Delhi District Court
2010 Magan Bihari Lal vs . State Of Punjab Supreme Court on 26 September, 2019
CBI/239/2019, RC No. 5(E)/98
IN THE COURT OF SH. PULASTYA PRAMACHALA
SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT) CBI-13,
ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURT, NEW DELHI
Registration No. : CBI/239/2019
Under Section : 120B IPC/409/420/467/468/471/477A IPC and
Section 13 (2) r/w Section 13 (1) (d) of The
Prevention of Corruption Act 1988.
Branch : CBI-SIU(X)/New Delhi.
FIR No. : RC-5(E)/98-SIU-X/New Delhi
CNR No. : DLCT11-000932-2019
In the matter of :-
CBI
VERSUS
1. SH. SURESH KUMAR ARORA
(Proceedings abated against him vide order dated 18.05.2015)
S/o. Late P.L. Arora,
R/o. 179-C, Pocket-B,
Mayur Vihar, Phase-II, Delhi.
2. SH. RAJENDER NATH RATTAN
S/o. Late Jagannath Rattan,
R/o. Flat No.3270, Pocket B-3, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070.
3. SH. RAJIV AGGARWAL
(Proceedings abated against him vide order dated 31.07.2019)
S/o. Late S.N. Aggarwal,
R/o. C-150, East of Kailash, New Delhi-110065.
4. SH. RAJENDER KUMAR SHARMA
S/o. Late Mool Chand Sharma,
R/o. B-601, NPSC Society, Plot No.5, Sector-2, Dwarka, New Delhi.
Name and particulars of complainant : Sh. S.K. Singh
Chief Vigilance Officer,
Oriental Bank of Commerce,
New Delhi.
Page 1 of 87 (Pulastya Pramachala)
Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13,
Rouse Avenue District Court,
New Delhi
CBI/239/2019, RC No. 5(E)/98
Date of Institution : 30.10.2000
Date of reserving judgment : 18.09.2019
Date of pronouncement : 26.09.2019
Decision : Accused A2 and A4 are
acquitted.
(Section 437-A Cr.P.C. complied with)
JUDGMENT
THE CASE SET UP BY THE PROSECUTION :-
1. Briefly stated allegations leveled against the accused persons are that during the period from 1992 to 1997, accused Sh. S.K. Arora (A1), while functioning as Branch Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce (herein after referred to as OBC), Basant Lok Branch and Mahipal Pur Branch, New Delhi and Sh. Rajinder Nath Rattan (A2), who was functioning as Chief Manager, OBC, Mahipalpur Branch, New Delhi, entered into criminal conspiracy with other co-accused persons namely Sh. Rajiv Aggarwal (A3), proprietor of M/s. Shivam Oil Company and Sh. R.K. Sharma (A4), proprietor of M/s. Mool Chand Motors, in connivance with each other, in order to cheat OBC and accordingly, the present chargesheet was filed.
SANCTION :-
2. Since, Sh. S.K. Arora (A1) and Sh. R.N. Rattan (A2) were already dismissed from the service, hence no sanction for prosecution was obtained and chargesheet was filed for commission of offence punishable u/s 120B IPC r/w Section 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 477 (A) IPC & u/s 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against all the four accused persons. Accused persons Sh. S.K. Arora (A1) and Sh. R.N. Rattan (A2) were further chargesheeted for the Page 2 of 87 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI/239/2019, RC No. 5(E)/98 substantive offence u/s 409 IPC & Section 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as well as for offence punishable u/s 467 & 468 IPC.
CHARGES :-
3. Vide order on charge dated 29.04.2005, charges were framed against accused A1/Sh. S.K. Arora (since expired), accused Sh. R.N. Rattan (A2), accused A3/Sh. Rajiv Aggarwal (since expired) & Sh. R.K. Sharma (A4) for offences punishable under Section 120-B IPC r/w Section 420, 467, 471 & 477-A IPC and Section 13(1) (d) punishable u/s 13(2) of P.C. Act, 1988; Accused A1 and A2 were further charged for commission of offence punishable u/s 13 (2) r/w sec. 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Accused (A1) & (A2) were also charged under Section 477A IPC; Accused (A1), (A2), (A3) & (A4) were further charged for offence punishable u/s 471 IPC. Accused (A1) and A4 were further charged for commission of offence punishable u/s 467 IPC. Accused (A3) & (A4) were further charged for commission of offence punishable u/s 420 IPC, to which they all pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. During the course of recording prosecution evidence, accused Sh. S.K. Arora (A1) expired and proceedings qua him stood abated vide order dated 18.05.2015. Since, accused Rajeev Aggarwal (A3) also expired at the stage of recording defence evidence, hence, proceedings qua him also stood abated vide order dated 31.07.2019.
DESCRIPTION OF PROSECUTION EVIDENCE :-
5. Prosecution examined 40 witnesses in support of its case, as per following descriptions :-
Sl. No. & Role of witness Proved document/ Name of article Witness Page 3 of 87 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI/239/2019, RC No. 5(E)/98 PW1/Rakesh He was working in Kathuria Public Ex.PW1/A (D-38 i.e. Kumar Nanda School extension counter under cash slip of Rs.11 lakhs Mahipal Pur branch, in May 1996 for preparation of FDR/ and later on, it was upgraded into CDR); Vasant Kunj branch. He remained Ex.PW1/B (entry of there up to April 2001. Rs.11 lakhs on D-40 i.e. He identified stamp of branch ledger sheet); Kathuria Public School, extension Ex.PW1/C (D-39 i.e. counter, Oriental Bank of CDR, which was Commerce on document D-38 i.e. prepared on the basis of cash slip of Rs.11 lakhs for Ex.PW1/A); preparation of FDR/CDR.
Ex.PW1/D and Ex.PW He identified entry of Rs.11 lakhs 1/E (D-43 and D-44 i.e. appearing at point A on D-40 i.e. debit credit vouchers for ledger sheet bearing folio no.52. Rs.12,50, 124/-); He also identified document D-39 Ex.PW1/F (entries of i.e. CDR, which was prepared by Rs.12,50,124/- in the Sh. S.K. Arora on the basis of document D-41); voucher Ex.PW1/A as he had been working with Sh. S.K. Arora. Ex.PW1/G (D-45 i.e. a CDR leaf);
He also identified signature of Sh.
A.K. Uppal appearing at point X Ex.PW1/H & Ex.PW1/I on D-43 and D-44 i.e. debit credit (D-45 and D-47 i.e. debit vouchers for Rs.12,50,124/-. and credit transfer vouchers);
He also identified entries of Rs.12,50,124/- in the document Ex.PW1/N (D-53 i.e. FDR D-41 i.e. fixed deposit ledger, folio for Rs.1 lac); No.933, which was prepared by Ex.PW1/O & Ex.PW 1/P Sh. A.K. Uppal on the basis of (D-49 and D-50 i.e. Debit Ex.PW1/D and Ex.PW1/E. and Credit transfer He also identified signature of Sh. vouchers for Rs.15,02, A.K. Uppal appearing at point A 744/- & Rs.14,02,744/-, on D-45 i.e. a CDR leaf. respectively); He also identified signature of Ex.PW1/Q (ledger sheet Mrs. Vinod Puri appearing at point folio no.1462); A on D-45 and D-47 i.e. debit and Ex.PW1/R & Ex.PW1/S credit transfer vouchers, which (D-310 and D-311 i.e. were prepared for making of transfer payment orders FDR/CDR. (TPOs) for Rs.1,01,665/-Page 4 of 87 (Pulastya Pramachala)
Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI/239/2019, RC No. 5(E)/98 He also identified fixed deposit and Rs.17,15,342/-, ledger, folio No.951, which was respectively); prepared on the basis of Ex.PW-1/D1 (office copy Ex.PW1/H & Ex.PW1/I and of TPO of Rs.17,15,342/- proved the same. There was entry dated 31.03.1997); of Rs.13,16,592/-, which was signed/ initialed by Sh. O. P. Ex.PW1/J (fixed deposit Arora, Branch Incumbent of ledger, folio No.951); extension counter at point F. Ex.PW1/K (D-48 i.e. He also identified signature of Sh. FDR); Uppal appearing at point B on Ex.PW1/L (D-52 i.e. document D-48 i.e. FDR, which Credit Transfer Voucher was prepared on the basis of for Rs. 1 lac);
Ex.PW1/H, Ex.PW1/1 and Ex.PW1 /J. This FDR was signed Ex.PW1/M (D-54 i.e. by Mrs. Vinod Puri. fixed deposit ledger bearing folio no.1418).
He also identified signature of Mr. O.P. Arora appearing at point A on D-52 i.e. Credit Transfer Voucher for Rs. 1 lac and proved the same.
He also proved D-54 i.e. fixed deposit ledger bearing folio no.1418, bearing entry of Rs.1 lac on the basis of Ex.PW1/L. He identified signatures and initials of Sh. O.P. Arora at point A on the same.
He also proved D-53 i.e. FDR for Rs.1 lac, which was prepared on the basis of Ex.PW1/L and Ex.PW1/M. He also identified signature of Mr. O.P. Arora on the same. He also proved D-49 and D-50 i.e. Debit and Credit transfer vouchers for Rs.15,02,744/- & Rs.14,02,744/-, respectively, which were signed by Sh. O.P. Arora at point A. He also proved entry made in ledger sheet folio no.1462, which was prepared on the basis of voucher Ex.PW1/P. He identified signature of Mr. O.P. Arora at point A and signature of Mrs. Sunita Chandani on the same.
He also proved D-310 and D-311 i.e. transfer payment orders (TPOs) for Rs.1,01,665/- and Rs.17,15,342/-, respectively, which were transferred from KPS extension counter to Mahipal Pur branch, OBC. He also identified Page 5 of 87 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI/239/2019, RC No. 5(E)/98 signature of Mr. Rajesh Puri at point A on both. He also proved office copy of TPO of Rs.17,15,342/- dated 31.03.1997 drawn on Mahipalpur Branch.
PW2/Sh. O.P. In the year 1991, he was posted Ex.PW2/A (502 i.e. Sharma as Officer in Inspection and Advance Manual-
Control Department at Head Volume I, Appraisal of Office of Oriental Bank of Credit Proposals and Commerce (OBC) and worked till General Instructions);
1998. During his tenure, he Ex.PW2/B (D-466 i.e. a
carried out inspection of letter on the letter pad of
branches, irregularities in the OBC signed by Sh. H.C.
branches of OBC, including Bajaj);
investigation of complaints
against bank officials and Ex.PW2/C (D-467 i.e.
fraudulent matters. special investigation
report);
He proved document 502 i.e.
Advance Manual- Volume I, Ex.PW2/D (summary
Appraisal of Credit Proposals and running into two pages
General Instructions, wherein containing Ex.PW2/C);
procedure followed in sanction Ex.PW2/E (synopsis
and disbursement of loans running in three pages,
against various securities, are which was submitted by
narrated on page 24 onwards. General Manager,
He identified signature of Sh. H.C. Inspection and Control Bajaj appearing at point A on D- Department.). 466 i.e. a letter on the letter pad of OBC.
He identified his signature at point A on D-467 i.e. special investigation report, prepared by him after completion of inspection in respect of all the accounts including account of Sh. J.N. Aggarwal and Associate as well as all other related accounts. He had submitted this report to General Manager (I&C) in May 1997. He also identified signature of Sh. J.N. Ahuja at point B on page no.91 of D-467. He also identified his initials and initials of Mr. J.N. Ahuja at point A and B on other pages of this report.
He also identified his initials and of Sh. J.N. Ahuja at point A and B on summary running into two pages containing Ex.PW2/C, regarding details of various accounts, their outstanding and the value of FDRs.
Page 6 of 87 (Pulastya Pramachala)Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI/239/2019, RC No. 5(E)/98 He also identified signature of Sh. O.P. Mahajan appearing at point A on synopsis running in three pages, which was submitted by General Manager, Inspection and Control Department.
PW3/Sh. P.K. During year 1997, he was working Ex.PW3/A (D-34 i.e. Malhan as Assistant Regional Manager in receipt given by Sh. S.K. the Regional Office, New Delhi, in Arora (A1) in his Inspection and Control handwriting and under Department. His duties included his signatures with date visiting various branches as 13/2).
regarding inspection of branches, which was supervised by New Delhi Region.
In February 1997, he was deputed by regional head to visit Mahipalpur Branch to enquire into some suspected revenue leakage. He visited said branch and started enquiry. He observed that branch was paying higher interest applicable to Certificate of Deposits (CD) on FDRs. He identified D-34 i.e. receipt given by Sh. S.K. Arora (A1) in his handwriting and under his signatures (encircled in red) with date as 13/2.
PW4/Sh. During year 1997, he was posted Ex.PW4/A (entire report Ashok Verma in Inspection & Control consisting of 151 pages).
Department at Head Office, New Delhi as Chief Manager.
His duties included investigation of matters relating to frauds and conducting periodic inspection of branches. He conducted inspection of Basant Lok, New Delhi, Branch in February 1997, as was assigned by Sh. O.P. Mahajan, General Manager, I & C. After conclusion of inspection, a detailed report was submitted consisting of 151 pages. He identified his initials (encircled with red) along with initials of Sh. J.N. Ahuja, the then AGM. Initial 1-12 pages are summary of the report and on page 12, he had put his signature along with Sh. J.N. Ahuja. Rest are the detailed observations made during investigation. PW5/Sh. Trilok He had started M/s. Nova Ex.PW5/A (Account opening Nath Gambhir Overseas Corporation along form of account no.1562 in with his partner Sh. Manoj the name of M/s. Nova Arora, for trading including Overseas Corporation with Page 7 of 87 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI/239/2019, RC No. 5(E)/98 export and import. He had OBC, Basant Lok Branch). opened a current account No. 1562 with OBC, Basant Lok Branch. He identified his photograph and photograph of Sh. Manoj Arora on the account opening form. He also identified his signatures appearing at point A and B and signatures of Sh. Manoj Arora appearing at point C and D. He also identified his signature at point E on page no.4 of account opening form.
He had got issued a FDR for Rs.88.10 lac on 22.8.94.
PW6/Sh. During the period of December Ex.PW6/1 (loan ledger Sajeev Sahani. 1991 to May 1997, he was posted dated 31.1.92 in the in Basant Lok Branch, New Delhi, name of Sh. R.K. in the capacity of Officer. His Nangiya regarding duties included passing of demand loan of Rs.30 cheques, making of payments, lacs);
ledger posting and other such Ex.PW6/2 & Ex.PW6/3 duties as assigned by the branch (credit voucher and debit manager. transfer voucher for He identified handwriting of Sh. aforesaid loan of Rs.30 S.K. Arora encircled at point A andlacs, which were in the initials thereof at point B handwriting of Sh. S.K. appearing on loan ledger dated Arora.); 31.1.92 in the name of Sh. R.K. Ex.PW6/4 (demand loan Nangiya regarding demand loan ledger in the name of of Rs.30 lacs. Moti Ram Kanwar Bhan He also identified credit voucher for Rs.25 lacs); and debit transfer voucher for Ex.PW6/5 (document aforesaid loan of Rs.30 lacs, dated 31.1.92 in the which are in the handwriting of name of Moti Ram Sh. S.K. Arora. Kanwar Bhan for demand He also identified handwriting of loan of Rs.25 lacs); Sh. S.K. Arora (A1) encircled with Ex.PW6/6 (form, which red at point A on demand loan meant for cash/ ledger in the name of Moti Ram Page 8 of 87 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI/239/2019, RC No. 5(E)/98 Kanwar Bhan for Rs.25 lacs. clearing/draft, but was He also identified name and adopted by Sh. S.K. amount written in the handwriting Arora (A1) as transfer of Sh. S.K. Arora (A1) on voucher for transfer of document dated 31.1.92 in the Rs.35 lac in new saving name of Sh. Moti Ram Kanwar bank account of Sh. Moti Bhan for demand loan of Rs.25 Ram Kanwar Bhan);
lacs. Ex.PW6/7 (document, He also identified signature of A1 which was adopted by on the form, which meant for Sh. S.K. Arora (A1) as cash/clearing/draft, but was transfer voucher by adopted by Sh. S.K. Arora (A1) as writing transfer of Rs.45 transfer voucher for transfer of lac in new saving bank Rs.35 lac in new saving bank account of Sh. Moti Ram account of Sh. Moti Ram Kanwar Kanwar Bhan);
Bhan. Ex.PW6/8 (transfer debit He also identified signature of A1 voucher for on a document, which was Rs.15,67,743/- in S/B adopted by Sh. S.K. Arora (A1) as account no.7328); transfer voucher by writing Ex.PW6/9 (ledger sheet transfer of Rs.45 lac in new of saving bank account saving bank account of Sh. Moti no.7328 pertaining to Sh.
Ram Kanwar Bhan. Moti Ram);
He also identified transfer debit Ex.PW6/10 voucher for Rs.15,67,743/- in S/B (corresponding credit account no.7328 in the voucher of Rs.15,522/-
handwriting of Sh. S.K. Arora dated 23.09.92 in the
(A1). handwriting of Sh. S.K.
He also identified ledger sheet of Arora (A1)); saving bank account no.7328 Ex.PW6/11 (credit pertaining to Sh. Moti Ram, voucher for Rs.4645/- in wherein corresponding debit entry S/B account no.7327); appears. This entry is in the Ex.PW6/12 (transfer handwriting of Sh. S.K. Arora. debit voucher of He also identified corresponding Rs.20,167/- in S/B credit voucher of Rs.15,522/- account no.7327 & dated 23.09.92 in the handwriting 7328); of Sh. S.K. Arora (A1). Ex.PW6/13 (debit He also identified credit voucher voucher of Rs.4,69,228/-
Page 9 of 87 (Pulastya Pramachala)Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI/239/2019, RC No. 5(E)/98 for Rs.4645/- in S/B account for transfer to demand no.7327. loan account of Sh. Moti He identified transfer debit Ram);
voucher of Rs.20,167/- in S/B Ex.PW6/14 (debit account no.7327 & 7328. transfer voucher for He identified debit voucher of Rs.20 lacs from S/B Rs.4,69,228/- for transfer to account no.7327 to demand loan account of Sh. Moti Branch Office Ram. Mahipalpur);
He identified debit transfer Ex.PW6/15 (office copy voucher for Rs.20 lacs from S/B of TPO for transfer of account no.7327 to Branch Office aforesaid Rs.20 lacs);
Mahipalpur. Ex.PW6/16 (credit cash He identified all these vouchers in voucher of Rs.11 lacs the handwriting of Sh. S.K. Arora pertaining to S/B account (A1). no.7327);
He identified signature of A1 on Ex.PW6/17 (credit office copy of TPO for transfer of transfer voucher for aforesaid Rs.20 lacs. Rs.20 lacs);
He identified signature of A1 on Ex.PW6/18 (ledger sheet credit cash voucher of Rs.11 lacs pertaining to S/B account pertaining to S/B account no.7327 7327); and the amount was transferred to Ex.PW6/19 (loan ledger Mahipalpur Branch. sheet pertaining to Sh. He identified signature of A1 on Moti Ram); credit transfer voucher for Rs.20 Ex.PW6/20 & Ex.PW6/21 lacs. (entries made by A1 on He identified ledger sheet two loan ledger sheets pertaining to S/B account 7327, in pertaining to Jain which the entries were made by Aggarwal Associates); Sh. S.K. Arora (encircled in red). Ex.PW6/22 to He identified loan ledger sheet Ex.PW6/25 (term ledger pertaining to Sh. Moti Ram and pertaining to Jain the entries made by Sh. S.K. Aggarwal Associates; pay Arora (A1) on its both sides. order favouring Jain Aggarwal Associates for He also identified entries made by Rs.7,22,1146/- received A1 on two loan ledger sheets from Mahipal Pur, New pertaining to Jain Aggarwal Delhi, bearing signature Page 10 of 87 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI/239/2019, RC No. 5(E)/98 Associates. of passing officer Sh.
He also identified term ledger Luthra; credit voucher for pertaining to Jain Aggarwal the aforesaid pay order Associates; pay order favouring and the corresponding Jain Aggarwal Associates for debit voucher, Rs.7,22,1146/- received from respectively). Mahipal Pur, New Delhi, bearing signature of passing officer Sh.
Luthra; credit voucher for the aforesaid pay order and the corresponding debit voucher.
PW7/Sh. Azad Since September 1983 to Ex.PW7/1 (application- Singh November 1995, he was posted in cum-authority letter for Mahipal Pur Branch of OBC as financial assistance Clerk-cum-cashier. He was against security of bank's transferred to Basant Lok Branch deposits applied by A3 and worked there till 2001. He had against deposit of FDRs); worked under supervision of A1 Ex.PW7/2 (FDR dt. and A2. 07.01.94 for the amount He identified signature/initials of of Rs. 70 lac in the name A1 on Ex.PW6/1 to Ex.PW6/14. of Ram Jan Bhumar); He also identified relevant entries Ex.PW7/3 to Ex.PW7/5 and signatures of A1 on (credit/debit transfer Ex.PW6/16 to Ex.PW6/21. vouchers in the hands of He also identified handwriting and Subhash Aghi, Manager signature of A1 on Ex.PW6/24 Loan);
and Ex.PW6/25. Ex.PW7/6 (loan ledger He identified application-cum- sheet pertaining to authority letter for financial account of A3 showing assistance against security of entries of Rs.48 lac); bank's deposits applied by A3 Ex.PW7/7 & Ex.PW7/8 against deposit of FDRs, which (two credit transfer was filled in by this witness as per vouchers, which was instructions of A2. prepared by him and He also identified FDR dt. signed by Sh. Subhash 07.01.94 for the amount of Rs. 70 Aghi);
lac in the name of Ram Jan Ex.PW7/9 (debit transfer Bhumar bearing initial of A2 on its voucher in the demand reverse. loan account no.228 of Page 11 of 87 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI/239/2019, RC No. 5(E)/98 He also identified credit/debit A3 towards advance transfer vouchers in the hands of against FDR No. Subhash Aghi, Manager Loan. 142487/11/94 dt. He also identified that vide Ex. 07.01.94 pertaining to PW7/3 Rs.35 lacs was credited in Basant Lok Branch); the current account No.827, vide Ex.PW7/10 & Ex.PW7/11 Ex.PW7/4 Rs.13 lacs was (promissory note credited in current account no. executed by A3, which 955 and vide Ex.PW7/5 Rs.48 lac was filled by PW7 on the was debited from the Demand instructions of A2 and the Loan Account No.227 in the name application-cum-authority of A3. letter in this regard in the He identified his handwriting on name of A3 for creating loan ledger sheet pertaining to third party demand loan, account of A3 showing entries of which was filled by PW7 Rs.48 lac. on the direction of A2);
He also identified two credit Ex.PW7/12 (ledger transfer vouchers, which was entries on in his prepared by him and signed by handwriting, which were Sh. Subhash Aghi. verified by Sh. Subhash Aghi);
He also identified debit transfer voucher in the demand loan Ex.PW7/13 (ledger sheet account no.228 of A3 towards of current account no.955 advance against FDR No. pertaining to A3, in which 142487/11/94 dt. 07.01.94 reference of account pertaining to Basant Lok Branch. no.228 is given on the top of right hand side);
He also identified promissory note executed by A3, which was filled Ex.PW7/14 to Ex. by this witness at the instructions PW7/32 (debit voucher of A2 and the application-cum- for Rs.70 lac; credit authority letter in this regard in the voucher for FDR of name of A3 for creating third party Rs.70,000 in the name of demand loan, which was filled by Ram Gan Bhumar; this witness as per direction of A2. another FDR of Rs.70,61753/- dated He also identified corresponding 07.04.94 in the name of ledger entries in his handwriting, Ram Gan Bhumar; two which were verified by Sh. debit vouchers for Subhash Aghi. Rs.7344223; carbon He also identified signature of copy of TPO in respect of Ex.PW7/17 & Page 12 of 87 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI/239/2019, RC No. 5(E)/98 Manager (in Token of verification) Ex.PW7/18; debit/credit Sh. Rajeev Luthra on ledger sheet vouchers; original TPO of of current account no.955 Rs.7344223 dated pertaining to A3, in which 08.9.94; account opening reference of account no.228 is form in the name of A3 given on the right hand side of for account no.955;
top. cheque no. 860351 dated
He also identified debit voucher 05.01.94 for Rs.12,50,
for Rs.70 lac; credit voucher for 025/-, cheque no.
FDR of Rs.70,000 in the name of 860357 for Rs.334405/-,
Ram Gan Bhumar; another FDR credit voucher for
of Rs.70,61753/- dated 07.04.94 Rs.477860/- and cheque
in the name of Ram Gan Bhumar; no. 860356 for
two debit vouchers for Rs.477860, cheque
Rs.7344223; carbon copy of TPO no.860359 & 860360
in respect of Ex.PW7/17 & both dt. 19.01.94 for
Ex.PW7/18; debit/credit vouchers; Rs.185840, cheque
original TPO of Rs.7344223 dated no.860367 dt.19.02.94
08.9.94; account opening form in for Rs.7,00,025/-, all
the name of A3 for account pertaining to account
no.955; cheque no. 860351 dated no.955 and
05.01.94 for Rs.12,50, 025/-, corresponding credit
cheque no. 860357 for voucher);
Rs.334405/-, credit voucher for Ex.PW7/33 to
Rs.477860/- and cheque no. Ex.PW7/36 (cheque
860356 for Rs.477860, cheque nos.860372, 860373,
no.860359 & 860360 both dt. 860378 and 860376,
19.01.94 for Rs.185840, cheque pertaining to account
no.860367 dt.19.02.94 for no.955);
Rs.7,00,025/-, all pertaining to Ex.PW7/37 to
account no.955 and Ex.PW7/40 (credit
corresponding credit voucher. vouchers for Ex.PW7/33
He identified initials of Sh. R.N. to Ex.PW7/36); Rattan (A2) at point A on cheque Ex.PW7/41 (cheque nos.860372, 860373, 860378 and no.872774 pertaining to 860376, pertaining to account account no.799 for no.955. He also identified Rs.50,025/-);
corresponding credit vouchers for
the above four cheques. Ex.PW7/42 to
Ex.PW7/52 (cheque
He also identified signature of A2 bearing nos.860377, appearing at point A on cheque 860380, 860383, Page 13 of 87 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI/239/2019, RC No. 5(E)/98 no.872774 pertaining to account 860382, 860387, no.799 for Rs.50,025/-. 860352, 860358, He also identified signature of A2 860384, 860374, 330214 appearing at point A on cheque and 330205); bearing nos.860377, 860380, Ex.PW7/53 to 860383, 860382, 860387, Ex.PW7/62 (credit 860352, 860358, 860384, vouchers of Ex.PW7/42 860374, 330214 and 330205, to Ex.PW 7/52);
which pertained to account Ex.PW7/63 to
no.955. He also identified Ex.PW7/82 (cheque
corresponding credit vouchers for bearing nos. 522745,
above 11 cheques. 522753, 522756,
He also identified signature of A2 522757, 522762,
appearing at point A on cheque 522766, 522774,
bearing nos. 522745, 522753, 522778, 522784,
522756, 522757, 522762, 522791, 522797,
522766, 522774, 522778, 522790, 522795,
522784, 522791, 522797, 522794, 522793,
522790, 522795, 522794, 522796, 522799,
522793, 522796, 522799, 522800, 522876 and
522800, 522876 and 876405, 876405);
which pertained to account Ex.PW7/83 to
no.827. He also identified Ex.PW7/102 (credit
corresponding credit vouchers for vouchers of Ex.PW7/63
above 20 cheques. to Ex.PW7/82);
During his cross-examination, he Ex.PW7/D (LD4 form dt. identified LD4 Form for Rs.48 07.01.94 for Rs.48 lacs); lacs, dt. 07.01.94, which was filled in his handwriting. Ex.PW7/D1 (a letter of authority cum He also identified a letter of undertaking by the authority cum undertaking by the depositor dt. 07.01.94); depositor dt. 07.01.94.
Ex.PW7/D3 (copy of loan He also identified signature of Mr. document register and Subhash Aghi appearing at point the entries about the loan A on copy of loan document documents pertaining to register and the entries about the OF-24, OF-25, LD-IV and loan documents pertaining to OF- LD-V); 24, OF-25, LD-IV and LD-V, which were in his handwriting.
PW8/Sh. He was posted as Clerk-cum-cashier in OBC, Basant Lok Page 14 of 87 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI/239/2019, RC No. 5(E)/98 Sudesh Kumar Branch from 1987 to 1992. His duties included to deal in Malhotra cash counter, ledger posting etc. and other duties as assigned by the branch manager.
(This witness was dropped by ld. PP for CBI during his examination in chief, as this witness was unable to recollect the facts due to his old age.) PW9/Sh. He was posted as Assistant General Manager in OBC, Credit Sheel Kumar Department, Head Office, Delhi in the year 1998. Being AGM Sharma (Credit) and GM, he was well aware and familiar with the documents used for availing credit facilities and procedure regarding all transactions. Demand loans were used to be sanctioned against the securities.
He identified Ex.PW6/1 pertaining to demand loan account of R.K. Nangia; Ex.PW6/4 reflecting transaction in demand loan account pertaining to Moti Ram Kanwar Bhan and Ex.PW6/5 pertaining to another demand of Moti Ram Kanwar Bhan reflecting disbursal of the demand loan to the parties mentioned therein.
PW10/Sh. N.C. He was working in OBC w.e.f. Ex.PW10/A & Ex.PW Khanna 1979. He was conversant with the 10/B (credit voucher for handwriting and signatures of A1, Rs.70 lac and debit A2, Sh. Vinay Sagar Gupta, Sh. voucher for Ex.PW7/2, Ravi Mehra, Sh. Azad Singh and which were prepared by Sh. Lilly Gohai Aggarwal, who A1);
were also employees of OBC. Ex.PW10/C & Ex.PW
They had either worked with him 10/D (credit and debit
or the papers signed by them had vouchers dt. 11.03.94 for
been seen by him during the Rs.70 lac);
course of official duties.
Ex.PW10/E & Ex.PW
He identified signature of A1 10/F (credit and debit appearing at point A on Ex.PW7/2, vouchers dt. 08.09.94 for which was prepared by A1. Rs.7344223/-); He identified signature of A1 Ex.PW10/G to Ex.PW appearing at point A on credit 10/J (four ledger sheets voucher for Rs.70 lac and debit in connection with saving voucher for Ex.PW7/2, which account no.7874 in the were prepared by A1. name of Ram He identified signature of A1 Janambhumi Niyas appearing at point A on credit and showing credit and debit debit vouchers dt. 11.03.94 for entries in this account);
Page 15 of 87 (Pulastya Pramachala)Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI/239/2019, RC No. 5(E)/98 Rs.70 lac. Ex.PW10/K (statement of He identified signature of A1 account running into 7 appearing at point A on credit and sheets of Sh. Sankat debit vouchers dt. 08.09.94 for Mochan, Ashram, R.K. Rs.7344223/-. Puram);
He identified four ledger sheets in Ex.PW10/L to Ex.PW connection with saving account 10/O (two vouchers dt. no.7874 in the name of Ram 22.08.94 two vouchers Janambhumi Niyas showing credit dt. 03.10.94, all for and debit entries in this account. Rs.88,10,000/-, which were prepared by A1.);
He also identified statement of account running into 7 sheets of Ex.PW10/P (FDR sheet Sh. Sankat Mochan, Ashram, R.K. dated 22.08.94 for Puram. Rs.88,10,000/-, related to Ex.PW10/L to He identified signature of A1 Ex.PW10/O); appearing at point A on two vouchers dt. 22.08.94 two Ex.PW10/Q & Ex.PW vouchers dt. 03.10.94, all for 10/R (pay-in-slips for Rs.88,10,000/-, which were Rs.4.7 lac and Rs.2.4 lac prepared by A1. He also identified in the name of Marry one FDR sheet dated 22.08.94 for Jones, in the handwriting Rs.88,10,000/-, related to these of A1);
vouchers. Ex.PW10/S (ledger sheet
He identified pay-in-slips for pertaining to Marry
Rs.4.7 lac and Rs.2.4 lac in the John's account no.546, name of Marry Jones, in the mentioning cash handwriting of A1. He also deposited through identified ledger sheet pertaining Ex.PW10/Q & Ex.PW to Marry John's account no.546, 10/R);
mentioning cash deposited Ex.PW10/T-1 to Ex. through these slips. PW10/T-8 (vouchers and He also identified signature of A1 slips dt. 22.01.96 as well appearing at point A on vouchers as slip of Rs.12,77876/-); and slips dt. 22.01.96, except slip Ex.PW10/U-1 to Ex. of Rs.12,77876/-, in the PW10/U-5 (five handwriting of A1. vouchers, all dt. 22.03.95 He identified signature of A1 issued in favour of Sh. appearing at point A on five Kanwar Singh, Sh. vouchers, all dt. 22.03.95 issued Kulwant Singh and Sh.
Jogender Singh);
Page 16 of 87 (Pulastya Pramachala)Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI/239/2019, RC No. 5(E)/98 in favour of Sh. Kanwar Singh, Ex.PW10/U-6 & Ex. Sh. Kulwant Singh and Sh. PW10/U-7 (two vouchers Jogender Singh, which were in both dt. 22.03.95 for Rs.4 the handwriting of A1. lac issued in favour of He identified signature of Sh. Lilly Sukwant Singh and Gogai Aggarwal appearing at Ranjit Singh); point A on two vouchers both dt. Ex.PW10/V-1 to Ex. 22.03.95 for Rs.4 lac issued in PW10/V-7 (ledger sheets favour of Sukwant Singh and dt. 07.05.95 reflecting Ranjit Singh, in the handwriting of Ex.PW10/U-1 & Ex. A1. PW10/U-7);
He also identified corresponding Ex.PW10/W (FDR ledger sheets dt. 07.05.95 receipt dt. 27.06.95 for reflecting Ex.PW10/U-1 & Ex. Rs.6 lac); PW10/U-7. Ex.PW10/X to Ex.PW He also identified signature of A1 10/Z (three FDR receipts appearing at point A on FDR each dt. 04.12.95 for receipt dt. 27.06.95 for Rs.6 lac, in Rs.3 lac received from the handwriting of A1. Karamveer Singh, He also identified signature of Sh. Kasturi Singh and Ravi Mehra appearing at point A Kedarnath Singh); on three FDR receipts each dt. Ex.PW10/AA1 to Ex. 04.12.95 for Rs.3 lac received PW10/AA4 (four FDR from Karamveer Singh, Kasturi receipts all dated Singh and Kedarnath Singh. 04.12.95 for Rs.3 lac He also identified signature of Sh. including one FDR Ravi Mehra appearing at point A receipt of Rs.2 lac, on other four FDR receipts all issued at Basant Lok dated 04.12.95 of amount Branch);
mentioned therein, issued at Ex.PW10/AA5 to Ex. Basant Lok Branch. PW10/AA7 (three pay-in- He also identified three pay-in- slips of amount slips of amount mentioned therein mentioned therein for for FDRs pertaining to Kamal FDRs pertaining to Kumar and Jagish Kumar. Kamal Kumar and Jagish Kumars);
After examination of PW21, he was again examined on Ex.PW10/AA8 & Ex.
07.03.2014 and he identified PW10/AA9 (two FDRs Ex.PW21/23 and Ex.PW21/24 bearing 235/95 and 236/95, both dt. 22.03.95 Page 17 of 87 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI/239/2019, RC No. 5(E)/98 stating that Rs.27 lac was debited for amount of Rs.4 lac from demand loan account no.548 pertaining to Sukwant of Kulwant Singh and credited to Singh and Ranjit Singh); current account no.955 of Rajiv Ex.PW10/AA10 to Ex. Aggarwal (A3). He also identifiedPW10/AA12 (three term Ex.PW21/46 i.e. statement of loan ledger sheets of DL account no.955 mentioning accounts i.e. DL-90 Ex.PW21/23 and Ex.PW21/24 at dt.23.02.95, DL-67 point B. dt.21.01. 95 and DL-68 He also identified Ex.PW20/26 to dt.21.01.95); Ex.PW20/28, Ex.PW20/29 and Ex.PW10/AA-13 (page Ex.PW20/30. no.152 of Long Book of He also identified two FDRs Loan Accounts bearing 235/95 and 236/95, both mentioning entries of dt. 22.03.95 for amount of Rs.4 opening of DL accounts lac pertaining to Sukwant Singh i.e. DL-90, DL-67 and and Ranjit Singh. DL-68 on 22.03.95, made He also identified entries done by by A1); A1 on three term loan ledger Ex.PW10/AA-14 to Ex. sheets of DL accounts i.e. DL-90 PW10/AA-18 (five fixed dt.23.02.95, DL-67 dt.21.01. 95 deposit ledgers and DL-68 dt.21.01.95. mentioning issuance of He also identified page no.152 of four FDRs by A1 on Long Book of Loan Accounts 27.09.95, in the name of mentioning entries of opening DL K.N. Sharma, Lalita accounts i.e. DL-90, DL-67 and Sharma, Mayawati DL-68 on 22.03.95, made by A1. Sharma and Raina Sharma);
He also identified five fixed deposit ledgers mentioning Ex.PW10/AA-19 (ledger issuance of four FDRs by A1 on sheet of FDR no.1038/95 27.09.95, in the name of K.N. (D-387) pertaining to Sharma, Lalita Sharma, Mayawati Kunal Singh); Sharma and Raina Sharma. Ex.PW10/AA-20 (D-392 He identified ledger sheet of FDR i.e. original FDR for Rs.4 no.1038/95 (D-387) pertaining to lac, dt. 04.12.95, Kunal Singh. pertaining to K.N. Sharma);
He identified D-392 i.e. original FDR for Rs.4 lac, dt. 04.12.95, Ex.PW10/AA-21 (D-388 pertaining to K.N. Sharma and i.e. ledger sheet of FDR No.1040/ 95 dt. 04.12.95, Page 18 of 87 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI/239/2019, RC No. 5(E)/98 Naina Sharma. pertaining to Naina He also identified D-388 i.e. Sharma and K.N. ledger sheet of FDR No.1040/ 95 Sharma); dt. 04.12.95, pertaining to Naina Ex.PW10/AA-22 & Ex. Sharma and K.N. Sharma. PW10/AA-23 (D-389 and He identified signature of Azad D-393 i.e. vouchers dt. Singh appearing at point A on D- 18.12.95 and 19.12.95, 389 and D-393 i.e. vouchers dt. mentioning Rs.1 lac was 18.12.95 and 19.12.95, transferred to DL-67 and mentioning Rs.1 lac was Rs.3 lac was transferred transferred to DL-67 and Rs.3 lac to DL-90); was transferred to DL-90. Ex.PW10/AA-24 (D-411 He identified D-411 i.e. a list (dt.11.04. 96) i.e. a list dt.11.04.96 mentioning FDRs of mentioning FDRs of Rs.40 lac along with interest of Rs.40 lac along with Rs.63612/-, created in the name interest of Rs.63612/-, of Ramesh Chand by Azad Singh. created in the name of Ramesh Chand by Azad He identified signature of Azad Singh); Singh appearing at point A on vouchers i.e. D-398 and D-399. Ex.PW10/AA-25 & Ex.
PW10/AA-26 (on He identified D-397 i.e. pay order vouchers i.e. D-398 and bearing no.176604 dt.11. 04.96 D-399);
created in the name of Ramesh
Chand. Ex.PW10/AA-27 (D-397
i.e. pay order bearing
He identified handwriting and no.176604 dt.11. 04.96 signatures of S.K. Arora, R.N. created in the name of Ratan, R.K. Sharma, Azad Singh, Ramesh Chand); Ravi Mehra, Vinay Gupta on several documents.
He also identified his signatures appearing at point A on certified true copies of documents as per Bankers Book of Evidence i.e. D-
494 to D-501.
Ex.PW10/AA-28 (handwriting/signatures of R.K. Sharma from S-251 to S-271);
Ex.PW10/AA-29 (handwriting/signatures of R.N. Ratan from S-179 to S-194 in D-510/P92);
Page 19 of 87 (Pulastya Pramachala)Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI/239/2019, RC No. 5(E)/98 Ex.PW10/AA-30 (handwriting/signatures of S.K. Arora from S-232 to S-238 in D-511/P38);
Ex.PW10/AA-31 to Ex. PW10/AA-44 (D-434, 443, 444, 448 to 454, 456, 457, 459 and 464 i.e. seizure memos, bearing signature of PW10).
PW11/Sh. Y.K. He was given up by Ld. DLA for CBI vide order dated Gupta 06.01.2009, because his statement was not recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He had only handed over some documents to the IO.
PW12/Sh. S.K. He was posted as CVO (Chief Ex.PW12/1 (complaint Singh Vigilance Officer) in Oriental Bank dated 22.10.98 made by (Complainant) of Commerce from July 1997 to PW12).
July 2000. His duties included maintaining probity and integrity.
He made complaint dated 22.10.98 to Superintendent of Police, CBI, after perusing the reports submitted by the department and Vigilance Investigation Report. He identified his initials and signatures on page no.5 encircled in red, on the same.
PW13/Sh. He was given up by Ld. Sr. PP for CBI vide order dated Rakesh Kumar 02.03.2009, as the evidence to be proved by this witness Jassal had already come on record in the evidence of PW earlier examined.
PW14/Mrs. She was working as Hall In- Ex.PW14/A (TPO for
Neelam Ohri charge, OBC, Mahipal Pur Rs.12.50 lac, bearing
Branch. signature of PW14 at
She identified accused R.N. point A);
Rattan and S.K. Arora during Ex.PW14/B (application proceedings of this case. for issuance of pay order, bearing initial of PW14 at She identified her signature point A);
appearing at point A on Ex.PW7/ Ex.PW14/C (pay-in-slip 23, Ex.PW7/76, Ex.PW7/85,Ex. dt. 17.01.94 for PW7/88, Ex.PW7/82, Ex.PW7/90, discounting a cheque of Ex.PW7/38, Ex.PW21/57, Ex.PW Rs.2 lac);
Page 20 of 87 (Pulastya Pramachala)Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI/239/2019, RC No. 5(E)/98 21/58, Ex.PW21/45 and other Ex.PW14/D (transfer several documents voucher in respect of She also identified her signature Ex.PW14/C, bearing appearing at point B on Ex.PW7/ signature of PW14 at
33. point A);
Ex.PW14/E (transfer She also identified her initials voucher, through which appearing at point A on money was transferred in Ex.PW7/19 and other several the account of payee Sh.
documents. Rajiv Aggarwal, bearing She also identified handwriting signature of PW14 at and signatures of S.K. Arora, R.N. point A); Rattan, Subhash Aghi and Rajiv Ex.PW14/F (pay-in-slip Aggarwal on several documents dt. 19.02.94 for at different points of time. discounting a cheque of Rs.4 lac);
She identified signature of S.K. Ex.PW14/G (transfer Arora appearing at point A as well voucher in respect of as endorsement made by R.N. Ex.PW14/F, bearing Rattan encircled at point B on signature of PW14 at Ex.PW7/2. point A);
She also identified signature of Sh. R.N. Rattan at point A on Ex.PW7/ 64 and Ex.PW7/65.
Ex.PW14/H (transfer voucher through which money was transferred in the account of payee Sh. Rajiv Aggarwal, bearing initial of PW14 at point A);
Ex.PW14/J (pay-in-slip dt. 19.02.2004 for Rs.2 lac for depositing in A/c No.955 of Rajiv Aggarwal, bearing signature of PW14 at point A);
Ex.PW14/K (TPO which was prepared on the basis of Ex.PW7/31, bearing signature of PW14 at point A); Ex.PW14/L-1 & L-2 (pay-in-slips dt.21.03.94, both bearing signature of PW14 at point A);
Ex.PW14/L-3 & L-4 (pay-in-slips dt.19.03.94, both bearing signature of PW14 at point A);
Ex.PW14/M (pay-in-slip dt. 25.03.94 for discounting a cheque of Rs.10 lac);
Ex.PW14/N (transfer voucher in respect of Ex.PW14/M, bearing signature of PW14 at point A);
Ex.PW14/O (transfer voucher, through which money was transferred in the account of payee Sh. Rajiv Aggarwal, Page 21 of 87 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI/239/2019, RC No. 5(E)/98 bearing initial of PW14 at point A);
Ex.PW14/P (D-126/2 i.e. ledger sheet of CA-827 of M/s. Shivam Oil Company mentioning entries made by PW14 regarding sanctioned OD limit of Rs.75,000/- against FDR on 14.08.93, bearing his signature at point A) & Ex.PW14/Q (D-126/3 i.e. ledger sheet of CA-827 of M/s. Shivam Oil Company mentioning cancellation of Rs.75,000/- on 29.10.93 after the proceeds of FDR no.2701 were credited amounting to Rs.1,01,260/-, bearing signature of PW14 at point A).
PW15/Sh. V.K. He left OBC in May, 2001, when Ex.PW15/A to Ex.PW15/ Gupta he was General Manager C (attested copy of (Personnel), Head Office. Establishment Circular He identified signatures of Sh. Nos. PER- 49/47/92 dt. Adhani appearing at point A on all 05.10.92, 52/63/95 dt. the pages of attested copy of 30.08.95 and 53/82/96 Establishment Circular Nos. PER- dt. 30.10.96) & 49/47/92 dt. 05.10.92 (running in Ex.PW15/DA (statement 17 pages), 52/63/95 dt.30.08.95 of PW15 under Section (running in 11 pages) and 161 Cr.P.C).
53/82/96 dt. 30.10.96 (running in 10 pages.) PW16/Sh. He was posted as Chief Manager Ex.PW16/A (copy of C.M. Khurana (Credit) in 1997. His duties were circular No. Head Office/ to look after the credit proposal ADV/28/91-92 dt. 01.07. including sanction thereof and 91, bearing attestation of over all control aspects relating to Sh. Advani, Sr. Manager, credit department. Both Mahipal OBC, at point A);
Pur Branch and Vasant Lok Ex.PW16/B (certified
Branch were falling under
copy of Extract of Book of
jurisdiction of New Delhi, where Instructions, Part-II,
he was working. under the signature of
He identified attestation of Sh. Sh. Advani) & Advani, Sr. Manager, OBC, Ex.PW16/C (copy of appearing at point A on copy of instructions regarding circular No. Head Office/ADV/28/ advance against bank 91-92 dt. 01.07.91, running in 20 deposits containing in pages. Manual of Advance, Vol.I, He also identified signature of Sh. Chapter-III on page Advani appearing at point A on No.24 and 25).
Page 22 of 87 (Pulastya Pramachala)Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI/239/2019, RC No. 5(E)/98 certified copy of Extract of Book of Instructions, Part-II.
He also identified copy of instructions regarding advance against bank deposits containing in Manual of Advance, Vol.I, Chapter-III on page No.24 and 25.
PW17/Sh. Om During 1996 and up to February Ex.PW17/A (pay order Prakash Bahot 1997, he was posted as Clerk- for Rs.30,57,418/- dt.
cum-Cashier in Mahipal Pur 12.02.97 favouring Moti Branch. He identified handwriting, Ram Jain, bearing signature and initial of A1 and A2 handwriting of Sh. S.K. on several documents at different Arora); points.
Ex.PW17/B to Ex.PW17/E (four CDRs bearing no. 321114 to 321117, all dated 10.05.95 favouring Sh. Moti Ram issued from Mahipal Pur Branch of OBC. All these four CDRs bear initial of Sh. S.K. Arora);
Ex.PW17/F (debit voucher dt. 10.05.95 pertaining to DL-549 of Sh. Moti Ram, bearing signature of Rajender Rattan (A2) at point A);
Ex.PW17/G (credit voucher dt.10.05.95 pertaining to current A/c. No.955 of Rajiv Aggarwal of Rs.20,20,000, bearing signature of Rajender Rattan (A2) at point A); PW18/Sh. He was given up by Ld. PP for CBI vide order dated Jagjeet Singh 27.04.2009, as the evidence to be proved through this Sachdeva witness had already been proved through PW3. PW19/Sh. J.N. He was given up by Ld. PP for CBI vide order dated Ahuja 27.04.2009, as the evidence to be proved through this witness had already been proved through PW2. PW20/Sh. From the year 1996 to 2000, he Ex.PW20/1 (demand Updesh was posted in Mahipalpur Branch loan ledger sheet of Sharma of OBC as Officer. Prior to it for Rs.25 lac pertaining to about 8-10 years, he remained in Ram Kumar Bhan, Basant Lok Branch. bearing initial of Mrs. He identified his initials, as well as Subhadra Ashok at point handwriting and signatures of S.K. Y);
Arora (A1), Rajender Ratan (A2), Ex.PW20/2 (credit Sh. Subhash Aghi, handwriting of voucher dt. 24.04.96);
Page 23 of 87 (Pulastya Pramachala)Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI/239/2019, RC No. 5(E)/98 M.S. Rawat, signature of Ms. Lilly Ex.PW20/3 & Ex.PW20/4 Gahoi, Sh. Azad Singh and B.R. (LD-4 and LD-5 dt.09.05.
Soorma on several documents at 95, in the handwriting of
different points. S.K. Arora);
He also identified initials of Mrs. Ex.PW20/5 (demand
Subhadra Ashok, S.K. Arora (A1), loan ledger sheet
Sh. Rajiv Guha, Sh. Sanjiv Sahni pertaining to DL-866,
on several documents at different bearing initial of Sh.
points. Subhash Aghi at point A);
He identified handwriting and Ex.PW20/6 & Ex.PW20/
signatures on Ex.PW6/1, Ex.PW6/ 7 (D-214 & D-213 i.e.
4, Ex.PW6/5, Ex.PW6/6, Ex.PW6/ counterfoils of FDR
7, Ex.PW6/2, Ex.PW6/3, Ex.PW6/ booklets bearing No. ES
19, Ex.PW6/20, Ex.PW6/21, Ex. 142401 to 142500 and
PW6/22, Ex.PW6/24, Ex.PW6/23, ES 142701 to 142800 of
Ex.PW6/25, Ex.PW6/14, Ex.PW6/ OBC, Basant Lok
15, Ex.PW6/16, Ex.PW6/17, Ex. Branch);
PW6/18, Ex.PW6/19, Ex.PW6/9, Ex.PW20/6A (counterfoil
Ex.PW6/13, Ex.PW10/G to Ex.PW of FDR No.142487, vide
10/K, Ex.PW7/67, Ex.PW7/68, Ex. which FDR No.11/94 folio
PW10/AA8, Ex.PW10/AA9, Ex. no.3071 in the name of
PW10/4-6, Ex.PW10/4-7, Ex.PW Ram Janam Bhoomi for
10/4-1 to Ex.PW10/4-7, Ex.PW10/ Rs.70 lac was issued,
AA-11 to Ex.PW10/AA-20, Ex.PW bearing initial of S.K.
10/V-1 to Ex.PW10/V-7, Ex.PW10/ Arora at point X);
W to Ex.PW10/Z, Ex.PW10/AA-
16A, Ex.PW10/AA-1 to Ex.PW10/
AA-4 and other documents.
Ex.PW20/7A (counterfoil of FDR No.ES 142762, vide which FDR No.278/94 folio no.3071 in the name of Sri Ram Janam Bhoomi Nyas for Rs.70,61,753/- was issued, bearing initial of S.K. Arora at point X);
Ex.PW20/8 (D-216 i.e. FDR/CDR long book pertaining to OBC, Basant Lok Branch w.e.f. 30.03.94 to 29.04.94); Ex.PW20/9 (D-217 i.e. FDR/CDR long book pertaining to OBC, Basant Lok Branch w.e.f. 20.03.94 to 07.05.94); Ex.PW20/10 (D-212 i.e. ledger sheet pertaining to FDR No.278/94, Folio No.3071 in the name of Ram Janam Bhoomi Nyas, Malai Mandir from the period 07.04.94 to 08.09.94, in the handwriting of S.K. Arora);
Page 24 of 87 (Pulastya Pramachala)Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI/239/2019, RC No. 5(E)/98 Ex.PW20/11 (D-208 i.e. copy of TPO No.579501/34/94 dt.11.03.94 for Rs.70 lac, vide which amount of Rs.70 lac was transferred from Basant Lok Branch to Mahipalpur Branch on account of Ram Janam Bhumi FDR); Ex.PW20/12 (certified copy of ledger sheet); Ex.PW20/13 (Demand loan papers in the name of R.K. Sharma, which was prepared by S.K. Arora); Ex.PW20/14 (application-cum-authority letter related with demand loan, which was prepared by S.K. Arora); Ex.PW20/15 (certified photocopy of debit voucher dt.14.12.94, in the sum of Rs.13,00, 500/-, in the handwriting of S.K. Arora);
Ex.PW20/16 (certified photocopy of credit voucher dt.14.12.94, in the sum of Rs.500/-, in the handwriting of S.K. Arora);
Ex.PW20/17 (credit voucher dt.14.12.94 for Rs. 13 lac, in the handwriting of S.K. Arora);
Ex.PW20/18 (copy of pay order form, through which a pay order in the sum of Rs.13 lac in favour of R.K. Aggarwal was prepared);
Ex.PW20/19 (copy of a pay order in the sum of Rs.13 lac in favour of R.K. Aggarwal);
Ex.PW20/20 (ledger sheet in the name of Rajender Kumar Sharma, bearing signature of S.K. Arora at points A, B & C); Ex.PW20/21 (demand loan sheet of Rs.13,00, 500/-, bearing signature of S.K. Arora at point A and his initials at points B & C);
Ex.PW20/22 (photocopy of ledger sheet pertaining to account of Kulwant Singh in the handwriting of S.K. Arora); Ex.PW20/23 (debit voucher in the sum of Rs.27 lac, in the name of Kulwant Singh, bearing signature of R.N. Ratan at point A);
Ex.PW20/24 (credit voucher no.955 dt. 10.05. 95 for Rs.27 lac in the name of Rajiv Aggarwal, bearing signature of R.N. Rattan at point A);
Ex.PW20/25 (ledger sheet indicating advance of Rs.27 lac on 10.05.95, pertaining to account of Kulwant Singh, bearing Page 25 of 87 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI/239/2019, RC No. 5(E)/98 signature of Sh. Subhash Aghi at point A); Ex.PW20/26 (FDR No. 230/95 in the name of Joginder Singh in the sum of Rs.5 lac, bearing signature of S.K. Arora at point A);
Ex.PW20/27 (FDR No. 231/95, in the name of Kulwant Singh and Joginder Singh in the sum of Rs.5 lac, bearing signature of S.K. Arora at point A);
Ex.PW20/28 (FDR No. 232/95 in the name of Kulwant Singh and Joginder Singh in the sum of Rs.5 lac, bearing signature of S.K. Arora at point A);
Ex.PW20/29 (FDR No. 233/95 in the name of Kanwar Singh in the sum of Rs.2 lac, bearing signature of S.K. Arora at point A);
Ex.PW20/30 (FDR No.234/95 in the name of Kulwant Singh in the sum of Rs.5 lac, bearing signature of S.K. Arora at point A);
Ex.PW20/P-1 (D-138 i.e. a cheque dt. 03.11.93, bearing signature of Sh. Rajiv Aggarwal at point A. Through this cheque Rs.10,000/- was withdrawn from account no.827 maintained in OBC at Mahipal Pur, New Delhi); Ex.PW20/31 & 32 (CDR ledgers D-382 and D-383, vide which Rs.6 lac was put in two separate FDRs of Rs.3 lac in the name of Karamveer Singh and Kasturi Singh by Sh. S.K. Arora);
Ex.PW20/33 (voucher D-394, vide which Rs.5,25, 742/- was credited in demand loan account 68, bearing signature of Sh. Azad Singh at point A);
Ex.PW20/34 (D-395 i.e. voucher dt.18.12.95 for Rs.6,25,742/-, bearing signature of Sh. Azad Singh at point A);
Ex.PW20/35 (voucher dt. 27.03.96 for Rs.5 lac in the name of Sh. Ramesh Chand);
Ex.PW20/36 (voucher dt. 29.03.96 for Rs.5 lac in the name of Sh. Kamal Kumar);
Ex.PW20/37 (voucher dt. 30.03.96 for Rs.6 lac in the name of Sh. Kamal Kumar);
Ex.PW20/38 (D-152 i.e. self cheque dt. 18.12.93 of M/s.
Page 26 of 87 (Pulastya Pramachala)Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI/239/2019, RC No. 5(E)/98 Shivam Oil Company, bearing signature of B.R. Soorma at point A);
Ex.PW20/39/1 to Ex.PW 20/39/23 (D-469 to D-491 i.e. pay orders, all in favour of IOC Ltd. issued by OBC. Out of these pay orders, 7 pay orders dt. 31.12.93, 03.01.94, 19.01.94, 19.03.94 & 21.03.94 had been issued under signature of B.R. Soorma at point A;
14 pay orders dt. 01.01.94, 08.01.94, 11.01.94, 17.01.94, 19.01.94, 22.01.94, 15.03.94, 16.03.94, 18.03.94, 25.03.94 & 26.03.94 had been issued under signature of Neelam Ohri at point A and 2 pay orders dt. 14.01.94 & 15.01.94 have been issued under signature of R.N. Ratan at point A); Ex.PW20/40 to Ex.PW 20/44 (seizure memos D-435 dt. 10.05.99, D-437 dt. 22.06.99, D-438 dt. 23.06.99, D-458 dt. 16.11.99 and D-460 dt.17.11.99, bearing signature of PW20 at point A and of Insp. S.C. Dandriyal at point B); Ex.PW20/45 (D-309 i.e. credit voucher dt. 17.08.95 for Rs.1,01, 665/- in the name of Rajiv Aggarwal); Ex.PW20/46 (D-334 i.e. ledger sheet pertaining to account no.546 in the name of Marry Jones, which reflects final outstanding of account DL-546 was Rs.5,33,202/-); Ex.PW20/47 & 48 (D-412 and D-413, documents mentioned in seizure memo Ex.PW20/43 at serial no.6 and 7) & Ex.PW20/D-1 (D-193 i.e. xerox copy of letter dt. 05.05.94, mentioning forwarding of the statement STM-16 of April, 1994).
PW21/Sh. He was posted as Manager Ex.PW21/1 to Ex.PW21/ Rajeev Luthra during the period 1990-94 in 4 (D-63 i.e. FDR no.
Basant Lok Branch of OBC and 859520/804/ 92; as Sr. Manager in Mahipal Pur D-64 i.e. FDR no. Branch of OBC during period 859523/807/92; 1994-98. D-65 i.e. FDR no.
He identified his signatures as 859522/806/92 and well as handwriting and D-66 i.e. FDR no. signatures of S.K. Arora (A1), 859521/805/92, all dt. Rajender Nath Rattan (A2), O.P. 18.06.92 in the name of Arora, Sh. Jain on several Moti Ram, for Rs. 5 lacs each of OBC, Mahipalpur Page 27 of 87 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI/239/2019, RC No. 5(E)/98 documents at different points. Branch, New Delhi);
He so identified Ex.PW1/A to Ex.PW21/5 to Ex.PW21/
Ex.PW 1/Q, Ex.PW3/1, Ex.PW6/1 8 (four renewal FDRs of
to Ex. PW6/9, Ex.PW6/13 to Ex.PW21/1 to Ex.PW21/
Ex.PW6/25, Ex.PW7/1 to 4, which were renewed
Ex.PW7/13, Ex.PW7/52, on 08.08.92);
Ex.PW7/20, Ex.PW7/D-1, Ex.PW21/9 to Ex.PW21/
Ex.PW7/D-2, Ex.PW20/1, 12 (D-69, D-70, D-72 &
Ex.PW20/2, Ex.PW 20/4, D-73 i.e. four credit
Ex.PW20/5, Ex.PW17/B to vouchers, all dt.
Ex.PW17/F, Ex.PW10/L to 08.08.92, each for Rs.5
Ex.PW10/P and other documents. lac);
Ex.PW21/13 & Ex.PW21/
He identified signature of Shri 14 (D-71 and D-74 i.e.
Gupta appearing on D-63 i.e. debit vouchers both dt.
FDR no. 859520/804/92; D-64 i.e. 08.08.92 for Rs.
FDR no. 859523/807/92; D-65 i.e. 10,15,753/-);
FDR no. 859522/806/92 and D-66 Ex.PW21/15 (D-68 i.e.
i.e. FDR no. 859521/ 805/92, all TPO No.23/92, favouring
dated 18.06.1992 in the name of Sh. Moti Ram, related to
Moti Ram, for Rs. 5 lacs each of transfer voucher dt.
OBC, Mahipalpur Branch, New 08.08.92 for Rs.31,506/-);
Delhi. Ex.PW21/16 to Ex.PW21
He also identified signature of /19 (four renewed FDRs
R.K. Gupta appearing at point A all dt. 06.01.93, favouring
on D-69, D-70, D-72 & D-73 i.e. Sh. Moti Ram, which
four credit vouchers, all dt. were renewed for a
08.08.92, each for Rs.5 lac. period of six months,
after renewal of four
He also identified signature of FDRs i.e. Ex.PW21/5 to
R.K. Gupta appearing at point A Ex.PW21/8);
on D-71 and D-74 i.e. debit Ex.PW21/20 (D-86 i.e.
vouchers both dt. 08.08.92 for Rs. transfer voucher, vide 10,15,753/-. which CDR for Rs.5,50, He also identified signature of 416/- was issued for six R.K. Gupta on D-68 i.e. TPO months w.e.f. 06.12.93 No.23/92, favouring Sh. Moti favouring Sh. Moti Ram); Ram, related to transfer voucher Ex.PW21/21 (D-87 i.e. dt. 08.08.92 for Rs.31,506/-. debit voucher dt.
17.12.93 for Rs.5,50,
He also identified signature of
416/- for debiting FDR
R.K. Gupta appearing at point A
Ex.PW21/16 and for
on four renewed FDRs all dt.
Page 28 of 87 (Pulastya Pramachala)
Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13,
Rouse Avenue District Court,
New Delhi
CBI/239/2019, RC No. 5(E)/98
06.01.93, favouring Sh. Moti Ram, issuance of CDR);
which were renewed for a period Ex.PW21/22 to Ex.PW21
of six months, after renewal of /24 (D-95, D-98 & D-101
four FDRs i.e. Ex.PW21/5 to i.e. three renewed FDRs
Ex.PW21/8. dt. 06.01.94 for Rs.5,55,
He identified signature of Sh. 000/- each favouring Shri
Subhash Aghi appearing at point Moti Ram);
A on D-87 i.e. debit voucher dt. Ex.PW21/25 to Ex.PW21
17.12.93 for Rs.5,50,416/- for /32 (D-96, D-97, D-99, D-
debiting FDR Ex.PW21/16 and 100, D-102 to D-105 i.e.
thereafter for issuance of CDR. debit and credit vouchers
pertaining to CDRs
He also identified signature of Sh. Ex.PW17/B to Ex.PW17/ Subhash Aghi appearing at point E);
A on D-95, D-98 & D-101 i.e. Ex.PW21/33 & Ex.PW21/ three renewed FDRs dt. 06.01.94 34 (D-36 and D-37 i.e. for Rs.5,55,000/- each favouring debit and credit vouchers Shri Moti Ram, which were in the handwriting of S.K. renewed after renewal of other Arora, which were three FDRs i.e. Ex.PW21/17 to prepared to adjust the Ex.PW21/19. demand loan account He identified his signature as no.DL R83 of M/s. Jain passing officer, appearing at point Aggarwal Associates at A on D-96, D-97, D-99, D-100, D- Basant Lok Branch); 102 to D-105 i.e. debit and credit Ex.PW21/35 (D-35 i.e. a vouchers pertaining to CDRs letter written by S.K. Ex.PW17/B to Ex.PW17/E. Arora to Chief Manager, OBC, Basant Lok Branch He identified signature of S.K. to adjust the demand Arora appearing at point A on D- loan account no.DL R83); 36 and D-37 i.e. debit and credit Ex.PW21/36 (D-67 i.e. vouchers in the handwriting of carbon copy of transfer S.K. Arora, which were prepared payment order no.23/1 to adjust the demand loan dt. 08.08.92); account no.DL R83 of M/s. Jain Ex.PW21/37 (D-121 to D-
Aggarwal Associates at Basant 123 i.e. loan documents,
Lok Branch. vide which Rajeev
He also identified initial of S.K. Aggarwal (A3) had
Arora appearing at point A on D- applied for loan of
35 i.e. a letter written by S.K. Rs.10.97 lac in the name
Arora to Chief Manager, OBC, of his firm i.e. M/s.
Basant Lok Branch to adjust the Shivam Oil Company in
Page 29 of 87 (Pulastya Pramachala)
Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13,
Rouse Avenue District Court,
New Delhi
CBI/239/2019, RC No. 5(E)/98
demand loan account no.DL R83. Mahipalpur Branch of He identified initials of Ms. Rita OBC); Grover on D-67 i.e. carbon copy Ex.PW21/38 (D-126/1 to of transfer payment order no.23/1 D-126/21 i.e. ledger dt. 08.08.92. sheets pertaining to current account no.827 in He identified signature of Rajeev the name of M/s. Shivam Aggarwal (A3) appearing at point Oil Company); A on each page of D-121 to D-123 Ex.PW21/39 to Ex.PW21 i.e. loan documents, vide which /42 (D-89, D-90, D-93 & Rajeev Aggarwal (A3) had applied D-94 i.e. debit and credit for loan of Rs.10.97 lac in the vouchers, vide which name of his firm i.e. M/s. Shivam three FDRs i.e. Oil Company in Mahipalpur Ex.PW21/17 to Ex.PW21/ Branch of OBC. 19 were further renewed He also identified endorsement of on 06.01.94 in the name R.N. Rattan (A2) about sanction of Sh. Moti Ram, for 46 of limit of Rs.11 lac encircled at days); point A on D-126/4 i.e. ledger Ex.PW21/43 (D-124 i.e. sheet pertaining to current account opening form account no.827 in the name of pertaining to account M/s. Shivam Oil Company. no.827 maintained at Mahipal Pur Branch of He also identified signature of Shri OBC, in the name of Subhash Aghi appearing at point aforesaid company); A on D-89, D-90, D-93 & D-94 i.e. Ex.PW21/44 (D-125 i.e. debit and credit vouchers, vide specimen signature card which three FDRs i.e. Ex.PW21/ pertaining to current 17 to Ex.PW21/19 were further account no.827); renewed on 06.01.94 in the name Ex.PW21/45 (D-126/6 i.e. of Sh. Moti Ram, for 46 days. ledger sheet, vide which He identified signature of Rajiv A2 adjusted outstanding Aggarwal (A3) as proprietor of balance of M/s. Shivam Oil Company, Rs.37,88,358.30 in appearing at point A on D-124 i.e. account no.827 on account opening form pertaining 07.01.94 by way of credit to account no.827 maintained at entry of Rs.35 lac Mahipal Pur Branch of OBC, in transferred from another the name of aforesaid company. demand loan account no.227);
He also identified signature of Ex.PW21/46 (D-229/1 to Rajender Nath Rattan (A2) D-229/7 i.e. ledger sheet appearing at point A and that of Page 30 of 87 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI/239/2019, RC No. 5(E)/98 Rajiv Aggarwal (A3) appearing at and certified copy of point B on D-125 i.e. specimen statement of account of signature card pertaining to current account no.955 in current account no.827. the name of Rajiv He identified endorsement and Aggarwal (A3) signature of Rajender Nath Rattan maintained at OBC, (A2) appearing at point A on D- Mahipalpur Branch); 126/6 i.e. ledger sheet, vide which Ex.PW21/47 (D-226 i.e. A2 adjusted outstanding balance statement of account of of Rs.37,88,358.30 in account M/s. Nova Overseas no.827 on 07.01.94 by way of Corporation mentioning credit entry of Rs.35 lac debit entry of Rs.88.10 transferred from another demand lac vide debit voucher loan account no.227. Ex.PW10/L);
Ex.PW21/48 (D-308 i.e. He identified signature of Rajinder credit voucher for the Ratan appearing at point A on D- sum of Rs.58 lac dt. 308 i.e. credit voucher for the sum 10.05.95); of Rs.58 lac dt. 10.05.95; D-305 Ex.PW21/49 (D-305 i.e. i.e. debit voucher for Rs.7,58, debit voucher for Rs.7, 835/- and D-306 i.e. credit 58,835/-, vide which said voucher of Rs.7,58,835/-. amount was debited from He also identified his signature account no.955 of Rajiv appearing at point A on D-218/1 & Aggarwal);
D-218/2 i.e. photocopy of account Ex.PW21/50 (D-306 i.e.
opening form of Ram Janam credit voucher, vide
Bhumi Nyas and specimen which amount of Rs.7,58,
signature card. 835/- was deposited in
DL-228 on 26.05.95 of
He also identified signature of Rajiv Aggarwal);
Rajender Rattan appearing at Ex.PW21/51 & Ex.PW21/
point A on D-239 i.e. transfer 52 (D-218/1 & D-218/2
voucher dt. 17.01.94 for issuance i.e. photocopy of account
of pay order no.114/94 for opening form of Ram
Rs.3,34,405/- in favour of IOC Janam Bhumi Nyas and
Limited (Marketing Division)). specimen signature
He identified signature of Sh. Ravi card); Mehra appearing at point A on Ex.PW21/53 (D-239 i.e. transfer voucher dt. 06.04.94 of transfer voucher dt. Rs.26,000/-, vide which aforesaid 17.01.94 for issuance of amount was credited in the pay order no.114/94 for current account no.955. Rs.3,34,405/- in favour of Page 31 of 87 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI/239/2019, RC No. 5(E)/98 He also identified signature of IOC Limited (Marketing Rajinder Ratan appearing at point Division)); A and handwriting of S.K. Arora Ex.PW21/54 (D-268 i.e. appearing at point B on transfer transfer voucher dt. voucher dt.23.04.94 for Rs.1,76, 18.03.94 for issuance of 543/-, vide which aforesaid pay order no.487/94 for amount was transferred to branch Rs.1,98,680/- in favour of office, Basant Lok. IOC Limited (Marketing He identified initials of Rajinder Division)); Ratan appearing at point A on Ex.PW21/55 (D-281 i.e. transfer of payment advice transfer voucher dt. no.248/ 94, vide which 26.08.94 for issuance of Rs.1,76,543/- was transferred to pay order no.545/94 for branch office, Basant Lok to credit Rs.68,876/- in favour of in saving account no.7874. He IOC Limited (Marketing also identified initials of Rajinder Division)); Rattan appearing at point A and Ex.PW21/56 (D-283 i.e. signature of Rajiv Aggarwal transfer voucher dt. appearing at point B on Ex.PW7/ 28.03.94 for issuance of 46 i.e. cheque dt.27.8.2008 of the pay order no.543/94 for amount of Rs.1,76,543/-. Rs.1,65,571/- in favour of IOC Limited (Marketing He identified signature of Division)); Subhash Aghi appearing at point Ex.PW21/57 & Ex.PW21 A, lien mark for current account /58 (D-287 & D-288 i.e. no.827 at point B, signature of debit and credit Rajiv Aggarwal at point C (reverse vouchers, both dt.06.04. side) on FDR No. 998/93 94 for Rs.16,50,000/-); dt.06.10.93 for a sum of Ex.PW21/59 (transfer Rs.25,000/- in favour of Rajiv voucher dt. 06.04.94 of Aggarwal. The reverse of this Rs.26,000/-, vide which FDR shows that this amount was aforesaid amount was credited to the current account credited in the current no.955 of Rajiv Aggarwal on account no.955); 06.04.94. Ex.PW21/60 (transfer He identified ledger account of voucher dt.23.04.94 for Shree Ram Janam Bhumi being Rs.1,76,543/-, vide which maintained with branch office aforesaid amount was Basant Lok containing pages from transferred to branch D-219/1 to D-219/15. He also office, Basant Lok); identified entry dt.23.04.94 of Rs. Ex.PW21/61 (transfer of 1,76,543/- in the ledger account of payment advice no.248/ Page 32 of 87 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI/239/2019, RC No. 5(E)/98 saving account no.7874 on sheet 94, vide which Rs.1,76, no.D-219/5, by way of TPO. 543/- was transferred to He identified signature of Rajinder branch office, Basant Lok Rattan appearing at point A on D- to credit in saving 328 i.e. debit voucher dt. 10.05.95 account no.7874); of demand loan account no.546 in Ex.PW21/62 (FDR No. the name of Sh. Mary John for 998/93 dt.06.10.93 for a Rs.10.80 lac. sum of Rs.25,000/- in favour of Rajiv Aggarwal);
He also identified lien mark for Ex.PW21/63 (ledger current account no.955 in the account of Shree Ram handwriting of Rajinder Ratan and Janam Bhumi being his initials vide endorsement dt. maintained with branch 31.05.95 on CDR 378/95, against office Basant Lok which loan was sanctioned for containing pages from D- Rs.14,02,744/-. Said CDR was 219/1 to D-219/15.); issued from Extension Counter Ex.PW21/63/1 (entry dt. Kathuria Public School, Vasant 23.04.94 of Rs.1,76, Kunj, New Delhi 543/- in the ledger He also identified entry dt.27.05. account of saving 94 at point A at page D-229/4 account no.7874 of reflecting entry dt.27.05.94 on Shree Ram Janam account of DD return for Rs.16.50 Bhumi on Sheet no.D-
lac. 219/5);
Ex.PW21/46/1 (entry dt. 27.05.94 of Rs.16.50 lac debited in the account no.955 of Rajiv Aggarwal on account of return of DDs(OT));
Ex.PW21/46/2 (entry dt.07.12.94 regarding debit of Rs.12,89,629/- in current account no.955 of Sh. Rajiv Aggarwal, which was adjusted by crediting Rs.13 lac); Ex.PW21/46/3 (entry dt. 15.12.94 of amount of Rs. 13 lac credited in current account no.955 of Rajiv Aggarwal); Ex.PW21/46/4 (entry dt.27.06.94 of Rs.2 lac in current account no.955.);
Ex.PW21/46/5 (entry dt.27.06.94 of Rs.3 lac in current account no.955.);
Ex.PW21/64 (confirmation of debit of Rs.27 lac in demand loan account no.548 of Sh. Kulwant Singh); Ex.PW21/65 (D-328 i.e. debit voucher dt. 10.05.95 of demand loan account no.546 in the name of Sh. Mary John for Rs.10.80 lac);
Ex.PW21/66 (D-330 i.e. demand loan document dt.10.05.95 Page 33 of 87 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI/239/2019, RC No. 5(E)/98 for Rs.10.80 lac in the name of mary John); Ex.PW21/67 (D-331/1-4 i.e. loan document dt. 10.05.95 for a sum of Rs.10.80 lac in the name of Mary John of Mahipal Pur Branch);
Ex.PW21/68 (D-351 i.e. loan document LD-4 and LD-5 in the name of Kulwant Singh for Rs.27 lac dt.10.05.95); Ex.PW21/69 (D-352/1-4 i.e. loan document dt. 10.05.95 in the name of Kulwant Singh);
Ex.PW21/70 to Ex.PW21/72 (three FDRs bearing nos.264/95 for Rs.3 lac, 265/95 for Rs.4,99,500/- and 263/95 for Rs.4 lac of branch office Basant Lok, against which loan was sanctioned to Marry Johnes on 30.03.95 for Rs.10.80 lac);
Ex.PW21/73 (D-315/1 i.e. loan document of Rajiv Aggarwal for Rs.13.50 lac);
Ex.PW21/74 (CDR 378/ 95, against which loan was sanctioned for Rs.14,02,744/-. Said CDR was issued from Extension Counter Kathuria Public School, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi);
Ex.PW21/75 (ledger entry dt.03.10.94 for Rs.88.10 lac showing credit of aforesaid amount in the account of Nova Overseas);
Ex.PW21/76 (D-505 i.e. saving long book from 04.12.91 to 16.02.92);
Ex.PW21/77 (D-506 i.e. long book of loan from 01.06.91 to 30.03.92);
Ex.PW21/78 (D-507 i.e. general ledger from 01.10.91 to 30.03.92) & Ex.PW21/D-1 (D-108 i.e. TPO no.502/92 dt. 05.12.92 for transfer of Rs.16 lac from Basant Lok Branch to Mahipal Pur Branch on account of Rajinder Aggarwal and Subhash Aggarwal).
PW22/Ms. She was an officer at Basant Lok Branch of OBC from Subhadra September 1990 to January 1994. During this period, she Ashok was working as Loan Officer and generally dealt with the term loans, cash credit accounts.
She identified her initials, signature and handwriting as well as of S.K. Arora at different points on several documents pertaining to this case, as she had worked with him and seen him writing and signing on documents on day to day work. She identified signature on Ex.PW6/5, Ex.PW20/1, Page 34 of 87 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI/239/2019, RC No. 5(E)/98 Ex.PW6/4, Ex.PW6/19, Ex. PW6/6, Ex.PW6/7, Ex.PW6/9, Ex. PW6/3 & Ex.PW6/2.
PW23/Sh. J.N. He was posted as AGM in Ex.PW23/1 (another Ahuja Inspection and Control inspection report dated Department of the Head Office of 07.05.97 of Mahipal Pur OBC till 05.06.98. On 14.02.97, Branch). he was made incharge to cordina-
-te between the two teams, constituted by Mr. O.P. Mahajan, to thoroughly investigate the matter of Basant Lok Branch. He identified his signatures at point B and of Sh. Ashok Verma at point A on all the pages of Ex.PW4/A(D-468) i.e. inspection report dated 15.05.97.
He also identified his signatures at point A and of Sh. O.P. Sharma at point B on all 115 pages of another inspection report dated 07.05.97 of Mahipal Pur Branch. PW24/Sh. He was an officer at Mahipal Pur Ex. PW24/1 & Ex. Vijay Kumar Branch, New Delhi, from May, 94 PW24/2 (Certified copies Sharma to August, 97. of fixed deposit ledger of He identified handwriting of Sh. Mahipalpur Branch Subhash Aghi as Loan Officer, bearing folio no. 1952 handwriting and signature of S.K. and 1953, whereby FDR Arora (A1), signature of Mr. R.K. nos. 804, 805, 806 and Gupta, instruction & initial of R.N. 607 of Rs. 5 lac each Rattan (A2), signature of Moti were issued in the name Ram, signatures of Rajeev Luthra, of Moti Ram S/o Kanwar signature of Sh. A.K. Uppal, Bhan on 18.6.1992) signature of Sh. Vinod Puri, Ex. PW24/3 (debit signatures of R.K. Nanda, on transfer voucher for several documents at different renewal of FDRs bearing points. no. 942/92 and 943/92 He identified Ex.PW20/5, Ex.PW whose aggregate 20/3, Ex.PW20/4, Ex.PW21/35, maturity amount was Ex.PW21/33, Ex.PW21/34, Ex. Rs.10,51, 288/-, under PW3/1, Ex.PW6/14, Ex.PW21/5 to signature of Sh. R.K. Ex.PW21/8, Ex.PW21/16 to Ex. Gupta.
PW21/19, Ex.PW21/37, Ex.PW Ex.PW24/4, Ex.PW24/5 21/22, Ex.PW21/23, Ex.PW21/ & Ex.PW24/6 (three 22A, Ex.PW21/23A, Ex.PW21/39, vouchers in respect of Ex.PW21/40, Ex.PW21/25 to Ex. debit and credit transfer PW21/30, Ex.PW17/B to Ex.PW vouchers pertaining to Page 35 of 87 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI/239/2019, RC No. 5(E)/98 17/E, Ex.PW21/31, Ex.PW21/32, renewal of FDRs no.
Ex.PW6/17, Ex.PW6/16, Ex.PW1/ 940/92 and 941/92 on
C, Ex.PW1/G, Ex.PW1/F, Ex.PW 06.01.1993 to fresh
1/H, Ex.PW1/I, Ex.PW1/J, Ex.PW FDRs bearing no. 15/93
1/K, Ex. PW1/M, Ex.PW1/DI and and 16/93 in favour of
other documents. Moti Ram S/o Kanwar
He identified certified copies of Bhan for 46 days for Rs.5 fixed deposit ledger of Mahipalpur Lacs each. Branch bearing folio no. 1952 and Ex.PW24/7 & Ex.PW24/ 1953, whereby FDR nos. 804, 8 (debit and credit 805, 806 and 607 of Rs. 5 lac vouchers dated 31.03.97 each were issued in the name of in respect of CDR Moti Ram on 18.6.92 maturing on Ex.PW21/74 paid on 03.08.92. 31.03.97 with maturity He identified debit transfer amount of Rs. voucher for renewal of FDRs 17,15,342).
bearing no. 942/92 and 943/92 Ex.PW24/9 (Letter dated
whose aggregate maturity amount 29.03.97 bearing
was Rs.10,51,288/-, under signature of Sh. B.K. Jain
signature of Sh. R.K. Gupta. at point A)
He also identified signature of Sh. Ex.PW24/10 & Ex.
R.K. Gupta appearing at point A PW24/11 (debit and
on three vouchers in respect of credit vouchers
debit and credit transfer vouchers corresponding to Ex.
pertaining to renewal of FDRs no. PW21/D1) vide which
940/92 and 941/92 on 06.01.1993 Basant Lok branch was
to fresh FDRs bearing no. 15/93 debited for Rs. 16 lac and
and 16/93 in favour of Moti Ram 2 FDRs in the name of
for 46 days for Rs.5 Lacs each. Rajender Aggawal and
Subhash Aggawal dated
04.12.92 bearing no.
984598 & 984599 for
amount of Rs. 8 lac each
were issued by
Mahipalpur Branch by
Sh. R.K. Gupta,
mentioning that same
were under bank lien)
Ex.PW24/12 & Ex.PW24/13 (FDRs no. 984598 & 984599 of Rs.8 lac each issued by Mahipalpur Branch and Mr. R.K. Gupta mentioned them to be under Bank lien.) Page 36 of 87 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI/239/2019, RC No. 5(E)/98 Ex.PW24/14 & Ex.PW24/15 (credit and debit vouchers vide which FDR no.984599 was renewed on 17.12.93 having maturity amount of Rs.8.88 lac, bearing signature of Mr. Subhash Aghi at point A);
Ex.PW24/16 & Ex.PW24/17 (credit and debit vouchers vide which FDR no.984598 was renewed on 06.01.94 having maturity amount of Rs.8.88 lac, bearing signature of Mr. Subhash Aghi at point A);
Ex.PW24/18 & Ex.PW24/19 (CDR bearing no.250498 and 250499 of Rs.10,81,939/- in the name of Subhash Aggarwal and Rajender Aggarwal, which were issued by Updesh Sharma bearing his signature at point A); Ex.PW24/20 & Ex.PW24/21 (debit and credit voucher issuing CDRs bearing no.250499 & 250498, which were issued by Updesh Sharma bearing his signature at point A. CDR 250498 was to be issued only in the name of Subhash Aggarwal, but name of Rajender Aggarwal was added therein later on);
Ex.PW24/22 to Ex.PW24/24 (the ledgersheet of Moti Ram bearing account no.549 dated 10.05.95, demand promissory note dated 10.05.95 and application cum authority letter dated 10.05.95);
Ex.PW24/25 (loan transfer voucher dated 31.03.1997, signed by Updesh Kumar and Sh. V.K. Jain at points A and B respectively.);
Ex.PW24/26 (CDR no.380445 dated 30.05.95 for Rs.1402744/- in the name of Rajeev Agarwal, bearing signature of A2 with endorsement UBL at point A); Ex.PW24/27 (application-cum-authority letter of Rajeev Aggarwal);
PW25/Sh. He was posted as Chief Manager Ex.PW25/1 (D-433 i.e. Bimal Kumar in the year 1999. seizure memo dated Jain He identified his signature as well 23.02.99).
as of S.C. Dandriyal appearing at point A and B, respectively on each page of D-433 i.e. seizure memo dated 23.02.99, by which he had handed over the documents to the CBI official from Page 37 of 87 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI/239/2019, RC No. 5(E)/98 serial no.1 to 48. This memo contained four pages.
He also identified signature of Sh.
Subhash Aghi appearing at point A on D-194 i.e. Ex.PW7/D-3.
PW26/Sh. B.R. In the year 1999, he was working Ex.PW26/1 (D-432 i.e. Tangri as Chief Manager in OBC, Basant seizure memo dated Lok Branch, New Delhi. 22.02.99).
He identified his signature
appearing at point A on three
places of D-432 i.e. seizure memo
dated 22.02.99, through which he
had handed over documents
mentioned in seizure memo at
serial no.I to XII, to CBI officer.
PW27/Sh. In the year 1999, he was posted Ex.PW27/1 (S-33 to S-
Sandeep at Lodhi Road Branch, State Bank 60) (specimen signature
Chatterjee of Saurashtra as Manager. and handwriting of R.K.
On verbal instructions of his Sharma);
superior officer, he went to CBI Ex.PW27/2 (S-82 to S-
office, where specimen signatures 87) (specimen signature
of R.K. Sharma, R.N. Ratan and and handwriting of
Rajeev Aggarwal were taken. Rajeev Aggarwal) &
He identified his signatures on the Ex.PW27/3 (S-127 to S- sheets of specimen signatures. 178) (specimen signature and handwriting of R.N. Rattan).
PW28/Sh. In the year 1999, he was working Ex.PW28/A1 to A18 (D- Hoshiyar as an officer in PNB, Head Office, 508/ S-88 to S-105 i.e. Singh New Delhi. sheets having specimen On the instructions of his seniors, signatures of R.N. Rattan he went to CBI office on 03.02.99, made on 03.02.99 in the where specimen signatures and presence of PW28, writing of R.N. Ratan were taken, bearing his signature at in his presence. point A on each page and of R.N. Rattan at point B) He identified his signatures as & well as specimen initials and signatures of R.N. Rattan on Ex.PW28/2B to B10 (D- different sheets. 508/ S-117 to S-126 i.e. Page 38 of 87 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI/239/2019, RC No. 5(E)/98 sheets having specimen initials of R.N. Rattan made on 03.02.99 in the presence of PW28, bearing his signature at point A on each page and of R.N. Rattan at point B).
PW29/Sh. N.A. In the year 1999, he was working Ex.PW29/A1 to A20 (D- Nandakumar as an officer in Corporation Bank, 508/ S-61 to S-81 i.e. Lodhi Complex Branch. sheets having specimen On the instructions of his seniors, handwriting and he went to CBI office on 03.02.99, signatures of Rajiv where in his presence the Aggarwal made on 03. specimen signatures and writing 02.99 in the presence of of S.K. Arora and Rajiv Aggarwal PW29, bearing his were taken by the CBI officer. signature at point A on each page and of Rajiv He identified his signatures as Aggarwal at point B) & well as specimen handwriting and signatures of Rajiv Aggarwal Ex.PW29/2B to B18 (D- made on 03.02999 in his 508/ S-195 to S-212 i.e. presence, on different sheets. sheets having specimen handwriting and signatures of Sh. S.K. Arora made on 03.02.99 in the presence of PW29, bearing his signature at point A and of S.K. Arora at point B).
PW30/Sh. S.V. During the year 1998, he was working as Deputy Chief Taneja Manager in Vigilance Department, OBC, Head Officer, Connaught Place, New Delhi.
He identified signature of Sh. S.K. Singh, the then CVO, OBC, Delhi, appearing at point A on the last page of D-2/ Ex.PW12/1 i.e. complaint dated 22.10.98 against Sh. S.K. Arora and Sh. R.N. Rattan.
PW31/Sh. S.B. In the year 1999, he was posted Ex.PW31/1 (D-511/28 to Mathur as Officer, OBC, Nehru Place D-511/37) (S222 to S231 Branch, New Delhi. i.e. specimen writings/ He identified his signature as well signatures of S.K. Arora, Page 39 of 87 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI/239/2019, RC No. 5(E)/98 as specimen writings/signatures obtained by Insp. S.C. of Sh. S.K. Arora on certain Dandriyal, in the documents. presence of PW31 on 09.07.99, bearing signature of PW31 at point A on each page) & Ex.PW31/2 (D-511/51 to D-511/56) (S-245 to S-250 i.e. specimen writings/ signatures of S.K. Arora, obtained by Insp. S.C. Dandriyal, in the presence of PW31 on 09.07.99, bearing signature of PW31 at point A on each page). PW32/Sh. J.K. In March, 1999, he was serving as Ex.PW32/1 (D-510/19 to Saxena Manager, OBC, New Friends D-510/29) (S-106 to S-
Colony Branch, New Delhi. 116 i.e. specimen He identified his signature as well writings/ signatures of as signature of H.C. Dandriyal on Sh. R.N. Rattan taken by certain documents. H.C. Dandriyal on 03.03.99, bearing He also identified specimen signature of H.C. writings/ signatures of Sh. R.N. Dandriyal at point A and Rattan taken by H.C. Dandriyal on of PW32 at point B on 03.03.99, on certain documents. each and every page). PW33/Sh. P. Since, July, 1995 to March, 2000, Ex.PW33/A1 to A32 (D-
Venugopal he was Manager in Vigilance 508 i.e. specimen
Department of State Bank of handwriting/signatures of
Hyderabad, Head Office,
R.K. Sharma from S1 to
Gunfoundry, Hyderabad. S32, bearing signature of
On 05.11.99, he went to CBI PW33 at point A on all 32 office and on asking of CBI sheets).
official, he witnessed the
specimen signature/ writings of
R.K. Sharma.
He also identified his signature on
those sheets.
PW34/Sh. He worked as Manager with Ex.PW34/A (D-129 i.e.
Subhash Aghi branch office, Mahipalpur from cheque bearing no.
July, 1993 to June, 1998. During 522733 dated 03.09.93
that period, he worked on FDR of branch OBC Mahipal
and was also given additional Pur of account no.827 of
charge of loan department. From M/s. Shivam Oil
1994 to 1998, he worked in loan Company, bearing
Page 40 of 87 (Pulastya Pramachala)
Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13,
Rouse Avenue District Court,
New Delhi
CBI/239/2019, RC No. 5(E)/98
department initially under Sh. R.N. signature of Sh. Rajeev Rattan and thereafter, under Sh. Aggarwal at point A);
S.K. Arora. Ex.PW34/B (D-134 i.e.
He identified handwriting & initials cheque bearing no.
of Sh. S.K. Arora, signature of Sh. 522752 dated 08.10.93 Rajeev Aggarwal and Mrs. Manju for an amount of Rs. on several documents, pertaining 25,000/- for M/s. Shivam to this case. Oil Company, bearing signature of Rajeev Aggarwal at point A and of passing officer Mrs. Manju at point B);
Ex.PW34/C (D-146 i.e. cheque bearing no. 522787 dated 17.12.93 for an amount of Rs.9 lac, bearing signature of Sh. Rajeev Aggarwal at point A);
Ex.PW34/D (D-106 i.e. Fixed Deposit Ledger folio No.2254 in the name of Rajender Aggarwal for an amount of Rs.8 lacs) & Ex.PW34/E (D-107 i.e. Fixed Deposit Ledger folio No.2255 in the name of Subhash Aggarwal for an amount of Rs.8 lacs).
Ex.PW34/D1 (D-122/1-6 i.e. LD-9 under the signature of M/s. Shivam Oil Company and the form is in the handwriting of PW34) & Ex.PW34/D2 (D-123/1-4 i.e. LD-5 under the signature of M/s. Shivam Oil Company at point A at page 2 and at page 4 signature of depositor at point A, in the handwriting of PW34).
PW35/Sh. S.K. In the year 1999, he was posted Ex.PW35/1 (photocopies
Kakkar as ARM (Assistant Regional of original personal file
Manager) at regional office, OBC running into 13 sheets, of
at New Delhi. Sh. R.N. Rattan);
He had handed over personal file Ex.PW35/2 (photocopies
of Sh. S.K. Arora and Sh. R.N. of original personal file
Rattan to CBI and identified running into 10 sheets, of
photocopies of the same. Sh. S.K. Arora);
He also identified signature of Sh.
R.N. Rattan and Sh. K.C. Mehra,
on certain documents.
Page 41 of 87 (Pulastya Pramachala)
Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13,
Rouse Avenue District Court,
New Delhi
CBI/239/2019, RC No. 5(E)/98
PW36/Sh. S.C. In the year 1998, he was posted Ex.PW36/1 (FIR dated
Dandriyal as Inspector in CBI SIU-X, New 29.10.98 against S.K.
Delhi. He was marked FIR dated Arora & Ors., bearing
29.10.98 in a case RC SIA 1998 signature of K.N. Tiwari
(E)0005. at point A, which was
During investigation, he collected registered on the basis of documents, recorded statement of complaint of CVO, OBC, witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P. Head Office, New Delhi, C., obtained specimen writings of dated 22.10.98); accused persons and sent the Ex.PW36/2 (D-446 i.e. said questioned documents along seizure memo dated with specimen writings to GEQD, 19.07.99, bearing Shimla for opinion. signature of PW36 at He identified his signature as well point A and of Mr. Rajeev as of Sh. K.N. Tiwari, Sh. B.R. Luthra at point B); Tangri, Mr. Rajeev Luthra, Sh. Ex.PW36/3 (D-440 i.e. N.C. Khanna, Sh. Rakesh Kumar seizure memo dated Nanda, Sh. Azad Singh, Sh. O.P. 12.07.99, bearing Sharma, Sh. Updesh Sharma, Sh. signature of PW36 at B.K. Jain and Sh. Vijay Kumar point A and of Sh. Rajiv Sharma on several documents on Luthra at point B); Ex.PW26/1 i.e. seizure memo Ex.PW36/4 (D-441 i.e. dated 22.02.99 (running into 2 seizure memo dated pages), Ex.PW10/AA-31, 12.07.99, bearing Ex.PW20/41, Ex.PW20/42, signature of PW36 at Ex.PW10/AA-32, Ex.PW10/AA- point X on both pages 35, Ex.PW10/AA-36, and of Sh. Rakesh Ex.PW10/AA-37, Ex.PW10/AA- Kumar Nanda at points Y 38, Ex.PW10/AA-39, and Y1);
Ex.PW10/AA-41, Ex.PW10/AA-
42, Ex.PW10/AA-43, Ex.PW36/5 (D-442 i.e.
Ex.PW20/44, Ex.PW10/AA-44, seizure memo dated
Ex.PW25/1, Ex.PW20/40, 14.07.99, bearing
Ex.PW10/AA-34, Ex.PW29/A-1 to signature of PW36 at Ex.PW29/A-20, Ex.PW32/1, point X and of Sh. Ex.PW27/3, Ex.PW10/AA-29, Rakesh Kumar Nanda at Ex.PW29/2-B to Ex.PW29/19-B, points Y and Y1); Ex.PW39/2, Ex.PW10/AA-30, Ex.
PW31/1, Ex.PW31/2, Ex.PW39/3 and other documents.
Ex.PW36/6 (D-436 i.e. seizure memo dated 13.05.99, Page 42 of 87 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI/239/2019, RC No. 5(E)/98 bearing signature of PW36 at point X and of Sh. Azad Singh at points Y and Y1) & Ex.PW36/7 (D-439 i.e. seizure memo dated 24.06.99, bearing signature of PW36 at point X and of Sh. O.P. Sharma at points Y and Y1).
Ex.PW36/8 (D-375 i.e. long book containing particulars of FDRs/ CDRs issued by OBC, Vasant Lok Branch for the period from 31.08.94 to 28.09.94, bearing signature of Mr. N.C. Khanna at point X on first and last written page of the same);
Ex.PW36/9 (D-503 i.e. long book of loan granted by OBC, Vasant Lok Branch for the period from 04.03.95 to 24.03.95, bearing signature of Mr. N.C. Khanna at point X on first and last written page of the same);
Ex.PW36/10 (D-504 i.e. long book of demand loan granted by OBC, Vasant Lok Branch for the period from 02.03.95 to 30.03.95, bearing signature of Mr. N.C. Khanna at point X on first and last written page of the same); Ex.PW36/11 (D-461 i.e. seizure memo dated 10.05.2000 bearing signature of PW36 at point X and of Sh. Azad Singh at points Y and Y1);
Ex.PW36/12 (D-462 i.e. seizure memo dated 20.07.2000, bearing signature of PW36 at point X and of Sh. B.R. Tangri at points Y and Y1);
Ex.PW36/13 (D-463 i.e. seizure memo dated 22.07.99, bearing signature of PW36 at point X and of Sh. Azad Singh at points Y and Y1);
Ex.PW36/14 (D-445 i.e. seizure memo dated 16.07.99, bearing signature of PW36 at point X and of Sh. Rajiv Luthra at points Y and Y1);
Ex.PW36/15 (D-447 i.e. seizure memo dated 26.07.99, bearing signature of PW36 at point X and of Sh. Rajiv Luthra at points Y and Y1);
Ex.PW36/16 (D-348 i.e. certified copy of statement of account no.10596 of Micheal Johns from 22.01.96 to 23.02.99 in OBC, Basant Lok Branch, bearing signature of Mr. N.C. Khanna at point X);
Ex.PW36/17 (D-376 i.e. seizure memo dated 07.09.2000, Page 43 of 87 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI/239/2019, RC No. 5(E)/98 bearing signature of PW36 at point X and of Sh. Vijay Kumar Sharma at points Y and Y1) & Ex.PW36/18 (chargesheet, bearing signature of PW36 at point X).
PW37/Sh. He was Probationary Officer at Ex.PW37/1 (D-431 i.e. Rajeev Kumar Basant Lok Branch, OBC, New certified copy of TPO no.
Delhi from 16.03.92 to February, 135173/214/92 dt. 1997. He dealt with savings and 18.06.92 for Rs.20 lacs in other miscellaneous work. the name of Moti Ram He identified his signature as well Kanwar Bhan, issued by as handwriting and signature of OBC Basant Lok branch, A1, A2 and others on certain New Delhi);
documents, as he had worked Ex.PW37/2 (ledger folio with them and had seen the no. 3801 dated 30.03.95 writing and signing during the in respect of FDR no. course of official duty. 265/95 for Rs. 4,99,500 He identified handwriting and of OBC.); signature of A1 on documents Ex. Ex.PW37/3 (ledger folio PW6/5 to Ex.PW6/9, Ex.PW6/16, no. 3799 dated 30.03.95 Ex.PW6/19 to Ex.PW6/21, Ex.PW in respect of FDR no.
6/23 to Ex.PW6/30, Ex.PW10/U1 263/95 for Rs. 4 lacs of
to Ex.PW10/U5, Ex.PW21/70 to OBC.);
Ex.PW21/72, Ex.PW10/3 to Ex. Ex.PW37/4 (ledger folio
PW10/5, Ex.PW37/2 to no. 3800 dated 30.03.95
Ex.PW37/47 pay-in-slips in respect of FDR no.
Ex.PW10/41, Ex.PW10/42, 264/95 for Rs. 3 lacs of
Ex.PW10/46), Ex.PW10/43, OBC.);
Ex.PW10/47, Ex.PW10/44 &
Ex.PW10/45, Ex.PW10/V-1 to Ex.PW37/5 (TPO dated
Ex.PW10/V-7. 25.03.94 for Rs.
198680/-);
He further identified signature of
Sh. R.N. Ratan and R.K. Shama Ex.PW37/6 (covering
at points A & B on Ex. PW7/24. schedule of the cheques for presentation dated He further identified signature of 06.04.94, which is a Sh R.N. Ratan at point A on Ex. standard proforma for PW7/25 (cheque, which was sending cheques from issued by Rajeev Aggarwal). one branch to another He further identified signature of branch); Sh R.N. Ratan at point A on Ex. Ex.PW37/7 (cheque Page 44 of 87 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI/239/2019, RC No. 5(E)/98 PW7/47, signature of Subhash return memo of amount Aghi at point A on Ex. PW7/7, Ex. Rs. 4,50,000/-, Rs. PW7/9, signature of Sh. R.N. 7,50,000/- and Rs. Ratan at point A on Ex.PW7/48, 4,50,000/-); Ex. PW7/26, Ex. PW7/28, Ex. Ex.PW37/8 (credit PW7/33, initial of R.N. Ratan at voucher dated 27.05.94 point A on Ex. PW7/34, Ex. for Rs. 4,50,000/- of PW7/36, Ex. PW7/42, Ex. Oriental Bank of PW7/35, Ex. PW7/35, Ex. Commerce for credit PW7/43, Ex. PW7/44, Ex. demand Draft);
PW7/45. Ex.PW37/9 (credit
He further identified signature of voucher dated
Sh. R.K. Sharma at point D, Sh. 27.05.1994 for Rs.
R.N. Rattan at point C and his 4,50,000/- of Oriental
initial at point B on Ex. PW21/43. Bank of Commerce for Signature of Sh. R.N. Rattan at credit demand draft); point A on Ex. PW21/44, his initial Ex.PW37/10 (credit at point B on Ex. PW7/46 and at voucher dated 27.05.94 point A on Ex. PW21/61. for Rs. 7,50,000/- of He further identified signature of Oriental Bank of Sh. R.N. Rattan at point A and Commerce for credit handwriting of Sh. S.K Arora at demand draft); point B on Ex. PW21/7. Ex.
PW40/C to Ex. PW40/S. Ex.PW37/11 (counter foils of FDR from 143001/511/94 to 143100/605/94);
Ex.PW37/12 (counter foils of FDR no. 142801/ 317/94 (folio no. 3402) to 143100/605/94 (folio no. 3407); Ex.PW37/13 (CDR counter foils with regard to the CDR no. 541/93, leaf no. DT 547358 was issued on 06.10.1993 on folio no 3261, for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- in the name of Vishwa Hindu Parishad);
Ex.PW37/14 (CDR/FDR/ Long Book dated 09.05.1994 at internal page no. 142) Ex.PW37/15 (FDR/CDR/Long book for the period 01.05.94 to 26.05.94) Ex.PW37/16 (FDR/CDR/Long Book for the period of 20.08.1994 to 26.09.1994) Ex.PW37/17 (FDR No 616/95, Ex.PW10/AA-15, was closed Page 45 of 87 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI/239/2019, RC No. 5(E)/98 on 18.12.1995 and the maturity amount of Rs.6,25,742/- was credited in DL-68, Ex. PW20/33 and DL-67) Ex.PW37/18 (debit voucher dated 18.12.1995 for payment of FDR a/c no. 4366 for the amount of Rs. 4 Lakhs) Ex.PW37/19 (FDR no. 231/95, in the name of Jagdish Chand for the amount of Rs. 4 Lacs).
PW38/Sh. He remained posted as officer at Ex.PW38/1 to Ex.PW Rakesh Kumar Mahipal Pur Branch, New Delhi 38/4 (D-427, D-428, D- Gupta from mid 1990 till starting of 1993. 429 and D-430, i.e. Thereafter, he was transferred to certified copies of credit Airforce Station, Palam, Extn. voucher of FDRs all dt.
Counter as Branch Manager of 18.06.92 for amount of
Oriental Bank of Commerce. Rs.5 lacs in the name of
During his posting at Mahipal Pur Moti Ram, of OBC
branch Mr. R. N. Rattan was Mahipal Pur branch, New
working as Branch Manager. Delhi);
He identified his signature appearing at point A on FDRs Ex.PW21/1 to Ex.PW21/4, which were issued by him. He also identified Ex.PW37/1.
He identified his initial appearing at point B and signature of A2 at point A on D-427, D-428, D-429 and D-430, i.e. certified copies of credit voucher of FDRs all dt. 18.06.92 for amount of Rs.5 lacs in the name of Moti Ram, of OBC Mahipal Pur branch, New Delhi.
He identified FDRs i.e. Ex.PW 22/1 to Ex.PW22/4, were issued by him on the basis of aforesaid four credit vouchers i.e. Ex. PW38/1 to Ex.PW 38/4.
He identified instructions of A2 appearing at point B on the back of FDRs Ex.PW21/1 to Ex. PW21/4, for their renewal. On the basis of said instructions, he renewed them on 08.08.1992 for Rs.5 lac each.
He identified his signature appearing at point A on Ex.PW 21/5, Ex.PW21/6, Ex.PW21/7 and Ex.PW21/8, which were further renewed on 06.01.93 on the instructions of A2 encircled at point A on their back.
PW39/Sh. He was expert in hand writing Ex.PW39/1 (D-512 i.e. Mohinder identification and forgery CBI forwarding letter no. Singh (Rtd.) detection. 5662/5(E)/ 98-SIU-X dt.
22.11.99);
Page 46 of 87 (Pulastya Pramachala)Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI/239/2019, RC No. 5(E)/98 He identified D-512 i.e. CBI Ex.PW39/2 (D-511 i.e. 9 forwarding letter no. 5662/5(E)/ sheets (S213 to S221) 98-SIU-X dt. 22.11.99 (6 sheets), having specimen through which several documents writings/ signatures were received for examination purported to be of A1); and opinion in the office of GEQD Ex.PW39/3 (D-511 i.e. 6 Shimla. sheets (S239 to S244) He identified several documents having specimen i.e. Ex.PW33/A-1 to Ex.PW33/A- writings/ signatures 32, Ex.PW27/1 to Ex.PW27/28, purported to be of A1); Ex.PW10/AA-28, Ex.PW29/A-1 to Ex.PW39/4 (D-514 i.e. Ex.PW29/A-20, Ex.PW28/A-1 to typed opinion); Ex.PW28/A-18, Ex.PW32/1, Ex.PW32/2-B to Ex.PW32/11-B, Ex.PW39/5 (part of D- Ex.PW10/AA-29, Ex.PW29/2-B to 514 i.e. detailed reasons Ex.PW29/19-B, Ex.PW31/1, in support of opinion Ex.PW10/AA-30, Ex.PW31/2, Ex.PW39/4) & Ex.PW20/4, Ex.PW20/3, Ex. PW39/6 (D-513 i.e. Ex.PW3/1, Ex.PW21/17, the covering letter dated Ex.PW21/18, Ex.PW21/19, 10.04.2000, addressed to Ex.PW21/22, Ex.PW21/23, SP, CBI, SIU-X, New Ex.PW24/12, Ex.PW24/18, Delhi).
Ex.PW24/19, Ex.PW34/D-2, Ex.PW7/1, Ex.PW7/2, Ex.PW7/11, Ex.PW21/65, Ex.PW21/66, Ex.PW21/67, Ex.PW21/70, Ex.PW21/71, Ex.PW21/64, Ex.PW20/24, Ex.PW21/68, Ex.PW21/69, Ex.PW20/26, Ex.PW26/17, Ex.PW26/18, Ex.PW20/29, Ex.PW20/30, Ex.PW10/AA-9, Ex.PW24/22, Ex.PW24/ 23, Ex.PW20/47 & Ex.PW20/48, which were received along with Ex.PW39/1, for examination and opinion in the office of GEQD Shimla. He also identified stamp and mark of GEQD Shimla appearing at points A on D-511 i.e. 9 sheets (S213 to S221) having specimen writings/ signatures purported to be of A1. He also identified stamp and mark of GEQD Shimla appearing at points A on D-511 i.e. 6 sheets (S239 to S244) having specimen writings/ signatures purported to be of A1. He identified his signature appearing at point A and of Sh. M.L. Sharma at point B on D-514 i.e. typed opinion. He also identified his signatures on all three sheets at points A on part of D-514 i.e. detailed reasons in support of opinion Page 47 of 87 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI/239/2019, RC No. 5(E)/98 Ex.PW39/4.
He identified signature of Mr. S. Dey, the then GEQD Officer, appearing at point A on D-513 i.e. the covering letter dated 10.04.2000, addressed to SP, CBI, SIU-X, New Delhi. PW40/Ms. She was Judicial Assistant in HighEx.PW-40/A to Ex.PW- Malika Court of Delhi, New Delhi. She 40/S (certified copies of Srivastava had produced case file bearing various documents i.e. D-
CC No.71/2000, titled as CBI v. 379, D-356, D-382, D- S.K. Arora, RC No.4/98, SIU-X, 383, D-10 (2 pages), D- Delhi, during proceedings of this 384, D-16 (2 pages), D- case. This file was attached with 385, D-29 (2 pages), D- file of criminal appeal no.97/2017386, D-30 (2 pages), D- and criminal appeal no.64/2017. 380, D-546, D-545, D- She compared certified copies of 538, D-543 (2 pages), D- various documents i.e. D-379, D- 550, D-497 and D-498). 356, D-382, D-383, D-10 (2 pages), D-384, D-16 (2 pages), D-
385, D-29 (2 pages), D-386, D-30 (2 pages), D-380, D-546, D-545, D-538, D-543 (2 pages), D-550, D-497 and D-498 with the original documents lying in CC No.71/2000 and said that they are true copies of the original documents.
PLEA OF ACCUSED UNDER SECTION 313 CR.P.C.
6. Statements u/s 313 Cr.P.C. of all the three accused persons i.e. A2, A3 & A4 were recorded. However, during the process of recording statement of accused persons, accused Rajiv Aggarwal (A3) died and proceedings qua him abated vide order dated 31.07.2019. Accused Rajender Rattan (A2) opted to lead evidence in his defence and examined DW-1 and DW-
2. Accused (A2) also examined himself as DW-3 u/s 315 Cr.P.C. Accused Rajender Kumar Sharma (A4), though opted to lead evidence in his defence, however, he did not examine any witness in his defence. Accused A2 and A4 took plea that they have been falsely implicated in Page 48 of 87 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI/239/2019, RC No. 5(E)/98 the present case.
ARGUMENTS OF PROSECUTION
7. Ld. Sr. PP argued that Ex.PW16/C is a page from advance Manual i.e. Ex.PW2/A. He further argued that terms and condition of DL can be found in this manual. Ld. Sr. PP further argued that chapter-3 of the same refers to such terms and conditions and Ex.PW16/C (page 24) contains relevant part. He further argued that D-431 i.e. Ex.PW37/1 (original certified copy from Mahipalpur Branch) and D-16 i.e. Ex.PW6/15 (office copy of TPO at Basant Lok Branch) were received at Mahipalpur Branch for Rs.20 lac in favour of Mr. Moti Ram Kunwar Bhan. Ld. Sr. PP further argued that D-63 to D-66 i.e. Ex.PW21/1 to Ex.PW21/4 are FDRs, which were prepared at Mahipalpur Branch by Mr. R.K. Gupta as deposed by PW21. He further argued that on the basis of FDR of Rs.70 lac dated 07.01.94 i.e. Ex.PW7/2 (D-182) issued by Basant Lok Branch in the name of Ram Janm Ghumar, DL account no. 227 for Rs.48 lacs was opened in Mahipalpur Branch on the basis of sanction by A2, as he was branch head. He further argued that this account was opened in the name of Rajiv Aggarwal (A3) on 07.01.94, itself. Ld. Sr. PP further argued that as per clause 3.3.1 of Manual (Ex.PW16/C), loan could not be granted on the date of deposit itself. He further argued that security of third party could be accepted, on the basis of his signature on the loan application/form (LD-5) as well as on the back of FDR. He further argued that A4 had signed on LD-5 form and on the back of FDR, in the name of Ram Ghumar. CFSL report (Ex.PW39/5) (page 2, 1st para) confirms this fact. Ld. Sr. PP further argued that A2 had verified signature of A4 on the back of FDR. Clause 3.3.5 on page 24 of Manual (Ex.PW2/A), says that borrower should be introduced by Page 49 of 87 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI/239/2019, RC No. 5(E)/98 depositor to the bank. He further argued that Clause 3.3.3 on page 24 of Manual (Ex.PW2/A) says that signature of depositor should be verified from the record, before considering sanction of credit facility. Ld. Sr. PP further argued that ledger sheet of DL-227 is Ex.PW7/6 (D-186) and vide voucher dated 07.01.94 (Ex.PW7/3), amount of Rs.35 lac was credited in account no.827 of M/s. Shivam Oil Co., from DL-227. Vide voucher dated 07.01.94 i.e. Ex.PW7/4, amount of Rs.13 lac was credited in account no.955 of A3. He further argued that M/s. Shivam Oil Co. was also owned by A3. Ld. Sr. PP further argued that Ex.PW7/5 is debit voucher, vide which Rs.48 lac was debited from DL-227. He further argued that on 08.01.94, DL-228 for Rs.52.50 lac was opened in the name of A3 on the basis of same FDR of Rs.70 lac (Ex.PW7/2). LD-5 of this account was signed by A4 in the name of depositor and CFSL report confirmed this fact. Ld. Sr. PP further argued that on 08.01.94 itself, amount of Rs.48,02,235/- was credited in DL-227 vide voucher Ex.PW7/7. The amount of Rs.52.50 lac was debited from DL-228 vide voucher Ex.PW7/9 and it was credited in DL-227 (Rs.48,02,235/-) and in CA-955 (Rs.4,47,765/-) vide voucher Ex.PW7/8. He further argued that DL-228 could not be opened on same FDR, which was used as security for DL-227. This FDR could be free of charge only when DL-227 would have been closed by appropriating due amount. Only, thereafter, this FDR could be used as security for a new DL account i.e. DL-228. Ld. Sr. PP further argued that in this case, amount debited from DL-228, was used to close DL-227 and by this time, FDR still had been attached with DL-227. Therefore, DL-228 could not have been opened using same FDR.
Page 50 of 87 (Pulastya Pramachala)Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI/239/2019, RC No. 5(E)/98
8. He further argued that A2 sanctioned three DLs bearing no.546, 548 and
549. DL-546 was opened in the name of Mr. Mary Jones, DL-548 was opened in the name of Mr. Kulwant Singh and DL-549 was opened in the name of Mr. Moti Ram. But all these persons were fictitious. Ld. Sr. PP further argued that PW2 had conducted investigation at bank level and given his report i.e. Ex.PW2/C (page 4 & 5), wherein point nos. 11, 12 & 13 referred to such verification about aforesaid fictitious persons. He further argued that DL-546 for Rs.10.80 lac was opened on security of three FDRs i.e. Ex.PW21/70, Ex.PW21/71 and Ex.PW21/72. These FDRs were in the name of three different persons and there is no signature of verification on the back of these FDRs, which was required to be done by A2 being branch manager. Ld. Sr. PP further argued that proceeds of this account were credited in account no.955 of A3, vide credit voucher Ex.PW21/65A and debit voucher Ex.PW21/65. Both these vouchers were signed by A2, as deposed by PW21. He further argued that amount was credited in the account of Mr. Rajiv Aggarwal (A3), without any such instruction or instrument issued by Mr. Mary Jones.
9.Ld. Sr. PP further argued that DL-548 for Rs.27 lac was opened on security of seven FDRs in the name of different persons. They are Ex.PW20/26, Ex.PW20/27, Ex.PW20/28, Ex.PW10/AA8, Ex.PW20/29, Ex.PW20/30 and Ex.PW10/AA9. These FDRs were also not verified by A2. He further argued that PW37 identified signature of A4 on account opening documents of A3 for account no.955, as introducer. Ld. Sr. PP further argued that FDR of Rs.70 lac (Ex.PW7/2) was made basis to open DL-228 in Mahipalpur Branch by A2. On 11.03.94 this FDR was transferred to Mahipalpur Branch from Basant Lok Branch vide TPO dated 11.03.94 i.e. Ex.PW20/11(D-208). This FDR was reviewed in Page 51 of 87 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI/239/2019, RC No. 5(E)/98 Mahipalpur Branch on 07.04.94 for sum of Rs.70,61,753/- and new FDR was issued i.e. Ex.PW7/16 (D-198). He further argued that ledger sheet of FDR Ex.PW7/2 is Ex.PW21/53, which mentions renewal of this FDR and issuance of new FDR. Though, FDR of Rs.70 lac was having lien of DL-228, but it was not discharged. Ld. Sr. PP further argued that clause 3.3.7 of Ex.PW2/A provides that in case of renewal of any FDR, a fresh discharge (consent) from depositor was required. Though, in new FDR (Ex.PW7/16), endorsement of lien was marked, but as per requirement consent of depositor was not obtained by A2. He further argued that clause 3.3.6 provides that on maturity of FDR, its proceeds were to be deposited in advance account to close its dues and excess amount was to be handed over to depositor. Under no circumstances, advance could continue after maturity of FDR. However, in DL-228, FDR was for 46 days and it matured on 21.02.94. Therefore, this account should have been adjusted then and there and there was no basis to continue this advance account or to renew that FDR on 11.03.94. Ld. Sr. PP further argued that A2 had renewed this FDR on 07.04.94 and later on, on 08.09.94 he transferred this FDR back to Basant Lok Branch, vide marking his note on the back of this FDR. He did not take any step to close DL-228. Ld. Sr. PP further argued that A2 rather mentioned in ledger sheet of DL-228 i.e. Ex.PW7/13, to transfer lien over another FDR No.596/94 for Rs.88.10 lac. Ld. Sr. PP further argued that ledger sheet of FDR No.596/94 is Ex.PW10/P (Ex.PW21/75) (D-224), shows that this FDR was in the name of Nova Overseas Corporation. PW5 was partner of this firm. This FDR was issued from account no.1562 of this firm. He further argued that ledger sheet of account no.1562 is Ex.PW21/47 (D-
226), which shows transfer of Rs.88.10 lac for FDR. Account opening Page 52 of 87 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI/239/2019, RC No. 5(E)/98 form of account no.1562 is Ex.PW5/A, bearing specimen signature of PW5. He further argued that PW5 deposed that he did not offer his FDR, for DL-228 nor gave any consent to pledge it for A3. Ld. Sr. PP further argued that new LD-5 form was required to be taken in respect of new FDR, but A2 did not obtain new LD-5 form with consent/undertaking of depositor of new FDR. Thus, DL-228 was continued without any security. He further argued that on 03.10.94, the new FDR was also paid to Nova Overseas, which is so reflected for ledger sheet Ex.PW10/P. Thus, even on record, after 03.10.94, DL-228 was left without any security.
10.Ld. Sr. PP further argued that on 10.05.95, Rs.58 lac was transferred to DL-228 from account no. 955 vide cheque Ex.PW7/52. This amount of Rs.58 lac was deposited in account no.955 from three new DL accounts i.e. DL-546, DL-548 and DL-549 on same day and these accounts were opened in fake names. Ld. Sr. PP further argued that on 26.05.95, vide credit voucher Ex.PW21/50, amount of Rs.7,58,835/- was deposited in DL-228 and DL-228 was closed. This amount was debited from account no.955 vide debit voucher Ex.PW21/49. Both vouchers were authorised by A2.
11.Ld. Sr. PP further argued that in DL-548, LD-4 & LD-5 form (Ex. PW21/69) was not signed by one of the depositors namely Sukhwant Singh, whose FDR Ex.PW10/AA8 (D-356) was used to open DL-548. Ld. Sr. PP further argued that another FDR Ex.PW20/28 and Ex.PW20/27, were in the name of Joginder and Kulwant. But. Signature of Joginder was not taken on the back of these FDRs, which was mandatory. Sign to pledge was put on revenue stamp, but no such stamps were put in there.
12.Ld. Sr. PP further argued that DL-549 was opened on the basis of four FDR i.e. Ex.PW17/C, Ex.PW17/D, Ex.PW17/E & Ex.PW17/B (D-323 to Page 53 of 87 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI/239/2019, RC No. 5(E)/98 D-326). These FDRs were in the name of Mr. Moti Ram, issued on 10.05.95 i.e. the same day when advance was given. He further argued that none of these FDRs were stamped with revenue stamp, nor signed by depositor nor verified by A2. Ld. Sr. PP further argued that LD-4 (Ex. PW24/22) and LD-5 (Ex.PW24/23) (D-320 & 321) for DL-549, were signed by A4 in the name of Mr. Moti Ram. CFSL report (Ex.PW39/5) has confirmed it.
13.He further argued that vide debit and credit vouchers (D-328) (Ex.PW21/65) and (D-329) (Ex.PW21/66) amount of Rs.10.80 lac was credited in account no.955 from DL-546. Ld. Sr. PP further argued that vide debit and credit vouchers (D-349) (Ex.PW20/23) and (D-350) (Ex.PW20/24), Rs. 27 lac was credited in account no.955 from DL-548. He further argued that vide debit and credit vouchers (D-318) (Ex.PW17/F) and (D-319) (Ex.PW17/G), Rs.20.2 lac was credited in account no.955 from DL-549. He further argued that all these vouchers were verified by A2.
14.Ld. Sr. PP further argued that official position was abused by A2 and A4 was part of conspiracy as he used to sign in the name of fake persons viz. Moti Ram, Ram Ghumar etc., so as to facilitate the fraudulent transactions. He further argued that Section 418 IPC is applicable in this case. A2 and A4 knew that there were no persons in the name of Moti Ram etc. A2 was bound to protect the interest of OBC, but he acted otherwise. Ld. Sr. PP further argued that IO/PW-36 proved that he had taken specimen of A2 and A4 and GEQD report proved by PW39, confirms that the fake signatures were put by A4. Ld. Sr. PP further argued that T.P.O. (Ex.PW21/D-1) dated 05.12.1992 for Rs.16 lac was sent from Basant Lok Branch to Mahipalpur Branch., in the name of Page 54 of 87 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI/239/2019, RC No. 5(E)/98 Rajendra Aggarwal and Subhash Aggarwal. The source of fund was DL- 84 in the name of Mr. Moti Ram. On the basis of aforesaid T.P.O., two FDRs i.e. Ex.PW24/12 and Ex.PW24/13 were issued in Mahipalpur Branch, in the name of Rajendra Aggarwal and Subhash Aggarwal, respectively. These FDRs were issued in Mahipalpur Branch on 04.12.92, without any T.P.O. being received on that day. No fund was received on that day. Ld. Sr. PP further argued that (D-109 & D-110) (Ex.PW24/10 and Ex.PW24/11) are transfer vouchers of Mahipalpur Branch, dated 04.12.92. It is mentioned therein that FDR for Rs.16 lac was issued, on the basis of amount received from Basant Lok Branch. Though, number of FDR was not mentioned in the transfer vouchers, which were signed by A2. Ld. Sr. PP further argued that in ledger Ex.PW34/D and Ex.PW 34/F (related to two FDRs), it is mentioned that they were issued by transfer. Thus, there was no separate credit of so much amount on 04.12.92 and therefore, these FDRs are related to T.P.O of Rs.16 lac. He further argued that such conduct of A2 shows that he was acting in connivance with A1 and therefore only, he issued such FDR even without receiving the amount on 04.12.92. FDR in the name of Subhash Aggarwal was renewed but new FDR could not be proved.
15.Ld. Sr. PP further argued that four FDRs were used for opening DL-549, in the name of Moti Ram. However, his sign on the back of FDRs were not obtained for their discharge. Only LD-4 and LD-5 were signed, whereupon A4 had signed in the name of Moti Ram. He further argued that amount from DL-549 was transferred to account no.955 of A3, but debit voucher was not signed by anyone. Though, it should have been signed by Moti Ram, to authorize transfer of such amount. Debit voucher was verified by A2.
Page 55 of 87 (Pulastya Pramachala)Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI/239/2019, RC No. 5(E)/98
16.Ld. Sr. PP further argued that in respect of three FDRs furnished to open DL-546, A2 was required to send letter to issuing branch i.e. Basant Lok Branch, so as to mark lien over these FDRs in their record. But he did not do so. He further argued that A2 was also required to verify signature of depositors on these FDRs from Basant Lok Branch, but he did not do so. Similarly, FDRs for DL-548 were issued from Basant Lok Branch and aforesaid steps were required to be done by A2, but he did not do so.
17.Ld. Sr. PP further argued that PW2 described the procedures to open advance account and proved manual also as Ex.PW2/A. Ex.DW1/A is also same manual and on page 49 of Volume-II, the relevant provisions appear in clause 6.10. (6.10.2). He further argued that Ex.PW10/T-1 to Ex.PW10/T-8 are debit vouchers signed by A1, which show that FDRs used for DL-546, were encashed at Basant Lok Branch. Ld. Sr. PP further argued that Ex.PW37/2, Ex.PW37/3 and Ex.PW37/4 are ledger sheets of FDRs, which also mention their closure against payments made on 22.01.1996, in the saving bank account of Michael Jones bearing no.10596, in the sum of Rs.1277876/-. He further argued that Ex.PW36/16 is ledger sheet of account no.10596, showing such transfer from FDR.
18.On 14.04.96 amount of Rs.12,87,460/- was transferred to Mahipalpur Branch through T.P.O. Ld. Sr. PP further argued that Ex.PW10/V1 is ledger sheet of FDR Ex.PW20/26, Ex.PW10/V2 is ledger sheet of FDR Ex.PW20/27, Ex.PW10/V3 is ledger sheet of FDR Ex.PW20/28, Ex.PW10/V4 is ledger sheet of FDR Ex.PW20/29, Ex.PW10/V5 is ledger sheet of FDR Ex.PW20/30, Ex.PW10/V6 is ledger sheet of FDR Ex.PW10/AA8, Ex.PW10/V7 is ledger sheet of FDR Ex.PW10/AA9, which show encashment of seven FDRs. He further argued that all Page 56 of 87 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI/239/2019, RC No. 5(E)/98 aforesaid ledger sheets show that they were closed and amount was transferred to issue new FDR. This was done at Basant Lok Branch by A1. Ld. Sr. PP further argued that five new FDRs were issued by A1 out of proceeds of aforesaid seven FDRs. He further argued that the final outstanding of account DL-546 was Rs.5,33,202/- as reflected in its ledgersheet Ex.PW20/46 and of account DL-548 was Rs.31,08,000/- as reflected in its ledgersheet Ex. PW20/25. Ld. Sr. PP further argued that since amounts from these two accounts were credited in account no.955 of A3, thus, he was given pecuniary advantage, by flouting all norms. He further argued that total loss caused to OBC on account of dues pending in DL-546 and DL-548, was Rs.36,41,202/-, which happened because of dishonest acts of A2 and A4, along with A1 and A3. ARGUMENTS MADE BY DEFENCE
19.Ld. counsel for accused R.K. Sharma (A4) argued that PW3/Sh. Malhan did not give any report. He further argued that PW2 conducted enquiry and he mentioned name of A-4 in his report i.e. Ex.PW2/C, as close associate of A3. Therefore, CBI implicated A4 in this case, though, there was nothing said against him in report Ex.PW2/C. Ld. counsel further argued that documents related to FDR's opening/issuance were not produced before the court. He further argued that no one identified A4 as person, who acted as Moti Ram or Ram Gan Bhumer. Ld. counsels further argued that A2 had not committed any misconduct. The demand loans opened by him were closed with deposit of all due amounts, except for DL 546 & DL 548. However, in respect of these loan accounts, the original FDRs remained with the bank and thus, the accounts were duly secured. If A1 had encashed/paid those FDRs in Basant Lok Branch, then A2 cannot be held responsible for the same, because, as Page 57 of 87 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI/239/2019, RC No. 5(E)/98 per norms without surrender of physical FDR certificates, same could not have been discharged. They further argued that A4 was not identified by anyone as the person, who put signatures in the name of Moti Ram and Ram Gan Bhumer. They submitted that case of prosecution against A4 is based only on opinion given by handwriting expert, which cannot be said to be flawless and same cannot be sole basis to convict A4.
20.Ld. counsel for A4 relied upon S.P.S. Rathore v. C.B.I. & Anr., 2016 [4] JCC 2687, to submit that before acting on substantive evidence, it is usual to see if it is corroborated either by clear, direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence.
21.Ld. counsel for A4 also relied upon Om Prakash & Ors. v. Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) 2017 VII AD (Delhi) 649, wherein Supreme Court observed that :-
"6.2. It is trite law that unlike the science of finger printing which is quite accurate, science of matching the handwriting is not an exact science and thus opinion of an expert in handwriting must be received with great caution and before a conviction is based, there should be other cogent and convincing evidence proved by the prosecution to base a conviction thereon. In the decision reported as (1977) 2 SCC 2010 Magan Bihari Lal Vs. State of Punjab Supreme Court following its earlier decision in AIR 1957 SC 381 Ram Chander Vs. State of U.P. held that it is unsafe to treat opinion of the handwriting expert as sufficient basis for conviction though it may be relied upon when supported by other items of internal and external evidence. It was held:
7. ....It is now well settled that expert opinion must always be received with great caution and perhaps none so with more caution than the opinion of a handwriting expert. There is a profusion of precedential authority which holds that it is unsafe to base a conviction solely on expert opinion without substantial corroboration. This rule has been universally Page 58 of 87 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI/239/2019, RC No. 5(E)/98 acted upon and it has almost become a rule of law. It was held by this Court in Ram Chandra v. State of U.P. [AIR 1957 SC 381 : 1957 Cri LJ 559] that it is unsafe to treat expert handwriting opinion as sufficient basis for conviction, but it may be relied upon when supported by other items of internal and external evidence. This Court again pointed out in Ishwari Prasad Mishra v. Md. Isa [AIR 1963 SC 1728 :
(1963) 3 SCR 722] that expert evidence of handwriting can never be conclusive because it is, after all, opinion evidence, and this view was reiterated in Shashi Kumar Banerjee v.
Subodh Kumar Banerjee [AIR 1964 SC 529] where it was pointed out by this Court that experts evidence as to handwriting being opinion evidence can rarely, if ever, take the place of substantive evidence and before acting on such evidence, it would be desirable to consider whether it is corroborated either by clear direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence. This Court had again occasion to consider the evidentiary value of expert opinion in regard to handwriting in Fakhruddin v. State of M.P. [AIR 1967 SC 1326 : (1967) 2 SCJ 885 : 1967 Cri LJ 1197] and it uttered a note of caution pointing out that it would be risky to found a conviction solely on the evidence of a handwriting expert and before acting upon such evidence, the court must always try to see whether it is corroborated by other evidence, direct or circumstantial. It is interesting to note that the same view is also echoed in the judgments of English and American courts. Vide Gurney v. Langlands [1822 5 B and Ald 330] and Matter of Alfred Foster's Will[34 Mich 21]. The Supreme Court of Michigan pointed out in the last-mentioned case:
Every one knows how very unsafe it is to rely upon any one's opinion concerning the niceties of penmanship - Opinions are necessarily received, and may be valuable, but at best this kind of evidence is a necessary evil.
We need not subscribe to the extreme view expressed by the Supreme Court of Michigan, but there can be no doubt that this type of evidence, being opinion evidence is by its very nature, weak and infirm and cannot of itself form the basis for a conviction. We must, therefore, try to see whether, in the Page 59 of 87 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI/239/2019, RC No. 5(E)/98 present case, there is, apart from the evidence of the handwriting expert B. Lal, any other evidence connecting the appellant with the offence."
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENTS
22.As already mentioned herein before, the proceeding qua A1/S.K. Arora and A3/Rajiv Kumar Aggarwal stood abated on account of their death. Now only two accused persons are left, against whom the case was prosecuted further i.e. A2/Sh. Rajinder Nath Rattan and A4/Sh. R.K. Sharma. It is worth to record here that since there had been evidence led by CBI against all the accused persons, the pieces of evidence incriminating A1 or A3 cannot become evidence against accused A2 and A4. In order to appreciate and analyse the allegations and evidence against A2 and A4, so as to return any finding on their guilt qua the charges framed against them, it is appropriate to refer to the allegations made against these two accused persons in the charges framed against them, which are as follows:-
23.The case of prosecution against accused Rajinder Nath Rattan (A2) is that, while working as Chief Manager (public servant), Oriental Bank of Commerce, Mahipal Pur Branch, he entered into criminal conspiracy with other co-accused persons and acted in pursuance to said conspiracy and thereby he fraudulently and dishonestly sanctioned three demand loans i.e. DL-546 for Rs.10.80 lacs, DL-548 for Rs.27 lacs and DL-549 for Rs.2.20 lacs in the name of Marry John, Kulwant Singh and Moti Ram, against the securities of Benami FDRs on 10.05.1995. It is further alleged that accused A2 transferred Rs. 58 lacs from aforesaid DLs in the account no. 955, maintained in Mahipal Pur Branch, in the name of accused Rajiv Aggarwal (A3). It is further alleged that on Page 60 of 87 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI/239/2019, RC No. 5(E)/98 05.01.1994, A2 allowed over draft of Rs.12,49,525/- and to adjust this overdraft, A2 credited an amount of Rs.13 lac from DL-227 in the name of accused Rajiv Aggarwal (A3). It is further alleged that A2 verified signatures of Ram Gan Bhumar appearing on FDR No.11/94, allegedly forged by accused R.K. Sharma (A4) and thus, A2 created/sanctioned number of DLs, thereby creating FDRs/CDRs in the name of various fictitious persons from time to time, and adjusted them in order to cause pecuniary advantage to Rajiv Aggarwal (A3). Thus, A2 committed offence punishable u/s 120B IPC read with Section 420/467/471 & 477 A IPC and Section 13 (1) (d) P.C. Act, 1988.
24.It is further allegation against A2 that being public servant in the capacity of Chief Manager, OBC Mahipal Pur Branch, by use of illegal means and by abusing his official position, A2 alongwith A1 (Branch Manager of Basant Lok Branch) sanctioned and created various demand loans from time to time in the name of aforesaid fictitious persons, thereby enabling co-accused A3 and A4 to obtain pecuniary advantage to the tune of Rs. 1,25,68,426/- from Basant Lok and Mahipal Pur Branch. Thus, he committed offence punishable u/s 13(2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) P.C. Act, 1988.
25.It is further allegation against A2 that he alongwith A1 during 1992-97, willfully and with intent to defraud, sanctioned aforesaid various demand loans in the name of fictitious persons and also created FDR/CDR from the amount of said loan and in these transactions, he prepared, passed and got passed various vouchers to benefit co-accused A3 through these accounts. A2 also falsified the record/book of OBC for such purposes and thus, he committed offence punishable u/s 477A IPC.
Page 61 of 87 (Pulastya Pramachala)Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI/239/2019, RC No. 5(E)/98
26.It is further allegation against A2 that he alongwith A1 used the aforesaid forged documents as genuine, which he knew to be forged documents, with intent to defraud Oriental Bank of Commerce, and thus, he committed offence punishable u/s 471 IPC.
27.The case of prosecution against accused R.K. Sharma (A4) is that he being proprietor of M/s. Mool Chand Motors introduced account no. 955 of Mr. Rajiv Aggarwal (A3) in Mahipal Pur Branch and signed certain documents as an introducer. It is further alleged that signature of accused (A4) were verified by co-accused R.N. Rattan (A2). It is further case of prosecution against accused A4 that in pursuance to the criminal conspiracy, he forged signature of Ram Gan Bhumar/R.J. Bhumar on the FDR bearing no.11/94 and also forged signature of Moti Ram on the loan documents pertaining to DL account no.549 for the loan of Rs. 25.20 lac, and thus, he committed offence punishable u/s 120B IPC read with Section 420/467/471 & 477 A IPC and Section 13 (1) (d) P.C. Act, 1988 as well as substantive offence punishable u/s 467 IPC.
28.It is further allegation against A4 that he alongwith A3 cheated Basant Lok and Mahipalpur Branches of OBC by dishonestly inducing OBC by getting sanctioned various demand loans in the name of fictitious persons from time to time and getting those amounts transferred in his accounts with OBC and fraudulently withdrawing amount to the tune of Rs. 1,25,68,426/- and thus, he committed offence punishable u/s. 420 IPC.
29.It is further allegation against A4 that he alongwith A3 fraudulently used as genuine, certain documents in opening demand loans and creating FDR from their proceeds, knowing them to be the forged documents and thus, he committed offence punishable u/s 471 IPC.
Page 62 of 87 (Pulastya Pramachala)Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI/239/2019, RC No. 5(E)/98 FINDINGS :-
30.Before I proceed further to look into the evidence in respect of allegations made against A2 & A4, I will refer to the ingredients of relevant offences, so that the evidence be appreciated on the parameters of these offences.
Ingredients of Section 13 (1) (d): -
31.This provision deals with the offence of criminal misconduct and different clauses refer to different kinds of criminal misconduct. The constituents of criminal misconduct under clause (d) (i) & (ii) are as follows:
(a)Accused being a public servant obtained for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage by corrupt or illegal means; or
(b)Accused by abusing his position as a public servant, obtained for himself or for any other person, any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage.
32.In the case of A.K. Ganju & Ors. v. CBI, 2014 AD (Delhi) 349, following observations were made in respect of requirements of offence punishable u/s 13 (1) (d) P.C. Act, 1988:-
"114. As regards the charge under Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, the violator should have obtained a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage for himself or for any other person. In the present case, in chargesheet, there are no allegations of any kind, whatsoever, of any demand, acceptance or giving of any bribe by anybody to anyone. For such an offence, the prosecution has to establish that the accused has obtained the valuable thing or pecuniary advantage by corrupt or illegal means or by otherwise abusing his position as a public servant and that too without the aid of statutory presumption available to him. In other words, in the absence of proof of demand or Page 63 of 87 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI/239/2019, RC No. 5(E)/98 request from the public servant for a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage, the offence under Section 13(1) (d) of the PC Act cannot be held to be established."
33.Even the provision in respect of Section 13 (1) (d) clause (iii) refers to obtaining any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage for any person without any public interest. Thus, the element of obtaining valuable thing or pecuniary advantage either for himself or for any other person is much inherent in the ingredients of offence u/s 13 (1) (d) of P.C. Act, 1988.
34.The offence of cheating is defined in Section 415 IPC. Ingredients of Section 415 IPC can be divided into three following parts :-
(a)Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or
(b)Intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and
(c) Which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in mind, body, reputation or property, is said to "cheat".
The aforesaid ingredients of cheating show that an act or omission as covered under head of (a) or (b) must be coupled with effect as covered under head of (c) in order to complete the offence of cheating.
35.Section 467 IPC makes forgery of a valuable security as an offence. Section 471 IPC provides that whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses a document as genuine, knowing fully well or having reason to believe such document to be forged, then such person commits offence under this provision. Forgery is defined in Section 463 IPC, stating that whoever makes any false document or part of a document, with intent to cause damage or injury, to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into Page 64 of 87 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI/239/2019, RC No. 5(E)/98 any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery. Section 464 IPC defines making of a false document. Thus, forgery of a document is first ingredient which must be satisfied to invoke Section 471 IPC.
36.A full bench of Supreme Court in Ram Narayan Popli v. CBI, (2003) 3 SCC 641, had occasion to deal with the ingredients of forgery and while dealing with this question, the court observed as follows :-
"The first essential is that the accused should have made a false document. The false document must be made with an intent to cause damage or injury to the public or to any class of public or to any communities."
37.Section 477 A IPC provides that whoever being an officer willfully and with intent to defraud, destroys, alters, mutilates or falsifies any book, electronic record, paper, writing, valuable security or account which belongs to his employer or which has been received by him for or on behalf of his employee, or who willfully and with intent to defraud, makes or abetes the making of any false entry in or omits or alters or abetes the omission or alteration of any material particular from or in, any such book record etc., then he commits the offence of falsification of accounts.
38.Thus, from the ingredients of Section 13(1)(d) P.C. Act, 1988 and Section 420 IPC, and the allegations made by CBI in this case, it is apparent that some pecuniary gain or loss must be established as the outcome of the alleged actions of the accused. ROLE OF ACCUSED SH. RAJENDER NATH RATTAN (A2) :-
39.I shall start with the charge related to offence punishable u/s 477 A IPC. This charge is based upon the allegations of creating/sanctioning various demand loans and FDR/CDR in the name of fictitious persons and Page 65 of 87 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI/239/2019, RC No. 5(E)/98 preparing various vouchers as well as falsifying the record book of OBC. It is well apparent that the charge is basically based upon the allegations of 3 demand loans bearing nos. 546, 548 & 549 being opened in the name of fictitious persons i.e. Mary Jones, Kulwant Singh and Moti Ram. Ld. Sr. PP relied upon the report given and proved by PW2 to support the allegations of these accounts being opened in the name of fictitious persons.
40.As per testimony of PW2, he had been deputed in February 1997 to conduct special investigation and regular inspection of Mahipal Pur Branch. He thoroughly investigated all accounts and submitted his inspection report to General Manager in May 1997. Copy of that report was proved by him as Ex. PW2/C. Though an objection was raised by defence that it was only a photocopy, however, PW2 identified his signature on the same and also confirmed the contents of that report. He also proved summary regarding details of various accounts and their outstandings as Ex. PW2/D and a synopsis submitted by General Manager (Inspection & Control) to CMD OBC as Ex. PW2/E. PW2 had also explained the procedure followed in sanction and disbursement of loans against various securities. He also proved advance manual volume-I of OBC as Ex. PW2/A. In fact, even defence had proved some part of same manual alongwith some part of advance manual volume-II. These manuals were the undisputed documents in this case.
41.The relevant part of testimony of PW2/Sh. O.P. Sharma is reproduced as under: -
"For the sanction of loan and overdraft against bank own deposit, the borrower is required to sign bank's prescribed loan application form besides surrendering of duly discharged bank's owned FDR along with DP Notes. The prescribed loan Page 66 of 87 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI/239/2019, RC No. 5(E)/98 application form is LD-5, which is to be signed by the borrower on page No.1 & 2 and also on page no.3 and 4 where he is the owner of the FDR. In case, the loan is against third party's FDR, the borrower signs on page no.1 and 2 of LD-5 while page no.3 and 4 are signed by the owner of the FDR i.e. the third party.
After receipt of above said documents, the concerned loan officer sent the duly discharged FDRs along with LD-5 to the concerned officer incharge of FDR section for verification of signatures of the FDR Holder on the back side of the FDR. This is to ensure that the FDRs which have been taken as security have been discharged by the right person. Once the FDR officer is satisfied in regard to the authenticity of signatures of FDR holder, he marks lien on the said FDRs and also on the relevant FDR Ledger Sheet, so that these FDRs cannot be taken as security in other cases. In case the FDRs are issued by another branch of the bank then the loan disbursing branch sends the LD application and FDRs to that branch for verification of signatures and recording of lien on FDR and relevant FDR sheet as discussed above. The issuing branch sends a letter to the loan disbursing branch stating that the said lien has been marked in their books. In case, the loan is not adjusted by the borrower after the due dates of the FDRs, notice is sent to the borrower to adjust the same and in case he does not respond, the FDRs are appropriated in the loan/overdraft account of the borrower..... ............................
Demand loan is a type of loan which is repayable to the bank on demand. The Demand Loan can be given on any security or FDR or movable or immovable property. ...............
Q. Is it fact that you had seen documents D-351, D-352/1, D- 352/2 and D-352/3 now shown to you in the court at the time of inspection pertaining to grant of demand loan to Kulwant Singh on 10.05.95?
Ans. I had seen the same.
....................................... Q. Was there a manager loan in Mahipalpur branch during the period 1993 to 1997?
Ans. When I inspected the branch in 1997 one person was Page 67 of 87 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI/239/2019, RC No. 5(E)/98 posted as manager loan in Mahipal pur branch but I do not remember his name.
Q. Is it fact that according to the procedure prevalent in the bank, (Manager, loan) was entrusted with the duties of the loan applications and get all documents prepared for grant of loan?
Ans. Yes.
Q. Is it fact that in case of grant of loan exceeding Rs. One lakh the Manager Loan was required to put up a note for processing and give his views for grant of loan before putting before the incumbent incharge?
Ans. I do not remember.
..........................
Q. Can you point out by reference to your inspection report if any process note was prepared by manager loan or checked by you in respect of loan to Kulwant Singh? Ans. There is no mention of process note in the said inspection report. I do not remember if there was any process note or not in respect of above loan.
.......................
Ans. The FDR cannot be encashed without its presentation. ......................
The FDR is issued by the bank after obtaining account opening form, introduction and deposit of amount either in cash through pay in slip or on transfer from the account of the account holder of the bank. The identity of the person obtaining the FDR is thus established by the issuing branch. At the time of sanction of loan against FDR issued by the other branch, the branch sanctioning the loan gets the FDR marked with lien by the issuing branch.
..........................
Ans. I have seen the said FDRs and still confirm that the lien has not been created since the endorsement has to be signed by a competent officer of the Basant Lok Branch. In these FDRs the endorsement has not been signed by competent official Basant Lok Branch and hence, the FDRs cannot be considered under the bank lien. Hence, my report is correct. ...........................Page 68 of 87 (Pulastya Pramachala)
Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI/239/2019, RC No. 5(E)/98 Q. I put to you that Mahipal Pur Branch had issued a letter to Chief Manager Basant Lok Branch on 10.05.95 to mark lien on the seven FDRs, did you check that letter at the time of inspection?
Ans. I do not remember if I had seen such letter. The purpose of sending this letter is defeated if issuing branch does not confirm marking of lien under the signatures of competent authority. Hence, it is more important that the lien should be noted and whether the letter exist or not. ..........................
Q. Did you make any field investigation to verify the facts about the genuineness of the borrowers?
Ans. During the course of inspection our entire team requested the then branch manager, loan officers to bring these borrowers to the bank to prove their identities/existence but they could not produce the borrowers. .............
At the time of sanction of demand loan, loaning documents are obtained by the official who has been assigned these duties by the Branch Manager. The lien of the FDRs is noted by the concerned person incharge of the FDR department.....
Loan is sanctioned by the competent authority on the basis of process note, naturally it is in writing. I had verified all the relevant documents. I do not remember as to whether I mentioned the name loan team in my report. There is no loan team as such in the Branch and the proposal is precessed by loan officer or any other officer authorised by the bank manager."
42.In respect of persons alleged to be fictitious persons, it is well apparent that report of PW2 i.e Ex PW2/C (para 11,12,&13) was based upon the failure of the then branch manager/loan officers to bring those borrowers to the bank, so as to prove their identity and existence. In the report Ex. PW2/C, PW2 had reported that Mr. Moti Ram, Kulwant Singh and Marry Jones were fictitious persons. However, this report is totally silent about the basis to give such conclusion. CBI did not conduct any independent Page 69 of 87 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI/239/2019, RC No. 5(E)/98 investigation into this aspect, though it was part of their duty.
43.On the other hand, if I refer to testimony of another witness from same bank i.e. PW21/Sh. Rajiv Luthra, then I find that FDRs and bank accounts were opened in the name of Moti Ram in the year 1992 as well and some FDRs (Ex. PW21/1 to Ex. PW21/4) were issued by different manager namely Sh. R.K. Gupta/PW-38 also. This goes on to show that even prior to A1, FDRs were being issued and banking transactions were being done in the name of customer Moti Ram S/o Kanwar Bhan as well as Mr. Kanwar Bhan by different manager i.e. Sh. R.K. Gupta, but apparently, CBI has not found any fault on the part of Mr. Gupta, which will go on to show that the person namely Moti Ram was not created all of a sudden during tenure of A2.
44.PW-38/Sh. R.K. Gupta deposed that he had prepared the FDRs as per instruction mentioned in TPO brought by account holder in person and that account holder himself signed over the application form for FDR, in his presence. Such statement of PW-38 was not challenged by CBI and thus, his testimony falsifies the allegations that Moti Ram was a fictitious person.
45.Now, it shall be also relevant to look into the other aspect of such allegations. This aspect relates to verification of identity of a borrower. PW7/Sh. Azad Singh testified before the court that during the year 1994- 95, Sh. Subhash Aghi (PW34) was manager incharge of loan section and in fact, this is not in dispute that PW34 was working as manager in the same branch i.e. Mahipal Pur Branch. Even PW34 deposed such fact. PW7 deposed that he was working in loan section, under Mr. Subhash Aghi and Mr. Aghi was manager in charge of loan section. He further deposed that the proposals for advance of loan, including Page 70 of 87 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI/239/2019, RC No. 5(E)/98 demand loan used to be processed in the loan section. He further admitted the fact that the loan documents including LD-IV and LD-V forms used to be prepared and got signed as well as processed in the loan section and thereafter, in case the loan was for more than Rs. 1 lac, a processing note was required to be put by the manager loan. The documents relating to demand loan was put up to manager of the branch after processing the same. PW7 also deposed that it was the routine duty of the branch manager to sign on loan documents and all the documents pertaining to loan were fist of all processed and verified by the concerned loan manager. In fact, PW21 and PW34 conceded the fact that many of the vouchers and loan applications, including the same pertaining to Moti Ram were prepared in their handwriting. PW34/Sh. Aghi stated that he had written the description of depositors in form LD- V/Ex. PW24/23 (portion A) related to demand loan no. 549. The particulars of this account holder in the concerned ledger sheet i.e. Ex. PW24/24 (portion X) were also filled by him. PW34 also deposed that he had prepared the promissory note Ex. PW21/66 and LD-V form Ex. PW21/67, both in the name of Marry Jones. PW34 had also made entries in the loan register, related to loan of Marry Jones and ledger sheets related to Moti Ram. He had also made entries in the ledger sheets of the loan pertaining to Marry Jones. On same date i.e. 10.05.95, LD-V form for loan in the name of Kulwant Singh i.e. Ex PW21/69 was also prepared.
46.PW24/Sh. Vijay Kumar Sharma had also worked in Mahipal Pur Branch from May 1994 to August 1997 i.e. during tenure of A2. He also deposed that Sh. Aghi/PW34 was working as manager loan at this branch during his period and all the loan documents were kept in dual custody of loan Page 71 of 87 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI/239/2019, RC No. 5(E)/98 manager and branch manager. In respect of demand loan no. 549 in the name of Moti Ram, he deposed that this loan was applied on 10.05.95. LD-IV as well as LD-V were filled by PW34. Meaning thereby, all these three loan accounts were processed by PW34/Mr. Aghi. In these circumstances, it was part of his duty to verify the loan documents including the documents related to identity of these borrowers. He was also supposed to prepare a process note and to put up the same before A2 alongwith all the processed loan documents.
47.PW2, PW7, PW20, PW21 or even PW34, narrated the applicable procedure for opening of loan account. However, it will be appropriate if the relevant procedures and guidelines in respect of opening a loan account against security i.e. demand loan account, which were prevalent at the relevant time, be reproduced here from the original source itself i.e. Ex. PW2/A and Ex. DW1/A, so that the court may have the concrete idea about the accountability to be fixed against A2 in respect of allegations made against him.
ADVANCES MANUAL VOLUME-I (APPRAISAL OF CREDIT PROPOSALS AND GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS)
48.Advances Manual, Volume-I (Appraisal of Credit Proposals and General Instructions) provides for following provisions :-
1.6 (a) Demand Loans :- In a loan account, the entire amount is paid to the borrower at one time either in cash or by transfer to his account. No subsequent debit is allowed except by way of interest and other charges.
Demand Loans may be allowed against the security of Bank's own Deposits, National Saving Certificates or other approved securities issued by the Post Office/Shares/Debentures/Units/LIC Policies/Gold Jewellery etc. or against personal security. These loans are repayable on demand by the Bank and must be got adjusted within a maximum period of three years.
Page 72 of 87 (Pulastya Pramachala)Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI/239/2019, RC No. 5(E)/98 2.6 (i.) Persons borrowing against the security of Bank Deposits.
2.7 Appraisal System :- A process note must be prepared before release of the credit facility except in the cases listed in para 2.7.1. The process note should be exhaustive covering all points e.g. Profile of Borrower: Name, Address, Business, Constitution, Date of Constitution, Names of constituents with net worth, names of Guarantors with net worth, net worth of the concern, dealings with the Bank since, Date of commencement of business, Category of Advance (Trade/Export/SSI/ Priority Sector/Industry/Conventional), Availability of DICGC Cover, Details of S.S.I Registration, Position of Income-Tax/Wealth-Tax Assessment orders/Returns of borrowers and its constituents, Management etc.
- Details of facilities enjoyed, if any, with other Bank/our Bank by borrower or its associate concerns.
- Purpose of advance.
- Operations of all the accounts of the concern.
- Position of IDBI Refinance for Term Loan.
- Details of infrastructural facilities available (for production unit) Land, Building, Power, Water, Labour, Raw material), Transport etc.
- Market and Marketing.
- Details of Production Process.
- Project Implementation schedule (both in terms of cost and time).
- Existing and past financial position and operative performance.
- Deposit value of account.
- Details of Collateral Security.
- Assessment of Limit/ Profitability Projections. For Term Loan Projectio- ns Sales figures with cost factors should be discussed in brief with repayment capacity of borrower, Moratorium period and reasons therefore. For working capital and non-fund based facilities all relevant factors should be discussed in the process note.
- Comments on visit of the unit by Bank official.
- Internal/Statutory/Concurrent/R.B.I. Audit and Inspection irregularities observed and rectification thereof.
- Other relevant factors, if any.
- Recommendations with justifiable reasons.
- Detailed terms and conditions of sanction.
In case of proposal falling within the discretionary powers of Regional/ Page 73 of 87 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI/239/2019, RC No. 5(E)/98 Head Office, the matter should be referred to the Sanctioning Authority on a letter alongwith a copy of the application submitted by the party and details of the securities offered. If necessary, the salient features of the credit proposals be narrated in the covering letter in greater details for the reference of the Sanctioning Authority.
2.7.1 (i) Advance against Bank Deposits upto Rs.1,00,000/-.
2.7.3 Process Note for Use at Small/Medium/Large Branches Industrial Units Process Note No.1 Conventional Advances Process Note No.2 The process note shall be prepared by the Loan Officer/Manager (Loans)/Agriculture Officer at the branch who shall also record his views/recommendations and submit the same to the Incumbent-in- charge for approval. Under no circumstances, the Credit limit be sanctioned before compiling the proposal and the Loan Officer/ Manager handling credit portfolio should be involved in processing the loan proposal.
The process note prepared as above should clearly specify the detailed terms and conditions of the sanction.
2.12 (c) (vii) Advances against Bank's own deposits - 25%.
3.3. Advance against Bank Deposits i. The borrower is required to submit an Application Form on LD-5. The financial assistance can be granted to the borrower against the security of deposits standing in his own name or in joint names alongwith others or deposit standing in the name of third parties. The Application Form is to be signed by the borrower(s) and the Authority-cum-Undertaking portion by the depositors. If the borrower(s) and depositor(s) are the same, the Application and Authority Letter shall be signed by the same person (s). However, loan cannot be granted on the date of deposit. ii. Where the deposit stands in the joint names, all the depositors are required to sign. However, if the loan is desired by one of the co- depositors, all the remaining depositors can give a specific mandate in favour of one depositor to obtain the loan against the Page 74 of 87 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI/239/2019, RC No. 5(E)/98 security of deposit. Such a general mandate can also be given at the time of issuance of Deposit Receipts by ticking off the appropriate clause in the Account Opening Form for Term Deposits. If such a mandate is not available, the advance should be allowed after the discharge of Deposit Receipt by all the co- depositors. In case of advance either to the partnership firms or against the deposit standing in the name of the firm, the signatures of all the partners be obtained.
In case of advance to Limited Companies against the deposits standing in the name of Company, Board Resolution to borrow funds from the Bank against Deposits be obtained and the documents be got executed from the director authorised by the Board.
iii.The signatures of all the depositors be verified from the records before considering sanction of the credit facility. iv.The discharged Deposit Receipt(s) must accompany the Application-cum-Authority Letter.
v. In case the advance is allowed against third party deposits, the borrower should be well introduced to the Bank by the Depositors for verification of his signatures and address. The advance can be allowed in the shape of Demand Loan/Overdraft at the option of the borrower.
vi. On maturity of the term deposit, the proceeds be credited into the loan account and the balance be remitted to the depositors and under no circumstances the advance be continued on the basis of matured deposit receipts.
vii. In case of overdrafts, the renewal of the limit can be granted only if the Deposit Receipts are renewed. A fresh Application-cum- Authority Letter must be obtained at each renewal of overdraft limit and the renewed Deposit receipts are also required to be again discharged from the Depositors.
x. The relative ledger folio be branded with a Rubber Stamp 'Under Bank Lien' under signature of the Authorised officer with date of marking the lien. In the event of withdrawal of deposit before lifting the Bank Lien, the Passing Officer shall be held accountable for the Lapse. The fact of lifting of Bank Lien shall be marked on the respective folio of the ledger in red ink under the signatures of the authorised officer and date.
xi. After ensuring that the Deposit Receipts are genuine, the signature Page 75 of 87 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI/239/2019, RC No. 5(E)/98 of the Depositors are verified; the borrower is properly introduced, the facility shall be sanctioned. In case the advance amount is more than Rs.1,00,000/-, the processing of the proposal be done on an Office Note giving full details of the credit facility and the terms of sanction. In case of advances below Rs.1,00,000/- the Branch Manager shall record his sanction on the form LD-5 "Limit of Rs..........sanctioned."
ADVANCES MANUAL VOLUME-II (DOCUMENTATION ASPECT) 3.4.4 Advances against Bank Deposits A. Demand Loans i. Application-cum-Authority Letter. ii. Original cash payment voucher duly receipted by the borrower across Revenue Stamp/Debit Transfer Voucher. iii. Demand Promissory Note.
iv. Duly discharged Deposit Receipts/Pass Books across Revenue Stamp.
4.1.1 Demand Loans A. Renewal of Limit No document is required to be obtained. However, Balance-cum
-Security Confirmation Letter be obtained.
B. Enhancement in Limit i. Appropriate Application-cum-Authority Letter for total enhanced limit be obtained.
ii. The existing demand loan be adjusted when further loans are granted against the same security, Supposing, the debit balance in the existing demand loan account is Rs.15,000/- and the borrower wishes to raise the loan amount to Rs.20,000/-. If the drawing power after keeping the prescribed margin permits the enhanced limit, the same may be allowed by opening a new demand loan account for the enhanced limit out of which the debit balance outstanding in the existing demand loan account together with interest due be adjusted and the balance amount be paid to the borrower.
iii. Cash Payment Voucher duly receipted on the revenue stamp or Debit Transfer Voucher duly confirmed by the borrower. iv. Demand Promissory Note.
v. Deposit Receipt/Pass Book duly discharged by the borrower be Page 76 of 87 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI/239/2019, RC No. 5(E)/98 kept on record as before.
6.10 Precautions to be taken in case of advances against Fixed/Term Deposits.
6.10.1 The deposit receipt should be of the branch itself.
6.10.2 Advance against deposit receipt issued by another office of the Bank should be allowed only upon proper identification and after obtaining an advice from the issuing office that lien is noted in favour of the lending branch; arrangement is made for remittance of the proceeds of the deposit receipt, on maturity, to the lending branch.
6.10.3 In the case of deposits standing in the name of two or more depositors, the loan against the deposit can be granted to any of the co-depositors provided a clear mandate is given by the joint account holders either at the time of opening of the account or at the time of granting the loan.
6.10.4 The lien of the Bank should be noted on the deposit receipt as also in the relative deposit ledger at the branch.
6.10.5 As per guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India at least 25% margin in case of advance against bank deposit is to be maintained and this must be complied with.
6.10.6 The contract between the Bank and the depositor stands terminated on the basis of maturity of deposit when a loan is sanctioned against the deposit receipt and as such the amount of term deposit be appropriated in the loan account or overdraft account on maturity. Under no circumstances, advances should be allowed or continued on the basis of matured deposit receipt.
49. The above mentioned procedures, do make it clear that in respect of a loan having value of Rs. 1 lac, a process note was to be put up before the branch manager alongwith remarks of the loan manager. Therefore, I have no hesitation to say that it was not strictly part of the duty of A2 to Page 77 of 87 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI/239/2019, RC No. 5(E)/98 verify the loan documents or the identity of the borrowers. All these things were to be done by PW34 and his subordinate officials like PW7. At least in respect of identity of the borrower, A2 being branch manager was justified to presume that the loan documents and applications were put to him only after due verification of identity of the borrowers. There is no evidence on the record in respect of relevant process notes. Even report of PW2 i.e. Ex.PW2/C, is silent in respect of process notes, which could throw light over the basis to sanction these three loans. Therefore, even if the aforesaid three loans in the name of Marry Jones, Kulwant Singh and Moti Ram were sanctioned by A2, it cannot be said that A2 had knowingly sanctioned these loans to fictitious borrowers. His act of signing on the vouchers subsequent to opening of these loan accounts were part of his routine duty. On the basis of sanctioning these loans and allowing subsequent vouchers, he cannot be said to have made false entries in the books and accounts of the bank. Therefore, I find that charge for offence u/s 477 A IPC is not proved against A2.
50.Now, I shall deal with charge for offence u/s 471 IPC against A2. As per allegations, forms LD-IV/Ex. PW24/22 and LD-V/Ex. PW24/23 in respect of demand loan no. 549 in the name of Moti Ram were signed by A4 and the subsequent debit and credit vouchers related to this loan account were verified by A2. Argument was made by ld. Sr. PP that A2 knew that there was no person by the name of Moti Ram, still he verified the vouchers. However, I find that the claim of ld. Sr. PP about knowledge of A2 regarding Moti Ram being a fictitious person, is not supported by concrete evidence. I have already held so herein above. In view of the duty being cast upon the loan manager/PW34 to process the loan documents and application, it cannot be said that aforesaid LD-IV and Page 78 of 87 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI/239/2019, RC No. 5(E)/98 LD-V forms of demand loan no. 549 were signed before A2. Hence, it cannot be imputed upon A2 that these applications were forged (if it is so) within his knowledge. As natural corollary, it cannot be presumed that sanction of this loan coupled with verification of subsequent credit and debit vouchers were done by A2, with knowledge that the loan application was bearing forged signature. Moreover, the concerned debit and credit vouchers i.e. Ex. PW17/F and Ex. PW17/G were prepared by PW34 and this fact was so affirmed by PW21 and PW34 in their testimonies. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that A2 used forged documents as genuine with knowledge of them being forged or having reason to believe so. Therefore, charge for offence u/s 471 IPC is also not proved against A2.
51.Now, I shall deal with the charge for offence u/s 13 (1) (d) P.C. Act, 1988 against A2. A2 is alleged to have used illegal means and abused his official position to sanction and create demand loans from time to time in the name of fictitious persons and ultimately enabling A3 & A4 (both private persons) to obtain pecuniary advantage in the sum of Rs. 1,25,68,426/-. It is worth to mention here that this charge was framed against A1 and A2 and probably the quantum of pecuniary advantage was based on the loss incurred by OBC from its two branches i.e. Basant Lok and Mahipal Pur Branch. However, I have to confine my analysis only in respect of A2. Ld. Sr. PP had argued that on account of misconduct of A2, OBC suffered loss in the sum of Rs. 36,41,202/-. According to him, the conduct of A2 in opening account DL No. 546 & DL No. 548 in the name of fictitious persons and crediting the loan amount to the account of A3, amounted to criminal misconduct u/s 13 (1) (d) of the P.C. Act, 1988. It was argued that there was outstanding of Rs.
Page 79 of 87 (Pulastya Pramachala)Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI/239/2019, RC No. 5(E)/98 5,33,202/- in DL A/c no. 546 and Rs. 31,08,000/- in A/c no. DL- 548.
52.The undisputed facts are that 3 FDRs were furnished to open A/c no. DL-546 in the name of Marry Jones. These FDRs are Ex. PW21/70 to Ex. PW21/72. All these FDRs were issued from Basant Lok Branch, in the name of George Ibrahim, Marry Jones and Michael Jones. All these FDRs were furnished in original, which are still lying on the judicial record. Which means that these original FDRs remained with the bank. The loan amount advanced against security of these FDRs was Rs. 10.8 lacs. The total value of these 3 FDRs was 11,99,500/-. These FDRs are not alleged to be fake FDRs.
53.Ld. Sr. PP argued that A2 did not obtain verification of Basant Lok Branch on the back of these FDRs and even instruments from Marry Jones were not obtained for crediting the loan amount in the account of A3. It was also argued by him that A2 did not send letter to Basant Lok Branch to mark lien on these FDRs. However, PW34, who had dealt with the opening of this loan account, himself deposed that he had written a letter to the Basant Lok Branch for marking the lien in the books of FDR. He further deposed that he had marked endorsement of bank lien on FDR Ex. PW21/70 and endorsement of under bank lien (UBL) was marked over FDR Ex.PW21/71 & Ex.PW21/72 by Sh. S.K. Arora/A1. Such evidence of PW34 was not challenged by prosecution and in that situation, the above mentioned argument of ld. Sr. PP cannot be sustained. It was argued by Sr. PP that these 3 FDRs were encashed/discharged by A1 at Basant Lok Branch. However, for such development no responsibility can be fixed against A2. In fact, PW2 in his report Ex. PW2/C had also mentioned that these FDRs were paid by A1 without taking physical delivery of FDRs and therefore, he was liable Page 80 of 87 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI/239/2019, RC No. 5(E)/98 for making such payment. Endorsement of UBL on two of these FDRs by A1 reflect that intimation was given in his branch about lien over these FDRs, only then such endorsement could be made by A1. Having physical possession of these FDRs in original, was also a safeguard for the purpose of demand loan no. 546. Therefore, for any loss caused to OBC or for any enrichment of A3, responsibility cannot be fixed against A2, because this loss did not occur because of him.
54.Now, coming to the loss occasioned out of DL no. 548 in the name of Kulwant Singh, once again it is undisputed fact that this loan account was opened against 7 FDRs. These 7 FDRs were also issued by Basant Lok Branch in the name of Joginder Singh, Kulwant Singh, Sukhwant Singh, Kanwar Singh, Ranjeet Singh. 2 FDRs were there in the name of Joginder Singh and 2 FDRs were issued in the name of Kulwant Singh. All these FDRs are placed in original on judicial file, meaning thereby that all these FDRs were available with the bank to set off the concerned demand loan account. Advance of Rs. 27 lacs was given against these 7 FDRs and total value of these FDRs was Rs. 30 lacs. Once again similar kind of argument was made that these FDRs were not verified by A2. However, all these FDRs bear endorsement of under bank lien. As per report given by PW2, these FDRs were paid by A1 from Basant Lok Branch, without taking physical delivery of the same. As already observed by me, for such act of A1, A2 cannot be held responsible. Having physical original FDRs (which are not alleged to be fake FDRs) was sufficient safeguard. PW34 had deposed that he had marked lien over these FDRs and if CBI did not find anything wrong with the same, then at least A2 cannot be blamed for the same. It is worth to refer to undisputed evidence produced by DW1 in respect of memorandum of Page 81 of 87 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI/239/2019, RC No. 5(E)/98 charges leveled against PW34 by his department i.e. OBC, in respect of same case. This memorandum is Ex. DW1/B. As per charges leveled against PW34 (Annexure - II of Ex. DW1/B), PW34 had been involved in unauthorised transaction which included the transaction of opening demand loans bearing no. DL-546, DL-548 & DL-549. In fact, PW34 was given some punishment in the departmental enquiry on such charges. This fact becomes relevant here, because, such stand of OBC against PW34 reflected that PW34 was more to blame for the alleged transactions, because, he was the concerned manager to process all these loans and to take care of requirements for opening these loan accounts. A2 was obviously expected to cross-check the things, which were put up to him by the loan department. Any failure or omission on the part of A2, shall at the most be regarded as a lapse in performing his duty, which cannot be equivalent to criminal misconduct as defined in Section 13 (1) (d) of P.C. Act, 1988. Moreover, the pecuniary advantage if any, provided to A3 in respect of demand loan no. 546 & 548, was because of alleged misdeed of A1, rather than A2. If A1 would not have encashed/paid those FDRs, then even these demand loans would have been set off from the maturity value of the FDRs kept in security.
55.It is also worth to mention here that though in the arguments of ld. Sr. PP, there were references of various omissions or irregularities committed by A2 in opening other demand loans, but it was conceded by ld. Sr. PP that all those demand loan accounts were satisfactorily closed against deposit of due amounts and thus, there was no loss to OBC or pecuniary advantage given to any other person. I have already mentioned herein above that pecuniary advantage to any person, be it accused himself or any other person, is must to attract the provisions u/s Page 82 of 87 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI/239/2019, RC No. 5(E)/98 13 (1) (d) of the P.C. Act, 1988. Since, this element is missing here against A2, I find that the charge for this offence is not proved against A2.
56.As far as charge for offence u/s 120B IPC is concerned, I would refer to some observations made in the case of State of M.P. v. Sheetla Sahai & Ors. VI (2009) SLT 535, which are as follows:-
"50. Criminal conspiracy is an independent offence. It is punishable separately. Prosecution, therefore, for the purpose of bringing the charge of criminal conspiracy read with the aforementioned provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act was required to establish the offence by applying the same legal principles which are otherwise applicable for the purpose of bringing a criminal misconduct on the part of an accused.
51. A criminal conspiracy must be put to action inasmuch as so long a crime is generated in the mind of an accused, it does not become punishable. What is necessary is not thoughts, which may even be criminal in character, often involuntary, but offence would be said to have been committed thereunder only when that take concrete shape of an agreement to do or cause to be done an illegal act or an act which although not illegal by illegal means and then if nothing further is done the agreement would give rise to a criminal conspiracy. Its ingredients are
(i) an agreement between two or more persons;
(ii) an agreement must relate to doing or causing to be done either (a) an illegal act; (b) an act which is not illegal in itself but is done by illegal means.
What is, therefore, necessary is to show meeting of minds of two or more persons for doing or causing to be done an illegal act or an act by illegal means.
52. While saying so, we are not oblivious of the fact that often conspiracy is hatched in secrecy and for proving the said offence substantial direct evidence may not be possible to be obtained. An offence of criminal conspiracy can also be proved by circumstantial evidence".
Page 83 of 87 (Pulastya Pramachala)Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI/239/2019, RC No. 5(E)/98
57.Having concluded that none of the charges for offence u/s 471 & 477A IPC as well as u/s 13 (2) P.C. Act, 1988 stand proved against A2, it becomes difficult to assume that A2 can be found to be a part of criminal conspiracy to commit these offenes alongwith other co-accused persons. The allegations made by the prosecution are the same in respect of this charge and those factual allegations are not found proved in respect of substantive offences. Therefore, the inevitable conclusion would be that on the basis of evidence on the record, it cannot be said that A2 was a part of criminal conspiracy to commit any of these offences. Therefore, I find that even charge for offence u/s 120 B IPC is not proved against A2. ROLE OF ACCUSED R.K. SHARMA (A4) :-
58.The allegations against A4 are that he forged signature of Ram Gan Bhumar on FDR no. 11/94 and signature of Moti Ram on loan documents pertaining to DL no. 549. These allegations have been proved by prosecution with support of report given by PW39 i.e. Ex. PW39/A. FDR no. 11/94 dated 07.01.94 was issued from Basant Lok Branch. Same is Ex. PW7/2. It is not the case of prosecution that this FDR was got issued without passing consideration amount from the side of customer. Though, PW7 had exhibited this document, but his testimony confined only in respect of signature of A2 appearing on the backside of this FDR as token of verification of this FDR. PW10/Sh. N.C. Khanna had worked in Basant Lok Branch. According to his testimony, the aforesaid FDR was prepared and signed by A1 and the consideration amount had come from the saving bank account of Ram Janam Bhumi Niyas. The signature on the back side of this FDR at point Q1 is under challenge by CBI, so as to allege that it was put by A4. This FDR was used to open DL account no. 227 in Mahipal Pur Branch and the account Page 84 of 87 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI/239/2019, RC No. 5(E)/98 was opened by A3. PW7 deposed that part of LD-IV (Ex. PW7/D) for the aforesaid loan account was filled by him. He further deposed that form LD-V (Ex. PW7/1) was also filled by him. He further deposed that the part of same loan document i.e. a letter of authority cum undertaking by the depositor (Ex. PW7/D1, D-181/3) was also filled by him and it bears signature of depositor on the back side i.e. Q59. He did not remember if after completion of the form, PW34 had put up any processing note before placing these documents before the manager (A2). He did not say that A4 had signed on the back side of Ex. PW7/D1 i.e. at point Q59. Now, it is interesting to note that as per report given by handwriting expert/PW39, the signature i.e. Q59 (as appearing on form LD-V i.e. on back side of Ex. PW7/D1) and the alleged signature Q1 appearing on the back of FDR/Ex.PW7/2 were put by same person and that person is pointed out to be A4 on the basis of specimen handwriting given by A4. So, if both these signatures were put by the same person i.e. A4, then it was incumbent for PW7 as well as PW34 to say so. However, they have not said so at all. Though, these two witnesses were present when Ex. PW7/D1 was being signed by the depositor. So, it cannot be possible that if A4 did not sign Ex.PW7/D1 before these two witnesses, then the signature Q1 appearing on the back of FDR Ex. PW7/2 would match with the signature Q59 appearing on Ex. PW7/D1. This situation makes the allegation leveled by CBI as a doubtful allegation.
59.Similarly, the signatures Q46, Q48,Q49 & Q50 as appearing on form LD- V pertaining to DL no. 549/Ex. PW24/23 were put in the presence of at least PW34. However, PW34 did not say that these signatures were put by A4. Although, handwriting expert/PW39 in his report stated that these signatures matched with the specimen signatures of A4.
Page 85 of 87 (Pulastya Pramachala)Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI/239/2019, RC No. 5(E)/98
60.The record shows that specimen signatures of A4 were taken on various dates i.e. on 23.08.99, 05.11.99 & 18.11.99. The questioned signatures were put on 07.01.94 & 10.05.95. Thus, there was apparently gap of 4 - 4 & 1/2 to almost 6 years, when the questioned signatures were put on the papers and when the specimen signatures were taken. It is one of the important factors for the purpose of handwriting comparison that questioned handwriting should be compared with the admitted/specimen handwriting of same period. Apparently this factor was flouted in this case.
61.It is well apparent that except for opinion given by the handwriting expert, CBI has not come up with any other evidence to support the allegation that the signatures were put by A4 in different names. In these circumstances, I do find that the ratio of judgments relied upon by ld. defence counsel i.e. S.P.S. Rathore vs. CBI (supra) and Om Prakash v. CBI (Supra), apply to the facts and circumstances of this case, so as to ignore the opinion given by the handwriting expert for want of any other supporting evidence. Rather, the evidence of prosecution itself (testimony of PW7 and PW34) raise doubt over such contention of CBI. Hence, I find that the charge for offence u/s 467 IPC against A4 is not proved.
62.As far as charges for offence u/s 420 & 471 IPC are concerned, there is no other evidence on the record against A4, so as to suggest that he in any manner played deception upon OBC alongwith other co-accused persons, so as to cause monitory loss to OBC. In my findings related to charge against A2, I have already held that the monitory loss related to DL 546 and DL 548 were caused on account of alleged misdeed of A1. The case and evidence of CBI is totally silent in respect of any pecuniary Page 86 of 87 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi CBI/239/2019, RC No. 5(E)/98 advantage if received by A4. Similarly, in absence of any proof of alleged forgery of FDR as well as LD-V form, it cannot be said that A4 used a forged document. Hence, both these charges also fail against A4.
63.A4 was also charged with offence u/s 120 B IPC, but for the same reasons as recorded in respect of A2, I find that in absence of any concrete evidence related to allegations for substantial offences, this charge has to fail.
CONCLUSION :-
64.In view of my foregoing discussions, observations and findings, I find that CBI has failed to prove its case against A2 & A4 as per charges leveled against them. Therefore, accused Sh. R.N. Rattan (A2) and accused Sh. R.K. Sharma (A4) are acquitted of all the charges.
Digitally signed by PULASTYA PRAMACHALAPULASTYA PRAMACHALA Date:
2019.09.27 16:45:43 +0530 Announced in the open court (PULASTYA PRAMACHALA) today on 26.09.2019 Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, (This order contains 87 pages) Rouse Avenue Court Complex, New Delhi Page 87 of 87 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi