Delhi District Court
Cbi vs Krishan Kumar Bansal And Others on 27 January, 2026
SC No. 22/2019
IN THE COURT OF MS. SMITA GARG, SPECIAL JUDGE
(PC ACT) (CBI)-13, ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURTS,
NEW DELHI
CNR No. DLCT11-001602-2019
SC No. 22/2019
CBI v. Krishan Kumar Bansal & Ors.
RC No. 220-2010- A0020
Branch CBI, EOU-V, EO-II, New Delhi
Under Sections 120B/420 IPC &
Sections 3/7/9 & 10 Essential Commodities Act,1955
In the matter of:
Central Bureau of Investigation
Versus
1. Krishan Kumar Bansal,
S/o Sh. Purushottam Das Bansal,
R/o D-19, Pushpanjali Enclave,
Pitampura,
NewDelhi-110034. ....Accused No. 1
2. Chhabil Das Bansal,
S/o Late Sh. Kishori Lal Bansal,
R/o C-198, Pushpanjali Enclave,
Pitampura,
New Delhi-110034 ....Accused No. 2
CBI v. Krishan Kumar Bansal & Ors. Page No. 1 of 112
SC No. 22/2019
3. Surender Pal Bansal,
S/o Late Sh. Kishori Lal Bansal,
R/o C-198, Pushpanjali Enclave,
Pitampura,
New Delhi-110034. ....Accused No. 3
4. Jhabar Mal Swami @ Jhabar Mal Bhamu,
S/o Sh. Prabhati Lal Swami,
R/o Village Bhadawari, PO Kanwat,
Tehsil Srimadhopur, District Sikar,
Rajasthan. ....Accused No. 4
5. Saraswati Petrochem Pvt. Ltd.,
Address: 3990-A/209, Vishram Nagar,
Tri Nagar,
New Delhi-110034. ....Accused No. 5
6. Accused No. 6 was tendered pardon and
was examined as a prosecution witness.
7. Ram Singh,
S/o Sh. Vijay Ram @ Bija Ram,
R/o Village Pullewala, PO Trilokpur,
Tehsil Nahan, District Sirmour,
Himachal Pradesh. .... Accused No. 7
Date of institution of the case : 05.07.2012
Date of conclusion of final arguments : 03.12.2025
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 27.01.2026
JUDGMENT
Introduction of the accused persons:
1. Accused Krishan Kumar Bansal (A1), Chhabil Das Bansal (A2) CBI v. Krishan Kumar Bansal & Ors. Page No. 2 of 112 SC No. 22/2019 and Surender Pal Bansal (A3) are the Directors of the accused No. 5 company (A5) namely M/s. Saraswati Petrochem Private Ltd. (for short, 'SPPL'). Accused No.1 is the nephew of accused No. 2 & 3. Accused Jhabar Mal Swami (A4) and Ram Singh (A7) are the proprietors of M/s. Star Enterprises, Chhatarpur, Madhya Pradesh and M/s. Para Impex Chem, Sirmour, Himachal Pradesh respectively. Here it is pertinent to mention that one Sawan Nehra was also charge-sheeted as accused No. 6 but he was granted pardon under Section 306 CrPC and made an approver/prosecution witness vide order dated 30.11.2012 passed by the Ld. MM.
Case of the prosecution:
2. The case of the prosecution is that on the basis of source information, FIR bearing RC No. DAI-2010-A-0020 dated 18.05.2010 under Section 120B read with Section 420 IPC, Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 3 & 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 was registered against the unknown officials of Gas Authority of India Limited (GAIL) and Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) and Directors of SPPL. On 19.05.2010, factory premises of SPPL situated near Village Rohad, Delhi Rohtak Road, District Jhajjar, Haryana was inspected by a surprise team comprising of CBI officials CBI v. Krishan Kumar Bansal & Ors. Page No. 3 of 112 SC No. 22/2019 and officials of Quality Control Cell of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited and Central Excise Department. During the inspection, it was found that no manufacturing activity was going on in the said premises and the same was being used for storage of petroleum products. On the same day, search was also conducted at the office of SPPL situated at 3990A/209, Vishram Nagar, Tri Nagar, New Delhi and various documents were seized therefrom.
3. Though in the FIR, Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 had been invoked on the premise that the officials of GAIL and DGFT had entered into a criminal conspiracy with the Directors of SPPL and in furtherance of the said conspiracy, the officials of DGFT had issued license to import Naphtha and the officials of GAIL had allotted huge quantities of Pentane, Special Boiling Point Solvent and other petroleum products to SPPL without completing necessary formalities but after the completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed only against the private persons as mentioned above for the commission of offences punishable under Section 120-B read with Sections 420, 468, 471 IPC and Sections 3,7,8, 9 & 10 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 read with Section 3 of the Naphtha (Acquisition, Sale, Storage and Prevention of use in Automobiles) Order, CBI v. Krishan Kumar Bansal & Ors. Page No. 4 of 112 SC No. 22/2019 2000 and Section 3 of the Solvent, Raffinate and Slop (Acquisition, Sale, Storage and Prevention of use in Automobiles) Order, 2000.
4. During the course of investigation, it was revealed that SPPL (A5) had obtained Solvent License and Naphtha License on 07.12.2001 and 23.04.2002 respectively from the District Food & Supply Controller, Jhajjar, Haryana. On the basis of the said licenses, SPPL used to purchase Naphtha from M/s. Yog International and other concerns and Pentane, Special Boiling Point Solvent (SBP Solvent) and Mixed Fuel Oil (MFO) from GAIL.
5. During the period 01.04.2009 to 31.03.2010, SPPL (A5) purchased the following materials from GAIL:
S. Material Quantity Amount
No.
1 Special Boiling 328.66 MT Rs.1,42,07,214.04/-
Point Solvent
2 Mixed Fuel Oil 13.24 MT Rs. 4,36,292/-
3 Pentane 1087.82 MT Rs.3,43,57,092.51/-
6. For the procurement of materials from GAIL, SPPL (A5) was required to inter alia submit end-use certificates on quarterly CBI v. Krishan Kumar Bansal & Ors. Page No. 5 of 112 SC No. 22/2019 basis furnishing information regarding the quantity of products manufactured and the sale thereof to the customers.
7. From the materials purchased from GAIL, SPPL (A5) used to manufacture Reducer Grade-I & II and OCS Grade-I & II.
8. As per the sale register maintained by SPPL (A5), it had sold the manufactured products to 37 companies/firms including Star Enterprises and Para Impex Chem.
9. Investigation revealed that Star Enterprises and Para Impex Chem were shell firms and had been created by Jhabar Mal Swami (A4), Ram Singh (A7) and the approver Sawan Nehra in criminal conspiracy with the Directors of SPPL i.e. Krishan Kumar Bansal (A1), Chhabil Das Bansal (A2) and Surender Pal Bansal (A3) with the object to cheat GAIL by showing the bogus sale of manufactured products by SPPL to the said firms on the basis of fake invoices and payment receipts and divert the materials procured from GAIL for the purpose other than declared.
10. Investigation further revealed that in furtherance of the above conspiracy, Jhabar Mal Swami (A4) got registered Para Impex Chem, purported to be operating from a shop near Ruchira CBI v. Krishan Kumar Bansal & Ors. Page No. 6 of 112 SC No. 22/2019 Paper Mill, Chaudhary Colony, Trilokpur road, Kala Amb, District Sirmour, Himachal Pradesh, with the office of Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Nahan, District Sirmour, Himachal Pradesh on 17.04.2009 on the basis of forged documents. He had also got registered Star Enterprises with the office of District Trade and Industry Center, Chhatarpur, Madhya Pradesh on 27.02.2007 and got allotted a plot No. 23/1, Balgadi Project Area, Industrial Area, Chhatarpur, Madhya Pradesh on 22.03.2007 from the said office. Apart from the said two firms, he formed 06 other fictitious firms under the names of M/s. Shree Shyam Overseas, M/s. Tirupati Industries, M/s. Goodwill Enterprises, M/s. Deluxe Thinners, M/s. Goodrich Impex and M/s. Radhey Shyam Murari Lal. In the last two firms, the approver Sh. Sawan Nehra was shown as proprietor.
11. The modus operandi adopted by the accused persons to conceal the bogus sale of manufactured products was that the Directors of SPPL (A5) used to handover the cash amounts to Jhabar Mal Swami (A4) and the approver Sawan Nehra for depositing the same in the bank accounts of the said shell/fictitious firms and thereafter, get the said money transferred to the bank accounts of SPPL through RTGS or cheque. For the said transfers, SPPL used to pay 0.5% commission to the accused Jhabar Mal Swami and the approver Sawan Nehra.
CBI v. Krishan Kumar Bansal & Ors. Page No. 7 of 112 SC No. 22/2019
12. In the end-use certificates submitted by SPPL (A5) with GAIL, it had shown sale of manufactured products worth Rs.62,99,696/- to Para Impex Chem and Rs.28,89,293/- to Star Enterprises during the period 01.06.2009 to 31.12.2009. The details of the said invoices are as under:
Invoices pertaining to Para Impex Chem:
S. Invoice Date Product Name Total Value (in No. No. Rs.)
1. 131 06.06.2009 Reducer-I 2,34,058/-
2. 180 02.07.2009 O.C.S.-I 5,82,937/-
3. 181 03.07.2009 O.C.S.-I 5,82,937/-
4. 185 07.07.2009 O.C.S.-I 5,82,937/-
5. 187 10.07.2009 O.C.S.-I 5,82,937/-
6. 241 14.08.2009 O.C.S.-I 6,35,932/-
7. 242 14.08.2009 O.C.S.-I 6,35,932/-
8. 383 19.11.2009 Reducer-I 6,07,226/-
9. 435 20.12.2009 O.C.S.-I 6,49,180/-
10. 437 21.12.2009 O.C.S.-I 6,49,180/-
11. 452 28.12.2009 O.C.S.-I 5,56,440/-
Total 62,99,696/-
Invoices pertaining to Star Enterprises:
S. Invoice Date Product Total Value
No. No. (in Rs.)
1. 183 05.07.2009 O.C.S-I 5,07,862/-
2. 184 06.07.2009 O.C.S-I 5,82,937/-
CBI v. Krishan Kumar Bansal & Ors. Page No. 8 of 112
SC No. 22/2019
3. 186 08.07.2009 O.C.S-I 4,73,636/-
4. 250 22.08.2009 O.C.S-II 6,62,429/-
5. 261 28.08.2009 O.C.S-I 6,62,429/-
Total 28,89,293/-
Though in the charge sheet, details of only five invoices pertaining to Star Enterprises were mentioned but during the course of the trial, one more invoice bearing No. 233 dated 17.09.2009 pertaining to the said firm was also found in the sale records of SPPL.
13. From 22.06.2009 to 18.02.2010, a total sum of Rs. 2,10,40.000/-
was transferred in the bank accounts of SPPL (A5) by Para Impex Chem, which was in excess of Rs. 1,47,40,304/- to the total amount of invoices raised against it. Out of the said excess amount, a total sum of Rs. 1,27,76,000/- was returned by SPPL to Para Impex Chem between 31.12.2009 to 11.03.2010.
14. SPPL (A5) had shown in the invoices that it had transported the manufactured products to Para Impex Chem and Star Enterprises by the following vehicles:
(i) Vehicle No. PB10-BM-9598,
(ii) Vehicle No. HR38-G-6414,
(iii) Vehicle No. GJ12-V-9372,
CBI v. Krishan Kumar Bansal & Ors. Page No. 9 of 112
SC No. 22/2019
(iv) Vehicle No.HR38-G-3539,
(v) Vehicle No.HR38-F-6220,
(vi) Vehicle No.HR39-A-8469, and
(vii) Vehicle No.HR39-A-5767
However, investigation revealed that none of the above vehicles had been used to transport any product from SPPL to the said two firms. Charge sheet against the accused persons was thus filed on 05.07.2012.
15. Thereafter, a supplementary charge-sheet was filed on 04.01.2013. In the supplementary charge-sheet, the details of the transporters and the owners of the vehicles were furnished. It was also alleged that during further investigation, certain firms namely M/s. Goodrich Impex, M/s. Radhey Shyam Murarilal, M/s. Goodwill Allied Industries, M/s. Shri Shyam Overseas and M/s. Tirupati Industries had also been found to be fictitious and existing on papers only.
Cognizance:
16. After the filing of charge-sheet, an application under Section 306 CrPC was preferred by the CBI on 06.08.2012 for grant of pardon to the accused Sawan Nehra and making him an approver/prosecution witness. Vide order dated 30.11.2012, the said application was allowed by the Court. On 24.04.2014, CBI v. Krishan Kumar Bansal & Ors. Page No. 10 of 112 SC No. 22/2019 cognizance of the offences was taken by the Court of Ld. CMM and all the 6 accused were summoned. Vide order dated 04.02.2019, the chargesheet was committed to the Sessions Court in terms of sub-section (5) of Section 306 CrPC.
Charge:
17. On 05.08.2019, following charges were framed:
(i) For the offence under Section 420 IPC read with Section 120B IPC against all the accused;
(ii) For the offences under Section 120B IPC read with Sections 3, 7 &10 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 read with Section 3 of the Naphtha (Acquisition, Sale, Storage & Prevention of use in Automobiles) Order, 2000 and Section 3 of the Solvent Raffinate & Slop (Acquisition, Sale, Storage & Prevention of use in Automobiles) Order, 2000 and the substantive offences thereof against the accused A1 to A3 & A5;
(iii) For the offences under Section 120B IPC read with Sections 3, 7 & 9 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 read with Section 3 of the Naphtha (Acquisition, Sale, Storage & Prevention of use in Automobiles) Order, 2000 and Section 3 of the Solvent Raffinate & Slop (Acquisition, Sale, Storage & Prevention of use in Automobiles) Order, 2000 against all the accused CBI v. Krishan Kumar Bansal & Ors. Page No. 11 of 112 SC No. 22/2019 except A5; and
(iv) For the offence under Section 9 of the Essential Commodities Act read with Section 120B IPC against the accused A1 & A3.
18. No charge for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 468 & 471 IPC were framed. All the accused pleaded not guilty to the charges framed against them and claimed trial.
Prosecution evidence:
19. CBI examined a total number of 68 witnesses to prove its case.
For the sake of convenience, the said witnesses have been broadly categorized under the following heads.
Approver:
20. PW1 Sh. Sawan Nehra is the approver. He deposed with regard to the creation of fake firms and opening of bank accounts in the name of the said firms by Jhabar Mal Swami (A4), deposit of huge cash of SPPL (A5) in the bank accounts of the fake firms by him and Jhabar Mal Swami at the instance of Directors of SPPL and transfer of the money so deposited to the bank accounts of SPPL through RTGS/Cheques so as to cover-up the bogus transactions. He exhibited/proved the following documents:
CBI v. Krishan Kumar Bansal & Ors. Page No. 12 of 112 SC No. 22/2019 Sl. No. Description of the document Mark/Exhibits
1. His statement under Section 164 CrPC Ex.PW1/A recorded on 08.06.2012. (Colly.)
2. Application form dated 21.04.2009 submitted Ex.PW1/B with ICICI Bank, Lawrence Road, Delhi for (Colly.) opening current account of Para Impex on which Ram Singh's signatures were forged by Jhabar Mal.
3. Customer undertaking for opening current Ex.PW1/C account on which Ram Singh's signature was forged by Jhabar Mal.
4. RTGS slip dated 01.10.2009 of ICICI Bank for Ex.PW1/D Rs.11 Lacs on which Ram Singh's signature was forged by him.
5. Cheque dated 01.10.2009 of ICICI Bank for Ex.PW1/E Rs.11 Lacs on which Ram Singh's signature was forged by Jhabar Mal.
6. RTGS slip dated 06.08.2009 of ICICI Bank for Ex.PW1/F Rs.5 Lacs on which Ram Singh's signature was forged by him.
7. Cheque dated 06.08.2009 of ICICI Bank for Ex.PW1/G Rs.5 Lacs on which Ram Singh's signature was forged by Jhabar Mal.
8. RTGS slip dated 10.11.2009 of ICICI Bank for Ex.PW1/H Rs.5 Lacs on which Ram Singh's signature was CBI v. Krishan Kumar Bansal & Ors. Page No. 13 of 112 SC No. 22/2019 forged by Jhabar Mal.
9. Cheque dated 10.11.2009 of ICICI Bank for Ex.PW1/I Rs.5 Lacs on which Ram Singh's signature was forged by him.
10. RTGS slip dated 19.11.2009 of ICICI Bank for Ex.PW1/J Rs.6 Lacs on which Ram Singh's signature was forged by Jhabar Mal..
11. Cheque dated 19.11.2009 of ICICI Bank for Ex.PW1/K Rs.6 Lacs on which Ram Singh's signature was forged by Jhabar Mal.
12. RTGS slip dated 27.10.2009 of ICICI Bank for Ex.PW1/L Rs.10 Lacs on which Ram Singh's signature was forged by him.
13. Cheque dated 27.10.2009 of ICICI Bank for Ex.PW1/M Rs.10 Lacs on which Ram Singh's signature was forged by Jhabar Mal.
14. RTGS slip dated 03.11.2009 of ICICI Bank for Ex.PW1/N Rs.10 Lacs on which Ram Singh's signature was forged by him.
15. Cheque dated 03.11.2009 of ICICI Bank for Ex.PW1/O Rs.10 Lacs on which Ram Singh's signature was forged by him.
16. RTGS slip dated 29.09.2009 of ICICI Bank for Ex.PW1/P Rs. 6.5 Lacs on which Ram Singh's signature was forged by Jhabar Mal.
CBI v. Krishan Kumar Bansal & Ors. Page No. 14 of 112 SC No. 22/2019
17. Undated Cheque of ICICI Bank for Rs.6.5 Lacs Ex.PW1/Q on which Ram Singh's signature was forged by Jhabar Mal.
18. RTGS slip dated 15.10.2009 of ICICI Bank for Ex.PW1/R Rs.1 Lac on which Ram Singh's signature was forged by him.
19. Cheque dated 15.10.2009 of ICICI Bank for Ex.PW1/S Rs.1 Lac on which Ram Singh's signature was forged by him.
20. RTGS slip dated 12.10.2009 of ICICI Bank for Ex.PW1/T Rs.8.5 Lacs on which Ram Singh's signature was forged by him.
21. Cheque dated 12.10.2009 of ICICI Bank for Ex.PW1/U Rs.8.5 Lacs on which Ram Singh's signature was forged by him.
22. RTGS slip dated 05.10.2009 of ICICI Bank for Ex.PW1/V Rs.43 Lacs on which Ram Singh's signature was forged by him.
23. Cheque dated 05.10.2009 of ICICI Bank for Ex.PW1/W Rs.43 Lacs on which Ram Singh's signature was forged by him.
24. Account Opening Form of South Indian Bank, Ex.PW1/X Punjabi Bagh, Delhi bearing signatures of (Colly.) Jhabar Mal.
25. Photocopy of PAN Card of Ram Singh bearing Ex.PW1/Y CBI v. Krishan Kumar Bansal & Ors. Page No. 15 of 112 SC No. 22/2019 signature of Jhabar Mal.
26. Photocopy of electricity bill in the name of Ex.PW1/Z Ram Singh on which Ram Singh's signature was forged by Jhabar Mal.
27. Photocopy of sales tax registration in the name Ex.PW1/Z1 of Para Impex Chemical on which Ram Singh's signature was forged by Jhabar Mal.
28. Cheque dated 30.10.2009 of South Indian Bank Ex.PW1/Z2 for Rs.20 Lacs on which Ram Singh's signature was forged by Jhabar Mal.
29. Account Opening Form of South Indian Bank, Ex.PW1/Z3 Punjabi Bagh, Delhi in the name of Star (Colly.) Enterprises signed by Jhabar Mal.
30. Photocopy of telephone bill in the name of Ex.PW1/Z4 Jhabar Mal.
31. Photocopy of PAN Card in the name of Jhabar Ex.PW1/Z5 Mal.
32. Photocopy of sales tax registration in the name Ex.PW1/Z6 of Star Enterprises signed by Jhabar Mal. (Colly.)
33. Photocopy of sales tax registration in the name Ex.PW1/Z7 of Star Enterprises signed by Jhabar Mal.
34. Photocopy of PAN Card of Ram Singh on Ex.PW1/Z8 which Ram Singh's signature was forged by Jhabar Mal.
CBI v. Krishan Kumar Bansal & Ors. Page No. 16 of 112 SC No. 22/2019
35. Account Opening Form of ICICI Bank in the Ex.PW1/Z9 name of Para Impex Chemical on which Ram (Colly.) Singh's signature was forged by Jhabar Mal.
36. Format for customer letter dated 20.04.2009 of Ex.PW1/Z10 ICICI Bank for recording different signatures on which Ram Singh's signature was forged by Jhabar Mal.
37. Account opening form of Kotak Mahindra Ex.PW1/Z11 Bank in the name of Para Impex on which Ram Singh's signature was forged by Jhabar Mal.
38. Authority Letter for account opening form in Ex.PW1/Z12 the name of Para Impex Chem on which Ram Singh's signature was forged by Jhabar Mal.
39. Photocopy of PAN Card of Ram Singh on Ex.PW1/Z13 which Ram Singh's signature was forged by Jhabar Mal.
40. Photocopy of Voter ID Card of Ram Singh on Ex.PW1/Z14 which Ram Singh's signature was forged by Jhabar Mal.
41. Declaration of sole proprietorship in the name Ex.PW1/Z15 of Para Impex Chemicals on which Ram Singh's signature was forged by Jhabar Mal.
42. Application Form in the handwriting of Jhabar Ex.PW1/Z16 Mal Swami in the name of Star Enterprises. (Colly.)
43. Document with the heading of equipment Ex.PW1/Z17 CBI v. Krishan Kumar Bansal & Ors. Page No. 17 of 112 SC No. 22/2019 bearing signature of Jhabar Mal.
44. Application made to District Trade and Ex.PW1/Z18 Industries Centre, Chhatarpur, Madhya Pradesh in the name of Star Enterprises bearing signature of Jhabar Mal.
45. Letter of consent (Form-3) bearing signature of Ex.PW1/Z19 Jhabar Mal.
46. His statement dated 30.11.2012 recorded by the Ex.PW1/Z20 Ld. MM at the time of disposal of application (Colly.) under Section 306 CrPC.
PW1 was cross examined on behalf of all the accused persons. During his cross examination, following documents were proved/exhibited:
1. Certified copy of his statement under Section Ex.PW1/D1 164 CrPC recorded on 08.05.2012 in RC No. 18(A)/2010-CBI/EOI-III/New Delhi
2. Provisional Allotment letter issued by Ex. PW1/D2 Mangalam Build Developers Pvt. Ltd. in respect of Plot No. A-030, under Private Khatedar Scheme, Kanak Varindavan, Sirsi Road, Jaipur in the name of Sh. Sharwan Swami
3. Photocopy of the lease deed dated 18.06.2010 Ex. PW1/D3 executed by Jaipur Development Authority in CBI v. Krishan Kumar Bansal & Ors. Page No. 18 of 112 SC No. 22/2019 respect of Plot No. A-030, under Private Khatedar Scheme, Kanak Varindavan, Sirsi Road, Jaipur
4. Letter dated 26.03.2007 sent by Madhya Ex. PW1/D4 Pradesh Financial Corporation to M/s. Star Enterprises
5. Customer visit report of Sh. Ajay Kant Ex. PW1/D5 Dwivedi in respect of Para Impex Chem, Lawrence Road, Delhi
6. Certified copy of the statement under Section Ex. PW1/D6 164 CrPC of Sh. Banwari Lal recorded on 08.05.2012
7. Statement of current account of Star Ex. PW1/D7 Enterprises in South Indian Bank Witnesses of inspection of factory of SPPL on 19.05.2010:
21. PW2 Sh. Ajay Gupta, who worked as the Manager, Quality Control Cell, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, was the member of the surprise team. He proved the Search List dated 19.05.2010 prepared by Addl. SP Sh. Umesh Kumar Goswami as Ex.PW2/A, blank forms of Excise Invoices seized from the factory as Ex.PW2/B-1 to Ex.PW2/B-3, Search cum Observation Memo dated 19.05.2010 prepared by Addl. SP Sh.
Umesh Kumar Goswami as Ex.PW2/C (Colly.) and the CBI v. Krishan Kumar Bansal & Ors. Page No. 19 of 112 SC No. 22/2019 Inspection Report prepared by him as Ex.PW2/D. PW2 was cross examined by all the accused persons except Jhabar Mal Swami (A4) and Ram Singh (A7).
22. PW41 DSP Sh. Umesh Kumar Goswami, who was posted as Addl. SP at the relevant time, was also the member of the surprise. He also proved the documents i.e. Ex.PW2/A, Ex.PW2/B-1 to Ex.PW2/B-3 and Ex.PW2/C (Colly.). PW41 was cross examined by all the accused persons except Jhabar Mal Swami (A4) and Ram Singh (A7).
Witnesses of search of office of SPPL on 19.05.2010:
23. PW43 Sh. Gaurav Aggarwal used to work as Junior Accountant in the office of SPPL. He proved two registers/files pertaining to the receipt of raw material seized by CBI from the office premises on 19.05.2010 as Ex. A-45 and Ex. A-53 respectively. PW43 was not cross-examined by the accused persons.
24. PW49 Sh. Pramod Kumar, who was posted as Inspector in CBI and had participated in the search of the office of SPPL, proved the Search List dated 19.05.2010 as Ex.PW49/A and the documents seized from the office premises as Ex. A-43 to Ex. A-68. PW49 was not cross-examined by the accused persons.
CBI v. Krishan Kumar Bansal & Ors. Page No. 20 of 112 SC No. 22/2019 Witnesses pertaining to Para Impex Chem:
(A) Ist address of the firm (i.e. tenanted shop near Ruchira Paper Mill, Chaudhary Colony, Trilokpur Road, Kala Amb, District Sirmour, Himachal Pradesh):
25. PW8 Sh. Satpal has been examined as the landlord of the shop.
He deposed that he had heard of Ram Singh but had never met him. He deposed that he had two shops near his dairy situated on Trilokpur Road and that he had neither let out the shop to Ram Singh at any point of time nor executed any rent agreement with him. PW8 was not cross-examined by the accused persons.
26. PW44 Krishan Lal Khurana has been examined as one of the attesting witnesses of the rent agreement dated 20.11.2008. He deposed that Ram Singh used to visit his shop for recharge of mobile phone and that Ram Singh never brought the rent agreement to him for his signature. He deposed that the signature appearing below his name on the said rent agreement was not put by him. PW44 was cross-examined on behalf of the accused Ram Singh (A7) only. He was not cross-examined on behalf of the remaining accused persons.
CBI v. Krishan Kumar Bansal & Ors. Page No. 21 of 112 SC No. 22/2019
27. PW48 Sh. Vinay Kumar is the nephew of accused Ram Singh and has been shown as second attesting witness of the rent agreement dated 20.11.2008. He deposed that though he had been approached by Ram Singh to sign the agreement as witness but he had declined to do so. He deposed that the signature appearing below his name and address on the rent agreement was not put by him. PW48 was cross examined by all the accused persons.
(B) IInd address of the firm ( i.e. Plot No. 37-A, near IITT Engineering College, Trilokpur Road, Kala Amb, District Sirmour, Himachal Pradesh):
28. PW5 Sh. Man Singh, who worked as Economic Investigator with District Industries Centre, Himachal Pradesh, deposed that in December 2011, he had accompanied the CBI official, Sh. Kuldeep Singh (Economic Investigator) and Pradhan of Village Kala Amb to visit the factory of the firm and that there was a factory of Lubetech at plot No.37 and on the sides of plot No.37, plots No. 36 and 38 existed. He was not cross examined by the accused persons.
29. PW11 Sh. Rajesh Chauhan is the Pradhan of Village Kala Amb.
He deposed that neither the firm was running its factory from CBI v. Krishan Kumar Bansal & Ors. Page No. 22 of 112 SC No. 22/2019 Village Kala Amb nor plot No.37-A existed in the area. PW11 was not cross-examined by the accused persons.
(C) Witnesses from District Industries Centre, Himachal Pradesh:
30. PW3 Sh. Vinit Pundir, who used to work as Manager with District Industries Centre, proved the letter dated 24.11.2011 of the Economic Investigator Sh. Anant Ram in respect of the site inspection of the firm as Ex.PW3/A and copy of Entrepreneur Memorandum Part-I Form submitted by the firm for obtaining provisional registration as Ex.PW3/B (Colly.). PW3 was cross examined on behalf of accused Ram Singh only. He not cross examined by the remaining accused persons.
31. PW67 Sh. Anant Ram, who worked as Industrial Promotion Officer, deposed that the firm had applied for provisional registration and the same was allotted after verification of documents. He identified his signature on the letter dated 24.11.2011 written to CBI as Ex.PW3/A and deposed that along with the said letter, the copy of provisional registration certificate of the firm [Ex.PW3/B (Colly.)], copy of EM-I Form submitted by the firm [Ex.PW67/A(Colly.)], project report of the firm [Ex.PW67/B] and the copy of letter dated 16.11.2021 CBI v. Krishan Kumar Bansal & Ors. Page No. 23 of 112 SC No. 22/2019 sent by the department to Police Chowki Kala Amb seeking details of the firm and the response thereto [Ex.PW67/C(Colly.)] had been supplied by him to the CBI. PW67 was cross-examined by all the accused persons.
(D) Witnesses from Excise and Taxation Department, Himachal Pradesh:
32. PW4 Sh. Inder Sharma, who used to work as Excise & Taxation officer, deposed that vide letter dated 03.12.2011, he had handed over the certified copy of the original record of the firm, except the VAT returns filed by the firm, available in the office to the CBI. He proved the said letter as Ex.PW4/A and the copy of the record supplied by him as Ex.PW4/B. PW4 was cross examined by the accused Jhabar Mal Swami and Ram Singh only.
33. PW42 Sh. Bhupender Singh, who was working as Junior Assistant in the office of Assistant Excise & Taxation Commissioner, deposed that he had dealt with the file of the firm in the Establishment Branch during the years 2010 and 2011 and that on the instruction of Assistant Excise Taxation Officer (AETO), he had handed over files of VAT registration and VAT returns pertaining to the firm to the IO in May, 2012.
CBI v. Krishan Kumar Bansal & Ors. Page No. 24 of 112 SC No. 22/2019 He proved the Seizure Memo dated 08.05.2012 prepared by IO as Ex.PW42/A, the letter dated 23.05.2012 of AETO authorizing him to submit the documents as Ex.PW42/B, copy of registration certificate dated 17.04.2009 of the firm as Ex.PW42/C (Colly.), notice dated 25.03.2011 issued by the Assessing Authority to the firm in respect of non-filing of returns for the year 2009-2010 as Ex.PW42/D, notice dated 16.12.2011 by the Assessing Authority in respect of non-filing of returns for the years 2009-2010 & 2010-2011 issued to Ram Singh at his residential address as Ex.PW42/E, envelope returned unserved as Ex.PW42/F, office copy of the notice dated 16.12.2011 as Ex.PW42/G and notice dated 16.12.2011 in respect of non-filing of returns and non-payment of tax as Ex.PW42/H. He deposed that notices dated 16.12.2011 sent at the address of the tenanted shop of the firm were returned unserved as the firm could not be located and that no one attended the hearings in response to the notices. PW42 was cross-examined on behalf of all the accused persons.
34. PW64 Sh. Chiranjiv Lal, who was posted as Excise Inspector, deposed that he had handed over the attested copy of daily collection register and barrier receipts to CBI officials in December 2011. He proved the letter dated 09.12.2011 vide which the documents were handed over as Ex.PW64/A and the CBI v. Krishan Kumar Bansal & Ors. Page No. 25 of 112 SC No. 22/2019 documents as Ex.PW64/B (Colly.). PW64 was cross-examined on behalf of accused Krishan Kumar Bansal, Chhabil Das Bansal, Surender Pal Bansal and SPPL. He was not cross- examined by the remaining two accused persons.
35. PW66 Sh. Ashok Kumar is the neighbour of Ram Singh. He deposed that he had stood surety of Ram Singh for the allotment of sales tax number to him for business purposes. He proved his signature on the documents notarized by the Notary Public as Ex.PW66/1 (Colly.). He was cross-examined by the accused Jhabar Mal Swami and Ram Singh only.
Witnesses pertaining to Star Enterprises:
(A) Address of the firm (i.e. Plot No. 23/1, Balgadi Project, Industrial Area, Chhatarpur, Madhya Pradesh):
36. PW12 Sh. Brijender Gupta is the proprietor of Gaga ice factory situated in Factory area, Chhatarpur, Madhya Pradesh. He deposed that he had never seen or heard of factory of Star Enterprises and that plot No.23/1 was not situated in the Industrial area, Chhatarpur, Madhya Pradesh. He placed on record copy of his Aadhar card as Ex. PW12/A. PW12 was cross-examined on behalf of accused Jhabar Mal Swami only. He was not cross-examined by the remaining accused persons.
CBI v. Krishan Kumar Bansal & Ors. Page No. 26 of 112 SC No. 22/2019
37. PW17 Sh. Rajesh Kumar Khare is the Junior Engineer from Vidhyut Vitaran Company, Chhatarpur, Madhya Pradesh. He deposed that there was Balgadi Project Industrial Area adjacent to Chhatarpur city and electricity connection for any property in that area was provided by Chhatarpur Town Office of the company. He proved the letter dated 18.01.2012 whereby he had informed the Divisional Engineer that no electricity connection was given to plot No.23/1, Balgadi Project Industrial Area, Chhatarpur by the company as Ex.PW17/A. PW17 was not cross-examined by the accused persons.
38. PW20 Sh. Anil Sharma is the photographer. He deposed that on the asking of local police of Chhatarpur, Madhya Pradesh, he had taken photographs of a plot on Mahoba Road, Chhatarpur and that neither there was any construction nor board of any firm was installed at the plot. PW20 was not cross-examined by the accused persons.
(B) Witness from District Trade and Industry Centre, Madhya Pradesh:
39. PW21 Sh. Sunil Kumar Pandey, who worked as General Manager from 2007 to 2012, deposed that there was an CBI v. Krishan Kumar Bansal & Ors. Page No. 27 of 112 SC No. 22/2019 industrial area on Mahoba Road, Chhatarpur, which was known as Balgadi Project and that plot No.23/1 had been allotted to the firm vide letter dated 24.03.2007. He proved the allotment letter as Ex.PW21/A and the letter of intent dated 22.03.2007 issued to the proprietor of the firm Jhabar Mal Swami Bhamu as Ex.PW21/B. He also proved the notice dated 23.08.2010 vide which the proprietor was asked to prove establishment of industry and the cancellation of allotment notice dated 25.03.2011 as Ex.PW21/C and Ex.PW21/D respectively. PW21 was cross-examined on behalf of the accused Jhabar Mal Swami only. He was not cross-examined on behalf of remaining accused persons.
(C) Witnesses from Commercial Tax Department, Madhya Pradesh:
40. PW6 Sh. Daya Shanker Sharma, who was posted as Commercial Tax Officer, deposed that the firm had been registered in the year 2007 by the order of CTO, Naugaon and that in January 2012, he had handed over the file pertaining to the said firm to the CBI official. He proved the seizure memo dated 18.01.2012 as Ex.PW6/A (Colly.). PW6 was not cross-
examined by the accused persons.
CBI v. Krishan Kumar Bansal & Ors. Page No. 28 of 112 SC No. 22/2019
41. PW19 Sh. Santosh Kumar Gupta was the registered advisor of Commercial Tax Department prior to 2017. He deposed that in the year 2007-2008, one Bhamu had approached him for VAT registration of his firm Star Enterprises under Balgadi Project of Madhya Pradesh Govt. and that after completing the documentation, he had filled the application and submitted the file with the Department. He deposed that apart from registration, he had also filed Sales Tax returns of the said firm for the financial years 2007-2008 to 2010-2011 with Commercial Tax Department, Naugaon. He proved the application for restoration of registration of VAT of the firm as Ex.PW19/A, Seizure Memo dated 18.01.2012 vide which file of registration was seized from him as Ex.PW19/B and the form for registration of the firm filled by him as Ex.PW19/C. PW19 was not cross-examined by the accused persons.
Bank Officials:
(A) Witnesses from ICICI Bank, Punjabi Bagh, Delhi:
42. PW13 Sh. Arkesh, who was working as Regional Head, West Punjabi Bagh, Delhi deposed that in December, 2011, he had handed over the account opening form and statement of account pertaining to bank account No. 083005000211 of the firm Para Impex Chem maintained with ICICI Bank, Lawrence Road, CBI v. Krishan Kumar Bansal & Ors. Page No. 29 of 112 SC No. 22/2019 New Delhi to the IO. He proved the seizure memo dated 17.12.2011 as Ex. PW13/A. PW13 was not cross-examined by the accused persons.
43. PW14 Sh. Navneet Sharma, who remained posted as Manager of Lawrence Road Branch from August, 2009 to August, 2010, deposed that he did not know Ram Singh but knew S. Jhabar Mal Swami as he used to visit the Branch with Sh. Sawan and that they both used to deposit lot of cash in the account. He deposed that Para Impex Chem was maintaining an account with the Lawrence Road Branch, New Delhi and that when he had once visited the office of the said firm situated in Lawrence Road for verification, he did not see much business activity at the premises. PW14 was not cross-examined by the accused persons.
(B) Witnesses from South India Bank, Punjabi Bagh, Delhi:
44. PW16 Ms. Raavi Rajpal, who used to work as cashier in the bank during the year 2009-2010, deposed that Para Impex Chem and Star Enterprises were maintaining accounts in the said Branch and that Jhabar Mal, Sh. Sawan and sometimes their driver Sh. Om Prakash used to bring lot of cash amount and deposit the same in the accounts of the two firms. She deposed CBI v. Krishan Kumar Bansal & Ors. Page No. 30 of 112 SC No. 22/2019 that Ram Singh never came to her to deposit cash in the account of Para Impex Chem. PW16 was cross-examined on behalf of the accused Jhabar Mal Swami and Ram Singh only. Remaining accused persons did not cross examine her.
45. PW59 Ms. Shikha Verma is the Branch Manager of the Bank.
She proved the attested copy of statement of current account No.0560073000000071 of Star Enterprises for the period 16.02.2010 to 26.11.2011 as Ex.PW59/A, certificate under Section 2-A of Banker's Book Evidence Act as Ex. PW59/B (Colly.), certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex. PW59/C, attested copy of statement of current account No.0560073000000019 of Para Impex Chem for the period 24.10.2009 to 15.12.2011 as Ex. PW59/D (Colly.), certificate under Section 2-A of Banker's Book Evidence Act as Ex. PW59/E (Colly.), certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex. PW59/F (Colly.), attested copy of statement of overdraft general account No. 0560081000000003 of Star Enterprises for the period 23.10.2009 to 20.12.2011 maintained with the bank as Ex. PW59/G (Colly.), certificate under Section 2-A of Banker's Book Evidence Act as Ex. PW59/H (Colly.) and certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex. PW59/I. PW59 was cross-examined on behalf of accused Krishan Kumar Bansal, Chhabil Das Bansal, CBI v. Krishan Kumar Bansal & Ors. Page No. 31 of 112 SC No. 22/2019 Surender Pal Bansal and SPPL. She was not cross-examined by the remaining two accused persons.
46. PW60 Sh. Vinod Kumar, who had worked as Assistant Branch Manager, deposed that in 2011 and 2012, he had provided the details of the current accounts of Star Enterprises, Para Impex Chem, M/s. Tirupati Enterprises and M/s. Shri Shyam Overseas to CBI. Apart from the documents proved by PW1 Sh. Sawan Nehra and PW59 Smt. Shikha Verma, he also proved the seizure memo dated 20.12.2011 as Ex. PW60/A, statement of account of Para Impex Chem for the period 24.10.2009 to 19.12.2011 as Ex. PW60/B (Colly.), statement of account of Star Enterprises for the period 16.02.2010 to 20.12.2011 as Ex.PW60/C (Colly.), forwarding letter dated 11.05.2011 issued by the Branch Manager as Ex. PW60/D, cheque No. 886731 dated 30.10.2009 issued by Star Enterprises in favour of Para Impex Chemical as Ex.PW60/E, cheque No. 887026 dated 30.10.2009 issued by M/s. Shree Shyam Overseas in favour of Para Impex Chemical as Ex. PW60/F, cheque deposit slip of Rs. 9 lac each from Star Enterprises and M/s Shree Shyam Overseas in the account of Para Impex Chemical as Ex.PW60/G, statement of account of M/s. Shree Overseas for the period 29.10.2009 to 11.05.2012 as Ex.PW60/H (Colly.), statement of account of M/s. Tirupati Industries for the period 24.10.2009 to 11.05.2012 CBI v. Krishan Kumar Bansal & Ors. Page No. 32 of 112 SC No. 22/2019 as Ex. PW60/I (Colly.), letter dated 15.12.2011 vide which account opening forms of Para Impex Chemical, copy of KYC document, cheques given through RTGS and statement of account for the period 24.10.2009 to 15.12.2011 was provided to the IO as Ex.PW60/J, letter dated 16.05.2012 vide which copy of account opening form of M/s. Tirupati Industries was provided to the IO as Ex. PW60/K, letter dated 14.05.2012 vide which copy of current account opening form of M/s. Shree Shyam Overseas was provided to the IO as Ex. PW60/L, account opening form of M/s. Shree Shyam Overseas along with annexures as Ex. PW60/M (Colly.). PW60 was not cross- examined by the accused persons.
(C) Witness from HDFC Bank, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi.
47. PW50 Sh. Deepak Khulbe deposed that in the year 2008, he was working as Operation Manager in HDFC Bank, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi and proved the account opening form along with other documents submitted by Jhabar Mal Swami for opening account in the name of Star Enterprises as Ex. PW50/A (Colly.). PW40 was not cross-examined on behalf of Krishan Kumar Bansal and SPPL. He was cross-examined on behalf of the remaining accused persons.
CBI v. Krishan Kumar Bansal & Ors. Page No. 33 of 112 SC No. 22/2019 (D) Witness from ICICI Bank, Rohini, Delhi.
48. PW51 Sh. Chander Pal deposed that in May, 2012, he was working as Clerk with ICICI Bank, Sector-8, Rohini, New Delhi and that he had provided documents in respect of account of M/s. Deluxe Thinners to CBI. He proved the seizure memo dated 23.12.2012 vide which the statement of account of M/s Deluxe Thinners was seized as Ex. PW51/A, statement of account for the period 06.04.2009 to 01.05.2012 as Ex. PW51/B, seizure memo dated 13.06.2012 vide which certified copy of the account opening form was seized as Ex. PW51/C and certified copy of the account opening form as Ex.PW51/D. PW51 was cross-examined on behalf of Krishan Kumar Bansal, Chhabil Das Bansal, Surender Pal Bansal and SPPL. He was not cross-examined on behalf of the remaining two accused persons.
(E) Witness from HDFC Bank, Pitam Pura, Delhi.
49. PW55 Sh. Kamal Kant Soni deposed that in the year 2012, he was posted as Assistant Manager in HDFC Bank, Pitampura, New Delhi. He proved the following documents:
Sl. No. Description of the document Mark/
Exhibits
CBI v. Krishan Kumar Bansal & Ors. Page No. 34 of 112
SC No. 22/2019
1. production cum seizure memo dated 31.01.2012 Ex. A-22 vide which the documents pertaining to M/s. Saraswati Petrochem Private Limited were seized
2. letter dated 31.01.2012 of Backup Branch Ex. A-23 Manager Ms. Amita Chakarvarty
3. account opening form of SPPL with HDFC Ex. A-23 Bank, Pitampura, New Delhi
4. cheque No. 218880 dated 20.05.2004 issued by Ex. A-24 the company in its own favour
5. Board Resolution Ex. A-25
6. production cum seizure memo dated 09.02.2012 Ex. A-26
7. letter dated 08.02.2012 of Backup Branch Ex. A-27 Manager Ms. Amita Chakarvarty
8. cheque No. 222980 dated 27.01.2010 issued by Ex. A-28 the company in its own favour
9. RTGS transfer application dated 27.01.2010 Ex. A-29 submitted by M/s. Saraswati Petrochem Private Limited in favour of Para Impex Chem account maintained with ICICI Bank, Lawrence Road, New Delhi
10. cheque No. 222978 dated 22.01.2010 issued by Ex.A-30 M/s. Saraswati Petrochem Private Limited in its own favour CBI v. Krishan Kumar Bansal & Ors. Page No. 35 of 112 SC No. 22/2019
11. RTGS transfer application dated 22.01.2010 Ex.A-31 submitted by M/s. Saraswati Petrochem Private Limited in favour of Para Impex Chem account maintained with ICICI Bank, Lawrence Road, New Delhi
12. cheque No. 222979 dated 22.01.2010 issued by Ex.A-32 M/s. Saraswati Petrochem Private Limited in its own favour
13. RTGS transfer application dated 22.01.2010 Ex.A-33 submitted by M/s. Saraswati Petrochem Private Limited in favour of Para Impex Chem account maintained with ICICI Bank, Lawrence Road, New Delhi
14. cheque No. 222983 dated 28.01.2010 issued by Ex.A-34 M/s. Saraswati Petrochem Private Limited in its own favour
15. RTGS transfer application dated 28.01.2010 Ex.PA-35 submitted by M/s. Saraswati Petrochem Private Limited in favour of Para Impex Chem account maintained with ICICI Bank, Lawrence Road, New Delhi
16. Report of RTGS dated 28.01.2010 Ex.A-36
17. production cum seizure memo dated 03.04.2012 Ex.
PW55/A
18. Letter dated 03.04.2012 issued by Ms. Amita Ex.
PW55/B Chakrawarty CBI v. Krishan Kumar Bansal & Ors. Page No. 36 of 112 SC No. 22/2019
19. Payin slip issued by Star Enterprises in favour of Ex.
PW55/C M/s. Saraswati Petrochem Private Limited dated 24.09.2009
20. Cheque bearing No. 092090 dated 24.09.2009 Ex.
PW55/D issued by Star Enterprises in favour of M/s. Saraswati Petrochem Private Limited
21. Payin slip issued by Star Enterprises in favour of Ex.
PW55/E M/s. Saraswati Petrochem Private Limited dated 26.08.2009
22. Cheque bearing No. 092075 dated 26.08.2009 Ex.
PW55/F issued by Star Enterprises in favour of M/s. Saraswati Petrochem Private Limited PW55 was cross-examined on behalf of all the accused persons.
(F) Witness from Punjab National Bank, Lawrence Road, Delhi.
50. PW56 Sh. Jagat Singh deposed that in March, 2012, he was working with Punjab National Bank, Lawrence Road, New Delhi and has proved the production cum seizure memo dated 16.03.2012 whereby the documents pertaining to the bank account of M/s. Saraswati Petro Chem Private Limited were provided to the IO as Ex. PW56/A, specimen signature slip CBI v. Krishan Kumar Bansal & Ors. Page No. 37 of 112 SC No. 22/2019 signed by Surender Pal Bansal as Ex. PW56/B, specimen signature slip of Krishan Kumar Bansal as Ex.PW56/C, specimen signature slip of Chhabil Das Bansal as Ex.PW56/D and the attested copy of account opening form of M/s. Saraswati Petro Chem Private Limited along with copy of Form No. 49A for allotment of permanent account number and resolution dated 17.12.1998 as Ex.PW56/E (Colly.). PW56 was not cross- examined by all the accused persons.
(G) Witnesses from HDFC Bank, Pushpanjali, Delhi.
51. PW61 Sh. Sanjeev Kumar deposed that in February, 2012, he was posted as Insurance Officer in HDFC Bank, Pushpanjali Enclave, New Delhi and he proved the letter dated 14.12.2012 vide which the documents were provided to CBI as Ex. PW61/A, letter dated 04.03.2010 as Ex.PW61/B, cheque dated 26.02.2010 as Ex. PW61/C and RTGS Fund Transfer Application Form dated 26.02.2010 as Ex. PW61/D. PW61 was cross-examined by all the accused persons except the accused Ram Singh.
52. PW62 Sh. Balwinder Singh deposed that he was posted as Deputy Manager in HDFC Bank, Pushpanjali Enclave, New Delhi and he proved seizure memo dated 02.04.2012 vide which CBI v. Krishan Kumar Bansal & Ors. Page No. 38 of 112 SC No. 22/2019 documents were provided to the IO as Ex. PW62/A, forwarding letter dated 27.03.2012 as Ex. PW62/B, seizure memo dated 15.06.2012 as Ex. PW62/C, cheque No. 099543 dated 31.03.2010 as Ex. PW62/D, cheque No. 099544 dated 31.03.2010 as Ex. PW62/E, cheque No. 099545 dated 31.03.2010 as Ex. PW62/F, cheque No. 239050 dated 08.04.2010 as Ex.PW62/G, cheque No. 239049 dated 08.04.2010 as Ex.PW62/H, seizure memo dated 18.05.2012 as Ex.PW62/I, cheque No. 239046 dated 05.04.2010 as Ex.PW62/J, cheque No. 239045 dated 05.04.2010 as Ex. PW62/K, cheque No. 196870 dated 05.04.2010 as Ex.PW62/L, cheque No. 196872 dated 05.04.2010 as Ex.PW62/M and cheque No. 196874 dated 08.04.2010 as Ex. PW62/N. PW62 was cross-examined on behalf of accused Krishan Kumar Bansal, Chhabil Das Bansal, Surender Pal Bansal and SPPL. He was not cross-examined by the remaining two accused persons.
Witnesses in respect of transportation of goods of SPPL:
(A) Transport Companies
53. PW9 Sh. Sube Singh Saini, proprietor of M/s Durga Freight Carrier was examined in respect of TATA 407 having registration No. HR-39A-5767. He proved the seizure memo dated 24.12.2011 vide which the register containing details of CBI v. Krishan Kumar Bansal & Ors. Page No. 39 of 112 SC No. 22/2019 movement of the said vehicle was seized as Ex. PW9/A, the register as Ex. PW9/B and copy of the RC of the said vehicle as Ex. PW9/C. PW9 was cross-examined on behalf of accused Chhabil Das Bansal and Surender Pal Bansal and during the said cross-examination, letter dated 23.11.2012 written by him to CBI Official was exhibited as Ex.PW9/D1. He was not cross examined on behalf of the remaining accused persons.
54. PW10 Sh. Dharam Singh, proprietor of M/s. Laxmi Oil Carrier was examined in respect of tanker bearing No. HR-38FA-6220.
He proved the seizure memo dated 30.12.2011 whereby the documents in respect of the said vehicle were seized from him as Ex. PW10/A, copy of the RC of the said vehicle as Ex. PW10/B, fitness certificate as Ex. PW10/C, permit as Ex. PW10/D, sale deed of the said vehicle as Ex. PW10/E and photocopy of his driving license as Ex. PW10/F. He deposed that the said vehicle had been sold by him to Sh. Gurmeet Singh. The said Gurmeet Singh was examined as PW18. PW10 was cross-examined by all the accused persons.
55. PW26 Sh. Jugjeet Kishan Puri, proprietor of M/s Lakshmi Oil Carriers was examined in respect of tanker No. HR-38-G-3539. He proved the seizure memo dated 30.12.2011 whereby the documents in respect of the said vehicle were seized as Ex.
CBI v. Krishan Kumar Bansal & Ors. Page No. 40 of 112 SC No. 22/2019 PW26/A, copy of the RC of the said vehicle as Ex. PW26/B, permit as Ex. PW26/C and photocopy of his driving license as Ex. PW26/D. PW26 was cross-examined by all the accused persons except the accused Ram Singh.
56. PW30 Sh. Parminder Singh, proprietor of M/s Punjab Freight Carriers Pvt. Ltd. was examined in respect of truck No. PB-10- BM-9598. He deposed that the said truck was an open body truck and was used for transport of purchune (grocery) items. PW30 was cross-examined by all the accused persons.
57. PW31 Sh. Anil Katoch, who worked as Manager with M/s Punjab Freight Carriers Pvt. Ltd., proved the dispatch register for the period June, 2009 as Ex. PW31/A and the RC of the truck No.PB-10-BM-9598 as Ex. PW31/B. PW31 was cross- examined by all the accused persons except the accused Jhabar Mal Swami and Ram Singh.
58. PW65 Sh.Yogender Choudhary, proprietor of M/s Krishna Logistics was examined in respect of tanker No. GJ-12V-9372. He proved the copy of RC of the said vehicle and other documents emailed by him to the IO as Ex. PW65/A (Colly.). PW65 was cross-examined by all the accused persons except the accused Jhabar Mal Swami and Ram Singh.
CBI v. Krishan Kumar Bansal & Ors. Page No. 41 of 112 SC No. 22/2019 (B) Witnesses from different Regional Transport Authorities:
59. PW25 Sh. Manohar Balvanshi from RTO, Pali, Rajasthan was examined in respect of vehicle No. RJ 22 G 3098. He deposed that Smt. Padma Lalwani was the owner of the said vehicle and on 08.12.2010, the said vehicle had been transferred to RTO, Kutch, Bhuj, Gujarat. He proved the copy of forwarding letter vide which the copy of registration register and tax ledger was provided to the IO as Ex. PW25/A and the record as Ex. PW25/B. PW25 was not cross-examined by all the accused persons.
60. PW27 Sh. Arvinder Singh from RTO, Jalandhar, Punjab was examined in respect of vehicle No. PB 08S 5212. He deposed that the said vehicle was Bajaj Chetak Scooter registered in the name of Sh. Shingara Lal and on 05.04.2004, the said vehicle had been transferred in the name of Sh. Jaspal Singh. He proved the copy of forwarding letter vide which the certified copy of the registration register was provided to the IO as Ex. PW27/A and the copy of the registration certificate as Ex. PW27/B. PW27 was not cross-examined by all the accused persons.
61. PW32 Sh. Ravinder Singh from RTO, Ludhiana, Punjab was CBI v. Krishan Kumar Bansal & Ors. Page No. 42 of 112 SC No. 22/2019 examined in respect of vehicle No. PB 10BM 9598. He deposed that Sh. Parvinder Singh was the owner of the said vehicle and in the year 2016, the ownership of the said vehicle had been transferred. He proved the copy of the official record in respect of the said vehicle as Ex. PW32/A. PW32 was not cross- examined by all the accused persons.
62. PW47 Sh. Udeybir Singh from RTO, Haryana Roadways, HIssar was examined in respect of vehicle No. HR 39A 8469. He deposed that vide letter dated 11.12.2012, he had informed CBI that the said vehicle was a bus and proved the letter as Ex.PW47/A, copy of registration certificate of the vehicle as Ex.PW47/B and copy of register of vehicles/fleet register of Haryana Roadways as Ex. PW47/C. PW47 was not cross- examined by all the accused persons.
63. PW52 Insp. Rajbeer Singh from RTA Office, Palwal, Haryana was examined in respect of vehicle No. HR 38F 6220, HR 38G 3539 and HR 38G 6414. He proved the information provided to CBI in respect of the said vehicles as Ex. PW52/A and status reports of the said vehicles as Ex. PW52/B. PW52 was cross- examined by all the accused persons except the accused Jhabar Mal Swami and Ram Singh.
CBI v. Krishan Kumar Bansal & Ors. Page No. 43 of 112 SC No. 22/2019
64. PW53 Sh. Om Prakash from RTA Office, Hissar, Haryana was examined in respect of TATA 407 having registration No. HR 39A 7873, LCV having registration No. HR 39A 5767, Mahindra Bolero XL having registration No. HR 39A 8969 and Ashok Leyland Bus having registration No. HR 39A 8469. He deposed that the said vehicles were owned by Sh. Jai Singh, Sh. Subey Singh, Sh. Mittar Sain and General Manager Roadways Hissar respectively. He proved the copy of the registration certificates of the said vehicles as Ex. PW53/B to Ex. PW53/E respectively and letter issued by the concerned official of RTA authorizing to depose in Court as Ex. PW53/A. PW53 was cross-examined by all the accused persons except the accused Ram Singh.
65. PW57 Sh. Jasbir Singh from RTA Office, Jind, Haryana was examined in respect of the TATA 407 having registration No. HR 56 0833, Ashok Leyland Truck having registration No. HR 56 6299, TATA Winger (Ambulance) having registration No. HR 56 8844, Ashok Leyland Truck having registration No. HR 56A 0790 and TATA Truck HR 56A 4449. He proved the copy of registration certificates of the said vehicles as Ex. PW57/B to Ex. PW57/F and letter issued by the concerned official of RTA authorizing to depose in Court as Ex. PW57/A. PW57 was cross-examined on behalf of all the accused persons.
CBI v. Krishan Kumar Bansal & Ors. Page No. 44 of 112 SC No. 22/2019 Officials of GAIL
66. PW15 Sh. S. Sampat, General Manager (F&A) deposed that in 2011, he along with 3-4 officials visited the office of CBI at Delhi and upon being shown the invoices, he had affirmed that the said invoice had been issued by GAIL. PW15 was cross- examined on behalf of accused Krishan Kumar Bansal and SPPL. He was not cross examined by the remaining accused persons.
67. PW45 Krishana Bahadur Saxena, Manager (Marketing), Delhi deposed that in the year 2010, he had supplied the copy of the license/certificate, monthly/quarterly reports and undertakings/ indemnity bonds submitted by M/s. Saraswati Petro Chem with GAIL to the IO and proved the seizure memo as Ex. PW45/A (Colly.) and the documents as Ex. A-75 (Colly.). PW45 was cross-examined by all the accused persons except the accused Jhabar Mal Swami and Ram Singh.
Officials of DGFT
68. PW28 Sh. Kuldeep Singh, Head Analyst, Food & Supplies Department, Jhajjar, Haryana proved the D-301 as Ex. A-72 CBI v. Krishan Kumar Bansal & Ors. Page No. 45 of 112 SC No. 22/2019 (Colly.), D-302 as Ex.A-73 (Colly.), D-303 as Ex.A-74 (Colly.), D-304 as Ex. A-75 (Colly.) and the seizure memo (D-17) as Ex. A-9. PW28 was not cross-examined by all the accused persons.
69. PW58 Sh. Dharamvir Singh, who was posted as Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Faridabad, Haryana, proved the registration certificate dated 26.04.1999 issued to SPPL (A5) by the assessing authority and the application forms submitted by Chhabil Das Bansal (A2) as Ex.A-4 and Ex.A-5 respectively and quarterly returns in Form-VAT R1 filed by SPPL(A5) as Ex.A-6. PW58 was cross-examined on behalf of all the accused persons.
Handwriting Expert:
70. PW36 Sh. Jeet Singh, Senior Scientific Officer Grade-II cum Assistant Chemical Examiner, CFSL, New Delhi deposed that in March, 2012, the specimen signatures/handwritings along with questioned and admitted signatures/handwritings were assigned to him for examination and that after examining the same between 15.07.2013 to 29.08.2013, he submitted his report dated 29.08.2013 which was forwarded by the Director to CBI vide letter dated 09.09.2013. He proved the report as Ex. PW36/A and the forwarding letter as Ex. PW36/B. PW36 was CBI v. Krishan Kumar Bansal & Ors. Page No. 46 of 112 SC No. 22/2019 cross-examined by the accused Jhabar Mal Swami and Ram Singh only.
Investigating Officer:
71. PW68 Sh. R.V. S. Lohmor is the investigation officer of the case. Apart from the documents proved/exhibited by the other witnesses, he proved the following documents:
S. No. Nature/ Description of documents Exhibited/ Marked
1. Letter No.1227 dated 16.09.2011 received from Ex.PW68/A the Regional Transport Authority, Jhajjar, Haryana furnishing registration details of the vehicles 2 Letter No.1230 dated 16.09.2011 received from Ex.PW68/B the Regional Transport Authority, Jhajjar, Haryana furnishing registration details of the vehicles 3 Documents of the firm Hemkunth Road Lines Ex.PW68/C seized from one Sh. Ratan Singh (Colly.) 4 Seizure memo dated 25.10.2011 in respect of Ex.PW68/D documents seized from Sh. Ranvir Singh, working in the office of SDO, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vittran Nigam, Sampla, Haryana CBI v. Krishan Kumar Bansal & Ors. Page No. 47 of 112 SC No. 22/2019 5 Letter dated 24.10.2011 received from the office Ex.PW68/E of SDO, Uttar Haryana, Bijli Vittran Nigam 6 Seizure memo dated 03.11.2011 in respect of the Ex.PW68/F documents seized from Krishan Kumar Bansal, Director of SPPL 7 Letter dated 17.11.2011 of Secretary Regional Ex. PW68/G Transport Authority, Hissar, Haryana furnishing information of vehicle No. HR 39 7873 and HR 39A 8969 8 Letter dated 02.12.2011 of Assistant Engineer, Ex. PW68/H Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited 9 Production-cum-seizure memo dated 08.12.2011 Ex. PW68/I in respect of the documents seized from Surender (Colly.) Singh Anand, Proprietor of M/s. Dashmesh Photostate, Nahan, Himachal Pradesh 10 Production-cum-seizure memo dated 09.12.2011 Ex. PW68/J in respect of the documents seized from Sh. (Colly.) Purshottam Singh Saini, Notary Public, Nahan, H.P. 11 Production-cum-seizure memo dated 09.12.2011 Ex. PW68/K in respect of the documents seized from Sh. Arun (Colly.) Bali, Executive Assistant, H.P. State Co-operative Bank, Nahan, H.P. 12 Production-cum-seizure memo dated 09.12.2011 Ex. PW68/L in respect of the documents seized from Sh. (Colly.) CBI v. Krishan Kumar Bansal & Ors. Page No. 48 of 112 SC No. 22/2019 Mittar Singh, Stamp Vendor, Court Campus, Nahan, H.P. 13 Production-cum-seizure memo dated 09.12.2011 Ex. PW68/M in respect of the documents seized from Sh. (Colly.) Satpal Singh.
14 Production-cum-seizure memo dated 10.12.2011 Ex. PW68/N in respect of the documents seized from Smt. (Colly.) Neeraj Rani, Notary Public, Nahan, H.P. 15 Letter dated 08.12.2011 of Sh. Ashwini Kapoor, Ex. PW68/O Branch Manager, State Bank Of Patiala, Nahan, (Colly.) H.P pertaining to firm Para Impex Chem.
16 Letter dated 03.12.2011 in respect of Para Impex Ex. PW68/P Chem, Kala Amb received from the Office of (Colly.) Member Secretary, Clearance Agency, Kala Amb, District Sirmour, H.P. 17 Production-cum-seizure memo dated 10.12.2011 Ex. PW68/Q in respect of the documents seized from Sh. Sunil (Colly.) Kumar, Director of M/s. Cocosun Food Ltd.
Nahan, H.P. 18 Letter dated 09.12.2011 in respect of information Ex. PW68/R regarding Para Impex Chem received from The Office Of Central Excise, Sirmour, H.P. 19 Letter dated 10.12.2011 of Branch Manager, Ex. PW68/S State Bank of Patiala, Nahan, H.P. (Colly.) 20 Letter dated 07.12.2011 received from The Ex. PW68/T CBI v. Krishan Kumar Bansal & Ors. Page No. 49 of 112 SC No. 22/2019 Office Of Regional Transport Office, Kutch, (Colly.) Gujarat giving registration detail of tanker No. GJ12V9372.
21 Letter dated 20.11.2011 received from Secretary, Ex. PW68/U Regional Transport Office, Hissar giving registration detail of HR39A-5767 and HR39A- 8969.
22 Letter dated 23.12.2011 in respect of the Ex. PW68/V verification of raw material, stock quantity, (Colly.) process quantity and sale quantity of finished products of SPPL prepared by Sh. K. K. Verma, Deputy Advisor (Engineering) CBI-EO1, New Delhi.
23 Production-cum-seizure memo dated 26.12.2011 Ex. PW68/W in respect of the documents seized from Sh.
Anand Bhatt, Customer Service Officer, ICICI Bank, Lawrence Road Branch, New Delhi 24 Production-cum-seizure memo dated 27.12.2011 Ex. PW68/X in respect of the documents seized from Sh.
Anand Bhatt, Customer Service Officer, ICICI Bank, Lawrence Road Branch, New Delhi.
25 Letter dated 27.12.2011 received from Kotak Ex. PW68/X1 Mahindra Bank, Old Rajinder Nagar Branch, New (Colly.) Delhi furnishing information in respect of account opening form and bank statement of Para Impex CBI v. Krishan Kumar Bansal & Ors. Page No. 50 of 112 SC No. 22/2019 Chem.
26 Letter dated 27.12.2011 received from Sh. Sharad Ex. PW68/Y Kumar, Senior Manager (Marketing), GAIL (Colly.) 27 Letter dated 29.05.2012 received from Smt. Ex. PW68/Z Kamna Srivastava, Manager HDFC Bank, (Colly.) Connaught Place, New Delhi 28 Production-cum-seizure memo dated 09.01.2012 Ex. PW68/Z1.
in respect of the documents seized from Sh. Sujo Matthew, Deputy Manager, Kotak Mahindra Bank, Old Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi-60.
29 Letter dated 29.12.2011 which was received from Ex. PW68/Z2 District Transport Officer, Pali, Rajasthan furnishing details of vehicle No. RJ 22G 3098 and RJ 22 G 8095 30 Production-cum-seizure memo dated 13.01.2012 Ex. PW68/Z3.
in respect of the documents seized from Sh.
Subey Singh 31 Production-cum-seizure memo dated 13.01.2012 Ex. PW68/Z4.
in respect of the documents seized from Sh.
Gurmeet Singh.
32 Letter dated 23.04.2012 received from Mr. M. K. Ex. PW68/Z5 Harsh, Superintendent, Central Excise and (Colly.) Service Tax, Range Chandela, Sagar-II, MP giving information of Star Enterprises CBI v. Krishan Kumar Bansal & Ors. Page No. 51 of 112 SC No. 22/2019 33 Production-cum-seizure memo dated 18.01.2012 Ex. PW68/Z6 in respect of the documents seized from Sh. Puran Lal Raikwar, Assistant Grade-II, District Trade And Industry Center, Chhatarpur, M.P. 34 Production-cum-seizure memo dated 18.01.2012 Ex. PW68/Z7 in respect of the documents seized from Sh. Anil (Colly.) Kumar Sharma @ Guddu Sharma, Shanker Digital Photo Studio, M.P. 35 Production-cum-seizure memo dated 24.01.2012 Ex. PW68/Z8 in respect of the documents seized from Sh. (Colly.) Anand Bhatt, Customer Service Officer, ICICI Bank, Lawrence Road, New Delhi 36 Letter dated 17.02.2012 received HDFC Bank, Ex. PW68/Z9 West Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi furnishing (Colly.) documents in respect of account of Star Enterprises 37 Fax message dated 07.03.2012 received from Ex. PW68/Z10 District Transport Office, Ludhiana, Punjab in respect of the vehicle No. PB 10 BM 9598 38 Production-cum seizure memo dated 13.03.2012 Ex. PW68/Z11 in respect of the documents seized from Sh. (Colly.) Joginder Singh S/o Sh. Dhoop Singh.
39 Seizure memo dated 17.03.2012 in respect of the Ex. PW68/Z12 documents seized from Sh. Paramjeet Singh (Colly.) Executive, HDFC Bank, West Punjabi Bagh, New CBI v. Krishan Kumar Bansal & Ors. Page No. 52 of 112 SC No. 22/2019 Delhi 40 Letter dated 15.03.2012 received from Secretary Ex. PW68/Z13 Regional Transport Authority, Hissar, Haryana (Colly.) furnishing information regarding vehicle No. HR 39A 8469 41 Letter dated 22.03.2012 of Sh. Asif Jalal, SP, CBI Ex. PW68/Z14 addressed to The Director, CFSL. (Colly.) 42 Seizure memo dated 21.03.2012 in respect of the Ex. PW68/Z15 documents seized from Sh. Paramjeet Singh (Colly). Executive, HDFC Bank, West Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi.
43 Seizure memo dated 11.04.2012 in respect of the Ex. PW68/Z16 documents seized from Jhabar Mal Swami @ (Colly.) Jhabar Mal Swami Bhamu.
44 Seizure memo dated 18.04.2012 in respect of the Ex. PW68/Z17 documents seized from Sh. Paramjeet Singh, (Colly.) Executive HDFC Bank, West Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi 45 Notice dated 01.09.2011 under Section 160 CrPC Ex. PW68/Z18 addressed to Para Impex Chem sent by Sh. N. M. (Colly.) P. Sinha, the then Additional Superintendent Of Police, CBI.
46 Notice dated 01.09.2011 under Section 160 CrPC Ex. PW68/Z19 addressed to Star Enterprises sent by Sh. N. M. (Colly.) CBI v. Krishan Kumar Bansal & Ors. Page No. 53 of 112 SC No. 22/2019 P. Sinha, the then Additional Superintendent Of Police, CBI.
47 Notice under Section 160 CrPC addressed to Para Ex. PW68/Z20 Impex Chem by him (Colly.) 48 Notice under Section 160 CrPC addressed to Star Ex. PW68/Z21 Enterprises by him (Colly.) 49 Letter dated 17.11.2011 of Regional Transport Ex. PW68/Z22 Officer, Ahemdabad, Gujarat giving registration (Colly.) detail of vehicle No. GJ 1 TT 1155 50 Letter dated 16.11.2011 of District Transport Ex. PW68/Z23 Officer, Jalandhar giving details of vehicle No. (Colly.) PB 08 AG 5212 51 Letter dated 22.11.2011 of Regional Transport Ex. PW68/Z24 Officer, Jind furnishing registration details of vehicle No. HR 56 0833, HR 56 6299, HR 56 8844, HR 56A 0790 and HR 56A 4449 52 Memorandum dated 02.12.2011 prepared at Plot Ex. PW68/Z25 No. 37, Industrial Area, Kala Amb, Sirmour, Himachal Pradesh 53 Letter dated 19.03.2012 received from Sh. Ashish Ex. PW68/Z26 Mohan, Deputy Director General Of Foreign Trade 54 Letter dated 18.01.2012 of Sh. H. C. Verma, Ex. PW68/Z27 Assistant Commissioner Grade-I, Custom House, (Colly.) Kandla CBI v. Krishan Kumar Bansal & Ors. Page No. 54 of 112 SC No. 22/2019 55 Letter dated 17.01.2012 of Regional Transport Ex. PW68/Z28 Officer, Kutch, Gujarat furnishing registration (Colly) details of vehicle No. GJ 12W 8557 56 Specimen signature/handwriting of Krishan Ex. PW68/Z29 Kumar Bansal, Chhabil Das Bansal, Sh. Surender (Colly).
Pal Bansal, Sh. Gaurav Aggarwal, Sh. Ram Singh, Sh. Vinay Kumar, Sh. Satpal, Krishan Lal Khurana, Sh. Mam Raj and Sh. Naseeb Singh 57 Specimen signature/handwriting of Jhabar Mal Ex.PW68/Z30 Swami, Sh. Sawan Nehara @ Sarwan Kumar (Colly). Swami and Sh. Banwari Lal Swami 58 Seizure memo dated 02.03.2012 in respect of the Ex. PW68/Z31 documents seized from Sh. Raj Kumar @ Raju, (Colly.) District Bhiwani, Haryana 59 Letter dated 26.04.2012 of HDFC Bank, Ex. PW68/Z32 Pitampura, New Delhi furnishing documents in (Colly.) respect of SPPL 60 Seizure memo dated 01.05.2012 in respect of the Ex. PW68/Z33 documents seized from Sh. Amit Singh, (Colly.) Executive, HDFC Bank, West Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi 61 Seizure memo dated 21.06.2012 in respect of the Ex. PW68/Z34 documents seized from Sh. Anand Bhatt (Colly.) Customer Service Officer, ICICI Bank, Lawrence Road, New Delhi CBI v. Krishan Kumar Bansal & Ors. Page No. 55 of 112 SC No. 22/2019 62 Letter dated 21.06.2012 of ICICI Bank, Lawrence Ex.PW68/Z35 Road, New Delhi furnishing statement of account (Colly.) of Sh. Sawan Nehara and M/s. Goodrich Impex Chem.
63 Letter dated 03.05.2012 of Sh. Asif Jalal, the then Ex.PW68/Z36 SP addressed to the Director, CFSL (Colly.) 64 Letter dated 19.01.2012 furnishing dispatch Ex.PW68/Z37 details of SPPL (Colly.) 65 Letter dated 17.01.2012 furnishing dispatch Ex.PW68/Z38 details of SPPL (Colly.) 66 Seizure memo dated 19.11.2012 in respect of the Ex.PW68/Z39 documents seized from Sh. Anil Katoch, (Colly). Manager, Punjab Freight Carriers Pvt. Ltd., Delhi in respect of vehicle No. PB10-BM-9598 67 Seizure memo dated 21.11.2012 in respect of the Ex.PW68/Z40 documents seized from Sh. Anil Katoch, (Colly). Manager, Punjab Freight Carriers Pvt. Ltd., Delhi in respect of vehicle No. PB10-BM-9598 68 Letter dated 30.11.2012 received from M/s. Yog Ex.PW68/Z41 International Pvt. Ltd. Along with ledger (Colly.). statement of VCRM Petrochemicals (P) Ltd. for the financial year 2010-2011 69 Letter dated 30.11.2012 received from M/s. Yog Ex.PW68/Z42 International Pvt. Ltd. along with ledger (Colly.) statement of SPPL and Yog International Pvt. Ltd.
CBI v. Krishan Kumar Bansal & Ors. Page No. 56 of 112 SC No. 22/2019 for the financial year 2010-2011 70 Letter dated 09.06.2012 received from Regional Ex.PW68/Z43 Transport Authority, Banglore (East) furnishing information in respect of vehicle No. HR-38G- 6414 and re-assigned as KA-01D-59 in Banglore.
71 Letter dated 07.12.2011 received from Regional Ex.PW68/Z44 Transport Officer, Bhuj-Kutch Gujrat furnishing (Colly.) information in respect of vehicle No.GJ-12V-
937272 Letter received from Sh. Om Prakash, H. No. 47, Ex.PW68/Z45 Samparan Kunj, Dashrath Puri, Dwarka, New Delhi furnishing records pertaining to M/s Deluxe Thinner 73 Photocopy of letter dated 12.12.2011 received Ex.PW68/Z46 from RTO, Gujrat in respect of vehicle No.GJ-12- (Colly.) V-9372 74 Copy of a letter dated 09.03.2012 received from Ex.PW68/Z47 RTO, Banglore furnishing information in respect (Colly.) of vehicle No.HR38-G-8414 75 Ledger account statement for the period Mark-PW68/2.
01.04.2009 to 17.03.2010 in respect of Star Enterprises maintained in the books of the firm VCRM Petrochemicals Pvt. Ltd.
76 Ledger account statement for the period Mark-PW68/3.
05.04.2010 to 09.04.2010 in respect of M/s. Yog CBI v. Krishan Kumar Bansal & Ors. Page No. 57 of 112 SC No. 22/2019 International maintained in the books of the firm VCRM Petrochemicals Pvt. Ltd.
77 Ledger account statement for the period Mark-PW68/4.
01.04.2010 to 28.02.2011 in respect of SPPL maintained in the books of the firm VCRM Petrochemicals Pvt. Ltd.
78 Letter dated 12.12.2012 of Joint Commissioner Ex.PW68/Z48 for Transport (Urban and Rural), Banglore (Colly.) furnishing providing information in respect of vehicle No. HR38/G-6414 79 Letter dated 08.10.2012 of Sh. Nirbhay Kumar, Ex.PW68/Z49 the then Supdt. of Police, CBI/EOU-V, New Delhi (Colly.) addressed to Director, CFSL 80 Letter dated 07.05.2012 of Excise and Taxation Mark-W68/5.
Officer of District Sirmour, pertaining to SIR-III- 4964, CST 8263, TIN No.02040400456.
81 File of office of Assistant Excise and Taxation Ex.PW68/Z50.
Commissioner, Nahan, District Sirmour, pertaining to SIR-III-4964, CST 8263, TIN No.02040400456 82 Letter dated 06.03.2012 of Regional Manager, Ex.PW68/Z51 Madhya Pradesh Financial Corporation in respect of M/s. Star Enterprises 83 Receipt of SPPL seized during investigation Mark-PW68/7.
84 Letter on the letter head of SPPL seized during Mark-PW68/8.
CBI v. Krishan Kumar Bansal & Ors. Page No. 58 of 112 SC No. 22/2019 investigation 85 Copy of Form-32 of HDFC Bank Mark-PW68/9 PW68 was cross examined by all the accused persons.
Miscellaneous Witnesses:
72. PW7 Sh. Khem Chand, proprietor of M/s Kala Amb Transport Company was examined qua truck No.HR37-1564. He deposed that neither the said truck was owned by him at any point of time nor builty No. 19234 dated 07.04.2009 in respect of Bill No. 050 was issued by his firm. PW7 was cross-examined by all the accused persons.
73. PW22 Sh. Om Prakash used to work as the driver with Jhabar Mal Swami. He deposed that he had neither formed any firm nor was engaged in business at any point of time and that Jhabar Mal Swami and Sh. Sharvan Swami had got opened his account with ICICI Bank, Lawrence Road, Delhi in the name of firm M/s. Deluxe Thinner. He deposed that the cheque book of the said account remained with Jhabar Mal Swami and Sh. Sharvan Swami and that they used to sign the cheques. He identified his signatures on Ex. PW22/A i.e. his statement dated 18.02.2012 recorded under Section 164 CrPC by the Ld. MM. PW22 was CBI v. Krishan Kumar Bansal & Ors. Page No. 59 of 112 SC No. 22/2019 cross-examined by the accused Jhabar Mal Swami only and during the said cross-examination, he identified his signature on the photocopy of certificate of IEC Code of his bank account, which was exhibited as Ex.PW22/D1. He was not cross examined by the remaining accused persons.
74. PW23 Sh. Banwari Lal is the brother of the approver Sh. Sawan Nehra. He deposed that an account showing him as the proprietor of the firm M/s. Tirupati Industries had been with South Indian Bank, Punjabi Bagh, Delhi by Jhabar Mal Swami but he never ran the said firm as he used to work as field boy in the office of SPPL. He deposed that Sh. K. K. Bansal used to hand over cash amount to him for it to Jhabar Mal Swami, who used to deposit the same in the bank accounts of M/s. Tirupati Industries, Star Enterprises and Para Impex Chem. He proved his statement under Section 164 CrPC recorded on 14.05.2012 by the Ld. MM as Ex. PW23/A (Colly.). PW23 was cross-
examined by all the accused persons except the accused Ram Singh.
75. PW24 Sh. Ramesh Chand Katiyar used to work as General Manager in the factory of M/s. Char Minar Jointings Private Limited, which was adjacent to the factory of SPPL. He deposed that since there was no sign board of SPPL and the gate CBI v. Krishan Kumar Bansal & Ors. Page No. 60 of 112 SC No. 22/2019 of the factory also remained closed, he neither knew the name of the said company and the owner thereof nor the nature of business of the company prior to 2012. He deposed that on some occasions, he had however seen the tankers standing outside the gate of the factory of SPPL. PW24 was cross- examined by all the accused persons except the accused Jhabar Mal Swami and Ram Singh.
76. PW29 Sh. Rahul Chhabra worked in the factory of M/s. Jai Shiv Plywood Private Limited, which was situated in the same locality. He deposed that he had never seen the factory of SPPL in village Rohad, Haryana. PW29 was cross-examined on behalf of all the accused persons.
77. PW33 Sh. K. L. Bhatia deposed that in April, 2012, he was posted as Assistant Manager (Finance), NBCC, Delhi and on 04.04.2012, specimen signatures of Sh. Banwari on 35 sheets and Jhabar Mal Swami on 22 sheets were obtained in his presence in CBI Office. He proved the said sheets as Ex.PW33/A and Ex. PW33/B respectively. PW33 was cross- examined on behalf of the accused Jhabar Mal Swami only. He was not examined on behalf of the remaining accused persons.
78. PW34 HC Phool Singh deposed that the IO had obtained CBI v. Krishan Kumar Bansal & Ors. Page No. 61 of 112 SC No. 22/2019 specimen signature of some accused and private persons in his presence from November, 2011 to March-April, 2011 and he identified his signature on the memos (i.e. Ex. A-72 to Ex. A-74, Ex. PW34/A, Ex. PW34/B, Ex. PW33/A and Ex. PW33/B) prepared by the IO. Out of the said persons, he identified accused Sh. K.K. Bansal, Chhabil Das Bansal and Jhabar Mal Swami in the Court. PW34 was cross-examined on behalf of Jhabar Mal Swami (A4) but no document was proved. He was not cross-examined on behalf of remaining accused.
79. PW35 Sh. Arun Bali from Himachal Pradesh State Co-operative Bank, Nahan deposed that on 09.12.2011, he had provided the photocopy of account opening form and duplicate passbook of Ram Singh maintained by him with the Bank to the IO in the Circuit House at Nahan. PW35 was not cross-examined by all the accused persons.
80. PW37 Sh. Shekhar Mahajan, Assistant Manager, NBCC deposed that in February, 2012, CBI official had obtained specimen handwriting of a person in his presence at CBI Office but he did not remember the name of the said person. He identified his signature on Ex. PW34/A. PW37 was cross- examined on behalf of all the accused persons.
CBI v. Krishan Kumar Bansal & Ors. Page No. 62 of 112 SC No. 22/2019
81. PW38 Sh. M. G. Kochhar from SBI, Ponta Sahib, Himachal Pradesh deposed that in December, 2011, he was posted in State Bank of Patiala, Nahan and had provided voucher dated 24.10.2008 to the IO. PW38 was not cross-examined by all the accused persons.
82. PW39 Sh. Lalit Sharma deposed that in December, 2011, he was staying in Circuit House at Nahan and the CBI official had obtained specimen handwriting of 3-4 persons in his presence. He identified his signatures on the said sheets and exhibited them as Ex. PW39/A to Ex. PW39/D. PW39 was cross- examined on behalf of all the accused persons.
83. PW40 Sh. Om Prakash deposed that in April, 2012, he was working as Telecom Office Assistant in MTNL, Delhi and that specimen handwriting of a person was obtained in his presence by the CBI Official at CBI office. He identified his signature on Ex. PW34/E. PW40 was not cross-examined by all the accused persons.
84. PW46 Sh. Ratan Singh, proprietor of M/s Hemkunth Roadlines proved the seizure memo dated 30.04.2012 whereby the documents in respect of the his firm were seized as Ex. PW46/A. PW46 was cross-examined on behalf of all the CBI v. Krishan Kumar Bansal & Ors. Page No. 63 of 112 SC No. 22/2019 accused persons except the accused Jhabar Mal Swami and Ram Singh.
85. PW54 Sh. Mitter Sain, proprietor of M/s. Sohan Lal Singhla was examined in respect of vehicle No. HR-39A-8969. He deposed that the said vehicle had been stolen in November, 2010 and he proved the copy of the FIR No. 427/2010 dated 11.11.2010 P.S Gurgaon Sadar under Section 380 IPC as Mark A and copy of his Aadhaar Card as Ex. PW54/A. PW54 was cross-examined on behalf of all the accused persons.
86. PW63 Sh. Bal Krishan Chauhan from Himachal Pradesh State Co-operative Bank, Nahan deposed that in December, 2011, he had provided the photocopy of account opening card of Ram Singh in respect of the account maintained by him with the Bank to the IO in the Circuit House at Nahan. He proved the production cum seizure memo dated 10.12.2011 as Ex.PW63/A and the account opening card as Ex. PW63/B. PW63 was cross- examined on behalf of all the accused persons except the accused Jhabar Mal Swami and Ram Singh.
Statement of accused persons:
87. After the conclusion of prosecution evidence on 27.05.2024, statements of the accused under Section 313 CrPC were CBI v. Krishan Kumar Bansal & Ors. Page No. 64 of 112 SC No. 22/2019 recorded on 01.08.2024. All the incriminating evidences available on record against the accused persons were put to them to which their stand was of general denial and they claimed innocence. Only Krishan Kumar Bansal (A1), Chhabil Das Bansal (A2), Surender Pal Bansal (A3), SPPL (A5) and Ram Singh (A7) opted to lead evidence in their defence.
Defence Evidence:
88. Krishan Kumar Bansal (A1), Chhabil Das Bansal (A2), Surender Pal Bansal (A3) and SPPL (A5) examined three witnesses i.e. Sh. Sanjay Singhal, proprietor of M/s. B.K. Enterprises as DW-1, Sh. Satish Kumar, husband of the proprietor of M/s. Himalaya Chemicals as DW-2 and Sh. Sunil Kumar, proprietor of M/s. Super Chemicals as DW-3.
89. DW1 Sh. Sanjay Singhal deposed that during the period 2008- 2010, he was engaged in the business of chemicals under the name and style of M/s B. K. Enterprises at Sohna Ballabhgarh Road, Gurugram Haryana and used to purchase chemicals from various companies including SPPL. He also identified certain bills/invoices pertaining to his business dealings with SPPL and produced on record as part of Ex. A-59 and Ex. A-60.
90. DW2 Sh. Satish Kumar deposed that from the year 2008 to CBI v. Krishan Kumar Bansal & Ors. Page No. 65 of 112 SC No. 22/2019 2010, proprietorship firm of his wife M/s. Himalaya Chemicals was engaged in the business of supply of chemicals from the premises C-227, Sector-10, Noida, Uttar Pradesh and that being the authorized signatory, he was looking after the affairs of the firm. He deposed that he was purchasing chemicals from certain companies including SPPL and he also identified certain invoices pertaining to business dealings with SPPL as part of Ex. A-59 and Ex. A-61.
91. DW3 Sh. Sunil Kumar deposed that during the year 2008 to 2010, he was engaged in the business of trading of chemicals under the name and style of M/s. Super Chemicals at Palam Gurgaon Road, Near Hanuman Mandir, Dundahera, Haryana and that he used to purchase chemicals from SPPL. He also identified a number of invoices pertaining to business dealings with SPPL forming part of Ex. A-59, Ex. A-60 and Ex. A-61.
92. Krishan Kumar Bansal (A1), Chhabil Das Bansal (A2), Surender Pal Bansal (A3) and SPPL (A5) closed their evidence on 11.09.2024. Thereafter, Ram Singh (A7) declined to produce any evidence in his defence. Matter was thus posted for final arguments.
93. Arguments on behalf of the CBI as well as the accused persons CBI v. Krishan Kumar Bansal & Ors. Page No. 66 of 112 SC No. 22/2019 were advanced at length. The written submissions filed on behalf of the accused and the judgments relied upon by the parties have been perused. Arguments of the parties shall be dealt with in the succeeding paragraphs under the relevant heads.
Statutory Provisions involved:
94. Before proceeding to analyze and discuss the material on record, it would be beneficial to have a glance on the relevant provisions of law involved.
Essential Commodities Act, 1955:
Section 2A of the Act provides that for the purpose of the Act, "essential commodity" means a commodity specified in the Schedule.
Section 3 deals with power of the Central Government to make orders to control production, supply, distribution etc. of essential commodities and trade and commerce therein.
Section 7 provides penalties for contravention of any order made by the Central Government under Section 3 of the Act.
Section 9 provides penalty for making false statement. It reads CBI v. Krishan Kumar Bansal & Ors. Page No. 67 of 112 SC No. 22/2019 as under:
"9. False statement.-If any person,-
(i) when required by any order made under section 3 to make any statement or furnish any information, makes any statement or furnishes any information which is false in any material particular and which he knows or has reasonable cause to believe to be false, or does not believe to be true, or
(ii) makes any such statement as aforesaid in any book, account, record, declaration, return or other document which he is required by any such order to maintain or furnish, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years, or with fine, or with both."
Section 10 deals with the offences committed by the companies . It reads as under:
"10. Offences by companies.-
(1) If the person contravening an order made under section 3 is a company, every person who, at the time the contravention was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to, the company for the conduct of the business of the company as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the contravention and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly:
Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall render any such person liable to any punishment if he proves that the contravention took place without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent such contravention.
CBI v. Krishan Kumar Bansal & Ors. Page No. 68 of 112 SC No. 22/2019 (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where an offence under this Act has been committed by a company and it is proved that the offence has been committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to any neglect on the part of any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the company, such director, manager, secretary or other officer shall also be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.
Explanation.―For the purposes of this section,―
(a) "company" means any body corporate, and includes a firm or other association of individuals; and
(b) "director" in relation to a firm means a partner in the firm."
Indian Penal Code, 1860:
120A. Definition of criminal conspiracy:-
When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done,- (1) an illegal act, or (2) an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy:
Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof.
Explanation: It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimate object of such agreement, or is merely incident to that object.
CBI v. Krishan Kumar Bansal & Ors. Page No. 69 of 112 SC No. 22/2019 120B. Punishment of criminal conspiracy.-
(1) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in this Code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence.
(2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding six months, or with fine or with both.]
420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.-
Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Analysis and Discussion of Evidence:
(I) Applicability of the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955:
95. Before proceeding to evaluate the evidence on record, the Court CBI v. Krishan Kumar Bansal & Ors. Page No. 70 of 112 SC No. 22/2019 deems it appropriate to deal with the arguments of the counsels for the accused A1 to A3 & A5 challenging the applicability of the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 to the facts of the case. The counsels for the accused A1 to A3 & A5 have submitted that SPPL (A5) was not engaged in trading of Naphtha, Pentane, SBP Solvent and other petroleum products but it used to manufacture thinner, Reducer Grade-I & II and OCS-I & II from the petroleum products procured from GAIL. They have argued that since the products manufactured by SPPL are not mentioned in the Schedule to the Act enumerating the essential commodities, the transactions of SPPL in the said products would not attract the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.
96. With regard to the above contention, it is necessary to refer to the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act. Section 2A of the Act provides that 'essential commodity' means a commodity specified in the Schedule to the Act. 'Petroleum and petroleum products' find mention at serial No. 5 of the said Schedule. Pentane, SBP Solvent and Mixed Fuel oil purchased by SPPL (A5) from GAIL fall in the category of petroleum products. Section 3 of the Act empowers the Central Government to make orders for the control of production, supply and distribution of essential commodities and trade & commerce therein. In CBI v. Krishan Kumar Bansal & Ors. Page No. 71 of 112 SC No. 22/2019 exercise of the said powers, the Naphtha (Acquisition, Sale Storage and Prevention of use in Automobiles) Order, 2000 and the Solvent, Raffinate and Slop (Acquisition, Sale Storage and Prevention of Use in Automobiles) Order, 2000 have been made by the Central Government. Clause (v) of Section 3 of the Naphtha Order, 2000 provides that every person whosoever is engaged in use of Naphtha, either imported or indigenous, for manufacture of any petrochemicals or any other purpose shall file end-use certificates to the District Magistrate or the State Civil Supplies Authorities by whatever name called, on a quarterly basis. Similarly, clause (4) of Section 3 of the Solvent, Raffinate and Slop Order, 2000 requires every person whosoever is engaged in use of Solvents, Raffinates and Slops or their equivalent and other product, either imported or indigenous, for manufacture of any petrochemicals or any other purpose to file end-use certificates to the District Magistrate or the State Civil Supplies Authorities, on a quarterly basis. The object of filing the end-use certificates is to restrict the misuse of the petroleum products and to ensure that the same are used for the declared purpose only.
97. The use of the expression 'any other purpose' in the above Control Orders assumes important. The said expression makes it ample clear that even if the products manufactured from CBI v. Krishan Kumar Bansal & Ors. Page No. 72 of 112 SC No. 22/2019 Naphtha and Solvents do not fall in the category of petrochemicals, the manufacturer is required to file end-use certificates with the concerned Authority. Thus, SPPL (A5) was under a statutory obligation to file end-use certificates in respect of the products manufactured and sold by it. It is the case of the prosecution that the information furnished by SPPL in the end- use certificates for the period 01.04.20009 to 31.03.2010 regarding the sale of manufactured products to Para Impex Chem and Star Enterprises was false. Section 9 of the Act provides that if any person required by any order made under Section 3 of the Act to furnish any information, submits a false information, he shall be liable for punishment with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years or with fine, or with both. Thus, if the prosecution succeeds in proving the above allegation, it would attract the provisions of Section 9 of the Act. Accordingly, the challenge to the applicability of the provisions of the Act is without any merits.
(II) Manufacturing of products by SPPL (A5) from the materials purchased from GAIL:
98. The case of the prosecution is that on the basis of licenses obtained from District Food and Supply Controller, Jhajjar, Haryana, SPPL (A5) had purchased 328.66 MT Special Boiling Point Solvent, 13.24 MT Mixed Fuel Oil and 1087.82 MT CBI v. Krishan Kumar Bansal & Ors. Page No. 73 of 112 SC No. 22/2019 Pentane from GAIL for manufacturing purposes during the period 01.04.20009 to 31.03.2010 but the factory of SPPL was not in operation during the said period and instead of manufacturing any product from the material purchased from GAIL, it had diverted the same for the purpose other than declared in the end-use certificates.
99. According to the prosecution, on 19.05.2010, a surprise inspection was conducted at the factory premises of the SPPL (A5) situated near Village Rohad, Delhi Rohtak road, District Jhajjar, Haryana by a team comprising of CBI officials, officials of Quality Controller of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited and Central Excise Department and during the said inspection, it was found that no manufacturing activity was going on in the said premises and the same was only being used for storage of materials.
100. Sr. PP for CBI has submitted that when the inspection team reached the spot, it found that no board of the company was installed at the premises and the factory was lying closed. He has submitted that at the time of inspection, neither any worker was present at the premises nor any record of labour, stock and production was available. He has argued that from the above, it follows that no manufacturing activity was being undertaken by CBI v. Krishan Kumar Bansal & Ors. Page No. 74 of 112 SC No. 22/2019 SPPL (A5).
101. On the other hand, the counsels for the accused A1, A2, A3 & A5 have submitted that during the years 2009 and 2010, SPPL (A5) was a small manufacturing unit and the manufacturing activity used to be carried out only 2- 3 days in a month. They have submitted that the manufacturing process involved blending of petroleum products and distillation of the blended material and since the petroleum products, blended material and the machinery for blending were found at the time of inspection, it is evident that the plant was functional. They have submitted that during the period in question i.e. 01.04.20009 to 31.03.2010, the factory premises of SPPL had been inspected by the officials of GAIL on several occasions. They have contended that since no irregularity was reported during the said inspections, the case of the prosecution that the factory of SPPL was non-functional cannot be accepted.
102. In order to prove that the factory of SPPL was non-functional, the prosecution has examined two witnesses i.e. PW29 and PW24, from the factories situated in the area. PW29 Sh. Rahul Chhabra has deposed that he had never seen any factory in the name of SPPL in Village Rohad. However, his testimony is rendered useless in view of the deposition of PW24 Sh. Ramesh CBI v. Krishan Kumar Bansal & Ors. Page No. 75 of 112 SC No. 22/2019 Chand Katiyar, who has deposed that the factory of SPPL was situated adjacent to the factory in which he was working during the year 2009-2010. PW24 was cross examined by the PP for CBI. In the said cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that the factory of SPPL was lying closed. Here it is pertinent to observe that the aspect as to whether the employees of the neighbouring factories were aware about the existence and working of the factory of SPPL was not of much significance and the material point to be seen is as what infrastructure, machinery and stock of material was found at the premises of SPPL at the time of inspection by the surprise team on 19.05.2010.
103. Out of the five members of the surprise team, two members namely PW2 Sh. Ajay Gupta, who was the Manager of Quality Control Cell, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, and PW41 Sh. Umesh Kumar Goswami, the then Additional SP, CBI, have been examined by the prosecution. Though both the witnesses have deposed that neither any worker nor any record of labour, stock or production was found and that only the caretaker and manager of SPPL had joined the inspection proceeding but they admitted that the raw material i.e. Toluene, Methanol and the blended material thereof were found stored in the underground tanks at the premises. In his testimony, PW41 admitted that the CBI v. Krishan Kumar Bansal & Ors. Page No. 76 of 112 SC No. 22/2019 cooling plant as well as the facility of electricity were also available. Though PW2 stated in his cross-examination that there was no distillation plant at the factory premises, however, in the inspection report dated 27.04.2009 conducted by the officials of GAIL, which forms part of Ex. A-75, it has been mentioned that the distillation column for manufacturing OCS, Reducers and Thinners was found installed at the premises of SPPL. In fact, PW45 Krishana Bahadur Saxena, who is one of the signatories of the inspection report dated 27.04.2009, has deposed that the said inspection had been conducted to assess the availability of sufficient infrastructure at the plant of SPPL upon receipt of its request for supply of Mixed Fuel Oil and that on the positive report given by the inspection team, GAIL had approved the request of SPPL for allocation of Mixed Fuel Oil. Further, it is seen from the said inspection report dated 27.04.2009 that it has been specified therein that the manufacturing process at the factory was not continuous and used to be undertaken in batches and that the last manufacturing activity had taken place on 20.04.2009. The above observation in the inspection report lends support to the submission of the counsels for A1 to A3 & A5 that SPPL (A5) used to undertake the manufacturing process only on the basis of requirement and not throughout the month. At this juncture, it is important to note that as per the prosecution's own case, during the period CBI v. Krishan Kumar Bansal & Ors. Page No. 77 of 112 SC No. 22/2019 01.04.2009 to 31.03.2010, SPPL had supplied manufactured products to 37 different customers and out of the same, only two firms i.e. Star Enterprises and Para Impex Chem were found to be fictitious. Had SPPL not been engaged in the manufacturing activity during the said period, it would not have been in a position to supply the manufactured product to 35 firms/ customers. In view of the above discussion, it is clear that the prosecution has failed to establish its case that the factory of SPPL was non-functional since the year 2009.
(III) Sale and supply of manufactured products by SPPL (A5):
104. The case of the prosecution is that accused Jhabar Mal Swami (A4) and Ram Singh (A7) and the approver Sawan Nehra in criminal conspiracy with the Directors of SPPL i.e. Krishan Kumar Bansal (A1), Chhabil Das Bansal (A2) and Surender Pal Bansal (A3) formed shell/fictitious firms with the object to create bogus records of sale of manufactured products by SPPL to the said firms and facilitate SPPL to cheat GAIL by projecting the same as genuine transactions. Two such shell firms in respect of which evidence has been led by the prosecution are - (i) Para Impex Chem of which Ram Singh (A7) was shown as the proprietor; and (ii) Star Enterprises of CBI v. Krishan Kumar Bansal & Ors. Page No. 78 of 112 SC No. 22/2019 which Jhabar Mal Swami (A4) was shown as the proprietor.
According to the prosecution, neither the said two firms operated from the premises shown in their records nor any manufactured products were actually supplied to them by SPPL (A5). Evidence on the above aspect shall be dealt with under the following sub-heads:
(A) Non-operation of the firms from the premises shown in their records:
105. Firstly, the Court shall deal with the material on record in respect of Para Impex Chem. In the registration certificate dated 17.04.2009 issued by the Department of Excise and Taxation, Himachal Pradesh, the address of the firm has been mentioned as shop near Ruchira Paper Mill, Chaudhary Colony, Trilokpur road, Kala Amb, Himachal Pradesh. However, its address in the invoices raised by SPPL (A5) has been shown as Plot No. 37-A, near IITT Engineering College, Trilokpur Road, Kala Amb, District Sirmour, Himachal Pradesh. The case of the prosecution is that the address of the firm as mentioned in the invoices does not exist. In this regard, the prosecution has examined two witnesses i.e. PW5 Sh. Man Singh and PW 11 Sh. Rajesh Chauhan. PW 11 has deposed that he was the Pradhan of the Panchayat of Village Kala Amb in the year 2010 and had accompanied the CBI Officials in the year 2011 to the industrial CBI v. Krishan Kumar Bansal & Ors. Page No. 79 of 112 SC No. 22/2019 area, Trilokpur, Kala Amb for making enquiry as to whether any firm under the name of Para Impex Chem was operating from Plot No. 37-A. He deposed that during the enquiries, it was found that neither Plot No. 37-A existed nor any factory under the name of Para Impex Chem was operating in that area. He further deposed that the municipal numbers of the plots in that area had been allotted by the Government department. Though PW5 Sh. Man Singh, who was posted as Economic Investigator at Nahan, H.P during that time, deposed that he had also accompanied the CBI officials and Pradhan of Kala Amb and that adjacent to plot No. 37, plots No. 36 & 38 were situated but stated that no enquiry in respect of plot No. 37-A was made. It needs little emphasis that the testimonies of PW11 and PW5 do not conclusively establish the non-existence of plot No. 37-A in the said industrial area. In fact, the prosecution ought to have examined the owners/occupants of the plots in the industrial area as well as summoned the record from the Municipal Authority to prove that plot No. 37-A did not exist.
106. Here it is noteworthy that admittedly, Para Impex Chem was registered under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and Himachal Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 with the Excise and Taxation Department, Himachal Pradesh on 23.05.2009. The registration record of the firm has been proved as Ex. PW4/B CBI v. Krishan Kumar Bansal & Ors. Page No. 80 of 112 SC No. 22/2019 (Colly.). A perusal thereof shows that the accused Ram Singh (A7) had applied for registration of Para Impex Chem in the capacity of its proprietor with the above department under the aforesaid Acts on 17.04.2009. In both the applications forms, there were separate columns for furnishing information regarding the address of principal place of business and address of additional place of business. In the applications submitted by the accused Ram Singh, he had shown the address of the principal place of business as Shop near Ruchira Paper Mills, Kala Amb and no additional address of the firm was mentioned.
Even in the returns of the firm (forming part of Ex.PW42/A) filed under the aforesaid Acts for the period 2009-2010, the same address of the firm had been mentioned. Failure of the accused Ram Singh to mention plot No. 37-A, near IITT Engineering College, Trilokpur Road, Kala Amb, District Sirmour as the address of the firm only goes to show that it never operated from the said address.
107. Now the Court shall consider as to whether the firm was operating from shop near Ruchira Paper Mills, Trilokpur Road, Kala Amb. While applying for the registration of the firm with Excise and Taxation Department, accused Ram Singh (A7) had furnished the copy of rent agreement dated 20.11.2008 as the proof of its address to show that the said shop had been let out CBI v. Krishan Kumar Bansal & Ors. Page No. 81 of 112 SC No. 22/2019 to him by one Sh. Pala Ram, S/o Sh. Shankar Ram. Along with the rent agreement, a site plan had been attached depicting the location of the said shop on Trilokpur Road. As per the said site plan, only two shops were located near Ruchira Paper Mills and out of them, one shop was shown to be the office of Para Impex Chem. According to the prosecution, both the said shops belonged to Sh. Satpal, S/o Sh. Shankar Ram and his name was wrongly mentioned as Pala Ram in the rent agreement. The prosecution has examined Sh. Satpal as PW8. In his testimony, PW8 has deposed that he is in possession of two shops situated on Trilokpur Road, Kala Amb, which are in the name of his daughter in law. He further deposed that neither he had let out any shop to Ram Singh nor executed any rent agreement with him. None of the accused persons including Ram Singh (A7) had cross examined PW8 to dispute that the shops referred by him were not the same shops as shown in the site plan or that he had executed rent agreement dated 20.11.2008 in respect of one of the said shops by representing himself as Pala Ram. Accused Ram Singh also failed to lead any evidence in his defence to dislodge the testimony of PW8. In view of the above, it stands established that the shop in question was never let out to Ram Singh (A7).
108. Further, in the rent agreement dated 20.11.2008, Sh. Vinay CBI v. Krishan Kumar Bansal & Ors. Page No. 82 of 112 SC No. 22/2019 Kumar and Sh. Sonu Khurana have been shown as the witnesses of the execution of the document. The case of the prosecution is that the attesting witness No. 2 was wrongly described as 'Sonu Khurana, S/o Krishan Lal' in the rent agreement and his correct name and parentage are Krishan Lal Khurana @ Sonu Khurana, S/o Sh. Jogdhian Khurana. The above attesting witnesses have been examined as PW 48 and PW 44 respectively. In their testimonies, both them have denied their signatures on the rent agreement. Though the identity of PW 44 Krishan Lal Khurana @ Sonu Khurana has been disputed by the accused Ram Singh (A7) but there is no dispute with regard to the identity of PW 48 Sh. Vinay Kumar. Denial of his signature on the rent agreement dated 20.11.2008 as attesting witness by PW48 corroborates the version of PW8 Sh. Satpal regarding the non-execution of the said rent agreement.
109. With regard to Star Enterprises, its address for the supply of the manufactured goods has been shown as Plot No.23/1, Industrial Area, Balgadi Project Area, District Chhatarpur, Madhya Pradesh in the invoices raised by SPPL(A5). It is not in dispute that the said plot had been allotted to the firm for running a factory under the Balgadi Project by District Trade & Industries Centre, Chattarpur, Madhya Pradesh vide its letter dated 24.03.2007 (Ex. PW21/B). It is a matter of record that after the CBI v. Krishan Kumar Bansal & Ors. Page No. 83 of 112 SC No. 22/2019 allotment of the said plot, the accused Jhabar Mal Swami (A4) got the firm registered under the Madhya Pradesh VAT Act, 2002 and Central Sales Tax Act,1956 with the Commercial Tax Department, Government of Madhya Pradesh on 27.07.2007. It is also an admitted position that since the accused Jhabar Mal Swami failed to set up the factory, the allotment of plot was cancelled by the District Trade & Industries Centre vide its notice dated 25.03.2011 (Ex. PW21/D).
110. The counsel for the accused Jhabar Mal Swami (A4) has contended that though the said accused could not set up any factory but he had continued to carry on trading from the said plot till the cancellation of its allotment. He has argued that the very fact that the accused Jhabar Mal Swami had regularly filed returns with the VAT Department till the year 2010-2011 makes it ample clear that the office of the firm was in operation from the said plot.
111. The Court is unable to accept the contentions of the counsel for the accused Jhabar Mal Swami (A7). In his statement under Section 313 CrPC, accused Jhabar Mal Swami has admitted that he had not carried out any construction on the said plot. Further, PW17 Sh. Rajesh Kumar Khare, who was posted as Junior Engineer (Maintenance) with Vidyut Vitran Company, CBI v. Krishan Kumar Bansal & Ors. Page No. 84 of 112 SC No. 22/2019 Chhatarpur City, Madhya Pradesh in the year 2012, has deposed that the said company had not provided any electricity connection to the plot in question. This fact has also been admitted by the accused Jhabar Mal Swami in his statement under Section 313 CrPC. It goes without saying that in the absence of any construction and the electricity supply at the plot in question, no business activity could have been carried out therefrom by the firm.
112. From the above discussion, it is evident that the prosecution has succeeded in proving that both the firms were not operating from the addresses shown in their records.
(B) No transportation of the manufactured products:
113. As per the sale records (Ex. A-59 to Ex. A-61) of SPPL (A5), it had raised 11 invoices in respect of the sale of manufactured products to Para Impex Chem and 6 invoices in respect of the sale of manufactured products to Star Enterprises during the period 01.06.2009 to 31.12.2009. Except for the two invoices i.e. the invoice No.131 dated 06.06.2009 pertaining to Para Impex Chem and invoice No. 233 dated 07.08.2009 pertaining to Star Enterprises, the name of the transporter in all the other invoices had been shown as M/s. Rana Bulk Carriers.
CBI v. Krishan Kumar Bansal & Ors. Page No. 85 of 112 SC No. 22/2019
114. The case of the prosecution is that no manufactured products had been transported through the vehicles mentioned in the invoices. Sr. PP for CBI has submitted that Rana Bulk Carriers is a fictitious transport company in as much as neither its address and contact number are mentioned in the invoices nor the said company could be traced during the course of investigation. He has submitted that in the absence of above details of Rana Bulk Carriers, the prosecution had to obtain the records of registration of the vehicles from the Regional Transport Authorities and examine the owners of the vehicles to prove that the said vehicles were not used for the purpose of transportation of the manufactured products from the factory of SPPL in Bahadurgarh, Haryana to the addresses of both the firms mentioned in the invoices.
115. As mentioned above, SPPL had raised a total number of 17 invoices in respect of sale of manufactured products to both the firms. A scrutiny thereof shows that the manufactured products were shown to have been transported through 08 vehicles. The details of the registration numbers of the said vehicles, their class and type and the names of their owners as per the records of the Transport Authorities are as under:
CBI v. Krishan Kumar Bansal & Ors. Page No. 86 of 112 SC No. 22/2019 Sl. Vehicle Type of Name of the Details of the No. Number Body of Owner of the invoices raised by Vehicle Vehicle SPPL
1. HR39-A-5767 Open Sh. Sube Singh 435 dated 20.12.2009 of Para Body Impex Chem TATA 407
2. HR38-F-6220 Tanker Sh. Dharam Singh 383 dated 19.11.2009 of Para Impex Chem & 183, 186 & 261 dated 05.07.2009, 08.07.2009 & 28.08.2009 of Star Enterprises
3. PB10-BM- Open Sh. Parminder 131 dated 06.06.2009 of Para 9598 Body Singh Impex Chem TATA 1109
4. HR38-G-3539 Tanker Smt. Neeta Puri 242 dated 14.08.2009 of Para Impex Chem
5. GJ12-V-9372 Tanker Smt. Sheela Devi 181 & 185 dated Chaudhary 03.07.2009 & 07.07.2009 of Para Impex Chem
6. HR 38G- Tanker Registration of the 180, 187, 241 & vehicle was 452 dated 6414 transferred from 02.07.2009, Haryana to 10.07.2009, Bangalore 14.08.2009 & Transport on 28.12.2009 of Para 27.03.2008. Impex Chem & CBI v. Krishan Kumar Bansal & Ors. Page No. 87 of 112 SC No. 22/2019 184 & 250 dated 06.07.2009 & 22.08.2009 of Star Enterprises
7. HR39-A-8469 Bus General Manager, 437 dated (wrongly Haryana 21.12.2009 of Para mentioned as Roadways, Hissar Impex Chem HR 39-A-
8969 in the charge-sheet)
8. PB 08-AG- Two Sh. Jaspal Singh 233 dated 17.08.2009 of Star 5212 Wheeler Enterprises Scooter
116. Vehicle No. HR 39A 5767 mentioned at serial No. 1 pertains to the invoice no. 435 wherein it has been shown that the manufactured products had been dispatched for Kala Amb on 20.12.2009. In respect of the said vehicle, the owner of the vehicle Sh. Sube Singh has been examined as PW9. He has deposed that he is running the business of transport in the name of M/s. Durga Freight Carrier from Noida, U.P. and as per the log register of vehicles (Ex. PW9/B), the said vehicle had not been used for transportation of any goods on 20.12.2009. In his cross examination, he deposed that he did not know Rana Bulk Carrier. In view of the same, it is clear that no manufactured products had been transported through the said vehicle.
The counsels for the accused A1, A2, A3, A5 & A7 have CBI v. Krishan Kumar Bansal & Ors. Page No. 88 of 112 SC No. 22/2019 contended that since the Bilty book in respect of the said vehicle was not produced, no reliance can be placed on the testimony of PW9. The Court is unable to accept the above contention. As no movement of the vehicle was recorded on 20.12.2009 in the log register Ex. PW9/B, non production of the Bilty book was not of much consequence. Had the movement of the vehicle been recorded on the said date, production of the Bilty book would have assumed importance to find out the details of the consignor and consignee.
117. In respect of the vehicle no. HR 38F 6220 mentioned at serial No. 2 of the table, the relevant witnesses are PW10 Sh. Dharam Singh, who was the owner of the vehicle, and the scrap dealer PW18 Sh. Gurmeet Singh. PW10 Sh. Dharam Singh, who is stated to be running the business of transport under the name of M/s. Laxmi Oil Carrier, deposed that since the vehicle had lived its life, he had sold it to Sh. Gurmeet Singh on 22.02.2009. He proved the document dated 22.02.2009 regarding the sale and delivery of possession of the vehicle as Ex. PW10/E. PW18 Sh. Gurmeet Singh has also affirmed in his testimony that the vehicle had been sold and delivered to him vide Ex. PW10/E. The counsels for the accused persons have argued that since the life span of a tanker is usually 15 to 20 years, the CBI v. Krishan Kumar Bansal & Ors. Page No. 89 of 112 SC No. 22/2019 version of PW10 & PW18 cannot be believed especially when no intimation about the sale of the vehicle was admittedly given to the Transport Authority. The Court does not find any force in the argument. At the time of the sale, the vehicle was about 13 years old. The life span of a vehicle depends upon its maintenance and usage. Non-intimation regarding the sale transaction of the vehicle appears to be only a lapse on the part of PW10 & PW18. Since both the witnesses had no stake involved in the present case, there was no reason for them to depose falsely. As the vehicle had been condemned and sold to a scrap dealer on 22.02.2009, it could not have been used for transportation of the manufactured products of SPPL as reflected in the invoices mentioned at serial No. 2 of the table.
118. Vehicle No. PB 10 BM 9598 mentioned at serial No. 3 of the table relates to invoice No. 131 dated 06.06.2009 wherein this vehicle has been shown to have transported the manufactured products to Kala Amb, Himachal Pradesh. In respect of the said vehicle, Sh. Parminder Singh has been examined as PW30. He deposed that he has been running the transport business in partnership from Jalandhar, Punjab and was the registered owner of the said vehicle. He further deposed that their firm used to take bookings only for transporting the grocery items and that the vehicle in question had permit of Delhi, Haryana CBI v. Krishan Kumar Bansal & Ors. Page No. 90 of 112 SC No. 22/2019 and Punjab only. The prosecution has also examined the manager of the firm Sh. Anil Katoch as PW31. He proved the photocopy of the Dispatch register maintained by the firm in respect of the usage of the vehicles as Ex. PW31/A and deposed that as per the said register, the vehicle had transported goods from Delhi to Amritsar, Punjab on 06.06.2009.
The counsel for the accused A1, A2, A3, A5 & A7 have argued that since the original Dispatch register was not produced, no reliance can be placed on the photocopy thereof. In this regard, it is pertinent to observe that PW31 Sh. Anil Katoch has deposed that the photocopy of the Dispatch register (Ex. PW31/A) had been provided by him to the CBI during the investigation and that later on, the original register was destroyed due to water logging in their office. Since the original Dispatch register had been lost, the Court can certainly rely upon the photocopy thereof being the secondary evidence. As the Dispatch register shows that the vehicle had carried goods from Delhi to Amritsar on 06.06.2009, it stands established that the said vehicle was not used for transportation of manufactured products as shown in invoice No. 131 dated 06.06.2009 of SPPL.
119. Vehicle No. HR 38 G 3339 mentioned at serial No. 4 of the CBI v. Krishan Kumar Bansal & Ors. Page No. 91 of 112 SC No. 22/2019 table pertains to invoice No. 242, which shows that the said vehicle had been used for transporting the manufactured products to Kala Amb, Himachal Pradesh on 14.08.2009. In respect of the said vehicle, PW26 Sh. Jugjeet Krishan Puri has been examined by the prosecution. He has deposed that the vehicle was registered in the name of the wife of his brother Smt. Neeta Puri and was being used by his firm Lakshmi Oil Carriers for carrying edible and non-edible oil. He has further deposed that the permit of the vehicle was valid for Delhi, U.P., Rajasthan and Orissa only. The witness produced the original permit and proved the copy thereof as Ex. PW26/C. Though the witness did not produce the Bilty book of his firm but as the permit of the vehicle was not valid for Himachal Pradesh, it could not have transported the manufactured products covered under invoice no. 242 of SPPL.
120. Vehicle No. GJ 12 V 9372 mentioned at serial No. 5 of the table relates to invoices No. 181 & 185 wherein it has been shown that the said vehicle had transported the manufactured products to Kala Amb, Himachal Pradesh on 03.07.2009 and 07.07.2009 respectively. Sh. Yogender Choudhary examined as PW65 by the prosecution has deposed that the said vehicle was owned by his mother Smt. Sheela Devi and was being used by his firm M/s. Krishna Logistics for transportation of pharma and CBI v. Krishan Kumar Bansal & Ors. Page No. 92 of 112 SC No. 22/2019 pesticide products. He has deposed that his firm had never provided the vehicle to any Rana Bulk Carrier for transportation nor had ever transported the goods of Para Impex Chem and SPPL. He has further deposed that he had sent the copy of the documents in respect of the movement of the vehicle to the IO through email. The said email and the documents forwarded therewith have been placed on record as Ex. PW65/A (Colly.). A perusal of the said email shows that he had stated therein that on 03.07.2009, the vehicle had transported the goods of M/s. Paras Polymers Pvt. Ltd. from Delhi to Gaziabad and that the vehicle was next loaded on 08.07.2009 for transportation of goods from Kandla to Gajrola. Along with the email, the witness had forwarded the copy of invoice dated 03.07.2009 of M/s. Para Polymers Pvt. Ltd. and payment report of M/s. Dashmesh Transport Company in respect of transportation of goods from Kandla to Gajrola. The copy of the invoice dated 03.07.2009 of M/s. Para Polymers Pvt. Ltd., which has been produced on record, is illegible. Further, the payment report of M/s. Dashmash Transport Company is addressed to one S.P. Chaudhary Transport Company whereas the witness is running the firm under the name of M/s. Krishna Logistics. In view of the above, though a strong suspicion arises regarding the use of the said vehicle for transportation of the goods mentioned in invoices No. 181 & 185 dated 03.07.2009 & 07.07.2009 but the CBI v. Krishan Kumar Bansal & Ors. Page No. 93 of 112 SC No. 22/2019 prosecution has failed to conclusively establish the same.
121. In respect of the vehicle No. HR 38 G 6414 mentioned at serial No. 6 of the table, the prosecution has examined PW 52 Sh. Rajbeer Singh from the office of Regional Transport Authority, Haryana, who placed on record the report in respect of the said vehicle as Ex. PW52/D. As per the said report, the vehicle had been transferred to Bangalore Transport Authority from Haryana Transport Authority vide NOC issued on 27.03.2008. From the record, it is seen that the factum of migration of the vehicle to the Regional Transport Office, Bangalore had been affirmed by the said office vide its letter dated 09.06.2012 (EX. PW62/Z-43). In the said letter, it was also informed that after migration, the vehicle had been re-assigned the registration no. KA-01-D-59 on 17.05.2008. Since the owner of the vehicle was not examined regarding the movement of the vehicle on the dates of dispatch shown in the invoices of SPPL, the case of the prosecution that the manufactured products of SPPL could not have been transported through the said vehicle has remained unproved.
122. With regard to the remaining two vehicles mentioned at serial No. 7 & 8 of the table, it has come on record that while the vehicle No. HR 39A 8469 was a Haryana Roadways Bus, the CBI v. Krishan Kumar Bansal & Ors. Page No. 94 of 112 SC No. 22/2019 vehicle No. PB 08 AG 5212 was a Bajaj Chetak Scooter. PW47 Sh. Udeybir Singh and PW27 Sh. Arvinder Singh proved the registration record of the said vehicles as EX. PW 47/B (Colly.) and Ex. PW 27/B respectively. It is but obvious that the said vehicles could not have been used for the transportation of the goods as shown in the invoices No. 437 dated 21.12.2009 and No. 233 dated 17.08.2009 of SPPL.
123. From the testimonies of the above witnesses and the records proved by them, the prosecution has succeeded in proving that out of the 08 vehicles shown to have been used for transportation of goods, 04 vehicles were not available on the relevant dates for transporting the goods of SPPL and 02 vehicles were not even meant for the purpose of transportation of goods. Thus, it stands established that no manufactured products were actually supplied against the invoices raised by SPPL.
Cumulative effect of findings returned under sub-heads (A) and (B):
124. In the invoices of SPPL, the destinations for the supply of the manufactured products were mentioned as 37-A, near IITT Engineering College, Trilokpur Road, Kala Amb, District Sirmour, Himachal Pradesh and 23/1, Balgadi Project Area, CBI v. Krishan Kumar Bansal & Ors. Page No. 95 of 112 SC No. 22/2019 Industrial Area, Chhatarpur, Madhya Pradesh. Since the Court has reached the conclusion that Para Impex Chem and Star Enterprises were not operating from the said addresses and no goods were actually supplied to them, it is evident that the said firms were fake/shell firms and the invoices raised by SPPL were bogus.
125. The counsel for the accused A1 to A3 & A5 have submitted that since the invoices in question pertained to the ex-factory sale, the manufactured products were delivered to Para Impex Chem and Star Enterprises at the factory of SPPL and the responsibility for the transportation of the manufactured products to the final destination was that of the said firms. They have argued that in view of the nature of sale, SPPL had no concern either with the mode of transportation or the existence of the said firms. An ex-factory sale is a trade agreement where the seller makes the goods available at their factory or warehouse premises and the buyer assumes all costs, risks and responsibilities for transportation etc. from that point onward. Had the invoices in question related to ex-factory sale, the place of supply would have been the factory premises of SPPL. However, a perusal of the invoices shows that in the column pertaining to the destination/delivery address, the addresses of the firms have been mentioned and the mode of transport has CBI v. Krishan Kumar Bansal & Ors. Page No. 96 of 112 SC No. 22/2019 been shown 'by road'. Further, the name of the transporter and the registration number of the transportation vehicle have also been mentioned. Considering the same, it can not be said that the invoices in question pertained to ex-factory sale. Even otherwise, the onus of proving that the sales against the invoices were ex-factory sales was upon A1 to A3 & A5. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary led by A1 to A3 & A5, the contention of the counsels for the accused A1 to A3 & A5 can not be accepted.
(IV) Evidence regarding criminal conspiracy between the accused persons:
126. In order to prove the conspiracy between the accused persons, Sawan Nehra, who had been charge-sheeted as accused No. 6, was made an approver on an application under Section 306 CrPC preferred by the CBI. During the course of trial, he has been examined as PW1.
127. Senior PP for the CBI has submitted that the case of the prosecution regarding the criminal conspiracy between the accused persons stands established from the facts deposed by PW1 Sh. Sawan Nehra. He has submitted that since the facts divulged by the approver not only incriminate the co-accused persons but also bring on record the incriminating acts CBI v. Krishan Kumar Bansal & Ors. Page No. 97 of 112 SC No. 22/2019 committed by him, his testimony is truthful and can safely be relied upon by the Court. He has placed reliance on K. Hashim Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2005, Supreme Court 128 to submit that the extent of credibility to be attached to the evidence tendered by an accomplice is ultimately to be decided by the Court depending upon the nature of the offence involved and the other material available on record.
128. Per contra, the counsel for the accused persons have submitted that the evidence of the approver cannot be made the foundation of a conviction and independent corroboration thereof is necessary. They have submitted that before the Court can place reliance on the evidence of an approver, it must be satisfied that the approver is not only reliable but also credit worthy. They have submitted that in the case on hand, the evidence of approver Sh. Sawan Nehra fails on both the accounts and thus, no reliance can be placed on his deposition. They have pointed out that in the instant case, statements of the approver Sh. Sawan Nehra were recorded on four occasions i.e. statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC on 08.06.2012 by the Ld. MM, statement recorded on 30.11.2012 by the Ld. MM at the time of considering the application under Section 306 CrPC, deposition recorded before the Court of Ld. ACMM prior to the committal of the case and the deposition recorded before this CBI v. Krishan Kumar Bansal & Ors. Page No. 98 of 112 SC No. 22/2019 Court. They have submitted that a comparative reading of all the above statements shows that he had improved his version from time to time. In support of their submissions, the counsel for the accused have placed reliance on Bhuboni Sahu v. King, 1949 SCC OnLine PC 12, Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab, 1957 SCC OnLine SC 1, Lachhi Ram v. State of Punjab, 1966 SCC OnLine SC 92, Mohd. Husain Umar Kochra V. K.S. Dalipsinghji, (1969) 3 SCC 429, Niranjan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1996) 9 SCC 98, Mrinal Das v. State of Tripura, (2011) 9 SCC 479, Gopi Chand v. State, 2013 SCC OnLine Del 2969, Adambhai Sulemanbhai Ajmeri v. State of Gujarat, (2014) 7 SCC 716 and Somasundaram v. State, (2016) 16 SCC 355.
129. Section 133 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 states that an accomplice shall be a competent witness against an accused person; and a conviction is not illegal if it proceeds upon the corroborated testimony of an accomplice. Illustration (b) of Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act provides that the Court may presume that an accomplice is unworthy of credit, unless he is corroborated in material particulars. Though it may appear at the first glance that there is contradiction in the above two but it has been clarified by the Superior Courts that the presumption in illustration (b) of Section 114 is only a rule of prudence. Evidentiary value of the evidence of an accomplice came up for CBI v. Krishan Kumar Bansal & Ors. Page No. 99 of 112 SC No. 22/2019 consideration in Bhuboni Sahu v. King, AIR 1947 PC 257. The Privy Council held that the law derived from reading Section 133 and Illustration (b) to Section 114 of Indian Evidence together is that whilst it is not illegal to act upon the uncorroborated evidence of accomplice, it is a rule of prudence that it is unsafe to act upon the evidence of an accomplice unless it is corroborated in the material particulars. It was observed that the Court should be slow to depart from the rule of prudence, based on long experience, which requires some independent evidence implicating the accused.
130. In Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1952 SC 54, the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down the following principles which regard to the nature and extent of corroboration:
(i) that it is not necessary that there should be independent confirmation of every material circumstance in the sense that the independent evidence in the case, apart from the testimony of the accomplice, should in itself be sufficient to sustain conviction; all that is required is that there must be some additional evidence rendering it probable that the story of the accomplice is true and that it is reasonable safe to act upon it;
(ii) that the corroborate must come from independent sources and thus ordinarily the testimony of one accomplice CBI v. Krishan Kumar Bansal & Ors. Page No. 100 of 112 SC No. 22/2019 would not be sufficient to corroborate that of another;
(iii) that the corroboration need not be by direct evidence and it is sufficient if it is merely by circumstantial evidence.
131. Judgments relied upon by both the sides reiterate the same legal position. With the above principles in mind, the Court shall now proceed to consider the deposition of PW1 Sawan Nehra on the aspect of conspiracy between the accused persons and see if his testimony is corroborated by other independent material available on record.
132. In his testimony, PW1 Sh. Sawan Nehra has deposed that in the year 2008, he had come to Delhi in search of job and had met the accused Krishan Kumar Bansal (A1) through the accused Jhabar Mal Swami (A4). He has deposed that at the instance of accused Krishan Kumar Bansal, accused Jhabar Mal Swami had formed several firms including Star Enterprises showing himself as the proprietor of the said firm and Para Impex Chem showing accused Ram Singh (A7) as the proprietor thereof. He has further deposed that the said firms were not engaged in any business and bogus record of sale of manufactured products by SPPL (A5) to the said firms was created.
133. The Court has already reached the conclusion that Para Impex CBI v. Krishan Kumar Bansal & Ors. Page No. 101 of 112 SC No. 22/2019 Chem and Star Enterprises were shell firms and the invoices raised by SPPL were bogus. The fact that the accused Jhabar Mal Swami (A4) and Ram Singh (A7) were acquainted prior to the creation of Para Impex Chem is not in dispute. In their statements under Section 313 CrPC, it has been admitted by them that they were known to each other since the year 2005 and that the accused Ram Singh had formed Para Impex Chem on the advice of the accused Jhabar Mal Swami. In his statement under Section 313 CrPC, accused Jhabar Mal Swami has also admitted that the approver Sawan Nehra used to stay with him at his house No. C-248, Second Floor, New Clock Tower, Hari Nagar, Delhi and that after 2008 also, Sawan Nehra resided with him at Lawrence Road, New Delhi.
134. It is a matter of record that two bank accounts i.e. current account No.083005000211 with ICICI Bank, Lawrence Road, New Delhi and account No.056007300000019 with South India Bank, Punjabi Bagh West, New Delhi were opened in the name of Para Impex Chem on 23.04.2009 and 24.10.2009 respectively. It is further a matter of record that Star Enterprises had also opened an OD account No. 05600730000003 with South India Bank, Punjabi Bagh West, New Delhi on 23.09.2009 and that in the accounts of both the firms with South India Bank, their addresses have been mentioned as B4/212A, CBI v. Krishan Kumar Bansal & Ors. Page No. 102 of 112 SC No. 22/2019 Lawrence Road, Keshav Puram, New Delhi.
135. PW1 Sh. Sawan Nehra has deposed that in the application forms submitted with ICICI Bank and South India Bank for opening the accounts in the name of Para Impex Chem, the signatures of the accused Ram Singh (A7) were forged by the accused Jhabar Mal Swami (A4) and that the cheque books of the said accounts used to remain with the accused Jhabar Mal Swami. He has further deposed that for the transfer of money from the said accounts to the bank account of SPPL through RTGS and cheques, the signatures of the accused Ram Singh used to be forged on the RTGS slips as well as the cheques either by him or the accused Jhabar Mal. He has proved the said account opening forms, which form part of Ex. PW1/B (Colly.) and Ex. PW1/C (Colly.). He has also proved the RTGS slips and cheques as Ex. PW1/D to Ex. PW1/W and identified the fake signatures of the accused Ram Singh on all the above documents, which were forged by him and the accused Jhabar Mal Swami.
136. In his statement under Section 313 CrPC, the accused Ram Singh (A7) has stated that since he is an illiterate, RTGS slips and cheques used to be filled by the accused Jhabar Mal Swami on his request but all the RTGS slips, cheques and forms etc. in CBI v. Krishan Kumar Bansal & Ors. Page No. 103 of 112 SC No. 22/2019 connection with the bank accounts had been signed by him. Accused Jhabar Mal Swami (A4) has also admitted in his statement under Section 313 CrPC that he had filled the account opening forms of Para Impex Chem and that he and the approver Sawan Nehra had also filled the RTGS slips and cheques but denied that he had forged the signature of accused Ram Singh on the said documents. All the documents i.e. the account opening forms, RTGS slips and the cheques containing the questioned signatures of the accused Ram Singh along with his specimen and admitted signatures and the specimen signatures of the accused Jhabar Mal Swami and the approver Sawan Nehra had been sent to CFSL for examination, where the handwritings and signatures on the said documents were examined by PW36 Sh. Jeet Singh, Senior Scientific Officer Grade-II cum Assistant Chemical Examiner, CFSL. PW36 has proved his report dated 29.08.2013 as Ex. PW36/A. As per the said report, the questioned signatures of the accused Ram Singh on the account opening forms, RTGS slips and the cheques did not tally with his specimen and admitted signatures. Further, PW36 had opined that the questioned signatures on the above documents had shown similarities with the specimen signatures of the accused Jhabar Mal Swami (A4) and the approver Sawan Nehra.
CBI v. Krishan Kumar Bansal & Ors. Page No. 104 of 112 SC No. 22/2019
137. In view of the CFSL report (Ex. PW36/A), the version of the accused Ram Singh (A7) and Jhabar Mal Swami (A4) that the account opening forms, RTGS slips and cheques had been signed by the accused Ram Singh is falsified and the deposition of PW1 Sawan Nehra that the signatures of the accused Ram Singh on the said documents were forged either by him or the accused Jhabar Mal Swami gets corroborated. Thus, it follows that the approver Sawan Nehra has deposed truthfully that Para Impex Chem and Star Enterprises were fake firms and the transfer of money from their accounts to the accounts of SPPL was without any genuine transactions. Resultantly, it stands established that the accused Jhabar Mal Swami, accused Ram Singh and the approver Sawan Nehra had acted in conspiracy with each other.
138. Now the question to be considered is whether the accused Jhabar Mal Swami (A4), accused Ram Singh (A7) and the approver Sawan Nehra were also in conspiracy with SPPL (A5) and its Directors i.e. the accused Krishan Kumar Bansal (A1), Chhabil Das Bansal (A2) and Surender Pal Bansal (A3).
139. From the sale records of SPPL (A5), it is seen that 11 invoices for the total amount of Rs. 62,99,696/- and 06 invoices for the total amount of Rs. 28,89,393/- in respect of the sale of the CBI v. Krishan Kumar Bansal & Ors. Page No. 105 of 112 SC No. 22/2019 manufactured products to Para Impex Chem and Star Enterprises respectively had been raised by SPPL during the period 01.06.2009 to 31.12.2009. All the said invoices had been authenticated and signed by the accused Krishan Kumar Bansal (A1). Further, in terms of the Section 3 (4) of the Solvent, Raffinate and Slop (Acquisition, Sale, Storage and Prevention of use in Automobiles) Order, 2000, SPPL was required to file end-use certificates on quarterly basis in respect of the products manufactured and sold by it. The end-use certificates furnishing the above information on behalf of SPPL had also been signed and submitted by the accused Krishan Kumar Bansal (A1). Since the Court has already reached the conclusion that Para Impex Chem and Star Enterprises were shell firms and the invoices raised upon them by SPPL were bogus, it is manifest that the information contained in the end-use certificates regarding the sale of manufactured products to the said firms was false. As the accused Krishan Kumar Bansal (A1) had signed on bogus invoices and no actual business transactions took place between SPPL and the said firms, it is writ large that he was acting in criminal conspiracy with accused Jharbar Mal Swami (A4), accused Ram Singh (A7) and approver Sawan Nehra with a view to create fake records of sale of the manufactured products by SPPL to the above said firms and cheat GAIL by projecting the same as genuine transactions. As CBI v. Krishan Kumar Bansal & Ors. Page No. 106 of 112 SC No. 22/2019 mentioned above, Sawan Nehra was made an approver and granted pardon under Section 306 CrPC. Though there are minor discrepancies in his statements in respect of the peripheral matters but the same do not affect the truthfulness of his deposition regarding the core issue. Hence, the commission of offence under Section 420 IPC read with Section 120B IPC is clearly proved against accused Krishan Kumar Bansal (A1), accused Jhabar Mal Swami (A4) and accused Ram Singh (A7). Further, for furnishing the false information in the end-use certificates, the offence under Section 9 of the Essential Commodities Act is also established against the accused Krishan Kumar Bansal (A1).
140. Though the charge for the commission of offence under Section 3 read with Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act has also been framed against the accused Krishan Kumar Bansal (A1), Chhabil Das Bansal (A2), Surender Pal Bansal (A3) and SPPL (A5) but the penalty under Section 7 of the Act would have been attracted against them had the end-use certificates not been filed on behalf of SPPL with GAIL. However, in the case on hand, the end-use certificates for the period in question in terms of Section 3(4) of the Solvent, Raffinate and Slop (Acquisition, Sale, Storage and Prevention of use in Automobiles) Order, 2000, had been filed on behalf of SPPL. Since the information CBI v. Krishan Kumar Bansal & Ors. Page No. 107 of 112 SC No. 22/2019 contained therein regarding the sale of manufactured products to Para Impex Chem and Star Enterprises was false, the offence of furnishing false information under Section 9 of the Act only would be attracted and no offence under Section 3 read with Section 7 of the Act is made out.
141. It is not in dispute that during the period 01.04.20009 to 31.03.2010, the total amount of Rs.2,10,40,000/- and Rs.31,50,322/- had been transferred to the bank accounts of SPPL from the bank accounts of Para Impex Chem and Star Enterprises respectively. The said amounts far exceed the total worth of the manufactured products as reflected in the invoices raised by the SPPL. Even if the excess amounts received from the said firms had been refunded by SPPL, the same does not render any assistance as even the money due under the invoices was not payable. Thus, any money transferred from the bank accounts of the said firms to the bank accounts of SPPL was the tainted money. The fact that the money had been transferred from the bank accounts of the above said firms to the bank account of company, the criminal acts of the accused Krishan Kumar Bansal (A1) would be imputed to SPPL, being the alter ego of the company. Accordingly, the offence under Section 420 IPC read with Section 120B IPC has been committed by the company as well. As far as the offence under Section 9 of the CBI v. Krishan Kumar Bansal & Ors. Page No. 108 of 112 SC No. 22/2019 Essential Commodities Act is concerned, it is pertinent to mention that no charge for the said offence had been framed against SPPL (A5).
142. Qua the accused Chhabil Das Bansal (A2) and Surender Pal Bansal (A3), Sr. PP for CBI has argued that both of them were Directors of SPPL (A5) and by virtue of the position held by them, they were also in charge of the company and were responsible for the conduct of the business of the company and thus, in view of the provisions of Section 10 of the Essential Commodities Act, the offence under Section 3 read with Section 7 & 9 of the Act are also made out against them.
143. On the other hand, the counsel for A2 and A3 has submitted that after the appointment of Sh. Krishan Kumar Bansal (A1) as the Director of SPPL (A5) on 06.02.2008, he took over the charge of the company and was responsible for the conduct of the day to day affairs of the company. He has contended that since February, 2008, accused Chhabil Das Bansal and Surender Pal Bansal are merely the sleeping Directors and thus, they were not part of any conspiracy between the co-accused person.
144. In Dayle De'souza v. Government of India & Anr., (2021) 20 Supreme Court Cases 135, the Hon'ble Supreme Court CBI v. Krishan Kumar Bansal & Ors. Page No. 109 of 112 SC No. 22/2019 interpreted Section 22 C of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, which is analogous to Section 10 of the Essential Commodities Act. From the observations made in the said judgment, it follows that a person cannot be prosecuted and punished merely because of their status or position as a Director, manager, secretary or any other officer of the company and in order to bring them within the ambit of vicarious liability under sub- section (1) of Section 10 of the Act, the initial onus lies upon the prosecution to prove that such person was in charge of, and was responsible to, the company for the conduct of its business. Further, the onus under sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Act is also on the prosecution and for bringing any such person within its purview, the prosecution must establish that the offence in question was committed with their consent, or connivance, or is attributable to any neglect on their part.
145. In the case on hand, as mentioned earlier, the bogus invoices in respect of the sale of manufactured products to Para Impex Chem and Star Enterprises had been signed by the accused Krishan Kumar Bansal (A1). The end-use certificates containing the false information pertaining to sale of the manufactured products to the said firms had also been signed and submitted by the accused Krishan Kumar Bansal. The only material available on record showing the involvement of the accused CBI v. Krishan Kumar Bansal & Ors. Page No. 110 of 112 SC No. 22/2019 Chhabil Das Bansal (A2) and Surender Pal Bansal (A3) is the deposition of PW1 Sawan Nehra that in the absence of the accused Krishan Kumar Bansal (A1), they both used to hand over cash amounts to him for depositing the same in the bank accounts of the shell firms. Since no independent evidence to corroborate the above deposition of PW1 Sawan Nehra has been produced on record by the prosecution, it would not be prudent to act upon the same. Accordingly, the accused Chhabil Das Bansal (A2) and Surender Pal Bansal (A3) are liable to be acquitted of the charges against them.
Conclusion:
146. In the light of above discussion, the accused Chhabil Das Bansal (A2) and Surender Pal Bansal (A3) are hereby acquitted of the charges against them. However, since the prosecution has succeeded in proving beyond reasonable doubt that the accused Krishan Kumar Bansal (A1), Jhabar Mal Swami (A4), Saraswati Petrochem Pvt. Ltd. (A5) and Ram Singh (A7) had acted in criminal conspiracy with each other and in furtherance of the said conspiracy, they had cheated GAIL, the said accused persons are convicted for the commission of offence punishable under Section 420 IPC read with Section 120B IPC. Accused Krishan Kumar Bansal (A1) is also convicted for the commission of offence punishable under Section 9 of the CBI v. Krishan Kumar Bansal & Ors. Page No. 111 of 112 SC No. 22/2019 Essential Commodities Act, 1955.
147. Copy of the judgment be supplied free of costs to Sh. Chhabil Das Bansal and Sh. Surender Pal Bansal as well as all the four convicts.
148. The convicts shall now be heard on the point of sentence.
Digitally signed
SMITA byDate:SMITA GARG
GARG 2026.01.27
15:41:05 +0530
Announced in the open court (Smita Garg)
on 27.01.2026 Special Judge (PC Act) (CBI)-13,
Rouse Avenue Court Complex,
New Delhi
CBI v. Krishan Kumar Bansal & Ors. Page No. 112 of 112