Delhi District Court
Cbi vs S.K.Pathrella And Ors on 27 April, 2026
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
OLDEST MATTER
IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE, PC ACT (CBI-04),
ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURTS, NEW DELHI
CNR No. DLCT11-001578-2019
CC No. 260/2019
R.C.1(E)/97
PS: SIU(X) (BS&FC)/SPE/CBI/New Delhi
Under Section: 120B IPC r/w Section 420/467/468/471 IPC
& 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
(CBI)
VERSUS
1. Suresh Kumar Pathrella
S/o late Mani Ram
the then Chief Manager, Oriental
Bank of Commerce, New Friends Colony Branch,
New Delhi
R/o 16/11, Railway Colony, Sarojni Nagar
New Delhi.
(Proceedings qua Accused postponed on account of Mental
Condition vide order dated 01.03.2025)
2. Ghanshyam Kakkar
S/o K.R Kakkar
Partner M/s Red Cat Agencies
R/o I-1623, C.R Park, New Delhi
(Declared P.O vide order dt. 17.04.2010)
3. Joginder Singh Logani
S/o Sardar Ishwar Singh
1
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
Partner, M/s Red Cat Agencies
R/o 229, Mandakini Enclave
Alaknanda, New Delhi
(Proceedings qua accused quashed vide
order dated 04.09.2015 by Hon'ble Delhi High Court)
4. Sh. Harsimran Dhingra
S/o Sh. Amrik Singh Dhingra
Proprietor, M/s Pimco Overseas
R/o 229, Mandakini Enclave
Alaknanda, New Delhi
5. Rajesh Batra
S/o P.S Batra
Proprietor M/s Batra Traders
R/o N-8, Kalkaji, New Delhi
6. Naveen Kakkar
S/o K.R Kakkar
Proprietor M/s Agronica Overseas
(Declared Proclaimed Offender vide order dt. 17.04.2010)
7. Sanjeev Arora
S/o Jagdish Rai Arora
Proprietor M/s Ashok Industries
R/o D-20, Sector-26 Noida, U.P
8. Vikram Arora
S/o Sh. J.A Arora,
Proprietor M/s Ganpati Enterprises
R/o D-20, Sector-26 Noida, U.P
Date of Institution 08.07.2005
Date of Start of Arguments 16.10.2025
2
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
Date of Conclusion of 27.03.2026
Arguments
Date of Judgment 27.04.2026
INDEX
Sl. Title Pages
I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF CASE 4
(i) Allegations in the RC/FIR 4-6
(ii) Result of Investigation 6-7
(iii) Discussion qua Individual Beneficiary 7-22
Accounts
II. CHARGE 23-24
III. PROSECUTION EVIDENCE (P.E) 24
(i) Bank Witnesses Related to Beneficiary 24-67
Accounts with OBC, NFC, New Delhi and
Fictitious Accounts with Other Banks
(ii) Other Witnesses (Investigation Witnesses, 68-77
Private Persons & FSL Witnesses)
IV. STATEMENT OF ACCUSED (S.A) 77-79
V DEFENCE EVIDENCE 79-80
VI ARGUMENTS OF CBI 80-85
VII. ARGUMENTS OF ACCUSED 86-88
VIII. REBUTTAL ARGUMENTS OF CBI 89
IX CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY 90-94
(i) Criminal Conspiracy vis-a-vis the 94-101
3
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
allegations against A-1 U/s 13 (1) (d) r/w 13
(2) of PC Act.
(ii) Discounting of Bills/Cheques By A-1 101-125
(iii)Criminal Conspiracy vis-a-vis the Offence 125-134
of Cheating & Forgery under IPC
X. ROLE OF INDIVIDUAL ACCUSED 134-197
XI CONCLUSION 197-198
Annexures (Containing Chart of Witnesses
Examined and Documents Got Exhibited) in
terms of Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court
in case titled Manojbhai Jethabhai Parmar
(Rohit ) V. State of Gujarat, Criminal Appeals
No.2973/2023 dated 15.12.2025
JUDGMENT:
–
1. This judgment shall decide the case filed by the
Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), bearing R.C.1(E)/97
registered on source information at SIU (X) Branch of CBI,
New Delhi on 30.04.1997 against accused persons under
Section 120B IPC r/w Section 420/467/468/471 IPC & 13
(2) read with 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988.
(I) FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE
(i) Allegations in the FIR/RC
2. It is alleged in the FIR that during the year
1994 onwards, A-1 Suresh Kumar Pathrella (hereinafter
4
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
referred as “S.K. Pathrella’), Chief Manager, Oriental Bank
of Commerce (hereinafter in short ‘OBC’), New Friends
Colony, New Delhi (hereinafter referred as “NFC, New
Delhi.”), entered into a criminal conspiracy with A-2
Ghanshyam Kakkar (since P.O) and A-3 Joginder Singh
Logani (hereinafter referred in short as “J.S Logani”), both
partners in M/s Red Cat Agency, Narender Kapoor,
Proprietor of M/s Navyug Trader, A-5 Rajesh Batra,
Proprietor of M/s Batra Traders, A-4 Harsimran Dhingra,
Proprietor of M/s Pimmco Overseas and A-6 Naveen
Kumar, Proprietor of M/s Agronica Overseas, to cheat
OBC, NFC Branch, New Delhi and others.
2.1 In pursuance of the said criminal conspiracy, A-1
S.K. Pathrella abused his official position in exercise of the
discretionary powers vested in him. A-1 discounted/
purchased cheques/bills in the accounts of above-said firms
which were returned unpaid. A-1 also allowed overdraft in
other accounts and to adjust the same, he further purchased
cheques which were too returned unpaid. As a result, a
wrongful loss of more than Rs. 1.64 crores approximately
was caused to OBC.
2.2 It is further alleged that Narender Kapoor and A-5
Rajesh Batra were the employees of A-3 J.S Logani, while
5
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
A-6 Naveen Kakkar is a relative of A-2 Ghanshyam Kakkar.
A-1 S.K. Pathrella unauthorisedly gave credit facility to all
the firms of accused persons and amounts were credited in
the accounts of said firms exceeding his powers. A-1 did
not obtain sanction from his Senior Officers and without
obtaining security to safeguard the interest of the bank, the
aforesaid credit facility was sanctioned.
(ii) Result of Investigation
2.3 The investigation revealed that A-1 was posted and
functioned as Branch Manager of OBC, NFC, New Delhi
during the period 16.04.1994 to 15.11.1995. He was
suspended from the bank on 21.12.1995 and was removed
from service on 28.05.1998. The New Friends Colony
Branch of OBC was categorised as ‘Scale IV Branch’.
2.4 It is further alleged that in pursuance of the aforesaid
criminal conspiracy, five current accounts in the name of
aforesaid firms viz; CA No.2607 of M/s Red Cat Agencies,
CA No.2695 of M/s Batra Traders, CA No.2845 of M/s
Navyug Trader, CA No.2783 of M/s Pimco Overseas and
CA No.2846 of M/s Agronica Overseas were opened by
aforesaid private accused persons with New Friends Colony
Branch, New Delhi of OBC (hereinafter referred as
Beneficiary Accounts). A-1 allowed opening of all the
6
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
aforesaid bank accounts. Thereafter, all the said private
persons either themselves or their proxies opened accounts
in various places viz; Amritsar, Jalandhar, Hapur, Dutai,
Faridabad and New Delhi and procured the cheque books.
(hereinafter referred as Fictitious Accounts). The said
accounts were opened with sole intention to cheat OBC and
procure cheque books. There were no routine transactions in
the said accounts. The cheques were issued from these
accounts favouring the aforesaid five current account
holders maintained with OBC, New Friends Colony, New
Delhi and got the same purchased as “DD” in criminal
conspiracy with A-1 S.K. Pathrella, the then Branch
Manager. The proceeds of the cheque amounts were
misappropriated by said private persons. The said
purchased cheques when sent in for clearing by OBC, NFC,
New Delhi, all of them returned unrealised due to
‘insufficient funds’. The funds so availed by the said private
persons were not paid.
(iii) Discussion qua the Individual Beneficiary Accounts
Investigation qua Current A/c No. 2607/CC 1724 of M/s
Red Cat Agencies
3. The investigation qua the said account revealed that M/s
Red Cat Agency is a partnership firm of A-3 J.S Logani and A-2
Ghanshyam Kakkar. The current account No. 2607 was opened in
7
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
the name of said firm . The account was allowed to be opened by A-
1. On 31.3.95 current Account No. 2607 was converted into CC A/C
No. 1724.
3.1 The investigation also revealed that from 3.10.94 to 30.9.95 a
total of 20 cheques amounting to Rs. 73.60 lacs and 4 bills
amounting to Rs. 25.85 lacs were purchased by A-1 in CA No.
2607/CC Ac No. 1724 of M/s Red Cat Agencies. The amount of the
said four bills was later on adjusted against three cheques and
therefore, no loss could be caused to the bank in the purchase of
said four bills. Out of the said 20 cheques, 18 cheque amounting to
Rs. 66.35 lacs were returned unpaid due to insufficient funds as per
the details mentioned below:-
Sl. Cheque Amt (In Rs.) Date of Drawn on Date of Fictitious Co./Firm
No. No. & Purchase Return & Account Number
Date of cheque
1 171005 3.70 lacs 6.10.94 OBC, 29.10.94 A-8 Vikram Arora
6.10.94 as DD Faridabad in the name of M/s
362 (NIT) Carda (India
Electronics)
in CA No. 6089
2 149775 3.60 lacs 6.10.94 Syndicate 29.10.94 A-7 Sanjeev Arora,
6.10.94 as DD Bank Dutai proprietor of M/s
363 Ashoka Industries ,
Account No.13.
3 253428 6.60 lacs 31.10.94 State Bank 3.12.94 A-8 Vikram Arora ,
28.10.94 as DD of Patiala, Proprietor of M/s
457 Hapur Ganpati
Enterprises, CA
No.224
4 02003 614,328.25/- 6.1.95 OBC, 31.3.95 A-3 J.S Logani,
6.1.95 as DD Faridabad Proprietor of M/s
717 (NIT) Gold Exports, CA
No. 6199
8
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
5 020019 632,435.35/- 2.2.95 OBC, 21.2.95 A-3 J.S Logani,
2.2.95 as DD Faridabad Proprietor of M/s
851 (NIT) Gold Exports, CA
No. 6199
6 049002 349,250/- 24.2.95 Central 25.9.95 A-4 H.S Dhingra,
24.2.95 as DD Bank of Proprietor of M/s
968 India, Gold Exports, CA
Amritsar No. 4378
7 035729 376,641/- 17.4.95 Central 15.5.95 A-4 H.S Dhingra,
15.4.95 as DD 84 Bank of Proprietor of M/s
India, Gold Exports, CA
Majith No. 4378
Mandi,
Amritsar
8 035728 376,186/- 17.4.95 Central -do- A-4 H.S Dhingra,
8.4.95 as DD 85 Bank of Proprietor of M/s
India, Gold Exports, CA
Majith No. 4378
Mandi,
Amritsar
9 035727 385,250/- 17.4.95 Central -do- A-4 H.S Dhingra,
10.4.95 as DD 86 Bank of Proprietor of M/s
India, Gold Exports, CA
Majith No. 4378
Mandi,
Amritsar
10 035732 201,250/- 21.8.95 Central 25.9.95 A-4 H.S Dhingra,
21.8.95 as DD Bank of Proprietor of M/s
761 India, Gold Exports, CA
Majith No. 4378
Mandi,
Amritsar
11 035735 165,754/- 21.8.95 Central -do- A-4 H.S Dhingra,
21.8.95 as DD Bank of Proprietor of M/s
762 India, Gold Exports, CA
Amritsar No. 4378
12 20011 275,406/- 21.8.95 OBC, -do- A-3 J.S Logani,
21.8.95 as DD Faridabad Proprietor of M/s
763 (NIT) Gold Exports, CA
No. 6199
13 20010 265,406/- 21.8.95 OBC, -do- A-3 J.S Logani,
21.8.95 as DD Faridabad Proprietor of M/s
9
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
764 (NIT) Gold Exports, CA
No. 6199
14 935266 1.20 lacs 24.8.95 PNB, Patel -do- Jagat Bhushan,
24.8.95 as DD Nagar, Director of M/s
795 Dehradun Bhushan Mineral
Industries Pvt Ltd.,
C.A No. 964 (To
adjust the amount,
Fresh cheque
mentioned at Sr.
No.17 was issued )
15 035740 565,989/- 25.9.95 Central 1.11.95 A-4 H.S Dhingra,
20.9.95 as DD Bank of Proprietor of M/s
1059/95 India, Gold Exports.
Majith
Mandi,
Amritsar
16 035741 553,857/- 25.9.95 Central -do- A-4 H.S Dhingra,
20.9.95 as DD Bank of Proprietor of M/s
1060/95 India, Gold Exports, CA
Majith No. 4378
Mandi,
Amritsar
17 714028 122,836/- 25.9.95 Punjab & -do- A-4 H.S Dhingra,
19.9.95 as DD Singh Proprietor of M/s
1061/95 Bank, Gold Exports, CA
Lajpat No. 4378
Nagar,
Jalandhar
18 331556 50,000/- 30.9.95 Union 6.10.95 M/s Sachdeva
29.9.95 as DD Bank of Offset and Packing
1137/95 India, Industries Pvt Ltd
Okhla Ind. CA No. 29061
Area, New
Delhi
3.2 The investigation revealed that the proceeds on account of
purchase of above-said 18 cheques were credited in the account of
M/s Red Cat Agencies which was utilised by A-2 Ghanshyam
Kakkar (since P.O) and A-3. It is thus alleged that A-2 (since P.O)
10
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
and A-3 alongwith other fictitious account holders cheated OBC,
NFC, New Delhi to the tune of Rs.50,59,522.60 through account of
M/s Red Cat Agencies in conspiracy with A-1.
Investigation qua CA No. 2695 of M/s Batra Traders :-
4. The investigation revealed that CA No.2695 was opened on
01.02.1995 by A-5 Rajesh Batra in the name of M/s Batra Traders
as its proprietor. The said account was introduced by Sh. R.P.
Bhargava which was allowed to be opened by A-1. The
investigation further revealed A-5 was an employee of M/s Red
Cat Agency used to visit the bank frequently and collect payment on
behalf the said firm. The investigation further revealed that a total
of 7 cheques and 2 bills were purchased by A-1 as detailed below:
S. Cheque Amt. (In Date of Drawn on DATE OF Fictitious
N No. & Rs.) Purchase RETURN Co./Firm &
Date of Account Number
Cheque
1 714002 386,196/- 24.2.95 Punjab & No Entry A-4 Harsimran
24.2.95 as DD Sind Dhingra ,Propri
969 Bank, etor of M/s Sun
Jalandhar Exports,
Jalandhar
2 20009 296,985/- 21.8.95 OBC, 17.11.95 A-3 J.S Logani,
21.8.95 as DD Faridabad, Proprietor of
765/95 NIT M/s Gold
Exports, CA
No. 6199
3 20024 389,489/- 21.8.95 -do- -do- A-3 J.S Logani,
21.8.95 as DD Proprietor of
766/95 M/s Gold
Exports, CA
No. 6199
4 49036 318,764/- 21.8.95 Central – do- A-4 H.S
11
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
21.8.95 as DD Bank of Dhingra, Prop.
767/95 India,Guru M/s Sun
Bazar Exports, CA
Amritsar No.1398
5 154528 337,400.5/- 13.10.95 Punjab 21.10.95 J.S Logani,
13.10.95 as DD National Prop. Of M/s
1322/95 Bank, Sun Glow
Alknanda, Travels & Tours
New Delhi Operator, CA
No.1230
6 049004 345,115/- 08.04.95 Central 18.04.95 A-4 H.S
06.04.95 as DD Bank of Dhingra, Prop.
49/95 India, M/s Sun
Guru Exports, CA
Bazar, No.1398
Amritsar
7 049003 360,135/- 08.04.95 Central -do- A-4 H.S
06.04.95 as DD Bank of Dhingra, Prop.
50/95 India, M/s Sun
Guru Exports, CA
Bazar, No.1398
Amritsar
S Bill No. Amount Date of Drawn on Date of Fictitious
. & Date (In Rs.) Purchase Reversal Co./Firm &
N of Bill Account Number
o.
1 Invoice 7.07 lacs 02.03.95 Gold 16.02.96 A-4 Harsimran
No. 009 as BP Exports Dhingra of
dated 57/95 Amritsar Gold Exports,
01.02.95 Amritsar
2 Invoice 775,550/- 02.03.95 -do- -do- A
No. 009 as BP
dated 58/95
01.02.95
4.1 The investigation revealed that the proceeds of above
mentioned 07 cheques and two bills were credited in the said
account of M/s Batra Traders which was subsequently withdrawn
12
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
by A-5 Rajesh Batra. Out of which, an amount of Rs.4.95 lacs were
transferred to the SB account of A-2 ( since P.O). The investigation
further revealed that no limit or any credit facility was sanctioned to
M/s Batra Traders at OBC, NFC, New Delhi. The total loss caused
on account of purchase of said cheques and bills in the said account
amounts to Rs.38,16,634/-.
Investigation qua CA No. 2845 of M/s Navyug Traders:-
5. The investigation revealed that the said account was opened
in the name of M/s Navyug Traders on 06.09.1995 showing
Narender Kapoor as its Proprietor. The said account was allowed to
be opened by A-1 who verified specimen signature of Narender
Kapoor. Further investigation revealed that said Narender Kapoor
joined M/s Red Cat Agency in April 1994 as Peon. At the time of
his joining, his two photographs and an application were collected
by owners namely A-3 J.S Logani and A-2 Ghanshyam Kakkar. The
investigation also disclosed that Narender Kapoor was a semi
literate person. He had neither opened the said account nor signed
any document. The CFSL after comparing the writings opined that
signatures on documents i.e accompanying form, SS Cards and
cheques issued in the said accounts are not of Narender Kapoor and
his signatures were forged by A-5 Rajest Batra .A total loss to the
bank on account of said purchase of instruments was Rs.
18,32,169.90/-.
13
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
5.1 As per the investigation, following one cheque and two
bills were purchased in the said account:
S. Cheque Amount (IN Date of Drawn on Date of Fictitious
N No & Rs.) Purchase Return Co./Firm &
o. Date of Cheque Account
Number
1 140444 340,569.9/- 13.10.95 Hong Kong 21.10.95 M/s Jimmy
as DD & Sanghai Crown
1326 Banking Enterprises,
Corp. CA No.
Chandni 052-01979-
Chowk, 001
Delhi
SL. Bill No. Amount Date of Drawn Date of Fictitious
No. & Date (In Rs.) Purchase By Reversal Co./Firm &
of Bill Account
Number
3 001 767,150/- 25.09.95 Sun 20.11.95 A-4
dated as BP Exports Proprietor
06.09.95 62/95 Jalandhar of M/s Sun
Exports,
Jalandhar
4 002 724,450/- 25.09.95 -do- -do- A-4
dated as BP Proprietor
06.09.95 63/95 of M/s Sun
Exports ,
Jalandhar
CA No. 2783 of M/s Pimco Overseas :-
6. The investigation qua the said account revealed that the
same was opened in the name of M/s Pimco Overseas by A-4 H.S
Dhingra on 30.05.1995. The account was introduced by A-2
Ghanshyam Kakkar (since PO) partner of M/s Red Cat Agency.
The said account was allowed to be opened by A-1 S.K. Pathrella.
14
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
The details of three cheques and two bills purchase in the said
account by A-1 are as under:
Sl. Cheque Amount (In Date of Drawn Date of Fictitious
No. No & Rs.) Purchase Return Co./Firm &
Date of the Account
Number
cheque
1 049013 368,188/- 01.06.95 Central 19.10.95 A-4
01.06.95 as DD 277 Bank of Proprietor of
India, Guru M/s Sun
Bazar, Exports,
Amritsar Amritsar , CA
No. 1398
2 049014 373,062/- 01.06.95 -do- -do- A-4
01.06.95 Proprietor of
M/s Sun
Exports,
Amritsar , CA
No. 1398
3 154530 345,972.1/- 16.10.95 PNB, 21.10.95 JS Logani ,
13.10.95 Alaknanda Proprietor of
Branch, M/S Sun Glow
New Delhi Travels ,CA
No.1230S. Bill No. Amount Date of Drawn On Date of Fictitious Co./Firm &
No & Date (In Rs.) Purchase Reversal Account Number
of the
Bill
1 193 737080/- 01.06.95 Sun 20.11.95 A-4 Proprietor of
dated as BP Exports, M/s Sun Exports
13.05.95 14/95 Amritsar
2 199 768200/- 01.06.95 Gold 17.11.95 A-4 Proprietor of
dated as BP Export , M/s Gold Exports ,
13.05.95 15/95 Amritsar15
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/20196.1 It was revealed in the investigation that the proceeds of
above mentioned purchased three cheques and two bills were
credited in CA 2783 of M/s Pimco Oversea which caused a total
loss of Rs.25,92,502.10 to OBC, New Friends Colony, New DelhiCA No. 2486 of M/s Agronica Overseas :-
7. The investigation qua the aforesaid CA revealed that the
same was opened on 06.01.1995 in the name of M/s Agronica
Overseas by A-6 Naveen Kakkar ( Since PO ) as its proprietor
which was allowed to opened by A-1. The account was introduced
by A-5 Rajesh Batra of M/s Batra Traders. A-6 was the younger
brother of A-2. The details of two cheques and two bills as were
purchased by A-1 in the said account are as under:
Sl. Cheque Amount Date of Drawn On Date of Fictitious
No. and Date (IN Rs.) Purchase Return Co./Firm &
of of the Account
Number
Purchase Cheque
1 714019 743,950/- 10.10.95 Punjab & – A-4
07.10.95 as DD Sindh Bank, Proprietor of
1271 Lajpat M/s Sun
Nagar, Exports , CA
Jalandhar no. 2099
2 140445 347,615/- 16.10.95 Hongkong 21.10.95 Meneka
12.10.95 as DD & Shanghai Kakkar (wife
1341 Banking of A-2)
Corp., Proprietor
Chandni M/s Jimmy
Chowk, Crown
New Delhi Enterprises
16
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
S Bills No. Amount Date of Drawn on Date of Beneficiary/
N and Date (IN Rs.) Purchase Reversal Co./Firm &
of the Account Number
Bills
1 001 761,940/- 28.09.95 Sun Exports 20.11.95 A-4 Proprietor of
dated as BPM Jalandhar M/s Sun Exports
27.09.95 64 CA 2099
2 002 732,757/- 29.09.95 -do- -do- A-4 Proprietor of
dated as BPM M/s Sun Exports
27.09.95 73 CA 2099
7.1 The investigation revealed that the proceeds of said two
cheques and two bills which were purchased in this account were
credited in C.A No. 2846 of M/s Agronica Oversea from where an
amount of Rs.2.35 lacs was withdrawn in cash, while amount of
Rs.6.60 was transferred to M/s Altos Enterprises of A-3 J.S Logani
and A2 Ghanshyam Kakkar. Further, an amount of Rs.7.27 lacs was
transferred to account of M/s Subnit Enterprises of A-7 Sanjeev
Arora. A total loss of Rs.25,86,080 was caused in the account due to
purchase of aforesaid two cheques and two bills.
8. The investigation further revealed that the bills/cheques
purchased in the above-mentioned five beneficiary current accounts
at OBC, NFC, New Delhi were issued from the following
‘Fictitious Accounts’:
Current A/c No. 4378 of M/s Gold Exports, Prop. H.S. Dhingra at
Central Bank of India, Majith Mandi Br., Amritsar.
8.1 Investigation has further revealed that CA no. 4378 in the
name of M/s Gold Exports was opened by A-4 H. S. Dhingra as its17
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019Prop. on 31.1.95 at Central Bank of India, Majith Mandi Br.,
Amritsar. Cheque book from Sl. No. 035726 to 035750 was issued
to him. The said a/c was opened by initial cash deposit of Rs.
1,000/- and there was no transaction in the said a/c and the
maximum balance in the a/c during the period 31.1.95 to 9.9.96 was
Rs.1,000/-.
CA no. 1398 of M/s Sun Exports, Prop. H.S. Dhingra, Central Bank
of India, Guru Bazar, Amritsar.
8.2 Investigation has further revealed that CA no. 1398 was
opened on 30.1.95 in the name of M/s Sun Exports By A-4 H.S.
Dhingra as its Proprietor at Central Bank of India, Guru Bazar,
Amritsar. Cheques from Sl. No. 049001 to 049050 were issued to
him on 30.1.95. The a/c was opened by initial cash deposit of
Rs.500 and thereafter no transaction was made therein. The said
amount of Rs. 500/- was exhausted on account of debit to the
account due to return of cheque/bills and incidental charges. On
21.03.1996, there was no balance in the said account.
CA No.2099 of M/s Sun Exports, Prop. H.S.Dhingra, Punjab &
Sindh Bank, Lajpat Nagar, Jalandhar.
8.3 It was further disclosed that CA no. 2099 was opened on
2.2.95 in the name of M/s Sun Exports by A-4 H.S. Dhingra as its
Proprietor at Punjab & Sindh Bank, Lajpat Nagar, Jalandhar. The
a/c was opened by an initial deposit of Rs.1500/- and thereafter
there was no transaction in the said a/c. The a/c was closed on
18
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
19.12.95. The maximum balance in the said a/c during the period
2.2.95 to 19.12.95 was never more than Rs. 1500/-. Cheque book
from Sl. No. 714001 to 714050 was issued to A-4 H.S. Dhingra in
the said a/c on 02.02.1995.
Current a/c no. 6199 of M./s Gold Exports, Prop. J.S. Logani at
OBC, NIT, Faridabad.
8.4 Investigation has further revealed that current a/c no. 6199 in
the name of M/s Gold Exports was opened on 27.12.94 at OBC,
NIT, Faridabad by A-3 J.S. Logani as its Proprietor. The account
was opened with an initial cash deposit of Rs.1000/- and thereafter
there was no transaction in the said account.
Current a/c no. 29061 of M/s Sachdeva Offset and Packaging
Industries Pvt. Ltd. at Union Bank of India, Okhla Indus. Area
Branch, New Delhi.
8.5 It was further transpired during investigation that current a/c
no. 29061 was opened on 9.11.90 at Union Bank of India, Okhla
Industrial Area Branch, New Delhi in the name of M/s Sachdeva
Offset and Packaging Industries Pvt. Ltd.
Current A/c no. 052-01979-001 of M./s Jimmy Crown Ent. Prop.
Mrs. Menka Kakkar at Hongkong Bank, Daryaganj, Delhi.
8.6 It was revealed that current a/c no. 052-01979-001 was
opened on 4.2.88 in the name of M/s Jimmy Crown Ent. with Mrs.
Menka Kakkar at its Proprietor ( wife of A-2 ). A-2 Ghanshyam
19
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
Kakkar was given Power of Attorney to sign as authorised signatory
by Mrs. Menka Kakkar who is wife of A-3.
Current a/c no. 224 of M/s Ganpati Enterprises, Prop. Vikram Arora
at State Bank of Patiala, Hapur.
8.7 It was disclosed during investigation that current a/c no. 224
was opened at State Bank of Patiala, Hapur, U.P on 16.9.94 in the
name of M/s Ganpati Enterprises by A-8 Vikram Arora as its
Proprietor. Cheque book from serial no. 253426 to 253450 was
issued to A-8. The a/c was opened with the initial cash deposit of
Rs.1000 and thereafter there was only one credit of Rs. 1.50 lacs on
28.10.94. The maximum balance in this a/c between 7.11.94 to
12.12.94 was Rs.40,990/-.
Current a/c no. 13 of M/s Ashoka Industries, Prop. Sh. Sanjeev
Arora at Syndicate Bank, Dutai, Tehsil Garh Mukteshwar, Distt.
Ghaziabad.
8.8 Investigation further disclosed that current a/c no.13 in the
name of M/s Ashoka Industries was opened on 16.9.94 by A-7
Sanjeev Kr. Arora as its Proprietor. The said a/c was opened with an
initial cash deposit of Rs.1000 and thereafter there was no cash
transaction in the a/c. The a/c was closed on 19.2.96. The balance
in the a/c during the said period was never more than Rs.1000.
Current a/c no. 1230 of M/s Sun Glow Travels & Tour Operator,
Prop. Sh. Joginder Singh Logani at Punjab National Bank, ASC,
Alaknanda Branch, New Delhi.
20
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019 8.9 Investigation has disclosed that current a/c no. 1230 in the
name of M/s Sun Glow Travels & Tour Operator was opened on
15.7.93 by A-3 J.S. Logani as its Proprietor. The a/c was opened
with an initial cash deposit of Rs. 5000. The balance in the a/c
during the said period from 15.7.93 to 31.3.96 was never more than
Rs.34,654/-.
Current a/c no. 964 of M/s Bhushan Mineral Industries Pvt. Ltd.,
Director Sh. Jagat Bhushan at Punjab National Bank, Patel Nagar,
Dehradun.
8.10 Investigation has disclosed that current a/c no. 964 in the
name of M/s Bhushan Mineral Industries Pvt. Ltd. was opened on
22.12.94 with S/Sh. M.R. Batra, Bharat Bhushan, Jagat Bhushan
and Chander Bhushan as Directors. The said a/c was opened with
an initial cash deposit of Rs.1000.
9. Thus, in the end, it is concluded that A-1, the then Branch
Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce, NFC, New Delhi and A-2,
A-3 ( proceedings quashed by Hon’ble High Court ), A-4, A-5, A-6,
A-7 and A-8 in a criminal conspiracy with each other cheated the
OBC, by way of aforesaid fraudulent purchase of a total number of
31 cheques and 8 bills amounting to Rs.1,58,86,908.60.
Investigation also revealed that A-1 exceeded his discretionary
powers in terms of the Circular No. HO/ADV/28/91-92/85 dated
21
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
01.07.1991 issued by General Manager ( Operation) OBC and
applicable for the relevant period.
9.1 A-1 was authorised to purchase third party cheque upto
Rs.7.5 lacs only in a single account. Further, he was only authorised
to purchase third party cheques upto 30 lacs collectively in
allied/sister/associate concern. However, A-1 abused his official
position as public servant. Further, there was no sanctioned limit
for purchase of third party cheques in the aforesaid accounts, even
then A-1 continued to allow the purchase of cheques despite the fact
that the accounts were showing outstanding.
9.2 Thus, the investigation disclosed commission of offences
under Section 120B IPC r/w Section 420/467/468/471 IPC & Sec.
13 (2) r/w Sec 13 (1) (d) of PC Act and substantive offence under
Section 420 IPC against accused persons.
10. During the course of proceedings, A-2 Ghanshyam
Kakkar and A-6 Naveen Kakkar were declared Proclaimed
Offenders vide order dated 17.04.2010. The proceedings against A-
3 Joginder Singh Logani stands quashed vide order dated
04.09.2015 by Hon’ble Delhi High Court.
10.1 The proceedings against A-1 S.K. Pathrella also stands
postponed vide order dated 01.03.2025 u/s 368 of BNSS 2023 on
account of his Mental Condition.
22
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019 (II) CHARGE
11. The cognizance of the offence was taken on 08.02.2007
and accused persons were, accordingly, summoned. After supplying
the copies and hearing the arguments on charge, charges were
framed against accused persons (A-1, A-4, A-5 & A-7) on
21.07.2012 & against A-8 on 28.05.2022 as follows:
Charge Under Section Qua Accused Person
Number
Charge No.1 120B IPC r/w Sections A-1 S.K. Pathrella, A-3
420/467/468/471 IPC and Joginder Singh Logani
Section 13(2) r/w 13 (1) (d) (proceedings quashed vide
r/w 13 (1) (d) of PC Act order dated 409.2015), A-5
1988 Rajesh Batra, A-7 Sanjeev
Arora and A-8 Vikram
Arora.
Charge No.2 420 IPC r/W Section 120B A-1 S.K. Pathrella
IPC
Charge No.3 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of PC A-1 S.K. Pathrella
Act 1988
Charge No.4 420 IPC r/w 120B IPC A-1 S.K. Pathrella & A-3
J.S Logani
Charge No.5 420 IPC r/w 120B IPC A-1 S.K. Pathrella & A-5
Rajesh Batra
Charge No.6 420 IPC r/w 120B IPC A-1 S.K. Pathrella & A-3
J.S Logani
Charge No.7 420 IPC r/w 120B IPC A-1 S.K. Pathrella, A-3 J.S
Logani, A-7 Sanjeev Arora
& A-8 Vikram Arora
Charge No.8 468 IPC & 467 IPC r/w A-5 Rajesh Batra
Section 420 & 120B IPC
23
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
Main 120B r/w 420/467/468/471 A-4 Harsimran Dhingra
Charge/Subs IPC & 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d)
tantive of PC Act 1988 & 420 IPC
Charge r/w 120B IPC
11.1 The accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial for
the charges framed.
(III) Prosecution Evidence
12. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined 60
witnesses following which statement of accused under Section 313
Cr.P.C was recorded in which only A-4 and A-5 chose to lead
evidence in defence.
(i) Bank Witnesses related to Beneficiary Accounts with Oriental
Bank of Commerce, NFC, New Delhi and Fictitious Accounts with
Other Banks
13. PW-1 K.D Grover is retired Manager from Oriental Bank
of Commerce, New Friends Colony. He was posted at New Friends
Colony Branch in 1997 and worked under S.K. Pathrella (A-1) who
was the Senior Manager. He identified the signatures of A-1 and
other bank officials namely V.K. Sehgal, Sh. Balbir Singh Godara,
Sh. D.P. Dhingra, and Sh. A.K Khanna on various documents and
proved the same. He got exhibited account opening form of current
account no. 2783 (D-178) of M/s Pimco Overseas Ex.PW-1/A,
specimen signatures card (D-179) Ex.PW-1/B, credit voucher
24
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
through which bill no. 14/95 and 15/95 were purchased Ex.PW-1/C
(D-181) and credit voucher of commission qua the aforesaid bill
Ex.PW-1/D (D-182), Debit Voucher Ex.PW/E (D-183), Bill of
Exchange Ex.PW-1/F (D-184), its transport receipt Ex.PW1/G and
invoice Ex.PW1/H, Credit Voucher in favour of M/s Pimmco
Overseas, Ex.PW1/I (D-190), Debit Cheque Ex.PW1/J (D-191),
another Debit Cheque Ex.PW1/K (D-192), Bearer Cheque of M/s
Pimmco Overseas drawn in favour of Ram Gopal as Ex.PW1/L (D-
193), Bearer Cheque of M/s Pimmco Overseas in favour of Sh.
Bobby Ex.PW1/M ( D-194), Credit Voucher in favour of M/s Pimco
Overseas as Ex.PW1/N ( (D-195), Credit Voucher related to the
commission Ex.PW1/O (D-196), Debit Voucher related to purchase
of above DD as Ex.PW1/P (D-197), Pay-in-Slip related to above
DD (D-198) (not exhibited as per evidence), self cheque drawn by
M/s Pimmco Overseas Ex.PW1/Q (D-199), Debit Voucher in favour
of M/s Pimmco Overseas Ex.PW1/R (D-200), Credit Voucher
related to interest charged by the bank Ex.PW1/S (D-201), Credit
Voucher related to purchase of DDs Ex.PW1/T (D-202), Debit
Voucher Ex.PW1/U (D-203), Agreement regarding bill purchase
between the bank and M/s Pimmco Overseas Ex.PW1/V (D-212),
Agreement of Guarantee executed by the Guarantor G.D Kakkar
and the bank Ex.PW1/W (D-213), Agreement of Guarantee between
Sh. S.Banerjee and the Bank Ex.PW1/X (D-214), Agreement
regarding bill purchased executed between the bank and the party
25
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
Ex.PW1/Y (D-218) and Agreement for Cash Credit/Overdraft
executed between the bank and the party Ex.PW-1/Z (D-219).
14. PW-2 C.M Khurana was posted as Chief Manager at Karol
Bagh, New Delhi in the year 1994. He explained the procedure for
processing/ sanctioning of loan/ advance including purchasing of
third party cheques and bills in detail. He identified the Circular
dated 01.07.1991 (D-3) issued by General Manager (Operations)
relating to revision in discretionary powers of loans and advances as
Ex.PW2/A . He further stated New Friends Colony Branch of the
bank was a Scale IV Branch in the year 1994-95 and Suresh
Pathrella was the Manager at that time.
15. PW-3 K.L Bhutiani was posted as Dy. Chief Manager,
Oriental Bank of Commerce at Head Office, Connaught Place, New
Delhi. He got proved the seizure memo dated 29.09.1997 as
Ex.PW3/A (D-2) through which he had handed over circular Ex.
PW2/A to Inspector CBI .
16. PW-4 K.C Sharma was working as Special Assistant at
OBC, Daultabad Faridabad in the year 1997. He proved the account
opening form Ex.PW4/A (D-85) and specimen signature card
Ex.PW4/B (D-86) of M/s Gold Exports, Anaz Mandi, Old
Faridabad, Proprietor Sh. Joginder Singh Logani. He further
proved the statement of account of the said account from 1.1.1996
26
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
to 06.10.1997, 1.01.1994 to 1.10.1995 and 1.1.1995 to 1.1.1996 as
Ex.PW4/C1 to C3 (D-87). The maximum balance during the
period 27.12.1994 to 06.10.1997 in the said account was Rs.1000/-.
17. PW-5 Ishwar Singh was posted as Officer at NIT Branch,
Faridabad, Oriental Bank of Commerce in the year 1997. He
proved the entry regarding Cheque Book issued to Sh. Logani with
numbers 20001 to 20025 as Ex.PW5/A (D-28) and ABC/IBC
Clearing Register as Ex.PW5/B (D-88). He proved another
ABC/IBC Clearing register maintained at NIT, Faridabad branch of
OBC as Ex.PW5/C (D-89).
17.1 PW-5 further proved the Dispatch Register Ex.PW5/D (D-
90). After referring to Cheque no. 20019 (D461) in the sum of Rs.
6,32,435.35 (Ex.PW5/F), he stated that the same was drawn on
Gold Export, NIT Branch in favour of Red Cat Agencies was
purchased by New Friends Colony and sent to NIT Branch for
collection by DD No.851/95.
18. PW-6 Jagjit Singh Dang was posted as Manager at Punjab
& Sind Bank, Lajpat Nagar, Jalandar, Punjab during 1994-96. He
proved the current account opening form of M/s Sun Exports got
opened by Harsimran Singh ( A-4) as Ex.PW6/A1 (D-93). He
further stated cheque book from 714001 to 714050 was issued to
M/s Sun Exports. He further proved the specimen signature card of
27
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
aforesaid current account bearing signatures of Harsimran Singh
Ex.PW6/A2 (D-94), Cheque Book Issue register as Ex.PW6/B (D-
77) and Inward Bills for Collection (IBC) register Ex.PW6/C (D-
76). He identified the entries in the said register qua bill no.74/95,
63/95, 63/95, 64/95, 65/95 and 73/95. All the bills were returned
unpaid.
18.1 He also identified the letter of OBC, NFC Ex.PW6/D
whereby two bills were forwarded vide Ex.PW6/D (D-300). The
documents received alongwith the said bills are Ex.PW6/E . He
also identified the another letter of OBC, NFC, New Delhi,
Ex.PW6/F (D-336) forwarding bill No.001/95/96 and the entry of
the same being recorded in the register.
18.2 He also identified the another letter of OBC, NFC, New
Delhi, Ex.PW6/H (D-337) forwarding bill No.73/95 and the entry of
the same being recorded in the register. He also identified the
documents received with the said bill as Ex.PW6/J. He also proved
the ledger sheet of M/s Sun Exports as Ex.PW6/K (D-98), seizure
memo Ex.PW6/L (D-78) and Ex.PW6/M (D-74). He further
identified and proved various cash vouchers, Manager’s cheque etc
vide Ex.PW6/L1 to Ex.PW6/L5 (D-79 to D-83). He also proved
the cheque returning register Ex.PW6/M1 (D-75) and explained
various entries in the said returning register qua the cheques return
relating to M/s Sun Exports. He also identified and proved the
28
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
cheque bearing No. 714019 (D-357) in favour of M/s Agronica
Overseas vide Ex.PW6/N and return memo Ex.PW6/N1 (D-360).
He also identified and proved another cheque bearing No. 714028
(D-586) in favour of M/s Red Cat Agencies vide Ex.PW6/O and
return memo Ex.PW6/O1 (D-616). He also proved the letters
written by the Chief Manager of their Branch to OBC, GT Road,
Jalandhar vide Ex.PW6/P and Ex.PW6/Q (D-101). He also
identified and proved the letter of their Manager to OBC, NFC,
New Delhi, Ex.PW6/R and addressed to A-4 the Proprietor of M/s
Sun Exports Ex.PW6/S, T and U (Part of D-101).
19. PW-7 Avtar Singh Narang was posted as Sr. Manager,
Branch Office,Lajpat Nagar, Jalandhar, Punjab & Sind Bank in the
year 1997. He proved the seizure memo Ex.PW7/A (D-92) through
which he had handed over documents to CBI related to Current
Account No.2099 in the name of M/s Sun Exports of Sh. H.S
Dhingra ( A-4).
19.1 He also proved certified copy of Bill Collection Register
Ex.PW7/B ( D-95), Cheque Returning Register as Ex.PW7/C (D-
96), Cheque Book Issue Register Ex.PW7/D (D-97), Original
Voucher regarding collection of returning bill charges Ex.PW7/E
(D-99), letter dated 08.03.1996 Ex.PW7/F (D-100) written by OBC
to their bank related to returning charge on account of bill
collection. He proved one file (D-101) containing correspondence
29
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
with OBC by their bank with regard to the bills purchased and
operation of account of M/s Sun Exports. He identified his
signatures various documents contained in the said file as
Ex.PW7/G1 to PW7/G10. Lastly, he proved the certified copy of
Manager Check Register Ex.PW7/H (D-102).
20. PW-8 Subhash Chandra Bambi is the official from Union
Bank, Zonal Office, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Marg, Gole Market,
New Delhi and proved the account opening form of M/s Sachdeva
Offset and Packaging Industries Pvt Ltd which was opened by Ms.
Promila Sachdeva and Mohinder Kumar Sachdeva. The account
number allotted to M/s Sachdeva Offset and Packaging was 29061
and cheque book no.83701 to 83725 was issued in the said account
under his signatures. He proved the documents of the said account
as Ex.PW8/A1 (D-17).
21. PW-9 Malvinder Singh Gujral is the official from Punjab
and Sind Bank, at Lajpat Nagar Branch, Jalandhar. The witness
after referring to Ex.PW7/B (D-95) stated that it had his signatures
at all relevant entries related to bills received from OBC, NFC, New
Delhi for collection. The said bills were accompanied by goods
receipt, forwarding letter etc. The said bills were returned unpaid.
PW-9 thereafter referred to various documents Ex.PW6/D,
Ex.PW6/E, Ex.PW6/F, Ex.PW6/G, Ex.PW6/H, Ex.PW6/J
(collectively) and Ex.PW7/B.
30
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
22. PW-10 Balbir Singh is the Sr. Manager, Punjab & Sind
Bank at Lajpat Nagar branch Jalandhar . He proved and identified
the documents concerning cheques returned as Unpaid issued on
behalf of M/s Sun Exports vide document Ex.PW7/C. He also
proved the remaining documents i.e cheque book issuance register
Ex.PW7/D, Ledger Leaf of M/s Sun Exports Ex.PW6/K. The cash
deposit slip, debit voucher, credit voucher issued from the account
of M/s Sun Exports were proved as Ex.PW6/L1 to Ex.PW6/L5 and
Ex.PW7/E. He also proved the various letters written by their Bank
to A-4 being proprietor of M/s Sun Exports or OBC regarding
dishonour of the cheques as referred earlier in the version of PW-6
and PW-7.
23. PW-12 Ramesh Chand Raheja was posted as Manager at
OBC, NFC, New Delhi where S.K. Pathrella (A-1) was the Chief
Manager. He proved the debit voucher dated 25.04.1995
Ex.PW12/A (D-455) through which the bank had charged Rs.3158/-
as VPL charges (Value Paid Letter) in the account of M/s Red Cat
Agencies. He further stated that the said debit voucher related to
two bills bearing BP No.51/95 and 48/95. He further got exhibited
the debit vouchers dated 13.07.1995 and 09.08.1995 as Ex.PW12/B
(D-609) and Ex.PW12/C (D-610) for Rs.3839/- and Rs.3471/
respectively charged by the bank towards VPL charges debiting the
31
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
account of M/s Red Cat Agencies. He also identified the signature
of S.K. Pathrella as well as V.K. Seghal on the said vouchers.
24. PW-13 B.S Kataria Officer with Punjab National Bank,
Alakhnanda Branch, New Delhi who proved the account opening
form Ex.PW13/A (D-32) submitted by J.S Logani as proprietor of
M/s Sun Glow Travels and Tour Operators. He further got exhibited
the specimen signature card as Ex.PW13/A2 (D-33), original
current account ledger sheet and another sheet showing status of
account as inoperative as Ex.PW13/A3 (D-34/1 and 2).
24.1 He after referring to register of cheque return and relevant
entries from 20.10.1995, 21.10.1995 and 25.10.1995, stated that the
said entries related to returning of cheques ‘unpaid’ of M/s Sun
Glow Tours and Travels. He got exhibited the relevant entries as
Ex.PW13/D (Part of D-35).
25. PW-14 Anil Mehra is an official from Central Bank of India
(CBI), Majith Mandi, Amritsar. He proved the account opening
form as Ex.PW14/A (D-115) in respect of current account in the
name of M/s Sun Exports by its proprietor Har Simran Dhingra. He
also got exhibited specimen signature card as Ex.PW14/B (D-112),
specimen signature slip Ex.PW14/C (D-113) and form as Mark
P14/A (D114).
32
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019 26. PW-15 Ashok Verma was posted as Chief Manager,
Personnel Department, Head office, OBC in the year 1998. He
proved the seizure memo as Ex.PW15/A (D-163) through which
he handed over various documents to CBI. Further, he also proved
the appointment, joining, relieving etc., Ex.PW15/A3 (D-166), letter
dated 16.04.1994 Ex.PW15/A4 (D167) addressed to S.K. Pathrella
whereby he was posted as incumbent Incharge, New Friends
Colony Branch, another letter dated 14.11.1994 Ex.PW15/A5 (D-
168) promotion to Sr. Manager, letter dated 15.11.1995 Ex.
PW15/A6 (D-169) advising Sh. Bahman to take over charge from
S.K. Pathrella. He also proved letter dated 15.11.1995 Ex.PW15/A7
(D-170) reliving S.K. Pathrella from his duties at New Friends
Colony Branch.
27. PW-16 J.L Behl was posted as Scale-II Manager at Putli
Ghar Branch of OBC, Amritsar where Sh.R.S Kang was the Sr.
Manager at the relevant time. He identified the signature of Sh. R.S
Kang on document Mark P16/1 ( Part of D-173). He stated that
there were four cheques purchased in the year 1998 and Sh. R.S
Kang exercising his discretionary powers allowed crediting of the
amount of the said cheques in account of concerned party. The said
cheques were returned unpaid and therefore, were shown as
outstanding in the account of the party.
33
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
28. PW-17 Reeta Chhabra is the official from Oriental Bank of
Commerce who was posted in New Friends Colony Branch as
Clerk when A-1 Sh. Pathrella was the Branch Manager from April
1994 to 1995 .She was posted in Dispatch Section of the branch.
She explained that her duty/job was to make entry of all the letters
which are sent to outside parties from bank in a register. After
referring to dak dispatch register from 12.04.1994 to 09.01.1995,
01.08.1995 to 11.01.1996 and 02.01.1995 to 28.12.1995, she
identified the signatures of Sh. P.C Bahman, Branch Manager and
got marked the copies of dispatch register Mark P-17/A1 to A3.
She also identified her writings with respect to entries qua purchase
of various cheques as referred in documents Mark P-17 A-1 ( D-4)
and Mark P-17/A-3 (D-6).
29. PW-18 R.C Agarwal was posted in PNB GK-II Branch in
the year 1998. He proved the seizure memo Ex.PW18/A through
which he had handed over certain documents to the Investigating
Officer. He identified his signatures document viz; Specimen
Signature Card { Ex.PW.11/B (D-50)} concerning account of M/s
Sehgal Developers, Statement of Account as Ex.PW18/B (D-51),
cheque issue register Ex.PW18/C (D-52) having series from 141851
t 141900 and cheque returning register as Ex.PW-18/D (D-53).
30. PW-19 S.S Kataria was posted as Assistant Manager at
Central Bank of India, Guru Bazar, Amritsar Branch from
34
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
November 1992 to August 1995. He proved the document
Ex.PW14/B the specimen signature card of current account
No.1398 in the name of M/s Sun Exports, Proprietorship of H.S
Dhingra (A-4). He also proved the proprietorship form as
Ex.PW19/A, statement of account of current account No.1398 of
M/s Sun Exports for the period 30.1.1995 to 21.03.1996 as
Ex.PW19/B, copy of cheque book delivery register as Ex.PW.19/C,
bill received register (Sundry) Ex.PW19/D, VPL register
Ex.PW19/E, deposit slip Ex.PW19/F, Debit Vouchers Ex.PW19/G,
letters claiming VPL charges Ex.PW19/H1 and H2, letter written to
OBC, NFC, New Delhi Ex.PW19/J1, covering letter Ex.PW19/J2,
intimation sent to M/s Sun Exports Ex.PW19/J3. He also proved
the return of BP Misc. No. 11/95 with drawee M/s Gold Export vide
documents Ex.PW19/K1 to K3 (D-148/1 to D-148/3). He also
proved the return of BP Misc. No. 51/95 with drawee M/s Sun
Export vide documents Ex.PW19/L1 and L2 (D-149/1 and D-
149/2). He also proved the return of BP Misc. No. 48/95 with
drawee M/s Sun Export vide documents Ex.PW19/M-1 & M2 (D-
150/1 and D-150/2). He also proved the return of BP Misc. No.
47/95 with drawee M/s Sun Export vide documents Ex.PW19/N1
to N3 (D-151/1 to D-151/3). He also proved the return of two
cheques on account of ‘insufficient funds’ drawn from the account
of M/s Sun Exports vide Ex.PW19/O-1 to Ex.PW19/O-3 (D-238
and D-239). He also proved the return of cheques on account of
reason ‘Referred to Drawer’ vide memo Ex.PW19/P-1 and
35
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
Ex.PW19/P-2 (D-145). He also proved the entry about return of bill
MFP 006,94-95 with the drawee M/s Gold Exports as Ex.PW19/D
(D-118/3). He also proved the entry with regard to return of B.P
Misc. 11/95 with the drawee M/s Gold Exports as Ex.PW19/D (D-
118/4). He also proved the entry with regard to return of B.P
Misc. 14/95 with the drawee M/s Sun Exports as Ex.PW19/D (D-
118/5).
31. PW-20 P.C Bahman was posted as Chief Manager,
OBC, NFC, New Delhi and had taken the charge from S.K.
Pathrella who was the Chief Manager of the bank before him.
31.1 He further delivered certain documents to CBI vide seizure
memo Ex.PW20/A. He further stated that he had certified
documents, i.e., Dak Dispatch Register (of the concerned period),
Bill Purchase Register (of the concerned period), Authority Register
(of the concerned period) and copy of DD/Cheque Purchase
Registers ( of concerned periods), which were handed over to the
CBI through Ex.PW20/A and proved the concerned registers as
Ex.PW20/A1 to Ex.PW20/A10.
32. PW-21 Jagdish Kumar Saxena was posted as Manager,
OBC, NFC, New Delhi from 1995 to 2000. He further stated that
he had handed over certain documents i.e Cheque Book Register
Ex.PW21/1 (D-23) to the I.O vide seizure memo dated 14.01.1999
36
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
Ex.PW21/A (D-22). He further handed over another register i.e
Cheque Book Issue Register Ex.PW21/B1 vide seizure memo dated
06.01.1999 Ex.PW21/B (D-24).
32.1 He further handed over the set of documents vide
seizure memo dated 12.08.1997 Ex.PW21/C (D-177). The
documents handed over by him are the account opening form ( PW-
1/A) of M/s Pimco Overseas ( of A-4) , Specimen Signature Card
( PW-1/B), Statement of Account ( PW-21/C-1), Credit Transfer
Vouchers dated 01.06.1995 ( PW-1/C to Ex.PW1/D), Debit
Transfer Voucher dated 01.06.1995 (Ex.PW1/E), Bill of Exchange
dated 30.05.1995 (Ex.PW1/F), Transport Receipt dated 13.05.1995
(Ex.PW1/G), Invoice No. 0092 dated 30.05.1995 (Ex.PW1/H),
Letters of Central Bank of India dated 26.06.1995, 25.11.1995 and
11.11.1995, Manjit Mandi Amritsar regarding return of bills
(Ex.PW21/C-2 to Ex.PW21/C-4 respectively), Credit Transfer
voucher dated 03.06.1995 (Ex.PW1/I), cheques dated 03.06.1995,
02.06.1995, 06.06.1995 and 15.06.1995 (Ex.PW1/J to Ex.PW1/M
respectively), Two Credit Transfer Vouchers dated 16.10.1995
(Ex.PW1/N to Ex.PW1/O respectively), Debit Transfer Vouchers
dated 16.10.1995 (Ex.PW-1/P), cheque deposit slip (Ex.PW21/C5),
again cheque dated 13.10.1995 (Ex.PW1/Q), debit clearing voucher
dated 19.10.1995 (Ex.PW1/R), credit clearing vouchers dated
19.10.1995 (Ex.PW1/S & Ex.PW1/T respectively), debit clearing
voucher dated 21.10.1995 (Ex.PW1/U), Credit Clearing Voucher
37
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
dated 21.10.1995 (Ex.PW21/C-6), cheque returning memo of PNB,
Alaknanda dated 20.10.1995 (Ex.PW13/B), Debit clearing voucher
dated 26.10.1995 (Ex.PW1/C-7), sole proprietorship letter dated
01.06.1995 (Ex.PW1/C-8), agreement regarding bill purchased/bill
discounted dated 01.06.1995 (Ex.PW1/V), Agreements of
Guarantee of G.D Kakkar and Saibal Banerjee dated 01.06.1995
(Ex.PW1/W & PW1/X) and Property documents of Saibal
Banerjee dated 01.06.1995 (Ex.PW21/C-9 to Ex.PW21/C-10).
32.2 Further, PW-21 handed over the documents through the
seizure memo dated 14.08.1997 Ex.PW21/D (D-222). The
documents handed over by him and proved are the account opening
form ( PW-21/D1) of M/s Batra Traders( of A-5) , Specimen
Signature Card ( PW-21/D2), Statement of Account ( PW-21/D-3),
Cheque dated 24.02.1995 (Ex.PW21/D-4), Credit Transfer Vouchers
dated 02.03.1995 (Ex.PW21/D-5), Credit Transfer Vouchers of BP
No. Misc. 57/95 and 58/95 (Ex.PW21/D-6),Debit Transfer Voucher
of said B.P Misc. Bill No. 57/95 and 58/95 (Ex.PW21/D-7), two
Cash Payment Cheques, both dated 02.03.1995 (Ex.PW21/D-8 &
D-9 respectively), Another Cash Payment Cheque dated 09.03.1995
(Ex.PW21/D-10),Debit Cash Voucher dated 02.05.1995
(Ex.PW21/D-11), Credit Transfer Vouchers, both dated 20.05.1995
(Ex.PW21/D-12& D-13), Debit Transfer Voucher dated 20.05.1995
(Ex.PW21/D-14), Cheque returning memo, OBC, Katra Ahluwalia,
Amritsar dated 18.4.1995 (Ex.PW21/D-15), Cheque returning
38
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
memo of Central Bank of India, Guru Bazar, Amritsar
(Ex.PW19/O1),Cheques dated 06.04.1995 (Ex.PW19/O2 &
PW19/O3), Cash Order Application Form dated 31.03.1995
(Ex.PW21/D-16), Cheque dated 31.03.1995 (Ex.PW21/D-17),
Credit Transfer Voucher dated 08.04.1995 (Ex.PW21/D-18), Cash
Payment Cheque (Ex.PW21/D-19), Debit Transfer Voucher dated
19.10.1995 (Ex.PW21/D-20), Credit Transfer Vouchers dated
19.10.1995 (Ex.PW21/D-21 & D-22), Debit Transfer Voucher dated
21.08.1995 (Ex.PW21/D-23), Credit Transfer Vouchers dated
21.08.1995 (Ex.PW21/D-24 & 25), Cheque Deposit Slips dated
21.08.1995 (Ex.PW21/D-26, D-27 and D-28 respectively), another
Cheque Deposit Slip dated 18.05.1995 (Ex.PW21/D-29), Cheque
dated 18.05.1995 (Ex.PW21/D-30), Cash Payment Cheques dated
22.08.1995 and 21.08.1995 (Ex.PW21/D-31 & D-32 respectively),
Deposit Slip dated 30.09.1995 (Ex.PW21/D-33 and 34), Cash
Payment Cheque dated 30.09.1995 (Ex.PW21/D-35), Cash Payment
Cheque dated 28.10.1995 (Ex.PW21/D-36), Credit Transfer
Voucher dated 13.10.1995 (Ex.PW21/D-37), Another Credit
Vouchers dated 13.10.1995 (Ex.PW21/D-38 & D-39), Cash
Deposit Slip dated 13.10.1995 (Ex.PW21/D-40), Debit Clearing
Voucher dated 24.10.1995 (Ex.PW21/D-42), Cheque Returning
Memo dated 24.10.1995 of OBC, NFC, New Delhi (Ex.PW21/D-
43), Cheque Returning Memo of PNB, Alaknanda dated
21.10.1995 (Ex.PW21/D-44), Cash Payment Cheque ated
13.10.1995 (Ex.PW21/D-45), the letter “Sole Proprietory Letter
39
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
(LD-1), dated 02.03.1995 (Ex.PW21/D-46), Agreement regarding
Bill Purchase/Bill Discounted Advances in course of collection
(LD-15) dated 02.03.1995 (Ex.PW21/D-47), Agreement for
Guarantee (LD-28) dated 22.03.1995 (Ex.PW21/D-48) and
Document Letter of Deposit of Title Deed ( Annexure-B) dated
02.03.1995 alongwith Perpetual Lease Deed, Site Plan, GPA and
Agreement to Sell (Ex.PW21/D-49 to Ex.D-53).
32.3 Further, PW-21 handed over the documents through the
seizure memo dated 13.08.1997 Ex.PW21/E (D-278). The
documents handed over by him and proved are the account opening
form of M/s Navyug Traders (Ex.PW21/E-1), Specimen Signature
Card (Ex.PW21/E-2), Statement of Account for the period
6.09.1995 to 30.12.1995 (Ex.PW21/E-3), Sole Proprietorship Letter
dated 25.09.1995 submitted N. Kapoor (Ex.PW21/E-4), Agreement
for Cash Credit/Overdraft dated 25.09.1995 (Ex.PW21/E-5),
Agreement regarding Bills Purchased/Bills discounted and
Advances against Bills in Course of Collection dated 25.09.1995
(Ex.PW21/E-6), Agreement of Guarantee dated 09.11.1995
(Ex.PW21/E-7), Agreement of Guarantee dated 25.09.1995
(Ex.PW21/E-8), Credit Transfer Vouchers dated 13.10.1995 Credit
Transfer Voucher (Ex.PW21/E-9 & E-10), Debit Transfer Voucher
Dated 13.10.1995 (Ex.PW21/E-11), Cheque Deposit Slip dated
13.10.1995 (Ex.PW21/E-12), Debit Clearing Voucher dated
24.10.1995 (Ex.PW21/E-13), Cheque Returning letter of OBC,
40
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
NFC dated 24.10.1995 (Ex.PW21/E-14), Cheque Returning memo
dated 21.10.1995 (Ex.PW21/E-15), Cheque dated 12.10.1995
(Ex.PW21/E-16), Cash Payment Cheques dated 13.10.1995
(Ex.PW21/E-17 & D-18), Debit Transfer Voucher Dated 25.09.1995
(Ex.PW21/E-19), Credit Transfer Vouchers dated 25.09.1995
(Ex.PW21/E-20 & E-21), Bill Purchased Forwarding Letter dated
25.09.1995 (Ex.PW6/D),Copies of Insurance Policy dated
26.09.1995{(Ex.PW6/E (colly)}, Letter dated 06.09.1995
(Ex.PW6/E-22), Cash Payment Cheque dated 25.09.1995
(Ex.PW6/E-24), Cash Payment Cheques, both dated 04.09.1995
(Ex.PW6/E-25 & E-26) and Letter of M/s Navyug Traders dated
21.09.1995 (Ex.PW6/E-27).
32.4 PW-21 also handed over the documents through the
seizure memo dated 13.08.1997 Ex.PW21/F (D-315). The
documents handed over by him and proved are the account opening
form of M/s Agronica Overseas ( of A-6 since PO) (Ex.PW21/F-
1), Specimen Signature Card (Ex.PW21/F-2), Statement of Account
for the period 06.09.1995 to 20.11.1995 (Ex.PW21/F-3), Credit
Transfer Vouchers, all dated 28.09.1995 (Ex.PW21/F-4 to F-7
respectively), Debit Transfer Voucher Dated 28.09.1995
(Ex.PW21/F-9),Credit Transfer Voucher dated 28.09.1995
(Ex.PW21/F-10),Debit Transfer Voucher Dated 29.09.1995
(Ex.PW21/F-11), Credit Transfer Vouchers, all dated 29.09.1995
(Ex.PW21/F-12 to 15 respectively), Credit Deposit Slip dated
41
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
28.09.1995 (Ex.PW21/F-16), Cash Order/Demand Draft/ Transfer
Pay Order/ Telegraphy Transfer Application Form dated 29.09.1995
(Ex.PW21/F-17), Account Payee Cheque dated 28.09.1995
(Ex.PW21/F-18), Debit Transfer Cheque dated 28.09.1995
(Ex.PW21/F-19), Cash Payment (Bearer) Cheque dated 02.03.1995
(Ex.PW21/F-20), Forwarding Schedule related to Bill
Purchase/AG/001/95-96 dated 28.09.1995 (Ex.PW6/F), Another
Forwarding Schedule related to Bill Purchase Misc. 7395 dated
29.09.1995 (Ex.PW6/H), various documents (Ex.PW6/G) &
Ex.PW6/J (collectively), Cheque dated 23.08.1995 (Ex.PW21/F-
21), Credit Deposit Slip dated 30.09.1995 and cheque dated
3009.1995 (Ex.PW21/F-22 & F-23 respectively), request letter
dated 27/09.1995 of M/s Agronica Overseas (Ex.PW21/F-24),
Debit Transfer Vouchers, both Dated 10.10.1995 (Ex.PW21/F-25 &
F-26 respectively), Cheque/Draft/Cash Deposit Slip dated
09.10.1995 (Ex.PW21/F-27), Cheque dated 07.10.1995
(Ex.PW6/N), Carbon Copy of Forwarding Schedule of DD No.
1271 dated 10.10.1995 (Ex.PW21/F-28), Cheque Returning Memo
dated 14.10.1995 (Ex.PW6/N1), Credit Transfer Voucher dated
16.10.1995 (Ex.PW21/F-30),Debit Transfer Voucher Dated
16.10.1995 (Ex.PW21/F-31),Credit Clearing Voucher dated
21.10.1995 (Ex.PW21/F-32),Cheque Returning Memo dated
20.10.1995 (Ex.PW21/F-33),Debit Clearing Voucher dated
27.10.1995 (Ex.PW21/F-34), Cheque Returning Forwarding
Schedule OBC, NFC, New Delhi (Ex.PW21/F-35), Cheque
42
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
Returning Memo of HSBC dated 26.10.1995 (Ex.PW21/F-36),
Cash Payment Cheque (Bearer) dated 10.10.1995 (Ex.PW21/F-37),
Demand Draft/Cash Voucher/Transfer Pay Order/Telegraphic
Transfer Application Form dated 10.10.1995 (Ex.PW21/F-38),
Cheque dated 10.10.1995 (Ex.PW21/F-39), Debit Clearing Voucher
dated 21.10.1995 (Ex.PW21/F-40), Cheque/Cash/Draft Deposit
Slip dated 17.10.1995 (Ex.PW21/F-41), Cheque dated 12.10.1995
(Ex.PW21/F-42), Cash Payment Cheque (Bearer) dated 13.10.1995
(Ex.PW21/F-43), Demand Draft/Cash Voucher/Transfer Pay
Order/Telegraphic Transfer Application Form dated 16.10.1995
(Ex.PW21/F-44), another Demand Draft/Cash Voucher/Transfer Pay
Order/Telegraphic Transfer Application Form dated 16.10.1995
(Ex.PW21/F-46),Credit Transfer Voucher dated 14.10.1995
(Ex.PW21/F-47),Pay Order dated 670450 dated 10.10.1995
(Ex.PW21/F-48),Application for cancellation of pay order
(Ex.PW21/F-49).
32.5 PW-21 further handed over the documents through the
seizure memo dated 18.08.1997 Ex.PW21/G (D-382). The
documents handed over by him and proved are the account opening
form of M/s Red Cat Agencies ( of A-2 & JS Logani )
(Ex.PW21/G-1), Specimen Signature Card (Ex.PW21/G-2),
unattested photocopy of Partnership Deed P21/1, Statement of
Account for the period 31.03.1995 to 09.02.1996 (Ex.PW21/G-3),
Cash Deposit Slip dated 31.10.1994 (Ex.PW21/G-4), Cash Payment
43
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
Cheque ( Bearer) dated 05.10.1994 (Ex.PW21/G-5), Debit Clearing
Cheque dated 03.10.1994 (Ex.PW21/G-6), Credit Transfer
Vouchers, both dated 03.10.1994 (Ex.PW21/G-7 & G-8), Debit
Transfer Voucher Dated 03.10.1994 (Ex.PW21/G-9), Cheque
Deposit Slip (Ex.PW21/G-10), Credit Transfer Vouchers, both
dated 06.10.1994 (Ex.PW21/G-11 & G-12), Debit Transfer Voucher
Dated 06.10.1994 (Ex.PW21/G-13), Cheque Deposit Slip dated
6.10.1994 (Ex.PW21/G-14), Cheque Deposit Slip dated 06.10.1994
(Ex.PW21/G-15), Debit Clearing Cheque dated 05.10.1994
(Ex.PW21/G-16), Cash Payment Cheque (Bearer) dated 31.10.1994
(Ex.PW21/G-17), Cash Payment Cheque (Bearer) dated 02.11.1994
(Ex.PW21/G-18), Cash Payment Cheque (Bearer) dated 7.11.1994
(Ex.PW21/G-19), Debit Clearing Cheque dated 29.11.1994
(Ex.PW21/G-20), Debit Transfer Voucher Dated 03.12.1994
(Ex.PW21/G-21),Credit Transfer Vouchers, both Dated 03.12.1994
(Ex.PW21/G-22 & G-23), Credit Transfer Vouchers, both Dated
23.12.1994 (Ex.PW21/G-24 & G-25), Debit Transfer Voucher
Dated 23.12.1994 (Ex.PW21/G-26), Cheque Deposit Slip dated
8.12.1994 (Ex.PW21/G-27), Cash Payment Cheque (Bearer) dated
23.12.1994 (Ex.PW21/G-28), Debit Clearing Cheques, all dated
16.12.1994 (Ex.PW21/G-29, G-30 and G-31 respectively).
32.6 Further, PW-21 proved the M/s Red Cat Agencies’
documents i.e Cash Payment Cheque (Bearer) dated 06.01.1995
(Ex.PW21/G-32), Credit Transfer Vouchers, both dated 06.01.1995
44
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
(Ex.PW21/G-33 & G-34 respectively), Credit Transfer Vouchers, all
dated 06.01.1995 (Ex.PW21/G-35, G-36 & G-37 respectively),
Credit Transfer Voucher dated 06.01.1995 (Ex.PW21/G-38), Debit
Transfer Voucher dated 06.01.1995 (Ex.PW21/G-39), Cheque
Deposit Slip Dated 06.01.1995 (Ex.PW21/G-40), Credit Transfer
Voucher dated 06.01.1995 (Ex.PW21/G-41), Debit Transfer
Voucher dated 06.01.1995 (Ex.PW21/G-42), Credit Transfer
Voucher dated 06.01.1995 (Ex.PW21/G-43), Debit Transfer
Voucher dated 06.01.1995 (Ex.PW21/G-44), Credit Transfer
Voucher dated 06.01.1995 (Ex.PW21/G-45), Credit Transfer
Vouchers, both dated 31.03.1995 (Ex.PW21/G-46 & G-47),
Cheques both dated 06.01.1995 (Ex.PW21/G-48 & G-49), Cheque
dated 10.01.1995 (Ex.PW21/G-50), Cheque dated 01.01.1995
(Ex.PW21/G-51), Cheque dated 12.01.1995 (Ex.PW21/G-52),
Cheque dated 06.01.1995 (Ex.PW21/G-53), Cheque dated
17.01.1995 (Ex.PW21/G-54), Draft/Cash Order/TPO printed
application form dated 18.01.1995 (Ex.PW21/G-55), Cheques, both
dated 21.01.1995 (Ex.PW21/G-56 & G-57), Debit Transfer
Voucher dated 18.01.1995 (Ex.PW21/G-58), Credit Transfer
Vouchers both dated 18.01.1995 (Ex.PW21/G-59 & G-60),
Credit Transfer Vouchers, both dated 21.01.1995 (Ex.PW21/G-61 &
G-62), Credit Transfer Voucher dated 21.01.1995.
32.7 Further, PW-21 proved the M/s Red Cat Agencies'
documents i.e Debit Transfer Voucher dated 21.01.1995
45
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
(Ex.PW21/G-63), Credit Transfer Vouchers, all dated 21.01.1995
(Ex.PW21/G-64, G-65 & G-66), Debit Transfer Voucher dated
21.01.1995 (Ex.PW21/G-67), Credit Transfer Vouchers, both
dated 30.05.1995 (Ex.PW21/G-67 & G-68), FDR dated 21.01.1995
(Ex.PW21/G-70), Debit Cash Voucher dated 25.04.1995
(Ex.PW21/G-71), Cheque dated 25.01.1995 (Ex.PW21/G-72),
Credit Transfer Vouchers, both dated 02.02.1995 (Ex.PW21/G-73
& G-74), Debit Transfer Voucher dated 02.02.1995 (Ex.PW21/G-
75), Cash/Cheque Deposit Slip dated 02.02.1995 (Ex.PW21/G-76),
Cheque dated 02.02.1995 (Ex.PW5/F), Debit Transfer Voucher
dated 21.02.1995 (Ex.PW21/G-77), Credit Transfer Vouchers both
dated 21.02.1995 (Ex.PW21/G-78 & G-79), Copy of Outward
Schedule for cheque dated 02.02.1995 (Ex.PW21/G-80),
Draft/Cash Order Application dated 02.02.1995 (Ex.PW21/G-81),
Copy of draft dated 02.02.1995 (Ex.PW21/G-82), Cheque daetd
02.02.1995 (Ex.PW21/G-83), Cheques dated 02.02.1995
(Ex.PW21/G-84 & G-85), Cheque dated 03.02.1995 (Ex.PW21/G-
86), Cheque dated 05.02.1995 (Ex.PW21/G-87), Cheque dated
14.02.1995 (Ex.PW21/G-88), Cash/Cheque Deposit Slip dated
17.02.1995 (Ex.PW21/G-89), Cheque dated 17.02.1995
(Ex.PW21/G-90), Cheque dated 17.02.1995 (Ex.PW21/G-91),
Cheque dated 06.02.1995 (Ex.PW21/G-92), Cheque dated
20.02.1995 (Ex.PW21/G-93),Cheque dated 22.02.1995
(Ex.PW21/G-94), Cheque dated 24.02.1995 (Ex.PW21/G-95),
Cheque dated 25.02.1995 (Ex.PW21/G-96), Cheque dated
46
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
15.02.1995 (Ex.PW21/G-97), Cheque dated 25.02.1995
(Ex.PW21/G-98), Cheque dated 31.03.1995 (Ex.PW21/G-99),
Credit Transfer Voucher dated 31.03.1995 (Ex.PW21/G-100),
Debit Transfer Voucher dated 31.03.1995 (Ex.PW21/G-101).
32.8 Further, PW-21 proved the M/s Red Cat Agencies’
documents i.e Printed Demand Draft/Cash Order/TPO Application
form dated 31.03.1995 (Ex.PW21/G-102), Cheque dated
15.04.1995 (Ex.PW21/G-103), Cheques, all dated 03.04.1995
(Ex.PW21/G-104, G-105, G-106 and G-107), Cheques both dated
15.04.1995 (Ex.PW21/G-108 & G-109), Credit Transfer Vouchers
all dated 17.04.1995 (Ex.PW21/G-110, G-111 & G-112), Debit
Transfer Voucher dated 17.04.1995(Ex.PW21/G-113), Cash/Cheque
Deposit Slip dated 15.04.1995 (Ex.PW21/G-114), Cash/Cheque
Deposit Slips, all dated 17.04.1995 (Ex.PW21/G-115, G-116 & G-
117), Cash/Cheque Deposit Slip dated 17.04.1995 (Ex.PW21/G-
118), Cheque dated 15.04.1995(Ex.PW21/G-119), Cheque dated
08.04.1995 (Ex.PW21/G-120), Cheque dated 10.04.1995
(Ex.PW21/G-121), Debit Transfer Voucher dated 09.05.1995
(Ex.PW21/G-122), printed application form for draft/cash
order/TPO dated 04.05.1995 (Ex.PW21/G-123), Debit Transfer
Vouchers both dated 10.05.1995 (Ex.PW21/G-124 & G-125),
Credit Transfer Vouchers, all dated 15.05.1995 (Ex.PW21/G-126,
G-127 & G-128), printed application form for draft/cash order/TPO
dated 22.04.1995 (Ex.PW21/G-129), Cheque dated 22.04.1995
47
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
(Ex.PW21/G-130), Cheques all dated 26.04.1995 (Ex.PW21/G-
131, G-132 & G-133), Cheque dated 27.04.1995 (Ex.PW21/G-
134), Cheques both dated 30.05.1995 (Ex.PW21/G-135 & G-136),
Cash/Cheque Deposit Slip dated 30.05.1995 (Ex.PW21/G-137),
Cheques both dated 30.06.1995 (Ex.PW21/G-138 & G-139),
Cheque dated 14.07.1995 (Ex.PW21/G-140), Cheques both dated
21.08.1995 (Ex.PW21/G-141 & G-142).
32.9 Further, PW-21 proved the M/s Red Cat Agencies’
documents i.e Credit Transfer Vouchers, both dated 21.08.1995
(Ex.PW21/G-143 & G-144), Debit Transfer Voucher dated
(Ex.PW21/G-145), Cheque/Cash Deposit Slips all dated
21.08.1995 { ( Except Ex.PW21/G-148 having dated NIL),
(Ex.PW21/G-146, G-147, G-149, G-150, G-151 & G-152) }, Debit
Transfer Voucher dated 18/20.08.1995 (Ex.PW21/G-153), Credit
Transfer Vouchers both dated 18/20.08.1995 (Ex.PW21/G-154 &
G-155), Cash Payment Cheques (Bearer), all dated 24.08.1995
(Ex.PW21/G-156, G-157 & G-158), Cheque dated 24.08.1995
(Ex.PW21/G-159), Pay Order/Draft Application Form favouring
M/s Carda India Electronics (Ex.PW21/G-160), Cheque dated
24.08.1995 (Ex.PW21/G-161), Pay Order/Draft Application Form
favouring M/s Subnit Enterprises (Ex.PW21/G-162), Pay
Order/Draft Application Form favouring M/s Plight Plastic
Industries (Ex.PW21/G-163),Cheques both dated 24.08.1995
(Ex.PW21/G-164 & G-165), Pay Order/Draft Application Form
48
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
favouring M/s Subnit Enterprises (Ex.PW21/G-166), Credit
Transfer Voucher both dated 24.08.1995 (Ex.PW21/G-167 & G-
168), Debit Transfer Voucher dated 24.08.1995 (Ex.PW21/G-169),
Cheque Deposit Slip dated 24.08.1995 (Ex.PW21/G-170), Cheque
dated 24.08.1995 (Ex.PW21/G-171), Cash Payment Cheque
(Bearer) dated 26.08.1995 (Ex.PW21/G-172), Cash Payment
Cheque (Bearer) dated 29.08.1995 (Ex.PW21/G-173), Cheque dated
29.08.1995 (Ex.PW21/G-174).
32.10 Further, PW-21 proved the M/s Red Cat Agencies’
documents i.e Pay Order Application Forms, both dated
29.08.1995 (Ex.PW21/G-175&G-177), Cheque dated 29.08.1995
(Ex.PW21/G-176), Cheque dated 29.08.1995 (Ex.PW21/G-178),
Cash Payment Cheque (Bearer) dated 29.08.1995 (Ex.PW21/G-
179), Cheque dated 16.09.1995 (Ex.PW21/G-180), Cash Payment
Cheque (Bearer) dated 06.09.1995 (Ex.PW21/G-181), Cash
Payment Cheques (Bearer) both dated 18.09.1995 (Ex.PW21/G-
182 & Ex. PW21/G-183), Debit Clearing Cheque dated 18.09.1995
(Ex.PW21/G-184),Cash Payment Cheque (Bearer) dated 25.09.1995
(Ex.PW21/G-185),Cash Payment Cheque (Bearer) dated 28.09.1995
(Ex.PW21/G-186),Cash Payment Cheque (Bearer) dated 30.09.1995
(Ex.PW21/G-187), Credit Transfer Vouchers all dated 25.09.1995
(Ex.PW21/G-188, G-189 and G-190), Debit Transfer Voucher dated
25.09.1995 (Ex.PW21/G-191), Cheque Deposit Slip Dated ‘Nil’
for Rs.565989(Ex.PW21/G-192), Cheque dated 29.09.1995
49
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
(Ex.PW21/G-193), Debit Transfer Voucher dated 25.09.1995
(Ex.PW21/G-194), Credit Transfer Vouchers all dated 25.09.1995
(Ex.PW21/G-195, G-196, G-197 and G-198), Debit Transfer
Voucher dated ‘Nil’ for Rs.122836/- (Ex.PW21/G-199), Cheque
Deposit Slip dated ‘Nil’ for Rs.122836/- (Ex.PW21/G-200),
Cheque dated 19.09.1995 (Ex.PW6/O), Credit Transfer Vouchers
all dated 25.09.1995 (Ex.PW21/G-201, G-202 & G-203), Debit
Transfer Voucher dated 25.09.1995 (Ex.PW21/G-204), Cheque
Deposit Slip dated ‘Nil’ for Rs.553857/- (Ex.PW21/G-205),
Cheque dated 29.09.1995 (Ex.PW21/G-206), Debit Transfer
Voucher dated 25.09.1995 (Ex.PW21/G-207),Credit Transfer
Voucher dated dated 25.09.1995 (Ex.PW21/G-208).
32.11 Further, PW-21 proved the M/s Red Cat Agencies’
documents i.e Letter dated 22.09.1995 of M/s Sun Exports to Chief
Manager, OBC, NFC, New Delhi (Ex.PW21/G-209), another
letter dated 20.09.1995 of M/s Sun Exports to Chief Manager,
OBC, NFC, New Delhi (Ex.PW21/G-210), Debit Transfer Voucher
dated 25.09.1995 (Ex.PW21/G-211), Credit Transfer Voucher dated
25.09.1995 (Ex.PW21/G-212), Letter dated 26.12.1995 of Canara
Bank Jaipur addressed to OBC, NFC, New Delhi (Ex.PW21/G-
213), Letter dated 22.09.1995 & 19.09.1995 of M/s Sun Exports
addressed to Chief Manager, OBC, NFC, New Delhi (Ex.PW21/G-
214 & G-215), Credit Transfer Voucher both dt. 30.09.1995
(Ex.PW21/G-216 & G-217), Debit Transfer Voucher dated
50
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
30.09.1995 (Ex.PW21/G-218), Debit Clearing Cheque dated
29.09.1995 (Ex.PW21/G-219), Debit Transfer Voucher dated
01.11.1995 (Ex.PW21/G-220), Credit Transfer Vouchers both dated
01.11.1995 (Ex.PW21/G-221 and G-222), Debit Cash Voucher
dated 13.07.1995 (Ex.12/B), Debit Cash Voucher dated 09.08.1995
(Ex.12/C), Debit Transfer Voucher dated 25.09.1995 (Ex.PW21/G-
223), Credit Transfer Voucher dated 25.09.1995 (Ex.PW21/G-224),
Cheque returning memo dated 08.02.1995 (Ex.PW5/D),Carbon
copy of cheque forwarding schedule (Ex.PW21/G-225), Cheque
returning memo dated 30.08.1995 (Ex.PW21/G-226), Cheque
returning memo dated 06.10.1995 (Ex.PW6/N1), letter through
which cheque of Rs.565989 and Rs.553857 of Central Bank of
India, Majith Mandi, Amritsar were returned (Ex.PW21/G-227),
Cheque returning memo dated 07.10.1995 (Ex.PW21/G-228),
another Cheque returning memo dated 07.10.1995 (Ex.PW21/G-
229), Cheque returning memo dated 06.10.1995 (Ex.PW21/G-230),
again Cheque returning memo dated 29.04.1995 (Ex.PW21/G-231),
Cheque forwarding Schedule dated 29.08.1995 (Ex.PW21/G-232),
Cheque Deposit Slips both dated 29.08.1995 (Ex.PW21/G-233 &
G-234), Cash Deposit Slip dated 25.09.1995 (Ex.PW21/G-235),
Cash Deposit Slip dated 29.09.1995 (Ex.PW21/G-236), Agreement
regarding bill purchase/bill discounting & advance (LD15) dated
06.10.1994 (Ex.PW21/G-237), Agreement for cash credit/overdraft
(LD9) dated 31.03.1995 (Ex.PW21/G-238), Agreement of
hypothecation of goods (LD11) dated 31.03.1995 (Ex.PW21/G-
51
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
239), the letter in the printed form dated 03.04.1995 alongwith map
of property (Ex.PW21/G-240), Letter of request addressed to Chief
Manager OBC, NFC, New Delhi qua temporary cash credit facility
to M/s Red Cat Agencies (Ex.PW21/G-241), and one perpetual
lease of DDA dated 15.05.1992.
33. PW-22 R.K. Chabbra was posted as Computer Operator in
Okhla Branch of Indian Overseas Bank. He handed over certain
documents to CBI and identified his signature on seizure memo
dated 07.10.1997 as Ex.PW22/A. He proved four documents
concerning account holder M/s Sachdeva Offset and Packaging Pvt
Ltd as Ex.PW8/A-1, PW8/A-2, PW22/A-1 and Ex.PW22/A-2 (D-70
to D-73 respectively).
33.1 He also proved the seizure memo dated 27.11.1997 as
Ex.PW22/B vide which the documents Ex.PW22/B-1 (D-65 Cheque
Book Issue Register), Letters Ex.PW22/B-2, B-3 (D-66 and D-67)
and statement of account Ex.PW22/B-4 (D-68) were handed over
during the investigation.
34. PW-23 Narender Kumar Chaudhary was posted as Cashier-
cum-Clerk at Hapur Branch of State Bank of Patiala. He proved the
current account opening form as Ex.PW23/A1 in the name of M/s
Ganpati Enterprises by its proprietor Vikram Arora (A-8), Specimen
Signature Card as Ex.PW23/A2, cheque book issue register as
52
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
Ex.PW23/B and the relevant entry Ex.PW23/B1, statement of
account Ex.PW23/C, the cheque referred and return register
Ex.PW23/D and Ex.PW23/D1 respectively.
35. PW-25 B.S Saini was posted as Manager, NIT, Faridabad
Branch, OBC. He identified the signatures of O.P Dawara, Manager
and proved the account opening form Ex.PW25/A1 in the name of
M/s Carda (India) Electronics ( of A-8 Vikram Arora) at NIT
Faridabad Branch on 17.08.1994. He further proved the statement
of account certified by O.P. Dawara as Ex.PW25/B.
36. PW-27 Chander Mohan Kapoor was posted as Manager,
Syndicate Bank, Dutai Branch, Garh Mukteshwar, District
Ghaziabad, U.P during the relevant period. He had handed over
certain documents to CBI vide seizure memo Ex. PW27/A relating
to the account of M/ Ashoka Industries ( Proprietor A-7 Sanjeev
Arora). He also proved the specimen signature card of M/s Ashoka
Industries, Letter for return of cheque book, courier receipt for
return of the cheque to OBC and Dispatch Register Ex.PW27/A-1 to
Ex.PW27/A-4 respectively ( D38 to D-40). He also proved the
seizure memo Ex.PW27/B (D-42) vide which he ad provided the
current account opening form of Ashoka Industries Ex.PW27/B-1,
Cheque Book Issue Register Ex.PW27/B-2, statement of account
Ex.PW27/B-3 and Register of Return of Cheque being unpaid
53
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
Ex.PW27/B-4 and relevant entries Ex.PW27/B-4/1 and
Ex.PW27/B-5 (D-43 to D-47).
37. PW28 Ashok Kumar Jain was posted as Branch
Manager at Hapur Branch of State Bank of Patiala and had handed
over certain documents to I.O relating to current account no.224 of
M/s Ganpati Enterprises. He proved seizure memo Ex.PW28/A,
Account Opening form Ex.PW23/A-1 and A-2 (D-58), Cheque
Book Register Ex.PW23/B (D-60) and Statement of Account
Ex.PW23/C (D-59) concerning current account of M/s Ganpati
Enterprises opened by A-8 Vikram Arora. He further proved the
letter Ex.PW28/A1 (D-61) written to M/s Ganpati Enterprises
informing them that its cheques were being repeatedly bouncing
because of insufficient funds. He also proved the cheque book
return register Ex.PW23/D (D-63).
38. PW-29 Jagjit Singh Bagga was posted as Manager in
Punjab National Bank, Patel Nagar Branch, Dehradun in 1994. He
proved the account opening form for the current account no. 964 in
the name of M/s Bhushan Mineral Industries Pvt Ltd as Ex.PW29/A
(D-16) , specimen signature card as Ex.PW29/B (D-16), statement
of account as Ex.PW29/C (D-19), cheque book register as
Ex.PW29/D (D-21) and relevant entry Ex.PW29/D1 and an extract
of the cheque book returning register Ex.PW-29/E (D-20).
54
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
39. PW-30 Jagdish Singh was posted as Manager with
Syndicate Bank, Dutai, Garh in the year 1994. He identified his
signatures on account opening form PW27/B1 (D-43) of M/s
Ashoka Industries, its proprietor Sanjeev Kumar (A-7). He further
proved letter Ex.PW27/B5 (D-47) written by him to proprietor of
M/s Ashoka Industries regarding issuing cheques without
maintaining sufficient funds.
40. PW-32 S.K. Gupta was posted as Manager, Punjab
National Bank, Patel Nagar Branch, Dehradun in Feb.1998. He
proved the seizure memo as Ex.PW32/A (D-15) whereby he handed
over some documents (Ex.PW29/A, Ex.PW29/B, PW29/DX-1,
Mark P29/X-2, Ex.PW29/C and Ex.PW29/E) related to account M/s
Bhushan Mineral Industries Ltd. to the I.O. He also proved one
document as Ex.PW32/B (D-18 already referred Mark PW29/X-2).
41. PW-35 S.B. Mathur is the official from OBC, NFC
Branch. At that time, S.K. Pathrella was the Sr. Manager of the
Branch. He identified his signatures on various cheques passed by
him vide Ex.PW-21/G-131 (D-516), Ex.PW-21/G-132 (D-517),
Ex.PW-21/G-134 (D-519), Ex.PW-21/G-131/35 (D-518), Ex.PW-
21/G-106 (D-491), and Ex.PW-21/G-107 (D-492). However, his
deposition never concluded.
55
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
42. PW-36 V.K. Chandila is the retired Sr. Manager, OBC.
He stated that he remained posted as Sr. Manager at OBC, NFC,
New Delhi. He proved the seizure memo as Ex.PW36/A (D-84)
whereby he handed over several documents to CBI. ( He did not
appear again for the deposition after his part testimony).
43. PW-37 Sh. Balbir Singh Godara deposed that he was
posted at New Friends Colony Branch, OBC twice. He further
stated that at that time, Mr. Kamboj was the Manager, Sh. Raja
Mohan was the Chief Manager and Mr. Suresh Pathrella was the
Branch Manager. He was posted in the Bills department of the
branch. The bills produced by the parties used to be sent to S. K.
Pathrella ( A-1) for discounting /purchase who would authorise the
purchase of the said bills. In compliance of Sh. S. K. Pathrella’s
authorization of cheques / bills, he alongwith the clerk used to
prepare the credit vouchers for the purchase /discount of bills /
cheques. After preparing the voucher, the amount used to be
credited to the account of the party. Thereafter, the clerk used to
dispatch the bill / cheque for encashment to the Banker’s of the
drawer.
43.1 He further stated that dispatch Register,Bill
Discount/purchase Registers were maintained in their branch.
Further, the Authority Register was maintained to record
authorization given by the Branch Manager. He thereafter proved
56
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
the debit voucher for purchase of DD No.758 to 764/95
Ex.PW21/G-145 (D-530), Credit Voucher for DD No.763 and 764
PW21/G-201 (D-587), Credit Transfer Voucher in respect of DD
No. 763 and 764/95 PW21/G-202 (D-588), Credit Transfer Voucher
in respect of commission for DD No.758 to 764/95 PW21/G-143
(D-528), Credit Transfer Voucher PW21/G-144 (D-529) for DD No.
758 to 764/95, Credit Transfer Voucher PW21/G-110 for DD No. 84
and 86/95, Credit Transfer Voucher PW21/G-112 for DD No. 82 to
86/95, Cheque No. 035729 Ex. PW21/G-119, Cheque No.035727
Ex.PW21/G-120, Cheque No. 35728 Ex.PW21/G-121 and Dak
Register Ex.PW20/A-3 (D-6).
43.2 He thereafter proved various credit vouchers, cheques,
transfer vouchers etc. regarding purchase of cheques/bills as
Ex.PW21/G-212, Ex.PW21/G-167, Ex.PW21/G-169,Ex.PW21/G-
188,Ex.PW21/G-189 to Ex.PW21/G-199, Ex.PW21/G-203,
Ex.PW21/G-204,Ex.PW21/G-206 to Ex.PW21/G-208,Ex.PW21/G-
216 to Ex.PW21/G-219, Ex.PW21/G-223 & Ex.PW21/G-224. He
also proved the other bank documents concerning the said five
beneficiary accounts maintained by the accused persons with OBC,
NFC, New Delhi as Ex.PW21/E-9, Ex.PW21/E-10, Ex.PW21/E-11,
Ex.PW21/E-20, Ex.PW21/E-21, Ex.PW39/2 to Ex.PW39/5,
Ex.PW21/D-14, Ex.PW21/D-20 to Ex.PW21/D-25, Ex.PW21/D-37
to Ex.PW21/D-39, Ex.PW21/D-41, Ex.PW1/R, Ex.PW1/S,
Ex.PW1/T, Ex.PW1/C, Ex.PW1/D, Ex.PW1/E, Ex.PW1/F,
57
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
Ex.PW1/G, Ex.PW1/N, Ex.PW1/O, Ex.PW1/P, Ex.PW21/F-4 to
Ex.PW21/F-15, Ex.PW21/G-17 to Ex.PW21/G-19, Ex.PW21/G-
111,Ex.PW21/G-113,Ex.PW6/G,Ex.PW6/J, Ex.PW6/N,Ex.PW21/F-
25, Ex.PW21/F-26, Ex.PW21/F-29 to Ex.PW21/F-31.
44. PW-39 Binay Kumar was posted at OBC, NFC, New
Delhi, during the relevant years, where he used to do miscellaneous
work. At that time, Balbir Singh Godra was the Officer Incharge of
the Bill Section and Sh. S.K. Pathrella was the Branch Manager.
Thereafter, he explained the procedure of cheque purchase as well
as the procedure of cheque dishonour in the bank. He further stated
that final authority to take action against the dishonour of cheque
was with the Branch Manager. He identified the signatures of S.K.
Pathrella, the then Branch Manager on Ex. PW21/G-1, Ex.
PW21/G2, Ex.PW21/E1, Ex. PW21/E2, Ex. PW21/D1, Ex.
PW21/D2, Ex. PW1/A, Ex. PW1/B, Ex. PW21/F1,Ex.PW21/F2 and
Ex.PW21/E27.
44.1 He after referring to Ex.PW6/D and Ex.PW6/E ( collectively)
further deposed that the same were the bills purchase memo
prepared by him in pursuance of forwarding letter Ex. PW21/E27.
The said documents bear the initials of Balbir Singh Godra which
were purchased on the written orders of A-1 S.K. Pathrella. As per
this bill purchase memo, the drawer is Navyug Traders and the
drawee is Sun Exports Jalandar ( of A-4). He also got exhibited the
58
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
relevant entries as Ex. PW39/1 (D-9). The total amount of bills was
Rs. 14,91,600/- which was credited in the beneficiary account of
M/s Navyug Traders. He further proved the bills of transport as Ex.
PW39/2 and PW39/3 (D-305 and D-306). He also identified stamp
of the bank and signatures of Balbir Singh Godra on back of
documents part of Ex. PW6/E (colly) and got exhibited the same as
Ex. PW39/4 and Ex.PW39/5 (D-304 and D-307) respectively.
Thereafter, he also referred to the Bill of Exchange Ex.PW1/F,
document Ex.PW20/A-7 (D-10), Ex.PW20/A-4 (D-8), transfer
voucher Ex.PW1/C (D-181), Ex.PW1/D (D-182), Ex.PW1/E (D-
183), Transport receipt Ex.PW1/G (D-185), Invoice No.0092
Ex.PW1/H, Bill Returning Memo Ex.PW21/C-2, Bill of Exchange
No.73/95 Ex.PW6/J alongwith its transport receipts.
45. PW40 Sh. Ashok Kumar Khanna is an official of Oriental
Bank of Commerce who was posted at New Friends Colony Branch
of OBC from 1991 to 1997. He worked in the Bills Department.
A-1 S.K. Pathrella, was the Branch Manager at that time who was
authorised to purchase the cheques. He identified the signature of
A-1 on cheques drawn by M/s Gold Exports in favour of M/s Red
Cat Agencies Ex.PW21/G-119 to Ex.PW21/G-121 and Cheque
Returning Memo Ex.PW21/G-231.
46. PW-41 Madhu Goswami was posted at New Friends
Colony branch of OBC during 1995-96. A-1 was posted with her
59
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
at New Friends Colony branch as Branch Manager. She was posted
as Hall Incharge and Sr. Manager at that time. The incoming daks
in the branch were directly received by the Branch Manager in his
cabin and she used to sort out the daks and the daks which were
required to be disposed off were sent by her to clerk. The clerk used
to enter those daks in the register and send it to the concerned
department.
46.1 On a specific question put to her as to show A-1 got to
know about the daks, especially in case of cheques/bills returning
unpaid, she answered that the unpaid cheques and bills used to be
received through registered post, whereas the other communication
through normal course. A-1 used to keep the daks with him, which
he intended to keep with him and the remaining were sent by him to
the clerk.
47. PW-42 Sh. Vipin Aggarwal, Chief Manager, Oriental
Bank of Commerce deposed that the Branch Manager Mr. K. K.
Bhan handed over certified true copies of documents to CBI in the
present case including the Outward Clearing Register. He
identified the signatures of Mr. K. K. Bhan and proved the said
register as Ex.PW42/A (D-175).
48. PW-45 Sh. Vijay Kumar Sehgal is the official from OBC,
NFC, New Delhi during the relevant period from the year 1991 to
60
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
1996. He identified his signatures and that of A-1 on various
transfer vouchers, credit vouchers, cheques etc passed by their
branch.
49. PW-46 Satish Kumar Sharma was posted as Chief
Manager at GT Road branch, Jalandhar City of OBC between 1997
to 1999. He handed over certain documents to the IO in the present
case vide seizure memo dated 11.11.1998 Ex. PW46/1 (D-122). He
further identified the documents as Ex.PW46/2 (D-123) (seven
pages) which included the copies of clearing register showing return
of cheques being uncleared on account of ‘want of funds’ handed
over to I.O through Ex.PW 46/1. He further got exhibited one letter
written by the witness to the I.O as Ex.PW46/3 (D-176).
50. PW-47 Sh. S. K. Chawla was posted at Lodhi Road,
New Delhi branch of State Bank of Saurashtra between 12.08.98 to
June 2003.
50.1 He further further deposed that he was called at CBI
office, CGO Complex, New Delhi in connection with the present
case. He went there to witness the specimen handwriting and
signatures of persons involved in the present case. He identified
his signatures and got exhibited the specimen handwriting and
signatures of A-5 as Ex.PW47/1 {( colly) (D-645) }.
61
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
51. PW-50 Mrs. Neelam Chopra was posted at New Friends
Colony branch of OBC from 1991 to 1996. A-1 S.K. Pathrella was
also posted in the said branch. She identified her signatures on
various cheques passed by her which were issued by Red Cat
Agencies vide Ex.PW50/1 to Ex.PW50/19. She also proved the
credit and debit vouchers Ex. PW50/20 to Ex.PW50/22.
51.1 PW-50 further identified her signatures on cheques issued
by Red Cat Agency Ex.PW21/G29, Ex.PW21/G30, PW21/G-32,
Ex. PW21/G-48, Ex. PW21/G-51 Ex.PW21/G52, Ex. PW21/G-53,
Ex. PW21/G-54, Ex.PW21/G-55, Ex.PW21/G-56 Ex. PW21/G-
57,Ex.PW21/G-72, Ex. PW21/G-83, Ex. PW21/G-84, Ex.
PW21/G-85, Ex.PW21/G-86, Ex. PW21/G-87, Ex. PW21/G-88,
Ex. PW21/G-90, Ex. PW21/G-94, Ex. PW21/G-95,Ex. PW21/G-
96, Ex. PW21/G-97,Ex. PW21/G-98, Ex.PW21/G-99, Ex. PW21/G-
102. She further stated that the said cheques were passed by her.
51.2 She also identified her signatures on cheques issued by
Rajesh Batra(A-5) Ex.PW21/D4,Ex. PW21/D-8, Ex. PW21/D-9,
Ex. PW21/D-10, Ex. PW21/D-19, Ex. PW21/D-17 and Ex.
PW21/F-20. She further stated that the said cheques were passed by
her as a Passing Officer. Lastly, she identified her signatures on DD
application form Ex.PW21/D-16.
62
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
52. PW-51 Sh. Pradeep Kumar Malhan is also retired
official from OBC. He deposed that OBC, NFC Branch was under
their region. He explained the process of loan proposal and putting
them before the Competent Authority.
52.1 He further stated that he knew A-1 who was the Branch
Head of OBC, NFC. He was authorized to sanction limit as per the
power chart of OBC. If the Branch Head exceeds his powers for
purchasing cheques/bills, then he had to seek approval in writing of
the Competent Authority. He further explained that the Competent
Authority either accords sanction/approval or declines, or seeks
further clarification from the branch. STM41B is a statement for
seeking action confirmation from Competent Authority in case the
sanctioning limit is beyond discretionary powers of the Branch
Manager. STM41C is a statement for seeking action confirmation
from competent authority in case the cheques/bills is beyond the
discretionary powers of the Branch Manager.
52.2 He proved the letters of the Chief Manager, NFC Branch
addressed to the Dy. General Manager, Regional Office and of
DGM to the Chief Manager during the relevant period qua the
loans/purchase of bills in question vide Ex. PW51/1 to Ex.PW51/6.
53. PW-52 Sh. Ved Kumar Grover was posted as Deputy
Manager, PNB, Alaknanda branch, New Delhi in 1998 for two years63
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019and proved the the seizure memo dated 29.01.1998 as Ex.PW-52/A.
He had handed over the documents as mentioned in the chargesheet
to the I.O.
54. PW-53 Surinder Kumar Lakhina was Regional Head of
New Delhi OBC Branches from 1991 to 1996. The New Friends
Colony branch of OBC was one of the said branches under his
charge as Regional Head. A-1 was Chief Manager of New Friends
Colony branch during 1994-95. He was empowered with
discretionary powers to grant loans etc. and had powers to grant
secured loan upto Rs. 30 lacs only. If the loan amount was beyond
his powers, then he was required to seek prior sanction from
regional or head office.
54.1 He further stated that he attended CBI office in connection
with the present case where he was shown relevant documents and
his statement was recorded. He identified his signature on letter
dated 25.05.1995 Ex.PW51/2 ( D-695) seeking an explanation from
A-1 for granting loan beyond his powers. He also identified the
reply given by A-1 to the said letter as Ex. PW53/A( part of D695) .
He further identified his signatures on letter Ex. PW51/3 (D694)
seeking explanation of A1 regarding advances granted by him
beyond his powers and asked him to get the account adjusted
immediately. He proved the letter as Ex.PW53/B ( Part of D695)
whereby A-1 was asked to stop the said practice immediately. He
64
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
further identified his signatures on documents Ex.PW51/3 and
Ex.PW51/4. He got exhibited another letter as Ex. PW53/C( D694)
whereby A1 had falsely claimed before AGM that A-1 had taken his
verbal permission regarding grant of loan. PW53 further stated that
he never gave any sanction for granting loan to M/s Pimco
Overseas, M/s Agronica Overseas, Batra Traders and M/s Navyug
Traders.
55. PW-54 Krishan Kumar Bhan remained Sr. Manager at
OBC, Branch Katra Ahluwalia,Amritsar from the period 1998 to
May, 2000. He had handed over the documents to the CBI. He
exhibited the letter dated 12.11.1998 as Ex.PW54/A whereby he had
handed over certified copy of Outward Clearing Register
Ex.PW42/A (D175).
56. PW-55 Devender Pal Dhingra remained posted at OBC
New Friends Colony Branch from June 1991 to 1997. During the
period 1994 to December, 1995, S.K. Pathrella was the Branch
Manager. He explained about his duty and procedure of cheque/bill
purchase. He was working in the Loan Department and doing other
miscellaneous work. He further deposed that in case of cheque/bill
purchase, the same used to be put up by concerned official with the
Branch Manager who used to authorise its purchase. Sometimes,
the Branch Manager being the Competent Authority used to
authorise the purchase/cheque on the pay-in-slip. In case of any
65
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
discrepancy in the bill/cheque purchased or it being over and above
the limit sanction, the Bill Incharge used to put the same before the
Branch Manager for approval. After the approval, the same was
returned to bills department who used to enter the same in
Bill/Cheque Register. Thereafter, the memo is prepared by the Bill
Clerk for collection of the amount which is certified the Incharge
(Bills Department ) and then sent to dispatch section. The bill clerk
used to prepare the debit and credit voucher of the cheque/bill and
after deducting the commission, the credit voucher is prepared and
is presented to the account of party concern. In case of non-
realization of amount of bill/cheque from the Collecting Bank, the
bills department prepares the voucher for debit to collect the same
from the account of party concerned.
56.1 He also explained about the STM-41 which is the monthly
statement regarding bill/cheque purchase or authorities used for
overdraft. The STM-41 A for the bill/cheque purchased or overdraft
within the power of the Branch Manager and STM -41 B concerns
the authority used by the Manager beyond his powers. STM -41 A is
for reporting purpose and STM -41 B is for the confirmation/action.
56.2 Thereafter, he also proved the signatures of A-1 on the
account opening form of M/s Red Cat Agencies Ex.PW21/G-1 and
its account statement Ex.PW21/G-3. He also proved the signatures
of A-1 on the account opening in the name of M/s Agronica
66
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
Overseas Ex.PW21/F-1 and on the Specimen Signature (SS) Card
Ex.PW21/F-2, of M/s Navyug Traders vide Ex.PW21/E-1, SS
Card being Ex.PW21/E-2, of M/s Pimco Overseas vide Ex.PW1/A
and SS Card Ex.PW1/B, of M/s Batra Traders Ex.PW21/D-1 and SS
Card Ex.PW21/D-2. He also proved the signature of A-1 and other
officials of OBC, NFC, New Delhi, on various credit vouchers,
debit vouchers, cheque deposit slips, internal credit vouchers,
cheques concerning the above-referred five current accounts.
56.3 He also proved the signatures of A-1 on the Bill Purchase
Register Ex.PW20/A-6, Authority Register Ex.PW55/6, Specimen
Handwriting and Signature of A-1 and Rajesh Batra (A-5)
Ex.PW55/5 and Ex.PW55/4. He expressed his ignorance of the
relationship between A-1 and partners of Red Cat Agencies.
57. PW-56 Rashpal Singh Kang worked as Senior Manager
with Oriental Bank of Commerce, Putalighar, GT Road, Amritsar
from 11.10.1998 to September 2002. He identified his signatures on
letter dated 12.11.1998 as Ex.PW56/1 whereby he informed the CBI
regarding the collection of the cheques bearing nos. 035741,
035737, 035740, 049013 and 049014, sent by the New Friends
Colony, Delhi Branch of OBC. However, the cheques qua the date
of purchase dated 28.02.1995 of Rs.3,49,250/- and date of purchase
dated 21.08.1995 of Rs.3,18,764/- were not traceable and there were
no entries in the Inward Bill Collection Register.
67
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
(ii) Other Witnesses (Private Persons, Investigation Witnesses &
FSL Witnesses.
58. PW-11 Sh. Vinod Kumar Nagpal deposed that he had a
bank account at PNB, GK-II. He had introduced the account of Mr.
Surinder Kumar who was the proprietor of M/s Sehgal Developers.
He got exhibited the account opening form as Ex.PW11/A (D-49).
59. PW-24 Bharat Bhushan Kansal deposed that he was the
General Secretary of Association of Transporters of Ghaziabad in
the name of ‘Ghaziabad Goods Transport Association’ during the
period 1986 to 2004-2005. He further deposed that there was no
transport company with the name of M/s S.I Transport Corporation
of India in the Association.
60. PW-26 Sandeep Gupta deposed that knew A-8 Vikram
Arora and A-7 Sanjeev Arora as they were introduced to him by Sh.
Pathrella (A-1), the Manager of the bank. He introduced their
account at OBC, NIT Branch, Faridabad. The said account was
opened in the name of M/s Carda (India) Electronics. He identified
his signature on the account opening form of M/s Carda (India)
Electronics Ex.PW25/A (D-27) and Authority Letter Ex.PW5/A (D-
28).
61. PW-31 Gautam Sachdeva deposed that he was running
the firm M/s Sachdeva Offset Packaging Industries Pvt Ltd. He
68
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
further stated that the said company had an account with Union
Bank of India at Okhla. Thereafter, he identified signatures of his
mother on account opening form Ex.PW8/A1 (D-70) and specimen
signature card related to the said account as Ex.PW31/A (D-71). He
further identified the cheque (D-605) of the said account signed by
him in favour of M/s Red Cat Agencies which was a builder
company owned by J.S Logani. He deposed that his father wanted
to get an AC installed at his flat and therefore, he had contacted Sh.
Logani. He further deposed that on the asking of his father, he had
signed the said cheque, but the same was blank at that time. His
further testimony concerns JS Jogani against whom the proceedings
stands quashed by the Hon’ble HC vide order dated 04.09.2015.
62. PW-33 Shiv Ram Khanna expressed his ignorance
regarding any firm, namely Red Carpet Agency, and turned hostile
qua the role of Ghanshyam Kakkar or Joginder Singh Logani.
The witness was declared hostile and was cross-
examined at length by Ld. Public Prosecutor.
63. PW-34 Surjeet Singh deposed that he is a Govt Contractor
with HUDA and proprietor of M/s Surjeet Singh Builders. He
identified his signatures as Introducer on account opening form of
Current Account No.6199 of M/s Gold Exports and got exhibited
the same as Ex.PW34/A (D-85). He stated that he signed the Form
at the instance of Bank Manager. He further stated that he did not
69
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
know Joginder Singh Logani, Proprietor of M/s Gold Exports and
he (J.S Logani) was not present at the bank at the time when he (the
witness) signed Ex.PW34/A.
64. PW-38 Jagat Bhushan Batra deposed that M/s Bhushan
Minerals Industries Pvt Ltd was incorporated in 1990’s. He became
Managing Director of the company after partition between him and
his brothers around the year 2002.
64.1 He further deposed that one current account of the company
was maintained with PNB, Patel Nagar, Dehradun. He identified his
signatures as well as the signatures of his brothers and father on
account opening form Ex.PW29/A . He also proved the copy of
resolution as Ex.PW38/1 for opening the deposit account. He
identified his signatures as well as of his father and brothers on
signature card Ex. PW29/B. The said account was closed vide letter
dated 14.12.1996 signed by his brother Chandra Bhushan.
PW-38 further deposed about the role of Mr J.S. Logani
against whom the proceedings stands quashed.
65. PW-43 Virender Singh deposed that he knew Prince
@ Harsimaran Dhingra(A-4), who was the brother of his friend
Vicky. He identified the photograph of A-4 Harsimran Dhingra on
account opening form Ex.PW6/A1 of M/s Sun Exports of Punjab
and Sind Bank, Lajpat Nagar, Jalandhar and specimen signature
70
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
card of Harsimran Singh Ex.PW6/A2. He further identified the
specimen signature card Ex.PW14/B of Harsimran Singh with
Central Bank of India, Guru Bazar, Amritsar and photograph of on
specimen card of M/s Gold Exports with Central Bank of India,
Majith Mandi, Amritsar as Ex. PW43/1(D-104).
65.1 He further stated that Prince used to reside with his maternal
uncle at Delhi and used to only visit his parents at Amritsar. He
never saw any firm in the name of ‘Sun Exports’ or ‘Gold Exports’
running in his neighbourhood.
66. PW-44 Sh. R.P. Bhargav stated that he had an account in
the name of Firm Raj Hans with OBC, NFC, New Delhi. He
deposed that S.K. Pathrella was the Chief Manager in the bank at
that time, and he had introduced the account Ex. PW21/D1 at the
request of the then Chief Manager Sh. S.K. Pathrella.
67. PW-48 Sh. K.K. Diwan is retired bank official from
Syndicate Bank, Bhambni Khera, Distt. Palwal, Haryana and he
identified the signature of one accused namely A-8 Vikram Arora on
specimen signature memo and exhibited the same as Ex. PW48/1
(colly) (10 pages D-648).
68. PW-49 Sh. S. C. Dandriyal is the Investigating Officer
who deposed that the investigation of the present case was assigned
to him on 30.4.1997. He identified and proved the FIR of the same
71
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
date alongwith its annexures Ex.PW-49/1 (colly). He further
deposed that during investigation, he collected relevant documents
and examined witnesses. He also obtained specimen signatures of
accused persons and other persons concerned, which were
forwarded to GEQD for obtaining the expert opinion. After
completion of investigation, he filed the chargesheet. However, the
original documents sent to GEQD were not received back, the
Hon’ble Court consigned the file to Record Room. Thereafter, he
was transferred from the department.
68.1 He proved the seizure memo dated 29.09.1997 Ex.PW3/A
(D-2), seizure memo dated 22.09.1999 Ex.PW-20/A (D-14) , seizure
memo dated 26.02.1998 Ex.PW-32/A (D-15), seizure memo dated
14.01.1999 Ex.PW-21/A (D-22), seizure memo dated 21.12.1998
Ex.PW-49/2 (D-26), seizure memo dated 29.01.1998 Ex.PW-52/A
(D-31), seizure memo dated 27.01.1998 Ex.PW-27/A (D-37),
seizure memo dated 09.01.1998 Ex.PW-27/B (D-42), seizure memo
dated 23.01.1998 Ex.PW-18/A (D-48), seizure memo dated
27.01.1999 Ex.PW-49/3 (D-54), seizure memo dated 29.12.1997
Ex.PW-28/A (D-57), seizure memo dated 05.01.1999 Ex.PW-28/B
(D-62), seizure memo dated 27.11.1997 Ex.PW-22/B (D-64),
seizure memo dated 07.10.1997 Ex.PW-22/A (D-69), seizure memo
dated 27.10.1997 Ex.PW-6/L (D-73), seizure memo dated
17.11.1997 Ex.PW-6/M (D-74), seizure memo dated 08.10.1997
Ex.PW-36/A (D-84), seizure memo dated 08.10.1997 Ex.PW-7/A
72
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
(D-92), seizure memo dated 07.10.1997 Ex.PW-49/4 (D-103),
seizure memo dated 07.10.1997 Ex.PW-49/5 (D-111), seizure
memo dated 12.01.1999 Ex.PW-49/6 (D-120), seizure memo dated
11.11.1998 Ex.PW-46/1 (D-122), seizure memo dated 15.10.1997
Ex.PW-49/7 (D-124), seizure memo dated 28.12.1998 Ex.PW-49/8
(D-127), seizure memo dated 28.12.1998 Ex.PW-49/9 (D-129),
seizure memo dated 15.10.1997 Ex.PW-49/10 (D-133), seizure
memo dated 28.11.1997 Ex.PW-49/11 (D-155), seizure memo
dated 29.05.1998 Ex.PW-15/A (D-163), seizure memo dated
12.08.1997 Ex.PW-21/C (D-177), seizure memo dated 14.08.1997
Ex.PW-21/D (D-221), seizure memo dated 13.08.1997 Ex.PW-21/E
(D-278), seizure memo dated 13.08.1997 Ex.PW-21/F (D-315) and
seizure memo dated 18.08.1997 Ex.PW-21/G (D-382) vide which
the documents were seized from various banks.
68.2 He also proved the letters addressed to Director CFSL
dated 11.01.1999, 28.09.1999 and 29.09.1999 as Ex.PW-49/12,
Ex.PW-49/13 and Ex.PW-49/14 (D-634, D-635 and D-636
respectively) seeking their opinion as to the handwriting and
signatures on the various documents collected in the matter.
68.3 He also identified the documents concerning specimen
signatures/handwriting of A-5 Rajesh Batra as S-165 to S-172
Ex.PW55/3 (D-645), S-173 to S-194 Ex.PW49/17, S-195 to S-204
Ex.PW49/18, S-205 to S-214 Ex.PW49/19 (colly), S-215 to S-271
73
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
Ex.PW55/4 ( colly), S-272 to S-357 Ex.PW49/20 ( colly), S-279 to
S-484 Ex.PW49/21 ( colly), S-494 to S-528 Ex.PW47/1 ( colly).
68.4 He also identified the documents concerning specimen
signatures/handwriting of A-4 Harsimran Singh Dhingra, S-358 to
S-373 Ex.PW49/22 (D-646), S-374 to S-381 Ex.PW49/23.
68.5 He also identified the documents concerning specimen
signatures/handwriting of A-8 Vikram Arora , S-423 to S-332
Ex.PW48/1 (colly) (D-648) and S-433 to S-442 Ex.PW49/25
(colly).
68.6 He also identified the documents concerning specimen
signatures/handwriting of accused Sanjeev Arora (A-7), S-443 to S-
456 Ex.PW49/26 (colly) (D-649).
68.7 He also identified the documents concerning specimen
signatures/handwriting of Narender Kapoor, S.K. Pathrella ( A-1),
J.S Logani( A-3), Ghanshyam Kakkar( A-2) , Menka Kakkar and
Jagat Bhushan Batra.
68.8 Lastly, he identified and proved the seizure memo
dated 15.04.1998 Ex.PW49/30, seizure memo dated 20.03.1998
Ex.PW49/31, four STM-A Registers Ex.PW49/32 ( colly) seized
vide seizure memo Ex.PW49/30 and Register containing
74
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
confirmation of the cheques bill purchased Ex.PW49/33 seized vide
seizure memo Ex.PW49/30.
69. PW-57 Ms. Alka Gupta, Sr. Scientific Assistant, CFSL
appeared on behalf of CFSL Expert Dr. S. C. Mittal ( being not
available), who was Principal Scientific Officer in the document
division. She assisted him in many cases, and therefore, she
identified his signature as well as his handwriting. She identified
signature of Director CFSL on forwarding letter dated 03.11.1999
and signature of CFSL Expert Dr. S.C Mittal on report as Ex.
PW57/1 (Colly). She further identified signatures of Director CFSL
on forwarding letter dated 07.02.2000 and signatures of Dr. S.C
Mittal on report dated 31.01.2000 as Ex. PW57/2 (Colly.) Lastly,
she identified signatures of the then Director CFSL on forwarding
letter dated 29.03.2000 as well as of Dr. S.C Mittal on report dated
28.03.2000 as Ex. PW57/3 (Colly.)
70. PW-58 Sh. Bijay Kumar Pradhan is the Second
Investigating Officer who in the present case re-submitted the
charge sheet which had earlier been consigned to Record Room by
the court of Ld. Special Judge, CBI, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi due to
want of documents.
70.1 He further deposed that the case was investigated by Sh.
S. C.Dandriyal, the then Inspector and after completion of
75
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
investigation, he filed a charge-sheet against Sh. S. K. Pathrella and
seven others in the court of Ld. Special Judge, CBI, Delhi.
However, the documents and the relied upon the statement of
witnesses were not filed with the charge-sheet as some of the
documents were sent to CFSL for opinion and it was consigned to
Record Room by Ld. Court. In pursuance of the directions of the
Court and instructions of SP, CBI, he had prepared the charge sheet
on the basis of the earlier chargesheet. The chargesheet was filed
alongwith the CFSL report and the documents.
71. PW-59 Sh. Komal Singh is an Assistant I.O who
conducted part investigation as an Assistant Investigating Officer on
the instruction of Sh. S.C. Dandriyal, main IO of the case. During
the investigation, he examined three witnesses namely Y.
Nageshwar Rao, Senior Manager, G.T.B. Bank, Ram Kishan
Raheja, Transporter and Bharat Bhushan Kansal.
72. PW-60 Sh. Ajay Kumar is also Assistant I.O who also
conducted part investigation and collected some documents and
also examined some witnesses.
72.1 He identified his signatures and proved seizure memo
dated 15.10.1997 Ex. PW49/7 and stated that he had seized
documents from Sh. Gurdial Chand Sharma, Special Assistant,
Central Bank of India, Amritsar. He further identified the original
76
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
pay-in-slip dated 31.01.1995 & certified copy of Ledger Sheet of
M/s. Gold Export maintained with the bank as Ex.PW60/1
(collectively). He further stated that these documents were seized
from Sh. Gurdial Chand Sharma through Seizure Memo Ex.
PW49/7.
72.2 He further identified his signatures on Seizure Memo dated
15.10.1997 Ex. PW49/10 through which he seized 21 documents
from Sh. S. P. Salwan, Assistant Manager, Central Bank of India.
He also got exhibited account opening form, specimen card,
certified copy of IBC Register and other supporting documents as
Ex.PW60/2 (collectively).
(IV) STATEMENT OF ACCUSED PERSONS
73. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the statement
of the accused persons was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C (now
corresponding to Section 351 of BNSS). The entire incriminating
evidence produced by the prosecution was put to the accused
persons in the form of detailed questionnaires.
74. The accused no. 4 Harsimran Dhingra claimed that he is
innocent and has been falsely implicated. He further claimed that
the cheques were issued by him in favour of M/s Red Cat Agenciies
for supply of material to him. The cheques were post dated and as
77
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
the goods were not supplied, therefore the cheques were not
honoured. After the registration of the case, he requested and
pressurized co-accused J.S. Logani partner of M/s Red Cat Agencies
to deposit the amount in the account of OBC against the cheques
issued by him and purchased by the bank. Accordingly, a settlement
was arrived between J.S. Logani and OBC. The amount was paid.
The bank issued the letter Mark-A4 having received the entire
amount along with interest and based on the same the FIR was
quashed by the Hon’ble High Court against Mr J.S. Logani. At the
time of incident, he was only 18 years old and had no intention to
cheat the bank nor to fabricate any document.
75. Accused no. 5 Rajesh Batra also claimed innocence and
further stated the he has deposited all the amount which was due
towards him. Due to loss in business, he could not deposit or return
the amount to the bank in time. He had no intention to cheat the
bank nor had fabricated or prepared false document with the view to
cause loss to the bank and gain for himself.
76. A-7 Sanjeev Arora also claimed innocence and stated that
he had no intention to cheat the bank or no false or fabricated
documents were presented to the bank for obtaining the loan. He
further claimed that the party to whom he had issued the cheque in
advance did not supply the goods to them and accordingly the
payment of the cheques was got stopped. In the meantime without
78
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
their knowledge and consent, the cheques issued by him were
purchased by the Bank. A-3 J.S. Logani owner of M/s Red Cat
Agencies had since cleared all the due to the bank. He is not the
beneficiary of any loan extended to A-3 by the bank.
77. Similarly A-8 too claimed innocence and stated that he had
no intention to cheat the bank or no false and fabricated documents
were presented to the bank for obtaining the loan. His defence is
similar to that of his brother A-7 Sanjeev Arora. He further claimed
that he is not the beneficiary of any facility extended to A-3 by the
bank and his name is not mentioned in the FIR.
(V) DEFENCE EVIDENCE
78. The defence evidence was led on behalf of the accused
no. 4 Harsimran Dhingra and A-5 Rajesh Batra. During the defence
evidence, statement of DW-1 Vijay Kumar Bairwa was partly
recorded on 28.09.2025 and was deferred for want of records.
78.1 In the mean-time, an application u/s 294 Cr.P.C was moved
by A-4 for bringing on record the certified copy of the no objection
certificate/ no dues certificate dated 27.09.2007 issued by OBC,
New Friends Colony Branch, New Delhi and judgment of Hon’ble
Delhi High Court in quashing petition of A-3 J.S. Logani in Crl. MC
No. 3400/2015. The application was disposed off vide order dated
79
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
24.09.2005. As far as quashing petition order is concerned, the said
document being judicial document and part of the record, it was
accordingly held to be per se admissible.
78.2 The second document i.e, NOC/No dues Certificate of
Oriental Bank o f Commerce being an admitted document of both
the parties was taken on record as ‘Ex. A1’.
After the admission of the said document, the defence
evidence was closed on behalf of the accused persons.
(VI) ARGUMENTS OF CBI
79. The Ld. Senior (Sr.) Public Prosecutor (PP) for CBI
argued that the origin of the present case concerns the criminal
conspiracy involving the accused named herein whereby which they
cheated Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Friends Colony Branch,
New Delhi during the period 1994-1995. It is argued that during the
said period Branch Manager at the said bank was A-1, who was
integral part of the said criminal conspiracy involving the private
individuals named in the charge sheet.
79.1 It is further argued that in pursuance to the criminal
conspiracy by the accused persons, five current accounts were
opened in the said branch in the names of firms M/s Red Cat
80
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
Agencies, M/s Batra Traders, M/s Navyug Traders, M/s Pimco
Overseas and M/s Agronica Overseas.
79.2 It is further argued that simultaneously the aforesaid persons
who opened the above referred current accounts, also got opened
various bank accounts at far-off places either by themselves or
through their proxies in the name of fake firms and procured the
cheque books. The cheque books were issued from the bank located
in far-off places and were thereafter utilized for cheating purposes.
The said cheques were issued for non-existing business transactions
in favour of above referred five firms. Apart from cheques, fake
bills were issued by them. A-1, the then Branch Manager, OBC,
New Friends Colony Branch, New Delhi purchased the said
cheques/bills and the amount used to be credited in the above
referred five firms’s account. Later, when the said cheques were
sent for clearing by OBC, New Friends Colony Branch, New Delhi,
all of them returned unrealized due to insufficient funds. Thus it is
argued that the bank was cheated to the tune of Rs 1,58,86,908.68/-.
79.3 It is further argued that though the trial against A-1 has been
deferred on account of his mental illness, however the evidence on
record proves his involvement in the criminal conspiracy.
79.4 It is further argued that the main players in the present case
were J.S. Logani and accused Ghanshyam Kakkar, the partners of
81
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
M/s Red Cat Agencies. The other accused were either their
employees or relatives. A-5 Rajesh Batra, Proprietor of M/s Batra
Traders, was their employee, while A-4 Harsimran Dhingra,
Proprietor of M/s Pimco Overseas, is a close relative of J.S.
Logani. Similarly, A-6 Naveen Kakkar, Proprietor of M/s Agronica
Overseas, is the brother of A-2 Ghanshyam Kakkar, partner of M/s
Red Cat Agencies.
79.5 It is further argued that all the above referred five accounts
were allowed to be opened by A-1 at New Friends Colony Branch
of OBC in pursuance of the criminal conspiracy of cheating the
bank.
79.6 Further, it is argued that a total of 20 cheques for amount to
Rs 73.6 lacs and four bills amounting to Rs 25.85 lacs were
purchased in the current account of M/s Red Cat Agencies during
the period i.e. 03.10.1994 to 30.09.1995. All the cheques and bills
were purchased by A-1 being the branch Manager.
79.7 It is further argued that out of the said purchased cheques, 18
cheques of Rs 66.35 lacs returned unpaid due to insufficient funds.
The cheques issued purchased in the account of M/s Red Cat
Agencies were issued against bogus transactions by the fictitious
firms of A-4 Harsimran Dhingra (M/s Gold Export, M/s Sun
Export), A-8 Vikram Arora (M/s Ganpati Enterprises and M/s Carda
82
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
(India) Electronics), A-7 Sanjeev Kumar Arora (M/s Ashoka
Industries) and few other entities including one firm of J.S. Logani
(M/s Gold Export).
79.8 It is further argued that similarly in the current account of M/s
Batra Traders, 7 cheques and 2 bills were purchased by A-1 during
the aforesaid period, which all got dishonored. Again in the said
account, the cheques/bills were drawn/issued by the fictitious firms
of A-4 (M/s Sun Export), firms of J.S. Logani (M/s Gold Export and
M/s Sun Glow Travel and Tour Operator).
79.9 That as far as current account of M/s Navyug Traders
through its Proprietor Narender Kapoor is concerned, it is argued
that in fact Narender Kapoor never opened the said account .Rather
his signatures were forged by A-5 Rajesh Batra. The said fact has
been proved by the FSL report Ex. PW57/1 dated 03.11.1999. The
said Narender Kapoor was Peon with M/s Red Cat Agencies and
accordingly his particulars as well as photographs were misutilized
in opening the current account of M/s Navyug Traders by forging
his signatures. The said account was opened by A-1 only . In the
said account, one cheque and two bills were purchased which were
issued against bogus transactions by M/s Sun Export of A-4 and M/s
Jimmy Crown Enterprises, Proprietor Meena Kakkar (wife of A-2).
83
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019 79.10 It is further argued that the 4th current account of M/s
Pimco Overseas was opened by A-4 as a Proprietor and the said
account was introduced by Ghanshyam Kakkar (A-2). In the said
account, three cheques and two bills were purchased, out of which
two were issued by M/s Sun Exports (owned by A-4 only) and one
by A-3 J.S. Logani proprietor M/s Sun Glow Travels & Tour
Operators. Two bills purchased were issued by M/s Sun Exports
and Gold Exports, Amritsar (owned by A-4 himself). Thus, A-4
himself issued bogus cheques of his bogus firms located at Amritsar
and got the said cheques purchased in the current account opened at
OBC, New Friends Colony in conspiracy with A-1 and other
accused persons.
79.11 It is further argued that current account of M/s Agronica
Overseas was opened by Naveen Kakkar (A-6) (since P.O) which
was introduced by A-5. Again, in the said account, two cheques and
two bills were purchased, one cheque was that of M/s Sun
Export ,Jalandhar (owned by A-4) and other of M/s Jimmy Crown
Enterprises (owned by wife of A-2). Two bills which were
purchased , were issued by A-4 of M/s Sun Exports, Jalandhar. All
the said cheques and bills were bogus instruments without any
genuine business transaction.
79.12 It is, thus, argued that all the above referred
transaction which have been proved by the prosecution witnesses
84
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
goes on to show the criminal conspiracy hatched by the accused
persons themselves by roping A-1 to cheat OBC, New Friends
Colony Branch. The said conspiracy in the end resulted in wrongful
loss of Rs 1,58,86908.60 with the corresponding wrongful gain to
the accused persons.
80. It is argued that though the proceedings stand quashed
against one of the main accused Joginder Singh Logani by the
Hon’ble High Court vide order dated 04.09.2015 on account of
settlement affected by him with the bank. However, the said
settlement is of no help to the accused persons facing trial as no
part of the cheated amount has been paid by them to the bank. Bank
never came forward to compound the offence before the court.
80.1 It is further argued that as far as A-1 is concerned, he
purchased the said fraudulent cheques and bills in violation of the
Circular No. HO/ADV/28/91-92/85 dated 01.07.1991 issued by
General Manger (Operation) (Ex. PW2/A). It is further argued that
the witnesses PW-51 and PW-53 have deposed about the said
illegalities committed by A-1. Therefore, it is argued that all the
accused persons are liable to be punished for the charges framed
against them.
The written arguments filed by CBI are also on the similar
lines.
85
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
(VII) Arguments on behalf of Accused Persons
81. Per contra, Sh UK Sharma, Ld. Counsel for accused A-
4,5,A-7 and A-8 argued that they are not disputing the discounting
of the bills/cheques by the bank. However, no offence under Section
420 r/w 120B IPC is made out as the entire amount due towards the
bank stands paid as reflected in the order of Hon’ble Delhi High
Court dated 04.09.2015.
81.1 It is further argued that CBI even preferred SLP against
the order of the Hon’ble High Court dated 04.09.2015 before the
Hon’ble Supreme Court and the SLP has been dismissed vide order
dated 06.01.2017. The No Objection Certificate issued by the bank
reflects that the bank has received payment of Rs 1 crore 74 lacs
and apart from that interest component of Rs 23,29,000/-. In the
said backdrop, there is no question of offence under Section 420
IPC surviving against the accused.
81.2 It is further argued that there was no intention on the part of
the accused persons as they have deposited the entire amount with
interest to the bank thereby causing no loss to the bank.
Further, it is argued that the principle of Stare Decisis is
applicable and in this regard the reliance is placed upon the
judgments:
1. Adani Power ltd. and Anr. vs. Union of India &
others, Hon’ble Supreme Court (Arising out of Special86
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019Leave Petition (Civil) No. 24729/2019, decided on
05.01.2026.
2. Vaddi Ratnam vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, Hon’ble
Supreme Court, Cr. Appeal No. 811/2016, decided on
September 17, 2015 (Unreported judgment).
3. Harbans Singh vs. State of UP and others decided on
12 February, 1982, AIR 1982 SC 849.
4. Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi vs. State of Gujarat, 2023
LiveLaw (SC) 782:2023 INSC 829.
5. CBI Vs. M/s Sarvodaya Highways Ltd. and others
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No(s). 11108 of 2022, 2025
INSC 1359.
82. The principle of parity too applies as A-3 J.S. Logani was
similarly situated to the other accused persons and was facing trial
for all the offences as the present accused. A-3 has already been
awarded relief by the Hon’ble High Court vide order dated
04.09.2015 by quashing the FIR.
82.1 It is further argued that no offence under Section 120B read
with Section 13 (2) of PC Act is made out as prosecution has failed
to show any disproportionate property being found with A-1. A-1
never forged any document as is admitted by the Investigating
Officer in the cross-examination.
82.2 Similarly, the other bank officials who have been examined
by the prosecution i.e. PW-31 Balbir Singh, PW39 Vinay Kumar all
87
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
admitted in the cross-examination that A-1 was not duty bound to
verify the documents which he allowed for purchase in the above
referred accounts. Similarly, PW-42 claimed that he never informed
A-1 about the return of unpaid cheques and did not scrutinize or
verify the documents of the respective firms.
82.3 Lastly, it is argued that the CFSL report has remained
unproved as PW-57 Ms. Alka Gupta merely identified the signature
of the author of the report Sh. S.C. Mittal. The CFSL report is also
hit by Section 311A of Cr.P.C as no permission of the court was
taken before taking specimen signatures. So, it is argued that
Investigating Officer never seized the balance sheet of the firms
who had issued the cheques/bills in favour of the above referred five
account holders and therefore, their averments that cheques or bills
were issued without any business transaction is a bald claim.
82.4 It is also argued that Section 13(1)(d) of PC Act is also not
made out as there are no allegations of demand or acceptance of
bribe or malafide or dishonest intention on the part of A-1 while
authorizing the purchase of cheques/bills. Even otherwise, there
were several other officials involved in the said entire process and
A-1 alone could not have exercised the said powers. Hence, accused
persons are liable to be acquitted.
The written arguments too have filed which are also on the
similar lines.
88
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
(VIII) Rebuttal Arguments of CBI
83. In rebuttal, it is argued that as far as A-1 is concerned,
three cases were instituted against him of criminal misconduct and
A-1 already stands convicted in one case. As regards the reliance
placed on the order of the Hon’ble High Court dated 04.09.2015
regarding the quashing of the case against accused J.S. Logani, it is
argued that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, vide a subsequent order
dated 17.01.2019 has already clarified that the case will continue
against all the remaining accused. Therefore, no protection can be
claimed by the accused facing trial qua the above-referred quashing
order. As regards the non-collection of balance sheets of the firms
that issued the cheques or bills in favour of the above referred five
firms, it is argued that same is inconsequential. The accounts
statements of the said firms have been collected and proved on
record which reflects no business being done and the said firms
having a paltry balance all throughout during the relevant period. As
regards the compromise or repayment of the loan is concerned, the
reliance is also placed upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme
Court in CBI Vs. M/s Sarvodaya Highways Ltd. and others (Arising
out of SLP (Crl.) No(s). 11108 of 2022, 2025 INSC 1359.
84. Heard both the parties and gone through the entire records.
89
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019 (IX) CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY
85. The first and foremost charge ( referred as Charge
No.1) framed against the all the accused persons is that of Criminal
Conspiracy.
85.1 Before delving into the factual matrix of the case, the
legal principles governing the offence of criminal conspiracy as
defined under Section 120A and punishable under Section 120B
IPC needs discussion. It is a well-settled proposition of law that it
is a distinct and substantive offence. It is also independently and
separately punishable. In case the agreement is for the
accomplishment of an act which itself constitutes an offence, then in
that event, even no overt act needs to be proved by the prosecution.
86. The foundation of the criminal conspiracy is the ‘agreement
or meeting of minds’ between two or more persons and the object
of the meeting of mind is to achieve a common illegal objective.
The offences complete as soon as the agreement is made. The
ingredients of the criminal conspiracy under Section 120 A IPC can
be culled out as under :
(i) an agreement between two or more persons (ii)
secondly, the agreement must relate to doing or
causing to be done (a) an illegal act or (b) an act
which is not illegal in itself, but is done by illegal
means.
90
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019 86.1 It is also well settled principle of law that the offence of
criminal conspiracy is a continuing offence that begins with
formation of the agreement and lasts until the objective is achieved
or abandoned due to intervening causes. It is also a well-established
fact as pronounced in numerous cases by the constitutional courts,
that generally the conspiracy is hatched in secrecy and is also
executed in darkness. Therefore, it is difficult to prove by way of
direct evidence the said agreement between the parties of criminal
conspiracy. The prosecution generally has to rely upon surrounding
circumstances or the conduct of the accused persons from which the
inference has to be drawn regarding the meeting of mind or
agreement between the parties for the objects as referred above.
The said circumstantial evidence though must establish a chain of
events that inevitably points towards the criminal conspiracy
hatched between the parties. In this regard, the judgment of
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kehar Singh & Anr. V. State (Delhi
Administration ), AIR 1988 SC 1883 throws light over the same.
The relevant paras are reproduced hereunder for the sake of
convenience and clarity:
“274. It will be thus seen that the most important
ingredient of the offence of conspiracy is the
agreement between two or more persons to do an
illegal act. The illegal act may or may not be
done in pursuance of agreement, but the very
agreement is an offence and is punishable.
Reference to Sections 120-A and 120-B IPC
would make these aspects clear beyond doubt.
Entering into an agreement by two or more
persons to do an illegal act or legal act by illegal91
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019means is the very quintessence of the offence of
conspiracy.
275. Generally, a conspiracy is hatched in secrecy
and it may be difficult to adduce direct evidence
of the same. The prosecution will often rely on
evidence of acts of various parties to infer that
they were done in reference to their common
intention. The prosecution will also more often
rely upon circumstantial evidence. The
conspiracy can be undoubtedly proved by such
evidence direct or circumstantial. But the court
must enquire whether the two persons are
independently pursuing the same end or they
have come together in the pursuit of the unlawful
object. The former does not render them
conspirators, but the latter does. It is, however,
essential that the offence of conspiracy requires
some kind of physical manifestation of
agreement. The express agreement, however,
need not be proved. Nor actual meeting of two
persons is necessary. Nor it is necessary to prove
the actual words of communication. The evidence
as to transmission of thoughts sharing the
unlawful design may be sufficient. Gerald
Orchard of University of Canterbury, New
Zealand explains the limited nature of this
proposition [1974 Criminal Law Review 297, p.
299] :
‘Although it is not in doubt that the offence
requires some physical manifestation of
agreement, it is important to note the limited
nature of this proposition. The law does not
require that the act of agreement take any
particular form and the fact of agreement may be
communicated by words or conduct. Thus, it has
been said that it is unnecessary to prove that the
parties “actually came together and agreed in
terms” to pursue the unlawful object; there need
never have been an express verbal agreement, it
being sufficient that there was “a tacit
understanding between conspirators as to what
should be done”.’92
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
276. I share this opinion, but hasten to add that
the relative acts or conduct of the parties must be
conscientious and clear to mark their concurrence
as to what should be done. The concurrence
cannot be inferred by a group of irrelevant facts
artfully arranged so as to give an appearance of
coherence. The innocuous, innocent or
inadvertent events and incidents should not enter
the judicial verdict. We must thus be strictly on
our guard.”
87. In the light of said settled proposition of law concerning
the offence of criminal conspiracy, the factual matrix in the present
case needs discussion and it has to be seen as to whether the
prosecution has been successfully able to prove the existence of
agreement between two or more persons and the objective of the
same being illegal one.
88. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused
persons including A-2 Ghanshyam Kakkar, A-6 Naveen Kakkar
(Both declared Proclaimed Offenders vide order dated 17.10.2010)
and A-3 Joginder Singh Logani ( proceedings quashed vide order
dated 04.09.2015 by Hon’ble High Court) were the members of the
said criminal conspiracy and they roped in A-1 S.K. Pathrella, who
at relevant point of time was the Branch Manager, Oriental Bank of
Commerce, New Friends Colony, New Delhi. The private persons
namely A-4 HS Dhingra, A-5 Rajesh Batra and A-6 Naveen Kakkar
(since Proclaimed Offender) allegedly joined in and current
accounts were opened in through their fake firms. A-7 Sanjeev
93
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
Kumar and A-8 Vikram Arora also allegedly became part of the
conspiracy as the cheques issued by them against fake transactions
also came to be purchased in the account of M/s Red Cat Agency.
(i) CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY VIS-A-VIS THE ALLEGATION AGAINST A-
1 U/S 13 (1) (d) r/w 13 (2) of PC ACT.
89. Though, the trial against A-1 stands suspended in light of his
Mental Condition under Section 368 of BNSS 2023 vide order
dated 01.03.2025, but as the cumulative charge of criminal
conspiracy is framed against the accused persons, therefore the role
of A-1 to that extent necessarily has to be considered.
90. It is the case of the prosecution that the private accused
persons hatched a criminal conspiracy by roping in A-1 and the
object of the said criminal conspiracy was to cheat Oriental Bank of
Commerce by utilizing the banking facilities of purchase of cheques
/bills in pursuance of the said criminal conspiracy. It is alleged that
the following five current accounts were opened :
Sr. No Name of the Firm Current Partner/Proprietor
Account No.
1 M/s Red Cat 2607/CC 1724 Partners A-3 J.S Logani and A-
Agencies 2 Ghanshyam Kakkar
2 M/s Batra Traders 2695 A-5 Rajesh Batra, Proprietor
3 M/s Navyug Traders 2845 Narender Kapoor, Proprietor
( Signatures alleged to be
forged by A-5)
94
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
4 M/s Pimco Overseas 2783 A-4 Harsimran Singh,
Proprietor
5 M/s Agronica 2846 A-6 Naveen Kakkar,
Overseas Proprietor
90.1 It is the case of the prosecution that the manner of cheating
in pursuance of the said criminal conspiracy was to open fictitious
accounts in the name of dummy firms (hereinafter referred as
‘Fictitious Accounts’) with other banks at far-off places. The
cheques were thereafter issued in favour of the above-referred five
firms whose current accounts were opened with OBC, NFC, New
Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘Beneficiary Accounts’). The said
cheques or bills were issued from the Fictitious Accounts or
Fictitious Firms registered at far-off places. The said bills of
exchange or invoices then used to be purchased at OBC, NFC, New
Delhi by A-1 being the Branch Manager and the proceeds used to be
credited in the ‘Beneficiary Accounts’. Later, when the said
cheques or invoices which were purchased were sent for clearing in
the respective Fictitious Accounts, all of them returned unrealized
primarily with remarks ‘insufficient funds’. In this manner, OBC,
NFC, New Delhi was cheated and there was wrongful loss to the
tune of Rs.1,58,86,908.60.
90.2 It is apparent from the said allegations that the entire
allegations of fraud revolved around one banking institution i.e
OBC, NFC, New Delhi. The Branch Incumbent who was95
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019authorised to purchase the said cheques or bills presented by
Beneficiary Accounts Holders was A-1 S.K. Pathrella. Therefore,
in the said backdrop, the first and foremost factual issue to be
considered is whether A-1 was part of the said agreement hatched
by the Beneficiary Account Holders in pursuance of criminal
conspiracy or not, or whether he was merely performing his duty
though not very diligently.
90.3 The prosecution to prove the said allegation of A-1 being
part of criminal conspiracy has placed reliance upon the
documentary as well as ocular evidence. The documentary
evidence can be further segregated into two parts, first, being the
opening of the Beneficiary Current Accounts by A-1 and second
being the purchase of cheques/invoices presented by Beneficiary
Accounts Holders. Though none of the said duties performed by
him were disputed during the trial. However, it needs discussion to
see whether the act done by A-1 remained in the realm of
performance of his official duty or more than that.
91. The first set of documentary evidence against A-1 is the
allowing Beneficiary Accounts Holders i.e A-2, A-3, A-4, A-5 and
A-6 to open the current accounts during his tenure as Branch
Manager at OBC, NFC, New Delhi. It is not in dispute as has been
proved through documents i.e. Ex. PW21/G-1 (D383) (M/s Red Cat
Agencies), Ex. PW21/D-1 (D272) (M/s Batra Traders), Ex.
96
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
PW21/F1 (D316) (M/s Agronica Overseas), Ex. PW21/E-1 (D279)
(M/s Navyug Traders) and Ex.PW1/A (D178) (M/s Pimco
Overseas). Current accounts came to be opened during the relevant
period with OBC, NFC, New Delhi.
92. A-1 was the Branch Manager at the above-noted branch
from 16.04.1994 to 15.11.1995. During the said period only, all the
above-referred five Beneficiary Accounts came to be opened by A-2
to A-6. The account opening forms of all the said five Beneficiary
Accounts have been proved on record as discussed above and it A-
1 only who allowed the opening of the said accounts.
92.1 But, the issue herein is as to whether the mere fact that A-1
allowed the opening of the current accounts by itself can be said to
be incriminating circumstance against him or showing his
participation in a criminal conspiracy allegedly hatched by
Beneficiary Account Holders.
It is a well-established fact that opening a current bank
account is a genuine banking operation. The object of any such
financial institution in the business of banking is to provide timely
and adequate credit for the trade and industry. By keeping in view
the said object of a financial institution, the current accounts of
business establishment’s are opened by the bank and various
facilities, including that of loans and advances, are provided. In
return of providing the said facilities to the various business entities,
97
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
the bank earns interest as well as levies various charges. The
successful running of a banking institution involves providing
facilities to business establishments for establishment or running of
their businesses and in return, income is earned by the bank. In this
manner, the economy of a nation works, and the banking institutions
play a vital part in it.
93. Therefore, in the said backdrop when it is the incumbent
obligation on the part of the Bank Manager to open current accounts
for firms in trade and other businesses, no inference can be drawn
against A-1 for having allowed the opening of the current accounts
as referred above except one current account of M/s Navyug
Traders, CA No.2845. It is not the case that there was any
procedural illegality in opening of current accounts. Hence, the
mere opening of the currents accounts by itself cannot be the factor
which can be taken against him to be part of the criminal
conspiracy.
94. As far as the opening of current account in the name of
M/s Navyug Traders on 06.09.1995 is concerned, it is the case of
the prosecution that the said account was also opened by A-1.
However, the proprietor of the said firm was allegedly mentioned as
Narender Kapoor, but his signatures were forged by A-5 Rajesh
Batra.
98
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
94.1 The account opening form of M/s Navyug Trader
Ex.PW21/E-1 (D-279) has been proved on record alongwith
specimen signature card vide Ex.PW21/E-2 (D-280). It is the case
of the prosecution that the said Narender Kapoor never opened the
said account, rather his photograph was misused by other accused
persons and A-5 Rajesh Batra forged his signatures on the above-
referred documents. It is not in dispute that as has been proved
through the version of PW-55 Devender Pal Dhingra, the then
Manager, Loans, OBC, NFC, New Delhi that A-1 allowed the
opening of the account. However, the issue to be seen is as to the
exact role played by A-1 in allowing opening of the bank account as
reflected from account opening form Ex.PW-21/E-1. His role of
allowing came into the picture only after the account holder was
introduced by the introducer.
94.2 The introduction to the said account has been done by
account holder CA 2546 M/s Best International, though the
signatory/ introducer has remained unidentified. A-1 appended his
signature at point ‘A1’ Ex.PW21/E-1 wherein he verified the
following fact:
“Introducers signature is verified. I confirm that
the Introducer called upon at the bank and has
signed in my presence.”
95. Thus, it is apparent that based on the introducer’s averments
and assurance as to the identity of the applicant wishing to open the
99
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
account, A-1 allowed the same. Therefore, the version of the
introducer was the most essential one, but he has remained
unidentified. Apart from that, the case of the prosecution that
signatures of Narender Kapoor were forged by A-5 Rajesh Batra as
well as his photograph being mis-utilised also depended entirely
upon the version of said Narender Kapoor, alleged to be the
proprietor of M/s Navyug Trader. He was named as LW-61.
However, the prosecution could not procure his presence as he was
found to be not available at the given address. Thus, the most
crucial substantive evidence concerning the forgery or the mis-
utilization of the photograph of Narender Kapoor or he having not
appeared before A-1 or other bank officials for opening the bank
account , has not been produced by the prosecution.
95.1 It is also apparent from the said application form Ex.PW-
21/E-1, the alleged forged signatures of Narender Kapoor at point
Q-345 and Q-346 were not verified by A-1, and it cannot be
assumed that the said alleged impersonator only appeared before
A-1 at the time of opening of the bank account. It can also not
believed that the act of opening of the bank account involved the
sole participation of A-1 who admittedly at that point of time was
Branch Manager. It cannot be assumed that the entire staff working
under him played no role in the said act of opening the current
account.
100
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
96. Pertinently, the other documents accompanying the said
account opening form i.e agreement for cash credit and overdraft
Ex.PW21/E-5 (D-283), agreement regarding bill purchase
Ex.PW21/E-6 (D-284), agreement of guarantee Ex.PW21/E-7 (D-
285) and another argument of guarantee Ex.PW21/E-8 (D-286)
were also executed. The first two documents i.e agreement for cash
credit and overdraft and agreement regarding bill purchase were
allegedly executed by said N. Kapoor on behalf of M/s Navyug
Trader which as per the case of the prosecution is forged .
Surprisingly, both the said referred documents were counter-signed
on behalf of OBC, NFC, New Delhi, by PW-55 Devender Pal
Dhingra. In that scenario, if the allegations of forgery were indeed
true, he (Devender Pal PW-55) too should have been named as an
accomplice instead of prosecution witness. It is also not the case of
the prosecution that PW55 signed the said documents under duress
or coercion of A-1. In the said backdrop, the act of allowing the
opening of the said current account in the name of M/s Navyug
Traders, nothing much can be read against A-1 in light of lack of
clear admissible evidence of real Narender Kapoor having never
appeared for opening of the bank account or having never filled the
said application form Ex.PW21/E-1.
(ii) Discounting of Bills/Cheques by A-1
97. The next set of allegations against A-1 and he being part and
parcel of the criminal conspiracy hatched by private individuals ,is
101
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
the factum of discounting of cheques and bills by him in their
favour. It has already been observed above that A-1 was the Branch
Manager w.e.f 16.04.1994 to 15.11.1995 at OBC, NFC, New Delhi
and it is he only who was authorised to purchase third party cheques
upto Rs. 7.5 lakhs and bills/cheuqes to the tune of Rs.30 lakhs as
per circular Ex.PW2/A(D-3) in the account of allied/sister/
associated concern. A-1 had accordingly purchased total of 27
cheques & 8 bills in the accounts of five beneficiary current
accounts which ultimately led to the loss to the tune of Rs.
Rs.1,58,86,908.60 to the bank.
98. The case of the prosecution against A-1 is that he abused
his position as a Branch Manager/Public Servant and exceeded his
discretionary powers. He unauthorisedly purchased cheques more
than Rs.7.5 lacs and Rs.30 lacs as mentioned in the above-referred
five beneficiary accounts. He also purchased the third-party
cheques in the aforesaid beneficiary accounts even though the said
accounts were showing outstanding liabilities.
98.1 Before delving into the factual aspects, the said business of
discounting or purchase requires consideration. It is well
established practice that the purchase of cheques or bills is one of
the crucial component of general banking business and through the
said business only, the bank earns interest for running its institution.
It is also a matter of fact that a hefty interest as well as penal interest
102
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
is charged against the purchase of said bills of exchange or invoices
as reflected from the agreements Ex. PW1/4 (D-218) M/s Pimco
Overseas, Ex.PW21/D-47 (D-271) M/s Batra Traders, Ex.PW21/E6
(D-284), M/s Navyug Traders, Ex.PW21/G-237 (D-627) and M/s
Red Cat Agencies entered between OBC, NFC, New Delhi and the
Beneficiary Accounts Holders. The performance of any branch
incumbent is rather judged based on his performance by virtue of
which he earns business for the bank, which primarily includes the
“interest income”.
98.2 The very basis of the establishment of the financial
institutions in a thriving economy is to provide the facility of
adequate credit for trade and industry. In a way, the said core
financial institution’s function allows the wheels of national
economy to run for the betterment of society at large. Keeping in
view the said object and the fact that it is one of the legitimate
businesses of the bank, the issue of purchase of bills of exchange
and invoices by A-1 requires consideration.
99. The first factual issue to be considered is as to whether the
said purchase was as per the banking norms or rules framed
thereunder and if not, whether the said action of A-1 was inspired
due to extraneous considerations. It is also to be seen whether A-1
was aware of use of said facility for Cheque Kiting.
103
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
100. The prosecution in this regard has placed reliance upon
Circular D-3 Ex.PW2/A dated 01.07.1991 which as per them was
violated by A-1 while purchasing the bills in the Beneficiary
Accounts.
100.1 The object of the said Circular is enumerated in Para-2 of
the same wherein it was stipulated that as a step towards
decentralization and with a view to provide timely and adequate
credit for trade and industry, the existing structure of discretionary
powers of loans and advances was being revised. As per the
discretionary powers are concerned, Part-B of the same enumerated
the discretionary powers to be Rs.7.5 lacs qua the purchase of third
party cheques and maximum exposure per borrower to be Rs.30
lacs for the Large Branches. The branch incharge was authorized
to purchase the same. The said discretionary powers were to be
further exercised subject to the conditions as enumerated in Para-3
and 4 of the said Circular. The earlier Circular on the
guidelines/process notes/ register/reporting etc dated 20.12.1988
was also ordered to be adhered. Apart from that, the Branch
Incumbent was duty-bound to report the said powers utilized by
them to the Regional Offices or Head Offices as per the system
prevalent.
101. The limit for purchase of third party cheques was
brazenly breached qua all the five Beneficiary Accounts Holders
104
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
when seen from the record proved by the prosecution. It is also
matter of record that the CC limit facility was accorded to only one
of the Beneficiary Account firm i.e M/s Red Cat Agencies which
was earlier Rs.15 lacs, but later on, enhanced to Rs.65 lacs as
reflected from letter Ex.PW53/B dated 29.09.1995 of A-1 (D-695)
without approval of the higher authorities .All the said facts are
neither disputed on behalf of any of the accused nor challenged
during the trial. However the issue in hand is if mere violation of
said limit by A-1 itself can be the reason for assuming his
involvement in the conspiracy.
102. Though it is proved that there was indeed a violation of
the said norms as prescribed by Circular Ex.PW2/A dated
01.07.1991 (Part of D-3) by A-1. The issue herein is whether the
norms set in the Circular provided any leeway to the Branch
Incumbent or not, and if answer is in affirmative then how, it was to
be used.
102.1 The answer to the said issue has been provided by the
other colleagues of A-1 who have been examined as PW-37 Balbir
Singh Godara, who was at the relevant point of time was Head
(Bills Department) of the Branch and PW-55 Devender Pal Dhingra,
Manager (Loans Department) in the very same branch. As far as
the purchase of the bills and cheques in the Beneficiary Accounts is
concerned, both PW-37 and PW-55 deposed that the sole authority
105
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
for the same lay with A-1 and only after the approval of A-1, they
used to do the remaining procedure of ensuring debit and credit
entries in the concerned documents.
102.2 As regards the issue of purchase of cheques and bills
beyond the powers of the Branch Head, PW-37 deposed as under:
“Q: What is the procedure adopted within the
branch if a cheque/bill is beyond the power of the
Branch Head ?
Ans. There is no procedure within the branch
and the branch head is supposed to send it to the
Regional Office or he has to take instructions from
the Senior posted at Regional Office.”
102.3 Similarly, PW-55 too addressed the said issue by deposing
as under :
“The STM 41 is the monthly statement sent by the
Branch Manager regarding the bill/cheque purchase
or authorities used for overdraft and the same is
sent for reporting to the Higher Authorities of the
Bank. In case of bill/cheque purchase or overdraft
being within the sanctioned limit, no report is sent to
the Higher Authorities.
STM 41 is in two parts i.e STM 41 A is concerning
the authorities used by the Branch Manager for
bill/cheque purchase or overdraft within its power
and STM 41 B is concerning the authorities used by
the Manager beyond his powers for bill/cheque
purchase for confirmation of his actions. The
utilization of powers for bill/cheque purchase in
case of adhoc or temporary limits, the said
transactions are reflected in STM 41- A. In case
of verbal sanctions obtained by Branch Manager
from the Higher Authorities, the said transactions
are reflected in STM 41B. The verbal sanctions
are obtained from the Regional Manager of the
Bank. The said statements 41A and 41B are106
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019prepared by the Loan Department and are then
submitted to the Higher Authorities through the
Branch Manager. The STM 41A is for reporting
purpose and STM 41B is for confirmation of the
action of the Branch Manager regarding allowing of
the bill/cheque purchase beyond the limits.”
103. Thus, it is apparent that in case of exercise of the
authorities regarding advances or purchase of bills by the Branch
Manager beyond his powers, the confirmation in this regard has to
be sought from the Regional Manager by submitting a specific
document i.e STM 41B. No such document has been proved on
record. PW-49, Investigating Officer (IO) too was cross-examined
with respect to the said statement STM 41B wherein he admitted to
the fact that every branch has to send the same to the Regional
Office every month regarding purchase of cheques and bills beyond
the discretionary powers. He expressed his ignorance as to whether
STM 41 submitted in the present case had any remarks by the
Regional Manager pointing towards irregular exercise of the
discretionary power by A-1.
103.1 The said registers were seized during investigation vide
seizure memo Ex.PW49/30 (D697) from PW21 JK Saxena Manager
Loan, OBC, New Friends Colony, New Delhi. The said registers i.e
STM 41A and registers containing confirmation for the temporary
advances were referred by the IO PW49 as Ex. PW49/32 and
PW49/33 respectively. However the author the said registers was
neither identified nor examined by the prosecution. Even the
107
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
provider of the said records PW21 JK Saxena was never examined
as to the contents of the said registers. It is also not clear as to
whether the said second Registers are STM41B or not. In these
circumstances, the mere referring of the records by the PW49/IO
does not prove the document. In this regard, the court is guided by
the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case titled as
Ramnish Geer vs CBI 22/DHC/004775 which held as under :-
“Thus, it is a settled law that admission or exhibiting
of documents in evidence and proving the same
before the court are two different processes.
Contents of the document cannot be proved by mere
filing the document in a court. Under the law of
evidence, it is necessary that contents of documents
are required to be proved either by primary or by
secondary evidence. Mere marking a document as
an exhibit will not absolve the duty to prove the
documents in accordance with the provisions of
law.”
103.2 That vide seizure memo Ex.PW49/31 (D-678), the STM
Registers of Regional Office were also seized, but they have also
not been proved on record for reasons unknown. In the absence of
the said crucial documents i.e STM41B and the action taken by the
concerned Regional Head of OBC, no assumption can be drawn
regarding the illegality or irregularity of the action of A-1.It cannot
be assumed that the action of A-1 in breaching the limit for
purchase of third-party cheques or bills was not confirmed by the
Competent Authority or that he was refrained in this regard.
108
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
104. The prosecution has also examined two witnesses from the
Regional Office i.e PW-51 Pradeep Kumar Malhan, Sr. Manager,
Regional Office, Karol Bagh, OBC, Delhi and PW-53 Surender
Kumar Lakhina, Regional Head of New Delhi Branches during the
year 1991 to 1995, who also throw light over the said issue.
104.1 PW-53 deposed that A-1 was heading the OBC, NFC
Branch during the relevant time and the said branch was also under
him, being part of 80 branches under him as ‘Regional Head’.
Though he deposed about the communications exchanged by him
with A-1 concerning exercise of powers beyond the powers
conferred upon him, but surprisingly, his version is also silent as to
whether the said contemporaneous reports STM 41A and B were
submitted by A-1 every month or not and if yes, action taken by
them.
104.2 Similarly, the version of PW-51, the other official from the
Regional Office too is silent in this regard. Rather, he in the cross-
examination expressed his inability to disclose whether the daily
information of STM 41 was sent by A-1 to Mr. Lakhina (PW-53).
He also expressed his inability to disclose as to whether if any letter
was issued to OBC, NFC Branch as STM 41B being not received
by their office. He also declined the opportunity to refresh his
memory for seeing the documents in this regard. Thus, in the said
backdrop, it has to be held against the prosecution for not proving
109
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
the most essential document concerning the allegations of the
purchase of cheques or advances beyond the discretionary powers
of A-1.
105. In the said backdrop, it has to be concluded that though
certain limits were put with respect to the discretionary powers
upon the Branch Managers in terms of Circular Ex.PW2/A dated
01.07.1991 (Part of D-3) for extending cash credit limits or
purchase of cheques and bills of exchange which were breached by
A-1. It is also a matter of record that in case the said limit was
breached, the necessary approval had to be sought from the higher
authorities, which in the present case was the Regional Office,
OBC, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. The prosecution has placed reliance
on the fact that the documents and letters in the Control File ( D-
694) and file of M/s Red Cat Agencies of (D-695) goes on to show
that higher authorities never approved the acts of A-1.
105.1 The version of PW-51 Pradeep Kumar Malhan, Sr. Manager
at Regional office, OBC, Karol Bagh, New Delhi and the Regional
Head PW-53 Surinder Kumar Lakhina, requires consideration
over the said issue. However, before delving into their version , the
documents/letters which are part of D-694 and D-695 requires
appreciation.
110
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019 105.2 The first letter in this regard was written on 19.04.1995
vide Ex.PW51/1 ( D695) and was addressed by A-1 to DGM,
Regional Office, New Delhi ( ie PW53) and the subject of the same
is “Working Capital Facilities-Red Cat Agencies” . Thus, the
approval was sought by A-1 concerning the Working Capital
Facilities extended to one of the Beneficiary Account Holders from
the Head office even though the proposed Working Capital Facility
was well within the discretionary powers of A-1. The amount of
cash credit facility sought to be approved from the Regional Office
was Rs.16 lacs only. The contents of the said letter which is relied
upon by the prosecution, rather put a question mark over the
allegations of abuse of office by A-1, thereby making him liable for
the offence punishable under Section 13 (1) (d) (ii) of PC Act 1988.
105.3 As per the contents of said letter, M/s Red Cat Agencies
which is a partnership firm of A-3 Joginder Singh Logani
(Proceedings qua accused quashed by the Hon’ble High Court) and
A-2 Ghanshyam Kakkar (Declared P.O vide order dt. 17.04.2010)
had already availed the facility of bill purchase and outstanding as
on date of letter was Rs.21,72,200/- and cheque of Rs.3,49,250/- on
M/s Sun Exports, Amritsar. It further enumerates that the said
partners are also maintaining another current account in the name of
M/s Angad Exports where bills to the tune of Rs.30.66 lacs were
purchased and accordingly, approval for grant of cash credit limit
for an amount of Rs. 16 lacs was sought. Further, as per the contents
111
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
of the said letter, cash credit limit had already been released on
31.03.1995 after taking permission from the DGM. Thus, in a way,
‘post facto’ approval was sought from the Regional Office and the
said post facto approval is also envisaged in Circular Ex.PW2/A
dated 01.07.1991 (Part of D-3).
105.4 The stipulation 31 of the said Circular is reproduced
hereunder for the sake of convenience:
31. No telephonic /Verbal sanction will be given
by any delegate except in very exceptional cases
for which the following procedure will be
strictly adhered to: –
a. Immediately by return of post, confirmation
is to be sought by the branch or Regional Office,
as the case may be, from concerned delegate
who has conveyed the telephonic sanction.
b. Sanctioning authority will also
simultaneously issue a confirmatory letter on the
same date.
c. In case of violation of these provisions, the
limits so sanctioned will be considered
unauthorised.
d. All telephonic/Verbal sanctions shall be
entered in the Adhoc sanction register in the
Regional Office/Head Office.
105.5 The response to the said was issued on 25.05.1995 vide
Ex.PW51/2 ( D695) under the signature of PW-53 S.K. Lakhina. In
the said response, the denial was made of any such verbal
permission granted to A-1 and he was asked to get the account of112
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019above party adjusted immediately. Further details were sought of
the facilities allowed to M/s Red Cat Agencies and its
sister/associate concerns, collateral securities and reasons for
extending the limits to the sum of Rs.16 lacs, and reasons for
releasing credit facility beyond the discretionary powers. There is
no response in the said file (D-695) of A-1 and it is not clear
whether any response was sent or not. PW-51 expressed his inability
to disclose about the said letter in his cross-examination.
105.6 On the other hand, PW-53 claimed that the letter
Ex.PW51/2 dated 25.05.1995 was issued by him and the
explanation was sought from A-1. He further claimed that no verbal
permission to A-1 was granted for sanctioning the said loan. He
went on to claim that there is no provision for verbal permission, as
there are four levels in the Regional Office. The file used to come to
him only after crossing first three levels. Surprisingly, he remained
silent as to whether any response was received from A-1 to the said
letter dated 25.05.1995 and if indeed, no response was received as
to the action taken by him in recommending appropriate
departmental action against A-1. It is also not clear what action was
taken by A-1 consequent thereto or by the Regional Officer in case
of non-compliance.
105.7 As far as his version of there being no question of
verbal permission being given by the Regional Head, it is rebutted113
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019by the Circular Ex.PW2/A dated 01.07.1991 (Part of D-3). The
said Circular leaves the scope for the said practice of telephonic or
verbal sanction, though in exceptional cases and thereafter
regularizing it terms of the conditions as reproduced above vide
Stipulation No.31.
105.8 The conduct of PW-53 also appears to be in dock. He in
the cross-examination admitted to the fact that a CBI case was
registered against him and claimed that he was acquitted. He further
claimed that the Court found that he had issued the circulars
discouraging the verbal permission and had written to Head Office
regarding the conduct of A-1. But when he was asked to produce
the documents concerning the charge-sheet received from the bank
regarding the disciplinary proceedings, he claimed that he cannot
produce the said documents as he had already been exonerated. The
said reasons given by him, on the face of it, appear to be an attempt
to hide the facts regarding his culpability. It cannot be assumed that
the mere fact that an employee who has been exonerated is left with
no relevant documents, including the chargesheet served by the
department. Thus, the documents, which are part of D-695 are not
of much help to the case of the prosecution regarding abuse of
position by A-1. The complete communication or the action taken
consequent thereto is not proved on record.
114
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
106. Apart from the two above-said letters, the next set of
letters also concerns M/s Red Cat Agencies current account. The
first such letter is dated 13.09.1995 Ex.PW53/A ( part of D695). It
is a letter written by A-1 to DGM, Regional Office, OBC, New
Delhi, thereby seeking approval to allow cash credit limits to Rs. 65
lacs for a period of one month. The said letter was written about 4
months after the letter dated 25.05.95 Ex. PW51/2 whereby the
earlier request was declined. The action, if any or communication
consequent thereto is missing.
107. Be that as it may be, the next letter is Ex.PW-53/B dated
29.09.1995 is again request letter of A-1 in continuation to the
abovesaid letter wherein the position of account of M/s Red Cat
Agencies was updated to the Regional Office. The response to the
said letter was ultimately sent by PW-53 S.K. Lakhina, DGM, on
09.10.1995 vide Ex.PW-51/2. A-1 was advised to stop the practice
of permitting credit facilities and was further directed to get the
account regularised. The response to the said letter was written by
A-1 on 16.10.1995 wherein he claimed that he alongwith partners of
M/s Red Cat Agencies had held meeting with PW-53 S.K. Lakhina,
the then DGM ,who permitted the release of facility.
107.1 In response to the said letter, Assistant General Manager
(AGM) wrote a letter dated 26.10.1995 Ex.PW53/C ( part of D694)
to DGM/ PW-53 seeking confirmation as to whether A-1’s claim of115
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019having allowed ad-hoc facility over and above sanctioned limits was
done after prior approval of the DGM was correct or not. PW-53
responded to the said letter on 01.11.1995 vide Ex.PW-51/4 ( part of
D694)) denying the claim of A-1.
107.2 As far as the said letter Ex.PW-53/C is concerned, the
author of the said letter is not identified and as such has remained
unproved. It is also not clear as to whether the said AGM was
working under PW53, the then DGM , Regional Office, Karol
Bagh, New Delhi or not. Thus no assumption can be drawn qua the
veracity of the claim of A-1 vis-a-vis the role of PW53/DGM.
107.3 It is also apparent from the said series of communications
that the claim of A-1 that he was sanctioning the limits or
purchasing the instruments of various parties including Beneficiary
Accounts Holders under the verbal instructions of DGM was never
enquired into by any independent authority who was not part of the
office of DGM, Regional Officer, OBC , New Delhi. The truth of
the claim of A-1 was never inquired into by the Bank nor any
investigation was conducted by CBI in this regard. There was no
basis for the Investigating Authority to believe the words of PW-53
against the words of A-1, since such practice was prevalent and
allowed vide Circular Ex.PW2/A dated 01.07.1991 (Part of D-3)
though under certain stipulations. They should have investigated the
116
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
said claim of A-1, by examining the other officials under A-1 or
PW53. But no such exercise was conducted.
107.4 PW-55 D.P Dhingra, the then Manager (Loans), OBC,
NFC, New Delhi, also clarified the said fact that in case the Branch
Managers obtain the verbal sanctions from the higher authorities,
the said transactions are reflected in STM 41B. The verbal
sanctions are obtained from the Regional Manager of the bank. The
said version of PW55 never came to be disputed or challenged by
the prosecution .Thus, his version also rebuts the claim of PW-53
regarding there being no procedure of seeking verbal sanction by
the Branch Incumbents for the grant of limits over and above their
discretionary authority . Secondly it proves the fact that all such
transactions are made part of STM 41 B and thereafter sent to
Regional Office for approval. It has already been observed above
that the said document has neither been seized nor proved during
trial for the reasons best known to the prosecution, even though the
STM41A registers were seized .The confirmatory registers were
never put before the concerned bank witnesses, and thus the crucial
documents have remained unproven.
108. In light of the said evidence produced against A-1 which is
a sketchy piece of evidence regarding sanction of limits beyond his
discretionary powers, the issue to be seen as whether the said
material is sufficient for holding him (A-1) to be part of criminal
117
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
conspiracy or being liable for abuse of his position under Section 13
(1) (d) (ii) of PC Act 1988.
109. The legal position as to the interpretation of the said offence
and whether the mere violation of rules or regulations can be said to
be sufficient/enough for the prosecution of a public servant. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court in C.K. Jaffar Sharif V. CBI, 2013 (1) SCC
205 addresses the said question of criminal liability in Para-17
which is reproduced hereunder for the sake of convenience and
clarity:
“17. It has already been noticed that the appellant
besides working as the Minister of Railways was the
Head of the two Public Sector Undertakings in
question at the relevant time. It also appears from the
materials on record that the four persons while in
London had assisted the appellant in performing
certain tasks connected with the discharge of duties as a
Minister. It is difficult to visualise as to how in the
light of the above facts, demonstrated by the
materials revealed in the course of investigation, the
appellant can be construed to have adopted corrupt or
illegal means or to have abused his position as a
public servant to obtain any valuable thing or pecuniary
advantage either for himself or for any of the aforesaid
four persons. If the statements of the witnesses
examined under Section 161 show that the aforesaid
four persons had performed certain tasks to assist the
Minister in the discharge of his public duties, however
insignificant such tasks may have been, no question
of obtaining any pecuniary advantage by any corrupt or
illegal means or by abuse of the position of the
appellant as a public servant can arise. As a Minister
it was for the appellant to decide on the number and
identity of the officials and supporting staff who
should accompany him to London if it was anticipated
that he would be required to perform his official duties118
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019while in London. If in the process, the Rules or Norms
applicable were violated or the decision taken shows an
extravagant display of redundance it is the conduct and
action of the appellant which may have been improper
or contrary to departmental norms. But to say that the
same was actuated by a dishonest intention to obtain
an undue pecuniary advantage will not be correct. That
dishonest intention is the gist of the offence under
section 13(1)(d) is implicit in the words used i.e. corrupt
or illegal means and abuse of position as a public
servant. A similar view has also been expressed by this
Court in M. Narayanan Nambiar vs. State of Kerala[1]
while considering the provisions of section 5 of Act
of 1947. If the totality of the materials on record
indicate the above position, we do not find any reason
to allow the prosecution to continue against the
appellant. Such continuance, in our view, would be an
abuse of the process of court and therefore it will be the
plain duty of the court to interdict the same.”
110. It is thus, apparent that the prosecution apart from proving
the fact of violation of rules and norms by the public servant the
prosecution has to show that the same was inspired by the
‘dishonest intention’ to obtain pecuniary advantage. The dishonest
intention is the crux of the offence under Section 13 (1) (d) of PC
Act and mere conduct of the accused contrary to the stipulations
governing the public servant by itself would not amount to criminal
misconduct which appears to be the case herein.
111. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court too explained the scope of
Section 13 (1) (d) (ii) of PC Act in case titled Madhu Koda V. State
through CBI, 2020 (DEL) 764 and the relevant para 37, 38 and 39
are reproduced hereunder for the sake of convenience:
119
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
“37. Having stated the above, it is also necessary to
observe that mere arbitrary or unreasonable exercise of
official power to confer any benefit or pecuniary
advantage to an unconnected party, may be not be
sufficient to impute that the exercise of such power is
culpable misconduct under sub-clause (ii) of clause (d)
of sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the PC Act. First of
all, it would be necessary for the prosecution to establish
that the public servant had abused his official position;
that is, used it for wrongdoing and for a purpose he ought
not to have. Secondly, the same was for securing a
valuable thing or pecuniary advantage for himself or for
any other person, without any public interest. Obviously,
if the third person, who has acquired a valuable thing or
pecuniary advantage, is unconnected with the public
servant, it would be difficult to accept that the conduct of
the public servant is culpable in terms of Sub-clause (ii)
of clause (d) of Sub- section (1) of Section 13 of the PC
Act.
38. The legislative intent is not to punish a public servant
for any erroneous decision; but to punish him for
corruption. The preamble of the PC Act indicates that it
was enacted “to consolidate and amend the law relating
to the prevention of corruption and for matters connected
therewith.” Thus, to fall within the four corners of Sub-
clause (ii) of clause (d) of Sub-section (1) of Section 13
of the PC Act, the decision/conduct of the public servant
must be dishonest amounting to corruption.
Transparency International defines corruption as\”the
abuse of entrusted power for private gain”.
39. Mens rea, the intention and/or knowledge of
wrongdoing, is an essential condition of the offence of
criminal misconduct under Section 13(1)(d)(ii) of the PC
Act. Section 20 of the PC Act does not apply to offences
under Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act and therefore, mens
rea cannot be presumed. It is, thus, necessary for the
prosecution to establish the same.”
120
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
112. In the present case in hand, no assumption can be drawn
that the said act of A-1 in advancing cash credit limits to M/s Red
Cat Agencies beyond his discretionary powers or purchase of third
party cheques in the five current account of Beneficiary Accounts
Holders, was inspired due to dishonesty amounting to corruption.
The record about the irregularities in the functioning of A-1, as
recorded in note Ex.PW51/3 dated 16.01.1996 ( part of D694) i.e
after the relieving of A-1 reflects that it is not the mere five
Beneficiary Accounts Holders who were given the said facilities,
but rather many such account holders were availing the same.
Again, letter dated 01.11.1995 Ex.PW51/5( colly) too records such
instances and the names of account holders i.e M/s True Fab Pvt
Ltd, M/s Moonlight Engineers, M/s Steel Samrat Pvt Ltd, M/s Star
Light Pvt Ltd, M/s SNG Engineers Pvt Ltd and M/s Baba Wood Pvt
Ltd. The annexure to the said letter records the instances of said
purchase of bill of exchange or other facilities being granted
irregularly to other parties apart from the Beneficiary Accounts
Holders involved in the present case. Admittedly, it is not the case
of the prosecution that the grant of the said facilities to other parties
by A-1 during his tenure was on account of abuse of position to gain
pecuniary advantage or any valuable thing. Rather the said conduct
of A-1 in advancing multiple facilities to various parties by going
beyond his discretionary powers as stipulated in Circular Ex.PW2/A
dated 01.07.1991 (Part of D-3) appears to be inspired by targets set
121
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
for the Branch Managers of ensuring robust banking business so
that the bank earns income/profit from the said account holders.
113. Apart from the said material, the testimonies of bank
witnesses posted under A-1 at the relevant time also throw light on
the series of events and the role of A-1 qua the facility extended to
five beneficiary account holders.
113.1 The first such witness is PW37 Balbir Singh Godara,
Incharge bill Section, OBC,NFC, New Delhi during the relevant
period. It was during his tenure only that the bills came to be
purchased in the above-referred five beneficiary accounts though
the authority to purchase was with A-1. In the cross-examination,
he expressed ignorance about the duty to recover the unpaid amount
in case of return of unpaid cheques/bills. He further expressed his
inability to disclose as to whose duty was to check discrepancies in
the bills/cheques.
113.2 The other witness in the Bills Section, working under
PW37 was PW39 Vinay Kumar. His cross-examination too throws
light over the working of Bills Section. He admitted to the fact that
he never verified or scrutinised any of the documents of the parties
whose bills /cheques were purchased and entered in the register by
him. He further admitted to the fact that all the bills /cheques
involved in the present case were processed without any influence
122
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
or pressure in due course of business. Thus, his version clearly
dents the claim of prosecution regarding undue influence being used
by A-1 in purchase of the bills/cheques in the account of five
beneficiary accounts. It is also not clear from the testimonies of the
said two witnesses from Bills Department as to whose duty was to
check the discrepancies or irregularities in the documents submitted
alongwith the bill for purchase.
113.3 The next witness qua the said purchase of instruments by
OBC is PW40 Ashok Kumar Khanna, who too was working in Bills
Department during the relevant period. He in the cross-exmination
admitted to the fact that he never informed A-1 regarding return of
cheques unpaid for want of fund as required through Authority
Register. He further admitted to the fact that it was his duty to bring
to the notice of Chief Manager/A-1 before purchase of new cheque
of a party that the previous purchased cheque had come back
dishonoured for want of funds. He admitted to the fact that he never
brought to the notice of his senior P/w37 Balbir Singh and Mr.
Raheja that the bills of the parties have returned unpaid. He also
admitted to the fact that all the bills and cheques in the present case
were processed by him without any influence or pressure. Thus, his
version also puts a question mark over the claim of prosecution
regarding A-1 mis-utilised/abused his power for purchase of
bills/cheques and having influenced his juniors in this regard.
123
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
Rather the testimonies of PW-39 and PW-40 who played crucial
role in the process denied any such influence.
113.4 The next witness who throws light over the said issue
is PW-5 Vijay Kumar Sehgal who too was posted with OBC, NFC,
New Delhi. He too admitted to the fact that he passed all the
negotiable instruments being authorized by A-1 in due business
course and there was nothing extra-ordinary about the presentation
of the negotiable instruments.
113.5 The last witness who nails the case of the prosecution
against A-1 is D.P Dhingra, PW-55, Manager, Loans Department
during the relevant period. He too expressed the ignorance qua
relationship between A-1 and M/s Red Cats Agencies who were the
prime beneficiaries of the proceeds of cheating herein. Thus, the
version of all the bank officials, in a way, exonerates A-1 qua the
purchase of bills/cheques by claiming it to be done in the normal
course of banking business. The said versions and conduct of A-1
does not in any manner leads to a conclusion of he having acted in a
dishonest manner amounting to corruption as required under
Section 13 (1) (d) of PC Act.
114. The case of the prosecution also falters as there is no
iota of evidence as to quid pro quo exchanged between A-1 and
holders of five beneficiaries of current accounts on account of
124
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
purchase of cheque/bills in their accounts. In this regard, the
judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled A. Sivaprakash
V. State of Kerala in Crl. Appeal No. 131/07 is relevant wherein it is
held as under:
“17: Section 13 (1) (d) of the PC Act, reads as under:
13. Criminal misconduct by a public servant pecuniary
advantage thereby. It was the obligation of the
prosecution to satisfy the aforesaid mandatory
ingredients which could implicate the appellant under
the provisions of Section 13 (1) (d) (ii). The attempt of
the prosecution was to bring the cases within the fold of
clause (ii) alleging that he misused his official position
in issuing the certificate utterly falls as it is not even
alleged in the charge sheet and not even iota of evidence
is led as to what kind of pecuniary advantage was
obtained by the appellant in issuing the said letter”
115. In the said backdrop, it has to be concluded that the
prosecution has failed to proved on the standard of beyond
reasonable doubt of showing the involvement of A-1 being the
conspirator alongwith other private persons in cheating the bank in
pursuance of the criminal conspiracy or he having abused his
position making him liable under Section 13 (1) (d) r/w 13(2) of
Prevention of Corruption Act 1988.
(iii) Criminal Conspiracy vis-a-vis the Offence of Cheating and
Forgery under IPC
116. The primary charges { ( ie Charge No.1, Charge No. 4,
Charge No.5, Charge No.7 & Charge No.8 against A-5, A-7)} and
125
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
cumulative charge against A-4 levelled against all the accused
persons who are now facing trial i.e A-4, A-5, A-7 and A-8 concern
hatching of criminal conspiracy among themselves and the object of
the same being to cheat the OBC, NFC, New Delhi, by presenting
fictitious/forged cheques or bills of exchange for purchase.
116.1 It is the case of the prosecution that since the very first
day of presentation of the instruments, the accused persons were
well aware of the fact that the said instruments were presented only
with the sole object of cheating the bank by ensuring purchase of
the said forged/fictitious instruments. They were aware of the fact
the instruments were never issued against any genuine business
transaction. The accused persons, though, have claimed in the
arguments that the said instruments were for genuine business
transactions. However, no such evidence has been brought by
them on record despite the onus being upon them under section 106
of Evidence Act.
116.2 The crux of their arguments is that all the dues of OBC,
NFC, New Delhi, standing against five Beneficiary Accounts stand
cleared on account of the OTS. Therefore, they also deserve to be
acquitted for the offence of cheating on the principles of parity,
considering order of the Hon’ble High Court in favour of main
accused namely A-3 Joginder Singh Logani. The proceedings
against A-3 stands quashed vide order dated 04.09.2015 of Hon’ble
126
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
Delhi High Court. It is also the argument of the accused that the
Principle of Stare Decisis too is applicable herein and litigation
should come to an end after the quashing of the FIR against prime
accused JS Logani.
116.3 On the issue of parity and stare decisis, Ld. Counsel for the
accused has placed reliance on the judgments viz; Vaddi Ratnam V.
State of A.P. Criminal Appeal No. 811/2016 dated 17.09.2025,
Harbans Sing V. State of U.P & Ors, 1982 AIR 849, Javed Shaukat
Ali Qureshi V. State of Gujarat 2023 INSC 829 and Adani Power
Ltd & Anr. V. UOI 2026, INSC 1.
117. Before discussing the merits of the allegations of criminal
conspiracy vis -a vis offence under Section 420 IPC, the primary
legal objections raised on behalf of the accused persons by placing
reliance upon the order of Hon’ble Delhi High Court dated
04.09.2015 in quashing petition requires discussion.
117.1 It is a matter of record that one of the main accused namely
A-3 J.S Logani, Partner of M/s Red Cat Agencies, one of the
primary beneficiary account holder during the course of trial
approached the Hon’ble High Court seeking quashing of the FIR. It
was also sought on account of the settlement effected by him with
the Bank.
127
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019 117.2 The order of the Hon'ble High Court dated 04.09.2015 is
perused which, on the face of it, reflects that a petition under
Section 482 Cr.P.C seeking quashing of the proceedings was moved
by (A-3) J.S Logani and the sole basis of the same was the no
objection certificate dated 27.09.2007 (Annexure-B) of the
complainant bank ( Oriental Bank of Commerce). The relevant
extract of the said order is reproduced hereunder for the sake of
convenience:
“In the instant case, on a bare perusal of the charge-
sheet filed and charge framed, it cannot be made out
that on what basis it can be said that petitioner had
conspired with his co-accused in defrauding the
complainant-bank to the tune of Rupees One Crore
Fifty Eight Lacs odd. In this background, ‘No
Objection Certificate of 27th September. 2007
(Annexure-B), evidencing payment of Rupees One
Crore Seventy Four Lacs odd with interest of
Rupees Twenty Six Lacs Odd, persuades this Court
to bring an end to the criminal proceedings qua
petitioner. On a careful consideration of the facts of
the instant case, it can be unhesitatingly concluded
that substratum of the charges framed against
petitioner are of simplicitor cheating with the aid of
Section 120-B of IPC for which he can be
prosecuted in the instant case. In the considered
option of this Court, in view of ‘No Objection
Certificate of 27th September, 2007 (Annexure-B),
continuance of proceedings arising out of RC
No.1(E)/1997-SIU(X)/CBI/New Delhi qua
petitioner is unwarranted.
Hence, this petition is allowed, and RC
No.1(E)/1997-SIU(X)/CBI/New Delhi, under
Sections 420/467/468/471 of IPC r/w Section 120-B
IPC and Section 13(2) r/w Section (1) (d) of The
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and proceedings
emanating therefrom are quashed.
128
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
This petition is accordingly disposed of.”
118. It is, thus, apparent that the proceedings came to be
quashed against the said A-3 J.S Logani and the basis of the same
was No Objection Certificate dated 27.09.2007 (Annexure-B). The
said order attained finality after the dismissal of SLP by Hon’ble
Supreme Court.
118.1 It is also matter of record that consequent thereto, the
proceedings against all the accused persons came to be dropped
vide order dated 07.01.2016 of the Ld. Predecessor. However, the
CBI thereafter again approached the Hon’ble High Court by moving
Criminal M.C No. 1578/2016. The Hon’ble High Court vide its
order dated 17.01.2019 clarified that the order dated 04.09.2015
needs no clarification as the quashing of the said case was only qua
the petitioner Joginder Singh Logani. It further added that the
proceedings shall continue against the co-accused persons.
Accordingly, the proceedings were revived by the order dated
30.05.2019 and the matter was again put on trial.
119. In the said backdrop, when it has already been clarified
that the order of quashing only confined to the petitioner i.e
Joginder Singh Logani, the other accused persons cannot take
refuge on the ground of parity. The judgments relied upon by Ld.
Counsel for the accused persons in this regard are also not
applicable in the present case being distinguishable on facts.
129
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
120. The second limb of the arguments advanced on behalf of
the accused persons is that it is matter of record that already OBC,
NFC, New Delhi, has been made good of their losses and they have
been paid Rs.1,74,000,00/- ( One Crore Seventy Four Lacs) and
interest component to the tune of Rs.26,29,000/-. Thus as per the
accused no offence u/s 420 IPC survive against them. The said
argument, on the face of it, is liable to be rejected in light of
provision of compounding of the offence u/s 320 CrPC .The mere
settlement by the parties itself will not result in culmination of the
proceedings. The call in respect of the compounding of the offence
has to be taken by complainant bank who never approached the
court seeking compounding of the offence nor any of the accused
sought their stand in this regard. Rather, the documents reflect it
otherwise.
121. The contents of the said NOC Ex.A-1 dated 27.09.2007
issued by Oriental Bank of Commerce concerning the five
Beneficiary Account Holders itself clarifies that the full and final
settlement was towards suit/settled amount. The CBI in reply to
the application moved on behalf of A-4 under Section 294 Cr.P.C at
the stage of defence evidence placed reliance upon certain
documents of the bank concerning the settlement effected by the
bank qua the above-referred five beneficiary account holders. None
of the said documents are disputed by the parties.
130
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019 121.1 The first is the letter of OBC dated 01.09.2015 addressed
to the Superintendent of Police clarifying that the NCB approval
dated 22.03.2004 given by the bank in respect of the settlement
accepting amount of Rs.127.51 lacs was against total liability of
Rs.323.53 lacs as on 31.12.2003. Thus, it is not as if the entire
dues of the bank have been cleared.
121.2 Another letter dated 15.04.2004 is addressed by the
Assistant General Manager ( R&L), OBC, to the General Manager,
Regional Office, New Delhi, intimating the said fact of settlement
offer being accepted by the Competent Authority with respect to the
five-account holder. It was further intimated that the terms of
settlement be got recorded with Hon’ble DRT where the
proceedings were pending between the parties. As regards the
present proceedings, a clear stipulation was made which is
reproduced hereunder for the sake of clarity:
“As regards to the criminal proceedings initiated
by CBI against the obligants in the group
accounts, law shall take its own course.”
122. It is thus, apparent from the contents of the letter that the
settlement confined to the proceedings initiated by the bank against
the obligants of the account holders before the DRT. One of the
crucial condition of the settlement which has been accepted by the
account holder is that the criminal proceedings initiated by the CBI
131
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
in the present case that the law shall take its own course. Therefore,
in the said backdrop when the beneficiary account holders have
themselves accepted the said condition of the settlement of the
bank, the reliance placed by them on the NOC Ex.A-1 dated
27.09.2007 is apparently misplaced and has no relevance at this
stage while finding out the liability of the accused persons. Even
otherwise, out of the Court Settlement till the offence is
compounded by the victim under Section 320 of Cr.P.C is not
relevant. Though the said fact might be relevant while considering
conduct of the accused persons during the trial at the stage of
sentence. Accordingly, the argument of the accused against the
continuation of proceedings and specifically the offence u/s 420 IPC
is rejected.
123. Now coming to the factual matrix of the present case
and as to whether the said factual matrix discloses the offences
under Section 420 IPC or not and whether there was any criminal
conspiracy amongst the private individuals or not.
124. The factual matrix of the case concerns the purchase of
cheques and invoices by the bank, and subsequently the instruments
getting dishonoured when sent for clearance by the Bank.
125. It is also well settled preposition of law that mere
dishonour of the cheque or bills of exchange by itself does not
132
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
disclose the offence of cheating unless and until it is shown that
right at the time of issuance of cheque, the drawer had a fraudulent
or dishonest intention of making not good of the promise of
clearance of the cheque/bill of exchange. The mere subsequent
failure due to intervening circumstances cannot be the ground to
believe that there was culpable dishonest intention at the time of
issuance of the cheque or purchase of the cheque by the bank. The
said dishonest intention since inception when the instruments were
firstly drawn and then presented for purchase, will make the account
holders liable for the offence of cheating. In this regard, the
judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled Inder Mohan
Goswami vs. State of Uttaranchal, (200) 12 SCC 1 deals with the
said issue and the relevant part is reproduced hereunder for the sake
of convenience and clarity:
“42. On a reading of the aforesaid section, it is
manifest that in the definition there are two
separate classes of acts which the person deceived
may be induced to do. In the first class of acts he
may be induced fraudulently or dishonestly to
deliver property to any person. The second class of
acts is the doing or omitting to do anything which
the person deceived would not do or omit to do if
he were not so deceived. In the first class of cases,
the inducement must be fraudulent or dishonest. In
the second class of acts, the inducing must be
intentional but need not be fraudulent or dishonest.
Therefore, it is the intention which is the gist of the
offence. To hold a person guilty of cheating it is
necessary to show that he had a fraudulent or
dishonest intention at the time of making the
promise. From his mere failure to subsequently
keep a promise, one cannot presume that he all133
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019along had a culpable intention to break the promise
from the beginning.”
(X) Role of Individual Accused
126. Now, coming to the roles of private individuals involved
criminal conspiracy in question. The larger conspiracy, as per the
allegations for which charge no.1 was framed was hatched around
October 1994. It is during this period that the private individuals i.e
account holders of five beneficiary accounts and the holders of
fictitious accounts entered into the criminal conspiracy and the
object of the same was to cheat OBC, NFC, New Delhi, by making
them purchase the cheques and bills of exchange knowing well that
there would be returned unpaid. Thus, causing wrongful loss to the
bank and wrongful gain to the private individuals. As has already
been discussed above, the purchase of cheques and bills of
exchange, is one of the crucial business functions of a financial
institution through which it earns income/profit as well as provides
necessary credit to the trade and industry.
127. The moot question herein is not that the bills of exchange
or the cheques were presented by the Beneficiary Account Holders
to OBC Bank for purchase, however it is the alleged intent behind
drawing of such instruments. The intent behind its issuance was not
backed by any genuine business transactions. But rather the sole
object and intent was to gain wrongfully by mis-utilising the
banking facilities and deceiving the bank. As far as the said aspect
134
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
of misuse of discounting facility is concerned , there is no question
mark raised on behalf of private accused persons during the entire
course of the trial. However, their role in the conspiracy in question
and how they were interconnected to each other in said siphoning
off the funds and cheated the OBC , New Friends colony Branch is
discussed below by individually taking each of the five beneficiary
accounts.
The Role of A-7 Sanjeev Arora, Proprietor of M/s Ashoka
Enterprises & A-8 Vikram Arora, Proprietor of M/s Ganpati
Enterprises and M/s Carda India Electronics & Its Connection with
Primary Beneficiary Account Holder M/s Red Cat Agencies
128. Both the aforesaid accused persons are the fictitious
account holders who as per the case of the prosecution, provided
fictitious cheques in favour of one of the beneficiary account holder
i.e M/s Red Cat Agencies, Current Account No. 2607. As far as the
said beneficiary account is concerned, it was opened in name of
partnership firm with partners namely A-3 Joginder Singh Logani
and A-2 Ghanshyam Kakkar. Their individual role requires no
discussion as the proceedings stand quashed against A-3 vide order
dated 04.09.2015 by Hon’ble High Court on account of him
entering one time settlement with OBC Bank. The other partner
namely A-2 Ghanshyam Kakkar is Proclaimed Offender since the
beginning of the trial. The discussion about the Role of Beneficiary
135
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
Account of M/s Red Cat Agencies is confined qua the accused
facing trial.
129. The case of the prosecution vis-Ã -vis the role of the
individuals in the alleged conspiracy and cheating the bank requires
discussion on five aspects i.e.
(a) opening and identification of the account of the accused
(b) drawing/issuance of cheques or bill of exchange in favour
of Beneficiary Account Holders,
(c) presentation and purchase of said cheque or bill of
exchange by OBC,
(d) dishonour of the said cheques or bill of exchange and
(e) The fact of issuance of said cheques as only a paper
transaction without any real business.
130. A-8 Vikram Arora is alleged to be the proprietor of two
fictitious firm M/s Ganpati Enterprises and M/s Carda India
Electronics. He got the accounts opened during the relevant period.
A-8 opened the said account in the name of M/s Ganpati Enterprises
with State Bank of Patiala, Hapur, U.P vide account opening form
Ex.PW23/A1 (D-58) on 16.09.1994. The specimen signature card
of the said account has been proven on record as Ex.PW23/A-2 (D-
58). The cheque book clearance register Ex.PW23/B1 (D-60) too
prove the fact of issuance of cheque book to A8 with Serial No.
253426-450. A-8 never disputed the said fact of opening of the
account in the name of firm either during the version of PW23 or
during his statement u/s 313 CrPC.
136
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019 130.1 The Cheque No. 253428 for Rs.6.60 lacs issued in
favour of M/s Red Cat Agencies was purchased by OBC, NFC,
New Delhi on 31.10.1994. It is also proved by the admitted bank
records that the cheque issued by him in favour of M/s Red Cat
Agencies which were purchased by OBC, got dishonoured on
07.11.1994 as per the cheque referred and return register
Ex.PW23/D63 on account of ‘insufficient funds’. It is also proved
on record that at the time of presentation of the said cheque in the
account of A-8, the balance was Rs. 41,000/- only.
130.2 The fact of purchase of said cheque is also recorded in
bill purchase discount register Ex.PW-20/A-8 (D-11). The said
cheque/draft purchase register of Original Bank of Commerce
which clearly reflects that the purchase of said cheque/bill vide
entry No. 457. It also records the non-realization of the said cheque
when sent for collection by OBC to banker of A-8. The date of
return is recorded as 03.12.1994. None of the said documents or
facts are disputed on behalf of A-8 and the defence of A-8 revolves
around the fact that the cheque was issued against a genuine
business transaction. Further it is his defence that it was purchased
by OBC without their knowledge and consent.
131. In the said backdrop, the first material disputed question
is as to whether the said cheque was issued against genuine
business transaction between M/s Red Cat Agency and M/s Ganpati
137
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
Enterprises or not. The accused in his statement under Section 313
Cr.P.C claimed that the same was issued for a genuine business
transaction; however, due to subsequent events as the material was
not sent, the cheque was not honoured.
132. The prosecution rebuts the said fact by claiming that
from the beginning, the balance in the account of M/s Ganpati
Enterprises was never more than one lakh rupees. The statement of
account of M/s Ganpati Enterprises Ex.PW23/C (D59) is perused,
which reflects that right from the opening of the account till the
presentation of the said cheque or even thereafter, the balance in the
account was never more than Rs.2 lacs. Despite that, the cheque to
the tune of Rs. 6.60 lacs was issued.
132.1 The Investigating Officer (PW-49) was also cross-
examined on the said aspect by A-8 wherein PW49 claimed that
during the investigation, he found no business was being conducted
by A-7 or A-8. The suggestion was given to him that A-7 & A-8,
both are brothers and have been falsely implicated by the
Investigating Officer without conducting any investigation from
them with respect to the business transactions with M/s Red Cat
Agencies. The suggestion came to be denied by PW49. The
contours of the said suggestion itself reflects it to be a hollow claim
only. No details of business transacted between the parties were put
138
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
to witness or disclosed during the recording of the statement u/s 313
CrPC.
132.2 As observed above, the accounts statement of M/s Ganpati
Enterprises Ex.PW23/C also does not in any manner probalise the
defence of genuine business transactions between A-8 and M/s Red
Cat Agencies either at the time when the cheque in question was
issued or presented for encashment.
132.3 The account opening form Ex.PW23/A-1 itself put a
question mark over the said defence of A-8. The column ‘Nature of
Business’ was left vacant despite the opening of the account in the
name of a private firm. If indeed, A-8 was running a flourishing
business in the name of M/s Ganpati Enterprises, the nature of
business should have been disclosed but was not done so for the
reasons best known to him.
In the said scenario, when there was no material available
with the Investigating Authority in this regard , the onus shifted
upon the accused to disclose the facts regarding running of his
business during the investigation or proving the said fact during the
trial which he has failed to do so. If indeed, the said cheque in
question was issued against genuine business transaction, the
requisite documents should have been brought on record . But, no
139
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
such record has been proved or were ever put to I.O in the cross-
examination.
132.4 The falsity of the defence is also proved vide letter
dated 16.10.95 Ex. PW28/A-1 addressed by the SBP , Hapur to A-8
expressing their anguish over repeated dishonour of cheques on
account of insufficient funds and terms of the current account being
violated. The other limb of his defence regarding purchase of
cheque by OBC without their consent is liable to be rejected being
against the very nature of business of purchase of cheques by
banks. No such consent of drawer is required while purchasing the
instrument on being presented by Payee. In the said backdrop, the
defence of A-8 on the said aspect is liable to be rejected and it has to
be concluded that the Cheque No. 253428 was issued under
conspiracy with the partners of M/s Red Cat Agencies and the
object of the same was only to cheat and gain wrongfully by
ensuring the purchase of the same by OBC, NFC, New Delhi . The
bank was deceived through said act of drawing of cheque and
under deception only they purchased the same.
133. The second fictitious account, which concerns A-8 is that
of M/s Carda (India) Electronics. The allegations concerns the
issuance of cheque No. 171005 for Rs.3.70 lacs in favour of Red
Cat Agencies. The said cheque came to be purchased on 06.10.1994
140
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
vide Bill No. 362 by OBC, NFC, New Delhi and money was
credited in the account of Red Cat Agencies.
134. The prosecution in this regard has placed reliance upon the
current account opening form of M/s Carda (India Electronics)
Ex.PW25/A. The said account was opened on 17.08.1994. The
proprietor of the said account is Accused-8 Vikram Arora. The
second document in this regard is cheque book issuance register
Ex.PW5/A (D-28) which reflects that on 17.08.1994, the cheque
book with serial no.171001 to 171100 came to be issued to accused
herein. Out of said cheque book, the cheque in question bearing
No. 171005 came to be issued in favour of Red Cat Agencies and
the same was purchased by OBC, NFC, New Delhi vide
Ex.PW20/A-8 (D-11)vide bill No. 362 on 06.10.1994. It also
records the return of cheque on 29.10.1994. The credit voucher for
the purchase of said cheque is Ex.PW21/G-14.
134.1 The identity of the said account, its opening as well as
statement of account has been proved by PW-25 B.S Saini, the then
Manager, OBC, NIT, Faridabad, Haryana. Though the objection
was taken on behalf of accused as to the mode of proof of the said
document by the witness, but without clarifying as to how he was
not competent to prove it. He identified the signatures on the
account opening form of the concerned Managers being posted and
having worked under them at the relevant point in time. Therefore,
141
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
the objection as to mode of proof only appears to be an objection
taken without any legal basis. PW-25 also proved the statement of
account as Ex.PW-25/B (D-29) which too has been objected to on
similar ground of mode of proof. The said objection is also liable to
be rejected in view of the Certificate given qua the said statement of
account under Section 2A of Bankers Book Evidence Act, by the
then Chief Manager . The signature of the author was proved by his
colleague PW-25. He further clarified that as per the statement of
account, the balance in the account was Rs.3554/- as on 06.10.1994
when the cheque purchased in question was issued. Thus, the said
statement of account which is unrebutted and unchallenged proves
the factum of fraudulent and dishonest intention at the time of
issuance of the cheque in favour of M/s Red Cat Agencies and it
being not backed by any genuine business transaction.
134.2 The version of PW-26 Sandeep Gupta, who is the
Introducer of the said account too corroborates the claim of the
prosecution regarding the account of M/s Carda (India Electronics)
of A-8 being only a fictitious account and it being opened with the
intention to cheat. PW-26 claimed that he had met A-8 and A-7 at
OBC,NFC Branch, after being introduced to him by the
Manager( A-1). Accordingly, they approached him to get the
account opened in Faridabad .As he was having account in OBC,
NIT, Faridabad, he introduced for the account of A-8 in the said
Branch. Even the address i.e B-282, Nehru Ground Faridabad
142
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
provided for opening of the said account was that of PW-26 . He
deposed that he allowed the use of said address in good faith as
they had requested, they would require the said address only for
correspondence. His testimony too is unrebutted and unchallenged
on behalf of the accused, which goes to prove the fact that the
account was opened in the name of a firm that existed only on
paper.
134.3 The round tripping of the amount qua the aforesaid
purchased cheque in the account of Red Cat Agency further
corroborates the claim of the prosecution and rebuts the defence of
A-8.
134.4 The transfer payment order Ex.PW21/G-160 dated
24.08.1995 reflect that an amount of Rs.4 lacs was transferred in the
account of M/s Carda (India Electronics) by M/s Red Cat Agencies.
No explanation is furnished by A-8 in the statement under Section
313 Cr.P.C explaining the purpose of the afore-referred to transfer in
his account and that too after purchase of cheque.
135. The next account concerning the cheques purchased in the
account of Red Cat Agency is that of M/s Ashoka Industries, whose
proprietor is A-7 Sanjeev Arora.
It is the case of the prosecution that he too acted in
conspiracy with other accused persons, including the partners of
143
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
M/s Red Cat Agencies. In pursuance of the said criminal conspiracy,
A-7 issued a cheque of Rs.3.60 lacs ( no. 149775) from his firm’s
account at Syndicate Bank, Dutai Branch, Garh Mukteshwar,
District Ghaziabad, U.P which came to be purchased by OBC,
NFC, New Delhi. It came to be presented by M/s Red Cat Agencies
under the dishonest and fraudulent inducement of being issued
against a genuine business transaction.
136. The first aspect in this regard is the identity of the said
bank account of M/s Ashoka Industries. In this regard, the version
of PW-27 Chander Mohan Kapoor, the then Manager, Syndicate
Bank, Dutai Branch, Ghaziabad and PW-30 Jagdish Singh, also the
then Manager with the concerned bank, is the most relevant.
136.1 PW-27 had provided the documents during the investigation
concerning the said current account which were seized vide seizure
memo Ex.PW-27/A ( D37) dated 27.01.1998 and Ex.PW28/B dated
09.01.1998 ( D42) respectively. He proved the account opening
form of M/s Ashoka Industries with Current Account No.13 as
Ex.PW27/B-1( D43/1). The said account was opened by PW-30
Jagdish Singh, who identified his signature as an authorised officer
on the account opening form. A-7 Sanjeev Arora, being the
proprietor of the said firm and account holder , is not disputed as is
apparent from the cross-examination of both PW-27 and PW-30.
144
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
136.2 PW-27 and PW-30 also proved the specimen signature card
having the signatures of A-7 as Ex.PW27/A-1( D-38). The
statement of account from the period September 1994 till
09.02.1996 when it was closed has been proved as Ex. PW-27/B-3
(D44) . There is no question mark over the admissibility of the said
document being the certified by PW27 under the Banker’s Book
Evidence Act.
136.3 The stark facts which emerge from the reading of the said
statement of account reflect that it was opened with an initial
deposit of Rs.1000/- in September 1994. Thereafter, all the debit
entries till its closure are on account of not maintaining a minimum
balance or on account of dishonour of four cheques.
136.4 A-7 out of the said account, had issued cheque (bearing
no.149775) in favour of M/s Red Cat Agencies .It was purchased
by the OBC, NFC Branch vide Cheque/Draft Register Ex.PW20/A-
8 (D-11) vide Entry No. 363 on 06.10.1994 in the Current Account
No.2607 of M/s Red Cat Agencies The said cheque was deposited
with OBC, NFC, New Delhi,vide cheque deposit slip Ex.PW-21/G-
15. The subsequent act of return of the cheque when sent for
collection is proved by letter Ex.PW-27/B-5 dated 17.10.1994 of
PW-30 and identified /proved by PW27 Chander Mohan Kapoor,
the then Manager Syndicate Bank. The contents of the said letter are
neither challenged nor disputed in the cross-examination. The letter
145
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
Ex. PW27/B-5 thus goes on to prove the fact that during the period
of operation of the account ( around 6 months) three cheques
bearing No. 149172, 149779 and 149775 were issued by A-7 from
his account of M/s Ashoka Industries including the cheque in
question bearing No. 149775 for Rs.3.60 lacs. All got dishonoured
on account of non-maintenance of adequate balance. The bank thus
was forced to write a letter to A-7 and it also directed A-7,
proprietor of M/s Ashoka Industries to return the cheque book
issued to him in view of his conduct or otherwise they will be
forced to take legal action.
136.5 Another letter Ex.PW27/A-2 dated 08.12.1995 ( D39) also
came to be addressed to A-7, which is in continuation of earlier
request. It was further informed to him that till date the account
holder has neither returned the cheque book nor closed the account.
Accordingly, the bank was forced to again send the letter seeking
return of the cheque book as well as intimating closure of the
account as the account holder was not maintaining the minimum
balance. All the said documents are neither challenged nor disputed
on behalf of A-7 Sanjeev Arora and other accused persons and
hence, have to be read against him. Rather, inaction on the part of
A-7 to the said letters and closure of his account shows his
culpability.
146
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019 136.6 The onus, then, shifted upon the accused to explain the
nature of his transaction and to prove that the cheque in question for
Rs.3.60 lacs in favour of M/S Red Cat Agencies was issued against
genuine business transaction. During the cross-examination,
IO/PW-49 S. C. Dandriyal claimed that during investigation, he
found no business being conducted by A-7 and A-8. Apart from
this, no document of forgery came on record. He denied the
suggestion of A-7 and A-8 of falsely implication without any
investigation with respect to their transactions M/s Red Cat
Agencies.
137. Thus, in the said backdrop, a specific defence was put by
A-7 and A-8 to PW49 that the cheques which were issued by them
in favour of M/s Red Cat Agencies were issued against the genuine
business transactions. Further A-7 in his statement recorded under
Section 313 Cr.P.C again reiterated the said defence by claiming
that he had issued the said cheque as advance payment . However,
A-2 Ghanshyam Kakkar (since P.O) failed to supply goods to them
despite many remainders. Accordingly, they instructed their bank
for stoppage of payment. They were not aware of the fact that A-2
has got the said cheque purchased from the bank.
137.1 Thus, a specific defence has been put that the said cheques
were issued to M/s Red Cat Agencies as an advance for supply of
goods which they failed to do so. The said fact being within the
147
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
special knowledge of A-7 and A-8, the onus was upon them to
produce the relevant record either during the investigation or during
the trial. No such record has been produced for the reasons best
known to them. The falsity of the said defence is also reflected
from the scrutiny of their bank account statements including that of
M/s Ashoka Industries Ex.PW-27/B-3.
137.2 In case, he indeed was running a genuine business through
firm M/s Ashoka Industries, the said business should be reflected in
the account statement. The account statement starting from the
opening of the account in September 1994 till its closure on
09.02.1996 reflects a solitary deposit of Rs.1000/- at the time of
opening and remaining all withdrawals to be on account of
dishonour of cheques or non-maintenance of minimum balance. The
said statement as well as the letters issued by the Bank
Ex.PW27/B-5 and Ex.PW27/A-2 further falsifies the defence of the
accused that they had given instructions to the bank for stoppage of
payment against the cheque. The reasons for dishonour of the
cheques including the cheque in question of Rs.3.60 lacs was on
account of deficient funds and not due to the stoppage of payment
instructions.
138. His other limb of the defense that cheque was purchased
without his consent by OBC is a matter of fact. No such consent of
the drawer is required to be taken by Bank before purchasing the
148
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
instrument. The criminality lies in the fact that the said bill of
exchange came to be issued without being backed by any genuine
business transaction.
138.1 The said overwhelming documentary evidence and the
versions given by PW-27, PW-30 and Investigating Officer PW-49
goes on the prove the fact that A-7 too was the part of criminal
conspiracy hatched by the accused persons including the partners of
M/s Red Cat Agencies in whose favour, the cheques were issued
which were got issued subsequently purchased by OBC, NFC, New
Delhi by claiming it to be against genuine business transactions.
The said act of deception and dishonest intention led to wrongful
loss to the bank and corresponding wrongful gain to the accused
persons.
The Role of A-4 Harsimran Singh, Proprietor of M/s Gold Exports ,
M/s Sun Exports M/s Pimco Overseas & Its Connection with
Primary Account Holder M/s Red Cat Agencies
139. The next accused facing trial, who is connected to the
purchase of cheques in favour M/s Red Cat Agencies is A-4
Harsimran Dhingra. He is alleged to have issued cheques in the
name of his fake firms M/s Gold Exports, Amritsar, and M/s Sun
Exports. He is also proprietor of the beneficiary account of firm M/s
Pimco Overseas, CA No.2783 which was opened with OBC, NFC,
New Delhi and utilised for purchase of fake cheques. The said part
149
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
of the allegations concerning M/s Pimco Overseas is discussed in
the later part of the judgment.
140. The first aspect concerning the liability of A-4 is the
factum of account being opened by him in the name of fake firm
M/s Gold Exports, with Central Bank of India, Majith Mandi,
Amritsar and thereafter mis-utilization of the cheques.
141. In this regard, the prosecution has placed reliance upon
the documents seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW-49/4 (D-103). The
account opening form alongwith the statement of account as well as
the cheque book issuance register, were seized vide said seizure
memo. However, only the specimen signature card filled at the time
of opening of account on 31.1.1995 with Central Bank of India ,
Majith Mandi , Amritsar has been proved on record as Ex.PW-43/1
(D-104). The prosecution witness PW-43 Virender Singh who is the
childhood friend of accused being the resident of same locality was
confronted with his photographs on three bank accounts allegedly
connected to A-4 opened with Punjab & Sind Bank, Lajpat Nagar,
Amritsar, Central Bank of India, Guru Bazar, Amritsar and lastly
with Central Bank of India, Majith Mandi, Amritsar. He identified
the photograph on the account opening/ specimen card Ex.PW43/1
as that of A-4 . The said account was opened by him as proprietor of
M/s Gold Exports, Amritsar with Central bank of India , Amritsar.
150
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019 141.1 PW-43 further went on to claim that the accused used to
reside with his maternal uncle in Delhi and used to occasionally
visit his parents at Amritsar. He further went on to claim that he had
never seen any firm in the name of M/s Sun Exports or M/s Gold
Exports running in the neighborhood for which the accounts were
got opened by A-4 with Central Bank of India and Punjab & Sind
Bank.
141.2 As far as his identification and proving of the account
opening/signature card Ex.PW43/1 is concerned, no question mark
was raised in the cross-examination on behalf of A-4.
141.3 The cross-examination confines only to the aspect of
running the business in the name of M/s Sun Exports or M/s Gold
Exports. PW-43 claimed that his version with respect to the non-
running of the said firms was on the ground that he was residing in
the neighbour-hood and therefore, it is natural for a person to have a
little bit of knowledge about the profession of his neighbours. He
denied the suggestion that he was not aware about the business of
the accused or his statement being mere hearsay or a rumour.
141.4 There is no reason to discard or disbelieve the version of
PW-43 on the aspect of running of the firms by A-4. His claim when
seen in the light of the fact that basis of his knowledge was on
account of he being the childhood friend and residing in the same
151
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
locality. It is not unusual for a person residing in a small city to
have knowledge about the profession of their neighbours.
141.5 The defence of A-4 that version of PW-43 is false, being
given at the instance of CBI or being motivated, is a bald claim
only. No reason is cited in the entire cross-examination or in the
statement of the accused as to the reasons for his being a motivated
witness or having acted maliciously under the directions of CBI. In
a surprising turn of events, A-4 in the statement under Section 313
Cr.P.C took a U-turn, and the entire version of PW-43 is admitted as
a matter of record.
142. The next aspect to be considered is the issuance of
cheques bearing No.357729 dated 15.04.1995 for a sum of
Rs.3,68,641/- (D-504) Ex. PW21/G119, No.35727 dated 08.04.1995
of Rs.3,85,250/-(D-505) Ex. PW21/G120, No.357728 dated
10.04.1995 of Rs.3,76,186/- (D-506) Ex. PW21/G121, No. 035740
dated 20.09.1995 of Rs.5,65,989/- Ex.PW21/G-193 (D578),
No.035741 dated 20.09.1995 of Rs.5,53,857/- Ex.PW-21/G-206 (D-
592), by A-4 Harsimran Dhingra, proprietor M/s Gold Exports in
favour of M/s Red Cat Agency . The cheque no. 035735 dated
21.08.1995 of Rs.1,65,754/-issued was got deposited vide voucher
dated 21.08.1995 of OBC, NFC, New Delhi Ex.PW21/G-151 (D-
536) in the account of Red Cat Agency.
152
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019 142.1 The issuance of aforesaid cheques is not disputed by A-4.
No question mark was raised on his behalf in the entire cross-
examination of concerned witness PW-21 Jagdish Kumar Saxena.
142.2 The aforesaid said cheques came to be purchased after
being presented with OBC, NFC, New Delhi on behalf of M/s Red
Cat Agencies by claiming to be issued against genuine business
transactions vide cheque purchase register Ex.PW20/A-9 ( D-11)
vide DD/Entries No.84,85,86 and 762, 1059 and 1060 respectively.
The said fact of purchase of the cheques in the account of Red Cat
Agency too is not disputed by A-4.
142.3 The next step is dishonour of the said cheques which is also
proved by admitted record including the above referred bill
purchase register Ex.PW-20/A-9 (D-11). The cheques bearing No.
035727, 035728 and 035729 came to be returned unrealized as per
the bill purchase register on 15.05.1995 vide entry DD-86, 85 and
84 respectively. The cheque bearing No. 035735 Ex.PW20/A-9 (D-
11) was returned unrealized vide entry DD No.762 dated
25.09.1995 (Ex.PW20/A-9).
142.4 As far as the remaining two cheques purchased vide entry
no. DD No. 1059 and 1060 are concerned, as per the said register,
both the instruments never came to be realized through date of
return is missing. The dishonour of the said two cheques bearing
153
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
No. 035740 and 035741 purchased vide DD No. 1059 and 1060
stands proved by cheque return memos Ex.PW-21/G-228(D-618) &
PW-21/G-229 dated 07.10.1995(D619). The reasons for dishonour
of the same is “Refer to Drawer”. Further, the above-referred three
cheques 035727, 035728 and 035729 are concerned, the cheque
return memo shows the dishonour being on account of “Funds
Insufficient” vide memo Ex.PW-21/G-231( D621). All the said bank
documents are neither challenged nor questioned by A-4 which
goes on to prove the factum of dishonour of the said cheques issued
by A-4 on behalf of his firm M/s Gold Exports in favour of M/s
Red Cat Agencies.
143. However, the crux of the issue lies as to whether the
said cheques were issued against a genuine business or not and if
the answer lies in negative, then from the very said fact, the
dishonest intention to cheat the OBC in conspiracy with partners of
Red Cat Agency right since beginning can be imputed upon A-4.
144. The first limb of the incriminating evidence against A-
4 in this regard is version of PW-43 Virender Singh, his neighbour
at Amritsar, who denied the fact that any such firm M/s Sun
Exports or M/s Gold Exports was running his neighbourhood at
Amritsar. He further went on to claim that A-4 used to reside with
his maternal uncle in Delhi and only used to occasionally visit his
parents at Amritsar. It has already been observed above that the said
154
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
incriminating evidence has been admitted by A-4 in his statement
under Section 313 Cr.P.C to be the matter of record. As far as the
claim of PW43 that A-4 used to reside with his uncle in Delhi and
occasionally used to visit his parents at Amritsar is concerned, not a
single question was put to the witness in the cross-examination to
dispute it. His version of the said aspect too has to be read against
A-4. No explanation is furnished by the accused as to why he got
the firms registered at Amritsar and got the account opened in
Amritsar only, even though he was residing in Delhi and visiting
occasionally over there.
144.1 The said version of PW-43 is also corroborated by another
independent bank witness PW-6 Jagjit Singh Dang. He was posted
as Manager in December 1994 to January 1996 in Punjab & Sind
Bank, Lajpat Nagar, Jalandhar where a separate current account was
opened by A-4 in the name of M/s Sun Exports during the same
period. He further went on to claim that he knew A-4, being the
nephew of his younger brother’s brother-in-law, namely Joginder
Singh Logani. The said Joginder Singh Logani is one of the partners
of M/s Red Cat Agencies with whom he was stated to be residing at
that point of time in Delhi as has been deposed by PW-43. Again no
explanation is furnished as to the reasons for opening of the account
in the name of the firm in Jalandhar, even though accused was
residing and working with his relative Joginder Singh Logani in
Delhi. Even the Investigating Officer PW49 was never questioned
155
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
as to the existence and running of the said firms at
Amritsar/Jalandhar. Pertinently, no document has been produced
by A-4 during the entire trial to show the running of the firms at
Amritsar or Jalandhar despite the fact within his special knowledge
and control.
144.2 The said circumstantial evidence coupled with the versions
of PW-43, PW-6 & PW49 goes on to prove the fact that the
fictitious firms were opened by A-4 in connivance with his relative/
partner of M/s Red Cat Agencies and the sole object of the same
was to get the cheque books issued from the bank situated at far off
places from Delhi. Thereafter the cheques were issued in favour of
M/s Red Cat Agencies. The said cheques were issued without
being backed by any genuine business transactions and the same
came to be presented for purchase by the partners of M/s Red Cat
Agencies with OBC, NFC, New Delhi which included the above-
referred five cheques of A-4. All the said cheques got dishonored on
accounts of insufficient funds.
145. Another cheque issued by A-4 in favour of M/s Red Cat
Agencies is from the bank account of ‘M/s Sun Exports,
Jalandhar’. The identity of the said account and it being in the name
of A-4 is proved by witness PW-6 Jagjit Singh Dang, the then
Manager ,Punjab and Sindh Bank ,Lajpat Nagar , Jalandhar . He
proved the opening of the said account by A-4 in the name of M/s
156
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
Sun Exports vide account opening form Ex.PW-6/A-1 (D-93). The
address provided by the A-4 with the bank was B-242, Lower
Ground, Chitranjan Park, New Delhi and local address being EO-80
Saidan Gate, Jalandhar. The said account came to be opened on
02.02.1995. The said account was introduced by PW-6 only being
the distant relative of A-4.
145.1 Out of the said account only, the cheque bearing No.
714208 dated 19.09.1995 of Rs.1,22,836 Ex.PW-6/O (D-586) was
issued by A-4 in favour of Red Cat Agencies. The purchase of the
said cheque is also stamped on its backside by OBC ,NFC, New
Delhi. The cheque purchase register is Ex.PW-20/A-9 (D-11) too
proves the fact of purchase of said cheque vide DD/Entry No.1061
on 19.09.1995. The dishonour of the said cheque is proved by
cheque returning memo Ex.PW-6/N-1 with the reasons for
dishonour being “Insufficient Funds” ( D616).
145.2 The ledger account Ex.PW6/K ( D98) of Punjab And
Sindh Bank , Jalandhar throws light over the fact that the said
cheque of Rs.14208 Ex.PW6/O was never issued against any
genuine business transaction. It reflects that the only entry of credit
during the entire period of operation is of Rs.1500/- at the time of
opening of the account. Thereafter, the entries concern debit or
cheque return charges only.
157
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019 145.3 The communication exchanged by Punjab & Sind Bank, with OBC, NFC, New Delhi as well as A-4 vide Ex.
PW6/S,PW7/G-9, PW6/R,PW6/Q,PW7/G5,PW7/G1,PW6/P,PW6/U
& PW6/T( all part of D-101) right after the opening of the said
account till its forced closure on 19.12.1995 also prove the
dishonest intention since the very opening the account as well as
thereafter repeatedly mis-utilising cheques in question. All the said
correspondence is proved by PW-6 Jagjit Singh Dang and PW-7
Avtar Singh Narang. Their version too has gone unrebutted and
unchallenged qua the contents of the above-referred documents. The
said communication also proves the fact of the said cheques were
misused in conspiracy with the partners of Red Cat Agencies and
they repeatedly got dishonoured due to want of sufficient funds.
145.4 A separate letter was also written by the Chief Manager,
Punjab & Sind Bank, Jalandhar on 18.10.1995 Ex.PW-6/S (Part of
D-101) to A-4 for ensuring keeping of sufficient balance in his
current account. There were 12 instances of cheque dishonour in
the period of five months which were reproduced in the letter and
he was asked to ensure sufficient balance.
145.5 Another letter was written to Branch Manager, OBC,
NFC, New Delhi on 19.10.1995 by Punjab & Sind Bank, Ex.PW-
7/G-9 (Part of D-101) informing about misuse of cheques and
repeated dishonour of the same from the account of M/s Sun
158
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
Exports of A-4. The contents of the said also establish the connect
between various firms of the accused involved in the present case .
It also establishes the criminal conspiracy hatched by them and the
object was to cheat the banks where the fictitious current accounts
were opened.
145.6 The letter issued at the local address of A-4 came to be
undelivered for the reasons “no such person” as is reflected from
Ex.PW-7/G-6 (Part of D-101) vide report dated 21.10.1995.
Subsequently, again a letter was addressed to Manager, OBC, NFC,
New Delhi vide Ex.PW6/R dated 03.11.1995 intimating about the
drawee i.e A-4 being not available at the given address. Lastly, the
letter Ex.PW-6/T (Part of D-101) dated 19.12.1995 came to be
addressed by Chief Manager, Punjab & Sind Bank, Lajpat Nagar,
Jalandhar to A-4 of M/s Sun Exports addressed at his Delhi address
by referring to earlier letters dated 18.10.1995 and 04.11.1995. He
was asked to be careful in the drawing of the cheques and ensuring
sufficient balance. As no compliance was received and there being
only Rs.300 in his account on 19.12.1995, his account was forced to
be closed by the bank. He was further asked to return the
unused/remaining cheques, or else he will be held responsible for
the fraud with respect to the same.
The issuance of the said letters or their receipt is neither
challenged nor rebutted in the cross-examination of PW-6 and PW-7
159
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
by A-4 and accordingly has to be read against him. Rather the
accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C claimed that the
said bank documents, including the letters to be matter of record.
His sole defence qua the issuance of cheques in favour of JS
Logani ( Partner of M/s Red Cat Agencies), being post-dated or
goods not being supplied by A-3 to A-4 has remained unproven. No
such defence was ever put to the IO/PW49 nor any documents
concerning the said business dealings have been produced on
record. Accordingly, the same is liable to be rejected
146. All the above-said facts goes on to prove that the cheques
in question were never issued for any genuine business transactions
and they were issued in pursuance of the criminal conspiracy
hatched by partners of Red Cat Agencies and the object of the same
was to cheat the OBC, New Friends Colony, New Delhi .
The Act Of Cheating through Current Account of M/s Pimco
Overseas and Role of A-4 and others.
147. The role of A-4 is also alleged specifically in context of
one of the beneficiary account of M/s Pimco Overseas . It is the
case of the prosecution that the said account was opened on
30.09.1995 by A-4 vide CA No. 2783 with OBC, New Friends
Colony, New Delhi and it was in reference to the larger conspiracy
hatched by the partners of M/s Red Cat Agencies. In the said
160
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
account total of three cheques and two bills were purchased during
the alleged period of 1994-1995, which all got dishonoured
resulting in total loss to the bank to the tune of Rs.25,92,502/- .
148. The first aspect to be considered is the identification
and opening of the said beneficiary current account of M/s Pimco
Overseas. PW-1 K.D Grover, who was posted as Manager with
OBC, NFC, New Delhi at the relevant time, proved the documents
with respect to the opening of the said account. The account
opening form in the name of M/s Pimco Overseas is Ex.PW-1/A
(D-178) and the person authorised to operate the same is Harsimran
Singh i.e A-4. The said account opening form itself reflects that it
being introduced by A-2 Ghanshyam Kakkar (since P.O), partner of
M/s Red Cat Agencies. As far as the opening of the said account is
concerned by A-4, there is no question mark raised on his behalf.
Rather, a positive suggestion has been given to PW1 as under:
“It is correct that the current account of M/s. Pimco
Overseas bearing account no. 2783 was opened after
following all the rules, regulations and procedures for
opening a bank account.”
148.1 The accused, however, raised an objection concerning the
documents exhibited by the said witness to be inadmissible on the
ground that the same are not authenticated under the Banking
Regulation Act 1949. No argument has been advanced on the said
aspect and it is unexplained as to how said authentication was to be
161
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
done. There is no question of the authentication of the said original
account opening form Ex.PW1/A of M/s Pimco Overseas. The
question of authentication under Banker’s Book Evidence Act only
concerns the copies of the banking ledger documents or account
books. As far as the statement of account of M/s Pimco Overseas is
concerned, it is proved by PW-21 Jagdish Kumar Saxena as
Ex.PW21/C-1 (D-180). The copy of the said statement of account is
certified in terms of the requirements under Section 2A of Banker’s
Book Evidence Act.
148.2 PW21 also proved the sole proprietorship letter furnished
by A-4 at the time of opening of said bank account vide Ex.PW-
21/C-8 (D-211) claiming to be the sole proprietor of M/s Pimco
Overseas. He had also entered into agreement with Bank qua the
bill purchase or bill discounting and advances against bills issued in
course of business vide Ex.PW1/V (D-212).
148.3 The OBC, NFC, New Delhi agreed to provide advances
against bills of exchange, inland or foreign bills etc. to the limit of
Rs.15 lacs against stipulation of interest on overdue charges at the
rate 8% per annum over and above the rate of RBI. The guarantee
for the said facility given to M/s Pimco Overseas came to be
furnished by A-2 G.D Kakkar (since P.O), partner of M/s Red Cat
Agencies vide Agreement to Guarantee Ex.PW-1/W (D-213).
Another Guarantee Agreement was executed by one Saibal
162
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
Banerjee vide Ex.PW-1/X who also furnished the lease deed of his
immovable property Ex.PW-21/C-10, as a kind of security
document. The execution of none of the above-referred documents
executed at the time of opening of the current account of M/s Pimco
Overseas & bank having agreed to provide him with the facilities of
bill purchase or advances against bills of exchange are disputed.
148.4 In the said current account of A-4, three cheques and two
bills came to be purchased by OBC, NFC. Two of the said cheques
were issued from the account of M/s Sun Exports, Amritsar and
bills were also drawn upon the Firms of A-4 i.e M/s Sun Exports,
Amritsar and M/s Gold Exports, Amritsar.
149. The next aspect in this regard to be considered is
identification of the account of M/s Sun Exports, Amritsar, with
Central Bank of India, Guru Bazar, Amritsar whose two
cheques/bills of exchange and 01 bill bearing No. 193 and 199
were purchased in the account of M/s Pimco Overseas by OBC,
NFC, New Delhi. The documents in this regard are proved by the
officials from Central Bank of India i.e PW-14 Anil Mehra and
PW-19 S.S. Kataria, the then Assistant Banker, Central Bank of
India. PW19 identified his signature on the specimen card of current
account no.1398 M/s Sun Exports, Proprietor H.S Dhingra vide
Ex.PW14/B (D-112). The current opening form was submitted by
A-4 being the proprietor of M/s Sun Exports vide Ex.PW-14/A (D-
115). It was introduced by another account holder M/s Kamboj
163
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
Duptta House. The account statement of the said account M/s Sun
Exports for the period 30.01.1994 to 21.03.1996 is also proved by
PW-19 as Ex.PW-19/B (D-144). He further deposed that the
account was opened with the credit of Rs.500/- and at the time of
when the account was closed on 21.03.1996, there was debit of
Rs.10 as incidental charges and no balance was in the account.
Further, there is no question mark over the admissibility of the said
document being certified by the concerned Assistant Branch
Manager Sh. S.P Sagwan, whose signature has been identified by
PW-19. The statement of account is certified under Section 2A
Banker’s Book Evidence Act.
149.1 The reading of said account statement of M/s Sun
Exports, Central Bank of India, Guru Bazar, Amritsar reflects that
after the initial credit of Rs.500/- at the time of opening of the
account in January 1995, there was not a single credit entry. All the
remaining debit entries concerns the charges levelled for return or
other incidental charges. Thus, the said unrebutted and unchallenged
documents proved by PW-14 and PW-19 goes on to establish the
opening of the said account of M/s Sun Exports by A-4 with
Central Bank of India, Guru Bazar, Amritsar. It also establishes the
fact that the sole object behind opening of the said account in
Amritsar , was get hold of the cheque book , which was later on
mis-utilised by issuing cheques in favour of Pimco Overseas and
164
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
other dubious firms, which came to be purchased by OBC, NFC,
New Delhi.
149.2 The next aspect in this regard is the purchase of two
cheques No. 49013 dated 01.06.1995 for a sum of Rs. 3,68,188/-
and No. 49014 dated 01.06.1995 for a sum of Rs.3,73,062/-. The
first set of documents in this regard is the cheque/draft
discount/purchase register for the period w.e.f 06.01.1995 to
10.01.1996 Ex.PW20/A-10 (D13) vide DD entry no. 277 and 278 .
The said two cheques were purchased by OBC, NFC, New Delhi,
against the account of M/s Pimco Overseas, CA NO.2785 vide DD
Purchase No. 277 and 278 on 01.06.1995. The amount of said
cheque came to be credited in the account of M/s Pimco Overseas
The said register further reflects the return of said cheque when sent
for realization to Central Bank of India, Guru Bazar, Amritsar. Both
came to be returned on 19th October 1995 after a lapse of 141 days
from the purchase.
The debit voucher issued on account of dishonour of the said
cheque as well as interest for overdue on account of dishonour for
the period from June till 19.10.1995 was passed vide Ex.PW-1/R
dated 19.10.1995 (D-200) in the account of Pimco Overseas. It
includes the interest component on account of non-payment of said
cheques purchased to be Rs.54406/-. The credit vouchers are
Ex.PW1/S and PW1/T both dated 19.10.1995. (D-201 and D-202
165
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
respectively). Thus, the said set of documents which includes the
Bills Purchase Register as well above-referred credit & debit
vouchers proves the factum of dishonour of above-referred two
purchase cheques & that too after period of 141 days from the date
of purchase.
150. The next issue to be considered in view of said factual
situation is whether the said cheques were issued by M/s Sun
Exports in favour of M/s Pimco Overseas against genuine business
transactions or not. In case the answer is positive, the mere
dishonour of the cheque would not amount to the offence of
cheating. The light is thrown over the said issue by PW-43 Virender
Singh, neighbour of A-4 at Amritsar. He firstly identified the
photograph of the accused on the account opening forms of M/S
Gold Exports and M/S Sun Exports at Central Bank of India, Guru
Bazar, and Central Bank of India, Majith Mandi, Amritsar as
already discussed. He went ahead to claim that A-4 used to reside
with his maternal uncle in Delhi and only used to visit his parents
occasionally at Amritsar. He further went on to claim that there was
no firm in the name of M/s Sun Exports or M/s Gold Exports in his
neighbour-hood. The said aspect is already discussed while dealing
with the account of M/s Red Cat Agencies account in whose favour
cheques were issued by A-4 from his account M/s Gold Exports
maintained with Central Bank of India, Majith Mandi, Amritsar.
166
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019 150.1 Another connected document that throws light on the issue and the cheques being never issued against any genuine
business transactions is the account statement of M/s Sun Exports.
If indeed, the bill of exchange /cheques were issued against genuine
business trading between the said two firms, it should reflect in the
account statement of M/s Sun Exports.
150.2 The account statement Ex.PW-19/B (D144) is for the entire
period from 30.01.1995 till its closure on 21.03.1996. The scrutiny
of the same reflects that there is a solitary credit of Rs.500/- at the
time of opening of the account and all remaining entries in the year
1995 till its closure on 21.03.1996 are debit entries on account of
charges being levelled by the bank towards return of cheques or
bills etc. Thus, the said account statement goes on to prove the fact
of account being opened only for the fraudulent purpose by A-4 at
far off place in Amritsar, despite he being residing and working in
Delhi . It also goes on to prove the fact that said two accounts were
opened in connivance with the partners of M/s Red Cat Agencies
who were already mis-utilizing the said discounting facility from
OBC. They further, in order to cheat the bank, got created the said
two fake entities through A-4 who was the close relative of one of
the partners of M/s Red Cat Agencies and was residing with him as
already discussed.
167
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
151. Apart from the said two cheques, one bill/invoice No.92
dated 30.05.1995 (D-186) of M/s Pimco Overseas drawn on M/s
Gold Exports, Amritsar Ex.PW1/H & Ex.PW-1/F (D-184 & D-186)
of Rs. 7,68,200/- came to be purchased vide entry no. BP No. 15
dated 01.06.1995. The invoice Ex. PW1/H and BOE Ex. PW1/F
both record the factum of purchase by OBC, NFC , New Delhi and
amount being credited to Pimco Overseas. The purchase of above
said bill drawn on Gold Export and its purchase is also proved by
Bill Purchase Register Ex.PW20/A-4 vide entry no. 15/95. The
second invoice No. 193 dated 13.05.1995 of Rs.7,37,080/- drawn
on M/s Sun Exports came to be purchased on 01.06.1995 as
reflected vide document Ex.PW21/A-4(D8) vide entry BP 14/95.
The said Bill Purchase Register further proves the fact that the BP
No. 14/95 was sent for collection to Central Bank of India, Guru
Bazar, Amritsar where the account of M/s Sun Exports was
maintained by A-4 only and second bill 15/95 was sent to Central
bank of India , Majith Mandi, Amritsar where account M/s Gold
Export was maintained by A-4. Both the bills never came to be
realized.
152. The prosecution in this regard has also placed reliance
upon the letter Ex. PW21/C3 ( D188) and Ex. PW21/C2 ( D187) of
concerned Branch Manager at Central Bank of India, Majith
Mandi , Amritsar, intimating the fact of return of said bill purchased
being unpaid due to the reason “the parties not available at their
168
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
end”. The intimation was sent to Chief Manager, OBC, New
Friends Colony , New Delhi on 25.11.1995 i.e after about 4 months
of the purchase. The second bill No. 193 BP No.14/95 of
Rs.737080/- came to be returned as reflected vide letter of Manager,
Central Bank of India, Guru Bazar, Amritsar, dated 11.11.1995
Ex.PW21/C-4 (D-189). The said letter was addressed to Chief
Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce, NFC. The noting on the
said letter itself records the debit being ordered by OBC in the
account of M/s Pimco Overseas on 20.11.1995 Rs,7,37,080/- and
interest being Rs.72941/-. None of the said documents are
challenged or rebutted on behalf of A-4 either in the cross-
examination of PW21 or PW-1. Thus, the fact of drawing of bills,
purchase and dishonour stands proved.
152.1 The circular nature of the transactions effected from
the account of M/s Pimco Overseas by A-4 also point towards the
dishonest intention of the parties. It is reflected from the cheques
issued during the same period when B.P No. 14 and 15 dated
01.06.1995 and 02.06.1995 were purchased and credited in the
account of M/s Pimco Overseas. On the same day i.e 01.06.1995,
four account payee cheques i.e. Ex.PW-45/1(D-207), Ex.PW-
45/2(/d-208) Ex.PW45/3(D-209) and Ex.PW-45/4 (D-210) were
issued from account of M/s Pimco Overseas by A-4 in the favour of
M/s Red Cat Agencies (vide CC No. 1724).
169
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019 152.2 Apart from that, immediately after the purchase of B.P
No. 14 & 15 as referred above, a self drawn cheque Ex.PW-1/J (D-
191)dated 03.06.1995 for Rs.7,35,000/- came to be issued and the
amount was withdrawn in cash. Interestingly, the recipient of the
said amount was A-5 Rajesh Batra who had no official connection
with A-4 except the fact that they all were acting in pursuance of
the criminal conspiracy hatched by the partners of M/s Red Cat
Agencies.
152.3 On 02.06.1995, again a self cheque for withdrawing
Rs.40,000/- vide Ex.PW1/K(D-192) was drawn by A-4 and the
recipient of the said amount was again surprisingly A-5 Rajesh
Batra. The signatures on all the said instruments, including the
above-referred cheques vide which the amount was withdrawn from
the account of M/s Pimco Overseas is also corroborated through
CFSL report Ex. PW57/3(D-654).
152.4 All the said circular nature of the transactions effected
between M/s Pimco Overseas and M/s Red Cat Agencies during the
same period when the above-referred fraudulent bills were
purchased vide B.P No.14 & 15 or the purchased cheques as
discussed- above. There was transfer of money in the account of
M/s Red Cat Agencies at whose instance, the account of M/s Pimco
Overseas was opened by A-4 apart from the huge cash withdrwals.
The cash amount was withdrawn and the said transactions itself
170
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
reflect the dishonest intention right since the beginning when the
above referred cheques and two bills came to be drawn by A-4 in
favour of M/s Pimco Overseas. Thereafter, deception was played
upon OBC, NFC, New Delhi by claiming it to be drawn/issued
against genuine business transactions as was the mandate under the
agreement Ex.PW1/V (D-222). On account of the said dishonest
mis-representation, the bank came to purchase the said five
instruments which all ultimately got dishonoured.
152.5 The defence of A-4 is that the cheques issued were post
dated and the goods were not supplied to him. He also in the cross-
examination of PW43 disputed the claim of the witness that he was
not running his business in the name of M/s Sun Exports or M/s
Gold Exports, Amritsar. The onus thus was upon him to prove the
genuineness of his business enterprises i.e M/s Pimco Overseas, M/s
Sun Exports or M/s Gold Exports Amritsar by producing the
relevant business records be it the balance sheets, sales record,
records concerning the places where these establishments were
running, income-tax or sales-tax returns etc as well as his business
with M/s Red Cat Agencies. However, no such record was either
produced during the investigation as is apparent from the cross-
examination of PW-49/IO or during the trial of the present case.
Accordingly, an adverse inference has to be drawn against A-4 and
his defence is accordingly liable to be rejected being a bald claim
only.
171
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
153. All the above-said facts go on to prove that the cheques
and bills of exchange in question were never issued for any genuine
business transactions. They were issued by A-4 in order to cheat
the bank. The said transactions came to be effected by A-4 in
pursuance of the criminal conspiracy hatched amongst the accused
wherein the partners of M/s Red Cat Agencies were leading them.
Role of A-5 Rajesh Batra vis-a-vis Current Account of M/s Batra
Traders CA No. 2695
154. It is the case of the prosecution that the Current
Account No. 2695 was opened by A-5 Rajesh Batra on 01.02.1995
by claiming himself to be proprietor of M/s Batra Traders. It is
further alleged that the said accused Rajesh Batra was the employee
of M/s Red Cat Agencies and used to visit frequently OBC, NFC,
New Delhi, in connection with their banking transactions. It is
further alleged that he too was roped in the alleged conspiracy
hatched by the partners of M/s Red Cat Agencies in order to cheat
OBC by mis-utilising their bill discounting facility.
154.1 It is further alleged that in pursuance of the said conspiracy,
a separate current account in the name of M/s Batra Traders was
got opened by A-5. In the said backdrop, the first and foremost
issue is the identification of the said account and its opening.
172
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
155. The prosecution in this regard has placed reliance upon the
documents seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW21/D dated 14.08.1997
(D-221). The account opening form alongwith the specimen card
are proved vide Ex.PW21/D-1(D-222) and Ex.PW21/D2 (D-223)
respectively by PW21. He further identified the signatures of A-1
on the account opening form being the concerned Branch Manager
who allowed the opening of the said account. The introducer to the
said account, as per the form, is one R.P Bhargava though in the
Column. Name of the Introducer, the name of J.S Logani too finds
mention which appears to have been subsequently deleted/cut.
155.1 The said introducer has been examined as PW-44 who
identified his signatures on account opening form Ex.PW21/D-1.
He further claimed that he had introduced the said account at the
request of the then Chief Manager namely S.K. Pathrella. As far as
the said introduction aspect is concerned, there is no question mark
raised on behalf of A-5 in the cross-examination. Similarly, the said
fact is not disputed in the cross-examination of concerned bank
official PW-21 J.K. Saxena who also proved the said account
opening form as well as specimen card. Thus, as far as the aspect of
current account being opened by A-5 in the name of M/s Batra
Traders with OBC, NFC, New Delhi is concerned, the same is
proved by the unrebutted and unchallenged documents as discussed
above as well as the testimony of two witnesses. Apart from that
173
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
CFSL report Ex.PW-57/3(D-654) also corroborates the fact of
opening of the said account by A-5.
155.2 All the accused have questioned the admissibility of
CFSL report on account of non-examination of author. The said
objection is liable to be rejected in the light of fact that presence of
author Dr. S.C Mittal could not be got secured as he expired during
course of trial. PW-5 Ms Alka Gupta, his colleague, entered the
witness box on his behalf and identified his signature on report
Ex.PW57/1, Ex.PW57/2 and Ex.PW57/3. She also proved the
contents of the same by deposing about entire procedure.
156. In the said backdrop, the next issue to be considered is
the purchase of seven cheques and two bills during the alleged
period of criminal conspiracy in the said current account. A-5 while
opening the said current account was also provided with the facility
of bill purchase/bill discounted advances vide agreement
Ex.PW21/D-47 (D-271) executed on 02.03.1995. The agreement
of guarantee was executed by A-2 G.D Kakkar (since P.O), partner
of M/s Red Cat Agencies vide document Ex.PW-21/D-48(D-272).
The security documents i.e perpetual lease deed in favour of one
Manjari Gupta Ex.PW21/D-50 (D-274) came to be deposited
alongwith some other some property documents i.e Ex.PW21/D-52
(D-276) and Ex.PW21/D-53 (D-277). Both the said agreements
regarding bill purchase as well as the guarantee agreement were
174
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
executed on behalf of OBC, NFC, New Delhi, by PW-55 Devender
Pal Dhingra, the then Manager, Loans Department. He also proved
the execution of said documents. The said unrebutted and
unchallenged documents prove the factum of extension of facility
to A-5 proprietor/account holder of M/s Batra Traders for availing
the credit facilities against bills, cheques etc.
156.1 In pursuance to the said facility, seven cheques and two
bills were discounted in the said account. All the said instruments
came to be dishonoured during the relevant period.
156.2 The first Cheque No. 714002 for amount of Rs.3,86,196 /-
dated 24.02.1995 was purchased on 24.02.1995 vide DD No. 969 as
reflected in the DD/Cheque Purchase Register Ex.PW-20/A-8 (D-
11). The entries in the said register itself shows that the said cheque
when sent for collection to the concerned branch never came to be
realized. The ledger account statement of M/s Batra Traders proved
by PW-21 J.K. Saxena vide Ex. PW21/D-3 (D-224) also records the
said transaction. The purchase of the said cheque is reflected
against voucher No. 280295 for an amount of Rs. 3,85,221/- being
credited and remaining amount being charged as VPL charges by
the bank.
156.3 The said cheque in question was issued from the account of
A-4 in the name of M/s Sun Exports at Punjab & Sind Bank,
175
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
Jalandhar. The dishonour of the said cheque is also corroborated
by statement of account of M/s Sun Exports vide Ex.PW-6/K (D-
98). It also records that cheque bearing No. 714001 to 714050
being issued to the proprietor A-4 H.S Dhingra. Apart from the
initial deposit of Rs.1500/-, there is no other credit entry, which
goes on to prove the fact that the said account was opened with the
intention of defrauding and mis-utilising the facility of purchase of
cheque extended by OBC, NFC, New Delhi.
156.4 The cheque no. 20009 and cheque no 20024, both dated
21.08.1995 for an amount of Rs. 2,96,985 and 2,89,489/- were got
issued from the account of M/s Gold Exports, Faridabad which was
opened by J.S Logani ( proceedings quashed against him by
Hon’ble High Court vide order dated 04.09.2015). Both the said
cheques were purchased on 21.08.1995 and the credit vouchers in
this regard are Ex.PW21/D-26 (D-250) and Ex.PW21/D-27 (D-
251). The DD/ Cheque Purchase Register Ex.PW-20/A-9 (D-12) too
records the entry qua the said purchase vide entry no. 765/95 and
766/95. Further the record against the said entries also reflect that
the said cheques were sent to the concerned branches through OBC,
NIT, Faridabad for collection, but never came to be realized.
156.5 The fourth cheque bearing No.49036 for an amount of
Rs.3,18,764/- dated 21.08.1995 drawn by A-4 on behalf of M/s
Sun Exports, Amritsar, in favour of M/s Batra Traders which was
176
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
purchased on 21.08.1995. The credit voucher is Ex.PW21/D-28
(D-252) . The DD/Cheque Purchase Register Ex.PW-20/A-9 (D-
12) records the entry qua purchase vide entry no.767/95. It further
records the factum of the said cheque being sent to concerned
branch at Amritsar and it being never realized. As regards the
account of A-4 in the name of M/s Sun Exports Amritsar, with
Central Bank of India, Amritsar, the nature and use of the said
account is already discussed while discussing the role of A-4 qua
current account of M/s Pimco Overseas.
156.6 The fifth cheque bearing No.154528 issued from the account
of M/s Sun Glow Travels & Tours Operator, Alakhnanda is not
discussed herein being connected to J.S Logani against whom
proceedings already stands quashed vide order of Hon’ble High
Court dated 04.09.2015.
156.7 The sixth and seventh cheques purchased bearing No.
049004 and 049003, both dated 06.04.1995 were issued from the
account of M/s Sun Exports, Amritsar belonging to A-4 in favour of
M/s Batra Traders. Both the said cheques were got purchased as
reflected vide the cheques Ex.PW19/O-2 and Ex.PW19/O-3 (D-238
and D-239 respectively). The purchase of the said cheques is also
recorded on the back of the said cheques under the signature of
Senior Manager, OBC, NFC, New Delhi. The dishonour of the
said cheques stands proved vide cheque return memo Ex.PW19/O-1
177
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
(D-237) dated 18.04.1995 and received by OBC, NFC, New Delhi
through intimation letter Ex.PW21/D15 (D-236) dated 18.04.1995.
157. Now, coming to the two invoices/bills, both numbered
as 009 dated 01.02.1995, purportedly issued upon M/s Gold
Exports, Amritsar by A-4 came to be purchased in the account of
M/s Batra Traders vide B.P No. 57/95 and 58/95. The credit
transfer voucher qua the said purchase is Ex.PW21/D-5 (D-226)
and the commission voucher charged by the bank in this regard is
Ex.PW21/D-6 (D-227). The transfer voucher in this regard is
Ex.PW21/D-7 thereby transferring cumulative amount against both
the said bills Rs.14,82,550/- in current account of A-5.
157.1 The dishonour of the said two bills when sent by the OBC
for collection in the account of M/s Gold Exports, Amritsar at
Central Bank of India, Majith Mandi, Amritsar is also reflected
from the Bill Purchase Register Ex.PW-20/A-6 (D-7). The said
bills never came to be realized and the only amount received by the
bank is the commission charged at the time of purchase.
157.2 The dishonour of the said bills is further proved by
statement of account of M/s Batra Traders Ex.PW21/D-3 (D-224)
which records reversal entry vide voucher dated 16.02.1996 i.e
after more than one year of the purchase of said two bills.
178
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
158. In the said backdrop, the most crucial issue which
requires consideration is as to whether the said two bills/invoices
were issued against genuine business transactions or not. No such
defence is pleaded on behalf of the accused either in the cross-
examination of prosecution witnesses including Investigating
Officer PW-49 as well as in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
The defence pleaded by A-5 in response to Question No. 1084 is
reproduced hereunder for the sake of convenience:
“Q-1084 Do you want to say anything else ?
Ans. I am innocent. I have deposited all the amount
which was due towards me. Due to loss in business,
I could not deposit/return the money to the bank in
time but later on I deposited the amount with
interest to the bank which they accepted. I had no
intention to cheat the bank nor I had fabricated or
prepared a false document with a view to cause loss
to the bank and to gain for myself. I have clean
record and has never come to the adverse notice of
any law executing authority.”
158.1 It is thus apparent that only defence pleaded by A-5 that he
was not able to return the amount to the bank in time due to loss in
business. However, no such defence was either put to the I.O/PW49
nor any document has been produced by the accused in defence
showing the running of the business or the loss suffered by him
during the relevant period of purchase of instruments in his account.
The onus was upon the accused being the special fact within his
knowledge to bring it on record either during investigation or during
the trial. The obligation was upon him to firstly to show that the
179
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
above-referred two invoices as well as the seven cheques purchased
in his account were issued against genuine business transactions as
warranted vide agreement with Bank. He was also under the
obligation to show that only on account of supervening
circumstances, the instruments could not be got honoured. No such
evidence has come on record or was put to the Investigating Officer.
158.2 On the contrary, the statement of account of M/s Batra
Traders as well as the utilization of the cheques issued by OBC,
NFC, New Delhi reflects the dishonest intention to cheat the bank
right since the inception. A-5 acted in conspiracy with other
accused persons including the partners of M/s Red Cat Agencies as
well as A-4, the proprietor of M/s Gold Exports and M/s Sun
Exports respectively.
158.3 The cheques Ex.PW21/D-4( D225), Ex.PW21/D-8 (D-
229), Ex.PW21/D-9(D230), Ex.PW21/D-10( D231), Ex.PW21/D-
17( D241), Ex.PW21/D-19( D243), Ex.PW21/D-31( D255),
Ex.PW21/D-32( D256), Ex.PW21/D-35( D259), Ex.PW21/D-
36( D260) and Ex.PW21/D-45( D269) are all self-drawn cheques
for various amounts issued during the said period only by A-5. The
scrutiny of these said cheques reflects a withdrawal of a hefty
amount in cash .It also reflect to be in close conjunction with credit
of the amounts qua purchase of fake instruments be it cheques or
invoices by OBC, NFC, New Delhi.
180
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019 158.4 Another cheque Ex.PW-21/D30 ( D254) dated 18.5.95 also
raises a finger of suspicion over the conduct of A5. He issued the
same from the current account of M/s Batra Traders for an amount
of Rs.4,95,000/- in favour of A-2 Ghanshyam Kakkar ( since PO)
who had introduced the said account of M/s Batra Traders. No
purpose of said transfer is explained.
159. All the said circular transactions and diversion of
money as well as the circumstances discussed herein further goes on
to prove the factum of conspiracy hatched by accused persons
amongst themselves and the intention being to cheat OBC, NFC,
New Delhi, who had extended the said facility with the condition as
stipulated in agreement Ex.PW-21/D-47 ( D271) Clause No. ’23’.
“We hereby declare that the bills and documents that will
be presented to you shall be genuine and in order in all
respect and the same and good”s covered thereby shall
be free from ant charge ,lien or encumbrance whatsoever
and that no other person will have any right over the
same.”
159.1 The said condition was there for all the five beneficiary
accounts discussed including that of A-5 . The bank was under
obligation to discount the bills/bill of exchange presented by the
beneficiary account holders provided the instruments were genuine.
The said condition came to be blatantly violated by A-5 and all
other holders of the beneficiary accounts in connivance with others
who opened fictitious accounts with others banks. Accordingly the181
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019fraud was played upon the bank causing wrongful loss and
corresponding wrongful gain for themselves.
The Role of A-5 Rajesh Batra vis-a-vis Current Account No. 2845
of M/s Navyug Traders.
160. It is the case of the prosecution that the said current
account was opened on 06.09.1995 allegedly by one Narender
Kapoor as a proprietor. However, the investigation revealed that A-5
Rajesh Batra impersonated himself as Narender Kapoor in
conspiracy with partners of M/s Red Cat Agencies. It is the further
the case of the prosecution that object behind the opening of the
Current Account was to mis-utilize the facility of discounting of
bills provided by the bank. The two bills for an approximate
amount of Rs.14 lacs were issued upon M/s Sun Exports, Jalandhar
of A-4, which were purchased in the account of Navyug Traders by
OBC, NFC, New Delhi.
161. The first aspect in this regard is the opening of the
account of M/s Navyug Traders and the crucial aspect being the
‘identity of the account holder’. The prosecution has placed reliance
upon the account opening form of M/s Navyug Traders
Ex.PW21/E-1 (D-279) & specimen signature card Ex.PW21/E-2
(D-280). The proprietor of the said account as per the said account
opening form is Narender Kapoor, r/o House no.1253, Sector -17,
Faridabad, Haryana. The photograph affixed on the said application
182
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
form of M/s Navyug Traders is apparently is not that of A-5, nor it
is alleged by the prosecution. The allegations are that A-5 forged
the signatures of Narender Kapoor, proprietor of M/s Navyug
Traders while opening the said bank account in connivance with the
Branch Manager, S.K. Pathrella (A-1).
161.1 As far as the opening of the said account is concerned,
PW-21 J.K. Saxena, the then Manager, OBC, NFC, New Delhi,
provided the relevant documents including the above-referred
documents concerning M/s Navyug Traders to CBI vide seizure
memo Ex. PW21/E (D278) and proved the same during trial . He
identified the signatures of A-1 on the account opening form
Ex.PW-21/E-1 and on the specimen signature card Ex.PW-21/E-2.
161.2 In the said backdrop, the issue to be seen is whether the
said original Narender Kapoor appeared before the Branch
Manager/A-1 at the time of opening of the said account or not and
the specific role of A-1 in this regard. The account opening form
itself reflects and defines the role of A-1. The account has been
opened consequent to the introduction by account holder M/s Best
…..(not legible) C.A No. 2546. The signature of introducer was
verified by A-1 with pre-printed noting “Introducer’s signature
verified, I confirmed that Introducer called on the bank and has
signed in my presence.” Thus, it is apparent that the role of A-1 in
allowing opening of bank account of M/s Navyug Traders was
183
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
based on the introduction provided by the earlier account holder CA
No.2546. The purpose of the introduction and the duty of the
Introducer is to vouch for the identity of the person seeking the
opening of a fresh account as well as his credit-worthiness. In the
said backdrop, the most crucial witness for proving the aspect of
cheating by impersonation by A-5 was the Introducer i.e Account
Holder of CA No. 2546. But no such witness has been produced by
the prosecution for the reason best known to them.
161.3 Apart from the said account opening form, the said,
proprietor of M/s Navyug Traders also executed the sole
proprietorship letter Ex.PW21/E-4 (D-282), agreement for cash
credit/overdraft Ex.PW21/E-5 (D-283) and agreement regarding bill
purchase/bill discounted as Ex.PW21/E-6 (D-284). The agreements
Ex.PW21/E-5 and Ex.PW21/E-6 executed between the account
holder /borrower and the bank ,also carries the signatures of PW-55
Devender Pal Dhingra, the then Manager (Loans Department),
OBC, NFC, New Delhi at point “A”. He has remained silent
regarding the said aspect of cheating by impersonation. Rather, if
the prosecution’s allegations of impersonation were indeed true, his
role too should have been investigated, having vouched for the
identity of the said Narender Kapoor while executing the above-
referred agreements on behalf of the Bank.
161.4 The said Narender Kapoor was claimed to be employed as
‘Peon’ with M/s Red Cat Agencies in April 1994 and accordingly, it
184
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
is the case of the prosecution that his photographs were collected
by the employer and later, misused. The said Narender Kapoor
joined the investigation and his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C
was recorded. However, his presence could not be secured during
trial being not available at the address provided by the prosecution.
In these circumstances, no assumption can be drawn with respect to
the allegations of forgery and cheating by impersonation while
opening the bank account by A-5 Rajesh Batra in the name of M/s
Navyug Traders.
162. The prosecution in this regard has also placed reliance
upon the CFSL report Ex.PW57/1 (colly)( D637) dated 03.11.1999
and Ex.PW57/2 ( colly) dated 31.01.2000 (D 653). No doubt, the
handwriting expert has given a positive opinion with respect to the
said forgery of signatures of said Narender Kapoor . As per the
CFSL report it is connected to A-5, but the legal issue herein is
whether the said sole piece of expert opinion can be the basis for
holding A-5 guilty for the offence of forgery. The said aspect has to
be seen in the light of the fact that the crucial substantive evidence,
be it the version of real Narender Kapoor or the alleged introducer
of the said account having not come on record.
162.1 It is well settled proposition of law that before acting
upon such expert opinion, the Court has to ensure that the said
evidence is corroborated by other evidence, be it direct evidence or
185
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
circumstantial one. The said issue is discussed by Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Padum Kumar V. State of U.P, (2020) 3 SCC 35 .The Para-
15 and Para-16 is reproduced hereunder for the sake of convenience
and clarity:
“15. Of course, it is not safe to base the conviction
solely on the evidence of the handwriting expert. As
held by the Supreme Court in Magan Bihari Lal v.
State of Punjab that: (SCC p. 213, para 7)
“7…. expert opinion must always be received with
great caution it is unsafe to base a conviction solely on
expert opinion without substantial corroboration. This
rule has been universally acted upon and it has almost
become a rule of law.”
16. It is fairly well settled that before acting upon the
opinion of the handwriting expert, prudence requires
that the court must see that such evidence is
corroborated by other evidence either direct or
circumstantial evidence. In Murari Lal v. State of M.P.,
the Supreme Court held as under: (SCC pp. 708-09,
paras 4 and 6)
“4. True, it has occasionally been said on very high
authority that it would be hazardous to base a
conviction solely on the opinion of a handwriting
expert. But, the hazard in accepting the opinion of any
expert, handwriting expert or any other kind of expert,
is not because experts, in general, are unreliable
witnesses the quality of credibility or incredibility
being one which an expert shares with all other
witnesses but because all human judgment is fallible
and an expert may go wrong because of some defect of
observation, some error of premises or honest mistake
of conclusion. The more developed and the more
perfect a science, the less the chance of an incorrect
opinion and the converse if the science is less
developed and imperfect. The science of identification
of fingerprints has attained near perfection and the risk
of an incorrect opinion is practically non-existent. On
the other hand, the science of of handwriting is not
186
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
nearly so perfect and the risk is, therefore, higher. But
that is a far cry from doubting the opinion of a
handwriting expert as an invariable rule and insisting
upon substantial corroboration in every case,
howsoever the opinion may be backed by the soundest
of reasons. It is hardly fair to an expert to view his
opinion with an initial suspicion and to treat him as an
inferior sort of witness. His opinion has to be tested by
the acceptability of the reasons given by him. An
expert deposes and not decides. His duty “is to furnish
the Judge with the necessary scientific criteria for
testing the accuracy of his conclusion, so as to enable
the Judge to form his own independent judgment by
the application of these criteria to the facts proved in
evidence.
5. * * * *
6. Expert testimony is made relevant by Section 45 of
the Evidence Act and where the Court has to form an
opinion upon a point as to identity of handwriting, the
opinion of a person “specially skilled” “in questions as
to identity of handwriting” is expressly made a relevant
fact. So, corroboration may not invariably be insisted
upon before acting on the opinion of an handwriting
expert and there need be no initial suspicion. But, on
the facts of a particular case, a court may require
corroboration of a varying degree. There can be no
hard-and-fast rule, but nothing will justify the rejection
of the opinion of an expert supported by unchallenged
reasons on the sole ground that it is not corroborated.
The approach of a court while dealing with the opinion
of a handwriting expert should be to proceed
cautiously, probe the reasons for the opinion, consider
all other relevant evidence and decide finally to accept
or reject it.”
163. In the said backdrop, the uncorroborated expert opinion
report Ex. PW57/1 and Exp.PW57/2 concerning the forgery of
signatures in the account opening of M/s Navyug Traders cannot be
acted upon.
187
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019 163.1 Even the authenticity of the said report becomes doubtful
when seen in light of the fact that the sole independent witness in
whose presence the specimen handwriting of the original Narender
Kapoor was taken ,remained silent . The specimen handwriting of
original Narender Kapoor is Ex.PW49/29 {(colly) (D-652) } being
taken on 27.09.1999 by Investigating Officer PW-49 S.C Dandriyal.
The said specimen handwriting is the sole basis of CFSL report
Ex.PW-57/1 ( colly). However, the sole independent witness who
could have vouched for truthfulness of the said proceedings and the
Narender Kapoor having appeared and provided his specimen
handwriting or his signatures was P.K.Malhan , Sr. Manager, OBC,
Connaught Place, Delhi. Surprisingly, the said witness examined
as PW-51, remained completely silent in this regard.
164. In the said backdrop, the charge of forgery cannot said
to be proved against A-5 Rajesh Batra on the standard of ‘beyond
reasonable doubt’.
165. Though the identity of the account is in dock, however
the second limb of the allegation regarding purchase of bills in the
said account needs discussion. One cheque and two bills in the said
Current Account of M/s Navyug Traders were purchased after being
presented by account holder to OBC, NFC, New Delhi. As far as
the cheque no. 140444 dated 13.10.1995 is concerned, the same has
188
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
no relevance qua the accused persons facing trial as purportedly it
was issued by the wife of A-2 Ghanshyam Kakkar (since
Proclaimed Offender).
165.1 The two bills /invoice no. 001 and 002, both dated
06.09.1995 were purchased in the said account by OBC, NFC,
New Delhi. The said bills were drawn on M/s Sun Exports,
Jalandhar, the firm owned by A-4 Harsimran Dhingra, having its
bank account with Punjab and Sindh Bank, Jalandhar. The purchase
of the said two invoices in the said account is proved by unrebutted
and unchallenged document i.e PW-20/A-5( D-9) Bill Purchase
Register of OBC, NFC, New Delhi. The said two invoices came to
be purchased on 25.09.1995 vide entry BP No. 62/95 and 63/95
respectively. The said register also proves the fact of dishonour of
the said two bills when sent for collection to the concerned bank i.e
Punjab & Sind Bank, Jalandhar.The intimation in this regard was
received by OBC , NFC on 20.11.1995.
165.2 The bill purchase documents are also proved by PW-21
J.K. Saxena, Manager vide credit vouchers Ex.PW21/E-20 (D-
298), Ex.PW21/E-19 (D-297) and Ex.PW21/E21(D299). The
authorization was also drawn by Navyug Traders on its letterhead
vide Ex.PW39/4 (D-304) and the rear of the same carries the
purchase noting of OBC, New Friends Colony. The transport bill
Ex.PW39/5 (D-307) dated 24.09.1995 too was issued. The
189
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
authorization is purportedly under the signatures one authorised
signatory for M/s Navyug Traders requesting the M/s Sun Exports
and its banker Punjab & Sind Bank, Lajpat Nagar, Jalandhar to pay
the amount for the bill purchased to their banker OBC, NFC, New
Delhi. The author of request letter to Manager OBC on behalf of
Navjug Ex. PW21/E27 dated 21.09.1995 ( D314 ) for purchase has
remained unidentified. No CFSL opinion has been furnished qua
the author of the said documents.
165.3 As far as the identity of the account M/s Sun Exports,
Jalandhar, CA No. 2099, Punjab & Sind Bank, Lajpat Nagar,
Jalandhar is concerned, the issue has already been discussed while
dealing with other beneficiary accounts i.e M/s Red Cat Agencies,
M/s Batra Traders and M/s Pimco Overseas. The identity of the
said account CA No.2099 has been proved by concerned Branch
Manager namely PW-6 Jagjit Singh Dang, account opening form
Ex.PW6/A-1. He himself had introduced the account being known
to A-4. The fate of the said account and how the same was used
only for fraudulent purposes is reflected from the Ledger Account
Ex.PW6/K. It records a solitary credit entry of Rs.1500/- at the time
of opening of the account on 02.02.1995 and the remaining debit
entries being on account levied by the bank for return of cheques or
other instruments. The correspondence exchanged between the
account holder i.e A-4 and Punjab & Sind Bank Ex.PW-6/S (D-
101) also proves the intent of A-4 while operating the said account.
190
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
The only intent was to misutilize the cheques or bill discounting
facility in furtherance of the criminal conspiracy hatched by the
accused in connivance with the partners of Red Cat Agencies.
165.4 The reasons for dishonour of the said bills when sent for
collection is reflected in the letter Ex.PW6/Q dated 03.11.1995 as
well as Ex.PW-6/R ( part of D 101 ). The drawee i.e A-4 was never
available at the address provided while opening the bank account.
The other letters in this regard proved on record are Ex.PW7/G-4
and Ex.PW7/G-6 ( part of D-101). The said unrebutted documents,
which are not challenged on behalf of A-4, prove the factum of
dishonest intention since the inception while drawing of the bills
No.001 and 002, both dated 06.09.1995 on the firm of A-4. The
objective of availing the said facility since the very inception was to
cheat the bank under the garb of it being issued against genuine
business transactions.
The said of cheating and money laundering of the amount
credited is also proved by the withdrawal cheques Ex. PW
PW21/E23 & PW21/E24 ( D310 to 311). The entire amount was
withdrawn through self-cheques. The drawer of the cheques as per
CFSL report Ex. PW57/2 is A-5. However for want of any
corroborating evidence no finding can be given against him.
However, the fact remains that the money from the two bills
discounted was withdrawn immediately. It also establishes the role
of A-4 upon whom the said two bills were drawn. The onus shifted
191
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
upon him to explain his connection with Navyug Traders if any.
However he has remained silent in this regard and thus an adverse
inference has to be drawn against him of being part of the
conspiracy with the account holder of Navyug Traders and
beneficiary of wrongful gain on account of fake bills purchased.
Current Account No. 2846 of M/s Agronica Overseas and Role of
the Accused Persons Facing Trial
166. The last beneficiary account is that of M/s Agronica
Overseas. It was allegedly opened by the proprietor Naveen Kakkar
( A-6) resident of I-1623, Chitranjan Park, New Delhi. The said
main accused/beneficiary of the said account is proclaimed offender
and the discussion herein only concerns the role of the other
accused persons i.e. A-4 Harsimran Dhingra and A-5 Rajesh Batra.
166.1 The said account was opened on 06.09.1995. The account
opening form, specimen signature card and statement of account
have been proved by PW-21 Jagdish Kumar Saxena , Manager
OBC, New Friends Colony who provided the said documents as
well as the remaining credit and debit vouchers to the Investigating
Officer on 13.08.1997 vide seizure memo Ex. PW-21/F (D-315).
The said account was opened under the authority of Branch
Manager (A-1) in routine as deposed by PW-21. The basis of the
said account opening as reflected from the form Ex. PW-21/F1 ( D
316) is the introduction of the account holder by A-5 Rajesh Batra
192
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
Proprietor of Batra Traders A/c No. 2695. The said fact of
introduction for ensuring the opening of the said account of M/s
Agronica Overseas is neither disputed nor challenged by A-5.
166.2 It is also matter of record as proved by PW-21 and other
witnesses of Oriental Bank of Commerce New Friends Colony, the
two cheques and two bills came to be purchased in the said account
during the period relevant i.e September 1995 to October 1995. The
statement of account Ex. PW-21/F3 (D-318) reflects the credit entry
of the purchase of two bills on 28th of September 1995 and 29th of
September 1995 vide BP No. 64 & 72. Both the said invoices were
drawn on M/s Sun Exports, Jalandhar (of A-4) and were
dishonoured when sent for collection to the banker of A-4 i.e.
Punjab and Sindh Bank Jalandhar. The bill purchase register Ex.
PW-20/A5 (D-9) reflects the purchase of a bill (001) drawn on M/s
Sun Export Jalandhar vide entry BP no. 65/1995 on 28.08.1995 and
it being returned unrealized on 20.11.95 when sent for collection.
Similar is the fate of the second bill ( 002) purchased vide bill
purchase register entry no. 73/1995 on 29.08.1995 drawn on Sun
Exports, Jalandhar ( Ex. PW21/A-5). It too returned unrealised
when sent for collection at Jalandhar on 20.11.1995. The return of
both the said bills is also proved by PW6, the bank official from
Punjab and Sindh Bank, Jalandhar, where the account of Sun
Exports ( of A-4) was maintained.
193
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019 166.3 Apart from the said two bills drawn on the account of
M/s Sun Export, A-4, also issued cheques bearing no. 714019 for Rs
743950/- in favour of M/s Agronica Overseas vide Ex. PW-6/N (D-
357). The said cheque came to be purchased on 10.10.1995 and the
amount was credited in the account of M/s Agronica Overseas as
reflected in statement of account Ex.PW-21/F3 ( D318). The
purchase of the said cheque by M/s Agronica Overseas is also
proved by DD Register Ex. PW20/A10 (D-11). The dishonour of
the said cheque when sent for collection by OBC is proved by
dishonour memo Ex. PW-6/N1 dated 14.10.1995 ( D360). As far as
the other cheque no. 140445 from the said account issued from the
firm M/s Jimmy Crown Enterprises owned by wife of A-6 Naveen
Kakkar is not discussed as A-6 is already PO.
167. The issue herein as to whether the said cheque and two
bills which were purchased by Oriental Bank of Commerce after
being presented by A-6 were the instruments issued against genuine
business transaction or not. In case the said cheques/bills being not
issued against any genuine busness transaction, then certainly a case
of deception and dishonest intention is made out against the account
holder and all others involved with him including accused no. 4
Harsimran Dhingra.
194
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019 167.1 The genuineness of the alleged claim of business being
run by firm M/s Agronica Overseas is busted by its statement of
account Ex. PW-21/F3 for the period 06.09.1995 till its closure on
30.12.1995 with outstanding balance of Rs 26,54,646/-. All the
credit entries in the said account during the above said period
concerns the purchased cheques and two bills, except one pay order
cancellation of Rs 5 lacs on 14.10.1995. Thus, it is apparent from
the reading of the said account the primary object behind opening
the current account and thereafter utilising the discounting facility
was to deceive the bank by pretending to be running a genuine
business.
167.2 As far as the genuineness of the business of A-4 or his form
M/s Sun Export, Jalandhar is concerned, it is already been discussed
while discussing the other four fraudulent/beneficiary accounts. The
banker of A-4 i.e Punjab and Sindh Bank Jalandhar, was forced to
close the account due to the conduct of A-4 in issuing the cheques
for huge amount without ensuring sufficient balance.
168. In the end, the sum and substance of the discussion qua the
manner in which above said five beneficiary account holders
through the fictitious accounts cheated the Oriental Bank of
Commerce, New Friends Colony, New Delhi can be summarized
through a pictorial diagram as shown herein on the next page :
195
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
Beneficiary Accounts
M/s Red Cat
Agencies, Pimco Overseas
Batra Traders, Agronica overseas
& Navyug Traders
r
Presented fo
purchase
M/s Carda
(India Electronics)
M/s Ashoka
Oriental Bank of Commerce Industries
New Friends Colony
Invoices/Cheques Issued
New Delhi
M/s Ganpati
Enterprises
Sent Instruments/
Bill of Exchange
beneficiary
Credited in
M/s Gold Exports
accounts
For encashment/
Money
Collection Amritsar
(All got dishonoured) (of A-4)
M/s Gold Exports
M/s Red Cat Agencies, Faridabad
Pimco Overseas (of J.S. Logani)
Batra Traders,
Agronica overseas M/s Sun Exports
& Navyug Traders (of A-4)
Credited with
Account
M/s Sachdeva Offset
& Packaging, M/s Sun Glow
Withdrawal by Travels & Tour Operator,
Cash M/s Bhushan Mineral
Transferring to
withdrawal Industries and M/s Jimmy
Private Accounts of
Accused Involved Crown Enterprises
196
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
169. The common defence on behalf of the accused persons
that the cheques and bills of exchange were issued for genuine
business purposes has remained unsubstantiated. No evidence has
been produced by them despite the onus being upon them to
establish the fact within their special knowledge that the cheques or
bills were for genuine business transactions. No such plea or
material came to be furnished by them even during the
investigation, as has been deposed by IO/ PW49. Rather, the
accounts statements of fictitious account holders reflect that during
the entire relevant period of conspiracy,the balance in the said
accounts remained ‘paltry’.
(XI) CONCLUSION
170. In the light of above-said reasons, it is concluded that the
prosecution has been able to successfully prove their case on the
standard of beyond reasonable doubts against A-4 Harsimran
Dhingra, A-5 Rajesh Batra, A-7 Sanjeev Arora and A-8 Vikram
Arora for the offence under Section 120B read with Section 420
IPC. The said accused persons are also held guilty for the
substantive offence under Section 420 IPC/120B IPC.
The accused persons A-4, A-5, A-7 and A-8 are acquitted for
the offence under Section 120B read with Section 467/468/471 IPC
and Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of PC Act.
197
CBI V. S.K. Pathrella & Ors. CC No. 260/2019
A-5 is also acquitted for the substantive charge u/s 467
IPC.
A-1 S.K. Pathrella against whom the trial stands
suspended in terms of Section under Section 368 of BNSS 2023 is
also acquitted only for the substantive charge no.3 under Section 13
(2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of PC Act. No finding is given qua
the remaining charges levelled against A-1 on account of suspension
of his trial under Section 368 of BNSS 2023 on account of his
Digitally signed by
Mental Condition. GAGANDEEP GAGANDEEP SINGH
SINGH Date: 2026.04.27
02:56:37 +0530
Announced in the Open Court (GAGANDEEP SINGH)
on 27 April 2026
th
Special Judge, PC Act, CBI-04
Rouse Avenue District Courts,
New Delhi
198
