Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

19. In his statement Vipin Kumar Sharma (A-2) admitted that he has been proprietor of M/s Vee Kay Pictures and his specimen signatures and handwritings were taken by the investigating officer in the present case, but at that time no other witness was present. Record relating to account No.6425 has been admitted, however so far as memo relating to account of co-accused Bala Verma (of account No.2556) is concerned, same is denied being fabricated and antedated. The documents of the bank i.e. outward clearing registers of UCO Bank Ex.PW-3/A and Ex.PW-3/B are also termed as fabricated documents and so also pay-in-slips, entries in supplementary books and registers. According to the accused, he has no knowledge about the investigation conducted by PW-8 S.K. CBI Vs. Ram Kishan & Ors. Page no. 37 out of 138 Mitra and asserted that there is no fraud in this case. The evidence concerning result of investigation whereby PW-8 S.K. Mitra found irregularities with respect to various cheques have been denied however documents Ex.PW-8/40 to Ex.PW-8/45 have been admitted. The debit vouchers have been denied being forged and fabricated. The Cheque Ex.PW-8/52 has been admitted. The accused further pleaded that witnesses are officials from the bank and in order to cover up their wrong and negligence they have foisted false charges and fabricated the record. Accused further pleaded innocence and false implication in the case. With respect to various other transactions involved in the present case, accused has denied having any knowledge. The memos, have been termed as fabricated documents. It is denied that accused used to meet Ram Kishan (A-1) frequently in the bank. The report of expert is termed as incorrect and it is stated that expert is not competent to examine the documents and procedure adopted is not correct. The specific transactions put to the accused in question/answer form have been responded that accused is not aware about the same. However, so far as the banking procedure is concerned, accused stated that same is governed by rules of RBI. It is also contended that banking transactions were required to be tallied by the branch every day. CBI Vs. Ram Kishan & Ors. Page no. 38 out of 138 Accused Vipin Kumar Sharma has however admitted having account in UCO Bank and Central Bank, but stated that proper investigation has not been conducted by the IO. The witnesses have deposed at the behest of CBI under pressure. He was proprietor of M/s. Vee Kay Pictures and availed temporary overdraft facility from UCO Bank, chandni chowk branch, Delhi, from time to time. He has been falsely implicated in this case due to negligence of bank staff.

21. Accused Vipin Kumar Sharma further pleaded that witnesses have deposed under the pressure of CBI and they have deposed falsely. He has been falsely implicated by the officials of UCO Bank in connivance with CBI on the basis of false and fabricated documents. The version of prosecution is wrong and self CBI Vs. Ram Kishan & Ors. Page no. 41 out of 138 contradictory and the alleged fraud has not been proved. The UCO bank had filed two applications in the year 1994-95, which became TA No. 123/2002 and 295/2002, service of which was never effected upon him. Accused claimed that he had temporary overdraft facility from the bank and this fact was concealed by IO in collusion with bank officials. The self attested copies have been referred to as D-1 to D-9 which shows that truth have been suppressed by the prosecution. Accused pleaded innocence and preferred to lead defence evidence.

CBI Vs. Ram Kishan & Ors. Page no. 48 out of 138

27. In defence, following seven witnesses have been examined :-

27.1. DW-1 V. K. Narang was working as Chief Manager UCO Bank, Connaught place on 20.10.2010. He had filed an affidavit before Debt Recovery Tribunal -III, in a recovery suit and the said affidavit has been proved as Ex.DW1/A. The witness further stated that affidavit was prepared on the basis of information and record i.e. statement of account furnished by then Sr. Manager UCO Bank. He was shown statement of account of account no. 7272 of M/s. Rajdhani Medical Company, whereby overdraft was allowed but there was no sanction limit. Temporary overdrafts were allowed on several dates and total amount of overdraft was Rs.23,34,253.17P up to May 1993. As per practice, if balance is shown with 'Red colour' or Debit is mentioned in the statement of account that indicates overdraft to the party.

111. In his defence, Rajesh Kumar Pandey (A-4) has taken the plea of innocence and false implication, but no strong motive could be attributed to any of the prosecution witnesses for implicating the accused falsely. According to the accused, he has been availing CBI Vs. Ram Kishan & Ors. Page no. 123 out of 138 temporary overdraft facility from the bank, but so far as the transactions in question are concerned, it is clear that no temporary overdraft facility was extended to the accused in respect of these cheques so cleared. The pleas raised in written arguments are insignificant wherein previous orders passed during the trial have been questioned, as no appeal or revision was filed or allowed against these orders.