On Decisions In Alamelu And Another vs . State, (2011) 2 Scc 385 And on 29 April, 2017

[Cites 57, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

On Decisions In Alamelu And Another vs . State, (2011) 2 Scc 385 And on 29 April, 2017

                                                               : 1 :                                               CBI Case No. : 20/16


                IN THE COURT OF SHRI HARISH DUDANI
                    SPECIAL JUDGE, (PC ACT) CBI-1
               DISTRICT COURTS(SW): DWARKA: NEW DELHI

In the matter of :


CBI Case No. : 20/2016 (old CC No.:1/11)
RC No. : BD1/2003/E/0008/CBI/BS&FC/New Delhi



Central Bureau of Investigation, 
BS & FC, New Delhi.


                    Versus


1.  R. K. Jain(A1)
    s/o Shri Ulfat Ram Jain,
    R/o : H. No. 6 Saini Enclave, 
    Near Village Karkardooma, Delhi. 

2. R. K. Verma(A2)(proceedings abated)
   s/o Shri Malwa Ram, 
   R/o : 3/42, Gali Suklan, Chota Bazar, 
   Shahdara, Delhi.

3.  Niranjan Kumar Nangia(A3)
  s/o late Shri Thakur Dass
    R/o : A7, South Extension Part - II, 
    New Delhi  and  also   
    R/o : V26/6, DLF PhaseIII, 


      CBI   v.  R. K. Jain & Ors.                                                                                  Page No. : 1 of 210  
                                                                : 2 :                                               CBI Case No. : 20/16


   DLF, Nathupur, 
   67, Gurgaon, Haryana 122 002.

4.  Smt. Veenu Nangia(A4)
    s/o Shri Niranjan Kumar Nangia,
    R/o : A7, South Extension Part - II, 
    New Delhi  and  also   
    R/o : V26/6, DLF PhaseIII, 
    DLF, Nathupur, 
    67, Gurgaon, Haryana 122 002.

5.  Kamal Kumar Nangia(A5)
    s/o Shri Niranjan Kumar Nangia,
    R/o : A7, South Extension Part - II, 
    New Delhi  and  also   
    R/o : V26/6, DLF PhaseIII, 
    DLF, Nathupur, 
    67, Gurgaon, Haryana 122 002.

6.  Ms. Divya Nangia(A6)
    d/o Shri Niranjan Kumar Nangia, 
    w/o late Shri Sushant Bansal,
    R/o : A7, South Extension Part - II, 
    New Delhi  and  also   
    R/o : D7, Maharani Bagh, 
    New Delhi - 110 065.

7.  Vijay Kumar Rana(A7) (Proceedings Abated)
    s/o Shri Kishan Lal Rana, 
    R/o : H. No. 20, National Park, 
    Vikram Vihar, Lajpat NagarIV
    New Delhi.

8.  Deepak Kumar Rana(A8)
    s/o Shri Vijay Kumar Rana,


      CBI   v.  R. K. Jain & Ors.                                                                                  Page No. : 2 of 210  
                                                                : 3 :                                               CBI Case No. : 20/16


   R/o : H. No. 20, National Park, 
   Vikram Vihar, Lajpat NagarIV
   New Delhi    and also 
   R/o : A38, 1st Floor, 
   Daya Nand Colony, 
   Lajpat NagarIV
   New Delhi.

9.  Vicky Kumar Rana(A9)
    s/o Shri Vijay Kumar Rana,
    R/o : H. No. 20, National Park, 
    Vikram Vihar, Lajpat NagarIV
    New Delhi      and also 
    R/o : C202, 1st Floor, 
    Baljeet Complex, Ardee City, 
    Sector52, Gurgaon, Haryana.

10. Chandan Kumar Rana(A10)
   s/o Shri Vijay Kumar Rana,
   R/o : H. No. 20, National Park, 
   Vikram Vihar, Lajpat NagarIV
   New Delhi     and also 
   R/o : C1/66, Ground floor,
   Ardee City, Sector52, 
   Gurgaon, Haryana.                                                                         .......Accused persons

Date of Institution : 21.04.2010
Date on which Judgment Reserved : 19.04.2017 
Date on which Judgment Pronounced : 26.04.2017


                                                     JUDGMENT

1. At the very outset, it is pertinent to mention that accused persons, namely R. K. Verma(A2) and Vijay Kumar Rana(A7) were CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 3 of 210 : 4 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 also sent for trial, however, during pendency of proceedings, accused Vijay Kumar Rana(A7) expired on 05.02.2013 and proceedings against him were abated vide order dated 26.03.2013 and accused R.K. Verma(A2) expired on 14.01.2017 and proceedings against him were abated vide order dated 18.02.2017.

2. This is a corruption case under section 13(1) (d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 & section 120B IPC r/w 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC registered by Bank Securities & Fraud Cell (BS&FC) branch of CBI, relating to illegal sanctioning of car loans by flouting the norms of the bank.

3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that a complaint dated 31.12.2003 of Shri S. R. Singh, Chief Vigilance Officer, Punjab National Bank, Head Office, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi was received against the all accused persons alleging that the accused R. K. Jain(A1), the then Manager and accused R.K. Verma(A2), the then Officer(Loans) both public servants working in a public sector bank i.e. Punjab National Bank, Anand Vihar Branch, New Delhi, entered into a criminal conspiracy with other accused persons, namely, Niranjan Kumar Nangia(A3), Smt.Veenu Nangia(A4), Kamal Kumar Nangia(A5), Ms. Divya Nangia(A6), Vijay Kumar Rana(A7), Deepak Kumar Rana(A8), Vicky Kumar Rana(A9), Chandan Kumar Rana(A10), during the year 2001 to 2003, with illegal intent and CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 4 of 210 : 5 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 illegal object to defraud the said bank to the tune of Rs.301 lacs by sanction/release of Cash Credit (CC) Limits(Hypothecation) and cheque purchase facilities to twenty different firms i.e. M/s Oberai Marketing, M/s Chhabra Silk Corporation, M/s Chhabra Sons M/s Chhabra Jewellers, M/s Vicky Creations, M/s Metro Textiles, M/s Divya South Sarees, M/s Sunny Textiles, M/s Naresh Embroidery Works, M/s Satish Textiles, M/s MMC Jewellers, M/s Kapoor & Co., M/s Saini Enterprises, M/s Roopsee Sarees, M/s IRA Boutique, M/s Seema Suits & Sarees, M/s Universal Sarees, M/s Malhotra Enterprises, M/s Chhabra Saree Sangam and M/s Chhabra Textiles Corporation and all these firms were controlled by accused Niranjan Kumar Nangia(A3).

4. It is also the case of the prosecution that accused R.K. Jain(A1) and accused R. K. Verma(A2), fraudulently cheated Punjab National Bank, Anand Vihar Branch by using the forged and fabricated documents as genuine and recommended, sanctioned and released four car loans of Rs.Two lacs each to the accused persons, Vijay Kumar Rana(A7) and his three sons, namely, accused Deepak Kumar Rana(A8), Chandan Kumar Rana(A10), Vicky Kumar Rana(A9) for purchase of second hand Santro cars from the accused Niranjan Kumar Nangia(A3) and from his wife, daughter and son, namely, accused Smt. Veenu Nangia(A4), accused Divya Nangia(A6) and accused Kamal Kumar Nangia(A5), respectively. That the said CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 5 of 210 : 6 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 accused persons, who were the owners of those cars, had also earlier availed finance facility/loan from another public sector bank i.e. Bank of Punjab Ltd., Green Park, New Delhi against these very cars without clearing/liquidating the dues of said Bank of Punjab Ltd.

5. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 27.11.2000 accused Kamal Kumar Nangia purchased a Santro car bearing Registration No.DL 3CS 0374 from M/s Nimbus Motors Pvt. Ltd., Sector 5, Noida, and got financed/hypothecated the same to the Bank of Punjab, Green Park, New Delhi and a copy of Sales Invoice, showing the hypothecation by Bank of Punjab, was handed over by M/s Nimbus Motors Pvt. Ltd.

6. It is alleged that the accused Kamal Kumar Nangia and accused Niranjan Kumar Nangia had submitted the forged and fabricated papers viz forged sale invoices and sale certificates, etc. of the said car No.DL 3CS 0374 purported to be issued by Nimbus Motors to RTO, Sheikh Sarai, New Delhi on 16.12.2002 and obtained a Registration Certificate(RC) from the said RTO, Sheikh Sarai showing that said car has not been hypothecated to any bank.

7. It is further alleged that the accused Kamal Kumar Nangia, thereafter, sold the said car No.DL3CS 0374 to accused Vicky Kumar Rana and the same was got financed through Punjab CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 6 of 210 : 7 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 National Bank, Anand Vihar, Delhi. That the said bank sanctioned the car loan of Rs.2 lakhs on 31.12.2002 and sent a request to RTO, Sheikh Sarai, Delhi on 01.01.2003 for transferring the vehicle in the name of the purchaser, Vicky Kumar Rana. However, it was revealed from the record of the said RTO, that the said car was transferred in the name of Nitin Luthra on 9.1.2003 and was hypothecated to Standard Chartered Bank.

8. It is further alleged that on investigation it revealed that the record/Registration Certificate available with the Punjab National Bank, Anand Vihar Branch does not show that the said car has been hypothecated to any bank and said record did not contain any document/correspondence with transport authority reflecting the said hypothecation with its branch. However, the said car loan was settled down on 24.5.2003 by depositing cash and settled the car loan account of PNB, Anand Vihar Branch, Delhi. Thus, accused Vicky Kumar Rana, in criminal conspiracy with accused Kamal Kumar Nangia and other co accused persons, obtained the said car loan on the basis of forged and fabricated documents falsely indicating that the vehicle was not hypothecated to any bank and accused R. K. Jain and R. K. Verma sanctioned the loan without proper scrutiny and any security.

9. It is also alleged that on 27.12.2000 accused Ms. Divya CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 7 of 210 : 8 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 Nangia purchased a Santro Car bearing Registration No. DL 3CS 0969 from M/s Nimbus Motors Pvt. Ltd., Sector 5, Noida and got financed/hypothecated the same to the Bank of Punjab Ltd., Green Park Branch, New Delhi. The copy of RC, recovered from the said Bank of Punjab, shows the hypothecation of the car on the basis of loan but the photocopy of sale invoice of M/s Nimbus Motors Pvt. Ltd., obtained from RTO, Sheikh Sarai, did not tally with the carbon copy provided by M/s Nimbus Motors Pvt. Ltd.

10. It is further alleged by CBI that thereafter, on 26.11.2002, the said Santro Car was purchased by accused Deepak Kumar Rana from Ms. Divya Nangia and got the same financed and got sanctioned a car loan of Rs.2 lacs from the Punjab National Bank, Anand Vihar, Delhi. However, that loan was not adjusted. It is alleged that the said Punjab National Bank did not make any request to RTO, Sheikh Sarai, for hypothecation of the said Santro Car to its branch. That accused R. K. Jain and R. K. Verma sanctioned the car loan and disbursed Rs.50,000/ more without any proper verification or scrutiny and that a sum of Rs.2,19,411/ was still outstanding against that account.

11. It is further alleged that in December, 2000, accused Niranjan Kumar Nangia(A3) also purchased a Santro Car CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 8 of 210 : 9 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 bearing Registration No. DL 3CS 0968 from M/s Nimbus Motors Pvt. Ltd., Sector 5, Noida and got financed/ hypothecated the same to the same bank i.e. Bank of Punjab Ltd., Green Park Branch, New Delhi. The copy of the RC, produced by said Bank of Punjab, showed the hypothecation based on the car loan but the photocopy of sale invoice of M/s Nimbus Motors Pvt. Ltd. obtained from RTO, Sheikh Sarai did not tally or match with the carbon copy provided by M/s Nimbus Motors Pvt. Ltd. and that Mr. Sanjay Behal, authorised signatory of said Nimbus Motors, has also denied his signatures on the copy of said Sale invoice.

12. It is also alleged that the copy of Form 16 available with RTO, Sheikh Sarai, shows that the said car was sold to one Shri Virender Pal Singh on 7.11.2001 and was financed by Punjab National Bank, South Ext., New Delhi and a letter in respect of transfer of ownership of the said car in the name of Virender Pal Singh and hypothecation of the same to the PNB, South Ext. branch, was available with it.

13. It is alleged that accused Niranjan Kumar Nangia(A3) dishonestly sold the said car to the accused Chandan Kumar Rana(A10) on 31.12.2002 and got it financed by PNB, Anand Vihar, Delhi and accused R. K. Jain(A1) & R. K. Verma(A2) dishonestly sanctioned the loan without any proper verification. Thus, CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 9 of 210 : 10 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 the said accused persons dishonestly got triple finance facility on the said car.

14. That the said car loan was adjusted with PNB, Anand Vihar branch, New Delhi, but the first loan on the car remained outstanding.

15. It is further alleged that in December 2000, accused Ms.Veenu Nangia(A4) also purchased a Santro Car bearing Registration No. DL 3C S 2168 from M/s Nimbus Motors Pvt. Ltd., Noida and got financed/hypothecated the same from the same Bank i.e. Bank of Punjab Ltd., Green Park Branch, New Delhi. The photocopy of sale invoice submitted to RTO, Sheikh Sarai, neither contained the name of Bank of Punjab as financer nor tallied with the carbon copy of the invoice.

16. It is alleged that accused Smt. Veenu Nangia(A4) sold the said car to accused Vijay Kumar Rana(A7)(since deceased), who availed car loan from PNB, Tolstoy Marg Branch. On 21.11.2002, accused Ms. Veenu Nangia(A4) again sold the said car to the same person i.e. accused Vijay Kumar Rana(A7), who got it financed from PNB, Anand Vihar but the copy of the RC submitted to the bank does not reflect any hypothecation with the Bank of Punjab.

17. It is alleged that accused R. K. Jain(A1) and CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 10 of 210 : 11 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 accused R. K. Verma(A2) dishonestly, by flouting the norms of the bank and without verifying the documents, sanctioned the car loan to facilitate the accused persons.

18. It is further revealed that car loans were advanced to four members of the same family who had purchased four cars from another family without conducting proper presanction appraisal as all the cars were hypothecated to Bank of Punjab Ltd. Green Park Branch, New Delhi and they did not ensure that hypothecation was created in the records of RTO. That copy of the RC shows that bank's charge and transfer of cars in the borrower's name is not on record in any of the four car loan accounts.

19. It is thus, alleged that the loan applications for car loans were incomplete and without information of guarantor and documents regarding handing over the vehicles were either blank or missing and no original documents were obtained by the accused(public servants) in conspiracy with the coaccused persons and the cars which were already financed by other banks were refinanced, which could not have been sanctioned.

20. It is further alleged that Sanction for Prosecution in respect of accused persons R. K. Jain, the then Manager and accused R. K. Verma, the then Officer (loan) both of PNB, Anand Vihar, Delhi was obtained from the competent authority.

CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 11 of 210

: 12 : CBI Case No. : 20/16

21. It is, thus, urged by the prosecution that all the accused persons have committed the offences punishable under sections 120B r/w 420, 467, 468, 471 of Indian Penal Code & section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and accused persons, namely R. K. Jain(A1) and accused R. K. Verma(A2), in addition, also committed offence punishable under section 13(2) read with section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

22. After hearing both, the prosecution & the defence, my ld. predecessor, finding a primafacie case against all the accused persons, framed charges against them. All the accused persons have been charged under Section 120B IPC and Section 420 IPC r/w 120B IPC. Accused R. K. Jain(A1) and accused R. K. Verma(A2) have also been additionally charged under section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988 read with 120B IPC and section 409 IPC read with section 120B and section 471 IPC read with section 120B & 420 IPC. Accused persons namely Niranjan Kumar Nangia(A3), Smt. Veenu Nangia(A4), Kamal Kumar Nangia(A5) and Ms. Divya Nangia(A6) have been additionally charged under sections 467, 468 & 471 IPC read with 120B IPC and accused persons namely Vijay Kumar Rana(A7), Deepak Kumar Rana(A8), Vickey Kumar CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 12 of 210 : 13 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 Rana(A9) and Chandan Kumar Rana(A10) have been additionally charged under sections 468 and 471 IPC read with 120B IPC. They all pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

23. To prove its case against the accused persons, the CBI has in all examined 17 witnesses.

24. PW1 Shri Jagir Singh, the then Chief Manager, PNB, South Ext., New Delhi had handed over to CBI the attested photocopies of the documents as asked by CBI vide letter, Ex.PW1/A which was signed by PW1 at point A. PW1 has also identified signatures of Shri V. K. Bindal, Officer(PW5) on the transfer vouchers Ex.PW1/B (Colly) at point A.

25. PW2 Shri I. K. Kilam, the then Deputy General Manager, PNB, Zonal Officer New Delhi who was disciplinary/Competent Authority, has deposed that he accorded the sanction against accused R. K. Jain and accused R. K. Verma after perusing various documents, statements of the witnesses and after applying his mind vide Sanction Order dated 12.07.2005 Ex.PW2/A.

26. PW3 Shri P. K. Singh, who was posted in CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 13 of 210 : 14 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 Inspection & Control Division of Punjab National Bank from October 1999 to May 2003, has deposed that he had conducted the regular inspection of Anand Vihar Branch of PNB from 5th February to 25th February, 2003 and had submitted his report in which he had mentioned the irregularities found during the course of inspection. PW3 stated in his testimony that Car Loan File(D18) of vehicle No.DL 3CS 0968 of accused Chandan Kumar Rana contains blank format of guarantor information and a loan of Rs.2 lakh was sanctioned and EMI of Rs.4500/pm was fixed and as per copy of Saral Form, total income of accused Chandan Kumar Rana has been reflected as Rs.62,026/ per annum(about Rs.5000 per month) and the said file does not contain any copy of registration certificate and delivery receipt of vehicle and does not bear signature of anybody. PW3 has further deposed that Car Loan File(D19) of accused Deepak Kumar Rana, Vehicle No.DL3C S 0969, the Guarantor Information which is Ex.PW3/1, bears the name of accused Vicky Rana and remaining format is blank and is not signed by any officer of the bank and that the page nos.4,5,9,11 to 17 & 19 of file(D19) bear only stamp of the bank but are not signed by any officer of the bank and the page No.23 of file(D19) which is Balance and Security Confirmation Letter, Ex.PW7/X is blank and bears only stamp of the bank and is not signed by any officer of the bank. PW3 has further deposed that Car Loan File(D20) of accused Vijay Kumar Rana vehicle No.DL3C S 2168 contains the carbon copy of letter addressed to Vijay Kumar CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 14 of 210 : 15 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 Rana which is not signed by any officer and it contains the blank format of Form 30 at page 6 of the said file(D20) and page 22 of the said file is also not signed by any officer of the bank. PW3 has further deposed that Car Loan File(D21) of accused Vicky Kumar Rana vehicle No.DL3C S 0374 contains the delivery receipt at page 3 which is not signed by any person and said file also contains guarantor information(at page 15) and Balance & Security confirmation letter(at page 19) which are blank. PW3 has further deposed that in all the car loan files(D18 to D21) there is no endorsement regarding hypothecation of vehicles in the name of bank and all the said files(D18 to D21) do not contain any registration certificates showing that the vehicles have been transferred in the name of borrowers.

27. PW4 Sh. Deepak Kumar Manuja the then Assistant Vice President in Bank of Punjab, S4, Green Park, Delhi has deposed that the loan file(D4) Ex. PW4/A(colly) containing the loan application Ex.PW4/B accompanied with supporting documents in respect of car loan in the name of accused Veenu Nangia, was processed by the Auto Loan Department, Bank of Punjab Ltd. Green Park, Delhi and the loan was recommended for sanction by Shri Sanjay Arora and verified by Ashana Kochar under their signatures at points A & B respectively on page 85 of loan file Ex. PW4/A(colly) (D4). PW4 has further deposed that the loan file(D3) CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 15 of 210 : 16 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 Ex.PW4/C(colly) containing the loan application Ex.PW4/D accompanied with supporting documents in respect of car loan in the name of accused Kamal Nangia, was processed by the Auto Loan Department, Bank of Punjab Ltd. Green Park, Delhi and the loan was recommended for sanction by Shri Sanjay Arora and verified by Ashana Kochar under their signatures at points A & B respectively on page 56 of loan file Ex.PW4/C(colly) (D3). PW4 has further deposed that the loan file(D1) Ex.PW4/E(colly) containing the loan application accompanied with supporting documents in respect of car loan in the name of accused Niranjan Kumar Nangia, was processed by the Auto Loan Department, Bank of Punjab Ltd. Green Park, Delhi and the loan was recommended for sanction by Shri Sanjay Arora, Loan Executive under his signatures at point A on page 11 of loan file Ex.PW4/E(colly)(D3). PW4 has further deposed that the loan file(D2) Ex.PW4/F(colly) containing the loan application accompanied with supporting documents in respect of car loan in the name of accused Divya Nangia, was processed by the Auto Loan Department, Bank of Punjab Ltd., Green Park, Delhi and the loan was recommended for sanction by Shri Sanjay Arora, Loan Executive under his signatures at point A on page 37 of loan file Ex.PW4/F(colly)(D2). PW4 has further deposed that the loan file(D21) Ex.PW4/G(colly) contains photocopy of RC in the name of accused Kamal Nangia and no hypothecation clause is mentioned therein. PW4 has further deposed that the loan file(D19) in the name CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 16 of 210 : 17 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 of Deepak Kumar Rana is Ex.PW4/H(colly) and the same contains photocopy of RC in the name of accused Divya Nangia and no hypothecation clause is mentioned therein. He has further proved the loan file(D18) in the name of Chandan Kumar. PW4 has further stated that the loan file (D18) in the name of accused Chandan Kumar is Ex.PW4/I(colly). He has further deposed that the loan file(D20) Ex.PW4/J(colly) which is in the name of Vijay Kumar Rana contains photocopy of RC in the name of accused Veenu Nangia carrying no hypothecation clause. PW4 Shri Deepak Kumar Manuja has deposed that since recovery was not coming in all these aforesaid cases of car loans and the same were classified as NonPerforming Assets(NPA) by the bank.

28. PW5 Sh. V.K. Bindal, the then Deputy Manager, South Extension Branch of Punjab National Bank has deposed during his testimony that he had supplied to CBI the certified copies of the documents as asked by CBI vide letter, Ex.PW1/A which was written by PW5 in his own handwriting and all the documents annexed with this letter bear his signatures. He has stated in his testimony that the loan application Ex. PW5/A(colly) (page

432) which was submitted by Shri Virender Pal Singh does not contain the registration number of the Santro Car which was financed and the said loan was disbursed on 8.11.2001. He has further stated CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 17 of 210 : 18 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 that the Hypothecation to secure the loan dated 07.11.2001, which is Ex.PW5/B (page 434 of D68) was guaranteed by Shri S.C. Kaushik vide Agreement of Guarantee Ex.PW5/C(colly) (Page 443 of D69) & and Shri Kamal Kumar vide Agreement of Guarantee Ex. PW5/D(colly) (Page455 of D70) bearing the signatures of Shri Kamal Kumar at point A on each page of the agreement and that of A. P. Gupta at point B on last page of both the aforesaid agreements of guarantee, duly identified by him (PW5 Sh. V.K. Bindal). PW5 has also identified the signatures of Shri A. P. Gupta, the then Sr. Manager at point A on the letter dated 07.11.01 addressed to Registering Authority, RTO, Sheikh Sarai Ex.PW5/E. He has further deposed that accused Niranjan Kumar Nangia had received the payment vide Cash Receipt Ex. PW5/F and loan account had become bad and was declared NPA.

29. Sh. Sanjay Bahal, the then Corporate Sales Manager of M/s Nimbus Motors Pvt. Ltd, Sector5, Noida appeared in the witness box as PW6 and stated that in the file(D14) Ex.PW6/A maintained at Transport Department, Delhi pertaining to vehicle No.DL 3 CS 0968, the Sale Certificate dated 27.12.2000 purported to have been issued by M/s Nimbus Motors Pvt. Ltd. was not actually issued by Nimbus Motors Pvt. Ltd. and the document Ex.PW6/B (page 4 of file Ex.PW6/A) does not contain his writing at any place CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 18 of 210 : 19 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 and the signatures appearing at point A are not his signatures and someone has forged the same with rubber stamp. PW6 further stated that the Sales Invoice Ex.PW6/C{Page 6 of file Ex.PW6/A(D14)} was not issued by him as it neither bears his signature at point A with rubber stamp nor the contents of the same are in his handwriting and the format & columns of the said invoice are different than the one issued by M/s Nimbus Motors.

30. PW6 Shri Sanjay Bahal further stated that the file(D15) Ex.PW6/D pertaining to vehicle No.DL3 CS 0969 contains the Sale Certificate dated 27.12.2000 Ex.PW6/E {Page 3 of file Ex. PW6/D(D15)} purported to have been issued by M/s Nimbus Motors Pvt. Ltd. but the same was not actually issued by Nimbus Motors Pvt. Ltd. and the document Ex.PW6/F (page 6 of D15) does not contain his writing at any place and the signature appearing at points A and B are not his signatures as someone has forged the same with rubber stamp and the contents of the same are also not in his handwriting and the format and columns in the said invoice are different than the one issued by M/s Nimbus Motors Pvt. Ltd.

31. PW6 Shri Sanjay Bahal further stated that the file(D16) Ex.PW6/G pertaining to vehicle No.DL3CS 2168 contains a Sales Certificate dated 31.01.2001 Ex.PW6/H {Page 3 of file Ex.PW6/G(D16)} purported to have been issued by M/s Nimbus Motors Pvt. Ltd. but the same was not actually issued by M/s Nimbus Motors Pvt. Ltd. and the Sales Invoice Ex.PW6/I (page 2 of CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 19 of 210 : 20 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 file Ex.PW6/G) does not contain his signatures with rubber stamp appearing at points A & B and someone has forged the same with rubber stamp and the said document is totally forged.

32. PW6 Shri Sanjay Bahal further stated that file (D

1) Ex.PW4/E on page 20 contains photocopy of genuine format of invoice dated 27.12.2000 of M/s Nimbus Motors Pvt. Ltd. PW6 stated that the Receipt dated 27.11.2000 Ex.PW6/J (Page402, D44) issued by M/s Nimbus Motors Pvt. Ltd. in favour of accused Kamal Nangia, bears hypothecation in the name of Bank of Punjab Ltd. and the Gate Pass dated 27.11.2000(page 403, D45) Ex.PW6/K issued by M/s Nimbus Motors Pvt. Ltd. bears his signatures at point A. PW6 further stated that the Sales Invoice dated 27.11.2000 (page 404, D46) Ex.PW6/L in name of accused Kamal Nangia issued by M/s Nimbus Motors Pvt. Ltd. bears his signatures at point A and the Statement of Ledger Account (page 405, D47) Ex.PW6/M in the name of accused Kamal Nangia issued by M/s Nimbus Motors Pvt. Ltd. bears the signatures of Shri Sunil Dewan, Director of M/s Nimbus Motors at point A. PW6 stated that the Temporary Certificate of Registration (page 406, D48) Ex.PW6/N attested by M/s Nimbus Motors Pvt. Ltd. bears the signature of staff and seal of M/s Nimbus Motors.

33. PW6 Shri Sanjay Bahal further stated that Ex.PW6/O (page 407, D49) is the certified true copy of Sales Certificate which bears his signatures and signatures of Shri Sunil Dewan, Director of M/s Nimbus Motors. PW6 stated that the CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 20 of 210 : 21 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 Receipt dated 21.12.2000 (page 408, D50) Ex.PW6/P in the name of accused Divya Nangia bears hypothecation in the name of Bank of Punjab Ltd. and the Gate Pass Ex.PW6/Q(page 409, D51) in the name of accused Divya Nangia bears the signatures of Shri Anupam, Sr. Sales Executive of M/s Nimbus Motors at point A. PW6 stated that the Sales Invoice dated 27.11.2000 Ex.PW6/R(page 410, D52) in name of accused Divya Nangia bears his signatures at point A and the certified true copy of Ledger Account (page 411, D53) Ex.PW6/S in name of accused Divya Nangia has been certified by Shri Sunil Dewan, Director of M/s Nimbus Motors Pvt. Ltd. under his signatures at point A. PW6 stated that the Temporary Certificate of Registration Ex.PW6/T (page 412, D54) of accused Divya Nangia for her car has been endorsed by staff of M/s Nimbus Motors Pvt. Ltd. and bears the seal of M/s Nimbus Motors at point A and the Sale Letter Ex.PW6/U (page 413, D55) issued to Divya Nangia by M/s Nimbus Motors Pvt. Ltd. bears the signatures of Shri Sunil Dewan, Director of M/s Nimbus Motors and his signatures at points A & B respectively.

34. PW6 Shri Sanjay Bahal further stated that the Receipt dated 21.12.2000 Ex.PW6/V(page 414, D56) issued in the name of accused Veenu Nangia bears hypothecation in the name of Bank of Punjab Ltd., and the Gate Pass dated 1.2.2001 Ex.PW6/W {page 415, D57} in the name of accused Veenu Nangia issued by M/s Nimbus Motors Pvt. Ltd. bears the seal and the signatures of official of M/s Nimbus Motor and the Sales Invoice dated 31.01.2001 CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 21 of 210 : 22 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 Ex.PW6/X (page 416, D58) in name of accused Veenu Nangia issued by M/s Nimbus Motors Pvt. Ltd. bears his signatures alongwith the seal of Nimbus Motors at point A. PW6 further stated that certified copy of Ledger Account Ex.PW6/Y(page 417, D59) in the name of accused Veenu Nangia bears signatures of Shri Sunil Dewan, Director of M/s Nimbus Motors and the Sale Letter Ex.PW6/Z(page 418, D60) issued in the name of accused Veenu Nangia by M/s Nimbus Motors Pvt. Ltd. is certified by Shri Sunil Dewan, Director of M/s Nimbus Motors by signing at point B.

35. PW6 Shri Sanjay Bahal further stated that the Receipt dated 23.12.2000 Ex.PW6/Z1(page 419, D61) in the name of accused Niranjan Kumar Nangia which bears hypothecation in the name of Bank of Punjab Ltd., issued by M/s Nimbus Motors Pvt. Ltd. bears the signature of official of M/s Nimbus Motors and the Gate Pass dated 23.12.2000 Ex.PW6/Z2(page 420, D62) issued by M/s Nimbus Motors in the name of accused Niranjan Kumar Nangia bears the signatures of official of M/s Nimbus Motor at point A. PW6 further stated that the Sales Invoice dated 27.12.2000 Ex.PW6/Z 3(page 421, D63) in name of accused Niranjan Kumar Nangia issued by M/s Nimbus Motors Pvt. Ltd., bears his signatures at point A and the certified copy of Ledger Account Ex.PW6/Z4 (page 422, D64) is certified by Shri Sunil Dewan by signing at point A. PW6 further stated that the Temporary Certificate of Registration Ex.PW6/Z 5(page 423, D65) in the name accused Niranjan Kumar Nangia bears CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 22 of 210 : 23 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 the seal of M/s Nimbus Motors and signature of official at point A. PW6 further stated that the Sale Certificate Ex.PW6/Z6(page 424, D66) issued in the name of Niranjan Kumar Nangia is attested by Shri Sunil Dewan, Director of M/s Nimbus Motors Pvt. Ltd. at point A and the same also bears his signatures at point B. PW6 further stated that photocopy of the document contained at page 20 in file Ex.PW4/E is not the photocopy of Ex.PW6/Z3(which is a carbon copy and was simultaneously prepared and the first copy is given to the customer) and said document at page 20 does not bear photocopy impression of his signatures and other particulars are also different and the imprint of writing in the said document is different from his writing and further the said document contained at page 20 of Ex.PW4/E depicts "vehicle passed euro II Supreme Court Direction"

which is not in the original. PW6 stated that photocopy of the document contained at page 27 in file Ex.PW4/F (Colly) is not the photocopy of Ex.PW6/R(which is a carbon copy and was simultaneously prepared and the first copy was given to the customer) and said document at page 27 does not bear photocopy impression of his signatures and other particulars are also different and the imprint of writing in the said document is different from his writing and further the said document contained at page 27 of Ex.PW4/F(Colly) bears endorsement "vehicle passed euro II Supreme court Direction"

which is not in original.

36. PW6 Sh. Sanjay Bahal further stated that CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 23 of 210 : 24 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 whenever a vehicle is purchased by a customer from M/s Nimbus Motors Pvt. Ltd., normally a receipt against the booking amount is issued and in case the vehicle is financed, the same is also endorsed on the receipt against the booking amount given either by the customer or the bank in the event of making full payment. PW6 further stated that M/s Nimbus Motors Pvt. Ltd. also issues sales invoice in original and photocopy of the same along with sale letter in original is sent to RTO and they endorse hypothecation on the same and they also issue copy of company invoice and form 22 in original for purpose of RTO. PW6 stated that the gatepass is issued to customer in original for taking delivery.

37. Sh. Vinod Kumar Gupta, the then Sr. Concurrent Auditor with Zonal Audit Office, Punjab National Bank, Faridabad and in Camp Office, Patparganj Delhi, appeared in the witness box as PW7 and stated that the request letter, Ex.PW7/A(D18) made by the party alongwith annexures i.e.Ex.PW7/B bear the endorsement & signatures of accused R. K. Verma, the then Deputy Manager(Loan) in token of the approval and the loan was sanctioned by accused R. K. Jain, the then Manager, Branch Office, Anand Vihar, Delhi bearing signatures of accused R. K. Jain at point B. It is further stated by PW7 that the Postdated cheques(D18) containing 25 leaves, Ex. PW7/B1(colly) were issued by accused Chandan Rana, as Proprietor of Oberoi Marketing and the Insurance Cover Note alongwith CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 24 of 210 : 25 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 receipt of premium paid, Ex.PW7/C(colly) & Agreement to Sell, Ex.PW7/D were furnished by the party. It is further deposed by PW7 that the Letter, Ex.PW7/E was issued by Punjab National Bank to accused Chandan Rana for submission of modified RC containing HP in favour of bank along with copy of insurance policy and the vouchers, Ex.PW7/F & Ex.PW7/G were issued in token of having sanctioned loan to accused Chandan Rana by the Bank and the Demand Pronote, Ex.PW7/H dated 31.12.2002 signed by accused Chandan Rana was furnished to the bank.

38. It is further stated by PW7 that the letter, Ex.PW7/J dated 31.12.2002 was submitted by accused Chandan Rana to Punjab National Bank, Anand Vihar Branch, thereby enclosing 36 cheques for payment of installments in the term loan account and the balance confirmation letter, Ex.PW7/K is signed by accused Chandan Rana and the said letter contains blanks which were required to be duly filled in by the party and the officer who had accepted the same was duty bound to ensure that the said letter was duly filled in before being signed by the party.

39. It is further stated by PW7 that the End Use Verification Certificate/letter Ex.PW7/L was issued and signed by accused Chandan Rana and by the concerned officer who accepted the same on the back leaf of Ex.PW7/L at point A. It is further stated by PW7 that the letter of hypothecation Ex.PW7/M was completed and CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 25 of 210 : 26 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 signed by the accused Chandan Rana and was furnished to the Punjab National Bank, Anand Vihar Branch and the Term Loan Agreement alongwith the enclosures Ex.PW7/N is signed by accused Chandan Rana. PW7 further stated that old RC as well as the modified RC of the vehicles in question were not taken before or after the sanction of the loans and the forms submitted by the party like Guarantor's Form and 1st page of application are having blanks and were not filled in completely and still the same were accepted by the concerned officer.

40. PW7 stated that the request letter, Ex.PW7/O contained in the file Ex.PW4/H(colly) (D19) was made by the party alongwith annexurese Ex.PW7/P(colly) bearing signatures of accused R. K. Verma at point A and that of accused R. K. Jain at point B on Ex.PW7/P(colly) and further that accused R. K. Verma and accused R. K. Jain had made endorsement in token of the approval just above their signatures and the loan was sanctioned by accused R. K. Jain. PW7 further stated that the Postdated cheques(D19) containing 25 leaves, Ex.PW7/Q(colly) were issued by accused Deepak Rana, as Proprietor of Chhabra Sons and that the Insurance Cover Note alongwith receipt of premium paid, Ex.PW7/R was furnished by the party and that the Agreement to Sell Ex.PW7/S was furnished by the party and that the Letter, Ex.PW7/T of Punjab National Bank which is unsigned & undated, issued to accused Deepak Kumar Rana for submission of modified RC CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 26 of 210 : 27 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 containing HP in favour of bank along with copy of insurance policy and that the vouchers Ex.PW7/U, Ex.PW7/U1, & Ex.PW7/U2 were issued in token of having sanctioned loan to accused Deepak Kumar Rana by the Bank. PW7 stated that Demand Pronote, Ex.PW7/V is signed by accused Deepak Kumar Rana and was furnished to the Punjab National Bank, Anand Vihar Branch and that the letter, Ex.PW7/W was submitted by party i.e. accused Deepak Kumar Rana indicating the intention of accused Deepak Kumar Rana to give post dated cheques to the bank and that the balance confirmation letter, Ex.PW7/X has been signed by accused Deepak Kumar Rana and the said letter contains blanks which were required to be duly filled in by the party and the officer concerned who had accepted the same was duty bound to ensure that the said letter was duly filled in before being signed by the party and that the End Use Verification, Ex. PW7/Y was issued and signed by the party and the concerned officer who accepted the same has not put his signatures on Ex.PW7/Y however he has signed on the back leaf of Ex.PW7/Y at point A.

41. PW7 has further stated that the request letter/application, Ex.PW7/Z(D20) was made by the party concerned i.e. Vijay Kumar Rana alongwith annexures, which are Ex.PW7/Z1(colly) and accused R. K. Verma made endorsement in token of the approval just above his signatures appearing at point A CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 27 of 210 : 28 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 on page three of Ex.PW7/Z1(colly) and accused R. K. Jain had sanctioned the loan by signing at point B. PW7 stated that the Post dated cheques(D20) containing 25 leaves, Ex.PW7/Z2(colly) were issued by accused Vijay Kumar and that the Insurance Cover Note, Ex.PW7/Z3 was furnished by the party i.e. Vijay Kumar Rana and the vouchers Ex.PW7/Z4 to Ex.PW7/Z6 were prepared in token of having sanctioned loan to accused Vijay Kumar by the Bank and the Demand Pronote, Ex.PW7/Z7 is duly signed by the party i.e. Vijay Kumar Rana and was furnished to the bank and that the letter, Ex.PW7/Z8 was submitted by party i.e. accused Vijay Kumar Rana indicating the intention of accused Vijay Kumar Rana to give post dated cheques to the bank and that the End Use Verification, Ex. PW7/Z9 was issued and signed by the party i.e. accused Vijay Kumar Rana and the concerned officer i.e. accused R. K. Verma and accused R. K. Jain, who accepted the same had put their signatures at points A & B respectively on the back leaf of Ex.PW7/Z9. It is further stated by PW7 that in the loan case of accused Vijay Kumar Rana (file Ex.PW4/J) (D20), after sanction of the loan, modified copy of the RC and Agreement to Sell were not taken by the concerned officer.

42. PW7 further stated that the request letter/application, Ex.PW7/Z10 was made by the party alongwith CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 28 of 210 : 29 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 annexures Ex.PW7/Z11(colly) and accused R. K. Verma made endorsement in token of the approval just above his (accused R. K. Verma) signatures appearing at point A on page three of Ex.PW7/Z 10(colly) and accused R. K. Jain had sanctioned the loan bearing signatures of accused R. K. Jain at point B and that the Postdated cheques containing 25 leaves, Ex.PW7/Z12(colly) were issued by accused Vicky Kumar and that the Insurance Cover Note alongwith premium receipt, Ex.PW7/Z13(colly) was furnished by the party and the policy contains cuttings which was first issued in the name of Kamal Nangia and later on modified in the name of Vicky Kumar Rana and the premium receipt bears the name of Kamal Nangia and that is also unauthenticated. PW7 stated that the Agreement to Sale, Ex.PW7/Z14 was furnished by the party i.e. Vicky Kumar Rana and that the two vouchers Ex.PW7/Z15 & Ex.PW7/Z16 were issued in token of having sanctioned loan to accused Vicky Kumar Rana by the Bank. PW7 stated that that the Demand Pronote, Ex.PW7/Z17 is duly signed by the party i.e. accused Vicky Kumar and was furnished to the Punjab National Bank, Anand Vihar Branch and the letter, Ex.PW7/Z18 was submitted by the party i.e. accused Vicky Kumar indicating the intention of accused Vicky Kumar to give post dated cheques to the bank. PW7 further stated that the balance confirmation letter, Ex.PW7/Z19 has been signed by accused Vicky Rana and the said letter contains blanks which were required to CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 29 of 210 : 30 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 be duly filled in by the party and the officer who had accepted the same was duty bound to ensure that the said letter was duly filled in before being signed by the party and that the End Use Verification, Ex. PW7/Z20 was issued and signed by the party i.e. accused Vicky Kumar and the concerned officer i.e. accused R. K. Verma, who accepted the same, had put his signatures at point A on the back leaf of Ex.PW7/Z20. PW7 stated that the Term Loan Agreement alongwith the enclosures is Ex. PW7/Z21(colly) (D21) and that in the loan case of accused Vicky Kumar Rana vide file Ex.PW4/G (Colly), modified copy of the RC of vehicle in question was not taken before or after the sanction of the loan and the application does not bear the photograph of the party i.e. accused Vicky Kumar and Margin money as per bank norms has not been taken by the concerned officer and Manager.

43. Shri R. K. Sharma, the then Computer Operator, PNB, Anand Vihar, Delhi has been examined by prosecution as PW8 who stated that accused R. K. Jain was the Manager of the said branch and accused R. K. Verma was the Loan Incharge at that time. PW8 further stated that accused R. K. Verma being the Head of the Loan Department used to process the loan applications for sanction of car loans and used to recommend to Manager (i.e. accused R. K. Jain), who used to sanction the same and accused R.K. Jain had told him(PW8 R.K. Sharma) that accused Niranjan Kumar Nangia was a CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 30 of 210 : 31 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 good party to whom loans were granted.

44. PW9 Sh. Sanjay Sharma was posted as Manager (Collection) in Bank of Punjab Ltd. in the year 2004 and he stated that the letter dated 30.10.2004(D10) Ex.PW9/A was issued by Shri Deepak Manuja, Branch Head, Bank of Punjab Ltd. whose signatures appear at points A & B and the said letter is also signed by him at point C. PW9 further stated that the Account Statements of Niranjan Kumar Nangia, Veenu Nangia and Divya Nangia for the period from 17.12.2000 to 1.11.2004, Ex. PW9/B, Ex.PW9/C and Ex.PW9/D respectively have been attested by him(PW9) and the same bear his signatures at point A. PW9 stated that the Account Statement of Kamal Kumar Nangia for the period from 23.11.2000 to 1.11.2004, Ex. PW9/E(colly)(D13) has also been attested by him(PW9) and the same bears his signatures at point A on each page.

45. PW10 Ms. Balbir Kaur, the then Computer Operator, Anand Vihar Branch, PNB during the year 200102, has deposed in her testimony that accused Niranjan Nangia used to come to accused R. K. Jain(A1) for CC Limits and normally accused Niranjan Kumar Nangia used to operate from the Chamber of accused R. K. Jain(A1) regarding payments, etc. and the cheques were sent to them through peon and in the absence of accused R. K. Jain, accused R.K. CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 31 of 210 : 32 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 Verma(A2) used to attend accused Niranjan Nangia and accused Niranjan Nangia used to sit in the office of R.K. Jain and peon used to come to collect cheques, etc., and she(PW10) used to issue token against the said CC limits which were usually collected by the peon on behalf of accused Niranjan Kumar Nangia.

46. PW11 Shri Sita Ram Singh, the then Chief Vigilance Officer (Head Office), PNB has deposed in his statement that Internal Audit & Inspection Department had conducted internal inspection and had brought out certain irregularities amounting to misappropriation of funds by outsiders in connivance with the Branch Manager and other officers of the bank. PW11 further stated that the complaint, Ex.PW11/A was made to CBI by him(PW11) (original complaint is in CC 7/11) bears signatures.

47. PW12 Shri Sunil Dewan, Director of M/s Nimbus Motors Pvt. Ltd. has deposed in his testimony that the CBI had collected some documents from him which were seized vide Seizure Memo, dated 25.11.2004 Ex.PW12/A by IO and the Seizure Memo bears his signatures at point A.

48. PW13 Shri Shailender Pal Singh, Motor Vehicle Inspector in RTO Sheikh Sarai stated that Form 21 Ex.PW6/B in the CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 32 of 210 : 33 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 file(D14) in respect of vehicle bearing registration No. DL3CS 0968 does not bear the endorsement of hypothecation and Certificate of Registration of said Vehicle Ex.PW13/1 is signed by Shri Vimal Khanna, Pollution Level Test Inspector at point A. PW13 has further deposed that Form 34 is required to be filed compulsorily and in case Form 34 is not there then endorsement of hypothecation is required to be made in Form 21 and there is no Form 34 in file(D14). PW13 further stated that at the time of transfer of vehicle, previous RC is required to be deposited alongwith documents of transfer i.e. Form 29 in duplicate and Form 30 in duplicate and as per record, vehicle No. DL 3CS 0968 was sold on 08.11.2001 to Shri Virender Pal Singh and Shri Virender Pal Singh has mentioned regarding hypothecation of vehicle to PNB, South Ext. PartI and Form 34 to this effect has been submitted which is at page no.173 to 175 of file(D14).

49. PW13 further stated that file(D15) maintained in respect of vehicle No DL 3CS 0969 does not contain Form 34 and Form 21 at page 183 of said file (D15) does not bear any endorsement of hypothecation. PW13 stated that file(D17) maintained in respect of vehicle No. DL 3CS 0374, contains Form 21 at page 245 bearing an endorsement to the effect 'NA' regarding hypothecation and the said vehicle was sold on 09.01.2003 to Shri Nitin Luthra. PW13 stated that file(D16) maintained in respect of vehicle No.DL 3CS 2168, contains Form 21 at page 210 and this form does not bear entry regarding CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 33 of 210 : 34 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 hypothecation of said vehicle and there is no Form 34 in the said file and the said vehicle was sold on 19.07.2002 to accused Vijay Kumar Rana, who had hypothecated the vehicle to PNB, Tolstoy House, New Delhi. PW13 further stated that file(D16) contains Form 29 in duplicate, and Form 30 in duplicate and form 34 in duplicate.

50. PW14 Shri Bharat Bhushan, the then Special Assistant in PNB, Anand Vihar branch, Delhi has identified the signatures of Shri R. K. Verma and R.K. Jain at point A and B respectively on page 274 and 306 of the loan files Ex.PW4/I(Colly) (D18) and Ex.PW4/H(Colly)(D19) in respect of purchase of old cars bearing no.3CS 0968 and 3CS 0969 respectively. PW4 has also identified the signatures of Sh. R.K. Verma and R.K. Jain at point A and B respectively on page 13 and 16 of the loan files Ex.PW4/J(Colly)(D20) and Ex.PW4/G(Colly)(D21) respectively in respect of purchase of old cars bearing no.3CS 2168 and DL 3CS 0374 respectively.

51. PW15/IO Rajesh Kumar Prasad, the then Inspector, CBI, BS & FC, New Delhi has deposed in his testimony that the FIR dated 31.12.2003 Ex.PW15/1 bears the signatures of Shri A.K. Malhotra, the then Sr. SP, CBI at point A. PW15 stated that the case was initially entrusted to Shri V. K. Bindal, Addl. SP and thereafter the investigation was handed over to him (PW15) and during CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 34 of 210 : 35 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 the course of investigation, he(PW15) noticed fraudulent sanction of car loans and the same was separately investigated by him (PW15) and he (PW15) seized some documents from M/s Nimbus Motors vide Seizure Memo dated 25.11.2004, Ex.PW12/A which has been signed by him (PW15) at point B on each page. PW15 further stated that he also seized /took over the documents from Bank of Punjab Ltd., Green Park, New Delhi; Transport Department, Sheikh Sarai, New Delhi; PNB, Anand Vihar branch, PNB, Tolstoy Marg and PNB, South Ext., New Delhi and he examined the various witnesses and obtained the sanction for prosecution of accused R. K. Jain and accused R. K. Verma from the competent authority. PW15 further stated that vide letter dated 8.12.2004 of the then Chief Manager(D73) alongwith annexures(D74D75), he (PW15) received information regarding car loan pertaining to accused Vijay Kumar and he(PW15 IO Rajesh Kumar) obtained certified copies of Statement of Account pertaining to A/c No.18/2002(D22) Ex.PW15/2 in respect of accused Deepak Kumar Rana; Statement of Account pertaining to A/c No.19/2002(D23) Ex.PW15/3 in respect of accused Vijay Kumar Rana; Statement of Account pertaining to A/c No.20/2002(D24) Ex.PW15/4 in respect of accused Chandan Kumar Rana & Statement of Account pertaining to A/c No.21/2002(D25), Ex.PW15/5 in respect of accused Vicky Kumar Rana.

CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 35 of 210

: 36 : CBI Case No. : 20/16

52. PW16 Sh. Jugal Kishore, who was posted in Punjab National Bank, Anand Vihar during the relevant period, has identified the signatures of Sh. R.K. Verma on the Sundry Voucher Ex.PW16/A(D27), Credit Voucher Transfer Ex.PW16/B(D28), Cash Order Ex.PW16/C(D29), Transfer voucher Ex.PW16/D (D30), Transfer Credit voucher Ex.PW16/E(D31), Credit Voucher Ex. PW16/F(D33), Cash Order Ex.PW16/G(D34), Debit Voucher Ex. PW16/H(D35) and Credit Voucher Ex.PW16/I(D36). PW16 also identified signatures of accused R. K. Verma and R. K. Jain on Cash Order Ex.PW16/J(D38) and Cash Order Ex.PW16/M(D42). PW16 identified signatures of accused R. K. Jain on Debit Voucher Ex.PW16/K(D39), Transfer Credit Voucher Ex.PW16/L(D40), Transfer Credit Voucher Ex.PW16/N(D43).

53. PW17 Shri R. K. Singh IO/ Inspector, CBI, BS & FC, New Delhi stated that after transfer of Insp. Rajesh Kumar Prasad, further investigation of the case was assigned to him and he received the entire case records including documents seized/prepared during the course of investigation and statement of witnesses from Inspector Rajesh Kumar Prasad and after perusing the records, he(PW17) found sufficient evidence against the accused persons and filed the charge sheet in the court.

CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 36 of 210

: 37 : CBI Case No. : 20/16

54. After closure of prosecution evidence, statements of accused persons under section 313 Cr.PC were recorded in which accused persons denied allegations made against them.

55. In support of their defence evidence, the accused persons have in all examined 5 witnesses.

56. The accused R.K. Jain(A1) and R.K. Verma(A2) in order to disprove the case of prosecution and in support of their defence examined Sh. Alok Srivastava, General Manager, Human Resource Manager Division (HRMD), Head Office Punjab National Bank, 7 Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi as DW1, who has proved the summoned records i.e. HRDD circular no.128 dated 24.01.2003 Ex.DW1/A, HRDD circular no.285 dated 19.11.2005 Ex.DW1/B, HRDD circular no. 292 dated 19.12.2005 Ex.DW1/C and attested copy of Punjab National Bank Officer Employee's (Discipline and Appeal) Regulation 1997 Ex.DW1/D(colly). DW1 has deposed that as per records, Sh. I. K. Kilam, the then Deputy General Manager was the Disciplinary Authority for Scale1 and ScaleII Grade Officers working in North Delhi/Zonal Office Delhi during the period 01.01.2005 to 18.10.2005 and Smt. Sushma Bali, the then DGM was the disciplinary Authority for ScaleI and ScaleII Grade Officers working in North Delhi/Zonal Office during the period 19.10.2005 to 31.12.2005. DW1 CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 37 of 210 : 38 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 has also proved the document Ex.DW1/E generated from HRMS regarding posting of Sh. I.K. Kilam, the then DGM. He has also proved the letter regarding production of the aforesaid details Ex.DW1/F.

57. Accused persons(A3 & A4 to A10) in order to prove their case in defence have examined Sh. K.K. Gautam, Sr. Assistant, ARTO Office, Sector33, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, UP as DW2, who has proved the particulars of RC pertaining to vehicle no.UP 16 BT 6709 as Ex.DW2/1 registered in the name of Sh. Ram Kumar on 12.08.2013, particulars of RC pertaining to vehicle no. UP 16 BT 6708 as Ex.DW2/2 registered in the name of Mrs. Aarti on 13.08.2013, particulars of RC pertaining to vehicle no.UP 16 BT 7152 as Ex.DW2/3 registered in the name of Sh. Sudhir Kumar on 11.09.2013 and particulars of RC pertaining to vehicle no. UP 16 BT 6442 as Ex.DW2/4 registered in the name of Sh. Leighton Welspun Contra Pvt. Ltd. on 01.03.2007. He stated that all the aforesaid registration numbers UP 16 BT 6709, UP16BT 6708, UP 16BT 7152 and UP 16 BT 6442 are permanent registration numbers and none of the aforesaid vehicles was of make Hyundai Santro. In reply to a court question, he deposed that the series of permanent and temporary number in their ART Office (ARTO) is different and the temporary registration number are mentioned as UCB(numerical number) (T). DW2 deposed that no Santro LE vehicle is temporarily registered with the registration numbers i.e. UP 16 BT 6709, UP 16 BT 6708, UP 16 CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 38 of 210 : 39 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 BT 7152 and UP 16 BT 6442.

58. Sh. Sukomal Satyen, Assistant Manager Legal and Secretarial, Sales and Marketing Division of M/s Hyundai Motor India Ltd has been examined as DW3 on behalf of accused persons (A3 & A4 to A10) and he proved the attested copy of Resolution of Board of Directors dated 25.07.2016 of M/s Hyundai Motors India Ltd. Ex.DW3/1, original invoicecumdelivery challan in respect of invoice no.W000053762 dated 12.12.2000 Ex.DW3/2, W000045854 dated 25.10.2000 Ex.DW3/3, W000060811 dated 23.01.2001 Ex.DW3/4 and W000049082 dated 15.11.2000 Ex.DW3/5.

59. Sh. Parmesh Kumar, Chief Manager, PNB, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi has been examined on behalf of accused(A2) as DW4, who has proved the attested copy of the charge sheet dated 05.11.2003 issued to Sh. R.K. Jain, Manager, PNB, Anand Vihar Branch Ex.DW4/A and attested copy of the charge sheet dated 05.11.2003 issued to Sh. R.K. Verma, Officer, PNB Krishna Nagar Branch Ex.DW4/B. He has also proved the letter dated 12.09.2016 Ex.DW4/C written by Sh. Dinesh Saxena, DGM, PNB to the effect that copy of order dated 16.09.2004 passed by Sh. K.C. Chakravarty, Executive Director of the bank is not traceable in their records.

60. Sh. Anil Kumar Ralhan, retired Chief Manager, CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 39 of 210 : 40 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 PNB, Circle Office, Meerut has stepped into witness box on behalf of accused persons(A1 & A2) as DW5. DW5 stated he was the Defence Assistant for accused R.K. Jain(A1) in the departmental enquiry conducted in pursuance of chargesheet, Ex. DW4/A. DW5 deposed that Executive Director, Punjab National Bank was the disciplinary authority in respect of R.K. Jain and R.K. Verma.

61. I have heard the arguments of the Ld. Counsels for the accused persons as well as Ld. Spl. PP, CBI and carefully perused the record.

VEHICLE No. DL 3CS 0374

62. The allegations of the prosecution are that Santro Car bearing registration no.DL 3CS 0374 was purchased by Kamal Kumar Nangia(A5) on 27.11.2000 from M/s Nimbus Motors Pvt. Ltd., Sector5, Noida and this car was financed by Bank of Punjab, Green Park, New Delhi and thus the car was hypothecated to Bank of Punjab. It is further alleged that the copy of sales invoice of M/s Nimbus Motors Pvt. Ltd. showed that this car was financed by Bank of Punjab but accused Kamal Kumar Nangia(A5) and Niranjan Kumar Nangia(A3) submitted forged sales invoices, sales certificates purported to have been issued by M/s Nimbus Motors Pvt. Ltd., Noida to RTO, Sheikh Sarai, New Delhi on 16.12.2000 and obtained registration certificate from the said RTO showing that the vehicle has CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 40 of 210 : 41 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 not been hypothecated to any bank. It is further alleged by the prosecution that the car no. DL 3CS 0374 was sold by Kamal Kumar Nangia (A5) to Vicky Kumar Rana (A9) s/o Vijay Kumar Rana and for purchase of the car, accused Vicky Kumar Rana(A9) got sanctioned a loan of Rs.2 lacs on 31.12.2002 from Punjab National Bank, Anand Vihar, Delhi. However, as per the records of RTO, Sheikh Sarai, the car no. DL 3CS 0374 was transferred in the name of Sh. Nitin Gupta on 09.01.2003 and hypothecated to Standard Chartered Bank. The allegations of the prosecution are that the accused persons had submitted photocopy of registration certificate to PNB, Anand Vihar Delhi which does not show that the vehicle is hypothecated to any bank and thus the accused persons dishonestly misrepresented the Punjab National Bank, Anand Vihar, Delhi that the car no. DL 3CS 0374 is not hypothecated to any bank and thereby, induced Punjab National Bank, Anand Vihar to sanction loan of Rs.2 lacs in favour of accused Vicky Kumar Rana for purchase of car no. DL 3CS 0374.

63. The contention of Ld. Counsel for accused persons(A3 to A6 & A8 to A10) is that there is inordinate delay in filing the chargesheet and the prosecution has not proved the original documents and the recovery/seizure of the document is not as per the law and there are inconsistencies in the statements of prosecution witnesses and there is no evidence to indicate that accused persons CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 41 of 210 : 42 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 adopted corrupt and illegal means and have committed forgery of documents or have used forged documents as genuine.

64. Another contention of accused persons(A3 to A6 & A8 to A10) is that all the persons who have made various documents in the files produced by the prosecution have not been examined to prove the said documents and in the circumstances it cannot be said that the documents have been properly proved by prosecution and accused persons(A3 to A6 & A8 to A10) have relied on decisions in Alamelu and another vs. State, (2011) 2 SCC 385 and Narbada Devi Gupta v. Birendra Kumar Jaiswal and another, (2003) 8 SCC 745. Ld. Spl. PP, CBI has contended that the files of Bank of Punjab Ltd., State Transport Authority, Sheikh Sarai, New Delhi and PNB, Anand Vihar & South Ext. branches on which reliance has been placed by the prosecution have been proved in accordance with law and the witnesses have deposed that the said files were maintained in the respective offices in the usual course of business. Ld. Spl. PP, CBI has further contended that in various transactions either for registration of vehicles or for grant of loans, copies of various documents are obtained by the said authorities and as the accused persons(A3 to A6 & A8 to A10) who were applicants before the said authorities had submitted photocopies of their documents and the same have been proved in accordance with law and accused persons have not rebutted the authenticity of any of the records and in CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 42 of 210 : 43 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 the circumstances it is not open for accused persons(A3 to A6 & A8 to A10) to plead that documents have not been proved in accordance with law. Ld. Spl. PP, CBI has further contended that prosecution has proved the seizure and authenticity of records in accordance with law. Ld. Spl. PP, CBI has contended that all the evidence which has been produced by the prosecution has been proved by the concerned witnesses who were working in the said offices/departments and were well versed with the records and the objections raised by the accused persons regarding proving of the said records was overruled by the court at the time of recording of evidence. Ld. Spl. PP has contended that the plea of accused persons regarding admissibility of documents which have been proved in accordance with law, has no force in view of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Umesh Kumar v. State of Andhra Pradesh, Crl. Appeal No. 1305/2013.

65. Prosecution examined PW6 Sh. Sanjay Behal, the then Corporate Sales Manager of M/s Nimbus Motors Pvt. Ltd., Sector5, Noida. PW6 Sh. Sanjay Behal stated that receipt dated 27.11.2000 issued by M/s Nimbus Motors Pvt. Ltd. in favour of Kamal Nangia bearing endorsement of hypothecation in favour of Bank of Punjab Ltd is Ex.PW6/J(D44). The Sales Invoice dated 27.11.2000 issued by M/s Nimbus Motors Pvt. Ltd., Noida in favour of Mr. Kamal Nangia, A7, South Extn. II, New Delhi and bearing particulars of Financer as 'Bank of Punjab Ltd' in respect of vehicle CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 43 of 210 : 44 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 bearing Model-LE/EuroII, Chassis No.- 129628, Engine No.- 08579 and bearing signatures of PW6 at point A, is Ex.PW6/L(D46). The Delivery Receipt & Gate Pass dated 27.11.2000 issued by M/s Nimbus Motors Pvt. Ltd, Noida, in respect of vehicle bearing particulars as Model - LE/EuroII, Chassis No.-129628, Engine No. - 08579 bearing customer's name as Mr. Kamal Nangia and signed by the said customer and bearing signatures of PW6 Sh. Sanjay Behal at point A is Ex.PW6/K(D45). The statement of Ledger Account in the name of Kamal Nangia issued by M/s Nimbus Motors Pvt. Ltd, Noida and certified to be as true copy by Sh. Sunil Dewan, Director of M/s Nimbus Motors Pvt. Ltd. Noida is Ex.PW6/M (D47).

66. PW6 Sh. Sanjay Behal stated in the cross examination that the amount of loan sanctioned by the bank in favour of Kamal Nangia was received by way of Pay Order bearing no.036129 dated 25.11.2000 in favour of M/s Nimbus Motors Pvt. Ltd. Ex.PW6/DX2 (D5) and it also contains an endorsement on the backside as 'HP Bank of Punjab Ltd'.

67. In the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 05.05.2016, accused Kamal Kumar Nangia (A5) was put questions on the Receipt dated 27.11.2000 Ex.PW6/J (D44), the Delivery Receipt & Gate Pass dated 27.11.2000 Ex.PW6/K (D45), the Sales Invoice dated 27.11.2000 Ex.PW6/L (D46) and the CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 44 of 210 : 45 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 statement of Ledger Account Ex.PW6/M (D47) to which accused Kamal Kumar Nangia answered by stating that the said documents are incorrect. In the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., accused Kamal Kumar Nangia stated that no loss has been caused to Punjab National Bank and he has not taken any loan from Bank of Punjab.

68. Prosecution examined PW4 Sh. Deepak Kumar Manuja, the then Assistant Vice President in Bank of Punjab, Green Park, Delhi, who stated that Ex.PW4/C(Colly) (D3) is the file in respect of car loan in the name of accused Kamal Nangia processed by the Bank of Punjab Ltd, Green Park, New Delhi. Ex.PW4/D is the loan application of Kamal Nangia. PW4 further stated that the loan application Ex.PW4/D was accompanied by supporting documents which are available in the file and the auto loan department had processed the file and it was recommended for sanction by Sh. Sanjay Arora and verified by Sh.Aashna Kochar and PW4 identified signatures of Sh. Sanjay Arora and Sh. Aashna Kochar in the file Ex.PW4/C (Colly). PW4 stated that the loan file of Punjab National Bank Ex.PW4/G(Colly) (D21) contains copy of RC in the name of Kamal Nangia and the said RC does not contain any hypothecation clause. The file Ex.PW4/C (Colly)(D3) also contains letter of Kamal Kumar addressed to the Manager, Bombay Mercantile Cooperative Bank, Daryaganj, Delhi stating that he (Kamal Nangia) is having CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 45 of 210 : 46 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 account no. 49559 in the said bank and thereby requesting for attesting his signatures as per the records of the said bank. The file Ex.PW4/C(Colly)(D3) also contains Undertaking/ Agreement signed by Kamal Kumar in original bearing stamps of Rs.15/ and attested, whereby accused Kamal Kumar has agreed as a precondition of the loan given to him by the bank that in case he commits default in payment of the loan amount or interest, the bank has an unqualified right to disclose or publish his name as a defaulter in such manner as the bank deems appropriate. Although in the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C, accused Kamal Kumar Nangia(A5) has stated that he has not taken loan from Bank of Punjab but in the cross examination of PW4 Sh. Deepak Kumar Manuja, no suggestion has been given to the effect that loan application Ex.PW4/D (part of D3) is neither signed by accused Kamal Kumar Nangia nor the same was submitted to the Bank of Punjab along with supporting documents as contained in file Ex.PW4/C (Colly) for availing car loan.

69. Prosecution also examined Sh. Sanjay Sharma, the then Manager (Collection) Bank of Punjab Ltd as PW9 who stated that the Statement of Account for the period 23.11.2000 to 01.11.2004 in respect of Auto Loan account no.06LA00/1626 of Kamal Nangia is Ex.PW9/E (D13). It is to be noted that in the cross examination of PW9 Sh. Sanjay Sharma, accused persons(A3 to A10 (except A7) have given suggestion to the effect that it is correct that CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 46 of 210 : 47 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 Statements of Accounts Ex.PW9/B to Ex.PW9/E were certified as per Banker's Book of Evidence. PW9 stated that the letter dated 30.10.2004 by which the loan application forms along with supporting documents of Niranjan Kumar Nangia, Ms. Veenu Nangia, Kamal Kumar Nangia and Ms. Divya Nangia were handed over to CBI is Ex.PW9/A(D10). PW9 stated in crossexamination that it is correct that in the letter Ex.PW9/A(D10) which is addressed to Inspector, CBI, it is mentioned that 'the said documents are being sent through Sh. Sanjay Sharma whose signatures are attested below and who has been duly authorized by this letter to do so and receive the acknowledgment from your office on our behalf for the same'. In the circumstances as PW9 categorically stated that he had handed over the documents as mentioned in letter Ex.PW9/A (D10) to CBI, there is no force in the contention of Ld. Counsel for accused persons that no seizure memo regarding handing over and taking over of said documents was prepared.

70. It is to be noted that accused Kamal Kumar Nangia(A5) has pleaded that he has not taken car loan from Bank of Punjab but he has neither pleaded nor given any suggestion to prosecution witnesses that the Santro car Model-LE/EuroII, Chassis No.-129628, Engine No.-08579 bearing registration number DL 3CS 0374 was not purchased by him from M/s Nimbus Motors Pvt. Ltd, Noida. The sales invoice vide which Santro car Model - LE/EuroII, CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 47 of 210 : 48 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 Chassis No. - 129628, Engine No. - 08579 was purchased by accused Kamal Nangia is Ex.PW6/L (D46) and the Delivery Receipt & Gate Pass bearing signatures of customer is Ex.PW6/K(D45). The contention of Ld. Counsel for accused(A5) is that PW6 stated in cross examination that the documents of Sales Invoices and Sales Certificates exhibited by him are only photocopies. It is to be noted that in the same breath PW6 stated that however the invoices PW6/L(D46) are the carbon copy of the original invoice. The Delivery Receipt & Gate Pass dated 27.11.2000 Ex.PW6/K (D45) is an original document. In the crossexamination of PW6, no suggestion has been given to the effect that Ex.PW6/L(D46) and Ex.PW6/K(D45) are forged and fabricated documents. The evidence adduced by the prosecution has proved that accused Kamal Kumar Nangia had purchased Santro car Model- LE/EuroII, Chassis No. - 129628, Engine No. - 08579 from M/s Nimbus Motors Pvt. Ltd.

71. In the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

accused Kamal Kumar Nangia has stated that he had not taken loan from Bank of Punjab Ltd. but in the cross examination of PW9 Sh. Sanjay Sharma, accused persons(A3 to A6 and A8 to A10) have given suggestion that it is correct that all dues of the bank were duly settled by Nangia family. Accused Kamal Kumar Nangia (A5) has not explained that if he has not taken loan from Bank of Punjab Ltd. then why he has settled the dues of the Bank of Punjab Ltd. Accused CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 48 of 210 : 49 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 Kamal Kumar Nangia (A5) has also not proved any document on record to prove the mode of payment in respect of Santro car Model - LE/EuroII, Chassis No. - 129628, Engine No.-08579 which was purchased by him from M/s Nimbus Motors Pvt. Ltd. if he had not taken loan from Bank of Punjab Ltd. Moreover, the fact that Kamal Kumar had received a sum of Rs. Two lacs by way of cash order no.868073 dated 31.12.2002 Ex.PW16/M(D42) drawn on Punjab National Bank, Anand Vihar, Delhi which was deposited in his account no.3017 vide transfer credit voucher Ex.PW16/N(D43) on account of purported sale of the said Santro car bearing registration no.DL 3CS 0374, Model - LE/EuroII, Chassis No. - 129628, Engine No. - 08579 to accused Vicky Kumar Rana also proves that accused Kamal Kumar Nangia(A5) had acquired the ownership of the said car. In the crossexamination of PW16 Shri Jugal Kishore, accused persons (A3 to A6 & A8 to A10) did not prefer to put any question and his testimony has remained unrebutted and his statement regarding issuance of cash order Ex. PW16/M(D42) in the name of accused Kamal Kumar Nangia and depositing of the same in his account vide transfer credit voucher Ex.PW16/N(D43) has remained unrebutted. The testimony of prosecution witnesses and the documents on record have proved that the Santro car Model - LE/EuroII, Chassis No.- 129628, Engine No. - 08579 was purchased by accused Kamal Kumar Nangia by availing loan from Bank of Punjab Ltd, Green Park, New Delhi vide demand draft no.036129 CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 49 of 210 : 50 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 dated 25.11.2000 for a sum of Rs.3,31,579/ drawn in favour of M/s Nimbus Motors Pvt. Ltd Ex.PW6/DX2(D5).

72. The contention of Ld. Spl.PP for CBI is that accused Kamal Kumar Nangia had submitted forged papers to RTO, Sheikh Sarai, New Delhi purported to have been issued by M/s Nimbus Motors Pvt. Ltd. and obtained a registration certificate from RTO showing that this vehicle has not been hypothecated to any bank and the said car was sold by accused Kamal Kumar Nangia to accused Vicky Kumar Rana (A9) and this purchase was financed by Punjab National Bank, Anand Vihar, Delhi by sanction of car loan of Rs.2 lacs on 31.12.2002 and investigation revealed that the said car was transferred in the name of Nitin Luthra on 09.01.2003 and hypothecated to Standard Chartered Bank.

73. The prosecution examined PW13 Sh. Shailender Pal Singh, Motor Vehicle Inspector from RTO, Sheikh Sarai. PW13 Sh. Shailender Pal Singh stated that the file(D17) in respect of vehicle no. DL 3CS 0374 Ex.PW13/DA contains Form 21 but the same contains N/A in the column regarding hypothecation of the vehicle. PW13 Sh. Shailender Pal Singh further stated that as per record, the vehicle no. DL 3CS 0374 was sold on 09.01.2003 to Sh. Nitin Luthra. PW13 Sh. Shailender Pal Singh stated in the cross examination by accused no.1 and 2 that RC of vehicle no. DL 3CS 0374 as contained CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 50 of 210 : 51 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 in the said file Ex.PW13/DA(D17) does not bear endorsement of hypothecation. PW13 Shailender Pal Singh stated in the cross examination by accused persons(A3 to A6 and A8 to A10) that the files i.e. D14, D16 and D17 are cases of transfer of vehicles and in the said files original RCs were enclosed when the same were handed over to CBI. The file Ex.PW13/DA(D17) pertaining to vehicle no.DL 3CS 0374 shows that the same contains one receipt dated 16.12.2000 as per which a sum of Rs.3915/ was deposited towards registration of the car and road tax and the same also contains the application for registration of motor vehicle (Form 20) containing the particulars of the vehicle, Form 21 dated 27.11.2000, Form 22, Sales Invoice dated 27.11.2000 purportedly issued by M/s Nimbus Motors Pvt. Ltd, copy of InvoiceCumDelivery Challan and Temporary certificate of registration bearing temporary registration no. UP 16B (T) 6442 in the name of Kamal Nangia bearing Chassis No.-129628 and Engine No.- 08579 purportedly issued by Registration Authority, Motor Vehicle Department, Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida. The file Ex.PW13/DA (D17) pertaining to vehicle no. DL 3CS 0374 also contains RC of the vehicle bearing registration date as 16.12.2000 in the name of Kamal Nangia and it does not contain any endorsement of hypothecation and PW13 had stated in the crossexamination that since file Ex.PW13/DA (D17) is a case of transfer of vehicle, the same contains original RC which is required to be enclosed at the time of transfer of the vehicle. The file Ex.PW13/DA (D17) also contains Form 29 and CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 51 of 210 : 52 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 Form 30 for transfer of vehicle in the name of Nitin Luthra and Form 35 for termination of agreement of hire purchase/Lease of hypothecation signed by the authorized signatory of Standard Chartered Bank and letter dated 05.10.2002 of Standard Chartered Bank for termination of hypothecation of vehicle no. DL 3CS 0374 bearing Chassis No.-129628 and Engine No. - 08579 in the name of Kamal Kumar Nangia, Loan No.-2294842 and there is one receipt no.107883 dated 09.01.2003 in the name of Kamal Nangia on record of the file Ex.PW13/DA (D17) as per which a sum of Rs.200/ was deposited which consisted of a sum of Rs.100/ towards transfer of LMV (Car) and Rs. 100/ towards cancellation of hypothecation. Hence, as per file Ex.PW13/DA (D17) accused Kamal Nangia had applied for transfer of car no. DL 3CS 0374 in the name of Nitin Luthra R/o E128, Second Floor, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi 110008 and for removal of hypothecation of Standard Chartered Bank on the said vehicle but the Registration Certificate (RC) of the vehicle which was deposited along with the documents for the transfer of the said car in the name of Nitin Luthra and for deletion of hypothecation in the name of Standard Chartered Bank did not contain any endorsement of hypothecation although accused Kamal Kumar Nangia had availed loan from Bank of Punjab Ltd for purchase of the said vehicle from M/s Nimbus Motors Pvt. Ltd., Noida.

74. The contention of Ld. Spl. PP for CBI is that CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 52 of 210 : 53 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 accused Kamal Nangia had submitted a forged and fabricated temporary certificate of registration bearing registration number as UP 16 B (T) 6442 purportedly issued by Registration Authority, Motor Vehicle Department, Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida and forged Form 21 Dated 27.11.2000 and forged Sales Invoice dated 27.11.2000 purportedly issued by M/s Nimbus Motors Pvt. Ltd., Noida to the RTO, Sheikh Sarai in order to obtain registration certificate without endorsement of hypothecation with fraudulent intention of taking loans from the banks.

75. The contention of Ld. Counsel for accused persons is that the dealer of the vehicle gets the temporary registration done and accused Kamal Kumar Nangia has not submitted forged documents to RTO, Sheikh Sarai as alleged by the prosecution.

76. As per allegations of prosecution, accused Kamal Kumar Nangia(A5) had submitted forged and fabricated temporary certificate of registration bearing registration number as UP 16 B (T) 6442 purportedly issued by Registration Authority, Motor Vehicle Department, Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida to RTO, Sheikh Sarai for registration of the Santro Car bearing Chassis No.-129628 and Engine No. - 08579. PW13 Sh. Shailender Pal Singh stated in cross examination by accused persons(A3 to A6 and A8 to A10) that physical verification of the vehicle is done at the time of registration CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 53 of 210 : 54 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 and fee for registration of the vehicle is also deposited at the time of registration of vehicle and appropriate receipt of the same is issued and one copy of the receipt of depositing registration fee is filed in the concerned file. PW6 stated in cross examination that he does not know whether the documents of vehicle were handed over to the customer by the company for the purpose of temporary registration or to the DSA and he does not know who had gone to get the temporary registration of the vehicle done. PW12 Sh. Sunil Dewan stated that CBI had collected some documents from him and he identified his signatures on the seizure memo dated 25.11.2004 Ex.PW12/A. As per seizure memo Ex.PW12/A, photocopy of temporary certificate of registration dated 28.11.2000 issued by Motor Vehicle Department, Noida towards temporary registration of vehicle with Chassis No. - 129628 and Engine No. - 08579 of Sh. Kamal Nangia was also seized vide the said memo. PW6 stated that Ex.PW6/N (D48) is the temporary certificate of registration which is attested by their company. As per temporary certification of Registration Ex.PW6/N (D48), the vehicle bearing Chassis No. - 129628 and Engine No. - 08579 was registered in the name of Kamal Nangia vide Temporary registration no. UP 16 B (T) 6442 by Registration Authority, Motor Vehicle Department, Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida. It is to be noted that temporary certificate of Registration Ex.PW6/N (D48) is the copy of the temporary registration certificate bearing registration no. UP 16 B (T) 6442 as contained in the file Ex.PW13/DA (D17) CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 54 of 210 : 55 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 pertaining to vehicle no. DL 3CS 0374. PW6 denied suggestion of accused no.2 in the cross examination that their company got the temporary registration of the vehicle done and did not mention about the hypothecation to the Registering Authority. PW6 further denied suggestion of A2 in the cross examination that it was mistake on the part of company to have handed over the documents for registration to the customers and that it was the duty of the company to get the vehicle registered with the proper hypothecation clause. In the cross examination of PW6, accused persons(A4 to A6 and A8 to A10) have given suggestion to the effect that in case of financed vehicle, it is the Direct Sales Agent(DSA) who deals with the company and not the customers. Although accused(A5) has pleaded that it is the Direct Sales Agent (DSA) who deals with the car dealer and he had no role to play in temporary registration of the vehicle but no evidence has been adduced by accused(A5) to substantiate his contention.

77. On one hand, accused(A5) has pleaded that it is the Direct Sales Agent (DSA) who was responsible for temporary registration of the vehicle bearing Chassis No.-129628 and Engine No.- 08579 purchased from M/s Nimbus Motors Pvt. Ltd. but on the other hand in order to prove the authenticity of the temporary certificate of registration bearing temporary registration no. UP 16 B(T) 6442 Ex.PW6/N(D48) (the original of which is contained in file D17 Ex.PW13/DA), the accused examined Sh. K.K. Gautam from CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 55 of 210 : 56 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 ARTO Office, Sector33,Noida as DW2. DW2 was summoned by accused to produce the file pertaining to vehicle bearing registration no. UP 16 BT 6442. DW2 stated that as per the records brought by him, the vehicle bearing registration no. UP16BT6442 was registered on 01.03.2007 in the name of Leighton Welspun Contra Pvt Ltd, Address: Wave One, Sector18, NOIDA, G.B. Nagar201301 for heavy goods vehicles and the particulars of the RC is Ex.DW2/4. DW2 further stated that no Santro LE vehicle is temporarily registered with registration number UP 16BT 6442. DW2 denied suggestion of accused persons that dealers of the vehicles to be temporarily registered send their own persons for getting temporary registration certificate. Thereafter, DW2 voluntarily stated in the examination in chief that the person who desires to obtain temporary registration certificate himself comes along with the documents and the vehicle. DW2 further stated in examination in chief that Direct Sales Agent (DSA) of the bank does not come to the Authority for issuance of temporary registration certificate and their office does not send any copy of temporary registration certificate to the bank in case the vehicle is hypothecated. DW2 further stated in the examination in chief that the physical inspection of the vehicle is conducted by their office at the time of issuance of Temporary Registration Certificate and the Technical Inspector matches the Chassis number on the vehicle with the number as mentioned in the Sale Letter/Bill/Invoice.

       DW2 further  stated  that  the  Dealer    is   issued  a Trade Certificate

   CBI   v.  R. K. Jain & Ors.                                                                                  Page No. : 56 of 210  
                                                             : 57 :                                               CBI Case No. : 20/16

which contains signatures of authorized signatory of the dealer and the said record of the authorized signatory of the dealer is maintained in their office and the papers which are received from dealer contain signatures of authorized signatory and the same are tallied with the signatures as maintained in their records. DW2 stated that they do not conduct verification of the Sale Letter/Bill/ Invoice from the dealer. DW2 was put a question in the examination in chief regarding the series in which temporary registration numbers are issued by their office to which he answered by stating that the series of permanent and temporary numbers are different and the temporary registration numbers are mentioned as UCB(Numerical number)(T). In the cross examination, DW2 was shown the Temporary Registration Certificate bearing registration no. UP 16B (T) 6442 as contained in the file Ex.PW13/DA (D17) {the copy of which is Ex. PW6/N (D48)} in respect of vehicle no. DL 3CS 0374 and DW2 stated that the said certificate has not been issued by their office. In view of testimony of DW2 who was summoned as witness by accused persons, there is no force in the contention of accused Kamal Kumar Nangia (A5) that the dealer of the car or the DSA was involved in the process of obtaining the Temporary Certificate of Registration in respect of Santro Car bearing Model- LE/EuroII, Chassis No. - 129628 and Engine No.- 08579. The testimony of DW2 has also proved beyond reasonable doubts that the temporary certificate of registration bearing registration number UP 16 B(T) 6442 in the name of Kamal CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 57 of 210 : 58 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 Nangia, A7, South ExtensionII, New Delhi in respect of car, Model2000, Chassis No. - 129628 and Engine No.- 08579 purportedly issued by Registration Authority, Motor Vehicle Department, Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida, as contained in file Ex.PW13/DA(D17) [the copy of which Ex.PW6/N(D48)] in respect of car no. DL 3CS 0374 is a forged and fabricated document.

78. PW6 Sh. Sanjay Behal stated that Ex.PW6/L(D46) is the Sales Invoice dated 27.11.2000 in the name of Kamal Nangia issued by their company and same bears his signatures at point A. Perusal of Sales Invoice dated 27.11.2000 Ex.PW6/L (D46) shows that in the said invoice the Bank of Punjab Ltd is mentioned as Financer of the vehicle. In the cross examination PW6 stated that it is correct that even in the temporary registration, the name of the Financer has to be mentioned. PW6 further stated in the cross examination that in the temporary registration certificate Ex.PW6/N(D48), the name of the Financer is not mentioned. Thereafter, PW6 voluntarily stated in the cross examination that the said temporary registration certificate does not have the column of hypothecation. As per aforesaid discussions, the original of temporary registration certificate Ex.PW6/N(D48) was submitted to RTO, Sheikh Sarai for registration of the vehicle in the name of Kamal Kumar Nangia and the said vehicle bearing temporary registration number UP 16B(T) 6442 as mentioned in the CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 58 of 210 : 59 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 Ex.PW6/N(D48) was registered as DL 3CS 0374. The contention of Ld. Counsel for accused persons(A3 to A6 and A8 to A10) is that PW6 Sh. Sanjay Behal stated that Proforma Invoice is collected on behalf of bank by DSA/ Party. It is to be noted that proforma invoice is prepared before effecting sale of the vehicle and at the time of sale of the vehicle, Sales Invoice is prepared and PW6 proved the Sales Invoice dated 27.11.2000 Ex.PW6/L(D46). In the circumstances the contention of Ld. Counsel for the accused persons that proforma invoice is collected by the bank or the DSA is of no help to the accused persons.

79. As per file Ex.PW13/DA(D17) pertaining to DL 3CS 0374 along with the temporary registration certificate, sales invoice dated 27.11.2000 purported to be issued by M/s Nimbus Motors Pvt. Ltd was also submitted to RTO, Sheikh Sarai and the perusal of sales invoice dated 27.11.2000 purported to be issued by M/s Nimbus Motors Pvt. Ltd. which was submitted along with temporary registration certificate to RTO Sheikh Sarai shows that the column containing the particulars of financer is blank in the said invoice. The documents on record prove that the accused Kamal Kumar Nangia has submitted that temporary registration certificate along with sales invoice dated 27.11.2000 purported to be issued by M/s Nimbus Motors Pvt. Ltd. without containing the particulars of the financer /endorsement of hypothecation to RTO Sheikh Sarai.

CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 59 of 210

: 60 : CBI Case No. : 20/16

80. PW6 Sh. Sanjay Behal stated that Delivery Receipt & Gate Pass Ex.PW6/K (D45) in the name of Kamal Nangia was issued by M/s Nimbus Motors Pvt. Ltd and PW6 further specifically stated in his examination in chief that Gate Pass is issued to the customer in original for taking delivery. In the cross examination of PW6 Sh. Sanjay Behal, accused Kamal Kumar Nangia (A5) has not given any suggestion to the effect that the Delivery Receipt and Gate Pass Ex.PW6/K(D45) was not issued by M/s Nimbus Motors Pvt. Ltd and that accused Kamal Nangia had not taken the delivery of Santro Car bearing Chassis No. - 129628 and Engine No.-08579 vide said Delivery Receipt & Gate Pass Ex.PW6/K(D45). Delivery Receipt & Gate Pass Ex.PW6/K (D45) shows that accused Kamal Kumar had taken delivery of Santro Car bearing Chassis No.-129628 and Engine No.- 08579 from Nimbus Motors Pvt. Ltd on 27.11.2000.

81. PW13 Sh. Shailender Pal Singh stated in the cross examination that physical verification of the vehicle is done at the time of registration of the vehicle and fees for registration of the vehicle is also deposited at the time of registration of the vehicle and appropriate receipt of the same is issued and one copy of receipt of depositing registration fee is filed in the concerned file. The file Ex.PW13/DA(D17) contains the receipt No.9878530 dated CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 60 of 210 : 61 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 16.12.2000 in the name of Kamal Nangia in respect of car bearing Chassis no.129628 for a sum of Rs. 3915/ which consists of Rs.100/ for registration of LMV(Car) and Rs. 3815/ towards Road Tax and as per the certificate of registration on record, the said vehicle was registered as DL 3CS 0374 on 16.12.2000 in the name of Kamal Nangia. PW13 stated in examination in chief stated that as per file Ex.PW13/DA(D17) which is in respect of DL 3CS 0374, the said vehicle was sold on 09.01.2003 to Sh. Nitin Luthra. PW13 stated that Form 21 and RC in file Ex.PW13/DA(D17) do not contain any endorsement of hypothecation. PW13 Sh. Shailender Pal Singh stated in the crossexamination that this file contains original RC because this is a transfer case wherein original RC was deposited in RTO office at the time of transfer of vehicle. Accused Kamal Nangia has not given any suggestion to the prosecution witnesses that the vehicle no. DL 3CS 0374 was not registered in his name and that he had not submitted Form 35 duly signed by authorized signatory of Standard Chartered Bank or Form 29 and Form 30 for transfer of vehicle no. DL 3CS 0374 in the name of Nitin Luthra. As per file Ex.PW13/DA(D17) the vehicle no.DL 3CS 0374 was transferred in the name of Nitin Luthra on 09.01.2003.

82. The allegations of prosecution are that the car no.

DL 3CS 0374 was sold by accused Kamal Kumar Nangia(A5) to accused Vicky Kumar Rana (A9) s/o Sh. Vijay Kumar Rana (A7) and CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 61 of 210 : 62 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 this purchase of the car by Vicky Kumar Rana was financied by Punjab National Bank, Anand Vihar Delhi by sanction of car loan of Rs.2 lac on 31.12.2002.

83. The prosecution examined Sh. Vinod Kumar Gupta from Punjab National Bank as PW7. PW7 was shown the car loan file of Punjab National Bank in respect of Vicky Kumar Rana which is D21 and PW7 stated that the said file contains application form for Car Loan which is Ex.PW7/Z10 which is the request made by the party along with the annexures which are Ex.PW7/Z11 (Colly) and PW7 identified signatures of R.K. Verma at point A and R.K. Jain at point B on the application form of Car Loan Ex.PW7/Z10 in respect of accused Vicky Kumar Rana. PW7 further stated that the post dated cheques containing 25 leaves which were given by accused Vicky Kumar Rana as contained in file Ex.PW4/G(Colly) (D21) are Ex.PW7/Z12(Colly) and the Insurance Cover Note along with premium receipt Ex.PW7/Z13 (Colly) were also furnished by the party. PW7 further stated that Agreement to Sell Ex.PW7/Z14 was furnished by the party and vouchers Ex.PW7/Z15 and Ex.PW7/Z16 were issued in token of having sanctioned loan to accused Vicky Kumar Rana and Ex.PW7/Z17 is the Demand Promisory Note duly signed by Vicky Kumar Rana which was furnished to the bank and accused Vicky Kumar Rana also submitted letter Ex.PW7/Z18 CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 62 of 210 : 63 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 indicting his intention to give post dated cheques to the bank. PW7 stated that the balance confirmation letter Ex.PW7/Z19, End Use verification signed by Vicky Kumar Rana and the concerned officer i.e. accused R.K. Verma at point A is Ex.PW7/Z20. In the cross examination of PW7, no suggestion has been given to the effect that the Application form for car loan Ex.PW7/Z10 is not signed by accused Vicky Kumar Rana and the same was not submitted by accused Vicky Kumar Rana. In the cross examination of PW7, no suggestions have been given to the effect that the post dated cheques Ex.PW7/Z12 (Colly), Insurance Cover Note along with Premium receipt Ex.PW7/Z13 (Colly) [wrongly mentioned as Ex.PW7/Z10 (Colly) on the insurance cover note as contained in file D21] and Agreement to Sell Ex.PW7/Z14 signed by the seller Kamal Kumar owner of car no.DL 3CS 0374 and accused Vicky Kumar Rana, the Demand Pronote Ex.PW7/Z17 duly signed by Vicky Kumar Rana, the Application Ex.PW7/Z18 signed by Vicky Kumar Rana thereby intimating his intention to give post dates cheques to the bank, the Balance Confirmation Letter Ex.PW7/Z19 signed by Vicky Kumar Rana, End Use Verification letter Ex.PW7/Z20 signed by Vicky Kumar Rana and the letter of hypothecation to secure term loan Ex.PW7/Z21 (Colly), were not submitted by accused Vicky Kumar Rana to the Punjab National Bank, Anand Vihar Branch for availing loan of Rs.2 lacs for purchasing old car bearing registration no. DL CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 63 of 210 : 64 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 3CS 0374 owned by accused Kamal Nangia. In the cross examination of PW7 Sh. Vinod Kumar Gupta, accused Kamal Kumar Nangia(A5) has not given any suggestion to the effect that the Agreement to Sell Ex.PW7/Z14 whereby he had agreed to sell car no. DL 3CS 0374 to accused Vicky Kumar Rana for a sum of Rs.2,50,000/ and out of which Rs.50,000/ were received by him in cash, is not signed by him(A5).

84. In the cross examination of PW7 Sh. Vinod Kumar Gupta, accused persons(A3 to A6 and A8 to A10) drew attention of PW7 to his observation in his Inspection Report dated 16.06.2003 marked Ex.PW8/A1. In the crossexamination of PW7 Sh. Vinod Kumar Gupta, accused persons(A3 to A6 and A8 to A10) have put questions to the effect that as on the date of his report marked Ex.PW8/A1 i.e. 16.06.2003, three of the car loans should adjusted while the fourth one i.e. loan taken by Deepak Rana had an outstanding of Rs.1.97 lacs on that day. The relevant portion of the inspection report dated 16.06.2003 marked Ex.PW8/A1 prepared by PW7 Sh. Vinod Kumar Gupta with which he was confronted in the cross examination by the accused persons reads as:

4 Car loans for purchase of old cars were sanctioned in the month of November and December, 2002, as per details given below:

CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 64 of 210

                                                             : 65 :                                               CBI Case No. : 20/16




       Sl.   DOA/                Name of buyer/          Name of Seller        Remarks
                   L/000         Borrower

_________________________________________________________________

1. 201102 Deepak Rana Miss Divya Nangia Bal./1.97 lac 2.00 lac S/o Vijay Rana d/o Niranjan Nangia (see annexueD/202 to 223)

2. 211102 Vijay Rana Smt. Veena Nangia Adj. 30503 2.00 lac S/o Kishan Lal Rana w/o Niranjan Nangia by cash

3. 311202 Vicky Rana s/o Kamal Nangia Adj. 31303 2.00 lac s/o Vijay Rana s/o Niranjan Nangia by CC/1018

4. 311202 Chandan Rana Niranjan Nangia Adj. 24503 2.00 lac s/o Vijay Rana s/o Thakar Dass by cash Comments: 1) All the four cars are old and santro car.

2) 4 members of one family sold their car to 4 members of another family.

3) Except Smt. Veena Nangia w/o Niranjan Nangia all others are borrower or guarantor in one or the other above mentioned 20 CCH accounts.

4) Copy of JRCs showing bank's charge and transfer of car in borrower's name, not on record in any of the above mentioned car loan accounts.

5) A/c of Shri Vicky Rana was adjusted on 31303 to the debit of CC/1018 - M/s. Oberoi Marketing (Prop Shri Chandan Rana and guarantor Shri Anil Narang). Thus Vicky Rana was neither proprietor nor guarantor in the firm.

6) There are various other procedural lapses, like agreement to sell not taken in one a/c, old RC not taken in 1 a/c, name of guarantor not proposed in 2 a/cs, PNB58 not taken in 3 a/cs, etc.

7) Cash orders of the vehicle loan proceeds were credited into the SF a/c of the respective sellers and the amount withdrawn in cash the same day.

8) Loan in a/c at Sl. No. 4 above was allowed for sale of car No. DL3CS/0968 by Mr. Niranjan Nangia to Chandan Rana s/o Vijay Rana. A loan of Rs.2.00 lac was sanctioned by BO South Extn., New Delhi on 71101 to Shri Virender Pal Singh for sale of the same car by Shri Niranjan Nangia to him. The said Account at BO South Ext., New Delhi is presently under PA Category with CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 65 of 210 : 66 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 O/s. Rs. 2.54 lac.

Copy of JRC showing transfer of the car from Niranjan Nangia to so called buyer (Virender Pal Singh at BO South Ext., New Delhi and Chandan Rana at this branch) is not held at any of these two branches. Cash Order No. 1562 dt. 311202 for Rs.2.00 lac issued by the branch fvg.Niranjan Kumar Nangia was credited into his SF/3016 at the branch.

Thus it has been a case of double financing by misrepresentation by the buyer/seller and negligence on the part of branch officials. However, the a/c at this branch was adjusted on 24503 By deposit of cash and a/c at BO South Ext., ND is O/standing.

The above car loans seem to be accommodation loans. In the absence of revised RCs, it appears that vehicles actually did not change hands. Observations at sl. No. 6,7 & 8 further lead us to conclude that the sellers and buyers/borrower connived to mislead the Bank.

ACCOUNTS AT BO SOUTH EXTENSTION, NEW DELHI:

4. TL(Car) Virender Pal Singh DOA/71101 L/2.00 lac OS/2.54 lac Status/in PA category  A/c guaranteed by Shri Kamal Kumar Nangia s/o Niranjan Nangia And Shri SC Kaushik. This a/c is already under vehicle loan a/cs at BO Anand Vihar, Delhi at item No. 8 above.

From the name of borrowers/guarantor and witnesses in the above mentioned a/cs at BO South Ext., New Delhi it is evident that these a/cs are also connected accounts.

85. After referring to his inspection report dated 16.06.2003, PW7 Sh. Vinod Kumar Gupta stated in the cross CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 66 of 210 : 67 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 examination that as on the date of report i.e. 16.06.2003, three of the car loans stood adjusted while the fourth one i.e. the loan taken by Deepak Rana had an outstanding of Rs.1.97 lacs on that day. Further suggestion was given to PW7 Sh. Vinod Kumar Rana in the cross examination that the loan taken by Deepak Rana was also adjusted later on to which PW7 answered by stating that he cannot say if the said account was also adjusted later on. In the cross examination of PW7, accused persons (A3 to A6 and A8 to A10) put a question to the effect that all the four car loans were approved by Sr. Regional Manager to which PW7 answered by stating that he cannot say if all the four car loans were approved by Sr. Regional Manager. In the crossexamination of PW7 Sh. Vinod Kumar Gupta, accused persons(A3 to A6 and A8 to A10) gave a suggestion that three car loan amounts were adjusted before filing of complaint by the bank to CBI and registration of FIR to which PW7 answered by stating that it is correct. Thereafter, PW7 voluntarily stated in the cross examination that two out of them were adjusted after commencement of his investigation. Another suggestion was given by accused persons(A3 to A6 and A8 to A10) in the crossexamination of PW7 Sh. Vinod Kumar Gupta that all the outstanding against all the four car loans stood adjusted as on 14.02.2004 to which PW7 answered by stating that it is correct.

86. Further suggestion was given in the cross CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 67 of 210 : 68 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 examination of by PW7 Sh. Vinod Kumar Gupta by accused persons (A3 to A6 and A8 to A10) that all the borrowers of the vehicle loans were existing customers of the bank to which he answered by stating that it is correct. By giving suggestions in the crossexamination of PW7 Sh. Vinod Kumar Gupta to the effect that the car loans were approved by Sr. Regional Manager and the borrowers of the car loans were existing customers and that the three car loan amounts in this case were adjusted before filing of complaint by the bank to CBI and registration of FIR and the fourth car loan account of accused Deepak Rana stood adjusted on 14.02.2004, the accused Vicky Kumar Rana(A9) has admitted availing of the car loan of a sum of Rs.2 lacs from Punjab National Bank, Anand Vihar Branch for purchase of Santro Car bearing registration no. DL 3CS 0374 from accused Kamal Kumar Nangia(A5). However, by giving aforesaid suggestion to PW7 in the cross examination, accused Vicky Kumar Rana has pleaded that the loan account was adjusted by him prior to making of complaint by the Bank to CBI and prior to registration of FIR. PW3 Sh. P.K. Singh specifically stated in his examination in chief that there is no endorsement regarding hypothecation of vehicle in the name of bank and the file(D21) does not bear any registration certificate showing that the vehicle has been transferred in the name of borrower. Although accused Vicky Kumar Rana has pleaded that he had availed the car loan but the same was adjusted before registration of FIR but accused Vicky Kumar Rana has neither CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 68 of 210 : 69 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 pleaded nor proved that after availing the loan of Rs.2 lacs from Punjab National Bank, Anand Vihar Branch for purchase of car no. DL 3CS 0374, he had acquired the physical possession of the said car and he applied to the concerned RTO for transfer of the car bearing no.DL 3CS 0374 in his name. Moreover, as per file Ex. PW13/DA(D17) the car No. DL 3CS 0374 was transferred in the name of Shri Nitin Luthra on 09.01.2003 which also proves that after obtaining loan from PNB, Anand Vihar, accused Vicky Kumar Rana never acquired the possession & ownership of the said car. The evidence on record proves that the loan for Rs.2 lacs which was taken by accused Vicky Kumar Rana for purchase of car no. DL 3CS 0374 which was disbursed by way to cash order No.868073 dated 31.12.2002 Ex.PW16/M (D42) in the name of Kamal Kumar was obtained by accused Vicky Kumar Rana in criminal conspiracy with accused Kamal Kumar Nangia by fraudulently inducing the bank that the aforesaid car was not hypothecated to any other bank on the basis of forged and fabricated documents and the accused persons thereby caused wrongful loss to the Punjab National Bank, Anand Vihar, Delhi and wrongful gain to themselves.

VEHICLE NO. DL 3CS 0969

87. The allegations of the prosecution are that the Santro Car bearing registration no.DL 3CS 0969 was purchased by CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 69 of 210 : 70 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 accused Divya Nangia (A6) daughter of Niranjan Kumar Nangia(A3) from Nimbus Motors Pvt. Ltd., Sector5, Noida on 27.12.2000 and was financed by Bank of Punjab Ltd, Green Park, New Delhi and Bank of Punjab Ltd, Green Park, New Delhi produced copy of registration certificate showing the endorsement of hypothecation regarding the car loan and the photocopy of the Sales Invoice of M/s Nimbus Motors Pvt. Ltd. on the record of RTO, Sheikh Sarai does not resemble with the carbon copy of the Sale Invoice provided by M/s Nimbus Motors Pvt. Ltd.. As per allegations of prosecution, the aforesaid car was purchased by Deepak Kumar Rana(A8) from Divya Nangia(A6) on 26.11.20002 by availing car loan of Rs. 2 lacs from Punjab National Bank, Anand Vihar, Delhi.

88. PW6 Sh. Sanjay Behal, the then Corporate Sales Manager of M/s Nimbus Motors Pvt. Ltd. stated that the receipt dated 21.12.2000 issued by M/s Nimbus Motors Pvt. Ltd. in the name of Divya Nangia bearing hypothecation in the name of Bank of Punjab Ltd. is Ex.PW6/P(D50). The Sales Invoice dated 27.12.2000 issued by M/s Nimbus Motors Pvt. Ltd., Noida in favour of Divya Nangia r/o A7, South Extension, PartII, New Delhi and bearing particulars of financer as Bank of Punjab Ltd in respect of vehicle bearing Model LE/EUROII, Chassis Number 134633 and Engine Number 12899 and bearing signatures of PW6 at point A is Ex.PW6/R(D52). PW6 stated that the Delivery Receipt and Gate Pass dated 26.12.2000 CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 70 of 210 : 71 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 issued by M/s Nimbus Motors Pvt. Ltd bearing signatures of Sh. Anupam, Sr. Sales Executive at point A and signed by the customer Divya Nangia is Ex.PW6/Q(D51). The statement of Ledger account in the name of Divya Nangia issued by M/s Nimbus Motors Pvt. Ltd, Noida and certified to be true copy by Sh. Sunil Dewan, Director of M/s Nimbus Motors Pvt. Ltd, Noida is Ex.PW6/S (D53). PW6 stated in the examination in chief that gate pass is issued to the customer in original for taking delivery.

89. PW6 Sh. Sanjay Behal stated in the cross examination by accused no. 2 that in the loan file Ex.PW4/F (Colly) (D2) there is letter dated 18.12.2000 Ex.PW6/DX1 from Bank of Punjab Ltd for a loan amount of Rs. 3,48,000/ payable in 60 months. PW6 further stated in the cross examination that the amount of the loan sanctioned by Bank of Punjab Ltd. in favour of Ms. Divya Nangia was received by way of pay order bearing no.036683 dated 21.12.2000 drawn in favour of M/s Numbus Motors Pvt. Ltd. Ex.PW6/DX3(D6) and it also contains an endorsement on the reverse that 'HP Bank of Punjab Ltd'.

90. In the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 05.05.2016, accused Divya Nangia was put questions on the receipt dated 21.12.2000 Ex.PW6/P(D50), Gate Pass Ex.PW6/Q(D51), CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 71 of 210 : 72 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 Sales Invoice dated 27.12.2000 Ex.PW6/R (D52) and certified copy of Ledger Account Ex.PW6/S(D53) to which accused Divya Nangia answered by stating that the said documents are incorrect. In the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C, accused Divya Nangia stated that at the relevant time her father used to look after the business and after marriage she has never indulged in any other transactions and no dues were payable on any account towards Punjab National Bank. In the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C, accused Divya Nangia further stated that all the dues were repaid prior to filing of the complaint and no loss has been caused to the bank.

91. PW4 Shri Deepak Kumar Manuja stated that the file in respect of the car loan in the name of accused Divya Nangia(A6) processed by Bank of Punjab Ltd., Green Park is Ex.PW4/F(colly) (D2) and the loan was recommended for sanction by Shri Sanjay Arora, Auto Loan Executive and the file Ex.PW4/F(colly) is signed by Shri Sanjay Arora at point A. The Ex.PW4/F(colly) (D2) also contains undertaking/agreement signed by accused Divya Nangia in original bearing stamps of Rs.15 and attested, whereby accused Divya Nangia has agreed as precondition of the loan given to her by the bank that in case she commits defaults in the payment of the loan amount or interest the bank has an unqualified right to disclose or publish her name as a defaulter in such manner as the bank deems appropriate. In the crossexamination of PW4 Shri Deepak Kumar CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 72 of 210 : 73 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 Manuja, no suggestion has been given to the effect that undertaking/agreement signed by accused Divya Nangia in original bearing stamps of Rs.15 and attested, as stated above and the supporting documents i.e. copy of Saral Form alongwith Statement of Income, were not submitted by accused Divya Nangia to Bank of Punjab Ltd. for processing of Auto Loan in her favour. In the statement under section 313 Cr.PC, accused Divya Nangia (A6) has not stated that no car loan was taken by her from the Bank of Punjab Ltd.

92. PW9 Shri Sanjay Sharma stated that letter dated 30.10.2004 bearing his signatures at point C vide which the loan application form alongwith supporting documents were submitted to CBI is Ex.PW9/A (D10). In the crossexamination by accused persons (A3 to A6 & A8 to A10), PW9 Shri Sanjay Sharma stated that it is correct that in the letter Ex.PW9/A it is mentioned that the said documents were sent through Sanjay Sharma whose signatures are attested below and he has been duly authorized by the said letter to do so. PW9 Shri Sanjay Sharma further stated that Statement of Account from 17.12.2000 to 01.11.2004 in respect of auto loan account No.06LA00/1748 of Divya Nangia is Ex.PW9/D(D12) and the same is signed by him. In the cross examination of PW 9 Shri Sanjay Sharma, a suggestion has been given by accused persons(A3 to A6 & A8 to A10) that it is correct that Statement of Account CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 73 of 210 : 74 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 Ex.PW9/D is certified as per the Banker's Book of Evidence Act. In the cross examination of PW9, no suggestion has been given to the effect that car loan was not availed by accused Ms. Divya Nangia vide car loan account No.06LA00/1748. Rather in the cross examination of PW9, accused persons (A3 to A6 & A8 to A10) have given suggestion to the effect that all the dues of the bank were duly settled by Nangia family. By giving this suggestion to PW9 in the cross examination, accused Divya Nangia(A6) has admitted that she had availed loan of Rs.3,48,000/ as mentioned in Statement of Account Ex.PW9/D(D12) from Bank of Punjab Ltd. but has pleaded that the said car loan has been duly settled. As discussed above, there is no force in the contention of the ld. Counsel for the accused person that no seizure memo was prepared regarding handing over and taking over of the documents as mentioned in Ex. PW9/A(D10).

93. The accused Divya Nangia(A6) has neither pleaded nor any suggestions have been given to prosecution witnesses by her that Santro Car bearing Chassis Number 134633 and Engine Number 12899 bearing registration No.DL 3CS 0969 was not purchased by her from M/s Nimbus Motors Pvt. Ltd., Noida. The Sales Invoice vide which the Santro Car bearing Chassis Number 134633 and Engine Number 12899 was purchased by accused Divya Nangia is Ex.PW6/R(D52) and the Delivery Receipt and the Gate Pass bearing the signatures of customer is Ex. PW6/Q(D51). In the cross CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 74 of 210 : 75 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 examination, PW6 stated that the Sales Invoice Ex.PW6/R(D52) is the carbon copy of original invoice. The Delivery Receipt and Gate Pass dated 26.12.2000 Ex. PW6/Q(D51) is original document. In the cross examination of PW6 Shri Sanjay Bahal, no suggestions have been given to the effect that Sales Invoice Ex.PW6/R(D52) and Delivery Receipt and Gate Pass dated 26.12.2000 Ex.PW6/Q(D51) are forged and fabricated documents and the delivery of the Santro Car bearing Chassis Number 134633 and Engine Number 12899 was not taken by accused Divya Nangia vide the Delivery Receipt & Gate Pass Ex.PW6/Q(D51).

94. In the statement under section 313 Cr.PC, accused Divya Nangia(A6) has stated that all dues were repaid prior to filing of the complaint and no loss has been caused to the bank. In the cross examination of PW9 Shri Sanjay Sharma a suggestion has been given by accused Divya Nangia (A6) that all the dues of the bank were settled by the Nangia family to which PW9 answered by stating that it is correct. In the crossexamination of PW9 Shri Sanjay Sharma, accused Divya Nangia (A6) has put question regarding issuance of receipt of full and final settlement/payment against all dues of the Bank of Punjab Ltd. to which PW9 Shri Sanjay Sharma answered by stating that he had given the receipt for full and final settlement/payment against all dues of the bank. Hence, by giving suggestion regarding settling the dues of Bank of Punjab Ltd. by CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 75 of 210 : 76 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 Nangia family and putting the question regarding issuance of receipt of full and final settlement/payment in the cross examination of PW9, accused Divya Nangia (A6) has admitted having availed car loan from Bank of Punjab Ltd. however, accused Divya Nangia(A6) has taken the plea that the said car loan has been settled. Moreover, accused Divya Nangia (A6) has not explained that if she had not taken loan from Bank of Punjab Ltd. then why she had settled the dues of Bank of Punjab Ltd. Accused Divya Nangia (A6) has also not proved that in case she had not availed car loan from Bank of Punjab Ltd. for purchasing Santro Car bearing Chassis Number 134633 and Engine Number 12899 from M/s Nimbus Motors Pvt. Ltd. then by which mode she(A6) had made the payment to M/s Nimbus Motors Pvt. Ltd. The fact that accused Divya Nangia (A6) had received a sum of Rs.2.5 lacs by way of cash order No.867910 dated 20.11.2002 Ex. PW16/C(D29) drawn on Punjab National Bank, Anand Vihar, which was deposited in her account vide transfer credit voucher Ex. PW16/E(D31) on account of purported sale of said Santro Car bearing registration No.DL 3CS 0969 bearing Chassis Number 134633 and Engine Number 12899 to accused Deepak Kumar Rana(A8) also proves that accused Divya Nangia (A6) had acquired the ownership of said car. In the cross examination of PW16 Shri Jugal Kishore, accused persons (A3 to A6 & A8 to A10) did not prefer to put any question and his testimony has remained unrebutted and his statement regarding issuance of cash order Ex. PW16/C(D29) CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 76 of 210 : 77 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 in the name of accused Divya Nangia and depositing of the same in her account vide transfer credit voucher Ex.PW16/E(D31) has remained unrebutted. The testimony of prosecution witnesses and documents on record have proved that Santro Car bearing Chassis Number 134633 and Engine Number 12899 was purchased by accused Divya Nangia (A6) by availing loan from Bank of Punjab Ltd., Green Park, New Delhi vide Demand Draft No.036683 dated 21.12.2000 for a sum of Rs.3,39,470/ drawn in favour of M/s Nimbus Motors Pvt. Ltd., Ex.PW6/DX3(D6).

95. The allegations of the prosecution are that accused Divya Nangia(A6) has submitted forged papers to RTO, Seikh Sarai, New Delhi purported to have been issued by M/s Nimbus Motors Pvt. Ltd. and obtained Registration Certificate from RTO showing that this vehicle has not been hypothecated to any bank and the said car was purchased by accused Deepak Kumar Rana(A8) on 26.11.2002 from accused Divya Nangia(A6) by availing car loan of Rs.2 lacs from Punjab National Bank, Anand Vihar, Delhi and accused R. K. Jain(A1) had disbursed Rs.50,000/ more to accused Deepak Kumar Rana over and above the sanctioned amount.

96. PW13 Shri Shailender Pal Singh, Motor Vehicle Inspector stated that file (D15) in respect of Vehicle No.DL 3CS 0969 Ex.PW6/D contains Form 21 which does not bear endorsement of CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 77 of 210 : 78 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 hypothecation. PW13 stated in cross examination by accused No.1 & 2 that RC of vehicle No.DL 3CS 0969 does not bear endorsement of hypothecation. The file Ex. PW6/D(D15) pertaining to vehicle no. DL 3CS 0969 contains receipt No.9882576 dated 11.01.2001 Ex. PW13/DX as per which a sum of Rs.3915/ was deposited towards registration of car and Road Tax and the said file also contains the Application for registration of Motor Vehicle (Form 20) containing the particulars of vehicle, Form 21 dated 27.12.2000 Ex. PW6/E purportedly issued by M/s Nimbus Motors Pvt. Ltd., Form 22 Ex. PW13/DX1, Sales Invoice dated 27.12.2000 Ex.PW6/F purportedly issued by M/s Nimbus Motors Pvt. Ltd. copy of Invoicecum Delivery Chalan Ex.PW6/DX and Temporary Certificate of Registration bearing Temporary Registration Number UP 16B (T) 6708 in the name of Divya Nangia bearing Chassis Number 134633 and Engine Number 12899 purportedly issued by Registration Authority, Motor Vehicle Department, Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida.

97. The contention of the Ld. Spl. PP, CBI is that accused Divya Nangia(A6) had submitted a forged and fabricated Temporary Certificate of Registration bearing no.UP 16B(T) 6708 purported to be issued by Registration Authority, Motor Vehicle Department, Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida, forged form 21 dated 27.12.2000 Ex.PW6/E and forged Sales Invoice dated 27.12.2000 Ex.PW6/F purportedly issued by M/s Nimbus Motors Pvt. Ltd., CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 78 of 210 : 79 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 Noida, to the RTO, Sheikh Sarai in order to obtain Registration Certificate without endorsement of hypothecation with fraudulent intention of taking loans from the banks.

98. The contention of the Ld. Counsel for the accused persons is that dealer of the vehicle gets the temporary registration done and accused Divya Nangia(A6) has not submitted that forged documents to RTO, Sheikh Sarai, as alleged by the prosecution.

99. As per allegations of prosecution, accused Divya Nangia(A6) had submitted forged and fabricated temporary certificate of registration bearing registration No.UP 16B(T) 6708 purportedly issued by Registration Authority, Motor Vehicle Department, Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida to RTO, Sheikh Sarai for registration of the Santro Car bearing Chassis Number 134633 and Engine Number 12899. PW13 Sh. Shailender Pal Singh stated in cross examination by accused persons(A3 to A6 and A8 to A10) that physical verification of the vehicle is done at the time of registration and fee for registration of the vehicle is also deposited at the time of registration of vehicle and appropriate receipt of the same is issued and one copy of the receipt of depositing registration fee is filed in the concerned file. PW6 stated in cross examination that he does not know whether the documents of vehicle were handed over to the customer by the company for the purpose of temporary registration or to the DSA and he does not know who had gone to get the temporary CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 79 of 210 : 80 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 registration of the vehicle done. PW12 Sh. Sunil Dewan stated that CBI had collected some documents from him and he identified his signatures on the seizure memo dated 25.11.2004 Ex.PW12/A. As per seizure memo Ex.PW12/A, photocopy of temporary certificate of registration dated 29.12.2000 issued by Motor Vehicle Department, Noida towards temporary registration of vehicle with Chassis No.- 134633 and Engine No.- 12899 of Ms. Divya Nangia was also seized vide the said memo. PW 6 stated that Ex. PW6/T(D54) is the Temporary Certificate of Registration of Ms Divya Nangia for her car which is attested by their company. As per Temporary Certificate of Registration Ex. PW6/T(D54), the vehicle bearing Chassis No.- 134633 and Engine No.- 12899 was registered in the name of Ms. Divya Nangia vide temporary registration No. UP16B (T) 6708 by Registration Authority, Motor Vehicle Department, Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida. It is to be noted that Temporary Certificate of Registration Ex.PW6/T(D54) is the copy of Temporary Certificate of Registration bearing registration No. UP16B (T) 6708 as contained in the file Ex.PW6/D(D15) pertaining to vehicle no.DL 3CS 0969. PW6 denied suggestion of accused no.2 in the cross examination that their company got the temporary registration of the vehicle done and did not mention about the hypothecation to the Registering Authority. PW6 further denied suggestion of A2 in the cross examination that it was mistake on the part of company to have handed over the documents for registration to the customers and that it was the duty CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 80 of 210 : 81 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 of the company to get the vehicle registered with the proper hypothecation clause. In the cross examination of PW6, accused persons (A4 to A6 and A8 to A10) have given suggestion to the effect that in case of financed vehicle, it is the Direct Sales Agent (DSA) who deals with the company and not the customers. Although accused Divya Nangia(A6) has pleaded that it is the Direct Sales Agent (DSA) who deals with the car dealer and she had no role to play in temporary registration of the vehicle but no evidence has been adduced by accused Divya Nangia(A6) to substantiate her contention.

100. On one hand, accused no.6 has pleaded that it is the Direct Sales Agent (DSA) who was responsible for temporary registration of the vehicle bearing Chassis No. - 134633 and Engine No. - 12899 purchased from M/s Nimbus Motors Pvt. Ltd but on the other hand, in order to prove the authenticity of the temporary certificate of registration bearing temporary registration no. UP 16 B(T) 6708 Ex.PW6/T(D54) (the original of which is contained in file D15 Ex.PW6/D), the accused examined Sh. K.K. Gautam from ARTO Office, Sector33,Noida as DW2. DW2 was summoned by accused to produce the file pertaining to vehicle bearing registration no. UP 16 BT 6708. DW2 stated that as per the records brought by him, the vehicle bearing registration no.UP16BT6708 was registered on 13.08.2013 in the name of Mrs. Aarti d/o Shri Ram Surat R/o Village Chajar, Sector63, Noida, GB Nagar, UP for three wheeler CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 81 of 210 : 82 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 (passenger) and the copy of the particulars of RC is Ex. DW2/2. DW2 further stated that no Santro LE vehicle is temporarily registered with registration number UP 16BT 6708. DW2 denied suggestion of accused persons that dealers of the vehicles to be temporarily registered send their own persons for getting temporary registration certificate. Thereafter, DW2 voluntarily stated in the examinationinchief that the person who desires to obtain temporary registration certificate himself comes along with the documents and the vehicle. DW2 further stated in examinationinchief that Direct Sales Agent (DSA) of the bank does not come to the Authority for issuance of temporary registration certificate and their office does not send any copy of temporary registration certificate to the bank in case the vehicle is hypothecated. DW2 further stated in the examination inchief that the physical inspection of the vehicle is conducted by their office at the time of issuance of Temporary Registration Certificate and the Technical Inspector matches the Chassis number on the vehicle with the number as mentioned in the Sale Letter/Bill/Invoice. DW2 further stated that the Dealer is issued a Trade Certificate which contains signatures of authorized signatory of the dealer and the said record of the authorized signatory of the dealer is maintained in their office and the papers which are received from dealer contain signatures of authorized signatory and the same are tallied with the signatures as maintained in their records. DW2 stated that they do not conduct verification of the Sale Letter/Bill/ Invoice CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 82 of 210 : 83 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 from the dealer. DW2 was put a question in the examinationin chief regarding the series in which temporary registration numbers are issued by their office to which he answered by stating that the series of permanent and temporary numbers are different and the temporary registration numbers are mentioned as UCB(Numerical number(T). In the cross examination, DW2 was shown the Temporary Registration Certificate bearing registration no.UP 16B (T) 6708 as contained in the file Ex.PW6/D (D15) [copy of which is Ex. PW6/T(D54)] in respect of vehicle no. DL 3CS 0969 and DW2 stated that the said certificate has not been issued by their office. In view of testimony of DW2, who was summoned as witness by accused persons, there is no force in the contention of accused Divya Nangia(A6) that the dealer of the car or the DSA was involved in the process of obtaining of Temporary Certificate of Registration in respect of Santro Car bearing Chassis No.- 134633 and Engine No.- 12899. The testimony of DW2 has also proved beyond reasonable doubts that the temporary certificate of registration bearing registration number UP 16 B(T) 6708 in the name of Divya Nangia, A7, South ExtensionII, New Delhi in respect of car, Model2000, Chassis No. - 134633 and Engine No.- 12899 purportedly issued by Registration Authority, Motor Vehicle Department, Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida, as contained in file Ex.PW6/D(D15) [the copy of which Ex.PW6/T(D54)] in respect of car no. DL 3CS 0969, is a forged and fabricated document.

CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 83 of 210

: 84 : CBI Case No. : 20/16

101. PW6 Sh. Sanjay Behal stated that Ex.PW6/R (D52) is the Sales Invoice dated 27.12.2000 in the name of Divya Nangia issued by their company and same bears his signatures at point A. Perusal of Sales Invoice dated 27.12.2000 Ex.PW6/5 (D52) shows that in the said invoice the Bank of Punjab Ltd is mentioned as Financer of the vehicle. In the crossexamination, PW6 stated that it is correct that even in the temporary registration, the name of the Financer has to be mentioned. PW6 further stated in the cross examination that in the temporary registration certificate Ex.PW6/T(D54), the name of the Financer is not mentioned. As per aforesaid discussions, the original of temporary registration certificate Ex.PW6/T(D54) was submitted to RTO, Sheikh Sarai for registration of the vehicle in the name of Divya Nangia and the said vehicle bearing temporary registration number UP 16B(T) 6708 as mentioned in the Ex.PW6/T(D54) was registered as DL 3CS 0969. The contention of Ld. Counsel for accused persons (A3 to A6 and A8 to A10) is that PW6 Sh. Sanjay Behal stated that Proforma Invoice is collected on behalf of bank by DSA/ Party. It is to be noted that proforma invoice is prepared before effecting sale of the vehicle and at the time of sale of the vehicle, Sales Invoice is prepared and PW6 proved the Sales Invoice dated 27.12.2000 Ex.PW6/R(D52). In the circumstances the contention of Ld. Counsel for the accused persons that proforma invoice is collected by the bank or the DSA is of no CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 84 of 210 : 85 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 help to the accused persons.

102. As per file Ex.PW6/D(D15) pertaining to DL 3CS 0969 along with the temporary registration certificate, sales invoice dated 27.12.2000 purported to be issued by M/s Nimbus Motors Pvt. Ltd, Ex. PW6/F was also submitted to RTO, Sheikh Sarai and the perusal of sales invoice dated 27.12.2000 Ex.PW6/F purported to be issued by M/s Nimbus Motors Pvt. Ltd. which was submitted along with temporary registration certificate to RTO Sheikh Sarai shows that the column containing the particulars of financer is blank in the said invoice. PW6 stated that the Sales Invoice Ex. PW6/F as contained in file Ex.PW6/D(D15) is a forged document. The documents on record prove that the accused Divya Nangia has submitted the temporary registration certificate along with sales invoice dated 27.12.2000 Ex.PW6/F purported to be issued by M/s Nimbus Motors Pvt. Ltd. without containing the particulars of the financer /endorsement of hypothecation to RTO, Sheikh Sarai.

103. PW6 Sh. Sanjay Behal stated that Delivery Receipt & Gate Pass Ex.PW6/Q (D51) in the name of Divya Nangia was issued by M/s Nimbus Motors Pvt. Ltd and PW6 further specifically stated in his examinationinchief that Gate Pass is issued to the customer in original for taking delivery. In the cross examination of PW6 Sh. Sanjay Behal, accused Divya Nangia(A6) CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 85 of 210 : 86 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 has not given any suggestion to the effect that the Delivery Receipt and Gate Pass Ex.PW6/Q(D51) was not issued by M/s Nimbus Motors Pvt. Ltd and that accused Divya Nangia had not taken the delivery of Santro Car bearing Chassis No. - 134633 and Engine No.- 12399 vide said Delivery Receipt & Gate Pass Ex.PW6/Q(D51). Delivery Receipt & Gate Pass Ex.PW6/Q(D51) shows that accused Divya Nangia(A6) had taken delivery of Santro Car bearing Chassis No.-134633 and Engine No.-12899 from Nimbus Motors Pvt. Ltd.

104. PW13 Sh. Shailender Pal Singh stated in the cross examination that physical verification of the vehicle is done at the time of registration of the vehicle and fees for registration of the vehicle is also deposited at the time of registration of the vehicle and appropriate receipt of the same is issued and one copy of receipt of depositing registration fee is filed in the concerned file. The file Ex.PW6/D(D15) contains the receipt No.9882576 dated 11.01.2001 Ex. PW13/DX in the name of Divya Nangia(A6) in respect of car bearing Chassis no.134633 for a sum of Rs. 3915/ which consists of Rs.100/ for registration of LMV(Car) and Rs.3815/ towards Road Tax and as per the Vehicle Particulars on record, the said vehicle was registered as DL 3CS 0969 on 11.01.2001 in the name of Divya Nangia(A6). PW13 Sh. Shailender Pal Singh stated that Form 21 in file Ex.PW6/D(D15) does not contain any endorsement of hypothecation. Accused Divya Nangia(A6) has not given any CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 86 of 210 : 87 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 suggestion to the prosecution witnesses that the vehicle no. DL 3CS 0969 was not registered in her name. As per file Ex.PW6/D(D15), the Santro Car bearing chasis No.134633 and Engine No.12899 was registered vide registration No.DL 3CS 0969 in the name of accused Divya Nangia (A6) on 11.01.2001.

105. The allegations of prosecution are that the car no.

DL 3CS 0969 was sold by accused Divya Nangia (A6) to accused Deepak Kumar Rana(A8) s/o Sh. Vijay Kumar Rana(A7) on 26.11.2002 and this purchase of the car by Deepak Kumar Rana(A8) was financed by Punjab National Bank, Anand Vihar, Delhi by sanction of car loan of Rs.2 lacs.

106. PW7 Sh. Vinod Kumar Gupta from Punjab National Bank was shown the car loan file of Punjab National Bank in respect of Deepak Kumar Rana which is Ex. PW4/H(colly)(D19) and PW7 stated that the said file contains Application form for Car Loan which is Ex.PW7/O which is the request made by the party along with the annexures which are Ex.PW7/P(Colly) and PW7 identified signatures of R.K. Verma and R.K. Jain. PW7 further stated that the postdated cheques containing 25 leaves which were given by accused Deepak Kumar Rana(A8) as contained in file Ex.PW4/H(Colly) (D19) are Ex.PW7/Q(Colly) and the Insurance Cover Note Ex.PW7/R were also furnished by the party. PW7 further CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 87 of 210 : 88 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 stated that Agreement to Sell Ex.PW7/S was furnished by the party and unsigned and undated letter issued by the bank to accused Deepak Kumar Rana for providing modified RC and Insurance copy is Ex.PW7/T. PW7 further stated that file Ex. PW4/H(colly)(D19) contains vouchers Ex.PW7/U, Ex.PW7/U1 and Ex.PW7/U2 which were issued in token of having sanctioned loan to accused Deepak Kumar Rana and Ex.PW7/V is the Demand Promisory Note duly signed by accused Deepak Kumar Rana which was furnished to the bank and accused Deepak Kumar Rana also submitted letter Ex.PW7/W indicting his intention to give post dated cheques to the bank. PW7 stated that file Ex. PW4/H(colly)(D19) contains the balance confirmation letter Ex.PW7/X and End Use verification signed by Deepak Kumar Rana and the concerned officer i.e. accused R.K. Verma at point A. In the crossexamination of PW7, no suggestions have been given to the effect that the Application form for car loan Ex.PW7/O is not signed by accused Deepak Kumar Rana and the same was not submitted by accused Deepak Kumar Rana. In the cross examination of PW7, no suggestions have been given to the effect that the post dated cheques Ex.PW7/Q (Colly), Insurance Cover Note Ex.PW7/R and Agreement to Sell Ex.PW7/S signed by the seller Divya Nangia(A6) owner of car no.DL 3CS 0969 and accused Deepak Kumar Rana, the Demand Pronote Ex.PW7/V duly signed by Deepak Kumar Rana, the Application Ex.PW7/W signed CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 88 of 210 : 89 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 by Deepak Kumar Rana thereby intimating his intention to give post dates cheques to the bank, the Balance Confirmation Letter Ex.PW7/X signed by Deepak Kumar Rana and End Use Verification letter signed by Deepak Kumar Rana, were not submitted by accused Deepak Kumar Rana to the Punjab National Bank, Anand Vihar Branch for availing loan of Rs. 2 lacs for purchasing old car bearing registration no.DL 3CS 0969 owned by accused Divya Nangia(A6). In the cross examination of PW7 Sh. Vinod Kumar Gupta, accused Divya Nangia(A6) has not given any suggestion to the effect that the Agreement to Sell Ex.PW7/S whereby she had agreed to sell car no. DL 3CS 0969 to accused Deepak Kumar Rana for a sum of Rs.2,60,000/ and out of which Rs.60,000/ were received by her in cash, is not signed by her(A6).

107. In the cross examination of PW7 Sh. Vinod Kumar Gupta, accused persons (A3 to A6 and A8 to A10) drew attention of PW7 to his observation in his Inspection Report dated 16.06.2003 marked Ex.PW8/A1. In the cross examination of PW7 Sh. Vinod Kumar Gupta, accused persons(A3 to A6 and A8 to A10) have put questions to the effect that as on the date of his report marked Ex.PW8/A1 i.e. 16.06.2003, three of the car loans should adjusted while the fourth one i.e. loan taken by Deepak Rana had an outstanding of Rs.1.97lacs on that day. The relevant portion of the inspection report dated 16.06.2003 marked Ex.PW8/A1 prepared by CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 89 of 210 : 90 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 PW7 Sh. Vinod Kumar Gupta with which he was confronted in the cross examination by the accused persons has been reproduced in the aforesaid discussion.

108. After referring to his inspection report dated 16.06.2003, PW7 Sh. Vinod Kumar Gupta stated in the cross examination that as on the date of report i.e. 16.06.2003, three of the car loans stood adjusted while the fourth one i.e. the loan taken by Deepak Rana had an outstanding of Rs.1.97 lacs on that day. Further suggestion was given to PW7 Sh. Vinod Kumar Rana in the cross examination that the loan taken by Deepak Rana was also adjusted later on to which PW7 answered by stating that he cannot say if the said account was also adjusted later on. In the cross examination of PW7 Shri Vinod Kumar Rana, accused persons (A3 to A6 and A8 to A10) put a question to the effect that all the four car loans were approved by Sr. Regional Manager to which PW7 answered by stating that he cannot say if all the four car loans were approved by Sr. Regional Manager. In the cross examination of PW7 Sh. Vinod Kumar Gupta, accused persons (A3 to A6 and A8 to A10) gave a suggestion that three car loan amounts were adjusted before filing of complaint by the bank to CBI and registration of FIR to which PW7 answered by stating that it is correct. Thereafter, PW7 voluntarily stated in the cross examination that two out of them were adjusted after commencement of his investigation. Another suggestion was CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 90 of 210 : 91 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 given by accused persons (A3 to A6 and A8 to A10) in the cross examination of PW7 Sh. Vinod Kumar Gupta that all the outstanding against all the four car loans stood adjusted as on 14.02.2004 to which PW7 answered by stating that it is correct.

109. Further suggestion was given in the cross examination of PW7 Sh. Vinod Kumar Gupta by accused persons (A3 to A6 and A8 to A10) that all the borrowers of the vehicle loans were existing customers of the bank to which he answered by stating that it is correct. By giving suggestions in the cross examination of PW7 Sh. Vinod Kumar Gupta to the effect that the car loans were approved by Sr. Regional Manager and the borrowers of the car loans were existing customers and that the three car loan amounts in this case were adjusted before filing of complaint by the bank to CBI and registration of FIR and the fourth car loan account of accused Deepak Rana stood adjusted on 14.02.2004, the accused Deepak Kumar Rana(A8) has admitted availing of the car loan of a sum of Rs.2 lacs from Punjab National Bank, Anand Vihar Branch for purchase of Santro Car bearing registration no. DL 3CS 0969 from accused Divya Nangia (A6). However, by giving aforesaid suggestion to PW7 in the cross examination, accused Deepak Kumar Rana has pleaded that the car loan account was adjusted by him as on 14.02.2004.

110. PW3 Sh. P. K. Singh specifically stated in his CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 91 of 210 : 92 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 examination in chief that there is no endorsement regarding hypothecation of vehicle in the name of bank and the file(D19) does not bear any registration certificate showing that the vehicle has been transferred in the name of borrower. Although accused Deepak Kumar Rana(A8) has pleaded that he had availed the car loan but the same was adjusted as on 14.02.2004 but accused Deepak Kumar Rana has neither pleaded nor proved that after availing the loan of Rs. 2 lacs from Punjab National Bank, Anand Vihar Branch for purchase of car no. DL 3CS 0969, he had acquired the physical possession of the said car and he applied to the concerned RTO for transfer of the car bearing no. DL 3CS 0969 in his name which proves that the loan of Rs.2 lacs which was taken by accused Deepak Kumar Rana for purchase of car no. DL 3CS 0969, was obtained by accused Deepak Kumar Rana(A8) in criminal conspiracy with accused Divya Nangia(A6) by making fraudulent inducement to the bank that the aforesaid car was not hypothecated to any other bank on the basis of forged and fabricated documents and thereby accused persons made wrongful loss to the Punjab National Bank, Anand Vihar, Delhi and wrongful gain to themselves.

VEHICLE No. DL 3CS 0968

111. The allegations of prosecution are that the Santro Car bearing registration No. DL 3CS 0968 was purchased by accused Niranjan Kumar Nangia(A3) from M/s Nimbus Motors Pvt. Ltd., CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 92 of 210 : 93 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 Sector5, Noida in December 2000 and the purchase of this vehicle was financed by Bank of Punjab Ltd., Green Park branch, New Delhi and the investigation revealed that the photocopy of the Sales Invoice which was submitted to RTO, Sheikh Sarai, New Delhi is different from the carbon copy of the Sales Invoice issued by M/s Nimbus Motors Pvt. Ltd. The investigation revealed that the car no. DL 3CS 0968 was sold to Shri Virender Pal Singh on 07.11.2001 and this purchase was financed by Punjab National Bank, South Extension, New Delhi. As per allegation of prosecution accused Niranjan Kumar Nangia(A3) dishonestly sold the car no. DL 3CS 0968 to accused Chandan Kumar Rana(A10) on 31.12.2002 and purchase of the car by accused Chandan Kumar Rana(A10) was financed by Punjab National Bank, Anand Vihar, Delhi and thus, there has been financing of this car by Punjab National Bank, South Extension, New Delhi and Punjab National Bank, Anand Vihar, New Delhi even as the finance Bank of Punjab Ltd. remained outstanding.

112. PW6 Sh. Sanjay Behal, the then Corporate Sales Manager of M/s Nimbus Motors Pvt. Ltd., Sector5, Noida, stated that receipt dated 23.12.2000 issued by M/s Nimbus Motors Pvt. Ltd. in favour of Niranjan Kumar Nangia bearing endorsement of hypothecation in favour of Bank of Punjab Ltd. is Ex.PW6/Z1 (D61). The Sales Invoice dated 27.12.2000 issued by M/s Nimbus Motors Pvt. Ltd, Noida in favour of Niranjan Kumar Nangia, A7, CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 93 of 210 : 94 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 South Extn. II, New Delhi and bearing particulars of Financier as 'Bank of Punjab Ltd' in respect of vehicle bearing Model - Santro LE/EuroII, Chassis No.-124451, Engine No.-01968 and bearing signatures of PW6 at point A is Ex.PW6/Z3 (D63). The Delivery Receipt & Gate Pass dated 23.12.2000 issued by M/s Nimbus Motors Pvt. Ltd, Noida, in respect of vehicle bearing particulars as Model - Santro LE/EuroII, Chassis No.-124451, Engine No.-01968 bearing customer's name as Niranjan Kumar Nangia and signed by the said customer is Ex.PW6/Z2(D62). The statement of Ledger Account in the name of Niranjan Kumar Nangia issued by M/s Nimbus Motors Pvt. Ltd, Noida and certified to be as true copy by Sh. Sunil Dewan, Director of M/s Nimbus Motors Pvt. Ltd. Noida is Ex.PW6/Z4 (D64) and the Sales Certificate issued in the name of Niranjan Kumar Nangia is Ex.PW6/Z6(D66).

113. PW6 Sh. Sanjay Behal stated in the cross examination that the amount of loan sanctioned by the bank in favour of Niranjan Kumar Nangia was received by way of Pay Order bearing no.036715 dated 22.12.2000 in favour of M/s Nimbus Motors Pvt. Ltd. Ex.PW6/DX5 (D8) and it also contains an endorsement on the backside that 'HP Bank of Punjab Ltd'.

114. In the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 05.05.2016, accused Niranjan Kumar Nangia(A3) was put CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 94 of 210 : 95 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 questions on the Receipt dated 23.12.2000 Ex.PW6/Z1(D61), the Delivery Receipt & Gate Pass dated 23.12.2000 Ex.PW6/Z2 (D62), the Sales Invoice dated 27.12.2000 Ex.PW6/Z3 (D63) and the statement of Ledger Account Ex.PW6/Z4(D64) to which accused Niranjan Kumar Nangia(A3) answered by stating that the said documents are incorrect. In the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., accused Niranjan Kumar Nangia(A3) stated that no loss has been caused to Bank and all the loans were repaid prior to the registration of the FIR and accused Chandan Kumar Rana(A10) was an existing customer of Punjab National Bank and had a good track record and had deposited title deeds of properties to secure the financial assistance taken by him.

115. PW4 Sh. Deepak Kumar Manuja, the then Assistant Vice President in Bank of Punjab, Green Park, Delhi stated that Ex.PW4/E(Colly) (D1) is the file in respect of car loan in the name of accused Niranjan Kumar Nangia processed by the Bank of Punjab Ltd, Green Park, New Delhi. PW4 stated that the loan was recommended for sanction by Sh. Sanjay Arora, Auto Loan Executive and file Ex.PW4/E(colly) bears signatures of Shri Sanjay Arora at point A. The file Ex.PW4/E(colly)(D1) contains copy of RC of vehicle No. DL 3CS 0968 in the name of Niranjan Kumar Nangia bearing endorsement of hypothecation in the name of Bank of Punjab Ltd. PW4 stated in cross examination by accused No.1 that in the CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 95 of 210 : 96 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 photocopy of RC which has been shown to him there is endorsement regarding hypothecation in the name of Bank of Punjab Ltd. The file Ex.PW4/E(Colly) (D1) also contains copy of the insurance policy issued by Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and also contains copies of identity documents of accused Niranjan Kumar Nangia i.e. Ration Card, Election Identity Card, ITR Form alongwith copy of computation of Income. The file Ex.PW4/E(Colly) (D1) also contains copy of the receipt dated 23.12.2000 Ex. PW6/Z1(D61). The file Ex.PW4/E(Colly) (D1) also contains original Loancum Hypothecation cum Guarantee Agreement signed by accused Niranjan Kumar Nangia. In the crossexamination of PW4, no suggestion has been given by accused Niranjan Kumar Nangia(A3) to the effect that the LoancumHypothecation cum Guarantee Agreement as contained in file Ex.PW4/E(Colly) (D1) is not signed by him(A3). In the statement under section 313 Cr.PC., accused Niranjan Kumar Nangia(A3) has not stated that no car loan was taken by him from Bank of Punjab Ltd.

116. PW9 Sh. Sanjay Sharma, the then Manager (Collection) Bank of Punjab Ltd stated that the Statement of Account for the period 17.12.2000 to 01.11.2004 in respect of Auto Loan account no.06LA00/1747 of Niranjan Kumar Nangia is attested by him and the same is Ex.PW9/B (D10). It is to be noted that in the cross examination of PW9 Sh. Sanjay Sharma, accused CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 96 of 210 : 97 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 persons [A3 to A10 (except A7)] have given suggestion to the effect that it is correct that Statements of Accounts Ex.PW9/B to Ex.PW9/E were certified as per Banker's Book of Evidence. PW9 stated that the letter dated 30.10.2004 vide which the loan application form along with supporting documents of Niranjan Kumar Nangia, Ms. Veenu Nangia, Kamal Kumar Nangia and Ms. Divya Nangia were handed over to CBI is Ex.PW9/A (D10). PW9 further stated in cross examination that it is correct that in the letter Ex.PW9/A (D10) which is addressed to Inspector, CBI, it is mentioned that 'the said documents are being sent through Sh. Sanjay Sharma whose signatures are attested below and who has been duly authorized by this letter to do so and receive the acknowledgment from your office on our behalf for the same'. In the circumstances as PW9 categorically stated that he had handed over the documents as mentioned in letter Ex.PW9/A (D10) to CBI, there is no force in the contention of Ld. Counsel for accused persons that no seizure memo regarding handing over and taking over of said documents was prepared.

117. Accused Niranjan Kumar Nangia(A3) has not pleaded in his statement under section 313 Cr. PC that he has not taken car loan from Bank of Punjab Ltd., neither he has given suggestions to prosecution witnesses that the Santro car Chassis No.- 124451, Engine No.-01968 which was subsequently registered vide CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 97 of 210 : 98 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 registration number DL 3CS 0968, was not purchased by him from M/s Nimbus Motors Pvt. Ltd, Noida. The sales invoice vide which Santro car Chassis No.-124451, Engine No. - 01968 was purchased by accused Niranjan Kumar Nangia is Ex.PW6/Z3(D63) and the Delivery Receipt & Gate Pass bearing signatures of customer is Ex.PW6/Z2(D62). The contention of Ld. Counsel for accused Niranjan Kumar Nangia(A3) is that PW6 stated in cross examination that the documents of Sales Invoices and Sales Certificates exhibited by him are only photocopies. It is to be noted that in the same breath in the crossexamination, PW6 stated that however the invoice PW6/Z3(D63) is the carbon copy of the original invoice. The Delivery Receipt & Gate Pass dated 23.12.2000 Ex.PW6/Z2 (D62) is an original document. In the crossexamination of PW6, no suggestion has been given to the effect that Ex.PW6/Z3(D63) and Ex.PW6/Z2(D62) are forged and fabricated documents. The evidence adduced by the prosecution has proved that Niranjan Kumar Nangia(A3) had purchased Santro car Model-Santro LE/EuroII, Chassis No.-124451, Engine No.-01968 from M/s Nimbus Motors Pvt. Ltd., Noida, UP.

118. In the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

accused Niranjan Kumar Nangia has not pleaded that he had not taken loan from Bank of Punjab Ltd. but in the cross examination of PW9 Sh. Sanjay Sharma, accused persons (A3 to A6 and A8 to A10) have CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 98 of 210 : 99 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 given suggestion that it is correct that all dues of the bank were duly settled by Nangia family. Accused Niranjan Kumar Nangia(A3) has not explained that if he has not taken loan from bank of Punjab Ltd then why he has settled the dues of the Bank of Punjab Ltd. Accused Niranjan Kumar Nangia(A3) has also not proved any document on record to prove the mode of payment in respect of Santro car Chassis No.-124451, Engine No.- 01968 which was purchased by him from M/s Nimbus Motors Pvt. Ltd. in case loan for purchasing the said car was not availed from the Bank of Punjab Ltd. Moreover, the fact that Niranjan Kumar Nangia(A3) had received a sum of Rs.Two lacs by way of cash order no.868074 dated 31.12.2002, Ex.PW16/J(D38) drawn on Punjab National Bank, Anand Vihar, Delhi which was deposited in his account no.3016 vide transfer credit voucher Ex.PW16/L(D40) on account of purported sale of the said Santro car bearing registration no. DL 3CS 0968, Chassis No.-124451, Engine No.-01968 to accused Chandan Kumar Rana(A10), also proves that accused Niranjan Kumar Nangia(A3) had acquired the ownership of the said car. In the cross examination of PW16 Shri Jugal Kishore, accused persons (A3 to A6 & A8 to A10) did not prefer to put any question and his testimony has remained unrebutted and his statement regarding issuance of cash order Ex.PW16/J(D38) in the name of accused Niranjan Kumar Nangia and depositing of the same in his account vide transfer credit voucher Ex.PW16/L(D40) has remained unrebutted. The testimony of CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 99 of 210 : 100 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 prosecution witnesses and the documents on record have proved that the Santro car Chassis No. - 124451, Engine No. - 01968 was purchased by accused Niranjan Kumar Nangia(A3) by availing loan from Bank of Punjab Ltd, Green Park, New Delhi vide demand draft no.036715 dated 22.12.2000 for a sum of Rs.3,39,470/ drawn in favour of Nimbus Motors (P) Ltd. Ex.PW6/DX5 (D8).

119. The contention of Ld. PP for CBI is that accused Niranjan Kumar Nangia(A3) had submitted forged papers to RTO, Sheikh Sarai, New Delhi purported to have been issued by M/s Nimbus Motors Pvt. Ltd and obtained a registration certificate from RTO showing that this vehicle has not been hypothecated to any bank and the said car was sold by accused Niranjan Kumar Nangia(A3) to accused Chandan Kumar Rana (A10) and this purchase was financed by Punjab National Bank, Anand Vihar, Delhi by sanction of car loan of Rs.2 lacs on 31.12.2002 and investigation revealed that the said car was sold by accused Niranjan Kumar Nangia (A3) to one Virender Pal Singh on 07.11.2001 and this purchase of the car was financed by Punjab National Bank, South Extension, New Delhi.

120. PW13 Sh. Shailender Pal Singh, Motor Vehicle Inspector from RTO, Sheikh Sarai stated that the file Ex.PW6/A(D14) in respect of vehicle no. DL 3CS 0968 contains CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 100 of 210 : 101 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 Form 21 which is Ex. PW6/B and the same does not bear any endorsement of hypothecation of the vehicle and this file also contains Certificate of Registration of the vehicle No. DL 3CS 0968 Ex.PW13/1 and the same also does not bear any endorsement of hypothecation of the vehicle. PW13 Sh. Shailender Pal Singh further stated that as per record, the vehicle no. DL 3CS 0968 was sold on 08.11.2001 to Shri Virender Pal Singh son of Shri Kalyan Singh. PW13 Sh. Shailender Pal Singh stated in the crossexamination by accused no.1 and 2 that RC of vehicle no. DL 3CS 0968 as contained in the said file Ex.PW6/A(D14) does not bear endorsement of hypothecation. PW13 Shailender Pal Singh stated in the cross examination by accused persons (A3 to A6 and A8 to A10) that the files i.e. D14, D16 and D17 are cases of transfer of vehicles and in the said files original RCs were enclosed when the same were handed over to CBI. The file Ex.PW6/A (D14) pertaining to vehicle no. DL3CS 0968 shows that the same contains receipt No.9882575 dated 11.01.2001 as per which a sum of Rs.3915/ was deposited towards registration of the car and Road tax and the same also contains the Application for registration of motor vehicle (Form 20) containing the particulars of the vehicle, Form 21 dated 27.12.2000, Form 22, Sales Invoice dated 27.12.2000 purportedly issued by M/s Nimbus Motors Pvt. Ltd, copy of Invoice Cum Delivery Challan and Temporary certificate of registration bearing temporary registration no.UP 16B (T) 6709 in the name of Niranjan Kumar Nangia bearing CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 101 of 210 : 102 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 Chassis No.- 124451 and Engine No.-01968 purportedly issued by Registration Authority, Motor Vehicle Department, Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida. The file Ex.PW6/A (D14) pertaining to vehicle no. DL 3CS 0968 also contains RC of the vehicle bearing registration date as 11.01.2001 in the name of Niranjan Kumar Nangia and it does not contain any endorsement of hypothecation and PW13 had stated in the cross examination that since file Ex.PW6/A (D14) is a case of transfer of vehicle, the same contains original RC which is required to be enclosed at the time of transfer of the vehicle. The file Ex.PW6/A (D14) also contains Form 29 and Form 30 for transfer of vehicle in the name of Virender Pal Singh and this file also contains Form 34 signed by concerned officer of Punjab National Bank, South Extension Part1, New Delhi for making entry regarding agreement of hire/purchase/Lease/ Hypothecation executed between Shri Virender Pal Singh and Punjab National Bank, South Ext. Part1, New Delhi. In the file Ex.PW6/A (D14) there is one receipt No.9934713 dated 08.11.2001 in the name of Niranjan Kumar Nangia as per which a sum of Rs.200/ was deposited which consisted of a sum of Rs.100/ towards transfer of LMV(Car) and Rs.100/ towards addition of hypothecation. Hence, as per file Ex.PW6/A(D14) accused Niranjan Kumar Nangia had sold car no. DL 3CS 0968 to Virender Pal Singh s/o Shri Kalyan Singh, R/o A1, Dhirpur, Delhi and Punjab National Bank, South Extension Part1, New Delhi had sought addition of hypothecation on the said vehicle in their favour but the Registration CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 102 of 210 : 103 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 Certificate (RC) of the vehicle which was deposited along with the documents for the transfer of the said car in the name of Virender Pal Singh and for addition of hypothecation in the name of Punjab National Bank, South Extension Part1, New Delhi did not contain any endorsement of hypothecation although accused Niranjan Kumar Nangia(A3) had availed loan from Bank of Punjab Ltd for purchase of the said vehicle from M/s Nimbus Motors Pvt. Ltd, Noida.

121. Prosecution examined Shri Jagir Singh, the then Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank, South Ext. PartI, New Delhi as PW1. PW1 Shri Jagir Singh stated that the CBI had sought certain documents and the attested copies of the documents were supplied vide letter Ex. PW1/A (D68) which bears his signatures at point A and certified copies of the documents supplied to CBI vide letter Ex.PW1/A are Ex. PW1/B(colly). PW Shri Jagir Singh stated that certified copies of the documents Ex. PW1/B(colly) are attested by Shri V. K. Bindal at point A on each page. Shri V. K. Bindal/PW5 identified his signatures at point A on the documents which were sent to CBI vide letter Ex. PW1/A (D68).

122. PW5 Shri V. K. Bindal stated that the loan application submitted by Virender Pal Singh son of Kalyan Singh for purchase of Santro Car is Ex. PW5/A(colly) and loan was recommended by Shri V. K. Mehrotra, the then Loan Manager and CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 103 of 210 : 104 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 the loan was sanctioned by Shri A. P. Gupta, the then Sr. Manager. PW5 stated that the transfer vouchers are Ex. PW1/B(colly). In Ex. PW1/B(colly), there is transfer voucher containing endorsement "Debit Voucher passed" and bearing signatures of Authrorized Officer, as per which a cash order for the sum of Rs.2,17,000/ was drawn in favour of Shri Niranjan Kumar Nangia being cost of old secondhand Satro Car paid by Shri Virender Pal Singh. PW5 stated in cross examination by accused R. K. Verma(A2) that at the time of disbursement, requisite loan documents are taken, debit & credit vouchers are prepared and payment is made to Seller by way of draft or pay order by the bank directly. PW5 admitted suggestion of accused R. K. Verma(A2) in cross examination that the vehicle bearing No. DL 3CS 0968 has been financed as per their record. PW5 stated that accused Niranjan Kumar Nangia has executed the cash receipt Ex. PW5/F by which he had received the payment of Old Santro Car from Shri Virender Pal Singh. As per Cash Receipt Ex.PW5/F, accused Niranjan Kumar Nangia had received a sum of Rs.2,17,000/ by cash order dated 08.11.2001 from Virender Pal Singh, as full and final payment towards Sale consideration of Santro/LE car bearing registration No. DL 3CS 0968 and the said car was delivered to Shri Virender Pal Singh.

123. PW5 Shri V. K. Bindal further stated that letter of hypothecation dated 07.11.2001 executed by Shri Virender Pal Singh CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 104 of 210 : 105 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 to secure the loan is Ex. PW5/B. PW5 Shri V. K. Bindal further stated that the loan was guaranteed by Shri S.K. Kaushik vide Agreement of Guarantee Ex. PW5/C(colly) and Shri Kamal Kumar vide Agreement of Guarantee which is Ex.PW5/D(colly). Along with the Agreement of Guarantee Ex.PW5/D(colly), Shri Kamal Kumar had submitted documents of his identity i.e. copy of Ration Card, copy of PAN Card, Copy of Income Tax Returns for the Assessment years 199899 & 200001. As per the documents submitted by Guarantor Kamal Kumar to Punjab National Bank, South Ext. PartI, New Delhi, the said Kamal Kumar is Kamal Kumar Nangia s/o Shri Niranjan Kumar Nangia R/o : A7, South Ext. Part - II, New Delhi, who is accused(A5) in the present case. The perusal of Agreement of Guarantee Ex. PW5/D(colly) shows that accused Niranjan Kumar Nangia and Virender Pal Singh have signed the Agreement of Guarantee as witnesses. PW5 Shri V. K. Bindal stated that Ex. PW5/E is the attested copy of letter dated 07.11.2001 signed by Shri A. P. Gupta, the then Sr. Manager, which was addressed to Registering Authority, RTO, Sheikh Sarai by Punjab National Bank, South Ext. PartI, New Delhi. The file Ex.PW6/A(D14) contains the original of letter Ex. PW5/E. As per letter Ex. PW5/E of Punjab National Bank, South Ext. PartI, New Delhi, the Registering Authority, Sheikh Sarai was informed by the said Bank that the Santro Car bearing registration number DL 3CS 0968 has been sold by Niranjan Kumar to Virender Pal Singh for a sale consideration of CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 105 of 210 : 106 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 Rs.2,67,000/ and the said vehicle has been financed by the said Bank to Shri Virender Pal Singh and Registering Authority has been requested to transfer the vehicle in the name of Shri Virender Pal Singh and for making endorsement of hypothecation in favour of Punjab National Bank, South Ext. Part1, New Delhi. In the cross examination of PW1 & PW5, accused Nirajan Kumar Nangia(A3) has not given suggestion that vehicle No. DL 3CS 0968 has not been financed by Punjab National Bank, South Ext. Part1, New Delhi in favour of Virender Pal Singh and accused Niranjan Kumar Nangia(A3) has not executed the receipt Ex. PW5/F regarding sale of Santro Car bearing registration No. DL 3CS 0968 to Virender Pal Singh for Rs.2,67,000/ and receipt of cash order dated 08.11.2001 towards sale price of the said car.

124. The contention of Ld. PP for CBI is that accused Niranjan Kumar Nangia(A3) had submitted a forged and fabricated temporary certificate of registration bearing registration number as UP 16 B (T) 6709 purportedly issued by Registration Authority, Motor Vehicle Department, Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida and forged Form 21 dated 27.12.2000 and forged Sales Invoice dated 27.12.2000 purportedly issued by M/s Nimbus Motors Pvt. Ltd., Noida to the RTO, Sheikh Sarai in order to obtain registration certificate without endorsement of hypothecation with fraudulent intention of taking loans from the banks.

CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 106 of 210

: 107 : CBI Case No. : 20/16

125. The contention of Ld. Counsel for accused persons is that the dealer of the vehicle gets the temporary registration done and accused Niranjan Kumar Nangia(A3) has not submitted forged documents to RTO, Sheikh Sarai as alleged by the prosecution.

126. As per allegations of prosecution, accused Niranjan Kumar Nangia(A3) had submitted forged and fabricated temporary certificate of registration bearing registration number as UP 16 B (T) 6709 purportedly issued by Registration Authority, Motor Vehicle Department, Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida to RTO, Sheikh Sarai for registration of the Santro Car bearing Chassis No.- 124451 and Engine No.-01968. PW13 Sh. Shailender Pal Singh stated in cross examination by A3 to A6 and A8 to A10 that physical verification of the vehicle is done at the time of registration and fee for registration of the vehicle is also deposited at the time of registration of vehicle and appropriate receipt of the same is issued and one copy of the receipt of depositing registration fee is filed in the concerned file. PW6 stated in cross examination that he does not know whether the documents of vehicle were handed over to the customer by the company for the purpose of temporary registration or to the DSA and he does not know who had gone to get the temporary registration of the vehicle done. PW12 Sh. Sunil Dewan stated that CBI had collected some documents from him and he identified his CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 107 of 210 : 108 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 signatures on the seizure memo dated 25.11.2004 Ex.PW12/A. As per seizure memo Ex.PW12/A, photocopy of temporary certificate of registration dated 29.12.2000 issued by Motor Vehicle Department, Noida towards temporary registration of vehicle with Chassis No.- 124451 and Engine No. - 01968 of Niranjan Kumar Nangia was also seized vide the said memo. PW6 stated that Ex.PW6/Z5(D65) is the Temporary Certificate of Registration which is attested by their company. As per Temporary Certification of Registration Ex.PW6/Z5(D65), the vehicle bearing Chassis No. - 124451 and Engine No. - 01968 was registered in the name of Niranjan Kumar Nangia vide Temporary registration no. UP 16 B (T) 6709 by Registration Authority, Motor Vehicle Department, Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida. It is to be noted that Temporary Certificate of Registration Ex.PW6/Z5(D65) is the copy of the Temporary Registration Certificate bearing registration no. UP 16 B(T) 6709 as contained in the file Ex.PW6/A (D14) pertaining to vehicle no.DL 3CS 0968. PW6 denied suggestion of accused no.2 in the cross examination that their company got the temporary registration of the vehicle done and did not mention about the hypothecation to the Registering Authority. PW6 further denied suggestion of accused(A2) in the cross examination that it was mistake on the part of company to have handed over the documents for registration to the customers and that it was the duty of the company to get the vehicle registered with the proper hypothecation clause. In the cross examination of PW6, CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 108 of 210 : 109 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 accused persons(A4 to A6 and A8 to A10) have given suggestion to the effect that in case of financed vehicle, it is the DSA who deals with the company and not the customers. Although accused Niranjan Kumar Nangia(A3) has pleaded that it is the Direct Sales Agent (DSA) who deals with the car dealer and he had no role to play in temporary registration of the vehicle but no evidence has been adduced by Niranjan Kumar Nangia(A3) to substantiate his contention.

127. On one hand accused Niranjan Kumar Nangia(A3) has pleaded that it is the Direct Sales Agent (DSA) who was responsible for temporary registration of the vehicle bearing Chassis No. - 124451 and Engine No. - 01968 purchased from M/s Nimbus Motors Pvt. Ltd. but on the other hand in order to prove the authenticity of the temporary certificate of registration bearing temporary registration no.UP 16B(T)6709 Ex.PW6/Z5 (D65) {the original of which is contained in file Ex.PW6/A(D14)}, the accused examined Sh. K.K. Gautam from ARTO Office, Sector33, Noida as DW2. DW2 was summoned by accused to produce the file pertaining to vehicle bearing registration no. UP 16 BT 6709. DW2 stated that as per the records brought by him, the vehicle bearing registration no. UP16BT6709 was registered on 12.08.20013 in the name of Shri Ram Kumar s/o Shri Kishan Lal R/o 209, Gautam Puri, Dadri, GB Nagar UP for Maxi cab and the particulars of the RC is CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 109 of 210 : 110 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 Ex.DW2/1. DW2 further stated that no Santro LE vehicle is temporarily registered with registration number UP 16BT 6709. DW2 denied suggestion of accused persons that dealers of the vehicles to be temporarily registered send their own persons for getting temporary registration certificate. Thereafter, DW2 voluntarily stated in the examinationinchief that the person who desires to obtain temporary registration certificate himself comes along with the documents and the vehicle. DW2 further stated in examinationinchief that Direct Sales Agent (DSA) of the bank does not come to the Authority for issuance of temporary registration certificate and their office does not send any copy of temporary registration certificate to the bank in case the vehicle is hypothecated. DW2 further stated in the examination in chief that the physical inspection of the vehicle is conducted by their office at the time of issuance of Temporary Registration Certificate and the Technical Inspector matches the Chassis number on the vehicle with the number as mentioned in the Sale Letter/Bill/Invoice. DW2 further stated that the Dealer is issued a Trade Certificate which contains signatures of authorized signatory of the dealer and the said record of the authorized signatory of the dealer is maintained in their office and the papers which are received from dealer contain signatures of authorized signatory and the same are tallied with the signatures as maintained in their records. DW2 stated that they do not conduct verification of the Sale Letter/Bill/ Invoice from the dealer. DW2 CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 110 of 210 : 111 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 was put a question in the examination in chief regarding the series in which temporary registration numbers are issued by their office to which he answered by stating that the series of permanent and temporary numbers are different and the temporary registration numbers are mentioned as UCB(Numerical number)(T). In the crossexamination, DW2 was shown the Temporary Registration Certificate bearing registration no. UP 16B (T) 6709 as contained in the file Ex.PW6/A (D14) in respect of vehicle no. DL 3CS 0968 and DW2 stated that the said certificate has not been issued by their office. In view of testimony of DW2 who was summoned as witness by accused persons, there is no force in the contention of accused Niranjan Kumar Nangia(A3) that the dealer of the car or the DSA was involved in the process of obtaining of Temporary Certificate of Registration in respect of Santro Car bearing Model - LE/EuroII, Chassis No.-124451 and Engine No.- 01968. The testimony of DW2 has also proved beyond reasonable doubts that the temporary certificate of registration bearing registration number UP 16 B(T) 6709 in the name of Niranjan Kumar Nangia, A7, South Extension II, New Delhi in respect of car, Model2000, Chassis No. - 124451 and Engine No.- 01968 purportedly issued by Registration Authority, Motor Vehicle Department, Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida, as contained in file Ex.PW6/A(D14) [the copy of which Ex.PW6/Z5(D65)] in respect of car no. DL 3CS 0968 is a forged and fabricated CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 111 of 210 : 112 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 document.

128. PW6 Sh. Sanjay Behal stated that Ex.PW6/Z 3(D63) is the Sales Invoice dated 27.12.2000 in the name of Niranjan Kumar Nangia issued by their company and same bears his signatures at point A. Perusal of Sales Invoice dated 27.12.2000 Ex.PW6/Z 3(D63) shows that in the said invoice the Bank of Punjab Ltd is mentioned as Financer of the vehicle. In the cross examination, PW6 stated that it is correct that even in the temporary registration, the name of the Financer has to be mentioned. PW6 further stated in the cross examination that in the Temporary Registration Certificate Ex.PW6/Z5(D65), the name of the Financer is not mentioned. Thereafter, PW6 voluntarily stated in the cross examination that the said temporary registration certificate does not have the column of hypothecation. As per aforesaid discussions, the original of temporary registration certificate Ex.PW6/Z5(D65) was submitted to RTO, Sheikh Sarai for registration of the vehicle in the name of Niranjan Kumar Nangia and the said vehicle bearing temporary registration number UP 16B(T) 6709 as mentioned in the Ex.PW6/Z 5(D65) was registered as DL 3CS 0968. The contention of Ld. Counsel for accused persons(A3 to A6 and A8 to A10) is that PW6 Sh. Sanjay Behal stated that Proforma Invoice is collected on behalf of bank by DSA/ Party. It is to be noted that proforma invoice is prepared before effecting sale of the vehicle and at the time of sale of CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 112 of 210 : 113 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 the vehicle, Sales Invoice is prepared and PW6 proved the Sales Invoice dated 27.12.2000 Ex.PW6/Z3(D63). In the circumstances, the contention of Ld. Counsel for the accused persons that proforma invoice is collected by the bank or the DSA is of no help to the accused persons.

129. As per file Ex.PW6/A(D14) pertaining to DL 3CS 0968 along with the Temporary Registration Certificate, sales invoice dated 27.12.2000 purported to be issued by M/s Nimbus Motors Pvt. Ltd. was also submitted to RTO, Sheikh Sarai and the perusal of sales invoice dated 27.12.2000 purported to be issued by M/s Nimbus Motors Pvt. Ltd. which was submitted along with Temporary Registration Certificate to RTO Sheikh Sarai shows that the column containing the particulars of financer is blank in the said invoice. The documents on record prove that the accused Niranjan Kumar Nangia(A3) has submitted Temporary Registration Certificate alongwith Sales Invoice dated 27.12.2000 purported to be issued by M/s Nimbus Motors Pvt. Ltd. without containing the particulars of the financer/endorsement of hypothecation to RTO Sheikh Sarai.

130. PW6 Sh. Sanjay Behal stated that Delivery Receipt & Gate Pass Ex.PW6/Z2(D62) in the name of Niranjan Kumar Nangia was issued by M/s Nimbus Motors Pvt. Ltd. and PW6 further specifically stated in his examinationinchief that Gate Pass is CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 113 of 210 : 114 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 issued to the customer in original for taking delivery. In the cross examination of PW6 Sh. Sanjay Behal, accused Niranjan Kumar Nangia(A3) has not given any suggestion to the effect that the Delivery Receipt and Gate Pass Ex.PW6/Z2(D62) was not issued by M/s Nimbus Motors Pvt. Ltd. and that accused Niranjan Kumar Nangia(A3) had not taken the delivery of Santro Car bearing Chassis No.-124451 and Engine No.-01968 vide said Delivery Receipt & Gate Pass Ex.PW6/Z2(D62). Delivery Receipt & Gate Pass Ex.PW6/Z2(D62) shows that accused Niranjan Kumar Nangia(A3) had taken delivery of Santro Car bearing Chassis No.-124451 and Engine No.-01968 from Nimbus Motors Pvt. Ltd.

131. PW13 Sh. Shailender Pal Singh stated in the cross examination that physical verification of the vehicle is done at the time of registration of the vehicle and fees for registration of the vehicle is also deposited at the time of registration of the vehicle and appropriate receipt of the same is issued and one copy of receipt of depositing registration fee is filed in the concerned file. The file Ex.PW6/A(D14) contains the receipt No.9882575 dated 11.01.2001 in the name of Niranjan Kumar Nangia(A3) in respect of car bearing Chassis no.124451 for a sum of Rs.3915/ which consists of Rs.100/ for registration of LMV(Car) and Rs.3815/ towards Road Tax and as per the certificate of registration on record, the said vehicle was registered as DL 3CS 0968 on 11.01.2001 in the name of Niranjan CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 114 of 210 : 115 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 Kumar Nangia(A3). PW13 stated in examinationinchief stated that as per file Ex.PW6/A(D14) which is in respect of DL 3CS 0968, the said vehicle was sold on 08.11.2001 to Shri Virender Pal Singh. PW13 stated that Form 21 and RC in file Ex.PW6/A(D14) do not contain any endorsement of hypothecation. PW13 Sh. Shailender Pal Singh stated in the cross examination that this file contains original RC because this is a transfer case wherein original RC was deposited in RTO office at the time of transfer of vehicle. Accused Niranjan Kumar Nangia(A3) has not given any suggestion to the prosecution witnesses that the vehicle no. DL 3CS 0968 was not registered in his name and that he had not submitted Form 29 and Form 30 for transfer of vehicle no. DL3CS 0968 in the name of Virender Pal Singh. As per file Ex.PW6/A(D14) the vehicle no. DL 3CS 0968 was transferred in the name of Virender Pal Singh on 08.11.2001.

132. The allegations of prosecution are that the car no.

DL 3CS 0968 was sold by accused Niranjan Kumar Nangia(A3) to accused Chandan Kumar Rana (A10) S/o Sh. Vijay Kumar Rana(A7) and this purchase of the car by Chandan Kumar Rana(A10) was financied by Punjab National Bank, Anand Vihar Delhi by sanction of car loan of Rs.2 lac on 31.12.2002.

133. The prosecution examined Sh. Vinod Kumar Gupta from Punjab National Bank as PW7. PW7 was shown the car CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 115 of 210 : 116 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 loan file of Punjab National Bank in respect of Chandan Kumar Rana(A10) which is Ex. PW4/I(colly)(D18) and PW7 stated that the said file Ex. PW4/I(colly)(D18) contains Application Form for Car Loan which is Ex.PW7/A which is the request made by the party along with the annexures which are Ex.PW7/B(Colly) and PW7 identified signatures of R. K. Verma(A2) on the application Ex.PW7/A in respect of accused Chandan Kumar Rana(A10). PW7 further stated that the post dated cheques containing 25 leaves which were given by accused Chandan Kumar Rana as contained in file Ex.PW4/I(Colly) (D18) are Ex.PW7/B1(Colly) and the Insurance Cover Note Ex.PW7/C (Colly) were also furnished by the party. PW7 further stated that Agreement to Sell Ex.PW7/D was furnished by the party and vouchers Ex.PW7/F and Ex.PW7/G were issued in token of having sanctioned loan to accused Chandan Kumar Rana and Ex.PW7/H is the Demand Promisory Note duly signed by Chandan Kumar Rana which was furnished to the bank and accused Chandan Kumar Rana also submitted letter Ex.PW7/J indicating his intention to give post dated cheques to the bank. PW7 stated that the balance confirmation letter Ex.PW7/K, End Use verification signed by Chandan Kumar Rana and the concerned officer is Ex.PW7/L, the Letter Hypothecating the car No. DL 3CS 0968 signed by accused Chandan Kumar Rana is Ex.PW7/M and the Letter of Hypothecation to Secure Term Loan signed by accused Chandan Kumar Rana is CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 116 of 210 : 117 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 Ex.PW7/N. In the crossexamination of PW7, no suggestions have been given to the effect that the Application form for car loan Ex.PW7/A is not signed by accused Chandan Kumar Rana(A10) and the same was not submitted by accused Chanan Kumar Rana(A10). In the cross examination of PW7, no suggestions have been given to the effect that the post dated cheques Ex.PW7/B1(Colly), Insurance Cover Note Ex.PW7/C and Agreement to Sell Ex.PW7/D signed by the seller Niranjan Kumar owner of car no. DL 3CS 0968 and accused Chandan Kumar Rana, the Demand Pronote Ex.PW7/H duly signed by Chandan Kumar Rana, the Application Ex.PW7/J signed by Chandan Kumar Rana thereby intimating his intention to give post dates cheques to the bank, the Balance Confirmation Letter Ex.PW7/K signed by Chandan Kumar Rana, End Use Verification letter Ex.PW7/L signed by Chandan Kumar Rana, Letter Hypothecating the car No. DL 3CS 0968 Ex.PW7/M and the Letter of Hypothecation to Secure Term Loan Ex.PW7/N were not submitted by accused Chandan Kumar Rana(A10) to the Punjab National Bank, Anand Vihar Branch for availing loan of Rs.2 lacs for purchasing old car bearing registration no. DL 3CS 0968 owned by accused Niranjan Kumar Nangia. In the cross examination of PW7 Sh. Vinod Kumar Gupta, accused Niranjan Kumar Nangia(A3) has not given any suggestion to the effect that the Agreement to Sell Ex.PW7/D whereby he had agreed to sell car no.DL 3CS 0968 to CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 117 of 210 : 118 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 accused Chandan Kumar Rana(A10) for a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/ and out of which Rs.50,000/ were received by him in cash, is not signed by him(A3).

134. In the crossexamination of PW7 Sh. Vinod Kumar Gupta, accused persons(A3 to A6 and A8 to A10) drew attention of PW7 to his observation in his Inspection Report dated 16.06.2003 marked Ex.PW8/A1. In the cross examination of PW7 Sh. Vinod Kumar Gupta, accused persons (A3 to A6 and A8 to A10) have put questions to the effect that as on the date of his report marked Ex.PW8/A1 i.e. 16.06.2003, three of the car loans stood adjusted while the fourth one i.e. loan taken by Deepak Rana(A8) had an outstanding of Rs.1.97 lacs on that day. The relevant portion of the inspection report dated 16.06.2003 marked Ex.PW8/A1 prepared by PW7 Sh. Vinod Kumar Gupta with which he was confronted in the cross examination has been reproduced in the aforesaid discussions.

135. After referring to his inspection report dated 16.06.2003, PW7 Sh. Vinod Kumar Gupta stated in the cross examination that as on the date of report i.e.16.06.2003, three of the car loans stood adjusted while the fourth one i.e. the loan taken by Deepak Rana(A10) had an outstanding of Rs.1.97 lacs on that day. Further suggestion was given to PW7 Sh. Vinod Kumar Rana in the cross examination that the loan taken by Deepak Rana(A10) was also CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 118 of 210 : 119 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 adjusted later on to which PW7 answered by stating that he cannot say if the said account was also adjusted later on. In the cross examination of PW7, accused persons (A3 to A6 and A8 to A10) put a question to the effect that all the four car loans were approved by Sr. Regional Manager to which PW7 answered by stating that he cannot say if all the four car loans were approved by Sr. Regional Manager. In the cross examination of PW7 Sh. Vinod Kumar Gupta, accused persons (A3 to A6 and A8 to A10) gave a suggestion that three car loan amounts were adjusted before filing of complaint by the bank to CBI and registration of FIR to which PW7 answered by stating that it is correct. Thereafter, PW7 voluntarily stated in the cross examination that two out of them were adjusted after commencement of his investigation. Another suggestion was given by accused persons (A3 to A6 and A8 to A10) in the cross examination of PW7 Sh. Vinod Kumar Gupta that all the outstanding against all the four car loans stood adjusted as on 14.02.2004 to which PW7 answered by stating that it is correct. Further suggestion was given in the cross examination of PW7 Sh. Vinod Kumar Gupta by accused persons (A3 to A6 and A8 to A10) that all the borrowers of the vehicle loans were existing customers of the bank to which he answered by stating that it is correct. By giving suggestions in the crossexamination of PW7 Sh. Vinod Kumar Gupta to the effect that the car loans were approved by Sr. Regional Manager and the borrowers of the car loans were existing customers and that the three car loan amounts in this case CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 119 of 210 : 120 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 were adjusted before filing of complaint by the bank to CBI and registration of FIR and the fourth car loan account of accused Deepak Rana stood adjusted on 14.02.2004, the accused Chandan Kumar Rana(A10) has admitted availing of the car loan of a sum of Rs.2 lacs from Punjab National Bank, Anand Vihar Branch for purchase of Santro Car bearing registration no.DL 3CS 0968 from accused Niranjan Kumar Nangia(A3). However, by giving aforesaid suggestion to PW7 in the cross examination, accused Chandan Kumar Rana(A10) has pleaded that the loan account was adjusted by him prior to making of complaint by the Bank to CBI and prior to registration of FIR.

136. PW3 Sh. P.K. Singh specifically stated in his examinationinchief that there is no endorsement regarding hypothecation of vehicle in the name of bank and the file(D18) does not bear any registration certificate showing that the vehicle has been transferred in the name of borrower. Although accused Chandan Kumar Rana has pleaded that he had availed the car loan but the same was adjusted before registration of FIR but accused Chandan Kumar Rana has neither pleaded nor proved that after availing the loan of Rs.2 lacs from Punjab National Bank, Anand Vihar Branch for purchase of car no. DL 3CS 0968, he had acquired the physical possession of the said car and he applied to the concerned RTO for transfer of the car bearing no. DL 3CS 0968 in his name which proves CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 120 of 210 : 121 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 that the loan for Rs.2 lacs which was taken by accused Chandan Kumar Rana for purchase of car no. DL 3CS 0968 was obtained by accused Chandan Kumar Rana in criminal conspiracy with accused Niranjan Kumar Nangia(A3) by misleading the bank by fraudulent means that the aforesaid car was not hypothecated to any other bank on the basis of forged and fabricated documents and thereby accused persons caused wrongful loss to the Punjab National Bank, Anand Vihar and wrongful gain to themselves.

VEHICLE No.DL 3CS 2168

137. The allegations of the prosecution are that Santro Car bearing registration no. DL 3CS 2168 was purchased by Smt. Veenu Nangia(A4) wife of accused Niranjan Kumar Nangia(A3) in December, 2000 from M/s Nimbus Motors Pvt. Ltd., Sector5, Noida and this car was financed by Bank of Punjab, Green Park, New Delhi and thus the car was hypothecated to Bank of Punjab. It is further alleged that the copy of sales invoice of M/s Nimbus Motors Pvt. Ltd. showed that this car was financed by Bank of Punjab but accused Veenu Nangia(A4) submitted forged sales invoices, purported to have been issued by M/s Nimbus Motors Pvt. Ltd., Noida to RTO Sheikh Sarai, New Delhi and obtained registration certificate from the said RTO showing that the vehicle has not been hypothecated to any bank. It is further alleged by the prosecution that the car no. DL 3CS 2168 CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 121 of 210 : 122 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 was sold by Veenu Nangia (A4) to Vijay Kumar Rana(A7) (since deceased) who availed loan for purchase of the car, from Punjab National Bank, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi. It is further alleged that the car no. DL 3CS 2168 was again sold by accused Veenu Nangia(A4) to accused Vijay Kumar Rana(A7) on 21.11.2002 and this purchase of the car by Vijay Kumar Rana(A7) was financed by Punjab National Bank, Anand Vihar, New Delhi and photocopy of the RC of the car No. DL 3CS 2168 which was submitted to Punjab National Bank, Anand Vihar did not contain endorsement of hypothecation either in favour of Bank of Punjab Ltd. or Punjab National Bank, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi and thus the accused persons dishonestly misrepresented the Punjab National Bank, Anand Vihar, Delhi that the car no. DL 3CS 2168 is not hypothecated to any bank and thereby induced Punjab National Bank, Anand Vihar to sanction loan of Rs.2 lacs in favour of accused Vijay Kumar Rana for purchase of car no. DL 3CS 2168.

138. PW6 Sh. Sanjay Behal, the then Corporate Sales Manager of M/s Nimbus Motors Pvt. Ltd., Sector5, Noida stated that receipt dated 21.12.2000 issued by M/s Nimbus Motors Pvt. Ltd. in favour of Veenu Nangia bearing endorsement of hypothecation in favour of Bank of Punjab Ltd is Ex.PW6/V(D56). The Sales Invoice dated 31.01.2001 issued by M/s Nimbus Motors Pvt. Ltd, Noida in CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 122 of 210 : 123 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 favour of Veenu Nangia, A7, South Extn. II, New Delhi and bearing particulars of Financer as 'Bank of Punjab Ltd' in respect of vehicle bearing Model - LE/EuroII, Chassis No.- 140797, Engine No.- 18122 and bearing signatures of PW6 at point A is Ex.PW6/X(D58). The Delivery Receipt & Gate Pass dated 01.02.2001 issued by M/s Nimbus Motors Pvt. Ltd, Noida, in respect of vehicle bearing particulars as Model - LE, Chassis No. - 140797, Engine No.- 18122 bearing customer's name as Veenu Nangia and bearing signatures of official of M/s Nimbus Motors Pvt. Ltd. at point A is Ex.PW6/W(D57). The statement of Ledger Account in the name of Veenu Nangia issued by M/s Nimbus Motors Pvt. Ltd, Noida and certified to be as true copy by Sh. Sunil Dewan, Director of M/s Nimbus Motors Pvt. Ltd., Noida is Ex.PW6/Y(D59).

139. PW6 Sh. Sanjay Behal stated in the cross examination that the amount of loan sanctioned by the bank in favour of Veenu Nangia was received by way of Pay Order bearing no.036684 dated 21.12.2000 in favour of M/s Nimbus Motors Pvt. Ltd. Ex.PW6/DX4(D7) and it also contains an endorsement on the backside that 'HP Bank of Punjab Ltd'.

140. In the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 05.05.2016, accused Veenu Nangia(A4) was put questions on the Receipt dated 21.12.2000 Ex.PW6/V(D56), the Delivery CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 123 of 210 : 124 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 Receipt & Gate Pass dated 01.02.2001 Ex.PW6/W(D57), the Sales Invoice dated 31.01.2001 Ex.PW6/X (D58) and the statement of Ledger Account Ex.PW6/Y (D59) to which accused Veenu Nangia answered by stating that the said documents are incorrect. In the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., accused Veenu Nangia stated that she has not done any wrong in the present case and the loan taken by Vijay Kumar Rana was repaid long back and no loss has been caused to the Bank. In the Statement under section 313 Cr. PC accused Veenu has further stated that Vijay Kumar Rana was an existing customer of the bank and had deposited the title deeds of the properties to secure the loan prior to the present transaction and because of his performance, the bank had further extended the financial assistance to him.

141. PW4 Sh. Deepak Kumar Manuja, the then Assistant Vice President in Bank of Punjab, Green Park, Delhi stated that Ex.PW4/A(Colly) (D4) is the file in respect of car loan in the name of accused Veenu Nangia processed by the Bank of Punjab Ltd, Green Park, New Delhi. Ex.PW4/B is the loan application of Veenu Nangia. PW4 further stated that the loan application Ex.PW4/B was accompanied by supporting documents which are available in the file and the auto loan department had processed the file and it was recommended for sanction by Sh. Sanjay Arora and verified by Sh. Aashna Kochar and PW4 identified signatures of Sh. Sanjay Arora CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 124 of 210 : 125 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 and Sh. Aashna Kochar in the file Ex.PW4/A (Colly). PW4 stated that the loan file Ex.PW4/J(Colly) (D20) contains copy of RC in the name of Veenu Nangia and the said RC does not contain any hypothecation clause. The file Ex.PW4/A(Colly) (D4) also contains Undertaking/Agreement signed by Veenu Nangia in original bearing stamps of Rs.15/ and attested, whereby accused Veenu Nangia has agreed as a precondition of the loan given to her by the bank that in case she commits default in payment of the loan amount or interest the bank has an unqualified right to disclose or publish her name as a defaulter in such manner as the bank deems appropriate. In the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C, accused Veenu Nangia(A4) has stated that the loan application Ex.PW4/B is incorrect but in the statement under section 313 Cr.PC accused Veenu Nangia(A4) has not stated that she has not taken loan from Bank of Punjab Ltd. and in the crossexamination of PW4 Sh. Deepak Kumar Manuja, no suggestion has been given to the effect that loan application Ex.PW4/B (part of D4) is neither signed by accused Veenu Nangia nor the same was submitted to the Bank of Punjab Ltd. along with supporting documents as contained in file Ex.PW4/A(Colly) for availing car loan.

142. PW9 Sh. Sanjay Sharma, the then Manager (Collection) Bank of Punjab Ltd. stated that the Statement of Account for the period 17.12.2000 to 01.11.2004 in respect of Auto CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 125 of 210 : 126 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 Loan account no.06LA00/1745 of Veenu Nangia is Ex.PW9/C(D11). It is to be noted that in the cross examination of PW9 Sh. Sanjay Sharma, accused persons[A3 to A10 (except A7)] have given suggestion to the effect that it is correct that Statements of Accounts Ex.PW9/B to Ex.PW9/E were certified as per Banker's Book of Evidence. PW9 stated that the letter dated 30.10.2004 vide which the loan application form along with supporting documents of Niranjan Kumar Nangia, Ms. Veenu Nangia, Kamal Kumar Nangia and Ms. Divya Nangia were handed over to CBI is Ex.PW9/A(D10). PW9 further stated in cross examination that it is correct that in the letter Ex.PW9/A (D10) which is addressed to Inspector, CBI, it is mentioned that 'the said documents are being sent through Sh. Sanjay Sharma whose signatures are attested below and who has been duly authorized by this letter to do so and receive the acknowledgment from your office on our behalf for the same'. In the circumstances as PW9 categorically stated that he had handed over the documents as mentioned in letter Ex.PW9/A (D10) to CBI, there is no force in the contention of Ld. Counsel for accused persons that no seizure memo regarding handing over and taking over of said documents was prepared.

143. Accused Veenu Nangia(A4) has neither pleaded nor given any suggestion to prosecution witnesses that the Santro car Model - LE/EuroII, Chassis No. - 140797, Engine No. - 18122 CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 126 of 210 : 127 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 bearing registration number DL 3CS 2168 was not purchased by her from M/s Nimbus Motors Pvt. Ltd, Noida. The sales invoice vide which Santro car Model - LE/EuroII, Chassis No. - 140797, Engine No.-18122 was purchased by accused Veenu Nangia is Ex.PW6/X(D58) and the Delivery Receipt & Gate Pass bearing signatures of customer is Ex.PW6/W(D57). The contention of Ld. Counsel for A4 is that PW6 stated in crossexamination that the documents of Sales Invoices and Sales Certificates exhibited by him are only photocopies. It is to be noted that in the same breath PW6 stated that however the invoice PW6/X(D58) is the carbon copy of the original invoice. The Delivery Receipt & Gate Pass dated 01.02.2001 Ex.PW6/W(D57) is an original document. In the cross examination of PW6, no suggestion has been given to the effect that Ex.PW6/W(D57) and Ex.PW6/X(D58) are forged and fabricated documents. The evidence adduced by the prosecution has proved that accused Veenu Nangia had purchased Santro car Model-LE/EuroII, Chassis No.-140797, Engine No.-18122 from M/s Nimbus Motors Pvt. Ltd.

144. In the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

accused Veenu Nangia has not stated that she had not taken loan from Bank of Punjab Ltd. and in the cross examination of PW9 Sh. Sanjay Sharma, accused persons(A3 to A6 and A8 to A10) have given suggestion that it is correct that all dues of the bank were duly settled CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 127 of 210 : 128 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 by Nangia family. Accused Veenu Nangia (A4) has not explained that if she has not taken loan from bank of Punjab Ltd then why she has settled the dues of the Bank of Punjab Ltd. Accused Veenu Nangia (A4) has also not proved any document on record to prove the mode of payment in respect of Santro car Model- LE/ EuroII, Chassis No.-140797, Engine No. - 18122 which was purchased by her from M/s Nimbus Motors Pvt. Ltd. in case she had not taken loan from Bank of Punjab Ltd. Moreover, the fact that Veenu Nangia had received a sum of Rs.Two Lac Fifty Thousand only by way of cash order no.867916 dated 21.11.2002 Ex.PW16/G (D34) drawn on Punjab National Bank, Anand Vihar, Delhi which was deposited in his account no.2987 vide transfer credit voucher Ex.PW16/I(D36) on account of purported sale of the said Santro car bearing registration no. DL 3CS 2168, Model-LE/EuroII, Chassis No.-140797, Engine No.-18122 to Vijay Kumar Rana(A7) also proves that accused Veenu Nangia (A4) had acquired the ownership of the said car. In the cross examination of PW16 Shri Jugal Kishore, accused persons (A3 to A6 & A8 to A10) did not prefer to put any question and his testimony has remained unrebutted and his statement regarding issuance of cash order Ex.PW16/G(D34) in the name of accused Veenu Nangia and depositing of the same in her account vide transfer credit voucher Ex.PW16/I(D36) has remained unrebutted. The file Ex.PW6/G(D16) contains one letter written by accused Veenu Nangia to Motor Licensing Officer, Sheikh Sarai wherein she has stated that CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 128 of 210 : 129 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 she had purchased a Santro Car from M/s Nimbus Motors, Noida through Pradeep Gupta of Finance Company and the said car was financed by Bank of Punjab. The testimony of prosecution witnesses and the documents on record have proved that the Santro car Model- LE/EuroII, Chassis No.-140797, Engine No. - 18122 was purchased by accused Veenu Nangia by availing loan from Bank of Punjab Ltd, Green Park, New Delhi vide demand draft no.036684 dated 21.12.2000 for a sum of Rs.3,39,470/ drawn in favour of M/s Nimbus Motors Pvt. Ltd Ex.PW6/DX4 (D7).

145. The contention of Ld. PP for CBI is that accused Veenu Nangia had submitted forged papers to RTO, Sheikh Sarai, New Delhi purported to have been issued by M/s Nimbus Motors Pvt. Ltd and obtained a registration certificate from RTO showing that this vehicle has not been hypothecated to any bank and the said car was sold by accused Veenu Nangia to accused Vijay Kumar Rana (A7) and this purchase was financed by Punjab National Bank, Anand Vihar, Delhi by sanction of car loan of Rs.2 lacs on 21.11.2002 and investigation revealed that the said car was already sold by accused Veenu Nangia(A4) to accused Vijay Kumar Rana(A7) on 19.07.2002 and the said purchase of the car by Vijay Kumar Rana(A7) was financed by Punjab National Bank, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi.

146. PW13 Sh. Shailender Pal Singh, Motor Vehicle CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 129 of 210 : 130 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 Inspector from RTO, Sheikh Sarai stated that the file(D16) in respect of vehicle no. DL 3CS 2168 Ex.PW6/G contains Form 21 but the said form does not contain entry regarding hypothecation of the vehicle. PW13 Sh. Shailender Pal Singh further stated that as per record, the vehicle no. DL 3CS 2168 was sold on 19.07.2002 to Sh. Vijay Kumar Rana and Shri Vijay Kumar Rana had hypothecated the vehicle to Punjab National Bank, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi. PW13 Sh. Shailender Pal Singh stated in the cross examination by accused no.1 and 2 that RC of vehicle no.DL 3CS 2168 as contained in the said file Ex.PW6/G(D16) does not bear endorsement of hypothecation. PW13 Shailender Pal Singh stated in the cross examination by accused persons (A3 to A6 and A8 to A10) that the files i.e. D14, D16 and D17 are cases of transfer of vehicles and in the said files original RCs were enclosed when the same were handed over to CBI. The file Ex.PW6/G(D16) pertaining to vehicle no.DL 3CS 2168 shows that the same contains the Application for registration of motor vehicle (Form 20) containing the particulars of the vehicle, Form 21 dated 31.01.2001, Form 22, Sales Invoice dated 31.01.2001 purportedly issued by M/s Nimbus Motors Pvt. Ltd, Ex.PW6/H, copy of Invoice Cum Delivery Challan Ex.PW6/GX and Temporary certificate of registration bearing temporary registration no.UP 16B (T) 7152 in the name of Veenu Nangia bearing Chassis No.- 140797 and Engine No.-18122 purportedly issued by Registration Authority, Motor Vehicle Department, Gautam Budh CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 130 of 210 : 131 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 Nagar, Noida. The file Ex.PW6/G(D16) contains RC as per which the vehicle bearing chasis No.140797 and Engine No.18122 was registered as DL 3CS 2168 on 22.02.2001 in the name of Veenu Nangia w/o Shri N. K. Nangia R/o A7, South Ext.II, New Delhi and the said RC does not contain any endorsement of hypothecation and PW13 had stated in the cross examination that since file Ex.PW6/G(D16) is a case of transfer of vehicle, the same contains original RC which is required to be enclosed at the time of transfer of the vehicle. The file Ex.PW6/G (D16) also contains Form 29 and Form 30 for transfer of vehicle in the name of Vijay Kumar Rana and Form 34 signed by Manager, Punjab National Bank, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi for making an entry of hypothecation after transfer of vehicle in the name of Vijay Kumar Rana. File Ex.PW6/G(D16) contains one receipt No.9980077 dated 19.07.2002 in the name of Veenu Nangia, as per which a sum of Rs.200/ was deposited which consisted of a sum of Rs. 100/ towards transfer of LMV (Car) and Rs. 100/ towards addition of hypothecation. Hence, as per file Ex.PW6/G (D16) accused Veenu Nangia had applied for transfer of car no. DL 3CS 2168 in the name of Vijay Kumar Rana R/o E152G, Amar Colony, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi and Punjab National Bank, Tolstoy Marg had requested for addition of hypothecation in their favour in the records of RTO, Sheikh Sarai, New Delhi.

147. The contention of Ld.PP for CBI is that accused CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 131 of 210 : 132 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 Veenu Nangia(A4) had submitted a forged and fabricated temporary certificate of registration bearing registration number as UP16 B(T) 7152 purportedly issued by Registration Authority, Motor Vehicle Department, Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida and forged Form 21 Dated 31.01.2001 and forged Sales Invoice dated 31.01.2001 purportedly issued by M/s Nimbus Motors Pvt. Ltd., Noida to the RTO, Sheikh Sarai in order to obtain registration certificate without endorsement of hypothecation with fraudulent intention of taking loans from the banks.

148. The contention of Ld. Counsel for accused persons is that the dealer of the vehicle gets the temporary registration done and accused Veenu Nangia (A4) has not submitted forged documents to RTO, Sheikh Sarai as alleged by the prosecution.

149. As per allegations of prosecution, accused Veenu Nangia (A4) had submitted forged and fabricated temporary certificate of registration bearing registration number as UP 16 B (T) 7152 purportedly issued by Registration Authority, Motor Vehicle Department, Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida to RTO, Sheikh Sarai for registration of the Santro Car bearing Chassis No.-140797 and Engine No.-18122. PW13 Sh. Shailender Pal Singh stated in cross examination by accused persons(A3 to A6 and A8 to A10) that CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 132 of 210 : 133 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 physical verification of the vehicle is done at the time of registration and fee for registration of the vehicle is also deposited at the time of registration of vehicle and appropriate receipt of the same is issued and one copy of the receipt of depositing registration fee is filed in the concerned file. PW6 stated in cross examination that he does not know whether the documents of vehicle were handed over to the customer by the company for the purpose of temporary registration or to the DSA and he does not know who had gone to get the temporary registration of the vehicle done. The file Ex.PW6/G(D16) contains one letter written by accused Veenu Nangia to Motor Licensing Officer, Sheikh Sarai wherein she has stated that she had purchased a Santro Car from M/s Nimbus Motors, Noida through Pradeep Gupta of Finance Company and the said car was financed by Bank of Punjab. As per temporary certification of Registration as contained in file Ex. PW6/G(D16), the vehicle bearing Chassis No.-140797 and Engine No.-18122 was registered in the name of Veenu Nangia vide Temporary registration no.UP 16 B(T) 7152 by Registration Authority, Motor Vehicle Department, Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida. As per record, the vehicle bearing Chassis No.-140797, Engine No.- 18122 and Temporary Registration No.UP 16 B(T) 7152 was registered as DL 3CS 2168. PW6 denied suggestion of accused no.2 in the cross examination that their company got the temporary registration of the vehicle done and did not mention about the hypothecation to the Registering Authority. PW6 further denied CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 133 of 210 : 134 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 suggestion of A2 in the cross examination that it was mistake on the part of their company to have handed over the documents for registration to the customers and that it was the duty of the company to get the vehicle registered with the proper hypothecation clause. In the cross examination of PW6, accused persons(A4 to A6 and A8 to A10) have given suggestion to the effect that in case of financed vehicle, it is the DSA who deals with the company and not the customers. Although A4 has pleaded that it is the Direct Sales Agent (DSA) who deals with the car dealer and he had no role to play in temporary registration of the vehicle but no evidence has been adduced by A4 to substantiate her contention.

150. On one hand accused no.4 has pleaded that it is the Direct Sales Agent(DSA) who was responsible for temporary registration of the vehicle bearing Chassis No. - 140797 and Engine No. - 18122 purchased from M/s Nimbus Motors Pvt. Ltd but on the other hand in order to prove the authenticity of the temporary certificate of registration bearing temporary registration no. UP 16 B(T) 7152 as contained in file Ex. PW6/G(D16), the accused examined Sh. K.K. Gautam from ARTO Office, Sector33,Noida as DW2. DW2 was summoned by accused to produce the file pertaining to vehicle bearing registration no. UP 16 BT 7152. DW2 stated that as per the records brought by him, the vehicle bearing registration no.

         UP16BT7152   was     registered   on   11.09.2013   in   the   name   of   Shri

   CBI   v.  R. K. Jain & Ors.                                                                                  Page No. : 134 of 210  
                                                             : 135 :                                               CBI Case No. : 20/16

Sudhir Kumar s/o Shri Swaraj Singh R/O : 44/37, Ambedkar Vihar, Noida, UP for Motor Cab/Taxi and the copy of particulars of RC is DW2/3. DW2 further stated that no Santro LE vehicle is temporarily registered with registration number UP 16BT 7152. DW2 denied suggestion of accused persons that dealers of the vehicles to be temporarily registered send their own persons for getting temporary registration certificate. Thereafter, DW2 voluntarily stated in the examination in chief that the person who desires to obtain temporary registration certificate himself comes along with the documents and the vehicle. DW2 further stated in examination in chief that Direct Sales Agent (DSA) of the bank does not come to the Authority for issuance of temporary registration certificate and their office does not send any copy of temporary registration certificate to the bank in case the vehicle is hypothecated. DW2 further stated in the examination in chief that the physical inspection of the vehicle is conducted by their office at the time of issuance of Temporary Registration Certificate and the Technical Inspector matches the Chassis number on the vehicle with the number as mentioned in the Sale Letter/Bill/Invoice. DW2 further stated that the Dealer is issued a Trade Certificate which contains signatures of authorized signatory of the dealer and the said record of the authorized signatory of the dealer is maintained in their office and the papers which are received from dealer contain signatures of authorized signatory and the same are tallied with the signatures as maintained in their records. DW2 CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 135 of 210 : 136 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 stated that they do not conduct verification of the Sale Letter/Bill/ Invoice from the dealer. DW2 was put a question in the examination in chief regarding the series in which temporary registration numbers are issued by their office to which he answered by stating that the series of permanent and temporary numbers are different and the temporary registration numbers are mentioned as UCB(Numerical number)(T). In the cross examination, DW2 was shown the Temporary Registration Certificate bearing registration no. UP 16B (T) 7152 as contained in the file Ex.PW6/G (D16) in respect of vehicle no. DL 3CS 2168 and DW2 stated that the said certificate has not been issued by their office. In view of testimony of DW2 who was summoned as witness by accused persons, there is no force in the contention of accused Veenu Nangia (A4) that the dealer of the car or the DSA was involved in the process of obtaining of Temporary Certificate of Registration in respect of Santro Car bearing Model-LE/EuroII, Chassis No.- 140797 and Engine No.- 18122. The testimony of DW2 has also proved beyond reasonable doubts that the temporary certificate of registration bearing registration number UP 16 B(T) 7152 in the name of Veenu Nangia, A7, South ExtensionII, New Delhi in respect of car, Model2000, Chassis No. - 140797 and Engine No.- 18122 purportedly issued by Registration Authority, Motor Vehicle Department, Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida, as contained in file Ex.PW6/G (D16) in respect of car no. DL 3CS 2168 is a forged and fabricated document.

CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 136 of 210

: 137 : CBI Case No. : 20/16

151. PW6 Sh. Sanjay Behal stated that Ex.PW6/X(D58) is the Sales Invoice dated 31.01.2001 in the name of Veenu Nangia issued by their company and same bears his signatures at point A. Perusal of Sales Invoice dated 31.01.2001 Ex.PW6/X(D58) shows that in the said invoice the Bank of Punjab Ltd. is mentioned as Financer of the vehicle. In the cross examination, PW6 stated that it is correct that even in the temporary registration, the name of the Financer has to be mentioned. PW6 further stated in the cross examination that in the temporary registration certificate, the name of the Financer is not mentioned. As per aforesaid discussions, the temporary registration certificate bearing temporary registration No. UP 16B (T) 7152 was submitted to RTO, Sheikh Sarai for registration of the vehicle in the name of Veenu Nangia and the said vehicle bearing temporary registration number UP 16B(T) 7152 was registered as DL 3CS 2168. The contention of Ld. Counsel for accused persons (A3 to A6 and A8 to A10) is that PW6 Sh. Sanjay Behal stated that Proforma Invoice is collected on behalf of bank by DSA/ Party. It is to be noted that proforma invoice is prepared before effecting sale of the vehicle and at the time of sale of the vehicle, Sales Invoice is prepared and PW6 proved the Sales Invoice dated 31.01.2001 Ex.PW6/X(D58). In the circumstances the contention of Ld. Counsel for the accused persons that proforma invoice is collected by the bank or the DSA is of no CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 137 of 210 : 138 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 help to the accused persons.

152. As per file Ex.PW6/G(D16) pertaining to DL 3CS 2168 alongwith the temporary registration certificate, sales invoice dated 31.01.2001 Ex. PW6/I purported to be issued by M/s Nimbus Motors Pvt. Ltd was also submitted to RTO, Sheikh Sarai and the perusal of sales invoice dated 31.01.2001 Ex.PW6/I purported to be issued by M/s Nimbus Motors Pvt. Ltd. which was submitted alongwith temporary registration certificate to RTO Sheikh Sarai shows that the column containing the particulars of financer is blank in the said invoice. PW6 stated that the Sales Invoice Ex.PW6/I as contained in file Ex.PW6/G(D16) is a forged document. The documents on record prove that the accused Veenu Nangia has submitted that temporary registration certificate along with sales invoice dated 31.01.2001 Ex.PW6/I purported to be issued by M/s Nimbus Motors Pvt. Ltd. without containing the particulars of the financer /endorsement of hypothecation to RTO Sheikh Sarai.

153. PW6 Sh. Sanjay Behal stated that Delivery Receipt & Gate Pass Ex.PW6/W (D57) in the name of Veenu Nangia was issued by M/s Nimbus Motors Pvt. Ltd and PW6 further specifically stated in his examination in chief that Gate Pass is issued to the customer in original for taking delivery. In the cross examination of PW6 Sh. Sanjay Behal, accused Veenu Nangia (A4) CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 138 of 210 : 139 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 has not given any suggestion to the effect that the Delivery Receipt and Gate Pass Ex.PW6/W(D57) was not issued by M/s Nimbus Motors Pvt. Ltd and that accused Veenu Nangia had not taken the delivery of Santro Car bearing Chassis No. - 140797 and Engine No.- 18122 vide said Delivery Receipt & Gate Pass Ex.PW6/W(D57). Delivery Receipt & Gate Pass Ex.PW6/W(D57) shows that accused Veenu Nangia had taken delivery of Santro Car bearing Chassis No.- 140797 and Engine No.-18122 from Nimbus Motors Pvt. Ltd on 01.02.2001.

154. PW13 Sh. Shailender Pal Singh stated in the cross examination that physical verification of the vehicle is done at the time of registration of the vehicle and fees for registration of the vehicle is also deposited at the time of registration of the vehicle and appropriate receipt of the same is issued and one copy of receipt of depositing registration fee is filed in the concerned file. The file Ex.PW6/G(D16) contains a letter written by accused Veenu Nangia Motor Licensing Officer, Sheikh Sarai wherein she has stated that she had purchased Santro Car from M/s Nimbus Motors, Noida and documents for financing of the said vehicle from Bank of Punjab Ltd. were processed through financer. PW13 stated in examination in chief that as per file Ex.PW6/G(D16) which is in respect of DL 3CS 2168, the said vehicle was sold on 19.07.2002 to Vijay Kumar Rana. PW13 stated that Form 21 and RC in file Ex.PW6/G(D16) do not CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 139 of 210 : 140 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 contain any endorsement of hypothecation. PW13 Sh. Shailender Pal Singh stated in the cross examination that this file contains original RC because this is a transfer case wherein original RC was deposited in RTO office at the time of transfer of vehicle. Accused Veenu Nangia has not given any suggestion to the prosecution witnesses that the vehicle no. DL 3CS 2168 was not registered in her name and that she had not submitted Form 29 and Form 30 for transfer of vehicle no. DL 3CS 2168 in the name of Vijay Kumar Rana. As per file Ex.PW6/G(D16) the vehicle no.DL 3CS 2168 was transferred in the name of Vijay Kumar Rana on 19.07.2002.

155. The allegations of prosecution are that the car no.

DL 3CS 2168 was again sold by accused Veenu Nangia(A4) to accused Vijay Kumar Rana (A7) and this purchase of the car by Vijay Kumar Rana was financed by Punjab National Bank, Anand Vihar Delhi by sanction of car loan of Rs.2 lacs on 21.11.2002.

156. The prosecution examined Sh. Vinod Kumar Gupta from Punjab National Bank as PW7. PW7 was shown the car loan file of Punjab National Bank in respect of Vijay Kumar Rana which is Ex.PW4/J(colly) (D20) and PW7 stated that the said file contains Application form for Car Loan Ex.PW7/Z(colly) by which the request was made by the party along with the annexures which are Ex.PW7/Z1. PW7 further stated that the loan was sanctioned by R. CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 140 of 210 : 141 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 K. Jain, the then Manager, PNB, Anand Vihar branch. PW7 further stated that the post dated cheques containing 25 leaves which were given by accused Vijay Kumar Rana as contained in file Ex.PW4/J(Colly) (D20) are Ex.PW7/Z2 (Colly) and the Insurance Cover Note Ex.PW7/Z3 were also furnished by the party. PW7 further stated that the vouchers Ex.PW7/Z4 to Ex.PW7/Z6 were prepared in token of having sanctioned loan to accused Vijay Kumar Rana and Ex.PW7/Z7 is the Demand Promisory Note duly signed by Vijay Kumar Rana which was furnished to the bank and accused Vijay Kumar Rana also submitted letter Ex.PW7/Z8 indicating his intention to give post dated cheques to the bank. PW7 stated that the End Use verification signed by Vijay Kumar Rana and the concerned officers i.e. accused R.K. Verma and R. K. Jain is Ex.PW7/Z9.

157. In the cross examination of PW7 Sh. Vinod Kumar Gupta, accused persons(A3 to A6 and A8 to A10), drew attention of PW7 to his observation in his Inspection Report dated 16.06.2003 marked Ex.PW8/A1. In the cross examination of PW7 Sh. Vinod Kumar Gupta, accused persons(A3 to A6 and A8 to A10) have put questions to the effect that as on the date of his report marked Ex.PW8/A1 i.e. 16.06.2003, three of the car loans stood adjusted while the fourth one i.e. loan taken by Deepak Rana had an outstanding of Rs. 1.97 lacs on that day. The relevant portion of the CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 141 of 210 : 142 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 inspection report dated 16.06.2003 marked Ex.PW8/A1 prepared by PW7 Sh. Vinod Kumar Gupta with which he was confronted in the cross examination by the accused persons has been reproduced in aforesaid discussions.

158. After referring to his inspection report dated 16.06.2003, PW7 SH. Vinod Kumar Gupta stated in the cross examination that as on the date of report i.e. 16.06.2003, three of the car loans stood adjusted while the fourth one i.e. the loan taken by Deepak Rana had an outstanding of Rs. 1.97 lacs on that day. Further suggestion was given to PW7 Sh. Vinod Kumar Rana in the cross examination that the loan taken by Deepak Rana was also adjusted later on to which PW7 answered by stating that he cannot say if the said account was also adjusted later on. In the cross examination of PW7, accused persons(A3 to A6 and A8 to A10) put a question to the effect that all the four car loans were approved by Sr. Regional Manager to which PW7 answered by stating that he cannot say if all the four car loans were approved by Sr. Regional Manager. In the cross examination of PW7 Sh. Vinod Kumar Gupta, accused persons(A3 to A6 and A8 to A10) gave a suggestion that three car loan amounts were adjusted before filing of complaint by the bank to CBI and registration of FIR to which PW7 answered by stating that it is correct. Thereafter, PW7 voluntarily stated in the cross examination that two out of them were adjusted after commencement CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 142 of 210 : 143 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 of his investigation. Another suggestion was given by accused persons(A3 to A6 and A8 to A10) in the cross examination of PW7 Sh. Vinod Kumar Gupta that all the outstanding against all the four car loans stood adjusted as on 14.02.2004 to which PW7 answered by stating that it is correct.

159. In the Statement under section 313 Cr. PC, accused Veenu Nangia has stated that Vijay Kumar Rana was an existing customer of the bank and he had deposited title deeds of the property to secure the loan prior to the present transaction and because of his performance the bank had further extended the financial assistance to him and the loan taken by Vijay Kumar Rana was repaid long back. This part of the Statement under section 313 Cr.PC of accused Veenu Nangia shows that she was aware that accused Vijay Kumar Rana was existing customer of Punjab National Bank, Anand Vihar Branch and had already availed loans by depositing deeds of his properties and also about his performance as customer of the bank and availing of the loan for purchase of the car No. DL 3CS 2168 from Punjab National Bank, Anand Vihar Branch. As per aforesaid discussions, the prosecution has proved that accused Veenu Nangia had sold the same car bearing registration No.DL 3CS 2168 to Vijay Kumar Rana on 19.07.2002 and this car was again sold by accused Veenu Nangia to Vijay Kumar Rana 21.11.2002 and for this sale a sum of Rs.2.5 lacs was received by accused Veenu Nangia CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 143 of 210 : 144 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 by way of cash order Ex. PW16/G(D34) which was transferred to her account vide Transfer Credit Voucher Ex. PW16/I(D36). In the crossexamination of PW16 Shri Jugal Kishore, accused persons(A3 to A6 & A8 to A10) did not prefer to put any question and his testimony has remained unrebutted and his statement regarding issuance of cash order Ex. PW16/G(D34) in the name of accused Veenu Nangia(A4) and depositing of the same in her account vide Transfer Credit Voucher Ex. PW16/I(D36) has remained unrebutted.

160. The evidence on record proves that accused Veenu Nangia in criminal conspiracy and on the basis of forged and fabricated documents fraudulently induced the Punjab National Bank, Anand Vihar branch in believing that the aforesaid car bearing registration No.DL3CS 2168 was not hypothecated to any other bank and thereby induced the said bank in financing the sale of the said car by accused Veenu Nangia to accused Vijay Kumar Rana.

161. The accused persons (A3 to A6 & A8 to A10) have contended that since the car loans alongwith interest were repaid by accused persons(A7 to A10) and no loss was caused to Punjab National Bank, Anand Vihar Branch, hence the accused persons (A3 to A6 & A8 to A10) were not liable to be prosecuted and in support of their contentions, the accused persons (A3 to A6 & A8 to A10) have relied upon decision of Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in Dr. P. CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 144 of 210 : 145 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 Madan Mohan Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh decided on 26.09.2006 and decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in CBI, ACB, Mumbai v. Narendra Lal Jain & Ors., Crl. Appeal No.517/2014. Ld. Spl. PP, CBI has contended that return of the loan amount will not absolve the accused persons of the offence and the Ld. Spl. PP, CBI has relied on decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hardeo Singh v. State of Bihar & Anr., 2000 Supp(1) SCR 222. Ld. Spl. PP, CBI has further contended that the aforesaid authorities, as relied by the accused persons (A3 to A6 & A8 to A10) are not applicable to facts of the present case as in the case Dr. P. Madan Mohan Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, the name of the petitioner was not shown as accused in the report prepared by the bank and Hon'ble High Court referred to decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein it was held that fraudulent and dishonest intention must be shown to be existing from the very beginning of the transaction and mere failure to keep the promise at a subsequent stage, the offence of cheating cannot be made out. Ld. Spl. PP, CBI has further contended that the decision in CBI, ACB, Mumbai v. Narendra Lal Jain & Ors. pertains to powers of High Courts under section 482 Cr. PC and it not applicable to the facts of the present case.

162. In Dr. P. Madan Mohan Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh(supra), Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 145 of 210 : 146 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 referred to decisions in Anil Mahajan v. Bhor Industriers Ltd. & Anr., (2006) 1 SCC (Crl.) 746, Ajay Mitra v. State of M. P. & Ors., 2003 SCC (Crl.) 703 and Uma Shanker Gopalika v. State of Bihar & Anr.(2006) 2 SCC (Crl.) 49, wherein it has been held that fraudulent and dishonest intention must be shown to be existing from the very beginning of the transaction and on mere failure to keep the promise at a subsequent stage, offence of cheating cannot be made out and the intention to cheat, must be shown to be existing at the very inception to constitute offence under section 420 IPC. The evidence adduced by the prosecution has proved that the accused persons(A3 to A6 & A8 to A10) had acted in dishonest and fraudulent manner right from the time of purchase of cars in question by fabricating Temporary Registration Certificates and other documents for the purpose of getting registration certificates without endorsement of hypothecation and on the basis of the RCs which did not contain endorsement of hypothecation, the banks were induced in sanctioning loans on the purported sale of the said vehicles and as discussed above, the cars bearing registration Nos. DL 3CS 0374, DL 3CS 0968 & DL 3CS 2168 were also subject matter of sale prior to obtaining loans on these vehicles from Punjab National Bank, Anand Vihar Branch on the purported sale of the said vehicles, which shows existence of fraudulent and dishonest intention of the accused persons to cheat at very inception. In CBI, ACB, Mumbai v. Narendra Lal Jain & Ors.(supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to observe CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 146 of 210 : 147 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 that the offences with which the accusedrespondents had been charged are under section 120B/420 IPC and the civil liability of the respondent to pay the amount to the bank has already been settled amicably. However, in the present case, the accused persons apart from section 120B and 420 IPC, have also been charged for the offences under section 467, 468 & 471 IPC. In the circumstances, the decisions in Dr. P. Madan Mohan Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh(supra) and CBI, ACB, Mumbai v. Narendra Lal Jain & Ors(supra) as relied by the accused persons(A3 to A6 & A8 to A10) are of no help to them.

163. In State of Maharashtra through CBI v. Vikram Anantrai Doshi and Others, Criminal Appeal No.2048 of 2014 [Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No.6461 of 2011], Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the question of quashing of criminal proceedings solely on the ground that the parties have entered into a settlement and whether the substantial cause of justice warrants quashing of the criminal proceedings and Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to refer to the decision in Rumi Dhar v. State of W. B. (2009) 6 SCC 364, Central Bureau of Investigation v. A. Ravishanker Prasad and Others (2009) 6 SCC 351, Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another (2012) 10 SCC 303, Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr. 2014(4) SCALE 195, CBI ACB, Mumbai v.

CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 147 of 210

: 148 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 Narendra Lal Jain & Ors. 2014(3) SCALE 137 and Gopakumar B. Nair v. CBI and Anr. 2014 (4) SCALE 659 and Hon'ble Supeme Court has been pleased to hold:

22. In this context, we may usefully refer to a twoJudge Bench decision in Central Bureau of Investigation v. Jagjit Singh, (2013) 10 SCC 686 wherein the court being moved by the CBI had overturned the order of the High Court quashing the criminal proceeding and in that backdrop had taken note of the fact that accused persons had dishonestly induced delivery of the property of the bank and had used forged documents as genuine. Proceeding further the Court opined as follows: "The offences when committed in relation with banking activities including offences under Sections 420/471 IPC have harmful effect on the public and threaten the well-being of the society. These offences fall under the category of offences involving moral turpitude committed by public servants while working in that capacity. Prima facie, one may state that the bank is the victim in such cases but, in fact, the society in general, including customers of the bank is the sufferer. In the present case, there was neither an allegation regarding any abuse of process of any court not anything on record to suggest that the offenders were entitled to secure the order in the ends of justice."

23. We are in respectful agreement with the aforesaid view.

Be it stated, that availing of money from a nationalized bank in the manner, as alleged by the investigating agency, vividly exposits fiscal impurity and, in a way, financial fraud. The modus operandi as narrated in the chargesheet cannot be put in the compartment of an individual or personal wrong. It is a social wrong and it has immense societal impact. It is an accepted principle of handling of finance that whenever there is manipulation and cleverly conceived contrivance to avail of these kind of benefits it cannot be regarded as a case having CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 148 of 210 : 149 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 overwhelmingly and predominantingly of civil character. The ultimate victim is the collective. It creates a hazard in the financial interest of the society. The gravity of the offence creates a dent in the economic spine of the nation. The cleverness which has been skillfully contrived, if the allegations are true, has a serious consequence. A crime of this nature, in our view, would definitely fall in the category of offences which travel far ahead of personal or private wrong. It has the potentiality to usher in economic crisis. Its implications have its own seriousness, for it creates a concavity in the solemnity that is expected in financial transactions. It is not such a case where one can pay the amount and obtain a "no due certificate" and enjoy the benefit of quashing of the criminal proceeding on the hypostasis that nothing more remains to be done. The collective interest of which the Court is the guardian cannot be a silent or a mute spectator to allow the proceedings to be withdrawn, or for that matter yield to the ingenuous dexterity of the accused persons to invoke the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution or under Section 482 of the Code and quash the proceeding. It is not legally permissible.

164. In view of the plea of the accused persons that they have repaid the car loans availed in respect of the car Nos. DL 3CS 0374, DL 3CS 0968, DL 3CS 0969 & DL 3CS 2168 and their consequent admission regarding availing of car loans, the defence of the accused persons that the documents have not been proved in accordance with law or the IO has not seized the documents appropriately, holds no ground.

165. Ld. Counsel for accused persons has contended that in CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 149 of 210 : 150 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 the charge sheet it has been mentioned that GEQD opinion is awaited but no such opinion has been proved by prosecution and the certified copy of statement of accounts of Punjab National Bank, Anand Vihar branch has been proved as per law and Investigating Officer has not conducted investigation fairly and has not explained the delay in filing the charge sheet. Ld. Spl. PP, CBI has contended that the present FIR was registered on the basis of written complaint dated 31.12.2003 of Chief Vigilance Officer, Punjab National Bank making allegations against bank officials namely Shri. R. K. Jain (A1) and R. K. Verma(A2) in making advances in criminal conspiracy with other accused persons with the object to defraud Punjab National Bank to the tune of Rs.301 lacs and during the course of investigation, the illegalities in grant of car loans were also detected and on that account separate charge sheets have filed in respect of grant of car loans and grant of loans/advances/release of Cash Credit Limits. Ld. Spl. PP has contended that GEQD opinion has been sought in the charge sheet pertaining to grant of loans/advances/release of Cash Credit Limits and it appears that on account of inadvertence in the present charge sheet it is mentioned that GEQD opinion is awaited. Ld. Spl. PP, CBI has contended that GEQD opinion was not required in this case as the records/documents of this case prove the involvement of the accused persons in the offence without the aid of GEQD opinion. Ld. Spl. PP, CBI has contended that there has been no delay in filing of the charge sheet and moreover, the accused persons have not been prejudiced in CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 150 of 210 : 151 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 any manner and investigation has been conducted fairly.

166. Accused persons (A3A6 & A8 -A10) have raised plea that the Statements of Account of Punjab National Bank, Anand Vihar Branch have not been proved in accordance with law and IO has not explained the delay in filing the charge sheet and GEQD opinion was not obtained. It is the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that for proving the guilt of the accused it is to be seen that whether the evidence produced by the prosecution is sufficient to arrive at the conclusion that the accused has committed the offence beyond reasonable doubt and the cases are not decided on the basis of evidence which has not been collected by the prosecution. The evidence, produced by the prosecution has proved that the accused persons namely, Kamal Nangia, Divya Nangia, Niranjan Kumar Nangia and Veenu Nagia had taken loans from Bank of Punjab Ltd. for purchasing vehicles bearing DL 3CS 0374, DL 3CS 0969, DL 3CS 0968 and DL 3CS 2168 from M/s Nimbus Motors Pvt. Ltd., Noida and had acquired physical possession of the said vehicles and on the basis of forged and fabricated documents loans for purported sale of said vehicles in favour of Vicky Kumar Rana, Deepak Kumar Rana, Chandan Kumar Rana and Vijay Kumar Rana were obtained from Punjab National Bank, Anand Vihar branch. Even if, the Statements of Accounts of Punjab National Bank are excluded from the evidence in appreciating the case of the CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 151 of 210 : 152 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 prosecution, the remaining evidence adduced by prosecution is sufficient to prove the guilt of accused persons. In view of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, I find no force in the contention of the accused persons(A3 to A6 & A8 to A10) that the prosecution has not proved the documents in accordance with law or that records have not been appropriately seized by CBI. PW17, who has filed the charge sheet, stated that he had not obtained any opinion of handwriting expert and in the charge sheet he has not explained the delay between the date of registration of FIR and filing of charge sheet in the court. The accused persons have not proved that any specific period has been prescribed for filing the charge sheet and they have been prejudiced in any manner on account of filing of the charge sheet in the year 2010.

167. In State of Karnataka v. K. Yarappa Reddy, AIR 2000 Supreme Court 185(1), Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold:

19. But can the above finding (that the Station House Diary is not genuine) have any inevitable bearing on the other evidence in this case? If the other evidence, on scrutiny, is found credible and acceptable, should the Court be influenced by the machinations demonstrated by the Investigating Officer in conducting investigation or in preparing the records so unscrupulously. It can be CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 152 of 210 : 153 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 a guiding principle that as investigation is not the solitary area for judicial scrutiny in a criminal trial, the conclusion of the Court in the case cannot be allowed to depend solely on the probity of investigation. It is well nigh settled that even if the investigation is illegal or even suspicious the rest of evidence must be scrutinized independently of the impact of it. Otherwise criminal trial will plummet to the level of the Investigating Officer ruling the roost. The Court must have predominance and preeminence in criminal trials over the action taken by Investigating Officers. Criminal justice should not be made the casualty for the wrongs committed by the Investigating Officers in the case. In other words, if the Court is convinced that the testimony of a witness to the occurrence is true the Court is free to act on it albeit Investigating Officer's suspicious role in the case.

168. In State of Rajasthan v. Kishore, AIR 1996 Supreme Court 3035(1), Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold :

18. It is equally true that the investigating officer, PW8 committed grave irregularity in omitting to send the burnt clothes and other incriminating material for chemical examination to lend corroboration to the evidence. Mere fact that the investigating officer CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 153 of 210 : 154 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 committed irregularity or illegality during the course of the investigation would not and does not cast doubt on the prosecution case nor trustworthy and reliable evidence can be cast aside to record acquittal on that account.

169. In view of the decision in State of Karnataka v. K. Yarappa Reddy (supra), and State of Rajasthan v. Kishore, AIR 1996 Supreme Court 3035(1)(supra) also there is no force in the contentions of the accused persons that investigating officer has not obtained the GEQD opinion as the evidence on record is sufficient to arrive at the conclusion of guilt of accused persons (A3 to A6 & A8 to A10).

Role of accused R. K. Jain(A1) (Public Servant)

170. The allegations of prosecution are that accused R. K. Jain(A1) was posted as Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank Anand Vihar, New Delhi from 20.01.2001 to 31.5.2003 and during the said period he sanctioned loan of Rs.2 lacs each to Vijay Kumar Rana and his sons i.e. Deepak Kumar Rana, Chandan Kumar Rana and Vicky Kumar Rana for purchase of second hand cars from Veenu Nangia w/o Niranjan Kumar Nangia, Divya Nangia d/o Niranjan Kumar Nangia, Niranjan Kumar Nangia and Kamal Kumar Nangia s/o Niranjan Kumar Nangia respectively who had earlier availed CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 154 of 210 : 155 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 finance from Bank of Punjab Ltd. against the said cars and dues of the Bank of Punjab Ltd. had not been liquidated. It is further alleged that the documents of Punjab National Bank, Anand Vihar do not contain any correspondence from the said bank with Transport Department in respect of vehicle no. DL 3CS 0374 for making endorsement of hypothecation and accused Vicky Kumar Rana obtained loan in respect of this vehicle showing that the vehicle is not hypothecated to any bank and accused R. K. Jain(A1) sanctioned the loan without proper scrutiny and any security.

171. It is further alleged by the prosecution that Punjab National Bank, Anand Vihar, Delhi did not request the RTO, Sheikh Sarai for hypothecation of Car No.DL 3CS 0969 in favour of Punjab National Bank, Anand Vihar, Delhi and accused R. K. Jain disbursed Rs.50,000/ more to accused Deepak Kumar Rana(A8) over and above the sanctioned amount for purchase of this car. It is further alleged that car No. DL 3CS 0968 was already sold by accused Niranjan Kumar Nangia to Virender Pal Singh and the said car was hypothecated to Punjab National Bank, South Extension, New Delhi and accused R. K. Jain(A1) dishonestly sanctioned the loan to accused Chandan Kumar Rana for purchase of the said car without proper verification.

172. The prosecution has alleged that car No.DL 3CS 2168 CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 155 of 210 : 156 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 was already sold by accused Veenu Nangia(A4) to Vijay Kumar Rana(A7) and was hypothecated to Punjab National Bank, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi and accused R. K. Jain(A1) again sanctioned the loan on 21.11.2002 in favour of Vijay Kumar Rana for purchase of this car from Veenu Nangia without proper verification and without taking sale & purchase agreement executed between Veenu Nangia and Vijay Kumar Rana and accused R. K. Jain did not ensure that hypothecation was created in favour of Punjab National Bank, Anand Vihar in the records of RTO. The prosecution has alleged that accused R. K. Jain(A1) disbursed Rs.50,000/ more to accused Vijay Kumar Rana over & above the sanctioned amount of Rs.two lacs for purchase of car No.DL 3CS 2168. The prosecution has further alleged that bank's charge and transfer of cars in the borrower's name is not on record in the RC of any of the four car loan accounts and car loan account of accused Vicky Rana was adjusted on 31.03.2003 by debiting CC A/c of M/s Oberoi Marketing, Proprietor Chandan Kumar Rana(A10) and in one of accounts old RC was not taken and name of guarantor has not been proposed in two accounts.

173. The contention of ld. Counsel for accused(A1) is that accused R. K. Jain (A1) was Manager of the Punjab National Bank, Anand Vihar Branch and the acts which were performed by him were done in his usual course of duties. The Ld. Counsel for accused R. K. Jain (A1) has further contended that applications for loans are CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 156 of 210 : 157 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 processed by the concerned officers and after processing the applications, if the applicants are found to be eligible for loan and if no deficiencies are found in the proposal for loan, the same are put up before the Branch Manager for sanction and it is the job of officer dealing with proposal for loan to ensure that the all the formalities for sanction of loan are complied before putting the same before the Branch Manager for sanction of the loan and after sanction of the loan, it is the duty of the officers concerned to ensure that the post sanction formalities i.e. creation of hypothecation in favour of the bank etc. are complied. Ld. Counsel for accused R. K. Jain (A1) has further contended that the prosecution has not alleged that accused no.1 being Branch Manager was not competent to sanction the loan or that he (A1) exceeded his financial powers in sanctioning the loan. It is contended by Ld. Counsel for accused R. K. Jain (A1) that after sanction of the loan by Branch Manager, the transfer vouchers are prepared by the officers concerned and in the circumstances, it cannot be said that accused(A1) had any role in transferring any amount over and above the sanctioned amount in favour of any of the co accused persons. Ld. Counsel for accused no. 1 has contended that prosecution has not adduced any evidence to prove that accused no. 1 was not competent to sanction the loans as alleged and that he abused his official position in any manner and moreover all the four car loan accounts stood adjusted and the bank has recovered the dues along with the interest and no loss has been caused to the bank.

CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 157 of 210

: 158 : CBI Case No. : 20/16

174. The contention of Ld. Counsel for accused R.K. Jain (A1) is that at the relevant time, accused R.K. Jain (A1) was the Branch Manager and the allegations as mentioned in the charge sheet pertain to the banking practices and as per the allegations it cannot be said that accused R.K. Jain (A1) had committed any offence as per Section 13(1)(d) and Section 13(2) of the PC Act.

175. Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 deals with criminal misconduct by a public servant. Section 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 provides:

"13. Criminal misconduct by a public servant. (1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct, ..........

..........

(d) if he,

(i) by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or

(ii) by abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or

(iii) while holding office as a public servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest;"

176. In State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Sheetla Sahai and Ors.

MANU/SC/1425/2009, Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold:

53. *.........................................

.........................................* In Inspector Prem Chand v. Govt. of N.C.T. Of Delhi and Ors. 2007 CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 158 of 210 : 159 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 AIR SCW 2532, this Court observed:

In State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Singh Ex. Constable MANU/SC/0426/1992 : 1992 (4) SCC 54, it was stated:

Misconduct has been defined in Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition at page 999, thus:

'A transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a for bidden act, a dereliction from duty, unlawful behaviour, wilful in character, improper or wrong behaviour, its synonyms are misde meanor, misdeed, misbehavior, delinquency, impropriety, mismanage ment, offense, but not negligence or carelessness.' Misconduct in office has been defined as:

Any unlawful behaviour by a public officer in relation to the duties of his office, willful in character. Term embraces acts which the officer holder had no right to perform, acts performed improperly, and fail ure to act in the face of an affirmative duty to act. In P. Ramanatha Aiyar's Law Lexicon, 3rd edition, at page 3027, the term 'misconduct' has been defined as under: The term 'misconduot' implies, a wrongful intention, and not a mere error of judgment.

Misconduct is not necessarily the same thing as conduct involving moral turpitude.

The word 'misconduct' is a relative term, and has to be construed with reference to the subject matter and the context wherein the term oc curs, having regard to the scope of the Act or statue which is being construed. Misconduct literally means wrong conduct or improper conduct.

177. In Runu Ghosh v. CBI, Crl. A. 482/2002, MANU/DE/6909/2011, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has been pleased to hold:

68. Before embarking on a discussion of the case law cited, and the sub missions regarding the interpretation of Section 13 (1) (d), it would be essential, at this stage to notice the Statement of Objects and Reasons for the 1988 Act. They are extracted below:

The Bill is intended to make the existing anticorruption laws more effective by widening their coverage and by strengthening the provisions.

CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 159 of 210

: 160 : CBI Case No. : 20/16

2. The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, was amended in 1964 based on the recommendations of the Santhanam Commit tee. There are provisions in Chapter IX of the Indian Penal Code to deal with public servants and those who abet them by way of criminal misconduct. There are also provisions in the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944, to enable attach ment of illgotton wealth obtained through corrupt means, in cluding from transferees of such wealth. The Bill seeks to incor porate all these provisions with modifications so as to make the provisions more effective in combating corruption among public servants.

3. The Bill, inter alia, envisages widening the scope of the defini tion of the expression public servant, incorporation of offences under Section 161 to 165 A of the Indian Penal Code, enhance ment of penalties provided for these offences and incorporation of a provision that the order of the trial court upholding the grant of sanction for prosecution would be final if it has not al ready been challenged and the trial has commenced. In order to expedite the proceedings, provisions for daytoday trial of cases and prohibitory provisions with regard to grant of stay and exer cise of powers of revision on interlocutory orders have also been included.

4. Since the provisions of Section 161 to 165A are incorporated in the proposed legislation with an enhanced punishment, it is not necessary to retain those sections in the Indian Penal Code.

Consequently, it is proposed to delete those sections with the necessary saving provision.

5. The notes on clauses explain in detail the provisions of the Bill.

..................................

78. In a previous part of this judgment, what constitutes "public inter est" and the trust element, which informs every decision of a public ser vant or agency, was discussed and emphasized. The State in its myriad functions enters into contracts, of various kinds, involves itself in regu lation, awards or grants largesse, and holds property. Each action of the State must further the social or economic goals sought to be achieved by the policy. Therefore, when a public servant's decision ex CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 160 of 210 : 161 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 hibits complete and manifest disregard to public interest with the corre sponding result of a third party obtaining pecuniary advantage or valu able thing, he is fastened with responsibility for "criminal misconduct"

under Section 13(1) (d) (iii). There is nothing reprehensible in this in terpretation, because the "act" being "without public interest" is the key, the controlling expression, to this offence. If one contrasts this with "abuse" of office resulting in someone "obtaining" "pecuniary advan tage or valuable thing", it is evident that Section 13(1) (d) (ii) may or may not entail the act being without public interest. This offence under Section 13(1)(d) (iii) advisedly does not require proof of intent, or mens rea, because what Parliament intended was to punish public servants for acts which were without public interest. This kind of offence is simi lar to those intended to deal with other social evils, such as food and drug adulteration, (offences under Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, Section 13(1), Drugs and Cosmetics Act; Section 7 (1) Essential Com modities Act, 1955, Section 25, Arms Act, 1959), possession of explo sives, air and water pollution, etc.

79. What then is the behaviour or act which attracts such oppro brium as to result in criminal responsibility? It is not every act which results in loss of public interest, or that is contrary to public interest, that is prosecutable offence. There can be no doubt that all acts prejudi cial to public interest, can be the subject matter of judicial review. In those cases, courts consider whether the decision maker transgressed the zone of reasonableness, or breached the law, in his action. However, it is only those acts done with complete and manifest disregard to the norms, and manifestly injurious to public interest, which were avoid able, but for the public servant's overlooking or disregarding precau tions and not heeding the safeguards he or she was expected to, and CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 161 of 210 : 162 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 which result in pecuniary advantage to another that are prosecutable under Section 13(1)(d) (iii) . In other words, if the public servant is able to show that he followed all the safeguards, and exercised all rea sonable precautions having regard to the circumstances, despite which there was loss of public interest, he would not be guilty of the offence. The provision aims at ensuring efficiency, and responsible behaviour, as much as it seeks to outlaw irresponsibility in public servant's func tioning which would otherwise go unpunished. The blameworthiness for a completely indefensible act of a public servant, is to be of such degree that it is something that no reasonable man would have done, if he were placed in that position, having regard to all the circumstances. It is not merely a case of making a wrong choice; the decision should be one such as no one would have taken.

81. As noticed previously, the silence in the statute, about the state of mind, rules out applicability of the mens rea or intent standard, (i.e. the prosecution does not have to prove that the accused intended the conse quence, which occurred or was likely to occur). Having regard to the existing law Section 13 (1) (e) (which does not require proof of criminal intent) as well as the strict liability standards prevailing our system of law, therefore, a decision is said to be without public interest, (if the other requirements of the provision, i.e. Section 13 (1) (d) (iii) are ful filled) if that action of the public servant is consequence of his or her manifest failure to observe those reasonable safeguards against detri ment to the public interest, which having regard to all circumstances, it was his or her duty to have adopted.

...................................

130. Now, the expression "abuse" of office by an accused is not new; it CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 162 of 210 : 163 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 has been in the lexicon in the context of corruption laws, for over six and a half decades. The best exposition of what action would be "abuse" is to be found in Narayana Nambiar (supra):

The juxtaposition of the work otherwise' with the words corrupt or illegal means', and the dishonest implicit in the word abuse' in dicate the necessity for a dishonest intention on his part to bring him within the meaning of the clause. Whether he abused his po sition or not depends upon the facts of each case."

178. PW3 Sh. P.K. Singh stated that the loan file of accused Chandan Kumar Rana (D18) in respect of vehicle no. DL 3CS 0968 contains blank format of guarantor information and this file also does not contain copy of registration certificate of any vehicle and there is one delivery receipt of the vehicle and it does not bear signatures of anybody. PW3 further stated that the file (D18) in respect of vehicle no. DL 3CS 0968 contains copy of Saral Form in the name of Chandan Rana reflecting his annual income as Rs. 62,026/ and the EMI has been fixed as Rs. 4500/ . PW3 Sh. P.K. Singh stated that the loan file of accused Deepak Kumar Rana (D19) in respect of vehicle no. DL 3CS 0969 contains copy of RC in which there is no endorsement of any hypothecation and the guarantor information in this file bears name of Vicky Rana but the remaining format is blank and is not signed by any officer of the bank and the balance and security confirmation letter is also blank and bears only stamp of bank and is not signed by any officer. PW3 Sh. P.K. Singh further stated that car loan file of accused Vijay Kumar Rana (D20) in respect of vehicle no. DL 3CS 2168 contains carbon copy of letter addressed CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 163 of 210 : 164 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 to Vijay Kumar Rana which is not singed by any officer and this file also contains blank format of Form 30 and the letter of hypothecation to secure terms loan in this file is also not signed by any officer of the bank. PW3 Sh. P.K. Singh stated that car loan file of accused Vicky Kumar Rana (D21) in respect of vehicle no. DL 3CS 0374 contains delivery receipt which does not bear signatures of any person and the Guarantor Information Sheet in this file is blank and the balance and security confirmation letter is also blank. PW3 stated that there is no endorsement of hypothecation of the vehicle in the name of the bank in all the files i.e. D18 to D21 and all these files do not bear any registration certificate showing that the vehicles have been transferred in the name of the borrowers.

179. In the crossexamination, PW3 Shri P. K. Singh admitted that file (D18) contains cover note of Insurance Policy and Agreement to Sell Ex.PW7/C & Ex.PW7/D respectively. PW3 further stated in cross examination that in file (D19) the Insurance Cover Note and Agreement to Sell are Ex.PW7/R & Ex.PW7/S respectively. PW3 further admitted in cross examination that file (D20) contains Insurance Cover Note Ex. PW7/Z3, Valuation Report Ex.PW7/Z1 and Agreement of Guarantee Ex. PW3/DX2. PW3 stated in cross examination that the file (D21) contains Insurance Cover note Ex.PW7/Z10 and Agreement to Sell Ex.PW7/Z14. PW3 further stated in cross examination that Banking Guidelines provide for CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 164 of 210 : 165 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 obtaining money receipt but he does not remember as to where the same is mentioned. PW3 further stated in cross examination that he had told the Branch Manager regarding bearing of stamp of bank only and not the signatures of any officers in file (D19) and he had given a list of deficiencies to branch manager for removal. PW3 also stated the deficiencies regarding signatures of bank officials as pointed out by him are curable.

180. PW7 Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta stated in the cross examination that old car can also be financed and there is no bar to one account holder/family in a bank selling car to another account holder. PW7 further stated in the cross examination that condition of guarantee in such a case can be waived. PW7 further stated in the cross examination that Branch Manager is authorized to sanction car loan but within his financial power. Thereafter, PW7 stated in cross examination that it is correct that the car loans which are subject matter of this case were sanctioned by Branch Manager within his powers.

181. As per evidence adduced on record, the allegations of prosecution against accused R. K. Jain(A1) are that while sanctioning car loans in this case, he did not carefully scrutinize the records in order to ensure that all the required documents have been taken and the documents have been properly filled and he did not ensure that CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 165 of 210 : 166 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 the loan applications have been processed as per norms of the bank.

The prosecution has further alleged against accused R. K. Jain(A1) that he(A1) disbursed Rs.50,000/ over and above the sanctioned amount of Rs.2 lacs to each of the accused persons namely Divya Nangia(A6) & Veenu Nangia(A4) for sale of their cars bearing registration No.DL 3CS 0969 & No.DL 3CS 2168 to accused Deepak Kumar Rana and Vijay Kumar Rana respectively. The plea which has been raised by accused R.K. Jain(A1) is that the car loans which were sanctioned by him in this case were within his financial powers and as Branch Manager he was competent to sanction the car loan and he has not exercised his powers in illegal manner and the deficiencies as pointed out by the prosecution, were curable. Further plea of accused(A1) is that processing of loan applications and scrutiny of documents was to be done by officers concerned and he was to accord sanction on the basis of report prepared by the Processing Officers and report of the processing officers did not point out any deficiencies in the car loan proposals and they recommended for sanction of the loan and accordingly he(A1) exercised his powers in usual course of discharge of his duties in a bona fide manner. Accused(A1) has further pleaded that Debit Vouchers, Transfer Vouchers & the Cash Orders by which amount of Rs.2.5 lacs each was paid to accused Divya Nangia & accused Veenu Nangia(A4) were not issued under his(A1) authority and none of these documents bear his(A1) signature and no culpability can be attached to his acts and moreover, CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 166 of 210 : 167 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 all the car loans have been repaid and no loss has been caused to the bank.

182. PW 3 Shri P. K. Singh stated in examinationinchief that from 05.02.2003 to 25.02.2003 he conducted regular inspection of Anand Vihar Branch of Punjab National Bank and he submitted the report in which he has mentioned the irregularities found during the course of inspection. In the cross examination, PW3 admitted that the inspection report prepared by him is Ex. PW3/DX1 and in portion A to A on page 42 of the said report, he has mentioned regarding the car loan accounts as :

"Annexure 5 Registration of documents with the Appropriate Authority Joint registration certificate of conveyance loans to Public/staff are not held on record in the following accounts:

         S.No.       Name of Borrowers   Scheme                                           Balance       DOA
                                                                                          Outstanding 
           1.           Deepak Kumar Rana Car to Public 205242=00                                       20.11.02
           2.           Vijay Kumar Rana                           do                   205169=00     20.11.02
           3.           Chandan Kumar                              do                   202279=00     31.12.02
           4.           Vicky Kumar Rana                             ''                   189423=00     31.12.02
                                                                                  
                                                                                    Rs.8,02,113=00

The above car loans were sanctioned to different members of one family on old car (2nd hand). The documents are incomplete in all the above vehicle loan accounts. Agreement to Sale, money receipt, bills, insurance are not held on record. Letter of guarantee 58 (H) is blank in all the four accounts and neither signed by guarantor nor bank."

183. The main thrust of arguments of Ld. Spl. PP for CBI is that accused R. K. Jain being the Branch Manager while sanctioning the car loans failed to follow the norms and guidelines of the bank and CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 167 of 210 : 168 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 did not ensure that all the formalities for sanction of car loans were complied. The argument of accused R. K. Jain(A1) is that it was not his personal responsibility to ensure the completion of formalities before sanction of the loan as the same was to be done by the officers subordinate to him and he(A1) sanctioned the loan on the recommendation of the subordinate officials and loan officer. The prosecution has not proved any rules, regulations, circulars or guidelines of the Punjab National Bank governing sanction of car loans in order to prove that the Bank Manager was personally responsible to ensure that the presanction formalities have been fulfilled before according sanction.

184. In A. Sivaprakash v. State of Kerala, MANU/SC/ 0541/ 2016, Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold :

17. Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act reads as under:

13. Criminal misconduct by a public servant (1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct, xxxx

(d) If he,

(i) by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or

(ii) by abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or

(iii) while holding office as a public servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 168 of 210 : 169 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 advantage without any public interest; or The prosecution has sought to cover the case of the Appellant under Subclause (ii) and not under Subclause (i) and Sub clause (iii). Insofar as Subclause (ii) is concerned, it stipulates that a public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct if he, by abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage. Thus, the ingredients which will be required to be proved are:

(1) The public servant has abused his position. (2) By abusing that position, he has obtained for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage.

18. It was not even the case set up by the prosecution that Appellant had taken that money from some person and had obtained any pecuniary advantage thereby. It was the obligation of the prosecution to satisfy the aforesaid mandatory ingredients which could implicate the Appellant under the provisions of Section 13(1) (d)(ii). The attempt of the prosecution was to bring the case within the fold of Clause (ii) alleging that he misused his official position in issuing the certificate utterly fails as it is not even alleged in the chargesheet and not even iota of evidence is led as to what kind of pecuniary advantage was obtained by the Appellant in issuing the said letter.

19. In C. Chenga Reddy and Ors. v. State of A.P. MANU/SC/0928/1996 : (1996) 10 SCC 193, this Court held that even when codal violations were established and it was also proved that there were irregularities committed by allotting/ awarding the work in violation of circulars, that by itself was not sufficient to prove that a criminal case was made out. The Court went on to hold:

22. On a careful consideration of the material on the record, we are of the opinion that though the prosecution CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 169 of 210 : 170 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 has established that the Appellants have committed not only codal violations but also irregularities by ignoring various circulars and departmental orders issued from time to time in the matter of allotment of work of jungle clearance on nomination basis and have committed departmental lapse yet, none of the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are of any conclusive nature and all the circumstances put together do not lead to the irresistible conclusion that the said circumstances are compatible only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the Appellants and wholly incompatible with their innocence.

In Abdulla Mohd. Pagarkar v. State (Union Territory of Goa, Daman and Diu) MANU/SC/0632/1979 : (1980) 3 SCC 110, under somewhat similar circumstances this Court opined that mere disregard of relevant provisions of the Financial Code as well as ordinary norms of procedural behaviour of government officials and contractors, without conclusively establishing, beyond a reasonable doubt, the guilt of the officials and contractors concerned, may give rise to a strong suspicion but that cannot be held to establish the guilt of the accused. The established circumstances in this case also do not establish criminality of the Appellants beyond the realm of suspicion and, in our opinion, the approach of the trial court and the High Court to the requirements of proof in relation to a criminal charge was not proper....

185. The prosecution has not proved the rules, regulations, notification, circulars & guidelines of Punjab National Bank in order to prove that as per the said rules, regulations, notification, circulars & guidelines of the Punjab National Bank, accused R. K. Jain (A1) was duty bound to ensure that all the formalities prescribed for sanction of car loan were to be personally checked by accused R. K. CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 170 of 210 : 171 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 Jain(A1) and by not fulfilling his duties, he sanctioned car loans to accused persons by abusing his official position.

186. The allegation of prosecution is also that accused R. K. Jain(A1) disbursed Rs.50,000/ over and above the sanctioned amount of Rs.2 lacs to each of the accused persons namely Divya Nangia(A6) & Veenu Nangia(A4) for sale of their cars bearing registration No. DL 3CS 0969 & No.DL 3CS 2168 to accused Deepak Kumar Rana and Vijay Kumar Rana respectively. The plea of accused R. K. Jain is that he had only sanctioned the loan of Rs.2 lacs to each of the accused persons within his financial powers in bona fide discharge of his duties and disbursal of amount was done by other officials entrusted with the said task and none of the documents by which amount of Rs.2.5 lacs each was disbursed to accused Divya Nangia(A6) and Veenu Nangia(A4) is signed by him.

187. The Credit Voucher Transfer in sum of Rs.2.5 lacs for preparing cash order in the name of Divya Nangia, bearing endorsement "Debit voucher passed" and bearing the signatures of authorized officer is Ex.PW16/B(D28), cash order No.867910 dated 26.11.2002 for Rs.2.5 lacs in the name of Divya Nangia drawn on Punjab National Bank, Anand Vihar, Delhi is Ex.PW16/C(D29), Transfer Credit voucher in the sum of Rs.2.5 lacs is Ex.PW16/B(D28) and sundry voucher is Ex.PW16/A(D27) and CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 171 of 210 : 172 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 PW16 Shri Jugal Kishore stated that Ex.PW16/A, Ex.PW16/C & Transfer Voucher Ex.PW16/D are signed by R. K. Verma at point A and Ex.PW16/B is signed by R.K.Verma at points A & A1. As per testimony of PW16, all the documents by which a sum of Rs.2.5 lacs was disbursed in the name of Divya Nangia i.e. sundry voucher Ex.PW16/A(D27), the Transfer Credit Voucher Ex.PW16/B(D28), cash order Ex. PW16/C(D29) & Transfer Voucher Ex.PW16/D(D30) have been signed by accused R. K. Verma(A2) as Officer authorized in this regard.

188. The Credit Voucher Transfer in sum of Rs.2.5 lacs for preparing cash order in the name of Veenu Nangia, bearing endorsement "Debit voucher passed" and bearing the signatures of authorized officer is Ex.PW16/F(D33), cash order No.867916 dated 21.11.2002 for Rs.2.5 lacs in the name of Veenu Nangia drawn on Punjab National Bank, Anand Vihar, Delhi is Ex.PW16/G(D34) and Debit Voucher in the sum of Rs.2.5 lacs is Ex.PW16/H(D35) and PW16 Shri Jugal Kishore stated that Ex.PW16/G & Ex.PW16/H are signed by R. K. Verma at point A and Ex.PW16/F is signed by R. K.Verma at points A & A1. As per testimony of PW16, all the documents by which a sum of Rs.2.5 lacs was disbursed in the name of Veenu Nangia i.e., Transfer Credit Voucher Ex.PW16/F(D33), cash order Ex. PW16/G(D34) & Debit Voucher Ex.PW16/H(D35) have been signed by accused R. K. Verma(A2) by signing as Officer CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 172 of 210 : 173 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 authorized in this regard.

189. As per file, Ex. PW4/I(colly) (D18), a sum of Rs.2 lacs was sanctioned to accused Chandan Kumar Rana for purchase of car No.DL 3CS 0968 by accused R. K. Jain(A1) by singing the loan application Ex. PW7/A at point B and by making endorsement "As recommended sanctioned a T/L of Rs.two lacs". As per file, Ex.PW4/H(colly) (D19), a sum of Rs.2 lacs was sanctioned to accused Deepak Kumar Rana for purchase of car No. DL 3CS 0969 by accused R. K. Jain(A1) by singing the loan application Ex. PW7/O at point B and by making endorsement "As recommended sanctioned a T/L of Rs.two lacs for purchase of Santro Hyundai Car". As per file Ex. PW4/J(colly)(D20), a sum of Rs.2 lacs was sanctioned to accused Vijay Kumar Rana for purchase of car No.DL 3CS 2168 by accused R. K. Jain(A1) by singing the loan application Ex.PW7/Z(colly) at point B and by making endorsement "sanctioned". As per file Ex.PW4/G(colly) (D21), a sum of Rs.2 lacs was sanctioned to accused Vicky Kumar Rana for purchase of car No.DL 3CS 0374 by accused R. K. Jain(A1) by singing the loan application Ex.PW7/Z10 at point B and by making endorsement "As recommended sanctioned a T/L of Rs.two lacs". Hence, as per evidence on record, accused R. K. Jain(A1) had sanctioned a loan of Rs.2 lacs each to accused persons, namely Vijay Kumar Rana, Deepak Kumar Rana, Chandan Kumar Rana & Vickey Kumar Rana CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 173 of 210 : 174 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 for purchase of second hand cars. The prosecution has not proved that accused R. K. Jain(A1) being Branch Manager of Punjab National Bank, Anand Vihar Branch was not authorized to sanction loan of Rs.2 lacs to an applicant intending to purchase second hand car. As per Ex.PW16/A(D27) to Ex. PW16/D(D30) and Ex. PW16/F(D33) to Ex. PW16/H(D35), the sum of Rs.2.5 lacs each was disbursed to accused Divya Nangia and accused Veenu Nangia by accused R. K. Verma(A2). The prosecution has not proved that the amount of Rs.2.5 lacs each was disbursed by accused R. K. Verma to accused Divya Nangia(A6) and Veenu Nangia(A4) on the instructions of accused R. K. Jain(A1). Prosecution has not adduced any evidence to the effect that accused R. K. Jain(A1) was responsible for disbursing a sum of Rs.50,000/ over and above the sanctioned amount of Rs.2 lacs to accused persons, Divya Nangia & Veenu Nangia.

190. The accused R. K. Jain has also been charged for committing the offences punishable under sections 120B, 409, 420 & 471 IPC being Branch Manager of Punjab National Bank, Anand Vihar branch and having dominion over the funds of the bank and thereby sanctioned four car loans of Rs.2 lacs each in criminal conspiracy with other accused persons on the basis of fake, forged and fabricated documents and obtained pecuniary advantage to other accused persons and committed criminal breach of trust in respect of CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 174 of 210 : 175 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 public money and thereby caused pecuniary loss to public sector bank i.e. Punjab National Bank, Anand Vihar branch, Delhi.

191. In State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Sheetla Sahai and Ors.

MANU/SC/1425/2009, Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold:

49. Criminal conspiracy has been defined in Section 120A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 to mean:

When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done, (1) an illegal act, or (2) an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy:

Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof.

Explanation. It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimate object of such agreement, or is merely incidental to that object. Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code provides for punishment for criminal conspiracy.

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 CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 175 of 210 : 176 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 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.

In Kehar Singh and Ors. v. State (Delhi Administration) MANU/SC/ 0241/ 1988 : 1988 (3) SCC 609 at 731, this Court has quoted the following passage from Russell on Crimes (12th Edn. Vol 1):

The gist of the offence of conspiracy then lies, not in doing the act, or effecting the purpose for which the conspiracy is formed, nor in attempting to do them, nor in inciting others to do them, but in the forming of the scheme or agreement between the parties. Agreement is essential. Mere Knowledge, or even discussion, of the plan is not, per se enough.

In State (NCT) of Delhi v. Naviot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru MANU/SC/0465/2005 : (2005) 11 SCC 600, this Court stated the law, thus:

CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 176 of 210

: 177 : CBI Case No. : 20/16

101. One more principle which deserves notice is that the cumulative effect of the proved circumstances should be taken into account in determining the guilt of the accused rather than adopting an isolated approach to each of the circumstances. Of course, each one of the circumstances should be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Lastly, in regard to the appreciation of evidence relating to the conspiracy, the Court must take care to see that the acts or conduct of the parties must be conscious and clear enough to infer their concurrence as to the common design and its execution."

192. Accused R. K. Jain(A1) has contended that it has not been proved that he(A1) obtained any pecuniary advantage and the prosecution has not proved that he was part of the conspiracy in creating forged and fabricated documents of the cars or that it was within his knowledge that the documents of the cars were forged and fabricated and he sanctioned the loans despite knowing the use of forged and fabricated documents by other accused persons. Ld. Spl.PP for CBI has contended that accused R. K. Jain(A1) did not verify the genuineness of the documents on the basis of which loan was sanctioned by him to the other accused persons and in the circumstances, it cannot be said that he was not the part of the conspiracy with other accused persons.

193. It is well settled proposition of law that a conspiracy is always hatched in secrecy and it is impossible to adduce direct evidence of the same and the offence of conspiracy can be only proved largely from the inferences drawn from acts or illegal CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 177 of 210 : 178 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 omission committed by the Conspirators in pursuance of a common design. Although, prosecution has pleaded that accused R. K. Jain sanctioned car loans on the basis of forged documents but no evidence has been adduced to prove that accused R. K. Jain was involved in fabrication of documents which were used for obtaining loans by other accused persons. The prosecution has also not adduced any evidence to the effect that it was well within the knowledge of accused R. K. Jain(A1) that the documents on the basis of which loans were sanctioned, are forged and fabricated or that there were any rules/orders/notifications/circulars/guidelines of the bank by which mandated him to verify the authenticity of the documents before according sanction of the car loans. The prosecution has failed to prove the allegations against the accused R. K. Jain(A1) on the touchstone of the principles as laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of A. Sivaprakash v. State of Kerala (supra). In the circumstances, it cannot be said that accused R. K. Jain(A1) was part of conspiracy with other accused persons, as alleged by the prosecution and in pursuance of the same, he being the Branch Manager having dominion over funds of the bank criminally mis conducted himself by abusing his official position as public servant and committed criminal breach of trust and thereby intentionally caused wrongful loss to the public sector bank i.e. Punjab National Bank.

CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 178 of 210

: 179 : CBI Case No. : 20/16

194. The evidence on record has proved that the accused persons(A3 to A6 & A8 to A10) had entered into criminal conspiracy in order to cause wrongful loss to Punjab National Bank, Anand Vihar Branch, Delhi and wrongful gain to themselves and in pursuance of criminal conspiracy, accused Kamal Kumar Nangia(A5) & accused Vicky Kumar Rana(A9) purportedly entered into agreement of sale of car No.DL 3CS 0374 on the basis of forged documents of the said car which was already hypothecated to Bank of Punjab Ltd. and which was sold by accused Kamal Kumar Nangia(A5) to Nitin Luthra also and transferred in the records of RTO, Sheikh Sarai in the name of Nitin Luthra on 14.01.2003 and accused Vicky Kumar Rana(A9) never acquired possession of car No. DL 3CS 0374 and loan on the purported purchase of the said car by accused Vicky Kumar Rana(A9) was fraudulently obtained from Punjab National Bank, Anand Vihar Branch with dishonest intention and thereby wrongful loss was caused to Punjab National Bank, Anand Vihar Branch, Delhi and wrongful gain to accused Kamal Kumar Nangia(A5) and accused Vicky Kumar Rana(A9).

195. The evidence on record has proved that in pursuance of criminal conspiracy, accused Divya Nangia(A6) & accused Deepak Kumar Rana(A8) purportedly entered into agreement of sale of car No.DL 3CS 0969 on the basis of forged documents of the said car CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 179 of 210 : 180 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 which was already hypothecated to Bank of Punjab Ltd. and accused Deepak Kumar Rana(A8) never acquired possession of car No. DL 3CS 0969 and loan on the purported purchase of the said car by accused Deepak Kumar Rana(A8) was fraudulently obtained from Punjab National Bank, Anand Vihar Branch with dishonest intention and wrongful loss was caused to Punjab National Bank, Anand Vihar Branch, Delhi and wrongful gain to accused Divya Nangia(A6) and accused Deepak Kumar Rana(A8).

196. The evidence on record has also proved that in pursuance of criminal conspiracy, accused Niranjan Kumar Nangia(A3) & accused Chandan Kumar Rana(A10) purportedly entered into agreement of sale of car No. DL 3CS 0968 on the basis of forged documents of the said car which was already hypothecated to Bank of Punjab Ltd. and which was previously sold by accused Niranjan Kumar Nangia(A3) to Virender Pal Singh also and transferred in the records of RTO, Sheikh Sarai in the name of Virender Pal Singh on 08.11.2001 and purchase of the said car by Virender Pal Singh was financed by Punjab National Bank, South Ext., PartI, New Delhi and car was also hypothecated to said bank and accused Chandan Kumar Rana(A10) never acquired possession of car No. DL 3CS 0968 and loan for the purported purchase of the said car by accused Chandan Kumar Rana(A10) was fraudulently obtained from Punjab National CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 180 of 210 : 181 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 Bank, Anand Vihar Branch with dishonest intention and wrongful loss was caused to Punjab National Bank, Anand Vihar Branch, Delhi and wrongful gain to accused Niranjan Kumar Nangia(A3) and accused Chandan Kumar Rana(A10).

197. The evidence on record has further proved that in pursuance of criminal conspiracy, accused Veenu Nangia(A4) & accused Vijay Kumar Rana(since deceased) purportedly entered into agreement of sale of car No. DL 3CS 2168 on the basis of forged documents of the said car which was already hypothecated to Bank of Punjab Ltd. and which was previously also sold by accused Veenu Nangia(A4) to Vijay Kumar Rana(since deceased) and transferred in the records of RTO, Sheikh Sarai in the name of Vijay Kumar Rana on 19.07.2002 and purchase of the said car by Vijay Kumar Rana was financed by Punjab National Bank, Tolstoy Marg Branch, New Delhi and car was also hypothecated to said bank and accused Vijay Kumar Rana(since deceased) never acquired possession of car No.DL 3CS 2168 and loan for the purported purchase of the said car by accused Vijay Kumar Rana was fraudulently obtained from Punjab National Bank, Anand Vihar Branch with dishonest intention and wrongful loss was caused to Punjab National Bank, Anand Vihar Branch, Delhi and wrongful gain to accused Veenu Nangia(A4).

CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 181 of 210

: 182 : CBI Case No. : 20/16

198. The prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubts the criminal conspiracy hatched by the accused persons namely Niranjan Kumar Nangia(A3), Veenu Nangia(A4), Kamal Kumar Nangia(A5), Divya Nangia (A6), Deepak Kumar Rana(A8), Vicky Kumar Rana(A9) and Chandan Kumar Rana(A10). Consequently, accused persons, namely Niranjan Kumar Nangia(A3), Veenu Nangia(A4), Kamal Kumar Nangia(A5), Divya Nangia (A6), Deepak Kumar Rana(A8), Vicky Kumar Rana(A9) and Chandan Kumar Rana(A10) are liable to be convicted for the offence punishable under section 120B IPC.

199. Accused persons namely Niranjan Kumar Nangia(A3), Veenu Nangia(A4), Kamal Kumar Nangia(A5), Divya Nangia (A6) have also been charged for the offences under section 467 IPC.

Section 467 IPC provides punishment for person who forges the documents which purport to be a valuable security or a will, or an authority to adopt a son, or which purports to give authority to any person to make or transfer any valuable security, or to receive the principal, interest or dividends thereupon, or to receive or to deliver any money, movable property, or valuable security, or any document purporting to be an acquittance or receipt acknowledging the payment of money, or any acquittance or receipt for the delivery of any movable property or valuable security.

CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 182 of 210

: 183 : CBI Case No. : 20/16

200. Accused persons namely Niranjan Kumar Nangia(A3), Veenu Nangia(A4), Kamal Kumar Nangia(A5), Divya Nangia (A6), Deepak Kumar Rana(A8), Vicky Kumar Rana(A9) and Chandan Kumar Rana(A10) have also been charged for the offences under section 468 IPC.

201. Section 468 IPC provides that whoever commits forgery, intending that the documents or electronic record forged shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

202. For proving that the accused persons have committed offences punishable under sections 467 & 468 IPC, the prosecution is required to prove that the accused persons have committed forgery as defined under section 463 IPC. Section 463 IPC provides that whoever makes any false documents or false electronic record or part of a document or electronic record, 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 any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud may be committed, commits forgery.

CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 183 of 210

: 184 : CBI Case No. : 20/16

203. The evidence adduced by the prosecution has not proved that the accused persons forged the documents and how the said documents were forged. Consequently, the prosecution has failed to prove the charge for the offence under section 467 IPC against the accused persons namely Niranjan Kumar Nangia(A3), Veenu Nangia(A4), Kamal Kumar Nangia(A5), Divya Nangia (A6) and charge for the offence under section 468 IPC against accused persons namely Niranjan Kumar Nangia(A3), Veenu Nangia(A4), Kamal Kumar Nangia(A5), Divya Nangia (A6), Deepak Kumar Rana(A8), Vicky Kumar Rana(A9) and Chandan Kumar Rana(A10).

204. Accused persons namely Niranjan Kumar Nangia(A3), Veenu Nangia(A4), Kamal Kumar Nangia(A5), Divya Nangia (A6), Deepak Kumar Rana(A8), Vicky Kumar Rana(A9) and Chandan Kumar Rana(A10) have also been charged for the offence under section 471 IPC for using as genuine the forged, false and fabricated documents.

205. Section 471 IPC provides that whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document or electronic record which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged document or electronic record shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such document or electronic record.

CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 184 of 210

: 185 : CBI Case No. : 20/16

206. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the prosecution has succeeded in proving that the accused persons Niranjan Kumar Nangia(A3), Veenu Nangia(A4), Kamal Kumar Nangia(A5), Divya Nangia (A6), Deepak Kumar Rana(A8), Vicky Kumar Rana(A9) and Chandan Kumar Rana(A10) have dishonestly & fraudulent used as genuine, the forged and fabricated documents such as Sales Invoices, Temporary Registration Certificates, Registration Certificates and other papers/documents in respect of vehicles/cars for obtaining car loans of Rs. Two lacs each in respect of four cars bearing Nos. DL 3CS 0374, DL 3CS 0968, DL 3CS 0969 & DL 3CS 2168 from Punjab National Bank, Anand Vihar, Delhi and committed the offence punishable under section 471 IPC and are accordingly liable to be convicted for the offence punishable under section 471 IPC.

207. The accused persons Niranjan Kumar Nangia(A3), Veenu Nangia(A4), Kamal Kumar Nangia(A5), Divya Nangia (A6), Deepak Kumar Rana(A8), Vicky Kumar Rana(A9) and Chandan Kumar Rana(A10) have also been charged for offence under section 420 IPC for commission of acts of cheating which resulted in wrongful loss to Punjab National Bank, Anand Vihar Branch, Delhi and wrongful gain to them.

208. Section 415 IPC reads as :

"415. Cheating. Whoever, by deceiving any person, CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 185 of 210 : 186 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 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 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 which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat".

Explanation. A dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the meaning of this section.

209. Section 420 IPC reads as :

"420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property. Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine."

210. The evidence adduced by the prosecution has proved that accused persons, namely Niranjan Kumar Nangia(A3), Veenu Nangia(A4), Kamal Kumar Nangia(A5), Divya Nangia (A6), Deepak Kumar Rana(A8), Vicky Kumar Rana(A9) and Chandan Kumar Rana(A10) in pursuance of their criminal conspiracy submitted fake, false, forged & fabricated documents and in pursuance of the same, fraudulently and dishonestly induced Punjab National Bank, Anand CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 186 of 210 : 187 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 Vihar Branch, in granting car loans in the sum of Rs.two lacs each for purported sale/purchase of four cars bearing Nos.DL 3CS 0374, DL 3CS 0968, DL 3CS 0969 & DL 3CS 2168 and thereby caused wrongful loss to the Public Sector Bank i.e. Punjab National Bank, Anand Vihar Branch, Delhi and wrongful gain to themselves. Consequently, the accused persons, namely Niranjan Kumar Nangia(A3), Veenu Nangia(A4), Kamal Kumar Nangia(A5), Divya Nangia(A6), Deepak Kumar Rana(A8), Vicky Kumar Rana(A9) and Chandan Kumar Rana(A10) are liable to be convicted for the offence punishable under section 420 IPC.

211. Accordingly, accused persons namely Niranjan Kumar Nangia(A3), Veenu Nangia(A4), Kamal Kumar Nangia(A5), Divya Nangia (A6), Deepak Kumar Rana(A8), Vicky Kumar Rana(A9) and Chandan Kumar Rana(A10) are convicted for the offences punishable under sections 120B, 420 & 471 IPC.

212. The prosecution has not succeeded in proving the allegations against the accused R. K. Jain(A1) beyond reasonable doubts. Consequently, accused R. K. Jain(A1) is acquitted for the offences charged i.e. under sections 120B, 409, 420 & 471 IPC and under section(13)(2) read with section (13)(1) (d) of the PC Act, 1988. The bail bond furnished by accused R. K. Jain(A1) is CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 187 of 210 : 188 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 cancelled and his surety is discharged. However, the bail bond furnished by accused R. K. Jain(A1) under Section 437A Cr. PC shall remain in force for a period of six months.

Announced in the open court (HARISH DUDANI) today i.e. on 26th April, 2017. Special Judge (PC Act) CBI1, District Courts(SW), Dwarka New Delhi.

CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 188 of 210

: 189 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 IN THE COURT OF SHRI HARISH DUDANI SPECIAL JUDGE, (PC ACT) CBI-1 DISTRICT COURTS(SW): DWARKA: NEW DELHI In the matter of : CBI Case No. : 20/2016 (old CC No.:1/11) RC No. : BD1/2003/E/0008/CBI/BS&FC/New Delhi Central Bureau of Investigation, BS & FC, New Delhi.

Versus

1. Niranjan Kumar Nangia(A3) s/o late Shri Thakur Dass R/o : A7, South Extension Part - II, New Delhi and also R/o : V26/6, DLF PhaseIII, DLF, Nathupur, 67, Gurgaon, Haryana 122 002.

2. Smt. Veenu Nangia(A4) s/o Shri Niranjan Kumar Nangia, R/o : A7, South Extension Part - II, New Delhi and also R/o : V26/6, DLF PhaseIII, DLF, Nathupur, 67, Gurgaon, Haryana 122 002.

CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 189 of 210

                                                              : 190 :                                               CBI Case No. : 20/16



3.  Kamal Kumar Nangia(A5)
    s/o Shri Niranjan Kumar Nangia,
    R/o : A7, South Extension Part - II, 
    New Delhi  and  also
    R/o : V26/6, DLF PhaseIII, 
    DLF, Nathupur, 
    67, Gurgaon, Haryana 122 002.

4.  Ms. Divya Nangia(A6)
    d/o Shri Niranjan Kumar Nangia, 
    w/o late Shri Sushant Bansal,
    R/o : A7, South Extension Part - II, 
    New Delhi  and  also
    R/o : D7, Maharani Bagh, 
    New Delhi - 110 065.

5. Deepak Kumar Rana(A8)
    s/o Shri Vijay Kumar Rana,
    R/o : H. No. 20, National Park, 
    Vikram Vihar, Lajpat NagarIV
    New Delhi    and  also 
    R/o : A38, 1st Floor, 
    Daya Nand Colony, 
    Lajpat NagarIV
    New Delhi.

6.  Vicky Kumar Rana(A9)
    s/o Shri Vijay Kumar Rana,
    R/o : H. No. 20, National Park, 
    Vikram Vihar, Lajpat NagarIV
    New Delhi      and  also 
    R/o : C202, 1st Floor, 
    Baljeet Complex, Ardee City, 
    Sector52, Gurgaon, Haryana.



    CBI   v.  R. K. Jain & Ors.                                                                                  Page No. : 190 of 210  
                                                              : 191 :                                               CBI Case No. : 20/16



7.  Chandan Kumar Rana(A10)
    s/o Shri Vijay Kumar Rana,
    R/o : H. No. 20, National Park, 
    Vikram Vihar, Lajpat NagarIV
    New Delhi     and also 
    R/o : C1/66, Ground floor,
    Ardee City, Sector52, 
    Gurgaon, Haryana.                                                                                         .......convicts


Date of Institution : 21.04.2010
Date on which Judgment Reserved : 19.04.2017

Date on which Judgment Pronounced : 26.04.2017 Date on which Order on Sentence announced : 29.04.2017 ORDER ON SENTENCE

1. By this order, I shall dispose off the contentions, raised on behalf of the parties, on the point of sentence and the applications under section 360 Cr P.C and section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 filed by Veenu Nangia & Divya Nangia.

2. In the present case, convicts, namely, Niranjan Kumar Nangia, Veenu Nangia, Kamal Kumar Nangia, Divya Nangia, Deepak Kumar Rana, Vicky Kumar Rana and Chandan Kumar Rana have been convicted for the offences punishable under sections 120B, 420 & 471 IPC.

CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 191 of 210

: 192 : CBI Case No. : 20/16

3. It has been strongly contended by the Ld. Spl. PP for CBI that all the convicts had entered into a wellplanned conspiracy, in pursuance of which, all the convicts under criminal conspiracy, fraudulently and dishonestly obtained multiple car loans on the same cars without liquidating earlier loans, from different banks on the basis of forged & fabricated documents and as a result of aforesaid conspiracy of the convicts, wrongful loss was caused to the Public Sector Bank i.e. Punjab National Bank, Anand Vihar branch, Delhi and wrongful gain was caused to all the convicts and such cases have to be dealt with sternly as all the convicts have caused loss to public exchequer.

4. It is further contended by Ld. Spl. PP for CBI that two CBI cases bearing RC No.001/1995/BSFC/DLI under section 120B read with sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC & section 13(2) read with section 13(1) (d) of PC Act 1988 & RC No.002/1995/BSFC/DLI under section 120B read with section 420 IPC & section 13(2) read with section 13(1) (d) of PC Act 1988 and cases bearing FIR No.0067/2017 under sections 323, 341 & 34 IPC, PS : Badar Pur, FIR No.0092/2005 under section 120B r/w sections 420, 467, 468 & 471 IPC PS : DBG Road, FIR No.0161/2010 under section 120B r/w sections 420 & 406 IPC PS : EOW, Delhi and FIR No.0237/1999 under sections 379 IPC & sections 39, 44 of EC Act PS : Krishna Nagar are pending against convict Niranjan Kumar Nangia and cases CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 192 of 210 : 193 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 bearing No. RC Nos.001/1995/BSFC/DLI under section 120B read with sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC & section 13(2) read with section 13(1) (d) of PC Act 1988 & 002/1995/ BSFC/ DLI under section 120B read with section 420 IPC & section 13(2) read with section 13(1) (d) of PC Act 1988 and case bearing FIR No.:

0161/2010 under section 120B r/w sections 420, 406 and 174A IPC PS : EOW, Delhi are pending against convict Veenu Nangia. It is further contended that one case bearing FIR No.:0282/2012 under section 289 IPC PS : Neb Sarai was registered against convict Divya Nangia and the same has been quashed and cases bearing FIR No.0161/2010 under section 120B r/w sections 420, 406 & 174A IPC PS : EOW, Delhi and FIR No.0092/2005 under section 120B r/w sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 IPC PS : DBG Road are pending against Kamal Kumar Nangia.

5. It has been further contended by the Ld. Spl. PP for CBI that maximum punishment prescribed for the offences be handed over to all the convicts in order to send a clear message to the society that such cases are being taken seriously and are dealt with sternly.

6. Convict Niranjan Kumar Nangia has prayed that a lenient view be taken on the ground that apart from this case, there is no history of previous conviction. He has further contended that he is 65 years of age and is genetic heart patient. It is also contended that CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 193 of 210 : 194 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 the loan amount has already been paid and no loss has been caused to the bank and prays that minimum sentence may be awarded. It is further contended that cases bearing FIR Nos.0067/2017 PS : Badar Pur and FIR No.0237/1999 PS : Krishna Nagar, as alleged by CBI, are not pending against him (convict Niranjan Kumar Nangia).

7. On behalf of convict Veenu Nangia it has been contended that convict Veenu Nangia is 60 years of age and had suffered heart attack in the year 2010 and has undergone angioplasty twice and she has been advised heart transplantation in the year 2011 and since then she is on medication. It is further contended that she has no previous conviction record and no loss has been caused to the Bank as the loan amount has been repaid. Ld. Counsel for the convict Veenu Nangia has relied on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Nathu Ram And Mange Ram v. State, 2004 Crl.J 3109 wherein Hon'ble High Court has been pleaded to observe:

2. Counsel for Nathu Ram petitioner no. 1 as also counsel for Mange Ram petitioner no. 2 state that they do not wish to challenge the judgment of conviction on merits but confine their arguments only to the question of sentence. Counsel submit that Nathu Ram is above 70 years age and Mange Ram is above 65 years of age. The incident took place in the year 1984 and since then the petitioners have already undergone the ordeal of trial for 20 years. Besides this they have already undergone 6 CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 194 of 210 : 195 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 months of the sentence of imprisonment.

...................................................................................... ......................................................................................

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having given my careful consideration to the material available on record, I am of the view that in the CRL REV P 876/2003 present case, the petitioners have suffered the agony of trial lasting for about twenty years and there is no allegation that the petitioners are previous convicts. Keeping these circumstances in mind and the fact that the offence of which the petitioners have been convicted is not punishable with life imprisonment, they deserve the benefit of probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

8. Convict Kamal Kumar Nangia has also prayed for a lenient view. He has submitted that he was just 24 years of age at the time of registration of FIR and his marriage has broken down and his wife took divorce due to the present case and he has the responsibility of his daughter. It is further stated on behalf of the convict that he is appearing continuously in the present case and has prayed that lenient view may be taken.

9. It is contended that convict Divya Nangia is practicing lawyer and that at the time registration of FIR, she was merely 23 CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 195 of 210 : 196 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 years of age. Her marriage was solemnized in the year 2003 and her husband expired in the year 2005 and she has a school going son and thus, she is single parent. It is further stated that she is not involved in any other case except a petty case which has already been quashed by Hon'ble High Court and is entitled for probation. She has prayed that a lenient view be taken.

10. On behalf of convict Deepak Kumar Rana, it is submitted that he is 38 years of age and he has two small children and he is in the business of property dealing. It is further contended that all the transactions/matters relating to bank were dealt with by his father, Vijay Kumar Rana and he has no knowledge about the same and he has prayed that a lenient view be taken.

11. On behalf of convict Vicky Kumar Rana, it is submitted that he is 36 years of age and is running a boutique with his wife. It is also stated that all the transactions/matters relating to bank were dealt with by his father, Vijay Kumar Rana and he has no knowledge about the same and he has prayed that a lenient view be taken.

12. On behalf of convict Chandan Kumar Rana, it is submitted that he is suffering from chronic ailments and is under treatment for the last five years and he has one small daughter to look after. It is also stated that all the transactions/matters relating to bank CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 196 of 210 : 197 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 were dealt with by his father, Vijay Kumar Rana and he has no knowledge about the same and he has prayed that a lenient view be taken.

13. The contentions, raised by the convicts, have met stiff and very strong opposition by the CBI.

14. It is contended by Ld. Spl PP for CBI that in old age, usually everybody remains afflicted with various ailments and on this ground convicts do not deserve any leniency. It is further contented that convict Niranjan Kumar Nangia in pursuance of criminal conspiracy with other convicts, fraudulently and dishonestly, cheated not only Punjab National Bank, Anand Vihar branch, Delhi but also other banks namely Bank of Punjab Ltd., Green Park branch, Delhi and PNB, South Ext. Part1 branch and caused wrongful loss to the banks and wrongful gain to himself. It is stated by Ld. Spl.PP for CBI that all the convicts submitted the forged and fabricated documents to RTO, Sheikh Sarai and also caused loss to the public exchequer. It is, therefore, urged that this convict deserves maximum punishment.

15. Regarding the convict Veenu Nangia, it is stated by CBI that she was also involved in the conspiracy with other convicts and on the ground of ailment she does not deserve any leniency as in old age, generally some ailments afflict everybody. It is further CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 197 of 210 : 198 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 contended on behalf of CBI that she in criminal conspiracy with other convicts, fraudulently and dishonestly cheated not only Punjab National Bank, Anand Vihar branch, Delhi but also other banks namely Bank of Punjab Ltd., Green Park branch, Delhi & PNB, Tolstoy Marg branch and caused wrongful loss to the bank and wrongful gain to herself.

16. Regarding the convicts, namely Kamal Kumar Nangia and Divya Nangia, it is stated by CBI that in criminal conspiracy with other convicts, they fraudulently and dishonestly cheated not only Punjab National Bank, Anand Vihar branch, Delhi but also other banks and caused wrongful loss to the banks and wrongful gain to themselves.

17. Regarding the convicts namely Deepak Kumar Rana, Vicky Kumar Rana & Chandan Kumar Rana, it is contended by CBI that they joined the criminal conspiracy with other convicts and availed the car loans from Punjab National Bank, Anand Vihar Branch on purported purchase of cars from other convicts on the basis of forged and fabricated documents and thus cheated and caused wrongful loss to aforesaid Punjab National Bank, Anand Vihar branch and wrongful gain to themselves and other convicts. It is further contended that they are not entitled to any compassion and deserve maximum punishment.

CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 198 of 210

: 199 : CBI Case No. : 20/16

18. It is further urged on behalf of the CBI that most of the pleas taken by the convicts are routine and stock pleas and in any case, in the case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, these pleas cannot be considered as mitigating circumstances and convicts, namely Veenu Nangia and Divya Nangia are not entitled for the benefit of probation under section 360 Cr. PC and section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 as they have cheated the public authorities i.e. RTO, Sheikh Sarai on the basis of forged and fabricated documents and public sector banks and have caused loss to public exchequer and in the circumstance, the decision in Nathu Ram And Mange Ram v. State(supra) is of no help to convicts Veenu Nangia and Divya Nangia.

19. In Subramanian Swamy v. Manmohan Singh and another, (2012)3 Supreme Court Cases 64, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to observe:

68. Today, corruption in our country not only poses a grave danger to the concept of constitutional governance, it also threatens the very foundation of the Indian democracy and the Rule of Law. The magnitude of corruption in our public life is incompatible with the concept of a socialist secular democratic republic. It cannot be disputed that where corruption begins all rights end. Corruption CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 199 of 210 : 200 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 devalues human rights, chokes development and undermines justice, liberty, equality, fraternity which are the core values in our Preambular vision. Therefore, the duty of the court is that any anticorruption law has to be interpreted and worked out in such a fashion as to strengthen the fight against corruption. ...................................... .................................................................................

69. Time and again this Court has expressed its dismay and shock at the evergrowing tentacles of corruption in our society but even then situations have not improved much.

20. In Narendra Champaklal Trivedi v. State of Gujarat, (2012) 7 Supreme Court Cases 80, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to observe:

30. ...........................................................................

...................... It should be paramountly borne in mind that corruption at any level does not deserve either sympathy or leniency. In fact, reduction of the sentence would be adding a premium. The law does not so countenance and, rightly so, because corruption corrodes the spine of a nation and in the ultimate eventuality makes the CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 200 of 210 : 201 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 economy sterile.

21. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Sheikh Shahid, Criminal Appeal No. 660 of 2004, has been pleased to observe:

14. Imposition of sentence without considering its effect on the social order in many cases may be in reality a futile exercise. The social impact of the crime, e.g. where it relates to offences against women, dacoity, kidnapping, misappropriation of public money, treason and other offences involving moral turpitude or moral delinquency which have great impact on social order, and public interest, cannot be lost sight of and per se require exemplary treatment. Any liberal attitude by imposing meager sentences or taking too sympathetic a view merely on account of lapse of time in respect of such offences will be resultwise counter productive in the long run and against societal interest which needs to be cared for and strengthened by string of deterrence inbuilt in the sentencing system.

22. It was observed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Jai CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 201 of 210 : 202 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 Bhagwan v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2008) 150 DLT 46 (Delhi):

8. ..............................................................................

.................... A corrupt man is not complained against because the giver of bribe and taker of bribe both gain advantage. It is only in rare cases where the taker of bribe becomes so bold that he starts demanding bribe without giving any unlawful advantage, even for lawful works that the giver of bribe approaches the law machinery. The person caught is not always a firsttimer corrupt. He may have been indulging into corrupt activities for a long number of years. It is to his advantage that the trial is prolonged, hearing of appeals is prolonged. He spends a fraction of the amount, earned by corrupt practices on, litigations and professionals to see that ultimately he makes criminal justice system as a laughing stock. In this process, the entire legislative purpose of punishing a corrupt, stands defeated.

23. In State of M. P. and others v. Ram Singh, AIR 2000 Supreme Court 870, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to observe:

7. Corruption in a civilised society is a disease CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 202 of 210 : 203 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 like cancer, which if not detected in time is sure to maliganise the polity of country leading to disastrous consequences. It is termed as plague which is not only contagious but if not controlled spreads like a fire in a jungle. Its virus is compared with HIV leading to AIDS, being incurable. It has also been termed as Royal thievery. The sociopolitical system exposed to such a dreaded communicable disease is likely to crumble under its own weight. Corruption is opposed to democracy and social order, being not only anti people, but aimed and targeted against them. It affects the economy and destroys the cultural heritage.

24. In AIR 1980 Supreme Court 439, Shivanarayan Laxminarayan Joshi and others v. State of Maharashtra and others, Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to observe:

17. As regards appellants Nos.2 to 4 Mr. Lalit confined his argument on the question of sentence and did not press the appeal on the nature of the offence committed by them. It was submitted that appellants 2 and 3 are of 85 and 75 years of age respectively and are not keeping good health as CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 203 of 210 : 204 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 would appear from the medical certificate filed by the counsel. It was also stated that so far appellants Nos.2 and 3 are concerned they were merely Muneems and were carrying out orders of appellant No.1. The High Court has, however, found that so far as accused 2,3 and 4 were concerned they were original conspirators who had assisted and abetted appellant No.1 in his attempt to misappropriate the amount. Thus, we do not find sufficient ground for reducing the sentence. It was further argued that appellants 2,3 and 4 have practically served out about a year, and after lapse of 8 years it would not be desirable to send them back to jail. While considering the question of sentence the Court has to bear in mind the gravity of the offence also which has its impact on the public and particularly the persons who are deprived of their deposits. In these circumstances, therefore, we do not see any reason to reduce the sentences of any of these appellants. If these appellants are not keeping good health the Jail Superintendent would naturally take care of them and get them properly treated in the Jail Hospital and if any specialist is needed his service may also CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 204 of 210 : 205 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 be requisitioned. For these reasons we, therefore, dismiss the appeal of appellants 2 to 4 without any modification in the sentence.

25. Convicts namely Veenu Nangia & Divya Nangia have prayed for benefit of section 360 Cr.PC and section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

26. In State of Himachal Pradesh v. Nirmala Devi, 2017 SCC Online SC 374, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to observe:

"21. When the Indian Penal Code provides discretion to Indian Judges while awarding the sentence, the Court will have undoubtedly regard to extenuating and mitigating circumstances. In this backdrop, the question is as to whether the respondent being a lady and having three minor children will be extenuating reasons? I may observe that in many countries of the world, gender is not a mitigating factor. Some jurists also stress that in this world of gender equality, women should be treated at par with men even as regards equal offences committed by them. Women are competing men in the criminal world; they are emulating them in all the crimes; and even surpassing men at times. Therefore, concept of criminal justice is CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 205 of 210 : 206 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 not necessarily synonymous with social justice. Eugene Mc Laughlin shows a middle path. She finds that predominant thinking is that paper justice would demand giving similar penalty for similar offences. However, when it comes to doing real justice, element of taking the consequences of a penalty cannot be ignored. Here, while doing real justice consequences of awarding punishment to a female offender are to be seen. According to her, real justice would consider the likelihood that a child might suffer more from a mothers imprisonment than that of his fathers. Insofar as Indian judicial mind is concerned, I find that in certain decisions of this Court, gender is taken as the relevant circumstance while fixing the quantum of sentence. I may add that it would depend upon the facts of each case, whether it should be treated as a relevant consideration and no hard and fast rule can be laid down.

27. In State of Maharashtra thruogh CBI v. Vikram Anantrai Doshi and Others, Criminal Appeal No.2048 of 2014 [Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No.6461 of 2011], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to observe:

"23. ................................................................................. Be it stated, that availing of money from a nationalized CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 206 of 210 : 207 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 bank in the manner, as alleged by the investigating agency, vividly exposits fiscal impurity and, in a way, financial fraud. The modus operandi as narrated in the chargesheet cannot be put in the compartment of an individual or personal wrong. It is a social wrong and it has immense societal impact. It is an accepted principle of handling of finance that whenever there is manipulation and cleverly conceived contrivance to avail of these kind of benefits it cannot be regarded as a case having overwhelmingly and predominantingly of civil character. The ultimate victim is the collective. It creates a hazard in the financial interest of the society. The gravity of the offence creates a dent in the economic spine of the nation. The cleverness which has been skillfully contrived, if the allegations are true, has a serious consequence. A crime of this nature, in our view, would definitely fall in the category of offences which travel far ahead of personal or private wrong. It has the potentiality to usher in economic crisis."

28. Looking at the fact that the convicts Veenu Nangia and Divya Nangia fraudulently & dishonestly submitted forged & fabricated documents to government authority i.e. RTO, Sheikh Sarai for obtaining registration of cars and cheated public sector banks and enriched themselves at the expense of public exchequer and in view CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 207 of 210 : 208 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 of the aforesaid pronouncements of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, they are not entitled to premium of section 360 Cr.PC and section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

29. I have thoroughly and carefully considered the contentions of the parties. I have also examined the asserted mitigating and aggravating circumstances, pointed out by the parties. All the convicts had conspired in pursuance of which wrongful loss was caused to the public exchequer. Although, all the convicts have pleaded for lenient view citing various reasons but sight cannot be lost of the fact that convicts had made wrongful gain from the public sector bank which was hardearned money of public and all convicts have been benefited from the money which belonged to citizens of the country. A clear message is to be sent to the society that plunder of public exchequer cannot be permitted at any cost as the said money belongs to people of the country and is meant for the development of the nation and any attempt to cause wrongful loss to public exchequer has to be dealt with sternly.

30. Considering all the aspects of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the following sentences shall be appropriate to meet the ends of justice:

(i) The convict, namely, Niranjan Kumar Nangia, Veenu Nangia, Kamal Kumar Nangia, Divya Nangia, CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 208 of 210 : 209 : CBI Case No. : 20/16 Deepak Kumar Rana, Vicky Kumar Rana and Chandan Kumar Rana are awarded sentence of six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10,000/ (Rupees ten thousand only), in default, 15 days simple imprisonment for the offence punishable under section 120B IPC and for the offence punishable under section 420 IPC, all the convicts namely Niranjan Kumar Nangia, Veenu Nangia, Kamal Kumar Nangia, Divya Nangia, Deepak Kumar Rana, Vicky Kumar Rana and Chandan Kumar Rana are awarded sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.20,000/ (Rupees twenty thousand only), in default, one month simple imprisonment. All the convicts namely Niranjan Kumar Nangia, Veenu Nangia, Kamal Kumar Nangia, Divya Nangia, Deepak Kumar Rana, Vicky Kumar Rana and Chandan Kumar Rana are further awarded sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.20,000/ (Rupees twenty thousand only), in default, one month simple imprisonment for the offence punishable under section 471 IPC.

All the aforesaid sentences shall run concurrently.

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

CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 209 of 210

: 210 : CBI Case No. : 20/16

32. A copy of the judgment and order on sentence be given to all the convicts, free of cost, forthwith.

33. File be consigned to Record Room.

Announced in the open court (HARISH DUDANI) today on 29th April, 2017. Special Judge (PC Act) CBI1, District Courts(SW), Dwarka New Delhi.

CBI v. R. K. Jain & Ors. Page No. : 210 of 210

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi District Court

On Decisions In Alamelu And Another vs . State, (2011) 2 Scc 385 And on 29 April, 2017