Bangalore District Court
Cbi Acb Blr vs A1 K.S. Srinivasan on 27 April, 2026
KABC010005582017
IN THE COURT OF XXI ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AND PRINCIPAL SPECIAL JUDGE
FOR CBI CASES, BENGALURU [CCH-4]
PRESENT: SRI.MANJUNATH SANGRESHI
B.A.LL.B [HONS.]
XXI Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge and
Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases
[CCH-4] Bengaluru.
DATED THIS 27TH DAY OF APRIL 2026
Spl.C.C.No.16/2017
Complainant : Central Bureau of Investigation
Anti-Corruption Branch,
Bengaluru.
[By Senior Public Prosecutor]
V/S.
Accused 1: Sri.K.S.Srinivasan
S/o.Late.K.S.Swaminathan
Aged about 57 years
The then Chief Manager,
I Line, Indian Overseas Bank,
IOB BSK II Stage,
Bengaluru.
R/o: A-2, 602, Ganga Block,
National Games Village,
Koramangala, Bengaluru.
2 Spl.CC.16/2017
2: Sri. B.N. Muralidharan,
S/o Late Narayana Iyengar,
Aged about 62 years,
The then Asst. Manager,
IOB BSK II Stage,
Banashankari Branch,
Bengaluru.
Superannuated as Manager on
31.8.2014 from IOB,
Bannergatta Road Branch,
Bengaluru.
R/o: 106, 14th Main,
24th Cross, 3rd Block East,
Jayanagar,
Bengaluru-560011.
3: Sri. V.N.Gururaja Rao,
S/o.Sri.T.S.Raghavendra Rao,
Aged about 61 years
The then Manager,
IOB BSK II Stage,
Banashankari Branch,
Bengaluru.
Superannuated on 31.3.2015.
R/o: 395, 18th Main, 1st Floor,
Narayan Doodakallasandra,
Bengaluru-560062.
4: Smt. Valli K.S.,
W/o.Sri.H.N.Ravi Kumar,
Aged about 61 years,
The then Manager,
IOB BSK II Stage,
Banashankari Branch,
Bengaluru.
Superannuated on 31.9.2015
from IOB, Banashankari II Stage
3 Spl.CC.16/2017
Branch, Bengaluru.
R/o: Shubananda, 3rd Cross,
Kempegowda Main Road,
Near Kaliveera High School,
Udayagiri Extension,
Hassan - 573 201.
5: Sri. Umesh Gurjar,
S/o Sri. Sakaram Gurjar,
Aged about 45 years,
Working as Middleman.
R/o: 770, Kaveri Niwas,
14th Cross, J.P. Nagar, 1st Cross,
Bengaluru - 560 078.
6: Sri.Jitendra Bhandari,
S/o.Late Misrimalji Bhandari,
Aged about 42 years,
Prop.of M/s.Maxtel Enterprises,
No.16, Yadav Complex,
B.M.Galli, A.M.Lane Cross,
Chickpet,
Bengaluru-560 053.
R/o: 301, ETA Garden,
Magadi Road,
Bengaluru-560 053.
7: Sri. Lalit Kumar Bhandari,
S/o Misrimalji Bhandari,
Aged about 44 years,
Prop.of M.M.Sales Corporation,
No.08, Ground Floor,
Yadav Complex, B.M.Galli,
A.M.Lane Cross, Chickpet,
Bengaluru-560 053.
R/o: No.1, 2nd Floor,
4 Spl.CC.16/2017
24th Cross, Durgani Niwas,
Kilari Road,
Bengaluru - 560 053.
8: Smt. Anita Devi Bhandari,
W/o.Sri.Lalitkumari Bhandari,
Aged about 43 years,
Prop. M/s.G M Enterprises,
No.18, 1st Floor, A.M. Lane,
B.M.Galli, Chickpet Cross,
Bengaluru- 560 0053.
R/o: No.1, 2nd Floor,
24th Cross, Durgani Niwas,
Kilari Road,
Bengaluru - 560 053.
9: Sri. Ganesh G,
S/o Late H. Gurunath,
Aged about 41 years,
Proprietor,
M/s. G.Hanumanthappa & Sons
No.A-39, Singana Agrahara,
Hoskur Road Cross, Hosur Road,
Bengaluru-560 061.
R/o: No.11, 8th Cross,
N.R. Colony,
Bengaluru - 560 019.
10: Sri.G.Subramaniyam,
S/o.Late.H.Gurunath,
Aged about 39 years,
Proprietor of M/s. NET 27
Technologies, No.221,
2nd Floor, 9th Main, 5th Block,
Jayanagar, Bengaluru.
R/o:11, 8th Cross,
5 Spl.CC.16/2017
N.R. Colony,
Bengaluru - 560 019.
11: Sri. M. Kumaraswamy Raju,
S/o.Late.Durai Swamy Raju,
Aged about 56 years,
Proprietor of M/s. Sri. Sai Rice
Traders', No.2287, 4th Cross,
Annapoorneswari Nagar,
Nagarabhavi, Bengaluru-560 061.
R/o: #179, 3rd Cross, 4th Main,
NGEF Layout, RMV 2nd Stage,
Sanjay Nagar,
Bengaluru - 560 094.
12: Smt. Geetha R,
W/o.S.Sri.nivas,
Aged about 37 years,
Prop. M/s. Sri. Annapoorneswari
Rice Traders, No.287, 4 th Main,
4th Cross, Nagarabhavi,
Bengaluru-560 061 and
Grade 'D' Employee of Karnataka
Vidhyuth Karkhane Limited,
Mysore Road, Bengaluru.
R/o: #17, 1st Main,
4th Cross, Lakkanna Layout,
Mariyappana Palya,
Bengaluru - 560 056.
13: Sri. Ravindra,
S/o. Sri.Ningrajan Gowda,
Aged about 38 years,
Proprietor of
M/s. Veerabhadreshwara Stores,
No.27, Ittamadu Main Road,
6 Spl.CC.16/2017
Banashankari 3rd Stage,
Bengaluru-560 085.
R/o: No.22, Bhayravanagara,
Dubasipalya,
Bengaluru - 560 059.
14: Smt. Mangala Gowramma,
W/o.Sri.V.K.Ramalingegowda,
Aged about 47 years,
Prop. M/s. SLN Glass Plywoods &
Hardware, No.46, 4th Cross,
Jai Maruthinagar,
Nandini Layout,
Bengaluru-560 096.
R/o: House No.675,
4th Cross, H.M. Nayak Road,
Jayamaruthi Nagar,
Ward No.12,
Bengaluru - 560 096.
15: Sri. Mallesh,
S/o.Sri.Halage Gowda,
Aged about 38 years,
Prop.M/s. Veeresh Provision Stores,
No.6, 80 feet Road,
KHB Colony, Kengeri Upanagar,
Bengaluru-560 060.
R/o: No.31, Nagadevanahalli,
Post : Jnanabharathi,
Bengaluru - 560 056.
16: Late R. Mohan Naidu
[Since dead, not charge sheeted].
17: Sri.N.Srirama,
[Abated as dead]
7 Spl.CC.16/2017
18: Smt. Priya Chiplunkar,
W/o.Sri.Umesh Gurjar,
Aged about 32 years,
Housewife, No.770,
Kaveri Niwas, 14th Cross,
J.P. Nagar, 1st Cross,
Bengaluru-560 078.
[A1 by Sri.Vishnu Murthy Adv.; A2 to
A4 by Sri.R.Vidyasagar Adv.; Accused
No.5 & 18 by Sri.S.V.Wadawadagi Adv.;
A6, A7 & A8 by Sri.Narayanaswamy
K.L. Adv.; A9 & A10 by
Sri.K.R.Anilkumar Adv.; A11 by
Sri.A.Somaraju Adv.; A12 to A15 by
Sri.M.Y.Lokesha Adv.]
Particulars regarding date of commission of offence, report
of offence, arrest of accused & Etc,.
Date of commission of 2012 to 2014
offence
Date of report of offence 07.01.2016
Date of arrest of accused Not arrested.
Date of release of accused --
on bail
Total period of custody --
Name of the complainant Sri. P.V.Venkateswaran,
S/o. Sri.P.V.Vaidyanathan,
Chief Regional Manager,
Indian Overseas Bank,
Regional Office,
Chennai.
Date of commencement of 16.10.2018
recording evidence
Date of closing of evidence 15.12.2022
Charge-sheeted offences Sec.120-B and Secs.420,
468, 471 read with Sec.120-
B of IPC and Sec.13(2) read
8 Spl.CC.16/2017
with Sec.13(1)(d) of
Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988.
Opinion of the Judge As per Final Order
JUDGMENT
The Inspector of Police, Central Bureau of
Investigation [‘CBI’ in short], Anti Corruption Bureau
[‘ACB’ in short] Bengaluru, has submitted charge sheet
against accused No.1 to 15, 17 and 18 alleging the
commission of offences punishable U/Sec.120-B r/w.
Sec.420, 468, 471 of IPC and Sec.13(2) r/w. Sec.13(1)(d)
of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [‘PC Act‘ in short].
The brief facts of the prosecution case;
2. The CBI, ACB, Bengaluru, registered a FIR in
their Crime No.RC1A/2016 against accused No.1
Sri.K.S.Srinivasan, then Chief Manager, Indian Overseas
Bank, Banashankari II Stage Branch, Bengaluru and 17
others for the offences punishable U/Sec.120-B r/w.
Sec.420, 468, 471 of IPC and U/Sec. 13(2) r/w. Sec.13(1)
(d) of PC Act,1988, based on the complaint
dated:07.01.2016 lodged by one Sri. P.V.Venkateswaran,
then Chief Regional Manager, Indian Overseas Bank,
9 Spl.CC.16/2017
Regional Office, Chennai; alleging that, accused No.1 to 4
who are the public servants, while working at Indian
Overseas Bank, Banashankari II Stage Branch,
Bengaluru, have entered into a criminal conspiracy with
other accused No.5 to 18 and other unknown borrowers/
persons during the period from 2012 to 2014 at
Bengaluru and other places in the matter of sanctioning
and disbursing of loan under Easy Trade Finance
Scheme of Indian Overseas Bank, on the basis of false
and fabricated documents with a dishonest intention to
cheat the Indian Overseas Bank and thereby caused
wrongful loss of more than Rs.3.86 crores to the bank
and corresponding wrongful gains to themselves. After
completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer
submitted a Charge-Sheet against the accused No.1 to
15, 17 and 18 for the offences punishable U/Sec.120-B
r/w. Sec.420, 468 and 471 of IPC and U/Sec.13(2) r/w.
13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988.
3. After submitting Charge-Sheet, this court had
taken cognizance of the offences against accused Nos.1 to
15, 17 and 18 for the offences punishable U/Sec.120B
10 Spl.CC.16/2017
r/w.420, 468 and 471 of IPC and cognizance is also
taken for the offence punishable U/Sec.13(2) r/w.13(1)(d)
of PC Act against accused Nos.1 to 4. Summons were
issued to the accused. After service of summons, accused
Nos.1 to 15, 17 and 18 appeared before the court
through their respective counsel and they were enlarged
on bail.
4. After hearing both side regarding framing of
charge, the charges were framed against the accused
Nos.1 to 15, 17 and 18 for the offences punishable
U/Sec.120B r/w.420, 468 and 471 of IPC and U/Sec.
13(2) r/w.13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988. After framing of
charges, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be
tried.
5. Since accused No.16-Sri.R.Mohan Naidu was
reported as dead, hence he was not Charge-Sheeted by
the I.O. and as accused No.17-Sri.N.Srirama was dead
after framing the charge, hence case against him is
abated.
6. In order to prove the case against accused
persons, the prosecution has examined 54 witnesses as
11 Spl.CC.16/2017
per PW.1 to PW.54 and also got marked documents as
per Ex.P1 to P.396. That documents as per Ex.D1 to D.6
are got marked on behalf of the accused. After closing the
prosecution side evidence, the statement of accused
persons was recorded as provided under Section 313 of
Cr.P.C. The accused have denied the incriminating
circumstances found in the prosecution evidence. After
recording the statement U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C., the
accused No.1 has filed written statement U/Sec.313(5) of
Cr.P.C.
7. The learned counsel for the accused No.9 and
10 has filed written notes of arguments.
8. Heard both side. Perused all the records.
9. For disposal of instant case, the points that
would arise for my consideration are as under;
1. Whether the sanction obtained U/Sec.19 of
PC Act to prosecute the accused No.1 for the alleged
offences, is valid one and in accordance with law ?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all
reasonable doubt that, accused No.1-K.S.Srinivasan,
being a Chief Manager I Line; accused No.2-
B.N.Muralidharan, being a Manager; accused No.3-
12 Spl.CC.16/2017
V.N.Gururaja Rao, being a Manager; and accused
No.4-Smt.Valli K.S., being an Assistant Manager, all
are public servants worked in Indian Overseas
Bank, at Banashankari II Stage Branch, Bengaluru
at relevant period of time, have entered into criminal
conspiracy with the accused No.5 to 18, by abusing
their official position, sanctioned the credit facilities
as over draft under “Easy Trade Finance” scheme to
the accused No.6 to 17 by violating the bank
procedure and norms and without ascertaining the
credibility of the borrowers, without considering KYC
norms, without conducting pre and post sanction
inspections for confirming the existence of the
units/firms and knowing fully well that the
documents submitted by the other accused were
forged and fabricated, with dishonest intention to
cheat the Indian Overseas Bank, have allowed the
said accused borrowers to siphon off the loan
amount, without doing any business activities, and
thereby they by their criminal act, have caused
wrongful loss to the tune of Rs.3.86 crores to the
Indian Overseas Bank and corresponding wrongful
gain for themselves and other accused and thereby
accused No.1 to 15 and 18 have committed an
offence of conspiracy punishable under Section 120-
B of IPC ?
3. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all
reasonable doubt that, the accused No.1 to 4, being
the Officers in different capacity in Indian Overseas
13 Spl.CC.16/2017
Bank at Banashankari II Stage Branch, Bengaluru,
in furtherance of criminal conspiracy with the
accused No.5 to 18, have sanctioned 12 loans to the
accused borrowers by violating the bank procedures,
such as without complying KYC rules and norms,
without ascertaining the credibility of the borrowers,
without conducting pre & post sanction inspection for
confirming the existence of units or firms, and
knowing fully well that the documents submitted by
the accused/borrowers were forged and fabricated,
with a dishonest intention to cheat the bank,
allowed the accused/borrowers to siphon off the
sanctioned loan amount without doing business
activity and without ensuring the end use of funds
and thereby all the accused with a criminal intention
to cheat the bank have caused wrongful loss to the
bank to the tune of Rs.3.86 crores and thereby
accused No.1 to 15 and 18 have committed an
offence punishable U/Sec.420 read with Sec.120-B
of IPC ?
4. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all
reasonable doubt that, the accused No.6 to 15 in
collusion with accused No.1 to 4 and accused No.5
and 18 and in furtherance of criminal conspiracy,
have submitted false, fake and forged documents
with a malafide intention to cheat the bank and to
cause wrongful loss to the tune of Rs.3.86 crores to
the bank and making wrongful gain for themselves
and others; and thereby the accused No.6 to 15 have
14 Spl.CC.16/2017
committed an offence of forgery for the purpose of
cheating punishable U/Sec. 468 r/w Sec.120-B of
IPC ?
5. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all
reasonable doubt that, the accused No.1 to 4, being
public servants working as Officers at different
levels in the Indian Overseas Bank at relevant
period of time by colluding with the accused No.6 to
17 and in furtherance of criminal conspiracy, have
availed the loan under the ‘Easy Trade Finance
Scheme’ by submitting fake and forged documents to
the bank, knowing fully well that the said
documents are forged documents and used the same
as genuine documents, and caused wrongful loss to
the tune of Rs.3.86 crores to the bank and wrongful
gain for themselves and others, and thereby accused
No.6 to 15 have committed offence punishable
U/Sec. 471 r/w Sec.468 of IPC ?
6. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all
reasonable doubt that, the accused No.1 to 4, being
the public servants, worked as Managers at different
levels in the said bank during the said relevant
period of time, have without complying the KYC
norms, without verifying the credibility of the
accused/borrowers, without ascertaining the
signature of the accused No.5 and 18, without
making pre-inspection and post-inspection, without
ascertaining the documents submitted by the other
15 Spl.CC.16/2017
accused which are fake and forged documents,
without verifying the VAT returns and cross checking
the credibility of the status of Units/Firms of the
accused borrowers, have sanctioned the loans under
the “Easy Trade Finance” scheme to the said
accused and allowed them to siphon off the said
loan to the tune of Rs.3.86 crores, without ensuring
the end use of loan proceeds and thereby committed
offence of criminal misconduct punishable
U/Sec.13(2) r/w. Sec.13(1)(d) of Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 ?
7. What order ?
10. My findings to the above stated points are as as
under;
Point No.1 : In the Affirmative
Point No.2 : In the Affirmative, in respect of
accused No.1, 5 to 15 and 18;
and in the Negative in respect of
Accused No.2 to 4.
Point No.3 : In the Affirmative, in respect of
accused No.1, 5 to 15 and 18; and
in the Negative in respect of
Accused No.2 to 4.
Point No.4 : In the Affirmative
Point No.5 : In the Affirmative
Point No.6 : In the Negative
Point No.7 : As per the final order
for the following;
16 Spl.CC.16/2017
REASONS
11. Point No.1: This point is with regard to the
sanction granted to prosecute the accused No.1-Sri.
K.S.Srinivasan. The accused No.1 was a public servant
worked as Chief Manager I Line in Indian Overseas Bank
[‘IOB’ for short], at Banashankari II Stage Branch,
Bengaluru, during the time of commission of charge
sheeted offences; hence, in order to prosecute him for the
charge-sheeted offences, it is necessary for the
prosecution to obtain sanction from the concerned
competent authority as provided U/Sec.19 of PC Act.
That under Section 19 of PC Act, Sanction is to be given
by the Government or the authority which would be
competent to remove the public servant from his office.
12. Admittedly, the accused No.1-K.S.Srinivasan,
during the significant point of time i.e. from 08.12.2011
to 22.07.2013, worked as Chief Manager I Line in Indian
Overseas Bank, at Banashankari II Stage Branch,
Bengaluru. As per evidence on record, the designation
and employment of accused No.1 in the Indian Overseas
17 Spl.CC.16/2017
Bank are not in dispute. As such, the accused No.1,
being a public servant, during the relevant period of time,
as defined U/Sec.2 of the PC Act, falls under the ambit of
Section 19 of the PC Act. Thus, a valid sanction is pre-
requisite to launch prosecution against him, for the
offences punishable U/Sec.120-B and 420 of IPC and
U/Sec.13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act.
13. In the case on hand, the sanction order has
been marked as per Ex.P365. That the sanction as per
Ex.P365 has been granted by one Smt.Radha Venkata
Krishnan, then General Manager, Indian Overseas Bank,
Head Office Chennai. She has been examined in the case
as PW.48. According to PW.48, the Banashankari II Stage
Branch of Indian Overseas Bank, Bengaluru comes under
the Administrative control of Indian Overseas Bank, Head
Office, Chennai and Chief Managers of Indian Overseas
Bank fall under Scale IV Officer Grade. Further,
according to PW.48, in case of any officer of the rank of
Scale IV commits any criminal misconduct with regard to
Bank Financial Activities, the Board of Management of
IOB, Chennai would delegate the powers for according
18 Spl.CC.16/2017
sanction and also for removal of officer of Scale IV from
service.
14. It is undisputed fact that, during the
significant point of time i.e. from 08.12.2011 to
22.07.2013, accused No.1-K.S.Srinivasan was working as
Chief Manager I Line in Indian Overseas Bank, at
Banashankari II Stage Branch, Bengaluru; therefore,
PW.48-Smt.Radha Venkata Krishnan, who being the
General Manager, IOB, Head Office Chennai, had the
delegated powers to accord sanction to launch criminal
prosecution against accused No.1, who comes under the
control of PW.48; as such PW.48 is the competent
authority to remove accused No.1 from his service acting
under delegated powers, and accordingly she has
accorded sanction against accused No.1.
15. At this juncture, it is apt to appreciate the
evidence of PW.48 and the contents of Ex.P365-Sanction
order, in order to know whether PW.48 had applied her
mind to the material or documents placed before her or
not, while granting the sanction to prosecute the accused
No.1. In her evidence, PW.48 has deposed that, she was
19 Spl.CC.16/2017
holding office of General Manager Cadre, so she was
competent enough to delegated with powers to accord
sanction to launch criminal prosecution against accused
No.1 and also to remove him from service. She has
further deposed that, in the instant case, CBI, Bengaluru
sought prosecution sanction against accused No.1 during
the year 2016; they had furnished copies of FIR,
Statements of witnesses and also all relevant documents.
That after verifying all the records furnished and going
through the evidence collected by the CBI, and after
herself found involvement of accused No.1 in the
commission of offences, therefore on 25.11.2016 she
accorded prosecution sanction against accused No.1 to
initiate criminal proceedings against him. This witness
has identified her sanction order marked at Ex.P365 and
she also identified her signature found in Ex.P365 as per
Ex.P365(a).
16. The learned counsel for the accused No.1 has
cross examined this witness. In his cross examination,
PW.48 stated that, before issuing Ex.P365, she
intensively considered the report submitted by the
20 Spl.CC.16/2017
Department with regard to the alleged fraud committed
by accused No.1 and she also made detailed reference in
Ex.P365 about departmental enquiry held against
accused No.1. She further deposed that, Ex.P365 is
issued by her totally based on the report submitted by
Bank Vigilance Department and also on the evidence
collected by the CBI. Further, she denied a suggestion to
the effect that, draft sanction order was prepared by their
Bank Vigilance Department and she signed it without
applying her mind and without referring to original
records. Thus, nothing worth has been elicited from the
mouth of PW.48, so as to show that her sanction is not in
accordance with law.
17. The learned counsel for the accused No.1 has
argued that sanction order issued by PW.48 under
Section 19 of the PC Act is not a valid sanction and it is
not in accordance with law. However, except arguing that
sanction order is not in accordance with law, the learned
counsel has not demonstrated before this court as to how
the sanction order is not valid one and not in accordance
with law.
21 Spl.CC.16/2017
18. In case of State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Navjot
Sandhu reported in (2005) 11 SCC 600, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has held that,
“The grant of sanction is an executive act
and validity thereof cannot be decided in the
light principles applied to quasi judicial order.
There are four tests to be applied while dealing
with validity of sanction order; Firstly, the
sanction order has been passed by competent
authority; Secondly, all the relevant evidence,
both against and in favour of the accused,
should be placed before sanctioning authority;
Thirdly, Sanctioning Authority should have
applied its mind to conclude that the accused
should be prosecuted; Fourthly, the application
of mind should be objective and impartial and
not at the behest of any other authority. In
case, after going through all the relevant
evidence, a prima facie case is made out
against the accused, the sanctioning authority
can grant sanction.”
19. Further, in the case of CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar
Agarwal reported in 2014 (84) ACC 252
[Crl.A.No.1838/2013], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
observed that,
22 Spl.CC.16/2017
“………..Therefore, the order of sanction
must ex facie disclose that the sanctioning
authority had considered the evidence and
other material placed before it. In every
individual case, the prosecution has to
establish and satisfy the court by leading
evidence that those facts were placed before
the sanctioning authority and the authority
had applied its mind on the same. If the
sanction order on its face indicates that all
relevant material i.e. FIR, disclose statements,
recovery memos and other material on record
were placed before the sanctioning authority
and if it is further discernible from the recital
of sanction order that the sanctioning
authority perused all the material, an
inference may be drawn that the sanction had
been granted in accordance with law.”
20. Further more, in the case of State of
Maharashtra V/s. Mahesh G. Jain, reported in (2013) 8
SCC 119, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that;
“Grant of sanction U/Sec.19(1) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act-1988 for
prosecution is administrative function and only
prima facie satisfaction of the sanctioning
authority is needed”.
23 Spl.CC.16/2017
21. Thus, in the background of principles laid
down in the above cited decisions, when we examine the
prosecution case on the point of sanction, it would go to
show that, the prosecution has satisfied this court by
leading evidence on sanction order that PW.48 is the
competent authority to accord sanction and said
sanctioning authority had applied its mind on the
materials produced by the CBI/prosecution. That PW.48,
who is author of Ex.P365-Sanction Order, has specifically
deposed that after verifying all the records furnished and
going through the evidence collected by the CBI, and after
herself found involvement of accused No.1 in the
commission of offences; accordingly, she accorded
prosecution sanction against accused No.1 to initiate
criminal proceedings against him. Thus, it is clear that,
PW.48 has gone through all the records placed before her
and thereby she applied her mind to the materials
produced by the CBI/prosecution. Further, on perusal of
contents of Ex.P365 i.e. sanction order which runs into
11 pages, it is seen that, PW.48 has gone through all the
24 Spl.CC.16/2017
records and recorded her reasons for according the
sanction for prosecuting the accused No.1.
22. Thus, on mindful reading of evidence of PW.48
and contents of Sanction order marked at Ex.P365, it is
very clear that the sanctioning authority has considered
all the relevant materials and after having satisfied as to
prima-facie case made out against the accused No.1 for
prosecuting him; accordingly, PW.48 has issued sanction
order marked at Ex.P365. Hence, this court is of the
considered opinion that the prosecution has proved that
sanction accorded by the PW.48 to prosecute accused
No.1 with regard to the offences charged against him, is
valid one and in accordance with law. Accordingly, I
answered the Point No.1 in the Affirmative.
23. Sanction in respect of Accused No.2 to 4:-
Since accused No.2-Sri.B.N.Muralidharan, Accused No.3-
Sri.V.N.Gururraja Rao and accused No.4-Smt.Valli K.S.,
who being the public servants, all worked as Managers at
relevant point of time in Indian Overseas Bank,
Banashankari II Stage Branch Bengaluru, were retired
from the service before taking the cognizance of the
25 Spl.CC.16/2017charge sheeted offences; hence, no sanction for
prosecution is required U/Sec.19 of PC Act, 1988, as per
dictum laid down in the case of State of Kerala Vs.
V.Padmanabham Nair (1999) 5 SCC 690, wherein it is
held that, ‘a person who ceased to be a public servant on
the date when the court took cognizance, no sanction
under section 19 of PC Act is required’.
24. Points No.2 to 6: As these points are
interconnected and inter-related; hence, they are taken
together for common discussion in order avoid repetition
of facts.
25. It is the very case of prosecution that, the
accused No.1 to 4, who being the public servants, while
working in Indian Overseas Bank, at Banashankari II
Stage Branch, Bengaluru, at relevant point of time, have
entered into a criminal conspiracy with accused No.5 to
18 during the period from 2012 to 2014 in respect of
sanctioning and disbursing of loan under ‘Easy Trade
Finance Scheme’ of Indian Overseas Bank, on the basis
of false and fabricated documents with a dishonest
intention to cheat the Indian Overseas Bank and thereby
26 Spl.CC.16/2017
caused wrongful loss of more than Rs.3.86 crores to the
Bank and corresponding wrongful gains to themselves
and thereby the accused No.1 to 15, 17 and 18 have
committed the offences punishable U/Sec.120-B r/w.
Sec.420, 468 and 471 of IPC and U/Sec.13(2) r/w. 13(1)
(d) of PC Act, 1988.
Charge against accused No.1 to 4:
26. It is the very allegation against accused No.1
to 4 that, they being the public servants as
Managers/Chief Manager of Banashankari II Stage
Branch of Indian Overseas Bank, Bengaluru, have
entered into criminal conspiracy with accused No.5, a
Middleman and accused No.18, who is wife of accused
No.5, sanctioned 12 loans to accused No.6 to 17, in
collusion with each other, under ‘Easy Trade Finance’
scheme relying on forged and fabricated documents
without pre-sanction and post-sanction inspection and
by violating the Bank norms with dishonest intention to
cheat the Indian Overseas Bank and further, in
furtherance of such criminal conspiracy, the loan amount
so sanctioned was siphoned off/diverted by the accused
27 Spl.CC.16/2017No.6 to 17 for the purpose other than for which the loans
were sanctioned and caused wrongful loss to the Indian
Overseas Bank to the tune of Rs.3.86 Crores and thereby
they obtained pecuniary advantage by corrupt and illegal
means. Accordingly, the charges U/Sec.120-B and 420 of
IPC and U/Sec.13(2) read with Sec.13(1)(d) of Prevention
of Corruption Act-1988, have been framed against these
accused No.1 to 4.
Charge against accused No.5 and 18:
27. It is the allegation of prosecution against
accused No.5 and 18 that, the accused No.5-Umesh
Gurjar, a private individual, acted as a Middleman
between the accused No.1 and other accused/borrowers
in sanctioning the loan. It is alleged that, accused No.5
mobilized and brought accused No.6 to 17/borrowers
and introduced them to the Bank, assisted and facilitated
them in getting the loan from Indian Overseas Bank, by
colluding with accused No.1 to 4. It is the allegation
against accused No.18-Smt.Priya Chiplunkar that, she
being the wife of accused No.5, has facilitated for floating
the fund from the Borrowers’ Bank Accounts to her Bank
28 Spl.CC.16/2017
account which was maintained with Indian Overseas
Bank and thereby she also became part of criminal
conspiracy and committed the offence of cheating.
Accordingly, the charges U/Sec.120-B and Sec.420 of IPC
have been framed against accused No.5 and 18.
Charge against accused No.6 to 15 & 17:
28. The accused No.6 to 17 are the 12 borrowers.
It is the very case of prosecution against them that,
accused No.6-Jitendra Bhandari, the Proprietor of
M/s.Maxtel Enterprises; accused No.7-Lalit Kumar
Bhandari, the Proprietor of M/s. M.M.Sales Corporation;
accused No.8-Smt.Anita Devi Bhandari, the Proprietress
of M/s. G.M.Enterprises; accused No.9-Ganesh G., the
Proprietor of M/s. G.Hanumantappa and Sons; accused
No.10-G.Subramaniyam, the Proprietor of M/s. NET 27
Technologies; accused No.11-M.Kumarswamy Raju, the
Proprietor of M/s. Sri Sai Rice Traders; accused No.12-
Smt.Geeta R., the Proprietress of M/s.
Sri.Annapoorneshwari Rice Traders; accused No.13-
Ravindra, the Proprietor of M/s.Veerabhadreshwar
Stores; accused No.14-Smt.Mangala Gowramma, the
29 Spl.CC.16/2017
Proprietress of M/s. SLN Glass Plywood & Hardwares;
accused No.15-Mallesh, the Proprietor of M/s.Veeresh
Provision Stores; accused No.16-R.Mohan Naidu [Dead],
the Proprietor of M/s.Venkateshwara Hardware &
Plumbing; and accused No.17-N.Srirama [Abated], the
Proprietor of M/s. Banashankari Interior Works, with
dishonest intention and in conspiracy with accused No.1
to 4, 5 and 18, have fraudulently and dishonestly opened
accounts with Indian Overseas Bank at Banashankari II
stage Branch, Bengaluru and applied for over draft loans
in the name of their respective proprietorship
firms/enterprises by submitting forged and fabricated
financial documents such as IT Returns, Provisional
Balance Sheets, Profit and Loss Account Etc., and got
sanctioned the loans from the Bank by using above said
documents as genuine and after sanction of said loans,
the above said accused/borrowers were siphoned off the
loan proceeds for the purpose other than for which said
loans were sanctioned and thereby said
accused/borrowers caused wrongful loss to the Bank to
tune of Rs.3.86 Crores and corresponding wrongful gain
30 Spl.CC.16/2017
to themselves. Accordingly, the charges U/Sec.120-B,
420, 468 & 471 of IPC have been framed against accused
No.6 to 15 and 17.
29. Now, let me examine and appreciate the
prosecution evidence, both oral as well as documentary,
in order to arrive at conclusion whether the prosecution
has proved that the accused No.1 to 15 and 18 have
committed the charged offences, beyond reasonable
doubt.
30. CW.1-Sri.P.V.Venkateshwaran, the then Chief
Regional Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Regional
Office, Bengaluru, is the person who has set the criminal
law into motion by lodging a written complaint against
the accused. He has been examined in the case as PW.4.
His written complaint dated:20.05.2016 lodged before
CBI Bengaluru, is marked as Ex.P20. According to this
witness, the Internal Investigation Report of the Bank
revealed that, during 2011 to 2013, the Branch Manager
of Banashankari II Stage Branch had committed financial
and procedural irregularities while granting loans under
Easy Trade Finance to the customers/borrowers. He
31 Spl.CC.16/2017
further deposes that, on the basis of Internal
Investigation Report, he was able to find out that funds
were diverted for other purposes deviating from the
purpose for which fund was allotted and causing loss to
the Bank; as such, on the basis of vigilance report and
after verifying the records, he lodged a written complaint
before the CBI, as per Ex.P20. Though this witness was
cross examined by the counsels for the accused No.1 to
4, nothing worth has been elicited.
31. The prosecution has examined CW.2-Sri.Ved
Prakash Mishra, the then Assistant General Manager,
Indian Overseas Bank, Vigilance Department, Central
Office, Chennai, as PW.5. His evidence, in his
examination-in-chief, would go to show that, during the
month of April-2015, Deputy General Manager, Vigilance,
Chennai, instructed him to conduct an internal
investigation with regard to irregularities committed by
the officers of Banashankari II Stage Branch, particularly
by accused No.1, then Chief Manager during the period
from 2012 to 2015. Accordingly, he visited the Branch,
inspected the records and during that period, accused
32 Spl.CC.16/2017
No.1 was Manager and granted loans under Easy Trade
Finance Scheme [ETF Scheme] and accused No.4 was
also working as a Bank Official in the same branch. He
verified the loan files of 12 borrowers as per Ex.P3 to
Ex.P14 which were sanctioned by the accused No.1
during his tenure.
32. It is the further evidence of PW.5 that, he
found material irregularities committed by the officials
while granting loans under ETF scheme. According to
this witness, 12 loans granted under ETF scheme were
not in accordance with rules of Bank and grave
irregularities were committed by Bank officials while
granting said loans under said scheme. Further,
according to the evidence of this witness, as per the ETF
scheme mortgaging of properties of borrower is must; the
mortgage property margin value was found to be not
proportionate consisting with the loan sanction to the
borrowers; under ETF scheme, loan was to be granted to
borrowers who were in the retail trade business, however
in the instant case, some of the borrowers were not
engaged in retail trade business, some of borrowers were
33 Spl.CC.16/2017
found to be engaged in wholesale business, were also
granted loan. As per the requirement of scheme, all
borrowers should be granted benefits who are in the
business and the grant should be utilized for the same
purpose for which it was granted. It is his further
evidence that, in some cases 2 nd line Officers were not
involved in the processing and appraisal report.
33. It is the further evidence of PW.5 that, under
ETF Scheme, the Manager while granting loan had to
consider the audited balance sheet of preceding two years
along with value added tax returns of the borrower and
as per rules, the loan granted under ETF scheme
required to be granted after obtaining the pre-sanction
inspection of the unit to be conducted by Branch
Manager or authorized person. Under the scheme even
after post sanction inspection report is received, the
Manager had to verify the utilization of the loan granted
to the borrowers under the scheme or not.
34. It is the further evidence of PW.5 that, on
verification of loan documents of 12 borrowers, he was
able to find out that one middleman by name Sri.Umesh
34 Spl.CC.16/2017
Gurjar [i.e. accused No.5] was also involved in getting the
loans to accused/borrowers under the ETF Scheme.
Further, in order to verify the irregularities, he visited the
business units like M/s.Maxtel Enterprises, M/s.M.M
Sales Corporation and M/s.G.M Enterprises along with
accused No.1, the Branch Manager and on verification, it
was found that no such units were functioning in the
said premises; he also enquired the local people of the
business locality but could not received their co-
operation but was able to find a board written as Maxtel
Enterprises in a corner. Further, he deposed that, in
order to find out the irregularities, he enquired one
Chartered Accountant of M/s. Maregowda & company
who informed him that he has not audited the accounts
of M/s.Veeresh Provisional Store; further, he enquired
about the business of borrower-Hanumanthappa who
was stated to be fruits agent and it was disclosed that
proprietor of M/S. G.Hanumanthappa & sons was
running fruit business for which ETF scheme is not
applicable and it is also seen that, part of the loan
35 Spl.CC.16/2017
proceeds were utilized for the purpose of purchasing
demand draft in the name of Sub-registrar.
35. It is the further evidence of PW.5 that, another
loan was advanced to proprietor of M/s.NET 27
Technologies, who was brother of proprietor of M/s.
Hanumanthappa & Sons and it was noticed that M/s.
NET 27 Technologies company was dealing in software
development and nature of the loan should be granted by
the Manager with the approval of screening committee of
Central office which was beyond the discretion of the
Manager of the Branch and it was also seen that part of
loan proceeds was transferred into the account of
accused No.5 and his wife accused No.18. Therefore, after
noting all these irregularities and illegalities in his
Vigilance Report, he submitted said report to DGM (SR)
Indian Overseas Bank, Central Office, Vigilance
Department, Chennai on 16.04.2015 as per Ex.P22.
36. In order to prove its case, the Prosecution has
further examined CW.14-Sri.H.S.Seetharam as PW.13. He
served as a Senior Manager in Indian Overseas Bank,
Regional Office, Bengaluru during the period from June-
36 Spl.CC.16/2017
2012 to July-2013. During his examination-in-chief, this
PW.13 has identified Ex.P3 to P14, which are the 12 loan
files pertaining to accused No.6 to 17 and deposed that,
he found discrepancies pertaining to the loan accounts of
12 firms/enterprises belonging to accused No.6 to 17
such as (i) Pre-Sanction and Post-Sanction inspection
was not conducted by the Branch Manager for the
purpose of end use; (ii) the Bank Manager had not
verified the Genuineness of the Financial Papers and I.T.
documents submitted by the borrower; (iii) earlier
Banker’s Details have not been obtained; (iv) CIBIL report
of the borrower was not obtained by the Manager; (v) turn
over given by the borrower was not cross verified with
the financial papers/ Chartered Accountants; (vi) Branch
Manager had not sanctioned the loan which follows into
the set norms of the scheme; (vii) the Bank Manager was
not competent to sanction limit/Loan; and (viii) Housing
Loan details of the Guarantor was not furnished and
further Insurance details of house property taken as
security was not furnished.
37 Spl.CC.16/2017
37. It is the further evidence of PW.13 that, the
Branch Manager i.e. accused No.1 and second line
officers have processed and sanctioned the loans without
conducting spot inspection before sanctioning loan,
Credit Officer has not collected previous loan account
details/report of borrowers and cross checked the turn
over; the loans under ETF Scheme did not cover
wholesale dealers & Software companies and further,
Chief Manager has not cross checked the VAT returns of
the borrowers and not verified IT returns, genuineness of
Balance sheets of firms submitted by Chartered
Accountant; and accused No.1-Srinivasa, the then Bank
Manager of Banashankari Branch had prepared all the
office notes and sanctioned the loans to the
borrower/accused. Thus, from the very evidence of PW.4,
5 and 13, is is seen that there were irregularities
committed in sanctioning the loans to accused No.6 to 17
and causing huge loss to the Bank.
38. It is the further prosecution case that, the
accused No.6 to 17/borrowers in collusion with other
accused/public servants submitted forged and fabricated
38 Spl.CC.16/2017
financial documents such IT Returns, Profit and loss
Account and Etc., and they also submitted forged
Balance Sheets purported to be signed and issued by
Sri.Senthil Kumar R.K, the Partner of M/s.Ramesh
Subramanian & Associates; Sri.C.Rama Mohan, the
Partner of M/s.Mohan & Narayan, Bengaluru;
Sri.Ramesh of M/s.R.V.Associates, Bengaluru and
Sri.Janakiram, Partner of M/s.Janakiram & Associates,
to Indian Overseas Bank, Banshankari II Stage Branch,
Bengaluru and availed loans in a fraudulent manner.
Investigation has further disclosed that the said
documents are not issued by the said chartered
accountants and the same are forged.
39. It is the further case of prosecution that, in
furtherance to criminal conspiracy, accused No.5-Umesh
Gurjarand his wife accused No.18-Smt.Priya Chiplunkar
in collusion with accused No.1 to 4 and other
accused/borrowers managed to open the accounts in the
name of accused/borrowers, mobilized and submitted the
forged and fabricated financial documents, managed to
get the loan sanctioned in the names of
39 Spl.CC.16/2017
accused/borrowers based on the said forged and
fabricated documents, and also in the names of non-
existing firms/units. Further, in furtherance to said
conspiracy, they have also managed to siphon off the
loan proceeds through their accounts held with Indian
Overseas Bank, BSK II Stage Branch, Bengaluru.
Regarding Charges leveled against Accused No.6 to 15:
40. It is the further case of prosecution that, in
pursuance of criminal conspiracy with accused 1 to 4, 5
and 18, the accused No.6-Sri.Jitendra Bhandari, the
Proprietor of M/s. Maxtel Enterprises fraudulently and
dishonestly opened an account with Indian Overseas
Bank, Banashankari 2nd Stage Branch, Bengaluru and
applied for Over Draft loan of Rs.100 Lakhs in the name
of his firm and submitted forged and fabricated
document such as IT Return, Provisional Balance Sheets,
Profit and loss Account and Etc., and got sanctioned the
loan. Further, the accused No.6-Jitendra Bhandari has
also not submitted VAT returns along with the loan
application. After the sanction of the credit facility to the
account of accused No.6, the loan proceeds were
40 Spl.CC.16/2017
siphoned off by way of cash withdrawals and transfers
which are not related to the business transactions of firm
of accused No.6.
41. In order to prove that accused No.6 had
submitted fake and fabricated financial documents, the
prosecution has examined PW14-Sri.C.Rama Mohan, a
Chartered Accountant, whose firm name is M/s.Mohan
and Narayan. According to him, his firm never assessed
or audited balance sheets or IT returns of M/s.Maxtel
Enterprises of accused No.6. During his evidence before
the court, after verifying the loan file of accused No.6
marked at Ex.P3, the witness deposes that, though the IT
Returns, Form No.3CB & 3CD, Balance Sheets or Profit
and Loss Account pertaining to M/s.Maxtel Enterprises
for the Assessment Years-2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-
13, bear the seal of their firm name as ‘Mohan &
Narayan’, but it does not belong to their firm nor said
seal is affixed by their firm. This witness further deposes
that, the signatures seen in the said documents, said to
be of their firm, are not belonged to them. He further
specifically deposes that, the rubber stamp impressions
41 Spl.CC.16/2017
seen on the records of Ex.P3 do not belong to their firm
nor the signatures put therein are signed by him or his
partner of the firm.
42. Further, PW.33-Sri.M.K.Venkatesh, the then
Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Department, Bengaluru
has deposed that, on verification of information available
in their system portal, it is found that, accused No.6 had
submitted his IT Returns only for the assessment year
2010-11 and not filed his IT Returns for assessment
years 2011-12 & 2012-13. Further, as per evidence of
this witness, the accused No.6 has shown his Gross
Income as Rs.9,86,587/- for AY 2010-11 as per Ex.P3(f);
whereas, as per screenshot of IT Returns available in
Ex.P55, the gross income of accused No.6 is declared as
Rs.2,08,920/-, which is not genuine as it is not available
in the system portal of their office for the relevant year.
Further, this witness has specifically deposed that, copies
of IT Returnes for the AY 2011-12 and 2012-13 available
in Ex.P3(f) produced by the accused No.6-Jitendra
Bhandari are not genuine since the same are not
available in their system portal. Though the learned
42 Spl.CC.16/2017
counsel for the accused No.6 has cross examined this
witness but nothing contrary has been elicited.
43. Further, in order to show that, the accused has
shown wrong address while opening an account in Indian
Overseas Bank, at Banashankari II stage Branch, the
prosecution has examined PW.39-Smt.Ratnavathi, a
Commercial Tax Officer; who, after perusing the account
opening form available in Ex.P3, deposed that, A/c.
No.129802000001722 of M/s.Maxtel Enterprises of
accused No.6 was opened on 03.05.2012 showing the
address of his enterprises as No.16, 1 st Floor, Yadav
Complex, B.M.Galli, A.M.Lane Cross, Chickpet,
Bangalore; but as per their record, the said firm of
accused No.6 was allotted with TIN 29030796026 and the
address shown was as ‘No.18, 1st Floor, Yadav Complex,
B.M.Galli, A.M.Lane Cross, Chickpet, Bangalore’;
however, as per request letter dated:16.10.2008 of the
Proprietor, the address of said firm was changed to
No.1/3, Srinidhi Complex, BM Lane, A.M.Lane, Chickpet
Cross, Bangalore-53, and since then the existence of said
firm is at changed address only and as per their records,
43 Spl.CC.16/2017
M/s.Maxtel Enterprises was not located at No.16, 1 st
Floor, Yadav Complex, B.M.Galli, A.M.Lane Cross,
Chickpet, Bangalore-53. Thus, it is very clear that, in
order to obtain loan in a fraudulent manner this accused
No.6 has shown wrong address. That accused No.6 has
not cross examined this witness; therefore, the testimony
of the witness is unrebutted.
44. Further, it is the case of prosecution against
accused No.7-Sri.Lalit Kumar Bhandari that, he being
the Proprietor of M/s. M.M. Sales Corporation,
fraudulently and dishonestly opened a current account
with the Branch in the name of his firm-M/s. M.M. Sales
Corporation and applied for Over Draft loan of Rs.100
Lakhs by submitting forged and fabricated financial
documents such as IT Return, Provisional Balance
Sheets, Profit and loss Account and Etc., and got
sanctioned the loan.
45. In order to prove the charges against accused
N.7, the prosecution has examined PW14-Sri.C.Rama
Mohan, a Chartered Accountant, whose firm name is
M/s.Mohan and Narayan. According to him, his firm
44 Spl.CC.16/2017
never assessed or audited balance sheets or IT returns of
M/s. M. M. Sales Corporation of accused No.7. After
verifying the loan file of accused No.7 marked at Ex.P4,
the witness deposes that, though the IT Returns along
with copies of Form No.3CB & 3CD, Balance Sheets or
Profit and Loss Account pertaining to M/s. M.M. Sales
Corporation, for the Assessment Years-2010-11, 2011-12
and 2012-13 bear the seal of their firm name as ‘Mohan
& Narayan’, but it does not belong to their firm nor said
seal is affixed by their firm. This witness further deposes
that, the signatures seen in the said documents, said to
be of their firm, are not belonged to them. He further
specifically deposes that, the rubber stamp impressions
seen on the records of Ex.P4 do not belong to their firm
nor the signatures put therein are signed by him or his
partner of the firm and their firm never dealt with any
business for assessment of Tax with firm of accused
No.7.
46. Further, PW.32-Smt.Geetha Kumari, the then
Income Tax Officer has deposed that, on verification of
information available in their system portal, she was not
45 Spl.CC.16/2017
able to find any submission of IT returns by Lalit Kumar
Bhandari [i.e. accused No.7] for AY 2010-11, 2011-12,
2012-13 & 2013-14. Further, as per evidence of this
witness, as per their data, assessee i.e. the accused No.7
has not filed his IT Returns for the AY 2010-11, 2011-12,
2012-13; hence, copies of IT Returns submitted for the
AY 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 available in Ex.P4(f)
are genuine as they are not available in their system
portal. During her cross, nothing worth has been elicited
by the accused No.7.
47. Further, in order to show that, the accused has
shown wrong address while opening account in Indian
Overseas Bank, at Banashankari II stage Branch, the
prosecution has examined PW.39-Smt.Ratnavathi, a
Commercial Tax Officer; who, after perusing the account
opening form available in Ex.P4, deposed that, A/c.
No.129802000001723 of M/s.M.M.Sales Corporation is
pertaining to accused No.7 and as per Commercial Tax
Office records, the address of firm of accused No.7 is
mentioned as No.8, 1st Floor, Yadav Complex, B.M.Galli,
A.M.Lane, Chickpet, Bangalore-53; however, VAT returns
46 Spl.CC.16/2017
filed for the period of April 2012 and May 2012, which
were submitted along with loan application by
M/s.M.M.Sales Corporation, are not matching with the
data available with Commercial Tax Dept., therefore the
documents submitted relating to VAT returns are seen to
be not genuine. That accused No.7 has not cross
examined this witness; therefore, the testimony of the
witness is unrebutted.
48. Further, it is the case of prosecution that, in
pursuance of criminal conspiracy, accused No.8-
Smt.Anita Devi Bhandari, the Proprietress of
M/s.G.M.Enterprises has fraudulently and dishonestly
opened a current account with the Bank and applied for
Over Draft loan of Rs.100 Lakhs by submitting forged
and fabricated financial documents such as IT Return,
Provisional Balance Sheets, Profit and loss Account and
Etc., and got sanctioned the loan.
49. In order to prove the charges against accused
N.8, the prosecution has examined PW14-Sri.C.Rama
Mohan, a Chartered Accountant, whose firm name is
M/s.Mohan and Narayan. According to him, his firm
47 Spl.CC.16/2017
never assessed or audited balance sheets or IT returns of
M/s.G.M.Enterprises of accused No.8. After verifying the
loan file of accused No.8 marked at Ex.P5, the witness
deposes that, though the IT Returns along with copies of
Form No.3CB & 3CD, Balance Sheets or Profit and Loss
Account pertaining to M/s. G.M. Enterprises, for the
Assessment Years-2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 bear
the seal of their firm name as ‘Mohan & Narayan’, but it
does not belong to their firm nor said seal is affixed by
their firm. This witness further deposes that, the
signatures seen in the said documents, said to be of their
firm, are not belonged to them. He further specifically
deposes that, the rubber stamp impressions seen on the
records of Ex.P5 do not belong to their firm nor the
signatures put therein are signed by him or his partner of
the firm and their firm never dealt with any business for
assessment of Tax with firm of accused No.8.
50. Further, PW.33-Sri.M.K.Venkatesh, the then
Income Tax Officer has deposed that, accused No.8-Anita
Devi Bhandari of M/s.G.M.Enterprises submitted IT
Returns for the AY 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 as
48 Spl.CC.16/2017
found in EX.P5 as per Ex.P5(g) is not matching with the
information available in their office system portal and
data available in Ex.P5(g) document is not correct.
Further, as per evidence of this witness, the accused No.8
has shown her Gross Income as Rs.9,94,712/- for AY
2010-11 as per Ex.P3(f); whereas, as per screenshot of IT
Returns available in Ex.P55, the gross income of accused
No.6 is declared as Rs.4,15,180/-. Further, as per
screenshot of IT Returns available in Ex.P55, the income
declared by accused No.8 for AY 2012-13 is
Rs.1,51,050/-; whereas, as per copy of IT Returns for the
AY 2012-13 which is available in Ex.P5(g), the income is
shown as Rs.14,11,953/- by the accused No.8 to the
Bank. During his cross nothing worth has been elicited
by the accused No.8.
51. Further, the prosecution has examined PW.39-
Smt.Ratnavathi, a Commercial Tax Officer; who, after
perusing the account opening form available in Ex.P5,
deposed that, A/c. No.129802000001733 of
M/s.G.M.Enterprises and said account was opened on
14.08.2012 by Smt.Anita Devi Bhandari and as per their
49 Spl.CC.16/2017
records, accused No.8 had started her business from
26.09.2012 onwards. That accused No.8 has not cross
examined this witness; therefore, the testimony of the
witness is unrebutted.
52. Further, as per evidence of PW.28-Mahesh
H.M., who carries Electrical Business in the name of
M/s.Darshan Enterprises deposed that, during 2013-14
he was purchasing Electrical Materials from
M/s.G.M.Enterprises and during his visit to M/s.
G.M.Enterprises, he met Lalit Bhandari [i.e. accused
No.6] and he requested him to identify him for opening of
an account in Indian Overseas Bank, Banashankari II
Stage Branch, Bangalore; accordingly, he agreed and
signed as an introducer for opening of bank account. But
he deposed that, he personally does not know a woman
called Smt.Anita Devi Bhandari, in whose name the Bank
Account is opened.
53. Further, it is the case of prosecution that, in
pursuance of criminal conspiracy, the accused No.9-
Sri.Ganesh G, the Proprietor of M/s. G.Hanumanthappa
& Sons, has fraudulently and dishonestly opened a
50 Spl.CC.16/2017
current account with the Bank in the name of his firm-
M/s. G.Hanumanthappa & Sons and applied for Over
Draft loan of Rs.98 Lakhs by submitting forged and
fabricated financial documents such as IT Return,
Provisional Balance Sheets, Profit and loss Account and
Etc., and got sanctioned the loan.
54. In order to prove that accused No.9-Ganesh
has submitted fake and fabricated financial documents
while obtaining loan, the prosecution has examined
PW.9-Sri.R.K.Senthil Kumar, Chartered Accountant, who
was partner in M/s.Rammesh Subramanian & associates
from 2003 to 2009, has deposed that Copies of IT
Returns, Form No.3CB & 3CD, Balance Sheet and Profit
and Loss Account, for the AY 2010-11, 2011-12 and
2012-13 pertaining to M/s.Hanumanthappa & Sons
which are available in Ex.P6, are all bear rubber stamp
seal of their firm ‘Partner, Senthil Umar R.K.,
M.No.029870 of M/s. Rammesh Subramanian &
Associates, Chartered Accountants’. But the signatures
seen in the said documents are not belonged to him and
theseal affixed with rubber stamp on Ex.P6 does not
51 Spl.CC.16/2017
belong to their firm and their firm never dealt with any
business with M/s.Hanumanthappa & Sons.
55. PW.38-Smt.Sundari V Naik, the then Income
Tax Officer who deposed that, the IT returns documents
found in Ex.P6 for the AY 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12
which were submitted to Bank by the accused No.9-
Ganesh are not genuine and as per their Office Data
Portal, accused No.9-Ganesh, the proprietor of
M/s.Hanumantappa & Sons had not filed his IT returns
for any assessment years as referred above. In this
regard, he submitted a letter as per Ex.P60. That accused
No.9 has not cross examined this witness; therefore, the
testimony of the witness is unrebutted.
56. It is the further case of prosecution that, in
pursuance of criminal conspiracy, accused No.10-
Sri.Subramanyam G, the Proprietor of M/s.NET 27
Technologies, has fraudulently and dishonestly opened a
current account on 02.08.2012 with Indian Ovrseas
Bank, BSK 2nd Stage Branch, Bengaluru in the name of
his firm-M/s.NET 27 Technologies and applied for Over
Draft loan of Rs.49 Lakhs by submitting forged and
52 Spl.CC.16/2017
fabricated financial documents such as IT Retum,
Provisional Balance Sheets, Profit and loss Account, and
VAT certificate and Etc., and got sanctioned the loan.
57. In order to show that the accused No.10 has
furnished wrong address, the prosecution has examined
PW.12-Arvind Naidu, who is Managing Director of a
company named as M/s.Caritor Solutions (India) Pvt.,
has deposed that accused No.10-G.Subramanyam was
working in his company as a consultant Project Manager
during the period from October 2011 to September 2014.
After perusing the loan file of accused No.10 marked at
Ex.P7, the witness deposed that the Ex.P7 discloses the
address of firm of accused No.10 as No.221, 2 nd Floor, 9th
Main, Jayanagar 5th Block, Bengaluru and during 2012,
the company of the witness was working in the said
address only. Thus, it is very clear that accused No.10
has shown wrong address.
58. Further, PW.9-Sri.R.K.Senthil Kumar,
Chartered Accountant, deposed that Copies of IT
Returns, Form No.3CB & 3CD, Balance Sheet and Profit
and Loss Account, for the AY 2010-11, 2011-12 and
53 Spl.CC.16/2017
2012-13 pertaining to M/s.NET 27 Technologies which
are available in Ex.P7, are all bear rubber stamp seal as
‘Partner, Senthil Umar R.K., M.No.029870 of M/s.
Rammesh Subramanian & Associates, Chartered
Accountants’. But the signatures seen in the said
documents are not belonged to him and the seal affixed
with rubber stamp on Ex.P7 does not belong to their firm
and their firm never dealt with any business with
M/s.Hanumanthappa & Sons.
59. Further, in order to prove that accused No.10-
Ganesh has submitted fake and fabricated financial
documents while obtaining loan, the prosecution has
examined PW.38-Smt.Sundari V Naik, the then Income
Tax Officer who deposed that, the IT returns documents
found in Ex.P7 for the AY 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12
which were submitted to Bank by the accused No.10-
G.Subramanyam are not genuine and as per their Office
Data Portal, accused No.10, the proprietor of M/s.NET 27
Technologies had not filed his IT returns for any
assessment years as referred above. In this regard, he
submitted a letter as per Ex.P61. That accused No.10 has
54 Spl.CC.16/2017
not cross examined this witness; therefore, the testimony
of the witness is unrebutted.
60. PW.43-Raghunatha Gowda M.S., the then
Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, deposed
that, on verification of office records, the TIN
No.29870815214 shown to be allotted to the firm of
accused No.10 namely M/s.NET 27 Technologies, said
TIN number file was not existing in the of office records of
their Dept., and after verifying the status with respect of
name of dealer of M/s.NET 27 Technologies, it is noticed
that said dealer is not in existence[Ex.P75]. That accused
No.10 has not cross examined this witness; therefore, the
testimony of the witness is unrebutted.
61. Further, it is the case of prosecution that, in
pursuance of criminal conspiracy, accused No.11-
Sri.M.Kumaraswamy Raju, the Proprietor of M/s.Sri.Sai
Rice Traders has fraudulently and dishonestly opened an
account with Indian Overseas Bank, BSK 2 nd Stage
Branch, Bengaluru and applied for Over Draft loan of
Rs.70 Lakhs in the name of his firm-M/s.Sri.Sai Rice
Traders by submitting forged and fabricated financial
55 Spl.CC.16/2017
documents such as IT Return, Provisional Balance
Sheets, Profit and loss Account and Etc., and got
sanctioned the loan.
62. PW.9-Sri.R.K.Senthil Kumar, Chartered
Accountant, has deposed that Copies of IT Returns, Form
No.3CB & 3CD, Balance Sheet and Profit and Loss
Account, for the AY 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13
pertaining to M/s. Sri Sai Rice Traders which are
available in Ex.P8, are all bear rubber stamp seal as
‘Partner, Senthil Umar R.K., M.No.029870 of M/s.
Rammesh Subramanian & Associates, Chartered
Accountants’. But the signatures seen in the said
documents are not belonged to him and the seal affixed
with rubber stamp on Ex.P8 does not belong to their firm
and their firm never dealt with any business with firm
M/s.Sri Sai Rice Traders.
63. PW.30-Sri.E.Jayaraj, the then Income Tax
Officer, has deposed that, relating to IT returns
submitted for the AY 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 and
2013-14 pertaining to Sri.Kumaraswamy Raju, the
Proprietor of M/s. Sri Sai Rice Traders, he verified IT
56 Spl.CC.16/2017
return particulars of his office system portal and
submitted a report to Addl.Commissioner, Income Tax
stating that Sri.Kumaraswamy Raju, the Proprietor of
M/s. Sri Sai Rice Traders has not submitted any IT
returns for the AY 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-
14. [Ex.P53]. Thus, it is clear that, the accused No.11 has
submitted fake and fabricated IT returns with intention
to cheat the Bank.
64. It is the further case of prosecution that, in
pursuance of criminal conspiracy, the accused No.12-
Smt.Geetha R, the Proprietress of M/s.Sri.
Annapoorneswari Rice Traders has fraudulently and
dishonestly opened an account with Indian Overseas
Bank, BSK 2nd Stage Branch, Bengaluru and applied for
Over Draft loan of Rs.18.50 Lakhs in the name of her
firm-M/s.Sri. Annapoorneswari Rice Traders by
submitting forged and fabricated financial documents
such as IT Return, Provisional Balance Sheets, Profit and
loss Account and Etc., and got sanctioned the loan.
65. PW.9-Sri.R.K.Senthil Kumar, Chartered
Accountant, deposed that Copies of IT Returns, Form
57 Spl.CC.16/2017
No.3CB & 3CD, Balance Sheet and Profit and Loss
Account, for the AY 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13
pertaining to M/s. Annapoorneshwari Rice Traders which
are available in Ex.P9, are all bear rubber stamp seal as
‘Partner, Senthil Umar R.K., M.No.029870 of M/s.
Rammesh Subramanian & Associates, Chartered
Accountants’. But the signatures seen in the said
documents are not belonged to him and the seal affixed
with rubber stamp on Ex.P9 does not belong to their firm
and their firm never dealt with any business with firm
M/s. Annapoorneshwari Rice Traders.
66. PW.39-Smt.Shanthi V., the then Income Tax
Officer deposed that, during the course of enquiry before
I.O., she stated that the IT returns for the AY 2010-11,
2011-12, 2012-13 submitted accused No.12-Smt.Geetha
R., the Proprietress of M/s.Annapoorneshwari Rice
Traders to Indian Overseas Bank are not genuine and are
not found available in their IT Office Data Portal as
accused No.12 has not filed her IT returns particulars for
any of the assessment years. In this regard, she
submitted a letter marked at Ex.P58. According to this
58 Spl.CC.16/2017
witness, since assessee [i.e. accused No.12] has not filed
any returns, therefore IT returns for AY 2010-11, 2011-
12 & 2012-13 submitted to the Bank are fake and
fabricated. Nothing worth has been elicited from the
mouth of this witness by the accused No.12 during the
cross examination.
67. It is the further case of prosecution that, in
pursuance of criminal conspiracy, the accused No.13-
Sri. Ravindra, the Proprietor of M/s.Veerabhadreshwara
Stores, has fraudulently and dishonestly opened an
account with Indian Overseas Bank, BSK 2nd Stage
Branch, Bengaluru and applied for Over Draft loan of
Rs.46.50 Lakhs in the name of his firm-M/s.
Veerabhadreshwara Stores by submitting forged and
fabricated financial documents such as IT Return,
Provisional Balance Sheets, Profit and loss Account and
Etc., and got sanctioned the loan.
68. In support of allegations made against, the
prosecution has examined PW.23-Sri.Shankar K.S., and
he deposed that, he is the sole proprietor of M/s
Veerabhadreshwara Provisions Store and he also
59 Spl.CC.16/2017
obtained VAT registration certificate in the name of said
proprietary concern. This witness peruses the Account
Opening Form and its enclosures along with copy of VAT
registration certificate No.24589563481, which are
available in Ex.P10 and deposes that it is in the name of
Ravindra, Proprietor, M/s Veerabhadreshwara Provisions
Store and loan account is maintained in the name of M/s
Veerabhadreshwara Provisions Store with Indian
Overseas Bank. The witness further deposes that,
accused No.13-Ravindra was in habit of purchasing
provision items regularly from his shop from 2004 to
2008 and he was also running Chicken Kabab Stall,
which was near to my shop. After seeing Ex.P10-loan file
of accused No.13, this witness deposes that his
proprietary concern namely M/s.Veerabhadreshwara
Provisions Store and VAT registration Certificate stands
in his name and the same has been misused by accused
No.13-Ravindra by affixing his photograph on Ex.P10 to
open an account in the Bank and thereafter, he came to
know that accused No.13 has opened a fake account in
his business name by providing his business address and
60 Spl.CC.16/2017
his VAT registration number. He further deposed that, he
never opened any account in Indian Overseas Bank, at
Banashankari II Stage Branch, Bengaluru in the name of
his firm M/s.Veerabhadreshwara Provisions Store.
Except denial in his cross examination, nothing worth
has been elicited so as to disbelieve his testimony.
69. PW.37-D.A.Shailaja, the then Income Tax
Officer, has deposed that, during the course of enquiry
before I.O., she stated that the IT returns for the AY
2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 submitted by accused No.13-
Sri.Ravindra, the Proprietor of M/s.Veerabhadreshwara
Stores to Indian Overseas Bank are not genuine and are
not found available in their IT Office Data Portal as
accused No.13 had not filed his IT returns particulars for
any of the assessment years. In this regard, he submitted
a letter marked at Ex.P59. According to this witness,
since assessee [i.e. accused No.13] has not filed any
returns, therefore IT returns for AY 2010-11, 2011-12 &
2012-13 submitted to the Bank appear to have been
fabricated for the purpose of availing loan from the Bank.
Nothing worth has been elicited from the mouth of this
61 Spl.CC.16/2017
witness by the accused No.13 during the cross
examination.
70. It is the further case of prosecution that, in
pursuance of the criminal conspiracy, accused No.14-
Smt.Mangala Gowramma, the Proprietress of M/s.SLN
Glass Plywood & Hardwares has fraudulently and
dishonestly opened an account with Indian Overseas
Bank, BSK 2nd Stage Branch, Bengaluru and applied for
Over Draft loan of Rs.49 Lakhs in the name of her firm-
M/s.SLN Glass Plywood & Hardwares by submitting
forged and fabricated financial documents such as IT
Return, Provisional Balance Sheets, Profit and loss
Account and Etc., and got sanctioned the loan.
71. PW.1-Sri.K.S.Janakiraman, who is the
proprietor of M/s.S.Janakiraman and Company, has
deposed that, he never audited the books of accounts of
M/s S.L.N Glass Plywood and Hardwares Firm at any
time, he also not submitted any I.T.Returns of the said
firm at any time and he has not had any dealing with the
said firm at any time. He further deposed that, about 2
years back, CBI Officer has shown him balance-sheet of
62 Spl.CC.16/2017
M/s S.L.N Glass Plywood and Hardwares Firm for the
year ending on 31.3.2013 along with other records and
asked him to identify the rubber stamps affixed on the
said statements and signatures found thereon. This
witness told the CBI officers that, he has not at all
audited or signed or affixed the rubber stamp by name
Janakiraman and Associates, Chartered Accountants,
Bengaluru on the said statement shown to him by the
CBI officers. Further, this witness was shown a bunch of
papers consisting of copies of IT Returns, copies of Form
No.3CB and 3CD, Annexure-I, Profit and Loss Account
and Balance Sheet for the assessment years 2010-11,
2011-12 and 2012-13. After perusing the said
documents, this witness deposed that the said
documents did not bear his signatures, and rubber seal
affixed on the said documents as ‘Janakiraman and
Associates’ Chartered Accountants, is not belonging to
his Firm and said documents did not bear his
membership number.
72. PW.29-Sri.C.B.Prabanna Gowda, the then
Income Tax Officer, has deposed that, relating to Income
63 Spl.CC.16/2017
Tax returns submitted for the assessment years 2010-11,
2011-12 and 2012-13 pertaining to M/s. SLN Glass
Plywood and Hardware belonging to Smt. Mangala
Gowramma, she verified the IT return particulars in their
office system portal and submitted a report as per Ex.P52
stating that Smt.Mangala, the Proprietress of M/s.SLN
Glass Plywood and Hardware has not submitted any IT
returns for the year 2010-11 and 2012-13. The witness
further deposed that, as per Ex.P52 and office system
portal, the Income of assessee is shown as Rs.1,99,160/-,
for which Rs. 1,000/- is paid as tax in respect of IT
Returns filed for the year AY 2011-12; however, copy of IT
Return for the year AY 2011-12 in Ex.P1 submitted by
accused No.14 along with Ex.P11-Loan Papers discloses
Income as Rs.8,23,250/- and tax paid is shown as Rs.
1,00,914/-, which is not consistent with IT Return files
maintained in the system of their Office pertaining to
accused No.14-Smt.Mangala.
73. It is the further case of prosecution that, in
pursuance of the criminal conspiracy with other accused,
the accused No.15-Sri.Mallesh, the Proprietor of
64 Spl.CC.16/2017
M/s.Veeresh Provision Stores, has fraudulently and
dishonestly opened an account with Indian Overseas
Bank, BSK 2nd Stage Branch, Bengaluru and applied for
Over Draft loan of Rs.29 Lakhs in the name of his firm-
M/s.Veeresh Provision Stores by submitting forged and
fabricated financial documents such as IT Return,
Provisional Balance Sheets, Profit and loss Account and
Etc., and got sanctioned the loan.
74. PW.9-Sri.R.K.Senthil Kumar, Chartered
Accountant, deposed that Copies of IT Returns, Form
No.3CB & 3CD, Balance Sheet and Profit and Loss
Account, for the AY 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13
pertaining to M/s. Veeresh Provision Stores which are
available in Ex.P12, are all bear rubber stamp seal as
‘Partner, Senthil Umar R.K., M.No.029870 of M/s.
Rammesh Subramanian & Associates, Chartered
Accountants’. But the signatures seen in the said
documents are not belonged to him and the seal affixed
with rubber stamp on Ex.P12 does not belong to their
firm and their firm never dealt with any business with
firm M/s. Veeresh Provision Stores.
65 Spl.CC.16/2017
75. PW.35-Smt.Sandhya Anil, the then Income
Tax officer, has deposed that, during the course of
enquiry, the I.O./CBI had confronted her with IT Returns
available in Ex.P12 for the assessment years 2010-11,
2011-12 and 2012-13 pertaining to accused No.15-Sri.
Mallesh, the Proprietor of M/s.Veeresh Provisions Stor;
and on verification of the records she stated before the
I.O. that the said IT Returns submitted to avail the loan
were not genuine and they were was not found available
in their Office Data Portal as accused No.15-Sri.Mallesh,
the Proprietor of M/s.Veeresh Provisions Stores has not
filed his IT Returns particulars for any of the assessment
years. In this regard, he submitted letter along with
screenshot copy of document relating to non availability
of information of non filing of IT Returns in e-filing portal,
as per Ex.P57.
76. Further, PW.46-Sri.Nataraj J.S., a messenger
of Indian Overseas Bank, Banashankari II Stage Branch,
is a witness to proceedings/Mahazars drawn during the
inspection of various firms of accused borrowers. He is a
witness to Ex.P82 and Ex.P341. According to this
66 Spl.CC.16/2017
witness, in the month of August 2016, he along PW.51-
R.K.Shivanna, Inspector of Police, CBI and team
proceeded to Nandini layout, Nagarabhavi, Kengeri,
Ittamadu Main Road, Banashankari II Stage and
J.P.Nagar 5th Block for the inspection of various business
units like M/s.SLN Glass, Plywood & Hardware,
M/s.Annapoorneshwari Rice Traders, M/s.Veeresh
Provisions Store, M/s.NET 27 Technologies and
M/s.Veerabhadreshwara Stores and found that business
of the said units/stores were closed and no business was
run in the said firms in the premises of above said firms.
This witness further deposed that a Panchanama was
prepared, in that regard as per Ex.P82. Further, as per
evidence of PW51, another proceedings/Mahazar was
conducted as per Ex.P341 with regard to physical
verification of existence of firms of borrower/accused at
above mentioned places. The proceedings conducted as
per Ex.P82 and Ex.P341 support the evidence of PW.46
and PW.51.
77. Thus, from the above evidence of prosecution
witnesses, it is convincingly proved that, the accused
67 Spl.CC.16/2017
No.6 to 15, in pursuance of criminal conspiracy
submitted forged and fabricated financial documents to
the Banshankari II Stage Branch of Indian Overseas
Bank, Bengaluru and shown them as genuine and also
submitted wrong addresses of their firms, obtained the
loans in their firms’ names and thereby cheated the
Indian Overseas Bank and thereby, they committed the
offences punishable U/Sec.120-B, 420, 468 and 471 of
IPC.
Regarding Charges leveled against Accused No.1:
78. Now, coming to the charges levelled against
accused No.1-K.S.Srinivasan, as per complaint marked at
Ex.P20, it is specifically alleged that, accused No.1-
Srinivasan, during his tenure as Chief Manager of
Banashankari II Stage Branch, had sanctioned loans
under ‘Easy Trade Finance’ scheme to accused No.6 to 18
and fraud was detected in all 12 loans and there were
serious irregularities came to light in appraisal, sanction
and release of said loans.
79. It is pertinent to note here that, the Internal
Investigation Report marked at Ex.P22 and the
68 Spl.CC.16/2017
complaint-Ex.P20, which has been lodged based on
Investigation Report-Ex.P22, are pointing towards the
irregularities committed by the accused No.1-Srinivasan,
in particular, in the matter of appraisal, sanction and
disbursement of loans granted to the accused No.6 to 17.
It is alleged that, the accounts of borrowers/accused
No.6, 7, 9, 11 and 12 were introduced by an existing
customer of the Branch i.e. one Sri.M.R.Arun Kumar, the
Proprietor of M/s Ramya Enterprises on the behest of
accused No.5-Umesh Gurjar. Further, the account of
borrower/accused No.13 was introduced by
M/s.Banashankari Interior Works of accused No.17, who
is also borrower/accused and the accounts of M/s.SLN
Glass Plywood & Hardwares of accused No.14 &
M/s.Banshankari Interior Works of accused No.17 were
not introduced by anyone; despite that, accused No.1 had
permitted to open the said accounts of accused No.14
and 17.
80. The evidence on record further shows that,
the Branch has not conducted Pre-sanction Inspection of
Unit/Firms of accused/borrowers which is mandatory,
69 Spl.CC.16/2017
before sanctioning the loans; further, signatures of
introducers of some of the loan accounts of
accused/borrowers were not verified; and certificates
from second line managers of the branch on proper
execution of documents were not obtained. Despite that,
the accused No.1-K.S.Srinivasan, the then Chief Manager
of the Branch had permitted to open the account without
complying with KYC Norms and sanctioned CC limit of
Rs.100 lakhs under “Easy Trade Finance” to M/s.Maxtel
Enterprises of accused No.6 [Loan A/c
No.129802000001722] on 01.08.2012; further
sanctioned CC limit of Rs.100 lakhs each to
M/s.M.S.Sales Corporation of accused No.7 [Loan A/c
No.129802000001723] and M/s.G.M.Enterprises of
accused No.8 [Loan A/c No.129802000001723], under
“Easy Trade Finance” on 01.08.2012. Further, on
18.06.2012, the accused No.1 sanctioned CC limit of
Rs.98 lakhs to M/s.G.Hanumantappa & Sons of accused
No.9 [Loan A/c No.129802000001721]; further, on
08.08.2012, he sanctioned CC limit of Rs.49 lakhs to
M/s.NET Technologies of accused No.10 [Loan A/c
70 Spl.CC.16/2017
No.129802000001731]; further, on 01.08.2012, he
sanctioned CC limit of Rs.70 lakhs to M/s.Sri Sai Rice
Traders of accused No.11 [Loan A/c
No.129802000001730]; further, on 27.09.2012, he
sanctioned CC limit of Rs.70 lakhs to
M/s.Annapoorneshwari Rice Traders of accused No.12
[Loan A/c No.129802000001741]; further, on
07.05.2013, he sanctioned CC limit of Rs.46.50 lakhs to
M/s.Veeranhadreshwara Stores of accused No.13 [Loan
A/c No.129802000001756]; further, on 31.01.2013, he
sanctioned CC limit of Rs.49 lakhs to M/s.SLN Glass
Plywood & Hardwares of accused No.14 [Loan A/c
No.129802000001750]; further, on 16.10.2012, he
sanctioned CC limit of Rs.29 lakhs to M/s.Veeresh
Provision Stores of accused No.15 [Loan A/c
No.129802000001745]; further, on 18.08.2012, he
sanctioned CC limit of Rs.73 lakhs to
M/s.Venkateshwara Hardware & Plumbing of accused
No.16 [Loan A/c No.129802000001734]; and further, on
18.04.2013, he sanctioned CC limit of Rs.98 lakhs to
71 Spl.CC.16/2017
M/s.Banashankari Interior Works of accused No.17 [Loan
A/c No.129802000001732].
81. Further, the evidence on record shows that,
though the accused No.6/borrower is not eligible to avail
loan under “Easy Trade Finance” as he himself declared
in the account opening form that he is engaged in
“Distributor & Stockist” business, which does not fall
under ETF scheme of the bank; but the loan was
sanctioned without confirming the eligibility of accused
No.6-Jitendra Bhandari. Further, accused No.1 has
sanctioned loan to M/s.M.M.Sales Corporation of
accused No.7, though said firm was not eligible borrower
as the borrower himself declared in his account opening
form that he is the Distributor, which is not eligible
under Easy Trade Finance scheme. Further, the firm of
accused No.8 was not eligible for loan as the accused
No.8/borrower herself declared in her account opening
form that she is engaged in electrical distribution which
is not eligible under ETF Scheme. Further, accused No.1
had also sanctioned loan to M/s.G.Hanumanthappa &
Sons of accused No.9, though said borrower/firm was not
72 Spl.CC.16/2017
eligible borrower as borrower/accused No.9 himself
declared that he is a commission agent in fruit market,
which is not trader and not eligible for loan under ETF
Scheme. So also, accused No.1 had sanctioned loan to
M/s.NET 27 Technologies of accused No.10, engaged in
software development business which is not eligible for
loan under ETF Scheme.
82. It is also seen from the evidence on record
that, in many of the cases, the accused/borrowers have
not submitted VAT returns to cross check the turnover of
the firms mentioned in the fake and fabricated financial
balance sheets submitted to the Bank. Further, in
respect of loan of few firms such as firms of accused No.6
and 7, the appraisal note dated:01.08.2012 was done by
accused No.1-K.S. Srinivasan, without involving credit
officer/second line manager of the branch. Moreover, the
IT returns and other documents of the firms of all
accused/borrowers submitted to the bank are fake,
fabricated and forged financial documents and the same
were used as genuine.
73 Spl.CC.16/2017
83. It is also on record that, the accused No.1-
Chief Manager had sanctioned Rs.100 Lakhs to the firm
of accused No.8 on 01.08.2012 as per Ex.P5(e), which is
prior to opening of current account with Branch as
current account was opened on 13/14.08.2012 as per
Ex.P5. Thus, it is very clear that, the loan was sanctioned
to a non-existing customer prior to opening the current
account with the Branch.
84. It is pertinent to note that, some of firms of
accused were not at all existed in their given addresses.
The firm M/s.Sri. Veerabadhreswara Stores of accused
No.13 was not existing in the given address i.e. at No.27,
Ittamdu Main Road, Ittamadu, BSK 3 rd Stage,
Bengaluru-560085. Further, in case of M/s.Veeresh
Provision Stores, the said firm was not existing in the
given address i.e. at No.6, 80 Feet Road, KHB Colony,
Kengeri Upanagar, Bengaluru-560060. Further, the firm
M/s.SLN Glass Plywood & Hardwares of accused No.14
was not existing in the given address i.e. at No.46, 4 th
Cross, Jai Maruthi Nagar, Nandini Layout, Bengaluru-
560096. In this regard, Pre and Post-sanction inspection
74 Spl.CC.16/2017
of the unit/firms was not done by the Branch to confirm
the existence and functioning of said firms of accused
No.13 to 15.
85. Further, the evidence on record discloses that,
as many as 4 to 5 accounts of accused/borrowers were
introduced by one existing customer i.e. PW.24 at the
behest of accused No.5, though said introducer was not
personally known to said accused/borrowers; further, in
respect of firms of Accused No.14 and 17, the account
was not introduced by anybody which is mandatory; and
even in respect of some firms of accused, the signatures
of introducer were not verified by the Branch. Despite
that, accused No.1-K.S.Srinivasan had permitted to open
said account without properly complying with KYC
norms. Further, in respect of accused No.14, as per
guidelines, the Branch has failed to obtain the Credit
Report on the borrower from Karnataka State Co-
operative Apex Bank Ltd., with whom accused No.14 had
prior banking transactions.
86. The evidence on record further discloses that,
after the sanction of the credit facilities to the firms of
75 Spl.CC.16/2017
accused No.1 to 17, the accused No.1-Sri.K.S.Srinivasan
has not conducted Post-sanction inspection of the
units/firms to ensure proper end use of the loan
proceeds and the loan amount was allowed to be
siphoned off by way of cash withdrawal and transfers
which are not related to the business transactions of
firms of accused/borrowers.
87. Thus, it is convincingly proved by the
prosecution that, in furtherance of criminal conspiracy,
the accused No.1-K.S.Srinivasan, in collusion with
accused No.5 and 18; and accused No.6 to 15, has
sanctioned 12 loans to accused No.6 to 17 under ‘Easy
Trade Finance’ Scheme by violating the rules and
regulations of the Bank, without ascertaining the
credibility of borrowers, without conducting Pre & Post
sanction inspections for confirming the existence of the
units/firms and knowing fully well that the financial
documents submitted were forged and fabricated, with
dishonest intention to cheat the Indian Overseas Bank,
and also allowed to siphon off the loan amounts without
ensuring the end use of the funds. Accordingly, this court
76 Spl.CC.16/2017
holds that, the prosecution has proved that accused No.1
has committed the offences punishable U/Sec.120-B and
Sec.420 read with Sec.120-B of IPC.
88. So far as charge leveled against accused No.1
for the offence punishable under Sec.13(2) read with
Sec.13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is
concerned, the prosecution has failed to prove with
cogent evidence that the accused No.1 has obtained
pecuniary advantage either from accused No.5 and 18 or
from accused No.6 to 15. In fact, during his cross
examination, the Investigating Officer-PW.54, has
admitted that ‘the investigation has not revealed any
incriminating material to show that accused No.1
has received any illegal gratification’. It is the first
and foremost burden on the prosecution that, accused
No.1, being a Public Servant, has obtained a pecuniary
advantage for sanctioning of loan to accused No.6 to 15
by corrupt or illegal means and by abusing his position
as loan sanctioning authority/Chief Manager of the
Branch. In the case of A. Subair Vs. State of Kerala
reported in 2009 Cr.L.J.3450, it is held that:
77 Spl.CC.16/2017
“The legal position is no more res
integra that primary requisite of an offence
under Section 13 (1) (d) of the Act is proof of
demand or request for valuable thing or
pecuniary advantage from the public servant.
In other words, in the absence of proof of
demand or request from the public servant for
a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage, the
offence under Section 13 (1) (d) cannot be held
to be established.”
89. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court while dealing
with provision under Sec.5(1)(d) of PC Act, 1947 [akin to
Sec.13(1) (d) of PC Act, 1988] in the case of
S.P.Bhatnagar and another vs. State of
Maharashtra, reported in AIR 1979 SC 826, held as
under:
“The abuse of position in order to come
within the mischief of S.5 (1)(d) must
necessarily be dishonest so that it may be
proved that the Accused caused deliberate loss
to the department. It is for the prosecution to
prove affirmatively that the Accused by
corrupt or illegal means or by abusing his
position obtained any pecuniary advantage for
some other person”.
78 Spl.CC.16/2017
90. However, in the case on hand, the prosecution
has failed in establishing that accused No.1, being a
public servant, has obtained pecuniary advantage by
illegal or corrupt means from accused No.6 to 15 by
misusing his official position and thereby committed
criminal misconduct punishable U/Sec.13(2) read with
Sec.13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Regarding Charges leveled against Accused No.2 to 4:
91. So far accused No.2 to 4 are concerned, there
is no evidence at all to prove that they, being the public
servants, also participated in criminal conspiracy in
collusion with accused No.1, 5 and 6 to 15 in the matter
of sanctioning the loans to accused No.6 to 15 in a
fraudulent manner and thereby, they cheated the Indian
Overseas Bank and caused loss to the Bank.
92. It is true that, it has come in the chief
evidence of PW.2 that, the accused No.2-Muralidharan
B.N., the Second Line Manager has accepted the loan
documents of accused No.6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15 and
16 after verifying the same and loans to firms of said
accused were sanctioned by accused No.1. Further, it has
79 Spl.CC.16/2017
also come in the chief evidence of PW.2 that, the accused
No.3-V.N.Gururajarao, the Manager has accepted the
loan documents of accused No.14 after verifying the same
and loan to firm of said accused No.14 was sanctioned by
accused No.1. Further, PW.2 has deposed in his
examination-in-chief that, accused No.4-Smt.Valli.K.S.,
the Manager has accepted the loan documents of accused
No.13 and 17 after verifying the same and loan to firms of
said accused No.13 and 17 was sanctioned by accused
No.1.
93. However, there is no written work order
produced by the prosecution to show that the accused
No.2 to 4 are the second line managers, who were allotted
to job of verifying the loan documents and submit before
the Branch Manager. In fact, during his cross
examination done by the learned counsel for the accused
No.2 to 4, PW.2 has stated that, no distinct written order
passed by the Chief Manager-accused No.1 categorizing
the duties Addl. Managers for looking after advancing
loan section and crediting loan section. Further, for the
Question, ‘On verifying Ex.P3 to P14, you cannot say that
80 Spl.CC.16/2017
accused No.2 to 4 have verified the loan applications and
credit sanction advance records ?’, posed by the learned
counsel for the accused No.2 to 4, PW.2 has answered
that, ‘I have only identified the signatures of officers and
managers’. Thus, it means that, even PW.2 is not clear
enough and specific in stating that accused No.2 to 4 are
the officers who were entrusted with the work of
verification of loan documents. Moreover, there is no
materials to show whether Investigating Officer has
collected office orders of then Chief Manager of the
Branch deputing accused No.2 to 4 to work as Second
Line Managers during the process of 12 loans granted to
the accused No.6 to 17 under ‘Easy Trade Finance’
scheme.
94. Further, as per Ex.D3, which is portion of
statement of PW.3-Sri.Vasantha Kumar, ‘the Second
Line Manager provides certificates to the Branch
Manager stating that all documents and mortgage
are perfect.’ However, in his examination-in-chief, PW.3
has deposed that, he found some irregularities with
respect to loan documents marked at Ex.P3 to P14 that
81 Spl.CC.16/2017
accused No.1 has not obtained certificates issued by
second line officers/managers with regard to proper
execution of all documents submitted by the borrowers.
That means, there is no material to suggest that accused
No.2 to 4 were the second line managers/officers, who
were processed and verified the loan documents of
accused/borrowers and issued certificates to the Branch
Manager-accused No.1, in that regard. Moreover, during
his cross examination done by the counsel for the
accused No.2 to 4, it is admitted by PW.3 that, as per
circular, without obtaining a certificate of loan document,
if the loan amount is disbursed, then the First Line
Manager [i.e. Chief Manager of the Branch] is solely
responsible for the documentation; in other words, the
Second Line Manager is not responsible for
documentation of loan disbursed. Added to this, PW.5
has deposed in his chief evidence that, in some cases [i.e.
pertaining to loans of accused No.6 to 17], second line
officers were not involved in processing and appraisal
report.
82 Spl.CC.16/2017
95. Thus, from the evidence of PW.2, PW.3 and
PW.5, it is clear that, there is no cogent evidence
produced by the prosecution to suggest that the accused
No.2 to 4 are only the officers who were worked as second
line managers during the time of process and sanction of
loans to accused No.6 to 17 and in case, they worked as
second line managers, then there should have been
certificates issued by them for having verified the loan
documents; but as per evidence of PW.3, the accused
No.1 has not obtained said certificates from second line
managers.
96. Further, it is very important to note here that,
during his entire chief evidence, PW.3 never taken the
names of accused No.2 to 4 in attributing irregularities
against them, which were committed in sanctioning loans
to accused No.6 to 17. His chief evidence points out
towards the irregularities committed by accused No.1.
97. Further, PW.28-Sri.Prasad A.V., then Senior
Manager in Indian Overseas Bank and also was an
assistant General secretary of IOB Officers Association,
has deposed that, at that time, accused No.4-Smt.Valli
83 Spl.CC.16/2017
K.S., was Assistant Manager of Banashankari 2 nd Stage
Branch, who telephoned him and informed him about
submitting of some statement of accounts every month to
Regional Office and she had been asked to sign some of
the monthly statement papers by then Chief Manager
accused No.1-Srinivasan; so he went and met her
personally in the Branch and she was not ready to sign
the monthly statement papers, the reason being that, she
was not aware of the transactions and he told her that he
will discuss with the higher authorities; and in the
meanwhile, within 24 hours, the Manager-accused No.1
had received his transfer order and he was shifted to a
different Branch. Thus, this piece of evidence of PW.28
shows that accused No.1 had much interest in
sanctioning the loans to accused No.6 to 17.
98. The evidence of PW.13 also pointed towards
the overt act committed by accused No.1. That PW.13
was worked as Senior Manager in Indian Overseas Bank
at Regional Office, Bengaluru from June 2012 to July
2013 and was also looking after the credit monitoring of
Banashankari II Stage Branch along with other branches
84 Spl.CC.16/2017
of Bangalore Region. As per evidence of PW.13, the
accused No.1 had prepared all the office notes and
sanctioned the loans to accused/borrowers. In his cross,
PW.13 stated that all the loan sanctioned by the branch
Manager shall be forwarded to him with CAF-I Form and
admitted that, in the CAF-I Form, the signatures of
accused No.2 to 4 were not found. He, after seeing Ex.P3
to 14, further stated that they do not bear any mark of
CAF-I document.
99. Further, the Investigating officer-PW.54,
during his cross examination, at one stretch, has
admitted suggestions to the effect that, the accused No.2
to 4 have worked in Indian Overseas Bank, Banashankari
II Stage Branch at different point of time and they had
not been deputed during their tenure in the Branch to
look after the advance section. But the very next moment,
the I.O. has denied the suggestion that, accused No.2 to
4 were not the second line managers for the advance
section of the Branch. Thus, the I.O. himself is not clear
in stating whether accused No.2 to 4 were worked in the
advance section as second line managers during relevant
85 Spl.CC.16/2017
point of time. It shows that, the I.O. has not collected
cogent evidence to show that the accused No.2 to 4 have
worked as Second Line Managers in the Branch and who
only dealt with verification work of loan documents of
accused No.6 to 17.
100. Therefore, this court is of the opinion that, the
prosecution has not produced cogent and sufficient
evidence to prove that accused No.2 to 4 have also
involved in the criminal conspiracy with other accused
and played an active role in sanctioning the loans to
accused No.6 to 17 under ETF Scheme in a fraudulent
manner and obtained pecuniary advantage from
borrowers/accused and thereby cheated the Bank.
Regarding Charges leveled against Accused No.5 and 18:
101. So far as charges levelled against accused No.5
and 18 are concerned, the learned Public Prosecutor has
argued that, accused No.5-Umesh Gurjar is the key
person and mediator between accused No.1 and other
accused and he arranged all the forged and fabricated
financial documents to get the loans from the Bank, in
favour of accused No.6 to 17. He further argued that,
86 Spl.CC.16/2017
accused No.18-Smt.Priya Chiplunkar, she being the wife
of accused No.5, has facilitated for floating the funds
from the Borrowers’ Bank Accounts to her Bank account
which was maintained with Indian Overseas Bank and
thereby she also became part of criminal conspiracy and
committed the offence of cheating.
102. In order to prove the unholy link between
accused No.1 and 5, the prosecution has examined
PW.10-Sri.H.V.Nagarajarao. He is the Panel Advocate of
Indian Overseas Bank. He deposed that, as per verbal
request of then Chief Manager-Sri.Srinivas [i.e. accused
No.1] of Banashankari II Stage Branch, he submitted his
legal opinions marked as per Ex.P3(d) pertaining to the
firm of accused No.6; as per Ex.P4(d) of accused No.7; as
per Ex.P5(d) of accused No.8; as per Ex.P6(e) of accused
No.9; as per Ex.P7(d) of accused No.10; as per Ex.P8(e) of
accused No.11; as per Ex.P9(e) of accused No.12; as per
Ex.P10(d) of accused No.13; as per Ex.P12(e) of accused
No.15; and as per Ex.P13(d) of accused No.16.
103. PW.10 further specifically deposed that, legal
opinion documents were brought and produced by the
87 Spl.CC.16/2017
accused No.5-Umesh Gurjar. The witness further deposed
that, in the year 2012, said Umesh Gurjar approached
him stating that he is a chartered accountant and
referred by accused No.1-Chief Manager, but he declined
to entertain him; therefore, he went back to
Banashankari II Stage Branch and made a call to his
mobile phone and handed it over to accused No.1 who
confirmed that his address was given to said Umesh
Gurjar by him and asked him to give his legal opinion on
the basis of records brought by said Umesh Gurjar.
Though this witness has been cross examined by the
counsel for accused No.1, but there is no any single
suggestion put to the witness to the effect that, accused
No.1 did not send legal opinion documents with accused
No.5 or accused No.1 never spoke with the witness
through the mobile phone of accused No.5, asking him
to give his legal opinion on the basis of records brought
by Umesh Gurjar. Thus, the link between accused No.1
and 5 as deposed by the witness is not at all denied by
the accused No.1.
88 Spl.CC.16/2017
104. Further, during the cross examination of
PW.10, the learned counsel for the accused No.5 has
posed a question to the witness, as under:
Question: Whether accused No.5 had come to
your office with loan papers filed before the
Bank along with covering letters addressed to
you by the Bank’s authorized person ?
The answer to the above question by the witness is as
under;
Answer: On 1st occasion A.5 had come with
loan papers. I refused to examine the
documents as he was stranger to the loan
transaction. Then I received a call from A.1-Br.
Manager who informed me that A.5 is
authorized person from the Bank who submits
loan documents for legal opinion. Later, A.5
came again with covering letters addressed by
the Bank’s authorized persons.
Thus, from the very question of learned counsel for the
accused No.5 and answer given to the said question,
again confirms the relationship of accused No.5 with
accused No.1. The very testimony of PW.10 discloses that
accused No.5 has acted as middleman between accused
89 Spl.CC.16/2017No.1 and accused No.6 to 17, in getting loans to
accused/borrowers in fraudulent manner.
105. As per evidence of PW.24, he knows accused
No.5-Umesh Gurjar. He was holding an account in
Banashankari II Stage Branch in the name of M/s.Ramya
Enterprises. That accused No.5 had requested him to
identify him and others to open accounts in the Bank;
and accordingly, he agreed to identify accused No.5 and
few others to open bank account. His evidence further
goes to show that, he has introduced accused No.6, 7, 9,
11, 12 and 16 for opening of accounts in the Branch at
the behest of accused No.5. In his cross examination, he
denied a suggestion that the accused No.5 never
requested him to identify the accused persons to open
the accounts. Except this denial, there is no worth has
been elicited from the mouth of PW.24 so as to disbelieve
his testimony. Thus, from the very evidence of PW.24, it
is clear that, accused No.5 had played a specific role, at
the beginning itself, in getting loans to
accused/borrowers fraudulently.
90 Spl.CC.16/2017
106. Further, the account of accused No.18, who is
wife of accused No.5, was used for diversion of funds and
several amounts have been transferred to the accounts of
accused No.5 and 18 from the loan proceeds sanctioned
by the Branch to the firms/units of accused No.6 to 17.
As per Internal Investigation Report marked at Ex.P22, a
total amount of Rs.58 Lakhs was credited to accused
No.18-Smt.Priya Chiplunkar [SB A/c.No.12551,
maintained with Banashankari II Stage Branch] from the
various loan proceeds.
107. During the cross of PW.54-Investigating
Officer, it is suggested by the counsel for the accused
No.5 that, ‘the transactions of borrowers in the present
case with accused No.5 are not pertaining to this case but
with respect to some other business’; for which, PW.54
has denied the same. However, except this plain
suggestion, the accused No.5 has not demonstrated
before this court with cogent documents that said
transactions with accused/borrowers are pertaining to
some other business. Even in his statement U/Sec.313 of
Cr.P.C., there is no any explanation from accused No.5
91 Spl.CC.16/2017
regarding the financial transactions between himself and
accused/borrowers except answering as ‘False’. With
respect to accused No.18, the counsel put a suggestion to
PW.54 to the effect that, ‘no such transactions were
routed through the account of accused No.18’; for which,
PW.54 has denied the same. Even the accused No.18 has
failed show for what purpose she has received several
amounts to her account form the accused/borrowers, as
canvassed by the prosecution. Even in her statement
U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. also, there is no any explanation
regarding transfer of various amounts to her account by
the accused/borrowers, except answering as ‘False’.
108. Thus, this court is of the opinion that, the
prosecution has proved the charges against accused No.5
beyond reasonable doubt that, the accused No.5-Umesh
Gurjar, acted as a Middleman between the accused No.1
and other accused/borrowers with respect to sanction of
loan and he mobilized and brought accused No.6 to
17/borrowers and introduced them to the Bank, assisted
and facilitated them in getting the loan from Indian
Overseas Bank by arranging fake and fabricated financial
92 Spl.CC.16/2017
documents, by colluding with accused No.1. It is also
proved that the accused No.18-Smt.Priya Chiplunkar,
being the wife of accused No.5, has facilitated for floating
the various funds from the accused/borrowers’ Bank
Accounts to her Bank account which was maintained
with Indian Overseas Bank and thereby she also became
part of criminal conspiracy and committed the offence of
cheating and thereby the accused No.5 and 18 have
committed the offences punishable U/Sec.120-B and
Sec.420 of IPC.
109. It is vehemently argued by the learned
counsel for the accused No.1 that, the loan to the
concerned borrowers was granted as per banking norms
and procedures, after getting legal opinion and valuers
reports and as such, there is no personal interest of
accused No.1 in sanctioning loans to accused/borrowers.
That out of total 12 loans, 6 loans were already repaid by
the concerned borrowers to the Bank. He never obtained
any pecuniary advantage from any of the accused by
misusing his official position. That there is sufficient
security for recovery of loans so sanctioned, as all loans
93 Spl.CC.16/2017
were secured loans. That he had not entertained any
middlemen in granting loans in question including
Umesh Gujjar as alleged by the prosecution. That the
prosecution has not proved that accused No.1, in
pursuance of criminal conspiracy with other accused,
has sanctioned the loans to accused/borrowers in a
fraudulent manner, as alleged by the prosecution.
Accordingly, the learned counsel prayed for acquittal of
accused No.1.
110. It is true that, all the loans availed by the
accused/borrowers were secured loans and Panel
Advocates and Panel Valuers of the Bank have also given
positive reports regarding title and valuation of
properties. But it is the proven fact that the
accused/borrowers have submitted fake and financial
documents to the Bank and succeeded in getting the
loans. The accused No.1, being the Chief Manager of the
Branch, had to be diligent in processing the loan files of
accused/borrowers. But the evidence of prosecution
shows that accused No.1 himself has colluded with
accused No.5 and other accused and sanctioned the
94 Spl.CC.16/2017
loans in a fraudulent manner, causing loss to the Bank.
Therefore, it is not mere a question of secured loans, but
it is the way the accused were granted loans under ETF
Scheme and what documents submitted by them to the
Bank. Therefore, the fact that loans granted were secured
loans, does not diminish the criminal intent of the
accused who have played fraud by conspiring with each
other, causing loss of Rs.3.86 Crores to Indian Overseas
Bank, Banashankari II Stage Branch, Bengaluru.
111. With regard to offence of criminal conspiracy,
there are circumstances which connect the accused No.1
with accused No.5 and accused No.6 to 15 in sanctioning
the loans to accused/borrowers in conspiracy with
dishonest intention. The accused No.1, being the head of
branch, ought to have diligent in sanctioning the loans.
The prosecution evidence, as appreciated by this court,
unequivocally pointing towards the accused No.1 that he
has sanctioned 12 loans to accused/borrowers in gross
violation of Bank procedure, circulars, rules and
regulations. Therefore, it cannot be said the prosecution
95 Spl.CC.16/2017
has not proved criminal conspiracy by the accused No.1
with other accused.
112. It is the contention of learned counsels for the
accused No.6 to 8, 11 and 14 that, the accused No 6 to 8,
11 and 14 have already cleared their loan amounts and
even the Bank has issued formal acknowledgment to that
effect; therefore, once the entire loan amount was repaid
by the the accused No 6 to 8, 11 and 14, then there is no
criminality attributed against them.
113. However, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor
for the CBI, has vehemently argued that, merely because
loans were repaid by the accused, their criminal liability
cannot be brushed away as it is proved that accused
have obtained loans in a fraudulent manner. He further
argued that, the accused No.6 to 8, 11 and 14 cannot
escape from their criminality merely on the ground that
they have already paid their loans.
114. In the case of PARBATBHAI AAHIR @
PARBATBHAI BHIMSINHBHAI KARMUR AND ORS. VS.
STATE OF GUJARAT & Another, reported in (2017) 9
SCC 641, the Hon’ble Apex Court headed by the Bench of
96 Spl.CC.16/2017
Three Hon’ble Judges, has laid down certain proposition
with respect to power of High Court U/Sec.482 of Cr.P.C.,
in quashing criminal proceedings upon settlement of
disputes. In Paragraph No.15, the Hon’ble Court has laid
down certain propositions. The relevant propositions No.
(vii), (ix) and (x) of Paragraph No.15 of the said judgment
are as under:
(viii) Criminal cases involving offences
which arise from commercial, financial,
mercantile, partnership or similar transactions
with an essentially civil flavour may in
appropriate situations fall for quashing where
parties have settled the dispute;
(ix) In such a case, the High Court may
quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the
compromise between the disputants, the
possibility of a conviction is remote and the
continuation of a criminal proceeding would
cause oppression and prejudice; and
(x) There is yet an exception to the principle
set out in propositions (viii) and (ix) above.
Economic offences involving the financial and
economic well-being of the state have
implications which lie beyond the domain of a
mere dispute between private disputants. The
97 Spl.CC.16/2017
High Court would be justified in declining to
quash where the offender is involved in an
activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or
misdemeanour. The consequences of the act
complained of upon the financial or economic
system will weigh in the balance.
115. Thus, under proposition No.(x) of Paragraph
No.15 of its judgment, the Hon’ble Apex Court has
specifically held that, economic offences involving the
financial and economic well-being of the state have
implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere
dispute between private disputants and thereby laid
down a principle that criminal proceedings involving
serious economic offences cannot be quashed upon
settlement held between the Bank and accused.
116. Further, in the above referred case, the
Hon’ble Apex Court has also made reference of its earlier
two judgments passed in the cases of State of
Maharashtra v Vikram Anantrai Doshi and Central
Bureau of Investigation v Maninder Singh, at
Paragraphs No.12 and 13.
98 Spl.CC.16/2017
“12. In State of Maharashtra v Vikram Anantrai
Doshi, a bench of two learned Judges of this Court
explained the earlier decisions and the principles which
must govern in deciding whether a criminal proceeding
involving a non-compoundable offence should be quashed.
In that case, the respondents were alleged to have
obtained Letters of Credit from a bank in favour of fictitious
entities. The charge-sheet involved offences under Sections
406, 420, 467, 468, and 471 read with Section 120-B of
the Penal Code. Bogus beneficiary companies were alleged
to have got them discounted by attaching fabricated bills.
Mr Justice Dipak Misra (as the learned Chief Justice then
was) emphasised that the case involved an allegation of
forgery; hence the court was not dealing with a simple
case where “the accused had borrowed money from a
bank, to divert it elsewhere”. The court held that the
manner in which Letters of Credit were issued and funds
were siphoned off had a foundation in criminal law:
“… availing of money from a nationalized bank
in the manner, as alleged by the investigating
agency, vividly exposits fiscal impurity and, in a
way, financial fraud. The modus operandi as
narrated in the charge-sheet cannot be put in
the compartment of an individual or personal
wrong. It is a social wrong and it has immense
societal impact. It is an accepted principle of
handling of finance that whenever there is
manipulation and cleverly conceived contrivance
to avail of these kind of benefits it cannot be
regarded as a case having overwhelmingly and
predominatingly of civil character. The ultimate
victim is the collective. It creates a hazard in the
financial interest of the society. The gravity of
the offence creates a dent in the economic spine
of the nation.”
99 Spl.CC.16/2017
The judgment of the High Court quashing the criminal
proceedings was hence set aside by this Court.
13. The same principle was followed in Central Bureau
of Investigation v Maninder Singh by a bench of two
learned Judges of this Court. In that case, the High Court
had, in the exercise of its inherent power under Section
482 quashed proceedings under Sections 420, 467, 468
and 471 read with Section 120-B of the Penal Code. While
allowing the appeal filed by the Central Bureau of
Investigation Mr Justice Dipak Misra (as the learned Chief
Justice then was) observed that the case involved
allegations of forgery of documents to embezzle the funds
of the bank. In such a situation, the fact that the dispute
had been settled with the bank would not justify a
recourse to the power under Section 482:
“…In economic offences Court must not only
keep in view that money has been paid to the
bank which has been defrauded but also the
society at large. It is not a case of simple
assault or a theft of a trivial amount; but the
offence with which we are concerned is well
planned and was committed with a deliberate
design with an eye of personal profit regardless
of consequence to the society at large. To quash
the proceeding merely on the ground that the
accused has settled the amount with the bank
would be a misplaced sympathy. If the
prosecution against the economic offenders are
not allowed to continue, the entire community is
aggrieved.”
100 Spl.CC.16/2017
117. The case on hand also involves the allegations
of criminal conspiracy, submitting fake and fabricated
documents to the Bank, getting loans in a fraudulent
manner and cheating by the accused/borrowers in mis-
utilizing the loan proceeds. After sanction of loans, the
manner in which loan proceeds were siphoned off, which
clearly shows a foundation for criminal action against the
accused herein. Therefore, the modus operandi of the
accused as demonstrated by the prosecution before this
court in getting the loans in a fraudulent manner and
thereafter, siphoning off the loan proceeds and later,
settling the dues, cannot be treated as a matter of civil
nature.
118. It is important to note here that, the offences
which are committed in relation with the Banking
transactions have a harmful effect on the public at large
and public exchequer which weakens the very economic
discipline of the country. Therefore, the criminality done
by the accused cannot be washed away merely on the
ground that loans availed by the accused No.6 to 8, 11
and 14 are already cleared.
101 Spl.CC.16/2017
119. Thus, the prosecution has proved with cogent
evidence that, the accused No.6 to 15, who in the name
of different proprietary concerns, some of them were even
not existing, have opened accounts in Indian Overseas
Bank, Banashankari II Stage Branch, Bengaluru and
applied loan under ‘Easy Trade Finance’ Scheme by
submitting fake and fabricated financial documents
which were arranged by accused No.5, a middleman and
availed loans in a fraudulent manner in collusion with
accused No.1-Chief Manager of the Bank and after
sanction of loan, the loan proceeds were mis-utilized by
accused No.6 to 15 and also several amounts have been
transferred to the accounts of accused No.5 and 18.
120. Therefore, I hold that the prosecution has
established beyond all reasonable doubt that, accused
No.1, 5 to 15 and 18 have committed the offences of
criminal conspiracy, cheating and dishonestly inducing
delivery of funds, forging the documents for the purpose
of cheating and using the same as genuine documents,
which are punishable U/Secs.120-B, 420, 468 and 471
of IPC. However, the prosecution has failed in proving the
102 Spl.CC.16/2017
charges leveled against accused No.2 to 4, beyond
reasonable doubt. Accordingly, I answered the Point No.2
in the Affirmative in respect of accused No.1, 5 to 15
and 18; and in the Negative in respect of Accused No.2
to 4; further, I answered the Point No.3 in the
Affirmative in respect of accused No.1, 5 to 15 and 18;
and in the Negative in respect of Accused No.2 to 4;
further, I answered the Points No.4 and 5 in the
Affirmative; and Point No.6 in the Negative.
121. Point No.7: In the light of above discussion, I
proceed to pass following:
ORDER
Acting U/Sec.235(1) of Cr.P.C., the
Accused No.1 is acquitted for the offences
punishable U/Sec.13(2) r/w. Sec.13(1)(d) of
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Further, acting U/Sec.235(1) of Cr.P.C.,
the Accused No.2 to 4 are acquitted for the
offences punishable U/Secs.120-B & 420 of
IPC and U/Sec.13(2) r/w. Sec.13(1)(d) of
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
103 Spl.CC.16/2017
Acting U/Sec.235(2) of Cr.P.C., the
Accused No.1, 5 to 15 and 18 are convicted
for the offence punishable U/Sec.120-B of
IPC.
Further, acting U/Sec.235(2) of Cr.P.C.,
the Accused No.1, 5 to 15 and 18 are
convicted for the offence punishable
U/Sec.420 read with Sec.120-B of IPC.
Further, acting U/Sec.235(2) of Cr.P.C.,
the Accused No.6 to 15 are convicted for the
offence punishable U/Sec.468 of IPC.
Further, acting U/Sec.235(2) of Cr.P.C.,
the Accused No.6 to 15 are convicted for the
offence punishable U/Sec.471 r/w. Sec.468
of IPC.
The bail bonds of accused and that of
sureties are hereby stand discharged.
[Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I directly on the
computer, corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open
Court on this the 27th day of April 2026]. .
[Manjunath Sangreshi]
XXI Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge
& Prl.Special Judge for CBI Cases
Bengaluru.
104 Spl.CC.16/2017
ORDER ON SENTENCE
In the instant case, the Accused No.1, 5 to 15 and
18 are convicted for the offences punishable U/Sec.120-B
and Sec.420 of IPC; and further, the Accused No.6 to 15
are convicted for the offences punishable U/Sec.468 &
471 of IPC.
2. Heard the accused persons and their
respective learned counsels and also Ld. Senior Public
Prosecutor, regarding sentence.
3. The learned counsel for the accused No.1
submitted that accused No.1 has rendered flawless
service in Indian Overseas Bank and he got appreciated
for his service and awarded. Now, he is retired from the
service. He is senior citizen suffering from age old
ailments and his wife is also suffering from ailments.
Hence, it is prayed for leniency in imposing sentence
against him.
4. The learned counsel for the accused No.5 and
18 submitted that the offences for which the accused
No.5 and 18 are convicted are not of serious nature and
not punishable with any capital punishment. That
105 Spl.CC.16/2017
accused No.5 and 18 are husband and wife and if they
are sent to jail, then their children will be thrown to the
street. Hence, it is prayed to impose minimum sentence
against the accused No.5 and 18 by taking lenient view.
5. The learned counsel for accused No.6 to 8
submitted that accused No.6 to 8 have already closed
their loan accounts by paying entire loan amount. The
respective families of accused No.6 to 8 are entirely
depending on accused No.6 to 8. Further, it is submitted
that, the accused No.7 is paralyzed person; hence,
considering the same, it is prayed to take the lenient view
while sentencing them.
6. The learned counsel for the accused No.9 and
10 submitted that the accused No.9 and 10 are having
small children and they are only the earning members of
their respective families and they have to look after their
families. Hence, it is prayed to take lenient view while
sentencing them.
7. The learned counsel for the accused No.11
submitted that the accused No.11 has already cleared his
loan dues and he is a senior citizen and suffering from
106 Spl.CC.16/2017
age old ailments; hence, it is prayed to take lenient view
while sentencing him.
8. Further, the learned counsel for the accused
No.12 to 15 has submitted that the accused 12 to 15 are
suffering from age related ailments and they are having
their respective families to look after. Further, accused
No.14 has already cleared her loan dues. Hence, it is
prayed to pass minimum sentence against them.
9. The Ld. Senior Public Prosecutor has
submitted that the prosecution has proved the guilt of
the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. The
offences committed by the accused require stringent
approach and no lenient view could be taken in their
favour as the accused have committed economic offences
affecting the very economic system of the country. As
accused persons have committed offences of cheating,
forgery and fraud involving public money; therefore, the
sentence to be imposed shall send a message to the
society and it shall be proportionate to the offences
committed by the accused. Accordingly, it is prayed to
impose maximum sentence and fine.
107 Spl.CC.16/2017
10. In the case of RAJIV Vs. STATE OF
RAJASTHAN [AIR 1996 SC 787] it has been held that,
it is the nature and gravity of the Crime but not the
Criminal, which is germane for consideration to impose
appropriate sentence in a Criminal Trial.
11. Having regard to the nature of offences
committed by the accused, the benefit under Probation of
Offenders Act cannot be given to the accused.
12. Considering all the contentions urged by the
accused and their learned counsels, and also considering
the age factor and health status of few accused, it is
proper to take some lenient view in the facts and
circumstances of the present case while imposing
sentence against all the accused. Accordingly, this Court
proceeds to pass the following;
ORDER
Acting U/Sec.235(2) of Cr.P.C., the
accused No.1, 5 to 15 and 18 are sentenced to
undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 2
Years and shall pay a fine of Rs.50,000/-
[Rupees Fifty Thousand Only] each, for the
offence punishable U/Sec.120-B of IPC; and in
108 Spl.CC.16/2017
default of payment of fine, they shall undergo
simple imprisonment for a period of 3 Months.
Further, the accused No.1, 5 to 15 and 18
are sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment
for a period of 2 Years and shall pay a fine of
Rs.50,000/- [Rupees Fifty Thousand Only]
each, for the offence punishable U/Sec.420
r/w. Sec.120-B of IPC; and in default of
payment of fine, they shall undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of 3 Months.
Further, the accused No.6 to 15 are
sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for
a period of 2 Years and shall pay a fine of
Rs.50,000/- [Rupees Fifty Thousand Only]
each, for the offence punishable U/Sec.468 of
IPC; and in default of payment of fine, they
shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period
of 3 Months.
Further, the accused No.6 to 15 are
sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for
a period of 2 Years and shall pay a fine of
Rs.50,000/- [Rupees Fifty Thousand Only]
each, for the offence punishable U/Sec.471
r/w. Sec.468 of IPC; and in default of payment
of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment
for a period of 3 Months.
109 Spl.CC.16/2017
All the sentences of imprisonment
imposed against accused No.1, 5 to 15 and 18
shall run concurrently.
The accused No.1, 5 to 15 and 18 are
entitled for set-off, if any, as contemplated
U/Sec.428 of Cr.P.C.
Office to supply free copy of the judgment
to the convicted accused.
[Manjunath Sangreshi]
XXI Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge
& Prl.Special Judge for CBI Cases
Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
PW-1: Sri. S.Janakiraman
PW-2: Smt.Susila Srinivasan
PW-3: Sri. C.S.Vasantha Kumar
PW-4: Sri. P.V.Venkateswaran
PW-5: Sri. Veed Prakash Mishra
PW-6: Sri. B.M.Basavaraju
PW-7: Sri. Danardan Rout
PW-8: Sri. B.N.Narasimha Murthy
PW-9: Sri. R.K.Senthil Kumar
PW-10: Sri. H.V.Nagaraja Rao
PW-11: Sri. Deepak
PW-12: Sri. Arvind Naidu
PW-13: Sri. H.S.Seetharam
PW-14: Sri. C.Rama Mohan
PW-15: Sri. N.Venkatesh
PW-16: Sri. Nagaraj M.O
110 Spl.CC.16/2017
PW-17: Sri. Prasanth Kumar
PW-18: Sri. Shivanna P
PW-19: Sri. Rajashekar N
PW-20: Sri. Shankar A
PW-21: Sri. Kalyan Kumar S
PW-22: Sri. Ramesh R
PW-23: Sri. Shankar K.S
PW-24: Sri. M.R.Arun Kumar
PW-25: Sri. Shailesh Kumar Sharma
PW-26: Sri. Mahesh H.M
PW-27: Sri. S.H.Shivaprasad
PW-28: Sri. Prasad A.V.
PW-29: Sri. C.B.Prabanna Gowda
PW-30: Sri. E. Jayaraj
PW-31: Smt. Elizabeth Shaji
PW-32: Smt. Geetha Kumari
PW-33: Sri. M.K.Venkatesh
PW-34: Sri. M.S.Ramarao
PW-35: Smt. Sandhya Anil
PW-36: Smt. Shanthi V.
PW-37: Smt. D.A.Shailaja
PW-38: Smt. Sundari V. Naik
PW-39: Smt. Rathnavathi
PW-40: Smt. S.Rugmani
PW-41: Sri. Venkatesh S. Tapas
PW-42: Smt. Rekha S.T.
PW-43: Sri. Raghunatha Gowda M.S
PW-44: Sri. Shankaranarayanan
PW-45: Sri. Guruprasad D.N
PW-46: Sri. Nataraj J.S
PW-47: Sri. Pramodkumar Singhal
PW-48: Smt. Radha Venkata Krishnan
PW-49: Sri. P.Ravindra Naidu
PW-50: Sri. Pankaj Mohan
PW-51: Sri. R.K.Shivanna
PW-52: Dr.Sri.A.Subramanyeshwara Rao
PW-53: Sri. Satish Gupta
PW-54: Sri. Rakesh Ranjan
111 Spl.CC.16/2017
LIST OF EXHIBITS MARKED BY THE PROSECUTION:
Exhibit Description Number Ex.P.1 One bunch of paper consisting copy of IT (D.96) returns, copies of Form No.3 CR, Annexure-I,
Profit and loss account and Balance Sheet
(64 sheets)
Ex.P.2 Specimen signature of Sri. S. Janakiraman
(D.602) (12 sheets)
Ex.P.3 Original Loan documents of M/s Maxtel
(D.3 to D14) Enterprises, with KYC document; Statement
of Accounts, Legal Opinion, Valuation Report,
3 Photographs, Copy of the IT returns. (102
Sheets)
Ex.P. 3(a) Signature of the Accused No.1 on the last
sheet of sanction advice.
Ex.P.3 (b) Signature of the Accused No.2 on the first
page of sanction advice
Ex.P.3(c) Valuation report dated 16.07.2012 issued by
Sri. B.M. Basavaraju
Ex.P.3(d) Legal Opinion dated 22.05.2012
Ex.P.3(e) Office note dated 01.08.2012
Ex.P.3(f) P & L A/c, Balance sheet, IT returns etc of
M/sMaxtel Enterprises
Ex.P.3(f-1) Purported signature and seal in Ex.P.3(f)
Ex.P.3(g) Signature of PW – 24.
Ex.P.4 Original Loan documents of M.M. Sales
(D.15 to 26) Corporation Enterprises, with KYC
document, Statement of Accounts, Legal
Opinion, Valuation Report, 3 Photographs,
Copy of the IT returns (116 sheets)
Ex.P. 4(a) Signature of the Accused No.1 on the last
sheet of sanction advice.
Ex.P. 4(b) Signature of the Accused No.2 on the first
(D.24) page of sanction advice.
Ex.P.4(c) Valuation report dated 16.07.2012 issued by
Sri. B.M. Basavaraju
112 Spl.CC.16/2017
Ex.P.4(d) Legal Opinion dated 22.05.2012
Ex.P.4(e) Office note dated 01.08.2012
Ex.P.4(f) P & L A/c, Balance sheet, IT returns etc of
M/s M.M Sales Corporation
Ex.P.4(f-1) Purported signature and seal in Ex.P.4(f)
Ex.P. 4(g) Signature of PW – 24.
Ex.P.5 Original Loan documents of M/s G.M
(D.27 to Enterprises, with KYC document; Statement
D.38) of Accounts, Legal Opinion, Valuation Report,
3 Photographs, Copy of the IT returns (110
Sheets)
Ex.P.5 (a) Signature of the Accused No.1 on the last
sheet of sanction advice.
Ex.P 5 (b) Signature of the Accused No.2 on the first
page of sanction advice
Ex.P.5(c) Valuation report dated 16.07.2012 issued by
Sri. B.M. Basavaraju
Ex.P.5(d) Legal Opinion dated 22.05.2012
Ex.P.5(e) Office note dated 01.08.2012
Ex.P.5(f) P & L A/c, Balance sheet, IT returns etc of
M/s G.M. Enterprises
Ex.P.5(f-1) Purported signature and seal in Ex.P.5(f)
Ex.P.5(g) Signature of PW – 26
Ex.P.6 Original Loan documents of M/s G.
(D.39 to 49) Hanumanthappa and Sons with KYC
document; Statement of Accounts, Legal
Opinion, Valuation Report, Photographs,
Copy of the IT returns (143 Sheets)
Ex.P.6(a) Signature of the Accused No.1 on the last
sheet of sanction advice.
Ex.P.6(b) Signature of the Accused No.2 on the first
page of sanction advice
Ex.P. 6(c) P & L A/c, Balance sheet, IT returns etc of
M/s Hanumanthappa & sons
Ex.P. 6(d) Legal Opinion dated 22.05.2012
Ex.P. 6(e) Office note dated 19.06.2012
Ex.P. 6(f) Valuation report dated 04.06.2012 given by
PW.15
Ex.P.6(f-1) Signature of PW.15
Ex.P.6(g) Signature of PW – 24
113 Spl.CC.16/2017
Ex.P.7 Original Loan documents of M/s NET 27
(D.50 to 60) Technologies, with KYC document; Statement
of Accounts, Legal Opinion, Valuation Report,
Photographs, Copy of the IT returns (127
Sheets)
Ex.P.7(a) Signature of the Accused No.1 on the last
sheet of sanction advice.
Ex.P. 7 (b) Signature of the Accused No.2 on the first
page of sanction advice
Ex.P.7(c) P & L A/c, Balance sheet, IT returns etc of
M/s NET 27 Technologies
Ex.P.7(d) Legal Opinion dated 22.05.2012
Ex.P.7(e) Office note dated 02.08.2012
Ex.P.8 Original Loan documents of M/s Sri. Sai Rice
(D.61 to 71) Traders, with KYC document; Statement of
Accounts, Legal Opinion, Valuation Report,
Photographs, Copy of the IT returns (100
Sheets)
Ex.P.8(a) Signature of the Accused No.1 on the last
sheet of sanction advice.
Ex.P.8(b) Signature of the Accused No.2 on the first
page of sanction advice
Ex.P.8(c) Valuation report issued by Sri. B.M.
Basavaraju
Ex.P.8(d) P & L A/c, Balance sheet, IT returns etc of
M/s Sri.sai Rice Traders
Ex.P.8(e) Legal Opinion dated 10.05.2012
Ex.P.8(f) Office note dated 01.08.2012
Ex.P. 8(g) Signature of PW – 24
Ex.P.9 Original Loan documents of M/s
Annapoorneshwari
Rice Traders, with KYC document; Statement
of Accounts, Legal Opinion, Valuation Report,
Photographs, Copy of the IT returns (129
Sheets)
Ex.P.9(a) Signature of the Accused No.1 on the last
sheet of sanction advice.
Ex.P.9(b) Signature of the Accused No.2 on the first
page of sanction advice
Ex.P.9(c) Valuation report dated 29.07.2012 issued by
114 Spl.CC.16/2017
Sri. B.M. Basavaraju
Ex.P.9(d) P & L A/c, Balance sheet, IT returns etc of
M/s Annapurneshwari Rice Traders
Ex.P.9(e) Legal Opinion dated 02.08.2012
Ex.P.9(f) Office note dated 27.09.2012
Ex.P. 9(g) Singature of PW – 24 issued by
Sri.B.M.Basavaraju.
Ex.P.10 Original Loan documents of M/s
(D.83 to 92) Veerabhadreshwara Stores, with KYC
document; Statement of Accounts, Legal
Opinion, Valuation Report, Photographs,
Copy of the IT returns (124 Sheets)
Ex.P.10(a) Signature of the Accused No.1 on the last
sheet of sanction advice.
Ex.P.10(b) Signature of the Accused No.4 on the first
page of sanction advice
Ex.P.10(c) Valuation report dated 25.04.2013 issued by
Sri. B.M. Basavaraju
Ex.P.10(d) Legal Opinion dated 18.12.2012 given by
PW.10
Ex.P.10(e) Office note dated 07.05.2013
Ex.P.11 Original Loan documents of M/s S.L.N Glass
(D.93 to 95, Plywood and Hardware, with KYC document;
97 to 101) Statement of Accounts, Legal Opinion,
Valuation Report, Photographs, Copy of the IT
returns (59 Sheets)
Ex.P.11(a) Signature of the Accused No.1 on the last
sheet of sanction advice.
Ex.P. 11(b) Signature of the Accused No.3 on the first
page of sanction advice
Ex.P. 11(c) Valuation report dated 30.10.2012 issued by
Sri. B.M. Basavaraju
Ex.P.11(d) Office note dated 31.01.2013
Ex.P.12 Original Loan documents of M/s Veeresh
(D.102 to Provision Stores, with KYC document;
112) Statement of Accounts, Legal Opinion,
Valuation Report, Photographs, Copy of the
IT returns (118 Sheets)
Ex.P.12(a) Signature of the Accused No.1 on the last
115 Spl.CC.16/2017
sheet of sanction advice.
Ex.P.12(b) Signature of the Accused No.2 on the first
page of sanction advice
Ex.P.12(c) Valuation report dated 12.09.2012 issued by
Sri. B.M. Basavaraju
Ex.P.12(d) P & L A/c, Balance sheet, IT returns etc of
M/sVeeresh Provisions Stores
Ex.P.12(e) Legal Opinion dated 14.08.2012 given by
PW.10
Ex.P.12(f) Office note dated 16.10.2012
Ex.P.13 Original Loan documents of M/s Sri.
(D.113 to Venkatesjwara Hardware and Plumbing with
121) KYC document; Statement of Accounts, Legal
Opinion, Valuation Report, Photographs,
Copy of the IT returns (73 Sheets)
Ex.P.13(a) Signature of the Accused No.1 on the last
sheet of sanction advice.
Ex.P. 13(b) Signature of the Accused No.2 on the first
page of sanction advice
Ex.P. 13(c) P & L A/c, Balance sheet, IT returns etc of
M/s Sri. Venkateshwara Hardware and
Plumbing
Ex.P. 13(d) Valuation report dated 09.08.2012
Ex.P.13 (e) Office note dtd 18.08.2012
Ex.P. 13(f) Signature of PW – 24
Ex.P.14 Original Loan documents of M/s
(D.122 to Banashankari Interior Works, with KYC
131) document; Statement of Accounts, Legal
Opinion, Valuation Report, Photographs,
Copy of the IT returns ( Sheets)
Ex.P.14(a) Signature of the Accused No.1 on the last
sheet of sanction advice.
Ex.P.14(b) Signature of the Accused No.4 on the first
page of sanction advice
Ex.P.14(c) Valuation report dated 26.11.2012 issued by
Sri. B.M. Basavaraju
Ex.P.14(d) P & L A/c, Balance sheet, IT returns etc of
M/s Banashankari Interior Works
Ex.P.14(e) Legal Scrutiny report dated 09.11.2012
issued by Sri. Deepak Panel advocate
116 Spl.CC.16/2017
Ex.P.14(f) Office note dtd 18.04.2013
Ex.P.15 Copy of Master Circular related to “Easy
Trade Finance Scheme” dated 21.08.2008 (4
Sheets)
Ex.P.16 Copy of Modification with regard to “Easy
Trade Finance Scheme” dated 21.09.2007 ( 3
sheets)
Ex.P.17 Copy of New Product Development Easy
Trade Finance Hassle Free Finance to Traders
dated 15.09.2005 (3 Sheets)
Ex.P.18 Copy of Revision of Delegated Powers dated
29.04.2011 (5 sheets)
Ex.P.19 Copy of Revision of Delegated Powers dated
26.04.2013 (5 sheets)
Ex.P. 20 Original Complaint dtd07.01.2016
Ex.P.20(a) Signature of PW.4
Ex.P.21 Letter dated 20.05.2016 of PW.4 forwarding
Ex.P.15 to 19 with 65-B Certificate (4 sheets)
Ex.P.21(a) Signature of PW.4
Ex.P. 22 Original Internal Investigation Report dtd
16.04.2015 conducted by PW.5 (110 sheets)
Ex.P.22(a) Signature of PW.5
Ex.P.23 Production memo dated 25.08.2016
Ex.P.23(a) Signature of PW.7
Ex.P.23(b) Signature of PW.51
Ex.P.24 Covering letter dated 22.08.2016 of Punjab
National Bank to CBI
(1 sheet)
Ex.P.25 Original Current a/c Opening Form of M/s
Maxtel Enterprises along with KYC document
(8 sheets)
Ex.P.26 Covering letter dated 17.05.2017 of Punjab
National Bank to CBI along with Statement
of account I/r/o M/s Maxtel Enterprises
with certificates
(19 sheets)
117 Spl.CC.16/2017
Ex.P.27 Production memo dated 30.08.2016
Ex.P.27(a) Signature of PW.7
Ex.P.27(b) Signature of PW.51
Ex.P.28 Covering letter dated 29.08.2016 of Punjab
National Bank to CBI
(1 sheet)
Ex.P.29 Original a/c Opening Form of M/s G.M
Enterprises along with KYC documents (10
sheets)
Ex.P.30 Original a/c Opening Form of M/s M.M. Sales
Corporation along with KYC documents (9
sheets)
Ex.P.31 Statement of account i/r/o Call of a/c of M/s
G.M Enterprises with certificates issued by
PNB
(48 sheets)
Ex.P.32 Statement of account i/r/o M/s M.M. Sales
Corporation with certificates issued by PNB
(26 sheets)
Ex.P.33 Production memo dated 23.08.2016
Ex.P.33(a) Signature of PW.8
Ex.P.33(b) Signature of PW.51
Ex.P.34 Covering letter dated 23.08.2016 of Appex
Bank to CBI (1 sheet)
Ex.P.34(a) Signature of the Manager
Ex.P.35 Original a/c Opening Form of M/s S.L.M
Glass, Plywood and Hardware along with KYC
documents
(8 sheets)
Ex.P.36 Statement of account i/r/o M/s S.L.N Glass,
Plywood and Hardware along with certificates
issued by Appex Bank (9 sheets)
Ex.P.37 26 sheets containing Specimen writings/
signatures of Sri. R.K. Senthil Kumar ( S115
to S131)
Ex.P.37(a) Regular Signatures of Sri. R.K Senthil Kumar
(9 sheets) S132 to S140
118 Spl.CC.16/2017
Ex.P.38 Specimen Writings /Signatures of Sri. C.
Ramamohan (23 sheets)
Ex.P.38(a) Specimen writings of Sri. Ramamohan in 16
sheets
Ex.P.38(b) Genuine Signatures of Sri. Ramamohan in 7
sheets
Ex.P.38(c) Signature of PW.51
Ex.P.39 IOB cheque dated 13.08.2013 for
Rs.3,00,000/- issued in favour of PW.17
Ex.P.39(a) Signature of PW.17.
Ex.P.40 IOB cheque dated 25.02.2014 for Rs.80,000/-
issued in favour of PW.16
Ex.P.40(a) Signature of PW.16.
Ex.P.41 IOB cheque dated 01.06.2013 for Rs.50,000/-
issued in favour of PW.17
Ex.P.41(a) Signature of PW.17.
Ex.P.42 IOB cheque dated 17.07.2013 for Rs.3 Lakhs
issued in favour of PW.19
Ex.P.42(a) Signature of PW.21 with mobile number
Ex.P.43 IOB cheque dated 06.09.2012 for Rs.50,000
issued in favour of Shankara.A
Ex.P.43(a) Signature of PW.20 with mobile number
Ex.P.44 IOB self cheque dated 22.09.2012 for Rs.3
Lakhs issued by M/s M.M Sales Corporation
Ex.P.44(a) Signature of PW.21 with mobile number
Ex.P.45 IOB cheque dated 24.08.2012 for Rs.1 Lakhs
issued in favour of Ramesh.R
Ex.P.45(a) Signature of PW.22
Ex.P.46 Receipt Memo dated: 24-10-2016
Ex.P.46(a) Signature of PW – 27
Ex.P.47 Letter dated: 20-10-2016 of Senior Sub-
Registrar, Shanthinagar, Blr
Ex.P.48 8 Challans produced through Ex.P. 47
Ex.P.49 True Copy of Memorandum of Deposit of Title
Deeds
Ex.P.50 & True copies of Sale Deeds produced under
119 Spl.CC.16/2017
Ex.P.51 Ex.P. 47
Ex.P.52 Letter dated: 26-08-2016 of ITO, Ward 6(2)(3),
Blr with annexures (13 sheets)
Ex.P.52(a) Signature of PW-29
Ex.P.53 Letter dated: 06-09-2016 of PW -30 with 4
screenshots.
Ex.P.53(a) Signature of PW-30
Ex.P.54 Letter dated: 26-08-2016 of PW -31 along
with copies of ITR(4) taken from IT website
portal (34 sheets)
Ex.P.54(a) Signature of PW-31
Ex.P.55 Letter dated: 17-08-2016 of Sri. Narender
Singh, ITO (HQ-2), Blr with 19 screen shots.
Ex.P.55(a) Signature of PW-33
Ex.P.56 Computer printout of IT Returns of R. Mohan
Naidu for the AY 2010-11 to 2013-14 (20
Sheets)
Ex.P.56(a) Signature of PW-34
Ex.P.57 Letter dated: 14-09-2016 of PW -35 with 1
screenshots.
Ex.P.57(a) Signature of PW-35
Ex.P.58 Letter dated: 08-09-2016 of PW -36 to
Additional CIT.
Ex.P.58(a) Signature of PW-36
Ex.P.59 Letter dated: 22-08-2016 of PW -37 to
Additional CIT.
Ex.P.59(a) Signature of PW-37
Ex.P.60 Letter dated: 26-08-2016 of PW -38 to
Principal Chief, CIT
Ex.P.60(a) Signature of PW-38
Ex.P.61 Letter dated: 26-08-2016 of PW -38 to
Principal Chief, CIT
Ex.P.61(a) Signature of PW-38
Ex.P.62 Audit reports for the month June-2012 to
May 2013 with Covering letters and
certificates
120 Spl.CC.16/2017
Ex.P.63 Receipt Memo dated 25.08.2016
Ex.P.63(a) Signature of PW.41
Ex.P.63(b) Signature of PW.51
Ex.P.64 Circular No.EST/108/95-96/dtd 23.08.1995
reg- role functions of officer employees at
differed hierarchical placements in operation
Ex.P.65 Circular No. Misc/316/2008-09 dtd
19.12.2008 reg- joint responsibility for loans
and advances
Ex.P.66 Receipt Memo dated 29.08.2016
Ex.P.66(a) Signature of PW.41
Ex.P.66(b) Signature of PW.51
Ex.P.67 Book of Instructions volume-II relating to
advances of IOB
Ex.P.68 Letter dated 29.08.2016 of IOB R.O,B’Luru to
CBI
Ex.P.69 Service particulars of B.N Muralidharan
Ex.P.70 Service particulars of V.N. Gururaja Rao
Ex.P.71 Service particulars of Smt. Valli K.S
Ex.P.72 Service particulars of Srinivasan K.S
Ex.P.73 Covering letter dated 24.08.2016 of ACCT to
CBI
Ex.P.73(a) Signature of PW.42
Ex.P.74 Attested copies of VAT Registration
Certificates etc of Sri. B.S. Veeresh, Proprietor
of Veeresh Provision Stores
Ex.P.75 Covering letter dated 18.08.2016 of ACCT to
CBI
Ex.P.75(a) Signature of PW.42
Ex.P.76 Specimen writings/ Signatures of Sri. G.
Ganesh taken on 19.10.2016 (10 Sheets)
Ex.P.76(a) Signature of PW.44
Ex.P.77 Specimen writings/ Signatures of Sri. M.
Kumaraswamy Raju taken on 23.09.2016
(10 Sheets)
121 Spl.CC.16/2017
Ex.P.77(a) Signature of PW.44
Ex.P.78 Specimen writings/ Signatures of Smt. R.
Geetha taken on 23.09.2016 (10 Sheets)
Ex.P.78(a) Signature of PW.44
Ex.P.79 Specimen writings/ Signatures of Smt.
Mangala Boraya taken on 23.09.2016 (10
Sheets)
Ex.P.79(a) Signature of PW.44
Ex.P.80 Specimen writings/ Signatures of Sri.
N.Sri.rama taken on 23.09.2016 (10 Sheets)
S-81 to 90
Ex.P.80(a) Signature of PW.44
Ex.P.81 Specimen writings/ Signatures of Sri. N.
Sri.rama taken on 23.09.2016 (6 Sheets) S-
153 to 158
Ex.P.81(a) Signature of PW.44
Ex.P.82 Mahazar Dtd.
Ex.P.82(a) Signature of PW.46
Ex.P.82(b) Signature of PW.51
Ex.P.83 Four photographs taken at the time of
preparing Ex.P. 82.
Ex.P.83(a) to Photographs
(c)
Ex.P.83{1}, Signature of PW.46
83{a-1} 83{b-
1} and
83{c-1}
Ex.P.84 Production memo dtd. 02-06-2016.
Ex.P.84(a) Signature of PW.47
Ex.P.84(b) Signature of PW.51
Ex.P.85 Debit voucher dtd. 28-09-2012 for Rs.
18,00,000/- and corresponding credit
voucher.
Ex.P.86 Cheque dtd. 09-10-2012 for Rs. 3,00,000/-.
issued in favor of S. Sri.nivas.
122 Spl.CC.16/2017
Ex.P.87 Cheque dtd. 16-10-2012 for Rs. 55,000/-.
issued in favor of Mallesh
Ex.P.88 Cheque dtd. 18-10-2012 for Rs. 1,50,000/-.
issued in favor of S. Sri.nivas.
Ex.P.89 Cheque dtd. 22-10-2012 for Rs. 1,00,000/-.
issued in favor of Chandrakanth.
Ex.P.90 Cheque dtd. 31-10-2012 for Rs. 50,000/-.
issued in favor of Mahesh.
Ex.P.91 Credit voucher dtd. 31-10-2012 for Rs. 7.5
lakhs by S. Sri.nivas.
Ex.P.92 Cheque dtd. 18-10-2012 for Rs. 55,000/-.
issued in favor of S. Sri.nivas.
Ex.P.93 Cheque dtd. 16-11-2012 for Rs. 2,00,000/-.
issued in favor of S. Sri.nivas.
Ex.P.94 Cheque dtd. 22-11-2012 for Rs. 4,00,000/-.
issued in favor of Rajesh.B.K.
Ex.P.95 Cheque dtd. 10-12-2012 for Rs. 50,000/-.
issued in favor of S. Sri.nivas.
Ex.P.96 Debit voucher dtd. 18-12-2012 for Rs. 2.25
lakhs.
Ex.P.97 Cheque dtd. 24-12-2012 for Rs. 2.5 laksh
issued in favor of N. Avinash.
Ex.P.98 Debit voucher dtd. 26-12-2012 for Rs. 1 lakh.
Ex.P.99 Credit voucher dtd. 11-01-2013 for Rs. 3
lakh.
Ex.P.100 Credit voucher dtd. 11-01-2013 for Rs. 2
lakh.
Ex.P.101 Cheque dtd. 15-01-2013 for Rs. 70,000/-
issued in favor of S. Sri.nivas.
Ex.P.102 Credit voucher dtd. 22-01-2013 for Rs. 2.4
lakh
Ex.P.103 Credit voucher dtd. 29-01-2013 for Rs. 3.1
lakh.
Ex.P.104 Cheque dtd. 27-02-2013 for Rs. 80,000/-
123 Spl.CC.16/2017
issued in favor of S. Sri.nivas.
Ex.P.105 Cheque dtd. 23-01-2013 for Rs. 4.70 lakhs
issued in favor of Boregouda.
Ex.P.106 Cheque dtd. 08-02-2013 for Rs. 3.30 lakhs
issued in favor of S. Sri.nivas.
Ex.P.107 Credit voucher dtd. 14-02-2013 for Rs. 5.5
lakh.
Ex.P.108 Cheque dtd. 14-02-2013 for Rs. 90,000/-
issued in favor of Ganesh.
Ex.P.109 Credit voucher dtd. 16-02-2013 for Rs. 2.2
lakh.
Ex.P.110 Credit voucher dtd. 18-02-2013 for Rs. 60
thousand.
Ex.P.111 Credit voucher dtd. 16-02-2013 for Rs. 2.2
lakh.
Ex.P.112 Cheque dtd. 06-03-2013 for Rs. 9.5 lakhs
issued in favor of Ganesh.
Ex.P.113 Credit voucher dtd. 06-03-2013 for Rs. 2
lakh.
Ex.P.114 Credit voucher dtd. 14-03-2013 for Rs. 9.7
lakh.
Ex.P.115 Cheque dtd. 30-03-2013 for Rs. 4 lakhs
issued in favor of Dhanvantri Medical Stores.
Ex.P.116 Cheque dtd. 30-03-2013 for Rs. 50,000/-
issued in favor of S.Sri.nivas.
Ex.P.117 Cheque dtd. 08-05-2013 for Rs. 70,000/-
issued in favor of S. Sri.nivas.
Ex.P.118 Credit voucher dtd. 15-05-2013 for Rs. 2.25
lakh.
Ex.P.119 Cheque dtd. 15-05-2013 for Rs. 1.24 lakhs
issued in favor of Dhanvantri Medical Stores.
Ex.P.120 Cheque dtd. 19-05-2013 for Rs. 2.7 lakhs
issued in favor of S.R. Motors.
Ex.P.121 Cheque dtd. 20-05-2013 for Rs. 50,000/-
124 Spl.CC.16/2017
issued in favor of S.Sri.nivas.
Ex.P.122 R.T.G.S. transfer voucher dtd. 25-05-
2013 for Rs. 9.80 lakhs.
Ex.P.123 Cheque dtd. 28-05-2013 for Rs. 1,00,000/-
issued in favor of A. Muniraj.
Ex.P.124 Cheque dtd. 31-05-2013 for Rs. 50,000/-
issued in favor of S.Sri.nivas.
Ex.P.125 Cheque dtd. 05-06-2013 for Rs. 5 lakhs
issued in favor of S.Sri.nivas.
Ex.P.126 Cheque dtd. 07-06-2013 for Rs. 1 lakh issued
in favor of S.Sri.nivas.
Ex.P.127 Cheque dtd. 11-06-2013 for Rs. 95,000/-
issued in favor of S.Sri.nivas.
Ex.P.128 Cheque dtd. 14-06-2013 for Rs. 50,000/-
issued in favor of S.Sri.nivas.
Ex.P.129 Cheque dtd. 21-06-2013 for Rs. 2.56 lakhs
issued in favor of Santhosh Kumar.
Ex.P.130 Cheque dtd. 09-07-2013 for Rs. 1.20 lakhs
issued in favor of S.Sri.nivas.
Ex.P.131 Cheque dtd. 11-07-2013 for Rs. 50,000/-
issued in favor of Smt. Triveni.
Ex.P.132 Cheque dtd. 12-07-2013 for Rs. 1.00 lakhs
issued in favor of Pandurangan.
Ex.P.133 Cheque dtd. 29-07-2013 for Rs. 50,000/-
issued in favor of S.Sri.nivas.
Ex.P.134 Statement of account for the period 01-01-
2012 to 16-01-2016 in respect of account No.
………1741 of Sri. Annapoorneshwari Rice
Traders along with 65-B certificate.
Ex.P.135 Self cheque dtd. 05-06-2012 for Rs. 80,000/-
Ex.P.136 Self cheque dtd. 08-06-2012 for Rs. 90,000/-
Ex.P.137 Yourself cheque dtd. 21-06-2012 for Rs.
30,00,061/- along with R.T.G.S. application
for transfer of amount to the account of R. N.
Lokesh.
125 Spl.CC.16/2017
Ex.P.138 Self cheque dtd. 22-06-2012 for Rs. 13 lakhs.
Ex.P.139 Self cheque dtd. 25-06-2012 for Rs. 14 lakhs.
Ex.P.140 Yourself cheque dtd. 25-06-2012 for Rs.
02,72,606/-.
Ex.P.141 Yourself cheque dtd. 25-06-2012 for Rs.
35,96,055/-.
Ex.P.142 Self cheque dtd. 23-06-2012 for Rs. 2 lakhs.
Ex.P.143 Yourself cheque dtd. 25-06-2012 for Rs.
02,39,203/-.
Ex.P.144 Cheque dtd. 20-09-2012 for Rs. 2 lakhs
issued in favour of Priyadarshini.
Ex.P.145 Self cheque dtd. 22-09-2012 for Rs. 6 lakhs.
Ex.P.146 Credit voucher dtd. 28-09-2012 for Rs. 1 lakh
Ex.P.147 Credit voucher dtd. 31-01-2013 for Rs. 2 lakh
Ex.P.148 Credit voucher dtd. 06-02-2013 for Rs. 1.47
lakh
Ex.P.149 Credit voucher dtd. 28-06-2013 for Rs. 1.15
lakh
Ex.P.150 Debit voucher dtd. 19-06-2015 for Rs.
1,50,005/- for obtaining DD in favour of
Registrar, D.R.T.
Ex.P.151 Statement of account for the period 01-01-
2012 to 16-01-2016 in respect of account No.
………1721 of G. Hanumanthappa and sons
along with 65-B certificate.
Ex.P.152 Self cheque dtd. 08-08-2012 for Rs. 6 lakhs.
Ex.P.153 Cheque dtd. 10-08-2012 for Rs. 1 lakhs
issued in favour of S.V. Subramanya.
Ex.P.154 Cheque dtd. 11-08-2012 for Rs. 50,000/-.
Ex.P.155 Yourself cheque dtd. 11-08-2012 for Rs. 3.4
lakhs.
Ex.P.156 Cheque dtd. 11-08-2012 for Rs. 50,000/-
issued in favour of Smt. Priya Chiplunkar.
126 Spl.CC.16/2017
Ex.P.157 Self cheque dtd. 14-08-2012 for Rs. 50,000/-.
Ex.P.158 Self cheque dtd. 17-08-2012 for Rs. 3 lakhs.
Ex.P.159 Yourself cheque dtd. 21-08-2012 for Rs. 3
lakhs for R.T.G.S.
Ex.P.160 Self cheque dtd. 21-08-2012 for Rs. 3 lakhs.
Ex.P.161 Yourself cheque dtd. 21-08-2012 for Rs. 4
lakhs for R.T.G.S.
Ex.P.162 Cheque dtd. 28-08-2012 for Rs. 2 lakhs
issued in favour of Swamy Narayana.
Ex.P.163 Self cheque dtd. 29-08-2012 for Rs. 1 lakh.
Ex.P.164 Cheque dtd. 30-08-2012 for Rs. 1 lakhs
issued in favour of Umesh Gurjar
Ex.P.165 Cheque dtd. 31-08-2012 for Rs. 2 lakhs
issued in favour of Umesh Gurjar
Ex.P.166 Self cheque dtd. 31-08-2012 for Rs. 2 lakhs.
Ex.P.167 Cheque dtd. 06-09-2012 for Rs. 1.78 lakhs
issued in favour of Umesh.
Ex.P.168 Self cheque dtd. 07-09-2012 for Rs. 2 lakhs.
Ex.P.169 Self cheque dtd. 24-09-2012 for Rs. 1 lakh.
Ex.P.170 Self cheque dtd. 28-09-2012 for Rs. 1.5
lakhs.
Ex.P.171 Transfer credit voucher dtd. 28-06-2013 for
Rs. 63,000/-
Ex.P.172 Statement of account for the period 01-01-
2012 to 16-01-2016 in respect of account No.
………1731 of NET -27 Technology along with
65-B certificate.
Ex.P.173 Cheque dtd. 19-10-2012 for Rs. 1.5 lakhs
issued in favour of Raveendra.
Ex.P.174 Cheque dtd. 20-10-2012 for Rs. 1 lakh issued
in favour of Nanjundegouda.
Ex.P.175 Cheque dtd. 28-10-2012 for Rs. 1 lakh issued
in favour of Manjunath.
127 Spl.CC.16/2017
Ex.P.176 Self cheque dtd. 31-10-2012 for Rs. 2.3
lakhs.
Ex.P.177 Statement of account for the period 01-01-
2012 to 16-01-2016 in respect of account No.
………1745 of Veeresh Provision Stores along
with 65-B certificate.
Ex.P.178 Self cheque dtd. 06-08-2012 for Rs. 1.5
lakhs.
Ex.P.179 Self cheque dtd. 10-08-2012 for Rs. 2 lakhs.
Ex.P.180 Yourself Cheque dtd. 11-06-2013 for Rs.
3,00,030/- lakhs for transfer of amount
through R.T.G.S.
Ex.P.181 Yourself Cheque dtd. 10-06-2013 for Rs.
3,00,030/- lakhs for transfer of amount
through R.T.G.S. to the account of K.Suresh.
Ex.P.182 R.T.G.S. for dtd. 11-06-2013 for transfer of
amount to Smt. Usha.K.
Ex.P.183 Statement of account for the period 01-01-
2012 to 21-03-2016 in respect of account No.
………1730 of Sri. Sai Rice Traders along
with 65-B certificate.
Ex.P.184 Cheque dtd. 02-02-2013 for Rs. 50,000/-
issued in favour of Timmarayagouda.
Ex.P.185 Cheque dtd. 05-02-2013 for Rs. 9.5 lakh
issued in favour of Timmarayagouda.
Ex.P.186 Cheque dtd. 05-02-2013 for Rs. 4 lakh issued
in favour of S. Sri.nivas.
Ex.P.187 Cheque dtd. 07-02-2013 for Rs. 3 lakh issued
in favour of Balaji. N.
Ex.P.188 Cheque dtd. 08-02-2013 for Rs. 5 lakh issued
in favour of Timmarayagouda.
Ex.P.189 Cheque dtd. 09-02-2013 for Rs. 1 lakh issued
in favour of Bapuji.
Ex.P.190 Cheque dtd. 13-02-2013 for Rs. 1 lakh issued
in favour of Jagadish. T.R.
128 Spl.CC.16/2017
Ex.P.191 Cheque dtd. 14-02-2013 for Rs. 3 lakh issued
in favour of Shaik Mujeebulla .
Ex.P.192 Cheque dtd. 15-05-2013 for Rs. 80,000/-
issued in favour of Ganesh.
Ex.P.193 Cheque dtd. 15-02-2013 for Rs. 1 lakh issued
in favour of Kaluram.
Ex.P.194 Cheque dtd. 19-02-2013 for Rs. 2 lakh issued
in favour of Timmarayagouda.
Ex.P.195 Statement of account for the period 01-01-
2012 to 16-01-2016 in respect of account No.
………1750 of M/S S.L.N. Glass, Plywood and
Harware along with 65-B certificate.
Ex.P.196 Cheque dtd. 19-02-2013 for Rs. 2 lakh issued
in favour of Timmarayagouda.
Ex.P.197 Self cheque dtd. 10-05-2013 for Rs. 8 lakhs.
Ex.P.198 Self cheque dtd. 15-05-2013 for Rs. 5 lakhs.
Ex.P.199 Cheque dtd. 22-05-2013 for Rs. 2.3 lakh
issued in favour of Madan. G.
Ex.P.200 Cheque dtd. 22-05-2013 for Rs. 80,000/-
issued in favour of Raghavendra.
Ex.P.201 Cheque dtd. 26-05-2013 for Rs. 2.5 lakh
issued in favour of Ravi.
Ex.P.202 Cheque dtd. 16-06-2013 for Rs. 2 lakh issued
in favour of Ravi.
Ex.P.203 Statement of account for the period 01-01-
2012 to 16-01-2016 in respect of account No.
………1756 of Veerabhadreshwar Stores along
with 65-B certificate.
Ex.P.204 Self cheque dtd. 24-08-2012 for Rs. 50,000/-.
Ex.P.205 Self cheque dtd. 29-11-2012 for Rs.
80,000/-.
Ex.P.206 Transfer credit voucher dtd. 10-12-
2012 for Rs. 2.65 lakhs.
Ex.P.207 Self cheque dtd. 19-02-2013 for Rs. 50,000/-
129 Spl.CC.16/2017
Ex.P.208 Cheque dtd. 05-03-2013 for Rs. 80,000/-
issued in favour of Chandrappa.
Ex.P.209 Self cheque dtd. 27-04-2013 for Rs. 5 lakhs.
Ex.P.210 Self cheque dtd. 27-04-2013 for Rs. 9 lakhs.
Ex.P.211 Cheque dtd. 29-04-2013 for Rs. 5 lakhs
issued in favour of Ramu.B.
Ex.P.212 Cheque dtd. 29-04-2013 for Rs. 1 lakh issued
in favour of Chandrashekhar.
Ex.P.213 Yourself cheque dtd. 29-04-2013 for Rs.
22,00,060/- for transfer of amount to the
account of Mahesh Agencies through R.T.G.S.
Ex.P.214 Cheque dtd. 30-04-2013 for Rs. 6.5 lakh
issued in favour of Mahesh.S.
Ex.P.215 Cheque dtd. 30-04-2013 for Rs. 7 lakh issued
in favour of Mahesh.S.
Ex.P.216 Cheque dtd. 06-05-2013 for Rs. 3.5 lakh
issued in favour of Umesh Gurjar.
Ex.P.217 Self cheque dtd. 09-05-2013 for Rs. 1 lakh.
Ex.P.218 Self cheque dtd. 14-05-2013 for Rs. 1 lakh.
Ex.P.219 Cheque dtd. 17-05-2013 for Rs. 2 lakh issued
in favour of Janardhan.
Ex.P.220 Cheque dtd. 20-05-2013 for Rs. 50,000/-
issued in favour of Shashikanth.G.
Ex.P.221 Cheque dtd. 23-05-2013 for Rs. 5 lakhs
issued in favour of Tilak.S.
Ex.P.222 Cheque dtd. 03-06-2013 for Rs. 50,000/-
issued in favour of Shashikanth.G.
Ex.P.223 Cheque dtd. 26-06-2013 for Rs. 80,000/-
issued in favour of Narasimhamurthy.
Ex.P.224 Cheque dtd. 15-07-2013 for Rs. 1 lakh issued
in favour of Shashikanth.G.
Ex.P.225 Cheque dtd. 24-07-2013 for Rs. 50,000/-
issued in favour of Shashikanth.G.
Ex.P.226 Cheque dtd. 29-07-2013 for Rs. 50,000/-
130 Spl.CC.16/2017
issued in favour of Chandrappa.S.
Ex.P.227 Cheque dtd. 12-08-2013 for Rs. 2.5 lakh
issued in favour of Shashikanth.G.
Ex.P.228 Cheque dtd. 28-08-2013 for Rs. 2 lakhs
issued in favour of Shashikanth.G.
Ex.P.229 Cheque dtd. 12-09-2013 for Rs. 1 lakh issued
in favour of N. Ramachandra.
Ex.P.230 Cheque dtd. 20-09-2013 for Rs. 1 lakh issued
in favour of Shashikanth.G.
Ex.P.231 Cheque dtd. 29-09-2013 for Rs. 1.5 lakh
issued in favour of Mahesh.S.
Ex.P.232 Cheque dtd. 03-10-2013 for Rs. 50,000/-
issued in favour of N. Ramachandra.
Ex.P.233 Cheque dtd. 01-10-2013 for Rs. 50,000/-
issued in favour of Narashimhamurthy.
Ex.P.234 Transfer credit voucher dtd. 11-10-
2013 for Rs. 1 lakh.
Ex.P.235 Cheque dtd. 17-10-2013 for Rs. 1 lakh issued
in favour of Manjunath.N.
Ex.P.236 Cheque dtd. 21-10-2013 for Rs. 4 lakh issued
in favour of Murthy.
Ex.P.237 Cheque dtd. 23-10-2013 for Rs. 1.5 lakh
issued in favour of N. Nagarajappa.
Ex.P.238 Transfer credit voucher dtd. 24-10-
2013 for Rs. 6 lakhs.
Ex.P.239 Cheque dtd. 26-10-2013 for Rs. 90,000/-
issued in favour of S.B. Rajanna.
Ex.P.240 Cheque dtd. 31-10-2013 for Rs. 2.5 lakh
issued in favour of Mahesh.S.
Ex.P.241 Cheque dtd. 31-10-2013 for Rs. 1 lakh issued
in favour of Shashikanth.G.
Ex.P.242 Cheque dtd. 16-11-2013 for Rs. 1 lakh issued
in favour of Manjunath.
Ex.P.243 Cheque dtd. 21-11-2013 for Rs. 1 lakh issued
131 Spl.CC.16/2017
in favour of Venkatesh.
Ex.P.244 Cheque dtd. 28-11-2013 for Rs. 50,000/-
issued in favour of Shashikanth.G.
Ex.P.245 Cheque dtd. 30-11-2013 for Rs. 50,000/-
issued in favour of Shivakumar. S.P.
Ex.P.246 Cheque dtd. 17-12-2013 for Rs. 1 lakh issued
in favour of Shashikanth.G.
Ex.P.247 Cheque dtd. 27-12-2013 for Rs. 50,000/-
issued in favour of Santhoshkumar.M.
Ex.P.248 Cheque dtd. 30-12-2013 for Rs. 1 lakh issued
in favour of S. Kiran.
Ex.P.249 Cheque dtd. 28-01-2014 for Rs. 1 lakh issued
in favour of Mahesh.S.
Ex.P.250 Cheque dtd. 29-01-2014 for Rs. 1 lakh issued
in favour of Sri.kanth.
Ex.P.251 Cheque dtd. 06-03-2014 for Rs. 1.4 lakh
issued in favour of Shivakumar.
Ex.P.252 Cheque dtd. 04-03-2014 for Rs. 1 lakh issued
in favour of Yogesh.
Ex.P.253 Transfer credit voucher dtd. 21-03-
2014 for Rs. 1.5 lakhs.
Ex.P.254 Statement of account for the period 01-01-
2012 to 27-01-2016 in respect of account No.
………1732 of Veerabhadreshwar Stores along
with 65-B certificate.
Ex.P.255 Self cheque dtd. 25-08-2012 for Rs. 4 lakhs.
Ex.P.256 Cheque dtd 24-08-2012 for Rs.70,000 issued
in favour of S. Sri.nivas
Ex.P.257 Self cheque dtd. 04-09-2012 for Rs. 2 lakhs.
Ex.P.258 Self cheque dtd. 06-09-2012 for Rs. 2 lakhs.
Ex.P.259 Cheque dtd. 22-10-2012 for Rs.7.5 lakh
issued in favour of R. Mohan Naidu.
Ex.P.260 Cheque dtd. 22-10-2012 for Rs.6 lakh issued
in favour of R. Mohan Naidu.
132 Spl.CC.16/2017
Ex.P.261 Cheque dtd. 22-10-2012 for Rs.6 lakh issued
in favour of R. Mohan Naidu.
Ex.P.262 Cheque dtd. 08-12-2012 for Rs.50,000/-
issued in favour of R. Mohan Naidu..
Ex.P.263 Credit RTGS Voucher dated 08.12.2012 for
Rs.4,99,900/-
Ex.P.264 Cheque dtd. 10-12-2012 for Rs.8 lakh issued
in favour of R. Mohan Naidu.
Ex.P.265 Cheque dtd. 10-12-2012 for Rs.8 lakh issued
in favour of R. Mohan Naidu.
Ex.P.266 Yourself cheque dtd. 10-12-2012 for Rs.2, 31,
529/-.
Ex.P.267 Cheque dtd. 17-12-2012 for Rs. 50,000
issued in favour of R. Mohan Naidu
Ex.P.268 Cheque dtd. 02-01-2013 for Rs. 60,000
issued in favour of R. Mohan Naidu.
Ex.P.269 Cheque dtd. 12-01-2013 for Rs.50,000/-
issued in favour of R. Mohan Naidu
Ex.P.270 Yourself cheque dtd. 18-01-2013 for
Rs.50,140/- for DD favouring R. Mohan
Naidu
Ex.P.271 Cheque dtd 04-02-2013 for Rs.50,000/-
issued in favour of R. Mohan Naidu
Ex.P.272 Cheque dtd. 22-02-2013 for Rs.1 lakh issued
in favour of R. Mohan Naidu
Ex.P.273 Cheque dtd. 27-02-2013 for Rs. 1 lakh issued
in favour of R. Mohan Naidu.
Ex.P.274 Self cheque dtd. 19-03-2013 for Rs. 50,000/-.
Ex.P.275 Transfer Credit Voucher dated 22.03.2013 for
Rs. 2.7 Lakhs
Ex.P.276 Self cheque dtd. 23-03-2013 for Rs. 50,000/-
Ex.P.277 Self cheque dtd. 06-04-2013 for Rs. 60,000/-
Ex.P.278 Self cheque dtd. 06-05-2013 for Rs. 70,000/-
Ex.P.279 Cheque dtd. 15-05-2013 for Rs. 1.1 lakhs
133 Spl.CC.16/2017
issued in favour of R. Mohan Naidu
Ex.P.280 Cheque dtd. 31-05-2013 for Rs.4 lakh issued
in favour of Umesh Gurjar.
Ex.P.281 Cheque dtd 10-06-2013 for Rs.2.4 lakh
issued in favour of R. Mohan Naidu
Ex.P.282 Cheque dtd. 12-07-2013 for Rs. 50,000/-
issued in favour of R. Mohan Naidu
Ex.P.283 Cheque dtd Cheque dtd. 04-03-2014 for Rs. 1
lakh issued in favour of Yogesh. 2-08-2013
for Rs. 1.5 lakh issued in favour of Shekar
Ex.P.284 Cheque dtd. 03-08-2013 for Rs.70,000/-
issued in favour of R.Mohan Naidu
Ex.P.285 Cheque dtd 06-08-2013 for Rs. 50,000 issued
in favour of Shankar
Ex.P.286 Cheque dtd. 10-08-2013 for Rs.1.1 lakh
issued in favour of R. Mohan Naidu
Ex.P.287 Credit RTGS Voucher dated 31.10.2013 for
Rs.40,00,000/-
Ex.P.288 Statement of account for the period 01-01-
2012 to 01-06-2016 in respect of account No.
………1734 of Venkateshwara Hardware and
Plumbing along with 65-B certificate.
Ex.P.289 Self cheque dtd. 18-09-2012 for Rs.
7,50,000/-.
Ex.P.290 Self cheque dtd. 18-09-2012 for Rs.
7,50,000/-.
Ex.P.291 Yourself cheque dtd. 20-09-2012 for Rs.
25,61,588/-.
Ex.P.292 Yourself cheque dtd. 20-09-2012 for
Rs.25,23,528/-.
Ex.P.293 Yourself Cheque dtd 26-09-2012 for
Rs.13,00,058/-.
Ex.P.294 Yourself cheque dtd. 27-09-2012 for Rs.
12,00,058/-.
Ex.P.295 RTGS Credit Voucher dtd 01-10-2012 for
134 Spl.CC.16/2017
Rs.12,00,058/-.
Ex.P.296 RTGS Credit Voucher dtd 03-10-2012 for
Rs.13,00,000/-.
Ex.P.297 Self cheque dtd. 04-10-2012 for Rs.
1,75,000/-.
Ex.P.298 Yourself cheque dtd. 08-10-2012 for
Rs.20,00,058/- for transfer of amount to the
account of Swarnagiri Insulations along with
RTGS Voucher / application
Ex.P.299 Self cheque dtd. 13-10-2012 for Rs. 2.75/-
Lakhs
Ex.P.300 Yourself cheque dtd. 21-10-2013 for Rs.
5,93,246/-.
Ex.P.301 Self cheque dtd. 25-10-2012 for Rs.
3,00,000/-.
Ex.P.302 Self cheque dtd. 07-11-2012 for Rs.
3,00,000/-.
Ex.P.303 Yourself cheque dtd. 07-11-2012 for
Rs.18,00,000/- for transfer of amount to the
account of Paruma Electrik Pvt. Ltd along
with RTGS Voucher / application
Ex.P.304 Yourself cheque dtd. 07-11-2012 for Rs.
20,00,058/- for transfer of amount to the
account of Paruma Electrik Pvt. Ltd along
with RTGS Voucher / application
Ex.P.305 I.O.B., B.S.K. 2nd stage branch self cheque
dtd. 09-11-2012 for Rs. 2,00,000/-
Ex.P.306 I.O.B., credit voucher dtd. 22-11-
2012 showing three amount received by
R.T.G.S.
Ex.P.307 I.O.B., B.S.K. 2nd stage branch self cheque
dtd. 24-11-2012 for Rs. 3,50,000/-
Ex.P.308 I.O.B., credit voucher dtd. 27-11-
2012 showing three amount received by
R.T.G.S.
135 Spl.CC.16/2017
Ex.P.309 I.O.B., credit voucher dtd. 19-12-
2012 showing three amount received by
R.T.G.S.
Ex.P.310 I.O.B., B.S.K. 2nd stage branch yourself
cheque dtd. 21-12-2012 for Rs. 10,00,058/-
Ex.P.311 I.O.B., credit voucher dtd. 29-12-
2012 showing two amount received by
R.T.G.S.
Ex.P.312 I.O.B., B.S.K. 2nd stage branch self cheque
dtd. 31-12-2012 for Rs. 1,00,000/-
Ex.P.313 I.O.B., B.S.K. 2nd stage branch cheque dtd.
31-12-2012 for Rs. 2,00,000/- favoring
Maxtel Enterprises.
Ex.P.314 I.O.B., B.S.K. 2nd stage branch cheque dtd.
31-12-2012 for Rs. 90,000/- favoring M.M.
Sales Corporation.
Ex.P.315 I.O.B., B.S.K. 2nd stage branch self cheque
dtd. 05-03-2013 for Rs. 3,75,000/-
Ex.P.316 I.O.B., credit voucher dtd. 20-03-
2012 showing three amount received by
R.T.G.S.
Ex.P.317 I.O.B., B.S.K. 2nd stage branch yourself
cheque dtd. 21-03-2013 for Rs. 10,08,537/-
along with R.T.G.S. application.
Ex.P.318 I.O.B., B.S.K. 2nd stage branch yourself
cheque dtd. 27-03-2013 for Rs. 09,68,867/-
Ex.P.319 I.O.B., credit voucher dtd. 19-04-
2013 showing Rs. 5,00,000/- received by
R.T.G.S.
Ex.P.320 I.O.B., B.S.K. 2nd stage branch self cheque
dtd. 19-04-2015 for Rs. 5,00,000/-
Ex.P.321 I.O.B., credit voucher dtd. 03-05-
2013 showing three amount received by
R.T.G.S.
Ex.P.322 I.O.B., credit voucher dtd. 30-05-
2013 showing Rs. 1,50,000/- received
136 Spl.CC.16/2017
through cheque of Panjab and Sindh Bank.
Ex.P.323 I.O.B., B.S.K. 2nd stage branch yourself
cheque dtd. 06-06-2013 for Rs. 2,40,058/-
along with R.T.G.S. application.
Ex.P.324 I.O.B., credit voucher dtd. 26-06-
2013 showing Rs. 1,00,000/- received
through cheque of Panjab and Sindh Bank.
Ex.P.325 I.O.B., credit voucher dtd. 30-08-
2013 showing Rs. 1,15,000/- received
through cheque of Panjab and Sindh Bank.
Ex.P.326 I.O.B., credit voucher dtd. 21-09-
2013 showing Rs. 2,25,000/- received
through cheque of Panjab and Sindh Bank.
Ex.P.327 I.O.B., credit voucher dtd. 03-10-
2013 showing Rs. 7,00,000/- received
through cheque of I.O.B.
Ex.P.328 I.O.B., credit voucher dtd. 31-10-
2013 showing Rs. 1,15,000/- received
through cheque of I.O.B.
Ex.P.329 I.O.B., credit voucher dtd. 28-03-
2014 showing two amount received through
R.T.G.S.
Ex.P.330 I.O.B., credit voucher dtd. 28-04-
2014 for Rs. 1,00,000/- received through
cheque of Panjab and Sindh Bank.
Ex.P.331 I.O.B., credit voucher dtd. 29-11-
2014 for Rs. 1,25,000/- .
Ex.P.332 I.O.B., credit voucher dtd. 09-12-
2014 for Rs. 1,25,000/- .
Ex.P.333 I.O.B., Debit voucher dtd. 18-05-
2016 for Rs. 5,35,000/-
Ex.P.348 Statement of account I/R/O. Account No.
…..1733 of G.M. Enterprises along with
certificate U/sec. 65-B of I.E. Act.
Ex.P.335 One bunch containing I.O.B. Cheques and
Challans. {D-391 to 427}
137 Spl.CC.16/2017
Ex.P.336 Statement of account in respect of Account
No. ……..1722 of M/S Maxtel Enterprises
along with certificate U/sec. 65-B of I.E. Act.
Ex.P.337 One bunch containing I.O.B. Cheques and
Challans. {D-428 to 430, 432 to 477}
Ex.P.338 Statement of account in respect of Account
No. ……..1723 of M/S M.M. Sales Corporation
along with certificate U/sec. 65-B of I.E. Act.
Ex.P.339 I.O.B., B.S.K 2 nd stage branch letter dtd. 30-
05-2016 to the CBI along with C.I.B.I.L
reports of 12 firms. (28 Sheets)
P.339(a) Signature of PW-47
Ex.P. 340 Attested copies of transfer orders etc.
of accused No. 1 to 3. (8 Sheets)
P.340(a) Signature of PW-47
Ex.P.341 Proceedings dtd. 01-08-2016 along with 3
photos. (7 Sheets)
P.341(a) Signature of PW-47
P.341(b) Photograph in which board of 4C Drug Safety
Services is seen.
P.341(b-1) Signature of PW-47
P.341(c) Photograph in which vacant site is seen.
P.341(c-1) Signature of PW-47
P. 341(d) Photograph in which two closed shops are
seen.
P.341(d-1) Signature of PW-47 P.341(e) Signature of PW.51 Ex.P.342 I.O.B., B.S.K 2 nd stage branch letter dtd. 02-
08-2016 to the CBI regarding submission of
statement of accounts
P.342(a) Signature of PW-47
Ex.P.343 Statement of account I/R/O. Account No.
…..1721 of M/S. G. Hanumanthappa and
Sons along with certificate U/sec. 65-B of I.E.
Act.
P.343(a) Signature of PW-47
Ex.P.344 Statement of account I/R/O. Account No.
138 Spl.CC.16/2017
…..1730 of Sri. Sai Rice Traders along with
certificate U/sec. 65-B of I.E. Act.
P.344(a) Signature of PW-47 Ex.P.345 Statement of account I/R/O. Account No.
…..1731 of N.E.T. 27 Technology along with
certificate U/sec. 65-B of I.E. Act.
P.345(a) Signature of PW-47 Ex.P.346 Statement of account I/R/O. Account No.
…..1732 of Sri. Banashankari Interior Works
along with certificate U/sec. 65-B of I.E. Act.
P.346(a) Signature of PW-47 Ex.P.347 Statement of account I/R/O. Account No.
…..1741 of Sri. Annapoorneshwari Rice
Traders along with certificate U/sec. 65-B of
I.E. Act.
P.347(a) Signature of PW-47 Ex.P.348 Statement of account I/R/O. Account No.
…..1745 of Veeresh Provision Store along with
certificate U/sec. 65-B of I.E. Act.
P.348(a) Signature of PW-47 Ex.P.349 Statement of account I/R/O. Account No.
…..1750 of M/S. SLN Glass , Plywood and
Hardware along with certificate U/sec. 65-B
of I.E. Act.
P.349(a) Signature of PW-47 Ex.P.350 Statement of account I/R/O. Account No.
…..1756 of Veerabhadreshwar Stores along
with certificate U/sec. 65-B of I.E. Act.
P.350(a) Signature of PW-47 Ex.P. 351 I.O.B., B.S.K 2 nd stage branch letter dtd. 02-
08-2016 to the CBI along with copy of death
certificate of Sri. R. Mohan Naidu
P.351(a) Signature of PW-47
Ex.P. 352 Receipt memo dtd. 25-08-2016
P. 352(a) Signature of PW-47
P. 352(b) Signature of PW.51
Ex.P. 353 I.O.B. B.S.K. 2nd stage branch cheque referred
139 Spl.CC.16/2017
register from 27-01-2012 to 16-11-2012
Ex.P. 354 I.O.B. B.S.K. 2nd stage branch cheque referred
register from 16-11-2012 to 25-01-2014
Ex.P. 355 I.O.B., B.S.K 2 nd stage branch letter dtd. 02-
08-2016 to the CBI along with statement of
account of 04 firms. (37 Sheets)
P.355(a) Signature of PW-47
Ex.P. 356 Receipt memo dtd. 14-09-2016
P. 356(a) Signature of PW-47
P. 356(b) Signature of PW.51
Ex.P. 357 Attested copies of submission of credit
proposal in new board note format. (20 Sheet)
P.357(a) Signature of PW-47
Ex.P. 358 One bunch containing D.D. application and
cheques {D-527 to 542}
Ex.P. 359 One bunch containing Challans and one
cheque {D-543 to 552}
Ex.P. 360 One bunch containing two D.D. applications
and cheque {D-553 to 555}
Ex.P. 361 One bunch containing D.D. applications and
cheques {D-556 to 560}
Ex.P. 362 One bunch containing D.D. applications and
one cheque {D-561 to 564}
Ex.P. 363 I.O.B., B.S.K 2 nd stage branch statements
showing credit limits sanctioned under
manager’s discretion. (13 Sheets)
P.363(a) Signature of PW-47
Ex.P. 364 I.O.B., B.S.K 2 nd stage branch letter dtd. 06-
10-2016 to the CBI along with valuation
reports of 12 firms. (57 Sheets)
P.364(a) Signature of PW-47
Ex.P. 365 Original sanction order dt.25.11.2006 issued
by PW.48.
Ex.P. 365(a) Signature of PW.48
Ex.P. 366 Hand writing Expert’s opinion dt.27.7.2017
140 Spl.CC.16/2017
Ex.P. 366(a) Signature of PW.50
Ex.P. 367 Reasons for opinion
Ex.P. 367(a) Signature of PW.50
Ex.P. 368 Original FIR
Ex.P. 369 Receipt Memo dt.27.4.2016
Ex.P. 369(a) Signature of PW.51
Ex.P. 370 Receipt Memo dt.10.5.2016
Ex.P. 370(a) Signature of PW.51
Ex.P. 371 Letter dt.12.8.2016 from the Joint Director,
CA Institute Chennai to CBI giving addresses
of Chartered Accountants.
Ex.P. 372 Specimen Signatures of Jtendra Bhandari (10
sheets)
Ex.P. 372(a) Signature of PW.28
Ex.P. 373 Specimen signature of G. Subramanyam in
10 sheets
Ex.P. 373(a) Signature of PW.28
Ex.P. 374 10 sheets containing specimen signatures of
Smt. Anita Devi Bhandari (S.21 to 30)
Ex.P. 374(a) Signature of PW.53 in the 1st page.
Ex.P. 375 10 sheets containing specimen signatures of
Lalit Kumar Bhandari (S.11 to S.20)
Ex.P. 375(a) Signature of PW.53 in the 1st Page.
Ex.P. 376 Letter of Indian Overseas Bank dt.15.9.2016
Signature of PW.44
Ex.P. 377 One DD for Rs.1,96,000/- dt.10.12.2012
Ex.P. 378 One DD for Rs.35,000/- dt.10.12.2012
Ex.P. 379 One DD for Rs.7,300/- dt.18.8.2012
Ex.P. 380 One DD for Rs.7,300/- dt.21.8.2012
Ex.P. 381 One DD for Rs.7,300/- dt.21.8.2012
Ex.P. 382 One DD for Rs.15,200/- dt.18.1.2013
Ex.P. 383 One DD for Rs.1,15,360/- dt.25.6.2012
Ex.P. 384 One DD for Rs.1,15,360/- dt.25.6.2012
141 Spl.CC.16/2017
Ex.P. 385 One DD for Rs.20,600/- dt.25.6.2012
Ex.P. 386 One DD for Rs.20,600/- dt.25.6.2012
Ex.P. 387 to One DD for Rs.9,00,000/- dt.25.6.2012
389
Ex.P. 390 One DD for Rs.8,88,000/- dt.25.6.2012
Ex.P. 391, One DD for Rs.4,900/- dt.7.8.2012
392
Ex.P. 393 Receipt Memo dt.25.10.2016
Ex.P. 394 Documents (5 sheets) file pertaining to
G.M.Enterprises.
Ex.P. 395 VAT 1 documents of Lalith Kumar Bhandari
M/s. M.M.Sales Corporation File (12 sheets)
Ex.P. 396 One file of M/s. Maxtel Enterprises VAT-7
FORM documents / Maxtel Enterprises (39
sheets)
LIST OF EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE DEFENCE SIDE:
Exhibit
Number Description
Ex.D1 to D6 Relevant portions of statement of CW.5/PW.3
recorded U/Sec.161 of Cr.P.C.
[Manjunath Sangreshi]
XXI Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge
& Prl.Special Judge for CBI Cases
Bengaluru.
*****
MANJUNATH
SANGRESHI
Digitally signed by
MANJUNATH
SANGRESHI
Date: 2026.04.29
17:42:29 +0530
