Full Judgment Text
Neutral Citation Number is 2022/DHC/004687
$~44
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Order pronounced on 14.10.2022
+ CRL.REV.P. 361/2021 & CRL.M.A. 17913/2021
RAJESH KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. R.K. Tarun, Mr. Rohit Shukla &
Mr. Abhay Solanki, Advs.
versus
CBI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Ripu Daman Bhardwaj, SPP with
Ms. Neha Sharma, Adv. for CBI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TALWANT SINGH
Talwant Singh, J.:
1. The petitioner by way of present revision petition has challenged the
impugned order on charge dated 19.04.2021 and consequent charge framed
on 09.10.2021 in RC BD1/2010/E/0006 of 2010 under Section 120 B read
with Section 420 IPC and Section 13 (1) (ii) of the PC Act.
1.1 On behalf of the petitioner, it has been submitted that on the written
complaint of General Manager of SBI regarding alleged crime committed by
Suhrit Services Pvt. Ltd. and its Directors and others, whereby SBI,
Overseas Branch are cheated to the tune of Rs. 12.18 crores, the case was
registered against the present petitioner, who is accused no.5 in the said
matter. There is no material in the charge-sheet filed to connect the present
petitioner with crime, who was merely a junior accountant of the accused
company. However, the learned Trial Court was pleased to frame charges
against him vide order dated. 09.10.2021.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARIOM
Crl. Rev. 361/20221 Page 1 of 7
Signing Date:05.11.2022
15:04:43
Neutral Citation Number is 2022/DHC/004687
1.2 Aggrieved by the same, the present petitioner has filed this petition on
the grounds that there is no material to suggest that there was any meeting of
mind of the present petitioner Rajesh Kumar and the Directors of the
accused company, so, charge of criminal conspiracy cannot be fastened on
the petitioner; the petitioner was merely an employee of the accused
company and he had no direct participation in affairs of the accused
company; the petitioner was not an authorised signatory on behalf of the
accused company; an employee cannot be made responsible for the criminal
wrongs committed by his employer, since purchase orders clearly suggest
that the complainant himself, i.e., the State Bank of India is responsible for
all the lapses; details of stock in transit by Stock Valuation Officer of SBI is
totally baseless; no witnesses has stated anything incriminating against the
present accused/applicant; the only allegation against petitioner is that he
took a print-out of the stocks statement and handed it over to the Asset
Verification Officer of the SBI; the complainant was not in picture when the
loan was granted and suspicion as well as conjectures are not substitute for
proof required in criminal Courts. Prayer has been made to set aside the
impugned order on charge and actual framing of charge.
2. Notice was issued to CBI. Reply has been filed.
2.1 It has been submitted in the Status Report that the petition is not
maintainable as the same has been malafidely filed only with the intention to
delay the trial proceedings; the petitioner has himself mis-represented the
facts; the impugned order was passed after proper application of judicial
mind and considering the documentary evidence on record. The facts
regarding registration of FIR and the attended circumstances have been
detailed in the Status Report. The role of the accused/petitioner Shri Rajesh
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARIOM
Crl. Rev. 361/20221 Page 2 of 7
Signing Date:05.11.2022
15:04:43
Neutral Citation Number is 2022/DHC/004687
Kumar is also specifically mentioned. Under these circumstances, it has
been prayed that the petition may be dismissed.
3. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the CBI.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the content of the
petition while arguing. It is submitted that the loan was sanctioned in May,
2008 and it was disbursed in August, 2008 so, the alleged stock statement
attributed to the petitioner, which was submitted on 03.09.2008 cannot have
any bearing and petitioner has no connection with the alleged syphoning of
bank funds by other co-accused persons. The petitioner was only accountant.
There is no conspiracy or meeting of mind. The CBI has failed to connect
the petitioner with the crime and there is no prima facie case so he prays for
discharge.
5. On behalf of the CBI, learned counsel has argued that it is a serious
financial crime, the crime continued for years together as working capital
loan was reviewed at regular intervals; for the reasons best known to
petitioner, he has submitted a forged stock statement showing that large
number of vehicles were available in stock -in -trade, however, most of the
vehicles were not available in stock. Under these circumstances, it has been
prayed that application by the petitioner may be dismissed.
6. In the present case, the impugned order of charge is dated 19.04.2021.
Para No.18 and 19 of the said order deals with the role of the present
petitioner. The said paragraphs are reproduced hereunder:-
“18. So far as the role of accused no. 5 is concerned who is
alleged to have supplied an inflated stock statement knowing it
to be false, there is primafacie evidence of the same in the form
of statements of LW 2, LW 27 and LW 50. LW 2 Manish Kumar
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARIOM
Crl. Rev. 361/20221 Page 3 of 7
Signing Date:05.11.2022
15:04:43
Neutral Citation Number is 2022/DHC/004687
(Dy. Manager, Legal, HMIL) confirmed that out of 1223
vehicles mentioned in the stock statement dt. 3.9.2008, the
Vehicle Identification Numbers (VIN) of 786 vehicles were of
those vehicles which had not been allotted ever by HMIL to any
dealer. Further, of this list, only 306 vehicles had been sold by
HMIL to Suhrit Services P. Ltd. and 131 vehicles out of this list
had infact been allotted to other dealers. LW 50 Mr. Ashish
Anand (Regional Sales Manager, HMIL), when shown the stock
statement handed over by accused no. 5 to the AVO of SBI,
stated that in his service career, he had not come across any
such order wherein 1200 cars have been purchased by a
company. He further stated that normally, a dealer orders
about 250 cars in transit and further that in a month, M/s SSPL
(Accused company) ordered about 250300 cars in a month. The
allegation that this stock statement was handed over by accused
no. 5 is confirmed by LW 27 Vipin Kukreti who was the Asset
Verification Officer to whom this list was handed over. The role
of accused no. 5 thus prima facie surfaces in the conspiracy by
accused company and its directors for defrauding the
complainant bank. It needs a highlight that as per LW 52 Mr.
Anurag Kumar Sinha DGM, SBI, it is the stock statement which
was the basis for the accused no. 6 and Ashutosh Goel to fix the
drawing limit of the accused company/its directors.
19. In regard to the alleged role of accused no. 5 Rajesh
Kumar, ld. Counsel appearing for A5 submitted that A5 has
been charged with handing over an inflated/false stock
statement dt. 3.9.2008 whereas the working capital loan had
been sanctioned much earlier on 12.5.2008 and infact, the
entire funds had been utilised by 12.8.2008. Consequently, the
stock statement dt. 3.9.2008 could possibly have no bearing on
the sanction of loan or its utilisation. Ld. Counsel placed
reliance on a judgment dt. 3.5.2007 delivered by the Hon’ble
High Court of Delhi i.e. Crl. Revision P. no. 854/2005. I have
carefully gone through the cited judgment. The accused
petitioner (in the cited judgment) was alleged to have defrauded
the bank pursuant to a conspiracy. However, his only role,
being the Director of the company which had applied for loan,
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARIOM
Crl. Rev. 361/20221 Page 4 of 7
Signing Date:05.11.2022
15:04:43
Neutral Citation Number is 2022/DHC/004687
was to execute certain loan documents after the loan had been
sanctioned. Hon’ble High Court held that in the absence of any
specific role attributed to the accused petitioner i.e. expressly
furnishing forged documents or being covertly/overtly involved
in the decision to defraud the Bank or furnishing of securities
which were not clean, there was insufficient material to frame
Charge against the petitioner accused. In the present case
however, the facts are different and so is the alleged role of A5
since he is alleged to have knowingly supplied a false and
inflated stock statement to the AVO of SBI which stock
statement was relevant for 2 very important reasons – first, the
stocks were hypothecated in favour of the complainant Bank as
primary security and second, the stock statement formed the
basis for fixing the drawing power of the Directors of the
accused company i.e. as per LW 52. Ld. Counsel for the
accused has not been able to show any circumstance which
would warrant this Court to believe that A5 had no knowledge
about the actual stock status when he handed over the
inflated/false stock statement to the AVO of SBI. Even assuming
that the cash credit a/c of accused company had no transactions
after 12.8.2008 (though record suggests otherwise), complete
utilisation of funds by the accused company did not mean that
the banking relationship ended. Fund utilisation was one act of
the r’ship, other being its repayment which the complainant
Bank had sought to secure by way securities. As already
highlighted, the stocks of the complainant were the primary
security with the complainant Bank.
The alleged act of A5 of supplying a false stock statement to the
AVO of SBI was an act in pursuance of the conspiracy to
defraud the complainant Bank by misleading it with regard to
the extent of primary security available”.
6.1 In my view each and every objection raised by the present petitioner
in the criminal revision petition has been duly discussed and dealt with by
learned Special Judge at the time of passing the order on charge. In the
stock statement dated 03.02.2008, supplied to the bank by the petitioner,
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARIOM
Crl. Rev. 361/20221 Page 5 of 7
Signing Date:05.11.2022
15:04:43
Neutral Citation Number is 2022/DHC/004687
1223 vehicles were shown available with the accused company but during
interrogation it came to light that Vehicle Identification Number of 786
vehicles were of those vehicles which had not been allotted ever by HMIL to
any dealer. Only 306 vehicles had been sold by HMIL to Suhrit Services
Pvt. Ltd., 131 vehicles out of this list, had been allotted to other dealers.
Moreover, Regional Sales Manager of HMIL had stated that in his service
career he had never come across any such purchase order where 1200 cars
had been purchased by a company. Mr. Vipin Kukreti, who was a Asset
Verification Officer, had confirmed that it was only the present petitioner
who had handed over the stock statement to him. So, prima facie , role of
accused no.5 surfaced alongwith the company and its directors for
defrauding the complainant bank, which was a continuous offence and mere
fact that the working capital loan was sanctioned on 12.05.2008 and funds
were utilised on 12.08.2008 and mere submission of stock statement by
petitioner on 03.09.2008 would not mean that the petitioner is prima facie
not involved.
6.2 The learned Trial Court has also discussed the judgment delivered by
a coordinate bench of this Court in the matter of Pratik Ratra vs. CBI. Crl.
Rev. 854/2005 dated 03.05.2007. In the said case, the petitioner was merely
a professional director and employee who had no role in the decision
making process of the company, which was privately managed and he had
only signed certain documents. With due respect, the role of the present
petitioner is not similar to the role of petitioner in Crl. Rev. 854/2005. It is
the petitioner, who was supposed to maintain the total Stock Valuation
Report and out of the stock shown as 1223 vehicles as on 03.09.2009, 786
vehicles were never allotted by HMIL to any dealer and in respect of 306
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARIOM
Crl. Rev. 361/20221 Page 6 of 7
Signing Date:05.11.2022
15:04:43
Neutral Citation Number is 2022/DHC/004687
vehicles, it is mentioned that they were sold by HMIL to Suhrit Services Pvt.
Ltd. and 131 vehicles from the said list were sold by HMIL to other dealers,
apart from non-allotment of 786 vehicles.
6.3 Under these circumstances, there is a prima facie material in the
charge-sheet specifically showing the role of the present petitioner and the
evidence being the documentary evidence as well as the statements of the
witnesses recorded during the course of investigation and it is a fit case for
framing of charge. However, the petitioner is at liberty to cross-examine the
witnesses of the CBI or he may lead evidence to prove his case before the
learned Trial Court at appropriate stage.
7. The petition is not maintainable and the same is hereby dismissed.
8. It is made clear that nothing stated herein above shall affect the merits
of the case.
9. A copy of this order be sent to learned Sessions Judge.
TALWANT SINGH, J
OCTOBER 14, 2022/ nk
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARIOM
Crl. Rev. 361/20221 Page 7 of 7
Signing Date:05.11.2022
15:04:43