Cbi vs . Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. 1 Of 135 Pages on 10 May, 2013

[Cites 36, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

Cbi vs . Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. 1 Of 135 Pages on 10 May, 2013

1
CBI case . No.12/11

IN THE COURT OF SH. N. K. KAUSHIK
SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT), CBI,
DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI

CBI Case No. : 12/11
RC No. : 4 (E)/2006/EOWI/ New Delhi

In the matter of :

CBI

versus

1. Sri Kant Chawla (A1)
S/o Shri Keemat Rai Chawla,
ExChief Manager, State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur,
Nangal Raya Branch, Jail Road, New Delhi,
R/o : Plot No.4, Road No.1,
Bhopal Pura, Udaipur 313001, Rajasthan.

2. Sushil Verma (A2)
S/o Shri D. M. Verma,
Director M/s Standard Logistics Pvt. Ltd. &
M/s Standard Logistics Pvt. Ltd.
(Mother Dairy Division)
D1/89, Janak Puri, New Delhi.

3. Jagpal Singh Chaney (A3)
S/o late Sardar Singh Chaney
Prop. M/s Chaney & Associates,
C7, South Extension, PartII,
New Delhi 49
R/o : A1625, Ist Floor, Green Field,
Faridabad, Haryana. ............ Convicts

Date of Institution : 21.05.2008
Date on which Judgment Pronounced : 3.5.2013
Date on which Order on Sentence announced : 10.5.2013

O R D E R O N S E N T E N C E

1. By this order, I shall dispose off the contentions, raised on

CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. 1 of 135 pages
2
CBI case . No.12/11

behalf of the parties, on the point of sentence.

2. In the present case, all the convicts, namely, Sri Kant

Chawla (A1), Sushil Verma (A2) and Jagpal Singh Chaney

(A3), have been convicted for the offence punishable

under sections 120B IPC read with sections 420, 467, 468

471 IPC read with section 13 (2) & 13 (1) (d) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Convict, Sri Kant

Chawla (A1), has been convicted, in addition, for the

offence punishable under sections 420 & 471 IPC and

under section 13(2) read with section 13 (1) (d) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Convict, Sushil

Verma(A2), has been convicted, in addition, for the

offences punishable under sections 420 & 471 IPC.

Convict, Jagpal Singh Chaney (A3) has been convicted, in

addition, for the offences punishable under sections 420,

467 & 468 IPC.

3. It has been strongly contended on behalf of the State by

the Ld. Sr. PP for the CBI that this is a corruption case, in

which, the convicts have been convicted, as they were

operating as an organised racket and have caused illegal

huge pecuniary loss to the State Bank of Bikaner and

CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. 2 of 135 pages
3
CBI case . No.12/11

Jaipur, Govt. of India Undertaking. That they have

cheated the said bank to the tune of Rs. 5,46,33,317.50.

They have, therefore, caused loss to the public exchequer

of the said amount. It has further been stated that the

amount, to the extent to which the Government has been

cheated, was not a small amount as the case pertains to

the period prior to the year 2006, when it was a huge and

fat amount.

4. The State has further contended that the maximum

prescribed substantive punishment with fine be handed

over to all the convicts, so that enough and clear message

goes to one and all and especially to the potential

offenders, who are in the waiting to commit such like

frauds so that the punishment act as a deterrence and the

intent of the legislature is fulfilled.

5. Convict Sri Kant Chawla, has prayed that a lenient view be

taken on the ground that there is no allegation against

him that he has been benefited even with single penny.

That he has an old and ailing mother of 80 years of age.

That he is the only male member in the family to support

his wife and son, who is bed ridden. That he, himself, has

CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. 3 of 135 pages
4
CBI case . No.12/11

also been afflicted with health problems.

6. Convict Sushil Verma has submitted that he is afflicted

with heart ailments and has undergone bye pass surgery.

That he has only a daughter in his family, who is living

alone and there is no one else to support her. That he is

ready to pay the outstanding amount.

7. Convict Jagpal Singh Chaney too prayed for lenient view

stating that he is 63 years of age and is afflicted with

various ailments like - high Blood Pressure, Blood Sugar,

etc. That he is also suffering from Glucoma and is unable

to see properly. That he has not been convicted

previously. He has, however, been convicted in another

case also by this Court.

8. All the convicts have, thus, prayed for a lenient view.

They all have prayed for release on probation.

9. The contentions, raised by the the convicts, have met stiff

and very strong opposition on behalf of the State. It has

been urged that convict Sri Kant Chawla, the then public

servant, has been convicted, in as many as three different

CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. 4 of 135 pages
5
CBI case . No.12/11

cases as he had illegally and dishonestly sanctioned loans/

Cash Credit Limits on the basis of false and fraudulent

documents in the year 2006, when it was quite a big sum.

It has, further, been stated on behalf of the State that

being a public servant at the relevant time, convict Sri Kant

Chawla acted corruptly with full vigour, in sanction of

loan, one after the other and then allowed abnormal

overdraft payments illegally without informing the higher

authorities, with a view to benefit his son, who was a

partner with convict Sushil Verma in another firm. It has,

therefore, been urged that this convict is a habitual

offender and was the Kingpin in defrauding the bank and

deserves maximum punishment.

10. Similarly, it is stated that convict Jagpal Singh Chaney is

held guilty in two cases. it is stated that in pursuance to

the systematic and wellplanned conspiracy, he forged

valuation reports/documents in respect of a nonexistent

property and acted in connivance with other convicts in

this case.

11. Regarding the convict Sushil Verma, it is stated that he was

the beneficiary of the big fraudulent loan and huge illegal

CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. 5 of 135 pages
6
CBI case . No.12/11

overdrawn amount. That he pocketed the loan money

and then in connivance with other coconvict drew

overdraft money amounting to more than Rs. Five Crores,

in this case, to which he was not legally entitled to. He

has successfully cheated Public Sector Bank i.e. State Bank

of Bikaner and Jaipur, Nagal Raya Branch, using bogus

collateral security and duped the public money alongwith

other convicts. That he is not entitled to any mercy or

compassion.

12. It is further urged on behalf of the State that most of the

pleas taken by the convicts are routine and stock pleas

and in any case, in the case under the Prevention of

Corruption Act, these pleas taken are not considered as

mitigating circumstances. It has, therefore, been prayed

that exemplary punishment be awarded to the convicts

herein.

13. On behalf of the CBI, following case law have been cited:

(i) State of Punjab Vs. Rakesh Kumar, AIR 2009 Supreme
Court 391,
(ii) Bikram Dorjee Vs. State of West Bengal, AIR 2009
Supreme Court 2539
(iii) Ankush Maruti Shinde Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR
2009 Supreme Court 2609
(iv) Ammavasai Vs. Inspector of Police, Valliyanur, AIR

CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. 6 of 135 pages
7
CBI case . No.12/11

2000 SC 3644
(v) State of A. P. Vs. S. R. Rangadamappa, AIR 1982 SC
1492
(vi) State V A Parthiban, AIR 2007 Supreme Court 51,
(vii) State V Ratan Lal Arora, AIR 2004 Supreme Court 2364
&
(viii) Ram Narain Poply Vs. CBI, AIR 2003 Supreme Court
2748
(ix) State of J & K Vs. Vinay Nanda, AIR 2001 SC 611.

14. On behalf of the convicts, no case law has been cited.

15. At the very outset, it is observed that there is no quarrel

over the settled propositions of law discussed in the

aforesaid case law, cited.

16. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case law, reported as Dr.

Subramanyam Swami Vs. Dr. Manmohan Singh, 2012,

AIR(SC) page 1185, has observed that :

"The magnitude of corruption in our public
life is incompatible with the concept of socialistic
secular democratic public. The duty of the Court
is that any anti corruption law has to be
interpreted and worked out in such a fashion as to
strengthen to fight against corruption."

CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. 7 of 135 pages
8
CBI case . No.12/11

17. It has further been observed in the same case that "In a

situation where two constructions are eminently

reasonable, the Court has to accept the one that seeks to

eredicate corruption to the one which seeks to perpetuate

it."

18. It has been held in case reported as Narendra

Champak Lal Trivedi Vs. State of Gujrat, 2012 (7) SCC

page 80 that: "Corruption at any level does not

deserve either sympathy or leniency."

19. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan

Vs. Vinod Kumar, decided on, 18th May, 2012 (Criminal

Appeal No. 1887) reiterated the law laid down in State of

J&K Vs. Vinay Nanda, AIR 2001 SC P 611, and observed

that superannuation of the convict and the pendency of

criminal trial for over a period of time cannot be treated a

special reason to reduce the sentence.

20. In the same appeal quoting 'M B Joshi Vs. State of

Maharashtra, AIR 2001 SC 147' the Hon'ble Apex Court

observed that:

"It is the defect of the system that longevity of

CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. 8 of 135 pages
9
CBI case . No.12/11

the cases tried under the Prevention of
Corruption Act is too lengthy. If that is regarded
as sufficient for reducing the sentence
mandated by the Parliament legislative exercise
would stand defeated."

21. It was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case

reported as State of J & K Vs. Vinay Nanda, AIR 2001 SC P

611, that :

"Corruption at any level, by any person,
of any magnitude, is condemnable, which
cannot be ignored by the Judicial Courts,
when proved. No leniency is required to
be shown in proved cases under the
Prevention of Corruption Act which itself
treats the offences under it of a special
nature to be treated differently than the
general penal offences. The convicts of
the offences under the Act are to be dealt
with heavy hand and deterrant rod. No
populous or sympathetic approach is
needed in such cases."

22. It was observed by the Hon'ble High Court in the cases

reported as Jai Bhagwan Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), 2008

150 DLT 46 (Delhi) and Ravinder Kumar Arora Vs. CBI

Manu/DE/8816/2007 (Delhi) , that :

"It is a normal thing that 'trial' of the

CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. 9 of 135 pages
10
CBI case . No.12/11

person is considered a period of 'agony'
undergone by him. But we tend to forget
the agony of the society and the
complainant who dared lodge the
complaint. The entire purpose of the
legislature of sentencing the offenders
stands defeated and that is the one reason
that wages of corruption are considered
more attractive in this country. The
person caught is not always a firsttimer
corrupt. He may have been indulging
into corrupt activities / practices for a
long number of years. It is to his
advantage that the trial is prolonged. He
spends a fraction of amount, earned by
corrupt practices on litigation and
professionals to see that ultimately he
makes Criminal Justice System a
laughing stock. In this process, the entire
legislative purpose of punishing a corrupt
stands defeated.

23. It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
reported as State of M. P. Vs. Shambhu Dayal Nagar,
(2006) 8 SCC P 693, that :

"Corruption by public servant has become
gigantic problem. It has spread
everywhere. No facet of public activity has
been left unaffected by the stink of

CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. 10 of 135 pages
11
CBI case . No.12/11

corruption. Large scale corruption
retards the nation building activities and
everyone has to suffer on that count."

24. It was further observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

the aforesaid case that :

"Accused facing trial since long; amount
allegedly misappropriated already been
deposited; undergone departmental
punishment; only bread earner in family;
wife and three children's dependence on
him are the circumstance which do not
constitute 'special reasons'."

25. It was observed by the Hon'ble High Court in the
case reported as AIR 1961, Mysore P 49, that:

"Infliction of a lenient sentence will defeat
the purpose of the P. C. Act."

26. It was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case reported as State of T. N Vs. Kaliaperumal, (2005) 12
SCC 473 and State Vs. Ratan Lal Arora, (2004) 4 SCC 590
that :
"Section 18 of the Probation of Offenders
Act specifically bars the offence under PC
Act from the purview of the Act."

27. The convicts, therefore, cannot be enlarged on
probation in this case relating to serious offences.

CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. 11 of 135 pages
12
CBI case . No.12/11

28. It was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case reported as State of M. P. Vs. Ram Singh, AIR
2000 SC 870, that:
"Corruption in a civilised society is a
disease like cancer, which if not detected
in time is sure to maliganise the polity of
the country leading to disastrous
consequences. It is termed as plague
which is not only contagious but if not
controlled spreads like a fire in a jungle.
Its virus is compared with HIV leading to
AIDS being incurable. The sociopolitical
system exposed to such a dreaded
communicable disease is likely to crumble
under its own weight. Corruption is
opposed to democracy and social order,
being not only anti people, but aimed and
targeted against them. It affects the
economy and destroys the cultural
heritage."

29. Further, it was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the case law reported as Ankush Maruti Shinde

Vs State of Maharashtra, AIR 2009 SC 2609 that:

" The social impact of the crime e.g. where it
relates to offences against women, decoity,
kidnapping, misappropriation of public
money, treason and other offences involving

CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. 12 of 135 pages
13
CBI case . No.12/11

moral turpitude or moral delinquency which
have great impact on social order, and public
interest cannot be lost sight of and per se
require exemplary treatment. Undue
sympathy to impose inadequate sentence
would do more harm to the justice system to
undermine the public confidence in the
efficacy of law and society could not long
endure under such serious threats."

30. It was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case

reported as Mohd. A Hussain Vs. Asstt. Collector, Custom

(Prevention) Ahmedabad, AIR 1998 SC 2143, that :

"If a given transaction constitutes two
offences under two enactments generally,
it is wrong to have consecutive sentences.
But this rule has no application if the
transaction relating to offences is not the
same or the facts constituting the two
offences are quite different. Sentencing
judge should try to ensure that the
totality of the sentences is correct in the
light of all the circumstances of the case."
"In arriving at an appropriate sentence,
the court must consider, and some times
reject, many factors. The court must
'recognise, learn to control and exclude'
many diverse data. It is a balancing act
and tortuous process to ensure reasoned

CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. 13 of 135 pages
14
CBI case . No.12/11

sentence."

31. In the case of Siddarama and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka,

2006 IV AD (Cri.) (SC) 78, it was held that:

"undue sympathy to impose inadequate
sentence would do more harm to the
justice system to undermine the public
confidence in the efficacy of law and
society can no longer endure under such
serious threats. It is, therefore, the duty of
every court to award proper sentence
having regard to the nature of the offence
and the manner in which it was executed
or committed etc."

32. It was further held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case

reported as A. B. Bhaskara Rao vs. Inspector of Police,

CBI, Vishakapatnam, 2011(4) RCR (Criminal) 290 (SC)

that :

"in the case of corruption by public
servant, long delay in disposal, quantum
of amount of bribe and that the
delinquent lost his job due to conviction
etc., are not to be taken as mitigating
circumstances for reduction of the
sentence".

33. It was further held in the case law reported as Kishan

CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. 14 of 135 pages
15
CBI case . No.12/11

Dayal vs. State, 1958 Raj LW 596 that:

" A corrupt official is a menace to the
society and far from helping in the proper
functioning of the Government and
implementing of the laws, brings the
Government and the society at large into
disrepute. It is through the agency of the
public servants that the policy of the
Legislature as well as of the Government is
implemented. It is through the public
servants that crimes are detected and
offenders are brought to book. It is through
strictly honest and incorruptible public
servants that the welfare of the society can
be ensured. If such public servants are
open to corruption and coerce the public
into paying them illegal gratification, the
whole structure of the society would be
upset and the policy of the Government
and of the Legislature, howsoever,
beneficial it may be, would gravely suffer.
A public servant, therefore, once he is
found to be guilty of accepting or
obtaining illegal gratification, deserves no
soft corner or indulgence from the Courts
of Law."

34. It was held in the case reported as Madhukar Bhaskarrao

Joshi vs. State of Maharashtra, 2001 Cr. LJ 175(SC): that:

CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. 15 of 135 pages
16
CBI case . No.12/11

"When corruption was sought to be
eliminated from the polity all possible
stringent measures are to be adopted
within the bounds of law. One such
measure is to provide condign
punishment. Parliament measured the
parameters for such condign punishment
and in that process wanted to fix a
minimum sentence of imprisonment for
giving deterrent impact on other public
servants who are prone to corrupt deals.
That was precisely the reason why the
sentence was fixed as seven years and
directed that even if the said period of
imprisonment need not be given, the
sentence shall not be less than the
imprisonment for one year. Such a
legislative insistence is reflection of
Parliament's resolve to meet corruption
cases with very strong hand to give signals
of deterrence as the most pivotal feature of
sentencing of corrupt public servants. All
public servants have to face very serious
consequences. If on the other hand any
public servant is given the impression that
if he succeeds in protracting the
proceedings that would help him to have
the advantage of getting a very light
sentence even if the case ends in
conviction, its fallout would afford

CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. 16 of 135 pages
17
CBI case . No.12/11

incentive to public servants who were
susceptible to corruption to indulge in
such nefarious practices with immunity.
Increasing the fine after reducing the
imprisonment to a nominal period can
also defeat the purpose as the corrupt
public servants could easily raise the fine
amount through the same means."

35. I have thoroughly and carefully considered the rival

contentions. I have also examined the asserted mitigating

and aggravating circumstances, pointed out by the

parties. I am of the considered opinion that considering all

the aspects of the matter, the following sentence shall be

appropriate and shall meet the ends of justice :

(i) All the convicts, herein, are awarded sentence of

two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5000/,

in default, one month simple imprisonment, each, for the

offence punishable under section 120B IPC.

(ii) Convict, Sushil Verma(A2), who fraudulently

cheated the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, to the tune

of whopping more than Rs.5.4 Crores and which has not

been repaid till date, is sentenced to four years rigorous

imprisonment besides a fine of Rs. 6 Crores, in default,

CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. 17 of 135 pages
18
CBI case . No.12/11

two years' simple imprisonment for the offence

punishable under section 420 IPC. For the offence

punishable under section 471 IPC, convict Sushil Verma

shall suffer sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three

years and a fine of Rs.10,000/, in default, two months

simple imprisonment. From the fine, if realised, a sum of

Rs.5.5 Crores be paid to the bank in question, as

compensation.

(iii) Jagpal Singh Chaney(A3), who is a serial and

repeat convict, for the offence punishable under section

420, 467 & 468 IPC, shall suffer sentence of rigorous

imprisonment for three years and six months and a fine

of Rs.10,000/, in default, two months simple

imprisonment, for each offence.

(iv) Convict, Sri Kant Chawla(A1), who is also a serial

and repeat convict in three cases, is hereby awarded a

sentence of four years rigorous imprisonment and a fine

of Rs.25,000/, in default, three month simple

imprisonment, for the offence punishable under section

13 (2) read with section 13 (1) (d) of the the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988. For the offence punishable under

CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. 18 of 135 pages
19
CBI case . No.12/11

section 420 & 471 IPC, convict Sri Kant Chawla shall suffer

sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three years and

six months and a fine of Rs.10,000/, in default, two

months simple imprisonment, for each offence.

36. All the aforesaid sentences shall run concurrently.

37. Benefit of section 428 Cr.P.C. is extended to the convicts.

38. A copy of the judgment and order on sentence be given to

all the convicts, free of cost, forthwith.

39. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in the open court ( N. K. Kaushik )
on 10th May, 2013 Special Judge (PC Act) CBI
Dwarka Courts

CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. 19 of 135 pages
20
CBI case . No.12/11

IN THE COURT OF SH. N. K. KAUSHIK
SPECIAL JUDGE, PC ACT, CBI,
DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI

CBI Case No. 12/11
Date of Institution: 21.05.2008
Date on which Judgment Pronounced: 03.05.2013
Decision: Conviction

CBI case no. 12/11
FIR no. RC4(E)/2006/EOWI/CBI/New Delhi

In the matter of:

CBI versus. 1. Sri Kant Chawla (A1),
S/o Keemat Rai Chawla,
ExChief Manager,
State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur,
Nangal Raya Branch, Jail Road,
New Delhi.

R/o Plot no. 4, Road no. 1,
Bhopal Pura, Udaipur313001,
Rajasthan.

2. Sushil Verma (A2),
S/o Late Sh. D.M. Verma,
Director M/s Standard Logistics Pvt.
Ltd. & M/s Standard Logistics Pvt. Ltd.
(Mother Dairy Division),
D1/89, Janakpuri, New Delhi.

R/o Flat no. 501, CBIP,
Group Housing Society, Nayantara,
Plot no. 8B, Sector7,
Dwarka, New Delhi.

CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. 20 of 135 pages
21
CBI case . No.12/11

3. Sh. Jagpal Singh Chaney (A1),
S/o Late Sardar Surjit Singh Chaney,
Proprietor of M/s Chaney &
Associates,
C7, South Extension, PartII,
New Delhi49.

R/o A1625, 1st Floor, Green field,
Faridabad, Haryana.

.............Accused persons

JUDGMENT

1. This is a corruption case under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, registered by the CBI, relating to illegal credit limits sanctioned to M/s Standard Logistics Pvt. Ltd (Delhi Division) by accused Sri Kant Chawla, in pursuance to an organized, systematic and well knit criminal conspiracy.

2. The brief facts of the case, as disclosed by the prosecution, are that during the period from 03.03.2004 to 24.02.2006, accused Sri Kant Chawla (hereinafter referred to as 'A1'), the then Chief Manager of State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur (herein after referred to as 'SBBJ'), Nangal Raya Branch, New Delhi, in collusion with other persons had dishonestly and fraudulently allowed over drawings in cash credit accounts/over draft accounts beyond the sanction limit and beyond his discretionary powers. That CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. 21 of 135 pages 22 CBI case . No.12/11 he not only purchased the local and outstation cheques/bills submitted by borrowers beyond his powers but even failed to report such transactions to his controlling authorities. That he even accepted the false and forged sale deeds of the properties offered as collateral securities by the borrowers in availing the credit facilities. That the present case pertains to credit limits sanctioned to M/s Standard Logistics Pvt. Ltd (Delhi Division).

3. It is further alleged that M/s Standard Logistics Pvt Ltd, is a private limited company, wherein, accused Sushil Verma (hereinafter referred to as 'A2') was one of its directors and this company was engaged in the business of providing Volvo buses to M/s Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd., the principle contractor of State Road Transport Corporation of different states; and of M/s Mother Dairy and M/s Spectramind, a call center in Gurgaon. That M/s Standard Logistics Pvt. Ltd had opened a current account No. 0100000128 and requested the bank for sanction of the bank guarantee of Rs.15 Lakhs on 09.09.2004 against the collateral security of property no. C206, sector63, Noida, UP. That on 20.12.2004, the company again requested for a cash credit limit of Rs.30 Lakhs against book debt and CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. 22 of 135 pages 23 CBI case . No.12/11 bank guarantee for Rs.15 Lakhs, which was also sanctioned by accused (A1). That accused (A1) had also recommended the proposal for sanction of cash credit limit (hypothecation) for Rs.75 Lakhs and BG Limit of Rs. 40 Lakhs under the "Financing of Trade & Services Sector"

introduced by the bank. That as collateral security the company had offered the property, measuring 5 bighas 19 biswas in village Pasaunda, Loni, Ghaziabad, UP and that accused (A1) had submitted a false report in respect of the property whereas the property was not in existence.

4. It is further alleged that the valuation report, dated 12.03.05 was submitted by accused Jagpal Singh Chaney (A3), assessing the mortgaged property to be of the value of Rs.1.7 Crores was also false and bogus as the property was not in existence.

5. It is further alleged that in the year 2004, Neeraj Chawla, son of accused (A1) became partner of M/s Standard Logistics International with accused Sushil Verma and a partnership deed, dated 24.12.04 was executed. That since this new partnership firm could not obtain the loan so the loan was taken in the name of M/s Standard Logistics Pvt CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. 23 of 135 pages 24 CBI case . No.12/11 Ltd and then it was diverted to this firm. That accused(A1) had permitted his son to join accused Sushil Verma as a partner in its firm M/s Standard Logistics International despite the fact that the company of accused Sushil Verma was dealing with the bank, which in turn shows that accused (A1) had granted undue favour to the company, because of his son and even allowed the company to overdraw the cash credit facility over and above the sanction amount in August, 2005 and later on recommended enhancement of cash credit limit from Rs. 75 Lakhs to Rs.125 Lakhs on the same collateral security of the property allegedly situated at Village Pasaunda, Loni, Ghaziabad, in the name of a person, who had already expired way back in the year 1983.

6. It is further alleged that accused (A1) had even filed a false and bogus report, dated 20.09.2005, stating interalia that he had visited the property and its value was realistic. That ultimately, cash credit limit was increased to Rs.120 Lakhs but with a condition that the property, offered as collateral security, should be related to the family members of the borrower. That even the said condition was not complied with by accused (A1).

CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. 24 of 135 pages 25 CBI case . No.12/11

7. It is further alleged that accused (A1) had even purchased 59 cheques of the company, beyond his discretionary powers and out of which 3 cheques, totalling Rs.14.65 lakhs were returned unpaid. That accused S.K. Chawla had also allowed payment of 26 cheques in the account of M/s Standard Logistics International wherein his son Neeraj Chawla was a partner and that the said account had turned NPA on 14.09.06 with an outstanding of Rs. 2,82,50,904/ as on 31.01.2008.

8. It is further alleged that accused (A2) along with his daughter had opened a current account, bearing no. 010000052213 in the name of M/s Standard Logistics Pvt. Ltd. (Mother Dairy Division) on 14.06.2005. That further overdraft limit of Rs.11 Lakh in the name of this company was applied and the limit was sanctioned by Sh. Yog Raj Bhatia at the instructions of accused S.K. Chawla. That the loan documents were executed by accused S.K. Verma and Ms. Amrita Verma and Special Term deposits were offered as security. That accused S.K. Chawla allowed over drawings in the said accounts during the period 29.06.05 to 24.02.06 beyond his discretionary powers. That he CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. 25 of 135 pages 26 CBI case . No.12/11 purchased 88 cheques without intimating the competent authority and five of such cheques amounting to Rs. 24,17,000/ were received unpaid and lastly the account was turned NPA on 12.06.2006 with an outstanding of Rs. 2,63,82,413.57P as on 31.01.2008.

9. That the aforesaid facts show that accused S.K. Chawla, the then Chief Manager of Nangal Raya Branch entered into a criminal conspiracy with accused Sushil Verma and accused J.S Chaney, the bank empaneled valuer and in furtherance of the said criminal conspiracy, accused S.K. Chawla fraudulently and dishonestly recommended the sanction of credit facilities to M/s Standard Logistics Pvt. Ltd. and to M/s Standard Logistics Pvt. Ltd (Mother Dairy Division) and allowed over draft limits on the basis of false and forged security documents. That accused S.K. Chawla not only allowed overdrafts in the accounts of these companies beyond the sanctioned limit but even failed to report the same to his controlling authorities and thus, caused a wrongful loss to the bank to the extent of Rs. 5,46,33,317.50P and corresponding gain to accused Sushil Verma and his companies.

CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. 26 of 135 pages 27 CBI case . No.12/11

10. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that accused (A1), while working as Chief Manager, in the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Nangal Raya Branch, Jail Road, New Delhi, had entered into criminal conspiracy with accused Sushil Verma, the Director of M/s Standard Logistics Pvt. Ltd and M/s Standard Logistics Pvt. Ltd (Mother Dairy Division), D1/89, Janakpuri, New Delhi and another accused Jagpal Singh Chaney, the Proprietor of M/s Chaney & Associates, C7, South Extension, PartII, New Delhi, with common intent and object to cheat State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur by way of allowing overdrawing facility in cash credit account/overdraft account on the basis of forged documents and sanctioned the limits of loan beyond his discretionary power, with an intent to cheat State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur to the tune of Rs. 5,46,33,317.50/ and that the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur suffered a wrongful loss of the above said amount and corresponding gain to themselves. All the accused persons, thus, are alleged to have committed an offence, punishable under section 120 B IPC.

11. Further, accused Sushil Verma, who was one of the Directors of M/s Standard Logistics Pvt. Ltd., had opened CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. 27 of 135 pages 28 CBI case . No.12/11 a current account no. 0100000128, dated 06.01.04 and requested for sanction of bank guarantee for Rs.15 Lakh on 09.09.2004 against the collateral security of property no. 206, sector63, Noida, UP. That on 20.12.2000, his company had requested for cash credit limit of Rs. 30 Lakh against book debt. That accused S.K. Chawla had also recommended for the sanction of cash credit limit (hypothecation) for Rs.75 Lakh and BG Limit for Rs.40 Lakh under the "financing of trade and services section"

introduced by the bank. That as collateral security, the company had offered the property measuring 5 bighas and 19 biswas of land in village Pasaunda, Loni Ghaziabad and that accused S.K. Chawla had submitted a false report in respect of the property which was not in existence. That a valuation report, dated 12.03.2005 was submitted by accused J.S. Chaney assessing the mortgage property to be of the value of Rs.1.75 Crores which was false and bogus as the property was not in existence.

12. Further, Neeraj Chawla, son of accused S.K. Chawla became partner with accused Sushil Verma in M/s Standard Logistics International and thereafter, accused S.K. Chawla had granted undue favour because of his son CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. 28 of 135 pages 29 CBI case . No.12/11 by allowing the overdraft of the cash credit facility over and above the sanctioned amount in August, 2005 and further accused S.K. Chawla had recommended enhancement of cash credit facility from Rs.75 Lakhs to Rs. 125 Lakhs on the same property which was non existent and was found to be bogus.

13. That accused S.K. Chawla even had filed intentionally a false and bogus report, dated 20.09.05, stating inter alia that he had visited the property and that its value was real. That ultimately, the cash credit facility was increased to Rs. 120 Lakhs subject to the condition that the property belonged to his family members. Even accused S.K. Chawla even did not comply with the requisite/prescribed condition.

14. Further, accused S.K. Chawla had even purchased 59 cheques of the company beyond his discretionary power and three cheques were returned unpaid. That accused S.K. Chawla had even allowed an overdraft limit of Rs.11 Lakh in the name of M/s Standard Logistics Pvt. Ltd (Mother Dairy Division) and allowed over drawings beyond his discretionary powers and purchased 88 CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. 29 of 135 pages 30 CBI case . No.12/11 cheques, without intimating the competent authority and five of such cheques remained unpaid. That as on 31.01.08, an amount of Rs.2,63,82,413.57/ was outstanding in his account. That all the accused persons, in conspiracy with each other had put the bank to the wrongful loss to the extent of Rs.5,46,33,317.50/and thus, are alleged to have committed an offence punishable under section 120B read with section 420/467/468/471 and read with section 13(2) & 13(i)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act.

15. Further, accused Sushil Verma being Director of M/s Standard Logistics Pvt. Ltd had opened a current account with Nangal Raya Branch of State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur and availed various facilities. He had also availed the cash credit facility and BG Limit under the financing of trade and service sector and as collateral security, he offered the property measuring 5 bighas and 19 biswas in village Pasaunda, Loni, Ghaziabad, UP, which property was not in existence and/or its owner had already expired.

16. Further, accused Sushil Verma had also got enhancement of the cash credit limit from Rs. 75 Lakhs to Rs.125 Lakhs on the same collateral security on the aforesaid property. CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. 30 of 135 pages 31 CBI case . No.12/11 That it was only because of his fraudulent and dishonest intentions that the bank suffered a loss to the tune of Rs. 5,46,33,317.50/. Accused Sushil Verma, thus, is alleged to have committed an offence punishable under section 420 IPC and since he had used false/forged document viz the valuation report, dated 12.03.2005, prepared by accused J.S. Chaney, he is alleged to have committed an offence punishable under section 471 IPC.

17. Further, accused Sri Kant Chawla during the period from 03.03.2004 to 24.02.06 was the Chief Manager of Nangal Raya Branch of the State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur and being as such had entered into criminal conspiracy with accused Sushil Verma and J.S. Chaney, the bank empanelled valuer and in furtherance of criminal conspiracy, he fraudulently and dishonestly recommended the sanction of credit facilities to M/s Standard Logistics Pvt. Ltd and to M/s Standard Logistics Pvt. Ltd. (Mother Dairy Division) and overdraft limits on the basis of false and forged security documents. That he not only allowed overdrafts in the accounts of these companies beyond the sanction limit but even failed to report the same to his controlling authority. That he not CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. 31 of 135 pages 32 CBI case . No.12/11 only had prepared a report dt. 20.09.05 regarding visit of the property which was not in existence but even also relied upon the report, dated 12.03.05 of accused J.S. Chaney, assessing the mortgaged property worth Rs.1.75 Crores when it was not in existence. The said accused, thus, is alleged to have committed an offence punishable under section 420 IPC.

18. Further accused (A1) had also used a forged document viz a valuation report, prepared by accused J.S. Chaney which as per his knowledge was false and that he fraudulently and dishonestly used it as a genuine document. He is, thus, alleged to have committed an offence punishable under section 471 IPC.

19. Further, during the aforesaid period, accused (A1) had committed criminal misconduct by abusing his position as a public servant and obtained pecuniary advantage for co accused persons, without any public interest. The said accused, thus, is alleged to have committed an offence punishable under section 13(2) read with section 13(i)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. 32 of 135 pages 33 CBI case . No.12/11

20. Further, accused Jagpal Singh Chaney on 12.03.05 had prepared and submitted a valuation report, assessing the property, situated at village Pasaunda, Loni, Ghaziabad, UP, already in the name of person, who had already expired in the year 1983 and that the said property was not owned by the mortgagor and hence by preparing a false and bogus report with fraudulent and dishonest intention to help his co accused Sushil Verma. He is, thus, alleged to have committed an offence punishable under section 420 IPC and also 468 IPC for preparing a false document and as the said document was intended to help his co accused persons to receive the money from the bank. He is, thus, alleged to have committed an offence punishable under section 467 IPC.

21. Primafacie, offences under section 120B IPC against all the accused persons, 120B read with section 420/467/468/471 IPC and read with section 13(2) & 13(i)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 and substantive offences under section 420 IPC & 471 IPC against accused Sushil Verma and under section 420 IPC, 471 IPC and 13(2) read with section 13(i)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in addition, against accused S.K. CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. 33 of 135 pages 34 CBI case . No.12/11 Chawla and under section 420 IPC, 467 IPC & 468 IPC against accused Jagpal Singh Chaney, were made out.

22. Charge, accordingly, was framed against the accused persons by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court, to which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

23. The prosecution, in order to substantiate its claim and contentions, examined as many as 31 witnesses, in all.

24. Thereafter, the accused persons were examined under section 313 Cr. P.C.

25. Defence has also produced two witnesses, in support of their defence.

26. The prosecution, has contended that the case of the prosecution has been squarely proved, in view of the documents, circumstances and other material that has appeared on record. That the prosecution witnesses have supported and proved the prosecution version beyond any pale of doubt.

CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. 34 of 135 pages 35 CBI case . No.12/11

27. On behalf of the defence, on the other hand, it has been stated that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

28. On behalf of the defence, written submissions have been made which appear on file and is a matter of record.

29. On behalf of the parties, written submissions have also been made which appear on file and is a matter of record.

30. On behalf of the State, following case law have been cited :

i. Kalicharan Mahapatra Vs. State of Orissa, 1998 SC 2595 ii. Jaswant Kawathekar Vs. Economic Offences Wing 1995 (3) Crimes 227 MP iii. B.S. Goraya Vs. UT of Chandigarh, AIR 2007 SC 3039 iv. Habibulla Khan Vs. State of Orissa AIR 1995 SC 1124 v. Veera Swami Vs. Union of India 1991 3 SCC 655 vi. Ronald Wood Mathams vs. State of West Bengal, AIR 1954 SC 455, vii.Harihar Prasad Vs. State of West Bengal, AIR 1972 SC viii. Subair vs. State of Kerala, (2009) 6 SCC 587 ix. C.K. Damodaran Rang Nair vs. Government of India, (1997) 9 SCC 477 x. R. Venkata Krishnan Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, AIR 2010 SC 1812 xi. M. Narayanan Nambiar Vs. State of Kerala, 1963 AIR 1116.

31. The defence, on the other hand, has cited following case CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. 35 of 135 pages 36 CBI case . No.12/11 law reported as:

i. Sheetla Sahai & Ors Vs. State of MP, 2009(8) SCC 670 ii. A. Subair vs. State of Kerala, (2009) 6 SCC 587 iii. C.K. Damodaran Nair vs. Government of India, (1997) 9 SCC 477 iv. Kehar Singh and Ors Vs. State (Delhi Administration),{1988 (3) SCC 609 at 731} v. CBI Vs. Duncans Agro Industries, JT 1996 (6)/227 1996 SCALE (5) 99 vi. K. R. Purushothaman Vs. State of Kerala, Appeal (Crl.) 495 of 2004, (Apex Court).

vii. State of Rajasthan Vs. Mohan Lal, Criminal Appeal No. 85 of 2003 of Apex Court, decided on 16.4.2009.

32. At the very outset, it is to be noted that there is no dispute over the propositions of law enunciated in the case law, mentioned in the written submissions filed by the defence. However, none of the contentions and the case law cited help or support the accused persons, in any manner, whatsoever. On the other hand, there is strong overwhelming prosecution evidence, circumstances and documents appearing on record, as against the accused persons dislodging the claim and contentions of the defence.

33. I have carefully gone through the entire relevant material appearing on record and have given considered thought to the same. I have also considered the rival arguments that CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. 36 of 135 pages 37 CBI case . No.12/11 have been advanced, at the bar. My findings are as under:

34. PW1, Sh. Jattan Lal Jain was working as Chief Manager (General Banking) in the State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, Nangal Raya Branch, during the relevant period and is a formal witness.

35. PW1 has proved the application cum interview form/report, running into four pages, which was duly forwarded by Nangal Raya Branch to the Regional Office as Ex.PW1/A. He has duly identified the signatures of accused S.K. Chawla, at pt. A, on the same. He has deposed that since there were deficiencies on the part of the branch, the the matter was forwarded back in order to seek clarifications.

36. PW2, Sh. Vikram Kumar Nanda, was the advocate, who was in the panel of the State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, Nangal Raya Branch as well as other branches of the Bank at Delhi.

37. PW2 has proved the investigation report, dated, 05.02.2005, which was given by him and which runs into CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. 37 of 135 pages 38 CBI case . No.12/11 11 pages, as Ex.PW2/A. He has duly identified his signatures at pt. A, on the same.

38. Similarly, PW2 has proved the search report, in respect of property in question & title certificate, issued by him, as Ex.PW2/B & Ex.PW2/C, respectively. He has also identified his signatures at pt. A, on the said documents.

39. PW2 has deposed that the property in question, was allegedly agricultural land, measuring 5 Bighas 19 Biswas at Khasra no. 1117(49) & 1118(110) at Village Pasaunda, Praghna Loni, Tehsil and District Ghaziabad (UP). That he had checked the original documents of the aforesaid property in the office of Sub Registrar at Ghaziabad & Patwari at Pragna Loni.

40. PW2 has further deposed that the reports Ex.PW2/A to Ex.PW2/C are based only upon the inspection of the documents available in the office of Sub Registrar and Patwari. That the last transaction in respect of the property was done on 17.04.89, vide sale deed of even date. He has further deposed that he had not visited the property in question, as it was not the part of his duty. CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. 38 of 135 pages 39 CBI case . No.12/11

41. PW2 has further proved the receipts of the inspection charges, which were deposited by him at the Sub Registrar Office, as Ex.PW2/1 to Ex.PW2/3, respectively.

42. PW3, Sh. Virender Gaur was working as an accountant with accused Sushil Verma, who was doing the business under the name & Style of M/s Standard Caterers & M/s Standard Travels, in the year 2002.

43. PW3 has deposed that M/s Standard Logistics Pvt. Ltd. was formed on 01.04.2004 and that accused Sushil Verma and his daughter Ms. Amrita Verma were the directors of the said firm, which was availing cash credit limit facility from State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, Nangal Raya Branch, New Delhi.

44. PW3 has further deposed that another firm in the name and style of M/s Standard Logistics International was formed, whose directors were accused Sushil Verma, Ms. Amrita Verma and Neeraj Chawla. That the object of the aforesaid firm was to run the Volvo Buses, in collaboration with Mahendera & Mahendra on DelhiDehradun routine. CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. 39 of 135 pages 40 CBI case . No.12/11 That since M/s Standard Logistics International was a new firm, it was difficult to obtain loan for the purpose of purchase of buses, hence, commercial vehicle loan was applied by M/s Standard Logistics Pvt. Ltd with many banks, including ICICI, Kotak Mahendra and Sundaram Finance. He has correctly identified accused Sushil Verma, during his deposition in the court.

45. PW3 has identified the photograph of accused Sushil Verma, at pt. A, on the cash Credit form (D70), in the name of M/s Standard Logistics Pvt. Ltd. He has identified the signatures of the said accused at pt. B, which have been marked as Q21 & Q22, on the said cash credit opening form. He has also identified the signatures of Ms. Amrita Verma, at points C1 & C2.

46. Similarly, PW3 has identified the signatures of accused Sushil Verma, marked as Q23 & Q24, at pt. A and that of Ms. Amrita Verma at pt. B, on the account opening form, which has been proved as Ex.PW3/A.

47. In the same manner, PW3 has identified the photograph of accused Sushil Verma, at pt. A and that of Ms. Amrita CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. 40 of 135 pages 41 CBI case . No.12/11 Verma at pt. B as well as signatures of accused Sushil Verma, marked as Q26, Q27 & Q28, at pts. C, D and E and that of Ms. Amrita Verma, at points F, G and H, on the current account opening form of M/s Standard Logistics Pvt. Ltd., which has been proved as Ex.PW3/B.

48. PW3 has also identified the signatures of accused Sushil Verma, at pts. A, B, C, D and E (marked as Q25) on the current account opening form of M/s Standard Logistics Pvt. Ltd., which has been proved as Ex.PW3/C.

49. PW3 has further proved the credit facility letter, as Ex.PW3/D. He has duly identified the photograph of accused Sushil Verma, at pt. C and that of Ms. Amrita Verma at pt. D as well as signatures of accused Sushil Verma, marked as Q29, at pt. A and that of Ms. Amrita Verma, at point B.

50. PW3 has also proved the DP note as Ex.PW3/D, bearing the signatures of accused Sushil Verma, at point A, which have been duly identified by him.

51. PW3 has further identified the signatures of accused Sushil CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. 41 of 135 pages 42 CBI case . No.12/11 Verma, at point A, on the letter of waiver (D105), which has been proved as Ex.PW3/E.

52. Similarly, PW3 has identified the signatures of accused Sushil Verma at pt. A and that of Ms. Amrita Verma, at pt. B on the Term Deposit Receipt (D105), which has been proved as Ex.PW3/F.

53. PW3 has proved the form of agreement between M/s Standard Logistics Pvt. Ltd and State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, Nangal Raya Branch, New Delhi, as Ex.PW3/H. He has identified the signatures of accused Sushil Verma, marked as Q31, Q32, Q33 and Q34 at pts. A, B, C & D and further at points E to I & K to M and that of Ms. Amrita Verma at points N to Z on the said agreement.

54. PW3 has also identified the signatures of accused Sushil Verma, marked as Q18, Q19 & Q20 at pts. A, B & C and that of Ms. Amrita Verma, at points D & E, on the current account opening form in the name of M/s Standard Logistics Pvt. Ltd., which has been proved as Ex.PW3/I.

55. PW3 has further proved the extract of resolution, passed CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. 42 of 135 pages 43 CBI case . No.12/11 during the meetings of board of directors of M/s Standard Logistics Pvt. Ltd. on 01.01.2004 & 13.08.04. He has identified the signatures of accused Sushil Verma, Director/Chairman of the said firm, at pt. A, on each page of the said resolution, which has been proved as Ex.PW3/J.

56. PW3 has further proved the agreement, dated 23.07.05 (D49), which was signed between Sushil Verma as Director M/s Standard Logistics Pvt. Ltd and Mr. Neeraj Chawla as Partner of the said firm, as Ex.PW3/K. He has duly identified the signatures of accused Sushil Kumar Verma, at pt. A, that of Neeraj Chawla, at pt. B, and his own signatures at pt. C, on each page, of the said agreement.

57. Similarly, PW3 has identified the signatures of accused Sushil Kumar Verma, Mr. Neeraj Chawla and Ms. Amrita Verma, at points A, B & C, respectively, on the partnership deed (D50), which has been proved as Ex.PW3/L.

58. PW4, Sh. Surya Kant was posted as Manager at HDFC Bank, during the year 2008.

CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. 43 of 135 pages 44 CBI case . No.12/11

59. PW4 has proved the account opening form of current account no. 0882000013787 (D56), in respect of M/s Standard Logistics Pvt. Ltd, as Ex.PW4/A.

60. PW4 has further proved the extract of resolution, dt.

06.04.2004 & list of directors, which were furnished by the directors of the said firm while opening the aforesaid current account as Ex.PW4/A1 & Ex.PW4/A2.

61. PW4 has further deposed that copy of passport of Ms. Amrita Verma, one of the director of M/s Standard Logistics Pvt. Ltd, which is Ex.PW4/A3, form no. 60 of both the directors, duly signed by them, which are collectively Ex.PW4/A4 and copy of cheque no. 287315 for sum of Rs.10,000/, which is Ex.PW4/A5, were also furnished, at the time of opening of the said current account. He has further deposed that the aforesaid cheque was issued from account no. 52128, State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, Nangal Raya Branch, New Delhi.

62. PW4 has further proved the memorandum of articles of association of Standard Logistics Pvt. Ltd as Ex.PW4/A6. CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. 44 of 135 pages 45 CBI case . No.12/11

63. PW4 has further deposed that all the aforesaid documents were seized by the CBI, vide seizure memo (D55), Ex.PW4/A7, bearing his signatures at pt. A, which have been duly identified by him.

64. PW5, Sh. Raj Pal Singh was posted in State Bank of India, Mother Dairy Branch, Partparganj, Delhi, during the period from 2004 to 2009.

65. PW5 has proved the seizure memo, Ex.PW5/A, vide which 19 original cheques mentioned therein, were seized. He has identified his signatures at pt. A on the said seizure memo.

66. PW5 has further proved the letter, dated 30.03.2008, which was issued under the signatures of Sh. V.K. Goyal, the then Chief Manager, vide which 19 cheques were ordered to be produced, as Ex.PW5/A1. He has duly identified the signatures of said Sh. V.K. Goyal on the said letter. He has deposed that all the aforesaid 19 cheques were issued in favour of M/s Standard Logistics Pvt. Ltd. from the account no. 10015410519, which was being maintained by CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. 45 of 135 pages 46 CBI case . No.12/11 Mother Dairy India Ltd and that account no. 100015410553 was maintained in the name of M/s Mother Dairy Ex employees Transport. He has further deposed that all the aforesaid 19 cheques, which have been collectively proved as Ex.PW5/A2, were received from SBBJ, Nangal Rai Branch for clearing.

67. PW6, Sh. Kanchhid Lal Sharma was working as Patwari of Village Pasaunda, Loni, Ghaziabad, UP, during the period from 2006 to 2009.

68. After going through the copy of revenue records, regarding Khasra no. 1117(490) and no. 1118 (1100), Village Pasaunda, Loni Ghaziabad, UP, PW6 has deposed that the said property stood in the name of Charan Das, son of Sh. Gainda Ram, R/o Central Market, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi. He has further deposed that the said land was being used for residential purposes for the last 810 years.

69. PW6 has deposed that the copy of letter, dated 07.01.05, shows that the locality of Shalimar Garden was a residential area, which is Mark PW6/1. He has further proved the record of Khasra as Ex.PW6/A2. CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. 46 of 135 pages 47 CBI case . No.12/11

70. PW6 has proved the khatauni of khasra no. 1117 & 1118 in respect of Village Pasaunda, Loni, Ghaziabad, UP, as Ex.PW6/A. He has also identified the signatures of Sh. Lalit Sharma, the accountant, at pt. A, on the said khatauni.

71. PW7, Sh. K.L. Kalra was posted as Deputy General Manager of Statement of Bikaner & Jaipur, from February, 2004 to July, 2007.

72. PW7 has deposed that the proposal, Ex.PW22/B1(D27) was put up to him, which was duly recommended by the Assistant General ManagerI, processed by the then Chief Manager (Advances) of RegionI. That on the scrutiny of the said proposal, certain queries were raised by him on 22.03.05. He has identified his signatures at point C, below the query raised by him, which were responded by the then Assistant General ManagerI on 24.03.05 and thereafter, the proposal was sanctioned on 30.03.05 with some stipulation as mentioned at encircled portion X3. He has identified his signatures at pt. F.

73. PW7 has further deposed that vide, Ex.PW11/A1, a CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. 47 of 135 pages 48 CBI case . No.12/11 proposal for sanction of proposed limits of Rs.120 Lakhs under cash credit, hypothecation and bank guarantee of Rs.40 Lakhs was put up to the Zonal Office Credit Committee, comprising of the Deputy General Manager as Chairman and two Assistant General Managers as members for sanction of the proposal on 07.10.05. He has identified his initials at pt. A on Ex.PW11/A4.

74. PW7 has further deposed that the said proposal was deliberated at its seventh meeting held on 07.10.05, where it was resolved to sanction the proposal with stipulation that the Chief Manager was to ensure that the distress value of the mortgage value was not less than as advised in the proposal. The minutes of the said meeting, in which proposal was sanctioned, was prepared by the Chief Manager, and was signed by him. He has identified his signatures at pt. A on minutes, Ex.PW11/A5.

75. PW7 has further proved the letter (page 188), dated 11.06.05 from the Chief Manager of SBBJ, Nangal Raya Branch as Ex.PW7/A.

76. PW8, Sh. Arun Kumar Sharma was working as Assistant CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. 48 of 135 pages 49 CBI case . No.12/11 Engineer in Ghaziabad Development Authority in the year 2007.

77. PW8 has proved the letter no. 622/MP/08, dated 18.03.08 from the Secretary, Ghaziabad, Vikas Pradhikaran, as Ex.PW8/A, bearing the signatures of Sh. R.K. Sachan, the then Secretary, GDA, Ghaziabad, at pt. A, which have been duly identified by him.

78. PW9, Sh. Chander Bhan Arya was advocate, who was the notary upto the year 2006. He reiterated, agreement, Ex.PW3/K, which was notarized under his signatures. He has identified his signatures as well as his seal, at pts. D & E, respectively, on the said agreement.

79. Similarly, PW9 has reiterated the copy of partnership deed (D50), Ex.PW3/L.

80. PW10, Sh. Vikas Chaturvedi was working in HDFC Bank Ltd. since 2004. He has deposed that vide seizure memo, dated, 09.05.08, Ex.PW10/A, he had handed over certain documents to IO, pertaining to current account no. 00542000028520 of M/s Standard Logistics Pvt. Ltd. He has CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. 49 of 135 pages 50 CBI case . No.12/11 identified his signatures at pt. A, on the said seizure memo.

81. PW10 has further deposed that current account no.

00542000028520 was opened in the name of Standard Logistics Pvt. Ltd (D109), at 286, Sanjay NagarD, Joshi Marg, Jhotwara, Jaipur302012.

82. PW10 has further deposed that he had handed over copy of cheque, dated 21.02.2005 for Rs.10,000/ along with covering letter of M/s Standard Logistics Pvt. Ltd, original extract of resolution of the company, dated 18.02.05, copy of PAN card no. AA1CS1036M of M/s Standard Logistics Pvt. Ltd and copy of Memorandum and Article of Association. The said documents, have been collectively proved as Ex.PW10/A1, by him.

83. PW11, Sh. M.L. Aggarwal was posted in the Zonal Office of State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, at New Delhi from May, 2004 to 2008.

84. PW11 has proved the letter, dated 1.9.2005, which was received from Nangal Raya branch of SBBJ in the Zonal Office as Ex. PW11/A. He has duly identified the CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. 50 of 135 pages 51 CBI case . No.12/11 signatures of accused S.K. Chawla, the then Chief Manager, at point A, on the said letter. He has further deposed that in the said letter, enhancement of cash credit limit of Rs.75 Lakhs to Rs.125 Lakhs and bank guarantee limit of Rs.40 Lakhs as existing, has been prescribed.

85. PW11 has proved the proposal sent by their branch as Ex.PW11/A1, bearing the signatures of accused Sri Kant Chawla, at pt. A, which have been duly identified by him. He has deposed that vide the said proposal, branch had recommended for enhancement of limit upto Rs.120 lakhs from the limit of Rs.75 lakhs and bank guarantee limit of Rs.40 lakhs (total Rs.160 lakhs).

86. PW11 has further deposed that after receipt of aforesaid proposal, Ex.PW11/A1, it was processed at the Zonal Office by him. He has identified his signatures on the copy of said proposal, which is Mark PW11/1 at pt. A. The signatures of Sh. J.L. Jain, the then Chief Manager (Advances), at pt. B and that of Sh. A.L. Jain, the then AGMI, at pt. C, have been duly identified by him.

87. PW11 has further proved the letter, dated 19.9.2005, which CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. 51 of 135 pages 52 CBI case . No.12/11 was issued by J.L. Jain to his branch, regarding certain queries as Ex. PW11/A2, bearing the signatures of Shri J. L. Jain, the then Chief Manager (Advances) at point A, which have been duly identified by him.

88. PW11 has further deposed that in response to the above said letter, Ex.PW11/A2, a letter dated 20.09.05, was received from the branch, bearing the signatures of accused S.K. Chawla, at point A, which has been duly identified by him. The said letter has been proved as Ex.PW11/A3.

89. PW11 has further deposed that the proposal mark PW11/1, was sent to the then Chairman, Sh. K.L. Kalra, which was duly approved and sanctioned on 07.10.05 in the 7th Meeting of Zonal Office Credit Committee and bears the signatures of the said Chairman, at pt.A, which have been duly identified by him. The said proposal has been proved as Ex.PW11/A4.

90. PW11 has proved the note, regarding agenda item no.

P45, in respect of M/s Standard Logistics Pvt. Ltd, as Ex.PW11/A5, bearing the signatures of the then DGM & CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. 52 of 135 pages 53 CBI case . No.12/11 Chairman, Sh. K.L. Kalra of ZOCC, at point A, which have been duly identified by him.

91. PW11 has further deposed that vide letter, dated 13.10.05, sanction of cash credit hypothecation limit of Rs.120 Lakhs and bank guarantee of Rs.40 Lakh was conveyed to the then Chief Manager, SBBJ, Nangal Raya Branch by Sh. J.L. Jain, the then Chief Manager (Advances). The said letter has been proved as Ex.PW11/A6 (running into four pages), bearing the signatures of the then J.L. Jain at pt. A, on each page, which have been duly identified by him. He has further deposed that in the said letter, the branch was advised to ensure the terms and conditions, stipulated therein.

92. PW11 has further deposed that the circular no. C & 1/14/200304, dated 24.09.2003, was issued by State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, Head Office, in respect of Scheme for financing to retail and wholesale traders "SBBJ SULABH VYAPAR RIN YOJANA FOR SIB & C & I CUSTOMERS", which is Ex.PW12/A2.

93. PW12, Sh. Amba Lal Jain was posted as Assistant General CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. 53 of 135 pages 54 CBI case . No.12/11 Manager in the Zonal Office of State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, from May, 2005, to December, 2005.

94. PW12 has reiterated documents, Ex.PW11/A1, Ex.PW11/A2, Ex.PW11/A3, Mark PW11/1, Ex.PW11/A4, Ex.PW11/A6 and has also identified the signatures of bank officers, mentioned therein.

95. PW12 has deposed that he had never asked accused, S.K. Chawla to sanction any kind of loan to M/s Standard Logistics (P) Ltd and had never instructed him to allow over drawing in excess of the sanction limit and excess of his discretionary power, without reporting it to the competent authority.

96. PW12 has further proved the visit book register (D12), which was being maintained in the Nangal Raya Branch, at the relevant time, as Ex.PW12/A. He has deposed that he had visited the said branch, which has been recorded by him, at page no. 32 on the said register, where he had mentioned about certain points, regarding allowing of over drawings by the then Chief Manager, accused S.K. Chawla in excess of the sanction limit and in excess of his CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. 54 of 135 pages 55 CBI case . No.12/11 discretionary power, without reporting it to the competent authority. The said note has been proved as Ex.PW12/A1, bearing his signatures at pt. A, and that of accused, S.K. Chawla, at pt. B, which have been duly identified by him.

97. PW12 has further proved the circular no. C & 1/14/200304, dated 24.09.2003, which was issued by State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, Head Office, in respect of Scheme for financing to retail and wholesale traders "SBBJ SULABH VYAPAR RIN YOJANA FOR SIB & C & I CUSTOMERS", as Ex.PW12/A2.

98. PW12 has further proved the statement of account, duly certified under Banker's Book of Evidence Act (D69), as Ex.PW12/A3, showing cash credit limit sanctioned to M/s Standard Logistics (P) Ltd as Rs. 75 Lakhs upto October, 2005, which was thereafter, increased to Rs.120 Lakhs, however, the balance outstanding as on 05.09.05 was Rs. 99.87 Lakhs. He has further deposed that, however, upto this much amount, the approval was accorded by the Zonal Office but thereafter, the over drawings by the then Chief Manager were not reported.

CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. 55 of 135 pages 56 CBI case . No.12/11

99. Similarly, PW12 has proved the statement of account (D68), duly certified under Banker's Book of Evidence Act, as Ex.PW12/A4, showing the over drawings allowed by accused S.K. Chawla, marked with blue marker. He has deposed that the said overdrawings were never reported by the said accused to the Zonal Office.

100. Similarly, PW12 has further proved the statement of account (D116), in respect of Mother Dairy Division for the period from 11.08.05 to 12.07.06, duly certified under Banker's Book of Evidence Act, as Ex.PW12/A5.

101. PW13, Sh. Madan Mohan Lal was posted as Chief Vigilance Officer, at State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, Head Office, Jaipur, on 09.05.08.

102. PW13 has deposed that he had deputed Sh. P.S. Yadav, the then Chief Manager (vigilance), to conduct a detailed investigation in respect of fraud, which had taken place in Nangal Raya Branch of State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur and the said Sh. P. S. Yadav had submitted a detailed report, dated 10.05.06, which is running into 20 pages, copy of same has been proved as Ex.PW13/A. CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. 56 of 135 pages 57 CBI case . No.12/11

103. PW13 has further deposed that he had lodged a complaint with SP, CBI, EOW, New Delhi, on 30.11.06, regarding serious irregularities, in the State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, Nangal Raya Branch, New Delhi, during the incumbency of accused S.K. Chawla, copy of which is Ex.PW13/B.

104. PW14, Sh. Sushil Kumar Goel was posted as Assistant General ManagerI, in the Zonal Office of State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, Ahinsa Bhawan, Shankar Road, Rajender Nagar, New Delhi, on 12.11.07.

105. PW14 has deposed that he had conducted periodical visit of Nangal Raya Branch of State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur on 13.01.2000 along with the then Chief Manager, Mr. Vijay Bhargava.

106. PW14 has further deposed that he had observed irregularities such as transit voucher book was not maintained, which irregularity was wrongly permitted and reporting register was not maintained, signatures uploading of account holders of the branch in the computer system was not updated. That he had mentioned these CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. 57 of 135 pages 58 CBI case . No.12/11 irregularities in the visit register, copy of which is Ex.PW14/A. He has further deposed that he had made remarks at page no. 33 of the aforesaid register, copy of which is Ex.PW14/B, bearing his signatures at pt. A, which have been duly identified by him.

107. PW14 has further deposed that his instructions and remarks were noted by accused, S.K. Chawla, the then Chief Manager of Nangal Raya Branch, who had appended his signatures at pt. B, in token of having noted the said instructions, which have been duly identified by him. That he had also asked accused S.K. Chawla to submit Limit Excess Report.

108. PW14 has further deposed that the report submitted by accused, S.K. Chawla, reflects that in certain accounts, the outstanding was more than the sanctioned limits. That after the inspection of the branch, he made a note at page 33 of visit book, regarding irregularities, found during inspection, copy of which is Ex.PW14/C. He has identified his signatures at pt. A and that of accused S.K. Chawla, at pt. B, on the said note.

CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. 58 of 135 pages 59 CBI case . No.12/11

109. PW14 has further proved the report, running into five pages, which was submitted by Sh. J.L. Jain, as Ex.PW14/D, bearing his signatures at pt. A, which have been duly identified by him.

110. PW15, Sh. Govind Kishan Nirman was posted as Deputy Manager (Accounts), in the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Nangal Raya Branch, during the year 2004.

111. PW15 has reiterated account opening forms of current accounts, Ex.PW3/A & Ex.PW3/B. He has deposed that account opening form, Ex.PW3/B was verified by him, which bears his signatures at pt. J & K, which have been duly identified by him. That the persons whose photographs are affixed on account opening form, Ex.PW3/B had also signed the said form before him, being Directors of M/s Standard Logistics Pvt. Ltd. (Mother Dairy Division). He has identified the photographs of accused Sushil Verma and Ms. Amrita, the directors of said firm, at points A & B on the form, Ex.PW3/B.

112. PW15 has further deposed that the cheques in respect of M/s Standard Logistics Pvt., which were seized by the CBI, CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. 59 of 135 pages 60 CBI case . No.12/11 have been mentioned in the list (containing 36 pages), which are Ex.PW18/A91, Ex.PW18/A92 and Ex.PW18/A93. He has duly identified the initials of accused S.K Chawla along with his endorsement with remark "Pay" on the said list.

113. PW15 has deposed that he had prepared the FDRS, bearing no. 875000 & 875742, which are Mark PW15/A & Mark PW15/B.

114. PW15 has further deposed that he had purchased the cheques, which are Ex.PW21/Z3, Ex.PW21/Z7. Ex.PW21/Z9 and Ex.PW21/Z13 on the instructions of accused S.K. Chawla, the then Chief Manager. He has duly identified his signatures, at pt. A, on the back of these cheques. He has further deposed that cheque, Ex.PW21/Z11 was purchased by accused S.K. Chawla, which bears his signatures at pt. A on the back of it, which have been duly identified by him. He has also identified signatures of Sh. A.K. Garg, the then Deputy Manager, at pt. A, on cheques, Ex.PW21/Z5 & Ex.PW21/Z10, respectively.

CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. 60 of 135 pages 61 CBI case . No.12/11

115. After going through the statement of account of Standard Logistics Pvt. Ltd., Mother Dairy Division, PW15 has deposed that there was huge overdrawing in the account of M/s Standard Logistics Pvt. Ltd, regarding which, no information was sent to higher authorities.

116. PW16, Sh. Prem Raj Mawar had joined State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, Nangal Raya Branch, New Delhi, as Deputy Manager, on 12.07.04.

117. PW16 has deposed that on 18.09.04, he had prepared balance sheet of M/s Standard Logistics Pvt. Ltd to be sent to the Controlling Authority, regarding renewal of the loan, which contains salepurchase, financial result, collateral security etc. He has further deposed that he did not visit the property, offered as collateral security and that accused S.K. Chawla, had himself visited the said properties.

118. PW17, Sh. Gulzari Lal Kanwar was posted as Assistant Manager in State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, at Nangal Raya Branch, New Delhi from 01.08.2006 to 2008. CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. 61 of 135 pages 62 CBI case . No.12/11

119. PW17 has proved the payinslip, dated 9.8.2005, vide which an amount of Rs.6 lacs was deposited in A/C No. 52213 of Standard Logistics Pvt. Ltd., as Ex.PW17/A, bearing the signature of the Shri Ashok Kumar Garg, the then Deputy Manager, at point A, which have been duly identified by him.

120. Similarly, PW17 has identified the signature of Shri Ashok Kumar Garg, the then Deputy Manager, at point A, on the pay in slips, which have been proved as Ex.PW17/B to Ex.PW17/H, Ex.PW17/J to Ex.PW17/N, Ex.PW17/P to Ex.PW17/Z, Ex.PW17/AA to Ex.PW17/HH and Ex.PW17/JJ to Ex.PW17/RR.

121. PW17 has further deposed that the list of cheques, which is Mark PW25/A28, was prepared by him by referring to the original cheques. He has duly identified his signatures at point A, on each page of the said list, which has been proved as Ex. PW17/S.

122. PW17 has also identified his signatures, at pt. A, on each page of the certified copy of the circulars, which have been duly proved as Ex. PW 17/T1 and Ex. PW 17/T2. CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. 62 of 135 pages 63 CBI case . No.12/11

123. PW18, Sh. Yograj Bhatia was posted as Manager (Personal) in State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, Nangal Raya Branch, Delhi, during the period from 02.05.05 to 19.03.08.

124. PW18 has proved the payinslip, vide which cheque No. 867366 for sum of Rs.10,24,759.53/, was drawn on SBI Mother Dairy, Patparganj, New Delhi, as Ex.PW18/A. He has duly identified the initials of accused S. K. Chawla, at point A, under the word 'DN" which denotes 'Demand Negotiation'. He has deposed that accused S.K. Chawla, the then Chief Manager had purchased the cheque and passed the order for immediately credit of the amount in the account of the customer with the cheque amount so mentioned in the pay in slip.

125. Similarly, PW18 has identified the initials of accused S.K. Chawla, at pt. A, under the word 'DN' on the pay in slips, which have been proved as Ex.PW18/B to Ex.PW18/D.

126. In the same manner, PW18 has identified the initials of accused S.K. Chawla at pts. A under the work 'DN' on the pay in slip, dated 15.09.2005, which has been proved as CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. 63 of 135 pages 64 CBI case . No.12/11 Ex.PW18/E.

127. PW18 has reiterated the pay in slips, Ex.PW17/A, Ex.PW17/B, Ex.PW17/E to Ex.PW17/H, Ex.PW17/J to Ex.PW17/Z and Ex.PW17/AA to Ex.PW17/HH, Ex.PW17/JJ to Ex.PW17/RR and has identified the signatures of accused. S.K. Chawla, at pt. B, under the word 'DN' on the same.

128. Similarly, PW18 has proved the payinslips as Ex. PW18/F to PW18/Z and Ex. PW 18/AA to PW 18/ZZ, which are enclosed with several cheques/drafts showing various amounts mentioned in the cheques/drafts, were purchased for credit in the account of M/s Standard Logistics Pvt. Ltd. & M/s Standard Logistics Ltd., Mother Dairy Division. He has identified the initials of accused S. K. Chawla, at point A on the same, in token of giving direction for purchasing the cheques/drafts.

129. PW18 has further proved the payinslips, which are enclosed with cheques/drafts, showing amounts mentioned in the cheques/drafts and which were purchased for credit in the account of M/s Standard CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. 64 of 135 pages 65 CBI case . No.12/11 Logistics Pvt. Ltd. & M/s Standard Logistics Ltd., Mother Dairy Division, as Ex. PW18/A1 to PW 18/A52. Similarly, he has identified the initials of accused S. K. Chawla, at point A, on the same, in token of giving direction to the concerned official for purchase the cheques/drafts.

130. Similarly, PW18 has proved the cheques, which were issued by M/s Standard Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Mother Dairy Division, as Ex. PW18/A53 to PW 18/A90, bearing the initials of accused S.K. Chawla, at point A, under the word "Pay", directing the concerned officer to pass the cheque for payment without raising any objection.

131. PW18 has further proved the list, running into 34 pages, containing particulars of 930 cheques, which were endorsed with the remark "pay" as Ex. PW18/A91 (collectively). He has duly identified the initials of accused Sri Kant Chawla on the same.

132. Similarly, PW18 has proved the list, consisting of the particulars of 11 cheques as Ex. PW18/A92 (collectively). He has also identified the signatures of accused S.K. Chawla on the same.

CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. 65 of 135 pages 66 CBI case . No.12/11

133. In the same manner, PW18 has proved the list, consisting of the description of 48 cheques, which were endorsed with the remark "pay" as Ex. PW18/A93 (collectively). He has also duly identified the initials of accused S.K. Chawla on the same. He has deposed that vide these cheques, the account holders, M/s Standard Logistics Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Standard Logistics Pvt. Ltd, Mother Dairy Division were allowed to withdraw the money over and above the sanctioned limit.

134. PW18 has reiterated the statement of accounts, Ex.PW12/A4 & Ex.PW12/A5.

135. PW19, Sh. P.S. Yadav was posted as Chief Manager, Vigilance department, State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Head Office, Tilak Marg, Jaipur, Rajasthan, in May, 2008.

136. PW19 had conducted thorough investigation of irregularities in advances account, relating to Nangal Raya Branch, New Delhi and gave a report, dated 10.05.06, copy of which is Ex.PW19/A (running into 20 pages). He has identified his signatures at pt. A on the last page as well as CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. 66 of 135 pages 67 CBI case . No.12/11 his signatures on each page, of the said report.

137. PW20, Sh. Dhanesh Kumar Sharma was working as Lekhpal in the office of Tehsildar, Ghaziabad. He has reiterated the documents, mark PW6/1 & mark PW6/2, which have been proved as Ex.PW6/A.1 & Ex.PW6/A.2.

138. PW21, Sh. Raman Chaudhary was posted as Chief Manager at Nangal Raya Branch on 04.05.06. He has proved the Special Hypothecation register for the period from 01.04.2004 to 16.09.2007. He has further deposed that the said hypothecation register was seized, vide seizure memo, copy of which is Ex.PW21/B. He has identified the signatures of Sh. G.L. Kanwar, the then Assistant Manager, on the same, at point A.

139. PW21 has further deposed that he along with Sh. Yograj Bhatia, the then Manager, had tried to visit the property offered as 'equitable mortgage' and made inquiries but could not locate the property at the site, regarding which, a report was kept in the bank's file.

140. PW21 has reiterated, letter, Ex.PW11/A3. He has CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. 67 of 135 pages 68 CBI case . No.12/11 identified signatures of accused S.K. Chawla, at pt. A, on the said letter.

141. PW21 has further proved the sanction letter, dated 15.10.2005, which is addressed to M/s Logistics Pvt. Ltd., advising them certain credit facilities against the equitable mortgage of land measuring 5 bighas 19 biswas (5997.6 Sq. yards), Khasra no. 1117 (4.9) & Khasra no. 1118 (110) Village Pasandha, Sahibabad, in the name of Charan Dass, valued for Rs.239.90 Lakhs, report, dated 01.09.2005 and against the personal guarantee by Sh. Charan Dass Chhabra, son of Sh. Ganda Ram, R/o Central Market, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi worth Rs.250 Lakhs, as Ex.PW21/C. He has also identified the signatures of accused S.K. Chawla, the then Chief Manager, on the said letter, at point A.

142. PW21 has further proved the opinion report of guarantor Sh. Charan Dass, son of Late Sh. Ganda Mal, R/o Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi, containing two pages of aggregate net means of the guarantor Rs.187 Lakhs, as Ex.PW21/D. The said report also includes certificate of accused, S.K. Chawla, the then Chief Manager, dated 19.02.2005, which CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. 68 of 135 pages 69 CBI case . No.12/11 contains his remarks that "Sh. Charan Dass was having good business, long experience of business, was very honest, straight forward man and was having good social reputation in the market". He has identified the signatures of accused Sri Kant Chawla, at pt. A, on the said report. He has further deposed that photograph of the guarantor is required to be kept in the record, as per 'Know Your Customer Policy of the Bank', but Ex.PW21/D does not bear the photograph of the guarantor in the present case.

143. PW21 has further deposed that he had handed over certain documents along with the documents, mentioned in file, D16, to the IO of this case, vide letter, dated 23.12.06, which has been proved as Ex.PW21/E. He has identified his signatures at pt. A, on the said letter.

144. PW21 has further proved the sanction letter, dated 27.12.2004, issued by accused S. K. Chawla to M/s Standard Logistics Pvt. Ltd., conveying credit facility of Rs. 30 lakhs and bank guarantee of Rs.15 lakhs, as Ex. PW 21/F, bearing his signatures, at pt. A, which have been duly identified by him.

CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. 69 of 135 pages 70 CBI case . No.12/11

145. PW21 has further proved the letter, dated 9.9.2004, addressed to Standard Logistics Pvt. Ltd., conveying certain credit facilities, as Ex.PW21/G. He has duly identified the signatures of accused S.K. Chawla, at point A, on the said letter.

146. PW21 has further proved the letter, dated 30.3.2005, vide which Rakesh Arora, the then Chief Manager, AGM Office, conveyed the Branch Manager, Nangal Rai, regarding sanction of credit limits in favour of Standard Logistics Pvt. Ltd., as Ex. PW 21/H, bearing the signature of said Sh. Rakesh Arora, at point A, which have been duly identified by him.

147. PW21 has further proved the agreement of loan for, over all limit, dated 31.3.2005, which was executed between the bank and two Directors of M/s Standard Logistics Pvt. Ltd., for credit facilities of Rs.1.15 crores, as Ex.PW21/I, bearing signatures of accused S.K. Chawla, at point A, which have been duly identified by PW21.

148. PW21 has further proved the letter, regarding the grant of individual limits within the over all limits, which was executed between the bank and the Directors of M/s CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. 70 of 135 pages 71 CBI case . No.12/11 Standard Logistics Pvt. Ltd., as Ex. PW 21/J, which bears signatures of accused S.K. Chawla, at point A, which have been duly identified by him.

149. PW21 has further proved the Deed of Guarantee for, over all limit, which was executed by the Guarantor Charan Dass Chhabra on 31.3.2005, as Ex. PW21/K. He has identified the signatures of accused S.K. Chawla, at pt. A, on Ex.PW21/K.

150. PW21 has further proved the proposal for cash credit limit against book debts of Rs.75 lakhs and bank guarantee limit of Rs.40 lakhs in favour of M/s Standard Logistics Pvt. Ltd., as Ex PW21/L, bearing signatures of accused S.K. Chawla, at point A, which have been duly identified by him.

151. PW21 has further proved the letter, written by accused S.K. Chawla, regarding advance proposal of M/s Standard Logistics Pvt. Ltd., as Ex. PW 21/M, bearing signature of accused S.K. Chawla, at point A, which have been duly identified by PW21.

152. The original valuation report, in respect of the property No. Khasra No. 1117 and Khasra No. 1118 village CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. 71 of 135 pages 72 CBI case . No.12/11 Pasaunda, Loni Ghaziabad, has been proved by PW21 as Ex. PW 21/N.

153. PW21 has further proved the memorandum of approval and sanction by ZOCC of SBBJ, Region I, Delhi, as Ex. PW 21/O, which bears the signatures of Shri J. L. Jain, the then Chief Manager, RegionI, Zonal Office, New Delhi at point A, which have been duly identified by PW21.

154. PW21 has further proved the supplementary agreement of loan for increase in the over all limit, dated 15.10.2005, which was executed between the Standard Logistics Pvt. Ltd. and SBBJ, Nangal Rai Branch, as Ex. PW21/P. He has identified the signatures of accused S.K. Chawla, at point A and that of accused Sushil Verma at point B, on the same.

155. Similarly, PW21 has proved the supplementary agreement of Hypothecation for goods and assets for increase in the over all limit, dated 15.10.2005, as Ex. PW21/Q. He has also identified the signatures of accused S.K. Chawla, at point A and that of accused Sushil Verma at point B, on the same.

CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. 72 of 135 pages 73 CBI case . No.12/11

156. In the same manner, supplementary deed of Guarantee for increase in overall limit, dated 15.10.2005, which was executed by accused Sushil Verma and Ms. Amrita Verma, has been proved by PW21 as Ex. PW 21/R, which bears the signatures of accused Sushil Verma at point A, which have been duly identified by PW21.

157. PW21 has further proved the letter regarding grant of individual limits within the over all limit, dated 15.10.2005, as Ex.PW21/S. The said letter bears signatures of accused S.K.Chawla, at point A and that of accused Sushil Verma at point B, which have been duly identified by PW21.

158. PW21 has further proved the agreement of Hypothecation for goods and assets, dated 31.3.2005, as Ex. PW 21/T, which bears signatures of accused S.K. Chawla, at point A and that of accused Sushil Verma at point B, which have been duly identified by PW21.

159. PW21 has further proved the Deed of Guarantee for over limits, dated 15.10.2005, which was executed by the guarantor, Charan Dass, as Ex. PW 21/U. CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. 73 of 135 pages 74 CBI case . No.12/11

160. PW21 has further proved the opinion report of accused Sushil Verma, dated 1.9.2005, which was prepared and signed by accused Sri Kant Chawla, as Ex.PW21/V. He has identified the signatures of said accused, at point A, on the said report, which includes an affidavit also, sworn by accused Sushil Verma. He has identified the signatures of accused Sushil Verma, at pt. B, on the said affidavit.

161. Similarly, PW21 has proved the Opinion report of Ms. Amrita Verma, dated 1.9.2005, which was prepared by accused S.K. Chawla at point A, as Ex. PW 21/W. He has identified the signatures of accused Sri Kant Chawla at pt. A, on the same.

162. Similarly, opinion Report of Shri Charan Dass, a builder, which was prepared by accused S.K. Chawla, has been proved by PW21 as Ex. PW21/X, bearing the signatures of accused S.K. Chawla, at point A, which have been duly identified by PW21.

163. The valuation Report, which was submitted by accused Jagpal Singh Chaney of the Cheney and Associates for the property Khasra No. 1117 and 1118, village Pasaunda, Loni Ghaziabad, has been proved by PW21 as Ex. PW 21/Y. CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. 74 of 135 pages 75 CBI case . No.12/11

164. PW21 has further proved the Certificate, which was given by Chaney & Associates on 06.09.2005 to the effect that the value shown in the valuation of above said property of Shri Charan Dass Chhabra based on distress value of Rs. 2,39,90,000/ as Ex.PW21/Z.

165. The letter, dated 12.12.2007, vide which some details/information was collected by the IO, has been proved by PW21 as Ex.PW21/Z1. He has duly identified his signatures at pt. A, on the same.

121.PW21 has further proved the letter, dated 14.02.2007, vide which, he handed over the documents, mentioned therein, as Ex.PW21/Z2, bearing his signatures, at point A on all pages, which have been duly identified by him.

122.PW21 has further proved the cheque of Rs.4,82,000/, which was handed over by him and which was credited in the account of M/s Standard Logistics (Mother Dairy), as Ex.PW21/Z3. He has identified the signatures of accused Sushil Verma at point A, on the same.

123.The returning memo, dated 27.2.2006, vide which the CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. 75 of 135 pages 76 CBI case . No.12/11 cheque purchased by the bank was returned "unpaid' by HDFC Bank with the reason "Funds Insufficient" has been proved by PW21 as Ex.PW21/Z4.

124.PW21 has further proved the cheque of Rs.4,75,000/, which was handed over by him as Ex.PW21/Z5. The said cheque bears the signatures of accused Sushil Verma at point A, which have been duly identified by PW21.

125.PW21 has further proved the returning memo, dated 27.2.2006, vide which the cheque, purchased by the bank, was returned "unpaid' by HDFC Bank with the reason "Funds Insufficient" as Ex. PW 21/Z6.

126.Similarly, cheque of Rs.4,80,000/, which was handed over by the PW21, has been proved as Ex.PW21/Z7. PW21 has identified the signatures of accused Sushil Verma at point A, on the same.

127.PW21 has further proved the returning memo, dated 27.2.2006, vide which the cheque, purchased by the bank, was returned "unpaid' by HDFC Bank with the reason "Funds Insufficient" as Ex.PW21/Z8.

CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. 76 of 135 pages 77 CBI case . No.12/11

128.PW21 has further proved the cheque of Rs.4,90,000/, which was handed over by him and which was credited in the account of M/s Standard Logistics Pvt. Ltd. & drawn by M/s Standard Logistics Pvt. Ltd., as Ex.PW21/Z9, bearing the signatures of accused Sushil Verma, which have been duly identified by PW21.

129.Similarly, returning memo, dated 27.2.2006, vide which the cheque, purchased by the bank, was returned "unpaid' by HDFC Bank with the reason "Funds Insufficient" has been proved by PW21 as Ex.PW 21/Z10.

130.Similarly, the cheque of Rs.4,90,000/, which was credited in the account of M/s Standard Logistics Pvt. Ltd. and drawn by M/s Standard Logistics Pvt. Ltd, was handed over by PW21, which has been proved as Ex.PW21/Z11. He has identified the signatures of accused accused Sushil Verma, on the said cheque.

131.PW21 has further proved the returning memo, dated 15.2.2006, vide which the cheque, purchased by the bank, was returned "unpaid" by HDFC Bank with the reason "Insufficient Funds" as Ex. PW 21/Z12.

CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. 77 of 135 pages 78 CBI case . No.12/11

132.PW21 has further proved the cheque of Rs.4,90,000/, which was credited in the account of M/s Standard Logistics Pvt. Ltd. (Mother Dairy) and drawn by M/s Standard Logistics Pvt. Ltd., as Ex.PW21/Z13. The said cheque was handed over by PW21 to CBI, which bears the signatures of accused Sushil Verma, which have been duly identified by PW21.

133.Similarly, PW21 has proved the returning memo, dated 22.2.2006, vide which the cheque, purchased by the bank, was returned "unpaid" by HDFC Bank with the reason "Insufficient Funds", as Ex. PW 21/Z14.

134.Similarly, PW21 has proved the cheque of Rs.4,85,000/, which was credited in the account of M/s Standard Logistics Pvt. Ltd. & drawn by M/s Standard Logistics Pvt. Ltd., as Ex.PW21/Z15. He has deposed that he had handed over the said cheque to the CBI, which bears the signatures of accused Sushil Verma, which have been duly identified by him.

135.Similarly, PW21 has proved the returning memo dated 28.2.2006, vide which the cheque, purchased by the bank, CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. 78 of 135 pages 79 CBI case . No.12/11 was returned "unpaid" by HDFC Bank with the reason "Insufficient Funds", as Ex. PW 21/Z16.

136.PW21 has proved the cheque of Rs.4,90,000/, which was credited in the account of M/s Standard Logistics Pvt. Ltd. (Mother Dairy) and drawn by M/s Standard Logistics Pvt. Ltd., as Ex.PW21/Z17, which was handed over by him. He has duly identified the signatures of accused Sushil Verma, on the same.

137.Similarly, the returning memo, dated 03.3.2006, vide which the cheque, purchased by the bank, was returned "unpaid" by HDFC Bank with the reason "Insufficient Funds", has been proved PW21 as Ex. PW 21/Z18.

138.PW21 has further proved the certificate, vide which he had handed over the statement of account from 1.1.2005 to 10.8.2005 to the IO of the case, as Ex. PW 21/Z19. He has identified his signatures at point A, on the same.

139. PW21 has further proved the Chapter XI pertaining to Advances (General Instructions) starting from Chapter XI17/644 para 55 (2) (b) to XI19/646 upto para 58 A, as Ex. PW 21/Z20 (copy).

CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. 79 of 135 pages 80 CBI case . No.12/11

140. Similarly, PW21 has proved the Chapter XII4 (page 704 para 15 to page 706 para 20) of the Banker's Book, copy of which is Ex. PW21/Z21.

141.PW21 has further proved the Circular No. Reorg/6/ 9697, dated 19.9.1996, with the heading of Scheme of Delegation of Powers, which was contained in the Book of Circulars of the branch, copy of which is Ex. PW 21/Z22.

142.Similarly, PW21 has proved the Circular No.: C & I/14/200304, dated 24.9.2003, duly certified by the Bank Manager, Nangal Raya Branch, copy of which is Ex. PW 21/Z23.

143.Similarly, PW21 has proved the Circular No.:

P/30/200203, dated 5.12.2002, duly certified by the Bank Manager, Nangal Raya Branch, copy of which is Ex. PW 21/Z24.

144.The Circular No.: P/44/200304, dated 29.03.2004, duly certified by the Bank Manager, Nangal Raya Branch, has been proved as Ex. PW 21/Z25 (copy).

CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. 80 of 135 pages 81 CBI case . No.12/11

145.PW21 has proved the Circular, duly certified by the Bank Manager, Nangal Raya Branch, copy of which is Ex. PW 21/Z26.

146.PW21 has further proved the relevant pages of Demand Purchase Register, starting from 2.4.2004 and second Demand Purchase Register, starting from 14.9.2005 till April, 2006, as Ex. PW 21/Z27 (collectively).

147.The certified copy of the relevant pages of Title Deed Register for the period 1.3.2004 of the Nangal Raya Branch of SBBJ Bank has been proved by PW21 as Ex. PW21/ZA1.

148.PW21 has reiterated, certificates Ex.PW12/A3 to Ex.PW12/A5.

149.PW22, Sh. Rakesh Kumar Arora was posted as Chief Manager (Advances) in Delhi Zonal Office, RegionI, from 31.12.01 to 31.04.2005. He has proved the file, bearing MR no. 4606/07 (D25 to D37), which was maintained in the Zonal Office of Region1, New Delhi, pertaining to Standard Logistics Pvt. Ltd, as Ex.PW22/A. CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. 81 of 135 pages 82 CBI case . No.12/11

150.PW22 has reiterated proposal for cash credit, Ex.PW21/L and has identified the signatures of accused S.K. Chawla, the then Chief Manager, Nangal Raya Branch, New Delhi, at pt. A, on the same.

151.PW22 has further deposed that after receipt of the aforesaid proposal, it was processed, vide note, dated 09.03.2005, which has been proved as Ex.PW22/B1. He has identified his signatures at pt. A, on the said note, at page no. 144(D27). He has deposed that vide the said note, he had recommended for according sanction for the proposal received from Nangal Raya Branch.

152.PW22 has further deposed that the aforesaid proposal was submitted to the then AGM, Shri N. M. Jain, who made note, which has been proved as Ex.PW 22/B2. He has duly identified the handwriting & signatures of said Sh. N.M. Jain, at encircled portion 'X1' and at point B.

153.PW22 has further deposed that before putting his note, Ex.PW22/B1, he had sent a letter, dated 15.03.2005 to the then Chief Manager, Nangal Raya Branch, seeking certain information, regarding the proposal. He has identified his initials as pt. A, on the copy of said letter, which is CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. 82 of 135 pages 83 CBI case . No.12/11 Ex.PW22/B3. He has reiterated, reply received from the branch, Ex.PW21/M (D26), the information of which was incorporated by him in his note, Ex.PW22/B1.

154.PW22 has further proved the reply, dated 23.3.2005, contained at page 170 of the file, Ex.PW22/A as Ex. PW 22/B4. He has identified the signatures of accused S.K. Chawla, at point A on the same, which have been duly identified by him.

166. PW22 has further deposed that after receiving reply from the branch on the observations of the then DGM, a note, was put up to the then AGM, which has been proved as Ex.PW22/B5. He has identified his initials at point D on the same, which was endorsed by the then AGM, Shri N.M. Jain, vide his signatures at point E, which have also been duly identified by PW22.

167. PW22 has further deposed that the sanction was accorded by the DGM on 30.03.05, which was communicated to the branch, vide his letter, dated 30.03.2005, with the special conditions to be observed, which are mentioned at encircled portion "X4", copy of which is Ex.PW22/B6. He has identified his initials, at pt. A, on the same. CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. 83 of 135 pages 84 CBI case . No.12/11

168. PW22 has further deposed that sanction of credit facilities by the then DGM, was submitted to the General Manager (Operations) at Head Office, Jaipur, vide note, under the signatures of K. L. Kalra. The said note has been proved as Ex.PW22/B7, bearing the signatures of said Sh. K.L. Kalra, at point A, which have been duly identified by PW22.

169. PW23, Sh. Nathmal Jain, was posted as AGM in Zonal Office, RegionI, Delhi, from April 2002 to May, 2005.

170. PW23 has reiterated, proposal of sanction of CC Limit of Rs. 75 Lakhs and bank guarantee of Rs. 40 Lakh to M/s Standard Logistics Pvt. Ltd, Ex.PW22/B1. He has identified his signatures on his note, vide which he had forwarded his observations to the then DGM on 19.03.05, at pt. B.

171. PW23 has further reiterated, note, Ex.PW22/B5 and visit register, Ex.PW12/A (D12). He has further proved the note, contained at page no. 27 of the said visit register, copy of which is Ex.PW23/A, bearing his signatures at pt. A, which been duly identified by him. Similarly, he has CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. 84 of 135 pages 85 CBI case . No.12/11 proved note, contained at page no. 28 as Ex.PW23/B (copy).

172. PW24, Sh. A.K. Garg had joined Nangal Raya Branch on 05.07.05 and remained there till 30.04.07 as Deputy Manager.

173. PW24 has reiterated the applicationcum interview form for mortgage under trade and services, Ex.PW1/A and has identified the signatures of accused S.K. Chawla, at pt. A and that of accused Sushil Verma at pt. B1.

174. PW24 has proved the Balance Sheet, dated 31.3.2004, as Ex. PW24/A1, which bears the signatures of accused Sushil Verma, Director of M/s Standard Logistics Pvt. Ltd., at point A, which have been duly identified by him.

175. PW24 has further proved the opinion report, which was prepared by accused S.K. Chawla, as Ex. PW24/A2, bearing his handwriting & signature at point A1 and A2, which have been duly identified by him.

176. PW24 has further identified the signatures of accused Sushil Verma on each page from 101 to 111 of the file CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. 85 of 135 pages 86 CBI case . No.12/11 Ex.PW22/A, which have been collectively proved as Ex. PW24/A3.

177. PW24 has reiterated documents, Ex.PW21/F and Ex.PW21/G and has identified the signatures of accused Sushil Verma, at points B1 & B2 and at point B, respectively.

178. PW24 has also identified signatures of accused Sushil Verma, at points A1 to A3 on the proforma sanction letter, which has been proved as Ex.PW24/A4.

179. PW24 has reiterated sanction letter, Ex.PW21/C and has identified signatures of accused Sushil Verma at pt. B on the same.

180. PW24 has also identified signatures of accused Sushil Verma, at points A1 & A2 on the extract of resolution, passed during the meeting of board of directors of the company, which was held on 28.03.2005, which has been proved as Ex.PW24/A5.

181. PW24 has reiterated Ex.PW21/P and has identified CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. 86 of 135 pages 87 CBI case . No.12/11 signatures of accused Sushil Verma at points A1 to A16 on the same. Similarly, he has reiterated, Ex.PW21/Q(D39), which bears the signatures of accused Sushil Verma at points A1 to A17, which have been duly identified by him.

182. PW24 has also identified signatures of accused Sushil Verma, at points A1 to A2 on the registered letter (D18), which has been proved as Ex.PW24/A6. Similarly, PW24 has proved the annexure 10, which was submitted by the accused Sushil Verma in the bank, as Ex.PW24/A7, bearing the signatures of accused Sushil Verma, at points A1 to A2, which have been duly identified by him. He has also identified the handwriting of accused S.K. Chawla on Ex.PW24/A6 & Ex.PW24/A7.

183. PW24 has reiterated documents, Ex.PW21/U (D40) and Ex.PW21/I. He has identified handwriting and signatures of accused S.K. Chawla, at encircled portions X1 & X2 on Ex.PW21/U and signatures of accused Sushil Verma at points A1 to A27 on Ex.PW21/I.

184. PW24 has further proved the stamp papers, annexed with CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. 87 of 135 pages 88 CBI case . No.12/11 Ex.PW21/I as Ex.PW24/A8, bearing the handwriting of accused S.K. Chawla, at encircled portion 'X3' & signatures of accused Sushil Verma at point A1, which have been duly identified by PW24.

185. Similarly, PW24 has identified the handwriting of accused S.K. Chawla at encircled portion 'X4' on stamp paper of Rs.100 and signatures of accused Sushil Verma, at point A, which has been proved as Ex.PW24/A9.

186. In the same manner, deed of guarantee for overall limit, dated 31.03.2005 (D22), has been proved by PW24 as Ex.PW24/A10, bearing the signatures of accused Sushil Verma at points A1 & A2, on each page, which have been duly identified by him.

187. PW24 has further proved the Stamp Paper, annexed with Deed Ex.PW24/A10, as Ex. PW 24/A11, which bears a note at encircled portion X5 in the handwriting of accused S.K. Chawla and signatures of accused Sushil Verma at point A, which have been duly identified by PW

24. CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. 88 of 135 pages 89 CBI case . No.12/11

188. Similarly, the Stamp Paper, which has been proved by PW24 as Ex. PW 24/A12, bears handwriting of accused Sri Kant Chawla, at portion X6, and the signatures of accused Sushil Verma, which have been duly identified by PW24.

189. PW24 has further deposed that annexure of Ex.PW21/X, which is an opinion report in respect of guarantor, Charan Das, contains different columns, which bears the handwriting of accused S.K. Chawla, which has been duly identified by him. The said annexure has been proved as Ex.PW24/A13.

190. PW24 has further proved the stamp paper annexed with Ex.PW21/K, as Ex.PW24/A14, which bears the handwriting of accused S.K. Chawla, at encircled portion X8 & X9, which has been duly identified by PW24.

191. PW24 has further proved the letter, dated 3.5.2008 (D74), as Ex. PW24/A15, which bears the signatures of Shri S.K. Goel, the then AGM1, Delhi Zonal Office, at point A, which have been duly identified by PW 24.

192. PW24 has also identified the signatures of the then AGMI, CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. 89 of 135 pages 90 CBI case . No.12/11 at point A, on the letter, dated 08.12.2007 (D64), which has been proved as Ex.PW24/A16.

193. PW24 has proved the application for advances against FDRs of M/s Standard Logistics Pvt Ltd. as Ex. PW 24/A17, which bears the signatures of accused Sushil Verma at point A, that of Shri Yograj Bhatia, the then Manager (P) at point B, and that of accused S.K. Chawla, at point C with the word "noted" in his handwriting, which have been duly identified by PW24.

194. PW24 has reiterated cheques no. 260302, dated 31.01.06, Ex.PW21/Z5 and cheque no. 899833, dated 08.02.06, Ex.PW21/Z15. He has identified his signatures at pt. A, on back of both the said cheques, which have been returned unpaid with remarks "insufficient fund in the account".

195. PW24 has reiterated Ex.PW12/A5. He has identified signatures of Sh. Raman Chaudhary, the then Chief Manager of Nangal Raya Branch, at pt. A, and that of Sh. G.L. Kanwar, the then System Administrator at pt. B, which have been duly identified by him.

196. PW24 has further proved the computer generated CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. 90 of 135 pages 91 CBI case . No.12/11 statement of account No.51025401325, in respect of Standard Logistics Pvt. Ltd. (Mother Dairy Division) for the period from 11.8.2005 to 12.7.2006, as Ex. PW24/A18, which bears his initials along with seal/stamp of the branch, which have been duly identified by him.

197. Similarly, PW24 has proved the computer generated statement of account of CC A/c No.0160005212800 of Standard Logistics Pvt. Ltd. for the period from 31.3.2005 to 19.7.2005, as Ex.PW24/A19, which bears his initials & seal/stamp of branch at point A, which have been duly identified by him.

198. Similarly, PW24 has proved the statement of account of CC A/c No.0160005212800 of Standard Logistics Pvt. Ltd. for the period from 20.7.2005 to 10.8.2005, as Ex. PW24/A20, which bears his initials & seal/stamp of branch at point A, on all the four pages, which have been duly identified by him.

199. PW24 has further proved the computer generated statement of account of CC A/c No.51025483558 of Standard Logistics Pvt. Ltd. for the period from 11.8.2005 CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. 91 of 135 pages 92 CBI case . No.12/11 to 30.9.2005 as Ex. PW24/A21, which bears his initials & seal/stamp of branch at point A, which have been duly identified by him.

200. PW24 has further proved the statement of account of A/c No.51025483558 of Standard Logistics Pvt. Ltd. for the period from 1.10.2005 to 12.7.2006, as Ex. PW24/A22, which bears his initials & seal/stamp of branch at point A, which have been duly identified by him.

201. PW24 has reiterated document, Ex.PW21/Z19 on which he has identified the signatures of Sh. Raman Chaudhary, the then Chief Manager of Nangal Raya Branch, at pt. A and that of Sh. G.L. Kanwar, the then System Administrator, at pt. B.

202. PW24 has further proved the computer generated statement of account of CC A/c No. 01000052213 of Standard Logistics Pvt. Ltd. (MD) for the period from 14.6.2005 to 10.8.2005, as Ex.PW24/A23, which bears his initials & seal/stamp of branch at point A, which have been duly identified by him.

203. PW24 has further deposed that he had handed over CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. 92 of 135 pages 93 CBI case . No.12/11 statements of different bank account of M/s Standard Logistics Pvt. Ltd and other firms to the CBI through letter, copy of which is Mark PW24/X. He has identified the signatures of Sh. Raman Chaudhary and that of Sh. G.L. Kanwar on the said letter as he had worked with them and had seen them signing the papers.

204. PW25, Sh. BM Pandit was posted as Inspector in CBI Branch, EOWI, New Delhi.

205. PW25 has proved the FIR, which was entrusted to him for investigation on 30.11.06. He has identified the signatures of the then SP, Sh. D.K. Chaudhary on all the pages of said FIR, copy of which is Ex.PW25/A1.

206. PW25 has proved the copy, received from the State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, which was marked to him by the then SP, which is Ex.PW25/A2, bearing the signatures and writing of Shri D. K. Chaudhary, the then SP, at encircled portion X, which have been duly identified by him.

207. PW25 has further proved the search list (D48), as Ex.PW25/A3, bearing the signatures of Inspector, CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. 93 of 135 pages 94 CBI case . No.12/11 Satender Singh at point A, who conducted the search at the residence of accused Sushil Verma, which have been duly identified by him.

208. PW25 has further deposed that he had collected documents from Sh. Vijay Kumar Gupta, the then Deputy Manager, State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Nangal Raya Branch, New Delhi, vide seizure memo, Ex. PW25/A4, which bears signatures of said Sh. Vijay Kumar Gupta, at pt. A and his own signatures at pt. B, which have been duly identified by him.

209. PW25 has further deposed that he had also collected documents from Shri G. L. Kanwar, the then Assistant Manager, SBBJ, Nangal Raya Branch, New Delhi, vide seizure memo, Ex.PW25/A5, which bears signatures of said Sh. G.L. Kanwar, at point A and his own signatures at point B, which have been duly identified by him.

210. PW25 has further proved the seizure memo, dated 10.12.2007, vide which documents were collected by him from Shri G. L. Kanwar, the then Assistant Manager, SBBJ, Nangal Raya Branch, New Delhi, as Ex. PW25/A6, which CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. 94 of 135 pages 95 CBI case . No.12/11 bears signatures of said Sh. Vijay Kanwar at point A and his own signatures at point B, which have been duly identified by him.

211. PW25 has reiterated memos, Ex.PW4/A7, Ex.PW5/A & Ex.PW10/A, which bear his signatures at A, which have been duly identified by him.

212. PW25 has further proved the letter, dated 5.2.2008, which was received from the then Assistant General Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Connaught Circle, New Delhi, vide which, cheque No. 470197 was sent to CBI, as Ex. PW 25/A7.

213. PW25 has further deposed that vide letter dated, 07.02.2008 (D53), he had received cheque Nos. 529825 and 529826 from the then Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. The said letter has been proved as Ex.PW25/A8.

214. PW25 has further proved the memorandum, dated 07.12.2007, which was prepared by him, in respect of search of property at Khasra No. 1117 and 1118, village CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. 95 of 135 pages 96 CBI case . No.12/11 Pasaunda, Loni Ghaziabad, as Ex.PW25/A9, which bears his signatures, at point A, that of accused J. S. Chaney at point B, that of accused Sushil Verma at point C, that of independent witnessInder Singh Chaudhary at point D, that of K. P. Singh at point E and that of K. L. Sharma, Patwari at point F, which have been duly identified by him.

215. PW25 has further deposed that he had obtained specimen signatures Mark S1 & S2 and specimen writing Mark S3 to S9(D121) of accused Sushil Verma, on 12.12.2007, in the presence of an independent witnessAnil Kumar, which bears his signatures at point A, on each exhibit and his own signatures at pt. B, which have been duly identified by him. The said specimen writing and signatures of said accused have been proved as Ex. PW25/A10 to Ex. PW 25/A18.

216. PW25 has further deposed that vide seizure memo, dated 15.11.2007, he had collected documents from Shri M. L. Aggarwal, the then Dy. Manager, SBBJ, Regional Office, New Delhi, as Ex.PW25/A19, which bears signatures of said Sh. ML Aggarwal, at point A, and his own signatures at pt. B, which have been duly identified by him. CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. 96 of 135 pages 97 CBI case . No.12/11

217. PW25 has reiterated letter, Ex.PW8/A and memo, Ex.PW10/A. He has also identified his signatures at pt. B and that of Sh. Vikas Chaturvedi, the then Manager, HDFC Bank Ltd, Jaipur, at pt. A, on the said letter.

218. PW25 has further deposed that he had collected the Khatoni from the office of the Tehsildar, Ghaziabad, in respect of the property, situated at Khasra No. 1117 and 1118, which has been proved as Ex. PW 25/A20. He has further deposed that he had also collected sale deed of the aforesaid property from the office of Sub Registrar, Sadar, Meerut, copy of which is Ex.PW25/A21.

219. PW25 has further deposed that he had also sent the questioned documents to the GEQD, Chandigarh, vide letter, dated 29.12.2007, which has been proved as Ex.PW25/A22. He has duly identified the signatures of Sh. A.K. Malhotra, at pt. A on the same.

220. PW25 has further deposed that he had also sent additional questioned documents to the GEQD, Chandigarh, under the signatures of Shri S. K. Kashyap, the then SP, CBI, CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. 97 of 135 pages 98 CBI case . No.12/11 EOWII, New Delhi, vide letter, dated 3.3.2008, which has been proved as Ex.PW25/A23.

221. PW25 has further deposed that during the course of investigation, he had received documents from the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, vide letter, dated 22.2.2007, copy of which is Ex. PW 25/A24. The documents running into 11 pages, which were received, vide the aforesaid letter, have been proved as Ex. PW 25/A25 (collectively).

222. PW25 has further deposed that during the course of investigation, he had also received the opinion from GEQD, Chandigarh, copy of which is Ex. PW25/A26.

223. PW25 has reiterated, register & seizure memo, Ex.PW21/A & Ex.PW21/B. He has duly identified his signatures at pt. B, on Ex.PW21/B.

224. PW25 has further deposed that he had also seized original cheque refer Register, copy of which is Ex. PW 25/A27.

225. PW25 has reiterated, memo, Ex.PW1/A7 and documents seized vide the said memo, Ex.PW4/A. He has further CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. 98 of 135 pages 99 CBI case . No.12/11 reiterated, letter Ex.PW21/Z.

226. PW25 could not identify signatures at pt. A, on list (D123), which is Ex.PW25/A28.

227. PW25 has further reiterated documents received through letter, Ex.PW24/A15(D74), Mark PW24/X (D67), Ex.PW5/A1(D77),Ex.PW21/E(D16),Ex.PW21/Z2 (D60) and Ex.PW24/A16(D64).

228. PW25 has further reiterated seizure memo, Ex.PW5/A on which he has identified his own signatures at pt. B and that of Mr. Raj Pal Singh, the then Cash Officer, SBI, Mother Dairy Branch, at pt. A, which have been duly identified by him.

229. PW26, Sh. Ashok Chabra was an independent witness, who was nephew of Sh. Charan Das Chhabra. He has deposed that Sh. Charan Das Chabra had purchased some land in Khasra No. 1117 and 1118 at Village Pasaunda, Loni, Ghaziabad, UP.

230. PW26 has reiterated documents, Ex.PW21/K (D40) and CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. 99 of 135 pages 100 CBI case . No.12/11 Ex.PW21/U(D23). He could not identify signatures at pt. A on document (D28), which is Mark PW26/A. He has further deposed that aforesaid documents, do not contain signatures of his uncle, Sh. Charan Das Chabra.

231. PW27, Sh. Devidatta Lal was posted as Officer in Canara Bank, Circle Office, New Delhi, during the year 2007.

232. PW27 has deposed that on 27.04.07, search was conducted and some documents were seized, which are Ex.PW27/A1 & Ex.PW27/A2. He has identified his initials at pt. A on the same. He has further reiterated memo, Ex.PW25/A3, on which he has identified his signatures at pt. B.

233. PW28, Sh. Anil Kumar was working as Officer in Oriental Bank of Commerce, E Block, Head Office. He has reiterated document, Ex.PW25/A10 and has identified his signatures at pt. A on each page of the said document.

234. PW29, Sh. Inder Singh Chaudhary was another independent witness, who had accompanied the IO, Sh. BM Pandit to Shalimar Garden. He reiterated memo, Ex.PW25/A9 and has identified his signatures at pt. D. He, CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. 100 of 135 pages 101 CBI case . No.12/11 however, has turned hostile to the version of the prosecution.

235. PW30, Sh. T. Joshi was an expert from Forensic Science Laboratory. He has reiterated letters, Ex.PW25/A22 & Ex.PW25/A23, vide which documents were received in their laboratory for examination and expert opinion. He has further reiterated opinion, Ex.PW25/A26. He has identified his signatures at pt. B on the same.

236. PW30 has proved the reasons for his opinion, which have been mentioned in Ex.PW30/A. He has identified his signatures at pt. A on the same, which have been duly identified by him.

237. PW31, Sh. Jai Mohan, Advocate was on the panel of the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Nangal Raya Branch. He has reiterated his legal opinion report, Ex.PW25/A25 along with its annexures. He has proved his legal report, dated 01.06.06, which is running into two pages and bill, submitted by him, as Ex.PW31/A & Ex.PW31/B, respectively.

CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. 101 of 135 pages 102 CBI case . No.12/11

238. The prosecution evidence discussed herein above has, thus, established the case of the prosecution.

239. Now, I come to the evidence put forward by the defence witnesses.

240. DW1, Sh. Satish was acquaintance of accused J.S. Chaney. He has deposed that he had visited some place near Ghaziabad, with accused J.S. Chaney to inspect some plot around 2005, which was found vacant.

241. In cross examination, DW1 could not tell as to for what period, he had worked with the said accused. The testimony of this witness is vague. It does not help the defence, in any manner, whatsoever.

242. DW2, Sh. Devi Lal Meghwal was a formal witness, who had brought the summoned record i.e. copy of claim and counter claim filed in the case, titled as SBBJ vs. Standard Logistics Pvt. Ltd, bearing OA no. 08/07 and in the case titled as SBBJ vs. Standard Hospitality Services Ltd, bearing OA no. 49/2007, which are Mark DW2/A and Mark DW2/B(both are pending adjudication).

CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. 102 of 135 pages 103 CBI case . No.12/11

243. In cross examination, DW2 admitted that the proceedings in aforesaid cases are of civil nature and are recovery proceedings and same have not yet been decided. The testimony of DW2 does not have any bearing on merit of this case and in no manner controverts the prosecution's case.

244. The evidence led by the defence, in no manner, counter or contradict the evidence that has been established by the prosecution as against all the accused persons. The case of the prosecution stands fully established against the accused persons in terms of the charge framed against each one of them.

245. The striking and strong documentary and oral evidence proved on record by the prosecution fully contradicts the innocence of all the accused persons.

246. In this case, the allegation of the prosecution against the accused persons are that they entered into criminal conspiracy to cheat the bank, by using forged and fabricated documents and that they did cheat the bank on CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. 103 of 135 pages 104 CBI case . No.12/11 the strength of forged and fabricated documents.

247. It is well settled that criminal conspiracy can be proved by the prosecution by leading the circumstantial evidence. The following case law illustrates this fully:

248. 'Conspiracies are not hatched in the open. The offence of conspiracy can always be proved by circumstantial evidence also' {2011(4) RCR (Criminal) P 84 SC}.

249. It may not be possible to prove the agreement between the conspirators by direct proof but the meeting of minds of the conspirators can very well be inferred from the circumstances proved by the prosecution. {State of Punjab vs. Jurnail Singh, 2011(3) RCR (Criminal) 244 (Punjab & Haryana) (DB)}.

250. 'Act or action of one of the accused can be used against the other accused in case of conspiracy by virtue of section 10 of the Evidence Act' {Mohan Singh vs. State of Bihar 2011(4) RCR(Criminal) 84 SC}.

251. In the case law reported as Firozuddin Basheeruddin CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. 104 of 135 pages 105 CBI case . No.12/11 (2001) 7 SCC 596, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that :

"All conspirators are liable for crimes committed in furtherance of the conspiracy by any member of the group, regardless of whether liability would be established by the law of complicity. The law punishes conduct that threatens to produce the harm, as well as conduct that has actually produced it. Conspirators may be tried and punished for both the conspiracy and the completed crime".

252. In the case law reported as Hashim (K) 2005 Cri LJ 143 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that "for an offence punishable under section 120B, the prosecution need not necessarily prove that the perpetrators expressly agree do to or cause to be done illegal act; the agreement may be proved by necessary implication".

253. In the case law reported as (2001) 4 Crimes 247 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that "to prove conspiracy, it is not necessary that there should be direct communication between each conspirer and every other but the criminal design alleged must be common to all".

254. It has been held in the case law reported as Firozuddin Basheeruddin (2001) 7 SCC 596 that "the rationale of CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. 105 of 135 pages 106 CBI case . No.12/11 conspiracy is that the required objective manifestation of disposition to criminality is provided by the act of agreement. Conspiracy is a clandestine activity. Persons generally do not form illegal covenants openly. In the interest of security, a person may carry out his part of a conspiracy without even being informed of the identity of his coconspirators. An agreement of this kind can rarely be shown by direct proof, it must be inferred from circumstantial evidence of what lies in their minds".

255. It was further observed in the aforesaid judgment that "Regarding admissibility of evidence, loosened standards prevail in a conspiracy trial. Contrary to the usual rule, in conspiracy prosecutions, any declaration by one conspirator, made in furtherance of a conspiracy and during its pendency, is admissible against each coconspirator. Despite the unreliability of hearsay evidence, it is admissible in conspiracy prosecutions. Thus conspirators are liable on agency theory for statements of coconspirators, just as they are for the overt acts and crimes committed by their confrers".

256. Against each of the accused persons overwhelming evidence has appeared on record and there is no manner of doubt that they have committed the alleged offences. At CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. 106 of 135 pages 107 CBI case . No.12/11 the cost of repetition, the striking evidence proved against each one of them is being reproduced hereunder.

257. Evidence against accused Sri Kant Chawla (A1)

(i) Accused Sri Kant Chawla(A1) (a public servant), abused and misused his power and position, being the Chief Manager of the bank, in question, at the relevant time.

(ii) Admittedly, accused Sri Kant Chawla was the Chief Manager of the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Nangal Raya Branch, New Delhi, during the period from 03.03.2004 to 24.02.2006, when on application of accused Sushil Verma (A2), cash credit limit of Rs.15 Lakhs was dishonestly sanctioned by him to M/s Standard Logistics Private Limited, on 09.09.04, vide Ex.PW21/G. Admittedly, the same was subsequently, enhanced to Rs.30 Lakhs Cash Credit (Hypothecation) and to Rs.15 Lakhs BG (Bank Guarantee), on 27.12.04, on the application of accused (A2). In both these credit facilities, property at C206, Sector63, Noida, UP was admittedly offered and was taken as collateral security by creating 'equitable mortgage' of the same.

CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. 107 of 135 pages 108 CBI case . No.12/11

(iii) It has been proved on record that on 19.02.05, M/s Standard Logistics Private Limited through accused (A2) made an application for advances, without specifying any amount in the application and offered substitute property (as collateral security, which in fact was non existent) of Khasra no. 1117 & 1118 in Village Pasaunda, Loni, Ghaziabad, UP, indicating the same to be worth Rs.163 Lakhs. That this proposal was processed by accused Sri Kant Chawla (A1) under 'Financing of Trade Services Sector Scheme', dated 16.04.98 and that accused (A1) recommended for CC(H) limit of Rs.75 Lakhs and BG limit of Rs.40 Lakhs and forwarded the same to the Zonal Office for sanction.

(iv) Admittedly, the Zonal Office asked him to ensure that the mortgaged property with the bank should not be an agricultural land and that the collateral security should be properly evaluated. That it should be of a family member of the borrower.

(v) That accused (A1) dishonestly and fraudulently submitted false compliance report, in respect of the CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. 108 of 135 pages 109 CBI case . No.12/11 aforesaid queries and value of the(non existing) land offered as 'collateral security' and had falsely certified it to be realistic, as per local enquiry made despite the fact that no such local enquiry was made by him.

(vi) The Zonal Office acting on the said report of accused Sri Kant Chawla, regarding collateral security, believing it to be true, sanctioned the limit of Rs. 75 Lakhs and Rs.40 Lakhs, as stated above, on 30.03.05 and then sanction letter, bearing signatures of accused (A1) was issued by accused (A1), which is Ex.PW21/C.

(vii) The documentation like signing of loan agreement, guarantee papers etc was obtained by accused Sri Kant Chawla, fraudulently. The opinion report, in respect of the alleged guarantor, Charan Das (who was impersonated) was prepared by accused (A1). The alleged guarantor was shown to have signed the guarantee deed and sanction order, in the said opinion report. The real Charan Das Chabra on the other hand has been proved to have died, in the year 1983, itself, by his nephew, who deposed as PW26 in court and there has not appeared anything to show as to why PW26 should not be relied upon. The testimony of CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. 109 of 135 pages 110 CBI case . No.12/11 PW26 is reliable and cannot be discarded, on any count.

(viii) Accused (A1) gave false opinion report, in respect of the guarantor Charan Das Chabra and dishonestly allowed or caused to be permitted someone else to impersonate as Charan Das Chabra and signed the guarantee deed and other documents. PW26 is the nephew of Late Charan Das Chabra, who had categorically deposed that the said Charan Das Chabra had died in the year 1983 and the land in khasra no. 1117 and 1118 in Villaga Pasaunda was sold out by him after plotting the land in the said Khasra numbers long back in or around the year 1960. He has further categorically deposed that the guarantee deed, Ex.PW21/K, Ex.PW21/U and Mark PW26/A did not contain the signatures of his uncle, Late Sh. Charan Das Chabra. He further stated that the sale deed, Ex.PW22/X1 also did not bear signatures of his uncle, Late Sh. Charan Das Chabra. All this indicate that the sale deed, submitted by accused (A2) and which was readily accepted by accused (A1), in pursuance to the criminal conspiracy amongst the accused persons, was a forged and fabricated document and that the signatures purported to have been made by Charan Das Chabra, were forged and fabricated CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. 110 of 135 pages 111 CBI case . No.12/11 by someone else, who had impersonated as Charan Das Chabra.

(ix) The record indicates that in utter violation of the instructions of the bank, accused Sri Kant Chawla (A1) deliberately and dishonestly omitted to obtain photographs of the guarantor, Charan Das Chabra and did not get it affixed on the guarantee deed even though this was the specific requirement prescribed by the bank in the relevant circular. The guarantee deed was, admittedly, signed by accused (A1) also and everything, therefore, was well within the knowledge and comprehension of accused Sri Kant Chawla (A1).

(x) Accused (A1) had intentionally with malafide intention accepted readily the false and fabricated valuation report, dated 12.03.2005, submitted by accused (A3), Jagpal Singh Chaney, in respect of alleged mortgage property, who falsely assessed the plot in village Pasaunda at Rs.1,79,92,800/ as a vacant residential plot despite the fact that no such vacant plot was available in the vicinity of the said locality, during the relevant period. CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. 111 of 135 pages 112 CBI case . No.12/11

(xi) Accused (A1) has falsely certified about physical verification of the said plot and as to the correctness of the valuation, as mentioned by him in the application cum appraisal form.

(xii) It has been established on record that the land in question of Village Pasaunda, was not a vacant residential plot as when team of CBI along with PWs KP Singh and KL Sharma along with an independent witness, Sh. Inder Singh Chaudhary, who has been examined as PW29, visited the spot on 07.12.2007 and that accused (A2) and (A3) failed to point out and identify the said plot and the area, which was identified by Patwari as land in Khasra no. 1117 & 1118 of Village Pasaunda. At the spot, it was found that there was no vacant land and the land in question, was fully constructed long back. All this has been clearly proved by PW29. Further, it is clear from the document, Ex.PW25/A9, duly proved by the prosecution on record.

(xiii) From the document, Ex.PW3/L, which is a partnership deed, dated 24.12.04, it is clear that son of accused (A1), Mr. Neeraj Chawla became partner of M/s Standard Logistics International with accused Sushil CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. 112 of 135 pages 113 CBI case . No.12/11 Verma and his daughter, Amrita Verma (both of whom were already directors of M/s Standard Logistics Private Limited).

(xiv) Agreement, Ex.PW3/K was executed on 23.07.05 between M/s Standard Logistics International and M/s Standard Logistics Private Limited with a view to arrange finances for partnership firm, in which the son of accused (A1) had become the partner and was interested.

(xv) It is clear that accused(A1), without obtaining any prior permission from his employer let his son joined as a partner in the firm, which was a sister concern of M/s Standard Logistics Private Limited and that accused (A1) had dishonest intention to benefit his son through benefiting the concerns of accused (A2) to whom he had fraudulently sanctioned the loan and thereafter, fraudulently, allowed huge overdraft withdrawal much beyond his discretion and power.

(xvi) From the record, it is clear that circular, Ex.PW21/Z22 was dishonestly violated by accused (A1), which is a clear abuse of his powers and over drawings of CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. 113 of 135 pages 114 CBI case . No.12/11 funds to a great extent was allowed by accused (A1) even beyond his discretionary powers. Accused (A1) did not even intimate to the higher authorities much less seek permission of the higher authorities in allowing accused (A2) to have heavily overdrawn the money much beyond the sanctioned limit. As a heavy overdraft, the outstanding of M/s Standard Logistics Private Limited went upto Rs. 99.87 Lakhs in August, 2005, which was much beyond the sanctioned limit of Rs.75 Lakhs. This is clearly visible from the statement of account, Ex.PW12/A3, Ex.PW24/A21, Ex.PW12/A4 & Ex.PW24/A19.

(xvii) It is evident from the material available on record that in pursuance to the criminal conspiracy, accused (A2) made a request for enhancement of CC(H) Limit from Rs.75 Lakhs to Rs.125 Lakhs, on the basis of collateral security of the same land in Village Pasaunda, which in fact was not existing and in respect of which fake documents were used, which were readily accepted by accused (A1) for oblique motive.

(xviii) Accused (A1) in pursuance to the criminal conspiracy induced the Zonal Office for sanction. That the CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. 114 of 135 pages 115 CBI case . No.12/11 then Chief Manager(Advances), Sh. J.L. Jain specifically directed accused (A1) to verify the property, personally, and also to verify the value of the land, in question. Accused (A1) dishonestly submitted a false and misleading report, dated 20.09.05 where he had mentioned that he had visited the said property and that the value of the said property as per valuation report was realistic, as per his enquiry without in fact making any enquiry. In this case, he had violated the circular, dated 29.08.05, which is Ex.PW22/Z26. Accused (A1), therefore, succeeded in obtaining sanction of the enhanced limit of Rs.120 Lakhs CC(H) and Rs.40 Lakhs BG to M/s Standard Logistics Private Limited fraudulently on the same non existing property evaluating it to a higher value and letter, Ex.PW21/C, dated 15.10.05 was issued dishonestly by accused (A1).

(xix) During the period from 06.04.05 to 24.02.06, accused (A1) while abusing his official position purchased 59 cheques from M/s Standard Logistics Private Limited, unauthorizedly and beyond his discretionary powers and without taking any prior permission from the higher authorities or even without intimating them. It is pertinent CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. 115 of 135 pages 116 CBI case . No.12/11 to mention that when these cheques were purchased by accused (A1), the party represented by accused (A2) had already exceeded the sanctioned limit existing at that time. Besides this, accused (A1) dishonestly allowed payment of 26 cheques in the account of M/s Standard Logistics International, in which his son, Neeraj Chawla was one of the partner. This was done without any justification and authority by accused (A1).

(xx) Accused (A1) by abusing his official position dishonestly allowed over drawing beyond his discretionary powers in the account of M/s Standard Logistics Private Limited (Mother Dairy Division) as accused Sushil Verma (A2) opened current account no. 01000052213 for M/s Standard Logistics Private Limited (Mother Dairy Division) on 14.06.05, in connivance with accused (A1) and got sanctioned over draft limit of Rs.11 Lakhs in the said account. Accused (A1) dishonestly omitted to verify the identity of the person, appearing as guarantor, in the bank, in this case.

(xxi) Accused (A1) in collusion with accused (A2) dishonestly and with intention to cheat the bank, got 59 CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. 116 of 135 pages 117 CBI case . No.12/11 cheques of M/s Standard Logistics Pvt. Ltd and 88 cheques of Standard Logistics Private Limited (Mother Dairy Division) purchased in the accounts of accused (A2), knowing fully well that the sanctioned credit limit of the concerned accounts were already over. The Head Office and higher officers were completely kept in dark by accused (A1), in this case. Accused (A1) has, therefore, abused his official position to give benefit to accused (A2) and indirectly to his own son, who became one of the partner in another sister concern with accused (A2) and others and had cheated the bank in question. (xxii) The acts of omission and commission on the part of accused (A1), in pursuance to the criminal conspiracy with other co accused persons (A2) & (A3), led the public bank suffer a huge loss of Rs.5,46,33,317.15 and corresponding gain to accused (A2).

(xxiii) It is available on record that accused (A1) allowed payment of 26 cheques of M/s Standard Logistics Private Limited in the account of M/s Standard Logistics International, in which his son was one of the partner, as an abuse of the official position of accused (A1). CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. 117 of 135 pages 118 CBI case . No.12/11 (xxiv) PW3, Sh. Vijender Gaur has proved the signatures of accused (A2) and son of accused (A1), Neeraj Chawla, on agreement, Ex.PW3/K. He has also proved the other signatures on the partnership deed, Ex.PW3/L. The very act of allowing huge overdraft beyond the sanctioned limit right from 19.05.05 when accused (A2) requested for advance under Financing of Trade and Service Sector Scheme shows the complicity of accused (A1) in the alleged crime.

(xxv) Ex.PW11/A6 is the letter, dated 13.10.05, which was written to Chief Manager i.e. accused (A1), by Assistant General Manager of the Bank in question, whereby he was asked to pay special attention to various points, including that accused (A1) was required to make an independent assessment of immovable property, so as to ensure that realizable value is realistic and not on the higher side. That the guarantor was to be a family member. Ex.PW21/X, which is opinion report of the guarantor, duly signed by accused no. 1 and dated 01.09.05, is false as it does not contain his full particulars. The address given is Central Market, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi, which is very CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. 118 of 135 pages 119 CBI case . No.12/11 vague. It does not give business address even the alleged fake guarantor has been described as builder. No telephone number is mentioned and it is not known where from accused no. 1, brought particulars of Insurance value, cash and jewellary, immovable assets etc, pertaining to this guarantor. Opinion report, Ex.PW21/X on the face of it, appears to have been dishonestly written by accused (A1).

(xxvi) Ex.PW21/N is the valuation report, given by accused (A3) (D44), which is bogus, on the face of it, as it does not contain the required particulars. Ex.PW21/Y is containing different dates. Ex.PW21/Z is the certificate, dated 06.09.05. Ex.PW25/A shows that no plot measuring 5 bighas and 19 biswas was available at the spot, in the year 20042005. According to letter, Ex.PW11/A6, dated 13.10.05, accused (A1) was required to ensure that the property mortgaged to the bank relates to the family members of the borrowers, in terms of Head Office's circular, dated 29.05.05 which has separately been proved as Ex.PW21/Z26, AnnexureI. This was totally flouted by accused (A1), while granting & sanctioning loan to the borrower, in this case.

CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. 119 of 135 pages 120 CBI case . No.12/11

258. It has been authoritatively held that:

' Manager of the Bank responsible for the sanction of a loan is much more responsible to sanction the loan and to see all documents complete and in order and that the same are valid. It is his responsibility to examine the complete record and then sanction the loan. If there is an allegation of grant of loan on the basis of forged/fabricated documents, it is not a case of mere negligence. It is a case of conspiracy.' {R.K. Tyagi vs. The ChairmancumManaging Director, 2011(7) RCR (Criminal) 2497 (Punjab & Haryana) relied upon}.

259. In 'Tara Chand Vyas vs. Chairman & Disciplinary Authority (1997) 4 SCC 565', the Hon'ble Apex Court observed 'The banking business and services were nationalized to achieve the objects of economic empowerment of weaker sections of the people as a part of social and economic justice. The nationalized banks, therefore, are the prime sources and pillars for establishment of socioeconomic justice for the weaker sections. The employees and officers working in the banks are not merely the trustees of the society, but also bear the responsibility and owe duty to the society for effectuation of socioeconomic empowerment. The CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. 120 of 135 pages 121 CBI case . No.12/11 banking business and services are vitally affected by catastrophic corruption. It is required to eradicate corruption to properly channelize the use of public funds, the live wire for effectuation of socio economic justice in order to achieve the constitutional goal set in the preamble to the constitution and to see that the corruption conduct of the officers do not degenerate the efficiency of service leading to denationalization of the banking system.'

260. In the case law reported as R. Venkata Krishnan vs. CBI, AIR 2000 SC 1812 it was held that that 'though it is true, that all the funds diverted were subsequently returned to NHB and no loss had thereby occasioned either to UCO Bank or the NHB but it must not be forgotten that white collar crimes of such a nature affect the whole society even though they may not have any victims. The conviction under section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was justified and was held'.

261. Evidence against accused Sushil Verma (A2)

(i) Admittedly, accused (A2) was Director of M/s Standard Logistics Private Limited since 16.12.2004. He opened current account in State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, Nangal Raya Branch, on 06.01.2005, vide account opening CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. 121 of 135 pages 122 CBI case . No.12/11 form, Ex.PW3/J. He entered into partnership with son of accused (A1), Mr. Neeraj Chawla. Admittedly, he applied for loan facilities from time to time and for its enhancement, under his own signatures, which have been proved on record.

(ii) Accused (A2), who presented the alleged guarantor, Sh. Charan Das Chabra and the forged and fabricated sale deed, Ex.PW26/X1.

(iii) PW26 has categorically deposed that Charan Das Chabra was his uncle, who died in the year 1983 and the land measuring 5 Bighas and 19 Biswas in Village Pasaunda was plotted, sold and constructed in the year 1960, itself. As per circular, dated 29.08.05, which has been proved on record as Ex.PW11/A, the collateral security of immovable property, which is to be offered to the bank, has to be by one of the family members of the borrower. The guarantor, Charan Das Chabra and his exact status was, therefore, within the special knowledge of accused (A2) but was concealed in collusion with other accused persons.

CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. 122 of 135 pages 123 CBI case . No.12/11

(iv) Accused (A2) has not been able to contradict PW26, in any of the material particulars like that PW26 was the nephew of late Charan Das Chabra or that he died in the year 1983. He could not show that the said Charan Das was alive when the guarantee in the present case was executed by him. It is clear that accused (A2) has neither produced Charan Das nor made any cogent evidence available to show that Charan Das Chabra was some genuine person other than referred to by PW26. The circumstances, on the other hand, clearly indicate that he produced some other person, who impersonated as Charan Das Chabra and accused (A2) along with others cheated the bank very clearly.

(v) PW26 has also denied the signatures of his uncle Charan Das Chabra on Ex.PW21/K, Ex.PW21/U and on Mark PW26/A. He has also denied the signatures of said Charan Das Chabra on Ex.PW26/X1.

(vi) PW26 was not challenged in cross examination by defence as to his deposition of plotting and selling of land in question, long back, in or around in the year 1960. That being so, at the relevant time, when the property in CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. 123 of 135 pages 124 CBI case . No.12/11 question was mortgaged, it did not exist.

(vii) Sh. K.L. Sharma, PW6, who was Patwari of Village Pasaunda, Loni, Ghaziabad, UP, from the year 20062008 has categorically deposed that the property in question, was in use for residential purpose, for the last 810 years and that there was no vacant plot measuring 5 Bighas and 19 Biswas in the said area. That the construction in the Khasras in question, were existing for the last 810 years. Accused (A1), (A2) and (A3) when were taken to the spot, could not identify the land in question, indicating thereby that they all jointly committed the alleged fraudulent act of presenting forged and fabricated reports and documents and a bogus guarantor, without ever having seen the property in question.

(viii) Accused (A2) knowing fully well that the limit sanctioned to him had already exhausted, still he dishonestly obtained heavy overdrafts in the accounts of M/s Standard Logistics Private Limited (Mother Dairy Division) and in another account in collusion with accused (A1). Accused (A2) had submitted request for enhancement of CC Limit up to Rs.125 Lakhs and BG Limit CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. 124 of 135 pages 125 CBI case . No.12/11 of Rs.45 Lakhs, on the basis of forged and fabricated documents like title deeds of the property offered for mortgage, false valuation report etc. In collusion with the valuer, in the second report, a sharp rise in the market value of the property was reflected. The overdraft amount by accused (A2), is clearly reflected in the statement of accounts, Ex.PW12/A4 & Ex.PW12/A3, respectively.

(ix) Accused (A2) also got purchased 59 cheques for M/s Standard Logistics Private Limited through accused (A1) in criminal conspiracy despite the fact that he had already crossed the sanctioned limit. All this was done to cheat the bank.

(x) Accused (A2) has dishonestly opened current account of M/s Standard Logistics Private Limited (Mother Dairy Division) on 14.06.2005 and obtained overdraft limit of Rs.11 Lakhs and that subsequently, he presented 88 cheques for purchase, which were purchased by accused (A1), in pursuance to the criminal conspiracy, beyond his discretionary powers and without taking prior permission from the competent authority, in utter violation of the bank circulars and instructions.

CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. 125 of 135 pages 126 CBI case . No.12/11

(xi) Accused (A2) has submitted forged sale deed, Ex.PW26/X1 and used the same to get the loan sanctioned from the bank, fraudulently. He fraudulently projected that the land in question, was a vacant residential plot, measuring 5 Bighas and 19 Biswas, knowing it fully well that no such vacant residential plot existed, at the relevant time. It has been proved by PW26, PW29, PW31 besides memo of inspection, which has been proved on record as Ex.PW25/A9, dated 07.12.2007, which was admittedly prepared on the spot by the IO, in the presence of independent witnesses.

(xii) Accused (A2), therefore, despite the fact that the prosecution witnesses have established in their evidence and there is sufficient documentary evidence on record that he furnished bogus guarantor, forged and fabricated sale deed and that the guarantor as per bank norms was to be a person from his family, neither produced the said Charan Das nor any cogent evidence, regarding him. That he produced bogus or genuine guarantor and the documents relating thereto and that the land, which was offered for mortgage in fact, did not exist at the spot. The CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. 126 of 135 pages 127 CBI case . No.12/11 accused (A2) even failed to identify the land in question, when he was taken to the spot along with accused (A3), PW29, Patwari and Tehsildar of the area and the IO.

(xiii) It is clearly visible from the valuation report that the reference number or letter number of the bank or the branch is not indicated or available in the valuation report, given by accused (A3) and it was used for the benefit of accused (A2). This shows close knit criminal conspiracy amongst the accused persons. Accused (A2) in collusion with other co accused persons mortgaged and obtained false valuation report and fake opinion of existing property to match the limit of loan applied by him. This further indicates his complicity in the alleged crimes.

262. Under section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, accused (A2) was obliged to prove specific facts in his knowledge, regarding the guarantor and the property, which was offered for mortgage that the same were genuine. In the case law, reported as Sawal Das vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1974, SC Page 778, it has been observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court that the 'burden of proving the plea specifically set up by accused which may absolve him from CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. 127 of 135 pages 128 CBI case . No.12/11 criminal liability certainly rests upon him'. Further, in the case law reported as State of Haryana vs. Ram Swaroop (2002) 7 SCC page 250 and State of Punjab vs. Karnail Singh (2003) 11 SCC Page 271, it has been observed that 'the facts within the special knowledge of accused, if any, not satisfactorily explained, it is a factor against the accused, relevant while considering the totality of the circumstances'.

263. Evidence against accused Jagpal Singh Chaney (A3)

(i) Accused (A3) has clearly admitted in his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C that he furnished the valuation report, relied upon by the prosecution and as have been mentioned in the deposition of the witnesses, discussed above. The valuation reports submitted by him were per se false and malafide as the property described by him in his report as a vacant residential plot, did not exist as according to PW26, it was plotted, sold and constructed way back in the year 1960 and that the alleged owner had already died in the year 1983 and that the construction had long been raised over the land in question.

(ii) Accused (A3) also could not identify the land in CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. 128 of 135 pages 129 CBI case . No.12/11 question, when was taken to the spot and whatever he pointed out, was found to be the area of around 1000 sq. yards and not of 5 bighas and 19 biswas.

(iii) It is evident that in pursuance to the criminal conspiracy with other accused persons, accused (A3) never visited the spot and fabricated the valuation report, ensuring that loan was fraudulently sanctioned to accused (A2) on bogus, forged and fabricated document and on the basis of non existent immovable property.

(iv) In the second valuation report, he has very sharply raised the value of the property by enhancing the same by an amount of Rs.80 Lakhs, within a short span of six month, without any justification or basis.

(v) It is evident on the face of it that in pursuance to the criminal conspiracy, accused (A3) has given false and fabricated valuation report to the bank, in order to cheat the bank and to confer illegal benefit on accused (A2) with dishonest intention.

264. All the accused persons thus cheated the bank using CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. 129 of 135 pages 130 CBI case . No.12/11 forged and fabricated documents. It has been held by our own High Court that 'where the accused obtained loan from the bank by producing forged documents, the method adopted by the accused to get the loan cannot be accepted as offences under section 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC are attracted {Hardayal Gumber vs. CBI, 2011 (9) AD (Delhi)}'.

265. In the case law reported as Devender Kumar Singla vs. Baldev Krishan Singla, 2004 Cri LJ 1774 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed the following points as essential ingredients to attract section 420 IPC:

1. Cheating;

2.Dishonest inducement to deliver property or to make, alter or destroy any valuable security or anything which is sealed or signed or is capable of being converted into a valuable security, and

3.Mens rea of the accused at the time of making the inducement. The making of a false representation is one of the ingredients for the offence of cheating under section

420."..

266. In the case law reported as AIR 2004 SC 3229, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that :

"For an offence under section 471, one of the necessary ingredients is fraudulent and dishonest CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. 130 of 135 pages 131 CBI case . No.12/11 use of the document as genuine. The act need not be both dishonest and fraudulent.

267. It has been asserted by the defence during the course of arugments that there are defects in the investigation. It is true that the present case has not been very effectively and professionally investigated by the Investigating Officers. Had it been investigated effectively much more could have come on the surface and much larger rackets could have been unearthed, regarding the fraud in the bank. However, so long as case of the prosecution on the basis of circumstances and documents, established and available on record is concerned, the defect, if any, in the investigation does not help the present accused persons at all.

268. It has been held that 'It would not be right in acquitting an accused person solely on account of the defect as to do so would tentamount to playing into the hands of the investigation officer if the investigation is designedly defective. The prosecution evidence is required to be examined 'de hors' such ommission to find out whether the said evidence is reliable or not'.{Dayal Singh vs. State of Uttranchal, 2012 AIR(SC) 3046}. CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. 131 of 135 pages 132 CBI case . No.12/11

269. It has been held that 'That there were lacunas in investigation does not mean that incriminating evidence, if any, appearing against accused persons has to be ignored'.{Tejpal vs. State, 2012(6) RCR Criminal 798 Delhi(DB)}

270. In the case law reported as State vs. Santosh Kumar Singh, 2006(4) Crimes 782 (Del), the Hon'ble High Court has held that 'Courts should not be influenced by suspicious roles played by the investigation officer during investigation and criminal justice should not be made a casualty for wrongs committed by investigation officers.'

271. In the case law reported as Dhanraj Singh 2004 Cri LJ 1807 (SC), it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that 'In the case of a defective investigation the court has to be circumspect in evaluating the evidence. But it would not be right in acquitting an accused person solely on account of the defect; to do so would tantamount to plying into the hands of the investigating officer if the investigation is designedly defectively. The contaminated conduct of officials should not stand on the way of evaluating the evidence by the courts; otherwise the designed CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. 132 of 135 pages 133 CBI case . No.12/11 mischief would be perpetuated and justice would be denied to the complainant party. Then the faith and confidence of the people would be shaken not only in the law enforcing agency but also in the administration of justice'.

272. In the case law reported as 2007 Cri LJ 758(SC), it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that 'Defective investigation may discredit the prosecution, but prosecution evidence may not necessarily be discarded on the ground. If the evidence is otherwise reliable and trustworthy, the court may convict the accused. Reminiscence of investigating officer will not ipso facto weaken the case of the prosecution'.

273. It is, therefore, clear that all the accused persons were member of a well planned criminal conspiracy, having entered into the same and they cheated the bank by using false, forged and fabricated documents. They have caused wrongful loss of public money to the extent of more than Five Crores of rupees to the nationalized bank while accused (A1) clearly abused his official position as public servant, being the then Chief Manager of the bank obviously, with ill motive and purpose to make gain for his CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. 133 of 135 pages 134 CBI case . No.12/11 son, who was introduced as a partner of accused (A2) in a firm, discussed, herein in above.

274. It stands proved on record, as discussed herein above, beyond any pale of doubt that all the accused persons joined altogether and entered into conspiracy to cheat the bank and did cheat the bank by using forged and fabricated documents. Accused Sri Kant Chawla, being a public servant at the relevant time criminally misconducted within the meaning of section 13(i)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

275. All the accused persons namely, Sri Kant Chawla (A1), Sushil Verma(A2) and Jagpal Singh Chaney (A3), therefore, are squarely liable to be held guilty under section 120 IPC read with section 420, 467, 468, 471 read with 13(2)& 13(i)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and are hereby convicted of the same.

276. Accused Sushil Verma (A2) is further held guilty of the commission of offences under section 420 & 471 IPC and is accordingly convicted of the same.

CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. 134 of 135 pages 135 CBI case . No.12/11

277. Accused Jagpal Singh Chaney(A3) is further held guilty of the commission of offences under section 420, 467 & 468 IPC and is accordingly convicted of the same.

278. Accused Sri Kant Chawla(A1) is further held guilty of the commission of offences under section 420 & 471 IPC and is accordingly convicted of the same.

279. Accused Sri Kant Chawla (A1) being public servant at the relevant time criminally misconducted and caused hefty illegal pecuniary gains to the accused persons and caused corresponding illegal loss to the bank in question. He is, therefore, also liable to be held guilty of the offence punishable under section 13(2) read with section 13(i)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in addition. He is, accordingly, convicted under section 13(2) read with 13(i)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

280. All the accused persons are, accordingly, convicted.

281. Let the convicts be heard on the point of sentence, on 07.05.2013.




Announced in the open court                                   ( N. K. Kaushik )
on  03.05.2013                                           Special Judge, PC Act CBI
                                                          Dwarka Courts, New Delhi.

 CBI vs. Sri Kant Chawla & Ors.                                                135 of 135 pages

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi District Court

Cbi vs . Sri Kant Chawla & Ors. 1 Of 135 Pages on 10 May, 2013