Delhi District Court
Cbi vs Smt. Rita Singh on 27 August, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SH. VINAY KUMAR GUPTA, PRINCIPAL
DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE-CUM-SPECIAL JUDGE (PC
ACT) (CBI) ROUSE AVENUE COURTS COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
Cr. Rev. No. 89/2021
CNR NO: DLCT 11-000091-2021
CBI
.... PETITIONER
V
1. Smt. RITA SINGH
Director of M/s. Mideast Integrated Steel Limited,
R/o D-3A, Rita Villa,
Satbari, Mehrauli, Delhi - 110074
2. Smt. Natasha Singh,
Director of M/s. Mideast Integrated Steel Limited,
R/o -3B, Alanksha Apartment, Yariad, Varsova,
Mumbai
3. Sh. Sanjay Saigal,
GM (Finance) of M/s. Mideast Integrated Steel Limited,
R/o - C-54, Doctor Appartment, Indira Enclave,
Near Mayur Vihar, Phase-III, New Delhi
4. Sh. Deepak Singh,
S/o Vijay Kumar Singh
Finance Controller of M/s. Mideast Integrated Steel Limited,
R/o D-3A, Rita Villa, Satbari, Mehrauli, Delhi- 110074
5. Sh. Rajiv Raisinghani,
S/o Shri Chand Rai Singhani,
Company Secretary of M/s. Mideast Integrated Steel Limited,
R/o J-21, B.K. Dutta Colony, Jorbagh, Lodhi Road, New Delhi
6. M/s. Mideast Integrated Steel Limited,
H-1, Jamroodpur Community Centre, Kailash Colony,
New Delhi.
....RESPONDENTS
Crl. Rev. No. 89/2021 CBI v Rita Singh & Ors. Page no. 1 of 29
CRIMINAL REVISION UNDER SECTION 397 OF CODE OF
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973
JUDGMENT
1. The CBI filed the present criminal revision petition challenging the order dated 30.09.2020 of the court of Ld. CMM, Rouse Avenue Courts whereby out of the seven accused persons, namely
1) J.K. Singh, Chairman of A-7.
2) Rita Singh, Managing Director of A-7.
3) Natasha Singh, Director of A-7.
4) Deepak Singh, Finance Controller of A-7.
5) Rajiv Raisinghani, AGM (Finance) of A-7.
6) Sanjay Saigal, GM (Finance) of A-7.
7) M/s. Mideast Integrated Steel Limited.
chargesheeted for offences punishable u/s 120B r/w Sections 420,467,468 and 471 IPC and for substantive offences u/s 420,467,468 and 471 IPC in case RC SIG 1998 E 0001 dt. 10.02.1998, three accused persons, namely Crl. Rev. No. 89/2021 CBI v Rita Singh & Ors. Page no. 2 of 29
1) Rita Singh
2) Natasha Singh
3) Sanjay Saigal have been discharged and the charges for offences punishable u/s 120 B r/w Section 471 IPC against R-5 (A-5), u/s 120B r/w Section 420 IPC in the alternative u/s 403 IPC against R-4 (A-4) and u/s 120 B r/w Section 420 IPC against A-7 ordered to be framed against the other three persons, namely
1) Rajiv Raisinghani, R-5 (A-5)
2) Deepak Singh, R-4 (A-4)
3)M/s. Mideast Integrated Steel Limited, R-6 (A-7) one of the accused persons namely Sh. J.K.Singh (A-1) having expired during pendency of trial and proceedings against him abated.
2. The order dated 30.09.2020 has been challenged on the grounds that the Ld. Trial Court has misconstrued the statement of PW-1 Sh. Sanjay Gandhi as he has categorically stated having met the accused persons Rita Singh and Natasha Singh, the MD and Crl. Rev. No. 89/2021 CBI v Rita Singh & Ors. Page no. 3 of 29 director of company and also Rajiv Raisinghani, Dy. GM (Finance) of MESCO Group, for availing lease finance facility by the company.
3. Further the Board Resolution dated 09.02.1996 also shows the presence of A-2 Rita Singh, A-3 Natasha Singh and A-1 J. K. Singh (since expired).
4. Still further A-5 Rajiv Raisinghani sent a copy of performa invoice dt. 12.09.1995 for Rs. 1,80,79,092/- attached to his letter sent through fax in pursuance of the meetings with A-2 Rita Singh, A-3 Natasha Singh and A-5 Rajiv Raisinghani in office at MESCO Tower, 3-4 days prior to the signing of the lease agreement.
5. A-2 Rita Singh and A-3 Natasha Singh happened to be active directors of all group companies of MESCO as per various resolution passed by them and they were authorised to operate the bank accounts of the companies as stated by PW-13 Col. Virender Ahuja and a cheque signed by A-3 Natasha has also been placed on record in which the amount was transferred from a fictitious firm M/s Kesoram Refractories, New Delhi.
Crl. Rev. No. 89/2021 CBI v Rita Singh & Ors. Page no. 4 of 29
6. The loan/credit facility was directly paid to a fictitious firm M/s Kesoram Refractories, New Delhi and was fraudulently siphoned off and rotated in the group company of MESCO controlled by J.K. Singh (since deceased) Rita Singh (A-2) and Natasha Singh (A-3), which stands ignored in the impugned order.
7. Further the observations made on the statement of PW-1 Sanjay Gandhi before the examination during the trial, is premature and is a biased observation.
8. All the accused persons who are respondents in the present petition filed their separate replies to the petition.
9. R-1 (A-2) Rita Singh in her reply has stated that the order dated 30.09.2020 is well reasoned, is a possible and permissible view, based on well settled principle of law, requiring no interference by this court.
10. It has further been stated that the allegations by the prosecution against R-1 (A-2) Rita Singh are self contradictory and as such no prima facie case is made out against R-1(A-2) Rita Singh.
11. It has also been stated that the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution may be giving rise to suspicion only and not a grave Crl. Rev. No. 89/2021 CBI v Rita Singh & Ors. Page no. 5 of 29 suspicion, and are woefully inadequate for connecting R-1 (A-2) Rita Singh with this crime, and as such there is no illegality, perversity or infirmity in the order dated 30.09.2020 qua R-1 (A-2) Rita Singh.
12. The scope of Section 397 Cr.P.C. is stated to be limited and no case has been made out for invocation of powers u/s 397 Cr.P.C. as there is no patent-defect or error of jurisdiction or law.
13. It has further been stated that what PW-1 Sh. Sanjay Gandhi has stated is nothing but an opinion or inference sought to be drawn by him which is against the fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence and is not admissible.
14. Prosecution is stated to have not made any allegation regarding any prior meeting of minds which is one of the essential ingredients of the conspiracy, and as such the basic ingredients of the offence of conspiracy and cheating are missing.
And prayed for dismissal of the petition.
15. R-2 (A-3) Natasha Singh in her reply has stated that no specific role or circumstances has been attributed to R-2 (A-3) Natasha Singh to connect her with the alleged offence. Crl. Rev. No. 89/2021 CBI v Rita Singh & Ors. Page no. 6 of 29
16. The prosecution is stated to have neither made any allegation as to prior meeting of minds with other accused persons nor the essential ingredients of conspiracy made out as established.
17. The entire statement of PW-1 Sh. Sanjay Gandhi does not show any physical manifestation by R-2 (A-3) Natasha Singh in respect of alleged offences. And the oral evidence or document referred by the CBI are totally misplaced.
18. The grounds on which the present petition has been preferred by the CBI are stated to be false, frivolous, concocted and baseless in view of the observation made in the order dated 30.09.2020. And prayed for dismissal of the petition.
19. The R-3 (A-6) Sanjay Saigal in his reply pointed out certain letters, namely:
1) Letter dated 27.03.1996 addressed to M/s Ashok Leyland Finance;
2) Letter dated 29.03.1996 (D-149);
3) Letter No. KRK/95-96/Prof Inv M1 (D-145) Crl. Rev. No. 89/2021 CBI v Rita Singh & Ors. Page no. 7 of 29 signed by him and (D-149) also signed by the Chairman of the company stated that the letter dated 27.03.1996 (D-145) signed by him has no relevance in view of letters D-149.
20. It has also been stated that the prosecution has come up with these irrelevant documents alleged to be signed by him which have not been mentioned in the charge sheet.
21. R-3 (A-6) Sanjay Saigal further stated that he has signed these letters in the normal course of business as told by J.K. Singh (since deceased) and made to sign on standard format.
22. It has also been stated that the documents D-123 (Page 95) and D-
129 (Page 96) which are signature verification report and personal guarantee were given to Ashok Leyland as per standard format and is not incriminating in any way as taking loan from Ashok Leyland is legally correct.
23. It is further submitted that R-3 (A-6) Sanjay Saigal is not a technical man and does not have knowledge of the product and the two transactions:
i) introduction of Deepak Singh for starting a new business;
and Crl. Rev. No. 89/2021 CBI v Rita Singh & Ors. Page no. 8 of 29
ii) taking lease finance for supplies made from other proprietary firm are independent of each other.
24. Further, the draft fake invoice where the amount and product has been changed by applying white fluid on invoice was in the handwriting of other co-accused attributed to Q-15 and Q-23 (CFSL Report) and the false bill dated 27.03.1996 was submitted on 29.03.1996 under the covering letter of Rajiv Raisinghani (A-5). Still further as per PW-1 Sanjay Gandhi, it was A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-5 who have induced him (PW-1) to finance on the basis of false and forged performa invoice and there is no allegation of inducement/cheating/forgery against him [R-3 (A-6) Sanjay Saigal].
And prayed for dismissal of the petition.
25. R-4 (A- 4) Deepak Singh in his reply stated that there is no material on record to connect him with any forgery or use of a forged document with an intention to cheat.
26. It has further been stated that the R-4 (A-4) Deepak Singh who opened the bank account signed the account opening form or Crl. Rev. No. 89/2021 CBI v Rita Singh & Ors. Page no. 9 of 29 specimen signature card and there is no document to show that signature 'D Singh' appearing on these documents belong to him [R-4 (A-4) Deepak Singh].
27. The account opening form and pay in slip was filled by other persons and the account opening form does not mention the name Deepak Singh, it cannot be said that the signature 'D Singh' was affixed by him [R-4 (A-4)Deepak Singh].
Stating that there is no case for framing of charge against him prayed for his discharge.
28. R-5 (A-5) Rajiv Raisinghani in his reply stated that there is no whisper in the charge sheet that R-5 (A-5) Rajiv Raisinghani has in any manner induced the complainant to sanction or disburse any loan or that he created any false document and no case for offences u/s 420, 467, 468 IPC made out against him.
Stating that the CBI has failed to point out any manifest illegality or impropriety in this order prayed for dismissal of the petition.
29. It has been submitted by the Ld. Sr. PP for the petitioner CBI, that the order dated 30.09.2020 is against the facts ignoring the Crl. Rev. No. 89/2021 CBI v Rita Singh & Ors. Page no. 10 of 29 incriminating evidence, and a final judgment has been passed at the stage of charge itself.
30. It has further been submitted that as per the statement recorded on 22.01.1999 and on 28.04.2000 of PW-1 Sh. Sanjay Gandhi, R-1 (A-2) Rita Singh, R-2 (A-3) Natasha Singh held responsible positions in the company, had knowledge of the transaction and under a conspiracy submitted forged invoices and as such are co- conspirators, with J.K. Singh (since deceased)
31. It has further been submitted that PW-12 Sh. R. K. Gupta in his statement recorded on 05.04.2000 has stated about the positions of R-1 (A-2) Rita Singh and R-2 (A-3) Natasha Singh as Managing Director and Director of the Company and also of R-4 (A-4) Deepak Singh as AGM.
And the findings recorded in order dated 30.09.2020 in para 11 are against the record.
32. As regards R-3 (A-6) Sanjay Saigal, it is submitted that PW-1 Sh.
Sanjay Gandhi in his statement recorded on 22.01.1999 has stated the personal guarantee given by A-1 J.K. Singh (since deceased) was witnessed by R-5 (A-5) Rajiv Raisinghani and R-3 (A-6) Crl. Rev. No. 89/2021 CBI v Rita Singh & Ors. Page no. 11 of 29 Sanjay Saigal. PW-1 has further stated that he has faxed a copy of the bill dated 27.03.1996 to [R-3 (A-6] Sanjay Saigal as he wanted a copy of the bill.
33. Further, it is submitted that R-4 (A-4) Deepak Singh was a regular visitor of the bank as stated by PW-5 Sh. Jagannath Sethy whom he (PW-5) knew as nephew (sister's son) of J.K. Singh had along with R-3 (A-6) Sanjay Saigal approached him for opening a current account in the name of M/s Kesoram Refractories, Delhi and told him that he is the proprietor of the firm. The account opening firm was duly introduced by R-3 (A-6) Sanjay Saigal GM (Finance) and as such R-4 (A-4) Deepak Singh is also equally liable.
34. On the other hand, it has been submitted on behalf of R-1 (A-2) Rita Singh that the allegation are generalized and all the accused persons have been clubbed together. The role of each of the accused persons is to be specified. R-1 (A-2) Rita Singh and R-2 (A-3) Natasha Singh did not play any active role.
35. It has further been submitted that J.K. Singh (A-1) was the signatory and after his death his acts have to be excluded, and after exclusion of his acts, nothing remains against the accused persons. Crl. Rev. No. 89/2021 CBI v Rita Singh & Ors. Page no. 12 of 29
36. It has also been submitted that a cogent view which is a possible view has been taken and no new view can be substituted. And even otherwise no prima facie case is made out as required under sections 227-228, 239, 244-245 Cr.P.C. as the material and documents at their face value do not disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence, as discussed in page 11 to 15 of the order dated 30.09.2020.
In support of his submissions on behalf of R-1 (A-2) Rita Singh, the Ld. Counsel for R-1 (A-2) Rita Singh has relied upon a number of decisions of the Supreme Court and the High Courts.
37. The Ld. Counsel for R-2 (A-3) Natasha Singh has submitted that the Ld. Trial Court has considered all the aspects as discussed in page no. 11 to 15 of the order dated 30.09.2020, and there is no irregularity or illegality in the order of the Ld. Trial Court.
38. It has further been submitted relying on the decision in L.K. Advani v CBI 1997 Crl. J. 2559, that meeting does not amount to conspiracy.
Crl. Rev. No. 89/2021 CBI v Rita Singh & Ors. Page no. 13 of 29
39. It has also been submitted that the present petition does not fall within the scope of Section 397 Cr.P.C. and as such the same is liable to be dismissed.
40. R-3 (A-6) Sanjay Saigal has submitted that he being the Finance head of the company has only introduced R-4 (A-4) Deepak Singh whom he knew being the nephew of A-1 J.K. Singh (since deceased) in opening a bank account which he has done in good faith being the authorised signatory of MSIL. Further PW-1 Sh. Sanjay Gandhi has not said anything about him.
41. It has also been submitted that the letter dated 27.03.1996 has no relevance as it bears wrong invoice number and a similar letter with correct invoice number has been signed by A-1 J.K. Singh Chairman of the Company and further a letter dated 29.03.1996 giving correct invoice number was submitted by R-5 (A-5) Rajiv Raisinghani, and the letter signed by him R-3 (A-6) Sanjay Saigal was never submitted to M/s Ashok Leyland Finance and no criminality can be attributed to him and he has been rightly discharged.
Crl. Rev. No. 89/2021 CBI v Rita Singh & Ors. Page no. 14 of 29
42. I have perused the record, the documents available on record, the statements of the witnesses recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C., heard the Ld. Sr. PP and the Ld. Counsels for the respondents and considered the case law cited at the Bar.
43. At the outset, I may mention that there is no quarrel with the propositions of law laid down in various decisions relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for the parties.
44. In the present case, the CBI has filed the chargesheet for offences punishable u/s 120B IPC r/w Sections 420/467/468/471 IPC, and for substantive offences u/s 420/467/468/471 IPC against the seven accused persons six of whom are the respondents herein.
45. All the offences mentioned in the chargesheet are punishable with imprisonment for 3 years or more and are triable by a Magistrate, and as such are offences for which procedure laid down is the one for warrant trial cases under the Criminal Procedure Code.
46. In warrant trial cases as far as charge is concerned Section 239 and 240 Cr.P.C. are applicable.
Section 239 and 240 Cr. P.C. read:
Crl. Rev. No. 89/2021 CBI v Rita Singh & Ors. Page no. 15 of 29 Section 239. When accused shall be discharged. - If, upon considering the police report and the documents sent with it under section 173 and making such examination, if any, of the accused as the Magistrate thinks necessary and after giving the prosecution and the accused an opportunity of being heard, the Magistrate considers the charge against the accused to be groundless, he shall discharge the accused, and record his reasons for so doing.
Section 240. Framing of Charge.- (1) If, upon such consideration, examination, if any, and hearing, the Magistrate is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence triable under this Chapter, which such Magistrate is competent to try and which, in his opinion, could be adequately punished by him, he shall frame in writing a charge against the accused.
(2) The charge shall then be read and explained to the accused, and he shall be asked whether he pleads guilty of the offence charged or claims to be tried.
47. Section 239 and 240 read together signify that if there are grounds for presuming that the accused has committed an offence charge (s) shall be framed against the accused and if the charge against the accused shall be groundless, the accused is liable to be discharged.
48. It has been laid down in State of Tamilnadu v Jayalalitha AIR 2000 SC 1589, that the exercise at this stage should be confined to considering the police report and the documents to decide whether the allegations against the accused are 'groundless' or whether there Crl. Rev. No. 89/2021 CBI v Rita Singh & Ors. Page no. 16 of 29 is ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offence. Presumption therein is always rebuttable by the accused for which there must be opportunity of participation in the trial.
49. Further, it has been laid down in State of Tamilnadu v N. Sumesh Rajan 2014(1) Supreme 16, that at the stage of charge, the law does not permit a mini trial. What needs to be considered is whether there is a ground for presuming that the offence has been committed and not whether a ground for convicting the accused has been made out. If the court thinks that the accused might have committed the offence on the basis of material on record on its probative value, it can frame the charge.
It has also been laid down that defects in investigation cannot be a ground for discharge.
50. The word 'groundless' has not been defined. However, it means that there is no legally admissible evidence on record against the accused, he is entitled to be discharged, otherwise the charge has to be framed against the accused (s).
51. In the present case, position of the accused persons vis-a-vis the company is:
Crl. Rev. No. 89/2021 CBI v Rita Singh & Ors. Page no. 17 of 29 A-1 J.K. Singh (since deceased) Chairman R-1 (A-2) Rita Singh w/o A-1 Managing Director R-2 (A-3) Natasha Singh Director D/o A-1 R-4 (A-4) Deepak Singh Finance Controller Nephew of A-1 (Sister's son) R-5 (A-5) Rajiv Raisinghani DGM Finance R-3 (A-6) Sanjay Saigal GM Finance A-7 M/s Mideast Integrated Steel Ltd. The company R-1(A-2) is the wife of A-1, R-2 (A-3) is the daughter of A-1 and A-2, A-4 is the nephew/sister's son of A-1.
52. The position of various accused persons and their relation interse reflect that it is a family controlled company and all were playing active role in the day to day functioning of the company by virtue of their positions in the company and the affairs of the company were controlled by them.
53. The present case is that A-7 the company through R-5 (A-5) Rajiv Raisinghani started negotiation for lease finance with M/s Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd. in March 1996.
Crl. Rev. No. 89/2021 CBI v Rita Singh & Ors. Page no. 18 of 29
54. As stated by PW-1 Sh. Sanjay Gandhi, R-1 (A-2) Rita Singh and R-
2 (A-3) Natasha Singh participated in the negotiations which took place in the office of the company at MESCO Tower.
55. The finance was sought on the strength of performa invoice dated 12.09.1995 of [M/s Kesoram Refractories (Prop. Kesoram Industries Ltd.)] Calcutta, West Bengal and the receipt dated 18.12.1995.
56. Once M/s Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd. agreed for the lease finance in the meetings with R-1 (A-2), R-2 (A-3) and R-5 (A-5) what followed was that R-5 (A-5) Rajiv Raisinghani submitted a forged proforma invoice dated 12.09.1995 (D-52) purportedly issued by Kesoram Refractories (Proprietor M/s Kesoram Industries Ltd. Calcutta) for supply of Air pre-heaters at the cost of Rs.1,80,79,052/- and a forged receipt for Rs.21,76,954/- dated 18.12.1995 showing advance payment to M/s Kesoram Refractories (Prop. Kesoram Industries) Calcutta vide his letter dated 26.03.1996 (D-115) sent through fax.
57. After examination of the documents submitted by R-5(A-5) Rajiv Raisinghani, PW-1 Sh. Sanjay Gandhi sent an offer letter dated Crl. Rev. No. 89/2021 CBI v Rita Singh & Ors. Page no. 19 of 29 27.03.1996 (D-54) and (D-55) and the offer was duly accepted by the accused company vide its letter dated 27.03.1996.
58. The requisite documents were executed by A-1 J.K. Singh (since deceased) duly witnessed by R-5(A-5) Rajiv Raisinghani and R-3 (A-6) Sanjay Saigal.
59. R-5(A-5) Rajiv Raisinghani further submitted a bill no. KRK/95- 96/7267 dated 27.03.1996 (D-53) of M/s Kesoram Refractories along with a cover note dated 29.03.1996 of M/s Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. for insurance of Air Pre-heaters lying at the steel plant of Orissa, vide his letter dated 29.03.1996 (D-144).
60. It has been stated that white fluid was applied over relevant parts.
The words 'To cost of refractories' were replaced by the words ' Air pre heaters' and the figure 'Rs.2,84,79,092/- with 'Rs.1,80,79,092' in the invoice. In the receipt, white fluid was applied on the date and material as the date was made to read 31.01.1996 in place of 18.12.1995 and the words ' Refractory materials' were made to read 'Air pre-heaters'.
61. It is stated that these documents have been forged and submitted to M/s Ashok Leyland for lease finance, and as such the forged Crl. Rev. No. 89/2021 CBI v Rita Singh & Ors. Page no. 20 of 29 documents have been used, knowing the same to forged in order to cheat the complainant company.
62. As per the allegations a bill no. KRK/95-96/7267 dated 27.03.1996 (D-53) purportedly issued by M/s Kesoram Refractories (Proprietor Kesoram Industries Ltd. Calcutta) was also submitted vide letter dated 29.03.1996 signed by R-5(A-5) Rajiv Raisinghani along with an insurance cover note dated 29.03.1996.
63. R-4 (A-4) is the person who along with R-3 (A-6) has approached M/s Vijaya Bank, Defence Colony, New Delhi, for opening a bank account in the name of M/s Kesoram Refractories, as a proprietor, which was a fictitious firm to their own knowledge.
64. R-4 (A-4) is also the finance controller of the company A-7, of which R-3 (A-6) is the GM, Finance and thus R-4 (A-4) and R-3 (A-6) are very much known to each other.
65. R-4 (A-4) is also the nephew of A-1 (J.K. Singh, since deceased), which R-3 (A-6) also knows.
66. PW-5 Sh. Jagannath Shetty, the Chief Manager, Vijay Bank, Defence Colony till 27.04.1998 in his statement recorded on 09.03.1999 has very categorically stated that R-3 (A-6) and R-4 (A- Crl. Rev. No. 89/2021 CBI v Rita Singh & Ors. Page no. 21 of 29
4) had approached him for opening a bank account in the name of M/s Kesoram Refractories, Kalu Sarai, Delhi. R-4 (A-4) told him that he is the proprietor of the firm and was duly introduced by R- 3(A-6).
67. PW-5 has further stated that he knew R-4 (A-4) as nephew of A-1 J.K. Singh (since deceased) and also stated that R-4 (A-4) used to visit the bank besides R-3(A-6) and one Sh. Thapa, and was known to the bank officials as nephew of A-1 J.K. Singh.
68. In view of the statement of PW-5, the identity of R-4(A-4) is very much established and that too as account holder of M/s Kesoram Refractories, Kalu Sarai, New Delhi as proprietor. And as such the finding recorded by the Ld. Trial Court as to his identity, holding of TIP etc. can not be accepted.
69. Further, R-4 (A-4) being the finance controller of the company had the knowledge of as to the actual proprietor of M/s Kesoram Refractories and still he went ahead to open a bank account in the name of M/s Kesoram Refractories as its proprietor.
70. R-4 (A-4) has opened the bank account in Vijaya Bank, Defence Colony, New Delhi only to get the cheque issued by M/s Ashok Crl. Rev. No. 89/2021 CBI v Rita Singh & Ors. Page no. 22 of 29 Leyland Finance - the complainant company, encashed and then siphoned off/diverted the money and the things were managed in such a way that the cheque issued by M/s Ashok Leyland Ltd. does not go to the actual Kesoram Refractories whose proprietor is M/s Kesoram Industries Ltd. Calcutta.
71. The beneficiary of the money received from M/s Ashok Leyland Finance was the company A-7 which was in active management and control of A-1, R-1(A-2) and R-2 (A-3) and the amount siphoned off has also transferred to various other companies of MESCO group which were also controlled by A-1, R-1(A-2) and R-2 (A-3) or withdrawn in cash as stated by PW-8 Sh. Rama Raju Sudhakar in his statement recorded on 10.02.2000. R-5 (A-5) has also participated in the negotiations for lease finance along with R-1 (A-2) and R-2 (A-3) as stated by PW-1 Sh. Sanjay Gandhi.
72. In pursuance of those negotiations R-5 (A-5) submitted a performa invoice dated 12.09.1995 purportedly issued by M/s Kesoram Refractories (Prop. M/s Kesoram Industries Ltd. Calcutta) for supply of Air pre heaters and receipt dated 31.03.1996 towards advance payment through fax vide his letter dated 26.03.1996 Crl. Rev. No. 89/2021 CBI v Rita Singh & Ors. Page no. 23 of 29 signed by him. (the letter through which the receipt was submitted is dated 26.03.1996 and it appears that a typographical error has crept in mentioning the date of receipt. As per the chargesheet the receipt is dated 18.12.1995.)
73. PW-7 Sh. Pinaki Mukherjee, Chief Executive officer, Kesoram Refractories (Prop. Kesoram Industries Ltd.) Burdhwan in his statement dated 16.08.1999 has stated that M/s Kesoram Refractories does not manufacture any item known as Air pre heater. And Sh. Haldia could not issue any performa invoice for such material. He has further stated that they have never issued proforma invoice for 'Air Preheaters' to any company.
74. PW-7 has further stated that the bill no. KRK/95-96/7297 dated 27.03.1996 (D-53) for 'Air pre-heaters' appears to be fake as his company does not manufacture 'Air pre-heaters' and further there is no employee named 'Kavitha' in the company.
75. The bill no. KRK/95-96/7297 dated 27.03.1996 (D-53) has also been submitted by R-5 (A-5) alongwith insurance cover note dated 29.03.1996 vide his letter dated 29.03.1996, as per the allegations in the chargesheet.
Crl. Rev. No. 89/2021 CBI v Rita Singh & Ors. Page no. 24 of 29
76. The statements of PW-1 Sh. Sanjay Gandhi and PW-7 Sh. Pinaki Mukherjee goes to show that
- the performa invoice dated 12.09.1995
- the receipt dated 18.12.1995
- the invoice dated 27.03.1996 have been manufactured by A-7 through A-1 to A-6, (R-1) to (R-5) and these documents have come into existence at their instance only and as such are all forged documents.
77. Further there is a use of white fluid on documents for changing their contents. All those documents were in power and possession of the accused persons. And contents of the documents were changed by applying white fluid and as such are forged documents have been prepared by the accused persons.
78. All these documents have been submitted by R-5 (A-5) to M/s Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd. And the money has been deposited in the bank account opened by R-4 (A-4) which was siphoned off and transferred to various companies owned and controlled by MESCO Group which in turn were controlled by A-1, R-1(A-2) and R-2 (A-3).
Crl. Rev. No. 89/2021 CBI v Rita Singh & Ors. Page no. 25 of 29
79. As far as R-3(A-6) is concerned, apart from getting the bank account by R-4(A-4) opened, R-3(A-6) has issued a certificate dated 27.03.1996 (D-145) addressed to M/s Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd. With kind attention Sh. Sanjay Gandhi - Deputy Mangar (PW-1) which reads:
"This is to certify that the Air Preheaters acquired from Kesoram Refractories (Proprietor Kesoram Industries Limited), Calcutta vide Invoice No. KRK/95-96/Prof Inv. M-I dated 27.03.1996 for an amount of Rs.1,90,18,501.00 have been installed at our plant at Kalinga Nagar Industrial Complex, P.O. Danagadi, District Jajpur, Orissa on March 27,1996."
80. The certificate talks about 'Air Pre-heaters' acquired from Kesoram Refractories (Proprietor Kesoram Industries Limited) and further that the same have been installed at their plant in District Jajpur, Orissa.
A similar certificate (D-149) dated 29.03.1996 has also been issued by A-1.
81. As stated by PW-7, M/s Kesoram Refractories does not manufacture or deal in Air Pre-heaters, there was no question of the same being acquired from it and when the same has not been acquired, where is the question of their installation. Crl. Rev. No. 89/2021 CBI v Rita Singh & Ors. Page no. 26 of 29
82. The certificate (D-145) issued by R-3 (A-6) and also by A-7 (D-
149) are false declarations and thereby R-3 (A-6) has aided A-7 and in turn A-1, R-1 (A-2) and R-2 (A-3) in getting the money from M/s Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd. which they never intended to refund/return as is evident from the letter dated 17.05.1996 (D-59) written by PW-1 to R-2 (A-3) as they did not pay even the first installment of the lease finance.
83. Though the beneficiary of the money from M/s Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd. Are A-1, R-1 (A-2) and R-2 (A-3) through A-7, and not R-3 (A-6), R-4 (A-4) or R-5 (A-5), however, the conduct of A- 1, R-1 (A-2), R-2 (A-3), R-4 (A-4), R-5 (A-5), R-3 (A-6) and the company A-7 through them, prima facie show that they all were involved in hatching a conspiracy to cheat M/s Ashok Leyland Limited by obtaining lease finance to the tune of about Rs.1.7 crores and to siphoned off the money and manufactured/forged documents towards that end, submitted those forged documents to M/s Ashok Leyland Limited, obtained the money, deposited the same in a fictitious bank account opened by R-4(A-4) and then transferred to the bank accounts of various companies controlled by them.
Crl. Rev. No. 89/2021 CBI v Rita Singh & Ors. Page no. 27 of 29
84. The conduct of the accused persons reflect that they have formed hatched a conspiracy to obtain the lease finance on forged documents and acted towards that object and submitted forged and fabricated documents to the complainant company. The conspiracy and dishonest intention is also reflected from the fact, that the accused persons defaulted in the very first installment payable towards lease finance as reflected from the letter dated 17.05.1996 (D-59) of PW-1 Sanjay Gandhi, to R-2 (A-3)
85. The order dated 30.09.2020 focuses more on the defects in investigation rather than the acts and conduct of the accuse persons and vital evidence available on record have been ignored which is not permissible. And in view of the discussion above, there is more than sufficient evidence on record which prima facie shows the commission of offences by the accused persons for which they have been charge sheeted and the order dated 30.09.2020 cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside.
86. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed and the order dated 30.09.2020 of the Court of Ld. CMM is hereby set aside and charges for offences punishable:
- u/s 120 B r/w sections 420/467/468/471 IPC and, Crl. Rev. No. 89/2021 CBI v Rita Singh & Ors. Page no. 28 of 29
- u/s 420/467/468/471 IPC be framed against all the accused persons.
87. All the accused persons are directed to appear before the court of Ld. CMM on 08.09.2022.
88. TCR be sent back with a copy of the order.
89. Revision file be consigned to the Record Room.
(Vinay Kumar Gupta) Principal District & Sessions Judge-
cum-Special Judge (PC Act) (CBI), Rouse Avenue District Court New Delhi/27.08.2022 Crl. Rev. No. 89/2021 CBI v Rita Singh & Ors. Page no. 29 of 29