Delhi District Court
State vs Sumeet Suri on 25 September, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. SHAILENDER MALIK, SPECIAL JUDGE (PC
ACT), CBI-21: ROUSE AVENUE COURT COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
State vs. Sumeet Suri
SC No.02/2022
CNR DLCT11-000145-2022
FIR No.125/2010
PS : EOW South East
State
Versus
Sumeet Suri
s/o Sh.Swaraj Suri
r/o D-929, New Friends Colony,
New Delhi. ...Accused
Date of Institution : 22.01.2014
Date of judgment reserved : 06.09.2025
Date of judgment pronounced : 25.09.2025
JUDGEMENT
1. Accused Sumeet Suri is facing prosecution for offence under Section 409, 420, 468 and 471 IPC, with precise accusation that said accused during the period from 01.04.2005 to 15.02.2008, when entrusted with management and property of complainant company i.e. M/s Ivory Clothing Private Limited (ICPL), as agent/trustee in his capacity as Director, misused that position and defrauded complainant company and another Director namely Aniljeet Singh by misappropriating, dishonestly siphoning off huge amount of money (approximately Rs.3 crores of ______________________________________________________________________ State vs. Sumeet Suri (judgment) Page No.1 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date: 2025.09.25 16:50:25 +0530 complainant company) by forging bills as well as by opening three different bank accounts in the name of ICPL, on the basis of forged minutes of meeting of Board of Directors of ICPL. It is further alleged that accused Sumeet Suri dishonestly made complainant to believe that complainant no.1 company has suffered loss of Rs.1.3 crores and therefore induced complainants to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding dated 29.08.2008 regarding alleged return of money allegedly siphoned off from the account of complainant company.
2. It is matter of record that offences in this case were Magistrate triable, however during the course of trial matter stood transferred to this court as ED had separately filed complaint against accused Sumeet Suri, therefore the trial of this case also stood transferred in terms of Section 44(1)(c) of PML Act.
Allegations
3. As per the complaint dated 13.05.2009, which led to registration of the FIR no.125 dated 16.08.2010 PS EOW. Complainant no.1 company ICPL was incorporated on 01.04.2005, engaged in business of manufacture and export of ready made garments in domestic as well as international market. Complainant no.2 Aniljeet Singh is one of its Director having 50% of the shareholding at the time of its incorporation and accused Sumeet Suri was also earlier Director in ICPL. Accused stated to have resigned as Director of that company on 28.04.2008. Complainant no.2 has alleged that during year 2006 his father fell ill and in November 2006 diagnosed with non-curable cancer. Due to such difficulty ______________________________________________________________________ State vs. Sumeet Suri (judgment) Page No.2 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.09.25 16:50:36 +0530 with the father of the complainant no.2, he remained absent from day to day work of complainant no.1 company. Accused Sumeet Suri allegedly took advantage of this situation and defrauded complainant no.1 company by siphoning off its funds for his personal interest, gain and breached the trust of fiduciary duty towards complainant no.1 company in his capacity as one of the Director.
4. It is alleged in the complaint that father of the complainant no.2 died in February 2008. Later when complainant no.2 started attending the business activities of the company, he found huge outstanding from unknown creditors, advances to the debtors. It is alleged that accused Sumeet Suri in order to give shape to his design, included his previous trusted employee Chander Mohan as well as used the company owned by him M/s Anjjane Clothing Company Private Limited and illegally transferred huge amount in the name of personal withdrawal, transferred to his company etc. When complainant confronted the accused regarding details and nature of the entries, accused Sumeet Suri allegedly offered to settle the matter by offering Rs.1.30 crores (details of the amount of Rs.1.30 croress, to be paid under the MoU has been enumerated in tabulation form in the complaint), and also offered to resign and transfer his shareholding in the company (ICPL) which was 30% of consumption of company stock. In view of such offer of the accused, it is stated that complainant no.2 without understanding the systematic fraud committed by the accused, settled the matter with the accused under a Memorandum ______________________________________________________________________ State vs. Sumeet Suri (judgment) Page No.3 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.09.25 16:50:42 +0530 of Understanding dated 28.08.2008 whereby accused transferred his shareholding in ICPL.
5. It is alleged that accused entered into such MoU with mala fide design, so that his fraud remain undetected. It is alleged that such was not the full and final settlement as complainant could later detect the fraud to the tune of Rs.3 crores. Moreover under the said MoU a clause (g) was specifically drafted by the accused, which inter alia provide that accused Sumeet Suri will not have any responsibility of explaining any previous accounting entries, documents, vouchers, bills, memorandum of record, computers etc.
6. It is alleged in the complaint that later complainant no.2 hired the auditors and upon scrutiny of record, complainant was shock to see that accused Sumeet Suri cheated the company by not only using forged bills, false vouchers, withdrawing huge amount, goods of company having been wrongly used for shipment of Anjjane Clothing Company Pvt. Ltd., direct transfer of funds into personal accounts as well as into the account of said Anjjane Clothing Company Pvt. Ltd., transfer and shipment of orders belonging to complainant company in the name of his personal company without the knowledge of other director/shareholders, making some fake bills in the name of M/s Rayman Textiles and misappropriating Rs.60 lacs on the basis of such fake bills.
7. It is also alleged that an order was placed from one buyer namely M/s ALFAISALIAH Commercial Limited with complainant company. All the orders for fabric, accessories, material was placed from ______________________________________________________________________ State vs. Sumeet Suri (judgment) Page No.4 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.09.25 16:50:48 +0530 the complainant company. Complainant company even raised an invoice no. 02/SA/2007 valuing USD-89932, to be paid by the buyer. However accused Sumeet Suri in order to defraud ICPL changed the instruction to the buyer and raised another proforma invoice no.02/SA/2007 in his personal company M/s Anjjane Clothing Pvt. Ltd and obtained a letter of credit in the name of his personal company and shipped goods worth USD 89932 in the name of his personal company Anjjane Clothing Pvt. Ltd. In that manner not only the sale proceeds of ICPL were misappropriated but also all the benefits of duty draw back were obtained in M/s Anjjane Clothing Pvt. Ltd. In another instance of fraud, it was detected that accused transferred large amount of ready made garments and other products from the stock of complainant company. It is alleged that from 01.04.2006 to 31.03.2008 accused siphoned off sum of Rs.40,45,929/-
from complainant company by booking false purchase and entries in the name of M/s Anjjane Clothing Pvt. Ltd. It is further alleged that under a systematic plan, accused Sumeet Suri insisted complainant no.2 by stating that he is in dire need of funds, and withdrew collateral security of property no.I-52, Lajpat Nagar. It is later complainant realized that he did so under a well planned conspiracy to cheat the complainant no.1 company and complainant no.2.
8. Moreover he also used his own signed cheques to transfer substantial amount for his personal drawings and misused the funds of ICPL. Several accounting entries were illegally made. Accused Sumeet Suri allegedly withdrew cash amount on daily basis from the account of ______________________________________________________________________ State vs. Sumeet Suri (judgment) Page No.5 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.09.25 16:50:55 +0530 ICPL for his personal business and purposes. Funds of complainant company were siphoned off to certain entities such as G.M. Styles Private Limited, Ocean Impex, Govinda Textiles, Sai Fabrics, Nisha Furnishers, Ra Fashions etc. Investigation and filing of charge sheets
9. After preliminary inquiry on the complaint, FIR was registered and investigation was carried out by EOW. It is matter of record that main charge sheet was filed on 22.01.2014. Thereafter four supplementary charge sheets were filed. First supplementary charge sheet has been filed on 02.07.2014, second supplementary charge sheet has been filed on 20.01.2015, third supplementary charge sheet has been filed on 31.12.2016 and fourth supplementary charge sheet has been filed on 15.03.2021.
10. The main charge sheet has been filed as against accused Sumeet Suri (A-1) and his wife Raina Suri (A-2) (who stood discharged by order dated 10.01.2017 by ld. CMM). It is mentioned that during the course of investigation relevant record of complainant company, statement of officials of complainant company and other witnesses were recorded. Relevant documents were also obtained from ROC, Sales Tax as well as different banks. It is stated that upon collecting the record from various banks, it revealed that following were the details of the accounts of ICPL as well as of accused and his company Anjjane Clothing Company Private Limited :
S. A/c No. Name of Bank Account Holder Balance ______________________________________________________________________ State vs. Sumeet Suri (judgment) Page No.6 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.09.25 16:51:03 +0530 No. Amount 1 10829468350 State Bank of India, M/s Ivory Clothing Pvt.
Noida Ltd.
2 718727689 Indian bank, S. Ex. -do-
3 700707194 -do- -do-
4 10406255194 SBI, Central Market, Sumeet Suri 109686.08
5 10406178365 Lajpat Nagar, Delhi Anjjane Clothing Co. P. 778483
Ltd.
6 10479338020 SBI, New Friends Sneh Suri & Swaraj Suri 3500000
Cly., New Delhi.
7 3090002100111424 PNB, Jangpura, Anjane Clothing Co. P. 344404
Delhi Ltd.
11. It is stated in the charge sheet that it revealed in the investigation that accused has transferred/withdrawn through cheques from the account of the complainant company either in the name of his company Anjjane Clothing Company Pvt. Ltd or in his personal name and could not give any justification of siphoning off of such amount. It is stated that GEQD expert report also confirmed that on the following details of the cheques, there were signatures of accused Sumeet Suri :
State Bank of India, Noida A/c No. 10829468350 Chq. No. Date Amount Chq. No. Date Amount 440204 24.03.06 5,50,000 448400 07.08.06 28,500 440230 14.04.06 6,00,000 448392 01.08.06 10,00,000 517984 08.12.06 2,47,520 506345 28.08.06 5,00,000 577794 11.01.07 2,00,000 577705 14.12.06 12,000 ______________________________________________________________________ State vs. Sumeet Suri (judgment) Page No.7 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.09.25 16:51:12 +0530 Indian Bank, S. -Ex.
A/c No. 718727689 A/c No. 700707194 Chq. No. Date Amount Chq. No. Date Amount 032276 01.03.07 1,00,000 992797 24.04.06 5,00,000 032301 17.03.07 4,15,891 130809 29.06.06 25,000 842450 06.11.07 20,403 845877 27.12.07 23,573 814382 21.09.07 2,82,068 961084 06.06.07 4,113 820266 30.07.07 2,104 817480 31.08.07 45,019 814372 19.09.07 53,004 814205 28.09.07 25,000 842377 12.10.07 7,033 842378 12.10.07 5,467 842386 12.10.07 13,930 842387 15.10.07 80,975 867236 30.11.07 40,000 032331 24.03.07 40,000 867314 11.12.07 1,00,000 867313 10.12.07 1,00,000 867310 07.12.07 36,000 867309 07.12.07 36,000 867333 14.12.07 3,669 853536 10.01.08 26,00 860531 13.02.08 8,038 867211 15.11.07 3,80,860 842450 06.11.07 20,403 State Bank of India, Lajpat Nagar
______________________________________________________________________ State vs. Sumeet Suri (judgment) Page No.8 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.09.25
16:51:17 +0530
A/c No. 55184
Chq No. Date Amount
579211 07.12.05 5,000
579213 13.04.05 8,000
579239 04.05.05 25,000
579233 28.04.05 25,000
579227 25.04.05 65,000
579244 07.05.05 40,000
579259 17.05.05 61,000
579261 23.05.05 7,600
579273 08.06.05 30,000
579274 08.06.05 8,000
579275 08.06.05 5,000
579287 16.06.05 15,000
12. It is alleged that there were two bills of M/s Hariom Fabrics and M/s S.K. Agencies, whereas during investigation it revealed that no such firms were running and fake/forged bill was prepared. Investigation was also carried out with regard to clandestine opening of three bank accounts in the name of Ivory Clothing Private Limited and it came in the investigation that with respect of current account no.55184 with SBI, Central Market, Lajpat Nagar accused Sumeet Suri submitted to the bank two copies of Board Resolution of ICPL dated 05.04.2005 authorizing him for opening of the current account. The copy of the same was collected from SBI Lajpat Nagar. It bear signatures of Sumeet Suri in his capacity as Managing Director but does not have signature of another director Aniljeet Singh. However account opening form bear signature of Aniljeet Singh.
______________________________________________________________________ State vs. Sumeet Suri (judgment) Page No.9 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.09.25 16:51:24 +0530
13. With respect of account no.55184, request letter was attested by Sumeet Suri and one Rahul Sharma. It came in the investigation that at that point of time Rahul Sharma was not the employee of ICPL. In respect of CA No. 718727689 with Indian Bank, South Extension-I, it was opened on the basis of board resolution dated 26.12.2006. The copy of the same was collected from the bank. It bear signatures of only Sumeet Suri in his capacity as Managing Director.
14. It is mentioned in the charge sheet that during investigation the IO collected the cheques from Indian Bank, South Extension-I of total amount of Rs.25 lacs by which funds were transferred from the account of complainant company, either in the name of company of accused (Anjjane Clothing Pvt. Ltd.) or in his personal name. It is alleged that it came in the investigation that amount so withdrawn were siphoned off by accused Sumeet Suri. With regard to siphoning off of sum of Rs.61,08,27,034/-
from CA No.700707194 of ICPL during financial year 2005 to 2008, it came in the investigation that out of the said amount accused Sumeet Suri siphoned off Rs.9,11,87,894/-.
15. In the main charge sheet with regard to accused Raina Suri, it is stated that complainant has alleged that accused Raina Suri has been beneficiary of money given to her from the account of ICPL. It is stated that it came in the investigation that Raina Suri in her reply admitted having received four cheques (as per details given in charge sheet), however she stated that she received that amount as her commission against the orders arranged by her for complainant company. It is alleged ______________________________________________________________________ State vs. Sumeet Suri (judgment) Page No.10 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.09.25 16:51:29 +0530 that there was nothing in the record of the complainant no.1 company, in writing to show that she was commission agent of ICPL. Only there was account entries of four payments made to her.
16. In the main charge sheet it is further mentioned that allegations of the complainant regarding fraudulent transfer by accused Sumeet Suri of letter of credit of USD 89932 dated 09.12.2007 by its foreign buyer M/s Alfaisaliah Commercial Limited and receipt of duty draw back from Government in the name of his private company Anjjane Co. Pvt. Ltd. was also investigated and relevant documents were collected and there is a reference regarding reply dated 02.01.2013 of accused Sumeet Suri.
17. It is mentioned in the charge sheet that complainant has further alleged that to justify transfer of stock of garments of M/s Ivory Clothing Pvt. Ltd. to accused is company M/s Anjjane Clothing Company Pvt. Ltd., accused submitted a fake C&F Agreement in favour of M/s Anjjane Clothing Company Pvt. Ltd. and that no such C&F Agreement was entered into or authorized by complainant Aniljeet Singh, or by way of any board resolution of ICPL. It is mentioned in the charge sheet that accused Sumeet Suri provided C&G Agency Agreement dated 01.04.2007 and copy of C&F Agreement was provided by the accused along with his reply dated 27.09.2012. On comparison of copy of set of C&F Agreement with its original seized on 27.11.2013, it revealed that on the copy there was letter head of M/s ICPL, pattern of signatures of complainant Aniljeet Singh was also found to be different. Complainant also denied his ______________________________________________________________________ State vs. Sumeet Suri (judgment) Page No.11 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.09.25 16:51:42 +0530 signatures on C&F Agreement. It is stated that disputed document has been deposited with FSL for GEQD examination.
18. It is also stated in the charge sheet that complainant had also alleged with regard to credit note of Rs.22,79,645/- entered into the name of M/s Anjjane Clothing Company Pvt. Ltd. in the ledger of M/s ICPL, disclosing that behind the back of other directors of ICPL, accused Sumeet Suri allegedly was selling from M/s ICPL to his own company M/s Anjjane Clothing Company Pvt. Ltd. and was squaring off the sales by issuing fake credit notes and rather paying back to M/s ICPL.
19. The first supplementary charge sheet was filed on 02.07.2014, wherein it is inter alia stated that accused Smt.Raina Suri failed to furnish any written agreement of being commission agent with complainant company. The second supplementary charge sheet was filed on 20.01.2015 against additional accused namely Sajal Khanna (who also stood discharged by order dated 10.01.2017 by ld. CMM). It is matter of record that name of accused Sajal Khanna came when complainant gave another complaint to the effect that accused Sajal Khanna connived with accused Sumeet Suri in siphoning off funds of ICPL to the tune of Rs.2,81,68,313/- by fraudulently receiving cheques from the account of ICPL and then returning the amount in cash. Those cheques were in the name of firms namely M/s Khanna Sons, M/s Saisha, M/s Samya International and M/s S.K. Enterprises. (This court need not to elaborately mention the allegations against accused Raina Suri and Sajal Khanna as both of them stood discharged and that order attained finality).
______________________________________________________________________ State vs. Sumeet Suri (judgment) Page No.12 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.09.25 16:51:58 +0530
20. The third supplementary charge sheet was filed with regard to the allegations of the complainant regarding fake bills of M/s Rayman Textiles and allegations against Rajeev Jain. It is stated that during investigation the owner of M/s Rayman Textiles namely Rajeev Jain was examined, carbon copies of the bills as per the details mentioned in the supplementary charge sheet, were collected from Rajeev Jain. It is stated that upon scrutiny of the bills provided by Rajeev Jain and original bills/ invoices provided by the complainant, it revealed that all the 10 bills were issued from the bill books of Rajeev Jain and same were found to be genuine. However that apart 05 bills (details of which are mentioned in tabulation form), amount has been increased by altering the actual amount/ quantity. Original bills of Rayman Textiles were sent to GEQD Hyderabad for comparison of writing with suspects Jaiveer, Chandermohan Kapoor (employees of ICPL) and as per GEQD no opinion has been given. However it was confirmed that those bills were signed by accused Sumeet Suri. As such it is mentioned by the IO that allegations of preparing false bills of M/s Rayman Textiles could not be substantiated against Chandermohan and Jaiveer. The fourth supplementary charge sheet was filed along with the report of Truth Lab.
Charge
21. On the basis of the material collected during the entire investigation, ld. ACJM vide order dated 20.01.2017 discharged accused Raina Suri, on the ground that there was nothing on the record to show that accused Raina Suri was in criminal conspiracy with accused Sumeet Suri ______________________________________________________________________ State vs. Sumeet Suri (judgment) Page No.13 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.09.25 16:52:04 +0530 to cheat complainant by forgery or fabrication of documents. It is stated that the payments made by way of cheques were towards the commission earned by accused Raina Suri, for procuring orders from various buyers for complainant company. Mere absence of any agreement regarding charging of commission, was found to be not sufficient to frame the charge.
22. Similarly accused Sajal Khanna was also discharged by ld. ACMM on the ground that prosecution failed to prima facie show that whatever payments have been received into accounts of his various firms was not towards supply of fabric/material to complainant company M/s Ivory Clothing Pvt. Ltd. It is also stated that complainant failed to hand over stock register to the IO, during investigation which otherwise would have definitely cleared the entire controversy.
23. Ld. ACJM however ordered for framing of charge for offence under Section 409/420/468/471 IPC as against accused Sumeet Suri. On 24.01.2017 formal charge against accused Sumeet Suri was framed, to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Prosecution Evidence
24. In order to substantiate the charge prosecution has examined following witnesses :
PWs Name Deposition PW1 Sh.Aniljit Singh This witness is the complainant and stated to have
given complaint Ex.PW1/A, on the basis of which present case was registered. PW1 testified regarding the different allegations of cheating, siphoning off money, forgery etc. ______________________________________________________________________ State vs. Sumeet Suri (judgment) Page No.14 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.09.25 16:52:11 +0530 PW2 Sh.Rajender Singh This witness is from State Bank of India and testified regarding proving of account opening form of A/c No.10829468350 in the name of Ivory Clothing Pvt Ltd. as well as also testified regarding certain cheques collectively Ex.PW2/C. PW3 Sh.Vikas Yadav He is a Chartered Accountant from a firm namely Lunawat & Co., this witness testified regarding reply dated 10.07.2011 Ex.PW3/A as well as his investigation report as a CA which is Ex.PW3/C, as sought by EOW.
PW4 Sh.Gopal D Devnami This witness is from Punjab National Bank, Jangpura Extn. and referred to letter and documents Ex.PW4/A and Ex.PW4/B which are account opening form and annexed documents as well as statement of account of Anjjane Clothing Pvt. Ltd.
PW5 Sh.T.R. Jaishankaran This witness is from Indian Bank, South Extn.
and proved the account opening form, annexed documents as well as specimen signature card in respect of a/c no.700707194 & 718727689 in the name of Ivory Clothing Pvt. Ltd. Ex.PW5/A, Ex.PW5/B and cheques are Ex.PW5/C. PW6 Sh.Koshik Goswami This witness is from Standard Chartered Bank and proved the record relating to account statement of a/c no.544-1-001501-9 in the name of Raina Suri, statement of account is Ex.PW6/A PW7 Sh.Pranav Kumar This witness is from State Bank of India, Lajpat Nagar branch and proved a letter accompanied with statement of account of a/c no.10617194333 in the name of Anjjane Clothing Co. Pvt. Ltd. which is Ex.PW7/A as well as also proved account opening form, for opening of current account for export purposes as well as statement of account of a/c no. 10617194333 and these documents are Ex.PW7/B. PW8 Ms.Neelam Khan This witness is from SBI, Central Market, Lajpat Nagar who testified regarding notice/letter dt. 06.01.2011 received to then Branch Manager from the IO requisitioning original cheques no.
______________________________________________________________________ State vs. Sumeet Suri (judgment) Page No.15 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.09.25 16:52:18 +0530 346617, letter of ICPL for transfer of account of ICPL etc. which is Ex.PW8/A. Witness states that by letter dated 10.12.2010 requisitioned documents such as statement of account of a/c no. 01000055184 of ICPL along with annexures were provided which are Ex.PW8/B. PW9 Dr.Sanjay Kumar This witness is from SBI Central Market, Lajpat Nagar and proved the statement of account given along with letter dt. 14.01.2010 in respect of a/c no.10406288630 in the name of M/s Anjjane Clothing Company, account opening of said account, statement of account of CC account of a/c no. 10406288630 which are collectively Ex.PW9/A and specimen signature of accused Sumeet Suri is Ex.PW9/B. PW10 Sh.Ranjeet Singh This witness is one of the partner of M/s Bachumal Collections and proved copy of TIN number, ledger of account of Ivory Clothing Co. Ltd., ledger account of M/s Anjjane Clothing, as provided by him to the EOW and is collectively exhibited as Ex.PW10/A. PW11 Sh.Avijit Chattaraj This witness was working in Account Department of Dolfin Enterprises, which pertain to complainant's father late Mohanjit Singh. This witness has testified that he and Mr.Parmar were joint signing authority to all the account related documents. Witness testified that he used to be given direction by accused Sumeet Suri to sign certain account related documents, during the time when complainant was not attending the business activities.
PW12 Sh.Ashok Parmar This witness has testified that he had been earlier working as Fabric Manager in M/s Fashion Wears, later upon incorporation of Ivory Clothing, he was assigned the same job in that company as well. Witness states that when complainant Aniljeet Singh was not attending the business activities of ICPL, certain payments were made from the account of ICPL as well as regarding payments made to certain suppliers including one ______________________________________________________________________ State vs. Sumeet Suri (judgment) Page No.16 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.09.25 16:52:24 +0530 M/s Rayman Textiles, regarding which witness states that no such company was existing.
PW13 Sh.D.C. Bansal This witness is Accountant of SBI Sector-2, Noida branch and testified that by letter dated 02.02.2011 Ex.PW13/1, he provided to the IO original account form of a/c no. 10829468350 of ICPL, statement of account of said account, pay-
in slip of bankers cheque no.346617 of Rs.5 lakhs in favour of ICPL and certified copy of account opening form of a/c no. 10829468350.
PW14 Sh.Ashok Kumar This witness is from IT Department and provided the relevant documents of TDS amounts deposited from the account of M/s Anjjane Clothing Co. Ltd. which is Ex.PW14/A. PW15 Sh.Ketan Mehta This witness is from M/s Arrowhead and states that he had given the reply to the IO which is Ex.PW15/A and provided the copy of ledger pertaining to transaction of ICPL and M/s Anjjane during 2005 to 2008 which is Mark 15/PX.
PW16 Sh.M.V. Ramana Murthy This witness is from Kalanjali Arts & Crafts and proved a letter dated 09.04.2011 of Mr.N.S. Prasad Ex.PW16/A by which copy of VAT registration certificate, copy of account statement tof M/s ICPL were provided to EOW which are Mark 16/PX and Mark 16PX-1.
PW17 Sh.Lakshman Srinivas This witness is from a firm M/s Parthas and Nagarajulu proved reply dated 26.03.2011 Ex.PW17/A vide which copy of PAN number, partnership registration form were provided as well as ledger account which are Ex.PW17/B & Ex.PW17/C. PW18 Sh.Subhash Kumar This witness has proved bills pertaining to Aggarwal Hariom Fabrics and S.K. Agencies as provided by him to IO of EOW along with his reply which is Ex.PW18/A and bills Mark 18/PX.
PW19 Sh.Rahul Sharma This witness states that he had been working with company M/s Anjjane Clothing, of which accused Sumeet Suri was director. Witness has further testified regarding merger of Anjjane Clothing ______________________________________________________________________ State vs. Sumeet Suri (judgment) Page No.17 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.09.25 16:52:29 +0530 with company by name Ivory Clothing Pvt. Ltd. and that there was some dispute between directors of that company and later in November 2008 he left the job of ICPL. This witness also testified that physical inventory of the stock of Anjjane Clothing was handed over to the account department of ICPL. C.M. Kapoor was heading the account department of M/s Anjjane and Jaiveer was heading the account department of M/s ICPL. This witness also states that there was an export shipment prepared packed initially in the name of M/s Ivory Clothing but later they were told to change the entire shipment and packing in the name of M/s Anjjane Clothing. PW20 HC Rajeev This witness proved registration of the FIR on the basis of rukka prepared on the complaint/ statement of complainant Aniljeet and also testified regarding complainant handing over certain documents including fake bills/invoices vide seizure memo Ex.PW20/1.
PW21 ASI Dharmveer This witness testified regarding depositing of documents with FSL Rohini by memo dated 26.12.2013.
PW22 Inspector Rajeev Bhardwaj He is one of the IO who had investigated the present case and testified regarding the steps taken by him in his investigation.
PW23 Sh.R.B. Bhosale He is an expert witness from CFSL and has given the report on questioned documents provided to him during investigation. Witness stated to have examined the same with specimen signatures/ writing of accused as well as other witnesses and gave his report Ex.PW23/H. This witness states that he again received certain questioned documents and gave his detailed report Ex.PW23/J. PW24 Inspector Sher Singh He is one of the IO who had investigated the present case and testified regarding the steps taken by him in his investigation.
PW25 Inspector Sanjeev Dhodi He is one of the IO who had investigated the ______________________________________________________________________ State vs. Sumeet Suri (judgment) Page No.18 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.09.25 16:52:37 +0530 present case and testified regarding the steps taken by him in his investigation.
Statement of Accused
25. All the incriminating prosecution evidence was put to the accused in his statement recorded as per Section 313 Cr.PC, wherein while denying the evidence accused stated that PW1/complainant represented a false picture of his company. It is stated that there has never been any merger between M/s Fashion Wear and Anjjane Clothing Pvt. Ltd. (ACPL). It is further stated by the accused that during the period from 2005 to 2008 M/s ICPL was operating in profits. It is stated that PW1 has admitted that fact as he signed the balance sheet of year 2007-08, moreover this fact can be well reflected from the ROC documents, which was in the possession of IOs showing that during relevant time M/s ICPL was running in profits. Fact regarding that complainant was not attending the business of ICPL has been stated to be concocted as complainant (PW1) was regularly attending the office of ICPL. It is further stated by the accused that his difference with complainant/PW1 started in October 2007 as complainant was transferring the company's fund to individuals who were not connected with the company, although formal split between them happened on 15.01.2008 as recorded in the MoU.
26. Accused specifically denied the allegation regarding withdrawal of collateral and stated that it happened purely on mutual consent. Evidence regarding siphoning off of money has been specifically denied. It is stated that all the books of account were audited by companr ______________________________________________________________________ State vs. Sumeet Suri (judgment) Page No.19 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.09.25 16:52:48 +0530 auditor and no personal withdrawal made by the accused were found to be illegitimate. It is stated that no cheques were issued from ICPL to Anjjane Clothing Pvt. Ltd in the manner as alleged, rather substantial stock of fabric, semi finished, finished goods machinery were originally brought in by ACPL at the time of inception of ICPL, were duly invoiced from ACPL to ICPL. The cheques issued in favour of ACPL were only in respect of invoices raised by ACPL.
27. While denying the entire evidence, accused has stated that most of the prosecution witnesses who have deposed are only formal witnesses, who have only proved respective documents. Those documents however are bereft of any incriminating material against the accused. It is stated that so far as evidence of complainant and his associates, their deposition is tainted with bias and motivation. Accused stated that a false case has been foisted upon him at the behest of complainant, which is actuated by personal vendetta and ulterior motives. It is stated that investigation has also been carried out in biased and selective manner. Accused states that he is innocent and maliciously implicated in the present case.
Defence Evidence
28. Initially accused opted not to lead any evidence in his defence, however thereafter moved an application u/s 315 Cr.PC, to give evidence by appearing in the witness box. Said application was allowed and accused Sumeet Suri appeared as DW-1. Relevant portion of evidence of DW1 would be discussed later in this judgment.
______________________________________________________________________ State vs. Sumeet Suri (judgment) Page No.20 Digitally signed SHELENDER by SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date: 2025.09.25 16:52:56 +0530 Submissions
29. I have heard the arguments of ld. PP for the State and ld. Counsel for the accused as well as gone through the written submissions filed.
30. Sh.Manish Rawat, ld. PP for the State argued that different witnesses examined by the prosecution has successfully proved the charges against the accused. Ld. PP submits that the evidence of complainant along with PW11 Avijit Chattaraj and PW12 Ashok Parmar, clearly establish that huge amount of money was siphoned off from the accounts of ICPL to the accounts of Anjjane Clothing Co. Ltd. as well as to other accounts. It is submitted that PW11 and certain other witnesses have not been cross examined, therefore the facts coming in their evidence would deemed to have been admitted by the accused. Reliance in this regard has been placed on judgments of Apex Court in Sarwan Singh vs. State of Punjab (2003) 1 SCC 240 and Mahavir Singh vs. State of Haryana (2014) 6 SCC 716.
31. Ld. PP for the State further submits that it is very much established from the evidence of the complainant, and other witnesses as well as from MoU dated 28.08.2008 which is admitted document, that M/s Anjjane Clothing Co. Pvt. Ltd. had merged into M/s Ivory Clothing, at its inception in year 2005, however still accused continued the business activities of M/s Anjjane Clothing and made certain transfer into the accounts of M/s Anjjane Clothing, whereas because of the merger there could not have been any business activity of M/s Anjjane Clothing. Ld. PP ______________________________________________________________________ State vs. Sumeet Suri (judgment) Page No.21 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.09.25 16:53:02 +0530 submits that this in itself is a big proof of siphoning off money. Further he submits that from the evidence of PW3, Vikas Yadav, Chartered Accountant who gave his investigation report Ex.PW3/D also establish regarding illegal transfer of money from the account of ICPL. Ld. PP has also relied upon judgments of Apex Court in case of R.K. Dalmia vs. Delhi Administration 1962 SCC OnLine SC 83 and Mustafikhan vs. State of Maharashtra (2007) 1 SCC 623.
32. Sh.H.S. Bhullar, ld. Counsel for the accused submitted that charge in this case is on three counts i.e. for allegations of siphoning off money (section 409 IPC), allegations of forging of documents for the purpose of siphoning off the money as well as forging the documents for the purpose of alleged opening of three accounts (section 468, 471 IPC) and causing of alleged wrongful loss to the company i.e. Ivory Clothing Pvt. Ltd. It is submitted that charge against the accused has not been proved in any of the above mentioned counts. It is submitted that allegations with regard to siphoning off money could not be proved as for the relevant period i.e. from 2005 to 2008, accounts were duly audited and checked by company's auditor i.e. Mehra and Sistani. That document is D-31, however prosecution intentionally withheld that document. It is argued that said document i.e. auditor report/balance sheets of ICPL during the relevant time are Ex.PW1/DA, Ex.PW1/DB and Ex.PW1/DC. It is submitted that when such balance sheets, ITRs were duly signed by the complainant, that fact show that there was no illegal transfer of money.
______________________________________________________________________ State vs. Sumeet Suri (judgment) Page No.22 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.09.25 16:53:08 +0530
33. Ld. Counsel for the accused further argued that the difference between the complainant and accused were on different reasons and therefore accused settled the matter with the complainant under a MoU dated 29.08.2008, wherein it was decided that accused would pay sum of Rs.130 lakhs to complainant towards the settlement of account. It is submitted that MoU was signed in the presence of accountants, chartered accountants and is admitted document. It is submitted that as per that MoU it was also decided that C&F Agreement between the parties would also stand cancelled, therefore the allegations of forging C&F Agreement do not sustain. Counsel for the accused submitted that instead of relying upon the company's auditors report i.e. D-31, complainant has alleged that subsequent to the entering of MoU he took the assistance of auditor and allegedly found many irregularities in accounting entries and systematic fraud but such auditor as appointed by the complainant, or his report has never been placed on the judicial record or examined.
34. It is submitted that the prosecution i.e. EOW though has relied upon a chartered accountant report of CA Lunawat & Company, engaged by EOW during investigation (D-32). It is submitted that such report Ex.PW3/A and Ex.PW3/C are incomplete documents because PW3 in his cross-examination admitted that such report was prepared without providing all the relevant accounting documents and prepared only on the basis of bank statements.
35. Ld. Counsel for the accused further argued that allegations of forgery have not been substantiated and the alleged merger of ICPL and of ______________________________________________________________________ State vs. Sumeet Suri (judgment) Page No.23 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.09.25 16:53:14 +0530 Anjjane Clothing as claimed by complainant and prosecution, is misconceived because merger of two companies is a legal exercise and a court order is necessary for the same. In the absence of same, two legal entities cannot be presumed to be legally merged. It is argued that allegations of siphoning, misappropriation of funds are completely prejudiced, it is for that reason complainant never filed revised ITR and never filed any suit for recovery. It is submitted that investigation in the matter was defective.
Analysis of Evidence
36. In the facts and circumstances of the case, before proceeding to discuss the evidence as come on the judicial record, this court finds to enumerate following points of determination in the light of facts, different allegations made by the complainant :
(i) Whether there has been any merger of Ivory Clothing Pvt. Ltd.
(ICPL) and M/s Anjjane Clothing Pvt. Ltd. (ACPL).
(ii) Alleged siphoning off of money by way of withdrawal/transfer of funds from the account of ICPL in the account of accused, his wife and for personal expenditure, as well as to account of Anjjane Clothing Private Limited (ACPL).
(iii) Siphoning off money in respect of order placed to ICPL from M/s Alfaisaliah Commercial Limited by raising letter of credit in the name of personal company of accused M/s Anjjane Clothing Pvt.
Ltd.
______________________________________________________________________ State vs. Sumeet Suri (judgment) Page No.24 Digitally signed SHELENDER by SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date: 2025.09.25 16:53:19 +0530
(iv) Effect of admitted documents i.e. Memorandum of Understanding dated 29.08.2008.
37. This court is not touching upon the allegations with regard to accused Raina Suri and Sajal Khanna as both those accused have already been discharged vide order dated 10.01.2017 and order of discharge has attained finality.
(i) Whether there has been any merger of Ivory Clothing Pvt. Ltd.
(ICPL) and M/s Anjjane Clothing Pvt. Ltd. (ACPL).
38. Above noted factual issue is very important for deciding the other aspects involved in present matter because it is in evidence of complainant (PW1) as well as the argument of ld. PP for State that accused committed offence of criminal misappropriation, forgery and cheating by transferring of funds, forging the bills, C&F agreement etc. by transferring some of funds of ICPL into his company by name ACPL whereas at the time of incorporation of ICPL it was agreed between the complainant and accused Sumeet Suri that their respective companies would merge into ICPL. The merger of ACPL into ICPL has been highlighted by complainant as well as by ld. PP for the State to argue that the funds of ICPL have been transferred into the accounts of ACPL, whereas ACPL was not supposed to carry on any business on account of its merger in ICPL. The argument of ld. defence counsel on the other hand is that there has never been any merger in legal sense because the merger of any company into any another company require legal court order and there has never been any legal court order obtained for the merger. Moreover the ______________________________________________________________________ State vs. Sumeet Suri (judgment) Page No.25 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.09.25 16:53:24 +0530 Memorandum of Article of ICPL also do not mention about merger of ACPL into it.
39. Let us examine the evidence on this aspect. PW1 is complainant Aniljeet Singh who in his evidence has given the background leading to incorporation of Ivory Clothing Pvt. Ltd. PW1 testified that "in April 2005 he along with accused Sumeet Suri formed a company by the name Ivory Clothing Pvt. Ltd. and ran garment manufacturing unit for domestic and export. PW1 says that we merged our old companies namely Anjjane Clothing as belonging to accused and Fashioin Wear as belonging to PW1. PW1 says that Anjjane Clothing was very small manufacturing unit with less than 30 machines and after merger they opened a unit with over 200 machines. Accused Sumeet Suri was responsible for all manufacturing, labour, finance, control and basically looking after the factory's production whereas PW1 was responsible to get business for exports...."
40. PW1 inter alia testified that in year 2006 his father Mohanjeet Singh was detected with cancer and he had to attend his father on daily basis being only child and his father eventually passed away in February 2008. PW1 says that he could not assist Sumeet Suri during the period of his father's' ailment and after the death of his father he started going to the factory and found lot of outstanding to unknown suppliers. PW1 says that he used to blindly trust accused Sumeet Suri, who was looking after accounts, payments, withdrawal etc. PW1 says that in March 2008 when he started enquiring as to why ICPL was not making profit inspite of ______________________________________________________________________ State vs. Sumeet Suri (judgment) Page No.26 Digitally signed SHELENDER by SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date: 2025.09.25 16:53:32 +0530 running close to the capacity, accused started having differences and his explanations were not satisfactory. PW1 says that accused offered to break away from the business and since lots of unknown parties to him were known to accused, accused agreed to settle with them for their outstanding payments. Accused agreed to enter into a MoU with him in which outstanding payments to suppliers, outstanding payments to be received from buyers, known to him, were to be done by him. PW1 referred to MoU dated 29.08.2008 which is Mark PW1/X2. This MoU is not disputed document as it is admitted to have been executed by even accused.
41. Having examined the evidence of PW1, though PW1 testified that he and accused Sumeet Suri agreed for 'merger of their respective companies at the time of incorporation of Ivory Clothing Pvt. Ltd.'. Memorandum of Article and Memorandum of Association of Ivory Clothing Pvt. Ltd. Mark PW1/X1 do not specifically mention regarding merger of ACPL into Ivory Clothing Pvt. Ltd. Even otherwise in view of the provisions of Section 232 and 233 of Companies Act 1956, there is a specific procedure laid down in the law for effecting the merge1r of one company into the other company. PW1 in his cross examination dated 10.10.2022 admits that permission to merge these companies was not obtained from any court. Therefore the use of word 'merger' might have been referred to in the evidence of PW1 or even in the MoU admittedly executed between complainant and accused Sumeet Suri, but there has never been merger of ACPL into ICPL in strict sense of law.
______________________________________________________________________ State vs. Sumeet Suri (judgment) Page No.27 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.09.25 16:53:38 +0530
42. Having so concluded, it is however evident from the meaningful reading of Mark PW1/X1 as well as reading of MoU Mark PW1/X2 that complainant and accused agreed between them that they would use resources of their previous companies i.e. accused company ACPL and complainant's company Fashion Wears to be merged into the resources of ICPL. One can make out from the evidence of PW1 as well as from the MoU which is an admitted document that both complainant and accused agreed to invest their resources, machineries etc. only into M/s Ivory Clothing Pvt. Ltd. and not to carry on any business from their previous companies.
43. PW12 in his evidence has stated that in year 2005 complainant Aniljeet informed him that he wants to merge his company M/s Fashion Wears along with company namely Anjjane Clothing of Sumeet Suri who was very close friend of Aniljeet Singh, and after merger new company namely Ivory Clothing Pvt. Ltd. was formed and it was decided that M/s Fashion Wears and Anjjane Clothing would no longer remain in existence after the formation of Ivory Clothing Pvt. Ltd. PW12 was cross-examined at length however on this factual aspect to the effect that M/s Anjjane Clothing as well as Fashion Wears would no longer remain in existence after ICPL coming into form.
44. It is appropriate here to refer to evidence of PW19 Rahul Sharma who at one point of time was an employee of M/s Leggs and Co.
as Computer Operator which later changed to M/s Anjjane Clothing (ACPL) of accused Sumeet Suri. PW19 testified that accused Sumeet Suri ______________________________________________________________________ State vs. Sumeet Suri (judgment) Page No.28 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.09.25 16:53:44 +0530 had merged the company with other company namely M/s Ivory Clothing Pvt. Ltd., in which accused Sumeet Suri and Aniljeet Singh (complainant) were directors. PW19 in his deposition dated 12.03.2024 testified that M/s Anjjane Clothing shifted from Lajpat Nagar to Noida in the name of M/s Ivory Clothing Pvt. Ltd., physical inventory/stock of M/s Anjjane Clothing was handed over to accounts department of M/s Ivory Clothing Pvt. Ltd.
45. Thus from the evidence of PW1, documentary evidence such as MoU, evidence of PW19, though it can be concluded that there was no legal merger of ACPL into ICPL as per the provisions of Companies Act 1956, however it can be held from the evidence on the record that accused Sumeet Suri and complainant agreed that business activities of Anjjane Clothing as well as complainant's company Fashion Wear, would be stopped upon incorporation of M/s Ivory Clothing Pvt. Ltd. as the machineries, resources of those companies of accused Sumeet Suri as well as complainant were to be consolidated with resources of newly formed company M/s Ivory Clothing Pvt. Ltd.
46. From reading the entire evidence, statement of the accused recorded u/s 313 Cr.PC as well as the evidence of accused when he appeared in witness box as DW-1, it has come on the record that accused Sumeet Suri when appeared as DW-1 in his cross-examination by ld. PP for the State recorded on 06.09.2025, while denying the suggestion that under the MoU it was agreed between the parties that at the time of incorporation of ICPL, they decided to merge their respective business by incorporating ICPL. DW-1 stated "in fact parties agreed for the merger but ______________________________________________________________________ State vs. Sumeet Suri (judgment) Page No.29 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.09.25 16:53:49 +0530 merger could not take place only by legal process after taking the judicial order after taking merger of the companies....". DW-1 accused Sumeet Suri furhter admitted that he never objected the use of word 'merger' at any point of time.
47. Thus even from the evidence of DW-1, it is evident that even if there may not be a merger of ACPL and ICPL in strict sense of law but atleast it was agreed between accused Sumeet Suri and complainant and Aniljeet Singh that accused Sumeet Suri's company Anjjane Co. would not continue carrying on its business activities once ICPL was formed by accused and complainant as directors. This aspect is very important because if there was no such agreement between complainant and the accused, why accused Sumeet Suri in his evidence, statement u/s 313 Cr.PC has not given any documentary evidence of showing that M/s Anjjane Clothing was continuing its business activities with other companies also than ICPL. All the invoices, bills, documents referred to in the evidence, relied upon by even accused Sumeet Suri are pertaining to the period from 2005 to 2008, when according to complainant he was not attending the business activities of ICPL. Those bills/invoices, vouchers are also of business activities between Anjjane Clothing and M/s Ivory Clothing Pvt. Ltd. (ICPL). It is not even the case of the accused either in statement u/s 313 Cr.PC or in his evidence as DW-1 that he continued his business activities of Anjjane Clothing even after incorporation of ICPL.
48. Important aspect in this context to note that when a company (may be a private company), continue its business activities, there are ______________________________________________________________________ State vs. Sumeet Suri (judgment) Page No.30 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.09.25 16:53:55 +0530 certain statutory requirements to be complied with, such as preparing of balance sheets, profit and loss account, auditing of the accounts, filing of returns for income, sales tax etc. Such documents normally establish that any company is carrying on its business. None of such documents have been proved by accused Sumeet Suri when he appeared as DW-1 or even shown during the cross-examination of prosecution witnesses to show that Anjjane Clothing continued its business even after incorporation of ICPL in 2005 or that accused and complainant had never agreed for any merger or never agreed for stopping the business activities of Anjjane Clothing or complainant's company Fashion Wear. Rather absence of such evidence shows that accused and complainant had agreed that business activities of Anjjane Clothing would be stopped even if there might not be any legal procedure followed for effecting the merger of ACPL into ICPL.
49. Thus this court decides this point of determination to hold that even if there was no merger of their companies in strict sense of law but intention of the complainant and accused was only to run the business of M/s Ivory Clothing Pvt. Ltd. and they would close business activities of Anjjane Clothing as well as Fashion Wear.
(ii) Alleged siphoning off of money by way of withdrawal/transfer of funds from the account of ICPL in the account of accused, his wife and for personal expenditure, as well as to account of Anjjane Clothing Private Limited (ACPL).
(iii) Siphoning off money in respect of order placed to ICPL from M/s Alfaisaliah Commercial Limited by raising letter of credit in the ______________________________________________________________________ State vs. Sumeet Suri (judgment) Page No.31 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date: 2025.09.25 16:54:02 +0530 name of personal company of accused M/s Anjjane Clothing Pvt. Ltd.
50. Point of determination no.(ii) and (iii) are being taken up together as the allegations and facts are inter-mixed on basic allegation of siphoning off of money of ICPL by accused. Complainant in his complaint Ex.PW1/A has made allegations of different instances of siphoning off of money of ICPL by accused Sumeet Suri such as :
(a) Accused Sumeet Suri transferred funds of ICPL by using his signed cheques and transferring the amount for his personal drawings, illegally withdrawing the money to the tune of Rs.40,45,929/- by showing false purchase and entries in the name of M/s Anjjane Clothing Pvt. Ltd., illegally unauthorizedly.
(b) An order from the buyer of ICPL namely M/s Alfaisaliah Commercial Limited, for supply of fabric, accessories and other material was placed to the company but accused earlier raised a proforma invoice of USD 89932 from ICPL and later defrauded the company by changing the instructions to the buyer and raising another proforma bill in his personal company M/s Anjjane Clothing and obtained letter of credit in the name of his personal company by shipping the goods worth USD 89932 in the name of ACPL.
______________________________________________________________________ State vs. Sumeet Suri (judgment) Page No.32 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.09.25 16:54:07 +0530
51. There are other allegations also made by the complainant in the complaint as well in the evidence, however this court for the purpose of points of determination as noted above, is taking up above mentioned allegations for deciding the same.
52. PW1 Aniljeet Singh inter alia testified in his examination in chief that during the time when his father was suffering from cancer ailment and he was not attending the business of ICPL, accused Sumeet Suri was controlling the affairs of ICPL, subsequently after the death of his father when complainant started visiting the office of company he found lot of outstanding to unknown suppliers and supplying of garments to various unknown people to him. PW1 says that company was not making profits. PW1 in his deposition dated 08.02.2020 inter alia testified that accused Sumeet Suri in a very systematic manner defrauded ICPL when he found glaring discrepancies in the form of fake bills authorized by Sumeet Suri which were not in accordance with the normal system to be followed in the ICPL.
53. PW1 states that accused Sumeet Suri ignored the very system kept in place in ICPL and cheated the company by making personal withdrawals in his name, in the name of his wife as well as gave instructions to the accountant to adjust personal withdrawals in, "impressed account" and also adjusted his withdrawals by showing purchase of fraudulent fabrics from the market. PW1 states that numerous cheques were issued from ICPL, huge stock of fabric, semi finished goods ______________________________________________________________________ State vs. Sumeet Suri (judgment) Page No.33 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.09.25 16:54:13 +0530 were transferred from ICPL by accused Sumeet Suri while working as Director. PW1 deposes that personal company of the accused Sumeet Suri i.e. Anjjane Clothing was never supposed to be functioning, after merger of Fashion Wear and Anjjane Clothing into a new company M/s Ivory Clothing Pvt. Ltd. but accused committed fraud as Anjjane Clothing had never any manufacturing activity still there was transfer of funds, stock of fabric, semi finished and finished goods to ACPL.
54. PW1 testifies that accused Sumeet Suri made Anjjane Clothing as C&F agent of ICPL so that he can give explanation of his fraud whereas Anjjane Clothing was not supposed to be in existence, after the merger of both companies namely Fashion Wear and Anjjane Clothing into M/s Ivory Clothing Pvt. Ltd. As such the entire turnover of Anjjane Clothing was bogus. All the sale proceeds of Anjjane Clothing were to be transferred back to ICPL.
55. PW1 in his deposition recorded on 06.04.2021 inter alia testified that employees of ICPL as well as Anjjane Clothing proved that accused Sumeet Suri misused the power of being Director and siphoned off the money in the absence of complainant when he was attending his ailing father. PW1 says that he submitted different documents to the IO of EOW during investigation including details of stocks transferred to M/s Anjjane Clothing Company from the stock of ICPL, statement of false entries, list of illegal/unauthorized withdrawals of money from ICPL. PW1 testified that on 27.10.2010 he provided different fake bills of various ______________________________________________________________________ State vs. Sumeet Suri (judgment) Page No.34 Digitally signed SHELENDER by SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date: 2025.09.25 16:54:21 +0530 entities to IO vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/B and also provided D-17 i.e. other fake bills which are Ex.PW1/C, Ex.PW1/D.
56. PW1 says that the representation dated 12.10.2013 is Ex.PW1/E. PW1 also says that he was shown C&F agreement purportedly executed by ICPL through its directors i.e. PW1 and M/s Anjjane Clothing. PW1 says that he never executed any such agreement and signature on that document was forged, the said agreement is Ex.PW1/F. PW1 says that during investigation he provided his specimen signatures to the IO in three pages which are Ex.PW1/G.
57. PW1 was cross-examined at length, on different dates of hearing. Relevant portion of the same, would be discussed little later in the judgment in the light of submissions made by ld. Counsel for the accused.
58. Moving forward with the discussion of evidence as come on the judicial record, another important evidence for the points of determination as noted above is PW3 Vikas Yadav, Chartered Accountant of Lunawat & Co. PW3 testified that on 10.07.2011 his company of Chartered Accountant furnished relevant information to investigating agency in the present case. PW3 referred to D-32 along with the documents annexed with the file and stated that he filed the reply dated 10.07.2011 which is Ex.PW3/A and documents annexed with are Ex.PW3/B (colly.). PW3 further testifies that on 23.12.2011 he submitted the investigation report regarding Ivory Clothing vs. Anjjane Clothing ______________________________________________________________________ State vs. Sumeet Suri (judgment) Page No.35 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.09.25 16:54:27 +0530 Limited to investigating agency. Said report of chartered accountant is Ex.PW3/C.
59. PW11 is Avijit Chattaraj who testified that he was working in account department of Delfin Enterprises pertaining to Aniljeet's father.
PW11 says that later when Mohanjeet Singh expired in year 2007, since accused Sumeet Suri started business in partnership in the name and style Ivory Clothing Pvt. Ltd. with complainant Aniljeet Singh. PW11 inter alia testified that Mr.C.M. Kapor and Jaiveer Singh used to look after the work of accountancy with accused Sumeet Suri and PW11 and Mr.Parmar were joint signing authority of all the account related documents. PW11 says that they were bound to sign the accounts related documents on the directions of Sumeet Suri since he was incharge. PW11 says that Sumeet Suri used to tell him (PW11) and Mr.Parmar to sign certain purchase orders of various suppliers, and they used to do the same though they had doubts regarding his intentions. PW11 says that accused had his "own company" of garments which he used to run parallel to Ivory Clothing Pvt. Ltd. and he noticed many times that stocks of Ivory Clothing Pvt. Ltd. were reduced to minimum due to acts of accused Sumeet Suri as he was running parallel garment company. PW11 says that he intimated about the same to complainant Aniljeet Singh.
60. PW11 was not cross-examined by the defence. PW12 is Ashok Parmar who stated that he joined the company M/s Fashion Wears in year 2001 as Fabric Manager. PW12 says that a new company M/s Ivory Clothing Pvt. Ltd. was formed and established in Noida Sector 3 and ______________________________________________________________________ State vs. Sumeet Suri (judgment) Page No.36 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.09.25 16:54:33 +0530 all the materials i.e. sewing machines, fabric, stitched garments, packing material, boilers, generators etc. of M/s Fashion Wears were shifted to the factory of ICPL. PW12 says that during year 2005-06 father of Aniljeet Singh was diagnosed with cancer due to which Aniljeet Singh being only son could not attend factory for months and at that time accused Sumeet Suri used to look after entire finance of M/s Ivory Clothing Pvt. Ltd.
61. PW12 says that he was primarily looking after production and accounts department and accused Sumeet Suri brought three four persons namely Chander Mohan Kapoor, Jaiveer Singhj and Avijit Chatterjee. PW12 says that Chander Mohan Kapoor and Jaiveer Singh used to look after account works under the control of Sumeet Suri. PW12 says that in year 2006 when payments of certain suppliers could not be made, he made inquiries from the account department and they informed him that ICPL is going into losses whereas as per his experience he knew that the company was dealing with clients in UK and USA for supplying timely delivery of bulk orders and having huge profit margin of 40% including drawbacks, therefore company could not have gone into losses. PW12 says that he intimated about the situation to complainant Aniljeet Singh. PW12 inter alia testified that in February 2008 father of Aniljeet Singh expired and he started coming to the factory regularly. After observing lot of discrepancies in the account section, Aniljeet Singh ordered for a third party audit in the factory. PW12 says that what came out of the audit was that whatever was produced by M/s Ivory Clothing Pvt. Ltd. was transferred/sold to M/s Anjjane Clothing and thereafter production was ______________________________________________________________________ State vs. Sumeet Suri (judgment) Page No.37 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.09.25 16:54:38 +0530 sent by M/s Anjjane Clothing to various parties, despite the fact that finished products were produced by using the funds, raw material of M/s Ivory Clothing Pvt. Ltd. and not by Anjjane Clothing. PW12 says that M/s Anjjane Clothing was still in existence, even after the formation of M/s Ivory Clothing.
62. PW12 says that later he went out of station and when he returned, complainant Aniljeet Singh informed him that he had entered into a settlement with accused Sumeet Suri and accused Sumeet Suri agreed to pay Rs.1.3 crores under the settlement. PW12 says that this was mainly a step to stop the auditing further. Under a written settlement, accused Sumeet Suri transferred all his shares in M/s Ivory Clothing to Aniljeet Singh. PW12 says that he was subsequently made director of M/s Ivory Clothing and was given task to supervise the finances of ICPL. PW12 says that after the internal audit, lot of discrepancies were found which were beyond the settled amount of Rs.1.3 crores, in the accounts of M/s Ivory Clothing. PW12 thereafter went on to testify that one of the buyer of ICPL namely Alfaisaliah Commercial Limited placed an order of 89000- 90000 dollars to M/s Ivory Clothing regarding ready made garments. Said order was transferred by accused Sumeet Suri in the name of M/s Anjjane Clothing and the entire shipment was prepared from the funds, material of M/s Ivory Clothing.
63. PW12 was cross examined at length on different dates of hearing, relevant portion of this witness would also be discussed later in the judgment.
______________________________________________________________________ State vs. Sumeet Suri (judgment) Page No.38 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.09.25 16:54:45 +0530
64. Another relevant witness for the points of determination under consideration is PW19 Rahul Sharma who inter alia testified that he was dealing in orders and dispathces of M/s Anjjane Clothing as well as M/s Ivory Clothing and used to collect orders from different customers. PW19 says that in practice of company M/s Ivory Clothing Pvt. Ltd., if some party send back the goods for being defective or not sold, they would send them debit note along with courier transport slips. Gate keeper of ICPL used to get this information entered into their register and they used to check the returned material as per the information furnished. PW19 says that Chander Mohan Kapoor was heading the account department of Anjjane Cltohig and Jaiveer was heading the account of M/s Ivory Clothing Pvt. Ltd. PW19 says that Anjjane Clothing started invoicing the parties directly in the end of year 2007-08, though they were working by the name of M/s Ivory Clothing Pvt. Ltd. then. PW19 says that production was done by M/s Ivory Clothing but they were told that invoices were to be done in the name of M/s Anjjane Clothing. PW19 says that Sumeet Suri told them to do invoicing in the name of Anjjane Clothing. Witness continues to depose that one export shipment was to be sent to Saudi Arabia, entire shipment was prepared and packed initially in the name of M/s Ivory Clothing Pvt. Ltd. but later they were told to change the entire shipment and its packing by the name of "Anjjane Clothing". In last six months before PW19 left the company, witness says that deliveries were started to be sent in the name of Anjjane Clothing instead of Ivory Clothing.
______________________________________________________________________ State vs. Sumeet Suri (judgment) Page No.39 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.09.25 16:54:51 +0530
65. Having discussed the oral evidence as come on the judicial record, if we examine the documentary evidence regarding alleged transfer of funds etc. from the account of ICPL, at first instance it is appropriate to note document D-32 and report Ex.PW3/A of chartered accountant Lunawat & Co. proved in the evidence of PW3. Perusal of the same would show that details of cheques have been given in tabulation form vide which the funds have been transferred from ICPL to the account of Anjjane Clothing Limited. Those details are as follows :
Date Particulars Cheque No. Amount
10.01.2007 Chq 030915 145805
11.01.2007 Chq 030917 90000
15.01.2007 Chq 030926 55921
16.01.2007 Chq 030941 86400
22.01.2007 Cash 946006 40000
12.02.2007 Chq 527266 73317
13.02.2007 Chq 946084 59845
24.02.2007 Chq 948070 50000
20.02.2007 Manual Chq 948002 130750
20.02.2007 Manual Chq 948012 55645
26.02.2007 Chq 948100 50000
02.03.2007 Cash 032282 50000
02.03.2007 Cash 032275 240600
19.03.2007 Cash 032322 50000
11.04.2007 Cash 032341 50000
20.04.2007 Manual Chq 956325 50000
20.04.2007 Cash 956334 50000
21.04.2007 Manual Chq 956324 50000
______________________________________________________________________ State vs. Sumeet Suri (judgment) Page No.40 Digitally signed SHELENDER by SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date: 2025.09.25 16:54:56 +0530 27.04.2007 Cash 956343 100000 28.04.2007 Chq 956368 50000 16.05.2007 Cash 961016 100000 24.05.2007 Cash 961033 105030 30.05.2007 Cash 961053 100000 06.06.2007 Cash 961076 100000 16.06.2007 Manual Chq 961092 142307 19.06.2007 Manual Chq 961096 68277 19.06.2007 Manual Chq 962508 116628 19.06.2007 Manual Chq 962533 48867 19.06.2007 Manual Chq 962518 67858 20.06.2007 Manual Chq 962519 55938 20.06.2007 Manual Chq 962525 51160 21.06.2007 Manual Chq 961097 44850 22.06.2007 Manual Chq 962549 70541 25.06.2007 Manual Chq 962554 73300 30.06.2007 Manual Chq 962537 83377 30.06.2007 Manual Chq 962560 42750 05.07.2007 Cash 962567 100000 12.07.2007 Cash 962592 100000 17.07.2007 Cash 820211 100000 24.07.2007 Chq 820228 150000 25.07.2007 Cash 820233 150000 26.07.2007 Cash 820246 150000 14.08.2007 Cash 817404 100000 16.08.2007 Chq 817415 1501890 23.08.2007 Cash 817449 100000 30.08.2007 Cash 817474 100000 05.09.2007 Chq 814317 261090 ______________________________________________________________________ State vs. Sumeet Suri (judgment) Page No.41 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.09.25 16:55:03 +0530 01.10.2007 Manual Chq 814391 55671 01.12.2007 Chq 867239 100000 01.12.2007 Chq 867230 200000 05.12.2007 Chq 867265 100000 17.12.2007 Chq 867337 100000 28.12.2007 Chq 853505 100000 05.01.2008 Cash 853510 100000 07.01.2008 Chq 853516 306205 14.01.2008 Cash 853549 300000 24.01.2008 Cash 853552 100000 31.01.2008 Cash 853582 50000 05.02.2008 Chq 853569 129404 05.02.2008 Chq 853562 109613 06.02.2008 Cash 853566 111580
06.02.2008 Cash 853572 146953 06.02.2008 Cash 853598 50000 06.02.2008 Cash 853599 75043 06.02.2008 Chq Self 853600 166037 09.02.2008 Cash 853589 109497 09.02.2008 Cash 853575 104280 12.02.2008 Cash 853581 104800 14.02.2008 Cash 853584 102541 18.02.2008 Cash 853587 100763 22.02.2008 Cash 853590 66590 26.02.2008 Cash 860553 50000 05.03.2008 Chq 860568 86181 Total 8637304 ______________________________________________________________________ State vs. Sumeet Suri (judgment) Page No.42 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.09.25 16:55:11 +0530
66. Further perusal of the investigation report Ex.PW3/C would show that the chartered accountant in his report Ex.PW3/C has first given the details of the clients/companies with which ICPL had been doing its business and then the details of payments received from those clients. In this report Ex.PW3/C it is specifically mentioned that books of accounts of ICPL as well as Anjjane Clothing Pvt. Ltd. for the period from 2005 to 2008 were not furnished. In para 6 of Ex.PW3/C it is mentioned as :
"Verification of books of accounts, records & documents of Accused Company:
For the purpose of verification, various Books of accounts, supporting documents, registers related to FY 2005-06, 2006- 07 & 2007-08 of M/s Anjjane Clothing Private Limited were asked to be produced from the accused however the accused has only provided details of FY 2007-08 (that too without supporting documents, registers etc) which are not sufficient for forming any opinion."
67. Above said details of the cheques issued in the name of Anjjane Clothing Company get corroboration from document Ex.PW5/A proved in the evidence of PW5 T.R. Jaishankaran, who testified that he had provided reply dated 07.01.2011 to EOW (D-11) vide which he provided the details of cheques issued from account no.700707194 and 718727689 of Ivory Clothing Pvt. Ltd. Ex.PW5/A is inclusive of the copy of cheque no.814382 of Rs.2,82,068/-, cheque no.032276 of Rs.1,00,000/-, cheque no. 032301 of Rs.4,15,891/-, cheque no.867211 of Rs.3,80,860/-, etc. Thus these copies of cheques being part of Ex.PW5/A correlate with the above mentioned tabulation of Ex.PW3/A. ______________________________________________________________________ State vs. Sumeet Suri (judgment) Page No.43 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.09.25 16:55:17 +0530
68. Beside this, PW9 Dr.Sanjay Kumar from SBI has also referred to D-37, letter dated 14.01.2010 vide which he provided statement of account of a/c no.10406288630 in the name of M/s Anjjane Clothing Pvt. Ltd. for the period 24.08.2005 to 20.12.2009 which is collectively exhibited as Ex.PW9/A. Perusal of the statement of account of Anjjane Clothing Company, also establish receiving of above mentioned cheques from the account of ICPL.
69. Document Ex.PW5/A also include cheque no.814205 dated 28.09.2007 of Rs.25,000/-, cheque no.867326 dated 30.11.2007 of Rs.40,000/-, cheque no.867314 dated 11.12.2007 of Rs.1,00,000/-, cheque no.867313 dated 10.12.2007 of Rs.1,00,000/- issued from the account of ICPL in the personal name of accused Sumeet Suri. Beside this, there are cheque nos.842386, 842377, 842378, 820266, 817480, 961084, 867310, 867333, 853536, 86531 in the name of General Insurance companies, Friends Club, Gymkhana Club etc. i.e. towards the personal expenses of accused Sumeet Suri.
70. Original of the cheques are lying on the judicial record as Ex.PW3/C and Ex.PW2/C (colly.). Signatures on those cheques of accused Sumeet Suri are not disputed out of which cheques are no.506345 dated 28.08.2006 of Rs.5,00,000/- in the name of accused Sumeet Suri himself ; cheque no. 440204 dated 24.03.2006 for Rs.5,50,000/-, cheque no.517984 dated 08.12.2006 of Rs.2,47,520/-, cheque no.577794 dated 11.01.2007 of Rs.2,00,000/- in the name of Anjjane Clothing Company Pvt. Ltd. ; and cheque no.448400 dated 07.08.2006 for Rs.28,500/-, cheque ______________________________________________________________________ State vs. Sumeet Suri (judgment) Page No.44 Digitally signed SHELENDER by SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date: 2025.09.25 16:55:23 +0530 no.579211 dated 12.04.2005 of Rs.5,000/-, cheque no.579213 dated 13.04.2015 of Rs.8,000/-, cheque no.579227 dated 25.04.2005 of Rs.65,000/-, cheque no.579233 dated 28.04.2005 of Rs.25,000/-, cheque no.579239 dated 04.05.2005 of Rs.25,000/-, cheque no.579244 dated 07.05.2005 of Rs.40,000/-, cheque no.579259 dated 17.05.2005 of Rs.61,000/-, cheque no.579261 dated 23.05.2005 of Rs.7,600/-, cheque no.579273 dated 08.06.2005 of Rs.30,000/-, cheque no.579274 dated 08.06.2005 of Rs.8,000/-, cheque no.579275 dated 08.06.2005 of Rs.5,000/-, cheque no.579287 dated 16.06.2005 of Rs.15,000/- are issued towards 'Self'.
71. Even otherwise in the entire evidence as come on the judicial record there is no specific denial from the accused regarding issuance of these cheques from the above mentioned account of ICPL to the account of Anjjane Clothing Pvt. Ltd. Accused Sumeet Suri when appeared in the witness box as DW-1 has referred to the ledger account of sales of goods between Anjjane and ICPL as well as loan account of Aniljeet Singh in ICPL etc. which have been collectively exhibited as Ex.DW1/B. In the cross-examination of PW1 recorded on 10.10.2022, a specific question was put to the complainant that ICPL has raised invoices for fabrics to Anjjane in February 2008. PW1 was shown document D-51 i.e. invoices dated 08.02.2008 and 01.03.2008 Mark D-1. A specific question was put to the witness that ICPL has received payments from Anjjane for stitching work done by ICPL for Anjjane, witness however responded by stating that he do not recall and it must be matter of record. PW1 was also cross-
______________________________________________________________________ State vs. Sumeet Suri (judgment) Page No.45 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.09.25 16:55:29 +0530 examined with regard to D-51, page no.2962 regarding details of payments made to ICPL for fabrics in tabular format and page no.2969 regarding payments for services used by Anjjane for their production which is D-2, which are part of letter dated 02.01.2013 given by accused Sumeet Suri to the investigating officer and is part of judicial record as D-51. Perusal of the said letter dated 02.01.2013 of accused Sumeet Suri given to IO Rajeev Bhardwaj shows that he stated that some of the stocks of Ivory required for business by Anjjane were actually purchased by Anjjane from Ivory, this is evidenced from the fact that invoices were raised by Ivory to Anjjane for such material (Annexure 4). Moreover MoU mentions specific clause regarding payment of Rs.40 lakhs to be paid for stock taken over.
72. Ld. Counsel for the accused argued that accounts of ICPL were duly audited by its official auditor Mehra & Sistani (M&S) and those documents are RUD-31. As per those auditors report, auditors have not given any finding of any misappropriation or siphoning off funds or causing of loss due the same. Ld. Counsel submits that these documents were part of charge sheet, however same were intentionally withheld by the prosecution. It is argued that balance sheets of respective financial years have been exhibited as Ex.PW1/DA (for financial year 2005-06), Ex.PW1/DB (for financial year 2006-07) and Ex.PW1/DC (for financial year 2007-08) (D-31). It is submitted that perusal of same would also show that there was losses to the ICPL in year 2005-06, however there was profits in succeeding two years. It is submitted that such auditors report ______________________________________________________________________ State vs. Sumeet Suri (judgment) Page No.46 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.09.25 16:55:35 +0530 was prepared after verification of stock register of the company as it is mentioned in para 4(ii)(c) of the audit report of financial year 2005-06.
73. It appears from the arguments of ld. Counsel for accused that much reliance and emphasis has been given to above mentioned auditors report put to PW1 in his cross-examination and exhibited as Ex.PW1/DA, Ex.PW1/DB and Ex.PW1/DC by submitting that such auditor report had not pointed out any misappropriation of funds etc. However this court finds that such documents Ex.PW1/DA, Ex.PW1/DB, Ex.PW1/DC (D-32) have not been prov ed as per law as well as these document do not establish that there was no misappropriation of funds of ICPL, firstly because if we go through the evidence of PW1, in cross-examination dated 10.10.2022 attention of PW1 to document D-31 (page no.1770) i.e. balance sheet of year 2005-06 was put to the witness and PW1 states "since the account number of bank accounts are not mentioned, therefore he cannot comment about it...." and then the said document has been exhibited as Ex.PW1/DA. In the same manner when documents at page no.1820 of D-31 and page no.1859 of D-31 were put to PW1, witness gave similar reply as mentioned above however those documents were also exhibited as Ex.PW1/DB and Ex.PW1/DC respectively. PW1 has specifically stated in his reply that details of account of ICPL are not mentioned in those balance sheets etc. Still those documents were exhibited.
74. It be noted in this context that mere exhibition of a document is not proof of the same. Proof of a document is often correlated with ______________________________________________________________________ State vs. Sumeet Suri (judgment) Page No.47 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.09.25 16:55:41 +0530 merely exhibiting the document. Exhibition of a document does not necessarily mean that the contents of it are proven. Mere marking of a document as an exhibit does not dispense with its proof. (Sait Tarajee Khimchand v. Yelamarti Satyam 1971 A.I.R. (SC) 1865 ) Section 61 of the Evidence Act provided that the contents of documents may be proved either by primary or by secondary evidence. Here, the contents of the exhibits were not proved either by primary or by secondary evidence. So these exhibits must be brushed aside. (State of Meghalaya v. Joinmanick Nosmel Giri AIR 1995 Gauh. 23) As such, mere production and marking of a document as an exhibit by the court cannot be held to be due proof of its contents. Its execution has to be proved by admissible evidence.
75. Thus it is clear from above discussion that when a document is exhibited, that in itself is not the proof of the same. More particularly in the present case when accused is relying upon a particular document i.e. auditor report, it ought to have been proved by examining those auditors who prepared that report. Ld. Counsel for the accused has with much amount of vehemence, has referred to these documents by submitting that these documents were withheld by the prosecution and also submitted that these documents were admittedly signed by complainant as Director of ICPL.
76. Taking such submissions on the face of it, obvious question arises if prosecution has withheld the same and accused is relying upon it, such document ought to have been proved by summoning the auditor in the witness box. If we go through the evidence of DW-1 Sumeet Suri, ______________________________________________________________________ State vs. Sumeet Suri (judgment) Page No.48 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.09.25 16:55:47 +0530 accused has nowhere referred to these documents in his examination in chief, although DW-1 referred to his reply dated 10.11.2010 Ex.DW1/A given to IO Sher Singh, documents relating to ledger account of sales of goods between Anjjane and ICPL and exhibited as Ex.DW1/B. Accused has also referred to a note dated 18.04.2013 regarding working of cost of manufacturing of goods shipped to M/s Alfaisaliah by Anjjane Clothing which is Ex.DW1/C, the response given by late mother of accused namely Smt.Sneh Suri which is already Ex.PW22/DB1, response given by late father of accused namely Sh.Swaraj Suri which is Ex.PW22/DB and copy of case diary taken by father of the accused under RTI Act is Mark DA. Thus in the entire cross-examination DW-1 Sumeet Suri has not even referred to above mentioned auditors report Ex.PW1/DA, Ex.PW1/DB and Ex.PW1/DC for reasons best known to him. Evidently above mentioned documents have neither been proved by summoning the auditor nor have been proved by even accused himself in his evidence. As noted above exhibition of a document is not the proof of the contents of the same. Thus it can be concluded that these documents have not been proved on judicial record.
77. Besides the issue relating to admissibility of above mentioned auditors report D-31, even if for the time being these documents are taken into consideration, still this court is of the view that auditors report represents an opinion only on financial performance, regulatory compliances etc. relating to accounts and finance etc. Auditors report however cannot be taken as definitive judgment regarding ______________________________________________________________________ State vs. Sumeet Suri (judgment) Page No.49 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.09.25 16:55:54 +0530 misappropriation of funds through certain banking entries. While auditors are required to report the proprietaries of financial entries in the accounts however whether certain banking entries were regarding transfer of funds or misappropriation of funds, is not within the domain of auditor to examine. Auditors business is only to examine debit and credit entries of the financial accounts and to see assess the financial accuracy, transparency, adherence to accounting standards as per accepted 'auditing standards', whether particular banking entries have been duly reconciled or not and to check whether there has been supportive documents for those banking, accounting entries or not. However when it comes to examining whether through any such banking entries, funds have been illegally withdrawn or transferred, that may not be examined in the auditors report.
78. In the present case more particularly if we go through Ex.PW1/DA, Ex.PW1/DB, Ex.PW1/DC (D-32), first of all it can be noticed that there is no specific reference of particular entries of transfer of funds into personal account of the accused, into the account of Anjjane Clothing, as well as towards the personal expenditure of the accused Sumeet Suri. Rather in the balance sheets Ex.PW1/DA, Ex.PW1/DB, Ex.PW1/DC (D-32), there is no reference of account numbers either of ICPL or ACPL. Therefore even if the argument of ld. Counsel for accused is accepted to the extent that above mentioned documents were signed by the complainant, fact remains that these documents cannot be considered to be final words regarding the allegations of PW1 for misappropriation of funds of ICPL. PW1 in his cross-examination, as noted above has ______________________________________________________________________ State vs. Sumeet Suri (judgment) Page No.50 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.09.25 16:56:00 +0530 specifically stated that since the account number of bank accounts are not mentioned in it, he cannot comment about the same. PW1 in later portion of cross-examination dated 10.10.2022 was put a specific question that "you have signed the balance sheets for financial years 2005 to 2011". PW1 admitted the same, however voluntarily stated that " his father was detected with cancer, so he signed the balance sheets at the behest of accused in good faith".
79. Thus on meaningful reading of evidence of PW1 along with documents Ex.PW1/DA, Ex.PW1/DB, Ex.PW1/DC (D-32), one cannot say that these documents do not exonerate the accused regarding allegations of misappropriation of funds. Rather non-examination of auditors who audited those documents, non-referral of these documents in the evidence of DW-1 establish that these documents have not been proved as per law and cannot be considered to be a final word against the deposition of different witnesses as well as the admitted banking entries of transfer of funds from the account of ICPL to the account of ACPL.
80. Important aspect here to be noted is that accused in a very convenient manner has taken the plea that there has been business transactions between Anjjane Clothing and Ivory Clothing. Whereas this court on the basis of evidence has already recorded above while deciding the point of determination no.(i) that though there was no merger of Anjjane Clothing into Ivory Clothing but it was the intentions of both complainant and of accused not to carry on business activities of their private companies but still accused admittedly showing certain business ______________________________________________________________________ State vs. Sumeet Suri (judgment) Page No.51 Digitally signed SHELENDER by SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date: 2025.09.25 16:56:07 +0530 entries, invoices between Anjjane Clothing and ICPL. Such business transactions were never approved by complainant. There is nothing in the evidence of PW1 to show that he in his capacity of Director of ICPL had ever accepted any business transactions with Anjjane Clothing (ACPL). Rather evidence of PW1 gets corroboration from evidence of Ex.PW3/A and Ex.PW3/C. Rather invoices, vouchers, statements of accounts, admitted issuance of cheques by accused from the account of ICPL to transfer funds to the account of ACPL, clearly establish the misappropriation of funds.
81. Accused has not disputed the transfer of funds, by issuance of different cheques, etc. but tried to justify such transfer of funds to the account of ACPL on the basis of documents Ex.PW1/DA, Ex.PW1/DB, Ex.PW1/DC (D-32) which this court has already noted above that same have neither been proved as per law nor in any manner disprove the allegations of misappropriation.
82. Accused in his defence, more particularly his replies/ responses given during the investigation including Ex.PW24/DA, Ex.PW22/DA as well as in his submissions in this court has taken the plea that there was a regular business activity of M/s Ivory Clothing and M/s Anjjane Clothing, for which cheques were issued towards payment etc. The ledger account of sale and purchase of M/s Anjjane Clothing have been filed to show business activities. It is submitted on behalf of the accused that these facts could have been verified from DVAT returns of M/s Ivory Clothing.
______________________________________________________________________ State vs. Sumeet Suri (judgment) Page No.52 Digitally signed SHELENDER by SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date: 2025.09.25 16:56:16 +0530
83. On the face of it, such submissions appear to be convincing however examining the facts and evidence of present case, this Court finds that when there is evidence of PW1, material on the record showing that both complainant and accused Sumeet Suri had agreed for the merger of their earlier companies at the time of incorporation of ICPL, even if there was no legal merger taken place of those companies of accused and complainant into ICPL, still it is evident from evidence of PW1 and MoU etc. that the capital, resources of those private companies were to be amalgamated into the resources of newly incorporation Ivory Clothing Pvt. Ltd. in 2005. By necessary consequence, the private company of accused Sumeet Suri namely M/s Anjjane Clothing was certainly not supposed to carry out any business, more particularly with ICPL itself. Accused, therefore cannot take benefit of the fact that there has not been "legal merger" of those companies. There is specific evidence in this regard by PW1 who stated that Anjjane Clothing was never supposed to carry out any business activity after the incorporation of ICPL. Whereas all the documents, invoices, issuance of cheques (which are not denied by accused) show that there has been some business activities between ICPL and ACPL, they were also of during that period when complainant was not attending the business activities of Ivory Clothing Pvt. Ltd.
84. Moreover accused Sumeet Suri when appeared as DW-1 has not at all uttered a single word in this regard. Therefore the defence taken by the accused by way of replies Ex.PW24/DA, Ex.PW22/DA and other documents have not been proved on the judicial record. During cross-
______________________________________________________________________ State vs. Sumeet Suri (judgment) Page No.53 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date: 2025.09.25 16:56:23 +0530 examination of PW1, complainant has nowhere been asked on the issue that there was a consent of complainant and accused regarding any business transaction, transfer of funds etc. between ICPL to ACPL. This aspect was consciously not put to the complainant in his cross- examination.
85. Thus this Court finds on the basis of oral, documentary evidence as well as the defence taken by the accused Sumeet Suri that accused despite agreeing for the fact that he was not supposed to carry on business activities from his previous company Anjjane Clothing, after the incorporation of Ivory Clothing Pvt. Ltd., in 2005, started its business activities in the paper/accounts, particularly during period from 2005 to 2008, only for justifying the transfer/withdrawal of funds from the accounts of ICPL. As such this court finds that there is sufficient material available on the record establishing dishonest intention on the part of accused to misuse and misappropriate the funds of ICPL.
(iii) Siphoning off money in respect of order placed to ICPL from M/s Alfaisaliah Commercial Limited by raising letter of credit in the name of personal company of accused M/s Anjjane Clothing Pvt. Ltd.
86. Another allegation of alleged misappropriation of funds, made by the complainant was with regard to order placed to ICPL from M/s Alfaisaliah Commercial Co. Ltd. and later sending the shipment of the same in the name of M/s Anjjane Clothing Pvt. Ltd. In respect of such allegations, PW1 in his deposition has testified that accused Sumeet Suri transferred a LC of USD 89932 from M/s Ivory Clothing Pvt. Ltd. to ______________________________________________________________________ State vs. Sumeet Suri (judgment) Page No.54 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.09.25 16:56:29 +0530 Anjjane Clothing, without any board resolution. Witness states that the order was placed to Ivory Clothing and all expenses were done by Ivory Clothing but accused in his capacity as Director of ICPL got the LC transferred to Anjjane Clothing Pvt. Ltd. and received all the proceeds of his crime. Similar is the evidence of PW12 Ashok Parmar and PW19 Rahul Sharma on this aspect and has already been discussed above.
87. Accused Sumeet Suri when appeared in the witness box as DW-1 inter alia testified that during investigation he handed over a note dated 18.04.2013 regarding working of cost of manufacturing of goods shipped to M/s Alfaisaliah by Anjjane Clothing, along with four files containing relevant documents which were received by IO Insp. Rajeev Bhardwaj on 18.04.2013 which is Ex.DW1/C.
88. Perusal of document Ex.DW1/C would show that accused has submitted four files along with that reply to show that all the bills for expenditure incurred for manufacturing of the goods shipped to M/s Alfaisaliah was paid by M/s Anjjane Clothing Pvt. Ltd. However those bills which according to DW1 was paid by ACPL to any other party, have not been proved or brought on record. Further it is stated in Ex.DW1/C that there may be few styles for which, M/s Ivory Clothing Pvt. Ltd. has incurred the cost, for which M/s Anjjane Pvt. Ltd. paid to M/s Ivory Clothing through cheques as per the details given in his earlier reply dated 02.01.2013.
89. Having examined the evidence of DW1 and Ex.DW1/C, first of all, even no evidence has been led to show that only for "few" style, ______________________________________________________________________ State vs. Sumeet Suri (judgment) Page No.55 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date: 2025.09.25 16:56:35 +0530 payments were made to ICPL by ACPL. Rather evidence shows that accused has admitted that the entire raw material of M/s Ivory Clothing was used for preparing the finished goods for M/s Alfaisaliah and it was to be shipped at first instance in the name of M/s Ivory Clothing and later shipment was transferred in the name of M/s Anjjane Clothing. Such conversion of shipment was done without the approval of complainant or any board resolution of Ivory Clothing. PW1 has specifically testified in this regard in his evidence. Nothing came in the cross-examination of PW1 to show that PW1 had approved the change of shipment in the name of M/s Anjjane Clothing. These facts clearly establish dishonest intention of accused, to misuse the products of Ivory Clothing and misappropriating funds of sale into account of Anjjane Clothing, which was not supposed to carry on any business,w hen accused Sumeet Suri was Director of ICPL.
90. No doubt there has been a MoU between complainant and accused Mark PW1/X2 which is admitted document by both. Perusal of the same shows that clause (c) of this MoU records that second party i.e. accused Sumeet Suri has undertaken and ensured that export shipment to the tune of approx. Rs.24 lakhs of merchandise sent to M/s Alfaisaliah Commercial Limited of USD 16181.94 and 35214.51 along with drawbacks and other incentives to the tune of Rs.2 lakhs with payment terms of 30 days belonging to Anjjane Clothing Pvt. Ltd. Another company of second party (Sumeet Suri) shall be paid to the credit of third party (Ivory Clothing). Sumeet Suri shall ensure realization of these Rs.24 lakhs along with drawbacks of Rs.2 lakhs in M/s Ivory Clothing Pvt. Ltd.
______________________________________________________________________ State vs. Sumeet Suri (judgment) Page No.56 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.09.25 16:56:41 +0530
91. Having given thoughtful consideration to entire evidence, contents of the MoU, this Court finds that such clause (c) of MoU is rather an admission of accused Sumeet Suri to the effect that shipment of goods of above mentioned value of US dollars sent to M/s Alfaisaliah Commercial, was in fact of M/s Ivory Clothing and accused changed it in the name of M/s Anjjane Clothing whereas at that time M/s Anjjane Clothing was not supposed to carry out any business activity particularly with foreign buyer of ICPL. MoU rather establish the admission of accused whereby as per clause (c) accused undertook to pay entire amount to Ivory Clothing Pvt. Ltd. which stood transferred to the account of M/s Anjjane Clothing. No doubt there has been a sort of settlement between complainant and accused under this MoU on this aspect but this clearly shows that accused had misappropriated the funds of M/s ICPL which was later admitted by him. Here it be noted that complainant though did not deny MoU Mark PW1/PX-2, however testified that he filed complaint to police that although MoU was got signed from him fraudulently and PW1 came to know entire fraudulent transactions of misappropriation of funds, subsequent to execution of MoU. Therefore this MoU is rather another incriminating evidence, instead of accepting it as settlement.
(iv) Effect of admitted documents i.e. Memorandum of Understanding dated 29.08.2008.
92. During the arguments much reliance has been placed by both prosecution as well as defence on the MoU dated 29.08.2008 Mark ______________________________________________________________________ State vs. Sumeet Suri (judgment) Page No.57 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.09.25 16:56:48 +0530 PW1/PX2. Complainant in his complaint as well as in his deposition has testified that accused in order to cover up his fraud, cleverly entered into the above mentioned MoU drafted by him and his chartered accountant. PW1 says in his evidence that accused fooled him by getting the said MoU signed, wherein a clause (g) was inserted by the accused intentionally to escape from his liability regarding frauds committed in the accounts of ICPL. PW1 says that under the MoU accused Sumeet Suri resigned from ICPL and transferred his shares. Witness says that accused did so under a well thought plan, so that his fraud could not be unearthed. PW1 says that MoU never absolved Sumeet Suri from his fraud. Witness says that subsequently he conducted a audit of accounts of ICPL and the statements of the employees of Anjjane Clothing, Ivory Clothing, audit report of Geeta Jha pointed out various anomalies and fraud committed by the accused which surfaced only subsequent to the entering of the MoU.
93. The execution of MoU by accused is not disputed, rather has been relied upon. Ld. Counsel for accused on this aspect has emphasized that MoU if at all was not final settlement and according to complainant, fraud was detected subsequent to entering of MoU, complainant could have challenged the MoU but he did not do so. According to ld. Counsel for the accused not challenging of MoU means that the terms of MoU were final and binding on both the parties and therefore there was no other dispute left subsequent to the execution of MoU.
94. If we go through the entire evidence of PW1, in cross- examination dated 10.10.2022 a specific question was put to PW1 as to ______________________________________________________________________ State vs. Sumeet Suri (judgment) Page No.58 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.09.25 16:56:56 +0530 whether he had challenged the MoU in the court of law or before any statutory authority, PW1 responded by stating that he lodged the police complaint regarding systematic plan however did not challenge the said MoU before the court of law.
95. Having given thoughtful consideration to this aspect. Execution of MoU dated 29.08.2008 Mark PW1/PX-2 is undisputed, reference regarding this MoU has been given in criminal complaint which led to registration of the FIR. No doubt complainant (PW1) could have challenged this MoU, by a separate legal remedy of civil suit etc. However not filing of civil suit, does not wipe out, latent intention of accused to escape from misappropriation of funds which according to complainant were more than what was agreed in that MoU. This Court finds that the execution of MoU rather is another incriminating circumstance pointing towards wrongful intention of the accused to cover up transfer of funds, misappropriation of funds of ICPL. If we go through the MoU following aspects are relevant for deciding the charge under consideration :
(a) Accused Sumeet Suri undertook the liability to pay Rs.1.3 crores to M/s Ivory Clothing Pvt. Ltd. which were admittedly paid by the accused in implementation of this MoU.
(b) The above said liability of Rs.1.3 crores undertook by accused Sumeet Suri included the payments towards the ______________________________________________________________________ State vs. Sumeet Suri (judgment) Page No.59 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.09.25 16:57:04 +0530 shipment sent to M/s Alfaisaliah Commercial Ltd., in the name of Anjjane Clothing.
(c) That by virtue of clause (g) accused Sumeet Suri specifically put a condition that subsequent to the execution of MoU there would not be any responsibility of him for, explaining any previous accounting entries, documents, bills etc. in the accounts of Ivory Clothing Company.
96. Thus from the above three important aspects of the MoU, obvious question arises that when accused undertook the liability to pay Rs.1,30,00,000/-, what were the reasons for admitting such liability if there was no fraud committed by the accused. Rather admitting of such liability at the time of execution of MoU points towards the misappropriation of funds as well as other irregularities done in the accounting of ICPL. Moreover insertion of clause (g) to the effect that after payment of Rs.1.3 crores, accused would be absolved from giving any explanation for other irregularities/misappropriation of funds found in accounts of ICPL, show that accused was well aware that agreeing for Rs.1.3 crores under MoU, would absolve him from liability to account for other funds as well as possible criminal liability. But complainant challenged this MoU in his complaint as well as in his evidence. Therefore even if there may not have been separate challenge to this MoU by the complainant, when complainant had specifically alleged that such MoU was intentionally got executed from him to cover up the fraud which was far more bigger than ______________________________________________________________________ State vs. Sumeet Suri (judgment) Page No.60 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.09.25 16:57:11 +0530 the amount undertaken under the MoU. The fact that MoU was not challenged by the complainant cannot be a reason to ignore the same, nor it absolves the accused from his criminal liability, which is proved on the record and upto some extent there is no dispute with regard to different instances of transfer and misappropriation of funds of ICPL to ACPL. Defence of accused
97. In the above context it is important to discuss the defence of the accused taken in statement u/s 313 Cr.PC as well as in the written submissions filed on behalf of the accused. It is submitted on behalf of the accused that dispute between complainant and accused started in November 2007, when accused Sumeet Suri discovered that complainant Aniljeet Singh started paying of his gambling debts to third parties like Pradeep Beri etc. from the funds of ICPL. It is submitted that when accused Sumeet Suri reported about the same to late Mohanjeet Singh (father of the complainant), who was very displeased with his son and tried to mediate between accused and complainant. In the meantime late Mohanjeet Singh was diagnosed with cancer, which prevented him from mediating, later he passed away in February 2008. It is submitted that this led to split between accused Sumeet Suri and complainant. It is submitted that thereafter on 15.01.2008 complainant directed his staff to segregate stock of ICPL, invoices were then raised to ACPL for fabrics of ICPL and later a MoU was executed which was signed in the presence of all the accountants and CA of Sumeet Suri. It is submitted that MoU is admitted document and has never been challenged in any court of law.
______________________________________________________________________ State vs. Sumeet Suri (judgment) Page No.61 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.09.25 16:57:18 +0530
98. It is also argued that if according to complainant subsequent to execution of MoU he took the assistance of any auditor for unearthing alleged discrepancies in the accounts, such audit was in fact a "ghost story" as so called audit has never been conducted by the complainant and therefore no report of any such audit has ever been produced in the court to corroborate the claim regarding conducting of any audit. It is submitted that complainant's claim in RUD-53 is nothing but unsubstantiated allegations. It is stated in the statement u/s 313 Cr.PC that present case was foisted upon the accused due to personal vendetta and investigation in the matter was conducted in biased and selective manner.
99. Having considered the submissions, first of all it be noted that plea of the accused that complainant started paying off his gamble debts to third parties like Pradeep Beri etc. from the funds of ICPL, has not been proved at all by the accused. Moreover such fact has not been stated by the accused when appeared in the witness box as DW1. Even otherwise taking those facts on the face of it, even if the complainant might have also withdrawn certain funds from ICPL account, that fact by itself does not absolve the accused who is facing trial herein on the allegations, duly investigated by the EOW. Therefore accused is required to lead evidence in response to the allegations against him and cannot absolve from the charge against him only by taking the plea that complainant has also been unauthorizedly withdrawing certain funds from the accounts of ICPL.
100. The plea that accused reported regarding withdrawing of funds by the complainant to the late father of the complainant, who tried to ______________________________________________________________________ State vs. Sumeet Suri (judgment) Page No.62 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date: 2025.09.25 16:57:24 +0530 mediate the matter however could not do so on account of his ailment due to cancer and later he passed away. These facts again have not been either deposed by accused when appeared as DW1, nor such defence story can be taken as gospel truth when there is no material on the record to support these facts.
101. Another plea of the accused that the claim of the complainant having got audited the accounts of ACPL from an auditor/CA by name Geeta Jha etc., was a "ghost story" as that audit report has never been placed on judicial record. It is correct that if at all any such audit was conducted by the complainant, same has never been placed on the judicial record but this court is of the considered view that it was for the investigating agency to collect such audit report, there has been various other lapses conducted in the investigation and therefore merely because that certain lapses have been left by the investigating agency, prosecution case as a whole cannot be thrown away. Evidence of complainant, admitted position of the facts, documents etc. can still be taken into consideration to examine if the charge is proved or not. Therefore non- production of audit report if any conducted by complainant would not have any adverse affect on the prosecution case.
102. As such from the above discussion this Court concludes that accused during the period from 2005 to 2008, while working as director in ICPL was entrusted with the property, accounts, funds of Ivory Clothing Company Pvt. Ltd. to carry on its business as an agent of that company for its benefit, profits, however accused committed breach of trust in his ______________________________________________________________________ State vs. Sumeet Suri (judgment) Page No.63 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.09.25 16:57:34 +0530 capacity as agent of Ivory Clothing Company Pvt. Ltd. by misappropriating of its funds in the shape of transferring the funds for his own use, to his personal company Anjjane Clothing which accused and complainant had agreed not to carry on any business activity after the incorporation of ICPL.
103. In such factual background, let us examine legal position. Section 409 of IPC (Section 316(5) of BNS 2023), classes together public servants, bankers, merchants factors, brokers attorneys and agents. As a rule, the duties of such persons are of highly confidential character, involving great powers of control over the property entrusted to them; and a breach of trust by such persons may often induce serious public and private calamity. Essential ingredients for offence of Section 409 IPC are :
(i) the accused, a public servant or a banker or agent was entrusted with the property of which he is duty bound to account for; and
(ii) the accused has committed criminal breach of trust.
104. What amounts to criminal breach of trust is defined under Section 405 of IPC which involves (a) entrustment, and (b) whether the accused was actuated by dishonest intention or not, misappropriated it or converted it to his own use to the detriment of the persons who entrusted it. Thus for proving Section 409 IPC prosecution was required to prove that accused in his capacity as director of ICPL was working as its agent, representative entrusted with its properties, which he was duty bound to account for. However accused breached such trust by misappropriating its ______________________________________________________________________ State vs. Sumeet Suri (judgment) Page No.64 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.09.25 16:57:40 +0530 funds. The criminal intention on the part of the accused is well proved on the record. As such for the reasons discussed above, this court holds him guilty for offence under Section 409 IPC.
105. Accused has also been charged for offence u/s 420, 468, 471 IPC. Let us examine the facts and evidence on the record regarding proof of above noted offences. Since there has been different allegations with regard to offence of cheating, forgery and use of forged documents which are being examined in the light of evidence on the judicial record herein after.
(i) Fake/forged cash bills generated in the name of M/s Hariom Fabrics and S.K. Agencies.
106. One of the allegation in the complaint, charge sheet was that accused in order to justify transfer and misappropriation of funds of ICPL, forged bills of firms by name M/s Hariom Fabrics and S.K. Agencies whereas it came in the investigation that no such firm running by that name and fake/forged bills were prepared.
107. Only evidence led in respect of above mentioned allegation is of PW18 Subhash Kumar Aggarwal, who testified that on 04.12.2012 he joined the investigation, when IO showed him bills of Hariom Fabrics dated 08.12.2006 and of M/s S.K. Agencies dated 27.09.2006. PW18 says that he told the IO he do not know anything about those bills. PW18 says that he told IO that his brother Mahesh Aggarwal was doing business of clothes but he got disappeared in year 2000. Reply of PW18 is Ex.PW18/A and bills are Mark PW18/PX.
______________________________________________________________________ State vs. Sumeet Suri (judgment) Page No.65 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.09.25 16:57:46 +0530
108. Having examined such evidence, it is evident that PW18 has not alleged that those bills were forged, rather witness specifically stated that he do not know anything about those bills. Moreover those bills have not been exhibited and proved as per law as same were only marked as Mark PW18/PX. Thus it can safely be concluded that forgery of bills of above mentioned firm could not be established.
(ii) Opening of parallel accounts of ICPL, on the basis of forged board resolutions
109. Another allegation made by the complainant in the subsequent complaint was with regard to opening of bank account no.55184, SBI Lajpat Nagar and account no.718727689 of Indian Bank, South Extension, on the basis of forged Board Resolution. If we examine the evidence in this regard, PW5 T.R. Jaishankaran from Indian Bank, South Extension has stated that pursuant to the notice from the investigating agency he provided original account opening form with annexures, specimen signatures of account no.700707194 as well as 718727689 in the name of Ivory Clothing Pvt. Ltd. along with cheques issued from those two accounts. Witness further referred to his reply dated 07.01.2011 Ex.PW5/A.
110. With regard to account no.01000055184 with SBI Lajpat Nagar, in the name of Ivory Clothing, PW8 Ms.Neelam Khan has been examined who referred to letter dated 06.01.2011 addressed to the Branch Manager by the IO requisitioning certain documents. PW8 says that by letter dated 12.01.2011 she provided the requisitioned documents i.e. original bankers cheque of Rs.5 lakhs, letter of Ivory Clothing dated ______________________________________________________________________ State vs. Sumeet Suri (judgment) Page No.66 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.09.25 16:57:53 +0530 04.07.2005 for transfer of account of M/s Ivory Clothing. Those documents are Ex.PW8/A. PW8 further testifies regarding letter dated 10.12.2010 along with statement of account of above mentioned account which is Ex.PW8/B.
111. Although it was alleged that forged board resolutions were filed by accused Sumeet Suri, for opening the accounts, however those board resolutions have not been proved on the record nor it is established that there was any forgery. Specimen signature card of account of Indian Bank along with the account opening form of account with last digits of 7689, was signed by accused Sumeet Suri. Nothing came in the evidence of PW1 to establish that such bank account in the name of Ivory Clothing was never operated by complainant rather there is evidence on the record to show that complainant had the knowledge about above mentioned accounts in the name of Ivory Clothing. As such above mentioned allegations have not been proved in any manner.
(iii) Accused prepared fake bills such as in the name of one M/s Rayman Textiles and other companies such as G.M. Styles, Asian Impex etc.
112. Another allegation made by the complainant was against accused and one Rajiv Jain, owner of Rayman Textiles alleging that some fake bills were got printed in the name of M/s Rayman Textiles and those fake bills were for amount of Rs.60 lakhs, created for justifying the withdrawal of the cash from the bank account of Ivory Clothing.
113. At the outset it be noted that such allegations have not been found to be supported with any evidence, by the investigating agency itself ______________________________________________________________________ State vs. Sumeet Suri (judgment) Page No.67 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.09.25 16:58:00 +0530 as is reflected from third supplementary charge sheet. It is stated in the third supplementary charge sheet that alleged Rajiv Jain was joined in the investigation who provided the original bill book, bills as provided by Rajiv Jain as well as of Ivory Clothing were sent to GEQD. No incriminating expert evidence came in respect of those bills. Therefore investigating agency concluded that sufficient evidence has not come on the record regarding any forgery of bills in the name of Rayman Textiles. There is no evidence also on this aspect, on the judicial record.
(iv) Allegations regarding credit notes issued and fraudulent shown in the ledger account of Ivory Clothing Pvt. Ltd.
114. As per complainant certain credit notes were issued by accused Sumeet Suri fraudulently in the ledger account of Ivory Clothing to the tune of Rs.4,77,46,003/- in the name of various parties including his company M/s Anjjane Clothing Pvt. Ltd., without mandatory corresponding debit notes or goods return challan etc. It was alleged by the complainant that such credits notes were issued without there being any goods actual returned back in the record of Ivory Clothing.
115. Although it came in the evidence of PW1 that there was a mechanism of maintaining of registers/accounts etc. already in place in functioning of M/s Ivory Clothing Pvt. Ltd. under which in case of return of clothes being defective or not sold, a debit note would be issued by the concerned party and corresponding credit note would be issued by the company. Such credit note would be issued on the basis of relevant entries of stock register, gate register etc. However either in the evidence of PW1, ______________________________________________________________________ State vs. Sumeet Suri (judgment) Page No.68 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.09.25 16:58:06 +0530 PW11 or PW12 of PW19, no specific documentary evidence has come on the judicial record for proving making of forged and fabricated credit notes in corresponding to any debit notes to justify the withdrawal of money.
(v) Allegations with regard to submitting of fake C&F Agreement in favour of Anjjane Clothing Pvt. Ltd., to justify transfer of stock of garments of ICPL
116. Another allegation made by the complainant was that in order to justify the transfer of stocks of garments, funds of M/s Ivory Clothing to company of accused M/s Anjjane Clothing, accused submitted a fake C&F agreement in favour of M/s Anjjane Clothing Pvt. Ltd. Complainant alleged that no such C&F agreement was ever entered into or even authorized by complainant in any manner including board resolution of ICPL.
117. PW1 in his deposition has testified that Anjjane Clothing was never supposed to be functioning after merger of Fashion Wears and Anjjane Clothing into Ivory Clothing Pvt. Ltd. PW1 says that in order to cover up his fraud, accused Sumeet Suri made Anjjane Clothing as C&F agent, on the contrary Anjjane Clothing was not to be in existence after the merger of both companies into Ivory Clothing Pvt. Ltd. PW1 says that entire turn over of Anjjane Clothing was bogus, the expenses of shipment of Anjjane Clothing were in fact booked by Ivory Clothing Pvt. Ltd., sale proceeds if at all of Anjjane Clothing were to be transferred back to Ivory Clothing. For this purpose Sumeet Suri had provided a fake C&F agreement to cover up his and his wife's fraudulent involvement in Anjjane ______________________________________________________________________ State vs. Sumeet Suri (judgment) Page No.69 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.09.25 16:58:12 +0530 Clothing Pvt. Ltd. PW1 in his deposition recorded on 29.07.2022 has further testified that he joined the investigation on 29.11.2013 when he was shown the C&F agreement purportedly executed between M/s Ivory Clothing Pvt. Ltd. through its Director i.e. through PW1 and Anjjane Clothing through its Director Sumeet Suri (accused). PW1 testifies that he had never executed that agreement. That agreement is Ex.PW1/F. PW1 further testifies that he had given his specimen signatures in three pages which are Ex.PW1/G.
118. There is no cross-examination on the above noted portion of evidence of PW1 from the defence. Ld. Counsel for the accused has submitted that in the admitted document i.e. MoU dated 29.08.2008, the complainant and accused had agreed for cancellation of C&F agreement as the MoU mentions about the cancellation of C&F agreement w.e.f. 31.03.2008. It is also argued that even otherwise the transactions against C&F agreement were duly reflected in the balance sheets which were signed by the complainant and audited by the company's auditor which is D-31.
119. Ld. Counsel for the accused further argued that during the investigation PW25 Sanjeev Dodhi had seized the original C&F agreement vide seizure memo dated 27.11.2013 from the complainant. It is submitted that IO Insp. Sanjeev Dodhi deliberately changed the document provided by the complainant with the C&F agreement which was notarized, whereas the original C&F agreement provided by the complainant was not notarized. It is submitted that accused had also during investigation ______________________________________________________________________ State vs. Sumeet Suri (judgment) Page No.70 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.09.25 16:58:20 +0530 submitted C&F agreement to Insp. Rajeev Bhardwaj with his reply dated 27.09.2012. It is submitted that the C&F agreement was sent to Truth Lab and report of Truth Lab dated 29.04.2017 was inconclusive as the expert of Truth Lab stated that it is not possible express definite opinion and called for more documents for examination which were never provided.
120. Ld. PP for the State on the other hand submitted that the forgery of C&F agreement is very much evident from the fact that perusal of same shows that it is a document of 01.04.2007, whereas the notary stamp on that document is 18.11.2013.
121. Having considered the evidence, first of all it be noted that Truth Lab expert who gave its report dated 29.04.2017 has not been examined by the prosecution for reasons best known to it. Although said report has been exhibited in the evidence of PW25 Insp. Sanjeev Dodhi as Ex.PW25/C. Fact remains that as per this report Expert has not given any conclusive opinion as more relevant documents were asked for by the said Expert but same were never sent by the IO PW25 Insp. Sanjeev Dodhi. In his deposition a specific court question was put to the witness (PW25), in response thereto Insp. Sanjeev Dodhi affirmed that Expert of the Truth Lab asked for contemporary signatures of complainant. When court asked the specific question to PW25 as to why he could not provide the documents as requisitioned by the Expert of Truth Lab i.e. contemporary signatures of complainant, witness stated that he cannot give any explanation in this regard.
______________________________________________________________________ State vs. Sumeet Suri (judgment) Page No.71 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.09.25 16:58:27 +0530
122. Such evidence of PW25 clearly shows that the IO had not conducted the investigation properly because of which very crucial and important aspect of prosecution case of forgery of documents, could not be proved only because of the lapse on the part of IO Insp. Sanjeev Dodhi (PW25). The Expert report has been only exhibited without examining the Expert, therefore cannot be even taken into consideration on the face of it. Fact remains that there is no sufficient evidence on the record for proving the forgery of signatures of the complainant by accused Sumeet Suri.
123. Thus for the reasons discussed above, this Court finds that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge of offence u/s 420, 468, 471 IPC. Accordingly accused stands acquitted on that charge. Since accused has already been held guilty for offence u/s 409 IPC, he be heard on the point of sentence.
Announced in the open Court (Shailender Malik)
on 25.09.2025 Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI-21
RACC/New Delhi
______________________________________________________________________ State vs. Sumeet Suri (judgment) Page No.72 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.09.25 16:58:33 +0530