Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

25. Lastly and most importantly it is submitted that besides the two statements of Ashok Kumar Goel and Devki Nandan Garg there is nothing else that links the applicant with the allegations made by the ED.

26. The next allegation is that fictitious stock damage report was got prepared at the applicant‟s instance and he attended the meeting as a special invitee where decision for disposal for damage stock was taken. It is stated by the applicant that the stock damage report dated 01.02.2016 is prepared by HUMS & Associates. Vide Board Resolution, HUMS & Associates were appointed as Internal Auditors and therefore when the report of 01.02.2016 was prepared, the applicant was not an Internal Auditor of SBFL. The only way by which the applicant is connected with this report is one unsigned minutes of meeting dated 10.02.2016 wherein the applicant was a special invitee. Assuming unsigned minutes can be relied upon, there is nothing to show that the applicant was involved in any way in making false report dated 01.02.2016.

iv. Audit report dated 31.12.2014 signed by RG Sharma, Stock Auditor, which states that 100% accounting supervision/feedback is provided by internal auditor. Investigation revealed that applicant was responsible for managing and control of affairs of SBFL. v. A table showing details of closing stock as on 31.12.2014 was received from the lender bank i.e., State Bank of India and the said document reflects the inflated and fictitious stock position which was submitted to the lender bank for availing loan facility. This document was signed by applicant.

In my opinion, prima facie, it does not transpire from the above documents that the applicant actually attended the meeting. Since there is no attendance sheet placed on record, there is no convincing document to show his attendance. Moreover, these are unsigned and unstamped minutes and hence reliance on the same is at best dubious. Since the Applicant was associated with SBFL till FY2015-16, even if the applicant attended, it was only as a special invitee and not a proof of actual participation and decision making. Moreover, the Stock Damage Report was prepared by M/s HUMS and Associates who were the then internal auditors of SBFL as shown by the resolution dated 07.09.2015 for appointment of M/s HUMS & Associates as internal auditor. Lastly, and most importantly, even if it is assumed that the applicant was a part of the said meeting, the minutes do not show that any decision was taken with regards to the stocks. B. There is an email dated 08.01.2016 which underlines the role of the Applicant in arranging fake bills from entry operators and banks made payments for devolved LCs directly to the entry operators. Applicant was confronted with the Email dt. 08.01.2016. A perusal of the concerned Mail shows that it was sent by Mr. Anshu Gautam (SBFL Employee) to AH Ansari @ Pathak. Applicant was only copied along with other persons. The email does not again not directly or indirectly point to the guilt of the applicant as he was only copied in the email. The applicant was neither the originator not the original primary recipient.

H. The last document on which reliance is being placed by the ED to bring home the guilt of the applicant, is the audit report dated 31.12.2014 signed by RG Sharma, Stock Auditor, which states that 100% accounting supervision/feedback is provided by internal auditor. It is further alleged applicant was responsible for managing and control of affairs of SBFL.