Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

35.1. Upon cross-examination on behalf of Aftab Alam it was stated by him that till date he did not came to know that who obtained loan against the policies of his two sons. He was also called by CBI. He did not asked regarding his loan by CBI. His both policies were found credited. He was declined to cross-examine by appellant/accused Pawan Kumar Rajak.

36. P.W. 3 is Nuzhat Ara, she was also one of the policy holder of the LIC for four different policies. Her agent was also Aftab Alam. Two policies were in the name of her husband, one in her own name and another was in the name of her daughter. She came to know that Aftab Alam was Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.973 of 2022 dt.18-12-2024 arrested in relation to some scam in LIC Branch, whereafter she visited the LIC office and obtained the statement of aforesaid policies, whereafter she came to know that the loan of Rs. 11,000/- was obtained against her policy and Rs. 21,000/- was obtained against the policy of her husband. It was deposed that she never made any application for said loans. She never handed over the policy bond to any other person and still original policy bonds are with her. She also stated that the cheque premium of Rs. 11,000/- which was given to LIC was not deposited with LIC, similarly cheque of Rs. 12,500/- and Rs. 7,800/- were also not deposited by appellant Aftab Alam, which was in the name of her husband. All aforesaid cheques were given to LIC agent Aftab Alam. It was stated that for all aforesaid bonds money was withdrawn from account and it was not credited against the premium of LIC policies and when she enquired, it was said by LIC officers that the matter is under enquiry of CBI. Consequent upon, she lodged her complaint with Divisional Officer, LIC, Patna. Complaint was written by her brother Zafar Tauheed and signed by her and her husband. She identified her hand Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.973 of 2022 dt.18-12-2024 writing and aforesaid signature, which upon her identification was exhibited as Exhibit-2/1. It was categorically deposed that appellant Aftab Alam cheated her.

36.1. Upon cross-examination, it was stated by her that she obtained policy through appellant Aftab Alam, LIC agent and she also stated that the loan was withdrawn against four policies. She failed to depose that in which account said loan amount was credited. It was stated that cheques were issued in favour of LIC. She was neither informed by LIC, nor by CBI that by whom her cheque amount was realized, which was given for premium of LIC policies. It was stated that her brother was also working with LIC, as agent.

53.1. Upon cross-examination, it was stated by him that initially Neena Agrawal, Devdulal Bhattacharya and Raju Saha were also named accused but they did not sent up for trial. He did not moved any application to declare aforesaid accused persons as an approver in the present case. He submitted both charge-sheets i.e., original as well as Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.973 of 2022 dt.18-12-2024 supplementary of this case. He could not obtain signature of appellant Aftab Alam and his brother Javed Alam, Shahid Alam and his wife Irfat Parveen till submission of charge- sheet. It was stated that the LIC cheques were deposited in their account and there was total of three accounts in the name of Aftab Alam, out of which one was joint account with his wife and rest two with his brothers Javed Alam and Shahid Alam. It was also stated that no individual account was found in the name of his brother and wife. He did not sent up deposit slip of LIC and cheque before any forensic lab for its examination, whether it was deposited by them or by any other persons. It was stated that Javed Alam, Shahid Alam and Irfat Parveen were not LIC Agents. The withdrawal from aforesaid account was made by using withdrawal slip. The questionable cheques were deposited in the account of Neena Agrawal, Devdulal Bhattacharya and Raju Saha, who were the beneficiaries. As per the final form, total amount of Rs. 7,76,243/- was deposited in the account of Neena Agrawal, Rs. 3,28,181/- was deposited in the account of Devdulal Bhattacharya and Rs. 4,14,863/- was deposited in the Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.973 of 2022 dt.18-12-2024 account of Raju Saha. It is submitted that from all such accounts LIC suffered wrongful losses and accused persons received wrongful gains. It was stated that it was the duty of issuing authority of the cheque to ascertain whether it was issued in favour of genuine concerned perons or not. None of the cheques were found forged and it was bearing signature of authorised signatory. During investigation, he did not find any evidence which may suggest that appellant Aftab Alam in connivance with appellant Pawan Kumar Rajak tampered the electronic documents related with LIC policies. It was stated further that appellant Pawan Kumar Rajak was not the signing authority of the cheque. It was stated that he also came to know during the course of investigation that Pawan Kumar Rajak never created pressure or fear for issuing cheque. It was stated that the computer through which alleged tampering was done was not seized during investigation. He could not collect any such evidence during the investigation, which may suggest that appellant Aftab Alam withdraw money fradulently of any valid policy holder. Same is also about Javed Alam, Shahid Alam and Irfat Parveen, who are brothers Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.973 of 2022 dt.18-12-2024 and wife of appellant Aftab Alam. He also could not collect any evidence which may suggest that these four persons prepared documents through which money was withdrawn. He denied that he made biased investigation against appellant Aftab Alam his brothers and wife. It was stated to be correct that like Aftab Alam, Neena Agrawal, Raju Saha and Devdulal Bhattacharya were also LIC agents and by using their code, also cheque was issued and payment was made. It was stated that he did not find any evidence, which may suggest that appellant Aftab Alam, Javed Alam, Shahid Alam and Irfat Parveen had withdrawn the money. He did not saw even any computer during investigation, which by using appellant Pawan Kumar Rajak generated false loan vouchers. Hard disk of the said computer was also not seized. He could not explain that by using which computer the voucher was prepared by Pawan Kumar Rajak but subsequently he stated that it was prepared by Pawan Kumar Rajak for the reason that same bears his SR number. Thereafter a question was asked to this witness by court that whether any person can enter SR Number of other while creating voucher, answer was in Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.973 of 2022 dt.18-12-2024 negative as "password" was unique and was supposed to be in exclusive knowledge of particular employee. He was given screenshots of different vouchers on which SR Number of Pawan Kumar Rajak was available. It was stated that appellant Pawan Kumar Rajak was posted in Patna City Branch since 1996-2012. It was also stated by him that he also saw soft copy of screenshot vouchers in computer. He denied that screenshot was given to him and was created by LIC officials by using "photoshop editing app" and by using said edited documents as a true document, he proceeded in this matter. He did not investigate on the point, whether other related documents except vouchers in issue were available in original or not. He did not matched the screenshots of the vouchers with original voucher available in the office. He saw its original in computer itself. It was stated that appellant did not delete 97 vouchers from his computer system for the reason that he can not do that technically. He did not investigate on this point that when vouchers cannot be deleted then why printout cannot be obtained. He denied the suggestion that instead of taking printout of screenshot, he Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.973 of 2022 dt.18-12-2024 was supplied with edited documents by LIC Officials. It was stated that he has idea about the fact that before sanctioning of loan, an application is required to be made alongwith paper of LIC policies. It was stated that appellant Pawan Kumar Rajak was not the custodian of the vouchers after making payment out of that. He did not asked in writing for vouchers from HoD of Accounts Department or HoD of Loan Sanction Department, who issued cheques under their signature. It was stated that validation, cheque passing and its drawing was not the allotted work of appellant Pawan Kumar Rajak and he was of no role in all such things. It was stated that no documentary evidence found during investigation, which may suggest that appellant Pawan Kumar Rajak was the beneficiary. It was stated that except screenshot of vouchers nothing incriminating was collected against Pawan Kumar Rajak during the investigation. It was stated that house of Pawan Kumar Rajak was also searched during the investigation but nothing incriminating was found from his house, which may suggest his involvement in crime in issue. He did find any paper, which may suggest that appellant Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.973 of 2022 dt.18-12-2024 Pawan Kumar Rajak received any money from any agent or from policy holder. It was stated that during investigation a bank account of Pawan Kumar Rajak was came into knowledge, which was made non-operational. He did not receive any documentary evidence during the investigation, which may suggest that any payment was made through fraudulent transaction and was transferred either to the bank account of Pawan Kumar Rajak or any of his family members. He never searched the office of LIC Patna City Branch regarding vouchers in issue. It was stated that he is not aware about the fact whether the person to validate the vouchers and also to pass it are required to put their SR number on said vouchers. It was stated that "password" policy was maintained in the branch and its related document was not seized. It was stated that Exhibit-7 series, which is screenshot of vouchers reflects SR Code of concerned person, who generated it. It was stated that it is not clear from Exhibit-8 that who are those persons whose SR numbers are mentioned over there. It was stated that persons, whose SR numbers are on screenshot vouchers, cannot make payment Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.973 of 2022 dt.18-12-2024 by using "Add Pay" option. This witness was again recalled on 06.04.2018 for cross-examination, where it was denied that P.W. 22 Upendra Kumar Verma, who appears to be examined on 28.03.2018 made statement as recorded in paragraph no. 21 and 23 but after a pause, on his own, it was stated by him that Upendra Kumar Verma made wrong statement in paragraph no. 20, 21 and 22. He denied that Upendra Kumar Verma did not make statement before him as he made in his testimony which was recorded in paragraph no. 21 and 22.

69. As far appellant Aftab Alam is concerned, admittedly, he was the agent of the LIC and not the public servant. As per case of the prosecution, the maximum cases of such defalcation were found in policy where this appellant was the agent, but it not appears from testimony of any prosecution witnesses that any application for processing loan on behalf of policy holder, which was a mandatory pre- condition to process any loan was placed by the appellant before Pawan Kumar Rajak, who was also co-convict and appellant and was the dealing assistant of any such applications, at first point of loan sanctioning process. The accounts, where amount said to be deposited, were found in joint name of the family members of this appellant including his wife and brothers. The amount was also said to be deposited out of commission received by appellant being an LIC agent. Having some more unaccounted money in joint account of this appellant, it cannot be said beyond doubt that same was out of alleged fraudulent transfer. It is an admitted position that this appellant was of no administrative control in Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.973 of 2022 dt.18-12-2024 official working of LIC. Moreover, PW-4 categorically stated that entire payment was made to all complainants, whereafter they made specific petition before LIC as to close their complaint. It appears that matter was compromised. It may be a case of grave suspicion, but it is not a case where it can be said that prosecution established its case beyond reasonable doubt qua cheating after preparing preparation of forged document for fraudulent transfer under criminal conspiracy.