Delhi District Court
State vs R.B. Garg on 29 June, 2024
IN THE COURT OF RISHABH KAPOOR:
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE - 05 NORTH-WEST
ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
State Vs. : R.B. Garg
FIR No : 384/2004
U/s : 409/467/468/471/477A IPC
P.S. : Shalimar Bagh
JUDGMENT:
1. Criminal Case No. : 535188/2016 2. Date of commission of offence : Year, 2002-2003
3. Date of institution of the case : 24.06.2004
4. Name of the complainant : State
5. Name and parentage of accused : R.B. Garg
S/o Late Sh. Chander
Bhan Garg
6. Offense complained or proved : U/s 409/467/468/
471/477A IPC
7. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
8. Date on which order was reserved : 06.06.2024
9. Final order : Acquitted
10. Date of final order : 29.06.2024.
FIR No. 384/2004 State Vs. R.B. Garg.
1. The accused is facing trial for the offences u/s 409/467/468/471/477A IPC. The genesis of the prosecution story is that a complaint dated 23.02.2004 was lodged by Sh. S.B. Verma, Senior Manager O.B.C Extn. Counter Shalimar Bagh, Delhi, against the accused R.B. Garg who was the erstwhile Senior Manager (under suspension) and last posted at Extn. Counter at O.B.C. Shalimar Bagh, alleging commission of offence of criminal breach of trust, conspiracy, forgery, mis- appropriation of public money and cheating the depositors as well as the Bank. The allegations are to the extent that on 21.01.2004, one Sh. Mam Chand Jain who was the representative of some of the depositors produced 47 CDRs having maturity value of Rs. 8,00,286/- to the complainant for renewal of same upto 28.02.2004 as the maturity date was 17.01.2004 and upon verification of the record of renewal of such 47 CDRs, it transpired that payment against such CDRs amounting to Rs. 7,55,860/- was already made on 30.01.2003 and each of the CDRs reported to be bearing the signatures of the persons in whose name they were drawn. It is also in the allegations that the above-named Sh. Mam Chand Jain disclosed the complainant that any of the payment of such CDRs was not received by the depositors nor any of such 47 CDRs were signed by the original depositors. It also transpired from the records that the vouchers relating to the encashment of such CDRs were prepared under the handwriting of accused R.B. Garg and he also obtained the payment of such 47 CDRs. The allegations are also to the extent that accused R.B. Garg renewed and delivered the 47 CDRs on 30.01.2003 without any corresponding credit in the Bank's Books of Accounts and a particular book containing the 100 FIR No. 384/2004 State Vs. R.B. Garg.
FDRs leaves, to which the questioned 47 CDRs belong, was also obtained by the accused vide requisition dated 02.12.2002 from the Extension Counter of N.K. Bagrodia Public School, Rohini Sector-9, Delhi, and such receipt of the FDR Book was also not accounted for in the Bank's Books of Accounts. The allegations are also that rest of the 53 leaves out of the abovesaid FDR book were not traceable and it was found that the accused kept with himself a sum of Rs. 7,55,860/- out of such 47 CDRs fraudulently and committed the offence of criminal breach of trust and forgery while holding the position of Senior Manager at O.B.C. Bank, Extn. Counter, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi. It is also alleged that on being confronted by the official superiors of the accused, he admitted his guilt in writing and expressed his readiness to deposit the amount of such 47 CDRs with the bank but he failed to give any satisfactory reply with respect to the remaining 53 FDR leaves. The further probe by the superior bank authorities also divulged that the accused got two more FDR Books requisitioned from the Wazirpur Branch of the Bank vide application dated 25.01.2003 and no corresponding entry qua the receipt of such FDR books was made by him in the relevant bank register. It is further in the allegations that the accused also conspired with one Om Prakash Bansal and Devender Gupta and misused the bank money by using the seven forged leaves of FDRs bearing numbers 342085 of Rs. 2 lacs, 342086 of Rs. 2 lacs, 342073 and 3420812, 342084 of Rs. 50,000/- each as a security out of the above-mentioned 200 leaves to give two demand loans to above-named Om Prakash Bansal to the tune of Rs. 1,80,000/- each on 23.10.2002 and 28.10.2002, respectively and another demand loan of Rs.
FIR No. 384/2004 State Vs. R.B. Garg.
2,40,000/- to the above-named Devender Gupta on 06.01.2003 by manipulating, tampering and fabricating the records of the bank regarding the loan. The criminal law was set into motion pursuant to the aforementioned complaint made by complainant Sh. S.B. Verma and the investigation into the case began. During the course of investigation, witnesses namely, Mam Chand Jain, Ashok Kumar, Bhupender Sharma were examined with respect to the deposition of the amount of the FDRs at the O.B.C Bank. The verification regarding the bank records was also conducted and the admitted as well as specimen handwriting and signatures of accused were also obtained by the IO and same were sent to FSL for comparison and analysis with the questioned documents in the nature of original cheques, cash vouchers, registers and requisition letters written by the accused to the concerned branches of the bank. The supplementary chargesheet alongwith the FSL result came to be filed by the police. After completion of investigation, the accused was charge-sheeted for offences U/s 409/419/468/471/477A/201 IPC.
2. The accused was arrested and was admitted to bail. After taking cognizance of the offences, the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C. were complied with and copy of chargesheet and documents was supplied to accused. Arguments on charges were heard and vide order dated 14.05.2013, charge for offences U/s 409/467/468/471/477A IPC was framed against accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, the prosecution evidence was led and the matter proceeded further for trial of the accused.
FIR No. 384/2004 State Vs. R.B. Garg.
3. In order to establish guilt of the accused, prosecution has examined 10 witnesses in all. After prosecution evidence, statements of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein all the incriminating circumstances were put to accused. The accused also led evidence in his defence and examined as many as seven defence witnesses. Thereafter, DE was closed and final arguments were heard.
4. I have heard the rival contentions advanced on behalf of the prosecution and defence and have also gone through the case file carefully.
5. The gist of allegations leveled against the accused are that during year 2002 to 2003, the accused being posted as Senior Manager at the Extn. Counter of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Shalimar Bagh, Prabhu Dayal Public School was entrusted or having dominion over the CDRs of one Bhupender Singh, his relatives and of the other depositors amounting to Rs. 14,30,860/- approximately and encashed the same by fraudulent issuance of CDRs from the three CDRs books which he got issued from O.B.C. Ashok Vihar, Wazir Pur Branch and Extn. Counter of O.B.Cat N.K. Bagrodia Public School, Sector-9, Rohini, without any corresponding credit in the account books of bank and dishonestly misappropriated the cash amount of Rs. 14,30,860/- or converted the same to his own use. It is also in the allegations that during the aforesaid time period, the accused in the above- mentioned capacity of the bank official was entrusted or having dominion over the account holders of the bank, misused the bank money by using the seven leaves of CDRs from the CDR Books FIR No. 384/2004 State Vs. R.B. Garg.
bearing no. 03420012, 0342100 which he got issued from the Extn. Counter of O.B.C. at N.K. Bagrodia Public School, Sector- 9, Rohini, as a security against two demand loans of Rs. 1,80,000/- each to Sh. Om Prakash Bansal and a loan of Rs. 2,40,000/- to Sh. Devender Gupta and dishonestly mis- appropriated such amount by adjusting the said loan accounts. There are also allegations to the extent that during the above- mentioned period and in the abovesaid capacity of the official of bank, the accused forged the signatures of the complainant and other depositors on their CDRs and also prepared forged vouchers relating to the encashment of those CDRs and thereafter encashed the amount of such CDRs. The accused also allegedly issued the forged CDRs by renewing the receipts from the three CDR books which he got issued from N.K. Bagrodia School and O.B.C. Wazirpur Branch, without making any corresponding entries in the books of accounts and dishonestly used the forged CDRs and vouchers as genuine so as to justify his illegal acts. The allegations are also that during the above-mentioned time period, the accused in such capacity got issued three CDR books of the series 189801 to 189900, 0342001 to 0342100 & 0907701 to 0901800 from O.B.C. Wazirpur Branch and O.B.C. Branch at N.K. Bagrodia Public School but willfully and with an intent to defraud the bank did not make any corresponding entries in the relevant bank registers and issued fake renewed CDRs to the above named Bhupender Singh and other depositors. There are also allegations that no entries qua the encashment of the old CDRs in Year, 2003 were made by the accused in the Bank's Books of Accounts and the accused also destroyed the un-used CDRs and has also adjusted the loan accounts of Om Prakash FIR No. 384/2004 State Vs. R.B. Garg.
Bansal and Devender Kumar by making the false entries in the Books of Accounts.
6. It has been contended by Ld. APP for the State that the prosecution has established beyond all reasonable doubts that accused has committed the offence of criminal breach of trust by mis-appropriating the public money on the basis of the misuse of the FDR leaves which he obtained from the other branches of the Bank. It is also argued that the accused has not only caused wrongful loss to the innocent depositors but has also fabricated their signatures on the receipt vouchers on the matured FDRs and so as to justify his illegal acts, the accused has also dishonestly issued the fake renewed FDRs in favour of such depositors by falsification of the Bank's Books of Accounts and thereby has committed offences punishable u/s 409/467/468/471/477A IPC. Ld. APP for State further submits that the accused deserves to be convicted for the alleged offences.
7. Per contra, Ld. Defence Counsel has argued that the accused has been falsely implicated in the present case at the behest of the complainant S.B. Verma, who was having the professional rivalry with the accused. It has also been argued that there are material contradictions in the version of so called depositor namely, Bhupender Sharma and the so called representative of the depositors namely, Mam Chand Jain as well as the witness Ashok Kumar qua the handing over/depositing money with the bank for issuance of FDRs. It is also argued that the above-named Mam Chand Jain has not produced any authorization depicting that he was in fact authorized by the FIR No. 384/2004 State Vs. R.B. Garg.
depositors to invest the money for issuing the FDRs and rather it suggests that the so called deposit of money was made by the above named Bhupender Sharma and Mam Chand Jain to evade their tax liabilities and they are rather liable to be indicted under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act. It has also been argued that the so called confession qua the mis- appropriation of money by the accused was extracted by the superior bank officials from the accused by exercising the undue influence and exerting pressure upon him and such facts have also been established by the accused by examining the relevant defence witnesses. It has also been argued that even the accused has also established that no amount of the depositors was misappropriated by him through his defence evidence. There also lies material contradictions in the version of prosecution witnesses, hence, accused deserve to be acquitted for the alleged offences.
8. Prior to delving into the merits of the present case, let us briefly discuss the testimonies of material prosecution witnesses, in brief.
PW-1 W/ASI Sarojni is a formal witness, who deposed that on 18.04.2004, she was working as a Duty Officer and pursuant to receiving rukka through Ct. Harish Chand, she registered FIR Ex. PW-1/A vide endorsement on rukka Ex. PW- 1/B. PW-2 S.B. Verma is the complainant and the incumbent Senior Manager of O.B.C during the relevant time. He deposed FIR No. 384/2004 State Vs. R.B. Garg.
that on 21.01.2004 one Mam Chand Jain, representative of the depositors produced 47 CDRs having maturity value of Rs. 8,00,286/- for renewal upto 28.02.2004 and on verification of the record of all the 47 CDRs, it was found that payment against them to the extent of Rs. 7,55,860/- was already made on 30.01.2003 and such facts were brought into notice of Mam Chand Jain, who denied of having obtained any such payments and also disclosed that the CDRs were not signed by the depositors. He further deposed that from records, it was found that the vouchers relating to the encashment of CDRs were prepared under the handwriting of accused R.B. Garg and he obtained the payment of such 47 CDRs and thereafter renewed and delivered 47 CDRs on 30.01.2003 bearing numbers 0907725 to 0907771 out of the CDR Book No. 0907701 to 0907800 containing 100 FDRs leaves which was obtained by him vide requisition dated 02.12.2002 from the Extn. Counter of N.K. Bagrodia Public School, Sector-9, Rohini, without making any corresponding entries in the Bank's Books of Accounts. He deposed that the rest of 53 leaves of such CDR Books were not traceable and the accused kept with himself Rs. 7,55,860/- belonging to the 47 CDRs fraudulently. He further deposed that on inquiry at the office, it was also revealed that the accused requisitioned two FDR books from serial no.189801 to 189900 from Wazir Pur Branch against application dated 25.01.2003 which was actually delivered on 27.02.2003 and FDR Book with serial no. 0342001 to 0342100 from N.K. Bagrodia School, Rohini, on 02.03.2001 without making any entries in the security register. He also deposed that the further inquiry revealed that accused conspired with one Om Prakash Bansal and Devender FIR No. 384/2004 State Vs. R.B. Garg.
Gupta and misused the bank money by issuing seven forged leaves of the FDRs bearing nos. 342085, 342086, 342073, 342081 to 342084 and against such FDRs, two demand loans of Rs. 1,80,000/- each were advanced to Om Prakash Bansal on 23.10.2002 and 28.10.2002 respectively, and one demand loan of Rs. 2,40,000/- was advanced to Devender Gupta on 06.01.2003. The accused got adjusted such loan accounts on 22.05.2003 and 07.02.2003. He further deposed that on subsequent inquiry it was revealed that accused issued 30 forged FDRs while posted at the Extn. Counter of the Shalimar Bagh Branch of the Bank and the face value of such FDRs was Rs. 5 lacs. He deposed that Mam Chand Jain informed of having deposited Rs. 5 lacs in cash to the accused and in pursuance thereof, 30 FDRs for such amount were handed over to him by accused and on 07.02.2003 those 30 FDRs were issued by the accused from the same FDR book which he obtained from the other branches of O.B.C. Bank without making the corresponding entries in the relevant books. He also deposed that in Year, 2004, one Manoj Jain came to his office and informed that he had also given Rs. 1,75,000/- to accused for issuance of FDRs and on inquiry it revealed that accused issued 12 forged FDRs in his own handwriting to Manoj Jain in the same manner as were issued to Mam Chand Jain while he was posted at the Extn. Counter of Shalimar Bagh Branch of the Bank. The maturity value of such 12 forged FDRs was around Rs. 2,28,000/-. He further deposed that those 12 FDRs were also issued by accused from the same FDR book which he obtained from the other branches of the bank without making the entries in that regard. He also deposed that on 22.01.2004, he reported the matter at Regional Office at Karol Bagh and on 23.01.2004, the FIR No. 384/2004 State Vs. R.B. Garg.
accused was called at Regional Office where he admitted his guilt and also admitted of depositing the cheated amount. He deposed that the whereabouts of remaining 211 FDRs were not told by the accused. He identified the accused in Court. He further deposed that complaint Ex. PW-2/A was made by him and the list of 30 FDRs issued by accused to Mam Chand Jain is Ex. PW-2/B, list of 12 FDRs issued to Manoj Jain is Ex. PW-2/C, the list of 47 FDRs issued by accused on 17.01.2002 is Ex. PW-2/D. He deposed that those 47 FDRs were up till 17.01.2023 and the amount of same was withdrawn by the accused himself before the beneficiaries approached the bank for their renewal on 17.01.2002. He deposed that the beneficiaries of such 47 FDRs approached the accused on 17.01.2003 for their renewal till 17.01.2004 and at that point accused issued 47 FDRs from the same book which he got issued from another branch without making corresponding entries in the security book. The list of such 47 forged FDRs is Ex. PW-2/E. He further deposed that on 21.01.2004, when the beneficiaries of such 47 FDRs came to him for further renewal, it transpired that the FDRs so issued by the accused were forged and the payment against the original FDRs issued by the accused on 17.01.2002 was already withdrawn by him from the bank on 30.01.2003. He also deposed that disclosure statement Ex. PW-6/F was made by the accused. He also identified the bundles containing 47 FDRs and 85 FDRs so issued by the accused to the customers without making entries in the relevant books.
PW-3 Ashok Kumar deposed that one person namely, Bhagwan Gupta was posted as Cashier in O.B.C. Bank Shalimar FIR No. 384/2004 State Vs. R.B. Garg.
Bagh and used to meet him at his friend Mam Chand Jain's Office. He deposed that in January, 2002, he went to the office of Mam Chand Jain and at that time, Cashier Bhagwan Gupta came there and asked him that for achieving the targets of FDs in bank, some FDRs were required to be issued and upon such request of Bhagwan Gupta, he talked to his friend Bhupender Sharma, who agreed to get the money deposited in O.B.C. Bank as fixed deposits. He deposed that he met with Bhupender Sharma in Noida, where he handed over cash of Rs. 7 lacs, which was further given by him to Bhagwan Gupta and against the said amount, Bhagwan Gupta handed over 47 certificates of FDs which were below the amount of Rs. 20,000/-. He deposed that the names of the beneficiaries were not told by him to Bhagwan Gupta and he himself mentioned the names of beneficiaries in the FD certificates. He deposed that in January, 2003, he returned 47 certificates to Bhagwan Gupta for renewal and after renewal the said certificates were handed over to him by Bhagwan Gupta. He further deposed that in February, 2003, Bhupender Sharma again requested him to get the fixed deposits of Rs. 5 lacs or more and he handed over such amount to Bhagwan Gupta for issuing fixed deposits and 30 more FD Certificates were given to him by Bhagwan Gupta, which were in the names of unknown persons. He deposed that the whole amount of Rs. 12 lacs belonged to Bhupender Sharma. Therefore, he handed over all such 77 certificates to Bhupender Sharma and after some days, Bhupender Sharma informed him that all such 47 certificates of FDs were found fake. He identified the FD certificates from the court file. During his cross-examination, he stated of not knowing the names of persons which were mentioned in the FD FIR No. 384/2004 State Vs. R.B. Garg.
certificates. He admitted of not having any receipt/ acknowledgment regarding the handing over of Rs. 7 lacs or Rs. 5 lacs to Bhagwan Gupta. He admitted that the accused did not give him any certificate nor he was known to accused.
PW-4 Mam Chand Jain deposed that Bhupender Sharma was known to him as they both were property dealers and in January, 2004, 47 FD Certificates were given to him by Bhupender Sharma for the renewal from O.B.C. Bank, Shalimar Bagh Branch. He deposed of visiting Shalimar Bagh Branch of O.B.C. Bank where he gave all 47 FD certificates to Senior Manager S.B. Verma. All such certificates were in different names and their total value was Rs. 7 lacs. He deposed that the Manager checked the bank records and found that no entries regarding the issuance of such certificates were made in the Bank records. He deposed that Bhupender Sharma was also informed by him of such facts and he further provided 30 FD certificates for verification from the bank but he informed him that such verification should be done by him on his own. He also identified the FD certificates from the Court file. During his cross- examination, he stated of not knowing the names of persons which were mentioned on the FD certificates. He stated that Bhupender Sharma did not give any authority letter to him for renewal and he was neither the beneficiary nor nominee in the said certificates. He stated that his money was not involved in the fixed deposits and he was also not having any personal relationship with the persons whose names were mentioned in the FDRs. He could not state whether someone signed the certificates on their back side or not nor he could state whether FIR No. 384/2004 State Vs. R.B. Garg.
such certificates were having signatures of any of the depositors.
PW-5 Bhupender Sharma deposed that he was a property dealer by profession and Ashok Kumar is his friend, who used to generally meet him and in January, 2002, Ashok Kumar came to his office in Alaknanda Market, Noida and told him that there was requirement of money for purpose of fixed deposits in the bank, to which Rs. 7 lacs were handed over in cash to Ashok Kumar. He deposed that Ashok Kumar handed over the said money to Mam Chand Jain, who deposited it with O.B.C. Shalimar Bagh Branch and got issued total 47 FDs for worth Rs. 7 lacs. He deposed that while handing over the money, the names of his family members were told by him to Ashok Kumar for purpose of issuing FDs but he could not state about the names of persons in whose favour the FDs were issued. He further deposed that the FDs were for a term of one year and they remained with Mam Chand Jain. He further deposed that in Year, 2003 Mam Chand Jain told him through Ashok Kumar that his FDs have matured and asked for their renewal, to which Mam Chand Jain got renewed the said 47 FDRs and also asked for Rs. 5 lacs more. He deposed that all such conversations with Mam Chand Jain were through Ashok Kumar and in January, 2003, Rs. 5 lacs in cash were also handed over to Ashok Kumar and from such amount, total 30 FDs were also issued from the bank. He further deposed that in January, 2004, Mam Chand Jain again went to the bank and came to know that a forgery was committed by the Bank Manager and such facts were informed by him to Ashok Kumar, who further informed about the same to him. He deposed that the FDs issued by the Bank were not seen by him as they FIR No. 384/2004 State Vs. R.B. Garg.
always remained with Mam Chand Jain. During his cross- examination, he stated that he never visited Shalimar Bagh Branch of O.B.C. Bank and the money was handed over to the Bank Manager through Ashok Kumar.
PW-6 Retd. Insp. Hanuman Daan was the IO in the present case. He deposed that after endorsement on complaint Ex. PW- 6/A, the present FIR already Ex. PW-1/A was registered and another complaint Mark-6B was also received by him from S.B. Verma. He deposed that the accused was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW-6/B, his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW-6/C and the house of accused was searched vide memo Ex. PW-6/D. He also deposed that body inspection memo of accused Ex. PW-6/E was prepared and his disclosure statement Ex. PW-6/F was recorded. He further deposed that during investigation, specimen signatures and handwriting of accused Ex. PW-6/G (Colly.) were taken in presence of HC Jawahar Lal and the admitted signatures and the handwriting of accused were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW-6/H. He also deposed that the fake FD certificates and the admitted as well as specimen handwriting/signatures of accused were sent to FSL. He further deposed that the disclosure statement of accused Ex. PW-6/I was recorded by him and the documents from Chief Manager namely, Vimal Kumar Jain and Senior Manager namely, V.K. Chopra were seized by him vide memos Ex. PW-6/J and Ex. PW-6/K respectively.
PW-7 S.C. Sharma is the Retired General Manager, O.B. C. Bank. He deposed that in Year, 2004 he was posted as General FIR No. 384/2004 State Vs. R.B. Garg.
Manager in the Regional Office, Delhi and at that time S.B. Verma informed him that the fake FDRs were issued from the Shalimar Bagh Branch in the tenure of accused R.B. Garg who was posted as Manager in the said bank and upon inquiry, the accused was found guilty by the inquiry team. He deposed that the accused was called by him to his office where he admitted his guilt and the amount of the fake FDRs was also deposited by him with the concerned branches but he did not disclose about the three FDR books which he had taken on the other branches. He also deposed that the accused has taken loans against fake FDRs and the said loan amount was credited in the name of persons namely, Bansal and Gupta by using the entries of fake FDRs. He further deposed that vide his letter dated 18.06.2004 Ex. PW-7/A, the affidavit of accused, posting letters and hand written letters were handed over to the IO. He further deposed that the certified copy of the posting letter of accused is Ex. PW-7/C, certified copies of two hand written letters of accused are Ex. PW-7/D and Ex. PW-7/E. He also identified the accused in Court. During his cross-examination, he admitted that the amount of fake FDRs were deposited by the accused. He could not state about the period when the fake FDRs were issued. He deposed that the inspection team of Bank examines the complete bank records but he could not state when the inspection of Shalimar Bagh had taken place.
PW-8 Balbir Singh deposed that he received the cash vouchers and FDRs from the authorized signatories and on the basis of same, same were encashed and thereafter, he was encountered with questions in the nature of cross-examination by FIR No. 384/2004 State Vs. R.B. Garg.
Ld. APP for State and admitted that he was working as cashier in O.B.C Shalimar Bagh on 30.01.2003. He admitted that he had encashed the cash vouchers and CDRs on getting the signatures of the authorized signatories of the bank. He could not state about the serial numbers of the cash vouchers and CDRs which were marked to him. He admitted that he handed over the cash which was encashed on the basis of FDRs and CDRs after receiving the same from accused in his cabin. He deposed that at that time some persons were sitting in the cabin of accused. He could not state whether the cash was paid to the depositors or not. his cross-examination, he stated that the cash was handed over to his Manager on his order.
PW- SI Rishal Singh (incorrectly numbered as PW-8) deposed that on 20.10.2004, he went to Regional Office of O.B.C. Bank where General Manager gave him a letter and 12 documents which were brought by him and were handed over to the IO.
PW-9 Retd. ASI Jawahar Lal deposed that on 28.04.2004, he joined the investigation and went to the house of accused at Chetak Apartment Rohini, Sector-2, where the IO arrested the accused, conducted his personal search, prepared body inspection memo, searched the house of accused and recorded his disclosure statement. He also deposed that the specimen signatures/handwriting of accused were also taken in his presence.
This is the entire prosecution evidence on record.
FIR No. 384/2004 State Vs. R.B. Garg.
9. As stated earlier, the accused has also led evidence in defence and has examined as many as 7 defence witnesses. The testimonies of the defence witnesses examined by the accused are as under:
DW-1 Manohar Dhingra deposed that he has worked in O.B.C from 03.11.1982 to 31.03.2020 and has Retired as Assistant Manager. He deposed that he was Central Committee Member and Executive Member of All India Banker's Association and on the relevant date, he was present in the chamber of G.M of the Bank at Regional Office, Karol Bagh, where the G.M. namely, Sh. S.C. Sharma was scolding accused R.B. Garg on account of certain irregularities found at his Branch Office or Extn. Counter. He deposed that R.B. Garg was asked by the G.M. to draft one affidavit regarding the conversation and the contents of same were also disclosed by the said G.M. He stated that the affidavit Ex. PW-7/B was prepared on the instructions of the G.M. Sh. S.C. Sharma. During his cross- examination, he could not state about the date, when he was present at the Regional Office, however, he stated that it was in February, 2004 and he had gone to the said office in connection with the work of association or insurance sector. He deposed that one D.G.M. namely A.K. Soni was also present in the office of G.M. at that time. He could not state whether the accused came with the affidavit in the office of S.C. Sharma as he never met him thereafter.
FIR No. 384/2004 State Vs. R.B. Garg.
DW-2 Dinesh Bhagat deposed that he worked in O.B.C from 14.10.1983 till 30.11.2017 as Special Assistant and in Year, 2004 he was posted as Cashier/Clerk in the currency chest of the Bank at Karol Bagh. He deposed that on 12.02.2004, he visited the Regional Office of the Bank and met Regional Head S.C. Sharma regarding his transfer and at that time three persons namely, A.K. Soni, Manohar Lal Dhingra and accused R.B. Garg were also present in the office of S.C. Sharma. He deposed that the accused was asked to confess his guilt with the assurance of closing the matter and he also came to know that the accused made a confession on such assurance. During his cross- examination, he admitted of not personally knowing about the discrepancies for which the accused was asked to confess.
DW-3 Vikas deposed that on 17.01.2002 he got issued FDRs valuing Rs. 4.3 lacs from the O.B.C. Bank Shalimar Bagh Branch in his name and also in the names of his family members for a period of one year and when he approached the bank for their encashment on maturity, he was asked by Mr. Soni to stamp the FDRs with the revenue stamps and cross sign for their discharged. He deposed that such directions of Mr. Soni were complied by him and thereafter, he requested him for renewal of the FDRs for another one year but after sometime, he again visited Mr. Soni for the encashment of the FDRs on account of urgent need of cash to which he was asked to meet Branch Manager and he was given the encashment amount of FDRs. He deposed that after one year he received the phone call from bank asking whether he was having any complaint to make regarding the dealings with the bank, which he refused stating that he was FIR No. 384/2004 State Vs. R.B. Garg.
paid the entire maturity value of the FDRs around one year back. During his cross-examination, he stated that he does not remember about the name of the In-charge of Shalimar Bagh Branch of the Bank nor he could state about the designation of Mr. Soni.
DW-4 Sachin Bansal deposed that in Year, 2003 he got issued 30 FDRs of Rs. 5 lacs in the name of 5-6 family members including himself and he was asked to take the physical FDRs after lunch session as the number was big and in the meantime, he received a call from his home that the FDRs shall not be issued, to which a request for cancellation was made to Mr. Soni and the cash amount was returned to him after sometime.
DW-5 Rajinder Mohan Bansal deposed that on 17.01.2002, he got issued 18 FDRs of Rs. 2.7 lacs in the name of his eight family members including himself and after one year, he visited the bank branch for their renewal on maturity and was asked to visit again after lunch session but in the meantime, a call was received by him from his house stating that one of his neighbor was ill and the money was required for helping the neighbor. He deposed that thereafter, he requested the second man at bank branch for encashment of the maturity amount, which was given to him.
DW-6 Satyavir Singh is the Deputy Manager, PNB Head Office, Sector-10, Dwarka, Delhi, who produced the record of certified copy of representation made by the accused to the Management of OBC Bank which is Mark 'DX', reply vide letter FIR No. 384/2004 State Vs. R.B. Garg.
dated 06.04.2023 which is Mark 'DY' and the correspondence dated 24.06.2006 which is Mark 'DZ'.
DW-7 Chitranjan Chaudhary is the Chief Manager PNB, Circle Office, East Delhi, who produced the photocopy of office order Register of Branch Office located at Prabhu Dayal Public School, Shalimar Bagh, w.e.f 03.01.2002 to 27.05.2003 which is Mark 'DX1', photocopy of cashier receipt, cash book dated 30.01.2003 which is Mark 'DX2', photocopy of FD issue register w.e.f January, 2001 till 07.07.2003 Mark 'DX3', cash book which is Ex. DW-7/1 (colly.), loan documents Ex. DW-7/2 (colly.) and Ex. DW-7/3 (colly.) and office order register Ex.
DW-7/4 (colly).
This is the entire defence evidence on record.
10. Having discussed the testimonies of the prosecution and defence witnesses, now let us advert to the merits of the present case.
11. The gist of allegations levelled against the accused relates to offences U/s 409/467/468/471/477A IPC.
As far as the allegations with respect to offence U/s 409 IPC are concerned, it is pertinent to mention that such allegations relate to the acts of dishonest misappropriation of the cash amount of Rs. 14,30,860/- by the accused while having dominion over the same in capacity of the Senior Manager at the Extn. Counter of O.B.C. Shalimar Bagh, Prabhu Dayal School, Rohini, FIR No. 384/2004 State Vs. R.B. Garg.
Delhi. More specifically, such allegations revolve around the facts that the accused got encashed the FDRs of the above- mentioned amount belonging to the depositors and issued the fake FDRs on the pretext of renewal of the earlier FDRs of the said amount, which were already encashed by him without the knowledge of the depositors. These allegations are also relating to the facts that the accused being entrusted or having dominion over the accounts of persons in the O.B.C. Bank in the capacity of the Senior Manager also misused the seven leaves from a CDR book which he got issued from the different bank branches and in order to justify said acts, he also advanced two demand loans of Rs. 1,80,000/- each to Sh. Om Prakash Bansal and a loan of Rs. 2,40,000/- to Sh. Devender Gupta without taking any security against the said loans. The contentions raised on behalf of the accused negating his culpability for the offences in question are that the prosecution has failed to establish the dishonest misappropriation of the amount relating to the FDRs in question by the accused as no depositor of the said FDRs have ever staked any claim qua any loss being caused to him. It has also been argued that there are glaring contradictions in the versions of witnesses namely, Bhupender Sharma, Ashok Kumar and Mam Chand Jain with respect to the custody of the original FDRs and even none of the said persons were any of the depositors of the such impugned FDRs. It has also been argued that no wrongful loss was caused to any of the beneficiaries of the said impugned FDRs as the accused himself deposited the amount of the FDRs with the bank even without any liability to make such payment as it is evident from the testimonies of the defence witnesses examined by the accused that the amount of the matured FDRs FIR No. 384/2004 State Vs. R.B. Garg.
was already handed over to them by the concerned bank branch.
12. The provisions of Section 409 IPC relate to offence of Criminal Breach of Trust by a Public Servant or by Banker, Merchant or Agent etc.. The essential ingredients of this offence are as under:-
i). The accused must be holding a capacity of public servant or in way of his business as a Banker, Merchant, Factor, Broker, Attorney or Agent.
ii). The accused must be entrusted with some property
or have dominion over such property in the
aforementioned official capacity as public servant or in way of his business as a Banker, Merchant, Factor, Broker, Attorney or Agent.
iii). The accused commits criminal breach of trust with respect to such property so entrusted to him or under his dominion in such capacity. The act of criminal breach of trust has been separately defined U/s 405 IPC as dishonest misappropriation or conversion to his or her own use the property so entrusted to a person, who acted contrary to the violation of the direction of any law or legal contract with respect to the mode of discharge of such trust.
13. In the present case, the fact that the accused R.B. Garg was working as Senior Manager at Extn. Counter of O.B.C. Shalimar Bagh, Prabhu Dayal Public School during the relevant time period is not in dispute. Further, it is also not in dispute that the accused in such official capacity was having control or dominion over the FDRs in question. It has also not been disputed by the FIR No. 384/2004 State Vs. R.B. Garg.
accused that the relevant FDR books to which the impugned FDRs also relates, were issued from the different branches of the bank on the requisition made by the accused. Therefore, it can be safely held that the above-mentioned first two ingredients for offence U/s 409 IPC have been duly established in the present case. However, so far as the third ingredient is concerned, it is pertinent to mention that the prosecution has failed to establish the dishonest misappropriation or conversion to his own use the amount of the impugned FDRs by the accused for the reasons here-in which have been discussed here-in-after.
Pertinently, the story of the prosecution is that the amount of the impugned FDRs was funded by PW-5 Bhupender Sharma. The mere perusal of the testimony of PW-5 Bhupender Sharma suggests that he was not a beneficiary to any of the impugned FDRs. This witness also failed to state about the names of the beneficiaries of such FDRs and even stated that the FDRs were prepared from his money which he handed over to Mam Chand Jain through his friend namely, Ashok Kumar and the said FD certificates remained in the possession of Mam Chand Jain throughout. The careful perusal of the testimony of PW-4 Mam Chand Jain, however, suggests that he has deposed of being directly acquainted with PW-5 Bhupender Sharma and stated to have got issued the FDRs on his instructions, after which the said FD certificates were handed over to him. It is pertinent to mention that PW-4 Mam Chand Jain has not produced any document establishing that he was the authorized representative of any of the named customers/depositors of the impugned FDRs. It is also pertinent to point out that as per the version of FIR No. 384/2004 State Vs. R.B. Garg.
PW-3 Ashok Kumar, he got issued the impugned FDRs from the money belonging to Bhupender Sharma as the request was made by bank's cashier Bhagwan Gupta for investment in the FDRs to achieve the targets. This witness also could not state about the names of the beneficiaries of such FDRs and rather stated that such names were mentioned by the bank's cashier Bhagwan Gupta himself. It is also pertinent to mention that none of the customers of bank/named depositors of the impugned FDRs have ever staked any claim with the bank or the police with respect to any wrongful loss caused to them due to the alleged acts of accused and even no such persons have been examined as prosecution witnesses. On the contrary, rather the accused has examined DWs namely, Vikas, Sachin Bansal and Rajinder Mohan Bansal in his defence evidence and all the above-named persons have confirmed that they were the named beneficiaries of the impugned FDRs, the amount of which was already received by them from the concerned bank branch at the time of the maturity of the FDRs in question. Therefore, the acts of dishonest misappropriation of the amount of Rs. 14,30,860/- by the accused or conversion of such amount of FDRs to his own use by the accused has not been established by the prosecution and hence, the aforesaid third essential ingredient for fastening the liability of the accused for such offence has not been established.
14. It is also worthwhile to mention here that with respect to the second charge framed against the accused qua the offence U/s 409 IPC, the prosecution has failed to establish any nexus between the accused and the bank customers namely, Om Prakash Bansal and Devender Gupta, to whom the alleged FIR No. 384/2004 State Vs. R.B. Garg.
unsecured demand loans were sanctioned by the accused against the fake renewed FDRs, the amount of which was actually encashed by the accused. There is no iota of evidence on record to establish the existence of any prior concert or any criminal conspiracy between the accused and the afore-named persons Om Prakash Bansal and Devender Gupta. The accused has rather probablized his version that the above-mentioned demand loans were fully secured through the four FDRs by examining DW-7 Chitranjan Chaudhary, who is a bank official who produced the copy of relevant loan related documents. The original loan related documents, however, did not see the light of the day as even the incumbent bank i.e. PNB (O.B.C having merged with PNB) was also not in a clear knowledge regarding the whereabouts of the said documents and these facts also strengthens the version of the accused that there has been some deliberate attempt by the bank for not producing such original records as the accused was falsely implicated by the erstwhile Senior Manager S.B. Verma on account of some professional rivalry with the accused. Moreover, it has also not been established by the prosecution that any wrongful loss to the bank was caused on account of the aforesaid alleged unsecured demand loans sanctioned by the accused as it has remained undisputed that the entire allegedly misappropriated amount was deposited by the accused with the concerned bank and hence, even the second charge with respect to the offence U/s 409 IPC against the accused appears to be unfounded.
15. The accused has also been indicted for offences U/s 467/468/471 IPC. These offences involve the allegations qua the FIR No. 384/2004 State Vs. R.B. Garg.
forgery of the signatures of the depositors by the accused on the FDRs and encashment vouchers. It also relates to the acts of forgery of signatures of the depositors by the accused on the FDR renewal receipts and also the dishonest and unlawful use of the forged and fake renewed FDR certificates by the accused so as to justify his illegal acts. The main premise on which the accused has been charged for these offences is that the FDR Books to which the alleged renewed fake FDRs belongs, were issued on the requisition made by the accused without any corresponding entries in the relevant bank registers. It is pertinent to mention that during the course of investigation of the case, the specimen handwriting and signatures of accused as well as the documents containing the admitted handwriting and signatures of the accused were sent to FSL for comparison and analysis with the questioned documents and the FSL report dated 21.02.2006 came to be filed on record alongwith the supplementary chargesheet. Even though, on cursory perusal of the said FSL report, it reflects that the handwriting/signatures on the questioned documents i.e. 94 vouchers, 76 deposit receipts, original bank letters, photocopies of security forms, stock register of bank, copy of account opening forms, original security stock register tallied with the handwriting/signatures of accused on the specimen documents and the admitted documents. In this regard, it is pertinent to mention that the testimony of IO i.e. PW-6 Retd. Insp. Hanuman Daan states that the specimen signatures and the handwriting of the accused were taken by him in the presence of HC Jawahar Lal and the documents containing admitted handwriting/signatures of the accused were seized by him vide seizure memo Ex. PW-6/H and same were sent to FSL for FIR No. 384/2004 State Vs. R.B. Garg.
analysis with the questioned documents. In this regard, it is pertinent to mention that the accused has raised dispute with respect to the conclusions stated in the aforementioned FSL result dated 21.02.2006 stating that the specimen handwriting and signatures i.e. Mark 'S1' to 'S113' does not belonged to him and same have been planted by the IO by acting in connivance with the incumbent Senior Manager S.B. Verma so as to falsely implicate the accused in the present case, though, no dispute has been raised by the accused qua taking of the documents containing his admitted handwriting and signatures by the IO from the concerned bank. It is pertinent to mention here that on mere perusal of the FSL result dated 21.02.2006, it reflects that same does not distinctly mentions about the findings relating to the tallying of the specimen handwriting/signatures of the accused and the admitted handwriting/signatures of the accused with the questioned documents. In other words, it has not been mentioned in the FSL result that which of the particular questioned document tallied with the handwriting/signatures of accused on the documents containing his specimen signatures/handwriting or the documents containing the admitted signatures/handwriting of the accused. This court is well conscious of the fact that at the time when the specimen handwriting/signatures of accused were taken by the IO, the provisions of Section 311A IPC were not in existence in the statue book and hence, there was no embargo on the part of IO to obtain the specimen signatures/handwriting of the accused without the permission of the Court but the prosecution was duty bound to establish that such specimen handwriting/signatures of the accused were taken by the IO without any compulsion, FIR No. 384/2004 State Vs. R.B. Garg.
pressure, coercion etc. exercised upon the accused and also that same belonged to the accused only and were not the planted documents. The testimonies of PW-6 Retd. Insp. Hanuman Daan and PW-9 Retd. ASI Jawahar Lal are vague in this regard as they simply stated that the specimen handwriting/signatures of the accused were taken by PW-6 in presence of PW-9 but the place of such exercise, the date, the time and other necessary details thereof have not been mentioned in the testimonies of both the said witnesses, therefore, the version of the accused that the said specimen signatures/ handwriting does not belong to him cannot be completely ruled out. It is also worthwhile to point here that as per the expressed provisions of Section 293 Cr.PC, even though the FSL report dated 21.02.2006 appears to be a document not requiring a formal proof thereof but in the considered opinion of this Court, the examination of the author of such report i.e. Sh. Ami Lal Daksh, Senior Scientific Assistant (Documents FSL) Govt. of NCT of Delhi, was necessary in the present case in accordance with Section 293 (2) Cr.PC as the accused has raised dispute regarding giving any specimen handwriting/signatures to the IO during the investigation and hence, it was necessary to ascertain from the above-mentioned Scientific Expert from FSL that as to which of the questioned documents matched with the handwriting/signatures of the accused on the admitted documents qua which the accused has apparently not raised any dispute. However, it is a matter of record that despite numerous opportunities, the prosecution could not secure the attendance of the above-named witness Sh. Ami Lal Daksh, due to which his name was struck from the list of witnesses vide order dated 08.07.2022 passed by Ld. Transferor Court and due to such FIR No. 384/2004 State Vs. R.B. Garg.
reasons, the entire FSL report dated 21.02.2006 cannot be relied upon to hold the accused liable for the alleged offences. It is also not been explained by the prosecution as to why no efforts were made by the IO during the investigation to take the specimen handwriting/signatures of the original depositors of the FDRs in question and send the same for comparison and analysis with the questioned documents, so as to alternatively establish that such FDRs, renewal forms and encashment vouchers were not signed by the said original depositors and hence, due to such reasons also, the commission of the alleged offences in question cannot be said to be established by the prosecution. As the prosecution has not established that the impugned FDRs, encashment vouchers, renewal receipts etc. were forged by the accused, hence, the accused cannot be held liable for offences U/s 467 & U/s 468 IPC.
16. The liability of accused with respect to offence U/s 471 IPC is being discussed separately alongwith the discussion qua the offence U/s 477A IPC for which the accused has been separately charged, as both these offences involves the appreciation of the similar evidences. As stated earlier, the accused has been charged for the offence U/s 471 IPC on the premise that no corresponding entries were made by him in the Bank's Books of Accounts by the accused at the time when he obtained the three FDR Books from the different bank branches, to which the impugned FDRs relates. The accused has also been separately charged for offence U/s 477A IPC with the allegations he got issued the said three FDR Books from the Wazirpur Branch and another Branch at N.K. Bagrodia Public School FIR No. 384/2004 State Vs. R.B. Garg.
without making the necessary entries qua the receipt of such FDR books and also failed to make the necessary entries in the Bank's Books of Accounts qua the encashment of the old original FDRs. It has been contended on behalf of accused that as per the relevant Bank Circular No. HO/PER/59/18/2002/397 dated 18.03.2022 which is Mark 'DX1' (Colly), the safe custody of the security documents did not fall within the ambit and parlance of the official duties of the accused as same was domain to be looked after by the second man at the bank branch i.e. Mr. P.K. Soni and hence, the accused cannot be held liable for the charge in question. In this regard it is also pertinent to mention that on mere perusal of the aforesaid document, it transpires that same in clear term specifies that the matters relating to the joint custody of the cash and security papers including the valuables falls within the key performance areas of the second man at the bank branch, as reflected in the aforementioned bank circular dated 18.03.2002. It is also a matter of record that through the testimonies of DW-2 Dinesh Bhagat who was also one of the erstwhile Bank official, customers/depositors i.e. DWs namely, Vikas, Sachin Bansal and Rajinder Mohan Bansal, it has been established that Mr. P.K. Soni was the Second Man In-charge of the bank branch during the relevant time period and the afore- named depositors also dealt with him during such time period in connection with the encashment of the amount of the questioned FDRs, hence, it cannot be said that the accused only was solely responsible for the custody of the FDRs in question as well as the relevant security registers. It is also pertinent to point out that in order to make a person liable for offence U/s 477A IPC, it is necessary to establish that the alleged falsification in the records FIR No. 384/2004 State Vs. R.B. Garg.
was done by the person/accused with an intent to defraud another party. The discussion made in the preceding part of this judgment clearly reflects that the prosecution has failed to establish the existence of criminal misappropriation of the money relating to the impugned FDRs by the accused, hence, the element of deception/fraud appears to be clearly missing in the present case and due to such reasons, the commission of offence U/s 477A IPC by the accused cannot be said to be established.
17. It is also worth mentioning here that it has been conceded by PW-7 S.C. Sharma, who was the General Manager, O.B.C during the relevant time period that as per the bank rules, annual inspections were conducted at the bank branch and there was also no bar on the part of the concerned Regional Manager for visiting a bank branch at any time during the financial year for its inspection. It is pertinent to mention here that the prosecution has not produced any of the records relating to the inspection of the bank branch where the accused was posted during the relevant time or at any time prior thereto, to establish the alleged falsification of records by the accused. This crucial omission on the part of prosecution also strengthens the version of accused that he was falsely implicated in the present case due to some professional rivalry with the complainant/incumbent Senior Manager of the bank branch. The testimony of defence witnesses namely, Manohar Dhingra (DW-1) and Dinesh Bhagat (DW-2) who were also the bank officials during the relevant time period also suggest that the confession on affidavit Ex. PW-7/B was extracted from the accused by the incumbent General Manager of the Bank with the assurance for providing the promotion to the FIR No. 384/2004 State Vs. R.B. Garg.
accused in a routine manner by ignoring the discrepancies and hence, such affidavit of the accused cannot be solely relied upon to attribute any guilt upon him for the alleged offences without any other corroborative evidences on record.
18. The discussion made above is clearly suggestive of the fact that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish that during Year, 2002-2003 the accused in capacity of Senior Manager at O.B.C Shalimar Bagh Prabhu Dayal School was entrusted or having dominion over the FDRs of Bhupender Singh and other depositors valuing Rs. 14,30,860/- and dishonestly encashed the same without consent and knowledge of the depositors and to justify his such illegal acts, the accused also forged the signatures of the depositors on the encashment vouchers and also issued the fake renewed FDRs of such depositors by using the FDR leaves from the books which were obtained by him from the different bank branches without making necessary corresponding entries in the bank's books of accounts and the security registers. The prosecution has also failed to establish that in order to justify his illegal acts of criminal misappropriation of the money of innocent depositors, the accused also advanced three unsecured demand loans in favour of Om Prakash Bansal and Devender Gupta respectively, on the basis of the fake renewed FDRs. The prosecution has also failed to establish that the accused committed forgery of the FDRs, encashment vouchers, renewal receipts and made falsification in the bank's accounts books by not making the necessary entries in such books. Accordingly, accused R.B. Garg is hereby acquitted for offences u/s 409/467/468/471/477A IPC.
FIR No. 384/2004 State Vs. R.B. Garg.
19. The bail bonds, if any furnished by accused at the time of commencement of trail stands cancelled. Surety, if any stands discharged. Documents, if any shall be returned to its rightful owner as per rules. Endorsements, if any stand cancelled. Case property if any, shall be disposed off after expiration of period to assail this judgment and in case of appeal, as per the directions of Ld. Appellate Court. Case file be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in the open Court
On 29th Day of June, 2024 (Rishabh Kapoor)
MM-05 North West District
Rohini Courts, Delhi
FIR No. 384/2004 State Vs. R.B. Garg.