Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

part of the document/record to execute mortgage deed under the guise of that 'false document'. Hence, neither respondent no.1 nor respondent no.2 can be held as makers of the forged documents. It is the imposter who can be said to have made the false document by committing forgery. In such an event the trial court as well as appellate court misguided themselves by convicting the accused. Therefore, the High Court has rightly acquitted the accused based on the settled legal position and we find no reason to interfere with the same."

47.13 In my considered view, the job of loan appraisal is not a mechanical job and a great responsibility is attached to the same and that is why, it was assigned to A-4, who, at the relevant time was one of the senior most officers in the branch holding the rank of a Sr. Manager. The misleading information furnished by borrower as well as forgery of documents could be detected if proper exercise of KYC norms are carried out by the concerned officials. In the instant case, owing to various discrepancies, the loan proposal was not worth recommendation for sanction, rather for use of multiple PAN cards and date of birth by the same person, the matter was required to be probed and reported to police. In these circumstances, the conduct of A-4 in appraising the proposal and recommending it to be fit for grant of facility without making proper verification of the documents of borrower's identification, financial credentials and collateral securities, is a clear indication of deep conspiracy. CBI v. Sh. Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjay Sharma and ors Case No. 63/2019 (6669/16) Page no.269 Of 372 47.14 At serial no.2(g) of loan appraisal form Ex. PW 6/N-2 (D-8 at page 200), which was being signed by both A-3 and A-4, it was noted that borrower's profile had been verified through CIBIL and no adverse feature had been observed. But, it is very pertinent to note that CIBIL inquiry had given multiple hits in respect of the name of Sanjeev Dixit @ Sanjeev Kumar Dixit and said multiple profiles, Ex. PW6/O (D-104, page 187 to 189), were showing use of 3 different PAN numbers and dates of birth by the same customer. Furthermore, as per the borrower's claim his firm M/s Shanker metals was into business of manufacture and trading of bathroom fittings for last more than 10 years. Whereas, the CIBIL score of the borrower was shown as '-1' owing to an insufficient history of credit transactions, which was also indicative of borrower's lack of sufficient exposure to credit facilities.