Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. After investigation the charge sheet dated 31.1.1989 was submitted by the CBI stating that after investigation it was found that the firm M/s. Saluja Agency, and not Sabya Agency as stated in the FIR, a partnership firm of Sardar Narendra Singh and Sardar Papinder Singh was looted by miscreants on 30.10.1984/1.11.1984 at which time it did not enjoy any insurance cover. The partners of the firm in connivance with said R.P.Singh, Insurance Agent, R.K.Sinha, Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, Sampatchak Branch and Shiv Nandan Sahay Srivastava, Clerk-cum-Cashier of the Bank, obtained back dated Bank draft dated 27.10.1984 of Rs. 2281/- and used the same as premium for ante-dated insurance of the firm. Since purchase of Bank draft on payment of cash was not feasible, hence a cheque for Rs. 2500/- was issued in favour of Narendra Singh who was having an Account in the said Branch but without sufficient balance for the issuance of draft, notwithstanding the fact that the firm maintained a current Bank Account in SBI, Kankarbagh in which there was sufficient credit balance; the cheque was filled in by R.K.Sinha who got the bank draft prepared by Shiv Nandan Sahay Srivastava and signed the same. To prevent the detection of the ante-dating, various records of the Bank like ledger-sheet pertaining to SB Account of Sardar Narendra Singh, daily abstract and transfer journals were falsified by R.K.Sinha, Branch Manager and Ajay Kumar Sinha, and S.N.S.Srivastava, Clerks-cum-Cashiers in the Branch. It was found that original ledger-sheet of the SB account of Sardar Narendra Singh indicated the bank draft as having been issued on 5.11.1984 and R.K.Sinha removed the said ledger-sheet, kept the same in his house and got another ledger-sheet prepared with the help of Ajay Kumar Sinha without indicating that the same was duplicate. The original ledger-sheet was recovered from the house of said R.K.Sinha. R.P.Singh, Insurance Agent issued the Cover Note bearing No. 124892 in favour of the firm showing the period of insurance from 27.10.1984 to 26.10.1985. The bank draft of Rs. 2281/- being the amount of premium for granting insurance of Rs. 2,60,000/-, an undated proposal obtained from Sardar Papinder Singh along with undated cover note dishonestly and fraudulently counter signed by Madhvendra Prasad Singh, Inspector without putting date was received in the United India Insurance Company, Patna Branch-I on 12.11.1984 and Rana Ranjit Singh, the Branch Manager, fraudulently and dishonestly accepted the Cover Note and paved the way for the issue of acceptance advice on ante-dated application of Sardar Papinder Singh regarding looting of the firm received in the Branch of the Insurance Company which was seen by Arvind Prasad, Assistant Administrative Officer, P.W. 12. He put question mark and the same was brought to the notice of Rana Ranjit Singh. The Divisional Office was informed about the looting and T.M.Dutta, Sr. Divisional Manager ordered to depute Surveyor and on noting the discrepancies Shri K.K.Mishra, P.W. 10 and N.N.Das, P.W. 11, both Officers of Insurance Company were deputed to ascertain the date of issue of draft, who were deceived by Raj Kishore Sinha by showing forged papers to believe that the Bank draft was issued on 27.10.1984 and accordingly they submitted the report and on orders by T.M.Dutta, they also paid surprise visit to the firm to ascertain the extent of loss and finally payment of Rs. 87,000/-, i.e., 50% of the loss assessed by the Surveyors was ordered by T.M.Dutta and paid to Sardar Papinder Singh on 11.3.1985. On the basis of the aforesaid investigation, it was found that there was prima facie case under Sections 120B, 420, 468, 471, 477A IPC and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act against the accused persons. All the accused-appellants were accordingly put on trial.

7. The third and last category consists of Rana Ranjit Singh, the then Branch Manager, Branch-I, United India Insurance Company, R.P.Singh, the Rural Representative/ Insurance Agent and Madhvendra Prasad Singh, the Insurance Inspector-cum-Development Officer who had taken part in the conspiracy at the level of the Insurance Company by issuing an ante-dated Cover Note for the period from 27.10.1984 to 26.10.1985, countersigning and accepting the same which resulted ultimately in half the claim, i.e. Rs. 87000/-, being paid by the Divisional Office to the firm.

11. P.Ws. 8 and 10 to 13 are the Officers of the United India Insurance Company. P.W.8, Manoj Kumar Sinha was Divisional Assistant Manager in the Divisional Office, Patna of the United India Insurance Company from 1985 to 1987. He has stated that the work of insurance is carried out in two parts, the first part is underwriting which is done at the level of the Branch and the other relates to claim which is done in the Divisional Office. He has stated that the Cover Note consists of one original and four carbon copies out of which the original is handed over to the Bank or the Insurer, the 2nd and 3rd copies are kept in the Branch Office and one copy each are kept by the Agent and the Development Officer. He has further deposed that it is essential to mention the date of issue in the Cover Note. He has proved the Cover Note No. 124892 and also proved the writings and signatures of appellant R.P.Singh, Insurance Agent on the same. He further deposed that neither the original Cover Note (Ext. 11) nor the two carbon copies (Exts. 11A/11B) contain the date at the relevant column or near the signature nor is the date of issue mentioned therein. He has pointed out that the two carbon copies contain the signature of the Development Officer, Madhvendra Prasad Singh and Ext. 11A the signature of the Branch Manager, R.R.Singh but they have not put the date under their signatures. He has further proved the proposal (Ext. 12). He has stated that the Cover Note along with two carbon copies is sent to the Branch Office along with the proposal form and premium in the form of cash, cheque or draft. He also stated that the proposal form of M/s. Saluja Agency was sent with the carbon copy of the Cover Note. The proposal contained the signature of the Branch Manager, R.R. Singh below which the date 12.11.1984 has been mentioned which has been exhibited as Ext. 12. He has also proved the claim file, Ext. 13 of M/s. Saluja Agency maintained in the Divisional Office of the Insurance Company and the money receipt for Rs. 2281/- bearing the signature of Arvind Prasad (PW 12, the then AAO) as Exts. 12A and 12B. He has further proved the signatures on the various notes contained in the said file by different officials. In his cross-examination this witness has stated that the Inspector/Development Officer is fully competent to issue the Cover Note and it must contain his counter signature. He has stated that the Branch-I is a very big Branch and is number one or number two Branch of Bihar by size. (He has deposed in 1994, prior to re-organization of the State). He has admitted that he was Branch Manager in the said Branch in 1982-83 and at that time a large number of documents were received by post every day and he used to put his initials over the same which signature is in token of receipt of the paper. He has further stated that on every bunch of documents initials and dates are given but on other pages the dates are not necessarily given. If the Branch Manager was busy, then the documents received by post were signed at times by the AAO or by an authorized Assistant also as token of receipt of the same and thereafter it was sent to the concerned sections for further action. The concerned Department used to examine the documents and make entries in the Register and thereafter acceptance of advice was made and was placed before another Officer. He has further stated that the acceptance advice in the present case was prepared on 12.11.1984 by Arvind Prasad, (PW 12). Thereafter it was sent to the Accounts Department and on all the documents being checked, the money receipt was made and after that it was sent to the concerned Department for preparing the policy. He has also admitted in his cross-examination after looking at Ext. 13 that in the present case after the documents were received from the Rural Representative/ Mufassil Inspector, Appellant Rana Ranjit Singh has not done any work with respect to Acceptance Advice and Money Receipt. He has further deposed that in the present matter the policy was never prepared. He has also stated that issuance of advice means that the company has accepted the business finally and the underwriter has also accepted it. He has stated that it is the Development Officer who is alone and totally responsible for agreement, commitment, transaction and acceptance. He has also stated that the payment in the present matter was made by the Senior Divisional Manager, T.M.Dutta and after him Rana Ranjit Singh took over charge as the Divisional Manager and he had recommended the matter to be fully investigated again by sending telegram to the Regional Office by appointment of another Surveyor. He has also stated that before allowing the claim the matter ought to be fully investigated at the level of the Divisional Office and only if everything is found to be in order, the claim should be given.

47. Learned counsel also submits that there was serious lapse on the part of the rural representative appellant Rajendra Prasad Singh in issuing the cover note as under the general insurance law and practice the previous and the present insurance history of the party has to be considered which was evidently not done. According to him, as per the report of the second surveyor the stocks of T.V. etc. itself were not in existence on 27.10.1984 in the shop of M/s. Saluja Agency and had been received only on 31.10.1984 and thus the issuance of insurance cover without even an inspection of the shop, goes to show the conspiracy committed by the insurance agent, R.P.Singh as the same was in complete violation and defiance of the provisions of the law and practice relating to general insurance. For the same reason it is urged by him that Madhvendra Prasad Singh, the Development Officer, under whom the rural representative was functioning and who had also signed the cover note, is equally guilty.