Delhi District Court
Cbi vs Ravinder Kumar Joshi & Ors. Where ... on 9 October, 2017
IN THE COURT OF SH. ARUN BHARDWAJ, SPECIAL JUDGE
(PC ACT), CBI-05, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS,
NEW DELHI DISTRICT, NEW DELHI
CC No. 16/16
RC No.072-2008 (E) 0004/ dated 26.09.2008
Central Bureau of Investigation
Versus
1. Sh. Y. N. Kashyap (Private Person) (Died on 29.01.2016)
S/o Sh. Ganeshi Lal
R/o Flat No.804, Meditec Apartments, Sector-56, Gurgaon,
(Haryana) (Rented House). ... Accused No. 1
2. Sh. Ranjan Kashyap (Private Person)
S/o Late Sh. Y. N. Kashyap
R/o Flat No.804, Meditec Apartments, Sector-56, Gurgaon,
(Haryana) (Rented House). ... Accused No. 2
3. Sh. S. V. Chauhan (Public Servant),
the then Chief Manager,
Punjab National Bank, Paharganj Branch,
New Delhi
S/o Sh. S. S. Chauhan
R/o H. No. A-13, Punj Vihar, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar,
Lucknow.
Permanent R/o H. No.110, Azadura, Dam Road, Opposite
Church, Lalitpur (UP). ... Accused No. 3
CBI v Sh. Y. N. Kashyap & Ors. Page 1 of 71
CC No.16/16 DL-0375
4. Sh. Lajpat Chandolia (Public Servant),
the then Manager,
Punjab National Bank, Paharganj Branch,
New Delhi
S/o Sh. Ishwar Lal
R/o H. No.472, Pocket-3, Paschim Puri,
New Delhi-110063. ... Accused No. 4
Date of Institution : 21.12.2009
Date of Conclusion of Arguments : 03.10.2017
Date of Judgment : 09.10.2017
JUDGMENT
1. On 15.09.2008, a complaint was lodged with CBI by Sh. Biker Singh Mann, Chief Manager of Punjab National Bank (PNB), Paharganj Branch, New Delhi.
2. It was stated in the complaint that M/s. R. R. Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd. having its factory at 89, Industrial Area, Sector-24, Faridabad, Haryana, is engaged in manufacturing and export of automobile parts. Sh. Y. N. Kashyap and Sh. Ranjan Kashyap, residents of House No.1361, Sector-14, Faridabad are the Promoter-Directors of the company.
3. It was stated that the above said company was dealing with Bank of India (BOI), Mayur Vihar, Phase I, New Delhi and availed cash credit limit of Rs.90.00 Lacs and packing credit limit of Rs.150 Lacs, total limit Rs.240 Lacs. The company had mortgaged the property situated at Plot No.89, Industrial Area, Sector-24, Faridabad (in the name of M/s. R. R. Industries) with Bank of India as a collateral security.
CBI v Sh. Y. N. Kashyap & Ors. Page 2 of 71CC No.16/16 DL-0375
4. It was stated that the company through its Directors submitted a proposal to PNB Branch Office, Paharganj on 01.12.2006 for take over of their borrowal accounts from Bank of India and for sanction of additional credit facility.
5. It was stated that the company while approaching the Bank for sanction of credit facilities represented that they have not obtained any loan from any other Bank/Financial Institution except from Bank of India. Additionally, the company offered property situated at 1361-P, Sector-14, Faridabad measuring 1126.67 sq. yds. in the name of Sh. Y. N. Kashyap, one of the Directors of the company, as collateral security.
6. It was stated that the company represented to the Bank that the above- named Sh. Y. N. Kashyap is the exclusive owner of the above said property having a clear and marketable title and the same is free from all types of encumbrances.
7. It was further stated in the complaint that the Chief Manager of the Branch, after taking permission from Zonal Office, Delhi for takeover of the accounts, had sanctioned cash credit limit of Rs.90.00 Lacs, packing credit limit of Rs.200.00 Lacs and FOBP limit of Rs.100.00 Lacs with overall ceiling of Rs.390 Lacs to the company on 12.05.2007 which were disbursed on 15.05.2007.
8. It is stated in the complaint that the Bank had obtained Non Encumbrance Certificate (NEC) from the advocate in respect of both the properties and the advocate vide NEC dated 23.03.2007 had stated that the title of the properties are clear and the properties can be validly mortgaged in favour of the Bank.
9. It is stated in the complaint that the party did not submit inventory statement after 28.07.2007 and during the visit of Branch Officials to the factory CBI v Sh. Y. N. Kashyap & Ors. Page 3 of 71 CC No.16/16 DL-0375 premises of the party on 21.08.2007, stock worth Rs.50 Lacs to Rs.60 Lacs only was found available as against the outstanding of Rs.235 Lacs. The conduct of the account was not satisfactory and became irregular in August, 2007. The Internal Senior Auditor of the Branch along with Manager (Credit) (Sh. Lajpat Chandolia) visited the party on 03.01.2008 and were informed by the Directors of the company that they are not maintaining any Stock Register and in the absence of Books, the Bank officials could not evaluate the stock. Since the response of the party was not satisfactory, the Branch Officials visited the office of Sub-Registrar to verify the genuineness of the title deeds mortgaged with the Bank and on verification observed certain discrepancies in the mortgage.
10. It is stated in the complaint that it came to the notice of the Bank that the company had availed loan from Andhra Bank and Property No.89, Sector 24, Industrial Area, Faridabad, was mortgaged with the said Bank as back as 27.11.2001 and property situated at Plot No.1361P, Sector 14, Faridabad, was also mortgaged with Andhra Bank and UCO Bank and the accounts of the party with UCO Bank and Andhra Bank were in NPA category.
11. It was also stated in the complaint that the Promoters-Directors of the company deliberately concealed from the Bank that they have already availed loan from Andhra Bank, UCO Bank and also from Standard Chartered Bank.
12. It was alleged that the Directors of the company had approached the Bank for raising loan with an intention to commit fraud / cheating with the Bank by inducing it to sanction credit facilities to them. They were well aware that the original title deeds by deposit of which mortgage was proposed to be created are not genuine and are forged and fabricated documents and further they themselves had already created charge / mortgage of the abovesaid properties for raising various types of loans with different Banks at different times, prior to CBI v Sh. Y. N. Kashyap & Ors. Page 4 of 71 CC No.16/16 DL-0375 getting the loan from PNB.
13. It was alleged that Sh. Y. N. Kashyap and Sh. Ranjan Kashyap, the Directors of M/s. R. R. Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd. with their dishonest intentions have entered into a criminal conspiracy to cheat the Bank and in furtherance of the conspiracy submitted the title deeds in respect of the properties which were already mortgaged with some other Banks and cheated the Bank to the tune of Rs.276.02 Lacs.
14. On the basis of this complaint, RC No.072-2008 (E) 0004/08 under Section 120-B IPC readwith Section 420, 467, 468 & 471 of IPC and substantive offences thereof was registered on 26.09.2008 at EOW-II.
15. The investigation in the complaint resulted in filing of Charge-sheet under Section 173 of Cr.PC on 21.12.2009 alleging that offences under Section 120-B IPC readwith Section 420, 468 & 471 of IPC and Section 13 (2) readwith Section 13 (1) (d) PC Act 1988 read with substantive offences thereof have been committed by Accused no. 1 (A-1) Sh. Y. N. Kashyap, Accused no. 2 (A-2) Sh. Ranjan Kashyap, Accused no. 3 (A-3) Sh. S. V. Chauhan and Accused no. 4 (A-4) Sh. Lajpat Chandolia.
16. A-1 Sh. Y. N. Kashyap died during pendency of the case on 29.01.2016 and proceedings qua him abated vide order dated 08.02.2016.
17. A-3 Sh. S. V. Chauhan at the relevant time was the Chief Manager of PNB, Paharganj Branch and A-4 Sh. Lajpat Chandolia at the relevant time was Manager, PNB, Paharganj Branch and were as such public servants.
18. In brief, the allegations against the accused in the charge sheet are that A-1 Sh. Y. N. Kashyap was the owner of Plot No.1361-P, Sector-14, Faridabad & M/s R. R. Industries (through its partner Sh. Y. N. Kashyap) was the registered owner of Plot No.89, Industrial Area, Sector-24, Faridabad. These properties were already mortgaged with Andhra Bank since 2001. Original title CBI v Sh. Y. N. Kashyap & Ors. Page 5 of 71 CC No.16/16 DL-0375 deeds of both the properties were with Bank of India since 2001. However, A-1 Sh. Y. N. Kashyap and A-2 Sh. Ranjan Kashyap conspired with A-3 Sh. S. V. Chauhan and A-4 Sh. Lajpat Chandolia and procured credit facility to the tune of Rs.390 lacs from PNB, Paharganj Branch on the basis of forged and fabricated conveyance deed of Property No.1361-P, Sector-14, Faridabad and forged conveyance deed of Plot No.89, Industrial Area, Sector-24, Faridabad.
19. As a result of the conspiracy hatched by all the accused persons, A-3 Sh. S. V. Chauhan and A-4 Sh. Lajpat Chandolia did not take pre-sanction and post-sanction precautions and did not follow the instructions of the Zonal Office while sanctioning the loan and did not follow various circulars, guidelines of the Bank and also did not follow the advise of panel lawyer and granted and released the limits in favour of M/s. R. R. Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd. on the basis of forged title deeds resulting in financial loss of Rs.2,76,02,523.26 to the Bank.
20. Sanction for prosecution from the competent authorities in respect of both the public servants, as required under Section 19 (1) (c) of PC Act 1988 was taken and it was concluded in the charge-sheet that Sh. S. V. Chauhan, the then Chief Manager, PNB, who is A-3 and Sh. Lajpat Chandolia, who is A-4, the then Manager (Loans), PNB, Paharganj Branch, A-1 Sh. Y. N. Kashyap and A-2 Sh. Ranjan Kashyap have committed offences punishable under Section 120-B IPC readwith Section 420, 468, 471 IPC and Section 13 (2) readwith 13 (1) (d) PC Act, 1988 and substantive offences thereof.
21. After hearing the learned Public Prosecutor of CBI and learned counsels for all the accused, Charge was framed on 23.07.2012. All the four accused were charged with the offence punishable under Section 120-B IPC readwith Section 420/468/471 IPC and 13 (2) readwith 13 (1) (d) of PC Act. A-1 Sh. Y. N. Kashyap and A-2 Sh. Ranjan Kashyap were also charged with the offence CBI v Sh. Y. N. Kashyap & Ors. Page 6 of 71 CC No.16/16 DL-0375 punishable under Section 420/468/471 of IPC. Further, A-3 Sh. S. V. Chauhan and A-4 Sh. Lajpat Chandolia were also charged with offence punishable under Section 13 (2) readwith Section 13 (1) (d) of PC Act to which all the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
22. A-2 Sh. Ranjan Kashyap admitted 38 documents on 04.12.2015 which were exhibited as Ex.A1 to Ex.A38. Similarly, on 19.10.2015, 24 documents were admitted by A-3 Sh. S. V. Chauhan and those documents were also admitted by A-4 Sh. Lajpat Chandolia which are D-59, D-65, D-67, D-70, D-83, D-84, D-85 to D-91, D-105 to D-115.
23. During the trial, the CBI relied on the testimony of 26 prosecution witnesses, besides contents of several exhibits.
24. Sh. M. K. Gupta was examined as PW1. He was Senior Manager in PNB, Paharganj Branch in September, 2006 when A-3 Sh. S. V. Chauhan was the Chief Manager. On the directions of Sh. S. V. Chauhan, he had visited the house premises as well as factory of M/s. R. R. Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd. for the purposes of verification of the properties and had submitted two visit reports dated 08.11.2006 to A-3 Sh. S. V. Chauhan. The immovable property verification visit report dated 08.11.2006 pertaining to the inspection of the factory at 89, Sector 24, Industrial Area, Faridabad, was exhibited as Ex.PW1/A (D-3) and the visit report pertaining to the inspection of the house bearing no. 1361P, Sector 14, Faridabad was exhibited as Ex.PW1/B (D-4). The witness proved the photographs of Property No.1361-P, Sector-14, Faridabad as Ex.PW1/C (D-81) and photographs of Property No.89, Sector 24, Faridabad as Ex.PW1/D (D-82). The value of factory as per Ex.PW1/A was Rs.300 lacs and the value of house premises, as per Ex.PW1/B was Rs.500 lacs, total worth of properties Rs.800 Lacs.
25. In cross examination, he stated that the worth of the properties was CBI v Sh. Y. N. Kashyap & Ors. Page 7 of 71 CC No.16/16 DL-0375 inquired from the property dealers. He was posted at Paharganj Branch from 07.09.2006 to 23.12.2006 as Senior Manager in Loan Department and at that time accused no. 4 Sh. Lajpat Rai Chandolia was not posted in Loan Department with him. During his tenure, accused no. 1 and accused no. 2 had applied for loan and proposal for loan was with the Chief Manager. Since he did not find any Board of any Bank on the properties in question, he stated that there was no claim of any other Bank qua the properties visited by him.
26. PW2 is Sh. Biker Singh Mann, Circle Head, PNB, Circle Office, Kolkata. He stated that in September, 2008, he was posted as Chief Manager in PNB, Paharganj Branch, Delhi. M/s R. R. Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd. was having a loan account of different facilities with the Branch which was in Non Performing Asset (NPA) category. In May 2007 from the beginning of the account, the conduct of the account was not satisfactory and the then management got the title deeds of the properties mortgaged with the Bank re- verified and during re-verification, it came to its notice that the properties (title deeds) mortgaged with the Bank were forged and fabricated. When the Bank came to know these facts, a complaint was lodged with the CBI for further investigation in the matter. The witness proved the complaint dated 15.09.2008 given to the CBI as Ex.PW2/A (D-2).
27. In cross examination, he explained that accused no. 1 and accused no.2 might have given the application for the loan before the date of visit of Sh. M. K. Gupta to the properties which was on 08.11.2006 and after the date of visit and after completion of all the formalities of the Bank, it might have been converted into loan proposal on 01.12.2006.
28. He denied the suggestion that the panel advocate in the Search Certificate reported that the title deeds of the property were genuine.
29. He also stated that PNB had requested HUDA for registration in the CBI v Sh. Y. N. Kashyap & Ors. Page 8 of 71 CC No.16/16 DL-0375 name of PNB against these properties after taking over the account from Bank of India. He stated that before taking over of the loan, no request could have been made to HUDA for mortgage in favour of PNB.
30. Letter dated 09.11.2006 written by accused no. 3 to the Chief Manager, Bank of India, Mayur Vihar Branch asking for the credentials of M/s. R. R. Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd. was exhibited as Ex.PW3/DA (D-5). He stated that in the reply of Bank of India, Mayur Vihar Branch, it was stated that the accounts of the party were 'Satisfactory'.
31. He also stated that on the basis of letter dated 11.01.2008 written by accused no. 4, at the instance of accused no.3, Sh. U. C. Mittal Advocate inquired qua the genuineness of the documents of the properties mortgaged with the Bank and came to know that the same were not genuine.
32. He also stated that as per Centralized Banking Solutions Environment, cheques are passed by the back office and while passing the cheques, another branch practically has no control over it.
33. He admitted that as per CIBIL report dated 02.03.2007, the credit facilities were in 'Standard Category'.
34. On seeing D-28, report given by M/s S. Raja & Associates, Company Secretaries dated 08.05.2007 from the office of Registrar of Companies, he stated that the said report showed only the charge of Bank of India and of no other Bank.
35. On seeing letter dated 16.12.2005 of HUDA (D-82) Page No.45, he stated that as per the said letter, only Bank of India had charge over property No.89, Sector 24, Industrial Area, Faridabad, Haryana.
36. On seeing D-81, Page No.28-33, he stated that as per letter dated 22.05.2007, 29.06.2007 (Ist reminder), 01.08.2007 (IInd reminder), 04.10.2007 (IIIrd reminder), 01.11.2007 (IVth reminder) and 29.12.2007 (22.12.2007) (Vth CBI v Sh. Y. N. Kashyap & Ors. Page 9 of 71 CC No.16/16 DL-0375 reminder), the PNB, Paharganj was vigorously following with the Estate Officer of HUDA for marking Bank's lien on the properties mortgaged by A-1 Sh.Y. N. Kashyap and A-2 Sh. Ranjan Kashyap in favour of PNB, Paharganj.
37. PW3, Sh. B. P. Sharma, the Executive Director (Sanctioning Authority), Bank of India stated that in December 2009, he was posted as General Manager (HR) in Head Office of PNB and he was the Removing Authority for officers of Scale IV. He was the removing authority for Chief Manager of PNB and had given sanction to prosecute A-3 Sh. S. V. Chauhan, the then Chief Manager of PNB. The Sanctioning Order dated 17.12.2009 was proved as Ex.PW3/A.
38. During his cross examination, he was confronted with letter dated 09.11.2006 which was written by A-3 Sh. S. V. Chauhan to the Chief Manager, Bank of India which was exhibited as Ex.PW3/DA (D-5). As per this letter, information was requested from BOI with regard to credit limits availed by M/s R. R. Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd., Financial Position, Credibility/Conduct of the Account, Asset Classification, Credit Risk Rating and adverse feature, if any.
39. He was also confronted with a Circular dated 18.03.2008 as per which authenticity of the Chartered Accountants was required to be verified from regional office of ICAI under whose jurisdiction the CAs/Firm in question falls to avoid any serious implication for the Bank due to fake reports and the same was exhibited as Ex.PW3/DB.
40. PW4 Sh. S. S. Bhatia, (Sanctioning Authority), General Manager, PNB Head Office, proved Sanctioning Order dated 09.12.2009 permitting prosecution of A-4 Sh. Lajpat Chandolia as Ex.PW4/A.
41. PW5 Sh. Kailash Goel, Accounts Head of G. D. Goenka World School, Sohna, Gurgaon, Haryana proved letter dated 11.11.2009 regarding payments CBI v Sh. Y. N. Kashyap & Ors. Page 10 of 71 CC No.16/16 DL-0375 received from Sh. Ranjan Kashyap towards the Boarding/School fee of his children Hrithik Kashyap and Prateek Kashyap during the year 2007 as Ex.PW5/A (D-104). As per this letter, a sum of Rs.5,36,500/- was used from the loan account for payment of fees from May, 2007 to August, 2007. This letter was proved to show that A-1 Sh. Y. N. Kashyap and A-2 Sh. Ranjan Kashyap had utilized the loan for purposes other than for which it was sanctioned.
42. PW6 Sh. Ramesh Kumar Khurana stated that he is a property broker in the business of real estate for the last 25 years. He was shown D-94 which is Conveyance Deed dated 02.06.1995 between HUDA, Faridabad and A-1 Sh. Y. N. Kashyap with regard to Property No.1361-P, Sector-14, Faridabad, Haryana and identified his signatures on the said Deed at point A as well as signatures of his employee Sh. Ranjan Kumar. The conveyance Deed was exhibited as Ex.PW6/A (D-94). (The objection of the accused that the document cannot be exhibited as it is neither registered nor stamped is rejected for the reason that it is the office copy of the conveyance deed retained in the office of HUDA and the copy which is stamped and registered is given to the allottee.) He was also shown another conveyance deed dated 02.06.1995 on stamp paper of Rs.10,155/-. He denied that the same bears his signatures or signatures of his employee Sh. Ranjan Kumar. He stated that his signatures and signatures of his employee on this conveyance deed are forged. This conveyance deed was exhibited as Ex.PW6/B (D-93).
43. PW7 is Sh. Manish Bhardwaj, an Advocate by profession and working for M/s. Bhardwaj, Vashist & Associates which was on the approved panel of PNB in the year 2007. He proved legal search report regarding property bearing No.89, Sector 24, Faridabad, Haryana as Ex.PW7/A (part of D-82). In this report, he has stated that M/s R. R. Industries has a clear, valid and marketable title over Property No.89/24, Faridabad and is competent to create the CBI v Sh. Y. N. Kashyap & Ors. Page 11 of 71 CC No.16/16 DL-0375 mortgage by deposit of (i) original conveyance deed dated 21.06.1972 executed by Governor of Haryana in favour of M/s R. R. Industries, (ii) permission to mortgage the captioned property by Governor of Haryana in favour of Bank, (iii) copy of approved site map in respect of captioned property
(iv) an affidavit from M/s R. R. Industries through its partner A-1 Sh. Y. N. Kashyap duly attested by Notary Public (affidavit enclosed) and (v) latest property tax bill/receipt or latest electricity tax bill/receipt in respect of the captioned property.
44. He further stated that he was told telephonically by A-3 Sh. S. V. Chauhan that the borrower would show him papers for which he has to conduct legal search report and verify the documents to be shown by the party. He stated that he was given photocopy of the documents of the property by the representative of M/s R. R. Industries and thereafter he visited the office of Sub- Registrar, Faridabad and verified the registration number of the copy of the documents handed over to him by the representative of the party and tallied with the Index Register maintained at Sub-Registrar's Office and found it to be correct and accordingly, he gave his legal search report. He proved receipts No.000094 and 00056 both dated 23.03.2007 issued by Sub-Registrar, Faridabad vide which he had tallied the registration number with the Index Register as Ex.PW7/B (collectively) (part of D-82). He stated that he had not seen the original sale deed at the time of verification and verification was conducted on the basis of photocopy of the documents. He stated that during the course of legal search for the property for the years 1972 to 23.03.2007, he did not find creation of any charge/mortgage/lien or third party interest adverse to the interest of PNB. He stated that he had mentioned in his report five documents/information which PNB should have obtained from the borrower. When he was shown certified copy of the Sale Deed collected by PNB on CBI v Sh. Y. N. Kashyap & Ors. Page 12 of 71 CC No.16/16 DL-0375 07.01.2008, he stated that this was different from the original Sale Deed obtained from PNB. The certified copy of the sale deed collected by PNB was exhibited as Ex.PW7/C (part of D-82). He proved original sale deed of Property No.89/24, Sector-24, Faridabad collected from PNB as Ex.PW7/D (part of D-
94). He stated that A-3 Sh. S. V. Chauhan, Chief Manager of PNB did not provide photocopy of Sale Deed from the Bank. He reiterated that his legal search report is based on photocopy of title deed supplied by the party.
45. He also proved legal search report dated 23.03.2007 with regard to Property No.1361-P, Sector-14, Faridabad as Ex.PW7/E (part of D-81). He stated that for this property also, copy of the sale deed was given to him by the representative of the party and he had reported that the property is free from all encumbrances and can be mortgaged on compliance of five conditions which he had mentioned with regard to the other property referred above. The receipt no.00055 dated 23.03.2007 for verification of Index Register was proved as Ex.PW7/F (part of D-81). The witness exhibited as Ex.PW7/G (part of D-81), the certified copy of the sale deed of this property which was collected by PNB.
46. In cross examination by learned counsel for accused no.2, PW7 stated that the details of the document matched with the index detail with the Sub- Registrar's office. He denied the suggestion given by learned counsel for accused no. 3 that he had not received any call from accused no. 3 to conduct the legal search in this case.
47. PW8 Sh. A. Rama Mohan, Assistant General Manager of Andhra Bank proved letter dated 21.08.2009 addressed by him to the Inspector of CBI as Ex.PW4/A (D-49) (this document is on the records of RC No.2(E)/2009 titled as CBI Vs Ravinder Kumar Joshi & Ors. where accused no. 1 & 2 are also co- accused). He stated that M/s R. R. Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd. had applied for certain credit facility in the year 2001 from Andhra Bank, Connaught CBI v Sh. Y. N. Kashyap & Ors. Page 13 of 71 CC No.16/16 DL-0375 Circus Branch, New Delhi. The copies of documents sent with letter dated 21.08.2009 were exhibited as Ex.PX (D-49). He stated that the original of these documents were filed with DRT when the accounts of M/s R. R. Automotive Pvt. Ltd. had become NPA.
48. In cross examination, he stated that original documents Ex. PX were filed alongwith the case before DRT. He stated that the company had settled the matter with Andhra Bank and entire dues were duly paid in August, 2008. He also stated that as per company law, whenever a charge is created in favour of Bank, the Bank is required to register the same with Registrar of Companies. However, he could not say whether the loan advanced to the company by Andhra Bank was reflected in Credit Information Bureau (India) Limited (CIBIL) and whether Andhra Bank had registered the charge with ROC or not.
49. PW9 is Sh. Arvind Tiwari, a Chartered Engineer by profession working under name and style of M/s R. R. & Company. He proved valuation report of Property No.1361-P, Sector-14, Faridabad, Haryana as Ex.PW9/A (D-81). The value of the property as per this report was Rs.4.9 Crores. He proved valuation report of Property No.89, Sector-24, Faridabad, Haryana as Ex.PW9/B. The value of the property as per this report was Rs.3.85 Crores.
50. In cross examination, he stated that the valuation of the above said properties was done on the basis of market value and not on the basis of circle rates.
51. The next witness PW10 Sh. Vijay Kumar Mehta had retired as Chief Concurrent Auditor in the year 2009 from PNB. He stated that in the month of February, 2008 he was assigned Special Investigation in the account of M/s R. R. Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd. at Paharganj Branch by the Inspection Department. He stated that once an account is declared NPA, inspection is carried out by the inspection Branch and he was handed over the entire record CBI v Sh. Y. N. Kashyap & Ors. Page 14 of 71 CC No.16/16 DL-0375 to investigate whether the loan has been sanctioned in accordance with the procedure or not. He stated that for sanctioning of loan, there are two stages, pre-sanction and post-sanction. He stated that the PNB had not done proper pre-sanction investigation in this case. The title deeds of the property were not properly checked and all remittances which were to be made against the export were not found to have been actually affected. He proved his special investigation report dated 14.02.2008 as Ex.PW10/A (part of D-99). He proved the seizure-cum-production memo dated 24.01.2009 as Ex.PW10/B (part of D-
99). While being cross examined, he also exhibited as Ex.PW10/DX1-A4 (D-
17) and Ex.PW10/DX2-A4 (D-18) which are letters of takeover of proposal of loan of M/s R. R. Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd. submitted by the Branch to the Zonal Office and proposal respectively. The undated loan application by M/s R. R. Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd. was also exhibited as Ex.PW10/DX3-A4. This is signed by accused no. 2 Sh.Ranjan Kashyap and M/s R. R. Industries, owner of property no. 89/24, Faridabad is shown as an associate concern. The witness was shown D-82, permission letter of HUDA in favour of Bank of India with respect to Plot No.89, Sector-24, Faridabad, Haryana but stated that he cannot say anything about this as the letter was not given for inquiry to him. The letter was exhibited as Ex.PW10/DX4-A4. He stated that it is the duty of Bank officials to check the genuineness of title deeds submitted by the borrowers through Bank panel advocate, official valuers as well as by their own assessment. He stated that the Bank officers can make their own assessment by seeing the documents themselves and also by visiting the respective Sub-Registrar's office. The witness was also shown CIBIL report of M/s R. R. Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd. (D-24) which was exhibited as Ex.DX/5A3.
52. PW11 is Sh. Hoshiyar Singh, Assistant in the office of Estate Officer CBI v Sh. Y. N. Kashyap & Ors. Page 15 of 71 CC No.16/16 DL-0375 HUDA, Rohtak, Haryana. The witness was shown Ex.PW6/A which is conveyance deed executed on 02.06.1995 between A-1 Sh. Y. N. Kashyap and HUDA, Faridabad in respect of residential plot/premises No.1361-P, Sector-14, Faridabad. He identified his signatures on the said conveyance deed at point A and identified the signatures of other attesting witness Sh. Satpal who was Assistant in the office of Estate Officer, HUDA, Faridabad at point B. He also identified the signatures of the then Estate Officer Sh. Rao Rattan Lal at point C. The witness was also shown Ex.PW6/B which is conveyance deed of the same property on a Stamp Paper of Rs.10,155/-. The witness denied his purported signatures at point A, signatures of Sh. Satpal at point B and signatures of Sh. Rao Rattan Lal at point C. Since all the three signatures were denied, he stated that Ex.PW6/B is a forged document. The witness was also shown another conveyance deed of the same property and he denied the signatures of the Estate Officer at point A as they were not resembling with the signatures of the Estate Officer at point C on Ex.PW6/A. He stated that his signatures are not appearing anywhere on the said conveyance deed although his name is written as one of the attesting witnesses. For these reasons, the witness stated that this version of conveyance deed is also fake. This second forged conveyance deed was exhibited as Ex.PW11/A.
53. In cross-examination, he stated that Ex. PW 6/A is a conclusive document as the same is second copy of the original. He stated that three sets of documents are prepared in routine manner of any conveyance deed in respect of any property registered with HUDA and all the sets of three documents contain original signatures of all the executants and witnesses. He denied a suggestion that Ex.PW6/B and Ex.PW11/A are the other two sets of the conveyance deed which were given to the allottee. He stated that second copy of the conveyance deed is retained in HUDA office and Ex.PW6/A is the CBI v Sh. Y. N. Kashyap & Ors. Page 16 of 71 CC No.16/16 DL-0375 second copy of the conveyance deed. He stated that the original copies are prepared on the stamp papers and the other copy is similar as Ex.PW6/A. He stated that as his signatures do not appear on the document Ex.PW6/B and Ex.PW11/A that is why he could differentiate the same with Ex.PW6/A.
54. The next witness PW12 is Sh. Sanjay Kumar Garg, Chief Manager, PNB. He was Internal Senior Auditor of the Bank. He reiterated the sequence of events leading to the grant of loan in favour of A-1 Sh. Y. N. Kashyap and A-2 Sh. Ranjan Kashyap. He proved payment voucher for Rs.1,63,40,363/- dated 17.05.2007 allowed by PNB for payment to Bank of India as Ex.PW12/A. He stated that takeover proposal of M/s. R. R. Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd. dated 23.01.2007 already Ex.PW10/DX-1-A4 bears initials of Sh. Vishnu Dutt, the then Senior Manager at point A and is in the handwriting of one Sh. Kailash, Clerk of PNB. The witness was shown Board Note dated 10.05.2007 (D-26) for the purpose of taking over of borrower account from Bank of India bearing signatures of A-4 Sh. Lajpat Chandolia at point A and signatures of A-3 Sh. S. V. Chauhan at point B. The same was exhibited as Ex.PW12/B. He pointed out several irregularities after sanction of various credit facilities to M/s. R. R. Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd. He proved his observation report dated 22.12.2007 pointing out irregularities as Ex.PW12/C (D-73 page 526). He had visited the factory premises of M/s. R. R. Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd. alongwith A-3 Sh. S. V. Chauhan on 21.08.2007 and had found that the party was not maintaining Books of Accounts and stock of a very small amount was found against cash credit and Packing Credit Advance of Rs.235 lacs. The witness had visited the office of Sub-Registrar, Faridabad, Haryana on 03.01.2008 alongwith A-4 Sh. Lajpat Chandolia and obtained certified copies of the papers of Property No.89, Sector-24, Faridabad, Haryana. He observed several discrepancies in the certified copies of the documents and property CBI v Sh. Y. N. Kashyap & Ors. Page 17 of 71 CC No.16/16 DL-0375 papers mortgaged with PNB. He stated that the permission of HUDA was not taken for mortgage of Property No.1361-P/14, Faridabad, Haryana and Property No.89, Sector-24, Faridabad, Haryana contrary to legal opinion given in Non-Encumbrance Certificate. He proved agreement of guarantee bearing signatures of A-1 Sh. Y.N. Kashyap and A-2 Sh. Ranjan Kashyap and signatures of A-3 Sh. S. V. Chauhan and A-4 Sh. Lajpat Chandolia which was proved as Ex.PW12/D (D-45). He stated that the Branch had disbursed Packing Credit of Rs.15 lacs on 21.08.2007 without obtaining additional export orders from the party and the amount was released by Sh. Vishnu Dutt, the then Senior Manager, PNB on the telephonic instructions of accused A-3 Sh. S. V. Chauhan, the then, Chief Manager, PNB.
55. In cross-examination, his statements recorded u/s 161 of Cr.P.C. on 27.01.2009 and 09.06.2009 were exhibited as Ex. PW 12/DX-A-4 and Ex. PW12/DX1-A-4. He stated that since properties stood mortgaged with Bank of India, till such time the PNB took over the loan, paid the money to the Bank of India, original title deeds were handed over to PNB and Bank of India gave NOC, no mortgage could have been created in favour of PNB. However, he stated that NOC could have been obtained from HUDA. He denied a suggestion that HUDA would not have given NOC unless NOC was received from Bank of India. He reiterated that on 21.08.2007 he alongwith A-3 S. V. Chauhan and A-4 Lajpat Chandolia visited Zonal Audit Office, Faridabad and thereafter visited M/s R. R. Automotive Pvt. Ltd. and in the meantime, Sh. Vishnu Dutt on the telephonic instructions of A-3 S. V. Chauhan released the packing credit amount. To show the involvement of A-4 Sh. Lajpat Chandolia, he stated that reply dated 09.02.2007 and 20.02.2007 (EX.PW22/L) pertaining to observations raised by Zonal Office are rectification of proposal dated 23.01.2007. The same are under the signatures of A-4 Sh. Lajpat Chandolia CBI v Sh. Y. N. Kashyap & Ors. Page 18 of 71 CC No.16/16 DL-0375 and A-3 Sh. S. V. Chauhan. Therefore, it carries consent of both the accused persons.
56. PW13, Sh. Sehdev Singh Ahlawat was Assistant Engineer in HUDA in the year 1983. He was PW-10 in Complaint Case no. 39/12 titled as CBI Vs Ravinder Kumar Joshi etc. where present A-1 Sh. Y. N. Kashyap and A-2 Sh. Ranjan Kashyap are also co-accused. His common statement was recorded for this case as well as for the other case named above. He stated that it was his duty to sign on the possession certificate prepared and processed by the Junior Engineer. He admitted his signatures on possession certificate dated 05.12.1983 of Property No.1631-P (should be 1361 and it appears to be a typographical error), Sector-14, Faridabad, Haryana, which was already exhibited as Ex.PW6/K bearing his signatures at point B (this document is B-17 in CC No. 39/12 case titled as CBI Vs Ravinder Kumar Joshi & Ors.). He was also shown possession certificate dated 05.12.1983 of the same property and he stated that signatures on the said certificate does not appear to be his signatures.
57. PW14, Sh. Ajay Kumar Sharma is the Chartered Accountant. This witness was PW14 for this case and PW11 for another case bearing CC No. 39/12 titled as CBI vs. Ravinder Kumar Joshi & Ors. The loan application (D-93) given to AGM, UCO Bank for loan under UCO Rent Scheme was exhibited as Ex.PW11/A. He proved a cheque given to him by A-1 Sh. Y. N. Kashyap and A- 2 Sh. Ranjan Kashyap from PNB, Paharganj Branch, Delhi as Ex.PW11/B on the records of other case.
58. The next witness examined by the prosecution is PW15, Sh. Satpal. His statement was recorded for this case as well as for CC No. 39/12 titled as CBI Vs Ravinder Kumar Joshi & Ors. where he was PW12. He was Assistant in the office of Estate officer, HUDA, Faridabad, Haryana in the year 1995. He CBI v Sh. Y. N. Kashyap & Ors. Page 19 of 71 CC No.16/16 DL-0375 identified his signatures on Ex.PW6/A which is deed of conveyance of Property No.1361-P, Sector-14, Faridabad dated 02.06.1995 at point B and also identified his handwriting at point X. He identified signatures of Sh. Rao Rattan Lal, the then Estate Officer at point C. He was also shown another deed of conveyance already Ex.PW6/B. He denied that at points A and B on the said deed are his signatures and also denied that signatures at point C are of the then Estate Officer Sh. Rao Rattan Lal. He disputed and denied that writing at point X is in his handwriting.
59. He was also shown another deed of conveyance of Property No.1361-P, Sector-14, Faridabad dated 02.06.1995 already Ex.PW11/A. He stated that the same does not bear his signatures at any place and signatures at point A are not of the Estate Officer Sh. Rao Rattan Lal. He stated that he has signed only Ex.PW6/A and no other conveyance deed.
60. In cross-examination, he clarified that the conveyance deed is prepared in triplicate, one is original and two are copies of conveyance deed. The original is made on the non-judicial stamp paper and stated that Ex.PW6/A is the office copy of conveyance deed.
61. PW16 examined by CBI is Smt. Nidhi Das, Service Leader Manager, Standard Chartered Bank. She was examined as PW13 in the case titled as CBI Vs Ravinder Kumar Joshi and therefore, the documents exhibited by her were pre-fixed with Ex.PW13. The documents are on the records of the said case. This witness proved letter dated 07.09.2009 as per which she had supplied to the CBI attested copies of the loan application, loan sanction letter, disbursement request and statement of accounts. The said letter was exhibited as Ex.PW13/A. The attested copy of loan application form of Sh. Ranjan Kashyap was proved as Ex.PW13/B. The attested copy of loan application form of Smt. Reema Kashyap and Smt. Asha Kashyap (D-50) were proved as CBI v Sh. Y. N. Kashyap & Ors. Page 20 of 71 CC No.16/16 DL-0375 Ex.PW13/C and the attested copy of loan application form in the name of M/s R. R. Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd was proved as Ex.PW13/D. The sanction letter dated 14.01.2004 sanctioning the loan of Rs.33,50,000/- in favour of accused Sh. Ranjan Kashyap, Sh. Y. N. Kashyap, Smt. Reema Kashyap and Smt. Asha Kashyap and M/s R. R. Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd was proved as Ex.PW13/E. The witness has also proved as exhibit Ex.PW13/F (colly) attested copy of disbursement request to the Manager Standard Chartered Bank Ltd given by Sh. Ranjan Kashyap and Sh. Y. N. Kashyap and other co-applicants for disbursement of loan sanctioned to them by issuing the cheque in favour of A-2 Sh. Ranjan Kashyap for Rs.33,50,000/- alongwith carbon/folio attested copy of the cheque.
62. The attested copy of loan agreement dated 21.01.2004 executed between Standard Chartered Bank and accused Sh. Ranjan Kashyap alongwith attested copy of promissory note for loan of amount of Rs.33,50,000/- was proved as Ex.PW13/G. The attested copy of statement of account no.42314968 of the accused and other co-applicants, as per which the account was closed on 19.01.2005 on payment of Rs.32,57,500/- only was proved as Ex.PW13/H.
63. The witness deposed that the loan was sanctioned on the basis of collateral securities of Property No.1361, Sector-14, Faridabad, Haryana and the applicants had deposited the title deeds of conveyance dated 02.06.1995 which was released on 19.01.2005 after the closure of the loan account. The voucher pay order no.189699 dated 17.01.2005 favouring Standard Chartered Bank loan no.42314968 for Rs.32,57,509/- by which the payment to close the account was made was proved as Ex.PW6/P.
64. The next witness examined by prosecution is PW17 Sh. Sarwar Raza. He is a practicing Company Secretary and proprietor of M/s S. Raza & Associates. He was providing search and inspection reports to various Banks CBI v Sh. Y. N. Kashyap & Ors. Page 21 of 71 CC No.16/16 DL-0375 including PNB for the loan purposes. He stated that in the year 2007, he was asked by PNB, Paharganj Branch to carry out search and inspection report with regard to Directorship and also the loans which the said company M/s R. R. Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd. had availed from other Banks. He was also asked to verify whether the said company has any charge created against it on the register of Registrar of Companies. He conducted a search and inspection through official Web-portal namely NCA, 21 and submitted his report which was proved as Ex.PW17/A. He stated that he had found that this company has taken three loans from Bank of India, Phase-I, Mayur Vihar, New Delhi. He could not remember whether request for search report was made to him by A-2 Sh. Ranjan Kashyap or through the Bank.
65. In cross-examination, he stated that it is the responsibility of the company as per Section 125 of the Companies Act, 1956 to file necessary form with Registrar of Companies within one month from the date of creation of charge. However, the form is also to be signed by the Banker.
66. PW18 examined by the prosecution is Sh. Ranjan Kumar S/o Sh. F. K. Singh. He was an employee of one Sh. R. K. Khurana who was doing the job of property dealing. The witness when shown Ex.PW6/A which is conveyance deed of Property No.1361-P, Sector-14, Faridabad dated 02.06.1995 executed by HUDA, Faridabad in favour of A-1 Sh. Y. N. Kashyap (D-94), identified his signatures as well as the signatures of his employer Sh. R. K. Khurana in the column of witnesses and also identified the handwriting of Sh. R. K. Khurana on the same. The witness was also shown another conveyance deed (part of D-93) already exhibited as Ex.PW6/B. The witness stated that the same does not bear either his signatures or the signatures of Sh. R. K. Khurana and is not in his handwriting or in the handwriting of Sh. R. K. Khurana. He stated that his signatures and signatures of Sh. R. K. Khurana have been forged.
CBI v Sh. Y. N. Kashyap & Ors. Page 22 of 71CC No.16/16 DL-0375
67. In cross-examination, he stated that he had witnessed the conveyance deed on the asking of his employer Sh. R. K. Khurana and he was not known to A-1 Sh. Y. N. Kashyap or A-2 Sh. Ranjan Kashyap.
68. The next witness PW19 Sh. Satya Pal was an employee of HUDA, Faridabad. He was examined as PW16 in the case of CBI v Ravinder Kumar Joshi and therefore, the documents were pre-fixed with Ex.PW16. He stated that prior permission of HUDA is required in respect of mortgage or loan on the property allotted by HUDA to the allottee. He proved production cum seizure memo as Ex.PW16/A as per which he had handed over original allotment file to CBI. The original allotment file pertaining to Plot No.1361, Sector-14, Faridabad was proved as Ex.PW16/B. As per Ex.PW16/B, permission was granted for mortgaging the property with Andhra Bank on 18.01.2002. The said letter was exhibited as Ex.PW16/B1 (part B-11 page 247 D-17). The request letter dated 16.01.2004 of the allottee for the permission to mortgage the said property in favour of Standard Chartered Bank was exhibited as Ex.PW16/B2 (part B-141 page 275 D-17). The permission letter for the mortgage in favour of Standard Chartered Bank was proved as Ex.PW16/B3 (This is on Ex.PW16/B2 itself and hence, it appears that Ex.PW16/B3 was not put on this part of the document). As per this letter dated 16.01.2004, the first charge was of HUDA, second charge was of Andhra Bank and third charge was of Standard Chartered Bank. The witness after seeing letter dated 22.11.2005 which was exhibited as Ex.PW16/B4 stated that vide this letter UCO Bank had requested HUDA to note the charge/mortgage of the property in favour of UCO Bank. The HUDA office had replied on 08.12.2005 that the property is already mortgaged in favour of Andhra Bank and Standard Chartered Bank and letter dated 08.12.2005 was proved as Ex.PW16/B5 (part of B-11 page 281 D-17). The witness proved as Ex.PW16/B6 (part B-11 page 311 B-17) a letter dated 12.03.2008 from PNB CBI v Sh. Y. N. Kashyap & Ors. Page 23 of 71 CC No.16/16 DL-0375 Bank requesting HUDA permission for mortgage in respect of Property No.1361, Sector-14, Faridabad, Haryana. HUDA vide its letter dated 28.05.2008 had replied that the said property is already charged in favour of Andhra Bank, Standard Chartered Bank and UCO Bank. This letter was exhibited as Ex.PW16/B7 (part B11 page 309 D-17).
69. In cross-examination, he denied that HUDA had received letter dated 22.05.2007(D-81 page 554/33) which was exhibited as Ex.PW16/D4X. As per this letter, PNB had purportedly requested Estate Officer, HUDA to mark Bank's lien in HUDA's records over to mortgaged properties namely House No. 1361, Sector-14, Faridabad and Plot No. 89, Sector-24, Industrial Area, Faridabad. He denied that letters dated 29.06.2007(D-81) 01.08.2007, 04.10.2007, 01.11.2007 & 22.12.2007 were ever received by HUDA. These are purportedly first, second, third, fourth and fifth reminders issued by PNB to HUDA to create its charge over the properties allegedly mortgaged with the Bank. He denied a suggestion that these letters were received in the HUDA office but no reply was sent to the Bank and that is why he was denying having received these letters. He stated that only on 28.05.2008, HUDA had informed PNB regarding the property having been mortgaged with another Bank.
70. The next witness examined by the prosecution is PW20 Sh. Ajay Bhatnagar, Asst. Gen. Manager, Andhra Bank. He stated that A-1 Sh. Y. N. Kashyap and A-2 Sh. Ranjan Kashyap, the Directors of M/s R. R. Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd. had approached Andhra Bank in the year 2001 for various credit facilities and against equitable mortgage of residential Property No.1361, Sector-14, Faridabad, Haryana and against Industrial Property No.89, Sector-24, Faridabad, Haryana, a loan of Rs.4.65 Crores for credit facilities was sanctioned. The account had become NPA and a civil suit was filed for recovery of the dues before Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT). The physical possession of CBI v Sh. Y. N. Kashyap & Ors. Page 24 of 71 CC No.16/16 DL-0375 the residential property was taken over on 06.09.2008 and of industrial property on 05.09.2008. He stated that the residential premises was auctioned on 17.12.2008 and original conveyance deeds of both the properties were with their Branch. He identified the signatures of Chief Manager of Andhra Bank as he had seen him sign during the course of his duty. The letter dated 21.08.2009 alongwith documents (D-97) bearing signatures of Sh. K. Ramamohan, Chief Manager of Andhra Bank were marked as mark PW20/A (colly). Another letter dated 02.12.2009 written by Sh. K. Ramamohan to Sh. S. C. Bhalla, Inspector of Police, CBI was exhibited as Ex.PW20/A. The loan record maintained with Andhra Bank was marked as mark PW20/B (colly).
71. In cross-examination, he admitted that whenever the account of a borrower is classified as NPA, it has to be reflected in CIBIL. He denied the suggestion that the officials of the Andhra Bank deliberately did not report the NPA account of M/s R. R. Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd. to CIBIL. He admitted that the charge of the Bank qua the property of the company which has sanctioned the loan is required to be reported in ROC within 30 days. He stated that the charge of their Bank was also created with ROC, however, no such document could be shown by him regarding creation of charge with ROC.
72. PW21 Sh. Arun Kr. Rastogi was Sr. Manager, Credit Department of PNB. He stated that he was conversant with Bank guidelines in respect of grants/sanction of different types of financial facilities to the borrower, like cash credit, export credit and take over of borrower's account from the Bank. This witness was shown letter dated 11.11.2006 which is reply of BOI to PNB. Same was exhibited as Ex.PW21/A. As per this letter, the account of the party was 'Standard' with Bank of India. The witness also proved attested copy of letter dated 10.03.2006 sanctioning the above stated loan to M/s R. R. Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd. (D-6, page 18 to 22) as Ex.PW21/B. The witness proved CBI v Sh. Y. N. Kashyap & Ors. Page 25 of 71 CC No.16/16 DL-0375 proposal for take over permission of borrower's account from Bank of India by PNB as Ex.PW21/C (D-7, pages 23 to 25). The witness stated that the proposal was prepared by Sr. Manager (Credit) and Chief Manager, on the prescribed format of Appendix-2 as per L&A Circular No.97/2006 dated 07.09.2006 which was collectively exhibited as Ex.PW21/D. The guidelines for take over of borrower's account from other Banks are mentioned in this circular. The witness stated that the application form for credit facilities of M/s R. R. Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd. which was already exhibited as Ex.PW10/DX-3-A-4 is undated but as per prescribed format (PNB 1017). The witness stated that the party did not deposit the day to day realization of sale and realization of debts in the account. He stated that the party did not conduct the account as per sanction and no sale proceeds were received after 26.06.2007 and even interest debited in the account in both CC account and PC account were not deposited by the party for the month of July, 2007 onwards. The witness proved L&A circular no.58/2006 dated 01.06.2006 (D-87) of PNB as Ex.PW21/E. The witness pointed out as many as 15 irregularities committed by the Manager (Loan) and the Chief Manager which are: i) Copy of Statutory, regulatory approval like VAT registration, Trade Tax, Pollution Certificate and other licenses to run the unit were not taken and verified by concerned authorities, ii) The authenticity of the CA Sh. Mahesh Kumar who was the statutory auditor of the company and had prepared the audit report for the financial year 2005-06 was not enquired as CA has not given his registration number and telephone number and address/phone of the firm, iii) As per L&A Circular dated 23.04.1999 (D-85), financial book of the company was required to be verified at the stage of pre-sanction survey by the Loan Manager, Chief Manager. However, in the present case, the same was not done by the then Chief Manager/Loan Manager. The circular was exhibited as Ex.PW21/F, iv) Neither CBI v Sh. Y. N. Kashyap & Ors. Page 26 of 71 CC No.16/16 DL-0375 confidential report of the borrower company was filled up properly nor it was signed by any officer of the branch, v) As per clause 1.6 of L&A circular no. 97/2006 dated 07.09.2006 (D-88) which is Ex.PW21/D sales of the party were required to be verified by calling VAT and Sales tax returns which in the present case were not verified, vi) requisite papers as suggested by Advocate M/s Bhardwaj, Vashisth and Associates in its report dated 23.03.2007 in respect of Property No. 1361-P Sector-14, Faridabad and Property No. 89, Sector-24, Faridabad for permission to mortgage the captioned properties by HUDA were not obtained. The copy of latest payment of property tax was also not obtained,
vii) it was not assured from Bank of India that export bill discounted by them was duly accepted by the drawee (importer) and were also not verified by the Branch and as a consequence of it a sum of Rs. 15.72 lacs was paid to Bank of India on account of dishonour of bills. Necessary evidence in the form of certified copy of export declaration and other documents were not kept on record as required vide Paragraph No. 7 of Chapter 4.3 of Book of Instructions on Foreign Exchange. Para 7 of chapter 4.3 of books of instructions on foreign exchange was exhibited as Ex.PW21/G (D-83), viii) The company was availing export DA bills limit and car loan from Bank of India. The conduct of account of these accounts was not ascertained by calling statement of accounts for the last 6/12 months and certificate from Company's Auditor that the account was classified as Standard Asset on the date of last audited balance sheets i.e. 31.03.2006 was not obtained which was required to be taken as per Clause 6 (1) of L&A Circular no. 97/2006 dated 07.09.2006 already exhibited as Ex.PW21/D, ix) Credit risk rating based on last audited report i.e. 31.03.2006 is not held to confirm whether the same has been done as per rating scale and vetted as per extant guidelines of Bank of rating and vetting. However, the branch had confirmed to the Zonal office that credit risk rating of the party on CBI v Sh. Y. N. Kashyap & Ors. Page 27 of 71 CC No.16/16 DL-0375 the basis of audited report i.e. 31.03.2006 was BB and take over of the account was eligible as per Clause 1.2 of Ex.21/D, x) Proper assessment of the credit requirement of the party as per norms of the Bank was not done and higher level of norms in respect of raw material and receivable much above the past norms without any justification which is violation of L&A Circular No.58/06, Ex.PW21/E, xi) intimation of limits sanctioned for export credit was not intimated to Export Credit Guarantee Corporation (ECGC) as per guidelines of the Bank and in prescribed format as mentioned in foreign exchange circular no.31 dated 01.06.2006, Clause 4 under the head "Cover for accounts presently covered under WTPCG" which was exhibited as Ex.PW21/H. The witness also stated that Branch had allowed packing credit beyond 180 days which was beyond the power of Chief Manager but no confirmation was obtained from Zonal Manager as required vide chapter 6 of Books of Instructions vide clause no.2.2. The Book of Instructions (D-84) was exhibited as Ex.PW21/J, xii) It was not ensured that the exporter is under the cautioned list of RBI and ECGC as per guidelines of Banks mentioned in Chapter 6 para
20.A, Ex.PW21/J, xiii) Necessary declaration that company is not enjoying any credit facility from other Bank was not obtained as per Clause 5(a)(i)&(ii) of L&A Circular No.97 dated 07.09.2006, Ex.PW21/D. Various disclosures like the name of the Banks from where credit facilities were being availed by the company were not given in the respective annexures, bifurcation of sales into export or local sales, names of the Banks where cash in hand is held bifurcation of sundry debtors into export receivable and other than export receivable, sundry debtors outstanding upto 06 months and more than 06 months, authorized capital, share application money, was not reported in the audited balance sheets as on 31.03.2006.The provisional balance sheets as on 31.03.2007 was not signed, xiv) The loan application, Ex.PW10/DX3-A4 is CBI v Sh. Y. N. Kashyap & Ors. Page 28 of 71 CC No.16/16 DL-0375 incomplete. Information like existing loan in column no. 6,capacity of the unit in column no. 12.3, utilities in column no. 13, export in column no. 7, government consent in column no. 25 and details of pending litigations in column no. 29 are not mentioned, xv) Export order submitted by the party does not contain due date fall shipment and negotiations of documents. Fresh packing credit of Rs.7.50 lacs was allowed on 08.10.2007 when most of the outstanding packing credit was over-due and party did not ship any goods against the aforesaid packing credit and also the credit was running highly irregular and party did not submit the stock statement for the last three months as per terms of sanction and dishonour of export bills amounting to Rs.15.72 lacs on 18.08.2007 and non recovery of the same from the party. Further, excess advance was allowed on 21.08.2007 when a packing credit of Rs.15 lacs was allowed against export order of GBP 18960 equivalent to INR Rs.11.40 lacs, thus, an access advance of Rs.3.60 lacs was allowed in violation of guidelines mentioned in para 20.2 of Chapter 6 of Books of Instructions.
73. In cross-examination by learned counsel for A-3, the witness further proved internal guidelines of PNB as per which Zonal Office while approving the take over of loan only considers the proposal from the Branch and not the loan application. The guideline to this effect (D-88 Ex.PW21/D) and D-89 were exhibited as Ex.PW21/DX-1. The witness was also shown his statement recorded under section 161 of Cr.PC which was exhibited as Ex.PW21/DX.
74. The next witness examined by prosecution is PW22 Sh. S. B. Jetly. In the year 2009, he was posted as Sr. Manager, PNB, Asset Recovery Management Branch (ARMB). He proved seizure-cum-production memo dated 27.07.2009 (D-101) as Ex.PW22/A and identified his signatures at point A. Vide this memo, documents mentioned therein were handed over to CBI. The attested true copy of bio-data of M/s R. R. Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd. (D-
CBI v Sh. Y. N. Kashyap & Ors. Page 29 of 71CC No.16/16 DL-0375
9) was exhibited as Ex.PW22/B. The witness proved as Ex.PW22/C (colly) original balance-sheet as on 11.03.2007 and signed copy of balance-sheet of M/s R. R. Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd. as on 11.03.2006 alongwith auditors report of M/s Mahesh Kr. & Co. Chartered Accountant (D-11) which was handed over by witness to CBI as Ex.PW22/C. The balance-sheet of M/s R. R. Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd. as on 31.12.2006, 31.03.2007 & 31.03.2008 (D-12) which was handed over by him to CBI was proved as Ex.PW22/D (colly). The assessment of working capital requirements form 2 operating statement of M/s R. R. Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd. (D-30, pages 181 to 192) which were handed over by this witness to CBI and signed by him on all pages was proved as Ex.PW22/E. The import export code of M/s R. R. Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd. alongwith supporting documents (D-16, page 199 to 202) which was handed over by the witness to CBI duly signed on each page alongwith seal of Bank was proved as Ex.PW22/F. The confidential report alongwith original borrower's/guarantor's profile of A-1 Sh. Y. N. Kashyap alongwith supporting documents (D-19, pages 229 to 240) handed over by the witness to CBI was proved as Ex.PW22/G.
75. The confidential report alongwith original borrower's/guarantor's profile of Sh. Ranjan Kashyap alongwith supporting documents (D-19, pages 241 to 254) handed over by the witness to CBI was proved as Ex.PW22/H.
76. The confidential report alongwith original borrower's/guarantor's profile of Smt. Reena Kashyap alongwith supporting documents (D-19, pages 255 to
264) handed over by the witness to CBI was proved as Ex.PW22/J.
77. Letter dated 06.02.2007 of Chief Manager (Credit section), PNB (D-20, page 266) which was handed over to CBI by witness was exhibited as Ex.PW22/K. The office copies of letters dated 09.02.2007 and 20.02.2007 addressed by Chief Manager, Paharaganj Branch of PNB (D-21, pages 267 & CBI v Sh. Y. N. Kashyap & Ors. Page 30 of 71 CC No.16/16 DL-0375
268) which were handed over by witness to CBI were exhibited as Ex.PW22/L. Letter dated 22.02.2007 regarding queries raised by Chief Manager, Zonal Office from Branch office Paharganj Branch, PNB which was handed over by this witness to CBI after signing and affixing the rubber stamp of the Bank was exhibited as Ex.PW22/M.
78. The witness proved letter dated 19.03.2007 which is reply to the letter dated 22.02.2007 of Zonal Office as Ex.PW22/M1.
79. The witness also proved sanction letter dated 29.03.2007 for take over of account of M/s R. R. Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd. from BOI (D-25, pages 279 to 280) subject to some stipulations. The said letter with signatures of this witness with the seal was proved as Ex.PW22/M2. The assets and liability statement of guarantor/borrower submitted by A-1 Sh. Y. N. Kashyap and A-2 Sh. Ranjan Kashyap (D-27, pages 304 to 309) was proved as Ex.PW22/M3. The letter dated 28.04.2007 of Manager (Credit) submitted to Chief Manager (D-29, page 315) was proved as Ex.PW22/M4. The attested copies of assessment of working capital requirements of M/s R. R. Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd. (D-30, pages 316 to 326) was handed over by the witness to CBI and was proved as Ex.PW22/M5. The witness proved original letter dated 15.05.2007 of A-1 Sh. Y. N. Kashyap addressed to Manager, PNB, Paharganj Branch, New Delhi regarding deposit of original title deed on 14.05.2007 in respect of Property No.1361-P, Sector-14, Faridabad for creating equitable mortgage to secure loan as Ex.PW22/M6. The original affidavit of A-1 Sh. Y. N. Kashyap in respect of Property No.1361-P, Sector-14, Faridabad (D- 48, page 418 & 419) declaring that the property is free from all sorts of encumbrances was exhibited as Ex.PW22/M7. The property declaration form, Annexure-VIII (D-49, pages 420 to 423) regarding property declaration form dated 15.05.2007 in respect of Property No.1361-P, Sector-14, Faridabad CBI v Sh. Y. N. Kashyap & Ors. Page 31 of 71 CC No.16/16 DL-0375 signed by A-1 Sh. Y. N. Kashyap on behalf of the owner and A-2 Sh. Ranjan Kashyap on behalf of the company was handed over by the witness to CBI and was Ex.PW22/M8. Letter dated 17.05.2007 of A-1 Sh. Y. N. Kashyap partner of M/s R. R. Industries addressed to the Bank regarding deposit of original title deed in respect of Property/Plot No.89, Sector-24, Faridabad with the Bank was proved as Ex.PW22/M9. The witness proved letter dated 17.05.2007 (D-55 page-434) written by Bank to A-1 Sh. Y. N. Kashyap regarding acknowledgment of receipt of original title deed (property number not mentioned, seems to be regarding Property No. 89, Sector-24, Faridabad) which was handed over by the witness to CBI was as Ex.PW22/M11. The witness proved stock statement of M/s R. R. Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd. for the period 10.05.2007 alongwith list of sundry creditors (D-57 pages-456 to 463) which was handed over by the witness to CBI as Ex.PW22/M12 (colly). The witness proved letter of request of borrower to PNB alongwith purchase order (D-60 pages-466 to
477) which was handed over by him to CBI after putting his signatures and seal of the Bank at point 'A' on all the pages as Ex.PW22/M13 (colly). The witness proved letter dated 17.05.2007 of Chief Manager, PNB addressed to Chief Manager, BOI, Mayur Vihar, New Delhi regarding remittance of Rs.1,63,40363/- vide Pay Order No.990/2007 (D-61 pages-478 & 479) alongwith certified copy of Pay Order dated 17.05.2007 for an amount of Rs.1,63,40363/- which was handed over by him to CBI after putting his signatures and seal of the Bank at point 'A' on all the pages as Ex.PW22/M14 (colly). The witness proved legal compliance certificate submitted by Paharganj Branch to Dy. Zonal Manager, North Zone, New Delhi regarding execution of loan documents, creation of securities and creation of charge in the Registrar of Companies (D-62 pages- 480 to 482) alongwith Schedule-I and Schedule-II which was handed over by him to CBI after putting his signatures and seal of the Bank at point 'A' on all the CBI v Sh. Y. N. Kashyap & Ors. Page 32 of 71 CC No.16/16 DL-0375 pages as Ex.PW22/M15 (colly).
80. The witness proved letter dated 18.05.2007 addressed to Chief Manager, Paharganj regarding no dues certificate in respect of cash-credit, packing-credit and FBP of M/s R. R. Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd. (D-63 page-483) which was handed over by him to CBI as Ex.PW22/M16. The witness proved letter of request dated 18.05.2007 of A-2 Sh. Ranjan Kashyap on behalf of company requesting for grant of packing-credit advance of Rs.70 lacs against order no. 5705 dated 02.05.2007 of M/s Cellular Developments Ltd., Hampshire, UK for GPBP Rs.1,16,700/- alongwith copy of the order. The letter also contains recommendation/order of the Bank officers for release of Rs.70 lacs (D-64 pages-484 & 485) which was handed over by him to CBI after putting his signatures and seal of the Bank at point 'A' on all the pages as Ex.PW22/M17 (colly). The witness proved letter of request dated 21.08.2007 of A-2 Sh. Ranjan Kashyap on behalf of company requesting for grant of packing credit advance of Rs.15 lacs against order dated 10.08.2007 of M/s Cellular Development Ltd., Hampshire, U.K. for GPBP Rs.18,960/- (D-66 pages-487 to
489) alongwith copy of the order. The said letter also contains the recommendation/order of Bank officers for release of Rs.15 lacs on the reverse side of the letter. It was handed over by him to CBI after putting his signatures and seal of the Bank at point 'A' on all the pages as Ex.PW22/M18 (colly).
81. The witness proved debit credit transfer voucher dated 21.08.2007 for Rs.15 lacs in respect of above stated packing credit advance of Rs.15 lacs (D- 67 page-490) which was handed over by the witness to CBI as Ex.PW22/M19 (colly). The witness proved letter of request dated 06.09.2007 of A-2 Sh. Ranjan Kashyap on behalf of company for allowing OD of Rs.3.70 lacs for a period of 15 days (D-68 page-491) alongwith order of the Bank officers for release of Rs.3.70 lacs which was handed over by the witness to CBI after CBI v Sh. Y. N. Kashyap & Ors. Page 33 of 71 CC No.16/16 DL-0375 putting his signatures and seal of the Bank at point 'A' on all the pages as Ex.PW22/N. The witness proved letter of request dated 08.10.2007 of A-2 Sh. Ranjan Kashyap on behalf of company requesting for grant of packing credit advance of Rs.7.50 lacs against order no.23 dated 05.09.2007 of M/s Sussex Tubes Ltd., Ditchling, UK for GBP Rs.15,441/- (D-69 page-493 to 494) along with copy of order. The letter also contains the recommendation/order of the Bank officers for release of Rs.7.50 lacs which was handed over by the witness to CBI after putting his signatures and seal of the Bank at point 'A' on all the pages as Ex.PW22/O (colly).
82. The witness proved letter dated 17.07.2007 from borrower company enclosing stock statement as on 31.05.2007 and 30.06.2007 (D-71 pages-496 to 514). The stock statement shows verification of stocks by Bank official on 28.07.2007 which was handed over by the witness to CBI after putting his signatures and seal of the Bank at point 'A' on all the pages as Ex.PW22/P (colly). The witness proved Form No.8 for creation of mortgage of charge (D-72 pages-515 to 524) which was handed over by him to CBI after putting his signatures and seal of the Bank at point 'A' on all the pages as Ex.PW22/P-1. The witness proved special report dated 22.12.2007 submitted by Sh. Sanjay Kumar Garg, Sr. Auditor (D-73 pages-525 & 526) which was handed over by him to CBI after putting his signatures and seal of the Bank at point 'A' on all the pages as Ex.PW22/P-2.
83. The witness proved visit report dated 03.01.2008 of Manager, PNB (D-74 page-527) which was handed over by him to CBI after putting his signatures and seal of the Bank at point 'A' on all the pages as Ex.PW22/P-3. The witness proved letter dated 10.01.2008 of A-4 Sh. Lajpat Chandolia addressed to Chief Manager, PNB (D-75 page-528) which was handed over by him to CBI after putting his signatures and seal of the Bank at point 'A' on all the pages as CBI v Sh. Y. N. Kashyap & Ors. Page 34 of 71 CC No.16/16 DL-0375 Ex.PW22/P-4. The witness proved statement of account (D-76 pages-529 &
530) of packing credit account no.0131000-UD-000000-32 of M/s R. R. Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd. which was handed over by the witness to CBI after putting his signatures and seal of the Bank at point 'A' on all the pages as Ex.PW22/P-5.
84. The witness proved statement of account (D-77 pages-531 & 532) of packing credit account no.0131000-UD-000000-41 of M/s R. R. Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd. which was handed over by him to CBI after putting his signatures and seal of the Bank at point 'A' on all the pages as Ex.PW22/P-6. The witness proved statement of account (D-78 page-533) of packing credit account no.0131000-UD-000000-69 of M/s R. R. Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd. which was handed over by him to CBI after putting his signatures and seal of the Bank at point 'A' on all the pages as Ex.PW22/P-7. The witness proved statement of account (D-79 pages-534) of packing credit account no.0131000- UD-000000-78 of M/s R. R. Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd. which was handed over by him to CBI after putting his signatures and seal of the Bank at point 'A' on all the pages as Ex.PW22/P-8. The witness proved statement of account (D-80 pages-535 to 553) of packing credit account no.0130008701018892 of M/s R.R. Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd. which was handed over by him to CBI after putting his signatures and seal of the Bank at point 'A' on all the pages as Ex.PW22/P-9 (colly). The witness stated that all the above stated documents were sent to Asset Recovery Management Branch alongwith transfer of said account to Asset Recovery Management Branch by Paharganj Branch of PNB who were custodian of the above stated record and was maintaining them in the ordinary course of its duty.
85. In cross-examination by learned counsel for A-4, the witness stated that One Time Settlement (OTS) has been approved by the Bank in respect of the CBI v Sh. Y. N. Kashyap & Ors. Page 35 of 71 CC No.16/16 DL-0375 loan given to M/s R.R. Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd. However, he also volunteered that the same was subject to without any prejudice to on going police investigation or CBI proceedings. He stated that the company has re- paid the loan as per OTS and no dues of the Bank are pending against the company in respect of the loan.
86. In cross-examination by learned counsel for A-3, the witness stated that the documents given by him to CBI were neither prepared in his presence nor they were executed in his presence.
87. The next witness PW23 Sh. Kailash Kumar was transferred to Paharganj Branch of PNB in June 2004 as clerk-cum-cashier. He stated that he was conversant with the loan granted and documents pertaining to M/s R. R. Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd. This witness repeated the entire version of the PNB with regard to the loan and proved as Ex.PW23/A letter dated 15.05.2007 written by the Bank under signatures of A-3 Sh. S. V. Chauhan, the then Chief Manager of the Bank at point A acknowledging the receipt of original title deeds of Property No.1361, Sector-14, Faridabad. The witness also exhibited as Ex.PW23/B affidavit of A-1 Sh. Y. N. Kashyap dated 26.05.2007 (D-52, pages 426 to 428) bearing signatures of A-1 Sh. Y. N. Kashyap at point A. The witness identified signatures of A-4 Sh. Lajpat Chandolia and A-3 Sh. S. V. Chauhan on various documents already exhibited. He also identified signatures of Sh. Vishnu Dutt, Senior Manager on the documents already exhibited on record.
88. In cross examination by learned counsel for A-4, the witness stated that he remained posted in the Branch from 2004 to 2008 in Loan Department. He stated that search of title deed is conducted by Panel Lawyer of the Bank and not by Bank officials and the Bank processes the proposal on the basis of the report of the lawyers. As per him, the properties were good for mortgage and CBI v Sh. Y. N. Kashyap & Ors. Page 36 of 71 CC No.16/16 DL-0375 title deeds were clear as per the non-encumbrance certificate given by panel lawyer Sh. Manish Bhardwaj. He stated that at that time, the Bank had no reason to believe that the title deeds were not genuine. He admitted that till the time, PNB paid money to BOI, title deeds could not have been given to PNB by BOI. He stated that till the time original title deeds were given to PNB, it could not approach HUDA for reporting mortgage to PNB. He admitted that as and when a company mortgages its immovable property, it was required to be registered with the Registrar of Companies (RoC). He admitted that as per Company Secretary's Report (D-28) Ex.PW17/A, there was no other mortgage of properties in any other Bank except BOI. He also agreed that when Board Note Ex.PW12/B was prepared, the Bank official had no reason to doubt the genuineness of the title deeds of the mortgaged properties or bonafides of M/s R. R. Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd. or its Directors.
89. PW24 Sh. Abhimanyu Kumar is specialized in handwriting identification and detection of forgery. This witness has given his report with regard to questioned signatures of A-1 Sh. Y. N. Kashyap in comparison with his admitted signatures. He was PW20 in CC No. 39/12 titled as CBI Vs Ravinder Kumar Joshi. That is why the documents exhibited by him are partly prefixed by PW20 and partly prefixed by PW24. The conclusion of this witness after examining the documents was that A-1 Sh. Y. N. Kashyap did not write the enclosed signatures Q3 to Q14 but signed at Q1, Q2, Q2A, Q2B & Q15 to Q25. The questioned title deeds received by him from the IO on which he had given his opinion were exhibited as Ex.PW24/A.
90. PW25 Sh. Ashok Kr. Aggarwal was posted as Sr. Manager in BOI and specimen signatures and handwriting of A-1 Sh. Y. N. Kashyap were taken voluntarily in his presence. He proved his signatures at points A on all the pages of Ex.PW24/B. CBI v Sh. Y. N. Kashyap & Ors. Page 37 of 71 CC No.16/16 DL-0375
91. The last witness examined by prosecution is PW26 Sh. S. C. Bhalla, the Investigating Officer of the case. He stated about the contents of the complaint received from PNB by CBI from Sh. Biker Singh Maan, Chief Manager of PNB, Paharganj Branch, New Delhi. He stated that during investigation, he found that A-3 Sh. S. V. Chauhan, the then Chief Manager in conspiracy with A-1 Sh. Y. N. Kashyap and A-2 Sh. Ranjan Kashyap dishonestly and fraudulently sent the proposal to Zonal office for taking over of the account of the company from BOI and sanctioned the credit facilities to the tune of Rs.390 lacs on 12.05.2007 as recommended by A-4 Sh. Lajpat Chandolia, the then Manager Loan. He stated that in pursuance of their criminal conspiracy, they had not taken the permission of HUDA, Faridabad before sanctioning and disbursement of credit facilities. He stated that both A- 3 Sh. S. V. Chauhan & A-4 Sh. Lajpat Chandolia by abusing their official position processed, recommended and sanctioned the credit facilities to the above stated company on the basis of forged and fake documents and violated Banking norms and guidelines and facilitated A-1 Sh. Y. N. Kashyap and A-2 Sh. Ranjan Kashyap for obtaining the loan and caused corresponding wrongful loss to the PNB. He identified signatures of Sh. Bhupender Kumar, the then SP of EOW-II, New Delhi at points A on FIR of RC no.0722008 (E)/0004 dated 26.06.2008 under Section 120-B readwith Section 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC and substantive offences thereof. The same was exhibited as Ex.PW26/A. The file of PNB (D-81) with respect to M/s R. R. Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd. which was seized by him during investigation was proved as Ex.PW26/B. The file D-82, volume -XI of PNB with respect to title deeds pertaining to M/s R. R. Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd. seized by him during investigation was exhibited as Ex.PW26/C. The Circular No.31 dated 23.04.1999 (D-85) of PNB seized during investigation was exhibited as Ex.PW26/D and Circular No.100 dated 28.09.2000 (D-86) of PNB with respect CBI v Sh. Y. N. Kashyap & Ors. Page 38 of 71 CC No.16/16 DL-0375 to loan and advances was exhibited as Ex.PW26/E. The attested copy of Circular No.151 dated 28.09.2007 (D-90) of PNB with respect to loan and advances which was seized by him during investigation was exhibited as Ex.PW26/F. He proved the file containing list of questioned/specimen/admitted documents and GEQD report as Ex.PW26/G (colly). The file (D-94) containing documents having admitted signatures sent to GEQD for examination was exhibited as Ex.PW26/H. File (D-95) containing letter dated 18.12.2008 alongwith the copy of DRT order dated 27.10.2008 and certified copies of conveyance deed of above-stated properties were exhibited as Ex.PW26/J. The copy of letter dated 21.08.2009 (D-97) alongwith annexures of BOI addressed to the witness was collectively exhibited as Ex.PW26/K. The letter dated 09.06.2009 written by A-2 Sh. Ranjan Kashyap to the said witness mentioning that the loan taken from M/s Standard Chartered Bank in respect of property no.1361-P, Sector-14, Faridbad, Haryana has been settled alongwith copy of 'No Dues' Letter was exhibited as Ex.PW26/L. The seizure-cum- production memo (D-101) which was already exhibited as Ex.PW22/A as per which, the witness had seized documents mentioned therein from Sh. S. D. Jetly, the then Sr. Manager, Asset Recovery Management Branch, PNB, New Delhi was exhibited as Ex.PW26/M. The sanction letter dated 24.01.2005 of UCO Bank sanctioning Rs.1 Crore term loan (D-102) against the rent receivable addressed to A-1 Sh. Y. N. Kashyap by Asst. Gen. Manager of UCO Bank Delhi High Branch was exhibited as Ex.PW26/N. The witness exhibited as Ex.PW26/O another sanction letter dated 25.02.2005 of UCO Bank sanctioning Rs.32 lacs term loan against rent receivable addressed to A-1 Sh. Y. N. Kashyap (now deceased) by Asstt Gen. Manager of UCO Bank, Delhi High court Branch.
92. The witness exhibited cheque dated 17.05.2007 (D-105) of PNB for an CBI v Sh. Y. N. Kashyap & Ors. Page 39 of 71 CC No.16/16 DL-0375 amount of Rs.1,63,40,363/- which was seized during the course of investigation as Ex.PW26/P.
93. In cross-examination by learned counsel for A-4 Sh. Lajpat Chandolia, PW26 stated that criminal conspiracy was hatched in November, 2006 when the application for loan take over was applied by A-1 Sh. Y. N. Kashyap and A-2 Sh. Ranjan Kashyap. He denied a suggestion that in November, 2006 the A-4 Sh. Lajapt Chandolia was posted at Dayanand Model School Extension Counter of PNB and not at PNB, Paharganj. He stated that the loan application was processed by A-3 Sh. S. V. Chauhan & A-4 Sh. Lajpat Chandolia. He admitted that (D-3) Ex.PW1/A and (D-4) Ex.PW1/B which are visit reports bears signatures of Sh. M. K. Gupta, the then Sr. Manager and not that of A-4 Sh. Lajpat Chandolia. He admitted that the request of the party was processed in the Branch and complete proposal was submitted to PNB, Zonal Office vide Paharganj Branch letter dated 23.01.2007 signed by Sh. Vishnu Dutt, Sr. Manager. He stated that during investigation Sh. Vishnu Dutt was not found to be involved in the conspiracy. He stated that since the proposal of the loan application was processed alongwith recommendation of A-4 Sh. Lajpat Chandolia therefore, he came to conclusion that A-4 Sh. Lajpat Chandolia was part of criminal conspiracy and not Sh. Vishnu Dutt. He admitted that in CIBIL report only loan from BOI is mentioned, however, he stated that the said report is not correct as the party had also taken loan from Andhra Bank and the title deeds were also lying with the Andhra Bank. He stated that the title deeds given to PNB were forged. He stated so on the basis of GEQD report and on the basis of the statements of witnesses recorded by him. He denied a suggestion that PNB officials has no role in this case in view of false report given by CIBIL. He admitted that letter dated 19.03.2007 Ex.PW22/M1 written by Paharganj Branch to the Zonal office does not bear the signatures of accused no. 4 Sh.
CBI v Sh. Y. N. Kashyap & Ors. Page 40 of 71CC No.16/16 DL-0375 Lajpat Chandolia. He denied a suggestion that Sh. Lajpat Chandolia was not processing the loan on 19.03.2007 as the said letter is not proposal for processing the loan. He was shown letter dated 09.02.2007 and 11.02.2007 which are Ex.PW22/L, he stated that both the letters bear signatures of A-4 Sh. Lajpat Chandolia at point B. He stated that vide these letters the auditors report of the company and balance-sheet of the company were sent to the Zonal office and were part of processing of the loan. He stated that he does not remember whether he has examined Chartered Accountant Sh. Mahesh Kumar during the course of investigation or not. He denied a suggestion that till the time the original title deeds were returned by BOI, permission of HUDA could not have been received for the mortgage. He stated that even if the original title deeds were with BOI still A-3 Sh. S. V. Chauhan & A-4 Sh.Lajpat Chandolia were supposed to verify the same before disbursal of loan. During his cross- examination, report dated 22.12.2005 (D-82) of approved panel lawyer of BOI was exhibited as Ex.PW26/DA-3. The valuation certificate dated 08.11.2005 of BOI was exhibited as Ex. PW26/DB-6. The witness stated that had A-3 Sh. S. V. Chauhan and A-4 Sh. Lajpat Chandolia approached HUDA, they would have come to know that the original title deeds of both the properties were already deposited with Andhra Bank and would not have sanctioned the loan.
94. In cross-examination by learned counsel for the A-2 Sh. Ranjan Kashyap, PW26 stated that there is no document on record regarding the handing over of the title deed after the payment was received by BOI, however, he stated that as per Ex.PW22/M16 (D-63) which is letter of BOI, all the dues were cleared. He stated that the conveyance deed given by BOI to PNB is part of Ex.PW6/B in file Ex.PW24/A. The said conveyance deed for Property No.89/24, Faridabad, Haryana was exhibited as Ex.PW26/D2-A-1. He also stated that the copy of the same was also given by BOI which is already CBI v Sh. Y. N. Kashyap & Ors. Page 41 of 71 CC No.16/16 DL-0375 exhibited as Ex.PW7/C & Ex.PW7/G (In the evidence of PW-7 Sh. Manish Bhardwaj recorded on 08.07.2015, he has stated that Ex.PW7/C is the certified copy of sale deed of Property No. 89/24, Faridabad and 1361/14, Faridabad. Here PW-26 has by oversight stated incorrectly in as much as Ex.PW7/C and Ex.PW7/G are not for one property but for different properties and therefore could not have been given by BOI who was having only the title deeds of Property No. 89/24, Faridabad). He stated that he has not investigated how the disbursed amount was distributed amongst accused persons in their personal capacity. PW26 could not say whether he had made enquiries from the office of Registrar of Companies. He admitted that he had not investigated the financial health of the company from its chartered accountant as it was not found necessary. He stated that the documents are called for either by way of seizure memo or by way of letter. He stated that he has not conducted any raid or search in the premises of A-3 Sh. S. V. Chauhan and A-4 Sh. Lajpat Chandolia to find out receipt of tainted money or sudden improvement of their lifestyle. He stated that he did not move any application before DRT to obtain copies of documents filed with DRT by Andhra Bank. He admitted that he was told by Andhra Bank's officials that the original title deeds of the property are mortgaged with them since 2001. He further stated that the original title deeds of the mortgaged properties were handed over by Andhra Bank to the auction purchaser. He also stated that he had taken original record from HUDA. He stated that he did not file any application for supplying the certified copies of title deeds of the properties kept as collateral securities from the concerned Sub-Registrar Office. The witness proved letter dated 28.05.2008 written by HUDA to A-1 Sh. Y. N. Kashyap and Chief Manager PNB which was exhibited as Ex.PW26/D3-A1. In this letter HUDA had written that property no. 1361/14, Faridabad is already mortgaged with Andhra Bank, Standard Chartered Bank CBI v Sh. Y. N. Kashyap & Ors. Page 42 of 71 CC No.16/16 DL-0375 and UCO Bank and for creating mortgage in favour of PNB, NOC from these three Banks was called for. He admitted that as per CIBIL report, the conduct of the account of the borrower was satisfactory. He admitted that as per Ex.PW26/L Standard Chartered Bank had written to HUDA that its dues have been cleared by the borrower and the Bank has no claim, right or interest in respect of Property No. 1361/14, Faridabad and Bank's lien recorded on the said property may be cancelled. The witness stated that he had seized from PNB Ex.PW10/DX-4/A4 which is letter dated 16.12.2005 with respect to mortgaged property bearing No. 89/24, Faridabad, Haryana by HUDA in favour of BOI. (This document was exhibited on 09.07.2015 when the evidence of PW10 Sh. Vijay Kumar Mehta, Internal Auditor of the Bank was being recorded. When confronted with this letter, he stated that he cannot say anything about this because this letter was not part of documents given to him for enquiry. This letter is totally contrary to letter Ex. PW26/D3-A1 where the stand of HUDA was that the property was mortgaged with Andhra Bank, Standard Chartered Bank and UCO Bank. This document, Ex.PW26/D3-A1 was got proved by accused no. 2 himself by summoning Sh. Hanuman Singh who proved that this letter was issued from HUDA. However, no witness from HUDA has proved that Ex.PW10/DX-4/A-4 was issued by HUDA). He admitted that during investigation, it was not ascertained who had actually forged the conveyance deed. The witness admitted that total sanction amount was Rs.3.90 crores out of which Rs. 2.70 crores was disbursed. He denied a suggestion that since the entire sanctioned amount was not disbursed, it would belie allegation of conspiracy, otherwise the entire sanctioned amount of Rs.390 lacs would have been got released. He also admitted that the rubber stamp used to forge the documents was not recovered during investigation.
95. The accused replied to the queries posed by the Court under Section CBI v Sh. Y. N. Kashyap & Ors. Page 43 of 71 CC No.16/16 DL-0375 313 of Cr.P.C. The stand of A-2 Sh. Ranjan Kashyap is generally that the account was dealt with by his father A-1 Sh. Y.N. Kashyap, who was owner of both the properties offered as collateral security and, therefore, he evaded the questions put to him. The stand of A-3 Sh. S.P. Chauhan is of denial generally. The stand of A-4 Sh. Lajpat Chandolia is that he had no role in the grant of loan to M/s R.R. Components Pvt. Ltd. and whatever, he did was on the instructions of A-3 Sh. S.V. Chauhan. The defence relied on the testimony of 8 witnesses and also produced exhibits.
96. On behalf of A-2 Sh. Ranjan Kashyap, six (06) witnesses were examined in his defence.
97. First witness examined on behalf of A-2 Sh. Ranjan Kashyap is Sh. B. N. Murli, the Chief Manager, BOI (retired) who admitted his signatures on Ex.PW21/A and stated that the account of M/s R. R. Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd. was being conducted satisfactorily.
98. The second witness examined on behalf of A-2 Sh. Ranjan Kashyap was Sh. Hanuman Singh, Clerk, HUDA office, Faridabad who stated that Ex.PW26/D3-A1 was issued by his office. This witness produced photocopy of letter written by Estate Officer, HUDA to A-1 Sh. Y. N. Kashyap as per which ownership/allotment of Plot No.1361-P, Sector -14, Faridabad was changed from the name of Sh. Manohar Lal and Smt. N. Ahlabadi to the name of Sh. Y. N. Kashyap. He also produced photocopy of deed of conveyance of building site sold by allotment dated 02.06.1995 and copy of permission to mortgage residential Plot No.1361-P, Sector-14, Faridabad, dated 11.08.1995. He also produced letter dated 03.06.1996 written by Estate Officer, HUDA regarding mortgage of the said plot. He also produced copy of occupation certificate and final transfer letter. He stated that original of these documents were taken over by CBI and photocopies were marked as Mark X, X1, X2, X3, X4 & X5 CBI v Sh. Y. N. Kashyap & Ors. Page 44 of 71 CC No.16/16 DL-0375 respectively. He produced letter dated 05.04.2010 addressed to Estate Officer, HUDA, Faridabad by CBI and copy of the same was exhibited as Ex.A1W2/A. He also produced seizure-cum-production dated 20.04.2009 as per which allotment file of Property No.1361/14, HUDA, Faridabad in the name of Sh. Y. N. Kashyap containing total pages from 1 to 158 was seized by IO of this case. The same was exhibited as Ex.A1W2/B.
99. In cross-examination by learned PP for CBI, the witness stated that the original of copy of deed of conveyance Mark X1 produced by him is Ex.PW6/A and not Ex.PW6/B and Ex.PW11/A. He stated that Ex.PW6/B and Ex.PW11/A are forged. He stated that for permission of the mortgage of the property, an allottee has to move an application for the same and HUDA is not concerned in which Bank the deed of conveyance is deposited.
100. The third witness examined on behalf of A-2 Sh. Ranjan Kashyap is Sh. Hardeep, clerk from labour office of Industrial Area, Faridabad, Haryana. He produced letter dated 30.06.2017 written by Sh. Suresh Yadav, Asst. Labour Commissioner, Circle-II, Faridabad, Haryana and same was exhibited as Ex.A1W3/A.
101. The fourth witness examined on behalf of A-2 Sh. Ranjan Kashyap is Sh. Bhajrang Lal Gupta, AGM, PNB, ARMB (Asset Recovery Management Branch), Rajendra Bhawan, Rajendra Place, New Delhi. He produced copy of certificate dated 02/03-Nov-2010 wherein dues towards PNB of the account M/s R. R. Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd. were approved by the Bank. The same was given Mark A1W4/A. In cross-examination, he deposed that on account of settlement made by way of One Time Settlement (OTS), the Bank suffers loss and in this case, the loss suffered by the Bank was Rs.70,96,113/-.
102. The fifth witness examined on behalf of A-2 Sh. Ranjan Kashyap is Sh. Bhagat Singh, LDC, DRT Cell, New Delhi. He produced order dated 05.08.2010 CBI v Sh. Y. N. Kashyap & Ors. Page 45 of 71 CC No.16/16 DL-0375 whereby, OA No.09/08 titled as UCO Bank v Y. N. Kashyap was disposed off in view of compromise and the order was exhibited as Ex.A1W5/A.
103. The last witness examined on behalf of A-2 Sh. Ranjan Kashyap is Smt. Asha Kashyap, wife of deceased A-1 Sh. Y. N. Kashyap and mother of A-2 Sh. Ranjan Kashyap. She deposed that the relation between her husband late A-1 Sh. Y. N. Kashyap and A-2 Sh. Ranjan Kashyap were inimical as A-1 Sh. Y. N. Kashyap wanted A-2 Sh. Ranjan Kashyap to do business with him but Sh. Ranjan Kashyap who is MBA graduate from London wanted to settle in London. She stated that even the last rites of A-1 Sh. Y. N. Kashyap were not performed by A-2 Sh. Ranjan Kashyap. In cross-examination, she denied the suggestions contrary to her examination-in-chief. She stated that she is a graduate but was not knowing who were the Directors of M/s R. R. Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd. as her husband never divulged details of business to her. She even did not know whether A-2 Sh. Ranjan Kashyap was one of the Directors of M/s R. R. Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd. She was shown signatures of A-2 Sh. Ranjan Kashyap on Ex.A7, Ex.A8, Ex.A9, Ex.A10, Ex.A11 and Ex.A12 but she could not state whether the signatures were of A-2 Sh. Ranjan Kashyap or not. She could not answer from how many Banks, M/s R. R. Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd. had borrowed loan.
104. On behalf of A-3 Sh. S.V. Chauhan, two witnesses were examined. The first witness is Sh. Ashish Gangwar, Sr. Manager, PNB (Integrated Risk Management Department), Bhikajikama Place, New Delhi. He produced certified copy of Circular No.40/2008 dated 18.03.2008 which was exhibited as Ex.A3W1/A. He stated that he has no personal knowledge whether Bank has issued any other circular prior to this circular with regard to verification of the signatures of CA on their reports. He stated that it is a normal practice that if a second circular is issued on the same subject matter, it refers to previous CBI v Sh. Y. N. Kashyap & Ors. Page 46 of 71 CC No.16/16 DL-0375 circular on the same subject. He could not say whether this circular was the first circular on the subject but admitted that this circular does not mention about any previous circular on the same subject.
105. The second witness examined by A-3 Sh. S. V. Chauhan is Sh. Harikant Rai, GM, PNB, Rajendra Place, New Delhi. This witness stated that in the year 2008, he was posted at Rajendra Place, Circle Office of PNB. He produced the minutes of meeting held on 08.01.2008 at Zonal Office with regard to account M/s R. R. Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd. and exhibited the same as Ex.A3W2/1.
106. Arguments were addressed by Sh. Pankaj Gupta, learned Sr. PP for the CBI, Sh. Rajiv Kapoor, learned counsel for A-2 Sh. Ranjan Kashyap, Sh. Gurbaksh Singh, learned counsel for A-3 Sh. S. V. Chauhan and Sh. Ajay Singh, learned Counsel for A-4 Sh. Lajpat Chandolia. On behalf of CBI, reliance was placed on i) AIR 1957 SC 340, ii) AIR 1963 SC 666, iii) AIR 1967 SC 986,
iv) AIR 1995 SC 1066, v) JT 2002 (2) SC 331 and vi) Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.78/13 dated 10.01.2013. On behalf of A- 2 Sh. Ranjan Kashyap reliance was placed on State of UP v. Sukhbasi and Ors., AIR 1985 SC 1224, CBI, Hyderabad v. K Narayana Rao, Crl. Appeal No.1460 of 2012 decided on 21.09.2012 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, Dr. Anup Kumar Srivastava v. State through CBI, Crl. M.C. No.4360 of 2012 decided on 21.09.2013 by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, State through CBI v. Dr. Anup Kumar Srivastava Crl. Appeal No.1336 of 2017 decided on 04.08.2017 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, John Pandian v. State, Crl. Appeal No.452 of 2007 decided on 03.12.2010 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, Manilal v. State of Kerala, 1998 Crl. Law Journal, 3785, Arvind Balashanker Joshi v. State of Gujarat, 1991 Crl. Law Journal, 2241, M. Durga Prasad v. State of AP, 2004 Crl. Law Journal 242 and State of AP through CBI v. M. Durga Prasad. Learned CBI v Sh. Y. N. Kashyap & Ors. Page 47 of 71 CC No.16/16 DL-0375 Counsel for A-3 Sh. S. V. Chauhan relied on A. Sivaprakash v. State of Kerala, AIR 2016 SC 2287, Jethsur Surangbhai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1984 SC 151, State of Maharasthra v. Mohd. Yaqub & Ors., AIR 1989 SC 1111 and Runu Ghosh v. CBI, Crl. Appeal No.482 of 2002 decided on 21.12.2011 by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court.
107. Points for determination in this case are whether A-1 Sh. Y. N. Kashyap & A-2 Sh. Ranjan Kashyap being Directors of M/s R. R. Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd. submitted with PNB, Paharganj Branch forged title deed of House Property No. 1361, Sector-14, Faridabad at the time of taking over of their loan from BOI, Mayur Vihar Branch and whether the title deed of Industrial Plot No. 89, Sector-24, Faridabad already given to BOI was also forged and fabricated? If yes, who forged the title deeds? Whether the forged title deeds were used for take over of loan of BOI by PNB and for increase in credit facility with the knowledge of A-2 Sh. Ranjan Kashyap? Whether there was a conspiracy hatched amongst A-1 Sh. Y. N. Kashyap, A-2 Sh. Ranjan Kashyap, A-3 Sh. S. V. Chauhan and A-4 Sh. Lajpat Chandolia to cheat the PNB by using forged title deeds ? Whether A-4 Sh. Lajpat Chandolia was also part of conspiracy? Whether the accused have cheated PNB by using forged title deeds and whether Accused No.3 and 4 are guilty of criminal mis-conduct punishable under Section 13 (1) (d) of PC Act, 1988?
108. The first question to be answered is whether A-1 Sh. Y. N. Kashyap & A- 2 Sh. Ranjan Kashyap being Directors of M/s R. R. Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd. submitted with PNB, Paharganj Branch forged title deed of House Property No. 1361, Sector-14, Faridabad at the time of taking over of their loan from BOI, Mayur Vihar Branch and whether the title deed of Industrial Plot No. 89, Sector-24, Faridabad already given to BOI was also forged and fabricated?
109. Ex.PW6/B is the Conveyance Deed of Property No.1361, Sector-14, CBI v Sh. Y. N. Kashyap & Ors. Page 48 of 71 CC No.16/16 DL-0375 Faridabad seized by I.O. during investigation from PNB as part of Ex. PW 26/C and after report of hand writing expert it is part of Ex.PW24/A.
110. Evidence of PW-20 Sh. Ajay Bhatnagar, Assistant General Manager, Andhra Bank has shown that A-1 Sh. Y. N.Kashyap and A-2 Sh. Ranjan Kashyap, the Directors of M/s R. R. Automotives Components Pvt. Ltd. had approached Andhra Bank in the year 2001 for various credit facilities and against equitable mortgage of residential Property No. 1361, Sector-14, Faridabad, Haryana and against Industrial Property No. 89, Sector-24, Faridabad, Haryana, a loan of Rs.4.65 crores for credit facilities was sanctioned. The accounts had become NPA and a Civil Suit was filed for the recovery of the dues before DRT. The physical possession of the residential property was taken over on 06.09.2008 and of industrial property on 05.09.2008. The residential property was auctioned on 17.12.2008 and original conveyance deeds of both the properties were with their branch i.e. Connaught Circus branch of Andhra Bank.
111. This witness was cross-examined by learned Counsel for accused no. 3 only with regard to Andhra Bank not reporting that the account had become NPA in CIBIL and with regard to non-creation of charge within 30 days with Registrar of Companies.
112. This witness was not cross-examined on behalf of learned Counsel for accused no. 4.
113. Learned Counsel for A-2 Sh. Ranjan Kashyap was contented merely by adopting the cross-examination conducted by learned Counsel for A-3 Sh. S. V. Chauhan and did not put a single question to this witness.
114. The testimony of PW-20 that the original title deeds of the house Property No. 1361, Sector-14, Faridabad, Haryana and Industrial Property No. 89, Sector-24, Faridabad were with the Andhra Bank, Connaught Circus branch CBI v Sh. Y. N. Kashyap & Ors. Page 49 of 71 CC No.16/16 DL-0375 from 2001 to 2008 has remained unassailed and un-rebutted. If the original title deeds of the two properties admittedly were with Andhra Bank from 2001 to 2008, A-1 Sh. Y. N. Kashyap and A-2 Sh. Ranjan Kashyap could not have given original title deeds of Industrial Property No. 89,Sector-24, Faridabad to BOI and of House Property No. 1361, Sector-14, Faridabad in the year 2007 to PNB, Paharganj New Delhi.
115. Same is the evidence of PW8 Sh. A. Ramamohan, Assistant General Manager of Andhra Bank. He also stated that M/s R. R. Automotive Component Pvt. Ltd. had availed credit facility from Andhra Bank in the year 2001.
116. In cross-examination by learned Counsel for the accused no. 2, he further clarified that the account had become NPA in the year 2003 and the original documents were filed along with the case before DRT.
117. In cross-examination by learned Counsel for the A-3 Sh. S. V. Chauhan, he could not say whether the Bank had shown charge qua the mortgaged properties of the companies on the ROC records or not and whether the loan advanced to the company had been reflected in the CIBIL or not.
118. In cross-examination by learned Counsel for the accused no. 4, he also stated that the accounts were settled by the company in August 2008.
119. Same is the testimony of PW26 Sh. S. C. Bhalla, IO of the case who stated that as per Andhra Bank's officials, the original title deeds of the properties were mortgaged with Andhra Bank since 2001 and were handed over by Andhra Bank to the auction purchaser.
120. Thus, the testimony of PW-20, PW8 & PW26 has shown that the original title deed of property No. 89 / 24 Faridabad could not have been given by accused no. 1 and accused no. 2 to BOI and deed of property No. 1361/14 Faridabad to PNB in 2007 as they remained with Andhra Bank, Connaught Circus Branch, New Delhi from 2001 till 2008.
CBI v Sh. Y. N. Kashyap & Ors. Page 50 of 71CC No.16/16 DL-0375
121. Office copy of the title deed of House Property No. 1361, Sector-14, Faridabad which was taken on record by the IO of the case is Ex.PW6/A. This is part of Ex. PW16/A handed over by HUDA witness to the IO.
122. PW6 Sh. Ramesh Kumar Khurana is one of the witnesses on the said conveyance deed. He admitted his signatures on Ex.PW6/A. He also admitted signatures of his employee Sh. Ranjan Kumar on Ex.PW6/A. However, when he was shown Ex.PW6/B which is the conveyance deed taken by the IO from the PNB, he denied his signatures as well as the signatures of his employee Sh.Ranjan Kumar on the same and went on to state that his signatures and the signatures of his employee have been forged.
123. In cross- examination, no suggestion was given to the witness contrary to his examination-in-chief either by learned Counsel for the A-2 Sh. Ranjan Kashyap or A-3 Sh. S. V. Chauhan or A-4 Sh. Lajpat Chandolia.
124. Therefore, the evidence of PW6 who is one of the witnesses on the conveyance deed has supported the prosecution by identifying his signatures on Ex.PW6/A and denying his signatures over Ex.PW6/B.
125. Sh. Ranjan Kumar, the above said employee of Sh. Ramesh Kumar Khurana was also examined as PW18. He also admitted his signatures as well as signatures of his employer on Ex.PW6/A and denied his signatures or the signatures of his employer Sh. R. K. Khurana on Ex.PW6/B.
126. In cross- examination, no suggestion was given to the witness contrary to his examination-in-chief either by learned Counsel for the accused no. 2 or 3 or 4.
127. Therefore, the evidence of PW18 who is one of the witnesses on the conveyance deed has also supported the prosecution by identifying his signatures on Ex.PW6/A and denying his signatures over Ex.PW6/B.
128. PW11 Sh. Hoshiyar Singh, Assistant in the office of Estate Office HUDA, CBI v Sh. Y. N. Kashyap & Ors. Page 51 of 71 CC No.16/16 DL-0375 one of the witnesses on the conveyance deed executed on 19.06.1995 between A-1 Sh. Y. N. Kashyap and HUDA, Faridabad in respect of residential Plot/Premises No. 1361P, Sector-14, Faridabad identified his signatures as well as signatures of other attesting witness Sh. Satpal on Ex.PW6/A. He also identified signatures of Sh. Rao Rattan Lal who was the Estate Officer at that time on Ex.PW6/A. However, he denied his alleged signatures as well as alleged signatures of Sh. Satpal and alleged signatures of Sh. Rao Rattan Lal, the Estate Officer on Ex.PW6/B. With regard to another conveyance deed on record, Ex.PW11/A, he deposed that the same does not bear his signatures at all and the alleged signatures of Sh. Rao Rattan lal the Estate Officer are also not his signatures.
129. In cross-examination by learned Counsel for accused no. 2, he clarified that PW6/A is the second copy of the original. Three sets of documents are prepared in routine manner of any conveyance deed in respect to every property registered with HUDA and all the three sets of the documents contain original signatures of all the executants and witnesses. He was given a suggestion that Ex.PW6/B and Ex.PW11/A are the other two sets which are given to the allottee, however, he denied the said suggestion.
130. In cross-examination by learned Counsel for A-3 Sh. S. V. Chauhan, he reiterated that the second copy of the conveyance deed retained in HUDA office is Ex.PW6/A.
131. Thus, the third signatory of the conveyance deed also deposed against the accused denying his signatures on the conveyance deed given by A-1 Sh. Y. N. Kashyap and A-2 Sh. Ranjan Kashyap to PNB for collateral security at the time of availing loan.
132. Similarly, PW15 Sh. Satpal fourth witness on the conveyance deed also admitted his signatures as well as the signatures of Sh. Rao Rattan Lal on CBI v Sh. Y. N. Kashyap & Ors. Page 52 of 71 CC No.16/16 DL-0375 Ex.PW6/A and denied signatures of Sh. Rao Rattan Lal on Ex.PW6/B as well as on Ex.PW11/A. He also stated that Ex.11/A does not show his signatures at all and only mentions his name on the conveyance deed.
133. PW7 Sh. Manish Bhardwaj, Advocate proved sale deed collected from PNB as Ex.PW7/D. This conveyance deed is for Industrial Plot No.89, Sector- 24, Faridabad, Haryana. He also proved certified copy of the conveyance deed of this property collected by PNB as Ex.PW7/C and stated that Ex.PW7/D as was given to PNB is different from the certified copy of the same which is Ex.PW7/C.
134. Even the suggestion of learned Counsel for A-2 Sh. Ranjan Kashyap to PW26 Sh. S. C. Bhalla, IO of the case on 28.02.2017 was that the documents submitted to the Bank by A-1 Sh. Y. N. Kashyap and A-2 Sh. Ranjan Kashyap were the second copy or the draft copy of the title documents. Even if the deeds given were second copy or draft copy, though not so proved, still, it would be cheating as well as forgery in as much as loan/credit facilities can be procured on the basis of conveyance deed and not on the basis of second copy or draft copy of conveyance deed.
135. No suggestion was given to any of these witnesses that Ex.PW6/B is not the conveyance deed which was given by A-1 Sh. Y.N. Kashyap and A-2 Sh. Ranjan Kashyap to PNB at the time of securing loan or it was not part of Ex.PW26/C or Ex.PW24/A as seized during investigation.
136. The second witness examined in his defence by A-2 Sh. Ranjan Kashyap was Sh. Hanuman Singh (A1W2) who also stated that Ex.PW6/A is the original deed and Ex.PW6/B and Ex.PW11/A are forged deeds.PW24 the hand writing expert has also opined forgery in title deeds given to PNB.
137. The evidence of PW6, PW18, PW11, PW15, PW7, PW24 and A1W2 discussed above shows that the title deeds of House Property No.1361-P, CBI v Sh. Y. N. Kashyap & Ors. Page 53 of 71 CC No.16/16 DL-0375 Sector-14,Faridabad and Industrial Plot No. 89/24, Sector-24, Faridabad were forged deeds.
138. The stand of A-2 Sh. Ranjan Kashyap in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.PC is that since these two properties were owned by A-1 Sh. Y. N. Kashyap he cannot say anything with regard to their forgery. The next question to be answered is whether the forged title deeds were used for take over of loan of BOI by PNB and for increase in credit facility with the knowledge of A-2 Sh. Ranjan Kashyap?
139. As per A1W6, A-2 Sh. Ranjan Kashyap is MBA graduate from London. He was the borrower from Andhra Bank in the year 2001 and PW20 Sh. Ajay Bhatnagar has already deposed that A-1 Sh. Y. N. Kashyap and A-2 Sh. Ranjan Kashyap, the Directos of M/s R. R. Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd. had approached Andhra Bank in the year 2001 for various credit facilities and equitable mortgage of Residential House No. 1361-P, Sector-14, Faridabad and against Industrial Property No.89, Sector-24, Faridabad, Haryana, a loan of Rs.4,65 crores for credit facilities was sanctioned.
140. Moreover, A-2 Sh. Ranjan Kashyap in Ex.PW10/DX3-A4 (D-8) which is application form for credit facilities of over Rs.2 crores duly signed by him on each page has mentioned about M/s R. R. Industries (partnership firm) as an associate concern of M/s R. R. Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd. M/s R. R. Industries (through A-1 Sh. Y. N. Kashyap) is the registered owner of Industrial Property No.89, Sector-24, Faridabad, Haryana. Therefore, he cannot feign ignorance about forged title deeds given to PNB.
141. Further, Ex.PW22/M8 (D-49) is property declaration form bearing signatures of A-2 Sh. Ranjan Kashyap at point B where the details of properties mortgaged to PNB include Residential House No. 1361-P, Sector-14, Faridabad. Therefore, the forged title deeds were given to PNB for the purposes CBI v Sh. Y. N. Kashyap & Ors. Page 54 of 71 CC No.16/16 DL-0375 of take over of loan from BOI as well as for enhanced credit facilities from PNB, Paharaganj with the knowledge of A-2 Sh. Ranjan Kashyap.
142. The next question is who has forged the title deeds?
143. During investigation the specimen signatures of A-1 Sh. Y. N. Kashyap were taken for the examination by the expert in handwriting.
144. PW24 Sh. Abhimanyu Kumar is specialized in handwriting identification and detection of forgery. He had examined PW6/B, the forged deed of conveyance of Residential House No. 1361-P, Sector-14, Faridabad, Ex.PW26/D2-A1 which is the forged title deed of Industrial Property No.89, Sector-24, Faridabad, Haryana and Ex.PW11/A another forged title deed of Residential Property No.1361, Sector-14, Faridabad, Haryana and compared questioned signatures of A-1 Sh. Y. N. Kashyap with his specimen signatures given during investigation, D-95 from S1 to S11. He arrived at a conclusion on examination of the questioned and specimen signatures of A-1 Sh. Y. N. Kashyap that signatures on Ex.PW6/B (D-93) on Q3 to Q14 are not of A-1 Sh. Y. N. Kashyap and signatures on Q1, Q2, Q2A, Q2B and Q15 to Q25 are of A-1 Sh. Y. N. Kashyap. The fact that A-1 Sh. Y. N. Kashyap has his signatures on title deed which has been proved to be forged would suggest that A-1 Sh. Y. N. Kashyap, was privy to forgery but since A-1 Sh. Y. N. Kashyap died during the pendency of the case and proceedings against him abated the court refrains from returning any finding in this regard.
145. Whether there was a conspiracy hatched amongst A-1 Sh. Y. N. Kashyap, A-2 Sh. Ranjan Kashyap, A-3 Sh. S. V. Chauhan and A-4 Sh. Lajpat Chandolia to cheat the bank is the next question to be answered.
146. It is vehemently opposed by A-3 Sh. S. V. Chauhan & A-4 Sh. Lajpat Chandolia that they were not knowing that the title deeds given to PNB by A-1 Sh. Y. N. Kashyap and A-2 Sh. Ranjan Kashyap for take over of loan from BOI CBI v Sh. Y. N. Kashyap & Ors. Page 55 of 71 CC No.16/16 DL-0375 and for enhancement of credit facility were forged. It is also vehemently argued on behalf of A-3 Sh. S. V. Chauhan & A-4 Sh. Lajpat Chandolia that they had done everything that was possible for them to do to safeguard the Bank's interest. They have relied on Ex.PW7/A and Ex.PW7/E which are the reports of panel advocate regarding non-encumbrance certificate. They have vehemently argued that the advocate had given a report that M/s R. R. Industries had a clear, valid and marketable title over the property bearing Industrial Plot No.89, Sector-24, Faridabad, Haryana. They also relied on the report of panel lawyer which certified that A-1 Sh. Y. N. Kashyap has a clear, valid and marketable title over Property House No. 1361-P, Sector-14, Faridabad.
147. In defence of their innocence, they have relied on the evidence of PW17 Sh. Sarvar Raza who is a practicing Company Secretary and proprietor of M/s S. Raza & Associates. As per report Ex.PW17/A, he had found that M/s R. R. Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd. as per records of Registrar of Companies has loans of BOI, Mayur Vihar of Rs.240 lacs only. They have also relied on Ex.PW10/DX5-A3 (D-24) which is report of Credit Information Bureau (India) Ltd. dated 02.03.2007 as per which asset classification is 'Standard' and loan of Rs. 240 lacs only is shown.
148. They have also relied on evidence of PW9 Sh. Arvind Tiwari, a Chartered Engineer by profession working under name and style of M/s R. R. & Co. This witness in his report Ex.PW9/A (D-81) has shown value of Residential House No. 1361-P, Sector-14, Faridabad as Rs.4.9 crores and has shown value of Industrial Property No.89, Sector-24, Faridabad, Haryana as Rs.3.85 crores in his report Ex.PW9/B (D-82). The contention of A-3 Sh. S. V. Chauhan & A-4 Sh. Lajpat Chandolia is that whereas the total loan sanctioned in favour of M/s R. R. Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd. was Rs.390 lacs but they had secured the said loan by properties worth Rs.880 crores.
CBI v Sh. Y. N. Kashyap & Ors. Page 56 of 71CC No.16/16 DL-0375
149. They have also relied on report of PW1 Sh. M. K. Gupta who was the Sr. Manager of PNB, Paharganj branch who had reported that the worth of Industrial Plot was Rs.300 lacs and value of house premises was Rs.500 lacs as per Ex.PW1/A & Ex.PW1/B respectively.
150. A-3 Sh. S. V. Chauhan & A-4 Sh. Lajpat Chandolia have also argued that if there was any conspiracy then the entire sanctioned loan of Rs.390 lacs would have been released in favour of M/s R. R. Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd. but the total loan released in its favour including the payment of borrowal loan of BOI was Rs.276.02 lacs only.
151. A-3 Sh. S. V. Chauhan & A-4 Sh. Lajpat Chandolia have also argued that a confidential letter was sent to BOI on 09.11.2006 which is Ex.PW3/DA (D-5) and BOI was called upon to furnish information a) credit limits availed by the party, b) financial position, c) creditability/conduct of the account, d) asset classification, e) credit risk rating and f) adverse feature, if any.
152. A-3 Sh. S. V. Chauhan & A-4 Sh. Lajpat Chandolia have relied on Ex.PW21/A which is response of BOI dated 11.11.2006 as per which "accounts conducted satisfactorily".
153. A-3 Sh. S. V. Chauhan & A-4 Sh. Lajpat Chandolia have also relied on the fact that on the directions of A-3 Sh. S. V. Chauhan, A-4 Sh. Lajpat Chandolia had made a visit to BOI, Mayur Vihar Branch before processing the loan in favor of M/s R. R. Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd. Reliance is placed on Ex.PW22/M4 which is letter dated 28.04.2007 of A-4 Sh. Lajpat Chandolia where he stated that he had made enquires about the conduct of account of M/s R. R. Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd. being maintained with BOI and reason for shifting the account from BOI to PNB. A-4 Sh. Lajpat Chandolia informed A-3 Sh. S. V. Chauhan vide this letter that BOI,Mayur Vihar Branch is residential and unable to provide required facilities like FEX business to the CBI v Sh. Y. N. Kashyap & Ors. Page 57 of 71 CC No.16/16 DL-0375 party and the conduct of the account is satisfactory.
154. A-3 Sh. S. V. Chauhan and A-4 Sh. Lajpat Chandolia have emphatically pressed that the lien in the records of HUDA could only have been created after payment to BOI and PNB on receiving the title deed from BOI followed with HUDA for creation of charge but the HUDA responded to their requests belatedly and by then the loan was already sanctioned and disbursed.
155. They have relied on the evidence of PW2 who stated in his cross- examination that before taking over of the loan, no request could have been made to HUDA. They have also relied on the evidence of PW12 Sh. Sanjay Kr Garg, Chief Manager, PNB who was Internal Sr. Auditor of the Bank who stated that since the properties stood mortgaged with BOI, till such time, the Bank took over the loan, paid the money to the BOI, original title deeds were handed over to PNB and BOI gave NOC, no mortgage could have been created in favour of PNB.
156. To rebut the allegation of conspiracy, A-3 Sh. S. V. Chauhan and A-4 Sh. Lajpat Chandolia have also relied on Ex.PW10/DX4-A4 letter dated 16.12.2005 addressed to M/s R. R. Industries written by Estate officer HUDA stating that over Industrial Property No.89, Sector-24, Faridabad, Haryana, BOI has second charge.
157. A-3 Sh. S. V. Chauhan and A-4 Sh. Lajpat Chandolia have also relied on the fact that they had addressed letters to HUDA after receiving the title deed from BOI on 22.05.2007, 29.06.2007 (Ist reminder), 01.08.2007 (IInd reminder), 04.10.2007 (IIIrd reminder), 01.11.2007 (IVth reminder) and 29.12.2007 (22.12.2007) (Vth reminder), and were vigorously following with the Estate Officer of HUDA for marking Bank's lien on the properties mortgaged by A-1 Sh. Y. N. Kashyap and A-2 Sh. Ranjan Kashyap to PNB, Paharganj. They have relied on the fact that the HUDA replied to them only on 28.05.2008 vide CBI v Sh. Y. N. Kashyap & Ors. Page 58 of 71 CC No.16/16 DL-0375 Ex.PW16/B7 informing that Residential House No. 1361-P, Sector-14, Faridabad is already mortgaged in favour of Andhra Bank, Standard Chartered Bank and UCO Bank and by the time the loan was sanctioned and disbursed.
158. They have also argued that Ex.PW3/DB is circular dated 18.03.2008 regarding checking of identity of the CA before acting on CA's certificate. They have argued that when the loan of M/s R. R. Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd. was processed there was no such circular in vogue.
159. On the basis of the above, it was argued on behalf of A-3 Sh. S. V. Chauhan & A-4 Sh. Lajpat Chandolia that there is no shred of evidence of conspiracy involving A-3 Sh. S. V. Chauhan & A-4 Sh. Lajpat Chandolia to cheat the bank or otherwise.
160. On the other hand, the evidence with regard to conspiracy is evident from non-encumbrance certificate Ex.PW7/A & Ex.PW7/E itself. In these two certificates, the panel lawyer had advised that valid mortgage can be created by deposit of (i) original conveyance deed dated 21.06.1972 executed by Governor of Haryana in favour of M/s R. R. Industries, (ii) permission to mortgage the captioned property by Governor of Haryana in favour of Bank, (iii) copy of approved site map in respect of captioned property (iv) an affidavit from M/s R. R. Industries through its partner A-1 Sh. Y. N. Kashyap duly attested by Notary Public (affidavit enclosed) and (v) latest property tax bill/receipt or latest electricity tax bill/receipt in respect of the captioned property. While seeking the permission of HUDA for creating lien of PNB, these documents were never sent and as per Ex.PW26/C, Estate Officer, HUDA in response to letter of Chief Manager, PNB dated 14.03.2008 and 05.06.2008 responded that the permission for mortgage can only be given on the request of allottee. Therefore, A-3 Sh. S. V. Chauhan and A-4 Sh. Lajpat Chandolia contrary to the advise of panel lawyer PW7 deliberately failed to apply as per Ex.PW7/A and Ex.PW7/E. CBI v Sh. Y. N. Kashyap & Ors. Page 59 of 71 CC No.16/16 DL-0375
161. PW7 Sh. Manish Bhardwaj has stated that A-3 Sh. S. V. Chauhan had told him that the borrower will show him papers for which he has to conduct legal search report and verify the documents shown by the party. He stated that the photocopy of the document of the property was given to him by the representative of M/s R. R. Industries and verified the registration number of the copy of the documents with the index register maintained at Sub Registrar's Office.
162. A-4 Sh. Lajpat Chandolia, when he had gone to BOI on the directions of A-3 Sh. S. V. Chauhan, to find out the credentials of borrower should have requested for a copy of title deed lying with BOI and the said title deed should have been given to the panel lawyer for the purposes of verification and report. The fact that A-3 Sh. S. V. Chauhan left it to the representative of the party to provide copy of the title deed to the panel lawyer is suggestive of connivance and conspiracy amongst the accused.
163. No written instructions were given to the panel lawyer on behalf of A-3 Sh. S. V. Chauhan and A-4 Sh. Lajpat Chandolia leaving things in dark about what he is expected to do. This assumes significance considering the suggestion given by A-3 Sh. S. V. Chauhan to this witness that A-3 Sh. S. V. Chauhan had not given him any call to conduct legal search in this case. This assumes further significance considering the fact that as per Ex.PW26/C which contains letter of A-4 Sh. Lajpat Chandolia addressed to Sh. U. C. Mittal, Advocate dated 11.01.2008 where it is specifically mentioned that he has to verify genuineness of the documents. If similar written instructions were given to Sh. Manish Bhardwaj, PW7 the Bank would have come to know about forgery of the conveyance deed. Since instructions to PW7 were oral there is no record of what he was expected to do with regard to two title deeds. Moreso, when A-3 Sh. S. V. Chauhan disowned having given any instructions to PW7, CBI v Sh. Y. N. Kashyap & Ors. Page 60 of 71 CC No.16/16 DL-0375 Sh. Manish Bhardwaj.
164. A-4 Sh. Lajpat Chandolia has argued that it was he who discovered the forgery and he had taken the report of advocate Sh. U C Mittal on the certified copies of the two title deeds. This explanation does not convince the court because he was compelled to take action as he had gone to the office of Sub Registrar with Sh. S. K. Garg PW12, Internal Auditor of the Bank and was left with no choice to continue to shield A-1 Sh. Y. N. Kashyap and A-2 Sh. Ranjan Kashyap.
165. A-3 Sh. S. V. Chauhan and A-4 Sh. Lajpat Chandolia quietly glossed over the fact that Ex.PW7/A & Ex.PW7/E the non-encumbrance certificate are totally silent with regard to search made at HUDA office. They deliberately underplayed this omission which is suggestive of their connivance and conspiracy.
166. A-3 Sh. S. V. Chauhan and A-4 Sh. Lajpat Chandolia are making mountain out of molehill by pressing that they could not have contacted HUDA till the time they had the title deeds with them which they could have got only after paying to BOI and before that. This argument of A-3 Sh. S. V. Chauhan and A-4 Sh. Lajpat Chandolia cannot be sustained for the reason that only the title deeds of Industrial Property No.89, Sector-24, Faridabad, Haryana were lying with BOI at the time of processing of loan by PNB. Admittedly, the borrower had given additional security in the form of Residential House No. 1361-P, Sector-14, Faridabad which was not mortgaged, as per the accused with any Bank and nothing prevented PNB from seeking mortgage over said property by HUDA before sanctioning and disbursing the loan. Further, the second witness examined on behalf of A-2 Sh. Ranjan Kashyap namely Sh. Hanuman Singh A1W2, in his cross-examination stated that for permission of mortgage of property, the allottee moves only an application for the same.
CBI v Sh. Y. N. Kashyap & Ors. Page 61 of 71CC No.16/16 DL-0375 HUDA is not concerned in which Bank the deed of conveyance is deposited. Therefore, PNB could have straightaway contacted HUDA alongwith application of allottee for creation of mortgage without waiting for the original deeds. Even PW12 Sh. Sanjay Kr. Garg, Chief Manager, PNB/Internal Sr. Auditor of the Bank had reiterated in his cross-examination that even in the absence of title deeds NOC could have been obtained from HUDA.
167. According to A-3 Sh. S. V. Chauhan and A-4 Sh. Lajpat Chandolia, they had written a letter and five reminders to HUDA for creation of mortgage but the HUDA delayed the matter. This argument of A-3 Sh. S. V. Chauhan and A-4 Sh. Lajpat Chandolia cannot be believed for the reason that PW19 Sh. Satpal an employee of HUDA has categorically denied that letters dated 29.06.2007, 01.08.2007, 04.10.2007, 01.11.2007 and 22.12.2007 were ever received by HUDA. No effort was made to prove that these letters were sent on behalf of PNB to HUDA. There is nothing on record like registered post receipt or any other document to suggest that these letters were sent by PNB to HUDA. Even if it is presumed that these letters were sent from PNB to HUDA though not so proved, A-3 Sh. S. V. Chauhan and A-4 Sh. Lajpat Chandolia were peacefully contented by merely sending reminders after reminders and months after months and they felt no urgency to make a visit to the HUDA office to find out why there was no response to their letters from HUDA to protect the interest of the Bank. This is not a mere irregularity or oversight at their end.
168. Evidence of PW19 has shown that HUDA has been responding to the requests of Banks for creation of charge/mortgage from time to time. Ex.PW16/B4 (part B 11, page 283) is the request of UCO Bank dated 22.11.2005 for creation of charge over Residential House No. 1361-P, Sector- 14, Faridabad. Ex.PW16/B5 is the response of HUDA dated 08.12.2005 in this regard to UCO Bank. The witness has also proved Ex.PW16/B6 which is letter CBI v Sh. Y. N. Kashyap & Ors. Page 62 of 71 CC No.16/16 DL-0375 of PNB addressed to the Estate Officer HUDA dated 12.03.2008 which was duly replied by the Estate Officer vide Ex.PW16/B7 dated 28.05.2008. In letter dated 28.01.2008 and 12.03.2008, written by A-3 Sh. S. V. Chauhan and A-4 Sh. Lajpat Chandolia respectively, there is no mention of any previous letter addressed to Estate Officer HUDA which clearly shows that A-3 Sh. S. V. Chauhan and A-4 Sh. Lajpat Chandolia had sat over the matter and requested for marking of Bank's lien on the properties of A-1 Sh. Y. N. Kashyap and M/s R. R. Industries for the first time on 28.01.2008. This is clearly suggestive of conspiracy amongst all the accused.
169. Reliance of A-3 Sh. S. V. Chauhan and A-4 Sh. Lajpat Chandolia on Ex.PW10DX4-A4 which is letter dated 16.12.2005 from Estate Officer, HUDA to M/s R. R. Industries to absolve them of the allegation of conspiracy is also misplaced. The said letter allegedly states that over Industrial Property No.89, Sector-24, Faridabad, Haryana, BOI has second charge. This document was found from the records of PNB by the IO as part of Ex.PW26/C. This document was exhibited when evidence of PW10 Sh. Vijay Kr. Mehta was being recorded. This document was confronted during cross-examination by learned counsel for A-3 Sh. S. V. Chauhan. The witness had stated that he cannot say anything about the said letter as the same was not the part of the documents given to him for inquiry. However, the document was given Ex.PW10/DX4-A4. The document was not proved as per law. During trial, two witnesses came from the office of HUDA. One witness from HUDA office was PW19. This document was not put to this witness by A-3 Sh. S. V. Chauhan and A-4 Sh. Lajpat Chandolia. The second witness who came from HUDA office was A1W2 Sh. Hanuman Singh. This document was again not put to the witness. Therefore, A-3 Sh. S. V. Chauhan and A-4 Sh. Lajpat Chandolia cannot rely on this document to argue that as per HUDA, only BOI had second charge. Ex.PW26/C contains report of CBI v Sh. Y. N. Kashyap & Ors. Page 63 of 71 CC No.16/16 DL-0375 Sh. U. C. Mittal Advocate dated 12.01.2008. He has also opined in that report that regarding the letter dated 16.12.2005 allegedly granting NOC to create mortgage of the said property in favour of BOI also appears to be forged and fabricated. He had requested to arrange verification of the same from Estate Officer, HUDA at Faridabad. Even after receiving such an alarming and damaging report A-3 Sh. S. V. Chauhan and A-4 Sh. Lajpat Chandolia glossed over it and took no action which is further suggestive of conspiracy amongst the accused.
170. A perusal of Ex.PW26/D2-A1 which is allegedly deed of conveyance of Residential House No. 1361-P, Sector-14, Faridabad bears the rubber stamp of Sub Registrar-II, Delhi. This should have been immediately noticed by the A-3 Sh. S. V. Chauhan and A-4 Sh. Lajpat Chandolia but for their conspiracy.
171. Even if payment of Rs.1,79,12,363/- to BOI is ignored, there can be no justification for A-3 Sh. S. V. Chauhan and A-4 Sh. Lajpat Chandolia for releasing Rs.1,05,22,404/- in favour of M/s R. R. Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd. without securing the interest of PNB by creation of lien/mortgage with HUDA. A sum of Rs.70 lacs was released in favour of M/s R. R. Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd. on 18.05.2007. Even the so called first letter to HUDA to create mortgage was written on 22.05.207 i.e. after releasing a sum of Rs. 70 lacs in favour of the party. A sum of Rs.15 lacs was released on 21.08.2007. This amount was released on the telephonic instructions of A-3 Sh. S.V. Chauhan when the Bank officials were at the factory of the party and had found stock worth Rs. 50 to 60 lacs as against outstanding of Rs. 235 lacs. Rs.7.50 lacs was released on 08.10.2007. All these payments were made without protecting the interest of the Bank even after receiving the so called original title deeds of the properties. The haste in releasing the limit in favour of M/s R. R. Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd. without creating lien/mortgage with HUDA is CBI v Sh. Y. N. Kashyap & Ors. Page 64 of 71 CC No.16/16 DL-0375 also suggestive of conspiracy amongst the accused.
172. While dealing with the issue of haste, after referring to a number of judgments in Noida Entrepreneurs Association v. Noida & Ors. (2011) 6 SCC 508, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in the case of Rajiv Kumar Versus State of UP and Ors 2017(17) JT 624 as under:
"28. While dealing with the issue of haste, this court in Bahadursinh Lakhubhai Gohil v. Jagdishbhai M. Kamalia, (2004) 2 SCC 65, referred to SP Kapoor (Doctor) v. State of HP, (1981) 4 SCC 716 and held that: (Jagdishbhai M. Kamalia Case (2004) 2 SCC 65, SCC p. 75, para 25) "25. .. when a thing is done in a post-haste manner, malafides would be presumed .."
29. In Zenit Mataplast (P) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 10 SCC 388 this court held: (SCC p. 399, page 39) "39. Anything done in undue haste can also be termed as arbitrary and cannot be condoned in law"
30. Thus, in case an authority proceeds in undue haste, the court may draw an adverse inference from such conduct.
173. Other evidence suggestive of conspiracy are as under:-
i) the stipulations mentioned in Ex.PW22/M2 which is letter dated 29.03.2007 of Zonal office to A-3 Sh. S. V. Chauhan were not complied with especially the stipulation that any additional amount to be released only after creation of all proposed primary and collateral securities. The stipulation that before take over Chief Manager branch to ensure that valid and enforceable equitable mortgage can be created on IPs proposed as security with PNB.
ii) Ex.PW22/C, auditor's report to the members of the company CBI v Sh. Y. N. Kashyap & Ors. Page 65 of 71 CC No.16/16 DL-0375 are without address, telephone number, mobile number of the Chartered Accountant Sh. Mahesh Kumar. A responsible Bank official does not need a circular of the nature of circular dated 18.03.2008 Ex.PW3/DD to get conscious of the conspicuous absence of these details of the CA in the report.
iii) evidence of PW5 shows that the funds were used for purposes other than for which it was sanctioned.
iv) CIBIL report with regard to Directors not taken.
v) 15 irregularities as point out by PW21 on 08.04.2016 committed by A-3 Sh. S. V. Chauhan and A-4 Sh. Lajpat Chandolia. Especially necessary declaration that company is not enjoying any credit facility from other Bank was not obtained as per clause-5 (a)(i) and (ii) of L&A circular no.97 dated 07.09.2016 Ex.PW21/D and loan application, Ex.PW10/DX3-A4 is incomplete. Vital information like existing loan in column no.6 was not mentioned.
174. Often conspiracy is hatched in secrecy and for proving the said offence substantial direct evidence may not be possible to be obtained. An offence of criminal conspiracy can also be proved by circumstantial evidence.
175. The one essential ingredients of the offence of criminal conspiracy are:
[i.) An agreement between two or more persons; ii) the agreement must relate to doing or causing to be done either (a) an illegal act; or (b) an act which is not illegal in itself but is done with illegal means. It is, therefore, meeting of minds of two or more persons for doing or causing to be done an illegal act or an act by illegal means is sine qua non of criminal conspiracy. It is extremely difficult to adduce direct evidence to prove conspiracy. Existence of conspiracy and its objective can be inferred from the surrounding circumstances and the conduct of the accused. In some cases, indulgence in the illegal act or legal act by CBI v Sh. Y. N. Kashyap & Ors. Page 66 of 71 CC No.16/16 DL-0375 illegal means may be inferred from the knowledge itself. (Rajiv Kumar v. State of UP & Anr. 2017 (7) JT 624).
176. The circumstantial evidence cited above is sufficient to prove that there was a conspiracy hatched to cheat the Bank amongst all the four accused.
177. Learned Counsel for A-4 Sh. Lajpat Chandolia, had argued that no role can be attributed to A-4 Sh. Lajpat Chandolia in this conspiracy.
178. In Ex.PW26/C, Annexure-9 titled as Proforma for recording the value of property assessed by incumbent incharge dated 23.04.2007 is signed by A-4 Sh. Lajpat Chandolia, Manager (Credit) as well as A-3 Sh. S. V. Chauhan, Chief Manager of the Bank. He had visited BOI, Mayur Vihar on the directions of A-3 Sh. S. V. Chauhan to enquire about the conduct of account of M/s R. R. Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd. and reason for shifting the account from BOI to PNB. He had explained that the branch of BOI is a residential branch is not able to provide facilities like FEX business to the party and the conduct of the account was satisfactory. PW10 Sh. Vijay Kr. Mehta, the Chief Concurrent Auditor of PNB in his cross-examination by learned Counsel for A-4 Sh. Lajpat Chandolia on 09.07.2015 has also stated that there are many documents such as monthly inspection report, quarterly inspection report and other documents which show that A-4 Sh. Lajpat Chandolia was the Manager (loan). The Board Note dated 10.05.2007 Ex.PW12/B is prepared by A-4 Sh. Lajpat Chandolia. This Board Note was precursor to the sanction of loan of Rs.390 lacs by the Chief Manager, A-3 Sh. S. V. Chauhan. A-4 Sh. Lajpat Chandolia had also gone to UCO Bank, Delhi High Court to make inquires with regard to UCO Rent Scheme availed by the other accused. A-4 Sh. Lajpat Chandolia had responded to the queries of Zonal office with regard to auditor's report of the company for the period 31.03.2005, 31.03.2006 and provisional balance-sheet as on 31.12.2006 alongwith balance-sheet for 31.03.2005 and 31.03.2006. Same is CBI v Sh. Y. N. Kashyap & Ors. Page 67 of 71 CC No.16/16 DL-0375 Ex.PW22/L. In the opinion of PW12 Sh. Sanjay Kr. Garg, the same was part of processing of loan application. He stated that these replies were ratification for proposal of 23.01.2007 and carry the consent of A-4 Sh. Lajpat Chandolia as well. As per PW23 Sh. Kailash Kumar, the request of the company was processed by A-4 Sh. Lajpat Chandolia, Manager (credit) which was approved by A-3 Sh. S. V. Chauhan, Chief Manager of the Bank. This was stated by PW23 in his examination-in-chief recorded on 17.02.2016. The memorandum of association of M/s R. R. Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd. Ex.A1 is also initialed by A-4 Sh. Lajpat Chandolia. The legal compliance certificate Ex.PW22/M15 dated 18.05.2007 and schedule 1 & 2 appended thereto are also initialed by A-4 Sh. Lajpat Chandolia. Further, PW23 stated in his cross- examination by learned Counsel for A-4 Sh. Lajpat Chandolia on 21.10.2016 that A-4 Sh. Lajpat Chandolia was posted in the branch when the said company approached the Bank for take over of the loan account. PW26 Sh. S. C. Bhalla the IO of the case has also stated on 23.01.2017 that the proposal of loan application was processed alongwith recommendations of A-4 Sh. Lajpat Chandolia and therefore, he was part of criminal conspiracy. Letter allegedly written to HUDA to create charge in favour of PNB and five alleged reminders were never sent to HUDA. A-4 Sh. Lajpat Chandolia wrote for the first time in January, 2008 to HUDA to create charge i.e. after more than 7 months of release of loan.
179. The above is sufficient to return a finding that A-4 Sh. Lajpat Chandolia was part of criminal conspiracy.
180. Section 13 of the PC Act in general lays down that if a public servant, by corrupt or illegal means or otherwise, abusing his position as a public servant obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage, he would be guilty of 'criminal misconduct'. Sub Section 2 of Section CBI v Sh. Y. N. Kashyap & Ors. Page 68 of 71 CC No.16/16 DL-0375 13 speaks of the punishment for such misconduct. Section 13 (1) (d) readwith Section 13 (2) of PC Act lays down the essentials and punishment respectively for the offence 'criminal misconduct by a public servant'. Section 13 (1) (d) reads as under:
"13. Criminal misconduct by a public servant. - -"
(1.) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct,
(d) if he, - -
(i) by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or
(ii) by abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or
(iii) while holding office as a public servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest; or"
181. A perusal of the above provision makes it clear that if the elements of any of the three sub classes are met, the same would be sufficient to constitute an offence of 'criminal misconduct' under Section 13 (1) (d). Undoubtedly, all the three wings of clause (d) of Section 13 (1) are independent, alternative and disjunctive. Thus, under Section 13 (1) (d) (i) of PC Act obtaining any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage by corrupt or illegal means by a public servant in itself would amount to criminal misconduct. On the same reasoning under Section 13 (1) (d) (ii) of PC Act, "obtaining a valuable thing or a pecuniary advantage" by abusing his official position as a public servant, either for himself or for any other person would amount to criminal misconduct [See, Rajiv Kumar (supra)]. Therefore, in so far as Section 13 (1) (d) of the Act is concerned, its CBI v Sh. Y. N. Kashyap & Ors. Page 69 of 71 CC No.16/16 DL-0375 essential ingredients are: (i) that he should have been a public servant; (ii) that he should have corrupt or illegal means or otherwise, abused his position as such public servant and (iii) that he should have obtained a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage for himself or for any other person (A. Subair v. State of Kerala, 200 (3) SCC (CR) 85).
182. All the three accused were charged with the offence punishable under Section 120-B IPC readwith Section 420, 468, 471 and 13 (2) readwith Section 13 (1) (d) of PC Act. A-2 Sh. Ranjan Kashyap was also charged for having committed an offence under Section 420, 468, 471 of IPC. A-3 Sh. S. V. Chauhan and A-4 Sh. Lajpat Chandolia were charged with having committed an offence under Section 13 (2) readwith Section 13 (1) (d) of PC Act.
183. The accused have cheated the bank by securing sanction of credit limit of Rs.390 lacs in favour of M/s R. R. Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd. through its Directors A-1 Sh. Y. N. Kashyap and A-2 Sh. Ranjan Kashyap. Nearly, Rs.270 lacs was disbursed on the basis of forged title deeds of the properties given as collateral securities to the Bank. It would not have been possible for the accused to avail this credit facility unless they had deceived the officers of Zonal office, fraudulently and dishonestly inducing the Zonal office officers to grant the sanction of take over of borrowal loan from BOI and to grant the sanction of enhanced credit facility. The Zonal office would not have granted the sanction if the officers of Zonal office were not so deceived into believing that the proposed take over of loan and increase in credit facility is sought on the basis of forged title deeds. Thus, the accused No. 2 has committed the offence of cheating and is convicted for having committed the offence of cheating under Section 420 of IPC.
184. Evidence has shown that the forged title deeds were fraudulently and dishonestly used as genuine and the accused No.2 knew that the title deeds CBI v Sh. Y. N. Kashyap & Ors. Page 70 of 71 CC No.16/16 DL-0375 are forged. Therefore, the accused No. 2 Sh. Ranjan Kashyap is also convicted under Section 471 of IPC.
185. Evidence of PW24 has shown that A-1 Sh. Y. N. Kashyap (since deceased) had a direct role in forging the title deed of Industrial Property No.89, Sector-24, Faridabad, Haryana. Since, the said accused died during the pendency of present trial no conviction is passed on Section 468 of IPC.
186. A-3 Sh. S. V. Chauhan and A-4 Sh. Lajpat Chandolia abused their official position as public servants, for obtaining for M/s R. R. Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd. through its A-1 Sh. Y. N. Kashyap and A-2 Sh. Ranjan Kashyap valuable thing / pecuniary advantage in the nature of grant of credit facilities to the extent of Rs.390 lacs out of which nearly Rs. 270 lacs were also disbursed on the basis of forged deeds. Therefore, they are convicted for having committed the offence under Section 13 (2) readwith Section 13 (1) (d) (ii) of PC Act.
187. In the light of discussion of evidence with regard to conspiracy in the earlier parts of this judgment, it is held that all the accused are guilty of having committed the offence under Section 120-B readwith Section 420, 468, 471 of IPC and Section 13 (2) readwith Section 13 (1) (d) of PC Act also and are convicted for the said offence as well.
188. List for passing order on sentence on 11.10.2017.
Announced in the open court (ARUN BHARDWAJ)
on 09.10.2017 Special Judge (PC Act): CBI-5
PHC, New Delhi :09.10.2017
CBI v Sh. Y. N. Kashyap & Ors. Page 71 of 71
CC No.16/16 DL-0375