Case Law Details

Case Name : Central Bureau of Investigation Vs Keshav Sharma @ Shahid (Delhi High Court)
Appeal Number : CC No. 45/19 (38/16) (CNR No. DLCT110000972019)
Date of Judgement/Order : 22/01/2021
Related Assessment Year :
Courts : District Court (23)

Central Bureau of Investigation Vs Keshav Sharma @ Shahid (Special Court, Delhi)

Accused Keshav Sharma impersonated as Ashok Jain s/o Sh. P.C. Jain and representing himself to be proprietor of M/s Creative Traders at plot No.9, Main Patparganj Road, opened account with Central bank of India, Parliament Street branch New Delhi and availed Cash Credit facility to the tune of Rs 100 lacs and L/C limit of Rs 25 lacs and drained out the said fund through the account of M/s Creative Conductors Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Paramount Insulation. It has also been found above proved that while availing cash credit facility accused Keshav Sharma deposited sale deeds Ex PW43/A and Ex PW33/G­31 (towards collateral security) of two properties bearing No. S­596, School Block vill. Mandawali, Illaqua Fazalpur, Delhi and bearing No. 137 (part), Jhilmil Tahirpur, Delhi both in the name of Ashok Jain, proprietor of M/s Creative Traders. It has also been found above proved that both sale deeds Ex PW43/A and Ex PW33/G­31 were forged sale deeds and accused Harish Chand Wadhwa and accused Keshav Sharma have forged the sale deed Ex PW43/A and Keshav Sharma and Mukesh Jain have forged sale deed Ex PW33/G­31.

 Facts as found proved above could not be explained except that accused persons Sanjay Gupta, Sharad Chand Jain, Keshav Sharma, Tarun Khanna, Rakesh Verma, Harish Chand Wadhawa and others who either could not be traced or could not be tried for any reason whatsoever, had joined hands together to fraudulently and dishonestly induced the bank to part with its funds which was siphoned off by them in a meticulous planned manner. Hence, accused persons Sanjay Gupta, Sharad Chand Jain, Keshav Sharma, Tarun Khanna, Rakesh Verma, Harish Chand Wadhawa are guilty of offense under Section 120B IPC and 120B r/w 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC.

So far as accused P. N. Upadhaya is concerned, it has been found above that he is not guilty of substantive offense under Section 420 IPC but it has been his case that he was accountant of accused Sanjay Gupta and it has also been found above that at his instance PW26 Sanjay Jain had introduced the account of M/s Paramount Insulation Pvt. Ltd. in Vysya Bank, Yamuna Vihar Branch without personally knowing the directors of the said firm. Further, it has also been found above proved that M/s Paramount Insulation Pvt. Ltd. was only paper firm and not doing any business as it is the case of accused Sanjay Gupta that he left Delhi in 1995 after closing his business under the name and style of M/s Sharda Metals but at the same time took defense that business of Sharda Metals merged in M/s Paramount Insulation Pvt. Ltd. which has been shown to be incorporated on 11.10.1999 and account in Vysya Bank was opened on 08.03.2000.

Further, it has come in evidence of PW30 Sushil Kumar Malhotra that accused P.N. Upadhay and accused Keshav Sharma had attempted to obtain cash credit facility in the name of M/s Shakti Traders representing that accused Keshav Sharma was Naresh Agarwal and proprietor of M/s Shakti Traders. PW30 correctly identified accused P. N. Upadhay and accused Keshav Sharma in court. PW63 Sh. A. K. Grover corroborated the testimony of PW30. Said fact was also corroborated by PW77 Sh. Bharat Bhushan Bhandari. Both PW30 and PW77 were cross examined by accused P. N. Upadhaya but nothing came out of them as to why they would depose against the accused P. N. Upadhya.

Further, amount of cheques bearing No.602121 Ex PW35/A­16 issued by M/s Aman Trading Company, cheques bearing No.281534 Ex PW35/A­21 and 281514 Ex PW35/A­20 issued by M/s Creative Traders, cheques bearing No.761114 Ex PW35/A­29, 761104 Ex PW35/A­28, 761110 and 761117 issued by M/s Paramount Insulation Co. and cheque bearing No. 274640 Ex PW35/A­4 issued by M/s Alpha Communication were collected by accused P.N. Upadhaya from respective bank. The signature of person who collected the amount of cheques and signed on the reverse of these cheques have matched with specimen signature S­310 to S­332 of accused P. N. Upadhaya as reported by hand writing expert PW33 Sh. Ramesh Chander. Accused P. N. Upadhaya while cross examining a witness had suggested that since he was resident of Yamuna Vihar side he had collected the amount on behalf of the holder of the cheque. Thus, there is no dispute that he had collected the amounts of the cheques. He knew very well that M/s Paramount Insulation Pvt Ltd. was not in business but despite that he requested Sanjay Jain to introduce the account of M/s Paramount Insulation Pvt. Ltd. Taking holistic view of the entire facts concerning accused P. N. Upadhaya, it cannot be held that he was not party to the criminal conspiracy to cheat bank by impersonation, forgery, using forged documents as genuine. Hence, accused P.N. Upadhaya is guilty of offense under Section 120­B IPC and 120­B read with 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC.

Neither is there any direct evidence nor is there circumstantial evidence to infer that accused Kanwar Sen Gupta, Rekha Sisodia, Satish Sharma and Rashmi Chhabra were party to criminal conspiracy. Hence, accused Kanwar Sen Gupta, Rekha Sisodia, Satish Sharma and Rashmi Chhabra are acquitted of offense under Section 120­B IPC and 120­B read with 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC.

FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER /JUDGEMENT

Brief facts of the case:

1. This case was registered on 05.05.2003 on a written complaint of Sh. K. K. Gupta, General Manager, Central Bank of India, New Delhi. It was alleged that Satish Chand Jain (A­3) S/o N. M. Jain, proprietor M/s Aman Trading Co., 78A Dilshad Garden, Delhi and Paramount Insulation Co., 78A, Dilshad Garden, Delhi, Ashok Jain S/o P. C. Jain, proprietor M/s Creative Traders Plot No. 9 Pandav Nagar, Delhi, Pankaj Garg @ Satish Chand Jain, Sanjay Jain S/o N. M. Jain R/o 78A Dilshad Garden, Delhi, Sanjay Gupta @ Sanjay Jain (A­2) proprietor M/s Sharda Metals 78A Dilshad Garden, Delhi and Rajiv Jain R/o 1672/2, Bihari Colony Shahdara, Delhi during the year 2001­2002 entered into a criminal conspiracy and cheated/defrauded Central Bank of India, Parliament Street branch and Paharganj branch New Delhi by availing credit facilities in the name of above three firms namely M/s Aman Trading Company, M/s Creative Traders (from Parliament Street branch) and M/s Paramount Insulation Company (from Paharganj Branch) on the basis forged/bogus securities and financial papers causing loss to the bank to the tune of Rs.387.09 lacs.

2. It is pertinent to note that in respect of one FIR two chargesheets were filed and consequently two cases were registered and tried. The other chargesheet/case relates to the firm M/s Paramount Insulation Company and said case has already be adjudicated by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court. It is also worthwhile to note that most of the accused persons except public servants are common in both cases. Present case relates to cheating committed by M/s Aman Trading Company and M/s Creative Traders and others, hence facts concerning the above said two firms have been dealt with in the present case.

3. Investigation revealed that Sanjay Gupta (A2) was the proprietor of M/s Sharda Metals having its unit at 78A, Dilshad Garden, Delhi which was engaged in the drawing and sales of copper wires. He had taken one portion of the above property on rent from Nehru Jain (PW20) in 1992 to set up an office and godown. His tenancy continued till December, 2002. Sharad Kumar Jain (A­3) was the helper of Sanjay Gupta (A­2) who worked with him till December, 2002 when he closed his unit and left for an undisclosed destination. Tarun Khanna @ Sonu (A­4) is the brother of Smt. Meenu Pathak (PW58), w/o Late Narender Pathak, a close friend of Sanjay Gupta (A­2). Smt. Meenu Pathak (PW58) used to live at C­55/X3, Dilshad Garden, Delhi which was taken on rent by Sanjay Gupta (A­2) where she lived upto September, 2001. On the recommendations of Smt. Meenu Pathak (PW58), Sanjay Gupta (A­2) had appointed Tarun Khanna @ Sonu (A­4) in his unit as an employee during the period 2000­2002. Keshav Sharma @ Shahid (A­1) and Rakesh Verma (A­6) were also the employees of Sanjay Gupta (A­2).

Loan account of M/s Aman Trading Co., 78A Dilshad Garden, Delhi.

4. Investigation further revealed that Sanjay Gupta (A­2) with an intention to cheat the bank, floated a bogus firm in the name of M/s Aman Trading Co. (in short ATC), 78A Dilshad Garden Delhi with its proprietor Satish Chand Jain and submitted a loan proposal dated 14.02.2001 for sanction of CC Limit of Rs.1.0 crore and LC limit of Rs. 25.0 lacs against the security of stock and book debts to the AGM Central Bank of India, Parliament Street Branch, New Delhi. The firm introduced itself as a wholesale dealer in Ferrous and Non­Ferrous metals with an annual sale turnover of Rs. 5.0 crores. It submitted provisional balance sheets and profit and loss accounts for the period ending 31.03.2001, audited balance sheets and profit and loss account for the financial years ending 31.03.1999 and 31.03.2000 duly certified by CA, assets and liabilities statement and Income Tax Return of the proprietor along with its bank statements. A collateral security by way of equitable mortgage of property bearing No. 78A Dilshad Garden, Delhi­95 in the name of the proprietor (Satish Chand Jain) worth Rs.150.0 lacs was also offered to the bank. It also submitted a statement of account held with Jain Cooperative Bank Ltd. Shahdara, Delhi. The balance sheets submitted by it was claimed to have been audited by Vinod Sharma, proprietor of M/s V. Sharma & Associates, CA, C­55/X3, Dilshad Garden, Delhi but on investigation it was found that M/s V. Sharma & Associates never existed at C­55/X3 Dilshad Garden, Delhi and the balance sheets were forged. The said property belonged to Gopi Chand (PW13) which he had rented to Sanjay Gupta (A­2) in 1997­98 which he vacated in September, 2001.

5. Investigation further revealed that a current account No. 5425 was opened on 16.02.2001 in the name of M/s Aman Trading Company in Central Bank of India, Parliament Street Branch, New Delhi. A CC account No. 260 was opened on 20.07.2001 in the name of M/s Aman Trading Co. by Satish Chand Jain in Central Bank of India, Parliament Street Branch, New Delhi. Bishambhar Dayal (PW38), the then Assistant Manager was posted there when the accounts were opened. On both the account opening forms, photograph of Pankaj Garg (PW79) was affixed and forged copy of Voter I Card and Saral IT Form for the assessment year 2000­2001 were submitted. The Current Account was introduced by Rajesh Ladha (PW48). On investigation, it was found that Sharad Kumar Jain (A­3) had signed as Satish Chand Jain in both the account opening forms where photographs of Pankaj Garg (PW79) were affixed as Satish Chand Jain.

6. Investigation further revealed that Smt. Rekha Sisodia (A­11), Senior Manager, sent a letter dated 05.05.2001 to Jain Cooperative Bank Ltd. Shahdara branch, Delhi to obtain the confidential report about the credit worthiness of M/s Aman Trading Co. She dishonestly placed a letter dated 06.05.2001 purportedly issued by the Branch Manager, Jain Cooperative Bank Ltd, Shahdara Delhi on record in which it was mentioned that M/s Aman Trading Co. was maintaining a current account with the bank since 10.12.1997 and its dealing with the bank was satisfactory. On investigation, the said letter of Jain Cooperative Bank Ltd was found forged as the bank never received any letter dated 05.05.2001 nor sent any reply dated 06.05.2001. No record of dispatch and receipt of both the letters were found.

7. Investigation further revealed that Smt. Rashmi Chhabra (A­13), Financial Analyst, carried out a pre­sanction inspection on 25.05.2001 of the office­cum­godown of M/s Aman Trading Co. and property at 78A Dilshad Garden, Delhi which was offered as collateral security. She dishonestly prepared an inspection note dated 26.05.2001 mentioning that M/s Aman Trading Co. was existing at 78A Dilshad Garden, Delhi and the borrower Satish Chand Jain and his brother Sanjay Jain live there whereas none of them ever lived there. She dishonestly prepared a process note on 29.05.2001 and recommended sanction of CC limit of Rs.76.0 lacs and LC Limit of Rs.25.0 lacs to M/s Aman Trading Co. The process note was forwarded by Smt. Rekha Sisodia (A­11) recommending sanction of the above limits but the same could not be sanctioned by R S Verma, the then AGM as he was under transfer. Smt. Rashmi Chhabra (A­13) again put up the same note on 12.06.2001 before the new AGM K. S. Gupta (A­10) and he sanctioned the credit facilities on 17.07.2001. Smt. Rekha Sisodia (A­11) communicated the sanction of limits to M/s Aman Trading Co.

8. Investigation revealed that Smt. Rashmi Chhabra (A­13) dishonestly prepared a false credit status report in respect of the borrower Satish Chand Jain who had claimed to be the owner of the property but in fact the property did not belong to him. Investigation revealed that she prepared the above status report on the basis of declaration made by the borrower without making any enquiry/physical verification which report was also signed by Smt. Rekha Sisodia (A­11). Rashmi Chhabra (A­13) also prepared a false credit status report of Sanjay Jain @ Sanjay Gupta (A­2) who had claimed to be the owner of the property No. 77A Dilshad Garden, Delhi but in fact he had no title over the said property nor stayed there. She prepared the report on the basis of declaration given by Sanjay Jain, guarantor, without making any physical verification.

9. Investigation revealed that Smt. Rekha Sisodia (A­11) did not get the loan documents executed from the borrower in her presence. It was Sharad Kumar Jain (A­3) who executed the loan documents and signed as Satish Chand Jain whereas photographs of Pankaj Garg were affixed as Satish Chand Jain. Sanjay Gupta (A­2) impersonated and signed as Sanjay Jain as guarantor.

10. Investigation revealed that party had submitted photocopies of the Sales Tax Registration Certificate dated 09.02.1998 purportedly issued by Sales Tax Officer, Ward No. 77, Delhi and ST Form No. 8 in support of registration of the firm M/s Aman Trading Co. with the Sales Tax Authority but on investigation no such firm was found registered during that period and the certificates were forged.

11. Investigation revealed that Sanjay Gupta (A­2) had asked Rakesh Verma (A­6) to impersonate as Kuldeep Gupta S/o Nanu Mal, a fictitious name R/o 78A Dilshad Garden, Delhi to execute a Sale Deed of the property at 78A Dilshad Garden, Delhi in favour of Satish Chand Jain S/o N M Jain. False GPA and Agreement to Sell purportedly executed in 1984 between Raj Bahadur S/o Jugal Kishore, Mohan Lal S/o Amrit Lal, A. Das S/o Ulfat Rai and Raj Bahadur S/o Jugal Kishore on the one part and Kuldeep Gupta S/o Nanu Mal on the other part were made and a receipt of full and final payment purportedly received by Kuldeep Gupta was prepared by Sanjay Gupta (A­2) and submitted to the bank. On the basis of the GPA, a Sale Deed was got registered in the office of Sub­Registrar IV Seelampur on 27.12.2000 vide Serial No. 2966 in which Kuldeep Gupta S/o Nanu Mal was shown as vendor and Satish Chand S/o N M Jain R/o 78A Dilshad Garden was shown as vendee. The photograph of Rakesh Verma (A­6) was affixed as Kuldeep Gupta and photograph of Pankaj Garg (PW79), nephew of Sanjay Gupta (A­2) was affixed as Satish Chand Jain. As per GEQD report, Sale Deed was signed by Sharad Kumar Jain (A­3) as Satish Chand Jain and by Rakesh Verma (A­6) as Kuldeep Gupta and Sanjay Gupta (A­2) signed as Inder Pal Singh, the witness in the Sale Deed. On investigation, GPA and Agreement to Sell dated 09.05.1984 were found forged. As per the report of CFSL, thumb impression of Rakesh Verma (A­6) and Sanjay Gupta (A­2) were identical with the questioned thumb impression of Kuldeep Gupta and Satish Chand Jain available on the Sale Deed. Investigation revealed that the said Sale Deed was submitted as security. The then Sub­Registrar did not identify his signatures on the Sale Deed deposited with the bank. The Sale Deed was found bogus as Nehru Jain (PW20) denied that his father Late R. B. Jain had executed Sale Deed/GPA in favour of Kuldeep Gupta. He stated that no person namely Kuldeep Gupta ever lived in the premises 78A Dilshad Garden, Delhi.

12. Investigation further revealed that M/s Aman Trading Co. vide letter dated 06.04.2002 had requested the AGM, Central Bank of India, Parliament Street branch, New Delhi for enhancement and extension of credit facilities submitting more documents and offered another property bearing No. 52/18, Karawal Nagar, Delhi as collateral security. Satish Sharma (A­12), Manager (Advances) prepared a process note dated 31.05.2002 recommending enhancement/extension of credit facility for Rs.100.0 lacs, LC of Rs.75.0 lacs and Overdraft against book debts as Rs. 36.0 lacs. Smt. Rekha Sisodia (A­11) forwarded and recommended the said proposal. S. K. Srivastava (PW72) forwarded it to K. S. Gupta (A­10), AGM who sanctioned the enhanced limit on 03.06.2002. It is stated that K. S. Gupta (A­10) incorrectly mentioned in the process note that he had visited the new property proposed to be mortgaged while in fact he did not visit the property. Satish Sharma (A­12) got the loan documents executed on 10.06.2002 of M/s Aman Trading Co. where Sharad Kumar Jain (A­3) had signed as Satish Chand Jain in his presence but not Pankaj Garg (PW79) whose photograph was affixed on the account opening form and the Sale Deed of property at 78A Dilshad Garden, Delhi as Satish Chand Jain. Once again, Sanjay Jain @ Sanjay Gupta (A­2) executed the guarantee documents.

13. Investigation further revealed that Satish Sharma (A­12) prepared incorrect credit status report in respect of Satish Chand Jain without verifying the assets declared by the borrower on the basis of the declaration given by the borrower where he had shown himself as the owner of the property at 78A Dilshad Garden, Delhi and 52/18 Karawal Nagar, Delhi though infact he was not the owner of the above properties. Similarly, in the case of Sanjay Jain, guarantor, he prepared false credit status report on the basis of declaration given by him without verifying the assets wherein Sanjay Jain @ Sanjay Gupta (A­2) had shown himself as owner of 77A Dilshad Garden, Delhi though he was not the owner of the said property.

14. Investigation revealed that M/s Aman Trading Co. submitted a false Sale Deed of the property at 52/18 Karawal Nagar, Delhi. Balraj Singh denied his signatures on the original Sale Deed submitted by M/s Aman Trading Co. to the bank. GEQD also opined that signatures of Balraj Singh did not tally with the signatures appearing on the bogus Sale Deed submitted to the bank. The legal scrutiny of the property at 52/18 Karawal Nagar, Delhi was carried out by Neeta Deep Rastogi (A­15), Advocate. She had mentioned in her report that an inspection was conducted from the record of the period from 1972 to 2002, the property was self occupied, Satish Chand Jain S/o Nathu Mal Jain has valid, clear and marketable title to the property and the property is free from all encumbrances and could be equitably mortgaged in favour of the bank by depositing the original title deed. The investigation revealed that the legal scrutiny report was false. Balraj Singh had executed a Sale Deed of 1 bigha of the said property on 28.06.1985 in favour of one Satish Chand Jain R/o B­45 East Jyoti Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi which property was sold by Satish Chand Jain on 11.11.88 to Smt. Urmila Jain w/o Rajender Kumar Jain who subsequently sold it on 22.08.1989 to Smt. Gunjan Jain w/o Parveen Kumar Jain by way of registered Sale Deed who further sold it to Rajender Goyal on 01.01.1993 through GPA and he subsequently sold it to M/s Shree Cement Ltd on 27.02.1993 through GPA which further sold to Anita Jain W/o Sudesh Kumar Jain on 31.07.1995 through GPA and Smt. Anita Jain continued to be the owner of the property which was being used by Adesh Jain, her brother­in­law, as godown for keeping the old clothes. Investigation revealed that Satish Chand Jain was not the owner of the said property during the year 2001­2002 and no bank official or valuer visited the property. The valuation of the property was done by V. P. Aneja (A­9), Government Approved Valuer. He submitted a false report that trading of wooden items was going on there whereas it was being used as godown of old clothes.

15. Investigation further revealed that some cheques/cash were deposited in the account of M/s Aman Trading Co. with Central Bank of India to show good turnover and business activities. The money was constantly rotated/transferred from one account to another and finally siphoned off through self cheques either by Sanjay Gupta (A­2) or his employees through four non­existent companies.

16. Investigation further revealed that Sanjay Gupta (A­2) established a firm by the name of M/s Creative Conductors Pvt. Ltd, 78A Dilshad Garden, Delhi in which Sanjay Gupta (A­2) and Ram Kishan Gautam (PW65), employee of Sanjay Gupta (A­2), were shown directors. Investigation revealed that Ram Kishan Gautam (PW65) resigned from the company as director in 1999 and Satish Chand Jain was appointed as new director. It was Sanjay Gupta (A­2) who signed the cheques of the company. Sanjay Gupta (A­2) also floated a firm in the name of M/s Paramount Insulation Pvt Ltd at 78A Dilshad Garden, Delhi of which he (Sanjay Gupta A­2) and Deepak Bansal were directors. Investigation revealed that Tarun Khanna (A­4) had impersonated himself as Deepak Bansal, a fictitious person. M/s Paramount Insulation Pvt. Ltd opened a current account No. 1111 on 28.03.2000 in Vyasya Bank Ltd, Yamuna Vihar branch. Investigation revealed that the amount was transferred in that account and it was subsequently withdrawn either by Tarun Khanna (A­4) impersonating as Deepak Bansal or Sanjay Gupta (A­2) himself. This firm was found fictitious and non­existent at the given address.

17. Investigation further revealed that Sharad Kumar Jain (A­3), employee of Sanjay Gupta (A­2), opened a current account No. 1324 in the name of M/s Alpha Communication (India), 11662, Panchsheel Garden, Naveen Shahdara, Delhi, a fictitious firm , in Vyasya Bank Ltd, Yamuna Vihar branch in which Sharad Kumar Jain (A­3) was the proprietor. The account was introduced by Tarun Khanna (A­4) @ Deepak Bansal, director of M/s Paramount Insulation Pvt. Ltd which was also a fictitious company. The amount was transferred in this account from the account of M/s Aman Trading Co. through accommodation cheques and was subsequently withdrawn in cash by Sharad Kumar Jain (A­3). On investigation, M/s Alpha Communication was found to be not in existence at the given address. GEQD report showed that Sharad Kumar Jain (A­3) had signed the cheques of this firm and Sanjay Gupta (A­2) had filled in the body of the cheques in his hand writing.

18. Investigation further revealed that Sharad Kumar Jain (A­3) opened another current account bearing No. CA­535011005313 on 18.10.2002 in the name of M/s Hindustan Industries, 134, Main Road, Tahirpur Delhi, a fictitious firm in Vysya Bank Ltd. Yamuna Vihar branch, Delhi in which the amounts were transferred from the accounts of M/s Aman Trading Co. through accommodation cheques which were subsequently withdrawn. Investigation revealed that M/s Hindustan Industries was a fictitious firm and GEQD report showed that Sharad Kumar Jain (A­3) had signed the cheques of these firms and Sanjay Gupta (A­2) had filled in the body of the cheques in his handwriting.

19. Investigation further revealed that Rs. 15,92,38,484/­ were transferred from the account of M/s Aman Trading Co. to the above said firms. M/s Aman Trading Co. also transferred the amount of Rs. 56,50,927/­ from overdraft against book debt limit (A/c No. 5425) which was subsequently siphoned off. M/s Aman Trading Co. also opened LCs in favour of the firms for Rs.1,24,97,915/­ which were the non­existent companies of Sanjay Gupta (A­2) and his co­accused. In all these cases, the proprietor/director of the non­existent companies signed the credit memos, delivery challans, certificates of dispatch of goods and bills of exchange issued by their companies. The goods in respect of these transactions were allegedly transported by M/s Dinesh Transport Co. which was again a non­existent company.

20. Investigation revealed that after sanction of limits by Central Bank of India, the whole amount was withdrawn from the said account through cheques in the name of fictitious firms owned by Sanjay Gupta (A­2), Deepak Bansal @ Tarun Khanna (A­4), Sharad Kumar Jain (A­3) and P N Upadhyay (A­5) and Sanjay Gupta (A­2) was the brain behind them. The transactions were accommodative in nature and there were no genuine trade transactions between these firms and M/s Aman Trading Co. The account became NPA on 31.03.2003 and a sum of Rs.1,36,57,442/­(Rs.99,97,450/­ in Cash Credit Limits + Rs.36.0 lacs in Over Draft Limit + Rs.59,992/­ as interest) became outstanding on 31.12.2002.

Loan account of M/s Creative Traders, Plot No. 9, Pandav Nagar, Main Patparganj Road, Delhi.

21. Investigation revealed that Sanjay Gupta (A­2) floated another bogus firm in the name of M/s Creative Traders, Plot No. 9, Pandav Nagar, Main Patparganj Road, Delhi with Ashok Jain as its proprietor. Keshav Sharma @ Shahid (A­1), employee of Sanjay Gupta (A­2), impersonated as Ashok Jain and opened a current account No. 5593 on 13.07.2002 with Central bank of India, Parliament Street branch. It was introduced by Satish Chand Jain @ Sharad Chand Jain (A­3), proprietor of M/s Aman Trading Co. Keshav Sharma @ Shahid @ Ashok Jain submitted a copy of Sales Tax Registration Certificate dated 04.05.1998 and a PAN Card bearing No. AACPJ8753B. Investigation revealed that the PAN Card was actually issued in the name of Ashok Kumar Jain, R/o 1876/2, Kailash Nagar Delhi and Sales Tax Registration Certificate was never issued in the name of M/s Creative Traders. The photograph on the account opening firm was of Keshav Sharma (A­1) and he had signed as Ashok Jain. He submitted a loan proposal dated 01.07.2002 for sanction of CC Limit against the security of stocks and book debts for Rs.100.0 lacs and LC Limit of Rs.25.0 lacs to the AGM, Central Bank of India, Parliament Street branch, New Delhi. He submitted provisional balance sheets, profit and loss account, audited balance sheets duly certified by Chartered Accountant, Assets and Liabilities statements of proprietor, income tax documents and bank statements. A collateral security by way of creation of equitable mortgage of two properties at S­596, Village Mandawal, Fazal Pur, Delhi plot measuring 400 sq. yards valued at Rs.150.0 lacs and at 137 ( part) Jhilmil Tahir Pur, Delhi area 340 sq. yards valued at Rs.150.0 lacs in the name of Ashok Jain was offered. He also informed that he had an account with M/s Jain Cooperative Bank Ltd., Shahdara and was not enjoying any credit facilities.

22. Investigation revealed that the balance sheets which were purported to have been audited by R. K. Bansal of M/s Bansal Neelam & Associates, B­107, Vivek Vihar Delhi were forged as the said firm never existed at the given address. Sanjeev Bansal (PW47), partner of the above firm, and his wife denied having signed the said balance sheets and stated that no person by the name of R. K. Bansal was ever associated with their firm.

23. Investigation further revealed that the loan proposal was processed by Satish Sharma (A­12), Manager (Advances) who prepared a process note dated 29.07.2002 and recommended for sanction of credit facilities. It was further recommended by Rekha Sisodia (A­11) and S. K. Srivastava (PW72). Satish Sharma (A­12) also sent a letter dated 12.07.2002 to Jain cooperative Bank Ltd, Shahdara, Delhi to obtain the credit report of M/s Creative Traders and placed a reply dated 15.07.2002 to the said letter on record stating therein that the party has been dealing with them since 29.04.1998, its dealings are satisfactory, the party had a current account only and was not enjoying any credit facility. Investigation revealed that the letter dated 15.07.2002 was false and forged, Jain Cooperative Bank Ltd did not receive the letter dated 12.07.2002 nor it sent any credit report vide letter dated 15.07.2002 to Central Bank of India. Investigation also revealed that M/s Creative Traders did not have any account with Jain Cooperative Bank Ltd, Shahdara branch, Delhi. No record of dispatch and receipt of the above letters was found in the bank.

24. Investigation revealed that S. S. Lingwal, Advocate had submitted the legal scrutiny reports of the above two properties which were offered as collateral securities and he in his report dated 11.09.2002 had suggested collecting of latest MCD Tax Receipt, Water and Electricity charges bills pertaining to property No. 137 (part) village Jhilmir Tahir Pur Delhi before creation of the equitable mortgage but Rekha Sisodia (A­11) and Satish Sharma (A­12) did not comply with the same.

25. Investigation further revealed that Rajeev Jain s/o R L Jain r/o 1672/2, Bihari Colony Shahdara had stood guarantor in the account. On investigation Rajeev Jain was found to be non­existent person and his address was also non­existent.

26. Investigation further revealed that Satish Sharma (A­12) prepared a credit status report in respect of Keshav Sharma @ Shahid (A­1) @ Ashok Jain and Rajeev Jain on the basis of information supplied by them but did not make any independent verification of their assets declared by them. Investigation revealed that Keshav Sharma (A­1) @ Shahid @ Ashok Jain was never the owner of the above properties and Rajeev Jain was a non­existent person. K. S. Gupta (A­10), the then AGM, had carried out the pre­sanction inspection of the office cum godown of M/s Creative Traders situated at Plot No. 9 Pandav Nagar, Delhi and sanctioned the limits on 30.07.2002 but the investigation revealed that he himself did not carry out the inspection nor got the inspection carried out of the properties offered as collateral security and sanctioned the credit limits. K. S. Gupta (A­10), Smt. Rekha Sisodia (A­11) and Satish Sharma (A­12) also did not carry out any pre­sanction inspection nor physically verified the properties.

27. Investigation revealed that the loan documents were executed by Keshav Sharma (A­1) @ Shahid who impersonated himself as Ashok Jain in the presence of Satish Sharma (A­12) which fact is also confirmed by GEQD report. Investigation revealed that credit information form in respect of Rajeev Jain was in the handwriting of Sanjay Gupta (A­2).

28. Investigation further revealed that Juddha Kumar Chauhan (A­8) had impersonated as Mukesh Kumar and executed a Sale Deed of the property at S­596, Mandawali village, Fazal Pur, Delhi in favour of Ashok Jain in the office of Sub­Registrar VIII Geeta Colony. CFSL report confirmed that the finger prints and thumb impressions of Juddha Kumar Chauhan(A­8) and Keshav Sharma (A­1) @ Shahid are identical to the finger prints/thumb impressions purported to be that of Mukesh Kumar and Ashok Jain respectively on the Sale Deed. Harish Chand Wadhwa (A­7) had impersonated himself as Satish Singh and executed a Sale Deed in respect of Plot No. 137 (part), Jhilmil Tahir Pur, Delhi in favour of Ashok Jain which was registered with Sub­Registrar IV Seelam Pur Delhi. CFSL report confirmed that the finger prints and thumb impressions of Harish Chand Wadhwa (A­7) and Keshav Sharma (A­1) @ Shahid are identical to the finger prints/thumb impressions purported to be that of Satish Singh and Ashok Jain respectively on the Sale Deed.

29. Investigation further revealed that valuation of the above properties was carried out by J. M. Grover (A­14) of M/s J. M. Grover & Associates. In his report, he mentioned that S­596, Village Mandawali, Fazal Pur was a vacant plot but it was a residential property for last 20 years and it belonged to Smt. Priyambda Aggarwal. He mentioned about the property bearing No. 137 (part) as a plot under construction but it was a built up area of a factory in abandoned condition for about ten years which belonged to Surender Pathak. The valuation of property No. S­596 was also obtained by the bank from V P Aneja, Government Approved Valuer but it was not mentioned in the process note. Investigation revealed that V P Aneja (A­9) never visited the site and submitted a false report on the basis of the information provided by his employee Anuj Beotra who did it on the instructions of Sanjay Gupta (A­2).

30. Investigation revealed that Satish Sharma (A­12) while processing the proposal mentioned Khasra number of the property at 137 (part) village Jhilmil Tahir Pur as 503/444/3/16 in the process note which was mentioned by the valuer in the valuation report dated 30.07.2002 but in the Sale Deed submitted by the party, the Khasra Number was mentioned as 444/394/67/10 which fact Smt. Rekha Sisodia (A­11) and Satish Sharma (A­12) did not point out. The copy of the PAN Card and the Voter I Card submitted by Keshav Sharma (A­1) @ Shahid @ Ashok Jain to the bank alongwith account opening form were found forged. Investigation revealed that all the documents alongwith the loan application were executed by Keshav Sharma (A­1) @ Shahid who signed as Ashok Jain in the presence of Rekha Sisodia (A­11) and the guarantor Rajeev Jain had also signed in the presence of Rekha Sisodia (A­11).

31. Investigation revealed that after release of credit facilities in the account of M/s Creative Traders, the funds were transferred to the account of M/s Alpha Communication (India) and M/s Paramount Insulation Pvt. Ltd. Some amounts were withdrawn in cash (totaling to Rs. 2,54,01,449/­ as detailed in Para 52 of the charge­sheet). GEQD report showed that Sanjay Gupta (A­2) had signed all the cheques of M/s Creative Traders as Ashok Jain. Sharad Kumar (A­3) had signed the cheques of M/s Alpha Communication and Tarun Khanna (A­4) had signed the cheques of M/s Paramount Insulation Pvt Ltd. as Deepak Bansal. M/s Creative Traders also opened two LCs in favour of M/s Alpha Communication (India) and M/s Hindustan Industries and Keshav Sharma (A­1) @ Shahid signed as Ashok Jain on various documents pertaining to the said LCs on behalf of M/s Creative Traders while Sharad Kumar Jain (A­3) signed as the proprietor of M/s Alpha Communication (India) and M/s Hindustan Industries which were fictitious and non­existent firms. The whole amount was withdrawn from the said account through cheques issued in the name of fictitious firms owned by Sanjay Gupta (A­2), Tarun Khanna (A­4) @ Deepak Bansal, Sharad Kumar Jain (A­3) and P. N. Upadhyay (A­5) and Sanjay Gupta (A­2) was the brain behind them. All the transactions were accommodative in nature and there were no genuine trade transactions between these firms and M/s Creative Traders.

32. This account became NPA on 31.03.2003 and a sum of Rs.1,00,10,282/­ become outstanding on 31.12.2002.

33. The facts disclosed commission of offenses by Keshav Sharma (A­1) @ Ashok Jain proprietor M/s Creative Traders, Sanjay Gupta (A­2) @ Sanjay Jain proprietor M/s Sharda Metals, Director M/s Paramount Insulation Pvt. Ltd and M/s Creative Conductors Pvt. Ltd, Sharad Kumar Jain (A­3) @ Satish Chand Jain proprietor M/s Alpha Communication (India), M/s Hindustan Industries & M/s Paramount Insulation Co., Tarun Khanna (A­4) @ Deepak Bansal director M/s Paramount Insulation Pvt. Ltd., P. N. Upadhya (A­5) Accountant, Rakesh Verma (A­6), Harish Chand Wadhwa (A­7), Juddha Kumar Chauhan (A­), Ved Prakash Aneja (A­9), J M Grover (A­14) the Valuer and Smt. Nita Deep Rastogi (A­15) Advocate, K. S. Gupta (A­10) AGM, Smt. Rekha Sisodia (A­11) Senior Manager, Satish Sharma (A­12) Manager and Smt. Rashmi Chhabra (A­13) Financial Analyst u/s 120­B r/w 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC and sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 (in short PC Act) and substantive offenses and as such charge sheet was filed.

34. The authority competent to remove the bank officials Smt Rekha Sisodia (A­11), Satish Sharma (A­12) and Smt. Rashmi Chhabra (A­13) granted sanction u/s 19(1)(c) of P C Act 1988 to prosecute them under the above offences. K. S. Gupta (A­10) had already retired from service on 28.02.2005.

CHARGE

35. Ld Predecessor of this Court vide detailed order dated 11.07.2007 reached the conclusion that prima facie case is made out against all the accused persons. Accordingly, on 19.07.2007, all the accused persons were charged with the offences punishable u/s 120B read with Section 420, 419, 467, 468 and 471 IPC and Section 13(2) read with 13 (1) (d) of the P. C. Act, 1988. Accused S. Gupta (A­10) was also charged for the offence punishable u/s 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the P. C. Act, 1988 and 420 IPC. Accused Rekha Sisodia (A­11) was also charged for the offence punishable u/s 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the P. C. Act, 1988 and 467 IPC. Accused Rashmi Chhabra (A­13) was also charged for the offence punishable u/s 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the P. C. Act, 1988 and 467 IPC. Accused Satish Sharma (A­12) was also charged for the offence punishable u/s 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the P. C. Act, 1988 and 467 IPC. Accused Sharad Kumar Jain (A­3) was also charged for the offence punishable u/s 420, 419, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. Accused Sanjay Gupta (A­2) was also charged for the offence punishable u/s u/s 419, 420 and 467 IPC. Accused Rakesh Verma (A­6) was also charged for the offence punishable u/s 419 and 467 IPC. Accused Tarun Khanna (A­4) was also charged for the offence punishable u/s u/s 419, 420 and 467 IPC. Accused V P Aneja (A­9) was also charged for the offence punishable u/s 467 IPC. Accused J. M. Grover (A­14) was also charged for the offence punishable u/s 467 IPC. Accused Harish Chand Wadhwa (A­7) was also charged for the offence punishable u/s 419 and 467 IPC. Accused Keshav Sharma (A­1) @ Shahid was also charged for the offence punishable u/s 420, 419, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. Accused Nita Deep Rastogi (A­15) was also charged for the offence punishable u/s 467 IPC. Accused P. N. Upadhyay (A­5) was also charged for the offence punishable u/s 420 IPC. All the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

36. During trial V P Aneja (A­9) expired on 21.10.2008 and J M Grover (A­14) expired on 16.12.2018 and the proceedings against them were abated vide order dated 21.10.2008 and 21.01.2019 respectively. Accused Juddha Kumar Chauhan (A­8) absconded and he was declared Proclaimed Offender on 18.08.2006. Accused Nita Deep Rastogi (A­15) preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble High Court from where she was discharged vide order dated 21.01.2009.

CLARIFICATION

37. In this judgement the serial number of the accused persons who were originally arrayed after the accused persons who were during trial either declared PO or died or discharged, have been upgraded so far as their serial number is concerned and as such original accused No. 10 Kanwar Sen Gupta became accused No. 8 in place of Judda Kumar Chauhan who was originally acused No.8. Similarly, accused Rekha Sisodia became accused No. 9 in place of Ved Prakash Aneja, accused Satish Sharma became accused No. 10 in place of Kanwar Sen Gupta and accused Rashmi Chhabra became accused No. 11 in place of Rekha Sisodia and they have been accordingly numbered henceforth in this judgement.

EVIDENCE

38. In order to prove its case prosecution examined as many as 85 and one witness CW1 was summoned by the Court.

39. PW1 Mrs. Veena Jain, Branch Manager, Jain Co­operative Bank Ltd, Shadra Branch, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi. She sought to prove that satisfactory report/letter dt. 06.05.2001 mark PW1/A was neither issued from her bank nor was same on the letter head of the bank nor her branch had received letter dt 05.05.2001 mark PW1/B from Central Bank of India, Parliament Street Branch nor had issued statement of bank account mark PW1/C from 1.03.2001 to 31.03.2001 of Satish Chand Gupta, 78A, Dilshad Garden nor had issued statement of bank account mark PW1/D and mark PW1/E from 1.01.2001 to 30.04.2001 and from 01.04.200 to 31.12.2000 of M/s Aman Trading Company, 78A, Dilshad Garden.

40. She further sought to prove that Jain Co­operative Bank did not have any branch at Pandav Nagar, Nehru Complex Opposite Mother Dairy booth nor had bank issued satisfactory report/letter dt 15.07.2002 mark PW1/F in respect of M/s Creative Traders nor had received letter dt 12.07.2002 mark PW1/G nor statement of account from 01.04.2001 to 31.05.2002 mark PW1/H of M/s Creative Traders was issued by it.

41. PW2 Sh. Rishabh Jain, Deputy Manager, Jain Co­operative Bank Ltd., Gandhi Nagar Branch, sought to prove seizure memo Ex. PW2/A whereby he had handed over certified copy of dispatch registers Ex. PW2/B, Ex PW2/C and Ex PW2/D duly certified by him and also sought to prove the dispatch registers by bringing the original in the court. He further sought to corroborate the testimony of PW1 Mrs. Veen Jain.

42. PW3 Sh. C. H. Ramesh, Manager UTI Bank, West Godawri, Andhara Pradesh, was employed with Vysya Bank from 1995 to 2004. In the year 2000 he was posted as an officer in Yamuna Vihar branch of Delhi of Vysya Bank and he sought to prove current account opening form Ex PW3/A of M/s Paramount Insulation Pvt. Ltd., 78A, Dilshad Garden by whih Sanjay Gupta and Deepak Bansal as a directors had opened the said account and that Sh. Sanjay Jain of Arihant Industries was the introducer. He also sought to prove the documents such as Form 58 Ex PW3/B, Form 60 Ex. PW3/C, Form 277 Ex PW3/D, resolution Ex. PW3/E, photocopy of receipt of registration mark PW3/X submitted by Sanjay Gupta and Deepak Bansal. He also identified accused Sanjay Gupta and Deepak Bansal in court. He also sought to prove the seizure memo Ex PW3/F by identifying the signature of Shiv Shanker Prasad who had handed over these documents to CBI.

43. PW4 Sh. Raj Kumar is the proprietor of M/s Saurav Steels India, 134, Main Road, Tahirpur, Dishad Garden, Delhi. He sought to prove that he was the owner of the property bearing No. 134, Main Road, Tahirpur, Dishad Garden, Delhi admeasuring 100 sq. yds and where he had been running his aforesaid business since 1990 and that no firm by the name of M/s Hindustan Industries ran in this property ever nor had he seen or met any person by the name of Sharad Kumar Jain (A­3) (whose photograph was affixed on the customer information form) in this property.

44. PW5 Sh. Rajinder Kumar Shukla is the resident of 1/11662, Panchsheel Garden, Navin Shahdra since 1984. He sought to prove ownership of the said property and that he had firm in the name of style of M/s Alpha Communication running at A­1/235, New Kndli, Delhi­92 which existed till 2000. He further sought to prove that he had his firm’s bank account in Vysya Bank, Noida and never had account of his firm with Vysya Bank, Yamuna Vihar Branch, Delhi or that he did not know Sharad Kumar Jain nor had dealing with M/s Paramount Insulation Pvt. Ltd., M/s Aman Trading Co., M/s Creative Trading Co., Sanjay Gupta, Pankaj Garg, Deepak Malhotra and Tarun Khanna etc.

45. PW6 Sh. Suresh Kumar Bansal, Associate Vice President, ING Vysaya Bank Ltd., was posted as branch Manager of Yamuna Vihar branch of Vysya Bank during the month of September 2000. He sought to prove his letter dt 10.05.2003 Ex PW6/A vide which he had handed over documents mentioned therein to CBI, account opening form Ex PW6/B of A/c no. 1324 in the name of M/s Alpha Communication under the proprietorship of Sharad Kumar Jain which was introduced by Deepak Bansal, Director of M/s Paramount Insulation Pvt. Ltd. and documents such as form No. 58 Ex PW6/C, form No. 60 Ex PW6/D, letter Ex. PW6/E written by Sharad Kumar Jain on the letter head of M/s Alpha Communication, submitted at the time of opening of the above account.

46. PW7 Sh. N. Suresh Manager ING Vyasya Bank Ltd. was posted as Manager Operation in the Yamuna Viahar branch of Vysya Bank during the year 2002. He sought to prove Account Opening Form dt 18.10.2002 Ex PW7/A of M/s Hindustan Industries under the proprietor of Sharad Kumar Jain, Customer Information Form Ex PW7/B of M/s Hindustan Industries, documents submitted at the time of opening the account such as photocopy of sales tax Registration form mark A of M/sHindustan Industries, photocopy of Saral Form mark B of Sharad Kumar Jain, photocopy of registration mark C of M/s Hindustan Industries, photocopy ration card mark D of Sharad Kumar Jain, photocopy of letter head mark E of M/s Hindustan Industries. He also sought to prove seizure memo Ex PW7/C vide which documents mentioned therein were handed over by Shiv Shankar Parsad and pay order dt 19.09.2002 Ex PW7/D and supporting document.

47. PW8 Ms. Preeti Jain w/o Late Sh. Mukesh Jain is sister­in­law (bhabhi) of Nehru Jain (PW20) and resident of house No. 78A, Dilshad Garden, Delhi. She sought to prove that neither her husband Mukesh Jain nor she nor her devar Nehru Jain had ever sold any portion of the property No. 78A, Dislhad Garden and that a portion of the said property was given on rent to accused Sanjay Gupta (A­2) who vacated in 2003 and that it was not in her knowledge if the property was ever let out to Sh. Satish Chand Jain and Kuldeep Gupta. She also identified the accused Sanjay Gupta in Court.

48. PW9 Sh. Inder Singh S/o Sh. Ram Pal Singh is stated to be running property dealing in the name and style of Goel Properties at D­27, Main G. T. Road, Dilshad Garden in partnership with Nehru Jain. He sought to prove that he in the absence of Nehru Jain had handed over certain documents on behalf of Nehru Jain to the CBI official which documents contained rent agreement dt 03.08.1992 EX PW9/2 having signature of Nehru Jain at point A, possession surrender certificate Ex PW9/3, rent agreement dt 23.01.2002 Ex PW9/4 and Surrender of possession letter dt 15.12.2002 Ex PW9/5 all containing signatures of Nehru Jain. He also sought to prove that Kuldeep Gupta, Satish Chand Jain and Sanjay Jain never resided in property No. 78A, Dilshad Garden. He also identified the photographs of Harish Chand Wadhwa (A­7) on Sale Deed dt 09.08.2002 and also identified the accused Harish Chand Wadhwa (A­7) in court. He also identified accused Sanjay Gupta (A­2) and accused Rakesh Verma (A­6) who as per him was working with Sanjay Gupta.

49. PW10 Sh. Suraj Mal Jain S/o M. N. Jain was working as Assistant Archivist, Department of Delhi on 24.08.2004. He had supplied to CBI the certified copy EX PW10/A of Sale Deed in respect of property No.78A, Dilshad Garden, executed between Gauri Devi w/o Dr. Naliksha Mukharjee and Sh. Mohan Lal S/o Sh. Amrit Lal, Sh. Raj Bahadur S/o Sh. Jugal Kishor, Sh. A. Das S/o Sh. Ulfat Rai and Sh. Lal Bahadur S/o Sh. Jugal Kishore of Deoband and sought to prove the said certified copy.

50. PW11 Sh. Girdhari Lal Lamba was working as UDC on 10.11.2004 in the Election Office, Assembly Constituency No. 44, LM Bund, Shastri Nagar, Delhi. He sought to prove that photocopy of voter ID card mark PW11/1 bearing No. DL04044/163924 purportedly issued in the name of Satish Chand Jain S/o Sh. N.M. Jain R/o 78A, Dilshad Garden, Delhi was never issued from the constituency and was fake.

51. PW12 Sh. Ram Narain was doing the business of building material at Banglow plot No.6, Pandav Nagar, Delhi and he sought to prove that plot No. 7 adjacent to his plot No.6 was lying vacant and is owned by Lekh Raj and Baldev Raj, his son.

52. PW13 Sh. Gopi Chand sought to prove his ownership in respect of property bearing No. MIG Flat No. C­55/X3, Dilshad Garden, Delhi and sought to prove that he had let out the said flat through Mukesh Jain to Sanjay Gupta in the year 1997 who remained in possession till the year 2001 and he identified Sanjay Gupta in court.

53. PW14 Sh. Vinod Gupta was doing the business of property dealing in the year 2002 in the name and style of M/s Gupta Associates from 488/10, Dilshad Garden, Delhi. He sought to prove that property bearing Khasra No. 488, Dilshad Garden is big property and part of it bearing No. 488/3 is owned by Ms. Madhu Jindal and Ms. Narender Kaur and property No.137 is near Gurudwar.

54. PW15 Sh. Vikas Gupta who was working as LDC in the office of Sub­Register, Seelampur, Delhi, has sought to prove that office copy of sale deed dt 30.12.2000 Ex PW9/D1 (D­184) and vendee copy of said Sale Deed Ex PW15/1 (D­57) purportedly executed by Kuldeep Gupta in favour of Satish Chadn Jain, are different.

55. PW16 Sh. RamPhal was working as Zonal Inspector in the office of House Tax Department, MCD, in the year 2002­03. He sought to prove seizure memo dt 27.07.2004 Ex W16/A vide which he handed over certain documents in respect of property No. 78A. Dilshad Garden assessed in the name of Smt. Kanta Devi Jain and sought to prove property tax bill Ex PW16/B, Ex PW16/C, Ex. PW16/D and Ex PW16/E and other documents running into 55 pages collectively exhibited as Ex PW16/F.

56. PW17 Mahender Kumar was working as postman in Jhilmil post office for the last 16­17 years from the day of his testimony recorded on 17.12.2009. He sought to prove that he had delivered mail (dak) of M/s Sharda Metal of which Sanjay Gupta was proprietor and two or three other firms in the name of M/s Aman Trading Co., Paramount Insulation and Paramount Insulation Pvt. Ltd. to Sanjay Gupta at 78A, Dilshad Garden.

57.PW18 Sh. Kaushal Kumar was working as treasurer in Treasury, Tis Hazari, Delhi in the year 2002. He sought to prove relevant pages of register of sale of non­judicial stamp papers Ex PW18/A (AD­14), vide which four stamp papers bearing Sl. No. 24276 for Rs. 63,700/­ were issued on 09.08.2002 in the name of Ashok Jain, Ex. PW18/B (AD­15) vide which two stamp papers bearing No. 5064 for Rs. 65,000/­ were issued in the name of Ashok Jain and Ex PW18/C (AD­16) vide which three stamp papers vide entry No. 4682 for Rs. 16,000/­ were issued in the name of Satish Chand Jain.

58. PW19 Sh. Vinod Sharma sought to prove that audit reports of M/s Aman Trading for the year 1998­99, 1999­2000, 2000­01 and 2001­02 was not his as he closed his practice under the name and style of M/s V. Sharma & Associates in 1990 and joined Govt. Service in Delhi State Civil supply in the year 1991.

59. PW20 Sh. Nehru Jain sought to prove that he was the sole owner of the property No. 78A, Dilshad Garden; that Sanjay Gupta (A­2) was tenant on the ground and first floor of the said property since 1995 till December 2002 where Sanjay Gupta (A­2) was running his firm M/s Sharda Metals vide rent agreement Ex PW9/2 executed on 03.08.92; that Sanjay Gupta (A­2) had taken photocopy of Sale deed of the property to file the same in Sale Tax Office; that no other firms in the name of Aman Trading Co., M/s Alpha Paramount, M/s Paramount Pvt. Ltd. And M/s Creative Traders ever ran from 78A, Dilshad Garden; that he did not know any person by the name of Satish Chand Jain, Ashok Jain or Kuldeep Gupta; that he knew Harish Chand Wadhwa (A­7), Sharad Kumar Jain (A­3) (who as per him was employed as supervisor with Sanjay Gupta (A­2)) and Keshav Sharma (A­1) @ Sahid (who as per him was employed with Sanjay Gupta (A­2) at his recommendation somewhere in 2000). He also sought to prove surrender of possession ExPW9/3, rent agreement Ex PW9/4 in respect of Pandav Nagar property, surrender of possession Ex PW9/5 all three bearing his signature and that of Sanjay Gupta. He also sought to prove that GPA dt 09.05.1984 Ex. PW2/DA, Agreement to Sell dt 09.05.1984 Ex Pw33/G­9, Affidavit of same date Ex PW33/G­20, Affidavit dt. 20.07.2001 Ex. PW33/G­21, Sale Deed dt 27.12.2000 Ex PW15/DA all in respect of property bearing No. 78A Dilshad Garden, were forged. He identified the photographs of Keshav Sharma (A­1) on account application form of M/s Creative Traders Ex. PW20/B, on Sale Deed Ex PW43/A and on Sale Deed Ex PW33/G­31 and photographs of Sharad Kumar Jain on application form for account Ex PW6/B and on application form Ex PW7/A for bank account of M/s Hindustan Industries.

60 PW21 Sh. Krishan Kumar Gupta was the General Manager in Central Bank of India, Zonal Office, Link House, New Delhi and he sought to prove complaint dt 01.05.2003 Ex PW21/A made to CBI following which present FIR was registered.

61. PW22 Sh. Balwan Singh Vashisht was working as Sub­Registrar, Seelampur on 10.07.2003 and he sought to prove the procedure of registration of a document, inspection of record and that office copy of sale deed dt. 27.12.2000 Ex PW15/DA and vendee copy of said sale deed Ex PW9/D1 were different on account of differences pointed out by him. He also sought to prove that vendee copy of sale deed dt. 01.07.1985 Ex. PW22/A and office copy of sale deed dt 01.07.1985 Ex. PW22/A­1 in respect of property No. 52/18, Village Karawal Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi were different on account of differences pointed out by him.

62. PW23 Sh. Nirmaljeet Singh is the proprietor of M/s N.S. Enterprises/Industries situated at ground floor premise bearing No. 77A, Dilshad Garden, Telephone Exchange, Shahdara and residing on the first floor of the said property. He sought to prove that he did not know Sanjay Jain nor had he executed any power of attorney mark PX in the name of Sanjay Jain nor in the name of Jairam purportedly resident of 77A, Dilshad Garden.

63. PW24 Sh. U.B. Upadhaya was posted as vigilance officer in the zonal office of Central Bank of India at Lucknow. He sought to prove his vigilance report Ex PW24/2 along with his forwarding letter dt. 24/28.1.2003 Ex PW24/1.

64. PW25 Sh. Mahesh Gupta was running a factory in the name and style of M/s H.A. Enterprises at 78A, Dilshad Garden since May 2003 in partnership with one Sh. Vijay Kumar Gupta. He sought to prove ownership of premise 78A, Dilshad Garden sold by Mrs. Kanta Devi through registered Sale Deed 07.08.2002 Ex. PW25/A. He has also sought to prove sale deed dt 07.08.2002 Ex PW25/B in favour of Mahesh Gupta and Smt. Nisha Gupta.

65. PW26 Sh. Sanjay Jain is the proprietor of M/s Arihant Industries since 1998. He sought to prove that he introduced M/s Paramount Insulation Pvt. Ltd and M/s Hindustan Industries at time of account opening with Vysya Bank, Yamuna Vihar Branch at the asking of Sh. P.N. Upadhaya who was working with him and that he did not know Sanjay Gupta and Deepak Bansal and Sharad Kumar Jain.

66. PW27 Sh. Ajay Gupta elder brother of accused Sanjay Gupta and sought to prove that he had not taken any loan from M/s Aman Trading Co. nor did he know Sharad Kumar Jain or that certificate mark PA­1 did not bear his signature.

67. PW28 Smt. Seema Gupta is wife of PW27 Sh. Ajay Gupta and sister­in­law (bhabhi) of accused Sanjay Gupta and she sought to prove that she had not taken any amount from Sanjay Jain and certificate mark AX­1 did not bear her signature.

68. PW29 Sh. Ghansyam Tiwari was running a grocery shop from ground floor of 78A, Dilshad Garden. He sought to prove that Sanjay Gupta had taken a portion in the property No. 78A in the year 1992/93 and ran his factory there till 202; that he did not know Sanjay Jain and Satish Chand Jain both s/o N.M. Jain; that Kuldeep Gupta was working in the factory of Sanjay Gupta; that photographs affixed on the sale deed Ex PW15/DA of property No. 78A, Dilshad Garden purportedly of Kuldeep Gupta was in fact of Rakesh Verma who was also working with Sanjay Gupta and that he never heard of M/s Aman Trading Co., M/s Paramount Insulation Co. and M/s Paramount Insulation Pvt. Ltd. at 78A, Dislhad Garden. He identified Rakesh Verma (A­6) and Sanjay Gupta (A­2) in the Court.

69. PW30 Sh. Sushil Kumar Mehrotra was the Chief Manager in Central Bank of India, Shahdara Branch, Delhi from May 2002 to September 2005. He sought to prove seizure memo Ex PW30/A vide which he handed over Account Opening Form Ex PW30/A­1 of SB A/c No. 912 of Sanjay Mittal containing photograph Sanjay Gupta (A­2), specimen card Ex PW30/A­2, credit voucher Ex. PW30/A­3 24.01.2003 of PO No. 028132 of Rs. 17,10,000/­ issued by IDBI, New Delhi, cheque bearing No. 002071 dt. 29.01.2003 for Rs. 10 lacs favouring Deepak Bhatia, cheque bearing No.002072 dt. 29.01.2003 for Rs. 7 lacs favouring Deepak Bhatia, cheque No. 002073 dt. 29.01.2003 for Rs. 10,000/­ issued by Sanjay Jindal and certified true copy of Statement of A/c No. 912 Ex. PW30/A­4 and he also sought to prove above said documents. He also sought to identify person who had approached Central Bank of India, Shahdra branch, for obtaining credit facilities in the name of M/s Shakti Traders. He further sought to prove seizure memo Ex PW30/A­5 vide which he had handed over to CBI file pertaining to M/s Shakti Traders and sought to prove documents of the said file along with his attempt to report the attempted fraud vide his letter dt 03.01.2003 Ex PW30/A­7.

70. PW31 Sh. Mahavir Sing Dagar who was working as Sub­Registrar, Seelampur between December 2000 to September 2001, sought to prove that Sale Deed dt. 30.12.2000 Ex PW29/DA­3 purportedly executed by Kuldep Gupta in favour of Satish Chan Jain in respect of property bearing No. 78A, Dilshad Garden, did not bear his signature.

71. PW32 Sh. Varinder Kumar Gupta was doing poultry business under the name and style of Hanuman Traders, Paharganj, Delhi and had left the said business 5/7 years ago from the date of recording of his testimony in the court on 01.02.2011. He sought to prove that he introduced the account of M/s Paramount Insulation Co. bearing No. 4328 with Central Bank of India, Paharganj branch at the time of opening of the account at instance of the then manager Mr. Setia rightly identified by him in the court.

72. PW33 Sh. Ramesh Chandra is Government appointed handwriting expert and he sought to prove letter dt. 09.04.2005 Ex PW35/A, annexure ­I Ex PW35/B, annexure ­II Ex PW35/C, annexure­III Ex PW35/D, annexure­IV Ex PW35/E, annexure­V Ex PW35/F and sought to prove report along with GEQD opinion Ex PW35/X.

73. PW34 Sh. Sarwan Kumar Gupta was posted as General Manager (HRD), Central Bank of India Corporate Office Mumbai in the year 2005. He sought to prove sanction under Section 19 of PC Act Ex PW34/A, Ex PW34/B ad Ex Pw34/C in respect of public servant Satsih Sharma (A­10), Rekah Sisodia (A­9) and Rashmi Chhabra (A­11) respectively.

74. PW35 Sh. Ram Kishan was posted as Tehsildar Nazul at relevant time. He sought to prove that in response to query of CBI he had sent reply vide letter Ex PW35/A wherein he had pointed out that property No. 78A, Dilshad Garden was in Khasra No. 466/232­443/1 measuring (2­01), Khasra No. 466/232­443/2 measuring (0­10), 466/232­443/3 measuring (0­19), 466/232­443/4 measuring (0­9) and 466/232­443/5 measuring (0­18) and then sought to prove chain of ownership of the aforesaid property as reflected in document brought by Kanungo.

75. PW36 Sh. Satpal Singh was postman in Krishna Nagar since 1990 looking after beat No.28 which covers the area of Pandav Nagar. He sought to prove that plot No.9 came under beat No. 28 and Nehru Complex was in plot No.9, Pandav Nagar owned by Mr. Jain and no firm M/s Creative Traders ever came to his knowledge and no correspondence in the name of the said firm had ever been delivered by him.

76. PW37 Sh. P.K. Ralhan was posted at Central Bank of India, Parliament Street in the year 2002­03 and was Officiating Assistance. He sought to prove account opening form Ex PW37/A of M/s Creative Traders and supporting documents, cheque No. 281503 dt 12.08.1992 for Rs. 19,98,895/­ issued by M/s Creative Trader in favour of M/s Alpha Communications.

77. PW38 Sh. Bishambhar Dayal was posted as Asst. Manager in Central Bank of India, Parliament Street Branch, New Delhi in the year 2001­02. He sought to prove the current account opening form Ex PW38/A for a/c No. 5425 and CC Account opening form of M/s Aman Trading Company for A/c No 260 and supporting document supplied by client.

78. PW39 Sh. Suresh Chandra was posted as Manager in Central Bank of India, Parliament Street Branch, New Delhi in the year between 2000 and 2006. He explained the procedure of opening of Letter of Credit (LC) and its meaning and sought to prove opening of all LC, payments made under LCs and connected documents Ex PW39/A to Ex PW39/L got prepared by M/s Aman Trading in favour of M/s Paramount Insulation Pvt. Ltd., by M/s Aman Trading Co. in favour M/s Alpha Communication, by M/s Aman Trading Co. in favour of M/s Hindustan Industries, by M/s Creative Traders in favour of M/s Alpha Communication and by M/s Creative Traders in favour of M/s Hindustan Industries.

79. PW40 Sh. B. N. S. Ratnakar was posted as Assistant General Manager in Central Bank of India, Parliament Street Branch, New Delhi from April 3004 to January 2007. He sought to prove the sanction and enhancement of credit facility to M/s Aman Trading Company and documents connected therewith Ex PW40/A to Ex PW40/E, seizure memo Ex PW40/F, circulars Ex PW40/G, Ex Pw40/H and Ex PW40/I issued by Central Bank of India on 02.06.2001, 07.07.2000 and 12.06.2001 respectively.

80.PW41 Sh. Zakir Thomas was posted as Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax in Directorate of Income Tax (Systems). He sought to prove his response vide his reply dt 09.06.2005 Ex PW41/A and dt. 17.03.2005 Ex PW41/B, to queries put by IO whereby he had informed that PAN (ACUPJ2651B) did not exist and PAN AACPJ8753B has been allotted to Ashok Jain.

81. PW42 Smt. Priyambda Aggarwal w/o Sh. Ashok Kumar Agarwal R/o S­596, abadi School block, Shakurpur, Delhi since 1980 and she sought to prove that she was the owner of the aforesaid property and had constructed over it after purchasing land admeasuring 135 sq.yds and that she had neither sold it nor had executed GPA mark A in favour Ashok Jain nor did she know him nor had she stood guarantor for anyone in any bank.

82. PW42 Sh. Atul Kumar was posted as Sub­Registrar in Seelampur between 2002­03. He sought to prove procedure of registration of documents and that Sale Deed dt 09.08.2002 Ex PW43/A between Satish Singh and Sh. Ashok Jain in respect of property bearing No.137 admeasuring 340 sq yds out of Khasra No. 444/394/67/10 in the area of Jhilmil Tahirpur, abadi Dilshad Garden, bore his signature as Sub­Registrar and was registered at the office of Sub­Registrar­IV.

83. PW44 Smt. Seema Kala was clerk in Central Bank of India, Parliament Street Branch, New Delhi from 1999 to 2006. She sought to prove the entries dt 09.05.2001 in the dispatch register of the bank Ex PW44/A and the dispatch register Ex PW44/B and that there is no entry for letter dt 05.05.2001 allegedly dispatched.

84. PW45 Sh. Ashok Kumar Sachdeva was posted as Deputy Manager in State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. He sought to prove seizure memo Ex PW45/A vide which he had handed over Bankers cheque No. 886918 dt 01.07.200 Ex PW45/B for Rs 24,40,215/­ in the name of Vysya Bank Ltd. account M/s Alpha Communication (India), Original LC No. PAR/ID/43/85 dt 25.06.2002 Ex PW45/C for Rs. 25 lacs in the name of M/s Alpha communication opened by M/s Aman Trading Co., Original letter dt. 01.07.2002 Ex PW45/D addressed to Central Bank International Division regarding confirmation of documents for 24,99,771/­ and other documents connected therewith.

85. PW46 Sh. Dalbir Singh was posted as LDC in the office of the Sub­Registrar in the year 2001­02. H sought to prove the registration of the Sale Deed Ex PW43/A in the office of Sub­Registrar.

86. PW47 Sh. Sanjeev Bansal was chartered Accountant and practicing as such under the name and style of M/s Bansal Neelam & Associates. He sought to prove that audit report dt. 24/08/2000 of M/s Creative Traders, plot No. 9, Pandav Nagar was fake and was not audited by him or his firm and that address mentioned in audit report is not if his firm or no person by the name of R. K. Bansal ever worked with the said firm.

87. PW48 Sh. Rajesh Ladha is partner of M/s Rajesh Commercial Corporation, 1826, Bhagirath Place, Amarnath Building, Delhi and he sought to prove that he introduced the account of M/s Aman Trading Company at the instance of Sh. R. S. Verma the AGM of Central Bank Of India and he did not personally know its proprietor.

88. PW49 Sh. P. N. Swarup was posted as Manager in Zonal Office of Indian Bank at New Delhi. He sought to prove that during investigation specimen signature of accused Tarun Khanna (A­4) was taken in his presence vide sheets bearing No. S­269 to S­279 Ex PW49/A.

89. PW50 Sh. Yogender Singh was posted as Lab Assistant in 2003 in CFSL and sought to prove taking of specimen finger prints, during investigation, of three persons namely Sanjay Gupta, Sharad Kumar Jain and Tarun Khanna vide SFP1 to SFP3 Ex PW50/A, SFP­4 to SFP­6 Ex PW50/B and SFP­29, SFP­29A and SFP­30 Ex PW50/C respectively.

90. PW51 Sh. S.C.Tyagi was posted as Manager in Indian Bank, Zonal Office, New Delhi in July 2004 and sought to prove taking thumb impression/fingerprints/specimen signature of P.N. Upadhaya vide SFP­27 & 28 Ex PW51/A and S­310 to S­332 Ex PW51/B.

91. PW52 Sh. S.K. Gupta was posted as Assistant Manager, Syndicate Bank, Rajeev Gandhi, Lodhi Road, New Delhi in 2004 and he sought to prove taking of thumb impression/finger prints of Rakesh Verma vide SFP­7 & 8 Ex PW52/A and specimen signature of Rakesh Verma (A­6) and Tarun Khanna (A­4) vide S­140 to S­149 Ex PW52/B and S­175 to S­199 Ex PW52/C respectively.

92. PW53 Sh. Adesh Jain who stated to be in the business of sale and purchase of old and used garments, sought to prove his ownership alongwith his bhabhi Anita Jain over the property No. 52/18, Karawal Nagar, Delhi from 1995 to 2005 and that said property was never let out to anyone till he remained owner nor did he took any loan on this property.

93. PW54 Sh. Gagan Parvesh was posted as Manager in Syndicate Bank, Loknayak Bhawan, Khan Market, New Delhi in May 2004 and he sought to prove taking of specimen signature, during the investigation, of Sanjay Gupta (A­2) vide S­76 to S­95 Ex PW54/A.

94. PW55 Sh. Bhagwan Sahai Prajapat was working as electrician in Canara Bank, Gopinath Marg Jaipur, in the month of September 2004 and he sought to prove taking of specimen signature, during investigation, of Sanjay Gupta (A­2) vide S­96 to S­136 Ex PW55/A.

95. PW55 Sh. N.K. Jagota was posted as Assistant Manager in December 2003 in Syndicate Bank, Lok Nayak Bhawan, New Delhi and he sought to prove that taking of specimen signatures of Sanjay Gupta (A­2) and Sharad Kumar Jain (A­3) vide S­16 to S­75 Ex PW56/A and S­1 to S­15 Ex PW56/B respectively.

96. PW57 Sh. Anuj Beotra was working on 2002 with accused Sh. V.P. Aneja (valuer) who expired in 2008 and he sought to prove valuation report dt 11/05/2002 Ex PW57/A allegedly prepared at the instance of Sanjay Gupta by V.P. Aneja in respect of property No. 52/18, Karawaal Nagar, Delhi­94 and valuation report dt. 11/05/2002 Ex PW57/B in respect of property bearing No. S­596, School Block, Mandawali Fazalpur, Illqua Shahdra, Delhi­92 in the name of Ashok Jain.

97.PW58 Ms. Meenu Pathak w/o Late Sh. Narender Pathak is sister of accused Tarun Khanna (A­4) he sought to prove that after the death of her husband accused Sanjay Gupta helped her by providing her accommodation at C­55/X­3, Dilshad Garden, Delhi by taking same on rent and he was also bearing her house hold and school expenses and accused Tarun Khanna (A­4) was working with him and thereafter shifted to Jaipur in 2003 where on account of beating given by accused Sanjay Gupta she came back to Delhi in 2003 itself.

98. PW59 Sh. Pankaj Joshi was working as Sub­Registrar­VIII, Geeta Colony from 2001 to 2004 and he sought to explain the procedure of registration of documents and sought to prove the registration of Sale Deed Ex. PW33G­31.

99. PW60 Sultan Abbas Zaidi was posted as Assistant Accountant in the year 1999 in Bombay Mercantile Co­operative Bank, Netaji Subhas Marg, Daryaganj, New Delhi and he sought to prove seizure memo Ex PW60/A, Account opening form Ex PW60/B in the name of M/s Creative Conductors Pvt. Ltd. with Sanjay Gupta and Ram Krishan Gautam as director, cheques Ex PW35/A­30 to Ex PW35/A­35 issued by M/s Creative Conductors Pvt Ltd. in favour of M/s Aman Trading Pvt. Ltd.

100. PW61 Sh. Umesh Narang was working as Manager in the year 2000 in Mico Electronic Pvt. Ltd., Nizammudin, New Delhi and he sought to prove that he had introduced Sanjay Gupta to Sh. R.S.Verma the AGM of Central Bank of India, Parliament Street Branch as Sanjay Gupta was looking for loan.

101. PW62 Sh. A.D.Shah was Sr. Scientific Officer, Grade­II during the year 2002 to 2011 and he sought to prove his report, signature, finger prints etc. on various documents examined by him.

102.PW63 Sh. A.K. Grover was Manager in Central Bank of India, Connaught Circus, New Delhi in 2002 and he sought to prove that an application for grant of advance from M/s Shakti Traders through proprietor Naresh Agarwal was received in the bank, who had come accompanied with Mr. Upadhaya and his proposal was refused sensing doubt about the genuineness of the claim.

103.PW64 Sh. Rajesh Arora was posted as Manager in Central Bank of India, Janpath Branch. New Delhi from 04.02.2004 to 14.05.2007 and sought to prove seizure memo Ex PW64/A vide which he had handed over account opening form of M/s Sharda Metals and supported documents Ex PW64/B to Ex PW64/D filed by the client.

104. PW65 Sh. Ram Kishan Gautam is a practicing advocate however he had worked with Sanjay Gupta as supervisor in the year 1995 and resigned on 7/10/199 and sought to prove that he was made director by Sanjay Gupta in two companies M/s Creative Conductor Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Paramount Insulation Pvt. Ltd. formed before 1999 etc and documents connected therewith. He also deposed about the persons working with Sanjay Gupta.

105. PW66 Ms. Shamita Bondal was posted as manager in South Indian Bank, Greater Kailash­II, New Delhi from 03.11.2004 to 04.05.2005 and she sought to prove seizure memo Ex PW66/A vide she had handed over documents seeking to prove transaction like LC dt 20.12.2001 Ex PW66/B by M/s Aman Trading in favour of M/s Paramount /Insulation Pvt. Ltd., letter dt 26/12/2001 Ex PE66/C and letter dt 07/01/2002 Ex PW66/D connected therewith, certificate of payment Ex PW66/E.

106. PW67 Sh. Surender Pathak was employed as Manager on a petrol pump at Road No. 56, Vivel Vihar, Delhi and he sought to prove ownership of property bearing No. 137, Dilshad Garden, Delhi and its chain of ownership.

107. PW68 Smt. Neelam Bhardwaj posted as Assistant Manager in Central Bank of India, Parliament Street Branch, New Delhi from November 1998 to 2005 and she sought to prove that rubber seal on mark PW1/A and mark PW1/F are not of the concerned bank.

108. PW69 Sh. Suresh Sharma was posted as Sr. Manager in Central Bank of India, Parliament Street branch, New Delhi from 6th August 2001 to 30th November 2005 and he sought to prove posting of different officials in the branch and signature of accused Rekha Sisodia (A­11) on process note Ex PW21/DF and letter dt 06.05.2001 Ex PW69/A which was already marked as Mark PW1/B.

109. PW70 Sh. Rajesh Jain is brother­in­law (Jija) of Satish Chand Jain S/o Nathu Mal Jain and he sought to prove chain of ownership of property bearing No. 52/18, Karawal Nagar, Delhi and sought to prove Sale Deed dt 22.08.1989 Ex. PW70/1 executed by his wife Smt. Urmial Jain in favour of Smt. Gunjan Gupta.

110. PW71 Sh. Tarun Mehra was posted as Sr. Manager in IDBI Bank, Surya Kiran Building, K. G. Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi in the year 2002­2005 and he sought to prove seizure memo Ex PW71/1 vide which he had handed over to CBI photocopies of documents Ex PW71/2 duly certified by him, showing purchasing of bill by IDBI Bank for the sale made by M/s Alpha Communication to M/s Aman Trading Company vide three LCs.

111. PW72 Sh. Sushil Kumar Srivastava was posted as Chief Manager in Central Bank of India, Parliament Street, New Delhi from July 2001 to December, 2003. He sought to prove posting of various officials in his branch during the relevant time and his capability to identify their signature and writings. He sought to prove advancing of loan to M/s Aman Trading Company and to M/s Creative Traders and process, documents and official involved in the process of advancing Loan to M/s Aman Trading Company and to M/s Creative Traders, documents relating to creation of equitable mortgage in respect of both the loans by M/s Aman Trading Company and by M/s Creative Traders and various payments made out of these accounts in the process of siphoning off the amounts.

112. PW73 Sh. Vijay Kumar Jain was residing with his family at B­107, Vivek Viahr, Pha­I, Delhi since 1988 and sought to prove ownership of above said property and documents concerning said property handed over by him vide seizure memo Ex PW73/A and that said property was never let to R. K. Bansal, Proprietor of Bansal Neelam and Associates Chartered Accountants.

113. PW74 Sh. Praveen Jain had been residing at 57, Kiran Vihar, Karkardooma, Delhi since 1992 and he sought to prove his ownership over Khasra No. 5/6, admeasuring 3000 sq. yds, Karawal Nagar, Shahadra which he sold to Sh. Jagdish Pradhan and that he did not know Satish Chand Jain nor did he let out the sad to property to Satish Chand Jain ever.

114. PW74 Sh. Viresh Chand Jain was posted as Manager in Jain Co­Operative Bank Ltd., Shahadra during the year 2002­03 and was successor of PW1 Smt. Veena Jain and sought to prove that letter dt. 06.05.2001 mark PW1/A Ex PW75/A, statement of account of M/s Aman Trading Company mark PW1/E Ex. PW75/B, letter dt 25.07.2002 and credit report pertaining M/s Creative Traders mark PW1/F Ex PW75/C, statement of account of M/s Creative Traders mark PW1/H Ex. PW75/D and statement of account of M/s Aman Trading Co. mark PW1/D Ex PW75/e were not issued by bank is fake and forged. Similarly, he also sought to prove that letters mark PW1/B (Ex. PW75/F) and mark PW1/G (Ex. PW75/G) were also not issued by bank.

115. PW76 Sh. Prakash Kumar was posted as clerk in Indian Bank, Zonal Office, World Trade Centre, Babar Road, New Delhi and he sought to prove that he had accompanied CBI officials during investigation of the case, to be witness to the verification proceedings of a property at Karawal Nagar vide memorandum dt 26.07.2005, memorandum dt 26.07.2005 and memorandum dt. 26.07.2005 Ex PW76/A, Ex. PW76/B and Ex. PW76/C respectively.

116. PW77 Sh. Bharat Bhushan Bhandari was working as Chief Manager in Central Bank of India, Connaught Circus, New Delhi during 2001 to 2004 and he sought to prove how Naresh Agarwal and P.N. Upadhay sought to obtain loan in the name of “Shakti Trading” by offering property No. S­595­A, out of Khasra No. 870 measuring 400 sq yds vill. Mandawali, Fazalpur, School Block registered in the name of Satish Chand Jain and negative lien of house No. 30/95, Gali No.7, Vishwas Nagar, Shahdra, Delhi.

117. PW78 Sh. R.K.Yadav was posted as Assistant Manager in State Bank of Patiala, Parliament Street Branch, New Delhi during 2001 to 2005. He sought to corroborate the testimony of PW39 in respect of Letter of Credit and sought to prove documents Ex.78/A­1 to Ex. PW78/A­12 relating to opening of LC, Payments and connecting bills documents etc, which he had handed over vide. seizure memo dt.18.03.2005 Ex PW51/21.

118. PW79 Sh. Pankaj Garg S/o Sh. V. P. Garg who is Bhanja e. son of real sister of accused Sanjay Gupta (A­2). He sought to prove that he was working with Sanjay Gupta and had handed over his photographs and voter I card for passport which was misused by Sanjay Gupta in Central Bank of India, Parliament Street branch, New Delhi and elsewhere but he had nothing do with any transaction purportedly entered by him.

119. PW80 Sh. J. K. Kohli was posted as Sr. Manager in Allahabad Bank, Okhla Branch, New Delhi in the year 2003. He sought to prove taking of fingerprints/handwriting/signature of Sh. Pankaj Garg bearing sheets No. S­150 to S­172, S­241 to S­258 Ex. PW33/G­50 and SFP­12 to SFP­13 Ex PW62/E.

120. PW81 Brij Mohan Pandit is the investigating officer. He sought to prove collection and seizure of various documents and his investigation.

121. PW82 Sh Satyendra Singh Lingwal, Advocate was empaneled with the Central Bank of India sought to prove his legal search report Ex PW72/DX in respect of property No. S­596,, vill. Mandawli, Fazalpur, School lock, Illaqua Shahdra, Delhi and legal search report Ex PW72/DX­1 in respect of property bearing No. 137(part) Jhilmil Tahirpur, Delhi.

122. PW83 Sh. Shiv Shankar Prasad was the Chief Manager of Kotak Mahindra Bank in which The Vysay Bank merged. He sought to prove handing over documents from the record of Vysya Bank, Yamuna Vihar branch vide seizure memo Ex PW81/20(D­552), Ex PW81/2 (D­167).

123. PW84 Sh. Rehmat Ali Officer, Level­1A of Bombay Mercantile Co­operative Bank Ltd. Daryaganj, Delhi. He sought to prove specimen card of A/c No. D­17186 of M/s Creative Conductors Pvt. Ltd. alongwith photograph of Satish Chand Jain and other documents of and concerning M/s Creative Conductors Pvt. Ltd.

124. PW85 Sh. Dalbir Singh, UDC from General Administration Department, Level­II, Delhi Secretariat, New Delhi, sought to prove handing over to IO certified copy of sale deed dt.29.07.05 in respect of property bearing No. 52/18, Karawal Nagar, Delhi executed by Satish Chand Jain in favour of Urmila Jain and certified copy of sale deed of the said property executed by Smt. Urmila Jain in favour of Smt. Gunjan Gupta.

125. The Court also summoned CW1 Vijay Kumar, Kanungo, T.N. Section, INA Vikas Sadan, New Delhi. He brought the original Jamabandi of village Jhilmil Tahirpur for the year 1967­68 bearing the entries till date, also containing the entries in respect of property No. 78­A, Dilshad Garden, Shahdara Ex.CW1/A (three pages). He also brought the original Khasra Girdawari of the period upto 1988 Ex.CW1/B.

STATEMENT OF ACCUSED U/S 313 CrPC

126. After the prosecution evidence, statements of all the Accused persons were recorded u/s 313 Cr.PC. The entire incriminating evidence was put to the Accused persons. They denied the incriminating evidence against them and pleaded their innocence.

127. Accused Keshav Sharma (A­1) stated that his father­in­law knew Nehru Jain (PW20) who got him employed with Sanjay Gupta (A­2) on a salary of Rs. 5,000/­ per month. He did not know what Sanjay Gupta used to do. He stated that Nehru Jain and Sanjay Gupta were in hand in glove with each other. He denied having opened the current account in the name of M/s Creative Traders in Central Bank of India impersonating as Keshav Sharma. He stated that he never visited any bank to open account nor was concerned with M/s Creative Traders. His photographs and signatures were taken by Sanjay Gupta under the pretext of giving him provident fund. He stated that GEQD report is incorrect. He stated that he was simply an employee of Sanjay Gupta from February 2002 to October 2002. He used to serve Nehru Jain and the persons who used to visit Sanjay Gupta and Nehru Jain. He did not take any monitory benefit from the company nor signed any cheque nor any document in regard to M/s Creative Traders.

128. Accused Sanjay Gupta (A­2) stated that he was innocent, having no connection whatsoever with the alleged conspiracy/commission of offences and had been falsely implicated in the case by certain persons, who are inimical to him due to business rivalry, more particularly one Mr. Nehru Jain (PW20), in whose place he had been roped in this case in connivance with certain officials of the CBI. He further stated that he was not the person, who was alleged to have stood guarantor in the matter for the purpose of taking loan in question. He further stated that IO, with a view to protect the said Nehru Jain (PW20) and Pankaj Garg (PW79) had fabricated evidence against him and he would explain on oath in his defence while appearing as defence witness with the permission of the Court.

129. Accused Sharad Kumar Jain (A­3) stated that case against him was false and he had been implicated in place of the real culprit Pankaj Garg (PW79). He further stated that in or around September/October, 2001 he contacted Sh. Nehru Jain (PW20) who was his relative and was residing at 78A, Dilshad Garden, Shahdara, Delhi and asked him to get him an employment as he was unemployed. On the asking of Sh. Nehru Jain, he joined the service in M/s Sharda Metal, the firm of accused Sanjay Gupta (A­2) and worked till November, 2002. After November, 2002 he left the job of the firm of accused Sanjay Gupta (A­2). In between, he requested Sh. Nehru Jain (PW20) to get him a passport and Visa for Canada as he intended to visit his sister Smt. Madhu Jain who was residing in Canada. Sh. Nehru Jain was dealing in properties and preparation of documents alongwith his associate Sh. Inder Pal Chaudhary. As asked by Sh. Nehru Jain, he provided him his photographs and copy of ration card for preparation of his passport and Visa. In the year 2003, the CBI officers contacted him in Saharanpur, U.P. and then he came to know about the above mentioned bank transactions. He further stated that he did not open account in any bank and was not aware about the opening of any such bank account. His photographs and copy of ration card had been misused by someone. At no point of time, he was in criminal conspiracy with anyone. He further stated that he did not receive any benefit out of the above mentioned loan transaction. He further stated that he neither forged any document nor signed any document of the bank nor issued any cheque or voucher for withdrawal of any amount from the bank account. He further stated that he had been falsely implicated in the present case.

130. Accused Tarun Khanna @ Sonu (A­4) stated that at the relevant time, he was about 17­18 years old and was residing with his sister Smt. Meenu Pathak whose husband had expired and they had no money or means of livelihood. He further stated that accused Sanjay Gupta (A­2) had provided him and his sister accommodation on rent and the rent of the said premises was being paid by him. He further stated that accused Sanjay Gupta (A­2) was also supporting them financially and Sanjay Gupta also took over the factory of his sister’s late husband as well. He further deposed that since they were at his mercy, accused Sanjay Gupta used to force him to work for him and if he refused to work for him, accused Sanjay Gupta used to beat him and his sister and used to threaten them that he (Sanjay) would throw them out of the rented accommodation and would stop supporting them financially. He further stated that he even could not read or understand English as he was not very well educated. He further stated that after December, 2001, he had stopped working for accused Sanjay Gupta (A­2). He further stated that he was a victim of circumstances in the present case and was compelled to do certain acts under the pressure of accused Sanjay Gupta (A­2) and have been falsely implicated in the present case.

131. Accused P. N. Upadhyay (A­5) stated that he was part time accountant with accused Sanjay Gupta (A­2) and used to prepare account books as per his directions and material supplied by him. Sanjay Gupta also used to instruct him to get various cheques encashed from the bank and after encashing the same, he used to hand over the money to him. He had no knowledge about the cheques, regarding the maker of the cheques or the firm or the entity from which the cheques have been issued and he was not aware that whether the cheques have been issued by the fictitious companies or the cheques were forged. He was forced by Sanjay Gupta (A­2) to do various acts on his instructions as he was his part time accountant and under the pressure of loosing his job, he had to follow all the instructions of accused Sanjay Gupta (A­2). He had no knowledge about sanction of any loan or credit facilities in favour of any person or firm involved in this case. He used to act on the instructions of his employer but had no knowledge about any alleged illegal acts as committed by him. He was not part of any conspiracy to defraud or cheat the bank neither did he receive any pecuniary benefit out of the alleged transactions in question. He further stated that he had been falsely implicated in this case only because he was a part time employee of accused Sanjay Gupta and he was innocent and a victim of circumstances.

132. Accused Rakesh Verma (A­6) stated that he was innocent and his documents, photographs and signatures on blank stamp papers were misused by Sanjay Gupta (A­2). He further stated that he was an illiterate and poor person. He further stated that in recent years only, he had learnt writing his name etc. He did not receive any pecuniary benefit from any of the accused in any form and at any stage till his arrest, he was not aware that his signatures on blank stamp papers had been misused by co­accused or somebody else. He further stated that his employer Sanjay Gupta (A­2) with whom he had been working for more than 10 years had told him that he (Sanjay) would get him a Government Job in a factory and Sanjay Gupta (A­2) had asked him for his identification documents, photographs and also asked him to sign on some blank stamp papers. He further stated that he was innocent and was not involved in commission of offence in any manner.

133. Accused Harish Chand Wadhwa (A­7) stated that he was innocent and his documents, photographs and signatures on blank stamp papers were misused by Sanjay Gupta (A­2). He further stated that he was a poor person and did not receive any pecuniary benefit from any of the accused in any form. He further stated that at any stage till his arrest, he was not aware that his signatures on blank stamp papers had been misused by co­accused or somebody else. Sanjay Gupta (A­2) had told him that he would get him a Government Job and he had asked him for his identification documents, photographs and also asked him to sign on some blank stamp papers. He stated that he was innocent and was not involved in commission of offence in any manner.

134. Accused Kanwar Sen Gupta (A­8) admitted that CC A/c No. 267 was opened on 09.08.2002 vide account opening form Ex. PW 37/A by Ashok Jain proprietor of M/s Creative Traders and it was introduced by Satish Chand Jain, proprietor of M/s Aman Trading Co. having CC A/c No. 260 and in the account opening form, the address was mentioned as Plot No. 9 Pandav Nagar, Patparganj, Delhi. He also admitted that Satish Chand Jain, proprietor of M/s Aman Trading Co. 78A Dilshad Garden had opened a current A/c No. 5425 on 01.03.2001 vide account opening form Ex. PW 38/A and on his request, CC A/c No. 5425 was converted into Cash Credit A/c No. 260 on 20.07.2001. He admitted that he had sanctioned the CC limit over draft facility and LC facility in favour of M/s Aman Trading Co. vide note Ex. PW 40/A. He stated that S. K. Srivastava (PW72) on the basis of note Ex. PW 40/C of Rekha Sisodia (A­9) had approved the release of loan and Satish Sharma (A­10) had recommended for enhancement of limit and this process note was approved by Rekha Sisodia (A­9). He stated that the loan had already been recommended for sanction when he joined the branch on 02.06.2001. Pre­sanction inspection of stock had already been carried out by the Branch officials on 25.05.2001. Since the loan proposal was falling under selective credit control as such it was forwarded to central office by the Zonal Office, New Delhi. After his joining, the proposal was returned by Central Office to Zonal Office that copper wire business was no longer covered under selective credit control and the branch Manager / AGM could sanction the proposal at their end.

135. He further stated that AGM being Incharge of extra large branch, his role was confined to sanction the credit limits as per existing guidelines of Central Office. He stated that the sanction was based on credit proposal processed by the Processing Officer recommended by Senior Manager, Advances and valuation report of the approved valuer of the bank and legal search report of property to be mortgaged by the bank’s approved advocate. In addition to that the stocks of the party were verified by the Chartered Accountants, Stock Inspecting Officers and officials of the bank. No adverse feature was reported by them. The branch was also audited by RBI auditors and statutory auditors after sanctioning of limit to the parties. They never reported any adverse features. Two concurrent auditors had been regularly working in the branch. They never pointed out any adverse features in the account. As a sanctioning authority, he strictly adhered to the central office guidelines issued from time to time for sanctioning the loans.

136. Accused Rekha Sisodia (A­9) stated that seal of the Vysya Bank and specimen signature of PW1 were not taken for comparison nor the relevant registers from the bank were seized. The inspection report of Rashmi Chhabra confirmed that M/s Aman Trading Co. was being run from 78A Dilshad Garden and Satish Chand Jain had been living there with his brother Sanjay Jain. The Stock Inspection Officer, Chartered Accountants and valuers have also confirmed this fact. She stated that all the documents were examined by the panel lawyer and she did not have the personal knowledge of the same. As per the inspection report and other reports, M/s Aman Trading Co. was running its business from the said property. The verification of ownership/title etc. of the property was the duty of the panel lawyer who was supposed to conduct due diligence and it was not part of her banking duties nor there was such practice. She stated that the sanction for her prosecution Ex. PW 34/A is defective and was given in a mechanical manner. She further stated that apart from the dispatch register, there used to be a courier register and in total, there were three dispatch registers being maintained at the relevant time. CBI intentionally seized only one register and withheld the other two registers which would have shown the dispatch of the letter dated 05.05.2001. She stated that the processing of loan was done as per normal banking procedure. No illegality or objection was pointed out by anyone at the time of sanctioning of loan. She performed her duties as a banker in routine and in good faith following the normal procedure. She did not know what transpired between Pankaj Garg and Sanjay Gupta. She stated that she did not gain anything from the processing of the loan. She merely followed the various reports and believed them to be true. The party concerned i.e. Aman Trading Company already had an account with the bank which was opened on the recommendation of R.S. Verma and no one had any reason to suspect the authenticity of the same.

137. She further stated that during the departmental proceedings, no criminality was found against anyone including herself. She stated that she performed her duties as a banker in routine and the processing of the documents pertaining to Aman Trading Company and Creative Traders was in accordance with established rules and procedure. She stated that she was absolutely innocent and had no connection whatsoever either with Aman Trading Company or Creative Traders or any of their proprietors/individual office bearers. She processed the documents pertaining to the aforesaid concerns only in the capacity as a banker and nothing else. The other officials had in fact done the inspection and witnesses have deposed that there was nothing wrong with the procedure undertaken by her and other bank officials.

138. She also filed her statement u/s 313(5) CrPC. She stated that all the decisions regarding processing of loan documents were in accordance with the established banking rules and procedure. Ms. Rashmi Chhabra had processed the note of M/s Aman Trading Company. She after due diligence had signed the process note which was also signed by the then AGM R.S. Verma. Satish Sharma had signed the documents after conducting the due diligence. PW72 had also recommended the process which was sanctioned by the AGM K.S. Gupta. None of the prosecution witnesses stated that she had forwarded a false credit report with regard to the above companies. As a part of due diligence, a letter dated 05.05.2001 was written to Jain Co­operative Bank for the confidential report of M/s Aman Trading company before the sanction of loan as it was a normal banking procedure being followed before processing of loan. In response to the letter, a letter was received on 06.05.2001 in the format prescribed by the RBI stating that M/s Aman Trading Company was availing their services since 10.12.1997 and their dealings were satisfactory. The investigating agency did not seize the relevant registers which could have otherwise proved the communication/ dispatch of the said letter to the respective banks nor took the specimen signature nor seized the seal / letter head of the bank which would prove that the allegations are totally false and frivolous. She had signed the credit status report of the companies under the bona fide intention as no discrepancy was pointed out in the valuation report and the legal search report. The capital of the firm was verified from the audited balance sheet of the firm carrying a CA certificate. All the witnesses have stated that due diligence was conducted in accordance with the banking procedure. AGM K.S. Gupta had conducted the inspection of the property 52/18, Karawal Nagar before sanctioning the loan. PW72 and PW81 have deposed that she performed her duties as a banker in routine course and PW72 did not find any objectionable in the proposal that was forwarded to him by her. PW72, who was senior to him and had recommended the loan proposal, was not made accused. In fact R.S.Verma the then AGM who had introduced the account holder to the bank was neither made an accused or a witness. The current account of M/s Aman Trading Company was opened on his instructions. None of the witnesses stated that it was her duty to conduct inspection of properties which were mortgaged in the account of above companies. Further, the auditors did not raise any objection as to the loan transactions of the above companies. PW81 has admitted that bank officials had no role to play in relation to either the legal search report or the valuation report with regard to the properties of the borrower. DW6 has reaffirmed that all banking rules were followed. She stated that she retired from the bank after serving for 34 years with full retirement benefits and throughout her banking career, she was never issued any memo.

139. Accused Satish Sharma (A­10) stated that M/s Aman Trading Co. proprietor Satish Chand Jain had been functioning from 78A Dilshad Garden, Delhi during the relevant period and during the visit of the bank officials, a board showing the name of M/s Aman Trading Co. was displayed at 78A Dilshad Garden. He stated that the balance sheets duly audited were relied and submitted by the borrower. He stated that M/s Creative Traders, proprietary concern of Ashok Jain had been functioning at 9, Pandav Nagar, Delhi. He stated that the bank had obtained legal search report from its empaneled advocate who had conducted the search at the office of the Sub­Registrar and confirmed that the property was owned by Satish Chand Jain. He stated that the sanction for his prosecution was not granted in accordance with law. He stated that the letter dated 05.05.2001 mark PW 1/B written by Rekha Sisodia was sent through courier service. IO did not seize the courier register for the relevant period.

140. Accused Satish Sharma filed his statement u/s 313 (5) Cr.P.C. He stated that when he joined the Parliament Street Branch on 16.09.2001, the financial facilities to the account of M/s Aman Trading Company had already been sanctioned. The firm was availing the limits. Before sanction, all the necessary formalities like obtaining legal search report and valuation report were taken and the panel lawyer had vetted the documents executed by the borrower and certified that the documents including the title documents are legal, valid and enforceable. The account was being conducted satisfactorily. There was no overdrawing. Turnover in the account was good and interest used to be serviced promptly and regularly. The borrower used to submit statement of stock every month which used to be checked by the bank official as per the instructions of the AGM/ Chief Manager and the stock was always found correct. The branch auditors and concurrent auditors deputed by the central office also checked the sanctions meticulously and conducted the physical inspection of the unit and they never gave any adverse remark about the account of M/s Aman Trading Company. Since financial facility was to be renewed after one year, the firm requested for enhancement of facilities and renewal and submitted the documents including the document of the property at Karawal Nagar as an additional security. Since Ms. Rashmi Chhabra (A­11) financial analyst had proceeded on maternity leave, AGM, K.S. Gupta advised him to take up her role and process the proposal. The AGM obtained the legal search report from the panel lawyer Ms. Neeta Deep Rastogi (originally accused No.15 but was discharged by Hon’ble High Court) who confirmed that the property at Karawal Nagar was free from all encumbrances etc. and could be equitably mortgaged in favour of the bank. It was also confirmed that the borrower had a clear and marketable title to the property. The valuation report from the panel lawyer V.P. Taneja (originally accused No. 10 but died during trial) was obtained. AGM also visited the property at Karawal Nagar and submitted his report dated 11.05.2002. The borrower had submitted the credit status report alongwith the documents. The valuer M/s valuerplus.com had also given the report regarding the valuation of the property at Dilshad Garden assessing its value as Rs. 115.00 lacs. The panel lawyer Ms. Neeta Deepa Rastogi (the discharged accused) vide report dated 14.05.2001 had certified that she had checked the record of the Sub­Registrar and found the property free from encumbrances and that the borrower had a clear and marketable title. Since these reports were accepted by the bank at the time of initial sanction, further legal search and valuation were not required. The same value was incorporated in the credit status report. The borrower had also submitted audited balance sheet which was also incorporated in the status report. These three items were considered to calculate the worth of the firm. It was not his duty to verify the details/documents securities personally from the government departments. Based on the past track report of the account, audit reports and other verifiable data, he prepared the note dated 31.05.2002 which was endorsed by Mrs. Rekha Sisodia (A­9) and Chief Manager S. K. Srivastava (PW72) without any comment and the facilities were sanctioned by K.S. Gupta (A­8) on 03.06.2002. The officials from the international division of the branch namely Sudesh Chandra and V.K. Goswami had also checked the stock lying at 78­A, Dilshad Garden and submitted their reports dated 28.06.2002 Ex. PW81/DX4 which reports were not seized by the IO and it were subsequently submitted on the request of the accused. The central office had also deputed a chartered account who had conducted the inspected of the stock.

141. As regards Creative Traders, Satish Sharma stated that the AGM was in the look out for the increase in the business of the branch. He used to request the existing customers whose accounts were running smoothly to bring new customers. He had also requested the proprietor of M/s Aman Trading Company and the guarantor to bring some new accounts. They proposed the account of M/s Creative Traders which was reportedly having current account with Jain Co­operative Bank. An account of Creative Traders was opened on 13.07.2002. The account was introduced by M/s Aman Trading Company which was running its account satisfactorily with the branch. The borrower had submitted the credit proposal dated 01.07.2002, audited balance sheet and other documents including the statement of account with Jain co­operative bank. He sent a letter dated 12.07.2002 to Jain Co­operative Bank requesting it to provide the confidential report of the account of M/s Creative Traders. It was sent through courier but the IO did not seize the courier register and PW44 had deposed that at that time three dispatch registers were being maintained. There used to be movement of customers in the main hall. She had stated that she had not been shown the courier register. She could not deny the possibility that the above letter might have been sent by courier or there may be entry in the said register. The bank received the letter from Jain Co­operative bank on 15.07.2002 but the IO did not seize the inward dak register of the branch to confirm if the said letter was received by the branch. PW68 had stated that in the office of AGM, a dak register was being maintained where important correspondence was entered. IO did not seize the said dak register. He stated that the borrower had submitted the documents of two properties to secure the advance i.e. Jhilmil Tahirpur Dilshad Garden and Mandawali Shahdara which were in the name of Ashok Jain. Legal search reports in respect of both the properties were obtained from the panel advocate S.S. Lingwal (PW82). Although IO had seized both the reports but did not place them with the chargesheet and the said reports were produced on their request. The properties were got valued from the panel valuer G. M. Grover (originally accused No. 14 who died during trial) who after personal visit submitted the reports giving the market value of the property at Jhilmil Tahirpur as 80.15 lacs and that of Mandawali as 93.54 lacs. The borrower had submitted the credit status report alongwith the documents and on that basis, the worth of the firm was assessed. The panel advocate had certified that the properties could be mortgaged to secure the facility. The borrower had submitted the audited balance sheet and other documents and only these three items were accepted to calculate the worth of the firm. The proposal was endorsed and recommended by the Senior Manager Ms. Rekha Sisodia (A­9) and Chief Manager S.K. Srivastava (PW72) without any comment and noting and it was sanctioned by the AGM K.S. Gupta (A­8). He stated that there were good transactions in the account. No adverse remarks were made by the auditors. The borrower used to submit the statement of stock monthly which used to be checked by the bank officials/auditors. He stated that both the proposals were processed strictly as per the guidelines and the circulars issued from time to time which fact was also stated by PW72.

142. Satish Sharma further stated that he was innocent and performed his duties diligently. He further stated that even after the initiation of departmental inquiry, he continued to work as an officer in the advance department of the bank. He stated that the investigating officer withheld the material information and relevant documents which were indicating and proving his innocence.

143. Accused Rashmi Chhabra (A­11) stated that M/s Aman Trading Co. proprietor of which was Satish Chand Jain was in existence and operational from 78A Dilshad Garden, Delhi and Satish Chand Jain was residing there. At the time of inspection, the board of M/s Aman Trading Co. was existing at the godown of M/s Aman Trading Co. at 78A Dilshad Garden, Delhi. She stated that the balance sheets were submitted and relied upon by the borrower duly certified by Chartered Accountant. The bank had obtained the legal search report for the clear title of the property in the name of Satish Chand Jain from the panel advocate Ms Nita Deep Rastogi vide report dated 14.05.2001 before considering the property as collateral security and the documents were got vetted before releasing the limits to the borrower. She stated that the sanction for her prosecution was not granted in accordance with law. She stated that the letter dated 05.05.2001 mark PW 1/B written by Rekha Sisodia was sent through courier service but the IO did not seize the courier register for the relevant period. She stated that during the period from October, 2001 to August, 2002 she was on maternity leave and had not handled the proposal of M/s Creative Traders. She stated that the IO withheld the material evidence/documents/statements which were not favouring the case of the prosecution.

144. Accused Rashmi Chhabra also filed her statement u/s 313 (5) Cr.P.C wherein she stated that she had been working as Financial Analyst in the Advance Department. Her primary job was to process the loan application on the basis of CMA data, balance sheet and other relevant documents as submitted and relied upon by the borrower. She prepared the detailed process note putting all the information of the borrower at one place. It was R.S. Verma AGM who got the current account opened through PW38 Bishambhar Dayal. He even persuaded PW48 Rajesh Ladda to introduce the account. The party had submitted the copy of Election Card, Income Tax Saral Form and Form 60 alongwith the Account Opening Form. R.S. Verma himself had obtained the valuation report from the panel valuer M/s valuerplus.com which had confirmed the visit to the property and the name of the owner as Satish Chand Jain. He also obtained legal search report from the panel advocate Ms Neeta Deep Rastogi who checked the record from the office of Sub­Registrar and certified that the property is free from all encumbrances etc. and can be equally mortgaged. Ms. Rekha Sisodia (A­9) obtained the confidential report from Jain Co­operative Bank and as per the report, M/s Aman Trading Company was maintaining a current account with the bank since 10.12.1997 which was satisfactory. She on the instructions of R. S. Verma prepared the process note on the basis of the documents/balance sheets which was processed and recommended by the senior Manager (Credit) and the credit facilities were sanctioned by the AGM. At that time, there was no system in the bank to independently verify the documents relied upon by the borrower. She did not write in the process note that she had verified the details/documents/ securities personally as it was not her duty. The process note was placed before the senior manager Rekha Sisodia (A­9) who had endorsed and recommended the same without any comment. AGM R.S. Verma had deputed her for inspection of stock and books of account of the party. She had visited the godown and verified the stocks vide report Ex.PW21/DB dated 26.05.2001. The report was put up before the senior manager and the AGM and they did not point out any deficiency in it. At the time of inspection, the stock worth Rs.62.05 lacs was lying in the godown. R.S. Verma then recommended the proposal to the zonal office where all the papers were submitted. Since the proposal being the trading activity falls under the delegated power of the branch, zonal office returned the proposal. In the meantime, R.S. Verma was transferred and K.S. Gupta joined as new AGM. She stated that borrower had submitted the documents along with credit status report Ex.PW21/DA (D­28) on 21.06.2001 which she had verified. She then put up the credit status report before the senior manager who endorsed the same and placed it before the AGM who sanctioned the limits vide dated 17.07.2001. She stated that the borrower submitted the original title deeds of 78A, Dilshad Garden, Delhi before Smt. Rekha Sisodia on 20.07.2001. The borrower also opened CC account in the bank. She stated that before releasing the loan facility to the party, all the documents were vetted by the panel advocate. There used to be annual audit, statutory audit and current audit in the bank. The stock inspection officer used to inspect the stocks. PW72 also had a meeting with Satish Chand Jain as coming in his testimony. She thereafter proceeded on maternity leave. Till the time she went on leave, the account was running satisfactorily. She stated that in this case, all the steps starting from Account Opening Pre­inspection, post inspection valuation report legal search report were taken as per the procedure which fact was also stated by PW72. There was no room for any doubt regarding the borrower’s accounts. She stated that she had performed her duty diligently complying with all the banking norms and circulars which were prevalent at that time. She continued to work as financial analyst even after the initiation of departmental inquiry. IO did not intentionally seize the annexures to the vigilance report since they were not favouring the prosecution.

DEFENCE EVIDENCE

145. Defense examined eight witnesses in defense.

146. Accused Rakesh Verma examined himself as DW2 and tendered the certified copy Ex DW1/1 of the testimony of Ashok Kumar recorded in CC No. 15/12 (CBI v. Sharad Kumar Jain & ors). In that statement Ashok Kumar had stated that Rakesh Verma used to work in M/s Sharda Metals as Peon. He was not literate. Ashok Kumar had told him that M/s Sharda Metals was going to be taken over by the Government and after sometime, he told him that the factory/company had been closed.

147. DW2 Ranjan Kumar, an official from Kotak Mahindra Bank, brought the copy of account opening form of M/s Paramount Insulation Pvt Ltd with Vsysya Bank, Yamuna Vihar and its annexures mark DW 2/1 collectively. He stated that as per the record, the account in Vyasya Bank Yamuna Vihar was opened on 08.03.2000. He could not state when the account was closed. His examination was deferred on 25.05.2018 and thereafter, he did not appear in the witness box.

148. Accused Sanjay Gupta examined himself as DW3 in pursuant to his application u/s 315 Cr.P.C. He stated that he was tenant of Nehru Jain at 78­A, Dilshad Garden, from January 1988 to July 1995. From there he used to run a firm in the name of Sharda Metals. He used to live at Bihari Colony. Since he suffered loss in his business, he closed it in July 1995. He had to return the loan of the market and the bank. He filed a case of insolvency in the Court at Tis Hazari which was decided in his favour on 30.03.2001 vide order Mark X. Pursuant to that order discharge order, was passed by the Court vide Ex.DW7/A. In 1995, he shifted to Jaipur. On 17.12.2003 some CBI officer came in his house at Jaipur and brought him to Delhi and thereafter he went on to depose the alleged torturous treatment met out to him by CBI and that IO of the case hobnobbing with Nehru Jain and Pankaj Garg for money, falsely implicated him. He stated that he was innocent.

149. He further placed on record the certified copy of the proceedings Ex.DW7/B of probate petition No. 200/99 dated 23.08.1999 titled as Sukhbir Singh vs. State u/s 276 of Indian Succession Act for grant of probate in respect of Will wherein Nehru Jain had appeared as surety along with Sharad Kumar Jain who impersonated as Satish Chand Jain. Accused Sanjay Gupta further stated that the loan documents are in the hand of Pankaj Garg (PW79) and bears his photographs. The original sale deed also bears his photograph.

150. DW4 K.M. Rai was posted as Assistant Manager in Reserve Bank of India in the department of banking supervision. He brought the circular No. DBOD.Dir.BC.62/13.07.09/2002­3 dated 24.01.2003 Ex. DW 4/A regarding discounting/re­discounting of bills by the banks, circular No. DBOD No. BC8/16.13.100/92­93 dated 27.07.1992 Ex. DW4/B, circular No.DBOD.No.BC/17.04.001/92 dated 25.08.1992 Ex. DW 4/C and circular No. DBOD No.BC153/27­01.003/93­94 dated 01.09.1993 Ex. DW 4/D. He also brought the downloaded copy of circular No. DBOD.No.BP.57/21.01.001/95 dated 04.05.1995 Ex. DW4/E, circular No. DBOD.No.BP.BC. 102/21.01.001/95 dated 20.09.1995 Ex. DW4/F, circular No. DBOD No. BP.BC.42/21.01.001/96 dated 06.04.96 Ex. DW 4/G, circular No. DBOD No.GC.BC.62/C.408(A)87 dated 11.11.1987 Ex. DW 4/H, circular No. DBS.No.FGV.BV.56/23.04.001/98­99 dated 21.06.99 Ex. DW 4/J and circular No. DBOD.AML.BC.18/14.01.001/2002­2003 dated 16.08.2002 Ex. DW 4/K.

151. DW5 Swaran Singh was the Manager, Asset Recovery branch of Central Bank of India. He brought the copy of letter dated 03.09.2002 Ex. DW 5/A of Mrs. Neeta Deep Rastogi addressed to AGM, Central Bank, Parliament Street regarding vetting of documents of financial sanction to M/s Creative Traders. He also brought the copy of the letter dated 31.12.2002 written by Central Bank, Parliament Street to United India Insurance Co. regarding verification of insurance policies and the reply dated 31.12.2002 alongwith the copy of policy collectively exhibited as Ex. DW5/B (nine Pages). He also brought the copy of letter dated 04.05.2005 Ex. DW 5/C addressed to AGM, Central Bank.

152. DW6 Akbar Ali was posted as Senior Manager at Central Bank of India, Parliament Street branch in 2003. He had taken the charge of advance department from Mrs Rekha Sisodia (A­9). He stated that the branch was classified as extra large branch and was headed by the AGM and the duty was assigned to all the staff members by the office order. He stated that in the account of M/s Aman Trading Co. and M/s Creative Traders, he never came across with any inspection report by Rekha Sisodia or Satish Sharma. He sought to prove that all the bank rules were followed while sanctioning the loan to the above companies and all the terms and conditions of the sanction were complied with and brought on record many documents Ex DW6/A to DW6/Z in his effort to prove that all the rules and regulations were followed by the officials.

153. DW7 Tajinder Pal Singh was Senior Manager/Branch Manager in Central Bank of India, Sukhdev Vihar Branch. He explained the procedure of processing/sanctioning of credit facilities.

154. DW8 Ashish Chandel was from Kotak Mahindra Bank. He sought to prove that account opening and closing of M/s Paramount Insulation Company Pvt. Ltd with the Vysya Bank which was taken over by the Kotak Mahindra Bank. He proved the copy of account opening form along with annexures Ex.DW8/B. He stated that the account was opened on 08.03.2000 and closed on 20.02.2002.

CONTENTIONS

155. PP for CBI as well as all the defense counsels have addressed the court orally (during physical and virtual hearing) and they have also filed respective written submissions. Noting in detail the respective contentions of Ld. PP for CBI and all the defense counsels would make this judgement sufficiently long, hence their contentions are not noted herein though while appreciating and assessing evidences contentions of respective parties have been taken into account.

156. In nutshell Ld. PP for CBI Sh. Pramod Singh while drawing attention of the court to the testimonies of witnesses as well as to documents has contended that prosecution by oral and documentary evidence has successfully proved its case against all the accused persons. He has further submitted that accused persons were not only identified by witnesses but their connection to the crime has been scientifically well established. He, therefore, has called upon the Court to returns findings of guilt against all the accused persons.

157.The pith and substance of the contentions of the respective defense counsels are that prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the accused persons they are respectively representing. They too while drawing attention of the court to the oral testimonies of witnesses and documentary evidences have contended that there are no direct evidence; that chain of circumstantial evidence not complete; that many evidences are inadmissible evidence; that many evidences have not been proved as per Evidence Act and that accused persons have not been identified in the court and hence the evidences on record are not enough to hold beyond reasonable doubt that it were the accused persons who had committed the alleged crime. With respect to public servants it was additionally submitted that prosecution did not lead any evidence to show that public servants were in conspiracy with the private accused persons or that they have violated any of the banking rules, procedure and guidelines or that they acted negligently criminally or did not use the means available at that time to verify the representation. Hence, in one voice they all have respectively prayed that their respective clients be acquitted of all the charges.

ANALYSIS, APPRECIATION and FINDINGS

158. In nutshell case of the prosecution is that in order to cheat Central Bank of India, Parliament Street branch accused persons, where accused Sanjay Gupta was matermind, hatched conspiracy amongst themselves and in furtherance thereof a bogus firm in the name of M/s Aman Trading Company with address 78A, Dilshad Garden was floated with Satish Chand Jain (impersonated by accused Sharad Kumar Jain) as proprietor and said M/s Aman Trading Company opened a current account with Central Bank of India by Sharad Kumar Jain impersonating as Satish Chand Jain supporting his claim by forged documents. M/s Aman Trading Company applied for Cash Credit Facility showing itself to be promising firm with the help of forged documents and interalia offered property No. 78A Dilshad Garden as collateral security claiming Satish Chand Jain to be its owner. Loan was processed, sanctioned and amount was released. Subsequently, request was made for renewal of enhancement of loan and another property No. 52/18, Karawal Nagar claiming to be owned by Satish Chand Jain was also offered as collateral security. Said request was also processed, sanctioned and amount was released. Subsequently, amount were withdrawn through accommodating cheques, LC etc. to the account of Alpha Communication (India), M/s Hindustan Industries both under the proprietorship of accused Sharad Kumar Jain, M/s Paramount Insulation Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Creative Conductors Pvt. Ltd., both company connected with accused Sanjay Gupta and others. Sale deeds deposit with bank also turned out to be forged. All firms were fake and shell/paper firms.

159. Similarly, M/s Creative Traders a proprietorship firm of Ashok Jain impersonated by accused Keshav Sharma also opened a current account with Central bank of India, Parliament Street branch, and availed Cash Credit facility interalia against collateral security of two properties whose sale deeds allegedly in the name of proprietor also turned out to be forged. Loan amount was drained out by way of accommodating cheques, LC etc. through the account of M/s Creative Conductors Pvt Ltd a company connected with accused Sanjay Gupta and M/s Paramount Insulation Company a firm connected with accused Sharad Kumar Jain. Hence, accused persons with the help of public servants and by way of impersonation, forgery, cheating and deception cheated the bank of its amount.

160. In these circumstances it would be necessary to know who opened various accounts in the various banks including in the Central Bank of India, Parliament Street branch, New Delhi and whether the documents furnished by them were forged documents and whether it were the accused persons who have committed the offenses alleged against them.

M/s Aman Trading Company – Who opened its account with Central Bank of India, Parliament Street Branch and who is the proprietor?

161. Prosecution has alleged that Current A/c No. 5425 (which was subsequently converted into Cash Credit A/c No. 260) with Central Bank of India, Parliament Street branch, New Delhi was opened in the name of M/s Aman Trading Company by accused Sharad Kumar Jain (A­3) impersonating as Satish Chand Jain,.

162. PW38 Bishambhar Dayal in his testimony deposed that he was posted as Asst. Manager in Parliament Street branch of Central Bank of India in the year 2001­03 and on seeing the account opening form Ex PW38/A (D­48) he deposed that it was submitted by Satish Chand Jain, proprietor of M/s Aman Trading Company having address 78A, Dilshad Garden and it bore his (witness’s) signature at point X. He submitted that applicant was introduced by M/s Somex India and the application form after introduction was received from Connaught Circle branch of Central Bank of India. He further deposed that second introducer was Sh. Rajesh Ladha, proprietor of Rajesh Commercial having CC account No. 69, in Parliament Street branch and second introducer introduced in his presence. He further deposed that on the said application, current account No. 5425 was opened on 01.03.2001 in the name of M/s Aman Trading Company. He further deposed that applicant personally appeared in the bank at the time of opening of the bank account and signed the application form in his presence. He further deposed that alongwith application supporting documents i.e. photocopies of photo election I­card and income tax return were submitted which are attached with account opening form Ex PW38/A.

163. On seeing Ex PW38/B (D­49) he deposed that it was the account opening form of CC account which bore his signature at point A. He deposed that this application form was submitted by Satish Jain proprietor of M/s Aman Trading Company and as per the request of applicant CC A/c No. 5425 was converted into Cash Credit A/c bearing No. 260 on 20.07.2001.

164. PW38 Bishambhar Dayal was not cross examined by any of the accused persons except accused Satish Sharma (A­10) and Rashmi Chhabra (A­11). In cross examination conducted on behalf of A­10 and A­11, PW38 deposed that the person whose photograph (which is of PW79 Pankaj Garg) appears at point X­1 Ex PW38/A was never shown to him during investigation and he was unable to tell whether the person whose photograph was affixed on Ex PW38/A was present in the court or not nor could he identify even after going through the photograph on Ex PW38/A. He admitted that in ordinary course when documents were produced in support of account opening form to establish the identity or the address etc. officials believed them. He volunteered that originals were seen while accepting the photocopies of such documents. He further deposed that in respect of the application form Ex PW38/A also he had seen the originals of supporting documents.

165. PW48 Rajesh Ladha in his testimony deposed that he introduced the said account at the request of Sh. R. S. Verma, AGM of Central Bank of India of Parliament Street. He further deposed that neither he knew the proprietor nor did he meet the proprietor.

166. Investigating Officer PW81 Shri B. M. Pandit in his cross examination (conducted on 27.02.2018 at page 3 of 8) admitted that during investigation bank officials had told him that Pankaj Garg had come in the bank to open the account of M/s Aman Trading Company impersonating as Satish Chand Jain. He volunteered that the signatures on the said account opening form had been found in the hand of the accused Sharad Kumar Jain. He revealed the name of said bank official as Bishambhar Dayal (PW38) and admitted that said official was witness in the present case. IO further deposed that Mr. U.B. Upadhaya (PW24), the Vigilance Officer of the bank, had told him that his (PW24) enquiry revealed that one person in the name of Pankaj Garg had come impersonating as Satish Chand Jain and opened the bank account. IO further deposed that he had made complaint against Bishambhar Dayal to the Vigilance Department of the bank to initiate departmental inquiry against him.

167. In the cross examination conducted on 28.02.2018, IO PW81 volunteered that statement of Bishambhar Dayal (PW38) recorded by him under section 161 CrPC was found incorrect as Sharad Kumar Jain had signed the account opening form as Satish Chand Jain whereas photograph of Pankaj Garg was affixed on the account opening form as Satish Chand Jain. He deposed that he had recorded the statement under section 161 CrPC of Bishambhar Dayal on 18.10.2004. He did not remember the date, month or year when he came to know that Bishambhar Dayal had made incorrect statement. He volunteered that it was revealed to him after the report from GEQD, Chandigarh was received. After refreshing his memory he deposed that the fact of making incorrect statement was revealed to him in May, 2005. After refreshing his memory from records, he deposed that he had not recorded statement of Bishambahr Dayal (for confrontation, clarification etc.) after the receipt of report from GEQD. He deposed that he had not examined or interrogated Bishambhar Dayal at any time after he (allegedly) made incorrect statement to him to confront with his incorrect statement. Nevertheless, Bishambhar Dayal was cited as witness by IO and was examined as prosecution witness No. 38.

168. If Bishambhar Dayal allowed person other than the person whose photograph was affixed then the said official had played fraud upon the bank independent of any connivance with said person (signing the form) besides acting against the banking rules. IO despite having come to know of the said fact did not make him accused in the present case and instead made him witness. Therefore, IO is either trying to attach more evidentiary value to the handwriting expert’s opinion than that of eye witness or trying to protect Pankaj Garg whose photograph was affixed not only on the account opening form but also on the sale deed of the property No.78A deposited in the bank as well as on the office copy of the said sale deed. Be that as it may, testimony of Bishambhar Dayal cannot be discarded on account of after thought explanation of IO nor IO can take away the evidentiary value of the testimony of Bishambhar Dayal by calling it incorrect.

169. It is matter of record that witness PW38 Bishambhar Dayal has not been alleged to be in collusion with accused persons or that he had acted against banking practice. It is also not the allegation of prosecution that photographs and supporting documents were later on replaced after opening of bank account. It is also not the case of the prosecution that the so called Satish Chand Jain had brought the account opening form already signed from home and PW38 believed it in good faith. So, what comes out of PW38 is that the person whose photograph is affixed on Ex PW38/A and Ex PW38/B is the person who appeared before bank as Satish Chand Jain and signed on Ex PW38/A and Ex PW38/B. PW38 categorically deposed that he had seen the originals of supporting documents, therefore, it cannot be said that he allowed person other than the person whose photograph was affixed, to sign on Ex PW38/A and Ex PW38/B.

170. It is not in dispute that photographs on Ex PW38/A and Ex PW38/B are of Pankaj Garg (PW79). Pankaj Garg who appeared as PW79 also admitted that photographs affixed on Ex PW38/A and Ex PW38/B were his photographs, though he had denied that he ever went to bank and signed the aforesaid documents. PW20 Nehru Jain also identified the said photographs as that of Pankaj Garg (PW79). He had also identified the photograph in the photocopy of election voter I card Ex PW79/DX­1 given at the time of opening of the said account, as that of PW79 Pankaj Garg. PW79 Pankaj Garg had also admitted that photograph in the photocopy of election voter I card Ex PW79/DX­1 given at the time of opening of the said account, is his.

171. PW48 Rajesh Ladha did not help prosecution in identifying the person who represented himself as Satish Chand Jain. Prosecution has not examined the then AGM R. S. Verma at whose instance PW48 Rajesh Ladha had allegedly introduced the account of M/s Aman Trading Company. AGM R.S. Verma could have helped in identifying the person as to who appeared as Satish Chand Jain that is to say whether it was accused Sharad Kumar Jain or Pankaj Garg (whose photographs are affixed on Ex PW38/A and Ex PW38/B). There was an opportunity with prosecution to get identified the person who appeared as Satish Chand Jain when PW37 Sh. P.K. Ralhan deposed that account of M/s Creative Traders was introduced by Satish Chand Jain of M/s Aman Trading Company but prosecution did not ask him to identify the person who signed on the account opening form Ex PW37/A of M/s Creative Traders as Satish Chand Jain. No one from Somex India has been examined for the purpose of identifying the person who impersonated as Satish Chand Jain.

172. Prosecution is relying heavily upon report of handwriting expert to prove that accused Sharad Kumar Jain had impersonated as Satish Chand Jain but testimony of PW38 who is eye witness is creating doubt as to the case of the prosecution that it was accused Sharad Kumar Jain who impersonated as Satish Chand Jain. At the one hand there is eye witness and on the other hand there is expert opinion. Rule of evidence and prudence demands that eye witness if reliable has to be preferred over the expert witness. It is not the case of the prosecution that PW38 had turned hostile or has not supported the prosecution nor has his testimony been questioned by prosecution. Moreover, there is nothing to doubt PW38 Sh. Bishambhar Dayal, though IO PW81 in his own cross examination did attempt to do so but same has already been discarded for the reason discussed above.

173. Thus, prosecution has not been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt its accusation that accused Sharad Kumar Jain (A­3) impersonated as Satish Chand Jain and opened the current account No. 5425 (or the subsequently converted cash credit account No. 260) in the name of M/s Aman Trading Company with Central Bank of India, Parliament Street branch New Delhi.

M/s Creative Traders – Who opened its account with Bank and who is the proprietor?

174. Prosecution has alleged that Current A/c No. 5593 (which was subsequently converted into Cash Credit A/c No. 267) with Central Bank of India, Parliament Street branch, New Delhi was opened by accused Keshav Sharma @ Sahid (A­1) impersonating as Ashok Jain, in the name of M/s Creative Traders at Plot No. 9, Pandav Nagar, Main Patparganj Road Delhi claiming to be its proprietor.

175. PW37 Sh. P. K. Relhan was officiating as a Special Assistant in the year 2002­2003 in Central Bank of India, Parliament street branch, New Delhi. On seeing Ex PW37/A (D­92) he deposed that it was an account opening form (for CC A/c No. 267) submitted by M/s Creative Traders and it bore his signature at point A. He deposed that this account was opened by Ashok Jain being the proprietor of M/s Creative Traders and the applicant was introduced by Sh. Satish Chand Jain, proprietor of M/s Aman Trading Company having CC A/c no. 260 with branch. He also identified his writing at point B on Ex PW37/A. He further deposed that along with application form Ex PW37/A supporting documents i.e. photocopy of PAN card and election I Card, which are attached with the form, were submitted by applicant Ashok Jain.

176 PW37 was mostly not cross examined except by accused K. S. Gupta (A­8) and accused Keshav Sharma (A­1). In his cross examination by accused A­8 he deposed that he was never assigned the job of any godown inspection for the purpose of stock application. In cross examination by A­1 Keshav Sharma, he denied the suggestion that signatures of Ashok Jain and Satish Chand Jain were already there on account opening form Ex PW37/A and that they did not sign in his presence at the time of opening of the said account. He further deposed that he had not verified from internet the PAN card produced as that facility was not available at that time on net. He denied the suggestion that applicant Sh. Ashok Jain neither came in the bank nor had he seen him in the bank at the time of opening of bank account.

177. PW20 Nehru Jain deposed that he knew Sahid and identified accused Keshav Sharma as Sahid and further deposed that after this case only he came to know his another name as Keshav Sharma. On seeing photograph on account opening form Ex PW20/B (D­92) he deposed that photograph at point X bears photograph of accused Keshav Sharma (A­1) who was known to him as Sahid.

178. Keshav Sharma (A­1) while cross examining PW20 did not dispute that Ex PW20/B bear his photograph nor did he dispute his photograph on Ex. PW37/A while cross examining PW37 Sh. P.K. Relhan. PW37 P.K. Relhan deposed about account opening form for Cash Credit Account No. 267 dt. 09.08.2002. PW20 Nehru Jain identified the photographs of Keshav Sharma on account opening form dt 13.07.2002 Ex PW20/B for Current A/c No. 5593. Thus, from the conjoint reading of testimonies of PW37 and PW20 it stands proved that photographs on aforesaid both Account Opening Forms Ex. PW37/A and Ex. PW20/B bear the photographs of Keshav Sharma (A­1).

179. It is the defense of accused Keshav Sharma that he was employee of accused Sanjay Gupta from February 2002 to October 2002 and he was attending accused Sanjay Gupta (A­2), Nehru Jain (PW20) and guests visiting accused Sanjay Gupta (A­2). He had further taken defense that his photograph was taken by accused Sanjay Gupta (A­2) as same was required for Provident Fund. He further deposed that he never visited bank or signed any document.

180. Although PW37 in his examination­in­chief had not specifically deposed that Ashok Jain i.e. the person in the photograph affixed on Ex. PW37/A had signed the application form in his presence but accused Keshav Sharma (A­1) in cross examination made him deny the suggestion that Ashok Jain and Satish Chand Jain had not signed in his presence. Thus, it stands completed that Ashok Jain i.e. accused Keshav Sharma (A­1) whose photograph was affixed on Ex. PW37/A had signed on Ex PW37/A impersonating as Ashok Jain in the presence of PW37. Further GEQD report Ex PW33/X also reported that signature of Ashok Jain as put on both accounts opening form matches with the specimen signature of accused Keshav Sharma (A­1). Since photographs in both the account opening forms Ex PW37/A and Ex PW20/B is that of Keshav Sharma (A­1) and that he signed Ex PW37/A in the presence of PW37 impersonating as Ashok Jain is dully corroborated by GEQD report Ex PW33/X, thus, prosecution has successfully proved that Current A/c No. 5593 and Cash Credit A/c No. 267 were opened by accused Keshav Sharma (A­1) impersonating as Ashok Jain.

181. However, it remained unsolved as to who signed as Satish Chand Jain whether it was Sharad Kumar Jain or Pankaj Garg.

M/s Alpha Communication (India)– Who opened its account with Bank and who is the proprietor?

182. It is alleged by prosecution that M/s Alpha Communication (India) at 11662, Panchsheel Garden, Naveen Sahadra, Delhi, with Sharad Kumar Jain as proprietor had opened account No. 1324 (535011004725) with Vysya Bank Ltd., Yamuna Vihar branch, Delhi.

183. PW6 Sh. Suresh Kumar Bansal was branch manager during September 2001 in Yamuna Vihar branch of Vysya Bank which subsequently became ING Vysya Bank in 2002. After seeing the Account Opening Form dt. 1.12.2001 Ex PW6/B (D­102), he deposed that it was in the name of M/s Alpha Communication (India) and its proprietor was Mr. Sharad Kumar Jain and the account was allowed to be opened by him. He deposed that Sharad Kumar Jain had signed on Ex PW6/B at point B and C in his presence. He further deposed that account was introduced by Deepak Bansal, Director of M/s Paramount Insulation Pvt. Ltd. and signature of Deepak Bansal was verified by Sh. M. S. S. Parsad, the then Assistant Manager. He identified the photo of Sharad Kumar Jain on Ex PW6/B. He also identified the signature of Sharad Kumar Jain on photocopy of form No.58 Ex PW6/C and form No.60 Ex PW6/D bearing signature of Sharad Kumar Jain at point A signed in his presence. He also identified the letter Ex PW6/E of Sharad Kumar Jain. He also identified the Sharad Kumar Jain (A­3) in the court.

184. Accused Sharad Kumar Jain (A­3) while cross examining PW6 did not dispute that he opened said bank account with said branch of the bank nor did he dispute his photograph on Ex PW6/B or his signatures on Ex PW6/B to Ex PW6/E nor did he dispute that he was the proprietor of M/s Alpha Communication (India).

185. Thus, prosecution has successfully proved that accused Sharad Kumar Jain (A­3) has opened Current Account No. 1324 (535011004725) in the name of firm M/s Alpha Communication (India) with Vysya Bank, Yamuna Vihar branch, Delhi.

M/s Hindustan Industries – Who opened its account with Bank and who is the proprietor?

186. It is alleged by prosecution that M/s Hindustan Industries at 134, Main Road, Tahirpur, Delhi, with Sharad Kumar Jain as proprietor had opened account No. 871 (535011005313) with Vysya Bank Ltd., Yamuna Vihar branch, Delhi.

187. PW7 Sh. N. Suresh was Manager Operation in Vysya Bank in Yamuna Vihar branch in the year 2002. On seeing Account Opening Form dt 18.10.2002 Ex PW7/A of Hindustan Industries, he deposed that the account was opened by Sharad Kumar Jain as proprietor of Hindustan Industries and he (PW7) had allowed to open the account. He identified his signature on the reverse side of Ex PW7/A at point A and deposed that Sharad Kumar Jain had signed at point A and B on Ex PW7/A before him. He also identified the signature of Sharad Kumar Jain at point A and B on Customer Information Form Ex PW7/B of Hindustan Industries. He also identified the signature of Sharad Kumar Jain on photocopy of Sales Tax Registration Form of M/s Hindustan Industries Mark A submitted along with Ex PW7A. He also identified the photocopy of Saral form Mark B of Sharad Kumar Jain, registration of M/s Hindustan Industries Mark C and ration card Mark­D of Sharad Kumar Jain, photocopy of letter head of M/s Hindustan Industries Mark E.

188. In cross examination by accused Sharad Kumar Jain (A­3) he deposed that documents mentioned by him in his chief examination were submitted by Sharad Kumar Jain along with Account Opening Form. Thus, it can be seen that accused Sharad Kumar Jain did not dispute that he opened said bank account with said branch of the bank nor did he deny his signatures on Ex PW7/A and documents filed along with Ex PW7/A nor did he dispute that he was the proprietor of M/s Hindustan Industries. Person in photograph on Ex PW7/A is the same person whose photograph is affixed in the account opening form Ex PW6/B of M/s Alpha Communication (India) who was identified as accused Sharad Kumar Jain (A­3) by PW6.

189. Thus, prosecution has successfully proved that Current A/c No. 871 (535011005313) was opened by accused Sharad Kumar Jain (A­3) in the name of M/s Hindustan Industries with Vysya Bank, Yamuna Vihar branch, Delhi.

M/s Paramount Insulation Pvt. Ltd. ­ Who opened its bank account and who are its directors?

190. It is the allegation of prosecution that M/s Paramount Insulation Pvt. Ltd. through its directors Sanjay Gupta and Deepak Bansal (impersonated by Tarun Khanna A­4) had opened its account with Vysya Bank, Yamuna Vihar branch, Delhi.

191. PW3 Sh. C. H. Ramesh was posted as an officer in the year 2000 in Yamuna Vihar branch of Vysya Bank Ltd. On seeing the Current Account opening form Ex PW3/A of M/s Paramount Insulation Pvt. Ld. 78A, Dilshad Garden, he deposed that said account was opened by Sanjay Gupta and Deepak Bansal as directors. He identified the signature of Sanjay Gupta at point A and that of Deepak Bansal at point B and C and his own signature at point D on Ex PW3/A. He deposed that Sanjay Jain (PW26) of Arihant Industries had signed at point E. He deposed that all three signed in his presence. He also identified the signature of Sanjay Gupta at point F and G and of Deepak Bansal at point H and J on the back of account opening form Ex PW3/A. He also identified the signature of Sanjay Gupta and Deepak Bansal at point A and B on form No. 58 Ex PW3/B, form No. 60 Ex PW3/B, form No. 277 Ex PW3/D, resolution on letter head of the company Ex PW3/E and on other documents. He identified the accused Sanjay Gupta and Deepak Bansal in the court. It is not recorded in the evidence sheet as to towards whom witness had pointed out as Sanjay Gupta and Deepak Bansal.

192. But account opening form Ex PW3/A has two photographs one of which is of accused Sanjay Gupta (A­2) and other is of accused Tarun Khanna (A­4) as Deepak Bnasal. Thus, it stands established that he had pointed out towards accused Sanjay Gupta as Sanjay Gupta and towards accused Tarun Khanna as Deepak Bansal which fact inadvertently could not be recorded in the evidence sheets. In any case identity issue was clarified by him when he again appeared in the witness box on 5.08.2013 and specifically identified Sanjay Gupta (A­2) and Tarun Khanna (A­4). Be that as it may, accused Sanjay Gupta while cross examining PW3 did not dispute that he and Deepak Bansal i.e. accused Tarun Khana as Deepak Bansal as directors of M/s Paramount Insulation Pvt. Ltd. had opened the said current account with Vyasya Bank Ltd. or had gone to bank for opening the account or had signed the documents as deposed to by PW3. Accused Tarun Khanna (A­4) did not cross examine this witness but adopted the cross examination conducted by accused Sanjay Gupta.

193. Thus, prosecution successfully proved on record that Current account in the name of M/s Paramount Insulation Pvt Ltd. was opened by its directors accused Sanjay Gupta (A­2) and accused Tarun Khanna (A­4) impersonating as Deepak Bansal.

M/s Creative Conductors Pvt. Ltd. ­ Who opened its bank account and Who were its directors?

194. It is the allegation of prosecution that bank account in the name of M/s Creative Conductors Pvt. Ltd. was opened by accused Sanjay Gupta (A­2) and Ram Kishan Gautam (PW65) with Bombay Mercantile Co­operative Bank Ltd., Daryganj.

195. PW60 Sultan Abbas Zaidi was posted in the year 1999 as Assistant Accountant in Bombay Mercantile Bank Ltd., Netaji Subhas Marg, Daryaganj. On seeing Account Opening Form dt. 17.05.1999 Ex PW60/B (part of D­105) in the name of M/s Creative Conductors Pvt. Ltd., he deposed that it bore the signature of Sh. Shakil Haider, the then manager of bank and he identified his signature at point B as he had seen him signing and writing during the course of his duties. He further deposed that Sh. Sanjay Gupta (A­2) and Sh. Ram Krishan Gautam (PW65) had been shown as directors of the said company and he had put his signatures at point C as token of verification of signatures of Sanjay Gupta (A­2) and Ram Krishan Gautam (PW65). He also identified signatures at point D on Ex PW60/B of Sh. Irshad Ahmad the then Assistant Accountant, who had authorised the opening of the account.

196. He was not cross examined by any of the accused persons, hence his testimony went unrebutted.

197. PW65 Sh. Ram Krishan Gautam, Advocate deposed that in the year 1995 he joined as Supervisor in M/s Sharda Metals of accused Sanjay Gupta at 78A, Dilshad Garden, Shahdra, Delhi and resigned from M/s Sharda Metals on 7/10/1999. He further deposed that before 1999 accused Sanjay Gupta (A­2) also formed two firms in the name of M/s Paramount Industries Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Creative Conductor Pvt. Ltd. at the address of 78A, Dilshad Garden, Shahdra, Delhi. He further deposed that in these two firms he was made one of the directors. Account of Creative Conductors Pvt. Ltd. was opened in Bombay Mercantile Bank Ltd, Daryganj branch, Delhi. He further deposed that he resigned from the directorship of both companies in October 1999. On seeing account opening form Ex PW60/B he identified his signature at point E and his own photograph at point encircled X. He further deposed that he signed the account opening form to open the account being one of the director of the company. Being aware with the signatures of Sanjay Gupta, he also identified signatures of Sanjay Gupta at points F and his photograph at point encircled X­1.

198. In the cross examination of PW65 by accused Sanjay Gupta (A­2), formation of the companies and opening of the account with Bombay Mercantile Bank, Daryaganj Delhi was not disputed nor was it disputed that he (witness) resigned from the companies in October 1999.

199. Thus, prosecution has successfully proved that accused Sanjay Gupta (A­2) and Ram Krishan Gautam (PW65) being directors had opened the bank account of M/s Creative Conductors Pvt Ltd at 78A, Dilshad Garden, Delhi, with Bombay Mercantile Bank Co­Operative Ltd., Daryaganj, Delhi.

M/s Sharda Metals – Who opened its account and who was its proprietor?

200. It is the case of the prosecution that accused Sanjay Gupta (A­2) was the proprietor of M/s Sharda Metals at 78A, Dilshad Garden and had opened Current account No. 8125 with Central Bank of India, Janpath Branch in the name of M/s Sharda Metals.

201. PW64 Rajneesh Arora was posted as Manager in Central Bank of India, Janpath branch New Delhi from 04.02.2004 to 14.05.2007. He on the basis of documents which he had handed over to CBI vide seizure memo Ex PW64/A, deposed that Current A/c No. 8125 was opened in the name of M/s Sharda Metals having address as 78A, Dilshad Garden and its proprietor was Sanjay Gupta. He had handed over to CBI documents such as specimen signature card of M/s Sharda Metals Ex 64/B (D­521), Account opening form Ex PW64/C (D­522 and Certificate of sole proprietorship of the firm Ex PW64/D (D­523).

202. Although he could not be said have proved the documents Ex PW64/B to Ex PW64/D as per Evidence Act except that he had handed over these documents from the bank but what he was asked in cross examination by accused Sanjay Gupta (A­2) served the purpose of the prosecution. In cross examination PW64 admitted that he had deposed on the basis of documents as material transaction was not entered into in his presence. He did not know whether a case was filed against M/s Sharda Metals for declaring the firm as insolvent. He did not know if his bank was also one of the party in the said case of insolvency and he admitted that loan amount was different from the amount of the decree passed by DRT. No suggestion was given to him that said proprietor was not the accused Sanjay Gupta (A­2) or that signature on specimen card was not that of accused Sanjay Gupta (A­2) or that he did not have any account with said branch of the Central Bank of India.

203. Signature as appearing in the specimen card Ex PW64/B and signatures as appearing of Sanjay Gupta (A­2) in the account opening forms PW60/B of Creative Conductors Pvt Ltd. and Ex PW3/A of Paramount Insulation Pvt Ltd. are same. Even otherwise it is admitted position of accused Sanjay Gupta (A­2) that he was running business under the name and style of M/s Sharda Metals from 78A, Dilshad Garden though he claimed to have closed the business in the year 1995. Further it is his own case that he had filed insolvency petition in which Central Bank of India, Janpath branch was also party which must be for reason of his transaction with said branch even though he himself was silent as to why he impleaded Central Bank of India in the said insolvency petition if he had nothing to do with Central Bank of India.

204. Thus, from overall testimony of PW64, other documents as noted above and admitted position of the accused Sanjay Gupta, prosecution has successfully proved that Sanjay Gupta (A­2) being proprietor of M/s Sharda Metals had opened the above said current account with Central Bank of India, Janpath branch, New Delhi.

M/s Shakti Traders – Who opened its bank account and who was its proprietor?

205. It is the allegation of the prosecution that accused Keshav Sharma (A­1) impersonating as Naresh Agarwal opened a Current Account No. 10044 with Central Bank of India, Shahdra branch, in the name of M/s Shakti Traders, 4/6, Main Road, 18 quarters, Viswas Nagar, Delhi claiming himself its proprietor. Another Current Account was opened by Shakti Traders with Connaught Circus branch of Central Bank of India.

206. PW30 Sushil Kumar Mehrotra was posted as Chief Manager in the Central Bank of India, Shahdra branch in the year 2003. He deposed that a Current Account No. 10044 dated 29.08.2002 was opened by Naresh Aggarwal in the name of Shakti Traders vide account opening form Ex.PW30/A6 (D­543). The account was introduced by M/s Aman Trading Company proprietor Satish Chand Jain which had account at Parliament Street Branch, Central Bank of India. PW30 identified the signature of Naresh Aggarwal at point A and his photograph at point B. He also identified the accused Keshav Sharma as the one who has represented to him as Naresh Aggarwal while seeking Cash Credit facility for his firm M/s Shakti Traders.

207. As per Current Account Opening Form Ex.PW81/19 (D540) exhibited by PW81 IO, Current Account No. 200053 was opened on 14.10.2002 by M/s Shakti Traders, with Connaught Circus branch of Central Bank of India. PW81 only proved the seizure of Ex PW81/19 but no witness was summoned to prove Ex PW81/19. But both forms bear photograph of Keshav Sharma @ Shahid (A­1) as Naresh Aggarwal.

208. PW30 was not cross examined by Keshav Sharma (A­1) on the point of opening of bank account by him impersonating as Naresh Agarwal in the name of M/s Shakti Traders with Shahdra branch of Central Bank of India nor has Keshav Sharma disputed his photographs affixed on Account Opening Form Ex PW30/A­6 as Naresh Agarwal. No suggestion was given to this witness that accused Keshav Sharma (A­1) never visited bank or ever represented as Naresh Agarwal or that he did not sign the account opening form as Naresh Agarwal.

209. From the testimony of PW30 and Account Opening Form containing photograph of Keshav Sharma it stands proved that accused Keshav Sharma (A­1) impersonated as Naresh Agarwal and opened the Current A/c No.10044 with Central Bank of India, Shahadra branch, in the name of M/s Shakti Traders.

Proposal and Sanction of loan of M/s Aman Trading Company, 78A, Dilshad Garden, Delhi and execution of loan documents.

210. It is the case of the prosecution that M/s Aman Trading Company through its proprietor S.C. Jain had applied for sanction of working capital i.e. CC limit (Stocks and book debts) of Rs. 100 lacs and LC limit (DA upto 90 days) of Rs. 25 lacs vide letter dated 14.02.2001 and submitted documents like provisional balance sheet for the year ending 31.03.2001, audited balance sheet for the year ending 31.03.1999 and 31.03.2000, Asset and liabilities of the proprietor, income tax document of the proprietor, statement of account of Jain Co­operative Bank, sale deed of the property No. 78A, Dilshad Garden for creation of equitable mortgage, voter I card of proprietor apart from guarantor etc., relying upon which bank processed the request of M/s Aman Trading Company and sanctioned credit facilities i.e. CC limits (stocks and book debts) Rs. 75 lacs and LC limit of Rs 25 lacs whereafter bank got executed necessary documents from borrower and guarantor and subsequently it turned out that documents relied upon were forged and fabricated and proprietor and guarantor were also fake persons.

211. PW72 Sh. Sushil Kumar Srivastav, the then Chief Manager of Central Bank of India, Parliament Street branch, in his examination in chief deposed that vide seizure memo dt 19.06.2003 Ex PW72/A (D­3 running into 5 pages) bearing his signature at point X he had handed over to CBI officer from bank records documents mentioned therein. IO PW81 in his testimony also deposed that vide seizure memo dt 19.06.2003 he had received 51 documents from Sushil Kumar Srivastava. Perusal of Ex PW72/A show that at Sr. No. 41 there is mention of Original Letter (D­39) dt. 14.02.2001 from M/s Aman Trading Co. regarding request for Sanction of Working Capital Limit.

212. Perusal of above letter dt 14.02.201 (D­39) shows that it was exhibited as Ex PW33/G­13. PW33 is Ramesh Chandra, the Hand Writing Expert from GEQD, Chandigarh. Exhibition of documents by PW33 was only for the purpose of identification as signature of S. C. Jain, the proprietor of ATC, appearing therein were taken as questioned signature No. Q­7 and Q­8. PW72 S.K. Srivastava did not depose that this letter was submitted to him or was received by him.

213. Perusal of letter dt 14.02.2001 Ex PW33/G­13 (D­39 running into 2 pages) shows that it was typed letter typed on the letter head of M/s Aman Trading Company, 78A, Dilshad Garden, Delhi­110095 containing signatures ( at Q­7 & Q­8) of S. C. Jain, proprietor on both pages. In the said letter proprietor of M/s Aman Trading Company introduced itself as wholesale trader dealing in ferrous & non ferrous metals with yearly sale turnover of Rs 5 Crores and to expand and to achieve a sale turnover of Rs 12 Crore it applied to bank to sanction credit facility i.e. CC Limit of Rs 100 lacs against Stocks & Book Debts and L/c Limit (DA upto 90 days) of Rs 25 lacs. Along with this letter applicant mentioned to have attached following documents

a. CMA data on banks prescribed form

b. Provisional balance sheet and profit & loss a/c for the period ending 31.01.2001 duly certified by CA

c.  Audited balance sheet and profit & loss a/c for the year ending 31.03.1999 and 31.03.2000.

d. Assets & Liabilities of the Proprietor.

e. Income tax documents of the Proprietor

f. Bank Statements of M/s Jain Co­operative Bank, Shahdra Branch Ex.PW75/B (D­41)

g. It was stated that letter of credit shall be opened in favour of Birla Copper Ltd., Hindustan Copper Ltd. & Sterlie Industries Ltd.

h. The credit facilities shall be secured against the following :­

i. Hypothecation of stocks and book debts,

ii. 25% margin against L/C in the form of interest bearing FDR

iii. Equitable mortgage of property in the name of Satish Chand Jain worth Rs. 150 lacs.

214. Immediately after this letter is tagged D­40 i.e. Audit Report dt. 14.05.2001 Mark 18/13 followed by “Statement of particulars required to be furnished under Section 44AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dt 14.05.2001, Trading and Profit & Loss A/c of ATC dt. 14.05.2001 and balance sheet dt 15.05.2001 as on 31.03.2001. These documents are dt 14.05.2001, therefore, it is obvious that these documents were not submitted with letter dt 14.02.2001 Ex PW33/G­13 (D­39). Even otherwise these documents are not mentioned in letter dt 14.02.2001 Ex PW33/G­13 (D­39).

215. D­41 is photocopy of Statements of A/c Ex PW75/B of M/s Aman Trading Company purportedly issued by Jain Co­Operative Bank Ltd (running into 9 pages for the period 1st April 2000 to 31.12.2000). D­42 Mark 19/3 are photocopies of Provisional balance sheet (1 sheet) dt. 02.02.2001 for the period ending 31.01.2001, Provisional Trading and Profit & Loss A/c (1 sheet) 02.02.2001 for period ending 31.03.2001, List of sundry debtors dt. 02.02.2001 (1 sheet) as on 31.03.2001 all three duly certified by CA and marked as Mark PW19/3. D­43 Mark­19/4 are the photocopies of Income Tax Declaration and Saral form of S.C. Jain for the year 1999­2000. D­44 is the photocopy of Sales Tax registration certificate Ex PW79/DX­8 of Aman Trading Company (running into 2 pages). D­46 is the photocopy of voter I Card Ex PW79/X­9 of S.C.Jain bearing photographs of Pankaj Garg (PW79). D­46 are photocopies of Sale Deed dt. 27.12.2001 Ex PW79/DX­10 executed by Kuldeep Gupta (bearing photograph of accused Rakesh Verma as Kuldeep Gupta) in favour of S. C. Jain (bearing photograph of Pankaj Garg (PW79) as S.C Jain) and photocopy of GPA dt 9.05.1984 in favour of Kuldeep Gupta in respect of property No. 78A, Dilshad Garden. D­47 is the letter vide which other set of documents i.e. A/c opening forms of M/s Aman Trading Company bearing No. 5425 and 260 were sent/submitted by bank officials to CBI.

216. Thus, only D­41, D­42 and D­43 appears to be part of letter dt. 14.02.2001 Ex PW33/G­13 (D­39) as D­44 and D­45 do not find mention in the letter Ex PW33/G­13.

217. Though PW72 Sushil Kumar Srivastava is not the recipient of aforesaid letter dt 14.02.2001 Ex PW33/G­13 along with aforesaid documents D­41, D­42 and D­43 but he categorically deposed that he had handed over these documents from bank record. None of the accused person in the cross examination of PW72 disputed about such letter along with documents D­41, D­42 and D­43 being submitted to the bank by the proprietor of M/s Aman Trading Ccompany. PW72 categorically deny the suggestion (given by accused A­2) that he did not produce documents before IO. No suggestion was given that no such letter was written to bank or that such documents was forged or same was not available in bank records or same were not produced from bank record.

218. Hence, prosecution successfully proved beyond doubt that M/s Aman Trading Company through its proprietor S. C. Jain vide his letter dt. 14.02.2001 requested Central Bank of India, Parliament Street Branch for sanctioning of working capital.

219. It has already been found above proved that M/s Aman Trading Company through its proprietor opened Current A/c No. 5425 with Parliament Street branch of Central Bank of India vide A/c Opening Form dt. 16.02.2001 Ex PW38/A.

220. It is the case of the prosecution that M/s Aman Trading Company through its proprietor S. C. Jain made fresh request for sanctioning of working capital vide application/letter dt. 20.04.2001. Letter dt. 20.04.2001 is at Sr. No. 38 of seizure memo Ex PW72/A vide which 51 documents from bank records were submitted by PW72 Sushil Kumar Srivastava to CBI.

221. Perusal of letter dt 20.04.2001 (D­37) (running into 1 pages) shows that it was accompanied with Brief Company Profile (running into 2 pages), Justification Regarding Current Asset for year ending 2001­02 (running into 2 pages) and “Application For Credit Facilities” (running into 14 pages) each bearing signature of proprietor S.C. Jain. Letter dt 20.04.2001 along with abovesaid companion documents has been exhibited as Ex. PW33/G­12. PW33 is Ramesh Chandra, the Hand Writing Expert from GEQD, Chandigarh. Exhibition of documents by PW33 was only for the purpose of identification as signature of S. C. Jain, the proprietor of M/s Aman Trading Company, appearing therein were taken as questioned signature No. Q­1 to Q­6. PW72 S.K. Srivastava did not depose that this letter along with Brief Company Profile, Justification regarding asset and application were submitted to him or were received by him. He only deposed that he had handed over these documents from bank record which fact was not disputed by any of the accused person while cross examining PW72 as noted above in the case of letter dt.14.02.2001 Ex PW33/G­13. PW33 is Ramesh Chandra, the Hand Writing Expert from GEQD, Chandigarh. Exhibition of documents by PW33 was only for the purpose of identification as signature of S. C. Jain, the proprietor of M/s Aman Trading Company, appearing therein were taken as questioned signature No. Q­1 to Q­6. PW72 S.K. Srivastava did not depose that this letter along with Brief Company Profile, Justification regarding asset and application were submitted to him or were received by him. He only deposed that he had handed over these documents from bank record which fact was not disputed by any of the accused person while cross examining PW72 as noted above in the case of letter dt.14.02.2001 Ex PW33/G­13.

222. Perusal of letter dt 20.04.2001 Ex PW33/G­12 (D­37) shows that said letter was written in connection with its previous application for sanction of various credit facilities and was written for submitting further documents such as Revised CMA data on banks prescribed form (Revised due to availability of financial Result as on 31.03.2001), Provisional balance sheet and profit & loss account for the period ending 31.03.2001 duly certified by CA and Brief Company profile. In brief profile, besides other, it has been mentioned that firm’s net profit in the year ending on 31.03.1999, 31.03.2000 and 31.03.2001 were 6.52, 8.24 and 11.94 respectively and corresponding sales were 491.52, 569.32 and 760.33 (probably in lacs in Indian rupees) setting target to achieve sales turnover of Rs 12 Crore in next 12 month with the financial assistance sought. It was further mentioned that credit facility should be secured by Hypothecation of stocks & debts, 25% margin against L/C in the form of interest bearing FDR and equitable mortgage of property in the name of the proprietor worth Rs 150 lacs. Perusal of the “Application For Credit Facility” shows that applicant had attached with it 3 copies of Audited balance sheet & P/L A/c each for the year ended 31.03.1998, 31.03.1999 & 31.03.2000 and 3 copies of Proforma balance sheet & P/L A/c for the year 31.03.2001, 31.03.2002 & 31.03.2003.

223. D­37 i.e. letter/application dt 20.04.2001 is followed by D­38 comprising photocopies of statement of current A/c of M/s Aman Trading Company purportedly issued by Jain Co­Operative Bank Ltd on 2.05.2001 for the period 01.01.20001 to 30.04.2001 and list of sundry debtors dt. 14.05.2001. For obvious reason these two documents could not have been filed with letter/application dt. 20.04.2001 Ex PW33/G­12 as they are of subsequent date.

224. Credit Monitoring Arrangement (CMA) (D­33) is found at Sr. No. 34 of seizure memo Ex PW72/A (D­3) and same has been exhibited as Ex PW33/G­9. PW33 is Ramesh Chandra, the Hand Writing Expert from GEQD, Chandigarh. Exhibition of documents by PW33 was only for the purpose of identification as signature of S. C. Jain, the proprietor of ATC, appearing therein were taken as questioned signature/writing No. Q­19 to Q­22.

225. None of the prosecution witness had identified the documents filed with letter/application dt. 20.04.2001 i.e. Provisional balance sheet and profit & loss account for the period ending 31.03.2001 duly certified by CA or Audited balance sheet & P/L A/c each for the year ended 31.03.1998, 31.03.1999 & 31.03.2000 and of Proforma balance sheet & P/L A/c for the year 31.03.2001, 31.03.2002 & 31.03.2003 as mentioned in the “Application For Credit Facility”.

226. Though seizure memo dt 19.06.2003 Ex PW72/A at Sr. No. 35 and 36 mentions document titled as “Original Cost and Profitability (CMA) submitted by Aman Trading Co.” at pages No. 242 to 250 and “Original Statement of Asset and Liability of Satish Chand Jain” at pages No. 251 to 252 respectively but these documents have not been filed by the prosecution and instead D­34 “Annexure­1 of Satish Chand Jain (1 sheet)” and D­35 “Annexure­1 to loan application form of Sanjay Jain, Guarantor­ 2 sheets” have been filed.

227. It has not been disputed by any of the accused person that letter/application dt. 20.04.2001 and CMA was produced from Bank Records, hence, prosecution has been successfully in proving that M/s Aman Trading Company through its proprietor applied for sanction of working capital and submitted CMA Ex PW33/G­9 and other documents reflecting its status, financial status as well as projected growth with financial assistance.

228. On the basis of representation of M/s Aman Trading Co. its request was processed vide Processing Note (D­27) Ex PW21/DF. This document was exhibited in the cross examination of PW21 Sh. K.K. Gupta (the GM of Zonal Office of Central Bank of India) pursuant to whose complaint Ex PW21/A present FIR was registered. He was examined by prosecution to prove the complaint Ex PW21/A. During cross examination by accused Rekha Sisodia A­9, he had admitted that process Note (D­27) bore name and signature of the then AGM Sh. R. S. Verma at point A on Process Note Ex PW21/DF. He however did not have any recollection or knowledge about Ex PW21/DF.

229. PW72 Sushil Kumar Gupta in his testimony deposed that he had handed over Process Note (D­27) Ex PW21/DF to CBI from Bank record vide seizure memo Ex PW72/A. He further deposed that Ex PW21/DF (D­27) is a process note/sanction pertaining to CC limit of Rs 40 lacs, OD limit of Rs 36 lacs and letter of credit limit of Rs 25 lacs in favour of M/s Aman Trading Company. None of the accused in cross examination of PW72 disputed the nature of this document i.e. process note vide which CC limit of Rs 40 lacs, OD limit of Rs 36 lacs and letter of credit limit of Rs 25 lacs was processed and sanctioned in favour of M/s Aman Trading Company.

230. Ex PW69 Sh. Suresh Sharma in his testimony deposed that D­27 Ex PW21/DF is process note of M/s Aman Trading Company bearing signature of accused Rekha Sisodia at point X­3 and that of the then AGM Sh. R. S. Verma at point A. He further deposed that process note dt. 29.05.2001 (D­27) was prepared by accused Rashmi Chhabra who put her initials at point X­IV and accused Rekha Sisodia put the signature at point X­III above the initials of Rashmi Chhabra. He further deposed that last page of Process Note D­27 Ex. PW21/DF mentioned that process note was sanctioned by K. S. Gupta the then AGM bearing his signature at point X­I. Sanctioning part of the process note Ex PW21/DF has been exhibited as Ex. PW40/A. He identified the initials of Ms Rashmi Chhabra at point X­IV and that of Smt. Rekha Sisodia at point X­III.

231. None of the accused person while cross examining PW69 Suresh Sharma disputed his testimony to the effect that D­27 Ex PW21/DF was Process Note and last page of D­27 Ex PW40/A was the sanctioning note containing signature and initials of sanctioning and forwarding authorities thereby sanctioning in favouring of M/s Aman Trading Company, CC limit of Rs 40 lacs with 25% margin and O/D against Book and Debt not older than 60 days Rs. 36 lacs i.e. total 76 lacs with interchangeability from CC to OD and vice versa up to 50% of limits sanctioned and Letter of Credit Inland DA (Usance 90 days) of Rs. 25 lacs with 25% margin as per Fedai rules.

232. PW40 Sh. B. N. S. Ratnakar, who was AGM in Central Bank of India, Parliament Street branch, from April 2004 to January 2007 deposed that internal page no. 153 to 172 of D­27 was a file relating to sanction of credit facility to M/s Aman Trading Company. He having dealt with the file in due course deposed that signature of accused Rekha Sisodia and that of Sh. K.S. Gupta were at points X and X­1 on page no. 172 Ex PW40/A which is note to the effect that proposal comes within the powers of AGM of the branch and was put up for approval. He further deposed that as per said note Ex PW40/A Sh. K. S. Gupta had sanctioned the cash credit (H) limit of Rs 40 lacs with 25% margin and over draft facility against book debt not older than 60 days with 50% margin in favour of Aman Trading Co. Further, letter of credit facility of Rs 25 lacs with 25% margin was sanctioned in favour of M/s Aman Trading Company on 17.07.2001 by Sh. K. S. Gupta. On seeing file Ex PW21/DF he deposed that he had gone through the file Ex PW21/DF which was dealt with by him and had been maintained in the bank in the ordinary course of business.

233. None of the accused person while cross examining PW40 disputed his (PW40) testimony to the aspect of Process Note Ex PW21/DF, however, he did admit that he had no personal knowledge about the documentation of this case as the cash credit facility was already granted prior to his joining the Parliament Street branch and that none of the notes mentioned by him were prepared in his presence.

234. Thus, from the above testimonies of the witness prosecution has successfully proved that request for sanction of working capital made by M/s Aman Trading Company through its proprietor was processed vide. processing note Ex PW21/DF and was sanctioned vide sanctioning document Ex PW40/A (bearing page No. 172 of D­27 Ex PW21/DF).

235. It is the case of the prosecution that after sanctioning of loan, an intimation regarding the sanctioning of the loan was sent to M/s Aman Trading Company and party was called upon to execute the document.

236. PW72 in his testimony deposed that when he joined in July, 2001, the loan to M/s Aman Trading Company was already sanctioned by (accused) Sh. K. S. Gupta AGM and after his joining sanction order was served upon M/s Aman Trading Company through Sr. Manager accused Smt. Rekha Sisodia. Testimony of PW72 on the above aspect was not questioned by any of the accused person in his cross examination.

237. As noted above vide seizure memo Ex PW72/A, PW72 handed over 51 documents from bank record to CBI. At Sr. No. 25 of the seizure memo Ex PW72/A is mentioned “Carbon copy of sanction letter addressed to Aman Trading Co. duly accepted”. Said letter is available as D­26 and has been found exhibited as PW33/G­7. PW33 is Ramesh Chandra, the Hand Writing Expert from GEQD, Chandigarh. Exhibition of documents by PW33 was only for the purpose of identification as signature of S. C. Jain, the proprietor of M/s Aman Trading Company, appearing therein was taken as questioned signature No. Q­128. As has been noted above factum of production of documents vide seizure memo Ex PW72/A from bank records has not been disputed by any of the accused persons. This fact has also been corroborated by IO PW81 in his testimony.

238. Perusal of D­26 Ex PW33/G­7 shows that vide this letter dt. 17.07.2001, M/s Aman Tading Company through its proprietor was intimated that Cash Credit facility to the above noted extent had been sanctioned subject to terms and conditions mentioned therein which included creation of Equitable mortgage of property bearing No. 78A, Dilshad Garden, Delhi in the name of Satish Chand Jain measuring 490 sq. yds and personal guarantee of Mr. Sanjay Jain, brother of proprietor. Vide this letter borrower was called in the bank on any working day for documentation and for complying with the terms and conditions of the sanction. This letter was personally received by S.C. Jain, proprietor of M/s Aman Trading Company on 19.07.2001 in the bank itself.

239. None of the witness of the bank deposed that following the letter dt 17.07.2001 (D­26) Ex PW33/G­7, borrower M/s Aman Trading Company through its proprietor and Sanjay Jain as guarantor executed requisite documents by coming to the bank. It has to be kept in mind that out of 85 witnesses only PW37, PW38, PW39, PW40, PW44, PW68, PW69 and PW72 are from Parliament Street branch of Central Bank of India who has been examined by the prosecution to prove application of loan, processing of loan, sanctioning of loan, execution of documents and release of funds etc. in favour of M/s Aman Trading Company (and also in favour of M/s Creative Traders). PW21 is the Zonal Manager and is the complainant and PW24 is the Vigilance Officer of the bank.

240. PW37 deposed about the opening of Current Account by M/s Creative Traders. PW38 deposed about the opening of Current Account by M/s Aman Trading Company. PW39 deposed about the issuance of various LC at the request of M/s Creative Traders and M/s Aman Trading Company. PW40 deposed about various documents executed/signed/approved by bank officials including accused bank officials and about relevant circulars handed over by him to CBI. PW44 brought the dak dispatch register. PW68 deposed about correspondence made to AGM, opened and put to him. PW69 deposed about various document handed over by him to CBI executed/signed/approved by bank officials including accused bank officials and what many of those documents are. PW72 also deposed about handing over documents, what many of such documents are and identified signatures of bank officials on such documents.

241. Be that as it may be, PW69 Sh. Suresh Sharma in his testimony (recorded on 08.01.2018) deposed that D­51 Ex PW33/G­15 is letter of interest signed on behalf of M/s Aman Trading Company. On seeing letter of waiver dt 20.07 2001, he deposed that it was signed on behalf of M/s Aman Trading Company and filled by Ms. Rekha Sisodia. On seeing DP Note dt 20.07.2001 (part of D­51), he deposed that it was signed on behalf of M/s Aman Trading Company and filled by Ms. Rekha Sisodia. Same was exhibited as Ex PW69/B­8. On seeing letter of proprietorship dt. 20.07.2001, Agreement of Book Debts dt. 20.07.2001, Letter of non­encumbrances dt. 20.07.2001, Letter of continuity dt. 20.07.2001, Cash Credit Hypothecation Agreement dt. 20.07.2001 running into nine pages, Undertaking dt. 20.07.2001 and Agreement of letter of Credit dt. Nil (all part of D­51) he deposed it were signed on behalf of M/s Aman Trading Company and were filled by Ms. Rekha Sisodia. They were exhibited as Ex PW69/B­9 to PW69/B­15 respectively. On seeing D­535 (10 pages) he deposed that it was computer generated duly certified copy of statement of A/c bearing CC No. 260 of M/s Aman Trading Company maintained in Central Bank of India, Parliament Street branch for period from 01.01.2001 to 08.05.2003 and was certified by him bearing his signature and official seal at point at X. Same has been exhibited as Ex PW69/B­3. On seeing D­536 he deposed that it was computer generated duly certified copy of statement of A/c bearing CA No. 5425 of M/s Aman Trading Company maintained in Central Bank of India, Parliament Street branch for period from 01.01.2001 to 08.05.2003 and was certified by him bearing his signature and official seal at point at X and that of Sh S. K. Srivastava at point X­1. Same has been exhibited as Ex PW69/B­3. Exhibition of both these documents were objected to as to mode of proof for want of certificate under Banker’s Book of Evidence and Section 65B of the Evidence Act.

242. In cross examination he admitted that parties had not signed the documents referred by him in his examination­in­chief dt 08.01.2018 in his presence. He further admitted that he was not the author or scribe of the any of the documents nor had personally dealt with the matter regarding advances. He also admitted that he gave statement to the IO only to effect as to the identification of the signature and writing of the bank officials on the documents. He admitted that he did not have personal knowledge regarding the execution of the documents nor were they executed in his presence. He admitted that document Ex PW69/B­8 is prepared in the bank in routine course. However, none of the accused person disputed the existence and execution of the documents Ex. PW69/B­8 to Ex PW69/B15 in the bank record on behalf of M/s Aman Trading Company and Sanjay Jain. No suggestion was given that Statement of A/c bearing No. 260 and 5425 of M/s Aman Trading Company did not exist or entry therein were not correct.

243. PW72 Sh. Sushil Kumar Srivastava deposed that after his joining (in branch) the sanction order was served upon ATC through Sr. Manager accused Rekha Sisodia. He further deposed that formalities of documentation was completed in respect of said loan by advance department and thereafter a note was put up before him by Sr. Manager accused Rekha Sisodia. He further deposed that in the said note it was reported by accused Rekha Sisodia that all formalities were complete in respect of documentation etc. in terms of the sanction of the loan and she recommended for the release of loan amount and on the basis of said note/letter, he approved for the release of the loan. He identified the note/letter dt 25.07.2001 (D­23) exhibited as Ex PW40/C, identified his signature and that of Smt. Rekha Sisodia at point B and A respectively. PW40 B.N.S. Ratnakar has also identified signature of Smt. Rekha Sisodia on letter dt. 25.07.2001 (D­23) Ex PW40/C whereby she had written about the execution of documents by the party and release of limit.

244. Though in the process Note (D­27) Ex PW21/DF it is mentioned that party was offering property No. 78A, Dilshad Garden in the name of Satish Chand Jain, proprietor of M/s Aman Trading Company for securing the loan amount and credit facility sanctioned and documents show that credit facility was sanctioned also on the condition that equitable mortgage qua property bearing No. 78A, Dilshad Garden be created, nevertheless none of the witness from bank deposed that party/borrower created equitable mortgage by depositing in the bank original title deed of the above property. However, it has come in testimony of PW72 that vide seizure memo (D­3) Ex PW72/A he had handed over photocopy of sale deed dt. 27.12.2000 (D­46) Ex PW79/DX­10 in respect of above property in the name of Satish Chand Jain and vide seizure memo (D­50) original sale deed dt 27.12.2000 Ex PW15/DA (D­57) in respect of the above said property was handed over to CBI from bank records. Factum of deposit of above title documents with bank was not disputed by any of accused person. Further, existence and execution of document (D­23) in bank record has not been disputed by any of the accused persons which fact proves that borrower had executed necessary documentation and obtained loan.

245. Thus, from the testimonies noted above and documents discussed above prosecution has successfully proved that upon execution of necessary documentation by the borrower M/s ATC through its proprietor and by the guarantor Sanjay Jain, amount of credit facility as sanctioned vide sanctioned dt 17.07.2001 was released in the Cash Credit A/c No. 260 in favour of M/s Aman Trading Company by the Central Bank of India, Parliament Street branch, N. Delhi.

Enhancement/Renewal of Cash Credit Facility to M/s Aman Trading Company

246. It is the case of the prosecution that limit of the above said credit facility to M/s Aman Trading Company was subsequently enhanced from 76 lacs to 100 lacs while limit of L/C remained same at Rs 25 Lacs.

247. PW40 Sh. B. N. S. Ratnakar who was posted as AGM in the Parliament Street branch, Central Bank of India from April 2004 to January 2007, deposed on seeing Ex PW21/DD (D­9 ) that it was a process note for renewal and enhancement of credit facility to M/s Aman Trading Company dt. 31.05.2002 and it bore signature of Smt. Rekha Sisodia at point X­1 and that of Sh. S. K. Srivastava at point X­II. He further deposed that renewal and enhancement sanction was given by accused K. S. Gupta on 03.06.2002 bearing his signature at point X­III and X­IV. On seeing D­8, he deposed that it was a sanction letter dt 5.06.2002 regarding credit facility in favour of M/s Aman Trading Company bearing signature of Sh. S. K. Srivastava (PW72) at point A. This letter was exhibited as Ex. PW40/B(D­8).

248. None of the accused person while cross examining PW40 disputed his (PW40) testimony to the aspect of Process Note Ex PW21/DD (D­9) and letter Ex PW40/B(D­8).

249. Process Note Ex PW21/DD (D­9) was exhibited during cross examination of PW21 Sh. K. K. Gupta where on being shown this document he deposed that he did not remember if he had seen the document D­9 and while seeing page 23 of Ex PW21/DD he deposed that as loan was sanctioned on 03.06.2002 the concerned officer was to take provisional balance sheet for the year 2002 instead of considering on the basis of estimates of the net sales and other current assets and liabilities in the year 2002. On being shown D­12 he deposed that audited balance sheet for the year 2002 was on record and that the sale figures and other figures are mentioned on page 23 of D­9.

250. PW72 Sh. S. K. Srivastav on seeing Ex PW21/DD (D­9) deposed that it was a process note pertaining to the enhancement of cash credit facility of M/s Aman Trading Company which had been processed by accused Satish Sharma, the then Manager (Advance department) in his handwriting. He further deposed that accused Satish Sharma after processing the same recommended for enhancement of cash credit limit from Rs 40 lacs to 1 Crore and OD/BD to continue upto Rs 36 lacs and for enhancement of DALC from Rs 25 lacs to Rs 75 lacs and the said note bore signature of accused Satish Sharma at point A. He further deposed that said process note of recommendation was also approved by accused Smt. Rekha Sisodia, the then Sr. Manager at point X­1. He further deposed that thereafter this note was put up before him and he approved the sanction of the same as recommended by accused Satish Sharma and accused Rekha Sisodia and same bore his signature at point X­II. He further deposed that properties proposed by the party to be mortgaged were already mentioned in the above mentioned note. He further deposed that recommendation was thereafter put up before the then AGM accused K. S. Gupta who was the sanctioning authority and who sanctioned the same bearing his signatures at point X­III and X­IV.

251. He further deposed that vide seizure memo (D­3) dt 19.06.2003 Ex PW72/A, he had handed over documents (mentioned in the memo) from bank record to IO/CBI. He further deposed that D­4 was xerox (photocopy) copy of MCD challan in the name of S. C. Jain, D­5 was photocopy of Saral form of S. C. Jain, D­6 was photocopy of sales tax return of ATC, D­11 was photocopy of Sales Tax receipt of ATC, D­12 was photocopy of audited report of ATC, D­15 was photocopy of audited report of ATC, D­18 was photocopy of Saral form of S. C. Jain, D­19 photocopy of Sale Deed of property No. 52/18, Shahdra, D­24 was the photocopy of insurance cover note (three sheets) issued by Oriental Insurance Company of ATC, D­36 was assessment of income tax (three sheets) of Sanjay Jain, D­40 was audited report (seven sheets) of ATC, D­42 (three sheets) was provisional balance sheet, Trading & P/L A/c and List of sundry creditors of ATC and D­43 (two sheet) was photocopy of income tax declaration and Saral form of S. C. Jain were handed over by him to CBI from bank records.

252. PW72 further deposed on seeing D­17 that it was Credit Information Form pertaining to ATC in the handwriting of accused Satish Sharma bearing his (Satish Sharma) signature at point A. Credit Information Form D­17 was exhibited as Ex PW72/B. He further deposed that vide seizure memo Ex PW72/D (D­50) he had handed over documents mentioned therein to CBI. Vide seizure memo Ex. PW72/D (D­50) he handed over 43 documents.

253. On seeing D­56 PW72 deposed that it was original letter of execution of documents dt 10.06.2002 pertaining to ATC which was in the handwriting of accused Satish Sharma bearing his signature at point A. This letter was exhibited as Ex PW72/E. Vide this letter accused Satish Sharma had certified that borrower ATC and guarantor Sanjay Jain had executed before him documents mentioned therein. He further deposed that D­67 electricity bill in the name of Satish Chand Jain, 158, Karawal Nagar, Sahadra, Delhi was handed over by him to CBI from bank records through seizure memo Ex PW72/D (D­50).

254. In his cross examination PW72 admitted that he had no personal interaction with the accused persons except the bank officials. He further admitted that he did not have any personal knowledge about the accused persons except the accused who were bank officials. He further deposed that requisition for production of documents was not directly received by him from IO but the same were received by his branch. He further admitted that requisition for documents were not shown to him from the record nor had he seen any requisition from IO but denied the suggestion that no documents were produced by him before IO. He admitted that he had been part of the loan proposal process and had also recommended for grant of loan in this case. Sanctioning of enhanced cash credit facility to ATC on 03.06.2002 has not been disputed by any of the accused persons.

255. Letter Ex PW72/E shows that pursuant to sanction of enhanced credit facility to ATC, borrower and guarantor had executed documents mentioned therein. Perusal of bunch of documents filed by prosecution shows that D. P. Note dt. 10.06.2002 (D­54) Ex PW33/G­17, letter of waiver dt. 10.06.2002 (part of D­54), letter of interest dt. 10.06.2002 (part of D­54), Letter of Continuity dt. 10.06.2002 (part of D­54), Undertaking dt. 10.06.2002 (part of D­54), Agreement of book debts dt. 10.06.2002 (part of D­54), Agreement for letter of credit dt. 10.06.2002 (part of D­54), Agreement of Hypothecation dt. 10.06.2002 (part of D­54) all bearing signature of S.C. Jain and Agreement of Guarantee dt. 10.06.2002 (D­55) Ex PW33/G­18 bearing signatures of Sanjay Jain, are available on court record but they have not been proved at all. These documents were exhibited in the testimony of PW33 Ramesh Chander, hand writing expert from GEQD, Chandigarh as questioned signature/writing were taken from these documents. Similarly, there is letter dt. 06.04.2002 Ex PW33/G­6 from M/s Aman Trading Company under the signature of S. C. Jain whereby he had requested for enhancement and renewal of Credit Facility to ATC but same has also not been proved by the prosecution for the reason best known to it.

256. Prosecution must know that mere placing documents on record even if original on its own will not amount to proving it unless there is some oral evidence to the effect as to when, how, where and by whom it was executed/issued and the circumstances under which and for which it came into existence. Further, prosecution did not lead or prove on record that enhanced loan was ordered to be released, however, perusal of Statement of A/c of CC No. 260 Ex PW69/B­3 does show that amount was released. In any case none of the accused person have disputed request for enhancement/renewal of loan by Aman Trading Company, its processing, its sanction and released of amount by bank. Hence, it can be held safely that prosecution has successful proved that credit facility to ATC was subsequently enhanced from 76 lacs to 100 lacs while limit of L/C remained same at Rs 25 Lacs.

Proposal and sanction of loan of M/s Creative Traders, Plot No. 9 Pandav Nagar, Main Patparganj Road, Delhi and execution of loan documents.

257. It is the case of the prosecution that M/s Creative Traders (in short CT) submitted a loan proposal dt. 01.07.2002 to Parliament Street branch of Central Bank of India for sanction of CC limit against the security of stocks and book debts for Rs. 100 Lacs and L/C limit of Rs 25 lacs, which proposal was processed, sanctioned and amount was released after execution of the documents by the party in favour of bank while creating equitable mortgage of two properties bearing No. S­596, School Block vill. Mandawali, Illqua Fazalpur, Delhi admeasuring 400 sq. yds. valued at Rs 150 lacs and bearing No. 137 (part), Jhilmil Tahirpur, Delhi admeasuring 340 sqq yds. valued at Rs 150 lacs both in the name of Ashok Jain, proprietor of M/s CT.

258. PW40 Sh. B.N.S. Ratnakar on seeing D­70 deposed that it was a Process Note of borrower M/s CT and on the internal page No. 24 of the process note there were signature of Smt. Rekha Sisodia dt. 29.07.2001 at points X & X­1 respectively. He further deposed that Process Note (D­70) was gone through by him which was properly maintained in ordinary course of business of the bank and was exhibited as Ex. PW40/D. On seeing Ex. PW40/E (D­94) he deposed that it was a letter dt. 30.07.2002 bearing signature of Sh. S. K. Srivastava, Chief Manager at point A, pertaining to sanction of Credit limit to CT. Vide this letter borrower was intimated about sanctioning of the credit facility subject to terms and conditions mentioned therein and borrower and guarantor were called upon to execute requisite documents in favor of bank.

259. In cross examination by accused Keshav Sharma (A­1) who is alleged to have impersonated as Ashok Jain, proprietor of CT, PW40 admitted that files containing original documents relevant to the case were seized by CBI but none of the accused persons disputed his testimony on the aspect of Process Note Ex PW40/D (D­70) and Letter dt 30.07.2002 Ex PW40/E (D­94).

260. PW69 Sh. Suresh Sharma on seeing Ex PW69/B­7 (D­98) deposed that it was a certificate in respect of receipt of documents from the party which was issued under the signatures of Smt. Rekha Sisodia bearing her signature at point X. By this document it was acknowledged that borrower and guarantor had executed documents mentioned therein. PW69 identified the signature of accused Satish Sharma on Ex PW75/G (D­76). Vide this letter dt. 12.07.2002 bank had sought confidential report in respect of M/s CT from Jain Co­Operative Bank Ltd. with which M/s CT had represented to be banking till then. On seeing Ex PW21/DC (D­77), PW69 deposed it was a pre­inspection report dt 12.07.2002 which bore signature of accused K. S. Gupta. In this report accused K. S. Gupta reported to have visited the office of M/s CT at Plot No. 9, Pandav Nagar and have reported to have found the firm to be proprietorship firm with office/godwon existing in rented premise with stocks worth approximately Rs. 70 to 80 lacs.

261. On seeing Ex PW72/J (D­71), PW69 deposed that it was Credit Monitoring Agreement for M/s CT filed by accused Satish Sharma. PW69 also identified D. P. Note dt 07.08.2002 Ex PW33/G­28 (D­95), letter of waiver dt 07.08.2002 Ex PW33/G­28 (D­95), letter of proprietorship dt. 07.08.2002 Ex PW33/G­28 (D­95), letter of interest dt. 07.08.2002 Ex PW33/G­28 (D­95), letter of encumbrance dt. 07.08.2002(D­95), undertaking dt. 07.08.2002, letter of continuity dt. 07.08.2002(D­95), undertaking dt. 07.08.2002, declaration of security charge dt. 09.08.2002 Ex. PW33/G­29 (D­96), letter of indemnity bond dt. 09.08.2002 Ex PW33/G­29 (D­96), affidavit of Ashok Jain dt. 09.08.2002 Ex PW33/G­29 (D­96), another affidavit of Ashok Jain dt. 09.08.2002 Ex PW33/G­29 (D­96), letter of Ashok Jain dt. 08.08.2002 Ex PW33/G­29 (D­96), letter of Ashok Jain dt. 07.08.2002 Ex PW33/G­29 (D­96), undertaking dt. 10.08.2002 Ex PW33/G­29 (D­96) all executed by Ashok Jain proprietor of M/s CT. He also deposed that letter of interest dt 07.08.2002 Ex PW33/G­28 (D­95), letter of encumbrance dt. 07.08.2002(D­95), undertaking dt 07.08.2002, letter of continuity dt. 07.08.2002(D­95) were filled by accused Smt. Rekha Sisodia. He also identified letter of guarantee Ex PW33/G­30(D­97) given by Mr. Rajiv Jain in favour of M/s CT and was filled by accused Rekha Sisodia. He further deposed statement of account of M/s CT pertaining to CC No. 267 for the period 01.01.2001 to 08.05.2003 Ex PW69/B­5 (D­537) reflected that party had issued numbers of cheques to M/s Paramount Insulation Pvt. Ltd., M/s Alpha Communication and had also issued self cheques.

262. In cross examination by accused Keshav Sharma (A­9) who is alleged to have impersonated as Ashok Jain, PW69 deposed that he did not remember if he had stated to CBI in his statement that he identified the signatures of proprietor of M/s CT on the documents exhibited in his testimony on 08.01.2018. Court observed that there was no such statement to CBI to the effect that he identified the signature of proprietor of M/s CT. He admitted that parties had not signed the documents referred by him in his examination­in­chief (dt 08.01.218) in his presence. The documents which he had handed over to CBI used to remain in the custody of Sr. Manager/Chief Manager of the bank in double lock and key. He deposed that document were not in his possession. He denied the suggestion that cheques mentioned by him were passed on the basis of forged signatures. No suggestion was given to him that M/s CT did not request for credit facility or its request was not precessed vide Process Note Ex PW40/D (D­70) or that documents Ex PW33/G­28, 29, 30 were not executed by the borrower/guarantor or that no amount of loan was released to M/s CT.

263. In the cross examination by other witness he admitted that he was not the scribe or author of any of the documents and that he personally did not deal with the matter regarding advances nor did he have personal knowledge regarding the execution of the documents as the same were not executed in his presence. In any case there was no denial from any of the accused person that Credit Facility request of M/s CT was processed, sanctioned and amount was released upon the execution of documents mentioned in the certificate dt 7.08.2002 Ex PW69/B­7.

264. PW72 Sh. S.K. Srivastava on being shown (D­70) Ex PW40/D deposed that it was a Process Note pertaining to the loan of M/s CT and said note was prepared by Sh. Satish Sharma, Manager (Advance) bearing his signature at point B. He further deposed that note was further approved by Smt. Rekha Sisodia signing at point X and thereafter it was approved by him by singing at point A. He deposed that this process note was sanctioned by AGM K.S Gupta by signing at point X­1. He further deposed that sanction advise Ex PW40/E in favour of M/s CT was issued by him bearing his signature at point A. On seeing D­95 Ex PW33/G­28 he deposed that it bore handwritings of accused Smt. Rekha Sisodia and the said documents had been filled up in her handwriting at different places. On seeing (D­101) Ex PW72/J­1 he deposed that it was a sanction letter dt 30.07.2002 to M/s CT sent under the signatures of Smt. Rekha Sisodia at point A. Vide this letter it was informed to M/s CT that loan has been sanctioned and borrower was called upon to execute documents mentioned therein in favour of bank. Further, vide sanction letter dt. 30.07.2002 it was clarified that Khasra number of collateral security mentioned at point 2 of the said sanction letter be read as Khara No. 503/444/3/16 instead of Khara No. 503/444/3/1.

265. Testimony of PW72 regarding sanctioning of Credit facility to M/s CT interalia against collateral securities has not been disputed by any of the accused persons. From perusal of Ex PW40/D, it is established that CC limit of Rs. 100 lacs and DA L/C inland for Rs 25 lacs was sanctioned. Further, upon execution of documents as mentioned in Ex PW69/B­7 amount was released in the CC A/c No. 267 as reflected from Ex PW69/B­5.

266. Although two letters (D­78) and (D­79) both dt. 01.07.2002 Ex PW33/G­24 & Ex PW33/G­25 respectively are also on record written by Ashok Jain, proprietor of M/s CT on the letterhead of M/s CT but these have not been proved for the reason best known to the prosecution. Contents wise both documents are same but still they are different in the sense that part of the contents of the first page of D­79 is on the second page of D­78 and so on. By these letters M/s CT through its proprietor had requested for grant of working facility to AGM, Central Bank of India, Parliament Street Branch. But Why this two letters? None of the prosecution witness relating to processing and disbursement of loan deposed anything about these two letters.

267. Nevertheless, from the testimonies of PW40, PW69 and PW72 and documents noted above, prosecution has successfully proved that M/s CT had requested for sanction of working capital from the Central Bank of India, Parliament Street branch which was processed and granted by the bank.

Submission of forged documents by M/s ATC

268. It is the case of the prosecution that documents submitted by M/s ATC at the time of opening current A/c No. 5425 (and subsequent opening of CC A/c N0 267) with Central Bank of India, Parliament Street Branch New Delhi, at the time of requesting for sanction of working capital as well as at the time of availing the cash credit facilities were found to be forged and fabricated. Documents submitted by M/s ATC are photo voter I Card of the proprietor, Saral form of the proprietor, duly audited balance sheet and P/L account of M/s ATC for the period ending 31.03.1999 and 31.03.2000 and provisional balance sheet duly certified by CA for the period ending 31.03.2001, sales tax registration certificate/receipt, statement of A/c with Jain Co­Operative Bank and report from said Co­Operative bank, Shahdra branch, property title documents and connecting documents pertaining to mortgaged properties i.e. property bearing No.78A. Dilshad Garden and 52/18, Karawal Nagar Delhi.

Voter Photo I Card of Satish Chand Jain

269. While opening Current A/c No. 5425 with Central Bank of India, Parliament Street Branch, New Delhi, M/s ATC through its proprietor S. C. Jain submitted photocopy of voter photo I Card bearing No. DL/04044/163924 and photocopy of Saral form for the assessment year 2000­02 of the proprietor S. C. Jain, besides Form 60. At the time of opening of CC A/c No.267 also M/s ATC through its proprietor had submitted voter photo I card bearing No. DL/04044/163924 and photocopy of Saral Form for the assessment year 2000­02 of the proprietor S.C. Jain.

270. PW11 Sh. Girdhari Lal Lamba on 10.11.2014 was working as UDC in the Election Office, Assembly Constituency No. 44, LM Bund, Shastri Nagar, Delhi. On seeing photocopy of voter photo I card bearing No. DL/04044/163924 issued in the name of Satish Chand Jain S/o Sh. N.M. Jain, R/o 78A, Dilshad Garden, Delhi, he deposed that this voter I card was never issued by his Assembly Constituency. He further deposed that said fact he deposed on the basis of record available in his office at that time and further the number which was on the voter I card did not belong to his Assembly Constituency.

271. In cross examination by accused No.9, he deposed that he did not know if any action was initiated against Satish Chand Jain after coming to know from record that the card was not issued by the Assembly Constituency. He further deposed that he could not say whether any ordinary individual could find out if the card was fake or genuine but stated only after checking record they came to know that Voter I card was fake. In cross examination by accused No.10 & 11, he deposed that he did not know if the record of his office on the basis of which he had stated that the voter I card was a forged one, was seized by CBI. He further deposed that he had not been shown any official record of his office by Ld. PP except the voter I card. Other accused persons did not cross examine him. The Voter I card was marked as Mark­-PW11.

272. Although PW11 had not brought any record from his office to show to the court as to what was number that used to be mentioned by Election Commission for the Assembly Constituency he was working in, nevertheless his testimony almost went unquestioned. Accused Sharad Kumar Jain who is alleged to have impersonated as S. C. Jain also did not question PW11.

273. PW79 Pankaj Garg S/o V.P.Garg whose photograph appear in the voter photo I card though admitted that said I card bore his photograph however volunteered that it did not bear his name or other details and denied the suggestion that it belonged to him or that he used the same at other places also. Said photocopy of election voter I card was exhibited as Ex PW79/DX­I. It is not the case of any of the accused that father name of Pankaj Garg is N.M. Jain and that he was resident of 78A, Dilshad Garden.

274. Thus, from the conjoint reading of testimony of PW11 and PW79 it is proved beyond doubt that election photo I card bearing No. DL/04044/163924 Ex PW79/DX­1 bearing photograph of Pankaj Garg purportedly issued in the name of Satish Chand Jain S/o Sh. N.M. Jain, R/o 78A, Dilshad Garden, Delhi, is fake and forged.

Provisional balance sheet duly certified by CA and audited balance sheet and Profit and Loss Account of M/s ATC

275. It is the case of the prosecution that in order to show itself in the sound business, M/s ATC had filed Provisional balance sheet duly certified by CA for the year ending 31.03.2001 and audited balance sheet and Profit & Loss Account of M/s ATC for the year ending 31.03.199 and 31.03.200 which turned out to be forged. Perusal of these documents shows that it were purportedly audited/certified by V. Sharma & Associates Chartered Accountants purportedly running from C­55/X­3, Dilshad Garden, Delhi.

276. PW19 Sh. Vinod Sharma deposed that he completed his CA in the year 1984 and in the year 1985 he started practice under the name and style of M/s V. Sharma & Associates at 1/6697, East Rohtas Nagar, Shahdra, Delhi­31. He further deposed that said firm was in existence till the year 1991 and thereafter he closed it and joined Govt. Service in Delhi State Civil Supply Corporation as Dy. Manager and since then he was working there. On seeing the copy of audit report of M/s ATC, 78A, Dilshad Garden for the year 1998­99 Mark 19/1(D­109), 1999­2000 Mark 19/2(D­110), 2000­01 Mark 19/3 (D­42) and 2001­02 Mark 19/1(D­43), he deposed that he had neither audited the accounts nor signed the aforesaid reports. He further deposed that signatures at point A on the said reports were not his signatures and the round seal affixed on the reports in the name of M/s V. Sharma & Associates was also not of his firm and the same was forged. He further deposed that during the said period he was not in practice but was in service. He further deposed that address mentioned in the audit reports was also not his address. He further deposed that said reports were false and fabricated documents. He further deposed that he did not know Pankaj Garg @ Satish Chand Jain, proprietor of M/s Aman Trading Company or Sh. Sanjay Gupta @ Sanjay Jain.

277. In cross examination done only by accused No.10 and 11, he denied the suggestion that he audited the accounts of M/s Sharda Metals, 78A, Dilshad Garden. He admitted that he had surrendered his certificate of Practice on 1.10.1990. He further deposed that his application for cancellation of certificate of practice is Ex PW19/DA and the notification is Ex PW19/B. He deposed that his specimen handwriting or seal or list of his clients for the period prior to 1990 were not taken by CBI. He denied the suggestion that he had audited the accounts of M/s Indian Cable Corporation, M/s Gupta Insulations and M/s Sapna Wires.

278. PW13 Gopi Chand deposed that in the year 1997 he was allotted a MIG Flat No. C­55/X3 Dilshad Garden, Delhi from DDA. He further deposed that in the year 1997 he had let out the said flat to Sanjay Gupta through one Mr. Mukesh Jain. He further deposed that Sanjay Gupta was running a factory of manufacturing of copper wires in front of the said flat. He further deposed that this flat remained in possession of Sanjay Gupta till the year 2001, thereafter said flat remained vacant for 14­15 months and then he sold the same to Mr. Rajiv Chaudhary. He further deposed that he handed over copies of allotment letter Mark P13/1, payment receipt Mark P13/2, possession slip Mark P13/3, payment slip Mark P13/4, agreement to sell Mark P13/5 to CBI. None of the accused persons disputed his testimony.

279. PW58 Meenu Pathak corroborated the same by deposing that she was in possession of the said flat as the same was provided to her by accused Sanjay Gupta who has taken the said flat on rent and Sanjay Gupta used to pay the rent. She remained in possession of the flat till 2001 thereafter she vacated and left for Jaipur with Sanjay Gupta. Her testimony to this aspect was also not disputed.

280. Thus, from the testimonies of PW19, PW13 and PW58 it stands established that no firm of Chartered Accountants in the name and style of M/s V. Sharma & Associates was operating from C­55/X3, Dilshad Garden between 1997 to 2002 and that audited reports marked as Mark PW19/1 to PW19/4 was never signed by PW19 or audited by him or his firm. Hence, prosecution has successfully proved that aforesaid provisional balance and audited balance sheet & P/L account of M/s ATC, were forged and fabricated.

Statement of A/c of M/s ATC with Jain Co­Operative Bank Ltd., Shahdra

281. It is the case of the prosecution that M/s ATC in order to show that it was banking with Jain Co­Operative Bank, Shahdra and running its account satisfactorily had submitted statement of its account with Jain Co­Operative Bank which was found by investigating agency to be forged and fabricated.

282. PW1. Smt. Veena Jain who was Dy. Manager with Jain Co­Operative Bank Ltd, Shahdra branch, from 1999 to 2000 and Manager from 2000 to 2001, deposed that statement of account (D­38) Mark PW1/D from 01.01.2001 to 30.04.2001 and statement of account (D­41) from 01.04.2000 to 31.12.200 Mark PW1/E of M/s Aman Trading Company 78A, Dilshad Garden were not issued by her branch. Her testimony to above effect was not questioned by any of the accused.

283. PW2 Rishabh Jain who was posted as Supervisor in Shahdra branch of Jain Co­Operative Bank Ltd from 1998 to 2004 also deposed that statements of account Mark PW1/D and PW1/E of Aman Trading Company were not issued by his branch. His above testimony was not disputed by any of the accused person rather he admitted (in cross examination by accused Sanjay Gupta) that he had given his statement in the court on the basis of record and not of his personal knowledge.

284. PW75 Viresh Chand Jain who was posted as Manager in Jain Co­Operative Bank Ltd. Shahdra during the year 2002­2003 and had succeeded Smt. Veena Jain (PW1), also deposed that statements of accounts mark PW1/D (Ex PW1/E) and PW1/E (Ex PW1/D) of M/s ATC were not issued from said branch and they did not bear signature of any officials or seal of impressions of bank. He further deposed that as per records of the bank, no bank account was ever maintained in the name of M/s Aman Trading Company. He was not at all cross examined by any of the accused persons.

285. Thus, from the testimonies of PW1, PW2 and PW75 it stands proved that statements of account Ex PW1/D and Ex PW1/E of M/s Aman Trading Company submitted by it to show that it was banking with Jain Co­Operative Bank Ltd., Shahdra branch and running its account satisfactorily, was forged and fabricated.

Sale Deed of Property No. 78A, Dilshad Garden, Delhi and property bearing No. 52/18, Karawal Nagar, Shahdra, Delhi

286. It is the case of the prosecution that one of the condition for grant Cash Credit facility to ATC was creation of equitable mortgage of property No. 78A, Dilshad Garden, Delhi as collateral security and equitable mortgage was created by way of deposit of Sale Deed in respect of aforesaid property. Enhancement and renewal of cash credit facility was granted against the collateral security of one more property bearing No. 52/18, Karawal Nagar, Shahdra. Later on it turn out that title documents of both the properties were forged.

287. PW72 Sh. S. K. Srivastava had deposed that vide seizure memo Ex PW72/D he had handed over 51 documents from the record of bank to CBI. Original Sale Deed of property No. 78A, Dilshad Garden is find mentioned at Sr. No. 30 of the seizure memo EX PW72/D.

288. Sale deed dt 27.12.2000 in respect of property No. 78A, Dilshad Garden is purportedly executed by Kuldeep Gupta in favour Satish Chand Jain.

289. PW8 Ms Preeti Jain testified that she was the resident of house No. 78A, Dilshad Garden for the last 30 years (since the day of her testimony recorded in the court). She claimed that house tax liability and electricity connection of the aforesaid house was in her name. She claimed that neither her husband nor her brother­in­law Nehru Jain nor she had sold the said property to anyone at any point of time. She further deposed that in 1992 a hall in the aforesaid property was given on rent to accused Sanjay Gupta, whom she had identified in the court, who was running his business in the name and style of Sharda Metals and who vacated the aforesaid property in 2003. It was not within her knowledge that any portion of the aforesaid house was ever given on rent to Satish Chand Jain or Kuldep Gupta. She further deposed that she did not know any person by the name of Satish Chand Jain or Kuldeep Gupta nor any portion of the house was ever let out to them.

290. In cross examination by A­3 Sharad Kumar Jain, she, in relevant portion, deposed that plot No. 78A, Dilshad Garden, Delhi was having an area of about 1000 sq. yds. and they were having residence only in the area of 300 sq yds. It was not in her knowledge that entire area of plot No. 78A was more than 1000 sq yds. She further deposed that there were no shops in her house. She further deposed that she used to pay house tax and electricity bill in the capacity of owner and same was not being paid by Nehru Jain. In cross examination by A­11, in relevant portion she deposed that her husband used to pay house tax of the aforesaid property, however, after death of her husband liability came on her shoulder. She admitted that property has not been transferred in her name. She further deposed that two factories were being run in other portion of the that plot. She further deposed that she was not aware if any company in the name of M/s Aman Trading Company was being run at 78A, Dilshad Garden.

291. None of the accused persons disputed her ownership claim over the property but she did not come out with any document of title either in her name or in the name of her husband or in the name of her in­laws.

292. PW20 Nehru Jain S/o Late Sh. R.B. Jain R/o 78A, Dilshad Garden claimed to be sole owner of the property No. 78A, Dilshad Garden. He deposed that property was bequeathed to him on the demise of his father and he was the sole owner of the property. He deposed that plot No. 78A, Dilshad Garden, Delhi was approximately 5000 sq. yds and was initially purchased by Sh. Mohan Lal, Sh. Raj Bahadur Jain S/o Lt. Sh. Jugal Kishore Jain, Shahdra, Late Sh. Hari Lal Jain and Sh. Raj Bahadur Jain S/o Late Sh. Jugal Kishor Jain, Devband, UP. He further deposed that aforesaid two Raj Kishore Jain were two separate individuals. His father had share of about 937.3 sq. yds out of the said plot of approx. 5000 sq. yds. His father had expired on 01.02.1975 and other three owners had also expired. Sh. Raj Bahadur Jain of Devband expired on 08.04.1984.

293. PW20 further deposed that he were four brothers and four sisters. In 78A, Dilshad Garden he along with family and family of his late brother Mukesh Jain were residing since his birth. He further deposed that property No. 78A, Dilshad Garden was never used by any other person except by his family and the family of his brother for residential brother. He further deposed that Sale deed of aforesaid property No. 78A in respect of area approx. 937.3 sq. yds was in the name of his father late Sh. R.B. Jain and after death of his father ownership of the property was transfered in his name. He further deposed that after relinquish deed of other legal heirs of his father the property No. 78A was mutated in his name somewhere in the year 2009. He deposed that neither his father nor he himself had executed any sale deed in favour of anyone in respect of property No. 78A, Dilshad Garden.

294. PW20 further deposed that he did not know any person namely Satish Chand Jain (later on it has come in evidence that he along with Satish Chand Jain had stood surety in probate case bearing No. 200/99 filed by one Sukhbir Singh and wherein said Satish Chand Jain had filed this very sale deed but with photographs of different purchaser than the one shown in Ex PW15/DA) or Kuldeep Gupta and none of any such person ever resided in property No. 78A, Dilshad Garden, Delhi, in any capacity.

295. On being shown D­58 (Ex PW22/DA) he deposed that it was General Power of Attorney dt. 09.05.1984 purportedly issued in respect of property No. 78A, Dilshad Garden and purportedly signed in the name of Raj Bahadur and others, but was not bearing the signature of his father as his father expired on 01.02.1975 and the document Ex PW22/DA was of 09.05.1984. To the same effect was his testimony when he was shown agreement to sell dt 09.05.1984 Ex PW33/G­19(D­59), affidavit dt. 09.05.1984 Ex PW33/G­20 (D­60) purportedly executed by his father in respect of afore said property in favour of Kuldeep Gupta. On seeing affidavit dt 20.07.2001 Ex PW33/G­1 (D­62) he deposed that same had been executed by Satish Chand Jain without authority or right in the property nor did it bear his signature or that of his father.

296. He further deposed that there were two electricity connection in property No. 78A, one in his name and other in the name of his sister­in­law Ms Preeti Jain (PW8). He further deposed that no electricity or water connection ever existed in the name of Satish Chand Jain or any such other person.

297. On seeing the Sale Deed dt 27.12.2000 Ex PW15/DA (D­57) in respect of property No. 78A, Dislahd Garden purportedly executed by Kuldeep Gupta in favour Satish Chand Jain, PW20 Nehru Jain deposed that Kuldeep Gupta had no right, title or interest in the said property at any point of time and hence apparently said sale deed was forged one. He further deposed that Sale deed Ex PW15/DA (D­57) had photograph of accused Rakesh Verma in the name of Kuldeep Gupta at point X­1 as seller and photograph of Pankaj Garg (PW79) in the name of Satish Chand Jain at point X as purchaser of the property. He knows Pankaj Garg (PW79) who is son of real sister of accused Sanjay Gupta.

298. PW20 was cross examined in detail by accused persons but none of them disputed his claim that his father was owner of the property No. 78A, Dilshad Garden despite their being no title documents having been produced by him. He however denied the suggestion that property in question was never transferred in his name. Surprisingly, accused Rakesh Verma whose photographs was affixed on the sale deed Ex PW15/DA and shown as Kuldeep Gutpa, did not give even suggestion that Kuldeep Gupta or he (Rakesh Verma) was owner or had authority over the property in question to execute Sale Deed in favour of Satish Chand Jain.

299. PW14 Sh. Vinod Gupta in his testimony claimed to be doing business of property dealing at 488/10, Dilshad Garden and property No. 488/3 was just after 3­4 shops of his office and all are part of Khasra No.488. In his cross examination he testified to the effect Khasra No. 488 may be 4000­5000 sq yds of land. Size of the land in khasra No 488 was not disputed by any of the accused persons. As per him he had constructed a hall in his whole plot and let out the same where from his tenant was running a factory.

300. PW15 Sh. Vikas Gupta was working as UDC and was Reader in the year 2000 in the office of Sub­Registrar, Seelampur, Delhi. Upon seeing the office copy of Sale Deed Dt 27.12.2000 Ex PW9/D­1 (D­184) in respect of property No. 78A, executed by Kuldeep Gupta in favour Satish Chand Jain, he deposed that registration number on the back side of the last page of Ex PW9/D­1 (D­184) was in his hand writing at encircled mark A with blue ink. On seeing the purportedly vendee copy of Sale Deed dt 27.12.2000 Ex PW15/DA (D­57) executed by Kuldeep Gupta in favour Satish Chand Jain in respect of the property No. 78A, Dilshad Garden, he deposed that registration number at point A on the back of last page of the documents Ex PW15/DA (D­57) was not in his writing. As per him Ex PW9/D­1 (D­184) and Ex PW15/DA (D­57) were different.

301. In cross examination by A­10 and A­11, he deposed that both documents were different as 1) there was rubbing on the document mark PW15/1 (EXPW15/DA) (D­57) on the serial number of the stamp paper, 2) the font of word A from the top on the first page was different in both the documents, 3) the photograph of the purchaser also appeared to be different on both documents. He further deposed that serial number of the stamp paper in both the documents were same. After going through the photographs on both documents the photographs of the purchaser appeared to him to be different. He further deposed that he could not confirm if the signatures at point A­1 on document Ex PW15/DA (D­57) were of Sub Registrar Sh. M.S. Dagar but they appeared to be so.

302. PW31 Sh. Mahavir Singh Dagar was working as Sub­ Registrar, Seelampur, during December 2000 to September 2001. On seeing Sale Deed dt 30.12.2000 (D­27) purported to have been executed by Kuldeep Gupta in favour Satish Chand Jain regarding property bearing No. 78A Dilshad Garden having registration No. 2966 dt 30.12.2000, Book No.1, Vol. 3524 pages from 73 to 77, he deposed that aforesaid sale deed did not bear his signature and the said sale deed is already exhibited as Ex PW29/DA­3. (Though it has been claimed that documents is already Ex PW29/DA but no such document was exhibited in the testimony of PW29 nor any such Sale Deed is available as D­27. Probably it was D­57 which is Sale Deed dt 27.12.2000 Ex PW15/DA bearing signature dt 30.12.2000 purportedly of Registrar on the last page).

303. Surprisingly, in cross examination he denied his signature even on the office copy of Sale Deed dt 27.12.2000 Ex PW9/D­1. He maintained same stand even after seeing the entire pages of the Sale Deed Ex PW9/D­1. He further said he could not say as to who had registered the documents referred above. He further went on to say that Ex PW9/D­1 was not registered in his office.

304. PW35 Sh. Ram Kishan retired as Assistant Settlement Officer from DDA in 2009 and prior to his posting as Assistant Settlement Officer he was posted as Tehsildar, Nazul, Vikas Sadan, New Delhi. He deposed that in or about the year 2004 CBI had made enquiry from him in respect of the ownership of property bearing No. 78A, Dilshad Garden, Shahdra, Delhi. He deposed that property No. 78A, Dilshad Garden was in Khasra No. 466/232­443/1 measuring (2­01), Khasra No. 466/232­443/2 measuring (0­10), 466/232­443/3 measuring (0­19), 466/232­443/4 measuring (0­9) and 466/232­443/5 measuring (0­18). After going through record produced by Kanungo, Vikas Sadan, he deposed that Smt. Tara Ishwari Devi (widow), Sh. Ashok Kumar, Subhash Chander sons of Smt. Chatra Jain Dukhtar Mohan Lal all resident of Daryganj, were owners of property bearing No. 466/232­443/1 measuring (2 bigha­01 biswa) in equal share. Smt. Tara Ishwari Devi (widow), Sh Ashok Kumar, Subhas Chander, sons of Smt. Chatra Jain Dukhtar Mohan Lal R/o Daryaganj were owners of property bearing No. 466/232­443/2 measuring (0bigha­10 biswa) in respect of the 1/4th portion of the total property. Raj Bahadur S/o Jugal Kishore R/o Shahdra was the owner of property No. 466/232­443/3 measuring (0bigha­19 biswas). Raj Bahadur S/o Jugal Kishore R/o Shahdra was the owner of property bearing No. 466/232­443/4 measuring (0 bigha­9 biswas). Ravi Dass S/o Ulfat Rai R/o Daryaganj was the owner of the property bearing No. 466/232­443/5 measuring (0 bigha­18biswas). Relevant of portion of Jamabandi is already Ex CW/A. He further deposed that Khasra No. 1076/5/2/403 falls about 2 km away from property No. 78A, Dilshad Garden, Delhi as per the Aks Sijra shown to him but both the properties fell in the same village ie. Village Jhilmil Tahirpur, Shahdra, Delhi. He further deposed that Ex PW15/DA was in respect of Khasra No. 1076/5/2/403.

305. In cross examination he admitted that Jamabandi shown to him was in Urdu and he did not know reading or writing Urdu. He could not tell whether the Hindi or English translation of the said documents was true translation or not. He had not brought any record of village Jhilmil Tahirpur after the period of 1988 i.e. the period of urbanization and he cannot produce the said record.

306. PW20 Nehru Jain, PW29 Ghanshyam Tiwari and PW79 Pankaj Garg identified the photographs of the seller of the Sale Deed (Ex PW15/DA) in question as Rakesh Verma which fact was not disputed by accused Rakesh Verma. Pankaj Garg had deposed that his photograph at point X in Ex PW15/DA had been used in the name of Satish Chand Jain (purchaser). He further deposed that office copy of sale deed Ex PW9/D­1 bore his photograph at point B. However, he had denied his involvement in the registration of the sale deed.

307. PW10 Sh. Suraj Mal Jain was working as Assistant Archivist, Department of Delhi Archives in the year 2004. He deposed that he had supplied the certified copy of Sale Deed (D­61) Ex PW10/A to the CBI official. On seeing the certified copy of the Sale Deed (D­61) Ex PW10/A he deposed that it was in respect of property No. 78A, Dilshad Garden, Delhi executed between Gauri Devi w/o Dr. Naliksha Mukharjee R/o 23, Daryaganj, Delhi and Sh. Mohan Lal S/o Amrit Lal, 18 Daryaganj, Sh. Raj Bahadur S/o Sh. Jugal Kishore Jain of Shahdra, Sh. A. Das S/o Sh. Ulfat Rai R/o 7, Daryaganj Delhi and Sh. Lal Bahadur S/o Sh. Jugal Kishor Jain, Devband and registered vide serial No. 2373, Addl. Book , Vol No.422, pages from 99 to 104 dated 21.05.1958 in the office of Sub­Registrar, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi and was in respect of 4919 sq. yds. He was not cross examined by any of the accused persons.

308. From the testimony of PW20 Nehru Jain, PW14 Vinod Gupta and PW35 Sh. Ram Kishan it appears that property No. 78A, Dilshad Garden is very big property admeasuirng about 5000 sq. yds. and PW20 claimed that his father was owner of 937.3 sq yds whereas from the sale deed Ex PW10/A produced by PW10, Suraj Mal Jain father of Nehru Jain appears to be co­owner of property admeasuring 419 sq. yds. Be that as it may, seller Kuldeep Gupta in the sale deed claimed to have purchased the property under sale from all the aforesaid co­owners and PW20 Sh. Nehru Jain had deposed that his father expired in 01.07.1975 which fact was not disputed and therefore documents of transfer in respect of the property No. 78A allegedly executed in favour of Kuldeep Gupta by his father including others could not have been possible in the year 1984. Further, in the sale deed property under sale has been claimed to be belonging in khasra No. 1076/5/2/403 but property No. 78A is shown to be in different Khasra number. Furthermore, accused Rakesh Verma whose photographs has been affixed as Kuldeep Gupta on Ex PW15/DA and Ex PW9/D­1 did not claim his ownership over the property nor any evidence has been produced in defense that Kuldeep Gupta was owner of the property under sale.

309. Furthermore, this court has compared the Sale Deed Ex PW15/DA and office copy of Sale deed Ex PW9/D­1 and found that contents wise both are same but still both are different. Though photograph of seller and purchaser in the office copy of Sale Deed Ex PW9/D­1 and that of on vendee copy of Sale Deed Ex PW15/DA are of same persons but they are different photographs of seller and purchaser that is to say both documents have photograph of accused Rakesh Verma as Kuldeep Gupta but both photographs are different that is to say slightly in different pose. Position of head in the photograph of Rakesh Verma @ Kuldeep Gupta in Ex PW9/D­1 is slightly backward/held high whereas position of head of Rakesh Verma @ Kuldeep Gupta in the photograph affixed on Ex PW15/DA is slightly bent forward as compared to position of his head in his photograph in Ex PW9/D­1. Similarly, photograph of Pankaj Garg as purchaser Satish Chand Jain in Ex PW9/D­1 and ExPW15/DA are also different. Photograph of Pankaj Garg in Ex PW15/DA has more exposed forehead whereas his photograph in office copy Ex PW9/D­1 has his forehead covered with hair just upto above eyebrows. Further his head is slightly tilted to his left side in the photograph in Ex PW15/DA as compared to his photograph in Ex PW9/D­1. It is further relevant to note that office copy of the Sale Deed Ex PW9/D­1 has the photocopy of photograph of seller and purchaser therefore it was necessary that photographs in the vendee copy of Sale Deed Ex PW15/DA should be same as in the office copy of sale deed Ex PW9/D­1.

310. Thus, from the above testimonies of witness and discussion made above, it is clear the Ex PW15/DA is not the vendee copy of Sale Deed Ex PW9/D­1 available in the office of Sub­ Registrar, Seelampur. Further, handwriting expert PW33 Ramesh Chandra in his report Ex PW33/X has reported that QN­1 and QN­2 that is non judicial stamp numbers as appearing on the sale deed Ex PW15/DA is not matching with that of SN­1 and SN­2 appearing in the office copy of sale deed Ex PW9/D­1.

311. Hence, prosecution has successfully proved that Sale Deed Ex PW15/DA in respect of property No. 78A, Dilshad Garden executed by Rakesh Verma as Kuldeep Gupta with no title at all, in favour of Satish Chand Jain with photograph of Pankaj Garg, is forged and not the vendee copy of the sale deed Ex PW9/D­1 available in the office of Sub­Registrar. Prosecution has also successfully proved that office copy of sale deed Ex PW9/D­1 is bogus sale deed neither transferring any title nor carrying any title as the same has been executed by fake person with no title to the property.

Property No. 52/18 Karawal Nagar, Shahdra, Delhi

312. It has been alleged that M/s Aman Trading Company at the time of enhancement of Credit Facility had submitted forged and fabricated Sale Deed in respect of property No. 52/18 Karawal Nagar, Shahdra Delhi in the name of proprietor Satish Chand Jain.

313. PW22 Sh. Balwan Singh was working as Sub­Registrar at Seelampur on 10.07.2003. On seeing the Sale Deed dt 28.06.1985 Ex PW22/A (D­68) registered on 01.07.1985 in respect of property No. 52/18 Village Karawal Nagar, Shahdra, mortgaged with Central Bank of India by M/s Aman Trading Company and on seeing office Copy/carbon copy of Sale Deed dt. 28.06.1985 PW22/A­1 (D­182) registered on 01.07.1985 in respect of the same very property, he deposed that there were following differences between the two:­

i) The official rubber stamps affixed by the Sub­Registrar office on both Sale deeds are different.

ii) At the end of first page of the office copy of the sale deed, in the line “contd….p/2.” there are five dots whereas in the original sale deed (i.e. vendee copy) Ex PW22/A, there are four dots at the same place.

iii) The signature of Balraj Singh on both the copies are different.

iv) The rubber stamp in the name of Shri Iqbal Mathur, Advocate on the original sale deed Ex PW22/A is in the black ink whereas in the carbon copy Ex PW22/A1, it is in blue ink.

314. In cross examination he admitted that he was not a handwriting expert. He was more cross examined on the Sale Deed Ex PW15/DA and Ex PW9/D­1 than on the sale deed Ex PW22/A.

315. PW33 Sh. Ramesh Chandra working as Hand Writing expert in GEQD in Intelligence Bureau has examined the typings marked QTF11 to QTF13 appearing on each page of the Sale Deed Ex. PW22/A and signatures of Bal Raj Singh, the vendors, marked as Q470 & Q471 appearing on each page of the Sale Deed Ex. PW22/A, with typing material marked as STP­6 to STP­7 appearing on the office copy/carbon copy of said Sale Deed Ex. PW22/A­1 and signature of Bal Raj Singh as appearing in the office copy of the sale deed referred to as A­1 to A­3 and vide report Ex PW33/X he has reported that they do not match with each other.

316. PW53 Sh. Adesh Jain claimed to be dealing in old garments and was running said business from Karawal Nagar from 1995 to 2005 and deposed that he and his bhabi Anita had purchased the property at Kawarwal Nagar from M/s Shree Cement and Mr Mathew had signed the documents on behalf of company. In the year 2005 said property was sold however he did not remember the property number. He further deposed that said property was never given on rent to anyone till it remained in his possession from 1995 to 2005. He further deposed that CBI officer had made enquiries from him and he had handed over some documents to CBI which he can identify.

317. On seeing D­190 he identified his signature put by him for having attested copy of sale deed dt 11/11/1988 Ex PW53/A executed between Satish Chand Jain (seller) and Smt. Urmila Jain (buyer) pertaining to Khasra No. 52/18, Karawal Nagar, Delhi. He also identified his signatures on the documents which he had handed over to CBI i.e. Power of Attorney dt 01/01/1993 by Smt Gunjan Jain in favour of Sh. Rajinder Goel, Agreement for Sale dt 01/01/1993 executed between Smt. Gunjan Jain and Sh. Rajender Goel, GPA dt 31.07.1995 executed by Sh. J. Mathew in favour of Sh. Rajnder Goel, Agreement to Sale dt. 31/07/1995 executed between J. Mathew in favour of Smt. Anita Jain, Affidavit dt 31/07/1995 of Sh. J. Mathew, Receipt pertaining to sale issued by Sh. J. Mathew, Deed of Will by Sh. J. Mathew dt. 31/07/1995 and all these documents collectively exhibited as Ex PW53/B were received by him at the time of purchase and photocopies of the said documents attested by him as true and correct copies, were handed over by him to CBI.

318. Though these documents Ex PW53/B cannot be said to have been proved as their originals were not produced in the court nor person in possession thereof were examined, nevertheless his testimony to the effect that he and his bhabhi Anita Jain owned the aforesaid property No. 52/18 from 1995 to 2005 was not disputed or questioned by any of the accused persons.

319. PW70 Sh. Rajender Jain deposed that Sh. Satish Chand Jain S/o Sh. Nathu Mal Jain was his brother­in­law (real brother of his wife Smt. Umila Jain) who expired in February 2005. Before his death Satish Chand Jain was residing in Guwahati for last about 8­10 years. He further deposed that in the year 1988 his wife purchased property about 1000 sq. yds. bearing Khasra No. 52/18, Karawal Nagar, Delhi from her brother Sh. Satish Chand Jain and in the year 1989 his wife sold the property to Smt. Gunjan Jain W/o Praveen Jain, his brother. He further deposed that said property was purchased by Satish Chand Jain from one Balraj Singh Chaudhary whose whereabout he did not know. He identified the signature on point A of his wife on certified copy of Sale Deed dt 22.08.1989 Ex PW70/A by which his wife had sold the property to Gunjan Gupta.

320. PW85 Sh. Dalbir Singh, UDC, General Administration Department, Delhi Secretariat, New Delhi, deposed that he had worked in the officer of Sub­Registrar Seelmapur alongwith Sh. Sarvanam, LDC and as such he was acquainted with his signature. He identified the signature of Sh. Sarvanam on the seizure memo dt 29.07.2005 (D­527) Ex PW81/17 vide which Sh. Sarvanam had handed over to CBI certified copy sale deed Ex PW85/A of property on land measuring one bigha of part khara no.52/18, situated in the area of village Karawal Nagar, Delhi executed by Satish Chand Jain in favour of Smt. Urmila Jain and certified copy of sale deed Ex PW70/A of property on the land measuring one bigha part of Khasra No. 52/18, situated in the area of village Karawal Nagar executed by Smt. Urmila Jain in favour of Smt. Gunjan Jain. In cross examination he deposed that sale deeds were not executed in his presence and he had only identified the signature of S. Sarvana on seizure memo Ex PW81/17

321. From the above noted testimonies, it has been claimed that Sale Deed Ex PW22/A (D­68) placed with Central Bank of India, Parliament Street branch for creation of equitable mortgage was forged sale deed.

322. Analysis of above noted testimonies shows that one Sh. Satish Chand Jain S/o Nathu Mal Jain R/o B­46, East Jyoti Nagar, Shahdra, Delhi, had purchased land admeasuring one bigha part of Khasra number 52/18, Karawal Nagar, Shahdra, Delhi and had sold the same to his own sister Urmila Jain vide Sale Deed Ex PW70/A and as such said Satish Chand Jain was not the owner of the said property on the day when equitable mortgage was created.

323. Further, hand writing expert PW33 Sh. Ramesh Chandra in his report Ex. PW33/X has reported that typing marked as QTP­11 to QTP­13 in Ex PW22/A and typing marked as STP­6 to STP­8 as well as the signature of the vendor Balraj Singh are not matching. It is to be noted that office copy of the Sale Deed dt 28.06.1985 registered on (01.07.1985) Ex PW22/A­1 is the carbon copy of the vendee copy of Sale Deed so far as typed materials are concerned and therefore its typed contents and location of its typed contents must be same. However, minute examination of both sale deed Ex PW22/A and office copy Sale Deed Ex PW22/A­1 would show that the letter “S” in the word “SALE” in the very first line of the first page of the both copies are at different location. The letter “S” of “SALE” in the first line of the first page of Ex PW22/A is appearing just above the second zero of “600/­” in second line whereas letter “S” of “SALE” in the first line of the first page of Ex PW22/A­1 is appearing just above the second zero of “600/­” in the second line.

324. Similarly, in the last of first page of Ex PW22/A there is four dots in the expression “Contd….P/2” but in the last of first page of Ex PW22/A­1 there are five dots in the expression “Contd….P/2” as was also pointed out by PW22 Balwan Singh. Similarly, on page 2 of Ex PW22/A in the expression “Page 2.” the number 2 is almost aligned with dots but on page 2 of the Ex PW22/A­1 in the expression “Page 2.” the number “2” is placed slightly above aligned dots. Further in para 3 on page two of Ex PW22/A the first line ends with expression “Rs.20,000/­” and first zero of Rs 20,000/­ is just above letter “a” of the word “assigns” appearing in the second line and last zero appears just above the letter “g” in the said word and comma in “Rs. 20,000/­” is appearing just above the letter “s” of the said word “assign” whereas in para 3 of the Ex PW22/A­1 though first line of the para also end with word “ Rs.20,000/­” but first zero of Rs 20,000/­ is just above letter “i” of the word “assigns” appearing in the second line and last zero appears just above the gap between words “assigns” and “all” and comma in “Rs.20,000/­” is appearing just above the letter “g” of the said word “assign” appearing in the second line. Similarly, letter “D” appearing in the word “VENDORS” appearing on the last page of the both sale deeds are also different.

325. Hence, prosecution has successfully proved that Sale Deed Ex PW22/A mortgaged with Central Bank of India by ATC is not the vendee copy of the office copy of Sale Deed Ex PW22/A­1 and thus forged document/Sale Deed. Prosecution has also successfully proved that Satish Chand Jain of Sale Deed Ex PW22/A had sold his title in the property to his sister Urmila Jain vide sale deed Ex PW70/A much prior to creation of equitable mortgages by ATC in favour of Central Bank of India, Parliament Street.

Other documents of M/s ATC

326. It is the case of the prosecution that M/s ATC through its proprietor Satish Chand Jain had submitted to the bank many other documents which were also found to be forged. Such documents are sales tax registration certificate, payment receipt, electricity bill, insurance cover note etc. Though IO PW81 in his testimony had testified to the effect that he had collected responses from the concerned authorities thereby intimating him that these documents were forged but since no witnesses have been examined from the respective concerned department to prove that insurance cover notes, sales tax registration certificate of M/s ATC, electricity bills etc. are forged and fabricated, hence prosecution has failed to prove that these documents were also forged and fabricated documents.

Submission of forged documents by M/s Creative Traders (CT)

327. It is the case of the prosecution that while opening current account bearing No. 5593 with Central Bank of India, Parliament Street, N. Delhi, M/s Creative Traders through its proprietor had submitted copy of Sales Tax Registration Certification dt. 04.05.1998, a PAN card No. AACPJ8753B of the proprietor, voter photo I card bearing No. DL/05/085/546484 of the proprietor and while availing Cash Credit Facility it had submitted provisional balance sheet, profit & Loss account for the period ending 31.03.2002 and audited balance sheets for the years ending 31.03.1999, 31.03.2000, 31.03.2000 duly certified by CA, assets & liabilities statements of proprietor, income tax document, statement of its account with M/s Jain Co­Operative Bank Ltd and title documents of two properties as collateral security by way of equitable mortgage. All documents in investigation turned out to be forged and fabricated documents.

Sales Tax Registration Certificate of M/s CT

328. No witness has been examined from Sales Tax Department to prove that copy of Sales Tax Registration Certificate dt. 04.05.1998 and sales tax payment receipt were forged and fabricated. Hence, prosecution has failed to prove that it were forged documents.

PAN Card of Ashok Jain, Proprietor of CT

329. It is the case of the prosecution that PAN card furnished by Ashok Jain of himself was forged. The photocopy of Permanent Account No. AACPJ8753B furnished with account opening form is not very clear so far as photograph of the holder is concerned and therefore it is difficult to say as to whether it has photograph of Keshav Sharma whose photograph was affixed on account opening form, however, it reflects the name of Ashok Jain S/o Prem Chand Jain and shows date of birth as 26.01.1962.

330. PW37 SH. P.K. Relhan who has proved the account opening form of Cash Credit Account No. 267 Ex PW37/A had deposed that along with application form supporting documents were submitted by applicant Ashok Jain i.e. photocopy of PAN card and election photo I card attached with form. He did not specifically depose as to whether or not he had seen the original of them. Since PW37 has not been accused of any misconduct and therefore it is not difficult to presume that he accepted the photocopy of PAN and Voter I card after having seen the original as there is presumption that official acts are done in accordance with the rules prescribed. In any case it was not disputed by any of the accused that aforesaid PAN was submitted by Ashok Jain while opening the Cash Credit Account No.267 on 09.08.2002.

331. PW41 Sh. Zakir Thomas, Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax (System), New Delhi in his testimony deposed that vide letter dt 17.03.2005 Ex PW41/B (D­107) bearing his signature at point A, he had informed the IO/CBI that “A search of PAN database has confirmed that AACPJ8753B has been allotted to Sh. Ashok Jain and thus a valid PAN”.

332. It is the case of the prosecution that above PAN was issued to one Ashok Kumar Jain R/o 1876/2, Kailash Nagar, Delhi­36 but this Ashok Kumar Jain has not been examined by the prosecution. There is no other witness in this regard.

333. Thus, from the above testimony it can be concluded that prosecution has not been able to prove that photocopy of PAN card furnished by Ashok Jain, proprietor of CT was forged and fabricated, though certainly it was not of Keshav Sharma who impersonated as Ashok Jain, proprietor of M/s Creative Traders.

Election Photo I Card of Ashok Jain

334. Prosecution did not examine a single witness from the concerned office of the Election Commission to prove that election photo I Card bearing No. DL/05/085/546484 purportedly of Ashok Jain S/o P. C. Jain R/o 78­A, Dilshad Garden bearing photo of Keshav Sharma, furnished by accused Keshav Sharma impersonating as Ashok Jain, at the time of opening of Cash Credit A/c No.267 with Central Bank of India, Parliament Street Branch, was forged and fabricated. Hence, prosecution has failed in this regard.

Provisional balance sheet duly certified by CA and audited balance sheet and Profit and Loss Account of M/s CT

335. PW47 Sh. Sanjeev Bansal who is Chartered Accountant and practicing with his wife and with one Rajenderpal Gupta under the name and style of M/s Bansal Neelam & Associates allegedly from whom audited report Ex PW47A (D­88 containing 32 pages) were filed by M/s Creative Traders at the time of seeking Cash Credit facility, denied to have client in the name and style of M/s Creative Traders nor did he know Ashok Jain nor any R. K. Bansal who allegedly singed the audit report of M/s Creative Traders have worked with him.

336. He was cross examined only by accused Keshav Sharma and in his cross examination accused Keshav Sharma made him admit that he (witness) had not handed over to CBI any document to show that he (witness) was proprietor or partner of the firms M/s Bansal Neelam & Associates but accused Keshav Sharma gave him suggestion that the audit report shown to him in the court belonged to his firm and that audit report was prepared by their firm on the request of one Sachin Jain and thus accused Keshav Sharma by way of his suggestion removed the doubt about witness being not connected with said firm in any capacity. In any case testimony of PW47 was not disputed to the effect that he was practicing Chartered Accountant in the name and style of M/s Bansal Neelam & Associates and that no one with the name of R.K. Bansal was working with them.

337. Perusal of PW47/A (D­88) shows that Charted Accountancy firm Bansal Neelam & Associates had shown address of its firm at B­107, Vivek Vihar, Delhi – 110095.

338. PW73 Sh. Vijay Kumar Jain deposed that he with his family and families of his two brothers has been residing at B­107, Vivek Vihar, Delhi­10095 since 1988. He further deposed that this property was purchased in the joint names of his sisters­in­law Smt. Sudha Jain w/o Sh. N. K. Jain (his brother) and Smt. Sarla Jain W/o Sh. S. K. Jain (his another brother) from one Sh. H.C. Dass R/o Rajender Nagar. He further deposed that no portion of this property was ever let out to Sh. R. K. Bansal, Proprietor Bansal Neelam Associates, Chartered Accountants nor has he heard about the said chartered accountants or their firm. He further deposed that vide seizure memo dt. 15.03.2004 Ex PW73/A he had handed over electricity bill in the name of Sudha Jain and himself, photocopies of passbook in the name of Smt. Sudha Jain and Smt Sarla Jain, photocopy of MTNL telephone bill and ration card in his name, conveyance deed/GPA in the name of Smt. Sudha Jain and Smt. Sarla Jain. He further deposed that except electricity bill, photocopies of all these documents were certified by him bearing signature at point A and all were collectively exhibited as Ex PW73/X.

339. PW73 was cross examined only by accused Keshav Sharma. In cross examination by Keshav Sharma he admitted that no enquiries were made by IO from Smt. Sudha Jain and Smt. Sarla Jain. He denied the suggestion that aforesaid property could have been permitted for the use of correspondence address by the above mentioned Chartered Accountants and their firms. He also denied the suggestion that above mentioned address of their residence was permitted to be used as correspondence address by Bansal Neelam and Associates Chartered Accountants.

340. The suggestion that “above mentioned address of their residence was permitted to be used as correspondence address by Bansal Neelam and Associates Chartered Accountants” could be given by person who knows that this firm is existing somewhere and using the above address for correspondence purpose and therefore it invites obligation upon the party giving such suggestion to bring on record evidence to prove that such firm is existing at ABC address and using above B­107 as correspondence address but accused Keshav Sharma did not lead any evidence to this effect. Further, testimony of PW73 to the effect that his above said sisters­in­law were owners and he with his families and his brothers has been residing there since 1988, has not been disputed by any of the accused persons.

341. From the conjoint reading of testimonies of PW47 and PW73 prosecution has successfully proved beyond doubt that no chartered accountants by the name of Bansal Neelam & Associates ever exited at B­107, Vivek Vihar, Delhi – 110095 and that provisional balance sheet for the year ending 31.03.2002, audited report and audited balance sheet and P/L account for the year ending 31.03.2001 and 31.03.2000 of the firm CT were forged and fabricated.

Sale Deed of Property No. S­596, vill. Mandavali, Illaqua Fazalpur, Shahdra, Delhi admeasuring 400 sq. yds and property bearing No. 137 (part) Jhilmil Tahirpur, Delhi admeasuring 340 sq. yds submitted by M/s Creative Traders through its proprietor Ashok Jain impersonated by Keshav Sharma

342. It is the case of the prosecution that Cash Credit Facility to M/s Creative Traders was granted interalia against the collateral security by way of equitable mortgage of aforesaid two properties represented to be in the name of the proprietor Ashok Jain but title documents of aforesaid properties turned out to be bogus/forged documents as sale deeds of the aforesaid properties were executed by fake person without title, right or interest in the respective property in favour of Ashok Jain impersonated by accused Keshav Sharma.

PW43 Sh. Atul Kumar was posted as Sub­Registrar­IV, Seelampur in the year 2002­03. On seeing (D­100) Ex PW43/A i.e. original sale deed dt 09.08.2002 executed between Sh. Satish Singh (vendor) S/o Sh. Dalip Singh R/o 137, Dilshad Garden, Shahdra, Delhi and Sh. Ashok Jain (vendee) S/o P. C. Jain R/o 78A, Dilshad Garden, Delhi pertaining to property No. 137 (part) area measuring 340 sq. yds. out of total land measuring 500 sq.yds. in Khasra No. 444/394/67/10 situated in the area of village Jhilmil Tahirpur, abadi of Dilshad Garden, Illaqua Shahdra, Delhi 110095, PW43 deposed that it bore his signature at points A as Sub­Registrar. He further deposed that it was presented by Reader/official who signed at point B and this sale deed had been registered in the office of Sub­Registrar­IV, Seelampur, Delhi.

344. PW43 was cross examined only by accused Sanjay Gupta and Rakesh Verma. In cross examination by accused Sanjay Gupta, he admitted that in the case of Sale Deed Ex PW43/A, the identification of party was checked by Reader/official and not by him. He admitted that parties had signed Ex PW43/A in presence of Reader/official and not in his presence. He again said that he could not tell exactly but parties might have signed in his presence also. He admitted that all the formalities were completed by his staff and not by him. He denied the suggestion that he simply put the signature on Ex PW43/A. He volunteered that he had gone through the document to check the jurisdiction and other things.

345. In cross examination by accused Rakesh Verma (A­6) PW43 deposed that photocopies of the originals shown by the parties/witness for their identities were not kept in the records of the Sub­Registrar office but particulars of identity documents were normally recorded. He further deposed that in sale deed Ex PW43/A at points X­1 respectively the particulars of DL number, Ration Card number etc. of parties/witness had been mentioned. He did not remember whether any register was kept in the office of Sub­Registrar for recording the presence of the vendor.

346. PW9 Sh. Inder Singh who was partner of PW20 Sh. Nehru Jain on seeing the sale deed (D­100) Ex PW43/A identified photograph of Harish Chand Wadhwa affixed on the sale deed as Satish Singh and he also correctly identified the accused Harish Chand Wadhwa in court. This part of testimony was not disputed by accused Harish Chand Wadhwa.

347. PW18 Sh. Kaushal Kumar was working as Treasurer in Treasury, Tis Hazari, Delhi in the year 2002. On being shown AD­14, 15 & 16 he deposed that they were attested copies of the relevant pages of register of sale of non­judicial stamp papers. He further deposed that these copies of the relevant pages of register had been duly attested by Sh. Hari P. Sharma, the then Treasury Officer and he identified his signature at point A having seen him signing during the course of his duties.

348. On seeing AD­14 Ex PW18/A, PW18 deposed that non judicial stamp paper bearing Sr. No. 24276 of four different denomination for a total amount of Rs. 63,700/­ were issued on 09.08.2002 in the name of Ashok Jain S/o P.C. Jain, 78A, Dilshad Garden, Shahdra, Delhi.

349. He was cross examined only by accused Sanjay Gupta and the direction of cross examination was focused towards establishing that there was possibility that stamp paper may be applied and issued in the name of person without his knowledge and consent. However, issuance of non­judicial stamp paper for Rs 63,700/­ in the name of Ashok Jain S/o P.C. Jain R/o 78A, Dilshad Garden, Delhi, was not disputed.

350. PW46 Sh. Dalbir Singh was posted as LDC in the year 2001­-02 and was looking after work of Cashier in the office of Sub­Registrar­-IV, Seelampur, Delhi. He deposed that apart from the work of cashier, on the instruction of Sub-­Registrar he used to look after the work of presenting the parties before the Sub­-Registrar and for the identification of the parties, the documents of ID proof produced by the parties used to be checked by him and after satisfying about the identity of the parties and their photographs on the documents, parties used to be presented before Sub­-Registrar. He further deposed that on the back side of the document a stamp used to be affixed which used to be signed after satisfying about the identity etc. of the parties.

351. On seeing sale deed Ex PW43/A (D­100), PW46 deposed that it bore his signature at point C which he had signed for presenting parties. He further deposed that parties whose photographs were pasted on Ex PW43/A appeared in the office of Sub­Registrar and he checked the identity. He further deposed that at point X­1, specifically encircled and marked as Mark XX­1, there was photograph of the second party and said photograph was one of the accused identified by him in Court whose name was Keshav Sharma. Court observed that name of the second party was mentioned as Ashok Jain. He further deposed that as per prevailing system photograph of first party used to be affixed on the left side of the sale deed whereas that of second party used to be on the right side of the sale deed. He further deposed that he did not remember if the first party or second party appeared in the office of Sub­Registrar in respect of Sale Deed Ex PW43/A. He further deposed that normal practice was that appearance of first party was mandatory and his photograph and identity was checked compulsorily whereas appearance of the second party was not mandatory. He further deposed that sometime sale deed with photographs of second party already affixed used to be presented by first party.

352. PW46 was cross examined only by accused Keshav Sharma. In cross examination PW46 deposed that he did not remember whether accused Keshav Sharma present in the court whose photograph was pasted on Ex PW43/A (as purchaser) appeared before him at the time of registration of sale deed. He further deposed that it was possible that second party as mentioned in Ex PW43/A might not have appeared in the office of Sub­Registrar as at that time the appearance of second party was not mandatory. He neither admitted nor denied the suggestion that accused Keshav Sharma (A­1) present in the court had personally appeared in the office of Sub­ Registrar.

353. Thus, from the suggestion given by accused Keshav Sharma it is clear that accused set up case before this witness that he appeared in the office of Sub­Registrar which fact was neither admitted nor denied by the witness. There is no denial that photograph of accused Keshav Sharma was affixed on the sale deed as Ashok Jain, the purchaser/second party. In any case it is not disputed that Sale Deed Ex PW43/A in respect of property No. 137 (part), Jhilmil Tahirpur was registered and executed purportedly by Satish Singh in favour of Ashok Jain bearing photograph of Harish Chand Wadhwa as Satish Singh and that of Keshav Sharma as Ashok Jain. This fact is also evident from the testimony of PW43, PW18 and PW46. In this sale deed, non judicial stamp paper bearing No.24276 dt 09.08.2002 for Rs. 63,700 issued by treasury in the name of Ashok Jain S/o Sh. P.C. Jain R/o 78A, Dilshad Garden, Delhi, has been used.

354. PW67 Sh. Surender Pathak deposed that between the year 1990 to 2002 he was employed as Manager on petrol pump at Road No. 56, Viviek Vihar and his father was in service of DTC, Delhi and took voluntary retirement in the year around 1993. He further deposed that property bearing 137, Dilshad Garden, Shahdra, Delhi was in the name of his father and he was his GPA and said property was purchased by his father in the year 1990 from Satish Singh S/o Sh. Dalip Singh for a price of Rs 90,000/­. He further deposed that Sh. Satish Singh sold the above mentioned property as General Power of Attorney of his father­in­law Sh. Jaswant Singh who was the owner of the said property. He further deposed that Sh. Satish Singh went to United States of America (USA) and to his knowledge he was still in USA. He further deposed that GPA was executed by his father in respect of above mentioned property in his favour in the year 1994 and neither he nor his father had ever sold any part of the said property to anyone and no documents whatsoever were executed by them in respect of sale of property and they were still in possession of the property owned by them. He further deposed that he had handed over the photocopy of sale deed duly attested by him at point A and had brought the original in the court. Photocopy of the sale deed was exhibited as Ex PW67/A (D­185). He further deposed that his property was never mortgaged to anyone. He further deposed that he knew Satish Singh and he could identify him. On seeing (D­100) Ex 43/A, he deposed that it was sale deed bearing photographs of two persons but none of the photograph was of Sh Satish Singh from whom his father had purchased the property. He further deposed that he did not know any person namely Ashok Jain. He further deposed that property in question was never let out at any point of time either to Ashok Jain or to anyone.

355. In cross examination by accused Keshav Sharma, PW67 deposed that area of the property No.137 might be of 500 sq. yds. and they had the area of 233 sq. yds. in their possession, he, however, did not know the name of the owner of the remaining portion of the said property. He admitted that prior to 2002, in remaining portion of the property a factory was being run by someone but there was no factory in their portion. He further deposed that in their portion his brother was running a factory prior to his death in the year 1994. He further admitted that in the year 2005 there was a factory in their portion which was lying closed. He denied the suggestion that he misused the GPA executed by his father in his favour and executed a sale deed on the basis of said GPA and later on removed his own photograph from the document.

356. No suggestion was given to him by accused Kehsav Sharma that he (Keshav Sharma) purchased the property. Suggestion regarding the removal of photographs was also restricted to seller (witness) only and not about the photographs of purchaser as well. It was also not suggested that sale deed in question was executed by the owner of remaining portion of the property No. 137 (part) nor defense has examined the said Satish Singh who purportedly executed the sale deed Ex PW43/A, if it was not executed by Harish Chand Wadhwa personating as Satish Singh.

357. PW62 Sh. A.D. Shah, Sr. Scientific Officer, Grade­I (Finger Print) in his report Ex PW62/J to L (D­176 and D­598) has reported that finger print impression bearing QFP1 to QFP­3, and QFP­6 appearing on Sale deed Ex PW43/A as of purchaser Ashok Jain matched with sample finger print bearing LTS­23 of SFP­23 of accused Keshav Sharma. Similarly, it has been reported that finger print impression bearing QFP­15 to QFP­21 appearing on Sale deed Ex PW43/A as of seller Satish Singh matched with sample finger print bearing LTS­19 of SFP­19 of accused Harish Chand Wadhwa. Nothing substantive came in the cross examination of PW62 except that documents were received in CFSL in unsealed cover and that SFP­22 to SFP­26 did not tally with the questioned finger prints/thumb impressions, however, he volunteered that enlarged photographs of SFP­23 were taken which has been marked by him LTS­23 which tallied with the questioned finger prints/thumb impressions QFP­1 to QFP­3, QFP­6 and QFP­9. He however admitted that SFP­22 to SFP­26 bore all impressions of left thumb.

358. No report has come about the questioned signatures appearing on the sale deed Ex PW43/A.

359. From the testimonies noted above it has been proved on record that Sale Deed Ex PW43/A was registered with Sub­Registrar ­IV, Seelampur, Delhi and non­judicial stamp used for the sale deed was purchased from the treasury in the name of Askok Jain S/o P.C. Jain R/o 78A, Dilshad Garden, Delhi. Photograph of Harish Chand Wadhwa is affixed as seller Satish Singh and photograph of Keshav Sharma is affixed as purchaser Ashok Jain. It has also been found that finger impression of Harish Chand Wadhwa and that of Keshav Sharma matched with finger print impressions of so called seller Satish Singh and so called purchaser Ashok Jain respectively. Nothing has come on record to prove that Harish Chand Wadhwa @ Satish Singh was the very Satish Singh whose father­in­law Jaswant Singh was the owner of the property bearing No. 137 Jhilmil Tahirpur, Shahdra, Delhi. It is also worthwhile to note that title to the property to Ashok Jain is being shown to be flowing from Jaswant Singh S/o Chanan Singh who was the owner of the property. In any case it is not the case of Keshav Sharma @ Ashok Jain that he had purchased the property. It is also not his case that he was also legally known as Ashok Jain and his father was also known as P.C Jain nor is his case that he was earlier “Sharma” and later became “Jain” or vice versa.

360. Hence, prosecution has successfully proved that Sale Deed Ex. PW43/A purportedly executed by Satish Singh impersonated by Harish Chand Wadhwa in favour of Ashok Jain impersonated by Keshav Sharma in respect of property No. 137(part), Jhilmil Tahirpur, Delhi, is a document not conveying any title to any person. Prosecution also successfully proved that accused Harish Chand Wadhwa impersonated as Shatish Singh and accused Keshav Sharma impersonated as Ashok Jain and as such sale deed Ex PW43/A is forged document.

Sale Deed of Property No. S­596, vill. Mandavali, Illaqua Fazalpur, Shahdra, Delhi admeasuring 400 sq. yds

361. It is the case of the prosecution that Sale Deed of above property offered as collateral security by way of equitable mortgage by M/s Creative Traders for availing cash credit facility also turned out be forged and bogus document.

362. PW18 Sh. Kaushal Kumar was working as Treasurer in Treasury, Tis Hazari, Delhi in the year 2002. On being shown AD­14, 15 & 16 he deposed that they were attested copies of the relevant pages of register of sale of non­judicial stamp papers. He further deposed that these copies of the relevant pages of register had been duly attested by Sh. Hari P. Sharma, the then Treasury Officer and he identified his signature at point A having seen him signing during the course of his duties.

363. On seeing AD­15 Ex PW18/BA, PW18 deposed that non judicial stamp paper bearing Sr. No. 5064 of two different denomination for a total amount of Rs. 65,000/­ were issued in the name of Ashok Jain S/o P.C. Jain, 78A, Dilshad Garden, Shahdra, Delhi.

364. He was cross examined only by accused Sanjay Gupta and the direction of cross examination was focused towards establishing that there was possibility that stamp paper may be applied and issued in the name of person without his knowledge and consent. However, issuance of non­judicial stamp paper for Rs 65,000/­ in the name of Ashok Jain S/o P.C. Jain R/o 78A, Dilshad Garden, Delhi, was not disputed.

365. PW59 Sh. Pankaj Joshi was working as Sub­Registrar­VIII, Geeta Colony, L. M. Bund, Delhi in the year 2001 to 2004. On seeing Sale Deed Ex PW33/G­31 (D­99) purportedly executed by Mukesh Jain S/o Rajender Kumar R/o H. No. 4/395, Vishwas Nagar, Shahdra, Delhi in favour of Ashok Jain S/o P.C. Jain R/o 78A, Dilshad Garden, Delhi in respect of aforesaid property No. S­596, PW59 deposed that it bore his signature as Sub­ Registrar at points X­1 respectively i.e. at the stage of verification, admission, money transaction and execution/registration. He further deposed that this document was presented by Sh. Joginder Singh, the then Reader, for execution before him.

366. In cross examination he denied the suggestion that he did not follow the prescribed procedure at the time of execution of document Ex PW33/G­31. He deposed that final scrutiny of the document was done by the Sub Registrar at the time of execution of document. He further deposed that documents pertaining to identity of the parties were seen by the reader at the time of execution of document. He further deposed that at point Z encircled on Ex PW33/G­1 there was a photograph of seller and at the right side of the document the photograph of the buyer was affixed. He identified Sh. Ashok Jain by pointing out towards accused Keshav Sharma (whose photograph is affixed as Ashok Jain). Since the person whose photograph is affixed on the sale deed as seller was not present in the court he did not identify the seller saying so. Accused Keshav Sharma did not give even suggestion that he did not appear before Sub­Registrar for the registration of document.

367. Finger print expert PW62 Sh. A. D. Shah reported in his report Ex PW62/J to L that finger print bearing QFP 9 appearing on the Sale Deed Ex PW33/G­31 as that of Ashok Jain matches with sample finger print LTS­23 appearing on slip marked as SFP­23 of accused Keshav Sharma. Similarly, finger print bearing mark QFP­24 to QFP­ 25 and QFP27 to QFP­30 appearing on the sale deed Ex PW33/G­31 as that of Mukesh Jain matched with sample finger print of accused Judda Kumar Chauhan (since proclaimed offender).

368. PW42 Smt. Priyambda Aggarwal w/o Ashok Kumar is resident of S­596, Abadi School bock, Shakarpur, Delhi deposed that she had been residing there since 1980. She deposed that House No. S­596 mentioned above was built up after purchasing a land of about 135 sq. yds. She further deposed that S­596 mentioned above and the land was in her name and she was the owner of the same. She further deposed that she had never sold the property to anyone nor has taken any loan from any bank by mortgaging the above mentioned house S­596. She further deposed that land was purchased through GPA (D­203) dt 16.03.1979 Mark­A executed in her favour by Sh. Romesh Kumar S/o Sh. Shyam Lal R/o Karnal, Haryana in respect of the above mentioned land but it did not bear her signature. She further deposed that she did not know any person namely Ashok Jain S/o P. C. Jain. Only accused Sanjay Gupta cross examined her that too by giving only one suggestion that she was not the owner of the above property which suggestion was denied by her. Accused Keshav Sharma whose photographs was there on the sale deed in question did not dispute the testimony of Smt. Priyambda Aggarwal even by putting a suggestion.

369. Thus, from the conjoint reading of the testimonies of witnesses it is clear that accused Keshav Sharma impersonating as Ashok Jain got executed a sale deed in his favour in respect of aforesaid property No. S­596 from person who did not have title to the property so as to show that he had become owner of the property in question but in fact no title in the property transferred as the seller and purchaser both knew that they were not the person they were representing to be. Hence, prosecution has successfully proved that Sale Deed dt. 23.04.2002 Ex PW33/G­31 purportedly executed by Mukesh Jain in favour Ashok Jain impersonated by accused Keshav Sharma, in respect of property No. S­596, School Block, village Mandaali Fazalpur, illaqua Shahdra, Delhi, is a forged and bogus document.

Real or Paper/Shell Firms at Given Address

370. It is the allegation of the prosecution that various firms involved in the present crime were in fact paper/shell firms only and not doing any business and most of them were not in existence at the given address.

M/s Aman Trading Company

371. It is alleged by the prosecution that M/s Aman Trading Company with Satish Chand Jain as proprietor is shell/bogus/paper company/firm.

372. PW8 Smt. Preeti Jain and PW20 Sh. Nehru Jain both claimed to be owner of the same part of the property No. 78A, Dilshad Garden, Delhi. Smt. Preeti Jain is sister­in­law of Nehru Jain i.e. wife of his deceased brother Sh. Mukesh Jain. Smt. Preeti Jain in her cross examination testified that her house was constructed on a plot of 300 sq.yds which she corrected by saying that plot No. 78A, Dilshad Garden was having an area of 1000 sq yds wherein she was having her residence in 300 sq. yds. She categorically deposed that no portion of her property was ever given on rent to Sh. Satish Chand Jain and Kuldeep Gupta. She further deposed that two factories were being run in the other portion of the that plot but she had no knowledge who were running those factories. She further deposed that Nehru Jain was receiving rent from those factories. No suggestion was given to her that any part of her property was under tenancy of M/s Aman Trading Company or Satish Chand Jain.

373. PW20 Sh. Nehru Jain deposed that he was owner of property No. 78 A, Dilshad Garden which got bequeathed on him upon demise of his father. He further deposed that plot No. 78A, Dilshad Garden, Delhi was approximately 5000 sq. yds initially purchased by four persons including his father and his father had share of about 937.7 sq. yds of land out of the said 5000 sq. yds (approx.). He further deposed that except M/s Sharda Metals no other firm ever ran from premise No. 78A, Dilshad Garden (whereas his sister­in­law PW8 Smt. Preeti Jain had deposed that two other factories were also running and Nehru Jain used to collect rent from those factories). In his cross examination he deposed that he did not know who were the different tenant/owners/persons in possession in other three portion of property No. 78A, Dilshad Garden, Delhi. No suggestion was given by any of the accused that firms M/s Aman Trading Company was functioning from a particular part of the property No. 78A, Dilshad Garden if not from the portion owned by PW20 Nehru Jain.

374. PW9 Sh. Inder Singh who was partner of PW20 Nehru Jain and who had handed over certain documents to CBI on behalf of Nehru Jain, in his cross­examination had deposed that rent agreements of other factories which were being run in 78A, Dilshad Garden were not executed in his presence and he expressed his inability to tell as to whom other factories were let out. Thus, as per him other factories were also being run from 78A, Dilshad Garden, Delhi.

375. PW14 Sh. Vinod Gupta had claimed that he was running business of property dealing from 488/10, Dilshad Garden, Delhi and property No. 488/3 was just after 3­4 shops of his office. He further deposed that all the property including the plot of his office was a part of Khasra No. 488. In cross examination he deposed that in Khasra No. 488 there may be 4000­5000 sq. yds. of land. He further deposed that he had constructed a hall in his whole plot and had given a hall on rent and the tenant was running his factory there.

376. PW17 Sh. Mahender Kumar who was postman in Beat No. A of Dilshad Garden area, deposed that M/s Sharda Metals was situated at 78A, Dilshad Garden and Sanjay Gupta was the owner of the M/s Sharda Metals. He further deposed that he used to deliver dak of M/s Sharda Metals. He further deposed that there were two or three other firms in the name of which he had delivered the dak but not regularly and those firms were M/s Aman Trading Co., Paramount Insulation and Paramount Insulation Pvt. Ltd. He further deposed that he used to deliver dak of the above said three firms to Sanjay Gupta and there was no sign board affixed on the given address in respect of above said three firms but Sh. Sanjay Gupta asked him to deliver the dak of the above firms to him.

377. PW17 in his cross examination admitted that there were all types of factories in the said area such as big and small. He also admitted that some of the firms did not place their sign boards outside the properties. He also admitted that whenever they receive dak they deliver it to the person available at the said address. He volunteered that whenever a firm started at a particular address his inspector went there and made enquiry. He however did not know if any enquiry was made by the Inspector in respect of the firms functioning from 78A, Dilshad Garden, Delhi. He also did not know if CBI had made any enquiry from the Inspector. His testimony that he had delivered dak of M/s Aman Trading Company, Paramount Insulation and Paramount Insulation Pvt. Ltd. to Sanjay Gupta of M/s Sharda Metals and that Sanjay Gupta had asked PW17 to deliver dak of the above three firms to him were not disputed.

378. PW25 Sh. Mahesh Kumar Gupta proved ownership of two properties bearing No. 78A, Dilshad Garden, Delhi each admeasuring 234 sq yds. vide Sale Deed Ex PW25/A and Sale Deed Ex PW25/B one in favour of Vijay Kumar Gupta and Smt. Nisha Gupta and another in favour of Mahesh Kumar Gupta and Smt. Nisha Gupta. In his cross examination he deposed that the total size of the plot of the property bearing No. 78A, Dilshad Garden was approximately 5000 sq. yds. and as on date about 7­8 houses had been constructed and the remaining area was lying vacant. According to him the whole area bore the number 78A, Dilshad Garden, Delhi and generally the official correspondence or other correspondence of all the occupants come in the address 78A, Dilshad Garden, Delhi but as a matter of convenience without obtaining any permission from the competent authority residents have subsequently numbered their plots as 78­A, and 78­B but official address was 78A, Dilshad Garden, Delhi .

379. PW29 Sh. Ghanshyam Tiwari was summoned by prosecution to prove that Sanjay Gupta was running a factory since 1992/93 after having hired a portion of 78A, Dilshad Garden from Nehru Jain and a person namely Kuldeep Gupta was working with Sanjay Gupta and that the sale deed Ex PW15/DA has photograph of accused Rakesh Verma as Kuldeep Gupta, he, however, in his cross examination deposed that 78A, Dilshad Garden was a very big plot and he was not aware if any partition of the said plot had been done or not. He was not aware of the size of the plot owned by Nehru Jain.

380. Thus, from the testimonies of the above witnesses it is established that property No. 78A, Dilshad Garden is a very big property admeasuring approximately 5000 sq. yds. which has been divided amongst four co­owners and has been further sub­divided amongst subsequent purchaser as is apparent from the testimony of witnesses but all the properties have been numbered as 78A, Dilshad Garden. Since all the co­owners have not been examined it cannot be said with certainty that M/s Aman Trading Company was not existing at 78A, Dilshad Garden and this is so particularly when it has come from the testimonies of witnesses that other firms/factories were running in other portion of the said plot. Testimony of PW17 Mahender Kumar that he had delivered (even at the asking of Sanjay Gupta) the dak of M/s Aman Trading Company to Sanjay Gupta at best proves that Sanjay Gupta knew M/s Aman Trading Company and/or its proprietor. Thus, prosecution has not proved beyond doubt that M/s Aman Trading Company was absolutely non­existent firm at 78A, Dilshad Garden, Delhi.

M/s Creative Traders, Plot No.9, Main Patparganj Road, Pandav Nagar

381. It is the case of the prosecution that M/s Creative Traders with Ashok Jain as proprietor was paper firm and was not existing at plot No.9, Main Patpatganj Road, Pandav Nagar.

382. PW20 Nehru Jain in his examination­in­chief deposed that in and around the year 2002 he had let out his another premise bearing No. B­9, Pandav Nagar, First Floor, Shahdra, Delhi­95 to accused Sanjay Gupta and a rent agreement was executed in this respect which was signed by him and accused Sanjay Gupta. He identified the rent agreement (D­116) Ex PW9/4 in respect of the above tenancy and respective signature of himself and that of accused Sanjay Gupta on rent agreement Ex PW9/4. He had further deposed that accused Sanjay Gupta had surrendered the possession of this premise on 15.12.2002 vide deed of “Surrender of Possession” Ex PW9/5 bearing his signature at point A and that of accused at Q­283.

383. Testimony of PW20 to the effect that he had let out B­9, First Floor, Pandav Nagar to accused Sanjay Gupta was not disputed by accused Sanjay Gupta. PW20 Nehru Jain, however, was unable to tell if M/s Creative Traders was running from said premise. M/s Creative Trader claimed itself to be running from plot No.9 and no evidence has come on record that plot No. 9, Main Patparganj Road, Pandav Nagar and B­9, Main Patparganj Road, Pandav Nagar are one and same property. It is worthwhile to note that rent agreement Ex PW9/4 and “Surrender of Possession” Ex PW9/5 talks of plot/premise No.9, First Floor, Pandav Nagar but PW20 Nehru Jain deposed about B­9.

384. PW12 Sh. Ram Narain was probably examined to depose something about plot No.9 Pandav Nagar but he deposed only about plot No.6 and plot No.7. He did not depose anything about plot No.9 either in his examination­in­chief or in his cross examination. Hence, his testimony is of no help to prosecution so far as M/s Creative Traders at plot 9, Pandav Nagar is concerned.

385. PW36 Sh Satpal Singh was working as Postman in post office Krishna Nagar since 1990 and was looking after beat No.28 which covers the area of Pandav Nagar. He deposed that his duty was to deliver various type of posts in the area. He deposed that Plot No. 9, Pandav Nagar came in beat No. 28 looked after by him. He deposed that Nehru Complex was situated in plot No.9 which was of some Mr Jain and no firm namely M/s Creative Traders existing at plot No.9, Nehru Complex ever came to his knowledge and no correspondence in the name of the said firm had ever been delivered by him. In his cross examination by accused Sanjay Gupta, he admitted that large area comes within the beat No.28 and it was not always possible to remember each and every resident of the beat and whether a particular dak was delivered by him at a particular address.

385. Testimony of PW36 Sh. Satpal Singh cannot be fully relied upon without corroboration as his testimony independently not inspiring confidence of the court particularly when this witness himself admits that beat No. 28 was large area and it was not possible to remember each resident/occupants.

387. As discussed above PW20 Nehru Jain deposed about letting of B­9, First Floor, Pandav Nagar but rent agreement Ex PW9/4 and surrender deed Ex PW9/5 mentions about plot/premise No. 9, First Floor Pandav Nagar. Accused Sanjay Gupta did not dispute either letting out B­9 as deposed by PW20 or plot/premise No.9 as mentioned in document. It is mentioned in rent agreement Ex PW9/4 that plot/premise N.9 was let out for commercial purpose to accused Sanjay Gupta. Accused Sanjay Gupta took defense that he left premise No. 78A, Dilshad Garden in 1995 after suffering loss in business and had also filed insolvency petition for declaring him as insolvent. But he did not dispute taking of premise on rent from Nehru Jain vide Ex PW9/4 nor did he come out with for what purpose he had taken the said premise on rent nor did he come out with name of the firm, if any, that he was running from the said premise. Accused Keshav Sharma who impersonated as Ashok Jain who claimed himself to be proprietor of M/s Creative Traders, did not lead evidence to prove that M/s Creative Traders was running from a particular place. Thus, it stands established that M/s Creative Traders was shell/bogus firm and existed only on paper.

M/s Alpha Communication (India) 11662, Panchsheel Garden, Navin Shahdra, Delhi

388. As per prosecution M/s Alpha Communication is also a shell/bogus firm and existed only on paper.

389. It has already been found above that accused Sharad Kumar Jain had opened Current Account with Vysya Bank Yamuna Vihar in the name of M/s Alpha Communication (India) claiming himself to be its proprietor and further claiming that it was running at 11662, Panchsheel Garden, Navin Shahdra, Delhi.

390. PW5 Rajinder Kumar Shukla who is resident of 1/11662, Panchsheel Garden, Navin Shahdra deposed that he had been residing at the given address since 1984 and the house was initially registered in the name of his mother Smt. Phool Kumari Shukla and thereafter it was transfered in his name and his brother’s name namely Sh. Satya Kumar Shukla. On seeing the photograph of accused Sharad Kumar Jain he deposed that he did not know person in photograph. Although he also happened to have his firm by the name of M/s Alpha Communication but same was closed in the year 2000 and it had bank account with Vysya Bank Noida branch (in cross examination, however, he deposed that he had no bank account). He categorically deposed that he never opened account in the Vysya Bank, Yamuna Vihar branch.

391. In his cross examination by accused Sharad Kumar Jain he was not given suggestion that M/s Alpha Communication which had opened account with Vyasya Bank, Yamuna Vihar had in fact been using the premise 11662, Panchsheel Garden or doing business therefrom. Accused Sharad Kumar Jain did not come out with particular place or evidence to show that M/s Alpha Communication (India) was running its business from that place or that it was not a paper firm.

392. Thus, prosecution has successfully proved that M/s Alpha Communication (India) was paper firm only and was not doing any business.

M/s Hindustan Industries, 134, Main Road Tahirpur, Delhi

393. As per prosecution M/s Hindustan Industries is also a shell/bogus firm and existed only on paper.

394. It has already been found above that accused Sharad Kumar Jain had opened Current Account with Vysya Bank Yamuna Vihar in the name of M/s Hindustan Industries claiming himself to be its proprietor and further claiming that it was running from 134, Main Road Tahirpur, Delhi.

395. PW4 Sh. Raj Kumar proprietor of M/s Saurav Steels India deposed that he had been running his business of sell and purchase of scrap (steel) at 134, Main Road, Tahirpur, Delhi­95 since 1990 and he had purchased this property measuring 100 sq. yds. from Sh. R. K. Bhargav. Upon seeing the account opening form Ex PW7/A of M/s Hindustan Industries, PW4 deposed that M/s Hindustan Industries never existed at this address as he was the owner of the aforesaid property and had neither sold nor rented out any part of this property to anyone. Upon seeing the photograph of accused Sharad Kumar Jain on account opening form Ex PW7/A, he deposed that he had neither seen him nor met him at any time nor did he know any person by this name.

396. In cross examination by accused Sharad Kumar Jain, testimony of PW4 that he was owner of the aforesaid property was not disputed nor was he given any suggestion that M/s Hindustan Industries was existing at the given address. Accused Sharad Kumar Jain did not lead any evidence to show that M/s Hindustan Industries was doing any business from the given address or from any particular place.

397. Thus, prosecution has successfully proved that M/s Hindustan Industries was paper firm only and was not doing any business.

M/s Paramount Insulations Pvt. Ltd. 78A, Dilshad Garden, Delhi

398. It has been the case of the prosecution that M/s Paramount Insulations Pvt. Ltd. was also a paper firm.

399. It has been found above that M/s Paramount Insulation Pvt. Ltd. was maintaining current account with Yamuna Vihar Branch of Vysya Bank and the account bearing CA No. 871 was opened by accused Sanjay Gupta and accused Tarun Khana impersonating as Deepak Bansal claiming themselves to be directors of the said company. Address of this firm has been shown as 78A, Dilshad Garden, Delhi.

400. It has already been found above that accused Sanjay Gupta had taken ground floor and first floor of property No. 78A, Dilshad Garden from PW20 Nehru Jain where from accused Sanjay Gupta was admittedly running his business under the name of style of M/s Sharda Metals.

401. PW20 Nehru Jain had deposed that no firm by the name of M/s Paramount Insulation Pvt. Ltd. was existing at the given address. PW17 Mahender Kumar had deposed that at the asking of accused Sanjay Gupta he had delivered dak of aforesaid firm to accused Sanjay Gupta which fact was not disputed by accused Sanjay Gupta during the cross examination of PW17.

402. PW65 Sh. Ram Kishan Gautam during his cross examination by accused Sanjay Gupta admitted that M/s Sharda Metal was converted into M/s Paramount Insulation Pvt. Ltd. and that after conversion of M/s Sharda Metals into M/s Paramount Insulation Pvt. Ltd. the business was being performed in the name of new company.

403. Thus, accused Sanjay Gupta through this witness set up defense that M/s Sharda Metals was converted into M/s Paramount Insulation Pvt. Ltd and business of M/s Sharda Metals was taken over by the new Company. However, this stand of the accused goes against his own defense wherein he set up case that since he was suffering loss he closed his business under the name of M/s Sharda Metals and left for Jaipur in 1995. It is also his case that he had instituted an insolvency petition but on the contrary he claimed that M/s Sharda Metal was taken over by M/s Paramount Insulation Pvt. Ltd. It has also been found above that they had opened bank account in the name of M/s Paramount Insulation Pvt. Ltd with Vysya Bank, Yamuna Vihar on 08.03.2000. Sanjay Gupta did not come out with evidence to prove that this new company was carrying out any real business.

404. Hence, prosecution has successfully proved that M/s Paramount Insulation Pvt. Ltd at 78A, Dilshad Garden, was set up with malafide intention and objective and was paper firm only.

M/s Creative Conductors Pvt. Ltd. 78, Dilshad Garden, Delhi

405. It has been the case of the prosecution that M/s Creative Conductors Pvt. Ltd. also was a paper firm.

406. It has been found above that M/s Creative Conductors Pvt. Ltd. had opened current account with Bombay Mercantile Co­Operative Bank Ltd, Daryaganj Delhi bearing CA No. 17186 vide account opening form Ex PW60/B and same was opened by accused Sanjay Gupta and Ram Krishan Gautam claiming themselves to be directors of the said company. Address of this firm has been shown as 78, Dilshad Garden, Delhi.

407. PW65 Sh. Ram Kishan Gautam who was once director of the aforesaid company and had joined accused Sanjay Gupta in opening the aforesaid account with Bombay Mercantile Co­Op. Bank Ltd, deposed in his examination­in­chief that no business was being run in the firm M/s Creative Conductors Pvt. Ltd. and it was only in papers. He further deposed that in the company it was the idea to start manufacturing of copper tubes which were being used in air conditioners but in between he resigned from the directorship of the said firm in 1999 and he did know what happened thereafter.

408. In cross examination by accused Sanjay Gupta, PW65 deposed that he was only supervisor (in Sharda Metals) and was shown as director in the other two companies on papers only. He further deposed that M/s Creative Conductors Pvt. Ltd. was only a paper company and was not performing any business. He denied the suggestion that business was being performed by M/s Creative Conductors Pvt. Ltd.

409. Though accused Sanjay Gupta gave suggestion to this witness that M/s Creative Conductors Pvt. Ltd. was doing business but his stand is contrary to his own defense wherein he took stand that he left Delhi in 1995 after having suffered loss in his business under the name and style of M/s Sharda Metals. Further, no evidence has been led on behalf of defense that aforesaid firm/company was really doing any business. From the conflicting stand taken by accused Sanjay Gupta it can be safely concluded that aforesaid company M/s Creative Conductors Pvt. Ltd. was a bogus and paper company only.

Sanjay Jain and his ownership of property No.77A, Dilshad Garden

410. It is the case of the prosecution that accused Sanjay Gupta impersonated as Sanjay Jain and had claimed himself to be owner of property No.77A, Dilshad Garden while standing guarantor to the cash credit facility availed of by M/s Aman Trading Company from Central Bank of India, Parliament Street branch, New Delhi.

411. It has already been found above that Sanjay Jain S/o N. M. Jain R/o 78A, Dilshad Garden stood guarantor and had executed agreements of guarantee in favour of Central Bank of India, Parliament branch New Delhi claiming himself to be brother of Satish Chand Jain and owner of property No. 77A, Dilshad Garden, Delhi.

412. PW23 Sh. Nirmaljeet Singh deposed that he was proprietor of M/s N.S. Enterprise/Industries situated at ground floor of premises No. 77A, Dilshad Garden, Telephone Exchange, Shahdra, Delhi­95, since 1991 and residing on the upper floor of the premise. He deposed that he did not know any person in the name of Sanjay Jain S/o N.M. Jain and Ram Mohan S/o Jairam and none of them ever resided there nor had he executed any General Power of Attorney in the name of aforesaid Sanjay Jain and Ram Mohan. He further deposed that he along with his brother Surender Singh are the owners of aforesaid premises.

413. Except accused Satish Sharma and Rashmi Chhabra none of the other accused persons cross examined this witness but even they have not disputed his claim of ownership over the property No.77A, Dilshad Garden, though in his cross examination strangely he did not identify any of the accused persons or Nehru Jain despite the fact that accused Sanjay Gupta had been running business in 78A, Dilshad Garden under the name and style of M/s Sharda Metal and Nehru Jain had been his neighbour. Be that as it may, his testimony to the effect that he and his brother was owner of the property No. 77A, Dilshad Garden was not disputed and thus prosecution successfully proved on record that Sanjay Jain was not the owner of the property No. 77A, Dilshad Garden, Delhi.

Money Circulation

414. It is the allegation of the prosecution that Cash Credit facility availed of by M/s Aman Trading Company and M/s Creative Traders were siphoned off while circulating money through the account of M/s Alpha Communication, M/s Hindustan Industries, M/s Paramount Insulations Pvt. Ltd., M/s Creative Conductors Pvt. Ltd, M/s Paramount Insulation etc. Apart from direct payments by way of cheques from these accounts, certain Letter of Credits (LC) were also opened by M/s Aman Trading Company and M/s Creative Traders in favour of above named firms.

415. Perusal of Statement of Accounts Ex PW69/B­3 (D­535) of cash credit account bearing No. 260 of M/s Aman Trading Company shows that approximately 47 payments have been made to Paramount (Paramount Insulations Pvt. Ltd. as cheques reflect), 41 payments have been made to Creative Conductors and 35 payments have been made to Alpha Communications. Similarly, perusal of Statements of Accounts Ex PW69/B­5 (537) of cash credit account bearing No. 267 of M/s Creative Traders shows that about 9 payments have been made in favour of M/s Alpha Communication and about 5 payments have been made in favour of Paramount Insulation and almost entire cash credit amount sanctioned to M/s Creative Traders have been drained out through these two company/firms.

416. PW39 Sh. Suresh Chandra who was posted as Manager in International Division of Central Bank of India, Parliament Street branch, New Delhi from 2000 to 2006, explained what letter of credit (LC) means, how it operates, how it is issued and discounted. On seeing D­202 (page­23) Ex PW39/A i.e. letter dt. 19.12.2001 of M/s Aman Trading Company, 78A, Dilshad Garden, Delhi addressed to Manager, Central Bank of India, Parliament Street branch, New Delhi requesting opening of LC for Rs. 25,00,000/­ in favour of “Paramount Insulation Pvt. Ltd”, PW39 Sh. Suresh Chandra deposed that at point ‘X’ a note had been put by Asst. Manager of the LC department, thereafter, he put up the said note before the Chief Manager of the International Division and his note was at point ‘X­1’ which bore his signature at point ‘X­2’. He also identified the signature of the then Chief Manager Sh. R.V. Ravindran at point ‘X­3’. He further deposed that on the basis of the said document a LC was opened by the International Division of the Bank in favour “Paramount Insulation Pvt. Ltd, 1178, Dilshad Garden, Delhi” on 20.12.2001. The office copy of LC (D­202 pages No. 20 & 21) is Ex. PW39/B.

417. He further deposed that the beneficiary of the said LC of M/s Paramount Insulation Pvt. Ltd. through South Indian Bank presented the documents (D­202, 26 pages) for the payments of LC, which was received by his bank and was dealt with by the officials of LC department. He further deposed that on the basis of the said documents, his bank made payments of Rs. 24,96,437/­on 20.03.2002 by issuing a cheque in favour of South Indian Bank Ltd., G.K.­II, New Delhi and amount was debited to the CC account of M/s Aman Trading Company.

418. He further deposed that M/s Aman Trading Company vide application dt. 20.03.2002 requested for issuance of LC of Rs. 25,00,000/­ in favour of M/s Alpha Communication India through State Bank of Patiala, Parliament Street, New Delhi and on receipt of documents of LC through State Bank of India his bank issued cheque of Rs 24,93,281/­ dt. 21.06.2002 and the said amount was debited to the CC account of Aman Trading Company. He identified his signature and that of Chief Manger Sh. R.V. Ravinderan on internal page no. 10, 11 and 12 of D­197 Ex PW39/C (17 pages) concerning the above LC.

419. He similarly deposed about the request made vide application dt. 24.06.2002 by M/s Aman Trading Company for issuance of LC of Rs 25,00,000/­ in favour of M/s Alpha Communication (India) through State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, Barakhamba, New Delhi, India and about release of amount of Rs. 24,96,896/­ and debiting of CC account of M/s Aman Trading Company and exhibited the concerned documents as Ex. PW39/D (D­199, 17 pages).

420. He similarly deposed about the request made vide application dt. 05.07.2002 by M/s Aman Trading Company for issuance of LC of Rs 25,00,000/­ in favour of M/s Alpha Communication India through Lord Krishna Bank Ltd., Pitampura, New Delhi, about release of amount of Rs. 24,80,107/­ and debiting of CC account of M/s Aman Trading Company and exhibited the concerned documents as Ex. PW39/E (D­198, 22 pages).

421. He similarly deposed about the request made vide application dt. 18.07.2002 by M/s Aman Trading Company for issuance of LC of Rs 25,00,000/­ in favour of M/s Alpha Communication India through IDBI Bank, K.G. Marg, New Delhi, about release of amount of Rs. 24,96,832/­ and debiting of CC account of M/s Aman Trading Company and exhibited the concerned documents as Ex. PW39/F (D­201, 13 pages).

422. He similarly deposed about the request made vide application dt. 26.06.2009 by M/s Aman Trading Company for issuance of LC of Rs 25,00,000/­ in favour of M/s Alpha Communication India through IDBI Bank, K. G. Marg, New Delhi, about release of amount of Rs. 24,99,737/­ and debiting of CC account of M/s Aman Trading Company and exhibited the concerned documents as Ex. PW39/G (D­200, 21 pages).

423. He similarly deposed about the request made vide application dt. 07.10.2002 by M/s Aman Trading Company for issuance of LC of Rs 25,00,000/­ in favour of M/s Alpha Communication India through State Bank of Patiala, Parliament Street, New Delhi, about release of amount of Rs. 24,99,315/­ and debiting of CC account of M/s Aman Trading Company and exhibited the concerned documents as Ex. PW39/H (D­196, 20 pages).

424. He similarly deposed about the request made vide application 22.10.2002 by M/s Aman Trading Company for issuance of LC of Rs 25,00,000/­ in favour of M/s Hindustan Industries through State Bank of Patiala, Parliament Street, New Delhi, about release of amount of Rs. 24,99,670/­ and debiting of CC account of M/s Aman Trading Company and exhibited the concerned documents as Ex. PW39/J (D­195, 17 pages).

425. He further deposed that M/s Creative Traders, Plot No.9, Pandav Nagar, Main Patparganj Road, New Delhi was also sanctioned letter of credit limit (inland) of Rs 25,00,000/­ by his bank through letter dt. 30.07.2002. He further deposed that M/s Creative Traders submitted LC application dt 13.08.2002 for issuance of LC of Rs. 25,00,000/­ in favour of M/s Alpha Communication India through IDBI Bank, K.G. Marg, New Delhi and on receipt of documents of LC through IDBI Bank, K.G. Marg, New Delhi, LC department of his bank dealt with and his bank issued cheque of Rs 24,96,372/­ and the said amount was debited to the CC account of M/s Aman Trading Company. He identified his signature and that of Chief Manager Sh. R.V. Ravinderan on internal page no. 12, 13 and 14 of D­193 Ex PW39/K (18 pages) concerning the above LC.

426. He similarly deposed about the request made vide application dt. 15.11.2002 by M/s Creative Traders for issuance of LC of Rs. 25,00,000/­ in favour of M/s Hindustan Industries through State Bank of Patiala, Parliament Street, New Delhi, about release of amount of Rs. 24,99,866/­ and debiting of CC account of M/s Creative Traders and exhibited the concerned documents as Ex. PW39/L (D­194, 16 pages).

427. He further deposed that as per procedure of the bank, the LC documents were presented through the bank to discounts the documents at their end and then presented the LC opening for reimbursement on maturity date of the documents. He further deposed that normally parties had bank accounts in the bank where the discounts of the LC were being applied for and currently some banks were even discounting the documents without the account of the party.

428. In cross examination by accused Sharad Kumar Jain, PW39 admitted that LC department was separately maintained in the banks and for opening of LC the documents were produced by the parties and dealt with by the LC department. He deposed that he was working as Second Manager in the International Division of Central Bank of India. He further deposed that after scrutiny of LC documents the matters were being put up before Chief Manager through him or other officers for the sanctioning and issuance of LC. In cross examination by accused Sanjay Gupta he denied the suggestion that he had not dealt with the LC of this case or that he had falsely deposed at the instance of the CBI. In cross examination by accused Ms. Rekha Sisodia his testimony about the issuance of LC and release of amount to the beneficiary parties have not been disputed. In fact none of the accused person disputed the testimony of PW39 so far as it relates to issuance of LC at the request of the concerned party, releasing of the amount to the collecting bank etc. and debiting of the account of the concerned are concerned parties and as such his testimony on the point of LC practically remained unchallenged.

429. PW45 Sh. Ashok Kumar was posted as Dy. Manager in State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi from August 1999 to May 2005. He deposed that vide seizure memo dt. 28.04.2005 Ex PW45/A bearing his signature at point A, he had handed documents mentioned therein i.e. Original Cheque (D­124) Ex PW45/B bearing No. 886918 dt.01.07.2002 for Rs. 24,40,215 in the name Vysya Bank Ltd. Account M/s Alpha Communication (India) bearing signatures of Sh. S.N. Sharma the then Manager at point A; Original LC (part of D­124) bearing No. PAR/ID/43/85 dt. 25.06.2002 Ex. PW45/C issued by Central Bank of India, International Division, Parliament Street, New Delhi for Rs. 25 lacs in the name of M/s Alpha Communication (India), 1162, Panchsheel Garden, Naveen Shahdra, Delhi­-32 opener Ms Aman Trading Company, 78A, Dilshad Garden, Delhi­95; Original letter (part of D­124) dt. 01.07.2002 Ex PW45/D addressed to the Manager of Central Bank of India, International Division, Parliament Street, New Delhi regarding confirmation of documents for Rs. 24,99,771/­ lodged under their bill No. BNLC/66 dt. 26.06.2002 for negotiation by the party under their LC No. 43/85 dt. 25.06.2002 and duly endorsed by the Central Bank of India confirming payments due date as 26.09.2002 bearing signature of Ms. Kumud Sharma, the then Chief Manager at point A.

430. He further deposed that before discounting confirmation was sought from International Division of Central Bank of India, Parliament Street through Ex PW45/D and International Division made endorsement at point encircled B that the applicant had accepted the document and accepted to make the payment of Rs. 24,99,771/­ on due date 26.09.2002 and after endorsement cheque Ex PW45/B was issued by his branch.

431. He was cross examined only by accused Satish Sharma (A10). In cross examination PW45 deposed that as per LC Ex PW45/C, M/s Alpha Communication India was the beneficiary of said LC and he did not know whether M/s Alpha was maintaining any current account or any other account in his branch. He further deposed that after discount of interest, the cheque against the LC had been issued by his branch in favour Vysya Bank Ltd. in the account of M/s Alpha Communications which reflected that the said party was not having any account in his branch. He further deposed that he had not dealt with the LC, therefore, he could not tell how M/s Alpha Communication was identified by his branch particularly when there was no account of the said firm. He denied the suggestion that there was guidelines of 1995 by RBI that the bank would not discount the LC in favour of the firm/company having no CC account in the branch or that his branch was in collusion with Alpha Communication (India) allowed to commit fraud by discounting the LC though Alpha Communication had no account in his branch and without proper identification of party.

432. Thus, it can be seen that discounting of LC bearing No. PAR/ID/43/85 dt. 25.06.2002 was not disputed and thus PW45 Sh. Ashok Kumar corroborated the testimony of PW39 Sh. Suresh Chander so far as issuance and discounting of LC Ex PW45/C is concerned.

433. PW66 Ms. Shamita Bondal was posted in South India Bank, G.K.­II, New Delhi branch as Manager from 03.11.2004 to 04.04.2005. She deposed that vide seizure memo Ex PW66/A dt. 13.04.2005 bearing her signature at point A, she had handed over requisitioned documents regarding purchase of LCs of Central Bank of India i.e. (i) Original LC No. 42/1997 dt. 20.12.2001 Ex PW66/B (part of D­121) for Rs 25 lacs issued by Central Bank of India, International Division, Parliament Street Branch, New Delhi showing beneficiary Paramount Insulation Pvt. Ltd. and the principal applicant for issuance of this LC was M/s Aman Trading Company, 78A, Dilshad Garden, Delhi; (ii) letter dt 26.12.2001 Ex PW66/C (part of D­121) received from Central Bank of India, International Division vide which Central Bank of India accepted and confirmed the due date of the bill as 20.03.2002 and the said bill of Rs 25 lacs was accordingly purchased by his bank and after deduction of the bank commission an amount of Rs 24,99,312/­ was credited in the account of M/s Paramount Insulation Pvt. Ltd.; (iii) letter dt 07.01.2002 Ex PW66/D (part of D­121) received from Zonal Office of Central Bank of India in respect of confirmation of above mentioned LC; and (iv) Certificate Ex PW66/E (part of D­121) regarding payment of bill of Rs. 25 lacs issued by her which bore her signature at point A, in respect of payment of above mentioned LC in favour of M/s Paramount Insulation Pvt. Ltd.

434. She was cross examined only by accused Satish Sharma but her testimony regarding the LC, its confirmation and about the payment to the beneficiary remained unquestioned/undisputed. She deposed that Paramount Insulation Pvt. Ltd was not maintaining any account with her South India Bank Ltd. and the amount of bill was paid through demand draft in favour of M/s Paramount Insulation Pvt. Ltd. through its account in Vysya Bank. She deposed that she had issued the certificate Ex PW66/E by her on the basis of record of bank.

435. Thus, testimonies of PW66 Ms. Shamita Bondal and PW39 Sh. Suresh Chandra corroborated the testimony of each other qua the issuance of LC PW66/B and its payment.

436. PW71 Sh. Tarun Mehra was posted as Sr. Manger in IDBI Bank, Surya Kiran building, K.G. Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi. He deposed that vide seizure memo dt 27.04.2005 Ex PW71/1 (D­122) bearing his signature at point A, he had handed photocopies of documents mentioned therein as the original thereof were filed in Debt Recovery Tribunal in a case which was subsequently disposed of by way of settlement and the original of those documents as per him would be on the record of DRT case as the same were not taken back by the bank. He deposed that bill was purchased by IDBI bank which was reflected from documents handed over by him and said transaction was dealt with by his subordinates under his supervision. He further deposed that the bill was purchased by IDBI for the sell made by M/s Alpha Communication to M/s Aman Trading Company and pay orders for an amount of Rs 24,33,262.72/­ were issued by bank in respect of LC No.43/95, Rs 24,40,146.52 for LC No.43/120 and Rs. 24,34,132.75 in respect of LC No.43/102. He further deposed that pay orders were issued in favour of Vysya Bank a/c Alpha Communication. He further deposed that said bills were purchased by IDBI on LCs of Central Bank of India, Parliament Street Branch. He further deposed that payments were received in respect of two LC but it was not received in respect of one LC and therefore IDBI filed a case before DRT which was settled between Central Bank of India and his bank and the case was withdrawn by his bank in the year 2010 and his bank received full and final payment from Central Bank of India in accordance with the settlement.

437. In cross examination by accused Satish Sharma he admitted that IDBI had discounted the bill on account of M/s Alpha Communication which was not maintaining bank account with his bank. He further deposed that on the basis of documents on record he could not tell about the identity of the person who came in his bank on behalf of M/s Alpha Communication. He further deposed that he was aware about the guidelines of RBI that bill would be discounted by the branches of different bank only if the party was maintaining the account in the said branch but he did not remember whether the guidelines was applicable at the relevant time.

438. In his cross examination by accused Tarun Khanna and P.N. Upadhaya, he deposed that he did not remember when DRT case was started but as far as he remembered that case was already filed when he had handed over documents to CBI. He did not remember if he had told the CBI about the pendency of case in DRT and therefore he could not say if the photocopies were compared from the originals documents. He denied the suggestion that above mentioned documents supplied by him were not true, correct and genuine.

439. Even if documents relied upon by PW71 Sh Tarun Mehra is held to have not been proved for want of original documents but his testimony do corroborates the testimony of PW39 Sh. Suresh Chandra qua the three LCs and their payments he deposed about. Further, his knowledge about the LCs was not questioned nor any suggestion was given by any of the accused person that no such LCs were discounted by the bank.

440. PW78 Sh. R. K. Yadav was posted as Asst. Manager in State Bank of Patiala, Parliament Street branch during 2001 to 2005. He deposed that D­194 (16 pages) Ex PW39/L, D­195(17 pages) Ex PW39/J and D­196 (20 pages) Ex PW39/H are the documents pertaining to LC which were submitted by the parties concerned in the bank and the same bore signatures of Sh. Kamal Garg, the then Manager, at point C respectively. He further deposed that the above mentioned documents also bore the signatures of Sh. Mahesh Dutt, the then Asst. Manager, at point D respectively and of Smt. Aditi the then Asst. Manager, at point E respectively. He further deposed that payments were made to parties by the bank and thereafter LC were sent to respective banks for payments.

441. PW78 Sh. R. K. Yadav further deposed that vide seizure memo Ex PW51/21(D­567) bearing his signature at point B, he had handed over documents mentioned therein i.e. (i) Original Letter of Credit dt 15.11.2002 from the Central Bank of India, Parliament Street branch sharing principal of M/s Creative Traders and M/s Hindustan Industries; (ii) Telex dt. 18.11.2002 addressed to State Bank of Patiala; (iii) Bill of exchange dt. 16.11.2002 on the letter head of M/s Hindustan Industries for Rs. 24,99,866/­; (iv) Original pay order dt. 18.11.2002 for Rs. 24,42,870/­ bearing No. 251997 issued by Sate Bank of India in the name of M/s Hindustan Industries; (v) Original LC No. 42/124 dt. 08.10.2002 issued by Central Bank of India mentioning principal on Aman Trading Company and beneficiary as M/s Alpha Communication; (vi) Telex dt. 09.10.2002 issued by Central Bank of India; (vii) Bill of Exchange dt. 09.10.2002 for Rs. 24,99,315/­ duly signed by M/s Alpha Communication and Aman Trading Company; (viii) Original pay order No. 251545 dt. 09.10.2002 for Rs. 24,41,296/­ issued by State Bank of Patiala in the name of Patiala in the name of M/s Alpha Communication; (ix) Original LC No. 43/133 dt. 22.10.2002 issued by Central Bank of India sharing principal M/s Aman Trading Company and beneficiary M/s Hindustan Industries; (x) Acceptance Telex dt. 23.10.2002 issued by Central Bank of India; (xi) Bill of Exchange dt. 23.10.2002 for Rs. 24,40,616/­ issued by State Bank of Patiala in the name of Hindustan Industries.

442. He further deposed that document i.e. Original letter of Credit dt.15.11.2002 from Central Bank of India, Parliament Street Branch, New Delhi sharing principal M/s Creative Traders and M/s Hindustan Industries is Ex PW78/A­1 and Ex PW78/A­2 was the telex dt. 18.11.2002 addressed to State Bank of Patiala. He further exhibited the documents such as Bill of Exchange dt.16.11.2002 Ex PW78/A­3 on the letter head of M/s Hindustan Industries for Rs. 24,42,870/­; original pay order dt. 18.11.2002 Ex PW78/A­4 for Rs. 24,42,870 bearing No. 251997 issued by State Bank of Patiala in the name of M/s Hindustan Industries; Original LC No. 43/124 dt. 08.10.2002 Ex PW78/A­5 issued by Central Bank of India mentioning principal M/s Aman Trading Company and beneficiary as M/s Alpha Communication; Telex dt. 9.10.2002 Ex PW78/A­6 issued by Central Bank of India; Bill of Exchange dt 9.10.2002 Ex PW78/A­7 for Rs. 24,99,315/­ duly signed by M/s Alpha Communication and M/s Aman Trading; Original pay order No. 251545 dt 09.10.2002 Ex PW78/A­8 for Rs. 24,41,296/­ issued by State Bank of India in the name of M/s Alpha Communication; Original LC No. 43/133 dt. 22.10.2002 Ex PW78/A­9 issued by Central Bank of India sharing principal M/s Aman Trading Company and beneficiary M/s Hindustan Industries; acceptance Telex dt.23.10.2002 Ex PW78/A­10 issued by Central Bank of India; Bill of Exchange dt. 23.10.2002 Ex PW78/A­11 for Rs. 24,99,670/­ duly signed by M/s Hindustan Industries and M/s Aman Trading Company and Original pay order No. 251760 dt. 23.10.2002 Ex. PW78/A­12 for Rs 24,40,616/­issued by State Bank of Patiala in the name of M/s Hindustan Industries. Being acquainted with signature, he also identified the signatures of concerned officials on the above documents.

443. In cross examination by accused Rakesh Verma A­6 and Harish Chand Wadhawa A­7, PW78 deposed that he had no personal knowledge of the case and proved the documents which must have been executed in routine course of business, on the basis of record. None of other accused persons cross examined PW78. In any case, however, issuance of LC, its discounting and payments have not been disputed by any of the accused persons.

444. Thus, testimony of PW78 Sh. R. K. Yadav corroborated the testimony of PW39 Sh. Suresh Chandra qua the issuance of various LCs and its payment about which PW39 deposed.

445. Further, PW72 Sh. Sushil Kumar Srivastava deposed that following cheques were issued from the account No. CC 260 of M/s Aman Trading Company in favour of different names, which he had handed over to IO vide memo Ex.PW72/J2 (D­204, 11 pages).

D No. Cheque No. & date and issued in favour of Amount In Rs. Cheque issued by Exhibit No.
D­205 Ch. No.563701 dtd. 27.7.2001 (M/s Paramount Insulation pvt ltd.) Rs.9,27,365/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/K­1
D­206 Ch. No. 563703 dtd. 27.7.2001 (M/s Paramount Insulation Pvt Ltd.) Rs.10,24,860/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/K­2
D­207 Ch. No.563705 dtd.27.7.2001, (M/s Paramount Insulation Pvt Ltd.) Rs.16,47,310/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/K­3
D­208 Ch. No. 563708 dtd.1.8.2001, (M/s Paramount Insulation pvt ltd.) Rs.17,24,095/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/K­4
D­209 Ch. No. 563707 dtd.1.8.2001, (M/s Paramount Insulation pvt ltd.) Rs.13,25,110/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/K­5
D­210 Ch. No. 563728 dtd.9.8.2001, (self) Rs.1,00,000/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/K­6
D­211 Ch. No. 563712 dtd.8.8.2001 (Creative Conductors Pvt ltd.) Rs.14,95,084/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/K­7
D­212 Ch. No. 563711 dtd.8.8.2001 (Creative Conductors Pvt ltd.) Rs.15,16,312/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/K­8
D­213 Ch. No. 563715 dtd.10.8.2001 (Creative Conductors Pvt ltd.) Rs.17,46,726/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/K­9
D­214 Ch.No.563730 dtd.14.8.2001, (Self) Rs.2,00,000/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/K­10
D­215 Ch. No. 563729 dtd.
14.8.2001(Creative
Conductors Pvt ltd.)
Rs.3,65,480/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/K­11
D­216 Ch. No. 563716 dtd.
13.8.2001, (Creative
Conductors Pvt ltd.)
Rs.7,60,110/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/K­12
D­217 Ch. No. 563717 dtd.
13.8.2001(Creative
Conductors Pvt ltd.)
Rs.12,38,220/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/K­13
D­218 Ch. No.263718 dtd. 13.8.2001 (Creative Conductors Pvt ltd.) Rs.9,84,603/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/K­14
D­219 Ch.No.563731 dtd.17.8.2001 (Creative Conductors Pvt ltd.) Rs.4,96,102/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/K­15
D­220 Ch. No. 563733 dtd.22.8.2001 (Creative Conductors Pvt ltd.) Rs.2,94,025 M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/K­16
D­222 Ch. No.563734 dtd.24.8.2001 (Creative Conductors Pvt ltd.) Rs.3,00,000/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/K­17
D­223 Ch. No.563722 dtd.18.8.2001 (Creative Conductors Pvt ltd.) Rs.9,75,130/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/K­18
D­224 Ch.No. 563723 dtd.18.8.2001 (Creative Conductors Pvt ltd.) Rs.13,95,628/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/K­19
D­225 Ch.No.563725 dtd.21.8.2001 (Creative Conductors Pvt ltd.) Rs.10,98,426/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/K­20
D­226 Ch.No.563719 dtd.16.8.2001 (Creative Conductors Pvt ltd.) Rs.16,40,565/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/K­21
D­227 Ch. No.563721 dtd.16.8.2001 (Creative Conductors Pvt ltd.) Rs.14,28,164/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/K­22
D­228 Ch.No.563724 dtd.21.8.2001 (Creative Conductors Pvt ltd.) Rs.9,95,436/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/K­23
D­229 Ch. No. 563738 dtd. 3.9.2001 (Creative Conductors Pvt ltd.) Rs. 4,50,000/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/K­24
D­230 Ch. No. 563737 dt.d.3.9.2001 (Creative Conductors Pvt ltd.) Rs.4,68,475/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/K­25
D­231 Ch.No.563739 dtd.7.9.2001 (Creative Conductors Pvt ltd.) Rs.9.96,325/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/K­26
D­232 Ch. No. 563740 dtd.7.9.2001 (Creative Conductors Pvt ltd.) Rs.7,48,095/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/K­27
D­233 Ch.No.563742 dtd. 7.9.2001 (Creative Conductors Pvt ltd.) Rs.8,32,220/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/K­28
D­234 Ch.No.563743 dtd.11.9.2001 (Creative Conductors Pvt ltd.) Rs.9,90,110/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/K­29
D­235 Ch.No.563746 dtd.11.9.2001 (Creative Conductors Pvt ltd.) Rs.3,50,000/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/K­30
D­236 Ch. No.563744 dtd.
11.9.2001 (Creative
Conductors Pvt ltd.)
Rs.8,68,365/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/K­31
D­237 Ch. No.563748 dtd.13.9.2001 (Creative Conductors Pvt ltd.) Rs.9,65,384/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/K­32
D­238 Ch.No. 563749 dtd.
13.9.2001 (Creative
Conductors Pvt ltd.)
Rs.10,48,609/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/K­33
D­239 Ch. No. 563751 dtd.13.9.2001 (Creative Conductors Pvt ltd.) Rs.7,86,375/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/K­34
D­240 Ch.No.563750 dtd.13.9.2001 (Creative Conductors Pvt ltd.) Rs.9,98,723/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/K­35
D­241 Ch. No. 563754 dtd.15.9.2001, (Creative Conductors Pvt ltd.) Rs.14,98,436/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/K­36
D­242 Ch. No.563753 dtd.15.9.2001 (Creative Conductors Pvt ltd.) Rs.5,27,066/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/K­37
D­243 Ch.No.563752 dtd.15.9.2001 (Creative Conductors Pvt ltd.) Rs.8,48,426/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/K­38
D­244 Ch. No. 563755 dtd.18.9.2001 (Creative Conductors Pvt ltd.) Rs.10,00,000/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/K­39
D­245 Ch. No.563756 dtd.18.9.2001 (Creative Conductors Pvt ltd.) Rs.15,00,000/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/K­40
D­246 Ch.No.563763 dtd.22.9.2001 (Creative Conductors Pvt ltd.) Rs.10,00,000/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/K­41
D­247 Ch.No.563762 dtd.22.9.2001 (Creative Conductors Pvt ltd.) Rs.7,45,000/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/K­42
D­248 Ch.No.563764 dtd.22.9.2001 (Creative Conductors Pvt ltd.) Rs.11,94,010/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/K­43
D­249 Ch.No.563770 dtd.10.10.2001 (Paramount Insulation pvt ltd.) Rs.6,18,075/ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/K­44
D­250 Ch.No.563771 dtd.10.10.2001 (Paramount Insulation pvt ltd.) Rs.7,28,165/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/K­45
D­251 Ch.No.563768 dtd.10.10.2001 (Paramount Insulation pvt ltd.) Rs.4,75,000/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/K­46
D­252 Ch.No.563769 dtd.10.10.2001 (Paramount Insulation pvt ltd.) Rs.5,25,000/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/K­47
D­253 Ch.No.563773 dtd.12.10.2001 (Paramount Insulation pvt ltd.) Rs.9,34,465/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/K­48
D­254 Ch.No.563772 dtd.12.10.2001 (Paramount Insulation pvt ltd.) Rs.12,24,130/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/K­49
D­255 Ch.No.563777 dtd.18.10.2001 (Paramount Insulation pvt ltd.) Rs.12,24,750/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/K­50
D­256 Ch.No.563775 dtd.18.10.2001 (Paramount Insulation pvt ltd.) Rs.14,98,105/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/K­51
D­257 Ch.No.563782 dtd.23.10.2001 (Paramount Insulation pvt ltd.) Rs.14,21,350/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/K­52
D­258 Ch.No.563781 dtd.23.10.2001 (Paramount Insulation pvt ltd.) Rs.10,00,000/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/K­53
D­259 Ch.No.563784 dtd.2.11.2001 (Paramount Insulation pvt ltd.) Rs.12,90,408/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/K­54
D­260 Ch.No.563786 dtd.5.11.2001 (Paramount Insulation pvt ltd.) Rs.10,26,168/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/K­55
D­261 Ch.No.563791 dtd.6.11.2001 (Self) Rs.1,00,000/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/K­56
D­262 Ch.No.563787 dtd.7.11.2001 (Paramount Insulation pvt ltd.) Rs.5,98,820/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/K­57
D­263 Ch.No.563788 dtd.7.11.2001 (Paramount Insulation pvt ltd.) Rs.6,24,765/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/K­58
D­264 Ch.No.563790 dtd.9.11.2001(Param ount Insulation pvt ltd.) Rs.3,65,000/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/K­59
D­265 Ch.No.563789 dtd.9.11.2001 (Paramount Insulation pvt ltd.) Rs.7,28,120/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/K­60
D­266 Ch.No.563795 dtd.28.11.2001 (Paramount Insulation pvt ltd.) Rs.,12,26,460/ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/K­61
D­267 Ch.No.573302 dtd.5.12.2001 (Self) Rs.2,00,000/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/K­62
D­268 Ch.No.573303 dtd.6.12.2001 (Paramount Insulation pvt ltd.) Rs.11,95,180/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/K­63
D­269 Ch.No.573304 dtd.6.12.2001 (Paramount Insulation pvt ltd.) Rs.13,51,790/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/K­64
D­270 Ch.No.573305 dtd.8.12.2001 (Paramount Insulation pvt ltd.) Rs.10,98,826/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/K­65
D­271 Ch.No.573307 dtd. 8.12.2001(Paramount Insulation pvt ltd.) Rs.6,68,796/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/K­66
D­272 Ch.No.573310 dtd.13.12.2001 (Paramount Insulation pvt ltd.) Rs.21,40,665/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/K­67
D­273 Ch.No.573312 dtd.13.12.2001 (Paramount Insulation pvt ltd.) Rs.13,52,995/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/K­68
D­274 Ch.No.573313 dtd.15.12.2001 (Paramount Insulation pvt ltd.) Rs.18,75,698/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/K­69
D­275 Ch.No.573314 dtd.15.12.2001 (Paramount Insulation pvt ltd.) Rs.13,64,709/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/K­70
D­276 Ch.No.573316 dtd.18.12.2001 (Self) Rs.90,00,000/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/K­71
D­277 Ch.No.573320 dtd.24.12.2001 (Paramount Insulation pvt ltd.) Rs.6,39,164/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/K­72
D­278 Ch.No.573319 dtd. 24.12.2001 (Paramount Insulation pvt ltd.) Rs.10,01,365/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/K­73
D­279 Ch.No.573323 dtd.7.1.2002(Paramo unt Insulation pvt ltd.) Rs.9,16,110/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/K­74
D­280 Ch.No.573324 dtd.7.1.2002 (Paramount Insulation pvt ltd.) Rs.2,10,000/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/K­75
D­281 Ch.No.573327 dtd.9.1.2002  (Paramount Insulation pvt ltd.) Rs.8,84,309/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/K­76
D­282 Ch.No.573328 dtd.9.1.2002 (Paramount Insulation pvt ltd.) Rs.4,60,310/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/K­77
D­283 Ch.No.573330 dtd.11.1.2002 (Paramount Insulation pvt ltd.) Rs.5,00,000/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/K­78
D­284 Ch.No.573329 dtd.11.1.2002 (Paramount Insulation pvt ltd.) Rs.8,28,765/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/K­79
D­285 Ch.No.573332 dtd.14.1.2002 (Self) Rs.1,75,000/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/K­80
D­286 Ch.No.573333 dtd.15.1.2002 (Paramount Insulation pvt ltd.) Rs.7,69,165/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/K­81
D­287 Ch.No.573334 dtd.17.1.2002 (Paramount Insulation pvt ltd.) Rs.10,00,000/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/K­82
D­288 Ch.No.573335 dtd.19.1.2002 (Paramount Insulation pvt ltd.) Rs.9,84,119/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/K­83
D­289 Ch.No.573337 dtd.22.1.2002 (Paramount Insulation pvt ltd.) Rs.9,65,367/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/K­84
D­290 Ch.No.573338 dtd.22.1.2002(Param ount Insulation pvt ltd.) Rs.7,65,310 M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/K­85
D­291 Ch.No.573342 dtd.28.1.2002 (Paramount Insulation pvt ltd.) Rs.9,98,485/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/K­86
D­292 Ch.No.573340 dtd.24.1.2002 (Paramount Insulation pvt ltd.) RS.98,429/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/K­87
D­293 Ch.No. 573344 dtd.29.1.2002 (self) Rs.2,50,000/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/K­88
D­294 Ch.No.573343 dtd.30.1.2002 (Paramount Insulation pvt ltd.) Rs.12,65,119/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/K­89
D­295 Ch.No.573336 dtd. 16.1.2002 (Self) Rs.1,00,000/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/K­90
D­296 Ch.No.573341 dtd.21.1.2002 (Self) Rs.1,90,000/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/K­91
D­297 Ch.No.573345 dtd.2.2.2002 (Self) Rs.1,25,000/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/K­92
D­298 Ch. No. 573346 dtd. 5.2.2002 (Self) Rs. 4,50,000/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/K­93
D­299 Ch. No. 573347 dtd. 6.2.2002 (Paramount Insulation pvt ltd.) Rs.8,04,980/­ M/s Aman Trading Co Ex.PW72/K­94
D­300 Ch. No. 573352 dtd.13.2.2002 (Self) Rs.2,00,000/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/K­95
D­301 Ch. No. 573353 dtd.14.2.2002 (Self) Rs.7,65,000/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/K­96
D­302 Ch. No. 573355 dtd. 28.2.2002 (Alpha communication India) Rs. 8,10,115/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/K­97
D­303 Ch. No.573356 dtd.6.3.2002. (Self) Rs.20,000/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/K­98
D­304 Ch. No. 573359 dtd.7.3.2002 (Self) Rs.95,000/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/K­99
D­305 Ch.No.573358 dtd.6.3.2002 (Alpha communication India) Rs.14,05,256/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/K­100
D­306 Ch. No.573357 dtd. 6.3.2002 (Alpha communication India) Rs. 9,38,150/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/K­101
D­307 Ch. No. 573361 dtd.13.3.2002 (Alpha communication India) Rs.14,68,965/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/K­102
D­308 Ch. No. 573363 dtd.6.5.2002 (Alpha communication India) Rs.1,75,000/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/K­103
D­309 Ch. No. 573362 dtd.6.5.2002 (Alpha communication India) Rs. 9,68,130/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/K­104
D­310 Ch. No. 573368 dtd.8.5.2002 (self) Rs.2,00,000/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/K­105
D­311 Ch. No. 573366 dtd.8.5.2002 (Alpha communication India) Rs.13,98,425/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/K­106
D­312 Ch.No. 573369 dtd. 11.5.2002 (Alpha communication India) Rs.10,25,365/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/K­107
D­313 Ch. No. 573370 dtd.11.5.2002 (Alpha communication India) Rs.16,26,368/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/K­108
D­314 Ch.No. 573371 dtd.11/5/2002 (Alpha communication India) Rs.12,33,729/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/K­109
D­315 Ch. No. 573372 dtd.13.5.2002 (Alpha communication India) Rs.12,42,995/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/K­110
D­316 Ch. No. 573379 dtd.22.5.2002 (Alpha communication India) Rs.10,48,915/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/K­111
D­317 Ch. No.573376 dtd. 22.5.2002 (Alpha communication India) Rs.16,10,315/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/K­112
D­318 Ch. No.573377 dtd.22.5.2002 (Alpha communication India) Rs.9,68,550/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/K­113
D­319 Ch. No.573382 dtd.10.6.2002 (Alpha communication India) Rs.15,64,220/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/K­114
D­320 Ch. No. 573381 dtd.10.6.2002 (Alpha communication India) Rs.16,98,665/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/K­115
D­321 Ch. No.573384 dtd.13.6.2002 (Alpha communication India) Rs.21,98,325/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/K­116
D­322 Ch. No. 573387 dtd.15.6.2002 (Alpha communication
India)
Rs.8,97,390/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/K­117
D­323 Ch. No. 573385 dtd.15.6.2002 (Alpha communication India) Rs.9,98,365/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/K­118
D­324 Ch. No. 573398 dtd.3.7.2002 (Alpha communication India) Rs.10,00,000/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/K­119
D­325 Ch. No. 573399 dtd.3.7.2002 (Alpha communication India) Rs.7,84,135/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/K­120
D­326 Ch. No. 602102 dtd. 8.7.2002 (Alpha communication India) Rs.7,24,109/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/K­121
D­327 Ch. No. 573400 dtd. 8.7.2002 (Alpha communication India) Rs.16,28,926/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/K­122
D­328 Ch. No. 602105 dtd.12.7.2002 (Alpha communication India) Rs.16,09,103/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/K­123
D­329 Ch.No. 602104 dtd.12.7.2002 (Alpha communication India) Rs.6,89,580/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/K­124
D­330 Ch. No. 602107 dtd.18.7.2002 (Alpha communication India) Rs.10,00,000/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/K­125
D­331 Ch. No. 602106 dtd.18.7.2002 (South Indian Bank ltd. ) Rs.2,875/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/K­126
D­332 Ch. No. 602108 dtd.16.8.202 (Alpha communication India) Rs.2,79,310/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/K­127
D­333 Ch. No. 602109 dtd.19.8.2002 (Alpha communication India) RS.3,95,485/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/K­128
D­334 Ch. No. 602110 dtd.21.8.2002 (Alpha Rs.4,06,210/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/K­129
D­335 Ch.No. 602112 dtd.27.8.2002 (Alpha communication India) Rs.2,17,009/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/K­130
D­336 Ch. No. 602113 dtd.3.9.2002 (Self) Rs.1,10,000/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/K­131
D­337 Ch. No. 602116 dtd.21.9.2002 (Alpha communication India) Rs.12,20,000/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/K­132
D­338 Ch. No.602117 dtd.11.10.2002 (Paramount Insulation pvt ltd.) Rs.4,00,000/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/K­133
D­339 Ch.No. 573383 dtd.12.6.2002 (self) Rs.1,00,000/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/K­134
D­340 Ch. No. 573391 dtd.20.6.2002 (Alpha communication India) Rs.16,90,795/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/K­135
D­341 Ch. No. 573392 dtd.20.6.2002 (Alpha communication India) Rs.21,05,110/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/K­136

446. Further, on seeing the statement of account Ex.PW69/B­3 (D­535), he deposed that it was the statement of account of M/s Aman Trading Company pertaining to CC No.260 and above mentioned cheques have been reflected in the said Statement of account and the amounts of cheques respectively had accordingly been shown as withdrawal.

447. PW72 Sh. Sushil Kumar Srivastava further deposed that he had handed over following Pay­in­slips to the IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW72/J­2 (D­204), from the bank record which were maintained in ordinary course of business of the bank:­

D­No. Details of Pay in slip Pay­in­slip in
favour of
Exhibit No.
D­342 Pay in slip dtd.7.8.2001 for Ch. No. 336548 for Rs. 5,95,290/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. account No. CC­260 Ex.PW72/L­1
D­343 Pay in slip dtd.7.8.2001 fors Ch. No. 336550/­ for Rs.12,05,431/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. account No. CC­260 Ex.PW72/L­2
D­344 Pay in slip dtd. 7.8.2001 for Ch. No. 336549/­ for Rs. 10,40,165/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. account No. CC­260 Ex.PW72/L­3
D­345 Pay in slip dtd. 9.8.2001 for Ch. No. 008749 for Rs. 7,10,316/- M/s Aman Trading Co. account No. CC­260 Ex.PW72/L­4
D­346 Pay in slip dtd. 9.8.2001 for Ch. No.008750 for Rs, 12,87,024/- M/s Aman Trading Co. account No. CC­260 Ex.PW72/L­5
D­347 Pay in slip dtd 11.8.2001 for Ch. No. 008760 for Rs. 9,27,110/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. account No. CC­260 Ex.PW72/L­6
D­348 Pay in slip dtd. 11.8.2001 for Ch. No. 008764 for Rs. 7,60,000/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. account No. CC­260 Ex.PW72/L­7
D­349 Pay in slip dtd 11.8.2001 for Ch. No. 008763 for Rs. 4,67,416/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. account No. CC­260 Ex.PW72/L­8
D­350 Pay in slip dtd. 11.8.2001for Ch. No. 008761 for Rs.8,65,324/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. account No. CC­260 Ex.PW72/L­9
D­351 Pay in slip dtd. 16.8.2001 for Ch No. 894078 for Rs. 3,95,000/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. account No. CC­260 Ex.PW72/L­10
D­352 Pay in slip dtd. 20.8.2001 for Ch. No. 894079 for Rs.6,60,000/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. account No. CC­260 Ex.PW72/L­11
D­353 Pay in slip dtd. 22.8.2001 for Ch. No. 894081 for Rs. 2,96,395/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. account No. CC­260 Ex.PW72/L­12
D­354 Pay in slip datd 24.8.2001 for Ch No. 894083 for Rs. 3,30,000/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. account No. CC­260 Ex.PW72/L­13
D­355 Pay in slip dtd. 27.8.2001 for Ch. No. 894085 for Rs., 25,45,110/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. account No. CC­260 Ex.PW72/L­14
D­356 Pay in slip dtd. 27,8,20091 for Ch. No. 008785 for Rs. 15,48,432/- M/s Aman Trading Co. account No. CC­260 Ex.PW72/L­15
D­357 Pay in slip dtd 27.8.2001 for Ch. No. 894086 for Rs. 16,78,050/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. account No. CC­260 Ex.PW72/L­16
D­358 Pay in slip dtd.27.8.2001 for Ch. No.894087 for Rs,18,90,965/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. account No. CC­260 Ex.PW72/L­17
D­359 Pay in slip dated 29.8.2001 for Ch. No. 894094 for Rs.10,00,000/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. account No. CC­260 Ex.PW72/L­18
D­360 Pay in slip dated 6.9.2001 for Ch. No. 061105 for Rs. 10,38,430/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. account No. CC­260 Ex.PW72/L­19
D­361 Pay in slip dtd. 6.9.2001 for Ch. No. 061104 for Rs.15,00,000/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. account No. CC­260 Ex.PW72/L­20
D­362 Pay in slip dtd. 10.9.2001 for Ch No. 061113 for Rs. 5,00,000/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. account No. CC­260 Ex.PW72/L­21
D­363 Pay in slip dtd. 10.9.2001 for Ch. No. 061112 for Rs. 12,48,875/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. account No. CC­260 Ex.PW72/L­22
D­364 Pay in slip dtd 10.9.2001 for Ch. No. 061114 for Rs. 6,74,096/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. account No. CC­260 Ex.PW72/L­23
D­365 Pay in slip dtd.12.9.2001 for Ch. No. 061116 for Rs. 12,60,370/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. account No. CC­260 Ex.PW72/L­24
D­366 Pay in slip dtd. 12.9.2001 for Ch. No. 061117 for Rs. 7,06,376/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. account No. CC­260 Ex.PW72/L­25
D­367 Pay in slip dtd.12.9.2001 for Ch. No. 061115 for Rs. 18,29,095/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. account No. CC­260 Ex.PW72/L­26
D­368 Pay in slip dtd. 14.9.2001 for Ch. No. 061129 for Rs. 2,02,170/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. account No. CC­260 Ex.PW72/L­27
D­369 Pay in slip dtd. 14.9.2001 for Ch. No. 061128 for Rs. 9,80,426/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. account No. CC­260 Ex.PW72/L­28
D­370 Pay in slip dtd. 14.9.2001 for Ch No. 061127 for Rs. 16,75,306/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. account No. CC­260 Ex.PW72/L­29
D­371 Pay in slip dtd. 17.9.2001 for Ch. No. 061137 for Rs. 10,00,000/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. account No. CC­260 Ex.PW72/L­30
D­372 Pay in slip dtd. 17.9.2001 for Ch. No. 061136 for Rs.16,80,123/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. account No. CC­260 Ex.PW72/L­31
D­373 Pay in slip dtd.17.9.2001 for Ch. No. 061138 for Rs. 3,28,465/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. account No. CC­260 Ex.PW72/L­32
D­374 Pay in slip dtd 19.9.2001 for Ch. No. 061144 for Rs. 12,47,115/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. account No. CC­260 Ex.PW72/L­33
D­375 Pay in slip dtd.19.9.2001 for Ch. No. 061143 for Rs. 15,65,070/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. account No. CC­260 Ex.PW72/L­34
D­376 Pay in slip dtd. 21.9.2001 for Ch. No. 061149 for Rs. 15,10,085/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. account No. CC­260 Ex.PW72/L­35
D­377 Pay in slip dtd. 21.09.2001 for Ch. No. 061148 for Rs.14,28,105/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. account No. CC­260 Ex.PW72/L­36
D­378 Pay in slip dtd. 24.9.2001 for Ch. No. 061160 for Rs. 14,02,105/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. account No. CC­260 Ex.PW72/L­37
D­379 Pay in slip dtd. 24.9.2001 for Ch. No. 061159 for Rs.16,80,220/­Á M/s Aman Trading Co. account No. CC­260 Ex.PW72/L­38
D­380 Pay in slip dtd. 11.10.2001 for Ch. No. 339808, for Rs. 8,23,000/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. account No. CC­260 Ex.PW72/L­39
D­381 Pay in slip dtd. 11.10.2001 for Ch. No. 339807 for Rs. 7,24,170/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. account No. CC­260 Ex.PW72/L­40
D­382 Pay in slip dtd. 13.10.2001 for Ch. No. 339815 for Rs. 8,01,095/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. account No. CC­260 Ex.PW72/L­41
D­383 Pay in slip dtd 13.10.2001 for Ch. No. 339813 for Rs. 9,95,465/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. account No. CC­260 Ex.PW72/L­42
D­384 Pay in slip dtd. 13.10.2001 for Ch. No. 339814 for Rs. 8,80,000/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. account No. CC­260 Ex.PW72/L­43
D­385 Pay in slip dtd.19.10.2001 for Ch. No. 339821 for Rs. 13,15,000/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. account No. CC­260 Ex.PW72/L­44
D­386 Pay in slip dtd. 19.10.2001 for Ch. No. 339820 for Rs. 7,98,164/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. account No. CC­260 Ex.PW72/L­45
D­387 Pay in slip dtd. 22.10.2001 for Ch No. 339828 for Rs. 15,24,107/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. account No. CC­260 Ex.PW72/L­46
D­388 Pay in slip dtd. 22.10.l2001 for Ch. No. 339829 for Rs. 8,50,000/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. account No. CC­260 Ex.PW72/L­47
D­389 Pay in slip dtd. 24,10.2001 for Ch. No. 339834 for Rs. 15,74,872/- M/s Aman Trading Co. account No. CC­260 Ex.PW72/L­48
D­390 Pay in slip dtd. 6.11.2001 for Ch. No. 339847 for Rs. 5,95,169/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. account No. CC­260 Ex.PW72/L­49
D­391 Pay in slip dtd. 6.11.2001 for Ch. No. 339846 for Rs.6,28,120/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. account No. CC­260 Ex.PW72/L­50
D­392 Pay in slip dtd. 8.11.2001 for Ch. No., 347352 for Rs.10,98,965/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. account No. CC­260 Ex.PW72/L­51
D­393 Pay in slip dtd.16.11.2001 for Ch. No. 347363 for Rs.11,48,120/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. account No. CC­260 Ex.PW72/L­52
D­394 Pay in slip dtd. 16.11.2001 for Ch. No. 347362 for Rs. 16,45,164/- M/s Aman Trading Co. account No. CC­260 Ex.PW72/L­53
D­395 Pay in slip dtd.5.12.2001 for Ch. No. 347375 for Rs. 15,46,450/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. account No. CC­260 Ex.PW72/L­54
D­396 Pay in slip dtd. 5.12.2001 for Ch. No. 347373 for Rs. 10,00,000/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. account No. CC­260 Ex.PW72/L­55
D­397 Pay in slip dtd.7.12.2001 for Ch No. 347381 for Rs. 6,72,242/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. account No. CC­260 Ex.PW72/L­56
D­398 Pay in slip dtd.7.12.2001 for Ch. No. 347380 for Rs. 10,95,506/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. account No. CC­260 Ex.PW72/L­57
D­399 Pay in slip dtd 10.12.2001 for Ch. No. 347382 for Rs. 5,96,827/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. account No. CC­260 Ex.PW72/L­58
D­400 Pay in slip dtd.10.12.2001 for Ch. No. 347383 for Rs. 12,03,120/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. account No. CC­260 Ex.PW72/L­59
D­401 Pay in slip dated 12.12.2001 for Ch. No. 347392 for Rs. 19,05,208/- M/s Aman Trading Co. account No. CC­260 Ex.PW72/L­60
D­402 Pay in slip dtd. 12.12.2001 for Ch. No. 347391 for Rs. 15,86,705/- M/s Aman Trading Co. account No. CC­260 Ex.PW72/L­61
D­403 Pay in slip dtd. 14.12.2001 for Ch. No. 347395 for Rs. 16,95,105/- M/s Aman Trading Co. account No. CC­260 Ex.PW72/L­62
D­404 Pay in slip dated 14.12.2001 for Ch. No. 347397 for Rs. 16,50564/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. account No. CC­260 Ex.PW72/L­63
D­405 Pay in slip dtd.18.12.2001 for Ch. No. 347400 for Rs. 23,83,306/- M/s Aman Trading Co. account No. CC­260 Ex.PW72/L­64
D­406 Pay in slip dtd.27.12.2001 for Ch. No. 351859 for Rs. 6,05,000/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. account No. CC­260 Ex.PW72/L­65
D­407 Pay in slip dtd. 09.1.2002 for Ch. No. 351869 for Rs. 9,35,924/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. account No. CC­260 Ex.PW72/L­66
D­408 Pay in slip dtd 09.1.2002 for Ch. No. 351868 for Rs. 3,98,665/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. account No. CC­260 Ex.PW72/L­67
D­409 Pay in slip dtd.11.1.2002 for Ch. No. 351874 for Rs. 4,76,120/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. account No. CC­260 Ex.PW72/L­68
D­410 Pay in slip dtd.11.1.2002 for Ch. No. 351875 for Rs. 8,53,195/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. account No. CC­260 Ex.PW72/L­69
D­411 Pay in slip dtd.14.1.2002 for Cgh. No. 351881 for Rs. 5,87,699/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. account No. CC­260 Ex.PW72/L­70
D­412 Pay in slip dtd.14.1.202 for Ch. No.351880 for Rs. 6,15,890/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. account No. CC­260 Ex.PW72/L­71
D­413 Pay in slip dtd. 16.1.2002 for Ch. No. 351884 for Rs. 5,25,110/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. account No. CC­260 Ex.PW72/L­72
D­414 Pay in slip dtd.16.1.2002 for Ch No. 351883 for Rs. 4,65,070 M/s Aman Trading Co. account No. CC­260 Ex.PW72/L­73
D­415 Pay in nslip dtd. 21.1.2002 for Ch. No. 3519000 for Rs. 10,63,620/- M/s Aman Trading Co. account No. CC­260 Ex.PW72/L­74
D­416 Pay in slip dtd 23.01.2002 for Ch. No. 354358 for Rs. 2,45,000/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. account No. CC­260 Ex.PW72/L­75
D­417 Pay in slip dtd.23.1.2002 for Ch. No.354357 for Rs. 8,98,220/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. account No. CC­260 Ex.PW72/L­76
D­418 Pay in slip dtd.29.1.2002 for Ch. No. 354360 for Rs. 84,315/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. account No. CC­260 Ex.PW72/L­77
D­419 Pay in slip dtd. 7.2.2002 for Ch. No. 354372 for Rs. 9,65,410/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. account No. CC­260 Ex.PW72/L­78
D­420 Pay in slip dtd.26.2.2002 for Ch. No. 351410 for Rs. 5,58,436/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. account No. CC­260 Ex.PW72/L­79
D­421 Pay in slip dtd.18.3.2002 for Ch. No. 351425 for Rs., 14,75,103/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. account No. CC­260 Ex.PW72/L­80
D­422 Pay in slip dtd .1.5.2002 for Ch. No. 351428 for Rs. 12,19,320­/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. account No. CC­260 Ex.PW72/L­81
D­423 Pay in slip dtd. 7.5.2002 for Ch. No.351435 for Rs. 10,83,005/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. account No. CC­260 Ex.PW72/L­82
D­424 Pay in slip dtd. 7.5.2002 for Ch. No. 351434 for Rs. 13,26,365/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. account No. CC­260 Ex.PW72/L­83
D­425 Pay in slip dtd. 10.5.2002 for Ch. No. 351436 for Rs. 24,26,030/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. account No. CC­260 Ex.PW72/L­84
D­426 Pay in slip dtd.10.5.2002 for Ch. No. 351437 for Rs. 13,95,136/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. account No. CC­260 Ex.PW72/L­85
D­427 Pay in slip dtd.15.5.2002 for Ch. No. 351450 for Rs.11,19,000/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. account No. CC­260 Ex.PW72/L­86
D­428 Pay in slip dtd.20.5.2002 for Ch. No. 265504 for Rs. 14,95,210/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. account No. CC­260 Ex.PW72/L­87
D­429 Pay in slip dtd. 20.5.2002 for Ch. No. 265503 for Rs. 12,80,165/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. account No. CC­260 Ex.PW72/L­88
D­430 Pay in slip dtd. 20.5.2002 for Ch. No.265502 for Rs. 9,90,840/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. account No. CC­260 Ex.PW72/L­89
D­431 Pay in slip dtd.14.6.2002 for Ch No. 265526 for Rs. 15,86,309/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. account No. CC­260 Ex.PW72/L­90
D­432

 

Pay in slip dtd. 14.6.2002 for Ch.

No. 265515 for Rs. 9,34,364/­

M/s Aman Trading Co.

account No. CC­260

Ex.PW72/L­91

 

D­433 Pay in slip dtd.14.6.2002 for Ch No. 265514 for Rs.13,68,215/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. account No. CC­260 Ex.PW72/L­92
D­434 Pay in slip dtd.17.6.2002 for Ch. No.265521 for Rs.15,98,310/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. account No. CC­260 Ex.PW72/L­93
D­435 Pay in slip dtd.17.6.2002 for Ch. No.265533 for Rs.17,95,116/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. account No. CC­260 Ex.PW72/L­94
D­436 Pay in slip dtd.17.6.2002 for Ch. No.265534 for Rs.8,75,000/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. account No. CC­260 Ex.PW72/L­95
D­437 Pay in slip dtd. 21.6.2002 for Ch. No.265537 for Rs.8,45,374/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. account No. CC­260 Ex.PW72/L­96
D­438 Pay in slip dtd. 21.6.2002 for Ch. No. 265535 for Rs.18,65,415/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. account No. CC­260 Ex.PW72/L­97
D­439 Pay in slip dtd. 24.6.2002 for Ch. No. 265543 for Rs.19,02,167/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. account No. CC­260 Ex.PW72/L­98
D­440 Pay in slip dtd. 24.6.2002 for Ch. No. 265542 for Rs.14,98,673/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. account No. CC­260 Ex.PW72/L­99
D­441 Pay in slip dtd 6.7.2002 for Ch. No.265549 for Rs.7,18,465/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. account No. CC­260 Ex.PW72/L­100
D­442 Pay in slip dtd.6.7.2002 for Ch. No.265548 for Rs.12,45,155/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. account No. CC­260 Ex.PW72/L­101
D­443 Pay in slip dtd.6.7.2002 for Ch. No. 265547 for Rs. 9,75,187/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. account No. CC­260 Ex.PW72/L­102
D­444 Pay in slip dtd. 10.7.2002 for Ch. No. 268902 for Rs. 12,02,754/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. account No. CC­260 Ex.PW72/L­103
D­445 Pay in slip dtd.10.7.2002 for Ch. No.265550 for Rs. 10,95,850/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. account No. CC­260 Ex.PW72/L­104
D­446 Pay in slip dtd.15.7.2002 for Ch. No.268904 for Rs.9,26,105/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. account No. CC­260 Ex.PW72/L­105
D­447 Pay in slip dtd.15.7.2002 for Ch. No. 268905 for Rs.7,15,410/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. account No. CC­260 Ex.PW72/L­106
D­448 Pay in slip dtd. 14.8.2002 for Ch. No. 268923 for Rs.4,99,429/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. account No. CC­260 Ex.PW72/L­107
D­449 Pay in slip dtd.17.8.202 for Ch. No. 268930 for Rs.3,98,120/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. account No. CC­260 Ex.PW72/L­108
D­450 Pay in slip dtd. 20.8.2002 for Ch. No.263931 for Rs.4,02,860/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. account No. CC­260 Ex.PW72/L­109
D­451 Pay in slip dtd. 26.8.2002 for Ch. No.268950 for Rs.2,15,426/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. account No. CC­260 Ex.PW72/L­110
D­452 Pay in slip dtd. 28.8.2002 for Ch. No.274603 for Rs. 3,00,000/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. account No. CC­260 Ex.PW72/L­111
D­453 Pay in slip dtd.16.9.2002 for Ch. No.274612 for Rs.17,20,320/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. account No. CC­260 Ex.PW72/L­112
D­454 Pay in slip dtd.24.9.2002 for Ch. No.274631 for Rs.8,21,985/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. account No. CC­260 Ex.PW72/L­113
D­455 Pay in slip dtd. 24.9.2002 for Ch. No.274630 for Rs.16,13,320/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. account No. CC­260 Ex.PW72/L­114
D­456 Pay­in slip dtd. 5.10.2002 for Ch. No.761108 for Rs.16,28,364/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. account No. CC­260 Ex.PW72/L­115
D­457 Pay in slip dtd. 5.10.2002 for Ch. No. 761109 for Rs.19,06,890/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. account No. CC­260 Ex.PW72/L­116
D­458 Pay in slip dtd. 18.10.2002 for Ch. No.761112 for Rs.17,11,549/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. account No. CC­260 Ex.PW72/L­117
D­459 Pay in slip dtd.18.10.2002 for Ch. No.761111 for Rs.10,00,000/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. account No. CC­260 Ex.PW72/L­118
D­460 Pay in slip dtd.03.12.2002 for Ch. No. 279765 for Rs.10,00,000/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. account No. CC­260 Ex.PW72/L­119

448. He further deposed that the above mentioned pay in slips were deposited in the bank along with the cheques as reflected in the statement of account.

449. PW72 further deposed that vide memo Ex.PW72/M dated 19.06.2003 (D461) he had handed over following cheques issued by M/s Aman Trading Company from the account No. 5425 in favour of the parties as well as the pay­in­slips.

Doc. No. Cheque No. & date issued in favour of Amount
In Rs.
Cheque issued by Exhibit No.
D­462 Ch. No.894104 dtd. 28.3.2001 (M/s Paramount Insulation pvt ltd.) Rs.1,68,115 M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/M­1
D­463 Ch. No.894105 dtd. 28.3.2001 (M/s Paramount Insulation pvt ltd.) Rs.76,415/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/M­2
D­464 Ch. No.894102 dtd. 28.3.2001 (M/s Paramount Insulation pvt ltd.) Rs.3,35,450/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/M­3
D­465 Ch. No.894103 dtd. 28.3.2001 (M/s Paramount Insulation pvt ltd.) Rs.54,410/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/M­4
D­466 Ch. No. 894106 dtd. 9.4.2001 (M/s Creative Conductors pvt ltd.) Rs.2,24,376/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/M­5
D­467 Ch. No.894108 dtd. 9.4.2001(M/s Creative Conductors pvt ltd.) Rs.1,84,455/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/M­6
D­468 Ch. No. 894107 dtd. 9.4.2001 (M/s Creative Conductors pvt ltd.) Rs.68,466/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/M­7
D­469 Ch. No. 894110 dtd. 17.4.2001 (M/s Creative Conductors pvt ltd.) Rs.1,84,756/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/M­8
D­470 Ch. No. 894109 dtd.17.4.2001 (M/s Creative Conductors pvt ltd.) Rs.75,165/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/M­9
D­471 Ch. No. 894111 dtd. 28.4.2001 (M/s Creative Conductors pvt ltd.) Rs.46,395/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/M­10
D­472 Ch. No. 894112 dtd. 11.5.2001 (M/s Creative Conductors pvt ltd.) Rs.58,480/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/M­11
D­473 Ch. No.894113 dtd. 11.5.2001 (M/s Creative Conductors pvt ltd.) Rs.1,23,995/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/M­12
D­474 Ch. No.894114 dtd. 17.5.2001(M/s Creative Conductors pvt ltd.) Rs.13,188/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/M­13
D­475 Ch. No.894115 dtd. 17.5.2001 (M/s Creative Conductors pvt ltd.) Rs.1,36,911/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/M­14
D­476 Ch. No.894116 dtd.23.5.2001 (M/s Creative Conductors pvt ltd.) Rs.21,480/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/M­15
D­477 Ch. No.894117 dtd.23.5.2001 (M/s Creative Conductors pvt ltd.) Rs.1,21,000/­ M/s Aman Trading Co. Ex.PW72/M­16

D­No. Details of Pay in slip Pay­in­slip in account No.5425 of Exhibit No.
D­478 Pay in slip dtd. 27.3.2001 for Ch. No.242953 for Rs.1,15,660/­ M/s Aman Trading Company Ex.PW72/N­1
D­479 Pay in slip dtd.27.3.2001 for Ch. No. 242954 for Rs.1,02,136/­ M/s Aman Trading Company Ex.PW72/N­2
D­480 Pay in slip dtd. 27.3.2001 for Ch. No.242951 for Rs.94,190/­ M/s Aman Trading Company Ex.PW72/N­3
D­481 Pay in slip dtd. 27.3.2001 for Ch. No.242952 for Rs.3,24,115/­ M/s Aman Trading Company Ex.PW72/N­4
D­482 Pay in slip dtd. 29.3.2001 cash for Rs. 20,000/­ M/s Aman Trading Company Ex.PW72/N­5
D­483 Pay in slip dtd. 9.4.2001 for Ch. No. 242981 for Rs.14,368/­ M/s Aman Trading Company Ex.PW72/N­6
D­484 Pay in slip dtd.9.4.2001 for Ch. No.242980 for Rs.1,68,744/­ M/s Aman Trading Company Ex.PW72/N­7
D­485 Pay in slip dtd. 9.4.2001 for Ch. No.242979 for Rs.2,89,150/­ M/s Aman Trading Company Ex.PW72/N­8
D­486 Pay in slip dtd. 17.4.2001 for Ch. No.784985 for Rs.1,80,000/­ M/s Aman Trading Company Ex.PW72/N­9
D­487 Pay in slip dtd.17.4.2001 for Ch. No.784984 for Rs.80,490/­ M/s Aman Trading Company Ex.PW72/N­10
D­488 Pay in slip dtd.27.4.2001 for Ch. No.784994 for Rs.29,540/­ M/s Aman Trading Company Ex.PW72/N­11
D­489 Pay in slip dtd.27.4.2001 for Ch No. 784993 for Rs.16,170/­ M/s Aman Trading Company Ex.PW72/N­12
D­490 Pay in slip dtd.10.5.2001 for Ch. No.008704 for Rs.81,238/­ M/s Aman Trading Company Ex.PW72/N­13
D­491 Pay in slip dtd. 16.5.2001 for Ch. No.008715 for Rs.95,060/­ M/s Aman Trading Company Ex.PW72/N­14
D­492 Pay in slip dtd. 16.5.2001 for Ch. No. 008714 for Rs.55,110/­ M/s Aman Trading Company Ex.PW72/N­15
D­493 Pay in slip dtd. 22.5.2001 for Ch. No. 008721 for Rs.54,190/­ M/s Aman Trading Company Ex.PW72/N­16
D­494 Pay in slip dtd. 22.5.2001 for Ch. No.008722 for Rs.88,165/­ M/s Aman Trading Company Ex.PW72/N­17
D­495 Pay in slip dtd. 10.7.2001 for Ch. No. 114139 for Rs.2,998/­ M/s Aman Trading Company Ex.PW72/N­18

450. PW72 further deposed that he had also handed over following cheques and pay­in­slips issued by M/s Creative Traders in favour of the parties as reflected in the statement of account Ex.PW69/B5 (D537) dated 16.10.2016.

Doc No. Cheque No. & date issued in favour of Amount
In Rs.
Cheques issued by Exhibit No.
D­497 Ch. No.281502 dtd. 10.8.2002 (M/s Alpha Communication India) Rs.22,48,490/­ M/s Creative Traders Ex.PW72/P­1
D­498 Ch. No. 281503 dtd. 12.8.2002 (M/s Alpha Communication India ) Rs.19,98,895/­ M/s Creative Traders Ex.PW72/P­2
D­499 Ch. No.281507 dtd. 19.8.2002 (M/s Alpha Communication India ) Rs.2,04,180/­ M/s Creative Traders Ex.PW72/P­3
D­500 Ch. No.281510 dtd. 2.9.2002 (M/s Alpha Communication India ) Rs.9,45,460/­ M/s Creative Traders Ex.PW72/P­4
D­501 Ch. No.281512 dtd. 11.9.2002 (M/s Alpha Communication India ) Rs.18,27,135/­ M/s Creative Traders Ex.PW72/P­5
D­502 Ch. No.281513 dtd. 11.9.2002(M/s Alpha Communication India ) Rs.21.23,968/­ M/s Creative Traders Ex.PW72/P­6
D­503 Ch. No.281516 dtd. 19.9.2002 (M/s Alpha Communication India ) Rs.24,50,000/­ M/s Creative Traders Ex.PW72/P­7
D­504 Ch. No.281518 dtd.21.9.2002(M/s Paramount Insulation company) Rs.12,35,000/­ M/s Creative Traders Ex.PW72/P­8
D­505 Ch. No. 281521 dtd. 26.9.2002 (M/s Alpha Communication India ) Rs.24,30,000/­ M/s Creative Traders Ex.PW72/P­9
D­506 Ch. No.281525 dtd. 1.10.2002 (M/s Paramount Insulation Company) Rs.9,18,368/­ M/s Creative Traders Ex.PW72/P­10
D­507 Ch. No.281524 dtd. 1.10.2002 (M/s Paramount Insulation company) Rs.10,00,000/­ M/s Creative Traders Ex.PW72/P­11

Doc. No. Details of Pay in slip Pay­in­slip in account No.267 of Exhibit No.
D­508 Pay in slip dtd. 17.8.2002 for Ch. No. 268933 for Rs. 2,00,000/­ M/s Creative
Traders
Ex.PW72/Q­1
D­509 Pay in slip dtd. 18.9.2002 for Ch. No. 274614 for Rs.24,55,310/­ M/s Creative
Traders
Ex.PW72/Q­2
D­510 Pay in slip dtd. 27.9.2002 for Ch. No. 274635 for Rs.14,25,000/­ M/s Creative
Traders
Ex.PW72/Q­3
D­511 Pay in slip dtd. 27.9.2002 for Ch. No.274634 for Rs. 10,00,000/­ M/s Creative
Traders
Ex.PW72/Q­4
D­512 Pay in slip dtd.11.10.2002 for Ch. No.274643 for Rs.6,23,640/­ M/s Creative
Traders
Ex.PW72/Q­5
D­513 Pay in slip dtd. 11.10.2002 for Ch. No. 274641 for Rs. 18,26,360/­ M/s Creative
Traders
Ex.PW72/Q­6
D­514 Pay in slip dtd. 12.10.2002 for Ch. No. 810444 for Rs.4,01,320/­ M/s Creative
Traders
Ex.PW72/Q­7
D­515 Pay in slip dtd. 3.12.2002 for Ch No.279766 Rs.10,00,000/­ M/s Creative
Traders
Ex.PW72/Q­8
D­516 Pay in slip dtd. 18.10.2002 for Ch. No. 93804 for Rs.5,25,00/­ M/s Creative
Traders
Ex.PW72/Q­9

451. PW72 Sh. Sushil Kumar Srivastava further deposed that relevant entries of the cheques shown in above mentioned pay­in­slip were reflected in the column of deposits in statement of account Ex PW69/B­5 (D­537) of M/s Creative Traders’ account No. CC 267.

452. In cross examination by accused Sanjay Gupta (A­2), PW72 deposed that requisitions for production of documents were not received by him from IO but the same were received by his branch. He further admitted that the requisition for documents were not shown to him from the records. He denied the suggestion that he had deposed falsely at the instance of CBI and no documents were produced by him before the IO. Testimony of PW72 about the above mentioned cheques and pay­in­slips, was not disputed by accused Keshav Sharma A­1 in the cross examination of PW72. Accused Sharad Kumar Jain A­3 did not cross examine this witness at all. Others accused persons also did not challenge his testimony about the above mentioned cheques and pay­in­slips relating to M/s Aman Trading Company and M/s Creative Traders.

453. Even if statements of accounts of both firms i.e. Ex. PW69/B­3 (D­535), Ex. PW69/B­4 (D­536), Ex PW69/B­5 (D­537) deemed to have been not proved for want of certification under Banker’s Book Evidence Act and for want of certificate under Section 65B of Evidence Act, the above originals cheques of both firms do prove the payments made out of the Cash Credit accounts of both firms in question to M/s Alpha Communication (India), M/s Hindustan Industries, M/s Paramount Insulation Pvt. Ltd, M/s Creative Conductors Pvt. Ltd, M/s Paramount Insulation etc. otherwise these originals cheques would not have been in possession of bank.

454. Thus, prosecution has successfully proved that amount of cash credit facilities availed of by M/s Aman Trading Company and M/s Creative Traders were transferred into the account of M/s Alpha Communication (India), M/s Paramount Insulation Pvt. Ltd, M/s Hindustan Industries, Creative Conductors Pvt. Ltd. ostensibly as payments for the goods received from these firms but it has already been found herein before that these firms were only paper firms and not doing any business in reality. In fact, M/s Hindustan Industries, M/s Alpha Communication (India) and M/s Creative Traders were absolutely fake firms as they never existed at the addresses mentioned or elsewhere.

455. Further, PW83 Sh. Shiv Shankara Prasad who was working as Assistant Manager with Vysya Bank, Yamuna Vihar in the year 2003 deposed that vide seizure memo Ex PW81/20 he had handed over original cheques bearing No. 279759 dt 13.11.2002 Ex. PW83/1 (D­553) for Rs. 4,90,000/­; bearing No. 279758 dt 13.11.2002 Ex PW83/2 (D­554) for Rs. 4,90,000/­; bearing No. 279761 dt 13.11.2002 Ex PW83/3 (D­555) for Rs. 4,85,000/­; bearing No. 279755 dt 26.10.2002 Ex PW83/4 (D­557) for Rs. 2,10,000/­ ; bearing No. 279770 dt 04.12.2002 Ex PW83/5 (D­556) for Rs. 50,000/­. Perusal of above mentioned shows that all cheques were issued to “Self” by M/s Hindustan Industries. Amounts of cheques Ex PW83/1 to Ex PW83/3 have been collected by Deepak Bansal and of cheques Ex. PW83/4 and Ex. PW83/5 have been collected by accused P. N. Upadhaya.

456. PW83 Sh. Siva Shankar Prasad also identified and exhibited documents i.e. cheques 279765 dt 2.12.2002 Ex PW83/6 (D­615) of Rs. 10,00,000/­ issued by M/s Hindustan Industries in favour of M/s Aman Trading Company; cheques 279766 dt 2.12.2002 Ex PW83/7 (D­616) of Rs. 10,00,000/­ issued by M/s Hindustan Industries in favour of M/s Creative Traders; cheques 351403 dt 6.12.2001 Ex PW83/8 (D­617) of Rs. 95,000/­ issued by M/s Alpha Communication in favour of “self”; cheques 351404 dt 08.12.2002 Ex. PW83/9 (D­615) of Rs. 30,000/­ issued by M/s Alpha Communication in favour of “self”, amount of which was collected by Deepak Bansal. He also identified and exhibited vouchers vide which amounts were deposited in the respective accounts. These vouchers are voucher dt 18.12.2002 Ex PW83/10 (D­619) of Vysya Bank for Rs 11,000/­ in favour of M/s Hindustan Industries; voucher dt. 24.10.2002 Ex PW83/11 (D­620) of Vysya Bank for Rs. 24,40,616/­ in favour of M/s Hindustan Industries; voucher dt. 20.11.2002 Ex PW83/12 (D­621) of Vysya Bank for Rs. 24,42,870/­in favour of M/s Hindustan Industries; voucher dt. 2.12.2002 Ex PW83/13 (D­622) of Vysya Bank for Rs. 10,16,108/­ in favour of M/s Hindustan Industries; voucher dt. 2.12.2002 Ex PW83/14 (D­623) of Vysya Bank for Rs 11,55,000/­ in favour of M/s Hindustan Industries; voucher dt. 2.12.2002 Ex PW83/15 (D­624) of Vysya Bank for Rs 80,000/­ in favour of M/s Hindustan Industries; voucher dt. 07.12.2002 Ex PW83/16 (D­625) of Vysya Bank for Rs 80,000/­ in favour of M/s Hindustan Industries.

457. PW83 further deposed that vide seizure memo dt. 20.12.2003 Ex. PW81/2 (D­167) bearing his signature at point B, he had handed over certified true copy of statement of account No. 535011004725 Ex. PW81/12 (D­186, 8 pages) of M/s Alpha Communication and certified true copy of statement of account No. 535011005313 Ex. PW81/13 (D­169, 2 pages) of M/s Hindustan Industries. He also identified his signature as well as seal of the bank on those documents.

458. In cross examination by accused Keshav Sharma, PW83 admitted that as per seizure memo Ex PW81/20 only 10 documents were handed over to CBI and certified copy of statement of account No.535011005313 of M/s Hindustan Industries from 19.05.2002 to 24.06.2003 maintained at Vysya Bank, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi was not on the record which he had handed over vide Ex PW81/20. He did not remember if the documents Ex PW83/6 to Ex PW83/16 were handed over by him to CBI or not, however, he admitted that there was no seizure memo of these documents. He could not say if he had come across these documents i.e. Ex. PW83/6 to Ex PW83/16 during his working in the bank. He denied the suggestion that he had wrongly identified the bank seals and the signatures of officials on the documents.

459. In cross examination by accused Sharad Kumar Jain (A­3), Rakesh Verma (A­6) and Harish Chand Wadhawa (A­7), PW83 deposed that in the year 2002­03 accounts used to be maintained through computers. He admitted that Ex. PW81/12 and Ex PW81/13 were the printout and no certificate was there for the statements of account as per Banker’s Book Evidence Act. He also admitted that the documents which he exhibited that day were not executed in his presence. In cross examination by accused Sanjay Gupta (A­2), PW83 denied the suggestion that no such cheques were handed over by him to CBI. Other accused persons did not cross examine him.

460. Thus, it can be seen that existence, execution and contents of cheques and vouchers have not been disputed. No one gave suggestion to the effect that it was neither issued by the concerned parties nor were presented before bank for being acted upon. So far as Statements of Account are concerned same may not be admissible for want of Banker’s Book Evidence Act nor could same be said to have been proved as per law. Be that as it may, prosecution has, nevertheless, been successful in proving that amount of Cash Credit facilities availed of by M/s Aman Trading Company and M/s Creative Traders were drained out through the above mentioned shell firms.

Linking of Accused Persons to Crime

461. Now it be seen if prosecution has been successful in proving that it is the accused persons who have committed the offenses respectively alleged against them.
Accused No.1 Keshav Sharma

462. Accused Keshav Sharma apart from being party to criminal conspiracy to cheat/defraud Central Bank of India, Parliament Street branch, New Delhi, is alleged to have impersonated as Ashok Jain S/o P. C. Jain thereby representing himself as Ashok Jain proprietor of M/s Creative Traders, Plot No.9, Main Patparganj Road, Pandav Nagar, Shahdra, Delhi, opened Current Account with Central Bank of India, Parliament Street branch, Delhi, availed Cash Credit facility to the extent of Rs.125 lacs on the basis of forged/bogus sale deeds of two properties and siphoned off the amount through different bank accounts. He is further alleged to have impersonated as Ashok Jain before the Sub­Registrar office while getting two forged/bogus sale deeds executed in respect of properties bearing No. S­596, School Block, Vill. Mandawali, Illaqua Fazalpur, Delhi and 137 (part), Jhilmil, Tahirpur, Delhi and of knowingly and fraudulently using those forged/bogus sale deeds to avail of Cash Credit facility from aforesaid bank. Thus, he is alleged to have committed substantive offense under Sections 420, 419, 467, 468 and 471 besides offenses under Section 120­B and 120­B r/w 420, 419, 467, 468 and 471.

463. It has been found above proved that accused Keshav Sharma while impersonating as Ashok Jain opened Current Account with Central Bank of India, Parliament Street branch, New Delhi in the name of M/s Creative Traders representing himself to be its proprietor. It has also been found above proved that M/s Creative Traders was a paper firm and was not doing any business. It has also been found above proved that M/s Creative Traders availed of Cash Credit Facility to the tune of Rs 100 lacs and CC limit to the tune of Rs. 25 lacs from Central Bank of India, Parliament Street, New Delhi. It has also been found above proved that said Cash Credit facility was availed of against collateral security of two properties by depositing forged/bogus sale deeds in respect of properties bearing No. S­596, School Block, Vill. Mandawali, Illaqua Fazalpur, Delhi and 137 (part), Jhilmil, Tahirpur, Delhi purportedly standing in the name of Ashok Jain impersonated by accused Keshav Sharma. It has also been found above proved that it was not the case of the accused Keshav Sharma that he had bonafidely purchased the above said properties from respective vendors or that it was he who had been cheated by the respective vendors. It is also not his case that he officially/legally had another name i.e. Ashok Jain and his father also had another name i.e. P.C. Jain. It is also not his case that initially he and his family were “Jain” later on got converted into “Sharma” or vice versa. Thus, in the absence of above duly proved plea and in the absence of any other legally justifiable explanation as to why he represented himself as Ashok Jain instead of Keshav Sharma, he can certainly be imputed with criminal mens rea as it is well settled that conduct is reflection of intention.

464. It has been vehemently argued on his behalf that he was only employee of accused Sanjay Gupta (A­2) who has taken his photograph for Provident Fund and no monetary benefits have been taken by him. Drawing of monetary benefits is not sine quanon for the commission of offense alleged against him. Take for example if four persons in furtherance of their common intention to rob a stranger of his money and distribute the booty among themselves, robs the said stranger and later on one of the robber runs away with booty without distributing the booty with other robbers, the other three robbers cannot be absolved of their crime because they have not received their respective share of booty nor any sympathy can be had with three robbers for having been deceived by their own accomplice. Thus, there is no worth in the submission that accused Keshav Sharma had not drawn any monetary benefit.

465. Prosecution has successfully proved that accused Keshav Sharma impersonated as Ashok Jain s/o P. C. Jain R/o 78A, Dilshad Garden and while impersonating as Ashok Jain claimed himself to be proprietor of M/s Creative Traders having office/godown at Plot No.9, Main Patparganj Road, Pandav Nagar, Delhi and while so claiming he opened Current Account with Central Bank of India, Parliament Street branch, New Delhi and availed of cash credit facility to the tune of Rs 100 lacs and LC limit of Rs 25 lacs against interalia collateral security of two properties bearing No. S­596, School Block, Vill. Mandawali, Illaqua Fazalpur, Delhi and 137 (part), Jhilmil, Tahirpur, Delhi claiming them to be standing in the name Ashok Jain, though he knew very well that he was neither Ashok Jain nor was running any business under the name and style of M/s Creative Traders nor any such firm was in existence nor had he purchased the above said two properties nor was he owner of above said two properties. Hence, accused Keshav Sharma is guilty of offense under Section 419 and 420 IPC as all the ingredients of both offense are met out.

466. Similarly, knowing very well that he was neither Ashok Jain nor accused Harish Chand Wadhawa was Satish Singh nor was he purchasing the above property bearing No. S­596 from Satish Singh @ Harish Chand Wadhawa nevertheless accused Keshav Sharma got sale deed Ex PW43/A (D­100) executed and registered in respect of the said property in his favour. Similarly, knowing very well that he was neither Ashok Jain nor absconder Mukesh Jain was Mukesh Jain nor was he purchasing the above property bearing No. 137 (part) from absconder Mukesh Jain nevertheless accused Keshav Sharma got sale deed Ex PW33/G­31 (D­99) executed and registered in respect of the said property in his favour. Thus, accused Keshav Sharma is guilty of offense under Section 467 IPC as both sale deeds (which are valuable securities) are false documents as defined under Section 464 IPC and accused Keshav Sharma signed the document as Ashok Jain knowing very well that he was not Ashok Jain S/o P. C. Jain. Since the aforesaid sale deeds were prepared for the purpose of availing Cash Credit facility from bank against the collateral security of aforesaid properties therefore accused Keshav Sharma is also guilty of offense under Section 468 of IPC. Further, since the aforesaid forged/bogus sale deeds were in fact knowingly and dishonestly deposited in the Central Bank of India by accused Keshav Sharma impersonating as Ashok Jain claiming to be proprietor of M/s Creative Traders, therefore accused Keshav Sharma is also guilty of offense under Section 471 IPC.

Accused No. 2 Sanjay Gupta

467. Accused Sanjay Gupta is alleged to be mastermind of all the crime committed in the present case. Thus, besides being conspirator he is also alleged to have committed substantive offense under Section 419 for having impersonated as Inder Pal Singh on the sale deed in respect of property No. 78A, Dilshad Garden, offense under Section 420 for fraudulently and dishonestly inducing the Central Bank of India in granting credit facility to M/s Aman Trading Company and M/s Creative Traders on the basis of forged sale deeds of properties mentioned above, offense under Section 467 IPC for forging signature of Inder Pal Singh on sale deed in respect of property bearing No. 78A, Dilshad Garden, Delhi.

468. It has been found above proved that sale deed Ex PW15/DA is forged sale deed and is not the vendee copy of the office copy of the sale deed Ex PW9/D­1. Since signatures either of vendor, vendee or witness, appearing in the office copy of the sale deed Ex PW9/D­1 was not sent to the handwriting expert for his opinion, therefore, it is not known who signed for vendor, vendee and witness on the office copy of sale deed Ex PW9/D­1. However, since there is presumption that officials act are performed regularly and in accordance with procedure established by law, hence it is presumed that accused Rakesh Verma appeared before the Sub­Registrar as vendor and Pankaj Garg appeared as vendee for the execution of sale deed whose office copy is Ex PW9/D­1. But no presumption could be raised as to who appeared as Inder Pal Singh before the Sub­Registrar­IV to witness the execution of the sale deed as there is no photograph of Inder Pal Singh on PW9/D­1, though somebody must have appeared before Sub­Registrar as Inder Pal Singh and it may be any real Inder Pal Singh or any imposter.

469. Questioned signature of Inder Pal Singh as appearing on Sale deed Ex PW15/DA matched with specimen signature of accused Sanjay Gupta as reported in report Ex PW33/X prepared by witness PW33 Sh. Ramesh Chander, the hand writing expert.

470. In cross examination of PW33, accused Sanjay Gupta gave suggestion to the effect that he prepared the report Ex PW33/X without examining the documents or that Sh. I. K. Arora also counter signed the said report without any scientific examination. It was further suggested to him that principles given in the book titled as “Questioned Documents” written by A. S. Oborn (which witness had followed) had become obsolete and was not in consonance with the latest principles on the subject. This suggestion were denied by the witness. Accused Sanjay Gupta did not come up with evidence as to how he came to know that expert has given his report without examining the documents. He also did not come out with the latest principles which are followed in the field of hand writing examination nor did he point out how the reasoning given by the expert was not reliable. Thus, from the cross examination of the PW33 nothing could be brought on record to suggest that report cannot be relied upon.

471. PW56 Sh. N. K. Jagota on seeing D­600 deposed that sheets marked S­16 to S­75 are the specimen signatures/handwriting of Sanjay Gupta which were taken in his presence and he identified his own signatures at point A respectively on the said sheets which are collectively Ex PW56/A. His cross examination was directed towards showing that specimen signature of accused Sanjay Gupta was not taken in his presence but nothing came out of the cross examination to help the accused. No suggestion was given that no specimen signature of accused Sanjay Gupta was taken at all.

472. PW54 Sh. Gagan Parvesh on seeing D­600 deposed that sheets bearing mark S­76 to S­95 were the specimen signature/writing of Sanjay Gupta which were taken in his presence and the sheets bore his own signature at points A respectively collectively Ex PW54/A (D­600, S­76 to S­95). His cross examination was also directed towards showing that specimen signature of accused Sanjay Gupta was not taken in his presence but nothing came out of the cross examination to help the accused. No suggestion was given that no specimen signature of accused Sanjay Gupta was taken at all.

473. PW55 Sh. Bhagwan Sahai Prajapat on seeing S­96 to S­136 deposed that sheets marked S­96 to S­136 were specimen signature/handwriting of Sanjay Gupta and sheets bore his own signature at points A respectively collectively exhibited as Ex PW55/A (S­96 to S­136). His cross examination was also directed towards showing that specimen signature of accused Sanjay Gupta was not taken in his presence but nothing came out of the cross examination to help the accused. No suggestion was given that no specimen signature of accused Sanjay Gupta was taken at all.

474. This court, therefore, accept the report of hand writing expert that questioned signature of Inder Pal Singh appearing on the sale deed Ex PW15/DA is in the hand of accused Sanjay Gupta. Further, PW62 Sh. A. D. Shah the finger print expert in his report Ex PW62/J reported that thumb impression of Satish Chand Jain appearing on Ex PW15/DA matched with thumb impression of accused Sanjay Gupta. Study of finger print/impression has achieved perfection as finger impression of two persons hardly match with each other. Hence, accused Sanjay Gupta is guilty of offense under Section 467 IPC as sale deed Ex PW15/DA is a valuable security and false document as defined in Section 464 IPC and accused Sanjay Gupta signed the same representing that it was signed by Inder Pal Singh though accused Sanjay Gupta knew very well that he was not so and he put his own thumb impression in place of Satish Chand Jain knowing very well that he was not Satish Chand Jain.

475. Since Ex PW15/DA is a forged Sale Deed and is not a vendee copy of sale deed Ex PW9/D­1, therefore, it cannot be said that accused Sanjay Gupta appeared before the Sub­Registrar as Inder Pal Singh, particularly when it is not known who appeared as Inder Pal Singh before Sub­Registrar when the sale deed Ex PW9/D­1 was registered and who signed as Inder Pal Singh on the sale deed Ex PW9/D­1 and as such accused Sanjay Gupta cannot be said to be guilty of impersonation under Section 419 IPC. It is to be kept in mind that mere impersonation is not punishable act. It becomes punishable when impersonation is accompanied with cheating. Even if accused Sanjay Gupta impersonated as Inder Pal Singh before Sub­Registrar, then also accused Sanjay Gupta cannot be held guilty of offense under section 419 IPC as he has not cheated the Sub­Registrar in any manner, hence, act of impersonation is not accompanied with cheating.

476. Though charge has been framed against accused Sanjay Gupta for offense under Section 419 IPC for impersonating as Inder Pal Singh but he should have also been charged for offense under Section 419 IPC for having impersonated as Sanjay Jain and as such for having stood guarantor for cash credit facility provided to M/s Aman Trading Company by Central Bank of India, Parliament Street Branch. Since accused Sanjay Gupta has already been charged under Section 419 IPC and he is well aware of the allegation of the prosecution that he impersonated as Sanjay Jain thereby claiming himself brother of Satish Chand Jain stood guarantor for M/s Aman Trading Company and induced Central Bank of India to part with money, therefore, no prejudice would be caused to him if it is assessed whether prosecution has been successful in proving that it was accused Sanjay Gupta who impersonated as Sanjay Jain s/o N. N. Jain r/o 78A, Dilshad Garden and stood guarantor for M/s Aman Trading Company.

477. There is no eye witness who had seen accused Sanjay Gupta representing himself as Sanjay Jain and signing any document as Sanjay Jain in his/her presence. Prosecution is heavily relying upon report of hand writing expert PW33 Sh. Ramesh Chander to prove that accused Sanjay Gupta impersonated as Sanjay Jain. PW33 Sh Ramesh Chander in his report Ex PW33/X has reported that questioned signature marked Q­251 appearing on Credit Status Report (part of Ex PW33/G­4) (D­20), Q­249 appearing on Credit Information Report (part of Ex PW33/G­5) (D­21), questioned handwriting marked Q­250 appearing on Credit Status Report (part of Ex PW33/G­5), questioned hand writing and signature marked Q­247 and Q­248 respectively appearing on Annexture­I to Loan Application, questioned signature marked Q­243 appearing on Credit Information (part of PW33/G­5), questioned handwriting and signature marked Q­245 and Q246 respectively appearing on Credit Status Report (part of Ex PW33/G­8), questioned handwriting and signature marked Q­242 and Q241 respectively appearing on Annexure­I to Loan Application form (part of Ex PW33/G­8) (D­35), questioned signatures marked Q­308 to Q­311 appearing on Guarantee Agreement Ex PW33/G­14 (D­52) and questioned signature marked Q­263 to Q­265 appearing on Guarantee Agreement Ex PW33/G­18(D­55) matched with specimen signature/hand writing S­16 to S­136 of accused Sanjay Gupta. It has already been discussed above that this court has accepted the report of hand writing expert so far as accused Sanjay Gupta is concerned.

478. Accused Sanjay Gupta in his defense examined himself and deposed that he was tenant of Nehru Jain at 78A, Dilshad Garden from January 1989 to July, 1995 and from there he used to run a firm in the name of Sharda Metals and was residing at Bihari Colony. He further deposed that since he suffered loss in the business, he closed his business in July, 1995. He further deposed that since he had to return loan to market and to bank, he filed a case of insolvency which was decided in his favour on 30.03.2001 vide order Mark X and pursuant to the order he was discharged by the court vide certified copy of order Ex DW3/A. He further deposed that he shifted to Jaipur in 1995. Then he went on to narrate that he was arrested and tortured by CBI or that IO was hand in glove with Nehru Jain and Pankaj Garg who were the real culprit of the crime and to save them he was embroiled in the present crime. He further placed on record certified copy Ex DW3/B of proceedings of probate petition No. 200/99 dt. 23.08.1999 titled as “Sukhbir Singh vs. State” under Section 276 of Indian Succession Act in respect of Will wherein Sharad Kumar Jain impersonating as Satish Chand Jain presented the surety allegedly on the instruction of Nehru Jain. He further deposed that documents produced by prosecution in respect of his tenancy in 78A, Dilshad Garden and the surrender certificate did not bear his signature and they had been fabricated by Nehru Jain. He further deposed that loan documents in respect of the present case are in the hand of Pankaj Garg and they also bore photograph of Pankaj Garg and the original sale deed also bear his photograph. He deposed that he was falsely implicated.

479. No doubt certified copy of proceedings Ex DW3/B shows that sale deed in respect of 78A purportedly executed by Kuldeep Gupta in favour Satish Chand Jain (which is also not vendee copy of sale deed Ex PW9/D­1) was tendered in the presence of Nehru Jain by surety Satish Chand Jain to show his financial capability, bearing photograph of accused Sharad Kumar Jain as purchaser Satish Chand Jain and Nehru Jain was silent which does point finger to the role played by Nehru Jain into the fabrication of sale deed in respect of property No. 78A, Dilshad Garden, however, IO PW81 categorically deposed that he did not make investigation qua this point which could have revealed role of Nehru Jain as well. Be that as it may be, accused Sanjay Gupta in his evidence did not depose that he did not sign as Inder Pal Singh on the sale deed or did not put his thumb impression as Satish Chand Jain on the sale deed Ex PW15/DA or did not impersonated as Sanjay Jain and did not sign Guarantee Agreement Ex PW33/G­14 and Ex PW33/G­18 as Sanjay Jain.

480. Further his stand that he left Delhi in 1995 for Jaipur has been found to have been demolished by him only when he suggested to witness PW65 Ram Kishan Gautam that business of Sharda Metal was merged in the business of M/s Paramount Insulation Pvt. Ltd. which had opened current account with Vysya Bank, Yamuna Vihar on 08.03.2001. If he had closed his business in 1995 and left for Jaipur in 1995 then how business of Sharda Metal merged in M/s Paramount Insulation Pvt. Ltd which had opened account on 08.03.2001. Further, it has already been noted above that accused Sanjay Gupta did not dispute taking on rent premise bearing plot No.9, Main Patparganj Road, Pandav Nagar from Nehru Jain and having surrendered the same on 15.12.2002. Accused Sanjay Gupta did not explain why he took the said premise on rent when he was declared insolvent in 2001.

481. Further, PW30 Sh. Sushil Kumar Malhotra proved that accused Sanjay Gupta had saving bank account bearing No. 912 with Central Bank of India, Shahdra Branch on 23.01.2003 in the assumed name of Sanjay Mittal vide Account Opening Form Ex PW30/A­1 (D­561) bearing photograph of accused Sanjay Gupta. He also identified said Sanjay Mittal in the court by showing accused Sanjay Gupta. At the time of opening of the said account said Sanjay Mittal aka Sanjay Gupta had submitted Form 60, photocopy of ration card. Specimen Signature Card Ex PW30/A­2 of Sanjay Mittal also bears the photograph of accused Sanjay Gupta. Accused Sanjay Gupta did not dispute his opening of the said account by the said assumed name. Comparing signature of Sanjay Mittal as appearing in the account opening form Ex PW30/A­1 and specimen card Ex PW30/A­2 with signature of Sanjay Jain appearing on agreement of guarantee Ex PW33/G­14 and Ex PW33­18 and other documents as noted above leaves no one in doubt that it was signed by one person as “Sanjay”. Hence, it all goes to show that accused Sanjay Gupta is knowingly making false statement (that he left Delhi in 1995) in the court to somehow save his own skin.

482. Rule of prudence and caution demands that opinion of hand writing expert be not made sole basis of conviction without corroboration in material particular. In the present case handwriting expert report has come against accused Sanjay Gupta as noted above and contradictory stand of the accused lends credence to the report of the hand writing expert coupled with the fact that he opened account with the assumed name of Sanjay Mittal and all these facts cumulatively inspire this court to accept the case of the prosecution that it was accused Sanjay Gupta who impersonated as Sanjay Jain and represented himself to be owner of property No. 77A. Dilshad Garden and thus man of sound financial status capable of standing guarantor for M/s Aman Trading Company and thus fraudulently and dishonestly induced the Central Bank of India to sanction and release Cash Credit facility to M/s Aman Trading Company on both occasions. Hence, prosecution has successfully proved that accused Sanjay Gupta is guilty of offense under Section 419 IPC for impersonating as Sanjay Jain and for offense under Section 420 IPC for fraudulently and dishonestly inducing the bank to part with money to M/s Aman Trading Company on his personal guarantee.

483. Further, it has already been found proved above that Sale Deed Ex PW15/DA is forged sale deed and not a vendee copy of Sale Deed Ex PW9/D­1. It has also been found above that accused Sanjay Gupta signed the sale deed as Inder Pal Singh and it has also been found above that finger print expert PW62 Sh. A. D. Shah in his report Ex PW62/J has reported that questioned thumb impression of Satish Chand Jain marked QFP­33 to 35 appearing on sale deed Ex PW15/DA matched with specimen finger prints of accused Sanjay Gupta (A­2) marked as LTS­2 on the slip marked as SFP­2. Sale Deed Ex PW15/DA is a false document in terms of Section 464 IPC and a valuable security and as such accused Sanjay Gupta is guilty of offense under Section 467 IPC. It has been found above proved that he stood surety for M/s Aman Trading Company, therefore, accused Sanjay Gupta can definitely be imputed with knowledge that the sale deed Ex PW15/DA was forged for the purpose of cheating the bank and as such he is guilty offense under Section 468 IPC also, although no charge has been framed against him for offense under Section 468 IPC.

484. Here only it is worthwhile to note that accused Sanjay Gupta has attempted to pass on blame of the present crime upon PW20 Nehru Jain and PW79 Pankaj Garg and in this regard, after completion of entire prosecution evidence, he had moved an application under Section 319 CrPC for summoning PW20 Nehru Jain and PW79 Pankaj Garg as an accused in the present case and some of other accused persons supported the said prayer but said application was dismissed by Ld. Predecessor of this court vide order dt 23.12.2016 which was not challenged by any of the accused persons and hence, said order has attained finality.

Accused No. 3 Sharad Kumar Jain

485. Accused Sharad Kumar Jain apart from being party to criminal conspiracy to cheat/defraud Central Bank of India, Parliament Street branch, New Delhi, is alleged to have impersonated as Satish Chand Jain S/o N. M. Jain thereby representing Satish Chand Jain as proprietor of M/s Aman Trading Company, 78A, Dilshad Garden, Delhi, opened Current Account with Central Bank of India, Parliament Street branch, Delhi, availed Cash Credit facility to the extent of Rs.125 lacs on the basis of forged/bogus sale deeds initially of property No. 78A, Dilshad Garden and subsequently of property No. 52/18, Karawal Nagar, Shahdra, Delhi and siphoned off the amount through different bank accounts including two accounts operated by himself in his real name. He is further alleged to have impersonated as Satish Chand Jain and had forged sale deeds in respect of properties bearing No. 78A, Dilshad Garden and 52/18, Karawal Nagar, Shahdra, Delhi and knowingly and fraudulently using those forged/bogus sale deeds to avail of Cash Credit facility from aforesaid bank. Thus, he is alleged to have also committed offenses also under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, and 471.

486. It has already been noted above that prosecution has not been successful in proving beyond reasonable doubt that it was accused Sharad Kumar Jain who impersonated as Satish Chand Jain or that while impersonating as Satish Chand Jain opened Current Account with Central Bank of India, Parliament Street branch, New Delhi in the name of M/s Aman Trading Company, 78A, Dilshad Garden representing himself to be its proprietor. It has also been found above that prosecution has not been successful in proving beyond reasonable doubt that M/s Aman Trading Company was absolutely non­existent firm at the given address and further has not been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt as to who acted as its proprietor. Further, although it has been found above proved that M/s Aman Trading Company availed of Cash Credit Facility to the tune of Rs 100 lacs and CC limit to the tune of Rs. 25 lacs from Central Bank of India, Parliament Street, New Delhi but it has not been proved as to who impersonated as its proprietor, therefore, it was not firmly established that who was the proprietor who committed the offense under Section 419 and 420 IPC qua Central Bank of India in respect of M/s Aman Trading Company. It has also been found above proved that said Cash Credit facility was availed of against collateral security of two properties by depositing forged sale deeds in respect of properties bearing No. 78A, Dilshad Garden, Dehi and 52/18, Karawal Nagar, Shahdra but it has not been proved who impersonated at Satish Chand Jain, therefore, accused Sharad Kumar Jain cannot be held guilty of substantive offense under Section 419, 420 and 471 IPC.

487. However, it has been found above proved that Sale deed Ex PW15/DA in respect of property bearing 78A, Dilshad Garden, Delhi deposited with the bank was forged sale deed that is to say that Ex PW15/DA was not the vendee copy of the office copy of the sale deed Ex PW9/D­1. PW33 Ramesh Chandra, the hand writing expert, in his report Ex PW33/X has reported that questioned signature of Satish Chand Jain appearing on Ex PW15/DA marked as Q­409 to Q­411 matched with specimen signature of accused Shard Kumar Jain (A­3) marked as S­1 to S­15. Similarly, PW62 Sh. A D. Shah, finger print expert, in his report Ex PW62/J has reported that questioned finger print of Satish Chand Jain bearing marked QFP­33 to QFP­36 appearing on the sale deed Ex PW15/DA matched with specimen finger prints of accused Sanjay Gupta (A­2) marked as LTS­2 on the slip marked as SFP­2. Nothing in favour of accused came out of the cross examination of PW33 conducted by accused Sharad Kumar Jain. PW33 categorically denied the suggestion that the questioned and admitted/standard writings pertaining to Sh. S. K. Jain and Satish Chand Jain were visibly different in the documents on record and he alongwith Sh. I. K. Arora gave opinion on the aspect without any proper examination of documents. No reasoning has been cited by accused Sharad Kumar Jain as to how questioned signature and admitted/standard signature differed. Reasoning given by PW33 for his report has also not been questioned by accused Sharad Kumar Jain.

488. PW56 Sh. N. K. Jagota was examined to prove the taking of specimen signature of accused Sharad Kumar Jain marked as S­1 to S­15 (D­599) and of accused Sanjay Gupta marked as S­16 to S­75 (D­600). PW56 Sh. N. K. Jagota on seeing D­599, deposed that sheets (D­599) were specimen signature/handwriting of Sh. Sharad Kumar Jain which were taken in his presence and he identified his own signature at points A respectively on the said sheets which are collectively exhibited as Ex PW56/B. This witness was not cross examined by accused Sharad Kumar Jain. Hence, it stands proved that specimen signature marked as S­1 to S­15 Ex PW56/B is that of accused Sharad Kumar Jain and which matched with questioned signature of Satish Chand Jain appearing on the sale deed Ex PW15/DA.

489. Sharad Kumar Jain in his statement under Section 313 CrPC while pleading his non­involvement in the crime took contradictory stand. At one place while responding to question 39, he had stated that his photograph was taken by accused Sanjay Gupta for the purpose of getting him passport. However, in the last of his statement under Section 313 CrPC he stated that he had given his photograph and copy of ration card to Nehru Jain (PW20) for getting him passport. In any case, he did not lead any evidence in his defense to prove either of his stand. Thus, cumulative effect of the fact that accused Sharad Kumar Jain while cross examining officers from bank who proved that bank account of M/s Alpha Communication (India) and M/s Hindustan Industries with Vysya Bank, Yamuna Vihar branch were opened by accused Sharad Kumar Jain, did not dispute opening of said accounts, hand writing expert report Ex PW33/X reporting that signature in place of Satish Chand Jain in the sale deed Ex PW15/DA is in the hand writing of accused Sharad Kumar Jain and the fact that accused Sharad Kumar Jain took contradictory stand in his statement under Section 313 CrPC as noted above, all make this court to accept the report Ex PW33/X so far as accused Sharad Kumar Jain is concerned.

490. Further, sale deed Ex PW15/DA which is admittedly a valuable security, is a false document as defined in Section 464 IPC having been signed by Sharad Kumar Jain purporting to represent as having been signed by Satish Chand Jain though he (accused) knew that he was neither Pankaj Garg whose photograph was affixed as Satish Chand Jain nor was he Satish Chand Jain whose signature he forged. Hence, accused Sharad Kumar Jain is guilty of offense under Section 467 IPC. He is guilty of offense under Section 468 IPC also as the said sale deed Ex. PW15/DA was forged for the purpose of depositing in the bank to act as collateral security against which M/s Aman Trading Company was granted cash credit facility and thus, said sale deed Ex PW15/DA was prepared/forged knowingwith intent to defraud the bank.

491. Further, it has been found above proved that accused Sharad Kumar Jain had opened current account with The Vysya Bank Yamuna Vihar, Delhi, in the name of M/s Alpha Communication (India) and in the name of M/s Hindustan Industries claiming himself to be proprietor of respective firms. It has also been found proved above that his both firms were only shell/paper firms not doing any business and it has also been found proved above that most of the amount of cash credit facilities availed of by M/s Aman Trading Company and M/s Creative Traders have been drain out through the current accounts of M/s Alpha Communication (India) and M/s Hindustan Industries ostensibly as payments for goods supplied by both firms to the borrower firms though no real business took place. Accused Sharad Kumar Jain did not lead evidence to prove that payments received by his firms were actually due to him pursuant to real business transaction between his firms and M/s Aman Trading Company and M/s Creative Traders. All this go to prove that accused Sharad Kumar Jain was knowingly party to criminal conspiracy to cheat the Central Bank of India by fraudulently and dishonestly inducing it by all means including offenses under Section 419, 468, 469 and 471 IPC, to grant Cash Credit facilities to M/s Aman Trading Company and M/s Creative Traders and to siphon of the entire amount under the said cash credit facilities. Hence, accused Sharad Kumar Jain is also guilty of offense under Section 120­B and under Section 120­B read with 420, 419, 467, 468 and 471 IPC.

Accused No. 4 Tarun Khanna

492. Accused Tarun Khanna apart from being party to criminal conspiracy to cheat the Central Bank of India by dishonestly inducing it by all means including offenses under Section 419, 468, 469 and 471 IPC, to grant Cash Credit facilities to M/s Aman Trading Company and M/s Creative Traders and to siphon of the entire amount under the said cash credit facilities, is alleged to have impersonated as Deepak Bansal, Director of M/s Paramount Insulation Pvt Ltd. which company was used in the diversion of funds from M/s Aman Trading Company and M/s Creative Traders. He is further alleged to have committed offense under Section 420 IPC by fraudulently and dishonestly inducing Central Bank of India, Parliament Street branch, Delhi, and got obtained credit facilities in the name of M/s Aman Trading Company and M/s Creative Traders each to the extent of Rs 125 lacs on the basis of forged documents and also opened account in the name of M/s Paramount Insulation Pvt. Ltd. in which huge amount had been siphoned off from the accounts of M/s Aman Trading Company and M/s Creative Traders. He is further alleged to have committed offense under Section 467 IPC by forging the signature of Deepak Bansal on the account opening form of M/s Paramount Insulation Pvt. Ltd.

493. It has been found above proved that bank account of M/s Paramount Insulation Pvt. Ltd was opened by accused Sanjay Gupta and accused Tarun Khanna impersonating as Deepak Bansal claiming themselves to be the directors of M/s Paramount Insulation Pvt. Ltd. Accused Tarun Khanna had not cross examined PW3 C. H. Ramesh who had proved not only the account opening form Ex PW3/A but had also correctly identified director Deepak Bansal by pointing out towards accused Tarun Khanna. Further, photograph of accused Tarun Khanna is also available on the account opening form Ex PW3/A as Deepak Bansal. Even otherwise accused Tarun Khanna himself summoned witness DW8 Ashish Chandel from Kotak Mahindra Bank in which Vysya Bank has merged. DW8 Ashish Chandel brought the certified copy of account opening form and other annexed documents submitted at the time of opening of account of M/s Paramount Insulation Pvt. Ltd. which is nothing but the photocopy of Ex PW3/A duly certified by bank official and the said account opening form also contains the photograph of accused Tarun Khanna as Deepak Bansal. In any case accused Tarun Khanna has summoned the said witness to prove that said account was closed on 20.02.2002. Perusal of account opening form Ex PW3/A shows that said account was opened on 08.03.2000 which fact was also deposed to by DW8.

494. Thus, it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that M/s Paramount Insulation Pvt. Ltd. through its directors Sanjay Gupta and Deepak Bansal (impersonated by accused Tarun Khanna) has opened Current Account with The Vysya Bank Ltd, Yamuna Vihar on 08.03.2000 and which account was subsequently (till 20.02.2002) used in the diversion of most of the funds of cash credit facility provided to M/s Aman Trading Company. However, funds of Cash Credit facility provided to M/s Creative Traders has not been drained out through the account of M/s Paramount Insulation Pvt. Ltd as cash credit facility to M/s Creative Trader was sanctioned only on 07.08.2002

495. Now the moot question is whether accused Tarun Khanna is guilty of substantive offense under Section 419 IPC i.e. cheating by impersonation. Essential ingredient of offense under Section 419 IPC are personation coupled with cheating as defined in Section 415 IPC. Mere personation not accompanied with cheating is not punishable under Section 419 IPC. For example, if a person goes to vegetable vendor while buying and paying for vegetable discloses, upon being asked, his name and address other than his real one. Here said person has impersonated but has not cheated the vendor and therefore said person has not committed offense punishable under Section 419 IPC. In the present case admittedly The Vysya Bank, Yamuna Vihar branch has not been duped of any amount or cheated. No evidence has come on record that M/s Paramount Insulation Pvt. Ltd. was not duly incorporated or registration certificate submitted by it at the time of opening of the account was forged or fabricated. Admittedly, incorporated company is an independent legal entity and the current account opened vide Ex PW3/A with Vysya Bank, Yamuna Vihar Bank, belonged to M/s Paramount Insulation Pvt. Ltd. It is also not the case of the prosecution that director Deepak Bansal was some other person other than the accused Tarun Khanna and accused Tarun Khanna represented himself to be said Deepak Bansal. It is also not the case of the prosecution that Deepak Bansal @ Tarun Khanna was not the director of the said company. As has been noted above mere impersonation is not punishable unless accompanied by cheating. No doubt accused Tarun Khanna has assumed name Deepak Bansal and as such has represented himself (and not any other person) as Deepak Bansal but has not cheated the bank before whom he made such personation. Hence, accused Tarun Khanna is not guilty of substantive offense under Section 419 IPC.

496. As noted above accused Tarun Khanna is further alleged to have committed offense under Section 420 IPC by fraudulently and dishonestly inducing Central Bank of India, Parliament Street branch, Delhi, and got obtained credit facilities in the name of M/s Aman Trading Company and M/s Creative Traders each to the extent of Rs 125 lacs on the basis of forged documents and also opened account in the name of M/s Paramount Insulation Pvt. Ltd. in which huge amount had been siphoned off from the accounts of M/s Aman Trading Company and M/s Creative Traders.

497. But evidence as came on record does not show that any role was played by accused Tarun Khanna either in his real name or in assumed name, in fraudulently or dishonestly inducing the Central Bank of India to sanction amount of cash credit facility either to M/s Aman Trading Company or to M/s Creative Traders. However, he did help M/s Aman Trading Company in siphoning off the amount. It has been found above proved that at the request of M/s Aman Trading Company a LC Ex PW39/B bearing No. 42/97 dt 20.12.2001 was opened in favour of M/s Paramount Insulation Pvt. Ltd and subsequently said LC was discounted by M/s Paramount Insulation Pvt. Ltd at South Indian Bank, G.K­II, New Delhi branch and said fact was also corroborated by PW66 Ms. Shamita Bondal. It is seen that Bill of Exchange dt 21.12.2002 for the said LC was signed by director Deepak Bansal on behalf of M/s Paramount Insulation Pvt. Ltd and so was singed by him Credit Memo dt. 20.12.2001. Both the signatures i.e. Q­356 on Bill of Exchange and Q­357 on Credit Memo matched with specimen signature S­175 to S­180 and S­269 to S­279 of accused Tarun Khanna as reported by hand writing expert Ex PW33 in his report Ex PW33/X.

498. PW49 Sh. P. N. Swarup proved the taking of specimen signature S­269 to S­279 of accused Tarun Khanna. In his cross examination all sort of suggestion was given which he denied but no suggestion was given that specimen signatures S­269 to S­279 was not of accused Tarun Khanna. Further, accused Tarun Khanna in his statement under section 313 CrPC stated that his signatures/finger prints were taken forcibly by IO while he was in custody in another case which was being investigated by the same IO. Be that as it may, there is no denial that specimen signatures S­269 to S­279 were of accused Tarun Khanna and same matched with questioned signature marked Q­356 and Q­357. Thus, it stands proved beyond reasonable that accused Tarun Khanna actively participated in representing that M/s Paramount Insulation Pvt. Ltd. had supplied goods and was entitled to payments for the same and thus induced Central Bank of India to release the amounts in favour of M/s Paramount Insulation Pvt Ltd through South Indian Bank as if real business transaction had taken place between M/s Aman Trading Company and M/s Paramount Insulation Pvt Ltd. Thus, accused Tarun Khanna is guilty of substantive offense under Section 420 IPC.

499. He is further alleged to have committed offense under Section 467 IPC by forging the signature of Deepak Bansal on the account opening form of M/s Paramount Insulation Pvt. Ltd. Since it has not been proved by prosecution that there was some other Deepak Bansal in M/s Paramount Insulation Pvt Ltd whose signature was forged by accused Tarun Khanna it cannot be said that accused Tarun Khanna is guilty of substantive offense under Section 467 IPC so far as account opening form Ex PW3/A is concerned. He signed the account opening form Ex PW3/A claiming himself to be Deepak Bansal and not intending to represent some other Deepak Bansal. It has also not been proved by the prosecution that some other Deepak Bansal was director in M/s Paramount Insulation Pvt. Ltd and accused Tarun Khanna signed as Deepak Bansal so as to show that it was signed by the said Deepak Bansal. Hence, accused Tarun Khanna is acquitted of substantive offense under Section 467 IPC.

Accused No. 5 P. N. Upadhyay

500. Besides being party to criminal conspiracy to cheat Central Bank of India in the manners as aforesaid, accused P. N. Upadhaya is also alleged to have committed substantive offenses under Section 420 IPC as he allegedly introduced Keshav Sharma @ Sahid as proprietor of M/s Creative Traders to Central Bank of India as Ashok Jain and dishonestly induced the bank to get credit facilities of Rs. 125 lacs sanctioned in the name of M/s Creative Traders a fictitious firm and he allegedly did not disclose the fact before the bank officials that M/s Creative Traders was a fictitious firm.

501. PW26 Sh. Sanjay Jain had deposed that accused P. N. Upadhya was his part­time accountant since 1998 and at his request he (witness) had introduced account of M/s Paramount Insulation Pvt. Ltd vide Account Opening Form Ex PW3/A, although neither he knew its directors nor had met them ever. He also deposed that he had also introduced the account of M/s Hindustan Industries vide Account Opening Form Ex PW7/A, although he did not know its proprietor. Similarly, PW30 Sh. Sushil Kumar Mehrotra deposed that Naresh Aggarwal (impersonated by accused Keshav Sharma) and accused P.N. Upadhaya had approached Central Bank of India, Shahdra Branch for cash credit facility in the name of M/s Shakti Traders. He correctly identified the accused P. N. Upadhaya and had pointed out towards accused Keshav Sharma who had come to him as Naresh Agarwal. He had also proved account opening form of M/s Shakti Traders vide which Keshav Sharma impersonating as Naresh Agarwal claiming himself to be proprietor of the M/s Shakti Traders had opened Current Account bearing No.10044 with Central Bank of India. He further deposed that as Naresh Agarwal/Keshav Sharma and P. N. Upadhaya could not give satisfactory answer/explanation to the queries put to them, therefore, request for cash credit facility to M/s Shakti Traders was declined and he had also written letter dt 3.01.2003 Ex PW30/A­7 to Regional Office of central Bank of India regarding attempted fraud at branch.

502. PW7 Sh. N Suresh, Manager in 2002 with Vysya Bank, interalia had deposed that pay order Ex PW7/D (D­559) dt. 19.09.2002 was issued in favour of Aggarwal Associates Promoters Ltd and same was prepared at the request of accused P.N.Upadhaya having saving account No. 555010060013 in the said branch. He further deposed that vide voucher dt 09.03.07 (date wrongly typed in evidence sheet), cheque No. 200241 dt. 19.09.02 of Rs. 17,03,400/­and application for making pay order requested issue of pay order. Nothing has come on record to explain how this pay order is relevant to the present case. It has also not been shown that this amount was diverted from the account of M/s Aman Trading Company or from the account of M/s Creative Traders. It has also not come in evidence that this ostensible payment to Agarwal Associates Promoters Ltd was in fact mode of diverting funds from either of the aforesaid firms to any of the accused persons.

503. PW77 Sh. Bharat Bhusan Bhandari who was Chief Manager of Central Bank of India Connaught Circus Branch and PW63 Sh. A. K. Grover who was Manager in Central Bank of India, Connaught Circus branch, both deposed about the attempted fraud played by accused Keshav Sharma impersonating as Naresh Agarwal and accused P. N. Upadhaya in the name of M/s Shakti Traders and how despite sanction of credit facility to M/s Shakti Traders, amount was not released as they (borrower) did not turn up to remove the doubts in the mind of the bank official about the genuineness of their claim.

504. Thus, there is no evidence on record to show that accused P. N. Upadhya ever accompanied accused Keshav Sharma to Central Bank of India, Parliament Street branch and represented Keshav Sharma to be proprietor of M/s Creative Traders or accused Keshav Sharma in the presence of accused P. N. Upadhaya represented to be proprietor of M/s Creative Traders before the Central Bank of India, Parliament Street Branch. Similarly, there is no evidence that accused P. N. Upadhaya played any role in fraudulently or dishonestly inducing Central Bank of India to sanction cash credit facility to M/s Creative Traders.

505. Hence, in view of the above discussion accused P. N. Upadhay is acquitted of substantive offense under Section 420 IPC.

Accused No. 6 Rakesh Verma

506. Accused Rakesh Verma besides being party to criminal conspiracy to cheat the Central Bank of India, Parliament Street branch New Delhi, in the manner as noted above is also alleged to have committed substantive offense under Section 419 and 467 IPC as he impersonating as Kuldeep Gupta executed Sale Deed in favour of Satish Chand Jain in respect of property bearing No. 78A, Dilshad Garden.

507. It has been found above proved that Sale Deed Ex PW15/DA purportedly executed by vendor Kuldeep Gupta in favour of Satish Chand Jain and deposited with Central Bank of India, Parliament Street branch, New Delhi, towards collateral security for availing cash credit facility in the name of M/s Aman Trading Company, was forged Sale Deed as the same was not even the vendee copy of office copy of Sale Deed Ex PW9/D­1. Further, it has also been proved on record that a Sale Deed in respect of property No. 78A, Dilshad Garden, Delhi was duly executed and registered in the office of Sub­Registrar­IV, Seelampur, Delhi by Kuldeep Gupta in favour of Satish Chand Jain and Ex PW9/D­1 is office copy of the said sale deed and is photocopy of the vendee copy sale deed Ex PW15/DA photocopied prior to signatories i.e. vendor, vendee and witnesses putting in their respective signatures. Office copy Ex PW9/D­1 of the sale deed contains photocopy of photographs of accused Rakesh Verma as Kuldeep Gupta and of Pankaj Garg (PW79) as Satish Chand Jain, photocopied from the vendee copy of the sale. It has already been noted above that photographs of Rakesh Verma as Kuldeep Gupta and of Pankaj Garg as Satish Chand as appearing in office copy of the sale deed is different from those affixed on the vendee copy of the Sale Deed Ex PW15/DA.

508. PW33 Ramesh Chandra, the Hand Writing Expert from GEQD, in his report Ex PW33/X has reported that questioned signature/writing of Kuldeep Gupta appearing on vendee copy of Sale Deed Ex PW15/DA marked as Q­431 to Q­437 and specimen signature/writings bearing mark S­140 to S­149 are by one and same person. S­140 to S­149 is the specimen signature/writing of accused Rakesh Verma. PW33 was cross examined by accused Rakesh Verma but he failed to evince anything from PW33 which could demolish his testimony and his report.

509. Similarly, PW62 A. D. Shah, finger print expert from CFSL, Lodhi Road New Delhi, in his report Ex PW62/J reported that questioned finger prints marked QFP­40 to QFP­44 purportedly of Kuldeep Gupta (appearing on Sale Deed Ex PW15/DA) are identical with specimen right thumb impression of Rakesh Verma marked as RTS­7 on the slip marked as SFP­7. PW62 was cross examined by accused Rakesh Verma only to the extent of giving suggestion, which was obviously denied, to the effect that the questioned thumb marks were not tallied by him with the specimen thumb impression and that he gave report at the instance of concerned CBI officers.

510.PW52 Sh. S. K. Gupta Assistant Manager, Syndicate Bank, Rajeev Gandhi Bhawan deposed that specimen signature/thumb impressions/finger prints of two persons were taken in his presence by IO but he did not remember the names of the persons which were signed by him as a witness however he can identify his signatures if shown to him. On being shown D­591(SFP­7 and SFP­8) Ex PW52/A he deposed that it were thumb impressions/finger prints of Rakesh Verma which were taken in CBI office in his presence on 02.08.2004 and bore his signature at points A respectively. On seeing D­601 (S­140 to S­149) Ex PW52/A, he deposed that it were the specimen signature/writings of Rakesh Verma which were taken in CBI office in his presence on 02.0.2004 and bore his signatures at point A respectively. In cross examination he deposed that he was told about the names of the persons but he had not checked any identity proof of the accused. He denied the suggestion that nobody gave specimen handwriting/signature in his presence. He however did not remember whether the thumb impression of right hand or left hand were taken. No suggestion was given that specimen signature/thumb impression were not of accused Rakesh Verma.

511. Accused in his statement under Section 313 CrPC stated that he was innocent and his documents, photographs and signatures on blank stamp paper were misused by Sanjay Gupta. He further stated that he was an illiterate and poor person and only in recent years, he had learned writing his name etc and that he did not receive any pecuniary benefit from any of the accused in any form. He further stated that at any stage till his arrest, he was not aware that his signature on blank stamp papers had been misused by co­accused or somebody else. Thus, he admits of his signatures. He further stated that his employer Sanjay Gupta with whom he had been working for more than 10 years had told him that he would get him a Government Job in a factory and he had asked him for his identification documents, photographs and also asked him to sign on some blank stamp papers. He stated that he was innocent and was not involved in commission of offence in any manner.

512. In his defense he appeared as witness as DW1 and tendered only certified copy of statement of Ashok Kumar whose testimony was recorded in the case No.15/12 titled as “Sharad Kumar Jain and Ors”. Certified copy of testimony of Ashok Kumar was exhibited as Ex. DW1/1. Ashok Kumar in his testimony recorded in case No. 15/12 had deposed that about 15­18 years ago (from 29.05.2014) he was working with M/s Sharda Metals run by accused Sanjay Gupta from 78A, Dilshad Garden, Delhi. He worked in the firm for about 4­5 years. Accused Rakesh Verma was also working in M/s Sharda Metals and his main job was cleaning, making tea and maintaining paper etc. He was like peon in the office. He had further deposed that Rakesh Verma was not literate and he used to request him to read letters etc. received from his family members. Testimony of Ashok Kumar was not disputed by Ld. PP in the said case. In the present case also it has not been disputed that Ashok Kumar was examined in the said case and he had deposed that Rakesh Verma was employed as peon with Sanjay Gupta and was illiterate.

513. Accused Rakesh Verma was not cross examined by accused Sanjay Gupta nor did he dispute that he (Rakesh Verma) was working with him as a sort of peon and illiterate. IO also admitted such status of the accused Rakesh Verma. Though in the office copy of the sale deed Ex PW9/D­1, photocopy of photograph of accused Rakesh Verma is there as Kuldeep Gupta with signature as Kuldeep Gupta and thumb impression but no expert opinion was obtained on the said signature and thumb impression, hence it is not proved whether accused Rakesh Verma was also involved in the registration of sale deed whose office copy is Ex PW9/D­1. But there is presumption against him that is official act are done in accordance with rules prescribed by law. Hence, since a sale deed in respect of 78A, Dilshad Garden was registered whose office copy is Ex PW9/D­1 which contains photocopy of photograph of accused Rakesh Verma as Kuldeep Gupta and appearance of vendor at the time of registration of sale deed is compulsory, therefore, it stands established that accused Rakesh Verma did appear before Sub­Registrar­IV as Kuldeep Gupta and must have confirmed his identity as Kuldeep Gupta, owner of property under sell, whereafter only Sub­Registrar had registered the sale deed whose office copy is Ex PW9/D­1, therefore, accused Rakesh Verma is found guilty of substantive offence under Section 419 IPC as he misrepresented the Sub­Registrar both about his identity and title to the property thus caused the Sub­Registrar to allow registration of the document which Sub­Registrar would not have done if he had known the truth.

514. Further, it has already been found above proved that Sale Deed Ex. PW15/DA is the forged copy of sale deed Ex PW9/D­1 which was registered with Sub­Registrar­IV. It has also been found above proved that sale deed Ex. PW15/DA bears photograph, signature/writing and thumb impression of accused Rakesh Verma as vendor Kuldeep Gupta. This fact coupled with his appearance before Sub­Registrar for the registration of sale deed (in respect of property No. 78A, Dilshad Garden, Delhi) whose office copy is Ex PW9/D­1 and his representation that he was Kuldeep Gupta owner of the property under sell, go to show that he had the necessary mens rea in the making of both false sale deeds i.e. Ex PW15/DA and the sale deed whose office copy is Ex PW9/D­1. Hence, accused Rakesh Verma is guilty of substantive offense under Section 467 IPC.

Accused No. 7 Harish Chand Wadhwa

515. Accused Harish Chand Wadhwa besides being party to criminal conspiracy to cheat the Central Bank of India, Parliament Street branch New Delhi, in the manner as noted above is also alleged to have committed substantive offense under Section 419 and 467 IPC as he impersonating as Satish Singh executed Sale Deed Ex PW43/A in favour of Ashok Jain in respect of property bearing No. 137 (part), vill. Tahirpur, Dilshad Garden, Delhi.

516. It has been found proved above that M/s Creative Traders while availing Cash Credit Facility from Central Bank of India, Parliament Street branch, New Delhi, had submitted Sale Deed Ex PW43/A as collateral security, of property bearing No. 137 (Part), Vill. Tahirpur, Dilshad Garden purportedly executed by Satish Singh (impersonated by accused Harish Kumar Wadhwa) in favour of Ashok Jain (impersonated by accused Keshav Sharma), the proprietor of M/s Creative Traders.

517. It has been found above proved that Sale Deed Ex PW43/A was registered with Sub­Registrar ­IV, Seelampur, Delhi and non­judicial stamp used for the sale deed was purchased from the treasury in the name of Askok Jain S/o P.C. Jain R/o 78A, Dilshad Garden, Delhi. Photograph of Harish Chand Wadhwa is affixed as seller Satish Singh and photograph of Keshav Sharma is affixed as purchaser Ashok Jain. It has also been found that finger impression of Harish Chand Wadhwa and that of Keshav Sharma matched with finger print impressions of so called seller Satish Singh and so called purchaser Ashok Jain respectively. Nothing has come on record to prove that the Harish Chand Wadhwa @ Satish Singh was the very Satish Singh whose father­in­law Jaswant Singh was the owner of the property bearing No. 137, Jhilmil Tahirpur, Shahdra, Delhi. It is also worthwhile to note that title to the property to Ashok Jain is being shown to be flowing from Jaswant Singh S/o Chanan Singh who was the owner of the property. In any case it is not the case of Keshav Sharma @ Ashok Jain that he had purchased the property. It is also not his case that he was also legally known as Ashok Jain and his father was also known as P.C. Jain nor is his case that he was earlier “Sharma” and later became “Jain” or vice versa. Hence, it was found above that prosecution has successfully proved that Sale Deed Ex. PW43/A purportedly executed by Satish Singh impersonated by Harish Chand Wadhwa in favour of Ashok Jain impersonated by Keshav Sharma in respect of property No. 137(part), Jhilmil Tahirpur, Delhi, is a document not conveying any title to any person. Prosecution also successfully proved that accused Harish Chand Wadhwa impersonated as Shakti Singh and accused Keshav Sharma impersonated as Ashok Jain.

518. Accused Harish Chand Wadhwa in his statement under Section 313 CrPC stated that he was innocent and his documents, photographs and signatures on blank stamp papers were misused by Sanjay Gupta. Thus, he admits of his signatures. He further stated that he was poor person and did not receive any pecuniary benefit from any of the accused in any form and that he was not aware that his signatures on blank stamp papers had been misused by co­accused or somebody else, till he was arrested. He further stated that Sanjay Gupta had told him that he would get him a Government Job and he had asked him for his identification documents, photographs and also asked him to sign on some blank stamp papers and that he was not involved in commission of offence in any manner. However, he did not lead any evidence in his defense.

519. In view of the above findings as noted above and clear absence of any defense evidence, accused Harish Chand Wadhwa is hereby held guilty of substantive offense under Section 419 IPC and 467 IPC.

Accused No. 8 Kanwar Sen Gupta

520. Accused Kanwar Sen Gupta, the then AGM of the Central Bank of India, Parliament Street Branch, New Delhi, besides being party to criminal conspiracy to cheat the Central Bank of India, Parliament Street branch New Delhi, in the manner as noted above is also alleged to have committed offense under Section13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and under Section 420 IPC.

521. Before adverting to prosecution evidence qua accused Kanwar Sen Gupta, it would be useful to note his defense stated in his statement under Section 313 CrPC. He stated that he was innocent and the loan had already been recommended for sanction when he joined the branch on 02.06.2001. He further stated that pre­sanction inspection of stock was already carried out by the Branch officials on 25.05.2001 and the report dated 26.05.2001 was submitted by the concerned/processing officer which was duly signed by the Sr. Manager and also by the then Assistant General Manager Sh. R.S. Verma, who was elevated to the post of Dy. General Manager at that point of time. He further stated that the loan proposal was falling under selective credit control as such the proposal was recommended and forwarded to central office by the Zonal Office, New Delhi and after his joining, the proposal was returned by Central Office to Zonal Office that copper wire business was no longer covered under selective credit control and the branch Manager / AGM should sanction the proposal at their end.

522. He further stated that as Asstt. General Manager, In­charge of extra large branch, his role was confined to sanction credit limits as per existing guidelines of Central Office and the sanction was based on credit proposal processed by the Processing Officer recommended by Senior Manager, Advances and valuation report of the approved valuer of the bank and legal search report of property to be mortgaged by the bank’s approved advocate. He further stated that in addition to that the stocks of the party were verified by Chartered Accountants, Stock Inspecting Officers and officials of the bank branch and no adverse feature were ever reported by them. He further stated that the branch was also audited by RBI auditors and statutory auditors after sanctioning of limit to the parties and they also never reported any adverse features. He further stated that two concurrent auditors were regularly working in the branch and they never pointed out any adverse features in the account. He further stated that as a sanctioning authority, he strictly adhered to central office guidelines issued from time to time for sanctioning of loans.

523. It has been found above proved that M/s Aman Trading Company has applied for Cash Credit Facility which was sanctioned on 17.07.2001 by accused Kanwar Sen Gupta and said firm subsequently requested for enhancement of said facility upto Rs 125 which was also sanctioned on 03.06.2002 by accused Kanwar Sen Gupta. It has also been found above proved that Cash Credit Facility to the tune of Rs 125 lacs in favour of M/s Creative Traders was also sanctioned by accused Kanwar Sen Gupta on 30.07.2002. Accused Kanwar Sen Gupta has also not disputed that he had sanctioned Cash Credit Facility to M/s Aman Trading Company on 17.07.2001 and also sanctioned enhancement of Cash Credit Limit to M/s Aman Trading Company on 03.06.2002. He also did not dispute that Cash Credit Facility to M/s Creative Traders was also sanctioned by him on 30.07.2002. But he has denied criminality or misconduct on his part or violation of any banking rules/practices. He had stated that as a sanctioning authority, he strictly adhered to central office guidelines issued from time to time for sanctioning of loans.

524. Surprisingly, none of the prosecution witnesses including IO of the case in their respective examination­in­chief depose anything inculpatory against the banking officials accused herein. Out of 85 witnesses examined on behalf of prosecution, relevant witnesses who could have proved inculpatory aspect of banking officials accused herein are PW21 Sh. K. K. Gupta, PW24 Sh. U.

B. Upadhaya, PW34 Sh. Sarwan Kumar Gupta, PW39 Sh. Suresh Chadra, PW40 Sh. B. N. S. Ratnakar, PW44 Ms. Seema Kala, PW68 Smt. Neelam Bharadwaj, PW69 Suresh Sharma, PW72 Sushil Kumar Srivatava and IO PW81 B. M. Pandit. Banking officials accused herein have not denied or disputed their respective writings and signatures on the documents, stated to be belonging to them.

525. PW21 Sh. K. K. Gupta, on whose complaint present FIR was registered, neither in his complaint Ex PW21/A nor in his examination­in­chief stated anything against the bank officials accused herein. Even in his cross examination (conducted on behalf of other accused) he admitted that he had not mentioned anything against any of the bank officials in his complaint Ex PW21/A.

526. In cross examination by accused K. S. Gupta, PW21 admitted that the loan sanctioning authority rely on the reports of appraising officer, documents on record and the recommendation of recommending authority. He further deposed that sanctioning authority of the rank of AGM or DGM was not required to physically inspect the property to be mortgaged. He volunteered that if any such officer wanted to personally satisfy himself with regard to the status of the property mortgaged he may inspect the property personally. Thus, it can be seen that this witness neither in his examination­in­chief nor in cross examination deposed anything against accused K. S. Gupta.

527. PW24 U. B. Upadhaya who was posted as Vigilance Officer in the Zonal Office of Central Bank of India at Lucknow had investigated the accounts of M/s Aman Trading Company and M/s Creative Traders and had submitted his report Ex PW24/2 to Chief Vigilance Officer, Central Office, Mumbai vide forwarding letter Ex PW24/1. He in his examination chief deposed that he had investigated the accounts of above mentioned firms by contacting Mr. K. S. Gupta (accused herein), collected all relevant documents and examined the related persons before submitting his report Ex PW24/2. Although in his report he had reported that named bank officials were negligent (not criminally negligent) in the performance of their respective duties which helped borrower succeed in playing fraud with the bank. But said report cannot be taken into consideration as his report is based on statement of certain person including bank officials including bank officials accused herein and many of those persons examined by him were not subjected to cross examination by any of the bank officials accused herein. Moreover, his report only point out negligence on the part of the bank officials accused herein but in no way it accuses them of criminally involved in any manner. Hence, neither report of PW24 nor his testimony helped the prosecution to prove any of the charge against the bank officials accused herein.

528. PW34 Sh. Sarwan Kumar Gupta was posted as General Manager (HRD) in Central Bank of India at Corporate Office Mumbai in 2005. He had accorded sanction to prosecute bank officials accused herein and he proved the same. Thus, even his testimony is of no help to prosecution to prove any of the allegation against the bank officials accused herein.

529. PW39 Sh. Suresh Chandra who was posted as Manager in International Division of Central bank of India, Parliament Street branch, New Delhi from the year 2000 to 2006, in his examination­in­chief explained what letter of credit (LC) means, how it operates, how it is issued and discounted and then went on to prove various LCs opened at the request of M/s Aman Trading Company and M/s Creative Traders in favour various beneficiary as have been noted/discussed above. He in his examination in chief deposed nothing incriminatory against the bank officials accused herein, instead in cross examination (conducted by accused Rekha Sisodia) he admitted that he along with Sh. V. K. Goswami, Asst. Manager had conducted inspection of the stocks of M/s Aman Trading Company and had submitted report Ex PW39/DX under his signature at point A. This witness was not cross examined by accused Kawar Sen Gupta, however, it did not affect Kanwar Sen Gupta as nothing was deposed by him against accused Kanwar Sen Gupta. Perusal of Ex PW39/DX shows that he alongwith V. K. Goswami had conducted spot inspection of the stocks of M/s Aman Trading Company at 78A, Dilshad Garden, procured under their Inland LC No. 43/5 dt. 25.06.2002 for Rs 25 lacs and they have reported to have found stocks of 519 boxes containing super enamelled copper wire gross weight as per Invoice 15574.90 kg which was verified and was found to be intact and stock was valued at Rs. 24,99,771/­. They have also reported that Bank’s board displaying stocks hypothecated to bank was not found on company’s premises and company was advised to put up board immediately.

530. PW40 Sh. B. N. S. Ratnakar was posted as Asst. GM in Central Bank of India, Parliament Street Branch, New Delhi from April 2004 to January, 2007. He deposed about various documents executed/signed/approved qua M/s ATC and M/s CT by bank officials including accused bank officials and about relevant circulars handed over by him to CBI. It has already been noted that signatures/writings imputed to respective bank officials accused herein have not been disputed or denied by the bank officials accused herein. PW40 in his examination­in­chief did not depose anything incriminatory against the bank officials accused herein. He even did not point out which of the guidelines/instruction contained in the circulars handed over by him to IO was violated by the bank officials accused herein.

531. In cross examination by accused Kanwar Sen Gupta, to the specific question as to the role of sanctioning authority in processing credit status report, pre­inspection, verification of property offered as collateral security, PW40 deposed that once report was submitted by the officers concerned to whom the job had been assigned, sanctioning authority had to scrutinize the same and if any deficiency was observed, same should be addressed before taking the decision for sanction of the loan. He further deposed that verification of collateral securities was being done by the officers of the credit department to whom the work was assigned.

532. PW44 Smt. Kala had brought the dak dispatch register of Central Bank of India. PW68 Sm. Neelam Bhardwaj deposed about correspondence made to AGM, opened and put to him. Testimonies of PW44 and PW68 would be more relevant in the case of accused Rekha Sisodia and Satish Sharma.

533. PW69 Sh. Suresh Sharma was posted as Sr. Manager in Central Bank of India, Parliament Street branch New Delhi, from 6th August 2001 to 30th November, 2005. He deposed about various document handed over by him to CBI executed/signed/filled/approved by bank officials including accused bank officials and what those documents were/are. It has already been noted above that signatures/writings imputed to respective bank officials accused herein have not been disputed or denied by the bank officials accused herein. PW69 in his examination­in­chief did not depose anything incriminatory against the bank officials accused herein. He did not even point out which of the documents were wrongly prepared or which documents must have been prepared and was not prepared or which guidelines/instruction contained in the circulars was violated or which banking practice was not adhered to by the bank officials accused herein. PW69 was not cross examined by accused Kanwar Sen Gupta.

534. PW72 Sh. Sushil Kumar Srivastava was posted as Chief Manager in central bank of India, Parliament Street, New Delhi from July 2001 to December 2003. He also deposed about handing over documents to CBI from bank record, what many of such documents were/are and identified writings/signatures of bank officials on such documents. It has already been noted above that signatures/writings imputed to respective bank officials accused herein have not been disputed or denied by the bank officials accused herein. PW72 also in his examination­in­chief did not depose anything incriminatory against the bank officials accused herein. He did not even point out which of the documents were wrongly prepared or which documents must have been prepared and was not prepared or which guidelines/instruction contained in the circulars was violated or which banking practice was not adhered to by the bank officials accused herein. PW72 was also not cross examined by accused Kanwar Sen Gupta.

535. IO PW81 Sh. B. M. Pandit also in his examination­in­chief did not depose anything incriminatory against the bank officials accused herein. He did not utter a word as to what evidence and material he found against the bank officials to make them accused in the present case. His examination­in­chief is limited to only collection and seizure of various documents. Investigation officer proves investigation and comes into picture only after registration of case and therefore he cannot be witness to the facts of the case constituting commission of offense. Accused Kanwar Sen Gupta adopted the cross examination conducted on behalf of accused Satish Sharma and Rashmi Chhabra. Most of the testimony of IO PW81 in cross examination is directed towards bringing on records those facts (favouring accused bank officials) which he (IO) came to know during investigation but said fact he either ignored or did not consider relevant or allegedly suppressed/concealed deliberately. Be that as it may, even in cross examination of IO nothing came against accused Kanwar Sen Gupta to suggest that he is guilty of any of the offenses he is specifically accused of.

536. Neither there is any direct evidence nor circumstantial evidence that any of the official duty was performed by the accused Kanwar Sen Gupta with guilty mind in the processing or disbursement of loan either to M/s Aman Trading Company or M/s Creative Traders. Testimony of PW72 recorded in cross examination conducted by other accused person is relevant to note here. PW72 Suhil Kumar Srivastava admitted that he was part of the loan proposal process and had recommended grant of loan in this case. He is not accused in the present case though he was chargesheeted by bank in Departmental Enquiry. He admitted that at no stage he raised any objection to the sanction of loan nor did he personally made any effort to verify the authenticity of the title deed pertaining to M/s Aman Trading Company and M/s Creative Traders nor did he notice any irregularity in the title deeds submitted to the bank.

537. PW72 further admitted that pre­inspection of properties/collateral securities could have been conducted by any officer of the bank and AGM was empowered to depute any officer of the bank as per his choice for conducting pre­inspections. He further deposed that in this case he did not notice any objection by the auditors pertaining to loan transaction of M/s Aman Trading Company and M/s Creative Traders. He also admitted that periodical inspection by bank staff inspecting officials, firms of Chartered Accountant associated with the bank and some staff member, of stocks of above said both firms was conducted and no objection/irregularity was brought to his notice in the said reports. He further deposed that at the time of opening of current account of M/s Aman Trading Company and M/s Creative Traders normal banking precaution were taken as per the procedure in respect of documents pertaining to identity and address of accused persons. He also admitted that normal banking procedure was followed in the processing of loan application pertaining to M/s Aman Trading Company and M/s Creative Traders.

538. PW72 further deposed that it was part of his duty to apply his mind to the documents/proposals put up before him and to proceed accordingly. He admitted that it was his duty to check correctness of observation/notings/proposals submitted by the juniors and it was within his jurisdiction either to approve or disapprove or to add something in the said notings/proposals. He further deposed that whatever notings/proposals pertaining to this case was referred to him, he had not put up any suggestion on any of such notings/proposal. He further deposed that proposals/notings which were approved or forwarded by him without any suggestion/objection meant that after application of his mind he did not find anything objectionable in the said proposal/notings. He admitted that his immediate senior and juniors are facing trial in the present case. He further deposed that he did not make any complaint against any of his subordinate or seniors pertaining to transaction of this case in respect of any illegality or irregularity.

539. PW72 further deposed that as per banking norms the opinion of approved valuer and panel advocate of the bank was pre­condition for processing the proposal of loan/credit facilities. He further deposed that approval of panel advocate and the approved valuer in respect of the legal aspects and the properties to be mortgaged was a pre­condition and in case of negative opinion from them the recommendation were not made for grant of loan/credit facilities. He further deposed that it was mandatory norm that after sanction of loan but before its disbursement, the vetting of title documents and other relevant documents was being done by panel advocates and without their positive opinion the loans were not disbursed to parties. He further deposed that normally the legal opinion of panel advocate and the report of the approved valuer was given weigh and were acted upon unless there was some doubt in the report/opinion and cross verification of the opinion/reports were being done in rare cases. He further deposed that it was not mentioned in banking manuals that any staff of the bank would accompany the valuer to show him the property to be mortgaged. He admitted that as per banking norms, a banker was not required to accompany the valuer to show him the property to be mortgaged.

540.He admitted that Ms. Nita Deep Rastogi, Advocate (she was made accused for her report in the case of M/s Creative Traders but Hon’ble High Court discharged her) was the panel advocate of the bank and duty of submitting legal search report were being assigned to her time to time. He also admitted that com were one of the approved valuer of the bank. He also admitted that Sh. Ashok Garg was also one of the approved valuer of the bank. He admitted that there was no procedure so as to allow sanctioning of loan even though the same had been objected to or refused by the Chief manager. He admitted that without the approval of the Chief manager, a loan cannot be sanctioned. He further deposed that Chief manager should apply his mind while recommending a loan. However, he added that Chief manger can only recommend but has no power to sanction a loan.

541. He further deposed that in July 2001 entire file pertaining to M/s Aman Trading Company was placed before him when he approved release of the loan amount. He volunteered that he approved the release only on the recommendation of the Sr. Manager after removal of certain lacking/deficiencies by the Sr. Manager, however, he did not mention that he was approving because of recommendation of Sr. Manager. He further deposed that there was no time boundation for his approval for release of the loan amount after the loan had been sanctioned by the AGM and there was no pressure on him to approve the release of loan amount immediately. He volunteered that since all the formalities were complete, he approved the release.

542. PW72 admitted that Parliament Street branch of Central Bank of India was under the system of Concurrent Audit. He explained under the Concurrent Audit, auditors were appointed/deputed by the Audit Department of Central Office and these auditors were independent of the branch of Parliament Street and were the employees of the Bank even though they do not constitute staff of that branch. He admitted that during current audit, the auditors deputed by Central office function from the Parliament Street branch for the entire year. He also admitted that throughout the year, these auditors also audited the new financial sanctions, renewals and operation and operations of accounts maintained in the Parliament Street branch. He admitted that copies of the reports were sent to the Central Office, Zonal Office and one copy was also provided to Parliament Street branch. He further admitted that in their report, they highlighted any irregularity found of an account, renewal of financial sanctions and new financial sanctions. He further admitted that whenever any illegality or irregularity regarding operation of an account, renewal of financial sanctions and new financial sanctions was brought to the notice of bank by the Concurrent Auditors through their audit report, it was obligatory upon the AGM to act upon such report. He further deposed that the time limit of the financial facilities extended to M/s Aman Trading Company was one year and during one year no adverse report was received from Concurrent Auditors regarding operation of account and procedure, processing and sanctioning of financial facilities provided to M/s Aman Trading Company. He further deposed that financial facilities extended to a borrower are renewed only after considering the past record of how he maintained his account and the result of the periodical inspection during the previous one year.

543. PW72 further deposed that only the customer of the bank can be introducer and an outsider who is not the customer of the bank can not be introducer. He further deposed that if the account of the introducer himself was not running satisfactorily, any other account on his recommendation or introduction should not be opened. In the case of enhancement of credit facility to M/s Aman Trading Company, he deposed that compliance of terms and condition mentioned at points X to X on Ex PW40/B (D­8) was a pre­condition for activation of the facility/limit. He further deposed that he had personally satisfied himself regarding the compliance of these terms and condition before the facilities were activated.

544. PW72 further deposed that there was no such department in the branch that assigned the job to verify the genuineness of the documents issued by Income Tax department, Sales Tax department, House Tax department, Food and Supplies, Ration Card, Passport Authority and Electoral Voter I card department and to verify balance sheets and Audit reports submitted by Chartered Accountant. He deposed no such system or practice was in place in the branch.

545. He further admitted that when an internal Sr. auditor like A. D. Gupta is appointed for conducting inspection, the concerned branch is not informed about the purpose of his appointment and the day on which he was to carry out inspection and no staff of the concerned branch accompany such auditors. On seeing Ex PW72/D2 he deposed that Sh A.D.Gpta Sr. Internal Auditor appointed by Central Office, Mumbai had visited the place of work of Aman Trading Company at 78A, Dilshad Garden on 12.09.2001 and carried out inspection of stock and gave details of the stock available there and value of security was mentioned at column 4. He admitted that Ex PW72/D3 related to stock inspection conducted on 31.01.2002 in respect of M/s Aman Trading Company.

546. He also admitted that Sh. Sushis Jain and Associates, Chartered Accountant were appointed by the Central Office, Mumbai of Central bank of India for conducting surprise and secret inspection pf stock. He deposed that report Ex PW72/D3 of such surprise and secret inspection at page 2 reported that stock lying at the godown at 78A, Dilshad Garden was physically verified by Sushish Jain and Co. on 15.02.2002 showing value of stock of finished goods (copper wire) at Rs 89.57 lacs and found in good condition and in order.

547. After seeing first page of Ex PW72/D4, PW72 admitted that M. K. Chaudhary and company, Chartered Accountant appointed by Zonal Office, Central Bank of India had submitted the Stock Audit Report of M/s Aman Trading Company vide letter dt. 21.11.2002. he further admitted that in the covering letter it was mentioned that M. K. Chaudhary and Co. confirmed in the report that branch was holding valid documents of property of M/s Aman Trading Company and documents were verified by advocate. He also admitted that in the Stock Audit Report, the Chartered Accountant certified that the Stock Statement were in agreement with the Books of Account maintained at 78A, Dilshad Garden. He also admitted that in the said report closing Stock of Copper wire of 644740 qtls worth Rs. 1,05,20,250/­ was lying in the premise of addressed building (address not legible) and closing stock of 66417.450 qtls worth Rs. 1,07,9235/­ approx. was lying and both godowns were owned by borrower.

548. He further admitted that Chartered Accountant in his report Ex PW72/D4 has reported ‘yes‘ at point X2 against the column ‘ascertain whether all terms & conditions of sanction were complied with‘ and point X3 and X4 he had reported ‘yes‘ against the column ‘whether the account is being regularly/actively operated‘ and ‘whether sales are being routed through account‘. He also admitted that in the said report it was mentioned that auditors had met S. C. Jain, the proprietor.

549. He further admitted that no khasra number of Collateral property was mentioned in the application Ex PW33/G­24 (D­78) for grant of working capital moved by Creative Traders. He further deposed that when a property is offered as Collateral property, preference was given to the municipal number for its identification and not the khasra He volunteered to say that it was easier to locate property through its municipal number. He further admitted that every transaction were transparent and as per the rules and regulations of the bank and that no complaint was received either from the zonal office or head office in this respect. On the asking of Ld. PP for CBI he clarified what he meant of his statement that “every transaction was transparent” by deposing that as per banking procedure officials were required to take so many steps for sanction of the loan and disbursement of the same and in this case all the steps starting from account opening of borrower, pre­inspection, post inspection and valuation report of valuer, legal and search report of advocate were taken as per procedure.

550. Although PW72 Sushil Kumar Srivatasva was not cross examined by accused Kanwar Sen Gupta but even in cross examination conducted on behalf of other accused person, nothing came against him to prove that accused Kanwar Sen Gupta misconducted himself so as to be guilty under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act. Neither direct nor substantial evidence came on record to suggest that he cheated the bank or was party to criminal conspiracy hatched to defraud the bank and cause wrongful loss to bank and wrongful gain to himself or member of conspirator.

551. Hence, since there is no evidence against accused Kanwarn Sen Gupta, accused Kanwar Sen Gupta is acquitted of all offenses he was charged with.

Accused No. 9 Rekha Sisodia

552. Accused Rekha Sisodia, the then Sr. Manger of the Central Bank of India, Parliament Street Branch, New Delhi, besides being party to criminal conspiracy to cheat the Central Bank of India, Parliament Street branch New Delhi, in the manner as noted above is also alleged to have committed offense under Section13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and under Section 467 IPC as she allegedly prepared the process note and countersigned the credit status report of M/s Aman Trading Company and M/s Creative Traders, a non­existing firms without conducting the inspection.

553. She has been charged under Section 467 IPC for having allegedly prepared the false process note and countersigning the credit status report.

554. It is settled proposition that pre­condition for the offense under Section 467 IPC is commission of forgery and pre­condition for forgery is making of false documents as explained in the Section 464 IPC.

555. Let case of Credit Status Reports of both the firms be taken into consideration and it be found out if they are false document as defined under Section 464 IPC.

556. In Ibrahim v. State of Bihar Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:­

“10. An analysis of Section 464 of Penal Code shows that it divides false documents into three categories:­

10.1) The first is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently makes or executes a document with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document was made or executed by some other person, or by the authority of some other person, by whom or by whose authority he knows it was not made or executed.

10.2) The second is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document in any material part, without lawful authority, after it has been made or executed by either himself or any other person.

10.3) The third is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, execute or alter a document knowing that such person could not by reason of (a) unsoundness of mind; or (b) intoxication; or (c) deception practiced upon him, know the contents of the document or the nature of the alteration.

11. In short, a person is said to have made a `false document’, if (i) he made or executed a document claiming to be someone else or authorised by someone else; or (ii) he altered or tampered a document; or (iii) he obtained a document by practicing deception, or from a person not in control of his senses.”

557. Credit Status Report of both firms cannot be said to be falling in any of the categories of documents Section 464 IPC talks about. Admittedly, credit status reports had been countersigned by Rekha Sisodia in her own capacity as bank official not intending to be represented as having been signed by someone else or signed with the authority of someone else knowing that such some person had not authorised her. Admittedly, it is not the case of the prosecution that she made any material alteration by cancellation or otherwise, in the Credit Status Report without lawful authority, after it has been made or executed by either herself or any other person. It is also not the case of the prosecution that she caused any person to sign, execute or alter a document knowing that such person could not by reason of (a) unsoundness of mind; or (b) intoxication; or (c) deception practiced upon him, know the contents of the document or the nature of the alteration. Hence, once Credit Status Report of both the firms countersigned by accused Rekha Sisodia cannot be said to be false document it cannot be said that any forgery was done qua these documents by her and therefore she cannot be held guilty of offense under Section 467 IPC qua Credit Status Reports.

558. So is the case with Process Notes Ex PW21/DF (D­27), Ex PW21/DD (D­9), both of M/s Aman Trading Company and Ex PW40/D (D­70) of M/s Creative Traders as none of the process notes fall in the category of documents mentioned in Section 464 IPC. Therefore, she cannot be held guilty of offense under Section 467 IPC qua the process notes as well.

559. Although, no specific charge has been framed against Rekha Sisodia but it has been the case of prosecution that she placed on record letter dt. 06.05.2001 Ex PW75/A (Mark­PW1/A) (D­32) purportedly issued on behalf Manager Jain Co­operative Bank Ltd, Shahdra branch purportedly in response to her letter dt 05.05.2001 Ex PW69/A (Mark­PW1/B) (D­31) seeking confidential report from Jain Co­operative bank about the M/s Aman Trading Company with which said firm was allegedly banking before approaching Central Bank of India. As per the case of the prosecution, no report was called from Jain Co­operative Bank, Shahdara though it was shown to have been called.

560. In support of its contention, prosecution examined PW1, PW2 and PW75. They have stated that the letter dated 06.05.2001 Mark PW1/A (D­32) (Ex.PW75/A) along with satisfactory report regarding credit report of M/s Aman Trading Company in favour of the senior Manager, Central Bank of India, Parliament Street Branch was not issued by their branch nor the letter bore the signature of PW1 or any other official nor the letter was on the letter head of the Bank. They have stated that their branch did not receive any letter dated 05.05.2001 Mark PW1/B (D­31) (Ex.PW75/F) nor issued the statement of account Mark PW1/D (D­41) (Ex.PW75/E) and Mark PW1/E (D­3) (Ex.PW75/B). PW2 in this respect has also submitted certified copy of the dispatch register Ex.PW2/B (D­608) and Ex.PW2/C (D­610) and Ex.PW2/D (D­611).

561. It was contended on behalf of the accused Rekha Sisodia that she as a part of due diligence had written the letter dated 05.05.2001 to Jain Co­operative Bank for its confidential report before sanction of loan which was a normal banking procedure to be followed and in response thereof, the bank had received a letter dated 06.05.2001 that dealings of M/s Aman Trading company were satisfactory. Ld. Counsel has contended that the relevant registers were not seized which could otherwise had proved the communication and dispatch of the said letters to the respective bank. The investigating officer did not take the specimen signature nor seized the seal / letter head of Jain Co­operative Bank which would prove that the allegations made are totally false and frivolous. On the contrary Ld. PP for CBI contended that all the three witness from Jain Co­operative bank unerringly deposed that said documents were not issued from their branch/bank and in fact no such branch existed in front of Mother Dairy booth, Pandav Nagar, Shahdra.

562. There is force in the contention of Ld. Defence Counsel that during investigation, the investigating officer did not collect the courier register through which the accused has claimed to have sent the letter to M/s Jain Co­operative Bank. PW44 Seema Kala has stated that the register was being maintained in the branch in respect of the outgoing correspondence and the entries were being made in the register. She had also stated that sometime the senior officer of the bank sends the correspondence through the party directly without any entry in the dispatch register. Two trays used to be kept on the table in the dispatch department and the peon/staff used to put the correspondence/articles in the dispatch section. At that time, three dispatch registers were being maintained i.e. one for registered post, second for internal correspondence and third for the correspondence through the courier service. She has stated that the dispatch section was accessible to the customer. She has stated that since she has not been shown the register maintained for the courier services, she cannot deny the possibility that the letter Mark PW1/B might have been sent through courier or there may be an entry in the register. PW68 Smt. Neelam Bhardwaj, Asstt. Manager, has stated that sometime the letter/correspondence could be given by the parties directly to the AGM/ Manager. In the office of AGM, a dak register was being maintained wherein internal correspondence were entered where important correspondence were entered but internal correspondence were not being entered.

563. It may be noted that this type of report is sought confidentially. In the instant case, the possibility of calling the report by sending the letter through courier as claimed by the accused cannot be ruled out. PW44 has categorically admitted that three registers used to be maintained in the dispatch section including the courier register. In the instant case, the investigating officer had only collected one dispatch register and not the other two registers. It is not the case that the report was sought by the handing over the letter to the party. Since, possibility of sending the report by courier cannot be ruled out consequently possibility of the party (which admittedly managed many forged documents as seen above) managing the forged reply from the other bank cannot be ruled out and the accused Rekha Sisodia cannot be blamed for it. Furthermore, perusal of Ex PW75/A (Mark PW1/A) (D­32) would show that signature appearing at point A purportedly having been done by the Manager of Jain Co­operative Ltd. appears to be of accused Tarun Khanna if his signature appearing on his statement under Section 313 CrPC is compared. Be that as it may, it is not the case that no report was sought by her before sanctioning the loan. Even otherwise, in the instant case, the party had submitted number of documents to show its credential and further there was no occasion for the accused Rekha Sisodia and other bank officials to doubt on the credentials of the party which were apparently so originals that even expert like advocates failed to notice it even after comparing with records from office of concerned Sub­Registrar. Hence, it can be said with certainty that prosecution failed to prove that accused Rekha Siodia did not seek confidential report from Jain Co­operative bank or that she placed on record forged reply from said bank.

564. So far as offense under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is concerned, it has been seen above in the case of the accused Kanwar Sen Gupta that none of the prosecution witnesses deposed anything against any of the bank officials accused herein and nothing incriminating came out even in the cross examination of the witnesses as noted above. Neither there is any direct evidence nor is there any circumstantial evidence regarding misconduct by public officer. Hence, accused Rekha Sisodia is acquitted of offense under Section 467 IPC and offense under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

565. Further, it has not been pointed out what was the means available with bank officials which they did not put into service before disbursement of loan amount to both the firms, which could have discovered the truth. They have seen the originals of the documents required, they have got the legal search of the property (intended to be mortgaged) done by panel advocates, they got their valuation done by approved valuer, the stock of M/s Aman Trading Company were audited regularly by an independent Concurrent Auditors etc. All these go to show that in fact public servants were cheated into believing the proprietors of both firms and thus induced them which in turn cheated the bank and induced the bank to part with public fund.

Accused No. 10 Satish Sharma

566. Accused Satish Sharma, the then Manger of the Central Bank of India, Parliament Street Branch, New Delhi, besides being party to criminal conspiracy to cheat the Central Bank of India, Parliament Street branch New Delhi, in the manner as noted above is also alleged to have committed offense under Section13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and under Section 467 IPC as he allegedly prepared the false credit status report of borrowers of M/s Aman Trading Company and M/s Creative Traders, a non existing firms without conducting inspection.

567. For the reason discussed above in the case of accused Rekha Sisodia accused, Satish Sharma also cannot be held guilty of offense under Section 467 IPC and for the same reason as discussed above in the case of accused Kanwar Sen Gupta and accused Rekha Sisodia, accused Satish Sharma also cannot be held guilty of offense under Section 13(2) r/w13(1)(d) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Hence, accused Satish Sharma is acquitted of all substantive offenses he was charged with.

Accused No. 11 Rashmi Chhabra

568. Accused Rekha Sisodia, the then Sr. Manger of the Central Bank of India, Parliament Street Branch, New Delhi, besides being party to criminal conspiracy to cheat the Central Bank of India, Parliament Street branch New Delhi, in the manner as noted above is also alleged to have committed offense under Section13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and under Section 467 IPC as she allegedly prepared the false credit status report about Satish Chand Jain @ Sharad Kumar Jain without conducting any verification.

569. Accused Rashmi Chhabra also cannot be indicted for offense under Section 467 IPC for the reason discussed above in the case of accused Kanwar Sen Gupta, accused Rekha Sisodia and accused Satish Sharma. She cannot be said to have prepared report without verification about M/s Aman Trading Company as is apparent from the report of subsequent independent Concurrent Auditor of the bank who have reported to have found everything in order. If at all semblance of existence of firm and stock had not been maintained at the alleged workplace neither she nor Concurrent Auditors would have reported in favour of the firm. In fact, it appears, borrower managed to put up show of a running firm in which officials of the bank got trapped and were induced into believing into it’s existence.

570. It must be kept in mind that bank officials are bankers and not investigating agent and are not trained into gathering intelligence report. It is not the case of the prosecution that none of the properties mortgaged with the bank does not exist at all. All the four properties exists and in order to verify the title of the properties bank officials have sought title verification report from the panel advocates, before acting upon the loan applications of borrower. It is also not the case of the prosecution that not a single firm was existing at property No. 78A, Dilshad Garden. It has been seen above that property No. 78A is very big property admeasuring approximately 5000 sq. yds and many firms were running and therefore possibility cannot be ruled out that one of the running firms was shown as borrower’s firm with the help of persons present there who may have been shown as neighbour or customer or something else. Thus, by deception the bank officials may have been fooled into believing the existence of a running firm. Further, bankers do not suspect each and everyone coming to them as is done by police. Banking business thrives on trust. All bank, private or public sector, are competing with each and cannot afford to lose customer base by doubting their credentials at the very inception. Staffs are under pressure to serve better and invite more and more business which they cannot do unless they trust them. Certainly, they need to take precaution and caution but that caution and precaution cannot go to the level of interrogation as conducted by investigating agency. In the present case bank officials have in general followed the guidelines/circulars issued by the bank or at least it has not been pointed out which of the guidelines were not followed. In the event of advancing of loan their focus remains in ensuring repayment although from the earning of the borrower but to be on safe side they normally seek collateral security of immovable property or other kind of property. With this purpose in mind they focus on ensuring valid and clear title of the property which they ensure by getting title search done by empaneled lawyer. In the present case same has been done.

571. In the present case these bank officials who are accused herein could have been best evidence in the identification of the private accused persons but bank officials having been made accused cannot be used to nail private persons engaged in the cheating of the bank in question. IO should have been more cautious in making bank officials accused in the present case and his deliberate attempt to keep away the reports of independent auditors does not speak well for investigating agency. IO should have taken into account the reports of independent auditors which could have removed his doubt, if any he had about the role of bank officials in the present cheating. Further, IO should have examined R. S. Verma at whose instance Rajesh Ladhha has introduced the account of M/s Aman Trading Company even without knowing its proprietor which could have helped in identifying the proprietor and guarantor of M/s Aman Trading Company. Further, IO has not investigated where all the money has gone. It can not be believed that entire money was spent on consumable items. Some property must have been created by the accused persons but no money trail has been revealed.

572. Be that as it may be, prosecution have failed to prove involvement of the bank officials in the present crime. Hence, bank officials i.e. Kanwar Sen Gupta, Rekha Sisodia, Satish Sharma and Rashmi Chhabra are acquitted of substantive offenses they have been charged with i.e. offenses under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and offenses under Section 420 and 467 IPC.

CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY

573. An agreement to commit an offence or an illegal act between two persons or more is the essence of conspiracy. Such an agreement is designated as criminal conspiracy. For appreciating the nuances of Section 120A r/w Section 120B(2) of IPC which makes criminal conspiracy punishable in law, it is necessary to deal with various terms, used in Section 120A IPC.

574. The important words used in Section 120A are “agreement” between two or more persons, “offence” which is defined in Section 3(38) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 to mean any act or omission made punishable by any law for the time being in force. “Offence” is also defined in Section 2(n) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to mean any act or omission made punishable by any law for the time being in force. Further the term used in Section 120A IPC is “ illegal” which has been defined in Section 43 of IPC to the effect that the word “illegal” is applicable to everything which is an offence or which is prohibited by law or which furnishes ground for a civil action, and a person is said to be “legally bound to do” when it is illegal for him to omit. Further, Section 32 & 33 of IPC defines an “act” means a series of acts and also includes illegal omission…”

575. A combined reading of the above makes it clear that to attract a criminal liability for the offence of criminal conspiracy under Section 120A r/w Section 120B(2) of IPC, the following are to be proved:

That two or more persons agreed to do, or cause to be done –

(1) an illegal act (which is an offence or which is prohibited by law, or which furnishes ground for a civil action, OR

(2) an act which is not illegal but by illegal means (which is an offence or which is prohibited by law, or which furnishes ground for a civil action)

576. Such agreements are designated as criminal conspiracy and if such an agreement is entered to commit an offence (any act or omission made punishable by any law for the time being in force), then that such agreement is also an independent offence.

577. In Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Administration) AIR 1988 SC 1883 (known as Indira Gandhi murder case) it was held:

…Generally, a conspiracy is hatched in secrecy and it may be difficult to adduce direct evidence of the same. The prosecution often relies on evidence of acts of various parties to infer that they were done in reference to their common intention. The prosecution will also more often rely upon circumstantial evidence. The conspiracy can undoubtedly be proved by such evidence direct or circumstantial. But the Court must enquire whether the two persons are independently pursuing the same end or they have come together in the pursuit of the unlawful object. The former does not render them conspirators, but the latter does. It is, however, essential that the offence of conspiracy requires some kind of physical manifestation of agreement. The express agreement, however, need not be proved. Nor actual meeting of two persons is necessary. Nor it is necessary to prove the actual words of communication. The evidence as to transmission of thoughts sharing the unlawful design may be sufficient.

It is unnecessary to prove that the parties “actually came together and agreed in terms” to pursue the unlawful object; their need never have been an express verbal agreement, it being sufficient that there was a “tacit understanding between the conspirators as to what should be done…

578. In the case of State of Maharashtra & ors Somnath Thapa & Ors. (1996) 4 SCC 659, the Supreme Court observed that for a person to conspire with another, he must have knowledge of what the conspirators wanted to achieve and thereafter having the intend to further the illegal act takes recourse to a course of conduct to achieve end or facilitate its accomplishment.

579. In Yogesh @ Sachin Jagdish Joshi State of Maharashtra (2008) 10 SCC 394, it was held :

… Thus, it is manifest that the meeting of minds of two or more persons for doing an illegal act or an act by illegal means is sine qua non of the criminal conspiracy but it may not be possible to prove the agreement between them by direct proof. Nevertheless, existence of the conspiracy and its objective can be inferred from the surrounding circumstances and the conduct of the accused. But the incriminating circumstances must form a chain of events from which a conclusion about the guilt of the accused could be drawn. It is well settled that an offence of conspiracy is a substantive offence and renders the mere agreement to commit an offence punishable, even if an offence does not take place pursuant to the illegal agreement. (emphasis supplied)…

580. In the case of Baliya v. State of MP (2012) 9 SCC 696, it was held:

15…….. The foundation of the offence of criminal conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to cooperate for the accomplishment/ performance of an illegal act or an act which is not illegal by itself, through illegal means. Such agreement or meeting of minds create the offence of criminal conspiracy and regardless of proof or otherwise of the main offence to commit which the conspiracy may have been hatched once the unlawful combination of minds is complete, the offence of criminal conspiracy stands committed….

17. The offence of criminal conspiracy has its foundation in an agreement to commit an offence or to achieve a lawful object through unlawful means. Such a conspiracy would rarely be hatched in the open and, therefore, direct evidence to establish the same may not be always forthcoming. Proof or otherwise of such conspiracy is a matter of inference and the court in drawing such an inference must consider whether the basic facts i.e. circumstances from which the inference is to be drawn have been proved beyond all reasonable doubt, and thereafter, whether from such proved and established circumstances no other conclusion except that the accused had agreed to commit an offence can be drawn. Naturally, in evaluating the proved circumstances for the purposes of drawing any inference adverse to the accused, the benefit of any doubt that may creep in must go to the accused.

581. In the case of CBI K. Narayana Rao (2012)9 Scale 25), it was held:

24. The ingredients of the offence of criminal conspiracy are that there should be an agreement between the persons who are alleged to conspire and the said agreement should be for doing of an illegal act or for doing, by illegal means, an act which by itself may not be illegal. In other words, the essence of criminal conspiracy is an agreement to do an illegal act and such an agreement can be proved either by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence or by both and in the matter of common experience that direct evidence to prove conspiracy is rarely available. Accordingly, the circumstances proved before and after the occurrence have to be considered to decide about the complicity of the accused. Even if some acts are proved to have been committed, it must be clear that they were so committed in pursuance of an agreement made between the accused persons who were parties to the alleged conspiracy. Inferences from such proved circumstances regarding the guilt may be drawn only when such circumstances are incapable of any other reasonable explanation. In other words, an offence of conspiracy cannot be deemed to have been established on mere suspicion and surmises or inference which are not supported by cogent and acceptable evidence.

582. From the proposition of law laid down in the aforesaid judgments, it comes out that in order to prove the conspiracy, prosecution is not required to prove the agreement and to adduce direct evidence of conspiracy that the parties came together and agreed to pursue the unlawful object. It is not necessary to prove that there was an express verbal agreement but what is necessary to show is that there was some sort of tacit understanding between the conspirators as to what should be done.

583. Keeping the aforesaid principles in mind it has got to be seen if all accused persons or two or more of them were in criminal conspiracy to commit the offense involved in the present case.

584. It has been found above proved that M/s Aman Trading Company first obtained Cash Credit Facility to the extent Rs 76 and L/C limit of Rs 25 lacs from Central Bank of India, Parliament Street branch interalia against collateral security of property bearing No. 78A, Dilshad Garden. It has also been found proved above that said credit facility was renewed and limit was enhanced to the extent of Rs 100 lacs and L/C limit of Rs 25 lacs interalia against collateral security of property No.78A, Dilshad Garden and property No. 52/18, Karawal Nagar Shahdra both purportedly standing in the name of Satish Chand Jain, proprietor of M/s Aman Trading Company. It has been found above proved that prosecution could not prove that it was accused Sharad Chand Jain who impersonated as Satish Chand Jain, though it has been brought in evidence that signatures on all documents purportedly of Satish Chand Jain was in the hand of accused Sharad Kumar Jain but since photograph of Pankaj Garg (PW79) was affixed as Satish Chand Jain and prosecution eye witness PW38 Bishambhar Dayal had stated that person in the photograph had signed A/c opening form in his presence and sale deed Ex PW15/DA also bear the photograph of Pankaj Garg as Satish Chand Jain, this court, accordingly, preferred the testimony of eye witness over the expert opinion and held prosecution has failed to prove that it was accused Satish Chand Jain who impersonated as Satish Chand Jain more so when Pankaj Garg had deposed in his testimony that he had gone to bank allegedly taken by accused Sanjay Gupta under instruction that he should tell his name Satish Chand Jain. Further, it has been found above proved that sale deed Ex PW15/DA (D­57) in respect of property No. 78A, Dilshad Garden and sale deed Ex PW22/A (D­68) in respect of property No. 52/18 Karawal Nagar, deposited with bank were forged Sale deeds and it has been found above proved that accused Rakesh Verma, Sanjay Gupta and accused Sharad Kumar Jain have forged the sale deed Ex PW15/A and as such all three have participated in forging the said sale deed. Further, the said sale deed was deposited in the bank towards collateral security for the cash credit facility availed of by M/s Aman Trading Company where accused Sanjay Gupta impersonating as Sanjay Jain stood guarantor. Further, it has also been found above proved that funds of cash credit facility provided to M/s Aman Trading Company were drained out through the accounts of M/s Alpha Communication (India), M/s Hindustan Industries, M/s Paramount Insulation Pvt. Ltd and M/s Creative Conductors Pvt. Ltd. It has also been found above proved that accused Sharad Chand Jain was the proprietor of both firms M/s Alpha Communication (India) and M/s Hindustan Industries. It has also been found above proved that accused Sanjay Gupta and accused Tarun Khanna impersonating as Deepak Bansal were the directors of M/s Paramount Insulation Pvt. Ltd and accused Sanjay Gupta was also director in the M/s Creative Conductors Pvt. Ltd. It has also been found above proved that M/s Alpha Communication (India), M/s Hindustan Industries, M/s Paramount Insulation Pvt. Ltd and M/s Creative Conductors Pvt. Ltd. were only paper firms and not doing any real business.

585. It has also been found above proved that accused Keshav Sharma impersonated as Ashok Jain s/o Sh. P.C. Jain and representing himself to be proprietor of M/s Creative Traders at plot No.9, Main Patparganj Road, opened account with Central bank of India, Parliament Street branch New Delhi and availed Cash Credit facility to the tune of Rs 100 lacs and L/C limit of Rs 25 lacs and drained out the said fund through the account of M/s Creative Conductors Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Paramount Insulation. It has also been found above proved that while availing cash credit facility accused Keshav Sharma deposited sale deeds Ex PW43/A and Ex PW33/G­31 (towards collateral security) of two properties bearing No. S­596, School Block vill. Mandawali, Illaqua Fazalpur, Delhi and bearing No. 137 (part), Jhilmil Tahirpur, Delhi both in the name of Ashok Jain, proprietor of M/s Creative Traders. It has also been found above proved that both sale deeds Ex PW43/A and Ex PW33/G­31 were forged sale deeds and accused Harish Chand Wadhwa and accused Keshav Sharma have forged the sale deed Ex PW43/A and Keshav Sharma and Mukesh Jain have forged sale deed Ex PW33/G­31.

586. Facts as found proved above could not be explained except that accused persons Sanjay Gupta, Sharad Chand Jain, Keshav Sharma, Tarun Khanna, Rakesh Verma, Harish Chand Wadhawa and others who either could not be traced or could not be tried for any reason whatsoever, had joined hands together to fraudulently and dishonestly induced the bank to part with its funds which was siphoned off by them in a meticulous planned manner. Hence, accused persons Sanjay Gupta, Sharad Chand Jain, Keshav Sharma, Tarun Khanna, Rakesh Verma, Harish Chand Wadhawa are guilty of offense under Section 120B IPC and 120B r/w 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC.

587. So far as accused P. N. Upadhaya is concerned, it has been found above that he is not guilty of substantive offense under Section 420 IPC but it has been his case that he was accountant of accused Sanjay Gupta and it has also been found above that at his instance PW26 Sanjay Jain had introduced the account of M/s Paramount Insulation Pvt. Ltd. in Vysya Bank, Yamuna Vihar Branch without personally knowing the directors of the said firm. Further, it has also been found above proved that M/s Paramount Insulation Pvt. Ltd. was only paper firm and not doing any business as it is the case of accused Sanjay Gupta that he left Delhi in 1995 after closing his business under the name and style of M/s Sharda Metals but at the same time took defense that business of Sharda Metals merged in M/s Paramount Insulation Pvt. Ltd. which has been shown to be incorporated on 11.10.1999 and account in Vysya Bank was opened on 08.03.2000.

588. Further, it has come in evidence of PW30 Sushil Kumar Malhotra that accused P.N. Upadhay and accused Keshav Sharma had attempted to obtain cash credit facility in the name of M/s Shakti Traders representing that accused Keshav Sharma was Naresh Agarwal and proprietor of M/s Shakti Traders. PW30 correctly identified accused P. N. Upadhay and accused Keshav Sharma in court. PW63 Sh. A. K. Grover corroborated the testimony of PW30. Said fact was also corroborated by PW77 Sh. Bharat Bhushan Bhandari. Both PW30 and PW77 were cross examined by accused P. N. Upadhaya but nothing came out of them as to why they would depose against the accused P. N. Upadhya.

589. Further, amount of cheques bearing No.602121 Ex PW35/A­16 issued by M/s Aman Trading Company, cheques bearing No.281534 Ex PW35/A­21 and 281514 Ex PW35/A­20 issued by M/s Creative Traders, cheques bearing No.761114 Ex PW35/A­29, 761104 Ex PW35/A­28, 761110 and 761117 issued by M/s Paramount Insulation Co. and cheque bearing No. 274640 Ex PW35/A­4 issued by M/s Alpha Communication were collected by accused P.N. Upadhaya from respective bank. The signature of person who collected the amount of cheques and signed on the reverse of these cheques have matched with specimen signature S­310 to S­332 of accused P. N. Upadhaya as reported by hand writing expert PW33 Sh. Ramesh Chander. Accused P. N. Upadhaya while cross examining a witness had suggested that since he was resident of Yamuna Vihar side he had collected the amount on behalf of the holder of the cheque. Thus, there is no dispute that he had collected the amounts of the cheques. He knew very well that M/s Paramount Insulation Pvt Ltd. was not in business but despite that he requested Sanjay Jain to introduce the account of M/s Paramount Insulation Pvt. Ltd. Taking holistic view of the entire facts concerning accused P. N. Upadhaya, it cannot be held that he was not party to the criminal conspiracy to cheat bank by impersonation, forgery, using forged documents as genuine. Hence, accused P.N. Upadhaya is guilty of offense under Section 120­B IPC and 120­B read with 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC.

590. Neither is there any direct evidence nor is there circumstantial evidence to infer that accused Kanwar Sen Gupta, Rekha Sisodia, Satish Sharma and Rashmi Chhabra were party to criminal conspiracy. Hence, accused Kanwar Sen Gupta, Rekha Sisodia, Satish Sharma and Rashmi Chhabra are acquitted of offense under Section 120­B IPC and 120­B read with 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC.

SUMMARY

591. In view of the above discussion, reasonings and findings, accused Keshav Sharma (A­1) is hereby held guilty under Section 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120­B and 120­B r/w 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code.

592. Accused Sanjay Gupta (A­2) is hereby held guilty of offense under Section 419, 420, 467 and 120­B r/w 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code.

593. Accused Sharad Kumar Jain (A­3) is hereby held guilty of offense under Section 467, 468 and 120­B r/w 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code.

594. Accused Tarun Khanna (A­4) is hereby held guilty of offense under Section 420 and 120­B r/w 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code.

595. Accused P. N. Upadhaya (A­5) is hereby held guilty of offense under Section 120­B and 120­B r/w 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code.

596. Accused Rakesh Verma (A­6) is hereby held guilty of offense under Section 419, 467, 120­B and 120­B r/w 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code.

597. Accused Harish Chand Wadhwa (A­7) is hereby held guilty of offense under Section 419, 467, 120­B and 120­B r/w 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code.

598. Accused Kanwar Sen Gupta {A­8 (originally A­10)} is hereby acquitted of offense under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and offense under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code.

599. Accused Rekha Sisodia {A­9 (originally A­11)} is hereby acquitted of offense under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and offense under Section 467 of Indian Penal Code.

600. Accused Satish Sharma {A­10 (originally A­12)} is hereby acquitted of offense under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and offense under Section 467 of Indian Penal Code.

601. Accused Rashmi Chhabra {A­11 (originally A­13)} is hereby acquitted of offense under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and offense under Section 467 of Indian Penal Code.

Tags:
Download Judgment/Order

More Under Fema / RBI

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Search Posts by Date

February 2021
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728