Sri G Praveen Kumar

IN THE COURT OF THE XXI ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-

CUM- SPL.JMFC FOR TRIAL OF CBI CASES:: HYDERABAD

PRESENT : G. Praveen Kumar., XXI Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate- cum- Spl.JMFC for trial of CBI Cases, Hyderabad

Monday, this the 9 th day of May, 2022

CC.No. 7 OF 2018

Between:

Inspector of Police, Central Bureau Of Investigation, Anti Corruption Bureau, Hyderabad.

…. Complainant

And

A1.K. Sudhama, S/o. K. Asha Balaiah, Aged about 50 years, Occu: Business, R/o. Flat No. 401, III Floor, Sri Krishna Palace, Kharkana, Secunderabad.

A2.Pradeep Kaparthi, S/o. S. Ramlingam Kaparthi, Aged about 45 years, Occu: the then approved valuer of SBI, R/o. Chartered Engineer and Approved Valuer of SBI, 105 Diamond Tower, Besides Beljon’s Taj, SD Road, Secunderabad.

A3.M.S.N. Prasad, S/o. M.V.R. Sharma, Aged about 47 years, Occu: the then Panel Advocate of SBI, R/o. 19/A, Satyajaya Ramgopal Enclave, Bowenpally, Secunderabad. (Proceedings against A3 quashed by Hon’ble High Court)

A4.Joseph Lawrance Bola, S/o. Joseph Bola, Aged about 45 years, Occu: Computer Professional, R/o. 23-21, RK Nagar, Secunderabad. (Case against A4 & A10 Split up vide CC No.8 of 2018)

A5.R.S. Ramchandra Murthy, S/o. R.V. Somanath Sharma, Aged about 61 years, Occu: Approved Valuer of SBI, R/o. H.No. 40, SBI Colony, New Bakaram, New Ashoknagar Cross Roads, Hyderabad.

A6.Surjeet Singh, S/o. Late Tarlok Singh, Aged about 41 years, Occu: Business, R/o. 9-2-733, Regimental Bazar, Secunderabad.

A7.Smt. Navneet Kaur, W/o. Surjeet Singh, Aged about 40 years, Occu: House wife/Business, R/o. 9-2-733, Regimental Bazar, Secunderabad.

A8.A. Angamuthu, S/o. P. Armugam Chettiar, Aged about 35 years, Occu: Business, R/o. 8-3-148/B, Second Bazar, Secunderabad.

A9.M. Rami Reddy, S/o. Late M. Malla Reddy, Aged about 56 years, Occu: Business R/o. Plot No. 37, Srinagar Colony, Trimulgherry, Secunderabad. (Case against A9 abated since died)

A10. S. Rajashekar, S/o. Sundaram Iyer, Aged : Not known, Occu: Business, R/o. Flat No. 104, III Floor, Srikrishna Palace, Kharkana, Secunderabad. (Case against A4 & A10 Split up vide CC No.8 of 2018) (Ages are mentioned as per charge sheet)

...Accused.

2 OF 84 CC.NO.7 OF 2018

This case came before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri. P.Mallikarjuna Rao., learned Public Prosecutor for CBI and of Sri. U. Venugopal, learned Advocate for Accused No. 1 & Accused No.8, Sri. E. Uma Maheshwarao, learned Advocate for Accused No.2, Sri. Mohd. Muzhafarulah Khan, learned Advocate for Accused No. 6 & Accused No.7 and R.S. Ramachandra Murthy, Accused No.5 in person, the case against Accused No.9 abated since died, case against A3 quashed and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following.

::JUDGMENT::

1.On 27/6/2005 Central Bureau of Investigation, (CBI), Special Police Establishment (SPE), Hyderabad registered a case in RC.No.16(A)/2005 for offences punishable u/s. 120-B, 419, 420 & 471 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of

Corruption Act (PC Act) against Accused No.1 to Accused No.7 herein and also against officials of State Bank of India ( SBI), Personal Banking Branch ( PBB), Sardar Patel Road ( S.P. Road), Secunderabad namely M.S. Ramesh, the then Assistant Manager (Advances) and

B. Muralikrishna, the then Accountant, alleging that Accused No.1, Accused No.4 and Accused

No. 6 & 7 in conspiracy with bank officials with dishonest and fraudulent intention submitted false and forged sale deeds, availed housing loans, illegally diverted the funds into Fictitious accounts and caused wrongful loss to a tune of Rs. 65,41,907/- to the bank and corresponding wrongful gain to themselves.

2. The Inspector of Police, CBI, Hyderabad after completion of investigation filed charge sheet against Accused No.1 to Accused No.10 herein for the offences punishable u/s 120-B, 419, 420 & 471 of IPC by deleting the names of bank officials referred in First Information

Report on the ground that the sanction for their prosecution was denied by the Competent

Authorities of the Bank.

3. The allegations of the Charge Sheet in brief are :

3.1. The officials of SBI, PBB, S.P. Road Branch, Secunderabad namely Sri M. Ramesh (FIR

Accused No.1), Sri B. Muralikrishna ( FIR Accused No.2) conspired with Accused No.1 to

Accused No.7 for irregular recommendations/ sanction of housing loans of Accused No.1,

Accused No.4 and joint housing loan of Accused No.6 & Accused No.7.

3 OF 84 CC.NO.7 OF 2018

In respect of housing loan of Accused No.1:

3.2In furtherance of such conspiracy, on 28/02/2002 Accused No.1 opened S.B Account in

SBI, PBB, SP Road, Secunderabad vide account No. 6551. B. Muralikrishna, Accountant of said bank verified the signature of Accused No.1 and also signed as introducer.

3.3. On 15/03/2002, Accused No.1 applied for sanction of Housing loan of Rs. 15 lakhs for construction of a house of 3500 Square Feet in a plot worth of Rs.12 lakhs. He has shown his wife Smt. K. Revathi as a Guarantor. The cost of construction was shown as Rs. 24 lakhs. He claimed that he had already invested Rs.20 lakhs and he requires housing loan of Rs.15 lakhs for completing the house construction. He submitted the loan application without entering the columns like financial details of the guarantor, etc., 3.4. In furtherance of such conspiracy, M.S. Ramesh, the then Assistant Manager (Advances), SBI, PBB, SP Road, Secunderabad ( FIR Accused No.1) processed the said housing loan application of Accused No.1. He gave appraisal report stating that on 27/03/2002 he along with late C.R. Dikshitulu, the then Branch Manager, SBI, PBB, SP Road, Branch,

Secunderabad branch had inspected the house of Accused No.1. He referred the valuation report given by Accused No.2 and legal opinion given by Accused No.3. He recommended for sanction of housing loan of Rs.15 lakhs to Accused No.1 on the ground that Accused No.1 had sufficient means to repay the loan through monthly installments.

3.5 On the basis of above appraisal report, Mr. C.R. Dikshitulu ( Died) sanctioned housing loan of Rs.15 lakhs to Accused No.1 which is repayable within 180 equal monthly installments.

3.6. On 28/03/2002, Accused No.1 executed the loan agreement accepting the terms and conditions. On 29/03/2002 Accused No.1 deposited sale deed vide document No. 1293/2001, 4 OF 84 CC.NO.7 OF 2018

dated: 28/07/2001 pertaining to sale of open plot of land to an extent of 300 Square Yards in

Survey No. 96 to 99, Trimulgherry, Secunderabad. The said sale deed was executed by S.

Rajashekar as a GPA holder of land owner namely M. Rami Reddy.

3.7. In furtherance of above conspiracy, after sanction and disbursal of housing loan of

Rs.15 lakhs, Accused No.1 made several withdrawals from out of sanctioned housing loan amount through self cheques. He issued bearer cheque bearing No.134778 dated 27/06/2002 for Rs. 10,000/-, bearer cheque bearing No.134796 dated 27/08/2002 for Rs. 77,000/-, bearer cheque bearing No. 090279 dated 07/09/2002 for Rs. 50,000/- in favour of Surjeet

Singh/Accused No.6, banker’s cheque bearing No. 351976 dated 27/08/2002 for Rs. 5,00,000/- in favour of M. Rami Reddy/Accused No.9, bearer cheque bearing No. 134800 dated 02/09/2002 for Rs. 25,000/- in favour of S. Muthu @ A. Angamuthu/Accused No.8, bearer cheques bearing No. 130861 dated 02/05/2002 for Rs.30,000/-, cheque bearing No. 130864

dated 09/05/2002 for Rs.1,00,000/-, cheque bearing No. 130865 dated 12/05/2002 for Rs.

1,00,000/-, Cheque bearing No. 130866 dated 14/05/2002 for Rs. 1,00,000/- and cheque bearing No. 134777 dated 20/06/2002 for Rs. 50,000/- in favour of S. Rajashekar/Accused

No.10 and thereby diverted the housing loan amount for personal use.

3.8 It is revealed that, in furtherance of the above conspiracy, Accused No.1 prepared a forged sale deed vide document No. 1293/2001 of SRO, Bowenpally and submitted to the bank. It is further revealed that the open plot of land admeasuring 300 Square Yards in Survey

No. 96 to 99, Tirumalgherry Village, Secunderabad was in-fact sold by M. Rami

Reddy/Accused No.9 through his GPA holder S. Rajasheker/Accused No.10 in favour of

Accused No.1 vide document No. 1293/2001 dated 28/07/2001. Accused No.1 made use of a forged sale deed on the same lines as the original sale deed and submitted the forged sale deed to the bank. There are clear discrepancies with respect to the code numbers of the Judicial 5 OF 84 CC.NO.7 OF 2018 stamps and the details pertaining to the stamp vendor and the same can be noticed in the forged sale deed. SRO, Bowenpally confirmed that the signatures appearing in the forged sale deed are not genuine.

3.9. In furtherance to the criminal conspiracy, Accused No.3 who was panel advocate after visiting SRO, Bowenpally furnished a search report dated 20/03/2002 and also submitted legal opinion report facilitating the fraud.

3.10. Accused No.2 facilitated the fraud by not mentioning the plot number in the valuation report given by him. It is not clear as to which plot was valued in that survey number. During valuation he did not take care in identifying the property.

3.11. During the investigation, it is revealed that Accused No.1 submitted a forged sanction plan vide document No. 5634 dated 04/10/2001 issued by Cantonment Board, Secunderabad for construction of the house on the above said plot. In furtherance of such conspiracy, the letter issued by Defence Estate Officer to M. Rami Reddy/Accused No.9 in May,1990 mentioning that the land measuring Ac. 3-17 guntas in Survey No. 96 to 99 was recorded as agricultural land in Revenue Records and fall out side the purview of Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1986 so long as it was used for agricultural purpose, was falsified by Accused No.1 and

Accused No.9 by changing the phrases to “non-agricultural land” and by showing that “the land was to be used for the residential purpose” 3.12. Investigation further revealed that M.S. Ramesh (FIR Accused No.1) conducted perfunctory filed inspection but failed to notice the entire sale transaction as fake. He also failed to make out that false legal opinion was furnished by Accused No.3 and that false sanction plan was submitted by Accused No.1. Late C.R. Dikshitulu (Died) accepted the 6 OF 84 CC.NO.7 OF 2018 perfunctory presanction inspection report of M.S.Ramesh ( FIR Accused No.1) and sanctioned the loan on the basis of false and forged documents. Further, no filed inspection was conducted while recommending release of 2nd loan installment but merely referred to the field inspection conducted a month earlier at the time of release of first installment. Further, the request letter of the borrower dated: 6/6/2002 seeking release of third loan installment did not contain the borrowers signature and two such request letters, the first and third were actually filled up by

M.S.Ramesh ( FIR Accused No.1) himself. Separate valuation reports were also not obtained

before releasing stage-wise loan installments. No post-sanction inspection was conducted to

monitor the diversion of funds from the loan account by Accused No.1 who issued cheques to many unrelated parties including other accused private persons.

3.13. In furtherance of the conspiracy, Accused No.1 withdrew some loan amount through self cheques and diverted the remaining to the other co-accused i.e., Accused No.6, Accused

No.8, Accused No.9 and Accused No.10.

3.14. B. Muralikrishna( FIR Accused No.2) released two loan installments of Rs.9 lakhs and

Rs.2.5 lakhs without any specific authorization from the Branch Manager.

3.15. Investigation further revealed that Accused No.9 furnished two receipts purportedly signed by Accused No.1 on revenue stamps. In first receipt, it is mentioned that Accused No.1 received a sum of Rs.4 lakhs from Accused No.9 towards part payment in respect of an agreement for the land bearing Sy.No.99, Tirumalagiri Village, Secunderabad. Similar mention was made in the second receipt, but the amount was shown as Rs.1 lakh. It is apparent to the naked eye that the signature of Accused No.1 in these two receipts are forged and these forged receipts are furnished by Accused No.9 to believe that the diversion of loan amount of Rs.5 lakhs made to him by Accused No.1 is linked to the transactions mentioned in the two receipts.

7 OF 84 CC.NO.7 OF 2018

In respect of Housing Loan of Accused No.4:

3.16. On 10/7/2002 Accused No.4 submitted a housing loan application requesting for NRI housing loan of Rs.40 lakhs. The said application contains many contradictory entries. At one place, it is mentioned that the loan is required for purchase of a plot for Rs.19,90,000/- and construction of house for Rs.22,40,000/-. At another place, it is mentioned that the age of the existing structure is of two years and built up area of the flat is 4,050 Square Feet. It is also mentioned that a new house was proposed to be purchased with purchase price of

Rs.19,90,000/- and cost of additional items of Rs.27 lakhs. Further, in the column for loan request, it is mentioned that loan is required for purchase of house being re-sold indicating cost of land as Rs.19,90,000/-, cost of construction as Rs.27 lakhs and total cost as Rs.46,90,000/-.

It is not clear whether the loan was required for purchasing the plot and constructing a house therein or for purchasing a newly built house and adding additional features or for purchasing a two-year old house as such.

3.17. It is mentioned in the said loan application that Accused No.4 is a Software Engineer and working for the McKinley Group, 440 S, Lasalle Street, Chicago IL 60003 and his residential address at USA, is shown as 212, Marco Avenue, Polo, IL-61064, that he is having

NRE account No.5001688555 in Citi Bank in New York and Begumpet, Hyderabad. The statement of account of NRE a/c of Citi bank, a copy of passport containing H1B visa issued by

USA ( valid from 29/10/1998 to 1/1/2007), copies of IT returns for the year 2000 and 2001 filed in USA, etc., were also enclosed with the said loan application.

3.18. In the said loan application, it is mentioned that Gade Satyamurthy is his vendor and 8- 2-510, Kummaraguda, Secunderabad is the address of his vendor. The agreement of sale dated:

8/7/2002 showing Gade Satyamurthy as vendor and Accused No.4 as vendee, is also enclosed 8 OF 84 CC.NO.7 OF 2018 with such loan application. As per the said sale agreement, a semi furnished house located in an open plot admeasuring 450 Square Yards in Sy.No.96 to 99, Tirumalagiri Village,

Secunderabad was agreed to be sold for total consideration of Rs.19,90,000/- and an advance of

Rs.2,98,500/- including payment of Rs.2 lakhs by way of cheque No. 021216 dated: 8/7/2002 of Andhra Bank, R.P.Road, Secunderabad was made.

3.19. Accused No.4 also enclosed a photocopy of an agreement of work order dated: July, 2002, signed by himself and Accused No.1 for completion of certain specified works in the semi furnished house by the latter for Rs.27 lakhs. The said two documents show that loan was initially sought by Accused No.4 for purchasing a semi-finished house and for undertaking certain additions to that house.

3.20. In furtherance of conspiracy, Late C.R.Dikshitulu( Died) himself prepared the pre- sanction inspection report stating that the cost of semi-furnished house was Rs.19,90,000/- and the estimated cost for the remaining works was Rs.24,01,000/-. At the same time, it is also mentioned by him stating that as per the valuation report, the cost of site was Rs.22,50,000/- and the cost of construction was Rs.21,80,000/- and thereby he presented a confusing picture regarding the purpose of which the loan was sought, whether for purchasing a semi furnished house and doing some additions or for purchasing a site and constructing a new house therein.

In the report, a reference was also made in respect of legal opinion dated: 10/7/2002 given by

Accused No.5 in which it was mentioned that search was conducted by the advocate on 09/07/2002 and that the vendor had clear absolute and marketable title over the property, that the concerned documents are genuine. He also referred to the valuation report given by

Accused No.5 who valued the property along with proposed construction, as Rs.44,30,000/- which is false. On 13/8/2002, Sri A. Damodaram sanctioned term loan of Rs.39 lakhs subject to certain terms and conditions.

9 OF 84 CC.NO.7 OF 2018 3.21. In pursuance to the conspiracy, C.R. Dikshitulu (Died) disbursed the entire loan amounts in two stages i.e., an amount of Rs.19,90,000/-was issued infavour of G. Satyamurthy, who was shown as vendor of the property, through banker’s cheque No.351786 dated:

17/8/2002 and Rs.16 lakhs was issued infavour of Accused No.1, who was mentioned as builder in the work order agreement, through banker’s cheque No.351792 dated: 27/8/2002.

Further, on 15/1/2003, an amount of Rs. 1 lakh was credited in to the housing loan account of

Accused No.4 through pay-in-slip purportedly for repayment of loan amount. This pay-in-slip is signed by Accused No.10, who is brother-in-law of Accused No.1.

3.22.The investigation revealed that in furtherance of conspiracy, Accused No.4 while applying for housing loan furnished false information regarding his employment particulars,

Visa details and fake statement of account of Citi Bank. It is also revealed that fake sale agreement and forged sale deeds were submitted by Accused No.4 to the bank in respect of the property against which the housing loan was sanctioned. Investigation further revealed that the photocopy of sale deed furnished to the bank is forged, that actually an open plot admeasuring 304 Square Yards in Sy.No.96 to 99, Tirumalgiri Village, Secunderabad was sold by Accused

No.9 to Smt G. Satyavathy W/o. Dr. Ramdev, R/O D1/4, Satya Marg, Chanakyapuri, New

Delhi, vide document No.532/1996 dated: 12/4/1996 of S.R.O Bowenpally, that Accused No.4 furnished a forged sale deed vide document No.268/2002 dated: 19/8/2002 of SRO,

Bowenpally and another, forged link sale deed vide document No.532/1996 dated: 12/4/1996 of

SRO, Bowenpally, that in the forged sale deed vide document No.532/1996 , which was prepared in line with actual sale deed of the same document number, the name of the vendee was changed from “ Smt Gade Satyavathy” to “ Mr. Gade Satyamurthy” and “W/O” was changed to “S/O”, that the address of the vendee was changed to “H.No.8-2-510,

Kummaraguda, Secunderabad”. However the occupation details of Gade Satyamurthy was shown as “house wife”.

10 OF 84 CC.NO.7 OF 2018 3.23.The investigation further revealed that document No.268/2002 of

SRO,Bowenpally actually pertains to sale transaction between one Sri Narender Gauri ( vendor) and Sri Lalith Hoogan ( vendee) of some other property and it has nothing to do with the sale transaction mentioned in the forged sale deed of same document Number and thereby it is established that forged sale deed vide document No.268/2002 was created for the purpose of securing the housing loan. In this forged sale deed, the photograph of an unknown person was fixed representing G. Satyamurthy, vendor. The investigation revealed that Accused No.1 and

Accused No.4 showed the house owned by R.Haragopal Rau located in Sy.No.99,

Tirumalgherry village, Secunderabad cantonment admeasuring 352 Square Yards to the Bank

Officials as if the house owner is G. Satya Murthy and got the housing loan sanctioned and defrauded the bank.

3.24. Investigation further revealed that Accused No.3/ panel advocate who furnished the legal opinion gave a false report to the effect that Accused No.4 had clear, absolute and marketable title over the property offered to the bank as equitable mortgage.

3.25. Investigation further revealed that in furtherance of conspiracy, Late C.R.

Dikshitulu (Died) who conducted pre-sanction inspection and recommended to Zonal Office for sanction of this housing loan committed many irregularities while preparing pre-sanction report. He blindly accepted the false employment particulars, visa particulars and statement of account of Citi Bank submitted by Accused No.4 only to make him eligible for NRI housing loan. During inspection failed to notice discrepancy in the extent of land. He accepted the legal opinion report and valuation report furnished by Accused No.3 and Accused No.5. He violated the terms and conditions of the loan sanction advise by disbursing the loan amount without getting the work progress certified by the approved valuer. He failed to make discreet enquiries on the borrower’s creditworthiness and confirm to the Zonal office as mentioned in the terms 11 OF 84 CC.NO.7 OF 2018 and conditions of the loan sanction advise. He disbursed the first installment of the loan infavour of G. Satyamurthy, who is proved to be fictitious person impersonated by

Accused No.10.

3.26. With regard to disbursement of loan amount, the investigation revealed that the banker’s cheque No.351786 dated: 17/8/2002 for Rs.19,90,000/- issued infavour of G.

Satyamurthy was encahsed through fictitious SB A/c.No.2155 opened in his name in the A.P.

Vardhaman Mahila Cooperative Urban Bank Limited, Ranigunj, Secunderabad by Accused

No.10. Investigation further revealed that huge amounts were withdrawn through self cheques by Accused No.10 by signing as G. Satyamurthy, from such fictitious account. Further, three pay orders were issued for Rs.1 lakh each from this account in favour of Syndicate Bank

Housing Finance Limited, which pertains to the repayment of housing loan obtained by

Accused No.1 vide loan A/c. No.OSL/HL/4/98 of Syndicate Bank, Basheerbagh Branch,

Hyderabad and another pay order for Rs.5 lakhs was issued infavour of Accused No.9 which was en-cashed in his S.B A/c.No.7269 in Punjab National Bank, Lalbazar Branch,

Secunderabad. Further, a cheque vide No. 458124 dated: 27/8/2002 for Rs.70,000/- was issued to Accused No.6, which was en-cashed by him. The second loan installment of Rs.16 lakhs issued through banker’s cheque No.351972 dated: 27/8/2002 infavour of Accused No.1 was credited to the S.B.A/c.No.6651 existing in the name of Accused No.1 in SBI, PPB, S.P.

Road, Secunderabad.

In respect of Joint Housing Loan of Accused No.6 & Accused No.7:

3.27. In furtherance of conspiracy and with dishonest intention to cheat the bank, Accused

No.6 & Accused No.7 jointly submitted an application dated: 6/5/2002 to SBI, PBB, S.P.Road,

Secunderabad requesting for sanction of loan of Rs.9 lakhs for purchase of a house plot

No.101, Srinivasa Tower, H.No.30-253/3, Plot No.K3, Officers Colony, Malkajgiri, Ranga

Reddy District, from its owner, Ch. Srinivas.

12 OF 84 CC.NO.7 OF 2018 3.28. Investigation further revealed that in the loan application form, most of the columns were kept blank including the location sketch of the house proposed to be purchased. Accused

No.1 signed as guarantor for this loan. Both the borrowers/ Accused No.6 & Accused No.7 submitted agreement of sale purportedly signed by the vendor, Ch. Srinivas, in which it was mentioned that the said flat was to be sold for the sale consideration of Rs.8 lakhs and that the vendees had already paid an advance of Rs.1.50 lakhs.

3.29. Investigation further revealed that on the basis of the said loan application, M.S. Ramesh ( FIR Accused No.1) prepared appraisal report in which it was mentioned that Accused

No.5/Panel valuer estimated the cost of the plot to be Rs.8.05 lakhs in his report dated:

7/5/2002. It is also mentioned that R.S.Bhaskar Dev, Bank’s Panel Advocate opined in his report dated: 4/5/2002 that the borrower would get clear and absolute title over the property. In the presanction report, M.S.Ramesh ( FIR Accused No.1) also mentioned that the house was inspected on 10/5/2002 and the electrical and plumbing works were still to be completed. He further mentioned that two borrowers possessed annual income of Rs.1.5 lakhs from business and that the property was located in a residential area with expected rental income of Rs.4,000/- per month. He concluded that the proposal was a fair banking risk and recommended for a loan of Rs.6.5 lakhs.

3.30. Investigation further revealed that on 10/5/2002 C.R. Dikshitulu (Died) sanctioned housing loan of Rs.6.5 lakhs to Accused No.6 & Accused No.7 repayable in 180

Equal Monthly Installments ( EMIs), that after sanction, a banker’s cheque dated: 11/5/2002 for

Rs.6.5 lakhs was issued in the name of Ch. Srinivas, the owner of the flat, that the borrowers submitted a sale deed dated: 14/5/2002 vide document No.2466/2002 of SRO, Malkajgiri, which was purportedly executed by Ch. Srinivas in favour of Accused No.6 & Accused No.7.

13 OF 84 CC.NO.7 OF 2018 3.31.Investigation further revealed that the actual owner of the flat, Ch. Srinivas, was impersonated by Accused No.8 by signing as Ch. Srinivas in all the loan documents including the sale agreement and the sale deed. The photograph affixed in the sale deed is that of

Accused No.8. Thus, Accused No.6 & Accused No.7 submitted fake and forged sale agreement and sale deed to the bank for securing housing loan. The actual owner, Ch. Srinivas, flatly denied having sold his flat to the above borrowers.

3.32.Investigation further revealed that M.S.Ramesh(FIR Accused No.1) conducted perfunctory pre-sanction inspection without visiting the house and without even contacting the actual owner of the property. Further, Late C.R. Dikshitulu (Died) sanctioned the housing loan on the basis of fake and forged documents.

3.33. Investigation further revealed that Accused No.1 who diverted part of housing loan amount sanctioned to him to Accused No.6, acted as guarantor for this fraudulent housing loan. The loan amount that was disbursed was credited to a fictitious bank account vide

No.50011163 opened in the name of Ch. Srinivas by Accused No.8 in Bank of Punjab Limited (presently renamed as Centurion Bank), S.D.Road, Secunderabad.

3.34.Investigation further revealed that at the time of opening this fictitious loan account, Accused No.8 enclosed a copy of the fake sale deed and Accused No.6 was introducer of this S.B. Account.

3.35.Investigation further revealed that most of the amounts were withdrawn through self cheques by Accused No.8 by signing as Ch. Srinivas, some A/C. Payee cheques were also issued. One A/c. Payee cheque vide No.17127 dated: 21/5/2002 for Rs.12,000/- was issued to

Accused No.7 which was credited to her SB Account in SBI, St. Mary’s Road Branch,

Secunderabad. The cheque vide No.17129 for Rs.15000/- was issued in the name of Guru’s SS 14 OF 84 CC.NO.7 OF 2018

Enterprises of which Accused No.6 is the Proprietor and the same was credited to that firm’s current account No. 5001116 in SBI, PBB, Secunderabad. Further, two more cheques vide

No.17142 dated: 12/10/2002 for Rs.3,000/- and cheque No. 24280 dated: 4/12/2002 for

Rs.25,000/- were issued in the name of Accused No.8 and the latter was credited in his SB account No. 201/62450 opened in Syndicate Bank, RP Road, Secunderabad.

3.36.The investigation further revealed that Accused No.6 & Accused No.7 gave a written undertaking on a stamp paper to Ch. Srinivas, the actual owner of the flat, admitting that they had collected photocopies of the sale deeds of the flat from him on the pretext that they were going to purchase the flat and used the same to obtain fraudulent housing loan as they were in dire need of money. This undertaking was apparently given by them to satisfy Ch.

Srinivas and the same can be used as their extra judicial confession.

3.37.Investigation further revealed that cheques issued by Accused No.8 infavour of

Accused No.6 who is the owner of M/s. Guru’s SS Enterprises and Accused No.7 confirms the end use of fraudulent funds by them. He also acknowledged the housing loan in the sanction letter copy of Zonal Office, in respect of Accused No.4.

3.38. During the course of investigation, it is clearly established that Accused No.1 to

Accused No.10 have conspired among themselves and with dishonest intention cheated SBI,

PBB, SP Road Branch, Hyderabad and got sanctioned three housing loans to the tune of Rs.

65,41,907/- by the bank due to which there occurred wrongful loss to the bank and corresponding wrongful gain to themselves.

3.39.Sanction for prosecution of M.S.Ramesh( FIR Accused No.1) and B. Murali

Krishna( FIR Accused No.2) sought by CBI was denied by the competent authorities of the

Bank and hence they are not sent for trial, whereas Sri C. R. Dikshitulu died prior to registration of FIR.

15 OF 84 CC.NO.7 OF 2018 3.40. Thus Accused No.1 to Accused No.10 are liable for punishment for the offences punishable under section 120-B r/w 419, 420, 468 & 471 of IPC.

4.Cognizance was take for offences punishable under sections 120-B, 419, 420, 468 & 471 of IPC against Accused No.1 to Accused No.10 by the then XIV-Additional Chief Metropolitan

Magistrate, Hyderabad.

5.On appearance, copies of case documents as required under section 207 of Cr.P,.C, were furnished to Accused No.1 to Accused No.10.

6.During the pendency of case and on 2/6/2017, the case against Accused No.4 & Accused

No.10 was split up and numbered as CC.No. 696/2017 on the file of XIV-Additional Chief

Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad and proceeded the case against Accused No.1 to Accused

No.3, Accused No.5 to Accused No.9 vide CC.No.568/2007 on the file of XIV-Additional

Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

7.The Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad through orders in

Crl.P.No.12899/2010 quashed the proceedings against Accused No.3. Hence, this court proceeded the Case in CC.No.568/2007 against Accused No.1, Accused No.2, Accused No.5 to

Accused No.9.

8.Accused No.1, Accused No.2, Accused No.5 to Accused No.9 were examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C. After hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Counsel for

A1, A2, A5 to A9, charges for offences punishable under section 120-B, 419, 420, 468 & 471 of IPC framed, read over and explained to the accused for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

16 OF 84 CC.NO.7 OF 2018

9.In view of the proceedings of the Hon’ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad in

Dis.No.5586 of 2018 dated: 16/4/2018, the case records in CC.No. 568/2007 & 696/2017 on the file of XIV-Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad were transferred to this

Court on the point of jurisdiction and renumbered as CC.No.7 of 2018 & CC.No.8/2018 respectively.

10.During the course of trial, Accused No.9 died and the case against him abated.

11.PW1 to PW30 were examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P218 were got marked on behalf of the prosecution.

12.After closure of prosecution evidence, Accused No.1, Accused No.2, Accused No.5 to

Accused No.8 were examined under section 313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. They denied the incriminating material evidence found in the testimony of PW1 to PW30 and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

13.Heard Sri P. Mallikarjuna Rao., learned Public Prosecutor for CBI and Sri U. Venugopal, learned counsel for Accused No.1 and Accused No.8, Sri E. Umamaheshwar Rao, learned counsel for Accused No.2, Sri M. Ramachandra Murthy, Accused No.5 in person and of Sri

Gurmeeth Singh, learned counsel for Accused No.6 and Accused No.7.

14.The learned counsels for the accused submitted that PW29 investigating Officer has no authority to register the present case without there being any complaint either from Bank

Officials or from the original owners and without disclosing the source information. In this regard, the evidence of PW29 also speaks that there is no complaint either from bank or from the original owner but he registered the present case on the basis of source information. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that even in the absence of a complaint , CBI have power to register the case relating to cognizable offence on the basis of source 17 OF 84 CC.NO.7 OF 2018 information. I do agree that the offence alleged against the accused are cognizable in nature.

Manual of CBI empowers CBI Police to register a case under section 154 of Cr.P.C for a

Cognizable Offence and to take up the investigation on the basis of information collected by

CBI officials from their own sources or on the basis of information received from members of the public. There is no need to disclose the source from which the information is received by them. Hence, the contention of counsel for the accused that CBI cannot Suomoto register case without disclosing the source information, is negated.

15.The main contention of the learned counsels for the accused are that the main culprits in this case are Bank Officials namely M.S. Ramesh, the then Assistant Manager (Advances), B.

Muralikrishna, the then Accountant and C.R. Deekshithulu, the then Manager of SBI, PPB, SP

Road, Secunderabad Branch, but such bank officers are not prosecuted and hence on this ground alone accused are entitled for acquittal. The evidence on record show that the above named bank officials are the persons who dealt with housing loan applications of Accused

No.1, Accused No.4 and Accused No.6 & Accused No.7. The evidence of PW29 also speaks that the main culprits in this case are the above referred bank officials. The evidence on record show that PW29 has arrayed M.S. Ramesh, B. Murali Krishna and C. R Deekshithulu as

Accused No.1 to Accused No.3 in Ex.P199 FIR. Under Section 197 of Cr.P.C, prior sanction from a competent officer is needed to prosecute a government servant for the alleged criminal act done in discharge of his official duty and no court shall take cognizance of such offence except with such previous sanction. In this case, the reason for non prosecution of the above bank officials as per the evidence of PW29 is non sanction of permission for prosecution of the above bank officials and as such the bank officials were not shown as Accused in the Charge sheet. Therefore, satisfactory reasons stated by PW29 for not prosecuting the bank officials.

The charge sheet filed by making specific allegations against each of prosecuted accused person as such on the ground of non prosecution of bank officials accused are not entitled for acquittal.

18 OF 84 CC.NO.7 OF 2018

16.The learned counsels for the accused submitted that there is a delay in recording of

Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements of witnesses and on this ground also accused are entitled for acquittal. On this aspect the counsels for the accused relied upon the Judgment1 of Hon’ble

Apex Court, wherein it is held that inordinate and unexplained delay in recording statements of witnesses may be fatal to the prosecution case but it depends on facts of each case. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor for CBI submitted that the delay in recording statements was occurred due to involvement of bank officials. I do agree that in this case as stated supra in FIR the bank officials who dealt with housing loans were also shown as accused. The investigating officer is to collect the evidence from such bank officials who are also involved in this case. In such case, it is not uncommon to expect non-cooperation from such bank officials while conducting investigation which resulted the delay. In view of the above explanation, the

Judgment referred above and relied by the counsels for accused do not come to rescue the accused persons.

17.The another contention of the learned counsels for the accused is that PW29 is informant and Investigating Officer and on this sole ground accused are entitled for acquittal. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that on the sole ground of informant is investigating officer accused are not entitled for acquittal. On this aspect, he relied upon the Judgment2 of

Hon’ble Apex Court. In the above Judgment, it is held that unless the accused has shown that

the investigating officer who registered case caused prejudice to him the accused is not entitleld for acquittal. In the present case, due to non sanction of permission for prosecution the bank officials were not prosecuted. Hence, it cannot be said that the investigating officer made selective investigation. Nothing brought on record as to what was the bias investigation done by the investigating officer and what is the prejudice caused to the accused. Hence, relying upon the Judgment referred above, this Court is of the opinion that the accused are not entitled for acquittal on this ground.

1Jafarudheen & Ors Vs State of Kerala reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 403 2Mukesh Singh Vs State ( Narcotic Branch of Delhi) reported in 2020 AIR(SC)4794 19 OF 84 CC.NO.7 OF 2018

18.The learned Public Prosecutor for CBI relied upon the Judgment3 of Hon’ble Apex Court wherein it is held that the object of recording the statement of the accused under section 313 of

Cr.P.C. is to put all the incriminating evidence to the accused and to provide him an opportunity to explain such incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution. At the same time, also permit him to put forward his own version or reasons, if he so chooses, in relation to his involvement or otherwise in the crime. However, if the statements made are false, the court is entitled to draw adverse inference and pass consequential orders, as may be called for, in accordance with Law. In this regard, it is settled Law that the statements made under Section 313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. should not be considered in isolation but in conjunction with evidence adduced by the prosecution and the conviction of the accused cannot be based merely on the statement made under section 313 of Cr.P.C. as it cannot be regarded as a substantive piece of evidence.

19.The learned counsels for the accused submitted that the initial burden lies on the prosecution to prove it’s case. On this aspect relied upon the Judgment4 of Hon’ble Apex

Court. In this regard, it is not in dispute that the cardinal principle of Criminal Jurisprudence is that the guilt of the accused must be proved beyond reasonable doubt and the burden of proving it’s case beyond reasonable doubt lies on the prosecution.

20.The case of the prosecution is that Accused No.1, Accused No.6 & Accused No.7 in collusion with Accused No.2, Accused No.5, Accused No.8 and other accused i.e., Accused

No.3, Accused No.4 (absconding), accused No.10 ( absconding) and Accused No.9 ( Died) availed housing loans by submitting false and fabricated documents, caused wrongful loss to the bank and wrongful gain to them and thereby committed the offences punishable under section 120-B, 419, 420, 468 & 471 of IPC. The case of the accused is of total denial. Hence, this court framed the certain points for determination.

3Sanatan Nakar Vs State of West Bengal reported in 2010(8) SCC 249 4Harbeer Singh Vs Sheeshpal & Ors in Crl.Appeal Nos.1624-1625 of 2013 dated: 20/10/2016 20 OF 84 CC.NO.7 OF 2018

21.Now, the points for determination are:

In respect of Housing Loan of Accused No.1:

1. Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that Accused No.1 has availed housing loan of Rs.15 lakhs from SBI, PPB, S.P. Road Branch, Secunderabad by mortgaging sale deed vide document No.1293/2001?

2.Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that Ex.P12 sale deed vide document No.1293/2001 dated: 28/7/2001 mortgaged with SBI, PPB, S.P.Road Branch, Secunderabad Branch, as false document?

3. Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that Ex.P73 copy of letter

dated: 30/5/1990 alleged to be issued by M. Guruswamy, Defense Estate Officer, Andhra

Pradesh Circle & Competent Authority, ULC, Secunderabad Cantonment by showing land in Sy.No.96 to 99 of Tirmulgherry as non-agricultural land, as false document?

4.Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that Ex.P104 copy of plan for the proposed house building (Ground+1) in Survey No. 99, Gun Rock Village, Tirumalgiri (Open plot) submitted by K. Sudhama with endorsement “Sanction plan vide direction of cantonment board vide letter No. 7465/A/DSA/2001, 5634/04/10/2001” as false document?.

5.Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that Ex.P12, Ex.P73 & Ex.P104 were created by Accused No.1 in collusion with Accused No.9 ( Died), Accused No.10 ( absconding) for the purpose of cheating and thereby Accused No.1 has committed offence punishable under section 468 of IPC?

6.Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that Accused No.1 had knowledge that Ex.P12, Ex.P73 & Ex.P104 are false documents and having such knowledge submitted the same before SBI, PPB, S.P.Road Branch, Secunderabad as genuine documents and thereby Accused No.1 has committed the charge punishable under section 471 of IPC?

7.Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of Accused No.1 beyond all reasonable doubt for the charge punishable under section 419 of IPC?

8.Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that Accused No.1 in collusion with other accused cheated SBI, PPB, S.P. Road, Secunderabad Branch by diverting the sanctioned loan for the purpose other than it was sanctioned and thereby committed offence punishable under section 420 of IPC?

In respect of housing loan of Accused No.4:

9. Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that Ex.P35 sale deed vide document No.532/1996 dated: 12/04/1996 and Ex.P36 sale deed bearing document No. 268/2002 dated: 19/8/2002 were mortgaged with SBI, PPB, S.P. Road, Secunderabad Branch in availing housing loan by Accused No.4 ?

10.Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that Ex.P35 sale deed vide document No.532/1996 dated: 12/04/1996 and Ex.P36 sale deed bearing document No. 268/2002 dated: 19/8/2002 mortgaged with SBI, PPB, S.P.Road Branch, Secunderabad Branch, as false documents?

21 OF 84 CC.NO.7 OF 2018

11.Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that Ex.P105 sanction plan vide document proceedings No. 53/38621/2000 said to be issued on 12/2/2000 by Cantonment Board, Secunderabad for construction of the house on open plot in in Survey No. 96 to 99, Tirumalgiri village, Secunderabad cantonment submitted by G. Satyamurthy with endorsement “Sanctioned of house plan vide proceedings No. 53/3861/2000 accorded with cantonment rules C.T.1966 renewal of the plan the six months renewed on the time of issue on 12/02/2000” as false document?.

12.Whether the prosecution has proved that Accused No.1 received cash of Rs.16 lakhs towards development charges of the house of Accused No.4 for the alleged house construction on open plot in in Survey No. 96 to 99, Tirumalgiri village, Secunderabad without there being any construction?

In respect of housing loan of Accused No.6 and Accused No.7:

13. Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that Accused No.6 & Accused No.7 have availed housing loan of Rs.6.5 lakhs from SBI, PPB, S.P. Road Branch, Secunderabad by deposit of Title Deeds under sale deed vide document No.2466/2002 dated: 14/5/2002?

14. Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that Ex.P63 agreement of sale dated: 26/3/2002, Ex.P60 sale deed vide document bearing document No.2466/2002 dated 14/05/2002 mortgaged by Accused No.6 and Accused No.7 with SBI, PPB, S.P.Road Branch, Secunderabad Branch and Ex.P144 Account opening Form in the name of Ch. Srinivas in Bank of Punjab Limited, as false documents ?

15.Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that Accused No.8 impersonated Original Owner Ch. Srinivas in executing Ex.P63 agreement of sale, Ex.P60 sale deed vide document No.2466/2002 dated: 14/5/2002 and while opening account under Ex.P144 and also in withdrawing housing loan sanctioned infavour of Accused No.6 & Accused No.7 and thereby Accused No.8 is liable for offence punishable under section 419 of IPC?

16.Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that Accused No.8 in collusion with Accused No.6 and Accused No.7 created Ex.P63 agreement of sale, Ex.P60 sale deed and Ex.P144 account opening form for the purpose of cheating and thereby Accused No.8 committed offences punishable under section 468 of IPC?

17. Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that Accused No.6 and Accused No.7 are having knowledge that Ex.P60 sale deed vide document NO.2466/2002

dated: 14/5/2002 is false document and with such knowledge they have mortgaged it before

SBI, PPB, S.P. Road, Secunderabad branch with dishonest intention and availed loan and thereby Accused No.6 and Accused No.7 committed offence punishable under section 471 of IPC?

18.Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of Accused No.6 to Accused No.8 beyond reasonable doubt for the charge punishable under section 420 of IPC?

In respect of conspiracy:

19. Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that Accused No.1, Accused No.2, Accused No.5 to Accused No.8 along with Accused No.3, Accused No.4 (Absconding), Accused No.9 (Died) and Accused No.10 (absconding) conspired with one another, created false documents, availed loans by mortgaging such false documents, diverted the sanctioned housing loan for the purpose other than the loans were sanctioned, caused wrongful loss to the bank and wrongful gain to them and thereby committed offence punishable under section 120-B of IPC?

22 OF 84 CC.NO.7 OF 2018

20. To what relief?

Point No.1:

22.The case of the prosecution is that on 28/02/2002 Accused No.1 opened S.B Account in

SBI, PBB, SP Road, Secunderabad vide account No. 6551, that B. Muralikrishna, Accountant of said bank verified the signature of Accused No.1 and also signed as introducer. The prosecution got examined Chakravarthy Sreepada, the then Deputy Manager, Credit, SBI, PPB,

S.P. Road Branch as PW1. The oral evidence of PW1 show that on 28/2/2001 Accused No.1 opened S.B. Account in SBI, PPB, S.P. Road, Secunderabad branch. Ex.P3 is the account opening form of Saving Bank Account of Accused No.1. The oral evidence of PW1 further speaks that as a proof of identity, at the time of opening such account, Accused No.1 submitted photostat copies of his LIC policy bearing No.642643562 dated: 28/3/1996, income tax returns for the years 1998-99, 1999-2000, 2000-2001 and also copy of request for shifting of telephone connection bearing No. 7813560. The counsel for the Accused No.1 cross examined PW1 at length but he has not disputed regarding opening S.B. account by Accused No.1 in SBI, PPB,

S.P. Road, Secunderabad Branch.

23.The further case of the prosecution is that on 15/3/2002 Accused No.1 applied for sanction of Housing loan of Rs. 15 lakhs for construction of a house of 3500 Square Feet in a plot worth of Rs.12 lakhs, that he has shown his wife Smt. K. Revathi as a Guarantor, that in the loan application, the cost of construction was shown as Rs. 24 lakhs, that he had already invested Rs.20 lakhs and requires housing loan of Rs.15 lakhs for completing the house construction.

24.In this regard, the oral evidence of PW1 & PW29 investigating Officer speaks that

Ex.P2 is the application for housing loan submitted by Accused No.1. Ex.P2 contains the photograph of Accused No.1 along with photograph of his wife as Guarantor. Ex.P4 is the 23 OF 84 CC.NO.7 OF 2018 appraisal report of the said loan was submitted by M.S. Ramesh, Field Officer for sanction of

Rs.15 lakhs and Ex.P5 is the brief opinion report was prepared by C.R. Dikshitulu the then

Chief Manager of SBI, PPB, S.P.Road, Secunderabad.

25. The further case of the prosecution is that on 28/03/2002, Accused No.1 executed loan agreement accepting the terms and conditions and on 29/03/2002 Accused No.1 deposited sale deed vide document No. 1293/2001, dated: 28/07/2001 pertaining to sale of open plot of land to an extent of 300 Square Yards in Survey No. 96 to 99, Trimulgherry, Secunderabad and that the said sale deed was executed by S. Rajashekar as a GPA holder of land owner namely M. Rami

Reddy. In this regard, the evidence of PW1 speaks that the memorandum of term loan agreement under Ex.P6 was signed by Accused No.1 and agreement of guarantee under Ex.P7 was executed by wife of Accused No.1 by name Smt K. Revathi. The evidence of PW1 also speaks that Accused No.1 mortgaged sale deed vide document No.1293/2001 for such loan.

Accused No.1 cross examined PW1 at length but nowhere suggested disputing availing of housing loan of Rs.15 lakhs by Accused No.1 by mortgaging sale deed vide document

No.1293/2001. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that Accused No.1 has availed housing loan of Rs.15 lakhs from SBI, PPB,

S.P. Road Branch, Secunderabad by mortgaging sale deed vide document No.1293/2001. The point No.1 is accordingly answered infavour of the prosecution and against Accused No.1.

Point No.2:

26.The case of the prosecution is that open plot of land admeasuring 300 Square Yards in

Survey No. 96 to 99, Tirumalgherry Village, Secunderabad was in-fact sold by M. Rami

Reddy/Accused No.9 through his GPA holder S. Rajasheker/Accused No.10 in favour of

Accused No.1 vide document No. 1293/2001 dated 28/07/2001. The same is not in dispute.

Ex.P103 is the Certified Copy of original sale deed of document vide document No.1293/2001

dated: 28/7/2001 obtained from SRO, Bowenpally. The prosecution got marked Ex.P103

through PW7.

24 OF 84 CC.NO.7 OF 2018

27.The main allegations of the prosecution are that Accused No.1 in collusion with Accused

No.9 and Accused No.10 created a forged sale deed vide document No. 1293/2001 of SRO,

Bowenpally on the same lines of the original sale deed vide document No.1293/2001 and submitted the forged sale deed to the bank.

28. The prosecution got marked the alleged forged sale deed vide document No.1293/2001

dated: 28/7/2001 mortgaged by Accused No.1 with SBI, PBB, S.P.Road, Secunderabad Branch

at the time of availing loan through PW1 as Ex.P12. Now, the burden lies on the prosecution to prove that Ex.P12 sale deed vide document No.1293/2001 as false document. In order to prove the same, the prosecution is relying upon the oral evidence of PW7, PW16, PW22 & PW29 and documentary evidence under Ex.P12 and Ex.P103.

29.The evidence of PW7 K. Yadagiri Reddy, the then Sub-Registar, Bowenpally speaks that on verification of Ex P-103 and Ex P-12, he found the following differences :

Sl. Judicial StampsExhibit No. 103 Exhibit No. 12 No. (Document available with Sub-(Documentmortgaged by Registrar, Bowenpally)Accused No.1 with SBI, PPB, S.P.Road, Secunderabad) 1Judicial stamp ofSl.No.1715 dt. 26/7/2001 Code1715 (Not visible clearly) dt. Rs. 25,000/-No.02DD149595SRO,26/7/2001 Code : 02DD383147 Bowenpally.SRO (Tampering of stamp print on the document) 2Judicial Stamp ofSl.No.2268 dt. 26-7-2001 CodeSl.No. 1402 dt. 21/7/2001 Code : Rs.500/-No. AP23-II-N09763 A.S. GaneshAP 23 II 0 61482 B. Rao,StampVendor,Ramchander, Stamp Vendor, Secunderabad. Secunderabad.

3Judicial Stamp ofSl.No.2269 dt. 26/7/2001 CodeSl.No. 1401 dt. 21/7/2001 Code : Rs.500/-No. AP23-II-N09764 A.S. GaneshAP 23 II 0 61481 B. Rao,StampVendor,Ramchander, Stamp Vendor, Secunderabad. Secunderabad.

4Judicial Stamp ofSl.No.2270 dt. 26/7/2001 CodeSl.No. 1400 dt. 21/7/2001 Code : Rs.500/-No. AP23-II-N09765 A.S. GaneshAP 23 II 0 61480, B. Rao,StampVendor,Ramchander, Stamp Vendor, Secunderabad. Secunderabad.

25 OF 84 CC.NO.7 OF 2018 5Judicial Stamp ofSl.No.2271 dt. 26/7/2001 CodeSl.No. 1399 dt. 21/7/2001 Code : Rs.500/-No. 09766-AP23-II-N A.S.AP 23 II 0 61479, B. Ganesh Rao, Stamp Vendor,Ramchander, Stamp Vendor, Secunderabad. Secunderabad.

6Judicial Stamp ofSl.No.2272 dt. 26/7/2001 CodeSl.No. 1398 dt. 21/7/2001 Code : Rs.500/-No. 09767-AP23-II-N A.S.AP 23 II 0 61478, B. Ganesh Rao, Stamp Vendor,Ramchander, Stamp Vendor, Secunderabad. Secunderabad.

7Judicial Stamp ofSl.No.2273 dt. 26/7/2001 CodeSl.No. 1397 dt. 21/7/2001 Code : Rs.500/-No. 09768-AP23-II-N A.S.AP 23 II 0 61477, B. Ganesh Rao, Stamp Vendor,Ramchander, Stamp Vendor, Secunderabad. Secunderabad.

8Judicial Stamp ofSl.No.2274 dt. 26/7/2001 CodeSl.No. 1396 dt. 21/7/2001 Code : Rs.500/-No. 11653 A.S. Ganesh Rao,AP 23 II 0 61476, B. Stamp Vendor, Secunderabad. Ramchander, Stamp Vendor, Secunderabad.

9Judicial Stamp ofSl.No.2275 dt. 26/7/2001 CodeSl.No. 1395 dt. 21/7/2001 Code : Rs.500/-No. 11654-AP23-II-N A.S.AP 23 II 0 61475, B. Ganesh Rao, Stamp Vendor,Ramchander, Stamp Vendor, Secunderabad. Secunderabad.

30.There are clear discrepancies with respect to the code numbers of the Judicial stamps and the details pertaining to the stamp vendor in Ex.P103 and Ex.P12. The oral evidence of

PW7 further speaks that the sale deed under Ex.P12 never registered with SRO, Bowenpally and further confirmed that the signatures appearing in the forged sale deed are not genuine. The learned counsel for the Accused No.1 unchallenged the evidence of PW7.

31.The evidence of PW16 A. Madhava Reddy, Panel Advocate for SBI also speaks that in the year 2004, SBI, PBB, SP Road, Secunderabad asked him to verify the genuineness of copy of Ex.P12 sale deed vide document No.1293/2001. Accordingly he visited the office of SRO,

Bowenpally, verified the sale deed vide document No.1293/2001 existing with Sub-Registrar,

Bowenpally and found that the denomination of stamps, the signatures of vendors and the names of stamp vendor are different with document available before Sub-Registrar. He also also noticed that the sale deed available with Sub-Registrar consists of 11 pages whereas the 26 OF 84 CC.NO.7 OF 2018 copy of sale deed furnished to him consists of 10 pages. The market value column is not mentioned in the copy of sale deed under Ex.P12 furnished to him whereas the same is available in the sale deed existing with Sub-Registrar. The evidence of PW16 further speaks that in his opinion the copy of Ex.P12 sale deed vide document No.1293/2001 furnished to him is fake and fabricated document. To that effect he submitted Ex.P26 report. Though the learned counsel for Accused No.1 cross examined PW16 nothing suggested to discredit the testimony of PW16.

32.The oral evidence of PW22 K.B. Ramanna Dora, the then Legal Advisor of State Bank of India speaks that as per the orders of branch manager, SBI, PPB, SP Road, Secunderabad branch he made search in respect of Ex.P12 sale deed vide document No.1293/2001 in the office of Sub-Registrar, Bowenpally and noticed that the above document is fake and fabricated one as such he gave report stating that no mortgage can be created on such document. Ex.P140 is the photocopy of letter dated: 20/1/2004 addressed by Chief Manager, SBI, PPB, SP Road,

Secunderabad branch, Ex.P141 is the photo copy of his report dated: 19/1/2004, Ex.P142 is the photo copy of receipt dated: 16/1/2004 issued by Sub-Registrar, Bowenpally. Ex.P140 to

Ex.P142 marked subject to objection that they are photocopies. It is settled Law that photocopies of documents are in admissible in evidence. Hence, the objection of learned counsel for the accused in respect of marking of Ex.P140 to Ex.P142 are sustained. However, the learned counsel for the accused No.1 cross examined PW22 but nothing suggested denying search made by PW22 in the office of SRO, Bowenpally.

33.The oral evidence of PW29 Investigating Officer also speaks that the serial numbers of the stamp papers and vendor particulars of the stamp papers available on Ex.P12 are not tallied with original sale deed available with SRO, Bowenpally. The learned counsel for the Accused

No.1 unchallenged the evidence of PW29 on this aspect. The oral evidence of PW7 is corroborating with oral evidence of PW16 & PW29 and also with Ex.P12, Ex.P103 & Ex.P26 27 OF 84 CC.NO.7 OF 2018 to show that Ex.P12 sale deed vide document No.1293/2001 mortgaged with SBI, PPB, S.P.

Road, Secunderabad branch as false document. The point No.2 is accordingly answered infavour of the prosecution and against the Accused persons.

Point No.3:

34. The further case of the prosecution is that Ex.P73 copy of letter dated: 30/5/1990 issued in the name of M. Guruswamy, Defense Estate Officer, Andhra Pradesh Circle & Competent

Authority, ULC, Secunderabad Cantonment by showing land in Sy.No.96 to 99 of

Tirmulgherry as non-agricultural, is a false document and created for the purpose of availing housing loan of Accused No.1.

35. According to the prosecution, land measuring Ac. 3-17 guntas in Survey No. 96 to 99 was recorded as agricultural land in Revenue Records and fall out side the purview of Urban

Land Ceiling Act, 1986 so long as it was used for agricultural purpose and it was falsified by changing the phrases to “non-agricultural land” and by showing that “the land was to be used for the residential purpose”. According to the prosecution, Ex.P73 is false document. In order to prove the same, the prosecution is relying upon the oral evidence of PW5 and PW29 and documentary evidence under Ex.P73 to Ex.P75.

36. In this regard, the evidence of PW5 Vineeth, Defence Estate Officer, Secunderabad speaks that on 23/8/2005 Sri S. Balakrishna worked as Defence Estate Officer, Secunderabad.

The said Balakrishna presently working on deputation in Government of Andhra Pradesh. He can identify the signature of Sri S. Balakrishna. On 23/8/2005 at the request of CBI, Sri S.

Balakrishna verified the genuineness of Ex.P73 and after verification of records a reply under

Ex.P74 was given stating that Ex.P73 is a forged document. The evidence of PW5 further speaks that S. Balakrishna also furnished Certified Copy of letter dated: 30/5/1990 under 28 OF 84 CC.NO.7 OF 2018

Ex.P75 wherein the letter was issued in the name of Accused No.9 M. Ramireddy stating that the land measuring Ac.3-17 guntas in Sy.No.96 to 99 of Thirumalgherry, Secunderabad

Cantonment forming part of GLR. Sy.No.352 is recorded as Agricultural Land. The evidence of PW5 is unchallenged by the counsels for Accused No.1. The evidence of PW29 investigating Officer also speaks the same. There is a seal and signature of State Bank of

India on Ex.P73. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that on 30/5/1990 originally M.

Guruswamy, Defense Estate Officer issued letter vide No.ULC/SBD/GEN/45/AGRL/NON,

Defence Estate Office, A.P. Circle & Competent Authority, ULC, Secunderabad under Ex.P75 infavour of Accused No.9 stating that the land measuring Ac.3-17 guntas in Sy.No.96 to 99 of

Thirumalgherry, Secunderabad Cantonment forming part of GLR. Sy.No.352 is recorded as

Agricultural Land. Whereas, Ex.P73 show that the letter was issued showing the above land as Non-Agricultural land. The unchallenged evidence of PW5 is corroborating with oral evidence of PW29 and documentary evidence under Ex.P74 and Ex.P75 to prove that Ex.P73 as a false document and created for the purpose of availing loan and accused No.1 submitted such false document to the bank. The Point No.3 accordingly answered infavour of the prosecution and against Accused.

Point No.4:

37. The further case of the prosecution is that Ex.P104 is the copy of such plan for the proposed plan house building (Ground+1) in Survey No. 99, Gun Rock Village, Tirumalgiri (Open plot) submitted by K. Sudhama with endorsement “Sanction plan vide direction of cantonment board vide letter No. 7465/A/DSA/2001, 5634/04/10/2001. According to prosecution, Ex.P104 is false document and created for the purpose of availing housing loan by

Accused No.1.

38. In order to prove the same, the prosecution is relying upon the oral evidence of PW8,

PW26 and PW29 and documentary evidence under Ex.P104 and Ex.P106.

29 OF 84 CC.NO.7 OF 2018

39.PW8 K. M. Devaraj worked as Junior Engineer-II, Secunderabad Cantonment Board during the relevant period. The evidence of PW8 speaks that as per their office records there was no board resolution dated: 04/10/2001. The plans shown under Ex.P104 were not approved by the Cantonment Board. There is no practice of endorsement at the side of proceedings in their office. None of the signature or initial on Ex.P104 tallying with any of staff members of his office. He along with Mr. Bala Krishna, Supervisor of Cantonment

Board visited the place of the proposed construction under Ex.P104 and noticed that there is no construction made as mentioned in the plan under Ex.P104. Accordingly Ex.P106 report was submitted by him. The learned counsel for the accused No.1 cross examined PW8 by suggesting that Ex.P104 was approved by the Cantonment Board and he is deposing false.

PW8 is an official witness. There is no reason stated by the accused No.1 for deposing false against him and to discredit the testimony of PW8. The evidence of PW8 is also corroborating with the oral evidence of PW29 investigating Officer on this aspect. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that Ex.P104 as false plan and created for the purpose of availing housing loan by Accused No.1. Point No.4 accordingly answered infavour of the prosecution and against Accused.

Point No.5:

40. Now, the prosecution has to prove that Accused No.1 in collusion with Accused No.9 (Died) and Accused No.10 ( absconding) has created Ex.P12, Ex.P73 and Ex.P104 false documents. This can be proved by the person who have seen while accused persons creating such documents or by obtaining the specimen hand writings/signatures, admitted hand writings/signatures of the accused persons and sending the same along with disputed documents to expert for comparison to prove that accused have created such documents. But, in this case, Ex.P73 and Ex.P104 are photocopies. No steps taken to send Ex.P73 and Ex.P104 to expert for comparison. Though Ex.P12 is original, no steps taken to send Ex.P12 to GEQD 30 OF 84 CC.NO.7 OF 2018 for comparison of signatures of Accused No.1, Accused No.9 and Accused No.10 available on such documents with their specimen signatures to prove that Ex.P12 was created by them for the purpose of cheating. There is nothing on record to show that Ex.P12, Ex.P73 and Ex.P104 were created by accused No.1 in collusion with Accused No.9 ( Died) and Accused No.10 ( absconding) for the purpose of cheating so as to punish them for the charge under section 468 of IPC in respect of housing loan of Accused No.1. Hence, the point No.5 is accordingly answered against the prosecution and infavour of Accused No.1.

Point No.6:

41.In respect of charge under section 471 of IPC, the prosecution has to establish that

Accused No.1 having knowledge or reason to believe that Ex.P12, Ex.P73 and Ex.P104 are false documents and knowingly they are false documents dishonestly or fraudulently submitted such documents before SBI, PPB, SP Road, Secunderabad branch as genuine documents.

42.Before going to discuss the offences punishable under section 471 & 420 of IPC, it is appropriate to discuss, what is Wrongful gain, Wrongful loss, fraudulent or dishonest intention.

Section 23 of IPC defines “ Wrongful gain” & Wrongful loss

Wrongful gain :- Wrongful gain is gain by unlawful means of property to which the person gaining is not legally entitled.

Wrongful loss :- Wrongful loss is the loss by unlawful means of property to which the person losing it is legally entitled.

Gaining Wrongfully: Loosing Wrongfully:- A person is said to be gain wrongfully when such person retains wrongfully, as well as when such person acquires wrongfully. A person is said to be lose wrongfully when such person is wrongfully kept out of any property, as well as when such person is wrongfully deprived of property.

Section 24 of IPC defines Dishonestly:- Whoever does anything with an intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another person, is aid to do that thing “ dishonestly”

Section 25 of IPC defines Fraudulently: A Person is said to do a thing fraudulently if he does that thing with intent to defraud but not otherwise.

31 OF 84 CC.NO.7 OF 2018

43.The learned Public Prosecutor for CBI has submitted that Accused No.1 had availed housing loan from Corporation Bank by mortgaging original sale deed vide document

No.1293/2001 and later with a fraudulent intention mortgaged Ex.P12 fake sale deed vide document No.1293/2001 with SBI, PPB, SP Road, Secunderabad branch, and also submitting documents under Ex.P73 and Ex.P104 availed housing loan of Rs.15 lakhs knowingly that

Ex.P12, Ex.P73 and Ex.P104 as false documents and thereby Accused No.1 is liable for charge punishable under section 471 of IPC. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Accused No.1 submitted that at the time of availing loan Accused No.1 mortgaged original sale deed vide document No.1293/2001 before SBI, PPB, SP Road, Secunderabad branch but not Ex.P12 fake sale deed vide document No.1293/2001 and even there is no evidence on record to show that

Accused No.1 has mortgaged Ex.P12 with such bank.

44. In view of denial, the burden lies on the prosecution to prove the charge under section 471 of IPC against Accused No.1. In order to prove the same, the prosecution is relying on the oral evidence of PW1, PW12 and PW17 B. Purnachander Rao, the then Chief Manager,

Corporation Bank, M.G. Road, Park Lane, Secunderabad.

45. The oral evidence of PW12 G. Shiva Kumar speaks that on 23/5/2003 a semi constructed house was purchased by him from Accused No.1 in his name and in the name of his wife vide document bearing No.903/2003 dated: 23/5/2003. The said house is bounded by

East: 20 feet wide road, West: House of Neeraj Panjawani, North: Open land of M. Rami

Reddy and South: House of Radha Madhavi. The sale deed vide document No.1293/2001 is link document of the said property that it was obtained by him from Corporation Bank by clearing housing loan of Accused No.1 to an extent of Rs.23 Lakhs.

46.The oral evidence of PW17 speaks that in January, 2002 Accused No.1 availed housing loan of Rs.17 lakhs from Corporation Bank, M.G. Road, Park Lane, Secunderabad

Branch by depositing of original sale deed vide document No.1293/2001 towards security.

32 OF 84 CC.NO.7 OF 2018

The learned counsel for the Accused No.1 submitted that the evidence of PW17 to the extent of referring deposit of original sale deed vide document No.1293/2001 towards security is material improvement to his earlier statement to police. I do agree that PW29 also admitted the same. However, Accused No.1 has not disputed availing of loan of Rs.17 lakhs from

Corporation Bank, M.G. Road, Park Lane, Secunderabad by mortgaging property. Now, it is to be proved that the property mortgaged with Corporation bank is nothing but the property covered under sale deed vide document No.1293/2001. To prove the same, the prosecution is relying on the evidence of PW12.

47.The learned counsel for the accused No.1 submitted that the evidence of PW12 in respect of mortgage of sale deed vide document No.1293/2001 with Corporation Bank is a material improvement to his earlier statement to police. To this effect, PW29 investigating officer also admitted that PW12 in his earlier statement never stated before him referring sale deed vide document No.1293/2001. Even then, the evidence of PW1 in respect of the purchase of semi constructed house by him from Accused No.1 in his name and in the name of his wife is not disputed by the learned counsel for the accused No.1.

48.At the time of arguments, the learned counsel for the Accused No.1 submitted that the property purchased by PW12 and wife of PW12 from Accused No.1 is noway connected with the property referred in Sale deed vide document No.1293/2001. In this aspect, on careful scrutiny of evidence of PW12 show that PW12 has deposed the boundaries of the property purchased by him from Accused No.1. The boundaries of such property deposed by him and the boundaries of property mentioned in Sale deed No.1293/2001 are one and the same. No two different properties will exist with same boundaries. Hence, it can be safely concluded that the property purchased by PW12 is the same property mentioned in sale deed vide document

No.1293/2001. During the cross examination, PW12 admitted that prior to execution of the sale deed by Accused No.1 he had knowledge that Accused No.1 had taken loan from Financial 33 OF 84 CC.NO.7 OF 2018

Institutions by mortgaging the link documents against the property sold to him. PW12 was suggested stating that the said property was purchased promising to clear the loan amount due by Accused No.1 to the Corporation Bank. PW12 denied such promise. This suggestion itself show that Accused No.1 mortgaged the property with Corporation Bank, availed housing loan from such Bank and during mortgage sole such property to PW12.

49.Therefore, the prosecution has proved that in January, 2002 itself Accused No.1 had availed housing loan of Rs.17 lakhs from Corporation Bank, M.G. Road, Park Lane,

Secunderbad branch by mortgaging original sale deed vide document No.1293/2001. The prosecution also proved that in March, 2002 i.e., two months after Accused No.1 again availed housing loan of Rs.15 lakhs from SBI, PPB, S.P. Road, Secunderabad Branch by mortgaging same document i.e., Ex.P12 sale deed vide document No.1293/2001. There will not be two original sale deeds for a same property. Since, at first instance, Accused No.1 availed housing loan by mortgaging original sale deed vide document No.1293/2001 with Corporation Bank, the document which is mortgaged subsequently with SBI, PPB, SP Road, Secunderabad must be Ex.P12 which is already proved as false document. Hence, the contention of learned counsel for the accused No.1 that Accused No.1 had mortgaged original sale deed vide document No.1293/2001 while availing housing loan from SBI, PPB, SP Road, Secunderabad branch is negated.

50.In this case, Accused No.1 who himself availed of housing loan from Corporation Bank in January, 2002 by mortgaging original document No.1293/2001 in January, 2002. It is exclusively within his knowledge. Having such knowledge in March, 2002 Accused No.1 again availed housing loan from SBI, PPB, SP Road, Secunderbad branch by mortgaging Ex.P12 sale deed vide document No.1293/2001 by showing it as genuine one. Hence, it can be safely concluded that Accused No.1 having knowledge that the subsequent sale deed under Ex.P12 is false document dishonestly used such false document as genuine one.

34 OF 84 CC.NO.7 OF 2018

51.The evidence of PW1 further speaks that at the time of availing housing loan, Accused

No.1 also submitted Ex.P73 and Ex.P104 false documents. Both Ex.P73 and Ex.P104 contains the signature of Bank Officials and seal of State Bank of India. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that at the time of availing housing loan Accused No.1 submitted Ex.P73 & Ex.P104

before SBI, PPB, SP Road, Secunderabad branch at the time of availing loan. Accused No.1 is

also having knowledge that Ex.P73 and Ex.P104 as false documents and with such knowledge submitted the false documents before SBI, PPB, S.P.Road, Secunderabad branch as genuine and availed housing loan of Rs.15 lakhs.

52.The above discussion leads this Court to conclude that the prosecution has proved guilt of Accused No.1 beyond reasonable doubt for the charge punishable under section 471 of IPC.

Point No. 6 is accordingly answered infavour of the prosecution and against the accused No.1.

Point No.7:

53.In respect of the charge framed under section 419 of IPC against Accused No.1, the prosecution has to establish that Accused No.1 has impersonated the original owner in executing documents. But, there is no evidence on record to show that whom Accused No.1 impersonated and the document which he executed by impersonation. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that prosecution has failed to prove the charge against the accused No.1 for the offence punishable under section 419 of IPC. Point No.7 accordingly answered against the prosecution and infavour of the Accused.

Point No.8:

54.The further case of the prosecution is that after sanction and disbursal of housing loan of

Rs.15 lakhs by SBI, PPB, S.P. Road Branch, Secunderabad, Accused No.1 made several withdrawals from out of sanctioned housing loan amount through self cheques and also issued 35 OF 84 CC.NO.7 OF 2018

1) bearer cheques bearing No.134778 dated 27/06/2002 for Rs. 10,000/-, 2) bearer cheque bearing No.134796 dated 27/08/2002 for Rs. 77,000/-, 3) bearer cheque bearing No. 090279

dated 07/09/2002 for Rs. 50,000/- in favour of Surjeet Singh/Accused No.6, banker’s cheque

bearing No. 351976 dated 27/08/2002 for Rs. 5,00,000/- in favour of M. Rami Reddy/Accused

No.9, bearer cheque bearing No. 134800 dated 02/09/2002 for Rs. 25,000/- in favour of S.

Muthu @ A. Angamuthu/Accused No.8, 1) bearer cheques bearing No. 130861 dated 02/05/2002 for Rs.30,000/-, 2) cheque bearing No. 130864 dated 09/05/2002 for Rs.1,00,000/-,

3) cheque bearing No. 130865 dated 12/05/2002 for Rs. 1,00,000/-, 4) Cheque bearing No.

130866 dated 14/05/2002 for Rs. 1,00,000/- and 5) cheque bearing No. 134777 dated 20/06/2002 for Rs. 50,000/- in favour of S. Rajashekar/Accused No.10 and thereby diverted the housing loan amounts for the purpose other than it was sanctioned.

55.In order to prove the same, the prosecution is relying upon the oral evidence of PW13

K.V. Sastry the then Asst. Manager ( Cash), SBI, PPB, S.P.Road Branch, Secunderabad and documentary evidence under Ex.P111 to Ex.P122.

56.The evidence of PW13 speaks that Accused No.1 had issued Ex.P111 Cheque bearing

No. 134778 dated 27/06/2002 for Rs.10,000/- Ex.P112 Cheque bearing No. 134796 dated 27/08/2002 for Rs.77,000/-, Ex.P114 Cheque bearing No. 090279 dated 07/09/2002 for

Rs.50,000/- issued in the name of A6/Surjith Singh, Ex.P113 Cheque bearing No. 134800 dated 02/09/2002 for Rs.25,000/- issued in the name of S. Muthoo, Ex.P115 Cheque bearing No.

130855 dated 10/04/2002 for Rs.1,50,000/- issued in the name of Dayanand, Ex.P116 Cheque bearing No. 130858 dated 29/04/2002 for Rs.1,00,000/- issued in the name of Shankar Rao.

The evidence of PW13 further speaks that Accused No.1 also issued Ex.P117 Cheque bearing

No. 130861 dated 02/05/2002 for Rs.30,000/- , Ex.P118 Cheque bearing No. 130864 dated 09/05/2002 for Rs.1,00,000/- , Ex.P119 Cheque bearing No. 130865 dated 12/05/2002 for

Rs.1,00,000/-, Ex.P120 Cheque bearing No. 130866 dated 14/05/2002 for Rs.1,00,000/- and 36 OF 84 CC.NO.7 OF 2018

Ex.P121 Cheque bearing No. 134777 dated 20/06/2002 for Rs.50,000/- issued in the name of

A10/S. Raja Shekhar. He also issued Ex.P122 Cheque bearing No. 134798 dated 30/08/2002 for Rs.10,000/- issued in the name of Sri. Srinivasa Trading Co. from out of the amount sanctioned for housing loan of Accused No.1 vide account No.01190006651 maintained in SBI,

PPB, S.P. Road Branch, Secunderabad. The learned counsel for the Accused No.1 has cross examined PW13 at length but nothing disputed regarding transfer of above amounts from the housing loan account of Accused No.1 to the accounts of Accused No.6, Accused No.9 and

Accused No.10 and other referred persons referred above. Therefore, it is clear that Accused

No.1 has diverted the housing loan amount for the purpose other than it was sanctioned.

57.The another charge framed against the accused is that Accused No.1 with dishonest or fraudulent intention availed housing loan of Rs.15 lakhs from SBI, PPB, S.P. Road Branch,

Secunderabad branch by mortgaging false and fabricated documents, diverted the housing loan amount for the purpose other then it was sanctioned and failed to repay the same, caused wrongful loss to the bank and wrongful gain to him and thereby cheated the bank and thereby

Accused No.1 is liable for punishment for the offence under section 420 of IPC.

58.In order to prove the offence punishable under section 420 of IPC, the prosecution has to establish that Accused No.1 had dishonest or fraudulent intention of cheating from inception and with such intention he availed loan, diverted the loan amount, failed to repay the loan amount and caused wrongful loss to the Bank. In the point No.1 to 4 & 6 referred above, the prosecution has proved that Accused No.1 had availed housing loan of 17 lakhs from

Corporation Bank by mortgaging original sale deed vide document No.1293/2001 and thereafter Accused No.1 availed housing loan of Rs.15 lakhs from SBI, PPB, Secunderabad by mortgaging false sale deed vide document No.1293/2001 under Ex.P12 and also by submitting false document under Ex.P73 showing the land referred under Ex.P12 as Non-Agricultural land and also submitted false plan under Ex.P104. The prosecution has also proved that the accused 37 OF 84 CC.NO.7 OF 2018

No.1 has diverted the housing loan amount for the purpose other than it was sanctioned and failed to repay the loan to the bank due to which the bank declared the account of Accused

No.1 as Non-Performing Asset. It is also proved that Accused No.1 caused wrongful loss to

SBI, PPB, S.P. Road, Secunderabad Branch and wrongful gain to him.

59. The conduct of accused No.1 in submitting Ex.P12 false sale deed vide document

No.1293/2001, false documents under Ex.P73 and Ex.P104 before SBI, PPB, SP Road,

Secunderabad Branch for availing housing loan of 15 lakhs having knowledge that the original sale deed vide document No.1293/2001 was mortgaged by him with Corporation Bank while availing housing loan of 17 lakhs, diverting sanctioned housing loan for other purpose other than it was sanctioned and non repayment of loan clearly establish that Accused No.1 had dishonest intention of cheating from inception and thereby this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has proved the charge against Accused No.1 for the offene punishable under section 420 of IPC in respect of housing loan of Accused No.1. Point No.8 accordingly answered infavour of the prosecution and against the Accused No.1

Point No.9:

60.In respect of housing loan of Accused No.4, according to the prosecution, Accused No.4 in collusion with Accused No.9 ( Died) and Accused No.10 ( absconding) created false sale deeds under Ex.P35 and Ex.P36, false sanction plan under Ex.P105, availed housing loan from

SBI, PPB, SP Road, Secunderabad branch, caused wrongful loss to the bank and wrongful gain to them. The further case of the prosecution is that Accused No.4 also colluded with Accused

No.1, Accused No.5 to Accused No.8 in availing such loan.

61. In respect of housing loan of Accused No.4, the specific allegations against Accused

No.1 entered into development agreement for completing construction of semi furnished house of Accused No.4 but in conspiracy with Accused No.1 without completing any such work 38 OF 84 CC.NO.7 OF 2018

Accused No.1 availed Rs.15 lakhs from the bank and caused wrongful loss to the bank. The specific allegations against Accused No.5 is that he conspired with Accused No.1 in gave valuation report. The specific allegations against Accused No.6 to Accused No.8 are that they have conspired with Accused No.4 in availing housing loan.

62.In this case, as stated supra, in view of pendency of Non-Bailable Warrants against

Accused No.4, Accused No.10 the case against them split up and pending vide CC.No.8 of 2018 on the file of this Court. The case against Accused No.9 already abated as died. Hence, this Court proceeded the case against Accused No.1 and Accused No.5 to Accused No.8 for the specific allegations leveled against them. In order to prove such allegations against accused who are facing trial, it is necessary to appreciate the relevant evidence adduced in respect of housing loan of Accused No.4.

63. The case of the prosecution is that Accused No.4 submitted application for housing loan of Rs.46,90,000/- showing sale consideration of Rs.19,90,000/- for purchase of semi furnished house located in an open plot admeasuring 450 Square Yards in Sy.No.96 to 99 of Tirmulgherry village of Secunderabad from G. Satyamurthy and also showing cost of additional fittings as @ Rs.27 lakhs. He submitted copy the agreement of sale dated: 8/7/2002 between him and his vendor Gade Satyamurthy and also enclosed a photocopy of an agreement of work order dated: July, 2002, signed by Accused No.1 for completion of certain specified works in the semi furnished house @ Rs.27 lakhs, that out of the sanctioned housing loan, banker’s cheque

No.351786 dated: 17/8/2002 for an amount of Rs.19,90,000/-was issued infavour of G.

Satyamurthy and a banker’s cheque No.351792 dated: 27/8/2002 for Rs. 16 lakhs was issued infavour of builder/Accused No.1. The further case of the prosecution is that for availing loan,

Accused No.4 mortgaged sale deed vide document No.268/2002 dated: 19/8/2002 and it’s link document i.e., sale deed vide document No.532 of 1996 dated: 12/4/1996.

39 OF 84 CC.NO.7 OF 2018

64. The oral evidence of PW1, PW29 and documentary evidence under Ex.P27 to Ex.P51 speaks about mortgaging Ex.P36 sale deed vide document No.268/2002 dated: 19/8/2002 and also it’s link document No.532/1996 dated: 12/4/1996 under Ex.P35 with SBI, PPB, SP Road,

Secunderabad Branch at the time of availing housing loan by Accused No.4. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has proved that the Ex.P35 & Ex.P36 were mortgaged in respect of housing loan of Accused No.4. Point No.9 is accordingly answered infavour of the prosecution and against Accused.

Point No.10:

65. The further case of the prosecution is that the sale deeds under Ex.P35 & Ex.P36 are false documents. In order to prove the same, the prosecution is relying on the oral evidence of PW7 and Ex.P101 Certified Copy of sale deed vide document No. 532/1996 dated: 12/4/1996 obtained from SRO, Bowenpally. The oral evidence of PW7 speaks that he verified Ex.P101 and Ex.P35 and noticed the following differences.

Sl.DescriptionEx.P101 ( Certified Copy of saleEx.P35 Sale deed vide No.deed vide document No.532/1996documentNo.532/1996

dated: 12/4/1996 obtained fromdated: 12/4/1996 mortgaged

SRO, Bowenpallyby Accused No.4 1Name of Claimant Smt Gade Satyavathi W/o. DrMr. Gade Satyamurthy S/o. RamdasDr. Ramdas 2BoundariesNorth: Owners LandNorth: Owners Land South: Open PlotSouth: Open Plot East: Road East: Neighbours Land West: Open Plot West: Road 3SerialNumberSl.No.1951 date: 11/4/1996, CodeSl.No.535, date: 22/3/1996, Judicial Stamps ofNo.AP23IV(A)40394,SRO,AP23IV(N)03758SRO, Rs.5000/-BowenpallyMaredpally

Sl.No.1952 date: 11/4/1996, CodeSl.No.536, date: 22/03/1996, No.AP23IV(A)40394,SRO,AP23IV(N)03759SRO, BowenpallyMaredpally

Sl.No.1953 date: 11/4/1996, CodeSl.No.537, date: 22/3/1996 No.AP23IV(A)40394,SRO,AP23IV(N)03760SRO BowenpallyMaredpally 40 OF 84 CC.NO.7 OF 2018 4Size of PlotEast and West: 48’East and West as 45’6” North and South: 57’North and South: 60’ 5RegistrationRegistered with SRO, BowenpallyNot Registered with SRO, Bowenpally

66. The evidence of PW5 speaks that he further verified the copy of Ex.P36 sale deed vide document No.268/2002 dated: 19/8/2002 said to be executed by Sri G. Satyamurthy S/o. Dr.

Ramdas infavour of Accused No.4 with records of SRO, Bowenpally and noticed the following differences.

Sl.No. DescriptionSale deed vide documentSale deed vide document No.268/2002 dated: 18/2/2002No.268/2002dated: registered with SRO, Bowenpally19/8/2002 mortgaged by (Ex.P102)Accused No.4 ( Ex.P36) 1Name of VendorMr. Gade Satyamurty S/o. Mr. Narender Gausi S/o. D. N. Dr. Ramdas Gauri in the name of Mr. Lalith Mohan Hoogan S/o. Late N.N. Hoogan.

2Name of VendeeAccused No.4 Joseph Mr. Lalith Mohan Hoogan S/o. Lawrance Bola Late N.N. Hoogan 3Date of Registration 18/2/2002Not registered with SRO, Bowenpally 4Sale Consideration19,90,000/- 18 lakhs 5Plot Extent450 Square Yards 200 Square Yards

Therefore, according to PW1, the sale deed bearing No.532/1996 under Ex.P35 and sale deed bearing No.268/2002 dated: 19/8/2002 under Ex.P36 are false documents.

67.The evidence of PW16 A. Madhava Reddy, Panel Advocate for SBI speaks that in the year 2004 SBI, PBB, SP Road, Secunderabad asked him to verify the genuineness of the sale deed vide document No.268/2002 existing in the name of Accused No.4 and accordingly he visited the office of SRO, Bowenpally, verified the document No.268/2002 registered with

Sub-Registrar, Bowenpally and found that it was registered in the name of Lalith Mohan 41 OF 84 CC.NO.7 OF 2018

Hoogan but not in the name of Joseph Lawrance Bola and came to opinion that the sale deed vide document No.268/2002 dated: 19/8/2002 submitted by Accused No.4 as false document and to that effect he submitted Ex.P51 report.

68.The oral evidence of PW22 K.B. Ramanna Dora also speaks that he made search in respect of Ex.P35 sale deed vide document No.532/1996 and Ex.P36 sale deed vide document

No.268/2002 in the office of Sub-Registrar, Bowenpally and noticed that the above documents are fake and fabricated one as such he gave report stating that no mortgage can be created on such document.

69.The oral evidence of PW29 also speaks that Ex.P35 and Ex.P36 are false documents and in fact there is no person by name Gade Satyamurthy and Accused No.10 who is none other than brother-in-law of Accused No.1 impersonated as Gade Satyamurthy ( Non-existing person) in creating Ex.P35 and Ex.P36 and it was done in collusion with Accused No.9 ( Died).

70. Therefore, the oral evidence of PW1, PW16 and PW29 is corroborating with documentary evidence under Ex.P101 and Ex.P102 to show that the sale deed under bearing No.532/1996 under Ex.P35 and sale deed bearing No.268/2002 dated: 19/8/2002 under Ex.P36 are false documents and are created for the purpose of this case and thereby this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that Ex.P35 & Ex.P36 as false documents. Point No.10 is accordingly answered infavour of the prosecution and against the accused.

Point No.11:

71.The further case of the prosecution is that at the time of availing loan by Accused No.4, a forged sanction plan vide document proceedings No. 53/38621/2000 said to be issued on 12/2/2000 by Cantonment Board, Secunderabad for construction of the house on the above said plot was submitted.

42 OF 84 CC.NO.7 OF 2018

72. Ex.P105 is the copy of such plan for the proposed plan house for construction on open plot in in Survey No. 96 to 99, Tirumalgiri village, Secunderabad cantonment submitted by G.

Satyamurthy with endorsement “Sanctioned of house plan vide proceedings No. 53/3861/2000 accorded with cantonment rules C.T.1966 renewal of the plan the six months renewed on the time of issue on 12/02/2000”. According to prosecution, Ex.P105 is false document and created for the purpose of the case.

73. In order to prove the same, the prosecution is relying upon the oral evidence of PW8 and PW29 and documentary evidence under Ex.P105 and Ex.P106.

74. PW8 K. M. Devaraj is the Junior Engineer-II, Secunderabad Cantonment Board during the relevant period. The evidence of PW8 speaks that as per their office records there was no board resolution dated: 12/02/2000, that the plans shown under Ex.P105 were not approved by the Cantonment Board, that there is no practice of endorsement at the side of proceedings in their office and none of signatures or initials on Ex.P105 are tallying with any of staff members of their office. The evidence of PW8 further speaks that even he along with Mr. Bala Krishna,

Supervisor of Cantonment Board visited the place of the proposed construction under Ex.P105 and noticed that there is no construction as mentioned in the plan under Ex.P105 as such he submitted a report under Ex.P106. The evidence of PW8 is also corroborating with the oral evidence of PW29 investigating Officer on this aspect. Ex.P105 contains the signature and seal of State Bank of India to show that it was submitted by Accused No.4 at the time of availing loan. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that Ex.P105 is false document and the same was submitted before SBI, PPB, S.P. Road, Secunderabad branch at the time of availing loan of

Accused No.4. Point No.11 is accordingly answered infavour of the prosecution.

43 OF 84 CC.NO.7 OF 2018

Point No.12:

75. In respect of housing loan of Accused No.4, the specific case of the prosecution against

Accused No.1 is that there was a development agreement in between Accused No.1 and

Accused No.4 for completing construction of semi constructed house and after completion of work an amount of Rs.16 lakhs was paid to Accused No.4 through a banker’s cheque

No.351792 dated: 27/8/2002 and in-fact neither semi constructed house was purchased nor any development work was attended by Accused No.1 for such house.

76. In this regard, the evidence of PW1 speaks that under Ex.48 a cheque was issued in the name of Accused No.1 vide cheque bearing No. 351972 dated: 27/8/2002 for Rs.16 lakhs and it was credited into the account of Accused No.1. The learned counsel for the Accused No.1 cross examined PW1 but nothing suggested denying the allegations against Accused No.1 in respect of development agreement with Accused No.4, availing amount of Rs.16 lakhs showing completion of construction without there being any construction and thereby the allegations against Accused No.1 stated above remained unchallenged.

77. The evidence of PW25 also speaks that he inspected the place of alleged construction and noticed that no house assessed either in the name of G. Satyamurthy or in the name of Joseph

Lawrance Bola in land in Sy.No.96 to 99 of Tirumalgerry and no tax receipts have been issued in the name of G. Satyamurthy and to that effect he also submitted Ex.P143 report.

78. The report submitted by PW25 under Ex.P143 got marked subject to objection that it is prohibited under section 162 of Cr.P.C. The learned counsel for the Accused No.1 submitted that the contents of Ex.P143 report and the contents of Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW25 are one and the same and hence the report said to be given by PW25 to PW29 investigating

Officer during the Course of investigation is hit by Section 162 of Cr.P.C. I do agree that the 44 OF 84 CC.NO.7 OF 2018

Hon’ble Apex Court in it’s Judgment5 held that the letter addressed to investigating officer

narrating the facts is inadmissible except for the purpose mentioned in Section 162 of Cr.P.C. In the present case also, Ex.P143 is the report furnished by PW25 to PW29 Investigating Officer during the course of investigation in writing and the contents of report under Ex.P143 and the contents of previous statement of PW25 recorded by PW29 investigating Officer appears to be one and the same. Hence, relying upon the above Judgment and in view of prohibition under section 162 of Cr.P.C., the objection of the learned counsel for the Accused No.1 is sustained.

However, PW25 was subjected to cross examination. The counsel for the accused during the cross examination nothing elicited to discredit the testimony of PW25. The oral evidence of

PW25 inspires the confidence of the Court. Therefore, this Court safely concluded that without there being any construction, Accused No.1 in collusion with other accused got credited cash of

Rs.16 lakhs from SBI, PPB, S.P. Road Branch, Secunderabad. Point No.12 is accordingly answered infavour of the prosecution and against the Accused.

Point No.13:

79.In respect of housing loan of Accused No.6 & Accused No.7, the case of the prosecution is that on 06/05/2002 Accused No.6 and Accused No.7 jointly availed housing loan from SBI,

PBB, SP Road, Secunderabad. In this regard, the evidence of PW1 show that on 06/05/2002

Accused No.6 and Accused No.7 jointly applied for housing loan of Rs.6.5 lakhs for purchase of Flat No.101, Srinivas Towers, 30-253/3, Plot No.K3, Officers Colony, Malkajgiri from the owner Ch. Srinivas. The recitals of Ex.P52 housing Loan application also show the same. The evidence of PW1 further speaks that basing on Ex.P53 Appraisal report dated 10/05/2002 prepared by Sri. M.S. Ramesh, the then Field Officer and Ex.P54 Brief opinion report dated 10/05/2002 was prepared by Sri. C.R. Dikshitulu, the then Chief Manager recommending the applied loan and then Accused No.6 and Accused No.7 jointly executed Memorandum of term 5Kaliram Vs State of Himachal Pradesh reported in 1973 AIR 2773 45 OF 84 CC.NO.7 OF 2018 loan agreement dated 11/05/2002 under Ex.P55. The evidence of PW1 further speaks that

Accused No.1 stood as guarantor for the joint housing loan of Accused No.6 and Accused No.7 and on 11/5/2002 the Guarantee Agreement was executed by Accused No.1 under Ex.P56.

Loan arrangement letter dated 11/05/2002 in respect of above housing loan was executed by

Accused No.6, Accused No.7 and Accused No.1 under Ex.P57. The evidence of PW1 further speaks that basing on Ex.P58 Legal opinion dated 04/05/2002 furnished by Sri. B.S. Bhaskar

Dev, Lalitha Kumari, Advocates, Ex.P59 Valuation report dated 07/05/2002 submitted by

Accused No.5 in respect of such housing loan an amount of Rs.6.5 lakhs was sanctioned in favour of Accused No.6 & Accused No.7.

80.The evidence of PW1 further speaks that at the time of sanction of housing loan,

Accused No.6 and Accused No.7 have submitted Ex.P63 Original agreement of Sale dated 26/03/2002 executed in between Accused No.6, Accused No.7 and their vendor Ch. Srinivas and also mortgaged Ex.P60 Sale Deed bearing document No.2466/2002 dated 14/05/2002 allegedly executed by one Ch. Srinivas in favour of Accused No.6 and Accused No.7 towards security of the said loan by way of signing Ex.P61 Form No-A dated 22/05/2002. The evidence of PW1 further speaks that sanctioned amount of Rs.6,50,000/- in the form of a

Bankers cheque bearing No. 348783 dated 11/05/2002 for Rs.6,50,000/- was issued infavour of

Ch. Srinivas, alleged vendor of the Flat referred above.

81. The learned counsel for the Accused No.6 and Accused No.7 submitted that as per the evidence of PW1 the housing loan documents relating to Accused No.1 and Accused No.4 were allegedly handed over by PW1 to CBI under Ex.P1 covering letter dated: 17/8/2005 with list of documents but there is no evidence on record to show as to who handed over the housing loan documents under Ex.P52 to Ex.P69 relating to Accused No.6 and Accused No.7 to CBI. I do agree that PW1 also admitted that Ex.P1 is the letter through which he handed over the housing loan documents to CBI which speaks only about handing over documents under Ex.P2 to 46 OF 84 CC.NO.7 OF 2018

Ex.P51 relating to housing loan of Accused No.1 and Accused No.4, but not the housing loan documents of Accused No.6 and Accused No.7 under Ex.P52 to Ex.P69. PW1 deposed that he handed over such documents through another covering letter. But, such covering letter is not seen the light of the day. On the other hand, the evidence of PW1 about handing over of

Ex.P52 to Ex.P69 to CBI through another covering letter is contradicting with evidence of

PW29 investigating officer who deposed that the documents under Ex.P2 to Ex.P69 were received by him from PW1 though Ex.P1 covering letter. However, during the cross examination, nothing suggested to PW1 disputing availing of house loan of Rs.6,50,000/- jointly by Accused No.6 and Accused No.7 from SBI, PPB, S.P. Road, Secunderabad branch by mortgage of sale deed vide document No.2466/2002 dated: 15/2/2002 towards collateral security. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that Accused No.6 and Accused No.7 jointly availed housing loan of Rs.6.5 lakhs by mortgaging sale deed bearing document No.2466/2002 dated 14/05/2002 towards collateral security. Point No.13 is accordingly answered infavour of the prosecution and against Accused No.6 & Accused No.7.

Point No.14:

82.Ex.P63 is the agreement of sale dated: 26/3/2002 said to be executed by Ch. Srinivas

S/o. Ch. Surya Prakash in the capacity of owner of Flat No.101, 1st Floor of Srinivasa Towers, on Municipal bearing No.30-253/3, Plot No.K-3, Sy.No.303/1, admeasuring 1100 Square Feet plinth area situated at Officer’s Colony, Malkajgiir Municipality and Mandal, Rangareddy

District, in favour of Accused No.6 and Accused No.7 acknowledging receipt of cash of

Rs.1,50,000/- towards advance out of sale consideration of Rs.8,00,000/-. Ex.P60 is the sale deed vide document No.2466/2002 dated: 14/5/2002 said to be executed by Ch. Srinivas S/o.

Ch. Surya Prakash in the capacity of owner of above flat.

47 OF 84 CC.NO.7 OF 2018

83.The case of the prosecution is that PW4 Ch. Srinivas is original owner of Flat No.101, 1st Floor of Srinivasa Towers, on Municipal bearing No. 30-253/3, Plot No.K-3, Sy.No.303/1, admeasuring 1100 Square Feet plinth area situated at Officer’s Colony, Malkajgiir Municipality and Mandal, Rangareddy District and PW4 never sold such flat infavour of Accused No.6 and

Accused No.7 and Ex.P63 agreement of sale, Ex.P60 sale deed and Ex.P144 account opening form in the name of Ch. Srinivas are false documents and created by Accused No.8 in collusion with Accused No.6 and Accused No.7 for the purpose of availing housing loan by Accused

No.6 and Accused No.7.

84.In order to prove the same, the prosecution is relying on the oral evidence of PW4 Ch.

Srinivas. The evidence of PW4 speaks that in the year 2000 he purchased land to an extent of 400 Square Yards situated at Plot No.K3, Officers Colony, Malkajgiri from one Krishna Reddy,

Jeevan Reddy and two others. In the year 2001-2002 his father constructed apartment with ground, 1st and 2nd floor in the said plot. The ground floor consists of one flat and eight shops, first floor and second floor consists of four flats for each floor. In the year 2003-2004 one

Surjeet Singh came to his father expressing his intention to purchase two or three flats as such they handed over copies of documents of the property. After one week Surjeet Singh came and requested to reduce the sale consideration for which they did not agree and hence said Surjeet

Singh returned the property documents. He came to know that sale deeds were executed in the name of Ch. Srinivas in favour of the name of Surjeet Singh and Navneet Kaur for three flats and one flat in the name of Dayanad. In fact he never sold any of the flats of his apartment situated at Plot No.K3, Officers Colony, Malkajgiri. The handwriting/signature as “Ch. Srinivas” in Ex.P63 agreement of sale is not of him and he never entered into any agreement of sale with Accused No.6 and Accused No.7 so also the hand writings/signature as “Ch. Srinivas” in Ex.P60 sale deed vide document No.2466/2002 dated: 14/5/2002 and the photo, handwriting/signature and thumb impression against the name of Ch. Srinivas on

Form 32-A annexed to Ex.P60 is not that of him.

48 OF 84 CC.NO.7 OF 2018

85.Ex.P144 is the account opening form in the name of Ch. Srinivas opened in Bank of

Punjab Limited. The oral evidence of PW37 Y. S. Pavan Kumar, Assistant Manager, Bank of

Punjab Limited, Secunderabad speaks that Accused No.6 who is having current account bearing Accused No. SB50011163 in their branch in the name of Guru’s SS Enterprises introduced Ch. Srinivas for opening account in their bank under Ex.P144. The oral evidence of PW4 further speaks that he never opened any account in Bank of Punjab Limited and the handwriting/ signature as “ Ch. Srinivas” on Ex.P144 account opening form is not that of him.

86.The main defence of the Accused No.6 and Accused No.7 is that the person who is examined as PW4 Ch. Srinivas is not the owner of the property covered under Ex.P60. The name of PW4 is Chandupatla Srinivas but not Ch. Srinivas. PW4 during his evidence also admitted that his income tax records and all his identity proofs show his name as Chandupatla

Srinivas but not Ch. Srinivas. Hence, PW4 is planted by CBI.

87.Since, accused are disputing the ownership of PW4 over the property covered under

Ex.P60, the initial burden lies on the prosecution to prove that the person who is examined as

PW4 is Ch. Srinivas and he is the original owner of the said property. This can be proved either by examining Krishna Reddy, Jeevan Reddy and two others from whom PW4 allegedly purchased land to an extent of 400 Square Yards situated at Plot No.K3, Officers Colony,

Malkajgiir, Secunderabad or by examining the attestors of the sale deed through which PW4 allegedly purchased such property or also by examining the neighbours or tenants. This can also be proved by submitting the sale deed through which PW4 allegedly purchased the above property or by submitting the permission proceedings issued by the concerned municipal authorities in his name for construction of the apartment or by submitting the tax receipts/ electricity bills or water tax bills if any paid by him in respect of such property. But, nothing brought on record to prove that the person who is examined as PW4 Ch. Srinivas is owner of the above property and he is Ch. Srinivas. PW29 investigating officer also admitted that 49 OF 84 CC.NO.7 OF 2018 nothing collected by him to show that the person who is examined as PW4 is Ch. Srinivas and

PW4 is owner of the property covered under Ex.P60.

88.The learned counsel for the accused submitted that the evidence of PW4 that in the year 2000 PW4 purchased land to an extent of 400 Square Yards situated at Plot No.K-3, Officers

Colony, Malkagiri from Krishnareddy, Jeevan Reddy and two others, that in the year 2001-2002 father of PW4 constructed apartment with ground, first and second floor in the said plot and that the ground floor consists of one flat and eight shops, first floor consists of four flats, second floor consists of four flats, is an improvement to his earlier version to Police. I do agree that PW29 investigating officer also admitted that PW4 while recording his Section 161

Cr.P.C. statement never deposed before him as above. In view of the above admission, this

Court is of the opinion that the accused has legally proved the omission.

89.The learned counsel for the accused further submitted that the evidence of PW4 to an extent that in the year 2003-2004 one Surjeet Singh came to his father expressing his intention to purchase two or three flats is also material omission amounting to contradiction. I do agree that PW29 also admitted stating that PW4 never stated before him referring the year 2003- 2004. In fact, according to the prosecution, Accused No.6 and Accused No.7 allegedly obtained loan from the bank by mortgaging Ex.P60 sale deed in the year 2002, but not in the year 2003-2004. Therefore, the evidence of PW4 in respect of the year 2003-2004 is a material omission amounting to contradiction and the same is proved by the accused.

90.The evidence of PW4 speaks that Accused No.6 Surjeet Singh came to him and obtained property documents showing interest to purchase the Flat No.101. But, PW4 failed to identify

Accused No.6 who was present in the Court hall as the person who approached him and obtained property documents from him. No steps for conducting Test Identification Parade was taken by PW29 investigating Officer.

50 OF 84 CC.NO.7 OF 2018

91.The evidence of PW4 further speaks that Accused No.6 & Accused No.7 executed an under taking under Ex.P72 admitting their guilt of creating false sale deed and agreeing to clear the loan amount. The accused is disputing the execution of Ex.P72 under taking. Hence, the burden lies on the prosecution to prove it’s execution by A6 & A7. According to the prosecution, Ex.P72 allegedly executed by A6 & A7 in the presence of attestors namely

Manjeet Singh and A. Sudheer. In view of the denial of Ex.P72 by accused, the prosecution can prove it’s execution by examining the above referred attestors. But, PW29 neither examined them nor recorded their statements. No steps taken to send Ex.P72 to GEQD for comparison of signatures available on such document to prove that the same were affixed by

A6 & A7. In the absence of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove that the undertaking under Ex.P72 was executed by Accused No.6 & Accused

No.7. Hence, Ex.P72 does not come to rescue the case of the prosecution.

92.The evidence of PW4 further speaks that during the course of investigation, PW29 investigating officer has obtained his specimen writings/signatures under S-11 to S-14. The same were sent to GEQD for comparison with writings marked under Q1 to Q19. PW28 compared the specimen hand writings/ signatures under S-11 to S1-4 with Q-1 to Q19 and gave report stating that it is not possible to express any opinion on it.

93.A document can be proved as false document by examining the original owner of property. In this case, as stated supra, the prosecution has failed to prove that the person who is examined as Ch. Srinivas and he is the original owner of the property under Ex.P60 & Ex.P63.

In the said circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove that Ex.P63 agreement of sale dated: 26/3/2002, Ex.P60 sale deed vide document bearing document No.2466/2002 dated 14/05/2002 and Ex.P144 Account opening Form in the name of

Ch. Srinivas in Bank of Punjab Limited, as false documents. Accordingly Point No. 14 is answered against the prosecution and infavour of Accused persons.

51 OF 84 CC.NO.7 OF 2018

Point No.15:

94.According to the prosecution, the photo against the name of Ch. Srinivas available on

Form 32-A annexed to Ex.P60 sale deed is not that of PW4 but it is that of Accused No.8 and

Accused No.8 impersonated as PW4 Ch. Srinivas in executing Ex.P60 sale deed by affixing the signature against name of vendor as “ Ch. Srinivas” and also affixing his thumb impression and photo on Form No.32-A annexed to Ex.P60 and also impersonated PW4 at the time of opening account in the bank under Ex.P144 and withdrawing the housing loan sanctioned to

Accused No.6 and accused No.7.

95.To prove the same, the prosecution is relying upon the oral evidence of PW9, PW20,

PW28, PW29 and documentary evidence under Ex.P60, Ex.P107, Ex.P108, Ex.P137, Ex.P149 to Ex.P155.

96.In respect of photograph, Form No.32-A annexed to Ex.P60 contains the purported photograph of Ch. Srinivas. PW4 denied stating that such photograph is not that of him. The oral evidence of PW20 Smt S.V. Jayanthi, Senior Manager, Syndicate Bank, R.P.Road Branch,

Secunderabad speaks that Accused No.8 opened an account bearing No. SB38857 in Syndicate

Bank. Ex.P136 is the said account opening form which contains the name of Account holder as

A. Angamuthu. Ex.P137 is the specimen signature card of Accused No.8 for such account.

Both Ex.P136 and Ex.P137 contains the photograph of Accused No.8. The evidence of PW29 investigating officer speaks that Accused No.8/A. Angamuthu impersonated as PW4 Ch.

Srinivas and the photograph on Form No.32-A of Ex.P60 sale deed is that of Accused No.8. I do agree that the photograph against the name of Ch. Srinivas in Ex.P60 sale deed and the photographs against the name of A. Angamuthu in Ex.P136 and Ex.P137 are one and the same.

On the other hand, Ex.P108 is the Voter-ID card bearing No. BYX0804351 issued by Election

Commission of India to Accused No.8. It also contains the photograph of Accused No.8. On 52 OF 84 CC.NO.7 OF 2018 perusal with naked eyes an ordinary prudent man can say that the photograph available on

Ex.P108, Ex.P136, Ex.P137 and on Ex.P60 are one and the same and it is that of Accused No.8.

However, only basing on the photograph, this Court cannot come to a conclusion that Accused

No.8 impersonated as Ch. Srinivas.

97.The main allegation of the prosecution is that Accused No.8 executed Ex.P60 sale deed vide document No. 2466/2002 dated: 14/5/2002 and also opened account under Ex.P144 and withdrawn the housing loan sanctioned infavour of Accused No.6 and Accused No.7 by impersonating PW4 Ch. Srinivas. In order to prove the same, the prosecution is relying on the oral evidence of PW28 & PW29 and also documentary evidence under Ex.P60, Ex.P149 to

Ex.P155 and Ex.P196.

98.The questioned writings/ signatures as “Ch. Srinivas” available on 1) Ex.P60 marked as

Q-1 to Q-12, 2) Ex.P149 Cheque bearing No.017126 dated: 17/5/2002 for Rs.3,50,000/- marked as Q-13, 3) Ex.P150 Cheque bearing No. 017128 dated 20/05/2002 for Rs.1,50,000/- as

Q-14, 4) Ex.P151 Cheque bearing No. 017127 dated 20/05/2002 for Rs.12,000/- as Q-15,

5) Ex.P152 Cheque bearing No. 017130 dated 31/05/2002 for Rs.1,00,000/- marked as Q-16,

6) Ex.P153 Cheque bearing No. 017131 dated 06/07/2002 for Rs.20,000/- marked as Q-17,

7) Ex.P154 Cheque bearing No. 017132 dated 07/08/2002 for Rs.2,500/-marked as Q-18,

8) Ex.P155 Cheque bearing No. 017129 dated 30/05/2002 for Rs.15,000/- marked as Q-19.

99. PW29 during the course of investigation has collected the Specimen writings/signatures of Accused No.8/ A. Angamuthu and marked as S-1 to S-10 on Ex.P107 and sent the specimen writings/signatures of Accused No.8 along with signatures available on Questioned documents to GEQD for opinion.

53 OF 84 CC.NO.7 OF 2018

100. The evidence of PW28 A. Balasami, Deputy Director and Scientist-D of GEQD speaks that he had checked the disputed writings/ signatures and the standard writings/signatures and found suitable for comparison. He used the hand writing comparison principle i.e., side by side comparison and like matter is to be compared with like. He had used the scientific instruments such as magnifying glasses, stereo microscope and video spectral comparator -5000 etc., for the purpose of comparison of the above said hand writings/ signatures and arrived at the conclusion and gave Ex.P196 opinion stating that the person who wrote the blue enclosed writings stamped and marked as S1, S2, S7 to S10 also wrote the red enclosed writings similarly stamped and marked Q1 to Q19.

101. The learned Public Prosecutor for CBI submitted that the oral evidence of PW29 coupled with PW28 Expert Opinion show that Accused No.8/ A. Angamuthu is the person who impersonated original owner Ch. Srinivas and executed Ex.P60 sale deed vide document No.

2466/2002 dated: 14/5/2002 and also withdrawn the housing loan amounts sanctioned infavour of Accused No.6 and Accused No.7 by affixing writings/signatures as “Ch. Srinivas” on withdrawal slips and thereby prosecution has succeeded in proving the charge against the accused No.8 for the offence punishable under section 419 of IPC.

102.Per contra, the learned counsel for the Accused No.8 submitted that as per section 311-A of Cr.P.C. the specimen signatures of the Accused No.8 ought to have taken with the permission of the Court but in this case as admitted by PW29 investigating officer the alleged specimen signatures of Accused No.8 were obtained without such permission and by violating Section 311-A of Cr.P.C and hence there is no value of opinion given by GEQD.

103.In this case, Ex.P107 is the specimen signatures of Accused No.8. On careful perusal of the record show that PW29 investigating Officer allegedly obtained such signatures of

Accused No.8 on 16/6/2006. Section 311-A of Cr.PC. Came into force with Cr.P.C 54 OF 84 CC.NO.7 OF 2018 (Amendment) Act 25/2005 with effect from 23/6/20006 i.e., one week after obtaining of alleged hand writings/specimen signatures of Accused No.8. More over, the Hon’ble Apex

Court in the Judgment in between Sukhram Vs State of Himachal Pradesh in

Crl.A.No.224 of 2012 held that the Amendment inserting Section 311-A of Cr.P.C. is

prospective in nature but not retrospective. Hence, the the provisions of Sec.311-A of Cr.P.C are not applicable to the present case.

104.This Court inclined to discuss the Law prevailing prior to Enactment of Section 311-A of

Cr.P.C. regarding obtaining of specimen hand writings/signatures. The Hon’ble Apex Court in it’s Judgment6 elaborately discussed Section 5 of Identification of Prisoners Act and held that signatures and hand writings are excluded from the range of Section 5 of Identification of

Prisoners Act as it empowers the Magistrate to direct any person to give his measurements or photographs that too during the course of investigation. The Hon’ble Apex Court also discussed

Section 73 of Evidence Act and held that under this section a Court holding enquiry under

Cr.P.C. entitled to direct accused person appearing before the Court to give his specimen hand writings to enable the Court by which he may be tried to compare it with disputed writings.

The Hon’ble Apex Court suggested to make suitable Legislation in respect of specimen hand writings and signatures.

105. In the Judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in between Raj Kumar Vs State in

Crl.M.A.14076/2012 in Crl.A.No.582/2012 dated: 18/10/2012, the specimen hand writings of accused were obtained on 18/1/2006 i.e., much prior to introduction of Section 311-A of Cr.P.C.

on 23/6/2006. In this said case, relying upon the Judgment of the same High Court in between Sapan Haldar & Another Vs State in Crl.A. 804/2001 dated: 25/5/2012, the

Hon’ble Delhi High Court disregarded the FSL report on the ground that Investigating Officer

has not taken the specimen hand writings/signatures of the Accused persons through Court 6State of U.P. Vs Rambabu Misra reported in 1980 AIR 791 55 OF 84 CC.NO.7 OF 2018 order. In the present case also, as admitted by PW29 investigating Officer, the alleged specimen hand writings/ signatures were obtained by him without permission of the Court.

Hence, relying on the above Judgment, this Court of the opinion that Ex.P196 GEQD report is to be disregarded and hence, the oral evidence of PW28 does not come to rescue the case of the prosecution.

106. The recitals of Ex.P63 agreement of sale dated: 26/3/2002 show that such agreement was entered in the presence of attestors namely T. Vinod Kumar and T. Yadagiri. The recitals of Ex.P60 sale deed dated: 14/5/2002 show that it was executed in the presence of attestors namely M. Narsing Rao and D. Janardhan. By examination of the such attestors the prosecution can prove that Accused No.8 impersonated the original owner Ch. Srinivas in entering such agreement and also in executing the sale deed. But, PW29 has not examined such attestors to prove the same.

107. The case of the prosecution is that Accused No.6 & Accused No.7 jointly purchased the flat No.101, 1st Floor, Srinivasa Towers, on Municipal bearing No.30-253/3, on plot No.K-3, in

Sy.No.303/1, admeasuring 1100 Square Feet situated at Officer’s Colony, Malkajgiri

Municipality and Mandal, Rangareddy District. Ex.P60 speaks the same. The evidence of

PW4 Ch. Srinivas also speaks that one flat was got registered in the name of Dayanand but he never executed any sale deed in favour of said Dayanand. The evidence of PW29 investigating

Officer also speaks that as per his investigation, one Dayanand purchased Flat No.101, vide sale deed bearing No.5244 dated: 7/10/2002. Therefore, it is clear that Flat No.101 was got registered twice i.e., one in the joint names of Accused No.6 and Accused No.7 and another in the name of Dayanand. Despite, PW29 neither cited the said Dayanand as accused nor as witness in this case. It is also admitted by PW29 that he did not investigate in respect of Flat said to be purchased by Dayanand. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Accused No.8 impersonated as original owner 56 OF 84 CC.NO.7 OF 2018 in entering Ex.P63 sale agreement, in executing Ex.P60 sale deed and at the time of opening account under Ex.P144 and thereby accused is liable for charge punishable under section 419 of IPC. Hence Point No.15 accordingly answered against the prosecution.

Point No.16:

108.In order to prove the charge under section 468 of IPC, the prosecution has to establish that the documents under Ex.P60, Ex.P63 and Ex.P144 are false documents and that Accused

No.8 in collusion with Accused No.6 & Accused No.7 created such false documents intending that the forged documents would be used for the purpose of cheating.

109.In point No.14 of Judgment, this Court held that the prosecution has failed to prove

PW4 as Ch. Srinivas as original owner of the property. It also failed to prove that Ex.P63 agreement of sale, Ex.P60 sale deed and Ex.P144 account opening form are false documents.

In point No.15 of Judgment, this Court held that the prosecution also failed to prove that

Accused No.8 impersonated original owner in executing the above documents. The attestors of the above documents were not examined. There is no evidence on record to show that Accused

No.8 in collusion with Accused No.6 & Accused No.7 created such false documents

Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt for the charge punishable under section 468 of IPC against Accused No.8.

Hence, Point No.16 accordingly answered against the prosecution and infavour of

Accused No.8.

Point No.17:

110. In order to prove charge punishable under section 471 of IPC, the prosecution has to establish that Accused No.6 & Accused No.7 are having knowledge that Ex.P63 agreement of sale and Ex.P60 sale deed are false documents and knowingly or reason to believe that Ex.P60 57 OF 84 CC.NO.7 OF 2018 & Ex.P63 as a false documents both of them with fraudulent intention submitted such documents before the bank as genuine one so as to avail housing loan and thereby A6 & A7 are found guilty for the offence punishable under section 471 of IPC

111.In this case, as stated supra, the prosecution has failed to prove that the documents under

Ex.P60, Ex.P63 and Ex.P144 as false documents. There is no evidence on record to show that

Accused No.6 and Accused No.7 are having knowledge that the above documents as false documents. None of the above documents are having seal of signature of bank officials to show that they were submitted by Accused No.6 and Accused No.7 before the bank at the time of availing loan. There is no evidence on record as to how the loan documents of Accused

No.6 and Accused No.7 under Ex.P52 to Ex.P69 were seized from the bank. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt for the charge under section 471 of IPC against Accused No.6 & Accused No.7. The Point No.17 is accordingly answered against the prosecution and infavour of the accused No.6 & Accused

No.7.

Point No.18:

112.In order to prove the charge under section 420 of IPC, the prosecution has to establish that accused No.6 & Accused No.7 have dishonest or fraudulent intention of deception from inception and with such intention they have availed housing loan from the bank by submitting false and fabricated documents, subsequently diverted the amounts and used such housing loan for the purpose other than it was sanctioned, failed to repay the same, caused wrongful loss to the bank and wrongful gain to them and thereby cheated the bank.

113.As stated supra, in the earlier discussion, this Court held that the prosecution has failed to prove as to who is original owner of property covered under Ex.P60. The prosecution also failed to prove that Ex.P60, Ex.P63 and Ex.P144 as false documents. The prosecution also 58 OF 84 CC.NO.7 OF 2018 failed to prove that Accused No.8 impersonated the original owner of such property. The prosecution also failed to prove that Accused No.6 and Accused No.7 are having knowledge that the above documents as false documents and knowingly they have submitted the same

before the bank as genuine. However, the evidence of PW1 further speaks that the sanctioned

housing loan of Rs.6.5 lakhs was credited in to the account of PW4 Ch. Srinivas lying in Bank of Punjab.

114.Ex.P145 is the statement of Account for account No. SB50011163 opened in the name of

Ch. Srinivas in Bank of Punjab. The recitals of Ex.P145 show that the sanctioned housing loan amount of Rs.6.5 lakhs credited into the account existing in the name of Ch. Srinivas, being vendor of the property covered under Ex.P60. The oral evidence of PW27 show that amounts on various dates were transferred from the account of Ch. Srinivas to the accounts existing in the name of A6/Surjeet Singh, A7/ Navneeth Kaur and Guru’SS enterprises for which Accused

No.6 is proprietor.

115.The following cheques were issued in the name Ch. Srinivas from the account bearing

No.SB50011163 infavour of Guru’s SS Enterprises for which Accused No.6 is proprietor.

1) Ex.P155 is the Cheque bearing No. 017129 dated 30/05/2002 for Rs.15,000/- issued in the name of Guru’s SS Enterprises,

2) Ex.P171 is the Cheque bearing No. 024281 dated 02/12/2002 for Rs. 1,00,000/- issued by Ch. Srinivas in the name of Guru’s SS Enterprises.

3) Ex.P173 is the Cheque bearing No. 024289 dated 04/12/2002 for Rs. 50,000/- issued by Ch. Srinivas in the name of Guru’s SS Enterprises.

4) Ex.P175 is the Cheque bearing No. 024291 dated 09/12/2002 for Rs. 40,000/- issued by Ch. Srinivas in the name of Guru’s SS Enterprises.

5) Ex.P177 is the Cheque bearing No. 024292 dated 12/12/2002 for Rs. 20,000/- issued by Ch. Srinivas in the name of Guru’s SS Enterprises.

6) Ex.P179 is the Cheque bearing No. 024296 dated 20/12/2002 for Rs. 50,000/- issued by Ch. Srinivas in the name of Guru’s SS Enterprises.

59 OF 84 CC.NO.7 OF 2018

7) Ex.P181 is the Cheque bearing No. 028901 dated 16/01/2003 for Rs. 30,000/- issued by Ch. Srinivas in the name of Guru’s SS Enterprises.

8) Ex.P185 is the Cheque bearing No. 028905 dated 27/01/2003 for Rs. 25,000/- issued by Ch. Srinivas in the name of Guru’s SS Enterprises.

9) Ex.P189 is the Cheque bearing No. 028916 dated 01/04/2003 for Rs. 20,000/- issued by Ch. Srinivas in the name of Guru’s SS Enterprises.

10) Ex.P191 is the Cheque bearing No. 028914 dated 27/03/2003 for Rs. 4,000/- issued by Ch. Srinivas in the name of Guru’s SS Enterprises.

11) Ex.P193 is the Cheque bearing No. 028915 dated 29/03/2003 for Rs. 6,000/- issued by Ch. Srinivas in the name of Guru’s SS Enterprises.

116.Ex.P145 is the statement of account in the name of Ch. Srinivas. Ex.P194 is the statement of account of current account No. CA5001116 existing in the name of Guru’s SS

Enterprises. The recitals of E.P145 show the debit of above amounts from the account bearing No. SB50011163 existing in the name of Ch. Srinivas and Ex.P194 show the credit of above transferred amount in the account of Guru’s SS Enterprises represented by it’s proprietor/Accused No.6.

117.Further, the following cheques were issued in the name Ch. Srinivas from the account bearing No.SB50011163 infavour of Accused No.6.

1) Ex.P164 is the Cheque bearing No. 017140 dated 10/10/2002 for Rs. 25,000/- issued by Ch. Srinivas in the name of Surjeet Singh.

2) Ex.P166 is the Cheque bearing No. 017144 dated 24/10/2002 for Rs. 30,000/- issued by Ch. Srinivas in the name of Surjeet Singh.

3) Ex.P167 is the Cheque bearing No. 017145 dated 25/10/2002 for Rs. 40,000/- issued by Ch. Srinivas in the name of Surjeet Singh.

118.The recitals of E.P145 show the debit of above amounts from the account bearing No.

SB50011163 existing in the name of Ch. Srinivas and Ex.P194 show the credit of above transferred amount in the account of Accused No.6.

60 OF 84 CC.NO.7 OF 2018

119.Ex.P157 is the Cheque bearing No.024283 dated 03/12/2002 for Rs.15,000/- issued in the name of Ch. Srinivas infavour of Accused No.7/Navneeth Kaur. The recitals of E.P145 also show the debit of Ex.P157 amount from the account bearing No. SB50011163 existing in the name of Ch. Srinivas and Ex.P194 show the credit of above transferred amount in the account of Accused No.7.

120.Ex.P133 is the copy of statement of Account No.31123 of Accused No.7 maintained in

SBI, St.Mary’s Road Branch, Secunderabad. Ex.P133 was got marked through PW18 subject to objection that there is no certification under Bankers Book of Evidence Act. I do agree that in this case there is no certification under Section 4 of the Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, 1891 on Ex.P133 . In the absence of such certification Ex.P133 cannot be received as primafacie evidence on behalf of the prosecution. Hence, the objection of the learned counsel for the accused is sustained.

121.Ex.P165 is the Cheque bearing No. 017142 dated 10/10/2002 for Rs. 3,000/- issued by

Ch. Srinivas in the name of A8/A. Anga Muthu.

122.Therefore, it is clear that certain amounts were transferred from the account of Ch.

Srinivas to the accounts of Accused No.6 to Accused No.8. But, only basing on the transfer of the amounts alone from the account of Ch. Srinivas to the accounts of Accused No.6 to

Accused No.8 this Court cannot come to conclusion that there was a fraudulent or dishonest intention of Accused No.6 to Accused No.8. As held supra, the prosecution has failed to prove as to who is original Ch. Srinivas and who impersonated him in opening account. In the absence of evidence regarding fraudulent or dishonest intention of A6 to A8 from inception, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the Accused

No.6 to Accused No.8 beyond reasonable doubt for the charge punishable under section 420 of

IPC. The point No.18 is accordingly answered against the prosecution and infavour of the accused.

61 OF 84 CC.NO.7 OF 2018

Point No.19:

123Before discussing the allegations of the conspiracy, this court inclined to discuss the allegations against Accused No.2 and Accused No.5 who were alleged panel valuers in respect of housing loans of Accused No.1, Accused No.4 and Accused No.6 & Accused No.7.

124.According to Prosecution, Accused No.2 is bank panel valuer who gave Ex.P10 report in respect of housing loan of Accused No.1. The allegations of the prosecution against Accused

No.2 are that Accused No.2 facilitated the fraud by not mentioning the plot number in the valuation report given by him and even during valuation he did not take care in identifying the property. In order to prove the same, the prosecution is relying upon the oral evidence of PW1 and Ex.P10.

125.The oral evidence of PW1 speaks that Ex.P10 is the valuation report dated: 18/3/2002 purportedly submitted by Accused No.2 in respect of housing loan of Accused No.1. The defence of the Accused No.2 is that he was not the panel valuer of SBI, PPB, SP Road,

Secunderabad branch and he never issued Ex.P10 valuation report. In view of denial, the initial burden lies on the prosecution to establish that Accused No.2 is the SBI, PPB, S.P. Road,

Secunderabad Branch panel valuer. This can be proved by submitting the list of panel valuers maintained by the bank or examining the Bank official who entrusted the work of valuation of the alleged property to the Accused No.2. But, the prosecution has failed to examine any of the bank officials who worked during the relevant time and also failed to examine the bank official who alleged to be entrusted the work of valuation to Accused No.2. The oral evidence of PW1 speaks that he had no personal knowledge about Ex.P10 valuation report as it pertains to year 2002 which is before his joining in the bank. Admittedly, the list of bank panel valuers of the relevant time also not submitted before the Court to show that Accused No.2 was one of 62 OF 84 CC.NO.7 OF 2018 the panel valuer of the above bank. Generally every bank will make payment to the panel valuer for the entrusted work of valuation. But, no receipt showing payment made to the

Accused No.2 is filed before this Court. PW29 also admitted that he has not collected requisition given by bank to Accused No.2 for furnishing Ex.P10.

126.As stated supra, Ex.P10 is the valuation report alleged to be given by Accused No.2.

The prosecution has to prove that Ex.P10 was given by Accused No.2. This can be proved by taking the specimen signatures of Accused No.2 for comparison with signature available on

Ex.P10 or by examining the persons who got acquaintance with signatures of Accused No.2.

But, in the present case, the prosecution failed to obtain the specimen signatures of Accused

No.2 so as to send the same for comparison with disputed signatures available on Ex.P10. The prosecution also failed to examine the persons who got acquaintance with the signatures of the

Accused No.2 to prove that Ex.P10 contains the signature of Accused No.2. The same is also admitted by PW29 investigating Officer.

127. PW1 admitted that the description of property said to be inspected by the

Valuer/Accused No.2 mentioned in Ex.P10 valuation report and the description of property for which loan sanctioned under Ex.P4 are one and the same. He further admitted that the boundaries mentioned in Ex.P9 legal opinion and the boundaries shown in column No.13 of

Ex.P10 valuation report are one and the same. The evidence of PW29 Investigating Officer also speaks that the boundaries of the property valued by Accused No.2 under Ex.P10 and the sale deed submitted to the bank and application submitted for loan by Accused No.1 and the documents furnished to Accused No.2 for valuation are same. The evidence of PW29 further speaks that the boundaries mentioned in the original sale deed and valuation report and the sale deed which was mortgaged to the bank with regard to property valued by Accused No.2 are one and the same. In view of the above admissions, the case of the prosecution that Accused No.2 failed to identify the property mortgaged by Accused No. 1, is not correct.

63 OF 84 CC.NO.7 OF 2018

128. In respect of allegations against Accused No.5, according to prosecution, Accused No.5 is the bank panel valuer who gave Ex.P40 valuation report in respect of housing loan of

Accused No.4 and Ex.P59 valuation report in respect of housing loan of Accused No.6 and

Accused No.7. The evidence of PW1 also speaks the same. Accused No.5 cross examined the prosecution witnesses but nothing suggested denying issuance of Ex.P40 and Ex.P59 valuation reports. On the other hand, during the examination under Section 313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. Accused

No.5 admitted about entrustment of work of valuing the properties mentioned in the housing loan applications referred above and issuance of Ex.P40 and Ex.P59 valuation reports. The main defence of the Accused No.5 is that the valuation was given for existing buildings. PW29 investigating officer also admitted about the existing of buildings on the date of such valuation reports. It is not the case of the prosecution that Accused No.2 and Accused No.5 have given valuation reports of non existing structures/buildings.

129.The evidence of PW2 also speaks that the loan will be sanctioned basing on the report of field officer. The opinion of the valuer is only advisory in nature and not binding on the bank.

The confirmation of field officer is final. PW29 investigating officer also admitted the same.

Hence, it can be safely concluded that the valuation report is only advisory in nautre but not sole basis for sanction of the loan.

130. In respect of charge of Conspiracy against Accused under section 120-B of IPC, the main allegations of the prosecution are that Accused No.1, Accused No.2, Accused No.5 to

Accused No.8 along with other accused viz., Accused No.3, Accused No.4 ( Absconding),

Accused No.9( Died) and Accused No.10 ( Absconding) conspired one with another with an object of availing housing loans by mortgaging false and fabricated documents, to divert the housing loan amount for the purpose other than loans were sanctioned, to cause wrongful loss to the bank and wrongful gain to themselves i.e., to commit the offences punishable under section 419, 420, 468, 471 of IPC and in furtherance of such conspiracy created false and 64 OF 84 CC.NO.7 OF 2018 fabricated documents, availed bank loans by mortgaging false documents, diverted the housing loan amounts, caused wrongful gain to them and wrongful loss to the bank to an extent of Rs.

65,41,907/-, cheated the bank and thereby committed the offence punishable under section 120-B of IPC.

131.The learned Public Prosecutor for CBI submitted that conspiracy always hatched in secrecy and it is impossible to adduce direct evidence of the same and this offence can be proved only from inference drawn from acts of illegal omission committed by the conspirators in pursuance of a common design. On this aspect relied upon the Judgment7 of Hon’ble Apex

Court.

132. The condition precedent, for holding accused persons guilty of a charge of criminal conspiracy must, therefore, be considered on the anvil of a fact which must be established by the prosecution, viz., meeting point of two or more persons for doing or causing to be done an illegal act or an act by illegal means. However, while drawing an inference from the materials brought on record to arrive at a finding as to whether the charges of the criminal conspiracy have been proved or not, must always bear in mind that a conspiracy is hatched in secrecy and it is, thus, difficult, if not impossible, to obtain direct evidence to establish the same. The manner and circumstances in which the offences have been committed and the level of involvement of the accused persons therein are relevant factors.

133. Therefore, meeting of minds of two or more persons for doing an illegal act or an act by illegal means is sine qua non of the criminal conspiracy but it may not be possible to prove the agreement between them by direct proof.

7Ajay Agarwal Vs Union of India reported in 1993(3) SCC 609 65 OF 84 CC.NO.7 OF 2018

134.In this case, there are three housing loans i.e., housing loan of Accused No.1, housing loan of Accused No.4 and housing loan jointly availed by Accused No.6 and Accused No.7. In respect of housing loan of Accused No.1, as stated supra, the prosecution has proved that

Ex.P12 sale deed vide document No.1293/2001 as false document, Ex.P73 copy of letter dated:

30/5/1990 alleged to be issued by M. Guruswamy, Defense Estate Officer, Andhra Pradesh

Circle & Competent Authority, ULC, Secunderabad Cantonment by showing land in Sy.No.96 to 99 of Tirmulgherry as non-agricultural land, alleged to be issued in the name of Accused

No.9 as false document. Accused No.1 availed housing loan of Rs.15 lakhs for construction of the house in the above land by mortgaging such false documents. The evidence of PW13 also speaks that out of sanctioned housing loan, Accused No.1 instead of using the housing loan amount for construction of the house, used the amount for other purpose than it was sanctioned and diverted the loan amount by issuing Ex.P11 Cheque bearing No. 134778 dated 27/06/2002 for Rs.10,000/- Ex.P112 Cheque bearing No. 134796 dated 27/08/2002 for Rs.77,000/-,

Ex.P114 Cheque bearing No. 090279 dated 07/09/2002 for Rs.50,000/- issued in the name of

A6/Surjith Singh. The evidence of PW13 further speaks that Accused No.1 also issued

Ex.P117 Cheque bearing No. 130861 dated 02/05/2002 for Rs.30,000/-, Ex.P118 Cheque bearing No. 130864 dated 09/05/2002 for Rs.1,00,000/- , Ex.P119 Cheque bearing No. 130865

dated 12/05/2002 for Rs.1,00,000/-, Ex.P120 Cheque bearing No. 130866 dated 14/05/2002 for

Rs.1,00,000/- and Ex.P121 Cheque bearing No. 134777 dated 20/06/2002 for Rs.50,000/- issued in the name of A10/S. Raja Shekhar, who is the vendor of property covered under

Ex.P12.

135. In respect of housing loan of Accused No.4, the evidence on record also show that there is no person in the name of G. Satyamurthy and the sanctioned loan amount of Accused No.4 was allegedly credited into the account of Accused No.10/ Rajashekhar who is none other than the brother-in-law of Accused No.1 who allegedly impersonated as G. Satyamurthy. The evidence on record also show that a pay order for Rs.5 lakhs was issued by Accused No.4 in the 66 OF 84 CC.NO.7 OF 2018 name of Accused No.9 ( Died). The evidence on record further show that Accused No.1 entered into development agreement with Accused No.4 for completing the remaining construction of semi constructed house for Rs.16 lakhs. This clearly establish that

Accused No.1 entered into an agreement with Accused No.4 ( absconding), Accused No.9 ( Died) and Accused No.10( Absconding) to create false documents, to avail housing loan , to divert the loan amount, to cause wrongful loss to the bank and wrongful gain to them and thereby prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt for the charge punishable under section 120-B of IPC against Accused No.1 in respect of housing loan of Accused No.4.

136. In respect of housing loan of Accused No.6 & Accused No.7, as stated supra, the prosecution has failed to prove the charges punishable under section 419, 420, 468, 471 of IPC against Accused No.6 to Accused No.8 and their collusion with Accused No.1, Accused No.4 ( absconding), Accused No.9 (Died) and Accused No.10( Absconding) in availed housing loan.

Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove guilt of Accused

No.6 to Accused No.8 beyond reasonable doubt for the charge under section 120- B of IPC.

137. In respect of Accused No.2 and Accused No.5, as stated supra, except giving valuation reports nothing on record to connect them with this case. The evidence of bank officials also show that valuation report allegedly given by them is not sole basis for sanction of housing loan and it is only advisory in nature. The evidence of PW29 investigating officer also admitted that sanctioning of loan is prerogative of the bank and valuer has nothing to do with sanctioning of housing loan. On the other hand there is nothing on record to show that Accused

No.2 and Accused No.5 conspired with other accused in availing of housing loans. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of Accused No.2 and Accused No.5 for the charges of conspiracy punishable under section 120-B of IPC.

67 OF 84 CC.NO.7 OF 2018

138.As seen from the record, charges were also framed against the Accused No.2 and

Accused No.5 for the offences punishable under section 419, 420, 468 & 471 of IPC. But, it is not the case of the prosecution that both of them impersonated the original owner, created false documents for the purpose of cheating and having knowledge that the documents are false submitted such documents before the bank as genuine one, availed housing loan, caused wrongful loss to the bank and wrongful gain to them. There is no evidence on record to show that part of sanctioned loan transferred into the accounts of the above accused. Hence, this

Court is of the opinion that both of them are liable for acquittal for the above charges.

139.Charges for the offences punishable under section 419, 468 of IPC also framed against

Accused No.6 and Accused No.7. But, it is not the case of the prosecution that Accused No.6 or Accused No.7 impersonated the original owner and created such false documents for the purpose of cheating. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that both of them are liable for acquittal for the above charges. The record also show that charges for offence punishable under section 471 of IPC also framed against A8 but there is no evidence on record to prove such charge against him as such A8 is to be acquitted for such charge. The point No.19 is accordingly answered in favour of the prosecution in part.

Point No. 20

140.In view of answering Point No.1 to Point No.4, Point No.6, Point No.8 to Point No. 12,

Point No.19 against Accused No.1 and infavour of the prosecution, Accused No.1 is to be convicted for the charges punishable under section 471, 420, 120-B of IPC and in view of answering Point No.5, Point No.7 infavour of Accused No.1 and against the prosecution,

Accused No.1 is to be acquitted for the charges punishable under section 419 & 468 of IPC. In view of answering Point No.14 to Point No.19 infavour of Accused No.2, Accused No.5 to

Accused No.8 and against the Prosecution, Accused No.2, Accused No.5 to Accused No.8 are to be acquitted for the charges punishable under section 120-B, 419, 420, 468, 471 of IPC.

Point No.20 is accordingly answered.

68 OF 84 CC.NO.7 OF 2018

141. In the result, Accused No.1 is found not guilty for the charges punishable under section 419 & 468 of IPC and he is acquitted under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. for the said charges.

Accused No.2, Accused No.5 to Accused No.8 are found not guilty for the charges punishable under section 120-B, 419, 420, 468, 471 of IPC and they are acquitted under section 248(1) of

Cr.P.C. for the said charges. The case against Accused No.9 abated since died. The case against

Accused No.3 already quashed by the Hon’ble High Court. Accused No.1 is found guilty for the charges punishable under section 471, 420, 120-B of IPC and he is convicted under section 248(2) of Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Grade-II, Corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 9th day of May, 2022.

XXI-Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate -cum-Spl.JMFC for Trial of CBI Cases, Hyderabad

142.Heard Accused No.1 on hearing of Quantum of Sentence that has to be imposed on him.

Accused No.1 submitted that he is Senior Citizen, suffering with old aged ailments, recently undergone surgery for right eye and has to undergo surgery for left eye and also he has to perform marriage of his son and thus stating prayed the court to take lenient view in imposing the sentence.

143.In this case Accused No.1 has cheated the public sector banks and caused wrongful loss to the bank. Hence, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and nature of offences proved against the Accused No.1, this Court is not inclined to extend the benevolent provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 infavour of the Accused No.1 and this Court is of the opinion that imposing moderate sentence of imprisonment and fine which will meet the ends of

Justice.

69 OF 84 CC.NO.7 OF 2018

144.Considering the submissions made by the Accused No.1 and facts of the case, Accused

No.1 is sentenced to undergo RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT for a period of THREE

YEARS and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-( ONE THOUSAND ONLY-) for charge punishable

U/s.420 of IPC and in default of payment of fine he shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of SIX MONTHS. Accused No.1 is further sentenced to undergo RIGOROUS

IMPRISONMENT for a period of TWO YEARS and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- ( ONE THOUSAND ONLY-) for charge punishable U/s.471 of IPC and in default of payment of fine he shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of FOUR MONTHS. Accused No.1 further sentenced to undergo RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT for a period of TWO YEARS and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-( ONE THOUSAND ONLY-) for charge punishable U/s.120-B of

IPC and in default of payment of fine he shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of SIX

MONTHS.

145.The sentence of imprisonment for the charges under section 420, 471, 120-B of IPC imposed against Accused No.1 shall run concurrently.

146.There is no remand period of the Accused No.1 in this case as such he is not entitled for any benefit under section 428 of Cr.P.C.

147.Accused No.1 is informed about his right of appeal with free copy of Judgment being furnished to him and also informed him about availability of free Legal Aid under Legal

Services Authorities Act.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Grade-II, Corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 9th day of May, 2022.

XXI-Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate -cum-Spl.JMFC for Trial of CBI Cases, Hyderabad 70 OF 84 CC.NO.7 OF 2018

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF )

PROSECUTION:

PW1:Chakravarthy Sreepada

PW2:N. Ravindranath

PW3:R. Srinivasa Rao

PW4:Ch. Srinivas

PW5:Vineeth S. Nair

PW6:K.C. Venu Gopal

PW7:K. Yadagiri Reddy

PW8:K.M. Devaraj

PW9:M. Shiva Prasad

PW10:S. Nageshwar Rao

PW11:C. Venu Gopal

PW12:G. Shiva Kumar Goud

PW13:K.V. Sastry

PW14:C.V. Prasad

PW15:G.V. Lalitha Prasad

PW16:A. Madhava Reddy

PW17:B. Purnachander Rao

PW18:Smt S. Chenchu Lakshmi

PW19:A. Hanumantha Rao

PW20:Smt S. V. Jayanthi 71 OF 84 CC.NO.7 OF 2018

PW21:H.S.N. Murthy

PW22:K.B.Ramana Dora

PW23:G. Sri Krishna

PW24:S. Ravinder

PW25:M. Gopala Chary

PW26:M.B. Sangameshwar

PW27:Y.S. Pavan Kumar

PW28:A. Balasami

PW29:P.S. Rao

PW30:Ravi Suman Prasad

FOR DEFENCE:

- None-

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF

PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1: Covering letter with list of documents submitted by PW1 to CBI Police in respect of loan transactions accused No.1.

Ex.P2 : Application for housing loan submitted by accused No.1 with his photograph and the photograph of guarantor.

Ex.P3: Account opening form of savings bank account of accused No.1.

Ex.P4: Appraisal report submitted by Sri. M.S. Ramesh, the then Assistant Manager (Field Officer) SBI, PBB, SP Road Branch, Secunderabad in respect of the housing loan application submitted by accused No.1 and it contains the sanction of housing loan of Rs.15 lakhs to the accused No.1 by the then Chief Manager Sri. C.R. Dikshitulu.

Ex.P5: Brief opinion report in respect of the housing loan of accused No.1 signed by the then Chief Manager Sri. C.R. Dikshitulu.

Ex.P6: Memorandum of term loan agreement executed by accused No.1 dated 28/03/2002.

72 OF 84 CC.NO.7 OF 2018

Ex.P7: Guarantee agreement dated 28/03/2002 executed by Smt. K. Revathi.

Ex.P8: Arrangement letter for sanction of housing loan to the accused No.1 dated 28/03/2002.

Ex.P9: Legal opinion given by Sri. M.S.N. Prasad, Advocate in respect of the housing loan of Accused No.1 dated 20/03/2002.

Ex.P10: Valuation report dated 18/03/2002 purported to be submitted by the accused No.2 in respect of the housing loan of Accused No.1.

Ex.P11: Photostat copy of estimate report prepared by B. Eshwar Reddy, purported to be verified and attested by Accused No.2.

Ex.P12: Original sale deed bearing document No. 1293/2001 dated 28/07/2001 executed in favour of Accused No.1.

Ex.P13: Form No-A signed by Accused No.1.

Ex.P14: Encumbrance certificate dated 01/10/2003 in respect of 300 Sqr. yards of land in Survey No. 96 to 99 of Tirumalgherry Village of Secunderabad Cantonment.

Ex.P15: Debit voucher dated 28/03/2002 for Rs. 9 lakhs in respect of the account No. 01593006651 of Accused No.1.

Ex.P16: Savings bank pay in slip dated 28/03/2002 showing the deposit of Rs. 9 lakhs in the account of Accused No.1 bearing A/c No. 0119000665.

Ex.P17: Letter dated 18/03/2002 submitted by Accused No.1 for release of the installment.

Ex.P18: Debit voucher dated 29/04/2002 for Rs.3 lakhs in respect of the account No. 01593006651 of the Accused No.1.

Ex.P19: Savings bank pay in slip dated 29/04/2002 showing the deposit of Rs.3 lakhs in the account of Accused No.1 bearing A/c No. 0119000665.

Ex.P20: Letter dated 29/04/2002 submitted by Accused No.1 for release of the installment.

Ex.P21: Letter dated 06/06/2002 submitted by Accused No.1 for release of the installment.

Ex.P22: Debit voucher dated 06/06/2002 for Rs.2.5 lakhs in respect of the account No. 01593006651 of Accused No.1 Sudhama.

Ex.P23: Savings bank pay in slip dated 06/06/2002 showing the deposit of Rs.2.5 lakhs in the account of Accused No.1 bearing A/c No. 0119000665.

Ex.P24: Savings bank pay in slip dated 03/08/2002 showing the deposit of Rs. 25,000/- in the account of Accused No.1 bearing A/c No. 0119000665.

73 OF 84 CC.NO.7 OF 2018

Ex.P25: Pay order bearing No. 351976 dated 27/08/2002 for Rs. 5 lakhs issued in favour of M. Rami Reddy.

Ex.P26: Report dated 15/03/2004 submitted by Sri. A. Madhava Reddy, Advocate along with enclosures.

Ex.P27: Application form for housing loan submitted by Accused No.4.

Ex.P28: Assets and Liabilities statement submitted by Accused No.4.

Ex.P29: Assets and Liabilities statement submitted by K. Janardhan Reddy, Guarantor

dated 17/08/2002.

Ex.P30: Assets and Liabilities statement submitted by K. Janardhan Reddy, Guarantor

dated 30/07/2002.

Ex.P31: Arrangement letter in respect of the housing loan of accused No.4.

Ex.P32: Sanction letter dated 14/08/2002 in respect of the housing loan of Accused No.4.

Ex.P33: Memorandum of term loan agreement dated 17/08/2002 executed by Accused No.4.

Ex.P34: Guarantee agreement executed by K. Janardhan Reddy for Accused No.4.

Ex.P35: Original Sale Deed bearing document No. 532 of 1996 dated 12/04/1996 executed by M. Rami Reddy in favour of G. Satyamurthy.

Ex.P36: Sale Deed bearing document No.268/2002 dated 19/08/2002 executed by G. Satyamurthy in favour of Accused No.4.

Ex.P37: Form-A dated 23/08/2002 confirming deposit of documents by Accused No.4.

Ex.P38: Legal opinion dated 10/07/2002 furnished by Sri. M.S.N. Prasad, Advocate, Secunderabad.

Ex.P39: Original receipt dated 06/08/2002 passed by Sub-Registrar, Bowenpally.

Ex.P40: Valuation report dated 10/07/2002 submitted by the Accused No.5 R.S. Ramachandra Murthy in respect of the housing loan of Accused No.4.

Ex.P41: Letter submitted by Accused No.4 for release of part of loan amount dated 24/08/2002.

Ex.P42: Assets and Liabilities statement dated 17/08/2002 submitted by Sri. K. Janardhan Reddy.

Ex.P43: Debit voucher dated 17/08/2002 passed by C.R. Dikshitulu for release of housing loan amount of Rs. 20,31,985/- in favour of Accused No.4.

74 OF 84 CC.NO.7 OF 2018

Ex.P44: Bankers cheque application dated 17/08/2002 seeking pay order for Rs.19,90,000/- favouring G. Satyamurthy.

Ex.P45: Bankers cheque bearing No. 351786 dated 17/08/2002 for Rs. 19,90,000/- issued in favour of G. Satyamurthy.

Ex.P46: Debit voucher dated 27/08/2002 for Rs. 16,02,400/- from the housing loan account of accused No.4.

Ex.P47: Bankers cheque application dated 27/08/2002 for Rs.16 lakhs favouring Accused No.1.

Ex.P48: Bankers cheque bearing No. 351972 dated 27/08/2002 for Rs.16 lakhs issued in favour of Accused No.1.

Ex.P49: Term loan pay in slip dated 15/01/2003 for deposit of Rs. One Lakh in the account of Accused No.4.

Ex.P50: Recital dated 22/08/2002 of Accused No.4 prepared by Sri. M.S. Ramesh, the then Field Officer and signed by Sri. C.r. Dikshitulu the then Chief Manager.

Ex.P51: Report submitted by Sri. K. Madhava Reddy, Advocate along with enclosures.

Ex.P52: Housing loan application dated 06/05/2002 submitted by accused No.6 with Accused No.7 as co-applicant.

Ex.P53: Appraisal report dated 10/05/2002 prepared by Sri. M.S. Ramesh, The then Field Officer.

Ex.P54: Brief opinion report dated 10/05/2002 prepared by Sri. C.R. Dikshitulu, the then Chief Manager in respect of the loan of Accused No.6 and Accused No.7.

Ex.P55: Memorandum of term loan agreement dated 11/05/2002 executed by Accused No.6 and Accused No.7.

Ex.P56: Agreement of guarantee dated 11/05/2002 executed by Accused No.1 for Accused No.6 and Accused No.7.

Ex.P57: Loan arrangement letter dated 11/05/2002 in respect of the housing loan of Accused No.6 and Accused No.7.

Ex.P58: Legal opinion dated 04/05/2002 furnished by Sri. B.S. Bhaskar Dev, Lalitha Kumari, Advocates.

Ex.P59: Valuation report dated 07/05/2002 submitted by Accused No.5 in respect of the housing loan of Accused No.6 and Accused No.7.

Ex.P60: Sale Deed bearing document No.2466/2002 dated 14/05/2002 executed by one Ch. Srinivas in favour of Accused No.6 and Accused No.7.

Ex.P61: Form No-A dated 22/05/2002 signed by Accused No.6 and Accused No.7.

75 OF 84 CC.NO.7 OF 2018

Ex.P62: Encumbrance Certificate dated 07/10/2003 in respect of flat No. 101, Srinivasa Towers, Malkajgiri.

Ex.P63: Original agreement of Sale dated 26/03/2002 between Ch. Srinivas and Accused No.6 and Accused No.7.

Ex.P64: Letter dated 18/12/2004 addressed by Accused No.6 and Accused No.7.

Ex.P65: Recital dated 16/05/2002 executed by Accused No.6 and Accused No.7 prepared by Sri. M.S. Ramesh, the then Field Officer and signed by Sri. C.R. Dikshitulu, the then Chief Manager.

Ex.P66: Bankers cheque bearing No. 348783 dated 11/05/2002 for Rs.6,50,000/- favouring Sri. Ch. Srinivas.

Ex.P67: Term loan pay in slip for Rs.4,300/- dated 11/05/2002 showing deposit into the account of Accused No.6 and Accused No.7.

Ex.P68: Protested bills account pay in slip dated 08/06/2005 for Rs.50,000/- showing the deposit into the loan account of Accused No.6 and Accused No.7.

Ex.P69: True Extract of the statement of account of the housing loan of Accused No.6 and Accused No.7.

Ex.P70: Hand Book on personal Segment products as on 30/06/2002.

Ex.P71: Letter No. 358/2005 dated 25/08/2005 addressed by PW3 to CBI by enclosing the copies of sale deed No. 5244/2002 and 2466/2002.

Ex.P72: Undertaking dated 02/08/2005 executed by Surjeeth Singh and Navaneeth Kour

Ex.P73: Copy of Letter dated 03/05/1990 received from CBI for verification wherein the land in revenue Survey No. 96 to 99 of Tirumalgery village is mentioned as non-agricultural land.

Ex.P74: Reply letter dated 26/08/2005.

Ex.P75: Certified true copy of letter dated 30/05/1990.

Ex.P76: Account opening form in the name of G. Sathyamurthy dated 21/08/2002 vide account No. 2155.

Ex.P77: Specimen signatures of G. Sathyamurthy relating to account No. 2155.

Ex.P78: Request letter dated 08/01/2003 of G. Sathyamurthy to add his wife G. Sathyavathi as second account holder for account No. 2155.

Ex.P79: Specimen signature of G. Sathyavathi relating to the account No. 2155.

Ex.P80: Statement of account for the period from 21/08/2002 to 09/04/2003 relating to account No. 2155.

76 OF 84 CC.NO.7 OF 2018

Ex.P81: Cash deposit voucher of Rs.2000/- on 21/08/2002.

Ex.P82: Cheque deposit voucher pay in slip dated 21/08/2002 for Rs. 19,90,000/-

Ex.P83: Self cheque bearing No. 058122 dated 21/08/2002 for Rs.6,50,000/- issue by G. Sathyamurthy.

Ex.P84: Cheque bearing No. 058123 dated 21/08/2002 for Rs. 13,00,500/- issued by Sathyamurthy for purchasing demand drafts.

Ex.P85: Demand draft issued by AP Vardhaman Mahila Cooperative Urban Bank bearing No. 067831 dated 21/08/2002 for Rs.1 lakh in favour of Syndicate Bank Housing Finance Limited.

Ex.P86: Demand draft issued by AP Vardhaman Mahila Cooperative Urban Bank bearing No. 067832 dated 21/08/2002 for Rs.1 lakh in favour of Syndicate Bank Housing Finance Limited.

Ex.P87: Demand draft issued by AP Vardhaman Mahila Cooperative Urban Bank bearing No. 067833 dated 21/08/2002 for Rs.1 lakh in favour of Syndicate Bank Housing Finance Limited.

Ex.P88: Demand draft issued by AP Vardhaman Mahila Cooperative Urban Bank bearing No. 067834 dated 21/08/2002 for Rs.5 lakh in favour of M. Ram Reddy.

Ex.P89: Debit voucher issued by AP Vardhaman Mahila Cooperative Urban Bank for Rs.20/- towards cheque book charges.

Ex.P90: Debit voucher issued by AP Vardhaman Mahila Cooperative Urban Bank for Rs.1990/- towards discounting charges.

Ex.P91: Demand draft issued by AP Vardhaman Mahila Cooperative Urban Bank bearing No. 067835 dated 21/08/2002 for Rs. 5 lakhs in favour of M. Ram Reddy.

Ex.P92: Letter give by G. Sathyamurthy bearing Account No. 2155 for cancellation of pay order bearing No. 067835 dated 26/08/2002 for Rs.5 lakhs in favour of M. Ram Reddy.

Ex.P93: Self cheque of AP Vardhaman Mahila Cooperative Urban Bank bearing No. 058126 of dated 26/08/2002 for Rs.4,50,000/-.

Ex.P94: Bearer cheque of AP Vardhaman Mahila Cooperative Urban Bank bearing No. 058124 of dated 27/08/2002 for Rs.70,000/- in the name of one Surjeeth Singh.

Ex.P95: Bearer cheque of AP Vardhaman Mahila Cooperative Urban Bank bearing No. 058125 of dated 05/09/2002 for Rs.17,000/- in the name of R. Naresh Kumar.

77 OF 84 CC.NO.7 OF 2018

Ex.P96: Debit voucher of AP Vardhaman Mahila Cooperative Urban Bank for Rs.50/-

dated 26/08/2002.

Ex.P97: Voucher pay in slip of Vardhaman Mahila Cooperative Urban Bank for Rs.1800/- dated 31/10/2002.

Ex.P98: The Bearer cheque of AP Vardhaman Mahila Cooperative Urban Bank bearing No. 058132 of dated 10/11/2002 for Rs.1,000/- in the name of TATA Tele Services Ltd., Account No. 1000420060.

Ex.P99: Bearer cheque of AP Vardhaman Mahila Cooperative Urban Bank bearing No. 058138 of dated 31/12/2002 for Rs.4712/- in the name of SBI Card.

Ex.P100: Covering letter dated 19/09/2005 issued by AP Vardhaman Mahila Cooperative Urban Bank explaining the details of the transaction pertaining to SB A/c No. 2155 in the name of G. Sathyamurthy.

Ex.P101: Certified copy of sale deed bearing registration No. 532/1996 dated 12/04/1996 executed by M. Ram Reddy in the name of Smt. Gade Satyavathi, W/o. Dr. Ramdas.

Ex.P102: Certified copy of sale deed bearing registration No. 268/2002 dated 18/02/2002 executed by Mr. Narender Gauri, S/o. Late N.N. Hoogan.

Ex.P103: Sale deed bearing registration No. 1293/2001 dated 28/07/2001 executed by M. Ram Reddy, S/o. M. Malla Reddy through his G.P.A holder S. Rajeshekhar in the name of K. Sudhama, S/o. Asha Balaiah.

Ex.P104: Copy of plan for proposed house building (Ground+1) in Survey No. 99, Gun Rock Village, Tirumalgiri (Open plot) submitted by K. Sudhama with endorsement “Sanction plan vide direction of cantonment board vide letter No. 7465/A/DSA/2001, 5634/04/10/2001”

Ex.P105: Copy of the plan showing proposed house for construction on open plot in survey No.96 to 99. Tirumalgirry Village Secunderabad cantonment submitted by G. Sathyamurthy with endorsement “Sanctioned to house plan vide proceedings No. 53/38621/2000 accorded with cantonment rules C T 1996 renewal of the plan the six months renewed on the time of issue on 12/02/2000”

Ex.P106: Report to Cantonment Executive Officer.

Ex.P107: Specimen hand writings and signatures of A. Angamuthu (in 10 sheets) obtained on 16/06/2006.

Ex.P108: Voter ID of A. Angamuthu with card No. BYH0804351.

Ex.P109: Seizure memo dated 16/06/2006 showing seizure voter ID under Ex.P108.

Ex.P110: Copy of Compliant filed before I Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad against Mr. Surjith Singh and others for offences punishable U/s. 467, 468, 420, 120 B, 109, 34, 511 of IPC (originally is filed before above court).

78 OF 84 CC.NO.7 OF 2018

Ex.P111: Cheque bearing No. 134778 dated 27/06/2002 for Rs.10,000/- issued in the name of Surjith Singh.

Ex.P112: Cheque bearing No. 134796 dated 27/08/2002 for Rs.77,000/- issued in the name of Surjith Singh.

Ex.P113: Cheque bearing No. 134800 dated 02/09/2002 for Rs.25,000/- issued in the name of S. Muthoo.

Ex.P114: Cheque bearing No. 090279 dated 07/09/2002 for Rs.50,000/- issued in the name of Surjith Singh.

Ex.P115: Cheque bearing No. 130855 dated 10/04/2002 for Rs.1,50,000/- issued in the name of Dayanand.

Ex.P116: Cheque bearing No. 130858 dated 29/04/2002 for Rs.1,00,000/- issued in the name of Shankar Rao.

Ex.P117: Cheque bearing No. 130861 dated 02/05/2002 for Rs.30,000/- issued in the name of Raja Shekhar.

Ex.P118: Cheque bearing No. 130864 dated 09/05/2002 for Rs.1,00,000/- issued in the name of S. Raja Shekhar.

Ex.P119: Cheque bearing No. 130865 dated 12/05/2002 for Rs.1,00,000/- issued in the name of S. Raja Shekhar.

Ex.P120: Cheque bearing No. 130866 dated 14/05/2002 for Rs.1,00,000/- issued in the name of S. Raja Shekhar.

Ex.P121: Cheque bearing No. 134777 dated 20/06/2002 for Rs.50,000/- issued in the name of S. Raja Shekhar.

Ex.P122: Cheque bearing No. 134798 dated 30/08/2002 for Rs.10,000/- issued in the name of Sri. Srinivasa Trading Co.

Ex.P123: Original account opening form of M. Rami Reddy (A-9) dated 25/09/1989.

Ex.P124: Original pay in slip (2 in number) dated 28/08/2002 relating to account No. 7269 of M. Rami Reddy for Rs. 5 lakhs each.

Ex.P125: Statement of account from 01/04/2002 to 10/03/2005 pertaining to A/c No. 7269 of M. Rami Reddy.

Ex.P126: Account opening form of Corporation Bank for account No. SB9592 dated 17/01/2002 in the name of K. Sudhama and K. Revathi.

79 OF 84 CC.NO.7 OF 2018

Ex.P127: Specimen signature card of K. Sudhama and K. Revathi for A/c No. SB9592.

Ex.P128: Bearer cheque bearing No. 098145 dated 19/01/2002 for Rs.2,75,000/-.

Ex.P129: Bearer cheque bearing No. 098146 dated 21/01/2002 for Rs.20,000/- issued in the name of Dayananda Swamy.

Ex.P130: Bearer cheque bearing No. 098147 dated 21/01/2002 for Rs.2,00,000/- issued in the name of Vijay Kumar.

Ex.P131: Bearer cheque bearing No. 098148 dated 21/01/2002 for Rs.2,00,000/- issued in the name of Dayananda Swamy.

Ex.P132: Account opening form along with copy of voter identity card of Smt. Navneeth Kour for A/c No. 31123 of SBI, St.Mary’s Road Branch.

Ex.P133: Copy of statement of account for A/c No.31123 of Accused NO.7.

Ex.P134: Account opening form of Mr. K. Sudhama for A/c Bearing No. 3800 of Union Bank of India.

Ex.P135: Account opening form of Mr. Surjeeth Singh for A/c No. 2885 of Union Bank of India.

Ex.P136: Account opening form of Mr. Angamuthu for A/c bearing No. SB38857 of Syndicate Bank.

Ex.P137: Specimen signature card of A. Angamuthu for A/c bearing No. SB38857 of Syndicate Bank.

Ex.P138: Statement of Account of Mr. Angamuthu for A/c bearing No. SB38857 of Syndicate Bank.

Ex.P139: Pay in slip dated 03/12/2002 in the name of A. Angamuthu for Rs. 25,000/-.

Ex.P140: Photocopy of letter dated 21/01/2004 addressed by PW22to the Chief Manager, SBI, PBB, S.P. Road Branch, Secunderabad

Ex.P141: Photocopy of my report dated 19/01/2004.

Ex.P142: Photocopy of receipt dated 16/01/2004 issued by Sub-Registrar, Bowenpally,

Ex.P143: Report dated: 25/01/2006 along with covering letter

Ex.P144: Account opening form in the name of Ch. Srinivas with account bearing number SB50011163 in 4 sheets.

Ex.P145: Copy of statement of account bearing SB50011163 for the period from 15th May 2002 to 8th August 2005.

80 OF 84 CC.NO.7 OF 2018

Ex.P146: Pay in slip dated 15/05/2002 for Rs.2500/-.

Ex.P147: Pay in slip dated 15/05/2002 for Rs.6,50,000/-.

Ex.P148: Pay in slip dated 15/05/2002 for Rs.15000/- to be deposited in the account of Guru’s SS Enterprises in the current account No. 5001116.

Ex.P149: Cheque bearing No. 017126 dated 17/05/2002 for Rs.3,50,000/- withdrawn by Ch. Srinivas.

ExP150: Cheque bearing No. 017128 dated 20/05/2002 for Rs.1,50,000/- withdrawn by Ch. Srinivas.

Ex.P151: Cheque bearing No. 017127 dated 20/05/2002 for Rs.12,000/- Issued in favour of Navneet Kaur.

Ex.P152: Cheque bearing No. 017130 dated 31/05/2002 for Rs.1,00,000/- withdrawn by Ch. Srinivas.

Ex.P153: Cheque bearing No. 017131 dated 06/07/2002 for Rs.20,000/- withdrawn by Ch. Srinivas.

Ex.P154: Cheque bearing No. 017132 dated 07/08/2002 for Rs.2,500/- withdrawn by Ch. Srinivas.

Ex.P155: Cheque bearing No. 017129 dated 30/05/2002 for Rs.15,000/- issued in the name of Guru’s SS Enterprises.

Ex.P156: Covering letter dated 08/08/2005 addressed by Branch Manager, Bank of Punjab Limited.

Ex.P157: Cheque bearing No. 024283 dated 03/12/2002 for Rs.15,000/- issued in the name of Navneeth Kaur.

Ex.P158: Cheque bearing No. 024280 dated 03/12/2002 for Rs.25,000/- issued in the name of A. Anga Muthu.

Ex.P159: Letter dated 23/01/2006.

Ex.P160: Account opening form for current account No. CA5001116 in the name of Guru’s SS Enterprises.

Ex.P161: Proprietorship letter dated 15/03/2002 submitted by Proprietor Guru’s SS Enterprises.

Ex.P162: Form No. 60 submitted by Proprietor Guru’s SS Enterprises.

Ex.P163: Cheque deposit voucher for Cheque No. 429752 dated 05/10/2002 for Rs. 4,30,000/-.

81 OF 84 CC.NO.7 OF 2018

Ex.P164: Cheque bearing No. 017140 dated 10/10/2002 for Rs. 25,000/- issued by Ch. Srinivas in the name of Surjeet Singh.

Ex.P165: Cheque bearing No. 017142 dated 10/10/2002 for Rs. 3,000/- issued by Ch. Srinivas in the name of A. Anga Muthu.

Ex.P166: Cheque bearing No. 017144 dated 24/10/2002 for Rs. 30,000/- issued by Ch. Srinivas in the name of Surjeet Singh.

Ex.P167: Cheque bearing No. 017145 dated 25/10/2002 for Rs. 40,000/- issued by Ch. Srinivas in the name of Surjeet Singh.

Ex.P168: Cheque deposit voucher dated 24/10/2002 for cheque No. 765818 dated 24/10/2002 for Rs. 2,70,000/- .

Ex.P169: Cheque deposit voucher dated 30/11/2002 for cheque No. 038470 dated 28/11/2002 for Rs. 7,50,000/- .

Ex.P170: Cheque deposit voucher dated 02/12/2002 for cheque No. 024281 dated 02/12/2002 for Rs. 1,00,000/- .

Ex.P171: Cheque bearing No. 024281 dated 02/12/2002 for Rs. 1,00,000/- issued by Ch. Srinivas in the name of Guru’s SS Enterprises.

Ex.P172: Cheque deposit voucher dated 04/12/2002 for cheque No. 024289 dated 04/12/2002 for Rs. 50,000/- .

Ex.P173: Cheque bearing No. 024289 dated 04/12/2002 for Rs. 50,000/- issued by Ch. Srinivas in the name of Guru’s SS Enterprises.

Ex.P174: Cheque deposit voucher dated 09/12/2002 for cheque No. 024291 dated 09/12/2002 for Rs. 40,000/- .

Ex.P175: Cheque bearing No. 024291 dated 09/12/2002 for Rs. 40,000/- issued by Ch. Srinivas in the name of Guru’s SS Enterprises.

Ex.P176: Cheque deposit voucher dated 12/12/2002 for cheque No. 024292 dated 12/12/2002 for Rs. 20,000/- .

Ex.P177: Cheque bearing No. 024292 dated 12/12/2002 for Rs. 20,000/- issued by Ch. Srinivas in the name of Guru’s SS Enterprises.

Ex.P178: Cheque deposit voucher dated 20/12/2002 for cheque No. 024296 dated 20/12/2002 for Rs. 50,000/- .

Ex.P179: Cheque bearing No. 024296 dated 20/12/2002 for Rs. 50,000/- issued by Ch. Srinivas in the name of Guru’s SS Enterprises.

Ex.P180: Cheque deposit voucher dated 16/01/2003 for cheque No. 028901 dated 16/01/2003 for Rs. 30,000/- .

82 OF 84 CC.NO.7 OF 2018

Ex.P181: Cheque bearing No. 028901 dated 16/01/2003 for Rs. 30,000/- issued by Ch. Srinivas in the name of Guru’s SS Enterprises.

Ex.P182: Cheque deposit voucher dated 17/01/2003 for cheque No. 028902 dated 17/01/2003 for Rs. 14,000/- .

Ex.P183: Cheque bearing No. 028902 dated 17/01/2003 for Rs. 14,000/- issued by Ch. Srinivas in the name of Ideal Hosiery Center.

Ex.P184: Cheque deposit voucher dated 27/01/2003 for cheque No. 028905 dated 27/01/2003 for Rs. 25,000/- .

Ex.P185: Cheque bearing No. 028905 dated 27/01/2003 for Rs. 25,000/- issued by Ch. Srinivas in the name of Guru’s SS Enterprises.

Ex.P186: Cheque deposit voucher dated 06/03/2003 for cheque No. 028911 dated 06/03/2003 for Rs. 10,000/- .

Ex.P187: Cheque bearing No. 028911 dated 06/03/2003 for Rs. 10,000/- issued by Ch. Srinivas in the name of Ideal Hosiery Center.

Ex.P188: Cheque deposit voucher dated 01/04/2003 for cheque No. 028916 dated 01/04/2003 for Rs. 20,000/- .

Ex.P189: Cheque bearing No. 028916 dated 01/04/2003 for Rs. 20,000/- issued by Ch. Srinivas in the name of Guru’s SS Enterprises.

Ex.P190: Cheque deposit voucher dated 27/03/2003 for cheque No. 028914 dated 27/03/2003 for Rs. 4,000/- .

Ex.P191: Cheque bearing No. 028914 dated 27/03/2003 for Rs. 4,000/- issued by Ch. Srinivas in the name of Guru’s SS Enterprises.

Ex.P192: Cheque deposit voucher dated 29/03/2003 for cheque No. 028915 dated 29/03/2003 for Rs.6,000/- .

Ex.P193: Cheque bearing No. 028915 dated 29/03/2003 for Rs. 6,000/- issued by Ch. Srinivas in the name of Guru’s SS Enterprises.

Ex.P194: Statement of account of current account No. CA5001116 existing in the name of Guru’s SS Enterprises for the period from 16/03/2002 to 20/09/2006.

Ex.P195: Covering letter dated 20/09/2006 of Centurion Bank of Punjab.

Ex.P196: The opinion no. CH-284/2006/3142 dt. 21/09/2006.

Ex.P197: Specimen Signatures of Ch. Srinivas under S-11 to S-14.

Ex.P198: Two receipts executed by K. Sudhama under Q-24 and Q-25.

83 OF 84 CC.NO.7 OF 2018

Ex.P199: FIR in RC No. 16/2005 Dt. 27/06/2005 U/Sec 120-B, 419,420 & 471 of IPC and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act.

Ex.P200: Encumbrance Certificate dt. 28/09/2005.

Ex.P201: Receipt dt. 21/05/2005 issued by G. Shiva Kumar Goud.

Ex.P202: Seizure Memo Dt. 31/07/2006.

Ex.P203: Letter No. 000950 dt. 05-06-2004 addressed by AGM to the Chief Manager, SBI, PBB, SP Road Branch.

Ex.P204: The letter dt. 28/06/2004 addressed by Chief Manager to the AGM, SBI, Region-II Hyderabad Zonal Office, Secunderabad.

Ex.P205: Letter Dt. 02/01/2004 addressed by Chief Manager to the AGM, SBI, Region-II Hyderabad Zonal Office, Secunderabad.

Ex.P206: Covering Letter dated: 31/7/2006 showing receipt of Ex P-203 to Ex P-205 from Chief Manager, SBI.

Ex.P207: Letter dt. 14/08/2002 addressed by AGM to the Chief Manager, SBI PBB, SP Road Branch, Secunderabad marked.

Ex.P208: Appraisal of Housing Loan of Joseph Lawrance Bola.

Ex.P209: Banks Note No. PBB/SPR/HL/21/2002-03 Dt. 01/08/2002 relating to Housing Loan of Joseph Lawrance Bola.

Ex.P210: Covering letter dt. 29/08/2005 of AGM submitting Ex P-207 to Ex P-209.

Ex.P211: Pay in slip dt. 27/08/2002 showing transfer of R.16 lakhs from the account of Joseph Lawrance Bola to the account of K. Sudhama.

Ex.P212: Covering letter dt. 14/07/2006 addressed by AGM, SBI to CBI enclosing the photocopies of housing loan relating to Joseph Lawrance Bola.

Ex.P213: Letter dt. 03/07/2006 addressed by Peter G. Hancom, Chief of Non Immigrant VISA Section to CBI.

Ex.P214: A letter dt. 01/09/2005 addressed by P.A.Sampath Kumar, Manager Customer Care to CBI.

Ex.P215: A letter dt. 12/09/2005 addressed by P.A.Sampath Kumar, Manager Customer Care to CBI.

Ex.P216: Covering Letter Dt. 01/02/2006 addressed by AGM, RP Road Secunderbad to CBI.

84 OF 84 CC.NO.7 OF 2018

Ex.P217: Covering Letter Dt. 15/09/2006 addressed by Branch Managar, Union Bank of India, Secunderabad to CBI.

Ex.P218: Letter Dt. 18/09/2006 addressed by Executive Vice President, PNB Housing Finance Ltd., to CBI.

FOR DEFENCE:

- NIL -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- Nil -

XXI-Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate -cum-Spl.JMFC for Trial of CBI Cases, Hyderabad

IN THE COURT OF THE XXI ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE- CUM-

SPL.JMFC FOR TRIAL OF CBI CASES :: AT HYDERABAD

PRESENT :: G. Praveen Kumar., XXI Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate- cum- Spl. JMFC for trial of CBI Cases, Hyderabad.

Monday, this the 7 th day of November, 2022

CC.No.6 OF 2018

Between:

Central Bureau of Investigation, Anti Corruption Bureau, Special Police Establishment, 3rd Floor, Kendriya Sadan, Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad represented by it’s Inspector of Police.

…. Complainant.

And

1.Smt Akkineni Kamalasri, aged: 37 years, DGM, Material Department, M/s. Quality Care India Limited, Hyderabad, R/O: Flat No.103, Sri Sathyasai Sadan, Plot No.48 & 49, HIG, KPHB, VI Phase, Kukatpally, Hyderabad.

2.R.V. Srinivas Rao, S/o. V. Satya Surya Narayana Murthy, aged: 38 years, occu: Manager, Incharge Credit Billing Section, M/s. Quality Care India, Hyderabad, R/O: H.No.32-698, Venkatadri Hills, Gajularamaram Road, Hyderabad.

3.Jajula Shivaram Krishna, Executive in Credit Billing Departmnet, M/s. Quality Care Nampally, Hyderabad, C/o. Kanakalathadevi, Behind MCH Office, Road No.15, Venkateswara Colony, Saroornagar, Rangareddy.

( Ages are mentioned as per Charge Sheet) …Accused No.1 to Accused No.3.

This Case came before me for hearing in the presence of Sri. B. Raghavendra., Learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI and of Sri V. Surender, Learned counsel for the Accused No.1 to Accused No.3 and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following.

JUDGMENT

1.Accused No.1 to Accused No.3 stood before the Court and faced trial for the charges punishable under sections 120-B, 420, 465, 468, 471 of Indian Penal Code, in short, ‘IPC’, in

RC.No.4(A) of 2010 registered by Inspector of Police, CBI, ACB, Hyderabad.

2 OF 60 CC.No. 6 OF 2018

2.Brief averments of Charge Sheet are:

About Central Government Health Scheme:

2.1.Central Government Heal Scheme, (herein after referred to as “CGHS”) empanels Private

Hospitals, publishes the list of hospitals and specifies the treatments to the CGHS beneficiaries, which can be undertaken by each empanelled hospital. The empaneled hospitals should enter into agreement with the CGHS and should provide medical services at the rates and packages prescribed by the CGHS against each ailment/ disease. The package should include medication, accommodation, etc., 2.2.The CGHS beneficiaries can get admitted in those empanelled hospitals for the treatment, specified against the hospitals and the empanelled Hospitals should provide treatment on credit basis, under intimation to the CGHS. After the treatment is completed, the Hospitals in Hyderabad should submit the bills to Additional Director (AD), CGHS, Begumpet, Hyderabad. The retired employees of Central Government are also beneficiaries of CGHS. They can also get admitted in any of the CGHS empanelled hospitals, avail treatment on credit basis. After the treatment, the

Hospitals should submit the claim bill to the AD, CGHS, Hyderabad, where a Screening

Committee formed will scrutinize and clear the claim bills submitted by the empanelled hospitals.

After scrutiny, these claim bills are forwarded by the AD, CGHS, Hyderabad to the Officer of Pay & Accounts, Chennai, from where Demand Drafts (DDs) were issued infavour of claiming

Hospitals.

About M/s. Quality Care in CGHS Scheme:

2.3.M/s. Quality Care India Limited is also one of the empanelled hospital in CGHS,

Hyderabad from 2002. It had entered agreement with the CGHS which includes providing of treatment to cardiac patients.

2.4.Basing on the requirement of the patient, the Hospitals will conduct Percutaneous Transe

Coronary Angioplasty ( herein after referred to as ‘PTCA’) and will implant a ‘STENT’ in either or both of the right/left arteries in the Heart, as per the requirement.

3 OF 60 CC.No. 6 OF 2018

2.5.As per CGHS Guidelines, the CGHS empanelled Hospitals should claim the actual purchase rate mentioned in the invoice of the Distributor of the stent and should also submit a copy of the invoice of the stent along with claim bill. During the investigation, Ramabhadran Ravi, Director,

CGHS, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Government of India, New Delhi also revealed that the empanelled hospitals should claim amounts towards stents, as per the actual rates of the stents, which is mentioned in the invoices of stent i.e., actual rate of stents means that the hospital supposed to claim charges, which actually spent on purchase of the stent from any distributor.

Procedure for Purchase, usage of Stent & Bill Claim by Hospital:

2.6.M/s. Quality CARE India Limited used to purchase stents from various distributors of stents for use on patients in it’s hospitals and obtains invoice for each stent from those distributors.

It used to negotiates with distributors every year and fixes rates for stents. The distributors have to supply the stents at the rates fixed in the negotiations during that year.

2.7.Accused No.1 joined in M/s. Quality Care as Asst. Manager, Material Management

Department, purchase section of stents and later became Deputy General Manager in the same section. Investigation revealed that Accused No.1 used to look after the matters pertaining to purchase of stents from the various distributors of stents and also used to receive invoices of stents from the Distributors. Accused No.1 was responsible for preparation of comparative rates chart for stents and used to help the “ Purchase Committee” of M/s. Quality Care India Limited to fix the rates against each type of stent to be paid to distributors against each stent.

2.8.During investigation it revealed that the Distributors of the stents used to store the Stents in the Cath Stores of M/s. Quality Care Hospital at Banjara Hills and Nampally on the Chalana in the name of the Distributor’s company. This arrangement was made to meet the exigency. The

Cardiologists, at the time of undertaking PTCA would select the stent, suitable to the patient and use the same. After using the Stent on any patient, the Cath Stores in-charge would inform usage of the stent to the Distributor concerned, who would prepare invoice against the used stent and handover the same to Accused No.1, for processing and payment to them. Accused No.1 used to certify the invoice on checking the negotiated rates list and send it to the Finance Department of M/s. Quality

Care and also she used to send a copy of the invoice to Manager, Credit Billing Section for further submission to CGHS along with the claim bills.

4 OF 60 CC.No. 6 OF 2018

2.9.The Screening Committee at the office of A.D, CGHS, Hyderabad would scrutinize the claim bills and check whether permission was obtained from the A.D. for PTCA with stent on the patient and if it was done on emergency without permission from A.D, whether the same was actually justified or not, whether the medication on the patient was according to the guidelines of

CGHS and whether the rates claimed by the Hospital was according to the rates list of CGHS or not and then clear the bill. The screening committee would clear the claim amount towards the stent as per the rate mentioned in the invoice and that they do not have any role to verify the genuineness of the invoice.

Allegations against A1 to A3:

2.10.Accused No.1 is DGM, Material Department, Accused No.2 is Manager, In-charge Credit

Billing Section and Accused No.3 is Executive in Credit Billing Department of M/s. Quality Care

Nampally. Investigation revealed that Accused No.1 to Accused No.3 entered into criminal conspiracy and in furtherance of such conspiracy prepared fake and forged invoices with dishonest intention and submitted the claim bills while enclosing the forged and fake invoices for stents and injections in respect of 10 patients viz.,

Claim Bill of Patient P. Gajendra Rao:

2.11. Accused No.1 prepared forged invoice No.486 for Rs.6,50,000/- in the name of the distributor M/s. Hruday Biomedics and sent it to the Manager, Credit Billing Section and the same was submitted to CGHS in support of it’s claim for Rs.1,30,000/- towards one stent along with claim bill No.CN0400021674 dated: 20/12/2004 in respect of the patient Sri P. Gajendra Rao.

In-fact, M. Srinivas Reddy, Managing Director of M/s. Hruday Biomedics denied issuance of invoice No.486.

2.12.The Government Examiner for Questioned Documents ( herein after referred to as ‘GEQD’)

Opinion with regard to invoice No.486 confirmed that Accused No.1 prepared this invoice with dishonest intention to cheat the CGHS, Hyderabad by way of suspect forged bills and the CGHS cleared the bill amount towards stent as per the rate mentioned in the invoice No.486.

5 OF 60 CC.No. 6 OF 2018

2.13. In-fact, M/s. Quality Care India Limited actually procured the stent from M/s. Hruday

Biomedics through invoice No.1033 dated: 16/12/2004 for Rs.1,20,000/-. Investigation further revealed that though Rs.1,30,000/- was claimed against the stent, CGHS released Rs.1,20,000/- only on account of ceiling rate. By submitting fake forged invoice No.486 to CGHS an attempt was made to claim Rs.10,000/- more than the actual purchase rate of the stent.

Claim Bill of Patient Sri TVN Reddy :

2.14. In respect of patient by name Sri T.V.N. Reddy, investigation revealed that forged invoice

No.782 dated: 26/03/2005 for Rs.25,0000/- against 05 Number of Iron Man Guide Wires in the name of the Distributor M/s. Multi Specialty Medical Distributors, forged invoice No.765 dated:

26/03/2005 for Rs.7,75,000/- against Power Line Balloons in the name of the distributor M/s.

ARCOM Medical Devices Private Limited were submitted to CGHS by M/s. Quality Care India

Limited. In support of the claim for Rs.5,000/- towards one Number of Iran Man Guide Wire and claim of Rs.20,000/- towards one number of Power line Balloon respectively.

2.15. In furtherance of criminal conspiracy, Accused No.1 sent these forged invoices to Credit

Billing Section, M/s. Quality Care India Limited and the same were submitted to the CGHS along with the claim bill in respect of the patient by name Sri T.V.N Reddy. In fact, Sri N.S.

Subramanyam, Proprietor, M/s Multi Specialty Medical Distributors and Sri Sanjeev Kumar Gupta,

Director, M/s. ARCOM Medical Devices Private Limited denied issuance of the said invoices which were submitted to CGHS.

2.16. Investigation further revealed that CGHS dis-allowed the above two claims on the ground that these items were covered in the package. Hence, Accused No.1 made an attempt to claim

Rs.25,000/- by submitting fake and forged invoices and thereby attempted to obtain pecuniary wrongful gain to themselves.

6 OF 60 CC.No. 6 OF 2018

Claim Bill of Patient Smt Godavari Bai:

2.17. In respect of Claim Bill of patient by name Smt Godavari Bai, investigation revealed that forged Invoice No. IVT/HYD/20 dated: 27/04/2004 for Rs.58,000/- against one number of Lekton

Motion Stent in the name of M/s. Interventional Technologies, forged Invoice No. 956 dated:

15/03/2005 for Rs.54486/- against Infusion injection and Bollus Injections in the name of M/s. ACE

Medical Bionics Pvt. Ltd, forged Invoice Nos.446 dated: 15/04/2005 for Rs.20,000/- against

Guiding Cathetor and Guiding wire PTCA in the name of M/s. ARCOM Medical Devices Private

Limited which were enclosed along with the claim bill No.CN0500000781 dated: 04/05/2005 in favour of Smt Godavari Bai towards claim for Rs.58,000/- for one number of Stent, claim for

Rs.23,354/- against Bollus and infusion injections and for Rs.5,000/- Guiding Cathetor, respectively were submitted to CGHS by M/s. Quality Care India Limited.

2.18. In fact, Govindan Kutti Ragash Thashat, Area Business Manager, M/s. Meril Life Sciences

India Private Limited, Sri Sanjeev Kumar Gupta, Managing Director M/s. ARCOM Medical

Devices and Sri A. Sridhar Rajnish, M.D, M/s. ACE Medical Bionics Private Limited denied issuance of invoices referred above.

2.19. Investigation revealed that the stent which was used on the patient by name Smt. Godavari

Bai was actually procured by M/s. Quality Care from M/s. Interventional Technologies under the invoice No.30 dated: 30/04/2005 for Rs.34,320/-.

2.20. The GEQD opinion also revealed that Invoice Nos. 446 & 956 were written by Accused

No.1 and sent these invoices to Credit Billing Section, where they were enclosed false and fabricated claim bill and were submitted to CGHS, Hyderabad.

2.21. Investigation further revealed that in furtherance of aforesaid criminal conspiracy, M/s.

Quality Care India Limited actually procured the Stent which was used on patient Smt. Godavari

Bai from M/s. Intervention Technologies Private Limited through invoice No.30 dated: 30/04/2005 for Rs.31,320/-. Investigation further revealed that the claim for Rs.23,354/- against the claim for

Bollus and infusion injections was released and the claim for Rs.58,000/- against the stent and

Rs.5,000/- against Guide Wire were disallowed by CGHS as such attempt was made to claim

7 OF 60 CC.No. 6 OF 2018

Rs.23,680/- more than the actual rate of the stent in the genuine invoice No.30 and also Rs.5000/- against Guide Wire by submitting the fake and forged invoices and used as genuine and thereby attempted to obtain pecuniary wrongful gain to themselves.

2.22.Investigation further revealed that Accused No.1 forged invoice No.147 dated: 20/04/2005 for Rs.1,16,000/- in the name of M/s. Aditi Life and the same was enclosed along with the claim bill

No. CNO500000826 dated: 06/05/2005 in support of claim for Rs.58,000/- against one number of stent in favour of the patient by name Smt Godavari Bai and the same was submitted to CGHS,

Hyderabad.

2.23. In-fact, M/s. Quality Care actually procured the stent which was used on the said patient from M/s. Aditi Life through Invoice No.161 dated: 11/06/2005 for Rs.55350/-. During the investigation, Sri K. Ramachandra Reddy, Proprietor of M/s. Aditi Life Sciences denied issuance of invoice No.147 and stated that the stent was actually supplied through invoice No.161 for

Rs.55350/-.

2.24. GEQD Opinion also revealed that Accused No.1 wrote the said forged invoice.

Investigation further revealed that CGHS released Rs.50,000/- against the claim of Rs.58,000/- towards stent as the slab rate of the stent was Rs.50,000/-. Hence, an attempt was made to claim

Rs.26350/- more than the actual purchase rate of the stent mentioned in the genuine invoice No.161 and thereby dishonestly induced the CGHS, Hyderabad by way of submitting the false and fabricated invoice and used the same as genuine and thereby attempted to obtain pecuniary wrongful gain to themselves.

Claim Bill of Patient Sri M. Narasimha Rao :

2.25.In respect of claim bill of Patient by name Sri M. Narasimha Rao, investigation revealed that forged invoice Nos. IVT/HYD/35 dated: 10/06/105 and IVT/HYD/36 dated: 05/06/2005 against one number of stent each for Rs.99,000/- and Rs.41070/- respectively in the name of M/s.

Interventional Technologies and forged invoice No.888 against Bolus and Infusion Injections for

Rs.2,33,320/- were enclosed with claim bill No. CN0500001915 dated: 17/06/2005 in respect of

8 OF 60 CC.No. 6 OF 2018

patient Sri M. Narasimha Rao and the same were submitted to CGHS by M/s. Quality Care India

Limited in support of the claim for Rs.99,000/- and Rs. 41070/- towards two number of stents and in support of claim for Rs.22,729/- towards Bolus and Infusion Injections.

2.26.In fact, Sri Raghash, Area Business Manager, M/s Meril Life Sciences India Private Limited denied issuance of invoice Numbers 35 & 36 by M/s. Interentional Technologies Private Limited and S. Subramanyam, Proprietor, M/s. Multi Specialty Medical Distributors also denied issuance of issue the invoice No.888.

2.27. M/s. Quality Care India Limited actually procured the stents which were used on the patient

M. Narasimha Rao, through invoice No.101 dated: 13/06/2005 for Rs.72,916/- and invoice No.86

dated: 06/06/2005 for Rs.31,320/-. Investigation revealed that Accused No.1 sent forged invoices

to the Credit Billing Section where they were further enclosed with the claim bill of Sri M.

Narasimha Rao and submitted to CGHS.

2.28.Investigation further revealed that CGHS released Rs.60,000/- against the first stent,

Rs.41,070/- against the second stent and Rs.22,729/- against the bolus and infusion injections thereby attempt was made to obtain Rs.26,984/- more than the actual purchase rate of the first stent, mentioned in the genuine invoice No.101 and Rs.9,720/- more than the actual purchase rate of the stent and Rs.22,729/- against the claim for bolus and infusion injections were obtained by submitting the fake and forged invoice Nos. 36 and 888.

Claim Bill of patient Smt. Radhamma:

2.29. In respect of Claim Bill of patient by name Smt Radhamma., Accused persons in furtherance of criminal conspiracy, a forged invoice No.IVT/HYD/141 dated: 03/07/2005 against one Number of stent for Rs.41,070/- in the name of M/s. Interventional Technologies Private Limited was enclosed with the claim bill No. CN0500002450 dated: 08/07/2005 relating to Smt. Radhamma of

M/s. Quality Care India Limited and was submitted to CGHS in support of the claim for Rs.41,070/- towards one number of Stent.

9 OF 60 CC.No. 6 OF 2018

2.30.In fact, Govindan Kutti Ragash Thashat, Area Manager, M/s. Meril Life Sciences India

Private Limited denied issue of said invoice No.141. Investigation revealed that the Stent, which was used on the patient Smt Radhamma was procured by M/s. Quality Care from M/s.

Interventional Technologies Private Limited through invoice No.144 dated: 07/07/2005 for

Rs.29250/-.

2.31. Investigation further revealed that original invoice No.144 was received at the Office of M/s.

Quality Care and Accused No.1 certified the same but she sent the forged invoice No.141 for

Rs.41,070/- to Credit Billing Section where from it was further submitted to CGHS. Investigation further revealed that CGHS released Rs.41070/- against the claim for stent and thereby Rs.11,820/- more than the actual purchase rate mentioned in the invoice of the stent was paid to M/s. Quality

Care India Limited due to the fake and forged invoice No.141.

Claim Bill of patient by name R.S.Visweswara Rao:

2.32. In respect of Claim bill of patient by name R.S. Visweswara Rao, investigation revealed that forged invoice No.163 dated: 12/08/2005 for Rs.50,000/- against one number of stent in the name of

M/s. Multi Specialty Medical Distributors was enclosed with the claim bill No. CN0500003405

dated: 14/08/2005 infavour of Sri R.S. Visweswara Rao and the same was submitted by M/s.

Quality Care India Limited to CGHS in support of the claim for Rs.50,000/- towards one number of stent. In-fact, Sri N.S. Subramanyam denied issuance of invoice No.163. M/s. Quality Care India

Limited actually procured the Stent used on the patient Sri. R.S. Visweswar Rao from the distributors by name M/s. Suji Surgicals through invoice No.00372 dated: 13/08/2005 for

Rs.43,538/-. Investigation further revealed that Rs.50,000/- was released by the CGHS towards the claim against Stent and due to fake and forged invoice an amount of Rs.6462/- more than the actual rate mentioned in the invoices of the stent was paid to M/s. Quality Care India Limited.

Claim Bill of patient by name D. S. Krishna Murthy:

2.33.In respect of Claim bill of patient by name D.S. Krishna Murthy, investigation revealed that forged invoice No.IVT/HYD/210 dated: 10/12/05 for Rs.45,000/- in the name of M/s. Interventional

Technologies Private Limited was enclosed with the claim bill No. CN0500006630 dated:

10 OF 60 CC.No. 6 OF 2018

23/12/2005 infavour of Sri D. S. Krishna Murthy and it was submitted by M/s. Quality Care India

Limited in support of the claim for Rs.45,000/- against one number of Stent. In-fact, M/s.

Interventional Technologies Private Limited denied issuance of invoice No.210. Sri Ragash, Area

Business Manager, M/s. Meril Life Sciences India Private Limited denied issuance of said invoice.

M/s. Quality Care India actually procured the Stent from M/s. Interventional Technologies Private

Limited through invoice No. IVT/HYD2/748 dated: 30/12/2005 for Rs.29,250/-. Investigation further revealed that due to the said fake and forged invoice No.210, CGHS released Rs.45,000/- against the claim for stent and thereby Rs.15,750/- more than the actual purchase rate mentioned in the genuine invoice No.748 was paid to M/s. Quality Care India Limited.

Claim Bill of patient by name V. Narasimha Rao:

2.34. In respect of claim bill of patient by name V. Narasimha Rao., investigation revealed that forged No.805 dated: 22/11/2006 against two stents for Rs.70,000/- in the name of M/s. Matrix

Medical Devices was enclosed with the claim bill No. CN0600016635 dated: 06/12/2006 infavour of Sri V. Narasimha Rao by M/s. Quality Care India Limited. In fact, L. Padma Reddy, Proprietor,

M/s. Matrix Medical Devices denied issuance of invoice No.805 by M/s. Matrix Medical Devices.

Actually, M/s. Quality Care India Limited procured the two stents which were used on the patient

Sri V. Narasimha Rao through Invoice No.288 dated: 29/11/2006 for Rs.37,440/- from M/s. Matrix

Therapeutics. Due to submission of fake and forged invoice No.805, CGHS released Rs.70,000/- against the claim for stents thereby Rs.32,560/- more than the actual purchase rate of stents was paid to M/s. Quality Care India Limited.

Claim bill of patient by name Smt M. Laxmi:- 2.35.In respect of Claim Bill of Patient by name Smt M. Laxmi, investigation revealed that forged invoice No.183 dated: 15/07/2008 for Rs.91,000/- in the name of M/s. ARCOM Medical Devices was enclosed with the claim bill No. CN0800034335 Dated: 18/07/2008 in favour of the patient

Smt M. Laxmi by M/s. Quality Care India Limited. In-fact, Sri Ch. Manohar, Accountant, M/s

ARCOM Medical Devices denied issuance of Invoice No.183 for Rs.91,000/-. Actually, M/s.

Quality Care India Limited procured Stent, which was used on the patient by name Smt M. Laxmi through invoice No.183 dated: 15/07/2008 for Rs.72,800/- from M/s. ARCOM Medical Devices.

11 OF 60 CC.No. 6 OF 2018

Investigation revealed that the original invoice No.183 was received by Sri V. Srinivas Rao,

In-chare Cath Stores, Material Department, M/s. Care Hospitals, Nampally and who inturn handed over it to Accused No.2/ Manager, Incharge Credit Billing Section, M/s. Quality Care India

Limited, Hyderabad.

2.36. In furtherance of aforesaid criminal conspiracy, Accused No.3 prepared the forged invoice

No.183 for Rs.91,000/- and Accused No.2 enclosed the such forged invoice with claim bill infavour of the patient Smt M. Laxmi and submitted the same to CGHS as genuine one towards the claim for

M/s. Quality Care India Limited and thereby cheated the Central Government which was induced to pay Rs.18,200/- more than the actual rate of the stent mentioned in the genuine invoice. During the investigation GEQD Opinion was obtained and it was revealed that Accused No.3 wrote the forged

Invoice No.183 and thereby cheated CGHS, Hyderabad and obtained wrongful gain for themselves.

2.37.Investigation revealed that Accused No.2 received the original invoice No.

AMD/HYD/CINV/183 dated: 15/07/2008 for Rs.72,800/- but instead of enclosing the same with the claim bill in respect of the patient Smt M. Laxmi. But, Accused No.2 having conspired with

Accused No.1 and Accused No.3 got the forged invoice prepared for Rs.91,000/-, which is higher than the actual purchase rate, through Accused No.3 and in furtherance of their conspiracy fraudulently enclosed the same to the claim bill of Smt M. Laxmi and submitted the same to CGHS

Hyderabad and thereby dishonestly induced the CGHS, Hyderabad and obtained pecuniary wrongful gain for themselves.

2.38.Investigation revealed that Accused No.3 having conspired with Accused No.2, forged the invoice No.AMD/HYD/CINV/183 dated: 15/07/2008 for Rs.91,000/- which is higher than the actual rate in the genuine invoice, in the name of M/s. ARCOM Distributors and M/s. Quality Care

India Limited, which was used as genuine and submitted it to CGHS, Hyderabad and thereby dishonestly induced the CGHS, Hyderabad and obtained pecuniary wrongful gain for themselves.

2.39.Investigation revealed that in furtherance of aforesaid conspiracy, Accused No.1 to Accused

No.3 dishonestly prepared false invoices and used the same as genuine in support of the excess claim towards Stents and Injections and thereby dishonestly cheated the CGHS, Hyderabad and

12 OF 60 CC.No. 6 OF 2018

claimed higher rates in respect of stents than the actual rates mentioned in the genuine invoices, issued by the distributors due to which the CGHS, Hyderabad sustained wrongful loss of

Rs.1,40,595/- and corresponding wrongful gain to themselves.

2.40.Investigation revealed that M/s. Quality Care India Purchased stents from various distributors like M/s. Hruday Bio Medics, M/s. Aditi Life, M/s. Interventional Technologies, etc., and the invoices against the supply of these stents were received by Accused No.1 at Material

Department and she also certified the same. But, Accused No.1 did not furnish the such invoices to

Credit Billing Section for further enclosing the same along with the claim bills in respect of patients. Investigation revealed that knowing fully well Accused No.1 sent the fake and forged invoices of stents and injections with higher rates than actual purchase rates and also she conspired with Accused No.2 & Accused No.3, who prepared fake invoices. These fake and forged invoices were used same as genuine in the claim bills pertaining to Sri T.V.N. Reddy, Smt Godavari Bai, Sri

P. Gajendar Rao, Smt M. Laxmi and others and thereby cheated the Government of India. Due to these fake and forged invoices, the CGHS had to release higher amounts against the claims towards stents than the actual purchase rates in the genuine invoices of the stents and it resulted wrongful loss to the Central Government to tune of Rs.1,40,595/- and also corresponding wrongful gain to

M/s. Quality Care India Limited. Further, the investigation revealed that Accused No.1 to Accused

No.3 conspired together and fraudulently attempted to draw Rs.81,946/- from CGHS against the claims for stents and injections, by using forged invoices as genuine, since these claims bills were rejected on various grounds during the scrutiny by the Screening Committee, CGHS.

2.41.The above acts of A1 to A3 are punishable under sections 120-B, 420, 465, 468, 471 of IPC.

Thus stating filed charge sheet against A1 to A3.

3.Cognizance taken for offences punishable under section 120-B r/w 420, 465, 468, 471 of

IPC.

4.On appearance, Copies of case documents were furnished to A1 to A3 as required under section 207 of Cr.P.C.

13 OF 60 CC.No. 6 OF 2018

5.Accused No.1 to Accused No.3 were examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C. After hearing the learned Public Prosecutor for CBI and the learned Counsel for Accused No.1 to Accused No.3, charges for offences punishable under section 420, 465, 468, 471, 420 r/w 120-B of IPC framed, read over and explained to them for which Accused No.1 to Accused No.3 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.PW1 to PW36 were examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P98 were marked on behalf of the prosecution. Ex.D1 & Ex.D2 were marked on behalf of the accused No.1 to accused No.3

7.The learned Public Prosecutor for CBI has given up the evidence of LW5 Dr. K. Sreenivasa

Rao, LW6 Dr. Sonpal Laxminarayana, LW8 Ramabhadran Ravi, LW27 Aluru Subbarao, LW28

Govada Issac Kishan Kumar, LW29 Smt Mekala Sandhya Priya Darshni, LW36 Syed Imtiyaz Ali,

LW40 Koppisetti Pendrani Kalyana Chakravarthy, LW41 Goli Subbarao.

8.After closure of prosecution evidence, Accused No.1 to Accused No.3 were examined under section 313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. They denied the incriminating material evidence and reported defence evidence on their behalf.

9.Subsequently, Accused No.1 to Accused No.3 filed their respective Written Statements contending that they are neither Directors nor share holders of M/s. Care India Private Limited so also not the beneficiaries and that the CBI has not obtained their specimen signatures or hand writings at any point of time. They have reported no defence on their behalf. Hence, the Defence evidence of Accused No.1 to Accused No.3 recorded as Nil.

10.Heard, Sri N. Raghavendra., Learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI and of Sri V.

Surender Rao., Learned Counsel for Accused No.1 to Accused No.3. The written arguments on behalf of Accused No.1 to Accused No.3 also filed.

14 OF 60 CC.No. 6 OF 2018

11. According to prosecution the invoices viz., i) Ex.P22 invoice No.486 in the name of M/s.

Hruday Biomedics relating to Mr. P. Gajendra Rao, ii) Invoice No.782 dated: 26/03/2005, Invoice

No.765 dated: 26/3/2005 relating to patient by name T.V.N. Reddy, iii) Invoice No.IVT/HYD/20

dated: 27/04/2005, Invoice No.956 dated: 15/03/2005, invoice No.446 dated: 15/04/2005 & invoice

No.147 dated: 20/04/2005 relating to patient by name Smt Godavaribai, iv) invoice

No.IVT/HYD/35 dated: 10/06/2005, Invoice No.IVT/HYD/36 dated: 05/06/2005 and Invoice

No.888 relating to patient by name M. Narasimha Rao, v) invoice No.IVT/HYD/141 dated:

03/07/2005 relating to patient by name Smt Radhamma, vi) Invoice No.163 dated: 12/8/2005 issued by M/s. Multi Speciality Medical Distributors in respect of Ex.P7 claim bill of

R.S.Visweswara Rao, vii) Invoice No.IVT/HYD/210 dated: 10/12/2005 issued in the name of M/s.

Interventional Technologies Pvt. Ltd in respect of Ex.P8 claim bill of patient by name D.S. Krishna

Murthy, viii) Invoice No.805 dated: 22/11/2006 issued in the name of M/s. Matrix Medical

Devices in respect of Ex.P9 claim bill of patient by name V. Narasimha Rao, ix) Invoice No.183

dated: 15/07/2008 issued in the name of M/s. ARCOM Medical Devices in respect of claim bill of

patient by name M. Laxmi are false documents. For the sake of convenience, herein after referred to as alleged false invoices.

12.Now, the points for determination is:

1.Whether the prosecution has proved that there is an agreement in between CGHS and M/s. Care Hospitals for providing treatment to the working/retired Central Government Employees under Central Government Health Scheme ?

2. Whether the prosecution has proved that M/s. Care Hospital treated various patients of Central Government under Central Government Health Scheme?

3.Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that Ex.P22 invoice No.486 in the name of M/s. Hruday Biomedics relating to Mr. P. Gajendra Rao is false and fabricated document?

4.Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that Invoice No.782 dated: 26/03/2005, Invoice No.765 dated: 26/3/2005 relating to patient by name T.V.N. Reddy are false documents?

5.Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the Invoice No.IVT/HYD/20 dated: 27/04/2005, Invoice No.956 dated: 15/03/2005, invoice No.446

dated: 15/04/2005 & invoice No.147 dated: 20/04/2005 relating to patient by name Smt

Godavaribai are false documents?

15 OF 60 CC.No. 6 OF 2018

6.Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the invoice No.IVT/HYD/35 dated: 10/06/2005, Invoice No.IVT/HYD/36 dated: 05/06/2005 and Invoice No.888 relating to patient by name M. Narasimha Rao are false documents?

7.Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the invoice No.IVT/HYD/141 dated: 03/07/2005 relating to patient by name Smt Radhamma as a false document?

8.Whether the prosecution has proved that the Invoice No.163 dated: 12/8/2005 issued by M/s. Multi Speciality Medical Distributors in respect of Ex.P7 claim bill of R.S.Visweswara Rao as false document?

9.Whether the prosecution has proved that the Invoice No.IVT/HYD/210 dated: 10/12/2005 issued in the name of M/s. Interventional Technologies Pvt. Ltd in respect of Ex.P8 claim bill of patient by name D.S. Krishna Murthy, as false document?

10.Whether the prosecution has proved that the Invoice No.805 dated: 22/11/2006 issued in the name of M/s. Matrix Medical Devices in respect of Ex.P9 claim bill of patient by name V. Narasimha Rao, as false document?

11.Whether the prosecution has proved that the Invoice No.183 dated: 15/07/2008 issued in the name of M/s. ARCOM Medical Devices in respect of claim bill of patient by name M. Laxmi as false document?

12.Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the alleged false invoices were created by Accused No.1 to Acused No.3 and thereby they are liable for charge punishable under section 465 of IPC ?

13.Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the alleged false invoices were created by Accused No.1 to Acused No.3 for the purpose of cheating and thereby they are liable for charge punishable under section 468 of IPC ?

14.Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the alleged false invoices were submitted by Accused No.1 to Accused No.3 to CGHS showing them as genuine and thereby they are liable for charge punishable under section 471 of IPC?

15.Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that Accused No.1 to Accused No.3 cheated Central Government and thereby liable for charge punishable under section 420 of IPC?

16.Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that Accused No.1 to Accused No.3 entered into conspiracy to commit offences punishable under section 420, 465, 468 , 471 of IPC and thereby they are liable for charge punishable under section 120-B of IPC?

17.Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of A1 to A3 beyond reasonable doubt for the charges punishable under section 420, 465, 468, 471, 120-B r/w 420 of IPC?

16 OF 60 CC.No. 6 OF 2018

18.To What Relief?

13.The case of the prosecution in brief is that M/s. Care Hospitals is one of the empanelled

Hospitals for providing treatment to working/retired employees of Central Government under

CGHS scheme and entered into an agreements with Central Government under Ex.P19 to Ex.P21.

Accused No.1 to Accused No.3 are employees of M/s. Care Hospitals entered into criminal conspiracy and in furtherance such conspiracy prepared fictitious invoices in relation to PTCA, made and fraudulent/dishonest claims under CGHS with such fictitious invoices in place of actual invoices of the suppliers, made an attempt to cause wrongful loss to an extent of 81,946/- in respect of certain claims, caused wrongful loss to an extent of Rs.1,40,595/- for other claims and thereby committed offences punishable under sections 120-B, 420, 465, 468, 471 of IPC. The case of accused are of total denial.

14.In order to prove it’s case, the prosecution has examined PW1 to PW5 who are members of

Screening Committee of CGHS, PW6 to PW13 & PW21 who are suppliers of Stents and other material, PW14 to PW20, PW28 & PW32 who are staff of M/s. Care Hospitals, PW22 to PW24 who are patients, PW25 to PW27 Doctors who conducted the procedure, PW29 to PW31 mediators of procuring specimen hand writings and signatures of Accused No.1 to Accused No.3, PW33 is

Registrar of Companies, PW34 Hand Writing Expert, PW35 & PW36 Investigating Officers.

15.PW33 T. Yashwanth Rao is Assistant Registrar of Companies for the State of Telangana. The evidence of PW33 speaks that in the year 2010 Mr. Satyajith Raut worked as Assistant Registrar of

Companies for the State of Andhra Pradesh. In the year 2010, Mr. Satyajith Raut issued Certified

Copies relating to company by name M/s. Quality Care India Limited and it’s Articles of

Association and Memorandum of Association under Ex.P75 to Ex.P81. Ex.P76 is the Certified

Copy of Memorandum of Association and Ex.P77 is the Articles of Association, Ex.P78 is Certified

Copy of Form No.1, Ex.P79 is the Certified Copy of Form No.18, Ex.P80 is Certified Copy of

Form No.20-B consists of Balance Sheet, Annual Returns, Details of Directors and Share holders,

Ex.P81 is the Certified Copy of Form No.25-C showing Managing Director’s remuneration details of A.K. Diagnostics Limited. The recitals of Ex.P77 show that Dr. T. Ashok Kumar, Dr. Anand

Abkari and Dr. J. Mandapal are the Directors of A.K. Diagnostic Limited. Ex.P75 is the Certified

Copy of Change of Name of the company. It show that in the year 1999 there is a change in the

17 OF 60 CC.No. 6 OF 2018

name of company from A.K. Diagnostics Limited to M/s. QUALITY CARE INDIA LIMITED.

Therefore, the evidence of PW33 and Ex.P75 to Ex.P81 goes to show that M/s. A.K. Diagnostics

Limited registered with Registrar of Companies changed it’s name as M/s. Quality Care Limited.

Accused No.1 to Accused No.3 have not disputed in it.

Point No.1:

Whether the prosecution has proved that there is an agreement in between M/s. Care Hospitals and CGHS for providing treatment to the working/retired Central Government Employees under Central Government Health Scheme ?

16.According to the Prosecution, M/s. Care Hospital entered into an agreement with Central

Government for providing treatment of CGHS beneficiaries and Members of their families. The evidence of PW3 speaks that Ex.P19 Memorandum of Agreement with Care Hospital dated:

30/10/2002, Ex.P20 Memorandum of Agreement with Care Hospital Nampally Unit dated:

08/04/2008 & Ex.P21 Memorandum of Agreement with Care Hospital Banjarahills dated:

08/042008 entered by M/s. Care Hospitals with Central Government for providing treatment to it’s working employees/retired employees. The accused have not disputed the agreements under E.P19 to Ex.P21.

17.Ex.P18 is the Memorandum of Government of India dated: 12/06/1996. It show that the reimbursement for Coronary Stent is of Rs.60,000/- ( subject to a maximum of two stents in a patient ) or the actual cost, which ever is less. Ex.P16 is the Memorandum of Government of India

dated: 10/03/2003. It show that the ceiling rate for reimbursement for Cypher Stent is Rs.1,31,000/-

or actual expenditure, which ever is less. Ex.P17 Memorandum of Government of India dated:

08/03/2004. It show that the ceiling rate for one Taxus Stent is Rs.90,000/- or actual expenditure, which ever is less. It also show that the private hospital has to quote the batch number when a

Coronary stent of any type ( ordinary stent/ cypher stent/ Taxus stent) is implanted in the case of

CGHS beneficiary and in addition to that, the OUTER POUCH OF THE STENT PACKET ALONG

WITH STICKER ON IT on which the details of the stent are printed shall also be enclosed with the medical bill while claiming the reimbursement form Government. If such private hospital has not

18 OF 60 CC.No. 6 OF 2018

given the batch number and /or outer pouch of the stent(s) in a particular case, the CGHS/ beneficiary is required to obtain the same from hospital before medical claim is finally settled by the CGHS/ concerned department, as the case may be. Ex.P15 is the Certified Copy of Letter of

Central Government dated: 1/8/2005. It show the ceiling limits for three kinds of stents namely

Cypher Stent, Taxus Stent, Bare Metal Stent and also mandates that the private hospitals have to quote batch number when Coronary stent of any type is implanted in case of CGHS/ beneficiary and outer pouch of the stent packet along with sticker on it on which the details of stent are printed shall also be enclosed with the medical bill while claiming reimbursement from the Government. In case if the private hospital has not given the batch number and/or outer pouch of the stent (s) in a particular case, the CGHS/beneficiary is required to obtain the same from the hospital before medical claim is finally settled by the CGHS/ concerned department, as the case may be. The same guidelines reiterated in Ex.P14 Certified Copy of Office Memorandum dated: 12/9/2007. The documents under Ex.P14 to Ex.P18 were got marked through PW3. The learned counsel for the

Accused No.1 to Accused No.3 has cross examined PW3 at length but nothing disputed in respect of Ex.P14 to Ex.P18 which are guidelines for approval of bills by CGHS authorities. Hence, Point

No.1 is accordingly answered infavour of the prosecution and against the Accused persons.

Point No. 2 :

Whether the prosecution has proved that M/s. Care Hospital treated various patients of Central Government under Central Government Health Scheme?

18.According to prosecution, the patients by name 1) Gajendra Rao, 2)TVN Reddy, 3) Smt

Godavaribai, 4) M. Narasimha Rao, 5) Smt Radhamma, 6) R.S Vishweshwar Rao, 7) D. S. Krishna

Murthy, 8) V. Narasimha Rao, 9) M. Laxmi & 10) Smt Salma Begum are beneficiaries under

CGHS and they were treated by M/s Care Hospitals, Hyderabad under CGHS.

19. The prosecution got examined P. Gajendra Rao as PW24. The oral evidence of PW24 speaks that his wife Smt Rama Devi retired as Chief Telephone Supervisor in the Department of

Telecommunications and was having the benefit of CGHS. He being family member also beneficiary of CGHS. He suffered with heart attack and got treated in Care Banjara Hospital. The oral evidence of PW27 Dr. G. Surya Prakash also speaks that PW24 was admitted with complaint of chest pain warning signal for heart attack and was given PTCA stent treatment to correct the

19 OF 60 CC.No. 6 OF 2018

blockages in the arteries of the heart and one stent was implanted. Ex.P1 is the entire file relating to

PW24 P. Gajendra Rao. The counsel for the Accused No.1 to Accused No.3 during the cross examination of PW24 & PW27 have not disputed about the treatment of PW24 in Care Banjara

Hospital and implanting one stent for such treatment.

20.The prosecution got examined Smt Salma Begum as PW22. The oral evidence of PW22 speaks that her husband was retired Post Master and she is one of the beneficiaries of CGHS. She suffered with Heart Attack, admitted in M/s. Care Hospitals, Nampally, underwent PTCA and one stent was implanted on her. PW26 Dr. Sunil Kumar Kapoor is the Cardiologist who treated PW22.

The oral evidence of PW26 speaks that PW22 admitted in M/s. Care Nampally with warning signals for heart attack and was given PTCA treatement to remove blockages in the arteries of the heart and one stent was implanted on her. Ex.P4 is the entire file relating to treatment of PW22.

21. The Investigating Officer neither examined the patients namely T.V.N.Reddy, Smt Godavari

Bai, Smt Radhamma, Sri V. Narasimha Rao nor recorded their respective Section 161 Cr.P.C.

statements. The names of patients namely M. Narasimha Rao shown as LW19, Smt M. Laxmi shown as LW20. But, the learned Public Prosecutor of CBI has given up their evidence for the reasons best known to him. The evidence of LW21 Sri R.S.Visweswar Rao was closed by the Court on his death report.

22.The prosecution got examined Arjun Prasad who is son of patient by name Smt Godavari

Bai, as PW23. The evidence of PW23 speaks that his father Mangla Prasad worked as IV

Employee in Artillery Center, Imbrahimbagh and was having CGHS which covers his mother. In the year 2005 his mother was admitted in M/s. Care Hospital, Nampally with heart attack and underwent PTCA stent. The evidence of PW25 Dr. M. Srinivas Rao, who treated Smt Godavaribai speaks that Godavaribai was admitted in the hospital with heart attack and was undergone PTCA and one stent was implanted. Ex.P3 is the file relating to treatment of Smt Godavaribai.

23.Ex.P2 is the file relating to treatment of patient TVN Reddy. Ex.P5 is the file relating to treatment of Mr. M. Narasimha Rao. Ex.P6 is the file relating to patient Radamma. Ex.P7 is the file relating to treatment of R.S. Visweshwar Rao. Ex.P8 is the file relating to treatment of

20 OF 60 CC.No. 6 OF 2018

Krishnamurty. Ex.P9 is the file relating to patient V. Narasimha Rao and Ex.P10 is the file relating to treatment of Smt. M. Laxmi. The oral evidence of PW25 to PW27 also speaks about the treatment of the above referred patients for heart attack, undergoing PTCA and implanting one stent. The counsel for the Accused No.1 to Accused No.3 have cross examined PW25 to PW27 but never disputed about the treatment given to the above patients. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that the prosecution has proved that the above referred patients who are beneficiaries of

CGHS were treated in M/s. Care Hospitals. Point No.2 is accordingly answered infavour of the

Prosecution and against the Accused persons.

Point No.3:

Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that Ex.P22 invoice No.486 in the name of M/s. Hruday Biomedics relating to Mr. P. Gajendra Rao is false and fabricated document?

24.The allegation of the prosecution is that the invoice No.486 for Rs.6,50,000/- in the name of

M/s. Hruday Biomedicas in support of claim for Rs.1,30,000/- towards one stent relating to Mr. P.

Gajendra Rao is false and fabricated document.

25.In order to prove the same, the prosecution relied upon the oral evidence of PW5 Dr. Anitha

Subba Rao, PW6 M. Srinivas Reddy, PW27 Dr. G. Surya Prakash and also documentary evidence under Ex.P1, Ex.P22, E25 & Ex.P26.

26.The disputed photocopy of Invoice bearing No.486 dated: 02/12/2004 purported to have been issued by M/s. Hruday Bio-Medics, Hyderabad for Rs.6,50,000/- for five stents @

Rs.1,30,000/- each was got marked subject to objection that it is a photocopy. Hence, it is for the prosecution to explain how the photocopy of Ex.P22 is admissible in evidence in the absence of original document. But, nothing investigated in respect of original of Ex.P22 so also nothing brought on record in that regard. It is not the case of the prosecution that there is no original of

Ex.P22 and Ex.P22 was prepared by following some mechanical process. In the absence of original invoice of Ex.P22 and reasons for non production of such original, the objection of learned counsel

for Accused No.1 to Accused No.3 that Ex.P22 is a photocopy and as such it is in admissible in

evidence, is sustained.

21 OF 60 CC.No. 6 OF 2018

27.The prosecution examined M. Srinivas Reddy, Managing Partner of M/s. Hruday Bio-

Medics, Hyderabad as PW6. The evidence of PW6 speaks that their agency used to distribute cardiac stents to various hospitals like M/s. Apollo, M/s. Care, M/s. Yashoda, NIMS, etc. The evidence of PW6 further speaks that as per their records, Invoice No.486 dated: 10/08/2004 was issued infavour of Apollo Hospitals, Vishakapatnam but not infavour of M/s. Care Hospitals,

Hyderabad. In support of his evidence the prosecution got marked Ex.P25 carbon copy of Invoice

No.486 dated: 10/08/2004 issued infavour of Appollo Hospitals, Vishakapatnam. However, Ex.P25 is only Carbon Copy but not the original. There is no acknowledgment on Ex.P25 to show that the original of Ex.P25 was received by M/s. Apollo Hospitals, Vishakapatnam. The same is admitted by PW6. In the said circumstances, it is for the prosecution to examine any of the concerned authorities of M/s Apollo Hospitals, Vishakapatnam to establish that the original of Ex.P25 was received by them. But, PW35 K. Venkateshwarlu, Investigating Officer admitted about non- examination of concerned relating to M/s. Apollo Hospitals, Vishakapatnam. Admittedly, PW6 is not the signatory of Ex.P25. PW35 also admitted about non-examination of signatory of Ex.P25. In the absence of original of Ex.P25 and the evidence of it’s signatory, basing on the carbon copy, it cannot be said that the invoice No.486 was issued infavour of M/s. Apollo Hospitals,

Vishakapatnam but not infavour of M/s. Care Hospitals, Hyderabad.

28.The further case of the prosecution is that one Cypher stent for the use of patient by name

Mr. Gajender Rao was issued infavour of M/s. Care Hospital, Hyderabad under Ex.P26 invoice

No.1033/HB/04-05 dated: 16/12/2004 along with delivery challan but not under Ex.P22 invoice.

Then it is for the prosecution to show that the stent relating to Mr. Gajender Rao was sent M/s. Care

Hospitals under Ex.P26 invoice. Admittedly, Ex.P26 was issued in the name of M/s. Care Drug

Stores but not M/s. Care Hospital. Nothing brought on record to show that M/s. Care Hospitals and

M/s. Care Drug Stores are one and the same or both are different companies and differently registered under companies Act with Registrar of Companies. PW6 deposed that the stent relating to Mr. Gajender Rao was sent under Ex.P26. However, PW6 is not the signatory of Ex.P26. Though

PW28 V. Maruthi Govardhana Staya Varaprasad, Assistant Manager deposed processing of Ex.P26 by him, the learned counsel for Accused legally proved through PW35 investigating officer that while recording Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement PW28 never stated about processing of Ex.P26 by him.

22 OF 60 CC.No. 6 OF 2018

29.PW6 further deposed that Ex.P22 invoice was never issued from his agency. But, for the reasons stated supra, Ex.P22 was taken out of the record. In the absence of documentary evidence under Ex.P22 any amount of oral evidence adduced to prove the contents of such document under

Ex.P22 does not come to rescue the case of the prosecution.

30.The recitals of invoice and delivery challan No.1033 under Ex.P26 show the description of product as Cordis, Cypher Select, Sirol imus-eluting Stent 3.0x28 with item Code CRA28300 for the use of patient by name M. Gajendra Rao with IP No.26408 dated: with used date : 16/12/2004.

The evidence of PW27 Dr. G. Surya Prakash further speaks that the pouch of the stent attached to

Ex.P1 file relating to patient Mr. Gajender Rao also contain the same specification of stent mentioned in Ex.P26. The evidence of PW27 further speaks that the details of stent used for patient

P. Gajender Rao available in Cathlab register from 29/09/2004 at Page No.386 and the details of the pouch attached to Ex.P1 are different. As seen from the pouch attached to Ex.P1, it is Cypher

Select CRA283000 3x28 mm with LOT Number LOT 10406021. The details of stent mentioned in

Cathlab register at Page No.386 under Ex.P98 is Cypher CRS28300 with LOT 10904088.

However, PW26 admitted that he is no way concerned with Cathlab stores and Registers. The maintenance of cathlab registers and stickers were done only by technical staff. He has no personal knowledge about the cathlab registers, stickers of stents and LOT numbers of the stents. PW35 investigating Officer also admitted about non examination of persons who maintained cathlab registers.

31.In the absence of original of invoice No.486 dated: 02/12/2004, original of Ex.P25 and non- examination of signatories of Ex.P26, the persons who maintained cathlab registers and aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the invoice No.486 in the name of M/s. Hruday Biomedics relating to Mr. P. Gajendra

Rao as false and fabricated document.

Point No.4:

Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that Invoice No.782 dated: 26/03/2005, Invoice No.765 dated: 26/3/2005 relating to patient by name T.V.N. Reddy are false documents?

23 OF 60 CC.No. 6 OF 2018

32.The case of the prosecution is that the Invoice No.782 dated: 26/3/2005 for Rs.25,000/- against 5 number of Iron Man Guide Wires in the name of M/s. Multi Speciality Medical

Distributors and Invoice No.765 dated: 26/3/2005 for Rs.7,75,000/- against Power Line Ballons in the name of M/s. ARCOM Medical Devices Private Limited enclosed in Claim bill under Ex.P2 in respect of claim of patient by name T.V.N.Reddy is false and fabricated one. In order to prove the same, the prosecution is relying upon the oral evidence of PW1, PW7, PW8 and documentary evidence under Ex.P2, Ex.P27 & Ex.P28.

33.The prosecution got marked the entire file relating to patient by name T.V.N.Reddy by enclosing photocopy of invoice No.782 allegedly submitted to CGHS, through PW1. The recitals of invoice No.782 show that it was issued for IRON MAN GUIDE WIRES – 5 in number for

Rs.25,000/- @ Rs.5000/- each. It was allegedly issued by Multi Specialty Medical Distributors.

34.The prosecution examined N. Satya Subramanyam, owner of M/s. Multi Speciality Medical

Distributors as PW8. The evidence of PW8 speaks that they are the distributors for stents and used to supply stents to M/s. Care Hospitals at Nampally and Banjara Hills. Ex.P28 is the copy of

Invoice No.163 dated: 31/08/2005 issued infavour of M/s. Care Drugs Store for sale of Cobol +C mini coronary stent. The photocopy of Invoice No.782 in the name of M/s. Multi Speciality

Medical Distributors under Ex.P2 claim bill was not issued by his agency as they are not distributors for Iron Man Guide Wires. Since, M/s. Multi Speciality Medical Distributors is not supplier of Iron Man Guide Wires there is no question of issuance of invoice No.782 in it’s name for supply of such material. PW8 with stood the test of cross examination. There is no reason stated by the learned counsel for the accused to discredit the testimony of PW8. Therefore, it can be safely conclude that invoice No.782 enclosed in Ex.P2 bill as a false document.

35. In respect of Invoice No.765, the prosecution examined Sanjeev Kumar Gupta, Managing

Director of M/s. ARCOM Medical Devices Private Limited, Hyderabad as PW7. The evidence of

PW7 speaks that they are distributors of Multi National Companies which are manufacturing

Cardiac Stents, heart valves, etc., and their agency used to distribute cardiac stents and other products to various hospitals like M/s. Appollo, M/s. Care, M/s. Yashoda, NIMS, etc., used to keep stents and implants with such hospitals and after the hospitals use the products they used to raise invoices for the said products. The photocopy of invoice No.765 dated: 26/03/2005 shown to him

24 OF 60 CC.No. 6 OF 2018

under Ex.P2 claim bill was not issued from their agency. PW7 being Managing Director of M/s.

ARCOM Medical Devices Private Limited is competent person to speak about the business of his firm. The evidence of PW7 inspires the confidence of the Court. No reason stated by the learned counsel for the accused to discredit the testimony of PW7. Therefore, it can be safely conclude that photocopy of invoice No.765 enclosed in Ex.P2 bill as a false document. Point No.4 is accordingly answered infavour of the prosecution and against the Accused persons.

Point No.5:

Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the Invoice

No.IVT/HYD/20 dated: 27/04/2005, Invoice No.956 dated: 15/03/2005, invoice No.446 dated: 15/04/2005 & invoice No.147 dated: 20/04/2005 relating to patient by name Smt Godavaribai are false documents.

36.The allegation of the prosecution is that the invoice No. IVT/HYD/20 dated: 27/04/2005 for

Lekton Motion Stent one in number in the name of M/s. Interventional Technologies, Invoice

No.956 dated: 15/03/2005 for infusion injection and Bollus injections in the name of M/s. ACE

Medical Bionics Private Limited, invoice No.446 dated: 15/04/2005 for Guiding Cathetor and guide

Wire PTCA in the name of M/s. ARCOM Medical Devices Private Limited and Invoice No.147

dated: 20/04/2005 for Alsvision stent in the name of ADITI Life Sciences, enclosed with Ex.P3

claim bill of patient by name Smt Godavaribai are false documents.

37.In order to prove the same, the prosecution is relying upon the oral evidence of PW1, PW5,

PW7, PW9, PW10, PW12 & PW25 and documentary evidence under Ex.P3, Ex.P23, Ex.P24,

Ex.P31, Ex.P32, Ex.P42, Ex.P48 & Ex.P58.

38. In respect of the invoice No. IVT/HYD/20 dated: 27/04/2005 for Lekton Motion Stent one in number in the name of M/s. Interventional Technologies, the prosecution got examined Ragash,

Business Development Manager for M/s. Meril Life Sciences India Private Limited, as PW12. The evidence of PW12 speaks that in the year 2009 M/s. Interventional Technologies Pvt. Ltd, was purchased by M/s. Meril Life Sciences India Private Limited as such all the records of M/s.

Interventional Technologies Private Limited, were handed over to M/s. Meril Life Sciences India

25 OF 60 CC.No. 6 OF 2018

Private Limited. Admittedly no document is filed before the Court to show that M/s. Interventional

Technologies Private Limited was purchased by M/s. Meril Life Sciences India Private Limited and the documents relating to M/s. Interventional Technologies Private Limited were handed over to

M/s. Meril Life Sciences India Private Limited.

39.The evidence of PW12 further speaks that at the request of CBI he handed over Ex.P42

Copy of Invoice bearing No.IVT/HYD/30, dated: 30/04/2005 with delivery challan issued by M/s.

Interventional Technologies Private Limited in favour of M/s. Care Hospital, Nampally in respect of patient by name Godavaribai. The recitals of Ex.P42 also show that Invoice No.IVT/HYD/30 dated:

30/04/2005 was issued infavour of M/s. Care Hospitals, Nampally in respect of LEKTON MOTION

Stent – one in number for Rs.31,320/- including VAT in respect of patient Smt Godavaribai.

However, PW12 is not the custodian of Ex.P42. According to PW12, Ex.P42 was in the custody of

Account Department of his agency. But, none of the employees of Account Department of M/s.

Meril Life Sciences India Private Limited is examined and there is no document before the Court to show that Ex.P42 was handed over to CBI from M/s. Meril Life Sciences India Private Limited.

Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that PW12 is not competent person to speak about Ex.P42.

40.On the other hand, the prosecution also required to prove that the photocopy of invoice

No.IVT/HYD/20 dated: 27/04/2005 for LEKTION MOTION Stent purportedly issued in the name of Interventional Technologies Pvt. Ltd for Rs.58,000/- including VAT and enclosed with Ex.P3 file in respect of patient Smt Godavaribai, was not issued by Interventional Technologies Private

Limited and it is a false document. But, PW12 did not depose anything about the genuineness of photocopy of invoice No.IVT/HYD/20 dated: 27/04/2005. None of the employees of M/s.

Interventional Technologies Private Limited who worked during the relevant period are examined to prove it as false document. In the absence of the same, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove that photocopy of invoice No.IVT/HYD/20 dated: 27/04/2005 for

LEKTION MOTION Stent issued in the name of Interventional Technologies Pvt. Ltd for

Rs.58,000/- including VAT enclosed with Ex.P3 file in respect of patient Smt Godavaribai was not issued by M/s. Interventional Techonologies Pvt. Limited and it as a false document.

26 OF 60 CC.No. 6 OF 2018

41.In respect of Invoice No.956 dated: 15/03/2005 for infusion injection and Bollus injections in the name of M/s. ACE Medical Bionics Private Limited, the prosecution got examined A. Sridhar

Rajnish, Proprietor of M/s. ACE Medical Bionics Private Limited, as PW10. The evidence of

PW10 speaks that Ex.P23 Invoice No.956 dated: 15/3/2005 in the name of ACE Medial Bionics

Private Limited was not issued by his agency.

42.Ex.P23 is the photocopy of Invoice bearing No.956 dated: 15/03/2005 purported to have been issued by M/s. ACE Medical Bionics Private Limited for Rs.54486/- for 4 Infusion injections for Rs..41836/- @ Rs. 10459/- each and for 4 Bolus Injections for Rs.12650/- @ Rs.12650/- each.

Ex.P24 is the photocopy of Invoice bearing No.446 dated: 15/04/2005 purported to have been issued by M/s. ARCOM Medical Devices Pvt. Ltd for Rs.20,000/- for purchase of 2 Guiding

Catheters for Rs.10,000/- @ Rs.5000/- each and for purchase of 2 Guide Wire PTCA for

Rs.10,000/- @ Rs.5000/- each. Both Ex.P23 & Ex.P24 got marked through PW5 subject to objection that both are photocopies. Hence, it is for the prosecution to explain how the photocopies of Ex.P23 & Ex.P24 are admissible in evidence in the absence of original documents. But, nothing investigated in respect of originals of Ex.P23 & Ex.P24 so also nothing brought on record in that regard. It is not the case of the prosecution that there is no original of Ex.P23 & Ex.P24 and they were prepared by following some mechanical process. In the absence of original invoice of Ex.P23 & Ex.P24 and reasons for non production of such originals, the objection of learned counsel for

Accused No.1 to Accused No.3 that Ex.P23 & Ex.P24 are photocopy and as such they are in admissible in evidence, is sustained.

43. The evidence of PW7 speaks that the photocopy of invoice No. 446 dated: 15/04/2005 under

Ex.P24 was not issued from his agency. The prosecution also examined Chinna Swamy Manohar,

Accountant of M/s. ARCOM Medial Devices Private Limited, as PW9. The evidence of PW9 speaks that PW7 is Managing Director of their agency. He along with PW7 are only authorized persons to sign on invoices of their agency. The photo copy of invoice No.446 dated: 15/04/2005 in the name of M/s. ARCOM Medical Devices Pvt. Ltd for supply of Guiding Catheter -2 in number @ Rs.5000/- each and Guide Wire PTCA -2 in number @ Rs.5000/- each under Ex.P24 was not issued by their agency and the products mentioned in Ex.P24 were not supplied by their agency.

However, PW24 admitted that his evidence that Ex.P24 was not issued from their agency and the products mentioned in Ex.P24 were not supplied by their agency and the Invoice

27 OF 60 CC.No. 6 OF 2018

No.AMD/IND/INV/446 dated: 11/11/2005 and corresponding delivery challan bearing

No.AMD/IND/DC/446 dated: 11/11/2005 in the name of M/s. ARCOM Medical Devices Private

Limited were issued in the name of Andhra Mahila Sabha Hospital, but not M/s. Care Hospitals is an improvement to his earlier statement to Police. The prosecution got marked Ex.P31 second copy of Invoice No. AMD/IND/INV/446 dated: 11/11/2005 and Ex.P32 Delivery challan bearing

No.AMD/IND/DC/446 dated: 11/11/2005 in the name of M/s. ARCOM Medical Devices Private

Limited. However, Ex.P31 is second copy & Ex.P32 are only Carbon Copy but not the original.

44.The evidence of PW25 Dr. M. Srinivasa Rao further speaks that the details of pouch of the stent attached to Ex.P3 file relating to patient Mr. Smt Godavaribai and the details of stent available in Cathlab register for the period from 30/03/2005 to 30/9/2005 at Page No.156 & 157 are different. As seen from the pouch attached to Ex.P3, the LOT Number is LOT 12051373. The

LOT Number of stent mentioned in Cathlab register at Page No.156 & 157 under Ex.P58 with LOT 09041730 . However, PW25 admitted that he is no way concerned with Cathlab stores and

Registers. The maintenance of cathlab registers and stickers were done only by technical staff. He has no personal knowledge about the cathlab registers, stickers of stents and LOT numbers of the stents. PW35 investigating Officer also admitted about non examination of persons who maintained

Cathlab registers.

45.In the absence of original of Invoice bearing No.956 dated: 15/03/2005 under Ex.P23 and invoice No. 446 dated: 15/04/2005 under Ex.P24, the persons who maintained cathlab registers and aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the Invoice bearing No.956 dated: 15/03/2005 under Ex.P23 and invoice No.

446 dated: 15/04/2005 under Ex.P24 relating to Smt Godavaribai are false documents.

46.In respect of Invoice No.147 dated: 20/04/2005 purportedly issued in the name of Aditi Life

Sciences, the prosecution got examined K. Rama Chandra Reddy, Proprietor of M/s. Aditi Life

Sciences, as Pw13. The evidence of PW13 speaks that the invoice No.147 dated: 20/04/2005 was issued in the name of NIZAM’s Institute of Medical Sciences, Hyderabad. However, neither carbon copy nor office copy of invoice No.147 dated: 20/04/2005 submitted before the Court to show that it was issued in the name of NIMS Hospital but not in the name of M/s. Care Hospital. PW13 deposed that he cannot identify Ex.P61 invoice No.147 dated: 20/04/2005 as the invoice

28 OF 60 CC.No. 6 OF 2018

issued by Aditi Life Sciences infavour of M/s. Care Hospital or not. In the absence of either oral or documentary evidence, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove that

Ex.P61 invoice No.147 dated: 20/04/2005 as a false document. Point No. 5 accordingly answered against the prosecution and infavour of the accused.

Point No.6:

Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the invoice

No.IVT/HYD/35 dated: 10/06/2005, Invoice No.IVT/HYD/36 dated: 05/06/2005 and Invoice No.888 relating to patient by name M. Narasimha Rao are false documents?

47.The allegation of the prosecution is that the invoice No. IVT/HYD/35 dated: 10/06/2005 and Invoice No.IVT/HYD/36 dated: 05/06/2005 for purchase of one stent each for Rs.99,900/- and

Rs.41070/- in the name of Interventional Technologies and Invoice No.888 against Bolus and

Infusion injections for Rs.2,33,320/- enclosed with Ex.P5 claim bill of patient by name M.

Narasimha Rao are false documents.

48.In order to prove the same, the prosecution is relying upon the oral evidence of PW1, PW4,

PW8, PW12 and documentary evidence under Ex.P5, Ex.P46, Ex.P47, Ex.P59 & Ex.P60.

49. The prosecution got marked entire file relating to patient by name M. Narasimharao through

PW1 as Ex.P5. The evidence of PW4 also speaks that along with Ex.P5 claim bill the copy of

Invoice No.IVT/HYD/36 dated: 05/06/2005 purportedly issued by M/s. Interventional

Technologies Private Limited, Hyderabad for Rs.41,070/- towards one stent, copy of Invoice

No.IVT/HYD/35 dated: 10/06/2005 purportedly issued by M/s. Interventional Technologies Private

Limited, Hyderabad for Rs.99,900/- towards one stent and copy of Invoice No.888 dated:

20/04/2005 purportedly issued by M/s. Multy Speciality Medical Distributors, Hyderabad for

Rs.2,33,280/- for 12 number of bolus injections @ Rs.2990/- each and 20 infusion injections for

Rs.9870/- each, relating to patient M. Narasimha Rao were submitted to CGHS.

29 OF 60 CC.No. 6 OF 2018

50.Initially, the prosecution has to establish that the Invoice No.IVT/HYD/36 dated:

05/06/2005 and Invoice No.IVT/HYD/35 dated: 10/06/2005 were not issued by M/s. Interventional

Technologies Private Limited infavour of M/s. Care Hospitals and also to establish that the respective invoices were issued in the name of other hospitals, if so issued.

51.In this regard, the evidence of PW12 Ragash speaks that the invoice No. IVT/HYD/35

dated: 04/05/2005 was issued by M/s. Interventional Technologies Pvt. Ltd., inifavour of M/s.

Global Hospital, Hyderabad and the invoice No. IVT/HYD/36 dated: 04/05/2005 was issued by

M/s. Interventional Technologies Pvt. Ltd., inifavour of M/s. Yashoda Hospital, Hyderabad. The copies of the said invoices got marked through him as Ex.P46 & Ex.P47. The evidence of PW12 further speaks that the invoice No.IVT/HYD/86 dated: 06/06/2005 with delivery note was issued by M/s. Interventional Technologies Pvt. Ltd, infavour of M/s Care Hospital, Nampally in respect of patient by name M. Narasimha Rao. The copy of such invoice got marked as Ex.P41. However, as stated supra, the invoices under Ex.P41, Ex.P46 & Ex.P47 are relating to M/s. Interventional

Technologies Private Limited in which PW12 never worked. PW12 also not the custodian of the said documents. Hence, PW12 is not competent to speak about the contents of Ex.P41, Ex.P46 &

Ex.P47. None of the employees of M/s. Interventaional Technologies Private Limited who worked during relevant period and issued Ex.P41, Ex.P46 & Ex.P47 are examined to show that the Ex.P41 was issued in the name of M/s. Care Hospital, Ex.P46 was issued in the name of Global Hospital and Ex.P47 was issued in the name of Yashoda Hospitals. The prosecution even failed to examine the authorities of either Global Hospital or Yashoda Hospitals to show that the originals of Ex.P46 & Ex.P47 were received by them. There is no signature of seal of concerned authorities of M/s.

Care Hospital on Ex.P41 to show that it was received by them in respect of treatment of patient by name M. Narasimha Rao.

52. The oral evidence of PW25 Dr. M. Srinivas Rao also speaks that the lot number and reference number of stent available on the pouch enclosed with Ex.P5 and the details of the same available in the Cathlab register are different, However, PW25 admitted that he is no way concerned with Cathlab stores and Registers. The maintenance of cathlab registers and stickers were done only by technical staff. He has no personal knowledge about the cathlab registers, stickers of stents and

LOT numbers of the stents. PW35 investigating Officer also admitted about non examination of persons who maintained cathlab registers.

30 OF 60 CC.No. 6 OF 2018

53.In respect of invoice No.888 dated: 28/4/2005, the evidence of PW8 also speaks that the photocopy of invoice No.888 dated: 28/04/2005 in respect of Bolus Injection and infusion injection, shown to him in Ex.P5 claim bill of M. Narasimha Rao was not issued by M/s. Multi Speciality

Medical Distributors, Hyderabad as they are not distributors for products mentioned in it and the signature appearing on such invoice is neither belongs to him nor of any of his staff members.

Therefore, it is clear that the invoice No.888 dated: 28/4/2005 was not issued by M/s. Multi

Speciality Medical Distributors and it is a false document and created for the purpose of claim under CGHS.

54.The above discussion leads this Court to conclude that the prosecution failed to prove that the invoice No.IVT/HYD/35 dated: 10/06/2005 & Invoice No.IVT/HYD/36 dated: 05/06/2005 are false documents but the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the Invoice No.888 relating to patient by name M. Narasimha Rao as false document. Point No.6 answered accordingly infavour of the prosecution in part.

Point No. 7 :

Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the invoice

No.IVT/HYD/141 dated: 03/07/2005 relating to patient by name Smt Radhamma as a false document?

55.The case of the prosecution in respect of treatment of patient Smt Radhamma is that M/s.

Care Hospitals procured stent from M/s. Interventional Technologies Private Limited through

Ex.P38 invoice No.144 dated: 7/7/2005 for Rs.41070/- but not through invoice No.1VT/HYD/141

dated: 3/7/2005 enclosed with Ex.P6 claim bill of Smt P. Radhamma and infact invoice

No.IVT/HYD/141 was issued infavour of M/s. Durgabai Deshmush Hospital under Ex.P63.

56.To prove the same, the prosecution relied on the oral evidence of PW1, PW12 and documentary evidence under Ex.P6, Ex.P38 & Ex.P63.

57.The prosecution has to prove that invoice No.141 dated: 3/7/2005 in the name of M/s.

Interventional Technologies Private Limited never issued it infavour of M/s. Care Hospitals for treatment of Smt Radhamma . It is also required to prove that the invoice under Ex.P38 was issued

31 OF 60 CC.No. 6 OF 2018

by M/s. Interventional Technologies Private Limited for the treatment of patient by name Smt

Radhamma and also required to establish that invoice No.141 was issued infavour of Dr. Durgabai

Deshmukh Hospital. This can be proved by examining the concerned authorities of M/s.

Interventional Technologies Private Limited and also the concerned of Dugabai Deshmukh hospital.

But, the prosecution has failed to examine any of them. The only evidence on record is that of

PW12 Ragash. As stated supra, PW12 never worked in M/s. Interventional Technologies Private

Limited. He only worked as Area Business Manager of M/s. Meril Life Sciences which alledgly purchased M/s. Interventional Technologies Private Limited. As stated supra, PW12 is not competent to speak about either Ex.P38 or Ex.P63. He is also not the custodian of the above records. PW12 did not depose anything about the disputed invoice No.141 dated: 3/7/2005. None of the employees of M/s. Interventional Technologies Private Limited examined to show that

Ex.P38 & Ex.P63 are genuine and Invoice No.141 dated: 3/7/2005 as false document. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove that the invoice No.141 dated:

3/7/2005 as false document. Point No.7 is accordingly answered against the prosecution and infavour of the accused persons.

Point No.8:

Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the Invoice No.163 dated: 12/8/2005 issued by M/s. Multi Speciality Medical Distributors in respect of Ex.P7 claim bill of R.S.Visweswara Rao as false document?

58.The case of the prosecution in respect of treatment of patient R. S. Visweswara Rao is that

M/s. Care Hospitals procured stent from M/s. Suji Surgicals through invoice No.00372 date:

13/8/2005 for Rs.43538/- but not through invoice No.163 dated: 12/8/2005 for Rs.50,000/- in the name of M/s. Multi Speciality Medical Distributors and Ex.P28 invoice No.163 dated : 31/08/2005 was issued by M/s. Multi Speciality Medical Distributors for sale of Cobal + C Mini Coronary Stent

System in respect of patient by name Mr. Durgesh Kumar.

59.The prosecution examined N. Satya Subramanyam, owner of M/s. Multi Speciality Medical

Distributors as PW8. The evidence of PW8 speaks that the disputed copy of Invoice No.163 dated:

12/08/2005 shown to him was not issued by their agency as the said invoice was issued in respect of

32 OF 60 CC.No. 6 OF 2018

Memotherm Aortic Stent for which they are not distributors of the said product and the signature appearing on it is neither of him nor of his staff. His evidence further speaks that Ex.28 invoice

No.163 dated: 31/8/2005 was issued by them in respect of patient by name Mr. Durgesh Kumar.

Since, M/s. Multi Speciality Medical Distributors is not supplier of Memotherm Aortic Stent there is no question of issuance of Invoice No. 163 dated: 12/08/2005 in it’s name for supply of such material. No reason stated by the learned counsel for the accused to discredit the testimony of PW8.

On the other hand, the prosecution also examined A. Sanjeeva Prasanna Rao, pharma Distributor in the name of M/s. Suji Surgi Tech., Hyderabad as PW21. The evidence of PW21 speaks about issuance of Ex.P55 copy of invoice No.RS00372 dated: 13/08/2005 for sale of Aortic Memotherm stent in the name of Care Hospital, Nampally for use of patient R. S. Visweswara Rao. The payment voucher and delivery cahllan also show the payment of Rs.72,525/- infavour of Suji Srigi

Tech. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that invoice No. 163 dated: 12/8/2005 enclosed in

Ex.P7 bill is a false document. Point No.8 is accordingly answered infavour of the prosecution and against the Accused No.1 to Accused No.3.

Point No. 9 :

Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the Invoice

No.IVT/HYD/210 dated: 10/12/2005 issued in the name of M/s. Interventional Technologies Pvt. Ltd in respect of Ex.P8 claim bill of patient by name D.S. Krishna Murthy, as false document?

60.The case of the prosecution in respect of treatment of patient D.S. Krishna Murthy is that

M/s. Care Hospitals procured stent from M/s. Interventional Technologies Pvt. Ltd through invoice No.IVT/HYD2/748 dated: 30/12/2005 for Rs.29250/- but not through Invoice

No.IVT/HYD/210 dated: 10/12/2005 issued in the name of M/s. Interventional Technologies Pvt.

Ltd and infact the invoice NO.IVT/HYD2/210 dated: 25/7/2005 was issued in the name of M/s.

Appollo Hospitals, Hyderabad in respect of patient by name Krishna.

61.In this regard, the evidence of PW12 Ragash speaks that the invoice No.IVT/HYD2/210

dated: 25/7/2005 was issued by M/s. Interventional Technologies Pvt. Limited in the name of M/s.

Appollo Hospitals, Hyderabad in respect of patient by name Krishna. The copies of the said invoice

33 OF 60 CC.No. 6 OF 2018

got marked through him as Ex.P45. The evidence of PW12 further speaks that the invoice

No.IVT/HYD2/748 dated: 30/12/2005 for Rs.29250/- delivery challan was issued by M/s.

Interventional Technologies Pvt. Ltd, infavour of M/s Care Hospital, Nampally in respect of patient by name Krishnamurthy. The copy of such invoice got marked as Ex.P39. However, as stated supra, the invoices under Ex.P39 & Ex.P45 are relating to M/s. Interventional Technologies Private

Limited in which PW12 never worked. As stated supra, PW12 also not the custodian of the said documents. Hence, PW12 is not competent to speak about the contents of Ex.P39 & Ex.P45. None of the employees of M/s. Interventaional Technologies Private Limited who worked during relevant period and issued Ex.P39 & Ex.P45 are examined to show that the Ex.P39 was issued in the name of M/s. Care Hospital and Ex.P45 was issued in the name of Apollo Hospitals in respect of patient by name Krishna. The prosecution even failed to examine the authorities of Apollo Hospitals to show that the original of Ex.P45 was received by such hospital. More over, it is not the evidence of

PW12 that the disputed invoice No. No.IVT/HYD/210 dated: 10/12/2005 never issued by M/s.

Interventional Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove that invoice No. No.IVT/HYD/210 dated: 10/12/2005 is false document. Point No.9 is accordingly answered against the prosecution and infavour of the accused persons.

Point No.10:

Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the Invoice No.805 dated: 22/11/2006 issued in the name of M/s. Matrix Medical Devices in respect of Ex.P9 claim bill of patient by name V. Narasimha Rao, as false document?

62.The case of the prosecution in respect of treatment of patient V. Narasimha Rao is that M/s.

Care Hospitals procured stent from M/s. Matrix Therapeutics through invoice No.288 dated:

29/11/2006 under Ex.P33 but not through Invoice No. 805 dated: 22/11/2006 and it is false document.

63.In respect of the disputed invoice No.805 dated: 22/11/2006, the prosecution examined L.

Padma Reddy, proprietor of M/s. Matrix Medical Devices as PW11. The evidence of PW11 speaks that the above invoice appears to be signed and issued from his agency. Since, PW11 did not support the case of the prosecution, the learned PP for CBI has cross examined PW11 at length but

PW11 denied non issuance of the same to M/s. Care Hospitals. In the said circumstances, this Court

34 OF 60 CC.No. 6 OF 2018

is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove that the invoice No.805 dated: 22/11/2006 enclosed with Ex.P9 claim bill as false document. Point No.10 accordingly answered against the prosecution and infavour of the accused persons.

Point No.11:

Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the Invoice No.183 dated: 15/07/2008 issued in the name of M/s. ARCOM Medical Devices in respect of claim bill of patient by name M. Laxmi as false document?

64.The case of the prosecution in respect of treatment of patient M. Laxmi is that M/s. Care

Hospitals procured stent through Ex.P29 invoice No.183 dated: 15/7/2008 for Rs.72,800/- but not through Ex.P51 invoice No.183 dated: 15/7/2008 for Rs.91,000/- from M/s. ARCOM Medical

Devices and Ex.P51 as a false document.

65.The evidence of PW9 Ch Manohar, Accountant of M/s. ARCOM Medical Devices speaks that they used to issue computer generated invoices but not handwritten invoices and Ex.P29 was issued by his agency and Ex.P51 is not. The evidence of PW9 further speaks that himself and PW7 are only authorised signatories and used to affix signatures on invoices but the signature on Ex.P51 is not of him or PW7. The evidence of PW9 inrespect of Ex.P29 and Ex.P51 inspires the confidence of the Court and there is no reason stated by the learned counsel for the accused to discredit the testimony of PW9 in respect of above invoices. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has proved that Ex.P51 invoice is false document. Point No.11 accordingly answered infavour of the prosecution and against the Accused No.1 to Accused No.3.

Point No.12:

Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the alleged false invoices were created by Accused No.1 to Accused No.3 and thereby they are liable for charge punishable under section 465 of IPC ?

66.In order to prove the charge of forgery, the prosecution relied on the oral evidence of PW14 to PW20, PW28, PW32 who are employees of M/s. Care Hospitals, PW34 Expert Evidence, PW35 evidence of Investigating Officer and documentary evidence under Ex.P82 to Ex.P89.

35 OF 60 CC.No. 6 OF 2018

67.PW14 M. Ramesh Babu was the employee of M/s. Care Hospital and worked in various cadres as Billing Executive, Assistant Manager, Deputy Manager. The evidence of PW14 speaks about the preparation of Ex.P6, Ex.P7 & Ex.P9 claim bills by his assistants namely Ratna Kishore,

Sudhakar, Mohan and signing of the same by him on such bills, signatures of Corporate Medical

Officers of Care Hospital, Nampally on the respective invoices covered under these bills. The evidence of PW14 further speaks that purchase and stores department of Care Hospitals are different wings and one Chakravathi who was incharge of stores department used to look after day to day transactions. However, PW14 did not depose anything about involvement of Accused No.1 to Accused No.3 in respect of preparation/dealing of alleged false invoices. Even such alleged false invoices were not confronted to PW14.

68.PW15 A. Subramanyam, Deputy Manager, Billing Department, Care Hospital deposed about the general procedure about preparation and submission of the bills under CGHS. He also deposed that in the year 2008 Accused No.1 worked in Admin Department, Accused No.2 was incharge of

Credit Billing Department and Accused No.3 was Junior Executive in Credit Billing Section of

Care Hospitals. However, PW15 did not depose anything about involvement of Accused No.1 to

Accused No.3 in respect of preparation of alleged false invoices and even such invoices were also confronted to PW15.

69.PW16 M. Rajashekhar Reddy, Incharge of Billing Section of Care Hospitals deposed about the methods of bills viz., inpatient billing and out patient billing, the procedure for submission of claim bills to the CGHS. The evidence of PW16 further speaks that the purchase department will look after the process of procuring the stents and during his tenure Accused No.1 worked in such department and she is also incharge of purchase department.

70. The main defence of the accused is that the evidence of PW16 that Accused No.1 worked in purchase department and was in charge of purchase department is a material omission as PW16 did not state the same to PW35 while recording his Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement. In this regard,

PW35 investigating officer also admitted that PW16 did not state before him as above during recording his Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement. Hence this part of evidence of PW16 does not come to rescue the case of the prosecution. More over the alleged false invoices were not confronted to

PW16 so as to ascertain whether such invoices were prepared by Accused No.1 to accused No.3 or any others staff of purchase department.

36 OF 60 CC.No. 6 OF 2018

71.PW17 K. Kishore, the then Executive of Billing Section, Care Hospital deposed about his preparation of Ex.P1 claim bill of patient P. Gajendra Rao, Ex.P4 claim bill of Smt Salma Begum and Ex.P5 claim bill of M. Narasimha Rao. However, PW17 did not depose anything about involvement of Accused No.1 to Accused No.3 in respect of preparation/dealing of alleged false invoices.

72.PW18 Syed Imtiaz Ali, Corporate Medical Officer deposed that as a part of duty he has to verify the type of stent used and also to affix his signature on invoice after cross verifying the description of the stent in the invoice and the description of the stent in cathlab registers. The certificates enclosed in Ex.P3 to Ex.P8 & Ex.P10 were signed by him stating that the bills submitted by hospitals are free from any error or manipulation. However, PW18 did not depose anything about creation of alleged false invoices by Accused No.1 to Accused No.3. On the other hand,

PW18 admitted that at the time verification of documents he did not find any irregularities or discrepancies in the documents.

73.PW19 Bomma Hari, the then Executive of M/s. Care Banjara deposed that one Prasad used to look after the invoices pertaining to stents and in the absence of said Prasad, he used to attend the duties of Prasad and during 2005 to 2010, Accused No. 1 worked in Administration Branch.

74.PW20 Mohd. Mujeeb, Junior Executive of M/s. Care Hospitals deposed that he used to collect the invoices from one Devender and Praveen who used to look after Cathlab stores so also attach the same with bills.

75.Therefore, PW14 to PW20 did not depose anything about creation of alleged false invoices by Accused No.1 to Accused No.3 and hence their evidence do not come to rescue the case of the prosecution.

37 OF 60 CC.No. 6 OF 2018

76.PW28 V. Maruthi Govardhana Satya Varaprasad, who worked in various positions such as as

Assistant in Accounts, Assistant Manager, Deputy Manage and Manager of Accounts in M/s. Care

Banjara deposed that he along with three assistants used to receive invoices of stents from suppliers, used to process the bills for payment to the suppliers and then used to handover to Mr. Subba Rao.

The handwriting on check list relating to Ex.P62 to Ex.P67 invoices are that of him and they contain his signature at the column of the person who prepared them. The evidence of PW28 that the signature of A1 Smt A. Kamala Sree on all the invoices except Ex.P55 is a material omission amounting to contradiction as PW35 investigating officer also admitted that PW28 while recording

Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement did not state the same. On the other hand, the evidence of PW28 further speaks that he had no personal knowledge about the signature of Smt A. Kamala Sree.

Therefore, the evidence of PW28 also does not come to prove the case of prosecution.

77.Therefore, None of the employees referred above who worked in M/s. Care Hospital have deposed anything against Accused No.1 to Accused No.3 in respect of creation of false invoices. On the other hand, their evidence is showing one Devender, Praveen of Cathlab Stores, One Prasad and one Subbarao handled the invoices. Admittedly these persons who dealt the alleged invoices are not shown as witnesses to prove as to who created the alleged false invoices.

78.In order to connect the Accused No.1 to Accused No.3 with the offence in respect of creation of alleged false invoices, The prosecution also examined N. Anjaneyulu, the then Company

Secretary of M/s. Quality Care India Limited, Hyderabad as PW32. The prosecution got marked

Ex.P70 to Ex.P72 through him. According to the Prosecution, Ex.P70 to Ex.P72 are the roles and responsibilities of Accused No.1 to Accused No.3. They show that Accused No.1 was dealing with coordination of Negotiations of Cathlab consumables and stents, Accused No.2 was dealing with

OP & IP Credit Bills preparation and submission and Accused No.3 was dealing with management of credit bills and filing documents of credit bills. Ex.P72 is the covering letter submitting Ex.P70 to

Ex.P72.

79.Ex.P70 to Ex.P73 were marked subject to objection that they are hit by Section 162 of

Cr.P.C. The defence of the accused is that during the course of investigation the letters under

Ex.P70 to Ex.P73 were allegedly written and signed by PW32 and submitted to PW35 investigating

38 OF 60 CC.No. 6 OF 2018

officer as such the same cannot be used for any purpose except to contradict PW32 under Section 145 of Cr.P.C, Section 32 or Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act. Hence, for the sake of better appreciation, this Court intends to re-iterate Section 162 of Cr.P.C.

80.Section 162 of Cr.P.C: Statements to police not to be signed: Use of statements in evidence.

1.No statement made by any person to a police officer in the course of an investigation under this Chapter, shall, if reduced to writing, be signed by the person making it; nor shall any such statement or any record thereof, whether in a police diary or otherwise, or any part of such statement or record, be used for any purpose, save as hereinafter provided, at any inquiry or trial in respect of any offence under investigation at the time when such statement was made: Provided that when any witness is called for the prosecution in such inquiry or trial whose statement has been reduced into writing as aforesaid, any part of his statement, if duly proved, may be used by the accused, and with the permission of the Court, by the prosecution, to contradict such witness in the manner provided by section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872 ); and when any part of such statement is so used, any part thereof may also be used in the re- examination of such witness, but for the purpose only of explaining any matter referred to in his cross- examination.

(2) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to apply to any statement falling within the provisions of clause (1) of section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872 ), or to affect the provisions of section 27 of that Act. Explanation.- An omission to state a fact or circumstance in the statement referred to in sub- section (1) may amount to contradiction if the same appears to be significant and otherwise relevant having regard to the context in which such omission occurs and whether any omission amounts to a contradiction in the particular context shall be a question of fact.

81.In Kali Ram Vs State of Himachal Pradesh reported in AIR 1973 SC 2773, the Hon’ble

Apex Court held that the letter addressed by Sahi Ram to the Station House Officer in the nature of narration of what, according to Sahiram, he had been told by the accused, is in admissible in evidence as it is hit by Section 162 of Cr.P.C. In the present case also as stated supra, Ex.P70 to

Ex.P73 are the letters allegedly written by PW32 to Investigating Officer during the course of investigation wherein PW32 furnished the information in respect of roles and responsibilities of

Accused No.1 to Accused No.3. Ex.P70 to Ex.P73 were signed by PW32. Therefore, under prohibition for use of the documents under Ex.P70 to Ex.P73 as mentioned in Section 162 of Cr.P.C also applicable to the present case. In the present case, Ex.P48 is the covering letter alleged to be

39 OF 60 CC.No. 6 OF 2018

addressed by PW13 to PW34 investigating Officer informing that the Invoice No. 147 dated:

20/04/2005 was raised in the name of Nizams Institute of Medical Sciences, Hyderabad. Ex.P48 was also marked subjection to objection that it is hit by Section 162 of Cr.P.C. Relying on the above case Law and for the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the opinion that the objection raised by learned counsel for accused in respect of marking of Ex.P48, Ex.P70 to Ex.P73 sustained and thereby those documents are de-Exhibited and are taken out of the record and hence the same do not come to rescue the case of the prosecution.

82.One of the defences of the accused is that all the alleged invoices were issued in the name of

M/s. Care Drug Stores but not in the name of M/s. Care Hospitals and that there is no evidence on record to show that M/s. Care Drug Stores and M/s. Care Hospitals are one and the same and also there is no evidence on record to show that Accused No.1 to Accused No.3 worked in M/s. Care

Drug Stores. I do agree that on perusal of the Questioned Documents vide Invoice No.486 dated:

2/12/04 under Ex.P22, invoice No. 956 dated: 15/3/2005 under Ex.P23, invoice No.147 dated:

20/4/2005 under Ex.P61, invoice No.446 dated: 15/7/2005 under Ex.P24 show that they were issued in the name of M/s. Care Drug Stores, Hyderabad but not M/s. Care Hospitals. The evidence of

PW35 investigating Officer also speaks that the invoice No.782 dated: 26/3/2005 under Ex.P2, invoice No.888 dated: 28/4/2005 under Ex.P5 and invoice No. 163 dated: 12/8/2005 under Ex.P7 are also in the name of M/s. Care Drug Stores, Hyderabad but not M/s. Care Hospitals. In such situation, it is for the prosecution to establish that M/s. Care Drugs, Hyderabad and M/s. Care

Hospitals, Hyderabad are one and the same or different. But, PW34 investigating officer deposed that he did not investigate whether M/s. Care Hospitals and M/s. Care Drug Stores are different companies and differently registered under companies Act with Registrar of Companies or not.

PW34 further admitted that no document submitted by him before the Court to show that Accused

No.1 to Accused No.3 were working in M/s. Care Drug Stores, Hyderabad.

83. The prosecution further relied upon the oral evidence of PW29 R. Thimothy, PW30

G.N.B.A. Venkateshwara Rao, PW31A.V. Shivanna, PW34 Y. Surya Prasad and PW35 K.

Venkateshwarlu and documentary evidence under Ex.P68, Ex.P69, Ex.P82 to Ex.P89, to prove that the alleged invoices were created by Accused No.1 to Accused No.3.

40 OF 60 CC.No. 6 OF 2018

84.The handwriting on Ex.P61 photocopy of invoice bill bearing No.147 in the name of M/s.

Aditi Life Sciences marked as Q1. The hand writing on Ex.P51 invoice bill bearing

No.AMD/HYD/INV/183 in the name of M/s. ARCOM marked as Q2. The hand writing on Ex.P23 photocopy of invoice bill bearing No.956 in the name of M/s. ACE Medical Bionics Private

Limited, marked as Q3. The hand writing on Ex.P22 photo copy of invoice bill bearing No.486 in the name of M/s. Hruday Biomedics, marked as Q4. The hand writing on photocopy of Ex.P24 invoice bearing No.446 in the name of M/s. ARCOM marked as Q5.

85.The specimen signatures of J. Shivarama Krishna dated: 24/10/2010 marked as Ex.P68. The admitted hand writings of J. Shiva Rama Krishna marked as A1 to A4. The Specimen hand writings of J. Shivaraman Krishna marked as S1 to S10. The specimen hand writings of Smt

A.Kamalasri dated: 11/11/2010 under S-11 to S-86 marked as Ex.P82. The Specimen hand writings of Smt A. Kamalasri dated: 26/11/2010 under S77 to S86 marked as Ex.P69 ( It is part and parcel of

Ex.P82).

86. The evidence of PW35 Investigating Officer speaks about obtaining of specimen handwriting of A1 Smt A. Kamalasree under Ex.P69 & Ex.P82 in the presence of attestors namely

PW29 R. Thimothy and PW30 G.N.B.A. Venkateshwara Rao and Specimen handwriting of A3 J.

Shiva Rama Krishna under Ex.P68 in the presence of attestor namely PW31 A.V. Shivanna.

Admittedly the specimen hand writings of Accused No.2 were not obtained by PW35. The evidence of PW29 to PW31 also speaks about obtaining of the Specimen hand writings of A1 Smt

Kamalasree and A3 J. Sivarama Krishna in their presence.

87.From out of the alleged false invoices, PW35 did not choose to send disputed the invoices viz., Invoice No.782 dated: 26/3/2005 at Page No.10 of Ex.P2, Invoice No.888 dated: 28/4/2005 at

Page No.13 of Ex.P5, the invoice No.163 dated: 12/8/2005 at Page No.8 of Ex.P7, to GEQD. No reason stated by PW35 for not sending such disputed false invoices to GEQD for comparison.

Admittedly, PW35 has sent the invoices relating to claim bills under Ex.P1, Ex.P3, Ex.P4 & Ex.P10 only to GEQD for comparison.

41 OF 60 CC.No. 6 OF 2018

88.The learned counsel for the accused further submitted that due to lapse of time there is every chance of occurrence of variations in one’s hand writings and hence the questioned documents and specimen hand writings cannot be compared due to paucity of time. I do agree that PW34 admitted that the questioned documents vide Q1, Q3 & Q5 are related to the year 2004 & 2005 whereas Q2 is related to 2008 and the alleged specimen hand writings were taken in the year 2010. PW34 further admitted that there is a possibility of variations to occur in one’s hand writing due to lapse of time.

89.The learned counsel for the accused further submitted that there is much delay in forwarding the specimen signatures and disputed signatures to Expert and in the absence of evidence that proper care has been taken in keeping such incriminating material intact, no authenticity is to be given to the report of Expert. On this aspect, he relied upon the Judgment1 of Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, wherein there is a delay of one month in forwarding the incriminating material to Scientific Officer. In the present case, the specimen signatures of Accused No.1 were allegedly obtained on 11/11/2010 and the specimen signatures of A3 J. Shivarama Krishna were obtained on 24/10/2010. The recitals of Ex.P87 show that PW35 forwarded such incriminating material to

GEQD on 21/12/2010. There is no explanation for sending such material with delay of more than one month so also there is no evidence that PW35 has taken proper precautions in keeping the same intact.

90.The evidence of PW34 Y. Surya Prasad, GEQD speaks that Questioned Documents under

Q1 to Q5, admitted documents under A1 to A4 and specimen documents under S1 to S86 were compared by him along with C. Rajesh, Asst. GEQD independently and arrived at a common opinion dated: 27/05/2011 under Ex.P88 stating that 1) The person who wrote blue enclosed writings stamped and marked as S1 to S10 & A1 to A4 also wrote red enclosed writing similarly stamped and marked as Q2 and 2) The person who wrote the blue enclosed writings stamped and marked as S11 to S86 also wrote the red enclosed writings stamped and marked as Q1, Q3, Q4 &

Q5. Therefore, oral evidence of PW34 coupled with Ex.P88 GEQD report show that the handwriting on Questioned document under Q2 is that of Accused No.3 and the hand writing on

Questioned documents under Q1, Q3, Q4 & Q5 is that of Accused No.1 1Mayank Bohra Vs State of A.P. reported in 2010 Crl.LJ 152

42 OF 60 CC.No. 6 OF 2018

91.In this case, the Questioned Documents under Q2 to Q4 are only photocopies and the same were marked as Ex.P22 to Ex.P24 subject to objection that the are only photocopies. In earlier paragraphs of this Judgment, the objection of the learned counsel for the accused regarding marking of photocopies sustained on the ground that the photocopies are inadmissible in evidence and thereby Ex.P22 to Ex.P24 are taken out of the record. In the absence of these documents no evidentiary value can be given to the oral evidence of PW34 and Ex.P88 GEQD Report except for

Q-2 under Ex.P51 in respect of Accused No.3.

92.The learned counsel for the accused submitted that expert opinion must always be received with great caution and perhaps none so with more caution than the opinion of a handwriting expert and that there is a profusion of precedential authority which holds that it is unsafe to base a conviction solely on expert opinion without substantial corroboration. On this aspect, he relied upon the Judgment2 of Hon’ble Apex Court. He also relied upon the Judgment3 of Hon’ble Apex Court wherein it is held that Evidence of Handwriting Expert is only opinion Evidence but not conclusive and hence cannot be relied upon unless corroborated with clear direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence. He further relied upon the Judgment4 of Hon’ble High Court of Judicature, A.P, at

Hyderabad wherein it is held that accused cannot be convicted basing on sole testimony of Expert unless the evidence of expert is corroborated with other evidence if any available on record. In the present case, as stated supra, initially, the prosecution failed to prove that the invoices as false documents except invoice No.782 dated: 26/3/2005, invoice No.765 dated: 26/3/2005, invoice

No.888 dated: 28/4/2005, invoice No.163 dated: 12/8/2005 and invoice No.183 dated: 15/7/2008 and from out of them only Questioned document under Q2 is invoice No.183 dated: 15/7/2008 under Ex.P51 was referred to PW34 Expert. However, none of the employees of M/s. Care Hospital deposed that Accused No.3 is the person who created Ex.P51. Therefore, there is nothing on record to corroborate with the evidence of PW34 GEQD so as to base conviction.

93.In respect of obtaining the specimen hand writings, the learned Public Prosecutor for CBI has relied upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in between State of Bombay Vs Kathi Kalu

Oghad and Others reported in 1961 AIR 1808, wherein the Hon’ble Court held that there is no infringement of Article 20(3) of Constitution by compelling an accused person to give his specimen 2Magan Bihari Lal Vs The State of Punjab reported in 1997 Crl.LJ 711 3S.P.S. Rathore Vs CBI and another reported in 2017 Crl.LJ 537 4Rathi @ Ramesh Rathi Vs State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2009(2) ALD (Crl.)327 (A.P)

43 OF 60 CC.No. 6 OF 2018

hand writings or signature, or impression of his fingers, palm or foot to the investigating officer or under orders of a court for the purpose of comparison under the provisions of Section 73 of the

Indian Evidence Act.

94.Per contra, the learned counsel for the Accused submitted that the hand writings allegedly obtained by police from the Accused No.1 & Accused No.3 are not admissible in evidence unless they are taken by the Court or in it’s presence. On this aspect, the learned counsel for the Accused relied upon the Judgment5 of Hon’ble High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad wherein it is held that whether accused objected or not, if the specimen signatures were not taken either in the presence of the Court of by the Court itself, the same would not be admissible.

95.The issue before the Hon’ble Apex Court in the Judgment relied by Public Prosecutor is whether obtaining the specimen hand writings of the accused will amounts to testimonial compulsion, but not regarding the procedure to obtain such specimen signatures for comparison.

Whereas Specific provision under Section 311-A of Cr.P.C for obtaining hand writings of the accused was introduced by way of Cr.P.C (Amendment) Act 25/2005 and it came into effect from 23/06/20006. Hence, the Investigating Officer has to follow the procedure laid down under Section 311-A of Cr.PC, for collecting specimen hand writings of the accused.

96.According to the counsel for Accused, as per section 311-A of Cr.P.C., the specimen signatures of the Accused No.1 to Accused No.3 ought to have taken with the permission of the

Court but in this case as admitted by PW35 investigating officer the alleged specimen signatures of

Accused No.1 & Accused No.3 were obtained without such permission and by violating Section 311-A of Cr.P.C.

97.In this case, the evidence of PW8 investigating Officer speaks that he allegedly obtained such signatures of Accused No.1 & Accused No.3 in November, 2010 i.e., after introduction of

Section 311-A of Cr.P.C.

5Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, Hyderabad Vs Boddula Mallesham reported in 1997(1)ALD(Crl.)752 (A.P.)

44 OF 60 CC.No. 6 OF 2018

98. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the Judgment in between Sapan Haldar & Another Vs

State in Crl.A. 804/2001 dated: 25/5/2012 disregarded the FSL report on the ground that

Investigating Officer has not taken the specimen hand writings/signatures of the Accused persons through Court order. In the present case also, as admitted by PW35 investigating Officer, the alleged specimen hand writings were obtained by him without permission of the Court. Hence, relying on the above Judgment, this Court of the opinion that Ex.P88 GEQD report is to be disregarded and hence, on this ground the oral evidence of PW34 and Ex.P88 GEQD report are to be brushed aside.

99.PW35 investigating Officer further admitted that the hand writing available in Cathlab register were not sent to GEQD for comparison of handwriting of the accused persons. He also admitted about non-examination of the employees of Care Hospitals who maintained Cathlab register to prove that the details of LOT number mentioned in Cathlab are in the hand writings of

Accused persons or not. PW35 further admitted about non-obtaining of specimen hand writings of any of the suppliers to prove whether the alleged invoices are in their hand writing or not.

100.Therefore, there is no evidence on record to show that the hand writings on the alleged false invoices are that of Accused No.1 to Accused No.3. In the absence of evidence of independent witnesses, evidence of Expert opinion and for the reasons stated supra, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Accused No.1 to Accused

No.3 are the persons who forged the alleged invoices for the purpose of claiming the amounts form

CGHS. Hence, Accused are entitled for acquittal for the charge punishable under section 465 of

IPC. Point No.12 accordingly answered against the prosecution and infaour of the Accused Persons.

Point No.13

Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the alleged false invoices were created by Accused No.1 to Acused No.3 for the purpose of cheating and thereby they are liable for charge punishable under section 468 of IPC ?

45 OF 60 CC.No. 6 OF 2018

101.One of the charges framed against the accused are for the offence punishable under section 468 of IPC. In order to prove the said charge, the prosecution has to establish that Accused No.1 to

Accused No.3 have created the alleged false invoices for the purpose of cheating. But, as stated supra, there is no evidence on record to show the invoices under Ex.P1 to Ex.P10 claim bills except the invoice No.782 dated: 26/3/2005, invoice No.765 dated: 26/3/2005, invoice No.888 dated; 28/4/2005 and invoice No.163 dated: 12/8/2005 are false invoices. In Point No.12 this Court held that the prosecution has failed to prove that the false invoices were created by Accused No.1 to

Accused No.3. There is no evidence on record to show that those invoices were created by Accuse

No.1 to Accused No.3 with an intention to use them for the purpose of cheating. Hence, accused are entitled for acquittal for such charge. Point No.13 accordingly answered against the prosecution and infavour of the Accused persons.

Point No.14:

Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the alleged false invoices were submitted by Accused No.1 to Accused No.3 to CGHS showing them as genuine and thereby they are liable for charge punishable under section 471 of IPC?

102.Before going to discuss the offences punishable under section 471 & 420 of IPC, it is appropriate to discuss, what is Wrongful gain, Wrongful loss, fraudulent or dishonest intention.

Section 23 of IPC defines “ Wrongful gain” & Wrongful loss

Wrongful gain :- Wrongful gain is gain by unlawful means of property to which the person gaining is not legally entitled.

Wrongful loss :- Wrongful loss is the loss by unlawful means of property to which the person losing it is legally entitled.

Gaining Wrongfully: Loosing Wrongfully:- A person is said to be gain wrongfully when such person retains wrongfully, as well as when such person acquires wrongfully. A person is said to be lose wrongfully when such person is wrongfully kept out of any property, as well as when such person is wrongfully deprived of property.

Section 24 of IPC defines Dishonestly:- Whoever does anything with an intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another person, is aid to do that thing “ dishonestly”

Section 25 of IPC defines Fraudulently: A Person is said to do a thing fraudulently if he does that thing with intent to defraud but not otherwise.

46 OF 60 CC.No. 6 OF 2018

103.With the above background, this Court inclined to determine the point No. 14 in respect of charge framed against Accused No.1 to Accused No.3 for the offence punishable under section 471 of IPC. In order to prove the charge under Section 471 of IPC, the prosecution has to establish that the invoices enclosed with Claim forms under Ex.P1 to Ex.P10 are false documents and Accused

No.1 to Accused No.3 having knowledge or reason to believe that those invoices are false and forged one, dishonestly or fraudulently used them as genuine documents.

104.In Point No.12 of this Judgment, this Court held that the prosecution has failed to prove that the false invoices were created by Accused No.1 to Accused No.3. In the said circumstances, it is for the prosecution to establish that Accused No.1 to Accused No.3 had knowledge that those invoices are false documents despite with dishonest or fraudulent intention Accused No.1 to

Accused No.3 submitted those documents to CGHS as genuine one.

105.The learned counsel for the accused submitted that there is no evidence on record to show that Accused No.1 to Accused No.3 submitted Ex.P1 to Ex.P10 claims to CGHS so also there is no evidence on record to show that such claim bills were received by CGHS. In this regard, the evidence of PW1 speaks that there will be inward section in his office which will receive the claim bills. Therefore, the evidence of Inward Clerk of CGHS will prove that the claims bills under

Ex.P1 to Ex.P10 were submitted by Accused No.1 to Accused No.3 or any other person. But,

Admittedly PW35 investigating Officer has not examined inward clerk of CGHS who received the claim bills. On the other hand, the evidence of PW1 speaks that the office of CGHS will give inward number to each claim. In this case, as admitted by PW1 that there is no inward number of

CGHS on any of claims under Ex.P1 to Ex.P10 to show that they were received by CGHS. It is not the evidence of PW14 to PW20, PW28 & PW32 who are employees of M/s. Care Hospital that

Accused No.1 to Accused No.3 have submitted claim bills to CGHS. It is also not the evidence of

PW1 to PW5 who are screening committee members that the claims bills under Ex.P1 to Ex.P10 were received by them from Accused No.1 to Accused No.3. There is also no evidence on record to show that the claim bills under Ex.P1 to Ex.P10 were handled by Accused No.1 to Accused No.3. In the absence of such evidence, It cannot be said that Accused No.1 to Accused No.3 had knowledge or reason to believe that the alleged false invoices enclosed with claim bills under Ex.P1 to Ex.P10

47 OF 60 CC.No. 6 OF 2018

are false documents and with such knowledge dishonestly or fraudulently submitted them as genuine. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of

Accused No.1 to Accused No.3 beyond reasonable doubt for the charge punishable under section 471 of IPC. Point No.14 is accordingly answered against the prosecution and infavour of the

Accused No.1 to Accused No.3

Point No.15:

Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that Accused No.1 to Accused No.3 cheated Central Government and thereby liable for charge punishable under section 420 of IPC?

106.One of the charges framed against Accused No.1 to Accused No.3 is for offence under section 420 of IPC. In order to prove such charge, the prosecution has to establish that Accused

No.1 to Accused No.3 had dishonest intention from inception and with such intention they have created false documents, submitted them to CGHS as genuine resulted sanction of claim bills under

Ex.P1 to Ex.P10, caused wrongful loss to the Central Government and wrongful gain to them and thereby cheated.

107.In point No.12 to Point No.14, this Court held that the prosecution has failed to prove that

Accused No.1 to Accused No.3 have created false documents for the purpose of cheating and submitted them to CGHS as genuine. PW1 to PW5 are the doctors of CGHS and screening committee members. They have scrutinized all the claim bills and sanctioned the admissible amounts. It is not the case of the prosecution that the screening committee of CGHS returned the bills noticing the deficiency of documents. The admission of PW2 about availability of outer pouches to Ex.P1, Ex.P3, Ex.P5, Ex.P6 & Ex.P18 and verification of cathlab registers personally by

Dr. BPV Kumar /Additional Director, satisfaction of Additional Director about the claims and endorsement to that effect resulted processing of the bills and the evidence of PW5 that the bills have to be returned within 60 days if not in order show that after satisfying the claim bills the

CGHS has sanctioned the amounts covered under such bills. PW34 also admitted that all the claims under Ex.P1 to Ex.P10 were processed by CGHS officials without any remarks in respect of alleged false invoices and passed the claims.

48 OF 60 CC.No. 6 OF 2018

108.On the other hand, as admitted by PW34 that M/s. Care Hospitals have given an indemnity bond under Ex.P19 to Ex.P21 to make good any financial loss on the account of any excess payment, etc. In this case, admittedly, there is no evidence on record to show that basing on such agreements the amounts were claimed by CGHS from M/s. Care Hospitals. More over there is no evidence on record to show the mode of payment of the amounts covered under the alleged invoices. PW1 also admitted that the proceedings under Ex.P11 & Ex.P12 for payment does not disclose about the payments made to M/s. Care Hospital. In this case the alleged payment is made in the name of M/s. Care Hospital but not in the names of Accused No.1 to Accused No.3. PW35 also admitted that Accused No.1 to Accused No.3 are not the beneficiaries of the alleged claims.

There is nothing on record to show that Accused No.1 to Accused No.3 caused wrongful loss to the

Central Government and wrongful gain to themselves and thereby cheated so also there is no evidence on record to show that Accused persons attempted to cheat CGHS. In the above circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the necessary ingredients of the charge punishable under section 420 of IPC against the Accused No.1 to Accused

No.3. The point is accordingly answered against the prosecution and infavour of the accused persons.

Point No.16:

Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that Accused No.1 to Accused No.3 entered into conspiracy to commit offences punishable under section 420, 465, 468 , 471 of IPC and thereby they are liable for charge punishable under section 120-B of IPC?

109. In respect of charge of Conspiracy against Accused persons under section 120-B of IPC, the main allegations of the prosecution are that Accused No.1 to Accused No.3 conspired one with another to create false invoices, to submit them to CGHS as genuine one, to cause wrongful loss to the Central Government and wrongful gain to them i.e., to commit the offences punishable under section 420, 465, 468, 471 of IPC and in furtherance of such conspiracy created false invoices for the purpose of cheating, submitted them to CGHS as genuine documents, caused wrongful loss to the Central Government to an extent of Rs. 1,40,595/ and also made an attempt to draw an amount of Rs.81,946/- cheated the Central Government and thereby committed the offence punishable under section 120-B of IPC.

49 OF 60 CC.No. 6 OF 2018

110.The learned Public Prosecutor for CBI submitted that conspiracy always hatched in secrecy and it is impossible to adduce direct evidence of the same and this offence can be proved only from inference drawn from acts of illegal omission committed by the conspirators in pursuance of a common design. On this aspect relied upon the Judgment6 of Hon’ble Apex Court.

111. The condition precedent, for holding accused persons guilty of a charge of criminal conspiracy must, therefore, be considered on the anvil of a fact which must be established by the prosecution, viz., meeting point of two or more persons for doing or causing to be done an illegal act or an act by illegal means. However, while drawing an inference from the materials brought on record to arrive at a finding as to whether the charges of the criminal conspiracy have been proved or not, must always bear in mind that a conspiracy is hatched in secrecy and it is, thus, difficult, if not impossible, to obtain direct evidence to establish the same. The manner and circumstances in which the offences have been committed and the level of involvement of the accused persons therein are relevant factors.

112. Therefore, meeting of minds of two or more persons for doing an illegal act or an act by illegal means is sine qua non of the criminal conspiracy but it may not be possible to prove the agreement between them by direct proof.

113.In the present case, nothing brought on record showing involvement of Accused No.2.

There is no evidence on record to show that Accused No.1 to Accused No.3 conspired to commit the offences punishable under section 420, 465,468 & 471 of IPC and in furtherance of such conspiracy, committed the above offences. It is no the case of the prosecution that Accused No.1 to Accused

No.3 conspired with M/s. Care Hospitals and in furtherance of such conspiracy committed the alleged offences referred above. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge punishable under section 120-B of IPC against Accused No.1 to Accused

No.3. Point No.16 is accordingly answered against he prosecution and infavour of the accused.

6Ajay Agarwal Vs Union of India reported in 1993(3) SCC 609

50 OF 60 CC.No. 6 OF 2018

Point No.17:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of A1 to A3 beyond reasonable doubt for the charges punishable under section 120-B, 420, 465, 468, 471 of IPC?

114.The learned counsel for the Accused submitted his written arguments stating that the filing of charge sheet for the trial of alleged multiple transactions of submission of claims at different times spread over from 2004 to 2009 is legally impermissible and even the charges in the case are in contravention of mandate of Law under Chapter XVII of Criminal Procedure Code and the same is caused serious prejudice to the defence of the accused. But, in this case, the attention of Accused

No.1 to Accused No.3 has been drawn to the contents of the charges and Accused persons have participated in the trial. No defence with regard to irregularities has been taken during trial and it appears there is no prejudice caused to the accused persons in preparing their respective defence.

Hence, the contention of the learned Accused on this aspect is negated.

115.In the charge sheet nothing alleged against the Accused No.1 to Accused No.3 in respect of patient by name Smt Salma Begum and the charges are also not framed against Accused No.1 to

Accused No.3 in respect of the above patient and hence any amount of evidence adduced in respect of Smt Salma Begum is of no useful.

116.One of the defences of the accused persons is that the prosecution has failed to show how it has secured the alleged false invoices. I do agree that the evidence of PW1 to PW5 show that

Additional Director of CGHS is the Custodian of alleged false invoices under Ex.P1 to Ex.P10. But,

the prosecution neither cited the Additional Director of CGHS as witness nor examined him before the Court to show that the above invoices were given to CBI from his custody. None of the staff working in the office of Additional Director is shown as witness or examined before the Court showing collection of Ex.P1 to Ex.P10 either from M/s. Care Drugs or M/s. Care Hospital,

Hyderabad. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove that alleged invoices under Ex.P1 to Ex.P10 were produced from the proper custody.

51 OF 60 CC.No. 6 OF 2018

117.The learned counsel for the accused further relied upon the Judgment7 of Hon’ble Apex

Court wherein it is held that where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other person. He further relied upon the Judgment8 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the burden of proof in criminal Law is beyond all reasonable doubt and the prosecution has to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt and it is also the Rule of Justice in Criminal Law that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and another towards his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted.

118.In the present case, Point No.12 to Point No.16 are proved against the prosecution and infavour of the Accused No.1 to Accused No.3. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of Accused No.1 to Accused No.3 beyond reasonable doubt for the charges punishable under section 120-B, 420, 465, 468, 471 of IPC. Point No.17 accordingly answered against the prosecution.

Point No.18:

To What Relief?

119.In the result, Accused No.1 to Accused No.3 are found not guilty for the charges punishable under sections 120-B, 420, 465, 468, 471 of IPC and they are acquitted under sections 248(1) of

Cr.P.C. for the said charges. The bail bonds of Accused No.1 to Accused No.3 shall stand canceled after expiry of six months from the date of this Judgment.

Typed to my dictation by Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 7th day of November, 2022.

XXI-Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, -cum – Special JMFC for Trial of CBI Cases, Hyderabad.

7Mula Devi and another Vs State of Uttarakhand reported in 2009(1) ALD(Crl.)100 (SC) 8State of Gujarath Vs Jayrajbhai Punjabhai Varu reported in AIR 2016 SC 3218

52 OF 60 CC.No. 6 OF 2018

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

FOR PROSECUTION:

PW1:Dr. G. Vijay Ratna Kumar

PW2:Dr. Uday Chandra

PW3:Dr. Vijay Bhasker

PW4:Dr. Suchitra Tandan

PW5:Dr. Anitha Subba Rao

PW6:M. Srinivas Reddy

PW7:Sanjeev Kumar Gupta

PW8:N. Satya Subramanyam

PW9:Chinna Swamy Manohar

PW10:Arcot Sridhar Rajnish

PW11:L. Padma Reddy

PW12:Ragash

PW13:K. Rama Chandra Reddy

PW14:M. Ramesh Babu

PW15:Ambati Subrahmanyam

PW16:M. Raja Shekhar Reddy

PW17:Karnati Kishore

PW18:Syed Imtiaz Ali

PW19:Bomma Hari

PW20:Mohd. Mujeeb

PW21:A. Sanjeeva Prasanna Rao

PW22:Smt Salma Begum

PW23:Arjun Prasad

53 OF 60 CC.No. 6 OF 2018

PW24:P. Gajendra Rao

PW25:Dr. M. Srinivasa Rao

PW26:Dr. Sunil Kumar Kapoor

PW27:Dr. G. Surya Prakash

PW28:V. Maruthi Govardhana Satya Varaprasad

PW29:R. Thimothy

PW30:G.N.B.A. Venkateshwara Rao

PW31:A.V. Shivanna

PW32:N. Anjaneyulu

PW33:T. Yashwanth Rao

PW34:Y. Surya Prasad

PW35:K. Venkateshwarlu

PW36:A.V. Ramana Rao

FOR DEFENCE:

- NONE -

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1:Entire File relating to Patient by name P. Gajender Rao

Ex.P2:Entire File relating to Patient by name P.V.N.Reddy

Ex.P3:Entire File relating to Patient by name Smt. Godavari Bai

Ex.P4:Entire File relating to Patient by name Smt Salma Begum

Ex.P5:Entire File relating to Patient by name Sri M.Narasimha Rao

54 OF 60 CC.No. 6 OF 2018

Ex.P6:Entire File relating to Patient by name Miss Radhamma Ex.P7:Entire File relating to Patient by name R.S. Visweswara Rao

Ex.P8:Entire File relating to Patient by name Krishna Murthy

Ex.P9:Entire File relating to Patient by name V. Narasimha Rao

Ex.P10:Entire File relating to Patient by name M. Laxmi

Ex.P11:File relating to Claim Bill No.2405/CGHS/HYD/09 dated: 10/3/2009 along with Sanction Order dated: 16/03/2009 signed by Addl.Director, CGHS through which claim bills of patients namely Gajendra Rao, Narasimha Rao, TVN Reddy & Others were forwarded to PAO, Chennai after screening and clearing, vide letter No. CGHS/Hyd/Accts/Bills/2008 dated: 17/3/2009

Ex.P12:File relating to Claim Bill No.2512/CGHS/HYD/09 dated: 16/3/2009 along with Sanction Order dated: 16/03/2009 signed by Addl.Director, CGHS through which claim bills of patients namely Smt Salma Begum, Smt Godavari Bai, Smt Radhamma, Sri R.S. Vishweswara Rao, Sri Krishna Murthy, Sri M. Narasimha Rao, Smt Laxmi and 13 others forwarded to PAO, Chennai after screening and clearing, vide letter No. CGHS/Hyd/Accts/Bills/2008 dated: 17/3/2009

Ex.P13:Original Invoice No.161 dated: 11/06/2005 of M/s. Aditi Life Sciences, for sale of M.Link Vision stent for Rs.55,350/- bearing name of patient Smt Salma Begum with IP.No.29535, Delivery Challan, material receipts, format for provision of details of GRD along with check list for passing payments ( 7 sheets)

Ex.P14:Office Memorandum dated: 12/09/2007

Ex.P15:Office Memorandum dated: 01/08/2005

Ex.P16:The Guidelines on clinical Limitation issued by the Government of India dated: 10/03/2003

Ex.P17:Circular in respect of Taxes rates issued by Director of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare dated: 08/03/2004

Ex.P18:Office Memorandum to rates of the stunt dated: 12/06/1996

Ex.P19:Memorandum of Agreement with Care Hospital dated: 30/10/2002

Ex.P20:Memorandum of Agreement with Care Hospital Nampally Unit dated:

55 OF 60 CC.No. 6 OF 2018

08/04/2008

Ex.P21:Memorandum of Agreement with Care Hospital Banjarahills dated: 08/042008

Ex.P22:Photocopy of invoice bearing No.486 dated: 02/12/2004 purported to have been issued by M/s. Hruday Bio-Medics, Hyderabad for Rs.6,50,000/- for five stents @ Rs.1,30,000/- each, which submitted by Care Hospital authorities along with Ex.P1 Claim

Ex.P23:Photocopy of invoice bearing No.956 dated: 15/03/2005 purported to have been issued by M/s. ACE Medical Biomics Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad for Rs.54,486/- for four infusion injections @ 10,459/- each and four bolus injections @ Rs.3162.5 for each, which is submitted by CARE Hospital authorities along with Ex.P3 claim

Ex.P24:Photocopy of invoice bearing No.446 dated: 15/04/2005 purported to have been issued by M/s. ARCOM Medical Devices Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad for Rs.20,000/- for two guiding catheters @ Rs.5000/- each and two guide wires @ Rs.500/- each, which is submitted by CARE Hospital authorities along with Ex.P3 claim

Ex.P25:Carbon Copy of Invoice No.486 dated: 10/08/2004 issued infavour of Apollo Hospitals, Vishakapatnam handed over by PW6 M. Srinivas Reddy to CBI Police Ex.P26:Invoice No.1033/HB/04-05 dated: 16/12/2004 issued in favour of M/s. CARE Hospitals, Hyderabad along with delivery challan for supply of one cypher stent for the use of patient by name Mr. Gajender Rao

Ex.P27:Letter dated: 07/05/2010 addressed by PW8 N. Satya Subramanyam to CBI Police

Ex.P28:Office Copy of Invoice No. 163 dated: 31/08/2005 issued in favour of M/s. CARE Drugs Course for sale of COBAL + C mini coronary stent.

Ex.P29:Second Copy of Invoice bearing No. AMD/HYD/CINV/183 dated: 15/07/2008

Ex.P30:Office Copy of Consignment Stock Receipt No.387 dated: 31/05/2008

Ex.P31:Second Copy of Invoice No.AMD/IND/INV/446 dated:11/11/2005

Ex.P32:Office Copy of Delivery Challan bearing No.AMD/IND/DC/446 dated: 11/11/2005

Ex.P33:Carbon Copy of Invoice No.288 dated: 29/11/2006 issued by M/s. Matrix

56 OF 60 CC.No. 6 OF 2018

Therepeutics Pvt. Ltd infavour of M/s. CARE Hospital, Hyderabad

Ex.P34:Carbon Copy of Delivery Challan dated: 29/11/2006 issued by M/s. Matrix Therepeutics Pvt. Ltd infavour of M/s. CARE Hospital, Hyderabad

Ex.P35:Relevant Portion of Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW11

Ex.P36:Relevant Portion of Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW11

Ex.P37:Relevant Portion of Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW11

Ex.P38:Copy of Invoice Bearing No. IVT/HYD2/144 dated: 07/07/2005 with Delivery Challan issued to M/s. Interventional Technologies Pvt. Ltd., in favour of M/s. Care Hospitals, Nampally, Hyderabad in respect of patient by name Radhamma ( 2 sheets)

Ex.P39:Copy of Invoice bearing No. IVT/HYD 2/748 dated: 30/12/2005 with Delivery Challan issued by M/s. Interventional Technologies Pvt. Ltd., in favour of M/s. Care Hospitals, Nampally, Hyderabad in respect of patient by name Krishna Murthy ( 2 sheets)

Ex.P40:Copy of Invoice bearing No. IVT/HYD 2/101 dated: 30/06/2005 with Delivery Challan issued by M/s. Interventional Technologies Pvt. Ltd., in favour of M/s. Care Hospitals, Nampally, Hyderabad in respect of patient by name Narasimha Rao( 2 sheets)

Ex.P41:Copy of Invoice bearing No. IVT/HYD/86 dated: 06/06/2005 with Delivery Challan issued by M/s. Interventional Technologies Pvt. Ltd., in favour of M/s. Care Hospitals, Nampally, Hyderabad in respect of patient by name Narasimha Rao ( 2 sheets)

Ex.P42:Copy of Invoice bearing No. IVT/HYD/30 dated: 30/04/2005 with Delivery Challan issued by M/s. Interventional Technologies Pvt. Ltd., in favour of M/s. Care Hospitals, Nampally, Hyderabad in respect of patient by name Godavari Bai( 2 sheets) Ex.P43:Copy of Invoice bearing No. IVT/HYD/20 dated: 25/04/2005 issued by M/s. Interventional Technologies Pvt. Ltd., in favour of M/s. Medwin Hospitals, Hyderabad in respect of patient by name Inayath Khan

Ex.P44:Copy of Invoice bearing No. IVT/HYD2/141 dated: 06/07/2005 issued by M/s. Interventional Technologies Pvt. Ltd., in favour of M/s. Durgabai Deshmukh Hospital, Hyderabad Ex.P45:Copy of Invoice bearing No. IVT/HYD2/210 dated: 25/07/2005 issued by M/s. Interventional Technologies Pvt. Ltd., in favour of M/s. Apollo Hospital, Hyderabad in respect of patient by name Krishna

57 OF 60 CC.No. 6 OF 2018

Ex.P46:Copy of Invoice bearing No. IVT/HYD/35 dated: 04/05/2005 issued by M/s. Interventional Technologies Pvt. Ltd., in favour of M/s. Global Hospital, Hyderabad

Ex.P47:Copy of Invoice bearing No. IVT/HYD/36 dated: 4/05/2005 issued by M/s. Interventional Technologies Pvt. Ltd., in favour of M/s. Yashoda Hospital, Hyderabad.

Ex.P48:Letter dated: 27/07/2010 addressed by PW13 K. Rama Chandra Reddy to CBI

Ex.P49:Invoice No.161 dated: 11/06/2005 of M/s. Aditi Life Sciences issued in the name of M/s. CARE Hospitals, Nampally for patient by name Salma Begum with IP No.29538

Ex.P50:Delivery Challan with DC.No.ADC-050 Dated; 05/04/2005 issued to M/s. CARE Hospitals, Nampally relating to Ex.P49

Ex.P51:Invoice No.AMD/HYD/CINV/183 dated: 15/07/2008 issued by Arcom Medical Devices Pvt.Ltd for sale of AXXION Drug Elut Stent for Rs.91,000/-

Ex.P52:Invoice No.183 dated: 15/07/2008 issued by ARCOM for patient M. Laxmi

Ex.P53:Voucher No.U-85 dated: 27/04/2007 for Rs.5,26,240/- ( which includes amount of invoice No.288)

Ex.P54:Relevant Portion of Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW20

Ex.P55:Copy of Invoice No.RS00372 dated: 13/08/2005 for sale of Aortic Memotherm Stent 14 x 40 mm size having batch No.96 FO 1850 for Rs.43,538/- in the name of Care Hospital, Nampally with Delivery Challan No.46 dated: 09/08/2005 Ex.P56:Carbon Copy of the Invoice No.RS00372 dated: 13/08/2005 for sale of Aortic Memotherm stent 14 x40 size having batch No.96 FO 1850 for Rs.43,538/- in the name of Care Hospital, Nampally with Delivery Challan No.46 dated: 09/08/2005 Ex.P57:Delivery Challan No.046 dated: 09/08/2005

Ex.P58:Page No.156 & 157 of the Cathlab register for the Period from 30/03/2005 to 30/09/2005 containing the details of medicines and materials used for the patient by name Godavari Bai

Ex.P59:Page No.338 & 339 of the Cathlab register for the Period from 30/03/2005 to

58 OF 60 CC.No. 6 OF 2018

30/09/2005 containing the details of medicines and materials used for the patient by name M. Narasimha Rao ( IPNo.30187) Ex.P60:Page No.392 & 393 of the Cathlab register for the Period from 30/03/2005 to 30/09/2005 containing the details of medicines and materials used for the patient by name M. Narasimha Rao (IP.No.30187)

Ex.P61:Invoice No. 147 dt. 20/04/2005 of Aditi Life Sciences

Ex.P62:Invoice No. IVT/HYD/30 dt. 30-04-2005 of M/s Interventional Technologies Pvt., Ltd., Hyderabad along with enclosures in 9 sheets pertaining to the patient by name Godawari Bai for purchase of stent for an amount of Rs.31,320/-.

Ex.P63:Invoice No. IVT/HYD2/144 dt.07-07-2005 of M/sInterventional Technologies Pvt., Ltd., Hyderabad along with enclosures in 9 sheets pertaining to the patient by name Radhamma for purchase of stent for an amount of Rs.29,250/-.

Ex.P64:Invoice No. IVT/HYD2/101 dt.13-06-2005 of M/sInterventional Technologies Pvt., Ltd., Hyderabad along with enclosures in 9 sheets pertaining to the patient by name Narsimha Rao for purchase of stent for an amount of Rs.72,916.88.

Ex.P65:Invoice No. IVT/HYD/86 dt.06-06-2005 of M/sInterventional Technologies Pvt., Ltd., Hyderabad along with enclosures in 6 sheets pertaining to the patient by name Narsimha Rao for purchase of stent for an amount of Rs.31,220.00

Ex.P66:Invoice No. IVT/HYD2/748 dt.30-12-2005 of M/s. Interventional Technologies Pvt., Ltd., Hyderabad along with enclosures in 8 sheets pertaining to the patient by name Krishna Murthy for purchase of stent for an amount of Rs.29,250.00.

Ex.P67:Invoice No. 288 dt.29-11-2006 of M/s Matrix Therapeutics Pvt., Ltd., Secunderabad along with enclosures in 8 sheets pertaining to the patient by name V. Narasimha Rao for purchase of stent for an amount of Rs.37,440.00.

Ex.P68:Specimen handwritings of J. Shiva Ramakrishna dt 24/11/2010 in 10 sheets obtained by K. Venkateshwarlu, Inspector of Police, CBI ACB, Hyderabad in the office of CBI,Hyderabad containing my signatures and signatures of Venkateshwar Rao as witnesses.

Ex.P69:Specimen handwritings of Smt A. Kamalasri dt 26/11/2010 in 10 sheets obtained by K. Venkateshwarlu, Inspector of Police, CBI ACB, Hyderabad in the office of CBI,Hyderabad containing my signatures and signatures of Narasimha Murthy as witnesses. Ex.P70:Roles and Responsibilities of Smt A. Kamalasri.

Ex.P71:Roles and Responsibilities of R.V.Srinivasa Rao

59 OF 60 CC.No. 6 OF 2018

Ex.P72:Roles and Responsibilities of Shiva Rama Krishna. Ex.P73:Covering letter dt 22/11/2010 of M/s CARE Hospitals along with statement of receipt details from CGHS.

Ex.P74:Certified copy of true extract of the resolutions passed at the meeting of the members held on 14.12.2007 at 4-00 P.M at 6-3-248/2, auditorium, CARE Hospital, Road No.1, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad

Ex.P75: Certified copy of certificate of change of name of the company from A.K. Diagnostic Ltd., to Quality Care India Ltd., in the year 1999. Ex.P76:Certified copy of Memorandum of Association of A.K. Diagnostics Ltd.

Ex.P77:Certified copy of Articles of Association of A.K. Diagnostics Ltd.

Ex.P78:Certified copy of Form No.1.

Ex.P79:Certified copy of Form No.18.

Ex.P80:Certified copy of Form 20-B consists of balance sheet, Annual Returns, details of Directors of A.K. Diagnostics Ltd., and list of share holders.

Ex.P81:Certified copy of Form 25-C showing Managing Director’s remuneration details. Ex.P82:Specimen hand writings of Smt A. Kamalasri under S-11 to S-86.

Ex.P83:Admitted handwritings of J. Shivarama Krishna at Page No. 198 of CARE, Nampally Transmission Register marked as A-1.

Ex.P84:Admitted handwritings of J. Shivarama Krishna at Page No. 202 of CARE, Nampally Transmission Register marked as A-2.

Ex.P85:Admitted hand writings of J. Shivarama Krishna at Page No. 214 of CARE, Nampally Transmission Register marked as A-3. Ex.P86:Admitted hand writings of J. Shivarama Krishna at Page No. 228 of CARE, Nampally Transmission Register marked as A-4.

Ex.P87:Office copy of covering letter of SP, CBI, SPE, Hyderabad vide No. 04(A)/2010/CBI/4091 dt. 21/12/2010.

Ex.P88:GEQD Opinion given by PW34 and C. Rajesh ( 4 sheets).

Ex.P89:Covering letter No. 13/EE/CFSL(H)/CH-280/2010/1323 Dt. 27/05/2011 of

60 OF 60 CC.No. 6 OF 2018

GEQD, Hyderabad signed by Sri Mohinder Singh, the then GEQD, Hyderabad addressed to CBI,ACB, Hyderabad. Ex.P90:FIR with First information.

Ex.P91:Vendor Copy of Invoice No. 1033/HB/0405, dated 16/12/2004, corresponding delivery challan No. 1300/HB/0405, dated 16/12/2004 for sale of CORDIS, CYPHER for Rs. 1,20,000/- to M/s. CARE Drug Stores, Hyderabad.

Ex.P92:Page No.356 of original CATH lab Register of M/s. CARE containing the details of the patient V. Narasimha Rao with IP. No. 44232 bearing the sticker of MIDIVA Stent and X TRM fit stent.

Ex.P93:Page No.400 of Original CATH lab Register of M/s. CARE containing the details of the patient Krishna Murthy with IP. No. 34974 bearing the sticker of LECTION Motion Stent .

Ex.P94:Page No.712 of Original CATH lab Register of M/s. CARE containing the details of the patient M. Laxmi with IP. No. 61153 bearing the sticker of AXXION Stent Ex.P95:Page No.632 of Original CATH lab Register of M/s. CARE containing the details of the patient TVN Reddy bearing the sticker of POWER LINE

BALLOON

Ex.P96:Covering letter dated 13/12/2010 addressed by N. Anjaneyulu Company Secretary. Ex.P97: Letter dated 03/12/2010 addressed by Addl. Director, CGHS, Hyderabad.

Ex.P98:Page No.386 of Original CATH lab Register of M/s. CARE containing the details of the patient by name Mr. Gajender Rao with IP. No.26408 bearing the sticker of CYPHER Stent.

FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.D1:Relevant Portion of Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW5 Ex.D2:Relevant Portion of Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW5

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- NIL -

XXI-Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, -cum – Special JMFC for Trial of CBI Cases, Hyderabad.

IN THE COURT OF THE XXI-ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

– CUM – SPECIAL JMFC FOR TRIAL OF CBI CASES :: AT HYDERABAD.

Present: G. Praveen Kumar., XXI-Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate -cum -Special JMFC for Trial of CBI Cases, Hyderabad.

Wednesday, this the 7th day of September, 2022

CC.No. 34 OF 2018

Between:

The State through Inspector of Police, CBI, ACB, Hyderabad.

...Complainant.

And

A1. M/s. Nihar Orthopedic & Multi Specialty Hospital, represented by Dr. V. Prasad, 8-3-214/2, Murthy Mansion, Srinivasa Nagar West, Ameerpet, Hyderabad.

A2.Dr. V. Prasad S/o. Abbaiah, 52 years, Occu: Managing Director, M/s. Nihar Orthopedic & Multi Speciality Hospital, Hyderabad, R/O: 110, Srinilaya Estate, Nagarjuna Nagar, Near Charmas, Ameerpet, Hyderabad.

...Accused.

This case came before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri D. Gopinath., Learned Public Prosecutor for the CBI and of Sri V. Surender Rao, Learned Counsel for Accused No.1 & Accused No.2 and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following

JUDGMENT

1. Mediclaim is a form of insurance wherein the insurance providers reimburse the policyholder for any medical expenses that he/she might have incurred in the policy period.

The insured can either submit the relevant bills to get reimbursed or avail completely cashless facilities at the insurer's network hospitals.

2 OF 30 CC.No.34 OF 2018

2.United India Insurance Company Limited offered insurance under mediclaim to the customers. The settlement of claims under mediclaim portfolio has been outsourced by it through Third Party Administrators (TPA) licensed by Insurance Regulatory and

Development Authority of India (IRDAI). It receives the statement of claims settled by the

TPAs regularly on the basis of which the float amount is released.

3.As a practice, United India Insurance Company Limited scrutinize the statements and retain few files on a random basis for verifying whether the claims procedure followed by the TPAs as per their guidelines or not.

4.During scrutiny, on various dates, United India Insurance Company Limited had come across several suspicious entries in the statements settled by TPA i.e., instances where there have been diseases that had been repeated or where treatment was taken in a particular hospital on a regular basis. Hence, United India Insurance Company Limited has appointed investigators to look into the matter. The investigators have submitted their reports against

1) Vijaya Hospitals, Nellore in respect of 26 claims involving Rs.4,84,049/- 2) Nihar hospitals, Hyderabad in respect of 19 claims involving Rs.9,26,094/-, 3) Sai Durga Hospital,

Hyderabad in respect of 26 claims involving Rs.2,57,814/- , 4) Bollineni Super Specialty

Hospital, Nellore in respect of 11 claims involving Rs.1,44,000/- and 5) Raghavendra

Hospital, Visakhapatnam in respect of 40 claims involving Rs.3,19,758/-.

5.Hence, LW1 Dr. Harikrishnan, Regional Manager, United India Insurance Company

Limited, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad lodged report before CBI, ACB, Hyderabad. Basing on the report, on 12/07/2007, a case in RC.No.16(A)/2007- CBI/Hyderabad registered against

1) M/s. Vijaya Hospital, Nellore, 2) M/s. Nihar Hospitals, Hyderabad, 3) M/s. Sai Durga

3 OF 30 CC.No.34 OF 2018

Hospitals, Hyderabad, 4) M/s. Bollineni Super Specialty Hospital, Nellore, 5)

M/s.Raghavendra Hospitals, Vishakapatnam and against Unknown Public Servants for the offences punishable under sections 120-B, 420, 468, 471 of Indian Penal Code (IPC), and

Section 13(2) r/w 13(1) of Prevention of Corruption Act ( PC Act) and investigated into.

6.After completion of investigation, Inspector of Police, CBI, ACB, Hyderabad filed separate charge sheets against each hospital referred above including the present charge sheet against Accused No.1 and Accused No.2 herein for the offences punishable under sections 120-B, 420, 465, 468 & 471 of IPC.

7.Brief averments of Charge sheet are:

7.1.Accused No.2 is Managing Director of Accused No.1 hospital. On 6/1/2005 Accused

No.1 hospital and Family Health Plan Limited ( TPA) entered into agreement for providing health services and agreed upon certain terms and conditions along with tariff for settlement of mediclaims.

7.2.Smt Sarojini and Smt K. Padmavathi are mother-in-law and sister-in-law of Accused

No.2.

7.3.Mr. K. Srinivasa Rao has taken Hospitalization and Domiciliary Hospitalization

Benefit policy from United India Insurance Company Limited vide Policy No.

052100/48/03/20/0000515 in his name and in the name of his family members including his wife Smt K. Padmavathi, for the period from 29/10/2003 to 28/10/2004.

4 OF 30 CC.No.34 OF 2018

7.4. Accused No.1 hospital represented by Accused No.2 raised mediclaim to an extent of 69,058/- ( Sixty Nine Thousand and Fifty Eight Only-) from United India Insurance

Company Limited, Hyderabad by enclosing the discharge bill No.140, dated: 22/06/2004 stating that on 01/06/2004 Smt K. Padmavathi, aged 38 years was admitted in Accused No.1 hospital, diagnosed with fracture of both bones lower 1/3 of right leg and after medical clearance, inter-locking nailing right tibia was done under GA on 02/06/2004 under the treatment of Dr. V. Prasad(Accused No.2), MS ( Ortho) Orthopedic Surgeon, M/s. Nihar

Orthopedic and Multi Specialty Hospital and that the patient was discharged on 11/06/2004.

7.5.Basing on medical record submitted by M/s. Nihar Orthopedic & Multi Specialty

Hospital, Hyderabad ( A1), M/s. Medseva Health Care Limited (TPA), Hyderabad had processed the claim vide I.D.No.2040601B013C04 & 2040610B1013C01 of Smt K.

Padmavathi, settled the claim and issued Cheque bearing No.213862 dated: 18/08/2004 for an amount of Rs.65,252/- ( Sixty Five Thousand Two Hundred and Fifty Two only- ) infavour of A1 hospital.

7.6.Accused No.2 Dr. V. Prasad has also taken Hospitalization and Domiciliary

Hospitalization Benefit policy from United India Insurance Company Limited vide Policy

No. 052100/48/03/20/0000588 in his name and in the name of his family members including Smt K. Sarojini W/o. Suryanarayana, for the period from 25/11/2003 to 24/11/2004.

7.7.Accused No.1 hospital represented by Accused No.2 raised mediclaim to an extent of 50,603/- ( Fifty Thousand Six Hundred and Three only - ) from United India Insurance

Company Limited, Hyderabad by enclosing the discharge bill No.182, dated: 28/08/2004 stating that on 29/07/2004 Smt K. Sarojini was admitted in Accused No.1 hospital, diagnosed with 1) Comminuted # middle 1/3 of (R ) Humerus 2) Inter-Trochanteric # ( R)

5 OF 30 CC.No.34 OF 2018

Femur and after medical clearance, Proximal femoral nailing for Trochanteric # ( R) Femur & Open Reduction & Internal fixation for # ( R) Humerus was done under GA on 31/07/2004 under the treatment of Dr. V. Prasad (Accused No.2), MS ( Ortho) Orthopedic

Surgeon, M/s. Nihar Orthopedic and Multi Specialty Hospital and that the patient was discharged on 10/08/2004.

7.8.Basing on the medical record submitted by M/s. Nihar Orthopedic & Multi Specialty

Hospital, Hyderabad ( Accused No.1), M/s. Medseva Health Care Limited (TPA),

Hyderabad had processed the claim vide I.D.No.2040730B013C02 of Smt K. Sarojini, settled the claim and issued Cheque bearing No.214070 dated: 28/09/2004 for an amount of

Rs.45,280/- ( Forty Five Thousand Two Hundred and Eighty Only- ) infavour of A1 hospital.

7.9 In the process of verification of genuineness of treatment and claims raised by

Accused No.1 hospital, on 31/03/2006 United India Insurance Company Limited, Regional

Office, Hyderabad through letter Ref.No.052100/Misc/Claims/06 dated: 06/03/2006 entrusted it to LW3 Mr. Sajid/ Investigator for investigation. He after completing investigation submitted his investigation report vide Letter No. Nil, dated: 15/07/2006 & 07/11/2006 about the claims.

7.10. Investigation revealed that out of 11 claims submitted by Accused No.1, only 6 claims were examined by LW3 Mr. Sajid and out of them claim cases at Sl.No.1, 4, 5 & 11 were found genuine. In two cases at Sl.No.3 of Smt K. Sarojini/ mother-in-law and Smt.

K. Padmavathi/ sister-in-law of Accused No.2, wherein Accused No.2 raised fraudulent claims by submitting false and fabricated medical documents stating that the insured Smt

K. Sarojini and Smt K. Padmavathi had undergone surgical treatments referred above.

6 OF 30 CC.No.34 OF 2018

7.11. Investigation further revealed that the insured patients namely Smt K. Sarojini and

Smt K. Padmavathi denied to have undergone surgery under Dr. V. Prasad ( Accused No.2) and unaware of the claims lodged by him. Investigation also revealed that the consultation with patient, the operation notes, the admission record were prepared and fabricated by Dr.

V. Prasad(A2) who is Managing Director of A1 hospital.

7.12. In the circumstances, on 30/06/2010 Smt K. Padmavathi and Smt K. Sarojini were got medically examined by Regional Medical Board, Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad and they have issued medical certificate dated: 30/06/2010 stating that there is no evidence of surgery on the insured patients by name Smt K. Padmavathi and Smt K. Sarojini.

7.13. Investigation further revealed that Dr. V. Prasad ( A2)/Managing Director of M/s.

Nihar Orthopedic & Multi Specialty Hospital, Hyderabad( Accused No.1) lodged fraudulent claims by generating fabricated medical records knowing fully well that the patients had not undergone any surgical treatment and made fraudulent claims by causing wrongful loss to the tune of Rs.1,11,072/- ( One Lakh Eleven Thousand and Seventy Two only- ) to United

India Insurance Company Limited and wrongful gain to themselves.

7.14. Investigation further revealed that the whole fraud was designed and orchestrated by

Dr . V. Prasad (A2) who had actively participated in the conspiracy by willfully giving false surgical reports to give impression that insured patients were genuinely diagnosed and operated upon for treatments and raised fraudulent claims on his mother-in-law and sister-in-law that they have undergone surgical treatments and thereby Accused No.1 hospital represented by Accused No.2 have committed offences punishable under sections 120- B r/w 420, 465, 468, 471 of Indian Penal Code, in short ‘IPC’.

7 OF 30 CC.No.34 OF 2018

8.Cognizance was taken for the offences punishable under sections 120-B r/w 420, 465, 468, 471 of IPC.

9.On appearance, copies of case documents as required under section 207 of Cr.P.C.

were furnished to both Accused.

10.Accused No.1 & Accused No.2 were examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C. After hearing the learned Public Prosecutor for CBI and the learned counsel for the Accused, charges for the offences punishable under section 420, 465, 468 & 471 of IPC framed, read over and explained to Accused No.1 & Accused No.2 on which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

11.PW1 to PW10 were examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P34 were marked on behalf of the prosecution.

12.The evidence of LW5 Smt K. Sarojini was closed by the Court on the report of the prosecution that she is aged about 84 years, lost her vision, bed-ridden and has been suffering with post Covid complications. The evidence of LW7 K. Srinivasa Rao was closed by the Court on his death report. The evidence of LW8 Miss Shahnaz and LW10 A.

Satyanarayana was closed by the Court on the report of the prosecution that their whereabouts are not known.

13.After closure of prosecution evidence, Accused No.1 & Accused No.2 were examined under section 313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. They denied the incriminating material evidence and reported defence evidence on their behalf.

8 OF 30 CC.No.34 OF 2018

14.The learned counsel for Accused No.1 & Accused No.2 filed a memo requesting to accept the Defence Statement by closing the defence evidence. Hence, the defence evidence of accused was closed by the Court.

15.Accused No.1 & Accused No.2 filed their Defence Statement stating that PW4 &

LW5 Smt K. Sarojini were having medi-claim insurance policies much prior to their admission and treatment in the A1 hospital. The Insurance Policies under Ex.P4 & Ex.P5 are having addresses of the policy holders. No document collected from Accused No.2 as claimed by the prosecution. The CBI has not obtained the specimen signatures of Accused

No.2 and hand writings of PW4 & LW5 Smt K. Sarojini. Ex.P18, Ex.P19, Ex.P29 &

Ex.P30, etc., are planted for the purpose of this case. The CBI never referred PW4 & LW5

Smt K. Sarojini to the Medical Board for their examination at any time as alleged. CBI has created a false story and implicated Accused No.1 & Accused No.2 after three years of the alleged incident at the instance of United India Insurance Company Limited who colluded with other Hospitals to damage the reputation of Accused No.1 hospital.

16.Heard Sri D. Gopinath., Learned Public Prosecutor for CBI and of Sri V. Surender

Rao., learned counsel for Accused No.1 & Accused No.2

17.Now, the point for determination is :

Whether the prosecution has proved guilt of Accused No.1 & Accused No.2 beyond reasonable doubt for the charges punishable under section 420, 465, 468 & 471 of IPC?

9 OF 30 CC.No.34 OF 2018

P OINT:

18.Accused No.2 is an Orthopedic Surgeon. He is also Managing Director of M/s. Nihar

Orthopedic and Multi Specialty Hospital ( Accused No.1). LW5 Smt . K. Sarojini is mother-in-law and PW4 Smt K. Padmavathi is sister-in-law of Accused No.2. The same are not in dispute.

19.The case of the prosecution is that Mr. K. Srinivasa Rao has taken Hospitalization and Domiciliary Hospitalization Benefit policy from United India Insurance Company

Limited vide Policy No. 052100/48/03/20/0000515 in his name and in the name of his family members including his wife Smt K. Padmavathi, for the period from 29/10/2003 to 28/10/2004. The said K. Srinivasa Rao is cited as LW7 in the list of witnesses. But, the evidence of LW7 K. Srinivasa Rao was closed by the Court on his death report. However, the prosecution got marked insurance policy of K. Srinivasa Rao vide Policy No.

052100/48/03/20/0000515 through PW2 Dr. Harikrishna, Regional Manager, United India

Insurance Company, Hyderabad. Ex.P5 is the insurance policy issued by United India

Insurance Company Limited infavour of LW7 K. Srinivasa Rao vide policy Number Policy

No. 052100/48/03/20/0000515. The recitals of Ex.P5 show that Smt K. Padmavathi, who is wife of K. Srinivasa Rao was also insured person. The said policy is valid from 29/10/2003 to 28/10/2004. The evidence of PW4 Smt K. Padmavathi also show that Ex.P5 insurance policy was obtained by her husband and she is one of the insured persons of such policy.

During the cross examination of PW2 & PW4, nothing suggested by the accused disputing

Ex.P5 insurance policy. It is also not the defence of the accused that there is no insurance policy under Ex.P5 in the name of K. Srinivasa Rao and his family members.

20.The further case of the prosecution is that Accused No.2 Dr. V. Prasad has also taken

Hospitalization and Domiciliary Hospitalization Benefit policy from United India Insurance

Company Limited vide Policy No. 052100/48/03/20/0000588 in his name and in the name

10 OF 30 CC.No.34 OF 2018

of his family members including Smt K. Sarojini W/o. Suryanarayana, for the period from 25/11/2003 to 24/11/2004. The prosecution cited Smt K. Sarojini as LW4 but the evidence of Smt K. Sarojini was closed by the Court for the reasons stated at Para No.12 of this

Judgment. The prosecution got marked the above insurance policy through PW2 as Ex.P4.

The evidence of PW2 speaks that Accused No.2 obtained Ex.P4 insurance policy in his name and in the name of his other family members including Smt K. Sarojini. The accused cross examined PW2 but nothing suggested disputing Ex.P4 insurance Policy. Therefore, it is clear that both i.e., Smt K. Sarojini and Smt K. Padmavathi were insured with United

India Insurance Company Limited and their insurance is valid for the period specified in their respective insurance policies under Ex.P4 & Ex.P5.

21.PW2 further deposed about the Mediclaim policy and procedure for settlement of claim bills. According to PW2, Mediclaim policy protects the insured person financially in case of hospitalization. The settlement under Mediclaim happens in two ways. One is cashless settlement and the other one is reimbursement. In cashless settlement, the insurance company will pay the hospital bill to hospital directly, whereas in reimbursement process, the insured person will make payment to hospital and after treatment the insurance company will reimburse such amount to the insured. The claim settlements will be done by Third

Party Administrators (TPA). The TPA after receiving the claim intimation from hospitals will process the claims basing on the documents submitted by the hospital and the client and issue pre- authorization slip for proceeding with treatment. On completion of treatment,

TPA will receive the final bill and diagnostic reports, scrutinize them and effect payment to the hospital. Thereafter, TPA periodically send the statement of funds utilization to the insurance company for arranging float fund from the insurance company and the insurance company will randomly verify the claims through Investigators.

11 OF 30 CC.No.34 OF 2018

22.The evidence of PW3 A. Penchalaiah, the then Dy. Manager, United India Insurance

Company, Hyderabad speaks that there was a Service Level Agreement between United

India Insurance Company and Medsave Health Care Limited, a TPA for settlement of claims. Ex.P7 is the Certified Copy of such agreement dated: 26/04/2005.

23.The evidence of PW6 Jude Michael, Branch Manager, Medseva Health Insurance

TPA Private Limited, Hyderabad speaks that Medseva is a Third Party Administrator which works in between Insurance Company and Corporate or Retail policy holders, that Ex.P7 is the agreement between United India Insurance Company and Medseva and that Medseva facility was available for Accused No.1 hospital.

24.Therefore, the evidence of PW2, PW3 & PW6 speaks that there is Medseva facility for the insured persons in A1 hospital, that insured can get treatment either by way of cashless or reimburse the amount if paid, that the hospital will send the claim to TPA, which will after scrutinizing the treatment, bills if found in order will make payment to the hospital or insured and it will claim such amount from insurance company.

25.In the present case, according to the prosecution, Accused No.1 hospital represented by Accused No.2 raised mediclaim to an extent of 69058/- from United India Insurance

Company Limited, Hyderabad by enclosing the discharge bill No.140, dated: 22/06/2004 stating that on 01/06/2004 Smt K. Padmavathi, aged 38 years was admitted in Accused No.1 hospital, diagnosed with fracture of both bones lower 1/3 of right leg and after medical clearance, inter-locking nailing right tibia was done under GA on 02/06/2004, under the treatment of Dr. V. Prasad(Accused No.2), MS ( Ortho) Orthopedic Surgeon, M/s. Nihar

Orthopedic and Multi Specialty Hospital and that the patient was discharged on 11/06/2004.

In fact, Accused No.2 never treated Smt K. Padmavathi but he created false medical reports and medical bills and claimed such amount from United Insurance Company.

12 OF 30 CC.No.34 OF 2018

26.The initial burden lies on the prosecution to prove that PW4 and Smt K. Sarojini were never undergone surgery in the A1 hospital for the fractures referred above and that their respective medical bills were created by A2 for the purpose of claiming insurance amount.

27.In order to prove the same, the prosecution got examined Smt K. Padmavathi as

PW4. The evidence of PW4 speaks that she fell down at Kothagudem. Initially, she was taken to Singareni Hospital at Kothagudem, later took her to A1 hospital and was subjected to medical tests. On X- ray, she came to know that there was a fracture to her right leg.

Hence, she was operated with right leg fracture in A1 hospital. The medical expenditure was claimed by affixing her signature on claim form. Since, PW4 did not support the case of the prosecution, the learned Public Prosecutor cross examined PW4 at length but nothing elicited in favour of the prosecution. PW4 denied that she is deposing false due to relationship with Accused No.2.

28.The prosecution also got examined One Prabhakar Prasad, Lab Technician of A1 hospital as PW5. The evidence of PW5 speaks that the medical reports under Ex.P14 to

Ex.P17 were issued by him affixing his signatures. Ex.P13 is the X-ray Report and it was issued under the signature of Accused No.2. Ex.P13 to Ex.P17 are relating to PW4 Smt K.

Padmavathi. Since, PW5 did not support the case of the prosecution, the learned Public

Prosecutor cross examined PW5, but nothing elicited infavour of the prosecution.

29. Ex.P13 is the X-ray report, Ex.P14 to Ex.P17 are medical reports of PW4 Smt K.

Padmavathi. The recitals of Ex.P14 to Ex.P17 show that PW4 was subjected to medical examination in A1 hospital and Ex.P13 show that she received fracture of both bones lower 1/3 of right leg.

13 OF 30 CC.No.34 OF 2018

30.As stated supra, the case of the prosecution is that PW4 never received any fracutre as mentioned in X-ray report and medical record and that she never underwent such surgery in the A1 hospital. In order to prove the same, the prosecution is relying upon the oral evidence of PW8 and Medical Certificate issued by Regional Medical Board, Osmania

General Hospital, Hyderabad under Ex.P27.

31.PW8 Mohd. Zaffar is the Investigating Officer of this case. The evidence of PW8 speaks that during the course of investigation he referred PW4 K. Padmavathi to Regional

Medical Board, Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad and the Team of Doctors of Medical

Board after examination of PW4 issued a medical certificate under Ex.P27 stating they have examined the insured patient namely K. Padmavathi and noticed that there is no evidence of surgery on right arm or right hip.

32.As stated supra, the oral evidence of PW4 speaks that she was not taken to Medical

Board, Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad for medical examination. In the said circumstances, it is for the prosecution to prove that PW4 Smt K. Padmavathi was subjected for examination by the Team of Doctors of Medical Board, Osmania General Hospital,

Hyderabad. This can be proved by examination of Team of Doctors/ Members of such

Medical Board. Admittedly, the Team of Doctors of Regional Medical Board, Osmania

General Hospital who said to be examined PW4 Smt K. Padmavathi and alleged to be issued Ex.P27 certificate are not cited as prosecution witnesses. The Medical Certificate

dated: 30/06/2010 got marked through PW8 investigating Officer as Ex.P27.

33.The learned counsel for the Accused submitted that mere producing a document and proving it’s genuineness without examining the Author thereof is not sufficient to prove truth of contents of such document. On this aspect, he relied upon the Judgment1 of Hon’ble 1Vedantham Satyavathi Vs P. Venkataratnam reported in 1988(1) ALT 915

14 OF 30 CC.No.34 OF 2018

High Court of Andhra Pradesh. In the present case, as stated supra, Ex.P27 is the Medical

Certificate issued by Team of Doctors of Medical Board. It was got marked through PW8

Investigating Officer. It is settled Law that mere marking of document does not prove it’s contents unless the author of such document is examined as a witness. In the absence of any of authors of Ex.P27 and relying on the Judgment cited by the learned counsel for the

Accused, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the contents of

Ex.P27 Medical Certificate dated: 30/06/2010.

34.On the other hand, the contents of Ex.P27 Medical Certificate show that the Team of

Doctors examined PW4 Smt K. Padmavathi and noticed that there is no evidence of surgery on right arm or right hip of PW4. In this case, as stated supra, the evidence of

PW4, PW5 and contents of Ex.P13 to Ex.P17 show that PW4 sustained fracture of both bones lower 1/3rd of right leg but not fracture on right arm or right hip. PW8 investigating officer also admitted that as per Ex.P13 X-ray report of PW4, the injury was fracture of both bones lower 1/3rd of right leg of PW4 and as per Ex.P27 there was no surgery on Right arm or Right hip of Smt K. Padmavathi. The lower right leg is the area in between ankle joint and knee joint and the hip area is above thigh. Therefore, there is much difference between hip and lower 1/3rd leg. It is not the report of the Medical board that they have examined

PW4 Smt K. Padmavathi and noticed that there is no surgery for fracture of both bones of 1/3 of her right leg. Hence, the Certificate of Medical Board under Ex.P27 does not come to rescue the case of the prosecution that PW4 Smt K. Padmavathi never undergone surgery for fracture of both bones of 1/3 of her right leg. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove that PW4 never underwent surgery.

35.The further case of the prosecution is that Accused No.1 hospital represented by

Accused No.2 also raised medi-claim to an extent of 50,603/- from United India Insurance

Company Limited, Hyderabad by enclosing the discharge bill No.182, dated: 28/08/2004

15 OF 30 CC.No.34 OF 2018

stating that on 29/07/2004 Smt Sarojini was admitted in Accused No.1 hospital, diagnosed with 1) Comminuted # middle 1/3 of ® Humerus 2) Inter-Trochanteric # ( R) Femur and after medical clearance, Proximal femoral nailing for Trochanteric # ( R) Femur & Open

Reduction & Internal fixation for # ( R) Humerus was done under GA on 31/07/2004 under the treatment of Dr. V. Prasad(Accused No.2), MS ( Ortho) Orthopedic Surgeon, M/s. Nihar

Orthopedic and Multi Specialty Hospital and that the patient was discharged on 10/08/2004.

But, in fact, Smt K. Sarojini was never treated by Accused No.2 in Accused No.1 hospital and Accused No.2 created false medical bills to claim amount from United India Insurance

Company Limited.

36.In the charge sheet, Smt K. Sarojini is shown as one of the witness in the list of witnesses. But, as stated supra, the evidence of LW5 K. Sarojini, was closed by the Court.

The evidence of PW4 also speaks that Smt K. Sarojini is her mother-in-law, aged about 87 years, bedridden and has been suffering with paralysis and memory loss.

37.The evidence of PW5 Prabhakar Prasad, Lab Technician of A1 hospital further speaks that the medical reports under Ex.P10 to Ex.P12 were issued by him affixing his signature whereas X-ray report under Ex.P9 was signed by Accused No.2 and that Ex.P9 to

Ex.P12 are relating to Smt K. Sarojini. As stated supra, PW5 did not support the case of the prosecution. Hence, the learned Public Prosecutor cross examined PW5 but nothing elicited infavour of the prosecution in respect of patient by name Smt K. Sarojini.

38. The recitals of Ex.P9 X-ray report, Ex.P10 to Ex.P12 medical reports of Smt K.

Sarojini show that she was diagnosed with 1) Comminuted # middle 1/3 of ® Humerus 2)

Inter-Trochanteric # ( R) Femur.The Discharge summary dated: 10/08/2004 show that and after medical clearance, Proximal femoral nailing for Trochanteric # ( R) Femur &

16 OF 30 CC.No.34 OF 2018

Open Reduction & Internal fixation for # ( R) Humerus was done under GA on 31/07/2004 under the treatment of Dr. V. Prasad(Accused No.2), MS ( Ortho) Orthopedic Surgeon,

M/s. Nihar Orthopedic and Multi Specialty Hospital and that the patient was discharged on 10/8/2004.

39.The case of the prosecution is that Smt K. Sarojini never underwent surgery referred above. In order to prove the same, the prosecution is relying on the oral evidence of PW8 investigating Officer and Ex.P27 Medical Certificate dated: 30/06/2010.

40.The evidence of PW8 Investigating Officer speaks that during the course of investigation, the insured by name Smt K. Sarojini was referred to Regional Medical

Board, Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad for medical examination. The team of doctors after examination of Smt K. Sarojini gave Medical Certificate stating that they have examined Smt K. Sarojini and there is no evidence of surgery on right arm or right hip.

41.In this case, as stated supra, the evidence of LW5 Smt K. Sarojini was closed by the

Court. Hence, it is not known whether she was taken to Medical Board for examination or not. There is no evidence on record to show that the person who appeared before the

Medical Board is Smt K. Sarojini or not. However, it is for the prosecution to prove that

Smt K. Sarojini was subjected for Medical examination by the Medical Board. This can be proved by examination of any of members of such Medical Board. Admittedly, as stated supra, the team of doctors of Regional Medical Board, Osmania General Hospital who said to be examined Smt K. Srojini and issued such Medical Certificate are not cited as prosecution witnesses. In the absence of any of authors of Ex.P27 and oral evidence of Smt

K. Sarojini, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the contents

17 OF 30 CC.No.34 OF 2018

of Ex.P27. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove that PW4 Smt K. Padmavathi and Smt K. Sarojini never sustained fracture injuries referred above and never underwent surgery in A1 hospital.

42. The further case of the prosecution is that Accused No.2 affixed signatures of Smt K.

Padmavathi & Smt K. Sarojini on claim forms and submitted the same to Third Party

Administrator and claimed the amounts i..e, Accused No.2 had created false claim forms for the purpose of cheating, submitted such forms and medical bills as genuine and claimed the insurance amounts and thereby Accused No.1 & Accused No.2 are liable for punishment under section 420, 465, 468, 471 of IPC.

43.To prove the same, the prosecution has to establish that the signatures on Questioned documents in the name of “K. Padmavathi” under Q84 & Q85 are not that of PW4, the signatures on Questioned documents in the name of “ K. Sarojini” under Q82 & Q83 are not that of Smt K. Sarojini and it is also required to establish that the same were affixed by

Accused No.2.

44.In order to prove the same, the claim form containing the questioned signatures of

Smt K.Padmavathi under Q84 & Q85 on Ex.P8 got marked on as Ex.P33. The specimen signatures of PW4 Smt K. Padmavathi under S42 to S47 marked as Ex.P19. The claim form containing the questioned signatures of Smt K. Sarojini under Q82 & Q83 got marked as

Ex.P32. The specimen signatures of Smt K. Sarojini under S36 to S41 were marked as

Ex.P18. The specimen hand writings of Accused No.2 in the name of K. Padmavathi and

K. Sarojini, under S31 to S35 got marked as Ex.P30.

18 OF 30 CC.No.34 OF 2018

45.In respect of obtaining the specimen signatures, the evidence of PW8 speaks that during the course of investigation, he allegedly collected specimen signatures of PW4 Smt

K. Padmavathi under Ex.P19 and Specimen signatures of Smt K. Sarojini under Ex.P18 in the presence of attesting witness namely PW7 G. Vijay Kumar. Surprisingly, the evidence of PW7 speaks that before he reaching CBI Office, CBI police obtained specimen signatures of Padmavathi and Sarojini and thereafter obtained his signatures on such documents as attesting witness. Therefore, it is clear that the alleged specimen signatures were not obtained in the presence of PW7 as deposed by PW8.

46.The evidence of PW8 further speaks that he sent the specimen signatures of PW4 and

Smt Sarojini to GEQD for comparison with signatures of PW4 Smt K. Padmavathi on questioned documents under Ex.P33 and signatures of Smt K. Sarojini on questioned documents under Ex.P32.

47.The learned counsel for the accused further submitted that due to lapse of time there is every chance of occurrence of variations in one’s hand writings and hence the questioned documents and specimen signatures cannot be compared due to paucity of time. I do agree that PW9 admitted that the questioned documents are related to the year 2004 and the alleged specimen signatures were taken in the year 2010. He further admitted that there is a possibility of variations to occur in one’s hand writing due to lapse of time.

48.The learned counsel for the accused further submitted that there is much delay in forwarding the specimen signatures and disputed signatures to Expert and in the absence of evidence that proper care has been taken in keeping such incriminating material intact, no authenticity is to be given to the report of Expert. On this aspect, he relied upon the

Judgment2 of Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, wherein there is a delay of one month 2Mayank Bohra Vs State of A.P. reported in 2010 Crl.LJ 152

19 OF 30 CC.No.34 OF 2018

in forwarding the incriminating material to scientific officer. In the present case, the specimen signatures of Accused No.2 were allegedly obtained on 26/05/2009 and the specimen hand writings on 27/05/2010. The recitals of Ex.P34 show that PW8 forwarded such incriminating material to GEQD on 02/07/2010. There is no explanation for sending such material with delay of more than one month so also there is no evidence that he has taken proper precautions in keeping the same intact.

49.The evidence of PW9 Y. Suryaprasad, Dy. GEQD, CFSL, Hyderabad speaks that the documents were examined by him as well as Sri C. Rajesh, Asst. GEQD and gave a common opinion under Ex.P34 opining that the person who wrote the enclosed signatures stamped and marked as S42 to S47 did not write the enclosed signatures similarly stamped and marked Q84 and Q85. The evidence of PW9 further speaks that the person who wrote the enclosed signatures stamped and marked as S36 to S41 did not write the enclosed signatures similarly stamped and marked as Q82 & Q83. Therefore, oral evidence of PW9 coupled with Ex.P34 GEQD report show that PW4 Smt K. Padmavathi and Smt K. Sarojini have not affixed their respective signatures on respective questioned documents i.e., claim forms.

50.The learned counsel for the accused submitted that expert opinion must always be received with great caution and perhaps none so with more caution than the opinion of a handwriting expert and that there is a profusion of precedential authority which holds that it is unsafe to base a conviction solely on expert opinion without substantial corroboration. On this aspect, he relied upon the Judgment3 of Hon’ble Apex Court. He also relied upon the

Judgment4 of Hon’ble Apex Court wherein it is held that Evidence of Handwriting Expert is only opinion Evidence but not conclusive and hence cannot be relied upon unless corroborated with clear direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence.

3Magan Bihari Lal Vs The State of Punjab reported in 1997 Crl.LJ 711 4S.P.S. Rathore Vs CBI and another reported in 2017 Crl.LJ 537

20 OF 30 CC.No.34 OF 2018

51.In this case, as stated supra, Since, Smt K. Sarojini is not examined as witness.

Hence, there is no possibility to ascertain whether the questioned signatures on Ex.P32 were affixed by her or not. On the other hand, during the course of recording evidence, PW4 verified claim form containing disputed signatures Q84 & Q85 as Ex.P33 on Ex.P8 and deposed that the signatures under Q84 & Q85 were affixed by her. PW4 is the best person to identify her signatures and on oath PW4 identified the questioned signatures and stated that the same were affixed by her. Therefore, the oral evidence of PW4 is conflicting with

PW9 Expert the evidence. It is not in dispute that the evidence of PW4 recorded in the open Court and it is substantial evidence. It will prevail over opinion evidence of PW9. In the above circumstances and relying upon the Judgments referred above, this Court is of the opinion that the opinion evidence of PW9 and Ex.P34 GEQD report do not come to rescue the case of the prosecution.

52.On the other hand, in order to prove the forgery, the prosecution has to establish that the signatures of Smt K. Padmavathi and Smt K. Sarojini on questioned documents were affixed by the Accused No.2. As stated supra, though PW8 has collected the specimen hand writings of the accused No.2 under S31 to S35 and sent to GEQD, the evidence of PW9

GEQD and Ex.P34 GEQD report show that it has not been possible to express any opinion on the rest of the items on the basis of material at hand. It means that PW9 compared specimen hand writings of Accused No.2 in the name of K. Padmavathi and K. Sarojini, under S31 to S35 marked as Ex.P30 with signatures on Questioned Documents under Q82 to Q85 but reported that it is not possible to give any opinion. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove that signatures in the name of Smt K. Padmavathi and Smt K. Sarojini on claim forms / questioned documents were affixed by Accused No.2 and such claim forms are false documents.

21 OF 30 CC.No.34 OF 2018

53.The prosecution got marked the letter dated: 19/08/2004 addressed by Accused No.2, discharge bill, investigation list, consumable list, the treatment advised, admission card, medial prescription dated: 29/07/2004, operation notes of insured by name Smt K. Sarojini and also letter dated: 21/06/2004 addressed by Accused No.2, discharge bill, investigation list, pharmacy details, consumable list and discharge summary of insured by name Smt K.

Padmavathi containing the questioned signatures of Accused No.2 under Q66 to Q81 on

Ex.P31. The prosecution got marked specimen signatures of Accused No.2 under S25 to

S30 as Ex.P29.

54.The evidence of PW8 speaks that during the course of investigation, he collected the documents containing the questioned signatures of Accused No.2 under Ex.P31 and also collected the specimen signatures of Accused No.2 under Ex.P29 and the same were sent to

GEQD for opinion. The evidence of PW9 speaks that the person who wrote the enclosed signatures stamped and marked S25 to S30 also wrote the enclosed signatures similarly stamped and marked as Q66 to Q81. Since the claim of A1 hospital is that PW4 Smt K.

Padmavathi and Smt K. Sarojini were treated by Accused No.2 naturally the investigations list, consumables list, treatment advised, admission card, operation notes, discharge bill, etc., were with signatures of Accused No.2. Hence, the opinion of PW9 stated supra, does not come to rescue the case of prosecution.

55.The antoher defence of the learned counsel for the Accused No.2 is that the signatures obtained by police from the Accused No.2 are not admissible in evidence unless they are taken by the Court or in it’s presence. On this aspect, the learned counsel for the

Accused No.2 relied upon the Judgment5 of Hon’ble High Court of Judicature of Andhra

Pradesh at Hyderabad.

5Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, Hyderabad Vs Boddula Mallesham reported in 1997(1)ALD(Crl.)752 (A.P.)

22 OF 30 CC.No.34 OF 2018

56.According to the counsel for Accused No.2, as per section 311-A of Cr.P.C., the specimen signatures of the Accused No.2 ought to have taken with the permission of the

Court but in this case as admitted by PW8 investigating officer the alleged specimen signatures of Accused No.2 were obtained without such permission and by violating Section 311-A of Cr.P.C and hence there is no value of opinion given by GEQD.

57.Section 311-A of Cr.PC. Came into force with Cr.P.C (Amendment) Act 25/2005 with effect from 23/06/20006. In this case, Ex.P29 is the specimen signatures of Accused No.2.

On careful perusal of the record show that PW8 investigating Officer allegedly obtained such signatures of Accused No.2 on 25/06/2009 i.e., after introduction of Section 311-A of

Cr.P.C.

58. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the Judgment in between Sapan Haldar & Another

Vs State in Crl.A. 804/2001 dated: 25/5/2012 disregarded the FSL report on the ground that Investigating Officer has not taken the specimen hand writings/signatures of the

Accused persons through Court order. In the present case also, as admitted by PW8 investigating Officer, the alleged specimen hand writings/ signatures were obtained by him without permission of the Court. Hence, relying on the above Judgment, this Court of the opinion that Ex.P34 GEQD report is to be disregarded and hence, on this ground also the oral evidence of PW9 and Ex.P34 GEQD report are to be bruashed aside. Therefore, this

Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed prove that the medical record of Smt

K. Padmavathi and Smt K. Sarojini were created by Accused No.2 for the purpose of claiming insurance amount. Hence, Accused are entitled for acquittal for the charge punishable under section 465 of IPC.

59.One of the charges framed against the accused are for the offences punishable under section 468 of IPC. In order to prove the said charge, the prosecution has to establish that accused No.2 has created a false documents for the purpose of cheating. But, as stated

23 OF 30 CC.No.34 OF 2018

supra, there is no evidence on record to show that the medical record of Smt K. Padmavathi and Smt K. Sarojini under Ex.P9 to Ex.P17 and their claim forms under Ex.P8 & Ex.P32 are false documents and created for the purpose of cheating. Hence, accused are entitled for acquittal for such charge.

60.The another charge framed against the accused are for offences punishable under section 471 of IPC. In order to prove the said charge, the prosecution has to establish that accused were having knowledge or reason to believe that the medical records and claim forms of Smt K. Padmavathi and Smt K. Sarojini are false documents and knowingly with dishonest intention submitted such documents as genuine. But, as stated supra, the prosecution initially failed to prove that the above medical record and claim forms as false documents. Hence, accused are entitled for acquittal for the charge punishable under section 471 of IPC.

61.One of the allegations against the Accused are that Accused No.2 without conducting any surgery on Smt K. Padmavathi and Smt K. Sarojini created false medical record and with a dishonest or fraudulent intention submitted the same and claimed insurance amount from United India Insurance Company Private Limited, caused wrongful loss of Rs.

1,11,702/- to United India Insurance Company, and wrongful gain to him and Accused No.1 hospital and thereby committed offence punishable under section 420 of IPC.

62.According to the prosecution, Accused No.1 hospital claimed insurance amount of

Rs.1,11,702/- from United India Insurance Company Limited stating that insured persons namely PW4 K. Padmavathi and Smt K. Sarojini underwent surgery in Accused No.1 hospital and such surgery was operated by Accused No.2. In respect of the claims of A1 hospital, the evidence of PW1 Mohd, Abdul Sajid, insurance investigator speaks that during his investigation 17 out of 19 cases including the cases of PW4 Smt K. Padmavathi and Smt

24 OF 30 CC.No.34 OF 2018

K. Sarojini are false claims and to that effect he gave Ex.P1 & Ex.P2 reports. However, the evidence PW1 is silent about the names of patients and details of other 15 claims. The basis on which he came to such conclusion and to give such reports against Accused No. 1 hospital is not deposed by him. Admittedly PW1 did not depose the name of persons whom he enquired and came to conclusion that A1 hospital claimed false mediclaim.

63.The learned counsel for the accused further submitted that the investigation alleged to be done by PW1 is without any authority, the Criminal Procedure Code does not recognize the private investigating agency, any evidence collected in such private investigation and any conclusion reached by such investigators cannot be presented by Public Prosecutors in any trial. On this aspect, he relied upon the Judgment6 of Hon’ble Apex Court.

64.According to the Prosecution, PW1 was insurance Investigator and in the year 2006

United India Insurance Company, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad entrusted him to conduct investigation in respect of Medi-claims settled by Medi Seva pertaining to A1 hospital.

Now, it is to be decided whether the investigation alleged to be done by PW1 in respect of mediclaims of A1 hospital fall within the ambit of Section 2(h) of Criminal Procedure Code.

65.Section 2(h) of Cr.P.C. defines Investigation, which includes all the proceedings under this Code (Cr.P.C) for the collection of evidence conducted by a Police Officer or by any person ( Other than a Magistrate) who is authorized by a Magistrate on this behalf. In this case, admittedly, PW1 is not a Police Officer. He was also not authorized by a

Magistrate to conduct investigation. Hence, the investigation alleged to be done by PW1 in

respect of mediclaim of A1 hospital does not fall within the definition of 2(h) of Cr.P.C.

6Navin Chandran Majithia Vs State of Meghalaya reported in 2000 LawSuit(SC)1570

25 OF 30 CC.No.34 OF 2018

66.In the case Law relied by the accused, the private investigator conducted

Investigation. In the present case, the evidence of PW1 speaks that he has been working as

Freelancer Investigator for Insurance companies and is having experience in such filed. The report alleged to be given by PW1 in respect of mediclaims of A1 hospital is only an opinion and basing on such opinion PW8 Investigating Officer conducted investigation of this case under section 2(h) of Cr.P.C. Since, PW1 did not enter into the shoe of

Investigating Officer to conduct investigation referred under section 2(h) of Cr.P.C. the above case Law relied by the accused does not come to rescue his case. However, nothing brought on record to show that PW1 was authorized to investigate into medi-claims of

Accused No.1 hospital. Hence, the evidence of PW1 does not come to rescue the case of the prosecution.

67.The prosecution failed to prove that above referred insured persons never underwent surgery in A1 hospital during the period of insurance and also failed to prove that A1 hospital cheated the United Insurance Company by submitted false medical bills, caused wrongful loss to United Insurance Company and wrongful gain to Accused No.1 & Accused

No.2 and hence, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge punishable under section 420 of IPC against the Accused No.1 and Accused No.2

68.The learned counsel for the Accused No.2 further relied upon the Judgment7 of

Hon’ble Apex Court wherein it is held that the incriminating circumstances must be clearly

established by reliable and clinching evidence and the circumstances so proved must form a chain of events from which the only irresistible conclusion about the guilt of accused can be safely drawn and no other hypothesis against the guilt is possible. The Case Law relied by the learned Counsel for the accused is relating to last seen theory wherein there is only

Circumstantial Evidence. The facts of the present case and the above case facts are entirely different . However, the ratio decidendi of the case is that the prosecution required to prove 7Navaneetha Krishna Vs State by Inspector of Police reproted in 2018 Crl.L.J.2814

26 OF 30 CC.No.34 OF 2018

the chain of events with clinching evidence so as to come to conclusion about the guilt of the accused. In the present case, the prosecution failed to prove that PW4 Smt K.

Padmavathi and Smt K. Sarojini never sustained fracture injuries as referred in their respective medical reports. It also failed to prove that both of them never underwent surgery in A1 hospital. It also failed to prove that their medical record and claim forms were created by Accused No.2 for the purpose of claiming insurance amount. It further failed to prove that both the insured were referred to medical board for the purpose of examination so as to ascertain whether they have received fracture injuries mentioned in their respective medical reports or not. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to establish the chain of events with evidence to prove the guilt of accused.

69.The above discussion leads this Court to conclude that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the accused for the offences under sections 420, 465, 468, 471 of

IPC beyond reasonable doubt and thereby Accused No.1 & Accused No.2 are entitled for acquittal. The point is accordingly answered against the prosecution and infavour of the

Accused persons.

70.In the result, Accused No.1 and Accused No.2 are found not guilty for the charges punishable under sections 420, 465, 468, 471 of IPC and they are acquitted under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. for the said charges. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand canceled after expiry of six months from the date of this Judgment.

Typed to my dictation by Typist, Corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court On this the 7th day of September, 2022.

XXI-Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, -cum – Special JMFC for Trial of CBI Cases, Hyderabad.

27 OF 30 CC.No.34 OF 2018

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined On Behalf of

PROSECUTION:

PW1:Mohd. Abdul Sajid

PW2:Dr. Hari Krishnan

PW3:A. Penchalaiah

PW4:Smt K. Padmavathi

PW5:Prabhakar Prasad

PW6:Jude Michael

PW7:G. Vijay Kumar

PW8:Mohd. Zaffar

PW9:Y. Surya Prasad

PW10:I.A. Ansari

DEFENCE:

- None -

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF

PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1:Report of PW1 dated: 15/7/2006

Ex.P2:Report of PW1 dated: 7/11/2006 along with Statement of RVN Murthy, Agent of United India Insurance Complany Limited

Ex.P3:Letter dated: 11/8/2006 with reference No. HRO/MISC/TPA/2006-07 addressed by PW2 to Dr. V. Prasad ( A2)

Ex.P4:United India Insurance Policy in the name of Dr. V. Prasad (A2) for the period from 25/11/2003 to 24/11/2004

Ex.P5:United India Insurance Policy in the name of K. Srinivasa Rao for the period from 29/10/2003 to 28/10/2004

28 OF 30 CC.No.34 OF 2018

Ex.P6:Certified Copy of Complaint dated: 11/07/2007 addressed by PW2 to the Superintendent of Police, ACB, CBI, Hyderabad

Ex.P7:Certified Copy of Service Level Agreement between United India Insurance Company Limited and M/s. Medseva Health Care Limited

dated: 26/04/2005

Ex.P8 :Claim Form of Smt K. Padmavathi

Ex.P9:X-Ray Report dated: 29/07/2004 of Smt K. Sarojini

Ex.P10:CBP Report dated: 29/07/2004 of Smt K. Sarojini

Ex.P11:Urea/Creatinine RBS Report dated: 29/07/2004 of Smt K. Sarojini

Ex.P12:Viral Screening Report dated: 29/07/2004 of Smt K. Sarojini

Ex.P13:X-Ray Report dated: 01/06/2004 of Smt K. Padmavathi

Ex.P14:CBP Report dated: 01/06/2004 of Smt K. Padmavathi

Ex.P15:Urea/Creatinine RBS Report dated: 01/06/2004 of Smt K. Padmavathi

Ex.P16:Viral Screening Report dated: 01/06/2004 of Smt K. Padmavathi

Ex.P17:Serum Electrolytes Reports dated: 01/06/2004 of Smt K. Padmavathi

Ex.P18:Specimen Signatures of Smt K. Sarojini under S36 to S41

Ex.P19:Specimen Signatures of Smt K. Padmavathi under S42 to S47

Ex.P20:Original Complaint dated: 11/07/2007 lodged by Dr. Hari Krishnan

Ex.P21:FIR in RC.No.16/A/2007

Ex.P22:Claim Process Sheet generated on 23/08/2004 of Medsave

29 OF 30 CC.No.34 OF 2018

Ex.P23:Assessment Report dated: 26/08/2004 in respect of the insured Smt K. Sarojini

Ex.P24:Claim Process Sheet of Medseva generated on 13/07/2004

Ex.P25:Assessment Report dated: 14/07/2004

Ex.P26:Letter No.052100/Claims/2006, dated: 13/11/2006 of Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company.

Ex.P27:Medical Certificate dated: 30/6/2010 issued by a Team of Doctors of Regional Medical Board, Osmania Hospital, Hyderabad.

Ex.P28:Covering Letter vide RC.No.MRD/MB/2010/137 dated: 19/07/2010

Ex.P29:Specimen Signatures of Dr. V. Prasad(A2) under S25 to S30

Ex.P30:Specimen Hand Writings of Dr. V. Prasad(A2) under S31 to S35

Ex.P31:Letter dated: 19/08/2004 addressed by Dr. V. Prasad(A2) with enclosures viz., discharge bill, Investigation List, consumable list, the treatment advised, admission card, medical prescription dated: 29/7/2004, Operation notes of insured by name Smt K. Sarojini and Letter dated: 21/6/2004 with enclosures viz., discharge bill, investigation list, pharmacy details, consumable list, discharge summary of insured by name Smt K. Padmavathi containing questioned signatures of Dr. V. Prasad under Q66 to Q81

Ex.P32:Claim Form containing the questioned signatures of Smt K. Sarojini under Q82 & Q83.

Ex.P33:Questioned the signatures of PW4/Smt. K. Padmavathi under Q.84 & Q.85 on Ex.P8 Claim Form

Ex.P34:Certified Copy of CFSL Report No.CH-255/2009/3650 dated: 22/10/2010

DEFENCE:

- Nil -

30 OF 30 CC.No.34 OF 2018

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- Nil -

XXI-Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, -cum – Special JMFC for Trial of CBI Cases, Hyderabad.

IN THE COURT OF THE XXI-ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE – CUM

– SPECIAL JMFC FOR TRIAL OF CBI CASES :: AT HYDERABAD.

Present: G. Praveen Kumar., XXI-Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate -cum -Special JMFC for Trial of CBI Cases, Hyderabad.

Monday., this the 28th day of November, 2022

CC.No. 20 OF 2018

Between:

The State through Inspector of Police, CBI, ACB, Hyderabad.

...Complainant.

And

A1. Bollineni Bhaskara Rao, Director, M/s. Bollineni Ramanaiah Memorial Hospitals Private Limited, Registered Address at Happy Valley Road No.13 A, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad ( The case against A1 Quashed by Hon’ble High Court in Crl.P.No.2889/2013 dated: 11/02/2022)

A2.M/s. Bollineni Ramanaiah Memorial Hospitals Private Limited represented by it’s Director Bolleneni Bhaskara Rao, Registered Office at Happy Valley Road No.13 A, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad ( The case against A2 Quashed by Hon’ble High Court in Crl.P.No.2889/2013

dated: 11/02/2022)

A3.Dr. Nagam Sai Murali, S/o. Nagam Seshamma Naidu, 41 years, Chief Ophthalmologist, Bollineni Super Speciality Hospital, Unit of Bollineni Ramanaiah Memorial Hospitals Private Limited, Dargamitta, Nellore, R/O: Swarna Palace, I Prasanthi Upadaya Nagar, Venkatagiri, Nellore.( The Case against A3 abated since Died on 31/3/2016)

A4. L. Rajagopalan, S/o.R. Lakshmanaiyer, 61 years, Insurance Investigator, United India

Insurance Company Limited, R/O: H.No.31, Saradha Nagar, Virugambakkam, Chennai.

...Accused.

This case came before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Vijay Kumar Dubay, Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the CBI and of Sri S. Jagan Mohan &Associates, Learned Counsel for Accused No.4., Case against Accused No.1 & Accused No.2 quashed, the Case against Accused No.3 abated since died and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following

JUDGMENT

1. Mediclaim is a form of insurance wherein the insurance providers reimburse the policyholder for any medical expenses that he/she might have incurred during the policy period.

The insured can either submit the relevant bills to get reimbursed or avail completely cashless facilities at the insurer's network hospitals.

2 OF 23 CC.No.20 OF 2018

2.United India Insurance Company Limited ( herein after referred to as ‘UIICL’) offered insurance under mediclaim to the customers. The settlement of claims under mediclaim portfolio has been outsourced by it through Third Party Administrators (herein after referred to as ‘TPA’) licensed by Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI). It receives the statement of claims settled by the TPAs regularly on the basis of which the float amount is released.

3.As a practice, UIICL scrutinize the statements and retain few files on a random basis for verifying whether the claims procedure followed by the TPAs as per their guidelines or not.

4.During scrutiny, on various dates, UIICL had come across several suspicious entries in the statements settled by TPA i.e., instances where there have been diseases that had been repeated or where treatment was taken in a particular hospital on a regular basis. Hence, UIICL has appointed investigators to look into the matter. The investigators have submitted their reports against 1) Vijaya

Hospitals, Nellore in respect of 26 claims involving Rs.4,84,049/- 2) Nihar hospitals, Hyderabad in respect of 19 claims involving Rs.9,26,094/-, 3) Sai Durga Hospital, Hyderabad in respect of 26 claims involving Rs.2,57,814/- , 4) Bollineni Super Specialty Hospital, Nellore in respect of 11 claims involving Rs.1,44,000/- and 5) Raghavendra Hospital, Visakhapatnam in respect of 40 claims involving Rs.3,19,758/-.

5.Hence, LW1 Dr. Harikrishnan, Regional Manager, United India Insurance Company

Limited, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad lodged report before CBI, ACB, Hyderabad. Basing on the report, on 12/07/2007, a case in RC.No.16(A)/2007- CBI/Hyderabad registered against 1) M/s.

Vijaya Hospital, Nellore, 2) M/s. Nihar Hospitals, Hyderabad, 3) M/s. Sai Durga Hospitals,

Hyderabad, 4) M/s. Bollineni Super Specialty Hospital, Nellore, 5) M/s.Raghavendra Hospitals,

Vishakapatnam and against Unknown Public Servants for the offences punishable under sections 120-B, 420, 468, 471 of Indian Penal Code (IPC), and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1) of Prevention of

Corruption Act ( PC Act) and investigated into.

6.After completion of investigation, Inspector of Police, CBI, ACB, Hyderabad filed separate charge sheets against each hospital referred above including the present charge sheet against Accused No.1 to Accused No.4 herein for the offences punishable under sections 120-B, 420 r/w 511 of IPC.

3 OF 23 CC.No.20 OF 2018

7.Brief averments of Charge sheet are:

7.1.M/s. Bollineni Ramanaiah Memorial Hospitals Private Limited is herein after referred to as “Accused No.2 Hospital”. It was incorporated under Companies Act, 1956 on 08/01/1999 at

Registrar of Companies, Hyderabad. Accused No.1 is Director of Accused No.2 Hospital. M/s.

Bollineni Super Specialty Hospital, Nellore is a Unit of Accused No.2 Hospitals, Dargamitta,

Nellore and under the control of Accused No.2 Hospital represented by it’s Director, Accused No.1.

Accused No.3 was Chief Ophthalmologist of M/s. Bollineni Super Specialty Hospitals, Nellore.

Accused No.4 is Insurance Investigator and was working of United India Insurance Company

Limited.

7.2.On 31/05/2003, there is an agreement entered in between Family Health Plan Limited,

Hyderabad- a Third Party Administrator and Accused No.2 Hospital, wherein both the parties agreed upon terms and conditions for settlement of claims.

Allegations In respect of Patient by name Smt Penamalli Manohari:

7.3.Smt Penamalli Manohari W/o. Penamalli Dayakar Reddy, aged about 50 years, covered under AB Arogyadaan Andhra Bank UHID No.FHAU: 0000398080 of TPA Family Health Plan

Limited, issued under Policy No.050400/48/05/00551 of M/s. United India Insurance Company

Limited, Divisional Office-IV, Hyderabad for the period form 09/06/2005 to 08/06/2006.

7.4.As per record, on 05/05/2006 the said insured/patient has approached M/s Bollineni Super

Specialty Hospitals, Nellore through insurance desk, admitted on 10/05/2006 in ward for cataract surgery in both eyes, after getting Pre-authorization letter No. PA.No.24198 dated: 09/05/2006 from

FHPL for the treatment and guarantee of payment for an amount of Rs.42000/-. This authorization was duly signed by the authorized signatory of Family Health Plan Limited for treating/surgery of cataract in both eyes.

4 OF 23 CC.No.20 OF 2018

7.5.As per the case sheet/note, the above patient said to have been shifted to Operation Theater (OT) for Right eye surgery on 10/05/2006 at 09.00 a.m. and that the surgery was performed by Dr.

Sai Murali ( Accused No.3), Dr. Vayuguntala Hazarath Kumar and Assistant Manimegalai. Further, on 11/05/2006 the insured patient was shifted to O.T. for Left eye surgery performed by the same team of Doctors.

7.6.Sri M. Sreedhar Reddy, Manager-Insurance of Bollineni Super Speciality Hospital has raised final bill for an amount of Rs.42,000/- for cataract surgery in both eyes of Smt P. Manohari and sent such bill to Family Health Plan Limited, Hyderabad for settlement along with credit bill dated:

29/04/2006 for Rs.42,000/- . A Scan Report dated: 29/04/2006 bearing original bar code stickers vide S.No.863418.074 and 774245.040 of Alcon Laboratories power 20.D as proof of Intraocular

Lens implant, Discharge Summary dated: 29/04/2006, case summary dated: 29/04/2006 bears the signature and seal of Accused No.3/Dr. N. Sai Murali., M.S., Chief Consultant Ophthalmic Surgeon,

Cataract and Refractive Surgery, Bollineni Super Speciality Hospital, Reg.No.39034 also enclosed with such final bill.

7.7.Basing on the medical records submitted by Bollineni Super Specialty Hospital, Nellore,

M/s. Family Health Plan Limited, Hyderabad has processed the claim vide I.D.No.32733 and recommended for settlement.

7.8.The Regional Office, United India Insurance Company Limited, Hyderabad on the basis of discrepancy in the mediclaim have given instructions to Accused No.4/L. Raja Gopalan, Insurance

Investigator to carryout investigation regarding claim preferred by the persons covered under

Andhra Bank-Arogya Dhan Scheme for the treatment undergone at Bollineni Super Specialty

Hospital, Nellore.

7.9.Accused No.4 carried out the investigation and submitted investigation report vide

No.698/I/UII/CHE/06 dated: 24/11/2006 stating that he contacted patient Smt P. Manohari on 29/09/2006 and took her photograph and a written statement from her stating that she had undergone cataract surgery at Bolleneni Eye Hospital, Nellore.

5 OF 23 CC.No.20 OF 2018

7.10.During the course of investigation of the case and on 16/05/2009 Smt P. Manohari was got medically examined in D.S.R. Government District Head Quarters Hospital, Nellore and Dr. M.

Manjulamma, M.S. C.S.S ( Ophthalmologist ) of such hospital examined Smt P. Manohari and Dr.

P. Sridhar, M.S. Medical Superintendent of D.S.R. Distritct Head Quarters Hospital, Nellore issued medical certificate vide No. RC.No.Spl/G2/09, dated: 16/05/2009 stating that no cataract surgery was performed on both eyes of P. Manohari.

7.11.Investigation further revealed that the patient Smt P. Manohari has never undergone eye surgery in Bolleneni Super Specialty Hospital, Nellore at any point of time. The hospital authorities have dishonestly obtained copy of her UHID from their insurance file while the insured visited the hospital for treatment of her husband. The hospital authorities conveniently made up all the records in order to satisfy the requirements of TPA and raised a bill for Rs.42,000/-. However, the payment is on WITHHOLD on the instructions of the Insurer.

7.12.Therefore, it is established that Accused No.3 in connivance with Accused No.1 & Accused

No.2 made an attempt to cheat insurance company by lodging false claim. In furtherance of such conspiracy, Accused No.4 has given a false and fabricated report by suppressing the material facts that the cataract operation was not performed on the insured patient Smt P. Manohari.

Allegations In respect of patient by name Dharanikota Satyanarayana :

7.13.Sri Dharanikota Satyanarayana aged about 47 years, covered under AB Arogyadaan Andhra

Bank UHID No.FHAU: 0000377294 of Family Health Plan Limited issued under Policy

No.050400/48/05/00551 of M/s. United India Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office-IV,

Hyderabad for the period form 09/06/2005 to 08/06/2006.

7.14.As per record, on 16/05/2006 the said insured/patient has approached M/s Bollineni Super

Speciality Hospitals, Nellore through insurance desk, admitted on 19/05/2006 in ward for cataract surgery in both eyes, after getting Pre-authorization letter No.PA.No.24661 dated: 18/05/2006 from

6 OF 23 CC.No.20 OF 2018

FHPL for the treatment and guarantee of payment for an amount of Rs.42000/-. This authorization was duly signed by the authorized signatory of Family Health Plan Limited for treating/surgery of cataract in both eyes.

7.15.As per the case sheet/note, the above patient said to have been shifted to Operation Theater (OT) for Right eye surgery on 19/05/2006 at 09.30 a.m. and that the surgery was performed by Dr.

Sai Murali/Accused No.3, Dr. Ramana Reddy and Assistant Manimegalai. Further, on 20/05/2006 at about 08.30 a.m. the insured patient was shifted to O.T. for Left eye surgery, performed by Dr.

Sai Murali/Accused No.3, Dr. Hazarat Kumar and Assistant Manimegalai.

7.16.Sri M. Sreedhar Reddy, Manager-Insurance of Bollineni Super Specialty Hospital has raised final bill for an amount of Rs.42,000/- for cataract surgery in both eyes of Sri Dharanikota

Satyanarayana and sent such bill to Family Health Plan Limited, Hyderabad for settlement along with credit bill dated: 22/05/2006 for Rs.42,000/-. A Scan Report dated: 22/05/2006 bearing original bar code stickers vide S.No. 794539.056 and 739126.074 of Alcon Laboratories power 20.D as proof of Intraocular Lens implant, Discharge Summary dated: 22/05/2006, case summary

dated: 22/05/2006 bears the signature and seal of Accused No.3/Dr. N. Sai Murali., M.S., Chief

Consultant Ophthalmic Surgeon, Cataract and Refractive Surgery, Bollineni Super Speciality

Hospital, Reg.No.39034 also enclosed with such final bill.

7.17.Basing on the medical records submitted by Bollineni Super Speciality Hospital, Nellore,

M/s. Family Health Plan Limited, Hyderabad has processed the claim vide I.D.No.33288 and recommended for settlement.

7.18.The Regional Office, United India Insurance Company Limited, Hyderabad on the basis of discrepancy in the mediclaim have given instructions to Accused No.4/L. Raja Gopalan, Insurance

Investigator to carryout investigation regarding claim preferred by the persons covered under

Andhra Bank-Arogya Dhan Scheme for the treatment undergone at Bollineni Super Specialty

Hospital, Nellore.

7 OF 23 CC.No.20 OF 2018

7.19.Accused No.4 carried out the investigation and submitted investigation report vide

No.698/I/UII/CHE/06 dated: 24/11/2006 stating that he contacted patient Sri Dharanikota

Satyanarayana and took a written statement from him stating that he had undergone cataract surgery at Bolleneni Eye Hospital, Nellore.

7.20.During the course of investigation of the case and on 14/05/2009 Sri Dharanikota

Satyanarayana was got medically examined in D.S.R. Government District Head Quarters Hospital,

Nellore. Dr. M. Manjulamma, M.S. C.S.S ( Ophthalmologist ) of said hospital examined

Dharanikota Satyanarayana and Dr. P. Sridhar, M.S. Medical Superintendent of D.S.R. Distritct

Head Quarters Hospital, Nellore issued medical certificate vide No. RC.No.Spl/G2/09, dated:

14/05/2009 stating that no cataract surgery was performed on both eyes of Sri Dharanikota

Satyanarayana.

7.21.Investigation further revealed that the patient Sri Dharanikota Satyanarayana has never undergone eye surgery in Bolleneni Super Specialty Hospital, Nellore at any point of time. In-fact, earlier he worked as Security Security Guard in M/s. Bolleneni Super Specialty Hospital, Nellore.

The hospital authorities conveniently made up all the records in order to satisfy the requirements of

TPA and raised a bill for Rs.42,000/-. However, the payment is on WITHHOLD on the instructions of the Insurer.

Other Allegations against Accused No.1 to Accused No.4:

7.22.The investigation revealed that Mr. Sridhar Reddy, employee of M/s. Bollineni Memorial

Hospital Private Limited has affixed the original bar code stickers in the case sheet as per the instructions of Accused No.3/Dr. Sai Murali. The Operation Theater notes are hand written by Sri

Nagaraj working in Operation Theater.

7.23.Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements of Sridhar Reddy, Dr. V. Hazarath Kumar and Sri T. Nagaraj and Assistant Manimegalai show that Accused No.3/Dr. Sai Murali in collusion with Accused No.1 & Accused No.3 falsely made claim with the Family Health Plan Limited, Hyderabad without the knowledge and consent of insured patients namely Smt P. Manohari and D. Satyanarayana.

8 OF 23 CC.No.20 OF 2018

7.24. Thus it is established that Accused No.1 to Accused No.3 dishonestly conspired among themselves and got generated false medical records that Cataract eye surgery was performed on the patients by getting affixed the bar code stickers pertaining to two cases of Smt P. Manohari and Sri

D. Satyanarayana and to lodge false claim with Family Health Plan Limited, Hyderabad.

7.25.In furtherance of such conspiracy, Accused No.1 to Accused No.3 conspired with Accused

No.4/ Insurance Investigator and furnished false report that cataract surgeries were conducted on the two insured patients and raised two false claims on the Family Health Plan Limited and thereby committed offences punsiahble under sections 120-B, 420 r/w 511 of IPC.

8.Cognizance was taken for the offences punishable under sections 120-B, 420 r/w 511 of

IPC.

9.On appearance, copies of case documents as required under section 207 of Cr.P.C. were furnished to both Accused No.1 to Accused No.4.

10.During pendency of the case, Accused No.3 died. Hence, the case against Accused No.3 abated on 31/03/2018.

11.The Hon’ble High Court for the State of Telangana passed orders in Crl.P.No.2889 of 2013

dated: 11/02/2022 and quashed the proceedings against Accused No.1 & Accused No.2 and hence

the proceedings against them are closed as quashed. This Court proceeded the case against Accused

No.4 only.

12. Accused No.4 was examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C. After hearing the learned Public

Prosecutor for CBI and the learned counsel for the Accused No.4, charges for the offences punishable under section 120-B, 420 r/w 511 of IPC framed, read over and explained to Accused

No.4 for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

13.PW1 to PW15 were examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P30 were marked on behalf of the prosecution.

9 OF 23 CC.No.20 OF 2018

14.The learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI has given up the evidence of LW11 Dr.

Gampa Ramesh. The evidence of LW12 Smt Periaswamy Manimegalai was closed by the Court on the report of the prosecution that her whereabouts are not known.

15.After closure of prosecution evidence, Accused No.4 was examined under section 313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. He denied the incriminating material evidence and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

16.Heard Sri Vijay Kumar Dubay, Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for CBI and of Sri.

S. Jagan Mohan &Associates, Learned Counsel for Accused No.4. Both sides filed their respective

Written Arguments.

17.Now, the point for determination is :

Whether the prosecution has proved guilt of Accused No.4 beyond reasonable doubt for the charges punishable under section 120-B, 420 r/w 511 of IPC?

P OINT:

18.Accused No.1 Bolleneni Bhaskara Rao is Director & Accused No.3 Dr. Sai Murali was

Chief Ophthalmologist of Accused No.2 M/s. Bollineni Ramanaiah Memorial Hospitals Private

Limited. Accused No.4 is Insurance Investigator of United Indian Insurance Company Limited. The same are not in dispute.

19.The evidence of PW-7 Taluri Giri, Executive Director, Bollineni Super Specialty Hospital,

Nellore, speaks that M/s. Bollineni Super Specialty Hospital is registered with Registrar of

Companies and also registered with Andhra Pradesh Allopathic Private Medical Establishments.

The evidence of PW-7 is corroborating with Ex.P18 Certified Copy of Certificate of Incorporation of M/s. Bollineni Ramaiah Memorial Hospitals Private Limited, Ex.P19 Certified copy of Form - 20B and Ex.P20 attested copy of application for Registration of Andhra Pradesh Allopathic Private

Medical Establishments. The same is not disputed by Accused No. 4.

10 OF 23 CC.No.20 OF 2018

20.The evidence of PW1 Dr. Hari Krishnan, Regional Manager, UIICL, Hyderabad speaks that mediclaim is a policy which offers financial protection in the event of person being hospitalized for which a small premium is being collected and a policy will be issued to the customers. Mediclaim settlement happens in two ways, one is Cashless settlement and the other one reimbursement. In

Cashless settlement, insured person need not pay the bill amount directly to the hospital rather the insurance company will effect the payment to the hospital directly. In reimbursement, the insured person after getting treated has to make the payment to the hospital through his resources and then seek reimbursement from the insurance company. The same is not disputed by the accused No.4

21.The evidence of PW1 further speaks that the settlement of claims under mediclaim portfolio has been outsourced by it through Third Party Administrators (TPA) licensed by Insurance

Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI). The TPA will receive the claim intimations from the hospitals and process the claim based on the documents submitted by the hospital and on completion of treatment the TPA will receive the final bill and will make payment to the hospital. Later the TPA will send the consolidated statement of funds utilized to the Insurance companies for arranging float fund from insurance companies. The same is also not disputed by

Accused No.4.

22.The evidence of PW2 A. Penchalaiah, Deputy Manager of UIICL show that there is an agreement between Andhra Bank and United India Insurance Company Limited (UIICL) in respect of mediclaims of AB Arogyadhan Group which was introduced to provide medical insurance coverage to the account holders and their family members. There was also an agreement between

UIICL and Family Health Plan ( Third Party Administrator) for settlement of insurance claims.

23.The evidence of PW3 Dr. Syed Mazahar, Deputy Manager, Family Health Plan speaks that

Ex.P4 is the agreement between Family Health Plan Limited and M/s. Bollineni Super Specialty

Hospital, Nellore. It is also not in dispute.

11 OF 23 CC.No.20 OF 2018

24.PW4 Smt P. Manohari is having Mediclaim policy under AB Arogyadhan of Andhra Bank during the year 2005-06 under Ex.P7 is AB Aroyadhan UHID No.FHAU000039808 under

F.No.909357 for the period from 09/06/2005 to 08/06/2006 under policy No.050400/48/05/00551 issued by Family Health Plan ( TPA Limited). PW5 P. Dayakar Reddy is also having Mediclaim policy under AB Arogyadhan of Andhra Bank during the year 2005-06 under Ex.P12 AB

Aroyadhan UHID No.FHAU0000398079 under F.No.909357 for the period from 09/06/2005 to 08/06/2006 under policy No.050400/48/05/00551 issued by Family Health Plan ( TPA Limited).

The same is also not disputed by Accused No.4

25.The main allegations of the prosecution is that PW4 Smt P. Manohari and PW6 D.

Satyanarayana never undergone cataract surgery for both eyes but the medical record i.e., case sheet, medical reports, investigation reports, case notes and discharge summary showing that the above named patients have undergone for cataract surgery were created by Accused No.3 Dr. Sai

Murali and Accused No.1 in collusion with Accused No.2 to Accused No.4 and submitted the claim bills of PW4 & PW6 to Family Health Plan seeking reimbursement, as if such bills are genuine one, made an attempted to cause wrongful loss to an extent of Rs.42,000/- each to the United India

Insurance Company.

26.Ex.P5 is the Claim Form, copy of discharge summary, copy of case summary, copies of medical reports, investigation reports, copies of case notes, authorization letter and copy of UHID number along with processing sheet and payment voucher of PW4. Smt P. Manohari. Ex.P6 is the

Claim Form, copy of discharge summary, copy of case summary, copies of medical reports, investigation reports, copies of case notes, authorization letter and copy of UHID number along with processing sheet and payment voucher of PW6 Sri D. Satyanarayana. The evidence of PW3

Dr. Syed Mazahar speaks that as per Ex.P5 & Ex.P6, both PW4 & PW6 have undergone cataract surgery for both eyes in M/s. Bollineni Super Specialty Hospital and an amount of Rs.42,000/- each was settled and submitted the claims to UIICL for payment to the hospitals.

12 OF 23 CC.No.20 OF 2018

27.In this regard, the evidence of PW4 Smt P. Manohari, PW5 P. Dayakar Reddy and PW6

Dharani Kota Satyanarayana speaks that both PW-4 and PW-6 never undergone cataract surgeries.

The evidence of PW13 Dr. P. Sridhar also speaks that PW4 & PW6 were brought by CBI Police for medical examination in DSR Government District Head Quarters Hospitals, Nellore and as per his instructions PW12 Smt M. Manjulamma, Ophthalmologist examined both PW4 & PW6 and certified that they were not undergone any cataract surgery and to that effect he issued Ex.P24 &

Ex.P23 letters to CBI respectively.

28.The main defence of the Accused No.4 is that there is no evidence on record to show that the persons whom CBI referred to PW12 & PW13 for medical examination are none other than PW4 &

PW6. I do agree that PW12 admitted that she did not collect identification proofs of the persons referred for medical examination. PW12 further admitted that she did not verify identification moles / marks of the persons referred to her to confirm that the persons appeared before her are Smt

P. Manohari and Sri D. Satyanarayana. Despite, the oral evidence of PW4 & PW6 show that they were taken to PW12 and subjected for medical examination to ascertain whether any cataract surgeries were done or not. Both of them further deposed that after medical examination PW12 certified that they have not undergone cataract surgeries. This part of evidence of PW4 & PW6 is unchallenged by Accused No.4. Hence, it can be safely concluded that the persons whom CBI referred to PW12 & PW13 for medical examination is none other than PW4 Smt P. Manohari and

PW6 Sri D. Satyanarayanana. In the above circumstances, the contention of Accused No.4 on this aspect is negated.

29.Therefore, the oral evidence of PW4 to PW6, evidence of PW12 & PW13 doctors coupled with Ex.P23 & Ex.P24 letters show that PW4 & PW6 never undergone any cataract surgery in M/s.

Bolleneni Super Specialty Hospital, Nellore and it falsifies the medical records, cash sheets, discharge summery, operation notes, etc., enclosed with Claim Forms under Ex.P5 relating to PW4

Smt P. Manohari & Ex.P6 relating to PW6 D. Satyanarayana.

30.The further case of the prosecution is that the medical record relating to PW4 & PW6 were created by Accused No.3 Dr. Sai Murali. In order to prove the same, the prosecution relied upon the evidence of PW9, PW14 & PW15.

13 OF 23 CC.No.20 OF 2018

31.The evidence of PW9 Dr. Vayugundla Harath Kumar, Ophthalmologist of M/s. Bollineni

Eye Hospital and Research Center, Nellore speaks that the case sheets, discharge summary, scan reports of the patients PW4 Smt P. Manohari and PW6 D. Satyarnarayana contains the signatures of

Accused No.3 Dr. Sai Murali.

32.PW15 Mohd. Zaffer, Investigating Officer during the course of investigation allegedly collected Ex.P26 specimen signatures of Accused No.3 Dr. Sai Murali under S-1 to S-6, collected his Ex.P27 admitted signatures under A-1 to A-4 and sent the same to Government Examiner of

Questioned Documents( GEQD) for comparison with Ex.P28 Questioned Documents under Q-1 to

Q-6. The evidence of PW14 Y. Surya Prasad, GEQD speaks that after examination of the same he gave Ex.P29 GEQD opinion and as per Ex.P29 the person who wrote blue enclosed signatures stamped and marked S-1 to S-6 and A-1 to A-4 also wrote the red enclosed signatures similarly stamped and marked as Q-1 to Q-6. However, in this case, as stated supra, Accused No.3 is no more. Due to death of Accused No.3 the case against him already abated. Hence, no purpose would be served in appreciating the evidence against Accused No.3.

33.The further case of the prosecution is that Accused No.1 to Accused No.4 conspired one with another and in furtherance of such conspiracy submitted mediclaims of PW4 & PW6 to Family

Health Plan showing that they have undergone cataract surgeries and attempted to claim Rs.42,000/- for each patient.

34.In respect of charge of Conspiracy under section 120-B of IPC, the main allegations of the prosecution is that Accused No.4 in collusion with Accused No.1 to Accused No.3 created false investigation report stating that the insured persons namely PW4 Smt P. Manohari and PW6 D.

Satyanarayana have undergone Cataract Surgery at Accused No.2 hospital and submitted the same to UIICL to commit the offence punishable under section 420 of IPC and thereby Accused No.4 liable for charge under section 120-B of IPC.

14 OF 23 CC.No.20 OF 2018

35.The learned Public Prosecutor for CBI submitted that conspiracy always hatched in secrecy and it is impossible to adduce direct evidence of the same and this offence can be proved only from inference drawn from acts of illegal omission committed by the conspirators in pursuance of a common design. On this aspect relied upon the Judgment1 of Hon’ble Apex Court.

36. The condition precedent, for holding accused persons guilty of a charge of criminal conspiracy must, therefore, be considered on the anvil of a fact which must be established by the prosecution, viz., meeting point of two or more persons for doing or causing to be done an illegal act or an act by illegal means. However, while drawing an inference from the materials brought on record to arrive at a finding as to whether the charges of the criminal conspiracy have been proved or not, must always bear in mind that a conspiracy is hatched in secrecy and it is, thus, difficult, if not impossible, to obtain direct evidence to establish the same. The manner and circumstances in which the offences have been committed and the level of involvement of the accused persons therein are relevant factors.

37. Therefore, meeting of minds of two or more persons for doing an illegal act or an act by illegal means is sine qua non of the criminal conspiracy but it may not be possible to prove the agreement between them by direct proof.

38.In the present case, the evidence of PW1 Dr. Hari Krishnan speaks that the insured person will approach the hospital with insurance policy. The Hospital will forward the request of insured for treatment to TPA. Then the TPA will examine all the documents submitted by the hospital and advice the hospital about the admissibility of treatment along with amount which is per-authorized.

39.The evidence of PW3 Dr. Syed Mazahar, Deputy Manager of Family Health Plan Limited also speaks that pre-authorization proposal will be sent to TPA for approval and if the expenditure is within the policy limit, the TPA will approve and issue authorization to the hospital to perform the surgery. At the stage of pre-authorization, the TPA will verify whether the person is insured, 1Kehar Singh & Others Vs State ( Delhi Admin.) reported in 1988 SCC(3) 609

15 OF 23 CC.No.20 OF 2018

whether hospital is empanelled one, whether the disease covered under the policy and whether the expenditure is within the policy limits or not. An internal check list will be prepared and only after satisfying themselves pre-authorization will be approved. The proposal for approval of pre- authorization will be directly received by TPA from the hospital.

40.The evidence of PW3 further speaks that in this case, basing on the pre-authorization issued by TPA, Accused No.2 hospital has preformed the surgeries on PW4 Smt P. Manohari and PW6 D.

Satyanarayana and thereafter Accused No.2 hospital has submitted Ex.P5 claim bill of PW4 &

Ex.P6 claim bill of PW6 to TPA. The evidence of PW3 further speaks that the hospital will submit the bills either in person or through courier without involvement of any of third party. In case of cataract surgery, intraocular lens will be implanted in Cornea of the eye and a sticker of lens containing the bar code will be sent to TPA along with case sheet and it is mandatory for verification and only after checking the bar code, the TPA will sanction the bill. In this case, the scan report of PW4 Smt P. Manohari and PW6 D. Satyanrayana also have such stickers and after verifying the same TPA recommended for sanction of the bills. Later the audit person of TPA has given final approval of claims of PW4 & PW6 to Accused No.2 hospital and then TPA submitted the claims to UIICL for payment.

41.The evidence of PW1 further speaks that in general the TPA will make payment to the hospital and then claim the amount from UIICL. In this case also the TPA settled of claims of PW4 & PW6 and made payment to Accused No.2 hospital. PW1 admitted that there is no role of

Accused No.4 before settlement of claims by TPA. The Hospital cannot know as to who will be the Investigator in respect of claims made by it and it will be a surprise check. PW15

Investigating Officer also admitted that by the time Accused No.4 was appointed by UIICL to investigate into the claims made by Accused No.2 hospital, the claims of PW4 & PW6 were already settled by TPA. He further admitted that the appointment of investigator is not known by the Hospital authorities and it is a surprise element.

42.Therefore, it is clear that only after settlement of claims of PW4 & PW6 by TPA to Accused

No.2 hospital the bills were sent to UIICL wherein under random checking process, PW1 engaged the services of Accused No.4 who is a free lancer as Insurance Investigator. The admission of PW1 & PW15 clearly show that there is no role of Insurance Investigator before settlement of claims by

16 OF 23 CC.No.20 OF 2018

TPA and more over the appointment of Insurance Investigator is a surprise element and there is no chance to hospital authorities to know who will be appointed as Investigator. In such case, there is no question of meeting of mind of Accused No.4 with Accused No.1 to Accused No.3 in preparation of false medical claims.

43.As stated supra, the evidence of PW1 speaks that only after settlement of bills by TPA the

UIICL will receive the bills and thereafter the received bills will be randomly checked by them by appointing insurance investigator. In such situation, it is not possible for Accused No.2 hospital authorities to except whether the claim bill of PW4 Smt P. Manohari and PW6 D. Satyanarayana will be entrusted to Insurance Investigator for investigation or not.

44.On the other hand, The Hon’ble High Court for the State of Telangana through orders in

Crl.P.No. 2883 of 2013 dated: 11/02/2022 quashed the proceedings of this case against Accused

No.1 & Accused No.2 hospital represented by Accused No.1. The same is unchallenged by the

CBI. As stated supra, the case against Accused No.3 already abated since Died. In the said circumstances and for the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove that Accused No.4 entered into conspiracy with Accused No.1 to Accused No.3 and in furtherance of such conspiracy submitted Ex.P2 investigation report and thereby Accused No.4 is liable for punishment under section 120-B of IPC.

45.Now, the burden lies on the prosecution to establish that Accused No.4 created Ex.P2 false investigation report in respect of PW4 Smt P. Manohari and PW6 D. Satyanarayana. According to prosecution, PW4 & PW6 never undergone cataract surgeries despite Accused No.4 submitted

Ex.P2 investigation report stating that they have undergone such surgeries. The main defence of the

Accused No.4 is that he is not a qualified doctor to examine insured patients PW4 Smt P. Manohari & PW6 D. Satyanarayana personally and to say whether they have undergone cataract surgeries or not. I do agree that Accused No.4 is only free lancer insurance investigator. He had no special qualification in ophthalmology. In the absence of special qualification/skill except ophthalmologist it is not possible for others to say by seeing with naked eyes whether the insured patients have undergone cataract surgeries or not.

17 OF 23 CC.No.20 OF 2018

46.In the said circumstances, it is for the UIICL to say what Insurance Investigator has to do in the process of verification of insurance claims i.e., it has to give specific scope of work to Insurance

Investigator and see whether such Investigator has verified the norms fixed by it in submitting report. In this case, as admitted by PW1, no document submitted before the Court showing the nature of investigation to be carried out by Accused No.4. In the absence of such specific scope of work, it is not known whether Investigator has to refer the patients to third party Doctors to ascertain whether such patients have undergone cataract surgeries or not, whether verification of case sheet containing bar code sticker of intraocular lens implanted in Cornea of the eye is sufficient, whether recording of statement of doctors who performed surgeries, whether obtaining of written statement of patients to ascertain they have really undergone surgeries or not, is not known.

47.However, in this case, as stated supra the evidence of PW3 speaks availability of bar code sticker of intraocular lens on case sheet of PW4 & PW6. The affixing of sticker confirms the surgeries on PW4 & PW6.

48.The evidence of PW4 speaks that Accused No.4 in the capacity of Insurance Investigator came to her and took her Ex.P11 photograph and she has given Ex.P10 statement. The recitals of

Ex.P10 are as under:

“ My name is Penumalli Manohari W/o. Dayakar Reddy. On 5/5/2006 I undergone eye testing in M/s. Bolleneni Hospital and on examination due to cataract in both eyes doctors advised for operation. I have taken opinion of doctor about the benefits of cataract surgery and decided to undergo such surgery for both eyes at a time. The doctors informed about the methods of operation, expenditure of intraocular lens and operation. Having satisfied with it selected best package and undergone cataract surgery for right eye on 10/5/2006 and left eye on 11/05/2006.

Sd/- P. Manohari”

49.The evidence of PW4 speaks that she studied up to M.Sc. Therefore, PW4 is well educated.

Ex.P10 is in the hand writing of PW4. Ex.P10 was issued by PW4 to Accused No.4 confirming her cataract surgeries on 10/05/2006 & 11/05/2006. Therefore, it is clear that as a part of investigation,

Accused No.4 insurance investigator visited the house of PW4 and obtained her photograph and also her written statement wherein she confirmed the cataract surgeries on her both eyes. The

18 OF 23 CC.No.20 OF 2018

medical record of PW4 furnished to Accused No.4 for investigation also contains Ex.P8 consent letter dated: 10/05/2006 and Ex.P9 consent letter dated: 11/05/2006 signed by PW4 for cataract surgeries. The case sheet also contains bar code sticker of intraocular lens implanted in Cornea of both eyes of PW4.

50.The evidence of PW6 D. Satyanarayana speak that Ex.P15 is the consent letter dated:

19/05/2006, Ex.P16 is the consent letter dated: 20/05/2006 singed by him and Ex.P17 is the letter confirming the operation on 19/05/2006 & 20/05/2006. Ex.P17 is in the handwriting of PW6 and signed by him. Though PW6 denied taking his statement and photograph by Accused No.4, PW15

Investigator admitted that Accused No.4 has taken photograph and statement of PW6 and both PW4

Smt P. Manohari and PW6 D. Satyanarayana gave their respective statements to Accused No.4 stating that they have undergone Cataract surgeries. It is also stated by PW15 that no complaint is received by him from PW4 or PW6 stating that Accused No.4 has taken their respective statements forcibly. In view of the admission of PW15 Investigating Officer the evidence of PW6 that Accused

No.4 never came to him and obtained his statement does not come to rescue the case of prosecution.

51.Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that Accused No.4 made all the efforts such as verification of sticker of intra ocular lens on case sheets, interaction with patients namely PW4 Smt

P. Manohari and PW6 D. Satyanarayana, collection their statements which have to be done as a part of investigation.

52.The recitals of Ex.P2 report submitted by Accused No.4 also show a brief note about the cataract surgery, the types of cataracts, about basic types of intraocular lens, about the hospital and it’s administration & it’s recognition, interaction with Accused No.3/ Doctor Sai Murali, confirmation about the surgeries of the names of patients entrusted for investigation, as a part of random checking referred some of the patients to Dr. Ramesh, independent ophthalmologist, obtained certificate confirming the cataract surgeries. The prosecution has given up the evidence of

Dr.Ramesh who certified confirmation of cataract surgeries of patients referred by Accused No.4, for the best reasons known to it. The recitals of Ex.P2 report also show that Accused No.4 was could not meet some of the patients on the ground that such patients were not residing in the address

19 OF 23 CC.No.20 OF 2018

furnished to him and migrated to other places. Hence, Accused No.4 approached Andhra Bank,

Nellore and requested to furnish the details of the insured persons but received reply from the Bank stating that the records were sent to Divisional Office (DO-04), Hyderabad. Hence, Accused No.4 also visited Divisional Office, Hyderabad met Mr. Murali Krishna, Divisional Manager on 12/10/2006 and requested to furnish the proposal forms for verification of signatures who assured him to send the details within 10 days but even after repeated telephonic calls, reminders and emails did not furnish such information to Accused No.4. Hence, in Ex.P2, Accused No.4 undertaken to submit addendum report immediately after receipt of further information.

53.PW15 Investigating Officer also admitted that as per Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of LW11

Dr. Ramesh, Accused No.4 referred some patients for verification of cataract surgery. Accused

No.4 also taken photographs and statements of PW4 Smt P. Manohari and PW6 D. Satyanarayana wherein both of them gave statements to Accused No.4 confirming undergoing cataract surgeries.

Therefore, the acts of accused No.4 and admission of PW15 Investigating Officer and contents of

Ex.P2 report show that Accused No.4 has made every effort to ascertain the genuineness of mediclaims not only of PW4 & PW6 but also other insured patients whose names were referred to him for the purpose of investigation.

54.Now, the prosecution has to establish that Accused No.4 made an attempt to cheat UIICL to an extent of Rs.42,000/- each in respect of PW4 Smt P. Manohari and PW6 D. Satyanarayana and thereby committed offence punishable under section 420 r/w 511 of IPC.

55.As stated supra, the evidence of PW1 to PW3 and PW15 show that the mediclaims in respect of PW4 Smt P. Manohari and PW6 D. Satyarnarayana were submitted by Accused No.2 to

TPA claiming Rs.42,000/- ( Rs.21,000/- per eye) each and the TPA has made settlement of amount to Accused No.2 hospital and this entire thing happened before appointment of Accused No.4 as

Investigator by UIICL. PW15 Investigating Officer also admitted that there is no role of Accused

No.4 in settlement of amount by TPA in favour of Accused No.2 hospital.

20 OF 23 CC.No.20 OF 2018

56.The evidence of PW1 & PW15 further show that the TPA will submit the settled claims to

UIICL to claim the amounts paid to Accused No.2 hospital. At this stage, UIICL appointed Accused

No.4 as Insurance Investigator and after verification of medi-claims Accused No.4 submitted Ex.P2 report. The evidence of PW1 speaks that during the investigation Accused No.4 found discrepancies with regard to excessive claims as such Accused No.4 negotiated with Accused No.2 hospital with regard to such excessive claims, reduced an amount by Rs.1,40,000/- and benefited to UIICL. Ex.P2 report also speaks the same. PW15 Investigating Officer also admitted that Accused No.4 has reduced the claims and thereby benefited Insurance company to an extent of Rs.1,44,000/-. There is nothing on record to show that Accused No.4 made an attempt to cause wrongful loss to the UIICL and wrongful gain to himself. On the other hand, the oral evidence PW1 & PW15 and contents of

Ex.P2 report clearly show that Accused No.4 benefited UIICL to an extent of Rs.1,44,000/-.

Therefore, it can be safely conclude that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of Accused

No.4 beyond reasonable doubt for the charge punishable under section 420 r/w 511 of IPC.

57.The above discussion leads this Court that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges punishable under section 120-B, 420 r/w 511 of IPC against the Accused No.4 beyond reasonable doubt and the point accordingly answered against the Prosecution and infavour of Accused No.4.

58.In the result, Accused No.4 is found not guilty for the charges punishable under sections 120-B, 420 r/w 511 of IPC and he is acquitted under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The case against

Accused No.3 already abated since died. The case against Accused No.1 & Accused No.2 closed as quashed by the Hon’ble High Court. The bail bonds of Accused No.4 shall stand canceled after expiry of six months from the date of this Judgment.

Typed to my dictation by Typist, Corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court On this the 28th day of November, 2022.

XXI-Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, -cum – Special JMFC for Trial of CBI Cases, Hyderabad.

21 OF 23 CC.No.20 OF 2018

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined On Behalf of PROSECUTION:

PW1:Dr. Hari Krishnan

PW2:A. Penchalaiah

PW3:Dr. Syed Mazahar

PW4:Smt P. Manohari

PW5:P. Dayakar Reddy

PW6:Dharanikota Satyanarayana

PW7:Talluri Giri

PW8:Dr. Jeevaji Ranga Rao

PW9:Dr. Vayungudala Hazarath Kumar

PW10:Dr. Ramana Reddy

PW11:M. Sridhar Reddy

PW12:Smt M. Manjulamma

PW13:Dr. P. Sridhar

PW14:Y. Surya Prasad

PW15:Mohd. Zafar

DEFENCE:

- None -

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF

PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1:Total List of 39 cases entrusted to Accused No.4/Mr. Rajagopalan

Ex.P2:Investigation Report dated: 24/11/2006 submitted by Accused No.4/Mr. Rajagopalan in respect of 11 Claims

22 OF 23 CC.No.20 OF 2018

Ex.P3:Copy of Complaint dated: 11/07/2007

Ex.P4:Agreement between Family Health Plan Limited and Bollineni Super Specialty Hospital, Nellore

Ex.P5:Claim Form, copy of discharge summary, copy of case summary, copies of medical reports, investigation reports, copies of case notes, authorization letter and copy of UHID number along with processing sheet and payment voucher of Smt P. Manohari.

Ex.P6:Claim Form, copy of discharge summary, copy of case summary, copies of medical reports, investigation reports, copies of case notes, authorization letter and copy of UHID number along with processing sheet and payment voucher of Sri D. Satyanarayana

Ex.P7:AB Aroyadhan UHID No.FHAU000039808 under F.No.909357 for the period from 09/06/2005 to 08/06/2006 under policy No.050400/48/05/00551 issued by Family Health Plan ( TPA Limited)

Ex.P8 :Copy of consent letter dated: 10/05/2006 of Smt P. Manohari

Ex.P9:Copy of consent letter dated: 11/05/2006 of Smt P. Manohari

Ex.P10:Letter confirming the operation on 10/05/2006 & 11/05/2006 by Smt P. Manohari

Ex.P11:Photo of Smt P. Manohari

Ex.P12:AB Aroyadhan UHID No.FHAU0000398079 under F.No.909357 for the period from 09/06/2005 to 08/06/2006 under policy No.050400/48/05/00551 issued by Family Health Plan ( TPA Limited)

Ex.P13:Syndicate Bank Saving Account Pass Book vide Account No. 170 of P. Dayakar Reddy

Ex.P14:FHPL member guide book with regard to mediclaim policy

Ex.P15:Copy of consent letter dated: 19/05/2006 of Sri D. Satyanarayana

Ex.P16:Copy of consent letter dated: 20/05/2006 of Sri D. Satyanarayana

Ex.P17:Letter confirming the operation on 19/05/2006 & 20/05/2006 by Sri D. Satyanarayana

23 OF 23 CC.No.20 OF 2018

Ex.P18:Certified Copy of Certificate of Incorporation of Bollineni Ramanaiah Memorial Hospitals Private Limited

Ex.P19:Certified Copy of Form -20B

Ex.P20:Attested Copy of Application for Registration of A.P. Allopathic Private Medical Establishments under form submitted by Dr. Sai Murali

Ex.P21:Covering Letter dated: 13/05/2006 in respect of Final Bill of Smt P. Manohari

Ex.P22:Covering Letter dated: 22/05/2006 in respect of Final Bill of D. Satyanarayana

Ex.P23:Letter in RC.No.SPL/G2/09, dated: 14/05/2009 addressed by Dr. P. Sridhar in respect of Patient by name D. Satyanarayana. Ex.P24:Letter in RC.No.SPL/G2/09, dated: 16/05/2009 addressed by Dr. P. Sridhar in respect of Patient by name Smt P. Manohari

Ex.P25:Requisition dated: 16/05/2009 in respect of Smt P. Manohari

Ex.P26:Specimen Signatures of Dr. Sai Murali under S1 to S6

Ex.P27:Questioned Signatures in the name of Dr. Sai Murali under Q1 to Q6.

Ex.P28:Admitted Signatures of Dr. Sai Murali on the Account Opening Form of Andhra Bank under A1 to A4

Ex.P29:GEQD Opinion vide No.CH-255/2009/990, dated: 05/03/2010 in 5 sheets

Ex.P30:Copy of FIR in RC.No.16/A/2997

DEFENCE:

- Nil -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- Nil -

XXI-Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, -cum – Special JMFC for Trial of CBI Cases, Hyderabad.

IN THE COURT OF THE XXI-ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE – CUM

– SPECIAL JMFC FOR TRIAL OF CBI CASES :: AT HYDERABAD.

Present: G. Praveen Kumar., XXI-Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate -cum -Special JMFC for Trial of CBI Cases, Hyderabad.

Tuesday, this the 28th day of February, 2023

CC.No. 18 OF 2018

Between:

The State through Inspector of Police, CBI, SPE, Hyderabad.

...Complainant.

And

A1.Mohd. Hameeduddin Aqui Hussain S/o. Late Mohd. Husamuddin Fagil, President, Anjuman-e-Hussamia Educational Association, 22-6-785, Hussamia Manzil, Panjesha, Hyderabad. ( The proceedings against A1 abated since Died on 10/10/2010)

A2.Mohd. Raheemuddin Ansari S/o. Mohd. Imaduddin Ansari, Secretary, Anjuman-e-Hussamia Educational Association, 22-6-785, Hussamia Manzil, Panjesha, Hyderabad. ( The proceedings against A2,A5 & A6 are Quashed by Hon’ble High Court for the State of Telangana vide orders in W.P.No.33923 of 2015 dated:05/07/2022)

A3.Mohd. Muneeruddin Mujahid S/o. Mohd. Mahmood, Joint Secretary, Anjuman-e-Hussamia Educational Association, 17-2-1231, Yakutpura, Hyderabad.

A4.Mohd. Hasnuddin S/o. Mohd. Shafuddin, Treasurer, Anjuman-e-Hussamia Educational Association, 22-7-380, Murug Khana, Hyderabad. ( The proceedings against A4 abated since Died on 17/11/2005.)

A5.Anjuman-e-Hussamia Educational Association, 22-6-785, Hussamia Manzil, Panjesha, Hyderabad represented by Accused No.1 to Accused No.4 ( The proceedings against A2, A5 & A6 are Quashed by Hon’ble High Court for the State of Telangana vide orders in W.P.No.33923 of 2015 dated:05/07/2022)

A6.Jamia Islamia Darul-Uloom, Hyderabad represented by Accused No.1, Accused No.2 & Accused No.4 ( The proceedings against A2,A5 & A6 are Quashed by Hon’ble High Court for the State of Telangana vide orders in W.P.No.33923 of 2015 dated:05/07/2022)

...Accused.

2 OF 22 CC.No.18 OF 2018

This case came before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Vijay Kumar Dubey., Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the CBI and of Sri N.V.S.J. Rama Rao., Learned Counsel

for Accused No.3 and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court

delivered the following

JUDGMENT

1. The Inspector of Police, CBI, SPE, Hyderabad filed Charge sheet in RC.No.10(E)/1997 against Accused No.1 to Accused No.6, for the offences punishable under sections 6 r/w 23 of

Foreign Contribution Regulation Act, 1976, in short, “FCR Act”, and Section 120-B of Indian

Penal Code, in short, “IPC”.

2.Brief averments of Charge sheet are:

2.1.Accused No.5 is Anjum-E-Hussamia Educational Association. It was registered with

Registrar of Societies under Public Assets (Telangana) Registration Act vide No.198/83 on 06/12/1983. Accused No.1 is President, Accused No.2 is Secretary, Accused No.3 is Joint

Secretary, Accused No.4 is Treasurer of Accused No.5 Association. Accused No.6 is the college of

Accused No.5 Association represented by Accused No.1, Accused No.2 & Accused No.4.

2.2.Accused No.1 to Accused No.4 being office bearers of Accused No.5 Association entered into criminal conspiracy to receive foreign contributions in the name of Accused No.6 college during 1991-1995 without permission of Ministry of Home Affairs in violation of provisions of ‘FCR Act’. In furtherance of such conspiracy and on 20/01/1990, Accused No.2 made an application to Ministry of Home Affairs for registering Accused No.5 Association under section 6 of ‘FCR Act’ and to facilitate Accused No.5 Association to receive Foreign Contributions.

2.3.The Ministry of Home Affairs has not registered Accused No.5 Association under ‘the Act’ and rejected such application. Meanwhile Accused No.1, Accused No.2 & Accused No.4 had opened S.B Account No. 4561 & S.B. Account No.4562 with Canara Bank, Rajenderanagar Branch,

Hyderabad in the name of Accused No.6 college. Accused No.1, Accused No.2 & Accused No.4 are authorized persons to operate such bank account on behalf of Accused No.6 college.

3 OF 22 CC.No.18 OF 2018

2.4.In pursuance to the criminal conspiracy, accused persons started receiving foreign contributions in the form of cheques & Demand Drafts and got them credited into the above said accounts right from 1991 to April, 1995. Accused No.6 has received foreign contributions to the tune of 1.61 Crores during 1991 to 1995 without the permission of Ministry of Home Affairs.

2.5.In pursuance of the conspiracy, on 17/06/1992 Accused No.1, Accused No.2 & Accused

No.4 also opened S.B. Account No.5180 with Canara Bank, Rajendra Nagar Branch, Hyderabad for receiving foreign contributions and certain amounts have been transferred to this account from

S.B.Account No.4561 & 4562 of Accused No.6 and vice-versa and thereafter Accused No.1,

Accused No.2 & Accused No.4 have withdrawn the amounts.

2.6.Accused persons knowing fully well that Ministry of Home Affairs has not permitted to receive the foreign contributions and in violation of provisions of ‘the Act’ received the foreign contributions and withdrawn the same and thereby Accused No.1 to Accused No.6 are liable for punishment under sections 6 r/w 23 of FCR Act, 1976 and Section 120-B of IPC.

3.Cognizance was taken for the offences punishable under sections 6 r/w 23 of FCR Act, 1976 and Section 120-B of IPC.

4.On the date of appearance, Report filed by CBI stating that Accused No.4 died. Hence, the case against Accused No.4 abated on 17/11/2005.

5.On appearance, copies of case documents as required under section 207 of Cr.P.C. were furnished to Accused No.1 to Accused No.3 and the representatives of Accused No.5 & Accused

No.6.

4 OF 22 CC.No.18 OF 2018

6.Accused No.1 to Accused No.3, Accused No.5 & Accused No.6 were examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C. After hearing the learned Public Prosecutor for CBI and the learned counsel

for the Accused, charges for the offences punishable under sections 6 r/w 23 of FCR Act, 1976 and

Section 120-B of IPC, framed, read over and explained to them for which Accused No.1 to

Accused No.3, Accused No.5 & Accused No.6 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7.Before commencement of Trial, Report filed stating that Accused No.1 died. Hence, the case against Accused No.1 abated on 10/10/2010. In the said Circumstances, the trial was faced by

Accused No.2, Accused No.3 in person and Accused No.5 Association & Accused No.6 college represented by Accused No.2.

8.PW1 to PW11 were examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P32 were marked on behalf of the prosecution.

9.After closure of the prosecution evidence and at the stage of examination under section 313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C., the Hon’ble High Court passed orders in Writ Petition No.33923 of 2015 on 05/07/2022 and quashed the proceedings against Accused No.2, Accused No.5 Association and

Accused No.6 College. More over on 26/10/2022 the CBI also filed report stating that Accused

No.2 who is representing Accused No.5 Association and Accused No.6 college died. A copy of death certificate of Accused No.2 also filed. However, in view of quash of proceedings by the

Hon’ble High Court no order regarding abatement passed against Accused No.2. The only accused

on record to face the examination under section 313 of Cr.P.C. was Accused No.3.

10.Accused No.3 was examined under section 313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. He denied the incriminating material evidence and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

11.Heard Sri. Vijay Kumar Dubey., learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for CBI and Sri

N.S.J.V. Rama Rao, learned Counsel for Accused No.3. Both of them filed their respective Written

Arguments.

5 OF 22 CC.No.18 OF 2018

12.Now, the point for determination is :

1. Whether the prosecution obtained necessary sanction to prosecute Accused No.3 as required Under Section 27 of FCR Act, 1976 ?

2.Whether deemed sanction under section 11 of FCR Act granted to Accused No.5 & Accused No.6 Associations to receive such donations as contended by Accused No.3?

3.Whether the Prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the contributions alleged to be received by Accused No.5 & Accused No.6 Associations are foreign contributions with the meaning of Section 2(c) of FCR Act, 1976? If so,

4.Whether the Prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the contributions alleged to be received by Accused No.5 & Accused No.6 Associations were received from foreign source with the meaning of Section 2(e) of FCR Act, 1976?

5.Whether the prosecution has proved guilt of Accused No.3 beyond reasonable doubt for the charges punishable under sections 6 r/w 23 of FCR Act, 1976 and Section 120-B of IPC?

6.To What Relief?

P OINT:

13. The learned Public Prosecutor for CBI relied upon the Judgment1 of Hon’ble Apex Court wherein it is held that the object of recording the statement of the accused under section 313 of

Cr.P.C. is to put all the incriminating evidence to the accused and to provide him an opportunity to explain such incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution. At the same time, also permit him to put forward his own version or reasons, if he so chooses, in relation to his involvement or otherwise in the crime. However, if the statements made are false, the

Court is entitled to draw an adverse inference and pass consequential orders, as may be called for, in accordance with Law. In this regard, it is settled Law that the statements made under Section 313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. should not be considered in isolation but in conjunction with evidence adduced by the prosecution and the conviction of the accused cannot be based merely on the statement made under section 313 of Cr.P.C. as it cannot be regarded as a substantive piece of evidence.

1Sanatan Nakar Vs State of West Bengal reported in 2010(8) SCC 249

6 OF 22 CC.No.18 OF 2018

14.The learned counsel for the Accused No.3 submitted that the initial burden lies on the prosecution to prove it’s case. In this regard, it is not in dispute that the cardinal principle of

Criminal Jurisprudence is that the guilt of the accused must be proved beyond reasonable doubt and the burden of proving it’s case beyond reasonable doubt lies on the prosecution. The Hon’ble Apex

Court in it’s Judgment2 also held the same.

15.The case of the prosecution is that Accused No.5 Anjuman-e-Hussain Educational

Association was registered under the Public Asset ( Telangana) Registration Act, vide

No.1987/1983 with Registrar of Societies and Accused No.1 was President, Accused No.2 was

Secretary, Accused No.3 was Joint Secretary and Accused No.4 was Treasurer of Accused No.5

Association.

16.In this regard, the evidence of PW5 K. Yadagiri Chary, the then Assistant Inspector General

Registration and Stamps, Hyderabad from 1994 to 2000 speaks that Accused No.5 Association was registered with Registrar of Societies under registered No. 1987/1983. Ex.P22 is the true copy of resolution dated: 3/11/1983 of Accused No.5 Association along with bye-laws and certificate and

Ex.P23 is the copy of Rules and Regulations of Accused No. 5 Association. The recitals of Ex.P22 show Accused No.1 as President, Accused No.2 as Secretary, Accused No.3 as Joint Secretary and

Accused No.4 as Treasurer of Accused No.5 Association. The learned counsel for the Accused

No.3 has cross examined PW5 at length. The oral evidence of PW5 and documentary evidence under Ex.P22 & Ex.P23 are unchallenged by Accused No.3. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that Accused No.5 Anjuman-e-Hussain Educational Association was registered under the Public

Asset ( Telangana) Registration Act, vide No.1987/1983 with Registrar of Societies and Accused

No.1 was President, Accused No.2 was Secretary, Accused No.3 was Joint Secretary and Accused

No.4 was Treasurer of Accused No.5 Association.

17.Sri K. Mahavir, the then Accountant, Canara Bank, Rajendranagar Branch is examined as

PW3. The evidence of PW3 speaks that the Account bearing No.4561 was opened by Accused

No.1 to Accused No.3 in the name of Accused No.6 Islamia Dharo Kulu, so also the account 2Harbeer Singh Vs Sheeshpal & Ors in Crl.Appeal Nos.1624-1625 of 2013 dated: 20/10/2016

7 OF 22 CC.No.18 OF 2018

bearing No.4562 was opened by Accused No.1, Accused No.2 & Accused No.4 in the name of

Accused No.6 and another account bearing No. 5180 was opened by Accused No.5. The evidence of PW4 Sri T.V.S.S. Appa Rao, the then Manager, Canara bank, Rajendranagar Branch, Hyderabad also speaks the same. The learned counsel for the Accused No.3 has cross examined PW3 & PW4 and during the cross examination nothing suggested disputing opening of account bearing Numbers 4561 & 4562 in the name of Accused No.6 and account bearing No.5180 in the name of Accused

No.5 Association. The unchallenged evidence of PW3 & PW4 show that the said accounts were opened in Canara Bank, Rajendranagar Branch.

Point No.1:

18.The learned counsel for the Accused No.3 submitted that the Accused No.3 was prosecuted without necessary sanction as required under section 27 of FCR Act, 1976 as such on this ground alone the Accused No.3 is entitled for acquittal. Per contra, the learned APP submitted that Ex.P24 is sufficient to prove that the Accused No.3 was prosecuted only after necessary sanction. On perusal of Ex.P24, it show that PW7 Pravin Srivastava in the capacity of Joint Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Foreigners Division, New Delhi through order dated: 31/03/2003 accorded sanction under Section 27 of the Act for prosecution of Accused No.3 along with other accused.

The learned Counsel for Accused No.3 cross examined PW7 but nothing suggested stating that

Accused No.3 was prosecuted without any sanction. It was only suggested to PW7 that the sanction was accorded without application of his mind which was denied by PW7. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for the Accused No.3 that Accused No.3 was prosecuted without any sanction as required under section 27 of the Act, is negated. The point No.1 is accordingly answered infavour of the prosecution and against the Accused No.3.

Point No.2:

19.The case of the prosecution is that Accused No.1 to Accused No.4 received foreign contributions in the name of Accused No.5 Association and Accused No.6 college in violation of

Section 6(1)(a) of the FCR Act, 1976 and thereby Accused persons are liable for punishment under section 23 of the Act.

8 OF 22 CC.No.18 OF 2018

20.The main defence of the Accused No.3 is that an application under Section 11 of the Act was made by Accused No.5 association and such application was neither returned nor rejected within 90 days of it’s submission which amounts to deemed permission to accept the alleged foreign contribution. Hence, this Court intends to refer Section 11 of the Act.

21.Section 11 of FCR Act, 1976:- Application to be made in prescribed form for obtaining prior permission to accept foreign contribution or hospitality- (1) Every individual, association, organization or other person, who is required by or under this Act to obtain the prior permission of the Central Government to accept any foreign contribution or foreign hospitality, shall, before the acceptance of any such contribution or hospitality, make an application for such permission to the Central Government in such form and in such manner as may be prescribed.

(2) If an application referred to in sub-section (1) is not disposed of within ninety days from the date of receipt of such application, the permission prayed for in such application shall, on the expiry of the said period of ninety days, be deemed to have been granted by the Central Government:

Provided that, where, in relation to an application, the Central Government has informed the applicant the special difficulties by reason of which his application cannot be disposed of within the said period of ninety days, such application shall not, until the expiry of a further period of thirty days, be deemed to have been granted by the Central Government.

22.Ex.P27 is the file maintained by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India regarding FCR Act, 1976 pertaining to Accused No.5 Association. It show that, on 20/01/1990 an application under Form FC-8 was made by Accused No.1 on behalf of Accused No.5 association to the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi, praying for registration of Accused No.5 Assocation under FCR Act, 1976.

23.The evidence of PW7 Pravin Srivastava, the then Joint Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs,

New Delhi further speaks that the application of Accused No.5 association under Section 6 of FCR

Act, dated: 20/01/1990 was rejected on 17/05/1991. As rightly submitted by the learned Counsel

for the Accused No.3 that if the application of Accused No.5 association has not disposed in terms

of Section 11(1) within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of such application, the permission deemed to be granted to Accused No.5 on expiry of 90 days. However, as per proviso of

9 OF 22 CC.No.18 OF 2018

Section 11(2) of the Act, the Central Government may take further period of 30 days by duly informing the Accused No.5 Association the special difficulties by reason of which the application cannot be disposed of within the said period of 90 days. In the present case, there is no evidence on record to show that the Central Government has informed Accused No.5 association the special difficulties for not disposing the application within 90 days so as to extend the period for further 30 days. However, the record show that the application of Accused No.5 Association was not disposed within period of 90 days so also within the extended period of 30 days from expiry of 90 days, but it was kept pending and only on 17/05/1991 such application was rejected. Hence, the permission to

Accused No.5 association deemed to be granted under section 6 of the Act. In the Writ Petition vide

W.P.No.33923 of 2015 filed by Accused No.2, Accused No.5 Association and Accused No.6, The

Hon’ble High Court for the State of Telangana held that the petitioners are entitled for deemed

permission after expiry of 90 days period as per the provisions of Section 11(2) of the Act. In the said circumstances, the contention of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for CBI that the amounts were received by Accused No.5 Association without any permission of the Central

Government, is negated.

24.The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor further submitted that the Accused No.5 association received foreign contributions and deposited the same in the bank account other than the bank indicated in the application dated: 20/01/1990 made to Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of

India and thereby Accused No.5 Association has committed offence punishable under section 6 r/w 23 of FCR Act. On this aspect, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor relied upon the Judgment3 of

Hon’ble Apex Court. I do agree that Ex.P27 is the File maintained by the Ministry of Home

Affairs, Government of India regarding Foreign Contribution Regulation Act pertaining to Accused

No.5 and Accused No.6 associations. It contains the application of Accused No.5 Association

dated: 20/01/1990 made to Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, wherein it is mentioned

that Accused No.5 Association shall receive/accept the foreign contributions only through it’s account bearing No.786 of State Bank of India Located at Meeralam Mandi. If the material on record show that Accused No.5 received contributions in to the account other than the account bearing No.786 of SBI, Meeralam Mandi, the above Judgment squarely applicable to the present case. But, the record show that the foreign contributions were received through account bearing 3State Rep.by CBI Vs M. Kurian Chief Funcionary of the Cross reported in 2001(4) SCC 290.

10 OF 22 CC.No.18 OF 2018

No.4561 & 4562 of Accused No.6 but not into the account of 5180 of Accused No.5 Association.

Hence, the contention of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor that Accused No.5 association received amounts in it’s account bearing No. 5180 of Canara Bank, Rajenderanagar Branch but not into it’s account No.786 of SBI, Meeralam Mandi branch as mentioned in the application, is not correct.

25.The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor further submitted that Accused No.6 has not at all applied for any registration or for prior permission to accept foreign contribution but it has received foreign contributions through it’s accounts bearing No.4561 & 4562 maintained in Canara Bank,

Rajendranagar Branch. I do agree that the record only show that only Accused No.5 association made application under Section 6 of FCR Act, seeking permission to receive foreign contributions.

There is nothing on record to show that application in the name of Accused No.6 was also made under section 6 of FCR Act, seeking permission to receive foreign contributions. It is also not the defence of the accused persons that the application was also made to the Government of India under section 6 of FCR Act seeking permission to receive foreign contributions in the name of

Accused No.6. But, both oral and documentary evidence on record show that the amounts were received in the accounts bearing No.4561 & 4562 opened in the name of Accused No.6 in Canara

Bank, Rajendra Nagar Branch and received amounts, in violation of Section 6 of FCR Act.

26.The record further show that Accused No.1 was President, Accused No.2 was Secretary,

Accused No.3 was Joint Secretary, Accused No.4 was Treasurer of Accused No.5 Association which was registered with Registrar of Societies under registered No. 1987/1983. But, there is nothing brought on record to show that Accused No.6 also registered with Registrar of Societies. Nothing brought on record whether Accused No.3 is also Joint Secretary of Accused No.6 college and how

Accused No.3 is related to Accused No.6 college. Even according to the prosecution, Accused

No.1, Accused No.2 & Accused No.4 had opened S.B Account No. 4561 & S.B. Account No.4562 with Canara Bank, Rajenderanagar Branch, Hyderabad in the name of Accused No.6 college.

Accused No.1, Accused No.2 & Accused No.4 are only authorized persons to operate such bank account on behalf of Accused No.6 college. Accused No.1, Accused No.2 & Accused No.5 opened

S.B. Account No.5180 with Canara Bank, Rajendra Nagar Branch, Hyderabad for receiving foreign

11 OF 22 CC.No.18 OF 2018

contributions and certain amounts have been transferred to this account from S.B.Account No.4561 & 4562 of Accused No.6 and vice-versa and thereafter Accused No.1, Accused No.2 & Accused

No.4 have withdrawn the amounts. It is not the case of the prosecution that Accused No.3 has opened such accounts in the name of Accused No.6 and that he was the authorized person to operate such accounts and in such capacity withdrawn the amounts. On the other hand, as stated supra, the case against Accused No.2, Accused No.5 Association & Accused No.6 was already quashed by the

Hon’ble High Court for the State of Telangana in the order in W.P.No.33923 of 2015 dated:

05/072022 and the same is not set-aside or modified till the date of pronouncement of Judgment of this Case. Hence, Point No.2 answered accordingly.

Point No.3:

27.The evidence of PW3 further speaks that during the period from 1992 to 1994, a total amount of Rs.1,46,903.80/-was credited into the Account No.4561 as Foreign contributions. Ex.P19 is bunch of pay-in-slips (11 in number) in respect of payment of the foreign contribution amounts into the account number 4561. During the period from May, 1991 to April, 1995, a total amount of

Rs.1,59,91,452.23/- was credited into the account of 4562 towards foreign contribution. Ex.P20 is the bunch of pay-in-slips (87 in number) in respect of payment of foreign contribution amounts into the account No.4562. The evidence of PW6 S. Mallikarjuna Rao, Branch Manager, Canara Bank,

Rajendranagar Branch is also in the same lines of evidence of PW3.

28.PW10 T. Rajendra Prasad is the Investigating Officer of this case. The evidence of PW10 speaks that during the course of investigation, he collected Ex.P27 to Ex.P32 and submitted before the Court. Ex.P28 is the True extract of the statement regarding the details of the foreign contributions received into the accounts bearing No.4561 and 4562 of the Accused No.6. Ex.P29 is the Cash book of Accused No.6 for the period from 10/10/1990 to 31/03/1994 pertaining to the account bearing No.4562 maintained with Canara Bank, Rajendranagar Branch. Ex.P30 is the Cash book of Accused No.6 for the period from 1994-1995 pertaining to the account bearing No.4562 maintained with Canara Bank, Rajendranagar Branch. Ex.P31 File maintained by the Ministry of

Home Affairs, Government of India regarding the scrutiny report of audited account statement

12 OF 22 CC.No.18 OF 2018

submitted by the Accused No.5 and Accused No.6 associations to the Ministry of Home Affairs and

Ex.P32 is the File maintained by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India regarding the scrutiny reported audited account statement submitted by the Accused No.5 and Accused No.6 associations to the Ministry of Home Affairs.

29.The evidence of PW3 further speaks about issuance of various cheques under Ex.P11 to

Ex.P16 by Accused No.1 & Accused No.2 and Ex.P17 & Ex.P18 show the transfer of amounts from account No.4561 & 4562 to the account bearing No.5180. PW3, PW6 & PW10 were subjected to cross examination. During the Cross examination their evidence regarding receiving the amounts into the accounts bearing No.4561 & 4562 of Accused No.6 maintained in Canara Bank, is not disputed by Accused No.3. The unchallenged evidence of PW3, PW6, PW10 coupled with Ex.P11 to Ex.P20, Ex.P27 to Ex.P32 clearly show that the amounts were received by Accused No.6 in the accounts bearing Nos.4561 & 4562 maintained in Canara Bank, Rajendranagar Branch and issuance of various cheques under Ex.P11 to Ex.P16 by Accused No.1 & Accused No.2 and also transfer of amounts from account No.4561, 4562 to account bearing No. 5180.

30.The learned counsel for the Accused No.3 submitted that in Islam, it is obligatory upon

Muslim to pay a portion of his earnings once in a lunar (Hijra) year to the poor and the needy when his earnings reach a prescribed amount ( called “Nisab”) above of his needs. According to him, in the present case, the amounts were received from Non-resident Indians for the purpose of Zakat,

Kifalat and they do not fall within the definition of foreign contribution received from foreign source. In this circumstances, it is for the prosecution initially to establish that the amounts received in the accounts bearing Nos. 4561 & 4562 as foreign contributions as defined under section 2(c) of FCR Act, 1976 and then to establish that those amounts received from foreign source as defined under 2(e) of FCR Act, 1976.

31.In order to appreciate the same, this Court intends to refer the definition of foreign contribution under FCR Act, 1976.

13 OF 22 CC.No.18 OF 2018

As per Section 2(c) of the Act, “Foreign Contribution” means the donation, delivery or transfer made by any foreign source :-

(i) of any article, not being an article given to a person as a gift for his personal use, if the market value, in India, of such article, on the date of such gift, does not exceed one thousand rupees;

(ii) of any currency, whether Indian or foreign;

(iii) of any foreign security as defined in clause (i) of section 2 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (46 of 1973).

[Explanation.—A donation, delivery or transfer of any article, currency or foreign security referred to in this clause by any person who has received it from any foreign source, either directly or through one or more persons, shall also be deemed to be foreign contribution within the meaning of this clause;

32.In the present case, the statement showing the details of foreign contributions under Ex.P31 show that all the amounts received are exceeding Rs.1,000/- except the contribution of Rs.500/- received in April, 1992 from one M.A. Malik, KSA and Rs.1000/- received in April, 1992 from

A.Lateef, USA. Since, the amounts are donations and whose value is more than Rs.1000/- the amounts fall within the definition of Section 2(c) of the Act.

33.In respect of defence of the Accused No.3 that the amounts received are Zakat, Kifalat, I do agree that the statement referred under Ex.P31 show that most of the amounts were received in the name of Zakath. However, section 2(c) of FCR Act, 1976 defines foreign contribution means any donation and it has not exempted amounts received in the name of Zakath, Kifalat under donations. Hence, it can be safely concluded that the amounts received are donations within the definition of Section 2(c) of FCR Act, 1976 and it is foreign contribution. Hence, point No.3 is answered infavour of the prosecution and against Accused No.3

Point No.4:

34.Now, it is for the prosecution to establish that such donations were received from foreign source as defined under section 2(e) of FCR Act, 1976.

14 OF 22 CC.No.18 OF 2018

35. Section 2(e) of the FCR Act, 1976 defines foreign Source and “foreign source” includes:-

(i) the Government of any foreign country or territory and any agency of such Government,

(ii) any international agency, not being the United Nations or any of its specialized agencies, the World Bank, International Monetary Fund or such other agency as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf,

(iii) a foreign company within the meaning of section 591 of the Companies Act, 1956, (1 of 1956) and also includes—

(a) a company which is a subsidiary of a foreign company, and

(b) a multi-national corporation within the meaning of this Act,

(iv) a corporation, not being a foreign company, incorporated in a foreign country or territory,

(v) a multi-national corporation within the meaning of this Act,

(vi) a company within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1956, (1 of 1956) if more than one-half of the nominal value of its share capital is held, either singly or in the aggregate, by one or more of the following, namely:—

(a) Government of a foreign country or territory,

(b) citizens of a foreign country or territory,

(c) corporations incorporated in a foreign country or territory,

(d) trusts, societies or other associations of individuals (whether incorporated or not), formed or registered in a foreign country or territory,

(vii) a trade union in any foreign country or territory, whether or not registered in such foreign country or territory,

(viii) a foreign trust by whatever name called, or a foreign foundation which is either in the nature of trust or is mainly financed by a foreign country or territory,

(ix) a society, club or other association of individuals formed or registered outside India,

(x) a citizen of a foreign country, but does not include any foreign institution which has been permitted by the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, to carry on its activities in India;

36.The statement showing the details of foreign contributions under Ex.P31 reveals that all the amounts were received from various persons under Zakath, Kilfalat/ Donation from various Muslim persons of various countries namely Jeddah, Riyad, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, United States of

15 OF 22 CC.No.18 OF 2018

America, Canada, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Now, it is for the prosecution to establish that the persons from whom donations were received fall within the categories mentioned above in Section 2(e) of FCR Act, 1976. This can be established by examining any one of donors whose names mentioned in Ex.P31.

37.In this case, admittedly PW10 T. Rajendra Prasad, Investigating Officer has not examined any of the donors whose names mentioned in Ex.P31. Since the specific plea of the Accused No.3 is that the amounts were received from Non-Resident Indians but not from foreign nationals, it is for the prosecution to establish that the amounts received from foreign sources defined above. But, nothing brought on record to show that the donors are citizens of foreign country or a society, club or other association of individuals formed or registered outside India or any of the categories fall within the definition of Section 2(e) of FCR Act, 1976, referred above. PW3 also deposed that he cannot say whether the amounts credited or transferred into the accounts bearing No.4561 & 4562 of Accused No.6 were foreign contributions or not. In the absence of either oral or documentary evidence, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove that the amounts received fall within the definition of foreign contributions received from foreign source. In the circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution though proved that the contributions received are donations under section 2(c) of FCR Act, 1976 but it failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that such contributions are received form foreign source as defined under section 2(e) of FCR Act, 1976. The point No.4 accordingly answered against the prosecution and infavour of the Accused No.3

Point No.5:

38.The further case of the prosecution is that Accused No.3 in collusion with Accused No.1,

Accused No.2 & Accused No.4 entered into an agreement to do an illegal act i.e., to collect the foreign contributions by violating the provisions of the FCR Act, 1976 and in-terms of such agreement collected amounts and thereby committed offence punishable under section 120-B of

IPC.

16 OF 22 CC.No.18 OF 2018

39.The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for CBI submitted that conspiracy always hatched in secrecy and it is impossible to adduce direct evidence of the same and this offence can be proved only from inference drawn from acts of illegal omission committed by the conspirators in pursuance of a common design. On this aspect relied upon the Judgment4 of Hon’ble Apex Court.

40.The condition precedent, for holding accused persons guilty of a charge of criminal conspiracy must, therefore, be considered on the anvil of a fact which must be established by the prosecution, viz., meeting point of two or more persons for doing or causing to be done an illegal act or an act by illegal means. However, while drawing an inference from the materials brought on record to arrive at a finding as to whether the charges of the criminal conspiracy have been proved or not, must always bear in mind that a conspiracy is hatched in secrecy and it is, thus, difficult, if not impossible, to obtain direct evidence to establish the same. The manner and circumstances in which the offences have been committed and the level of involvement of the accused persons therein are relevant factors.

41.Therefore, meeting of minds of two or more persons for doing an illegal act or an act by illegal means is sine qua non of the criminal conspiracy but it may not be possible to prove the agreement between them by direct proof.

42.Per contra, the learned counsel for the Accused No.3 submitted that Accused No.3 is not the person who opened bank account in the name of Accused No.5 Association and Accused No.6 college and Accused No.3 is not the signatory of application filed before Ministry of Home Affairs, so also not authorized person to operate such accounts and there is nothing on record to show that

Accused No.3 entered into agreement with other accused persons to open account in the name of

Accused No.5 & Accused No.6 and received foreign contributions. I do agree that there is nothing brought on record to show that Accused No.3 was authorized signatory of the accounts bearing

No.4561, 4562 & 5180. There is nothing on record to show that Accused No.3 entered into criminal conspiracy with Accused No.1, Accused No.2, Accused No.4 and in furtherance of such 4Ajay Agarwal Vs Union Of India reported in 1993(3) SCC 608

17 OF 22 CC.No.18 OF 2018

conspiracy received the contributions. As stated supra, the Hon’ble High Court already quashed the proceedings against Accused No.2, Accused No.5 & Accused No.6 in W.P.No.33923 of 2015

dated:05/07/2022 and the case against Accused No.1 & Accused No.4 abated as died. In the said

circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge for offence punishable under section 120-B of IPC.

43.The learned counsel for the Accused No.3 further submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove how the documents under Ex.P29 & Ex.P30 came into the hands of investigating officer.

In this case, Ex.P29 is Cash book of Accused No.6 college for the period from 10/10/1990 to 31/03/1994 pertaining to the account bearing No.4562 maintained with Canara Bank,

Rajendranagar Branch and Ex.P30 is Cash book of Accused No.6 college for the period from 1994- 1995 pertaining to the account bearing No.4562 maintained with Canara Bank, Rajendranagar

Branch. PW10 Investigating Officer admitted that he did not submit any seizure memo showing seizure of Ex.P29 & Ex.P30. In such situation, it is for the prosecution to explain as to how PW10 came into possession of the above documents but nothing brought on record on this aspect.

44.The learned counsel for the Accused No.3 further submitted that PW1 allegedly conducted inspection of the offices of Accused No.5 & Accused No.6 and submitted a report to Ministry of

Home Affairs but such report is not seen the light of the day. I do agree that the evidence of PW1 speaks that during the period in between 04/01/1996 and 07/01/1996 he visited the Accused No.5 association, inspected it’s accounts, vouchers, cash books and submitted his report to his Senior

Officers. As rightly submitted by Accused No.3 that the said report is not filed before the Court.

Non-production of such material document gives a serious doubt about the case of the prosecution.

45.The learned counsel for the Accused No.3 has drawn attention of the court to refer Ex.P24

Order dated: 31/03/2003 issued by PW7 to prosecute Accused No.1 to Accused No.6 to show that there is no role played by Accused No.3 in receiving the donations. On perusal of Ex.P24, at Page

No.3, last para, it is mentioned as under:

18 OF 22 CC.No.18 OF 2018

“ Whereas SB A/c.Nos. 4561 & 4562 were opened at Canara Bank, Rajendranagar Branch, Hyderabad in the name of Jamia Darul-Uloom (A6) which was shown as Religious institution run by Ajuman-e-Hussamia Education Association(A5). Cheques and Demand Drafts received from foreign countries were credited into the said accounts from June 1991 to April 1995. Anjuman-e-Hussamia Educational Association (A5) opened account No.5180 for receiving foreign contribution. The violations were

committed by Mohd. Hameeduddin Aqil Hussain, President (A1), Mohd

Raheemuddin Ansari(A2) and Mohd. Hasanuddin(A4); Treasurer being the

functionaries of the said Associations. As such, the Association also liable to be prosecution as per the provisions contained in Sec. 305 of Cr.P.C. As such the firms are also to be prosecuted. Therefore, the receipt of foreign contributions by the said associations is in violation of Sec.6(1)(a) FCRA, 1976 which is punishable under section 23 of the said Act”

46.Therefore, the recitals of order under Ex.P24 show that the violations under FCR Act, 1976 were done by Accused No1, Accused No.2 & Accused No.4, Accused No.5 Association & Accused

No.6 Educational Institute. However, as stated supra, the case against Accused No.1 & Accused

No.4 abated since died. The case against Accused No.2, Accused No.5 Association and Accused

No.6 college was quashed by the Hon’ble High Court. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel

for the Accused No.3, it is not the observation under Ex.P24 that the violation under FCR Act, 1976

was done by Accused No.3.

47.In view of the aforesaid reasons and discussions, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of Accused No.3 beyond reasonable doubt for the charges punishable under sections 6 r/w 23 of the Act and Section 120-B of IPC and accordingly the Point

No.5 is answered against the prosecution and infavour of the Accused No.3

Point No.6:

48.As stated supra, the case against Accused No.1 & Accused No.4 already abated since died and the case against Accused No.2, Accused No.5 & Accused No.6 quashed by the Hon’ble High

Court in W.P.No.33923/2015 dated: 05/07/2022. In view of answering Point No.4 & Point No.5 infavour of the Accused No.3 against the prosecution, Accused No.3 is entitled for acquittal.

19 OF 22 CC.No.18 OF 2018

49.In the result, Accused No.3 is found not guilty for the charges punishable under sections 6 r/w 23 of the Foreign Contributions Regulation Act, 1976 & Section 120-B of IPC and he is acquitted under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of Accused No.3 shall stand canceled after expiry of six months from the date of this Judgment. The case against Accused No.1 & Accused

No.4 already abated since died. The proceedings against Accused No.2, Accused No.5 & Accused

No.6 closed as Quashed by the Hon’ble High Court in W.P.No.33923/2015 dated: 05/07/2022.

Typed to my dictation by Typist, Corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court On this the 28th day of February, 2023.

XXI-Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, -cum – Special JMFC for Trial of CBI Cases, Hyderabad.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined On Behalf of

PROSECUTION:

PW1:P.K. Kaul PW2:S.A.S. Nalini Bandhava Rao PW3:K. Mahaveer PW4:T.V.S.S. Appa Rao PW5:K. Yadagiri Chary PW6:B. Mallikarjun Rao PW7:Pravin Srivastava PW8:Mohd. Jafar PW9:Mohd. Jafar PW10:T. Rajendra Prasad PW11:Naresh Chandra

DEFENCE:

- None -

20 OF 22 CC.No.18 OF 2018

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF

PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1:Authorization given to PW1 under section 14 of FCRA

Ex.P2:Show Cause Notice dated: 11/08/1995 issued by PW1 calling explanation of Accused No.5 Association.

Ex.P3:Intimation Letter dated: 9/12/1995 issued by PW1 intimating Accused No.5 Association about visit of PW1

Ex.P4:Rejection letter dated: 17/5/1991 issued by FCRA -3 section, Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs.

Ex.P5:Note of FCRA-3 section.

Ex.P6:Letter dated: 7/1/1998 addressed by PW2 to Inspector of Police, CBI

Ex.P7:Copy of Circular Instructions dated: 22/11/1991 issued by Canara Bank, Mumbai under Circular ID.No.18/85.

Ex.P8 :Copy of Circular No.33/87 dated: 19/9/1987

Ex.P9:Copy of Circular ID.No.18/85 dated: 16/7/1985

Ex.P10:Circular No.ID/84/79 dated: 06/10/1979.

Ex.P11:Cheque Bearing No.351364 dated: 17/2/1992 issued by A1 & A2 for Rs.22520/-

Ex.P12:Cheque bearing No.351372 dated: 24/3/1992 issued by A1 & A4 for Rs.65000/-

Ex.P13:Cheque bearing No.351382 dated: 09/03/1992 issued by A1 & A4 for Rs.40,000/-

Ex.P14:Cheque bearing No.769982 dated: 23/1/1992 issued by A1 & A2 for Rs.16000/-

Ex.P15:Cheque bearing No.773284 dated: 5/9/1994 issued by A2 & A4 for Rs.10000/-

Ex.P16:Cheque bearing No.773281 dated: 30/09/1992 issued by A1 & A2 for Rs.10 lakhs

21 OF 22 CC.No.18 OF 2018

Ex.P17:Pay in Slip in respect of adjustment of Ex.P16 cheque amount into the account No.4561

Ex.P18:Letter dated: 19/9/1997 addressed by Canara Bank, Rajendranagar Branch to CBI, Hyderabad

Ex.P19:Bunch of Pay-in-Slips 11 in number in respect of payment of the foreign contribution amounts into the account number 4561 from the period 1992 to 1994

Ex.P20:Bunch of Pay-in-Slips 87 in number in respect of payment of the foreign contribution amounts into the account number 4562.

Ex.P21:Letter dated: 23/5/1998 addressed by PW5 to Inspector of Police, CBI, Hyderabad.

Ex.P22:Copy of resolution of A5 Association dated: 3/11/1983 along with Bye-Laws Certificate.

Ex.P23:Copy of Rules and Regulations of A5 Association.

Ex.P24:Order dated: 31/03/2003 issued by PW7 to prosecute A1 to A6.

Ex.P25:Compliant dated: 7/1/1996 received from Naresh Chandra, Deputy Secretary( Retired), FCRA Division, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi.

Ex.P26:FIR issued by PW8 in RC.No.10(E)/97 – Hyderabad under section 23 of FCRA, 1976

Ex.P27:File maintained by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India regarding Foreign Contribution Regulation Act pertaining to A5 and A6 associations ( 25 sheets with file docket two sheets)

Ex.P28:True extract of the statement regarding the details of the foreign contributions received into the accounts bearing No.4561 and 4562 of the accused No.6 association

Ex.P29:Cash book of accused No.6 association for the period from 10-101990 to 31-03- 1994 pertaining to the account bearing No.4562 maintained with Canara Bank, Rajendranagar Branch.

22 OF 22 CC.No.18 OF 2018

Ex.P30:Cash book of accused No.6 association for the period from 1994-1995 pertaining to the account bearing No.4562 maintained with Canara Bank, Rajendranagar Branch.

Ex.P31:File maintained by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India regarding the scrutiny report of audited account statement submitted by the accused No.5 and Accused No.6 associations to the Ministry of Home Affairs (36 sheets with file docket two sheets).

Ex.P32:File maintained by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India regarding the scrutiny reported audited account statement submitted by the accused No.5 and accused No.6 associations to the Ministry of Home Affairs (10 sheets with file docket two sheets).

DEFENCE:

- Nil -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- Nil -

XXI-Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, -cum – Special JMFC for Trial of CBI Cases, Hyderabad.