Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(5) Notice of this petition was issued to the respondents. Reply has been filed on behalf of theCBI. The main grounds appearing in the reply are that petitioners I and 4 who were the Directors of M/s Pppl had fabricated documents showing procurement of raw materials from different agencies, manufacture of Fertilizers in their so called factory and sale of the same to fictitious persons. In fact the business of the petitioner was established only on paper in the name of M/s Pppl at Amritsar which was later on changed to M/s Pppl in June, 1983. In the names of these two concerns the petitioners had defrauded the Govt of India to the tune of Rs. 3.39 crores approximately. The aforesaid agencies are alleged to be fictitious and no manufacture or sale of any fertilizer as claimed by the petitioner took place from 1980 through 1987. The petitioner in conspiracy with certain un-authorized and unscrupulous officers of the State Industries department, Amritsar dishonestly and fraudulently got certified some of the claims of earlier period un-authorsedly. In this fraud some officers of Dficc were also involved as they had dishonestly and fraudulently given favorable reports in favor of the said Company. The is fact was also a subject matter of the investigation with the CBI. It was wrong on the part of the petitioners to allege that they had any firm or Company located at Amritsar and thereafter at BahadurGarh in Haryana. It has been found that they had already intimated to various Authorities that they had closed their factory in 1986 itself. The petitioners are alleged even to have forged various documents showing procurement of raw material from various form firms and Govt. agencies whereas in fact no raw material had been supplied by such non-existent firms. The Cbi also exemplified by stating that several crores of payments were shown to M/s B.K. Enterprises, Sadhna Enterprises and some Govt. Undertaking of Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan by local cheques and in fact the said amounts were also received by the first petitioner by forging the signatures of partners, Directors or representatives of such concerns. Only such arteries which appeared to be acquired out of the defrauded amount and connected with the fraud were taken into possession. In most of the Branches of the Banks huge deposits in assumed names were found and the first petitioner himself had forged the signatures of such persons. Even the complete addresses of such depositors are alleged to be not mentioned in such accounts, obviously showing conspiracy of the first petitioner with the respective Branch Managers. Even Benami Lockers were located and their search yielded huge cash. primary gold and un-declared gold and jewelleries. Although some of such lockers were Benami in the name of persons belonging to Rohtak and New Delhi, keys of such lockers were recovered from the residential premises of the first petitioner. Petitioners 5 to 9 are the wife, daughters and son of first petitioner. Except the wife, they were all college and School going children and the first petitioner without their knowledge showed deposits in their names just by forging their signatures himself. It is further stated that the 11th petitioner Kishan Chand is none also than the first petitioner himself. Similarly the 27th petitioner B. Beena (Bhola Rani) is none else than Savita Parmar, the 5th petitioner who is the wife of first petitioner. Petitioners 12 and 13 (husband and wife) are actually pauper having no sufficient means or any landed property or business to support them. Both of them have been getting old age pension at the rate of Rs. 50.00 per month from the District Social Welfare Office Gurdaspur on the recommendation of the Village Pardhan and District Authorities. But the first petitioner has forged accounts in their name also. The first petitioner is also alleged to have got issued a legal notice to Secretary to Ministry of Home Affairs that the property seized from the first petitioner by the Cbi had been gifted to him by the 12th petitioner who actually is a pauper. Thus the first petitioner is alleged to have been the brain behind the fraud and had not appeared before the Cbi for investigation in spite of a notice under Section 160 Criminal Procedure Code . The first petitioner, in short, is stated to have no other business, except the cheating of the Govt. of India fraudulently, obtaining money from it.