to account no. 12557. He further stated that he did not know Yog Raj Grover, Suman Grover or Suman Arora or Sandeep Electricals and had further not given any instruction for transfer of Rs.45,000/- on 30.05.92, Rs.6,000/- on 09.06.92, Rs.22,000/- on 27.06.92, Rs.1,600/- on 04.08.92 to account no. 12123. He further stated that the amount had been transferred without instructions and also similarly deposed that transfer of Rs.2,500/- on 23.09.92 to account no. 12557 from account no. 12169 (which was in his joint name CC No.85/11, RC No.48(A)/95 CBI vs. Ashok Pasrija with his mother Sushila Devi) had been made without instructions and knowledge.
(b) PW7 Smt. Omwati stated that she knew Pawan Kumar Rawat as he was a tenant in her neighbourhood and thereafter also resided as a tenant in her premises. She further stated that accused used to keep her passbook. She also stated that she did not know any Suman Arora and had never given any instruction for transfer of Rs.10,000/- to Suman Arora. Further, she deposed that there was shortage of Rs.10,000/- in her account which had not been refunded to her till date.
(c) PW8 Brig. K. C. Sukhija stated that his son Neeraj Sukhija was having account no. 12590 in Oriental Bank of Commerce, Rajgarh Colony, Delhi wherein his neighbour Ashok Pasrija was posted as Manager. He further stated that accused was staying in neighbourhood and the passbook was handed over by his son to the accused. Thereafter, in 1994 he came to know that accused is involved in some fraud in the bank and approached him. He further stated that accused gave a written confession to him on 10.05.1995, 12.05.1997 and 17.05.1997 which are in handwriting of accused and endorsement was made by the witness on the top of the confession given on 10.05.1995 and 12.05.1997. The said confessions are Ex.PW8/A, Ex.PW8/B and Ex.PW8/C. The witness further deposed that accused told him that he was involved in a fraud of Rs.6.00 lakhs in various savings accounts in the branch including the account of Neeraj Sukhija CC No.85/11, RC No.48(A)/95 CBI vs. Ashok Pasrija (son of witness).
(d) PW9 Sh. Yuvraj Grover stated that he had joint account in Oriental Bank of Commerce, Connaught Place alongwith his wife Smt. Suman Grover and knew accused Ashok Pasrija who was earlier working in Oriental Bank of Commerce, Connaught Place. He stated that he had never opened an account in his name or in the name of his wife with Rajgargh Colony Branch of OBC. He further denied having known any person by name of Suman Arora, Sushila Devi Kapoor, L. M. Kapoor, Satpal Makkar or Kewal Krishan. He further denied the signatures on the account opening form of account no. 12123 dated 22.04.92 of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Rajgarh Colony Branch and the pay-in-slip whereby amount of Rs.100/- was deposited for opening of this account (D3 to D5). He further denied the signatures on the cheques (D10 to D22) alongwith the alleged signatures of his wife and denied any knowledge about the said cheques. He also denied his signatures on the vouchers (D23 to D27). He further stated that they never resided at D5/23, Krishna Nagar and was residing at D4/24 Krishna Nagar. He further stated that specimen signatures S37 to S42, S43, S44, S45 to S53 were given.
(e) PW12 Smt. Suman Grover stated that she had never opened any account with OBC, Rajgarh Colony Branch either in her own name or in joint name with her husband. She further denied the signatures on account opening form CC No.85/11, RC No.48(A)/95 CBI vs. Ashok Pasrija Ex.PW1/C of Oriental Bank of Commerce bearing account no. 12123 opened on 22.04.1992. She also sated that specimen signatures card of account no. 12123 Ex.PW2/A3 did not bear her signatures or that of her husband Yograj Grover. • She denied her signatures on cheque Ex.PW5/DA dated 04.07.1992, cheque dated 10.06.1992 (Ex.PW12/A), Ex.PW5/A, Ex.PW2/A6 and signatures of her husband on cheques Ex.PW2/A4 and Ex.PW2/A5, Ex.PW12/B, Ex.PW12/C, Ex.PW12/D to Ex.PW12/F, Ex.PW2/A7, Ex.PW2/A8, Ex.PW2/A9, Ex.PW10/A. She further stated that she had given her specimen signatures and writings S55 to S58 (Ex.PW12/G1 to G4), S59 to S61 (Ex.PW12/H1 to H3), S62 to S65 (Ex.PW12/i1 to Ex.PW12/i4).
(f) PW18 Sh. Satpal Makkar stated that he was having a shop in name and style of Sandeep Electricals in Pratap Gali, Gandhi Nagar since 1982 and sold it in 1996. Further he was maintaining current account no. 2515 with OBC, Rajgarh Colony Branch in the name of his firm Sandeep Electricals which was opened at instance of Ashok Pasrija. He further deposed that he did not know any person by name of Yograj Grover and neither instructed Ashok Pasrija to transfer the amount in his account from other accounts or vice versa. He also denied having instructed Ashok Parsija to debit or credit sum of Rs.12,000/- from or to the account of Suman Yograj and denied the signatures on Ex.PW2/A14 and 2/A15. He further stated that cheque dated 29.09.1992 for Rs.11,000/- (Ex.PW18/A) bears his signatures.
CC No.85/11, RC No.48(A)/95 CBI vs. Ashok Pasrija
(g) PW28 Smt. Malti Kapoor stated that prior to 1991 she resided at Mathura and Agra and from 1991 to 1994 she resided in Delhi. During her stay in Delhi she had opened a joint account alongwith her husband L. M. Kapoor in OBC, Rajgarh Colony Branch and identified her signatures alongwith her husband on the the account opening form Ex.PW28/A. She denied having known any person by name of Yograj Grover, Suman Grover or Suman Arora and stated that she never instructed the bank or accused to transfer any amount from joint account to the account of others. She denied having given any concurrence for transferring of amount of Rs.100/- from their account no. 12136 to 12557 as per voucher Ex.PW1/H. She also denied having given any instruction to the bank or accused to transfer sum of Rs.12,000/- from account no. 12136 to account of Suman (no. 12123) as per voucher dated 19.06.1992 (D32) (Ex.PW28/B).
Other witnesses
(a) PW3 Sh. Ghanshyam Dass, Postman proved his report Ex.PW3/A on the back side of the registered letter addressed to Suman Arora wife of Rajesh Arora, r/o 2/41 Pandav Road, Vishwas Nagar, Shahdara to the effect that none by name of Suman Arora lived in the house.
(b) PW4 Sh. Anant proved his signatures on account opening form of account no. 12557 Ex.PW2/A20 as introducer. He further stated that he had introduced this account at CC No.85/11, RC No.48(A)/95 CBI vs. Ashok Pasrija instance of accused Ashok Pasrija and did not know Suman Arora. Further, the account opening form was blank at the time the introduction was obtained by Ashok Pasrija on the pretext that particulars would be filled later on as the party was known to him.
(c)PW10 Sh. Bhajan Lal Gupta stated that he was Manager in Delhi Swasthya Cooperative Urban Thrift & Credit Society, Shakti Nagar, Delhi since August 1974 and had retired from service and the society was having account no. 53 in Canara Bank, Shakti Nagar. He further stated that accused Ashok Pasrija was allotted membership no. 8332 in the society and had taken a loan which was recoverable in 16 installments. He further identified cheque dated 15.06.1992 for Rs.2,700/- issued in the name of the society by account holder bearing no. 12123 with Oriental Bank of Commerce, Rajgarh and clarified that the amount was towards repayment of loan for membership no. 8332 and was presented by the member of the society. He further deposed that the cheque towards payment of loan may be deposited by any person and also stated that documents were handed over as per seizure memo Ex.PW10/B.
(d)PW11 Sh. Prem Kumar Vohra stated that he had inherited house no. D5/23, Krishna Nagar from his mother Kaushalya Devi and had been residing in the same for the last 48 years. He further stated that Yograj Grover and his wife Suman are residing in D4/24 which is opposite to his house for last 30 CC No.85/11, RC No.48(A)/95 CBI vs. Ashok Pasrija years and had never resided in his house. He further stated that he had never opened any account with Oriental Bank of Commerce.
(e) PW14 Sh. Ram Prasad Gupta stated that he had been residing with family no. D5/24 Krishna Nagar since he was 11 years old and has been doing book publishing business since 1976. He further stated that Mr. Vohra and his family had been residing at D5/23, Krishna Nagar and Mr. Grover had been residing with his family at D4/24, Krishna Nagar.
(f) PW20 Sh. L. N. Sharma deposed tha the had been residing at house no. 2/41, Yudhishter Gali, Vishwas Nagar, Shahdara since 1970. Further, Rajesh Arora and Suman Arora had never resided in the house nor were known to him. He further stated that he had no account with OBC and had three daughters, namely, Kalpana, Indu and Nisha who were married. He also stated that none of them was Sunita and name of his wife is Shyama Devi. He also detailed the name of the tenants who had resided from 1989 to 1993 and later on.
(g) PW21 Dr. M.A. Ali [Sr. Scientific Officer Gr.-I (Document), CFSL, CBI, New Delhi] proved the opinion as handwriting expert on various documents forwarded for examination by CBI as Ex.PW21/P & Ex.PW21/Q.
(h) PW25 Sh. J. C. Sharma stated that on 17.06.1995 CC No.85/11, RC No.48(A)/95 CBI vs. Ashok Pasrija under instruction of his superior he had reported to Inspector Virendar Thakran who introduced him to R. S. Tokas. Further he accompanied CBI officials to 2/41, Pandav Road, Vishwas Nagar, Shahdara and it was found that one Smt. Prem Sethia was residing at said premises. She informed that no person by name of Suman Arora or Rajesh Arora was residing in the said premises and also informed that the house belong to L. N. Sharma who had gone to Hardwar. A memorandum Ex.PW25/A was prepared. He further stated that on the same day specimen signatures of Yograj Grover were obtained in his presence as per Ex.PW9/A.
(i)PW24 Inspector A. K. Kapoor (retired) stated that during 1991 to 1997 he was working on deputation as Inspector of Police, CBI, ACB and in this case during 1995, he was authorised by Inspector V. K. Thakran to conduct search at residence of Yograj and the same was conducted in presence of witnesses. The further examination of this witness was deferred as ld. PP sought an opportunity to place the search memo but thereafter the witness does not appear to have been examined on behalf of prosecution.
(j) PW26 Inspector R. S. Tokas (retired) stated that during 1992 to 1996 he was on deputation to CBI as Inspector and was authorised by Inspector Virendar Thakran to conduct search under section 165 Cr.P.C. Further he alongwith J. C. Sharma and Ct. Sukhvir Singh visited 2/41, Pandav Road, Vishwas Nagar, Shahdara wherein Smt. Prem Setia informed CC No.85/11, RC No.48(A)/95 CBI vs. Ashok Pasrija that no person by name of Suman Arora and Rajesh Arora were residing at the said address. She also informed that house belonged to L. N. Sharma who resided in back portion and first floor and had gone to Hardwar/Rishikesh. He further proved the memorandum Ex.PW25/A.
(k) PW27 Inspector Virender Thakran (Anti Corruption Branch, GNCT, Delhi) deposed as to the conduct of investigation.
7. In his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. accused denied the case of prosecution and claimed that he was innocent. Accused further sought an opportunity to lead evidence in defence and examined himself in defence. Accused relied upon judgements passed in civil cases filed by Oriental Bank of Commerce for recovery of amount against him alongwith other persons which were dismissed.
Accused took a stand that prosecution is based on insufficient evidence since even the civil cases filed by OBC for the recovery of amount against him as well as other persons as mentioned in the respective suits were dismissed. The said cases filed by OBC and as relied by accused are detailed as under:
1. Suit No.611/07, OBC vs. 1) Sudershan Kumar Raheja, 2) Ashok Pasrija, decided vide judgement dated 03.06.09 by Shri Pulastaya Pramachala, CCJ/ ARC East, KKD, Delhi. The certified copy of the judgement along with decree is Ex.DW1/A.
2. Suit No.91/07, OBC vs. 1) Rashmi Gulati, 2) Ashok Pasrija decided vide judgement dated 21.04.09 by Shri Pulastaya Pramachala, CCJ/ ARC East, KKD, Delhi. The certified copy of the judgement along with CC No.85/11, RC No.48(A)/95 CBI vs. Ashok Pasrija decree is Ex.DW1/B.
3. Suit No.735/07, OBC vs. 1) Neeraj Sukhija, 2) Ashok Pasrija, decided vide judgement dated 01.06.09 by Shri Pulastaya Pramachala, CCJ ARC East, KKD, Delhi. The certified copy of the judgement along with decree is Ex.DW1/C. A civil appeal no.44/04 (OBC vs. P.K. Rawat and Ashok Pasrija) was preferred against judgement and decree dated 30.10.04 passed in suit No.M15/04/96 dated 17.03.04 decided by Ms. Veena Rani, Civil Judge, KKD Courts, Shahdara. The said appeal was decided by Shri A.S. Jaichandra, Addl.
District & Sessions Judge vide judgement dated 09.04.08. The certified copy of the judgement alongwith decree sheet is Ex.DW1/D. Accused further stated that all the four cases referred to above were decided against OBC.
8. Ld. Counsel for accused assailed the case of prosecution on the following grounds:
i) That the prosecution failed to obtain sanction u/s 19 of PC Act, 1988 and no evidence had been led on record to prove that the accused was not in service on the date of filing of charge-sheet.
ii) Reliance was placed upon the judgements passed in the civil suits/appeal Ex.DW1/A to Ex.DW1/D wherey claim filed by Oriental Bank of Commerce against the accused alongwith other defendants stated therein was dismissed.
iii) It was also contended that the prosecution had filed an extract of the long book instead of producing the original or the complete copy certified under the Banker's Book Evidence Act to prove the alleged irregularities and the witnesses who had made the entries in the bank record had not been examined.
CC No.85/11, RC No.48(A)/95 CBI vs. Ashok Pasrija
iv) The seizure memos relied by the prosecution were also disputed on the ground that the same had not been proved by the concerned witnesses who had allegedly signed the same.
v) It was also contended that evidence had not been led on behalf of prosecution to prove that accused was appointed as Hall Incharge from October, 1991 to January, 1993.
vi) It was also submitted that the withdrawal voucher/cheque could be passed on telephonic confirmation of the account holder as per practice and no evidence had been led to show that the account holder had not telephonically confirmed the withdrawal of the amount.
vii) The testimony of Brig. K. C. Sukhija (PW9) was stated to be untrustworthy on the ground that there was no reason for accused to make the admission before him. The same were stated to have been fabricated by prosecution.
viii) The counsel for accused also placed reliance on Magan Bihari Lal vs. State of Punjab (1977) 2 SCC 210, Rajkumar vs. State of Haryana 1997 (1) Chandigarh Criminal Cases 478 (HC), Raj Mani vs. State 1997 (2) CC Cases 101 (HC), P. K. Vasudeva vs. Zenobia Bhanot AIR 1999 SC 3322 and Avtar Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab 1997 (2) CC Cases 24 (HC) in support of the contentions.
CC No.85/11, RC No.48(A)/95 CBI vs. Ashok Pasrija
ix) The allegation of the prosecution that the account of Yograj and Suman and that of Smt. Suman Arora were fictitious were also denied. It was also submitted that accused was authorized by the respective account holders to assist in operation of their accounts and the transactions were effected as per authorization.
On the other hand, ld. PP for CBI pointed out that the testimony of witnesses clearly brings out that the entries were fabricated by accused whereby the amount was wrongly credited and debited in various accounts without any authorization from account holders for wrongful gain. The other contentions made on behalf of accused were also refuted and it was pointed out that there was no requirement for seeking sanction u/s 19 of PC Act, 1988 as the accused had been dismissed prior to filing of chargesheet. It was also submitted that the illegal transactions made by accused have been proved by the relevant witnesses and also corroborated by opinion of handwriting expert along with extra judicial confessions/written admissions made by accused before Brig. K. C. Sukhija
9. I have heard ld. PP for CBI, counsel for accused and perused the record carefully.
As per banking practice any amount debited or credited in a bank account is supported by a voucher on the basis of which the transaction is effected and the said transaction is further reflected in the relevant ledger and long CC No.85/11, RC No.48(A)/95 CBI vs. Ashok Pasrija book by way of specific entry. The bank also maintains 'day book' for reflecting relevant entries and balance is also tallied in 'balance book' for the purpose of reconciliation of accounts. The transactions effected by accused in the present set of cases reflect that the transfer entries were illegally made and also did not tally in the relevant ledgers maintained by the bank and clearly leads to only inference that the same were effected fraudulently for wrongful gain by the accused.
There is sufficient evidence on record to prove that the accused Ashok Pasrija was working as hall Incharge in the Oriental Bank of Commerce, Rajgarh Colony Branch since October, 1991 till Jan., 1993. Further, as hall incharge, it was duty of accused to see opening and closing of accounts, balancing of books, joint custody of cash, maintenance and deployment of staff and other day to day duties. Testimony of several witnesses is categorical that accused Ashok Pasrija was the Hall Incharge and in aforesaid context it was also clarified that branch incumbent of every branch appoints Hall Incharge and there is no vacancy or circular issued for post of Hall Incharge. The contention raised on behalf of accused that he was not the Hall Incharge appears to be meritless as evidence of prosecution witnesses could not be dented to aforesaid extent.
It has also been pointed on behalf of prosecution on the basis of evidence led on record that though the amounts were wrongly credited by accused Ashok Pasrija, the same could not be detected during routine reconciliation as the accused maneuvered during the process of reconciliation of accounts CC No.85/11, RC No.48(A)/95 CBI vs. Ashok Pasrija and the entries were made by the subordinate staff in good faith on the basis of instructions given by the accused who was their senior officer and Manager in the bank.
10. The opening of fictitious accounts alongwith its illegal transactions effected by accused may be now assessed in the light of evidence on record. As per case of prosecution, accused Ashok Pasrija as the then Manager OBC Rajgarh Colony branch during the period 1992-94 while working as hall incharge/ loan Manager misused his official position as public servant and opened fictitious a/c no.12123/47 and 12557/49 and made various fake credit entries and transfer entries from other accounts in these two accounts and later on withdrew the amount. The entries of the transactions in the respective accounts made by the accused may be detailed as under:
Account No. 12123
a) It was revealed during course of investigation that Sh. Ashok Pasrija opened an account No. 12123/47 on 22.04.92 with a cash deposit of Rs. 100/-
in the name of Sh. Yog Raj Grover (school days acquaintance of Sh. Ashok Pasrija) and Smt. Suman Grover. Sh. Ashok Pasrija filled address in the AOF as H.No. 5/23 Krishana Nagar, Delhi whereas actual address of Sh. Yog Raj Grover and Suman is H. No. 4/24, Krishan Nagar. The father name of Sh. Yog Raj Grover was filled as Om Prakash whereas the name of Sh. Yog Raj Grover's father was revealed as Sh. Harbans Lal. On the account opening form and specimen signature card Sh. Ashok Pasrija signed as Suman whereas the signature as Yog Raj Grover on AOF and SS card were declared by expert as consistent with those made by Sh. Ashok Pasrija. It was further revealed during course of investigation that Sh. Ashok Pasrija made the following six fake credit entries in the A/c No. 12123 without any supporting voucher.
CC No.85/11, RC No.48(A)/95 CBI vs. Ashok Pasrija S. Amount Date Mode Remarks by prosecution No.
1. Rs. 15,000/- 10.06.92 By These fictitious credit entries were Transfer made by Sh. Ashok Pasrija without any voucher in ledger sheet. The
2. Rs. 5,000/- 10.06.92 By entry of Rs. 15,000/- was reflected in Transfer long book dt. 10.06.92 W/o any voucher by sh. Ashok Pasrija whereas the amount was not debited in ledger sheet of A/c no. 12169.
Sh. Ashok Pasrija forged signatures as Suman on cheque No. 820854 dt.
10.06.92 and withdrew Rs. 20,000/-
by passing the cheque himself.
3. Rs.26,000/- 09.12.93 By cash An amount of Rs. 25,000/- was withdrawn by Cheque No. 627668 dt. 29.12.93. The signatures as A/c holder were made by Sh. Ashok Pasrija on the cheque.
4. Rs. 29,992/- 07.01.94 By FDR An amount of Rs. 1000/- was Proceeds withdrawn on 07.01.94 on a withdrawal form duly passed by sh.
Ashok Pasrija. Signatures of A/c holder as Yog Raj are similar to those made by Sh. Ashok Pasrija.
On 09.01.94 an amount of Rs.
29,500/- was withdrawn by cheque no. 627669 passed by Sh. Ashok Pasrija and signature as Yog Raj are consistent with those made by Sh.
Ashok Pasrija.
5. Rs. 8,200/- 14.01.94 By This amount was withdrawn on Transfer cheque No. 627667 dt. 20.01.94.
The cheque was filled and passed by Sh. Ashok Pasrija and signature as A/c holder are consistent with those made by Sh. Ashok Pasrija.
6. Rs.13,000/- 31.01.94 By On 10.08.94 an amount of Rs.
Transfer 10,000/- was transferred to A/c No. 13013 and Rs. 4,000/- was transferred to A/c No. 125557 on 27.08.94 and the transfer vouchers were made by Sh. Ashok Pasrija.
Total Rs. 97,192/-
It is further the case of prosecution that none of the above fake credit entries find mention in long book, day book, GL or Cash Book except entry of Rs. 15,000/- confirming that entries are fake without any voucher.
The aforesaid illegal transactions may now be scrutinized CC No.85/11, RC No.48(A)/95 CBI vs. Ashok Pasrija in the light of evidence led on record.
PW1 Ms. Neena Malhotra who proved the account opening form of account no. 12123 in the name of Yograj and Suman as (Ex.PW1/C). PW2 clarified that it was allowed by Ashok Pasrija and bears his signatures at point A. The account opening form interestingly does not bear name of Suman in relevant column but bears her signatures and even does not bear name of introducer in the relevant column or the photograph of account holder. The account opening form bears the signatures of accused at Q6 being the Manager and also the writing at Q5/1, Q5/2 & Q5/3 in the body of the form is in the hand of accused as opined by the Handwriting Expert vide Ex.PW21/P. As per opinion of handwriting expert signatures of Suman and Yograj on account opening form appear to be made by accused Ashok Pasrija at Q5/2 and Q5/3. The fact that the account was opened by accused by wrongly reflecting the address of the account holders Suman and Yograj as D5/23, Krishna Nagar has further been corroborated in testimony of PW9 Yograj and PW12 Suman Grover. PW9 Shri Yograj Grover denied having opened an account in his name and in the name of his wife at Ragjarh branch and also denied having known any person by name of Suman Arora, Sushila Devi Kapoor, L. M. Kapoor, Satpal Makkar or Kewal Krishan. He categorically denied his signatures on the account opening form of account no. 12123 and the pay-in-slip whereby an amount of Rs.100/- was deposited. PW 12 Smt. Suman Grover also corroborated the testimony of PW9 Shri Yograj Grover and further denied the CC No.85/11, RC No.48(A)/95 CBI vs. Ashok Pasrija signatures on the specimen signatures card of Account no. 12123 i.e. Ex.PW2/A3. To corroborate the address of Smt. Suman Grover and Yograj Grover, prosecution also examined PW11 Shri Prem Kumar Vohra and PW14 Shri Ram Prasad Gupta. PW11 Shri Prem Kumar Vohra deposed that he had inherited house no. 5/23, Krishna Nagar from his mother Kaushalya Devi and had been residing there for the last 48 years. He further confirmed that Yograj Grover and his wife are resident of D4/24, opposite to his house for the last 30 years. PW14 Shri Ram Prasad Gupta further confirmed that Mr. Vohra and his family had been residing at D5/23, Krishna Nagar and Mr. Grover had been residing at D4/24, Krishna Nagar. The father's name of Yograj Grover is Harbans Lal Grover as per deposition of PW9 while in the account opening form Ex.PW1/C the father's name of Yograj Grover is reflected as "Om Prakash" with a different address. The testimony of aforesaid witnesses could not be dented during cross- examination and clearly pionts out that fake account no. 12123 was opened by the accused Ashok Pasrija wrongly reflecting the address. The specimen signatures card Ex.PW2/A3 was also forwarded for opinion of the Handwriting Expert and the signatures at Q10, Q7/1, Q7/2 of Smt. Suman and Q8/2 of Yograj were opined to be in the handwriting of the accused as per opinion of the handwriting expert Ex.PW21/P. The eveidence on record clearly show that the account was fictitiously opened by accused Ashok Pasrija.
Since the aforesaid account itself was fictitiously created, the entries in the same were also fabricated by CC No.85/11, RC No.48(A)/95 CBI vs. Ashok Pasrija accused for wrongful gain. The fact that the credit entries were false and fictitious and had been made without any corresponding vouchers was also corroborated in correspondence exchanged during investigation. A letter dated 25.06.1996 was written to Chief Manager, OBC, Rajgarh Colony Branch by the SP (Ex.PW27/2) whereby the vouchers in respect of various entries detailed therein for account no. 12557 and 12123 were desired. In response to the same at that stage of investigation vide letter dated 29.06.1996 OBC had responded that all the aforesaid entries pertaining to account no. 12123 and 12557 which are the credit entries in the said account were fake. The very fact that the vouchers of the said credit entries were not existing in the bank reflects that the entries were fake. The contention raised on behalf of accused that the transactions were genuine is not supported by any evidence and it cannot be presumed that vouchers may be maintained as contended on behalf of accused. In the aforesaid context the prosecution has further relied upon the long books of concerned dates.
To show that the credit entries in account no. 12123 are fake, the prosecution has also relied upon ledger sheet pertaining to said account Ex.PW1/B in the name of Yograj and Suman Grover. The entry dated 10.06.1992 showing credit of Rs.15,000/- and Rs.5,000/- in the ledger sheet was opined by the Handwriting Expert to be in the hands of accused at Q26/2 and Q27 vide Ex.PW21/Q. Prosecution has further relied upon the fact that as per the ledger the credit CC No.85/11, RC No.48(A)/95 CBI vs. Ashok Pasrija entry of Rs.15,000/- was by transfer from account no. 12169 belonging to Sushila Devi Kapoor and L. M. Kapoor as revealed during investigation. However, the entry was proved to be fake in view of letter dated 23.06.1998 (ex.PW23/B) written by Senior Manager Ashwini Chanana, OBC to Virender Thakran whereby it was informed that no debit voucher for account no. 12169 for transfer of Rs.15,000/- on 10.06.1992 was traceable in the bank and similarly, no corresponding credit voucher for Rs.15,000/- for transferring the said amount to account no. 12123 was traceable and as such the entry was fake. It is also pointed out that the said entry has been made in the long book Ex.PW17/F showing the transfer of amount of Rs.15,000/- from account no. 12169 with the observations "no voucher" which reflects that the transfer could not have been made in absence of any voucher. It is also pointed out that there is no entry reflected in the long book for 10.06.1992 showing credit of amount of Rs.5,000/- in account no. 12123 on credit side which shows that the entry in the ledger was wrongly made to credit the amount. It m ay also be observed that L. M. Kapoor denied having authorized any transaction to account no. 12123 from his account.
So far as credit entry dated 09.12.1993 for Rs.26,000/- is concerned in the ledger (Ex.PW1/B), the same has been opined at Q28 to be in the handwriting of accused Ashok Pasrija as per the opinion of the Expert Ex.PW21/Q. The said entry appears to have been wrongly made in the ledger sheet as the same does not find mention in the long book Ex.PW17/G on 09.12.1993 and is not supported by any CC No.85/11, RC No.48(A)/95 CBI vs. Ashok Pasrija voucher. The amount is stated to have been received by cash for purpose of credit in the said account. Normally, in case any such credit is received supported by a voucher, the same is reflected on the credit side in the long book. In the absence of any voucher or any explanation for the same, the entry is fake.
So far as credit entry dated 07.01.1994 for Rs.29,992/- is concerned in the ledger (Ex.PW1/B), the same has been opined at Q29 to be in the handwriting of accused Ashok Pasrija as per the opinion of the Expert Ex.PW21/Q. The said entry appears to have been wrongly made in the ledger sheet as the same does not find mention in the long book Ex.PW17/H on 07.01.1994 and is not supported by any voucher. The amount is stated to have been received by FDR proceeds without any further particulars which should have been supported by some voucher in case the amount was actually received. In the absence of any voucher or any explanation for the same, the entry is fake.
So far as credit entry dated 14.01.1994 for Rs.8,200/- is concerned in the ledger (Ex.PW1/B), the same has been opined at Q30/2 to be in the handwriting of accused Ashok Pasrija as per the opinion of the Expert Ex.PW21/Q. The said entry appears to have been wrongly made in the ledger sheet as the same is not supported by any voucher. The long book for the said period is stated to be not available though the letter forwarded by the bank Ex.PW16/D to SP, CBI clearly stated that the entry is fake without any voucher. The amount is stated to have been received by transfer without any further CC No.85/11, RC No.48(A)/95 CBI vs. Ashok Pasrija particulars which should have been supported by some voucher in case the amount was actually received from some account. In the absence of any voucher or any explanation for the same, the entry is fake.
So far as credit entry dated 30.01.1994 for Rs.13,000/- is concerned in the ledger (Ex.PW1/B), the same has been opined at Q31 to be in the handwriting of accused Ashok Pasrija as per the opinion of the Expert Ex.PW21/P. The said entry appears to have been wrongly made in the ledger sheet as the same is not supported by any voucher. The long book for the said date Ex.PW17/J does not reflect any entry with respect to account no. 12123 on credit side. The amount is stated to have been received by transfer without any further particulars which should have been supported by some voucher in case the amount was actually received from some account. In the absence of any voucher or any explanation for the same, the entry is fake.
b) Investigation also revealed that Sh. Ashok Pasrija made transfer by preparing transfer voucher from other accounts to account no. 12123 without any debit confirmation from account holders.
Date Amount Account
No.
30/05/92 45,000/- S B 12169
09/06/92 6,000/- S B 12169
19/06/92 12,000/- S B 12136
27/06/92 22,000/- S B 12169
11/07/92 12,500/- S B 12476
31/07/92 12,000/- C A 2515
04/08/92 1,600/- S B 12169
29/09/92 11,000/- C A 2515
CC No.85/11, RC No.48(A)/95 CBI vs. Ashok Pasrija
Entry dated 31.07.1992 & 29.09.1992 from Account No. CA2515 of Shri Satpal Makkar (PW18) So far as the aforesaid entries are concerned, the prosecution has relied upon testimony of PW18 Shri Satpal Makkar who was holder of account no. CA2515. With reference to transfer voucher Ex.PW2/A14 for Rs.12,000/- and credit voucher Ex.PW2/A15 for account no. 12123 for Rs. 12,000/-, he stated that the document did not bear his signatures and he did not give any instructions to the accused to debit or credit the said amount. The opinion of the Handwriting Expert also confirms that accused Ashok Pasrija had signed on the voucher Ex.PW2/A15 at Q33 as passing Officer as per opinion Ex.PW21/P. However, with respect to transfer of Rs.11,000/- from account no. CA2515 of Satpal Makkar whereby amount of Rs. 11,000/- was transferred to account no. 12123, the entry is not pressed by the prosecution In view of testimony of PW18 Satpal Makkar with respect to cheque in question Ex.PW18/A. Entry dated 30.05.1992, 09.06.1992, 27.06.1992, 04.08.1992 with respect to account no. 12169 of Sushila Devi Kapoor and L. M. Kapoor and entry dated 19.06.1992 with respect to account no. 12136 of L. M. Kapoor and Malti Kapoor.
To prove the fact that the transfer entries stated above from the said accounts were effected without the consent of the account holders, the prosecution has placed reliance of testimony of PW28 Smt. Malti Kapoor and PW6 Shri L. M. Kapoor. PW6 Shri L. M. Kapoor deposed that he had not CC No.85/11, RC No.48(A)/95 CBI vs. Ashok Pasrija given any instructions for transfer of Rs.45,000/- on 30.05.1992, Rs.6,000/- on 09.06.1992 Rs.22,000/- on 27.06.1992 and Rs.1,600/- on 04.08.1992 to account no. 12123 and the same had been transferred without his instructions and without his knowledge. The testimony clearly reflects that the amount had been illegally credited to account no. 12123 which was fictitiously operated by Ashok Pasrija. The witness also stated that he did not know Suman Grover or Yograj Grover who are allegedly the holders of account no. 12123.
Similarly, the testimony of PW28 Smt. Malti Kapoor corroborates the statement of PW6 Shri L. M. Kapoor. The testimony of these witnesses also could not be dented during cross-examination.
Entry dated 11.07.1992 with respect to account no. 12476.
So far as this entry is concerned, the prosecution has not examined the relevant account holder of SB 12476 to show if the transfer entry for Rs.12,500/- dated 11.07.1992 was without confirmation from the account holder. As such, so far as this entry is concerned, no adverse inference can be drawn against the accused.
(c) It was further revealed in investigation that Sh. Ashok Pasrija repaid an amount of Rs. 10,000/- by cheque no. 627666 (debited on 30.05.92) to M/s Goel Distributors. An amount of Rs.35,000/- was withdrawn on 30.05.92 on a withdrawal form passed by Ashok Pasrija and signatures as A/c holders are consistent with those of Sh. Ashok Pasrija. An amount of Rs. 2700/- was repaid by Sh. Ashok Pasrija to M/s Swastik Urban Coop. Thrift and credit society (P) Ltd as loan installment vide cheque no. 820851, on which signatures as CC No.85/11, RC No.48(A)/95 CBI vs. Ashok Pasrija account holders are consistent with those made by sh. Ashok Pasrija. An amount of Rs.9,000/- was withdrawn vide cheque no. 820856 dt. 19.06.92 on which signatures as A/c holder are consistent with those made by sh. Ashok Pasrija. An amount of Rs. 22,000/- was withdrawn vide cheque no. 820858 dt. 27.06.92 and signatures made by Sh. Ashok Pasrija as A/c holder are consistent. On 07.07.92 an amount of Rs. 11,000/- vide cheque no. 820859 were withdrawn. The signatures as A/c holders are consistent with those made by Sh. Ashok Pasrija. This amount was not debited in ledger sheet and it was debited on 29.09.92 after transfer from A 2515. An amount of Rs. 13,000/- withdrawn on 11.07.92 vide cheque no. 627664 (dt. 20.05.92). The signatures as A/c holder are consistent with those made by Sh. Ashok Pasrija. The amount of Rs.12,000/- was again transferred to C A 2515 by a debit transfer voucher signed by sh. Ashok Pasrija. Further it was revealed that Sh. Ashok Pasrija signed cheque no. 820858 dt. 14.06.92 for Rs. 5,000/- and cheque no. 820860 dt. 04.07.92 for Rs. 19,500/- for clearing cheque. It was also revealed that various credit entries were made in this A/c by way of DD which was subsequently withdrawn. An amount of Rs. 31,000/- was withdrawn on 17.05.92 by cheque no. 620747 and the signature as A/c holder are consistent with those made by sh. Ashok Pasrija and signature were authenticated by Sh. Ashok Pasrija so that cheque is passed.
The cheque book issue register show that cheque book for this cheque was received by Sh. Ashok Pasrija by signing as S.K. Raheja. An amount of Rs. 33,000/- was withdrawn vide cheque no. 627661 duly filled and passed by Sh. Ashok Pasrija and signatures as A/c holder are consistent with those made by Sh. Ashok Pasrija. On 28.05.92 an amount of Rs. 18,000/- was withdrawn by a cheque no. 627664 passed by Ashok Pasrija & signatures as A/c holder are consistent with those made by Sh. Ashok Pasrija. An amount of Rs. 29,500/- was withdrawn on 06.06.92.
To prove the aforesaid facts, the prosecution further relied upon various cheques which were drawn by the accused for withdrawal from account no. 12123 which is a fictitious account operated by accused in the name of Yograj and Suman Grover.
CC No.85/11, RC No.48(A)/95 CBI vs. Ashok Pasrija ● Amount was withdrawn from account no. 12123 vide bearer cheque (self) no. 820860 dated 04.07.1992 for Rs.19,500/- allegedly signed by Suman (Ex.PW5/DA). The signatures of the account holder Suman as Q32 on the cheque were opined by the Handwriting Expert to be in the hand of accused Ashok Pasrija as per opinion Ex.PW21/P. ● Amount was withdrawn from account no. 12123 vide bearer cheque (self) no. 627661 dated 20.05.1992 for Rs.33,000/- allegedly signed by Yograj Grover (Ex.PW2/A4). The signatures of the account holder Yograj as Q36/2 could not be conclusively opined to be in handwriting of accused but the signatures of the passing officer Ashok Pasrija at Q35 were opined by the Handwriting Expert to be in the hand of accused Ashok Pasrija as per opinion Ex.PW21/P. ● Amount was withdrawn from account no. 12123 vide bearer cheque (self) no. 627665 dated 28.05.1992 for Rs.18,000/- allegedly signed by Yograj Grover (Ex.PW2/A5). The signatures of the account holder Yograj as Q38 could not be conclusively opined to be in handwriting of accused but the signatures of the passing officer Ashok Pasrija at Q37 were opined by the Handwriting Expert to be in the hand of accused Ashok Pasrija as per opinion Ex.PW21/P. In respect of the cheques Ex.PW2/A5 & A7, PW5 Shri C. P. Dubey further explained that he had not seen the account holder as he had not personally visited for CC No.85/11, RC No.48(A)/95 CBI vs. Ashok Pasrija receiving the payment and the money was handed over to the peon on directions of Ashok Pasrija. He also clarified that since the second signatures at the time of giving payment was not obtained by him as the token alongwith the slip was sent by the accused Ashok Pasrija through peon for payment and before that intercom directions were also given to him for payment. ● Similarly, cheques Ex.PW12/B signed by Yograj Grover (Q42), Ex.PW12/C signed by Yograj Grover (Q43), Ex.PW12/B signed by Yograj Grover (Q45), Ex.PW12/E signed by Yograj Grover (Q46), Ex.PW12/F signed by Yograj grover (Q48), Ex.PW5/B signed by Yograj Grover at Q52/1, 52/2, Ex.PW2/A7 signed by Yograj Grover at Q54 and by passing officer Ashok Pasrija at Q53 were drawn and encashed from account no. 12123.
● Amount was withdrawn from account no. 12123 vide bearer cheque (self) no. 820854 dated 10.06.1992 for Rs.20,000/- allegedly signed by Suman (Ex.PW12/A). The signatures of the account holder Suman as Q40/1 & 40/2 on the cheque were opined by the Handwriting Expert to be in the hand of accused Ashok Pasrija as per opinion Ex.PW21/P. Further the signatures as Q39 of the passing Officer were also opined to be that of Ashok Pasrija.
● Amount was withdrawn from account no. 12123 vide bearer cheque (self) no. 820855 dated 14.06.1992 for Rs.5,000/- allegedly signed by Suman (Ex.PW5/A). The signatures of the account holder Suman as Q44 on the CC No.85/11, RC No.48(A)/95 CBI vs. Ashok Pasrija cheque were opined by the Handwriting Expert to be in the hand of accused Ashok Pasrija as per opinion Ex.PW21/P. ● Amount was withdrawn from account no. 12123 vide bearer cheque (self) no. 627668 dated 29.02.1993 for Rs.25,000/- allegedly signed by Suman (Ex.PW2/A6). The signatures of the account holder Suman as Q50 on the cheque were opined by the Handwriting Expert to be in the hand of accused Ashok Pasrija as per opinion Ex.PW21/P. Further the signatures as Q49 of the passing Officer were also opined to be that of Ashok Pasrija.
● Amount was also credited by Ashok Pasrija by different cheques to other accounts from account no. 12123 (i.e cheque no. 627666 was issued to M/s Goel Distributors Ex.PW21/N allegedly signed by Yograj Grover (Q88), cheque no 820851 Ex.PW10/A was allegedly issued to Swasthya Cooperative Thrift and Credit Society under signatures of Yograj Grover (Q90).
It may be appropriate to notice in the aforesaid context that PW9 Shri Yograj Grover (due to typographical error typed as Yuvraj Grover) and PW12 Suman Grover denied having opened account no. 12123 and also denied having signed the cheques issued from the aforesaid account. It has also been observed that the account was fictitiously opened by accused.
It may also be noticed that PW13 Mansa Ram posted at Rajgarh Colony Branch pointed out that cheque book no. 627341 to 628000 were issued in respect of account no.
CC No.85/11, RC No.48(A)/95 CBI vs. Ashok Pasrija 12123 and the entry in Ex.PW13/D is in the handwriting of the accused. He also stated that entry in respect of cheque no. 820851 to 820860 in respect of account no. 12123 on Ex.PW13/C was also in handwriting of accused.
The evidence on record clearly proves that the illegal transactions were effected by accused.
11. Account No. 12557
a) Investigation revealed that Sh. Ashok Pasrija opened an account no. 12557/49 on 25.7.92 (by transfer of Rs.100/- from A/c No.12136 of L.M. Kapoor and Mrs. Malti Kapoor) in the name of Stm. Suman Arora w/o Sh. Rajesh Kumar r/o 2/41 Pandav Nagar Vishwas Nagar Shahadara, Delhi. The A/c was opened on introduction of Sh. Anant (A/c holder) at the instance of Sh. Ashok Pasrija. Investigation revealed that the address and person in whose name account was opened by Sh. Ashok Pasrija is fictitious and Sh. Ashok Pasrija himself signed as Suman on account opening form and specimen signature card. It is also alleged that in all 12 fake credit entries aggregating to Rs. 205700/- were made by Sh. Ashok Pasrija in this account without any voucher which are as: -
S. Amount Date Mode Remarks by prosecution No. (in Rs.) 1. 16,000/- 19.9.92 By transfer No debiting was done in account no.
from SB A/c 12590 and the entry was falsely shown 12590 in long book by Sh. Ashok Pasrija w/o any voucher. An amount of Rs.
40,000/- was withdrawn by Sh. Ashok Pasrija vide cheque no.976863 dated 19.9.92 by signing the cheque himself as Suman. On 4.10.92 he withdrew Rs.1100/- by signing as Suman on a withdrawal form.
2. 22500/- 7.10.92 By transfer Sh. Ashok Pasrija withdrew Rs.22000/-
on 7.10.92 vide cheque no.826291 dated 7.10.92 by forging signatures as account holder.
3. 19000/- 30.11.93 By cash An amount of Rs.30,000/- was debited on 1.1.94 from the account to account 14.12.9 No.12169 by a debit transfer voucher CC No.85/11, RC No.48(A)/95 CBI vs. Ashok Pasrija
4. 11300/- 3 By clearing prepared and signed by Sh. Ashok Pasrija.
5. 27000/- 14.1.94 By cash An amount of Rs.22000/- was withdrawn vide cheque no.826293 dated 22.1.94 by signing as Suman.
The signatures as account holder were authenticated by Sh. Ashok Pasrija.
Further he withdrew Rs.5900/- vide cheque no.976866 dated 23.1.94 by forging signatures.
6. 21500/- 1.2.94 By transfer On 6.2.94 he withdrew Rs.21000/-
vide cheque no.826295 by forging signatures as Suman (account holder).
7. 19500/- 3.4.94 By clearing Sh. Ashok Pasrija withdrew Rs.32000/-
on 12.6.94 vide cheque no.826296 by
8. 13000/- 3.4.94 By clearing forging signatures as Suman (account holder).
9. 23000/- 15.6.94 By clearing Sh. Ashok Pasrija withdrew Rs.22000/-
vide cheque no.826297 26.6.94 by forging signatures as Suman (account holder).
10. 21200/- 1.7.94 By clearing Sh. Ashok Pasrija withdrew Rs.23000/-
on 17.7.94 vide cheque no.826298 by forging signatures as Suman (account holder).
11. 5700/- 1.8.94 By clearing It was revealed that on 1.8.94 it was weekly off (Monday) in the bank.
Further he transferred Rs.4000/- from a/c no.12123 to this a/c no.27.8.94 by making transfer vouchers. Sh. Ashok Pasrija withdrew Rs.16000/- on 27.8.94 vide cheque No.826300 by forging signatures as Suman (account holder).
It is further the case of prosecution that none of the above entries except Rs.16,000/- finds any mention in long book, GL or cash book thus confirming that entries are fake without voucher.
CC No.85/11, RC No.48(A)/95 CBI vs. Ashok Pasrija In the first instance evidence led on record may be scrutinized to analyse if the account no. 12557 is fictitious. It may be noticed that the account opening form Ex.PW2/A20 pertaining to account no. 12557 is in the name of Suman Arora wife of Rajesh Kumar r/o 2/41, Pandav Road and none by the aforesaid name could be found during investigation at the said address. The contention raised by the counsel that the address 2/41, Pandav Nagar, Vishwas Nagar, Shahdara on the account opening form and as verified by the investigating agency by forwarding letter at 2/41, Pandav Road, Vishwas Nagar, Shahdara are discrepant appears to be without any merit. If any such person by name of Suman Arora existed, the same could have been summoned by the accused or would have been traced in investigation. Neither any evidence has been led by accused during cross-examination to conclude if Pandav Nagar and Pandav Road were different areas in the area of Shahdara which would have been at least known to PW3 Ghanshyam Dass who was the postman in the area. The body of the form with the aforesaid particulars was marked as Q1/1 and the signatures of Suman on the form marked as Q2 were forwarded for the opinion of the Handwriting expert. As per the opinion of expert Ex.PW21/P, the same are in handwriting of accused Ashok Pasrija. This form was also signed by accused being the Manager and his signatures at Q1/2 were also confirmed by the Handwriting Expert vide Ex.PW21/P. Similarly, specimen signatures card bearing signatures of Suman mark Q3/1, 3/2, 3/3 and Q4 were opined by the Handwriting Expert to be in the handwriting of CC No.85/11, RC No.48(A)/95 CBI vs. Ashok Pasrija accused Ashok Pasrija. Prosecution also examined the introducer of the said account Shri Anant (PW4) who identified his signatures on the account opening form and further stated that the account had been introduced at the instance of Ashok pasrija and he did not know Suman Arora. He further stated that account opening form was blank at the time the introduction was obtained by AP on the pretext that the particulars would be filed later on as the party was known to him. A postman (PW3) Ghanshyam was also examined by the prosecution who proved his report ExPW23/A on the backside of the registered letter addressed to Suman Arora wife of Rajesh Arora r/o 2/41 Pandav Road, Vishwas Nagar, Shahdara. He stated that as per the report, no such person resided in said house. Prosecution has pointed out that vide aforesaid letter a notice u/s 160 Cr.P.C. was forwarded by the CBI during course of investigation. This witness also deposed that the house belongs to Laxmi Narayan and it was confirmed by him that no person by name of Suman Arora lived in the house. The testimony of PW3 Shri Ghanshyam is further corroborated by PW20 Shri L. N. Sharma who deposed that he had been residing in 2/41, Yudhishther Gali, Shahdara since 1970 and none by name of Suman Arora and Rajesh Arora had lived in the said house. The prosecution during the course of investigation also examined PW26 Inspector R. S. Tokas who during the course of investigation visited the premises in question wherein one Smt. Prem Sethiya wife of Shri Babu Lal informed that none by name of Suman Arora and Rajesh Arora were residing at the said address. She also CC No.85/11, RC No.48(A)/95 CBI vs. Ashok Pasrija informed that the house belongs to L. N. Sharma who resided in the back portion and first floor of the house and had gone to Hardwar/Rishikesh with his family. A memorandum of the aforesaid visit was also prepared by PW26 Shri R. S. Tokas which was signed by independent witness Shri J. C. Sharma from FCI and Ct. Sukhbir Singh who had accompanied him. The said memorandum is Ex.PW25/A. The counsel for accused has contended that the testimony of PW25 Shri G. C. Sharma who had accompanied Inspector R. S. Tokas (PW26) was not trustworthy since the witness faulted during cross- examination as to the place which they had visited for verification. In my opinion the said contradiction cannot solely come to the rescue of the accused as the attending circumstances and evidence alongwith the memo clearly point out that the account opened in the name of Suman Arora was fake. Prosecution has also drawn my attention to the fact that the account opening form does not bear photograph of the account holder which reflects that the account was fictitious. The contention of the accused that the prosecution has failed to examine the other officer who had allegedly signed on the form also appears to be without any merit as the categorical stand of the prosecution is that account no. 12557 was fake which bears the signatures of accused.
Prosecution has further relied upon letter dated 25.06.1996 written to Chief Manager, OBC, Rajgarh Colony Branch by the SP Ex.PW27/2 whereby the vouchers in respect of various entries detailed therein for account no. 12557 and 12123 were desired. In response to the same at that stage of CC No.85/11, RC No.48(A)/95 CBI vs. Ashok Pasrija investigation vide letter dated 29.06.1996 OBC had responded that all the aforesaid entries pertaining to account no. 12123 and 12557 which are the credit entries in the said account were fake. The very fact that the vouchers of the said credit entries were not existing in the bank reflects that the entries were fake. In the aforesaid context the prosecution has further relied upon the long books of concerned dates.
Since the aforesaid account no. 12557 itself was fictitious, all the entries in the same were made for wrongful gain by accused as no one else was to benefit from the same.
To show that the credit entries in account no. 12557 are fake, the prosecution has relied upon ledger sheet pertaining to said account Ex.PW1/A in the name of Suman Arora. The entry dated 19.09.1992 showing credit of Rs.16,000/-, entry dated 07.10.1992 showing credit of Rs.22,500/-, entry dated 30.11.1993 showing credit of Rs.19,000/-, entry dated 14.12.1993 showing credit of Rs.11,300/-, entry dated 14.01.1994 showing credit of Rs.27,000/- and entry dated 03.04.1994 showing credit of Rs.19,500/- and Rs.13,000/- in the ledger sheet was opined by the Handwriting Expert to be in the hands of accused at Q16 to Q20 & Q22 vide Ex.PW21/Q. Prosecution has further relied upon the fact that as per ledger the credit entries were made by cash,transfer or clearing but were not supported by any vouchers. The said entries were also stated by the bank to have been fake as no credit vouchers were found as communicated to SP, CBI vide letter dated 29.06.1996 (Ex.PW16/D).
It is also pointed out that there is no entry reflected in CC No.85/11, RC No.48(A)/95 CBI vs. Ashok Pasrija the long book for 07.10.1992 (Ex.PW1/D) showing credit of amount of Rs.22,500/- in account no. 12557 on credit side which shows that the entry in the ledger was wrongly made to credit the amount.
Also no entry is reflected in the long book for 30.11.1993 (Ex.PW17/B) showing credit of amount of Rs.19,000/- in account no. 12557 on credit side which shows that the entry in the ledger was wrongly made to credit the amount.
Also no entry is reflected in the long book for 14.12.1993 (Ex.PW17/C) showing credit of amount of Rs. 11,300/- in account no. 12557 on credit side which shows that the entry in the ledger was wrongly made to credit the amount.
Also no entry is reflected in the long book for 01.02.1994 (Ex.PW17/D) showing credit of amount of Rs. 21,500/- in account no. 12557 on credit side which shows that the entry in the ledger was wrongly made to credit the amount.
Also no entry is reflected in the long book for 03.04.1994 (Ex.PW17/E) showing credit of amount of Rs. 19,500/- & Rs.13,000/- in account no. 12557 on credit side which shows that the entry in the ledger was wrongly made to credit the amount.
Also no entry is reflected in the long book for 01.07.1994 showing credit of amount of Rs.21,200/-, long book for 14.01.1994 showing credit of Rs.27,000/-, long book for 15.06.19954 showing credit of Rs.23,000/-, long book for 19.02.1992 showing credit of Rs.16,000/- in account no. 12557 on credit side which shows that the entries in the ledger CC No.85/11, RC No.48(A)/95 CBI vs. Ashok Pasrija were wrongly made to credit the amount. It may be mentioned that aforesaid three long books have not been exhibited but have been duly certified under the Banker's Book and the fact that the entries are fake can still be inferred from the fact that they are not supported by any vouchers.
With reference to credit entry dated 01.08.1994 for Rs/5,700/-, the prosecution has also drawn my attention to letter dated 21.04.1997 addressed by Chief Manager, OBC to Inspector Virender Thakran (Ex.PW16/E) whereby it was informed that long book/day book dated 01.08.1994 is non existent since 01.08.1994 (Monday) is a weekly off of the branch. The credit entry as such is fake on the face of record.
b) Investigation also revealed that Sh. Ashok Pasrija made the following transfer entries to a/c no.12557 by making transfer voucher without confirmation from account holders.
Date Amount Transferre Remarks by prosecution (in Rs.) d from 25.7.92 100/- SB 12136 An amount of Rs.28700/- withdrawn by Sh.
Ashok Pasrija on 26.7.92 vide cheque no.
26.7.92 29000/- CA 2568 976862 by forging signatures as Suman. The credited amount of Rs.14,000/- & 10,000/-
19.9.92 14000/- SB 3988 dated 19.9.92 was withdrawn vide cheque no.976863. An amount of Rs.2000/- was 19.9.92 10000/- SB 11142 withdrawn vide cheque no.976864 dated 24.9.92 by forging signature as Suman 23.9.92 2500/- SB 12169 (account holder) No.976868 dated 4.10.92 to M/s Goel Distributors in its current account at 11.12.92 10000/- SB 3988 OBC Connaught Place and honoured on 11.12.92. Sh. Ashok Pasrija had withdrawn 27.8.94 Rs.21000/- on 30.7.92 vide cheque no.
4000/- SB 12123 976861 by forging signatures as Suman
______ (account holder).
69600/-
The aforesaid entries may now be analysed in light of CC No.85/11, RC No.48(A)/95 CBI vs. Ashok Pasrija evidence led on record.
With reference to the transfer entries made from other accounts for transfer of amount in account no. 12557, the prosecution has relied upon testimony of account holders pertaining to savings bank account no. 12136 (PW6 L. M. Kapoor), SB account no. 11142 (PW7 Smt. Omwati), SB account no. 12169 (PW6 L. M. Kapoor). The holder of other savings bank account SB3988 could not be examined since Shri P. K. Rawat account holder expired in 1996. Also alleged holder of SB account no. 12123 Shri Yograj Grover denied having opened the said account and the account was proved to be fictitious.
PW6 Shri L. M. Kapoor denied having given any instructions to transfer amount of Rs.100/- vide entry dated 25.07.1992 or to transfer amount of Rs.2,500/- vide entry 23.09.1992 to account no. 12557 and further deposed that the transfer was made without his instructions and without his knowledge.
Similarly, PW7 Smt. Omwati, holder of account no. 11142 (as reflected from voucher Ex.PW2/A26) denied having instructed transfer of Rs.10,000/- from her account to account of Suman Arora. The signatures on the debit voucher Ex.PW2/A26 whereby the amount of Rs.10,000/- was to be debited in account no. 11142 was passed by accused Ashok Pasrija as per his signatures which were confirmed to be in his hand by the Handwriting Expert at Q14 vide opinion Ex.PW21/P. The prosecution has further relied upon various CC No.85/11, RC No.48(A)/95 CBI vs. Ashok Pasrija withdrawal cheques which were made from this account under the fictitious signatures of Suman on the cheques which were opined by the handwriting expert to be in the handwriting of accused Ashok Pasrija. The said cheques bearing the signatures of Suman are Ex.PW15/A (Q61), Ex.PW15/B (Q62), Ex.PW15/C (Q63), Ex.PW15/D (Q65)(signatures of Ashok Pasrija as passing Officer Q64), Ex.PW15/D1 (Q67) (signatures of Ashok Pasrija as passing Officer Q66), Ex.PW15/D2 (Q69)(signatures of Ashok Pasrija as passing Officer Q68), ExPW15/D3 (Q70)(signatures of Ashok Pasrija as passing Officer Q71), Ex.PW15/D4 (Q72), Ex.PW15/D5 (Q73/1,Q73/2), Ex.PW15/D6 (Q74/1, Q74/2)(signatures of Ashok Pasrija as passing Officer Q75), Ex.PW15/D7 (Q77) (signatures of Ashok Pasrija as passing Officer (Q76), Ex.PW15/D8 (Q79) (signatures of Ashok Pasrija as passing Officer Q78). The questioned handwriting at Q59 to Q72 and Q75 to Q85 were opined by the Handwriting Expert as per opinion Ex.PW21/P to be in the handwriting of accused Ashok Pasrija.
In the aforesaid context PW15 Shri Raj Kumar also deposed that the payment of several cheques had been made to the accused.
The evidence on record clearly proves that the illegal transactions referred to above were effected by accused.
12. Apart from the illegal entries fabricated by the accused, the prosecution has relied upon the extra judicial confessions by way of written statement made by accused Ashok Pasrija to Brig. K. C. Sukhija who has been examined in all the cases CC No.85/11, RC No.48(A)/95 CBI vs. Ashok Pasrija pending against the accused. The said handwritten statements given by the accused to Brig. K. C. Sukhija of his own freewill are clear admissions by the accused pointing out to his guilt. The testimony of Brig. K. C. Sukhija could not be dented during cross-examination and his testimony may be briefly referred as under:
PW-8 Shri K. C. Sukhija stated that his son Neeraj Sukhija was having account no. 12590 in Oriental Bank of Commerce, Rajgarh Colony, Delhi wherein his neighbour Ashok Pasrija was posted as Manager. He further stated that accused was staying in neighbourhood and the passbook was handed over by his son to the accused. Thereafter, in 1994 he came to know that accused is involved in some fraud in the bank and approached him. He further stated that accused gave a written confession to him on 10.05.1995, 12.05.1997 and 17.05.1997 which are in handwriting of accused and endorsement was made by the witness on the top of the confession given on 10.05.1995 and 12.05.1997. (Note:
there appears to be an error in dates as the statements are dated 10.05.1995, 12.05.1995 & 17.05.1995). The said confessions are Ex.PW8/A, Ex.PW8/B and Ex.PW8/C. The witness further deposed that accused told him that he was involved in a fraud of Rs.6.00 lakhs in various savings accounts in the branch including the account of son of witness.
Ld. PP for CBI has pointed out that accused Ashok Pasrija is also facing trial in another case bearing RC 49/95 which is pending before the Court of Shri Pradeep Chaddah, Special Judge, CBI and in the aforesaid case the irregularities committed in the account of Neeraj Sukhija son of K. C. Sukhija (have been dealt) and the charge-sheet was separately filed. The accused had given the said three confessional statements dated 12.05.1995, 10.05.1995 and 17.05.1995 as referred in statement of PW-8 Shri K. C. CC No.85/11, RC No.48(A)/95 CBI vs. Ashok Pasrija Sukhija with reference to said case and same has been relied in all the cases pending against the accused. All the said confessions in handwriting of accused have been placed in original in RC No. 49(A)/95 and the photocopies have been proved by PW8 in the present case as Ex.PW8/A, Ex.PW8/B & Ex.PW8/C. The writing of the said confessions which have been marked as Q1 on confession dated 12.05.1995 and Q2 on confession dated 10.05.1995 were opined by expert to be in handwriting of accused Ashok Pasrija and the handwriting expert is stated to have been examined in relevant RC 49(A)/95. The said confessional statements have been duly proved by witness Shri K. C. Sukhija in whose presence the said confessional statements were given and cannot be discarded merely because the handwriting expert Shri V. K. Khanna who had compared the handwriting and given the opinion that the same were in the handwriting of accused has not been examined in this case. The copy of the opinion of the handwriting expert has been relied by the prosecution in the three cases pending before this Court and the original admissions alongwith the opinion have been placed in the fourth case pending against the accused i.e. RC 49(A)/95 which is pending in the Court of Shri Pradeep Chaddah, Special Judge, CBI, Delhi and have been proved in the said case. The said file was also summoned during the course of arguments. The testimony of PW8 K. C. Sukhija could not be dented during cross-examination and there is no iota of doubt that the said confessional statements were made by the accused voluntarily and without any coercion.
CC No.85/11, RC No.48(A)/95 CBI vs. Ashok Pasrija It may now be relevant to point out the contents of the confessional statement dated 12.05.1995 which bears the endorsement of Shri K. C. Sukhija on the top of the statement alongwith date whereby accused categorically admitted having committed irregularities as under:
"I hereby admit having committed irregularities to the tune of Rs.6.00 lacs in different SB A/cs from Feb 92 onwards (including 2 entries of SB 12590 of Neeraj). No one else is responsible or be held responsible for my this act.
I undertake to reimburse the Bank with amount of loss caused because of my acts latest by 31.12.94.
I know that I do not deserve any sympathy/soft corner still for the sake of my innocent family I request for a Mercy.
Hoping for a Mercy.
Yours faithfully"
The confessional statement dated 12.05.1995 categorically points out that the accused therein unconditionally admitted his fault to K. C. Sukhija and was made even prior to registration of FIR.
So far as statement written by accused dated 10.05.1995 is concerned, the accused therein assured that K. C. Sukhija would not face any problem.
The third statement dated 17.05.1995 under signature of Ashok Pasrija may also be reproduced.
"To whomsoever it may concern This is confirmed that Sh Neeraj Sukhija R/o D-161 Bathla Appts, Patpar Ganj has no connection/relation with the questionable entries to the tune of Rs.23,000/- (Rs. Twenty three thousand only) that are appearing in his SB a/c no. 12590 with Oriental Bank of Commerce, Rajgarh Colony, Delhi & for which entries a legal notice has been issued or a Suit has been filed by the Bank making him a party. This charge against him is CC No.85/11, RC No.48(A)/95 CBI vs. Ashok Pasrija totally baseless which is being conveyed on the basis of available records with the bank.
Sd/-
(ASHOK PASRIJA) 17/5/95"
The said statement also clearly reflects that the accused admitted that the entries made in the account of Neeraj Sukhija (account no. 12590) had no connection with the questionable entries to the tune of Rs.23,000/-. Further, when read in conjunction with the earlier statements, the same reflect that the accused categorically admitted his dubious role in making the illegal entries to the tune of Rs.6.00 lakhs in different SB accounts. Since the original statements written by the accused were duly produced and copies exhibited thereafter and the concerned witness Shri K. C. Sukhija before whom the said statements were made has been duly examined, I am of the opinion that the same cannot be overlooked merely because the concerned handwriting expert has not been examined in this case. There does not appear to be any reason to presume that Ex.PW8/A to Ex.PW8/C were fabricated to implicate the accused as contended by the counsel. The testimony of Brig. K. C. Sukhija could not be dented during cross-examination and there is no reason to disbelieve the written admissions made by accused. The illegality committed by the accused as such stands proved even by his own admission by way of confessional statements given to Brig. K. C. Sukhija.
13(i) A contention has also been raised by accused that CC No.85/11, RC No.48(A)/95 CBI vs. Ashok Pasrija report of handwriting expert given in other connected cases by Shri T. R. Nehra (i.e CC No.84/11) who has since expired, is not admissible since the witness could not be produced for examination. The said contention raised by counsel for accused that report of the handwriting expert given by Shri T. R. Nehra, Handwriting Expert cannot be read in evidence u/s 293 Cr.P.C. and otherwise has not been proved due to death of Shri T. R. Nehra may be now dealt with. Reliance has also been placed upon Magan Bihari Lal vs. State of Punjab (1977) 2 SCC 210, Rajkumar vs. State of Haryana 1997 (1) Chandigarh Criminal Cases 478 (HC), Raj Mani vs. State 1997 (2) CC Cases 101 (HC), P. K. Vasudeva vs. Zenobia Bhanot AIR 1999 SC 3322 and Avtar Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab 1997 (2) CC Cases 24 (HC).
On the other hand, the contention is refuted on behalf of prosecution and it is submitted that the report given by the handwriting expert Shri T. R. Nehra was proved by PW17 Dr. M. A. Ali and can be duly read in evidence. It is also contended that the contents of the said report of the handwriting expert are relevant and can be considered u/s 32 (2) of the Evidence Act and since the report has been proved by PW17 to be in the writing of the expert who had since expired. Reliance is also placed upon 2009 Crl. L. J. 3268 Ramesh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1964 Pat 62 Ram Balak Singh and Ors. vs The State and AIR 1980 Supreme Court 531 Murarilal v. State of M. P. & AIR 1989 Supreme Court 702 Prithi Chand vs. State of Himachal Pradesh .
CC No.85/11, RC No.48(A)/95 CBI vs. Ashok Pasrija I have given considered thought to the contentions raised at bar. There is no doubt to the proposition that the maker of the report regarding the handwriting has to appear as a witness for the proof of the contents of the report and the report of handwriting expert is not covered under Clause C of Sub-section 4 of Section 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as held in 1997 (2) C.C. Cases 101 relied by the counsel for accused. The said proposition was decided by the Hon'ble High Court in the background that the accused did not have the opportunity to challenge the report of the handwriting expert as it was produced at the stage of recording of statement of accused u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
In the present case, the fact remains that the said report of the handwriting expert has been duly proved by PW17 Dr. M. A. Ali since the expert who had given the report, namely, Shri T. R. Nehra had expired. The contents of the report are relevant as per Sub-section 2 of Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act as held in 2009 Crl. L.J. 3268. The report has also been proved by PW17 Dr. M. A. Ali as per requirement of Section 67 of the Evidence Act. Reference may also be made to AIR 1989 Supreme Court 702 wherein the medical certificate made by the doctor whose presence could not be procured and was proved by another doctor was held to be admissible on the analogy that Section 32 of the Evidence Act provided that when a statement written or verbal is made by a person in the discharge of a professional duty whose CC No.85/11, RC No.48(A)/95 CBI vs. Ashok Pasrija attendance cannot be procured without an amount of delay the same is admissible in evidence. Apart from above, Section 73 of the Evidence Act enables a Court to compare disputed writings with admitted or proved writings to ascertain whether a writing is of the person by whom it purports to have been written and for the purpose the expert opinion aid's the Court. Further, the Court before acting on such evidence/opinion of the handwriting expert normally also sees if it is corroborated either by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence. The witnesses who were working with the accused in the bank in the course of duties have also deposed as to the making of various entries by the accused who were well acquainted with his handwriting and nothing has been elicited in the cross- examination to throw doubt if the relevant entries had not been made by the accused. In view of above, the report of handwriting expert is relevant and can be considered. At the same time it may be observed that even apart from the report of handwriting expert, sufficient evidence has been led to prove the illegal transactions carried by the accused.
(ii). It has also been contended by counsel for accused that expert evidence is a weak type of evidence and the Courts do not consider it as conclusive and, therefore, it is not safe to rely upon it without seeking independent and reliable corroboration. There is no dispute to the aforesaid extent as to the proposition of law. However, counsel for accused has further contended that since permission was not obtained by the IO prior to obtaining the specimen handwriting of the CC No.85/11, RC No.48(A)/95 CBI vs. Ashok Pasrija accused, the opinion of the handwriting expert has to be excluded.
I am of the considered view that the law on the aforesaid point has been authoritatively clarified in Bhupinder Singh vs. State in the judgement passed by the three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Crl. Appeal No. 1005/2008 decided on 30.11.2011. In the aforesaid case, expressing doubt to the correctness of decisions in Harpal Singh v. State (Criminal Appeal No. 362/2008 decided on 25th May, 2010) and Satyawan v. State (Criminal Appeal No. 34/2011 decided on 9th July, 2009) wherein the two division benches had ignored the part of the report of the handwriting expert on the ground that the investigating officer had taken the specimen handwriting in violation of the provisions of the the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920, the following question was referred for adjudication by a larger Bench "Whether the sample finger prints given by the accused during investigation under Section 4 of the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920 without prior permission of the Magistrate under Section 5 of the Act will be admissible or not?"
The Hon'ble Full Bench was of the considered view that the view expressed in Harpal Singh (Supra) and Satyawan (supra) is not a correct view and was overruled. It was further observed that the view expressed in the case of Sunil Kumar @ Sonu vs. State of NCT of Delhi Crl. Appeal No. 446/2005 decided on 25.03.2010 lays down the law in correct perspective. The observations in Sunil Kumar CC No.85/11, RC No.48(A)/95 CBI vs. Ashok Pasrija @ Sonu may be beneficially reproduced as under :
"26. It is true that the specimen finger print impressions of the appellants were taken by the IO directly and not through the Magistrate as provided in Section 5 of Identification of Prisoners Act. But, that, to my mind was not necessary because Section 4 of Identification of Prisoners Act specifically provides that any person who has been arrested in connection with an offence punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term of one year or upwards shall, if so required by a police officer, allow his measurement to be taken in the prescribed manner. In view of the independent powers conferred upon a police officer under Section 4 of the Act, it was not obligatory for him to approach the Magistrate under Section 5 of the Act. He would have approached the Magistrate, had the appellants refused to give Specimen Finger Print Impressions to him. Therefore, no illegality attaches to the specimen finger print impressions taken by the Investigating Officer. The court needs to appreciate that the very nature and characteristic of material such as finger prints renders it intrinsically and inherently impossible for anyone to fabricate them. If there is an attempt to fabricate finger prints, that can certainly be exposed by the accused by offering to allow his finger prints to be taken so that the same could be compared through the process of the court. Crl. A. No. 1005/2008 Page 6 of 15 None of the appellants has come forward to the court with a request to take his finger print impressions in the court and get them compared with the chance finger prints lifted by PW-1 from Car No. DL 2CA 4116 on 21st December, 2000."
In view of the authoritative pronouncement in Bhupinder Singh vs. State (Supra) and other authorities referred therein, I am of the considered view that opinion of the handwriting expert cannot be excluded merely on the ground that the specimen handwriting of the accused were obtained during investigation for comparison without seeking the permission of the Magistrate.
In the aforesaid context, reliance may also be placed upon AIR 2011 SC 1436 wherein reference was made to the judgement passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad and Ors., AIR 1961 SC 1808 and the relevant observations in Para 35 may be quoted:-
"11. ........When an accused person is called upon CC No.85/11, RC No.48(A)/95 CBI vs. Ashok Pasrija by the Court or any other authority holding an investigation to give his finger impression or signature or a specimen of his handwriting, he is not giving any testimony of the nature of a 'personal testimony'. The giving of a 'personal testimony' must depend upon his volition. He can make any kind of statement or may refuse to make any statement. But his finger impressions or his handwriting, in spite of efforts at concealing the true nature of it by dissimulation cannot change their intrinsic character. Thus, the giving of finger impressions or of specimen writing or of signatures by an accused person, though it may amount to furnishing evidence in the larger sense, is not included within the expression 'to be a witness."
14. The accused (in his defence) has also relied upon the judgements passed in the civil cases filed by Oriental Bank of Commerce against the accused alongwith other persons for recovery of the amount which were dismissed, to contend that the irregularities could not be proved against the accused.
Before I dwell upon the aforesaid judgements passed in civil cases, the scope of findings in the civil suits vis-a-vis the criminal proceedings may be seen as observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in AIR 2010 Supreme Court 2010 {Kishan Singh (D) through L. Rs. v. Gurpal Singh & Ors.} in para 19.
"19. Thus, in view of the above, the law on the issue stands crystallized to the effect that the findings of fact recorded by the Civil Court do no have any bearing so far as the criminal case is concerned and vice-versa. Standard of proof is different in civil and criminal cases. In civil cases it is preponderance of probabilities while in criminal cases it is proof beyond reasonable doubt. There is neither any statutory nor any legal principle that findings recorded by the court either in civil or criminal proceedings shall be binding between the same parties while dealing with the same subject-matter CC No.85/11, RC No.48(A)/95 CBI vs. Ashok Pasrija and both the cases have to be decided on the basis of the evidence adduced therein. However, there may be cases where the provisions of Sections 41 to 43 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, dealing with the relevance of previous Judgments in subsequent cases may be taken into consideration."
(a) The judgement relied by accused may now be adverted to and scrutinized. RCA No. 44/04 pertains to judgement dated 09.04.2008 passed in appeal by Shri A. S. Jayachandra, ADJ, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi whereby the appeal preferred by Oriental Bank of Commerce was dismissed and the findings of the ld. Civil Judge in judgement and decree in suit no. M15/04/96 dated 30.10.2004 were affirmed. The accused has not filed the copy of judgement passed in suit no. M15/04/96 dated 30.10.2004 by the Civil Judge. The perusal of judgement in appeal reveals that the suit was filed by Oriental Bank of Commerce against Ashok Pasrija and P. K. Rawat (since deceased) in respect of fraud committed in account no. 3988/15 (in the name of P. K. Rawat) by way of credit entries for sum of Rs.1,08,900/-. The findings of the trial court were upheld in appeal and the suit filed by Oriental Bank of Commerce appears to have been dismissed since the bank failed to examine the relied upon witnesses, namely, Shri P. L. Bhatnagar after partly examining the witness and since the bank also failed to prove the admission letter allegedly signed by accused Ashok Pasrija in original. The entries on the basis of ledger were also held to be not proved for want of certification under Banker's Book Evidence Act and for other reasons as recorded in the judgement. It was also observed CC No.85/11, RC No.48(A)/95 CBI vs. Ashok Pasrija in para 17(j) of the judgement passed in appeal that the allegation basically was against one of the account holder P. K. Rawat who died having appropriated the amount. It was also reasoned that the allegation against Ashok pasrija is that he facilitated such wrongful entries to help P. K. Rawat but to prove this allegation, none of the bank employees who worked during the tenure of defendant no. 2 was examined. It was also observed thereafter that after careful perusal of record, it becomes difficult to find out the role of defendant.
A bare perusal of the judgement reveals that the same was passed for the reasons that the relevant witnesses were either not examined or the documents were not proved in accordance with provisions of Evidence Act. The case was filed by OBC against both the account holder s well as accused herein for recovery. However, so far as the present proceedings are concerned, the same have to be assessed in the background that the CBI itself had placed Shri P. K. Rawat in column no. 2 of the charge-sheet and did not find any evidence to substantiate the finding that he was in conspiracy with accused Ashok Pasrija. The evidence in the present case as such needs to be assessed independently of the findings of the civil court and assess if the documents filed on record have been proved in accordance with law and if the evidence points to the guilt of the accused. It may be difficult to hold in the facts and circumstances that the prosecution of the accused cannot be sustained merely on the basis of the findings of the civil court with reference to judgement relied by the accused. The relevant evidence has been duly led in CC No.85/11, RC No.48(A)/95 CBI vs. Ashok Pasrija present proceedings to prove the facts beyond reasonable dount.
(b) The second judgement relied by the accused pertains to civil suit no. 611/07 (Ex.DW1/A), OBC vs. Sudarshan Kumar Raheja & Ashok Pasrija. The said suit was filed for recovery of Rs.43,808/- against the aforesaid defendants and the same was dismissed vide judgement dated 03.06.2009 by Shri Pulastya Pramachala, CCJ/ARC, East/MM, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. As per the case of the plaintiff in the aforesaid suit, fake entries were made in account no. 12151/47 in the name of Sudarshan Kumar Raheja for Rs.28,000/- which amount was withdrawn on 29.05.1992 for Rs.12,000/- and on 13.06.1992 for Rs.16,000/-. The said suit was dismissed since the plaintiff bank failed to prove the factum of making false entries of credit in account of Sudarshan Kumar Raheja (defendant in the suit). It was observed by the ld. trial Court that the plaintiff had nowhere explained that which particular entry was fake which pertained to credit of amount in the account of defendant no. 1 and the plaint speaks only about composite amount of Rs.28,000/-.
However, so far as the present proceedings are concerned, the prosecution has duly proved the relevant ledgers, vouchers etc. to prove the fake entries involved in the proceedings and as such, the findings of the civil Court cannot absolve the accused in the light of the categorical evidence on record.
CC No.85/11, RC No.48(A)/95 CBI vs. Ashok Pasrija
(c) The third judgement relied upon by the accused Ex.DW1/D pertains to suit filed by OBC against Smt. Rashmi Gulati and Ashok Pasrija for recovery of Rs.49,623/-. The suit filed by the plaintiff bank was dismissed vide judgement dated 21.4.2009 by Shri Pulastya Pramachala, CCJ/ARC/MM (East), Kakardooma Courts, Delhi. The said case pertains to making of fake entries in account no. 11112/43 for sum of Rs.40,532/- and out of the same, cash amount of Rs.11,040/- for pay order of Rs.11,015/- was made out in name of defendant no. 1 and amount of pay order was withdrawn by defendant no. 2. Further, a CDR dated 09.01.1994 for sum of Rs.30,000/- favouring defendant no. 1 was also issued.
So far as the aforesaid judgement is concerned, the said account number does not appear to be involved in the present case.
(d) The fourth judgement relied upon by the accused Ex.DW1/C pertains to suit filed by OBC against Neeraj Sukhija and Ashok Pasrija for recovery of Rs.28,024/-. The suit filed by the plaintiff bank was dismissed vide judgement dated 01.06.2009 by Shri Pulastya Pramachala, CCJ/ARC/MM (East), Kakardooma Courts, Delhi. As per the case of the plaintiff bank, the fake entries were made in account no. 12590 belonging to Neeraj Sukhija for a sum of Rs.23,000/- and out of this amount, at the request of Neeraj Sukhija a demand draft was made favouring Col. K. C. Sukhija for Rs. 10,000/- and the remaining amount was withdrawn by defendant no. 1 or transferred to other accounts. The ld. Trial CC No.85/11, RC No.48(A)/95 CBI vs. Ashok Pasrija Court dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to explain as to which particular entries were fake which pertained to credit of amount in the account of defendant no. 1 and only a composite amount of Rs.23,000/- was mentioned. It was also observed that nothing relating to the accounts was produced before the Court and the plaintiff failed to prove the factum of making false entries of credit in account of defendant no. 1.
So far as the aforesaid judgement is concerned, same may be relevant for consideration in RC 49(A)/95 which is pending before the Court of Shri Pradeep Chaddah, Special Judge, Delhi. So far as illegal entries other than relating to account no. 12590 are concerned, the same have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The accused cannot be given any benefit merely on the basis of said judgements passed in aforesaid civil cases and specifically in view of written admissions made by accused before Shri K. C. Sukhija which have been duly proved on record.
In view of aforesaid discussion, the accused cannot be granted benefit of doubt merely because of dismissal of civil proceedings for recovery of amount initiated by OBC. The charge against the accused stands proved beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of evidence led on record in the present proceedings.
15. Contention has also been raised on behalf of accused that in respect of some of the entries, the prosecution has filed extract of long book instead of producing the original and as CC No.85/11, RC No.48(A)/95 CBI vs. Ashok Pasrija such the case has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
The contention raised by the counsel for accused does not carry any merit since overwhelming evidence has been led by prosecution to establish the illegal transactions carried by the accused. In case the accused was prejudiced by non production of any such document in original, the same could have been summoned by him. Further, there does not appear to be any requirement that each and every entry made in the relevant ledgers/books maintained in the bank was required to be proved by the concerned person who had made the entries. The relevant copies of the documents duly certified under the Bankers Book Evidence Act, 1891 have been produced and proved on record.
16. Counsel for accused also challenged the proceedings on the ground that no sanction had been obtained by the prosecution u/s 19 of PC Act, 1988. The said contention on the face of record appears to be meritless as it was pointed out by the prosecution that the accused had been dismissed from service prior to filing of chargesheet on 23.07.1998. For the aforesaid purpose during the course of arguments, file pertaining to RC 46(A)/95 was also called since some of the documents in original referred during the course of arguments were stated to have been tagged with the said file. In the aforesaid case, an original communication dated 19.06.1998 addressed by Shri S. K. Singh, Chief Vigilance Officer to Shri Anil Kumar, Superintendent of Police has been brought to my notice whereby it was communicated that Ashok Pasrija had CC No.85/11, RC No.48(A)/95 CBI vs. Ashok Pasrija been removed from the service of the bank vide letter dated 29.03.1997.
17. The accused has been charged for offences u/s 420/409/467/468/477-A IPC (falsification of accounts). Section 463 deals with forgery and Section 464 further defines "making of false documents". Section 467 provides punishment for forgery of valuable security, will etc. Section 468 deals with forgery for purpose of cheating. The opinion of Handwriting Expert proves the fact that accused forged various debit vouchers, credit vouchers for wrongly debiting and crediting the amount as discussed in preceding paras. The forgery has been clearly done for purpose of cheating and the accused further prepared and used the various debit slips and credit slips for wrongly crediting the amount and for illegal gain. The accused is hereby convicted under Sec 420/467/468 IPC.
Sec. 477-A IPC deals with falsification of accounts and may be reproduced.
"477A, Falsification of accounts.- Whoever, being a clerk, officer or servant, or employed or acting in the capacity of a clerk, officer or servant, willfully, and with intent to defraud, destroys, alters, mutilates or falsifies any book, electronic record, paper, writing], valuable security or account which belongs to or is in the possession of his employer, or has been received by him for or on behalf of his employer, or willfully, and with intent to defraud, makes or abets the making of any false entry in, or omits or alters or abets the omission or alteration of any material particular of any material particular form or in, any such book, CC No.85/11, RC No.48(A)/95 CBI vs. Ashok Pasrija electronic record, paper, writing], valuable security or account, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both. Explanation-It shall be sufficient in any charge under this section to allege a general intent to defraud without naming any particular person intended to be defraud without naming any particular person intended to be defrauded or specifying any particular sum of money intended to be the subject of the fraud, or any particular day on which the offence was committed."
The evidence clearly points out that the debit and credit slips were dishonestly prepared for wrongful gain to the accused and causing loss to the bank and the account holders. The accused also intentionally made fraudulent entries for purpose of illegal gain and thereby committed offence punishable u/s 477-A IPC. The accused is accordingly also convicted u/s 477-A IPC.
Section 409 IPC deals with criminal breach of trust by public servant or by banker, merchant or agent and provides that 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 prescribed therein. It has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused by abusing his position as a public servant/banker committed criminal breach of trust and also duped the account holders and as such is liable to be convicted u/s 409 IPC.
CC No.85/11, RC No.48(A)/95 CBI vs. Ashok Pasrija
18. OFFENCE COMMITTED BY ACCUSED ON THE PROVED FACTS UNDER PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988.
Relevant portion of Section 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 which provides for criminal misconduct by a public servant reads as under:
"13.Criminal misconduct by a public servant.
(1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct,-
[...]
(c) If he dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriates or otherwise converts for his own use any property entrusted to him or under his control as a public servant or allows any other person so to do; or
(d) If he, -[...]
(ii) By abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or [...](2) Any public servant who commits criminal misconduct shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than one year but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine."
The accused in the present case being deputed in the bank had access to all the documents maintained in the Banking business and was also responsible as an manager for conduct of day to day business in the bank. The accused wrongly made the entries or ensured that the transactions are CC No.85/11, RC No.48(A)/95 CBI vs. Ashok Pasrija wrongly entered on the basis of vouchers for debiting and crediting of the amount in various accounts and as such on the face of record misused his position for fraudulent gain and committed criminal breach of trust. It is therefore beyond purview of doubt that accused being a public servant is guilty of offence u/s 13(1)(d) r/w Sec 13(1)(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
19. For the foregoing reasons the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Accused is accordingly convicted for commission of offences under Sections 409/420/467/468,477 A IPC & 13 (1) (d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Announced in the (Anoop Kumar Mendiratta)
open Court on Special Judge (PC Act)
18th July, 2012 CBI-08, Central District,
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
CC No.85/11, RC No.48(A)/95 CBI vs. Ashok Pasrija IN THE COURT OF ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT), CBI-08, CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
CC No. : 85/2011
PS : CBI/ACB/ND
Unique ID No. 02401R0055041998
RC No. : 48(A)/95-DLI
CBI
Versus
Shri Ashok Pasrija,
Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce,
Rajgarh Colony Branch,
Delhi.
At present r/o D-140, Bathla Apartment,
Patparganj, Delhi.
Date of FIR : 16.06.1995
Date of Institution : 29.07.1998
Date of Judgement : 18.07.2012
Order on Sentence : 20.07.2010
CASE MORE THAN 10 YEARS OLD.
1. Accused Ashok Pasrija has been convicted vide separate judgements dated 18.07.2012 in all the three connected cases which were taken up together for disposal (i.e. RC No. 46(A)/95 (CC No. 83/11), RC No. 47(A)/95 (CC No. 84/11) and RC No. 48(A)/95 (CC No. 85/11). The CC No.85/11, RC No.48(A)/95 CBI vs. Ashok Pasrija accused has been convicted in each case for commission of offences U/s 409/420/467/468/477 (A) IPC & Section 13 (1)(d) r/w Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988.
2. I have heard Shri A. K. Dutt, ld. PP for CBI and counsel for accused on point of sentence.
Counsel for accused submits that accused is aged about 60 years and has already been dismissed from service. It is further submitted that family of the accused has also suffered immensely on account of his dismissal and has been financially ruined. It is also contended that accused is suffering from medical ailments and has been facing proceedings for the last 17 years since registration of FIR in 1995 and as such a lenient view be taken.
On the other hand Ld. PP for CBI contends that deterrent sentence be passed.
3. Accused was an employee of Oriental Bank of Commerce and indulged in preparation of false documents, forging of entries and fabrication of accounts for wrongful gain. Apart from the bank, the account holders in the respective cases were also put at loss and duped in good faith. The fraud committed by accused could not be detected for a considerable period despite audits since the the accused being a Manager in the bank had access to all the documents and was able to CC No.85/11, RC No.48(A)/95 CBI vs. Ashok Pasrija maneuver. The acts of the accused pose a fundamental threat to the viability of the organization itself and also resulted in loss to several account holders who trusted the accused and thereby calls for a deterrent sentence.
4. The case also calls for appropriate checks to be taken by the bank as the illegal transactions carried by the accused could not be detected in the normal course despite regular balancing of books claimed to have been carried in the bank. Some of the credit entries were made by the accused even without supporting vouchers which could not have been possible, if the other employees in the bank had been diligent enough to cross check the vouchers with corresponding entries. There appears to be lack of supervision by the senior officials. The judgements filed by the accused in his defence reflect that the Oriental Bank of Commerce resorted to filing of the civil suits for recovery of the amounts against some of the account holders on the presumption that they were in collusion with the accused while the prosecution at the stage of investigation itself gave a clean chit to the account holders in the present cases as the fraud was committed by the accused and the account holders themselves were put at loss. In the facts and circumstances, the bank is required to at least ensure that the account holders are not put to inconvenience and further face litigation for deficiencies in their own system or the fraud committed by its employees. The Oriental CC No.85/11, RC No.48(A)/95 CBI vs. Ashok Pasrija Bank of Commerce needs to ensure proper conciliation and accountability of banking transactions on day to day basis to prevent similar frauds. A copy of judgment alongwith order on sentence be also forwarded to the Chairman/CEO, Oriental Bank of Commerce for information and necessary action.
5. I am of the considered view that interest of justice would be fully met if convict shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years in respect of offence under Section 420 IPC and shall also pay fine of Rs.2,000/-; in default of payment of fine accused shall undergo SI for 2 months. In respect of offence under Section 409 IPC, convict shall undergo R.I. for 3 years and shall pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-; in default of payment of fine to undergo S.I. for 2 months. In respect of offence under Section 467 IPC, convict shall undergo R.I. for 3 years and shall pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-; in default of payment of fine to undergo S.I. for 2 months. In respect of offence under Section 468 IPC, convict shall undergo R.I. for 3 years and shall pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-; in default of payment of fine to undergo S.I. for 2 months. In respect of offence under Section 477 A IPC, convict shall undergo R.I. for 3 years and shall pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-; in default of payment of fine to undergo S.I. for 2 months. Lastly, in respect of offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 convict shall undergo R.I. for 3 years and shall pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-; in default of payment of fine to undergo S.I. for 2 months. The aforesaid sentence under different sections CC No.85/11, RC No.48(A)/95 CBI vs. Ashok Pasrija in this case as well as the sentence imposed in the other two cases decided alongwith this case shall run concurrently (i.e. CC No. 83/11, 84/11 & 85/11). Convict shall also be entitled to benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. Copy of judgement alongwith order on sentence be provided to convict free of cost.
Announced in the open court (Anoop Kumar Mendiratta) on 20th July, 2012 Special Judge (CBI-08), PC Act Central Distt., Delhi.
CC No.85/11, RC No.48(A)/95 CBI vs. Ashok Pasrija