Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. The charges raised against the Workman in the charge sheet were as under:

(i) That the Workman had availed of a housing loan of Rs.15 lakhs from the IDBI Bank, New Delhi, without taking any permission from the Competent Authority in the Punjab & Sind Bank.

(ii) That the Workman had submitted a fabricated statement of his account being SB A/C 9337 to the IDBI Bank, and wrongfully incorporated credit entries in the account statement to show inflated salary and balance of the said account;

(iii) Reliance is also placed upon the Letter addressed to the Workman by the IDBI Bank, wherein when the application for loan of the Workman was received, the IDBI Bank sought a clarification and confirmation of the bank statement. It was then that the knowledge in respect of forgery and fabrication was acquired by the Petitioner-Bank, which then took action in respect of the same. Reference is also made to the statements attached therewith, which would show that the correct statements showed lesser credit entries and the manipulated and fabricated statements showed higher credit entries. On a comparison of the signatures, it can be noticed that at pages 345 and 347, there is a visible difference between the original and the forged signatures of Mr. Vinod Gupta. Similarly, there is a visible difference between the original and forged signature of Mr. Vinod Gupta at pages 348 and 349.

25. The Management also produced MW3-Sh. Vinod Kumar Gupta who specifically stated in his affidavit as under:

"xxx xxx xxx

3. He submitted fabricated statement of his SB a/c 9337 to IDBI and wrongfully incorporated credit entries in the a/c statement to show inflated salary and balance of the said account. These entries are not reflected in his a/c. He further verified the said a/c statement and also forged my signatures and affixing a Bank's rubber stamp on it.

4. He submitted a recasted Form No.16 to IDBI and wrongfully incorporated his designation as CCC, Manager Computer in it. He further forged my signatures and affixed a bank rubber stamp on it. He had deliberately shown his annual income as Rs.299688/- in the fabricated Form No.16 against his actual income of Rs.194300/-.

5. He submitted a fabricated salary certificate to IDBI and intentionally incorporated fictitious and incorrect entries for inflating his salary. Against the actual basic salary of Rs. 9740/-, he showed his basic salary as Rs. 14120/- and against the actual net salary of Rs. 4674.77 he showed it to be 4211/- by recasting the entries. The fabricated statement has been duly verified by him and also forged my signatures and affixed Bank's rubber stamp on it."