Delhi District Court
Zila Sahkari Krishi Gramin Vikas Bank vs Smt. Savitri, Rajinder Bharti And Ors on 1 April, 2026
1
IN THE COURT OF DIG VINAY SINGH, SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT),
CBI-09 (MPs/MLAs CASES), ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURT,
NEW DELHI.
SC/06/2025
Old Case file no. 09/2022 SCPPS
CNR no.DLCT11-001079-2025
U/s 120B r/w 409/420/467/468/471 of IPC
Zila Sahkari Krishi Aur Grahmin Vikas Bank
Datiya, Madhya Pradesh,
(Through its General Manager) .....Complainant
Versus
1. Smt. Savitri Shyam (Now deceased)
W/o Late Sh. Shyam Sunder Shyam
R/o Mundian Ka Kua, Datiya, Madhya Pradesh
2. Rajendra Bharti
S/o Late Sh. Shyam Sunder Shyam
R/o Mundian Ka Kua, Datiya, Madhya Pradesh
3. Raghuvir Sharan Prajapati
S/o Ram Das Prajapati
R/o Sahani Mohalla, Datiya, Madhya Pradesh. ........ Accused
Date of initial institution (in MP) :29.07.2015
Date of receiving in this Court :06.11.2025
Date of conclusion of arguments :18.03.2026
Date of judgment :01.04.2026
JUDGMENT
1. The present judgment is directed against the two accused listed at serial
numbers 2 & 3 ONLY. Besides them, Smt. Savitri (A-1) was also an
accused in this case, but she passed away, and the proceedings against her
were declared abated vide order dated 19.01.2019. She was the mother of
Judgment dated 01.04.2026; In SC/06/2025; CNR no.DLCT11-001079-2025; Zila Sahkari Krishi Gramin Vikas Bank Vs.
Smt. Savitri & Ors.; Page 1 of 95
2
Rajendra Bharti (A-2). For convenience the accused are hereinafter
referred to as Savitri, Bharti, and Prajapati, respectively.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
2. Initially, the trial of this case took place before the Ld. Special Judge in
the State of M.P. and, on a petition of accused Bharti, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court transferred the case to the State of Delhi in terms of Section 446(1)
of BNSS 2023 (Section 406(1) of Cr.P.C.). All the offences charged in this
case are triable by the Court of Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class in Delhi,
whereas some of them are triable by the Ld. Sessions Judge in M.P. due to
an amendment specific to that State. Since, before its transfer to this Court
in Delhi, the case was being tried at the Sessions Court level in M.P., it had
to continue in this Court and not before Ld. JMFC, as Section 446(1) of
BNSS states, that a transfer from a criminal Court subordinate to one High
Court to another criminal court subordinate to a different High Court can
only be made to a criminal court of equal or superior jurisdiction.
Therefore, the trial continued in this Court as was also ordered in its order
dated 20.11.2025, while dismissing an application preferred by Bharti
seeking sending of this matter to JMFC Court.
3. The case originated on a criminal complaint under Section 200 of the
Cr.P.C. filed on 29.07.2015, initially filed against Savitri and her son
Bharti only.
3.1. After recording of the pre-summoning evidence and framing charges
against Bharti (by then Savitri had expired), the complainant filed an
application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., and the accused Prajapati (A-3) was
summoned. Earlier, Prajapati appeared as a witness in the pre-summoning
evidence in favour of the complainant.
3.2. In the complaint, the crux of allegations is that on 24.08.1998, Savitri,
Judgment dated 01.04.2026; In SC/06/2025; CNR no.DLCT11-001079-2025; Zila Sahkari Krishi Gramin Vikas Bank Vs.
Smt. Savitri & Ors.; Page 2 of 95
3
deposited Rs. 10 lakhs in the complainant bank in a fixed deposit (FD) for
a three-year term at an interest rate of 13.5% per annum in the name of
an organisation, namely Shri Shyam Sunder Shyam Jan Sahyog Evam
Samajik Vikas Sansthan, Mundian Ka Kuan, Datiya, M.P. (which is a Trust
and hereinafter referred to as the Trust, formed in her husband’s name, Sh.
Shyam Sunder Shyam). Allegedly, instead of receiving the interest upon
maturity, she began withdrawing annual interest payments of Rs.
1,35,000/- starting from the first year 1999 and continued to withdraw that
interest until 2011 (13 years), in violation of the FD terms. Allegedly,
Bharti used his influential position as chairman of the board of directors
of the complainant bank to pressurise bank employees into facilitating
unauthorised payments to his mother/the trust, causing wrongful financial
loss to the bank. To extend the interest payments beyond the initial three-
year period, the accused, in conspiracy, tampered with official bank
records, forged the FD duration on the bank ledger, FD receipts, and the
FD certificate counterfoil to change the term from ‘three’ years to ‘ten’
or ‘fifteen’ years on different bank documents. The complainant asserts
that both Savitri and Bharti conspired to embezzle bank funds for personal
dishonest gain. The accused continued to withdraw interest at the high rate
of 13.5% long after the original FD term had expired.
3.3. It is mentioned in the complaint that the complainant bank is a cooperative
society serving farmers in Datiya District, Madhya Pradesh, and all its
funds are cooperative funds. After her husband’s death, Savitri became the
president of the trust named above. Her son, Bharti, a politician and former
MLA from Datiya Assembly Constituency, was also the chairman of the
complainant bank’s board of directors and controlled the organisation’s
governance. When Bharti was chairman, the Apex Bank (State
Cooperative Bank) issued a circular letter dated 02.03.1998, informing
Judgment dated 01.04.2026; In SC/06/2025; CNR no.DLCT11-001079-2025; Zila Sahkari Krishi Gramin Vikas Bank Vs.
Smt. Savitri & Ors.; Page 3 of 95
4
District banks about the Recurring Deposit Scheme and Double Deposit
Scheme. On 24.08.1998, Savitri, as president of the trust, deposited Rs. 10
lakhs in a fixed deposit by cash, requesting a three-year tenure (the amount
was deposited on the same day in two tranches of Rs. 8.5 lakhs and Rs. 1.5
lakhs). The bank employees issued her receipts Nos. 6153 & 6152,
respectively, for Rs. 8.5 lakhs and Rs. 1.5 Lakhs, on the same day, opened
a fixed deposit account at an interest rate of 13.5% per annum, and issued
a fixed deposit certificate indicating a three-year term. The deposit was
made under the double deposit scheme for 36 months, guaranteeing 13.5%
interest. The fixed deposit account ledger (page no. 252) reflected the same
three-year term.
3.4. The complainant claims that under the double deposit scheme, if the
amount remains deposited continuously for 36 months, it could be returned
with interest at 13.5%. However, in 1999 (after the very first year), Savitri
applied for interest payment on this fixed deposit, although she was
entitled to the principal and interest only after three years.
3.5. At that time, her son, Bharti, was the chairman. Under his influence, Rs.
1,35,000 in interest was paid to Savitri, resulting in wrongful loss to the
bank. The complainant alleges that although the scheme had a three-year
term, Savitri and her son conspired to receive interest from the first year
itself, thereby turning the fixed deposit into a wrongful transaction.
Despite this, Savitri continued to demand annual interest, and under her
son’s pressure, interest payments of Rs. 1,35,000 were repeatedly made,
thereby allowing them to embezzle bank funds through fraud. It is also
alleged that Bharti misused his official powers to get manipulated the bank
records, changing the FD tenure from three years to ten years on receipt
No. 6153 & 6152 dated 24.08.1998, and further altering it to fifteen years
in the bank’s ledger and fixed deposit certificate, constituting forgery and
Judgment dated 01.04.2026; In SC/06/2025; CNR no.DLCT11-001079-2025; Zila Sahkari Krishi Gramin Vikas Bank Vs.
Smt. Savitri & Ors.; Page 4 of 95
5
cheating.
3.6. After Bharti was no more a chairman, the bank discovered the fraud and
ceased interest payments. Subsequently, Savitri filed a petition before the
District Consumer Forum, Datiya, MP, based on false facts, which petition
was dismissed. She then appealed to the State Consumer Commission,
Bhopal. Meanwhile, Rakesh Bharti, Savitri’s younger son and Bharti’s
brother, became the bank’s chairman and fraudulently got an employee to
submit a statement in the appeal case without the organisation’s
knowledge, claiming an outstanding amount owed to Savitri/the Trust.
That employee was not authorised or instructed to do this by the bank.
Accordingly, the present complaint was claimed to be filed based on
instructions from the Registrar of Cooperative Societies.
3.7. The complaint was filed for offences U/s 210/420/417/468/471 of the IPC
before the Ld. CJM, Datiya (M.P.). The complainant’s manager, Narender
Singh Parmar (Parmar for short), who signed the complaint, was examined
U/s 200 Cr.P.C. on 29.07.2015. Thereafter, on the same day, Ld. CJM
directed an inquiry U/s 202 Cr.P.C., instructing SHO, Kotwali Datiya, to
investigate and report. On 19.02.2016, the SHO submitted the inquiry
report. Later, additional witnesses for the complainant were examined
under pre-summoning evidence, namely, Shiv Pal Ahirwar (examined on
05.03.2016), Prajapati (examined on 19.03.2016, now an accused), and
Virender Kumar Gupta (examined on 19.03.2016).
3.8. On 19.06.2017, the Ld. CJM summoned Savitri and Bharti for offences
U/s 420/467/468 & 471 of IPC. Subsequently, on 27.09.2018, referencing
a memorandum dated 10.05.2018 from the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya
Pradesh at Jabalpur, the Ld. CJM transferred the case file to the Special
Court, Bhopal, as the designated Courts for trying cases involving
MPs/MLAs had been established.
Judgment dated 01.04.2026; In SC/06/2025; CNR no.DLCT11-001079-2025; Zila Sahkari Krishi Gramin Vikas Bank Vs.
Smt. Savitri & Ors.; Page 5 of 95
6
3.9. The trial then proceeded before the Learned Special Judge/ASJ-21,
Bhopal. Meanwhile, the summons against Savitri was returned with the
report that she had expired, and the proceedings against her were declared
abated on 19.01.2019. The remaining accused, Bharti, appeared in court
on 19.03.2019 and was granted bail. Thereafter, on 13.11.2021, a charge
was framed against him for the aforementioned offences, to which he
pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3.10. Subsequently, an application under Sec. 319 Cr.P.C., filed on behalf of the
complainant as IA No. 01/2023, resulted in an order dated 17.04.2023, by
the Learned Special Judge summoning Prajapati for offences under Sec.
120B/409/420/467/468/471 of IPC. He was summoned because, in pre-
summoning evidence, he admitted to having changed the term of FDR
while he was serving the complainant bank during the relevant time,
though he stated that he did it at the behest of the then manager of the
complainant bank. Prajapati challenged that order summoning him up to
the Supreme Court, unsuccessfully.
3.11. It may also be mentioned here that the application under Sec. 319 Cr.P.C.,
was also against the younger brother of Bharti, namely Rakesh Bharti. The
Learned Predecessor Court did consider the material against Rakesh
Bharti, but it did not find any material sufficient to proceed against Rakesh
and therefore, qua him, the application U/s 319 of the Cr.P.C. was
dismissed.
CHARGE
4. Subsequently, by order dated 15.06.2023, charges were framed afresh
against Bharti, and were framed against the accused Prajapati.
4.1. Both of them were charged as follows:
a. U/s 420 IPC, alternatively U/s 420/120B of IPC;
Judgment dated 01.04.2026; In SC/06/2025; CNR no.DLCT11-001079-2025; Zila Sahkari Krishi Gramin Vikas Bank Vs.
Smt. Savitri & Ors.; Page 6 of 95
7
b. U/s 467 IPC, alternatively U/s 467/120B of IPC.
c. U/s 468 IPC, alternatively U/s 468/120B of IPC; d. U/s 471 IPC, or alternatively, U/s 471/120B of IPC;
4.2. Additionally, a charge under Section 409 IPC was framed against the
accused Prajapati.
4.3. Both the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed a trial.
PROSECUTION’S EVIDENCE
5. To support its case, the prosecution examined three witnesses as follows.
6. PW1 Narender Singh Parmar was examined on 03.07.2023 and on
further dates (after charge framed on 15.06.2023). He deposed that he
knew both the accused Bharti and Prajapati, as well as Savitri, the mother
of accused Bharti. He was posted as the General Manager of the
complainant bank. He was ordered by the then Joint Registrar of
Cooperative Societies to file a complaint. Following that order, PW1
reviewed the records and found that in 1998, Savitri applied for a Fixed
Deposit of Rs. 10 Lakhs in the name of Shyam Sunder Shyam Sansthan at
Datiya branch, through her application for FD Ext. P1, bearing her
signature. The FD tenure mentioned in Ext. P1 is three years at an annual
interest rate of 13.5%. The amount was deposited via two vouchers Ext.
P2 & P3, one for Rs. 8.5 Lakhs and another for Rs. 1.5 Lakhs, bearing
signatures of the accused Prajapati (as cashier).
6.1. At the time of opening the FD, the bank obtained specimen signatures of
Savitri, Ext. P4. Savitri signed this specimen at three locations between
Point A to A, and the accused Prajapati also signed at Point D to D.
6.2. He deposed that the bank issued the FD certificate no. 000309 for Rs. 10
Lakhs, on which fluid was applied to the words ‘three years’, and it was
signed by the accused Prajapati at point B to B. It may be mentioned here
Judgment dated 01.04.2026; In SC/06/2025; CNR no.DLCT11-001079-2025; Zila Sahkari Krishi Gramin Vikas Bank Vs.
Smt. Savitri & Ors.; Page 7 of 95
8
that the document which the witness is referring to is actually the FD
counter slip retained by the bank, which is proved as Ext. P5, bearing
signatures of Prajapati at Point A to A, on both the front and the reverse
side, as well as at Point B to B.
6.3. PW1 further deposed that, from the very first year, Savitri started receiving
interest at 13.5%, even though she was entitled to receive both interest and
principal upon maturity after three years only.
6.4. PW1 further deposed that at the time of the incident, Bharti was the
chairman of the board of directors of the complainant bank. He conspired
with the accused, Prajapati, to overwrite and forge the FD’s duration in the
FD documents, ledger, counter slip, and receipts, changing it from three
years to five, ten, or fifteen years. Despite declining interest rates, Savitri
continued to receive 13.5% interest.
6.5. PW1 further deposed that when Savitri deposited the amount on
24.08.1998, receipts Ext. P6 & P7 for Rs. 8.5 Lakh and Rs. 1.5 Lakh were
issued by accused Prajapati, with the duration marked as three years.
Prajapati signed both receipts at Point D to D. However, in these receipts,
the word ‘तीन’ (Three) was struck off, and ‘दस’ (Ten) was written at
Point C to C, with both corrections initialled by accused Prajapati at
Point A to A.
6.6. PW1 also deposed that in 2012, when Savitri applied for annual interest,
the then bank’s general manager, Subhash Yadav, reviewed the FD
records, found irregularities, and refused payment.
6.7. Subsequently, Savitri filed a complaint with the District Consumer Forum,
Datiya, but it was dismissed. An appeal was then filed in the State
Consumer Forum, where accountant Virender Gupta is shown to have
prepared and presented a statement showing Rs. 13,60,170/- payable to
Savitri, despite the fact that on that day, Virender Gupta was present in the
Judgment dated 01.04.2026; In SC/06/2025; CNR no.DLCT11-001079-2025; Zila Sahkari Krishi Gramin Vikas Bank Vs.
Smt. Savitri & Ors.; Page 8 of 95
9
bank, and he was also not authorised to present any such document in the
said proceedings. He also deposed that although the principal amount of
Rs. 10 Lakh was invested, Rs. 18.5 Lakh in interest was paid, and Rs.
13,60,170/- was demanded, though the FD was for three years and only
three years’ interest was due. PW1 further deposed that when Virender
Gupta presented the statement, the chairman of the bank’s board was
Rakesh Bharti, brother of Bharti. They conspired, pressured bank
employees for undue benefit, misused their powers, and forged the FD and
related documents. The witness exhibited his complaint as Ext. P8.
6.8. PW1 also stated that both accused, facing trial, conspired to and caused
wrongful financial loss to the bank by ensuring payment of 13.5% interest
despite falling interest rates, through forgery.
6.9. PW1 also proved an affidavit dated 15.11.2012, executed by accused
Prajapati, as Ext. P9, with both pages signed by him at Point A to A.
Additionally, he proved the bank’s bylaws as Ext. P10. He also proved the
ledger for FD receipt no. 309 dated 24.08.1998 as Ext. P11 (also Article
A1) with its certified copy as Ext. P11C.
6.10. PW1 deposed that in this ledger, Ext. P11, in column no. 3 regarding the
duration of the FD, ‘तीन वर्ष’ (three years) has been struck off and ‘पंद्रह
वर्ष ‘ (fifteen years) was written by accused Prajapati, who also signed
this correction/alteration at Point A to A.
6.11. PW1 stated that no application for extension of duration was submitted by
Savitri. To a specific question by the Ld. Prosecutor, the witness replied
that it was the accused Prajapati who changed the duration of the FD on
Ext. P11, whereas no such application for extension of duration was ever
submitted.
6.12. PW1 also deposed that Savitri submitted an application, Ext. P12, for
interest payment for the period 24.08.1998 to 24.08.1999, bearing her
Judgment dated 01.04.2026; In SC/06/2025; CNR no.DLCT11-001079-2025; Zila Sahkari Krishi Gramin Vikas Bank Vs.
Smt. Savitri & Ors.; Page 9 of 95
10
signature at Point A to A. The application mentions a three-year FD with
an interest rate of 13.5% and an amount of Rs. 10 Lakhs. The interest for
that period was paid via debit voucher, Ext. P13, dated 30.08.1999. At the
bottom of Ext. P12, there is a bank endorsement regarding the release of
payment, and Savitri signed the Revenue Stamp, confirming receipt of the
payment. Similarly, as evidenced by voucher Ext. P14 dated 25.08.2000,
another Rs. 1,35,000 interest amount was paid. PW1 also proved another
application, Ext. P15, submitted by Savitri on 28.08.2001, for interest
from 24.08.2000 to 23.08.2001. Interest was paid as shown in the debit
voucher Ext. P16, which Savitri signed upon receipt. (Notably, Ext. P15
does not specify the FD duration, seemingly deliberately omitted from the
application and the bank’s endorsement). PW1 also proved another
application, Ext. P17, dated 28.09.2002, for interest from 24.08.2001 to
23.08.2002. Interest was paid via debit voucher Ext. P18, received by
Savitri under her signature on Ext. P17. In Ext. P17, the FD’s tenure is
noted as 10 years at Point C to C, as processed and endorsed by the bank.
Savitri’s signature appears at four places on Ext. P17, one at the top in
token of submitting the application, and three at the bottom, including the
signature on the Revenue Stamp confirming receipt of Rs. 1,35,000.
Similarly, PW1 proved another undated application, Ext. P19, for interest
from 24.08.2002 to 23.08.2003. Interest was paid as per the debit voucher
Ext. P20, received by Savitri under her signature. Ext. P19 again states a
ten-year FD at Point C to C, with Savitri’s signature at the top for
submission and on the Revenue Stamp confirming receipt at the bottom.
PW1 also proved another undated application, Ext. P21, for interest from
24.08.2003 to 23.08.2004, with interest paid through debit voucher Ext.
P22. The FD’s tenure on Ext. P21 is also ten years. Additionally, PW1
proved the application Ext. P23, dated 25.09.2007, for interest from
Judgment dated 01.04.2026; In SC/06/2025; CNR no.DLCT11-001079-2025; Zila Sahkari Krishi Gramin Vikas Bank Vs.
Smt. Savitri & Ors.; Page 10 of 95
11
24.09.2007 to 25.09.2007, with the interest paid through voucher Ext. P24.
The tenure on Ext. P23 is fifteen years. Furthermore, PW1 proved
applications submitted by Savitri, signed by her, for releasing interest after
these periods, i.e. Ext. P25, Ext. P27, Ext. P29, and Ext. P31, all
indicating a fifteen-year FD. Payments were made through vouchers Ext.
P26, Ext. P28, Ext. P30, and Ext. P32 for those subsequent periods.
6.13. PW1 stated that accused Bharti, Prajapati, and Savitri conspired to extend
the FD duration from three years to five, then to ten, and ultimately to
fifteen years on various documents, causing loss to the bank.
6.14. He also proved the service record of the accused Prajapati, as Article A2,
and his posting order as Ext. P33.
6.15. The witness further exhibited the Register containing Minutes of the 1998-
99 Annual General Meeting as Article A3, bearing signatures of accused
Bharti in his capacity as chairperson, appearing on pages 16, 23, 43, 50,
and 53. He also proved the Register of bank Staff Sub-Committee
meetings as Article A4, with signatures of Bharti on pages 128, 133, 142,
and 148, in his official capacity.
6.16. The witness was cross-examined by the accused persons, during which the
defence sought to discredit him by highlighting his lack of personal
knowledge about the facts in question, his involvement at the time of the
deposit, and suggesting political motives. PW1 admitted that he was not
posted at the bank in 1998 and that his testimony was based on a review
of records only. Although the defence suggested that the witness testified
falsely due to political animosity, claiming that his brother supported a
political rival of Bharti, the witness denied these allegations, stating he
was performing his official duty. The defence also questioned why there
were no specific audit objections in the audits from 1998 to 2011, and why
certain exhibits were not mentioned in the original complaint. They
Judgment dated 01.04.2026; In SC/06/2025; CNR no.DLCT11-001079-2025; Zila Sahkari Krishi Gramin Vikas Bank Vs.
Smt. Savitri & Ors.; Page 11 of 95
12
challenged the authority of this witness to file the complaint without
specific written orders from the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies.
Additionally, the witness was asked about the roles and responsibilities of
other bank employees, such as the accountant and former general
managers, to imply that he was unfairly targeting the accused. Besides
these points, nothing material could be brought out during cross-
examination to impeach his credibility.
7. PW2 Abhay Kumar Khare was posted and working as the Joint Registrar
of Cooperative Societies, Gwalior Division, in 2014. He deposed that on
16.07.2014, a Demi Officio letter no. 326/Bhu.V.A/01 was received from
the Commissioner of Cooperatives, M.P., Bhopal, regarding a complaint
made by Rajau Raja against accused Bharti, the then chairperson of the
complainant bank. On this complaint, PW2 summoned the bank’s records
and, upon reviewing them, sent a letter (Ext. P34) dated 05.09.2014 to the
Commissioner of Cooperatives and Registrar of Cooperative Societies,
M.P., Bhopal.
7.1. He also deposed that, after reviewing the records of the complainant bank,
it was found that Shyam Sunder Shyam Jan Sahyog Sanstha, Datiya,
whose primary members were Smt. Savitri and Bharti, deposited Rs. 10
lakhs as fixed deposit for three years at an annual interest rate of 13.5% on
24.08.1998. Subsequently, the three-year period was altered to fifteen
years through tampering with the records, maintaining the same interest
rate, in which the accused Prajapati, the bank’s accountant, was involved.
No application from Bharti or his mother, Savitri, was found in the bank’s
records seeking to extend the tenure. After 1998, bank FD interest rates
continued to decrease, and to avoid this reduction, the accused Bharti, in
conspiracy with his mother and the accountant Prajapati, forged the three-
year FD record, changing it to fifteen years. This resulted in a benefit for
Judgment dated 01.04.2026; In SC/06/2025; CNR no.DLCT11-001079-2025; Zila Sahkari Krishi Gramin Vikas Bank Vs.
Smt. Savitri & Ors.; Page 12 of 95
13
Bharti and his mother and caused wrongful loss to the bank.
7.2. PW2 also deposed that, on 10.10.2014, through a letter/notice (Ext. P35)
issued to Savitri, Bharti, and Prajapati under Section 76 of the Madhya
Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (MPCS Act), the accused were
asked to appear before him on 31.10.2014. In response to this notice, only
Prajapati appeared, while Savitri and Bharti never appeared.
7.3. PW2 further deposed that, via his letter dated 27.01.2015 (Ext. P36), the
Chief Executive Officer of the bank and the auditor were authorised under
Section 76(2) of the MPCS Act to present the criminal case before a
competent court for initiating prosecution against all three individuals.
7.4. PW2 was also subjected to cross-examination by the accused, during
which he admitted that he did not verify the existence or legal standing of
Rajau Raja but investigated solely based on the bank’s internal records.
The witness acknowledged that interest payments require signatures from
both the accountant and the bank’s general manager. However, he claimed
that he had only recommended prosecuting Prajapati, as the accountant
had made physical alterations that the general manager presumably relied
on for payment. The witness repeatedly denied the defence’s suggestion
that his investigation was conducted under political pressure or because
Bharti was a former Congress MLA.
8. PW3 Akhilesh Shukla was the liquidator of the complainant bank when
the bank went into liquidation. He proved the audit report for 2012-13,
which flagged the irregular Rs. 10 Lakh FD in question. He confirmed the
signatures on the audit report by the audit officer Vinod Sharma, with
whose signatures he was familiar, as he had seen them in the records. He
deposed that he was appointed as liquidator of the complainant bank in
2017 and, as such, he received the relevant records from the bank,
including the 2012-13 audit report conducted by Vinod Sharma. In the
Judgment dated 01.04.2026; In SC/06/2025; CNR no.DLCT11-001079-2025; Zila Sahkari Krishi Gramin Vikas Bank Vs.
Smt. Savitri & Ors.; Page 13 of 95
14
report, an objection was raised by the auditor regarding the FD in question,
recorded at Serial no. 82 on page 144, Article A5, stating that the tenure
of the FD was increased from three years to fifteen years without any
renewal application, and interest payments of Rs. 1,35,000/- were made
annually until 2011. In August 2012, when a voucher for interest payment
was presented again, the then General Manager Subhash Yadav raised the
objection.
8.1. During cross-examination by the accused, PW3 admitted that he was not
the liquidator in 2012 and that he did not personally review the primary
documents related to the FD but he relied solely on the audit report.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED & DEFENCE EVIDENCE
9. On conclusion of the prosecution’s evidence, the incriminating evidence
was put to both the accused facing trial.
10. In his examination under section 313 Cr.P.C., accused Bharti primarily
claimed either a lack of knowledge, or a direct denial of wrongdoing, or a
defence citing political conspiracy in response to the incriminating
evidence against him.
10.1. He expressed a lack of knowledge regarding the application for FD by his
mother and the related vouchers, Ext.P1 to P3, as well as payments made
thereunder vide Ext.P13 to P32. He also claimed unawareness of the
statement prepared by Virender Gupta or the proceedings in the Consumer
Forum concerning the FD.
10.2. He denied pressurising bank officials to alter any documents or to
overwrite and modify the FD maturity period. He also denied misusing his
power to hire and fire employees, to threaten them into committing
forgery. He claimed that the employees were actually under the control of
the bank’s Managing Director. He also flatly denied participating in any
Judgment dated 01.04.2026; In SC/06/2025; CNR no.DLCT11-001079-2025; Zila Sahkari Krishi Gramin Vikas Bank Vs.
Smt. Savitri & Ors.; Page 14 of 95
15
criminal conspiracy with his mother or the co-accused.
10.3. He claimed that the present case is entirely false and politically motivated,
asserting that Mr. Narottam Mishra, his political rival, has orchestrated the
case to prevent Bharti from contesting elections and to damage his public
image. He also stated that the witnesses testified against him under
political pressure.
10.4. However, he admitted his signature on the register regarding Article A3,
which pertains to the Annual General Meeting, and his signature on the
register of the Staff Sub Committee Meetings, Article A4.
11. On the other hand, accused Prajapati responded to the incriminating
evidence regarding the FD irregularities as follows.
11.1. He admitted that Savitri applied for an FD of Rs. 10 lakhs in 1998, which
was deposited through two vouchers for three years at an annual interest
rate of 13.5%.
11.2. When presented with evidence that the counterfoil of the FD certificate no.
000309 had its three-year term erased with fluid to indicate a different
period, he denied any wrongdoing but explicitly acknowledged his
signature on the document Ext.P5.
11.3. He denied the allegations that he participated in overwriting the FD
duration from 3 years to 10 years on the receipts Ext.P6 & P7.
11.4. Regarding the payment of interest between 1999 and 2010 under various
debit vouchers Ext.P13 to P32, accused Prajapati responded that he did
not know or had no information about them.
11.5. He also stated that he was unaware of the proceedings in the Consumer
Forum or the State Commission.
11.6. He denied that his co-accused, Bharti, pressurised the employees of the
bank to manipulate the FD documents.
Judgment dated 01.04.2026; In SC/06/2025; CNR no.DLCT11-001079-2025; Zila Sahkari Krishi Gramin Vikas Bank Vs.
Smt. Savitri & Ors.; Page 15 of 95
16
11.7. Regarding the affidavit Ext.P9, accused Prajapati admitted his signature
but stated that it was not given of his own free will.
11.8. He also expressed ignorance regarding the audit objection in Article A5
concerning the extension of the FD to 15 years without a renewal
application.
11.9. He claimed that the witnesses testified against him due to political pressure
and that some bank officials made statements to protect themselves from
their own irregularities. He also claimed that he had no personal interest
or benefit in the institution and that, as a Government servant, he acted
under the instructions of the General Manager, and that the respective
Accountants and clerks had handled the accounting and payments.
12. Both the accused facing trial chose to present evidence in their defence.
Whereas accused Prajapati examined himself only as DW3, accused
Bharti, besides examining himself as DW4, also examined two witnesses,
DW1 & DW2.
13. DW1 Shailendra Narayan Budholia testified as a witness for the accused
Bharti. He stated that he served as a clerk at the complainant bank from
1986 to 2018 and that the bank faced a weak financial position in 1998. To
address this, the State Government issued a circular Ext. DW1/A directing
bank to generate funds by inviting FDs. Under this scheme, all bank
employees were assigned monthly targets based on their rank to secure
these deposits. To meet the targets, the witness approached several
financially well off individuals, including the family of the accused,
Bharti. He requested Vipin Bihari (brother of the accused Bharti) and
Savitri to deposit money. Consequently, Savitri deposited Rs. 10 lakhs in
the bank for a 15-year term. The witness claimed that although this deposit
resulted from his personal efforts, the credit for the target was taken away
by the Bank Manager.
Judgment dated 01.04.2026; In SC/06/2025; CNR no.DLCT11-001079-2025; Zila Sahkari Krishi Gramin Vikas Bank Vs.
Smt. Savitri & Ors.; Page 16 of 95
17
13.1. During cross-examination by the prosecution, the credibility of DW1 was
challenged regarding his connections to the accused Bharti. The witness
admitted living about half a kilometer from the house of Bharti and
attending the same college. While he claimed limited memory of Bharti’s
tenure as bank Chairman, he acknowledged that Bharti is a prominent
political figure. The prosecution presented evidence of the witness’s
involvement with a family run trust, namely, Shyam Sunder Shyam Jan
Sahyog Evam Samudaik Vikas Sanstha, showing his name and
photographs in their magazine, ‘Gyan Jyoti’. The witness admitted to
attending their programs and contributing poetry, though he denied being
an organiser of it.
13.2. In cross-examination, he admitted that he only heard about Savitri’s FD
through discussions in the bank. Therefore, the claim that Savitri had put
the FD amount for 15 years is hearsay. He admitted he brought no
documentary proof to support the claim that employees were given targets
for securing FDs. He provided no evidence for his specific involvement in
securing Savitri’s FD.
13.3. Despite these admissions and his documented links to the Bharti’s family
trust, he denied the suggestion that he falsely testified to favour the
accused. However, his significantly shifting stance during his testimony,
moving from initial claims of professional distance from the accused
Bharti to admitting deep seated personal and organisational ties when
confronted with documentary evidence, makes him unreliable.
13.4. Budholia’s most notable shift concerned his relationship with the trust
named after Bharti’s father. He initially claimed he did not know if the
accused or his family ran this Sanstha. He further asserted that while he
attended some of their programs, he did so mostly as an audience member
and did not know who organised them or if Bharti was even present. When
Judgment dated 01.04.2026; In SC/06/2025; CNR no.DLCT11-001079-2025; Zila Sahkari Krishi Gramin Vikas Bank Vs.
Smt. Savitri & Ors.; Page 17 of 95
18
shown the Sanstha’s magazine, Gyan Jyoti, he had to admit that his own
name, photo, and mobile number were featured in it. He then
admitted that the magazine clearly identified Bharti as a
Trustee/Vidhayak and his mother, Savitri, as the Chairperson. After
being shown the magazines, he finally conceded that he might have
done some work related to organising the Sanstha’s programs. The
witness initially claimed not to know if the Bharti family ran the Sanstha.
However, the 2019 edition of Gyan Jyoti, Ext.DW1/P-1 contains his name,
mobile number, and photograph. Budholia stated he did not know where
his poetry/articles were published. The magazine includes an article
appearing alongside his photo and name, though he denied writing the
specific piece during cross-examination.
13.5. Thus the witness has been involved with the trust run by the Bharti’s
family. His involvement included attending programs organised by the
Sanstha as an audience member, speaking at events regarding his literary
work/poetry when requested, and assisting in organising programs. He had
his photograph, name, and mobile number published in Gyan Jyoti, a
magazine produced by the Sanstha that also featured numerous photos of
Bharti. Despite these connections, the witness denied being a close
associate of Bharti and rejected the suggestion that he was deposing falsely
in Bharti’s favour because of their relationship. The witness initially
claimed he did not see Bharti at the Sanstha’s programs. The magazine
directly challenges this, featuring multiple photographs, Points X-1 to X-
18, of Bharti at these events and listing him as a Trustee alongside his
mother, Savitri, who was the Chairperson.
13.6. Both the witness and Bharti studied at the same college. Additionally, they
are both residents of Datia, with their homes located approximately half a
kilometer apart, although they reside in different mohallas.
Judgment dated 01.04.2026; In SC/06/2025; CNR no.DLCT11-001079-2025; Zila Sahkari Krishi Gramin Vikas Bank Vs.
Smt. Savitri & Ors.; Page 18 of 95
19
13.7. In his initial testimony, Budholia claimed that he personally approached
Vipin Bihari and Savitri to solicit an FD to meet targets. However, during
cross-examination, he changed his narrative by volunteering that the Bank
Manager had actually accompanied him to the house.
13.8. The witness therefore is untrustworthy.
14. DW2 Deepak Belpatri, a practicing lawyer and former BJP worker from
1992 to 2023, also testified as a witness for the accused Bharti.
14.1. He detailed his previous role as the ‘Nagar Mahamantri’ for the BJP in
Datiya and his close relationship with Narottam Mishra, a BJP leader, by
presenting photographs Ext.DW2/A1 to A4 showing himself with Mishra
and other political associates. DW2 also claimed an alleged conspiracy to
frame Bharti. He stated that after an election petition filed by Bharti
against Mishra in 2009, as to “paid news” allegations matter, Mishra
sought to retaliate by lodging false cases against Bharti.
14.2. DW2 testified that in 2012 he personally saw Mishra instructing Parmar
(the complainant’s Manager who signed and filed the complaint) to
implicate Bharti in a criminal matter. As an incentive, Mishra allegedly
promised Parmar, then a clerk, a Bank Manager position in Datiya.
According to DW2, the present case was initiated by Parmar following this
direction. DW2 also alleged that Mishra systematically harassed political
workers and individuals by orchestrating the filing of 100-400 cases. He
identified Ravender Singh alias Ginni Raja and Rajau Raja as the main
agents, claiming Rajau Raja filed a complaint with the local Economic
Offences Wing (EOW) against Bharti at Mishra’s behest. He also accused
Mishra of influencing the suspension of DW2’s membership from the
Datiya Bar Association, alleging that although DW2 defied a lawyers’
strike at Mishra’s behest, Mishra later abandoned him.
14.3. During cross-examination by the Prosecutor, DW2 admitted supporting
Judgment dated 01.04.2026; In SC/06/2025; CNR no.DLCT11-001079-2025; Zila Sahkari Krishi Gramin Vikas Bank Vs.
Smt. Savitri & Ors.; Page 19 of 95
20
Bharti because he currently aligns with the Congress party. The
prosecution highlighted DW2’s criminal record, which includes three
cases of electricity theft and fighting, with one resulting in a conviction.
DW2 defended his record, claiming these FIRs were falsely filed at
Mishra’s behest to pressurise him. Concerning photographs of his past
association with Mishra, the metadata indicated they were screenshots
from older videos or images, not original photographs. Cross-examination
revealed that the “original” photos he showed were actually screenshots of
screenshots or screenshots taken from a running video. The metadata of
these images showed dates in 2026 and 2021, complicating the timeline of
when the original images were supposedly captured, some as early as
2009.
14.4. DW2’s admission as a supporter of Bharti suggests his testimony is
influenced by current partisan interests. His account reflects personal
and professional grievances that could motivate false evidence. His
silence on the alleged high level conspiracy in 2012 to implicate Bharti,
despite being a lawyer, and his failure to report it to authorities for over a
decade raises significant suspicion. His testimony appears to be driven by
a desire to assist the accused. The account includes personal and
professional grievances that point to a motive for fabrication. His
admission that he unsuccessfully lobbied Mishra for certain posts (Notary,
Govt. Advocate) indicates that he is a rejected seeker. Furthermore, he
explicitly cited a “caste factor” for his resentment, noting that, as a fellow
Brahmin, Mishra failed to assist him during his BAR Association
suspension and viewing this lack of support as a personal betrayal. The
witness shifted to the same political party as the accused recently, and he
is now a karyakarta for that party. He holds significant personal grievances
against Mishra, the political rival of the accused. He explicitly blames
Judgment dated 01.04.2026; In SC/06/2025; CNR no.DLCT11-001079-2025; Zila Sahkari Krishi Gramin Vikas Bank Vs.
Smt. Savitri & Ors.; Page 20 of 95
21
Mishra for revoking his law license and claims Mishra refused to help him
regain it despite his years of service. As a current member of the Congress
party, Belpatri shares a political affiliation with the accused and a mutual
adversary in Mishra. The witness also has a criminal record. He admitted
that three cases are currently lodged against him involving the electricity
department and a physical altercation. He stated that his professional
license was previously cancelled by the Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh
but was later reinstated. He appears to be an interested witness aimed at
helping the accused Bharti.
14.5. It may not, therefore, be safe to rely on this witness too.
15. DW3 is the accused himself, namely Raghuvir Sharan Prajapati. He
deposed that he joined the complainant bank as an LDC in March 1986,
serving until the bank’s liquidation, after which he was absorbed into
another bank and retired on 31.07.2025. In May 1998, he was assigned the
role of cashier at the Head Office Branch in Datiya, where his duties
included receiving cash and preparing vouchers, fixed deposit receipts
(FDRs), and account entries, though he was not authorised to sign or issue
the FDRs himself. He explained that under a 1998 circular Ext.DW1/A,
following the Bhandari Committee’s recommendations, Zila banks acted
as agents for the Rajya Bank to collect fixed deposits from the public
because Rajya banks lacked direct public contact to borrow funds.
15.1. Regarding the transaction in question, he stated that on 24.08.1998, an
application for a fixed deposit of ₹10 lakhs was received from Savitri on
behalf of the Trust, through a third person. The Manager, Vijay Shankar
Soni, had informed him by phone that someone would be arriving with the
cash and documents. Initially, ₹8.5 lakhs was deposited, followed by
another ₹1.5 lakhs later that same day. He prepared separate cash deposit
receipts (Ext.P6 & P7) but handed them over together once the full amount
Judgment dated 01.04.2026; In SC/06/2025; CNR no.DLCT11-001079-2025; Zila Sahkari Krishi Gramin Vikas Bank Vs.
Smt. Savitri & Ors.; Page 21 of 95
22
was received. He filled out the details on the cash receipt and vouchers
based on the application Ext. P1 and the specimen signature proforma Ext.
P4 provided.
15.2. Prajapati explained the tenure changes on these documents stating they
occurred in two phases.
First, the tenure was changed from three years to ten years. This
happened because the Accountant noticed that, as per the circular, a three-
year deposit could not earn the initially requested 13.5% interest rate,
Consequently, the Manager discussed the matter with the depositor, who
agreed to a longer duration for a higher interest rate. Under the Manager’s
oral direction, he corrected the tenure to ten years and signed the receipts.
Second, two days later, the depositor applied to increase the tenure
to 15 years. The General Manager instructed him to move an office note
for this permission, which was signed and approved by both the
Accountant (Ram Bilas Upadhyay) and the General Manager. Following
this approval, Prajapati amended the tenure to 15 years in the FD account
register, the receipt, and the counterfoil. He claimed that the Accountant
and General Manager also signed the FDR to authenticate the correction.
15.3. Prajapati alleged that the bank has deliberately failed to produce the
relevant circular, the depositor’s application for the 15-year tenure, and the
approved note sheet during the trial.
15.4. He also testified about his history of suspensions, claiming his first
suspension in 2012 was revoked only after he was coerced into signing a
pre-prepared affidavit (Ext.P9) at the residence of the Nominated
Chairman, Pramod Kumar Pujari, without being allowed to read it. He
stated that following a second suspension in 2015, he was exonerated in
a departmental inquiry conducted by Parmar, which allowed for his
subsequent absorption into another bank.
Judgment dated 01.04.2026; In SC/06/2025; CNR no.DLCT11-001079-2025; Zila Sahkari Krishi Gramin Vikas Bank Vs.
Smt. Savitri & Ors.; Page 22 of 95
23
15.5. During cross-examination, he admitted he had known co-accused Bharti
since 1986 but denied receiving any illegal promotions or favors due to
this acquaintance.
15.6. The prosecution highlighted that his earlier statements, under sections 200
and 202 of the Cr.P.C. and in his SLP, omitted details about a “third person”
bringing the FD application. In response, Prajapati volunteered in his
cross-examination that, per the General Manager’s instructions, he had
actually visited Savitri Devi’s house two days prior to the deposit to
obtain her signatures because she could not walk, leaving the forms with
her to be sent later with the cash.
15.7. Prajapati denied all allegations of forgery and conspiracy with Bharti to
enable illegal interest withdrawals. While he admitted to initialling
corrections on the counter slip (Ext.P5), he denied applying the
correctional fluid found on it.
15.8. He further stated that he had no role in releasing interest payments, which
were authorised by the Accountant and General Manager between 1999
and 2013, and noted that no auditor had ever raised objections to the tenure
corrections during that period. Finally, he claimed his Section 313
statement was recorded by a court reader in the absence of the Presiding
Officer, which deprived him of a proper opportunity to explain the
circumstances. But then he never challenged that also in higher courts.
15.9. By his own admission, he is the person who physically made the
alterations on the receipts, registers, and the FDR, though he
maintains he did so under orders from superiors.
15.10. The witness, Prajapati, is unreliable due to significant omissions,
belatedly provided information, and a lack of supporting documentary
evidence. Many key details from his testimony are absent from earlier
legal records, including his 2016 police statement, his statement underJudgment dated 01.04.2026; In SC/06/2025; CNR no.DLCT11-001079-2025; Zila Sahkari Krishi Gramin Vikas Bank Vs.
Smt. Savitri & Ors.; Page 23 of 95
24Section 200 Cr.P.C. when he appeared in pre-summoning evidence, his
2023 reply to 319 Cr.P.C., and his SLP to the Supreme Court etc. These
missing details include the claim that a third person submitted the
application, specimen signatures, and cash on behalf of Savitri, as well as
the assertion that the Bank Manager telephonically informed him
beforehand about the deposit. He also explained that the tenure change
from 3 to 10 years was an oral instruction from the Manager. During cross-
examination, he volunteered a new account of visiting Savitri’s house two
days before the deposit to obtain her signatures. The prosecution argued
that this was a newly fabricated detail that he had not mentioned even in
his own examination in chief just days earlier. Prajapati makes several
important claims for which he has no documentary proof. He asserts that
a note sheet authorised the tenure change to 15 years, but the bank states
this document does not exist. He claims to have been exonerated in a
second departmental inquiry by Parmar, but admits he does not possess the
inquiry report or any proof of this exoneration. Prajapati also stated that
the affidavit Ext.P9 was signed under force and coercion at the Chairman’s
residence to avoid further action on the FDR corrections. However, the
prosecution pointed out that he never challenged the affidavit’s validity in
any court or mentioned the alleged coercion in previous statements. The
prosecution further suggested that Prajapati is a close associate of co-
accused Bharti and received illegitimate favours and promotions, rising
from LDC to Senior Branch Manager, due to this relationship. This
indicates a possible motive for Prajapati to tailor his testimony to protect
himself and Bharti.
15.11. Regarding the affidavit Ext.P9, it is important to note that Prajapati
claimed that after being suspended on 30.10.2012, he was taken by the
then Manager, Mr. Yadav, to the residence of nominated Chairman PramodJudgment dated 01.04.2026; In SC/06/2025; CNR no.DLCT11-001079-2025; Zila Sahkari Krishi Gramin Vikas Bank Vs.
Smt. Savitri & Ors.; Page 24 of 95
25Kumar Pujari, where he was told that his suspension would be revoked
and no further action would be taken if he signed the already prepared
affidavit. He was threatened that if he did not sign it, legal action would
be taken against him for the corrections he made to the FDR in question.
Thus, the accused witness stated that this signature was obtained on the
affidavit under force and pressure without even being allowed to read the
contents of the document. This defence of accused shall also be dealt with
hereinafter.
16. DW4 Rajendra Bharti, in his defence, tried to establish a narrative of a
long standing political rivalry and his alleged victimisation by Narottam
Mishra. He claimed that his family has a long political legacy and that he
himself was an MLA. The conflict with Narottam Mishra intensified in
2008 when Mishra, a BJP member, shifted his constituency to Datia.
Thereafter, Mishra was accused of violating the code of conduct, including
distributing cash and liquor to voters. Bharti filed a petition seeking the
disqualification of Mishra in 2017 for ‘paid news’ and excessive spending,
which is currently pending before the Supreme Court. Allegedly Mishra
also concealed ownership of a premium car in his nomination papers.
Mishra was also accused of involvement in a 300-crore water resources
scam through his personal assistants, as well as in the Vyapam scam during
his tenure as Health Minister in the Government of Madhya Pradesh.
Allegedly, Mishra used threats and intimidation for political purposes,
leading to several cases against various individuals, totalling around 250
cases, including against Bharti and his family.
16.1. The present complaint case is claimed to be politically motivated,
allegedly orchestrated by Mishra through influencing the transfer of
Parmar to the bank specifically to file the complaint against Bharti and his
mother. He claimed that even though the bank was liquidated in 2016 and
Judgment dated 01.04.2026; In SC/06/2025; CNR no.DLCT11-001079-2025; Zila Sahkari Krishi Gramin Vikas Bank Vs.
Smt. Savitri & Ors.; Page 25 of 95
26
only the official liquidator was legally entitled to pursue the matter, Parmar
continues to pursue it in his personal capacity with Mishra’s support.
16.2. In his cross-examination, Bharti however admitted that as of the date of
his testimony, there were no specific court findings confirming Mishra’s
direct role in the scams or the registration of false cases, or misuse of
position by Mishra in lodging false cases against political opponents and
others, though he attributed that the cases were still pending in various
courts. Bharti even denied being a Trustee of the above mentioned Trust
and maintained that he had no knowledge of the FDR in question. Even
when he was presented with documents suggesting otherwise, Bharti
maintained that he has no knowledge of being a Trustee of the above
named Trust. While he admitted to attending the functions of the
Trust, he claimed that he did so only as a public figure and not as a
family member running the organisation or as a Trustee.
16.3. To a large number of questions asked by the Ld. Prosecutor, Bharti
expressed ignorance and memory lapses. He gave evasive answers during
cross-examination to various such questions by frequently claiming that
he could not remember the specific durations of his official roles including
his tenures as Chairperson of the bank and Vice President of the Apex
Bank. The prosecution claims that these were evasive answers intending
to conceal the influence exerted by the accused Bharti for the offences in
question and during the alleged period. His vague recollections of his own
administrative history and family trust dealings appear to be more of self
serving nature. He also admitted that he had no documentary proof that
Narottam Mishra directly orchestrated the appointment of Pramod Pujari
or the transfer of the complainant Parmar.
CONTENTIONS OF BOTH SIDES
Judgment dated 01.04.2026; In SC/06/2025; CNR no.DLCT11-001079-2025; Zila Sahkari Krishi Gramin Vikas Bank Vs.
Smt. Savitri & Ors.; Page 26 of 95
27
17. Final arguments as advanced by Mr. Manish Rawat, Ld. Prosecutor for the
State, Ld. Senior Advocate Mr. Madhav Khurana for Bharti, and Sh. H. K.
Shekhar for Prajapati, were heard. Written submissions filed by the Ld.
Prosecutor and the two accused have also been perused.
18. The Prosecution argues that the case originates from an administrative
order issued by the Commissioner of the Cooperative Department in MP
to PW2, the then Joint Registrar. This directive was prompted by a
complaint from Rajau Raja made to the police which forwarded the
complaint to the department. And after investigating the alleged
illegalities, bank officials were instructed to file the complaint. The
prosecution states that the FD application Ext.P1 and the specimen
signature Ext.P4 show the original tenure of three years. However, the FD
receipt Nos. 6153 and 6152 Ext.P6 & P7 were forged to reflect a ten-year
period instead of three, and the ledger entry Ext.P11C was altered to
indicate a 15-year tenure, all to unlawfully benefit the family trust of
accused Bharti. Prajapati, in conspiracy with accused Bharti and the
deceased accused, committed forgery. It is also asserted that no application
for an extension had been received by the bank, and that the changes were
fraudulent rather than administrative errors, since the interest rate
decreased significantly, yet a higher interest rate was continued to be
collected until 2011. The ld. Prosecutor claims that admitted facts and
unchallenged evidence in cross-examination need not be proven, as they
are to be accepted as proved. Both accused failed to cross-examine key
prosecution witnesses on crucial points, which according to him
constitutes an admission of those facts.
18.1. He further states that Prajapati admitted during his testimony as DW3, and
in his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C., that he changed the FD tenure
under his signature or initials. Prajapati also admitted tampering in his
Judgment dated 01.04.2026; In SC/06/2025; CNR no.DLCT11-001079-2025; Zila Sahkari Krishi Gramin Vikas Bank Vs.
Smt. Savitri & Ors.; Page 27 of 95
28
reply, Ext.DW3/P4 in response to the bank’s show cause notice.
Additionally, he concedes that Bharti’s signatures on the bank documents,
Articles A3 & A4, are genuine. The argument continues that this fraud was
not an isolated incident. Even after 2011, Bharti illicitly extracted funds
from the bank through his brother, Rakesh Bharti, as supported by the
show cause notice and reply from Virender Kumar Gupta.
18.2. The prosecution asserts a quid pro quo relationship between Bharti, the
Chairman, and Prajapati, the Accountant, whereby Prajapati forged
documents benefiting Bharti’s family trust in exchange for out of turn
promotions from clerk to Senior Branch Manager, promotions which were
challenged by Anand Prakash Pathak for irregularity.
18.3. It is also argued that Bharti’s claim of innocence and neutrality is
contradicted by Ext.DW1/P3 and various photographs indicating he was a
Trustee and active supervisor of the beneficiary organization.
18.4. Relying on Prajapati’s affidavit Ext.P9, it is claimed that this voluntary
declaration definitively implicates the accused Bharti, as Prajapati
admitted the tampering was done under Bharti’s pressure. Prajapati’s later
claim of coercion by Parmar is termed impossible, as Parmar was not
posted at that branch when the affidavit was executed and notarized. It is
argued that Prajapati, an experienced professional, could not reasonably
claim coercion, especially since he benefited from the affidavit by getting
his suspension revoked.
18.5. Furthermore, it is argued that Bharti’s denial during his section 313
statement regarding his role as the bank’s Chairman, despite his signatures
on Articles A3 & A4, should be viewed unfavorably.
18.6. Regarding Section 197 Cr.P.C., the prosecution contends that the plea was
only raised on 31.01.2025, and that forgery and cheating can never be part
of a public servant’s official duties.
Judgment dated 01.04.2026; In SC/06/2025; CNR no.DLCT11-001079-2025; Zila Sahkari Krishi Gramin Vikas Bank Vs.
Smt. Savitri & Ors.; Page 28 of 95
29
18.7. The claim of political vindictiveness involving Mishra is argued as
unsubstantiated, as the defence failed to produce any evidence of political
interference.
18.8. As for the note sheet purportedly prepared at the bank concerning the FD
tenure correction, as claimed by Prajapati, it is argued that, since no such
document exists, the burden was on the accused to prove its existence,
which Prajapati failed.
18.9. In conclusion, the prosecution asserts that the evidence has proved its case
beyond a reasonable doubt against both accused.
18.10. The ld. Prosecutor cites following case law to support the case.
1. Sarwan Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2003) 1 SCC 240;
2. Mahavir Singh Vs. State of Haryana (2014) 6 SCC 716;
3. Kehar Singh & Ors. Vs. The State (Delhi Administration) (1988) 3 SCC 609;
4. Shivnarayan Laxminaryan Joshi & Ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra (1980) 2 SCC
465;
5. R.K. Dalmia Vs. Delhi Administration 1962 SCC OnLine SC 83;
6. Sanatan Naskar and Anr. Vs. State of West Bengal (2010) 8 SCC 249;
7. Manohar Nath Kaul Vs. State of J&K (1983) 3 SCC 429;
8. Balvir Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand (2023) 16 SCC 575;
9. Pappu Tiwary Vs. State of Jharkhand (2022) 17 SCC 664;
10. State of Maharashtra and Anr. Vs. Sayyed Hasan Sayyed Subhan and Ors. (2019)
18 SCC 145;
11. State of UP Vs. Rekha Rani (2011) 11 SCC 441 and:
12. P. Singaravalan and Ors. Vs. District Collector (2020) 3 SCC 133.
18.11. Ld. Prosecutor relies on the cases of Sarvan Singh (Supra) and Mahavir
Singh (Supra) on the point that when a witness is not cross-examined on
a particular issue, such fact is deemed to be admitted. He also refers to
Kehar Singh (Supra) regarding the fact that a conspiracy is hatched in se-
crecy, making it difficult to produce direct evidence, and the prosecution
often relies on evidence of acts by various parties to infer that these were
done in accordance with their common intention, and the circumstantial
evidence is frequently used. He cites Shiv Narayan Laxmi Narayan (Su-
pra) to state that entrustment or dominion over property is sufficient to
Judgment dated 01.04.2026; In SC/06/2025; CNR no.DLCT11-001079-2025; Zila Sahkari Krishi Gramin Vikas Bank Vs.
Smt. Savitri & Ors.; Page 29 of 95
30
establish misappropriation, and that, since it’s difficult to produce direct
evidence of conspiracy, it can be proved through circumstantial evidence.
He also references R. K. Dalmia (Supra) to establish Bharti’ s liability,
asserting that Bharti had dominion over the bank’ s property, which was
misappropriated, constituting a breach of trust. He further mentions San-
atan Naskar (Supra), emphasising that answers given by the accused un-
der section 313 Cr.P.C. are relevant for finding the truth and assessing the
prosecution’ s case. If an accused’ s answer is false, the court can draw
adverse inferences and pass appropriate orders. Moreover, he refers to Ma-
nohar Nath Kaul (Supra) to highlight that cheating cannot be part of a
public servant’ s official duties. He also points to Balbir Singh (Supra),
arguing that Prajapati failed to prove the existence of the note sheet and
application for extension of FD tenure, which were his claims. The case
of Pappu Tiwari (Supra) is cited to underscore that the standard requiring
the prosecution’ s case to be ‘beyond doubt’ does not mean the court
should nitpick or seek reasons for acquittal. The case of Sayyed (Supra) is
relied upon to affirm that there is no legal barrier to trying an offender
under two different laws where the act or omission constitutes an offence
under both. The only restriction is that the accused cannot be punished
twice for the same offence. Lastly, Rekha Rani (Supra) and P Singara
Velan (Supra) are cited to clarify that when a decision is not on its merits,
it cannot be regarded as res judicata or as a precedent.
19. On the other hand, the arguments presented by the two accused share
some common points and some that are specific to each accused.
20. The common arguments are that there is a bar u/s 197 Cr.P.C., as the
alleged act, if at all committed, was by public servants in discharge of their
Judgment dated 01.04.2026; In SC/06/2025; CNR no.DLCT11-001079-2025; Zila Sahkari Krishi Gramin Vikas Bank Vs.
Smt. Savitri & Ors.; Page 30 of 95
31
duties. Therefore, in the absence of a sanction u/s 197 Cr.P.C., the case
could not have been instituted.
20.1. It is also argued that both accused are ‘public servants’ as defined in the
MPCS Act, and at most, proceedings against them could have been
conducted under Section 74 & 75 of that Act, not under the IPC. It is
further claimed that a sanction is required u/s 87 of the Act, and the order
dated 05.09.2014 by the Joint Registrar was only a recommendation to
proceed u/s 76(2) of the MPCS Act, therefore prosecution under IPC could
not have been launched.
20.2. It is also argued that Mr. Parmar was neither authorised by the bank nor
by the Joint Registrar of Societies to file such a complaint, nor was he
competent to do so. He failed to produce any specific written order
authorising him to act on behalf of the bank, especially after the bank’s
liquidation in 2016, and allegedly he lacked the legal authority to file the
complaint.
20.3. It is further argued that once the bank went into liquidation in 2022,
proceedings in the present trial could not have been continued by Parmar.
Only the liquidator under the MPCS Act could have carried on with the
trial, as Parmar was relieved from his post on 29.07.2017. Yet, Parmar
continued with the trial despite admitting during his cross-examination
that he was inimical towards Bharti, thereby indicating political motives,
as claimed by Bharti.
20.4. It is also argued that once the bank provided a written document in the
Consumer Forum proceedings admitting liability, which was challenged
by the bank at the National Commission and the Supreme Court, but lost,
similar allegations cannot support a criminal prosecution. It is claimed
that, since the dispute over FD interest and tenure was already litigated in
Consumer Forums, and the settlement upheld by the National
Judgment dated 01.04.2026; In SC/06/2025; CNR no.DLCT11-001079-2025; Zila Sahkari Krishi Gramin Vikas Bank Vs.
Smt. Savitri & Ors.; Page 31 of 95
32
Commission, and Supreme Court, the criminal case cannot re litigate those
facts; thus, the principle of res judicata applies.
20.5. Additionally, it is argued that the prosecution erroneously relied on the
circular dated 02.03.1998, which was meant for double/recurring deposits
only, instead, a circular issued in January 1998 explicitly governed the
fixed deposits, allowing a 13.5% interest rate for terms exceeding three
years, rendering the interest payments lawful.
20.6. It is also contended that the bank records were annually audited from 1999
to 2011, with no objections raised by auditors or subsequent General
Managers regarding tenure corrections or interest payments.
21. Besides the above mentioned common arguments, it is specifically argued
by Bharti that he is not the maker of forged documents and when he is not
author, signatory or keeper of the forged ledger entries or receipts, he
cannot be charged with forgery u/s 467/468 or 471 of IPC, merely because
he was Chairman.
21.1. As to conspiracy he argues that the charge of conspiracy was belatedly
introduced only in 2023 i.e. after 8 years of the initial complaint and after
two years of the first order on charge.
21.2. He claims that the prosecution is politically motivated, orchestrated by his
opponents, and he argues that even the complainant PW1 admitted to
having poor relations with him.
21.3. He also claims that, admittedly, the interest was received by Smt. Savitri
or the Trust and not by him, therefore, there is no wrongful gain to him,
particularly in the absence of the trust made an accused.
21.4. In support of its case Bharti relies on the following cases.
1. R.K. Vijayasarthy Vs. Sudha Setharam (2019) 16 SCC 739;
2. Mohd. Ibrahim & Anr. Vs. State of Bihar & Anr. (2009) 8 SCC 751;
3. Sheila Sebastina Vs. R. Jawaharaj (2019) 7 SCC 581;
Judgment dated 01.04.2026; In SC/06/2025; CNR no.DLCT11-001079-2025; Zila Sahkari Krishi Gramin Vikas Bank Vs.
Smt. Savitri & Ors.; Page 32 of 95
33
4. SC Garg Vs. State of UP 2025 SCC OnLine SC 791;
5. A. Srinivasulu Vs. State (2023) 13 SCC 705;
6. Samrat Shipping Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dolly George (2002) 9 SCC 455;
7. TRL Krosaki Refractories Ltd. Vs. SMS Asia Pvt. Ltd. (2022) 7 SCC 612;
8. Naresh Potteries Vs. Aarti Industries (2025) SCC OnLine SC 18;
9. State of Punjab Vs. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar and Ors. (2011) 14 SCC 770;
10. State of Maharashtra & Ors. Vs. Brijlal Sadasukh Modani (2016) 4 SCC 417
and;
11. State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Rameshwar & Ors. (2009) 11 SCC 424.
22. On the other hand, accused Prajapati maintains that the changes to the
FDR tenures were not forgeries but were mere bonafide corrections made
on the oral and written instructions of his superiors, including the then GM
& Accountant.
22.1. The affidavit Ext.P9 was signed by him in 2012 under duress and under
threat of action by the nominated Chairman at that time.
22.2. He also argues that the bank suppressed evidence in the form of the note
sheet which was prepared authorising the extension of tenure, and despite
those documents available with the bank and in the bank’s dominion, they
have been deliberately suppressed.
22.3. He argues that no financial gain or personal advantage was received by
him for correcting the documents.
22.4. He also argues that he was not originally made accused in the complaint
filed in 2015 and was only added in 2023 through resort to Section 319
Cr.PC, i.e. 25 years after the incident.
22.5. Prajapati relies on the case of G.C. Manjunath and Ors. Vs. Seetaram 2025
INSC 439, to claim protection u/s 197 Cr.PC.
DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS
23. Certain admitted or undisputed facts in this case are;
23.1. That the application Ext.P1 was submitted to the bank, signed by Savitri,
in the name of the trust, for a 3-year tenure FD at an interest rate of 13.5%,
Judgment dated 01.04.2026; In SC/06/2025; CNR no.DLCT11-001079-2025; Zila Sahkari Krishi Gramin Vikas Bank Vs.
Smt. Savitri & Ors.; Page 33 of 95
34
on 24.08.1998.
23.2. It is undisputed that Savitri submitted the FD application in her capacity
as President of the Trust and signed the application.
23.3. The tenure of the FD was later changed to 10 years on some documents
and to 15 years on others, as proved and admitted also.
23.4. These changes were made under the initials or signatures of Prajapati, who
was working in the bank at the relevant time, as admitted by Prajapati
when he examined himself as DW3, when he appeared as a witness in pre-
summoning evidence, and also in his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C.
23.5. There is no denial that, from Ext.P12 to P32, interest at 13.5% was
withdrawn annually from 1999 to 2011. These facts are uncontested and
have not been challenged by the defence.
23.6. It is also proven from the documents that the interest rates were
substantially lower from 2000 onwards, as Prajapati, when examined as
DW3, produced a document marked DW3-X7, which, although not
exhibited being a photocopy, can be read against the accused who relied
on it, and it was never challenged by the prosecution also. Additionally,
Ext.P36 shows that the interest rate was less than 10% from 2001 to 2011,
a fact that also remained unchallenged.
23.7. It is also an admitted fact that Bharti served as Chairperson of the Board
of Directors of the bank periodically and was also Vice President of the
Rajya Sahkari Krishi Grahmin Vikas Bank, the apex bank, during the
relevant time. Furthermore, his brother, Rakesh Bharti, was Chairman of
the bank, as admitted by Bharti when he testified as DW4 and by Prajapati
as DW3. DW3 admitted that Bharti remained Chairperson until 2007 or
2008, after which Rakesh Bharti assumed the role.
23.8. Moreover, Articles A3 & A4, which are minutes’ books containing the
admitted signatures of Bharti on various pages, prove that he was the
Judgment dated 01.04.2026; In SC/06/2025; CNR no.DLCT11-001079-2025; Zila Sahkari Krishi Gramin Vikas Bank Vs.
Smt. Savitri & Ors.; Page 34 of 95
35
Chairman of the complainant bank in 1998 and at other times. These
articles were also never challenged.
23.9. The reply Ext.DW3/P4, given by Prajapati pursuant to a show cause notice
dated 19.09.2012 issued by the bank, is also admitted by Prajapati, which
bears his signature at point A.
23.10. The signature on the affidavit dated 05.11.2012 Ext.P9 is also admitted by
Prajapati, although he claimed to have signed it under coercion, which is
addressed later in this judgment.
EVALUATION AND APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE
24. The prosecution, through PW1 Parmar and PW2 Abhay Kumar, provided
clear evidence of physical tampering with the FDR documents.
25. PW1 testified that Ext.P5, P6, P7 and P11 show signs of forgery.
26. He stated that correction fluid was applied to Ext.P5, which is the counter
slip of FD no. 000309 dated 24.08.1998. This is evident from the image of
Ext.P5, which is follows.
(Image of Ext.P5, both sides)
(Front side) (Reverse side)
Judgment dated 01.04.2026; In SC/06/2025; CNR no.DLCT11-001079-2025; Zila Sahkari Krishi Gramin Vikas Bank Vs.
Smt. Savitri & Ors.; Page 35 of 95
36
26.1. On this counter slip, the word ‘तीन’ (three) had correction fluid applied,
indicating that those letters were partially erased. Near the fluid, at point
B to B, the admitted initials of Prajapati are present, indicating he
applied the fluid. Otherwise, there was no reason for him to have signed
at that place. Although he sought to present a case that he was not the one
who applied the correction fluid, he did not even explain why, if he was
not the one who applied that fluid, he appended his signature at point B
near the fluid applied. It establishes beyond doubt that it was the accused
Prajapati who applied that fluid. No new tenure is written on this
document. Only the word ‘तीन’ (three) was partially erased.
26.2. Prajapati admitted his signatures at points B to B near the alleged
correction. His signatures at points A to A on both the front and back sides
of the counter slip are also present and admitted.
26.3. The fact that the FD was initially created for three years, as per the
admitted version of the accused, coupled with the absence of a new tenure
on Ext.P5 and the fact that only the tenure was attempted to be erased,
clearly suggests an attempt to defraud the bank by continuously claiming
interest at a higher rate annually.
26.4. Perusal of Ext.P5 also reveals that it contains the maturity date as
24.08.2008 (on top right). When the FD was made, admittedly, for three
years from 24.08.1998, the maturity date should have been 24.08.2001 and
not 2008. It is apparent that even the date of maturity was also forged and
changed from 2001 to 2008 on Ext.P5 at a later date. However, no question
was put to the accused either during his examination as DW3 or even by
PW1 in his examination in chief as to the change of this particular date on
Ext.P5.
27. The other two documents containing change of tenure are Ext.P6 & P7.
Judgment dated 01.04.2026; In SC/06/2025; CNR no.DLCT11-001079-2025; Zila Sahkari Krishi Gramin Vikas Bank Vs.
Smt. Savitri & Ors.; Page 36 of 95
37
Their images are as follows.
(Image of Ext. P6, and enlarged image of its relevant portion)
(Image of Ext. P7 and enlarged image of its relevant portion)
27.1. A bare perusal of those images show that the initial 3-year tenure on both
those receipts was changed to 10 years, by changing the term. On Ext.P6
Judgment dated 01.04.2026; In SC/06/2025; CNR no.DLCT11-001079-2025; Zila Sahkari Krishi Gramin Vikas Bank Vs.
Smt. Savitri & Ors.; Page 37 of 95
38
the term ‘तीन’ (three) has been changed to ‘दस’ (ten). On Ext.P7 the term
‘तीन वर्ष’ (three years) has been changed to ‘दस वर्ष’ (ten years).
27.2. Prajapati admits his signatures/ initials adjacent to the forgery at
point A to A on both those documents. These two documents show
clear overwriting where the tenure has been changed from 3 to 10
years.
28. The next document containing forgery is Ext.P11 with its copy as
Ext.P11C, forming part of Register Article A1. Pictorial image of even
this ledger entry on page no.252 containing the entry of the FD in question
is also important to be reproduced. Its image is as follows.
(Image of Ext. P11 and an enlarged image of its relevant portion)
28.1. A bare review of this document reveals that the tenure has been changed
from 3 years (Point B to B) to 15 years (Point C to C). The words ‘तीन वर्ष’
Judgment dated 01.04.2026; In SC/06/2025; CNR no.DLCT11-001079-2025; Zila Sahkari Krishi Gramin Vikas Bank Vs.
Smt. Savitri & Ors.; Page 38 of 95
39
(three years) have been changed to ‘पंद्रह वर्ष’ (fifteen years). This
alteration was also admittedly made by Prajapati, who signed it at
point A to A.
28.2. Just below the FD’s tenure, there is a duration written in the date, month,
and year format, which reads “24.8.98 to 24.8.08” on Ext. P11. The
duration of the FD, written in words, differs from the numerical one
in date, month, and year notation. The numerical duration is 10 years,
whereas the duration written in words is 15 years. This too clearly
suggests forgery.
28.3. If it had been a genuine correction requested by the FD holder, as claimed
by accused Prajapati, both the tenures should have matched. Instead, it
indicates that not only has there been forgery in the written tenure in
alphabets, but also the numerical year has been altered from ’01’ to ’08’,
creating a discrepancy of five years between the two versions. It is so
because there is no application for extension of the tenure from initial
three-year period, or cogent proof that the tenure was corrected bonafidely.
29. The fact that the duration has been changed differently in various
documents, i.e., Ext.P5, P6, P7 & P11, indicates that it was done nothing
but dishonestly and fraudulently. If it were a genuine correction, as sought
to be presented, at least it would have been either ten years or fifteen years
and not different in different documents, that too a difference in alphabets
and notations.
30. Compared to these documents, the application filed by Savitri for the FD,
Ext. P1, and her specimen signature card, Ext. P4, as shown in the image
below, reveals that the tenure mentioned on Ext. P1 and Ext. P4 is only
three years.
Judgment dated 01.04.2026; In SC/06/2025; CNR no.DLCT11-001079-2025; Zila Sahkari Krishi Gramin Vikas Bank Vs.
Smt. Savitri & Ors.; Page 39 of 95
40
(Images of Ext. P1 and P4)
30.1. On Ext. P1 (application for FD), the tenure is mentioned as three years in
one place, whereas on Ext. P4 (Specimen signature), the tenure ‘three
years’ appears at two different places.
30.2. Had Savitri requested any extension or correction of the tenure on
Judgment dated 01.04.2026; In SC/06/2025; CNR no.DLCT11-001079-2025; Zila Sahkari Krishi Gramin Vikas Bank Vs.
Smt. Savitri & Ors.; Page 40 of 95
41
24.08.1998, she would have either corrected the application and the
specimen signature card herself or at least signed the corrections. If Savitri
had requested any extension or correction of the tenure at a later date, she
would have given an application. There are no such signatures from Savitri
or any application for correction or extension of the tenure, as claimed by
Prajapati in his testimony that she sought a correction or extension within
a few days of the FD. When examined as DW3, Prajapati testified that
shortly after the FD was created, Savitri voluntarily sought a correction or
extension after being informed by the manager that she could not earn
13.5% interest on a three-year FD.
30.3. No application by Savitri has been proved on record by the accused. No
note sheet regarding the alleged correction or extension, as claimed by
Prajapati, has been presented.
30.4. There is a discrepancy in the version provided by the accused, Prajapati,
regarding whether Savitri came to the bank to open the FD, whether
someone else came on her behalf on 24.08.1998, or whether Prajapati went
to Savitri Devi for this purpose. Prajapati gave different accounts on
different occasions concerning this fact, which is also a circumstance to be
read against Prajapati.
31. This defence is further contradicted and disproved by Ext. P12. Interest
payment was sought under that application, Ext. P12, one year after the
FD’s creation, as indicated by the date 30.08.1999. The bottom section of
this document, meant for bank use, states the FD tenure as three years. If
any correction had been requested within a few days of 24.08.1998, and
had Ext. P5 to P7 and P11 corrected within few days of 24.08.1998, why
would the bank specify the tenure as three years, one year later?
Documents do not lie.
Judgment dated 01.04.2026; In SC/06/2025; CNR no.DLCT11-001079-2025; Zila Sahkari Krishi Gramin Vikas Bank Vs.
Smt. Savitri & Ors.; Page 41 of 95
42
31.1. Ext. P12 appears as follows.
31.2. Similarly, Ext.P15, another application for releasing interest dated
28.08.2001, shows that this time the bank officials, as well as Savitri,
cleverly did not mention the FD’s tenure. The application contains a
section for noting the FD’s tenure, but neither Savitri nor the bank officials
involved filled it out. Since the original FD, starting from 24.08.1998,
expired on 23.08.2001, the omission of the tenure in the Ext. P15
application when requesting interest after three years was a deliberate
attempt to conceal the true duration, and indicates dishonesty.
31.3. As against Ext.P12 & P15, the applications seeking interest in 2002
(Ext.P17), 2003 (Ext.P19) and 2004 (Ext.P21), the tenure of FD
mentioned is 10 years instead of 3 years.
31.4. As against them, the further applications given in 2007 (Ext.P23), 2008
(Ext.P25), 2009 (Ext.P27), 2010 (Ext.P29) and 2011 (Ext.P31) reflect the
Judgment dated 01.04.2026; In SC/06/2025; CNR no.DLCT11-001079-2025; Zila Sahkari Krishi Gramin Vikas Bank Vs.
Smt. Savitri & Ors.; Page 42 of 95
43
tenure of FD as 15 years instead of 3 years or 10 years.
32. The admission of Prajapati regarding the corrections he made on Ext.P5,
P6, P7 & P11, and the discrepancies highlighted in the applications
seeking interest Ext.P12 onwards, clearly proves the forgery of the
documents in the bank’s possession, by Prajapati. If the corrections were
genuine or bonafide there is no reason as to why different period would
find mention in Ext.P12, P15, P17, P19, P21, P23, P25, P27, P29 & P31.
33. Prajapati’s claim that he did so based on the oral instructions of the Bank’s
General Manager is not supported by any corroborating documentary
evidence. He has been frequently changing his version as to the changes
made by him on the above mentioned documents.
33.1. The first version of Prajapati is recorded in Ext.DW3/P4 in 2012, long
before he was accused. He admits to signing this document when
examined as DW3. It is a reply to a show cause notice no. 12-13/238 dated
19.09.2012 by the bank as recorded in this document itself.
33.2. While replying to the show cause notice, the initial statement of this
accused in Ext.DW3/P4 was that he is not responsible for any discrepancy
in the FD related documents. He states that the FD was originally made
for 3 years and that he did not make any changes to the related documents.
He denied changing the tenure from 3 years to 15 years in the register
containing the FD entry. He also denied making any modifications to the
receipts. Furthermore, he denied altering the counter slip of the FD by
changing the maturity date from 24.08.2001 to 24.08.2008. In his reply,
the accused claimed that he was only aware that the FD was created for 3
years at an interest rate of 13.5%, and he was unaware of how much
interest was paid to the FD holder or on whose order the interest was paid.
33.3. However, in his same reply, Ext.DW3/P4, in paragraph no. 8, he
specifically stated that on 24.08.1998, he was merely an Accountant, and
Judgment dated 01.04.2026; In SC/06/2025; CNR no.DLCT11-001079-2025; Zila Sahkari Krishi Gramin Vikas Bank Vs.
Smt. Savitri & Ors.; Page 43 of 95
44
on that day, for the creation of the FD, it was the then Chairman of
the Board of Directors (Accused Bharti) who deposited the FD
amount. The accused also stated that he issued two receipts separately, he
prepared vouchers, and a single FDR was prepared at the direction of
the Chairman as well as the then General Manager.
33.4. He also stated in further paragraphs of Ext.DW3/P4 that most of the bank’s
records used to remain at the house of Bharti. He mentioned that whatever
directions Bharti gave to the accused and other bank officials, he
extended the tenure on different documents related to the FDR
accordingly. He specifically stated that the changes made to those
documents were based on instructions from Chairperson Bharti, and
that he neither had any malafides nor was at fault. He claimed that he was
merely an employee and, to save his job, he made the corrections or
changes as directed by the Chairperson Bharti. It is also specifically
stated that the Chairman told him that the FD tenure had been got
increased by the Chairman, and that the changes should be made
accordingly, which the accused (Prajapati) then carried out. He also
claimed that if he had any malafides, he would not have appended his
initials against the changes. Furthermore, he stated that all modifications
were made under the oral directions and pressure of Bharti to extend
benefits to him and his mother, and that these benefits accrued to Bharti
and his mother.
33.5. There is no explanation offered by the accused either in his statement u/s
313 Cr.PC or when he stepped into the witness box as DW3, explaining
under what circumstances he executed this reply Ext.DW3/P4. It is not
even his claim that anyone threatened him to execute it or exerted pressure
on him, or induced him, or promised him anything at the time of his reply
in question. In this reply, he specifically stated in paras 8 to 10 that
Judgment dated 01.04.2026; In SC/06/2025; CNR no.DLCT11-001079-2025; Zila Sahkari Krishi Gramin Vikas Bank Vs.
Smt. Savitri & Ors.; Page 44 of 95
45
changes were made by him and other bank officials on the directions
of Bharti to benefit them, and that the accused did not derive any
financial benefit. Based on this reply, he requested the bank to withdraw
the notice dated 19.09.2012 and to exonerate him from disciplinary
proceedings.
33.6. The show cause notice dated 19.09.2012, marked as DW3/PX4, was also
presented to DW3 Prajapati during his cross-examination, but he
conveniently claimed ignorance of this document, even though his reply
Ext.DW3/P4 specifically references the show cause notice and is a
response to it. Prajapati’s stated ignorance is nothing but deliberate and
false. Moreover, the original notice dated 19.09.2012 is part of Prajapati’s
service record, as proved by the Prosecution under Article A(2). This
service record was also never challenged by Prajapati. His evasive answer
regarding this document further adds to the circumstances against him.
33.7. This reply Ext.DW3/P4 is a crucial document in which the accused,
Prajapati, confessed to having altered the tenure of the FD in the
documents, although he did not specify which documents he altered.
It is also not his claim that this confession was made under any force,
fraud, or coercion, nor that he was induced or lured by anyone to
provide such a reply.
33.8. The Privy Council in Pakala Narayana Swami Vs. Emperor, AIR 1939
PC 47 explained that a confession is a statement admitting the offence or
at any rate substantially all the facts which constitute the offence, whereas
an admission is only in respect of a gravely incriminating fact. Since Ext
DW3/P4 admits substantially all the facts constituting the offence in this
case, it amounts to a confession.
34. Another pivotal piece of evidence is the notarized affidavit signed by
Prajapati on 05.11.2012 Ext.P9, again long before he was made an
Judgment dated 01.04.2026; In SC/06/2025; CNR no.DLCT11-001079-2025; Zila Sahkari Krishi Gramin Vikas Bank Vs.
Smt. Savitri & Ors.; Page 45 of 95
46
accused. Prajapati does not deny the execution of this document and
admits to signing it. He claims he was pressurised to sign the affidavit
while under suspension, with the assurance that doing so would result in
his suspension being revoked. He also states that he signed without reading
the contents, allegedly because he was not allowed to read it. He claims
that after his suspension on 30.10.2012, the then Manager, Mr. Yadav,
took him to the residence of the nominated Chairman, Pramod Kumar
Pujari, where he was allegedly told that his suspension would only be
revoked and no further action taken if he signed a pre prepared document,
with non compliance leading to recommendations for legal action
regarding the FDR corrections. He asserts that his suspension was revoked
on 06.11.2012 after signing.
34.1. Before analysing whether Prajapati’s claim about the affidavit’s execution
is credible, let us first examine the contents of the affidavit. In it, Prajapati
states that in 1998, he was working as an LDC at the complainant bank,
with accused Bharti as Chairperson of the Board of Directors, Sh. Vijay
Shankar Soni as General Manager, and R.P. Upadhyay as the Accountant.
He mentions that the Chairperson was the head of the Cooperative Bank.
He further states that in 1998, Bharti deposited Rs.10 lakhs in two
installments of Rs. 8.5 lakhs and Rs. 1.5 lakhs in the name of Shyam
Sunder Shyam Jan Sahyog Evam Samudaik Vikas Sansthan, instructing
Prajapati to prepare a Fixed Deposit (FD) in his mother Savitri’s
name, as President of the Trust. The FD was for three years at 13.5%
interest. He claims that Bharti, as Chairperson, used to call for the bank’s
records at his home to inspect them himself, and the records of FD no.
000309 were also kept by Bharti at his home. Bharti later told Prajapati
that he had got extended the FD’s tenure and instructed him to correct or
modify the record accordingly. Trusting Bharti, he made these corrections
Judgment dated 01.04.2026; In SC/06/2025; CNR no.DLCT11-001079-2025; Zila Sahkari Krishi Gramin Vikas Bank Vs.
Smt. Savitri & Ors.; Page 46 of 95
47
on receipts, vouchers, and registers at different times, leading to
inconsistent FD tenures. He specifically claims he made these
corrections based on Bharti’s instructions and believed them to be
legitimate, as he was not authorised to alter records otherwise. Prajapati
further states that he gained no benefit from these corrections and that any
illicit benefits went to Bharti and his mother. He insists he was not at fault,
and legal action against him is unwarranted. This affidavit was duly
notarized on 05.11.2012.
34.2. While Prajapati admits to making these corrections, he claims he signed
the affidavit Ext.P9 under coercion and promise. However, the
prosecution convincingly proved that he did not raise this coercion claim
in subsequent statements to police under section 202 Cr.P.C., or in his pre-
summoning evidence under section 200 Cr.P.C., or in any court
proceedings, including the Supreme Court, where he challenged his
summons under section 319 Cr.P.C., or to any other authority in any
manner.
34.3. His police statement in 2016 under section 202 Cr.P.C. (Ext.DW3/P1)
makes no mention of coercion or promise. His pre-summoning testimony
dated 19.03.2016 (section 200 Cr.P.C.), his reply (Ext.DW3/P2) to the
section 319 application, and his SLP (Ext.DW3/P3) also contain no
reference to coercion or promise. The voluntary reply Ext.DW3/P4, as
discussed above, is another factor indicating that the claim of coercion or
promise in the execution of Ext.P9 is merely an afterthought. After all, he
specifically named the accused Bharti as the person who made the
changes, even in Ext.DW3/P4, which was executed in September or
October 2012 pursuant to the show cause notice dated 19.09.2012.
34.4. These facts make his assertion of coercion or promise legally untenable
and likely an afterthought.
Judgment dated 01.04.2026; In SC/06/2025; CNR no.DLCT11-001079-2025; Zila Sahkari Krishi Gramin Vikas Bank Vs.
Smt. Savitri & Ors.; Page 47 of 95
48
34.5. Notably, he did not examine the notary to support his claim that the
affidavit was not executed before the notary or was involuntary. The
affidavit plainly bears his name, indicating that he purchased the stamp
paper as the first party.
34.6. In Ext.DW3/3, i.e., revocation of the suspension of Prajapati, it is
specifically mentioned that the suspension was sympathetically considered
based on the affidavit Ext.P9 presented by Prajapati in his office, and as a
result, the suspension was revoked. Thus, Prajapati availed himself of the
benefit of seeking revocation of his suspension (Ext.DW3/3) by executing
affidavit Ext.P9. His suspension was revoked on the basis of that affidavit.
He never claimed any pressure in the execution of that affidavit at any time
around 2012 or thereafter until several years later. It was only when he was
summoned as an accused that he started claiming coercion regarding that
affidavit, and that too at a highly belated stage in the trial. This
demonstrates the voluntariness in the execution of the affidavit also.
34.7. In contrast, Prajapati, in his statement under section 313 Cr.PC, claimed
that it was the General Manager of the bank who pressured him to execute
the affidavit, not the nominated Chairperson, Mr. Pramod Pujari. During
examination as DW3, he for the first time claimed that Pramod Pujari
coerced him. The differing stand taken by Prajapati regarding the
execution of the affidavit clearly shows that he has been changing his
version at different times, making his defence false.
34.8. Neither Mr Yadav nor Mr Pujari was sought to be examined by him in his
defence. No criminal or civil action has been initiated by him against either
of them regarding the alleged coercion.
34.9. Therefore, there is no doubt that the affidavit Ext.P9 was voluntarily
executed by Prajapati and his defence as to coercion or promise is an
afterthought and false.
Judgment dated 01.04.2026; In SC/06/2025; CNR no.DLCT11-001079-2025; Zila Sahkari Krishi Gramin Vikas Bank Vs.
Smt. Savitri & Ors.; Page 48 of 95
49
34.10. Since Ext P9 also admit substantially all the facts that constitute the
offence in this case, it too amounts to confession.
35. Even without considering the voluntary reply Ext.DW3/P4 or the affidavit
Ext.P9, the above mentioned discussion clearly proves beyond doubt that
Prajapati’s claim that he made a correction in the tenure of the FD, a few
days after its creation, based on any application of Savitri or any bank note
sheet, at the direction of the Branch Manager, is false. Prajapati admits to
having changed the tenure.
35.1. The subsequent application seeking interest given by Savitri in 1999, Ext.
P12, clearly indicates that even after one year of creating the FD, the
duration of the FD mentioned during the interest payment process for
1998-99 was 3 years. If there had been any application seeking correction
or modification of the tenure by Savitri within a few days of creating the
FD, there would have been no reason for her or the bank official processing
Ext. P12 to mention only a 3-year duration.
35.2. Furthermore, if an FD holder seeks to modify the tenure, the new tenure
should be either 10 or 15 years; it could not be both. The accused do not
claim that two separate applications for correction or extension to 10 and
15 years were submitted. No such application exists. If it had, it would be
part of the bank’s record. Although the accused claim that such an
application existed, this is contradicted by document Ext. P12, which
shows that the FD was created for only 3 years, and no application for
tenure modification or extension was given by the FD holder.
35.3. Similarly, Prajapati claims the preparation of a note sheet for the tenure
correction, but no such document has been produced or proved. The bank
asserts that no such document ever existed as claimed. Thus, it was
Prajapati’s burden to prove the existence of such a document, which he has
failed to do. The documentary evidence in this case contradicts his claim
Judgment dated 01.04.2026; In SC/06/2025; CNR no.DLCT11-001079-2025; Zila Sahkari Krishi Gramin Vikas Bank Vs.
Smt. Savitri & Ors.; Page 49 of 95
50
that any such note sheet was created. If there had been any application for
correction or creation of a note sheet, there would have been no reason for
him to have executed the reply Ext.DW3/P4, the affidavit Ext. P19
voluntarily, as mentioned earlier. If such an application or note sheet had
existed, he would have mentioned it in his statement under section 202 of
the Cr.PC and in his pre-summoning evidence recorded on 19.03.2016,
when he was examined as a witness for the complainant bank in this trial.
But he never mentioned the note sheet or the extension application earlier.
35.4. The accused, Prajapati, admitted in his cross-examination that the
statement dated 18.02.2016, Ext. DW3/P1 was given by him during the
inquiry under Section 202 Cr.PC. That statement therefore can be used for
limited purposes of contradicting him. In this statement, the accused
changed his stance and claimed that after creating a fixed deposit (FD) for
3 years, he followed oral directions from bank officials and seniors
(without naming them), and in accordance with these directions, he made
changes to the FD’s tenure and also countersigned the modifications. Thus,
in 2016, he shifted from claiming that co-accused Bharti directed him to
make the changes to asserting that the changes were made at the direction
of bank officials or officers, without naming anyone.
35.5. He again altered his version regarding the circumstances under which he
made the changes, as reflected in his subsequent sworn pre-summoning
evidence. The on oath statement dated 19.03.2016 of Prajapati given
during the pre-summoning evidence stage is also important to note here.
In that statement, he deposed in this very trial that while depositing the
amount, Savitri submitted an application to create a 3-year FDR, which
was duly signed by her. Subsequently, he prepared voucher nos. 365 &
366, Ext.P3 & P2, and created the FD for 3 years. When the FD was
presented before the Accountant, the Accountant signed it, followed by
Judgment dated 01.04.2026; In SC/06/2025; CNR no.DLCT11-001079-2025; Zila Sahkari Krishi Gramin Vikas Bank Vs.
Smt. Savitri & Ors.; Page 50 of 95
51
signatures from the General Manager, namely R.V. Upadhyay and Vijay
Shankar Soni. Before creating the FDR, he also took Savitri’s specimen
signature, which also mentioned a 3-year duration. Later, Vijay Shankar
Soni called him to make a correction in the duration, stating that the bank
needed funds for loan repayment. To prevent the payment of the FDR
amount, he was asked to increase its duration to 10 years, so he changed
it from 3 years to 10 years on the receipt numbers 6153 & 6152. A few
days later, the then General Manager crossed out the 3-year duration on
the FDR certificate and replaced it with 15 years, which was written by
Prajapati, who also initialled it.
35.6. The statement dated 19.03.2016 does not mention any application for
extension or correction of the tenure by Savitri within a few days of the
FD, as claimed. It also does not mention that the affidavit Ext.P9 was
obtained under coercion.
35.7. When this accused appeared in court and deposed on oath in 2016, any
lingering fear or pressure in 2012 would have been dispelled by 2016.
Therefore, the failure to mention such coercion or application in the pre-
summoning evidence while testifying on oath contradicts Prajapati’s false
defence.
35.8. During final arguments, it was submitted that Mr. Vijay Shankar Soni
passed away in 2009. It appears that after Vijay Shankar Soni’s death, the
accused Prajapati tried to blame a deceased person to protect himself and
his co-accused Bharti.
35.9. However, the discussion above clearly shows that the changes were
made by none other than Prajapati on Ext.P5, P6, P7, and P11.
Whether he made those changes at Bharti’s instigation, on his own, or at
someone else’s behest does not matter. The fact remains that he committed
those forgeries, as evidenced by the circumstances discussed above.
Judgment dated 01.04.2026; In SC/06/2025; CNR no.DLCT11-001079-2025; Zila Sahkari Krishi Gramin Vikas Bank Vs.
Smt. Savitri & Ors.; Page 51 of 95
52
35.10. This Court therefore has no hesitation in concluding that Ext.P5, P6,
P& P11 are forged documents and they were forged by the accused
Prajapati.
36. Before examining other issues, including as to for which all offences
Prajapati or Bharti are guilty or not, it is first necessary to address the legal
arguments raised by the two accused, which concern the very
maintainability of the proceedings.
EXCLUSIVE APPLICABILITY OF M.P. COOPERATIVE
SOCIETIES ACT, 1960
37. The primary argument in this regard is that, according to Ext.P34, order
dated 27.01.2015, issued by the office of the Joint Registrar of Cooperative
Societies, only a sanction under section 76(2) of the MPCS Act was
granted for offences under that Act only. Therefore, it is argued, the
present criminal prosecution could not have been initiated. It is further
argued that the offences described in Section 74(e) of the said Act
specifically relate to acts by an officer or member that involve destroying,
mutilating, altering, falsifying, or being privy to such acts, including
making false or fraudulent entries in any register, book of account, or
document belonging to the society. The penalty for these offences is
outlined in Section 75(e) of the same Act. Section 76(1) stipulates that
such offences are triable by a Magistrate of the First Class, and Section
76(2) requires prior sanction for the institution of any such prosecution. It
is argued that Ext.36 is a sanction granted under section 76(2) for offences
solely under that Act, and therefore, the filing of the present complaint is
wholly illegal.
37.1. There is no merit in the argument raised.
37.2. An employee of a cooperative society or cooperative bank established
Judgment dated 01.04.2026; In SC/06/2025; CNR no.DLCT11-001079-2025; Zila Sahkari Krishi Gramin Vikas Bank Vs.
Smt. Savitri & Ors.; Page 52 of 95
53
under the MPCS Act who commits forgery cannot claim immunity from
prosecution under the IPC or argue that they can only be prosecuted under
the said Act. When an act of omission constituting an offence is committed
under two different Acts, the offender can be tried under either Act, and
the only restriction is that one cannot be punished twice for the same
offence.
37.3. The MPCS Act of 1960 contains no provision barring the application of
the IPC. It cannot be argued that the MPCS Act is a complete code in itself
and that remedies are limited to Sections 74 to 76 of that Act. There is no
impediment under the MPCS Act to applying the general criminal law. If
an act constitutes an offence under both the IPC and the Cooperative
Societies Act, the prosecution has the discretion to proceed under either
law. Special Acts aim to ensure proper administration and transparency of
societies, and they are not intended to allow serious offences to go
unpunished by restricting prosecution to lesser penalties under those
statutes. Even if a specific act of forgery is punishable under the
Cooperative Societies Act, in the absence of any overriding provision,
prosecution for forgery can be carried out either under the Special
Cooperative Societies Act or the IPC. It is clear that the MPCS Act of 1960
does not override the IPC.
37.4. Under Section 74(e) of that MPCS Act, the maximum punishment is a fine
of Rs. 50,000, which is insufficient for cases involving forgery and
cheating related to lakhs of rupees. The legislature could not have intended
to provide a safe passage for such an employee of the society to escape
punishment for offences that prescribe serious penalties under the IPC by
resorting to the lesser sentence in the Special Act. If an act of forgery is
punishable under the Cooperative Societies Act, and there is no overriding
provision excluding general laws, prosecution for forgery and cheating can
Judgment dated 01.04.2026; In SC/06/2025; CNR no.DLCT11-001079-2025; Zila Sahkari Krishi Gramin Vikas Bank Vs.
Smt. Savitri & Ors.; Page 53 of 95
54
be pursued under either law.
37.5. This is supported by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
State of MP Vs. Rameshwar and Ors. (2009) 11 SCC 424, also relied by
the accused, where in para no.38, such an argument was rejected. The court
held that there is no bar under the Societies Act to resort to the provisions
of general criminal law. Although that case involved charges under the PC
Act 1988 as well, the ratio remains applicable.
37.6. Therefore, neither of the accused can claim immunity from prosecution
under the IPC, nor argue that they can only be prosecuted under the MPCS
Act 1960. The prosecution has the discretion to choose to prosecute under
the IPC. In cases involving serious offences like forgery, criminal breach
of trust, or cheating, it is not the purpose of the Cooperative Societies Act
to allow more serious crimes to go unpunished by restricting prosecutions
to lesser penalties under the Act. Conversely, the IPC provides more
stringent punishments for forgery and cheating.
37.7. While Section 76(2) of the MPCS Act requires the Registrar’s written
sanction to initiate a prosecution under that Act, no such sanction is needed
if the prosecution proceeds solely under IPC. The purpose of requiring a
sanction under that provision is to protect officers from frivolous
prosecutions brought by dishonest individuals over administrative matters.
37.8. Therefore, this argument by the two accused regarding the
prosecution under IPC and not under the MPCS Act of 1960 is
rejected.
SANCTION U/S 197 OF CR.PC
38. Another common argument raised by both accused is that even if the
prosecution proceeds under the IPC instead of the Societies Act 1960,
sanction u/s 197 of Cr.PC (Section 218 of BNSS) is mandatory and has
Judgment dated 01.04.2026; In SC/06/2025; CNR no.DLCT11-001079-2025; Zila Sahkari Krishi Gramin Vikas Bank Vs.
Smt. Savitri & Ors.; Page 54 of 95
55
not been obtained. They contend that not only is cognizance legally barred,
but the entire proceedings are vitiated. They contend that since both
accused are public servants under the MPCS Act 1960, prosecution
without sanction u/s 197 Cr.PC, even for acts allegedly done in excess of
their authority, is not maintainable. They rely on the cases of G. C.
Manjunath (supra); A. Srinivasulu (supra); Brijlal Sadasukh Modani
(supra), and State of MP Vs. Rameshwar (supra).
38.1. On the other hand, the prosecution argues, relying upon the case of
Manoharnath Kaul (supra), that there was no requirement to obtain a
sanction, as the act committed by the accused persons, even if they were
public servants, was not within the scope of their official duties.
38.2. Section 197, so far as it is applicable to this case, states that when a public
servant who cannot be removed from his office except with the sanction
of the government is accused of an offence committed while acting or
claiming to act in the discharge of his official duty, no court shall take
cognizance of such an offence without the prior sanction of the relevant
authority as specified in Clause (a) & (b) of Section 197 (1).
38.3. While arguing this point, both the accused overlooked a crucial aspect of
this provision, that the public servant should be unable to be removed from
office except by the authority mentioned therein. In this case, although
Section 87 of the Cooperative Societies Act clearly states that every office
or person as well as employee of a Cooperative Bank or Society shall be
deemed a public servant under Section 21 of IPC, it is not the case that
either of the accused was incapable of being removed from their position
by the authorities listed in Section 197 Cr.P.C.. The protection under
Section 197 is not available to all public servants but is strictly limited to
those “not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of
the Government ” (either Central or State Government).
Judgment dated 01.04.2026; In SC/06/2025; CNR no.DLCT11-001079-2025; Zila Sahkari Krishi Gramin Vikas Bank Vs.
Smt. Savitri & Ors.; Page 55 of 95
56
38.4. Being a public servant is only a preliminary condition for claiming
protection under Section 197. If a Cooperative Bank employee can be
removed by the bank’ s management or the Board instead of the State or
Central Government, then the protection under Section 197 does not apply,
as such an employee can typically be dismissed by authorities other than
the Government itself.
38.5. In support of this, reliance can be placed on the case of A. Sreenivasa
Reddy v. Rakesh Sharma, (2023) 8 SCC 711, decided by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, which states that the question of whether a Manager of a
nationalised bank can claim the benefit of Section 197 Cr. P. C. is well
established and that, although a person working in a nationalised bank is a
public servant, that provision does not apply if the public servant is not
removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Government.
38.6. In S.K. Miglani v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2019) 6 SCC 111, while
addressing whether a manager of a nationalised bank can claim the benefit
of Section 197 Cr.P.C., relying on the case of K. Ch. Prasad v. J.
Vanalatha Devi (1987) 2 SCC 52, it was held that even though a person
working in a nationalised bank is a public servant, still the provisions of
Section 197 are not applicable at all. In para 6 of the K. Ch.
Prasad judgment, the following has been held:
“6. It is very clear from this provision that this section is attracted only in
cases where the public servant is such who is not removable from his office
save by or with the sanction of the Government. It is not disputed that the
appellant is not holding a post where he could not be removed from service
except by or with the sanction of the Government. In this view of the matter
even if it is held that the appellant is a public servant still provisions of
Section 197 are not attracted at all.”
38.7. Secondly, even if an official meets the criteria for protection mentioned
above, the protection only applies to offences committed while “acting or
purporting to act in the discharge of official duty”. Committing an offence
Judgment dated 01.04.2026; In SC/06/2025; CNR no.DLCT11-001079-2025; Zila Sahkari Krishi Gramin Vikas Bank Vs.
Smt. Savitri & Ors.; Page 56 of 95
57
punishable under law can never be considered part of a public servant’s
official duties. Superior courts have consistently held that acts such as
cheating, forgery, fabrication of records, and criminal conspiracy are not
part of a public servant’s official duties. Since forgery involves creating
false documents and cheating involves deception, these acts are regarded
as a dereliction of duty rather than the performance of a duty.
38.8. It is well established that the shield cannot protect corrupt officers, and the
provisions must be interpreted to promote honesty, justice, and good
governance. (See Subramanian Swamy v. Manmohan Singh (2012) 3
SCC 64). Indulgence in cheating, fabrication of records, or
misappropriation cannot be considered part of their official duties. (so held
in Indra Devi v. State of Rajasthan, (2021) 8 SCC 768.) It is not the
official duty of a public servant to fabricate false records or misappropriate
public funds in furtherance of or during the performance of his official
duties. The official capacity merely enables him to do these acts, and it
does not imply that they are inherently connected or inseparably linked to
the crime committed during the same transaction. (So held in Shambhoo
Nath Misra v. State of U.P. [(1997) 5 SCC 326; Inspector of Police v.
Battenapatla Venkata Ratnam, (2015) 13 SCC 87).
38.9. In State of Kerala v. V. Padmanabhan Nair, (1999) 5 SCC 690, and
Harihar Prasad (1972) 3 SCC 89, it is also held that offences of criminal
conspiracy punishable under Section 120B, read with Section 409 of the
Indian Penal Code, and also Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, cannot be considered to fall under the provisions of Section 197 of
Cr.P.C. It is not part of a public servant’s official duties to engage in
criminal conspiracy or misconduct while performing his role. Therefore,
the absence of sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure is not a barrier. (Also see Prakash Singh Badal v. State of
Judgment dated 01.04.2026; In SC/06/2025; CNR no.DLCT11-001079-2025; Zila Sahkari Krishi Gramin Vikas Bank Vs.
Smt. Savitri & Ors.; Page 57 of 95
58
Punjab, (2007) 1 SCC 1; Bholu Ram v. State of Punjab & Anr., [2008]
12 S.C.R. 959; State of H.P. v. M.P. Gupta, Neutral Citation 2023 INSC
697).
38.10. In this regard, one can also rely on the case of Manoharnath Kaul (supra)
cited by the Ld. Prosecutor.
38.11. Reliance by Prajapati on the case of G. C. Manjunath (supra) does not
support his argument at all, as the facts of that case are entirely different.
In that case, the allegations were that certain police officials, while
arresting the complainant in another matter, committed some excesses,
which were considered to be acts with a reasonable connection to official
duties and thus protected under section 197 of Cr.PC.
38.12. Similarly, reliance placed by Bharti on the case of A. Srinivasulu (supra)
is distinguishable on facts, as in that case, the acts committed by the
accused were found to be part of official duties.
38.13. Reliance by accused Bharti on the cases of Brijlal Sadasukh Modani
(supra) and State of MP Vs. Rameshwar (supra) regarding whether the
two accused were public servants does not assist their cases. This is
because, even if under the MPCS Act, both accused are recognised as
public servants, the key issue is whether they were public servants of the
category required by section 197 of Cr.PC and whether their actions were
in the course of official duties. Both these questions have already been
answered above against the two accused, establishing that neither of them
could be removed without prior government sanction, and their acts of
conspiracy, forgery of bank documents to unlawfully benefit Savitri or the
Trust and to cause wrongful loss to the bank, cannot be considered as acts
in the discharge of official duties or beyond.
38.14. The argument of the ld. Prosecutor that even if Parmar was not authorised
to lodge the complaint, it would only be an irregularity u/s 461(k) of
Judgment dated 01.04.2026; In SC/06/2025; CNR no.DLCT11-001079-2025; Zila Sahkari Krishi Gramin Vikas Bank Vs.
Smt. Savitri & Ors.; Page 58 of 95
59
Cr.PC, is also misconceived for the following reasons.
38.15. What is prescribed there is that when any Magistrate, not being
empowered by law in this regard, takes cognizance of an offence under
Section 190(1)(c) of Cr.PC, it would merely be an irregularity not vitiating
the proceedings. This provision refers to the cognizance taken by a
Magistrate without territorial jurisdiction, etc. This section does not state
that it overrides or supersedes Section 197 Cr.PC. Section 197 Cr.PC
specifically bars cognizance where a public servant, in the discharge of his
official duty, commits a mistake. Therefore, this argument of the ld.
Prosecutor is rejected.
38.16. Thus, the accused’s argument that Section 197 Cr.PC applies in these
facts and circumstances is rejected. As a result, the pending IA no.
1/2025 on the same issue, filed by Prajapati, is also rejected and disposed
of.
AUTHORISATION & COMPETENCE OF MR. PARMAR
39. The next common argument attacking the very root of the matter, as raised
by the two accused, is that Mr. Parmar, the then GM of the complainant
bank, was not authorised to institute the complaint since he was not
authorised either by the bank or under the order of the Joint Registrar
(Ext.P36). In this regard, it is argued that only the Chief Executive Officer
of the bank or the then auditor, with joint responsibility, were empowered
to initiate proceedings under the MPCS Act of 1960. The next limb of this
argument is that, even if Parmar, as Manager of the bank, was duly
authorised to file the complaint on behalf of the bank, once the bank went
into liquidation, he had no right to continue with the proceedings, yet he
persisted. It is also argued that Parmar, in his examination, admitted to
being inimical to the accused Bharti, which further supports Bharti’s plea
Judgment dated 01.04.2026; In SC/06/2025; CNR no.DLCT11-001079-2025; Zila Sahkari Krishi Gramin Vikas Bank Vs.
Smt. Savitri & Ors.; Page 59 of 95
60
that the complaint was filed vindictively.
39.1. Even this argument must be rejected for the following reasons.
39.2. It is a well established principle of criminal jurisprudence that the concept
of locus standi is alien to it. For a cognizable offence, anyone can initiate
legal action, unless there is a statutory requirement to the contrary.
39.3. Section 190 of the Cr.PC (Section 210 of BNSS) outlines the manner in
which Magistrates can take cognizance of offences. It only requires that
cognizance be taken upon receiving a complaint of facts constituting such
an offence, a police report of these facts, information received from any
person other than a police officer, or upon the Magistrate’s own knowledge
that such an offence has been committed.
39.4. The law does not specify that this information must come from any
particular victim. The only requirement is that the person providing
information must have had first hand knowledge of the commission of the
offence. Any person fulfilling this criteria can initiate criminal
proceedings.
39.5. Regarding the present case, the facts concerning forgery of bank records,
cheating the bank, etc., can be supported by the records themselves.
Therefore, Parmar, as the bank’s General Manager, was competent to
initiate proceedings once he became aware of the offence, even if this was
long after it was committed. In his complaint and pre-summoning
evidence, he disclosed the commission of offences based on the bank’s
records. Although he was not physically posted at the branch when the
offence occurred, this does not prevent him from lodging the case, as the
offence was cognizable and not barred by any limitation.
39.6. Section 468 of the Cr.PC (Section 514 of BNSS) prescribes limitations
that cognizance cannot be taken after 6 months for offences punishable
only by a fine; after 1 year for offences punishable by imprisonment of up
Judgment dated 01.04.2026; In SC/06/2025; CNR no.DLCT11-001079-2025; Zila Sahkari Krishi Gramin Vikas Bank Vs.
Smt. Savitri & Ors.; Page 60 of 95
61
to one year; and after 3 years for offences punishable by imprisonment
between 1 and 3 years. For offences punishable by imprisonment
exceeding 3 years, no limitation period is prescribed.
39.7. Thus, even if the offence was committed sometime between 1998 and
2011, though the exact date, month, or year is unclear, there was no legal
obstacle to taking cognizance.
39.8. Any person may approach a Magistrate with a complaint under section 190
of the Cr.PC unless a specific statute states otherwise. This is supported
by the Constitution Bench judgment in the case of A. R. Antulay Vs.
Ramdas Srinivas Nayak (1984) 2 SCC 500, wherein paragraphs 6 and 7
note as follows;
“6. It is a well recognised principle of criminal jurisprudence that
anyone can set or put the criminal law into motion except where the
statute enacting or creating an offence indicates to the contrary. The
scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure envisages two parallel and
independent agencies for taking criminal offences to court. Even for the
most serious offence of murder, it was not disputed that a private complaint
can, not only be filed but can be entertained and proceeded with according
to law. Locus standi of the complainant is a concept foreign to criminal
jurisprudence save and except that where the statute creating an offence
provides for the eligibility of the complainant, by necessary implication
the general principle gets excluded by such statutory provision.
……………. While Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
permits anyone to approach the Magistrate with a complaint, it does not
prescribe any qualification the complainant is required to fulfil to be
eligible to file a complaint. But where an eligibility criterion for a
complainant is contemplated specific provisions have been made such as
to be found in Sections 195 to 199 of the Cr.P.C.. These specific provisions
clearly indicate that in the absence of any such statutory provision, a locus
standi of a complainant is a concept foreign to criminal jurisprudence. In
other words, the principle that anyone can set or put the criminal law in
motion remains intact unless contra-indicated by a statutory provision.
This general principle of nearly universal application is founded on a
policy that an offence i.e. an act or omission made punishable by any law
for the time being in force [See Section 2(n) Cr.P.C.] is not merely an
offence committed in relation to the person who suffers harm but is also
an offence against society. The society for its orderly and peaceful
development is interested in the punishment of the offender. Therefore,
prosecution for serious offences is undertaken in the name of the State
representing the people which would exclude any element of privateJudgment dated 01.04.2026; In SC/06/2025; CNR no.DLCT11-001079-2025; Zila Sahkari Krishi Gramin Vikas Bank Vs.
Smt. Savitri & Ors.; Page 61 of 95
62vendetta or vengeance. If such is the public policy underlying penal
statutes, who brings an act or omission made punishable by law to the
notice of the authority competent to deal with it, is immaterial and
irrelevant unless the statute indicates to the contrary. Punishment of the
offender in the interest of the society being one of the objects behind penal
statutes enacted for larger good of the society, right to initiate proceedings
cannot be whittled down, circumscribed or fettered by putting it into a
strait-jacket formula of locus standi unknown to criminal jurisprudence,
save and except specific statutory exception. To hold that such an
exception exists that a private complaint for offences of corruption
committed by public servant is not maintainable, the court would require
an unambiguous statutory provision and a tangled web of argument for
drawing a far fetched implication, cannot be a substitute for an express
statutory provision. ………………..
7. The scheme underlying Code of Criminal Procedure clearly reveals that
anyone who wants to give information of an offence may either approach
the Magistrate or the officer in charge of a police station. If the offence
complained of is a non-cognizable one, the police officer can either direct
the complainant to approach the Magistrate or he may obtain permission
of the Magistrate and investigate the offence. Similarly anyone can
approach the Magistrate with a complaint and even if the offence disclosed
is a serious one, the Magistrate is competent to take cognizance of the
offence and initiate proceedings. It is open to the Magistrate but not
obligatory upon him to direct investigation by police. Thus two agencies
have been set up for taking offences to court. One would therefore, require
a cogent and explicit provision to hold that Section 5-A displaces this
scheme.”
39.9. Reliance placed by the accused persons on the cases of Samrat Shipping
Co. (supra), TRL Krosaki (supra), Naresh Potteries, and Mohd Ibrahim
(supra) are all distinguishable on facts and are not applicable to the present
case. The first three cases involved complaints under section 138 of the NI
Act, in which the dispute is primarily between the person in whose favour
the cheque is issued and the one whose account it dishonours. The statute
specifically prescribes that only the payee or the holder in due course can
file such a complaint. In contrast, the present case involves serious
offences against society, such as forgery and cheating, and is not a dispute
between two parties.
39.10. The reliance by the accused on the case of Mohd Ibrahim (supra), arguing
Judgment dated 01.04.2026; In SC/06/2025; CNR no.DLCT11-001079-2025; Zila Sahkari Krishi Gramin Vikas Bank Vs.
Smt. Savitri & Ors.; Page 62 of 95
63
that a third party cannot allege cheating in a transaction to which they are
not a party, is entirely misplaced. In the Mohd Ibrahim case, the Supreme
Court observed that when A sells property to B under the false pretence
that A owns the property, B can file a complaint for that specific cheating,
not a third party. The present is not such a case.
39.11. Here, the bank, being a legal entity, must be represented by someone, and
the bank’s Manager was the appropriate representative of the aggrieved
party to file the complaint.
39.12. Bharti’s counsel relies on the case of Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar (Supra),
emphasising that when the initial action is illegal, all subsequent
proceedings become vitiated. The reliance on this judgment is to argue that
if the institution of the present complaint was not in accordance with law,
all subsequent and consequential proceedings would fall apart, as the
illegality undermines the very foundation. Reliance by accused on this
case is again entirely misplaced. In that case, the order of registration of
the FIR by a specific Court, which was found to be an interested party, and
which led to the registration of the FIR and subsequent proceedings, was
being challenged before the Court. In those circumstances, that
observation was made. That case is thus completely distinguishable on the
facts.
39.13. In matters involving banks, courts have recognised complaints filed by
bank branch managers as valid, noting that public servants with knowledge
of the facts are competent to institute a complaint. Since any member of
society can generally initiate criminal proceedings, a bank manager
typically does not require a specific power of attorney or formal
authorisation to file a complaint for offences such as the one involved in
this case. The identity of the person who brings the act to the notice of the
authority is generally immaterial and irrelevant unless statutorily
Judgment dated 01.04.2026; In SC/06/2025; CNR no.DLCT11-001079-2025; Zila Sahkari Krishi Gramin Vikas Bank Vs.
Smt. Savitri & Ors.; Page 63 of 95
64
otherwise required.
40. The argument that once liquidation commenced under section 71 of the
MPCS Act of 1960, the complaint could not have been further prosecuted
by Parmar has to be rejected. Once cognizance is taken of a cognizable
offence, the case is technically between the State and the accused, and the
informant or complainant merely brings the facts to the notice of the court,
which then handles the trial to vindicate justice. This is especially so in a
complaint case under section 200 of Cr.P.C. (Section 223 of BNSS), even
if filed by a private individual or a bank manager who is a public servant,
where the offences are exclusively triable by a court of sessions.
40.1. The present case, as mentioned above, was being tried in a Court of
Session in Madhya Pradesh before it was transferred to this Court by the
Supreme Court, and therefore, it continued in this Court. The trial of even
a complaint case before a Sessions Court is conducted by a public
prosecutor under section 301 of Cr.P.C. (Section 338 of BNSS).
40.2. Therefore, subsequent liquidation of the bank would not affect the trial of
this case. Just as when an individual complainant dies after the case is
instituted, the case often continues because the goal is to punish the
offender for a social wrong; similarly, the liquidation of a society or
corporate entity does not provide a free pass for criminal acts committed
before liquidation.
40.3. In this case, not only was the offence committed well before the
liquidation, but the criminal complaint was also filed prior to the
liquidation.
40.4. Therefore, the argument that, post liquidation of the bank, the proceedings
should have been undertaken by the liquidator under section 71(2)(a) of
the Cooperative Societies Act, must fail and is rejected.
Judgment dated 01.04.2026; In SC/06/2025; CNR no.DLCT11-001079-2025; Zila Sahkari Krishi Gramin Vikas Bank Vs.
Smt. Savitri & Ors.; Page 64 of 95
65
CIRCULAR DATED 06.01.1998 APPLIES AND NOT 02.03.1998
41. The argument by the two accused that the prosecution erroneously relied
on the circular dated 02.03.1998 instead of 06.01.1998 Ext.DW1/A does
not make a difference for the following reasons.
41.1. Ext.DW1/A, the circular dated 06.01.1998, relied upon by DW1, was
never put to the complainant, Parmar, in his cross-examination as PW1.
When the accused failed to ask specific questions to the complainant’s
witness, who would have been in the best position to answer whether
Ext.DW1/A applies or the circular dated 02.03.1998, the accused persons
cannot now claim that it is the circular Ext.DW1/A that should apply and
not the circular dated 02.03.1998.
41.2. This central issue is that the FDR was created for 3 years at an annual
interest rate of 13.5% and then tenure was then forged, allowing the holder
to continue withdrawing interest at a higher rate beyond the 3-year period
until 2011. Therefore, whether the January 1998 circular permitted the
creation of an FD at 13.5% interest for more than 3 years, or whether
annual interest withdrawal was allowed under either or both circulars, is
irrelevant.
41.3. Even if the FDR was created under the January circular rather than the
March one, the offence involved is forgery to extend the tenure and
unlawfully benefit the holder, causing unlawful loss to the bank in
subsequent years, pursuant to a criminal conspiracy.
41.4. Though the complaint and the evidence of PW1 specifically state that the
Trust was not entitled to claim interest after the first year and was only
entitled to the interest with the principal after the FD matured after three
years, however, this claim by the complainant does not negate the fact that
the FD’s tenure was forged to extend beyond 3 years, which is an offence
and the reason for this trial.
Judgment dated 01.04.2026; In SC/06/2025; CNR no.DLCT11-001079-2025; Zila Sahkari Krishi Gramin Vikas Bank Vs.
Smt. Savitri & Ors.; Page 65 of 95
66
41.5. This argument is also rejected.
RES JUDICATA
42. Another argument raised by the two accused that the principle of res
judicata applies since the Consumer Forum petition by Savitri was settled
before the State Commission and challenged by the bank in its review
petition before the State Commission, then on appeal before the National
Commission, and finally in the SPL before the Hon’ble Supreme Court,
must also be rejected for the following reasons.
42.1. Reliance by the accused on the case of S. C. Garg (supra) to emphasise
that the principle of res judicata applies to criminal proceedings does not
help the accused, as the facts of that case are entirely different.
42.2. The complaint filed by Savitri under the Consumer Protection Act was
admittedly dismissed on 09.01.2014 by the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum. The order reveals that even before the Forum, the Trust
claimed that the fixed deposit (FD) opened with the complainant bank was
for 15 years, starting from 24.08.1998, as noted in paragraph 2 of the
Court’s order. Before the District Forum, it was not claimed that the FD
was initially set for 3 years, then extended to 10 years, or later to 15 years;
rather, the claim was that the initial FD was for 15 years. This also
contradicts Prajapati’s version, which claims that any extension occurred
just a few days after the creation of the FD. Even the District Forum, while
dismissing the consumer petition, noted discrepancies in the period of the
FD, which appeared as 3 years, 5 years, 10 years, and 15 years on different
documents, highlighting these inconsistencies and requiring a detailed
inquiry into the change of tenure. The complaint was dismissed on these
grounds. The appeal was subsequently disposed of based on a settlement,
which the bank claims was fraudulently presented before the State
Judgment dated 01.04.2026; In SC/06/2025; CNR no.DLCT11-001079-2025; Zila Sahkari Krishi Gramin Vikas Bank Vs.
Smt. Savitri & Ors.; Page 66 of 95
67
Commission.
42.3. In the present case, there is no previous decision on the merits, and the
sequence of events is that when the District Consumer Forum dismissed
Savitri’s complaint, she challenged it before the State Commission. During
this process, an official of the bank, allegedly unauthorised, submitted a
statement regarding the amount due on behalf of the bank, and the matter
was disposed of as settled, not on the merits. The decisions by the National
Commission and the Supreme Court against the Consumer Forum’s ruling
were also not on the merits.
42.4. The learned prosecutor relied on the cases of Sayyed Hasan (supra), Rekha
Rani (supra), and P. Singaravalan (supra), which all state that only
decisions on the merits are relevant, not non speaking orders.
42.5. In the present case, it is admitted that those were consumer proceedings
where a bank employee (Virender Kumar Gupta) provided a statement of
account showing a balance owed to Savitri or her Trust. The bank claims
that the official was not authorised to issue such a settlement statement and
that it was issued under pressure from the bank’s Chairman, who benefited
from the alleged cheating.
42.6. In this context, the statement given by Virender Kumar Gupta during the
pre-summoning evidence in this case, who presented the alleged
settlement statement, is significant to note. He deposed that, regarding the
FDR, Savitri had previously filed a complaint for payment along with
interest in the Consumer Forum, Datia, which was dismissed, and she then
filed an appeal before the State Commission, Bhopal. During the said
appeal, Savitri’s younger son, Rakesh Bharti, was the Chairman of the
bank’s Board of Directors, and her elder son, Rajendra Bharti, was a
member of the Board of Directors. Rakesh Bharti called the witness to his
house and asked him to sign an accounting application dated 19.03.2015,
Judgment dated 01.04.2026; In SC/06/2025; CNR no.DLCT11-001079-2025; Zila Sahkari Krishi Gramin Vikas Bank Vs.
Smt. Savitri & Ors.; Page 67 of 95
68
stating that it was to be submitted to the State Commission. The witness
then signed it, but Rakesh did not allow him to read the application. He
signed due to pressure from the Bank Chairman. He further deposed that
on 19.03.2015, he was present at the bank, where he worked with the
manager, and his signature appears in the attendance register. He did not
appear before the State Commission. The attached accounting chart sheet
also bears his signature.
42.7. Perusal of the order dated 19.03.2025 by the MP State Consumer Dispute
Redressal Commission, Bhopal reveals that on that day, counsel for the
bank placed on record the statement of account showing some principal
and interest accrued, and then the counsel for Savitri expressed her
satisfaction with the statement provided by the bank and conveyed her
willingness to accept the amount shown in the statement. As a result, the
matter was disposed of in view of the settlement. There is no separate
statement of Virender Kumar Gupta recorded in the State Commission,
nor is his presence documented. It appears that, based on the bank
statement, balance sheet, or chart presented before the State Commission
and purportedly signed by Virender Kumar Gupta, the commission
accepted it and disposed of the matter.
42.8. Thus, the argument that the order of the State Commission should operate
as res judicata carries no weight. The State Commission did not consider
the issue of forgery, which is the matter before this Court.
42.9. Therefore, this argument is rejected.
ABSENCE OF OBJECTIONS IN ANNUAL AUDITS
43. Another common argument raised is that the bank records were audited
annually from 1999 to 2011, with no objections raised by the auditors or
the subsequent General Managers regarding the tenure corrections or
Judgment dated 01.04.2026; In SC/06/2025; CNR no.DLCT11-001079-2025; Zila Sahkari Krishi Gramin Vikas Bank Vs.
Smt. Savitri & Ors.; Page 68 of 95
69
interest payments.
43.1. The said contention must also be rejected. Whether the auditors and
subsequent Bank officers noticed the forgery in the bank records, whether
complete records were presented to them, or whether they failed to
perform their duties diligently, cannot lessen the seriousness of the offence
of forging bank records. The above discussion clearly establishes that there
can be no doubt that the term of FD was changed dishonestly and
fraudulently to unlawfully benefit, in conspiracy with the beneficiaries.
43.2. Absence of detection of a crime cannot negate the crime. Therefore, even
if the auditors and bank officers failed to detect the forgery or cheating, it
will not affect the decision of this case.
43.3. This argument is also rejected accordingly.
WHICH OFFENCE COMMITTED?
44. Having negated all the common contentions of the two accused, let us now
examine what offence, if any, was committed, and by whom.
FORGERY PUNISHABLE U/S 467 & 468 OF IPC.
45. The discussion earlier in this judgment regarding forgery in Ext.P5, 6, 7
& Ext.P11 clearly establishes that the changes made to these documents
are not bona fide corrections, as claimed by Prajapati. Instead, they are
clear instances of forgery.
45.1. The two surviving accused were charged with offences under section 467
IPC, alternatively 467 r/w 120B IPC; and section 468 IPC, alternatively
468 r/w 120B IPC.
45.2. Section 464 of IPC explains what constitutes a false document. Section
463 IPC defines forgery. Section 467 makes the forgery of valuable
security punishable. Section 468 prescribes punishment for forgery
Judgment dated 01.04.2026; In SC/06/2025; CNR no.DLCT11-001079-2025; Zila Sahkari Krishi Gramin Vikas Bank Vs.
Smt. Savitri & Ors.; Page 69 of 95
70
committed with the intent to cheat.
45.3. Sec. 463 of the IPC states that whoever makes any false document or false
electronic record, or a part thereof, with intent to cause damage or injury,
to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause
any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied
contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed,
it shall be treated as commission of forgery.
45.4. Therefore, it is necessary that the document, which is termed as ‘forged’,
should first be a ‘false document’ and it should have been made with intent
as mentioned in Sec 463 of the IPC.
45.5. Making of a false document is described in Sec 464 of the IPC. Under this
provision, a person is said to have made a “false document”, only if he
makes or executes a document claiming to be someone else or authorised
by someone else, or he alters or tampers with a document, or he obtains a
document by practicing deception, or from a person not in control of his
senses.
45.6. It is no longer res integra that, as far as forgery is concerned, only the
maker of the document can be punished for that offence. In the present
case, neither the prosecution nor any record shows that Bharti prepared
false documents within the scope of Section 464 of the IPC.
45.7. In Sheila Sebastian (supra), it is held that the word “to make” in Sec 464
involves a conscious act; thus, an offence of forgery cannot be charged
against someone who did not create or sign the document. Relying on the
case of Mohammad Ibrahim (supra), it is also held that a person is said
to have made a “false document”, if (i) he made or executed a document
claiming to be someone else or authorised by someone else; or (ii) he
altered or tampered a document; or (iii) he obtained a document by
practicing deception, or from a person not in control of his senses.
Judgment dated 01.04.2026; In SC/06/2025; CNR no.DLCT11-001079-2025; Zila Sahkari Krishi Gramin Vikas Bank Vs.
Smt. Savitri & Ors.; Page 70 of 95
71
Essentially, creating a false document as per Sec. 464 is necessary to
establish the offence. The Sheila Sebastian case further clarified that the
definition of “false document” is integral to the offence of forgery, and
both must be proven together.
45.8. Thus, Bharti cannot be held liable for forgery punishable under section 467
or 468 IPC, as he did not make a false document himself.
45.9. However, as far as Prajapati is concerned, a discussion above clearly
establishes that he is the one who forged Ext.P5 to P7 and P11. His claim
that he did so at the behest of the Manager is already noted to be false. His
voluntary reply, Ext DW3/P4, is proved against him, as discussed above. His
claim that the affidavit Ext.P9 was signed under duress or promise is also
found to be untrue, as discussed above. His assertion that the bank
suppressed evidence in the form of note sheets or the application for
extension of tenure has also been proven false. It was his responsibility to
prove those documents if he claimed their existence. It was not for the
prosecution to produce these documents, as they consistently maintained
that no such document existed. The fact that Prajapati continued to change
his stance on this matter makes his version of the existence of any such
note sheet unbelievable, and the tenure mentioned in Ext.P12 contradicts
his claim that Savitri submitted any application for extension of tenure.
45.10. Normally, upon the completion of the FD tenure, a new FD is issued by
the banks. However, in this case, instead of doing so, forgery was
committed. If there had been any application from the Trust or Savitri
seeking an extension of tenure, the bank would have issued a new FD.
However, no such FD has been produced by the accused. When Savitri
was alive and a notice was served uopn her from the Registrar Cooperative
Societies to show cause, even then she did not submit any FD receipt or
application for extension of tenure to establish any such change of tenure
Judgment dated 01.04.2026; In SC/06/2025; CNR no.DLCT11-001079-2025; Zila Sahkari Krishi Gramin Vikas Bank Vs.
Smt. Savitri & Ors.; Page 71 of 95
72
by her. The obvious reason is that no such FD with a renewed tenure,
purportedly issued to the Trust or Savitri, exists. This is another factor that
contradicts Prajapati’s claim of receiving an application for an extension.
45.11. A detailed discussion of these facts has already been undertaken in this
judgment in the paragraphs above, so there is no need to repeat them here.
45.12. Ext DW3/P4 and Ext. P9 were neither prepared when Prajapati was an
accused nor while he was in police custody. This court is satisfied that Ext
DW3/P4 and Ext. P9 were not obtained through threat, inducement, or
promise. These confessions are not covered by Section 24 of IEA, i.e., they
are not the result of any threat, inducement, or promise, and are therefore
relevant. The said confessions are duly proven against the maker Prajapati.
They are not invalidated by Section 24 of IEA nor rendered inadmissible
under Section 25. They are both relevant and admissible under
the Evidence Act. There is also clear evidence of forgery by Prajapati as
discussed above. Therefore, it is not the case that only Prajapati’s
confession exists. Such a confession can thus be considered.
45.13. The bank ledger Ext.P11, the counterfoil of the FD Ext.P5, and the receipt/
vouchers Ext.P6 & P7 are all ‘valuable securities’.
45.14. Section 30 of IPC describes as to what is a valuable security, stating that
the words “valuable security” denote a document which is, or purports to
be a document whereby any legal right is created, extended, transferred,
restricted, extinguished or released, or whereby any person acknowledges
that he lies under legal liability, or has not a certain legal right.
45.15. The fact that Ext.P5, P6, P7, and P11 established a legal right in favour
of the Trust and extended the tenure of that right to continue availing
interest, classifies these documents as valuable securities.
45.16. Therefore, the accused Prajapati is guilty of committing the offence
under section 467 of IPC. He is also clearly guilty of the offence under
Judgment dated 01.04.2026; In SC/06/2025; CNR no.DLCT11-001079-2025; Zila Sahkari Krishi Gramin Vikas Bank Vs.
Smt. Savitri & Ors.; Page 72 of 95
73
section 468 of IPC, as it is evident that the forgeries mentioned above
were committed with the intent of using those documents for cheating. A
person can be held guilty under both Section 467 and Section 468 IPC if
the forged document is a valuable security and the forgery was committed
with the intent to cheat.
45.17. Since Bharti is not the creator of these forged documents, he, admittedly,
cannot be held guilty under sections 467 or 468 of IPC.
45.18. It is another matter whether Bharti and Prajapati were or were not part of
the conspiracy under which those documents were forged, which is
discussed separately below. If there is an unlawful agreement between the
forger and other conspirators for forgery, the conspirators can be held
liable for the conspiracy.
USING FORGED DOCUMENT AS GENUINE U/S 471 OF IPC.
46. Section 471 of the IPC makes punishable the use of a forged document or
electronic record as if it were genuine. It states that whoever fraudulently
or dishonestly uses as genuine any document or electronic record which
he knows or has reasons to believe it to be forged shall be punished as if
he had forged it himself.
46.1. The two accused were charged with offence under section 471 IPC,
alternatively 471 r/w 120B IPC.
46.2. Under section 471, the ‘use’ of the forged document by an accused is the
key ingredient.
46.3. There is no specific evidence that Bharti or Prajapati fraudulently or
dishonestly used those forged documents as genuine. Any such use of the
documents would have been by Savitri, the Trust, or the person who might
have filed the applications seeking interest beyond the initial 3-year FD
tenure. There is no concrete evidence indicating who specifically filed
Judgment dated 01.04.2026; In SC/06/2025; CNR no.DLCT11-001079-2025; Zila Sahkari Krishi Gramin Vikas Bank Vs.
Smt. Savitri & Ors.; Page 73 of 95
74
those applications for withdrawal of interest after the initial 3-year period.
Those are signed by Savitri. Inference suggests that whoever filed those
applications did so on behalf of the Trust and Savitri.
46.4. The two accused might have allowed the use of forged documents, but
there is no evidence that they themselves used it.
46.5. Strictly speaking, Section 471 targets the user of the document, even if that
person did not commit the forgery. A person who only forges the document
but does not use it would primarily be liable for the offence of forgery
under sections like 465, 467, or 468, depending on the nature of the
document. If there is an unlawful agreement between the forger and the
user to deceive or defraud, the forger can be held liable as part of the
conspiracy, as also other conspirators.
46.6. Since there is no direct evidence that Prajapati or Bharti used the forged
documents, neither can be held guilty under section 471 of the IPC.
However, there can be no manner of doubt that the forged documents in
question were indeed used by someone for obtaining interest beyond the
initial three year FD period. Therefore, the ‘use’ of forged documents is
established in this case even though the identity of the user is not. Most
likely the use was by Savitri or by someone on her behalf or on behalf of
the Trust.
46.7. It is another matter whether Prajapati or Bharti were or were not part of
the conspiracy under which the forged documents were used, which will
be also discussed separately below. Suffice it to note that forged
documents were indeed used in cheating the bank when, based on forged
tenure of the FD, interest at a much higher rate was withdrawn yearly until
2011 and after the initial three year period of the FD. It is one thing to say
that an offence was committed, and another to identify which particular
accused committed that specific offence.
Judgment dated 01.04.2026; In SC/06/2025; CNR no.DLCT11-001079-2025; Zila Sahkari Krishi Gramin Vikas Bank Vs.
Smt. Savitri & Ors.; Page 74 of 95
75
CHEATING U/S 420 OF IPC
47. The two accused were charged with offence under section 420 IPC,
alternatively 420 r/w 120B IPC.
47.1. Bharti relies on the case of R.K. Vijayasarthi (Supra), claiming the
elements of cheating by Bharti are not satisfied. Similarly, he cites the case
of Mohammad Ibrahim (Supra) to support that the ingredients of cheating
are not fulfilled.
47.2. Cheating is defined in section 415 of IPC, prescribing that any person who,
by deceiving another, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person
deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any
person shall retain any property, or who intentionally induces the deceived
person to do or omit to do something they would not do or omit if not
deceived, and if that act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or
harm to that person in body, mind, reputation, or property, is said to cheat.
The explanation of Section 415 states that a dishonest concealment of facts
constitutes deception under this Section.
47.3. 415 of IPC covers two situations. One where a person is dishonestly
induced to deliver property. And another where a person is induced to do
or omit an act he would not otherwise do or omit. In the former, the
inducement must be fraudulent or dishonest. In the latter, it need only be
intentional.
47.4. Turning to the facts of the present case, the dishonest and fraudulent
inducement in obtaining interest @13.5% beyond the initial 3-year tenure
of the FD was either by Savitri or by the person who, on her behalf or on
behalf of the Trust, presented those applications claiming interest beyond
3 years. These applications were then processed by the bank based on
forged bank records, as mentioned above, under the belief that the FD was
Judgment dated 01.04.2026; In SC/06/2025; CNR no.DLCT11-001079-2025; Zila Sahkari Krishi Gramin Vikas Bank Vs.
Smt. Savitri & Ors.; Page 75 of 95
76
for a longer duration.
47.5. The document Ext.P36, which is an order dated 27.01.2015, passed by the
Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies, has not been controverted or
disputed by either of the accused. This document itself mentions the
reduced interest rate from December 2001 onwards, noting that from
15.12.2001 the interest rate was reduced to 10%, and subsequently it
consistently fell to 7.25% from 08.01.2004. It then rose slightly to a
maximum of 8.75% in January 2011. Having not disputed Ext.P36, the
contents clearly establish a reduced rate of interest from 2001, which also
indicates wrongful loss caused to the bank and wrongful gain obtained by
the Trust/Savitri through forgery. Similarly, another document, relied upon
by none other than the accused, Prajapati, when he testified as DW3 Mark
DW3/X7, also establishes the reduced rate of interest. Since this document
is relied upon by the accused himself and is not disputed by the
Prosecution, it can also be relied upon as evidence of the factum of the
reduced rate of interest.
47.6. Who exactly submitted those applications for interest and thus induced the
bank has not been specifically proved. However, it is obvious that Savitri,
or someone acting on her behalf, or the Trust, submitted those applications
and induced the bank officials. She is no longer alive. She and her Trust
benefited from the amount that was cheated. If the FD holder knows the
original tenure has expired and that the bank official has forged records to
extend it, and the FD holder continues to withdraw interest with the intent
to cause wrongful gain to themselves or wrongful loss to the bank, they
would be liable for cheating and conspiracy. Thus, cheating did occur in
this case. But the question is whether Bharti or Prajapati cheated the bank?
47.7. To establish cheating, it must be shown that the Bharti or Prajapati
practiced deception and dishonestly induced the bank to deliver the extra
Judgment dated 01.04.2026; In SC/06/2025; CNR no.DLCT11-001079-2025; Zila Sahkari Krishi Gramin Vikas Bank Vs.
Smt. Savitri & Ors.; Page 76 of 95
77
interest payments. Who exactly submitted those applications for interest
and thus induced the bank has not been specifically proved. It is not the
case of anyone that either Bharti or Prajapati specifically submitted those
applications to induce the bank based on forged tenures. Therefore, neither
of them can be held guilty under Section 420 of the IPC. At the same time,
it can’t be denied that the bank was induced, dishonestly and fraudulently,
to release interest based on the forged tenure of the FD when interest for
the period beyond three years was demanded and obtained from the bank.
Therefore, cheating was committed.
47.8. It is another matter whether they were part of the conspiracy under which
the cheating was committed, which will be discussed separately below.
Suffice it to note that cheating was indeed committed against the bank
when, based on a forged tenure of the FD, interest at a much higher rate
was withdrawn annually until 2011, even after the initial three year period
of the FD. It is one thing to say that an offence was committed, and another
to identify which particular accused committed that specific offence.
CRIMINAL BREACH OF TRUST BY A PUBLIC SERVANT
PUNISHABLE U/S 409 OF IPC
48. Bharti relies upon the case of R.K. Vijayasarthi (Supra) on the point that
there was no specific entrustment to Bharti, therefore, there is no question
of breach of trust.
48.1. A charge under that section has been filed only against accused Prajapati
and not against accused Bharti.
48.2. Section 409 of IPC prescribes punishment for criminal breach of trust by
a public servant, banker, merchant, or agent. It states that anyone who, in
any manner, is entrusted with property or has control over property in the
capacity of a public servant, banker, merchant, etc., and commits criminal
Judgment dated 01.04.2026; In SC/06/2025; CNR no.DLCT11-001079-2025; Zila Sahkari Krishi Gramin Vikas Bank Vs.
Smt. Savitri & Ors.; Page 77 of 95
78
breach of trust regarding that property shall be punished. The definition of
criminal breach of trust is provided in Section 405 of the IPC. It states that
anyone entrusted with property or with control over property who
dishonestly misappropriates, converts for personal use, or dishonestly uses
or disposes of the property in violation of legal instructions or contractual
obligations commits criminal breach of trust.
48.3. A bank employee who merely forges records to extend the tenure of a
Fixed Deposit (FD) without actually misappropriating or disbursing
money will not be guilty under Section 409 IPC, though he may instead be
liable under provisions relating to forgery (Sections 467, 468, 471 IPC).
Section 409 requires dishonest misappropriation or conversion of property
entrusted to the banker, not just falsification of records. Mere manipulation
of records without actual diversion of money by the public servant charged
does not amount to “criminal breach of trust.” No money is
misappropriated by Prajapati himself. Entrustment of funds exists, but
there is no dishonest conversion by him.
48.4. The case of the prosecution against Prajapati, regarding Section 409 of the
IPC, is that he had control over the bank records and forged them.
However, even if this is true, such an act alone does not amount to
misappropriation. By creating those documents, Prajapati may have
facilitated the withdrawal of bank funds by the Trust and Savitri, but there
is no evidence to show he personally misappropriated the funds or
disbursed the funds. Merely forging documents increasing the FD period,
as mentioned above, does not constitute misappropriation by itself. The
act alleged against him constitutes forgery (Sections 467, 468 IPC).
Section 409 IPC would not apply unless Prajapati also diverted or
misappropriated funds.
48.5. The bylaws of the bank, proved as Ext.P10, clearly prescribe the roles and
Judgment dated 01.04.2026; In SC/06/2025; CNR no.DLCT11-001079-2025; Zila Sahkari Krishi Gramin Vikas Bank Vs.
Smt. Savitri & Ors.; Page 78 of 95
79
responsibilities of the Board. Therefore, Bharti’s claim that he had no
knowledge of the FD and the bank’s functions, which are only carried out
by bank officials, may not be true. Even if the bank’s records are
considered under Bharti’s control, this would still be insufficient to
establish criminal misappropriation or a breach of trust. Moreover, he has
not been charged under Section 409 of the IPC.
48.6. Indeed, the two accused had control over the bank records and funds. But
merely having control, without a specific breach of trust regarding that
property, cannot invoke Section 409 of the IPC. Admittedly, Exts. P12 to
P32 were neither processed nor executed by Prajapati or Bharti. It is not
even the case of the prosecution that any document from Ext.P12 to P32
bears the handwriting or signature of either of them. Therefore, neither of
them processed the interest payments from 1999 to 2011.
48.7. Thus, even if the bank funds are considered to be within the control of
Prajapati and Bharti, they did not misappropriate those funds themselves,
nor did they disburse any amount to the Trust and Savitri.
48.8. Therefore, the charge under Section 409 of the IPC against Prajapati
cannot be sustained.
48.9. Additionally, accused Bharti has not even been charged with that offence,
so he cannot be held guilty under Section 409 IPC.
48.10. Concerning Section 409 of IPC, even criminal conspiracy has not been
invoked or charged against either accused.
CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY
49. Both the accused have been charged with the offence of criminal
conspiracy punishable under Section 120B of IPC, read with Sections 420,
467, 468, and 471 of IPC.
49.1. Section 120A of the IPC defines criminal conspiracy as an agreement
Judgment dated 01.04.2026; In SC/06/2025; CNR no.DLCT11-001079-2025; Zila Sahkari Krishi Gramin Vikas Bank Vs.
Smt. Savitri & Ors.; Page 79 of 95
80
between two or more persons to commit an illegal act or to perform a legal
act through illegal means. The proviso to the Section states that no
agreement, except an agreement to commit an offence, shall amount to a
criminal conspiracy unless some act, in addition to the agreement, is done
by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof. The
Explanation appended to the Section also clarifies that it is immaterial
whether the illegal act is the ultimate object of such agreement, or is
merely incidental to that object. The primary requirement is simply the
existence of an agreement among the parties involved. The purpose of the
agreement may be to engage in illegal activities or to carry out legal
actions unlawfully. It is essential to note that the mere existence of an
agreement to commit an offence is sufficient to establish the crime of
conspiracy, and actually committing the criminal act is not required.
Section 120B of the IPC details the punishments for conspiracy and
classifies them based on the goal of the conspiracy.
49.2. To prove a conspiracy, there can be direct or circumstantial evidence,
demonstrating an agreement between two or more persons to commit a
crime. By the very nature of criminal conspiracy, which is a product of
secrecy, direct evidence is difficult to obtain. Such evidence must be gath-
ered from the circumstances surrounding the substantive offences, whether
before, during, or, in some cases, even after the commission of the of-
fences.
49.3. Ext. P1 shows that the application to open the FD was signed by Savitri,
the President of the trust. It is admitted that the FD was opened in the trust’s
name and not in Savitri’s individual name. There is no cross-examination
of the prosecution’s witnesses, nor has any documentary proof been
presented to establish that the FD was in Savitri’s individual name and not
in the name of the trust. Ext. P2 to P7 demonstrate that the depositor was
Judgment dated 01.04.2026; In SC/06/2025; CNR no.DLCT11-001079-2025; Zila Sahkari Krishi Gramin Vikas Bank Vs.
Smt. Savitri & Ors.; Page 80 of 95
81
the trust, not individual Savitri. Similarly, Ext. P12 to P32 also establish
this.
49.4. Since Savitri was a signatory to the application for opening the FD and to
various other applications seeking withdrawal of the interest given from
time to time, had she been alive, there would have been no difficulty in
finding her guilty of conspiring with the accused Prajapati for forgery and
cheating, punishable under the above mentioned Sections. She is no more.
Therefore, no further discussion regarding her is necessary.
49.5. As is evident from the above discussion, the beneficiary of drawing
interest after three years of the FD tenure is the trust. Although the
accused, Bharti, tried to evade questions about whether he was a trustee of
the trust, sufficient documentary evidence has been presented establishing
that he indeed was at the relevant time.
49.6. Ext. DW1/P3, admitted by none other than Bharti’s witness, Mr.
Budholiya, confirms this fact. It is a certified copy of the trust registration
documents, submitted to the Registrar of Public Trusts, Datiya (M.P). The
application for registration was signed by Dr Alok Ranjan Chaurasiya,
who is one of the trustees, and it lists all trustees, with Bharti’s name at
Serial No. 7 and his mother, Savitri, as President at Serial No. 1. Dr Alok
Ranjan Chaurasiya was the Member Secretary. This registration
application dates back to May 1985. The board of trustees also includes
Bharti and his mother.
49.7. If Bharti were not a trustee, or if he were not in board of trustees, he should
have challenged this document. If he left the trust later or was not a trustee
between 1998 and 2011, he should have provided documentary proof that
he had resigned or was never a trustee during that period. He neither
challenged the authenticity of Ext. DW1/P3 nor proved any other
document contradicting it. Bharti did not examine anyone from the Trust
Judgment dated 01.04.2026; In SC/06/2025; CNR no.DLCT11-001079-2025; Zila Sahkari Krishi Gramin Vikas Bank Vs.
Smt. Savitri & Ors.; Page 81 of 95
82
to prove that Bharti was not a Trustee at the relevant time or at any other
time. Instead, he gave evasive answers during cross-examination as DW4.
Even after his attention was drawn specifically to Ext. DW1/P3 he stated
that he had no knowledge of being a trustee and did not know who had
named him as such. This ignorance is evidently deliberate and false.
49.8. He admitted attending trust functions, though he claimed that he did so as
a public figure, being MLA or ex-MLA. These responses are also evasive,
apparently to avoid liability. The admitted participation of Bharti in the
functions of the Trust is evident from certain photographs contained in the
magazine Gyan Jyoti Ext.DW1/P1 & P2. These photographs clearly reveal
that Bharti’s denial of being one of the Trustees of the Trust is deliberately
false in order to avoid criminal liability in the present matter. Numerous
photographs of him appear in the magazine, reflecting his active
participation as one of the key persons in the events organised by the Trust.
In various such photographs, even the Trust’s name appears on the banner
or backdrop alongside Bharti’s photograph, and his name as trustee appears
in the photograph at point X-4 and X-5 in Ext.DW1/P2.
49.9. If Bharti was never a trustee, there should be no reason for his name to
appear on the trustees’ list. To become a trustee, he must have signed the
relevant documents. If he claims he was not a trustee, he should have
proved that, but he failed to do so. He neither challenged Ext. DW1/P3 nor
took any action to dispute his purported trusteeship. Ultimately, this
document is admitted by none other than his own witness.
49.10. Once it is established that the actual beneficiary of the cheated amount is
none other than the trust, the role of the accused Bharti becomes crucial.
It is proven that he was a trustee of the beneficiary trust that benefited from
the amount fraudulently obtained during the relevant tenure. It is also
confirmed by documentary evidence and the oral testimony of PW1 and
Judgment dated 01.04.2026; In SC/06/2025; CNR no.DLCT11-001079-2025; Zila Sahkari Krishi Gramin Vikas Bank Vs.
Smt. Savitri & Ors.; Page 82 of 95
83
DW3 that Bharti was the Chairperson of the bank in August 1998 and
intermittently until 2007 or 2008. For some time, even his brother Rakesh
Bharti served as Chairperson. The amount that was cheated was disbursed
between 2002 and 2011.
49.11. Bharti’s chairmanship is also established by Article A(3), as proved
through PW1’s testimony. This is a register containing minutes of the
bank’s Annual General Meeting from 1998-99 to 2010-11. It bears Bharti’s
admitted signatures on various pages (Page no. 23, 43, 50 & 53) as
chairperson of the board of directors on different dates. These signatures,
along with the period they cover, confirm that Bharti served as chairperson
of the bank during the relevant period.
49.12. Similarly, another register containing minutes of the bank’s Staff Sub
Committee meeting, Article A(4), proved by PW1, also bears Bharti’s
signature on various pages (page no. 128, 133, 142 & 148) as President
during the relevant period.
49.13. Bharti has not cross-examined the prosecution’s witnesses regarding his
signatures on Article A(3) & A(4), which are the Minutes of the AGM and
meetings, etc. The Minutes dated 25.12.1998, under Article A(3) on page
16, signed by Bharti, reflect his tenure as Chairperson during the relevant
period for the FD’s creation. Articles A(3) and A(4) establish Bharti’s
participation in the official proceedings as Chairperson.
49.14. Although Bharti and Prajapati, in their cross-examination as DW4 &
DW3, respectively, attempted to evade providing details about Bharti’s
tenure as the chairperson of the board of directors, the documentary
evidence from the prosecution confirms that Bharti served as chairperson
during the relevant period.
49.15. The false answers provided by the accused in their statements should be
viewed adversely.
Judgment dated 01.04.2026; In SC/06/2025; CNR no.DLCT11-001079-2025; Zila Sahkari Krishi Gramin Vikas Bank Vs.
Smt. Savitri & Ors.; Page 83 of 95
84
49.16. Bharti admitted that his statement dated 18.02.2016 was recorded during
inquiry u/s 202 Cr.PC Ext.DW4/P2. That statement contradicts Bharti’s
ignorance expressed in this trial as to many points. In that statement
Ext.DW4/P2, Bharti acknowledged that his mother deposited Rs. 10 lakh
in an FD with the complainant bank. He also confirmed that interest on
this FD was paid until 23.08.2011. Furthermore, he stated that when the
2012 interest was not paid, Savitri filed a consumer complaint with the
District Forum and appealed against the Consumer Forum’s decision to the
State Commission. Subsequently, the bank filed a review against the State
Commission’s decision, which was dismissed, leading to a petition before
the National Commission, followed by an SLP before the Hon’ble
Supreme Court. He also claimed that the complaint was based on incorrect
facts and aimed to mislead the Court. Although he asserted that the bank
officials paid all interest and he had no role in it, this statement conflicts
with his current claim of ignorance regarding his mother’s FD. This
inconsistency also goes against Bharti.
49.17. In the same statement (Ext.DW4/P2), he mentioned that his mother had
been suffering from paralysis for the last 40 years and was about 87-88
years old as of 18.02.2016. This fact strongly supports the possibility that
any applications submitted to the bank were made by someone else on
Savitri’s behalf, despite being in her name and bearing her purported
signatures. It is highly possible that Bharti, serving as Chairperson,
had those applications submitted. After all, his mother was suffering
from paralysis for a long time and was very old at that time, according
to Bharti’s own admission.
49.18. Ext.P35, the notice issued by the Registrar of the Cooperative Societies to
Bharti, Prajapati, and Savitri, was only complied with by Prajapati. Bharti
and his mother did not even bother to visit the Registrar when asked to
Judgment dated 01.04.2026; In SC/06/2025; CNR no.DLCT11-001079-2025; Zila Sahkari Krishi Gramin Vikas Bank Vs.
Smt. Savitri & Ors.; Page 84 of 95
85
respond to the show cause notice. They also failed to submit any reply.
This is another circumstance suggesting a conspiracy between Bharti and
Savitri. Otherwise, why would Bharti not even reply to that notice?
49.19. Prajapati, as DW3, also admitted that all his promotions in the bank, from
a clerk to Senior Branch Manager, were received prior to 2009, i.e. during
Bharti’s tenure as chairman, which seems to have served as a quid pro quo
for the forgery.
49.20. The fact that Bharti is the trustee of the beneficiary trust and was also the
chairperson of the bank during the time when the amount was cheated from
the complainant bank after forgery was committed on various bank
documents, coupled with the other facts as mentioned above, gives rise to
no other inference that he was part of the criminal conspiracy with accused
Prajapati, Savitri, and possibly some unknown persons in cheating the
bank after committing forgery. The forgery offence is established against
Prajapati as mentioned above. The offence of cheating was also
committed. Prajapati is not the beneficiary of the forged documents. He
clearly forged Ext. P5 to P7 and P11 to benefit the trust. He was not a
beneficiary himself. Beneficiary was the trust, and Bharti was not only the
chairman of bank but also a trustee of beneficiary at the relevant time.
These facts clearly indicate a conspiracy between Bharti, Prajapati, and
Savitri and may be some other unknown persons.
49.21. To reinforce this inference, one can look at Ext. P9, an affidavit executed
by Prajapati, which contains clear allegations against Bharti. Additional
credence can be inferred from Ext. DW3/P4, Prajapati’s reply given in
2012, which explicitly alleges that Bharti asked Prajapati to forge the
documents and was the one who deposited the amount in the trust’s name.
Earlier in this judgment, this Court has already held that Ext. P9 and Ext.
DW3/P4 were voluntarily executed by Prajapati.
Judgment dated 01.04.2026; In SC/06/2025; CNR no.DLCT11-001079-2025; Zila Sahkari Krishi Gramin Vikas Bank Vs.
Smt. Savitri & Ors.; Page 85 of 95
86
49.22. It is well settled law that the confession of a co-accused can be considered
in a joint trial for the same offence, provided it is duly proved. Ext. P9 and
Ext. DW3/P4 qualify as confessions because they incriminate Prajapati to
the same extent as they do Bharti. Prajapati’s wilful exposure to penalty
for his guilt in these statements lends support to their truthfulness
regarding Bharti. Both documents are properly proved against Prajapati.
49.23. A confessional statement by one accused implicating another co-accused
may be considered by the court against that co-accused under Section 30
of the Evidence Act, where (1) the confession is relevant and admissible
under the Evidence Act; (2) it has been properly proved against the
maker; (3) the confessional statement incriminates both the maker and the
co-accused; and (4) both accused persons are jointly tried for the same
offence. All those conditions are adequately met in this case.
49.24. Thus, the two confessions of Prajapati can be considered by the court as a
prudent rule to support the other evidence against Bharti. There is
additional evidence on record before the court looks into Prajapati’s
confessions.
49.25. Although, in law, a co-accused’s confession is considered weak evidence
and cannot solely form the basis for conviction, the prudence principle
allows courts to rely on a co-accused’s confession to strengthen its
conclusion when independent evidence is there against other accused
persons. In this case, besides Prajapati’s confession, the circumstantial
evidence against Bharti, if believed, is circumstantially sufficient to
support a conviction for criminal conspiracy. As an additional safeguard,
this Court also relies on Prajapati’s two confessional statements to
reinforce its judgment.
49.26. In the case of Kashmira Singh v. State of M.P., (1952) 1 SCC 275, it is
held as follows;
Judgment dated 01.04.2026; In SC/06/2025; CNR no.DLCT11-001079-2025; Zila Sahkari Krishi Gramin Vikas Bank Vs.
Smt. Savitri & Ors.; Page 86 of 95
87
“11. ……….. The proper way to approach a case of this kind is, first, to marshal
the evidence against the accused excluding the confession altogether from
consideration and see whether, if it is believed, a conviction could safely be
based on it. If it is capable of belief independently of the confession, then of
course it is not necessary to call the confession in aid. But cases may arise
where the Judge is not prepared to act on the other evidence as it stands even
though, if believed, it would be sufficient to sustain a conviction. In such an
event, the Judge may call in aid the confession and use it to lend assurance
to the other evidence and thus fortify himself in believing what without the
aid of the confession he would not be prepared to accept.”
49.27. There is no cross-examination by Bharti on Ext.P9 when it was proved by
PW1. Neither Prajapati, nor Bharti can argue that the two confessional
statements under Ext. P9 and Ext. DW3/P4 were obtained through
inducement, threat, or promise to attract Sec. 24 of the Indian Evidence
Act. The said factors have already been eliminated in the above portion of
the judgment.
49.28. They also cannot argue that any protection is available to Prajapati under
Article 20(3) of the Constitution against self-incrimination. At the time
Prajapati made those statements, he was not an accused. In this regard one
may place reliance upon the case of State of Bombay Vs. Kathi Kalu
Oghad AIR 1961 SC 1808.
50. Here, it becomes necessary to address certain additional individual
contentions raised by Bharti and Prajapati.
51. One such contention raised by Bharti is that the present prosecution could
not have been initiated or continued without the trust being made an
accused, as the trust was the beneficiary.
51.1. This contention is misconceived. It is now well established that a trust, as
defined in Sec. 3 of the Indian Trust Act, 1882, cannot fall within the
Judgment dated 01.04.2026; In SC/06/2025; CNR no.DLCT11-001079-2025; Zila Sahkari Krishi Gramin Vikas Bank Vs.
Smt. Savitri & Ors.; Page 87 of 95
88
definition of the word ‘person’ as defined in Sec. 11 of IPC. The word
‘person’ as defined in Sec. 11 IPC includes any company, association, or
collection of persons, whether incorporated or not. Although the definition
is broad, covering even artificial or juristic persons, a trust is not such a
juristic person.
51.2. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sankar Padam Thapa Vs.
Vijaykumar Dineshchandra Agarwal, 2025 INSC 1210, held that, unlike
a company, a trust is not a separate juristic entity or a legal person. Instead,
it is an obligation solely resting with the trustees. Although that was a case
under the NI Act in which the Supreme Court held that, without arraigning
the trust as an accused, a complaint U/s 138 N. I Act is maintainable
against the trustee signatory of the cheque, the principle of law still applies.
Therefore, this contention is rejected.
52. Bharti next argues that the charge of conspiracy was introduced very
late in 2023, i.e., eight years after the initial complaint was filed and two
years after the first order on the charge.
52.1. It is true that the conspiracy charge was introduced belatedly, but that
alone would not be enough to let the accused persons in conspiracy go
free. After all, it is a cognizable offence. The learned predecessor court,
when summoned Prajapati and reframed charges against Bharti,
specifically included the charge of conspiracy. That order on charge was
never challenged. Once conspiracy is established through cogent evidence,
an accused cannot be let off merely because the said offence was charged
at a later stage during the trial. As soon as the commission of an offence
comes to the court’s notice, it becomes the court’s duty to charge the
offender, which in this case was indeed done and has also been proved by
the prosecution.
53. The argument by Bharti that he is politically targeted or that the
Judgment dated 01.04.2026; In SC/06/2025; CNR no.DLCT11-001079-2025; Zila Sahkari Krishi Gramin Vikas Bank Vs.
Smt. Savitri & Ors.; Page 88 of 95
89
prosecution is politically motivated is all speculation. He has failed to
prove any such political motives or false implications. Instead, it is a case
of forgery of bank documents and cheating the bank from 1998 to 2011,
which is long before the alleged political rivalry claimed by Bharti.
54. On the other hand, the claim by Prajapati that he made bonafide
corrections in the FDR tenures based on the oral and written instructions
of his superiors, including the GM and Accountant, has already been
rejected and addressed above. His contention that he did not derive any
financial gain or personal advantage from altering the documents cannot
be in his favour; even if he did not gain financially, he should have
explained why he committed the forgeries. Once it is established that he
forged the documents to gain advantage and financial benefit for the trust,
he was obliged to provide an explanation. He received several out of turn
promotions as undue favours from Bharti, which served as a quid pro quo
for the forgery.
55. The argument by Prajapati that he was not originally made an accused in
the complaint filed in 2015 and was only added in 2023 is of no help to
him. The evidence in the case clearly shows that before the complaint was
filed, Prajapati had named Bharti as the beneficiary and the person
responsible for executing the offence through him. Therefore, the bank
might have thought it appropriate to examine Prajapati only as a witness.
However, when Prajapati did not support the complaint during his pre-
summoning evidence and completely changed his stance, the bank might
have been compelled to file an application U/s 319 Cr.P.C. Once he was
summoned as an additional accused by the court, a move Prajapati
unsuccessfully challenged up to the Supreme Court, his claim that he was
not originally made an accused loses steam.
56. The sum and substance of the above discussion is that accused Bharti and
Judgment dated 01.04.2026; In SC/06/2025; CNR no.DLCT11-001079-2025; Zila Sahkari Krishi Gramin Vikas Bank Vs.
Smt. Savitri & Ors.; Page 89 of 95
90
accused Prajapati, along with Savitri Devi and possibly other unknown
persons, entered into a criminal conspiracy. The object of this conspiracy
was to cheat the complainant bank by continuing to draw interest at a much
higher rate beyond 2011, which was the initial fixed deposit (FD) duration
of three years. In furtherance of this conspiracy, the bank documents Ext.
P5 to P7 and P11, which are valuable securities, were forged. The forgery
was part of the aim to cheat the bank.
56.1. Both accused Bharti and Prajapati are, therefore, guilty of criminal
conspiracy punishable under Section 120B of IPC read with Sections 420,
467, 468 and 471 of IPC.
CONCLUSION
57. Accused Rajendra Bharti is accordingly found guilty and convicted of
the offence of criminal conspiracy punishable under S. 120B of IPC
read with Sec. 420/467/468/471 of IPC.
58. The accused Raghuvir Sharan Prajapati is accordingly found guilty
and convicted of the following offences:
i. forgery of Ext. P5 to 7 and P11, which are valuable securities,
punishable under section 467 read with 120B of IPC.
ii. forgery of Ext. P5 to 7 and P11, for the purpose of cheating,
punishable under Section 468 read with 120B of IPC.
iii. for criminal conspiracy punishable under Section 120B of IPC
read with Sections 420/467/468/471 of IPC.
Announced in open court DIG Digitally signed
by DIG VINAY
on the 01st day of April 2026. SINGH
VINAY Date:
SINGH 2026.04.01
14:16:51 +0530
DIG VINAY SINGH
SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT), CBI-09
(MPs/MLAs CASES), RADC, NEW DELHI
Judgment dated 01.04.2026; In SC/06/2025; CNR no.DLCT11-001079-2025; Zila Sahkari Krishi Gramin Vikas Bank Vs.
Smt. Savitri & Ors.; Page 90 of 95
91Chart for witness examined
Prosecution Witnesses
Prosecution Wit- Name of Witness Description
ness No.
PW1 Narender Singh Parmar He was the complainant who filed the
complaint case being General Manager,
Zila Sahkari Gramin Vikas Bank.
PW2 Abhay Kumar Khare He was the Joint Registrar, Cooperative
Societies, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh.
He conducted inquiry against the ac-
cused persons under the M.P. Coopera-
tive Societies Act of 1960.
PW3 Akhilesh Shukla He was the Liquidator (Parisamapak),
of the complainant bank after the bank
went into liquidation subsequent to fil-
ing complaint.
Defence Witnesses
Defence Name of Witness Description
Witness No.
DW-1 Shailender Narayan Retired bank official of complainant
Budholia bank, examined by accused Rajendra
Bharti.
DW-2 Deepak Belpatri Practicing Lawyer in Madhya Pradesh
examined by accused Rajendra Bharti
to prove political vendetta.
DW-3 Raghuvir Sharan Prajapati Accused himself
DW-4 Rajendra Bharti Accused himself
Judgment dated 01.04.2026; In SC/06/2025; CNR no.DLCT11-001079-2025; Zila Sahkari Krishi Gramin Vikas Bank Vs.
Smt. Savitri & Ors.; Page 91 of 95
92Chart for Exhibited documents
Exhibit No. Description of the Exhibit Proved by
/ Attested
by
PW1 Narender Singh Parmar
Exhibit P-1 Application dated 24.08.1998 for FD submitted by Smt. PW 1
Savitri
Exhibit P-2 Voucher dated 24.08.1998 for ₹8,50,000. PW 1
Exhibit P-3 Voucher dated 24.08.1998 for ₹1,50,000. PW 1
Exhibit P-4 Specimen signature sheet taken by the bank at the time PW 1
of opening Savitri’s FD account on 24.08.1998
Exhibit P-5 FD (Fixed Deposit) counter slip No. 309 PW 1
Exhibit P-6 Receipt no. 006153 for ₹8,50,000 dated 24.08.1998. PW 1
Exhibit P-7 Receipt no. 006153 for ₹1,50,000 dated 24.08.1998. PW 1
Exhibit P-8 Complaint U/s 200 Cr.P.C PW 1
Exhibit P-9 Affidavit of accused Raghuvir Sharan Prajapati dated PW 1
05.11.2012
Exhibit P-10 Bylaws of complainant bank PW 1
Exhibit P-11 Ledger No. 252 as to the FD in question. (Article A-1) PW 1
Exhibit P-11-C Copy of Ext. P11 PW 1
Exhibit P-12 Application submitted by Savitri seeking payment of PW 1
annual interest for the period 1998-99.
Exhibit P-13 Debit voucher dated 30.08.1999 for ₹1,35,000 PW 1
Exhibit P-14 Debit voucher dated 25.08.2000 for ₹1,35,000 PW 1
Exhibit P-15 Application submitted by Savitri seeking payment of PW 1
annual interest for the period 2000-01.
Exhibit P-16 Debit voucher dated 28.08.2001 for ₹1,35,000 PW 1
Exhibit P-17 Application submitted by Savitri seeking payment of PW 1
annual interest for the period 2001-02.
Exhibit P-18 Debit voucher dated 28.09.2002 for ₹1,35,000 PW 1
Exhibit P-19 Application submitted by Savitri seeking payment of PW 1
annual interest for the period 2002-03.
Exhibit P-20 Debit voucher dated 16.10.2003 for ₹1,35,000 PW 1
Exhibit P-21 Application submitted by Savitri seeking payment of PW 1
annual interest for the period 2003-04.
Exhibit P-22 Debit voucher dated 22.09.2004 for ₹1,35,000 PW 1
Exhibit P-23 Application dated 25.09.2007 submitted by Savitri PW 1
Judgment dated 01.04.2026; In SC/06/2025; CNR no.DLCT11-001079-2025; Zila Sahkari Krishi Gramin Vikas Bank Vs.
Smt. Savitri & Ors.; Page 92 of 95
93
seeking payment of annual interest for the period 2006-
07.
Exhibit P-24 Debit voucher dated 25.09.2007 for ₹1,35,000 PW 1
Exhibit P-25 Application submitted by Savitri seeking payment of PW 1
annual interest for the period 2007-08.
Exhibit P-26 Debit voucher dated 14.10.2008 for ₹1,35,000 PW 1
Exhibit P-27 Application submitted by Savitri seeking payment of PW 1
annual interest for the period 2008-09.
Exhibit P-28 Debit voucher dated 25.08.2009 for ₹1,35,000 PW 1
Exhibit P-29 Application submitted by Savitri seeking payment of PW 1
annual interest for the period 2009-10.
Exhibit P-30 Debit voucher dated 29.09.2010 for ₹1,35,000 PW 1
Exhibit P-31 Application submitted by Savitri seeking payment of PW 1
annual interest for the period 2010-11.
Exhibit P-32 Debit voucher dated 04.11.2011 for ₹1,35,000 PW 1
Exhibit P-33 Appointment and posting order of Raghuvir Sharan PW 1
Prajapati in the complainant bank (File No. 11 / Artlcle
A-2 / Service Records)
Article A-1 The ledger register comprising Ext. P-11 PW1
Article A-2 Service book of Raghuvir Sharan Prajapati comprising PW1
of Ext. P33 also
Article A-3 Register containing minutes of meeting of AGM of the PW1
complainant bank
Article A-4 Register containing minutes of Sub-committee of the PW1
complainant bank
PW2 ABHAY KUMAR
Exhibit P-34 Letter dated 05.09.2014 sent by PW2 Abhay Kumar PW 2
Khare to the Commissioner, Cooperative Department
and Registrar, Cooperative Society, Bhopal, Madhya
Pradesh.
Exhibit P-35 Notice issued under Section 76 of the M.P. Cooperative PW 2
Societies Act, 1960 by PW2 Abhay Kumar Khare
Exhibit P-36 Sanction dated 27.01.2015 under Section 76(2) of the PW2
M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 issued by PW2
PW3 AKHILESH SHUKLA
Article A-5 Audit report for the period 2012-13 PW3
Judgment dated 01.04.2026; In SC/06/2025; CNR no.DLCT11-001079-2025; Zila Sahkari Krishi Gramin Vikas Bank Vs.
Smt. Savitri & Ors.; Page 93 of 95
94
Defence Witnesses
DW-1 Shailender Narayan Budholia
Ex. DW1/A Circular dated 01.06.1998. DW-1
Ex. DW1/P-1 Magazine Gyan Jyoti published in 2019 DW-1
Ex. DW1/P-2 Magazine Gyan Jyoti published in 2003 DW-1
Ex. DW1/P-3 Registration related documents of trust namely Sri DW-1
Shyam Sunder ‘Shyam’ Institute of Public Cooperation
and Community Development, Datiya
DW-2 Deepak Belpatri
Ex. DW2/A1 Photograph of the witness and others DW-2
Ex. DW2/A2 Photograph of the witness and others DW-2
Ex. DW2/A3 Photograph of the witness and others DW-2
Ex. DW2/A4 Photograph of the witness and others DW-2
Ex. DW2/B Certificate U/s. 63 BSA DW-2
Ex.DW2/C1 Printouts of screenshots of the meta data of picture Ext. DW-2
DW2/A-1
Ex. DW2/C2 Printouts of screenshots of the meta data of picture Ext. DW-2
DW2/A-1
Ex.DW2/C3 Printouts of screenshots of the meta data of picture Ext. DW-2
DW2/A-2
Ex.DW2/C4 Printouts of screenshots of the meta data of picture Ext. DW-2
DW2/A-2
Ex. DW2/C5 Printouts of screenshots of the meta data of picture Ext. DW-2
DW2/A-3
Ex. DW2/C6 Printouts of screenshots of the meta data of picture Ext. DW-2
DW2/A-3
Ex. DW2/C7 Printouts of screenshots of the meta data of picture Ext. DW-2
DW2/A-4
Ex. DW2/C8 Printouts of screenshots of the meta data of picture Ext. DW-2
DW2/A-4
DW-3 Raghuvir Sharan Prajapati (Accused himself)
Ex. DW3/1 Order dated 28.05.1998 attaching DW3 to the cash DW-3
branch
Ex.DW3/2 Order dated 30.10.2012 suspending DW3 DW-3
Ex.DW3/3 Revocation of the suspension dated 06.11.2012 DW-3
Ex.DW3/4 Second suspension order of DW3 dated 13.06.2015 DW-3
Ex.DW3/5 Revocation of suspension of DW3 dated 16.03.2016 DW-3
Ex.DW3/P-1 Statement dated 18.02.2016 of DW3 U/s 202 Cr.P.C DW-3
Judgment dated 01.04.2026; In SC/06/2025; CNR no.DLCT11-001079-2025; Zila Sahkari Krishi Gramin Vikas Bank Vs.
Smt. Savitri & Ors.; Page 94 of 95
95
Ex. DW3/P-2 Reply to the application u/s.319 Cr.PC dated 13.03.2022 DW-3
Ex. DW3/P-3 Photocopy of the SLP preferred by DW3 DW-3
(Collectively)
Ex. DW3/P-4 Certified copy of reply/explanation given by DW3 DW-3
pursuant to Notice dated 19.09.2012.
DW-4 Rajinder Bharti (Accused himself)
Ex. DW4/A-1 Certified Copy of Order dated 23.06.2017 of ECI DW-4
Ex. DW4/A-2 List of cases against DW4 and his family members in DW-4
particularly.
Ex. DW4/A-3 Certified copy of complaint lodged by Mr. Mohar Singh DW-4
Kaurav against Narottam Mishra
Ex.DW4/A-4 Order of liquidation of the complainant bank dated DW-4
22.03.2016
Ex. DW4/A-5 Order dated 09.05.2017 as to absorption of PW1 in DW-4
another department
Ex.DW4/A-6 Application dated 20.11.2024 filed by DW4 in this case. DW-4
Ex. DW4/A-7 Application dated 20.11.2024 preferred by DW4 seeking DW-4
action against ADPO and DPO
Ex. DW4/A-8 Order dated 09.04.2025 of Hon’ble Supreme Court of DW-4
India
Ex. DW4/P2 Statement dated 18.02.2016 of DW4 U/s 202 Cr.P.C. DW-4
———————
DIG Digitally signed
by DIG VINAY
SINGH
VINAY Date:
SINGH 2026.04.01
14:17:07 +0530Judgment dated 01.04.2026; In SC/06/2025; CNR no.DLCT11-001079-2025; Zila Sahkari Krishi Gramin Vikas Bank Vs.
Smt. Savitri & Ors.; Page 95 of 95
