Smt J. Maithreyi

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 1 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

//Fair Copy//

IN THE COURT OF I ADDL. SPECIAL JUDGE FOR CBI CASES, HYDERABAD.

Dated this the 06th day of April, 2026

Present : Smt. J. Maithreyi,

Special Judge for trial of cases under Economic

Offences-cum-VIII Additional Metropolitan Sessions

Judge-cum-XXII Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad.

FAC I Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad.

C.C.No.07 of 2007

(R.C.No.2(E)/2003/CBI/BS&FC/CNI)

Between :

State represented by Central Bureau of Investigation,...Complainant

Hyderabad AND

1.Munnalal Agarwal, S/o Late Chaganlal Agarwal, AgedAccused No.1 about:72 Years, Occ: Managing Director M/s.Airan Comtrax Towers Private Limited, Director of M/s.Aren Steels Ltd and Power of Attorney holder of M/s.Shakti Steels, R/o No.53-A, Sagar Society, Banjarahils, Road No.2, Hyderabad – 500034.

2.Ritesh Agarwal, S/o M.L.Agarwal, Aged about:48Accused No.2 Years Occ: Director M/s.Airan Comtrax Towers Private Limited, Director of M/s.Aren Steels Ltd, R/o: No.53-A, Sagar Society, Banjarahils, Road No.2, Hyderabad – 500034.

3.Shashi Agarwal, W/o M.L.Agarwal, Aged about: 70Accused No.3 Years, Occ: Proprietrix of M/s.Shakti Steels, R/o: No.53-A, Sagar Society, Banjarahils, Road No.2, Hy- derabad – 500034.

(Note: Proceedings against A1 to A3 and A9 are quashed by Hon’Ble High Court in Crl. Petition No.613/2023 dated 29.01.2020)

4.M.Sundareswaran, S/o M.Muthukrishnan, AgedAccused No.4 about:75 years, Occ: Formerly Senior Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad, R/o 302, United Enclave, 7-1-28/4, Leela

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 2 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Nagar, Hyderabad – 500 016.

5.M/s.Airan Comptrax Towers Pvt. Ltd, represented byAccused No.5 A1. R/o 2-3-467 Minister Road, Secunderabad – 500 003.

6.M/s.Aren Steels Ltd represented by A1. R/o 2-3-467Accused No.6 Minister Road, Secunderabad – 500 003.

7.M/s.Sakthi Steels represented by A1 R/o 2-3-467Accused No.7 Minister Road, Secunderabad – 500 003.

8.Kanwal Jeet Singh, S/o Swaran Singh, Aged about:76Accused No.8 Years, Occ: Formerly Asst. Manager/Regional Manager, OBC, Chennai, R/o.32-A, New Prem Nagar, Bhadsom Road, Patiala, Panjab

9.Chandraprakash, S/o S.Balakrishna, Aged about:62Accused No.9 Years, Occ: Accounrtant of M/s.Shakti Steels, R/o H.No.7-1-250 maruthi Vedhi, Secunderabad– 500 003.

(Note: Proceedings against A1 to A3 and A9 are quashed by Hon’Ble High Court in Crl. Petition No.613/2023 dated 29.01.2020)

10. S.Chandrasekharan, S/o M.A.Swaminathan, AgedAccused No.10 About:78 Years, Occ:Valuer and Proprietor of M/s.Serval Associates, R/o C-23, Sterling Villa, Vikrampuri, Behind Ratnadeep Supermarket, Secunderabad.

11. Nurbasha Mohammed Babu, S/o Maulali, AgedAccused No.11 about:55 Years, Occ: Officer, Scale-1, R/o Atchampet, PO Mandal, Guntur – 522 409, Andhra Pradesh.

(As per orders in Crl.MP.No.335/2009 the Case against A11 was splitup and numbered as C.C.No.2 of 2009)

This case is coming before me on 24.03.2026 for hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri.B.Raghavendra, Learned Special Public Prosecutor for Com- plainant, Sri Yeka Bala Subramanyam, Counsel for A4, Sri E. Uma Maheshwar Rao, Counsel for A5 to A7, Sri.V.R.Machavaram Counsel for A8, Sri C.P.K.V.Sastry Counsel for A10 and after hearing the arguments and perusing the material on

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 3 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 record and after the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, to- day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.This case arises out of R.C.No.2(E)/2003/CBI/BS&FC/CNI registered against A1 to A11 for the offence under Sections 120-B r/w 409, 419, 420, 467, 468 & 471 of IPC and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) & (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

2.The brief averments of the charge sheet are that the Central Bureau of In- vestigation, Bank Securities & Frauds Cell, Chennai had registered a criminal case on the basis of a complaint received from the Chief Vigilance Officer, Orien- tal Bank of Commerce, regarding the serious irregularities in the accounts of M/s

Shakti Steels, M/s Aren Steels Ltd., and M/s Airen Comtrax Towers Pvt Ltd., com- mitted at the behest of the Promoters / Directors of these companies, in con- nivance with Shri M. Sundareswaran (A-4), the then Branch Manager, Oriental

Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad, and Shri Kanwal Jeet Singh (A-8), the then Regional Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Regional Office,

Chennai. It is alleged in the complaint that these three companies were indulging in raising fictitious accommodation bills of bogus firms, or of firms floated by the employees/relatives of the Promoters of these three companies. Kite-flying oper- ations of huge magnitude were permitted in all these company's accounts, with the connivance of the officials of the bank. Owing to the fraudulent acts, commit- ted by the Promoters of the company, Oriental Bank of Commerce sustained

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 4 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 losses to the tune of Rs.514.71 lakhs, excluding interest, in these three accounts put together. The balances outstanding in the accounts of the three companies, as on 28/05/2002, were as under:-

(i) M/s Shakti Steels - Rs. 50.26 lakhs,

(ii) M/s Aren Steels Ltd., - Rs.112.57 lakhs

(iii) M/s Airen Comtrax Towers Pvt Ltd. - Rs.351.88 lakhs

Rs.517.71 lakhs

3. It was alleged that M/s.Shakti Steels, a Proprietorship concern of

Smt.Shashi Agarwal (A-3), wife of Shri Munnalal Agarwal (A-1), had been sanc- tioned Cash Credit (Hyp) limit of Rs.50 lakhs, by the Regional Office of the bank.

Local cheques of very huge amounts, and of accommodative nature, were pur- chased in this account, without any sanctioned Cheque Purchase limits. These were permitted by Shri M.Sundareswaran, (A-4), Senior Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad. These cheques were issued by M/ s.Maheswari Steels Corporation, and other firms, floated by Shri Munnalal Agar- wal (A-1). These cheque purchases were being reported by the branch to the Re- gional Office, but the practice was not stopped by the Controlling Officers, at the

Regional Office, at the behest of Sri. Kanwal Jeet Singh (A-8).

4.The facilities were sanctioned on the equitable mortgage of property, hav- ing a market value of approximately Rs.81.9 lakhs, which was stated to be be- longing to a third party, which, later on, was found to be not belonging to the

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 5 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 person, who had executed the mortgage. The documents submitted for the cre- ation of the mortgage, were all bogus in nature.

5.This case was originally registered against the Promoters of M/s.Sakthi

Steels, M/s.Aren Steels Ltd., and M/s.Airan Comtrax Towers Pvt. Ltd., and two bank officials, under section 120 B r/w 409, 420. 467, 468, & 471 IPC and u/s 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of PC act 1988 and for substantive offences and the FIR is pending before this Court.

6.Charge u/s 120 B r/w 409, 419,420,467,468 & 471 IPC, and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1) (c) & (d) of PC Act, 1988, and substantive offences u/s. 409, 419, 420, 467, 468, & 471 IPC and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1) (c) & (d) of PC Act, 1988, against Sri. Munnalal Agarwal (A-1), Sri. Ritesh Agarwal (A-2), Smt. Sashi Agar- wal (A-3), Sri. M. Sundareswaran (A-4), M/s. Airan Comtrax Towers (P) Ltd. (A- 5), M/s. Aren Steels Ltd. (A-6), M/s. Shakti Steels (A-7), Sri. Kanwal Jeet Singh (A-8) Sri.Chandraprakash, (A-9), Sri. S. Chandrasekharan (A-10) and Sri. Nur- basha Mohammed Babu (A-11).

7.That Sri. Munnalal Agarwal (A-1), Sri. Ritesh Agarwal (A-2), Smt. Sashi

Agarwal (A- 3), Sri. M. Sundareswaran (A-4), Sri. Kanwal Jeet Singh (A-8),

Sri.Chandraprakash (A-9), Sri. S. Chandrasekharan (A-10) and Sri. Nurbasha

Mohammed Babu (A-11) were parties to a criminal conspiracy to cheat Oriental

Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad, in the matter of recommend- ing, sanctioning and availing various credit limits, including Cash Credit, Inland

Letter of Credit, Working Capital Limit, Bank Guarantee, etc. in the account of

M/s.Airan Comtrax Towers (P) Ltd. (A-5), M/s. Aren Steels Ltd. (A-6) and M/

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 6 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 s.Sakthi Steels (A-7) that in pursuance of the criminal conspiracy, the Promoters of the accused companies/firm, represented by Sri. Munnalal Agarwal (A-1) and others, floated several bogus firms, and induced the bank officials to disburse funds on the basis of cheques and other instruments submitted in the name of these bogus firms, which ultimately caused a wrongful loss of more than Rs.517 lakhs plus interest, to Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad.

8.That in pursuance of above mentioned criminal conspiracy, Sri.Munnalal

Agarwal (A- 1), in connivance with Smt.Shashi Agarwal (A-3) had submitted a credit proposal to Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad, un- der the signature of Smt.Shashi Agarwal (A-3), requesting for cash credit facility of Rs. 50 lakhs, for the operations of M/s. Shakti Steels. A-1 had offered the col- lateral security of a property stated to be in the name of Sri.Nagabhushanam

Naidu, as security, for the credit limits to be availed from the bank. Investiga- tions revealed that, Sri. Nagabhushanam Naidu had expired more than 15 years back, and that the property which was offered as security to the bank was not in his name, and that the same belonged to another person, by name Sri. B.V.Sub- ramaniyam. The letter, offering this third party property as security to the bank was signed by Smt. Sashi Agarwal (A-3), along with Sri. M.L. Agarwal (A-1).

9.That in pursuance of above mentioned criminal conspiracy, Sri. M.Sun- dareswaran (A-4) recommended for the sanction of the credit limits as requested for by the Promoters of M/s.Shakti Steels, and he had brought to the notice of the higher officials of the bank that the property offered as collateral security was having an enforceable market value of about Rs. 90 lakhs. Investigations re-

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 7 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 vealed that while accepting the above mentioned property as security, Sri. M.-

Sundareswaran (A-4) did not undertake any personal inspection of the property, which was later found to be non-existing. Based on the recommendations on Sri.

M. Sundarewaran (A-4), the Regional Office of Oriental Bank of Commerce,

Chennai had sanctioned a Cash Credit limit of Rs. 50 lakhs, favouring M/s. Shakti

Steels.

10.That in pursuance of above mentioned criminal conspiracy, Sri. Munnalal

Agarwal (A-1), in connivance with Sri. Ritesh Agarwal (A-2) and Sri.Chan- draprakash (A-9), floated bogus companies in the name of M/s. Ruby Traders,

M/s. Maheswari Steel Corporation, M/s. Chowdhary Steels, M/s. Universal Trading

Company, M/s. Bhoomika Steels and M/s. Venson Steels and accounts were opened at The Agrasan Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd., Hyderabad, and The A.P.

Mahesh Co-operative Bank, Ltd., Hyderabad, through which accounts, the funds released by Oriental Bank of Commerce were siphoned off, without undertaking any genuine business transactions. Investigations revealed that the above men- tioned firms are non-existing, and that the Sales Tax registration numbers, found on the documents, available with the bank, in the names of these firms were ac- tually issued in the names of other firms, which were registered with the Com- mercial Tax Office, Hyderabad.

11.That in pursuance of above mentioned criminal conspiracy, Sri. M.Sun- dareswaran (A- 4), purchased / discounted the cheques issued by the above mentioned bogus firms in favour of M/s. Sakthi Steels and thereby facilitated the private accused persons to utilize the funds, without undertaking any genuine

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 8 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 business transactions. Investigations revealed that there was no sanctioned cheque discounting facility for M/s. Shakti Steels, and that the cheques dis- counted by A-4 were beyond his delegated financial powers, and that many of the discounted cheques were later returned unpaid, when send for clearing.

12. That in pursuance of the above mentioned criminal conspiracy, Sri. Ritesh

Agarwal (A-2) opened one Current A/c. No. 1301, in the name of M/s. Universal

Trading Company, at The Agrasan Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd., Hyderabad, and got credits to this account, from the account of M/s. Sakthi Steels, through cheques issued by Sri. M.L. Agarwal (A-1). Investigations revealed that in the Ac- count Opening Form available at the Bank, the name of the Proprietor of this firm, was shown as Sri. Chakar Rao, and the photograph of Sri. Anjaiah, who was the office boy of M/s. Shakti Steels, was affixed. By operating the account in the name of another person and also by utilizing the photograph of a third person,

A2 had resorted to impersonation, for diverting funds from the account of M/s.

Shakti Steels in connivance with A-1.

13.That in pursuance of above mentioned criminal conspiracy, Sri. Ritesh

Agarwal (A-2) opened two more accounts at The Agrasan Co-operative Urban

Bank Ltd., Hyderabad, in the name of M/s. Chowdhary Steels, (Current A/c. No.

1302) and M/s. Maheswari Steel Corporation (Current No. 1303). Investigations revealed that these two accounts were also operated by A - 2 in the names of different persons, and that most of the credits made into these accounts, were by way of transfer of funds from the account of M/s. Airan Comtrax Towers (P)

Ltd. (A-5), M/s. Aren Steels Ltd. (A-6) and M/s. Shakti Steels (A-7). It has been

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 9 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 further revealed that the Sales Tax registration numbers available in the docu- ments submitted to the bank in the names of these firms were actually issued by the Commercial Tax Department, in favour of some other firms, and that these accused persons had utilized the Registration numbers of other firms, with a dis-

honest intention to cheat the bank. It is also revealed that all the three accounts

operated by A - 2 in fictitious names at The Agrasan Co-operative Urban Bank

Ltd., Hyderabad, were introduced by Sri. M.L. Agarwal (A-1).

14.That in pursuance of above mentioned criminal conspiracy, Sri. Chandra

Prakash (A-9) opened one account (Current A/c. No. 1300), in the name of M/ s.Ruby Traders, at The Agrasan Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd., Hyderabad, and as per the Account Opening Form, the name of the Proprietor was shown as

Sri.K.Ramulu. Investigations revealed that the photograph affixed on the Account

Opening Form was of Sri. Balaiah, an employee of the group companies operated by A - 1 to A - 3 and the account was introduced by Sri. M.L. Agarwal (A-1) It is further revealed that Sri. Chandraprakash (A-9) operated four more accounts at

A.P. Mahesh Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd., in the names of M/s. Maheswari Steel

Corporation (Current Account NO. 2982), M/s. Ruby Traders (Current A/ c.No.3991), M/s. Chowdhary Steels (Current A/c. No. 3877) and M/s. Universal

Trading Company (Current A/c. No. 4024). Investigations revealed that all the above mentioned firms were created with the Sales Tax registration numbers of some other firms, which were actually registered with the Commercial Taxes De- partment, and that these accounts were opened and operated only for the pur- pose of diverting funds from the account of M/s. Shakti Steels, maintained at Ori-

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 10 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 ental Bank of Commerce. It was also revealed that Sri. Chandraprakash (A-9) had operated the above mentioned accounts under fictitious names, and had is- sued cheques favouring M/s. Shakti Steels, which were got discounted by A1 with the help of Sri. M. Sundereswaran (A-4). This accused had opened one more ac- count (Current A / C No. 15) in the name M/s. Venson Steels at The Krushi Co.- operative Urban Bank Ltd., Hyderabad, which was also a bogus firm operated in the name of Sri. Chandra. Several lakhs of rupees have been transferred to this account from the account of accused companies, maintained at Oriental Bank of

Commerce, Ameerpet branch, without undertaking any genuine business trans- actions.

15.That in pursuance of above mentioned criminal conspiracy, Sri.S.Chan- drasekaran (A-10), Proprietor of M/s. Servel Associates, had valued the property offered by Sri. M.L. Agarwal (A-1) as security for loan sanctioned by Oriental

Bank of Commerce to M/s. Shakti Steels. Investigations revealed that the prop- erty, offered as security, said to be located at plot No. 1-9-9, Zamistanpur, Ram- nagar, Hyderabad, measuring 1854 Sq. Yards was not available for valuation, as mentioned in the report submitted by this accused. Sri. S. Chandrasekharan (A-

10) had deliberately concealed the fact that Sri. Nagabushanam Naidu, who was shown as the owner of the property, had expired long back, and that the prop- erty was divided into small plots, which were in the possession of different per- sons. Therefore, it has become evident that Sri. S. Chandrasekharan (A-10) had submitted a Valuation Report on a property, which was non-existent, which was

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 11 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 confirmed by another Valuer, who was later appointed by the bank, for submit- ting the Valuation Report, on the above mentioned property.

16. That in pursuance of above mentioned criminal conspiracy, Smt. Sashi

Agarwal (A-3) submitted proposals for renewal of the Cash Credit limits from time to time, and got sanctioned the same, in connivance with Sri. M. Sun- dareswaran (A-4) and Sri. Kanwal Jeet Singh (A-8). In pursuance of the criminal conspiracy, Sri. Kanwal Jeet Singh (A-8) continued allowing adhoc limits in the group accounts of A-1 to A-3 and he also avoid to restrict Sri. M. Sundareswaran (A-4) from discounting of cheques, even though the same was brought to his no- tice through monthly statements sent by the branch. He also failed to take notice of the warning signals given by the concurrent auditors, regarding the irregular positions of the account and failed to act upon the audit report. Since the re- newal proposals submitted by A-3 and recommended by A-4, were approved by the Regional Office of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Chennai, the accused persons were able to divert funds from the account of M/s.Shakti Steels to their other group accounts, and to the accounts of the non existent firms as mentioned above. Investigations revealed that in the absence of genuine business transac- tions, M/s. Shakti Steels could not repay the amounts withdrawn/transferred from their account at Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad, and the account was declared as a Non Performing Asset (NPA), with effect from 31-03-2002, resulting in a wrongful loss of more than Rs. 50 lakhs, plus interest to the bank and the property offered as collateral security was found to be bogus / non- existent.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 12 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

17. That in pursuance of above said criminal conspiracy, Sri. M.L. Agarwal (A-1) submitted application for credit limits in the account of M/s. Airan Comtrax

Towers (P) Ltd. (ACTPL) and the same was recommended by Sri M.Sun- dareswaran (A-4). Investigations revealed that Sri. Nurbasha Mohammed Babu (A-11), who carried out the pre-sanction and post sanction visits to the sites of the factory of M/s. ACTPL, has submitted false reports, suppressing the fact that the factory was actually not working, when the bank funds were released. Since the cash credit limit were sanctioned / disbursed based on the stock positions, the false reports given by this accused, helped A-1 and A-2 to divert the bank funds without any genuine business transactions.

18. That in pursuance of above said criminal conspiracy, Sri. M.L. Agarwal (A1) in connivance with Sri. M. Sundareswaran (A-4), resorted to large scale kite-flying operations in the account of M/s. ACTPL, without undertaking any gen- uine business transactions and thereby siphoned off funds from Oriental Bank of

Commerce, Ameerpet branch and credited to the accounts operated by Sri.Ritesh

Agarwal (A-2) and Sri. Chandraprakash (A-9) in the name of non-existing firms.

19. That in pursuance of above said criminal conspiracy, Sri. M.L. Agarwal (A1) and Smt. Sashi Agarwal (A-3) had submitted forged property documents as security against the credit limits availed by M/s. ACTPL to Oriental Bank of Com- merce, Ameerpet branch and in furtherance of the conspiracy, Sri.M.Sun- dareswaran (A-4) accepted the said forged documents. Investigations revealed that A-1 and A-3 had created forged title deeds on the properties belonging to

Sri. Jagender Reddy and Sri. Damodar Reddy, without their knowledge and sub-

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 13 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 mitted the same to the Bank as collateral security, against the liabilities of A-5.

Investigations further revealed that Sri. S. Chandasekharan (A10) had submitted highly inflated valuation reports in respect of the properties mentioned in the forged documents submitted by A-1 and A-3 to the Bank.

20. That in pursuance of above said criminal conspiracy, Sri. M.L. Agarwal (A1) in connivance with Sri. M. Sundareswaran (A-4) and Sri. Chandraprakash (A-9) availed Letter of Credit limits from Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet branch in favour of M/s. Aren Steels Ltd. (A-6) and submitted bogus LC docu- ments to the Bank in the name of non-existing firms operated by A-2 and A-9.

Investigations revealed that the LCs opened by OBC, Ameerpet branch were dis- counted by A-1 at different banks including Bank of Baroda, Masab Tank branch,

Hyderabad, State Bank of Mauritius, Hyderabad Branch, UTI Bank, Begumpet and Taranaka branches and Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd., Kukatpally branches, Hyder- abad and athe proceeds were credited to the accounts operated by A-2 and A-9 in fictitious names in different banks. It has been revealed that Sri. M.L. Agarwal (A-1), opened LCs in the name of M/s. Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. (RINL) and got the same discounted through the above mentioned banks, by forging the signa- tures of officials of RINL in the bill of exchange and other connected documents.

21. That in pursuance of above said criminal conspiracy, Sri. M.L. Agarwal (A1) obtained pay orders favouring M/s. RINL, by discounting the bogus Letter of

Credits and the said pay orders were handed over to M/s. Sujana Steels Ltd., which is a company buying materials from M/s. RINL. M/s. Sujana Steels Ltd., in turn handed over cheques to M/s. Aren Steels Ltd. (A-6), equivalent to the

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 14 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 amount they have received in pay orders, which clearly shows that A-1 had re- ceived the funds without undertaking any genuine business transactions. Investi- gations revealed that Sri. Nurbasha Mohamad Babu (A-11) and Sri.M.Sun- dareswaran had handed over the beneficiary copy of the LC document to Sri.

M.L. Agarwal (A-1) which enabled him to discount the LCs opened in the name of

M/s. RINL, without the notice of the company.

22.That in pursuance of above said criminal conspiracy, Sri. M.L. Agarwal (A-

1) in connivance with Sri. S. Chandrasekharan (A-10) had submitted two prop- erty documents as collateral security, for the credit limits availed in the name of

M/s.Aren Steels Ltd. (A-6) and the value of the property was highly inflated, based on which the bank had sanctioned the credit limits. Sri M. Sundareswaran (A-4) convinced the senior officials of the Bank that the valuation report submit- ted by the company were correct. However, investigations revealed that the properties were subsequently got revalued by the Bank through another ap- proved valuer, who found that the actual value of the two properties together was about 50 lacs as on May 2004, whereas the valuation report submitted by

Sri.S.Chandrasekharan (A-10) during 1999 shows the value of the property as more than Rs. 5 crores.

23.The aforesaid acts of Sri. Munnalal Agarwal (A-1), Sri. Ritesh Agarwal (A- 2), Smt. Shashi Agarwal (A-3), Sri. M. Sundareswaran (A-4), M/s. Airan Comtrax

Towers (P) Ltd. (A-5), M/s. Aren Steels Ltd. (A-6), M/s. Shakti Steels (A-7),

Sri.Kanwal Jeet Singh (A-8) Sri. Chandraprakash, (A-9), Sri. S. Chandrasekharan (A10) and Sri. Nurbasha Mohammed Babu (A-11) constitute, offences punishable

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 15 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 u/s 120 B r/w 409, 419,420,467,468 & 471 IPC and section 13(2) r/w 13(1) (c) & (d) of PC Act 1988, and:

(a) Substantive offences u/s 420, 468 and 471 IPC against Sh.Mannulal Agarwal (A-1)

(b) Substantive offences u/s 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC against Sh.Ritesh Agarwal (A-2) and Sri. S. Chandraprakash (A-9)

(c) Substantive offences u/s 420 and 471 IPC against Smt. Shashi Agarwal (A-3)(c) Substantive offences u/s 409 and 420 IPC and section 13(2) r/w 13(1) (c) & (d) of PC Act 1988 against Sri. M.Sundareshwaran (A-4) and Sri.Kanwal Jeet Singh (A-8).

(d) Substantive offences u/s 420 and 468 IPC against Sh.S.Chandrasekha- ran (A-(e) Substantive offences u/s 409 IPC r/w 13(2) r/w 13 (1) (c) & (d) of PC Act 1988 against Sh. Nurbasha Mohammed Babu (A-11) and substan- tive offences U/s. 420 IPC against M/s. ACTPL (A-5) and M/s. Aren Steels Ltd. (A6) represented by the Directors Sri. M.L. Agarwal (A-1) and Sri. Ritesh Agarwal (A-(f) Substantive offences u/s 420 IPC against M/s. Shakti Steels (A-7), represented by Proprietrix, Smt. Shashi Agarwal (A-3)

24. It is submitted that Sri. M. Sundareswaran (A-4) has been removed from the services of Oriental Bank of Commerce with effect from 08-12-2003, Sri.

Kanwal Jeet Singh (A-8) has been removed from the services of the Bank wef.

27-12-2003, and Sri. Nurbasha Mohamed Babu (A-11) has been removed from the services of the Bank wef. 20-07-2004 and therefore, the sanction for their prosecution from the competent authority is not required.

25.Additional list of documents and witnesses, if required shall be submitted, during the course of proceedings in this case.

26.After hearing the prosecution, as well as the accused, taking into consider- ation of evidence of prosecution witnesses, the charges were framed during my

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 16 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 predecessors period and heard on charges for the offences on 22.01.2011 against A1 to A10 as under :

A1: 120-B, 420, 468 and 471 of IPC;

A2: 120-B, 420, 468 and 471 of IPC;

A3: 120-B, 420, 468 and 471 of IPC;

A4: 120-B, 420, 468 and 471 of IPC and U/s.13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act,1988.

A5: 120-B, 420, 468 and 471 of IPC;

A6: 120-B, 420, 468 and 471 of IPC;

A7: 120-B, 420, 468 and 471 of IPC;

A8: 120-B, 420, 468 and 471 of IPC and U/s.13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC

Act,1988.

A9: 120-B, 420, 468 and 471 of IPC;

A10: 120-B, 420, 468 and 471 of IPC;

The same was read over and explained to A1 to A10 in their vernacular lan- guage, to which they denied the offence, pleaded not guilty and claimed to the tried. After framing charges the Proceedings against A1 to A3 and A9 are quashed by Hon’Ble High Court in Crl. Petition No.613/2023 dated 29.01.2020.

27.To bring home the guilt of the accused for the offences with which they are charged, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 69 and got marked Exhibits P1 to

P1024.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 17 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

28.After closure of prosecution evidence A4, A5, A6, A7,A8, A10were exam- ined on 20.02.2026 under Section 313 Cr.P.C, putting incriminating circum- stances appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses to which they denied the same.

29.Heard both sides. Perused the record.

30.Now the point for consideration is :

“Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt ?”

P O I N T :

31. Before going into the discussion of merits of the case, it is better to go through the provisions under Sections 120B, 409, 419, 420, 467, 468 and

471 of IPC and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention Corruption Act,

1988.

Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code :- Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) deals with the Punishment for Criminal Conspiracy, making it an offense for two or more people to agree to commit an illegal act or a lawful act by illegal means, punishable depending on the seriousness of the planned crime (like death or life imprisonment) or with up to six months in jail/fine for lesser offenses. It's a crucial law for tackling organized crime by penalizing the agreement itself, even before the main crime is executed, focusing on the planning stage.

Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code : Criminal breach of trust by public

servant, or by banker, merchant or agent :-

Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property in his capacity of a public servant, or in the way of his business as

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 18 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 a banker, merchant, factor, broker, attorney or agent, commits criminal breach of trust in respect of that property, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) d

Section 419 of the Indian Penal Code :-

Section 419 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) deals with the punishment for cheating by personation, meaning deceiving someone by pretending to be someone else. The penalty for this offense, which is cognizable, bailable, and compoundable (meaning the victim can settle), includes imprisonment up to three years, a fine, or both.

Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code:- Cheating and Dishonestly inducing delivery of property. Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or scaled, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security. shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code :- IPC Section 467 deals with the severe crime of forgery of valuable security, wills, adoption authority, and receipts, punishable by imprisonment for life or up to ten years, plus a fine, for someone who falsely creates or alters such a document, making it a serious non-bailable offense under the Indian Penal Code, 1860. This section covers forging documents that seem to authorize financial transactions, transfers, or receipts for valuable property or money, extending to important legal documents like wills or adoption papers, notes LawRato.

Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code:- Forgery for purpose of cheating. Whoever commits forgery, intending that the document [or electronic record] forged shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 19 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code:- Using as genuine a forged document [or electronic record]. Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document for electronic record] which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged document for electronic record], shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such document for electronic record]. Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 : Criminal misconduct by a public servant:- (1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct :-

(a) if he habitually accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person for himself or for any other person any gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in Section 7; or

(b) if he habitually accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain for himself or for any other person, any valuable thing without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate from any person whom he knows to have been, or to be, or to be likely to be concerned in any proceeding or business transacted or about to be transacted by him, or having any connection with the official functions of himself or of any public servant to whom he is subordinate, or from any person whom he knows to be interested in or related to the person so concerned; or

(c) if he dishonestly misappropriates or otherwise converts for his own use any property entrusted to him or under his control as a public servant or allows any other person so to do; or

(d) if he :-

(i) by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or

(ii) by abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage: or

(iii) while holding office as a public servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest; or

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 20 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

(e)if he or any person on his behalf, is in possession or has, at any time during the period of his office, been in possession for which the public servant cannot satisfactorily account, of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of Income. Explanation- For the purposes of this section, "known sources of inco me" means income received from any lawful source "and such receipt has been intimated in accordance with the provisions of any law, rules or orders for the time being applicable to a public servant". (2) Any public servant who commits criminal misconduct shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than one year but which to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.

32.The allegation of prosecution is that A1 to A3 herein floated fake firms, in pursuance of Criminal Conspiracy among all the accused, the bogus companies in the name of Ruby Traders, M/s.Maheswari Steel Corporation, M/s.Chowdary

Steels, M/s.Universal Trading Company, M/s.Bhumika Steels and M/s.Venson

Steels and accounts were opened at the M/s.Agrasen Cooperative Urban Bank

Limited, Hyderabad and the M/s.AP Mahesh Cooperative Bank Limited,

Hyderabad through which accounts, the funds released by Oriental Bank of

Commerce were siphoned off, without undertaking any genuine business transactions. Investigation revealed that the above mentioned firms are non- existing and that the sales tax regulation numbers, found on the documents, available with the bank in the name of these firms were actually issued in the name of other firms which were registered with the commercial tax office,

Hyderabad.Inpursuanceofconspiracy,A4/M.Sundereshwaran purchased/discounted the cheques issued by the above mentioned bogus firms in favour of M/s.Sakthi Steels and thereby facilitated the private accused persons to utilize the funds without undertaking any genuine business transaction.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 21 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Investigation revealed that there was no sanctioned cheque discounting facility for M/s.Sakthi Steels and that the cheques discounted by A4 were beyond his delegated financial powers and that many of the discounted cheques were later returned unpaid, when sent for clearing. A8 has sanctioned credit facilities in collusion with other accused.

33.The prosecution has examined the following witnesses in order to prove that the above said firms are bogus firms. This court has to decide whether those firms are bogus firms as alleged by the prosecution.

34.The evidence of PW1/KSN Raju, Assistant in Reliable Financial Services shows that the reliable financial services was dealing with arranging loans with

Bank. Their office used to mediate in the financial matters of their customers with the bank in discounting letter of credits. They used to deal with UTI Bank,

Lakshmi Vilas Bank, State Bank of Mauritius etc., in discounting letter of credit.

Whenever a party approaches for discounting letter of credit issued by applicant bank and in this case it is Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, after receiving the letter of credit from the parties, they approached discount bank like

UTI Bank, Lakshmi Vilas Bank, Bank of Mauritius etc., for negotiating the rate of interest for that date. They go for discounting the letters of credit with the bank which offers lowest rate of interest. He has explained the procedure of letter of credit and stated that the party who approaches them will give two sets of documents containing copy of LC invoices, delivery challan etc., the bank to whom they approach will initially contact the bank which issued the letter of credit for its confirmation. After getting the oral confirmation, the discounting

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 22 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 bank will send one set of documents to the applicant bank for confirming the LC and to know the date of payment. The applicant bank will issue a confirmation letter to the discounting bank stating that the bills are in order and the applicant bank will make the payment on due date, it may be 60 days/90 days depending upon the terms of LC.

35.There are two types of LC’s, i.e., revocable and irrevocable. M/s. RN Steels

Limited/A6 and M/s.Airan Comptrax Towers Private Limited/A5 are the applicants

before them. The CBI officials have shown the LC No.0028493/201/130, dated

23.03.2000,LCNo.0028495/201/132,dated29.02.2000,LC

No.0028521/201/158, dated 08.04.2000, LC No.0028489/201/126, dated 10.02.2000,LCNo.0028474/201/113,dated30.12.1999,LC

No.0028468/201/110, dated 22.12.1999 and LC No.0028477/201/115, dated 21.01.2000. The above referred Lcs were issued by Oriental Bank of Commerce and discounted by State Bank of Mauritius. All these 7 LC’s were processed through their office.

36.The evidence of PW1 shows that the above said LCs are relating to A5 and

A6 and were issued by Oriental Bank of Commerce and discounted by State Bank of Mauritius. The beneficiary in the above said 7 LCs was M/s.Rashtriya Ispat

Nigam Limited (RINL), Hyderabad. No where in the charge sheet it mentioned that M/s.Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited (RINL) is also bogus firm floated by the accused.

37.PW2/Battu Balayya was examined to prove that A1 to A3 have opened fake account in the name of PW2 at M/s.AP Mahesh Co-operative Bank,

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 23 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

M/s.Agrasen Co-operative Urban bank Limited. He stated that he is illiterate, he used to put thump impression. He worked at M/s.Sakthi Steels for two months several years ago. Account opening form of M/s.AP Mahesh Co-operative Bank with Ac.No.CA3991, dated 06.01.2000 contains his photograph, but he never hold any account in the said bank. Similarly, the account opening form of

M/s.Agrasen Co-operative Urban bank Limited contains his photograph, but he never opened the account. The signatures on the said account opening forms are not belongs to him.

38.The contention of prosecution is that the accounts were opened by fake firms in the bank of M/s.Agrasen Cooperative Urban Bank Limited and M/s.AP

Mahesh Cooperative Urban Bank which were established by A1 to A3 with an intention to exchange the LC amounts illegally. Therefore, at their instance, PW2 has opened said accounts on the name of said banks. The PW2 has not supported the prosecution case and denied his signatures on the documents and also denied opening of account forms in the name of said firms. The learned PP requested the court to declare the witness hostile and cross examined him by explaining the contents of 161 statement. Even though, PW2 has not supported the prosecution case, so the evidence of PW2 is not useful to the prosecution.

39.PW3/D. Anjaiah, stated that the account opening form of M/s.Agrasen

Cooperative Urban Bank Limited vide Ac.No.CA1301 contains his photograph but the signatures are not belongs to him. Similarly, the account opening form of

M/s.AP Mahesh Cooperative Urban Bank Limited vide Account No.CA4024 contains his photograph but the signatures are not belongs to him. The PW3 has

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 24 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 not supported the prosecution case. The contention of prosecution is that at the instance of A1 to A3, the accounts are opened at M/s.Agrasen Cooperative Urban

Bank Limited and M/s.AP Mahesh Cooperative Urban Bank Limited with an intention to create LCs and to get benefit by A1 to A3. However, PW3 has not supported the prosecution case, though, the learned PP declared the witness hostile and cross examined him by explaining the contents of 161 statement, so the evidence of PW3 is not useful to the prosecution.

40.PW4/Narsing Rao, stated that he never opened bank account at

M/s.Agrasen Cooperative Urban Bank Limited. The photograph on account opening form with Ac No.1304 dated 03.11.2000 belongs to him. The signatures are not belongs to him. Even the PW4 has not supported the prosecution case. It is the contention of prosecution that at the instance of A1 to A3, PW4 has opened the account in M/s.Agrasen Cooperative Urban Bank Limited. The PW4 did not support the prosecution case, though the learned PP declared the witness hostile and cross examined the witness by explaining the contents of 161 statement, so the evidence of PW4 is not useful to the prosecution.

41.PW5/Mukundhas stated that he is the proprietor of BM Enterprises and doing the business of collecting commission in cheque encashment. He is having bank account No.3826 in AP Mahesh Cooperative Urban Bank, Begum Bazar. The customers used to bring the cheques or pay orders or DDs for the purpose of encashment and he used to pay their amount after deducting his commission. At the time of purchasing the cheque, he used to obtain the signatures of party on the back side of cheque and also obtains the voucher with endorsement that

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 25 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 cheque amount received by him. The pay orders under Ex.P12 to P18 are issued by Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad. He deposited all the pay orders into his account in AP Cooperative Urban Bank Limited. The pay orders are containing the endorsement of respective companies to pay the amount in the business account of PW5. He presented the pay orders under

Ex.P12 to P18 and after receiving the amount by him he has paid the amount to his customer after deducting his commission. One Venu Gopal is authorized signatory in their business transactions. He has subscribed his signatures on

Ex.P12 to P14. Ex.P15 to P18 are containing the signatures of PW5 as proprietor.

He has paid the amount to Accused No.1/Munnalal Agarwal. However, he is not able to identity the Accused No.1.

42.The prosecution contention is that at the instance of A1 those pay orders are presented. However, the PW5 has not identified the accused No.1. It is to be noted that the Honorable High Court has quashed the proceedings against A1, if

PW5 has given any evidence against the A1, it does not makes any difference.

The PW5 has not spoken anything about the remaining accused.

43.PW6/B.Mallesh stated that he is not having any bank account in

M/s.Agrasen Cooperative Urban Bank Limited. He has not given his photographs to anybody. The photographs affixed on the account opening form of

M/s.Chowdary Steels in Ac No.1302 of M/s.Agrasen Cooperative Urban Bank

Limited are belongs to him. The signatures are not belongs to him. The prosecution stated that A1 to A3 opened the account on the name of PW6 with an intention to transact the amounts in the account of A5 to

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 26 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

A7 but PW6 never stated he opened the account at the instance of A1 to A3, so the evidence of PW6 is not useful to the prosecution.

44.PW7/S.Srinivas, Assistant Manager in M/s.Agrasen Cooperative Urban

Bank Limited stated that one Yogesh Agarwal was the manager of their bank. He has signed on the specimen card of current account No.1300 in Token of scanning and uploading of specimen signatures. Ex.P21 is the specimen signature card bears the signature of Yogesh Agarwal and one Mukesh Kumar

Gupta signed on the account opening form as introducer. The account No.1300 stands on the name of M/s. Ruby Traders. Their bank has opened account in the name of M/s Universal Trading Company vide Ac.No.1301. The specimen signatures of R.K.Sharma proprietor of Bhumika Steels containing his specimen signatures in the account No.1304 under Ex.P25. Further the specimen signatures of P.K.Chowdary was obtained in the AC No.1302 under Ex.P26 vide

M/s.Chowdary Steels, the specimen signatures of K.Ramulu, proprietor of Ruby

Traders are there under Ex.P21 in Ac.No.1300, one Shekar Rao, proprietor of

M/s. Universal Trading Company containing under Ex.P24 vide Ac.No.1301. The specimen signatures of Jagadish Prasad, Proprietor of M/s.Maheswari Steel

Corporation is containing under Ex.P27. Mukesh Kumar Gupta was the introducer of said account numbers ie., AC No.1300 to 1304. The evidence of PW7 shows that the above said accounts was opened by the persons named above. In the evidence of PW7 has has not stated anything against the accused herein. He never stated whether any persons are impersonated while opening the accounts.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 27 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

45.PW8/Yogesh Agarwal stated that he worked as Manager in M/s.Agrasen

Cooperative Urban Bank Limited. Ex.P22 is the account opening form of M/s.Ruby

Traders. Ex.P23 is the account opening form of M/s. Universal Trading Company.

Ex.P29 is the account opening form of M/s.Bhumika Steels. Ex.P31 is the account opening form of M/s.Chowdary Steels. Ex.P33 is the account opening form of

M/s.AP Maheswari Steel Corporation. He has spoken about the photographs pasted on the account opening forms and spoken about the specimen signatures.

All the accounts were opened in the same day on 03.11.2000. One Shiva Shekar

Agarwal was their bank Chairman who asked him to provide application forms in favour of Munnalal Agarwal/A1 for opening accounts. In fact, Ritesh Agarwal S/o

Munnalal Agarwal came to their bank. The bank staff verified the application forms and accounts were opened. The evidence of PW8 shows that the above said accounts were opened in the name of said firms by A1 only. As already stated above, the proceedings against A1 was quashed by the Honorable High

Court, so there is no criminal proceedings. The son of A1 was not accused in the present case. It clearly shows that there is no evidence against the accused person herein. PW8 has spoken about the cheque leaves used by M/s. Ruby

Traders represented by K. Ramulu in favour of M/s.Sakthi Steels. Further, the cheque leaves used by M/s. Universal Traders represented by K. Ramulu issued in favour of M/s.Sakthi Steels on different dates. Further, the cheque leaves used by M/s.Chowdary Steels represented by P.V.Chowdary in favour of M/s.Sakthi

Steels/A7. The cheque leaves used by M/s.Maheshwari Steels represented by proprietor in favour of M/s.Sakthi Steels. M/s.Bhumika Steels represented by

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 28 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 proprietor relating to the current account No.1304 issued in favour of M/s.Sakthi

Steels.

46.He further stated that in case of deposit of the cheques by the account holder of their bank in his account which are other than their bank and cheques of out of station will be sent for collection. After the collection, they will give the credit to the account to the account of account holder. The cheques are containing their bank seals also. Their bank is maintaining cheque collection register and it is marked as Ex.P486 to P491. The bunch of true copies of vouchers/cheques for the relevant months are entered in the concerned registers.

47.In the cross examination, PW8 stated that at the time he did not have any doubts about the opening of 5 accounts in Ex.P22, 23, 29, 31 and P33. He admits the above 5 companies were not enjoying any credit facility like OD and cash credit from their M/s.Agrasen Cooperative Urban Bank Limited. However, they are allowing cheque and demand draft facility to the said 5 companies and the same was presenting to the board in the succeeding month for ratification.

The 3 cheques in Ex.P279 and Ex.P145 are presented in OBC, Ameerpet,

Hyderabad on 26.06.2001. the amount was debited on 26.06.2001 in respect of the cheques in Ex.P279 and P145. Ex.P53 cheque amount was debited on 14.07.2001 to the respective accounts. As seen from the statement of account, in Ex.P39 on 08.04.2001, the cheque for Rs. 10 lakhs drawn in favour of

M/s.Chowdary Steels was returned by the OBC on the same day and return charges of Rs.10/- was debited.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 29 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

48.He admits that the statement of account shows some of the cheques drawn in favour of said 5 companies were returned. Even, the cheques of A5 to

A7 are also returned. He denied suggestion that he has allowed said 5 companies to have internal transactions from one account to another account and thereby caused misuse of funds of group of M/s.Sakthi Steels with OBC, Ameerpet,

Hyderabad. He admits as per entry, dated 15.09.2001 under Ex.P37 and P40, there was adjustment of amount on 20.09.2001.

49.He stated that the companies were enjoying credit facilities. He cannot say whether A1 to A3 and A9 were having personal accounts or company accounts.

There were number of transactions in between M/s.Universal Traders and

M/s.Sakthi Steels, M/s.Chowdary Steels and M/s.Sakthi Steels and

M/s.Maheswari Steels and M/s.Sakthi Steels, M/s.Bhumika Steels and M/s.Sakthi

Steels, their bank and OBC Ameerpet. There was no monitory loss due to the said transactions. In fact their bank turnover was increased by these transactions. There was no illegality committed by the account holder or the bank in the above transactions. They have not given any undue benefit to the account holders or the accused persons in the said transactions.

50.The evidence of PW8 shows that though the allegation is made that at the instance of A1 to A3 the fraudulent firms opened the accounts and there were inter bank transactions among the fake firms and M/s.Sakthi Steels. They have deceived the bank by making such internal transactions. The evidence of PW8 shows that there was no irregularities or illegality in opening of the accounts of said firms. He being an authorized officer, signed on all the account opening

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 30 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 forms and approved the same. They have not given any undue benefit to the account holders. Nobody has given complaint with regard to said internal bank transactions. So there is no question of fraud as alleged by the prosecution.

51.PW9/Mukesh Kumar Gupta stated that he is having account No.342 in

M/s.Agrasen Cooperative Urban Bank Limited. He was having another account

No.96 in the same bank but it was closed. Ex.P22, P23, p29, P31, P33 are the account opening forms, he was introducer of said accounts. He stated that at the request of Munnalal Agarwal he has signed on the said applications as an introducer. The PW9 has stated that those accounts are opened at the instance of

A1 and his son. In fact, PW9 had not seen the account holders, at the request of

A1 he put his signature as introducer. No doubt the witness has stated at the instance of A1 those accounts were opened. This court by relying on the evidence of PW9, it cannot be stated that those accounts are fake accounts. If, PW9 would have identified the account holders, the matter would be different moreover the proceedings against A1 quashed by the Honorable High Court. The evidence is not against the A4 herein. Therefore, this evidence is not useful to the prosecution.

52.PW10/Anand Toshniwal stated that he worked as a cashier in M/s.Agrasen

Cooperative Urban Bank Limited. Ex.P44 to P48 are the pay slips contains his signatures. A sum of Rs.2000/- paid under each slip in ExP44 to P48 and they are the credit vouchers. There is no signature who paid the cash on all the slips in Ex.p44 to P48. He made entries in cashier scroll register on receipt of amount and the corresponding scroll numbers 51 to 55 and the same noted on Ex.P44 to

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 31 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

P48. PW9 worked as personal assistant in the said bank. Ex.P44 bears account

No.1300 of Ruby Traders. He has spoken about the account numbers of

M/s.Universal Trading Company, M/s.Maheswari Steel Corporation, M/s.Bhumika

Steels under Ex.P22, 23, 29, 31 and 33. The PW10 also not stated anything against the accused herein. His evidence reflects the existence of accounts of 5 companies in their bank. He never stated that there were fraudulent transactions in the said account.

53.PW11/C. Shakuntala, Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, Hyderabad stated that the CBI officials came to her with a photostat copy of sales tax registration certificate to verify whether it was issued by their office. She has verified the said registration number with their office record and informed that said registration number were given by their predecessor at their office. As per A

Register, the Central Sale Tax Registration Number PJT/02/1/2268/88-89 reflected in Ex.P28, PJT/02/1/2435/88-89 reflected in Ex.P30 and

PJT/02/01/2163/88-89 reflected in Ex.P35 are the registration numbers issued by their office. As per Ex.P28, the name and address of the dealer are M/s.

Universal Trading Company as per Ex.P30, the name and address of dealer are

M/s.Bhumika Steels as per Ex.P35 the name and address of dealer of

M/s.Maheswari Steels Corporation.

54.In the further chief examination, PW11 stated as per office record,

A register pertaining to the commercial tax office maintained for the financial year, 1988-89 the CST registration certificate bearing No. PJT/02/1/2163 in the name of M/s.Anuradha Engineering Enterprises, further PJT/02/1/2268 was

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 32 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 issued in the name of M/s.Gowel Engineers Private Limited, PJT/02/1/2435 was standing on the name of M/s. Aroma Organics private limited. The photostat copies of CST Registration Ex.P29, 30 and P35 are not issued by their officer. The evidence of PW11 shows that as per the photostat copies of sales tax registrations it stands on the name of M/s.Universal Trading Company,

M/s.Bhumika Steels and M/s.Maheswari Steel Company, but their record shows it does not stands on the names of said companies. The evidence of PW11 is contradictory to her own evidence, at one side she stated that on verification of said registration numbers, she came to know that said registration numbers were given by her predecessor and she has stated the names of M/s.Universal Trading

Company, M/s.Bhumika Steels and M/s.Maheswari Steel Corporation. After verification of A register only, she has stated their names, again the register was brought after examination of PW11 partly in chief, the A register was produced and subsequently it was stated that the sales tax registration numbers are not standing on the name of said 3 companies, at the time of recording her 161 statement A register was not shown to her, there is no evidentiary value to said document, so the evidence of PW11 is not reliable and trustworthy.

55.PW12/GSN Murthy, accountant in M/s.AP Mahesh Cooperative Urban Bank

Limited stated that he got acquaintance with the handwriting and sighnatures of

K.Lakshmi/LW12 and the then branch manager K.U.K.Savanth. As per bank record, AC No.3991 standing in the name of Ruby Traders under Ex.P1, account opening form was closed on 29.05.2002. Thereafter, the account of M/s.Universal

Trading Company was closed on 29.05.2002. M/s.Chowdary Steels account

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 33 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 opening form was closed on 29.05.2002. Further the account of M/s.Maheswari

Steel corporation was closed on 18.01.2002. M/s.Bhumika Steels account opening form was closed on 18.01.2002. The account opening form of M/s. Ruby

Traders was also closed. The evidence of Pw12 shows that the above said firms accounts were closed on their request.

56.PW13/Mr. Bupender Lal, worked as Assistant Commercial Officer stated that he has perused AP GST Registration Certificate No.SEC/02/1/1591/88-89 issued in the name of Leafin India Limited. Subsequent to the re-organization of the divisions, fresh registration certificate was issued. The evidence of PW13 shows that said Leafin India Limited is having GST registration number.

57.PW16/V.S. Sampath stated that he know M/s.Maheswari Steel Corporation which is located in Ram Bajan Sabha Building, Hyderbasthi, Secunderabad. The said building was removed and demolished about more than 10 years ago by the

Government for construction of overhead Railway track. The said railway track was constructed. The prosecution intended to say that there was no such structures of M/s.Maheswari Steel Corporation but the transactions are going on the name of said Company. Basing on evidence of postman how can they say there were no structures, if they would have examined R&B officials, the matter would be different. So the evidence of PW16 is not useful to the prosecution.

58.PW19/P.Ramachary, ACTO Malkajgiri Circle, Hyderabad deposed that as per certificate of registration, the firm standing in the name of M/s.Bhoomika

Steel was registered in the office Commercial Tax Office, Jeedimetla Circle vide

Registration No.HR/J/J/1340/87-88 and after reorganization, the registration

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 34 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 number has been changed vide R.C.No.HYR/03/1/1753/87-88 with Commercial

Tax Office, Jeedimetla Circle. In the year 1993, on re-organization of Jurisdiction the above said file was transferred to Commercial Tax Office, Malkajgiri Circle.

59.On the verification of their office records, the R.C. was issued in the name of Hindustan Engineering Company. As per the office record, Mr.Choudari was the owner of Hindustan Engineering Company.

60.The evidence of PW19 shows that M/s.Bhumika Steels was registered in the office of Commercial Tax Office. The PW19 at one side stated the registration number was subsequently changed and the said file was transferred to

Commercial Tax Office. At the same time he stated the RC was issued in the name of Hindustan Engineer Company. The prosecution relied upon this evidence and contended that M/s.Bhoomica Steels was a fake firm established by A1 to A3. The PW19 has not produced any document to show that the RC was issued in the name of Hindustan Engineering Company. In the absence of evidence it can not be stated that M/s.Bhumika Steels was a fake firm.

61.PW20/M.Sravan Kumar, Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, Commercial Tax

Office, Maredpally Circle stated that he has furnished photocopies of APGST registration certificate in respect of M/s.Choudary Steels. The registration number is HPG/SD/SD/3480/87-88. After re-organization of the circle the new number was assigned as PJT/09/2/2671/87-88, dated 01.06.1994. The prosecution contention is that said M/s.Choudary Steels was a fake firm established at the instance of A1 to A3. The evidence of PW20 shows the said

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 35 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 firm was having GST registration certificate also. Therefore it can not be stated that it is a fake firm.

62.PW23/P.Rajendra Prasad, Assistant Commercial Tax Officer stated that CBI police, Hyderabad enquired them regarding Registration No.HYR/03/1/1339/88.

Upon verification of records he informed CBI police, Hyderabad that above number registered in the name of M/s.Shekaraiah & Sons in the year 1983 in

Jeedimetla Circle and it was cancelled on 31.03.1994 on their request. Some part of Jeedimetla Circle was allotted to Malkajgiri Circle due to re-organization and bifurcation in the year 1993, the concerned records were transferred to

Malkajgiri Circle. In Ex.P32, the firm name is mentioned as M/s.Chowdhary

Steels with Registration No.HYR/03/1/1339/87-88. In their records this firm was not registered with above registration number.

63.PW23 admits he did not provide Ex.P32 to CBI police. Ex.P32 is a photo copy and not even legible and not attested by any officer of their department. So it is doubtful whether it was issued by their department or not. The prosecution is silent from where they collected Ex.P32. PW23 stated he has no personal knowledge about registration of M/s.Shekaraiah & Sons or M/s.Chowdhary Steels as he joined in service in the year 1995. he never worked in Jeedimetla Circle at any point of time. Jeedimetla Circle is in existence even now, to know details about registration of M/s.Chowdhary Steels as mentioned in Ex.P32, it should be verified from Jeedimetla Circle. He cannot say whether M/s.Chowdhary Steels is not registered at Jeedimetla Circle as mentioned in Ex.P32. This evidence clearly shows that PW23 never worked in Jeedimetla Circle so he is not proper person to

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 36 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 say about the genuineness of Ex.P32. Therefore, the evidence of PW23 is not useful to the prosecution.

64.PW46/Ramana Murthy was examined to prove the fake firm account opening form. The evidence of PW46/Ramana Murthy shows that in the year 2000 he has joined M/s.Airan Comptrax Towers Private Limited(ACTPL)/A5 as a

Manager and he worked there till July, 2002. He used to look after the issues related to Electricity department and central Excise Department.

65.The M/s.Airan Comptrax Towers Private Limited/A5 was having bank account in Oriental Bank of Commerce. They have credit facilities. One Chandra

Prakash/A9 was looking after the bank transactions of M/s.Airan Comptrax

Towers Private Limited/A5. The ACTPL/A5 is in the business of converting scrap into ingots.

66.Ex.P1 is account opening form of M/s.Ruby Traders, it contains the photograph of one Mr.Balaiah/PW2. He used to work as Office Boy in M/s.Sakthi

Steels. He do not have any idea about M/s.Ruby Traders. Ex.P7 is Account

Opening form on the name of M/s.Universal Trading Company. It bears the

Photograph of Anjaiah/PW3 and he is office boy of M/s.ACTPL. He do not have any idea about M/s.Universal Trading Company.

67.Ex.P22 (L.D.No.109) is Current Account Opening form of M/s.Ruby

Traders. The Photographs(Ex.P2) on Ex.P22 belongs to Balaiah/PW2. Ex.P23 (L.D.No.110) is Current Account Opening form of M/s. Universal Trading

Company. The photograph(Ex.P5) on Ex.P23 belongs to Anjaiah/PW3. Ex.P31 is

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 37 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Current Opening Form of M/s.Chowdhary Steels. The Photograph(Ex.P19) on

Ex.P31 belongs to the person who worked in their company but at present he do not remember his name. He has no idea about the nature of work of

M/s.Chowdhary Steels. Ex.P29 is Current Account Form of M/s.Bhumika Steels but he do not know about M/s.Bhumika Steels and he can not identify the person whose photograph(Ex.P9) is appearing on Ex.P29.

68.Ex.P775 is the Photograph on specimen signature of proprietor related to

Venson Steels belongs to Chandra Prakash who used to deals with accounts and banking. He do not know anything about the above mentioned Venson Steels but he can identify the photographs of the persons as he has already worked with them. He has claimed his PF after stopping his working in the company it may in the year 2002. Wherein he has drawn his PF balance working both the companies i.e. Giridhar Ispath Private Limited and A5 Company. Infact this Giridhar Ispath

Private Limited has been acquired by A5 company.

69.The defence has disputed the evidence of PW46 and contended that PW46 is the brought up witness by the CBI officials. The main purpose of filing the case against the accused persons are that the loan accounts became NPA for some time in order to pressurize them for paying the loan amount, this criminal case was filed. They have examined several persons in order to prove that the firms are fake firms. In fact, PW46 never worked in M/s.Sakthi Steels. He never given any appointment letter or resignation letter to CBI as he never worked in

M/s.M/s.Airan Comptrax Towers Private Limited/A5. Admittedly, no document is filed before the court to show that PW46 worked in A5 firm. Further, the PW46

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 38 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 stated that A9 is not authorized signatory to update bank accounts of A5. A9 is not an employee of A5. He further stated that he do not know anything about

M/s.AP Mahesh Cooperative Urban Bank Limited, M/s.Agresen Co-Operative

Urban Bank Limited, M/s.Kurshi Co-Operative Urban Bank Limited or about any documents pertaining to above said banks. The prosecution has not confronted any of the documents relating to the employees of M/s.Airan Comptrax Towers

Private Limited/A5 and M/s.Sakthi Steels. PW46 admits that Balaiah was not working in A5. He do not know anything about the bank accounts of M/s.Ruby

Traders, M/s.Universal Trading Company, M/s.Choudary Steels, M/s.Bhumika

Steels and M/s.Venson Steels. He admits that the person in the photograph on

Ex.P31 is not an employee of M/s.Airan Comptrax Towers Private Limited/A5. He did not state before CBI that “he do not know anything that above mentioned

M/s.Venson Steels that he can identify the photographs of the persons as he has already worked with them”. He has not shown any record to show that he has claimed his PF after stopping his work in the company it may be in the year 2002 wherein he has drawn his PF balance working in both companies i.e. Giridhar

Ispath Private Limited and A5 company. This evidence clearly shows that PW46 is not aware of the alleged fake firms. He is not aware of bank accounts of alleged fake firms. Though, he is not having any knowledge about the said firms and accounts. The prosecution has examined PW46 and confronted the documents to show that the accounts are opened illegally in the bank. When PW46 pleaded ignorance of knowledge about said firms, his evidence is not useful. Further, there is no evidence to show that PW46 is the employee of A5 company and he

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 39 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 has claimed PF amount. It is pertinent to note that the photograph on Ex.P1 is not pasted and it is not signed across and it is simply stapled to Ex.P1, the PW46 also admitted that the photograph on Ex.P7 is not pasted and it is not signed across and it is simply stapled to Ex.P7, there is no photograph on Page No.1 of

Ex.P31. Further, he admits that there is no photograph on first page of Exs.P22 and P23. There is transparent tape to prevent tearing of Ex.P22. There is no signature signed across on Ex.P2. Photograph in the second page of Ex.P22.

Ex.P2 photograph also pasted with transparent tape in the same manner as applied to the sides of Ex.P22. He never saw Exs.P1, P7, P19, P22, P23, P29,

P31 and P775 at any time during his life time before giving his chief-examination.

It means even his examination under Section 161 Cr.P.C., also those documents are not confronted to the witness. There is no signature signed across on Ex.P5

Photograph in the second page of Ex.P23. So, the identification of photograph in

Ex.P1 as Balaiah/PW2, in Ex.P7 as Anjaiah/PW3, In Ex.P22 as Balaiah/PW2, in

Ex.P23 as Anjaiah/PW3 and the person in Ex.P31 as employee of their company and photograph in Ex.P775 as Chandra Prakash is doubtful. Therefore, the evidence of PW46 is not useful to the prosecution.

70.The evidence of above witnesses shows that though the prosecution examined them to prove that the firms are fake firms, floated by A1 to A3 herein but as already discussed above their evidence do not proves that those firms are fake firms, so the prosecution failed to prove that the firms are fake firms.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 40 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

THE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST A4 and A8:

71.The prosecution alleged that the A4 recommended for sanction of cash credit limit of Rs.50 lakhs to A1 to A3. Local cheques issued by M/s.Maheswari

Steels Corporation and other firms floated by A1 for huge amounts were purchased in the cash credit limit of A3 in connivance with A4 and A8. The cash credit facility of Rs.50 lakhs were sanctioned by equitable mortgage executed by third party who had no title to the property, the documents are fabricated.

72.Further, A4 gave false information to higher officials and certified that property offered as collateral security has got enforceable market value of Rs.90 lakhs property was found to be non-existing. Regional Office, Chennai sanctioned credit limit of Rs.50 lakhs. A1, A2, A9 floated bogus firms in pursuance of conspiracy. A4 purchased/discounted the cheques issued by bogus firms in favour of M/s.Sakthi Steels, thereby facilitated misappropriation of credit facility amount. There was no sanctioned cheque discount facility for M/s.Sakthi Steels and the cheques discounted by A4 was beyond delegated financial powers.

73.A1 submitted application for credit limits in the account of M/s.Airan

Comptrax Towers Private Limited/A5. A11 carried out pre-sanction and post sanction visits of the factory of M/s.Airan Comptrax Towers Private Limited/A5 submitted false reports that the factory was working at the time of releasing the funds and thereby A4, A11 diverted the bank funds and committed the offence of cheating.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 41 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

74.In pursuance of conspiracy, A1 in connivance with A4 resorted to large scale fake operations in the accounts of M/s.Airan Comptrax Towers Private

Limited/A5 and diverted the bank funds to the accounts operated by A2 and A9 in fictitious name. A1 and A3 submitted property documents as security against the cash credit limit availed by M/s.Airan Comptrax Towers Private Limited/A5.

That A4 deliberately accepted the documents are genuine that the property offered as a security belongs to Sri Jogender Reddy and Damodar Reddy without their knowledge the property was offered as collateral security to the bank against the liabilities of A5. A10 submitted highly inflated valuation reports in respect of properties covered by the forged documents.

75.In pursuance of conspiracy A4 has accepted the forged documents submitted by A1 and A3 to avail cash credit limits in favour of M/s.Airan

Comptrax Towers Private Limited/A5 and used them as genuine and thereby caused wrongful loss to Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, thereby

A4 committed the offence under Section 471 of IPC.

76.A1 availed letter of credit in favour of A6 and submitted bogus letter of credit in the names of non existing firms operated by A2 and A9. That the letter of credit opened by OBC were discounted by A1 at different banks and proceeds were credited to the accounts of fictitious firms operated by A2 and A9, thereby diverted funds of OBC, Ameerpet. Further, in pursuance of conspiracy A4 being public servant as Branch Manager of OBC by corrupt and illegal means obtained pecuniary advantage to A1 by abusing his official position and caused wrongful loss to OBC.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 42 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

77.As per the charges, it is alleged that A3 conspired with other accused and submitted proposals for cash credit limits from time to time and got sanctioned the same in connivance with A4 and A8. A8 continued to allow adhoc limits to the bogus companies of A1 to A3, instead of prohibiting A4 from discouting the cheques, even after bringing to his notice about the cheating through monthly statements send by the bank. A8 intentionally allowed adhoc limits to the firm.

A8 failed to consider the waring signals given by successive auditors regarding irregular maintenance of accounts and accommodated diversion of funds and responsible for wrongful loss of Rs.50 lakhs to the bank. So, he contravened the provisions of Section 420 IPC and Section 13 of PC Act.

78.The prosecution has examined the following witnesses in order to prove the case against A4.

EVIDENCE OF PW18/C.V. Rao:-

79.PW18/C.V. Rao, Bank officer in Ameerpet Branch stated that M/s.Sakthi

Steels was having current account in Ameerpet Branch of OBC. Then working capital facilities were sanctioned in the form of Cash Credit Account on 15.07.1996 by Regional office, Chennai. The proposal was received from the customer on 22.12.1995 and processed by the Branch Manager on 06.02.1996.

Smt.Shashi Agarwal, proprietor of M/s.Sakthi Steels has submitted loan application on 22.12.1995 along with required documents. Thereafter, the

Regional Manager has addressed a letter dated 08.03.1996 to the Senior

Manager, Ameerpet Branch and advised the Senior Manger to submit reasons for credit report from Bharath Overseas Bank as it indicates the proprietor as

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 43 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Munnalal Agarwal, however, in the proposal it is mentioned as Shashi Agarwal.

The statement of account submitted reveals that almost the entire withdrawals are in cash. All the credits in the account appears as transfer from same cash credit account. The account does not reflect trade transfer. On satisfactory reply to the above they shall consider the proposal.

80.In reply to this letter, Shashi Agarwal submitted Munnalal Agarwal has taken General Power of Attorney from his wife Shashi Agarwal. The bank account was opened in the name of M/s.Sakthi Steels. As a matter of practice, the account is continued and the bank M/s.Bharath Overseas Bank has passed all transactions made thereunder. When it comes for issue of letter from the bank, the present officers have verified that papers with them and found that Munnalal

Agarwal is the operator of the account and issued the letter accordingly. All the difference is due to non submission of GPA to the bank M/s.Bharath Overseas

Bank at the time of opening of account. M/s.Sakthi Steels procure the materials from two sources, 1) From Scrap Dealers, who will supply scrap iron which will be rerolled at rerolling mills for conversation into Tar Steel i.e., Roads, wires etc., for the scrap dealers, the payment must be in cash as they are unregistered dealers. 2) From wholesellers i.e., Main dealers of Tata Steel, Vishakapatnam,

SAIL etc., who will ask for cash or demand draft. To make huge payments through DD the firm has to incur major amount on DD charges or service charges to the bank and also the firm can avail cash discount. Hence, majority of withdrawals from the bank are in cash and the firm has no limits with the bank and no restriction was imposed by them that payments must be made in DD or

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 44 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 cheque. The firm M/s.Sakthi Steels sell his material in retail to traders, builders, fabricators and contractors. They will make payment once in a week. The cash received from the customers is then paid in cash only to the scrap dealers who can supply steels for rerolling etc., There are some major customers like

M/s.Andhra Steels Traders Vide AC No.101 and Mittal Steels vide Ac. No.97, both

CC amounts with the bank who are transferring their dues due to the firm

M/s.Sakthi Steels. Due to the said reasons that their cash credit or current amounts were with M/s. BOB Only. As explained in earlier paragraphs, all proceeds of retail trade is again used for payment of scrap suppliers and other petty suppliers. Hence, those transactions are reflected in day book of the firm and not reflected in bank book. Therefore, M/s.Sakthi Steels had enclosed copy of GPA, counter foils of paying slip for deposit made through transfers, cash bills etc.,

81.The record shows that there was communication in between Regional

Manager and Senior Manager with regard to the loan application of M/s.Sakthi

Steels. Initially, the Regional Manger has expressed its doubt about M/s.Sakthi

Steels Transactions. However, after getting clarifications from M/s.Sakthi Steels and also from the Branch Manager. The office note was prepared under Ex.P530 by Rakesh Malhotra. The office note is very crucial, basing on which the loan was sanctioned. Said Rakesh Malhotra got it mentioned that he visited the place of work of M/s.Sakthi Steels for the spot verification of their working and stock position etc., The party is maintaining proper stock register and is kept up to date. They have also taken open space of around Ac.1.00 gts on rental basis

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 45 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 where the stocks of M.S. Plates and Girders are kept and the stocks of Iron Rods is kept in and around their godown on an average stock around Rs.75 lakhs to

Rs.80 lakhs is kept by the party. It was also informed by the party that stocks purchased from certain rolling mills which are at a distance of 60 to 70kms from their work place is kept in their premises only till it is sold of. It was suggested to them that these stocks should be kept in their premises for effective monitoring, party has assured that once the facilities are sanctioned they will ensure that after the purchase of such materials, the same is immediately transported to their godowns.

82.Thereafter, the sanction letter was issued by the Regional Office, Madras in favour of M/s.Sakthi Steels on 15.07.1996 subject to terms and conditions.

M/s.Sakthi Steels has accepted the said terms and conditions.

83.After sanction of the loan, the documentation was carried out by PW18 and A4. The borrower has executed the documents. The title deeds are deposited, the title deed was executed by P.G.Nagabhushanam Naidu for Rs.50 lakhs. Extracts of documents of P.G.Nagabhushanam Naidu issued from Municipal

Corporation, Hyderabad, the sale deed and encumbrance certificate also filed.

The valuation certificate in respect of title deed property was obtained. The legal opinion was also obtained. The entries are made in equitable mortgage, register of Oriental Bank of Commerce, dated 18.07.1996 written by PW18 and counter signed by A4. Credit report of Mr. P.G.Nagabhushanam Naidu dated 01.03.1996 complied by A4. The Regional Office has addressed a letter dated 17.06.1997 advising Ameerpet Branch to submit fully documented renewal proposal of

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 46 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

M/s.Sakthi Steels. Thereafter, one Mr.N.V.R.Murthy was appointed as Monitoring

Officer M/s.Sakthi Steels. The another letter addressed to Mr. Mohammed Babu from Regional Office, Chennai appointing him as monitoring officer from

M/s.Sakthi Steels. The accused No.4 has addressed a letter to Regional Office,

Chennai seeking confirmation of action of bills purchased under letter of credit.

The Regional Office has sent a confirmation letter. The prosecution got marked the documents Exs.P521 to P552 relating to the loan file of M/s.Sakthi Steels.

84.The prosecution has filed 8 cheques drawn on self from cash credit account of M/s.Sakthi Steels. Monthly stock statement submitted by Sakthi Steels.

Further, the application was submitted for renewal of cash credit limits. The branch put a process note on 17.02.1998 signed by A4. Thereafter, the monitoring officer was appointed for cash credit account of M/s.Sakthi Steels.

85.M/s.Airan Comptrax Towers Private Limited/A5 has also submitted loan application for credit facilities. The letter was addressed to Regional Office by A4 with regard to the sanction of credit facility to M/s.Airan Comptrax Towers Private

Limited/A5. Regional Office, Chennai considered the proposal and sanctioned the cash credit facility. The intimation was given to the Senior Manager, Ameerpet

Branch. The Senior Manager has addressed a letter recommending regular sanction of working capital facilities. Further, the Branch has sent a letter dated 22.03.1999 for fresh proposal of M/s.Aren Steels Limited/A6 for letter of credit of

Rs.240 lakhs sent from Branch to Regional Manager signed by A4. The process note was prepared for letter of credit of Rs.240 lakhs signed by A4. Ex.P12 to

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 47 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

P14 are the pay orders which were issued by Oriental Bank of Commerce,

Ameerpet Branch in favour of different payees. A11 has signed as authorized signatory on behalf of bank.

86.The documents relating to equitable mortgage property was filed.

Permission issued by Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad for construction of building to Mr.P.G.Nagabhushanam Naidu, property demand notice. Original

Property payment receipt issued by MCH to said Mr.P.G.Nagabhushanam Naidu.

The Encumbrance Certificate issued pertaining to Plot No.32 of

P.G.Nagabhushanam Naidu issued by Joint Registrar-II, Hyderabad. Certificate of

Encumbrance issued in the name of A1 by Sub-Registrar in respect of Plot No.32.

87.The above evidence of PW18 shows that on the application of Sakthi Steels and on the application of M/s.Airan Comptrax Towers Private Limited/A5 the credit facility was given to both firms. After execution of all required documents only the loan was sanctioned. The process note is in favour of said firms.

88.In the cross-examination, the PW18 stated that in view of growth of business, Chartered Accountant was appointed as concurrent auditor to report day to day activities of the branch. One B.Srinivasa Rao functioned as Concurrent

Auditor between 1996 to 2000. Further, he worked there till 31.12.2000 during his period the group accounts pertaining to this case satisfactory, the guidelines are followed. In case of exceeding its powers, it will be duly confirmed by the next higher authority. The cheque purchased by the branch will be reporting in

STM 41 regularly. The STM 41 do not contain any confirmation letters from higher authorities. There is process note of Regional Office recommending

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 48 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 confirmation of action. The monitoring reports were also obtained to subject loans. He admits that process note was prepared at Regional Office, Chennai in respect of M/s.Sakthi Steels and M/s.Airan Comptrax Towers Private Limited/A5.

A registered office order duty for the period from June, 1998 to 18.04.2002 maintained at Ameerpet Branch shows that A4 has given an order on 13.12.2000 not to allow excess in subject account during his absence. The confidential reports are obtained by OBC bank, Ameerpet Branch in respect of Agrasen Urban

Bank Limited for M/s.Universal Trading Company, M/s.AP Mahesh Cooperative

Urban Bank Limited for M/s.Rupy Traders, M/s.AP Mahesh Urban Cooperative

Bank Limited for M/s.Maheswari Steels Corporation.

89.The above evidence made it clear that the branch has not taken any independent decision, the intimation was given to the Regional Office. After giving information only the credit facility was given. Further, there is no violation of bank rules. Though, the prosecution contended in pursuance of conspiracy, the transactions were done with fake firms floated by A1 to A3 but Ex.P507 clearly shows that the confidential reports of firms were obtained. Further, A4 was very cautious and he has given office order stating that not to allow excesses in subject account during his absence. If he is conspired with the firms he would not have given such office directions. Further, Ex.P523 dated 06.02.1996 clearly shows that A4 has discussed the proposal with Regional Office. He has conveyed to the Regional Office about the Prl. Sanction for Rs.50 lakhsin the account of

M/s.Sakthi Steels. Further, the officer of Regional Office I..e., Mr. Rakesh

Malhotra has visited M/s.Sakthi Steels and submitted satisfactory report,

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 49 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 thereafter only under Ex.P534 the amount of Rs.50 lakhs credit facility was given to M/s.Sakthi Steels. Further, as per Ex.P528 M/s.Sakthi Steels have introduced fixed deposits worth of Rs.1 Crore to the bank. They have taken credit facility of

Rs.50 lahs and they have introduced Rs.1 Crore fixed deposit to the bank, so there is no question of having mensrea to cause wrongful loss to the bank.

Further, S.Chandrasekharan has visited the equitable mortgage property and submitted the report positively. Further, the statement of account of M/s.Sakthi

Steels shows that the facilities were gradually released to the borrower. Further, the legal opinion was also obtained on the equitable mortgage property. It clearly shows that the A4 has taken all precautions before releasing the credit facilities and all terms and conditions are followed.

90.Further, 49 pay orders were issued under Ex.P574 from the account of

M/s.ACTPL in favour of different beneficiaries. Out of above pay orders 2 pay orders dated 04-10-2000 issued in favour of RBI Account, CAO, AP Telecom,

Hyderabad, were signed by him and 7 pay orders were issued in favour of SAO

OPERATION CIRCLE AP TRANSCO RANGA REDDY, 2 pay order numbering 520360, dated 20-09-2001 for Rs.5,521/-(Rupees Five Thousand Five Hundred and Twenty one only) and pay order number 147720, dated 09-08-2001 for

Rs.29,569/- (Rupees Twenty Nine Thousand Five Hundred and Sixty Nine only) paid to insurance company. PW18 admits that Exs.P12 to P14 pay orders were issued under his signature. Exs.P12 to P18 contain printed “& Co crossing” when the stationery was supplied by Head Office. Ex.P562 contains copy of balance sheet of M/s Sakthi Steels as on 31-03-1997 and it contains sundry debtors and

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 50 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 sundry creditors. As per above documents the pay orders were issued by PW18 but not by A4. Further, the record shows that there was lot of correspondence with regard to renewal proposal of cash credit facility to M/s.Sakthi Steels.

91.As per the sanction letter, dated 09-10-1997 available in Ex.P555, issued in favour of M/s.Airan Comptrax Towers Private Limited/A5, the release of working capital limits was to be done only after inspection by an official from the sanctioning office. Thereafter, office note was prepared under Ex.P577, however, there is no reference of non existence of machinery under the head inspection report. In this loan account, all the formalities are followed, the valuation report was obtained and there was correspondence to the Regional Office.

92.Further, the record and evidence of PW18 shows that on 28.08.1997, on page No.00 of Ex.P581 Mr. B.P.Goel has signed. On page No.02 of Ex.P581, on 04-09-1999 Mr.Raghunath and Mr.Ravi Kumar has signed. On 28-11-1998 on page No.01 of Ex.P581 Mr. B. Srinivas Rao has signed. The above officials have reported that conduct of the unit is satisfactory. On page No.80 of Ex.P581, on 29-04-1998, Mr.Satyanarayana, Assistant Regional Manager (ARM), Regional

Office has visited the unit along with Mr.M.Sundereshwaran(A4) but he has not signed the Ex.P581. In the details of security it is mentioned that machinery erection completed. All the records shows that the units are working the sufficient machinery was there. However, the prosecution has taken plea that the units are not working and there is no sufficient machinery. A4 and A8 colluded with the accused and sanctioned credit facility. The own witness of

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 51 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 prosecution i.e., PW18 admitted as per the reports the units are working and there are sufficient material.

93.Thereafter, E.Venkateswarlu officer, Industrial Loans from Head Office also submitted visit report on 10.01.2001, the report shows that the unit of M/s.Airan

Comptrax Towers Private Limited/A5 was visited and found the machinery and plant in the premises. The unit is in working condition. The building is there, the laboratory, office are situated in the unit premises. The company is installing one more furnace in the unit. The product i.e., ingots are raw materials for rerolling mills which in turn used in Industrial and Construction purposes used for manufacture of CTD bars, Tar Steels, MS channels and rods etc., No adverse report is given in Ex.P585. wealth tax returns filed by A1 for AY 1998-99 to show the existence of unit. Further, in the fresh proposal of M/s.Aren Steels

Limited/A6 send by Senior Manger to Regional Office on 22.03.1999 there was recommendation for combined limit of credit and foreign letter of credit for

Rs.240 lakhs. It clearly shows that there was no such irregularities as pointed out by the prosecution. The evidence of PW18 and the documents are in support of accused person only.

94.PW21/Mr.Rakesh Sharma, Senior Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce

Hyderabad stated that Mr.Sunderaswaran (A4) was his immediate predecessor in office of Ameerpet Branch. M/s. Shakti Steel (A7) was allowed cash credit facility,

M/s. Aren Steels Limited (A6) was allowed letter of credit facility and M/s.Airan

Comptrax Towers Private Limited/A5 was allowed facility of cash credit and letter of credit by the Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad. All

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 52 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 these facilities were recommended by the branch and sanctioned by the head office.

95.After his assuming charge as branch Manager, Ameerpet Branch, he noticed that the above accounts are irregular due to excess drawing. He contacted Mr. Munnalal Agarwal (A1) who was the Managing Director of M/s.Aren

Steels Limited (A6) and M/s.Airan Comptrax Towers Private Limited (A5). He asked sometime as he is not having sufficient funds for regularizing the above accounts. He asked permission to establish some more letters of credits and adhoc facility so that he can procure the goods, run the business and gradually regularize the business.

96.Based on his request, they allowed them to utilize Rs.30 lakh as adhoc facility which was already sanctioned. They also established one letter of credit of

Rs.35 lakhs. Even after that the accounts were not regularized.

97.The evidence of PW21 shows that though he was not present at the time of such loan transactions, after assuming his charge as branch manage,

Ameerpet, he came to know that there are irregularities in the loans sanctioned to A5 to A7.

98.The careful scrutiny of evidence of PW21 shows that though he stated that he was immediate successor of A4 but in the cross-examination he admitted that he has taken charge from Mrs.Uma Shiv Kumar incharge Branch Manager of

Ameerpet Branch. M.Sundereshwaran(A4) has left the branch by handing over charge to Uma Shiva Kumar. It means he is not immediate successor of A4.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 53 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

99.The PW21 admits that all the transactions in the group of companies of Mr.

Munnalal Agarwal (A1) were in the full knowledge of Regional Office and no point of time anything was concealed from the Regional Office. This evidence made it clear that there are admissions from PW21 that all the transactions in the group of companies of A1 were in the full knowledge of Regional Office. It means whatever the credit facilities given to the companies of A1, all were within the knowledge of Regional Office. Thereafter, Regional Office was functioning from Hyderabad on the date of joining of PW21 in Ameerpet Branch. The letter of credit of Rs.35 Lakhs was sanctioned by Regional Office, Hyderabad, has devolved on the bank. It means Rs.35 Lakhs of letter of credit was sanctioned by the Regional Office but not by the Ameerpet Branch. PW21 admitted those accounts became NPA during his working time i.e. on 31.03.2002. It means during the period of A1 the accounts have not became NPA. Though the PW21 intended to say that even before assuming his charge as Branch Manager the above accounts are irregular due to excess drawing. He was not able to refer any of the documents which shows that there was excess drawing. Further at one side he is admitting the accounts became irregular but at the same time he allowed the A1 companies to utilize the Rs.30 lakhs as adhoc facility. The PW21 stated that it was already sanctioned prior to assuming his charge but when he found that the accounts are irregular due to excess drawing, he is not supposed to permit the A1 companies to utilize Rs.30 lakhs as adhoc facility, he would have inform the matter to the Regional Office. Apart from it, he has issued one letter of credit of Rs.35 lakhs in favour of A1 company. It clearly shows the negligence

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 54 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 on the part of PW21. The record shows though these credit facilities are not pertaining to the period of A4, those adhoc facilities is pertaining to the period of

PW21 but the A4 was blamed by stating that as he sanctioned credit facilities to

A1 company with conspiracy. So the accounts became NPA. The evidence of

PW21 further shows he has no personal knowledge about the transactions relating to recommendations, sanctions of various limits to the firms of A1 prior to 27.08.2001. Therefore, the evidence of PW21 is not reliable and trustworthy, basing on his evidence A4 and A8 cannot be connected with the alleged offences.

100.PW24/G. Ramakrishna worked in Regional Office, Chennai as an Officer

Loans at the relevant time, he stated that A4 was Senior Manager of OBC,

Ameerpet Branch. As a Branch incharge, A4 has to go through the proposal in detail with Pre- sanction and Post-sanction visits of the units and all financial papers, CMA data's and Assets and Liabilities of Borrower and Guarantor,

Proposal has to be analyzed in Toto and with his due recommendation proposal to the Regional office, Chennai and on receipt of proposal at Regional office, the case has to be looked into the merits and demerits of the case and if the proposal is viable the case will be put for consideration to his higher authorities and if any further paper is required the same shall be sought for from the Branch office. Office note has been prepared for sanction of loan under Ex-P562. PW24 has prepared an office note of M/s.Sakthi Steels situated at Hyderabad on 21-03- 1998 which is renewal of cash credit for an amount of Rs.50 Lakhs, and he has recommended for renewal of Cash Credit limits at existing level of Rs.50 Lakhs and he has call for Schedule -II account of the Borrower. PW24 has prepared the

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 55 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 office note for M/s.Sakthi Steels situated at Hyderabad on 25-03-1999 for renewal of limits at the existing level of Rs.50 Lakhs along with Financial Analysis which is based on Financial High lights given by the borrower and recommended by the branch office, He has also prepared a note on 19-04-1999 which is a renewal of limit for Rs.50 Lakhs, the above said office note is prepared based on the letter received from Ameerpet branch, dt:13-04-1999 which is signed by A4.

101.The office note part of Ex.P576 Ex-576 was also prepared by him on 24- 08-1999 in respect of M/s.Airan Comptrax Towers Private Limited/A5 and its directors are M.L.Agarwal and Ritesh Agarwal for renewal of various credit facilities amounting Rs.1,62,00,000/-. The Collateral security offered by the above said directors is Land in Sy.no.48 situated at Bandlaguda, Uppal, one in the name of Munnalal Agarwal and another one in the name of Shashi Agarwal, the value aggregating 198 lakhs.

102.Ex-P588 is the Note prepared by him on 12-05-2000 in respect of A6 company, they have sanction the letter of credit for A6 company for an amount of Rs.1.50 crores, LC to be issued infavour of M/s.Rastriya ISPAT Nigam Limited (RINL). The branch has recommended to issue letter of credit other than

M/s.Rastriya ISPAT Nigam Limited on 12-05-2000 for Rs.35,00,000/-. Mr.Panda has written a note on 13-05-2000 that

i) Fresh Loan document 11 and 32 to be taken ii) Charge with ROC has been filed outside the stipulated period of one month.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 56 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 iii) Branch has to confirm that charge has been registered.

iv) Mortgaged properties there are no Tax arrears

v) Listed Document-61 is to be obtained.

103.Regional Head has endorsed on the letter dated 13.05.2000 to address a letter to Ameerpet branch, Hyderabad for Rectification/Complaint. Therefore, he has prepared a note raising certain queries for properties offered towards collateral security. The document Ex.P590 shows that the term loan account is regular cash credit limit of Rs.80 Lakhs was released in the month of June, 1998.

The sales estimates for the current year is Rs.529.50 lakhs. However while submitting renewal proposal of M/s.Sakthi Steels the branch has reported that the company has done sales of Rs.143.00 Lakhs only. From statement of account submitted the amount was of Rs.45.14 Lakhs. However the branch has submitted copies of invoices. It also appears that the company has not utilized the credit facility and non refunded. The main promoters of the company is engaged in steel fabrication. The company presently proposes to purchase certain kinds of iron and steel materials. Finally the Regional Office has recommended for sanction of loan in favour of the company.

104. Ex.P593 is the sanction letter of Chennai. It clearly shows that after getting clarifications only the loans were sanctioned in favour of M/s.Airan

Comptrax Towers Private Limited/A5. There was no involvement of Ameerpet

Branch in sanction of loans. The PW24 has admitted all the notes prepared by him were sent to his Superior in turn it has been send to sanction authority, who

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 57 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 in turn sanctioned the loan proposals. According to him the loan proposals were sanctioned by following rules and regulations of the bank. The evidence of PW24 is not against the accused person herein. As per his evidence when the loan proposals are given initially the Regional Office raised objections but after giving clarifications it was sanctioned by Regional Office and it was in accordance with rules and regulations.

105.Further as regards the role of A8, the evidence of PW24 shows one

M.S.Shetty was the Regional Manager during 1995 to 1999 at Chennai.

Sri.R.Madhusudhan has succeeded the seat of MS Shetty. the then

Regional Manager R.Madhusudhan has ordered to address a letter to the branch for rectification and compliance by making his signature on 13.05.2000. He admits Kanvaljeet singh /A8 was not the Regional Manager during the relevant period of time. Kanvaljeet singh A8 has succeeded

R.Madhusudhan, It means at the relevant time A8 was not working there but without verification of his period, he was implicated in this case. It is to be noted whenever adverse features not reported in proposals were recommended and accepted by sanctioning authority. Therefore the sanction authority cannot be blamed when the account became NPA. So

A8 has no role in sanction of credits.

106.PW22/RK.Kalra, Chief Manager, Inspection and control department of OBC,

Head Office, New Delhi stated that on the instructions of General Manager,

Inspection and Control Department, he inspected OBC, Ameerpet branch,

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 58 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Hyderabad on 08.03.2002 with regard the account of M/s.Airan Comptrax Towers

Private Limited/A5, M/s.Sakthi Steels and M/s.Aren Steels Limited/A6, which are group concerns. He submitted a report dated 04.04.2002 under Ex.P587 to the

General Manager Inspection and Control Department

107.As per report the Branch Manager was indulged in unauthorized business activities of the branch by accommodating the borrowers much more than the sanctioned credit facilities by the competent authorities as well as he has accommodated by allowing credit facilities in the borrower’s account much more than the discretionary powers vested with him.

108. In the account of M/s.Airan Comptrax Towers Private Limited

A4/M.Sundereshwaran purchased accommodatory cheques to the tune of

Rs.1725.88 lakhs during the period from 03.02.1999 to 30.11.2001. These cheques were drawn by the firms floated by M/s.Airan Comptrax Towers Private

Limited in the name of firms owned by the relatives and employees of the

Directors of the said company. These floated firms were found to be non- existent, because while conducting investigation it revealed that these firms were not functioning at the given addresses. These companies were issuing cheques in favour of M/s.Airan Comptrax Towers Private Limited, which were not out of the genuine trade transactions.

109.Similarly, in another group of account namely M/s.Sakthi Steels accommodatory cheques were being purchased by the branch un-authorizedly.

The Branch Manager purchased cheques to the tune of Rs.1570.16 lakhs during the period from 01.04.1999 to 26.08.2001. In this account certain credit facilities

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 59 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 were sanctioned by the competent authorities which was backed by equitable mortgage of immovable property reportedly to the value of Rs.92 lakhs, but in his opinion the realizable value was almost nil, because of the reason that this property was inhabited by the tenants for a long time and some were as old as 33 years.

110.Further, the group was also maintaining another account with the branch in the name of M/s.Aren Steels Limited and it was enjoying Inland Letter of

Credit (ILC) facility to the extent of Rs.150 lakhs. In addition to it, ILC limit of

Rs.90 lakhs was also sanctioned on adhoc basis. As per the sanctioned credit facilities, the ILCs were to be issued in favour of M/s.Rashtriya Ispat Nigam

Limited in respect of Iron scraps/Ingots to be purchased from it under ILC. But, subsequently, this condition was amended by the competent authorities and allowed the borrower to purchase scrap from the local dealers.

111.Subsequent to this modification, the Letter of Credits were issued in favour of M/s.Maheshwari Steel Corporation, M/s. Universal Trading Co., M/s. Venson

Steels & M/s. Ruby Traders. On their investigation, it revealed that these companies are not in existence. This fact was confirmed on their physical verification at the given addresses.

112.Further, it revealed that bill negotiated under LCs issued in favour of the above company were found to be fabricated, as no goods were being traded under the above LCs, bills/Invoices.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 60 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

113.The evidence of PW22 shows that the transactions in the accounts of A5 to

A7 are fake, the cheques were drawn by the firms which are fake and floated by

A5 to A7 herein. In the cross-examination he admitted that he did not mention in the report about the list of documents verified by him. Even he is not aware whether the investigating officer has collected the documents with the branch and regional office. Even he does not know whether the investigating officer has collected his report under Ex.P587. In the further cross-examination he stated that he can not say the period of A4 in Ameerpet from his report. Infact when he made allegations against A4 it is his duty to know that for which period the A4 worked in the said branch. Whether the so called irregularities were committed during the period of A4 or not. The PW22 has not enquired about the working period of A4. Even his report does not indicate that he visited the factory premises of the three companies. He has not verified the attendance register or leave register of OBC, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad. As per his report one

Rakesh Sharma was Branch Manager on 06.09.2001. He did not mention the name of Incharge of the branch on 26.01.2001 and 05.10.2001 at page No.17 of his report in respect of certain discrepancies relating to invoices of letter of credit. The defence contention is that Sri.Uma Shiva Kumar was incharge of the branch on 26.02.2001.

114. The PW22 simply denied it and he is not able to say who was working at the relevant time. However he admits Mr.Rakesh Sharma was incharge of the branch on 05.10.2001. The PW22 has to point out that those irregularities was committed during the period of Sri.Rakesh Sharma but the report shows that he

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 61 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 mentioned it was happened during the period of A4. Further he is not able to say the details relating to the irregularities committed by Regional Office, regular

Inspector and Concurrent Auditors. He admitted Audited balance sheet of a company will containing information about financial transactions of the company.

The Balance Sheet of company contain information about Sundry Debtors and

Creditors. He is not able to say anything about the balance sheets relating to group of companies of M/s.Sakthi Steels and others. Even he has not enquired whether M/s.Sakthi Steels and M/s.Ruby Traders are dealing with OBC even prior to the year 1996. He visited the premises of firms as per the addresses mentioned in the records and they are not existence at the addresses mentioned therein. He mentioned in his report he visited the premises of the firms as per address. Further he can not say whether there should be reduction in the liability whenever the stocks level gets reduced. He did not mention the name of the officials of the branch responsible for recovery of the amount due on account of reduction of stock.

115.Further in the report he mentioned the kite flying business seized only when chain of circulation of cheques had broken in the last week of August, 2001. He is not aware whether A4 was transferred as on 26.06.2001. Whatever his observations in para No.7 of the report are pertaining to the period August, 2001. At the relevant time A4 was not working and no cheques were pending for clearing. Even he is not able to say whether the chain of cheques during the period from 16.08.2001 to 24.08.2001 does not belongs to the period of A4.

Further he has not admitted that it is wisdom of Head Office regarding sanction

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 62 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 of limits to APCTL from Rs.80 lakhs to Rs.350 Lakhs. He investigated the matter and submitted the report when a specific question is asked with regard to sanction of limit, the PW22 is refused to give answer to it. Further he has not pointed out the circumstances under which the branch had recommended adhoc limit of Rs.50 lakhs for a period of 15 days as mentioned in para No.2 of page

No.6 of his report. It is his duty to fix the responsibility and to mention under what circumstances it was recommended. The PW22 has not concentrated on it.

In the report he mentioned there are no genuine trade transactions of the companies. He admitted he has not seen Ex.P574 cheques earlier so he was not able to say about the said payments. He is not aware whether there was payments towards electricity charges by the alleged fake companies.

116. The defence contended that when the firms are not in existence there is no question of having Registration numbers and paying commercial electricity charges on the name of companies. PW22 has not enquired about it, simply he stated those companies are not in existence. He has not verified Mr.Rakesh

Sharma has established letter of credit in favour of Ruby Traders for Rs.34.99

Lakhs on 05.10.2001 and even after the Central Excise letter the LC was debarred on 04.01.2002 adding to the liability. In the cross of said Rakesh

Sharma, he has admitted the credit facilities though knowing that those accounts are irregular. But no report was submitted against said Rakesh Sharma. The record shows that said Rakesh Sharma has discounted 143 cheques in favour of

Ruby Traders and Gindodi Steels in November, 2001 to a tune of

Rs.2,60,00,000/- and odd. He has not mentioned anything about it in his report.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 63 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Further he has submitted the report against M/s.Sakthi Steels and M/s.Aren

Steels Limited. The limits were extended by Head Office after satisfying about the performance of said companies in September, 2001. PW22 has not given any answer for it and not mentioned the same in the report. His report is one sided report and he don’t want to fix the liability of Head Office and other managers, his focus is only on the accused No.4 herein. As per his report the sanction limits i.e. Rs.330 Lakhs which includes Rs.30Lakhs adhoc facility. However Regional

Office has given permission for the above Rs.30 lakhs. The letters were send by the branch for adhoc proposals during the period of Uma Shanker. However the observation was given that such facilities was given by A4.

117.Further A4 has addressed a letter to Regional Office to permit the firm

M/s.Aren Steels Limited to purchase material from others since M/s.Rastriya

Ispath Nigam Limited expressed their inability to supply material. During the investigation the PW22 has not given any finding on it. Further in his report he failed to mention about the accountability of each Manager as per the period.

118.Further in the cross PW22 admitted M/s.Airan Comptrax Towers Private

Limited/A5 initially sanctioned a term loan of Rs.42 lakhs as per the instructions of Regional Office as per the letter dated 09.10.1997. The Regional Office has given permission vide letter dated 16.06.1998 for various limits totaling to

Rs.120 Lakhs.

119.PW22 admitted in para 4 of page 6 of his report that based on the recommendations dated 27.11.2000 of Regional Office, total of Rs.350 lakhs comprising cash credit of Rs.300 lakhs and bank guarantee of Rs.50 lakhs was

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 64 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 sanctioned by the head office vide their sanction letter No.HO/ADV/ dated 26.02.2001. Further he admits in last para of page no.7 of his report he referred the raids of customs and central excise department conducted at the premises of above companies on 07.09.2001 and a letter was addressed by them bearing

No.C.No.HQ.A.E.No.93/2001, dated 10.09.2001 addressed to Branch Manager,

Ameerpet Branch. This evidence made it clear that whatever the amount was sanctioned and credited to the accounts of accused it was on the recommendations of Regional Office and the bank guarantee sanctioned by Head

Office. The Branch Manager has no involvement in it. Further at one side prosecution contended those firms are fake and not in existing but in the report of PW22 he himself referred the raids of Customs and Central Excise

Department. When the firms are not in existing there is no question of raid by said departments.

120.PW22 admits in last para of page No.8 of his report it is mentioned that during the month of August, 2000 the Regional Office vide their letter

No.ROM/LAC/14280, dated 24.11.2000 in response to STM-41 for the month of

August, 2000 not to overstep his authority and seek prior permission. It indicates that there was a caution from Regional Office while sanctioning credit limits the prior permission should be obtained. PW22 did not mention the period of working of Mr.Kanvaljeet Singh (A8) in his report.

121.PW22 admits in para 3 of page 10 of his report he mentioned that

Mr.Rakesh Sharma branch incumbent visited on 30.09.2001 and 10.11.2001 and it was observed that in his report dated 30.09.2001 he did not mention about the

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 65 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 availability of sufficient or adequate stocks which covers the outstanding in the account and he has also mentioned in his report the drawing power as per stock statement submitted. He did not recommend any action against Mr.Rakesh

Sharma in his report even though his report was contrary to chartered accountants report mentioned in same para. It clearly indicates that his investigation is only one sided investigation though he found the irregularities during the period of said Rakesh Sharma but he has not fixed the liability of said

Rakesh Sharma. It is the duty of said Rakesh Sharma to mention about the availability of sufficient stock before recommending for credit facility. But he has not mention the same but recommended for credit sanction of Rs.30 Lakhs and

Rs.35 lakhs.

122.In para 2 of page 12 of PW22 report he mentioned that M/s.Sakthi Steels was sanctioned cash credit hypothecation limit of Rs.50 lakhs for the first time by

Regional Office, Chennai vide their sanction letter No.RO/L/10610/96, dated 15.07.1996 and the same was renewed periodically on 31.03.1998 and 19.04.1999. It was also mentioned that the validity of above limit was extended upto 31.03.2002 by the head office vide their letter No.HO/L/ dated 28.09.2001.

In para 2 of page 14 of his report it is mentioned that the verification of stocks was conducted jointly by Mr. T.S. Bagga, Chief Manager, Regional Office,

Hyderabad and Mr.Rakesh Sharma present Branch Manager on 06.09.2001 and as per their report, there does not exist any irregularities and the conduct of account is reported to be satisfactory. This evidence shows that the branch manager is not concerned with sanction of cash credit limit to the accused

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 66 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 companies. The Regional Office has sanctioned the credit limit. Even the stocks were verified by the Chief Manager of Regional Office, after their satisfaction only they have sanctioned cash credit limit. They have not pointed out any irregularities. However Mr.Rakesh Sharma, Branch Manager and Mr. Shiva Kumar,

Manager (loans) conducted inspection on 31.12.2001 and observed various irregularities mentioned in the same para. It clearly indicates that whatever observations made by the above said branch managers are in contrary to the observations of Regional Office. Admittedly the loan Rs. 150 lakhs ILC was sanctioned by Regional Office, Chennai on 20.09.1999. On 02.11.1999 the branch had requested that it may be permitted to issue ILC for Rs.35 lakhs in favour of parties other than M/s.Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited and request was acceded to by the Regional Office vide their letter No.ROM/L/20660, dated 05.11.1999 and it was also mentioned that the branch was permitted to issue letters of credit to any of the beneficiaries on 15.05.2000 with the sanctioned limit of Rs.150 lakhs. It means those limits were sanctioned only with the consent of Regional Office and after obtaining permission from the Regional

Office. After transfer of A4 these loans were notified as Non Performing Assets (NPA) on 31.03.2002 during the period of Rakesh Sharma. But the allegations are made against A4. The PW22 admitted the Head Office will be according renewals generally when the accounts are regular. In the instant case also there was recommendations for renewal of accounts. Therefore, the contention of prosecution that the branch manager has committed irregularities, are not correct.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 67 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

123.Further the PW22 admitted Ex.P587 is exclusively with regard to examine the staff accountability. He has not issued any notices to private parties and not recorded their statements. His higher authorities will give directions by addressing a letter to him mentioning the scope of enquiry. He was not part of any team which conducted enquiry under Ex.P587. 6 signatories are there in

Ex.P587 who are higher in rank to him. In Ex.P587/10 it mentioned that revaluation report of immovable property is obtained from Zahoor Ahmed dated 19.02.2002. Ex.P587 is silent as to the addresses or the dates which he has supposed to visit in connection with the borrowers and the business entities connected with the borrowers. The third parties with whom the borrowers having business need not inform the place of business in case of change of their addresses. The prosecution alleged PW22 has given report that the firms are fake and not conducting business in the given address. The defence contention is that the firms are registered with the ROC in case of change of addresses they have to give information to ROC. There is no need to give such information to any third parties with whom the borrowers are having business. Commercial Tax

Registration, GST registration etc., are there for the alleged fake firms, now the

PW22 can not say that those are fake firms only on the ground that the firms changed their business place. The PW22 has no personal knowledge of daily business transactions of OBC with A5 to A7. He is not aware how many directors are there on the board of A5 company and A6 company. He has not enquired with any Government Authorities like sales tax department, commercial department and Income Tax Department with regard the the firms with whom A5

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 68 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 to A7 were dealing. Therefore the report submitted by PW22 is not conclusive report basing on which the court can not connect the accused with the alleged offences.

124.PW25/N.Balakrishnan Officer in OBC, Regional Office, Chennai stated that

Kanvaljeet Singh (A8) was the Assistant General Manager during 2000-2001. In the present case, a letter is addressed by the Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad to

Regional Office, Chennai seeking Recognition of fresh activity of A5 company for which queries were addressed to the branch and sent vide letter dt:11-06-2000, vide letter dt:17.11.2000, process note for enhancement and change of activity was prepared at Regional Office, Chennai, the account of A5 company was sent to Head office, New Delhi.

125.Ex.P94 is the letter addressed to General Manager, New Delhi with proposal file of A5 company. A8 has addressed this letter to General Manager,

New Delhi. PW25 has prepared the process note and placed before the Chief

Manager/Mr.Jithender Mohan who in turn has recommended to Mr.Kanvaljeet

Singh (A8) along with his observation, based on this letter along with process note was sent to Head Office, New Delhi. As an apprising Officer, PW25 signed on the process note file. A8 has also engrossed the signature and the same is forwarded by the Chief Manager on 17.11.2000 for favourable recommendation.

Ex.P95 is the Office Note, dated 12.10.2000 put up by PW25 in respect of A5 company and the note is sent to Chief Manager, his observations in the above said note are that the projections of the A5 company are on higher side and the receivables are not acceptable, queries raised in respect of M/s.Sakthi Steels/A7

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 69 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 is also due.

126.Further, Ex.P96 is the Office Note, dated 19.09.2000 put up by PW25 in respect of A6 company in which he raised the queries for submission of credit report of A1 to bear Branch Manager signature. Ex.P97 is the note file, dated 21.11.2000 in respect of A6 company and the note was sent to Chief Manager recommending the sanction of facility to Head Office, thereby conveying to the branch to send the proposal directly to the Head Office with a copy to the

Regional Office as the allied concerned M/s.Airan Comptrax Towers Private

Limited/A5 is also sent to Head Office. Ex.P98 is the Office Note in respect of A6 company send to Chief Manager recommending adhoc letter of credit of Rs.90 lakhs for another rotation. This note was recommended by the Chief Manger and approved by the AGM/A8 based on which a letter dated 09.04.2001 was sent to

Head Office, New Delhi informing them that they have allowed this adhoc facility.

127.Ex.P599 is the note dated 09.06.2001 prepared by PW25 in respect of A6 company observing queries raised by the Head Office, New Delhi vide letter

dated 21.05.2001. Pw25 has observed in the note that reply to Regional Office

letter dated 03.02.2001 followed by reminder letter dated 14.03.2001 in respect of A7 company may be called for.

128.The evidence of PW25 clearly shows that the process notes in respect of credit facilities of A5 to A7 was prepared by the PW25 only. Whenever there was availment of credit facility they inform the matter to the Head Office and the queries were raised by the Head Office, New Delhi. Further, the Chief Manager also recommended for adhoc letter credit to A6 company. In the cross-

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 70 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 examination, PW25 stated that whenever he sought clarifications from the branch in the process note, AGM never turned down his suggestions to seek clarifications. He recommended the branch pending sanction from Head Office and the Chief Manager has endorsed in the above said exhibit that in view of satisfactory conduct of account, they may allow letter of credit of Rs.90 lakhs for one more rotation. Further, he stated that the borrowers have nothing to do with the procedures of their banks for the loan applications submitted by them. He admitted the sanction accorded by the Regional Office for the loans of A5 to A7 is in accordance with the procedure of the bank and that the queries raised by the

Regional Office were answered satisfactorily, thereafter the loans were sanctioned. He did not make adverse statements with regard to the loans sanctioned to A5 to A7. He has seen the replies to the queries raised by the

Regional Office and he did not raise any adverse comments in respect of the replies received from the branch. No objections was raised by him and by his superior officers for sanction of loans to A5 to A7.

129.The evidence of PW25 shows that while granting the loans to A5 to A7, every time the information was given to head office whenever they raised any queries, the branch has answered it, after satisfaction only, the head office has given permission for sanction of loan accordingly the branch has sanctioned the loans. Further, his evidence made it clear that he put up a note on the second page that Ameerpet Branch seeks action confirmation for having allowed excess of Rs.8.72 lakhs vide letter dated 16.04.2001, this amount was in excess of earlier limit of Rs.80 lakhs from 20.06.2002 to 04.08.2000. His evidence shows

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 71 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 that even head office has also confirmed this excess sanction of limit. In the present case, it was alleged that the excess amount was sanctioned without any permission but the evidence of PW25 shows that with the consent of head office only the excess limit was sanctioned under Ex.P600. Ex.P601 is his noting dated 06.07.2000 for confirmation of adhoc letter of credit of Rs.15 lakhs in the account of A6 after obtaining prior permission from the Chief Manager Loans and this was approved by the Chief Manager/AGM.

130. Further Ex.P602 is the entire file pertaining to the enhancement proposal of A5, this document shows that the maximum availment of A5 is upto

Rs.91.68 Lakhs which was in the knowledge of Regional Office and head Office at the time of consideration of enhanced limits of A5. Further, Ex.P597 shows that the letter of credits were in favour of M/s.Maheswari Steel Corporation and

M/s.Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited. At one side they contended that those firms are fake firms but there was letter of credits in favour of those firms. The evidence of PW25 falsifies the case of prosecution that excess limits were sanctioned without confirmation from the Regional Office. Therefore in sanction of loans to the said firms as per the procedure only the loans applications were received and credit facility was given. Though PW25 stated he has raised queries but he admitted he did not raise any adverse comments in respect of replies received from the branch. Even his superior officers also not raised any objections. When the loan account became NPA, they are not supposed to make allegations against the officers. If those officers are liable, the sanctioning authority is also liable to be prosecuted. From the evidence of PW25 it is clear

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 72 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 that there is no fault from the side of A4 and A8.

131.PW26/R.Satyanarayana, Assistant Regional Manager Loans , at Regional

Office Chennai shows for the purpose of availing loans by the Regional office, the regional office receives the process note from the branches and appraise for sanction of the same. The loans officer process the note and appraise to PW26 for placing before Higher authorities. Himself and Chief Manager are the recommending authorities for the loan proposal and the Regional Head is the sanctioning authority. During the relevant period of this case, powers of the

Regional Head for granting the loan is upto 2.5 crores for borrower. Loan over above than 2.5 crores will be referred to Head office situated at New Delhi. The role of the branch is to prepare process note and recommend the same to the

Head office for sanction in case of the loan is over and above 2.5 crores. This evidence made it clear that the branch has no powers to sanction the loan. The

Regional Head is the sanctioning authority. However, at branch level, the Branch manager is responsible for recommending the loan proposal and all other compliance of terms.

132.During the relevant period, A4 was the Branch Manager. In this particular case, Munnalal Agarwal/A1 is the owner of A5 and A7 companies. A1 approached

Ameerpet bank for renewal of limits in the account of A7 company. With regard to A5 company, A1 approached the bank for release of Working capital of Rs.1.20 crores which was already sanctioned. A1 was also in-charge of A6 company. On

Ex-P562/2 the noting was made by PW-24 for A7 company, placed before him for recommending renewal. After going through the record he recommended for

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 73 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 renewal and forwarded to the Regional Head/MS Shetty. Regional Head has approved the renewal of A7 company. A4 has prepared the Credit report of A7 company, at page No-16 & 17, 53 to 58 of Ex-P-562, based on the details submitted by A7 company, at page no- 18 to 52 of Ex-P-562. The signatures appearing on credit reports belong to A4.

133.With regard to A7 company for the purpose of Release of Working capital, their office has raised certain queries such as, Visit report from the branch,

Audited Balance sheet and Orders in hand and also reply to queries raised towards Branch Compliance Certificate(BCC) which confirms the compliance of all terms of sanction in-respect of documentation. Ex-P603 (3 sheets) is the office note dated:11-05-1998 prepared by G.Ramakrishna/PW-24 and he has made certain observations, thereafter Regional Head has concurred with the observation and forwarded the same to the Ameerpet branch. Mr.M.S.Shetty is

Regional Manager of Southern Region.

134.As per Ex-P577 it is relating to A5 company for renewal of Limits at the existing level prepared by PW-24, recommended by PW26 as well as Mr.Rakesh

Malhotra. A4 has forwarded the papers for renewal to Regional office on 16.07.1997 under Ex-P-579 which was approved by Mr.R.Madhusudan.

135.PW-24 has prepared the office note, dt: 18-6-1999 with regard to A5 company for Letter of Credit limit of 25 lakhs in which the status of other group companies are mentioned. His observation was to concur with observation made by PW-24 and placed before Assistant General Manager/R.Madhusudhan under

Ex-P-604. CD-413).

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 74 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

136.On 5th April 1998 he visited Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet

Branch, Hyderabad. One Sundersweran/A4 was the Branch Head at that time. He came there for the purpose of knowing that, is any requirement of pending work with Regional Office so that the things can be addressed at the earliest.

Sundersweran/A4 has requested him to visit the upcoming unit of A5 wherein

Regional office Chennai has sanctioned Term loan and working capital to the above said Private Limited company. The issue involved is with regard to working capital which was pending for release, by the time Term loan was already released to A5. One of the conditions for release of working capital was, the project should have been ready for commencement of commercial production.

So, he visited the said A5 and A7 company. A4 also accompanied with him for site visit. He found that only civil work with respect to factory shed and rooms for security, office and stores were constructed. At the site, he has observed only one Machine available which A1 informed it as a Pressing Machine which A4 also confirmed. Al has requested him and A4 to urgently release working capital as he has some orders on hand.

137.A4 has orally informed him about the release of working capital of A5. He suggested to A1 and A4 about the pending machinery as per the terms of sanction, production has to be commenced in A5 unit. A1 informed him that machinery is on the way and they will be installed shortly in the unit. he advised

A1 and A4 that a confirmation towards erection of machinery and for commercial production one more visit is required by A4. In this regard, he has also suggested that a note can be placed before sanctioning authority upon receipt of

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 75 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 confirmation by the Branch head about the installation of machinery by A5.

138.A4 has addressed a letter to the Regional Office, Chennai, that himself/A4 and A1 have visited A5 and requested for release of working capital. He put up a note to his superior officer which is evident in Ex-P603 with his remarks. Regional

Head (MS Shetty), Chennai has concurred his view that A4 has to once again visit A5 and ensure compliance of availability of machinery and commencement of production.

139.The evidence of PW26 is very crucial, his evidence clearly shows that A5 and A7 are requesting for renewal of limits. He has also visited the A5 and A7 firms but there was no sufficient machinery, so he suggested that to bring the machinery and start commercial production. Further, the regional office also put a condition that A4 should confirm towards erection of machinery and commercial production by visiting A5 and A7 units. However, the PW26 is not aware of subsequent developments. In the cross-examination, he admitted that in Ex.P603, he never stated that he visited the Oriental Bank of Commerce,

Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad and his notings are in the column captioned as order on the right side. He mentioned in his noting about the completion of civil works by A1 in A5 Private Limited company and he also mentioned about the pressing machine. The evidence of PW26 is contrary to the chief examination. As per his chief examination, the total machinery was not erected but in the cross- examination, he stated that he put a note that the Civil Work was completed by

A1 in A5 unit. Further, as per Ex.P555 at pages 3 & 4 Regional Office, Chennai has given in principle approval for Civil work and machinery for a

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 76 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 term of Rs.42 lakhs to A5. Further, as per document LD-244 he states that the

Branch Manager /A4 has confirmed that Plant and machinery was erected in A5 company and office building is nearing for completion, commercial production is in progress. Ex-P605 (6 sheets) is the office note dated: 06-06-1998. He admits that the PW-24 has analyzed the provisional balance sheet as on 31-03-1998 certified by the auditors of A5. Further as per Ex.P577 the overall conduct of the

SISTACONCERN (A7) was satisfactory and also the conduct of A5 found to be satisfactory. He has concurred with PW-24 about the renewal of working capital facilities of A5. Further, he put a note on Ex-P590 and P592. His evidence made it clear that there was confirmation of erection of plant and machinery in A5 unit.

Further, they admitted commercial production is in progress. As per the above documents, the conduct of said units are satisfactory after preparing the notes only the credit facility was given to A5.

140.Further, in the cross-examination, PW25 admitted that all the queries raised by Regional office, Chennai were properly answered by the branch, thereafter the Regional office, Chennai has sanctioned all the limits pertaining to

A5 to A7. He do visit premises of the borrowers on the directions of his superior officer. He admits if he visit the premises of the borrower with directions of his superior or without directions of his superior in the interest of the bank, they raise queries if he notice anything adverse to the interest of the bank. He admits that immediately after visiting A5 premises and after reaching Regional office,

Chennai he did not put any adverse note with regard to his visit to the above said premises, as nothing adverse was found/noticed, that is the reason why he

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 77 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 did not put any adverse note immediately. This evidence made it clear that he again visited the unit and there was no adverse remarks, so the credit facility was given to A5 to A7 units after following the procedure.

141.He admits whenever officers of Regional office visit a place they tried to maximum places(branch) as desired by the Branch managers for the interest of the bank. He admits, if a borrower or a branch manager is requesting the officers of regional office, Chennai to visit the borrowers site, it shows the urgency of the case for showing the future financial requirement in line with the progress of the project which shows the bonafides of the borrower. He stated that A8 has not taken Charge of Regional of Chennai till he was transferred from the Regional office, Chennai in March'2000.

142. The evidence of PW26 proves that after visiting A5 and A7 units only the credit facility was given as stated by PW26 due to the financial requirement the borrowers requested them to visit the units so, he visited the units. Moreover, the superior officers have instructed him to visit the units. He has not given any adverse remarks, it means as per the terms and conditions, the units of A5 to A7 are running, therefore, he has not given any report adversely and the credit facility was given as per the procedure. So there is no involvement of A4 and A8.

143.PW27/Mohan Kumar Sinha, Chief Manager in Oriental Bank of Commerce stated that the Term loan will be released on stage-wise basis as per the progress of the project. Munnalal Agarwal/A1 has obtained the loans from the bank on different companies. The loan amount shall be released by way of

Crossed Account Payee Bankers cheque/Pay-order. Ex.P12 to P18 are not crossed

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 78 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 account payee cheques which are issued by OBC, Ameerpet branch infavour of

Universal Fabrication (ExP-12), Shaker constructions (Ex-P13), Bhagwati

Machinery Corporation (Ex-P14), Universal Fabrication (Ex-P15), Shekhar constructions (Ex-P16), Bhagwati Machinery Corporation (Ex-P17), Bhagwati

Machinery Corporation (Ex-P18). Ex-P12 to Ex-P18 Pay-orders were encashed by the Endorsee's but not by the named payee's. The total amount covered under

Ex-P12 to Ex-P18 was Rs.34 lakhs pertaining to term loan.

144.Cash credit was given for working Capital requirement, it was a running account. As per Ex-P575 M/s.Sakthi Steels/A7 has availed cash credit from

Oriental Branch of Commerce, Ameerpet branch, Hyderabad. The CC limit as per the terms of sanction and the drawing power for such CC limits will be set up based on the Stock and Book debts. Ex-P572 statements of account of A7.

145.Ex-P563 which is a loan proposal for A5 for an amount of Rs.240 lakhs by way of Letter of Credit. The above said proposal is put by A4. Letter of Credits infavour of beneficiaries are sent by Registered Post or should be presented through Beneficiary Bank.

146.Somewhere on 31-03-2002 or 2003 the account of A7 company has become Non-performing asset. By the date of joining Oriental bank of commerce,

Ameerpet branch, in the month of June' 2003 DRT proceedings was initiated by the bank against A7, loan was recalled and it was declared as Non- performing asset. Bank has initiated DRT proceedings against A7 company at Hyderabad. He has handed-over some documents to CBI, BS& FC, Bangalore. One Zahoor

Ahmed/LW-39 has given valuation report pertaining to A7 company for the

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 79 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 property offered by them as a third party collateral security.

147.In the month of June' 2003, he took charge as a Branch Manager of

OrientalBankofCommerce,Ameerpetbranch,Hyderabad.

Nagabhushanam/Third party has mortgage only one property to Oriental Bank of

Commerce, Ameerpet branch, Hyderabad for the loan of A7. He has engaged Sri

Zahoor Ahmed/LW-39 for Revaluation of the mortgaged Properties to the bank.

148.He has inspected the House property of Sri Nagabhushanam Rao bearing no:1-9-9, Plot no-32, situated at Zamistanpur, Ram nagar, Hyderabad.

Sri.Zahoor Ahmed/Lw-39 gave his report on 29-12-2004 to him. The outcome of the report is that the House property of Nagabhushanam Rao does not exist at the address given therein.

149.He has inspected the Agricultural land of A1 admeasuring 5 Acres, in

Sy.no-61/B, situated at Pedda Toopran Village, Shamshabad Mandal and gave his report to him on 29-12-2004 by assessing the value of Agricultural land at

Rs.30,00,000/-.

150.Said Sri. Zahoor Ahmed/Lw-39 has inspected the property offered as

Collateral Security by Airan Exports Private Limited represented by A1 for the land admeasuring 1.01 acres in Sy.no-62/B, situated at Pedda Toopran Village,

Shamshabad mandal and gave his report to me on 29-12-2004 by assessing the value of Agricultural land at Rs.6,15,000/-.

151.He has inspected the property offered as Collateral Security by A6 represented by A1 for the land admeasuring 4 acres in Sy.no-61/B, 60/A, 61/A

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 80 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 situated at Pedda Toopran Village, Shamshabad Mandal and gave his report to him on 29-12-2004 by assessing the value of Agricultural land at Rs.24,00,000/-.

152.He has inspected the property offered as Collateral Security by Smt.Sheshi

Agarwal, W/o. Of A1 for the land admeasuring 1 acre in Sy.no- /B, situated at

Pedda Toopran Village, Shamshabad Mandal and gave his report to him on 29- 12-2004 by assessing the value of Agricultural land at Rs.6,00,000/-.

153.He has inspected the property offered as Collateral Security by Smt.Sheshi

Agarwal, W/o. Of A1 for the land admeasuring 27 Guntas in Sy.no-48 situated at

Bandlaguda Village, Uppal and gave his report to him on 04-01- 2005 by assessing the value of Agricultural land at Rs.8,00,000/-.

154.He has inspected the property offered as Collateral Security by A1 for the agricultural land admeasuring 28 Guntas in Sy.no-48 situated at Bandlaguda village, Uppal and gave his report to me on 04-01-2005 by assessing the value of

Agricultural land at Rs.8,30,000/-.

155.M/s. Servel Associates, Secunderabad has assessed the house property of

Sri.Nagabhushanam/Third party for the house bearing no: 1-9-9, Plot no-32, situated at Zamistanpur, Ramnagar, Hyderabad and they have valued the property at Rs.92,00,000/- and submitted their report to the bank on 31-12- 2001. the above property was offered by Sri. Nagabhushanam/Third party towards Collateral Security for A7 company represented by A1.

156.Zahoor Ahmed/LW-39 has done revaluation of the property bearing Hno:

1-9-9, Plot no:32 situated at Zamistanpur and he send the report to me vide dt:

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 81 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 29-12-2004 in respect of the above property Ex-P606 (31 sheets) is the

Inspection report. Ex-P606 report refers to Eight (8) properties of different persons.

157.As per the Ex-P606 the property standing in the name of one

Nagabhushanam Rao which is situated at Ramnagar in an area of 1854 Sq.yards,

Plot No.32 bearing H.No:1-9-9 is not in existence.

1) The property of ML Agarwal is valued by Zahoor Ahmed for Rs.30 lakhs for 5 acres of land situated at Pedda Toopran village.

2) The property of AIRAN Exports Private limited is valued by Zahoor Ahmed for Rs.6,15,000/- for 1.01 guntas of land situated at Pedda Toopran village in SY no: 62/B.

3) The property of AIRAN Steels Private limited is valued by Zahoor Ahmed for Rs.24,00,000/- for 4 acres of land situated at Pedda Toopran village in SY no: 61/B, 60/A and 61/A.

4) The property of M/s. Shashi Agarwal is valued by Zahoor Ahmed for Rs.6,00,000/- for 1 acre of land situated at Pedda Toopran village in SY no: 61/B.

5) The property of M/s. Shashi Agarwal is valued by Zahoor Ahmed for Rs.8,00,000/- for 27 guntas of land situated at Bandlaguda village, Uppal Mandal in SY no: 48.

6) The property of ML Agarwal is valued by Zahoor Ahmed for Rs.8,30,000/- for 28 guntas of land situated at Bandlaguda village in SY.no-48.

7) The property situated at Oothapally in the name of AIRAN Comptrax towers private limited, the valuation given by Sri. Zahoor Ahmed Rs.7,50,000/-.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 82 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

158.The total valuation of the properties shown above from 1 to 7 is Rs.89.95 lakhs.

159.Serval Associates represented by its proprietor S.Chandrasekharan/A10 has valued the property of M.L.Agarwal for the property situated at Sy.no-61/B,

Pedda Toopran for the extent of 5 acres, the value shown is 1.42,50,000/-, vide valuation report dt: 03-03-1999.

160.Serval Associates represented by its proprietor S.Chandrasekharan/A10 has valued the property of AIRAN Steels Private limited for the property situated at Sy.no- 61/B, Pedda Toopran for the extent of 1 acre, the value shown is 28,50,000/-, valuation report dt: 03-03-1999. The above said properties are all agricultural lands.

161.In the cross examination PW27 admitted that M/s.Sakthi Steels/A7 was having Cash credit account in Oriental Bank of commerce, Ameerpet branch. The perusal of Ex.D1 shows that M/s.Sakthi Steels was enjoying cash credit of limit of

Rs.50 Lakhs. Which was sanctioned by Regional Office, OBC, Chennai on 16.07.1996. As per the records the borrower was enjoying CC facility which was validated up to 31.02.2002 by the Head Office. In addition to the sanction limit his predecessor were extending facilities like cheque discounting under their discretionary power. The account became bad and categorized as NPA account on 31.03.2002 and the account was recalled on 01.02.2002 since several irregularities were found by the Head Office in this account the bank had filed a suit in the DRT, Hyderabad on 07.08.2003. The content of Ex.D2 shows ”subsequently they were sanctioned the working capital of Rs.120 Lakhs by way

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 83 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 of cash credit – Rs.80 Lakhs, Documentary DD Rs.20 lakhs, Inland letter of

Credit - Rs.10 lakhs, Bank guarantee Rs.10 Lakhs/-, and Banker’s guarantee –

Rs.10 lakhs. The facilities were renewed by Regional Office on 01.09.1999.

Further on the basis of proposal from Ameerpet Branch the Regional Office,

Hyderabad had sanctioned Rs.50 lakhs CC as adhoc limit 28.11.2000 for a period of 15 days, further adhoc limit of Rs.50 Lakhs till the renewal of limit and LC limit of Rs.50 Lakhs on short basis”.

162.The contents of Ex.D3 shows that “I also state that on the basis regular proposal from the branch Head Office had conveyed sanction of Rs.300 Lakhs CC and Rs.50 Lakhs Bank guarantee on 26.02.2001. Further after the transfer of

Regional Office from Chennai to Hyderabad, RO Hyderabad had sanctioned CC adhoc limit of Rs.30 Lakhs and LC limit of Rs.35 Lakhs to M/s.Airan Comptrax

Towers Private Limited/A5.

163.The documents Ex.D1 to D3 shows that PW27 has stated in 161 statement about the sanction of various credit limits to the accused persons herein by the

Regional office. Now he is taking a stand that all the loans are sanctioned by A4 only. So his evidence is contrary to the 161 statement.

164.In the further cross-examination, he admits that Ex-P12 to Ex-P18 were printed and issued by the Head office, Delhi, it shows the crossing on the pay orders "& Co.," between the lines. The defence contended that as there was in the printed proforma as “crossed and company”, therefore, there is no further need of crossing when issued in the name of Payee. However, the PW27 stated that it is not correct, the pay orders can be crossed as account payee. He admits

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 84 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Ex-P12 to 18 were paid through AP Mahesh Cooperative Bank to the Endorsee (M/s. B M Enterprises). The defence contended that the payments were made by

M/s.AP Mahesh Cooperative Bank under Ex-P12 to Ex-P18 to the Endorsee's other than the suppliers mentioned in the said Exhibits it is the responsibility of

AP Mahesh Cooperative Bank for making payments. The witness has denied it.

He is not able to say whether Ex-P12 to Ex-P18 were issued by the concerned staff of the bank, but not by A4.

165.He admits that when a loan is sanctioned, it can be disbursed through pay orders by the concerned loans Manager. He admits, an amount of Rs.29.89 lakhs for Civil works + Rs.37.51 lakhs for plant and machinery 67.40 lakhs is the cost of the project, out of which Regional office of OBC, had sanctioned term loan of

Rs.42 lakhs (Ex-P555) which includes customers contribution. As per clause (6) of Ex-P555 it is mentioned that "in-case of new projects the working capital shall be released only after all the plant and machinery is installed, Project commencement of Trial production and after inspection by an official from the sanctioning officer".

166.The PW27 has stated that Ex-P578 certified by Chartered Accountant and he states that it is only a provisional balance sheet, it does not have any sanctity unless it is audited.

167.In the further cross-examination by A4, he stated that there are panel valuers and panel advocates for Oriental Bank of Commerce. The Zonal Office monitors each and every branch of its functions and it obtains monthly and periodical reports of the branches. The loan transactions in the present case were

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 85 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 subjected to annual audit by the Bank. He admits that the amounts have been paid through pay orders under Exs.P.12 to P.18. Pay order and Banker’s Cheque are one and the same. Exs.P.12 to P.18 contain “Pay (To specific person) or

Order”. He admits that Exs.P.12 to P18 contain amount exceeding Rs.2,00,000/-.

Only one Officer of the Bank signed on Exs.P12 to P.18. He admits that canceling authority has signed on Exs.P.12 to P.14 at the time of payment. There is no signature of canceling authority on Exs.P.15 to P.18. He cannot say whether the signature belongs to A4 or not. This evidence made it clear that the amounts have been paid through pay orders only. It is containing the signature of one officer. So there is no question of diversion of amount. The amounts under

Exs.P.12 to P.18 were paid in M/s.Mahesh Co-operative Bank after they were

honoured by Oriental Bank of Commerce.

168.PW27 stated that he has engaged the services of Zahoor Ahmed for valuation of the property. Though, PW27 admits that the mortgaged properties are existing but there is variation in the value of the property as per the report of

Zahoor Ahmed. They have not taken any third party opinion. The loan transaction in the present case is beyond the limit of Ameerpet Branch. He admits that in the present case, the loans were sanctioned by the appropriate authority in the normal course of business after following the Bank norms and guidelines, the rules and regulations and procedures loans were sanctioned. The

PW27 admits that without any instructions from higher authorities he engaged the services of Zahoor Ahmed. There is no document to show that he was panel valuer. He has no personal knowledge about the transactions between the bank

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 86 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 and A5 to A7.

169.The OBC, Ameerpet Branch had already filed ΟΑ.No.193/2003 against A5,

OA.No.155/2003 against A6, OA.No.156/2003 against A7. The borrowers have no role in decision making powers of bank while sanctioning the loan and other processes. He has not shown any vouchers relating to the pay orders Exs.P12 to

P18. By seeing the pay orders it can not be stated it is related in any manner with any of the borrower i.e. A5 to A7. He cannot say by seeing the Ex.P12 to

P18 whether they are in connected with loan account of A5 to A7. He admits that by virtue of Ex.p12 to P18 being negotiable instructions, the payee can endorse them in favour of others for encashing them. In all pay orders the payee has endorsed i.e. Exs.P12 to P18. He admitted that the pay orders Ex.P12 to P18 are encashed according to banking rules.

170.As per the docket orders Ex.D17 to D21 the matters are settled in DRT, the banks has filed satisfaction memo, so the suits against A5 to A7 are closed.

171.This evidence indicates that PW27 has no authority or no instructions to appoint Zahoor Ahmed as Valuer and to obtain one more valuation certificate in respect of mortgaged properties. Without any authority, he engaged said Zahoor

Ahmed and obtained valuation reports for very less amounts and alleged that the valuation reports are obtained by the branch for inflated value. He has pointed out several irregularities. However, finally he admitted that Ex.P12 to P18 are encashed according to banking rules. Further A5 to A7 has cleared all loan amount, so the DRT has closed all the cases of A5 to A7. So there are no irregularities as alleged by the prosecution.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 87 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

172.PW28/Jitender Mohan, Chief Manager in OBC, Regional Office, Chennai stated that A5 to A7 were granted term loan, inland letter of credit limit, they were processed by OBC, Ameeerpet Branch and sanctioned by Regional Office,

Chennai. A5 has addressed a letter to the then Assistant General Manager recommending for facilitating adhoc cash credit limit of Rs.50 Lakhs to A5 company. PW28 has prepared office note, it was sanctioned by A8. However the

Head Office has raised quiries in respect of renewal cum enhancement proposal of A5 company. The Branch Manager, Monitoring Officer, Rakesh Malhotra reported satisfactory about the conduct of the accounts and there were no adverse remarks by any of the inspection team and auditors. The Regional

Office, Chennai received proposal from A4 for sanction of cash credit limit of

Rs.585 Lakhs and bank guarantee of Rs.50 lakhs for manufacture of aluminum and steel in gots for induction furnace Unit of A5 company. The Senior Manager

Ameeerpet Branch has addressed a letter to Assistant General Manager regarding renewal cum enhancement of working capital limits in respect of A5 company along with recommendations of A4. PW28 has prepared office note and raised some quires. The Deputy General Manager, Head Office raised some queries in respect of account of A5 company. A4 has given reply to the Deputy General

Manager, Head Office giving reply to the quires raised by Head Office and

Regional Office.

173. The document Ex.P594 shows that the General Manager Credit, Head

Office, Hyderabad with regard M/s.Airan Comptrax Towers Private Limited mentioned that they refer to the fresh proposal for sanction of cash credit and

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 88 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 bank guarantee facilities in the captioned account forwarded by branch. They also enclosed process note along with their recommendations for sanction.

However this document is relating to M/s.Airan Comptrax Towers Private Limited the loan proposal is relating to M/s.Sakthi Steels. The document shows that branch has clarified that realization of sale proceeds of earlier activity have been invested in the building up of current assets of new activity. Additional collateral security valued Rs.136.00 Lakhs was furnished. Latest balance sheet of

M/s.Sakthi Steels as well as IT returns of the company are pending. Further the steels units are not closed and running unit. Unit is proposed to run three shifts and operated 75 % capacity. The Regional Office found that parties projection of 21 days of receivable is contrary to what was observed in branch process note that recoveries are effected in 7 days considering this as well as high projections, drawing power may not be available. The reply to queries are not given so it may be conveyed to branch. The PW28 has stated that they have recommended cash credit facility of Rs.325 Lakhs and bank guarantee of Rs.50 Lakhs to A5 company. PW28 stated the details of account position and subsequent sanction of facilities to M/s.Airan Comptrax Towers Private Llimited was already given in detail. However on 26.02.2001 he received copy of letter dated 26.02.2001 under Ex.P617 of AGM, OBC, New Delhi addressed to Branch Manager, OBC conveying sanction of working capital limits in the account of M/s.Airan

Comptrax Towers Private Limited.

174.PW28 stated it is beyond powers of A4, the cheques reported in STM 41, having purchased by A4. It was checked and placed before him, since no

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 89 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 irregularities were observed in inspection reports, audit reports and same was properly scrutinized by load audit cell, he placed the same before Regional Head for ratification of action of branch manager.

175.As per the charges it is clear that the main allegation against A4 is that he colluded with A1 to A3. Therefore he recommended for sanction of credit facility to A5 to A7 companies. The evidence of PW28 shows after giving the loan application the Regional Office and Head Office raised several queries, after getting clarification from the branch the Regional Office has passed sanction orders. Further the main allegation is that the A4 has purchased the cheques beyond his discretionary power. But the evidence of PW28 shows that as per inspections reports, audit reports there were no irregularities. So PW28 has given clean chit and placed before Regional Head for ratification of action of branch

Manager. The monitoring officer, concurrent Auditors have also not given any adverse report. Subsequently the PW28 states he came to know through the report of PW22 is that there was irregularities in purchase of cheques and there was diversion of funds. The main basis for making allegations against A4 is that there was report of PW22. The evidence of PW28 is hearsay evidence. At one side he admits he checked the cheques and statements and he had given clean chit but again he states as there was report of PW22, so there was fraud in purchase of cheques. It is to be noted that in the cross-examination of PW22 he had stated that he had not seen the cheques earlier therefore he can not say anything about the payments under cheques. Further he stated he did not see

Ex.P571 register i.e. Office order duty register. Therefore he can not say anything

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 90 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 about the register. He can not say whether Rakesh Sharma has discounted 143 cheques in favour of Ruby traders, Gindodi Traders. The PW22 was not able to say anything about the facts of the case. This court has already observed there is no validity to the report of PW22 under Ex.P587. Therefore basing on this report PW28 is not supposed to make any allegations against A4. Further PW28 admitted OBC, Ameeerpet Branch purchased certain cheques in the group accounts of Munnalal Agarwal which was beyond the powers of Branch Manager.

He himself stated there are no irregularities. Further monitoring officers report was received for quarter ending 31.03.2001 signed by PW31, she reported that the conduct of the account as satisfactory due to the reasons the cheques are realized. No bills are returned and LC payments did not fall over due. The conduct of the account of M/sACTPL was considered to be good. Further he admitted quarterly report of large borrowal accounts as on 30.06.2000 signed by

Mohd Babu, Officer Advances and A4. PW28 identified that document as correct as per records of Regional Office, OBC, Chennai. He further deposed this report did not contain any instance of purchase of accommodation of cheques, kite flying operation or any other irregularity. The conclusion of report is that the account is frequently overdrawn but operations are satisfactory. Further quarterly report large borrowal accounts as on 31.03.2001 signed by PW31 also shows it is satisfactory. It means the conduct of account was good. At one side they are making allegation of exceeding limits by A4 by sanctioning over due amount but the document shows after communication to the Regional Office and with their permission the amounts were sanctioned. So there is no such

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 91 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 irregularity as contended by the prosecution.

176. Further in the case of M/s.Sakthi Steels A4 has addressed a letter to AGM along with the loan application and requisite documents. The Assistant General

Manager i.e. A8 has addressed a letter to the Senior Manager, Ameeerpet Branch calling for the reasons for huge variation between sales turnover of the firm summations in the cash credit account of the party. The perusal of document shows that the credit report of A3 along with details of her assets and liabilities etc. are furnished under P622 by the accused NO.4. Further M/s.Shakthi Steels has addressed a letter for renewal of cash credit of Rs.50 Lakhs along with loan application. The PW28 stated as per Ex.P534 sanction letter M/s.Shakthi Steels was enjoining cash credit limit of Rs.50 lakhs sanctioned 1996.

177.M/s.Aren Steels Limited/A6 was enjoining credit limit of Rs.150 lakhs.

There was sanction letter in favur of M/s.Aren Steels Limited/A6. A4 has recommended to AGM to allow M/s.Aren Steels Limited/A6 to utilize ILC limit of

Rs.35 Lakhs in favour of local parties within the overall limits. The process note was prepared by PW28 and signed by accused NO.8 and the permission was given to M/s.Aren Steels Limited/A6 for Rs.90 lakhs. Further the PW28 stated all

ILC’s opened by the branch on behalf of M/s.Airan Steels Limited except

M/s.Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited all other LC’s were bogus and of accommodating nature, which were opened in favour of firms floated by A1 to

A3. He is not aware that said ILC’s were bogus. He came to know of it when the investigation is done by Head Office. It clearly shows that the PW28 has no personal knowledge of it. As per his evidence there was sanction of ILC in favour

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 92 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 of M/s.Airan Steels Limited for Rs.90 lakhs. The branch has also confirmed the party has been meeting the commitment and there was no outstanding. The evidence shows that on the recommendation of A4 ILC for Rs.90 Lakhs in addition to regular LC of Rs.150 Lakhs was sanctioned. The contention of prosecution is that the credit loan amount was diverted through fake firms. But as already stated above there is no evidence to show that the firms are fake firms and it was established by A1 to A3. Moreover the Honourable High Court quashed the proceedings against A1 to A3. Therefore, the allegation of floating fake firms by A1 to A3 are quashed. In turn it can not be attributed to A4 that knowing that it was fake firms, the cheques were purchased and amount was diverted.

178.The PW28 has pointed out the valuation reports issued by Serval

Associates, Secunderabad in respect of equitable Mortgaged Properties and contended that those valuation reports are issued for very high amount one

Zahoor Ahmed was directed to revalue the property. Accordingly he revalued the property and as per his report the value of the property is Rs.50 Lakhs only but earlier valuation reports were obtained for Rs.285 Lakhs. It is to be noted that the evidence of Zahoor Ahmed is very crucial to prove the value of the properties but the prosecution has not examine him so the valuation reports are not proved.

In the cross-examination PW28 has stated that sanctioning limit by different scale branch officers is fixed by Head Office. If the loan exceeds the sanction limit the branch has to approach the Regional Office or Head Office. The branch acts as a Proxy to sanctioning authority i.e. Regional Office. It means the

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 93 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 sanctioning authority is the Regional Office and there is no discretionary power to the branch office.

179.From the evidence of PW28 it is clear that though he made allegations against A4 to A8 but his reports are contrary to his evidence. As per reports the accounts are satisfactory. Now he can not take u turn. Even he stated he has no personal knowledge of the transactions. The evidence of PW28 is not useful to connect the accused with alleged offences. Further he admits on his recommendation only adhoc LC limit of Rs.50 lakhs each was sanctioned to A5 and it is in accordance with the procedure. Even in case of A6 also the adhoc LC limit of Rs.90 Lakhs was sanctioned during his tenure. So there is no fault on the side of Accused persons in sanctioning of loans.

180.PW29/Uma Shiva Kumar, Scale-II Manager in OBC, Ameerpet Branch shows that M/s.Sakthi Steels Limited(A7) had CC limit of Rs.50,00,000/- and

M/s.Airan Comptrax Towers Private Limited(A5) also had CC limit of

Rs.80,00,000/- in Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch. Over a period of time there were lot of Cheques discounting and against clearing being done in those two group accounts, which were taken by her to the knowledge of the

Branch Manager/A4. The A4 was transferred from there, even he was not charged to her. The special focus inspection report given by Mr.Sampath Kumar and HK Madan with regard to irregularities in the account of A5 to A7. A5 and A7 were issuing cheques for huge amounts against uncleared cheques deposited by

A5 and A7. She inform the matter to R.K.Takkar, Regional Manager. He advised her to continue the same practice otherwise accounts will became NPA. Her

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 94 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 attention was also drawn to the letter of I.R.Rao and Company, the Concurrent

Auditors of the Branch, to forthwith stop operations in the accounts of A5 and A7.

On receiving the said information she has faxed the letter of I.R.Rao and

Company to the then Regional Head, Chennai by name Mr.Kanvaljeet Singh (A8) as the Ameerpet Branch was reporting to Regional Office, Chennai at that time.

On receiving the fax, A8 asked her to get a letter from I.R. Rao and company to start operations in the accounts of A5 and A7. The said action of A8 surprised her because A8 was pressurizing her to prevail over I.R. Rao and Company and to allow the operations in the accounts of A5 and A7 companies. Accordingly,

I.R.Rao and Company had sent a letter to Ameerpet Branch to start operations in the accounts of A5 and A7 companies.

181. During her tenure as second in-charge of Ameerpet Branch there were frequent Cheques purchase in group accounts of A5 and A7 companies against uncleared effects. The Branch limit for purchase of Cheques was limited to

Rs.7.50 Lakhs per party/customer. Since A5 and A7 companies had fund based limit with the branch frequent purchasing of Cheques was not permissible.

Moreover, A5 and A7 were depositing cheques for purchase in chronological order, which raised certain doubts in her mind and she informed A4 about the same. On hearing the same, A4 stated that it was none of her business and asked her to sit in her place. After that she remained as silent spectator.

182.The staff of A1 used to tell them about many illegal gratifications being paid by A1 to some of the staff members of Ameerpet Branch, specially

Mr.Mohammed Babu, who was the then Loans Officer. The said fact was also

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 95 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 informed to me by A1 personally when he used to come to Ameerpet Branch, but she told A1 not to discuss those things with her as she was no way concerned.

The staff of A1 also informed her that A1 has sponsored the treatment to daughter of A4 in USA and she informed them that they should not tell her all those things. Her attention was also drawn to the fact that somewhere after

Rakesh Sharma took over charge of the Branch and had gone for availing his joining period there was lot of pressure on her and Mr.G. Shiva Kumar, the then

Loans Officer of the Branch, for issuing the financial guarantee of Rs.50 Lakhs to

A5 company. However, the terms and conditions of the sanction were for issuance of performance guarantee. Mr.Shiva Kumar faxed a letter to Head Office superseding the Regional Office, Hyderabad. Herself and Shiva Kumar were called to the Regional Office, Hyderabad for sending the letter directly to the

Head Office. Mr. T.S.Bagga, the then loans in-charge of Hyderabad Region, came to Ameerpet Branch and after seeing the terms and conditions of sanction he left the branch silently after admonishing her and Shiva Kumar.

183.It is the normal practice of the Branch wherein there is a Monitoring

Officer, who is in-charge of a particular borrowal account. The accounts of A5 and

A7 were monitored by Mohammed Babu, Mrs.Sabitha Koneru, G. Shiva Kumar and P.V.S. Murthy during different periods. However, no irregularity was reported by those Monitoring Officers.

184.There was third company of A1 namely, M/s.Aren Steels Limited (A6) where LCs were issued in favour of M/s.Maheswari Steel Corporation and

Universal Trading Company, which were later found to be not existing.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 96 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

185.In December, 2001 Sri.D.S.Rao, Assistant Regional Manager was deputed to Ameerpet Branch to send reply to Regional Office, Hyderabad regarding pending irregularities in the group accounts of A5 to A7 companies. However,

Sri.D.S.Rao did not have adequate knowledge of the loans belonging to Ameerpet

Branch and the Regional Office wanted such a person to send report.

186.If the documents are shown to her, she will be able to verify and depose further details. Under letter No.265/2000-2001, dt.29.12.2000 and letter

No.266/2000-2001, dt.29.12.2000 addressed by I.R.Rao and Company,

Chartered Accountant to the Manager, OBC, Ameerpet Branch, copies of which were marked to AGM, OBC, Regional Office, Chennai, asking the Branch to forthwith stop the operations in the accounts of A5 and A7 companies,

187.Under letter No.268/2000-2001, dt.30.12.2000 and letter No.267/2000- 2001, dt.30.12.2000, which were addressed by I.R.Rao and Company to the

Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad, the copies of which were marked to the Assistant General Manager, OBC, Regional Office,

Chennai, asking Ameerpet Branch to start operations in the accounts of A5 and

A7 companies, which is marked as Ex.P644 (2 Sheets) (D.No.289). These two letters under Ex.P644 were sent by her to the Assistant General Manager,

Southern Region, Chennai under Letter No.CN/706/23843/2000, dt.30.12.2000, which is marked as Ex.P645. The said action of I.R.Rao and Company directing to commence operations in the above accounts surprised Ameerpet Branch.

188.Letter dt.23.08.2001 (D.No.82) was addressed to Ameerpet Branch by A7 company requesting for enhancement of cash credit limit of Rs.5 Lakhs. Herself

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 97 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 and Sabita Koneru (Loans Manager) (LW36) were not interested in enhancing the limit because they came to know about several irregularities in the account of

A7. However, she had to address letter dt.25.08.2001 to the Assistant General

Manager, Regional Office, OBC, Hyderabad because of the repeated insistence of

Sri.T.S.Bagga, Chief Manager(Loans), Regional Office, OBC, Hyderabad, particularly as A1, who is representing A7 company, was continuously sitting in

Ameerpet Branch to forward the letter to Regional Office, OBC, Hyderabad. Letter

No.CN706/24918, dt.25.08.2001 (D.No.83) was addressed by her as Senior

Manager of OBC, Ameerpet Branch, to the Assistant General Manager, Regional

Office, OBC, Hyderabad requesting for sanction of adhoc facility of Rs.5 Lakhs for a period of one month to A7 company.

189.Letter dt.01.08.2001 was addressed to the Branch Manager, OBC,

Ameerpet by Managing Director of A5 company requesting for conversion of Bank

Guarantee (Performance) of Rs.50 Lakhs into Bank Guarantee (Financial), which is marked as Ex.P646 (D.No.301). The said request was not acceded by the

Branch and instead they have sent Ex.P645 letter to Head Office by superseding the Regional Office, Hyderabad.

190.Letter No.70623913/2000-2001, dt.03.01.2001 was addressed by her to the Assistant General Manager, Regional Office, Chennai regarding sanction of adhoc LC of Rs.90 Lakhs in the account of A6 company, which is marked as

Ex.P647 (D.No.605). This letter was issued by her and Sabita Koneru with lot of reluctance as they came to know about irregularities in the said account.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 98 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

191.Ex.P507 Letter dt.06.09.2001(2 Sheets) (Part of D.No.612) was addressed by M/s.Agrasen Co-operative Urban Bank Limited, Hyderabad to the then Senior

Manager, OBC, Ameerpet Branch along with credit information report of

M/s.Universal Trading Company mentioning its performance as “Satisfactory”, which was already marked. However, they came to know later that M/s.Universal

Trading Company was not in existence and it was the propped up company of A1.

192.Letter dt.18.12.2000 from M/s.A.P.Mahesh Co-operative Urban Bank

Limited, Monda Market Branch, Secunderabad was received by the Senior

Manager, OBC, Ameerpet Branch, along with credit information report of

M/s.Ruby Traders, mentioning it as “Satisfactory”, which is marked Ex.P648 (2 Sheets) (Part of D.No.612). However, we came to know that no such Firm by name M/s.Ruby Traders was existing.

193.Letter dt.01.02.2000 from A.P.Mahesh Co-operative Urban Bank Limited,

Market Street Branch, Secunderabad was received by the Senior Manager, OBC,

Ameerpet Branch, along with letter dt.01.02.2000 of M/s.Maheswari Steel

Corporation and credit information reports of M/s.Ruby Traders, M/s.Universal

Trading Company and M/s.Maheswari Steel Corporation wherein it is mentioned that there were no transactions in the accounts M/s.Ruby Traders and

M/s.Universal Trading Company since 3 months by then and there were no transactions in the account of M/s.Maheswari Steel Corporation from 06.11.2000, which is marked as Ex.P649.

194.The LCs were issued from the account of A6 company in favour of

M/s.Universal Trading Company and M/s.Maheswari Steel Corporation as per the

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 99 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 limit sanctioned to A6 company. The LCs were directly handed over to A6 company instead of sending them to the Bank, which was not a normal practice.

It was done during the period of A4 and Mohd.Babu and the said practice was continued later also.

195.In the cross-examination PW29 stated she has put up notes to her higher authorities with regard to accounts of A5 to A7. There was a separate Loans

Department headed by Loans Manager/Officer, who would assess the performance and initial on the forwarding letter and she would forward it only in hierarchy. she has relied on the note put up by Loans Manager/Officer. She amits that the concerned Loans Manager/Officer was Smt.Sabitha Koneru at the relevant time. She remember that only once or twice she gave positive recommendation for enhancement of limits and adhoc facilities to A5 to A7. It may be true that she gave positive recommendations for about 8 times for enhancement of limits and adhoc facilities to A5 to A7. It is to be noted that in the chief-examination she made several allegations that A4 and A8 are colluded with accused in view of the said collusion only A5 to A7 companies are presenting the cheques and there were lot of cheques discounting and against clearing being done, the branch limit is only Rs.7.5 Lakhs only but the branch is purchasing the cheques more than this amount. In the cross-examination she has admitted, she has also accepted the cheues during her tenure. It shows the conduct of PW29.

Though she is knowing that it is irregular how can she purchase the cheques.

She stated she put the adverse note against A5 to A7 but when a specific question asked in cross she stated she did not put any adverse note against A5

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 100 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 to A7 in respect of their accounts. She said she addressed a letter to Head Office bypassing the Regional Office. No such letter was placed before the court addressed by PW29. She tried to convince by stating whatever the doubts she put up they were as per rules and strictly on merits. Further she stated she has no personal knowledge about various loan facilities granted to A5 to A7. At one side she claims that she is aware of all loan transactions and there are irregularities. On the other hand she stated she has no knowledge of it as the

CC limits pertaining to loans department. She admitted cheques discounting is an accredited practice by which the Bank gets profit by way of commission. It means there is a practice of cheque discounting in the banks.

196.She do not remember whether all the cheques discounted were honoured.

Most of the discounted cheques were honoured except one or two. She cannot say whether there was no dishonour of any discounted cheques. It shows the mind game of PW29, she is giving different type of answers even she do not know the status of discounted cheques. She stated herself and one Sabitha

Koneru inform the matter to the Head Office directly. But in the cross- examination in contrary she stated she did not bring to the notice of higher authorities of the Bank with regard to discounting of cheques pertaining to A5 to

A7. She did not write to her higher authorities that it was difficult for her to interact with A4 as A1 and his staff were always found present in the Branch.

She admits that whenever there was no customer present they meet the

Manager in the chamber and there was lot of time available everyday to meet

Manager when he was alone present in the chambers. It indicates that in order to

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 101 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 make allegations against A4 she stated the A1 and his staff are always in the chamber of A4. How it is possible to stay always in the chamber of A4. Therefore her contention that she found it difficult to interact with A4 on account of presence of A1 and his staff in the Branch is false.

197.Further PW29 admits that borrower has nothing to do with taking over and handing over charge in the Branch. Sri.Sampath Kumar and Sri.H.K.Madan had not submitted any report to her, including Special Focus Inspection Report, pertaining to A5 and A7. She was not the part of Special Focus Inspection team.

It means she has no knowledge of the report submitted by them. But she stating the reports of said persons pointed out several irregularities. So her veracity is not believable.

198.On the other hand she admits during her tenure as officiating Branch

Manager also she has discounted the cheques of A5 and A7. Only I.R.Rao and

Company knows the reason for recommending to stop operations under Ex.P643 and commence operations under Ex.P644 in the accounts of A5 and A7. She admits that Ex.P643 speaks about the reasons for stopping operations and

Ex.P644 speaks about the reasons for commencing operations in the accounts of

A5 and A7. She never put any pressure on I.R.Rao and Company to allow the operations in the accounts of A5 and A7. She admits that after reading

Exs.P643 and P644 she understood the reasons why the operations were ordered to be stopped and the operations were ordered to be commenced in the accounts of A5 and A7. I.R.Rao Company is an independent Chartered Accountant

Company and they are not the employees of the Bank. Though they are not

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 102 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 bank employees or higher authorities, basing on their reports she is contending that there are irregularities Cheque purchase and cheque discounting are one and the same. She did not put any adverse note to Regional Office and Head

Office regarding cheques discounting. This evidence is contrary to her chief- examination.

199.She had no business to interact with the staff of A1. They used to come to the Branch to see that their cheques are cleared. The record shows in 161 statement the PW29 never stated that the staff of A1 used to tell us about many illegal gratifications being paid by A1 to some of the staff members of Ameerpet

Branch, specially Mr.Mohammad Babu, who was the then Loans Officer. She only came to know that the staff of A1 used to tell them about many illegal gratifications being paid by A1 to some of the staff members of Ameerpet

Branch, specially Mr.Mohammad Babu, who was the then Loans Officer. It means her evidence is hearsay evidence even she is not able to say the names of the persons who informed to her. Therefore her evidence that that A1 personally informed her, when he used to come to Ameerpet Branch, about many illegal gratifications being paid by A1 to some of the staff members of Ameerpet

Branch, specially Mr.Mohammad Babu, Loans Officer, is false. In the chief- examination she stated A1 was the sponsor for the treatment of daughter of A4.

In the cross she stated she has not personally aware that A1 sponsored the treatment to daughter of A4 in USA and nobody told her about it. It clearly shows the evidence of PW29 is not reliable and trustworthy.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 103 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

200.PW29 admits that when she joined in Ameerpet Branch on 16.02.1999 the position of group accounts of A1 appeared to be good and the group accounts are of A5 to A7. She might have issued LCs in favour of Maheswari Steel

Corporation and Universal Trading Company. She admits that she cannot assess the knowledge of D.S.Rao, the then Assistant Regional Manager, who was deputed to Ameerpet Branch, to send reply to Regional Office, Hyderabad regarding pending irregularities in the group accounts of A5 to A7. She do not remember whether D.S.Rao sent report or not. But in the chief she stated that the DS.Rao report is against the accounts of A5 to A7.

201.She admits that independent Chartered Accountants like I.R.Rao and

Company have the prerogative to address letters as in Exs.P643 and P644.

Since the letter under Ex.P644 of I.R.Rao and Company came to Ameerpet

Branch on the very next day it surprised the Branch. She admits that because of the reasons mentioned in Ex.P644 Ameerpet Branch need not be surprised.

202.Shedid not make any note in the records of Ameerpet Branch that herself and Smt.Sabitha Koneru (LW36) were not interested in enhancing cash credit limit of Rs.5.00 Lakhs because they came to know about several irregularities.

She admits that she did not make any record to show that the accounts of A5 to

A7 were irregular or several irregularities were noticed in those accounts.

203.Ex.D4 is photostat copy of letter dt. 23.08.2001 of A7 addressed to the

Senior Manager, OBC, Ameerpet Branch (D.No.82). Ex.D5 is photostat copy of letter dt. 25.08.2001 addressed by her to the Assistant General Manager,

Regional Office, Hyderabad, under which she has recommended adhoc facility of

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 104 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Rs.5.00 Lakhs to A7. This document clearly shows that the PW29 has given evidence in contrary to the contents of Ex.D5. She admits that there is no question of her writing a letter to her higher authorities reluctantly. She never dealt with Ex.P507, Ex.P648 and Ex.P649 confronted to her. She cannot say how she came to know later that M/s.Universal Trading Company, M/s.Ruby

Traders and M/s.Maheswari Steel Corporation were propped up companies. She cannot say whether M/s.Universal Trading Company, M/s.Ruby Traders and

M/s.Maheswari Steel Corporation were genuine or not. This evidence clearly shows that she never came to know that M/s. Universal Trading Company,

M/s.Ruby Traders and M/s.Maheswari Steel Corporation were propped up companies, the issuance of LCs favouring Universal Trading Company and

Maheswari Steel Corporation was not during the tenure of A4 in Ameerpet

Branch. Even she is not aware when the LCs favouring Universal Trading

Company and M/s.Maheswari Steel Corporation was not during the tenure of A4 in Ameerpet Branch. But she is making allegations against A4. She never handed over any LCs to A6. She cannot say whether any particular LC favouring

Universal Trading Company and M/s.Maheswari Steel Corporation was handed over to A6. Therefore, her statement that LCs favouring M/s.Universal Trading

Company and M/s.Maheswari Steel Corporation being handed over to A6, is false.

As admitted by her she never personally saw any LCs favouring M/s.Universal

Trading Company and M/s.Maheswari Steel Corporation being directly handed over to A6. She never did not deal with Ex.P646. Further Under Ex.P647 she gave positive recommendation for sanction of adhoc LC of Rs.90.00 Lakhs

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 105 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 with detailed reasons. On 3 occasions she was examined by CBI official, at which time she was confronted with my notes with positive recommendations for issuance of LCs in the accounts of A5 to A7.

204.The careful scrutiny of 161 statement of PW29 shows she stated before

CBI that “Regarding the credit facilities granted to the group concerns of

Sri.M.L.Agarwal, I state that when I was posted to the Ameerpet Branch on 16th

February, 1999, the position of the group accounts appeared to be good, at that point of time. The Branch was under the control of Chennai region.”

205.As per Ex.D6, during the leave period of A4, she was the In-charge Branch

Manager of Ameerpet Branch on 04.01.2000, 05.01.2000, 12.01.2000, 25.01.2000, 27.03.2000, 28.03.2000, 24.05.2000, 07.07.2000, 31.07.2000, 01.08.2000, 23.08.2000, 05.09.2000 to 09.09.2000, 22.09.2000, 16.10.2000 to 19.10.2000, 07.11.2000, 07.12.2000, 15.12.2000 to 26.01.2001, 28.01.2001 to 25.02.2001, 15.03.2001, 16.03.2001, 31.03.2001, 16.05.2001, 17.05.2001 and 01.06.2001 to 13.06.2001. Ex.D6 also shows that during the leave period of

A4, Sri.C.V.Rao was Incharge of the Branch on 21.01.2000 and 04.10.2000.

Ex.D6 also shows that during the leave period of A4, Smt.K.Sabitha, Officer was the Incharge Manager of the Branch on 27.01.2001 and 28.02.2001. Ex.D6 also shows that during the leave period of A4, Sri.N.Mohammad Babu, Officer was the Incharge of the Branch on 26.02.2001 and 27.02.2001. She admits that in

Ex.D6 the leave particulars and training periods of A4 are mentioned for his absence. She know that A4 was on leave from 15.12.2000 to 26.02.2001 for his daughter’s medical treatment. Ex.D6 shows that A4 was relieved from Ameerpet

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 106 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Branch on 26.06.200.

206.She admits that high value cheque clearing means the cheques exceeding

Rs.1.00 Lakh or the limit fixed by the Reserve Bank of India from time to time.

The high value cheques should be deposited in morning hours and their fate would be known by evening hours on the same day. By the time she relieved A4 there were no high value or other cheques pending for clearance in respect of A5 to A7. when the cheques were presented in inward clearing at about 1.00 PM they are cleared against uncleared effects of the cheques deposited but in the evening they were cleared.

207.She remember that in the year 1999/2000 some children received burn injuries in fire accident occurred in St.Ann’s High School, Secunderabad. She admits that daughter of A4, at the age of 11 years, also received burn injuries in fire accident in same School. She is not aware that the cost of medical treatment for all the injured children was borne by St.Ann’s High School, Secunderabad.

She is also not aware that the then Government of Andhra Pradesh granted exgratia of Rs.2.50 Lakhs to daughter of A4 for her medical treatment, vide

Memo No.24311/DA2/2000, dt. 03.10.2000. She is not aware that Shriners

Hospitals for children of USA extends free medical treatment to children who received burn injuries. She know that A4 had taken permission to take his daughter abroad as per Officer’s Service Regulations from Head Office. On 01.03.2001 A4 joined duty in Ameerpet Branch after expiry of his leave. This evidence shows that though PW29 is not aware of the fact that who bear the expenses of treatment of daughter of A4 but she made allegations A1 has paid

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 107 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 the expenses of treatment of daughter of A4. Her evidence is not reliable and trustworthy.

208.Further she admits that during her officiating period as Branch Manager of

Ameerpet Branch she has cleared several cheques of A5 to A7 companies in clearing issued in the names of Ruby Traders, Universal Trading Company and

Maheswari Steel Corporation. This fact was informed to the Regional Office.

During her officiating period as Branch Manager of Ameerpet Branch she has mentioned in STM 41 the cheques discounted and submitted the same to the

Regional Office. She has not made any correspondence with Regional Office regarding the allegations in respect of accounts of A5 to A7 companies. When a

Bank Officer signs on demand drafts, letters of credit, pay orders, cheques, etc.

he/she must be cautious. This evidence shows that PW29 also put signatures on the cheques of A5 to A7 herein. She discounted the cheques and submitted the report to Regional Office. Further the 28 pay orders were signed by PW29 relating to alleged fake firms. Further a discounted cheque for Rs.19,99,955/- was cleared on 18.12.2000 which is reflected in the statement of A5 during her tenure only. Further the statement of account of A6 also reflects the cheque was discounted during her tenure. The statement reflects the issue of cheques in favour of M/s.Mahesari Steels Corporation of account of A6 were honoured and cleared after transfer of A4. As a officiating branch manager several cheques relating to M/s.Maheshwari Steels Corporations was cleared during the tenure of

PW29. Further she has signed on STM 41 Statement for the details of cheques purchased by Ameeerpet Branch for particular month and it is a monthly wise

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 108 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 statement. During the period from 15.12.2002 to 28.02.2001 she has discounted the cheques of A5 to A7 when A4 was on leave. In the month of

June, 2001 when A4 as transferred she has discounted the cheques relating to

A5 to A7. Further there was considerable cash deposits in the account of A5 to

A7 during her officiating period. Further she has mentioned in Ex.P632 that the borrower due to the improved order book position and improved sales in consonance with the targets, has requested for adhoc facility of Rs.90 lakhs for one more rotation, she recommended the request of the borrower. She has not mentioned in Ex.P632that she was recommending so on the basis comments of loan officer. It shows that the PW29 has also discounted several cheques of A5 to

A7 in the absence of A4. But all those cheques were counted in the account of A4 and he was blamed. The discounting of cheques is irregular, the PW29 ought not to discount the cheques. Further in the cheques relating to Universal Trading

Company, Ruby Traders she has signed all the LC’s along with another authorized officer. Further in Ex.D5 she recommended for sanction of Rs.5 Lakhs in favour of alleged fake firm. Further she has requested the had officer to consider the sanction of cash credit limit of Rs.300 Lakhs and bank guarantee facility of Rs.50 lakhs. Further during her tenure only the branch has recommended the sanction of ILC limit of Rs.150 Lakhs for 90 days with margin of 25% to A5. Further under

Ex.D10 she addressed a letter to AGM recommending adhoc facility of Rs.6 lakhs to A5. Further during her tenure she addressed a letter to AGM, RO, Hyderabad recommending for extension of ILC limit of Rs.90 lakhs for further period of 90 days. Further several cheques issued from account of A5 in favour of

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 109 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

M/s.Maheshwari Steel Corporation and several cheques were passed in the absence of A4. She stated it was done during the normal course of business.

Further the bunch of pay slips for the cheques and high value cheques of A5 company signed by her it is pertaining to the tenure of A4, in his absence she put signatures. Further the pay orders were issued in favour of M/s.Maheshwari Steel

Corporation, M/s.Choudary Steels, M/s.Universal Trading Company, M/s.Bhumika

Steels, M/s.Ruby Trades, M/s.Venson Steels. She was officiating Branch Manager at the relevant time. This evidence clearly shows PW29 has issued pay orders discounted cheques relating to alleged fake firms, but the investigating officer without verifying the absence of A4 at the relevant time, he blamed the accused

NO.4 and filed charge sheet against A4.

209.PW30/M.Sudhakar Setty, Regional Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce stated that the account of Sakthi Steels(A7) in Ameerpet Branch of Oriental Bank of Commerce was started during his tenure as Regional Manager, Chennai.

Ameerpet Branch was a new Branch opened in June, 1996. A4 was working in

Nampally Branch at that time. He was selected to head Ameerpet Branch and the said transfer was approved by the Head Office. Before opening of Ameerpet

Branch A4 was doing some marketing work for new Branch. Branches in

Hyderabad area were under his control at that time and he used to visit the

Branches. During one of his visits to Hyderabad before opening branch of

Ameerpet A4 introduced to him Munnalal Agarwal(A1) and A4 marked for the account of A7. He has asked A1 and A4 to submit proposal for sanction of CC limit of Rs.50 Lakhs to A7. They submitted the proposal. After raising some

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 110 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 queries and receiving replies Regional Office gave in principle sanction of Cash

Credit limit of Rs.50 Lakhs. In June, 1996 Ameerpet Branch was opened. A4, the then Branch Manager, asked for regular sanction. He has deputed Mr.Rakesh

Malhotra, Chief Manager of Regional Office, Chennai to visit A7 premises and submit report. He has visited the premises of A7, verified the stock and submitted report to him in the form of office note stating that the stock was adequate and the Cash Credit limit can be sanctioned. He has gone through the office note of Mr.Rakesh Malhotra and on being satisfied He has allowed the

Cash Credit limit and conveyed the same to the Ameerpet Branch to release the

Cash Credit sanction limit of Rs.50 Lakhs to A7. The limit was continuing during his tenure.

210.Ex.P521 to P528 are the documents relating to the loan application of A7 herein. The perusal of documents clearly shows that after submitting the application the Regional Office sought some clarifications and after receiving

additional information, after getting office note the loan was sanctioned to A7.

211.In April, 1997 A1 approached Ameerpet Branch with a proposal to set up industrial Unit in Shamshabad Area for fabricating Iron Towers and requested for

Term Loan of Rs.42 Lakhs and Working Capital of Rs.1.20 Crores and he has given proposal in writing. The proposal was in the name of M/s.Airan Comptrax

Towers Private Limited(A5). A1 was the Managing Director of A5 company while

A2 was the Director. The said proposal was sent by Ameerpet Branch to the

Regional Office. Certain queries were raised by the Regional Office and they have communicated the same to the Branch, which in turn informed the same to the

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 111 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 party. Subsequently, the branch has replied to all the queries and the Branch has recommended to the Regional Office for sanction. In October, 1997 the

Regional Office sanctioned Term loan of Rs.42 Lakhs for setting up the Unit and in principle sanctioned Rs.1.20 Crores towards working capital and it was communicated to Ameerpet Branch. Branch has taken documentation and released the Term Loan for setting up the Unit. When the Unit was ready the borrower(A5) approached the Branch for working capital. Branch has recommended the same to the Regional Office. Regional Office deputed the

Assistant Regional Manager by name R.Suryanarayana to visit the Unit and give report. Accordingly, he has visited the Unit and submitted report at Regional

Office, Chennai. Based on satisfactory report and completion of the project

Regional Office sanctioned the working capital limit to the tune of Rs.1.20 Crores and communicated the same to Ameerpet Branch. Working capital limit consisted of Cash Credit limit of Rs.80 Lakhs, Bill purchase limit of Rs.20 Lakhs,

Bank Guarantee limit of Rs.10 Lakhs and LC limit of Rs.10 Lakhs. During his tenure the entire working capital was released. He worked in the Regional Office as Regional Manager till June, 1999.

212. Letter dated 21.04.1997 is the reply given by Ameerpet Branch to the

Regional Manager giving reply to certain queries raised by Regional Office, which was already marked as Ex.P554. Ex.P555 is sanction letter dated 09.10.1997 communicated to the Branch by the Regional Office along with original sanction note of Regional Office.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 112 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

213.Letter dated 18.08.1997 was addressed by A4 to Regional Office giving reply to the queries raised by Regional Office, along with letter of A5 company addressed to A4. Ex.P650 consists of letter dated 18.08.1997 of A4 addressed to

Regional Manager, Chennai and letter dated 14.08.1997 of A5 company addressed to A4.

214.Letter dated 15.05.1997 was addressed by Regional Office, Chennai to

Ameerpet Branch seeking some clarification from the Branch regarding A5 company. Ex.P651 is Carbon Copy of letter No.ROM/L/705/LG/2137/97 dated 15.05.1997 addressed by Regional Office, Chennai to Ameerpet Branch.

215. Ex.P556 is the letter of Ameerpet Branch addressed to A5 company informing about the sanction of Credit limit and asking acceptance in writing by

A5 company, which was already marked. In Ex.P556 itself A5 company, represented by its Director, has acknowledged the same.

216. Ex.P557 is the letter dated 05.05.1998 addressed by Ameerpet Branch to

Regional Manager, Chennai informing the progress in the project of A5 company and also about the visit to the said Unit by Bank officials, which was already marked. During his tenure as Regional Officer, Chennai he did not find any irregularities detected or reported with regard to accounts of A5 and A7.

217.In the cross examination PW30 stated R.Satyanarayana(PW26), the then

Assistant Regional Manager was deputed to visit the Unit and give report. He admits that the loans department in the Regional Office puts up process note covering the background of borrower, financial capacities, marketing conditions

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 113 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 and collateral security, while putting up the process note the loans department in the Regional Office takes into consideration the reports of Monitoring Officer, regular Inspectors, Statutory Auditors, Concurrent Auditors, RBI Inspectors and any other visiting official, provided they are available.

218.The Regional Office also may send an official from its office to make spot study of the Unit which applied for loan. After the process note is placed before him, the Regional Manager may sanction or decline to sanction or may raise queries by calling for some information.

219.Ex.D13 is the letter dated 09.09.1997 addressed by him to the Senior

Manager, OBC, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad raising further queries pursuant to

Ex.P650, along with Office Note of Regional Office (4 sheets). Ex.P583 is the letter dated 13.09.1997 addressed by A4 to the Regional Office in reply to

Ex.D13 queries. Under Ex.P555 Regional Office sanctioned the credit facility to

A5 company after being satisfied about the compliance of queries of Regional

Office. Further PW30 stated the credit facility to A7 firm for Rs.50 lakhs, the

Regional office raised queries and after getting clarification the sanction letter was issued. The evidence of PW30 shows that the credit facility to A7 was granted during his period and he never pointed out any irregularities while sanctioning credit facility.

220.PW31/Sabitha Koneru, Officer in Oriental Bank of Commerce stated that her duties includes post sanction monitoring of the credit facilities, which include ensuring of end use of funds. A4 directed her to report to Mr. Mohammed Babu,

Loan incharge (A11) and assist A11 in day to day functions even though A11 was

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 114 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 junior to her in the bank by three years and A11 joined as an officer in 1995.

She was also the computer systems in-charge.

221.She also worked as Hall incharge in OBC, Ameerpet branch from 01.10.2003 to April, 2004. During her tenure as Loan Officer, in the group accounts of M.L.Agarwal i.e. ACTPL Limited(A5), Sakthi Steels(A7) and M/s.Aren

Steels Limited(A6), some discrepancies were observed by her.

222.In the case of M/s.Sakthi Steels(A7): There were huge credits and cash credits, which were disproportionate with the balance sheet. The stock statement was submitted to A11 but was never monitored by him through visits once in a quarter as per the Bank’s guidelines. She observed that A11 was in close connivance with M.L.Agarwal(A1). The cheques in this account were always in favour of M/s.Maheshwari Steels Corporation. Confidential report of

M/s.Maheshwari Steels Corporation from their Banker was never obtained. The genuineness and value of the collateral security was required to be confirmed by the Branch Manager(A4) and Loans In-charge(A11) through market enquiries but it was never done. A4 had directed her not to interfere in this account since it will be dealt with by A11.

223.In the case of M/s.Airan Comptrax Towers Private Limited/A5: she found some discrepancies in this account also. There were huge credits and cash deposits disproportionate with the balance sheet. The value of collateral security was required to be verified with the market enquiries by loans incharge(A11) and

Branch Manager(A4), but it was never done. It came to light only after

Mr.Rakesh Sharma(PW21) joined as Branch Manager in OBC, Ameerpet Branch.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 115 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

The cheques were always paid in favour of M/s.Maheshwari Steels Corporation and these cheques were purchased by M/s.Maheshwari Steels Corporation in their Bank. This reveals that these transactions were not genuine trade transactions and were accommodative in nature but this was never verified by

A11 and A4. She reported this matter, as per the hierarchy, to Uma Shiva

Kumar, second person of the Branch(PW29), who subsequently reported to A4, but he asked her to go out of the cabin and not to interfere in the accounts of

M.L.Agarwal(A1). Even the Regional Head of Hyderabad Mr.Ravi Takkar and second person in Regional Office by name T.S.Bagga came to Ameerpet Branch and advised us to render good service to all the accounts of M.L.Agarwal. Even though herself and PW29 told them that the conduct of accounts of M.L.Agarwal are not satisfactory, they pressurised them to continue the existing facilities and service to all these accounts. Confidential reports of the beneficiaries of this account namely, Maheshwari Steels Corporation and others were never obtained from their respective Bankers.

224.In the case of M/s.Aren Steels Limited(A6): Letters of Credit were issued on behalf of this account favouring M/s.Ruby Steels and M/s.Maheshwari

Steels Corporation, which were bogus companies, created by M.L.Agarwal(A1).

The LC copies were always handed over directly to the Agent of M.L.Agarwal and confirmation of LC was obtained on the same day. As per the Bank’s guidelines the LC copies have to be sent directly to the Bank of beneficiary and confirmation should also be obtained directly from the said Bank, but this was never ascertained nor verified. The bills drawn on LC of different parties were in the

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 116 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 same handwriting, which shows that these are bogus companies floated by

M.L.Agarwal. Confidential reports of the beneficiaries of LCs were not obtained.

The Letters of Credit were discounted by beneficiary Bankers namely

M/s.A.P.Mahesh Co-operative bank and M/s.Agrasen Co-operative Bank. The confidential reports were obtained later. The phone numbers mentioned in these reports were different when compared to the phone numbers on the bills of the same parties.

225.Other aspects relating to the accounts of M/s.Airan Comptrax Towers

Private Limited/A5, M/s.Aren Steels Limited(A6) and M/s.Sakthi Steels(A7): In all these three accounts the cheques which were paid in clearing were never tallied with the list of sundry creditors mentioned in the stock statements. The clearing cheques were not signed by clearing officer U.H.Rao. After Mr.Rakesh

Sharma(PW21) joined as Branch Manager in Ameerpet Branch,

Mr.M.L.Agarwal(A1) applied for sanction of ad-hoc facility and the Regional Office advised the Branch Manager to recommend for the sanction of ad-hoc facility.

Even though she was not the monitoring officer of these accounts, she was made to prepare back dated monitoring officer’s reports for the quarter ending 31.03.2001 and 30.06.2001, in August, 2001 stating that the conduct of these accounts was satisfactory, to sanction ad-hoc facility. This pressure was exerted on Uma Shiva Kumar(PW29) by T.S.Bagga, second person in the Regional Office and subsequently PW29 stood behind her and made her to prepare back dated satisfactory monitoring reports.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 117 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

226. In view of the foregoing aspects, it was clear to her that all the accounts pertaining to M.L.Agarwal were bogus and they were not genuine trade transactions. However, she was not allowed to reveal them by the Branch

Manager(A4). she felt that A4 and A11 were in connivance with the party.

227. In the account of M/s.Aren Steels Limited(A6) the Letters of Credit were issued in favour of M/s.Ruby Traders, M/s.Universal Trading Corporation,

M/s.Payal Steels and M/s.Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Iron and Steel Company

Limited. Confidential reports from the respective Banks were not obtained.

228. In respect of account of M/s.Airan Comptrax Towers Private Limited/A5 satisfactory back dated monitoring officer report was taken from her for sanction of ad-hoc facility of Cash Credit limit of Rs.30 Lakhs and Letter of Credit facility of Rs.35 Lakhs.

229.She dealt with certain vouchers during her in-charge period as clearing in-charge in Ameerpet Branch. Ex.P652 is credit voucher dated 28.02.2001 for

Rs.17,56,495/- crediting the said amount to the account of ACTPL(A5). Ex.P653 is credit voucher dated 28.02.2001 for Rs.1,20,346/- crediting the said amount to the account of ACTPL(A5). Ex.P654 is credit voucher dated 28.02.2001 for

Rs.16,30,500/- crediting the said amount to the account of ACTPL(A5). Ex.P655 is credit voucher dated 07.03.2001 for Rs.1,20,878/- crediting the said amount to the account of ACTPL(A5). Ex.P656 is credit voucher dated 07.03.2001 for

Rs.1,19,736/- crediting the said amount to the account of ACTPL(A5). Ex.P657 is credit voucher dated 08.03.2001 for Rs.16,49,360/- crediting the said amount to the account of ACTPL(A5). Ex.P658 is credit voucher dated 08.03.2001 for

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 118 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Rs.16,75,500/- crediting the said amount to the account of ACTPL(A5). Ex.P659 is credit voucher dated 01.08.2001 for Rs.24,86,950/- crediting the said amount to the account of ACTPL(A5). Ex.P660 is credit voucher dated 01.08.2001 for

Rs.25,99,490/- crediting the said amount to the account of ACTPL(A5). Ex.P661 is credit voucher dated 01.08.2001 for Rs.29,95,160/- crediting the said amount to the account of ACTPL(A5). Ex.P662 is credit voucher dated 06.08.2001 for

Rs.25,99,200/- crediting the said amount to the account of ACTPL(A5).

Ex.P663 is credit voucher dated 06.08.2001 for Rs.26,94,740/- crediting the said amount to the account of ACTPL(A5). Ex.P664 is credit voucher dated 06.08.2001 for Rs.24,89,560/- crediting the said amount to the account of

ACTPL(A5). Ex.P665 is credit voucher dated 07.08.2001 for Rs.19,44,480/- crediting the said amount to the account of ACTPL(A5). Ex.P666 is credit voucher dated 07.08.2001 for Rs.24,96,170/- crediting the said amount to the account of ACTPL(A5). Ex.P667 is credit voucher dated 07.08.2001 for

Rs.26,29,480/- crediting the said amount to the account of ACTPL(A5). Ex.P668 is credit voucher dated 11.08.2001 for Rs.29,98,860/- crediting the said amount to the account of ACTPL(A5). Ex.P669 is credit voucher dated 11.08.2001 for

Rs.23,10,440/- crediting the said amount to the account of ACTPL(A5). Ex.P670 is credit voucher dated 11.08.2001 for Rs.26,95,540/- crediting the said amount to the account of ACTPL(A5).

230.In the cross-examination PW31 stated during her tenure in Ameerpet

Branch she has discharged her duties meticulously as per Banking Rules and did not commit any mistakes. The credit vouchers in Exs.P652 to P670 dealt with by

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 119 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 her were in accordance with the Banking Rules. It is to be noted that for discounting cheques in the accounts of A5 to A7, she made allegations against accused herein. She admitted the above said credit vouchers relating to alleged fake firms, per contra she stated she dealt with credit vouchers as per banking rules and regulations. So her veracity is doubtful.

231.PW31 stated she did not open any LCs of A5 to A7 during her tenure in

Ameerpet Branch. She did not put anything in writing with regard to irregularities in the accounts of A5 to A7. At the same time she admits LCs covered by D.Nos.493, 494, 496, 497, 498, 507 and 508 were opened by her and they contain her signatures. It shows the veracity of PW31, she is giving quite contrary statements.

232. She know that it is her duty to report to the higher authorities if any body asks her to perform her duties contrary to the rules. She did not report anybody though she was asked to do duties contrary to rules. She did not put in writing to her immediate superior officer with regard to the discrepancies in respect of loan accounts of A5 to A7. She also did not put in writing to her immediate superior officer or any other higher authorities with regard to irregularities. She did not report to higher authorities stating that all the accounts pertaining to

M.L.Agarwal were bogus and they were not genuine trade transactions. However

PW29 has given statement that she alongwith PW31 lodged complaint before

Regional Office. But Pw31 has given evidence in contrary to it.

233.She prepared the monitoring officer’s report of A5 to A7. She was not the monitoring officer at that time. She signed monitoring officer’s report of A5 to A7

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 120 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 for two quarters since she was the monitoring officer. While preparing monitoring officer’s report she acted as per the rules. At one side she stated with anti date she submitted monitoring report, on the other hand, she stated she acted as per rules. Her evidence is contradictory to her own evidence.

234.As per Ex.D6, on 07.11.2000 A4 was on training and PW29 was placed in- charge as Branch Manager of Ameerpet Branch. From 15.12.2000 to 26.02.2001

A4 was on long leave for his daughter’s treatment. She was placed in-charge as

Branch Manager of Ameerpet Branch on 27.01.2001, A11 was placed in-charge as Branch Manager on 26.02.2001 and for the remaining period of leave of A4

PW29 was placed in-charge. She admits as per Ex.D6, A4 was on duty in

Regional Office, Chennai on 27.02.2001 and 28.02.2001. She was placed in- charge on 28.02.2001 and A11 was placed in-charge on 27.02.2001 as Branch

Manager of Ameerpet Branch. On 15.03.2001 and 16.03.2001 A4 was on duty in

Regional Office, Chennai. On 31.03.2001 A4 was on leave. On 15.03.2001, 16.03.2001 and 31.03.2001 PW29 was the in-charge as Branch Manager. As per

Ex.D6, A4 was on compensatory off on 21.04.2001 and A11 was the in-charge.

As per Ex.D6, on 16.05.2001 and 17.05.2001 A4 was on leave and PW29 was the In-charge Branch Manager of Ameerpet Branch. From 01.06.2001 to 13.06.2001 A4 was in training at Bangalore and PW29 was placed in-charge during the said period. As per Ex.D6, A4 was relieved in Ameerpet Branch on 26.06.2001 and PW29, being the senior officer at the Branch, relieved A4.

235. She worked under A4 in Ameerpet Branch for hardly 5 to 6 months. If leave period of A4 is deleted, her period of working under A4 is hardly 4 months.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 121 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

After her joining in Ameerpet Branch, A11 hardly worked for 6 months and he was transferred.

236.As per the guidelines of Head Office, the Regional Office has to appoint

Monitoring Officer for new loan exceeding Rs.50 Lakhs. Any other officer of the same branch, other than the Loans Officer, is appointed as Monitoring Officer.

The Monitoring Officer has to give periodical reports to the sanctioning authority in respect of fund based facilities exceeding Rs.1 Crore. The Monitoring Officer is responsible and answerable to the Regional Office. The Monitoring Officer submits his report to the Regional Office through the Branch Manager and a copy is maintained with Branch. It means as stated by her she was monitoring office for some time and she submitted reports with anti date though she was not monitoring officer at the relevant time. It is nothing but deceiving Regional

Office and submitting false reports.

237.PW31 admitted even after transfer of A4, Ameerpet Branch had paid the cheques in favour of M/s.Maheshwari Steel Corporation from the accounts of A5 to A7. Then how can they blame A4 alone. As admitted by her, Ex.P648 is the credit information report of M/s.Ruby Traders received from M/s.A.P.Mahesh Co- operative Urban Bank Limited, Monda Market Branch, Secunderabad. Ex.P649 is the confidential report of M/s.Maheshwari Steel Corporation received from

M/s.A.P.Mahesh Co-operative Urban Bank Limited, Market Street Branch,

Secunderabad, which was already marked. In Exs.P648 and P649 it was mentioned as “Satisfactory”. Ex.P507 is the confidential report of Universal

Trading Company, which was already marked. Ex.P507 was received in

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 122 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Ameerpet Branch after the transfer of A4 from the said Branch. In Ex.P507 it was mentioned as “Satisfactory”. Then where is the question of blaming those firms.

During her tenure with A4 in Ameerpet Branch, A4 had not obtained any collateral securities relating to the loan accounts of A5 to A7, as deposed by her, but the document Ex.P541 is the valuation report dated 17.01.1996, which was received in Ameerpet Branch four days after joining of A4. As per Ex.P541, the property was valued at Rs.81,90,000/-. Ex.P573 is the valuation report dated 31.12.2001 issued by the same valuer in respect of the same property, which was valued after transfer of A4 and during the tenure of Rakesh Sharma (PW21) and property is valued at Rs.92 Lakhs. Exs.P639 to P641 valuation reports, all

dated 03.03.1999 were received in Ameerpet Branch i.e. prior to her joining in

Ameerpet Branch. So the contention of PW31 that valuation certificates are not obtained, holds not good. In addition to immovable assets the Bank takes machinery, stocks and sundry debtors as additional security for the credit facilities extended by the Bank.

238.Under letter dated 22.03.1999 (Document No.404) A4 has sent to the

Regional Manager, Chennai second valuation report and certificate from MRO’s office on the market value of the property in view of the high value limits.

Therefore the evidence of PW31 is falsified by producing those documents. She came to know that one of the mortgaged properties was sold by A6 company and cleared all the outstanding amounts in the loan accounts of A5 to A7. It means the accounts are no more NPAs as alleged by the prosecution.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 123 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

239.PW31 alleged there were huge transactions in the subject firms. In the cross she admits as per D.No.601, which is the Statement of Account of A5, there were no huge cash transactions during the tenure of A4 in Ameerpet

Branch. There were huge cash transactions as per D.No.601 on 21.08.2001 to the tune of Rs.22,90,000/- and two entries on 23.08.2001 amounting to

Rs.30,00,000/- and Rs.23,10,000/- after the transfer of A4 from Ameerpet

Branch. There were huge cash transactions as per D.No.603 on 21.08.2001 to the tune of Rs.15,00,000/- and Rs.1,22,00,000/- after the transfer of A4 from

Ameerpet Branch.

240.As per D.No.128, which is the Statement of Account of A7, there were number of cash transactions but they were not huge cash transactions, during the tenure of A4 in Ameerpet Branch. There were huge cash transactions as per

D.No.128 on 21.08.2001 to the tune of Rs.32,10,000/- and on 23.08.2001 amounting to Rs.57,30,000/- after the transfer of A4 from Ameerpet Branch. It means there were no huge transactions during tenure of A4 but Pw31 made false allegations against A4.

241.Cash sales means sale proceeds of the product of the account holder which is received in cash by the Bank and payment is made to the supplier by way of

DD or Pay Order or Banker’s Cheque. There are some cash sales in D.Nos.601, 603 and 128. By seeing the stamp of the Bank of Maheshwari Steel Corporation on the over leaf of the clearing cheques, which were presented in Ameerpet

Branch, She came to the conclusion that the cheques were purchased by

M/s.Maheshwari Steel Corporation in their Bank. Purchase of cheque and clearing

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 124 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 of cheque are different. It means without ensuring the facts on assumptions she is giving evidence before the court.

242.As per her own admission, LCs issued by A4 during his tenure in Ameerpet

Branch were always addressed to the beneficiary Banks by way of covering letters. As per Para 8.9 in Page No.113 of Volume-II of Advances Manual (Documentation aspects) of OBC, it is mentioned that the letter of credit should normally be advised to the beneficiary through their office (Bank) where the beneficiary is establish unless otherwise desired by the customers. Ex.D16 is the xerox copy of Page No.113 of Volume-II of Advances Manual of OBC. So her allegation that the Lcs were not given to beneficiaries and not verified it properly, holds not good. As per Document Nos.490, 491 and 492, which relate to LC bearing Nos.249, 251 and 257 respectively of A6, the beneficiary Bank i.e.

Lakshmi Vilas Bank negotiated with OBC, Ameerpet Branch, issued in favour of

Ruby Traders. As per Document Nos.493 to 502, which relate to LC bearing

Nos.230, 231, 234, 236, 237, 238, 258, 227, 228 and 239 respectively of A6, were issued in favour of Ruby Traders from the account A6 during the leave period of A4 and subsequent to transfer of A4. She has signed on LC Nos.230, 231, 236, 237, 238 and 228 as issuing authority along with PW29. It clearly establishes that PW29 and Pw31 both have issued Lcs to alleged fake firms.

When they blamed A4, how can they blame the accused.

243.Further as per Document Nos.506, 507 and 508, which relate to LC bearing Nos.269, 273 and 274 respectively of A6, the beneficiary Bank being

M/s.A.P.Mahesh Co-operative Urban Bank Limited, was issued in favour of

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 125 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

M/s.Universal Trading Company. She admits LC bearing Nos.269, 273 and 274 were issued after the transfer of A4 from Ameerpet Branch and she has also signed on them as issuing authority along with PW29, B.H.Ramesh and PW29 respectively. They have not obtained confidential reports of Ruby Traders and

Universal Trading Company before issuing LC Nos.269, 273 and 274, and 230, 231, 234, 236, 237, 238, 258, 227, 228 and 239 from the respective beneficiary banks. In fact Pw29 and Pw31 has issued LCs in favour of alleged fake firms, but they threw the blame on A4 and A8. So the evidence of PW31 is not reliable and trustworthy.

244. Further the LCs from the account of A5 were issued in favour of M/s.Ruby

Traders, M/s.Universal Trading Corporation, M/s.Payal Steels and M/s.Lakshmi

Narasimha Swamy Iron and Steel Company Limited in the year 1996 i.e. prior to

PW31 joining in Ameerpet Branch. Pw31 admits that during her tenure A4 had not issued LCs from the account of A5 in favour of M/s.Ruby Traders,

M/s.Universal Trading Corporation, M/s.Payal Steels and M/s.Lakshmi Narasimha

Swamy Iron and Steel Company Limited. She admits D.No.356 bearing LC

No.277 dated 05.10.2001 was established by her and Rakesh Sharma (PW21), which is subsequent to transfer of A4. LD.No.501 bearing LC No.228 dated 05.01.2001 and D.No.502 bearing LC No.239 dated 28.02.2001 were established by her and PW29, and A11 respectively, during the leave period of A4. In respect of LCs issued from the accounts of A5 to A7, A4 has obtained confidential reports of the beneficiaries from the respective beneficiary Banks. The evidence of PW31 establishes that they have issued Lcs in the absence of A4 but A4 was

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 126 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 charges heeted without proper enquiry.

245. In respect of account of ACTPL Limited(A5) satisfactory back dated monitoring officer report was taken from her, after the transfer of A4 from

Ameerpet Branch, for sanction of ad-hoc facility of Cash Credit limit of Rs.30

Lakhs and Letter of Credit facility of Rs.35 Lakhs. Further Exs.P652 to P670 relate to the period after the transfer of A4 from Ameerpet. L D.Nos.445 and 610 are one and the same. She has addressed D.No.445/D.No.610 dated 01.08.2001 to AGM, Regional Office, Hyderabad, after the transfer of A4, recommending for extension of existing ad-hoc ILC limit of Rs.90 Lakhs in the account of A6 for a period of 90 days. As the earlier amount was already paid she has recommended for extension of existing ad-hoc ILC Limit of Rs.90 Lakhs in the account of A6. So the above said Lcs were issued by PW31 only, but charge sheet is filed against A4. Finally PW31 admitted as per her observation during her tenure under A4 in Ameerpet Branch, A4 has discharged his duties in good faith and as per the Bank norms and guidelines. Hence whatever allegations she made against A4 are not true and correct and proved to be false.

246.The testimony of PW32/P.Padmavathi Officer in Oriental Bank of

Commerce in Ameerpet Branch shows that Regarding transactions of group companies of M.L.Agarwal, the accounts of M/s.Sakthi Steels (A7) and M/s.Airan

Comptrax Towers Private Limited (A5) she used to pass the cheques during the course of discharge of her above duties. Regarding clearing cheques, she passed the cheques when the balance was available in the accounts.

Mr.M.L.Agarwal and his assistant Mr.Rakesh used to sit in the Branch and discuss

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 127 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 with the Branch Manager (A4) for clearance of the cheques and they used to pressurize her for passing clearing cheques without balance. A4 used to write on the cheques to pass the cheques without the balance by availing his discretionary powers.

247.Regarding purchase of cheques, the Manager (A4) used to give her instructions for purchasing the cheques. Some times without the balance in the above said accounts A4 used to pressurize her to purchase the cheques even though his power was up to Rs.6 to Rs.7 Lakhs. Mr.M.L.Agarwal pressurized her to pass the cheques and stated that Manager (A4) was having power of 10 percent over and above the discretionary powers.

248.Uma Shiva Kumar (PW29) used to return the clearing cheques of A7 and

A5 due to non-availability of funds in the above accounts and hand over the clearing cheques to Mr.Hamumantha Rao, Clearing In-charge and then from the

Regional Office the Chief Manager by name Mr.Bagga used to call PW29 and insist her to take back the cheques from Nampally Branch and pass them. The

Regional Office officials and the Manager (A4) supported Mr.M.L.Agarwal for passing the cheques without the balance.

249. Even after transfer of A4, new Manager did not join and PW29 was the

In-charge Branch Manager. Regional Office officials put pressure on PW29 for passing of clearing cheques and purchasing of cheques without the balance in the accounts of A5 and A7, even after the transfer of A4 from Ameerpet Branch. The new Manager Mr.Rakesh Sharma joined in Ameerpet Branch in September, 2001.

The new Manager came to the Branch on transfer on regular basis.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 128 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Mr.M.L.Agarwal himself accompanied the new Manager and he himself introduced the Manger to other staff members of the Branch.

250. The new Manager Mr.Rakesh Sharma was also insisted by the Regional

Office officials for passing the clearing cheques without the available balance in the accounts of A5 and A7, but the new Manager resisted to pass the cheques without the balance.

251. Thereafter, the Head Office officials in Inspection Department started investigation of accounts of A5 and A7. She can identify the cash payment cheques which were passed by her during her tenure.

252. Cheque Nos.614042 dated 14.12.2000 for Rs.1,22,800/-, 614053 dated 18.12.2000 for Rs.95,000/-, 616745 dated 20.02.2001 for Rs.33,000/-, 616766

dated 23.02.2001 for Rs.1,60,000/-, 619765 dated 11.05.2001 for Rs.7,43,000/-

and 936568 dated 16.06.2001 for Rs.1,30,000/- (part of Ex.P558) bear her signatures as passing authority. When the balance was not available in the account of A7, A4 used to write “pay” on the cheques with his signature and such writings of A4 are found on Cheque Nos.619765 dated 11.05.2001 for

Rs.7,43,000/- and 936568 dated 16.06.2001 for Rs.1,30,000/-.

253. In the statement of Cash Credit Account No.16 of A7 the transactions covered by Cheque Nos.614042 dated 14.12.2000 for Rs.1,22,800/-, 614053

dated 18.12.2000 for Rs.95,000/-, 616745 dated 20.02.2001 for Rs.33,000/-,

616766 dated 23.02.2001 for Rs.1,60,000/-, 619765 dated 11.05.2001 for

Rs.7,43,000/- and 936568 dated 16.06.2001 for Rs.1,30,000/- are reflected.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 129 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

254. The clearing Cheque No.630027 dated 30.12.1999 for Rs.69,875/- issued from CC Account No.326 of A5 company bears the word “pay” with date and signature of A4. Ex.P671 is Cheque No.630027 dated 30.12.1999 for

Rs.69,875/- issued from CC Account No.326 of A5 company.

255.Though, PW32 made several allegations against A4, even against the

Regional Office and stated that without any balance, A4 pressurized her to purchase the cheques but in contrary in the cross-examination, she stated that as per Ex.D11 and D12 the large branches are having the discretionary power of discounting of cheques upto Rs.7.5 lakhs. Further, the branch has discretionary powers as regard adhoc facilities to SSI upto 20% of sanction limit with maximum of Rs.20 lakhs per borrower, subject to leading discipline shall continue as per head office circular. Further, she admitted that the branch manager,

Ameerpet is vested with powers in each account over and above limits sanctioned by the competent authority regarding small scale industry. She stated that whatever the pressures made by Regional Office, it was done after transfer of A4. As per Service Register of A4 (Ex.D6) on 07.11.2000 and 07.12.2000 A4 was in training at Chennai at the time PW29 Uma Shiva Kumar was Incumbent

Branch Manager. As per Ex.D6 A4 was on long leave from 15.12.2000 to 26.02.2001 at that time PW29 Uma Shiva Kumar was Incumbent Branch

Manager. On 27.01.2001, PW31 Sabitha and on 26.02.2001 N.Mohammed Babu (A11) were in-charge Branch Managers. As per Ex.D6 27.02.2001 and 28.02.2001 A4 was on duty at Regional Office, Chennai so A11 and PW31 (Sabitha Koneru) were in-charge of Branch respectively. As per Ex.D6 on

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 130 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 15.03.2001, 16.03.2001 A4 was on duty and on 31.03.2001 he was on CL so

PW29 (Uma Shiva Kumar) was in-charge of Branch. A4 was on leave so A11 was in-charge on 21.04.2001. On 16.05.2001, 17.05.2001 A4 was on leave so PW29 (Uma Shiva Kumar) was in-charge of Branch. PW32 admits from 01.06.2001 to 13.06.2001 A4 was in training in Bangalore so PW29 (Uma Shiva Kumar) was in-charge of Branch. On 26.06.2001 PW29 (Uma Shiva Kumar) relieved the

Accused No.4 and she has taken charge of Ameerpet Branch. Cheque No.614042 bearing the date 14.12.2000, Cheque No.614053 dated as 18.12.2000, Cheque

No.616721 dated 20.02.2001, she passed the cheques when it was signed by

PW29 (Uma Shiva Kumar) on the said dates A4 was on leave. So there is no question of putting pressure on PW32 by A4. As per her own evidence, the A4 was on leave for long time due to ill-health of his daughter. Surprisingly, the

PW32 in chief-examination stated that though there was no amount in the account, the A4 and Regional Office asked her to clear the cheques. In contrary in the cross-examination, she stated that as per the statement period from 01.05.2000 to 31.12.2000, on 14.12.2000 there was balance amount of

Rs.38,60,072.64 in the account of A7 pertaining to cheque No.614042 for

Rs.1,22,800/-. The PW32 stated it was the balance in the evening hours. On 13.12.2001 the balance amount is of Rs.49,97,565.64 in account of A7. The

Cheque No.614042 was honoured by PW29 (Uma Shiva Kumar) and not by the

Accused No.4. Cheque No.619765 dated 11.05.2001 for Rs.7,43,000/-, on the day 11.05.2001 there was balance in the account of A7. On 10.05.2001 also there was balance in the account of A7. This outstanding amount is within the

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 131 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 sanctioning limit of Rs.50 Lakhs. At the time of passing of cheque there was no balance. The time of passing is not mentioned in Cheque No.619765. Cheque

No.936568 dated 16.06.2001 for Rs.1,30,000/- pertaining to Accused No.7, on 15.06.2001, 16.06.2001 as per statement the balance is available. Therefore, it clearly shows that the balance is available in the accounts of A5 to A7 at the time of passing of cheques. However, the PW32 contended that there was no balance in the account. Therefore, her evidence is no believable. Further, PW32 stated at the time of passing of cheques there was no balance so that A4 has endorsed as ‘pay’. On 15.06.2001 the outstanding balance is of Rs.46,91,097.05 Ps. On

Ex.P671 there is no signature of her. In the cross-examination, she admitted that as per the procedure the manager has to endorse on every cheque as ‘pay’.

She admitted the same. Therefore, her version that when there was no balance,

A4 endorsed as ‘pay’ is not correct.

256. As per Ex.P671 is for Rs.69,875/-, it was honoured on 03.01.2000, issued by A5 company. The opening balance on 03.01.2000 is of Rs.83,35,495.95 Ps.

In the account of A5 company, the amount of Rs.3,40,864/- was shown as interest, this is the income to the Bank. All the cheques under Ex.P558 and P671 reported to the Regional Office and Head Office by way of STM-41 report by the branch for confirmation. She do not remember whether Regional Office or Head

Office are confirmed all the cheques which were mentioned under STM-41 report.

It means the bank was earning income in the transactions of letters of credits and cheque purchasing etc. Further, every month they are sending STM-41 report to the Regional Office. When there is no balance in the accounts, there is

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 132 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 no question of passing the cheques and every transaction was within the knowledge of Regional Office, so there is no such irregularity as contended by

PW32.

257. In the further cross PW32 stated Ex.P671 is presented in clearing and it was not returned back to presenting bank because it was honoured. The remaining 6 cheques out of Ex.P558 referred in her chief-examination are not returned back to the customer as they are honoured. Both A5 and A7 are having credit facility. In case of self cheques and clearing cheques, when the cheque amount is within credit limit, though there is no credit balance, they have to

honour the cheque up to the credit limit. The Regional Office will decide the

credit limit. PW32 admits it is prerogative of Regional Office/Head Office to clear the cheque or not by intimating to their branch through STM-41 (Proforma). She admits unless the Regional Office did not permit under intimation to our Branch through STM-41 it can not be said that any of the cheques with regard to the which she has given evidence, passed without balance. So, her contention holds not good. Though, she stated that several facts but when a specific question is asked with regard to the receiving of STM-41 with regard to 6 cheques. She simply stated that she do not know whether STM-41 was received in respect of 6 cheques under Exs.P558 and P671. she can not say whether above said cheques were passed without any balance as stated in chief-examination. It clearly shows the attitude of PW32 that when a specific question is asked with regard to the facts, she is avoiding to give answers when it is going against her evidence.

However, she admits that all the above said cheques have been passed as per

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 133 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 rules and regulations of our Bank. A4 has endorsed so the cheques were passed.

She admits endorsement of A4 on a cheque is as per procedure. They did not follow the instructions of customers and she went by bank rules in passing the cheques under Ex.P558 and Ex.P671. She has not shown any cheques of A5 and

A7 which were returned due to insufficient funds by Uma Shiva Kumar (PW29).

She has no personal knowledge with regard to the returned cheques by PW29.

she never saw when there was conversation in between Chief Manager Mr.Bagga or any other official with PW29 insisting her to take back the cheques from

Nampally Branch and pass them. She has given evidence in the cross- examination which was in totally contrary to her chief-examination.

258. She admits that she do not know that Regional Office officials and A4 supported M.L.Agarwal for passing cheques without balance. she never heard the actual conversation in between Regional Office and PW29 (Uma Shiva Kumar) with regard to putting pressure on PW29 for passing cheques, clearing cheques and purchasing of cheques without balance in the account of A5 and A7. On the information of PW29 she deposed before the court that there was pressure on her from Regional Office. It shows the conduct of PW32 that without ascertaining the facts, she speaking hearsay evidence.

259. Though, she stated in chief-examination that even Rakesh Sharma also insisted for clearing of cheques without balance but in the cross-examination, she stated that she has no personal knowledge whether the new Manager

Mr.Rakesh Sharma was also insisted by Regional Office officials in passing, clearing the cheques without available balance in the account of A5 and A7.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 134 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Further she states said Rakesh Sharma never passed any cheques without any balance. The inspection staff has not recorded her statement. She do not know anything about the investigation done by inspection staff. Event though the ledger some times shows that there is no balance/limits, the cheques presented across the counter will be sent to Manager to know funds transfer and availability of FDRs for passing cheques. She admits after confirmation of funds transfer/FDRs, the cheques will be passed when presented in the Bank.

M.L.Agarwal did not put any pressure on her to pass cheques. M.L.Agarwal used to sit before her and insisting her to pass cheques. she did not yield his pressure or his request in passing cheques. This evidence clearly shows that the PW32 has stated that several facts in chief-examination but in the cross-examination she is not standing on her own version and giving a different version, so her evidence is not reliable and trustworthy. As per her evidence she has also discounted the cheques of A5 to A7 but she has thrown the blame on A4 and A8.

The evidence shows that the cheque presenting, clearing of cheques etc., were done as per the procedure. Even PW32 also did the same which was done by A4, she cannot blame the A4 and A8. This court cannot connect the accused basing on the unreliable evidence of PW32.

260.PW33/K. Bhaskar, Manager, OBC, Ameerpet Branch stated that at the relevant time he worked as a Manager, as a part of his duty he used to look the affairs of loan department of Ameerpet Branch. Whenever the Branch Manager was on leave he was in-charge of Branch Manager post also. When he assumed charge, by the time the account pertaining the M/s.Sakthi Steels, M/s.Aren

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 135 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Steels Private Limited, M/s.Airan Comptrax Towers Private Limited accounts were already Non Performing Assets(NPA). By the time the complaint was already lodged and CBI addressed a letter and asked to furnish the documents.

Accordingly he furnished the documents to them.

261.The evidence of PW33 shows that he has furnished the account opening form of A5 to A7, statement of account of A5 to A7, debit vouchers, credit vouchers, transfer debit voucher, transfer credit voucher, computer generated bills, purchased register etc., relating to A5 to A7 under Ex.P672 to P738.

262.In the cross-examination, he stated that he has no personal knowledge of the documents. He simply furnished the documents. The transfer vouchers under

Exs.P677 to P738 are pertaining to the period much prior to his joining, so he has no personal knowledge of it. No document should be given to anybody including the CBI without permission of Chief Manager. In the instant case, the

CBI never addressed a letter to hand over the documents to CBI. He did not address any letter to CBI. He is not aware what was the Prl. Amount of loan given to A5 to A7. However, the total amount was paid by A5 to A7 and the cases are closed in DRT.

263.The evidence of PW33 shows that he has no personal knowledge of the documents. There is no document to show that he has furnished the documents.

As per his evidence, A5 to A7 have paid total loan amount, so the Civil cases are closed.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 136 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

264.PW34/Inturi Rama Rao, Chartered Accountant and concurrent auditor,

Hyderabad to OBC, Ameerpet Branch deposed that as a Concurrent Auditor it is his duty to report irregularities in borrowed accounts during monthly reports to

AGM and Head Office. The nature of irregularities are the borrowings exceeding sanction limits, drawing power not supported by stock and receivables, over dues in the account, sanction of Temporary Overdraft beyond the powers of Bank

Manager and return of cheques, cash withdrawal from the account and lending the money to Sister concerns.

265.On 10-10-2010 he has submitted special report of M/s.Airon Complex

Towers Ltd., along with other companies. They observed the amount was released, disbursed without ensuring margin money and valuation report in respect of collateral security was not on record, stocks were under insured, the insurance of collateral security was not held on record, the provisional Balance

Sheet as on the date of sanction of credit loan has not been obtained. Most of the payment were made to the single party i.e., M/s.Maheswari Steel

Corporation. Credits to the account do not match projected turn over indicating poor turn over in the account.

266.Ex.P739 (D.No.638) (03 sheets) is the Report submitted by him along with covering letter, there is a separate report as on 30-01-2002 in respect of

M/s.Airan Comptrax Towers Private Ltd (A5). They found the irregularities stocks are under insured, the provisional Balance Sheet as on the date of sanction of credit loan has not been obtained, the provisional Balance Sheet as on the date of sanction of credit limit not obtained. Credits to the accounts were not

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 137 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 matching it projected turn over. Adhoc sanction of Rs.30,00,000/- expired on 25- 11-2001. No sufficient stock was available to cover out standing balance as per stock statement of November available drawing power of Rs.1,30,62,114/-. Age wise break up of the debtors certified by Charted Accountant was not submitted.

267.On 15-02-2002 another special Report was submitted about M/s.Airan

Comptrax Towers Private Ltd (A5) and M/s.Airon Steels Ltd. (A6) and M/s.Sakthi

Steels (A7), the irregularities found against M/s.Airon Complex Towers Ltd., A5) as follows no operations in the account from December, 2001, unit was not functioning till 29.01.2002. The stock was valid upto Rs.20,00,000/-,

Rs.25,00,000/- approximately. The unit was not even functioning upto 20% level of production. Letter of Credit (LC) of Rs.34,99,000/- was devolved on 04-01- 2002 and the amount was not adjusted. The adhoc limit of Rs.30,00,000/- was due on 25-11-2001, was not yet adjusted. The account was exceeded by

Rs.70,92,000/- and interest for quarter ending 31-12-2001 not serviced as on date of report. The reference was drawn to earlier cash reports and monthly reports wherein irregularities pointed out were remained un rectified.

268.M/s.Aren Steels Limited (A6) they have given details of devolved Letter of

Credits debited to Current Account. The primary stock disposed of, there are no operations in Accounts and the sale proceeds of Goods availed by devolved Letter of Credits not routed to account. The go-downs where the stocks kept, was vacated and reported to be potential NPA Account.

269.As regards of M/s.Sakthi Steels (A7) in the auditing he found the following irregularities interest for the quarters September, 2001, December, 2001 was not

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 138 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 serviced (Not paid). The outstanding limits exceeded sanction limit the go-downs the stocks kept, was vacated. The irregularities which was reported in earlier report, were repeated. The accounts was reported to be potential NPA Account.

Ex.P740is the Report of A5, dt.30-01-2002. Ex.P741 is the Special Report of A5 to A7 Companies, dated 15-02-2002.

270.On 29-12-2002 they have reported regarding M/s.Sakthi Steels (A7)

M/s.Airan Comptrax Towers Private Ltd (A5) since the borrower was not cooperating with the inspection of Stock Register Books of Accounts they advised the branch vide our letter dt.29-02-2002 and subsequently on the next day he has come forward to produce Books of Accounts for verification then they advised the branch to allow the operations in Accounts pending verification at their end.

271.They addressed a letter to the Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce,

Ameerpet, Hyderabad on 30-12-2000 Ex.P742is the letter addressed by him.

One Sunderashan and Rakesh was working as Managers at the relevant time.

272.The defence have disputed the above said irregularities as pointed out by the PW34. They have taken specific plea that PW34 has not personally visited A5 to A7 units. His staff visited the premises and they gave report. Even PW34 has not enclosed the reports of his staff to Ex.P739 to P741. Further, he stated that while giving the reports, he relied upon the auditing actually done by the clerks and retired bank employees who were employed by him. It clearly shows that the

PW34 has not submitted the reports by auditing the accounts of A5 to A7. He has relied upon the reports submitted by the third parties. Simply, he stated that the

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 139 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 auditing was done but the work sheets are also not given to him for the purpose of auditing. Even he has not stated the names of actual persons, who has actually audited the records of A5 to A7. He himself admitted that they have not done stock audit record of A5 to A7. Further, he admitted that the unit of A5 was working but the physical staff was not capable of being measured/estimated on physical inspection. It shows that PW34 without proper verification, he has submitted the reports. Further, he has not stated that what are the registers, was verified by him before submitting the report. He simply stated that no sufficient staff was available, then how can he say physical staff was not capable of being measured. The reports of other bank employees shows that the plants and machineries are there and the units are working, but PW34 has given a report stating that the units are not functioning. Therefore, the report given PW34 is not reliable.

273.PW38/C.M.M.Gopal Rao, Scale-II Manager, OBC, Regional Office,

Hyderabad stated that the Regional Office, Chennai, sanctioned the loan to

M/s.ACTPL. The limits at the time of transferring from RO, Chennai to Hyderabad

Region, the cash credit limit of Rs.300 lakhs and LC limit of Rs.50 lakhs in the account of M/s. ACTPL.

274.In M/s.Airan Steels Limited the LC limit of Rs.150 lakhs and M/s.Shakthi

Steel the cash credit limit is of Rs.50 lakhs. Subsequently under RO power of

Hyderabad adhoc (short period it may be for one month) cash credit limit of

Rs.30 lakhs was sanctioned by RO, Hyderabad, letter of credit adhoc of Rs.35 lakhs was sanctioned by RO, Hyderabad and the action of RO, Hyderabad was

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 140 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 ratified by Head office. On the request of M/s.Shakthi steel an amount of Rs.5 lakhs cash credit was sanctioned to them by RO, Hyderabad. This account became irregular, in the month of March, 2002 due to this irregularities like non payment of LC devolved amount, this account is declared as NPA.

275.The PW38 is confronted with the documents relating to M/s.Sakthi Steels requesting for adhoc cash credit facility of Rs.5 lakhs. Further, the sanction order was passed by Regional Office. Further, the letter addressed by Head Office to

Regional Office in respect of M/s.Sakthi Steels, in which they made comments on irregularities pointed out are being submitted separately. Further, they stated that the valuation report of mortgage property was not received. Further, the branch office addressed a letter to M/s.Sakthi Steels with regard to submission of renewal papers, no operations in account, account overdrawn and non- submission of stock statement regularly. The PW38 has spoken about the documents relating to M/s.Sakthi Steels and also ACTPL with regard to credit facility of Rs.50 lakhs and for Rs.35 lakhs etc.

276. In the cross-examination, PW38 has stated that he has no personal knowledge about the documents, which have been referred by him in the chief- examination. He is not party to the documents. He put up the note to Senior

Officers based on unit visit report of branch incumbent manager, loans manager.

He does not know whether the borrower has complied with the observations or not. Further, he was cross examined by the A8 counsel that in which he stated that ACTPL was regular. R.K.Takkar was Regional Manager when the loans was sanctioned to ACTPL. Further said R.K.Takkar sanctioned Rs.5 lakhs adhoc CC

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 141 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 limit in the month of August, 2001, in favour of M/s.Sakthi Steels. This amount was already adjusted. In the month of February, 2001, the head office sanctioned that loan of Rs.300 lakhs and Rs.50 lakhs in favour of M/s. ACTPL, so generally the limits would have been regularized. The Regional Office has to supervise and monitor all the accounts. As per his 161 Cr.P.C., statement, he stated that as per the report received by the Regional Office, Hyderabad, dated 31.03.2001 and 30.06.2001 the monitoring officer reported that the conduct of the account was satisfactory. Further, he stated that in the report it mentioned that all the 3 units are working properly and conduct of the account is satisfactory.

277.The evidence of PW38 shows that though he stated after sanction of credit limits to A5 to A7 units, the Regional Office and Head Office has raised certain objections with regard to the operation of accounts, but PW38 is not aware whether the accounts are subsequently regularized or not. The initial report was, the conduct of the accounts was satisfactory.

278.PW39/Padmakar Rao, Panel Advocate of OBC, stated that he has received set of documents. Ex.P540 along with English translation is one of the document confronted to him. The legal opinion given by him was under Ex.P542. As per legal opinion, he has given opinion in respect of plot No.32 admeasuring 1854 square yards SY.No.113 at Ramnagar, Jamisthanpur, Circle-8, Hyderabad. This document is relating to one P.G.Nagabushanam Naidu. He also verified

Encumbrance Certificate, Tax paid receipts issued by MCH in respect of H.No.1-9- 9, admeasuring 1854 Squre Yards at Ram Nagar. He has given opinion that the said documents can be offered to the banks as collateral security by creating

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 142 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 equitable mortgage by deposit of original title deeds. As per his evidence, the title documents offered by A5 to A7 companies are genuine documents after verifying the relevant documents, he has given opinion that the documents can be offered to the bank as collateral security by creating equitable mortgage. He

He further stated that P.G.Nagabushanam Naidu was the lawful owner of the property H.No.1-9-9 extent 1854 squre yards since 40years he has been in possession of said property.

279.The prosecution alleged that said documents are fake documents and the property is not standing on the name of P.G.Nagabushanam. A4 has not verified said documents. The defence relied upon the evidence of PW39 and contended that after getting legal opinion only, A4 has taken said documents and permitted to mortgage the property and there is no fault on the side of A4 herein.

280.PW40/Raghunath Akasham, Chartered Accountant stated that he was given assignment of inspection audit by OBC, Ameerpet Branch in the year, 1999.

He has inspected M/s.ACTPL and submitted the report. The borrower account in the bank records was standard asset without any major irregularities. The company has repaid the term loan sanctioned and the working capital limits were regular. On his visit to the factory premises, he has visited the stock yard where the company raw material was stored and there was major irregularities in the document trail. He has not physically measured the stock in the yard. The working capital of the company was letter credit of Rs.40 lakhs and cash credit of

Rs.80 lakhs. However, the prosecution has not shown the report given by PW40 during his chief-examination. However, the evidence of PW40 shows that he

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 143 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 found the machinery in the factory shed and raw material of large quantity consisting of MS Steels Items. The PW38 stated that the unit was not working and there was no stock but the evidence of PW40 shows that the unit was working and the stock was available. His evidence shows that the term loan was already repaid by the unit. It strengthens the version of defence that the units are working but the false reports were obtained.

281.PW41/G. Rammohan, Enforcement Officer, O/o Employees Provident Fund,

Hyderabad, stated that the CBI officials enquired with him in respect of

M/s.Giridara Ispat Private Limited, ACTPL. Ex.P752 is the Registration Certificate of M/s.Giridar Istap Private Limited, Ex.P753 is the Certificate issued by the

Department of Industries in respect of M/s.Giridara Ispat Private Limited,

Ex.P754 is the Certificate of Registration issued by Andhra Pradesh General Sales

Tax Office in respect of M/s.Giridar Ispat Private Limited. Ex.P755 is the

Certificate of Registration issued by Central Sales Tax Office in respect of

M/s.Giridar Ispat Private Limited, Ex.P756 is the Copy of invoice in respect of

M/s.Giridar Ispat Private Limited. Ex.P757 is the attested copy of coverage of establishment issued by EPF Commissioner in respect of M/s.Giridar Ispat Private

Limited. Ex.P758 is the Letter issued by M/s.ACTPL on taking over of in respect of

M/s.Giridar Ispat Private Limited, Ex.P759 is the Ownership details of M/s.ACTPL.

Ex.P760 is the document Form No.9, in which the list of employees in respect of

M/s.Giridar Ispat Private Limited are mentioned. Ex.P761 is Form 6A Annual

Report in respect of contributions remitted against the members filed by the employees of M/s.ACTPL. They have not submitted annual returns. The PW41

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 144 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 admitted in the cross-examination that he has not attested on the above said documents. No returns are required to be filed when the company was dissolved.

Without seeing the documents he cannot say till what period M/s.ACTPL has filed annual returns. The purpose of examining PW41 that said M/s.Giridar Ispat

Private Limited was in existing or not, whether it is a fake firm. The above said documents referred by PW41 shows that the company is having registration and it was taken over by the M/s.ACTPL, so it is not a bogus company.

282.PW42/V.Srinivasa Rao, Superintendent of Excise was examined to prove

A5 company is not in existing and it is fake firm, he stated that in the year 2005 the CBI Officials addressed a letter to him, they sought information whether

M/s.ACTPL company/A5 was in existing within his jurisdiction. He has given information that A5 company was not in existing in Sy. No. 29 Ooth Pally Village.

As per their records i.e. register 335D and O41 Register and Scrutiny Register, the A5 company was not in Sy. No.29 Ooth Pally Village.

283.It is to be noted that the letter addressed by CBI was not confronted to the witness and not marked through PW42. The evidence of PW42 shows that their records will not contain the names of Business concern which are not liable to Central Excise. The prosecution has not stated that A5 company is liable for payment of any Central Excise Tax. In the absence of it, we cannot except that the department of PW42 will maintain the record with regard to A5 company.

284.PW42 do not know the facts of this case. He do not remember whether

CBI has enquired with regard to the activity which attracts payment of Central

Excise. Unless he see 335D and O41 and Scrutiny Registers he cannot say

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 145 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 whether any entity like M/s.ACTPL/ A5 company is existing in Sy. No. 29, Ooth

Pally Village. Therefore, without placing proper material before PW42, the prosecution cannot elicit from PW42 that A5 firm was not in existing, so the evidence of PW42 is not useful to the prosecution.

285.PW43/E.Kiran, Branch Finance Manger, RINL, Hyderabad, shows that the procedure for discounting of a letter of credits with RINL is that the bank issues the letter of credit on behalf of customer for lifting of material. Negotiating documents for discounting generally are delivery order, bill of exchange.

286.In case material needs to be lifted from Rashtriya Ispat Nigam

Limited(RINL) on ex-plant basis, delivering order advises will be issued with two steps. Step-1 is delivery order advise-1 and Delivery order advise-2 is step-2.

Based on the delivery order advise-1 delivery order will be issued by Head

Quarter Steel Sales Branch issues delivery order where explicitly mentioned that not for delivery of material for negotiation of letter of credit. Based on the delivery order for negotiation a bill of exchange is prepared. Based on the bill of exchange discounting with discounting bank a demand draft or banker cheque issued on M/s.Rashitriya Ispat Nigam Limited (also known as Vishakapatnam

Steel Plant).

287.On receipt of demand draft, money receipt will be generated by the Branch

Sale Office, RINL, Hyderabad. On the basis of money receipt details, delivery order advice-2 will be issued for delivery of material. Based on this customer will place vehicles for lifting of material and Invoice will be raised.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 146 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

288.Ex.P762 to P764 are the bill of exchange, does not contain “Without re- course to the drawer”. It is mandatory to contain the word “Without re-course to the drawer” but it is missing in the bill of exchange. Bill of Exchange is dated 22.12.1999, 23.03.2000, 29.02.2000. The officer who signed on bill of exchange, should put the seal and his name and designation also is to be mentioned. In the bill of exchanges, the name and designation of officer and the seal is not there. In the fourth page of Ex.P762, the bill of exchange is there.

This bill of exchange was not issued by RINL. Page No.1 of Ex.P762 is banker’s cheque it was not submitted to M/s.RINL by M/s.Aren Steels Limited.

289.The PW43 stated that the bankers cheques was not submitted to M/s.RINL by M/s. Airan Steels Limited. There was no transactions in between RINL and

M/s. Airan Steels Limited in the particular LC under Ex.P764. Based on his information, the branch manager has confirmed that non receipt of pay orders from M/s.Aren Steels Limited.

290.In the cross-examination, PW43 stated that the documents Ex.P762 to

P764 are not pertaining to his period. He did not hand over the documents to

CBI. There is no documentation to show that who is competent to issue bill of exchange at Hyderabad office of M/s.RINL. There is a record in Hyderabad office to show bills of exchange issued from the said branch. The separate register is kept in respect of it. The prosecution has not produced said register, in fact the said register is the best document to know whether the particular bill of exchange received in Hyderabad office or not. As per his evidence, 250 to 300 bills of exchange will be issued every year by the Hyderabad Branch. The name

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 147 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 of the applicant for bill of exchange will be mentioned in the register. Said

Register is not produced, so the PW43 is not able to say the names of entities, who has applied for bill of exchanges from their Hyderabad Office.

291.Further, it is pertinent to note that the entities who obtained bill of exchanges will pay the amount by way of demand draft or bankers cheques,

Hyderabad Branch will maintain the register to show how many bankers cheques were encashed during the particular year. The record pertaining to the said details are not shown to PW43, so he is not able to say the details of bankers cheques encashed by M/s.RINL, Hyderabad Office. PW43 stated that M/s.RINL is not party to the Sheet No.1 to 3 of Ex.P762 and P763, P764. The Deepak Jain,

Chinna Rao, Ugadi, Vasantha are the officers whose signatures are supposed to be thereon bill of exchange as per evidence of PW43. They were alive, but the prosecution has not examined them. PW43 is no way concerned with the said documents, he is not signatory, so his evidence is not relevant, he is not competent witness to speak about the said documents. As per documents,

M/s.RINL encashed bankers cheques i.e., Ex.P762 to P764. The PW43 stated that by seeing the documents, he cannot say who submitted the same to M/s.RINL.

Therefore, the prosecution by relying on the evidence of PW43 cannot confirm that the pay orders were not received from M/s.Aren Steels Limited.

292.PW44/B.Murali, General Manager, M/s.Sujana Steels Limited was examined in order to prove the pay orders of M/s. Aeran Steels Limited. The PW44 stated that M/s.Aren Steels Limited has given some pay orders to their MD of

M/s.Sujana Steels Limited for an amount of Rs.53 lakhs for purchase of material

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 148 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 from M/s.RINL. Their company received pay orders from M/s.Aren Steels Limited.

The material was lifted by Vizag Steel Profiles Limited in respect of 3 pay orders.

Their company lifted the material in respect of two pay orders. Instead of supplying material to M/s.Aren Steels Limited, they have returned back the entire amount by way of 9 cheques to M/s.Aren Steels Limited under Ex.P765 to

P770.

293.The PW44 stated they have given 5 cheques under Ex.P760 to P770 to

M/s.Aren Steels Limited on behalf of M/s.Sujana Steels Private Limited from

M/s.Sujana Industries and one more pay order was given to M/s.Aren Steels

Limited on behalf of M/s.Sujana Steels Limited. 4 cheques under Ex.P771 to 774 were given by M/s.Sujana Steels to M/s.Aren Steels Limited. The 3 cheques are infavour of M/s. Aran Steels Limited. The PW44 has stated that the transactions in between M/s.Aren Steels Limited, M/s.Sujana Industries. The PW44 stated that he has not dealt with Ex.P765 to P774. He worked as accountant, Senior

Accountant or Manager, He never dealt with any transactions of M/s.Sujana

Steels Limited and the companies with whom they have having business dealings including M/s.Aren Steels Limited. He do not know about receiving pay orders from M/s.Aren Steels Limited are giving cheques by their company to M/s.Aren

Steels Limited. He is not aware of the business transactions in between their company and M/s.Aren Steels Limited. He was not shown any pay orders said to be given by M/s.Aren Steels Limited to M/s.Sujana Steels Limited. The evidence of PW44 shows that he has no personal knowledge of the documents, the pay orders and business dealings. He know only to the extent that Ex.P762 to P770

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 149 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 are the cheques pertaining to the M/s.Sujana Industries Limited, even he does not know the significance of those documents. The prosecution has not explained the relevancy of evidence of PW44 to the facts of present case.

294.PW45/Krishna Chowdary, Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Grade-II stated that as per Ex.P761, the EPF Registration number of M/s.Airan Comptrax

Towers Private Limited is of AP20849. The CBI officials enquired with him with regard to five accounts mentioned in Ex.P761. The account numbers are 153 of

Mr.N.V.Ramana Murthy, the account No.163 of B.Mallesh, Account No.165 of

K.Balaiah, Account No.166 of Anjaiah and the account No.174 of Chandra

Prakash.

295. The general procedure is that whenever the account is settled by the sanctioning authority the account number will be rounded off and they will signed against the account column. The employer will submit Annual Return Form-6A which contains the total number of PF members contributed to the provident fund of particular establishment during financial year.

296. Out of the account numbers stated by him above, the account No.153 and 174 were settled as on the date when he was examined by CBI. Whenever the employee leaves the service he will submit Form No.19 claiming provident fund amount attested by the employer or his authorized representative on such submission the claim will be settled. In their office record the specimen signatures of employers or his authorized representative will be available.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 150 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

297.In the cross-examination, PW45 stated that Ex.P761 is not pertaining to his period of employment in the office to which Ex.P761 pertains to. He has no personal knowledge about the document Ex.P761.

298.The list of employees in Ex.P761 will show as unsettled if a employee continues in service or if he does not submit any claim. The form under Ex.P761 will not disclose any contravention under PF Laws. He do not know whether

M/s.Airan Comptrax Towers Private Limited was working as on the date of his examination. He joined in the PF office Hyderabad in the month of February, 2006 and he was examined in the month of March, 2006. The documents shown to him are pertaining to the year 2001. As per Form No.6A there are 25 employees. No rounding off was done in Ex.P761. The prosecution has examined

PW45 to show that the account holders above stated are employees of

M/s.ACTPL, on whose names the fake accounts are opened in the name of fake firms. However, the photographs and personal details of said persons are not stated by PW45. The prosecution has not elicited that the particulars of said persons are tallying with the names of fake account holders. There may be a persons with similar names, so the evidence of PW45 is not useful to the prosecution.

299.PW47/Sukumar Babu, Chartered Accountant stated that he know one

Sundareswaran/A4, who was working as Branch Manager, Oriental Bank of

Commerce, Nampally, Hyderabad. He got acquaintance with him through one

P.Ramabrahmam who was having account in the Nampally branch, Oriental Bank of Commerce.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 151 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

300.He himself incorporated M/s Airan Comptrax Towers Private Limited as per the rules of company laws on the request of Munnalal Agarwal/A1. There are two more companies He himself incorporated said companies on the request of

Munnalal Agarwal/A1.

301.The incorporation means at first they have to give an application to the

Registrar of Companies for availability of name, after getting the name for the company as approved from the ROC they will prepare the memorandum and articles of association in which the details of the objects for which the company is going to be registered and other ancillary objects for the performance of main objects of the company and it will contain the no. of shares to be subscribed by the share holders as well as the name of the first Director of the company. These

MOA and AOA are filed physically at the time along with the prescribed forms under the companies act for incorporation of the company in the ROC.

302.After due process of verification by the office of ROC they will issue a certificate of incorporation of the company from which date the company can commence business. He charged the fees for the above services.

303.As per the companies act once in a year every company should get its account audited by the Chartered Accountant and file the accounts with the

Registrar of Companies. Normally, they don’t go to the company or client regularly and at the time of the auditing of books of account their audit clerks will visit the office of the client and verify the books of account along with the vouchers and with the entries in the books of account and if they are matching with the figures in the ledger accounts they will sign the accounts as final. While

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 152 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 verifying the books of account with the vouchers they only see whether there is any deviation in posting of such vouchers to the proper head of account or not. If any changes are there like that they will suggest the client to make changes in the accounts.

304.M/s.Airan Comptrax Towers Private Limited/A5 brought books of accounts to their office which were verified as stated above. Normally, they assign their signatures to the balance sheet, profit and loss account and the audit report.

From 1997 to 2001 he looked after the accounts of above said three companies.

305.Usually, clients ask for certificates for various purposes like banking, sales tax and other departments where they deal depending upon their departmental procedures and depending upon the nature of the requirement they used to verify the books of account as explained above for the relevant period for which this certificate is required by their clients. Similarly, in the case of M/s.Airan

Comptrax Towers Private Limited/A5 also he has given some certificates but exactly he could not remember now what certificates he has given at the time.

306.He don’t have any idea about the document LD-330 (original letter of M/s

ACTPL Secunderabad). He do not remember whether he did any statuary audit in respect of above said three companies. In the normal course of his profession he used to issue audited accounts or certificates.

307.Ex.P776 is certified copy of certificate of incorporation of M/s.Airan

Comptrax Towers Private Limited/A5. In the document my signatures are there.

Ex.P777 is certified copy of certificate of incorporation of Areen Steels Private

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 153 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Limited/A6. In the document my signatures are there. He do not remember whether he stated before CBI with regard to the documents that whether the documents are genuine or not.

308.Ex.P776 and P777 are certificates of Incorporation of A5 and A6 respectively and the same is done in accordance with law. Whenever he audit the books of accounts of his client he will do so after proper verification of books of accounts and when he issue certificates to his clients, he will issue the same after due verification of books of accounts. He will take proper care before issuing any certificate or signing any document.

309.He is not a party to the document Ex.P887 which is shown to his during his chief-examination. There is no scope for him to know about the document

Ex.P887 as he is not concerned with this document.

310.He know Sundareshwaran/A4 in general as a Auditor. He use to visit

Ameerpet Branch of Oriental Bank of Commerce in connection with his profession on several occasions on behalf of his clients.

311.The evidence of PW47 shows that A5 to A7 companies are incorporated as per the procedure. Further, he is not aware of the document Ex.P887. The witness has not stated anything against A5 to A7. Therefore, the evidence of

PW47 is not useful to the prosecution.

312.PW48/J.Ravindranath, Manager (Operations) UTI Bank Limited, Hyderabad stated that Ex.P778 is receipt memo dated 27.04.2006 enclosing five pay orders no.001534, 036023, 037532, 035985, 039073. Those pay orders are signed by

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 154 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 different officials. The pay orders were issued in favor of Bank of Baroda Account

M/s.Rastriya Ispat Nigam Limited. The pay order no.001534 was signed by

Kusuma Rao and Manoj Krishnamachari. Pay order no.036023 signed by Kusuma

Rao and Manoj Krishnamachari. Pay order no.037532 signed by Mr.Kamalakar and Manoj Krishnamachari. Pay order no.035985 signed by Mr.Kamalakar and

Manoj Krishnamachari. Pay order no.039073 signed by S.Balaji and Manoj

Krishnamachari.

313.The above said pay orders were encashed by Bank of Baroda and there was bill discounting in respect of all pay orders. Based on payee name and official who has signed in the pay order reflects that there was bill discounting.

314.Ex.P779 are the seven pay orders which he sent to CBI through Register

Post to CBI. The documents are pay order no.047915, 047691, 046792, 046794, 046782, 046593, 045152.

315.The pay orders i.e., pay order no.047915, 047691, 046792, 046794 were signed by L.Sriraman and Renuka in favor of M/s.Mahesh Cooperative Bank a/c

Ruby Traders. Pay orders 046782, 046593 were signed by L.Sriraman and

Renuka in favor of Mahesh Cooperative Bank a/c Universal Trading Company. Pay order no.045152 is in favor of M/s.Agrasen Cooperative Urban Bank Limited a/c

M/s.Maheshwari Steel Corporation. The above said pay orders also there was bill discounting.

316.He don’t have any idea whether the above said amounts were repaid in the bank or not. Usually there may be a possibility of repayment or becoming the

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 155 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 account as NPA.

317.PW48 has stated that he was not working in UTI Bank Limited, Begumpet,

Hyderabad as on the date of documents mentioned in Ex.P778. Therefore he has no personal knowledge regarding the documents and pay orders mentioned in

Ex.P778 and Ex.P779. He admits that all the pay orders were issued after discounting the bills/L.Cs.

318.The discounting of bills/L.Cs is one of the aggregated business transaction of their bank. Under this transaction their bank gets profit by way of commission.

He admits that bills/L.Cs which are discounting will be presented to the bank issuing bills/L.Cs on due dates by our bank for payment.

319.He admits the Reserve Bank of India issued circulars with regard to discounting of bills/L.Cs. He admits that as per the circular of Reserve Bank of

India all banks including their bank should purchase/discount/negotiate bills under L.Cs only in respect of genuine in commercial and trade transactions. Their bank issued pay orders mentioned in Ex.P778 and Ex.P779 strictly in according to rules and regulations of RBI.

320.Their bank did not issue any L.Cs pertaining to this case covered by

Ex.P778 and Ex.P779. He has not seen the L.Cs which are discounted by their bank at any time either when he was examined by the CBI or in chief examination. He admits that their bank while purchasing/discounting/negotiating billsunderL.Csshouldestablishgenuinenessofunderlying

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 156 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 transactions/documents. Their bank followed the above procedure by issuing pay orders covered by Ex.P778 and Ex.P779.

321.Their bank has received payments against all the L.Cs discounted by them in the name of M/s RINL, M/s Ruby traders, M/s Universal Trading Company and

M/s.Maheshwari Steel Corporation and there are no outstanding dues to be recovered by UTI bank i.e., their bank on account of the L.Cs discounted by their bank in the name of above mentioned companies/firms. His entire evidence is nothing but a normal banking transaction which was done in accordance with rules.

322.The evidence of PW48 shows that Ex.P778 and P779 are issued by their bank only and it was issued in the normal course of their business. The prosecution intended to say that the pay orders were issued in favour of fake firms, but the evidence of PW48 shows that there was business transactions during the course of business transactions only, the Lcs were issued and the amounts are recovered and there are no outstanding dues, so the prosecution has not proved that those firms are fake firms.

323.PW49/T. Srinivas, Manager Laxmi Vilas Bank Limited, his evidence shows that LC No.0036402/201/247 dated 24.04.2001 under Ex.P780, LC

No.0036405/201/249 dated 26.04.2001 under Ex.P782, LC No.0036407/201/251

dated 10.05.2001 under Ex.P784 was issued by OBC, Ameerpet Branch on behalf

of Aran Steels Limited. Ex.P786 is the LC No.0036411/201/257, dated 14.05.2001. Ex.P781 is the Pay order No.147555, dated 24.07.2001, Ex.P783 pay order No.147630. Ex.P785 pay order No.147764, dated 13.08.2001, Ex.P787

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 157 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 is the pay order No.147798, dated 16.08.2001, Ex.P789, Pay order No.147876,

dated 21.08.2001.

324.The above Lcs were issued by OBC, Ameerpet Branch on behalf of Aran

Steels Limited in favour of Universal Trading Company, Ruby Traders. Lakshmi

Vilas Bank has discounted said Lcs and issued pay orders. The PW49 has stated that at the time of discounting the LC, their bank has given bill number. The prosecution intended to say that those are fake firms floated by A5 to A7. Aran

Steels Limited has obtained Lcs from OBC with collusion. However, the PW49 has stated they have nothing to do with M/s.Aren Steels Limited. The above transactions are normal banking transactions. LCs are not presented by Aran

Steels Limited. The prosecution has not proved anything to show that the firms are fake firms, but it proved that A6 has obtained LCs in favour of said companies only.

325.PW50/Raja Narasimha, Manager, Bank of Baroda stated that the documents Exs.P766, P767, P768, P769 and Ex.P770 are the cheques belonging to current account No.52908 standing in the name of M/s.Sujana Industries

Limited. The cheques were issued in favour of M/s.Aren Steels Limited.

326. Ex.P766 is the cheque No.661390 dated 14.02.2000 for Rs.4,67,493/-.

Ex.P767 is the cheque No.661385 dated 12.02.2000 for Rs.5,01,000/-. The customer intended to get banker cheque or DD so that he issued Ex.P767 to prepare the DD. According to that the cheque was passed and DD was prepared in favour of M/s.Aren Steels Limited.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 158 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

327.Ex.P768 is the cheque No.661762 dated 24.02.2000 for Rs.9,67,493/- in favour of M/s.Aren Steels Limited. Ex.P769 is the cheque No.661777 dated 02.03.2000 for Rs.5,00,000/- in favour of M/s.Aren Steels Limited. Ex.P770 is the cheque No.661778 dated 04.03.2000 for Rs.9,51,740/- in favour of M/s.Aren

Steels Limited. The above cheques were directly issued by the party. He can not identify the signatures of the persons appearing on the cheques. The cheques were presented by Oriental Bank of Commerce. The person in whose favour the cheques were issued, holding account in the Oriental Bank of Commerce.

328.In the cross-examination, PW50 has stated that the cheques covered under Exs.P766, P767, P768, P769 and Ex.P770 produced in the normal course of transactions it was cleared and there was no discrepancies with regard to the above cheques. The evidence of PW50 shows that during the course of business,

Aran Steels Limited has issued the cheques in favour of M/s.Sujana Industries

Limited. It was issued in the normal course of business.

329.PW51/Raghunath Reddy, Manager, Credit Department, stated that Ex.P771 is the cheque No. 652607, dated 24.01.2000 for Rs. 4,67,500/- issued by

M/s.Sujana Steels Limited in favour of M/s.Aren Steels Limited. Ex.P772 Cheque

No. 656941, dated 11.4.2000 for Rs. 5,00,000/- issued by M/s.Sujana Steels

Limited in favour of M/s.Aren Steels Limited. Ex.P773 Cheque No. 656940, dated 11.4.2000 for Rs. 4,68,123/- issued by M/s.Sujana Steels Limited in favour of

M/s.Aren Steels Limited.

330.Ex.P774 (L.D.No. 575) Cheque No. 652604, dated 24.01.2000 for Rs.

5,01,000/- issued by M/s.Sujana Steels Limited in favour of Bank of Baroda for

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 159 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 purchase of Banker cheque favoring M/s.Aren Steels Limited for Rs. 5,00,000/-.

Rs. 1000/- is commission amount. He verified the account opening form of

Sujana Steels Limited, later M/s Sujana Steels limited name was changed to

M/s.Sujana Metal Products. He verified the record and he has given the particulars of cheques to the CBI.

331.In the cross-examination, PW51 stated that all the 4 cheques under

Ex.P771 to Ex.P774 were issued by Account holder M/s.Sujana Steels Limited. he did not give any documents to CBI officials. He has no personal knowledge about

Ex.P771 to Ex.P774 as he was not working during the year 2000 in Bank of

Baroda, Masab Tank branch. He admits the signatory to Ex.P771 to Ex.P774 alone can say the purpose for which said cheques were issued. But the prosecution has not examined signatory to those documents.

332.Statement of account of M/s.Sujana Steels Limited will show whether the said cheques were debited or not. By seeing the cheques Ex.P771 to Ex.P774 he cannot say that the name of account holder is changed from M/s Sujana Steels

Limited to M/s.Sujana Metal Products limited. There is no discrepancy or irregularity with regard with Ex.P771 to Ex.P774.

333.The evidence of PW51 also shows the transactions in between M/s. Aran

Steels Limited and M/s.Sujana Steels Limited. Those cheques were issued in the normal course of business and nothing has been stated against the accused herein.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 160 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

334.PW52/Madhusudan Rama Rao, Regional Head, OBC, Bangalore, stated that

Ex.P604 is the OBC Regional office, chennai office note dated 18.06.1999 regarding issuance of Inland Letter of credit for Rs.25,00,000/-. In fact they have received proposal for sanction of inland letter of credit for Rs. 150 lakhs on 90 days DA basis, document on acceptance. In the meanwhile they received a proposal an adhoc limit of Rs. 25 Lakhs for issuance of inland letter of credit 90 days DA.

335.Since they have received proposal for regular limit of Rs. 150 lakhs, the proposal of adhoc limit was declined by regional office, Chennai. The process note was signed by Mr. Ramakrishna and it was recommended by Satyanarayana.

They have addressed a sanction letter dated 20.09.1999 addressed to senior manager, branch office Ameerpet, Hyderabad conveying sanction of inland letter of credit DA 90 days favoring M/s.Aren Steels Limited for a sum of 150 Lakhs and

LC should be issued in favour of M/s.Rashtriya Ispat Nigam limited. The sanction letter was signed by Mr.Rakesh Malhotra, chief manager, regional office, Chennai.

Ex.P625 (L.D.No.415) is the sanction letter.

336.Ex.P790is original letter dated 2.11.1999 addressed by Oriental Bank of

Commerce to assistant general manager, regional office, Chennai requesting that a part of limit upto 35 lakhs, LC be issued in favour of local parties instead of

M/s.Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited citing the reasons higher discount is available when the material is procured from local parties.

337.Ex.P593 is original copy of sanction letter dated 01.03.2000 conveying sanction to senior manager, Ameerpet, Hyderabad, sanctioning an adhoc inline

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 161 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 letter of credit DA 90 days to M/s.Aren steels limited. It is being one short transaction. LC sanction is in favour of M/s.RINL and other suppliers the letter is singed by Mr.Rakesh Malhotra, chief manager, regional office, chennai. As per process note, he himself signed on the process note. Sanction was accorded by him. As per this sanction the total amount of Rs. 240 Lakhs was sanctioned out of which Rs. 150 lakhs on regular basis, Rs. 90 lakhs on a single transaction basis.

338. Ex.P628 is the office copy of letter conveying sanction of opening of letter of credit upto Rs. 150 lakhs to any beneficiary other than RINL. As per this document the total amount of Rs. 150 lakhs was already give to RINL but they are not supplying material and they are not in a position to supply material as informed by the branch. The branch has recommended that the entire credit of

Rs. 150 lakhs on LC on DA basis, material can be procured from any other supplier. The sanction was approved by him vide office note dated 12.05.2000.

He put my signature by mentioning the date as 15.05.2000.

339.All the above documents are pertaining to M/s Aren Steels limited. One

M.Sundereshwaran(A4) was the branch manager at the relevant time. He was head of regional office, Chennai at the relevant time. The entire erstwhile

Andhra Pradesh was under the control of regional office, Chennai. As a branch manager he know said M.Sundereshwaran(A4).

340.In the cross-examination of counsel for A8, PW52 admitted that based on the process note of regional office he took the decision and approved the change

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 162 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 of beneficiary from M/s.RINL to local suppliers on 15.5.2000. He handed over his charge to Mr.Kanvaljeet Singh (A8) subsequently.

341.In the further cross-examination, he admitted that the sanction of loans what he deposed in his chief-examination was done as per the rules and regulation and the proposals were processed. In the cross-examination by A4 counsel, PW52 stated that in Ex.P604/2 it is mentioned that since the branch has to submit renewal proposal of sister concern M/s.Airan Comptrax Towers Private

Limited/A5 and non availability of networking capital they may not consider the captioned proposal on adhoc basis.

342.He admits that he stated before CBI that letter dated 2.11.1999 from OBC

Ameerpet branch addressed to the AGM, Regional Office, Chennai recommending for permitting M/s.Aren Steels Limited to open LCs for Rs. 35 lakhs favouring local suppliers other than M/s.RINL i.e. reflecting in Ex.P790 ( L.D.No.416). As per Ex.P592 the process note has been done based on the list of Lcs, provisional balance sheets as on 7.2.2000 with schedules, statement of accounts and on satisfaction of the same. The commission varies to the LCs based on 100% margin and the Lcs issued under sanction with in the prescribed margin less than 100% margin. The bank wil get income on LCs by way of commission.

343.He is not aware whether the payment on Lcs are not in due during the tenure of A4. He admits that the OBC Ameerpet branch recommended LCs limits during the tenure of A4 by following due process of rules and regulations of the bank and on satisfaction only the regional office permitted or sanctioned the said

LCs limits.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 163 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

344.Even the evidence of PW52 is not against A4 and A8, he admitted that all the credit facility to the A5 to A7 were sanctioned by him only. He has not spoken anything against the accused herein. The evidence of PW52 is relevant to the aspect that the Regional Office has sanctioned the loans. He has not spoken anything about the deviation of bank rules and regulations.

345.The testimony of PW53/C.M. Khurana, Chief General Manager, OBC, Delhi shows the CBI officials enquired with him with regard to the companies namely

M/s.Sakthi Steels, M/s.Aren Steels Limited and M/s.Airan Comptrax Towers

Private Limited/A5.

346. On 06.9.2001 from the head office, the communication was send to the

Ameerpet branch, Oriental Bank of commerce, Hyderabad, for sending them the detailed information in respect of M/s.Sakthi Steels for consideration of the matter in relation to the request of the borrower. This communication was pertaining to the consideration of proposal at the credit department of Head office for which the papers were rooted through him as Deputy General Manager for the final consideration of the committee of general managers under whom he was working. After consideration, examination of entire papers the decision relating to the proposal was arrived by the committee of general managers which was finally conveyed to the branch through regional office.

347. In respect of account of M/s.Airan Comptrax Towers Private Limited/A5 a proposal was received relating to the branch of Ameerpet, Hyderabad through the Regional Office, Chennai of the bank and after initial examination of the same

additional information and clarification was sought by the credit department vide

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 164 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 letter dated 19.02.2001 signed by Assistant General Manager working under his control.

348. After examination of the complete proposal the matter was placed before the committee of general managers for the sanction of the cash credit hypothecation of Rs. 300 lakhs and bank guarantee of Rs. 50 lakhs which was conveyed to the branch through regional office. In terms of letter dated 31.08.2001 the communication was send to the regional office, Hyderabad conveying that the letter of credit facility of Rs. 150 lakhs recommended by them on Adhoc basis has not been considered favorably by the committee of general managers, this letter has been signed by assistant general manager working under his control.

349.As per the procedure prescribed the regional managers are authorized to allow adhoc credit facilities based on the merit of each cash upto 10% of the existing sanctioned limit for a period upto 90 days. The decisions pertaining to request of the borrowers from time to time have been examined by the respective competent authority and conveyed after examination of entire case in each case by the competent authorities. Once the accounts became irregular and difficult of recovery the action was initiated as per the prescribed procedure.

350.The evidence of PW53 is very crucial, his evidence discloses that the proposals of M/s.Sakthi Steels, M/s.Aren Steels Limited and M/s.Airan Comptrax

Towers Private Limited came originally to branch and after initial processing and examination the proposal will be send to regional office. The proposal which the branch considers is not fit for sanction the proposal will be rejected at their level

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 165 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 itself. He admits when the proposal is fit for consideration the branch will send it to the regional office. He admits the regional office has to scrutinize the proposal and satisfy itself otherwise they have to reject the proposal. If regional office satisfies, they will send it to the head office for sanction. If it is beyond the powers of regional office. He admits it is the prerogative of the committee of general managers in the head office to consider or reject the proposal send to it by the regional office.

351.He admits the head office has put queries and called for additional information to satisfy itself whether the proposal is to be considered or not, with regard to the proposals of three companies i.e. M/s.Sakthi Steels, M/s.Aren

Steels Limited and M/s.Airan Comptrax Towers Private Limited. Whenever the files received by him as a part of decision making he used to put his signatures and also put his comments on the file. During his chief-examination, no documents were confronted to him which bears his signature and his comments on the documents.

352.His evidence further discloses the borrower was allowed cash credit limit of Rs.50 lakhs, sanction by the regional manager RO chennai. The said limit was last sanctioned on 19.4.1999 under the power of regional office subsequently the regional manager has allowed limit of Rs. 5 lkahs on 25.8.2001 valid upto 30.09.2001 which was reported while recommending the extension of validity of the sanction. At the head offce level the validity of sanction of Rs. 50 lakhs was extended upto 31.03.2002 by the committee of general managers, in terms of the note dated 26.9.2001 while noting the adhoc cash credit limit of Rs. 5 lakhs

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 166 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 permitted under the regional office power upto 30.9.2001. it means the branch has not sanctioned, the regional office after going through the file, after getting clarifications from branch the credit facility was given.

353.he has further stated before CBI that the borrower was sanctioned regular letter of credit limit of Rs. 150 lakhs by the regional office, chennai on 20.9.1999. Additional one time LC facility of Rs. 90 lakhs has also been sanctioned by regional office Chennai 3 times since march 2000 enhancement in the LC limit from Rs. 150 lakhs to Rs. 240 Lakhs was recommended by regional office in December 2000. His evidence further made it clear that the head office had called for the complete information and papers and the matter was placed

before the general manager considering the overall position of the account the

adhoc enhancement in the limit was not permitted. Moreover the borrower was initially sanctioned a term loan facility of Rs. 42 lakhs in the year 1997 subsequently, working capital facilities was given to the borrower under the powers of regional manger, RO Chennai, in the year 1998 each were also renewed, in the year 1999 proposal for enhancement in limit was submitted by the RO Chennai to head office through letter dated 17.11.2000, further information, clarification and papers were called by head office based on the recommendations of the branch and regional office and head office sanctioned/approved the credit facility under the power of committee of general managers I..e 1) cash credit (Hypothecation) Rs. 300 lakhs 2) Bank guarantee

Rs. 50 lakhs. It means after following the procedure only said credit limits were granted. The record reveals the account of M/s.Airan Comptrax Towers Private

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 167 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Limited was having been regularly operated. As per the document L.D.no.336 about 52 to 60 times such over drawing were regularized in time branch has allowed the same within powers. As per the needs of the borrower the adhoc limits have been permitted and enhanced limits have been sanctioned. It indicates though overdrawals are there but it was regularized, in case of fraudulent transactions there is no question of such regularization's.

354.Further he admitted as per the L.D.No.336, the company is following correct stocking pattern. Considering the nature of goods meant for storage there is adequate open space for scrap to be stored, for the finished goods the location for the storage space is ideal. The company may be advised introduced bin card system. So the firms are working, the allegations that the units are not working, holds not good. Further in the same document in para No. 16, the overdue conduct of the account is regarded by the inspecting officials as satisfactory.

355.As per the above document page No. 19 the stock at the factory premises has been inspected by them on 24.9.2001 as per the estimates valued Rs.

170.50 lakhs the drawing power after maintaining the stipulated margin is arrived at Rs. 127.87 lakhs whereas the liability is Rs. 329.94 lakhs. Thus a shortage of about Rs. 202.07 lakhs stocks is noticed by them. The deputy commissioner of central excise seized all the registers, books filed of the company on 7.9.2001 as it is believed by them that the company evaded payment of excise duty. In the absence of same they could not arrive at the actual shortage of stocks since details of unpaid stocks and trade creditors are

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 168 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 not available. Further his evidence discloses that the regional head cannot allow regular sanction for enhanced portion but the adhoc limit already permitted prior to the recommendations of the enhancement of the limits can be continue. So there are no such irregularities as alleged by the prosecution.

356.PW60/M. Babu, Post Man was examined but he stated due to his old age, he is not able to recollect any facts. So, his evidence is not useful to the prosecution.

357.PW61/Nagaraju, Post Man also stated due to his old age, he is not able to recollect any facts. So, his evidence is not useful to the prosecution.

358.PW63/V. Phanidhra Charya, Superintendent of Central Excise stated that after joining in the Anti Evasion Wing of Hyderabad-IV Commissionerate he was handed over the case records pertaining to M/s.Airan Comptrax Towers Private

Limited(ACTPL) on 13.08.2003. The case records consists of Panchanamas and its enclosures, statements taken from the Directors and other personal of the company along with the records. As per the request of the CBI he has handed over the xerox copies of Panchanamas along with enclosures and statements etc.

The photostat copies of panchnamas drawn at office premises of ACTPL at

Minister Road, Secunderabad dated 07.09.2001 and Panchanama drawn at another office premises, Kachibowli, Minister Road dated 07.09.2001 were handed over to CBI Officials. The records recovered at office premises at Minister

Road also contain sales register and purchase register for the period 2001 and 2002. The same were relied upon. The other note books recovered at the office premises at Kachibowli has mentioned in Sl.No.18 to 32 were also relied upon for

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 169 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 calculation of the goods cleared without payment of duty. The notebook contain the raw material purchased, final product manufactured and cleared during April, 2000 to August, 2001. The raw material purchased was over and above in the purchase register compared to the figures in the said notebooks. Based on notebooks the total raw material purchased and used was around 18,000 metric tonnes. The final product manufactured from that was around 14,000 metric tonnes. The quantity of the final product cleared by the manufacturers on payment of central excise duty was around 3000 metric tonnes. The remaining 11000 metric tonnes of the final products were cleared without payment of duty.

The value of the goods cleared without payment of duty was approximately Rs.11 crores. Though, the PW63 has stated that without payment of duty, the business was done. The panchanamas were conducted. The prosecution has not marked any single document, in the absence of the document, basing on oral statement of PW63, this court cannot connect the accused with the alleged offences.

Further, his evidence is relevant to the fact that the prosecution alleged that there is no business activity, but PW63 stated that the ACTPL will submit records to their department showing the quantity of goods manufactured every month in the returns filed by it under Form ER.1, it means there was business activity.

359.PW64/A.S.R. Krishna, Branch Head, UTI Bank Limited, Secunderabad stated that the covering letter (LD No.556), dated 10.04.2006 addressed by him to CBI, Bangalore along with list of pay orders and pay order No.010366, dated 15.02.2001 for Rs.19,36,229/- in favour of M/s.AP Mahesh Cooperative Urban

Bank Limited. The pay orders are enclosed to the covering letter. Ex.P798 is the

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 170 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Covering Letter, dated 10.04.2006, Ex.P799 is the Pay Order No.010366, dated 15.02.2001, Ex.P800 is the Pay Order No.007094, dated 28.09.2000, Ex.P801 is the Pay Order No.007093, dated 28.09.2000, Ex.P802 is the Pay Order

No.007369, dated 03.10.2000, Ex.P803 is the Pay Order No.007368, dated 03.10.2000, Ex.P804 is the Pay Order No.006726, dated 30.08.2000, Ex.P805 is the Pay Order No.007078, dated 27.09.2000, Ex.P806 is the Pay Order

No.006608, dated 17.08.2000, Ex.P807 is the Pay Order No.006166, dated 11.07.2000.

14. They have verified LC discount register with regard to the above said pay orders. As per the pay orders, the pay orders were sent from AP Mahesh

Cooperative Bank. The pay orders are presented by M/s.AP Mahesh Cooperative

Bank to the credit of respective parties mentioned on the pay orders.

360.In the cross-examination, PW64 admitted that all the pay orders stated above are issued prior to his joining in Tarnaka Branch. He has no personal knowledge with regard to Exs.P798 to Ex.P807. All pay orders are issued during the normal banking transactions. No Lcs are shown today during his chief examination and the Lcs are not pertaining to their bank. He did not state before the CBI that he verified LC discount register. He admits that it is not possible to identify who had approached UTI bank, Tarnaka Branch for discounting the LCs.

Discounting of LCs was one of the accredited business of their bank, because their branch gets profits by way of commission and interest in discounting LCs.

Their bank gained profits from issuing of Exs.P799 to Ex.P807. All pay orders issued by UTI bank are the same like the one issued under Ex.P799 to 807. By

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 171 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 seeing Ex.P799 to 807 it cannot be said that they relate to discounting of Lcs. No document evidencing discounting of LCs in their bank is shown to him during his chief-examination.

361.The prosecution has examined PW64 to prove that the pay orders was issued in favour of fake firm. However it is not proved the pay orders are issued with collusion in order to play fraud on the bank. Moreover, in the evidence of

PW64, the prosecution has not shown the LCs pertaining to their bank. By seeing the documents i.e., pay orders, it cannot be stated they relate to discounting of

Lcs. So, there is no evidence to show discounting of LCs in their bank, so the evidence of PW64 is not useful to the prosecution.

362.PW67/A. Ramesh Babu, Chief Manger (Law), Punjab National Bank stated that they have drafted and forwarded the complaint to Corporate Office, Delhi.

He has handed over the copy of complaint recently to CBI officials after verifying old records from his office.

363. Ex.P1023 is certified copy of complaint dated 07.05.2003. On each page of original complaint as well as in the certified copy there is initial of officer, the officer who finally prepares the complaint used to put the initial on each page of complaint.

364.In the cross examination, PW67 stated that the copy of complaint is available in Regional Office and Head Office also. The prosecution has not marked the original complaint as the last two pages are missing, so the prosecution has filed the certified copy of complaint under Ex.P1023. The defence has disputed

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 172 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 said document by stating that it is not public document as defined under Section 74 of Evidence Act. The PW67 admitted that no officer of Punjab National Bank can use the seal of the bank unless he is specifically authorized. There is no record to show that he was authorized to use the seal of the bank. There is no authorization on his behalf. He cannot issue certified copy unless the original is in the office. It is to be noted that the original complaint is filed but the last two pages are missing, fortunately the total content of complaint is mentioned in FIR, therefore, the document Ex.P1023 is the nothing but replica of original complaint only. The defence cannot dispute this document.

365.PW69/Gopi, Liasoning Officer of M/s. Vizag Profiles Limited, stated that

When he was working as Liaison Officer of M/s.Vizag Profiles Limited, Begumpet,

Hyderabad, and M/s.Vizag Steels Profiles in the year 2006 the CBI officials came into their office and asked for certain documents. Their company supplied the material to M/s.Sujana Steel Company. The CBI officials have asked for pay orders and the statements regarding said pay orders and also asked the particulars of material supplied by them. He has furnished the documents to the

CBI officials. He has enclosed the documents along with statement of account of his company and he put his signature on the documents while furnishing the same to the CBI. Though, PW69 stated that he has furnished the documents to

CBI officials but the prosecution has not filed those documents and not confronted to the witness. Therefore, the evidence of PW69 is not useful to the prosecution.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 173 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

THE DISPUTE RELATING TO EQUITABLE MORTGAGE PROPERTY AND

ALLEGATINS AGAINST A10:-

366.The contention of prosecution is that the documents which was mortgaged to the bank are not genuine documents. Those documents are fake documents.

A4 deliberately accepted the documents as genuine that the property offered as security belongs to Sri Jogender Reddy and Damodar Reddy that without their knowledge his property was offered as collateral security against the liabilities of

A5. A10 has submitted inflated valuation reports in respect of properties covered by the forged documents.

367.The prosecution alleged that A10 had valued the property offered by A1 as security to facilitate M/s. Shakti Steels to avail cash credit loan, the property valued by A10 is not in existing at all. A10 has deliberately concealed the fact that the property does not belongs to the purported owner P.G.Nagabhushanam

Naidu and he died 15 years back and the property is divided into small plots and in possession of different persons. A1 and A3 have submitted forged documents as security against the cash credit limit availed by M/s. ACTPL that A4 deliberately accepted the documents as genuine that the property offered as security belongs to Jogender Reddy and Damodar Reddy and without their knowledge, collateral security is offered to the bank against the liabilities of A5 that A10 submitted highly inflated valuation reports in respect of the properties covered by the forged documents. Further, A10 has submitted the valuation report in respect of the property documents of A6, which was worth of Rs.50 lakhs but he issued false valuation certificate for Rs.5 crores.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 174 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

368.The prosecution in order to substantiate this fact, examined

PW14/A.Jugender Reddy, he deposed that his family was having Ac.1 and half acre of land in Sy.No48, Bandlguda Village, Uppal Mandal after division among 5 brothers including two of his cousins, his family was having 0-30gts of land

before 1970 in SY.No.48 out of Ac.1.15gts of Land. One register sale deed

01.04.1997 purported to have been executed by A. Krishna Reddy, A. Lakshmi

Narayan Reddy and himself in favour of Shashi Agarwal for the land extent 0.27gts in SY.No.48, Bandlaguda Village vide document No.7241/1997 were shown to him and he stated they never executed said registered sale deed, the document is fabricated. His brother A. Lakshmi Narayan Reddy died in the year, 2010 about more than 20 years back, they sold the total land to one Narasimha

Reddy, who converted the land into house plots and sold the same to the various purchasers. The PW14 was examined to prove that A3 has deposited title deed stating that the property stands on her name. But, the vendors to the document appeared before the court and stated that they never sold the land to said Shashi

Agarwal.

369.The prosecution relied upon the evidence of PW14 and contended that the property is not belongs to the A1 to A3. They have fabricated Ex.P519. As per document/Ex.P519, it was executed by A. Krishna Reddy, A. Laxmi Narasimha

Reddy, Jogender Reddy in favour of Smt. Shashi Agarwal in respect of land in

Sy.No.48, extent 0-27gts situated at Bandlaguda Village, Uppal Revenue Mandal,

Ranga Reddy District. The prosecution alleged that those documents are fabricated documents. The allegation against A4 is that he has not verified the

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 175 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 genuineness of said document. The contention of defence is that the document was sent to Panel Advocate for opinion, after getting legal opinion only the title deeds were executed.

370.PW15/A. Damodar Reddy, cousin of PW14 stated that his family and family of PW14 were having Ac.01.15gts of land in Sy.No.48, Bandlaguda Village. The

CBI officials have shown the docvument No.7241/1997 under Ex.p520, alleged to be executed by their family members but it is a fabricated sale deed, they never executed this document, they sold the land to one Narasimha Reddy. The perusal of document Ex.P520 shows that it was executed by one Damodar Reddy and

Prabhakar Reddy in favour of A1/Munnalal Agarwal for the land extent 0-28gts in

Sy.No.48, Bandlaguda Village, Uppal Revenue Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

371. The evidence of PW55/Narsa Reddy, Registrar is crucial, the prosecution has examined this witness with regard to the sale deed of PW15, PW14 and others. original Sale Deed vide Doc. No.7241/1997 dated 01.04.1997 was registered in their Registrar Office. One A.Krishna Reddy, A.Laxmi Narsimha

Reddy, Jogender Reddy are the Vendors to the document. One Sheshi Agarwal was the purchaser under this document. Doc. No.7242/1997 dated 01.04.1997 was executed by of A.Damodar Reddy and A.Prabhakar Reddy. It was sold to One

Munnalal Agarwal. He stated as per their records the above said two documents are registered in their Registrar Office and both documents are genuine documents. One P.V.S.Dhal and one Rupa Rao are the witnesses to the document

Nos.7242/1997 and 7241/1997. As per Doc. No.7241/1997 the schedule of property is Sy.No.48 admeasuring Ac.0.27 Gts situated at Bandlaguda Village,

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 176 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Uppal Mandal, Rangareddy District. As per Doc.No. 7242/1997 the schedule of property is Sy.No.48 admeasuring Ac.0.28 Gts situated at Bandlaguda Village,

Uppal Mandal, Rangareddy District. One M.Janaiah was the Registrar at the time of execution of above said two documents.

372. Ex.P791(L.D.NO.661) is the Original Register Sale Deed vide Doc.

No.7241/1997 dated 01.04.1997(7 Sheets). Ex.P792(L.D.NO.664) is the Original

Register Sale Deed vide Doc. No.7242/1997 dated 01.04.1997(7 Sheets). The evidence of PW55 shows that A1 and A3 have purchased the land in Sy.No.48 to the extent of Ac.0.28 Gts each from the above said vendors. The record shows the thum impressions of A.Jugender Singh and A.Damodar Reddy were obtained under Ex.P793 to P795 and it was sent to Finger Print Bureau for comparision.

The Evidence of PW56/Shaik Abdul Khader, Deputy Superintendent of Police in

Finger Print Bureau, Bangalore shows that he has examined disputed finger prints of AK.Reddy, A.Laxmi Narasimha Reddy and Jogender Reddy on Ex.P791, further the disputed signatures of A.Damodar Reddy and A.Prabhakar Reddy in

Ex.P792. He has given opinion that the disputed finger prints are not identical with the admitted right and left thumb impressions. However in the cross- examination PW56 stated that in the opinion it is silent with regard to the patterns and ridges whether he consider before giving his opinion. He did not compare SF-I and SF-II in Ex.P793 with SF-5 and SF-6 in Ex.P793 to show that all the above four specimens are the same person. Similarly, he did not compare

SF-I and SF-II in Ex.P793 with SF-III and SF-IV in Ex.P794 to show that all the

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 177 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 above four specimens are the same persons. He did not use specimens in

Ex.P794 and SF-5 an SF-6 for the purpose of his opinion.

373. According to his opinion he did not compare SF7 and SF8 in Ex.P795 with

SF9, SF10, SF11 and SF12 in Ex.P795 to show that all the above 6 specimens are the same person. Similarly, in his opinion he did not compare SF7 and SF8 in

Ex.P795 with SF9, SF10, SF11 and SF12 in Ex.P795 to show that all the above 6 specimens are the same person. He did not use specimens in Ex.P795 and SF9,

SF10, SF11 and SF12 for the purpose of his opinion. The reasons for not comparing the above said SFs etc., are not explained by PW56. Therefore, it cannot be stated that it is a complete opinion.

374.For a moment, we assume that those documents are fabricated documents but even the Registrar, the Panel Advocate also stated that the documents are executed by the rightful owners and there was flow of title. The A4, A8 would have verified about the documents, they have to enquire with the Registrar and the Panel Advocate only. They themselves stated that the title documents are genuine, how can A4 and A8 are liable in case, the documents are found to be forged documents. This court is of opinion that when A1 to A3 are quashed by the Honorable High Court, who are alleged to have forged the documents, the responsibility cannot be fixed on A4 and A8. So, they are entitled to the benefit of doubt.

375.PW17/Venkata Krishna, Manager, OBC, Secunderabad, stated that on the instructions of Regional Office, OBC, Hyderabad, he has visited the land in

Sy.No.48, which was mortgaged to Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 178 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Branch and which was offered as Collateral Security. PW14 and PW15 have stated that they never executed sale deeds covered by Ex.P519 and P520. He visited the land in Sy.No.48 of Bandlaguda Village and noticed that it is vacant land. He visited the registration office and came to know that as per the local market, it was approximately about 3 lakhs per acre. The PW17 has not filed any report before the court to show that he visited said land and observed the subject land. Basing on oral evidence of PW17 it has been stated that the property was not standing on the name of borrowers.

376.PW35/T. Gnaneshwar Rao, Joint Sub-Registrar CBI Official came to him in the year 2005. They brought one Urdu Certified Document of Sale Deed and asked him whether this document is genuine document or not. he can identify said document if shown to him. The document i.e., Urdu Document Book-I,

Volum No.III/55 Page No.127, Document No.105/1356 under Ex.P540 is the same document shown to him by the CBI Officials. He has no idea with regard to the translation copy annexed to Ex.P540. The document Ex.P540 is in Urdu language, the translation copy is filed, as per translation copy, one Telugu Sai

Reddy and Salendri Mallaiah executed the sale deed in Sy.No.113, plot No.32 extent 1854 square yards in favour of P.G.Nagabhushanam Naidu situated at

Ram Nagar, Zamistanpur, Hyderabad. PW35 is not aware of Urdu language so it was verified by his staff who is well acquainted with Urdu language. He verified this document with the document available in their office and disclosed it as a genuine document. He has verified Encumbrance Certificates with regard to the property mentioned in Ex.P540.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 179 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

377.As per EC the property under Ex.P569 is Plot No.32, Extend 1842 Sq.

Yards, Survey No.113 at Ramnagar, Zamistanpur, Hyderabad. This document was executed by T.Sai Reddy in favour of P.G.Nagabhushanam Naidu. The EC Ex.P569 was signed by Sub-Joint Registrar-II namely Samirullah. The EC was prepared in handwriting. This EC is pertaining to the period of 33 years from 01-01-1956 to 27-06-1980 in continuation another EC under Ex.P570 was also issued by Sub-

Registrar-II, Chikkadpally his name is Mohd. Usmaan. Ex.P570 was pertaining to the period of 17 years from 28-06-1980 to 04-01-1996. As per entries in the

ECs, there were no transactions during the said period.

378.PW35 stated that he has not issued the documents Ex.P540, P569 and

P570. He did not verify the link documents of Ex.P540, P569 and P570.

379.PW35 stated that he is well aware of the procedures pertaining to

Registration as he worked in different cadets in the Registration Office. He admits that he stated before CBI official's that "In comparison of this document (Ex.P540) with xerox copy of Certified Copy of of Urdu document related to the property Sri P.G.Nagabhushanam Naidu, he state that the contents are matching and the property is genuine".

380.He stated before CBI Officials that "I state that I identify this document

Ex.P569 issued by the then Joint Registrar namely Sri Samiryullah and the certificate prepared in the handwriting of Sri Raghu Babu presently working in

DIG Office, Hyderabad. The contents written in the overleaf of certificate are matching with record". He stated that since office has been shifted to

Chikkadpally Sub-Registrar Office, the further records will be available there only.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 180 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

381.The Certificate of Encumbrance of property under Ex.P570 issued by Sub-

Registrar, Chikkadpally, dt.06-01- 1996 vide No.67/96 on the basis of an application submitted regarding Plot No.32, Survey No.113, 1854 Sq. yards land situated at Zamisthanpur, Ramnagar, Hyderabad. The details shown in the certificate Ex.P570 is matching with the Encumbrance Certificate issued by the

Join-Registrar in 1996. As per his evidence the property stands in the name of one P.G.Naghabhushanam Naidu. Further the registered sale deed was executed in favour said P.G.Naghabushanam Naidu. The prosecution contended the property is not belongs to said P.G.Naghabhushanam Naidu. The property was divided into some plots which were in possession of different persons. Said

P.G.Naghabhushanam Naidu died long back so there is no question of execution of sale deed by said P.G.Naghabhushanam Naidu in favour of the borrowers. The borrowers have fabricated the documents and submitted the same to the bank as collateral security. Inorder to prove that the property is not belongs to said

P.G.Naghabhushanam Naidu, the prosecution has examined PW36 B.Pushpalatha.

382. PW36/B. Pushpalatha stated that one Mr. Nagabushanam was surety for the loan obtained in the bank. She do not know the particulars of borrower and in which bank the loan was taken. The CBI called her in the year 2005 and asked her to show the title documents of house no. 1-9-9 Ramnagar Jamisthanpoor,

Hyderabad. This property was standing on the name of grandmother of her husband, she executed registered will deed in favor of her son. In the year 1995 this house was mutated on the name of her son in the municipality, they furnished the will deed to concerned authorities along with death certificate of

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 181 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 grandmother of her husband. She has furnished the documents to CBI pertaining to H.No.1-9-9 Ramnagar Jamisthanpoor, Hyderabad. They obtained xerox copies of titled documents of said house and also death certificate of Sathyamma grandmother of her husband. She is in possession of original documents of

H.No.1-9-9.

383.The documents Ex.P.539(document D-35 to 37) the property was mutated in the name of her son B.V.Subramanyam. The sale deeds of B.Sathyamma is also in the file, certificate of death of Sathyamma is also there. The will deed of

Sathyamma is also in the record. The witness identified all the documents under

Ex.P539.

384.As per documents B.Sathyamma purchased the house from one Parvathi.

She also purchased one more property from Bhadrunnissa Begum. They are in possession of link documents pertaining to the property purchased from Parvathi.

The witness produced the original link document No.978 of 82 dated 02-05-1980 under which N. Parvathi W/O N.Sathyanarayana purchased the portion of house

No.1-9-9 extent 75.0 Sq.yards situated at Ramnagar Zamisthanpur, Hyderabad from P.N.Yashoda bai W/O late P.G.Nagabushanam, and others. She do not know who is Nagabushanam. Since, 1985 this property has been in their possession.

385.In the cross-examination, PW36 stated that the property house no. 1-9-9

Ramnagar Jamisthanpoor, Hyderabad is not standing on her name. At present her son is working in Power Finance Corporation. Earlier he worked in Canara

Bank. She do not know P.G.Nagabushanam she do not know the properties of

P.G.Nagabushanam and where it was mortgaged as surety. She do not know the

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 182 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 children of P.G.Nagabushanam and his family members. She do not know from whom B.Sathyamma purchased the property. She is not aware of the contents of sale deeds of B.Sathyamma. Parvathi purchased the property from one Yashodha but she do not know whether this sale deed was executed by GPA of Yashodha or original vendors. She do not know the plot no., survey no. mentioned in the documents . She know only to the extent that the extent is mentioned as 75

Sq.Yards and 23 Sq.Yards. In their documents the extent of the land is mentioned. In the sale deed executed by Bardunissa Begum it is mentioned that 23 Sq.Yards, in the schedule of property slum area is mentioned. She cannot say the total extent of the land having by the vendors of B.Sathyamma it may be above 1800Sq.Yards approximately. In the documents it has been mentioned.

The property from Parvathi and Badrunissa Begum have been purchased by

B.Sathyamma under the impression that both properties are adjacent to each other.

386.She do not know as per schedules in the sale deeds purchased from

Parvathi and Badrunissa Begum the properties are not situated adjacent to each other. She do not know whether her son executed indemnity bond on 19.11.2002 part of Ex.P539(Sheet No.20) It mentioned that the occupation of her son as a business and the property no. 1-9-9 stands on the name of P.G.Nagabushanam.

387.She do not know whether in the document it mentioned that she could like to submit that as per sale deed bearing no.904/85 dated 11.02.1985, She has got the property from Smt.N.Parvathi W/O N.Sathyanarayana, She is not aware that how the name has been entered in her assessment register.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 183 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

388. She do not know in the indemnity bond it is mentioned “I request MCH authorities to mutate said property in my name, if any legal disputes arises in future, I shall solely responsible for the consequences and MCH is at liberty to revoke the mutation without further notice”. She admits the document no.978 of 82 was executed on dated 02.05.1980 but it was registered in the year 1982.

389.The prosecution has examined PW37/P.V. Lakshma Reddy, worked as

Deputy Commissioner, MCH, Circle – III, Abids, Hyderabad with regard to this property He furnished documents to CBI, the documents are pertaining to

H.No.1-9-9, Zamisthapur, Ramnagar, initially this property stands on the name of one P.G.Nagabhushanam Naidu, later this property was mutated in the name of

B.Subramanyam basing on the documents furnished by him. He has furnished a copy of register sale deed of Sathyamma, who purchased this property from

Smt.M.Parvathi, on 11.02.1985. Said Sathyamma was expired on 09.01.1995.

The death certificate of said Sathyamma was also filed by B.Subramanyam. He has also submitted attested copy of registered will deed executed by

B.Sathyamma in favour of B.Subramanyam. He submitted Indemnity Bond also.

390.Basing on the documents submitted by B.Subramanyam the property was mutated in the name of B.Subramanyam. The mutation proceedings

No.9584/TC3/MCH/02 dated 04.10.2002 was also there showing that the property was mutated in the name of B.Subramanyam. He attested on the above said documents and its bears the seal of MCH. As per extract of Assessment

Register the house was mutated in the name of Subramanyam from the name of

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 184 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Nagabhushanam Naidu. As per record since 2002 the house stands on the name of B.Subramanyam.

391.There is another registered sale deed of Sathyamma purchased from

Badrunissa Begum on 14.05.1985, the Door No.1-9-9 the extent is of 23 Sq.

yards, as per the sale deed of Parvathi and Sathyamma, said Sathyamma purchased 75 Sq. yards of land in D.No.1-9-9.

392.PW37 stated that he never dealt with any transactions or mutations relating to H.No.1-9-9, Zamisthanpur, Ramnagar. He further stated the mutation in the municipal record will not confer any title to the person in whose favour the mutation proceeds were issued. He admitted on the documents he did not mention that he compared the documents with originals and attested on the documents. The originals of Ex.P539 period is not pertaining to his tenure of employment as Deputy Commissioner. He cannot say the total extent of H.No.1- 9-9, Zamisthanpur, Ramnagar.

393.He admits there is no link document to prove how N.Parvathi acquired it from the first owner P.G.Nagabhushanam Naidu. He admits unless N.Parvathi has title over the property, there is no flow of title in favour of the person in whose favour the mutation was done. He has no personal knowledge with regard to the contents of Ex.P539. The sale deed available under Ex.P539 are not either originals or certified copy issued by Sub Registrar. The name of the locality as

Zamisthanpur is not shown in the Municipal record of Ex.P539. He admits

PW36/B.Pushpalatha has nothing to do with the documents under Ex.P539.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 185 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

394.The defence contention is that the property purchased by B.Sathyamma belongs to government and it is in slum area, to get the registration the house no.1-9-9 is mentioned falsely, and PW36 is not competent person to depose regarding the property mentioned Ex.P539. The defence contended the property extent 1854 Sq in door no. 1-9-9 situated at Jamisthanpoor Ramnagar is originally belongs to P.G.Nagabushanam Naidu. The perusal of document Ex.P540 shows as per municipal record the name of P.G.Naghabhushanam Naidu was mentioned. Thereafter as per the municipal record the name of B.Subramanyam was mutated for municipal premises number 1-9-9 situated at Ramnagar. As per the assessment record the property stands in the name of one

P.G.Nagabhushanam Naidu. Further the sale deeds executed by Parvathi and

Badrunissa Begum also filed. Which shows the sale deeds are executed in favour of Satyamma. Further the will deed was filed. However the prosecution has not filed any link documents of said Parvathi and Badrunissa Begum. When as per records the property is in the name of Naghabhushanam Naidu, without establishing the relationship of vendors of Satyamma with said

Naghabhushanam, the name of Subramanyam was mutated for the property of said Naghanbushanam. The defence contention is that the properties purchased by Subramanyam are in the slum area and the land belongs to Government so that for getting Registered sale deed, they have mentioned H.NO.1-99, in fact there is no such house number relating to the vendors of said Satyamma.

395. On the other hand the prosecution contended P.G.Naghabhushanam Naidu died long back but death certificate of Naghabhushanam is not filed. As per

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 186 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Ex.P566 the property is in the name of P.G.Naghabhushanam Naidu. The permission was obtained by P.G.Naghabhushanam Naidu for construction of house. The notice of demand issued by MCH under Ex.P567 shows H.No.1-9-9 stands on the name of P.G.Naghabhushanam Naidu. The prosecution is taking two stands at one side they are stating the property belongs to Subramayam in view of will deed executed by Satyamma. On the other hand they themselves have filed documents showing that the H.No.1-9-9 stands on the name of

P.G.Naghabhushanam Naidu. As per Ex.P569 the extent is 1854 Sq. Yards, the

PW35 mother of Subramanyam has claimed only a small extent of land extent of 23 Sq. Yards and 75 Sq.Yards. The prosecution has not produced any documents relating to the remaining extent. Basing on the sale deeds of small extent out of 1854 Sq. Yards, the prosecution can not deny the rights of P.G.Naghabhushanam

Naidu over the said property. There is no document to show that said

P.G.Naghabhushanam Naidu died long back. The death certificate issued by

Municipality was also not filed. Therefore, it can not be stated that the documents are fabricated documents.

396.The prosecution examined PW54/Srinivas, he was Sarpanch of Bacharam

Village, Gram Panchayath of Ranga Reddy District in the year 2006.

397. L.D.No.670 contains his signatures on 4 sheets in the column of witness belongs to him. The signatures and the stamp on the 4 sheets belongs to him.

At present he is not able to re collect when he put those signatures on the papers. L.D.No.671 contains the signatures on 4 sheets in the column of witness. The signatures and the stamp on the 4 sheets belongs to him. At

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 187 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 present he is not able to re collect when he put those signatures on the papers.

398. One Damodar Reddy worked as Panchayath Secretary while he was working as Sarpanch. The signatures on the LD.No.671 appears to be similar to the signatures of Damodar Reddy. The signatures of Inspector also appearing on

LD.Nos.670 and 671. The PW54 has not supported the prosecution case so his evidence is not useful to the prosecution.

399.PW62/Anji Reddy, stated before the court that he has purchased one plot to the extent of 200 Square Yards at Ramnagar, Hyderabad in the year 1979 for consideration of Rs.8000/-. He constructed the house in the said plot to the extent of three floors from the year 1979 to 1982 by obtaining housing loan from the department. The prosecution has examined PW62 to prove that the house property of PW62 was shown in the sale deeds offered as security. The PW62 has stated that the CBI officials have enquired with him about one Naidu, then he informed them he is not aware of said Naidu. They have confronted some documents, on that PW62 informed he is not aware of said documents. The

PW62 never stated that his house is constructed in Sy.No.113, Zamistanpur.

400.In the cross examination, PW62 stated that he do not know the total extent of land in Sy.No.113 of Zamistanpur. He do not know how many plots are there in Sy.No.113 and how many owners are there in the said survey number and who they are. He do not know the Municipal Numbers allotted to plots in

Sy.No.113 at Zamistanpur. He do not know Urdu language. He cannot say whether Ex.P540 along with EC annexed to Ex.P540 is shown to him during his examination by CBI. He never purchased 3 Guntas 87 Yards of land. He admits

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 188 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 the EC under Ex.P569 is not pertaining to his property. He admits 3 Guntas 87

Yards of land is not equivalent to 200 Square Yards.

401.The evidence of PW62 is not useful to the prosecution. He has not stated that the documents are created in respect of his property and mortgaged to the bank. Therefore the prosecution failed to prove that the properties offered as a security to the loan amounts of A1 to A3 are not in existing and the documents are forged and fabricated. Further the allegation is made against A10 that he has issued valuation certificates for inflated value. The prosecution relied upon the valuation certificates issued by Zahoor Ahmed and contended that A10 colluded with the remaining accused and fabricated the valuation certificates.

However, the prosecution has not examined said Zahoor Ahmed. Therefore there is no evidence before the court to show that how said Zahoor Ahmed arrived to the amount i.e. value of the property mentioned in valuation certificates issued by him. The prosecution has to scientifically prove the value of the property.

402.PW57/IO admitted that there are valuation reports from the Panel valuer/A10 of OBC. Ex. P-541/D-32(4 Sheet) is Valuation Report of M/s. Servel

Associates, dated 17.01.1996 pertaining to the property of Mr. P.G.

Nagabushanam Naidu. As per P541, the valuation of property is an extent of 1854 sq. yards of Nagabushanam Naidu. P541 Valuation is calculated at

Rs3200/- per sq. yard cost of Rs.59,32,500/-. As per P541 the building therein valued at Rs. 200 per Sq. feet of ground floor 13000 sft and at the rate of Rs.150 per sft in 1st floor of 12,800 sft totaling valued at Rs.22,60,000/- Thus the land and building cost valued at Rs.81,90,000/-. The prosecution relied upon the

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 189 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 valuation reports issued by Zahoor Ahmed and contended the valuation reports issued A10 are false and fabricated with the collusion of other accused and caused pecuniary loss to the bank. So the evidence of Zahoor Ahmed is very crucial but prosecution has not examined him. The 161 statement of Zahoor

Ahmed is available, the defence has asked several questions by relying upon 161 statement of Zahoor Ahmed.

403. PW57 admitted he has recorded 161 Cr.P.C. statement of LW39 Mr.

Zahoor Ahmed on 23.03.2005. LW39 stated that “In the case of OBC, Ameerpet

Branch, Hyderabad on the request of Branch Manager Sri. Rakesh Sharma/PW21,

I started doing the Valuation since 2002. Even though I am not in the panel of the Oriental Bank of Commerce.” It indicates said Zahoor Ahmed has not approved panel valuer. Even though his services were utilized by the bank.

404. PW57 has not enquired the Bank officials as to how a non-panel valuer valued the properties against the norms of the OBC bank and against RBI guidelines of panel valuers. LW39 stated regarding the lands at Pedda Toopra village is well located, developed. PW57 admits as per his statement, LW39 assessed the value of the property relying on enquires made with local brokers.

So there is legal sanctity to the assessment of property by LW39.

405. The LW39 has not stated the standard methods for valuation of the properties followed by him for assessing the values. PW57 stated he is not a technical person to say about the standard methods followed by the valuer are stated or not. The PW57 has not compared the valuation certificates issued by

A10 and LW39, he has not come to the conclusion the reports of A10 or LW39

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 190 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 are correct or not, without verification he filed charge sheet against A10 by stating that he has issued false valuation certificates. Even PW57 is not aware whether LW39 had followed the standard methods of valuation or not for assessing the values of the property.

406. PW57 admits Mr. Zahoor Ahmed/LW39 has stated in 161 as that “My attention about Valuation Certificates in 5 numbers all dated 19.03.2002 related to land bearing various survey numbers located at Pedda Toopra Village,

Shamshabad Mandal, R.R. District for the purpose of my identification. I can not say whether I have not collected the alleged valuation reports in 5 numbers

dated 19.03.2002”. LW37 was not able to say whether he collected valuation

reports or not. So this court can not rely upon the valuation certificates issued by LW37.

Said Mr. Zahoor Ahmed had submitted two reports i.e., P606/LD 123 &

P1009/D644. Of which P606 is Inspection Report of LW39 dated 29-12-2004 and

P1009 is Valuation Bill dated 4-1-2005 along with valuation report. In Ex.P1009 the report does not disclose about the property situated at H.No.1-9-9,

Ramnagar Zamisthanpur belonged to P.G.Nagabushanam Naidu. Admittedly

Ex.P606/LD123, shows that the valuer visited the Zamisthanpur to locate the above mentioned property, but was unable to locate the same. On making adequate enquires with local people more particularly with one Mr.Mohammed

Ali, lecturer Govt. College, he come to a conclusion that the property by H.No.1- 9-9, Plot No.32, Zamisthanpur, Ramnagar never existed during any time in the past. He has not examined the said Mr. Mohammed Ali, the alleged Lecturer,

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 191 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Govt. College. The reasons asigned by said Zahoor Ahmed to come to the conclusion that the property is not in existing, is not convincing one.

407.PW57 has not enquired the bank officials that such serious allegations have been made by Mr. Zahoor Ahmed/LW39, a non-panel valuer against the properties valued by a panel valuer of the Bank, as to whether the Bank proposed to send any third valuer to examine the properties valued by Zahoor

Ahmed/LW39. Further as per Ex.P606/LD123 in declaration column 8, LW39 mentioned that the value estimated is valid only as on 29-12-2004. The

PW57 has examined PW62/LW40. He do not remember whether he has obtained any document from him to show that he was the owner of the land in

Sy. No.113, Zamisthanpur, Ramnagar. No document is marked to show that

PW62 was the owner of any plot or land Sy.No.113, Zamisthanpur, Ramnagar.

Therefore without proper investigation A10 was implicated in this case. Further the allegations are made that the properties offered as security to the bank are not in existing in the name of original owners. There is no proper evidence produced to connect accused NO.10 with the alleged offences. So he is entitled to the benefit of doubt.

The Allegations Against A5 To A7:-

408.The perusal of record shows the charge sheet is filed against A1 to A3, A9,

A5 to A7. A5 to A7 are firms. A1 to A3 are representatives of A5 to A7. However, after filing the charge sheet A1 to A3 have approached the Honorable High Court for quash of proceedings. The Hon’ble High Court has quashed the proceedings, the observations of Hon’ble High Court is that the entire case involved default in

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 192 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 repayment of debt to the bank and even before filing of charge sheet, the liability to make good the monitory loss suffered by the defacto complainant bank has been mutually settled between the parties even though trial is commenced but the material witnesses did not support the prosecution case and more time will be consumed to conclude the trial which is of no use that results in waste of time of the court and public money, so the continuation of proceedings would be an abuse of process of law, so the proceedings are quashed against the A1 to A3 and A9.

409.The Hon’ble High Court has quashed the proceedings against A1 to A3 and

A9 on the ground that the loan amount was paid by A1 to A3. A5 to A7 are firms, the defence contention is that when the proceedings against A1 to A3 are quashed, the firms cannot be prosecuted for the offences. It is to be noted that from the evidence, it is clear that the prosecution failed to prove that at the instance of A1 to A3 to facilitate credit facility and cheque discounting to A5 to

A7, the fake firms were floated. Further, it is not proved that A5 to A7 have given security knowing that the documents are forged and fabricated. The prosecution failed to prove that the so called properties are not in existing and they are not original owners. Moreover, the documents are not proved to be forged one.

Therefore, A5 is not liable.

THE EVIDENCE OF EXPERT:-

410.Pw57/Balasamy finger print and handwriting expert shows their office has received certain questioned documents which containing questioned writings and signatures marked as Q1 to Q83, Q85 to Q2793, Q21/1,Q28/1, Q32/1, Q38/1,

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 193 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Q47/1, Q363/1, Q385/1, Q387/1, Q390/1, Q391/1, Q443/1, Q443/2, Q443/3,

Q445/1, Q447/1, Q449/1, Q456/1, Q458/1, Q460/1, Q462/1, Q464/1, Q524/1,

Q524/2, Q590/1, Q592/1, Q623/1, Q625/1, Q652/1, Q653/1, Q689/20,Q697/1 to

Q697/4, Q831/1, Q862/1 to Q862/4, Q891/1, Q979/1, Q1015/1, Q1040/1,

Q1085/1, Q1123/1, Q1151/1, Q1151/2, Q1189/1 to Q1189/3, Q1225/1, Q1425/1,

Q1472/1, Q2174/1 to Q2174/3, Q2483/1, Q2588/1 and Q2588/2.

411 The specimen signatures/writings of Sri.S. Chandra Prakash marked as S1 to S137. The specimen signatures/writings of Sri.S. Ritesh Agarwal marked as S138 to S228. Thespecimensignatures/writingsof

Sri.Munnalal Agarwal marked as S229 to S238 and his admitted writings marked as A1 to A6. The specimen signatures/writings of Sri.S. Chandra

Shekaran marked as S239 to S244. The specimen signatures/writings of

Sri.Jagadish Prakash Bangad marked as S245 to S249. The specimen signatures/writings of Smt.Sashi Agarwal marked as S250 to S253 and their admitted hand writings marked as A10 to A12.

412 The specimen signatures/writings of Sri.Amit Agarwal marked as

S254 to S257. The specimen signatures/writings of Sri.M.Padmakar Rao marked as S258 to S263. The specimen signatures/writings of

Sri.M.Anjaiah marked as S264 to S273. The specimen signatures/writings of Sri.A.Narasingarao marked as S274 to S283. The specimen signatures/writings of Sri.B.Mallesh marked as S284 to S293. The specimen signatures/writings of Sri.Jitender Mohan marked as S294 to

S299.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 194 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 413The specimen signatures/writings of Sri.BS. Bagga marked as S300 to S305. The specimen signatures/writings of Sri.Rakesh Malhotra marked as S306 to S313. The specimen signatures/writings of

Sri.M.Sundareswaran marked as S314 to S325 and his admitted writings marked as A7 to A9.

414He has examined the above said disputed handwritings/signatures with the corresponding specimen and admitted hand writings/ signatures by using the hand writing examination principle. Ex.P797(L.D.No. 206) ( 3 sheets) is his final opinion.

415As per the expert opinion the person who wrote the blue enclosed signatures stamed and marked S239 to S244 also wrote the red enclosed signatures similarly stamped and marked Q324 to Q327, Q332 to Q336,

Q396 to Q409, Q421 to Q435, Q465 to Q469 and Q492 to Q504.

416The persons who wrote the blue enclosed signatures stamped and marked S258 tp S263 also wrote the red enclosed signatures similarly stamped and marked Q337 to Q339.

417The Persons who wrote the blue enclosed signatures stamped and marked S306 to S313 also wrote the red enclosed signatures similarly stamped and marked Q347, Q385/1, Q387/1, Q390/1, A391/1, Q439/1,

Q443/1, Q445/1, Q447/1, Q449/1, Q456/1, Q458/1, A460/1, Q462/1 and

Q464/1.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 195 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 418The persons who wrote the blue enclosed signatures stamped and marked S245 to S249 also wrote the rend enclosed signatures similarly stamped and marked Q109, Q111 and Q114.

419The person who wrote the blue enclosed signatures stamped and marked S300 to S305 also wrote the red enclosed signatures similarly stamped and marked Q366, Q371, Q377, Q418, Q491, Q505 and Q2793.

420The persual of above opinion shows that the specimen signatures/writings of Sri.S. Chandra Prakash, Sri.S. Ritesh Agarwal,

Sri.Munnalal Agarwal S. Chandra Shekaran, Sri.Jagadish Prakash Bangad,

Smt.Sashi Agarwal, Sri.Amit Agarwal, M.Padmakar Rao, M.Anjaiah,

A.Narasingarao, B.Mallesh, Jitender Mohan, Sri.BS. Bagga marked, Rakesh

Malhotra, M.Sundareswaran.

421Though the Investigating Officer stated he has collected the specimen signatures of above said persons. No independent witnesses were examined to prove that their specimen siganatures were obtained in their presence. Further the above said persons excluding the accused were examined in the court but no witness stated their specimen signatures were obtained. Therefore, there is no evidence before the court to show that the specimen signatures were obtained by the Investigating

Officer. The IO has already admitted he has not filed any application under

Sec.311 Cr.PC, so the specimen signatures are not obtained before the court. The law permits the Investigating Officer to collect the speciment

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 196 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 signatures but the collection of specimen signatures to be proved. The prosecution failed to prove that the speciment signatures were obtained in the presence of independent witnesses. Therefore there is no legal validity to the evidence of expert.

THE EVIDENCE OF INVESTIGATING OFFICERS:-

422.PW65/Ramdas, Inspector of CBI stated that this case vide RC.No.2/2003 was registered by Superintendent of Police by name Sri.S.Jaganathan on 12.05.2003. On the same day the case was endorsed to him for investigation.

423. During the investigation he has collected the documents Ex.P513,

Ex.P771, Ex.P7, Ex.P511 from M/s.AP Mahesh Co-operative Urban Bank on 18.09.2003 and also collected Ex.P33, P35, P36(L.D.No.108), Ex.P2, P3, P21,

P22 and Ex.P9, P10, P25, P29, P30 from M/s.Agrasen Co-Operative Urban Bank

Limited on 17.09.2003. ExP818 to ExP823 are letter of credits collected by him.

He also collected the documents from OBC, Ameerpet Branch on 11.10.2003.

424.He examined the witnesses Sri.V.Mallesh/PW6 on 13.10.2003,

Sri.Balaiah/PW2 on 13.10.2003, Sri.Anjaiah/PW3 on 15.10.2003, Sri.Narasinga

Rao/PW4 on 15.10.2003, KSN.Raju/PW1 on 17.10.2003 and Sri.Mukund

Das/PW5 on 16.10.2003 and recorded their statements. He has also collected specimen signatures of different persons.

425.In the cross examination, PW65 stated that the complaint based on which the FIR was registered, was written on the letter pad of OBC Bank. In the complaint the name of complainant and his designation was not mentioned. He

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 197 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 has not examine the complainant. He admits that the complaint in this case is with regard to irregularities in the accounts named mentioned therein.

426.He admits he did not find out as to what was the amount disbursed by

OBC to A5 to A7 and what was the amount repaid by A5 to A7 to OBC. The loan ledger will disclose whether there was any amount outstanding from the borrowers named in the complaint. He admits he did not filed any application under Sec.311A Cr.PC to obtain the specimen signatures or handwriting’s of any accused or witnesses. He denied the suggestion that he did not collect the specimen signatures and writings of Chandra Prakash vide S1 to S6, S7 to S76 respectively which is already marked as Ex.P808.

427.In the further cross-examination, PW65 has stated that he did not give any markings in ‘s’ series on Ex.P808 to P810 and P814 to P816. The evidence of

PW65 is relevant to the aspect that he has examined the witnesses and collected the above said documents and collected specimen signatures. However, he has not filed any petition under Section 311A Cr.P.C., to obtain specimen signatures.

428.Further as per the contents of complaint, the complaint was given against the private persons stating that in connivance with branch manager, the fraud was committed. He has not received any enquiry reports. His investigation is only primary investigation.

429.PW58/S. Vijay Kumar, Dy.Superintendent of Police, CBI, stated that during hisinvestigationheexaminedLW7/PW8/YogeshAgarwaland

LW8/PW7/S.Srinivas on 22.04.2004. PW9/Mukesh Kumar Gupta and

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 198 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

PW11/Sakuntala on 22.04.2004, PW12/GSN.Murthy and PW13/Bhupendra Lal,

LW12/K.Laxmi on 24.04.2004 and he examined LW15/G.Shiva Kumar on 26.05.2004.

430. During his investigation he collected Ex.P.42 on 22.04.2004. Ex.P508 to

Ex.P514 and L.D.No.399. He also collected original credit slips relating to current account numbers 1300, 1301, 1302, 1303 and 1304 from Agresen Co-

Operative Urban Bank Limited on 22.04.2004. Thereafter, he handed over investigation of this case to Sri.P.M.Satish, Inspector on 05.08.2004 as per the orders of SP.

431.In the cross examination, PW58 stated that he is not aware what was the amount advanced by OBC to the borrowers in this case and what was the amount repaid by the borrowers to OBC. He did not examine any of the account holders who are connected with Ex.P509 to P514 i.e., M/s.Universal Trading

Company, M/s.Chowdary Steels, M/s. Maheswari Steel Corporation, M/s.Bhumika

Steels etc., He admits that PW8/Yogesh Agarwal did not speak anything about

Exs.P49 to P506 i.e., Credit Vouchers, Cheqeus relating to different dates, cheques collection registers bunch of true copies of vouchers/cheques for different months in his statement recorded by him.

432.The evidence of PW58 shows that he has not examined any of the persons relating to alleged fake firms. Further, he has not verified during his investigation whether the accounts became NPA or not. In fact, one year prior to the filing of charge sheet, the total amount was paid by A5 to A7. The witness has not

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 199 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 examined any of the witnesses to know whether the accounts are irregular or not.

433.PW66/N. Ravi Kumar, Inspector of Police, CBI, shows that during his investigation, he recorded the statements of PW48, PW68, PW51, PW44 etc. He visited UTI Bank and recorded the statement of PW64 also. Further, he recorded the statement of one LW72 and he received the documents from Chief Manger,

Ameerpet Branch. The PW66 has stated that his investigation was in conclusive when he handed over the investigation to his successor. The PW66 stated that

B.Murali/PW44 was asked to produce the documents relating to M/s.Sujana

Steels, but he has not produced by stating that the documents are not available.

He has personally collected 5 pay orders from PW48. He has not examined the signatories of Ex.P76 to P774. He has not examined any person from M/s.Sujana

Industries. He did not collect any documents from PW64 pertaining to UTI Bank.

He finally stated that he is not aware of the transactions of OBC, Ameerpet

Branch. This court has already discussed the evidence of witnesses, who are examined by the PW66 herein. The PW66 has not done the total investigation.

The prosecution has examined PW68/Joy T.V, who has done further investigation.

434.The evidence of PW68/Joy T.V. Shows that he has received expert opinion from GEQD, Hyderabad. He has recorded the statement of PW38 and

LW59/Mr.P.Gopi, PW44/Murali, PW45/Krishna Chowdary, LW63/Radha Krishna,

PW64/T.Srinivas, PW46/N.V.Ramana Murthy, K.Bhaskar, LW63/G. Radhakrishna,

PW29/Uma Shiva Kumar, PW8/Yogesh Agarwal, LW74/Shiva Shankar Agarwal,

PW52/G.Madhusudan, PW53/Khurana. After completion of investigation he has

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 200 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 filed charge sheet. He has submitted a supplementary report also on 18.09.2007.

435.In the cross-examination, PW68 stated that A8 worked as Regional

Manager, OBC in Chennai Regional Office. The limits were sanctioned by the predecessor of A8 and they were continued later. Then a specific question is asked whether A8 has sanctioned fresh limits. PW68 stated that he has sanctioned, on what basis he stated A8 has sanctioned fresh limits, on that he said according to him, the continuation of limits is also sanctioning fresh limits. It indicates that no fresh limits were sanctioned by A8. Before the period of A8, the limits were sanctioned, but A8 has continued it. But the charge sheet is filed in the lines that A8 has sanctioned the fresh limits.

436.Further, he stated that while scrutinizing the documents, he has taken assistance of bank officer to know the merits of documents. He has not collected all the documents. He has not taken any assistance of any surveyor to know the method of survey and authentication of non-panel surveyors bank. He admitted that LW63/G. Radha Krishna, Vice President of State Bank of Martious stated that there was no reason for their bank to doubt about the authenticity of bill of exchange submitted in the name of M/s.RINL along with LC documents. The record shows that all the Lcs submitted by M/s.RINL was cleared by Bank of

Martious. There is no dispute with regard to the Lcs cleared by the State Bank of

Maritious. Further, PW68 has stated that he has made allegations of cheque purchasing, but the cheque purchases were being reported by the bank to the

Regional Office. M/s.Shakti Steels has applied for Rs.50 lakhs cash credit and it was within the reach of branch or within the sanction limit of Regional Office. The

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 201 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 evidence of PW68 strengths the version of defence that the cheque purchases were done with the approval of Regional Office, when the credit limit is exceeding, it was sanctioned by the Regional Office.

437.The allegation is made that though P.G.Nagabhushanam Naidu died but the documents are fabricated in the name of P.G.Nagabhushanam Naidu. The

PW68 is not able to say whether he obtained any death certificate of

P.G.Nagabhushanam Naidu. He is not able to say the witness who informed about the death of P.G.Nagabhushanam Naidu. Further, he is not able to say whether he has filed any document to know what was the extent of land of

P.G.Nagabhushanam Naidu offered as collateral security. He is not able to say whether he collected the document from Subramanyam. This court has already discussed about the title dispute of P.G.Nagabushanam Naidu. The investigating officer has collected the documents to show that P.G.Nagabhushanam Naidu was the owner of the property for the large extent of 1800 sq. yards and odd.

Further, B.V.Subramanyam was not examined, the link documents of vendor of donor of B.V.Subramanyam was not collected. Both documents are filed and there is no clarity who was the original owner moreover Subramanyam claimed a small extent of 120 squre yards, but P.G.Nagabhushanam was having 1800 square yards, so the security given by P.G.Nagabushanam cannot be suspected in the absence of proof of clear flow of title to Mr.Subramanyam. Non examination of B.V.Subramanayam is also fatal to the prosecution case. PW68 admitted that as per Ex.P538 letter of deposit of title deed signed by

P.G.Nagabhushanam Naidu and as per printed proforma he was called to office

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 202 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 on 18.07.1996. Further, Ex.P539 is the extracts of property documents of

P.G.Nagabhushanam Naidu. Ex.P540 translation copy of sale deed shows that

P.G.Nagabhushanam Naidu was the owner of the property. He has verified the legal opinion given by Mr. Padmakar Rao also. Therefore, the evidence of PW68 shows that the property offered as collateral security is not fabricated documents.

438.The prosecution alleged that there is difference in the valuation of property but PW68 admitted that over a period of time, the values will be increased.

Further, the property which was offered as collateral security to the bank must be valued by panel valuer only, but no officer of bank values the property. In the instant case, the instructions were given to one Azaruddhin to value the property and he was also not examined. Therefore, the valuation report submitted by the valuer cannot be suspected.

439.Further, PW68 admitted that he has mentioned about the alleged bogus companies opened in the account in the name of M/s.Ruby Traders,

M/s.Maheswari Steels Corporations, M/s.Chowdary steels etc. However, he has not added them as accused in the present case. He has not collected any documents to show whether OBC, Ameerpet Branch has made any correspondence with the banks enquring the confidential reports of the accounts of alleged bogus companies. It clearly shows that though the prosecution alleged that they are bogus companies but no material is collected to prove that they are bogus companies and they have not shown as an accused. He has not gone through the ledger balances or any deposits of companies in OBC, Ameerpet

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 203 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Branch whose cheques were allegedly discounted by A4. He has gone through

STM-41 statements to know as to whether A4 informed the cheque discounting facility to its Regional Office by way of STM-41 statements. All the witnesses admitted that STM-41 statements were sent. Further, the statement shows that the cheques were discounted by A4 and in his absence, in charge officer discounted. However, the other officers are not made as an accused. He is not able to say whether there was any concurrent auditors report against A5 to A7 companies during the tenure of A4. As per his investigation, A11 carried out the pre-sanction and post sanction visits to the site of M/s. ACTPL. The PW68 stated that A11 has given false reports but the reports of bank officials also shows the cash credit limits were sanctioned/disbursed based on the stock position and the reports are satisfactory. Further, he is not able to say whether he has verified the status of LCS issued by A4 during his tenure as to whether any LC is pending or any alleged LCs were issued by the successor managers of A4 or not. The record shows that the no LCs are pending which were recommended during the tenure of A4 as on the date of his transfer. Further, he has not examined any other officials of M/s.RINL as to how they have received pay orders at the behest of

A6, if A6 had no dealings with M/s.RINL. He stated that he examined only PW43.

However, he has not given any evidence against the accused herein. The PW68 has not enquired with PW43 as to why they did not put up a note to their superior officers, when they received payments, there were no dealings with A6.

440.Further, PW66/N.Ravi Kumar recorded 161 statement of PW48/LW67

Mr.J.Ravindranath the then Manager, UTI Bank ltd., wherein PW48 deposed about

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 204 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 the pay order Nos. 001534/P778 dated 15.10.1999, 036023/P778, dated 16.12.1999, 037532/P778, dated 24.1.2000, 035985, dated 3.12.1999, 039073/P778, dated 13.3.2000, all are favouring Bank of Baroda account of

M/s.Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. PW48 further deposed that these pay orders were issued after discounting LCs established by OBC, Ameerpet Branch, favouring

M/s.Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd.

441.The beneficiary of these Pay Orders discounted with LCs issued by OBC is

M/s.Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. PW48 further stated the pay orders mentioned in

Ex.P779 which were issued after discounting the LC opened by OBC, Ameerpet

Branch favouring M/s.Ruby Traders, M/s.Universal Trading Company,

M/s.Maheswari Steel Corporation. All the witnesses have admitted the issue of pay orders in favour of said firms. The prosecution without any proper material it was contended that A5 to A7 have floated the fake firms and A4 and A8 colluded with them. In fact, nobody lodged report against the accused herein with regard to the mortgaged properties and the so called alleged fraud. Further, the evidence of PW48 shows that A4 was transferred on 26.06.2001. He is not able to say whether as on the date of transfer of A4, whether there was any payment of Lcs are pending. Without proper enquiry A4 was implicated.

442.Further, he is not able to say what is the total amount collected by him to show what was the total amount disbursed by OBC to A5 to A7. He cannot say whether OBC, Ameerpet branch sustained any pecuniary loss on account of various loans disbursed by A5 to A7. He has not examined the person who said to have conducted in-depth enquiry by inspection and controlled department. He

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 205 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 has not filed the report of said inspection and controlled department. He admits that A5 to A7 is nothing to do with the bank rules and regulations with regard to sanctioning of loans. PW68 has not investigated whether all the cheques purchased/discounted by OBC from A5 to A7 are honoured on its presentation.

Without such investigation, he has filed charge sheet against the A5 to A7.

Further, OBC, Ameerpet did not put up any securities given as immovable property by A5 to A7.

443.The evidence of PW68 shows that though he stated that he has recorded the statements of witnesses and collected the documents but in the cross- examination there are so many admissions which shows that without proper investigation and without recording the statements of necessary persons, he came to conclusion that the accused persons have committed ofence and filed charge sheet. As per record, A4 has not sanctioned credit limits to A5 to A7, it was done by Regional Office. The statements are continuously sent to Regional

Office and after getting audit report only, the credit limits were sanctioned. When the accounts became NPA, the case was registered, without verifying that even

before filing the charge sheet, the A5 to A7 have paid the total loan amount.

There are no such serious irregularities on the side of A4 and A8 to attract the criminal charges. They have acted bonafidely and in good faith by discharging their duties.

444.The evidence of PW59/Satish, the then Inspector of Police, stated that he has done the total investigation, in the part of investigation, he has collected the statement of accounts, original vouchers relating to A1, A2, the companies like

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 206 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Bhumika Steels, Ruby Traders etc., He has taken specimen signatures and send it to GEQD for examination. He has examined and recorded the statement of

PW28, PW23, PW31, PW32, PW29, PW22, PW34, PW39, LW55/M.Jagadish

Prasad, PW15/Damodar Reddy, PW36/Pushpalatha, PW42/B. Srinivas Rao,

PW18/C.V. Rao. He collected the documents from the branch managers.

445.His evidence discloses that the accused colluded and conspired, in pursuance of conspiracy A1 to A3 offered the properties as collateral security and obtained credit facilities which are forged and fabricated documents. Further, the false valuation certificates are obtained. He collected the documents and recorded the statements of concerned persons. His investigation reveals that the accused persons have committed the offence.

446.In the cross-examination, PW59 admitted that A7 is not juristic person. In the charge sheet, no individual is named as representative of A7. Cash credit loans were given to A5 to A7. He admits that the cheque discounting resulting commission to the bank which discounts the cheque. The bank discounting the cheque will not discount its own cheque, it has to discount the cheque issued by another customer. He can not say whether the same bank can not discount its cheque even if it is issued by another customer. A5 to A7 are customers of OBC,

Ameerpet Branch. OBC Ameerpet Branch can not discount the cheques of A5 to

A7. He can not say whether OBC, Ameerpet Branch did not discount the cheques of A5 to A7. As a investigating officer, he is not able to say whether the branch has discounted the cheques of A5 to A7 or not. He admits by seeing the document Ex.P830 he can not say who is the proprietor of A7 and the name of

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 207 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 the person operating the said account.

447.He admits all the loans were given to A5 to A7 by OBC, Ameerpet Branch after taking proper security in the form of immovable property. The original title deeds will not be given back to borrowers unless the loan is repaid. It means the bank officials have given loans after taking sufficient security.

448.The PW59 admits that no witness stated that A1 and A2 have opened the accounts which are related to companies like M/s.Bhumika Steels, M/s.Choudary

Steels, Ruby Traders, Universal Trading Company and M/s.Maheshwari Steels in

M/s.AP Mahesh Co-Operative Bank, Secunderabad.

449.He admits in Ex.P542 the Panel Advocate/PW39 has given opinion that

Naghabushanam Naidu is having clear and marketable title to the property mentioned in the opinion and the said property can be given as security by creating equitable mortgage by deposit of to title deeds. So, the allegation that the title deeds are fabricated holds not good. Though PW59 has got marked several documents but in the cross-examination, he stated that he can not say the truth or otherwise of the contents of the documents referred by him as exhibits in his chief-examination.

450.Though, the prosecution alleged that A1 to A3 floated fake firms but PW59 stated that no witness has told him that A2 opened current accounts in the name of M/s.Universal Trading Company, M/s.Agrasen Co-Operative Bank Limited,

Hyderabad and facilities relating to M/s.Shakthi Steels Limited. Being the investigation officer, PW59 is not able to say whether PW53(Khurana) sanctioned

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 208 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Rs.90 lakhs Lcs for 3 months in favour of M/s.Aren Steel Limited because he has not examined. PW59 stated that he has recorded the statement of PW15/LW16 who stated that he had already sold the property to one Mr. Narasimha Reddy, a builder of Nagole. He has not collected the alleged sale deed allegedly executed by PW15 in favour of Mr. Narasimha Reddy. He cannot say whether the agreement of sale dated 18.01.1999 in between Mr. Krishna Reddy and others in favour of A1 was collected or not. He has not examined said Krishna Reddy,

Lakshi Narasimha Reddy and A. Prabhakar Reddy and also the alleged purchaser

MR. A.Narasimha Reddy. He has not enquired the genuineness of registered sale deed vide Ex.P791 and P792 with the Registrar vide document No.7241/1997 i.e., Ex.791 and 7242/1997 i.e., Ex.P792. Even he has not enquired about the genuineness of the pattadar passbook bearing No.653858 and also tax receipt pertaining to the said pattadar passbook which is part of Ex.P583. He is not able to say whether he has enquired about the genuineness of the document i.e., said alleged receipts for Rs.100, 891, 906 and 100, all are dated 01.04.1997 allegedly issued by Sub Registrar and Joint Registrar, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad favouring A. Krishna Reddy and Sri Prabhakar Reddy respectively. He cannot say whether he collected any Encumbrance Certificate with regard to Bandlaguda property and the EC 574/1997 allegedly applied by one P. Prasada Rao for the agricultural land under Sy.No.48 admeasuring AC01.15gts situated at

Bandlaguda, dated 17.03.1997. Without collecting said documents and without investigating the genuineness of it, the allegations are made that the documents are fake.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 209 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

451.Further, PW59 admitted that in Ex. P563, it was specifically mentioned at page 4 by A4, that they have obtained second valuation and also certificate from authorities of MRO office on the market value of the property in view of high value limits. Copies of the above are also enclosed for their kind perusal and ready reference. He has not enquired about the said 2nd valuation report and

Certificate of MRO office on market value of property as stated in P563. It shows that A4 has taken proper care while taking the collateral security.

452.PW59 admits Ex.D6/LD383 also contain the ‘Leave Particulars of

Sri.M.Sundareswaran during the period of 01-01-2000 to 28-06.2001 as per the

Attendance Register. In Ex.D-6/LD-383 there are two columns. One is Leave period another is Officer incharge of the Branch in the absence of

Sri.M.Sundareswaran. As per Ex.D6/LD-383, 4th, 5th, 12th, 21st and 25th of

January 2000 Sri.M Sundareswaran was on leave. For 4th, 5th, 12th and 25th of

January 2000 Mrs Uma Shiv Kumar, Manager/PW29 and on 21st January, 2000

Mr. C.V. Rao/PW18 were given Incharge of the Branch. As per Ex.D6/LD-383, 27th and 28th of March, 2000 Sri.M Sundareswaran was on leave and Mrs Uma Shiv

Kumar, Manager was given Incharge of the Branch. On 24th May, 2000 Sri.M

Sundareswaran was on leave and Mrs Uma Shiv Kumar, Manager was given

Incharge of the Branch. He admints on 7th and 31st of July, 2000

Sri.M.Sundareswaran was on Training and Mrs Uma Shiv Kumar, Manager was given Incharge of the Branch. As per Ex.D6/LD-383, on 1st August, 2000

Sri.M.Sundareswaran was on duty at RO Madras and on 23rd August 2000 on duty at Tirumala and Mrs Uma Shiv Kumar, Manager was given Incharge of the

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 210 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Branch. On 5th to 9th and 22nd of September, 2000 Sri.M.Sundareswaran was on

Training and Mrs. Uma Shiv Kumar, Manager was given Incharge of the Branch.

On 4th October, 2000 Sri.M.Sundareswaran was on Training CV.Rao Officer was incharge and 16th to 19th of October, 2000 he was on leave and Mrs Uma Shiv

Kumar, Manager was given Incharge of the Branch. As per Ex. D6/LD-383, 7th

November, 2000 Sri.M Sundareswaran was on Training and Mrs Uma Shiv Kumar,

Manager was given Incharge of the Branch. On 7th December, 2000 Sri.M

Sundareswaran was on duty at RO Chennai/Madras and Mrs Uma Shiv Kumar,

Manager was given Incharge of the Branch. As per Ex.D6/LD-383, from 15/12/2000 to 26/02/2001 Sri.M.Sundareswaran was on Leave and Except 27/01/2001 and 26/02/2001 Mrs Uma Shiv Kumar, Manager was given Incharge of the Branch. On 27/01/2001 Mrs. K.Sabitha, Officer and 26/02/2001 Mr.

N.Mohd Babu, Officer were given In-charge of the Branch. Mr. Sundareswaran was on leave from 15/12/2000 to 26/02/2001. As per Ex.D6/LD-383, on 27/02/2001 & 28/02/2001 Sri.M.Sudnareswaran was on duty at RO Chennai and on 27/02/2001 Mr.N.Mohd Babu, Officer & 28/02/2001 Mrs K.Sabitha, Officer were given Incharge of the Branch. He admits that on 15th, 16th, March, 2001

Sri.M.Sundareswaran was on duty, and on 31st of March, 2001 was on leave, and

Mrs Uma Shiv Kumar, Manager was given Incharge of the Branch. As per

Ex.D6/LD-383, on 21st April, 2001 Sri.M.Sundareswaran was on compensatory off and Sri N.Mohd Babu, Officer was given Incharge of the Branch. It is also true that on 16th & 17th May, 2001 Sri.M Sundareswaran was on leave and Mrs Uma

Shiv Kumar, Manager was given Incharge of the Branch. As per Ex.D6/LD-383,

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 211 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 from 01/06/2001 to 13/06/2001 (Sat) Sri.M Sundareswaran was on Training at

Bangalore and Mrs. Uma Shiv Kumar, Manager was given Incharge of the Branch.

As per Ex.D6/LD.383, at bottom lines that Sri.M Sundareswaran was relieved from the branch on 26th June, 2001. Mrs. Uma Shiv Kumar, Manager being

Senior Officer at the Branch relieved Sri. M.Sundareswaran.

453.The PW59 has admitted the leave period of A4. But PW59 has not enquire whether any cheque either discounted or high valued or other cheques pending due for clearance or not. The main crux of the case is that the allegations are made against A4 but there are so many cheques which were discounted during the leave period of A4, which was admitted by the incharge officers, PW29 to

PW31 in their evidence. The investigating officer, without proper enquiry, implicated the accused No.4 herein. Further, as per Ex.P830 there were no huge cash transactions during the tenure of A4 in the account of A7 but the allegations are made against him. Further, under Ex.P831 to P833 and 835 the pay orders were issued under the signatures of different officials. The PW29 also signed as second signatory. Further, the sanction of LC of Rs.90 Lakhs in the account of A6 company was addressed by PW29. Further, PW29 recommended under Ex.P647 in favour of M/s. Airan Steels and PW29 had recommended for adhoc LC limit of

Rs.90 lakhs under Ex.P647 in favour of M/s.Aren Steels Limited. She has submitted proposal for the renewal and enhancement of limits of LC from the existing Rs.150 lakhs to 240 lakhs to A6. But the allegations are made against

A4 and A8. Further, under Ex.P609 the AGM regional office sanctioned adhoc cc limits to ACTPL. Further, the cheques issued in favour of Maheswari Steels

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 212 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Company was cleared. Though, the cheques are cleared, the allegations are made against the A4 herein.

454.Further, PW59 admitted that the Lcs under Ex.P949 to P951 was issued during the PW29 tenure. Further as per Ex.P571 the A4 has given order stating no excess be allowed in any CC account. PW29 has signed on it. Even in the absence of A4, Ex.P632 was signed by PW29 and recommended that there was no outstanding against the adhoc LC facility. Further, PW29 mentioned in Ex.P632 that the borrower due to the improved order book position and improved sales in consonance with the targets, has requested for adhoc LC limit of Rs.90 lakhs for one more rotation to enable it to continue the positive trend in its turnover. We recommend that the request of the borrower may be acceded to.”

455.As per Ex. D9/LD295 which was addressed by PW29 to the GM Credit Adm

Dept. HO, New Delhi where she requested the HO to consider the sanction of

Cash Credit limit of Rs. 300 lakhs and bank guarantee facility of Rs. 50 lakhs variably.”

456.After transfer of A4 and as perEx.P866/LD302 during the tenure of PW29 as officiating branch manager of Ameerpet branch, the branch has recommended for the sanction of ILC (DA) limit of Rs. 150 lakhs for 90 days with margin of 25% to A5 Company.

457.As per Ex. D-10/LD No. 304, dated 25.08.2001, the then senior manager addressed a letter to the AGM, RO, Hyderabad recommending adhoc facility of

Rs. 60 lakhs for a period of one month to A5 company. There is no outstanding.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 213 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

As per D445 and P1001/D610 (both are same) dated 1-8-2001, after transfer of

A4 branch has recommended for the extension of ILC (DA) limit of Rs. 90 lakhs for a further period of 90 days. As per Ex.P889/D369 & P671/D370 consist of several Cheques issued from the account of A5 in favour of M/s.Maheswari Steel

Corporation and some of the Cheques out of total cheques were passed in the absence of A4 while he was on leave and also after his transfer from Ameerpet

Branch. It clearly shows that the above transactions was done by PW29 but the allegations are made agaisnt A4 herein.

458.Further as per Ex.P648/part of D-612 dt 18-12-2000, is the credit information report of M/s.Ruby Traders received from M/s.AP Mahesh Co- operative Urban Bank Ltd, Sec’bad was received by Sr.Manager, OBC, Ameerpet

Br., along with credit information report of M/s.Ruby Traders mentioned in it as ‘satisfactory’. Ex. P649/part of D-612 dt 1-2-2000, from M/s.AP Mahesh Co- operative Urban Bank Ltd, Sec’bad was received by Sr.Manager, OBC, Ameerpet

Br., along with letter dt.1-2-2000 of M/s.Maheswari Steel Corporation and Credit information report of M/s.Ruby Traders their banking transaction is from 06.01.2000 in the case of M/s.Universal Trading Company is from 10.01.2000 and in the case of M/s.Maheswari Steel Corporation since 21 months with the said bank. Ex. P507 is the letter of confidential report of Universal Trading

Company written by PW8, which was received to OBC, Ameerpet Br., after the transfer of A4 from the said Branch. LD 356 bearing LC No.277 dt.5.10.2001 was established by PW31/Sabitha Koneru and PW21/Rakesh Sarma which is subsequent to the transfer of A4. Ex.P945/LD 501 bearing LC No.228

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 214 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 dt.5.10.2001 was after transfer of A4 and Ex.P946/LD 502 bearing LC No.239 dt.28.02.2001 were established by PW31, PW29 and PW31 & A11 respectively during the period his duty to RO Chennai. The LCs under Ex. P937, 938, 939, 940 to 947/LD-493 to 502 i.e., LC Nos. 230, 231, 234,236, 237, 258, 227, 228, 239 were issued during the long period of A4 absence and while PW29 were the incumbent Branch manager, favouring Ruby traders. The LCs under P949, 950, 951/LD-506 to D-508, i.e., L.C. Nos. 269, 273, 274 were issued during the tenure of PW29, while she was incumbent Branch manager, of Ameerpet Branch of OBC, favoring Universal traders after A4 transferred from Ameerpet Branch of

OBC and even after transfer of A8.

459.Though the above documents establishes the transactions during the period of PW21, PW29, PW31 but PW59 did not make any enquiry as to whether the incumbent managers of OBC, Ameerpet Branch, have obtained confidential reports of the beneficiaries from the respective beneficiary banks or not.

460.Further, PW31 addressed Ex. P1001/D610 letter dt. 1.8.2001, to AGM, RO,

Hyd., after the transfer of A4, recommending for extension of existing ad-hoc ILC limit of Rs.90 lakhs in the a/c of A6 for a period of 90 days. The Branch has submitted STM-41 Reports by way of Doc. 340 & 355 to the Regional Office. It clearly indicates that there was no concealment from Regional Office and every transaction was reported to Regional Office.

461.Further, without any authorization, the valuation reports are obtained from

Zahoor Ahmed, who was not examined, he was not panel valuer also, so basing on his evidence, the accused cannot be connected.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 215 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

462.Further, Ex.P581/LD70 is Securities Inspection and Follow up Register for the period from 1996 to 2001 of M/s.Airan Comptrax Towers Private Limited and

M/s.Shakthi Steels. As per Ex. P581 the M/s.Airan Comptrax Towers Private

Limited was inspected by Sri.Satyanarayana, ARM of Regional Office in April 1998 & May 1998 for Pre-sanction visit. M/s.Airan Comptrax Towers Private Limited was also inspected on monthly visit from May, 1998 to January, 2001, by the officers, regular Inspectors, Mohd Babu and others stated the unit as satisfactory. The observations conduct of account, rectification of discrepancies and recoveries made etc., are satisfactory.

463.In the month of March, 2001 M/s.Airan Comptrax Towers Private Limited was visited by Mr.Jitender Mohan, Chief Manager, Regional Office/PW28 and In

May, 2001 Sri.I.R.Rao/PW34, Concurrent auditor of the bank has visited the site.

The observations conduct of account, rectification of discrepancies and recoveries made etc., are satisfactory.

464.As per Ex. P581, on 06.09.2001, Sri.Rakesh Sharma/PW21 visited

M/s.Airan Comptrax Towers Private Limited along with Sri.T.S.Bagga, Chief

Manager and reported therein that stock of raw material are available. Similarly as per Ex. P581 the unit M/s.Shakti Steels was inspected and visited by the bank staff on monthly wise inspection from July 1996 to May 2001 along with Charted accountants, auditors, Sri.Rakesh Malhotra, Chief Manager, Regional Office, Sri.

V.N.Rajan, ARM, Regional Office, Sri.R.Upendra from Regional Office and

Sri.B.P.Goel and all these inspections show that the unit of M/s.Shakti Steels is satisfactory. The observations conduct of account, rectification of discrepancies

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 216 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 and recoveries made etc., are satisfactory. One B.Srinivas Rao also inspected the

M/s.Shakti Steels and stated that all the stocks are not stored in the godown, some of the stock is said to be with a job workers and no lien to be obtained.

Ex.P1017/LD652 is details of LC No.262 dated 06.06.2001 which was devolved on 10.07.2001 in the account of M/s.Aren Steels Limited (CA NO.3923) along with the respective statement of account and original account opening form of

M/s.Airan Comptrax Towers Private Limited account No.1289. On 06.06.2001 the

A4 was in training at Bangalore and on 10.07.2001 he was already transferred from there. As per Ex. P1017 the list of LCs of which LC No.262 was dated 06- 06-2001 which was devolved dated 15.09.2001. On both dates the accused No.4 was not available. The above evidence of PW59 indicates that A5 to A7 are working and the reports are obtained from time to time, as per reports, the working condition of units are satisfactory.

465.Further, PW59 stated during A4 was in training at Bangalore. LC No. 269,

dated 23-07-2001, LC No. 273, dated 16-08-2001, LC No. 274, dated 21-08-

2001, LC No. 276, dated 28-09-2001, were devolved date 15.11.2001 after the transfer of Sundareswaran/A4 from Ameerpet Branch. L.C.No.274 dated 21.08.

2001 devolved date is 19.11.2001. L.C.No.276 dated 27.12. 2001 devolved date is 27.12.2001. All these dates are pertaining to after transfer of accused. LC 265

dated 19-06-2001 and all other LCs mentioned in Ex. P1017 were devolved date

17.09.2001, by the date A4 was already transferred from Ameerpet Branch.

Though, the above Lcs are not pertaining to the period of A4 but the A4 was blamed and the evidence of PW59 shows that during his absence, those Lcs were

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 217 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 entertained.

466.Further, as per P547/LD-19 is a Xerox copy of Strictly Private &

Confidential letter dated 30.1.96 Issued by Bharath Overseas Bank Ltd, regarding M/s. Shakti Steels account maintained at their bank addressed to the

Branch Manager, OBC, Nampally, Hyderabad. and enclosing, xerox copy of Credit

Information Report of Bharat Overseas Bank Ltd, regarding M/s.Shakti Steels account as satisfactory. The witness adds the general conduct was reported as satisfactory. No adverse report is there. The PW59 has admitted the same, therefore, the units are not fake firms as alleged by the prosecution. While sanctioning the loans, A4 and even his successors also obtained the satisfactory report from time to time.

467.Further, as per Ex. P648/LD-612 is Original letter No: AUB/BM/199/2001- 2002 dated 06-12-2001 addressed by Branch Manager of The M/s.Agrasen Co- operative Urban Bank Limited, Hyderabad, addressed to Senior Manager, OBC,

Ameerpet, Hyderabad. Wherein it was informed as “In reference to your letter referred above as requested by you we are forwarding Confidential report of

M/s.Universal Trading Company. In the confidential report it was informed that the account is satisfactory. Therefore, it is not a fake firm.

468. A10 has issued valuation certificate. Therefore, the case is filed against him stating that he has issued inflated valuation certificate. In the cross examination, PW59 stated that he do not remember whether he has personally visited the property bearing H.No.1-9-9, Zamistanpur, Ramnagar. He admits the market value of the property is always changes, varies and flexible from time to

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 218 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 time. The bank officer has obtained valuation certificate from Zahoor Ahmed and stated that A10 has issued false certificate but said Zahoor Ahmed was not examined and he is not panel valuer. Therefore, the valuation certificate issued by A10 cannot be suspected.

469.The evidence of PW59 shows that though he made several allegations against the accused but it proved that during the period of A4, the accounts have not become NPA, further after getting security only, he recommended sanction of credit facility to A5 to A7. He obtained reports from time to time. He has taken all precautions. Though, he is not concerned with several LCs but he made liable.

It clearly proved that A4 and A8 have not committed any irregularities as alleged by the prosecution.

470.In the light of above discussion it is clear that A5 to A7 are firms, they are no way concerned with bank rules and regulations. They have given applications for sanction of loans as per their requirements. The bank after following the procedure has sanctioned the loans. From the record it appears that the loan accounts became irregular for some period. Therefore, in order to pressurize the

A1 to A3 to pay the loan amount, the present case is filed. In fact one year prior to the filing of charge sheet the total amount was paid. The Investigating Officer has not verified it and filed charge sheet against all the accused. Though they alleged A10 has given valuation reports for inflated value with the collusion but they have not examined the crucial witness Zahoor Ahmed basing on whose valuation certificates, the Investigating Officer suspected the accused NO.10.

Due to non examination of said Zahoor Ahmed there is no proper material before

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 219 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 the court to say that on what basis he issued the valuation certificate for the amount less than the amount mentioned by A10. There is no opportunity to defence to cross examine said Zahoor Ahmed in this aspect, so the prosecution failed to prove the charges against A10. Further there is no proper evidence against A4 and A8 to show that they have conspired with A1 to A3. From the record it is clear that after following the procedure only they have proceeded with the credit facilities of A1 toA3. Therefore, A4 and A8 have also not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. They are entitled to benefit of doubt.

471.In the result, A4 is found not guilty for the offences under Sections, 120B, 420, 471 of IPC and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention Corruption

Act, 1988 and he is acquitted for the said offences under Section 248(1) of

Cr.P.C.

A8 is found not guilty for the offences under Sections, 120B, 420 of IPC and

Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention Corruption Act, 1988 and he is acquit- ted for the said offences under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C.

A5 to A7 are found not guilty for the offences under Sections 120B and 420 of IPC and they are acquitted for the said offences under Section 248(1) of

Cr.P.C.

A10 is found not guilty for the offences under Sections 120B and 420 of IPC and he is acquitted for the said offences under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds of the accused persons shall stand cancelled after the appeal time is over.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 220 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

The accused are directed to execute personal bond for Rs. 10,000/- each under Section 437A of Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by Typist of this Court and Typist of EO Court, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 6th day of April, 2026.

Sd/-

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined on behalf of prosecution: PW1K.S.N.Raju, the then Commission Agent (Assistant) in Reliable Financial Services PW2Battu Balaiah, the then Load Man in M/s.Shakti Steels PW3D.Anjaiah, the then Office Boy in M/s.Shakti Steels PW4Narsing Rao, the then Car Driver PW5Mukund Das, Proprietor B.M.Enterprises. PW6B.Mallesh, Tax Driver PW7S.Srinivas,thethenClerk-cum-Cashier,Agrasen Co-Operative Urban Bank Limited, Siddimbazar, Hyderabad PW8Yogesh Agarwal, the then Manager, Agrasen Co-Operative Urban Bank Limited, Siddimbazar, Hyderabad PW9Mukesh Kumar Gupta, Owner of Manish Home Needs Kirana and General Stores PW10Anand Toshniwal, the then cashier in Agrasen Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd PW11C.Shakuntala, the then Asst. Commercial Tax Officer, S.D. Road Circle, Hyderabad PW12G.S.N. Murthy, the then Accountant in the AP Mahesh Cooperative Urban Bank Limited, Monda Market Branch, Secunderabad, PW13Bhupendra Lal the then Assistant Commercial Officer in the office of the CTO, Ashoknagar Circle of Secunderabad Division, Secunderabad

PW14A.Jugender Reddy, agriculturist

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 221 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

PW15A.Domodar Reddy, the then Panchayath Secretary PW16V.S.Sampath, the then Beat Postman of Beat No.22 and Hyderbasti comes under the Beat No.22, Postal limits PW17K.Venkata Krishnam, the then Sr.Manager, OBC, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad, PW18C.V. Rao, the then Formerly Loans Officer/Officer(Credit) in Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch PW19P.Ramachary, the then ACTO, Malkajgiri Circle, Hyderabad PW20M.Sravan Kumar, Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, Commercial Tax Office, Maredpally Circle PW21Rakesh Sharma, the then Senior Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad. PW22R.K.Kalra, the then Chief Manager, Inspection and Control Department, OBC Head office, New Delhi. PW23P.Rajendra Prasad the then Assistant Commercial Tax Officer in the office of Commercial Tax Officer, Malkajgiri Circle, Hyderabad. PW24G.Ramakrishnan the then Officer Loans, Regional Office, Chennai. PW25N.Balakrishnan, the then officer in Oriental Bank of Commerce, Regional Office, Chennai. PW26R.Satyanarayana, the then Assistant Regional Manager Loans at Regional Office, Chennai, in Oriental Bank of Commerce. PW27Mohan Kumar Sinha, the then Chief Manager in Oriental bank of Commerce, Ameerpet. PW28Jitender Mohan the then Chief Manager (Credit) in Oriental Bank of Commerce, Regional Office, Chennai. PW29Uma Shiva Kumar, the then Scale-II Manager in Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad PW30M.Sudhakar Shetty, the then Regional Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Chennai PW31Sabita Koneru, Officer (Loans Department) in Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet branch, Hyderabad PW32P.Padmavathi, the then Officer in Oriental Bank of Commerce in Ameerpet Branch PW33K.Bhasker the then Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad PW34Inturi Rama Rao, Charted Accountant and Concurrent Auditor, Hyderabad PW35T. Gyaneswar Rao the then Joint Sub-Registrar-1, District Registrar Office, Hyderabad

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 222 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

PW36B. Pushpalatha, the then Assistant Commercial Tax officer(FAC), Secunderabad Division PW37P.V.Lakshmi Reddy, the then Deputy Commissioner, MCH, Circle – III, Abids, Hyderabad PW38C.M. Madana Gopal Rao, the then Scale – II Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce in Credit Department, Regional office, Hyderabad PW39M.Padmakar Rao, Advocate PW40Raghunath Akasam Director of Akasam Consulting Pvt Ltd. PW41G. Ram Mohan, the then Enforcement Officer, Office of Employees provident fund, Hyderabad PW42V. Srinivas Rao, the then Superintendent of Excise at Shamshabad, Gagan Pahad Range PW43E.Kiran, the then Branch Finance Manager(F&A), RINL, Hyderabad PW44B.Murali the then General Manager(Finance), M/s.Sujana Steels Limited, Hyderabad PW45Krishna Choudari the then Regional Provident Fund CommissionerGrade-II,EmployeeProvident Fund Organization, Regional Office, Barkathpura, Hyderabad PW46N.V. Ramana Murthy, the then Accounts Executive for M/s.Prince Systems Rasulpura, Secunderabad PW47C.Sukumar Babu, Chartered Accountant PW48J.Ravindranath, the then Manager Operations UTI Bank Limited, Begumpet Road, Hyderabad PW49T. Srinivas, the then Manager, Lakshmi Vilas Bank Limited, Kukatpally Branch, Hyderabad PW50Raja Narasimha, the then Manager, Bank of Borada, Masabtank Branch, Hyderabad PW51Y. Raghunatha Reddy, the then Manager, Credit Department, Masabtank Branch, Hyderabad PW52R.Madhusudan, the then Regional Head, Oriental bank of commerce, Bangalore. PW53C.M Khurana, the then Chief General Manager, Oriental Bank of commerce, Delhi PW54Srinivas, the then Sarpanch of Bacharam Village, Gram Panchayath of Ranga Reddy District PW55Narsa Reddy, the then Joint Sub-Registrar-I, District Registrar Office, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad PW56Shaik Abdul Khadar, the then Deputy Superintendent of Police in Finger Print Bureau, Bangalore.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 223 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

PW57A. Balasami, Director CFSL, Hyderabad PW58S.Vijaya Kumar, the then Addl. Supdt of Police, CBI, BS&FC, Bangalore PW59Satish P.M., the then Inspector of Police BS &FC Branch, Bangalore PW60M.Babu, the then Beat Post Man No.19, Head Post Office, Secunderabad PW61Nagaraju, Postman in Jeedimetla Village Post Office on contract basis PW62K.Anji Reddy, retired Joint Director, Civil Supplies Department, Hyderabad. PW63V.Phanindra Charya, the then Superintendent of Central Excise, Anti Evasion Wing, Hyderabad -IV Commissionerate, Hyderabad PW64A.S.R. Kriashna, the then Branch Head, UTI Bank Limited, Tarnaka Branch, Secunderabad PW65Ramadoss, the then Inspector of CBI, BS & FC, Chennai PW66N.Ravi Kumar, the then Inspector of Police at CBI, BS & FC, Bangalore PW67A.Ramesh Babu, the then Chief Manager Law, Panjab National Bank, Asset Recovery Branch, Hyderabad. PW68Joy TV, the then Inspector of Police, CBI, BS&FC/ Bangalore PW69P.Gopi, the then Liaison Officer of M/s.Vizag Profiles Limited, Begumpet, Hyderabad, and M/s.Vizag Steels Profiles

Exhibits Marked on behalf of prosecution:

Ex.P1Photograph portion in Account Opening Form of A.P.Mahesh Co-operative Bank with A/c.No. CA 3991, dt. 06.01.2000. Ex.P1AAccount opening form of current account No.3991, dated 06-01-2000 in the name of M/s. Rubi Traders, represented by sole Proprietor K. Ramulu, Plot No.8-402/1, Sriramwada, Jeedimetla with the AP. Mahesh Cooperative Urban Bank, Monda Market Branch, Secunderabad, along with the specimen signature card, Form No.60- PAN Card declaration and photocopy of certificate of registration of M/s. Rubi Traders. (D.No.100). Photograph portion in Account Opening Form of Agrasen Co- Ex.P2 operative Urban Bank Ltd.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 224 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Photograph portion in A/c.No.CA 1300 of Agrasen Co- Ex.P3 operative Urban Bank Ltd., dt.03.11.2000 161 Cr.P.C. statement of the witness(PW2) Ex.P4

Photograph portion in Account Opening Form of Agrasen Co- Ex.P5 operative Urban Bank Ltd., with A/c.No. CA 1301, dt.03.11.2000 Photograph portion of PW3 in Specimen Signature Form of Ex.P6 Agrasen Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd. Photograph portion of PW3 in Account Opening Form of The Ex.P7 AP Mahesh Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd., A/c.No. CA 4024,

dt. 10.01.2000.

Ex.P7AAccount opening form of current account No.4024, dated 10-01-2000 in the name of M/s. Universal Trading Company, represented by sole Proprietor Ch. Shankar Rao, Plot No.9- 402/1, Sriramwada Colony, Jeedimetla with the AP. Mahesh Cooperative Urban Bank, Monda Market Branch, Secunderabad, along with the specimen signature card, Form No.60- PAN Card declaration and photocopy of certificate of registration of M/s Universal Trading Company (D.No.101).

161 Cr.P.C. statement of the witness(PW3) Ex.P8

Photograph portion in Account Opening Form with A/c. Ex.P9 No.1304, dt.03.11.2000 of PW4 Photograph portion in Specimen Signature Form of Ex.P10 A/c.No.1304. 161 Cr.P.C. statement of the witness(PW4) Ex.P11

Pay order dated 25.10.19997 bearing NOs.599043 for Ex.P12 Rs.8 lakhs in favour of Universal Fabrication Pay order dated 25.10.1997-bearing NOs.599044 in favour Ex.P13 Sheker Constructions Pay order dated 25.10.1997 for Rs.6 lacks in favour of Ex.P14 Bhagavath Machinery Corporation Pay order dated 12.01.1998 for Rs.2,50,000/- bearing Ex.P15 No.225493 in favour of S.S.Univesrsal Fabrication. Pay order dated 12.01.1998 for Rs.3,50,000/- bearing Ex.P16 No.225495 in favour of M/s Shekar Constructions

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 225 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Pay order dated 12.01.1998 for Rs.2 lacks bearing Ex.P17 No.225494 in name of M/s Bhagavathi Machinery Corporation. Pay order dated 19.02.1998 for Rs.4 lacks bearing Ex.P18 No.225769 in favour of Bhagavthi Machinery Corporation. Two photos affixed on the account opening form of Ex.P19 M/s.Chowdary Steels having address 8-402/1, Sriramnagar, Jeedimetla in current A/c.1302 of Agrasen Cooperative Urban Bank Ltd. 161 Cr.P.C. statement of the witness(PW6) Ex.P20

Specimen card of current account No.1300 of Ex.P3 Ex.P21

Account opening form of current account No.1300 in favor of Ex.P22 M/s Ruby Traders. Current account opening form in the name of M/s Universal Ex.P23 Trading Company and the account number is 1301. Specimen signatures card appended to the account opening Ex.P24 form vide Ac.No.1301 Ex.P25Specimen signatures card for the A/c.No.1304 of Sri.R.K.Sharma, Proprietor of Bhoomica Steels. Specimen signatures card for the A/c.No.1302 of Ex.P26 Sri.P.K.Chowdary, Proprietor of M/s Chowdary Steels. Specimen signatures card for the A/c.No.1303 of Sri Jagadish Ex.P27 Prasad proprietor of M/s.Maheshwari Steel Corporation Copy of Sales Tax Registration form M/s.Universal Trading Ex.P28 Company Opening account form for the current A/c.No.1304 in the Ex.P29 name of M/s Bhoomika Steels, having address 93, Maruthinagar Colony, DRP Mills, Hyderabad. Xerox copy of Sales Tax Registration form M/s.Bhoomika Ex.P30 Steels. Opening account form for the current A/c.No.1302 in the Ex.P31 name of M/s.Chowdary Steels, having address 8-402/1, Sriramnagar, Jeedimetla, Secunderabad. Xerox copy of sales tax registration form of M/s.Chowdary Ex.P32 Steels. Opening account form for the current A/c.No.1303 in the Ex.P33 name of M/s.Maheswari Steel Corporation, having address 7-1-204, Maruthiveedi, Secunderabad.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 226 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Photograph of account holder/proprietor of M/s.Maheswari Ex.P34 Steel Corporation is also affixed on Ex.P33 Xerox copy of sales tax registration form of M/s.Maheswari Ex.P35 Steel Corporation

Ex.P36Xerox copy of sales tax registration form of M/s.Ruby Traders

Ex.P37Statement of account for the current account No.1300 for the period from 03.11.2000 to 20.09.2001

Ex.P38Statement of account for the current account No.1301 for the period from 03.11.2000 to 20.09.2001

Ex.P39Statement of account for the current account No.1302 for the period from 03.11.2000 to 20.09.2001

Ex.P40Statement of account for the current account No.1303 for the period from 03.11.2000 to 20.09.2001

Ex.P41Statement of account for the current account No.1304 for the period from 03.11.2000 to 20.09.2001.

Account opening form of Sri.Mukesh Kumar Guptha S/B Ex.P42 A/c.No.96. Photograph of Sri.Mukesh Kumar Guptha affixed on Ex.P42. Ex.P43

Credit voucher dated 03.11.2000 for Rs.2,000/- to the credit Ex.P44 of A/c.No.1300 containing the signature of Anand Thosniwal. Credit voucher dated 03.11.2000 for Rs.2,000/- to the credit Ex.P45 of A/c.No.1301 containing the signature of Anand Thosniwal. Credit voucher dated 03.11.2000 for Rs.2,000/- to the credit Ex.P46 of A/c.No.1302 containing the signature of Anand Thosniwal. Credit voucher dated 03.11.2000 for Rs.2,000/- to the credit Ex.P47 of A/c.No.1303 containing the signature of Anand Thosniwal. Credit voucher dated 03.11.2000 for Rs.2,000/- to the credit Ex.P48 of A/c.No.1304 containing the signature of Anand Thosniwal. Cheque No.178407 Dated 18.07.2001 for Rs.26,32,640/- Ex.P49

Cheque No.178405 Dated 16.07.2001 for Rs.2683340/- Ex.P50

Cheque No.178401 Dated 13.07.2001 for Rs.2852750/- Ex.P51

Cheque No.178403 Dated 13.07.2001 for Rs.2762750/- Ex.P52

Cheque No.167699 Dated 12.07.2001 for Rs.2903030/- Ex.P53

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 227 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Cheque No.167698 Dated 12.07.2001 for Rs.2764850/- Ex.P54

Cheque No.167697 Dated 10.07.2001for Rs.2328920/- Ex.P55

Cheque No.167696 Dated 09.07.2001 for Rs.2469470/- Ex.P56

Cheque No.167693 Dated 07.07.2001 for Rs.2479730/- Ex.P57

Cheque No.167691 Dated 06.07.2001 for Rs.2685460/- Ex.P58

Cheque No.167689 Dated 05.07.2001 for Rs.2475620/- Ex.P59

Cheque No.167686 Dated 04.07.2001 for Rs.2640990/- Ex.P60

Cheque No.167684 Dated 03.07.2001 for Rs.2465850/- Ex.P61

Cheque No.167682 Dated02.07.2001 for Rs.2363270/- Ex.P62

Cheque No.167681 Dated 30.06.2001 for Rs.2599850/- Ex.P63

Cheque No.167679 Dated 29.06.2001 for Rs.2262950/- Ex.P64

Cheque No.156800 Dated 26.04.2001 for Rs.1746950/- Ex.P65

Cheque No.186797 Dated 26.04.2001 for Rs.1172650/- Ex.P66

Cheque No.156795 Dated 25.04.2001 for Rs.1002000/- Ex.P67

Cheque No.156790 Dated 24.04.2001 for Rs.1999650/- Ex.P68

Cheque No.156788 Dated 20.04.2001 for Rs.1364260/- Ex.P69

Cheque No.156787 Dated 19.01.2001 for Rs.1998330/- Ex.P70

Cheque No.156783 Dated 17.04.2001 for Rs.1238900/- Ex.P71

Cheque No.156777 Dated 16.04.2001 for Rs.910100/- Ex.P72

Cheque No.156774 Dated 12.04.2001 for Rs.1564880/- Ex.P73

Cheque No.156770 Dated 10.04.2001 for Rs.1989585/- Ex.P74

Cheque No.156766 Dated 09.04.2001 for Rs.1119295/- Ex.P75

Cheque No.156763 Dated 06.04.2004 for Rs.1898635/- Ex.P76

Cheque No.156760 Dated 03.04.2001 for Rs.1598695/- Ex.P77

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 228 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Cheque No.156758 Dated 01.04.2001 for Rs.1246675/- Ex.P78

Cheque No.167638 Dated 28.05.2001 for Rs.2151600/- Ex.P79

Cheque No.167635 Dated 24.05.2001 for Rs.2336190/- Ex.P80

Cheque No.167634 Dated 23.05.2001 for Rs.1006960/- Ex.P81

Cheque No.167633 Dated 21.05.2001 for Rs.1485230/- Ex.P82

Cheque No.167631 Dated 19.05.2001 for Rs.1963460/- Ex.P83

Cheque No.167630 Dated 18.05.2001 for Rs.932690/- Ex.P84

Cheque No.167629 Dated 17.05.2001 for Rs.1548130/- Ex.P85

Cheque No.167626 Dated 16.05.2001 for Rs.1469840/- Ex.P86

Cheque No.167624 Dated 15.05.2001 for Rs.1118895/- Ex.P87

Cheque No.167622 Dated 14.05.2001 for Rs.1416460/- Ex.P88

Cheque No.167621 Dated 11.05.2001 for Rs.1305805/- Ex.P89

Cheque No.167618 Dated 10.05.2001 for Rs.786315/- Ex.P90

Cheque No.167614 Dated 09.05.2001 for Rs.1592590/- Ex.P91

Cheque No.167616 Dated 09.05.2001 for Rs.1592590/- Ex.P92

Cheque No.167612 Dated 09.05.2001 for Rs.1469360/- Ex.P93

Cheque No.167608 Dated 05.05.2001 for Rs.1146475/- Ex.P94

Cheque No.167606 Dated 03.05.2001 for Rs.1764545/- Ex.P95

Cheque No.156756 Dated 29.03.2001 for Rs.1633330/- Ex.P96

Cheque No.156754 Dated 28.03.2001 for Rs.1758450/- Ex.P97

Cheque No.156751 dated 27.03.2001 for Rs.1684965/- Ex.P98

Cheque No.156749 dated 24.03.2001 for Rs.1793475/- Ex.P99

Cheque No.156744 dated 21.063.2001 for Rs.1492755/- Ex.P100

Ex.P101Cheque No.156740 dated 19.03.2001 for Rs.1293750/- Cheque No.156736 dated 16.03.2001 for Rs.1509175/- Ex.P102

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 229 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Cheque No.156731 dated 13.03.2001 for Rs.1966870/- Ex.P103

Cheque No.156726 dated 09.03.2001 for Rs.1736980/- Ex.P104

Cheque No.156721 dated 07.03.2001 for Rs.1699500/- Ex.P105

Cheque No.156720 dated 07.03.2001 for Rs.1561010/- Ex.P106

Cheque No.156719 dated 03.03.2001 for Rs.1690735/- Ex.P107

Cheque No.156713 dated 01.03.2001 for Rs.1636860/- Ex.P108

Cheque No.178458 dated 13.08.2001 for Rs.2896910/- Ex.P109

Cheque No.178453 dated 11.08.2001 for Rs.2986180/- Ex.P110

Cheque No.178451 dated 10.08.2001 for Rs.2715210/- Ex.P111

Cheque No.178449 dated 07.08.2001 for Rs.2869050/- Ex.P112

Cheque No.178445 dated 06.08.2001 for Rs.2943450/- Ex.P113

Cheque No.178443 dated 04.08.2001 for Rs.2365430/- Ex.P114

Cheque No.178441 dated 03.08.2001 for Rs.2392500/- Ex.P115

Cheque No.178436 dated 01.08.2001 for Rs.2387650/- Ex.P116

Cheque No.178434 dated 31.07.2001 for Rs.2975870/- Ex.P117

Cheque No.143325 dated 28.12.2000 for Rs.889545/- Ex.P118

Cheque No.143319 dated 25.12.2000 for Rs.870500/- Ex.P119

Cheque No.143318 dated 22.12.2000 for Rs.726685/- Ex.P120

Cheque No.143317 dated 20.12.2000 for Rs.878950/- Ex.P121

Cheque No.294703 dated 16.12.2000 for Rs.1310230/- Ex.P122

Cheque No.143309 dated 09.12.2000 for Rs.993615/- Ex.P123

Cheque No.143305 dated 05.12.2000 for Rs.893945/- Ex.P124

Ex.P125Cheque No.143302 dated 01.12.2000 for Rs.499995/- Cheque No.294723 dated 28.11.2000 for Rs.499935/- Ex.P126

Cheque No.294722 dated 27.11.2000 for Rs.499595/- Ex.P127

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 230 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Cheque No.156704 dated 22.02.2001 for Rs.1610825/- Ex.P128

Cheque No.156707 dated 22.02.2001 for Rs.1550060/- Ex.P129

Cheque No.156708 dated 22.02.2001 for Rs.1661525/- Ex.P130

Cheque No.156703 dated 21.02.2001 for Rs.969450/- Ex.P131

Cheque No.156709 dated 19.02.2001 for Rs.1789875/- Ex.P132

Cheque No.143399 dated 17.02.2001 for Rs.1646985/- Ex.P133

Cheque No.143393 dated 14.02.2001 for Rs.1694950/- Ex.P134

Cheque No.143392 dated 13.02.2001 for Rs.521985/- Ex.P135

Cheque No.143391 dated 13.02.2001 for Rs.1798365/- Ex.P136

Cheque No.143387 dated 10.02.2001 for Rs.804575/- Ex.P137

Cheque No.143382 dated 07.02.2001 for Rs.1586475/- Ex.P138

Cheque No.143380 dated 06.02.2001 for Rs.1493850/- Ex.P139

Cheque No.143365 dated 03.02.2001 for Rs.945930/- Ex.P140

Cheque No.143376 dated 01.02.2001 for Rs.1398665/- Ex.P141

Cheque No.167677 dated 28.06.2001 for Rs.1890680/- Ex.P142

Cheque No.167675 dated 27.06.2001 for Rs.2679350/- Ex.P143

Cheque No.167674 dated 26.06.2001 for Rs.1888630/- Ex.P144

Cheque No.167664 dated 22.06.2001 for Rs.2137710/- Ex.P145

Cheque No.167667 dated 22.06.2001 for Rs.2012920/- Ex.P146

Cheque No.167666 dated 21.06.2001 for Rs.2569560/- Ex.P147

Cheque No.167662 dated 19.06.2001 for Rs.2549980/- Ex.P148

Cheque No.167659 dated 16.06.2001 for Rs.2389990/- Ex.P149

Cheque No.167657 dated 15.06.2001 for Rs.2599650/- Ex.P150

Cheque No.167656 dated 14.06.2001 for Rs.2556650/- Ex.P151

Cheque No.167651 dated 12.06.2001 for Rs.1573180/- Ex.P152

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 231 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Cheque No.167654 dated 13.06.2001 for Rs.2186950/- Ex.P153

Cheque No.167652 dated 11.06.2001 for Rs.1964280/- Ex.P154

Cheque No.167648 dated 09.06.2001 for Rs.1150180/- Ex.P155

Cheque No.167649 dated 11.06.2001 for Rs.1848900/- Ex.P156

Cheque No.167647 dated 08.06.2001 for Rs.1943280/- Ex.P157

Cheque No.167645 dated 06.06.2001 for Rs.2138040/- Ex.P158

Cheque No.167644 dated 04.06.2001 for Rs.2143180/- Ex.P159

Cheque No.167642 dated 01.06.2001 for Rs.1943180/- Ex.P160

Cheque No.167640 dated 30.05.2001 for Rs.1002900/- Ex.P161

Cheque No.143367 dated 29.01.2001 for Rs.1325590/- Ex.P162

Cheque No.143368 dated 29.01.2001 for Rs.1159065/- Ex.P163

Cheque No.143358 dated 22.01.2001 for Rs.899890/- Ex.P164

Cheque No.143356 dated 20.01.2001 for Rs.885975/- Ex.P165

Cheque No.143352 dated 18.01.2001 for Rs.707065/- Ex.P166

Cheque No.143355 dated 18.01.2001 for Rs.1031830/- Ex.P167

Cheque No.143350 dated 16.01.2001 for Rs.908350/- Ex.P168

Cheque No.143345 dated 11.01.2001 for Rs.981130/- Ex.P169

Cheque No.143326 dated 01.01.2001 for Rs.978595/- Ex.P170

Cheque No.143323 dated 30.12.2000 for Rs.653655/- Ex.P171

Cheque No.143335 dated 08.01.2001 for Rs.803710/- Ex.P172

Cheque No.178431 dated 28.07.2001 for Rs.2789640/- Ex.P173

Cheque No.178427 dated 27.07.2001 for Rs.2698970/- Ex.P174

Cheque No.178425 dated 26.07.2001 for Rs.2786360/- Ex.P175

Cheque No.178423 dated 25.07.2001 for Rs.2590510/- Ex.P176

Cheque No.178420 dated 24.07.2001 for Rs.2960450/- Ex.P177

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 232 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Cheque No.178417 dated 23.07.2001 for Rs.2783530/- Ex.P178

Cheque No.178414 dated 21.07.2001 for Rs.3006480/- Ex.P179

Cheque No.178412 dated 20.07.2001 for Rs.2696790/- Ex.P180

Cheque No.178410 dated 19.07.2001 for Rs.2489650/- Ex.P181

Cheque No.176536 dated 18.07.2001 for Rs.2655350/- Ex.P182

Cheque No.176534 dated 17.07.2001 for Rs.2689330/- Ex.P183

Cheque No.176533 dated 16.07.2001 for Rs.2596870/- Ex.P184

Cheque No.176531 dated 14.07.2001 for Rs.2687960/- Ex.P185

Cheque No.176529 dated 13.07.2001 for Rs.2669250/- Ex.P186

Cheque No.176528 dated 12.07.2001 for Rs.2699470/- Ex.P187

Cheque No.176526 dated 11.07.2001 for Rs.2639670/- Ex.P188

Cheque No.176524 dated 10.07.2001 for Rs.2598450/- Ex.P189

Cheque No.176522 dated 09.07.2001 for Rs.2703010/- Ex.P190

Cheque No.176521 dated 07.07.2001 for Rs.2482700/- Ex.P191

Cheque No.176519 dated 06.07.2001 for Rs.2293350/- Ex.P192

Cheque No.176518 dated 05.07.2001 for Rs.2485010/- Ex.P193

Cheque No.176515 dated 04.07.2001 for Rs.2698370/- Ex.P194

Cheque No.176513 dated 03.07.2001 for Rs.2265670/- Ex.P195

Cheque No.176511 dated 02.07.2001 for Rs.2687450/- Ex.P196

Cheque No.176508 dated 29.06.2001 for Rs.2685470/- Ex.P197

Cheque No.165628 dated 26.04.2001 for Rs.1739920/- Ex.P198

Cheque No.165615 dated 25.04.2001 for Rs.1865640/- Ex.P199

Cheque No.165620 dated 24.04.2001 for Rs.1563475/- Ex.P200

Ex.P201Cheque No.165617 dated 23.04.2001 for Rs.1120010/- Cheque No.165613 dated 20.04.2001 for Rs.1996590/- Ex.P202

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 233 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Cheque No.165611 dated 19.04.2001 for Rs.2104750/- Ex.P203

Cheque No.165608 dated 19.04.2001 for Rs.1674360/- Ex.P204

Cheque No.165605 dated 18.04.2001 for Rs.1463430/- Ex.P205

Cheque No.156600 dated 17.04.2001 for Rs.1989930/- Ex.P206

Cheque No.156598 dated 16.04.2001 for Rs.1893140/- Ex.P207

Cheque No.156597 dated 12.04.2001 for Rs.690465/- Ex.P208

Cheque No.156594 dated 11.04.2001 for Rs.1563385/- Ex.P209

Cheque No.156585 dated 05.04.2001 for Rs.1581300/- Ex.P210

Cheque No.156583 dated 05.04.2001 for Rs.1546160/- Ex.P211

Cheque No.156581 dated 03.04.2001 for Rs.1779640/- Ex.P212

Cheque No.156577 dated 01.04.2001 for Rs.1989860/- Ex.P213

Cheque No.156573 dated 29.03.2001 for Rs.1668735/- Ex.P214

Cheque No.165666 dated 29.05.2001 for Rs.2032100/- Ex.P215

Cheque No.165662 dated 24.05.2001 for Rs.1941100/- Ex.P216

Cheque No.165659 dated 21.05.2001 for Rs.1198960/- Ex.P217

Cheque No.165658 dated 19.05.2001 for Rs.950640/- Ex.P218

Cheque No.165645 dated 16.05.2001 for Rs.601875/- Ex.P219

Cheque No.165654 dated 16.05.2001 for Rs.1321490/- Ex.P220

Cheque No.165653 dated 15.05.2001 for Rs.1641435/- Ex.P221

Cheque No.165652 dated 14.05.2001 for Rs.1373870/- Ex.P222

Cheque No.165651 dated 11.05.2001 for Rs.1454525/- Ex.P223

Cheque No.165646 dated 09.05.2001 for Rs.1969360/- Ex.P224

Ex.P225Cheque No.165649 dated 09.05.2001 for Rs.1969360/- Cheque No.165640 dated 07.05.2001 for Rs.1552170/- Ex.P226

Cheque No.165638 dated 05.05.2001 for Rs.1352525/- Ex.P227

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 234 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Cheque No.165624 dated 03.05.2001 for Rs.1989360/- Ex.P228

Cheque No.156572 dated 29.03.2001 for Rs.1759785/- Ex.P229

Cheque No.156570 dated 28.03.2001 for Rs.1634025/- Ex.P230

Cheque No.156568 dated 27.03.2001 for Rs.1698784/- Ex.P231

Cheque No.156567 dated 24.03.2001 for Rs.1602060/- Ex.P232

Cheque No.156564 dated 22.03.2001 for Rs.1792790/- Ex.P233

Cheque No.156561 dated 22.03.2001 for Rs.1556020/- Ex.P234

Cheque No.156558 dated 21.03.2001 for Rs.1879810/- Ex.P235

Cheque No.156556 dated 20.03.2001 for Rs.1495065/- Ex.P236

Cheque No.156554 dated 19.03.2001 for Rs.1093685/- Ex.P237

Cheque No.156552 dated 16.03.2001 for Rs.1283720/- Ex.P238

Cheque No.156550 dated 15.03.2001 for Rs.1896195/- Ex.P239

Cheque No.156548 dated 14.03.2001 for Rs.2286865/- Ex.P240

Cheque No.156542 dated 09.03.2001 for Rs.1646895/- Ex.P241

Cheque No.156541 dated 09.03.2001 for Rs.1796675/- Ex.P242

Cheque No.156536 dated 07.03.2001 for Rs.1691910/- Ex.P243

Cheque No.156534 dated 05.03.2001 for Rs.1750550/- Ex.P244

Cheque No.156529 dated 01.03.2001 for Rs.1710680/- Ex.P245

Cheque No.156525 dated 28.02.2001 for Rs.1608645/- Ex.P246

Cheque No.176587 dated 13.08.2001 for Rs.2392710/- Ex.P247

Cheque No.176584 dated 13.08.2001 for Rs.2622100/- Ex.P248

Cheque No.176580 dated 10.08.2001 for Rs.2669140/- Ex.P249

Cheque No.176576 dated 07.08.2001 for Rs.2838450/- Ex.P250

Cheque No.176573 dated 06.08.2001 for Rs.2635270/- Ex.P251

Cheque No.176579 dated 04.08.2001 for Rs.2296870/- Ex.P252

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 235 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Cheque No.176570 dated 03.08.2001 for Rs.2496100/- Ex.P253

Cheque No.176566 dated 01.08.2001 for Rs.2495460/- Ex.P254

Cheque No.176561 dated 31.07.2001 for Rs.2695450/- Ex.P255

Cheque No.143223 dated 26.12.2000 for Rs.948420/- Ex.P256

Cheque No.143221 dated 22.12.2000 for Rs.948985/- Ex.P257

Cheque No.143212 dated 15.12.2000 for Rs.1120097/- Ex.P258

Cheque No.143210 dated 13.12.2000 for Rs.1028465/- Ex.P259

Cheque No.143206 dated 08.12.2000 for Rs.895080/- Ex.P260

Cheque No.143205 dated 08.12.2000 for Rs.893050/- Ex.P261

Cheque No.143204 dated 06.12.2000 for Rs.853635/- Ex.P262

Cheque No.294700 dated 29.11.2000 for Rs.499695/- Ex.P263

Cheque No.156516 dated 22.02.2001 for Rs.1785690/- Ex.P264

Cheque No.156517 dated 22.02.2001 for Rs.1689795/- Ex.P265

Cheque No.156506 dated 15.02.2001 for Rs.1666960/- Ex.P266

Cheque No.143298 dated 15.02.2001 for Rs.1698675/- Ex.P267

Cheque No.143279 dated 12.02.2001 for Rs.1599675/- Ex.P268

Cheque No.143300 dated 10.02.2001 for Rs.1297745/- Ex.P269

Cheque No.143294 dated 08.02.2001 for Rs.1765860/- Ex.P270

Cheque No.143293 dated 08.02.2001 for Rs.1599595/- Ex.P271

Cheque No.143288 dated 06.02.2001 for Rs.1762680/- Ex.P272

Cheque No.143278 dated 05.02.2001 for Rs.1399230/- Ex.P273

Cheque No.143287 dated 03.02.2001 for Rs.1189635/- Ex.P274

Cheque No.143285 dated 01.02.2001 for Rs.983215/- Ex.P275

Cheque No.143775 dated 30.01.2001 for Rs.863275/- Ex.P276

Cheque No.176507 dated 28.06.2001 for Rs.2496850/- Ex.P277

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 236 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Cheque No.176502 dated 25.06.2001 for Rs.2589750/- Ex.P278

Cheque No.165693 dated 22.06.2001 for Rs.2489570/- Ex.P279

Cheque No.165697 dated 22.06.2001 for Rs.2589360/- Ex.P280

Cheque No.165694 dated 20.06.2001 for Rs.2369850/- Ex.P281

Cheque No.165691 dated 19.06.2001 for Rs.2372930/- Ex.P282

Cheque No.165689 dated 18.06.2001 for Rs.2087630/- Ex.P283

Cheque No.165687 dated 15.06.2001 for Rs.2428120/- Ex.P284

Cheque No.165685 dated 14.06.2001 for Rs.2296630/- Ex.P285

Cheque No.165682 dated 13.06.2001 for Rs.1963470/- Ex.P286

Cheque No.165680 dated 12.06.2001 for Rs.1227710/- Ex.P287

Cheque No.165677 dated 09.06.2001 for Rs.1038280/- Ex.P288

Cheque No.165674 dated 07.06.2001 for Rs.2083180/- Ex.P289

Cheque No.165671 dated 02.06.2001 for Rs.1833180/- Ex.P290

Cheque No.143270 dated 29.01.2001 for Rs.1368190/- Ex.P291

Cheque No.143268 dated 27.01.2001 for Rs.862205/- Ex.P292

Cheque No.143266 dated 25.01.2001 for Rs.899850/- Ex.P293

Cheque No.143262 dated 22.01.2001 for Rs.956520/- Ex.P294

Cheque No.143253 dated 16.01.2001 for Rs.908198/- Ex.P295

Cheque No.143249 dated 11.01.2001 for Rs.968365/- Ex.P296

Cheque No.143244 dated 09.01.2001 for Rs.904545/- Ex.P297

Cheque No.143241 dated 08.01.2001 for Rs.892300/- Ex.P298

Cheque No.143228 dated 01.01.2001 for Rs.995865/- Ex.P299

Cheque No.143225 dated 29.12.2000 for Rs.991850/- Ex.P300

Ex.P301Cheque No.143239 dated 06.01.2001 for Rs.986445/- Cheque No.176555 dated 27.07.2001 for Rs.2892050/- Ex.P302

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 237 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Cheque No.176553 dated 16.07.2001 for Rs.2897890/- Ex.P303

Cheque No.176551 dated 25.07.2001 for Rs.2598870/- Ex.P304

Cheque No.176548 dated 24.07.2001 for Rs.2695570/- Ex.P305

Cheque No.176546 dated 23.07.2001 for Rs.2799470/- Ex.P306

Cheque No.176542 dated 20.07.2001 for Rs.2589360/- Ex.P307

Cheque No.176539 dated 19.07.2001 for Rs.2796760/- Ex.P308

Cheque No.176557 dated 28.07.2001 for Rs.2603740/- Ex.P309

Cheque No.167593 dated 14.07.2001 for Rs.2655370/- Ex.P310

Cheque No.167589 dated 12.07.2001 for Rs.2589720/- Ex.P311

Cheque No.167585 dated 10.07.2001 for Rs.690550/- Ex.P312

Cheque No.167577 dated 06.07.2001 for Rs.2860000/- Ex.P313

Cheque No.167573 dated 04.07.2001 for Rs.2475450/- Ex.P314

Cheque No.167569 dated 02.07.2001 for Rs.2368820/- Ex.P315

Cheque No.167567 dated 30.06.2001 for Rs.2158400/- Ex.P316

Cheque No.167565 dated 29.06.2001 for Rs.2451120/- Ex.P317

Cheque No.159783 dated 26.04.2001 for Rs.1182590/- Ex.P318

Cheque No.159782 dated 26.04.2001 for Rs.1986560/- Ex.P319

Cheque No.159778 dated 24.04.2001 for Rs.1331885/- Ex.P320

Cheque No.159775 dated 23.04.2001 for Rs.1978650/- Ex.P321

Cheque No.159771 dated 20.04.2001 for Rs.1536340/- Ex.P322

Cheque No.159767 dated 19.04.2001 for Rs.1899640/- Ex.P323

Cheque No.159762 dated 17.04.2001 for Rs.1336775/- Ex.P324

Ex.P325Cheque No.159758 dated 16.04.2001 for Rs.1968360/- Cheque No.159751 dated 11.04.2001 for Rs.1328645/- Ex.P326

Cheque No.159744 dated 09.01.2001 for Rs.1998860/- Ex.P327

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 238 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Cheque No.159736 dated 01.04.2001 for Rs.1456460/- Ex.P328

Cheque No.159731 dated 29.03.2001 for Rs.1724360/- Ex.P329

Cheque No.167522 dated 25.05.2001 for Rs.1991100/- Ex.P330

Cheque No.167520 dated 23.05.2001 for Rs.1293140/- Ex.P331

Cheque No.167516 dated 18.05.2001 for Rs.1634640/- Ex.P332

Cheque No.167515 dated 17.05.2001 for Rs.1212200/- Ex.P333

Cheque No.159796 dated 09.05.2001 for Rs.1792470/- Ex.P334

Cheque No.159797 dated 08.05.2001 for Rs.1998620/- Ex.P335

Cheque No.159785 dated 28.04.2001 for Rs.1098140/- Ex.P336

Cheque No.159726 dated 22.03.2001 for Rs.1835815/- Ex.P337

Cheque No.159723 dated 20.03.2001 for Rs.1865350/- Ex.P338

Cheque No.159718 dated 17.03.2001 for Rs.1693690/- Ex.P339

Cheque No.159712 dated 14.03.2001 for Rs.2159360/- Ex.P340

Cheque No.159709 dated 13.03.2001 for Rs.1778290/- Ex.P341

Cheque No.159704 dated 08.03.2001 for Rs.1792645/- Ex.P342

Cheque No.143999 dated 03.03.2001 for Rs.1699965/- Ex.P343

Cheque No.143996 dated 01.03.2001 for Rs.1675345/- Ex.P344

Cheque No.180330 dated 09.08.2001 for Rs.2527360/- Ex.P345

Cheque No.180325 dated 06.08.2001 for Rs.2086650/- Ex.P346

Cheque No.180323 dated 04.08.2001 for Rs.1780770/- Ex.P347

Cheque No.180322 dated 03.08.2001 for Rs.2085920/- Ex.P348

Cheque No.143909 dated 25.12.2000 for Rs.631175/- Ex.P349

Cheque No.143907 dated 20.12.2000 for Rs.918490/- Ex.P350

Cheque No.143904 dated 14.12.2000 for Rs.878625/- Ex.P351

Cheque No.143902 dated 12.12.2000 for Rs.1260293/- Ex.P352

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 239 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Cheque No.143901 dated 11.12.2000 for Rs.915720/- Ex.P353

Cheque No.143989 dated 24.02.2001 for Rs.1689485/- Ex.P354

Cheque No.143986 dated 22.02.2001 for Rs.1845360/- Ex.P355

Cheque No.143983 dated 21.02.2001 for Rs.1798645/- Ex.P356

Cheque No.143977 dated 15.02.2001 for Rs.1789825/- Ex.P357

Cheque No.143974 dated 11.02.2001 for Rs.1490270/- Ex.P358

Cheque No.143971 dated 12.02.2001 for Rs.1693050/- Ex.P359

Cheque No.143965 dated 08.02.2001 for Rs.1686745/- Ex.P360

Cheque No.143958 dated 05.02.2001 for Rs.1189635/- Ex.P361

Cheque No.143954 dated 01.02.2001 for Rs.1413015/- Ex.P362

Cheque No.143957 dated 01.02.2001 for Rs.873860/- Ex.P363

Cheque No.143953 dated 31.01.2001 for Rs.1474075/- Ex.P364

Cheque No.143951 dated 30.01.2001 for Rs.1112590/- Ex.P365

Cheque No.143952 dated 31.01.2001 for Rs.1386910/- Ex.P366

Cheque No.167562 dated 27.06.2001 for Rs.2154930/- Ex.P367

Cheque No.167560 dated 26.06.2001 for Rs.2745650/- Ex.P368

Cheque No.167559 dated 25.06.2001 for Rs.5608490/- Ex.P369

Cheque No.167552 dated 20.06.2001 for Rs.2212430/- Ex.P370

Cheque No.167546 dated 16.06.2001 for Rs.2478290/- Ex.P371

Cheque No.167540 dated 13.06.2001 for Rs.1225860/- Ex.P372

Cheque No.167538 dated 12.06.2001 for Rs.2145270/- Ex.P373

Cheque No.167534 dated 11.06.2001 for Rs.1838100/- Ex.P374

Cheque No.167525 dated 30.05.2001 for Rs.2413180/- Ex.P375

Cheque No.143948 dated 27.01.2001 for Rs.998750/- Ex.P376

Cheque No.143944 dated 24.01.201 for Rs.1103655/- Ex.P377

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 240 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Cheque No.143945 dated 23.01.2001 for Rs.968985/- Ex.P378

Cheque No.143940 dated 18.01.2001 for Rs.882125/- Ex.P379

Cheque No.143937 dated 17.01.2001 for Rs.893950/- Ex.P380

Cheque No.143934 dated 15.01.2001 for Rs.1059735/- Ex.P381

Cheque No.294674 dated 13.01.2001 for Rs.891055/- Ex.P382

Cheque No.143925 dated 09.01.2001 for Rs.803945/- Ex.P383

Cheque No.143918 dated 02.01.2001 for Rs.996750/- Ex.P384

Cheque No.143915 dated 30.12.2000 for Rs.963365/- Ex.P385

Cheque No.173394 dated 11.06.2001 for Rs.2892890/- Ex.P386

Cheque No.173384 dated 09.06.2001 for Rs.2692690/- Ex.P387

Cheque No.173376 dated 08.06.2001 for Rs.3703700/- Ex.P388

Cheque No.173372 dated 06.06.2001 for Rs.2812820/- Ex.P389

Cheque No.173366 dated 06.06.2001 for Rs.2672670/- Ex.P390

Cheque No.173354 dated 04.06.2001 for Rs.3783780/- Ex.P391

Cheque No.173336 dated 01.06.2001 for Rs.2392390/- Ex.P392

Cheque No.173324 dated 30.05.2001 for Rs.2562560/- Ex.P393

Cheque No.173313 dated 29.05.2001 for Rs.2632630/- Ex.P394

Cheque No.173308 dated 28.05.2001 for Rs.2712710/- Ex.P395

Cheque No.169599 dated 26.05.2001 for Rs.2662660/- Ex.P396

Cheque No.169595 dated 25.05.2001 for Rs.2652650/- Ex.P397

Cheque No.169587 dated 24.05.2001 for Rs.2502500/- Ex.P398

Cheque No.169580 dated 23.05.2001 for Rs.2102100/- Ex.P399

Cheque No.169573 dated 22.05.2001 for Rs.2202200/- Ex.P400

Ex.P401Cheque No.169566 dated 21.05.2001 for Rs.2202200/- Ex.P402Cheque No.169563 dated 19.05.2001 for Rs.2002000/-

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 241 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Ex.P403Cheque No.169553 dated 18.05.2001 for Rs.2002000/- Ex.P404Cheque No.169546 dated 17.05.2001 for Rs.2002000/- Ex.P405Cheque No.169536 dated 16.05.2001 for Rs.2002000/- Ex.P406Cheque No.169529 dated 15.05.2001 for Rs.2002000/- Ex.P407Cheque No.169525 dated 14.05.2001 for Rs.2002000/- Ex.P408Cheque No.169612 dated 17.07.2001 for Rs.2606900/- Ex.P409Cheque No.169604 dated 13.07.2001 for Rs.2945370/- Ex.P410Cheque No.169602 dated 12.07.2001 for Rs.2766360/- Ex.P411Cheque No.167500 dated 10.07.2001 for Rs.2645620/- Ex.P412Cheque No.167496 dated 07.07.2001 for Rs.2598650/- Ex.P413Cheque No.167492 dated 05.07.2001 for Rs.2569450/- Ex.P414Cheque No.167488 dated 03.07.2001 for Rs.2698450/- Ex.P415Cheque No.167485 dated 30.06.2001 for Rs.2371290/- Ex.P416Cheque No.156698 dated 26.04.2001 for Rs.1986470/- Ex.P417Cheque No.156692 dated 25.04.2001 for Rs.1716150/- Ex.P418Cheque No.156693 dated 23.04.2001 for Rs.1798580/- Ex.P419Cheque No.156690 dated 21.04.2001 for Rs.461500/- Ex.P420Cheque No.156685 dated 19.04.2001 for Rs.1889540/- Ex.P421Cheque No.156682 dated 19.04.2001 for Rs.1315280/- Ex.P422Cheque No.156679 dated 18.04.2001 for Rs.1989450/- Ex.P423Cheque No.156677 dated 17.04.2001 for Rs.1567570/- Ex.P424Cheque No.156673 dated 16.04.2001 for Rs.1027580/- Ex.P425Cheque No.156676 dated 16.04.2001 for Rs.1445400/- Ex.P426Cheque No.156672 dated 12.04.2001 for Rs.1898690/- Ex.P427Cheque No.156669 dated 11.04.2001 for Rs.871500/- Ex.P428Cheque No.156668 dated 11.04.2001 for Rs.1998435/- Ex.P429Cheque No.156666 dated 10.04.2001 for Rs.1504590/- Ex.P430Cheque No.156660 dated 09.04.2001 for Rs.1388210/- Ex.P431Cheque No.156656 dated 05.04.2001 for Rs.1768175/- Ex.P432Cheque No.156657 dated 05.04.2001 for Rs.579860/- Ex.P433Cheque No.167437 dated 25.05.2001 for Rs.2021100/- Ex.P434Cheque No.167422 dated 10.05.2001 for Rs.1845630/-

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 242 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Ex.P435Cheque No.156610 dated 01.03.2001 for Rs.1686965/- Ex.P436Cheque No.156608 dated 01.03.2001 for Rs.1681160/- Ex.P437Cheque No.167418 dated 09.05.2001 for Rs.1187380/- Ex.P438Cheque No.167421 dated 09.05.2001 for Rs.1187380/- Ex.P439Cheque No.167415 dated 09.05.2001 for Rs.1021580/- Ex.P440Cheque No.167412 dated 08.05.2001 for Rs.1892360/- Ex.P441Cheque No.167407 dated 03.05.2001 for Rs.940975/- Ex.P442Cheque No.156642 dated 23.02.2001 for Rs.1593065/- Ex.P443Cheque No.156638 dated 19.03.2001 for Rs.1001000/- Ex.P444Cheque No.156635 dated 17.03.2001 for Rs.1266150/- Ex.P445Cheque No.156631 dated 16.03.2001 for Rs.1896940/- Ex.P446Cheque No.156632 dated 15.03.2001 for Rs.1749990/- Ex.P447Cheque No.156626 dated 13.03.2001 for Rs.2109750/- Ex.P448Cheque No.156623 dated 12.03.2001 for Rs.1605075/- Ex.P449Cheque No.156622 dated 12.03.2001 for Rs.940050/- Ex.P450Cheque No.156618 dated 09.03.2001 for Rs.1581985/- Ex.P451Cheque No.156620 dated 08.03.2001 for Rs.1584990/- Ex.P452Cheque No.156604 dated 28.02.2001 for Rs.1698985/- Ex.P453Cheque No.156607 dated 01.03.2001 for Rs.1739295/- Ex.P454Cheque No.169660 dated 13.08.2001 for Rs.2763810/- Ex.P455Cheque No.169655 dated 11.08.2001 for Rs.2413600/- Ex.P456Cheque No.169650 dated 09.08.2001 for Rs.2869710/- Ex.P457Cheque No.169644 dated 03.08.2001 for Rs.390000/- Ex.P458Cheque No.169638 dated 01.08.2001 for Rs.2528510/- Ex.P459Cheque No.143820 dated 28.12.2000 for Rs.907665/- Ex.P460Cheque No.143813 dated 19.12.2000 for Rs.1153855/- Ex.P461Cheque No.294625 dated 04.12.2000 for Rs.799600/- Ex.P462Cheque No.294624 dated 01.12.2000 for Rs.499895/- Ex.P463Cheque No.143900 dated 24.02.2001 for Rs.1704350/- Ex.P464Cheque No.143896 dated 21.02.2001 for Rs.1847145/- Ex.P465Cheque No.143893 dated 19.02.2001 for Rs.1248705/- Ex.P466Cheque No.143891 dated 15.02.2001 for Rs.735950/-

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 243 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Ex.P467Cheque No.143887 dated 14.02.2001 for Rs.1698385/- Ex.P468Cheque No.143886 dated 15.02.2001 for Rs.1786340/- Ex.P469Cheque No.143879 dated 10.02.2001 for Rs.1413890/- Ex.P470Cheque No.143877 dated 08.02.2001 for Rs.1458300/- Ex.P471Cheque No.143873 dated 07.02.2001 for Rs.1481670/- Ex.P472Cheque No.143869 dated 05.02.2001 for Rs.1543555/- Ex.P473Cheque No.143870 dated 03.02.2001 for Rs.817940/- Ex.P474Cheque No.143867 dated 01.02.2001 for Rs.945560/-. Ex.P475Cheque No.167481 dated 28.06.2001 for Rs.2712010/-. Ex.P476Cheque No.167470 dated 21.06.2001 for Rs.2443480/-. Ex.P477Cheque No.167464 dated 18.06.2001 for Rs.2479650/-. Ex.P478Cheque No.143847 dated 18.01.2001 for Rs.1006935/-. Ex.P479Cheque No.143843 dated 17.01.2001 for Rs.895940/-. Ex.P480Cheque No.143834 dated 10.01.2001 for Rs.953760/-. Ex.P481Cheque No.143823 dated 02.01.2001 for Rs.805500/-. Ex.P482Cheque No.143829 dated 04.01.2001 for Rs.868510/-. Ex.P483Cheque No.143828 dated 05.01.2001 for Rs.814175/-. Ex.P484Cheque No.143826 dated 03.01.2001 for Rs.868170/-. Ex.P485Cheque No.169620 dated 21.07.2001 for Rs.2798970/-. Ex.P486Cheque collection register maintained by Agrasen Co-Operative Urban Bank Limited for the period from 01.03.2001 to 17.04.2001. Ex.P487Cheque collection register maintain by Agrasen Co-Operative Urban Bank Limited for the period from 18.04.2001 to 31.05.2001. Ex.P488Cheque collection register maintained by Agrasen Co-Operative Urban Bank Limited for the period from 01.06.2001 to 31.07.2001. Ex.P489Cheque collection register maintain by Agrasen Co-Operative Urban Bank Limited for the period from 01.08.2001 to 28.09.2001. Ex.P490Cheque collection register maintain by Agrasen Co-Operative Urban Bank Limited for the period from 01.10.2001 to 31.10.2001. Ex.P491Cheque collection register maintain by Agrasen Co-Operative

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 244 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Urban Bank Limited for the period from 01.11.2001 to 31.12.2001. Ex.P492Bunch of true copies of vouchers/cheques for the month of November, 2000 for the Account Numbers.1300, 1301, 1302, 1303 and 1304. Ex.P493Bunch of true copies of vouchers/cheques for the month of December, 2000 for the Account Numbers. 1300, 1301, 1302, 1303 and 1304. Ex.P494Bunch of true copies of vouchers/cheques for the month of January, 2001 for the Account Numbers.1300, 1301, 1302, 1303 and 1304. Ex.P495Bunch of true copies of vouchers/cheques for the month of February, 2001 for the Account Numbers. 1300, 1301, 1302, 1303 and 1304. Ex.P496Bunch of true copies of vouchers/cheques for the month of March, 2001 for the Account Numbers. 1300, 1301, 1302, 1303 and 1304. Ex.P497Bunch of true copies of vouchers/cheques for the month of April, 2001 for the Account Numbers. 1300, 1301, 1302, 1303 and 1304. Ex.P498Bunch of true copies of vouchers/cheques for the month of May, 2001 for the Account Numbers. 1300, 1301, 1302, 1303 and 1304. Ex.P499Bunch of true copies of vouchers/cheques for the month of June, 2001 for the Account Numbers.1300, 1301, 1302, 1303 and 1304. Ex.P500Bunch of true copies of vouchers/cheques for the month of July, 2001 for the Account Numbers. 1300, 1301, 1302, 1303 and 1304. Ex.P501Bunch of true copies of vouchers/cheques for the month of August and September, 2001 for the Account Numbers. 1300, 1301, 1302, 1303 and 1304. Ex.P502Details of Vouchers/Cheques deposited into the Current A/c.No.1300 for the period from 03-11-2000 to 20.09.2001 in the name of M/s. Ruby Traders. Ex.P503Details of Vouchers/Cheques deposited into the Current A/c.No.1301 for the period from 03-11-2000 to 20-09-2001 in the name of M/s. Universal Trading Company. Ex.P504Details of Vouchers/Cheques deposited into the Current A/c.No.1302 for the period from 03-11-2000 to 20-09-2001

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 245 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 in the name of M/s. Chowdary Steels. Ex.P505Details of Vouchers/Cheques deposited into the Current A/c.No.1303 for the period from 03-11-2000 to 20-09-2001 in the name of M/s. Maheswari Steel Corporation. Ex.P506Details of Vouchers/Cheques deposited into the Current A/c.No.1304 for the period from 03-11-2000 to 20-09-2001 in the name of M/s. Bhoomika Steel. Ex.P507Original Letter dated 06-09-2001 addressed from Branch Manager, Agrasen Co-Operative Urban bank to Sr.Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet, Hyderabad forwarding the confidential report/Credit information report of M/s. Universal Trading Company. Ex.P508Computerized Original Letter dated 28.05.2002 addressed by Proprietor of M/s.Ruby Traders, Secunderabad to Mahesh Co-Operative Urbank Bank Limited, Secunderabad regarding closure of account No. CA3991(D.No.394) (1 sheet). Ex.P509Computerized Original Letter dated 28-5-2002 addressed by Proprietor of M/s.Universal Trading Co, addressed to Mahesh Co-Operative Urbank Bank Limited, Secunderabad regarding closure of account No. CA4024 (LD.No.395) (1 sheet). Ex.P510Computerized Original Letter dated 28-5-2002 addressed by Proprietor of M/s.Chowdhry Steels, to M/s.Mahesh Co-Operative Urbank Bank Limited, Secunderabad regarding closure of account No. CA3877 (D.No.396) (1 sheet). Ex.P511Account opening form of current account No.3877, dated 26-11-1999 in the name of M/s. Choudhary Steels, represented by sole Proprietor Pawan Kumar Choudhary, Plot No.64, Kakaguda, Vasavi Colony, Secunderabad with the AP. Mahesh Cooperative Urban Bank, Monda Market Branch, Secunderabad along with specimen signature card Form No.60, PAN Card declaration and photocopy of certificate of registration of M/s. Choudhary Steels. (D.No.102). Ex.P512Current account No.3982 in the name of M/s Maheshwari Steel Corporation, Kakaguda, Vasavi Colony, near Gruhalakshmi Colony, Secunderabad namely Account Opening Form and the said was closed on 18-1-2002 on the letter, dated: Nil given by the Proprietor of Maheshwari Steel Corporation to the Manager of the Monda Market Branch(D.No.397) (1 sheet). Ex.P513Original Account opening form pertaining to the current account No.3982, dated 26-11-1999 in the name of M/s.Maheswari Steel Corporation, represented by sole

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 246 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Proprietor Jagesh Prasadji, Plot No.88/1, Kakaguda, near Gruhalakshmi Colony. Secunderabad with the M/s.AP.Mahesh Cooperative Urban Bank, Monda Market Branch, Secunderabad, along with the specimen signature card, Form No.60, PAN Çard declaration and photocopy of certificate of registration of M/s. Maheshwari Steel Corporation (D.No.99). Ex.P514Original Letter from Proprietor M/s.Bhoomika Steels, Secunderabad addressed to Mahesh Co-Operative Urban Bank Ltd. Regarding closure of account No.3869(D.No.398) (1 sheet). Ex.P515Account opening form of current account No.3869, dated 26-11-1999 in the name of M/s. Bhoomika Steels, represented by sole Proprietor Jagesh Prasadji, Plot No.8- 102, Sriram Colony, Jeedimetla with the AP.Mahesh Cooperative Urban Bank, Monda Market Branch, Secunderabad, along with the specimen signature card, Form No.60, PAN Card declaration and photocopy of certificate of registration of M/s. Bhoomika Steels (D.No.98). Ex.P516Computerized statement pertaining to the current accountant account No.3982 of M/s. Maheshwari Steel Corporation, C.A.No.4024 of Universal Trading Company, C.A.No.3869 of Bhoomika Steels, C.A.No.3877 of M/s. Choudhary Steels, C.A.No.3991 of M/s. Rubi Traders with M/s.AP. Mahesh Cooperative Urban Bank, Monda Market Branch, Secunderabad (D.No. 103 to 107). Ex.P517Certified copy of Certificate of Registration under APGST Act No.SEC/02/2/1/1591/88-89 issued in the name of M/s Leafin India Limited, Door No.1-2-593/4/A, Gaganmahal, Hyderabad, dated 09-01-1990, certified by PW13 along with certified copy of Certificate of Registration under Central Sales Tax (Registration & Turn over) Rules 1957 CST No.SEC/02/2/1301/88, dated 09-01-1990 (D.No.391) (2 sheets). Ex.P518Certified copy of Certificate of Registration under APGST Act R.C.No.SEC/02/1/2334/1992-1 issued in the name of M/s Larvin Labs Door No. 1-10-197/G, First Floor, Ashoknagar, Hyderabad dated 01-11-1992, certified by PW13 along with certified copy of Certificate of Registration under CST No.SEC/02/1/2271/04-05, dated 01-11-1992 (D.No.392) (2 sheets). Ex.P519Certified copy of fake registered sale deed dated 01.04.1997 purported to have been executed by (1) A.Krishna Reddy, PW14’s elder brother, (2) A.Laxminarsimha Reddy, PW14’s

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 247 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 another elder brother, (3) A.Jogender Reddy and PW14, infavour of Smt. Shashi Agarwal, W/o Sri Munnalal Agarwal, 38 years, House wife, R/o Plot No.32, Road No.3, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad transferring 27guntas of land in Sy. No. 48 Bandlaguda Village, bearing document No.7-2-41 of 1997 registered at District registrar Office, RR District (LD.No.365) (12 sheets). Ex.P520Certified copy of fake registered sale deed, dated 01.04.1997 purported to have been executed PW15/A.Damodar Reddy and PW15’s younger brother/A. Prabhakar Reddy, in favour of Sri Munnalal Agarwal, S/o. Chaganlal, Age 42 years, Business, R/o: Plot No.32, Road No.3, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad transferring 28 guntas of land in Sy.No. 48 Bandlaguda Village, bearing document No.7242 of 1997 registered at District registrar Office, RR District (D.No.364) (12 sheets). Ex.P521Application, dated 22.12.1995 submitted by M/s. Shakti Steels along with highlights of the proposal, statement of material consumed, protected profitability, projected cash flow statement and projected balance sheet (10 sheets). Ex.P522Loan application form, dated 12-12-1995 of Smt. Shashi Agarwal, Proprietor of M/s. Shakti Steels (2 sheets). Ex.P523Fresh proposal of M/s Shakti Steels, dated 06-02-1996 (30 sheets). Ex.P524Letter, dated 08-03-1996 addressed by Regional Manager, OBC to the Senior Manager, OBC, Ameerpet Branch regarding M/s Shakti Steels(LD.No.4)(1 sheet). Ex.P525Clarifications in relating to loan approval vide letter dated 15-03-1996 submitted by M/s Shakti Steels to the Sr.Branch Manager, OBC, Ammerpet Branch (LD.No.5) (4 sheets). Ex.P526Letter, dated 08-04-1996 addressed by Regional Manager, OBC to the Senior Manager, OBC Ameerpet Branch regarding M/s Shakti Steels loan application (L.D.No.8)(1 sheet). Ex.P527Letter dated 20-03-1996 addressed by Senior Manager, OBC, Ameerpet Branch to the Regional Manager, OBC, Madras as reply to Ex.P524 (L.D.No.10) (2 sheets). Ex.P528Letter, dated 28-06-1996 addressed by Senior Manager, OBC, Ameerpet Branch to the Regional Manager, OBC, Madras as reply to Ex.P526(L.D.No.11) (1 sheet). Ex.P529Letter, dated 14-02-1996 addressed by Regional Manager, OBC to the Senior Manager, OBC, Ameerpet Branch about

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 248 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 fresh proposal of M/s Shakti Steels(L.D.No.14) (1 sheet). Ex.P530Office note, dated 08-07-1996 prepared by Mr. Rakesh Malhotra at OBC Regional Office, South Region, Madras. (L.D.No.12) (1 sheet). Ex.P531Copy of travelling allowance bill of Mr. Rakesh Malhotra along with annexure(L.D.No.13) (6 sheets). Ex.P532Office note, dated 14-02-1996 of Regional Office, OBC Regional Office, Southern Region, Madras (LD.No.15) (6 sheets). Ex.P533Office note, dated 28-03-1996 of OBC, Regional Office, Southern Region, Madras(LD.No.9) (2 sheets). Ex.P534Sanction letter for credit facilities, dated 15-07-1996 issued by Regional Office, Madras in favour of M/s Shakti Steels (LD.No.16)(2 sheets). Ex.P535Copy of letter, dated 18-07-1996 addressed by Senior Manager, OBC Ammerpet to M/s Shakti Steels regarding credit facility(LD.No.17) (1 sheet). Ex.P536Copy of terms and conditions accepted by M/s Shakti Steels(L.D.No.18) (2 sheets). Ex.P537Sole proprietorship letter, dated 18.07.1996 executed by Smt.Shashi Agarwal, proprietor of M/s.Shakti Steels to the Manager, OBC, Ameerpet (L.D.No.6) Ex.P538Letter of deposit of title deed, dated 19.07.1996 executed by Mr.P.G.Nagabushanam Naidu for Rs.50 lakh. (LD.No.33). Ex.P539Extracts of property documents of Mr.P.G.Nagabushanam Naidu issue from Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad (LD.No.35) (24 sheets). Ex.P540Copy of sale deed with copy of translation of sale deed along withcopyofencumbrancecertificateof Mr.P.G.Nagabushanam Naidu (L.D.No.30) (9 sheets). Ex.P541Valuation report of M/s. Servel Associates, dated 17.01.1996 pertaining to the property of Mr.P.G.Nagabushanam Naidu (LD.No.32) (4 sheets). Ex.P542Legal opinion, dated 15.01.1996 addressed by Mr.M.Padmakar Rao, Advocate, addressed to the Chief Manager, OBC, Abids, Hyderabad pertaining to the property of Mr.P.G.Nagabushanam Naidu (LD.No.31) (3 sheets).

Ex.P543Copy of equitable mortgage register of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad, dated 18.07.1996

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 249 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 written by PW18 and counter signed by Mr.Sundareswaran (LD.No.38) (A4). Ex.P544Current account opening form of M/s Shakti Steels pertaining to the account No.274 (LD.No.29) . Ex.P545Cash Credit account opening form of M/s Shakti Steels pertaining to the account No.CC-16 (LD.No.28) . Ex.P546Credit report of Mr.P.G.Nagabushanam Naidu, dated 01.03.1996 compiled by Mr.Sundareswaran (LD.No.34) (A4). Ex.P547Letter, dated Nil submitted by Smt. Shashi of M/s Shakti Steels along with copy of general power of attorney executed in favour of her husband and no objection certificate of Bharat Overseas Bank (5 sheets). Ex.P548Letter, dated 17.06.1997 from Regional Office, Chennai advising Ameerpet Branch to submit fully documented renewal proposal of M/s Shakti Steels (LD.No.24). Ex.P549Letter dated 12.09.1997 from Regional Office, Chennai appointing Mr.N.V.R.Murthy as Monitoring Officer for M/s Shakti Steels. Ex.P550Letter dated 27.09.1997 addressed to Mr.Mohammad Babu, from Regional Office, Chennai appointing him as Monitoring Officer for M/s Shakti Steels. Ex.P551Letter dated 16.08.1996 written by Mr.Sundareswaran (A4) addressed to Regional Office, Chennai seeking confirmation of action of bills purchased under Letter of Credit (LD.No.27). Ex.P552Confirmation letter, dated 29.08.1996 of Regional Office, Chennai pertaining to Ex.P551 (LD.No.26). Ex.P553Letter addressed by Airan Comtrax Towers Private Limited to Senior Manager, OBC, Ameerpet Branch along with loan application form, application form for credit facilities, with annexures I to VI (25 sheets). Ex.P554Letter dated 21-04-1997 addressed to Regional Office, Chennai, along with extract of board meeting of Airan Comtrax Towers Private Limited (5 sheets). Ex.P555Letter dated 09-10-1997 of Regional Office, Chennai addressed to the Senior Manager, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad along with office note and sanction letter, dated 09-10-1997 for credit facilities issued by Regional Office, Chennai (8 sheets). Ex.P556Copy of letter dated 21-10-1997 addressed to Airan Comtrax Towers Private Limited by the Senior Manager, Ameerpet

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 250 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Branch, Hyderabad intimating sanction of credit facility. It was acknowledged by Director of the Airan Comtrax Towers Private Limited. Ex.P557Letter dated 05-05-1998 addressed to Regional Manager, Chennai by Senior Manager, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad recommending regular sanction of working capital facilities (2 sheets). Ex.P558Eight cheques drawn on self from the cash credit account of M/s.Shakthi Steels (LD.No.52). Ex.P559Monthly stock statement submitted by M/s.Shakthi Steels (18 sheets). Ex.P560Application of renewal of cash credit limits by M/s.Shakthi Steels along with branch process note, dated 17-02-1998 signed by Mr.Sunderashwaran(A4) (LD.No.54 & 55) (65 sheets). Ex.P561Letter dated 13-02-1998 issued by Regional Office, Chennai, for appointing Monitoring Officer for cash credit account of M/s. Shakthi Steels (LD.No.56) (1 sheet). Ex.P562File containing office note, sanction letter of Regional Office for renewal of cash credit limit of Rs.50-00 lakh (Rupees Fifty Lakh only) to M/s. Shakthi Steels (81 sheets). Ex.P563Letter dated 22-03-1999 for fresh proposal of M/s.Aren Steels Limited for Letter of Credit of Rs.240 lakhs sent from Branch to Regional Manager signed by Mr.Sunderashwaran (A4) (4 sheets). Ex.P564Process note of the branch for fresh proposal of M/s.Aren Steels Limited for Letter of Credit of Rs.240 lakhs signed by Mr. Sunderashwaran (A4) (18 sheets). Ex.P565Savings bank account opening form, specimen signature and statement of account of SB Account bearing No.1520, dated 20-07-1996 in the name of Mr.P.G.Nagabhushanam Naidu opened on the introduction of one Mr.Ritesh Agarwal, SB A/c.No.710 which was authorized by Mr.Sunderashwaran (A4) (3 sheets). Ex.P566Permission issued by Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad for construction of building to Mr.P.G.Nagabhushanam Naidu bearing Sl.No.94 of Book No.70 (1 sheet). Ex.P567Notice of demand for Rs.2,600/- (Rupees Two Thousand Six Hundred only), dated 21-03-1995 issued by Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad to Mr.P.G.Nagabhushanam Naidu bearing Sl.No.3 (1 sheet).

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 251 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Ex.P568Original receipt No.88 of Book No.261 for Rs.2,600/- (Rupees Two Thousand Six Hundred only), dated 08.07.1995 issued by Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad to Mr.P.G.Nagabhushanam Naidu (1 sheet).

Ex.P569Certificate of encumbrance on property, dated 09.06.1996 pertaining to Plot No.32 of Mr.P.G.Nagabhushanam Naidu issued by Joint Registrar-II, Hyderabad (1 sheet). Ex.P570Certificate of encumbrance on property, dated 06.01.1996 pertaining to Plot No.32 issued in the name of Mr.Munnalal Agarwal (A1) by Sub-Registrar, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad (1sheet). Ex.P571Office order duty register for the period from June, 1998 to 18.04.2002 maintained in Ameerpet Branch, Oriental Bank of Commerce. Ex.P572Statement of account from 18-07-1996 to 31-12-1996 of M/s.Shakti Steels (7 sheets). Ex.P573Valuation report given by Mr.S.Chandrashekaran on 31.12.2001 in respect of property standing in the name of Mr.P.G.Nagabhushanam (6 sheets). Ex.P574(49) pay orders issued from Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad, from the account of M/s.Airan Comtrax Towers Private Limited issued in favour of different beneficiaries.

Ex.P575Bunch of correspondence between branch office, Ameerpet and Regional Office, Chennai of Oriental Bank of Commerce with regard to renewal proposal of cash credit facility to M/s Shakti Steels (50 sheets) Ex.P576Sanction letter, dated 01-09-1999 issued in favour of M/s.Airan Comtrax Towers Private Limited by the Regional Office, Chennai (6Sheets). Ex.P577Office note, dated 24-08-1999 prepared at Regional Office, OBC, Chennai (7sheets). Ex.P578Letter addressed to Senior Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch by M/s.Airan Comtrax Towers Private Limited enclosing provisional balance sheet, profit and loss account for the year ending 31.03.1998 duly signed by their Chartered Accountant (6 sheets)

Ex.P579Letter, dated 16-07-1997 forwarded by Branch Office, OBC, Ameerpet to Regional Office, Chennai in reply to queries raised by Regional Office, Chennai vide letter, dated 15.05.1997 (3 sheets).

Ex.P580Valuation report, dated 11-07-1997 issued by Mr.M.Sai Durga Prasad, Valuer in respect of properties belonging to

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 252 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Smt.Shashi Agarwal W/o. Mr.Munnalal Agarwal and Mr.Munnalal Agarwal along with copies of bio-data of the valuer (13 sheets). Ex.P581Securities Inspection and Follow up register maintained at Branch Office, OBC, Ameerpet, Hyderabad, consisting from page 00 to 03 (4 sheets). Ex.P582Office copy of letter, dated 09-08-1997 written by Regional Manager, OBC, Ameerpet to Senior Manager, Branch Office, Ameerpet, Hyderabad (9 sheets). Ex.P583Letter, dated 13-09-1997 of OBC, Ameerpet Branch to the Regional Manager, Chennai in response to letter dated 09-09- 1997 of Regional Manager, Chennai along with a letter of M/s.AIRAN COMTRAX TOWERS Private Limited containing (2) pages and copy of tax receipt No.653858 (5 sheets). Ex.P584Letter, dated 27-11-2000 of Head Office written to Assistant General Manager, Regional Office, Chennai (2 sheets). Ex.P585Certified copy of visit report, dated 10-01-2001 of Mr.E.Venkateswarlu, Officer Industrial Loans from Head Office (7 sheets). Ex.P586Wealth tax return filed by Munnalal Agarwal (A1) for assessment year 1998-99 (filed in listed document No.400) (2 sheets). Ex.P587Report dated 04.04.2002 submitted to General Manager, Inspection (20 sheets). Ex.P588Note prepared by PW24 on 12-05-2000 in respect of A6 company, we have sanction the letter of credit for A6 company for an amount of Rs.1.50 crores, LC to be issued infavour of Rastriya ISPAT Nigam Limited (RINL). Ex.P589Letter dt 13-05-2000 to address a letter to Ameerpet branch, Hyderabad for Rectification/Complaint. Ex.P590Note dt.05-04-1999 prepared by PW24 by raising certain queries for properties offered towards Collateral security. Ex.P591Letter dt.06-04-1999 addressed by Regional Office Oriental Bank of Commerce, Chennai to the Senior Manager OBC, Ameerpet, Hyderabad, wherein the letter contains that the branch has called for letter of credit for Rs.240 Lakhs with certain clarifications.

Ex.P592Ordered sanction of One shot Adhoc LC on DA basis of (90) days for Rs.90 lakhs.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 253 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Ex.P593Sanction letter for letter of Credit facilities dt. 01.03.2000 of A6 Company. Ex.P594Letter dt.17-11-2000 addressed to General Manager, New Delhi with proposal file of A5 company total (10) pages. Ex.P595Office note, dt.12-10-2000, put up by PW25 inrespect of A5 company and the note is sent to Chief Manager/AGM, observations of PW25 in the above said note are that the projections of A5 company are on higher side and the receivables are not acceptable, queries raised in inrespect of M/s. Shakthi Steels/A7 is also due (4 sheets) Ex.P596Office note, dt.19-09-2000, put up by PW25 in respect of A6 company and the note is sent to Chief Manager/AGM, PW25 raised the queries for submission of Credit report of Mr.ML.Agarwal/A1 to bear Branch manager signature, Copy of suitable Board Resolution of the company, Copy of Audited Balance Sheet as on 31-03-1999 and 31.03.2000 alongwith Audit reports and Schedules, Schedule-II of Inland Letter of Credit, and reply to their earlier queries dt.12-06-2000 in respect of M/s.Shakthi Steels/A7(4) sheets. Ex.P597Note file dt.21-11-2000, in respect of A6 company and the note is sent to Chief Manager/AGM, recommending the sanction of facility to head office thereby conveying to the branch to sent the proposal directly to head office with a copy to Regional Office as the allied concerned M/s.Airan Comtrax Towers/A5 is also sent to Head office, which is signed by Kanwaljit singh/A8(2 sheets). Ex.P598Note dt.18-04-2001, in respect of A6 company and the note is sent to Chief Manager/AGM, recommending ADHOC Letter of credit of Rs.90,00,000/- for another rotation. (1 sheet). Ex.P599Note dt.09-06-2001 prepared by PW25 in respect of A6 company observing queries raised by Head office, New Delhi vide letter dt.21-05- 2001 (1 sheet). Ex.P600Letter dt.16-04-2001 wherein PW25 stated that he put up a note on the second page. Ex.P601Noting dt.06-07-2000 for confirmation of ADHOC Letter of credit of Rs.15,00,000/- in the account of A6 after obtaining prior permission from Chief Manager loans and this was approved by Chief Manager/AGM.

Ex.P602Entire file pertaining to Enhancement proposal of A5, at Page No-27 of the this file, it is mention that the maximum availment of A5 is upto 91.68 lakhs, which was in the

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 254 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 knowledge of Regional office and Head office at the time of consideration of enhanced limits of A5 (24 sheets). Ex.P603Officenotedated11-05-1998preparedby G.Ramakrishna/PW-24 (3 sheets). Ex.P604Office note dated 18.06.1999 with regard to A5 company. Ex.P605Office note dated 06-06-1998 of OBC, Southern Region, Chennai (6 sheets). Ex.P606Inspection report of Zahoor Ahmed Letter dated 29.12.2004 (31 sheets). Ex.P607Letter dt.28.11.2000 was signed by A8, the then Assistant General Manager, OBC, Chennai facilitating Ad-hoc Cash Credit Limit of Rs.50.00 Lakhs to A5 Company (LD No.282). Ex.P608Letter dt.09.12.2000 was received from A4, the then Branch Manager, OBC, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad, for sanction of Adhoc Cash Credit Limit of Rs.50.00 Lakhs to A5 Company (LD No.285). Ex.P609Letter of Sanction dt.26.12.2000 signed by A8, sanctioning Adhoc Cash Credit Limit of Rs.50.00 Lakhs and Adhoc Inland L.C.Limit of Rs.50.00 Lakhs in favour of A5 Company, along with Office Note written by PW28 (4 Sheets) (LD No.288). Ex.P610Letter No.ROM/L/706/28/14831/2000, dt.13.12.2000 relates to queries raised by Head Office which were conveyed by the Regional Office to the Branch Office of OBC, Ameerpet in respect of renewal-cum-enhancement proposal of A5 Company, which was signed by Mohit Bhatnagar, the then Chief Manager in Regional Office, OBC, Chennai (LD No.286) (2 sheets). Ex.P611Application dated 15-06-2000 of A5 Company, Loan Application Form, Application Form for Credit Facilities, Bio- data Form, details of existing Fixed Assets, Cash Close Statement along with other enclosures (70 Sheets) (LD No.264). Ex.P612OfficecopyofLetterNo.ROM/L/706/9735/2000, dt.07.09.2000 addressed by the Assistant General Manager, Regional Office, OBC, Chennai to Ameerpet Branch, by enclosing Office Note mentioning the queries (6 Sheets) (LD No.267).

Ex.P613Letter Dt.16.09.2000 of the Deputy General Manager (Credit), Head Office addressed to the Assistant General Manager, Regional Office, Chennai (LD No.269).

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 255 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Ex.P614Reply to the Deputy General Manager (Credit), Head Office, New Delhi vide Letter No.CM/706/20844/2000-01, dt.23.09.2000, marking copy to the Assistant General Manager, Regional Office, Chennai (LD No.270) (2 sheets). Ex.P615Letter No.706/20634/2000-01, dt.15.09.2000 of A4 addressed to the Assistant General Manager, Regional Office, Chennai, enclosing the reply dt.13.09.2000 of A5 company to the queries of Regional Office and Head Office (5 Sheets) (LD No.268). Ex.P616Letter Dt.05.10.2000 was received from Deputy General Manager (Credit), Head Office advising Regional Office, Chennai to call for the reply to the queries from the Branch and send the views/recommendations of Regional Office after thorough examination of subject proposal (LD No.271). Ex.P617Copy of letter dt.26-02-2001 of the Assistant General Manager (I.L) Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Delhi addressed to the Branch Manager, OBC, Ameerpet, Hyderabad conveying sanction of working capital limits in the Account of M/s.Airan Comtrax Private Limited. Ex.P618Letter dated 03.06.2000 addressed by A4 to the Assistant General Manager, Regional Office, Chennai along with LF- 82(Process Note) and LF-70, LF-6 & 76(Application forms), LF-8 by Mrs. Shashi Agarwal, Mr.M.L.Agarwal along with copies of IT Returns and LF-8 by Mr.P.G.Nagabhushanam Naidu, CMA data as submitted by the borrower, Audited Balance Sheet along with Profit and Loss Statement for the years 1997-98 and 1998-99 along with provisional (Certified by a Chartered Accountant) Balance Sheet and Profit & Loss Account for 1999-2000, Estimated/Projected Balance Sheet and Profit and Loss Accounts for 2000-01 and 2001-02 and Copies of Monthly turnover for the year 1999-2000 as submitted by the subject to Sales Tax authorities (19 Sheets) (D.No.75). Ex.P619Letter dated 12.06.2000 addressed by A8 to the Senior Manager, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad (D.No.76). Ex.P620Letter dated 01.10.2000 addressed by A4 along with copies of letter dated 20.10.2000 and Sales Tax Returns of M/s. Shakti Steels(15 Sheets) (D.No. 69). Ex.P621Loan application of M/s. Shakti Steels(2 Sheets) (D.No.71). Ex.P622Credit Report of A3 along with the details of her Assets and Liabilities (2 Sheets) (D.No.72).

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 256 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Ex.P623Credit Report of A1 along with the details of his Assets and Liabilities (2 Sheets) (D.No.73). Ex.P624Undated letter addressed by M/s. Shakti Steels to Senior Manager, OBC, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad for renewal of Cash Credit Limit of Rs.50,00,000/- along with Loan Application(4 sheets) (D No.74). Ex.P625Sanction Letter for Credit facilities dated 20.09.1999 in favour of M/s. Aren Steel Limited (3 Sheets) (D. No.415). Ex.P626Letter dated 02.11.1999 addressed by A4, the then Senior Manager of OBC, Ameerpet Branch, addressed to the Assistant General Manager, Regional Office, Chennai, recommending to allow M/s. Aren Steels Limited to utilize ILC Limit of Rs.35 Lakhs in favour of Local Parties within the overall limits (Part of D.No. 417). Ex.P627Letter of Credit for an amount of Rs.35 Lakhs on parties other than M/s.Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited(with in the sanctioned limit) (Part of D.No.417). Ex.P628Letter dated 15.05.2000 of the Assistant General Manager, OBC, Chennai addressed to the Senior Manager, Ameerpet Branch, permitting to open Letter of Credit to any beneficiary to the extent of Limit of Rs.150 Lakhs(Part of D.No.423). Ex.P629Letter dated 19.06.2000 addressed by the Assistant General Manager, OBC Chennai to the Senior Manager, Ameerpet Branch, regarding permit of Adhoc Inland Letter of Credit(ILC) in the account of M/s.Aren Steels Limited for Rs.90 Lakhs along with Process Note dated 12.06.2000 signed by PW28 and Assistant General Manager(A8) (3 Sheets) (D.No.426). Ex.P630Letter dated 23.09.2000 addressed by the Assistant General Manager, OBC Chennai(A8) to the Senior Manager, Ameerpet Branch, permitting Adhoc ILC of Rs.90 Lakhs for One Month rotation in favour of M/s.Aren Steels Limited (D.No.433). Ex.P631Letter dt.03.01.2001 addressed by AGM, Regional Office, Chennai to Senior Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, which was signed by PW28 on behalf of AGM, Kanwal Jeet Singh (A8) (D.No.437) (1 Sheet). Ex.P632Letter dt.03.01.2001 addressed by Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch to AGM, Regional Office, Chennai (A8) recommending sanction of adhoc Inland LC of Rs.90 Lakhs in favour of M/s.Aren Steels Limited along with enclosure (D.No.436) (2 Sheets).

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 257 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Ex.P633Letter dt.12.04.2001 addressed by Senior Manager, OBC, Ameetpet Branch addressed to the AGM, Regional Office, Chennai and Copy of Letter dt.11.04.2001 addressed by the Managing Director, M/s.Aren Steel Limited addressed to the Senior Manager, OBC, Ameerpet Branch (2 Sheets) (D.No.441). Ex.P634Letter dt.19.04.2001 addressed by AGM, Regional Office, Chennai (A8) recommended for a sanction of adhoc Inland LC of Rs.90 Lakhs to General Manager (Credit), Head Office, New Delhi under (Part of LD.No.442). Ex.P635Letter dt.21.05.2001 addressed by AGM (IL), OBC, New Delhi to the AGM, Regional Office, Chennai along with Note dt.09.06.2001 of PW25 on its overleaf (D.No.443). Ex.P636Letter dt.04.09.2000 was addressed by M/s.Aren Steel Limited represented by its Director Munnalal Agarwal (A1) to the Senior Manager, OBC, Ameerpet Branch requesting for renewal and enhancement of Inland LC limit from Rs.150 Lakhs to Rs.240 Lakhs, enclosing Loan Application Form mentioning the names of M.L.Agarwal (A1), Ritesh Agarwal (A2) and Amit Agarwal as the Directors of said company, which is signed by M.L.Agarwal (A1) as an applicant along with Balance Sheet of the company for the year ending 31.03.2000, Credit Reports of M.L.Agarwal, Ritesh Agarwal and Amit Agarwal, etc. (87 Sheets) (D.No.429). Ex.P637Letter dt.23.09.2000 addressed by the Senior Manager, OBC, Ameerpet Branch to AGM, Regional office, Chennai along with letter dt.22.09.2000 of AGM addressed to the Senior Manager, Ameerpet Branch (2 Sheets) (D.No.431). Ex.P638Office Copy of letter dt.23.09.2000 addressed by the Senior Manager, OBC, Ameerpet Branch to the Assistant General Manager, Regional Office, Chennai, in which signature was marked as Q382, containing original signature. Ex.P639Valuation report dated 03-03-1999 given by Servel Associates, Secunderabad in respect of property admeasuring 5 acres of land in Sy.No.61/B of Pedda Toopran village, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (D.No.408). Ex.P640Valuation report dated 03-03-1999 given by Servel Associates, Secunderabad in respect of property admeasuring 4 acres of land in Sy.Nos.60/A, 61/B & 61/A of Pedda Toopran village, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (D.No.409). Ex.P641Valuation report dated 03-03-1999 given by Servel

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 258 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Associates, Secunderabad in respect of property admeasuring 1 acre of land in Sy.No.61/B of Pedda Toopran village, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (D.No.410). Ex.P642Sanction letter dated 16-06-1998 in the account of M/s.Airan Comtrax Towers Private Limited for cash credit hypothecation limit of Rs.80 Lakhs, documentary D.D. for Rs.20 Lakhs, ILC for Rs.10 Lakhs and Bank Guarantee for Rs.10 Lakhs along with sanctioned terms and conditions (5 sheets) (D.No.243). Ex.P643Letter No.265/2000-2001, dt.29.12.2000 and letter No.266/2000-2001, dt.29.12.2000 addressed by I.R.Rao and Company, Chartered Accountant to the Manager, OBC, Ameerpet Branch, copies of which were marked to AGM, OBC, Regional Office, Chennai, asking the Branch to forthwith stop the operations in the accounts of A5 and A7 companies(2 Sheets) (Part of D.No.637). Ex.P644Letter No.268/2000-2001, dt.30.12.2000 and letter No.267/2000-2001, dt.30.12.2000, which were addressed by I.R.Rao and Company to the Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad, the copies of which were marked to the Assistant General Manager, OBC, Regional Office, Chennai, asking Ameerpet Branch to start operations in the accounts of A5 and A7 companies (2 Sheets) (D.No.289). Ex.P645Two letters under Ex.P644 were sent by PW29 to the Assistant General Manager, Southern Region, Chennai under Letter No.CN/706/23843/2000, dt.30.12.2000, Ex.P646Letter dt.01.08.2001 was addressed to the Branch Manager, OBC, Ameerpet by Managing Director of A5 company requesting for conversion of Bank Guarantee (Performance) of Rs.50 Lakhs into Bank Guarantee (Financial) (D.No.301). Ex.P647LetterNo.70623913/2000-2001,dt.03.01.2001was addressed by PW29 to the Assistant General Manager, Regional Office, Chennai regarding sanction of adhoc LC of Rs.90 Lakhs in the account of A6 company, (D.No.605).

Ex.P648Letter dt.18.12.2000 from A.P.Mahesh Co-operative Urban Bank Limited, Monda Market Branch, Secunderabad was received by the Senior Manager, OBC, Ameerpet Branch, along with credit information report of M/s.Ruby Traders, mentioning it as “Satisfactory”(2 Sheets) (Part of D.No.612). Ex.P649Letter dt.01.02.2000 from A.P.Mahesh Co-operative Urban Bank Limited, Market Street Branch, Secunderabad was

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 259 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 received by the Senior Manager, OBC, Ameerpet Branch, along with letter dt.01.02.2000 of M/s.Maheswari Steel Corporation and credit information reports of M/s.Ruby Traders, M/s.Universal Trading Company and M/s.Maheswari Steel Corporation wherein it is mentioned that there were no transactions in the accounts M/s.Ruby Traders and M/s.Universal Trading Company since 3 months by then and there were no transactions in the account of M/s.Maheswari Steel Corporation from 06.11.2000 (5 Sheets) (Part of D.No.612). Ex.P650Letter dated 18.08.1997 of A4 addressed to Regional Manager, Chennai and letter dated 14.08.1997 of A5 company addressed to A4 (5 Sheets) (D.No.222). (Ex.P650 contains Q557 and Q558). Ex.P651Carbon Copy of letter No.ROM/L/705/LG/2137/97 dated 15.05.1997 addressed by Regional Office, Chennai to OBC, Ameerpet Branch. Ex.P652Credit voucher dated 28.02.2001 for Rs.17,56,495/- crediting the said amount to the account of ACTPL(A5) Ex.P653Credit voucher dated 28.02.2001 for Rs.1,20,346/- crediting the said amount to the account of ACTPL(A5). Ex.P654Credit voucher dated 28.02.2001 for Rs.16,30,500/- crediting the said amount to the account of ACTPL(A5). Ex.P655Credit voucher dated 07.03.2001 for Rs.1,20,878/- crediting the said amount to the account of ACTPL(A5). Ex.P656Credit voucher dated 07.03.2001 for Rs.1,19,736/- crediting the said amount to the account of ACTPL(A5). Ex.P657Credit voucher dated 08.03.2001 for Rs.16,49,360/- crediting the said amount to the account of ACTPL(A5). Ex.P658Credit voucher dated 08.03.2001 for Rs.16,75,500/- crediting the said amount to the account of ACTPL(A5). Ex.P659Credit voucher dated 01.08.2001 for Rs.24,86,950/- crediting the said amount to the account of ACTPL(A5). Ex.P660Credit voucher dated 01.08.2001 for Rs.25,99,490/- crediting the said amount to the account of ACTPL(A5).

Ex.P661Credit voucher dated 01.08.2001 for Rs.29,95,160/- crediting the said amount to the account of ACTPL(A5). Ex.P662Credit voucher dated 06.08.2001 for Rs.25,99,200/- crediting the said amount to the account of ACTPL(A5).

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 260 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Ex.P663Credit voucher dated 06.08.2001 for Rs.26,94,740/- crediting the said amount to the account of ACTPL(A5). Ex.P664Credit voucher dated 06.08.2001 for Rs.24,89,560/- crediting the said amount to the account of ACTPL(A5). Ex.P665Credit voucher dated 07.08.2001 for Rs.19,44,480/- crediting the said amount to the account of ACTPL(A5). Ex.P666Credit voucher dated 07.08.2001 for Rs.24,96,170/- crediting the said amount to the account of ACTPL(A5). Ex.P667Credit voucher dated 07.08.2001 for Rs.26,29,480/- crediting the said amount to the account of ACTPL(A5). Ex.P668Credit voucher dated 11.08.2001 for Rs.29,98,860/- crediting the said amount to the account of ACTPL(A5). Ex.P669Credit voucher dated 11.08.2001 for Rs.23,10,440/- crediting the said amount to the account of ACTPL(A5). Ex.P670Credit voucher dated 11.08.2001 for Rs.26,95,540/- crediting the said amount to the account of ACTPL(A5). Ex.P671Cheque No.630027 dated 30.12.1999 for Rs.69,875/- issued from CC Account No.326 of A5 company (part of D.No.370). Ex.P672Loan application of M/s.Shakthi Steels (Document No.22) Ex.P673Application form for opening of Current Account M/s.Aren Steels Limited (Document No.406) Ex.P674Computer generated statement of account pertaining to account CC326 of M/s.Airan Comptrax Towers Private Limited during period from 17.06.1998 to 31.12.1999, 01.01.2000 to 30.06.2000, 01.07.2000 to 31.12.2000, 01.01.2001 to 31.06.2001, 01.07.2001 to 31.07.2001, 01.01.2002 to 31.12.2002 (135 Sheets) (Doc.No.601). Ex.P675Computerized statement of account pertaining to account No.6035 of M/s.Airan Comptrax Towers Private Limited during period from 11.03.2002 to 23.03.2005 (5 Sheets) (Doc.No.602). Ex.P676Computerized statement of account pertaining to account No.CA1289 of M/s.Airan Comtrax Towers Private Limited during the period from 23.09.1996 to 23.03.2005 (10 Sheets)(Doc.No.600). Ex.P677Debit voucher dated 02.06.1998 of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad for Rs.2,50,000/- in the account of M/s.Shakthi Steels account CC16 along with two credit vouchers for Rs.1,25,000/- each (3 Sheets) (Doc.No.144).

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 261 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Ex.P678Debit voucher dated 18.06.1998 of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad for Rs.9,00,000/- in the account of M/s.Shakthi Steels account CC16 along with one credit voucher for Rs.9,00,000/- (2 Sheets) (Doc.No.145). Ex.P679Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad debit voucher dated 24.10.1998 for Rs.92,930/- in the account of M/s.Shakthi Steels account CC16 along with one credit voucher for Rs.92,930/- (2 Sheets)(Doc.No.146). Ex.P680Debit voucher dated 07.11.1998 of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad for Rs.1,00,000/- in the account of M/s.Shakthi Steels account CC16 along with one credit voucher for Rs.1,00,000/- (2 Sheets) (Doc.No.147). Ex.P681Credit voucher dated 16.11.1998 of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad for Rs.1,00,000/- in the account of M/s.Shakthi Steels account CC16 (1 Sheet) (Doc.No.148). Ex.P682Transfer debit voucher dated 02.12.1998 of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad for Rs.50,000/- in the account of M/s.Shakthi Steels account CC16 along with one credit voucher for Rs.50,000/- (2 Sheet) (Doc.No.149). Ex.P683Transfer debit voucher dated 16.12.1998 of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad for Rs.28,000/- in the account of M/s.Shakthi Steels account CC16 along with one credit voucher for Rs.28,000/- (2 Sheets)(Doc.No.150). Ex.P684Transfer credit voucher dated 28.01.1999 of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad for Rs.50,000/- in the account of M/s.Shakthi Steels (1 Sheet) (Doc.No.151). Ex.P685Transfer debit voucher dated 24.02.1999 of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad for Rs.97,595/- in the account of M/s.Shakthi Steels account along with one credit voucher for Rs.97,595/- (2 Sheets)(Doc.No.152). Ex.P686Transfer debit voucher dated 24.02.1999 of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad for Rs.2,67,777/- in the account of M/s.Shakthi Steels account along with two credit vouchers for Rs.25,637/- and Rs.2,42,140/- respectively (3 Sheets) (Doc.No.153). Ex.P687Transfer debit voucher dated 01.03.1999 of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad for Rs.1,85,635/- in the account of M/s.Shakthi Steels account along with one credit voucher for Rs.1,85,635/- (2 Sheets)(Doc.No.154).

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 262 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Ex.P688Transfer debit voucher dated 01.03.1999 of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad for Rs.1,55,235/- in the account of M/s.Shakthi Steels along with one credit voucher for Rs.1,55,235/- (2 Sheets)(Doc.No.155). Ex.P689Transfer debit voucher dated 03.03.1999 of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad for Rs.3,07,805/- in the account of M/s.Shakthi Steels account along with two credit vouchers for Rs.1,52,650/- and Rs.1,55,155/- (3 Sheets)(Doc.No.156). Ex.P690Transfer debit voucher dated 05.03.1999 of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad for Rs.3,28,470/- in the account of M/s.Shakthi Steels account along with two credit vouchers for Rs.1,60,975/- and Rs.1,67,495/- (3 Sheets)(Doc.No.157). Ex.P691Transfer debit voucher dated 06.03.1999 of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad for Rs.98,250/- in the account of M/s.Shakthi Steels account along with one credit voucher for Rs.98,250/- (2 Sheets)(Doc.No.158). Ex.P692Transfer credit voucher dated 08.03.1999 of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad for Rs.1,42,500/- in the account of M/s.Shakthi Steels (1 Sheet)(Doc.No.159). Ex.P693Transfer credit voucher dated 08.03.1999 of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad for Rs.2,31,500/- in the account of M/s.Shakthi Steels (1 Sheet)(Doc.No.160). Ex.P694Transfer debit voucher dated 09.03.1999 of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad for Rs.1,30,000/- in the account of M/s.Shakthi Steels account along with one credit voucher for Rs.1,30,000/- (2 Sheets)(Doc.No.161). Ex.P695Transfer debit voucher dated 10.03.1999 of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad for Rs.3,76,590/- in the account of M/s.Shakthi Steels account along with two credit vouchers for Rs.1,85,945/- and Rs.1,90,645/- (3 Sheets)(Doc.No.162). Ex.P696Transfer debit voucher dated 12.03.1999 of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad for Rs.4,22,030/- in the account of M/s.Shakthi Steels account along with one credit voucher for Rs.4,22,030/- (2 Sheets)(Doc.No.163). Ex.P697Transfer debit voucher dated 13.03.1999 of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad for Rs.1,68,400/- in the account of M/s.Shakthi Steels account along with one credit voucher for Rs.1,68,400/- (2 Sheets)(Doc.No.164).

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 263 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Ex.P698Transfer debit voucher dated 15.03.1999 of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad for Rs.3,50,228/- in the account of M/s.Shakthi Steels account along with one credit voucher for Rs.3,50,228/- (2 Sheets)(Doc.No.165). Ex.P699Transfer debit voucher dated 16.03.1999 of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad for Rs.74,500/- in the account of M/s.Shakthi Steels account along with one credit voucher for Rs.74,500/- (2 Sheets)(Doc.No.166). Ex.P700Transfer credit voucher dated 08.04.1999 of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad for Rs.4,79,850/- in the account of M/s.Shakthi Steels (1 Sheet) (Doc.No.167). Ex.P701Transfer credit voucher dated 08.04.1999 of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad for Rs.4,77,150/- in the account of M/s.Shakthi Steels (1 Sheet) (Doc.No.168). Ex.P702Transfer debit voucher dated 12.04.1999 of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad for Rs.9,28,820/- in the account of M/s.Shakthi Steels along with one credit voucher for Rs.9,28,820/- (2 Sheets)(Doc.No.169). Ex.P703Transfer debit voucher dated 17.04.1999 of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad for Rs.10,51,155/- in the account of M/s.Shakthi Steels along with one credit voucher for Rs.10,51,155/- (2 Sheets) (Doc.No.170). Ex.P704Transfer credit voucher dated 26.04.1999 of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad for Rs.30,000/- in the account of M/s.Shakthi Steels (1 Sheet) (Doc.No.171). Ex.P705Transfer credit voucher dated 26.04.1999 of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad for Rs.40,000/- in the account of M/s.Shakthi Steels (1 Sheet) (Doc.No.172). Ex.P706Transfer debit voucher dated 04.06.1999 of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad for Rs.4,35,850/- in the account of M/s.Shakthi Steels (1 Sheet) (Doc.No.173). Ex.P707Transfer debit voucher dated 10.07.1999 of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad for Rs.1,00,000/- in the account of M/s.Shakthi Steels along with one credit voucher for Rs.1,00,000/- (2 Sheets)(Doc.No.174). Ex.P708Transfer debit voucher dated 13.07.1999 of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad for Rs.41,000/- in the account of M/s.Shakthi Steels along with one credit voucher for Rs.41,000/- (2 Sheets)(Doc.No.175). Ex.P709Transfer debit voucher dated 10.08.1999 of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad for Rs.44,570/- in

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 264 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 the account of M/s.Shakthi Steels along with one credit voucher for Rs.44,570/- (2 Sheets)(Doc.No.176). Ex.P710Transfer debit voucher dated 11.08.1999 of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad for Rs.2,84,291/- in the account of M/s.Shakthi Steels along with one credit voucher for Rs.2,84,291/- (2 Sheets)(Doc.No.177). Ex.P711Transfer debit voucher dated 17.08.1999 of Oriental Bank of Commerce,AmeerpetBranch,Hyderabadfor Rs.2,69,783.18/- in the account of M/s.Shakthi Steels along with one credit voucher for Rs.2,69,783.18/- (2 Sheets) (Doc.No.178). Ex.P712Transfer debit voucher dated 21.09.1999 of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad for Rs.2,07,498/- in the account of M/s.Shakthi Steels along with two credit vouchers for Rs.1,29,711/- and Rs.77,787/- (3 Sheets) (Doc.No.179). Ex.P713Transfer debit voucher dated 22.09.1999 of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad for Rs.2,49,950/- in the account of M/s.Shakthi Steels along with one credit voucher for Rs.2,49,950/- (2 Sheets)(Doc.No.180). Ex.P714Transfer debit voucher dated 12.10.1999 of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad for Rs.39,879/- in the account of M/s.Shakthi Steels along with one credit voucher for Rs.39,879/- (2 Sheets)(Doc.No.181). Ex.P715Transfer debit voucher dated 14.10.1999 of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad for Rs.64,542/- in the account of M/s.Shakthi Steels along with one credit voucher for Rs.64,542/- (2 Sheets)(Doc.No.182). Ex.P716Transfer debit voucher dated 15.10.1999 of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad for Rs.59,343/- in the account of M/s.Shakthi Steels along with one credit voucher for Rs.59,343/- (2 Sheets)(Doc.No.183). Ex.P717Transfer debit voucher dated 25.10.1999 of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad for Rs.1,00,000/- in the account of M/s.Shakthi Steels along with one credit voucher for Rs.1,00,000/- (2 Sheets)(Doc.No.184). Ex.P718Transfer debit voucher dated 26.10.1999 of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad for Rs.9,96,640/- in the account of M/s.Shakthi Steels along with two credit vouchers for Rs.4,97,955/- and Rs.4,98,685/- (3 Sheets) (Doc.No.185).

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 265 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Ex.P719Transfer debit voucher dated 27.10.1999 of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad for Rs.95,700/- in the account of M/s.Shakthi Steels along with one credit voucher for Rs.95,700/- (2 Sheets)(Doc.No.186). Ex.P720Transfer debit voucher dated 23.11.1999 of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad for Rs.2,54,800/- in the account of M/s.Shakthi Steels along with one credit voucher for Rs.2,54,800/- (2 Sheets)(Doc.No.187). Ex.P721Transfer debit voucher dated 25.11.1999 of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad for Rs.1,00,000/- in the account of M/s.Shakthi Steels along with one credit voucher for Rs.1,00,000/- (2 Sheets)(Doc.No.188). Ex.P722Transfer debit voucher dated 10.11.1999 of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad for Rs.1,00,000/- in the account of M/s.Shakthi Steels along with one credit voucher for Rs.1,00,000/- (2 Sheets)(Doc.No.189). Ex.P723Transfer debit voucher dated 26.11.1999 of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad for Rs.1,70,000/- in the account of M/s.Shakthi Steels along with one credit voucher for Rs.1,70,000/- (2 Sheets)(Doc.No.190) . Ex.P724Transfer debit voucher dated 26.11.1999 of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad for Rs.1,01,026/- in the account of M/s.Shakthi Steels along with one credit voucher for Rs.1,01,026/- (2 Sheets)(Doc.No.191). Ex.P725Transfer debit voucher dated 26.11.1999 of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad for Rs.6,09,690/- in the account of M/s.Shakthi Steels along with one credit voucher for Rs.6,09,690/- (2 Sheets)(Doc.No.192). Ex.P726Transfer debit voucher dated 27.11.1999 of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad for Rs.1,80,000/- in the account of M/s.Shakthi Steels along with one credit voucher for Rs.1,80,000/- (2 Sheets)(Doc.No.193). Ex.P727Transfer debit voucher dated 27.11.1999 of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad for Rs.80,000/- in the account of M/s.Shakthi Steels along with one credit voucher for Rs.80,000/- (2 Sheets)(Doc.No.194). Ex.P728Transfer debit voucher dated 04.12.1999 of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad for Rs.30,000/- in the account of M/s.Shakthi Steels along with one credit voucher for Rs.30,000/- (2 Sheets)(Doc.No.195). Ex.P729Transfer debit voucher dated 06.12.1999 of Oriental Bank of

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 266 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad for Rs.31,197/- in the account of M/s.Shakthi Steels along with one credit voucher for Rs.31,197/- (2 Sheets)(Doc.No.196). Ex.P730Transfer debit voucher dated 06.12.1999 of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad for Rs.1,36,975/- in the account of M/s.Shakthi Steels along with one credit voucher for Rs.1,36,975/- (2 Sheets)(Doc.No.197). Ex.P731Transfer debit voucher dated 09.12.1999 of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad for Rs.4,65,865/- in the account of M/s.Shakthi Steels along with one credit voucher for Rs.4,65,865/- (2 Sheets)(Doc.No.198). Ex.P732Transfer debit voucher dated 20.12.1999 of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad for Rs.1,37,855/- in the account of M/s.Shakthi Steels along with one credit voucher for Rs.1,37,855/- (2 Sheets)(Doc.No.199). Ex.P733Transfer debit voucher dated 23.12.1999 of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad for Rs.1,99,955/- in the account of M/s.Shakthi Steels along with one credit voucher for Rs.1,99,955/- (2 Sheets)(Doc.No.200). Ex.P734Transfer credit voucher dated 27.12.1999 of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad for Rs.2,49,800/- in the account of M/s.Shakthi Steels (1 Sheet)(Doc.No.201). Ex.P735Transfer credit voucher dated 30.12.1999 of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad for Rs.1,72,750/- in the account of M/s.Shakthi Steels (1 Sheet)(Doc.No.202). Ex.P736Transfer credit voucher dated 30.12.1999 of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad for Rs.1,78,500/- in the account of M/s.Shakthi Steels (1 Sheet)(Doc.No.203). Ex.P737Transfer credit voucher dated 15.04.1999 of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad for Rs.9,28,450/- in the account of M/s.Shakthi Steels (1 Sheet) (Doc.No.204). Ex.P738Computer generated bills purchased register pertaining to the period from 1997 to 1999 of Shakthi Steels (277 Sheets) (D.No.205).

Ex.P739Report submitted by PW34 along with covering letter, there is a separate report as on 30-01-2002 in respect of Airon Complex Towers Ltd., (A5)(D.No.638) (03 sheets). Ex.P740Report of A5, dt.30-01-2002(Part of LD.No.638) (03 sheet).

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 267 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Ex.P741SpecialReportofA5toA7Companies, dt.15.02.2002(D.No.639) (03 sheet). Ex.P742Letter to the Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet,Hyderabadon30-12-2000(D.637) (02 Sheets). Ex.P743Process note dated 05.12.2001 prepared by PW38 comprising of 8 Sheets(L.D.No.324). Ex.P744Letter dated 08.02.2002 addressed by Assistant General Manager, OBC, Banjarahills to the Senior Manager, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad(L.D.No.326 Page No.3). Ex.P745Letter dt.16.03.2002 addressed by Assistant General Manager to Senior Manager, OBC, Ameeerpet and the letter 15.03.2002 addressed by Assistant General Manager, Head Office addressed to Assistant General Manager, Regional Office, Hyderabad (L.D.No.327 Sheet No.3 and 4). Ex.P746Letter dated 24.12.2001 from Asst. General Manager, OBC, Banjarahills addressed to Sr.Manager, OBC Ameerpet (One Sheet). Ex.P747Note put up by PW38 on 09.02.2002 and it is in his hand writing(Page No.1 back side). Ex.P748Enquiry report dated 29.01.1991 of the then Enforcement Officer. (L.D.367 1st sheet). Ex.P749Letter issued by Enforcement Officer to the employer requesting to furnish certain documents. (L.D.367 2nd sheet). Ex.P750Details of the Establishment submitted by the employer while coverage of Establishment. (L.D.No.367 3rd Sheet). Ex.P751Employer furnished the documents as per the notice dated 21.01.1991(L.D.No.367 4th Sheet). Ex.P752True extract of xerox copy of registration certificate of Giridhar ISPAT Private Limited.(L.D.No.367 5th Sheet). Ex.P753True Extract Copy of Xerox Copy of certificate issued by Department of Industries in respect of Giridhar ISPAT Private Limited. (L.D.No.367 6th Sheet). Ex.P754True Extract of copy of Certificate Registration issued by Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Office in respect of Giridhar ISPAT Private Limited. (L.D.No.367 7th Sheet). Ex.P755True extract of copy of Certificate of Registration issued by Central Sales Tax Department in respect of Giridhar ISPAT Private Limited. (L.D.No.367 8th Sheet).

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 268 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Ex.P756True Extract of copy of Invoice of Giridhar ISPAT Private Limited. (L.D.No.367 9th Sheet). Ex.P757Attested copy of coverage of Establishment issued by Regional Provident Fund Commissioner issued by Giridhar ISPAT Private Limited(L.D.No.367 10 and 11th Sheet). Ex.P758Attested copy letter issued by Airen Comptrox Towers Private Limited on taking over of Giridhar ISPAT Private Limited. (L.D.No.367 12th Sheet). Ex.P759Attested copy Form-5A submitting ownership details in respect of Airen Comtraxt Towers Private Limited(L.D.No.367 13th Sheet). Ex.P760Document Form 9 in which the list of employees of Giridhar ISPAT Private Limited(L.D.No.367 14th to 42 Sheet). Ex.P761Form 6A Annual Report in respect of contributions remitted against the members filed by employers by Airon Comptroxt Towers Private Limited. This document is pertaining to the period from 01.04.2000 to 31.03.2001(L.D.No.367 43 Sheet). Ex.P762Bunch of documents (Sheet No.1 to 5) i.e. Bill of Exchange, Letter of Credit, Bankers Cheque, State Bank of Marishash Covering letter(L.D.No.476). Ex.P763Documents related to LC.No.0028493/201/130 dated 23.02.2000 issued by OBC, Ameerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aren Steels Limited favouring M/s.RINL (L.D.No.482). Ex.P764Documents related to LC.No.0028495/201/132 dated 29.02.2000 issued by OBC, Ameerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aren Steels Limited favouring M/s.RINL (L.D.No.483). Ex.P765Statement of account handed over by PW44 (L.D.No.582 Page No.3 to 9) Ex.P766Cheque No.661397 dated 14.02.2000(L.D.No.576). Ex.P767Cheque No.661385 dated 12.02.2000(L.D.No.577). Ex.P768Cheque No.661762 dated 24.02.2000(L.D.No.578). Ex.P769Cheque No.661777 dated 02.03.2000(L.D.No.579). Ex.P770Cheque No.661778 dated 04.03.2000(L.D.No.580). Ex.P771Cheque No.652607 dated 24.01.2000(L.D.No.572). Ex.P772Cheque No.656941 dated 11.04.2000(L.D.No.573). Ex.P773Cheque No.656940 dated 11.04.2000(L.D.No.574). Ex.P774Cheque No.652604 dated 24.01.2000(L.D.No.575).

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 269 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Ex.P775Photograph on specimen signature of proprietor related to Venson Steels belongs to Chandra Prakash who used to deals with accounts and banking(L.D.No.137). Ex.P776Certified copy of Certificate of Incorporation of Airan Comptrax Private Limited/A5 (LD-488) (10 sheets) Ex.P777Certified copy of Certificate of Incorporation of Areen Steels Private Limited/A6 (LD-487) (22 sheets). Ex.P778Receipt memo dated 27.04.2006 enclosing five pay orders no.001534, 036023, 037532, 035985, 039073 (1 sheet) (LD-565). Ex.P779Seven pay order nos.047915, 047691, 046792, 046794, 046782, 046593, 045152 of UTI Bank favouring A.P.Mahesh Co-operative Bank (LD-549 to LD-555)(7 pay orders). Ex.P780Document related to LC No.0036402/201/247 dated 24.04.2001 issued by OBC, Ameerpet Branch on behalf of M/s. Aren Steels Limited(after verifying charge sheet court recorded it as A6) in favour of M/s.Universal Trading Company, Hyderabad(L.D.No.505) (44 Sheets). Ex.P781Pay Order No.147555 favouring Lakshmi Vilas Bank Limited

dated 24.07.2001 for Rs.40,01,591/-(L.D.No.538/9).

Ex.P782Document related to LC No.0036405/201/249 dated 26.04.2001 for an amount of Rs.49,99,995/- issued by OBC, Ameerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aren Steels Limited in favour of Ruby Traders, Hyderabad along with related enclosures(L.D.No.490) (18 sheets). Ex.P783Pay Order No.147630 dated 30.07.2001 favouring Lakshmi Vilas Bank for Rs.50,16,433.34(L.D.No.538/4). Ex.P784Document related to LC No.0036407/201/251 dated 10.05.2001 for an amount of Rs.19,99,998/- issued by OBC, Ameerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aren Steels Limited in favour of Ruby Traders, Hyderabad along with related enclosures(L.D.No.491). Ex.P785Pay Order No.147764 dated 13.08.2001 favouring Lakhsmi Vilas Bank for Rs.20,05,477.45 (L.D.No.538/5). Ex.P786Document related to LC No.0036411/201/257 dated 14.05.2001 for an amount of Rs.24,99,984/- issued by OBC, Ameerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aren Steels Limited in favour of Ruby Traders, Hyderabad along with related enclosures(L.D.No.492). Ex.P787Pay Order No. 147798 dated 16.08.2001(L.D.No.538/6).

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 270 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Ex.P788Document related to LC No.0036412/201/258 dated 17.05.2001 for an amount of Rs.19,99,971/- issued by OBC, Ameerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aren Steels Limited in favour of Ruby Traders, Hyderabad along with related enclosures(L.D.No.499). Ex.P789Pay Order No.147876 dated 21.08.2001 farouring Lakshmi vilas bank for Rs.20,07,861.30 (L.D.No.538/1). Ex.P790Original letter dated 2.11.1999 addressed by Oriental Bank of Commerce to assistant general manager, regional office, Chennai requesting that a part of limit upto 35 lakhs, LC be issued in favour of local parties instead of Rashtriya Ispat Nigam limited citing the reasons higher discount is available when the material is procured from local parties(L.D.No.416). Ex.P791Original Register Sale Deed vide Doc. No.7241/1997 dated 01.04.1997(7 Sheets)(L.D.NO.661). Ex.P792Original Register Sale Deed vide Doc. No.7242/1997 dated 01.04.1997(7 Sheets)(L.D.NO.664). Ex.P793Specimens ofA1 and A2 are compared with questioned thumb impressions Ex.P794Specimens of A3and A4 are compared with questioned thumb impressions and same is Ex.P794. Ex.P795Specimen impressions of (Purported) of A.Damodar Reddy sent by the Investigating officer to PW56 on three finger print leaves is marked as SF-7, SF8, SF9, SF10, SF11, SF12 of which he selected two impressions Ex.P796Opinion dated 21.05.2007 and the same was forwarded by the Superintendent of Police, Finger Print Bureau, Bangalore vide letter requisition Number 49/FPB/2007 dated 06.06.2007(2 Sheets). Ex.P797Opinion along with covering letter forwarding the opinion to SP, CBI, BS and FC, Bangalore dated 25.11.2005 which was signed by Sri. Narender singh, the then Govt. Examiner of questioned documents(L.D.No. 206) ( 3 sheets). Ex.P798Covering Letter, dated 10.04.2006 (LD No.556) Ex.P799Pay Order No.010366, dated 15.02.2001 (LD No.556) Ex.P800Pay Order No.007094, dated 28.09.2000 (LD No.557) Ex.P801Pay Order No.007093, dated 28.09.2000 (LD No.558) Ex.P802Pay Order No.007369, dated 03.10.2000 (LD No.559) Ex.P803Pay Order No.007368, dated 03.10.2000 (LD No.560)

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 271 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Ex.P804Pay Order No.006726, dated 30.08.2000 (LD No.561) Ex.P805Pay Order No.007078, dated 27.09.2000 (LD No.562) Ex.P806Pay Order No.006608, dated 17.08.2000 (LD No.563) Ex.P807Pay Order No.006166, dated 11.07.2000 (LD No.564) Ex.P808Purported specimen writings/signatures of Sri.S.Chandra Prakash marked as S1 to S137 (L.D.Nos.581. 583 to 593 and 619). Ex.P809Purported specimen writings/signatures of Sri. Ritesh Agarwal marked as S138 to S228(L.D.No.620 to 628). Ex.P810Purported specimen writings/signatures of Sri.Munnalal Agarwal marked as S229 to S238(L.D.No.629). Ex.P811Purported specimen writings/signatures of Sri.S.Chandra Sekhar marked as S239 to S244(L.D.No.630). Ex.P812Purported specimen writings/signatures of Sri.Jagadish Prasad Bangad marked as 5245 to S249(L.D.No.631). Ex.P813Purported specimen writings/signatures of Mrs.Seshi Agarwal marked as S250 to S253(L.D.No.632). Ex.P814Purported specimen writings/signatures of Sri.M.Anjaiah marked as S264 to S273(L.D.No.633). Ex.P815Purported specimen writings/signatures of Sri.A.Narsinga Rao marked as S274 to S283(L.D.No.634). Ex.P816Purported specimen writings/signatures of Sri.B.Mallesh marked as 5284 to 5293(L.D.No.635). Ex.P817Purportedspecimenwritings/signaturesof Sri.M.Sundereshwaran marked as S314 to S325 (L.D.No.636). Ex.P818Document related to LC No.0028493/201/130 dated 23.02.2000 issued by OBC, Ameerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aran Steels Limited favouring M/s.Rastreeya Ispat Nigam Limited along with related enclosures(L.D.No.482). Ex.P819Document related to LC No.0028495/201/132 dated 29.02.2000 issued by OBC, Ameerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aran Steels Limited favouring M/s.Rastreeya Ispat Nigam Limited along with related enclosures(L.D.No.483). Ex.P820Document related to LC No.0028521/201/158 dated 08.04.2000 issued by OBC, Ameerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aran Steels Limited favouring M/s.Rastreeya Ispat Nigam Limited along with related enclosures(L.D.No.489).

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 272 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Ex.P821Document related to LC No.0028489/201/126 dated 10.02.2000 issued by OBC, Ameerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aran Steels Limited favouring M/s.Rastreeya Ispat Nigam Limited along with related enclosures(L.D.No.481). Ex.P822Document related to LC No.0028474/201/113 dated 30.12.1999 issued by OBC, Ameerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aran Steels Limited favouring M/s.Rastreeya Ispat Nigam Limited along with related enclosures(L.D.No.477). Ex.P823Document related to LC No.0028477/201/115 dated 21.01.2000 issued by OBC, Ameerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aran Steels Limited favoring M/s.Rastreeya Ispat Nigam Limited along with related enclosures(L.D.No.478). Ex.P824Documents related to LC No.0036405/201/249 dated 26.04.2001 issued by OBC, Ameerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aren Steels Limited (18 Sheets)(L.D.No.490). Ex.P825Certified copy of extract of Assessment register for property tax volume No.7, Page No.7 issued by Deputy Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad in respect of premises 1-9- 9ofSri.P.Naghabushanamand Sri.B.Subramanyam(L.D.No.37). Ex.P826Original letter dated 06.09.2001 addressed to Senior Manager, OBC, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad advising to submit the renewal proposal along with sanction process note and sanction letter etc. of M/s.Shakthi Steels(L.D.No.85). Ex.P827Original letter dated 29.09.2001 of OBC, New Delhi Addressed to Senior Manager, Ameerpet Branch regarding M/s.Shakthi Steels(L.D.No.90). Ex.P828Original letter dated 14.12.2001 of OBC, Hyderabad addressed to Branch Manager, Ameerpet enclosing original letter of OBC, New Delhi regarding renewal proposal of M/s.Shakthi Steels(L.D.No.94). Ex.P829Letter dated 24.12.2001 signed by Assistant General Manager addressed to the Senior Manager, Ameerpet Branch(L.D.No.96).

Ex.P830Statement of account of OBC, Ameerpet, Hyderabad related to the account of Shakthi Steels Limited from 01.01.2001 to 31.12.2001(L.D.No.128). Ex.P831Bunch of pay orders pertaining to M/s.Maheshwari Steel Corporations(37 pay orders)(L.D.No.130). Ex.P832Bunch of pay orders pertaining to M/s. Universal Trading

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 273 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Company (4 pay orders)(L.D.No.131). Ex.P833Bunch of pay orders pertaining to M/s.Choudary Steels(9 pay orders)(L.D.No.132). Ex.P834Bunch of pay orders pertaining to M/s.Ruby Traders vide pay order no.086014 dated 24.02.2000(L.D.No.133). Ex.P835Bunch of pay orders pertaining to M/s.Venson Steels 28 pay orders(L.D.No.134). Ex.P836Cheques favoring M/s.Maheshwari Steels Corporation issued by M/s.Shakthi Steels(L.D.No.135). Ex.P837Original Statements of accounts of Krushi Co-op Urban Bank Ltd., Dated from 3.1.2000 to 16.10.2001, related to Venson Steels A/C No.015 and enclosed Certificate U/s 2 A of Banker's Books of evidence Act. 1891. (3 Sheets) (L.D.No.138). Ex.P838Instruments(12 Cheques) which were utilized for making withdrawals from Cash Credit account of M/s Shakthi Steels (CC-16) during the year 1997. list of Annexure-I attached Cheque Numbers.909762, 909797, 909793, 913804, 909799, 913879, 913874, 913869, 913873, 939045, 939048, 939040 (L.D.No.142). Ex.P839Instruments(List of Cheques) which were utilized for making withdrawals from Cash Credit account of M/s Shakthi Steels (CC 16) during the year 1998, list of Annexure-II attached(L.D.No.143). Ex.P840Original copy of Provisional Balance Sheet as on 31.3.1997 and Balance Sheet as at 31.07.97 of M/s Airan Comtrax Towers P Ltd., (4 Sheets) Q-523 to Q-528)(L.D.No.215). Ex.P841Original letter of OBC dated 21.4.97 from Sr. Manager, Ameerpet, Hyderabad, addressed to the regional Manager, Regional office, Chennai, along with original copy of Annexure-B related to M/s ACTPL, for sanction of Term Loan and Working Capital of Rs. 50 lakhs and Rs. 1.00 Crore respectively (21 Sheets)(L.D.No.216).

Ex.P842Original copy of Pre Sanction visit dated 25.06.1997 Report related to M/s ACTPL, Secunderabad, by Sri. Sundareswaran, Senior Manager, Location of the unit survey no. 29, Oothpally village, Shamshabad Mandal, R.R. District A.P. (8 Sheets) (Q-588)(L.D.No.218). Ex.P843Letter of M/s ACTPL, Hyderabad from its Director dated 24.5.1997, addressed to The Sr.Manager, OBC, Ameerpet,

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 274 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Hyderabad. Regarding Clarifications on proposed for sanction of financial assistance for our proposed unit M/s.ACTPL, Secunderabad (3 Sheets), (Q-589)(L.D.No.219). Ex.P844Letter of OBC, Regional Office, Chennai from Regional Manager dated 09.09.1997 addressed to Senior Manager, Ameerpet, Hyderabad regarding M/s ACTPL along with original Office Note of OBC, R.O., Southern Region, Madras from Regional Manager dated 06.09.1997, regarding M/s ACTPL Term loan 50 lacs(4 Sheets)(LD.No.224). Ex.P845Letter of M/s ACTPL, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. From Managing Director dated 12.01.1998 addressed to The Branch Manager, OBC, Ameerpet, Hyderabad, regarding release of term loan of a/c no.1130- request regarding and attrached original four letters of M/s ACTPL, Ameerpet, Hyderabad.From Managing Director, letter dated 05.02.1998, 19.2.1998, 19.3.0998, 2.4.1998, addressed to The Branch Manager, OBC, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. Regarding Release of Term Loan of A/c No. 1130 (5 Sheets) (Q-474, Q-584 to Q-587)(LD.No.229). Ex.P846Letter of M/s.ACTPL, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. From Sh.M.L.Agarwal, Managing Director, letter dated 25.10.1997, addressed to the Branch Manager, OBC, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. Regarding Adhoc limit for cash credit of Rs. 30.00 lakhs(3 Sheets)(LD.No.230). Ex.P847Hand-written letter No. 4657/97-98 dated 28.1.98 of OBC, Hyderabad. From Sr. Manager, addressed to The Regional Manager, Chennai (2 Sheets) (Q-556)(L.D.No.235). Ex.P848Hand-written letter No. CN/706/4695/97-98 dated 2.2.1998, of OBC, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. From Sr. Manager, addressed to The Regional Manager, Regional Office Southern, Chennai. (1 Sheet)(L.D.No.236). Ex.P849Letter of M/s ACTPL, Hyderabad, from Director, letter dated: 2.5.1998. addressed to The Senior Manager, OBC, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. and also enclosed xerox copy of the bill of M/s Bhagwati Machinery Corpn, (2 Sheets) (Q-540)(L.D.No.237).

Ex.P850Letter No.CN/706/98-99/5899 dated 03.06.1998 of OBC, Hyderabad. From Senior Manager, Addressed to The Regional Manager, Southern Region, Chennai. (1 Sheet) (Q-555) (L.D.No.240). Ex.P851Original Letter No. CN/706/98-99/5900 dated 03.06.1998 of OBC, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. addressed to The Regional Manager Southern Region, Chennai. Regarding Visit Report of

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 275 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

M/s ACTPL, Secunderabad, (1 Sheets) (Q-541)(L.D.No.241). Ex.P852Original letter of M/s ACTPL, Secunderabad. From Sh. M.L. Agarwal, Managing Director, addressed to The Sr. Manager, OBC, Ameerpet, Hyderabad regarding Renewal of Limits. (2 Sheets) (Q-522)(L.D.No.247). Ex.P853Original loan application form of OBC, New Delhi, favouring M/s ACTPL., Secunderabad. Term Loan: 42.00 lacs, etc. (3 Sheets) (Q-565)(L.D.No.248). Ex.P854Original letter of M/s ACTPL, Secunderabad, from Director, addressed to The Senior Manager, OBC, Ameerpet, Hyderabad.EnclosedProvisionalProfit&Loss account/Provisional Balance sheet as on 31.3.1998. Annexure 1 of M/s ACTPL. (6 Sheets) (Q-542 to Q-554) (L.D.No.250). Ex.P855Original letter of M/s ACTPL, Secunderabad, dated 12.4.1999 addressed to The Senior Manager, OBC, Ameerpet, Hyderabad, regarding Clarification on turnover of the company. (2 Sheets) (Q-413)(L.D.No.252). Ex.P856Original letter No. CN/706/12944/99 dated 17.8.1999 from OBC, Ameerpet, Hyderabad from Sr. Manager, addressed to The Asst. Gen. Manager, R.O. Chennai, regarding renewal proposal of M/s ACTP, (2 Sheets), (Q-521)(L.D.No.254). Ex.P857Original copy of Pre-sanction Visit Report of OBC, New Delhi, favouring M/s ACTPL, Name of visiting officer N Mohd Babu, Date of Visit: 26.7.2000, Location of unit: Sy no. 214/3/A&B, Janwada Village, Shankarapally Mandal, RR District. (8 Sheets)(L.D.No.265). Ex.P858Original letter of M/s ACTPL, Secunderabad. From Managing Director letter dated 9.12.2000 addressed to The Sr. Manager, OBC, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. (2 Sheets) (Q-479) (L.D.No.274). Ex.P859Original letter No. ROM/LAC/14280/00 of OBC, Regional Office, Chennai from Asst. Gen. Manager letter dated 24.11.2000 addressed Sr. Manager, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. (1 Sheet) (Q-478)(L.D.No.280). Ex.P860Original copy letter No. CN/706/22319/2000-01 of OBC, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. From Sr. Manager, letter dated 28.11.2000, addressed to The Asst. Gen. Manager, Regional Office, Chennai. (1 Sheet)(L.D.No.281). Ex.P861Original letter No. ROM/L/706/15698/2000 of OBC, Regional Office, Chennai. From Asst. Gen. Manager, letter dated

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 276 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 30.12.2000 addressed to The Sr. Manager, Ameerpet, Hyderabad regarding Concurrent Auditor's Report on M/s. ACTPL & M/s. Sakthi Steels Ltd. (1 Sheet)(LD.No.290). Ex.P862Hand-written letter of M/s ACTPL, Secunderabad. From Managing Director letter dated 11.1.2001 addressed to The Senior Manager, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. (2 Sheets) (Q-481) (LD.No.291). Ex.P863Original letter No. ROM/L/706/18154/2001 of OBC, Regional Office, Chennai. From Asst. Gen. Manger, letter dated 19.2.2001 addressed to The Sr. Manager, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. (1 Sheet), (Q-482)(LD.No.294). Ex.P864Original office note of OBC, Southern Region, Chennai dated 27.4.2001 related to M/s ACTPL, Ameerpet, Hyderabad and enclosed Original copy of branch Certificate of compliance of OBC, Ameerpet, Hyderabad dated 23.04.2001, favouring M/s Airan Comtrax Towers P Ltd. and enclosed Xerox copy of True copy of the extract from the minutes of the Board of Directors meeting held on 2nd March, 2001 at Registered Office of the company (18 Sheets)(LD.No.298). Ex.P865Original letter of OBC, HO, New Delhi from Assistant General Manager(IL), letter dated 09.07.2001 addressed to the Assistant General Manager Regional Office, Hyderabad (2 Sheets)(L.D.No.300). Ex.P866Original letter No. CN/706/24649/2001-02 dated 1.8.2001 from Sr. Manager, OBC addressed to The Assistant General Manager, RO, Hyderabad. and Enclosed Xerox copy letter of M/s ACTPL, Secunderabad, from Managing Director, Letter

dated: 10.7.2001 addressed to The Senior Manager, OBC,

Ameerpet, Hyderabad, (3 Sheets)(L.D.No.302). Ex.P867Original Hand written Office note of OBC, H.O., New Delhi,

dated 13.7.2001. From Chief Manager addressed to the

A.G.M, regarding the visit to M/s. ACTPL unit by T.S.Bagga, CM (1 Sheet)(L.D.No.303). Ex.P868Original letter of OBC, Regional Office, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, from Asst. Gen. Manager, letter No. ROH/LN/1342/2001 dated 25.8.2001 addressed to Senior Manager, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. Regarding, M/s ACTPL- Adhoc - Rs. 30.00 lacs (1 Sheet)(L.D.No.305). Ex.P869Original letter of OBC, H.O. New Delhi. From Asst. Gen. Manager (IL), letter dated 31.8.2001, addressed to The Asst. Gen. Manager, R.O., Hyderabad. (1 Sheet)(L.D.No.306). Ex.P870Original copy of OBC, H.O., New Delhi. From Dy. Gen.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 277 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Manager (I & C) letter No. H.O/I&C/BR/5582 dated 28.9.2001 addressed to The Asst. Gen. Manager, R.O., Hyderabad. (2 Sheets)(L.D.No.308). Ex.P871Original hand written letter No. CN/706/2546/2001-02 dated 5.10.2001 from Sr. Manager of OBC, Ameerpet, Hyderabad, addressed to The. Asst. Gen. Manager, R.O., Hyderabad. (2 Sheets)(Q-2793)(L.D.No.314). Ex.P872Original letter of OBC, H.O., New Delhi. From Asst. Gen. Manager, dated 10.11.2001 addressed to The Asst. Gen. Manager, R.O., Hyderabad. (1 Sheet)(L.D.No.317). Ex.P873Original copy of Hand-written Office Note of OBC, R.O., Hyderabad, dated 24.11.2001 regarding visit report of Sh. Rakesh Sharma, (1 Sheet), (Q-505)(L.D.No.318). Ex.P874Original letter of M/s ACTPL, Secunderabad. From Managing Director, letter dated 26.11.2001 addressed to The Sr. Manager, OBC, Ameerpet, Hyd., (1 Sheet), (Q-484) (L.D.No.319). Ex.P875Original letter No. ACTPL/010/027/02-03 of M/s ACTPL, dated 13.5.2002 from M.L. Agarwal, Managing Director, addressed to The Sr. Manager, OBC, Ameerpet, Hyderabad regarding submission of required information as per the personal discussion held with Sri. Thakkar A.G.M. on 13-05-2002. Enclosed stock statement, CC 326 dated: 30.4.2002 (2 Sheets), (Q-486 & Q-487)(L.D.No.321). Ex.P876Original letter No. ACTPL/010/013/02-03 of M/s ACTPL, dated 23.4.2002 from M.L. Agarwal, Managing Director, addressed to The Chairman Managing Director, OBC, H.O., New Delhi. (2 Sheets) (Q-490)(LD.No.329). Ex.P877Original letter of M/s ACTPL, Secunderabad. From M.L. Agarwal, Managing Director, letter dated 3.6.2002 addressed to The Chairman and Managing Director, OBC, H.O., New Delhi. Enclosed OCC Stock Statement Cum MSOD from M/s ACTPL, Addressed to OBC, and List of Sundry Debtors as on 30 April 2002 of M/s ACTPL. (4 Sheets) (Q-485, Q-488 & Q- 489)(LD.No.330). Ex.P878Office copy kept in branch of STM-41 & Annexures from Jan 1997 to May 2001 of OBC, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad. (281 Sheets)(LD.No.340). Ex.P879Original copy of Hand-written letter No. CN/706/19854/2000- 01 dated 25.7.2000 from Sr. Manager OBC, Ameerpet, Hyderabad addressed to The Asst. Gen. Manager, R.O. Chennai and enclosed Annexure 'E' Quarterly Report of Large

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 278 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Borrowal Accounts related to M/s ACTPL, Hyderabad. (5 Sheets)(LD.No.341). Ex.P880Original Hand-written letter No. CN/706/16708/99-2000

dated 2.2.2000 from The Sr. Manager, OBC, Ameerpet,

Hyderabad addressed to The Asst. Gen. Manager. Regional Office. Chennai. Carbon copy letter of OBC. Secunderabad from Asst. Gen. Manager, letter dated 27.1.2000, addressed to Sr. Manage Ameerpet, Hyderabad. Original Office Note of OBC, Southern Region, Chennan dated 22.1.2000, related to M/s ACTPL, Monitoring Officer report-Quarter ended Dec. 1999. Original copy of Annexure-II dated 31.12.1999, addressed to M/s.ACTPL, Hyderabad. (6 Sheets)(LD.No.343). Ex.P881Original Hand-written letter no. CN\706\14323\99-2000

dated 4.11.99 fom Sr. Manager of OBC, Ameerpet,

Hyderabad addressed to The Asst. Gen. Manager, Regional Office, Chennai and enclosed Original copy of Annexure II, related to M/s ACTPL. (4 Sheets)(LD.No.344). Ex.P882Original letter of M/s ACTPL, Secunderabad. From Director, letter dated 21.01.1999, addressed to The Chief Manager, OBC, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. Regarding Discounting of bill. (1 Sheet) (Q-568)(LD.No.352). Ex.P883Office copy maintained in the bank STM-41 & Annexures from June 2001 to Dec 2002 of OBC, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad. S(392 Sheets)(LD.No.355). Ex.P884Computerized L.C. of OBC, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. Dated 18.2.2005, to applicant M/s ACTPL, Secunderabad of beneficiary Sh. Laxmi Narashima Swamy, Secunderabad. Five Sheets of Computerized L.C. of OBC, Ameerpet, Hyderabad.

Dated 18.2.2005, to applicant M/s ACTPL, Secunderabad of

Two Sheets of beneficiary M/s Payal Steels Pvt Ltd., Hyderabad. Computerized L.C. of OBC, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. Dated 18.2.2005, to applicant M/s ACTPL, Secunderabad of beneficiary Universal Trading Co., Hyderabad, and Computerized L.C. of OBC, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. Dated 18.2.2005, to applicant M/s ACTPL, of beneficiary M/s Ruby Traders. (10 Sheets)(LD.No.357). Ex.P885Certified copy of Equitable Mortgage of OBC, related to M/s ACTPL, Secunderabad. Dated 5.2.2001 related to Smt. Shashi Agarwal, Xerox copy of Equitable Mortgage of OBC, related to M/s ACTPL, Secunderabad. Dated 5.2.2001 & 09.03.2001 related to Sh. M.L. Agarwal and enclosed various other documents related to it.(16 Sheets).(LD.No.358) Ex.P886Certified copy of Equitable Mortgage of OBC, related to M/s

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 279 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

ACTPL, Secunderabad. Dated 6.11.2001 related to Smt. Shashi Agarwal, Xerox copy of Equitable Mortgage of OBC, related to M/s ACTPL, Secunderabad. Dated 16.11.2001 In the Name of Sh. M.L. Agarwal, Xerox copy of Equitable Mortgage of OBC, related to M/s ACTPL, Secunderabad.

Dated 16.11.2001 In the Name of M/s ACTPL, Secunderabad.

Dated 16.11.2001 and enclosed various other documents

related to it. (9 Sheets)(LD.No.359). Ex.P887Certified copy of Equitable Mortgage of OBC, related to M/s ACTPL, Secunderabad. Dated 15.10.1996 In the Name of Sh. P.G. Nagabushanam Naidu, Xerox copy of Equitable Mortgage of OBC, related to M/s ACTPL, Secunderabad. Dated 21.10.1997 related to Shri. M.L. Agarwal, Xerox copy of Equitable Mortgage of OBC, related to M/s ACTPL, Secunderabad. Dated 21.10.1997 related to Shri. Ritesh Agarwal, Smt. Shashi Agarwal, Xerox copy of Equitable Mortgage of OBC, related to M/s ACTPL, Secunderabad.

Dated 17.6.1998. In the Name of Sh. M.L. Agarwal, Xerox

copy of Equitable Mortgage of OBC, related to M/s ACTPL, Secunderabad. Dated 17.6.1998 related to Smt. Shashi Agarwal. (7 Sheets)(LD.No.360) Ex.P888Original copy of valuation report dated: 9.11.2001 for M/s OBC, a report by Servel Associates, Secunderabad and certificate signed by S. Chandrasekaran. (14 Sheets), (Q-492 to Q-504)(LD.No.361). Ex.P889Cheques issued from CC A/c No. 326 of M/s Airan Comtrax Towers Pvt. Ltd., Secunderabad maintained at OBC, Ameerpet, Hyderabad, (146 Nos)(L.D.No.369). Ex.P890Cheques issued from CC A/c No. 326 of M/s ACTPL., maintained at OBC, Ameerpet, Hyderabad, (303 Nos) (L.D.No.370). Ex.P891Pay orders of M/s.ACTPL, Secunderabad in favour of M/s.Maheshwari Steel Corporations Limited (42 Numbers) (L.D.No.372). Ex.P892Pay orders of M/s.ACTPL, Secunderabad in favour of M/s.Choudary Steels (12 Numbers)(L.D.No.373). Ex.P893Pay orders of M/s.ACTPL, Secunderabad in favour of M/s.Universal Trading Company (2 Numbers)(L.D.No.374). Ex.P894Pay orders of M/s.ACTPL, Secunderabad in favour of M/s.Bhumika Steels (1 Number)(L.D.No.375). Ex.P895Pay orders of M/s.ACTPL, Secunderabad in favour of M/s.Ruby Traders (1 Number)(L.D.No.376).

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 280 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Ex.P896Pay orders of M/s.ACTPL, Secunderabad in favour of M/s.Bhumika Steels (1 Number)(L.D.No.377). Ex.P897Pay orders of M/s.ACTPL, Secunderabad in favour of M/s.Sujana Steels Limited (1 Number)(L.D.No.378). Ex.P898Pay orders of M/s.ACTPL, Secunderabad in favour of M/s.Venson Steels (7 Number)(L.D.No.379). Ex.P899Pay orders of M/s.ACTPL, Secunderabad in favour of M/s.Rastriya Ispath Nigam Limited (10 Number)(L.D.No.380). Ex.P900Pay orders of M/s.ACTPL, Secunderabad in favour of M/s.BR Enterprises (2 Number)(L.D.No.381). Ex.P901Stock statement submitted by M/s.ACTPL, Secunderabad showing the stock position of the company for the period from 30.06.1998 to 21.03.2002(66 Sheets)(L.D.No.384). Ex.P902Original copy of two cancelled cash memo/bill of M/s.Bhagavathi Machinary Corporation (4 Sheets) (L.D.No.385). Ex.P903Valuation report of M/s.Servel Associates dated 09.11.2001 related to Plant and Machinery building etc of M/s.ACTPL (13 Sheets)(L.D.No.387). Ex.P904Form A2 return of monthly turnover of M/s.Vishnu Steels, Bhavani Colony received from A.Laxmaiah, Commercial Tax Officer,Hyderabadthroughletterdated 02.11.2005(L.D.No.388). Ex.P905Original copy of three pay-in-slips of AP Mahesh Co-Operative Urban Bank Limited related to M/s.Universal Trading Company, M/s.Ruby Traders and M/s.Maheshwari Steel Corporation(L.D.No.399). Ex.P906Assessment of working capital requirements Form-I of CMA data account of M/s.Aren Steels Limited (11 Sheets) (L.D.No.403). Ex.P907Letter dated 22.03.1999 from Senior Manager, OBC, Ameerpet Branch addressed to Regional Manager, Chennai regarding fresh proposal in the name of M/s.Aren Steels Limited, letter of Credit facility of Rs.240 lakhs(L.D.No.404). Ex.P908Letter dated 22.01.1999 regarding the board resolution for opening of current account related to M/s.Aren Steels Limited signed by ML Agarwal, Managing Director(L.D.No.405). Ex.P909Original letter dated 13.04.1999 by Senior Manager, OBC, Ameerpet to the AGM, Regional Office, Chennai regarding sanction of limited in the name of M/s.Aren Steels

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 281 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Limited(L.D.No.412). Ex.P910Original letter dated 10.09.1999 from Senior Manager, OBC, Ameerpet to the AGM, Regional Office, Chennai regarding ILC limit of Rs.240 lakhs in the name of M/s.Aren Steels Limited(L.D.No.414). Ex.P911Letter dated 19.02.2000 regarding enhancement of LC limit by Rs.90 Lakhs for two shots of three months cash in the account of M/s.Aren Steels Limited signed by M.Sundereshwaran(L.D.No.418). Ex.P912Letter dated 10.05.2000 addressed to Assistant General Manager, Regional Office, Chennai regarding the sanction of LC of Rs.150 Lakhs in favour of Rastriya Ispath Nigam Limited and sanction of adhoc LC facility of Rs.90 lakhs in the account of M/s.Aren Steels Limited(L.D.No.421). Ex.P913Letter dated 26.02.2000 by Senior Manager, OBC, Ameerpet regarding M/s.Aren Steels Limited entered into agreement with RINL(L.D.No.425). Ex.P914Letter dated 13.09.2000 from Senior Manager, OBC, Ameerpet to the Assistant General Manager regarding enjoying a letter of Credit limit of Rs.150 Lakhs and allowed the adhoc credit limit of Rs.90 Lakhs in the account of M/s.Aren Steels Limited along with Annexure-B of OBC, Ameerpet, Hyderabad(L.D.No.430). Ex.P915Letter dated 01.10.2000 from Senior Manager, OBC, Ameerpet to the Assistant General Manager, Regional Office, Chennai several documents have been submitted by the branch along with this letter to the Regional Office(L.D.No.434). Ex.P916Letter dated 13.06.2000 by Assistant General Manager, Chennai addressed to Senior Manager, Ameerpet, OBC indicating that the account of M/s.Aren Steels Limited should not be allowed to run under lapsed sanction(L.D.No.444). Ex.P917Letter dated 07.09.2001 addressed from Assistant General Manager, OBC, Hyderabad to the Senior Manager, Ameerpet, Hyderabad regarding the proposal of adhoc inland LC of Rs.90 Lakhs in the account of M/s.Aren Steels Limited stands to be declined and advised to submit the renewal proposal and relevant papers of the same(L.D.No.446). Ex.P918Letter dated 12.09.2001 addressed by Senior Manager OBC, Ameerpet to the Assistant General Manager, RO, Hyderabad regarding the LC which was issued on behalf of M/s.Aren Steels Limited for Rs.34,99,983/- was due further

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 282 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 payment(L.D.No.447). Ex.P919Letter dated 29.01.2001 by Assistant General Manager, OBC, Head Office, New Delhi addressed to the Senior Manager, OBC, Ameerpet, Hyderabad regarding extension of the validity of sanction on all existing terms and conditions in the account of M/s.Aren Steels Limited(L.D.No.451). Ex.P920Letter dated 01.03.1996 from Senior Manager, OBC addressed to the Regional Manager, Madras regarding fresh proposal to M/s.Shakthi Steels(L.D.No.455). Ex.P921Documents related to LC.No.201/67 dated 30.08.1999 issued by OBC, Ameeerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aren Steels Limited favoring M/s.Sujana Steels Limited along with related enclosures(14 Sheets)(L.D.No.467). Ex.P922Documents related to LC.No.0028451/201/92 dated 02.11.1999 issued by OBC, Ameeerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aren Steels Limited favoring M/s.Venson Steels along with related enclosures (13 Sheets)(L.D.No.468). Ex.P923Documents related to LC.No.0028452/201/93 dated 05.11.1999 issued by OBC, Ameeerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aren Steels Limited favoring M/s.Venson Steels along with related enclosures (12 Sheets)(L.D.No.469). Ex.P924Documents related to LC.No.0028453/201/95 dated 12.11.1999 issued by OBC, Ameeerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aren Steels Limited favoring M/s.Venson Steels along with related enclosures (12 Sheets)(L.D.No.470). Ex.P925Documents related to LC.No.0028442/201/86 dated 14.10.1999 issued by OBC, Ameeerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aren Steels Limited favoring M/s.RINL along with related enclosures (10 Sheets)(L.D.No.471). Ex.P926Documents related to LC.No.0028461/201/102 dated 02.11.1999 issued by OBC, Ameeerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aren Steels Limited favoring M/s.RINL along with related enclosures (11 Sheets)(L.D.No.472). Ex.P927Documents related to LC.No.0028462/201/103 dated 03.12.1999 issued by OBC, Ameeerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aren Steels Limited favoring M/s.RINL along with related enclosures (12 Sheets)(L.D.No.473). Ex.P928Documents related to LC.No.0028449/201/104 dated 10.12.1999 issued by OBC, Ameeerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aren Steels Limited favoring M/s.RINL along with related enclosures (11 Sheets)(L.D.No.474).

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 283 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Ex.P929Documents related to LC.No.00284624/201/106 dated 16.12.1999 issued by OBC, Ameeerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aren Steels Limited favoring M/s.RINL along with related enclosures (12 Sheets)(L.D.No.475). Ex.P930Documents related to LC.No.00284468/201/110 dated 22.12.1999 issued by OBC, Ameeerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aren Steels Limited favoring M/s.RINL along with related enclosures(8 Sheets)(L.D.No.476). Ex.P931Documents related to LC.No.00284480/201/117 dated 24.01.2000 issued by OBC, Ameeerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aren Steels Limited favoring M/s.RINL along with related enclosures(11 Sheets)(L.D.No.479). Ex.P932Documents related to LC.No.00284483/201/120 dated 28.01.2000 issued by OBC, Ameeerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aren Steels Limited favoring M/s.RINL along with related enclosures(10 Sheets)(L.D.No.480). Ex.P933Documents related to LC.No.00284503/201/141 dated 13.03.2000 issued by OBC, Ameeerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aren Steels Limited favoring M/s.RINL along with related enclosures(12 Sheets)(L.D.No.484). Ex.P934Documents related to LC.No.00284514/201/151 dated 25.03.2000 issued by OBC, Ameeerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aren Steels Limited favoring M/s.RINL along with related enclosures(16 Sheets)(L.D.No.485). Ex.P935Documents related to LC.No.00285116/201/153 dated 29.03.2000 issued by OBC, Ameeerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aren Steels Limited favoring M/s.RINL along with related enclosures(12 Sheets)(L.D.No.486). Ex.P936Documents related to LC.No.0036411/201/257 dated 14.05.2001 issued by OBC, Ameeerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aren Steels Limited favoring M/s.Ruby Traders along with related enclosures(13 Sheets)(L.D.No.492). Ex.P937Documents related to LC.No.0036386/201/230 dated 08.01.2001 issued by OBC, Ameeerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aren Steels Limited favoring M/s.Ruby Traders along with related enclosures(10 Sheets)(L.D.No.493). Ex.P938Documents related to LC.No.0036388/201/231 dated 08.01.2001 issued by OBC, Ameeerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aren Steels Limited favoring M/s.Ruby Traders along with related enclosures(10 Sheets)(L.D.No.494). Ex.P939Documents related to LC.No.0036391/201/234 dated

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 284 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 08.02.2001 issued by OBC, Ameeerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aren Steels Limited favoring M/s.Ruby Traders along with related enclosures(14 Sheets)(L.D.No.495). Ex.P940Documents related to LC.No.0036392/201/236 dated 12.02.2001 issued by OBC, Ameeerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aren Steels Limited favoring M/s.Ruby Traders along with related enclosures(11 Sheets)(L.D.No.496). Ex.P941Documents related to LC.No.0036393/201/237 dated 15.02.2001 issued by OBC, Ameeerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aren Steels Limited favoring M/s.Ruby Traders along with related enclosures(12 Sheets)(L.D.No.497). Ex.P942Documents related to LC.No.0036394/201/238 dated 19.02.2001 issued by OBC, Ameeerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aren Steels Limited favoring M/s.Ruby Traders along with related enclosures(20 Sheets)(L.D.No.498). Ex.P943Documents related to LC.No.0036412/201/258 dated 17.05.2001 issued by OBC, Ameeerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aren Steels Limited favoring M/s.Ruby Traders along with related enclosures(16 Sheets)(L.D.No.499). Ex.P944Documents related to LC.No.0036381/201/227 dated 03.01.2001 issued by OBC, Ameeerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aren Steels Limited favoring M/s.Universal Trading Company along with related enclosures(12 Sheets) (L.D.No.500). Ex.P945Documents related to LC.No.0036384/201/228 dated 05.01.2001 issued by OBC, Ameeerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aren Steels Limited favoring M/s.Universal Trading Company along with related enclosures(12 Sheets) (L.D.No.501). Ex.P946Documents related to LC.No.0036395/201/239 dated 28.02.2001 issued by OBC, Ameeerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aren Steels Limited favoring M/s.Universal Trading Company along with related enclosures(14 Sheets) (L.D.No.502).

Ex.P947Documents related to LC.No.0036396/201/239 dated 28.02.2001 issued by OBC, Ameeerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aren Steels Limited favoring M/s.Universal Trading Company along with related enclosures(13 Sheets) (L.D.No.503). Ex.P948Documents related to LC.No.0036401/201/243 dated 18.04.2001 issued by OBC, Ameeerpet Branch on behalf of

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 285 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

M/s.Aren Steels Limited favoring M/s.Universal Trading Company along with related enclosures(12 Sheets) (L.D.No.504). Ex.P949Documents related to LC.No.0036424/201/269 dated 23.07.2001 issued by OBC, Ameeerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aren Steels Limited favoring M/s.Universal Trading Company along with related enclosures(13 Sheets) (L.D.No.506). Ex.P950Documents related to LC.No.0036427/201/273 dated 16.08.2001 issued by OBC, Ameeerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aren Steels Limited favoring M/s.Universal Trading Company along with related enclosures(53 Sheets) (L.D.No.507). Ex.P951Documents related to LC.No.0036428/201/274 dated 21.08.2001 issued by OBC, Ameeerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aren Steels Limited favoring M/s.Universal Trading Company along with related enclosures (65 Sheets) (L.D.No.508). Ex.P952Documents related to LC.No.0036486/201/123 dated 01.02.2000 issued by OBC, Ameeerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aren Steels Limited favoring M/s.Mahesharari Steel Corporation along with related enclosures (11 Sheets) (L.D.No.509). Ex.P953Documents related to LC.No.0036488/201/124 dated 04.02.2000 issued by OBC, Ameeerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aren Steels Limited favoring M/s.Mahesharari Steel Corporation along with related enclosures (10 Sheets) (L.D.No.510). Ex.P954Documents related to LC.No.0036502/201/140 dated 10.03.2000 issued by OBC, Ameeerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aren Steels Limited favoring M/s.Mahesharari Steel Corporation along with related enclosures (12 Sheets) (L.D.No.511). Ex.P955Documents related to LC.No.0036505/201/143 dated 16.03.2000 issued by OBC, Ameeerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aren Steels Limited favoring M/s.Mahesharari Steel Corporation along with related enclosures (13 Sheets) (L.D.No.512). Ex.P956Documents related to LC.No.0036507/201/144 dated 21.03.2000 issued by OBC, Ameeerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aren Steels Limited favoring M/s.Mahesharari Steel Corporation along with related enclosures (14 Sheets)

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 286 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 (L.D.No.513). Ex.P957Documents related to LC.No.0036512/201/150 dated 23.03.2000 issued by OBC, Ameeerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aren Steels Limited favoring M/s.Mahesharari Steel Corporation along with related enclosures (33 Sheets) (L.D.No.514). Ex.P958Documents related to LC.No.0036515/201/152 dated 27.03.2000 issued by OBC, Ameeerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aren Steels Limited favoring M/s.Mahesharari Steel Corporation along with related enclosures (12 Sheets) (L.D.No.515). Ex.P959Documents related to LC.No.0036526/201/162 dated 09.05.2000 issued by OBC, Ameeerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aren Steels Limited favoring M/s.Mahesharari Steel Corporation along with related enclosures (22 Sheets) (L.D.No.516). Ex.P960Documents related to LC.No.0036527/201/167 dated 10.05.2000 issued by OBC, Ameeerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aren Steels Limited favoring M/s.Mahesharari Steel Corporation along with related enclosures (35 Sheets) (L.D.No.517). Ex.P961Documents related to LC.No.0036531/201/168 dated 12.05.2000 issued by OBC, Ameeerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aren Steels Limited favoring M/s.Mahesharari Steel Corporation along with related enclosures(53 Sheets) (L.D.No.518). Ex.P962Documents related to LC.No.0036533/201/169 dated 15.05.2000 issued by OBC, Ameeerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aren Steels Limited favoring M/s.Mahesharari Steel Corporation along with related enclosures (30 Sheets) (L.D.No.519).

Ex.P963Documents related to LC.No.0036535/201/172 dated 17.05.2000 issued by OBC, Ameeerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aren Steels Limited favoring M/s.Mahesharari Steel Corporation along with related enclosures (27 Sheets) (L.D.No.520). Ex.P964Documents related to LC.No.0036537/201/174 dated 25.05.2000 issued by OBC, Ameeerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aren Steels Limited favoring M/s.Mahesharari Steel Corporation along with related enclosures(13 Sheets) (L.D.No.521).

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 287 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Ex.P965Documents related to LC.No.0036538/201/176 dated 30.05.2000 issued by OBC, Ameeerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aren Steels Limited favoring M/s.Mahesharari Steel Corporation along with related enclosures(17 Sheets) (L.D.No.522). Ex.P966Documents related to LC.No.0036540/201/177 dated 08.06.2000 issued by OBC, Ameeerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aren Steels Limited favoring M/s.Mahesharari Steel Corporation along with related enclosures(17 Sheets) (L.D.No.523). Ex.P967Documents related to LC.No.0036547/201/184 dated 28.06.2000 issued by OBC, Ameeerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aren Steels Limited favoring M/s.Mahesharari Steel Corporation along with related enclosures(30 Sheets) (L.D.No.524). Ex.P968Documents related to LC.No.0036548/201/185 dated 28.06.2000 issued by OBC, Ameeerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aren Steels Limited favoring M/s.Mahesharari Steel Corporation along with related enclosures(35 Sheets) (L.D.No.525). Ex.P969Documents related to LC.No.0036549/201/186 dated 01.07.2000 issued by OBC, Ameeerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aren Steels Limited favoring M/s.Mahesharari Steel Corporation along with related enclosures(13 Sheets) (L.D.No.526). Ex.P970Documents related to LC.No.0036550/201/187 dated 11.07.2000 issued by OBC, Ameeerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aren Steels Limited favoring M/s.Mahesharari Steel Corporation along with related enclosures(12 Sheets) (L.D.No.527). Ex.P971Documents related to LC.No.0036565/201/202 dated 16.09.2000 issued by OBC, Ameeerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aren Steels Limited favoring M/s.Mahesharari Steel Corporation along with related enclosures(8 Sheets) (L.D.No.528). Ex.P972Documents related to LC.No.0036566/201/204 dated 25.09.2000 issued by OBC, Ameeerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aren Steels Limited favoring M/s.Mahesharari Steel Corporation along with related enclosures(41 Sheets) (L.D.No.529). Ex.P973Documents related to LC.No.0036570/201/207 dated 27.09.2000 issued by OBC, Ameeerpet Branch on behalf of

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 288 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

M/s.Aren Steels Limited favoring M/s.Mahesharari Steel Corporation along with related enclosures(13 Sheets) (L.D.No.530). Ex.P974Documents related to LC.No.0036572/201/209 dated 28.09.2000 issued by OBC, Ameeerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aren Steels Limited favoring M/s.Mahesharari Steel Corporation along with related enclosures(12 Sheets) (L.D.No.531). Ex.P975Documents related to LC.No.0036573/201/210 dated 03.10.2000 issued by OBC, Ameeerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aren Steels Limited favoring M/s.Mahesharari Steel Corporation along with related enclosures(11 Sheets) (L.D.No.532). Ex.P976Documents related to LC.No.0036575/201/212 dated 10.10.2000 issued by OBC, Ameeerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aren Steels Limited favoring M/s.Mahesharari Steel Corporation along with related enclosures(12 Sheets) (L.D.No.533). Ex.P977Documents related to LC.No.000790/201/214 dated 08.11.2000 issued by OBC, Ameeerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aren Steels Limited favoring M/s.Mahesharari Steel Corporation along with related enclosures(12 Sheets) (L.D.No.534). Ex.P978Documents related to LC.No.000794/201/218 dated 20.11.2000 issued by OBC, Ameeerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aren Steels Limited favoring M/s.Mahesharari Steel Corporation along with related enclosures(25 Sheets) (L.D.No.535). Ex.P979Documents related to LC.No.000546/201/183 dated 23.06.2000 issued by OBC, Ameeerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aren Steels Limited favoring M/s.Mahesharari Steel Corporation along with related enclosures(13 Sheets) (L.D.No.536). Ex.P980Computerized copy of LC of OBC, Ameerpet Hyderabad related to M/s.Aren Steels Limited, Secunderabad dated 18.02.2005 (99 Sheets)(L.D.No.537). Ex.P981Pay order on the account of inland letters of credit of M/s.Aren Steels Limited, Secunderabad (64 Numbers of beneficiaries)(L.D.No.538). Ex.P982Pay order No.097891 dated 11.02.2000 of OBC, Ameerpet, Hyderabad on account of M/s.Aren Steels Limited, Secunderabad favouring M/s.Universal Trading Company

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 289 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 (1 Pay order)(L.D.No.540). Ex.P983Pay order of OBC, Ameerpet, Hyderabad on account of M/s.Aren Steels Limited, Secunderabad favouring M/s.BR Enterprises (4 Pay order)(L.D.No.541). Ex.P984Pay order of OBC, Ameerpet, Hyderabad on account of M/s.Aren Steels Limited, Secunderabad favouring M/s.Sujana Steels Limited(3 Pay order)(L.D.No.542). Ex.P985Pay order of OBC, Ameerpet, Hyderabad on account of M/s.Aren Steels Limited, Secunderabad favouring M/s.Choudary Steels Limited (10 Pay order)(L.D.No.543). Ex.P986OBC, Ameerpet, Hyderabad pay order on account of M/s.Aren Steels Limited, Secunderabad favouring M/s.Bhumika Steels (2 Pay order)(L.D.No.544). Ex.P987OBC, Ameerpet, Hyderabad pay order on account of M/s.Aren Steels Limited, Secunderabad favouring M/s.Ruby Traders (3 Pay order)(L.D.No.545). Ex.P988OBC, Ameerpet, Hyderabad pay order on account of M/s.Aren Steels Limited, Secunderabad favouring M/s.Venson Steels Limited (22 Pay order)(L.D.No.546). Ex.P989OBC, Ameerpet, Hyderabad pay order on account of M/s.Aren Steels Limited, Secunderabad favouring M/s.Maheshwari Steel Corporations (30 Pay order)(L.D.No.547). Ex.P990OBC, Ameerpet, Hyderabad pay order on account of M/s.Aren Steels Limited, Secunderabad favouring various companies and persons (30 Pay order)(L.D.No.548). Ex.P991Original pay order of UTI Bank Limited, Begampet, toHyderabad cheque No.047915 dated 19.02.2001 for Ex.P997Rs.9,67,669/- in favour of AP Mahesh Co-Operative Limited account of Ruby Traders (1 Pay order)(L.D.No.549). (Due to Original pay order of UTI Bank Limited, Begampet, oversight descriptionHyderabad cheque No.047691 dated 12.02.2001 for of Ex.P779-7 Rs.24,21,430/- in favour of AP Mahesh Co-Operative Limited pay orders, wereaccount of Ruby Traders (1 Pay order)(L.D.No.550). marked twice as Ex.P991 Original pay order of UTI Bank Limited, Begampet, to P997 as separate payHyderabad cheque No.046792 dated 08.12.2001 for orders) Rs.29,06,109/- in favour of AP Mahesh Co-Operative Limited account of Ruby Traders (1 Pay order)(L.D.No.551). Original pay order of UTI Bank Limited, Begampet, Hyderabad cheque No.046794 dated 08.12.2001 for Rs.9,67,839/- in favour of AP Mahesh Co-Operative Limited

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 290 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 account of Ruby Traders (1 Pay order)(L.D.No.552). Original pay order of UTI Bank Limited, Begampet, Hyderabad cheque No.046782 dated 06.02.2001 for Rs.48,44,002/- in favour of AP Mahesh Co-Operative Limited account of Universal Trading Company (1 Pay order) (L.D.No.553). Original pay order of UTI Bank Limited, Begampet, Hyderabad cheque No.046593 dated 20.12.2000 for Rs.966904/- in favour of AP Mahesh Co-Operative Limited account of M/s.Universal Trading Company (1 Pay order)(L.D.No.554). Original pay order of UTI Bank Limited, Begampet, Hyderabad cheque No.045152 dated 20.11.2000 for Rs.967033/- in favour of The Agrasen Co-Operative Urban Bank Limited, account of Maheshwari Steel Corporation Limited (1 Pay order)(L.D.No.555). Ex.P998Letter dated 04.03.2006 from Sri.RK. Birla Managing Director of M/s.Sujana Steels addressed to the Superintendent of Police, CBI, BS and FC, Bangalore enclosing the ledger account of the company showing the receipts and payments pertaining to M/s.Aren Steels Limited (10 Sheets) (L.D.No.582). Ex.P999Original letter dated 12.04.2001 by Assistant General Manager addressed to Assistant General Manager, RO, Chennai(L.D.No.607). Ex.P1000 Original letter dated 18.07.2001 addressed to the Assistant General Manager, RO, Hyderabad(L.D.No.609). Ex.P1001 Letter dated 01.08.2001 addressed by Senior Manager to the Assistant General Manager, RO, Hyderabad(L.D.No.610). Ex.P1002 Letter dated 28.08.2001 addressed by Assistant General Manager, RO, Hyderabad to the Assistant General Manager IL(L.D.No.611). Ex.P1003 L.F8 Form of OBC, Head Office, New Delhi Annexure-I for loan application in the account of M/s.Aren Steels Limited by name ML Agarwal Managing Director (2 Sheets) (L.D.No.613). Ex.P1004 Cheque of AP Mahesh Co-Operative Urban Bank Limited Monda Market Branch, Secunderabad related to M/s.Maheswari Corporation, account NO.3982 favouring various parties (10 in number)(L.D.No.614). Ex.P1005 Cheque of AP Mahesh Co-Operative Urban Bank Limited

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 291 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Monda Market Branch, Secunderabad related to M/s.Ruby Traders, account NO.3991 favouring various parties (10 in number)(L.D.No.615). Ex.P1006 AP Mahesh Co-Operative Urban Bank Limited Monda Market Branch, Secunderabad cheque related to M/s.Choudary Steels, account NO.3877 favouring various parties including one self cheque (10 in number)(L.D.No.616). Ex.P1007 AP Mahesh Co-Operative Urban Bank Limited Monda Market Branch, Secunderabad cheque related to M/s.Universal Trading Company, account NO.4024 favouring various parties (10 in number)(L.D.No.617). Ex.P1008 AP Mahesh Co-Operative Urban Bank Limited Monda Market Branch, Secunderabad cheque related to M/s.Bumika Steels, account NO.3869 favouring various parties (10 in number) (L.D.No.618). Ex.P1009 Valuation bill dated 04.01.2005 along with the property valuation report dated 29.12.2004 submitted by Sri.Zahur Ahmed Structural Engineer and valuer (7 Sheets)(L.D.No.644). Ex.P1010 OBC Ameerpet Branch, Branch certificate of compliance dated 24.10.1997 and 13.02.1998 pertaining to account of M/s.Aren Comtrax Towers Private Limited(L.D.No.645). Ex.P1011 OBC Ameerpet Branch, letter dated 22.11.1997 to the Regional Manager, RO, Chennai regarding the adhoc cash credit limit in the account lf M/s.Aren Comptrax Towers Private Limited ( 3 Sheets)(L.D.No.646). Ex.P1012 Letter dated 30.11.2000 from the Manager AP Mahesh Co- operative Urban Bank Limited to the Manager, OBC, Ameerpet Branch regarding the return of bills discounted in the account of M/s.Aren Comtrax Towers Private Limited (one Sheet)(L.D.No.647). Ex.P1013 Sample copies of letter head of M/s.Bhanu Constructions Company Limited (2 Sheets)(L.D.No.648).

Ex.P1014 Process note dated 05.02.1996 regarding the proposal for working capital limited in the account of M/s.Shakthi Steels ( one seeht)(L.D.No.649). Ex.P1015 Letter dated 05.05.1999 from the Director M/s.Aren Comtrax Towers Private Limited to the Chief Manager, OBC, Ameerpet Branch enclosing the invoice, bill of exchange etc., raised in the name of M/s.Vishnu Steels (8 Sheets)(L.D.No.650).

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 292 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Ex.P1016 Provisional balance sheet of M/s.Shakthi Steels as on 31.03.2000(4 Sheets)(L.D.No.651). Ex.P1017 Details of LC’s devolved in the account of M/s.Aren Steels Limited (CA NO.3923) along with the respective statement of account and original account opening form of M/s.Aren Comtrax Towers Private Limited account No.1289 (10 Sheets) (L.D.No.652). Ex.P1018 Letter dated 06.09.2001 from OBC, Head Office to the Senior Manager, Ameerpet Branch regarding account of M/s.Shakthi Steels ( 2 Sheets)(L.D.No.653). Ex.P1019 Post sanction visit report dated 16.11.2001 submitted by the visiting official/credit monitoring official of OBC, Ameerpet Branch pertaining to the account of M/s Aren Comtrax Towers Private Limited(L.D.No.654). Ex.P1020 Letter dated 12.03.2006 from the Director M/s.Sujana Metal Products to Inspector CBI, Bangalore enclosing the statement of the company pertaining to M/s.Aren Steels Limited (7 Sheets)(L.D.No.659). Ex.P1021 Letter dated 02.05.1998 from Director, M/s.Aren Comtrax Towers Private Limited to the Senior Manager, OBC, Ameerpet Branch along with invoices/bills raised by various companies i.e. Bhagawathi Machinery Corporation, Universal Fabrications, Shankar Constructions and Venu Electrical and Engineering Company (32 Sheets)(L.D.No.660). Ex.P1022 Reasons for PW57opinion i.e. Ex.P797 in 8 pages Ex.P1023 Certified copy of complaint dated 07.05.2003. Ex.P1024 Original F.I.R.

Exhibits Marked on behalf of defence :

Marked portion of 161 Statement of PW27 (Mohan Kumar Ex.D1 Simha) dt. 06-05-2005. Portion of 161 Statement of PW27(Mohan Kumar Simha) dt: Ex.D2 07-05-2005. Portion of 161 Statement of PW27(Mohan Kumar Simha) dt: Ex.D3 07-05-2005. Photostat copy of letter dt. 23.08.2001 of A7 addressed to Ex.D4 the Senior Manager, OBC, Ameerpet Branch (D.No.82).

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 293 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Photostat copy of letter dt. 25.08.2001 addressed by PW29 Ex.D5 to the Assistant General Manager, Regional Office, Hyderabad, under whichPW29has recommended adhoc facility of Rs.5.00 Lakhs to A7 (D.No.83). Certified xerox copies of service particulars and leave Ex.D6 particulars of A4 along with covering letter dt.23.05.2006 (10 sheets(D.No.383)). Photostat copy of letter No.CN/706/24089/2001, dt. Ex.D7 26.06.2001 of PW29 relieving A4 from Ameerpet Branch (one sheet). Letter dt. 03.01.2001 addressed by PW29 to AGM (Industrial Ex.D8 Loans), Head Office, New Delhi. Letter No.CN/706/24701/01, (date not visible but the Ex.D9 receiving stamp of OBC, Regional Office bears the date 23.02.2001) addressed by PW29 to the General Manager, Credit Administration Department, Head Office, New Delhi along with letter dt. 22.02.2001 of A5 (4 sheets) (D.No.295). Letter No.CN/706/24917/2000-01 dated 25.08.2001 Ex.D10 (D.No.304) addressed to the Assistant General Manager, Regional Office, Hyderabad recommending adhoc facility of Rs.60 Lakhs for a period of one month to A5 Circular No.HO/ADV/13/1999-2000/89 dated 09.06.1999 Ex.D11 (Part of D.No.658) deals with discretionary powers in respect of loans and advances. Circular No.HO/ADV/63/1999-2000/325 dated 15.02.2000 Ex.D12 (Part of D.No.658) also deals with1 discretionary powers in respect of loans and advances Letter dated 09.09.1997 addressed by PW30 to the Senior Ex.D13 Manager, OBC, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad raising further queries pursuant to Ex.P650, along with Office Note of Regional Office (4 sheets). Photocopy of letter dated 05.12.1995 addressed by PW20 as Ex.D14 Regional Manager, Chennai to A4 regarding business development. Photocopy of Circular No.HO/PER/59/18/2002/397 dated Ex.D15 18.03.2002 issued by the Head Office of Oriental Bank of Commerce specifying the duties of various officers, including Monitoring Officer, of the Bank (2 Sheets). Xerox copy of Page No.113 of Volume-II of Advances Manual Ex.D16 of OBC.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 294 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Certified copy of docket order dated 08.05.2006 of Hon'ble Ex.D17 DRT is marked Certified copy of memorandum of compromise in Ex.D18 OA.No.155/2003 dated 29.03.2006 Certified copy of proceedings of the court in Ex.D19 Ο.Α.Νο.193/2003 in which the case proceedings are closed in view of bank filing full satisfaction memo to the effect that the borrower has paid the entire amount mentioned in the compromise Memo. Certified copy of docket order dated 08.05.2006 in Ex.D20 OA.156/2003 closing the proceedings in the above OA as bank has filed memo stating that defendants has paid the entire amount as per the terms of compromise. Certified copy of memorandum of compromise filed by OBC, Ex.D21 Ameerpet Branch in OA.156/2003 dated 29.03.2006.

Sd/-

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 1 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

//Fair Copy//

IN THE COURT OF I ADDL. SPECIAL JUDGE FOR CBI CASES, HYDERABAD.

Dated this the 06th day of April, 2026

Present : Smt. J. Maithreyi,

Special Judge for trial of cases under Economic

Offences-cum-VIII Additional Metropolitan Sessions

Judge-cum-XXII Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad.

FAC I Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad.

C.C.No.07 of 2007

(R.C.No.2(E)/2003/CBI/BS&FC/CNI)

Between :

State represented by Central Bureau of Investigation,...Complainant

Hyderabad AND

1.Munnalal Agarwal, S/o Late Chaganlal Agarwal, AgedAccused No.1 about:72 Years, Occ: Managing Director M/s.Airan Comtrax Towers Private Limited, Director of M/s.Aren Steels Ltd and Power of Attorney holder of M/s.Shakti Steels, R/o No.53-A, Sagar Society, Banjarahils, Road No.2, Hyderabad – 500034.

2.Ritesh Agarwal, S/o M.L.Agarwal, Aged about:48Accused No.2 Years Occ: Director M/s.Airan Comtrax Towers Private Limited, Director of M/s.Aren Steels Ltd, R/o: No.53-A, Sagar Society, Banjarahils, Road No.2, Hyderabad – 500034.

3.Shashi Agarwal, W/o M.L.Agarwal, Aged about: 70Accused No.3 Years, Occ: Proprietrix of M/s.Shakti Steels, R/o: No.53-A, Sagar Society, Banjarahils, Road No.2, Hy- derabad – 500034.

(Note: Proceedings against A1 to A3 and A9 are quashed by Hon’Ble High Court in Crl. Petition No.613/2023 dated 29.01.2020)

4.M.Sundareswaran, S/o M.Muthukrishnan, AgedAccused No.4 about:75 years, Occ: Formerly Senior Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad, R/o 302, United Enclave, 7-1-28/4, Leela

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 2 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Nagar, Hyderabad – 500 016.

5.M/s.Airan Comptrax Towers Pvt. Ltd, represented byAccused No.5 A1. R/o 2-3-467 Minister Road, Secunderabad – 500 003.

6.M/s.Aren Steels Ltd represented by A1. R/o 2-3-467Accused No.6 Minister Road, Secunderabad – 500 003.

7.M/s.Sakthi Steels represented by A1 R/o 2-3-467Accused No.7 Minister Road, Secunderabad – 500 003.

8.Kanwal Jeet Singh, S/o Swaran Singh, Aged about:76Accused No.8 Years, Occ: Formerly Asst. Manager/Regional Manager, OBC, Chennai, R/o.32-A, New Prem Nagar, Bhadsom Road, Patiala, Panjab

9.Chandraprakash, S/o S.Balakrishna, Aged about:62Accused No.9 Years, Occ: Accounrtant of M/s.Shakti Steels, R/o H.No.7-1-250 maruthi Vedhi, Secunderabad– 500 003.

(Note: Proceedings against A1 to A3 and A9 are quashed by Hon’Ble High Court in Crl. Petition No.613/2023 dated 29.01.2020)

10. S.Chandrasekharan, S/o M.A.Swaminathan, AgedAccused No.10 About:78 Years, Occ:Valuer and Proprietor of M/s.Serval Associates, R/o C-23, Sterling Villa, Vikrampuri, Behind Ratnadeep Supermarket, Secunderabad.

11. Nurbasha Mohammed Babu, S/o Maulali, AgedAccused No.11 about:55 Years, Occ: Officer, Scale-1, R/o Atchampet, PO Mandal, Guntur – 522 409, Andhra Pradesh.

(As per orders in Crl.MP.No.335/2009 the Case against A11 was splitup and numbered as C.C.No.2 of 2009)

This case is coming before me on 24.03.2026 for hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri.B.Raghavendra, Learned Special Public Prosecutor for Com- plainant, Sri Yeka Bala Subramanyam, Counsel for A4, Sri E. Uma Maheshwar Rao, Counsel for A5 to A7, Sri.V.R.Machavaram Counsel for A8, Sri C.P.K.V.Sastry Counsel for A10 and after hearing the arguments and perusing the material on

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 3 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 record and after the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, to- day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.This case arises out of R.C.No.2(E)/2003/CBI/BS&FC/CNI registered against A1 to A11 for the offence under Sections 120-B r/w 409, 419, 420, 467, 468 & 471 of IPC and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) & (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

2.The brief averments of the charge sheet are that the Central Bureau of In- vestigation, Bank Securities & Frauds Cell, Chennai had registered a criminal case on the basis of a complaint received from the Chief Vigilance Officer, Orien- tal Bank of Commerce, regarding the serious irregularities in the accounts of M/s

Shakti Steels, M/s Aren Steels Ltd., and M/s Airen Comtrax Towers Pvt Ltd., com- mitted at the behest of the Promoters / Directors of these companies, in con- nivance with Shri M. Sundareswaran (A-4), the then Branch Manager, Oriental

Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad, and Shri Kanwal Jeet Singh (A-8), the then Regional Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Regional Office,

Chennai. It is alleged in the complaint that these three companies were indulging in raising fictitious accommodation bills of bogus firms, or of firms floated by the employees/relatives of the Promoters of these three companies. Kite-flying oper- ations of huge magnitude were permitted in all these company's accounts, with the connivance of the officials of the bank. Owing to the fraudulent acts, commit- ted by the Promoters of the company, Oriental Bank of Commerce sustained

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 4 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 losses to the tune of Rs.514.71 lakhs, excluding interest, in these three accounts put together. The balances outstanding in the accounts of the three companies, as on 28/05/2002, were as under:-

(i) M/s Shakti Steels - Rs. 50.26 lakhs,

(ii) M/s Aren Steels Ltd., - Rs.112.57 lakhs

(iii) M/s Airen Comtrax Towers Pvt Ltd. - Rs.351.88 lakhs

Rs.517.71 lakhs

3. It was alleged that M/s.Shakti Steels, a Proprietorship concern of

Smt.Shashi Agarwal (A-3), wife of Shri Munnalal Agarwal (A-1), had been sanc- tioned Cash Credit (Hyp) limit of Rs.50 lakhs, by the Regional Office of the bank.

Local cheques of very huge amounts, and of accommodative nature, were pur- chased in this account, without any sanctioned Cheque Purchase limits. These were permitted by Shri M.Sundareswaran, (A-4), Senior Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad. These cheques were issued by M/ s.Maheswari Steels Corporation, and other firms, floated by Shri Munnalal Agar- wal (A-1). These cheque purchases were being reported by the branch to the Re- gional Office, but the practice was not stopped by the Controlling Officers, at the

Regional Office, at the behest of Sri. Kanwal Jeet Singh (A-8).

4.The facilities were sanctioned on the equitable mortgage of property, hav- ing a market value of approximately Rs.81.9 lakhs, which was stated to be be- longing to a third party, which, later on, was found to be not belonging to the

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 5 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 person, who had executed the mortgage. The documents submitted for the cre- ation of the mortgage, were all bogus in nature.

5.This case was originally registered against the Promoters of M/s.Sakthi

Steels, M/s.Aren Steels Ltd., and M/s.Airan Comtrax Towers Pvt. Ltd., and two bank officials, under section 120 B r/w 409, 420. 467, 468, & 471 IPC and u/s 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of PC act 1988 and for substantive offences and the FIR is pending before this Court.

6.Charge u/s 120 B r/w 409, 419,420,467,468 & 471 IPC, and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1) (c) & (d) of PC Act, 1988, and substantive offences u/s. 409, 419, 420, 467, 468, & 471 IPC and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1) (c) & (d) of PC Act, 1988, against Sri. Munnalal Agarwal (A-1), Sri. Ritesh Agarwal (A-2), Smt. Sashi Agar- wal (A-3), Sri. M. Sundareswaran (A-4), M/s. Airan Comtrax Towers (P) Ltd. (A- 5), M/s. Aren Steels Ltd. (A-6), M/s. Shakti Steels (A-7), Sri. Kanwal Jeet Singh (A-8) Sri.Chandraprakash, (A-9), Sri. S. Chandrasekharan (A-10) and Sri. Nur- basha Mohammed Babu (A-11).

7.That Sri. Munnalal Agarwal (A-1), Sri. Ritesh Agarwal (A-2), Smt. Sashi

Agarwal (A- 3), Sri. M. Sundareswaran (A-4), Sri. Kanwal Jeet Singh (A-8),

Sri.Chandraprakash (A-9), Sri. S. Chandrasekharan (A-10) and Sri. Nurbasha

Mohammed Babu (A-11) were parties to a criminal conspiracy to cheat Oriental

Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad, in the matter of recommend- ing, sanctioning and availing various credit limits, including Cash Credit, Inland

Letter of Credit, Working Capital Limit, Bank Guarantee, etc. in the account of

M/s.Airan Comtrax Towers (P) Ltd. (A-5), M/s. Aren Steels Ltd. (A-6) and M/

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 6 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 s.Sakthi Steels (A-7) that in pursuance of the criminal conspiracy, the Promoters of the accused companies/firm, represented by Sri. Munnalal Agarwal (A-1) and others, floated several bogus firms, and induced the bank officials to disburse funds on the basis of cheques and other instruments submitted in the name of these bogus firms, which ultimately caused a wrongful loss of more than Rs.517 lakhs plus interest, to Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad.

8.That in pursuance of above mentioned criminal conspiracy, Sri.Munnalal

Agarwal (A- 1), in connivance with Smt.Shashi Agarwal (A-3) had submitted a credit proposal to Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad, un- der the signature of Smt.Shashi Agarwal (A-3), requesting for cash credit facility of Rs. 50 lakhs, for the operations of M/s. Shakti Steels. A-1 had offered the col- lateral security of a property stated to be in the name of Sri.Nagabhushanam

Naidu, as security, for the credit limits to be availed from the bank. Investiga- tions revealed that, Sri. Nagabhushanam Naidu had expired more than 15 years back, and that the property which was offered as security to the bank was not in his name, and that the same belonged to another person, by name Sri. B.V.Sub- ramaniyam. The letter, offering this third party property as security to the bank was signed by Smt. Sashi Agarwal (A-3), along with Sri. M.L. Agarwal (A-1).

9.That in pursuance of above mentioned criminal conspiracy, Sri. M.Sun- dareswaran (A-4) recommended for the sanction of the credit limits as requested for by the Promoters of M/s.Shakti Steels, and he had brought to the notice of the higher officials of the bank that the property offered as collateral security was having an enforceable market value of about Rs. 90 lakhs. Investigations re-

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 7 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 vealed that while accepting the above mentioned property as security, Sri. M.-

Sundareswaran (A-4) did not undertake any personal inspection of the property, which was later found to be non-existing. Based on the recommendations on Sri.

M. Sundarewaran (A-4), the Regional Office of Oriental Bank of Commerce,

Chennai had sanctioned a Cash Credit limit of Rs. 50 lakhs, favouring M/s. Shakti

Steels.

10.That in pursuance of above mentioned criminal conspiracy, Sri. Munnalal

Agarwal (A-1), in connivance with Sri. Ritesh Agarwal (A-2) and Sri.Chan- draprakash (A-9), floated bogus companies in the name of M/s. Ruby Traders,

M/s. Maheswari Steel Corporation, M/s. Chowdhary Steels, M/s. Universal Trading

Company, M/s. Bhoomika Steels and M/s. Venson Steels and accounts were opened at The Agrasan Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd., Hyderabad, and The A.P.

Mahesh Co-operative Bank, Ltd., Hyderabad, through which accounts, the funds released by Oriental Bank of Commerce were siphoned off, without undertaking any genuine business transactions. Investigations revealed that the above men- tioned firms are non-existing, and that the Sales Tax registration numbers, found on the documents, available with the bank, in the names of these firms were ac- tually issued in the names of other firms, which were registered with the Com- mercial Tax Office, Hyderabad.

11.That in pursuance of above mentioned criminal conspiracy, Sri. M.Sun- dareswaran (A- 4), purchased / discounted the cheques issued by the above mentioned bogus firms in favour of M/s. Sakthi Steels and thereby facilitated the private accused persons to utilize the funds, without undertaking any genuine

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 8 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 business transactions. Investigations revealed that there was no sanctioned cheque discounting facility for M/s. Shakti Steels, and that the cheques dis- counted by A-4 were beyond his delegated financial powers, and that many of the discounted cheques were later returned unpaid, when send for clearing.

12. That in pursuance of the above mentioned criminal conspiracy, Sri. Ritesh

Agarwal (A-2) opened one Current A/c. No. 1301, in the name of M/s. Universal

Trading Company, at The Agrasan Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd., Hyderabad, and got credits to this account, from the account of M/s. Sakthi Steels, through cheques issued by Sri. M.L. Agarwal (A-1). Investigations revealed that in the Ac- count Opening Form available at the Bank, the name of the Proprietor of this firm, was shown as Sri. Chakar Rao, and the photograph of Sri. Anjaiah, who was the office boy of M/s. Shakti Steels, was affixed. By operating the account in the name of another person and also by utilizing the photograph of a third person,

A2 had resorted to impersonation, for diverting funds from the account of M/s.

Shakti Steels in connivance with A-1.

13.That in pursuance of above mentioned criminal conspiracy, Sri. Ritesh

Agarwal (A-2) opened two more accounts at The Agrasan Co-operative Urban

Bank Ltd., Hyderabad, in the name of M/s. Chowdhary Steels, (Current A/c. No.

1302) and M/s. Maheswari Steel Corporation (Current No. 1303). Investigations revealed that these two accounts were also operated by A - 2 in the names of different persons, and that most of the credits made into these accounts, were by way of transfer of funds from the account of M/s. Airan Comtrax Towers (P)

Ltd. (A-5), M/s. Aren Steels Ltd. (A-6) and M/s. Shakti Steels (A-7). It has been

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 9 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 further revealed that the Sales Tax registration numbers available in the docu- ments submitted to the bank in the names of these firms were actually issued by the Commercial Tax Department, in favour of some other firms, and that these accused persons had utilized the Registration numbers of other firms, with a dis-

honest intention to cheat the bank. It is also revealed that all the three accounts

operated by A - 2 in fictitious names at The Agrasan Co-operative Urban Bank

Ltd., Hyderabad, were introduced by Sri. M.L. Agarwal (A-1).

14.That in pursuance of above mentioned criminal conspiracy, Sri. Chandra

Prakash (A-9) opened one account (Current A/c. No. 1300), in the name of M/ s.Ruby Traders, at The Agrasan Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd., Hyderabad, and as per the Account Opening Form, the name of the Proprietor was shown as

Sri.K.Ramulu. Investigations revealed that the photograph affixed on the Account

Opening Form was of Sri. Balaiah, an employee of the group companies operated by A - 1 to A - 3 and the account was introduced by Sri. M.L. Agarwal (A-1) It is further revealed that Sri. Chandraprakash (A-9) operated four more accounts at

A.P. Mahesh Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd., in the names of M/s. Maheswari Steel

Corporation (Current Account NO. 2982), M/s. Ruby Traders (Current A/ c.No.3991), M/s. Chowdhary Steels (Current A/c. No. 3877) and M/s. Universal

Trading Company (Current A/c. No. 4024). Investigations revealed that all the above mentioned firms were created with the Sales Tax registration numbers of some other firms, which were actually registered with the Commercial Taxes De- partment, and that these accounts were opened and operated only for the pur- pose of diverting funds from the account of M/s. Shakti Steels, maintained at Ori-

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 10 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 ental Bank of Commerce. It was also revealed that Sri. Chandraprakash (A-9) had operated the above mentioned accounts under fictitious names, and had is- sued cheques favouring M/s. Shakti Steels, which were got discounted by A1 with the help of Sri. M. Sundereswaran (A-4). This accused had opened one more ac- count (Current A / C No. 15) in the name M/s. Venson Steels at The Krushi Co.- operative Urban Bank Ltd., Hyderabad, which was also a bogus firm operated in the name of Sri. Chandra. Several lakhs of rupees have been transferred to this account from the account of accused companies, maintained at Oriental Bank of

Commerce, Ameerpet branch, without undertaking any genuine business trans- actions.

15.That in pursuance of above mentioned criminal conspiracy, Sri.S.Chan- drasekaran (A-10), Proprietor of M/s. Servel Associates, had valued the property offered by Sri. M.L. Agarwal (A-1) as security for loan sanctioned by Oriental

Bank of Commerce to M/s. Shakti Steels. Investigations revealed that the prop- erty, offered as security, said to be located at plot No. 1-9-9, Zamistanpur, Ram- nagar, Hyderabad, measuring 1854 Sq. Yards was not available for valuation, as mentioned in the report submitted by this accused. Sri. S. Chandrasekharan (A-

10) had deliberately concealed the fact that Sri. Nagabushanam Naidu, who was shown as the owner of the property, had expired long back, and that the prop- erty was divided into small plots, which were in the possession of different per- sons. Therefore, it has become evident that Sri. S. Chandrasekharan (A-10) had submitted a Valuation Report on a property, which was non-existent, which was

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 11 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 confirmed by another Valuer, who was later appointed by the bank, for submit- ting the Valuation Report, on the above mentioned property.

16. That in pursuance of above mentioned criminal conspiracy, Smt. Sashi

Agarwal (A-3) submitted proposals for renewal of the Cash Credit limits from time to time, and got sanctioned the same, in connivance with Sri. M. Sun- dareswaran (A-4) and Sri. Kanwal Jeet Singh (A-8). In pursuance of the criminal conspiracy, Sri. Kanwal Jeet Singh (A-8) continued allowing adhoc limits in the group accounts of A-1 to A-3 and he also avoid to restrict Sri. M. Sundareswaran (A-4) from discounting of cheques, even though the same was brought to his no- tice through monthly statements sent by the branch. He also failed to take notice of the warning signals given by the concurrent auditors, regarding the irregular positions of the account and failed to act upon the audit report. Since the re- newal proposals submitted by A-3 and recommended by A-4, were approved by the Regional Office of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Chennai, the accused persons were able to divert funds from the account of M/s.Shakti Steels to their other group accounts, and to the accounts of the non existent firms as mentioned above. Investigations revealed that in the absence of genuine business transac- tions, M/s. Shakti Steels could not repay the amounts withdrawn/transferred from their account at Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad, and the account was declared as a Non Performing Asset (NPA), with effect from 31-03-2002, resulting in a wrongful loss of more than Rs. 50 lakhs, plus interest to the bank and the property offered as collateral security was found to be bogus / non- existent.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 12 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

17. That in pursuance of above said criminal conspiracy, Sri. M.L. Agarwal (A-1) submitted application for credit limits in the account of M/s. Airan Comtrax

Towers (P) Ltd. (ACTPL) and the same was recommended by Sri M.Sun- dareswaran (A-4). Investigations revealed that Sri. Nurbasha Mohammed Babu (A-11), who carried out the pre-sanction and post sanction visits to the sites of the factory of M/s. ACTPL, has submitted false reports, suppressing the fact that the factory was actually not working, when the bank funds were released. Since the cash credit limit were sanctioned / disbursed based on the stock positions, the false reports given by this accused, helped A-1 and A-2 to divert the bank funds without any genuine business transactions.

18. That in pursuance of above said criminal conspiracy, Sri. M.L. Agarwal (A1) in connivance with Sri. M. Sundareswaran (A-4), resorted to large scale kite-flying operations in the account of M/s. ACTPL, without undertaking any gen- uine business transactions and thereby siphoned off funds from Oriental Bank of

Commerce, Ameerpet branch and credited to the accounts operated by Sri.Ritesh

Agarwal (A-2) and Sri. Chandraprakash (A-9) in the name of non-existing firms.

19. That in pursuance of above said criminal conspiracy, Sri. M.L. Agarwal (A1) and Smt. Sashi Agarwal (A-3) had submitted forged property documents as security against the credit limits availed by M/s. ACTPL to Oriental Bank of Com- merce, Ameerpet branch and in furtherance of the conspiracy, Sri.M.Sun- dareswaran (A-4) accepted the said forged documents. Investigations revealed that A-1 and A-3 had created forged title deeds on the properties belonging to

Sri. Jagender Reddy and Sri. Damodar Reddy, without their knowledge and sub-

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 13 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 mitted the same to the Bank as collateral security, against the liabilities of A-5.

Investigations further revealed that Sri. S. Chandasekharan (A10) had submitted highly inflated valuation reports in respect of the properties mentioned in the forged documents submitted by A-1 and A-3 to the Bank.

20. That in pursuance of above said criminal conspiracy, Sri. M.L. Agarwal (A1) in connivance with Sri. M. Sundareswaran (A-4) and Sri. Chandraprakash (A-9) availed Letter of Credit limits from Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet branch in favour of M/s. Aren Steels Ltd. (A-6) and submitted bogus LC docu- ments to the Bank in the name of non-existing firms operated by A-2 and A-9.

Investigations revealed that the LCs opened by OBC, Ameerpet branch were dis- counted by A-1 at different banks including Bank of Baroda, Masab Tank branch,

Hyderabad, State Bank of Mauritius, Hyderabad Branch, UTI Bank, Begumpet and Taranaka branches and Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd., Kukatpally branches, Hyder- abad and athe proceeds were credited to the accounts operated by A-2 and A-9 in fictitious names in different banks. It has been revealed that Sri. M.L. Agarwal (A-1), opened LCs in the name of M/s. Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. (RINL) and got the same discounted through the above mentioned banks, by forging the signa- tures of officials of RINL in the bill of exchange and other connected documents.

21. That in pursuance of above said criminal conspiracy, Sri. M.L. Agarwal (A1) obtained pay orders favouring M/s. RINL, by discounting the bogus Letter of

Credits and the said pay orders were handed over to M/s. Sujana Steels Ltd., which is a company buying materials from M/s. RINL. M/s. Sujana Steels Ltd., in turn handed over cheques to M/s. Aren Steels Ltd. (A-6), equivalent to the

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 14 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 amount they have received in pay orders, which clearly shows that A-1 had re- ceived the funds without undertaking any genuine business transactions. Investi- gations revealed that Sri. Nurbasha Mohamad Babu (A-11) and Sri.M.Sun- dareswaran had handed over the beneficiary copy of the LC document to Sri.

M.L. Agarwal (A-1) which enabled him to discount the LCs opened in the name of

M/s. RINL, without the notice of the company.

22.That in pursuance of above said criminal conspiracy, Sri. M.L. Agarwal (A-

1) in connivance with Sri. S. Chandrasekharan (A-10) had submitted two prop- erty documents as collateral security, for the credit limits availed in the name of

M/s.Aren Steels Ltd. (A-6) and the value of the property was highly inflated, based on which the bank had sanctioned the credit limits. Sri M. Sundareswaran (A-4) convinced the senior officials of the Bank that the valuation report submit- ted by the company were correct. However, investigations revealed that the properties were subsequently got revalued by the Bank through another ap- proved valuer, who found that the actual value of the two properties together was about 50 lacs as on May 2004, whereas the valuation report submitted by

Sri.S.Chandrasekharan (A-10) during 1999 shows the value of the property as more than Rs. 5 crores.

23.The aforesaid acts of Sri. Munnalal Agarwal (A-1), Sri. Ritesh Agarwal (A- 2), Smt. Shashi Agarwal (A-3), Sri. M. Sundareswaran (A-4), M/s. Airan Comtrax

Towers (P) Ltd. (A-5), M/s. Aren Steels Ltd. (A-6), M/s. Shakti Steels (A-7),

Sri.Kanwal Jeet Singh (A-8) Sri. Chandraprakash, (A-9), Sri. S. Chandrasekharan (A10) and Sri. Nurbasha Mohammed Babu (A-11) constitute, offences punishable

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 15 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 u/s 120 B r/w 409, 419,420,467,468 & 471 IPC and section 13(2) r/w 13(1) (c) & (d) of PC Act 1988, and:

(a) Substantive offences u/s 420, 468 and 471 IPC against Sh.Mannulal Agarwal (A-1)

(b) Substantive offences u/s 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC against Sh.Ritesh Agarwal (A-2) and Sri. S. Chandraprakash (A-9)

(c) Substantive offences u/s 420 and 471 IPC against Smt. Shashi Agarwal (A-3)(c) Substantive offences u/s 409 and 420 IPC and section 13(2) r/w 13(1) (c) & (d) of PC Act 1988 against Sri. M.Sundareshwaran (A-4) and Sri.Kanwal Jeet Singh (A-8).

(d) Substantive offences u/s 420 and 468 IPC against Sh.S.Chandrasekha- ran (A-(e) Substantive offences u/s 409 IPC r/w 13(2) r/w 13 (1) (c) & (d) of PC Act 1988 against Sh. Nurbasha Mohammed Babu (A-11) and substan- tive offences U/s. 420 IPC against M/s. ACTPL (A-5) and M/s. Aren Steels Ltd. (A6) represented by the Directors Sri. M.L. Agarwal (A-1) and Sri. Ritesh Agarwal (A-(f) Substantive offences u/s 420 IPC against M/s. Shakti Steels (A-7), represented by Proprietrix, Smt. Shashi Agarwal (A-3)

24. It is submitted that Sri. M. Sundareswaran (A-4) has been removed from the services of Oriental Bank of Commerce with effect from 08-12-2003, Sri.

Kanwal Jeet Singh (A-8) has been removed from the services of the Bank wef.

27-12-2003, and Sri. Nurbasha Mohamed Babu (A-11) has been removed from the services of the Bank wef. 20-07-2004 and therefore, the sanction for their prosecution from the competent authority is not required.

25.Additional list of documents and witnesses, if required shall be submitted, during the course of proceedings in this case.

26.After hearing the prosecution, as well as the accused, taking into consider- ation of evidence of prosecution witnesses, the charges were framed during my

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 16 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 predecessors period and heard on charges for the offences on 22.01.2011 against A1 to A10 as under :

A1: 120-B, 420, 468 and 471 of IPC;

A2: 120-B, 420, 468 and 471 of IPC;

A3: 120-B, 420, 468 and 471 of IPC;

A4: 120-B, 420, 468 and 471 of IPC and U/s.13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act,1988.

A5: 120-B, 420, 468 and 471 of IPC;

A6: 120-B, 420, 468 and 471 of IPC;

A7: 120-B, 420, 468 and 471 of IPC;

A8: 120-B, 420, 468 and 471 of IPC and U/s.13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC

Act,1988.

A9: 120-B, 420, 468 and 471 of IPC;

A10: 120-B, 420, 468 and 471 of IPC;

The same was read over and explained to A1 to A10 in their vernacular lan- guage, to which they denied the offence, pleaded not guilty and claimed to the tried. After framing charges the Proceedings against A1 to A3 and A9 are quashed by Hon’Ble High Court in Crl. Petition No.613/2023 dated 29.01.2020.

27.To bring home the guilt of the accused for the offences with which they are charged, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 69 and got marked Exhibits P1 to

P1024.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 17 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

28.After closure of prosecution evidence A4, A5, A6, A7,A8, A10were exam- ined on 20.02.2026 under Section 313 Cr.P.C, putting incriminating circum- stances appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses to which they denied the same.

29.Heard both sides. Perused the record.

30.Now the point for consideration is :

“Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt ?”

P O I N T :

31. Before going into the discussion of merits of the case, it is better to go through the provisions under Sections 120B, 409, 419, 420, 467, 468 and

471 of IPC and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention Corruption Act,

1988.

Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code :- Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) deals with the Punishment for Criminal Conspiracy, making it an offense for two or more people to agree to commit an illegal act or a lawful act by illegal means, punishable depending on the seriousness of the planned crime (like death or life imprisonment) or with up to six months in jail/fine for lesser offenses. It's a crucial law for tackling organized crime by penalizing the agreement itself, even before the main crime is executed, focusing on the planning stage.

Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code : Criminal breach of trust by public

servant, or by banker, merchant or agent :-

Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property in his capacity of a public servant, or in the way of his business as

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 18 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 a banker, merchant, factor, broker, attorney or agent, commits criminal breach of trust in respect of that property, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) d

Section 419 of the Indian Penal Code :-

Section 419 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) deals with the punishment for cheating by personation, meaning deceiving someone by pretending to be someone else. The penalty for this offense, which is cognizable, bailable, and compoundable (meaning the victim can settle), includes imprisonment up to three years, a fine, or both.

Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code:- Cheating and Dishonestly inducing delivery of property. Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or scaled, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security. shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code :- IPC Section 467 deals with the severe crime of forgery of valuable security, wills, adoption authority, and receipts, punishable by imprisonment for life or up to ten years, plus a fine, for someone who falsely creates or alters such a document, making it a serious non-bailable offense under the Indian Penal Code, 1860. This section covers forging documents that seem to authorize financial transactions, transfers, or receipts for valuable property or money, extending to important legal documents like wills or adoption papers, notes LawRato.

Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code:- Forgery for purpose of cheating. Whoever commits forgery, intending that the document [or electronic record] forged shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 19 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code:- Using as genuine a forged document [or electronic record]. Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document for electronic record] which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged document for electronic record], shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such document for electronic record]. Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 : Criminal misconduct by a public servant:- (1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct :-

(a) if he habitually accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person for himself or for any other person any gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in Section 7; or

(b) if he habitually accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain for himself or for any other person, any valuable thing without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate from any person whom he knows to have been, or to be, or to be likely to be concerned in any proceeding or business transacted or about to be transacted by him, or having any connection with the official functions of himself or of any public servant to whom he is subordinate, or from any person whom he knows to be interested in or related to the person so concerned; or

(c) if he dishonestly misappropriates or otherwise converts for his own use any property entrusted to him or under his control as a public servant or allows any other person so to do; or

(d) if he :-

(i) by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or

(ii) by abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage: or

(iii) while holding office as a public servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest; or

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 20 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

(e)if he or any person on his behalf, is in possession or has, at any time during the period of his office, been in possession for which the public servant cannot satisfactorily account, of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of Income. Explanation- For the purposes of this section, "known sources of inco me" means income received from any lawful source "and such receipt has been intimated in accordance with the provisions of any law, rules or orders for the time being applicable to a public servant". (2) Any public servant who commits criminal misconduct shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than one year but which to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.

32.The allegation of prosecution is that A1 to A3 herein floated fake firms, in pursuance of Criminal Conspiracy among all the accused, the bogus companies in the name of Ruby Traders, M/s.Maheswari Steel Corporation, M/s.Chowdary

Steels, M/s.Universal Trading Company, M/s.Bhumika Steels and M/s.Venson

Steels and accounts were opened at the M/s.Agrasen Cooperative Urban Bank

Limited, Hyderabad and the M/s.AP Mahesh Cooperative Bank Limited,

Hyderabad through which accounts, the funds released by Oriental Bank of

Commerce were siphoned off, without undertaking any genuine business transactions. Investigation revealed that the above mentioned firms are non- existing and that the sales tax regulation numbers, found on the documents, available with the bank in the name of these firms were actually issued in the name of other firms which were registered with the commercial tax office,

Hyderabad.Inpursuanceofconspiracy,A4/M.Sundereshwaran purchased/discounted the cheques issued by the above mentioned bogus firms in favour of M/s.Sakthi Steels and thereby facilitated the private accused persons to utilize the funds without undertaking any genuine business transaction.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 21 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Investigation revealed that there was no sanctioned cheque discounting facility for M/s.Sakthi Steels and that the cheques discounted by A4 were beyond his delegated financial powers and that many of the discounted cheques were later returned unpaid, when sent for clearing. A8 has sanctioned credit facilities in collusion with other accused.

33.The prosecution has examined the following witnesses in order to prove that the above said firms are bogus firms. This court has to decide whether those firms are bogus firms as alleged by the prosecution.

34.The evidence of PW1/KSN Raju, Assistant in Reliable Financial Services shows that the reliable financial services was dealing with arranging loans with

Bank. Their office used to mediate in the financial matters of their customers with the bank in discounting letter of credits. They used to deal with UTI Bank,

Lakshmi Vilas Bank, State Bank of Mauritius etc., in discounting letter of credit.

Whenever a party approaches for discounting letter of credit issued by applicant bank and in this case it is Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, after receiving the letter of credit from the parties, they approached discount bank like

UTI Bank, Lakshmi Vilas Bank, Bank of Mauritius etc., for negotiating the rate of interest for that date. They go for discounting the letters of credit with the bank which offers lowest rate of interest. He has explained the procedure of letter of credit and stated that the party who approaches them will give two sets of documents containing copy of LC invoices, delivery challan etc., the bank to whom they approach will initially contact the bank which issued the letter of credit for its confirmation. After getting the oral confirmation, the discounting

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 22 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 bank will send one set of documents to the applicant bank for confirming the LC and to know the date of payment. The applicant bank will issue a confirmation letter to the discounting bank stating that the bills are in order and the applicant bank will make the payment on due date, it may be 60 days/90 days depending upon the terms of LC.

35.There are two types of LC’s, i.e., revocable and irrevocable. M/s. RN Steels

Limited/A6 and M/s.Airan Comptrax Towers Private Limited/A5 are the applicants

before them. The CBI officials have shown the LC No.0028493/201/130, dated

23.03.2000,LCNo.0028495/201/132,dated29.02.2000,LC

No.0028521/201/158, dated 08.04.2000, LC No.0028489/201/126, dated 10.02.2000,LCNo.0028474/201/113,dated30.12.1999,LC

No.0028468/201/110, dated 22.12.1999 and LC No.0028477/201/115, dated 21.01.2000. The above referred Lcs were issued by Oriental Bank of Commerce and discounted by State Bank of Mauritius. All these 7 LC’s were processed through their office.

36.The evidence of PW1 shows that the above said LCs are relating to A5 and

A6 and were issued by Oriental Bank of Commerce and discounted by State Bank of Mauritius. The beneficiary in the above said 7 LCs was M/s.Rashtriya Ispat

Nigam Limited (RINL), Hyderabad. No where in the charge sheet it mentioned that M/s.Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited (RINL) is also bogus firm floated by the accused.

37.PW2/Battu Balayya was examined to prove that A1 to A3 have opened fake account in the name of PW2 at M/s.AP Mahesh Co-operative Bank,

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 23 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

M/s.Agrasen Co-operative Urban bank Limited. He stated that he is illiterate, he used to put thump impression. He worked at M/s.Sakthi Steels for two months several years ago. Account opening form of M/s.AP Mahesh Co-operative Bank with Ac.No.CA3991, dated 06.01.2000 contains his photograph, but he never hold any account in the said bank. Similarly, the account opening form of

M/s.Agrasen Co-operative Urban bank Limited contains his photograph, but he never opened the account. The signatures on the said account opening forms are not belongs to him.

38.The contention of prosecution is that the accounts were opened by fake firms in the bank of M/s.Agrasen Cooperative Urban Bank Limited and M/s.AP

Mahesh Cooperative Urban Bank which were established by A1 to A3 with an intention to exchange the LC amounts illegally. Therefore, at their instance, PW2 has opened said accounts on the name of said banks. The PW2 has not supported the prosecution case and denied his signatures on the documents and also denied opening of account forms in the name of said firms. The learned PP requested the court to declare the witness hostile and cross examined him by explaining the contents of 161 statement. Even though, PW2 has not supported the prosecution case, so the evidence of PW2 is not useful to the prosecution.

39.PW3/D. Anjaiah, stated that the account opening form of M/s.Agrasen

Cooperative Urban Bank Limited vide Ac.No.CA1301 contains his photograph but the signatures are not belongs to him. Similarly, the account opening form of

M/s.AP Mahesh Cooperative Urban Bank Limited vide Account No.CA4024 contains his photograph but the signatures are not belongs to him. The PW3 has

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 24 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 not supported the prosecution case. The contention of prosecution is that at the instance of A1 to A3, the accounts are opened at M/s.Agrasen Cooperative Urban

Bank Limited and M/s.AP Mahesh Cooperative Urban Bank Limited with an intention to create LCs and to get benefit by A1 to A3. However, PW3 has not supported the prosecution case, though, the learned PP declared the witness hostile and cross examined him by explaining the contents of 161 statement, so the evidence of PW3 is not useful to the prosecution.

40.PW4/Narsing Rao, stated that he never opened bank account at

M/s.Agrasen Cooperative Urban Bank Limited. The photograph on account opening form with Ac No.1304 dated 03.11.2000 belongs to him. The signatures are not belongs to him. Even the PW4 has not supported the prosecution case. It is the contention of prosecution that at the instance of A1 to A3, PW4 has opened the account in M/s.Agrasen Cooperative Urban Bank Limited. The PW4 did not support the prosecution case, though the learned PP declared the witness hostile and cross examined the witness by explaining the contents of 161 statement, so the evidence of PW4 is not useful to the prosecution.

41.PW5/Mukundhas stated that he is the proprietor of BM Enterprises and doing the business of collecting commission in cheque encashment. He is having bank account No.3826 in AP Mahesh Cooperative Urban Bank, Begum Bazar. The customers used to bring the cheques or pay orders or DDs for the purpose of encashment and he used to pay their amount after deducting his commission. At the time of purchasing the cheque, he used to obtain the signatures of party on the back side of cheque and also obtains the voucher with endorsement that

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 25 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 cheque amount received by him. The pay orders under Ex.P12 to P18 are issued by Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad. He deposited all the pay orders into his account in AP Cooperative Urban Bank Limited. The pay orders are containing the endorsement of respective companies to pay the amount in the business account of PW5. He presented the pay orders under

Ex.P12 to P18 and after receiving the amount by him he has paid the amount to his customer after deducting his commission. One Venu Gopal is authorized signatory in their business transactions. He has subscribed his signatures on

Ex.P12 to P14. Ex.P15 to P18 are containing the signatures of PW5 as proprietor.

He has paid the amount to Accused No.1/Munnalal Agarwal. However, he is not able to identity the Accused No.1.

42.The prosecution contention is that at the instance of A1 those pay orders are presented. However, the PW5 has not identified the accused No.1. It is to be noted that the Honorable High Court has quashed the proceedings against A1, if

PW5 has given any evidence against the A1, it does not makes any difference.

The PW5 has not spoken anything about the remaining accused.

43.PW6/B.Mallesh stated that he is not having any bank account in

M/s.Agrasen Cooperative Urban Bank Limited. He has not given his photographs to anybody. The photographs affixed on the account opening form of

M/s.Chowdary Steels in Ac No.1302 of M/s.Agrasen Cooperative Urban Bank

Limited are belongs to him. The signatures are not belongs to him. The prosecution stated that A1 to A3 opened the account on the name of PW6 with an intention to transact the amounts in the account of A5 to

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 26 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

A7 but PW6 never stated he opened the account at the instance of A1 to A3, so the evidence of PW6 is not useful to the prosecution.

44.PW7/S.Srinivas, Assistant Manager in M/s.Agrasen Cooperative Urban

Bank Limited stated that one Yogesh Agarwal was the manager of their bank. He has signed on the specimen card of current account No.1300 in Token of scanning and uploading of specimen signatures. Ex.P21 is the specimen signature card bears the signature of Yogesh Agarwal and one Mukesh Kumar

Gupta signed on the account opening form as introducer. The account No.1300 stands on the name of M/s. Ruby Traders. Their bank has opened account in the name of M/s Universal Trading Company vide Ac.No.1301. The specimen signatures of R.K.Sharma proprietor of Bhumika Steels containing his specimen signatures in the account No.1304 under Ex.P25. Further the specimen signatures of P.K.Chowdary was obtained in the AC No.1302 under Ex.P26 vide

M/s.Chowdary Steels, the specimen signatures of K.Ramulu, proprietor of Ruby

Traders are there under Ex.P21 in Ac.No.1300, one Shekar Rao, proprietor of

M/s. Universal Trading Company containing under Ex.P24 vide Ac.No.1301. The specimen signatures of Jagadish Prasad, Proprietor of M/s.Maheswari Steel

Corporation is containing under Ex.P27. Mukesh Kumar Gupta was the introducer of said account numbers ie., AC No.1300 to 1304. The evidence of PW7 shows that the above said accounts was opened by the persons named above. In the evidence of PW7 has has not stated anything against the accused herein. He never stated whether any persons are impersonated while opening the accounts.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 27 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

45.PW8/Yogesh Agarwal stated that he worked as Manager in M/s.Agrasen

Cooperative Urban Bank Limited. Ex.P22 is the account opening form of M/s.Ruby

Traders. Ex.P23 is the account opening form of M/s. Universal Trading Company.

Ex.P29 is the account opening form of M/s.Bhumika Steels. Ex.P31 is the account opening form of M/s.Chowdary Steels. Ex.P33 is the account opening form of

M/s.AP Maheswari Steel Corporation. He has spoken about the photographs pasted on the account opening forms and spoken about the specimen signatures.

All the accounts were opened in the same day on 03.11.2000. One Shiva Shekar

Agarwal was their bank Chairman who asked him to provide application forms in favour of Munnalal Agarwal/A1 for opening accounts. In fact, Ritesh Agarwal S/o

Munnalal Agarwal came to their bank. The bank staff verified the application forms and accounts were opened. The evidence of PW8 shows that the above said accounts were opened in the name of said firms by A1 only. As already stated above, the proceedings against A1 was quashed by the Honorable High

Court, so there is no criminal proceedings. The son of A1 was not accused in the present case. It clearly shows that there is no evidence against the accused person herein. PW8 has spoken about the cheque leaves used by M/s. Ruby

Traders represented by K. Ramulu in favour of M/s.Sakthi Steels. Further, the cheque leaves used by M/s. Universal Traders represented by K. Ramulu issued in favour of M/s.Sakthi Steels on different dates. Further, the cheque leaves used by M/s.Chowdary Steels represented by P.V.Chowdary in favour of M/s.Sakthi

Steels/A7. The cheque leaves used by M/s.Maheshwari Steels represented by proprietor in favour of M/s.Sakthi Steels. M/s.Bhumika Steels represented by

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 28 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 proprietor relating to the current account No.1304 issued in favour of M/s.Sakthi

Steels.

46.He further stated that in case of deposit of the cheques by the account holder of their bank in his account which are other than their bank and cheques of out of station will be sent for collection. After the collection, they will give the credit to the account to the account of account holder. The cheques are containing their bank seals also. Their bank is maintaining cheque collection register and it is marked as Ex.P486 to P491. The bunch of true copies of vouchers/cheques for the relevant months are entered in the concerned registers.

47.In the cross examination, PW8 stated that at the time he did not have any doubts about the opening of 5 accounts in Ex.P22, 23, 29, 31 and P33. He admits the above 5 companies were not enjoying any credit facility like OD and cash credit from their M/s.Agrasen Cooperative Urban Bank Limited. However, they are allowing cheque and demand draft facility to the said 5 companies and the same was presenting to the board in the succeeding month for ratification.

The 3 cheques in Ex.P279 and Ex.P145 are presented in OBC, Ameerpet,

Hyderabad on 26.06.2001. the amount was debited on 26.06.2001 in respect of the cheques in Ex.P279 and P145. Ex.P53 cheque amount was debited on 14.07.2001 to the respective accounts. As seen from the statement of account, in Ex.P39 on 08.04.2001, the cheque for Rs. 10 lakhs drawn in favour of

M/s.Chowdary Steels was returned by the OBC on the same day and return charges of Rs.10/- was debited.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 29 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

48.He admits that the statement of account shows some of the cheques drawn in favour of said 5 companies were returned. Even, the cheques of A5 to

A7 are also returned. He denied suggestion that he has allowed said 5 companies to have internal transactions from one account to another account and thereby caused misuse of funds of group of M/s.Sakthi Steels with OBC, Ameerpet,

Hyderabad. He admits as per entry, dated 15.09.2001 under Ex.P37 and P40, there was adjustment of amount on 20.09.2001.

49.He stated that the companies were enjoying credit facilities. He cannot say whether A1 to A3 and A9 were having personal accounts or company accounts.

There were number of transactions in between M/s.Universal Traders and

M/s.Sakthi Steels, M/s.Chowdary Steels and M/s.Sakthi Steels and

M/s.Maheswari Steels and M/s.Sakthi Steels, M/s.Bhumika Steels and M/s.Sakthi

Steels, their bank and OBC Ameerpet. There was no monitory loss due to the said transactions. In fact their bank turnover was increased by these transactions. There was no illegality committed by the account holder or the bank in the above transactions. They have not given any undue benefit to the account holders or the accused persons in the said transactions.

50.The evidence of PW8 shows that though the allegation is made that at the instance of A1 to A3 the fraudulent firms opened the accounts and there were inter bank transactions among the fake firms and M/s.Sakthi Steels. They have deceived the bank by making such internal transactions. The evidence of PW8 shows that there was no irregularities or illegality in opening of the accounts of said firms. He being an authorized officer, signed on all the account opening

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 30 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 forms and approved the same. They have not given any undue benefit to the account holders. Nobody has given complaint with regard to said internal bank transactions. So there is no question of fraud as alleged by the prosecution.

51.PW9/Mukesh Kumar Gupta stated that he is having account No.342 in

M/s.Agrasen Cooperative Urban Bank Limited. He was having another account

No.96 in the same bank but it was closed. Ex.P22, P23, p29, P31, P33 are the account opening forms, he was introducer of said accounts. He stated that at the request of Munnalal Agarwal he has signed on the said applications as an introducer. The PW9 has stated that those accounts are opened at the instance of

A1 and his son. In fact, PW9 had not seen the account holders, at the request of

A1 he put his signature as introducer. No doubt the witness has stated at the instance of A1 those accounts were opened. This court by relying on the evidence of PW9, it cannot be stated that those accounts are fake accounts. If, PW9 would have identified the account holders, the matter would be different moreover the proceedings against A1 quashed by the Honorable High Court. The evidence is not against the A4 herein. Therefore, this evidence is not useful to the prosecution.

52.PW10/Anand Toshniwal stated that he worked as a cashier in M/s.Agrasen

Cooperative Urban Bank Limited. Ex.P44 to P48 are the pay slips contains his signatures. A sum of Rs.2000/- paid under each slip in ExP44 to P48 and they are the credit vouchers. There is no signature who paid the cash on all the slips in Ex.p44 to P48. He made entries in cashier scroll register on receipt of amount and the corresponding scroll numbers 51 to 55 and the same noted on Ex.P44 to

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 31 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

P48. PW9 worked as personal assistant in the said bank. Ex.P44 bears account

No.1300 of Ruby Traders. He has spoken about the account numbers of

M/s.Universal Trading Company, M/s.Maheswari Steel Corporation, M/s.Bhumika

Steels under Ex.P22, 23, 29, 31 and 33. The PW10 also not stated anything against the accused herein. His evidence reflects the existence of accounts of 5 companies in their bank. He never stated that there were fraudulent transactions in the said account.

53.PW11/C. Shakuntala, Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, Hyderabad stated that the CBI officials came to her with a photostat copy of sales tax registration certificate to verify whether it was issued by their office. She has verified the said registration number with their office record and informed that said registration number were given by their predecessor at their office. As per A

Register, the Central Sale Tax Registration Number PJT/02/1/2268/88-89 reflected in Ex.P28, PJT/02/1/2435/88-89 reflected in Ex.P30 and

PJT/02/01/2163/88-89 reflected in Ex.P35 are the registration numbers issued by their office. As per Ex.P28, the name and address of the dealer are M/s.

Universal Trading Company as per Ex.P30, the name and address of dealer are

M/s.Bhumika Steels as per Ex.P35 the name and address of dealer of

M/s.Maheswari Steels Corporation.

54.In the further chief examination, PW11 stated as per office record,

A register pertaining to the commercial tax office maintained for the financial year, 1988-89 the CST registration certificate bearing No. PJT/02/1/2163 in the name of M/s.Anuradha Engineering Enterprises, further PJT/02/1/2268 was

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 32 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 issued in the name of M/s.Gowel Engineers Private Limited, PJT/02/1/2435 was standing on the name of M/s. Aroma Organics private limited. The photostat copies of CST Registration Ex.P29, 30 and P35 are not issued by their officer. The evidence of PW11 shows that as per the photostat copies of sales tax registrations it stands on the name of M/s.Universal Trading Company,

M/s.Bhumika Steels and M/s.Maheswari Steel Company, but their record shows it does not stands on the names of said companies. The evidence of PW11 is contradictory to her own evidence, at one side she stated that on verification of said registration numbers, she came to know that said registration numbers were given by her predecessor and she has stated the names of M/s.Universal Trading

Company, M/s.Bhumika Steels and M/s.Maheswari Steel Corporation. After verification of A register only, she has stated their names, again the register was brought after examination of PW11 partly in chief, the A register was produced and subsequently it was stated that the sales tax registration numbers are not standing on the name of said 3 companies, at the time of recording her 161 statement A register was not shown to her, there is no evidentiary value to said document, so the evidence of PW11 is not reliable and trustworthy.

55.PW12/GSN Murthy, accountant in M/s.AP Mahesh Cooperative Urban Bank

Limited stated that he got acquaintance with the handwriting and sighnatures of

K.Lakshmi/LW12 and the then branch manager K.U.K.Savanth. As per bank record, AC No.3991 standing in the name of Ruby Traders under Ex.P1, account opening form was closed on 29.05.2002. Thereafter, the account of M/s.Universal

Trading Company was closed on 29.05.2002. M/s.Chowdary Steels account

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 33 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 opening form was closed on 29.05.2002. Further the account of M/s.Maheswari

Steel corporation was closed on 18.01.2002. M/s.Bhumika Steels account opening form was closed on 18.01.2002. The account opening form of M/s. Ruby

Traders was also closed. The evidence of Pw12 shows that the above said firms accounts were closed on their request.

56.PW13/Mr. Bupender Lal, worked as Assistant Commercial Officer stated that he has perused AP GST Registration Certificate No.SEC/02/1/1591/88-89 issued in the name of Leafin India Limited. Subsequent to the re-organization of the divisions, fresh registration certificate was issued. The evidence of PW13 shows that said Leafin India Limited is having GST registration number.

57.PW16/V.S. Sampath stated that he know M/s.Maheswari Steel Corporation which is located in Ram Bajan Sabha Building, Hyderbasthi, Secunderabad. The said building was removed and demolished about more than 10 years ago by the

Government for construction of overhead Railway track. The said railway track was constructed. The prosecution intended to say that there was no such structures of M/s.Maheswari Steel Corporation but the transactions are going on the name of said Company. Basing on evidence of postman how can they say there were no structures, if they would have examined R&B officials, the matter would be different. So the evidence of PW16 is not useful to the prosecution.

58.PW19/P.Ramachary, ACTO Malkajgiri Circle, Hyderabad deposed that as per certificate of registration, the firm standing in the name of M/s.Bhoomika

Steel was registered in the office Commercial Tax Office, Jeedimetla Circle vide

Registration No.HR/J/J/1340/87-88 and after reorganization, the registration

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 34 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 number has been changed vide R.C.No.HYR/03/1/1753/87-88 with Commercial

Tax Office, Jeedimetla Circle. In the year 1993, on re-organization of Jurisdiction the above said file was transferred to Commercial Tax Office, Malkajgiri Circle.

59.On the verification of their office records, the R.C. was issued in the name of Hindustan Engineering Company. As per the office record, Mr.Choudari was the owner of Hindustan Engineering Company.

60.The evidence of PW19 shows that M/s.Bhumika Steels was registered in the office of Commercial Tax Office. The PW19 at one side stated the registration number was subsequently changed and the said file was transferred to

Commercial Tax Office. At the same time he stated the RC was issued in the name of Hindustan Engineer Company. The prosecution relied upon this evidence and contended that M/s.Bhoomica Steels was a fake firm established by A1 to A3. The PW19 has not produced any document to show that the RC was issued in the name of Hindustan Engineering Company. In the absence of evidence it can not be stated that M/s.Bhumika Steels was a fake firm.

61.PW20/M.Sravan Kumar, Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, Commercial Tax

Office, Maredpally Circle stated that he has furnished photocopies of APGST registration certificate in respect of M/s.Choudary Steels. The registration number is HPG/SD/SD/3480/87-88. After re-organization of the circle the new number was assigned as PJT/09/2/2671/87-88, dated 01.06.1994. The prosecution contention is that said M/s.Choudary Steels was a fake firm established at the instance of A1 to A3. The evidence of PW20 shows the said

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 35 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 firm was having GST registration certificate also. Therefore it can not be stated that it is a fake firm.

62.PW23/P.Rajendra Prasad, Assistant Commercial Tax Officer stated that CBI police, Hyderabad enquired them regarding Registration No.HYR/03/1/1339/88.

Upon verification of records he informed CBI police, Hyderabad that above number registered in the name of M/s.Shekaraiah & Sons in the year 1983 in

Jeedimetla Circle and it was cancelled on 31.03.1994 on their request. Some part of Jeedimetla Circle was allotted to Malkajgiri Circle due to re-organization and bifurcation in the year 1993, the concerned records were transferred to

Malkajgiri Circle. In Ex.P32, the firm name is mentioned as M/s.Chowdhary

Steels with Registration No.HYR/03/1/1339/87-88. In their records this firm was not registered with above registration number.

63.PW23 admits he did not provide Ex.P32 to CBI police. Ex.P32 is a photo copy and not even legible and not attested by any officer of their department. So it is doubtful whether it was issued by their department or not. The prosecution is silent from where they collected Ex.P32. PW23 stated he has no personal knowledge about registration of M/s.Shekaraiah & Sons or M/s.Chowdhary Steels as he joined in service in the year 1995. he never worked in Jeedimetla Circle at any point of time. Jeedimetla Circle is in existence even now, to know details about registration of M/s.Chowdhary Steels as mentioned in Ex.P32, it should be verified from Jeedimetla Circle. He cannot say whether M/s.Chowdhary Steels is not registered at Jeedimetla Circle as mentioned in Ex.P32. This evidence clearly shows that PW23 never worked in Jeedimetla Circle so he is not proper person to

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 36 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 say about the genuineness of Ex.P32. Therefore, the evidence of PW23 is not useful to the prosecution.

64.PW46/Ramana Murthy was examined to prove the fake firm account opening form. The evidence of PW46/Ramana Murthy shows that in the year 2000 he has joined M/s.Airan Comptrax Towers Private Limited(ACTPL)/A5 as a

Manager and he worked there till July, 2002. He used to look after the issues related to Electricity department and central Excise Department.

65.The M/s.Airan Comptrax Towers Private Limited/A5 was having bank account in Oriental Bank of Commerce. They have credit facilities. One Chandra

Prakash/A9 was looking after the bank transactions of M/s.Airan Comptrax

Towers Private Limited/A5. The ACTPL/A5 is in the business of converting scrap into ingots.

66.Ex.P1 is account opening form of M/s.Ruby Traders, it contains the photograph of one Mr.Balaiah/PW2. He used to work as Office Boy in M/s.Sakthi

Steels. He do not have any idea about M/s.Ruby Traders. Ex.P7 is Account

Opening form on the name of M/s.Universal Trading Company. It bears the

Photograph of Anjaiah/PW3 and he is office boy of M/s.ACTPL. He do not have any idea about M/s.Universal Trading Company.

67.Ex.P22 (L.D.No.109) is Current Account Opening form of M/s.Ruby

Traders. The Photographs(Ex.P2) on Ex.P22 belongs to Balaiah/PW2. Ex.P23 (L.D.No.110) is Current Account Opening form of M/s. Universal Trading

Company. The photograph(Ex.P5) on Ex.P23 belongs to Anjaiah/PW3. Ex.P31 is

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 37 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Current Opening Form of M/s.Chowdhary Steels. The Photograph(Ex.P19) on

Ex.P31 belongs to the person who worked in their company but at present he do not remember his name. He has no idea about the nature of work of

M/s.Chowdhary Steels. Ex.P29 is Current Account Form of M/s.Bhumika Steels but he do not know about M/s.Bhumika Steels and he can not identify the person whose photograph(Ex.P9) is appearing on Ex.P29.

68.Ex.P775 is the Photograph on specimen signature of proprietor related to

Venson Steels belongs to Chandra Prakash who used to deals with accounts and banking. He do not know anything about the above mentioned Venson Steels but he can identify the photographs of the persons as he has already worked with them. He has claimed his PF after stopping his working in the company it may in the year 2002. Wherein he has drawn his PF balance working both the companies i.e. Giridhar Ispath Private Limited and A5 Company. Infact this Giridhar Ispath

Private Limited has been acquired by A5 company.

69.The defence has disputed the evidence of PW46 and contended that PW46 is the brought up witness by the CBI officials. The main purpose of filing the case against the accused persons are that the loan accounts became NPA for some time in order to pressurize them for paying the loan amount, this criminal case was filed. They have examined several persons in order to prove that the firms are fake firms. In fact, PW46 never worked in M/s.Sakthi Steels. He never given any appointment letter or resignation letter to CBI as he never worked in

M/s.M/s.Airan Comptrax Towers Private Limited/A5. Admittedly, no document is filed before the court to show that PW46 worked in A5 firm. Further, the PW46

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 38 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 stated that A9 is not authorized signatory to update bank accounts of A5. A9 is not an employee of A5. He further stated that he do not know anything about

M/s.AP Mahesh Cooperative Urban Bank Limited, M/s.Agresen Co-Operative

Urban Bank Limited, M/s.Kurshi Co-Operative Urban Bank Limited or about any documents pertaining to above said banks. The prosecution has not confronted any of the documents relating to the employees of M/s.Airan Comptrax Towers

Private Limited/A5 and M/s.Sakthi Steels. PW46 admits that Balaiah was not working in A5. He do not know anything about the bank accounts of M/s.Ruby

Traders, M/s.Universal Trading Company, M/s.Choudary Steels, M/s.Bhumika

Steels and M/s.Venson Steels. He admits that the person in the photograph on

Ex.P31 is not an employee of M/s.Airan Comptrax Towers Private Limited/A5. He did not state before CBI that “he do not know anything that above mentioned

M/s.Venson Steels that he can identify the photographs of the persons as he has already worked with them”. He has not shown any record to show that he has claimed his PF after stopping his work in the company it may be in the year 2002 wherein he has drawn his PF balance working in both companies i.e. Giridhar

Ispath Private Limited and A5 company. This evidence clearly shows that PW46 is not aware of the alleged fake firms. He is not aware of bank accounts of alleged fake firms. Though, he is not having any knowledge about the said firms and accounts. The prosecution has examined PW46 and confronted the documents to show that the accounts are opened illegally in the bank. When PW46 pleaded ignorance of knowledge about said firms, his evidence is not useful. Further, there is no evidence to show that PW46 is the employee of A5 company and he

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 39 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 has claimed PF amount. It is pertinent to note that the photograph on Ex.P1 is not pasted and it is not signed across and it is simply stapled to Ex.P1, the PW46 also admitted that the photograph on Ex.P7 is not pasted and it is not signed across and it is simply stapled to Ex.P7, there is no photograph on Page No.1 of

Ex.P31. Further, he admits that there is no photograph on first page of Exs.P22 and P23. There is transparent tape to prevent tearing of Ex.P22. There is no signature signed across on Ex.P2. Photograph in the second page of Ex.P22.

Ex.P2 photograph also pasted with transparent tape in the same manner as applied to the sides of Ex.P22. He never saw Exs.P1, P7, P19, P22, P23, P29,

P31 and P775 at any time during his life time before giving his chief-examination.

It means even his examination under Section 161 Cr.P.C., also those documents are not confronted to the witness. There is no signature signed across on Ex.P5

Photograph in the second page of Ex.P23. So, the identification of photograph in

Ex.P1 as Balaiah/PW2, in Ex.P7 as Anjaiah/PW3, In Ex.P22 as Balaiah/PW2, in

Ex.P23 as Anjaiah/PW3 and the person in Ex.P31 as employee of their company and photograph in Ex.P775 as Chandra Prakash is doubtful. Therefore, the evidence of PW46 is not useful to the prosecution.

70.The evidence of above witnesses shows that though the prosecution examined them to prove that the firms are fake firms, floated by A1 to A3 herein but as already discussed above their evidence do not proves that those firms are fake firms, so the prosecution failed to prove that the firms are fake firms.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 40 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

THE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST A4 and A8:

71.The prosecution alleged that the A4 recommended for sanction of cash credit limit of Rs.50 lakhs to A1 to A3. Local cheques issued by M/s.Maheswari

Steels Corporation and other firms floated by A1 for huge amounts were purchased in the cash credit limit of A3 in connivance with A4 and A8. The cash credit facility of Rs.50 lakhs were sanctioned by equitable mortgage executed by third party who had no title to the property, the documents are fabricated.

72.Further, A4 gave false information to higher officials and certified that property offered as collateral security has got enforceable market value of Rs.90 lakhs property was found to be non-existing. Regional Office, Chennai sanctioned credit limit of Rs.50 lakhs. A1, A2, A9 floated bogus firms in pursuance of conspiracy. A4 purchased/discounted the cheques issued by bogus firms in favour of M/s.Sakthi Steels, thereby facilitated misappropriation of credit facility amount. There was no sanctioned cheque discount facility for M/s.Sakthi Steels and the cheques discounted by A4 was beyond delegated financial powers.

73.A1 submitted application for credit limits in the account of M/s.Airan

Comptrax Towers Private Limited/A5. A11 carried out pre-sanction and post sanction visits of the factory of M/s.Airan Comptrax Towers Private Limited/A5 submitted false reports that the factory was working at the time of releasing the funds and thereby A4, A11 diverted the bank funds and committed the offence of cheating.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 41 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

74.In pursuance of conspiracy, A1 in connivance with A4 resorted to large scale fake operations in the accounts of M/s.Airan Comptrax Towers Private

Limited/A5 and diverted the bank funds to the accounts operated by A2 and A9 in fictitious name. A1 and A3 submitted property documents as security against the cash credit limit availed by M/s.Airan Comptrax Towers Private Limited/A5.

That A4 deliberately accepted the documents are genuine that the property offered as a security belongs to Sri Jogender Reddy and Damodar Reddy without their knowledge the property was offered as collateral security to the bank against the liabilities of A5. A10 submitted highly inflated valuation reports in respect of properties covered by the forged documents.

75.In pursuance of conspiracy A4 has accepted the forged documents submitted by A1 and A3 to avail cash credit limits in favour of M/s.Airan

Comptrax Towers Private Limited/A5 and used them as genuine and thereby caused wrongful loss to Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, thereby

A4 committed the offence under Section 471 of IPC.

76.A1 availed letter of credit in favour of A6 and submitted bogus letter of credit in the names of non existing firms operated by A2 and A9. That the letter of credit opened by OBC were discounted by A1 at different banks and proceeds were credited to the accounts of fictitious firms operated by A2 and A9, thereby diverted funds of OBC, Ameerpet. Further, in pursuance of conspiracy A4 being public servant as Branch Manager of OBC by corrupt and illegal means obtained pecuniary advantage to A1 by abusing his official position and caused wrongful loss to OBC.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 42 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

77.As per the charges, it is alleged that A3 conspired with other accused and submitted proposals for cash credit limits from time to time and got sanctioned the same in connivance with A4 and A8. A8 continued to allow adhoc limits to the bogus companies of A1 to A3, instead of prohibiting A4 from discouting the cheques, even after bringing to his notice about the cheating through monthly statements send by the bank. A8 intentionally allowed adhoc limits to the firm.

A8 failed to consider the waring signals given by successive auditors regarding irregular maintenance of accounts and accommodated diversion of funds and responsible for wrongful loss of Rs.50 lakhs to the bank. So, he contravened the provisions of Section 420 IPC and Section 13 of PC Act.

78.The prosecution has examined the following witnesses in order to prove the case against A4.

EVIDENCE OF PW18/C.V. Rao:-

79.PW18/C.V. Rao, Bank officer in Ameerpet Branch stated that M/s.Sakthi

Steels was having current account in Ameerpet Branch of OBC. Then working capital facilities were sanctioned in the form of Cash Credit Account on 15.07.1996 by Regional office, Chennai. The proposal was received from the customer on 22.12.1995 and processed by the Branch Manager on 06.02.1996.

Smt.Shashi Agarwal, proprietor of M/s.Sakthi Steels has submitted loan application on 22.12.1995 along with required documents. Thereafter, the

Regional Manager has addressed a letter dated 08.03.1996 to the Senior

Manager, Ameerpet Branch and advised the Senior Manger to submit reasons for credit report from Bharath Overseas Bank as it indicates the proprietor as

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 43 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Munnalal Agarwal, however, in the proposal it is mentioned as Shashi Agarwal.

The statement of account submitted reveals that almost the entire withdrawals are in cash. All the credits in the account appears as transfer from same cash credit account. The account does not reflect trade transfer. On satisfactory reply to the above they shall consider the proposal.

80.In reply to this letter, Shashi Agarwal submitted Munnalal Agarwal has taken General Power of Attorney from his wife Shashi Agarwal. The bank account was opened in the name of M/s.Sakthi Steels. As a matter of practice, the account is continued and the bank M/s.Bharath Overseas Bank has passed all transactions made thereunder. When it comes for issue of letter from the bank, the present officers have verified that papers with them and found that Munnalal

Agarwal is the operator of the account and issued the letter accordingly. All the difference is due to non submission of GPA to the bank M/s.Bharath Overseas

Bank at the time of opening of account. M/s.Sakthi Steels procure the materials from two sources, 1) From Scrap Dealers, who will supply scrap iron which will be rerolled at rerolling mills for conversation into Tar Steel i.e., Roads, wires etc., for the scrap dealers, the payment must be in cash as they are unregistered dealers. 2) From wholesellers i.e., Main dealers of Tata Steel, Vishakapatnam,

SAIL etc., who will ask for cash or demand draft. To make huge payments through DD the firm has to incur major amount on DD charges or service charges to the bank and also the firm can avail cash discount. Hence, majority of withdrawals from the bank are in cash and the firm has no limits with the bank and no restriction was imposed by them that payments must be made in DD or

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 44 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 cheque. The firm M/s.Sakthi Steels sell his material in retail to traders, builders, fabricators and contractors. They will make payment once in a week. The cash received from the customers is then paid in cash only to the scrap dealers who can supply steels for rerolling etc., There are some major customers like

M/s.Andhra Steels Traders Vide AC No.101 and Mittal Steels vide Ac. No.97, both

CC amounts with the bank who are transferring their dues due to the firm

M/s.Sakthi Steels. Due to the said reasons that their cash credit or current amounts were with M/s. BOB Only. As explained in earlier paragraphs, all proceeds of retail trade is again used for payment of scrap suppliers and other petty suppliers. Hence, those transactions are reflected in day book of the firm and not reflected in bank book. Therefore, M/s.Sakthi Steels had enclosed copy of GPA, counter foils of paying slip for deposit made through transfers, cash bills etc.,

81.The record shows that there was communication in between Regional

Manager and Senior Manager with regard to the loan application of M/s.Sakthi

Steels. Initially, the Regional Manger has expressed its doubt about M/s.Sakthi

Steels Transactions. However, after getting clarifications from M/s.Sakthi Steels and also from the Branch Manager. The office note was prepared under Ex.P530 by Rakesh Malhotra. The office note is very crucial, basing on which the loan was sanctioned. Said Rakesh Malhotra got it mentioned that he visited the place of work of M/s.Sakthi Steels for the spot verification of their working and stock position etc., The party is maintaining proper stock register and is kept up to date. They have also taken open space of around Ac.1.00 gts on rental basis

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 45 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 where the stocks of M.S. Plates and Girders are kept and the stocks of Iron Rods is kept in and around their godown on an average stock around Rs.75 lakhs to

Rs.80 lakhs is kept by the party. It was also informed by the party that stocks purchased from certain rolling mills which are at a distance of 60 to 70kms from their work place is kept in their premises only till it is sold of. It was suggested to them that these stocks should be kept in their premises for effective monitoring, party has assured that once the facilities are sanctioned they will ensure that after the purchase of such materials, the same is immediately transported to their godowns.

82.Thereafter, the sanction letter was issued by the Regional Office, Madras in favour of M/s.Sakthi Steels on 15.07.1996 subject to terms and conditions.

M/s.Sakthi Steels has accepted the said terms and conditions.

83.After sanction of the loan, the documentation was carried out by PW18 and A4. The borrower has executed the documents. The title deeds are deposited, the title deed was executed by P.G.Nagabhushanam Naidu for Rs.50 lakhs. Extracts of documents of P.G.Nagabhushanam Naidu issued from Municipal

Corporation, Hyderabad, the sale deed and encumbrance certificate also filed.

The valuation certificate in respect of title deed property was obtained. The legal opinion was also obtained. The entries are made in equitable mortgage, register of Oriental Bank of Commerce, dated 18.07.1996 written by PW18 and counter signed by A4. Credit report of Mr. P.G.Nagabhushanam Naidu dated 01.03.1996 complied by A4. The Regional Office has addressed a letter dated 17.06.1997 advising Ameerpet Branch to submit fully documented renewal proposal of

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 46 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

M/s.Sakthi Steels. Thereafter, one Mr.N.V.R.Murthy was appointed as Monitoring

Officer M/s.Sakthi Steels. The another letter addressed to Mr. Mohammed Babu from Regional Office, Chennai appointing him as monitoring officer from

M/s.Sakthi Steels. The accused No.4 has addressed a letter to Regional Office,

Chennai seeking confirmation of action of bills purchased under letter of credit.

The Regional Office has sent a confirmation letter. The prosecution got marked the documents Exs.P521 to P552 relating to the loan file of M/s.Sakthi Steels.

84.The prosecution has filed 8 cheques drawn on self from cash credit account of M/s.Sakthi Steels. Monthly stock statement submitted by Sakthi Steels.

Further, the application was submitted for renewal of cash credit limits. The branch put a process note on 17.02.1998 signed by A4. Thereafter, the monitoring officer was appointed for cash credit account of M/s.Sakthi Steels.

85.M/s.Airan Comptrax Towers Private Limited/A5 has also submitted loan application for credit facilities. The letter was addressed to Regional Office by A4 with regard to the sanction of credit facility to M/s.Airan Comptrax Towers Private

Limited/A5. Regional Office, Chennai considered the proposal and sanctioned the cash credit facility. The intimation was given to the Senior Manager, Ameerpet

Branch. The Senior Manager has addressed a letter recommending regular sanction of working capital facilities. Further, the Branch has sent a letter dated 22.03.1999 for fresh proposal of M/s.Aren Steels Limited/A6 for letter of credit of

Rs.240 lakhs sent from Branch to Regional Manager signed by A4. The process note was prepared for letter of credit of Rs.240 lakhs signed by A4. Ex.P12 to

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 47 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

P14 are the pay orders which were issued by Oriental Bank of Commerce,

Ameerpet Branch in favour of different payees. A11 has signed as authorized signatory on behalf of bank.

86.The documents relating to equitable mortgage property was filed.

Permission issued by Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad for construction of building to Mr.P.G.Nagabhushanam Naidu, property demand notice. Original

Property payment receipt issued by MCH to said Mr.P.G.Nagabhushanam Naidu.

The Encumbrance Certificate issued pertaining to Plot No.32 of

P.G.Nagabhushanam Naidu issued by Joint Registrar-II, Hyderabad. Certificate of

Encumbrance issued in the name of A1 by Sub-Registrar in respect of Plot No.32.

87.The above evidence of PW18 shows that on the application of Sakthi Steels and on the application of M/s.Airan Comptrax Towers Private Limited/A5 the credit facility was given to both firms. After execution of all required documents only the loan was sanctioned. The process note is in favour of said firms.

88.In the cross-examination, the PW18 stated that in view of growth of business, Chartered Accountant was appointed as concurrent auditor to report day to day activities of the branch. One B.Srinivasa Rao functioned as Concurrent

Auditor between 1996 to 2000. Further, he worked there till 31.12.2000 during his period the group accounts pertaining to this case satisfactory, the guidelines are followed. In case of exceeding its powers, it will be duly confirmed by the next higher authority. The cheque purchased by the branch will be reporting in

STM 41 regularly. The STM 41 do not contain any confirmation letters from higher authorities. There is process note of Regional Office recommending

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 48 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 confirmation of action. The monitoring reports were also obtained to subject loans. He admits that process note was prepared at Regional Office, Chennai in respect of M/s.Sakthi Steels and M/s.Airan Comptrax Towers Private Limited/A5.

A registered office order duty for the period from June, 1998 to 18.04.2002 maintained at Ameerpet Branch shows that A4 has given an order on 13.12.2000 not to allow excess in subject account during his absence. The confidential reports are obtained by OBC bank, Ameerpet Branch in respect of Agrasen Urban

Bank Limited for M/s.Universal Trading Company, M/s.AP Mahesh Cooperative

Urban Bank Limited for M/s.Rupy Traders, M/s.AP Mahesh Urban Cooperative

Bank Limited for M/s.Maheswari Steels Corporation.

89.The above evidence made it clear that the branch has not taken any independent decision, the intimation was given to the Regional Office. After giving information only the credit facility was given. Further, there is no violation of bank rules. Though, the prosecution contended in pursuance of conspiracy, the transactions were done with fake firms floated by A1 to A3 but Ex.P507 clearly shows that the confidential reports of firms were obtained. Further, A4 was very cautious and he has given office order stating that not to allow excesses in subject account during his absence. If he is conspired with the firms he would not have given such office directions. Further, Ex.P523 dated 06.02.1996 clearly shows that A4 has discussed the proposal with Regional Office. He has conveyed to the Regional Office about the Prl. Sanction for Rs.50 lakhsin the account of

M/s.Sakthi Steels. Further, the officer of Regional Office I..e., Mr. Rakesh

Malhotra has visited M/s.Sakthi Steels and submitted satisfactory report,

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 49 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 thereafter only under Ex.P534 the amount of Rs.50 lakhs credit facility was given to M/s.Sakthi Steels. Further, as per Ex.P528 M/s.Sakthi Steels have introduced fixed deposits worth of Rs.1 Crore to the bank. They have taken credit facility of

Rs.50 lahs and they have introduced Rs.1 Crore fixed deposit to the bank, so there is no question of having mensrea to cause wrongful loss to the bank.

Further, S.Chandrasekharan has visited the equitable mortgage property and submitted the report positively. Further, the statement of account of M/s.Sakthi

Steels shows that the facilities were gradually released to the borrower. Further, the legal opinion was also obtained on the equitable mortgage property. It clearly shows that the A4 has taken all precautions before releasing the credit facilities and all terms and conditions are followed.

90.Further, 49 pay orders were issued under Ex.P574 from the account of

M/s.ACTPL in favour of different beneficiaries. Out of above pay orders 2 pay orders dated 04-10-2000 issued in favour of RBI Account, CAO, AP Telecom,

Hyderabad, were signed by him and 7 pay orders were issued in favour of SAO

OPERATION CIRCLE AP TRANSCO RANGA REDDY, 2 pay order numbering 520360, dated 20-09-2001 for Rs.5,521/-(Rupees Five Thousand Five Hundred and Twenty one only) and pay order number 147720, dated 09-08-2001 for

Rs.29,569/- (Rupees Twenty Nine Thousand Five Hundred and Sixty Nine only) paid to insurance company. PW18 admits that Exs.P12 to P14 pay orders were issued under his signature. Exs.P12 to P18 contain printed “& Co crossing” when the stationery was supplied by Head Office. Ex.P562 contains copy of balance sheet of M/s Sakthi Steels as on 31-03-1997 and it contains sundry debtors and

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 50 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 sundry creditors. As per above documents the pay orders were issued by PW18 but not by A4. Further, the record shows that there was lot of correspondence with regard to renewal proposal of cash credit facility to M/s.Sakthi Steels.

91.As per the sanction letter, dated 09-10-1997 available in Ex.P555, issued in favour of M/s.Airan Comptrax Towers Private Limited/A5, the release of working capital limits was to be done only after inspection by an official from the sanctioning office. Thereafter, office note was prepared under Ex.P577, however, there is no reference of non existence of machinery under the head inspection report. In this loan account, all the formalities are followed, the valuation report was obtained and there was correspondence to the Regional Office.

92.Further, the record and evidence of PW18 shows that on 28.08.1997, on page No.00 of Ex.P581 Mr. B.P.Goel has signed. On page No.02 of Ex.P581, on 04-09-1999 Mr.Raghunath and Mr.Ravi Kumar has signed. On 28-11-1998 on page No.01 of Ex.P581 Mr. B. Srinivas Rao has signed. The above officials have reported that conduct of the unit is satisfactory. On page No.80 of Ex.P581, on 29-04-1998, Mr.Satyanarayana, Assistant Regional Manager (ARM), Regional

Office has visited the unit along with Mr.M.Sundereshwaran(A4) but he has not signed the Ex.P581. In the details of security it is mentioned that machinery erection completed. All the records shows that the units are working the sufficient machinery was there. However, the prosecution has taken plea that the units are not working and there is no sufficient machinery. A4 and A8 colluded with the accused and sanctioned credit facility. The own witness of

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 51 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 prosecution i.e., PW18 admitted as per the reports the units are working and there are sufficient material.

93.Thereafter, E.Venkateswarlu officer, Industrial Loans from Head Office also submitted visit report on 10.01.2001, the report shows that the unit of M/s.Airan

Comptrax Towers Private Limited/A5 was visited and found the machinery and plant in the premises. The unit is in working condition. The building is there, the laboratory, office are situated in the unit premises. The company is installing one more furnace in the unit. The product i.e., ingots are raw materials for rerolling mills which in turn used in Industrial and Construction purposes used for manufacture of CTD bars, Tar Steels, MS channels and rods etc., No adverse report is given in Ex.P585. wealth tax returns filed by A1 for AY 1998-99 to show the existence of unit. Further, in the fresh proposal of M/s.Aren Steels

Limited/A6 send by Senior Manger to Regional Office on 22.03.1999 there was recommendation for combined limit of credit and foreign letter of credit for

Rs.240 lakhs. It clearly shows that there was no such irregularities as pointed out by the prosecution. The evidence of PW18 and the documents are in support of accused person only.

94.PW21/Mr.Rakesh Sharma, Senior Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce

Hyderabad stated that Mr.Sunderaswaran (A4) was his immediate predecessor in office of Ameerpet Branch. M/s. Shakti Steel (A7) was allowed cash credit facility,

M/s. Aren Steels Limited (A6) was allowed letter of credit facility and M/s.Airan

Comptrax Towers Private Limited/A5 was allowed facility of cash credit and letter of credit by the Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad. All

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 52 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 these facilities were recommended by the branch and sanctioned by the head office.

95.After his assuming charge as branch Manager, Ameerpet Branch, he noticed that the above accounts are irregular due to excess drawing. He contacted Mr. Munnalal Agarwal (A1) who was the Managing Director of M/s.Aren

Steels Limited (A6) and M/s.Airan Comptrax Towers Private Limited (A5). He asked sometime as he is not having sufficient funds for regularizing the above accounts. He asked permission to establish some more letters of credits and adhoc facility so that he can procure the goods, run the business and gradually regularize the business.

96.Based on his request, they allowed them to utilize Rs.30 lakh as adhoc facility which was already sanctioned. They also established one letter of credit of

Rs.35 lakhs. Even after that the accounts were not regularized.

97.The evidence of PW21 shows that though he was not present at the time of such loan transactions, after assuming his charge as branch manage,

Ameerpet, he came to know that there are irregularities in the loans sanctioned to A5 to A7.

98.The careful scrutiny of evidence of PW21 shows that though he stated that he was immediate successor of A4 but in the cross-examination he admitted that he has taken charge from Mrs.Uma Shiv Kumar incharge Branch Manager of

Ameerpet Branch. M.Sundereshwaran(A4) has left the branch by handing over charge to Uma Shiva Kumar. It means he is not immediate successor of A4.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 53 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

99.The PW21 admits that all the transactions in the group of companies of Mr.

Munnalal Agarwal (A1) were in the full knowledge of Regional Office and no point of time anything was concealed from the Regional Office. This evidence made it clear that there are admissions from PW21 that all the transactions in the group of companies of A1 were in the full knowledge of Regional Office. It means whatever the credit facilities given to the companies of A1, all were within the knowledge of Regional Office. Thereafter, Regional Office was functioning from Hyderabad on the date of joining of PW21 in Ameerpet Branch. The letter of credit of Rs.35 Lakhs was sanctioned by Regional Office, Hyderabad, has devolved on the bank. It means Rs.35 Lakhs of letter of credit was sanctioned by the Regional Office but not by the Ameerpet Branch. PW21 admitted those accounts became NPA during his working time i.e. on 31.03.2002. It means during the period of A1 the accounts have not became NPA. Though the PW21 intended to say that even before assuming his charge as Branch Manager the above accounts are irregular due to excess drawing. He was not able to refer any of the documents which shows that there was excess drawing. Further at one side he is admitting the accounts became irregular but at the same time he allowed the A1 companies to utilize the Rs.30 lakhs as adhoc facility. The PW21 stated that it was already sanctioned prior to assuming his charge but when he found that the accounts are irregular due to excess drawing, he is not supposed to permit the A1 companies to utilize Rs.30 lakhs as adhoc facility, he would have inform the matter to the Regional Office. Apart from it, he has issued one letter of credit of Rs.35 lakhs in favour of A1 company. It clearly shows the negligence

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 54 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 on the part of PW21. The record shows though these credit facilities are not pertaining to the period of A4, those adhoc facilities is pertaining to the period of

PW21 but the A4 was blamed by stating that as he sanctioned credit facilities to

A1 company with conspiracy. So the accounts became NPA. The evidence of

PW21 further shows he has no personal knowledge about the transactions relating to recommendations, sanctions of various limits to the firms of A1 prior to 27.08.2001. Therefore, the evidence of PW21 is not reliable and trustworthy, basing on his evidence A4 and A8 cannot be connected with the alleged offences.

100.PW24/G. Ramakrishna worked in Regional Office, Chennai as an Officer

Loans at the relevant time, he stated that A4 was Senior Manager of OBC,

Ameerpet Branch. As a Branch incharge, A4 has to go through the proposal in detail with Pre- sanction and Post-sanction visits of the units and all financial papers, CMA data's and Assets and Liabilities of Borrower and Guarantor,

Proposal has to be analyzed in Toto and with his due recommendation proposal to the Regional office, Chennai and on receipt of proposal at Regional office, the case has to be looked into the merits and demerits of the case and if the proposal is viable the case will be put for consideration to his higher authorities and if any further paper is required the same shall be sought for from the Branch office. Office note has been prepared for sanction of loan under Ex-P562. PW24 has prepared an office note of M/s.Sakthi Steels situated at Hyderabad on 21-03- 1998 which is renewal of cash credit for an amount of Rs.50 Lakhs, and he has recommended for renewal of Cash Credit limits at existing level of Rs.50 Lakhs and he has call for Schedule -II account of the Borrower. PW24 has prepared the

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 55 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 office note for M/s.Sakthi Steels situated at Hyderabad on 25-03-1999 for renewal of limits at the existing level of Rs.50 Lakhs along with Financial Analysis which is based on Financial High lights given by the borrower and recommended by the branch office, He has also prepared a note on 19-04-1999 which is a renewal of limit for Rs.50 Lakhs, the above said office note is prepared based on the letter received from Ameerpet branch, dt:13-04-1999 which is signed by A4.

101.The office note part of Ex.P576 Ex-576 was also prepared by him on 24- 08-1999 in respect of M/s.Airan Comptrax Towers Private Limited/A5 and its directors are M.L.Agarwal and Ritesh Agarwal for renewal of various credit facilities amounting Rs.1,62,00,000/-. The Collateral security offered by the above said directors is Land in Sy.no.48 situated at Bandlaguda, Uppal, one in the name of Munnalal Agarwal and another one in the name of Shashi Agarwal, the value aggregating 198 lakhs.

102.Ex-P588 is the Note prepared by him on 12-05-2000 in respect of A6 company, they have sanction the letter of credit for A6 company for an amount of Rs.1.50 crores, LC to be issued infavour of M/s.Rastriya ISPAT Nigam Limited (RINL). The branch has recommended to issue letter of credit other than

M/s.Rastriya ISPAT Nigam Limited on 12-05-2000 for Rs.35,00,000/-. Mr.Panda has written a note on 13-05-2000 that

i) Fresh Loan document 11 and 32 to be taken ii) Charge with ROC has been filed outside the stipulated period of one month.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 56 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 iii) Branch has to confirm that charge has been registered.

iv) Mortgaged properties there are no Tax arrears

v) Listed Document-61 is to be obtained.

103.Regional Head has endorsed on the letter dated 13.05.2000 to address a letter to Ameerpet branch, Hyderabad for Rectification/Complaint. Therefore, he has prepared a note raising certain queries for properties offered towards collateral security. The document Ex.P590 shows that the term loan account is regular cash credit limit of Rs.80 Lakhs was released in the month of June, 1998.

The sales estimates for the current year is Rs.529.50 lakhs. However while submitting renewal proposal of M/s.Sakthi Steels the branch has reported that the company has done sales of Rs.143.00 Lakhs only. From statement of account submitted the amount was of Rs.45.14 Lakhs. However the branch has submitted copies of invoices. It also appears that the company has not utilized the credit facility and non refunded. The main promoters of the company is engaged in steel fabrication. The company presently proposes to purchase certain kinds of iron and steel materials. Finally the Regional Office has recommended for sanction of loan in favour of the company.

104. Ex.P593 is the sanction letter of Chennai. It clearly shows that after getting clarifications only the loans were sanctioned in favour of M/s.Airan

Comptrax Towers Private Limited/A5. There was no involvement of Ameerpet

Branch in sanction of loans. The PW24 has admitted all the notes prepared by him were sent to his Superior in turn it has been send to sanction authority, who

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 57 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 in turn sanctioned the loan proposals. According to him the loan proposals were sanctioned by following rules and regulations of the bank. The evidence of PW24 is not against the accused person herein. As per his evidence when the loan proposals are given initially the Regional Office raised objections but after giving clarifications it was sanctioned by Regional Office and it was in accordance with rules and regulations.

105.Further as regards the role of A8, the evidence of PW24 shows one

M.S.Shetty was the Regional Manager during 1995 to 1999 at Chennai.

Sri.R.Madhusudhan has succeeded the seat of MS Shetty. the then

Regional Manager R.Madhusudhan has ordered to address a letter to the branch for rectification and compliance by making his signature on 13.05.2000. He admits Kanvaljeet singh /A8 was not the Regional Manager during the relevant period of time. Kanvaljeet singh A8 has succeeded

R.Madhusudhan, It means at the relevant time A8 was not working there but without verification of his period, he was implicated in this case. It is to be noted whenever adverse features not reported in proposals were recommended and accepted by sanctioning authority. Therefore the sanction authority cannot be blamed when the account became NPA. So

A8 has no role in sanction of credits.

106.PW22/RK.Kalra, Chief Manager, Inspection and control department of OBC,

Head Office, New Delhi stated that on the instructions of General Manager,

Inspection and Control Department, he inspected OBC, Ameerpet branch,

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 58 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Hyderabad on 08.03.2002 with regard the account of M/s.Airan Comptrax Towers

Private Limited/A5, M/s.Sakthi Steels and M/s.Aren Steels Limited/A6, which are group concerns. He submitted a report dated 04.04.2002 under Ex.P587 to the

General Manager Inspection and Control Department

107.As per report the Branch Manager was indulged in unauthorized business activities of the branch by accommodating the borrowers much more than the sanctioned credit facilities by the competent authorities as well as he has accommodated by allowing credit facilities in the borrower’s account much more than the discretionary powers vested with him.

108. In the account of M/s.Airan Comptrax Towers Private Limited

A4/M.Sundereshwaran purchased accommodatory cheques to the tune of

Rs.1725.88 lakhs during the period from 03.02.1999 to 30.11.2001. These cheques were drawn by the firms floated by M/s.Airan Comptrax Towers Private

Limited in the name of firms owned by the relatives and employees of the

Directors of the said company. These floated firms were found to be non- existent, because while conducting investigation it revealed that these firms were not functioning at the given addresses. These companies were issuing cheques in favour of M/s.Airan Comptrax Towers Private Limited, which were not out of the genuine trade transactions.

109.Similarly, in another group of account namely M/s.Sakthi Steels accommodatory cheques were being purchased by the branch un-authorizedly.

The Branch Manager purchased cheques to the tune of Rs.1570.16 lakhs during the period from 01.04.1999 to 26.08.2001. In this account certain credit facilities

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 59 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 were sanctioned by the competent authorities which was backed by equitable mortgage of immovable property reportedly to the value of Rs.92 lakhs, but in his opinion the realizable value was almost nil, because of the reason that this property was inhabited by the tenants for a long time and some were as old as 33 years.

110.Further, the group was also maintaining another account with the branch in the name of M/s.Aren Steels Limited and it was enjoying Inland Letter of

Credit (ILC) facility to the extent of Rs.150 lakhs. In addition to it, ILC limit of

Rs.90 lakhs was also sanctioned on adhoc basis. As per the sanctioned credit facilities, the ILCs were to be issued in favour of M/s.Rashtriya Ispat Nigam

Limited in respect of Iron scraps/Ingots to be purchased from it under ILC. But, subsequently, this condition was amended by the competent authorities and allowed the borrower to purchase scrap from the local dealers.

111.Subsequent to this modification, the Letter of Credits were issued in favour of M/s.Maheshwari Steel Corporation, M/s. Universal Trading Co., M/s. Venson

Steels & M/s. Ruby Traders. On their investigation, it revealed that these companies are not in existence. This fact was confirmed on their physical verification at the given addresses.

112.Further, it revealed that bill negotiated under LCs issued in favour of the above company were found to be fabricated, as no goods were being traded under the above LCs, bills/Invoices.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 60 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

113.The evidence of PW22 shows that the transactions in the accounts of A5 to

A7 are fake, the cheques were drawn by the firms which are fake and floated by

A5 to A7 herein. In the cross-examination he admitted that he did not mention in the report about the list of documents verified by him. Even he is not aware whether the investigating officer has collected the documents with the branch and regional office. Even he does not know whether the investigating officer has collected his report under Ex.P587. In the further cross-examination he stated that he can not say the period of A4 in Ameerpet from his report. Infact when he made allegations against A4 it is his duty to know that for which period the A4 worked in the said branch. Whether the so called irregularities were committed during the period of A4 or not. The PW22 has not enquired about the working period of A4. Even his report does not indicate that he visited the factory premises of the three companies. He has not verified the attendance register or leave register of OBC, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad. As per his report one

Rakesh Sharma was Branch Manager on 06.09.2001. He did not mention the name of Incharge of the branch on 26.01.2001 and 05.10.2001 at page No.17 of his report in respect of certain discrepancies relating to invoices of letter of credit. The defence contention is that Sri.Uma Shiva Kumar was incharge of the branch on 26.02.2001.

114. The PW22 simply denied it and he is not able to say who was working at the relevant time. However he admits Mr.Rakesh Sharma was incharge of the branch on 05.10.2001. The PW22 has to point out that those irregularities was committed during the period of Sri.Rakesh Sharma but the report shows that he

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 61 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 mentioned it was happened during the period of A4. Further he is not able to say the details relating to the irregularities committed by Regional Office, regular

Inspector and Concurrent Auditors. He admitted Audited balance sheet of a company will containing information about financial transactions of the company.

The Balance Sheet of company contain information about Sundry Debtors and

Creditors. He is not able to say anything about the balance sheets relating to group of companies of M/s.Sakthi Steels and others. Even he has not enquired whether M/s.Sakthi Steels and M/s.Ruby Traders are dealing with OBC even prior to the year 1996. He visited the premises of firms as per the addresses mentioned in the records and they are not existence at the addresses mentioned therein. He mentioned in his report he visited the premises of the firms as per address. Further he can not say whether there should be reduction in the liability whenever the stocks level gets reduced. He did not mention the name of the officials of the branch responsible for recovery of the amount due on account of reduction of stock.

115.Further in the report he mentioned the kite flying business seized only when chain of circulation of cheques had broken in the last week of August, 2001. He is not aware whether A4 was transferred as on 26.06.2001. Whatever his observations in para No.7 of the report are pertaining to the period August, 2001. At the relevant time A4 was not working and no cheques were pending for clearing. Even he is not able to say whether the chain of cheques during the period from 16.08.2001 to 24.08.2001 does not belongs to the period of A4.

Further he has not admitted that it is wisdom of Head Office regarding sanction

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 62 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 of limits to APCTL from Rs.80 lakhs to Rs.350 Lakhs. He investigated the matter and submitted the report when a specific question is asked with regard to sanction of limit, the PW22 is refused to give answer to it. Further he has not pointed out the circumstances under which the branch had recommended adhoc limit of Rs.50 lakhs for a period of 15 days as mentioned in para No.2 of page

No.6 of his report. It is his duty to fix the responsibility and to mention under what circumstances it was recommended. The PW22 has not concentrated on it.

In the report he mentioned there are no genuine trade transactions of the companies. He admitted he has not seen Ex.P574 cheques earlier so he was not able to say about the said payments. He is not aware whether there was payments towards electricity charges by the alleged fake companies.

116. The defence contended that when the firms are not in existence there is no question of having Registration numbers and paying commercial electricity charges on the name of companies. PW22 has not enquired about it, simply he stated those companies are not in existence. He has not verified Mr.Rakesh

Sharma has established letter of credit in favour of Ruby Traders for Rs.34.99

Lakhs on 05.10.2001 and even after the Central Excise letter the LC was debarred on 04.01.2002 adding to the liability. In the cross of said Rakesh

Sharma, he has admitted the credit facilities though knowing that those accounts are irregular. But no report was submitted against said Rakesh Sharma. The record shows that said Rakesh Sharma has discounted 143 cheques in favour of

Ruby Traders and Gindodi Steels in November, 2001 to a tune of

Rs.2,60,00,000/- and odd. He has not mentioned anything about it in his report.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 63 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Further he has submitted the report against M/s.Sakthi Steels and M/s.Aren

Steels Limited. The limits were extended by Head Office after satisfying about the performance of said companies in September, 2001. PW22 has not given any answer for it and not mentioned the same in the report. His report is one sided report and he don’t want to fix the liability of Head Office and other managers, his focus is only on the accused No.4 herein. As per his report the sanction limits i.e. Rs.330 Lakhs which includes Rs.30Lakhs adhoc facility. However Regional

Office has given permission for the above Rs.30 lakhs. The letters were send by the branch for adhoc proposals during the period of Uma Shanker. However the observation was given that such facilities was given by A4.

117.Further A4 has addressed a letter to Regional Office to permit the firm

M/s.Aren Steels Limited to purchase material from others since M/s.Rastriya

Ispath Nigam Limited expressed their inability to supply material. During the investigation the PW22 has not given any finding on it. Further in his report he failed to mention about the accountability of each Manager as per the period.

118.Further in the cross PW22 admitted M/s.Airan Comptrax Towers Private

Limited/A5 initially sanctioned a term loan of Rs.42 lakhs as per the instructions of Regional Office as per the letter dated 09.10.1997. The Regional Office has given permission vide letter dated 16.06.1998 for various limits totaling to

Rs.120 Lakhs.

119.PW22 admitted in para 4 of page 6 of his report that based on the recommendations dated 27.11.2000 of Regional Office, total of Rs.350 lakhs comprising cash credit of Rs.300 lakhs and bank guarantee of Rs.50 lakhs was

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 64 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 sanctioned by the head office vide their sanction letter No.HO/ADV/ dated 26.02.2001. Further he admits in last para of page no.7 of his report he referred the raids of customs and central excise department conducted at the premises of above companies on 07.09.2001 and a letter was addressed by them bearing

No.C.No.HQ.A.E.No.93/2001, dated 10.09.2001 addressed to Branch Manager,

Ameerpet Branch. This evidence made it clear that whatever the amount was sanctioned and credited to the accounts of accused it was on the recommendations of Regional Office and the bank guarantee sanctioned by Head

Office. The Branch Manager has no involvement in it. Further at one side prosecution contended those firms are fake and not in existing but in the report of PW22 he himself referred the raids of Customs and Central Excise

Department. When the firms are not in existing there is no question of raid by said departments.

120.PW22 admits in last para of page No.8 of his report it is mentioned that during the month of August, 2000 the Regional Office vide their letter

No.ROM/LAC/14280, dated 24.11.2000 in response to STM-41 for the month of

August, 2000 not to overstep his authority and seek prior permission. It indicates that there was a caution from Regional Office while sanctioning credit limits the prior permission should be obtained. PW22 did not mention the period of working of Mr.Kanvaljeet Singh (A8) in his report.

121.PW22 admits in para 3 of page 10 of his report he mentioned that

Mr.Rakesh Sharma branch incumbent visited on 30.09.2001 and 10.11.2001 and it was observed that in his report dated 30.09.2001 he did not mention about the

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 65 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 availability of sufficient or adequate stocks which covers the outstanding in the account and he has also mentioned in his report the drawing power as per stock statement submitted. He did not recommend any action against Mr.Rakesh

Sharma in his report even though his report was contrary to chartered accountants report mentioned in same para. It clearly indicates that his investigation is only one sided investigation though he found the irregularities during the period of said Rakesh Sharma but he has not fixed the liability of said

Rakesh Sharma. It is the duty of said Rakesh Sharma to mention about the availability of sufficient stock before recommending for credit facility. But he has not mention the same but recommended for credit sanction of Rs.30 Lakhs and

Rs.35 lakhs.

122.In para 2 of page 12 of PW22 report he mentioned that M/s.Sakthi Steels was sanctioned cash credit hypothecation limit of Rs.50 lakhs for the first time by

Regional Office, Chennai vide their sanction letter No.RO/L/10610/96, dated 15.07.1996 and the same was renewed periodically on 31.03.1998 and 19.04.1999. It was also mentioned that the validity of above limit was extended upto 31.03.2002 by the head office vide their letter No.HO/L/ dated 28.09.2001.

In para 2 of page 14 of his report it is mentioned that the verification of stocks was conducted jointly by Mr. T.S. Bagga, Chief Manager, Regional Office,

Hyderabad and Mr.Rakesh Sharma present Branch Manager on 06.09.2001 and as per their report, there does not exist any irregularities and the conduct of account is reported to be satisfactory. This evidence shows that the branch manager is not concerned with sanction of cash credit limit to the accused

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 66 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 companies. The Regional Office has sanctioned the credit limit. Even the stocks were verified by the Chief Manager of Regional Office, after their satisfaction only they have sanctioned cash credit limit. They have not pointed out any irregularities. However Mr.Rakesh Sharma, Branch Manager and Mr. Shiva Kumar,

Manager (loans) conducted inspection on 31.12.2001 and observed various irregularities mentioned in the same para. It clearly indicates that whatever observations made by the above said branch managers are in contrary to the observations of Regional Office. Admittedly the loan Rs. 150 lakhs ILC was sanctioned by Regional Office, Chennai on 20.09.1999. On 02.11.1999 the branch had requested that it may be permitted to issue ILC for Rs.35 lakhs in favour of parties other than M/s.Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited and request was acceded to by the Regional Office vide their letter No.ROM/L/20660, dated 05.11.1999 and it was also mentioned that the branch was permitted to issue letters of credit to any of the beneficiaries on 15.05.2000 with the sanctioned limit of Rs.150 lakhs. It means those limits were sanctioned only with the consent of Regional Office and after obtaining permission from the Regional

Office. After transfer of A4 these loans were notified as Non Performing Assets (NPA) on 31.03.2002 during the period of Rakesh Sharma. But the allegations are made against A4. The PW22 admitted the Head Office will be according renewals generally when the accounts are regular. In the instant case also there was recommendations for renewal of accounts. Therefore, the contention of prosecution that the branch manager has committed irregularities, are not correct.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 67 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

123.Further the PW22 admitted Ex.P587 is exclusively with regard to examine the staff accountability. He has not issued any notices to private parties and not recorded their statements. His higher authorities will give directions by addressing a letter to him mentioning the scope of enquiry. He was not part of any team which conducted enquiry under Ex.P587. 6 signatories are there in

Ex.P587 who are higher in rank to him. In Ex.P587/10 it mentioned that revaluation report of immovable property is obtained from Zahoor Ahmed dated 19.02.2002. Ex.P587 is silent as to the addresses or the dates which he has supposed to visit in connection with the borrowers and the business entities connected with the borrowers. The third parties with whom the borrowers having business need not inform the place of business in case of change of their addresses. The prosecution alleged PW22 has given report that the firms are fake and not conducting business in the given address. The defence contention is that the firms are registered with the ROC in case of change of addresses they have to give information to ROC. There is no need to give such information to any third parties with whom the borrowers are having business. Commercial Tax

Registration, GST registration etc., are there for the alleged fake firms, now the

PW22 can not say that those are fake firms only on the ground that the firms changed their business place. The PW22 has no personal knowledge of daily business transactions of OBC with A5 to A7. He is not aware how many directors are there on the board of A5 company and A6 company. He has not enquired with any Government Authorities like sales tax department, commercial department and Income Tax Department with regard the the firms with whom A5

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 68 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 to A7 were dealing. Therefore the report submitted by PW22 is not conclusive report basing on which the court can not connect the accused with the alleged offences.

124.PW25/N.Balakrishnan Officer in OBC, Regional Office, Chennai stated that

Kanvaljeet Singh (A8) was the Assistant General Manager during 2000-2001. In the present case, a letter is addressed by the Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad to

Regional Office, Chennai seeking Recognition of fresh activity of A5 company for which queries were addressed to the branch and sent vide letter dt:11-06-2000, vide letter dt:17.11.2000, process note for enhancement and change of activity was prepared at Regional Office, Chennai, the account of A5 company was sent to Head office, New Delhi.

125.Ex.P94 is the letter addressed to General Manager, New Delhi with proposal file of A5 company. A8 has addressed this letter to General Manager,

New Delhi. PW25 has prepared the process note and placed before the Chief

Manager/Mr.Jithender Mohan who in turn has recommended to Mr.Kanvaljeet

Singh (A8) along with his observation, based on this letter along with process note was sent to Head Office, New Delhi. As an apprising Officer, PW25 signed on the process note file. A8 has also engrossed the signature and the same is forwarded by the Chief Manager on 17.11.2000 for favourable recommendation.

Ex.P95 is the Office Note, dated 12.10.2000 put up by PW25 in respect of A5 company and the note is sent to Chief Manager, his observations in the above said note are that the projections of the A5 company are on higher side and the receivables are not acceptable, queries raised in respect of M/s.Sakthi Steels/A7

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 69 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 is also due.

126.Further, Ex.P96 is the Office Note, dated 19.09.2000 put up by PW25 in respect of A6 company in which he raised the queries for submission of credit report of A1 to bear Branch Manager signature. Ex.P97 is the note file, dated 21.11.2000 in respect of A6 company and the note was sent to Chief Manager recommending the sanction of facility to Head Office, thereby conveying to the branch to send the proposal directly to the Head Office with a copy to the

Regional Office as the allied concerned M/s.Airan Comptrax Towers Private

Limited/A5 is also sent to Head Office. Ex.P98 is the Office Note in respect of A6 company send to Chief Manager recommending adhoc letter of credit of Rs.90 lakhs for another rotation. This note was recommended by the Chief Manger and approved by the AGM/A8 based on which a letter dated 09.04.2001 was sent to

Head Office, New Delhi informing them that they have allowed this adhoc facility.

127.Ex.P599 is the note dated 09.06.2001 prepared by PW25 in respect of A6 company observing queries raised by the Head Office, New Delhi vide letter

dated 21.05.2001. Pw25 has observed in the note that reply to Regional Office

letter dated 03.02.2001 followed by reminder letter dated 14.03.2001 in respect of A7 company may be called for.

128.The evidence of PW25 clearly shows that the process notes in respect of credit facilities of A5 to A7 was prepared by the PW25 only. Whenever there was availment of credit facility they inform the matter to the Head Office and the queries were raised by the Head Office, New Delhi. Further, the Chief Manager also recommended for adhoc letter credit to A6 company. In the cross-

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 70 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 examination, PW25 stated that whenever he sought clarifications from the branch in the process note, AGM never turned down his suggestions to seek clarifications. He recommended the branch pending sanction from Head Office and the Chief Manager has endorsed in the above said exhibit that in view of satisfactory conduct of account, they may allow letter of credit of Rs.90 lakhs for one more rotation. Further, he stated that the borrowers have nothing to do with the procedures of their banks for the loan applications submitted by them. He admitted the sanction accorded by the Regional Office for the loans of A5 to A7 is in accordance with the procedure of the bank and that the queries raised by the

Regional Office were answered satisfactorily, thereafter the loans were sanctioned. He did not make adverse statements with regard to the loans sanctioned to A5 to A7. He has seen the replies to the queries raised by the

Regional Office and he did not raise any adverse comments in respect of the replies received from the branch. No objections was raised by him and by his superior officers for sanction of loans to A5 to A7.

129.The evidence of PW25 shows that while granting the loans to A5 to A7, every time the information was given to head office whenever they raised any queries, the branch has answered it, after satisfaction only, the head office has given permission for sanction of loan accordingly the branch has sanctioned the loans. Further, his evidence made it clear that he put up a note on the second page that Ameerpet Branch seeks action confirmation for having allowed excess of Rs.8.72 lakhs vide letter dated 16.04.2001, this amount was in excess of earlier limit of Rs.80 lakhs from 20.06.2002 to 04.08.2000. His evidence shows

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 71 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 that even head office has also confirmed this excess sanction of limit. In the present case, it was alleged that the excess amount was sanctioned without any permission but the evidence of PW25 shows that with the consent of head office only the excess limit was sanctioned under Ex.P600. Ex.P601 is his noting dated 06.07.2000 for confirmation of adhoc letter of credit of Rs.15 lakhs in the account of A6 after obtaining prior permission from the Chief Manager Loans and this was approved by the Chief Manager/AGM.

130. Further Ex.P602 is the entire file pertaining to the enhancement proposal of A5, this document shows that the maximum availment of A5 is upto

Rs.91.68 Lakhs which was in the knowledge of Regional Office and head Office at the time of consideration of enhanced limits of A5. Further, Ex.P597 shows that the letter of credits were in favour of M/s.Maheswari Steel Corporation and

M/s.Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited. At one side they contended that those firms are fake firms but there was letter of credits in favour of those firms. The evidence of PW25 falsifies the case of prosecution that excess limits were sanctioned without confirmation from the Regional Office. Therefore in sanction of loans to the said firms as per the procedure only the loans applications were received and credit facility was given. Though PW25 stated he has raised queries but he admitted he did not raise any adverse comments in respect of replies received from the branch. Even his superior officers also not raised any objections. When the loan account became NPA, they are not supposed to make allegations against the officers. If those officers are liable, the sanctioning authority is also liable to be prosecuted. From the evidence of PW25 it is clear

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 72 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 that there is no fault from the side of A4 and A8.

131.PW26/R.Satyanarayana, Assistant Regional Manager Loans , at Regional

Office Chennai shows for the purpose of availing loans by the Regional office, the regional office receives the process note from the branches and appraise for sanction of the same. The loans officer process the note and appraise to PW26 for placing before Higher authorities. Himself and Chief Manager are the recommending authorities for the loan proposal and the Regional Head is the sanctioning authority. During the relevant period of this case, powers of the

Regional Head for granting the loan is upto 2.5 crores for borrower. Loan over above than 2.5 crores will be referred to Head office situated at New Delhi. The role of the branch is to prepare process note and recommend the same to the

Head office for sanction in case of the loan is over and above 2.5 crores. This evidence made it clear that the branch has no powers to sanction the loan. The

Regional Head is the sanctioning authority. However, at branch level, the Branch manager is responsible for recommending the loan proposal and all other compliance of terms.

132.During the relevant period, A4 was the Branch Manager. In this particular case, Munnalal Agarwal/A1 is the owner of A5 and A7 companies. A1 approached

Ameerpet bank for renewal of limits in the account of A7 company. With regard to A5 company, A1 approached the bank for release of Working capital of Rs.1.20 crores which was already sanctioned. A1 was also in-charge of A6 company. On

Ex-P562/2 the noting was made by PW-24 for A7 company, placed before him for recommending renewal. After going through the record he recommended for

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 73 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 renewal and forwarded to the Regional Head/MS Shetty. Regional Head has approved the renewal of A7 company. A4 has prepared the Credit report of A7 company, at page No-16 & 17, 53 to 58 of Ex-P-562, based on the details submitted by A7 company, at page no- 18 to 52 of Ex-P-562. The signatures appearing on credit reports belong to A4.

133.With regard to A7 company for the purpose of Release of Working capital, their office has raised certain queries such as, Visit report from the branch,

Audited Balance sheet and Orders in hand and also reply to queries raised towards Branch Compliance Certificate(BCC) which confirms the compliance of all terms of sanction in-respect of documentation. Ex-P603 (3 sheets) is the office note dated:11-05-1998 prepared by G.Ramakrishna/PW-24 and he has made certain observations, thereafter Regional Head has concurred with the observation and forwarded the same to the Ameerpet branch. Mr.M.S.Shetty is

Regional Manager of Southern Region.

134.As per Ex-P577 it is relating to A5 company for renewal of Limits at the existing level prepared by PW-24, recommended by PW26 as well as Mr.Rakesh

Malhotra. A4 has forwarded the papers for renewal to Regional office on 16.07.1997 under Ex-P-579 which was approved by Mr.R.Madhusudan.

135.PW-24 has prepared the office note, dt: 18-6-1999 with regard to A5 company for Letter of Credit limit of 25 lakhs in which the status of other group companies are mentioned. His observation was to concur with observation made by PW-24 and placed before Assistant General Manager/R.Madhusudhan under

Ex-P-604. CD-413).

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 74 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

136.On 5th April 1998 he visited Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet

Branch, Hyderabad. One Sundersweran/A4 was the Branch Head at that time. He came there for the purpose of knowing that, is any requirement of pending work with Regional Office so that the things can be addressed at the earliest.

Sundersweran/A4 has requested him to visit the upcoming unit of A5 wherein

Regional office Chennai has sanctioned Term loan and working capital to the above said Private Limited company. The issue involved is with regard to working capital which was pending for release, by the time Term loan was already released to A5. One of the conditions for release of working capital was, the project should have been ready for commencement of commercial production.

So, he visited the said A5 and A7 company. A4 also accompanied with him for site visit. He found that only civil work with respect to factory shed and rooms for security, office and stores were constructed. At the site, he has observed only one Machine available which A1 informed it as a Pressing Machine which A4 also confirmed. Al has requested him and A4 to urgently release working capital as he has some orders on hand.

137.A4 has orally informed him about the release of working capital of A5. He suggested to A1 and A4 about the pending machinery as per the terms of sanction, production has to be commenced in A5 unit. A1 informed him that machinery is on the way and they will be installed shortly in the unit. he advised

A1 and A4 that a confirmation towards erection of machinery and for commercial production one more visit is required by A4. In this regard, he has also suggested that a note can be placed before sanctioning authority upon receipt of

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 75 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 confirmation by the Branch head about the installation of machinery by A5.

138.A4 has addressed a letter to the Regional Office, Chennai, that himself/A4 and A1 have visited A5 and requested for release of working capital. He put up a note to his superior officer which is evident in Ex-P603 with his remarks. Regional

Head (MS Shetty), Chennai has concurred his view that A4 has to once again visit A5 and ensure compliance of availability of machinery and commencement of production.

139.The evidence of PW26 is very crucial, his evidence clearly shows that A5 and A7 are requesting for renewal of limits. He has also visited the A5 and A7 firms but there was no sufficient machinery, so he suggested that to bring the machinery and start commercial production. Further, the regional office also put a condition that A4 should confirm towards erection of machinery and commercial production by visiting A5 and A7 units. However, the PW26 is not aware of subsequent developments. In the cross-examination, he admitted that in Ex.P603, he never stated that he visited the Oriental Bank of Commerce,

Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad and his notings are in the column captioned as order on the right side. He mentioned in his noting about the completion of civil works by A1 in A5 Private Limited company and he also mentioned about the pressing machine. The evidence of PW26 is contrary to the chief examination. As per his chief examination, the total machinery was not erected but in the cross- examination, he stated that he put a note that the Civil Work was completed by

A1 in A5 unit. Further, as per Ex.P555 at pages 3 & 4 Regional Office, Chennai has given in principle approval for Civil work and machinery for a

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 76 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 term of Rs.42 lakhs to A5. Further, as per document LD-244 he states that the

Branch Manager /A4 has confirmed that Plant and machinery was erected in A5 company and office building is nearing for completion, commercial production is in progress. Ex-P605 (6 sheets) is the office note dated: 06-06-1998. He admits that the PW-24 has analyzed the provisional balance sheet as on 31-03-1998 certified by the auditors of A5. Further as per Ex.P577 the overall conduct of the

SISTACONCERN (A7) was satisfactory and also the conduct of A5 found to be satisfactory. He has concurred with PW-24 about the renewal of working capital facilities of A5. Further, he put a note on Ex-P590 and P592. His evidence made it clear that there was confirmation of erection of plant and machinery in A5 unit.

Further, they admitted commercial production is in progress. As per the above documents, the conduct of said units are satisfactory after preparing the notes only the credit facility was given to A5.

140.Further, in the cross-examination, PW25 admitted that all the queries raised by Regional office, Chennai were properly answered by the branch, thereafter the Regional office, Chennai has sanctioned all the limits pertaining to

A5 to A7. He do visit premises of the borrowers on the directions of his superior officer. He admits if he visit the premises of the borrower with directions of his superior or without directions of his superior in the interest of the bank, they raise queries if he notice anything adverse to the interest of the bank. He admits that immediately after visiting A5 premises and after reaching Regional office,

Chennai he did not put any adverse note with regard to his visit to the above said premises, as nothing adverse was found/noticed, that is the reason why he

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 77 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 did not put any adverse note immediately. This evidence made it clear that he again visited the unit and there was no adverse remarks, so the credit facility was given to A5 to A7 units after following the procedure.

141.He admits whenever officers of Regional office visit a place they tried to maximum places(branch) as desired by the Branch managers for the interest of the bank. He admits, if a borrower or a branch manager is requesting the officers of regional office, Chennai to visit the borrowers site, it shows the urgency of the case for showing the future financial requirement in line with the progress of the project which shows the bonafides of the borrower. He stated that A8 has not taken Charge of Regional of Chennai till he was transferred from the Regional office, Chennai in March'2000.

142. The evidence of PW26 proves that after visiting A5 and A7 units only the credit facility was given as stated by PW26 due to the financial requirement the borrowers requested them to visit the units so, he visited the units. Moreover, the superior officers have instructed him to visit the units. He has not given any adverse remarks, it means as per the terms and conditions, the units of A5 to A7 are running, therefore, he has not given any report adversely and the credit facility was given as per the procedure. So there is no involvement of A4 and A8.

143.PW27/Mohan Kumar Sinha, Chief Manager in Oriental Bank of Commerce stated that the Term loan will be released on stage-wise basis as per the progress of the project. Munnalal Agarwal/A1 has obtained the loans from the bank on different companies. The loan amount shall be released by way of

Crossed Account Payee Bankers cheque/Pay-order. Ex.P12 to P18 are not crossed

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 78 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 account payee cheques which are issued by OBC, Ameerpet branch infavour of

Universal Fabrication (ExP-12), Shaker constructions (Ex-P13), Bhagwati

Machinery Corporation (Ex-P14), Universal Fabrication (Ex-P15), Shekhar constructions (Ex-P16), Bhagwati Machinery Corporation (Ex-P17), Bhagwati

Machinery Corporation (Ex-P18). Ex-P12 to Ex-P18 Pay-orders were encashed by the Endorsee's but not by the named payee's. The total amount covered under

Ex-P12 to Ex-P18 was Rs.34 lakhs pertaining to term loan.

144.Cash credit was given for working Capital requirement, it was a running account. As per Ex-P575 M/s.Sakthi Steels/A7 has availed cash credit from

Oriental Branch of Commerce, Ameerpet branch, Hyderabad. The CC limit as per the terms of sanction and the drawing power for such CC limits will be set up based on the Stock and Book debts. Ex-P572 statements of account of A7.

145.Ex-P563 which is a loan proposal for A5 for an amount of Rs.240 lakhs by way of Letter of Credit. The above said proposal is put by A4. Letter of Credits infavour of beneficiaries are sent by Registered Post or should be presented through Beneficiary Bank.

146.Somewhere on 31-03-2002 or 2003 the account of A7 company has become Non-performing asset. By the date of joining Oriental bank of commerce,

Ameerpet branch, in the month of June' 2003 DRT proceedings was initiated by the bank against A7, loan was recalled and it was declared as Non- performing asset. Bank has initiated DRT proceedings against A7 company at Hyderabad. He has handed-over some documents to CBI, BS& FC, Bangalore. One Zahoor

Ahmed/LW-39 has given valuation report pertaining to A7 company for the

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 79 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 property offered by them as a third party collateral security.

147.In the month of June' 2003, he took charge as a Branch Manager of

OrientalBankofCommerce,Ameerpetbranch,Hyderabad.

Nagabhushanam/Third party has mortgage only one property to Oriental Bank of

Commerce, Ameerpet branch, Hyderabad for the loan of A7. He has engaged Sri

Zahoor Ahmed/LW-39 for Revaluation of the mortgaged Properties to the bank.

148.He has inspected the House property of Sri Nagabhushanam Rao bearing no:1-9-9, Plot no-32, situated at Zamistanpur, Ram nagar, Hyderabad.

Sri.Zahoor Ahmed/Lw-39 gave his report on 29-12-2004 to him. The outcome of the report is that the House property of Nagabhushanam Rao does not exist at the address given therein.

149.He has inspected the Agricultural land of A1 admeasuring 5 Acres, in

Sy.no-61/B, situated at Pedda Toopran Village, Shamshabad Mandal and gave his report to him on 29-12-2004 by assessing the value of Agricultural land at

Rs.30,00,000/-.

150.Said Sri. Zahoor Ahmed/Lw-39 has inspected the property offered as

Collateral Security by Airan Exports Private Limited represented by A1 for the land admeasuring 1.01 acres in Sy.no-62/B, situated at Pedda Toopran Village,

Shamshabad mandal and gave his report to me on 29-12-2004 by assessing the value of Agricultural land at Rs.6,15,000/-.

151.He has inspected the property offered as Collateral Security by A6 represented by A1 for the land admeasuring 4 acres in Sy.no-61/B, 60/A, 61/A

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 80 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 situated at Pedda Toopran Village, Shamshabad Mandal and gave his report to him on 29-12-2004 by assessing the value of Agricultural land at Rs.24,00,000/-.

152.He has inspected the property offered as Collateral Security by Smt.Sheshi

Agarwal, W/o. Of A1 for the land admeasuring 1 acre in Sy.no- /B, situated at

Pedda Toopran Village, Shamshabad Mandal and gave his report to him on 29- 12-2004 by assessing the value of Agricultural land at Rs.6,00,000/-.

153.He has inspected the property offered as Collateral Security by Smt.Sheshi

Agarwal, W/o. Of A1 for the land admeasuring 27 Guntas in Sy.no-48 situated at

Bandlaguda Village, Uppal and gave his report to him on 04-01- 2005 by assessing the value of Agricultural land at Rs.8,00,000/-.

154.He has inspected the property offered as Collateral Security by A1 for the agricultural land admeasuring 28 Guntas in Sy.no-48 situated at Bandlaguda village, Uppal and gave his report to me on 04-01-2005 by assessing the value of

Agricultural land at Rs.8,30,000/-.

155.M/s. Servel Associates, Secunderabad has assessed the house property of

Sri.Nagabhushanam/Third party for the house bearing no: 1-9-9, Plot no-32, situated at Zamistanpur, Ramnagar, Hyderabad and they have valued the property at Rs.92,00,000/- and submitted their report to the bank on 31-12- 2001. the above property was offered by Sri. Nagabhushanam/Third party towards Collateral Security for A7 company represented by A1.

156.Zahoor Ahmed/LW-39 has done revaluation of the property bearing Hno:

1-9-9, Plot no:32 situated at Zamistanpur and he send the report to me vide dt:

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 81 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 29-12-2004 in respect of the above property Ex-P606 (31 sheets) is the

Inspection report. Ex-P606 report refers to Eight (8) properties of different persons.

157.As per the Ex-P606 the property standing in the name of one

Nagabhushanam Rao which is situated at Ramnagar in an area of 1854 Sq.yards,

Plot No.32 bearing H.No:1-9-9 is not in existence.

1) The property of ML Agarwal is valued by Zahoor Ahmed for Rs.30 lakhs for 5 acres of land situated at Pedda Toopran village.

2) The property of AIRAN Exports Private limited is valued by Zahoor Ahmed for Rs.6,15,000/- for 1.01 guntas of land situated at Pedda Toopran village in SY no: 62/B.

3) The property of AIRAN Steels Private limited is valued by Zahoor Ahmed for Rs.24,00,000/- for 4 acres of land situated at Pedda Toopran village in SY no: 61/B, 60/A and 61/A.

4) The property of M/s. Shashi Agarwal is valued by Zahoor Ahmed for Rs.6,00,000/- for 1 acre of land situated at Pedda Toopran village in SY no: 61/B.

5) The property of M/s. Shashi Agarwal is valued by Zahoor Ahmed for Rs.8,00,000/- for 27 guntas of land situated at Bandlaguda village, Uppal Mandal in SY no: 48.

6) The property of ML Agarwal is valued by Zahoor Ahmed for Rs.8,30,000/- for 28 guntas of land situated at Bandlaguda village in SY.no-48.

7) The property situated at Oothapally in the name of AIRAN Comptrax towers private limited, the valuation given by Sri. Zahoor Ahmed Rs.7,50,000/-.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 82 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

158.The total valuation of the properties shown above from 1 to 7 is Rs.89.95 lakhs.

159.Serval Associates represented by its proprietor S.Chandrasekharan/A10 has valued the property of M.L.Agarwal for the property situated at Sy.no-61/B,

Pedda Toopran for the extent of 5 acres, the value shown is 1.42,50,000/-, vide valuation report dt: 03-03-1999.

160.Serval Associates represented by its proprietor S.Chandrasekharan/A10 has valued the property of AIRAN Steels Private limited for the property situated at Sy.no- 61/B, Pedda Toopran for the extent of 1 acre, the value shown is 28,50,000/-, valuation report dt: 03-03-1999. The above said properties are all agricultural lands.

161.In the cross examination PW27 admitted that M/s.Sakthi Steels/A7 was having Cash credit account in Oriental Bank of commerce, Ameerpet branch. The perusal of Ex.D1 shows that M/s.Sakthi Steels was enjoying cash credit of limit of

Rs.50 Lakhs. Which was sanctioned by Regional Office, OBC, Chennai on 16.07.1996. As per the records the borrower was enjoying CC facility which was validated up to 31.02.2002 by the Head Office. In addition to the sanction limit his predecessor were extending facilities like cheque discounting under their discretionary power. The account became bad and categorized as NPA account on 31.03.2002 and the account was recalled on 01.02.2002 since several irregularities were found by the Head Office in this account the bank had filed a suit in the DRT, Hyderabad on 07.08.2003. The content of Ex.D2 shows ”subsequently they were sanctioned the working capital of Rs.120 Lakhs by way

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 83 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 of cash credit – Rs.80 Lakhs, Documentary DD Rs.20 lakhs, Inland letter of

Credit - Rs.10 lakhs, Bank guarantee Rs.10 Lakhs/-, and Banker’s guarantee –

Rs.10 lakhs. The facilities were renewed by Regional Office on 01.09.1999.

Further on the basis of proposal from Ameerpet Branch the Regional Office,

Hyderabad had sanctioned Rs.50 lakhs CC as adhoc limit 28.11.2000 for a period of 15 days, further adhoc limit of Rs.50 Lakhs till the renewal of limit and LC limit of Rs.50 Lakhs on short basis”.

162.The contents of Ex.D3 shows that “I also state that on the basis regular proposal from the branch Head Office had conveyed sanction of Rs.300 Lakhs CC and Rs.50 Lakhs Bank guarantee on 26.02.2001. Further after the transfer of

Regional Office from Chennai to Hyderabad, RO Hyderabad had sanctioned CC adhoc limit of Rs.30 Lakhs and LC limit of Rs.35 Lakhs to M/s.Airan Comptrax

Towers Private Limited/A5.

163.The documents Ex.D1 to D3 shows that PW27 has stated in 161 statement about the sanction of various credit limits to the accused persons herein by the

Regional office. Now he is taking a stand that all the loans are sanctioned by A4 only. So his evidence is contrary to the 161 statement.

164.In the further cross-examination, he admits that Ex-P12 to Ex-P18 were printed and issued by the Head office, Delhi, it shows the crossing on the pay orders "& Co.," between the lines. The defence contended that as there was in the printed proforma as “crossed and company”, therefore, there is no further need of crossing when issued in the name of Payee. However, the PW27 stated that it is not correct, the pay orders can be crossed as account payee. He admits

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 84 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Ex-P12 to 18 were paid through AP Mahesh Cooperative Bank to the Endorsee (M/s. B M Enterprises). The defence contended that the payments were made by

M/s.AP Mahesh Cooperative Bank under Ex-P12 to Ex-P18 to the Endorsee's other than the suppliers mentioned in the said Exhibits it is the responsibility of

AP Mahesh Cooperative Bank for making payments. The witness has denied it.

He is not able to say whether Ex-P12 to Ex-P18 were issued by the concerned staff of the bank, but not by A4.

165.He admits that when a loan is sanctioned, it can be disbursed through pay orders by the concerned loans Manager. He admits, an amount of Rs.29.89 lakhs for Civil works + Rs.37.51 lakhs for plant and machinery 67.40 lakhs is the cost of the project, out of which Regional office of OBC, had sanctioned term loan of

Rs.42 lakhs (Ex-P555) which includes customers contribution. As per clause (6) of Ex-P555 it is mentioned that "in-case of new projects the working capital shall be released only after all the plant and machinery is installed, Project commencement of Trial production and after inspection by an official from the sanctioning officer".

166.The PW27 has stated that Ex-P578 certified by Chartered Accountant and he states that it is only a provisional balance sheet, it does not have any sanctity unless it is audited.

167.In the further cross-examination by A4, he stated that there are panel valuers and panel advocates for Oriental Bank of Commerce. The Zonal Office monitors each and every branch of its functions and it obtains monthly and periodical reports of the branches. The loan transactions in the present case were

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 85 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 subjected to annual audit by the Bank. He admits that the amounts have been paid through pay orders under Exs.P.12 to P.18. Pay order and Banker’s Cheque are one and the same. Exs.P.12 to P.18 contain “Pay (To specific person) or

Order”. He admits that Exs.P.12 to P18 contain amount exceeding Rs.2,00,000/-.

Only one Officer of the Bank signed on Exs.P12 to P.18. He admits that canceling authority has signed on Exs.P.12 to P.14 at the time of payment. There is no signature of canceling authority on Exs.P.15 to P.18. He cannot say whether the signature belongs to A4 or not. This evidence made it clear that the amounts have been paid through pay orders only. It is containing the signature of one officer. So there is no question of diversion of amount. The amounts under

Exs.P.12 to P.18 were paid in M/s.Mahesh Co-operative Bank after they were

honoured by Oriental Bank of Commerce.

168.PW27 stated that he has engaged the services of Zahoor Ahmed for valuation of the property. Though, PW27 admits that the mortgaged properties are existing but there is variation in the value of the property as per the report of

Zahoor Ahmed. They have not taken any third party opinion. The loan transaction in the present case is beyond the limit of Ameerpet Branch. He admits that in the present case, the loans were sanctioned by the appropriate authority in the normal course of business after following the Bank norms and guidelines, the rules and regulations and procedures loans were sanctioned. The

PW27 admits that without any instructions from higher authorities he engaged the services of Zahoor Ahmed. There is no document to show that he was panel valuer. He has no personal knowledge about the transactions between the bank

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 86 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 and A5 to A7.

169.The OBC, Ameerpet Branch had already filed ΟΑ.No.193/2003 against A5,

OA.No.155/2003 against A6, OA.No.156/2003 against A7. The borrowers have no role in decision making powers of bank while sanctioning the loan and other processes. He has not shown any vouchers relating to the pay orders Exs.P12 to

P18. By seeing the pay orders it can not be stated it is related in any manner with any of the borrower i.e. A5 to A7. He cannot say by seeing the Ex.P12 to

P18 whether they are in connected with loan account of A5 to A7. He admits that by virtue of Ex.p12 to P18 being negotiable instructions, the payee can endorse them in favour of others for encashing them. In all pay orders the payee has endorsed i.e. Exs.P12 to P18. He admitted that the pay orders Ex.P12 to P18 are encashed according to banking rules.

170.As per the docket orders Ex.D17 to D21 the matters are settled in DRT, the banks has filed satisfaction memo, so the suits against A5 to A7 are closed.

171.This evidence indicates that PW27 has no authority or no instructions to appoint Zahoor Ahmed as Valuer and to obtain one more valuation certificate in respect of mortgaged properties. Without any authority, he engaged said Zahoor

Ahmed and obtained valuation reports for very less amounts and alleged that the valuation reports are obtained by the branch for inflated value. He has pointed out several irregularities. However, finally he admitted that Ex.P12 to P18 are encashed according to banking rules. Further A5 to A7 has cleared all loan amount, so the DRT has closed all the cases of A5 to A7. So there are no irregularities as alleged by the prosecution.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 87 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

172.PW28/Jitender Mohan, Chief Manager in OBC, Regional Office, Chennai stated that A5 to A7 were granted term loan, inland letter of credit limit, they were processed by OBC, Ameeerpet Branch and sanctioned by Regional Office,

Chennai. A5 has addressed a letter to the then Assistant General Manager recommending for facilitating adhoc cash credit limit of Rs.50 Lakhs to A5 company. PW28 has prepared office note, it was sanctioned by A8. However the

Head Office has raised quiries in respect of renewal cum enhancement proposal of A5 company. The Branch Manager, Monitoring Officer, Rakesh Malhotra reported satisfactory about the conduct of the accounts and there were no adverse remarks by any of the inspection team and auditors. The Regional

Office, Chennai received proposal from A4 for sanction of cash credit limit of

Rs.585 Lakhs and bank guarantee of Rs.50 lakhs for manufacture of aluminum and steel in gots for induction furnace Unit of A5 company. The Senior Manager

Ameeerpet Branch has addressed a letter to Assistant General Manager regarding renewal cum enhancement of working capital limits in respect of A5 company along with recommendations of A4. PW28 has prepared office note and raised some quires. The Deputy General Manager, Head Office raised some queries in respect of account of A5 company. A4 has given reply to the Deputy General

Manager, Head Office giving reply to the quires raised by Head Office and

Regional Office.

173. The document Ex.P594 shows that the General Manager Credit, Head

Office, Hyderabad with regard M/s.Airan Comptrax Towers Private Limited mentioned that they refer to the fresh proposal for sanction of cash credit and

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 88 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 bank guarantee facilities in the captioned account forwarded by branch. They also enclosed process note along with their recommendations for sanction.

However this document is relating to M/s.Airan Comptrax Towers Private Limited the loan proposal is relating to M/s.Sakthi Steels. The document shows that branch has clarified that realization of sale proceeds of earlier activity have been invested in the building up of current assets of new activity. Additional collateral security valued Rs.136.00 Lakhs was furnished. Latest balance sheet of

M/s.Sakthi Steels as well as IT returns of the company are pending. Further the steels units are not closed and running unit. Unit is proposed to run three shifts and operated 75 % capacity. The Regional Office found that parties projection of 21 days of receivable is contrary to what was observed in branch process note that recoveries are effected in 7 days considering this as well as high projections, drawing power may not be available. The reply to queries are not given so it may be conveyed to branch. The PW28 has stated that they have recommended cash credit facility of Rs.325 Lakhs and bank guarantee of Rs.50 Lakhs to A5 company. PW28 stated the details of account position and subsequent sanction of facilities to M/s.Airan Comptrax Towers Private Llimited was already given in detail. However on 26.02.2001 he received copy of letter dated 26.02.2001 under Ex.P617 of AGM, OBC, New Delhi addressed to Branch Manager, OBC conveying sanction of working capital limits in the account of M/s.Airan

Comptrax Towers Private Limited.

174.PW28 stated it is beyond powers of A4, the cheques reported in STM 41, having purchased by A4. It was checked and placed before him, since no

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 89 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 irregularities were observed in inspection reports, audit reports and same was properly scrutinized by load audit cell, he placed the same before Regional Head for ratification of action of branch manager.

175.As per the charges it is clear that the main allegation against A4 is that he colluded with A1 to A3. Therefore he recommended for sanction of credit facility to A5 to A7 companies. The evidence of PW28 shows after giving the loan application the Regional Office and Head Office raised several queries, after getting clarification from the branch the Regional Office has passed sanction orders. Further the main allegation is that the A4 has purchased the cheques beyond his discretionary power. But the evidence of PW28 shows that as per inspections reports, audit reports there were no irregularities. So PW28 has given clean chit and placed before Regional Head for ratification of action of branch

Manager. The monitoring officer, concurrent Auditors have also not given any adverse report. Subsequently the PW28 states he came to know through the report of PW22 is that there was irregularities in purchase of cheques and there was diversion of funds. The main basis for making allegations against A4 is that there was report of PW22. The evidence of PW28 is hearsay evidence. At one side he admits he checked the cheques and statements and he had given clean chit but again he states as there was report of PW22, so there was fraud in purchase of cheques. It is to be noted that in the cross-examination of PW22 he had stated that he had not seen the cheques earlier therefore he can not say anything about the payments under cheques. Further he stated he did not see

Ex.P571 register i.e. Office order duty register. Therefore he can not say anything

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 90 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 about the register. He can not say whether Rakesh Sharma has discounted 143 cheques in favour of Ruby traders, Gindodi Traders. The PW22 was not able to say anything about the facts of the case. This court has already observed there is no validity to the report of PW22 under Ex.P587. Therefore basing on this report PW28 is not supposed to make any allegations against A4. Further PW28 admitted OBC, Ameeerpet Branch purchased certain cheques in the group accounts of Munnalal Agarwal which was beyond the powers of Branch Manager.

He himself stated there are no irregularities. Further monitoring officers report was received for quarter ending 31.03.2001 signed by PW31, she reported that the conduct of the account as satisfactory due to the reasons the cheques are realized. No bills are returned and LC payments did not fall over due. The conduct of the account of M/sACTPL was considered to be good. Further he admitted quarterly report of large borrowal accounts as on 30.06.2000 signed by

Mohd Babu, Officer Advances and A4. PW28 identified that document as correct as per records of Regional Office, OBC, Chennai. He further deposed this report did not contain any instance of purchase of accommodation of cheques, kite flying operation or any other irregularity. The conclusion of report is that the account is frequently overdrawn but operations are satisfactory. Further quarterly report large borrowal accounts as on 31.03.2001 signed by PW31 also shows it is satisfactory. It means the conduct of account was good. At one side they are making allegation of exceeding limits by A4 by sanctioning over due amount but the document shows after communication to the Regional Office and with their permission the amounts were sanctioned. So there is no such

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 91 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 irregularity as contended by the prosecution.

176. Further in the case of M/s.Sakthi Steels A4 has addressed a letter to AGM along with the loan application and requisite documents. The Assistant General

Manager i.e. A8 has addressed a letter to the Senior Manager, Ameeerpet Branch calling for the reasons for huge variation between sales turnover of the firm summations in the cash credit account of the party. The perusal of document shows that the credit report of A3 along with details of her assets and liabilities etc. are furnished under P622 by the accused NO.4. Further M/s.Shakthi Steels has addressed a letter for renewal of cash credit of Rs.50 Lakhs along with loan application. The PW28 stated as per Ex.P534 sanction letter M/s.Shakthi Steels was enjoining cash credit limit of Rs.50 lakhs sanctioned 1996.

177.M/s.Aren Steels Limited/A6 was enjoining credit limit of Rs.150 lakhs.

There was sanction letter in favur of M/s.Aren Steels Limited/A6. A4 has recommended to AGM to allow M/s.Aren Steels Limited/A6 to utilize ILC limit of

Rs.35 Lakhs in favour of local parties within the overall limits. The process note was prepared by PW28 and signed by accused NO.8 and the permission was given to M/s.Aren Steels Limited/A6 for Rs.90 lakhs. Further the PW28 stated all

ILC’s opened by the branch on behalf of M/s.Airan Steels Limited except

M/s.Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited all other LC’s were bogus and of accommodating nature, which were opened in favour of firms floated by A1 to

A3. He is not aware that said ILC’s were bogus. He came to know of it when the investigation is done by Head Office. It clearly shows that the PW28 has no personal knowledge of it. As per his evidence there was sanction of ILC in favour

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 92 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 of M/s.Airan Steels Limited for Rs.90 lakhs. The branch has also confirmed the party has been meeting the commitment and there was no outstanding. The evidence shows that on the recommendation of A4 ILC for Rs.90 Lakhs in addition to regular LC of Rs.150 Lakhs was sanctioned. The contention of prosecution is that the credit loan amount was diverted through fake firms. But as already stated above there is no evidence to show that the firms are fake firms and it was established by A1 to A3. Moreover the Honourable High Court quashed the proceedings against A1 to A3. Therefore, the allegation of floating fake firms by A1 to A3 are quashed. In turn it can not be attributed to A4 that knowing that it was fake firms, the cheques were purchased and amount was diverted.

178.The PW28 has pointed out the valuation reports issued by Serval

Associates, Secunderabad in respect of equitable Mortgaged Properties and contended that those valuation reports are issued for very high amount one

Zahoor Ahmed was directed to revalue the property. Accordingly he revalued the property and as per his report the value of the property is Rs.50 Lakhs only but earlier valuation reports were obtained for Rs.285 Lakhs. It is to be noted that the evidence of Zahoor Ahmed is very crucial to prove the value of the properties but the prosecution has not examine him so the valuation reports are not proved.

In the cross-examination PW28 has stated that sanctioning limit by different scale branch officers is fixed by Head Office. If the loan exceeds the sanction limit the branch has to approach the Regional Office or Head Office. The branch acts as a Proxy to sanctioning authority i.e. Regional Office. It means the

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 93 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 sanctioning authority is the Regional Office and there is no discretionary power to the branch office.

179.From the evidence of PW28 it is clear that though he made allegations against A4 to A8 but his reports are contrary to his evidence. As per reports the accounts are satisfactory. Now he can not take u turn. Even he stated he has no personal knowledge of the transactions. The evidence of PW28 is not useful to connect the accused with alleged offences. Further he admits on his recommendation only adhoc LC limit of Rs.50 lakhs each was sanctioned to A5 and it is in accordance with the procedure. Even in case of A6 also the adhoc LC limit of Rs.90 Lakhs was sanctioned during his tenure. So there is no fault on the side of Accused persons in sanctioning of loans.

180.PW29/Uma Shiva Kumar, Scale-II Manager in OBC, Ameerpet Branch shows that M/s.Sakthi Steels Limited(A7) had CC limit of Rs.50,00,000/- and

M/s.Airan Comptrax Towers Private Limited(A5) also had CC limit of

Rs.80,00,000/- in Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch. Over a period of time there were lot of Cheques discounting and against clearing being done in those two group accounts, which were taken by her to the knowledge of the

Branch Manager/A4. The A4 was transferred from there, even he was not charged to her. The special focus inspection report given by Mr.Sampath Kumar and HK Madan with regard to irregularities in the account of A5 to A7. A5 and A7 were issuing cheques for huge amounts against uncleared cheques deposited by

A5 and A7. She inform the matter to R.K.Takkar, Regional Manager. He advised her to continue the same practice otherwise accounts will became NPA. Her

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 94 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 attention was also drawn to the letter of I.R.Rao and Company, the Concurrent

Auditors of the Branch, to forthwith stop operations in the accounts of A5 and A7.

On receiving the said information she has faxed the letter of I.R.Rao and

Company to the then Regional Head, Chennai by name Mr.Kanvaljeet Singh (A8) as the Ameerpet Branch was reporting to Regional Office, Chennai at that time.

On receiving the fax, A8 asked her to get a letter from I.R. Rao and company to start operations in the accounts of A5 and A7. The said action of A8 surprised her because A8 was pressurizing her to prevail over I.R. Rao and Company and to allow the operations in the accounts of A5 and A7 companies. Accordingly,

I.R.Rao and Company had sent a letter to Ameerpet Branch to start operations in the accounts of A5 and A7 companies.

181. During her tenure as second in-charge of Ameerpet Branch there were frequent Cheques purchase in group accounts of A5 and A7 companies against uncleared effects. The Branch limit for purchase of Cheques was limited to

Rs.7.50 Lakhs per party/customer. Since A5 and A7 companies had fund based limit with the branch frequent purchasing of Cheques was not permissible.

Moreover, A5 and A7 were depositing cheques for purchase in chronological order, which raised certain doubts in her mind and she informed A4 about the same. On hearing the same, A4 stated that it was none of her business and asked her to sit in her place. After that she remained as silent spectator.

182.The staff of A1 used to tell them about many illegal gratifications being paid by A1 to some of the staff members of Ameerpet Branch, specially

Mr.Mohammed Babu, who was the then Loans Officer. The said fact was also

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 95 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 informed to me by A1 personally when he used to come to Ameerpet Branch, but she told A1 not to discuss those things with her as she was no way concerned.

The staff of A1 also informed her that A1 has sponsored the treatment to daughter of A4 in USA and she informed them that they should not tell her all those things. Her attention was also drawn to the fact that somewhere after

Rakesh Sharma took over charge of the Branch and had gone for availing his joining period there was lot of pressure on her and Mr.G. Shiva Kumar, the then

Loans Officer of the Branch, for issuing the financial guarantee of Rs.50 Lakhs to

A5 company. However, the terms and conditions of the sanction were for issuance of performance guarantee. Mr.Shiva Kumar faxed a letter to Head Office superseding the Regional Office, Hyderabad. Herself and Shiva Kumar were called to the Regional Office, Hyderabad for sending the letter directly to the

Head Office. Mr. T.S.Bagga, the then loans in-charge of Hyderabad Region, came to Ameerpet Branch and after seeing the terms and conditions of sanction he left the branch silently after admonishing her and Shiva Kumar.

183.It is the normal practice of the Branch wherein there is a Monitoring

Officer, who is in-charge of a particular borrowal account. The accounts of A5 and

A7 were monitored by Mohammed Babu, Mrs.Sabitha Koneru, G. Shiva Kumar and P.V.S. Murthy during different periods. However, no irregularity was reported by those Monitoring Officers.

184.There was third company of A1 namely, M/s.Aren Steels Limited (A6) where LCs were issued in favour of M/s.Maheswari Steel Corporation and

Universal Trading Company, which were later found to be not existing.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 96 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

185.In December, 2001 Sri.D.S.Rao, Assistant Regional Manager was deputed to Ameerpet Branch to send reply to Regional Office, Hyderabad regarding pending irregularities in the group accounts of A5 to A7 companies. However,

Sri.D.S.Rao did not have adequate knowledge of the loans belonging to Ameerpet

Branch and the Regional Office wanted such a person to send report.

186.If the documents are shown to her, she will be able to verify and depose further details. Under letter No.265/2000-2001, dt.29.12.2000 and letter

No.266/2000-2001, dt.29.12.2000 addressed by I.R.Rao and Company,

Chartered Accountant to the Manager, OBC, Ameerpet Branch, copies of which were marked to AGM, OBC, Regional Office, Chennai, asking the Branch to forthwith stop the operations in the accounts of A5 and A7 companies,

187.Under letter No.268/2000-2001, dt.30.12.2000 and letter No.267/2000- 2001, dt.30.12.2000, which were addressed by I.R.Rao and Company to the

Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad, the copies of which were marked to the Assistant General Manager, OBC, Regional Office,

Chennai, asking Ameerpet Branch to start operations in the accounts of A5 and

A7 companies, which is marked as Ex.P644 (2 Sheets) (D.No.289). These two letters under Ex.P644 were sent by her to the Assistant General Manager,

Southern Region, Chennai under Letter No.CN/706/23843/2000, dt.30.12.2000, which is marked as Ex.P645. The said action of I.R.Rao and Company directing to commence operations in the above accounts surprised Ameerpet Branch.

188.Letter dt.23.08.2001 (D.No.82) was addressed to Ameerpet Branch by A7 company requesting for enhancement of cash credit limit of Rs.5 Lakhs. Herself

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 97 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 and Sabita Koneru (Loans Manager) (LW36) were not interested in enhancing the limit because they came to know about several irregularities in the account of

A7. However, she had to address letter dt.25.08.2001 to the Assistant General

Manager, Regional Office, OBC, Hyderabad because of the repeated insistence of

Sri.T.S.Bagga, Chief Manager(Loans), Regional Office, OBC, Hyderabad, particularly as A1, who is representing A7 company, was continuously sitting in

Ameerpet Branch to forward the letter to Regional Office, OBC, Hyderabad. Letter

No.CN706/24918, dt.25.08.2001 (D.No.83) was addressed by her as Senior

Manager of OBC, Ameerpet Branch, to the Assistant General Manager, Regional

Office, OBC, Hyderabad requesting for sanction of adhoc facility of Rs.5 Lakhs for a period of one month to A7 company.

189.Letter dt.01.08.2001 was addressed to the Branch Manager, OBC,

Ameerpet by Managing Director of A5 company requesting for conversion of Bank

Guarantee (Performance) of Rs.50 Lakhs into Bank Guarantee (Financial), which is marked as Ex.P646 (D.No.301). The said request was not acceded by the

Branch and instead they have sent Ex.P645 letter to Head Office by superseding the Regional Office, Hyderabad.

190.Letter No.70623913/2000-2001, dt.03.01.2001 was addressed by her to the Assistant General Manager, Regional Office, Chennai regarding sanction of adhoc LC of Rs.90 Lakhs in the account of A6 company, which is marked as

Ex.P647 (D.No.605). This letter was issued by her and Sabita Koneru with lot of reluctance as they came to know about irregularities in the said account.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 98 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

191.Ex.P507 Letter dt.06.09.2001(2 Sheets) (Part of D.No.612) was addressed by M/s.Agrasen Co-operative Urban Bank Limited, Hyderabad to the then Senior

Manager, OBC, Ameerpet Branch along with credit information report of

M/s.Universal Trading Company mentioning its performance as “Satisfactory”, which was already marked. However, they came to know later that M/s.Universal

Trading Company was not in existence and it was the propped up company of A1.

192.Letter dt.18.12.2000 from M/s.A.P.Mahesh Co-operative Urban Bank

Limited, Monda Market Branch, Secunderabad was received by the Senior

Manager, OBC, Ameerpet Branch, along with credit information report of

M/s.Ruby Traders, mentioning it as “Satisfactory”, which is marked Ex.P648 (2 Sheets) (Part of D.No.612). However, we came to know that no such Firm by name M/s.Ruby Traders was existing.

193.Letter dt.01.02.2000 from A.P.Mahesh Co-operative Urban Bank Limited,

Market Street Branch, Secunderabad was received by the Senior Manager, OBC,

Ameerpet Branch, along with letter dt.01.02.2000 of M/s.Maheswari Steel

Corporation and credit information reports of M/s.Ruby Traders, M/s.Universal

Trading Company and M/s.Maheswari Steel Corporation wherein it is mentioned that there were no transactions in the accounts M/s.Ruby Traders and

M/s.Universal Trading Company since 3 months by then and there were no transactions in the account of M/s.Maheswari Steel Corporation from 06.11.2000, which is marked as Ex.P649.

194.The LCs were issued from the account of A6 company in favour of

M/s.Universal Trading Company and M/s.Maheswari Steel Corporation as per the

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 99 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 limit sanctioned to A6 company. The LCs were directly handed over to A6 company instead of sending them to the Bank, which was not a normal practice.

It was done during the period of A4 and Mohd.Babu and the said practice was continued later also.

195.In the cross-examination PW29 stated she has put up notes to her higher authorities with regard to accounts of A5 to A7. There was a separate Loans

Department headed by Loans Manager/Officer, who would assess the performance and initial on the forwarding letter and she would forward it only in hierarchy. she has relied on the note put up by Loans Manager/Officer. She amits that the concerned Loans Manager/Officer was Smt.Sabitha Koneru at the relevant time. She remember that only once or twice she gave positive recommendation for enhancement of limits and adhoc facilities to A5 to A7. It may be true that she gave positive recommendations for about 8 times for enhancement of limits and adhoc facilities to A5 to A7. It is to be noted that in the chief-examination she made several allegations that A4 and A8 are colluded with accused in view of the said collusion only A5 to A7 companies are presenting the cheques and there were lot of cheques discounting and against clearing being done, the branch limit is only Rs.7.5 Lakhs only but the branch is purchasing the cheques more than this amount. In the cross-examination she has admitted, she has also accepted the cheues during her tenure. It shows the conduct of PW29.

Though she is knowing that it is irregular how can she purchase the cheques.

She stated she put the adverse note against A5 to A7 but when a specific question asked in cross she stated she did not put any adverse note against A5

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 100 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 to A7 in respect of their accounts. She said she addressed a letter to Head Office bypassing the Regional Office. No such letter was placed before the court addressed by PW29. She tried to convince by stating whatever the doubts she put up they were as per rules and strictly on merits. Further she stated she has no personal knowledge about various loan facilities granted to A5 to A7. At one side she claims that she is aware of all loan transactions and there are irregularities. On the other hand she stated she has no knowledge of it as the

CC limits pertaining to loans department. She admitted cheques discounting is an accredited practice by which the Bank gets profit by way of commission. It means there is a practice of cheque discounting in the banks.

196.She do not remember whether all the cheques discounted were honoured.

Most of the discounted cheques were honoured except one or two. She cannot say whether there was no dishonour of any discounted cheques. It shows the mind game of PW29, she is giving different type of answers even she do not know the status of discounted cheques. She stated herself and one Sabitha

Koneru inform the matter to the Head Office directly. But in the cross- examination in contrary she stated she did not bring to the notice of higher authorities of the Bank with regard to discounting of cheques pertaining to A5 to

A7. She did not write to her higher authorities that it was difficult for her to interact with A4 as A1 and his staff were always found present in the Branch.

She admits that whenever there was no customer present they meet the

Manager in the chamber and there was lot of time available everyday to meet

Manager when he was alone present in the chambers. It indicates that in order to

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 101 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 make allegations against A4 she stated the A1 and his staff are always in the chamber of A4. How it is possible to stay always in the chamber of A4. Therefore her contention that she found it difficult to interact with A4 on account of presence of A1 and his staff in the Branch is false.

197.Further PW29 admits that borrower has nothing to do with taking over and handing over charge in the Branch. Sri.Sampath Kumar and Sri.H.K.Madan had not submitted any report to her, including Special Focus Inspection Report, pertaining to A5 and A7. She was not the part of Special Focus Inspection team.

It means she has no knowledge of the report submitted by them. But she stating the reports of said persons pointed out several irregularities. So her veracity is not believable.

198.On the other hand she admits during her tenure as officiating Branch

Manager also she has discounted the cheques of A5 and A7. Only I.R.Rao and

Company knows the reason for recommending to stop operations under Ex.P643 and commence operations under Ex.P644 in the accounts of A5 and A7. She admits that Ex.P643 speaks about the reasons for stopping operations and

Ex.P644 speaks about the reasons for commencing operations in the accounts of

A5 and A7. She never put any pressure on I.R.Rao and Company to allow the operations in the accounts of A5 and A7. She admits that after reading

Exs.P643 and P644 she understood the reasons why the operations were ordered to be stopped and the operations were ordered to be commenced in the accounts of A5 and A7. I.R.Rao Company is an independent Chartered Accountant

Company and they are not the employees of the Bank. Though they are not

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 102 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 bank employees or higher authorities, basing on their reports she is contending that there are irregularities Cheque purchase and cheque discounting are one and the same. She did not put any adverse note to Regional Office and Head

Office regarding cheques discounting. This evidence is contrary to her chief- examination.

199.She had no business to interact with the staff of A1. They used to come to the Branch to see that their cheques are cleared. The record shows in 161 statement the PW29 never stated that the staff of A1 used to tell us about many illegal gratifications being paid by A1 to some of the staff members of Ameerpet

Branch, specially Mr.Mohammad Babu, who was the then Loans Officer. She only came to know that the staff of A1 used to tell them about many illegal gratifications being paid by A1 to some of the staff members of Ameerpet

Branch, specially Mr.Mohammad Babu, who was the then Loans Officer. It means her evidence is hearsay evidence even she is not able to say the names of the persons who informed to her. Therefore her evidence that that A1 personally informed her, when he used to come to Ameerpet Branch, about many illegal gratifications being paid by A1 to some of the staff members of Ameerpet

Branch, specially Mr.Mohammad Babu, Loans Officer, is false. In the chief- examination she stated A1 was the sponsor for the treatment of daughter of A4.

In the cross she stated she has not personally aware that A1 sponsored the treatment to daughter of A4 in USA and nobody told her about it. It clearly shows the evidence of PW29 is not reliable and trustworthy.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 103 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

200.PW29 admits that when she joined in Ameerpet Branch on 16.02.1999 the position of group accounts of A1 appeared to be good and the group accounts are of A5 to A7. She might have issued LCs in favour of Maheswari Steel

Corporation and Universal Trading Company. She admits that she cannot assess the knowledge of D.S.Rao, the then Assistant Regional Manager, who was deputed to Ameerpet Branch, to send reply to Regional Office, Hyderabad regarding pending irregularities in the group accounts of A5 to A7. She do not remember whether D.S.Rao sent report or not. But in the chief she stated that the DS.Rao report is against the accounts of A5 to A7.

201.She admits that independent Chartered Accountants like I.R.Rao and

Company have the prerogative to address letters as in Exs.P643 and P644.

Since the letter under Ex.P644 of I.R.Rao and Company came to Ameerpet

Branch on the very next day it surprised the Branch. She admits that because of the reasons mentioned in Ex.P644 Ameerpet Branch need not be surprised.

202.Shedid not make any note in the records of Ameerpet Branch that herself and Smt.Sabitha Koneru (LW36) were not interested in enhancing cash credit limit of Rs.5.00 Lakhs because they came to know about several irregularities.

She admits that she did not make any record to show that the accounts of A5 to

A7 were irregular or several irregularities were noticed in those accounts.

203.Ex.D4 is photostat copy of letter dt. 23.08.2001 of A7 addressed to the

Senior Manager, OBC, Ameerpet Branch (D.No.82). Ex.D5 is photostat copy of letter dt. 25.08.2001 addressed by her to the Assistant General Manager,

Regional Office, Hyderabad, under which she has recommended adhoc facility of

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 104 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Rs.5.00 Lakhs to A7. This document clearly shows that the PW29 has given evidence in contrary to the contents of Ex.D5. She admits that there is no question of her writing a letter to her higher authorities reluctantly. She never dealt with Ex.P507, Ex.P648 and Ex.P649 confronted to her. She cannot say how she came to know later that M/s.Universal Trading Company, M/s.Ruby

Traders and M/s.Maheswari Steel Corporation were propped up companies. She cannot say whether M/s.Universal Trading Company, M/s.Ruby Traders and

M/s.Maheswari Steel Corporation were genuine or not. This evidence clearly shows that she never came to know that M/s. Universal Trading Company,

M/s.Ruby Traders and M/s.Maheswari Steel Corporation were propped up companies, the issuance of LCs favouring Universal Trading Company and

Maheswari Steel Corporation was not during the tenure of A4 in Ameerpet

Branch. Even she is not aware when the LCs favouring Universal Trading

Company and M/s.Maheswari Steel Corporation was not during the tenure of A4 in Ameerpet Branch. But she is making allegations against A4. She never handed over any LCs to A6. She cannot say whether any particular LC favouring

Universal Trading Company and M/s.Maheswari Steel Corporation was handed over to A6. Therefore, her statement that LCs favouring M/s.Universal Trading

Company and M/s.Maheswari Steel Corporation being handed over to A6, is false.

As admitted by her she never personally saw any LCs favouring M/s.Universal

Trading Company and M/s.Maheswari Steel Corporation being directly handed over to A6. She never did not deal with Ex.P646. Further Under Ex.P647 she gave positive recommendation for sanction of adhoc LC of Rs.90.00 Lakhs

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 105 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 with detailed reasons. On 3 occasions she was examined by CBI official, at which time she was confronted with my notes with positive recommendations for issuance of LCs in the accounts of A5 to A7.

204.The careful scrutiny of 161 statement of PW29 shows she stated before

CBI that “Regarding the credit facilities granted to the group concerns of

Sri.M.L.Agarwal, I state that when I was posted to the Ameerpet Branch on 16th

February, 1999, the position of the group accounts appeared to be good, at that point of time. The Branch was under the control of Chennai region.”

205.As per Ex.D6, during the leave period of A4, she was the In-charge Branch

Manager of Ameerpet Branch on 04.01.2000, 05.01.2000, 12.01.2000, 25.01.2000, 27.03.2000, 28.03.2000, 24.05.2000, 07.07.2000, 31.07.2000, 01.08.2000, 23.08.2000, 05.09.2000 to 09.09.2000, 22.09.2000, 16.10.2000 to 19.10.2000, 07.11.2000, 07.12.2000, 15.12.2000 to 26.01.2001, 28.01.2001 to 25.02.2001, 15.03.2001, 16.03.2001, 31.03.2001, 16.05.2001, 17.05.2001 and 01.06.2001 to 13.06.2001. Ex.D6 also shows that during the leave period of

A4, Sri.C.V.Rao was Incharge of the Branch on 21.01.2000 and 04.10.2000.

Ex.D6 also shows that during the leave period of A4, Smt.K.Sabitha, Officer was the Incharge Manager of the Branch on 27.01.2001 and 28.02.2001. Ex.D6 also shows that during the leave period of A4, Sri.N.Mohammad Babu, Officer was the Incharge of the Branch on 26.02.2001 and 27.02.2001. She admits that in

Ex.D6 the leave particulars and training periods of A4 are mentioned for his absence. She know that A4 was on leave from 15.12.2000 to 26.02.2001 for his daughter’s medical treatment. Ex.D6 shows that A4 was relieved from Ameerpet

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 106 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Branch on 26.06.200.

206.She admits that high value cheque clearing means the cheques exceeding

Rs.1.00 Lakh or the limit fixed by the Reserve Bank of India from time to time.

The high value cheques should be deposited in morning hours and their fate would be known by evening hours on the same day. By the time she relieved A4 there were no high value or other cheques pending for clearance in respect of A5 to A7. when the cheques were presented in inward clearing at about 1.00 PM they are cleared against uncleared effects of the cheques deposited but in the evening they were cleared.

207.She remember that in the year 1999/2000 some children received burn injuries in fire accident occurred in St.Ann’s High School, Secunderabad. She admits that daughter of A4, at the age of 11 years, also received burn injuries in fire accident in same School. She is not aware that the cost of medical treatment for all the injured children was borne by St.Ann’s High School, Secunderabad.

She is also not aware that the then Government of Andhra Pradesh granted exgratia of Rs.2.50 Lakhs to daughter of A4 for her medical treatment, vide

Memo No.24311/DA2/2000, dt. 03.10.2000. She is not aware that Shriners

Hospitals for children of USA extends free medical treatment to children who received burn injuries. She know that A4 had taken permission to take his daughter abroad as per Officer’s Service Regulations from Head Office. On 01.03.2001 A4 joined duty in Ameerpet Branch after expiry of his leave. This evidence shows that though PW29 is not aware of the fact that who bear the expenses of treatment of daughter of A4 but she made allegations A1 has paid

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 107 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 the expenses of treatment of daughter of A4. Her evidence is not reliable and trustworthy.

208.Further she admits that during her officiating period as Branch Manager of

Ameerpet Branch she has cleared several cheques of A5 to A7 companies in clearing issued in the names of Ruby Traders, Universal Trading Company and

Maheswari Steel Corporation. This fact was informed to the Regional Office.

During her officiating period as Branch Manager of Ameerpet Branch she has mentioned in STM 41 the cheques discounted and submitted the same to the

Regional Office. She has not made any correspondence with Regional Office regarding the allegations in respect of accounts of A5 to A7 companies. When a

Bank Officer signs on demand drafts, letters of credit, pay orders, cheques, etc.

he/she must be cautious. This evidence shows that PW29 also put signatures on the cheques of A5 to A7 herein. She discounted the cheques and submitted the report to Regional Office. Further the 28 pay orders were signed by PW29 relating to alleged fake firms. Further a discounted cheque for Rs.19,99,955/- was cleared on 18.12.2000 which is reflected in the statement of A5 during her tenure only. Further the statement of account of A6 also reflects the cheque was discounted during her tenure. The statement reflects the issue of cheques in favour of M/s.Mahesari Steels Corporation of account of A6 were honoured and cleared after transfer of A4. As a officiating branch manager several cheques relating to M/s.Maheshwari Steels Corporations was cleared during the tenure of

PW29. Further she has signed on STM 41 Statement for the details of cheques purchased by Ameeerpet Branch for particular month and it is a monthly wise

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 108 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 statement. During the period from 15.12.2002 to 28.02.2001 she has discounted the cheques of A5 to A7 when A4 was on leave. In the month of

June, 2001 when A4 as transferred she has discounted the cheques relating to

A5 to A7. Further there was considerable cash deposits in the account of A5 to

A7 during her officiating period. Further she has mentioned in Ex.P632 that the borrower due to the improved order book position and improved sales in consonance with the targets, has requested for adhoc facility of Rs.90 lakhs for one more rotation, she recommended the request of the borrower. She has not mentioned in Ex.P632that she was recommending so on the basis comments of loan officer. It shows that the PW29 has also discounted several cheques of A5 to

A7 in the absence of A4. But all those cheques were counted in the account of A4 and he was blamed. The discounting of cheques is irregular, the PW29 ought not to discount the cheques. Further in the cheques relating to Universal Trading

Company, Ruby Traders she has signed all the LC’s along with another authorized officer. Further in Ex.D5 she recommended for sanction of Rs.5 Lakhs in favour of alleged fake firm. Further she has requested the had officer to consider the sanction of cash credit limit of Rs.300 Lakhs and bank guarantee facility of Rs.50 lakhs. Further during her tenure only the branch has recommended the sanction of ILC limit of Rs.150 Lakhs for 90 days with margin of 25% to A5. Further under

Ex.D10 she addressed a letter to AGM recommending adhoc facility of Rs.6 lakhs to A5. Further during her tenure she addressed a letter to AGM, RO, Hyderabad recommending for extension of ILC limit of Rs.90 lakhs for further period of 90 days. Further several cheques issued from account of A5 in favour of

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 109 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

M/s.Maheshwari Steel Corporation and several cheques were passed in the absence of A4. She stated it was done during the normal course of business.

Further the bunch of pay slips for the cheques and high value cheques of A5 company signed by her it is pertaining to the tenure of A4, in his absence she put signatures. Further the pay orders were issued in favour of M/s.Maheshwari Steel

Corporation, M/s.Choudary Steels, M/s.Universal Trading Company, M/s.Bhumika

Steels, M/s.Ruby Trades, M/s.Venson Steels. She was officiating Branch Manager at the relevant time. This evidence clearly shows PW29 has issued pay orders discounted cheques relating to alleged fake firms, but the investigating officer without verifying the absence of A4 at the relevant time, he blamed the accused

NO.4 and filed charge sheet against A4.

209.PW30/M.Sudhakar Setty, Regional Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce stated that the account of Sakthi Steels(A7) in Ameerpet Branch of Oriental Bank of Commerce was started during his tenure as Regional Manager, Chennai.

Ameerpet Branch was a new Branch opened in June, 1996. A4 was working in

Nampally Branch at that time. He was selected to head Ameerpet Branch and the said transfer was approved by the Head Office. Before opening of Ameerpet

Branch A4 was doing some marketing work for new Branch. Branches in

Hyderabad area were under his control at that time and he used to visit the

Branches. During one of his visits to Hyderabad before opening branch of

Ameerpet A4 introduced to him Munnalal Agarwal(A1) and A4 marked for the account of A7. He has asked A1 and A4 to submit proposal for sanction of CC limit of Rs.50 Lakhs to A7. They submitted the proposal. After raising some

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 110 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 queries and receiving replies Regional Office gave in principle sanction of Cash

Credit limit of Rs.50 Lakhs. In June, 1996 Ameerpet Branch was opened. A4, the then Branch Manager, asked for regular sanction. He has deputed Mr.Rakesh

Malhotra, Chief Manager of Regional Office, Chennai to visit A7 premises and submit report. He has visited the premises of A7, verified the stock and submitted report to him in the form of office note stating that the stock was adequate and the Cash Credit limit can be sanctioned. He has gone through the office note of Mr.Rakesh Malhotra and on being satisfied He has allowed the

Cash Credit limit and conveyed the same to the Ameerpet Branch to release the

Cash Credit sanction limit of Rs.50 Lakhs to A7. The limit was continuing during his tenure.

210.Ex.P521 to P528 are the documents relating to the loan application of A7 herein. The perusal of documents clearly shows that after submitting the application the Regional Office sought some clarifications and after receiving

additional information, after getting office note the loan was sanctioned to A7.

211.In April, 1997 A1 approached Ameerpet Branch with a proposal to set up industrial Unit in Shamshabad Area for fabricating Iron Towers and requested for

Term Loan of Rs.42 Lakhs and Working Capital of Rs.1.20 Crores and he has given proposal in writing. The proposal was in the name of M/s.Airan Comptrax

Towers Private Limited(A5). A1 was the Managing Director of A5 company while

A2 was the Director. The said proposal was sent by Ameerpet Branch to the

Regional Office. Certain queries were raised by the Regional Office and they have communicated the same to the Branch, which in turn informed the same to the

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 111 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 party. Subsequently, the branch has replied to all the queries and the Branch has recommended to the Regional Office for sanction. In October, 1997 the

Regional Office sanctioned Term loan of Rs.42 Lakhs for setting up the Unit and in principle sanctioned Rs.1.20 Crores towards working capital and it was communicated to Ameerpet Branch. Branch has taken documentation and released the Term Loan for setting up the Unit. When the Unit was ready the borrower(A5) approached the Branch for working capital. Branch has recommended the same to the Regional Office. Regional Office deputed the

Assistant Regional Manager by name R.Suryanarayana to visit the Unit and give report. Accordingly, he has visited the Unit and submitted report at Regional

Office, Chennai. Based on satisfactory report and completion of the project

Regional Office sanctioned the working capital limit to the tune of Rs.1.20 Crores and communicated the same to Ameerpet Branch. Working capital limit consisted of Cash Credit limit of Rs.80 Lakhs, Bill purchase limit of Rs.20 Lakhs,

Bank Guarantee limit of Rs.10 Lakhs and LC limit of Rs.10 Lakhs. During his tenure the entire working capital was released. He worked in the Regional Office as Regional Manager till June, 1999.

212. Letter dated 21.04.1997 is the reply given by Ameerpet Branch to the

Regional Manager giving reply to certain queries raised by Regional Office, which was already marked as Ex.P554. Ex.P555 is sanction letter dated 09.10.1997 communicated to the Branch by the Regional Office along with original sanction note of Regional Office.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 112 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

213.Letter dated 18.08.1997 was addressed by A4 to Regional Office giving reply to the queries raised by Regional Office, along with letter of A5 company addressed to A4. Ex.P650 consists of letter dated 18.08.1997 of A4 addressed to

Regional Manager, Chennai and letter dated 14.08.1997 of A5 company addressed to A4.

214.Letter dated 15.05.1997 was addressed by Regional Office, Chennai to

Ameerpet Branch seeking some clarification from the Branch regarding A5 company. Ex.P651 is Carbon Copy of letter No.ROM/L/705/LG/2137/97 dated 15.05.1997 addressed by Regional Office, Chennai to Ameerpet Branch.

215. Ex.P556 is the letter of Ameerpet Branch addressed to A5 company informing about the sanction of Credit limit and asking acceptance in writing by

A5 company, which was already marked. In Ex.P556 itself A5 company, represented by its Director, has acknowledged the same.

216. Ex.P557 is the letter dated 05.05.1998 addressed by Ameerpet Branch to

Regional Manager, Chennai informing the progress in the project of A5 company and also about the visit to the said Unit by Bank officials, which was already marked. During his tenure as Regional Officer, Chennai he did not find any irregularities detected or reported with regard to accounts of A5 and A7.

217.In the cross examination PW30 stated R.Satyanarayana(PW26), the then

Assistant Regional Manager was deputed to visit the Unit and give report. He admits that the loans department in the Regional Office puts up process note covering the background of borrower, financial capacities, marketing conditions

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 113 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 and collateral security, while putting up the process note the loans department in the Regional Office takes into consideration the reports of Monitoring Officer, regular Inspectors, Statutory Auditors, Concurrent Auditors, RBI Inspectors and any other visiting official, provided they are available.

218.The Regional Office also may send an official from its office to make spot study of the Unit which applied for loan. After the process note is placed before him, the Regional Manager may sanction or decline to sanction or may raise queries by calling for some information.

219.Ex.D13 is the letter dated 09.09.1997 addressed by him to the Senior

Manager, OBC, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad raising further queries pursuant to

Ex.P650, along with Office Note of Regional Office (4 sheets). Ex.P583 is the letter dated 13.09.1997 addressed by A4 to the Regional Office in reply to

Ex.D13 queries. Under Ex.P555 Regional Office sanctioned the credit facility to

A5 company after being satisfied about the compliance of queries of Regional

Office. Further PW30 stated the credit facility to A7 firm for Rs.50 lakhs, the

Regional office raised queries and after getting clarification the sanction letter was issued. The evidence of PW30 shows that the credit facility to A7 was granted during his period and he never pointed out any irregularities while sanctioning credit facility.

220.PW31/Sabitha Koneru, Officer in Oriental Bank of Commerce stated that her duties includes post sanction monitoring of the credit facilities, which include ensuring of end use of funds. A4 directed her to report to Mr. Mohammed Babu,

Loan incharge (A11) and assist A11 in day to day functions even though A11 was

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 114 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 junior to her in the bank by three years and A11 joined as an officer in 1995.

She was also the computer systems in-charge.

221.She also worked as Hall incharge in OBC, Ameerpet branch from 01.10.2003 to April, 2004. During her tenure as Loan Officer, in the group accounts of M.L.Agarwal i.e. ACTPL Limited(A5), Sakthi Steels(A7) and M/s.Aren

Steels Limited(A6), some discrepancies were observed by her.

222.In the case of M/s.Sakthi Steels(A7): There were huge credits and cash credits, which were disproportionate with the balance sheet. The stock statement was submitted to A11 but was never monitored by him through visits once in a quarter as per the Bank’s guidelines. She observed that A11 was in close connivance with M.L.Agarwal(A1). The cheques in this account were always in favour of M/s.Maheshwari Steels Corporation. Confidential report of

M/s.Maheshwari Steels Corporation from their Banker was never obtained. The genuineness and value of the collateral security was required to be confirmed by the Branch Manager(A4) and Loans In-charge(A11) through market enquiries but it was never done. A4 had directed her not to interfere in this account since it will be dealt with by A11.

223.In the case of M/s.Airan Comptrax Towers Private Limited/A5: she found some discrepancies in this account also. There were huge credits and cash deposits disproportionate with the balance sheet. The value of collateral security was required to be verified with the market enquiries by loans incharge(A11) and

Branch Manager(A4), but it was never done. It came to light only after

Mr.Rakesh Sharma(PW21) joined as Branch Manager in OBC, Ameerpet Branch.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 115 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

The cheques were always paid in favour of M/s.Maheshwari Steels Corporation and these cheques were purchased by M/s.Maheshwari Steels Corporation in their Bank. This reveals that these transactions were not genuine trade transactions and were accommodative in nature but this was never verified by

A11 and A4. She reported this matter, as per the hierarchy, to Uma Shiva

Kumar, second person of the Branch(PW29), who subsequently reported to A4, but he asked her to go out of the cabin and not to interfere in the accounts of

M.L.Agarwal(A1). Even the Regional Head of Hyderabad Mr.Ravi Takkar and second person in Regional Office by name T.S.Bagga came to Ameerpet Branch and advised us to render good service to all the accounts of M.L.Agarwal. Even though herself and PW29 told them that the conduct of accounts of M.L.Agarwal are not satisfactory, they pressurised them to continue the existing facilities and service to all these accounts. Confidential reports of the beneficiaries of this account namely, Maheshwari Steels Corporation and others were never obtained from their respective Bankers.

224.In the case of M/s.Aren Steels Limited(A6): Letters of Credit were issued on behalf of this account favouring M/s.Ruby Steels and M/s.Maheshwari

Steels Corporation, which were bogus companies, created by M.L.Agarwal(A1).

The LC copies were always handed over directly to the Agent of M.L.Agarwal and confirmation of LC was obtained on the same day. As per the Bank’s guidelines the LC copies have to be sent directly to the Bank of beneficiary and confirmation should also be obtained directly from the said Bank, but this was never ascertained nor verified. The bills drawn on LC of different parties were in the

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 116 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 same handwriting, which shows that these are bogus companies floated by

M.L.Agarwal. Confidential reports of the beneficiaries of LCs were not obtained.

The Letters of Credit were discounted by beneficiary Bankers namely

M/s.A.P.Mahesh Co-operative bank and M/s.Agrasen Co-operative Bank. The confidential reports were obtained later. The phone numbers mentioned in these reports were different when compared to the phone numbers on the bills of the same parties.

225.Other aspects relating to the accounts of M/s.Airan Comptrax Towers

Private Limited/A5, M/s.Aren Steels Limited(A6) and M/s.Sakthi Steels(A7): In all these three accounts the cheques which were paid in clearing were never tallied with the list of sundry creditors mentioned in the stock statements. The clearing cheques were not signed by clearing officer U.H.Rao. After Mr.Rakesh

Sharma(PW21) joined as Branch Manager in Ameerpet Branch,

Mr.M.L.Agarwal(A1) applied for sanction of ad-hoc facility and the Regional Office advised the Branch Manager to recommend for the sanction of ad-hoc facility.

Even though she was not the monitoring officer of these accounts, she was made to prepare back dated monitoring officer’s reports for the quarter ending 31.03.2001 and 30.06.2001, in August, 2001 stating that the conduct of these accounts was satisfactory, to sanction ad-hoc facility. This pressure was exerted on Uma Shiva Kumar(PW29) by T.S.Bagga, second person in the Regional Office and subsequently PW29 stood behind her and made her to prepare back dated satisfactory monitoring reports.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 117 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

226. In view of the foregoing aspects, it was clear to her that all the accounts pertaining to M.L.Agarwal were bogus and they were not genuine trade transactions. However, she was not allowed to reveal them by the Branch

Manager(A4). she felt that A4 and A11 were in connivance with the party.

227. In the account of M/s.Aren Steels Limited(A6) the Letters of Credit were issued in favour of M/s.Ruby Traders, M/s.Universal Trading Corporation,

M/s.Payal Steels and M/s.Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Iron and Steel Company

Limited. Confidential reports from the respective Banks were not obtained.

228. In respect of account of M/s.Airan Comptrax Towers Private Limited/A5 satisfactory back dated monitoring officer report was taken from her for sanction of ad-hoc facility of Cash Credit limit of Rs.30 Lakhs and Letter of Credit facility of Rs.35 Lakhs.

229.She dealt with certain vouchers during her in-charge period as clearing in-charge in Ameerpet Branch. Ex.P652 is credit voucher dated 28.02.2001 for

Rs.17,56,495/- crediting the said amount to the account of ACTPL(A5). Ex.P653 is credit voucher dated 28.02.2001 for Rs.1,20,346/- crediting the said amount to the account of ACTPL(A5). Ex.P654 is credit voucher dated 28.02.2001 for

Rs.16,30,500/- crediting the said amount to the account of ACTPL(A5). Ex.P655 is credit voucher dated 07.03.2001 for Rs.1,20,878/- crediting the said amount to the account of ACTPL(A5). Ex.P656 is credit voucher dated 07.03.2001 for

Rs.1,19,736/- crediting the said amount to the account of ACTPL(A5). Ex.P657 is credit voucher dated 08.03.2001 for Rs.16,49,360/- crediting the said amount to the account of ACTPL(A5). Ex.P658 is credit voucher dated 08.03.2001 for

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 118 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Rs.16,75,500/- crediting the said amount to the account of ACTPL(A5). Ex.P659 is credit voucher dated 01.08.2001 for Rs.24,86,950/- crediting the said amount to the account of ACTPL(A5). Ex.P660 is credit voucher dated 01.08.2001 for

Rs.25,99,490/- crediting the said amount to the account of ACTPL(A5). Ex.P661 is credit voucher dated 01.08.2001 for Rs.29,95,160/- crediting the said amount to the account of ACTPL(A5). Ex.P662 is credit voucher dated 06.08.2001 for

Rs.25,99,200/- crediting the said amount to the account of ACTPL(A5).

Ex.P663 is credit voucher dated 06.08.2001 for Rs.26,94,740/- crediting the said amount to the account of ACTPL(A5). Ex.P664 is credit voucher dated 06.08.2001 for Rs.24,89,560/- crediting the said amount to the account of

ACTPL(A5). Ex.P665 is credit voucher dated 07.08.2001 for Rs.19,44,480/- crediting the said amount to the account of ACTPL(A5). Ex.P666 is credit voucher dated 07.08.2001 for Rs.24,96,170/- crediting the said amount to the account of ACTPL(A5). Ex.P667 is credit voucher dated 07.08.2001 for

Rs.26,29,480/- crediting the said amount to the account of ACTPL(A5). Ex.P668 is credit voucher dated 11.08.2001 for Rs.29,98,860/- crediting the said amount to the account of ACTPL(A5). Ex.P669 is credit voucher dated 11.08.2001 for

Rs.23,10,440/- crediting the said amount to the account of ACTPL(A5). Ex.P670 is credit voucher dated 11.08.2001 for Rs.26,95,540/- crediting the said amount to the account of ACTPL(A5).

230.In the cross-examination PW31 stated during her tenure in Ameerpet

Branch she has discharged her duties meticulously as per Banking Rules and did not commit any mistakes. The credit vouchers in Exs.P652 to P670 dealt with by

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 119 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 her were in accordance with the Banking Rules. It is to be noted that for discounting cheques in the accounts of A5 to A7, she made allegations against accused herein. She admitted the above said credit vouchers relating to alleged fake firms, per contra she stated she dealt with credit vouchers as per banking rules and regulations. So her veracity is doubtful.

231.PW31 stated she did not open any LCs of A5 to A7 during her tenure in

Ameerpet Branch. She did not put anything in writing with regard to irregularities in the accounts of A5 to A7. At the same time she admits LCs covered by D.Nos.493, 494, 496, 497, 498, 507 and 508 were opened by her and they contain her signatures. It shows the veracity of PW31, she is giving quite contrary statements.

232. She know that it is her duty to report to the higher authorities if any body asks her to perform her duties contrary to the rules. She did not report anybody though she was asked to do duties contrary to rules. She did not put in writing to her immediate superior officer with regard to the discrepancies in respect of loan accounts of A5 to A7. She also did not put in writing to her immediate superior officer or any other higher authorities with regard to irregularities. She did not report to higher authorities stating that all the accounts pertaining to

M.L.Agarwal were bogus and they were not genuine trade transactions. However

PW29 has given statement that she alongwith PW31 lodged complaint before

Regional Office. But Pw31 has given evidence in contrary to it.

233.She prepared the monitoring officer’s report of A5 to A7. She was not the monitoring officer at that time. She signed monitoring officer’s report of A5 to A7

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 120 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 for two quarters since she was the monitoring officer. While preparing monitoring officer’s report she acted as per the rules. At one side she stated with anti date she submitted monitoring report, on the other hand, she stated she acted as per rules. Her evidence is contradictory to her own evidence.

234.As per Ex.D6, on 07.11.2000 A4 was on training and PW29 was placed in- charge as Branch Manager of Ameerpet Branch. From 15.12.2000 to 26.02.2001

A4 was on long leave for his daughter’s treatment. She was placed in-charge as

Branch Manager of Ameerpet Branch on 27.01.2001, A11 was placed in-charge as Branch Manager on 26.02.2001 and for the remaining period of leave of A4

PW29 was placed in-charge. She admits as per Ex.D6, A4 was on duty in

Regional Office, Chennai on 27.02.2001 and 28.02.2001. She was placed in- charge on 28.02.2001 and A11 was placed in-charge on 27.02.2001 as Branch

Manager of Ameerpet Branch. On 15.03.2001 and 16.03.2001 A4 was on duty in

Regional Office, Chennai. On 31.03.2001 A4 was on leave. On 15.03.2001, 16.03.2001 and 31.03.2001 PW29 was the in-charge as Branch Manager. As per

Ex.D6, A4 was on compensatory off on 21.04.2001 and A11 was the in-charge.

As per Ex.D6, on 16.05.2001 and 17.05.2001 A4 was on leave and PW29 was the In-charge Branch Manager of Ameerpet Branch. From 01.06.2001 to 13.06.2001 A4 was in training at Bangalore and PW29 was placed in-charge during the said period. As per Ex.D6, A4 was relieved in Ameerpet Branch on 26.06.2001 and PW29, being the senior officer at the Branch, relieved A4.

235. She worked under A4 in Ameerpet Branch for hardly 5 to 6 months. If leave period of A4 is deleted, her period of working under A4 is hardly 4 months.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 121 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

After her joining in Ameerpet Branch, A11 hardly worked for 6 months and he was transferred.

236.As per the guidelines of Head Office, the Regional Office has to appoint

Monitoring Officer for new loan exceeding Rs.50 Lakhs. Any other officer of the same branch, other than the Loans Officer, is appointed as Monitoring Officer.

The Monitoring Officer has to give periodical reports to the sanctioning authority in respect of fund based facilities exceeding Rs.1 Crore. The Monitoring Officer is responsible and answerable to the Regional Office. The Monitoring Officer submits his report to the Regional Office through the Branch Manager and a copy is maintained with Branch. It means as stated by her she was monitoring office for some time and she submitted reports with anti date though she was not monitoring officer at the relevant time. It is nothing but deceiving Regional

Office and submitting false reports.

237.PW31 admitted even after transfer of A4, Ameerpet Branch had paid the cheques in favour of M/s.Maheshwari Steel Corporation from the accounts of A5 to A7. Then how can they blame A4 alone. As admitted by her, Ex.P648 is the credit information report of M/s.Ruby Traders received from M/s.A.P.Mahesh Co- operative Urban Bank Limited, Monda Market Branch, Secunderabad. Ex.P649 is the confidential report of M/s.Maheshwari Steel Corporation received from

M/s.A.P.Mahesh Co-operative Urban Bank Limited, Market Street Branch,

Secunderabad, which was already marked. In Exs.P648 and P649 it was mentioned as “Satisfactory”. Ex.P507 is the confidential report of Universal

Trading Company, which was already marked. Ex.P507 was received in

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 122 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Ameerpet Branch after the transfer of A4 from the said Branch. In Ex.P507 it was mentioned as “Satisfactory”. Then where is the question of blaming those firms.

During her tenure with A4 in Ameerpet Branch, A4 had not obtained any collateral securities relating to the loan accounts of A5 to A7, as deposed by her, but the document Ex.P541 is the valuation report dated 17.01.1996, which was received in Ameerpet Branch four days after joining of A4. As per Ex.P541, the property was valued at Rs.81,90,000/-. Ex.P573 is the valuation report dated 31.12.2001 issued by the same valuer in respect of the same property, which was valued after transfer of A4 and during the tenure of Rakesh Sharma (PW21) and property is valued at Rs.92 Lakhs. Exs.P639 to P641 valuation reports, all

dated 03.03.1999 were received in Ameerpet Branch i.e. prior to her joining in

Ameerpet Branch. So the contention of PW31 that valuation certificates are not obtained, holds not good. In addition to immovable assets the Bank takes machinery, stocks and sundry debtors as additional security for the credit facilities extended by the Bank.

238.Under letter dated 22.03.1999 (Document No.404) A4 has sent to the

Regional Manager, Chennai second valuation report and certificate from MRO’s office on the market value of the property in view of the high value limits.

Therefore the evidence of PW31 is falsified by producing those documents. She came to know that one of the mortgaged properties was sold by A6 company and cleared all the outstanding amounts in the loan accounts of A5 to A7. It means the accounts are no more NPAs as alleged by the prosecution.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 123 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

239.PW31 alleged there were huge transactions in the subject firms. In the cross she admits as per D.No.601, which is the Statement of Account of A5, there were no huge cash transactions during the tenure of A4 in Ameerpet

Branch. There were huge cash transactions as per D.No.601 on 21.08.2001 to the tune of Rs.22,90,000/- and two entries on 23.08.2001 amounting to

Rs.30,00,000/- and Rs.23,10,000/- after the transfer of A4 from Ameerpet

Branch. There were huge cash transactions as per D.No.603 on 21.08.2001 to the tune of Rs.15,00,000/- and Rs.1,22,00,000/- after the transfer of A4 from

Ameerpet Branch.

240.As per D.No.128, which is the Statement of Account of A7, there were number of cash transactions but they were not huge cash transactions, during the tenure of A4 in Ameerpet Branch. There were huge cash transactions as per

D.No.128 on 21.08.2001 to the tune of Rs.32,10,000/- and on 23.08.2001 amounting to Rs.57,30,000/- after the transfer of A4 from Ameerpet Branch. It means there were no huge transactions during tenure of A4 but Pw31 made false allegations against A4.

241.Cash sales means sale proceeds of the product of the account holder which is received in cash by the Bank and payment is made to the supplier by way of

DD or Pay Order or Banker’s Cheque. There are some cash sales in D.Nos.601, 603 and 128. By seeing the stamp of the Bank of Maheshwari Steel Corporation on the over leaf of the clearing cheques, which were presented in Ameerpet

Branch, She came to the conclusion that the cheques were purchased by

M/s.Maheshwari Steel Corporation in their Bank. Purchase of cheque and clearing

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 124 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 of cheque are different. It means without ensuring the facts on assumptions she is giving evidence before the court.

242.As per her own admission, LCs issued by A4 during his tenure in Ameerpet

Branch were always addressed to the beneficiary Banks by way of covering letters. As per Para 8.9 in Page No.113 of Volume-II of Advances Manual (Documentation aspects) of OBC, it is mentioned that the letter of credit should normally be advised to the beneficiary through their office (Bank) where the beneficiary is establish unless otherwise desired by the customers. Ex.D16 is the xerox copy of Page No.113 of Volume-II of Advances Manual of OBC. So her allegation that the Lcs were not given to beneficiaries and not verified it properly, holds not good. As per Document Nos.490, 491 and 492, which relate to LC bearing Nos.249, 251 and 257 respectively of A6, the beneficiary Bank i.e.

Lakshmi Vilas Bank negotiated with OBC, Ameerpet Branch, issued in favour of

Ruby Traders. As per Document Nos.493 to 502, which relate to LC bearing

Nos.230, 231, 234, 236, 237, 238, 258, 227, 228 and 239 respectively of A6, were issued in favour of Ruby Traders from the account A6 during the leave period of A4 and subsequent to transfer of A4. She has signed on LC Nos.230, 231, 236, 237, 238 and 228 as issuing authority along with PW29. It clearly establishes that PW29 and Pw31 both have issued Lcs to alleged fake firms.

When they blamed A4, how can they blame the accused.

243.Further as per Document Nos.506, 507 and 508, which relate to LC bearing Nos.269, 273 and 274 respectively of A6, the beneficiary Bank being

M/s.A.P.Mahesh Co-operative Urban Bank Limited, was issued in favour of

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 125 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

M/s.Universal Trading Company. She admits LC bearing Nos.269, 273 and 274 were issued after the transfer of A4 from Ameerpet Branch and she has also signed on them as issuing authority along with PW29, B.H.Ramesh and PW29 respectively. They have not obtained confidential reports of Ruby Traders and

Universal Trading Company before issuing LC Nos.269, 273 and 274, and 230, 231, 234, 236, 237, 238, 258, 227, 228 and 239 from the respective beneficiary banks. In fact Pw29 and Pw31 has issued LCs in favour of alleged fake firms, but they threw the blame on A4 and A8. So the evidence of PW31 is not reliable and trustworthy.

244. Further the LCs from the account of A5 were issued in favour of M/s.Ruby

Traders, M/s.Universal Trading Corporation, M/s.Payal Steels and M/s.Lakshmi

Narasimha Swamy Iron and Steel Company Limited in the year 1996 i.e. prior to

PW31 joining in Ameerpet Branch. Pw31 admits that during her tenure A4 had not issued LCs from the account of A5 in favour of M/s.Ruby Traders,

M/s.Universal Trading Corporation, M/s.Payal Steels and M/s.Lakshmi Narasimha

Swamy Iron and Steel Company Limited. She admits D.No.356 bearing LC

No.277 dated 05.10.2001 was established by her and Rakesh Sharma (PW21), which is subsequent to transfer of A4. LD.No.501 bearing LC No.228 dated 05.01.2001 and D.No.502 bearing LC No.239 dated 28.02.2001 were established by her and PW29, and A11 respectively, during the leave period of A4. In respect of LCs issued from the accounts of A5 to A7, A4 has obtained confidential reports of the beneficiaries from the respective beneficiary Banks. The evidence of PW31 establishes that they have issued Lcs in the absence of A4 but A4 was

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 126 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 charges heeted without proper enquiry.

245. In respect of account of ACTPL Limited(A5) satisfactory back dated monitoring officer report was taken from her, after the transfer of A4 from

Ameerpet Branch, for sanction of ad-hoc facility of Cash Credit limit of Rs.30

Lakhs and Letter of Credit facility of Rs.35 Lakhs. Further Exs.P652 to P670 relate to the period after the transfer of A4 from Ameerpet. L D.Nos.445 and 610 are one and the same. She has addressed D.No.445/D.No.610 dated 01.08.2001 to AGM, Regional Office, Hyderabad, after the transfer of A4, recommending for extension of existing ad-hoc ILC limit of Rs.90 Lakhs in the account of A6 for a period of 90 days. As the earlier amount was already paid she has recommended for extension of existing ad-hoc ILC Limit of Rs.90 Lakhs in the account of A6. So the above said Lcs were issued by PW31 only, but charge sheet is filed against A4. Finally PW31 admitted as per her observation during her tenure under A4 in Ameerpet Branch, A4 has discharged his duties in good faith and as per the Bank norms and guidelines. Hence whatever allegations she made against A4 are not true and correct and proved to be false.

246.The testimony of PW32/P.Padmavathi Officer in Oriental Bank of

Commerce in Ameerpet Branch shows that Regarding transactions of group companies of M.L.Agarwal, the accounts of M/s.Sakthi Steels (A7) and M/s.Airan

Comptrax Towers Private Limited (A5) she used to pass the cheques during the course of discharge of her above duties. Regarding clearing cheques, she passed the cheques when the balance was available in the accounts.

Mr.M.L.Agarwal and his assistant Mr.Rakesh used to sit in the Branch and discuss

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 127 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 with the Branch Manager (A4) for clearance of the cheques and they used to pressurize her for passing clearing cheques without balance. A4 used to write on the cheques to pass the cheques without the balance by availing his discretionary powers.

247.Regarding purchase of cheques, the Manager (A4) used to give her instructions for purchasing the cheques. Some times without the balance in the above said accounts A4 used to pressurize her to purchase the cheques even though his power was up to Rs.6 to Rs.7 Lakhs. Mr.M.L.Agarwal pressurized her to pass the cheques and stated that Manager (A4) was having power of 10 percent over and above the discretionary powers.

248.Uma Shiva Kumar (PW29) used to return the clearing cheques of A7 and

A5 due to non-availability of funds in the above accounts and hand over the clearing cheques to Mr.Hamumantha Rao, Clearing In-charge and then from the

Regional Office the Chief Manager by name Mr.Bagga used to call PW29 and insist her to take back the cheques from Nampally Branch and pass them. The

Regional Office officials and the Manager (A4) supported Mr.M.L.Agarwal for passing the cheques without the balance.

249. Even after transfer of A4, new Manager did not join and PW29 was the

In-charge Branch Manager. Regional Office officials put pressure on PW29 for passing of clearing cheques and purchasing of cheques without the balance in the accounts of A5 and A7, even after the transfer of A4 from Ameerpet Branch. The new Manager Mr.Rakesh Sharma joined in Ameerpet Branch in September, 2001.

The new Manager came to the Branch on transfer on regular basis.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 128 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Mr.M.L.Agarwal himself accompanied the new Manager and he himself introduced the Manger to other staff members of the Branch.

250. The new Manager Mr.Rakesh Sharma was also insisted by the Regional

Office officials for passing the clearing cheques without the available balance in the accounts of A5 and A7, but the new Manager resisted to pass the cheques without the balance.

251. Thereafter, the Head Office officials in Inspection Department started investigation of accounts of A5 and A7. She can identify the cash payment cheques which were passed by her during her tenure.

252. Cheque Nos.614042 dated 14.12.2000 for Rs.1,22,800/-, 614053 dated 18.12.2000 for Rs.95,000/-, 616745 dated 20.02.2001 for Rs.33,000/-, 616766

dated 23.02.2001 for Rs.1,60,000/-, 619765 dated 11.05.2001 for Rs.7,43,000/-

and 936568 dated 16.06.2001 for Rs.1,30,000/- (part of Ex.P558) bear her signatures as passing authority. When the balance was not available in the account of A7, A4 used to write “pay” on the cheques with his signature and such writings of A4 are found on Cheque Nos.619765 dated 11.05.2001 for

Rs.7,43,000/- and 936568 dated 16.06.2001 for Rs.1,30,000/-.

253. In the statement of Cash Credit Account No.16 of A7 the transactions covered by Cheque Nos.614042 dated 14.12.2000 for Rs.1,22,800/-, 614053

dated 18.12.2000 for Rs.95,000/-, 616745 dated 20.02.2001 for Rs.33,000/-,

616766 dated 23.02.2001 for Rs.1,60,000/-, 619765 dated 11.05.2001 for

Rs.7,43,000/- and 936568 dated 16.06.2001 for Rs.1,30,000/- are reflected.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 129 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

254. The clearing Cheque No.630027 dated 30.12.1999 for Rs.69,875/- issued from CC Account No.326 of A5 company bears the word “pay” with date and signature of A4. Ex.P671 is Cheque No.630027 dated 30.12.1999 for

Rs.69,875/- issued from CC Account No.326 of A5 company.

255.Though, PW32 made several allegations against A4, even against the

Regional Office and stated that without any balance, A4 pressurized her to purchase the cheques but in contrary in the cross-examination, she stated that as per Ex.D11 and D12 the large branches are having the discretionary power of discounting of cheques upto Rs.7.5 lakhs. Further, the branch has discretionary powers as regard adhoc facilities to SSI upto 20% of sanction limit with maximum of Rs.20 lakhs per borrower, subject to leading discipline shall continue as per head office circular. Further, she admitted that the branch manager,

Ameerpet is vested with powers in each account over and above limits sanctioned by the competent authority regarding small scale industry. She stated that whatever the pressures made by Regional Office, it was done after transfer of A4. As per Service Register of A4 (Ex.D6) on 07.11.2000 and 07.12.2000 A4 was in training at Chennai at the time PW29 Uma Shiva Kumar was Incumbent

Branch Manager. As per Ex.D6 A4 was on long leave from 15.12.2000 to 26.02.2001 at that time PW29 Uma Shiva Kumar was Incumbent Branch

Manager. On 27.01.2001, PW31 Sabitha and on 26.02.2001 N.Mohammed Babu (A11) were in-charge Branch Managers. As per Ex.D6 27.02.2001 and 28.02.2001 A4 was on duty at Regional Office, Chennai so A11 and PW31 (Sabitha Koneru) were in-charge of Branch respectively. As per Ex.D6 on

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 130 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 15.03.2001, 16.03.2001 A4 was on duty and on 31.03.2001 he was on CL so

PW29 (Uma Shiva Kumar) was in-charge of Branch. A4 was on leave so A11 was in-charge on 21.04.2001. On 16.05.2001, 17.05.2001 A4 was on leave so PW29 (Uma Shiva Kumar) was in-charge of Branch. PW32 admits from 01.06.2001 to 13.06.2001 A4 was in training in Bangalore so PW29 (Uma Shiva Kumar) was in-charge of Branch. On 26.06.2001 PW29 (Uma Shiva Kumar) relieved the

Accused No.4 and she has taken charge of Ameerpet Branch. Cheque No.614042 bearing the date 14.12.2000, Cheque No.614053 dated as 18.12.2000, Cheque

No.616721 dated 20.02.2001, she passed the cheques when it was signed by

PW29 (Uma Shiva Kumar) on the said dates A4 was on leave. So there is no question of putting pressure on PW32 by A4. As per her own evidence, the A4 was on leave for long time due to ill-health of his daughter. Surprisingly, the

PW32 in chief-examination stated that though there was no amount in the account, the A4 and Regional Office asked her to clear the cheques. In contrary in the cross-examination, she stated that as per the statement period from 01.05.2000 to 31.12.2000, on 14.12.2000 there was balance amount of

Rs.38,60,072.64 in the account of A7 pertaining to cheque No.614042 for

Rs.1,22,800/-. The PW32 stated it was the balance in the evening hours. On 13.12.2001 the balance amount is of Rs.49,97,565.64 in account of A7. The

Cheque No.614042 was honoured by PW29 (Uma Shiva Kumar) and not by the

Accused No.4. Cheque No.619765 dated 11.05.2001 for Rs.7,43,000/-, on the day 11.05.2001 there was balance in the account of A7. On 10.05.2001 also there was balance in the account of A7. This outstanding amount is within the

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 131 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 sanctioning limit of Rs.50 Lakhs. At the time of passing of cheque there was no balance. The time of passing is not mentioned in Cheque No.619765. Cheque

No.936568 dated 16.06.2001 for Rs.1,30,000/- pertaining to Accused No.7, on 15.06.2001, 16.06.2001 as per statement the balance is available. Therefore, it clearly shows that the balance is available in the accounts of A5 to A7 at the time of passing of cheques. However, the PW32 contended that there was no balance in the account. Therefore, her evidence is no believable. Further, PW32 stated at the time of passing of cheques there was no balance so that A4 has endorsed as ‘pay’. On 15.06.2001 the outstanding balance is of Rs.46,91,097.05 Ps. On

Ex.P671 there is no signature of her. In the cross-examination, she admitted that as per the procedure the manager has to endorse on every cheque as ‘pay’.

She admitted the same. Therefore, her version that when there was no balance,

A4 endorsed as ‘pay’ is not correct.

256. As per Ex.P671 is for Rs.69,875/-, it was honoured on 03.01.2000, issued by A5 company. The opening balance on 03.01.2000 is of Rs.83,35,495.95 Ps.

In the account of A5 company, the amount of Rs.3,40,864/- was shown as interest, this is the income to the Bank. All the cheques under Ex.P558 and P671 reported to the Regional Office and Head Office by way of STM-41 report by the branch for confirmation. She do not remember whether Regional Office or Head

Office are confirmed all the cheques which were mentioned under STM-41 report.

It means the bank was earning income in the transactions of letters of credits and cheque purchasing etc. Further, every month they are sending STM-41 report to the Regional Office. When there is no balance in the accounts, there is

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 132 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 no question of passing the cheques and every transaction was within the knowledge of Regional Office, so there is no such irregularity as contended by

PW32.

257. In the further cross PW32 stated Ex.P671 is presented in clearing and it was not returned back to presenting bank because it was honoured. The remaining 6 cheques out of Ex.P558 referred in her chief-examination are not returned back to the customer as they are honoured. Both A5 and A7 are having credit facility. In case of self cheques and clearing cheques, when the cheque amount is within credit limit, though there is no credit balance, they have to

honour the cheque up to the credit limit. The Regional Office will decide the

credit limit. PW32 admits it is prerogative of Regional Office/Head Office to clear the cheque or not by intimating to their branch through STM-41 (Proforma). She admits unless the Regional Office did not permit under intimation to our Branch through STM-41 it can not be said that any of the cheques with regard to the which she has given evidence, passed without balance. So, her contention holds not good. Though, she stated that several facts but when a specific question is asked with regard to the receiving of STM-41 with regard to 6 cheques. She simply stated that she do not know whether STM-41 was received in respect of 6 cheques under Exs.P558 and P671. she can not say whether above said cheques were passed without any balance as stated in chief-examination. It clearly shows the attitude of PW32 that when a specific question is asked with regard to the facts, she is avoiding to give answers when it is going against her evidence.

However, she admits that all the above said cheques have been passed as per

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 133 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 rules and regulations of our Bank. A4 has endorsed so the cheques were passed.

She admits endorsement of A4 on a cheque is as per procedure. They did not follow the instructions of customers and she went by bank rules in passing the cheques under Ex.P558 and Ex.P671. She has not shown any cheques of A5 and

A7 which were returned due to insufficient funds by Uma Shiva Kumar (PW29).

She has no personal knowledge with regard to the returned cheques by PW29.

she never saw when there was conversation in between Chief Manager Mr.Bagga or any other official with PW29 insisting her to take back the cheques from

Nampally Branch and pass them. She has given evidence in the cross- examination which was in totally contrary to her chief-examination.

258. She admits that she do not know that Regional Office officials and A4 supported M.L.Agarwal for passing cheques without balance. she never heard the actual conversation in between Regional Office and PW29 (Uma Shiva Kumar) with regard to putting pressure on PW29 for passing cheques, clearing cheques and purchasing of cheques without balance in the account of A5 and A7. On the information of PW29 she deposed before the court that there was pressure on her from Regional Office. It shows the conduct of PW32 that without ascertaining the facts, she speaking hearsay evidence.

259. Though, she stated in chief-examination that even Rakesh Sharma also insisted for clearing of cheques without balance but in the cross-examination, she stated that she has no personal knowledge whether the new Manager

Mr.Rakesh Sharma was also insisted by Regional Office officials in passing, clearing the cheques without available balance in the account of A5 and A7.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 134 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Further she states said Rakesh Sharma never passed any cheques without any balance. The inspection staff has not recorded her statement. She do not know anything about the investigation done by inspection staff. Event though the ledger some times shows that there is no balance/limits, the cheques presented across the counter will be sent to Manager to know funds transfer and availability of FDRs for passing cheques. She admits after confirmation of funds transfer/FDRs, the cheques will be passed when presented in the Bank.

M.L.Agarwal did not put any pressure on her to pass cheques. M.L.Agarwal used to sit before her and insisting her to pass cheques. she did not yield his pressure or his request in passing cheques. This evidence clearly shows that the PW32 has stated that several facts in chief-examination but in the cross-examination she is not standing on her own version and giving a different version, so her evidence is not reliable and trustworthy. As per her evidence she has also discounted the cheques of A5 to A7 but she has thrown the blame on A4 and A8.

The evidence shows that the cheque presenting, clearing of cheques etc., were done as per the procedure. Even PW32 also did the same which was done by A4, she cannot blame the A4 and A8. This court cannot connect the accused basing on the unreliable evidence of PW32.

260.PW33/K. Bhaskar, Manager, OBC, Ameerpet Branch stated that at the relevant time he worked as a Manager, as a part of his duty he used to look the affairs of loan department of Ameerpet Branch. Whenever the Branch Manager was on leave he was in-charge of Branch Manager post also. When he assumed charge, by the time the account pertaining the M/s.Sakthi Steels, M/s.Aren

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 135 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Steels Private Limited, M/s.Airan Comptrax Towers Private Limited accounts were already Non Performing Assets(NPA). By the time the complaint was already lodged and CBI addressed a letter and asked to furnish the documents.

Accordingly he furnished the documents to them.

261.The evidence of PW33 shows that he has furnished the account opening form of A5 to A7, statement of account of A5 to A7, debit vouchers, credit vouchers, transfer debit voucher, transfer credit voucher, computer generated bills, purchased register etc., relating to A5 to A7 under Ex.P672 to P738.

262.In the cross-examination, he stated that he has no personal knowledge of the documents. He simply furnished the documents. The transfer vouchers under

Exs.P677 to P738 are pertaining to the period much prior to his joining, so he has no personal knowledge of it. No document should be given to anybody including the CBI without permission of Chief Manager. In the instant case, the

CBI never addressed a letter to hand over the documents to CBI. He did not address any letter to CBI. He is not aware what was the Prl. Amount of loan given to A5 to A7. However, the total amount was paid by A5 to A7 and the cases are closed in DRT.

263.The evidence of PW33 shows that he has no personal knowledge of the documents. There is no document to show that he has furnished the documents.

As per his evidence, A5 to A7 have paid total loan amount, so the Civil cases are closed.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 136 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

264.PW34/Inturi Rama Rao, Chartered Accountant and concurrent auditor,

Hyderabad to OBC, Ameerpet Branch deposed that as a Concurrent Auditor it is his duty to report irregularities in borrowed accounts during monthly reports to

AGM and Head Office. The nature of irregularities are the borrowings exceeding sanction limits, drawing power not supported by stock and receivables, over dues in the account, sanction of Temporary Overdraft beyond the powers of Bank

Manager and return of cheques, cash withdrawal from the account and lending the money to Sister concerns.

265.On 10-10-2010 he has submitted special report of M/s.Airon Complex

Towers Ltd., along with other companies. They observed the amount was released, disbursed without ensuring margin money and valuation report in respect of collateral security was not on record, stocks were under insured, the insurance of collateral security was not held on record, the provisional Balance

Sheet as on the date of sanction of credit loan has not been obtained. Most of the payment were made to the single party i.e., M/s.Maheswari Steel

Corporation. Credits to the account do not match projected turn over indicating poor turn over in the account.

266.Ex.P739 (D.No.638) (03 sheets) is the Report submitted by him along with covering letter, there is a separate report as on 30-01-2002 in respect of

M/s.Airan Comptrax Towers Private Ltd (A5). They found the irregularities stocks are under insured, the provisional Balance Sheet as on the date of sanction of credit loan has not been obtained, the provisional Balance Sheet as on the date of sanction of credit limit not obtained. Credits to the accounts were not

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 137 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 matching it projected turn over. Adhoc sanction of Rs.30,00,000/- expired on 25- 11-2001. No sufficient stock was available to cover out standing balance as per stock statement of November available drawing power of Rs.1,30,62,114/-. Age wise break up of the debtors certified by Charted Accountant was not submitted.

267.On 15-02-2002 another special Report was submitted about M/s.Airan

Comptrax Towers Private Ltd (A5) and M/s.Airon Steels Ltd. (A6) and M/s.Sakthi

Steels (A7), the irregularities found against M/s.Airon Complex Towers Ltd., A5) as follows no operations in the account from December, 2001, unit was not functioning till 29.01.2002. The stock was valid upto Rs.20,00,000/-,

Rs.25,00,000/- approximately. The unit was not even functioning upto 20% level of production. Letter of Credit (LC) of Rs.34,99,000/- was devolved on 04-01- 2002 and the amount was not adjusted. The adhoc limit of Rs.30,00,000/- was due on 25-11-2001, was not yet adjusted. The account was exceeded by

Rs.70,92,000/- and interest for quarter ending 31-12-2001 not serviced as on date of report. The reference was drawn to earlier cash reports and monthly reports wherein irregularities pointed out were remained un rectified.

268.M/s.Aren Steels Limited (A6) they have given details of devolved Letter of

Credits debited to Current Account. The primary stock disposed of, there are no operations in Accounts and the sale proceeds of Goods availed by devolved Letter of Credits not routed to account. The go-downs where the stocks kept, was vacated and reported to be potential NPA Account.

269.As regards of M/s.Sakthi Steels (A7) in the auditing he found the following irregularities interest for the quarters September, 2001, December, 2001 was not

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 138 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 serviced (Not paid). The outstanding limits exceeded sanction limit the go-downs the stocks kept, was vacated. The irregularities which was reported in earlier report, were repeated. The accounts was reported to be potential NPA Account.

Ex.P740is the Report of A5, dt.30-01-2002. Ex.P741 is the Special Report of A5 to A7 Companies, dated 15-02-2002.

270.On 29-12-2002 they have reported regarding M/s.Sakthi Steels (A7)

M/s.Airan Comptrax Towers Private Ltd (A5) since the borrower was not cooperating with the inspection of Stock Register Books of Accounts they advised the branch vide our letter dt.29-02-2002 and subsequently on the next day he has come forward to produce Books of Accounts for verification then they advised the branch to allow the operations in Accounts pending verification at their end.

271.They addressed a letter to the Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce,

Ameerpet, Hyderabad on 30-12-2000 Ex.P742is the letter addressed by him.

One Sunderashan and Rakesh was working as Managers at the relevant time.

272.The defence have disputed the above said irregularities as pointed out by the PW34. They have taken specific plea that PW34 has not personally visited A5 to A7 units. His staff visited the premises and they gave report. Even PW34 has not enclosed the reports of his staff to Ex.P739 to P741. Further, he stated that while giving the reports, he relied upon the auditing actually done by the clerks and retired bank employees who were employed by him. It clearly shows that the

PW34 has not submitted the reports by auditing the accounts of A5 to A7. He has relied upon the reports submitted by the third parties. Simply, he stated that the

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 139 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 auditing was done but the work sheets are also not given to him for the purpose of auditing. Even he has not stated the names of actual persons, who has actually audited the records of A5 to A7. He himself admitted that they have not done stock audit record of A5 to A7. Further, he admitted that the unit of A5 was working but the physical staff was not capable of being measured/estimated on physical inspection. It shows that PW34 without proper verification, he has submitted the reports. Further, he has not stated that what are the registers, was verified by him before submitting the report. He simply stated that no sufficient staff was available, then how can he say physical staff was not capable of being measured. The reports of other bank employees shows that the plants and machineries are there and the units are working, but PW34 has given a report stating that the units are not functioning. Therefore, the report given PW34 is not reliable.

273.PW38/C.M.M.Gopal Rao, Scale-II Manager, OBC, Regional Office,

Hyderabad stated that the Regional Office, Chennai, sanctioned the loan to

M/s.ACTPL. The limits at the time of transferring from RO, Chennai to Hyderabad

Region, the cash credit limit of Rs.300 lakhs and LC limit of Rs.50 lakhs in the account of M/s. ACTPL.

274.In M/s.Airan Steels Limited the LC limit of Rs.150 lakhs and M/s.Shakthi

Steel the cash credit limit is of Rs.50 lakhs. Subsequently under RO power of

Hyderabad adhoc (short period it may be for one month) cash credit limit of

Rs.30 lakhs was sanctioned by RO, Hyderabad, letter of credit adhoc of Rs.35 lakhs was sanctioned by RO, Hyderabad and the action of RO, Hyderabad was

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 140 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 ratified by Head office. On the request of M/s.Shakthi steel an amount of Rs.5 lakhs cash credit was sanctioned to them by RO, Hyderabad. This account became irregular, in the month of March, 2002 due to this irregularities like non payment of LC devolved amount, this account is declared as NPA.

275.The PW38 is confronted with the documents relating to M/s.Sakthi Steels requesting for adhoc cash credit facility of Rs.5 lakhs. Further, the sanction order was passed by Regional Office. Further, the letter addressed by Head Office to

Regional Office in respect of M/s.Sakthi Steels, in which they made comments on irregularities pointed out are being submitted separately. Further, they stated that the valuation report of mortgage property was not received. Further, the branch office addressed a letter to M/s.Sakthi Steels with regard to submission of renewal papers, no operations in account, account overdrawn and non- submission of stock statement regularly. The PW38 has spoken about the documents relating to M/s.Sakthi Steels and also ACTPL with regard to credit facility of Rs.50 lakhs and for Rs.35 lakhs etc.

276. In the cross-examination, PW38 has stated that he has no personal knowledge about the documents, which have been referred by him in the chief- examination. He is not party to the documents. He put up the note to Senior

Officers based on unit visit report of branch incumbent manager, loans manager.

He does not know whether the borrower has complied with the observations or not. Further, he was cross examined by the A8 counsel that in which he stated that ACTPL was regular. R.K.Takkar was Regional Manager when the loans was sanctioned to ACTPL. Further said R.K.Takkar sanctioned Rs.5 lakhs adhoc CC

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 141 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 limit in the month of August, 2001, in favour of M/s.Sakthi Steels. This amount was already adjusted. In the month of February, 2001, the head office sanctioned that loan of Rs.300 lakhs and Rs.50 lakhs in favour of M/s. ACTPL, so generally the limits would have been regularized. The Regional Office has to supervise and monitor all the accounts. As per his 161 Cr.P.C., statement, he stated that as per the report received by the Regional Office, Hyderabad, dated 31.03.2001 and 30.06.2001 the monitoring officer reported that the conduct of the account was satisfactory. Further, he stated that in the report it mentioned that all the 3 units are working properly and conduct of the account is satisfactory.

277.The evidence of PW38 shows that though he stated after sanction of credit limits to A5 to A7 units, the Regional Office and Head Office has raised certain objections with regard to the operation of accounts, but PW38 is not aware whether the accounts are subsequently regularized or not. The initial report was, the conduct of the accounts was satisfactory.

278.PW39/Padmakar Rao, Panel Advocate of OBC, stated that he has received set of documents. Ex.P540 along with English translation is one of the document confronted to him. The legal opinion given by him was under Ex.P542. As per legal opinion, he has given opinion in respect of plot No.32 admeasuring 1854 square yards SY.No.113 at Ramnagar, Jamisthanpur, Circle-8, Hyderabad. This document is relating to one P.G.Nagabushanam Naidu. He also verified

Encumbrance Certificate, Tax paid receipts issued by MCH in respect of H.No.1-9- 9, admeasuring 1854 Squre Yards at Ram Nagar. He has given opinion that the said documents can be offered to the banks as collateral security by creating

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 142 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 equitable mortgage by deposit of original title deeds. As per his evidence, the title documents offered by A5 to A7 companies are genuine documents after verifying the relevant documents, he has given opinion that the documents can be offered to the bank as collateral security by creating equitable mortgage. He

He further stated that P.G.Nagabushanam Naidu was the lawful owner of the property H.No.1-9-9 extent 1854 squre yards since 40years he has been in possession of said property.

279.The prosecution alleged that said documents are fake documents and the property is not standing on the name of P.G.Nagabushanam. A4 has not verified said documents. The defence relied upon the evidence of PW39 and contended that after getting legal opinion only, A4 has taken said documents and permitted to mortgage the property and there is no fault on the side of A4 herein.

280.PW40/Raghunath Akasham, Chartered Accountant stated that he was given assignment of inspection audit by OBC, Ameerpet Branch in the year, 1999.

He has inspected M/s.ACTPL and submitted the report. The borrower account in the bank records was standard asset without any major irregularities. The company has repaid the term loan sanctioned and the working capital limits were regular. On his visit to the factory premises, he has visited the stock yard where the company raw material was stored and there was major irregularities in the document trail. He has not physically measured the stock in the yard. The working capital of the company was letter credit of Rs.40 lakhs and cash credit of

Rs.80 lakhs. However, the prosecution has not shown the report given by PW40 during his chief-examination. However, the evidence of PW40 shows that he

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 143 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 found the machinery in the factory shed and raw material of large quantity consisting of MS Steels Items. The PW38 stated that the unit was not working and there was no stock but the evidence of PW40 shows that the unit was working and the stock was available. His evidence shows that the term loan was already repaid by the unit. It strengthens the version of defence that the units are working but the false reports were obtained.

281.PW41/G. Rammohan, Enforcement Officer, O/o Employees Provident Fund,

Hyderabad, stated that the CBI officials enquired with him in respect of

M/s.Giridara Ispat Private Limited, ACTPL. Ex.P752 is the Registration Certificate of M/s.Giridar Istap Private Limited, Ex.P753 is the Certificate issued by the

Department of Industries in respect of M/s.Giridara Ispat Private Limited,

Ex.P754 is the Certificate of Registration issued by Andhra Pradesh General Sales

Tax Office in respect of M/s.Giridar Ispat Private Limited. Ex.P755 is the

Certificate of Registration issued by Central Sales Tax Office in respect of

M/s.Giridar Ispat Private Limited, Ex.P756 is the Copy of invoice in respect of

M/s.Giridar Ispat Private Limited. Ex.P757 is the attested copy of coverage of establishment issued by EPF Commissioner in respect of M/s.Giridar Ispat Private

Limited. Ex.P758 is the Letter issued by M/s.ACTPL on taking over of in respect of

M/s.Giridar Ispat Private Limited, Ex.P759 is the Ownership details of M/s.ACTPL.

Ex.P760 is the document Form No.9, in which the list of employees in respect of

M/s.Giridar Ispat Private Limited are mentioned. Ex.P761 is Form 6A Annual

Report in respect of contributions remitted against the members filed by the employees of M/s.ACTPL. They have not submitted annual returns. The PW41

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 144 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 admitted in the cross-examination that he has not attested on the above said documents. No returns are required to be filed when the company was dissolved.

Without seeing the documents he cannot say till what period M/s.ACTPL has filed annual returns. The purpose of examining PW41 that said M/s.Giridar Ispat

Private Limited was in existing or not, whether it is a fake firm. The above said documents referred by PW41 shows that the company is having registration and it was taken over by the M/s.ACTPL, so it is not a bogus company.

282.PW42/V.Srinivasa Rao, Superintendent of Excise was examined to prove

A5 company is not in existing and it is fake firm, he stated that in the year 2005 the CBI Officials addressed a letter to him, they sought information whether

M/s.ACTPL company/A5 was in existing within his jurisdiction. He has given information that A5 company was not in existing in Sy. No. 29 Ooth Pally Village.

As per their records i.e. register 335D and O41 Register and Scrutiny Register, the A5 company was not in Sy. No.29 Ooth Pally Village.

283.It is to be noted that the letter addressed by CBI was not confronted to the witness and not marked through PW42. The evidence of PW42 shows that their records will not contain the names of Business concern which are not liable to Central Excise. The prosecution has not stated that A5 company is liable for payment of any Central Excise Tax. In the absence of it, we cannot except that the department of PW42 will maintain the record with regard to A5 company.

284.PW42 do not know the facts of this case. He do not remember whether

CBI has enquired with regard to the activity which attracts payment of Central

Excise. Unless he see 335D and O41 and Scrutiny Registers he cannot say

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 145 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 whether any entity like M/s.ACTPL/ A5 company is existing in Sy. No. 29, Ooth

Pally Village. Therefore, without placing proper material before PW42, the prosecution cannot elicit from PW42 that A5 firm was not in existing, so the evidence of PW42 is not useful to the prosecution.

285.PW43/E.Kiran, Branch Finance Manger, RINL, Hyderabad, shows that the procedure for discounting of a letter of credits with RINL is that the bank issues the letter of credit on behalf of customer for lifting of material. Negotiating documents for discounting generally are delivery order, bill of exchange.

286.In case material needs to be lifted from Rashtriya Ispat Nigam

Limited(RINL) on ex-plant basis, delivering order advises will be issued with two steps. Step-1 is delivery order advise-1 and Delivery order advise-2 is step-2.

Based on the delivery order advise-1 delivery order will be issued by Head

Quarter Steel Sales Branch issues delivery order where explicitly mentioned that not for delivery of material for negotiation of letter of credit. Based on the delivery order for negotiation a bill of exchange is prepared. Based on the bill of exchange discounting with discounting bank a demand draft or banker cheque issued on M/s.Rashitriya Ispat Nigam Limited (also known as Vishakapatnam

Steel Plant).

287.On receipt of demand draft, money receipt will be generated by the Branch

Sale Office, RINL, Hyderabad. On the basis of money receipt details, delivery order advice-2 will be issued for delivery of material. Based on this customer will place vehicles for lifting of material and Invoice will be raised.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 146 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

288.Ex.P762 to P764 are the bill of exchange, does not contain “Without re- course to the drawer”. It is mandatory to contain the word “Without re-course to the drawer” but it is missing in the bill of exchange. Bill of Exchange is dated 22.12.1999, 23.03.2000, 29.02.2000. The officer who signed on bill of exchange, should put the seal and his name and designation also is to be mentioned. In the bill of exchanges, the name and designation of officer and the seal is not there. In the fourth page of Ex.P762, the bill of exchange is there.

This bill of exchange was not issued by RINL. Page No.1 of Ex.P762 is banker’s cheque it was not submitted to M/s.RINL by M/s.Aren Steels Limited.

289.The PW43 stated that the bankers cheques was not submitted to M/s.RINL by M/s. Airan Steels Limited. There was no transactions in between RINL and

M/s. Airan Steels Limited in the particular LC under Ex.P764. Based on his information, the branch manager has confirmed that non receipt of pay orders from M/s.Aren Steels Limited.

290.In the cross-examination, PW43 stated that the documents Ex.P762 to

P764 are not pertaining to his period. He did not hand over the documents to

CBI. There is no documentation to show that who is competent to issue bill of exchange at Hyderabad office of M/s.RINL. There is a record in Hyderabad office to show bills of exchange issued from the said branch. The separate register is kept in respect of it. The prosecution has not produced said register, in fact the said register is the best document to know whether the particular bill of exchange received in Hyderabad office or not. As per his evidence, 250 to 300 bills of exchange will be issued every year by the Hyderabad Branch. The name

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 147 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 of the applicant for bill of exchange will be mentioned in the register. Said

Register is not produced, so the PW43 is not able to say the names of entities, who has applied for bill of exchanges from their Hyderabad Office.

291.Further, it is pertinent to note that the entities who obtained bill of exchanges will pay the amount by way of demand draft or bankers cheques,

Hyderabad Branch will maintain the register to show how many bankers cheques were encashed during the particular year. The record pertaining to the said details are not shown to PW43, so he is not able to say the details of bankers cheques encashed by M/s.RINL, Hyderabad Office. PW43 stated that M/s.RINL is not party to the Sheet No.1 to 3 of Ex.P762 and P763, P764. The Deepak Jain,

Chinna Rao, Ugadi, Vasantha are the officers whose signatures are supposed to be thereon bill of exchange as per evidence of PW43. They were alive, but the prosecution has not examined them. PW43 is no way concerned with the said documents, he is not signatory, so his evidence is not relevant, he is not competent witness to speak about the said documents. As per documents,

M/s.RINL encashed bankers cheques i.e., Ex.P762 to P764. The PW43 stated that by seeing the documents, he cannot say who submitted the same to M/s.RINL.

Therefore, the prosecution by relying on the evidence of PW43 cannot confirm that the pay orders were not received from M/s.Aren Steels Limited.

292.PW44/B.Murali, General Manager, M/s.Sujana Steels Limited was examined in order to prove the pay orders of M/s. Aeran Steels Limited. The PW44 stated that M/s.Aren Steels Limited has given some pay orders to their MD of

M/s.Sujana Steels Limited for an amount of Rs.53 lakhs for purchase of material

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 148 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 from M/s.RINL. Their company received pay orders from M/s.Aren Steels Limited.

The material was lifted by Vizag Steel Profiles Limited in respect of 3 pay orders.

Their company lifted the material in respect of two pay orders. Instead of supplying material to M/s.Aren Steels Limited, they have returned back the entire amount by way of 9 cheques to M/s.Aren Steels Limited under Ex.P765 to

P770.

293.The PW44 stated they have given 5 cheques under Ex.P760 to P770 to

M/s.Aren Steels Limited on behalf of M/s.Sujana Steels Private Limited from

M/s.Sujana Industries and one more pay order was given to M/s.Aren Steels

Limited on behalf of M/s.Sujana Steels Limited. 4 cheques under Ex.P771 to 774 were given by M/s.Sujana Steels to M/s.Aren Steels Limited. The 3 cheques are infavour of M/s. Aran Steels Limited. The PW44 has stated that the transactions in between M/s.Aren Steels Limited, M/s.Sujana Industries. The PW44 stated that he has not dealt with Ex.P765 to P774. He worked as accountant, Senior

Accountant or Manager, He never dealt with any transactions of M/s.Sujana

Steels Limited and the companies with whom they have having business dealings including M/s.Aren Steels Limited. He do not know about receiving pay orders from M/s.Aren Steels Limited are giving cheques by their company to M/s.Aren

Steels Limited. He is not aware of the business transactions in between their company and M/s.Aren Steels Limited. He was not shown any pay orders said to be given by M/s.Aren Steels Limited to M/s.Sujana Steels Limited. The evidence of PW44 shows that he has no personal knowledge of the documents, the pay orders and business dealings. He know only to the extent that Ex.P762 to P770

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 149 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 are the cheques pertaining to the M/s.Sujana Industries Limited, even he does not know the significance of those documents. The prosecution has not explained the relevancy of evidence of PW44 to the facts of present case.

294.PW45/Krishna Chowdary, Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Grade-II stated that as per Ex.P761, the EPF Registration number of M/s.Airan Comptrax

Towers Private Limited is of AP20849. The CBI officials enquired with him with regard to five accounts mentioned in Ex.P761. The account numbers are 153 of

Mr.N.V.Ramana Murthy, the account No.163 of B.Mallesh, Account No.165 of

K.Balaiah, Account No.166 of Anjaiah and the account No.174 of Chandra

Prakash.

295. The general procedure is that whenever the account is settled by the sanctioning authority the account number will be rounded off and they will signed against the account column. The employer will submit Annual Return Form-6A which contains the total number of PF members contributed to the provident fund of particular establishment during financial year.

296. Out of the account numbers stated by him above, the account No.153 and 174 were settled as on the date when he was examined by CBI. Whenever the employee leaves the service he will submit Form No.19 claiming provident fund amount attested by the employer or his authorized representative on such submission the claim will be settled. In their office record the specimen signatures of employers or his authorized representative will be available.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 150 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

297.In the cross-examination, PW45 stated that Ex.P761 is not pertaining to his period of employment in the office to which Ex.P761 pertains to. He has no personal knowledge about the document Ex.P761.

298.The list of employees in Ex.P761 will show as unsettled if a employee continues in service or if he does not submit any claim. The form under Ex.P761 will not disclose any contravention under PF Laws. He do not know whether

M/s.Airan Comptrax Towers Private Limited was working as on the date of his examination. He joined in the PF office Hyderabad in the month of February, 2006 and he was examined in the month of March, 2006. The documents shown to him are pertaining to the year 2001. As per Form No.6A there are 25 employees. No rounding off was done in Ex.P761. The prosecution has examined

PW45 to show that the account holders above stated are employees of

M/s.ACTPL, on whose names the fake accounts are opened in the name of fake firms. However, the photographs and personal details of said persons are not stated by PW45. The prosecution has not elicited that the particulars of said persons are tallying with the names of fake account holders. There may be a persons with similar names, so the evidence of PW45 is not useful to the prosecution.

299.PW47/Sukumar Babu, Chartered Accountant stated that he know one

Sundareswaran/A4, who was working as Branch Manager, Oriental Bank of

Commerce, Nampally, Hyderabad. He got acquaintance with him through one

P.Ramabrahmam who was having account in the Nampally branch, Oriental Bank of Commerce.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 151 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

300.He himself incorporated M/s Airan Comptrax Towers Private Limited as per the rules of company laws on the request of Munnalal Agarwal/A1. There are two more companies He himself incorporated said companies on the request of

Munnalal Agarwal/A1.

301.The incorporation means at first they have to give an application to the

Registrar of Companies for availability of name, after getting the name for the company as approved from the ROC they will prepare the memorandum and articles of association in which the details of the objects for which the company is going to be registered and other ancillary objects for the performance of main objects of the company and it will contain the no. of shares to be subscribed by the share holders as well as the name of the first Director of the company. These

MOA and AOA are filed physically at the time along with the prescribed forms under the companies act for incorporation of the company in the ROC.

302.After due process of verification by the office of ROC they will issue a certificate of incorporation of the company from which date the company can commence business. He charged the fees for the above services.

303.As per the companies act once in a year every company should get its account audited by the Chartered Accountant and file the accounts with the

Registrar of Companies. Normally, they don’t go to the company or client regularly and at the time of the auditing of books of account their audit clerks will visit the office of the client and verify the books of account along with the vouchers and with the entries in the books of account and if they are matching with the figures in the ledger accounts they will sign the accounts as final. While

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 152 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 verifying the books of account with the vouchers they only see whether there is any deviation in posting of such vouchers to the proper head of account or not. If any changes are there like that they will suggest the client to make changes in the accounts.

304.M/s.Airan Comptrax Towers Private Limited/A5 brought books of accounts to their office which were verified as stated above. Normally, they assign their signatures to the balance sheet, profit and loss account and the audit report.

From 1997 to 2001 he looked after the accounts of above said three companies.

305.Usually, clients ask for certificates for various purposes like banking, sales tax and other departments where they deal depending upon their departmental procedures and depending upon the nature of the requirement they used to verify the books of account as explained above for the relevant period for which this certificate is required by their clients. Similarly, in the case of M/s.Airan

Comptrax Towers Private Limited/A5 also he has given some certificates but exactly he could not remember now what certificates he has given at the time.

306.He don’t have any idea about the document LD-330 (original letter of M/s

ACTPL Secunderabad). He do not remember whether he did any statuary audit in respect of above said three companies. In the normal course of his profession he used to issue audited accounts or certificates.

307.Ex.P776 is certified copy of certificate of incorporation of M/s.Airan

Comptrax Towers Private Limited/A5. In the document my signatures are there.

Ex.P777 is certified copy of certificate of incorporation of Areen Steels Private

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 153 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Limited/A6. In the document my signatures are there. He do not remember whether he stated before CBI with regard to the documents that whether the documents are genuine or not.

308.Ex.P776 and P777 are certificates of Incorporation of A5 and A6 respectively and the same is done in accordance with law. Whenever he audit the books of accounts of his client he will do so after proper verification of books of accounts and when he issue certificates to his clients, he will issue the same after due verification of books of accounts. He will take proper care before issuing any certificate or signing any document.

309.He is not a party to the document Ex.P887 which is shown to his during his chief-examination. There is no scope for him to know about the document

Ex.P887 as he is not concerned with this document.

310.He know Sundareshwaran/A4 in general as a Auditor. He use to visit

Ameerpet Branch of Oriental Bank of Commerce in connection with his profession on several occasions on behalf of his clients.

311.The evidence of PW47 shows that A5 to A7 companies are incorporated as per the procedure. Further, he is not aware of the document Ex.P887. The witness has not stated anything against A5 to A7. Therefore, the evidence of

PW47 is not useful to the prosecution.

312.PW48/J.Ravindranath, Manager (Operations) UTI Bank Limited, Hyderabad stated that Ex.P778 is receipt memo dated 27.04.2006 enclosing five pay orders no.001534, 036023, 037532, 035985, 039073. Those pay orders are signed by

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 154 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 different officials. The pay orders were issued in favor of Bank of Baroda Account

M/s.Rastriya Ispat Nigam Limited. The pay order no.001534 was signed by

Kusuma Rao and Manoj Krishnamachari. Pay order no.036023 signed by Kusuma

Rao and Manoj Krishnamachari. Pay order no.037532 signed by Mr.Kamalakar and Manoj Krishnamachari. Pay order no.035985 signed by Mr.Kamalakar and

Manoj Krishnamachari. Pay order no.039073 signed by S.Balaji and Manoj

Krishnamachari.

313.The above said pay orders were encashed by Bank of Baroda and there was bill discounting in respect of all pay orders. Based on payee name and official who has signed in the pay order reflects that there was bill discounting.

314.Ex.P779 are the seven pay orders which he sent to CBI through Register

Post to CBI. The documents are pay order no.047915, 047691, 046792, 046794, 046782, 046593, 045152.

315.The pay orders i.e., pay order no.047915, 047691, 046792, 046794 were signed by L.Sriraman and Renuka in favor of M/s.Mahesh Cooperative Bank a/c

Ruby Traders. Pay orders 046782, 046593 were signed by L.Sriraman and

Renuka in favor of Mahesh Cooperative Bank a/c Universal Trading Company. Pay order no.045152 is in favor of M/s.Agrasen Cooperative Urban Bank Limited a/c

M/s.Maheshwari Steel Corporation. The above said pay orders also there was bill discounting.

316.He don’t have any idea whether the above said amounts were repaid in the bank or not. Usually there may be a possibility of repayment or becoming the

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 155 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 account as NPA.

317.PW48 has stated that he was not working in UTI Bank Limited, Begumpet,

Hyderabad as on the date of documents mentioned in Ex.P778. Therefore he has no personal knowledge regarding the documents and pay orders mentioned in

Ex.P778 and Ex.P779. He admits that all the pay orders were issued after discounting the bills/L.Cs.

318.The discounting of bills/L.Cs is one of the aggregated business transaction of their bank. Under this transaction their bank gets profit by way of commission.

He admits that bills/L.Cs which are discounting will be presented to the bank issuing bills/L.Cs on due dates by our bank for payment.

319.He admits the Reserve Bank of India issued circulars with regard to discounting of bills/L.Cs. He admits that as per the circular of Reserve Bank of

India all banks including their bank should purchase/discount/negotiate bills under L.Cs only in respect of genuine in commercial and trade transactions. Their bank issued pay orders mentioned in Ex.P778 and Ex.P779 strictly in according to rules and regulations of RBI.

320.Their bank did not issue any L.Cs pertaining to this case covered by

Ex.P778 and Ex.P779. He has not seen the L.Cs which are discounted by their bank at any time either when he was examined by the CBI or in chief examination. He admits that their bank while purchasing/discounting/negotiating billsunderL.Csshouldestablishgenuinenessofunderlying

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 156 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 transactions/documents. Their bank followed the above procedure by issuing pay orders covered by Ex.P778 and Ex.P779.

321.Their bank has received payments against all the L.Cs discounted by them in the name of M/s RINL, M/s Ruby traders, M/s Universal Trading Company and

M/s.Maheshwari Steel Corporation and there are no outstanding dues to be recovered by UTI bank i.e., their bank on account of the L.Cs discounted by their bank in the name of above mentioned companies/firms. His entire evidence is nothing but a normal banking transaction which was done in accordance with rules.

322.The evidence of PW48 shows that Ex.P778 and P779 are issued by their bank only and it was issued in the normal course of their business. The prosecution intended to say that the pay orders were issued in favour of fake firms, but the evidence of PW48 shows that there was business transactions during the course of business transactions only, the Lcs were issued and the amounts are recovered and there are no outstanding dues, so the prosecution has not proved that those firms are fake firms.

323.PW49/T. Srinivas, Manager Laxmi Vilas Bank Limited, his evidence shows that LC No.0036402/201/247 dated 24.04.2001 under Ex.P780, LC

No.0036405/201/249 dated 26.04.2001 under Ex.P782, LC No.0036407/201/251

dated 10.05.2001 under Ex.P784 was issued by OBC, Ameerpet Branch on behalf

of Aran Steels Limited. Ex.P786 is the LC No.0036411/201/257, dated 14.05.2001. Ex.P781 is the Pay order No.147555, dated 24.07.2001, Ex.P783 pay order No.147630. Ex.P785 pay order No.147764, dated 13.08.2001, Ex.P787

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 157 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 is the pay order No.147798, dated 16.08.2001, Ex.P789, Pay order No.147876,

dated 21.08.2001.

324.The above Lcs were issued by OBC, Ameerpet Branch on behalf of Aran

Steels Limited in favour of Universal Trading Company, Ruby Traders. Lakshmi

Vilas Bank has discounted said Lcs and issued pay orders. The PW49 has stated that at the time of discounting the LC, their bank has given bill number. The prosecution intended to say that those are fake firms floated by A5 to A7. Aran

Steels Limited has obtained Lcs from OBC with collusion. However, the PW49 has stated they have nothing to do with M/s.Aren Steels Limited. The above transactions are normal banking transactions. LCs are not presented by Aran

Steels Limited. The prosecution has not proved anything to show that the firms are fake firms, but it proved that A6 has obtained LCs in favour of said companies only.

325.PW50/Raja Narasimha, Manager, Bank of Baroda stated that the documents Exs.P766, P767, P768, P769 and Ex.P770 are the cheques belonging to current account No.52908 standing in the name of M/s.Sujana Industries

Limited. The cheques were issued in favour of M/s.Aren Steels Limited.

326. Ex.P766 is the cheque No.661390 dated 14.02.2000 for Rs.4,67,493/-.

Ex.P767 is the cheque No.661385 dated 12.02.2000 for Rs.5,01,000/-. The customer intended to get banker cheque or DD so that he issued Ex.P767 to prepare the DD. According to that the cheque was passed and DD was prepared in favour of M/s.Aren Steels Limited.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 158 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

327.Ex.P768 is the cheque No.661762 dated 24.02.2000 for Rs.9,67,493/- in favour of M/s.Aren Steels Limited. Ex.P769 is the cheque No.661777 dated 02.03.2000 for Rs.5,00,000/- in favour of M/s.Aren Steels Limited. Ex.P770 is the cheque No.661778 dated 04.03.2000 for Rs.9,51,740/- in favour of M/s.Aren

Steels Limited. The above cheques were directly issued by the party. He can not identify the signatures of the persons appearing on the cheques. The cheques were presented by Oriental Bank of Commerce. The person in whose favour the cheques were issued, holding account in the Oriental Bank of Commerce.

328.In the cross-examination, PW50 has stated that the cheques covered under Exs.P766, P767, P768, P769 and Ex.P770 produced in the normal course of transactions it was cleared and there was no discrepancies with regard to the above cheques. The evidence of PW50 shows that during the course of business,

Aran Steels Limited has issued the cheques in favour of M/s.Sujana Industries

Limited. It was issued in the normal course of business.

329.PW51/Raghunath Reddy, Manager, Credit Department, stated that Ex.P771 is the cheque No. 652607, dated 24.01.2000 for Rs. 4,67,500/- issued by

M/s.Sujana Steels Limited in favour of M/s.Aren Steels Limited. Ex.P772 Cheque

No. 656941, dated 11.4.2000 for Rs. 5,00,000/- issued by M/s.Sujana Steels

Limited in favour of M/s.Aren Steels Limited. Ex.P773 Cheque No. 656940, dated 11.4.2000 for Rs. 4,68,123/- issued by M/s.Sujana Steels Limited in favour of

M/s.Aren Steels Limited.

330.Ex.P774 (L.D.No. 575) Cheque No. 652604, dated 24.01.2000 for Rs.

5,01,000/- issued by M/s.Sujana Steels Limited in favour of Bank of Baroda for

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 159 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 purchase of Banker cheque favoring M/s.Aren Steels Limited for Rs. 5,00,000/-.

Rs. 1000/- is commission amount. He verified the account opening form of

Sujana Steels Limited, later M/s Sujana Steels limited name was changed to

M/s.Sujana Metal Products. He verified the record and he has given the particulars of cheques to the CBI.

331.In the cross-examination, PW51 stated that all the 4 cheques under

Ex.P771 to Ex.P774 were issued by Account holder M/s.Sujana Steels Limited. he did not give any documents to CBI officials. He has no personal knowledge about

Ex.P771 to Ex.P774 as he was not working during the year 2000 in Bank of

Baroda, Masab Tank branch. He admits the signatory to Ex.P771 to Ex.P774 alone can say the purpose for which said cheques were issued. But the prosecution has not examined signatory to those documents.

332.Statement of account of M/s.Sujana Steels Limited will show whether the said cheques were debited or not. By seeing the cheques Ex.P771 to Ex.P774 he cannot say that the name of account holder is changed from M/s Sujana Steels

Limited to M/s.Sujana Metal Products limited. There is no discrepancy or irregularity with regard with Ex.P771 to Ex.P774.

333.The evidence of PW51 also shows the transactions in between M/s. Aran

Steels Limited and M/s.Sujana Steels Limited. Those cheques were issued in the normal course of business and nothing has been stated against the accused herein.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 160 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

334.PW52/Madhusudan Rama Rao, Regional Head, OBC, Bangalore, stated that

Ex.P604 is the OBC Regional office, chennai office note dated 18.06.1999 regarding issuance of Inland Letter of credit for Rs.25,00,000/-. In fact they have received proposal for sanction of inland letter of credit for Rs. 150 lakhs on 90 days DA basis, document on acceptance. In the meanwhile they received a proposal an adhoc limit of Rs. 25 Lakhs for issuance of inland letter of credit 90 days DA.

335.Since they have received proposal for regular limit of Rs. 150 lakhs, the proposal of adhoc limit was declined by regional office, Chennai. The process note was signed by Mr. Ramakrishna and it was recommended by Satyanarayana.

They have addressed a sanction letter dated 20.09.1999 addressed to senior manager, branch office Ameerpet, Hyderabad conveying sanction of inland letter of credit DA 90 days favoring M/s.Aren Steels Limited for a sum of 150 Lakhs and

LC should be issued in favour of M/s.Rashtriya Ispat Nigam limited. The sanction letter was signed by Mr.Rakesh Malhotra, chief manager, regional office, Chennai.

Ex.P625 (L.D.No.415) is the sanction letter.

336.Ex.P790is original letter dated 2.11.1999 addressed by Oriental Bank of

Commerce to assistant general manager, regional office, Chennai requesting that a part of limit upto 35 lakhs, LC be issued in favour of local parties instead of

M/s.Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited citing the reasons higher discount is available when the material is procured from local parties.

337.Ex.P593 is original copy of sanction letter dated 01.03.2000 conveying sanction to senior manager, Ameerpet, Hyderabad, sanctioning an adhoc inline

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 161 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 letter of credit DA 90 days to M/s.Aren steels limited. It is being one short transaction. LC sanction is in favour of M/s.RINL and other suppliers the letter is singed by Mr.Rakesh Malhotra, chief manager, regional office, chennai. As per process note, he himself signed on the process note. Sanction was accorded by him. As per this sanction the total amount of Rs. 240 Lakhs was sanctioned out of which Rs. 150 lakhs on regular basis, Rs. 90 lakhs on a single transaction basis.

338. Ex.P628 is the office copy of letter conveying sanction of opening of letter of credit upto Rs. 150 lakhs to any beneficiary other than RINL. As per this document the total amount of Rs. 150 lakhs was already give to RINL but they are not supplying material and they are not in a position to supply material as informed by the branch. The branch has recommended that the entire credit of

Rs. 150 lakhs on LC on DA basis, material can be procured from any other supplier. The sanction was approved by him vide office note dated 12.05.2000.

He put my signature by mentioning the date as 15.05.2000.

339.All the above documents are pertaining to M/s Aren Steels limited. One

M.Sundereshwaran(A4) was the branch manager at the relevant time. He was head of regional office, Chennai at the relevant time. The entire erstwhile

Andhra Pradesh was under the control of regional office, Chennai. As a branch manager he know said M.Sundereshwaran(A4).

340.In the cross-examination of counsel for A8, PW52 admitted that based on the process note of regional office he took the decision and approved the change

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 162 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 of beneficiary from M/s.RINL to local suppliers on 15.5.2000. He handed over his charge to Mr.Kanvaljeet Singh (A8) subsequently.

341.In the further cross-examination, he admitted that the sanction of loans what he deposed in his chief-examination was done as per the rules and regulation and the proposals were processed. In the cross-examination by A4 counsel, PW52 stated that in Ex.P604/2 it is mentioned that since the branch has to submit renewal proposal of sister concern M/s.Airan Comptrax Towers Private

Limited/A5 and non availability of networking capital they may not consider the captioned proposal on adhoc basis.

342.He admits that he stated before CBI that letter dated 2.11.1999 from OBC

Ameerpet branch addressed to the AGM, Regional Office, Chennai recommending for permitting M/s.Aren Steels Limited to open LCs for Rs. 35 lakhs favouring local suppliers other than M/s.RINL i.e. reflecting in Ex.P790 ( L.D.No.416). As per Ex.P592 the process note has been done based on the list of Lcs, provisional balance sheets as on 7.2.2000 with schedules, statement of accounts and on satisfaction of the same. The commission varies to the LCs based on 100% margin and the Lcs issued under sanction with in the prescribed margin less than 100% margin. The bank wil get income on LCs by way of commission.

343.He is not aware whether the payment on Lcs are not in due during the tenure of A4. He admits that the OBC Ameerpet branch recommended LCs limits during the tenure of A4 by following due process of rules and regulations of the bank and on satisfaction only the regional office permitted or sanctioned the said

LCs limits.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 163 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

344.Even the evidence of PW52 is not against A4 and A8, he admitted that all the credit facility to the A5 to A7 were sanctioned by him only. He has not spoken anything against the accused herein. The evidence of PW52 is relevant to the aspect that the Regional Office has sanctioned the loans. He has not spoken anything about the deviation of bank rules and regulations.

345.The testimony of PW53/C.M. Khurana, Chief General Manager, OBC, Delhi shows the CBI officials enquired with him with regard to the companies namely

M/s.Sakthi Steels, M/s.Aren Steels Limited and M/s.Airan Comptrax Towers

Private Limited/A5.

346. On 06.9.2001 from the head office, the communication was send to the

Ameerpet branch, Oriental Bank of commerce, Hyderabad, for sending them the detailed information in respect of M/s.Sakthi Steels for consideration of the matter in relation to the request of the borrower. This communication was pertaining to the consideration of proposal at the credit department of Head office for which the papers were rooted through him as Deputy General Manager for the final consideration of the committee of general managers under whom he was working. After consideration, examination of entire papers the decision relating to the proposal was arrived by the committee of general managers which was finally conveyed to the branch through regional office.

347. In respect of account of M/s.Airan Comptrax Towers Private Limited/A5 a proposal was received relating to the branch of Ameerpet, Hyderabad through the Regional Office, Chennai of the bank and after initial examination of the same

additional information and clarification was sought by the credit department vide

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 164 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 letter dated 19.02.2001 signed by Assistant General Manager working under his control.

348. After examination of the complete proposal the matter was placed before the committee of general managers for the sanction of the cash credit hypothecation of Rs. 300 lakhs and bank guarantee of Rs. 50 lakhs which was conveyed to the branch through regional office. In terms of letter dated 31.08.2001 the communication was send to the regional office, Hyderabad conveying that the letter of credit facility of Rs. 150 lakhs recommended by them on Adhoc basis has not been considered favorably by the committee of general managers, this letter has been signed by assistant general manager working under his control.

349.As per the procedure prescribed the regional managers are authorized to allow adhoc credit facilities based on the merit of each cash upto 10% of the existing sanctioned limit for a period upto 90 days. The decisions pertaining to request of the borrowers from time to time have been examined by the respective competent authority and conveyed after examination of entire case in each case by the competent authorities. Once the accounts became irregular and difficult of recovery the action was initiated as per the prescribed procedure.

350.The evidence of PW53 is very crucial, his evidence discloses that the proposals of M/s.Sakthi Steels, M/s.Aren Steels Limited and M/s.Airan Comptrax

Towers Private Limited came originally to branch and after initial processing and examination the proposal will be send to regional office. The proposal which the branch considers is not fit for sanction the proposal will be rejected at their level

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 165 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 itself. He admits when the proposal is fit for consideration the branch will send it to the regional office. He admits the regional office has to scrutinize the proposal and satisfy itself otherwise they have to reject the proposal. If regional office satisfies, they will send it to the head office for sanction. If it is beyond the powers of regional office. He admits it is the prerogative of the committee of general managers in the head office to consider or reject the proposal send to it by the regional office.

351.He admits the head office has put queries and called for additional information to satisfy itself whether the proposal is to be considered or not, with regard to the proposals of three companies i.e. M/s.Sakthi Steels, M/s.Aren

Steels Limited and M/s.Airan Comptrax Towers Private Limited. Whenever the files received by him as a part of decision making he used to put his signatures and also put his comments on the file. During his chief-examination, no documents were confronted to him which bears his signature and his comments on the documents.

352.His evidence further discloses the borrower was allowed cash credit limit of Rs.50 lakhs, sanction by the regional manager RO chennai. The said limit was last sanctioned on 19.4.1999 under the power of regional office subsequently the regional manager has allowed limit of Rs. 5 lkahs on 25.8.2001 valid upto 30.09.2001 which was reported while recommending the extension of validity of the sanction. At the head offce level the validity of sanction of Rs. 50 lakhs was extended upto 31.03.2002 by the committee of general managers, in terms of the note dated 26.9.2001 while noting the adhoc cash credit limit of Rs. 5 lakhs

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 166 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 permitted under the regional office power upto 30.9.2001. it means the branch has not sanctioned, the regional office after going through the file, after getting clarifications from branch the credit facility was given.

353.he has further stated before CBI that the borrower was sanctioned regular letter of credit limit of Rs. 150 lakhs by the regional office, chennai on 20.9.1999. Additional one time LC facility of Rs. 90 lakhs has also been sanctioned by regional office Chennai 3 times since march 2000 enhancement in the LC limit from Rs. 150 lakhs to Rs. 240 Lakhs was recommended by regional office in December 2000. His evidence further made it clear that the head office had called for the complete information and papers and the matter was placed

before the general manager considering the overall position of the account the

adhoc enhancement in the limit was not permitted. Moreover the borrower was initially sanctioned a term loan facility of Rs. 42 lakhs in the year 1997 subsequently, working capital facilities was given to the borrower under the powers of regional manger, RO Chennai, in the year 1998 each were also renewed, in the year 1999 proposal for enhancement in limit was submitted by the RO Chennai to head office through letter dated 17.11.2000, further information, clarification and papers were called by head office based on the recommendations of the branch and regional office and head office sanctioned/approved the credit facility under the power of committee of general managers I..e 1) cash credit (Hypothecation) Rs. 300 lakhs 2) Bank guarantee

Rs. 50 lakhs. It means after following the procedure only said credit limits were granted. The record reveals the account of M/s.Airan Comptrax Towers Private

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 167 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Limited was having been regularly operated. As per the document L.D.no.336 about 52 to 60 times such over drawing were regularized in time branch has allowed the same within powers. As per the needs of the borrower the adhoc limits have been permitted and enhanced limits have been sanctioned. It indicates though overdrawals are there but it was regularized, in case of fraudulent transactions there is no question of such regularization's.

354.Further he admitted as per the L.D.No.336, the company is following correct stocking pattern. Considering the nature of goods meant for storage there is adequate open space for scrap to be stored, for the finished goods the location for the storage space is ideal. The company may be advised introduced bin card system. So the firms are working, the allegations that the units are not working, holds not good. Further in the same document in para No. 16, the overdue conduct of the account is regarded by the inspecting officials as satisfactory.

355.As per the above document page No. 19 the stock at the factory premises has been inspected by them on 24.9.2001 as per the estimates valued Rs.

170.50 lakhs the drawing power after maintaining the stipulated margin is arrived at Rs. 127.87 lakhs whereas the liability is Rs. 329.94 lakhs. Thus a shortage of about Rs. 202.07 lakhs stocks is noticed by them. The deputy commissioner of central excise seized all the registers, books filed of the company on 7.9.2001 as it is believed by them that the company evaded payment of excise duty. In the absence of same they could not arrive at the actual shortage of stocks since details of unpaid stocks and trade creditors are

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 168 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 not available. Further his evidence discloses that the regional head cannot allow regular sanction for enhanced portion but the adhoc limit already permitted prior to the recommendations of the enhancement of the limits can be continue. So there are no such irregularities as alleged by the prosecution.

356.PW60/M. Babu, Post Man was examined but he stated due to his old age, he is not able to recollect any facts. So, his evidence is not useful to the prosecution.

357.PW61/Nagaraju, Post Man also stated due to his old age, he is not able to recollect any facts. So, his evidence is not useful to the prosecution.

358.PW63/V. Phanidhra Charya, Superintendent of Central Excise stated that after joining in the Anti Evasion Wing of Hyderabad-IV Commissionerate he was handed over the case records pertaining to M/s.Airan Comptrax Towers Private

Limited(ACTPL) on 13.08.2003. The case records consists of Panchanamas and its enclosures, statements taken from the Directors and other personal of the company along with the records. As per the request of the CBI he has handed over the xerox copies of Panchanamas along with enclosures and statements etc.

The photostat copies of panchnamas drawn at office premises of ACTPL at

Minister Road, Secunderabad dated 07.09.2001 and Panchanama drawn at another office premises, Kachibowli, Minister Road dated 07.09.2001 were handed over to CBI Officials. The records recovered at office premises at Minister

Road also contain sales register and purchase register for the period 2001 and 2002. The same were relied upon. The other note books recovered at the office premises at Kachibowli has mentioned in Sl.No.18 to 32 were also relied upon for

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 169 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 calculation of the goods cleared without payment of duty. The notebook contain the raw material purchased, final product manufactured and cleared during April, 2000 to August, 2001. The raw material purchased was over and above in the purchase register compared to the figures in the said notebooks. Based on notebooks the total raw material purchased and used was around 18,000 metric tonnes. The final product manufactured from that was around 14,000 metric tonnes. The quantity of the final product cleared by the manufacturers on payment of central excise duty was around 3000 metric tonnes. The remaining 11000 metric tonnes of the final products were cleared without payment of duty.

The value of the goods cleared without payment of duty was approximately Rs.11 crores. Though, the PW63 has stated that without payment of duty, the business was done. The panchanamas were conducted. The prosecution has not marked any single document, in the absence of the document, basing on oral statement of PW63, this court cannot connect the accused with the alleged offences.

Further, his evidence is relevant to the fact that the prosecution alleged that there is no business activity, but PW63 stated that the ACTPL will submit records to their department showing the quantity of goods manufactured every month in the returns filed by it under Form ER.1, it means there was business activity.

359.PW64/A.S.R. Krishna, Branch Head, UTI Bank Limited, Secunderabad stated that the covering letter (LD No.556), dated 10.04.2006 addressed by him to CBI, Bangalore along with list of pay orders and pay order No.010366, dated 15.02.2001 for Rs.19,36,229/- in favour of M/s.AP Mahesh Cooperative Urban

Bank Limited. The pay orders are enclosed to the covering letter. Ex.P798 is the

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 170 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Covering Letter, dated 10.04.2006, Ex.P799 is the Pay Order No.010366, dated 15.02.2001, Ex.P800 is the Pay Order No.007094, dated 28.09.2000, Ex.P801 is the Pay Order No.007093, dated 28.09.2000, Ex.P802 is the Pay Order

No.007369, dated 03.10.2000, Ex.P803 is the Pay Order No.007368, dated 03.10.2000, Ex.P804 is the Pay Order No.006726, dated 30.08.2000, Ex.P805 is the Pay Order No.007078, dated 27.09.2000, Ex.P806 is the Pay Order

No.006608, dated 17.08.2000, Ex.P807 is the Pay Order No.006166, dated 11.07.2000.

14. They have verified LC discount register with regard to the above said pay orders. As per the pay orders, the pay orders were sent from AP Mahesh

Cooperative Bank. The pay orders are presented by M/s.AP Mahesh Cooperative

Bank to the credit of respective parties mentioned on the pay orders.

360.In the cross-examination, PW64 admitted that all the pay orders stated above are issued prior to his joining in Tarnaka Branch. He has no personal knowledge with regard to Exs.P798 to Ex.P807. All pay orders are issued during the normal banking transactions. No Lcs are shown today during his chief examination and the Lcs are not pertaining to their bank. He did not state before the CBI that he verified LC discount register. He admits that it is not possible to identify who had approached UTI bank, Tarnaka Branch for discounting the LCs.

Discounting of LCs was one of the accredited business of their bank, because their branch gets profits by way of commission and interest in discounting LCs.

Their bank gained profits from issuing of Exs.P799 to Ex.P807. All pay orders issued by UTI bank are the same like the one issued under Ex.P799 to 807. By

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 171 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 seeing Ex.P799 to 807 it cannot be said that they relate to discounting of Lcs. No document evidencing discounting of LCs in their bank is shown to him during his chief-examination.

361.The prosecution has examined PW64 to prove that the pay orders was issued in favour of fake firm. However it is not proved the pay orders are issued with collusion in order to play fraud on the bank. Moreover, in the evidence of

PW64, the prosecution has not shown the LCs pertaining to their bank. By seeing the documents i.e., pay orders, it cannot be stated they relate to discounting of

Lcs. So, there is no evidence to show discounting of LCs in their bank, so the evidence of PW64 is not useful to the prosecution.

362.PW67/A. Ramesh Babu, Chief Manger (Law), Punjab National Bank stated that they have drafted and forwarded the complaint to Corporate Office, Delhi.

He has handed over the copy of complaint recently to CBI officials after verifying old records from his office.

363. Ex.P1023 is certified copy of complaint dated 07.05.2003. On each page of original complaint as well as in the certified copy there is initial of officer, the officer who finally prepares the complaint used to put the initial on each page of complaint.

364.In the cross examination, PW67 stated that the copy of complaint is available in Regional Office and Head Office also. The prosecution has not marked the original complaint as the last two pages are missing, so the prosecution has filed the certified copy of complaint under Ex.P1023. The defence has disputed

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 172 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 said document by stating that it is not public document as defined under Section 74 of Evidence Act. The PW67 admitted that no officer of Punjab National Bank can use the seal of the bank unless he is specifically authorized. There is no record to show that he was authorized to use the seal of the bank. There is no authorization on his behalf. He cannot issue certified copy unless the original is in the office. It is to be noted that the original complaint is filed but the last two pages are missing, fortunately the total content of complaint is mentioned in FIR, therefore, the document Ex.P1023 is the nothing but replica of original complaint only. The defence cannot dispute this document.

365.PW69/Gopi, Liasoning Officer of M/s. Vizag Profiles Limited, stated that

When he was working as Liaison Officer of M/s.Vizag Profiles Limited, Begumpet,

Hyderabad, and M/s.Vizag Steels Profiles in the year 2006 the CBI officials came into their office and asked for certain documents. Their company supplied the material to M/s.Sujana Steel Company. The CBI officials have asked for pay orders and the statements regarding said pay orders and also asked the particulars of material supplied by them. He has furnished the documents to the

CBI officials. He has enclosed the documents along with statement of account of his company and he put his signature on the documents while furnishing the same to the CBI. Though, PW69 stated that he has furnished the documents to

CBI officials but the prosecution has not filed those documents and not confronted to the witness. Therefore, the evidence of PW69 is not useful to the prosecution.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 173 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

THE DISPUTE RELATING TO EQUITABLE MORTGAGE PROPERTY AND

ALLEGATINS AGAINST A10:-

366.The contention of prosecution is that the documents which was mortgaged to the bank are not genuine documents. Those documents are fake documents.

A4 deliberately accepted the documents as genuine that the property offered as security belongs to Sri Jogender Reddy and Damodar Reddy that without their knowledge his property was offered as collateral security against the liabilities of

A5. A10 has submitted inflated valuation reports in respect of properties covered by the forged documents.

367.The prosecution alleged that A10 had valued the property offered by A1 as security to facilitate M/s. Shakti Steels to avail cash credit loan, the property valued by A10 is not in existing at all. A10 has deliberately concealed the fact that the property does not belongs to the purported owner P.G.Nagabhushanam

Naidu and he died 15 years back and the property is divided into small plots and in possession of different persons. A1 and A3 have submitted forged documents as security against the cash credit limit availed by M/s. ACTPL that A4 deliberately accepted the documents as genuine that the property offered as security belongs to Jogender Reddy and Damodar Reddy and without their knowledge, collateral security is offered to the bank against the liabilities of A5 that A10 submitted highly inflated valuation reports in respect of the properties covered by the forged documents. Further, A10 has submitted the valuation report in respect of the property documents of A6, which was worth of Rs.50 lakhs but he issued false valuation certificate for Rs.5 crores.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 174 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

368.The prosecution in order to substantiate this fact, examined

PW14/A.Jugender Reddy, he deposed that his family was having Ac.1 and half acre of land in Sy.No48, Bandlguda Village, Uppal Mandal after division among 5 brothers including two of his cousins, his family was having 0-30gts of land

before 1970 in SY.No.48 out of Ac.1.15gts of Land. One register sale deed

01.04.1997 purported to have been executed by A. Krishna Reddy, A. Lakshmi

Narayan Reddy and himself in favour of Shashi Agarwal for the land extent 0.27gts in SY.No.48, Bandlaguda Village vide document No.7241/1997 were shown to him and he stated they never executed said registered sale deed, the document is fabricated. His brother A. Lakshmi Narayan Reddy died in the year, 2010 about more than 20 years back, they sold the total land to one Narasimha

Reddy, who converted the land into house plots and sold the same to the various purchasers. The PW14 was examined to prove that A3 has deposited title deed stating that the property stands on her name. But, the vendors to the document appeared before the court and stated that they never sold the land to said Shashi

Agarwal.

369.The prosecution relied upon the evidence of PW14 and contended that the property is not belongs to the A1 to A3. They have fabricated Ex.P519. As per document/Ex.P519, it was executed by A. Krishna Reddy, A. Laxmi Narasimha

Reddy, Jogender Reddy in favour of Smt. Shashi Agarwal in respect of land in

Sy.No.48, extent 0-27gts situated at Bandlaguda Village, Uppal Revenue Mandal,

Ranga Reddy District. The prosecution alleged that those documents are fabricated documents. The allegation against A4 is that he has not verified the

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 175 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 genuineness of said document. The contention of defence is that the document was sent to Panel Advocate for opinion, after getting legal opinion only the title deeds were executed.

370.PW15/A. Damodar Reddy, cousin of PW14 stated that his family and family of PW14 were having Ac.01.15gts of land in Sy.No.48, Bandlaguda Village. The

CBI officials have shown the docvument No.7241/1997 under Ex.p520, alleged to be executed by their family members but it is a fabricated sale deed, they never executed this document, they sold the land to one Narasimha Reddy. The perusal of document Ex.P520 shows that it was executed by one Damodar Reddy and

Prabhakar Reddy in favour of A1/Munnalal Agarwal for the land extent 0-28gts in

Sy.No.48, Bandlaguda Village, Uppal Revenue Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

371. The evidence of PW55/Narsa Reddy, Registrar is crucial, the prosecution has examined this witness with regard to the sale deed of PW15, PW14 and others. original Sale Deed vide Doc. No.7241/1997 dated 01.04.1997 was registered in their Registrar Office. One A.Krishna Reddy, A.Laxmi Narsimha

Reddy, Jogender Reddy are the Vendors to the document. One Sheshi Agarwal was the purchaser under this document. Doc. No.7242/1997 dated 01.04.1997 was executed by of A.Damodar Reddy and A.Prabhakar Reddy. It was sold to One

Munnalal Agarwal. He stated as per their records the above said two documents are registered in their Registrar Office and both documents are genuine documents. One P.V.S.Dhal and one Rupa Rao are the witnesses to the document

Nos.7242/1997 and 7241/1997. As per Doc. No.7241/1997 the schedule of property is Sy.No.48 admeasuring Ac.0.27 Gts situated at Bandlaguda Village,

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 176 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Uppal Mandal, Rangareddy District. As per Doc.No. 7242/1997 the schedule of property is Sy.No.48 admeasuring Ac.0.28 Gts situated at Bandlaguda Village,

Uppal Mandal, Rangareddy District. One M.Janaiah was the Registrar at the time of execution of above said two documents.

372. Ex.P791(L.D.NO.661) is the Original Register Sale Deed vide Doc.

No.7241/1997 dated 01.04.1997(7 Sheets). Ex.P792(L.D.NO.664) is the Original

Register Sale Deed vide Doc. No.7242/1997 dated 01.04.1997(7 Sheets). The evidence of PW55 shows that A1 and A3 have purchased the land in Sy.No.48 to the extent of Ac.0.28 Gts each from the above said vendors. The record shows the thum impressions of A.Jugender Singh and A.Damodar Reddy were obtained under Ex.P793 to P795 and it was sent to Finger Print Bureau for comparision.

The Evidence of PW56/Shaik Abdul Khader, Deputy Superintendent of Police in

Finger Print Bureau, Bangalore shows that he has examined disputed finger prints of AK.Reddy, A.Laxmi Narasimha Reddy and Jogender Reddy on Ex.P791, further the disputed signatures of A.Damodar Reddy and A.Prabhakar Reddy in

Ex.P792. He has given opinion that the disputed finger prints are not identical with the admitted right and left thumb impressions. However in the cross- examination PW56 stated that in the opinion it is silent with regard to the patterns and ridges whether he consider before giving his opinion. He did not compare SF-I and SF-II in Ex.P793 with SF-5 and SF-6 in Ex.P793 to show that all the above four specimens are the same person. Similarly, he did not compare

SF-I and SF-II in Ex.P793 with SF-III and SF-IV in Ex.P794 to show that all the

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 177 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 above four specimens are the same persons. He did not use specimens in

Ex.P794 and SF-5 an SF-6 for the purpose of his opinion.

373. According to his opinion he did not compare SF7 and SF8 in Ex.P795 with

SF9, SF10, SF11 and SF12 in Ex.P795 to show that all the above 6 specimens are the same person. Similarly, in his opinion he did not compare SF7 and SF8 in

Ex.P795 with SF9, SF10, SF11 and SF12 in Ex.P795 to show that all the above 6 specimens are the same person. He did not use specimens in Ex.P795 and SF9,

SF10, SF11 and SF12 for the purpose of his opinion. The reasons for not comparing the above said SFs etc., are not explained by PW56. Therefore, it cannot be stated that it is a complete opinion.

374.For a moment, we assume that those documents are fabricated documents but even the Registrar, the Panel Advocate also stated that the documents are executed by the rightful owners and there was flow of title. The A4, A8 would have verified about the documents, they have to enquire with the Registrar and the Panel Advocate only. They themselves stated that the title documents are genuine, how can A4 and A8 are liable in case, the documents are found to be forged documents. This court is of opinion that when A1 to A3 are quashed by the Honorable High Court, who are alleged to have forged the documents, the responsibility cannot be fixed on A4 and A8. So, they are entitled to the benefit of doubt.

375.PW17/Venkata Krishna, Manager, OBC, Secunderabad, stated that on the instructions of Regional Office, OBC, Hyderabad, he has visited the land in

Sy.No.48, which was mortgaged to Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 178 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Branch and which was offered as Collateral Security. PW14 and PW15 have stated that they never executed sale deeds covered by Ex.P519 and P520. He visited the land in Sy.No.48 of Bandlaguda Village and noticed that it is vacant land. He visited the registration office and came to know that as per the local market, it was approximately about 3 lakhs per acre. The PW17 has not filed any report before the court to show that he visited said land and observed the subject land. Basing on oral evidence of PW17 it has been stated that the property was not standing on the name of borrowers.

376.PW35/T. Gnaneshwar Rao, Joint Sub-Registrar CBI Official came to him in the year 2005. They brought one Urdu Certified Document of Sale Deed and asked him whether this document is genuine document or not. he can identify said document if shown to him. The document i.e., Urdu Document Book-I,

Volum No.III/55 Page No.127, Document No.105/1356 under Ex.P540 is the same document shown to him by the CBI Officials. He has no idea with regard to the translation copy annexed to Ex.P540. The document Ex.P540 is in Urdu language, the translation copy is filed, as per translation copy, one Telugu Sai

Reddy and Salendri Mallaiah executed the sale deed in Sy.No.113, plot No.32 extent 1854 square yards in favour of P.G.Nagabhushanam Naidu situated at

Ram Nagar, Zamistanpur, Hyderabad. PW35 is not aware of Urdu language so it was verified by his staff who is well acquainted with Urdu language. He verified this document with the document available in their office and disclosed it as a genuine document. He has verified Encumbrance Certificates with regard to the property mentioned in Ex.P540.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 179 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

377.As per EC the property under Ex.P569 is Plot No.32, Extend 1842 Sq.

Yards, Survey No.113 at Ramnagar, Zamistanpur, Hyderabad. This document was executed by T.Sai Reddy in favour of P.G.Nagabhushanam Naidu. The EC Ex.P569 was signed by Sub-Joint Registrar-II namely Samirullah. The EC was prepared in handwriting. This EC is pertaining to the period of 33 years from 01-01-1956 to 27-06-1980 in continuation another EC under Ex.P570 was also issued by Sub-

Registrar-II, Chikkadpally his name is Mohd. Usmaan. Ex.P570 was pertaining to the period of 17 years from 28-06-1980 to 04-01-1996. As per entries in the

ECs, there were no transactions during the said period.

378.PW35 stated that he has not issued the documents Ex.P540, P569 and

P570. He did not verify the link documents of Ex.P540, P569 and P570.

379.PW35 stated that he is well aware of the procedures pertaining to

Registration as he worked in different cadets in the Registration Office. He admits that he stated before CBI official's that "In comparison of this document (Ex.P540) with xerox copy of Certified Copy of of Urdu document related to the property Sri P.G.Nagabhushanam Naidu, he state that the contents are matching and the property is genuine".

380.He stated before CBI Officials that "I state that I identify this document

Ex.P569 issued by the then Joint Registrar namely Sri Samiryullah and the certificate prepared in the handwriting of Sri Raghu Babu presently working in

DIG Office, Hyderabad. The contents written in the overleaf of certificate are matching with record". He stated that since office has been shifted to

Chikkadpally Sub-Registrar Office, the further records will be available there only.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 180 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

381.The Certificate of Encumbrance of property under Ex.P570 issued by Sub-

Registrar, Chikkadpally, dt.06-01- 1996 vide No.67/96 on the basis of an application submitted regarding Plot No.32, Survey No.113, 1854 Sq. yards land situated at Zamisthanpur, Ramnagar, Hyderabad. The details shown in the certificate Ex.P570 is matching with the Encumbrance Certificate issued by the

Join-Registrar in 1996. As per his evidence the property stands in the name of one P.G.Naghabhushanam Naidu. Further the registered sale deed was executed in favour said P.G.Naghabushanam Naidu. The prosecution contended the property is not belongs to said P.G.Naghabhushanam Naidu. The property was divided into some plots which were in possession of different persons. Said

P.G.Naghabhushanam Naidu died long back so there is no question of execution of sale deed by said P.G.Naghabhushanam Naidu in favour of the borrowers. The borrowers have fabricated the documents and submitted the same to the bank as collateral security. Inorder to prove that the property is not belongs to said

P.G.Naghabhushanam Naidu, the prosecution has examined PW36 B.Pushpalatha.

382. PW36/B. Pushpalatha stated that one Mr. Nagabushanam was surety for the loan obtained in the bank. She do not know the particulars of borrower and in which bank the loan was taken. The CBI called her in the year 2005 and asked her to show the title documents of house no. 1-9-9 Ramnagar Jamisthanpoor,

Hyderabad. This property was standing on the name of grandmother of her husband, she executed registered will deed in favor of her son. In the year 1995 this house was mutated on the name of her son in the municipality, they furnished the will deed to concerned authorities along with death certificate of

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 181 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 grandmother of her husband. She has furnished the documents to CBI pertaining to H.No.1-9-9 Ramnagar Jamisthanpoor, Hyderabad. They obtained xerox copies of titled documents of said house and also death certificate of Sathyamma grandmother of her husband. She is in possession of original documents of

H.No.1-9-9.

383.The documents Ex.P.539(document D-35 to 37) the property was mutated in the name of her son B.V.Subramanyam. The sale deeds of B.Sathyamma is also in the file, certificate of death of Sathyamma is also there. The will deed of

Sathyamma is also in the record. The witness identified all the documents under

Ex.P539.

384.As per documents B.Sathyamma purchased the house from one Parvathi.

She also purchased one more property from Bhadrunnissa Begum. They are in possession of link documents pertaining to the property purchased from Parvathi.

The witness produced the original link document No.978 of 82 dated 02-05-1980 under which N. Parvathi W/O N.Sathyanarayana purchased the portion of house

No.1-9-9 extent 75.0 Sq.yards situated at Ramnagar Zamisthanpur, Hyderabad from P.N.Yashoda bai W/O late P.G.Nagabushanam, and others. She do not know who is Nagabushanam. Since, 1985 this property has been in their possession.

385.In the cross-examination, PW36 stated that the property house no. 1-9-9

Ramnagar Jamisthanpoor, Hyderabad is not standing on her name. At present her son is working in Power Finance Corporation. Earlier he worked in Canara

Bank. She do not know P.G.Nagabushanam she do not know the properties of

P.G.Nagabushanam and where it was mortgaged as surety. She do not know the

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 182 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 children of P.G.Nagabushanam and his family members. She do not know from whom B.Sathyamma purchased the property. She is not aware of the contents of sale deeds of B.Sathyamma. Parvathi purchased the property from one Yashodha but she do not know whether this sale deed was executed by GPA of Yashodha or original vendors. She do not know the plot no., survey no. mentioned in the documents . She know only to the extent that the extent is mentioned as 75

Sq.Yards and 23 Sq.Yards. In their documents the extent of the land is mentioned. In the sale deed executed by Bardunissa Begum it is mentioned that 23 Sq.Yards, in the schedule of property slum area is mentioned. She cannot say the total extent of the land having by the vendors of B.Sathyamma it may be above 1800Sq.Yards approximately. In the documents it has been mentioned.

The property from Parvathi and Badrunissa Begum have been purchased by

B.Sathyamma under the impression that both properties are adjacent to each other.

386.She do not know as per schedules in the sale deeds purchased from

Parvathi and Badrunissa Begum the properties are not situated adjacent to each other. She do not know whether her son executed indemnity bond on 19.11.2002 part of Ex.P539(Sheet No.20) It mentioned that the occupation of her son as a business and the property no. 1-9-9 stands on the name of P.G.Nagabushanam.

387.She do not know whether in the document it mentioned that she could like to submit that as per sale deed bearing no.904/85 dated 11.02.1985, She has got the property from Smt.N.Parvathi W/O N.Sathyanarayana, She is not aware that how the name has been entered in her assessment register.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 183 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

388. She do not know in the indemnity bond it is mentioned “I request MCH authorities to mutate said property in my name, if any legal disputes arises in future, I shall solely responsible for the consequences and MCH is at liberty to revoke the mutation without further notice”. She admits the document no.978 of 82 was executed on dated 02.05.1980 but it was registered in the year 1982.

389.The prosecution has examined PW37/P.V. Lakshma Reddy, worked as

Deputy Commissioner, MCH, Circle – III, Abids, Hyderabad with regard to this property He furnished documents to CBI, the documents are pertaining to

H.No.1-9-9, Zamisthapur, Ramnagar, initially this property stands on the name of one P.G.Nagabhushanam Naidu, later this property was mutated in the name of

B.Subramanyam basing on the documents furnished by him. He has furnished a copy of register sale deed of Sathyamma, who purchased this property from

Smt.M.Parvathi, on 11.02.1985. Said Sathyamma was expired on 09.01.1995.

The death certificate of said Sathyamma was also filed by B.Subramanyam. He has also submitted attested copy of registered will deed executed by

B.Sathyamma in favour of B.Subramanyam. He submitted Indemnity Bond also.

390.Basing on the documents submitted by B.Subramanyam the property was mutated in the name of B.Subramanyam. The mutation proceedings

No.9584/TC3/MCH/02 dated 04.10.2002 was also there showing that the property was mutated in the name of B.Subramanyam. He attested on the above said documents and its bears the seal of MCH. As per extract of Assessment

Register the house was mutated in the name of Subramanyam from the name of

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 184 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Nagabhushanam Naidu. As per record since 2002 the house stands on the name of B.Subramanyam.

391.There is another registered sale deed of Sathyamma purchased from

Badrunissa Begum on 14.05.1985, the Door No.1-9-9 the extent is of 23 Sq.

yards, as per the sale deed of Parvathi and Sathyamma, said Sathyamma purchased 75 Sq. yards of land in D.No.1-9-9.

392.PW37 stated that he never dealt with any transactions or mutations relating to H.No.1-9-9, Zamisthanpur, Ramnagar. He further stated the mutation in the municipal record will not confer any title to the person in whose favour the mutation proceeds were issued. He admitted on the documents he did not mention that he compared the documents with originals and attested on the documents. The originals of Ex.P539 period is not pertaining to his tenure of employment as Deputy Commissioner. He cannot say the total extent of H.No.1- 9-9, Zamisthanpur, Ramnagar.

393.He admits there is no link document to prove how N.Parvathi acquired it from the first owner P.G.Nagabhushanam Naidu. He admits unless N.Parvathi has title over the property, there is no flow of title in favour of the person in whose favour the mutation was done. He has no personal knowledge with regard to the contents of Ex.P539. The sale deed available under Ex.P539 are not either originals or certified copy issued by Sub Registrar. The name of the locality as

Zamisthanpur is not shown in the Municipal record of Ex.P539. He admits

PW36/B.Pushpalatha has nothing to do with the documents under Ex.P539.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 185 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

394.The defence contention is that the property purchased by B.Sathyamma belongs to government and it is in slum area, to get the registration the house no.1-9-9 is mentioned falsely, and PW36 is not competent person to depose regarding the property mentioned Ex.P539. The defence contended the property extent 1854 Sq in door no. 1-9-9 situated at Jamisthanpoor Ramnagar is originally belongs to P.G.Nagabushanam Naidu. The perusal of document Ex.P540 shows as per municipal record the name of P.G.Naghabhushanam Naidu was mentioned. Thereafter as per the municipal record the name of B.Subramanyam was mutated for municipal premises number 1-9-9 situated at Ramnagar. As per the assessment record the property stands in the name of one

P.G.Nagabhushanam Naidu. Further the sale deeds executed by Parvathi and

Badrunissa Begum also filed. Which shows the sale deeds are executed in favour of Satyamma. Further the will deed was filed. However the prosecution has not filed any link documents of said Parvathi and Badrunissa Begum. When as per records the property is in the name of Naghabhushanam Naidu, without establishing the relationship of vendors of Satyamma with said

Naghabhushanam, the name of Subramanyam was mutated for the property of said Naghanbushanam. The defence contention is that the properties purchased by Subramanyam are in the slum area and the land belongs to Government so that for getting Registered sale deed, they have mentioned H.NO.1-99, in fact there is no such house number relating to the vendors of said Satyamma.

395. On the other hand the prosecution contended P.G.Naghabhushanam Naidu died long back but death certificate of Naghabhushanam is not filed. As per

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 186 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Ex.P566 the property is in the name of P.G.Naghabhushanam Naidu. The permission was obtained by P.G.Naghabhushanam Naidu for construction of house. The notice of demand issued by MCH under Ex.P567 shows H.No.1-9-9 stands on the name of P.G.Naghabhushanam Naidu. The prosecution is taking two stands at one side they are stating the property belongs to Subramayam in view of will deed executed by Satyamma. On the other hand they themselves have filed documents showing that the H.No.1-9-9 stands on the name of

P.G.Naghabhushanam Naidu. As per Ex.P569 the extent is 1854 Sq. Yards, the

PW35 mother of Subramanyam has claimed only a small extent of land extent of 23 Sq. Yards and 75 Sq.Yards. The prosecution has not produced any documents relating to the remaining extent. Basing on the sale deeds of small extent out of 1854 Sq. Yards, the prosecution can not deny the rights of P.G.Naghabhushanam

Naidu over the said property. There is no document to show that said

P.G.Naghabhushanam Naidu died long back. The death certificate issued by

Municipality was also not filed. Therefore, it can not be stated that the documents are fabricated documents.

396.The prosecution examined PW54/Srinivas, he was Sarpanch of Bacharam

Village, Gram Panchayath of Ranga Reddy District in the year 2006.

397. L.D.No.670 contains his signatures on 4 sheets in the column of witness belongs to him. The signatures and the stamp on the 4 sheets belongs to him.

At present he is not able to re collect when he put those signatures on the papers. L.D.No.671 contains the signatures on 4 sheets in the column of witness. The signatures and the stamp on the 4 sheets belongs to him. At

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 187 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 present he is not able to re collect when he put those signatures on the papers.

398. One Damodar Reddy worked as Panchayath Secretary while he was working as Sarpanch. The signatures on the LD.No.671 appears to be similar to the signatures of Damodar Reddy. The signatures of Inspector also appearing on

LD.Nos.670 and 671. The PW54 has not supported the prosecution case so his evidence is not useful to the prosecution.

399.PW62/Anji Reddy, stated before the court that he has purchased one plot to the extent of 200 Square Yards at Ramnagar, Hyderabad in the year 1979 for consideration of Rs.8000/-. He constructed the house in the said plot to the extent of three floors from the year 1979 to 1982 by obtaining housing loan from the department. The prosecution has examined PW62 to prove that the house property of PW62 was shown in the sale deeds offered as security. The PW62 has stated that the CBI officials have enquired with him about one Naidu, then he informed them he is not aware of said Naidu. They have confronted some documents, on that PW62 informed he is not aware of said documents. The

PW62 never stated that his house is constructed in Sy.No.113, Zamistanpur.

400.In the cross examination, PW62 stated that he do not know the total extent of land in Sy.No.113 of Zamistanpur. He do not know how many plots are there in Sy.No.113 and how many owners are there in the said survey number and who they are. He do not know the Municipal Numbers allotted to plots in

Sy.No.113 at Zamistanpur. He do not know Urdu language. He cannot say whether Ex.P540 along with EC annexed to Ex.P540 is shown to him during his examination by CBI. He never purchased 3 Guntas 87 Yards of land. He admits

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 188 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 the EC under Ex.P569 is not pertaining to his property. He admits 3 Guntas 87

Yards of land is not equivalent to 200 Square Yards.

401.The evidence of PW62 is not useful to the prosecution. He has not stated that the documents are created in respect of his property and mortgaged to the bank. Therefore the prosecution failed to prove that the properties offered as a security to the loan amounts of A1 to A3 are not in existing and the documents are forged and fabricated. Further the allegation is made against A10 that he has issued valuation certificates for inflated value. The prosecution relied upon the valuation certificates issued by Zahoor Ahmed and contended that A10 colluded with the remaining accused and fabricated the valuation certificates.

However, the prosecution has not examined said Zahoor Ahmed. Therefore there is no evidence before the court to show that how said Zahoor Ahmed arrived to the amount i.e. value of the property mentioned in valuation certificates issued by him. The prosecution has to scientifically prove the value of the property.

402.PW57/IO admitted that there are valuation reports from the Panel valuer/A10 of OBC. Ex. P-541/D-32(4 Sheet) is Valuation Report of M/s. Servel

Associates, dated 17.01.1996 pertaining to the property of Mr. P.G.

Nagabushanam Naidu. As per P541, the valuation of property is an extent of 1854 sq. yards of Nagabushanam Naidu. P541 Valuation is calculated at

Rs3200/- per sq. yard cost of Rs.59,32,500/-. As per P541 the building therein valued at Rs. 200 per Sq. feet of ground floor 13000 sft and at the rate of Rs.150 per sft in 1st floor of 12,800 sft totaling valued at Rs.22,60,000/- Thus the land and building cost valued at Rs.81,90,000/-. The prosecution relied upon the

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 189 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 valuation reports issued by Zahoor Ahmed and contended the valuation reports issued A10 are false and fabricated with the collusion of other accused and caused pecuniary loss to the bank. So the evidence of Zahoor Ahmed is very crucial but prosecution has not examined him. The 161 statement of Zahoor

Ahmed is available, the defence has asked several questions by relying upon 161 statement of Zahoor Ahmed.

403. PW57 admitted he has recorded 161 Cr.P.C. statement of LW39 Mr.

Zahoor Ahmed on 23.03.2005. LW39 stated that “In the case of OBC, Ameerpet

Branch, Hyderabad on the request of Branch Manager Sri. Rakesh Sharma/PW21,

I started doing the Valuation since 2002. Even though I am not in the panel of the Oriental Bank of Commerce.” It indicates said Zahoor Ahmed has not approved panel valuer. Even though his services were utilized by the bank.

404. PW57 has not enquired the Bank officials as to how a non-panel valuer valued the properties against the norms of the OBC bank and against RBI guidelines of panel valuers. LW39 stated regarding the lands at Pedda Toopra village is well located, developed. PW57 admits as per his statement, LW39 assessed the value of the property relying on enquires made with local brokers.

So there is legal sanctity to the assessment of property by LW39.

405. The LW39 has not stated the standard methods for valuation of the properties followed by him for assessing the values. PW57 stated he is not a technical person to say about the standard methods followed by the valuer are stated or not. The PW57 has not compared the valuation certificates issued by

A10 and LW39, he has not come to the conclusion the reports of A10 or LW39

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 190 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 are correct or not, without verification he filed charge sheet against A10 by stating that he has issued false valuation certificates. Even PW57 is not aware whether LW39 had followed the standard methods of valuation or not for assessing the values of the property.

406. PW57 admits Mr. Zahoor Ahmed/LW39 has stated in 161 as that “My attention about Valuation Certificates in 5 numbers all dated 19.03.2002 related to land bearing various survey numbers located at Pedda Toopra Village,

Shamshabad Mandal, R.R. District for the purpose of my identification. I can not say whether I have not collected the alleged valuation reports in 5 numbers

dated 19.03.2002”. LW37 was not able to say whether he collected valuation

reports or not. So this court can not rely upon the valuation certificates issued by LW37.

Said Mr. Zahoor Ahmed had submitted two reports i.e., P606/LD 123 &

P1009/D644. Of which P606 is Inspection Report of LW39 dated 29-12-2004 and

P1009 is Valuation Bill dated 4-1-2005 along with valuation report. In Ex.P1009 the report does not disclose about the property situated at H.No.1-9-9,

Ramnagar Zamisthanpur belonged to P.G.Nagabushanam Naidu. Admittedly

Ex.P606/LD123, shows that the valuer visited the Zamisthanpur to locate the above mentioned property, but was unable to locate the same. On making adequate enquires with local people more particularly with one Mr.Mohammed

Ali, lecturer Govt. College, he come to a conclusion that the property by H.No.1- 9-9, Plot No.32, Zamisthanpur, Ramnagar never existed during any time in the past. He has not examined the said Mr. Mohammed Ali, the alleged Lecturer,

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 191 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Govt. College. The reasons asigned by said Zahoor Ahmed to come to the conclusion that the property is not in existing, is not convincing one.

407.PW57 has not enquired the bank officials that such serious allegations have been made by Mr. Zahoor Ahmed/LW39, a non-panel valuer against the properties valued by a panel valuer of the Bank, as to whether the Bank proposed to send any third valuer to examine the properties valued by Zahoor

Ahmed/LW39. Further as per Ex.P606/LD123 in declaration column 8, LW39 mentioned that the value estimated is valid only as on 29-12-2004. The

PW57 has examined PW62/LW40. He do not remember whether he has obtained any document from him to show that he was the owner of the land in

Sy. No.113, Zamisthanpur, Ramnagar. No document is marked to show that

PW62 was the owner of any plot or land Sy.No.113, Zamisthanpur, Ramnagar.

Therefore without proper investigation A10 was implicated in this case. Further the allegations are made that the properties offered as security to the bank are not in existing in the name of original owners. There is no proper evidence produced to connect accused NO.10 with the alleged offences. So he is entitled to the benefit of doubt.

The Allegations Against A5 To A7:-

408.The perusal of record shows the charge sheet is filed against A1 to A3, A9,

A5 to A7. A5 to A7 are firms. A1 to A3 are representatives of A5 to A7. However, after filing the charge sheet A1 to A3 have approached the Honorable High Court for quash of proceedings. The Hon’ble High Court has quashed the proceedings, the observations of Hon’ble High Court is that the entire case involved default in

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 192 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 repayment of debt to the bank and even before filing of charge sheet, the liability to make good the monitory loss suffered by the defacto complainant bank has been mutually settled between the parties even though trial is commenced but the material witnesses did not support the prosecution case and more time will be consumed to conclude the trial which is of no use that results in waste of time of the court and public money, so the continuation of proceedings would be an abuse of process of law, so the proceedings are quashed against the A1 to A3 and A9.

409.The Hon’ble High Court has quashed the proceedings against A1 to A3 and

A9 on the ground that the loan amount was paid by A1 to A3. A5 to A7 are firms, the defence contention is that when the proceedings against A1 to A3 are quashed, the firms cannot be prosecuted for the offences. It is to be noted that from the evidence, it is clear that the prosecution failed to prove that at the instance of A1 to A3 to facilitate credit facility and cheque discounting to A5 to

A7, the fake firms were floated. Further, it is not proved that A5 to A7 have given security knowing that the documents are forged and fabricated. The prosecution failed to prove that the so called properties are not in existing and they are not original owners. Moreover, the documents are not proved to be forged one.

Therefore, A5 is not liable.

THE EVIDENCE OF EXPERT:-

410.Pw57/Balasamy finger print and handwriting expert shows their office has received certain questioned documents which containing questioned writings and signatures marked as Q1 to Q83, Q85 to Q2793, Q21/1,Q28/1, Q32/1, Q38/1,

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 193 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Q47/1, Q363/1, Q385/1, Q387/1, Q390/1, Q391/1, Q443/1, Q443/2, Q443/3,

Q445/1, Q447/1, Q449/1, Q456/1, Q458/1, Q460/1, Q462/1, Q464/1, Q524/1,

Q524/2, Q590/1, Q592/1, Q623/1, Q625/1, Q652/1, Q653/1, Q689/20,Q697/1 to

Q697/4, Q831/1, Q862/1 to Q862/4, Q891/1, Q979/1, Q1015/1, Q1040/1,

Q1085/1, Q1123/1, Q1151/1, Q1151/2, Q1189/1 to Q1189/3, Q1225/1, Q1425/1,

Q1472/1, Q2174/1 to Q2174/3, Q2483/1, Q2588/1 and Q2588/2.

411 The specimen signatures/writings of Sri.S. Chandra Prakash marked as S1 to S137. The specimen signatures/writings of Sri.S. Ritesh Agarwal marked as S138 to S228. Thespecimensignatures/writingsof

Sri.Munnalal Agarwal marked as S229 to S238 and his admitted writings marked as A1 to A6. The specimen signatures/writings of Sri.S. Chandra

Shekaran marked as S239 to S244. The specimen signatures/writings of

Sri.Jagadish Prakash Bangad marked as S245 to S249. The specimen signatures/writings of Smt.Sashi Agarwal marked as S250 to S253 and their admitted hand writings marked as A10 to A12.

412 The specimen signatures/writings of Sri.Amit Agarwal marked as

S254 to S257. The specimen signatures/writings of Sri.M.Padmakar Rao marked as S258 to S263. The specimen signatures/writings of

Sri.M.Anjaiah marked as S264 to S273. The specimen signatures/writings of Sri.A.Narasingarao marked as S274 to S283. The specimen signatures/writings of Sri.B.Mallesh marked as S284 to S293. The specimen signatures/writings of Sri.Jitender Mohan marked as S294 to

S299.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 194 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 413The specimen signatures/writings of Sri.BS. Bagga marked as S300 to S305. The specimen signatures/writings of Sri.Rakesh Malhotra marked as S306 to S313. The specimen signatures/writings of

Sri.M.Sundareswaran marked as S314 to S325 and his admitted writings marked as A7 to A9.

414He has examined the above said disputed handwritings/signatures with the corresponding specimen and admitted hand writings/ signatures by using the hand writing examination principle. Ex.P797(L.D.No. 206) ( 3 sheets) is his final opinion.

415As per the expert opinion the person who wrote the blue enclosed signatures stamed and marked S239 to S244 also wrote the red enclosed signatures similarly stamped and marked Q324 to Q327, Q332 to Q336,

Q396 to Q409, Q421 to Q435, Q465 to Q469 and Q492 to Q504.

416The persons who wrote the blue enclosed signatures stamped and marked S258 tp S263 also wrote the red enclosed signatures similarly stamped and marked Q337 to Q339.

417The Persons who wrote the blue enclosed signatures stamped and marked S306 to S313 also wrote the red enclosed signatures similarly stamped and marked Q347, Q385/1, Q387/1, Q390/1, A391/1, Q439/1,

Q443/1, Q445/1, Q447/1, Q449/1, Q456/1, Q458/1, A460/1, Q462/1 and

Q464/1.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 195 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 418The persons who wrote the blue enclosed signatures stamped and marked S245 to S249 also wrote the rend enclosed signatures similarly stamped and marked Q109, Q111 and Q114.

419The person who wrote the blue enclosed signatures stamped and marked S300 to S305 also wrote the red enclosed signatures similarly stamped and marked Q366, Q371, Q377, Q418, Q491, Q505 and Q2793.

420The persual of above opinion shows that the specimen signatures/writings of Sri.S. Chandra Prakash, Sri.S. Ritesh Agarwal,

Sri.Munnalal Agarwal S. Chandra Shekaran, Sri.Jagadish Prakash Bangad,

Smt.Sashi Agarwal, Sri.Amit Agarwal, M.Padmakar Rao, M.Anjaiah,

A.Narasingarao, B.Mallesh, Jitender Mohan, Sri.BS. Bagga marked, Rakesh

Malhotra, M.Sundareswaran.

421Though the Investigating Officer stated he has collected the specimen signatures of above said persons. No independent witnesses were examined to prove that their specimen siganatures were obtained in their presence. Further the above said persons excluding the accused were examined in the court but no witness stated their specimen signatures were obtained. Therefore, there is no evidence before the court to show that the specimen signatures were obtained by the Investigating

Officer. The IO has already admitted he has not filed any application under

Sec.311 Cr.PC, so the specimen signatures are not obtained before the court. The law permits the Investigating Officer to collect the speciment

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 196 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 signatures but the collection of specimen signatures to be proved. The prosecution failed to prove that the speciment signatures were obtained in the presence of independent witnesses. Therefore there is no legal validity to the evidence of expert.

THE EVIDENCE OF INVESTIGATING OFFICERS:-

422.PW65/Ramdas, Inspector of CBI stated that this case vide RC.No.2/2003 was registered by Superintendent of Police by name Sri.S.Jaganathan on 12.05.2003. On the same day the case was endorsed to him for investigation.

423. During the investigation he has collected the documents Ex.P513,

Ex.P771, Ex.P7, Ex.P511 from M/s.AP Mahesh Co-operative Urban Bank on 18.09.2003 and also collected Ex.P33, P35, P36(L.D.No.108), Ex.P2, P3, P21,

P22 and Ex.P9, P10, P25, P29, P30 from M/s.Agrasen Co-Operative Urban Bank

Limited on 17.09.2003. ExP818 to ExP823 are letter of credits collected by him.

He also collected the documents from OBC, Ameerpet Branch on 11.10.2003.

424.He examined the witnesses Sri.V.Mallesh/PW6 on 13.10.2003,

Sri.Balaiah/PW2 on 13.10.2003, Sri.Anjaiah/PW3 on 15.10.2003, Sri.Narasinga

Rao/PW4 on 15.10.2003, KSN.Raju/PW1 on 17.10.2003 and Sri.Mukund

Das/PW5 on 16.10.2003 and recorded their statements. He has also collected specimen signatures of different persons.

425.In the cross examination, PW65 stated that the complaint based on which the FIR was registered, was written on the letter pad of OBC Bank. In the complaint the name of complainant and his designation was not mentioned. He

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 197 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 has not examine the complainant. He admits that the complaint in this case is with regard to irregularities in the accounts named mentioned therein.

426.He admits he did not find out as to what was the amount disbursed by

OBC to A5 to A7 and what was the amount repaid by A5 to A7 to OBC. The loan ledger will disclose whether there was any amount outstanding from the borrowers named in the complaint. He admits he did not filed any application under Sec.311A Cr.PC to obtain the specimen signatures or handwriting’s of any accused or witnesses. He denied the suggestion that he did not collect the specimen signatures and writings of Chandra Prakash vide S1 to S6, S7 to S76 respectively which is already marked as Ex.P808.

427.In the further cross-examination, PW65 has stated that he did not give any markings in ‘s’ series on Ex.P808 to P810 and P814 to P816. The evidence of

PW65 is relevant to the aspect that he has examined the witnesses and collected the above said documents and collected specimen signatures. However, he has not filed any petition under Section 311A Cr.P.C., to obtain specimen signatures.

428.Further as per the contents of complaint, the complaint was given against the private persons stating that in connivance with branch manager, the fraud was committed. He has not received any enquiry reports. His investigation is only primary investigation.

429.PW58/S. Vijay Kumar, Dy.Superintendent of Police, CBI, stated that during hisinvestigationheexaminedLW7/PW8/YogeshAgarwaland

LW8/PW7/S.Srinivas on 22.04.2004. PW9/Mukesh Kumar Gupta and

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 198 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

PW11/Sakuntala on 22.04.2004, PW12/GSN.Murthy and PW13/Bhupendra Lal,

LW12/K.Laxmi on 24.04.2004 and he examined LW15/G.Shiva Kumar on 26.05.2004.

430. During his investigation he collected Ex.P.42 on 22.04.2004. Ex.P508 to

Ex.P514 and L.D.No.399. He also collected original credit slips relating to current account numbers 1300, 1301, 1302, 1303 and 1304 from Agresen Co-

Operative Urban Bank Limited on 22.04.2004. Thereafter, he handed over investigation of this case to Sri.P.M.Satish, Inspector on 05.08.2004 as per the orders of SP.

431.In the cross examination, PW58 stated that he is not aware what was the amount advanced by OBC to the borrowers in this case and what was the amount repaid by the borrowers to OBC. He did not examine any of the account holders who are connected with Ex.P509 to P514 i.e., M/s.Universal Trading

Company, M/s.Chowdary Steels, M/s. Maheswari Steel Corporation, M/s.Bhumika

Steels etc., He admits that PW8/Yogesh Agarwal did not speak anything about

Exs.P49 to P506 i.e., Credit Vouchers, Cheqeus relating to different dates, cheques collection registers bunch of true copies of vouchers/cheques for different months in his statement recorded by him.

432.The evidence of PW58 shows that he has not examined any of the persons relating to alleged fake firms. Further, he has not verified during his investigation whether the accounts became NPA or not. In fact, one year prior to the filing of charge sheet, the total amount was paid by A5 to A7. The witness has not

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 199 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 examined any of the witnesses to know whether the accounts are irregular or not.

433.PW66/N. Ravi Kumar, Inspector of Police, CBI, shows that during his investigation, he recorded the statements of PW48, PW68, PW51, PW44 etc. He visited UTI Bank and recorded the statement of PW64 also. Further, he recorded the statement of one LW72 and he received the documents from Chief Manger,

Ameerpet Branch. The PW66 has stated that his investigation was in conclusive when he handed over the investigation to his successor. The PW66 stated that

B.Murali/PW44 was asked to produce the documents relating to M/s.Sujana

Steels, but he has not produced by stating that the documents are not available.

He has personally collected 5 pay orders from PW48. He has not examined the signatories of Ex.P76 to P774. He has not examined any person from M/s.Sujana

Industries. He did not collect any documents from PW64 pertaining to UTI Bank.

He finally stated that he is not aware of the transactions of OBC, Ameerpet

Branch. This court has already discussed the evidence of witnesses, who are examined by the PW66 herein. The PW66 has not done the total investigation.

The prosecution has examined PW68/Joy T.V, who has done further investigation.

434.The evidence of PW68/Joy T.V. Shows that he has received expert opinion from GEQD, Hyderabad. He has recorded the statement of PW38 and

LW59/Mr.P.Gopi, PW44/Murali, PW45/Krishna Chowdary, LW63/Radha Krishna,

PW64/T.Srinivas, PW46/N.V.Ramana Murthy, K.Bhaskar, LW63/G. Radhakrishna,

PW29/Uma Shiva Kumar, PW8/Yogesh Agarwal, LW74/Shiva Shankar Agarwal,

PW52/G.Madhusudan, PW53/Khurana. After completion of investigation he has

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 200 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 filed charge sheet. He has submitted a supplementary report also on 18.09.2007.

435.In the cross-examination, PW68 stated that A8 worked as Regional

Manager, OBC in Chennai Regional Office. The limits were sanctioned by the predecessor of A8 and they were continued later. Then a specific question is asked whether A8 has sanctioned fresh limits. PW68 stated that he has sanctioned, on what basis he stated A8 has sanctioned fresh limits, on that he said according to him, the continuation of limits is also sanctioning fresh limits. It indicates that no fresh limits were sanctioned by A8. Before the period of A8, the limits were sanctioned, but A8 has continued it. But the charge sheet is filed in the lines that A8 has sanctioned the fresh limits.

436.Further, he stated that while scrutinizing the documents, he has taken assistance of bank officer to know the merits of documents. He has not collected all the documents. He has not taken any assistance of any surveyor to know the method of survey and authentication of non-panel surveyors bank. He admitted that LW63/G. Radha Krishna, Vice President of State Bank of Martious stated that there was no reason for their bank to doubt about the authenticity of bill of exchange submitted in the name of M/s.RINL along with LC documents. The record shows that all the Lcs submitted by M/s.RINL was cleared by Bank of

Martious. There is no dispute with regard to the Lcs cleared by the State Bank of

Maritious. Further, PW68 has stated that he has made allegations of cheque purchasing, but the cheque purchases were being reported by the bank to the

Regional Office. M/s.Shakti Steels has applied for Rs.50 lakhs cash credit and it was within the reach of branch or within the sanction limit of Regional Office. The

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 201 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 evidence of PW68 strengths the version of defence that the cheque purchases were done with the approval of Regional Office, when the credit limit is exceeding, it was sanctioned by the Regional Office.

437.The allegation is made that though P.G.Nagabhushanam Naidu died but the documents are fabricated in the name of P.G.Nagabhushanam Naidu. The

PW68 is not able to say whether he obtained any death certificate of

P.G.Nagabhushanam Naidu. He is not able to say the witness who informed about the death of P.G.Nagabhushanam Naidu. Further, he is not able to say whether he has filed any document to know what was the extent of land of

P.G.Nagabhushanam Naidu offered as collateral security. He is not able to say whether he collected the document from Subramanyam. This court has already discussed about the title dispute of P.G.Nagabushanam Naidu. The investigating officer has collected the documents to show that P.G.Nagabhushanam Naidu was the owner of the property for the large extent of 1800 sq. yards and odd.

Further, B.V.Subramanyam was not examined, the link documents of vendor of donor of B.V.Subramanyam was not collected. Both documents are filed and there is no clarity who was the original owner moreover Subramanyam claimed a small extent of 120 squre yards, but P.G.Nagabhushanam was having 1800 square yards, so the security given by P.G.Nagabushanam cannot be suspected in the absence of proof of clear flow of title to Mr.Subramanyam. Non examination of B.V.Subramanayam is also fatal to the prosecution case. PW68 admitted that as per Ex.P538 letter of deposit of title deed signed by

P.G.Nagabhushanam Naidu and as per printed proforma he was called to office

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 202 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 on 18.07.1996. Further, Ex.P539 is the extracts of property documents of

P.G.Nagabhushanam Naidu. Ex.P540 translation copy of sale deed shows that

P.G.Nagabhushanam Naidu was the owner of the property. He has verified the legal opinion given by Mr. Padmakar Rao also. Therefore, the evidence of PW68 shows that the property offered as collateral security is not fabricated documents.

438.The prosecution alleged that there is difference in the valuation of property but PW68 admitted that over a period of time, the values will be increased.

Further, the property which was offered as collateral security to the bank must be valued by panel valuer only, but no officer of bank values the property. In the instant case, the instructions were given to one Azaruddhin to value the property and he was also not examined. Therefore, the valuation report submitted by the valuer cannot be suspected.

439.Further, PW68 admitted that he has mentioned about the alleged bogus companies opened in the account in the name of M/s.Ruby Traders,

M/s.Maheswari Steels Corporations, M/s.Chowdary steels etc. However, he has not added them as accused in the present case. He has not collected any documents to show whether OBC, Ameerpet Branch has made any correspondence with the banks enquring the confidential reports of the accounts of alleged bogus companies. It clearly shows that though the prosecution alleged that they are bogus companies but no material is collected to prove that they are bogus companies and they have not shown as an accused. He has not gone through the ledger balances or any deposits of companies in OBC, Ameerpet

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 203 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Branch whose cheques were allegedly discounted by A4. He has gone through

STM-41 statements to know as to whether A4 informed the cheque discounting facility to its Regional Office by way of STM-41 statements. All the witnesses admitted that STM-41 statements were sent. Further, the statement shows that the cheques were discounted by A4 and in his absence, in charge officer discounted. However, the other officers are not made as an accused. He is not able to say whether there was any concurrent auditors report against A5 to A7 companies during the tenure of A4. As per his investigation, A11 carried out the pre-sanction and post sanction visits to the site of M/s. ACTPL. The PW68 stated that A11 has given false reports but the reports of bank officials also shows the cash credit limits were sanctioned/disbursed based on the stock position and the reports are satisfactory. Further, he is not able to say whether he has verified the status of LCS issued by A4 during his tenure as to whether any LC is pending or any alleged LCs were issued by the successor managers of A4 or not. The record shows that the no LCs are pending which were recommended during the tenure of A4 as on the date of his transfer. Further, he has not examined any other officials of M/s.RINL as to how they have received pay orders at the behest of

A6, if A6 had no dealings with M/s.RINL. He stated that he examined only PW43.

However, he has not given any evidence against the accused herein. The PW68 has not enquired with PW43 as to why they did not put up a note to their superior officers, when they received payments, there were no dealings with A6.

440.Further, PW66/N.Ravi Kumar recorded 161 statement of PW48/LW67

Mr.J.Ravindranath the then Manager, UTI Bank ltd., wherein PW48 deposed about

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 204 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 the pay order Nos. 001534/P778 dated 15.10.1999, 036023/P778, dated 16.12.1999, 037532/P778, dated 24.1.2000, 035985, dated 3.12.1999, 039073/P778, dated 13.3.2000, all are favouring Bank of Baroda account of

M/s.Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. PW48 further deposed that these pay orders were issued after discounting LCs established by OBC, Ameerpet Branch, favouring

M/s.Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd.

441.The beneficiary of these Pay Orders discounted with LCs issued by OBC is

M/s.Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. PW48 further stated the pay orders mentioned in

Ex.P779 which were issued after discounting the LC opened by OBC, Ameerpet

Branch favouring M/s.Ruby Traders, M/s.Universal Trading Company,

M/s.Maheswari Steel Corporation. All the witnesses have admitted the issue of pay orders in favour of said firms. The prosecution without any proper material it was contended that A5 to A7 have floated the fake firms and A4 and A8 colluded with them. In fact, nobody lodged report against the accused herein with regard to the mortgaged properties and the so called alleged fraud. Further, the evidence of PW48 shows that A4 was transferred on 26.06.2001. He is not able to say whether as on the date of transfer of A4, whether there was any payment of Lcs are pending. Without proper enquiry A4 was implicated.

442.Further, he is not able to say what is the total amount collected by him to show what was the total amount disbursed by OBC to A5 to A7. He cannot say whether OBC, Ameerpet branch sustained any pecuniary loss on account of various loans disbursed by A5 to A7. He has not examined the person who said to have conducted in-depth enquiry by inspection and controlled department. He

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 205 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 has not filed the report of said inspection and controlled department. He admits that A5 to A7 is nothing to do with the bank rules and regulations with regard to sanctioning of loans. PW68 has not investigated whether all the cheques purchased/discounted by OBC from A5 to A7 are honoured on its presentation.

Without such investigation, he has filed charge sheet against the A5 to A7.

Further, OBC, Ameerpet did not put up any securities given as immovable property by A5 to A7.

443.The evidence of PW68 shows that though he stated that he has recorded the statements of witnesses and collected the documents but in the cross- examination there are so many admissions which shows that without proper investigation and without recording the statements of necessary persons, he came to conclusion that the accused persons have committed ofence and filed charge sheet. As per record, A4 has not sanctioned credit limits to A5 to A7, it was done by Regional Office. The statements are continuously sent to Regional

Office and after getting audit report only, the credit limits were sanctioned. When the accounts became NPA, the case was registered, without verifying that even

before filing the charge sheet, the A5 to A7 have paid the total loan amount.

There are no such serious irregularities on the side of A4 and A8 to attract the criminal charges. They have acted bonafidely and in good faith by discharging their duties.

444.The evidence of PW59/Satish, the then Inspector of Police, stated that he has done the total investigation, in the part of investigation, he has collected the statement of accounts, original vouchers relating to A1, A2, the companies like

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 206 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Bhumika Steels, Ruby Traders etc., He has taken specimen signatures and send it to GEQD for examination. He has examined and recorded the statement of

PW28, PW23, PW31, PW32, PW29, PW22, PW34, PW39, LW55/M.Jagadish

Prasad, PW15/Damodar Reddy, PW36/Pushpalatha, PW42/B. Srinivas Rao,

PW18/C.V. Rao. He collected the documents from the branch managers.

445.His evidence discloses that the accused colluded and conspired, in pursuance of conspiracy A1 to A3 offered the properties as collateral security and obtained credit facilities which are forged and fabricated documents. Further, the false valuation certificates are obtained. He collected the documents and recorded the statements of concerned persons. His investigation reveals that the accused persons have committed the offence.

446.In the cross-examination, PW59 admitted that A7 is not juristic person. In the charge sheet, no individual is named as representative of A7. Cash credit loans were given to A5 to A7. He admits that the cheque discounting resulting commission to the bank which discounts the cheque. The bank discounting the cheque will not discount its own cheque, it has to discount the cheque issued by another customer. He can not say whether the same bank can not discount its cheque even if it is issued by another customer. A5 to A7 are customers of OBC,

Ameerpet Branch. OBC Ameerpet Branch can not discount the cheques of A5 to

A7. He can not say whether OBC, Ameerpet Branch did not discount the cheques of A5 to A7. As a investigating officer, he is not able to say whether the branch has discounted the cheques of A5 to A7 or not. He admits by seeing the document Ex.P830 he can not say who is the proprietor of A7 and the name of

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 207 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 the person operating the said account.

447.He admits all the loans were given to A5 to A7 by OBC, Ameerpet Branch after taking proper security in the form of immovable property. The original title deeds will not be given back to borrowers unless the loan is repaid. It means the bank officials have given loans after taking sufficient security.

448.The PW59 admits that no witness stated that A1 and A2 have opened the accounts which are related to companies like M/s.Bhumika Steels, M/s.Choudary

Steels, Ruby Traders, Universal Trading Company and M/s.Maheshwari Steels in

M/s.AP Mahesh Co-Operative Bank, Secunderabad.

449.He admits in Ex.P542 the Panel Advocate/PW39 has given opinion that

Naghabushanam Naidu is having clear and marketable title to the property mentioned in the opinion and the said property can be given as security by creating equitable mortgage by deposit of to title deeds. So, the allegation that the title deeds are fabricated holds not good. Though PW59 has got marked several documents but in the cross-examination, he stated that he can not say the truth or otherwise of the contents of the documents referred by him as exhibits in his chief-examination.

450.Though, the prosecution alleged that A1 to A3 floated fake firms but PW59 stated that no witness has told him that A2 opened current accounts in the name of M/s.Universal Trading Company, M/s.Agrasen Co-Operative Bank Limited,

Hyderabad and facilities relating to M/s.Shakthi Steels Limited. Being the investigation officer, PW59 is not able to say whether PW53(Khurana) sanctioned

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 208 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Rs.90 lakhs Lcs for 3 months in favour of M/s.Aren Steel Limited because he has not examined. PW59 stated that he has recorded the statement of PW15/LW16 who stated that he had already sold the property to one Mr. Narasimha Reddy, a builder of Nagole. He has not collected the alleged sale deed allegedly executed by PW15 in favour of Mr. Narasimha Reddy. He cannot say whether the agreement of sale dated 18.01.1999 in between Mr. Krishna Reddy and others in favour of A1 was collected or not. He has not examined said Krishna Reddy,

Lakshi Narasimha Reddy and A. Prabhakar Reddy and also the alleged purchaser

MR. A.Narasimha Reddy. He has not enquired the genuineness of registered sale deed vide Ex.P791 and P792 with the Registrar vide document No.7241/1997 i.e., Ex.791 and 7242/1997 i.e., Ex.P792. Even he has not enquired about the genuineness of the pattadar passbook bearing No.653858 and also tax receipt pertaining to the said pattadar passbook which is part of Ex.P583. He is not able to say whether he has enquired about the genuineness of the document i.e., said alleged receipts for Rs.100, 891, 906 and 100, all are dated 01.04.1997 allegedly issued by Sub Registrar and Joint Registrar, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad favouring A. Krishna Reddy and Sri Prabhakar Reddy respectively. He cannot say whether he collected any Encumbrance Certificate with regard to Bandlaguda property and the EC 574/1997 allegedly applied by one P. Prasada Rao for the agricultural land under Sy.No.48 admeasuring AC01.15gts situated at

Bandlaguda, dated 17.03.1997. Without collecting said documents and without investigating the genuineness of it, the allegations are made that the documents are fake.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 209 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

451.Further, PW59 admitted that in Ex. P563, it was specifically mentioned at page 4 by A4, that they have obtained second valuation and also certificate from authorities of MRO office on the market value of the property in view of high value limits. Copies of the above are also enclosed for their kind perusal and ready reference. He has not enquired about the said 2nd valuation report and

Certificate of MRO office on market value of property as stated in P563. It shows that A4 has taken proper care while taking the collateral security.

452.PW59 admits Ex.D6/LD383 also contain the ‘Leave Particulars of

Sri.M.Sundareswaran during the period of 01-01-2000 to 28-06.2001 as per the

Attendance Register. In Ex.D-6/LD-383 there are two columns. One is Leave period another is Officer incharge of the Branch in the absence of

Sri.M.Sundareswaran. As per Ex.D6/LD-383, 4th, 5th, 12th, 21st and 25th of

January 2000 Sri.M Sundareswaran was on leave. For 4th, 5th, 12th and 25th of

January 2000 Mrs Uma Shiv Kumar, Manager/PW29 and on 21st January, 2000

Mr. C.V. Rao/PW18 were given Incharge of the Branch. As per Ex.D6/LD-383, 27th and 28th of March, 2000 Sri.M Sundareswaran was on leave and Mrs Uma Shiv

Kumar, Manager was given Incharge of the Branch. On 24th May, 2000 Sri.M

Sundareswaran was on leave and Mrs Uma Shiv Kumar, Manager was given

Incharge of the Branch. He admints on 7th and 31st of July, 2000

Sri.M.Sundareswaran was on Training and Mrs Uma Shiv Kumar, Manager was given Incharge of the Branch. As per Ex.D6/LD-383, on 1st August, 2000

Sri.M.Sundareswaran was on duty at RO Madras and on 23rd August 2000 on duty at Tirumala and Mrs Uma Shiv Kumar, Manager was given Incharge of the

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 210 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Branch. On 5th to 9th and 22nd of September, 2000 Sri.M.Sundareswaran was on

Training and Mrs. Uma Shiv Kumar, Manager was given Incharge of the Branch.

On 4th October, 2000 Sri.M.Sundareswaran was on Training CV.Rao Officer was incharge and 16th to 19th of October, 2000 he was on leave and Mrs Uma Shiv

Kumar, Manager was given Incharge of the Branch. As per Ex. D6/LD-383, 7th

November, 2000 Sri.M Sundareswaran was on Training and Mrs Uma Shiv Kumar,

Manager was given Incharge of the Branch. On 7th December, 2000 Sri.M

Sundareswaran was on duty at RO Chennai/Madras and Mrs Uma Shiv Kumar,

Manager was given Incharge of the Branch. As per Ex.D6/LD-383, from 15/12/2000 to 26/02/2001 Sri.M.Sundareswaran was on Leave and Except 27/01/2001 and 26/02/2001 Mrs Uma Shiv Kumar, Manager was given Incharge of the Branch. On 27/01/2001 Mrs. K.Sabitha, Officer and 26/02/2001 Mr.

N.Mohd Babu, Officer were given In-charge of the Branch. Mr. Sundareswaran was on leave from 15/12/2000 to 26/02/2001. As per Ex.D6/LD-383, on 27/02/2001 & 28/02/2001 Sri.M.Sudnareswaran was on duty at RO Chennai and on 27/02/2001 Mr.N.Mohd Babu, Officer & 28/02/2001 Mrs K.Sabitha, Officer were given Incharge of the Branch. He admits that on 15th, 16th, March, 2001

Sri.M.Sundareswaran was on duty, and on 31st of March, 2001 was on leave, and

Mrs Uma Shiv Kumar, Manager was given Incharge of the Branch. As per

Ex.D6/LD-383, on 21st April, 2001 Sri.M.Sundareswaran was on compensatory off and Sri N.Mohd Babu, Officer was given Incharge of the Branch. It is also true that on 16th & 17th May, 2001 Sri.M Sundareswaran was on leave and Mrs Uma

Shiv Kumar, Manager was given Incharge of the Branch. As per Ex.D6/LD-383,

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 211 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 from 01/06/2001 to 13/06/2001 (Sat) Sri.M Sundareswaran was on Training at

Bangalore and Mrs. Uma Shiv Kumar, Manager was given Incharge of the Branch.

As per Ex.D6/LD.383, at bottom lines that Sri.M Sundareswaran was relieved from the branch on 26th June, 2001. Mrs. Uma Shiv Kumar, Manager being

Senior Officer at the Branch relieved Sri. M.Sundareswaran.

453.The PW59 has admitted the leave period of A4. But PW59 has not enquire whether any cheque either discounted or high valued or other cheques pending due for clearance or not. The main crux of the case is that the allegations are made against A4 but there are so many cheques which were discounted during the leave period of A4, which was admitted by the incharge officers, PW29 to

PW31 in their evidence. The investigating officer, without proper enquiry, implicated the accused No.4 herein. Further, as per Ex.P830 there were no huge cash transactions during the tenure of A4 in the account of A7 but the allegations are made against him. Further, under Ex.P831 to P833 and 835 the pay orders were issued under the signatures of different officials. The PW29 also signed as second signatory. Further, the sanction of LC of Rs.90 Lakhs in the account of A6 company was addressed by PW29. Further, PW29 recommended under Ex.P647 in favour of M/s. Airan Steels and PW29 had recommended for adhoc LC limit of

Rs.90 lakhs under Ex.P647 in favour of M/s.Aren Steels Limited. She has submitted proposal for the renewal and enhancement of limits of LC from the existing Rs.150 lakhs to 240 lakhs to A6. But the allegations are made against

A4 and A8. Further, under Ex.P609 the AGM regional office sanctioned adhoc cc limits to ACTPL. Further, the cheques issued in favour of Maheswari Steels

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 212 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Company was cleared. Though, the cheques are cleared, the allegations are made against the A4 herein.

454.Further, PW59 admitted that the Lcs under Ex.P949 to P951 was issued during the PW29 tenure. Further as per Ex.P571 the A4 has given order stating no excess be allowed in any CC account. PW29 has signed on it. Even in the absence of A4, Ex.P632 was signed by PW29 and recommended that there was no outstanding against the adhoc LC facility. Further, PW29 mentioned in Ex.P632 that the borrower due to the improved order book position and improved sales in consonance with the targets, has requested for adhoc LC limit of Rs.90 lakhs for one more rotation to enable it to continue the positive trend in its turnover. We recommend that the request of the borrower may be acceded to.”

455.As per Ex. D9/LD295 which was addressed by PW29 to the GM Credit Adm

Dept. HO, New Delhi where she requested the HO to consider the sanction of

Cash Credit limit of Rs. 300 lakhs and bank guarantee facility of Rs. 50 lakhs variably.”

456.After transfer of A4 and as perEx.P866/LD302 during the tenure of PW29 as officiating branch manager of Ameerpet branch, the branch has recommended for the sanction of ILC (DA) limit of Rs. 150 lakhs for 90 days with margin of 25% to A5 Company.

457.As per Ex. D-10/LD No. 304, dated 25.08.2001, the then senior manager addressed a letter to the AGM, RO, Hyderabad recommending adhoc facility of

Rs. 60 lakhs for a period of one month to A5 company. There is no outstanding.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 213 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

As per D445 and P1001/D610 (both are same) dated 1-8-2001, after transfer of

A4 branch has recommended for the extension of ILC (DA) limit of Rs. 90 lakhs for a further period of 90 days. As per Ex.P889/D369 & P671/D370 consist of several Cheques issued from the account of A5 in favour of M/s.Maheswari Steel

Corporation and some of the Cheques out of total cheques were passed in the absence of A4 while he was on leave and also after his transfer from Ameerpet

Branch. It clearly shows that the above transactions was done by PW29 but the allegations are made agaisnt A4 herein.

458.Further as per Ex.P648/part of D-612 dt 18-12-2000, is the credit information report of M/s.Ruby Traders received from M/s.AP Mahesh Co- operative Urban Bank Ltd, Sec’bad was received by Sr.Manager, OBC, Ameerpet

Br., along with credit information report of M/s.Ruby Traders mentioned in it as ‘satisfactory’. Ex. P649/part of D-612 dt 1-2-2000, from M/s.AP Mahesh Co- operative Urban Bank Ltd, Sec’bad was received by Sr.Manager, OBC, Ameerpet

Br., along with letter dt.1-2-2000 of M/s.Maheswari Steel Corporation and Credit information report of M/s.Ruby Traders their banking transaction is from 06.01.2000 in the case of M/s.Universal Trading Company is from 10.01.2000 and in the case of M/s.Maheswari Steel Corporation since 21 months with the said bank. Ex. P507 is the letter of confidential report of Universal Trading

Company written by PW8, which was received to OBC, Ameerpet Br., after the transfer of A4 from the said Branch. LD 356 bearing LC No.277 dt.5.10.2001 was established by PW31/Sabitha Koneru and PW21/Rakesh Sarma which is subsequent to the transfer of A4. Ex.P945/LD 501 bearing LC No.228

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 214 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 dt.5.10.2001 was after transfer of A4 and Ex.P946/LD 502 bearing LC No.239 dt.28.02.2001 were established by PW31, PW29 and PW31 & A11 respectively during the period his duty to RO Chennai. The LCs under Ex. P937, 938, 939, 940 to 947/LD-493 to 502 i.e., LC Nos. 230, 231, 234,236, 237, 258, 227, 228, 239 were issued during the long period of A4 absence and while PW29 were the incumbent Branch manager, favouring Ruby traders. The LCs under P949, 950, 951/LD-506 to D-508, i.e., L.C. Nos. 269, 273, 274 were issued during the tenure of PW29, while she was incumbent Branch manager, of Ameerpet Branch of OBC, favoring Universal traders after A4 transferred from Ameerpet Branch of

OBC and even after transfer of A8.

459.Though the above documents establishes the transactions during the period of PW21, PW29, PW31 but PW59 did not make any enquiry as to whether the incumbent managers of OBC, Ameerpet Branch, have obtained confidential reports of the beneficiaries from the respective beneficiary banks or not.

460.Further, PW31 addressed Ex. P1001/D610 letter dt. 1.8.2001, to AGM, RO,

Hyd., after the transfer of A4, recommending for extension of existing ad-hoc ILC limit of Rs.90 lakhs in the a/c of A6 for a period of 90 days. The Branch has submitted STM-41 Reports by way of Doc. 340 & 355 to the Regional Office. It clearly indicates that there was no concealment from Regional Office and every transaction was reported to Regional Office.

461.Further, without any authorization, the valuation reports are obtained from

Zahoor Ahmed, who was not examined, he was not panel valuer also, so basing on his evidence, the accused cannot be connected.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 215 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

462.Further, Ex.P581/LD70 is Securities Inspection and Follow up Register for the period from 1996 to 2001 of M/s.Airan Comptrax Towers Private Limited and

M/s.Shakthi Steels. As per Ex. P581 the M/s.Airan Comptrax Towers Private

Limited was inspected by Sri.Satyanarayana, ARM of Regional Office in April 1998 & May 1998 for Pre-sanction visit. M/s.Airan Comptrax Towers Private Limited was also inspected on monthly visit from May, 1998 to January, 2001, by the officers, regular Inspectors, Mohd Babu and others stated the unit as satisfactory. The observations conduct of account, rectification of discrepancies and recoveries made etc., are satisfactory.

463.In the month of March, 2001 M/s.Airan Comptrax Towers Private Limited was visited by Mr.Jitender Mohan, Chief Manager, Regional Office/PW28 and In

May, 2001 Sri.I.R.Rao/PW34, Concurrent auditor of the bank has visited the site.

The observations conduct of account, rectification of discrepancies and recoveries made etc., are satisfactory.

464.As per Ex. P581, on 06.09.2001, Sri.Rakesh Sharma/PW21 visited

M/s.Airan Comptrax Towers Private Limited along with Sri.T.S.Bagga, Chief

Manager and reported therein that stock of raw material are available. Similarly as per Ex. P581 the unit M/s.Shakti Steels was inspected and visited by the bank staff on monthly wise inspection from July 1996 to May 2001 along with Charted accountants, auditors, Sri.Rakesh Malhotra, Chief Manager, Regional Office, Sri.

V.N.Rajan, ARM, Regional Office, Sri.R.Upendra from Regional Office and

Sri.B.P.Goel and all these inspections show that the unit of M/s.Shakti Steels is satisfactory. The observations conduct of account, rectification of discrepancies

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 216 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 and recoveries made etc., are satisfactory. One B.Srinivas Rao also inspected the

M/s.Shakti Steels and stated that all the stocks are not stored in the godown, some of the stock is said to be with a job workers and no lien to be obtained.

Ex.P1017/LD652 is details of LC No.262 dated 06.06.2001 which was devolved on 10.07.2001 in the account of M/s.Aren Steels Limited (CA NO.3923) along with the respective statement of account and original account opening form of

M/s.Airan Comptrax Towers Private Limited account No.1289. On 06.06.2001 the

A4 was in training at Bangalore and on 10.07.2001 he was already transferred from there. As per Ex. P1017 the list of LCs of which LC No.262 was dated 06- 06-2001 which was devolved dated 15.09.2001. On both dates the accused No.4 was not available. The above evidence of PW59 indicates that A5 to A7 are working and the reports are obtained from time to time, as per reports, the working condition of units are satisfactory.

465.Further, PW59 stated during A4 was in training at Bangalore. LC No. 269,

dated 23-07-2001, LC No. 273, dated 16-08-2001, LC No. 274, dated 21-08-

2001, LC No. 276, dated 28-09-2001, were devolved date 15.11.2001 after the transfer of Sundareswaran/A4 from Ameerpet Branch. L.C.No.274 dated 21.08.

2001 devolved date is 19.11.2001. L.C.No.276 dated 27.12. 2001 devolved date is 27.12.2001. All these dates are pertaining to after transfer of accused. LC 265

dated 19-06-2001 and all other LCs mentioned in Ex. P1017 were devolved date

17.09.2001, by the date A4 was already transferred from Ameerpet Branch.

Though, the above Lcs are not pertaining to the period of A4 but the A4 was blamed and the evidence of PW59 shows that during his absence, those Lcs were

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 217 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 entertained.

466.Further, as per P547/LD-19 is a Xerox copy of Strictly Private &

Confidential letter dated 30.1.96 Issued by Bharath Overseas Bank Ltd, regarding M/s. Shakti Steels account maintained at their bank addressed to the

Branch Manager, OBC, Nampally, Hyderabad. and enclosing, xerox copy of Credit

Information Report of Bharat Overseas Bank Ltd, regarding M/s.Shakti Steels account as satisfactory. The witness adds the general conduct was reported as satisfactory. No adverse report is there. The PW59 has admitted the same, therefore, the units are not fake firms as alleged by the prosecution. While sanctioning the loans, A4 and even his successors also obtained the satisfactory report from time to time.

467.Further, as per Ex. P648/LD-612 is Original letter No: AUB/BM/199/2001- 2002 dated 06-12-2001 addressed by Branch Manager of The M/s.Agrasen Co- operative Urban Bank Limited, Hyderabad, addressed to Senior Manager, OBC,

Ameerpet, Hyderabad. Wherein it was informed as “In reference to your letter referred above as requested by you we are forwarding Confidential report of

M/s.Universal Trading Company. In the confidential report it was informed that the account is satisfactory. Therefore, it is not a fake firm.

468. A10 has issued valuation certificate. Therefore, the case is filed against him stating that he has issued inflated valuation certificate. In the cross examination, PW59 stated that he do not remember whether he has personally visited the property bearing H.No.1-9-9, Zamistanpur, Ramnagar. He admits the market value of the property is always changes, varies and flexible from time to

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 218 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 time. The bank officer has obtained valuation certificate from Zahoor Ahmed and stated that A10 has issued false certificate but said Zahoor Ahmed was not examined and he is not panel valuer. Therefore, the valuation certificate issued by A10 cannot be suspected.

469.The evidence of PW59 shows that though he made several allegations against the accused but it proved that during the period of A4, the accounts have not become NPA, further after getting security only, he recommended sanction of credit facility to A5 to A7. He obtained reports from time to time. He has taken all precautions. Though, he is not concerned with several LCs but he made liable.

It clearly proved that A4 and A8 have not committed any irregularities as alleged by the prosecution.

470.In the light of above discussion it is clear that A5 to A7 are firms, they are no way concerned with bank rules and regulations. They have given applications for sanction of loans as per their requirements. The bank after following the procedure has sanctioned the loans. From the record it appears that the loan accounts became irregular for some period. Therefore, in order to pressurize the

A1 to A3 to pay the loan amount, the present case is filed. In fact one year prior to the filing of charge sheet the total amount was paid. The Investigating Officer has not verified it and filed charge sheet against all the accused. Though they alleged A10 has given valuation reports for inflated value with the collusion but they have not examined the crucial witness Zahoor Ahmed basing on whose valuation certificates, the Investigating Officer suspected the accused NO.10.

Due to non examination of said Zahoor Ahmed there is no proper material before

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 219 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 the court to say that on what basis he issued the valuation certificate for the amount less than the amount mentioned by A10. There is no opportunity to defence to cross examine said Zahoor Ahmed in this aspect, so the prosecution failed to prove the charges against A10. Further there is no proper evidence against A4 and A8 to show that they have conspired with A1 to A3. From the record it is clear that after following the procedure only they have proceeded with the credit facilities of A1 toA3. Therefore, A4 and A8 have also not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. They are entitled to benefit of doubt.

471.In the result, A4 is found not guilty for the offences under Sections, 120B, 420, 471 of IPC and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention Corruption

Act, 1988 and he is acquitted for the said offences under Section 248(1) of

Cr.P.C.

A8 is found not guilty for the offences under Sections, 120B, 420 of IPC and

Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention Corruption Act, 1988 and he is acquit- ted for the said offences under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C.

A5 to A7 are found not guilty for the offences under Sections 120B and 420 of IPC and they are acquitted for the said offences under Section 248(1) of

Cr.P.C.

A10 is found not guilty for the offences under Sections 120B and 420 of IPC and he is acquitted for the said offences under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds of the accused persons shall stand cancelled after the appeal time is over.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 220 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

The accused are directed to execute personal bond for Rs. 10,000/- each under Section 437A of Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by Typist of this Court and Typist of EO Court, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 6th day of April, 2026.

Sd/-

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined on behalf of prosecution: PW1K.S.N.Raju, the then Commission Agent (Assistant) in Reliable Financial Services PW2Battu Balaiah, the then Load Man in M/s.Shakti Steels PW3D.Anjaiah, the then Office Boy in M/s.Shakti Steels PW4Narsing Rao, the then Car Driver PW5Mukund Das, Proprietor B.M.Enterprises. PW6B.Mallesh, Tax Driver PW7S.Srinivas,thethenClerk-cum-Cashier,Agrasen Co-Operative Urban Bank Limited, Siddimbazar, Hyderabad PW8Yogesh Agarwal, the then Manager, Agrasen Co-Operative Urban Bank Limited, Siddimbazar, Hyderabad PW9Mukesh Kumar Gupta, Owner of Manish Home Needs Kirana and General Stores PW10Anand Toshniwal, the then cashier in Agrasen Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd PW11C.Shakuntala, the then Asst. Commercial Tax Officer, S.D. Road Circle, Hyderabad PW12G.S.N. Murthy, the then Accountant in the AP Mahesh Cooperative Urban Bank Limited, Monda Market Branch, Secunderabad, PW13Bhupendra Lal the then Assistant Commercial Officer in the office of the CTO, Ashoknagar Circle of Secunderabad Division, Secunderabad

PW14A.Jugender Reddy, agriculturist

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 221 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

PW15A.Domodar Reddy, the then Panchayath Secretary PW16V.S.Sampath, the then Beat Postman of Beat No.22 and Hyderbasti comes under the Beat No.22, Postal limits PW17K.Venkata Krishnam, the then Sr.Manager, OBC, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad, PW18C.V. Rao, the then Formerly Loans Officer/Officer(Credit) in Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch PW19P.Ramachary, the then ACTO, Malkajgiri Circle, Hyderabad PW20M.Sravan Kumar, Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, Commercial Tax Office, Maredpally Circle PW21Rakesh Sharma, the then Senior Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad. PW22R.K.Kalra, the then Chief Manager, Inspection and Control Department, OBC Head office, New Delhi. PW23P.Rajendra Prasad the then Assistant Commercial Tax Officer in the office of Commercial Tax Officer, Malkajgiri Circle, Hyderabad. PW24G.Ramakrishnan the then Officer Loans, Regional Office, Chennai. PW25N.Balakrishnan, the then officer in Oriental Bank of Commerce, Regional Office, Chennai. PW26R.Satyanarayana, the then Assistant Regional Manager Loans at Regional Office, Chennai, in Oriental Bank of Commerce. PW27Mohan Kumar Sinha, the then Chief Manager in Oriental bank of Commerce, Ameerpet. PW28Jitender Mohan the then Chief Manager (Credit) in Oriental Bank of Commerce, Regional Office, Chennai. PW29Uma Shiva Kumar, the then Scale-II Manager in Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad PW30M.Sudhakar Shetty, the then Regional Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Chennai PW31Sabita Koneru, Officer (Loans Department) in Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet branch, Hyderabad PW32P.Padmavathi, the then Officer in Oriental Bank of Commerce in Ameerpet Branch PW33K.Bhasker the then Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad PW34Inturi Rama Rao, Charted Accountant and Concurrent Auditor, Hyderabad PW35T. Gyaneswar Rao the then Joint Sub-Registrar-1, District Registrar Office, Hyderabad

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 222 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

PW36B. Pushpalatha, the then Assistant Commercial Tax officer(FAC), Secunderabad Division PW37P.V.Lakshmi Reddy, the then Deputy Commissioner, MCH, Circle – III, Abids, Hyderabad PW38C.M. Madana Gopal Rao, the then Scale – II Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce in Credit Department, Regional office, Hyderabad PW39M.Padmakar Rao, Advocate PW40Raghunath Akasam Director of Akasam Consulting Pvt Ltd. PW41G. Ram Mohan, the then Enforcement Officer, Office of Employees provident fund, Hyderabad PW42V. Srinivas Rao, the then Superintendent of Excise at Shamshabad, Gagan Pahad Range PW43E.Kiran, the then Branch Finance Manager(F&A), RINL, Hyderabad PW44B.Murali the then General Manager(Finance), M/s.Sujana Steels Limited, Hyderabad PW45Krishna Choudari the then Regional Provident Fund CommissionerGrade-II,EmployeeProvident Fund Organization, Regional Office, Barkathpura, Hyderabad PW46N.V. Ramana Murthy, the then Accounts Executive for M/s.Prince Systems Rasulpura, Secunderabad PW47C.Sukumar Babu, Chartered Accountant PW48J.Ravindranath, the then Manager Operations UTI Bank Limited, Begumpet Road, Hyderabad PW49T. Srinivas, the then Manager, Lakshmi Vilas Bank Limited, Kukatpally Branch, Hyderabad PW50Raja Narasimha, the then Manager, Bank of Borada, Masabtank Branch, Hyderabad PW51Y. Raghunatha Reddy, the then Manager, Credit Department, Masabtank Branch, Hyderabad PW52R.Madhusudan, the then Regional Head, Oriental bank of commerce, Bangalore. PW53C.M Khurana, the then Chief General Manager, Oriental Bank of commerce, Delhi PW54Srinivas, the then Sarpanch of Bacharam Village, Gram Panchayath of Ranga Reddy District PW55Narsa Reddy, the then Joint Sub-Registrar-I, District Registrar Office, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad PW56Shaik Abdul Khadar, the then Deputy Superintendent of Police in Finger Print Bureau, Bangalore.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 223 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

PW57A. Balasami, Director CFSL, Hyderabad PW58S.Vijaya Kumar, the then Addl. Supdt of Police, CBI, BS&FC, Bangalore PW59Satish P.M., the then Inspector of Police BS &FC Branch, Bangalore PW60M.Babu, the then Beat Post Man No.19, Head Post Office, Secunderabad PW61Nagaraju, Postman in Jeedimetla Village Post Office on contract basis PW62K.Anji Reddy, retired Joint Director, Civil Supplies Department, Hyderabad. PW63V.Phanindra Charya, the then Superintendent of Central Excise, Anti Evasion Wing, Hyderabad -IV Commissionerate, Hyderabad PW64A.S.R. Kriashna, the then Branch Head, UTI Bank Limited, Tarnaka Branch, Secunderabad PW65Ramadoss, the then Inspector of CBI, BS & FC, Chennai PW66N.Ravi Kumar, the then Inspector of Police at CBI, BS & FC, Bangalore PW67A.Ramesh Babu, the then Chief Manager Law, Panjab National Bank, Asset Recovery Branch, Hyderabad. PW68Joy TV, the then Inspector of Police, CBI, BS&FC/ Bangalore PW69P.Gopi, the then Liaison Officer of M/s.Vizag Profiles Limited, Begumpet, Hyderabad, and M/s.Vizag Steels Profiles

Exhibits Marked on behalf of prosecution:

Ex.P1Photograph portion in Account Opening Form of A.P.Mahesh Co-operative Bank with A/c.No. CA 3991, dt. 06.01.2000. Ex.P1AAccount opening form of current account No.3991, dated 06-01-2000 in the name of M/s. Rubi Traders, represented by sole Proprietor K. Ramulu, Plot No.8-402/1, Sriramwada, Jeedimetla with the AP. Mahesh Cooperative Urban Bank, Monda Market Branch, Secunderabad, along with the specimen signature card, Form No.60- PAN Card declaration and photocopy of certificate of registration of M/s. Rubi Traders. (D.No.100). Photograph portion in Account Opening Form of Agrasen Co- Ex.P2 operative Urban Bank Ltd.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 224 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Photograph portion in A/c.No.CA 1300 of Agrasen Co- Ex.P3 operative Urban Bank Ltd., dt.03.11.2000 161 Cr.P.C. statement of the witness(PW2) Ex.P4

Photograph portion in Account Opening Form of Agrasen Co- Ex.P5 operative Urban Bank Ltd., with A/c.No. CA 1301, dt.03.11.2000 Photograph portion of PW3 in Specimen Signature Form of Ex.P6 Agrasen Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd. Photograph portion of PW3 in Account Opening Form of The Ex.P7 AP Mahesh Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd., A/c.No. CA 4024,

dt. 10.01.2000.

Ex.P7AAccount opening form of current account No.4024, dated 10-01-2000 in the name of M/s. Universal Trading Company, represented by sole Proprietor Ch. Shankar Rao, Plot No.9- 402/1, Sriramwada Colony, Jeedimetla with the AP. Mahesh Cooperative Urban Bank, Monda Market Branch, Secunderabad, along with the specimen signature card, Form No.60- PAN Card declaration and photocopy of certificate of registration of M/s Universal Trading Company (D.No.101).

161 Cr.P.C. statement of the witness(PW3) Ex.P8

Photograph portion in Account Opening Form with A/c. Ex.P9 No.1304, dt.03.11.2000 of PW4 Photograph portion in Specimen Signature Form of Ex.P10 A/c.No.1304. 161 Cr.P.C. statement of the witness(PW4) Ex.P11

Pay order dated 25.10.19997 bearing NOs.599043 for Ex.P12 Rs.8 lakhs in favour of Universal Fabrication Pay order dated 25.10.1997-bearing NOs.599044 in favour Ex.P13 Sheker Constructions Pay order dated 25.10.1997 for Rs.6 lacks in favour of Ex.P14 Bhagavath Machinery Corporation Pay order dated 12.01.1998 for Rs.2,50,000/- bearing Ex.P15 No.225493 in favour of S.S.Univesrsal Fabrication. Pay order dated 12.01.1998 for Rs.3,50,000/- bearing Ex.P16 No.225495 in favour of M/s Shekar Constructions

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 225 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Pay order dated 12.01.1998 for Rs.2 lacks bearing Ex.P17 No.225494 in name of M/s Bhagavathi Machinery Corporation. Pay order dated 19.02.1998 for Rs.4 lacks bearing Ex.P18 No.225769 in favour of Bhagavthi Machinery Corporation. Two photos affixed on the account opening form of Ex.P19 M/s.Chowdary Steels having address 8-402/1, Sriramnagar, Jeedimetla in current A/c.1302 of Agrasen Cooperative Urban Bank Ltd. 161 Cr.P.C. statement of the witness(PW6) Ex.P20

Specimen card of current account No.1300 of Ex.P3 Ex.P21

Account opening form of current account No.1300 in favor of Ex.P22 M/s Ruby Traders. Current account opening form in the name of M/s Universal Ex.P23 Trading Company and the account number is 1301. Specimen signatures card appended to the account opening Ex.P24 form vide Ac.No.1301 Ex.P25Specimen signatures card for the A/c.No.1304 of Sri.R.K.Sharma, Proprietor of Bhoomica Steels. Specimen signatures card for the A/c.No.1302 of Ex.P26 Sri.P.K.Chowdary, Proprietor of M/s Chowdary Steels. Specimen signatures card for the A/c.No.1303 of Sri Jagadish Ex.P27 Prasad proprietor of M/s.Maheshwari Steel Corporation Copy of Sales Tax Registration form M/s.Universal Trading Ex.P28 Company Opening account form for the current A/c.No.1304 in the Ex.P29 name of M/s Bhoomika Steels, having address 93, Maruthinagar Colony, DRP Mills, Hyderabad. Xerox copy of Sales Tax Registration form M/s.Bhoomika Ex.P30 Steels. Opening account form for the current A/c.No.1302 in the Ex.P31 name of M/s.Chowdary Steels, having address 8-402/1, Sriramnagar, Jeedimetla, Secunderabad. Xerox copy of sales tax registration form of M/s.Chowdary Ex.P32 Steels. Opening account form for the current A/c.No.1303 in the Ex.P33 name of M/s.Maheswari Steel Corporation, having address 7-1-204, Maruthiveedi, Secunderabad.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 226 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Photograph of account holder/proprietor of M/s.Maheswari Ex.P34 Steel Corporation is also affixed on Ex.P33 Xerox copy of sales tax registration form of M/s.Maheswari Ex.P35 Steel Corporation

Ex.P36Xerox copy of sales tax registration form of M/s.Ruby Traders

Ex.P37Statement of account for the current account No.1300 for the period from 03.11.2000 to 20.09.2001

Ex.P38Statement of account for the current account No.1301 for the period from 03.11.2000 to 20.09.2001

Ex.P39Statement of account for the current account No.1302 for the period from 03.11.2000 to 20.09.2001

Ex.P40Statement of account for the current account No.1303 for the period from 03.11.2000 to 20.09.2001

Ex.P41Statement of account for the current account No.1304 for the period from 03.11.2000 to 20.09.2001.

Account opening form of Sri.Mukesh Kumar Guptha S/B Ex.P42 A/c.No.96. Photograph of Sri.Mukesh Kumar Guptha affixed on Ex.P42. Ex.P43

Credit voucher dated 03.11.2000 for Rs.2,000/- to the credit Ex.P44 of A/c.No.1300 containing the signature of Anand Thosniwal. Credit voucher dated 03.11.2000 for Rs.2,000/- to the credit Ex.P45 of A/c.No.1301 containing the signature of Anand Thosniwal. Credit voucher dated 03.11.2000 for Rs.2,000/- to the credit Ex.P46 of A/c.No.1302 containing the signature of Anand Thosniwal. Credit voucher dated 03.11.2000 for Rs.2,000/- to the credit Ex.P47 of A/c.No.1303 containing the signature of Anand Thosniwal. Credit voucher dated 03.11.2000 for Rs.2,000/- to the credit Ex.P48 of A/c.No.1304 containing the signature of Anand Thosniwal. Cheque No.178407 Dated 18.07.2001 for Rs.26,32,640/- Ex.P49

Cheque No.178405 Dated 16.07.2001 for Rs.2683340/- Ex.P50

Cheque No.178401 Dated 13.07.2001 for Rs.2852750/- Ex.P51

Cheque No.178403 Dated 13.07.2001 for Rs.2762750/- Ex.P52

Cheque No.167699 Dated 12.07.2001 for Rs.2903030/- Ex.P53

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 227 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Cheque No.167698 Dated 12.07.2001 for Rs.2764850/- Ex.P54

Cheque No.167697 Dated 10.07.2001for Rs.2328920/- Ex.P55

Cheque No.167696 Dated 09.07.2001 for Rs.2469470/- Ex.P56

Cheque No.167693 Dated 07.07.2001 for Rs.2479730/- Ex.P57

Cheque No.167691 Dated 06.07.2001 for Rs.2685460/- Ex.P58

Cheque No.167689 Dated 05.07.2001 for Rs.2475620/- Ex.P59

Cheque No.167686 Dated 04.07.2001 for Rs.2640990/- Ex.P60

Cheque No.167684 Dated 03.07.2001 for Rs.2465850/- Ex.P61

Cheque No.167682 Dated02.07.2001 for Rs.2363270/- Ex.P62

Cheque No.167681 Dated 30.06.2001 for Rs.2599850/- Ex.P63

Cheque No.167679 Dated 29.06.2001 for Rs.2262950/- Ex.P64

Cheque No.156800 Dated 26.04.2001 for Rs.1746950/- Ex.P65

Cheque No.186797 Dated 26.04.2001 for Rs.1172650/- Ex.P66

Cheque No.156795 Dated 25.04.2001 for Rs.1002000/- Ex.P67

Cheque No.156790 Dated 24.04.2001 for Rs.1999650/- Ex.P68

Cheque No.156788 Dated 20.04.2001 for Rs.1364260/- Ex.P69

Cheque No.156787 Dated 19.01.2001 for Rs.1998330/- Ex.P70

Cheque No.156783 Dated 17.04.2001 for Rs.1238900/- Ex.P71

Cheque No.156777 Dated 16.04.2001 for Rs.910100/- Ex.P72

Cheque No.156774 Dated 12.04.2001 for Rs.1564880/- Ex.P73

Cheque No.156770 Dated 10.04.2001 for Rs.1989585/- Ex.P74

Cheque No.156766 Dated 09.04.2001 for Rs.1119295/- Ex.P75

Cheque No.156763 Dated 06.04.2004 for Rs.1898635/- Ex.P76

Cheque No.156760 Dated 03.04.2001 for Rs.1598695/- Ex.P77

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 228 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Cheque No.156758 Dated 01.04.2001 for Rs.1246675/- Ex.P78

Cheque No.167638 Dated 28.05.2001 for Rs.2151600/- Ex.P79

Cheque No.167635 Dated 24.05.2001 for Rs.2336190/- Ex.P80

Cheque No.167634 Dated 23.05.2001 for Rs.1006960/- Ex.P81

Cheque No.167633 Dated 21.05.2001 for Rs.1485230/- Ex.P82

Cheque No.167631 Dated 19.05.2001 for Rs.1963460/- Ex.P83

Cheque No.167630 Dated 18.05.2001 for Rs.932690/- Ex.P84

Cheque No.167629 Dated 17.05.2001 for Rs.1548130/- Ex.P85

Cheque No.167626 Dated 16.05.2001 for Rs.1469840/- Ex.P86

Cheque No.167624 Dated 15.05.2001 for Rs.1118895/- Ex.P87

Cheque No.167622 Dated 14.05.2001 for Rs.1416460/- Ex.P88

Cheque No.167621 Dated 11.05.2001 for Rs.1305805/- Ex.P89

Cheque No.167618 Dated 10.05.2001 for Rs.786315/- Ex.P90

Cheque No.167614 Dated 09.05.2001 for Rs.1592590/- Ex.P91

Cheque No.167616 Dated 09.05.2001 for Rs.1592590/- Ex.P92

Cheque No.167612 Dated 09.05.2001 for Rs.1469360/- Ex.P93

Cheque No.167608 Dated 05.05.2001 for Rs.1146475/- Ex.P94

Cheque No.167606 Dated 03.05.2001 for Rs.1764545/- Ex.P95

Cheque No.156756 Dated 29.03.2001 for Rs.1633330/- Ex.P96

Cheque No.156754 Dated 28.03.2001 for Rs.1758450/- Ex.P97

Cheque No.156751 dated 27.03.2001 for Rs.1684965/- Ex.P98

Cheque No.156749 dated 24.03.2001 for Rs.1793475/- Ex.P99

Cheque No.156744 dated 21.063.2001 for Rs.1492755/- Ex.P100

Ex.P101Cheque No.156740 dated 19.03.2001 for Rs.1293750/- Cheque No.156736 dated 16.03.2001 for Rs.1509175/- Ex.P102

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 229 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Cheque No.156731 dated 13.03.2001 for Rs.1966870/- Ex.P103

Cheque No.156726 dated 09.03.2001 for Rs.1736980/- Ex.P104

Cheque No.156721 dated 07.03.2001 for Rs.1699500/- Ex.P105

Cheque No.156720 dated 07.03.2001 for Rs.1561010/- Ex.P106

Cheque No.156719 dated 03.03.2001 for Rs.1690735/- Ex.P107

Cheque No.156713 dated 01.03.2001 for Rs.1636860/- Ex.P108

Cheque No.178458 dated 13.08.2001 for Rs.2896910/- Ex.P109

Cheque No.178453 dated 11.08.2001 for Rs.2986180/- Ex.P110

Cheque No.178451 dated 10.08.2001 for Rs.2715210/- Ex.P111

Cheque No.178449 dated 07.08.2001 for Rs.2869050/- Ex.P112

Cheque No.178445 dated 06.08.2001 for Rs.2943450/- Ex.P113

Cheque No.178443 dated 04.08.2001 for Rs.2365430/- Ex.P114

Cheque No.178441 dated 03.08.2001 for Rs.2392500/- Ex.P115

Cheque No.178436 dated 01.08.2001 for Rs.2387650/- Ex.P116

Cheque No.178434 dated 31.07.2001 for Rs.2975870/- Ex.P117

Cheque No.143325 dated 28.12.2000 for Rs.889545/- Ex.P118

Cheque No.143319 dated 25.12.2000 for Rs.870500/- Ex.P119

Cheque No.143318 dated 22.12.2000 for Rs.726685/- Ex.P120

Cheque No.143317 dated 20.12.2000 for Rs.878950/- Ex.P121

Cheque No.294703 dated 16.12.2000 for Rs.1310230/- Ex.P122

Cheque No.143309 dated 09.12.2000 for Rs.993615/- Ex.P123

Cheque No.143305 dated 05.12.2000 for Rs.893945/- Ex.P124

Ex.P125Cheque No.143302 dated 01.12.2000 for Rs.499995/- Cheque No.294723 dated 28.11.2000 for Rs.499935/- Ex.P126

Cheque No.294722 dated 27.11.2000 for Rs.499595/- Ex.P127

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 230 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Cheque No.156704 dated 22.02.2001 for Rs.1610825/- Ex.P128

Cheque No.156707 dated 22.02.2001 for Rs.1550060/- Ex.P129

Cheque No.156708 dated 22.02.2001 for Rs.1661525/- Ex.P130

Cheque No.156703 dated 21.02.2001 for Rs.969450/- Ex.P131

Cheque No.156709 dated 19.02.2001 for Rs.1789875/- Ex.P132

Cheque No.143399 dated 17.02.2001 for Rs.1646985/- Ex.P133

Cheque No.143393 dated 14.02.2001 for Rs.1694950/- Ex.P134

Cheque No.143392 dated 13.02.2001 for Rs.521985/- Ex.P135

Cheque No.143391 dated 13.02.2001 for Rs.1798365/- Ex.P136

Cheque No.143387 dated 10.02.2001 for Rs.804575/- Ex.P137

Cheque No.143382 dated 07.02.2001 for Rs.1586475/- Ex.P138

Cheque No.143380 dated 06.02.2001 for Rs.1493850/- Ex.P139

Cheque No.143365 dated 03.02.2001 for Rs.945930/- Ex.P140

Cheque No.143376 dated 01.02.2001 for Rs.1398665/- Ex.P141

Cheque No.167677 dated 28.06.2001 for Rs.1890680/- Ex.P142

Cheque No.167675 dated 27.06.2001 for Rs.2679350/- Ex.P143

Cheque No.167674 dated 26.06.2001 for Rs.1888630/- Ex.P144

Cheque No.167664 dated 22.06.2001 for Rs.2137710/- Ex.P145

Cheque No.167667 dated 22.06.2001 for Rs.2012920/- Ex.P146

Cheque No.167666 dated 21.06.2001 for Rs.2569560/- Ex.P147

Cheque No.167662 dated 19.06.2001 for Rs.2549980/- Ex.P148

Cheque No.167659 dated 16.06.2001 for Rs.2389990/- Ex.P149

Cheque No.167657 dated 15.06.2001 for Rs.2599650/- Ex.P150

Cheque No.167656 dated 14.06.2001 for Rs.2556650/- Ex.P151

Cheque No.167651 dated 12.06.2001 for Rs.1573180/- Ex.P152

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 231 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Cheque No.167654 dated 13.06.2001 for Rs.2186950/- Ex.P153

Cheque No.167652 dated 11.06.2001 for Rs.1964280/- Ex.P154

Cheque No.167648 dated 09.06.2001 for Rs.1150180/- Ex.P155

Cheque No.167649 dated 11.06.2001 for Rs.1848900/- Ex.P156

Cheque No.167647 dated 08.06.2001 for Rs.1943280/- Ex.P157

Cheque No.167645 dated 06.06.2001 for Rs.2138040/- Ex.P158

Cheque No.167644 dated 04.06.2001 for Rs.2143180/- Ex.P159

Cheque No.167642 dated 01.06.2001 for Rs.1943180/- Ex.P160

Cheque No.167640 dated 30.05.2001 for Rs.1002900/- Ex.P161

Cheque No.143367 dated 29.01.2001 for Rs.1325590/- Ex.P162

Cheque No.143368 dated 29.01.2001 for Rs.1159065/- Ex.P163

Cheque No.143358 dated 22.01.2001 for Rs.899890/- Ex.P164

Cheque No.143356 dated 20.01.2001 for Rs.885975/- Ex.P165

Cheque No.143352 dated 18.01.2001 for Rs.707065/- Ex.P166

Cheque No.143355 dated 18.01.2001 for Rs.1031830/- Ex.P167

Cheque No.143350 dated 16.01.2001 for Rs.908350/- Ex.P168

Cheque No.143345 dated 11.01.2001 for Rs.981130/- Ex.P169

Cheque No.143326 dated 01.01.2001 for Rs.978595/- Ex.P170

Cheque No.143323 dated 30.12.2000 for Rs.653655/- Ex.P171

Cheque No.143335 dated 08.01.2001 for Rs.803710/- Ex.P172

Cheque No.178431 dated 28.07.2001 for Rs.2789640/- Ex.P173

Cheque No.178427 dated 27.07.2001 for Rs.2698970/- Ex.P174

Cheque No.178425 dated 26.07.2001 for Rs.2786360/- Ex.P175

Cheque No.178423 dated 25.07.2001 for Rs.2590510/- Ex.P176

Cheque No.178420 dated 24.07.2001 for Rs.2960450/- Ex.P177

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 232 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Cheque No.178417 dated 23.07.2001 for Rs.2783530/- Ex.P178

Cheque No.178414 dated 21.07.2001 for Rs.3006480/- Ex.P179

Cheque No.178412 dated 20.07.2001 for Rs.2696790/- Ex.P180

Cheque No.178410 dated 19.07.2001 for Rs.2489650/- Ex.P181

Cheque No.176536 dated 18.07.2001 for Rs.2655350/- Ex.P182

Cheque No.176534 dated 17.07.2001 for Rs.2689330/- Ex.P183

Cheque No.176533 dated 16.07.2001 for Rs.2596870/- Ex.P184

Cheque No.176531 dated 14.07.2001 for Rs.2687960/- Ex.P185

Cheque No.176529 dated 13.07.2001 for Rs.2669250/- Ex.P186

Cheque No.176528 dated 12.07.2001 for Rs.2699470/- Ex.P187

Cheque No.176526 dated 11.07.2001 for Rs.2639670/- Ex.P188

Cheque No.176524 dated 10.07.2001 for Rs.2598450/- Ex.P189

Cheque No.176522 dated 09.07.2001 for Rs.2703010/- Ex.P190

Cheque No.176521 dated 07.07.2001 for Rs.2482700/- Ex.P191

Cheque No.176519 dated 06.07.2001 for Rs.2293350/- Ex.P192

Cheque No.176518 dated 05.07.2001 for Rs.2485010/- Ex.P193

Cheque No.176515 dated 04.07.2001 for Rs.2698370/- Ex.P194

Cheque No.176513 dated 03.07.2001 for Rs.2265670/- Ex.P195

Cheque No.176511 dated 02.07.2001 for Rs.2687450/- Ex.P196

Cheque No.176508 dated 29.06.2001 for Rs.2685470/- Ex.P197

Cheque No.165628 dated 26.04.2001 for Rs.1739920/- Ex.P198

Cheque No.165615 dated 25.04.2001 for Rs.1865640/- Ex.P199

Cheque No.165620 dated 24.04.2001 for Rs.1563475/- Ex.P200

Ex.P201Cheque No.165617 dated 23.04.2001 for Rs.1120010/- Cheque No.165613 dated 20.04.2001 for Rs.1996590/- Ex.P202

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 233 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Cheque No.165611 dated 19.04.2001 for Rs.2104750/- Ex.P203

Cheque No.165608 dated 19.04.2001 for Rs.1674360/- Ex.P204

Cheque No.165605 dated 18.04.2001 for Rs.1463430/- Ex.P205

Cheque No.156600 dated 17.04.2001 for Rs.1989930/- Ex.P206

Cheque No.156598 dated 16.04.2001 for Rs.1893140/- Ex.P207

Cheque No.156597 dated 12.04.2001 for Rs.690465/- Ex.P208

Cheque No.156594 dated 11.04.2001 for Rs.1563385/- Ex.P209

Cheque No.156585 dated 05.04.2001 for Rs.1581300/- Ex.P210

Cheque No.156583 dated 05.04.2001 for Rs.1546160/- Ex.P211

Cheque No.156581 dated 03.04.2001 for Rs.1779640/- Ex.P212

Cheque No.156577 dated 01.04.2001 for Rs.1989860/- Ex.P213

Cheque No.156573 dated 29.03.2001 for Rs.1668735/- Ex.P214

Cheque No.165666 dated 29.05.2001 for Rs.2032100/- Ex.P215

Cheque No.165662 dated 24.05.2001 for Rs.1941100/- Ex.P216

Cheque No.165659 dated 21.05.2001 for Rs.1198960/- Ex.P217

Cheque No.165658 dated 19.05.2001 for Rs.950640/- Ex.P218

Cheque No.165645 dated 16.05.2001 for Rs.601875/- Ex.P219

Cheque No.165654 dated 16.05.2001 for Rs.1321490/- Ex.P220

Cheque No.165653 dated 15.05.2001 for Rs.1641435/- Ex.P221

Cheque No.165652 dated 14.05.2001 for Rs.1373870/- Ex.P222

Cheque No.165651 dated 11.05.2001 for Rs.1454525/- Ex.P223

Cheque No.165646 dated 09.05.2001 for Rs.1969360/- Ex.P224

Ex.P225Cheque No.165649 dated 09.05.2001 for Rs.1969360/- Cheque No.165640 dated 07.05.2001 for Rs.1552170/- Ex.P226

Cheque No.165638 dated 05.05.2001 for Rs.1352525/- Ex.P227

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 234 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Cheque No.165624 dated 03.05.2001 for Rs.1989360/- Ex.P228

Cheque No.156572 dated 29.03.2001 for Rs.1759785/- Ex.P229

Cheque No.156570 dated 28.03.2001 for Rs.1634025/- Ex.P230

Cheque No.156568 dated 27.03.2001 for Rs.1698784/- Ex.P231

Cheque No.156567 dated 24.03.2001 for Rs.1602060/- Ex.P232

Cheque No.156564 dated 22.03.2001 for Rs.1792790/- Ex.P233

Cheque No.156561 dated 22.03.2001 for Rs.1556020/- Ex.P234

Cheque No.156558 dated 21.03.2001 for Rs.1879810/- Ex.P235

Cheque No.156556 dated 20.03.2001 for Rs.1495065/- Ex.P236

Cheque No.156554 dated 19.03.2001 for Rs.1093685/- Ex.P237

Cheque No.156552 dated 16.03.2001 for Rs.1283720/- Ex.P238

Cheque No.156550 dated 15.03.2001 for Rs.1896195/- Ex.P239

Cheque No.156548 dated 14.03.2001 for Rs.2286865/- Ex.P240

Cheque No.156542 dated 09.03.2001 for Rs.1646895/- Ex.P241

Cheque No.156541 dated 09.03.2001 for Rs.1796675/- Ex.P242

Cheque No.156536 dated 07.03.2001 for Rs.1691910/- Ex.P243

Cheque No.156534 dated 05.03.2001 for Rs.1750550/- Ex.P244

Cheque No.156529 dated 01.03.2001 for Rs.1710680/- Ex.P245

Cheque No.156525 dated 28.02.2001 for Rs.1608645/- Ex.P246

Cheque No.176587 dated 13.08.2001 for Rs.2392710/- Ex.P247

Cheque No.176584 dated 13.08.2001 for Rs.2622100/- Ex.P248

Cheque No.176580 dated 10.08.2001 for Rs.2669140/- Ex.P249

Cheque No.176576 dated 07.08.2001 for Rs.2838450/- Ex.P250

Cheque No.176573 dated 06.08.2001 for Rs.2635270/- Ex.P251

Cheque No.176579 dated 04.08.2001 for Rs.2296870/- Ex.P252

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 235 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Cheque No.176570 dated 03.08.2001 for Rs.2496100/- Ex.P253

Cheque No.176566 dated 01.08.2001 for Rs.2495460/- Ex.P254

Cheque No.176561 dated 31.07.2001 for Rs.2695450/- Ex.P255

Cheque No.143223 dated 26.12.2000 for Rs.948420/- Ex.P256

Cheque No.143221 dated 22.12.2000 for Rs.948985/- Ex.P257

Cheque No.143212 dated 15.12.2000 for Rs.1120097/- Ex.P258

Cheque No.143210 dated 13.12.2000 for Rs.1028465/- Ex.P259

Cheque No.143206 dated 08.12.2000 for Rs.895080/- Ex.P260

Cheque No.143205 dated 08.12.2000 for Rs.893050/- Ex.P261

Cheque No.143204 dated 06.12.2000 for Rs.853635/- Ex.P262

Cheque No.294700 dated 29.11.2000 for Rs.499695/- Ex.P263

Cheque No.156516 dated 22.02.2001 for Rs.1785690/- Ex.P264

Cheque No.156517 dated 22.02.2001 for Rs.1689795/- Ex.P265

Cheque No.156506 dated 15.02.2001 for Rs.1666960/- Ex.P266

Cheque No.143298 dated 15.02.2001 for Rs.1698675/- Ex.P267

Cheque No.143279 dated 12.02.2001 for Rs.1599675/- Ex.P268

Cheque No.143300 dated 10.02.2001 for Rs.1297745/- Ex.P269

Cheque No.143294 dated 08.02.2001 for Rs.1765860/- Ex.P270

Cheque No.143293 dated 08.02.2001 for Rs.1599595/- Ex.P271

Cheque No.143288 dated 06.02.2001 for Rs.1762680/- Ex.P272

Cheque No.143278 dated 05.02.2001 for Rs.1399230/- Ex.P273

Cheque No.143287 dated 03.02.2001 for Rs.1189635/- Ex.P274

Cheque No.143285 dated 01.02.2001 for Rs.983215/- Ex.P275

Cheque No.143775 dated 30.01.2001 for Rs.863275/- Ex.P276

Cheque No.176507 dated 28.06.2001 for Rs.2496850/- Ex.P277

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 236 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Cheque No.176502 dated 25.06.2001 for Rs.2589750/- Ex.P278

Cheque No.165693 dated 22.06.2001 for Rs.2489570/- Ex.P279

Cheque No.165697 dated 22.06.2001 for Rs.2589360/- Ex.P280

Cheque No.165694 dated 20.06.2001 for Rs.2369850/- Ex.P281

Cheque No.165691 dated 19.06.2001 for Rs.2372930/- Ex.P282

Cheque No.165689 dated 18.06.2001 for Rs.2087630/- Ex.P283

Cheque No.165687 dated 15.06.2001 for Rs.2428120/- Ex.P284

Cheque No.165685 dated 14.06.2001 for Rs.2296630/- Ex.P285

Cheque No.165682 dated 13.06.2001 for Rs.1963470/- Ex.P286

Cheque No.165680 dated 12.06.2001 for Rs.1227710/- Ex.P287

Cheque No.165677 dated 09.06.2001 for Rs.1038280/- Ex.P288

Cheque No.165674 dated 07.06.2001 for Rs.2083180/- Ex.P289

Cheque No.165671 dated 02.06.2001 for Rs.1833180/- Ex.P290

Cheque No.143270 dated 29.01.2001 for Rs.1368190/- Ex.P291

Cheque No.143268 dated 27.01.2001 for Rs.862205/- Ex.P292

Cheque No.143266 dated 25.01.2001 for Rs.899850/- Ex.P293

Cheque No.143262 dated 22.01.2001 for Rs.956520/- Ex.P294

Cheque No.143253 dated 16.01.2001 for Rs.908198/- Ex.P295

Cheque No.143249 dated 11.01.2001 for Rs.968365/- Ex.P296

Cheque No.143244 dated 09.01.2001 for Rs.904545/- Ex.P297

Cheque No.143241 dated 08.01.2001 for Rs.892300/- Ex.P298

Cheque No.143228 dated 01.01.2001 for Rs.995865/- Ex.P299

Cheque No.143225 dated 29.12.2000 for Rs.991850/- Ex.P300

Ex.P301Cheque No.143239 dated 06.01.2001 for Rs.986445/- Cheque No.176555 dated 27.07.2001 for Rs.2892050/- Ex.P302

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 237 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Cheque No.176553 dated 16.07.2001 for Rs.2897890/- Ex.P303

Cheque No.176551 dated 25.07.2001 for Rs.2598870/- Ex.P304

Cheque No.176548 dated 24.07.2001 for Rs.2695570/- Ex.P305

Cheque No.176546 dated 23.07.2001 for Rs.2799470/- Ex.P306

Cheque No.176542 dated 20.07.2001 for Rs.2589360/- Ex.P307

Cheque No.176539 dated 19.07.2001 for Rs.2796760/- Ex.P308

Cheque No.176557 dated 28.07.2001 for Rs.2603740/- Ex.P309

Cheque No.167593 dated 14.07.2001 for Rs.2655370/- Ex.P310

Cheque No.167589 dated 12.07.2001 for Rs.2589720/- Ex.P311

Cheque No.167585 dated 10.07.2001 for Rs.690550/- Ex.P312

Cheque No.167577 dated 06.07.2001 for Rs.2860000/- Ex.P313

Cheque No.167573 dated 04.07.2001 for Rs.2475450/- Ex.P314

Cheque No.167569 dated 02.07.2001 for Rs.2368820/- Ex.P315

Cheque No.167567 dated 30.06.2001 for Rs.2158400/- Ex.P316

Cheque No.167565 dated 29.06.2001 for Rs.2451120/- Ex.P317

Cheque No.159783 dated 26.04.2001 for Rs.1182590/- Ex.P318

Cheque No.159782 dated 26.04.2001 for Rs.1986560/- Ex.P319

Cheque No.159778 dated 24.04.2001 for Rs.1331885/- Ex.P320

Cheque No.159775 dated 23.04.2001 for Rs.1978650/- Ex.P321

Cheque No.159771 dated 20.04.2001 for Rs.1536340/- Ex.P322

Cheque No.159767 dated 19.04.2001 for Rs.1899640/- Ex.P323

Cheque No.159762 dated 17.04.2001 for Rs.1336775/- Ex.P324

Ex.P325Cheque No.159758 dated 16.04.2001 for Rs.1968360/- Cheque No.159751 dated 11.04.2001 for Rs.1328645/- Ex.P326

Cheque No.159744 dated 09.01.2001 for Rs.1998860/- Ex.P327

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 238 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Cheque No.159736 dated 01.04.2001 for Rs.1456460/- Ex.P328

Cheque No.159731 dated 29.03.2001 for Rs.1724360/- Ex.P329

Cheque No.167522 dated 25.05.2001 for Rs.1991100/- Ex.P330

Cheque No.167520 dated 23.05.2001 for Rs.1293140/- Ex.P331

Cheque No.167516 dated 18.05.2001 for Rs.1634640/- Ex.P332

Cheque No.167515 dated 17.05.2001 for Rs.1212200/- Ex.P333

Cheque No.159796 dated 09.05.2001 for Rs.1792470/- Ex.P334

Cheque No.159797 dated 08.05.2001 for Rs.1998620/- Ex.P335

Cheque No.159785 dated 28.04.2001 for Rs.1098140/- Ex.P336

Cheque No.159726 dated 22.03.2001 for Rs.1835815/- Ex.P337

Cheque No.159723 dated 20.03.2001 for Rs.1865350/- Ex.P338

Cheque No.159718 dated 17.03.2001 for Rs.1693690/- Ex.P339

Cheque No.159712 dated 14.03.2001 for Rs.2159360/- Ex.P340

Cheque No.159709 dated 13.03.2001 for Rs.1778290/- Ex.P341

Cheque No.159704 dated 08.03.2001 for Rs.1792645/- Ex.P342

Cheque No.143999 dated 03.03.2001 for Rs.1699965/- Ex.P343

Cheque No.143996 dated 01.03.2001 for Rs.1675345/- Ex.P344

Cheque No.180330 dated 09.08.2001 for Rs.2527360/- Ex.P345

Cheque No.180325 dated 06.08.2001 for Rs.2086650/- Ex.P346

Cheque No.180323 dated 04.08.2001 for Rs.1780770/- Ex.P347

Cheque No.180322 dated 03.08.2001 for Rs.2085920/- Ex.P348

Cheque No.143909 dated 25.12.2000 for Rs.631175/- Ex.P349

Cheque No.143907 dated 20.12.2000 for Rs.918490/- Ex.P350

Cheque No.143904 dated 14.12.2000 for Rs.878625/- Ex.P351

Cheque No.143902 dated 12.12.2000 for Rs.1260293/- Ex.P352

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 239 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Cheque No.143901 dated 11.12.2000 for Rs.915720/- Ex.P353

Cheque No.143989 dated 24.02.2001 for Rs.1689485/- Ex.P354

Cheque No.143986 dated 22.02.2001 for Rs.1845360/- Ex.P355

Cheque No.143983 dated 21.02.2001 for Rs.1798645/- Ex.P356

Cheque No.143977 dated 15.02.2001 for Rs.1789825/- Ex.P357

Cheque No.143974 dated 11.02.2001 for Rs.1490270/- Ex.P358

Cheque No.143971 dated 12.02.2001 for Rs.1693050/- Ex.P359

Cheque No.143965 dated 08.02.2001 for Rs.1686745/- Ex.P360

Cheque No.143958 dated 05.02.2001 for Rs.1189635/- Ex.P361

Cheque No.143954 dated 01.02.2001 for Rs.1413015/- Ex.P362

Cheque No.143957 dated 01.02.2001 for Rs.873860/- Ex.P363

Cheque No.143953 dated 31.01.2001 for Rs.1474075/- Ex.P364

Cheque No.143951 dated 30.01.2001 for Rs.1112590/- Ex.P365

Cheque No.143952 dated 31.01.2001 for Rs.1386910/- Ex.P366

Cheque No.167562 dated 27.06.2001 for Rs.2154930/- Ex.P367

Cheque No.167560 dated 26.06.2001 for Rs.2745650/- Ex.P368

Cheque No.167559 dated 25.06.2001 for Rs.5608490/- Ex.P369

Cheque No.167552 dated 20.06.2001 for Rs.2212430/- Ex.P370

Cheque No.167546 dated 16.06.2001 for Rs.2478290/- Ex.P371

Cheque No.167540 dated 13.06.2001 for Rs.1225860/- Ex.P372

Cheque No.167538 dated 12.06.2001 for Rs.2145270/- Ex.P373

Cheque No.167534 dated 11.06.2001 for Rs.1838100/- Ex.P374

Cheque No.167525 dated 30.05.2001 for Rs.2413180/- Ex.P375

Cheque No.143948 dated 27.01.2001 for Rs.998750/- Ex.P376

Cheque No.143944 dated 24.01.201 for Rs.1103655/- Ex.P377

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 240 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Cheque No.143945 dated 23.01.2001 for Rs.968985/- Ex.P378

Cheque No.143940 dated 18.01.2001 for Rs.882125/- Ex.P379

Cheque No.143937 dated 17.01.2001 for Rs.893950/- Ex.P380

Cheque No.143934 dated 15.01.2001 for Rs.1059735/- Ex.P381

Cheque No.294674 dated 13.01.2001 for Rs.891055/- Ex.P382

Cheque No.143925 dated 09.01.2001 for Rs.803945/- Ex.P383

Cheque No.143918 dated 02.01.2001 for Rs.996750/- Ex.P384

Cheque No.143915 dated 30.12.2000 for Rs.963365/- Ex.P385

Cheque No.173394 dated 11.06.2001 for Rs.2892890/- Ex.P386

Cheque No.173384 dated 09.06.2001 for Rs.2692690/- Ex.P387

Cheque No.173376 dated 08.06.2001 for Rs.3703700/- Ex.P388

Cheque No.173372 dated 06.06.2001 for Rs.2812820/- Ex.P389

Cheque No.173366 dated 06.06.2001 for Rs.2672670/- Ex.P390

Cheque No.173354 dated 04.06.2001 for Rs.3783780/- Ex.P391

Cheque No.173336 dated 01.06.2001 for Rs.2392390/- Ex.P392

Cheque No.173324 dated 30.05.2001 for Rs.2562560/- Ex.P393

Cheque No.173313 dated 29.05.2001 for Rs.2632630/- Ex.P394

Cheque No.173308 dated 28.05.2001 for Rs.2712710/- Ex.P395

Cheque No.169599 dated 26.05.2001 for Rs.2662660/- Ex.P396

Cheque No.169595 dated 25.05.2001 for Rs.2652650/- Ex.P397

Cheque No.169587 dated 24.05.2001 for Rs.2502500/- Ex.P398

Cheque No.169580 dated 23.05.2001 for Rs.2102100/- Ex.P399

Cheque No.169573 dated 22.05.2001 for Rs.2202200/- Ex.P400

Ex.P401Cheque No.169566 dated 21.05.2001 for Rs.2202200/- Ex.P402Cheque No.169563 dated 19.05.2001 for Rs.2002000/-

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 241 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Ex.P403Cheque No.169553 dated 18.05.2001 for Rs.2002000/- Ex.P404Cheque No.169546 dated 17.05.2001 for Rs.2002000/- Ex.P405Cheque No.169536 dated 16.05.2001 for Rs.2002000/- Ex.P406Cheque No.169529 dated 15.05.2001 for Rs.2002000/- Ex.P407Cheque No.169525 dated 14.05.2001 for Rs.2002000/- Ex.P408Cheque No.169612 dated 17.07.2001 for Rs.2606900/- Ex.P409Cheque No.169604 dated 13.07.2001 for Rs.2945370/- Ex.P410Cheque No.169602 dated 12.07.2001 for Rs.2766360/- Ex.P411Cheque No.167500 dated 10.07.2001 for Rs.2645620/- Ex.P412Cheque No.167496 dated 07.07.2001 for Rs.2598650/- Ex.P413Cheque No.167492 dated 05.07.2001 for Rs.2569450/- Ex.P414Cheque No.167488 dated 03.07.2001 for Rs.2698450/- Ex.P415Cheque No.167485 dated 30.06.2001 for Rs.2371290/- Ex.P416Cheque No.156698 dated 26.04.2001 for Rs.1986470/- Ex.P417Cheque No.156692 dated 25.04.2001 for Rs.1716150/- Ex.P418Cheque No.156693 dated 23.04.2001 for Rs.1798580/- Ex.P419Cheque No.156690 dated 21.04.2001 for Rs.461500/- Ex.P420Cheque No.156685 dated 19.04.2001 for Rs.1889540/- Ex.P421Cheque No.156682 dated 19.04.2001 for Rs.1315280/- Ex.P422Cheque No.156679 dated 18.04.2001 for Rs.1989450/- Ex.P423Cheque No.156677 dated 17.04.2001 for Rs.1567570/- Ex.P424Cheque No.156673 dated 16.04.2001 for Rs.1027580/- Ex.P425Cheque No.156676 dated 16.04.2001 for Rs.1445400/- Ex.P426Cheque No.156672 dated 12.04.2001 for Rs.1898690/- Ex.P427Cheque No.156669 dated 11.04.2001 for Rs.871500/- Ex.P428Cheque No.156668 dated 11.04.2001 for Rs.1998435/- Ex.P429Cheque No.156666 dated 10.04.2001 for Rs.1504590/- Ex.P430Cheque No.156660 dated 09.04.2001 for Rs.1388210/- Ex.P431Cheque No.156656 dated 05.04.2001 for Rs.1768175/- Ex.P432Cheque No.156657 dated 05.04.2001 for Rs.579860/- Ex.P433Cheque No.167437 dated 25.05.2001 for Rs.2021100/- Ex.P434Cheque No.167422 dated 10.05.2001 for Rs.1845630/-

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 242 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Ex.P435Cheque No.156610 dated 01.03.2001 for Rs.1686965/- Ex.P436Cheque No.156608 dated 01.03.2001 for Rs.1681160/- Ex.P437Cheque No.167418 dated 09.05.2001 for Rs.1187380/- Ex.P438Cheque No.167421 dated 09.05.2001 for Rs.1187380/- Ex.P439Cheque No.167415 dated 09.05.2001 for Rs.1021580/- Ex.P440Cheque No.167412 dated 08.05.2001 for Rs.1892360/- Ex.P441Cheque No.167407 dated 03.05.2001 for Rs.940975/- Ex.P442Cheque No.156642 dated 23.02.2001 for Rs.1593065/- Ex.P443Cheque No.156638 dated 19.03.2001 for Rs.1001000/- Ex.P444Cheque No.156635 dated 17.03.2001 for Rs.1266150/- Ex.P445Cheque No.156631 dated 16.03.2001 for Rs.1896940/- Ex.P446Cheque No.156632 dated 15.03.2001 for Rs.1749990/- Ex.P447Cheque No.156626 dated 13.03.2001 for Rs.2109750/- Ex.P448Cheque No.156623 dated 12.03.2001 for Rs.1605075/- Ex.P449Cheque No.156622 dated 12.03.2001 for Rs.940050/- Ex.P450Cheque No.156618 dated 09.03.2001 for Rs.1581985/- Ex.P451Cheque No.156620 dated 08.03.2001 for Rs.1584990/- Ex.P452Cheque No.156604 dated 28.02.2001 for Rs.1698985/- Ex.P453Cheque No.156607 dated 01.03.2001 for Rs.1739295/- Ex.P454Cheque No.169660 dated 13.08.2001 for Rs.2763810/- Ex.P455Cheque No.169655 dated 11.08.2001 for Rs.2413600/- Ex.P456Cheque No.169650 dated 09.08.2001 for Rs.2869710/- Ex.P457Cheque No.169644 dated 03.08.2001 for Rs.390000/- Ex.P458Cheque No.169638 dated 01.08.2001 for Rs.2528510/- Ex.P459Cheque No.143820 dated 28.12.2000 for Rs.907665/- Ex.P460Cheque No.143813 dated 19.12.2000 for Rs.1153855/- Ex.P461Cheque No.294625 dated 04.12.2000 for Rs.799600/- Ex.P462Cheque No.294624 dated 01.12.2000 for Rs.499895/- Ex.P463Cheque No.143900 dated 24.02.2001 for Rs.1704350/- Ex.P464Cheque No.143896 dated 21.02.2001 for Rs.1847145/- Ex.P465Cheque No.143893 dated 19.02.2001 for Rs.1248705/- Ex.P466Cheque No.143891 dated 15.02.2001 for Rs.735950/-

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 243 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Ex.P467Cheque No.143887 dated 14.02.2001 for Rs.1698385/- Ex.P468Cheque No.143886 dated 15.02.2001 for Rs.1786340/- Ex.P469Cheque No.143879 dated 10.02.2001 for Rs.1413890/- Ex.P470Cheque No.143877 dated 08.02.2001 for Rs.1458300/- Ex.P471Cheque No.143873 dated 07.02.2001 for Rs.1481670/- Ex.P472Cheque No.143869 dated 05.02.2001 for Rs.1543555/- Ex.P473Cheque No.143870 dated 03.02.2001 for Rs.817940/- Ex.P474Cheque No.143867 dated 01.02.2001 for Rs.945560/-. Ex.P475Cheque No.167481 dated 28.06.2001 for Rs.2712010/-. Ex.P476Cheque No.167470 dated 21.06.2001 for Rs.2443480/-. Ex.P477Cheque No.167464 dated 18.06.2001 for Rs.2479650/-. Ex.P478Cheque No.143847 dated 18.01.2001 for Rs.1006935/-. Ex.P479Cheque No.143843 dated 17.01.2001 for Rs.895940/-. Ex.P480Cheque No.143834 dated 10.01.2001 for Rs.953760/-. Ex.P481Cheque No.143823 dated 02.01.2001 for Rs.805500/-. Ex.P482Cheque No.143829 dated 04.01.2001 for Rs.868510/-. Ex.P483Cheque No.143828 dated 05.01.2001 for Rs.814175/-. Ex.P484Cheque No.143826 dated 03.01.2001 for Rs.868170/-. Ex.P485Cheque No.169620 dated 21.07.2001 for Rs.2798970/-. Ex.P486Cheque collection register maintained by Agrasen Co-Operative Urban Bank Limited for the period from 01.03.2001 to 17.04.2001. Ex.P487Cheque collection register maintain by Agrasen Co-Operative Urban Bank Limited for the period from 18.04.2001 to 31.05.2001. Ex.P488Cheque collection register maintained by Agrasen Co-Operative Urban Bank Limited for the period from 01.06.2001 to 31.07.2001. Ex.P489Cheque collection register maintain by Agrasen Co-Operative Urban Bank Limited for the period from 01.08.2001 to 28.09.2001. Ex.P490Cheque collection register maintain by Agrasen Co-Operative Urban Bank Limited for the period from 01.10.2001 to 31.10.2001. Ex.P491Cheque collection register maintain by Agrasen Co-Operative

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 244 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Urban Bank Limited for the period from 01.11.2001 to 31.12.2001. Ex.P492Bunch of true copies of vouchers/cheques for the month of November, 2000 for the Account Numbers.1300, 1301, 1302, 1303 and 1304. Ex.P493Bunch of true copies of vouchers/cheques for the month of December, 2000 for the Account Numbers. 1300, 1301, 1302, 1303 and 1304. Ex.P494Bunch of true copies of vouchers/cheques for the month of January, 2001 for the Account Numbers.1300, 1301, 1302, 1303 and 1304. Ex.P495Bunch of true copies of vouchers/cheques for the month of February, 2001 for the Account Numbers. 1300, 1301, 1302, 1303 and 1304. Ex.P496Bunch of true copies of vouchers/cheques for the month of March, 2001 for the Account Numbers. 1300, 1301, 1302, 1303 and 1304. Ex.P497Bunch of true copies of vouchers/cheques for the month of April, 2001 for the Account Numbers. 1300, 1301, 1302, 1303 and 1304. Ex.P498Bunch of true copies of vouchers/cheques for the month of May, 2001 for the Account Numbers. 1300, 1301, 1302, 1303 and 1304. Ex.P499Bunch of true copies of vouchers/cheques for the month of June, 2001 for the Account Numbers.1300, 1301, 1302, 1303 and 1304. Ex.P500Bunch of true copies of vouchers/cheques for the month of July, 2001 for the Account Numbers. 1300, 1301, 1302, 1303 and 1304. Ex.P501Bunch of true copies of vouchers/cheques for the month of August and September, 2001 for the Account Numbers. 1300, 1301, 1302, 1303 and 1304. Ex.P502Details of Vouchers/Cheques deposited into the Current A/c.No.1300 for the period from 03-11-2000 to 20.09.2001 in the name of M/s. Ruby Traders. Ex.P503Details of Vouchers/Cheques deposited into the Current A/c.No.1301 for the period from 03-11-2000 to 20-09-2001 in the name of M/s. Universal Trading Company. Ex.P504Details of Vouchers/Cheques deposited into the Current A/c.No.1302 for the period from 03-11-2000 to 20-09-2001

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 245 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 in the name of M/s. Chowdary Steels. Ex.P505Details of Vouchers/Cheques deposited into the Current A/c.No.1303 for the period from 03-11-2000 to 20-09-2001 in the name of M/s. Maheswari Steel Corporation. Ex.P506Details of Vouchers/Cheques deposited into the Current A/c.No.1304 for the period from 03-11-2000 to 20-09-2001 in the name of M/s. Bhoomika Steel. Ex.P507Original Letter dated 06-09-2001 addressed from Branch Manager, Agrasen Co-Operative Urban bank to Sr.Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet, Hyderabad forwarding the confidential report/Credit information report of M/s. Universal Trading Company. Ex.P508Computerized Original Letter dated 28.05.2002 addressed by Proprietor of M/s.Ruby Traders, Secunderabad to Mahesh Co-Operative Urbank Bank Limited, Secunderabad regarding closure of account No. CA3991(D.No.394) (1 sheet). Ex.P509Computerized Original Letter dated 28-5-2002 addressed by Proprietor of M/s.Universal Trading Co, addressed to Mahesh Co-Operative Urbank Bank Limited, Secunderabad regarding closure of account No. CA4024 (LD.No.395) (1 sheet). Ex.P510Computerized Original Letter dated 28-5-2002 addressed by Proprietor of M/s.Chowdhry Steels, to M/s.Mahesh Co-Operative Urbank Bank Limited, Secunderabad regarding closure of account No. CA3877 (D.No.396) (1 sheet). Ex.P511Account opening form of current account No.3877, dated 26-11-1999 in the name of M/s. Choudhary Steels, represented by sole Proprietor Pawan Kumar Choudhary, Plot No.64, Kakaguda, Vasavi Colony, Secunderabad with the AP. Mahesh Cooperative Urban Bank, Monda Market Branch, Secunderabad along with specimen signature card Form No.60, PAN Card declaration and photocopy of certificate of registration of M/s. Choudhary Steels. (D.No.102). Ex.P512Current account No.3982 in the name of M/s Maheshwari Steel Corporation, Kakaguda, Vasavi Colony, near Gruhalakshmi Colony, Secunderabad namely Account Opening Form and the said was closed on 18-1-2002 on the letter, dated: Nil given by the Proprietor of Maheshwari Steel Corporation to the Manager of the Monda Market Branch(D.No.397) (1 sheet). Ex.P513Original Account opening form pertaining to the current account No.3982, dated 26-11-1999 in the name of M/s.Maheswari Steel Corporation, represented by sole

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 246 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Proprietor Jagesh Prasadji, Plot No.88/1, Kakaguda, near Gruhalakshmi Colony. Secunderabad with the M/s.AP.Mahesh Cooperative Urban Bank, Monda Market Branch, Secunderabad, along with the specimen signature card, Form No.60, PAN Çard declaration and photocopy of certificate of registration of M/s. Maheshwari Steel Corporation (D.No.99). Ex.P514Original Letter from Proprietor M/s.Bhoomika Steels, Secunderabad addressed to Mahesh Co-Operative Urban Bank Ltd. Regarding closure of account No.3869(D.No.398) (1 sheet). Ex.P515Account opening form of current account No.3869, dated 26-11-1999 in the name of M/s. Bhoomika Steels, represented by sole Proprietor Jagesh Prasadji, Plot No.8- 102, Sriram Colony, Jeedimetla with the AP.Mahesh Cooperative Urban Bank, Monda Market Branch, Secunderabad, along with the specimen signature card, Form No.60, PAN Card declaration and photocopy of certificate of registration of M/s. Bhoomika Steels (D.No.98). Ex.P516Computerized statement pertaining to the current accountant account No.3982 of M/s. Maheshwari Steel Corporation, C.A.No.4024 of Universal Trading Company, C.A.No.3869 of Bhoomika Steels, C.A.No.3877 of M/s. Choudhary Steels, C.A.No.3991 of M/s. Rubi Traders with M/s.AP. Mahesh Cooperative Urban Bank, Monda Market Branch, Secunderabad (D.No. 103 to 107). Ex.P517Certified copy of Certificate of Registration under APGST Act No.SEC/02/2/1/1591/88-89 issued in the name of M/s Leafin India Limited, Door No.1-2-593/4/A, Gaganmahal, Hyderabad, dated 09-01-1990, certified by PW13 along with certified copy of Certificate of Registration under Central Sales Tax (Registration & Turn over) Rules 1957 CST No.SEC/02/2/1301/88, dated 09-01-1990 (D.No.391) (2 sheets). Ex.P518Certified copy of Certificate of Registration under APGST Act R.C.No.SEC/02/1/2334/1992-1 issued in the name of M/s Larvin Labs Door No. 1-10-197/G, First Floor, Ashoknagar, Hyderabad dated 01-11-1992, certified by PW13 along with certified copy of Certificate of Registration under CST No.SEC/02/1/2271/04-05, dated 01-11-1992 (D.No.392) (2 sheets). Ex.P519Certified copy of fake registered sale deed dated 01.04.1997 purported to have been executed by (1) A.Krishna Reddy, PW14’s elder brother, (2) A.Laxminarsimha Reddy, PW14’s

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 247 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 another elder brother, (3) A.Jogender Reddy and PW14, infavour of Smt. Shashi Agarwal, W/o Sri Munnalal Agarwal, 38 years, House wife, R/o Plot No.32, Road No.3, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad transferring 27guntas of land in Sy. No. 48 Bandlaguda Village, bearing document No.7-2-41 of 1997 registered at District registrar Office, RR District (LD.No.365) (12 sheets). Ex.P520Certified copy of fake registered sale deed, dated 01.04.1997 purported to have been executed PW15/A.Damodar Reddy and PW15’s younger brother/A. Prabhakar Reddy, in favour of Sri Munnalal Agarwal, S/o. Chaganlal, Age 42 years, Business, R/o: Plot No.32, Road No.3, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad transferring 28 guntas of land in Sy.No. 48 Bandlaguda Village, bearing document No.7242 of 1997 registered at District registrar Office, RR District (D.No.364) (12 sheets). Ex.P521Application, dated 22.12.1995 submitted by M/s. Shakti Steels along with highlights of the proposal, statement of material consumed, protected profitability, projected cash flow statement and projected balance sheet (10 sheets). Ex.P522Loan application form, dated 12-12-1995 of Smt. Shashi Agarwal, Proprietor of M/s. Shakti Steels (2 sheets). Ex.P523Fresh proposal of M/s Shakti Steels, dated 06-02-1996 (30 sheets). Ex.P524Letter, dated 08-03-1996 addressed by Regional Manager, OBC to the Senior Manager, OBC, Ameerpet Branch regarding M/s Shakti Steels(LD.No.4)(1 sheet). Ex.P525Clarifications in relating to loan approval vide letter dated 15-03-1996 submitted by M/s Shakti Steels to the Sr.Branch Manager, OBC, Ammerpet Branch (LD.No.5) (4 sheets). Ex.P526Letter, dated 08-04-1996 addressed by Regional Manager, OBC to the Senior Manager, OBC Ameerpet Branch regarding M/s Shakti Steels loan application (L.D.No.8)(1 sheet). Ex.P527Letter dated 20-03-1996 addressed by Senior Manager, OBC, Ameerpet Branch to the Regional Manager, OBC, Madras as reply to Ex.P524 (L.D.No.10) (2 sheets). Ex.P528Letter, dated 28-06-1996 addressed by Senior Manager, OBC, Ameerpet Branch to the Regional Manager, OBC, Madras as reply to Ex.P526(L.D.No.11) (1 sheet). Ex.P529Letter, dated 14-02-1996 addressed by Regional Manager, OBC to the Senior Manager, OBC, Ameerpet Branch about

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 248 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 fresh proposal of M/s Shakti Steels(L.D.No.14) (1 sheet). Ex.P530Office note, dated 08-07-1996 prepared by Mr. Rakesh Malhotra at OBC Regional Office, South Region, Madras. (L.D.No.12) (1 sheet). Ex.P531Copy of travelling allowance bill of Mr. Rakesh Malhotra along with annexure(L.D.No.13) (6 sheets). Ex.P532Office note, dated 14-02-1996 of Regional Office, OBC Regional Office, Southern Region, Madras (LD.No.15) (6 sheets). Ex.P533Office note, dated 28-03-1996 of OBC, Regional Office, Southern Region, Madras(LD.No.9) (2 sheets). Ex.P534Sanction letter for credit facilities, dated 15-07-1996 issued by Regional Office, Madras in favour of M/s Shakti Steels (LD.No.16)(2 sheets). Ex.P535Copy of letter, dated 18-07-1996 addressed by Senior Manager, OBC Ammerpet to M/s Shakti Steels regarding credit facility(LD.No.17) (1 sheet). Ex.P536Copy of terms and conditions accepted by M/s Shakti Steels(L.D.No.18) (2 sheets). Ex.P537Sole proprietorship letter, dated 18.07.1996 executed by Smt.Shashi Agarwal, proprietor of M/s.Shakti Steels to the Manager, OBC, Ameerpet (L.D.No.6) Ex.P538Letter of deposit of title deed, dated 19.07.1996 executed by Mr.P.G.Nagabushanam Naidu for Rs.50 lakh. (LD.No.33). Ex.P539Extracts of property documents of Mr.P.G.Nagabushanam Naidu issue from Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad (LD.No.35) (24 sheets). Ex.P540Copy of sale deed with copy of translation of sale deed along withcopyofencumbrancecertificateof Mr.P.G.Nagabushanam Naidu (L.D.No.30) (9 sheets). Ex.P541Valuation report of M/s. Servel Associates, dated 17.01.1996 pertaining to the property of Mr.P.G.Nagabushanam Naidu (LD.No.32) (4 sheets). Ex.P542Legal opinion, dated 15.01.1996 addressed by Mr.M.Padmakar Rao, Advocate, addressed to the Chief Manager, OBC, Abids, Hyderabad pertaining to the property of Mr.P.G.Nagabushanam Naidu (LD.No.31) (3 sheets).

Ex.P543Copy of equitable mortgage register of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad, dated 18.07.1996

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 249 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 written by PW18 and counter signed by Mr.Sundareswaran (LD.No.38) (A4). Ex.P544Current account opening form of M/s Shakti Steels pertaining to the account No.274 (LD.No.29) . Ex.P545Cash Credit account opening form of M/s Shakti Steels pertaining to the account No.CC-16 (LD.No.28) . Ex.P546Credit report of Mr.P.G.Nagabushanam Naidu, dated 01.03.1996 compiled by Mr.Sundareswaran (LD.No.34) (A4). Ex.P547Letter, dated Nil submitted by Smt. Shashi of M/s Shakti Steels along with copy of general power of attorney executed in favour of her husband and no objection certificate of Bharat Overseas Bank (5 sheets). Ex.P548Letter, dated 17.06.1997 from Regional Office, Chennai advising Ameerpet Branch to submit fully documented renewal proposal of M/s Shakti Steels (LD.No.24). Ex.P549Letter dated 12.09.1997 from Regional Office, Chennai appointing Mr.N.V.R.Murthy as Monitoring Officer for M/s Shakti Steels. Ex.P550Letter dated 27.09.1997 addressed to Mr.Mohammad Babu, from Regional Office, Chennai appointing him as Monitoring Officer for M/s Shakti Steels. Ex.P551Letter dated 16.08.1996 written by Mr.Sundareswaran (A4) addressed to Regional Office, Chennai seeking confirmation of action of bills purchased under Letter of Credit (LD.No.27). Ex.P552Confirmation letter, dated 29.08.1996 of Regional Office, Chennai pertaining to Ex.P551 (LD.No.26). Ex.P553Letter addressed by Airan Comtrax Towers Private Limited to Senior Manager, OBC, Ameerpet Branch along with loan application form, application form for credit facilities, with annexures I to VI (25 sheets). Ex.P554Letter dated 21-04-1997 addressed to Regional Office, Chennai, along with extract of board meeting of Airan Comtrax Towers Private Limited (5 sheets). Ex.P555Letter dated 09-10-1997 of Regional Office, Chennai addressed to the Senior Manager, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad along with office note and sanction letter, dated 09-10-1997 for credit facilities issued by Regional Office, Chennai (8 sheets). Ex.P556Copy of letter dated 21-10-1997 addressed to Airan Comtrax Towers Private Limited by the Senior Manager, Ameerpet

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 250 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Branch, Hyderabad intimating sanction of credit facility. It was acknowledged by Director of the Airan Comtrax Towers Private Limited. Ex.P557Letter dated 05-05-1998 addressed to Regional Manager, Chennai by Senior Manager, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad recommending regular sanction of working capital facilities (2 sheets). Ex.P558Eight cheques drawn on self from the cash credit account of M/s.Shakthi Steels (LD.No.52). Ex.P559Monthly stock statement submitted by M/s.Shakthi Steels (18 sheets). Ex.P560Application of renewal of cash credit limits by M/s.Shakthi Steels along with branch process note, dated 17-02-1998 signed by Mr.Sunderashwaran(A4) (LD.No.54 & 55) (65 sheets). Ex.P561Letter dated 13-02-1998 issued by Regional Office, Chennai, for appointing Monitoring Officer for cash credit account of M/s. Shakthi Steels (LD.No.56) (1 sheet). Ex.P562File containing office note, sanction letter of Regional Office for renewal of cash credit limit of Rs.50-00 lakh (Rupees Fifty Lakh only) to M/s. Shakthi Steels (81 sheets). Ex.P563Letter dated 22-03-1999 for fresh proposal of M/s.Aren Steels Limited for Letter of Credit of Rs.240 lakhs sent from Branch to Regional Manager signed by Mr.Sunderashwaran (A4) (4 sheets). Ex.P564Process note of the branch for fresh proposal of M/s.Aren Steels Limited for Letter of Credit of Rs.240 lakhs signed by Mr. Sunderashwaran (A4) (18 sheets). Ex.P565Savings bank account opening form, specimen signature and statement of account of SB Account bearing No.1520, dated 20-07-1996 in the name of Mr.P.G.Nagabhushanam Naidu opened on the introduction of one Mr.Ritesh Agarwal, SB A/c.No.710 which was authorized by Mr.Sunderashwaran (A4) (3 sheets). Ex.P566Permission issued by Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad for construction of building to Mr.P.G.Nagabhushanam Naidu bearing Sl.No.94 of Book No.70 (1 sheet). Ex.P567Notice of demand for Rs.2,600/- (Rupees Two Thousand Six Hundred only), dated 21-03-1995 issued by Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad to Mr.P.G.Nagabhushanam Naidu bearing Sl.No.3 (1 sheet).

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 251 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Ex.P568Original receipt No.88 of Book No.261 for Rs.2,600/- (Rupees Two Thousand Six Hundred only), dated 08.07.1995 issued by Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad to Mr.P.G.Nagabhushanam Naidu (1 sheet).

Ex.P569Certificate of encumbrance on property, dated 09.06.1996 pertaining to Plot No.32 of Mr.P.G.Nagabhushanam Naidu issued by Joint Registrar-II, Hyderabad (1 sheet). Ex.P570Certificate of encumbrance on property, dated 06.01.1996 pertaining to Plot No.32 issued in the name of Mr.Munnalal Agarwal (A1) by Sub-Registrar, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad (1sheet). Ex.P571Office order duty register for the period from June, 1998 to 18.04.2002 maintained in Ameerpet Branch, Oriental Bank of Commerce. Ex.P572Statement of account from 18-07-1996 to 31-12-1996 of M/s.Shakti Steels (7 sheets). Ex.P573Valuation report given by Mr.S.Chandrashekaran on 31.12.2001 in respect of property standing in the name of Mr.P.G.Nagabhushanam (6 sheets). Ex.P574(49) pay orders issued from Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad, from the account of M/s.Airan Comtrax Towers Private Limited issued in favour of different beneficiaries.

Ex.P575Bunch of correspondence between branch office, Ameerpet and Regional Office, Chennai of Oriental Bank of Commerce with regard to renewal proposal of cash credit facility to M/s Shakti Steels (50 sheets) Ex.P576Sanction letter, dated 01-09-1999 issued in favour of M/s.Airan Comtrax Towers Private Limited by the Regional Office, Chennai (6Sheets). Ex.P577Office note, dated 24-08-1999 prepared at Regional Office, OBC, Chennai (7sheets). Ex.P578Letter addressed to Senior Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch by M/s.Airan Comtrax Towers Private Limited enclosing provisional balance sheet, profit and loss account for the year ending 31.03.1998 duly signed by their Chartered Accountant (6 sheets)

Ex.P579Letter, dated 16-07-1997 forwarded by Branch Office, OBC, Ameerpet to Regional Office, Chennai in reply to queries raised by Regional Office, Chennai vide letter, dated 15.05.1997 (3 sheets).

Ex.P580Valuation report, dated 11-07-1997 issued by Mr.M.Sai Durga Prasad, Valuer in respect of properties belonging to

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 252 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Smt.Shashi Agarwal W/o. Mr.Munnalal Agarwal and Mr.Munnalal Agarwal along with copies of bio-data of the valuer (13 sheets). Ex.P581Securities Inspection and Follow up register maintained at Branch Office, OBC, Ameerpet, Hyderabad, consisting from page 00 to 03 (4 sheets). Ex.P582Office copy of letter, dated 09-08-1997 written by Regional Manager, OBC, Ameerpet to Senior Manager, Branch Office, Ameerpet, Hyderabad (9 sheets). Ex.P583Letter, dated 13-09-1997 of OBC, Ameerpet Branch to the Regional Manager, Chennai in response to letter dated 09-09- 1997 of Regional Manager, Chennai along with a letter of M/s.AIRAN COMTRAX TOWERS Private Limited containing (2) pages and copy of tax receipt No.653858 (5 sheets). Ex.P584Letter, dated 27-11-2000 of Head Office written to Assistant General Manager, Regional Office, Chennai (2 sheets). Ex.P585Certified copy of visit report, dated 10-01-2001 of Mr.E.Venkateswarlu, Officer Industrial Loans from Head Office (7 sheets). Ex.P586Wealth tax return filed by Munnalal Agarwal (A1) for assessment year 1998-99 (filed in listed document No.400) (2 sheets). Ex.P587Report dated 04.04.2002 submitted to General Manager, Inspection (20 sheets). Ex.P588Note prepared by PW24 on 12-05-2000 in respect of A6 company, we have sanction the letter of credit for A6 company for an amount of Rs.1.50 crores, LC to be issued infavour of Rastriya ISPAT Nigam Limited (RINL). Ex.P589Letter dt 13-05-2000 to address a letter to Ameerpet branch, Hyderabad for Rectification/Complaint. Ex.P590Note dt.05-04-1999 prepared by PW24 by raising certain queries for properties offered towards Collateral security. Ex.P591Letter dt.06-04-1999 addressed by Regional Office Oriental Bank of Commerce, Chennai to the Senior Manager OBC, Ameerpet, Hyderabad, wherein the letter contains that the branch has called for letter of credit for Rs.240 Lakhs with certain clarifications.

Ex.P592Ordered sanction of One shot Adhoc LC on DA basis of (90) days for Rs.90 lakhs.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 253 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Ex.P593Sanction letter for letter of Credit facilities dt. 01.03.2000 of A6 Company. Ex.P594Letter dt.17-11-2000 addressed to General Manager, New Delhi with proposal file of A5 company total (10) pages. Ex.P595Office note, dt.12-10-2000, put up by PW25 inrespect of A5 company and the note is sent to Chief Manager/AGM, observations of PW25 in the above said note are that the projections of A5 company are on higher side and the receivables are not acceptable, queries raised in inrespect of M/s. Shakthi Steels/A7 is also due (4 sheets) Ex.P596Office note, dt.19-09-2000, put up by PW25 in respect of A6 company and the note is sent to Chief Manager/AGM, PW25 raised the queries for submission of Credit report of Mr.ML.Agarwal/A1 to bear Branch manager signature, Copy of suitable Board Resolution of the company, Copy of Audited Balance Sheet as on 31-03-1999 and 31.03.2000 alongwith Audit reports and Schedules, Schedule-II of Inland Letter of Credit, and reply to their earlier queries dt.12-06-2000 in respect of M/s.Shakthi Steels/A7(4) sheets. Ex.P597Note file dt.21-11-2000, in respect of A6 company and the note is sent to Chief Manager/AGM, recommending the sanction of facility to head office thereby conveying to the branch to sent the proposal directly to head office with a copy to Regional Office as the allied concerned M/s.Airan Comtrax Towers/A5 is also sent to Head office, which is signed by Kanwaljit singh/A8(2 sheets). Ex.P598Note dt.18-04-2001, in respect of A6 company and the note is sent to Chief Manager/AGM, recommending ADHOC Letter of credit of Rs.90,00,000/- for another rotation. (1 sheet). Ex.P599Note dt.09-06-2001 prepared by PW25 in respect of A6 company observing queries raised by Head office, New Delhi vide letter dt.21-05- 2001 (1 sheet). Ex.P600Letter dt.16-04-2001 wherein PW25 stated that he put up a note on the second page. Ex.P601Noting dt.06-07-2000 for confirmation of ADHOC Letter of credit of Rs.15,00,000/- in the account of A6 after obtaining prior permission from Chief Manager loans and this was approved by Chief Manager/AGM.

Ex.P602Entire file pertaining to Enhancement proposal of A5, at Page No-27 of the this file, it is mention that the maximum availment of A5 is upto 91.68 lakhs, which was in the

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 254 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 knowledge of Regional office and Head office at the time of consideration of enhanced limits of A5 (24 sheets). Ex.P603Officenotedated11-05-1998preparedby G.Ramakrishna/PW-24 (3 sheets). Ex.P604Office note dated 18.06.1999 with regard to A5 company. Ex.P605Office note dated 06-06-1998 of OBC, Southern Region, Chennai (6 sheets). Ex.P606Inspection report of Zahoor Ahmed Letter dated 29.12.2004 (31 sheets). Ex.P607Letter dt.28.11.2000 was signed by A8, the then Assistant General Manager, OBC, Chennai facilitating Ad-hoc Cash Credit Limit of Rs.50.00 Lakhs to A5 Company (LD No.282). Ex.P608Letter dt.09.12.2000 was received from A4, the then Branch Manager, OBC, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad, for sanction of Adhoc Cash Credit Limit of Rs.50.00 Lakhs to A5 Company (LD No.285). Ex.P609Letter of Sanction dt.26.12.2000 signed by A8, sanctioning Adhoc Cash Credit Limit of Rs.50.00 Lakhs and Adhoc Inland L.C.Limit of Rs.50.00 Lakhs in favour of A5 Company, along with Office Note written by PW28 (4 Sheets) (LD No.288). Ex.P610Letter No.ROM/L/706/28/14831/2000, dt.13.12.2000 relates to queries raised by Head Office which were conveyed by the Regional Office to the Branch Office of OBC, Ameerpet in respect of renewal-cum-enhancement proposal of A5 Company, which was signed by Mohit Bhatnagar, the then Chief Manager in Regional Office, OBC, Chennai (LD No.286) (2 sheets). Ex.P611Application dated 15-06-2000 of A5 Company, Loan Application Form, Application Form for Credit Facilities, Bio- data Form, details of existing Fixed Assets, Cash Close Statement along with other enclosures (70 Sheets) (LD No.264). Ex.P612OfficecopyofLetterNo.ROM/L/706/9735/2000, dt.07.09.2000 addressed by the Assistant General Manager, Regional Office, OBC, Chennai to Ameerpet Branch, by enclosing Office Note mentioning the queries (6 Sheets) (LD No.267).

Ex.P613Letter Dt.16.09.2000 of the Deputy General Manager (Credit), Head Office addressed to the Assistant General Manager, Regional Office, Chennai (LD No.269).

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 255 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Ex.P614Reply to the Deputy General Manager (Credit), Head Office, New Delhi vide Letter No.CM/706/20844/2000-01, dt.23.09.2000, marking copy to the Assistant General Manager, Regional Office, Chennai (LD No.270) (2 sheets). Ex.P615Letter No.706/20634/2000-01, dt.15.09.2000 of A4 addressed to the Assistant General Manager, Regional Office, Chennai, enclosing the reply dt.13.09.2000 of A5 company to the queries of Regional Office and Head Office (5 Sheets) (LD No.268). Ex.P616Letter Dt.05.10.2000 was received from Deputy General Manager (Credit), Head Office advising Regional Office, Chennai to call for the reply to the queries from the Branch and send the views/recommendations of Regional Office after thorough examination of subject proposal (LD No.271). Ex.P617Copy of letter dt.26-02-2001 of the Assistant General Manager (I.L) Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Delhi addressed to the Branch Manager, OBC, Ameerpet, Hyderabad conveying sanction of working capital limits in the Account of M/s.Airan Comtrax Private Limited. Ex.P618Letter dated 03.06.2000 addressed by A4 to the Assistant General Manager, Regional Office, Chennai along with LF- 82(Process Note) and LF-70, LF-6 & 76(Application forms), LF-8 by Mrs. Shashi Agarwal, Mr.M.L.Agarwal along with copies of IT Returns and LF-8 by Mr.P.G.Nagabhushanam Naidu, CMA data as submitted by the borrower, Audited Balance Sheet along with Profit and Loss Statement for the years 1997-98 and 1998-99 along with provisional (Certified by a Chartered Accountant) Balance Sheet and Profit & Loss Account for 1999-2000, Estimated/Projected Balance Sheet and Profit and Loss Accounts for 2000-01 and 2001-02 and Copies of Monthly turnover for the year 1999-2000 as submitted by the subject to Sales Tax authorities (19 Sheets) (D.No.75). Ex.P619Letter dated 12.06.2000 addressed by A8 to the Senior Manager, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad (D.No.76). Ex.P620Letter dated 01.10.2000 addressed by A4 along with copies of letter dated 20.10.2000 and Sales Tax Returns of M/s. Shakti Steels(15 Sheets) (D.No. 69). Ex.P621Loan application of M/s. Shakti Steels(2 Sheets) (D.No.71). Ex.P622Credit Report of A3 along with the details of her Assets and Liabilities (2 Sheets) (D.No.72).

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 256 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Ex.P623Credit Report of A1 along with the details of his Assets and Liabilities (2 Sheets) (D.No.73). Ex.P624Undated letter addressed by M/s. Shakti Steels to Senior Manager, OBC, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad for renewal of Cash Credit Limit of Rs.50,00,000/- along with Loan Application(4 sheets) (D No.74). Ex.P625Sanction Letter for Credit facilities dated 20.09.1999 in favour of M/s. Aren Steel Limited (3 Sheets) (D. No.415). Ex.P626Letter dated 02.11.1999 addressed by A4, the then Senior Manager of OBC, Ameerpet Branch, addressed to the Assistant General Manager, Regional Office, Chennai, recommending to allow M/s. Aren Steels Limited to utilize ILC Limit of Rs.35 Lakhs in favour of Local Parties within the overall limits (Part of D.No. 417). Ex.P627Letter of Credit for an amount of Rs.35 Lakhs on parties other than M/s.Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited(with in the sanctioned limit) (Part of D.No.417). Ex.P628Letter dated 15.05.2000 of the Assistant General Manager, OBC, Chennai addressed to the Senior Manager, Ameerpet Branch, permitting to open Letter of Credit to any beneficiary to the extent of Limit of Rs.150 Lakhs(Part of D.No.423). Ex.P629Letter dated 19.06.2000 addressed by the Assistant General Manager, OBC Chennai to the Senior Manager, Ameerpet Branch, regarding permit of Adhoc Inland Letter of Credit(ILC) in the account of M/s.Aren Steels Limited for Rs.90 Lakhs along with Process Note dated 12.06.2000 signed by PW28 and Assistant General Manager(A8) (3 Sheets) (D.No.426). Ex.P630Letter dated 23.09.2000 addressed by the Assistant General Manager, OBC Chennai(A8) to the Senior Manager, Ameerpet Branch, permitting Adhoc ILC of Rs.90 Lakhs for One Month rotation in favour of M/s.Aren Steels Limited (D.No.433). Ex.P631Letter dt.03.01.2001 addressed by AGM, Regional Office, Chennai to Senior Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, which was signed by PW28 on behalf of AGM, Kanwal Jeet Singh (A8) (D.No.437) (1 Sheet). Ex.P632Letter dt.03.01.2001 addressed by Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch to AGM, Regional Office, Chennai (A8) recommending sanction of adhoc Inland LC of Rs.90 Lakhs in favour of M/s.Aren Steels Limited along with enclosure (D.No.436) (2 Sheets).

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 257 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Ex.P633Letter dt.12.04.2001 addressed by Senior Manager, OBC, Ameetpet Branch addressed to the AGM, Regional Office, Chennai and Copy of Letter dt.11.04.2001 addressed by the Managing Director, M/s.Aren Steel Limited addressed to the Senior Manager, OBC, Ameerpet Branch (2 Sheets) (D.No.441). Ex.P634Letter dt.19.04.2001 addressed by AGM, Regional Office, Chennai (A8) recommended for a sanction of adhoc Inland LC of Rs.90 Lakhs to General Manager (Credit), Head Office, New Delhi under (Part of LD.No.442). Ex.P635Letter dt.21.05.2001 addressed by AGM (IL), OBC, New Delhi to the AGM, Regional Office, Chennai along with Note dt.09.06.2001 of PW25 on its overleaf (D.No.443). Ex.P636Letter dt.04.09.2000 was addressed by M/s.Aren Steel Limited represented by its Director Munnalal Agarwal (A1) to the Senior Manager, OBC, Ameerpet Branch requesting for renewal and enhancement of Inland LC limit from Rs.150 Lakhs to Rs.240 Lakhs, enclosing Loan Application Form mentioning the names of M.L.Agarwal (A1), Ritesh Agarwal (A2) and Amit Agarwal as the Directors of said company, which is signed by M.L.Agarwal (A1) as an applicant along with Balance Sheet of the company for the year ending 31.03.2000, Credit Reports of M.L.Agarwal, Ritesh Agarwal and Amit Agarwal, etc. (87 Sheets) (D.No.429). Ex.P637Letter dt.23.09.2000 addressed by the Senior Manager, OBC, Ameerpet Branch to AGM, Regional office, Chennai along with letter dt.22.09.2000 of AGM addressed to the Senior Manager, Ameerpet Branch (2 Sheets) (D.No.431). Ex.P638Office Copy of letter dt.23.09.2000 addressed by the Senior Manager, OBC, Ameerpet Branch to the Assistant General Manager, Regional Office, Chennai, in which signature was marked as Q382, containing original signature. Ex.P639Valuation report dated 03-03-1999 given by Servel Associates, Secunderabad in respect of property admeasuring 5 acres of land in Sy.No.61/B of Pedda Toopran village, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (D.No.408). Ex.P640Valuation report dated 03-03-1999 given by Servel Associates, Secunderabad in respect of property admeasuring 4 acres of land in Sy.Nos.60/A, 61/B & 61/A of Pedda Toopran village, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (D.No.409). Ex.P641Valuation report dated 03-03-1999 given by Servel

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 258 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Associates, Secunderabad in respect of property admeasuring 1 acre of land in Sy.No.61/B of Pedda Toopran village, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (D.No.410). Ex.P642Sanction letter dated 16-06-1998 in the account of M/s.Airan Comtrax Towers Private Limited for cash credit hypothecation limit of Rs.80 Lakhs, documentary D.D. for Rs.20 Lakhs, ILC for Rs.10 Lakhs and Bank Guarantee for Rs.10 Lakhs along with sanctioned terms and conditions (5 sheets) (D.No.243). Ex.P643Letter No.265/2000-2001, dt.29.12.2000 and letter No.266/2000-2001, dt.29.12.2000 addressed by I.R.Rao and Company, Chartered Accountant to the Manager, OBC, Ameerpet Branch, copies of which were marked to AGM, OBC, Regional Office, Chennai, asking the Branch to forthwith stop the operations in the accounts of A5 and A7 companies(2 Sheets) (Part of D.No.637). Ex.P644Letter No.268/2000-2001, dt.30.12.2000 and letter No.267/2000-2001, dt.30.12.2000, which were addressed by I.R.Rao and Company to the Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad, the copies of which were marked to the Assistant General Manager, OBC, Regional Office, Chennai, asking Ameerpet Branch to start operations in the accounts of A5 and A7 companies (2 Sheets) (D.No.289). Ex.P645Two letters under Ex.P644 were sent by PW29 to the Assistant General Manager, Southern Region, Chennai under Letter No.CN/706/23843/2000, dt.30.12.2000, Ex.P646Letter dt.01.08.2001 was addressed to the Branch Manager, OBC, Ameerpet by Managing Director of A5 company requesting for conversion of Bank Guarantee (Performance) of Rs.50 Lakhs into Bank Guarantee (Financial) (D.No.301). Ex.P647LetterNo.70623913/2000-2001,dt.03.01.2001was addressed by PW29 to the Assistant General Manager, Regional Office, Chennai regarding sanction of adhoc LC of Rs.90 Lakhs in the account of A6 company, (D.No.605).

Ex.P648Letter dt.18.12.2000 from A.P.Mahesh Co-operative Urban Bank Limited, Monda Market Branch, Secunderabad was received by the Senior Manager, OBC, Ameerpet Branch, along with credit information report of M/s.Ruby Traders, mentioning it as “Satisfactory”(2 Sheets) (Part of D.No.612). Ex.P649Letter dt.01.02.2000 from A.P.Mahesh Co-operative Urban Bank Limited, Market Street Branch, Secunderabad was

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 259 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 received by the Senior Manager, OBC, Ameerpet Branch, along with letter dt.01.02.2000 of M/s.Maheswari Steel Corporation and credit information reports of M/s.Ruby Traders, M/s.Universal Trading Company and M/s.Maheswari Steel Corporation wherein it is mentioned that there were no transactions in the accounts M/s.Ruby Traders and M/s.Universal Trading Company since 3 months by then and there were no transactions in the account of M/s.Maheswari Steel Corporation from 06.11.2000 (5 Sheets) (Part of D.No.612). Ex.P650Letter dated 18.08.1997 of A4 addressed to Regional Manager, Chennai and letter dated 14.08.1997 of A5 company addressed to A4 (5 Sheets) (D.No.222). (Ex.P650 contains Q557 and Q558). Ex.P651Carbon Copy of letter No.ROM/L/705/LG/2137/97 dated 15.05.1997 addressed by Regional Office, Chennai to OBC, Ameerpet Branch. Ex.P652Credit voucher dated 28.02.2001 for Rs.17,56,495/- crediting the said amount to the account of ACTPL(A5) Ex.P653Credit voucher dated 28.02.2001 for Rs.1,20,346/- crediting the said amount to the account of ACTPL(A5). Ex.P654Credit voucher dated 28.02.2001 for Rs.16,30,500/- crediting the said amount to the account of ACTPL(A5). Ex.P655Credit voucher dated 07.03.2001 for Rs.1,20,878/- crediting the said amount to the account of ACTPL(A5). Ex.P656Credit voucher dated 07.03.2001 for Rs.1,19,736/- crediting the said amount to the account of ACTPL(A5). Ex.P657Credit voucher dated 08.03.2001 for Rs.16,49,360/- crediting the said amount to the account of ACTPL(A5). Ex.P658Credit voucher dated 08.03.2001 for Rs.16,75,500/- crediting the said amount to the account of ACTPL(A5). Ex.P659Credit voucher dated 01.08.2001 for Rs.24,86,950/- crediting the said amount to the account of ACTPL(A5). Ex.P660Credit voucher dated 01.08.2001 for Rs.25,99,490/- crediting the said amount to the account of ACTPL(A5).

Ex.P661Credit voucher dated 01.08.2001 for Rs.29,95,160/- crediting the said amount to the account of ACTPL(A5). Ex.P662Credit voucher dated 06.08.2001 for Rs.25,99,200/- crediting the said amount to the account of ACTPL(A5).

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 260 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Ex.P663Credit voucher dated 06.08.2001 for Rs.26,94,740/- crediting the said amount to the account of ACTPL(A5). Ex.P664Credit voucher dated 06.08.2001 for Rs.24,89,560/- crediting the said amount to the account of ACTPL(A5). Ex.P665Credit voucher dated 07.08.2001 for Rs.19,44,480/- crediting the said amount to the account of ACTPL(A5). Ex.P666Credit voucher dated 07.08.2001 for Rs.24,96,170/- crediting the said amount to the account of ACTPL(A5). Ex.P667Credit voucher dated 07.08.2001 for Rs.26,29,480/- crediting the said amount to the account of ACTPL(A5). Ex.P668Credit voucher dated 11.08.2001 for Rs.29,98,860/- crediting the said amount to the account of ACTPL(A5). Ex.P669Credit voucher dated 11.08.2001 for Rs.23,10,440/- crediting the said amount to the account of ACTPL(A5). Ex.P670Credit voucher dated 11.08.2001 for Rs.26,95,540/- crediting the said amount to the account of ACTPL(A5). Ex.P671Cheque No.630027 dated 30.12.1999 for Rs.69,875/- issued from CC Account No.326 of A5 company (part of D.No.370). Ex.P672Loan application of M/s.Shakthi Steels (Document No.22) Ex.P673Application form for opening of Current Account M/s.Aren Steels Limited (Document No.406) Ex.P674Computer generated statement of account pertaining to account CC326 of M/s.Airan Comptrax Towers Private Limited during period from 17.06.1998 to 31.12.1999, 01.01.2000 to 30.06.2000, 01.07.2000 to 31.12.2000, 01.01.2001 to 31.06.2001, 01.07.2001 to 31.07.2001, 01.01.2002 to 31.12.2002 (135 Sheets) (Doc.No.601). Ex.P675Computerized statement of account pertaining to account No.6035 of M/s.Airan Comptrax Towers Private Limited during period from 11.03.2002 to 23.03.2005 (5 Sheets) (Doc.No.602). Ex.P676Computerized statement of account pertaining to account No.CA1289 of M/s.Airan Comtrax Towers Private Limited during the period from 23.09.1996 to 23.03.2005 (10 Sheets)(Doc.No.600). Ex.P677Debit voucher dated 02.06.1998 of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad for Rs.2,50,000/- in the account of M/s.Shakthi Steels account CC16 along with two credit vouchers for Rs.1,25,000/- each (3 Sheets) (Doc.No.144).

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 261 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Ex.P678Debit voucher dated 18.06.1998 of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad for Rs.9,00,000/- in the account of M/s.Shakthi Steels account CC16 along with one credit voucher for Rs.9,00,000/- (2 Sheets) (Doc.No.145). Ex.P679Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad debit voucher dated 24.10.1998 for Rs.92,930/- in the account of M/s.Shakthi Steels account CC16 along with one credit voucher for Rs.92,930/- (2 Sheets)(Doc.No.146). Ex.P680Debit voucher dated 07.11.1998 of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad for Rs.1,00,000/- in the account of M/s.Shakthi Steels account CC16 along with one credit voucher for Rs.1,00,000/- (2 Sheets) (Doc.No.147). Ex.P681Credit voucher dated 16.11.1998 of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad for Rs.1,00,000/- in the account of M/s.Shakthi Steels account CC16 (1 Sheet) (Doc.No.148). Ex.P682Transfer debit voucher dated 02.12.1998 of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad for Rs.50,000/- in the account of M/s.Shakthi Steels account CC16 along with one credit voucher for Rs.50,000/- (2 Sheet) (Doc.No.149). Ex.P683Transfer debit voucher dated 16.12.1998 of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad for Rs.28,000/- in the account of M/s.Shakthi Steels account CC16 along with one credit voucher for Rs.28,000/- (2 Sheets)(Doc.No.150). Ex.P684Transfer credit voucher dated 28.01.1999 of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad for Rs.50,000/- in the account of M/s.Shakthi Steels (1 Sheet) (Doc.No.151). Ex.P685Transfer debit voucher dated 24.02.1999 of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad for Rs.97,595/- in the account of M/s.Shakthi Steels account along with one credit voucher for Rs.97,595/- (2 Sheets)(Doc.No.152). Ex.P686Transfer debit voucher dated 24.02.1999 of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad for Rs.2,67,777/- in the account of M/s.Shakthi Steels account along with two credit vouchers for Rs.25,637/- and Rs.2,42,140/- respectively (3 Sheets) (Doc.No.153). Ex.P687Transfer debit voucher dated 01.03.1999 of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad for Rs.1,85,635/- in the account of M/s.Shakthi Steels account along with one credit voucher for Rs.1,85,635/- (2 Sheets)(Doc.No.154).

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 262 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Ex.P688Transfer debit voucher dated 01.03.1999 of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad for Rs.1,55,235/- in the account of M/s.Shakthi Steels along with one credit voucher for Rs.1,55,235/- (2 Sheets)(Doc.No.155). Ex.P689Transfer debit voucher dated 03.03.1999 of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad for Rs.3,07,805/- in the account of M/s.Shakthi Steels account along with two credit vouchers for Rs.1,52,650/- and Rs.1,55,155/- (3 Sheets)(Doc.No.156). Ex.P690Transfer debit voucher dated 05.03.1999 of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad for Rs.3,28,470/- in the account of M/s.Shakthi Steels account along with two credit vouchers for Rs.1,60,975/- and Rs.1,67,495/- (3 Sheets)(Doc.No.157). Ex.P691Transfer debit voucher dated 06.03.1999 of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad for Rs.98,250/- in the account of M/s.Shakthi Steels account along with one credit voucher for Rs.98,250/- (2 Sheets)(Doc.No.158). Ex.P692Transfer credit voucher dated 08.03.1999 of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad for Rs.1,42,500/- in the account of M/s.Shakthi Steels (1 Sheet)(Doc.No.159). Ex.P693Transfer credit voucher dated 08.03.1999 of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad for Rs.2,31,500/- in the account of M/s.Shakthi Steels (1 Sheet)(Doc.No.160). Ex.P694Transfer debit voucher dated 09.03.1999 of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad for Rs.1,30,000/- in the account of M/s.Shakthi Steels account along with one credit voucher for Rs.1,30,000/- (2 Sheets)(Doc.No.161). Ex.P695Transfer debit voucher dated 10.03.1999 of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad for Rs.3,76,590/- in the account of M/s.Shakthi Steels account along with two credit vouchers for Rs.1,85,945/- and Rs.1,90,645/- (3 Sheets)(Doc.No.162). Ex.P696Transfer debit voucher dated 12.03.1999 of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad for Rs.4,22,030/- in the account of M/s.Shakthi Steels account along with one credit voucher for Rs.4,22,030/- (2 Sheets)(Doc.No.163). Ex.P697Transfer debit voucher dated 13.03.1999 of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad for Rs.1,68,400/- in the account of M/s.Shakthi Steels account along with one credit voucher for Rs.1,68,400/- (2 Sheets)(Doc.No.164).

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 263 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Ex.P698Transfer debit voucher dated 15.03.1999 of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad for Rs.3,50,228/- in the account of M/s.Shakthi Steels account along with one credit voucher for Rs.3,50,228/- (2 Sheets)(Doc.No.165). Ex.P699Transfer debit voucher dated 16.03.1999 of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad for Rs.74,500/- in the account of M/s.Shakthi Steels account along with one credit voucher for Rs.74,500/- (2 Sheets)(Doc.No.166). Ex.P700Transfer credit voucher dated 08.04.1999 of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad for Rs.4,79,850/- in the account of M/s.Shakthi Steels (1 Sheet) (Doc.No.167). Ex.P701Transfer credit voucher dated 08.04.1999 of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad for Rs.4,77,150/- in the account of M/s.Shakthi Steels (1 Sheet) (Doc.No.168). Ex.P702Transfer debit voucher dated 12.04.1999 of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad for Rs.9,28,820/- in the account of M/s.Shakthi Steels along with one credit voucher for Rs.9,28,820/- (2 Sheets)(Doc.No.169). Ex.P703Transfer debit voucher dated 17.04.1999 of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad for Rs.10,51,155/- in the account of M/s.Shakthi Steels along with one credit voucher for Rs.10,51,155/- (2 Sheets) (Doc.No.170). Ex.P704Transfer credit voucher dated 26.04.1999 of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad for Rs.30,000/- in the account of M/s.Shakthi Steels (1 Sheet) (Doc.No.171). Ex.P705Transfer credit voucher dated 26.04.1999 of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad for Rs.40,000/- in the account of M/s.Shakthi Steels (1 Sheet) (Doc.No.172). Ex.P706Transfer debit voucher dated 04.06.1999 of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad for Rs.4,35,850/- in the account of M/s.Shakthi Steels (1 Sheet) (Doc.No.173). Ex.P707Transfer debit voucher dated 10.07.1999 of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad for Rs.1,00,000/- in the account of M/s.Shakthi Steels along with one credit voucher for Rs.1,00,000/- (2 Sheets)(Doc.No.174). Ex.P708Transfer debit voucher dated 13.07.1999 of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad for Rs.41,000/- in the account of M/s.Shakthi Steels along with one credit voucher for Rs.41,000/- (2 Sheets)(Doc.No.175). Ex.P709Transfer debit voucher dated 10.08.1999 of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad for Rs.44,570/- in

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 264 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 the account of M/s.Shakthi Steels along with one credit voucher for Rs.44,570/- (2 Sheets)(Doc.No.176). Ex.P710Transfer debit voucher dated 11.08.1999 of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad for Rs.2,84,291/- in the account of M/s.Shakthi Steels along with one credit voucher for Rs.2,84,291/- (2 Sheets)(Doc.No.177). Ex.P711Transfer debit voucher dated 17.08.1999 of Oriental Bank of Commerce,AmeerpetBranch,Hyderabadfor Rs.2,69,783.18/- in the account of M/s.Shakthi Steels along with one credit voucher for Rs.2,69,783.18/- (2 Sheets) (Doc.No.178). Ex.P712Transfer debit voucher dated 21.09.1999 of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad for Rs.2,07,498/- in the account of M/s.Shakthi Steels along with two credit vouchers for Rs.1,29,711/- and Rs.77,787/- (3 Sheets) (Doc.No.179). Ex.P713Transfer debit voucher dated 22.09.1999 of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad for Rs.2,49,950/- in the account of M/s.Shakthi Steels along with one credit voucher for Rs.2,49,950/- (2 Sheets)(Doc.No.180). Ex.P714Transfer debit voucher dated 12.10.1999 of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad for Rs.39,879/- in the account of M/s.Shakthi Steels along with one credit voucher for Rs.39,879/- (2 Sheets)(Doc.No.181). Ex.P715Transfer debit voucher dated 14.10.1999 of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad for Rs.64,542/- in the account of M/s.Shakthi Steels along with one credit voucher for Rs.64,542/- (2 Sheets)(Doc.No.182). Ex.P716Transfer debit voucher dated 15.10.1999 of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad for Rs.59,343/- in the account of M/s.Shakthi Steels along with one credit voucher for Rs.59,343/- (2 Sheets)(Doc.No.183). Ex.P717Transfer debit voucher dated 25.10.1999 of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad for Rs.1,00,000/- in the account of M/s.Shakthi Steels along with one credit voucher for Rs.1,00,000/- (2 Sheets)(Doc.No.184). Ex.P718Transfer debit voucher dated 26.10.1999 of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad for Rs.9,96,640/- in the account of M/s.Shakthi Steels along with two credit vouchers for Rs.4,97,955/- and Rs.4,98,685/- (3 Sheets) (Doc.No.185).

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 265 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Ex.P719Transfer debit voucher dated 27.10.1999 of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad for Rs.95,700/- in the account of M/s.Shakthi Steels along with one credit voucher for Rs.95,700/- (2 Sheets)(Doc.No.186). Ex.P720Transfer debit voucher dated 23.11.1999 of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad for Rs.2,54,800/- in the account of M/s.Shakthi Steels along with one credit voucher for Rs.2,54,800/- (2 Sheets)(Doc.No.187). Ex.P721Transfer debit voucher dated 25.11.1999 of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad for Rs.1,00,000/- in the account of M/s.Shakthi Steels along with one credit voucher for Rs.1,00,000/- (2 Sheets)(Doc.No.188). Ex.P722Transfer debit voucher dated 10.11.1999 of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad for Rs.1,00,000/- in the account of M/s.Shakthi Steels along with one credit voucher for Rs.1,00,000/- (2 Sheets)(Doc.No.189). Ex.P723Transfer debit voucher dated 26.11.1999 of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad for Rs.1,70,000/- in the account of M/s.Shakthi Steels along with one credit voucher for Rs.1,70,000/- (2 Sheets)(Doc.No.190) . Ex.P724Transfer debit voucher dated 26.11.1999 of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad for Rs.1,01,026/- in the account of M/s.Shakthi Steels along with one credit voucher for Rs.1,01,026/- (2 Sheets)(Doc.No.191). Ex.P725Transfer debit voucher dated 26.11.1999 of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad for Rs.6,09,690/- in the account of M/s.Shakthi Steels along with one credit voucher for Rs.6,09,690/- (2 Sheets)(Doc.No.192). Ex.P726Transfer debit voucher dated 27.11.1999 of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad for Rs.1,80,000/- in the account of M/s.Shakthi Steels along with one credit voucher for Rs.1,80,000/- (2 Sheets)(Doc.No.193). Ex.P727Transfer debit voucher dated 27.11.1999 of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad for Rs.80,000/- in the account of M/s.Shakthi Steels along with one credit voucher for Rs.80,000/- (2 Sheets)(Doc.No.194). Ex.P728Transfer debit voucher dated 04.12.1999 of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad for Rs.30,000/- in the account of M/s.Shakthi Steels along with one credit voucher for Rs.30,000/- (2 Sheets)(Doc.No.195). Ex.P729Transfer debit voucher dated 06.12.1999 of Oriental Bank of

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 266 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad for Rs.31,197/- in the account of M/s.Shakthi Steels along with one credit voucher for Rs.31,197/- (2 Sheets)(Doc.No.196). Ex.P730Transfer debit voucher dated 06.12.1999 of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad for Rs.1,36,975/- in the account of M/s.Shakthi Steels along with one credit voucher for Rs.1,36,975/- (2 Sheets)(Doc.No.197). Ex.P731Transfer debit voucher dated 09.12.1999 of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad for Rs.4,65,865/- in the account of M/s.Shakthi Steels along with one credit voucher for Rs.4,65,865/- (2 Sheets)(Doc.No.198). Ex.P732Transfer debit voucher dated 20.12.1999 of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad for Rs.1,37,855/- in the account of M/s.Shakthi Steels along with one credit voucher for Rs.1,37,855/- (2 Sheets)(Doc.No.199). Ex.P733Transfer debit voucher dated 23.12.1999 of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad for Rs.1,99,955/- in the account of M/s.Shakthi Steels along with one credit voucher for Rs.1,99,955/- (2 Sheets)(Doc.No.200). Ex.P734Transfer credit voucher dated 27.12.1999 of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad for Rs.2,49,800/- in the account of M/s.Shakthi Steels (1 Sheet)(Doc.No.201). Ex.P735Transfer credit voucher dated 30.12.1999 of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad for Rs.1,72,750/- in the account of M/s.Shakthi Steels (1 Sheet)(Doc.No.202). Ex.P736Transfer credit voucher dated 30.12.1999 of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad for Rs.1,78,500/- in the account of M/s.Shakthi Steels (1 Sheet)(Doc.No.203). Ex.P737Transfer credit voucher dated 15.04.1999 of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad for Rs.9,28,450/- in the account of M/s.Shakthi Steels (1 Sheet) (Doc.No.204). Ex.P738Computer generated bills purchased register pertaining to the period from 1997 to 1999 of Shakthi Steels (277 Sheets) (D.No.205).

Ex.P739Report submitted by PW34 along with covering letter, there is a separate report as on 30-01-2002 in respect of Airon Complex Towers Ltd., (A5)(D.No.638) (03 sheets). Ex.P740Report of A5, dt.30-01-2002(Part of LD.No.638) (03 sheet).

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 267 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Ex.P741SpecialReportofA5toA7Companies, dt.15.02.2002(D.No.639) (03 sheet). Ex.P742Letter to the Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ameerpet,Hyderabadon30-12-2000(D.637) (02 Sheets). Ex.P743Process note dated 05.12.2001 prepared by PW38 comprising of 8 Sheets(L.D.No.324). Ex.P744Letter dated 08.02.2002 addressed by Assistant General Manager, OBC, Banjarahills to the Senior Manager, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad(L.D.No.326 Page No.3). Ex.P745Letter dt.16.03.2002 addressed by Assistant General Manager to Senior Manager, OBC, Ameeerpet and the letter 15.03.2002 addressed by Assistant General Manager, Head Office addressed to Assistant General Manager, Regional Office, Hyderabad (L.D.No.327 Sheet No.3 and 4). Ex.P746Letter dated 24.12.2001 from Asst. General Manager, OBC, Banjarahills addressed to Sr.Manager, OBC Ameerpet (One Sheet). Ex.P747Note put up by PW38 on 09.02.2002 and it is in his hand writing(Page No.1 back side). Ex.P748Enquiry report dated 29.01.1991 of the then Enforcement Officer. (L.D.367 1st sheet). Ex.P749Letter issued by Enforcement Officer to the employer requesting to furnish certain documents. (L.D.367 2nd sheet). Ex.P750Details of the Establishment submitted by the employer while coverage of Establishment. (L.D.No.367 3rd Sheet). Ex.P751Employer furnished the documents as per the notice dated 21.01.1991(L.D.No.367 4th Sheet). Ex.P752True extract of xerox copy of registration certificate of Giridhar ISPAT Private Limited.(L.D.No.367 5th Sheet). Ex.P753True Extract Copy of Xerox Copy of certificate issued by Department of Industries in respect of Giridhar ISPAT Private Limited. (L.D.No.367 6th Sheet). Ex.P754True Extract of copy of Certificate Registration issued by Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Office in respect of Giridhar ISPAT Private Limited. (L.D.No.367 7th Sheet). Ex.P755True extract of copy of Certificate of Registration issued by Central Sales Tax Department in respect of Giridhar ISPAT Private Limited. (L.D.No.367 8th Sheet).

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 268 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Ex.P756True Extract of copy of Invoice of Giridhar ISPAT Private Limited. (L.D.No.367 9th Sheet). Ex.P757Attested copy of coverage of Establishment issued by Regional Provident Fund Commissioner issued by Giridhar ISPAT Private Limited(L.D.No.367 10 and 11th Sheet). Ex.P758Attested copy letter issued by Airen Comptrox Towers Private Limited on taking over of Giridhar ISPAT Private Limited. (L.D.No.367 12th Sheet). Ex.P759Attested copy Form-5A submitting ownership details in respect of Airen Comtraxt Towers Private Limited(L.D.No.367 13th Sheet). Ex.P760Document Form 9 in which the list of employees of Giridhar ISPAT Private Limited(L.D.No.367 14th to 42 Sheet). Ex.P761Form 6A Annual Report in respect of contributions remitted against the members filed by employers by Airon Comptroxt Towers Private Limited. This document is pertaining to the period from 01.04.2000 to 31.03.2001(L.D.No.367 43 Sheet). Ex.P762Bunch of documents (Sheet No.1 to 5) i.e. Bill of Exchange, Letter of Credit, Bankers Cheque, State Bank of Marishash Covering letter(L.D.No.476). Ex.P763Documents related to LC.No.0028493/201/130 dated 23.02.2000 issued by OBC, Ameerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aren Steels Limited favouring M/s.RINL (L.D.No.482). Ex.P764Documents related to LC.No.0028495/201/132 dated 29.02.2000 issued by OBC, Ameerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aren Steels Limited favouring M/s.RINL (L.D.No.483). Ex.P765Statement of account handed over by PW44 (L.D.No.582 Page No.3 to 9) Ex.P766Cheque No.661397 dated 14.02.2000(L.D.No.576). Ex.P767Cheque No.661385 dated 12.02.2000(L.D.No.577). Ex.P768Cheque No.661762 dated 24.02.2000(L.D.No.578). Ex.P769Cheque No.661777 dated 02.03.2000(L.D.No.579). Ex.P770Cheque No.661778 dated 04.03.2000(L.D.No.580). Ex.P771Cheque No.652607 dated 24.01.2000(L.D.No.572). Ex.P772Cheque No.656941 dated 11.04.2000(L.D.No.573). Ex.P773Cheque No.656940 dated 11.04.2000(L.D.No.574). Ex.P774Cheque No.652604 dated 24.01.2000(L.D.No.575).

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 269 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Ex.P775Photograph on specimen signature of proprietor related to Venson Steels belongs to Chandra Prakash who used to deals with accounts and banking(L.D.No.137). Ex.P776Certified copy of Certificate of Incorporation of Airan Comptrax Private Limited/A5 (LD-488) (10 sheets) Ex.P777Certified copy of Certificate of Incorporation of Areen Steels Private Limited/A6 (LD-487) (22 sheets). Ex.P778Receipt memo dated 27.04.2006 enclosing five pay orders no.001534, 036023, 037532, 035985, 039073 (1 sheet) (LD-565). Ex.P779Seven pay order nos.047915, 047691, 046792, 046794, 046782, 046593, 045152 of UTI Bank favouring A.P.Mahesh Co-operative Bank (LD-549 to LD-555)(7 pay orders). Ex.P780Document related to LC No.0036402/201/247 dated 24.04.2001 issued by OBC, Ameerpet Branch on behalf of M/s. Aren Steels Limited(after verifying charge sheet court recorded it as A6) in favour of M/s.Universal Trading Company, Hyderabad(L.D.No.505) (44 Sheets). Ex.P781Pay Order No.147555 favouring Lakshmi Vilas Bank Limited

dated 24.07.2001 for Rs.40,01,591/-(L.D.No.538/9).

Ex.P782Document related to LC No.0036405/201/249 dated 26.04.2001 for an amount of Rs.49,99,995/- issued by OBC, Ameerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aren Steels Limited in favour of Ruby Traders, Hyderabad along with related enclosures(L.D.No.490) (18 sheets). Ex.P783Pay Order No.147630 dated 30.07.2001 favouring Lakshmi Vilas Bank for Rs.50,16,433.34(L.D.No.538/4). Ex.P784Document related to LC No.0036407/201/251 dated 10.05.2001 for an amount of Rs.19,99,998/- issued by OBC, Ameerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aren Steels Limited in favour of Ruby Traders, Hyderabad along with related enclosures(L.D.No.491). Ex.P785Pay Order No.147764 dated 13.08.2001 favouring Lakhsmi Vilas Bank for Rs.20,05,477.45 (L.D.No.538/5). Ex.P786Document related to LC No.0036411/201/257 dated 14.05.2001 for an amount of Rs.24,99,984/- issued by OBC, Ameerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aren Steels Limited in favour of Ruby Traders, Hyderabad along with related enclosures(L.D.No.492). Ex.P787Pay Order No. 147798 dated 16.08.2001(L.D.No.538/6).

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 270 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Ex.P788Document related to LC No.0036412/201/258 dated 17.05.2001 for an amount of Rs.19,99,971/- issued by OBC, Ameerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aren Steels Limited in favour of Ruby Traders, Hyderabad along with related enclosures(L.D.No.499). Ex.P789Pay Order No.147876 dated 21.08.2001 farouring Lakshmi vilas bank for Rs.20,07,861.30 (L.D.No.538/1). Ex.P790Original letter dated 2.11.1999 addressed by Oriental Bank of Commerce to assistant general manager, regional office, Chennai requesting that a part of limit upto 35 lakhs, LC be issued in favour of local parties instead of Rashtriya Ispat Nigam limited citing the reasons higher discount is available when the material is procured from local parties(L.D.No.416). Ex.P791Original Register Sale Deed vide Doc. No.7241/1997 dated 01.04.1997(7 Sheets)(L.D.NO.661). Ex.P792Original Register Sale Deed vide Doc. No.7242/1997 dated 01.04.1997(7 Sheets)(L.D.NO.664). Ex.P793Specimens ofA1 and A2 are compared with questioned thumb impressions Ex.P794Specimens of A3and A4 are compared with questioned thumb impressions and same is Ex.P794. Ex.P795Specimen impressions of (Purported) of A.Damodar Reddy sent by the Investigating officer to PW56 on three finger print leaves is marked as SF-7, SF8, SF9, SF10, SF11, SF12 of which he selected two impressions Ex.P796Opinion dated 21.05.2007 and the same was forwarded by the Superintendent of Police, Finger Print Bureau, Bangalore vide letter requisition Number 49/FPB/2007 dated 06.06.2007(2 Sheets). Ex.P797Opinion along with covering letter forwarding the opinion to SP, CBI, BS and FC, Bangalore dated 25.11.2005 which was signed by Sri. Narender singh, the then Govt. Examiner of questioned documents(L.D.No. 206) ( 3 sheets). Ex.P798Covering Letter, dated 10.04.2006 (LD No.556) Ex.P799Pay Order No.010366, dated 15.02.2001 (LD No.556) Ex.P800Pay Order No.007094, dated 28.09.2000 (LD No.557) Ex.P801Pay Order No.007093, dated 28.09.2000 (LD No.558) Ex.P802Pay Order No.007369, dated 03.10.2000 (LD No.559) Ex.P803Pay Order No.007368, dated 03.10.2000 (LD No.560)

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 271 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Ex.P804Pay Order No.006726, dated 30.08.2000 (LD No.561) Ex.P805Pay Order No.007078, dated 27.09.2000 (LD No.562) Ex.P806Pay Order No.006608, dated 17.08.2000 (LD No.563) Ex.P807Pay Order No.006166, dated 11.07.2000 (LD No.564) Ex.P808Purported specimen writings/signatures of Sri.S.Chandra Prakash marked as S1 to S137 (L.D.Nos.581. 583 to 593 and 619). Ex.P809Purported specimen writings/signatures of Sri. Ritesh Agarwal marked as S138 to S228(L.D.No.620 to 628). Ex.P810Purported specimen writings/signatures of Sri.Munnalal Agarwal marked as S229 to S238(L.D.No.629). Ex.P811Purported specimen writings/signatures of Sri.S.Chandra Sekhar marked as S239 to S244(L.D.No.630). Ex.P812Purported specimen writings/signatures of Sri.Jagadish Prasad Bangad marked as 5245 to S249(L.D.No.631). Ex.P813Purported specimen writings/signatures of Mrs.Seshi Agarwal marked as S250 to S253(L.D.No.632). Ex.P814Purported specimen writings/signatures of Sri.M.Anjaiah marked as S264 to S273(L.D.No.633). Ex.P815Purported specimen writings/signatures of Sri.A.Narsinga Rao marked as S274 to S283(L.D.No.634). Ex.P816Purported specimen writings/signatures of Sri.B.Mallesh marked as 5284 to 5293(L.D.No.635). Ex.P817Purportedspecimenwritings/signaturesof Sri.M.Sundereshwaran marked as S314 to S325 (L.D.No.636). Ex.P818Document related to LC No.0028493/201/130 dated 23.02.2000 issued by OBC, Ameerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aran Steels Limited favouring M/s.Rastreeya Ispat Nigam Limited along with related enclosures(L.D.No.482). Ex.P819Document related to LC No.0028495/201/132 dated 29.02.2000 issued by OBC, Ameerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aran Steels Limited favouring M/s.Rastreeya Ispat Nigam Limited along with related enclosures(L.D.No.483). Ex.P820Document related to LC No.0028521/201/158 dated 08.04.2000 issued by OBC, Ameerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aran Steels Limited favouring M/s.Rastreeya Ispat Nigam Limited along with related enclosures(L.D.No.489).

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 272 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Ex.P821Document related to LC No.0028489/201/126 dated 10.02.2000 issued by OBC, Ameerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aran Steels Limited favouring M/s.Rastreeya Ispat Nigam Limited along with related enclosures(L.D.No.481). Ex.P822Document related to LC No.0028474/201/113 dated 30.12.1999 issued by OBC, Ameerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aran Steels Limited favouring M/s.Rastreeya Ispat Nigam Limited along with related enclosures(L.D.No.477). Ex.P823Document related to LC No.0028477/201/115 dated 21.01.2000 issued by OBC, Ameerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aran Steels Limited favoring M/s.Rastreeya Ispat Nigam Limited along with related enclosures(L.D.No.478). Ex.P824Documents related to LC No.0036405/201/249 dated 26.04.2001 issued by OBC, Ameerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aren Steels Limited (18 Sheets)(L.D.No.490). Ex.P825Certified copy of extract of Assessment register for property tax volume No.7, Page No.7 issued by Deputy Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad in respect of premises 1-9- 9ofSri.P.Naghabushanamand Sri.B.Subramanyam(L.D.No.37). Ex.P826Original letter dated 06.09.2001 addressed to Senior Manager, OBC, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad advising to submit the renewal proposal along with sanction process note and sanction letter etc. of M/s.Shakthi Steels(L.D.No.85). Ex.P827Original letter dated 29.09.2001 of OBC, New Delhi Addressed to Senior Manager, Ameerpet Branch regarding M/s.Shakthi Steels(L.D.No.90). Ex.P828Original letter dated 14.12.2001 of OBC, Hyderabad addressed to Branch Manager, Ameerpet enclosing original letter of OBC, New Delhi regarding renewal proposal of M/s.Shakthi Steels(L.D.No.94). Ex.P829Letter dated 24.12.2001 signed by Assistant General Manager addressed to the Senior Manager, Ameerpet Branch(L.D.No.96).

Ex.P830Statement of account of OBC, Ameerpet, Hyderabad related to the account of Shakthi Steels Limited from 01.01.2001 to 31.12.2001(L.D.No.128). Ex.P831Bunch of pay orders pertaining to M/s.Maheshwari Steel Corporations(37 pay orders)(L.D.No.130). Ex.P832Bunch of pay orders pertaining to M/s. Universal Trading

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 273 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Company (4 pay orders)(L.D.No.131). Ex.P833Bunch of pay orders pertaining to M/s.Choudary Steels(9 pay orders)(L.D.No.132). Ex.P834Bunch of pay orders pertaining to M/s.Ruby Traders vide pay order no.086014 dated 24.02.2000(L.D.No.133). Ex.P835Bunch of pay orders pertaining to M/s.Venson Steels 28 pay orders(L.D.No.134). Ex.P836Cheques favoring M/s.Maheshwari Steels Corporation issued by M/s.Shakthi Steels(L.D.No.135). Ex.P837Original Statements of accounts of Krushi Co-op Urban Bank Ltd., Dated from 3.1.2000 to 16.10.2001, related to Venson Steels A/C No.015 and enclosed Certificate U/s 2 A of Banker's Books of evidence Act. 1891. (3 Sheets) (L.D.No.138). Ex.P838Instruments(12 Cheques) which were utilized for making withdrawals from Cash Credit account of M/s Shakthi Steels (CC-16) during the year 1997. list of Annexure-I attached Cheque Numbers.909762, 909797, 909793, 913804, 909799, 913879, 913874, 913869, 913873, 939045, 939048, 939040 (L.D.No.142). Ex.P839Instruments(List of Cheques) which were utilized for making withdrawals from Cash Credit account of M/s Shakthi Steels (CC 16) during the year 1998, list of Annexure-II attached(L.D.No.143). Ex.P840Original copy of Provisional Balance Sheet as on 31.3.1997 and Balance Sheet as at 31.07.97 of M/s Airan Comtrax Towers P Ltd., (4 Sheets) Q-523 to Q-528)(L.D.No.215). Ex.P841Original letter of OBC dated 21.4.97 from Sr. Manager, Ameerpet, Hyderabad, addressed to the regional Manager, Regional office, Chennai, along with original copy of Annexure-B related to M/s ACTPL, for sanction of Term Loan and Working Capital of Rs. 50 lakhs and Rs. 1.00 Crore respectively (21 Sheets)(L.D.No.216).

Ex.P842Original copy of Pre Sanction visit dated 25.06.1997 Report related to M/s ACTPL, Secunderabad, by Sri. Sundareswaran, Senior Manager, Location of the unit survey no. 29, Oothpally village, Shamshabad Mandal, R.R. District A.P. (8 Sheets) (Q-588)(L.D.No.218). Ex.P843Letter of M/s ACTPL, Hyderabad from its Director dated 24.5.1997, addressed to The Sr.Manager, OBC, Ameerpet,

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 274 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Hyderabad. Regarding Clarifications on proposed for sanction of financial assistance for our proposed unit M/s.ACTPL, Secunderabad (3 Sheets), (Q-589)(L.D.No.219). Ex.P844Letter of OBC, Regional Office, Chennai from Regional Manager dated 09.09.1997 addressed to Senior Manager, Ameerpet, Hyderabad regarding M/s ACTPL along with original Office Note of OBC, R.O., Southern Region, Madras from Regional Manager dated 06.09.1997, regarding M/s ACTPL Term loan 50 lacs(4 Sheets)(LD.No.224). Ex.P845Letter of M/s ACTPL, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. From Managing Director dated 12.01.1998 addressed to The Branch Manager, OBC, Ameerpet, Hyderabad, regarding release of term loan of a/c no.1130- request regarding and attrached original four letters of M/s ACTPL, Ameerpet, Hyderabad.From Managing Director, letter dated 05.02.1998, 19.2.1998, 19.3.0998, 2.4.1998, addressed to The Branch Manager, OBC, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. Regarding Release of Term Loan of A/c No. 1130 (5 Sheets) (Q-474, Q-584 to Q-587)(LD.No.229). Ex.P846Letter of M/s.ACTPL, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. From Sh.M.L.Agarwal, Managing Director, letter dated 25.10.1997, addressed to the Branch Manager, OBC, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. Regarding Adhoc limit for cash credit of Rs. 30.00 lakhs(3 Sheets)(LD.No.230). Ex.P847Hand-written letter No. 4657/97-98 dated 28.1.98 of OBC, Hyderabad. From Sr. Manager, addressed to The Regional Manager, Chennai (2 Sheets) (Q-556)(L.D.No.235). Ex.P848Hand-written letter No. CN/706/4695/97-98 dated 2.2.1998, of OBC, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. From Sr. Manager, addressed to The Regional Manager, Regional Office Southern, Chennai. (1 Sheet)(L.D.No.236). Ex.P849Letter of M/s ACTPL, Hyderabad, from Director, letter dated: 2.5.1998. addressed to The Senior Manager, OBC, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. and also enclosed xerox copy of the bill of M/s Bhagwati Machinery Corpn, (2 Sheets) (Q-540)(L.D.No.237).

Ex.P850Letter No.CN/706/98-99/5899 dated 03.06.1998 of OBC, Hyderabad. From Senior Manager, Addressed to The Regional Manager, Southern Region, Chennai. (1 Sheet) (Q-555) (L.D.No.240). Ex.P851Original Letter No. CN/706/98-99/5900 dated 03.06.1998 of OBC, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. addressed to The Regional Manager Southern Region, Chennai. Regarding Visit Report of

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 275 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

M/s ACTPL, Secunderabad, (1 Sheets) (Q-541)(L.D.No.241). Ex.P852Original letter of M/s ACTPL, Secunderabad. From Sh. M.L. Agarwal, Managing Director, addressed to The Sr. Manager, OBC, Ameerpet, Hyderabad regarding Renewal of Limits. (2 Sheets) (Q-522)(L.D.No.247). Ex.P853Original loan application form of OBC, New Delhi, favouring M/s ACTPL., Secunderabad. Term Loan: 42.00 lacs, etc. (3 Sheets) (Q-565)(L.D.No.248). Ex.P854Original letter of M/s ACTPL, Secunderabad, from Director, addressed to The Senior Manager, OBC, Ameerpet, Hyderabad.EnclosedProvisionalProfit&Loss account/Provisional Balance sheet as on 31.3.1998. Annexure 1 of M/s ACTPL. (6 Sheets) (Q-542 to Q-554) (L.D.No.250). Ex.P855Original letter of M/s ACTPL, Secunderabad, dated 12.4.1999 addressed to The Senior Manager, OBC, Ameerpet, Hyderabad, regarding Clarification on turnover of the company. (2 Sheets) (Q-413)(L.D.No.252). Ex.P856Original letter No. CN/706/12944/99 dated 17.8.1999 from OBC, Ameerpet, Hyderabad from Sr. Manager, addressed to The Asst. Gen. Manager, R.O. Chennai, regarding renewal proposal of M/s ACTP, (2 Sheets), (Q-521)(L.D.No.254). Ex.P857Original copy of Pre-sanction Visit Report of OBC, New Delhi, favouring M/s ACTPL, Name of visiting officer N Mohd Babu, Date of Visit: 26.7.2000, Location of unit: Sy no. 214/3/A&B, Janwada Village, Shankarapally Mandal, RR District. (8 Sheets)(L.D.No.265). Ex.P858Original letter of M/s ACTPL, Secunderabad. From Managing Director letter dated 9.12.2000 addressed to The Sr. Manager, OBC, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. (2 Sheets) (Q-479) (L.D.No.274). Ex.P859Original letter No. ROM/LAC/14280/00 of OBC, Regional Office, Chennai from Asst. Gen. Manager letter dated 24.11.2000 addressed Sr. Manager, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. (1 Sheet) (Q-478)(L.D.No.280). Ex.P860Original copy letter No. CN/706/22319/2000-01 of OBC, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. From Sr. Manager, letter dated 28.11.2000, addressed to The Asst. Gen. Manager, Regional Office, Chennai. (1 Sheet)(L.D.No.281). Ex.P861Original letter No. ROM/L/706/15698/2000 of OBC, Regional Office, Chennai. From Asst. Gen. Manager, letter dated

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 276 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 30.12.2000 addressed to The Sr. Manager, Ameerpet, Hyderabad regarding Concurrent Auditor's Report on M/s. ACTPL & M/s. Sakthi Steels Ltd. (1 Sheet)(LD.No.290). Ex.P862Hand-written letter of M/s ACTPL, Secunderabad. From Managing Director letter dated 11.1.2001 addressed to The Senior Manager, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. (2 Sheets) (Q-481) (LD.No.291). Ex.P863Original letter No. ROM/L/706/18154/2001 of OBC, Regional Office, Chennai. From Asst. Gen. Manger, letter dated 19.2.2001 addressed to The Sr. Manager, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. (1 Sheet), (Q-482)(LD.No.294). Ex.P864Original office note of OBC, Southern Region, Chennai dated 27.4.2001 related to M/s ACTPL, Ameerpet, Hyderabad and enclosed Original copy of branch Certificate of compliance of OBC, Ameerpet, Hyderabad dated 23.04.2001, favouring M/s Airan Comtrax Towers P Ltd. and enclosed Xerox copy of True copy of the extract from the minutes of the Board of Directors meeting held on 2nd March, 2001 at Registered Office of the company (18 Sheets)(LD.No.298). Ex.P865Original letter of OBC, HO, New Delhi from Assistant General Manager(IL), letter dated 09.07.2001 addressed to the Assistant General Manager Regional Office, Hyderabad (2 Sheets)(L.D.No.300). Ex.P866Original letter No. CN/706/24649/2001-02 dated 1.8.2001 from Sr. Manager, OBC addressed to The Assistant General Manager, RO, Hyderabad. and Enclosed Xerox copy letter of M/s ACTPL, Secunderabad, from Managing Director, Letter

dated: 10.7.2001 addressed to The Senior Manager, OBC,

Ameerpet, Hyderabad, (3 Sheets)(L.D.No.302). Ex.P867Original Hand written Office note of OBC, H.O., New Delhi,

dated 13.7.2001. From Chief Manager addressed to the

A.G.M, regarding the visit to M/s. ACTPL unit by T.S.Bagga, CM (1 Sheet)(L.D.No.303). Ex.P868Original letter of OBC, Regional Office, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, from Asst. Gen. Manager, letter No. ROH/LN/1342/2001 dated 25.8.2001 addressed to Senior Manager, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. Regarding, M/s ACTPL- Adhoc - Rs. 30.00 lacs (1 Sheet)(L.D.No.305). Ex.P869Original letter of OBC, H.O. New Delhi. From Asst. Gen. Manager (IL), letter dated 31.8.2001, addressed to The Asst. Gen. Manager, R.O., Hyderabad. (1 Sheet)(L.D.No.306). Ex.P870Original copy of OBC, H.O., New Delhi. From Dy. Gen.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 277 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Manager (I & C) letter No. H.O/I&C/BR/5582 dated 28.9.2001 addressed to The Asst. Gen. Manager, R.O., Hyderabad. (2 Sheets)(L.D.No.308). Ex.P871Original hand written letter No. CN/706/2546/2001-02 dated 5.10.2001 from Sr. Manager of OBC, Ameerpet, Hyderabad, addressed to The. Asst. Gen. Manager, R.O., Hyderabad. (2 Sheets)(Q-2793)(L.D.No.314). Ex.P872Original letter of OBC, H.O., New Delhi. From Asst. Gen. Manager, dated 10.11.2001 addressed to The Asst. Gen. Manager, R.O., Hyderabad. (1 Sheet)(L.D.No.317). Ex.P873Original copy of Hand-written Office Note of OBC, R.O., Hyderabad, dated 24.11.2001 regarding visit report of Sh. Rakesh Sharma, (1 Sheet), (Q-505)(L.D.No.318). Ex.P874Original letter of M/s ACTPL, Secunderabad. From Managing Director, letter dated 26.11.2001 addressed to The Sr. Manager, OBC, Ameerpet, Hyd., (1 Sheet), (Q-484) (L.D.No.319). Ex.P875Original letter No. ACTPL/010/027/02-03 of M/s ACTPL, dated 13.5.2002 from M.L. Agarwal, Managing Director, addressed to The Sr. Manager, OBC, Ameerpet, Hyderabad regarding submission of required information as per the personal discussion held with Sri. Thakkar A.G.M. on 13-05-2002. Enclosed stock statement, CC 326 dated: 30.4.2002 (2 Sheets), (Q-486 & Q-487)(L.D.No.321). Ex.P876Original letter No. ACTPL/010/013/02-03 of M/s ACTPL, dated 23.4.2002 from M.L. Agarwal, Managing Director, addressed to The Chairman Managing Director, OBC, H.O., New Delhi. (2 Sheets) (Q-490)(LD.No.329). Ex.P877Original letter of M/s ACTPL, Secunderabad. From M.L. Agarwal, Managing Director, letter dated 3.6.2002 addressed to The Chairman and Managing Director, OBC, H.O., New Delhi. Enclosed OCC Stock Statement Cum MSOD from M/s ACTPL, Addressed to OBC, and List of Sundry Debtors as on 30 April 2002 of M/s ACTPL. (4 Sheets) (Q-485, Q-488 & Q- 489)(LD.No.330). Ex.P878Office copy kept in branch of STM-41 & Annexures from Jan 1997 to May 2001 of OBC, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad. (281 Sheets)(LD.No.340). Ex.P879Original copy of Hand-written letter No. CN/706/19854/2000- 01 dated 25.7.2000 from Sr. Manager OBC, Ameerpet, Hyderabad addressed to The Asst. Gen. Manager, R.O. Chennai and enclosed Annexure 'E' Quarterly Report of Large

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 278 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Borrowal Accounts related to M/s ACTPL, Hyderabad. (5 Sheets)(LD.No.341). Ex.P880Original Hand-written letter No. CN/706/16708/99-2000

dated 2.2.2000 from The Sr. Manager, OBC, Ameerpet,

Hyderabad addressed to The Asst. Gen. Manager. Regional Office. Chennai. Carbon copy letter of OBC. Secunderabad from Asst. Gen. Manager, letter dated 27.1.2000, addressed to Sr. Manage Ameerpet, Hyderabad. Original Office Note of OBC, Southern Region, Chennan dated 22.1.2000, related to M/s ACTPL, Monitoring Officer report-Quarter ended Dec. 1999. Original copy of Annexure-II dated 31.12.1999, addressed to M/s.ACTPL, Hyderabad. (6 Sheets)(LD.No.343). Ex.P881Original Hand-written letter no. CN\706\14323\99-2000

dated 4.11.99 fom Sr. Manager of OBC, Ameerpet,

Hyderabad addressed to The Asst. Gen. Manager, Regional Office, Chennai and enclosed Original copy of Annexure II, related to M/s ACTPL. (4 Sheets)(LD.No.344). Ex.P882Original letter of M/s ACTPL, Secunderabad. From Director, letter dated 21.01.1999, addressed to The Chief Manager, OBC, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. Regarding Discounting of bill. (1 Sheet) (Q-568)(LD.No.352). Ex.P883Office copy maintained in the bank STM-41 & Annexures from June 2001 to Dec 2002 of OBC, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad. S(392 Sheets)(LD.No.355). Ex.P884Computerized L.C. of OBC, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. Dated 18.2.2005, to applicant M/s ACTPL, Secunderabad of beneficiary Sh. Laxmi Narashima Swamy, Secunderabad. Five Sheets of Computerized L.C. of OBC, Ameerpet, Hyderabad.

Dated 18.2.2005, to applicant M/s ACTPL, Secunderabad of

Two Sheets of beneficiary M/s Payal Steels Pvt Ltd., Hyderabad. Computerized L.C. of OBC, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. Dated 18.2.2005, to applicant M/s ACTPL, Secunderabad of beneficiary Universal Trading Co., Hyderabad, and Computerized L.C. of OBC, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. Dated 18.2.2005, to applicant M/s ACTPL, of beneficiary M/s Ruby Traders. (10 Sheets)(LD.No.357). Ex.P885Certified copy of Equitable Mortgage of OBC, related to M/s ACTPL, Secunderabad. Dated 5.2.2001 related to Smt. Shashi Agarwal, Xerox copy of Equitable Mortgage of OBC, related to M/s ACTPL, Secunderabad. Dated 5.2.2001 & 09.03.2001 related to Sh. M.L. Agarwal and enclosed various other documents related to it.(16 Sheets).(LD.No.358) Ex.P886Certified copy of Equitable Mortgage of OBC, related to M/s

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 279 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

ACTPL, Secunderabad. Dated 6.11.2001 related to Smt. Shashi Agarwal, Xerox copy of Equitable Mortgage of OBC, related to M/s ACTPL, Secunderabad. Dated 16.11.2001 In the Name of Sh. M.L. Agarwal, Xerox copy of Equitable Mortgage of OBC, related to M/s ACTPL, Secunderabad.

Dated 16.11.2001 In the Name of M/s ACTPL, Secunderabad.

Dated 16.11.2001 and enclosed various other documents

related to it. (9 Sheets)(LD.No.359). Ex.P887Certified copy of Equitable Mortgage of OBC, related to M/s ACTPL, Secunderabad. Dated 15.10.1996 In the Name of Sh. P.G. Nagabushanam Naidu, Xerox copy of Equitable Mortgage of OBC, related to M/s ACTPL, Secunderabad. Dated 21.10.1997 related to Shri. M.L. Agarwal, Xerox copy of Equitable Mortgage of OBC, related to M/s ACTPL, Secunderabad. Dated 21.10.1997 related to Shri. Ritesh Agarwal, Smt. Shashi Agarwal, Xerox copy of Equitable Mortgage of OBC, related to M/s ACTPL, Secunderabad.

Dated 17.6.1998. In the Name of Sh. M.L. Agarwal, Xerox

copy of Equitable Mortgage of OBC, related to M/s ACTPL, Secunderabad. Dated 17.6.1998 related to Smt. Shashi Agarwal. (7 Sheets)(LD.No.360) Ex.P888Original copy of valuation report dated: 9.11.2001 for M/s OBC, a report by Servel Associates, Secunderabad and certificate signed by S. Chandrasekaran. (14 Sheets), (Q-492 to Q-504)(LD.No.361). Ex.P889Cheques issued from CC A/c No. 326 of M/s Airan Comtrax Towers Pvt. Ltd., Secunderabad maintained at OBC, Ameerpet, Hyderabad, (146 Nos)(L.D.No.369). Ex.P890Cheques issued from CC A/c No. 326 of M/s ACTPL., maintained at OBC, Ameerpet, Hyderabad, (303 Nos) (L.D.No.370). Ex.P891Pay orders of M/s.ACTPL, Secunderabad in favour of M/s.Maheshwari Steel Corporations Limited (42 Numbers) (L.D.No.372). Ex.P892Pay orders of M/s.ACTPL, Secunderabad in favour of M/s.Choudary Steels (12 Numbers)(L.D.No.373). Ex.P893Pay orders of M/s.ACTPL, Secunderabad in favour of M/s.Universal Trading Company (2 Numbers)(L.D.No.374). Ex.P894Pay orders of M/s.ACTPL, Secunderabad in favour of M/s.Bhumika Steels (1 Number)(L.D.No.375). Ex.P895Pay orders of M/s.ACTPL, Secunderabad in favour of M/s.Ruby Traders (1 Number)(L.D.No.376).

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 280 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Ex.P896Pay orders of M/s.ACTPL, Secunderabad in favour of M/s.Bhumika Steels (1 Number)(L.D.No.377). Ex.P897Pay orders of M/s.ACTPL, Secunderabad in favour of M/s.Sujana Steels Limited (1 Number)(L.D.No.378). Ex.P898Pay orders of M/s.ACTPL, Secunderabad in favour of M/s.Venson Steels (7 Number)(L.D.No.379). Ex.P899Pay orders of M/s.ACTPL, Secunderabad in favour of M/s.Rastriya Ispath Nigam Limited (10 Number)(L.D.No.380). Ex.P900Pay orders of M/s.ACTPL, Secunderabad in favour of M/s.BR Enterprises (2 Number)(L.D.No.381). Ex.P901Stock statement submitted by M/s.ACTPL, Secunderabad showing the stock position of the company for the period from 30.06.1998 to 21.03.2002(66 Sheets)(L.D.No.384). Ex.P902Original copy of two cancelled cash memo/bill of M/s.Bhagavathi Machinary Corporation (4 Sheets) (L.D.No.385). Ex.P903Valuation report of M/s.Servel Associates dated 09.11.2001 related to Plant and Machinery building etc of M/s.ACTPL (13 Sheets)(L.D.No.387). Ex.P904Form A2 return of monthly turnover of M/s.Vishnu Steels, Bhavani Colony received from A.Laxmaiah, Commercial Tax Officer,Hyderabadthroughletterdated 02.11.2005(L.D.No.388). Ex.P905Original copy of three pay-in-slips of AP Mahesh Co-Operative Urban Bank Limited related to M/s.Universal Trading Company, M/s.Ruby Traders and M/s.Maheshwari Steel Corporation(L.D.No.399). Ex.P906Assessment of working capital requirements Form-I of CMA data account of M/s.Aren Steels Limited (11 Sheets) (L.D.No.403). Ex.P907Letter dated 22.03.1999 from Senior Manager, OBC, Ameerpet Branch addressed to Regional Manager, Chennai regarding fresh proposal in the name of M/s.Aren Steels Limited, letter of Credit facility of Rs.240 lakhs(L.D.No.404). Ex.P908Letter dated 22.01.1999 regarding the board resolution for opening of current account related to M/s.Aren Steels Limited signed by ML Agarwal, Managing Director(L.D.No.405). Ex.P909Original letter dated 13.04.1999 by Senior Manager, OBC, Ameerpet to the AGM, Regional Office, Chennai regarding sanction of limited in the name of M/s.Aren Steels

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 281 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Limited(L.D.No.412). Ex.P910Original letter dated 10.09.1999 from Senior Manager, OBC, Ameerpet to the AGM, Regional Office, Chennai regarding ILC limit of Rs.240 lakhs in the name of M/s.Aren Steels Limited(L.D.No.414). Ex.P911Letter dated 19.02.2000 regarding enhancement of LC limit by Rs.90 Lakhs for two shots of three months cash in the account of M/s.Aren Steels Limited signed by M.Sundereshwaran(L.D.No.418). Ex.P912Letter dated 10.05.2000 addressed to Assistant General Manager, Regional Office, Chennai regarding the sanction of LC of Rs.150 Lakhs in favour of Rastriya Ispath Nigam Limited and sanction of adhoc LC facility of Rs.90 lakhs in the account of M/s.Aren Steels Limited(L.D.No.421). Ex.P913Letter dated 26.02.2000 by Senior Manager, OBC, Ameerpet regarding M/s.Aren Steels Limited entered into agreement with RINL(L.D.No.425). Ex.P914Letter dated 13.09.2000 from Senior Manager, OBC, Ameerpet to the Assistant General Manager regarding enjoying a letter of Credit limit of Rs.150 Lakhs and allowed the adhoc credit limit of Rs.90 Lakhs in the account of M/s.Aren Steels Limited along with Annexure-B of OBC, Ameerpet, Hyderabad(L.D.No.430). Ex.P915Letter dated 01.10.2000 from Senior Manager, OBC, Ameerpet to the Assistant General Manager, Regional Office, Chennai several documents have been submitted by the branch along with this letter to the Regional Office(L.D.No.434). Ex.P916Letter dated 13.06.2000 by Assistant General Manager, Chennai addressed to Senior Manager, Ameerpet, OBC indicating that the account of M/s.Aren Steels Limited should not be allowed to run under lapsed sanction(L.D.No.444). Ex.P917Letter dated 07.09.2001 addressed from Assistant General Manager, OBC, Hyderabad to the Senior Manager, Ameerpet, Hyderabad regarding the proposal of adhoc inland LC of Rs.90 Lakhs in the account of M/s.Aren Steels Limited stands to be declined and advised to submit the renewal proposal and relevant papers of the same(L.D.No.446). Ex.P918Letter dated 12.09.2001 addressed by Senior Manager OBC, Ameerpet to the Assistant General Manager, RO, Hyderabad regarding the LC which was issued on behalf of M/s.Aren Steels Limited for Rs.34,99,983/- was due further

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 282 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 payment(L.D.No.447). Ex.P919Letter dated 29.01.2001 by Assistant General Manager, OBC, Head Office, New Delhi addressed to the Senior Manager, OBC, Ameerpet, Hyderabad regarding extension of the validity of sanction on all existing terms and conditions in the account of M/s.Aren Steels Limited(L.D.No.451). Ex.P920Letter dated 01.03.1996 from Senior Manager, OBC addressed to the Regional Manager, Madras regarding fresh proposal to M/s.Shakthi Steels(L.D.No.455). Ex.P921Documents related to LC.No.201/67 dated 30.08.1999 issued by OBC, Ameeerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aren Steels Limited favoring M/s.Sujana Steels Limited along with related enclosures(14 Sheets)(L.D.No.467). Ex.P922Documents related to LC.No.0028451/201/92 dated 02.11.1999 issued by OBC, Ameeerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aren Steels Limited favoring M/s.Venson Steels along with related enclosures (13 Sheets)(L.D.No.468). Ex.P923Documents related to LC.No.0028452/201/93 dated 05.11.1999 issued by OBC, Ameeerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aren Steels Limited favoring M/s.Venson Steels along with related enclosures (12 Sheets)(L.D.No.469). Ex.P924Documents related to LC.No.0028453/201/95 dated 12.11.1999 issued by OBC, Ameeerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aren Steels Limited favoring M/s.Venson Steels along with related enclosures (12 Sheets)(L.D.No.470). Ex.P925Documents related to LC.No.0028442/201/86 dated 14.10.1999 issued by OBC, Ameeerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aren Steels Limited favoring M/s.RINL along with related enclosures (10 Sheets)(L.D.No.471). Ex.P926Documents related to LC.No.0028461/201/102 dated 02.11.1999 issued by OBC, Ameeerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aren Steels Limited favoring M/s.RINL along with related enclosures (11 Sheets)(L.D.No.472). Ex.P927Documents related to LC.No.0028462/201/103 dated 03.12.1999 issued by OBC, Ameeerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aren Steels Limited favoring M/s.RINL along with related enclosures (12 Sheets)(L.D.No.473). Ex.P928Documents related to LC.No.0028449/201/104 dated 10.12.1999 issued by OBC, Ameeerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aren Steels Limited favoring M/s.RINL along with related enclosures (11 Sheets)(L.D.No.474).

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 283 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Ex.P929Documents related to LC.No.00284624/201/106 dated 16.12.1999 issued by OBC, Ameeerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aren Steels Limited favoring M/s.RINL along with related enclosures (12 Sheets)(L.D.No.475). Ex.P930Documents related to LC.No.00284468/201/110 dated 22.12.1999 issued by OBC, Ameeerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aren Steels Limited favoring M/s.RINL along with related enclosures(8 Sheets)(L.D.No.476). Ex.P931Documents related to LC.No.00284480/201/117 dated 24.01.2000 issued by OBC, Ameeerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aren Steels Limited favoring M/s.RINL along with related enclosures(11 Sheets)(L.D.No.479). Ex.P932Documents related to LC.No.00284483/201/120 dated 28.01.2000 issued by OBC, Ameeerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aren Steels Limited favoring M/s.RINL along with related enclosures(10 Sheets)(L.D.No.480). Ex.P933Documents related to LC.No.00284503/201/141 dated 13.03.2000 issued by OBC, Ameeerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aren Steels Limited favoring M/s.RINL along with related enclosures(12 Sheets)(L.D.No.484). Ex.P934Documents related to LC.No.00284514/201/151 dated 25.03.2000 issued by OBC, Ameeerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aren Steels Limited favoring M/s.RINL along with related enclosures(16 Sheets)(L.D.No.485). Ex.P935Documents related to LC.No.00285116/201/153 dated 29.03.2000 issued by OBC, Ameeerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aren Steels Limited favoring M/s.RINL along with related enclosures(12 Sheets)(L.D.No.486). Ex.P936Documents related to LC.No.0036411/201/257 dated 14.05.2001 issued by OBC, Ameeerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aren Steels Limited favoring M/s.Ruby Traders along with related enclosures(13 Sheets)(L.D.No.492). Ex.P937Documents related to LC.No.0036386/201/230 dated 08.01.2001 issued by OBC, Ameeerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aren Steels Limited favoring M/s.Ruby Traders along with related enclosures(10 Sheets)(L.D.No.493). Ex.P938Documents related to LC.No.0036388/201/231 dated 08.01.2001 issued by OBC, Ameeerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aren Steels Limited favoring M/s.Ruby Traders along with related enclosures(10 Sheets)(L.D.No.494). Ex.P939Documents related to LC.No.0036391/201/234 dated

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 284 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 08.02.2001 issued by OBC, Ameeerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aren Steels Limited favoring M/s.Ruby Traders along with related enclosures(14 Sheets)(L.D.No.495). Ex.P940Documents related to LC.No.0036392/201/236 dated 12.02.2001 issued by OBC, Ameeerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aren Steels Limited favoring M/s.Ruby Traders along with related enclosures(11 Sheets)(L.D.No.496). Ex.P941Documents related to LC.No.0036393/201/237 dated 15.02.2001 issued by OBC, Ameeerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aren Steels Limited favoring M/s.Ruby Traders along with related enclosures(12 Sheets)(L.D.No.497). Ex.P942Documents related to LC.No.0036394/201/238 dated 19.02.2001 issued by OBC, Ameeerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aren Steels Limited favoring M/s.Ruby Traders along with related enclosures(20 Sheets)(L.D.No.498). Ex.P943Documents related to LC.No.0036412/201/258 dated 17.05.2001 issued by OBC, Ameeerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aren Steels Limited favoring M/s.Ruby Traders along with related enclosures(16 Sheets)(L.D.No.499). Ex.P944Documents related to LC.No.0036381/201/227 dated 03.01.2001 issued by OBC, Ameeerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aren Steels Limited favoring M/s.Universal Trading Company along with related enclosures(12 Sheets) (L.D.No.500). Ex.P945Documents related to LC.No.0036384/201/228 dated 05.01.2001 issued by OBC, Ameeerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aren Steels Limited favoring M/s.Universal Trading Company along with related enclosures(12 Sheets) (L.D.No.501). Ex.P946Documents related to LC.No.0036395/201/239 dated 28.02.2001 issued by OBC, Ameeerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aren Steels Limited favoring M/s.Universal Trading Company along with related enclosures(14 Sheets) (L.D.No.502).

Ex.P947Documents related to LC.No.0036396/201/239 dated 28.02.2001 issued by OBC, Ameeerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aren Steels Limited favoring M/s.Universal Trading Company along with related enclosures(13 Sheets) (L.D.No.503). Ex.P948Documents related to LC.No.0036401/201/243 dated 18.04.2001 issued by OBC, Ameeerpet Branch on behalf of

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 285 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

M/s.Aren Steels Limited favoring M/s.Universal Trading Company along with related enclosures(12 Sheets) (L.D.No.504). Ex.P949Documents related to LC.No.0036424/201/269 dated 23.07.2001 issued by OBC, Ameeerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aren Steels Limited favoring M/s.Universal Trading Company along with related enclosures(13 Sheets) (L.D.No.506). Ex.P950Documents related to LC.No.0036427/201/273 dated 16.08.2001 issued by OBC, Ameeerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aren Steels Limited favoring M/s.Universal Trading Company along with related enclosures(53 Sheets) (L.D.No.507). Ex.P951Documents related to LC.No.0036428/201/274 dated 21.08.2001 issued by OBC, Ameeerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aren Steels Limited favoring M/s.Universal Trading Company along with related enclosures (65 Sheets) (L.D.No.508). Ex.P952Documents related to LC.No.0036486/201/123 dated 01.02.2000 issued by OBC, Ameeerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aren Steels Limited favoring M/s.Mahesharari Steel Corporation along with related enclosures (11 Sheets) (L.D.No.509). Ex.P953Documents related to LC.No.0036488/201/124 dated 04.02.2000 issued by OBC, Ameeerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aren Steels Limited favoring M/s.Mahesharari Steel Corporation along with related enclosures (10 Sheets) (L.D.No.510). Ex.P954Documents related to LC.No.0036502/201/140 dated 10.03.2000 issued by OBC, Ameeerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aren Steels Limited favoring M/s.Mahesharari Steel Corporation along with related enclosures (12 Sheets) (L.D.No.511). Ex.P955Documents related to LC.No.0036505/201/143 dated 16.03.2000 issued by OBC, Ameeerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aren Steels Limited favoring M/s.Mahesharari Steel Corporation along with related enclosures (13 Sheets) (L.D.No.512). Ex.P956Documents related to LC.No.0036507/201/144 dated 21.03.2000 issued by OBC, Ameeerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aren Steels Limited favoring M/s.Mahesharari Steel Corporation along with related enclosures (14 Sheets)

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 286 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 (L.D.No.513). Ex.P957Documents related to LC.No.0036512/201/150 dated 23.03.2000 issued by OBC, Ameeerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aren Steels Limited favoring M/s.Mahesharari Steel Corporation along with related enclosures (33 Sheets) (L.D.No.514). Ex.P958Documents related to LC.No.0036515/201/152 dated 27.03.2000 issued by OBC, Ameeerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aren Steels Limited favoring M/s.Mahesharari Steel Corporation along with related enclosures (12 Sheets) (L.D.No.515). Ex.P959Documents related to LC.No.0036526/201/162 dated 09.05.2000 issued by OBC, Ameeerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aren Steels Limited favoring M/s.Mahesharari Steel Corporation along with related enclosures (22 Sheets) (L.D.No.516). Ex.P960Documents related to LC.No.0036527/201/167 dated 10.05.2000 issued by OBC, Ameeerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aren Steels Limited favoring M/s.Mahesharari Steel Corporation along with related enclosures (35 Sheets) (L.D.No.517). Ex.P961Documents related to LC.No.0036531/201/168 dated 12.05.2000 issued by OBC, Ameeerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aren Steels Limited favoring M/s.Mahesharari Steel Corporation along with related enclosures(53 Sheets) (L.D.No.518). Ex.P962Documents related to LC.No.0036533/201/169 dated 15.05.2000 issued by OBC, Ameeerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aren Steels Limited favoring M/s.Mahesharari Steel Corporation along with related enclosures (30 Sheets) (L.D.No.519).

Ex.P963Documents related to LC.No.0036535/201/172 dated 17.05.2000 issued by OBC, Ameeerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aren Steels Limited favoring M/s.Mahesharari Steel Corporation along with related enclosures (27 Sheets) (L.D.No.520). Ex.P964Documents related to LC.No.0036537/201/174 dated 25.05.2000 issued by OBC, Ameeerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aren Steels Limited favoring M/s.Mahesharari Steel Corporation along with related enclosures(13 Sheets) (L.D.No.521).

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 287 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Ex.P965Documents related to LC.No.0036538/201/176 dated 30.05.2000 issued by OBC, Ameeerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aren Steels Limited favoring M/s.Mahesharari Steel Corporation along with related enclosures(17 Sheets) (L.D.No.522). Ex.P966Documents related to LC.No.0036540/201/177 dated 08.06.2000 issued by OBC, Ameeerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aren Steels Limited favoring M/s.Mahesharari Steel Corporation along with related enclosures(17 Sheets) (L.D.No.523). Ex.P967Documents related to LC.No.0036547/201/184 dated 28.06.2000 issued by OBC, Ameeerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aren Steels Limited favoring M/s.Mahesharari Steel Corporation along with related enclosures(30 Sheets) (L.D.No.524). Ex.P968Documents related to LC.No.0036548/201/185 dated 28.06.2000 issued by OBC, Ameeerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aren Steels Limited favoring M/s.Mahesharari Steel Corporation along with related enclosures(35 Sheets) (L.D.No.525). Ex.P969Documents related to LC.No.0036549/201/186 dated 01.07.2000 issued by OBC, Ameeerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aren Steels Limited favoring M/s.Mahesharari Steel Corporation along with related enclosures(13 Sheets) (L.D.No.526). Ex.P970Documents related to LC.No.0036550/201/187 dated 11.07.2000 issued by OBC, Ameeerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aren Steels Limited favoring M/s.Mahesharari Steel Corporation along with related enclosures(12 Sheets) (L.D.No.527). Ex.P971Documents related to LC.No.0036565/201/202 dated 16.09.2000 issued by OBC, Ameeerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aren Steels Limited favoring M/s.Mahesharari Steel Corporation along with related enclosures(8 Sheets) (L.D.No.528). Ex.P972Documents related to LC.No.0036566/201/204 dated 25.09.2000 issued by OBC, Ameeerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aren Steels Limited favoring M/s.Mahesharari Steel Corporation along with related enclosures(41 Sheets) (L.D.No.529). Ex.P973Documents related to LC.No.0036570/201/207 dated 27.09.2000 issued by OBC, Ameeerpet Branch on behalf of

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 288 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

M/s.Aren Steels Limited favoring M/s.Mahesharari Steel Corporation along with related enclosures(13 Sheets) (L.D.No.530). Ex.P974Documents related to LC.No.0036572/201/209 dated 28.09.2000 issued by OBC, Ameeerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aren Steels Limited favoring M/s.Mahesharari Steel Corporation along with related enclosures(12 Sheets) (L.D.No.531). Ex.P975Documents related to LC.No.0036573/201/210 dated 03.10.2000 issued by OBC, Ameeerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aren Steels Limited favoring M/s.Mahesharari Steel Corporation along with related enclosures(11 Sheets) (L.D.No.532). Ex.P976Documents related to LC.No.0036575/201/212 dated 10.10.2000 issued by OBC, Ameeerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aren Steels Limited favoring M/s.Mahesharari Steel Corporation along with related enclosures(12 Sheets) (L.D.No.533). Ex.P977Documents related to LC.No.000790/201/214 dated 08.11.2000 issued by OBC, Ameeerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aren Steels Limited favoring M/s.Mahesharari Steel Corporation along with related enclosures(12 Sheets) (L.D.No.534). Ex.P978Documents related to LC.No.000794/201/218 dated 20.11.2000 issued by OBC, Ameeerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aren Steels Limited favoring M/s.Mahesharari Steel Corporation along with related enclosures(25 Sheets) (L.D.No.535). Ex.P979Documents related to LC.No.000546/201/183 dated 23.06.2000 issued by OBC, Ameeerpet Branch on behalf of M/s.Aren Steels Limited favoring M/s.Mahesharari Steel Corporation along with related enclosures(13 Sheets) (L.D.No.536). Ex.P980Computerized copy of LC of OBC, Ameerpet Hyderabad related to M/s.Aren Steels Limited, Secunderabad dated 18.02.2005 (99 Sheets)(L.D.No.537). Ex.P981Pay order on the account of inland letters of credit of M/s.Aren Steels Limited, Secunderabad (64 Numbers of beneficiaries)(L.D.No.538). Ex.P982Pay order No.097891 dated 11.02.2000 of OBC, Ameerpet, Hyderabad on account of M/s.Aren Steels Limited, Secunderabad favouring M/s.Universal Trading Company

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 289 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 (1 Pay order)(L.D.No.540). Ex.P983Pay order of OBC, Ameerpet, Hyderabad on account of M/s.Aren Steels Limited, Secunderabad favouring M/s.BR Enterprises (4 Pay order)(L.D.No.541). Ex.P984Pay order of OBC, Ameerpet, Hyderabad on account of M/s.Aren Steels Limited, Secunderabad favouring M/s.Sujana Steels Limited(3 Pay order)(L.D.No.542). Ex.P985Pay order of OBC, Ameerpet, Hyderabad on account of M/s.Aren Steels Limited, Secunderabad favouring M/s.Choudary Steels Limited (10 Pay order)(L.D.No.543). Ex.P986OBC, Ameerpet, Hyderabad pay order on account of M/s.Aren Steels Limited, Secunderabad favouring M/s.Bhumika Steels (2 Pay order)(L.D.No.544). Ex.P987OBC, Ameerpet, Hyderabad pay order on account of M/s.Aren Steels Limited, Secunderabad favouring M/s.Ruby Traders (3 Pay order)(L.D.No.545). Ex.P988OBC, Ameerpet, Hyderabad pay order on account of M/s.Aren Steels Limited, Secunderabad favouring M/s.Venson Steels Limited (22 Pay order)(L.D.No.546). Ex.P989OBC, Ameerpet, Hyderabad pay order on account of M/s.Aren Steels Limited, Secunderabad favouring M/s.Maheshwari Steel Corporations (30 Pay order)(L.D.No.547). Ex.P990OBC, Ameerpet, Hyderabad pay order on account of M/s.Aren Steels Limited, Secunderabad favouring various companies and persons (30 Pay order)(L.D.No.548). Ex.P991Original pay order of UTI Bank Limited, Begampet, toHyderabad cheque No.047915 dated 19.02.2001 for Ex.P997Rs.9,67,669/- in favour of AP Mahesh Co-Operative Limited account of Ruby Traders (1 Pay order)(L.D.No.549). (Due to Original pay order of UTI Bank Limited, Begampet, oversight descriptionHyderabad cheque No.047691 dated 12.02.2001 for of Ex.P779-7 Rs.24,21,430/- in favour of AP Mahesh Co-Operative Limited pay orders, wereaccount of Ruby Traders (1 Pay order)(L.D.No.550). marked twice as Ex.P991 Original pay order of UTI Bank Limited, Begampet, to P997 as separate payHyderabad cheque No.046792 dated 08.12.2001 for orders) Rs.29,06,109/- in favour of AP Mahesh Co-Operative Limited account of Ruby Traders (1 Pay order)(L.D.No.551). Original pay order of UTI Bank Limited, Begampet, Hyderabad cheque No.046794 dated 08.12.2001 for Rs.9,67,839/- in favour of AP Mahesh Co-Operative Limited

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 290 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007 account of Ruby Traders (1 Pay order)(L.D.No.552). Original pay order of UTI Bank Limited, Begampet, Hyderabad cheque No.046782 dated 06.02.2001 for Rs.48,44,002/- in favour of AP Mahesh Co-Operative Limited account of Universal Trading Company (1 Pay order) (L.D.No.553). Original pay order of UTI Bank Limited, Begampet, Hyderabad cheque No.046593 dated 20.12.2000 for Rs.966904/- in favour of AP Mahesh Co-Operative Limited account of M/s.Universal Trading Company (1 Pay order)(L.D.No.554). Original pay order of UTI Bank Limited, Begampet, Hyderabad cheque No.045152 dated 20.11.2000 for Rs.967033/- in favour of The Agrasen Co-Operative Urban Bank Limited, account of Maheshwari Steel Corporation Limited (1 Pay order)(L.D.No.555). Ex.P998Letter dated 04.03.2006 from Sri.RK. Birla Managing Director of M/s.Sujana Steels addressed to the Superintendent of Police, CBI, BS and FC, Bangalore enclosing the ledger account of the company showing the receipts and payments pertaining to M/s.Aren Steels Limited (10 Sheets) (L.D.No.582). Ex.P999Original letter dated 12.04.2001 by Assistant General Manager addressed to Assistant General Manager, RO, Chennai(L.D.No.607). Ex.P1000 Original letter dated 18.07.2001 addressed to the Assistant General Manager, RO, Hyderabad(L.D.No.609). Ex.P1001 Letter dated 01.08.2001 addressed by Senior Manager to the Assistant General Manager, RO, Hyderabad(L.D.No.610). Ex.P1002 Letter dated 28.08.2001 addressed by Assistant General Manager, RO, Hyderabad to the Assistant General Manager IL(L.D.No.611). Ex.P1003 L.F8 Form of OBC, Head Office, New Delhi Annexure-I for loan application in the account of M/s.Aren Steels Limited by name ML Agarwal Managing Director (2 Sheets) (L.D.No.613). Ex.P1004 Cheque of AP Mahesh Co-Operative Urban Bank Limited Monda Market Branch, Secunderabad related to M/s.Maheswari Corporation, account NO.3982 favouring various parties (10 in number)(L.D.No.614). Ex.P1005 Cheque of AP Mahesh Co-Operative Urban Bank Limited

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 291 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Monda Market Branch, Secunderabad related to M/s.Ruby Traders, account NO.3991 favouring various parties (10 in number)(L.D.No.615). Ex.P1006 AP Mahesh Co-Operative Urban Bank Limited Monda Market Branch, Secunderabad cheque related to M/s.Choudary Steels, account NO.3877 favouring various parties including one self cheque (10 in number)(L.D.No.616). Ex.P1007 AP Mahesh Co-Operative Urban Bank Limited Monda Market Branch, Secunderabad cheque related to M/s.Universal Trading Company, account NO.4024 favouring various parties (10 in number)(L.D.No.617). Ex.P1008 AP Mahesh Co-Operative Urban Bank Limited Monda Market Branch, Secunderabad cheque related to M/s.Bumika Steels, account NO.3869 favouring various parties (10 in number) (L.D.No.618). Ex.P1009 Valuation bill dated 04.01.2005 along with the property valuation report dated 29.12.2004 submitted by Sri.Zahur Ahmed Structural Engineer and valuer (7 Sheets)(L.D.No.644). Ex.P1010 OBC Ameerpet Branch, Branch certificate of compliance dated 24.10.1997 and 13.02.1998 pertaining to account of M/s.Aren Comtrax Towers Private Limited(L.D.No.645). Ex.P1011 OBC Ameerpet Branch, letter dated 22.11.1997 to the Regional Manager, RO, Chennai regarding the adhoc cash credit limit in the account lf M/s.Aren Comptrax Towers Private Limited ( 3 Sheets)(L.D.No.646). Ex.P1012 Letter dated 30.11.2000 from the Manager AP Mahesh Co- operative Urban Bank Limited to the Manager, OBC, Ameerpet Branch regarding the return of bills discounted in the account of M/s.Aren Comtrax Towers Private Limited (one Sheet)(L.D.No.647). Ex.P1013 Sample copies of letter head of M/s.Bhanu Constructions Company Limited (2 Sheets)(L.D.No.648).

Ex.P1014 Process note dated 05.02.1996 regarding the proposal for working capital limited in the account of M/s.Shakthi Steels ( one seeht)(L.D.No.649). Ex.P1015 Letter dated 05.05.1999 from the Director M/s.Aren Comtrax Towers Private Limited to the Chief Manager, OBC, Ameerpet Branch enclosing the invoice, bill of exchange etc., raised in the name of M/s.Vishnu Steels (8 Sheets)(L.D.No.650).

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 292 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Ex.P1016 Provisional balance sheet of M/s.Shakthi Steels as on 31.03.2000(4 Sheets)(L.D.No.651). Ex.P1017 Details of LC’s devolved in the account of M/s.Aren Steels Limited (CA NO.3923) along with the respective statement of account and original account opening form of M/s.Aren Comtrax Towers Private Limited account No.1289 (10 Sheets) (L.D.No.652). Ex.P1018 Letter dated 06.09.2001 from OBC, Head Office to the Senior Manager, Ameerpet Branch regarding account of M/s.Shakthi Steels ( 2 Sheets)(L.D.No.653). Ex.P1019 Post sanction visit report dated 16.11.2001 submitted by the visiting official/credit monitoring official of OBC, Ameerpet Branch pertaining to the account of M/s Aren Comtrax Towers Private Limited(L.D.No.654). Ex.P1020 Letter dated 12.03.2006 from the Director M/s.Sujana Metal Products to Inspector CBI, Bangalore enclosing the statement of the company pertaining to M/s.Aren Steels Limited (7 Sheets)(L.D.No.659). Ex.P1021 Letter dated 02.05.1998 from Director, M/s.Aren Comtrax Towers Private Limited to the Senior Manager, OBC, Ameerpet Branch along with invoices/bills raised by various companies i.e. Bhagawathi Machinery Corporation, Universal Fabrications, Shankar Constructions and Venu Electrical and Engineering Company (32 Sheets)(L.D.No.660). Ex.P1022 Reasons for PW57opinion i.e. Ex.P797 in 8 pages Ex.P1023 Certified copy of complaint dated 07.05.2003. Ex.P1024 Original F.I.R.

Exhibits Marked on behalf of defence :

Marked portion of 161 Statement of PW27 (Mohan Kumar Ex.D1 Simha) dt. 06-05-2005. Portion of 161 Statement of PW27(Mohan Kumar Simha) dt: Ex.D2 07-05-2005. Portion of 161 Statement of PW27(Mohan Kumar Simha) dt: Ex.D3 07-05-2005. Photostat copy of letter dt. 23.08.2001 of A7 addressed to Ex.D4 the Senior Manager, OBC, Ameerpet Branch (D.No.82).

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 293 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Photostat copy of letter dt. 25.08.2001 addressed by PW29 Ex.D5 to the Assistant General Manager, Regional Office, Hyderabad, under whichPW29has recommended adhoc facility of Rs.5.00 Lakhs to A7 (D.No.83). Certified xerox copies of service particulars and leave Ex.D6 particulars of A4 along with covering letter dt.23.05.2006 (10 sheets(D.No.383)). Photostat copy of letter No.CN/706/24089/2001, dt. Ex.D7 26.06.2001 of PW29 relieving A4 from Ameerpet Branch (one sheet). Letter dt. 03.01.2001 addressed by PW29 to AGM (Industrial Ex.D8 Loans), Head Office, New Delhi. Letter No.CN/706/24701/01, (date not visible but the Ex.D9 receiving stamp of OBC, Regional Office bears the date 23.02.2001) addressed by PW29 to the General Manager, Credit Administration Department, Head Office, New Delhi along with letter dt. 22.02.2001 of A5 (4 sheets) (D.No.295). Letter No.CN/706/24917/2000-01 dated 25.08.2001 Ex.D10 (D.No.304) addressed to the Assistant General Manager, Regional Office, Hyderabad recommending adhoc facility of Rs.60 Lakhs for a period of one month to A5 Circular No.HO/ADV/13/1999-2000/89 dated 09.06.1999 Ex.D11 (Part of D.No.658) deals with discretionary powers in respect of loans and advances. Circular No.HO/ADV/63/1999-2000/325 dated 15.02.2000 Ex.D12 (Part of D.No.658) also deals with1 discretionary powers in respect of loans and advances Letter dated 09.09.1997 addressed by PW30 to the Senior Ex.D13 Manager, OBC, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad raising further queries pursuant to Ex.P650, along with Office Note of Regional Office (4 sheets). Photocopy of letter dated 05.12.1995 addressed by PW20 as Ex.D14 Regional Manager, Chennai to A4 regarding business development. Photocopy of Circular No.HO/PER/59/18/2002/397 dated Ex.D15 18.03.2002 issued by the Head Office of Oriental Bank of Commerce specifying the duties of various officers, including Monitoring Officer, of the Bank (2 Sheets). Xerox copy of Page No.113 of Volume-II of Advances Manual Ex.D16 of OBC.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 294 of 294 Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2007

Certified copy of docket order dated 08.05.2006 of Hon'ble Ex.D17 DRT is marked Certified copy of memorandum of compromise in Ex.D18 OA.No.155/2003 dated 29.03.2006 Certified copy of proceedings of the court in Ex.D19 Ο.Α.Νο.193/2003 in which the case proceedings are closed in view of bank filing full satisfaction memo to the effect that the borrower has paid the entire amount mentioned in the compromise Memo. Certified copy of docket order dated 08.05.2006 in Ex.D20 OA.156/2003 closing the proceedings in the above OA as bank has filed memo stating that defendants has paid the entire amount as per the terms of compromise. Certified copy of memorandum of compromise filed by OBC, Ex.D21 Ameerpet Branch in OA.156/2003 dated 29.03.2006.

Sd/-

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 1 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010

//Fair Copy//

IN THE COURT OF I ADDL. SPECIAL JUDGE FOR CBI CASES, HYDERABAD.

Dated this the 27th day of February, 2026

Present : Smt. J. Maithreyi,

Special Judge for trial of cases under Economic

Offences-cum-VIII Additional Metropolitan Sessions

Judge-cum-XXII Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad.

FAC I Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad.

C.C.No.17 of 2010

(R.C.No.3(E)/09)

Between :

State represented by Inspector of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, Anti Corruption

Bureau, Hyderabad. ...Complainant

AND V.S.A.U. Bhaskar Rao, S/o. V.S.R. Murthy, Age : 63 years, Occ: the then Chief Manager, Union Bank of India, Ramkote branch, Tilak Road, Hyderabad. R/o. Plot No.A-31, H.No.37-74/2, J.J. Nagar Colony, Sainikpuri Post, Near Neredmat Cross roads,

Secunderabad – 5020094....Accused No.1

Jidge Sree Ramu, S/o. Kishan Jidge, Age : 47 years, Occ: Business, H.No.1-6-174/5/7/D/1, Bapuji Nagar,

Padmarao Nagar, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. ..Accused No.2

Veli Srinivas, S/o. Sailu, Age: 53 years, Occ : Business, H.No.13-B, Vasavi Colony, Picket, Vikrampuri, Secunderabad-500 015. (Death certificate of A3 is filed on 02.12.2025

..Accused No.3

and the case is abated against A3)

K. Sudhakar Rao, S/o. K. Seeta Ramaiah, Age: 61 years, Occ: the then Manager, Union Bank of India, Ramkote, Hyderabad.

(The case against A4 is discharged vide orders

in Crl.M.P.No.673/2013, dated 07.03.2014 under..Accused No.4

Section 239 of Cr.P.C.)

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 2 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010

Parimi Paparao, S/o. P. Arjunudu, Age : 51 years, Occ: Consultant & Valuer No.601, Girishikara Residency,

Hilltop Colony, Khairtabad, Hyderabad. ..Accused No.5

P. Vittal Reddy, S/o. P. Chennakrishna Reddy, Age: 57 years, Occ: Watchman, R/o.E-6, Vikrampuri,

Kharkhana, Secunderabad. ..Accused No.6

This case is coming before me on 13.02.2026 for hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri. B. Raghavendra, Learned Special Public Prosecutor for Complainant, Sri G.V.Sobhanadri, Counsel for A1, Sri V. Prabhakara Rao, Counsel for A2, Sri G. Ashok Reddy, Counsel for A5 and Sri V.R.Machavaram, Counsel for A6 and after hearing the arguments and perusing the material on record and after the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, today, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.This case arises out of R.C.No.3(E)/09 registered against A1 to A6 for the offence under Sections 120-B r/w 409, 419, 420, 467, 468 & 471 of IPC and 13(2) r/w 13(1) & (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

2.The brief averments of the charge sheet are that a criminal case was registered vide RC 3(E)/2009 dated 23.03.2009 against VSAU Bhaskara Rao (A-1), the then Chief Manager, Union Bank of India, Ramkote branch, Hyderabad; J. Sree

Ramu (A-2), Partner, M/s. Sri Ram Jewellers, No. 1-6-36/37, 4th Floor, Uma

Millenium Complex, Park Lane, Secunderabad, V. Srinivas (A-3), Partner, M/s. Sri

Ram Jewellers, No. 1-6-36/37. 4th Floor Uma Millenium Complex, Park Lane,

Secunderabad, M/s. Sri Ram Jewellers, No. 1-6-36/37, 4th Floor, Uma Millenium

Complex, Park Lane, Secunderabad and others u/s. 120-B r/w 409, 420, 467, 468 and 471 and Sec. 13 (2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act, 1988, on the basis of a written complaint of H.V Rao, Asst. General Manager, Field General Manager's

Office, Union Bank of India, J.C. Road, Bangalore regarding fraudulent

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 3 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010 transactions in the sanction and disbursal of bullion metal (gold) loan, allowing of temporary over draft (TOD), purchase of local cheques, etc. in favour of M/s. Sri

Ram Jewellers, No.1-6-36/37, 4th Floor, Uma Millenium Complex. Park Lane,

Secunderabad, leading to a loss of Rs. 1386 lakhs to Union Bank of India,

Ramkote branch, Tilak Road, Hyderabad.

3.That, J.Sree Ramu (A-2), Proprietor, M/s. Karat-24, Shop No.9, 1-8-229/4,

PG. Road, Secunderabad had opened Current A/c. No.347701010035842 on 25.11.2003 at Union Bank of India, Ramkote Branch, Hyderabad and the same was dormant till 25.09.2007. He was purchasing bullion metal (gold) from M/s.

Metals & Mineral Trading Corporation, Hyderabad and later from Union Bank of

India, Ramkote branch, Tilak Road, Hyderabad on outright purchase basis. VSAU

Bhaskar Rao (A-1) had joined as the Branch Manager, Union Bank of India,

Ramkote Branch, Tilak Road, Hyderabad on 21.05.2007 J. Sree Ramu (A-2),

Proprietor, M/s. Karat-24, Shop No.9, 1-8-229/4, P.G. Road, Secunderabad had entered into a criminal conspiracy with VSAU Bhaskar Rao (A-1), the then Branch

Manager, Union Bank of India, Ramkote Branch, Tilak Road, Hyderabad and K.

Sudhakar Rao (A-4), the then Manager, Union Bank of India, Ramkote branch,

Tilak Road, Hyderabad in the matter of purchase of local cheques, sanctioning of loan under bullion metal (gold) loan scheme and extending of temporary overdraft (TOD) during 2007-08 In furtherance of the said conspiracy, VSAU

Bhaskar Rao (A-1), the then Branch Manager, Union Bank of India, Ramkote branch, Tilak Road, Hyderabad had revived the Current A/c.

No.347701010035842 which was dormant.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 4 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010

4.That, J. Sree Ramu (A-2), Proprietor, M/s. Karat-24, Shop No.9, 1-8-229/4,

P.G. Road, Secunderabad had presented cheque No.551083 dated 07.02.2008 for

Rs. 16 lakhs and cheque No. 90031 dated 07.02.2008 for Rs 15 lakhs in the aforesaid account on 07.02.2008 and VSAU Bhaskar Rao (A-1), the then Branch

Manager. Union Bank of India, Ramkote branch, Tilak Road. Hyderabad had made payments against the same by debiting the Suspense A/c. Local Cheque Purchase while forwarding the said cheques for collection on 09.02.2008, after 2-days.

Similarly, he had purchased 200-cheques on various dates during the period beginning from 07.02.2008 to 29.09.2008. The payments against 147-cheques for Rs.7558 82 lakhs were realized subsequently. However, 44-cheques for

Rs.2766 lakhs were returned unpaid on various dates during the period 12.02.2008 to 03.10.2008 VSAU Bhaskar Rao (A-1), the then Branch Manager,

Union Bank of India, Ramkote branch, Tilak Road, Hyderabad had purchased 9- cheques for Rs.600.05 lakhs and kept them in his custody without sending them for clearance

5.That, there was an outstanding of Rs. 1228.04 lakhs in the Suspense A/c -Local Cheque Purchase and Rs.771.96 lakhs in the Current A/c of M/s. Karat-24,

Shop No.9, 1-8-229/4, P.G. Road, Secunderabad as on 29.03.2008. J. Sree Ramu (A-2), Proprietor, M/s Karat-24, Shop No.9, 1-8-229/4, P.G. Road. Secunderabad had availed Cash Credit of Rs.2500 lakhs from M/s. Axis Bank Ltd., R.P. Road

Branch, Hyderabad on 29.03.2008. He had brought Rs.2000 lakhs from M/s Axis

Bank Ltd., R.P. Road Branch, Hyderabad on 29.03.2008 and the same was utilized for adjusting Rs. 1228.04 lakhs outstanding in the Suspense A/c - Local Cheque

Purchase and Rs.771.96 lakhs for adjusting the outstanding liabilities held in the

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 5 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010

Current A/c of M/s Karat-24, Shop No.9, 1-8-229/4, P.G. Road, Secunderabad as on 31.03.2008.

6.That, VSAU Bhaskar Rao (A-1) had extended clean overdraft of Rs.50 lakhs in the Current A/c No.347701010036163 held in the name of J. Sree Ramu (A-2),

R/o No.1-6-174/5/7/D/1, Bapuji Nagar, Padmarao Nagar, Musheerabad, Hyderabad on 18.08.2008 and another clean overdraft of Rs.50 lakhs on 19.08.2008 in gross excess of his delegated financial powers. He had later transferred the out standings in the aforesaid account to Current A/c No. 347701010034842 held in the name of M/s. Karat-24, Shop No.9, 1-8-229/4, P.G Road, Secunderabad. J Sree

Ramu (A-2) had later deposited 5-cheques total amounting to Rs.47.50 lakhs on 16.09.2008 towards the repayment of overdraft. However, 4-cheques total amounting to Rs. 42.50 lakhs came to be returned unpaid on 16.09.2008 and there is an outstanding of Rs 86,95,038/- in the said account.

7.That, J. Sree Ramu (A-2), Proprietor, M/s.Karat-24, Shop No.9, 1-8-229/4,

P.G. Road, Secunderabad and V. Srinivas (A-3), R/o. No. 13-B, Vasavi Colony,

Picket. Vikrampur, Secunderabad had entered into a partnership deed dated 25.07.2008 incorporating M/s. Sri Ram Jewellers, No. 1-6-36/37, 4th Floor, Uma

Millennium Complex, Park Lane, Secunderabad for fraudulently availing loan in the name of the said firm for making repayment of outstanding liabilities created due to fraudulent encashment of local cheques. They had submitted an application dated 30.07.2008 seeking loan under Union bullion metal (gold) loan scheme white concealing their outstanding liabilities VSAU Bhaskar Rao (A-1), the then Branch Manager, Union Bank of India, Ramkote Branch, Tilak Road,

Hyderabad and K.Sudhakar Rao (A-4), the then Manager, Union Bank of India,

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 6 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010

Ramkote Branch, Tilak Road, Hyderabad had carried out appraisal into the said application and had recommended for sanctioning of the bullion metal (gold) loan of Rs.750 lakhs without carrying out due diligence. They had relied on projected financial statement, had not carried out verification into the bonafides of the titles of properties offered as collateral security, had not ascertained the business activities/manufacturing premises and had deliberately concealed fraudulent transactions related to purchase of local cheques in the Current A/c of M/s. Karat- 24, Shop No.9, 1-8-229/4, P. G. Road, Secunderabad. The General Manager, Union

Bank of India, Zonal Office, Bangalore had sanctioned bullion metal (gold) loan of

Rs. 750 lakhs on 23.08.2008.

8.That, the property held at Sy. No.238, Nizampet Village, Quthbullapur

Mandal, Dist., Ranga Reddy, Andhra Pradesh held in the name of V. Srinivas (A- 3), R/o No 13-B, Vasavi Colony, Picket, Vikrampuri, Secunderabad and Flat

No.666, Akanksha Apartment, Secunderabad held in the name of Smt. J. Uma

Rani, R/o. No.1-6-174/5/7/D/1, Bapuji Nagar, Padmarao Nagar, Musheerabad,

Hyderabad were offered as collateral security against the said loan. VSAU

Bhaskar Rao (A-1) had disbursed the loan and credited the same to Current A/c of

M/s. Sree Ram Jewellers instead of releasing the same in gold in violation of terms of sanction. He had further delivered 100 kg of gold to M/s. Karat-24, Shop No.9, 1-8-229/4, P. G. Road, Secunderabad without collecting payment against the same.

9.That K. Ram Reddy (A-6), R/o. MIG-230, Kukatpally, Dist. Ranga Reddy had entered into a sale deed dated 11.01.2007 with V.Srinivas (A-3), R/o. No. 13-B,

Vasavi Colony, Picket, Vikrampuri, Secunderabad selling the property held at Sy.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 7 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010

No.238, Nizampet Village, Quthbullapur Mandal, Dist. Ranga Reddy, Andhra

Pradesh However, the property is in the possession of M/s. Raasi Developers,

No.209, Srinilaya Estates, Ameerpet, Hyderabad and Ram Reddy (A-6), R/o MIG- 230, Kukatpally, Dist. Ranga Reddy had connived with V.Srinivas (A-3), R/o.

No. 13-B, Vasavi Colony, Picket, Vikrampuri, Secunderabad and had created false / fabricated records regarding the said property. Parimi Papa Rao (A-5),

Proprietor, M/s. Arjun Consultants, House No.6-3-600/2/B. Pent House, 601,

Girikrishna Residency, Hill Top, Khairtabad, Hyderabad had submitted a false /fabricated valuation report dated 21.07.2008 fraudulently showing the property as vacant land though M/s. Raasi Developers, No.209, Srinilaya Estates,

Ameerpet, Hyderabad has constructed duplex houses on the said premises. He had valued the property at Rs.827.64 lakhs though the property was not held in the name of V. Srinivas(A-3), R/o.No. 13-B, Vasavi Colony. Picket, Vikrampuri,

Secunderabad.

10.That, J. Sree Ramu (A-2), Proprietor, M/s. Karat-24. Shop No.9, 1-8-229/4, P.G. Road, Secunderabad had entered into a Memorandum of

Understanding dated 19.09.2008 with V. Srinivas (A-3), R/o. No.13-B, Vasavi

Colony, Picket, Vikrampuri, Secunderabad regarding the providing of the title documents of the property held at Sy. No.238. Nizampet Village, Quthbullapur

Mandal, Dist. Ranga Reddy, Andhra Pradesh for the purpose of availing loan in the name of M/s. Sri Ram Jewellers. It is revealed that J. Sree Ramu (A-2) had agreed to pay Rs 168 lakhs to V. Srinivas (A-3), as a consideration for extending the title documents of the aforesaid property. Shri J. Sree Ramu (A-2) had made a payment of Rs.93 lakhs in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 8 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010

dated 19.09.2008, including cash payment of Rs.43 lakhs for the repayment of

loan account of V. Srinivas (A-3) held at State Bank of India, Gunrock Branch,

Secunderabad, Rs. 15 lakhs through cheque No. 945376 dated 25.09.2008 and

Rs.35 lakhs in cash. J. Sree Ramu (A-2) had made the aforesaid payment to

V.Srinivas (A-3) from the proceeds of bullion metal (gold) loan availed from Union

Bank of India, Ramkote Branch, Hyderabad.

11.That J. Sree Ramu (A-2), Proprietor, M/s Karat-24, Shop Nog 8-229/4, P.G

Road, Secunderabad had presented a cheque for Rs. 74.50 lakhs issued by M/s.

Sri Tejasree Jewellers, Hyderabad, a cheque for Rs.74.50 lakhs issued by M/s. Sree

Nidhi Enterprises, Hyderabad on 19.09.2008 and the same were purchased by

VSAU Bhaskar Rao (A-1) by debiting Suspense A/c - Local Cheque Purchase. The said cheques were returned unpaid on 23.09.2008 and VSAU Bhaskar Rao (A-1) had continued to retain the liability on Suspense A/c -Local Cheque Purchase without transferring the same to Current A/c of M/s Karat 24, Shop No. 9, 1-8- 229/4, P. G. Road. Secunderabad That, J. Sree Ramu (A-2) had paid Rs.74.50 lakhs to Union Bank of India, Ramkote Branch, Hyderabad on 31.12.2008 by way of 9-

Pay Orders issued by M/s. Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd., Hyderabad, thereby leaving an outstanding balance of Rs. 134. 84 lakhs in the Current A/c of M/s Karat-24,

Shop No.9, 1-8-229/4, P.G. Road, Secunderabad as on 31.01.2009. J.Sree Ramu (A-2), Proprietor, M/s Karat-24, Shop No.9, 1-8-229/4, P.G. Road, Secunderabad had presented 4-cheques for Rs.300 lakhs and the same were fraudulently purchased by VSAU Bhaskar Rao (A-1) on 29.09.2008 while debiting Suspense A/c

Local Cheque Purchase. The said cheques were returned unpaid on 03.10.2008 and the debit entries against the Suspense A/c - Local Cheque Purchase were

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 9 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010 reversed on 04.10.2008 by debiting Current A/c No.347701010035842 of M/s.

Karat-24, Shop No.9, 1-8-229/4, P.G. Road, Secunderabad.

12.That, J.Sree Ramu (A-2), Proprietor, M/s. Karat-24, Shop No.9, 1-8-229/4,

P.G. Road, Secunderabad and V. Srinivas (A-3), R/o No. 13-B, Vasavi Colony,

Picket, Vikrampuri, Secunderabad have outstanding liability of Rs.1,34,84,326/- in

Current A/c No.347701010035842 held in the name of M/s Karat-24, Shop No.9, 1-8-229/4, P.G. Road, Secunderabad; Rs.7,50,05,659/- in the Term Loan A/c of M/s.

Sree Ram Jewellers, No. 1-6-36/37, 4th Floor, Uma Millenium Complex, Park Lane,

Secunderabad; Rs.4,02,72,953/- in the Current A/c No. 347701010036159 of M/s.

Sree Ram Jewellers, No. 1-6-36/37, 4th Floor, Uma Millenium Complex, Park Lane,

Secunderabad and Rs.86,95,038/- in the Current A/c No.347701010036163 of J.

Sree Ramu (A-2), Proprietor, M/s. Karat-24, Shop No.9, 1-8-229/4, P.G. Road,

Secunderabad, as on 03.06.2009. Thus, J. Sree Ramu (A-2), Proprietor, M/s Karat- 24, Shop No.9, 1-8-229/4, P.G. Road, Secunderabad, V. Srinivas (A-3), R/o. No.13-

B, Vasavi Colony, Picket, Vikrampuri, Secunderabad and others have caused a loss of Rs.13,74,57,976/- to Union Bank of India, Ramkote branch, Tilak Road,

Hyderabad and corresponding gain for themselves.

13.That the aforesaid acts of VSAU Bhaskar Rao (A-1), the then Branch

Manager, Union Bank of India, Ramkote branch, Tilak Road, Hyderabad. Andhra

Pradesh, J. Sree Ramu (A-2), Proprietor, M/s Karat-24, Shop No.9, 1-8-229/4, PG

Road, Secunderabad. V. Srinivas (A-3), R/o No. 13-B, Vasavı Colony, Picket,

Vikrampuri, Secunderabad, K. Sudhakar Rao (A-4), the then Manager, Union Bank of India, Ramkote Branch, Tilak Road, Hyderabad, Parimi Papa Rao (A-5), M/s.

Arjun Consultants, No 601, Girishikara Residency, Hill Top Colony, Khairatabad,

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 10 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010

Hyderabad and K. Ram Reddy (A-6), No. MIG-230, Kukatpalli, Dist. Ranga Reddy,

Andhra Pradesh constitute offences punishable under Sections 120-B r/ 409, 419, 420, 467, 468 & 471 of IPC and Sec. 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988 and substantive offences thereof. Hence, the charge sheet.

14.On the basis of the allegations contained in the charge sheet and the documents filed in support of it, this court took cognizance of the offences under

Sections 120-B r/w 409, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention Corruption Act, 1988 against A1 to A6 on 08.11.2010 and issued summons.

15.The case against A4 is discharged vide orders in Crl.M.P.No.673/2013,

dated 07.03.2014 under Section 239 of Cr.P.C.Responding to the summons, A1 to

A3, A5 and A6 put up their appearance and thereafter copies of documents as contemplated under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. were furnished to A1 to A3, A5 and A6.

16.After hearing the prosecution, as well as the accused, taking into consideration of evidence of prosecution witnesses, the charges were framed during my predecessors period and heard on charges for the offences on 04.08.2014 against A1 to A3, A5 and A6 as under :

A1: 120-B, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC and Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988;

A2: 120-B, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC;

A3: 120-B, 419 r/w 34, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC;

A5: 120-B, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC;

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 11 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010

A6: 120-B, 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC;

The same was read over and explained to A1, A2, A5 and A6 in their vernacular language, to which they denied the offence, pleaded not guilty and claimed to the tried.

17.To bring home the guilt of the accused for the offences with which they are charged, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 72 and got marked Exhibits P1 to

P963. Subsequently, death certificate of A3 is filed on 02.12.2025 and the case is abated against A3.

18.After closure of prosecution evidence, A1 and A6 were examined on 28.11.2025 and A2 and A5 were examined on 04.12.2025 under Section 313

Cr.P.C, putting incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses to which they denied the same.

19.Heard both sides. Perused the record.

20.Now the point for consideration is :

“Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt ?”

P O I N T :

21. Before going into the discussion of merits of the case, it is better to go through the provisions under Sections 120B, 409, 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471

of IPC and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention Corruption Act,

1988.

Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code :-

Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 12 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010 deals with the Punishment for Criminal Conspiracy, making it an offense for two or more people to agree to commit an illegal act or a lawful act by illegal means, punishable depending on the seriousness of the planned crime (like death or life imprisonment) or with up to six months in jail/fine for lesser offenses. It's a crucial law for tackling organized crime by penalizing the agreement itself, even

before the main crime is executed, focusing on the planning stage.

Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code : Criminal breach of trust by public

servant, or by banker, merchant or agent :-

Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property in his capacity of a public servant, or in the way of his business as a banker, merchant, factor, broker, attorney or agent, commits criminal breach of trust in respect of that property, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) d

Section 419 of the Indian Penal Code :-

Section 419 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) deals with the punishment for cheating by personation, meaning deceiving someone by pretending to be someone else. The penalty for this offense, which is cognizable, bailable, and compoundable (meaning the victim can settle), includes imprisonment up to three years, a fine, or both.

Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code:-

Cheating and Dishonestly inducing delivery of property.

Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or scaled, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security. shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code :-

IPC Section 467 deals with the severe crime of forgery of valuable security, wills, adoption authority, and receipts, punishable by imprisonment for life or up to ten years, plus a fine, for someone who falsely creates or alters such a document, making it a serious non-bailable offense under the Indian Penal Code, 1860. This section covers forging documents that seem to authorize financial transactions,

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 13 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010 transfers, or receipts for valuable property or money, extending to important legal documents like wills or adoption papers, notes LawRato.

Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code:-

Forgery for purpose of cheating.

Whoever commits forgery, intending that the document [or electronic record] forged shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code:-

Using as genuine a forged document [or electronic record].

Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document for electronic record] which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged document for electronic record], shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such document for electronic record].

Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 :

Criminal misconduct by a public servant:- (1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct :-

(a) if he habitually accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person for himself or for any other person any gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in Section 7; or

(b) if he habitually accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain for himself or for any other person, any valuable thing without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate from any person whom he knows to have been, or to be, or to be likely to be concerned in any proceeding or business transacted or about to be transacted by him, or having any connection with the official functions of himself or of any public servant to whom he is subordinate, or from any person whom he knows to be interested in or related to the person so concerned; or

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 14 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010

(c) if he dishonestly misappropriates or otherwise converts for his own use any property entrusted to him or under his control as a public servant or allows any other person so to do; or

(d) if he :-

(i) by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or

(ii) by abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage: or

(iii) while holding office as a public servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest; or

(e)if he or any person on his behalf, is in possession or has, at any time during the period of his office, been in possession for which the public servant cannot satisfactorily account, of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of Income.

Explanation- For the purposes of this section, "known sources of inco me" means income received from any lawful source "and such receipt has been intimated in accordance with the provisions of any law, rules or orders for the time being applicable to a public servant".

(2) Any public servant who commits criminal misconduct shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than one year but which to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.

22.The allegation of the prosecution is that A2 and A3 are partners of M/s.

Sreeram Jewellers, they conspired with A1 who is Chief Manager of Union Bank of

India, Ramkote branch, Hyderabad. Due to conspiracy, A2 and others availed loan in the name of M/s. Sreeram Jewellers. They have given an application dated 30.07.2008 seeking bullion metal (gold loan) of Rs. 850 lakhs for meeting the working capital required. A1 had recommended for sanction of loan without carrying out due diligence. General Manager, Union Bank of India, Bangalore has granted a bullion metal loan of Rs. 750 lakhs against the security of property held.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 15 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010

23.As per Banking circulars and guidelines, the loan was to be disbursed in the form of gold against the payment as per the indent placed by the borrower.

A1 had committed irregularity by disbursing the loan amount and credited the same to the current account of Sreeram Jewellers instead of releasing the same in the form of gold, it is violation of sanction terms. Further, without collecting the payment, A1 had delivered 100 kgs of gold to M/s. Karat 24. It is also one of the irregularity. Further, the security property is not held in the name of A3, he forged the documents and fabricated the title deed.

24.A1 had purchased local cheques issued by M/s. Tejasri Jewellers and others submitted by A2 in the current account of M/s. Karat 24 and the same was subsequently bounced. Therefore, there was loss of Rs. 1386.26 lakhs to Union

Bank of India.

25.The accused no. 2 conspired with A1 and A4 in the matter of purchase of local cheques, sanctioning of loan under bullion metal(gold) loan scheme and extending of temporary overdraft during 2007-08. In view of the conspiracy only, the current account of A2 was revived which was dormant. A2 presented cheque no. 551086, dated 07.02.2008 for Rs. 16 lakhs and cheque no. 90031, dated 07.02.2008 for Rs. 15 lakhs in the aforesaid account on 07.02.2008. A1 had made payments against the same by debiting the suspense account, local cheque purchase while forwarding the said cheques for collection on 09.02.2008 after two days. Similarly, he had purchased 200 cheques on various dates, out of it, the payments against 147 cheques for Rs. 7558.82 lakhs were realised subsequently. However, 44 cheques for Rs.2766 lakhs were returned unpaid on various dates. Further, A1 had purchased 9 cheques for Rs. 600.05 lakhs and kept

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 16 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010 them in his custody without sending them for clearance. There was an outstanding of Rs. 1228.04 lakhs in the suspense account, local cheque purchase and Rs. 771.96 lakhs in the current account of M/s. Karat 24 as on 29.03.2008. A2 had availed cash credit of Rs. 2500 lakhs from Axis Bank and adjusted the amount of Rs. 1228.04 lakhs and also Rs. 771.96 lakhs adjusting the amount in the account of M/s. Karat-24 as on 31.03.2008.

26.In view of conspiracy, A1 had extended clean overdraft of Rs. 50 lakhs in the current account held in the name of A2 on 18.02.2008 and another cheque

dated 19.08.2008 for Rs. 50 lakhs in the gross excess of his delegated financial

powers. He had later transferred the outstandings in the aforesaid account to the current account held in the name of M/s. Karat 24. A2 had deposited 5 cheques for Rs. 47.50 lakhs on 16.09.2008 towards the repayment of overdraft, however, those cheques are returned unpaid on 16.09.2008. There is outstanding of Rs.

86,95,038/- in the said account. A2 and A3 with dishonest intention entered into a partnership deed dated 25.07.2008 incorporating M/s. Sreeram Jewellers for availing loan in the name of said firm for making repayment of outstanding liabilities created due to fraudulent encashment of local cheques. A1 had carried out appraisal into said application and has recommended for sanction of loan of

Rs. 750 lakhs. He has not verified the genuineness of documents. In view of recommendation of A1, the General Manager, UBI, Zonal Office, Bangalore had sanctioned gold loan of Rs. 750 lakhs on 23.08.2008. Subsequently, it is found that the security documents are forged documents and fabricated for the purpose of getting loan from the Bank fraudulently. Further, A1 has disbursed the loan and

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 17 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010 credited the same to current account of M/s. Sreeram Jewellers and also delivered 100 kgs of gold to M/s. Karat 24 without collecting payment against the same.

27.A2 had presented a cheque for Rs. 74.50 lakhs issued by M/s. Sri Tejasri

Jewellers and Rs. 74.50 lakhs cheque issued by M/s. Srinidhi Enterprises on 19.08.2008 and the same were purchased by A1 by debiting suspense account local cheque purchase. Those cheques were dishonoured on 23.09.2008. A1 had continued to retain the liability on suspense account local cheque purpose without transferring the same to the current account of M/s. Karat 24. A2 had paid Rs. 74.50 lakhs to UBI, Ramkote branch on 31.12.2008 by way of 9 pay orders issued by M/s. Lakshmi Vilas Bank, so there is outstanding balance of Rs.

134.84 lakhs in the current account of M/s. Karat 24 as on 31.01.2009. A2 had purchased four cheques for Rs. 300 lakhs. A1 purchased those cheques on 29.09.2008 while debiting suspense account local cheque purchase. Those cheques were also returned on 03.10.2008. The debit entries against the suspense account, local cheque purchase were recovered on 04.10.2008 by debiting current account of M/s. Karat 24.

28.The prosecution contention is that, in view of those irregularities, A2 and

A3 have outstanding liability of Rs. 134,84,326/- in the current account held in the name of M/s. Karat 24 and Rs. 7,50,05,654/- in the term loan account of M/s.

Sreeram Jewellers, Rs. 4,02,72,953/- in the current account of M/s. Sreeram

Jewellers, Rs. 86,95,038/- in the current account of A2 as on 03.06.2009, so there was pecuniary loss of Rs. 13,74,57,976/- to Union Bank of India.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 18 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010

29.The allegation of prosecution is that the A1 has not followed the circulars and bank guidelines while sanctioning of loans and there are so many irregularities in sanction of gold metal loan to A2 and A3. Therefore, this Court feels that at first, we should know the procedure prescribed for sanction of gold bullion loan.

The procedure in case of sanction of Gold bullion:

30.The prosecution has marked the circulars and examined the witnesses in order to prove the guidelines and circulars of Bank. The PW1 is the complainant.

Though, he has not spoken about the guidelines and circulars, however, the prosecution has got marked the circular Ex.P12, Ex.P13, Ex.P15, through PW1.

The perusal of above documents shows that as per Ex.P12 it is relating to appointment of panel advocates. So, this document is not relating to sanction of loans. As regards, Ex.P13 is the letter addressed by credit recovery and legal services division, Central Office, Mumbai to Regional Head, Central Processing

Cell on 17.07.2008. The contents of documents shows that the Advocate is required to verify all property documents including parent deeds, in original . He has to verify all revenue records, records with Sub-Registrar, EC and they have to discharge their functions as per guidelines.

31.Ex.P15 is the circular no. 5871, dated 31.08.2008. A perusal of this circular shows that the operational details of all the products have been circulated among the bullion dealing branches/controlling offices. However, the points in respect of

KYC guidelines, delegated authority and marked to market of margin amount are reiterated in the circular for better understanding. As per the circular, all products

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 19 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010 under Union bullion scheme are meant for their banks customers maintaining account with them and who are in line of business having a good track record for a period of three years. The customers should have undergone KYC procedure confirming their identity. The customers who are offered these products, should first be approved by an authority ie., Regional office. The delegated authority will exercise their powers after satisfying the laid down policy, guidelines on KYC norms, satisfactory credit report, customers dealing in bullion/gold jewellery and satisfaction of eligibility criterion of the product. Further, upto US$ 5 lakhs, head of the branch, upto US$ 2 million, Deputy General Manager/Regional Head, upto

US$ 5 million, General Manager/GMO beyond US$ 5 million, General Manager are the competent authorities who are delegated with the powers for sanction of the gold loan.

32.First sanction under the products irrespective of the amount of the facility to be approved by Regional Head and subsequent renewal will be done as per the above delegation. Cash margin depending on specific product is circulated.

Separate cash margin in the form of FDR is marked under lien to the Bank is to be obtained. Any reduction in margin is to be referred to IBD. Outstandings to be marked to market on a monthly basis as per rates obtained from Treasury branch to monitor the “marked to market” value of all facilities and when the increase in price of the market is beyond 2% in a given week or when the margin falls below 10% of the stipulated margin or when the margin falls below 5% of the outstanding. Branch should immediately call for additional margin by giving notice to the customer to increase the margin within one day failing which the transaction will be squared on the fifth day without further notice to the

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 20 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010 customer. A suitable undertaking should be taken in the application to this effect.

Loss on account of such transaction to be recovered from the customer are appropriated against the existing margin. The exposure will be arrived at, by crossing the value of the gold in US$ as per London AM fixing rate with the

INR/US$ reference rate announced by RBI for that day. The above guidelines are already conveyed to the bullion dealing branches and it is again reproduced for the purpose of information.

33.Further, as per evidence of PW2, the process of Bullion transaction is as under:

1) The Branch has to identify the customer for Bullion business based on the guidelines issued by Central Office.

2) The Customer will place his requirement of Bullion at the Branch by either pricing the Bullion as per market rate or deposit 110% margin of the cost of

Bullion.

3) Bullion will be sold to the customer on the day decided by him by taking the price from the market.

34.The Branch Head and One Officer will be custodian of the Bullion stored at the Vaults of the Branch.

The Bullion business is conducted in a three Tier set up consisting of Branch,

Treasury Branch and International Banking Division at Central Office. A customer has to place indent for minimum 100 Kgs. of Bullion. The customer has to place

KYC norms and must be in the business for the last 3 years. The Bullion agreement is the main document to be receive from the customer.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 21 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010

35.The customer has to deposit 110% of the cost of Bullion at the time of taking delivery. The indent has to be approved by Deputy General Manager or

General Manager. On the day of sale to the customer price of Bullion would be taken from the Overseas supplier, premium charge would be added to the price and customs duty and other charges will be added to the price and also the profit margin of the Bank. The duties and charges will be paid by the designated

Branch. The role of the designated Branch is to ensure the safe keeping of the

Gold. Indent will be signed by the Branch Head.

36.The Bullion after import will be cleared by Security Agency by payment of applicable customs duty and charges. The Bullion will be then transported to the

Vaults of designated Branch by the Security Agency, if designated Branch does not have storage facility the Bullion will be stored at the Vaults of Security

Agency.

37.The records to be maintained at the Branch consists of 1) Customers request, 2) Placing of indent with the International Banking Division, 3)

Maintaining requisite margin for supply of Bullion, 4) Maintaining stock registers of Bullion.

38.There are two types of outright sales of Bullion to the customer:

1) Back to back sale, 2) Consignment sale basis.

39.In back to back sales Bank would recover upfront of the cost of Bullion, premium, customs duty and other charges along with profit margin of the Bank at the time of delivery to the customer. On receipt of full payment from the

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 22 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010 customer we deliver the Bullion under proper acknowledgment. The Branch will in turn remit the amount to the Treasury Branch by internal transfer mechanism.

40.The duty of the Treasury is to supervise the record as to stocks at the

Branch, delivery, pricing of Bullion with the Oversees supplier and remittance of sale proceeds to the Overseas supplier.

Consignment sale:

41.Bank will take 110% of the cost of Bullion, as it has not been priced on the date of delivery, the pricing will be done subsequently that is the reason why the

Banks will take 10% extra which will take care of the fluctuation in the market.

For this purpose the minimum order size will be 100 Kgs. The margin will be collected by the Branch.

42.Shipping details will be conveyed by the Treasury Branch to the concerned designated Branch and the stock will be taken from the Security Agency by the designated Branch.

43.Designated Branch will confirm the receipt of stock of Bullion to the

Treasury Branch. In sale of fixed basis under consignment the guidelines are 1)

After delivery of the Bullion customer has to initiate the fixing of price. 2) After price discovery the amount will be appropriated against 110% margin held.

44.The Treasury Branch will supervise the Branch level Bullion transactions.

The Central Audit and Inspection Department will carry out periodical inspections.

45.The Branch has to submit control returns to Treasury Branch and with a copy to International Banking Division in respect of Bullion transactions. Monthly

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 23 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010

Information System(MIS) will be send by the Branch to Treasury Branch with a copy to International Banking Division.

46.During the year 2007, their Bank introduced two products of Bullion based on RBI guidelines 1) Metal Loan to exporters of Jewellery, 2) Metal loans to domestic Jewellery manufacturers. Separate guidelines are framed by the Bank for (1) metal loc domestic jewellery manufacturers and (2) exporters of jewellery.

47.The eligibility criteria for domestic jewellery manufacturers are (1) Credit

Rating upto CR 3 or 4, (2) Cash Margin of 110%, (3) Bank Guarantees of

Equivalent amount of Limits, (4) Security by way of equitable mortgage of property. The loan period for exporters is 180 days for domestic jewellery manufacturers is 90 days. Interest for exporters and domestic jewellers will be charged on monthly basis.

48.The documents required for export purposes which are submitted to the branch are Invoice, Packing List, GR Form, Bill of Exchange. The code Karat 24 is the customer of the Bank and Sriram Jewellers is also one of the customer.

49.The evidence of PW3 shows that the gold will be imported on consignment basis (though the metal was lying in their safe custody, ownership was with the supplier who is the foreign supplier until the gold prices fixed). The Union bank of

India used to sell the gold to its customer on fixed price basis and unfixed price basis.

50. Fixed Price Basis: Gold will be delivered to the customer after collecting the total value of the gold sold in Rupee terms from the customer and the metal will be deliver to the customer.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 24 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010

51. Unfixed price bases: the customer will collect the metal initially, after paying 110% value of the gold on the on-going market rate in rupee term and the customer has to fix the price within seven days of taking delivery of the metal.

52.PW46 deposed he worked as Manager Foreign Exchange Department,

Union Bank of India, Industrial Financial Branch, Kasturibha Road, Bangalore ,

PW46 stated that the party should have a current account or cash credit account in the bank. They should give intent to purchase bullion. After receiving indent it will be forwarded to bullion section centralised section at Bombay. He will make indent to overseas bank who is supplying bullion to them. Thereafter after receiving the money from the customer, they will contact bullion section Central office to get exchange rates further payment overseas banker and they will also fix the rate for bullion. After fixing the rate the amount will be deducted from

Party Current account they will make payment through overseas bank. After receiving money they will issue delivery of bulliion to the party after getting acknowledgement.

53.Further, metal loan will be sanctioned after receiving all required documents. The time limit of payment of loan is 90 days. After receiving loan application credit process note will be prepared. The banker can enhance or reduce the loan amount. The banker and valuer has to visit the business place.

The legal opinion should be obtained from Advocate. Branch Manager can sanction only upto Rs. 1 Crore. If it is more then Rs. 1 Crore, the Central Office at

Bombay is having powers to sanction loan. The Borrower has to execute all loan documents. The property should be mortgaged as a security. The security documents will be serutinize by panel advocate. The credit processing officer has

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 25 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010 to sent the report. After compliance of above requirements the loan will be sanctioned.

54. The PW1 to PW3, PW46 have spoken about the procedure for sanction of gold metal loans. According to the prosecution, there are so many lapses and irregularities in sanction of loan and A1 being Chief Manager of Union Bank of

India is responsible for those irregularities, therefore, he has committed the offences. It is necessary to discuss the evidence of each bank employee who had spoken about the irregularities or lapses committed by the A1.

The employees who were working at Ramkote branch at relevant time:

55.PW15 stated that on the instructions of his Head Officer he issued the letter RO.HRMD 2465 dated 27.03.2010 under Ex.P41 (Doc.No.81) this document shows the details of officials working in Ramkote Branch, Union Bank of India at

Hyderabad during the year 2008. This document shows the details like name of the persons(Staff), designation, scale of Officers, date of reporting, present position and effective date of their tenure in the Branch.

56.As per Ex.P41 one CVN Bagawan was Chief Manager, Bhaskar T Rao was

Senior Manager, Alamelu S Rangan was Assistant Manager, K. Karunakar was

Senior Manager, B.B. Ramana was Assistant Manager, J.V. Ramanamurthy was

Assistant Manager, DNP Lalithamani, Uma Maheswar Rao, B. Murali, K. Sudhakar

Rao are Managers, P. Padmasini, V. Srinivasa Rao, Rohini Phansalkar are Assistant

Managers, VSAU Bhaskar Rao was the Chief Manager, K. Ramulu was Manager, M.

Lumen Joseph is clerk/cashier, V. Ganesh was HC/E/Clerk, A. Vijay Kumar and G.

Padma are CTOs, K. Kalavathi was FTS, V. Lakshmi Shekar, Special Assistant

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 26 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010 (transferred out), B. Janardhan, Daftary, (transferred out) K. Renuka was CTO (transferred out), V. Padma Reddy (transferred out) was cashier, Vilas Chit

Gopekar (transferred out) was Cleark, Shafikhan (transferred out) was PTS, P.

Beerayya (transferred out) was Daftary, K. Chennai (transferred out) was Armed

Guard.

57.Further, Ch. Malleshwar Rao, Senior Manager (transferred out). Ch. Bhaskar

Rao, Senior Manager, N. Gururaj, Assistant Manager, M. Poshaiah, Cash Pune of

Currency Chest, the remaining persons are drivers and armed guards.

The irregularities committed by A1 in sanction of loans :

58.The PW1 is the crucial witness, on his complaint only, the CBI has registered the case and investigated the matter. In other words, the criminal law set into motion on the complaint of PW1 only. The careful scrutiny of evidence of

PW1 shows that the FGMO is having jurisdiction over all regional offices and branches of Union Bank of India in the State of Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh. In the month of March, 2009, basing on the information of various irregularities reported by Regional Office, Union Bank of India, Hyderabad in respect of gold metal loans issued to M/s. Sri Ram Jewellers, Secunderabad and M/s. Karat 24,

Secunderabad represented by the Partners A2 and A3, the loan was sanctioned by Union Bank of India. He has given a report dated 17.03.2009 to the SP, CBI,

BS&FC, Bangalore against A1 to A3 regarding fraudulent transactions.

59.The PW1 has stated there are irregularities in sanction of loan to A2 and A3 by A1 herein. Further, he stated the Bank sustained loss of Rs. 7.61 crores and other adhoc facilities given by Ramkote branch to M/s. Sri Ram Jewellers lead to

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 27 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010 the loss of Rs. 4.03 crores and adhoc facility to A2 lead to loss of Rs. 86 lakhs and adhoc facility to M/s. Karat 24 lead to the loss of Rs. 1.35 crores and there is a total loss to the Bank of Rs. 13.86 crores.

60.The PW1 has stated that there are so many irregularities but he has not given the particulars of irregularities and what was the modus operandi of A1 in sanction of loan to A2 and A3. The PW1 has not spoken about the exact irregularities, he simply pointed out that while sanctioning the loan, there were irregularities. Ex.P1 is the complaint lodged by him.

61. The PW2 has stated he has inspected the branch and submitted his report under ExP19. As per his report the guidelines mentioned in Ex.P18 were not followed by Union Bank of India, Ramkote branch, Hyderabad. Hundred (100)Kgs gold is delivered to either Karat-24 or Shriram Jewellers by not following the procedure shown in Ex-P18, without taking the required Margin of 110% of the value of the gold. Ex-P21 is the Letter dated 29-08-2008 addressed by A1 to Dy.

General Manager, IBD, Central Office, Mumbai. A2 and A3 are the partners of M/s.

Shriram Jewellers. As per Ex-P18 Branch Head and any Designated officer of the branch will be looking after Bullion Business. In so far as the present case is concerned A1 and another Designated officer of the branch used to look after

Bullion Business. When he visited the branch to ascertain the procedural irregularities, he noticed that customer order was not available, Register and

Ledger for the stock of Bullion was not maintained, Safe-in and Safe-out register i.e., Ex.P20 was not maintained, sale of Bullion was not recorded and also the invoice was not issued against the sale by the branch head, Union Bank of India,

Ramkote branch, Hyderabad.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 28 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010

62.PW3 has stated he observed the lapses in the transactions pertaining to the account of Karat-24 and Sriram Jewellers are Metal(gold) was released under unfixed basis to the customer/Karat 24 without collecting stipulated margin of 110% value of the on going gold price. Gold loan was released to Sriram

Jewellers, Union Bank of India, Ramkote branch, Hyderabad in Indian Rupee instead of releasing gold. The decision making authority is the branch head,

Bhaskar Rao/A1, Union Bank of India, Ramkote branch, Hyderabad but he failed to follow the instruction provided by the International banking division for releasing the gold and also not following the sanction stipulation of Zonal office,

Bangalore for releasing the gold loan. Ex-P22 is the Receipt memo, dated 03-09- 2009 under which he furnished guidelines under Ex.P23.

63.The evidence of PWs.1 to 3 shows that there are so many irregularities in sanction of loan. It is to be noted that PW1 is the complainant. During cross- examination, when a specific question is asked to PW1 whether he has verified all loan documents before lodging report on that PW1 stated he has not verified the loan records pertaining to Sri Ram Jewellers and M/s.Karat 24. Further, his evidence shows that he has not enclosed the report received from the Regional

Office, Union Bank of India, Hyderabad to Ex.P1. In fact, this document is very crucial to decide the fact in issue. Said report was not enclosed to Ex.P1.

64. Further, one KC Charamana was Regional Manager at Regional Office,

Union Bank of India, Hyderabad by the date of sanction and release of loans in question. The loan was sanctioned during the period of said KC Charamana. The

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 29 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010 prosecution has filed the document Ex.P17A, the perusal of document shows that said K Charamana has addressed a letter to the Chief Manager Fraud Monitoring

Cell, Central Office, Mumbai on 23.10.2008. The prosecution has not examined said Charamana, Deputy General Manager. The Defence contention is that earlier to filing of Ex.P1 before CBI one more complaint was lodged by said K.Charmana

before Bangalore authorities but they have not registered the case, as there is no

primafacie case. The copy of complaint prepared by Mr.Charmana is available in the file, it strengthens the version of defence. The defence contention is that now they have fabricated Ex.P1 through PW1. Admittedly the report received from

Regional office is not enclosed. There is no clarity whether any complaint is lodged before lodging report Ex.P1.

65. It is the contention of prosecution is that the loan amount to the extent of 7.5 cr was sanctioned illegally, the documents mortgaged for sanction of this loan are forged documents. They have taken another plea that the gold 100 Kilo grams was delivered to A2 and A3 without receiving any payment. There are two allegations, the first allegation is sanction of loan of Rs.7.50 crores and another allegation is delivery of 100 kgs of gold without receiving payment.

66.It is to be noted that as per circulars and guidelines the gold should not be delivered to the customer without receiving 110% of gold amount. At first the customer has to pay the amount, after receiving amount only the gold should be delivered. The prosecution contention was that the gold was delivered without receiving payment. The another allegation is that the loan amount of Rs.7.50 cr was sanctioned illegally.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 30 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010

67.The evidence of PW1 shows that the A1 herein has not sanctioned the loan of Rs.7.5 Cr, the general manager of FGMO, Bangalore is the sanctioning authority for metal gold loans. The PW1 admitted regional manager, Regional

Office, UBI, Hyderabad is empowered to sanction term loan to the extent of

Rs.7.5 Cr. As per Ex.P11 the initial sanction of metal loans will be sanctioned at the Field General Manager Office irrespective of the amount and the subsequent renewal of limits may be done at regional office as per delegated authority. In the instant case Ramkote branch has not sanctioned the loan. PW1 admitted the same. It was sanctioned by Field General Manager, Bangalore and the loan was disbursed by Ramkote Branch. The Branch is having authority to sanction loan only upto Rs.1 Cr if it is above 1 Cr, the FGMO, Bangalore is only Competent

Authority. As per rule the FGMO, Bangalore has sanctioned the loan. So there is no role of A1 in sanction of loan.

68.It is to be noted that the prosecution got marked the document Ex.P123 through PW50, the document is containing a bunch of papers. As per the documents Ex.P123/27 the allegation is that though Charamana made several valued remarks/comments such as obtaining no due certificate from other banks, calling for a statement of account of M/s.Karat 24 with other banks and its examination, obtaining of credit reports, clarification of Sundry Credited Data, etc on the proposals, financial statements and valuation reports etc., the branch did not ensure that the same were clarified before the recommending the term proposal of M/s.Sriram Jewellers for sanction to FGMO, Bangalore. Further there was an observation that the financial statements of Karat 24 was not insisted to

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 31 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010 ascertain the credit worthiness and possession of outside borrowing. Similarly provisional financial of M/s. Sriram Jewellers were also not insisted particularly in view of certificate given by the Chartered Accountants stating induction of capital of Rs.2.50 Cr by the partners. Further it is also observed on 29.09.2008,

Charamana accorded permission for purchase of local cheques amounting to Rs.3 cr., to the credit of M/s. Karat-24 and the permission was beyond his delegation and necessary approval from the competent authority was not obtained and held on record. While purchasing the cheques the purpose for which the facility was given, was not mentioned. It clearly shows that Charamana was played very important role in the sanction of loan and purchase of local cheques but his role was suppressed and A1 was blamed. Therefore there is no error on the part of A1 in sanction of 7.50 Cr loan to Karat-24.

69.Further, the PW1 has stated internal inspection was conducted by Union

Bank of India but the report was not enclosed to Ex.P1. Without any proper material basing on allegations in the complaint, the liability was fixed on A1. The

PW1 admitted he was one of the officer while processing the loan documents in question being the member of credit grid. It itself shows that the PW1 was also involved but he is making allegations against A1.

70.Further, PW2 also made several allegations against the accused, in the cross-examination admitted that he made suggestions in Ex.P19 at Para 6A about the transfer of trained officer Srinivasa Rao. Further he admitted as per Ex.P21/1 “ instead of Sriram Jewellers their associate firm M/s. Karat 24 bullion traders requested for release of gold of UBS against the metal loan sanctioned to M/s

Sriram Jewelers as reported by A1 to IBD. Further in Ex.P21/2, A1 reported their

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 32 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010 customer M/s. Sriram Jewelers has been sanctioned 7.50 Crores metal loan by

FGMO, Bangalore vide sanction note dated 23.08.2008 we request you to please indent 100 KG KGV with 995 purity on loan basis. It made it clear that after sanction of loan there was a proposal of delivery of 100kgs gold. The prosecution is making 2 different allegations which is not in conformity with each other. When after sanction of loan request is made for indent of 100kgs gold on loan basis, it means the gold was not delivered. On the other hand the prosecution alleged the gold was delivered without payment. When the gold was delivered, there is no question of sanction of loan for delivery of gold. They should accept that after sanction of loan the gold was delivered. At one side they are stating that there is shortage of gold, this shortage gold was already delivered to Sriram Jewellers and

Karat-24, for already delivered gold the loan was sanctioned. On the other hand they are showing the document stating that the gold was not delivered. They are coming with two different views.

71.Further PW3 has admitted that he did not verify any loan documents pertaining to Sriram Jewelers and Karat-24. Without verifying the documents he is making allegations against A1. He said A1 has released the amount instead of releasing gold on loan. On the other hand, it was alleged the gold was already delivered, there was shortage of gold for which the loan was sanctioned. They should take a proper stand before making allegations against the accused. The evidence of PW1 to PW3 shows that without verification of documents they are giving evidence before the court. PW1 is one of the member in grid committee, he is concealing that fact and stated before the court he has not verified the documents. On the opinion of grid committee when the loan was sanctioned he is

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 33 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010 not supposed to say that he is not aware of loan documents.

Audit reports which pointed out the irregularities:

72. PW5 deposed he along with J.Sudhakar, Senior Manager (Audit) conducted audit and submitted audit report. During inspection they found that Branch of

Ramkote, Union Bank of India has purchased Local Clean Cheques by debiting to

Suspense Account and amount was paid to the party. Those Suspense Accounts were credited by debiting to Temporary Overdraft Account (TOD Account) of

M/s.KARAT-24. The said TOD Account was adjusted by purchasing again fresh

Local Clean Cheques. Those purchased cheques were returned unpaid, because of which the amount was shown as outstanding in TOD Account of M/s.KARAT-24.

This is the main irregularity they found during their Special Audit. Along with special report they have submitted details of Local Cheques purchased by

Ramkote Branch, Union Bank of India. In Annexure-1 the date, amount, cheque number, name of the bank, cheque amount, date of presentation in clearing, name of the officer who signed the vouchers, User IDs of the officers who entered and verified, date of return and remarks with heading “Details of Local Cheques purchased” were given in 12 sheets, which was enclosed to their report. Along with their report they have also given on a sheet of paper (Last page) the details of User IDs of the officers in respect of the transactions carried out. Ex.P29 (18 sheets) is the Special Report given by him along with J.Sudhakar.

73.PW5 further stated Branch has violated the guidelines of the Bank and accommodated M/s.KARAT-24 Account by way of Local Cheques purchased to the tune of Rs.110.52 Crores. The cheques purchased to the tune of Rs.900.05 Lakhs were not at all presented in clearing. The entries in Suspense Account on

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 34 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010 cheuqe return were adjusted by granting temporary overdraft in Current Account of M/s.KARAT-24. The TOD in Current Account of M/s.KARAT-24 was adjusted by fresh Local Cheques purchased, which cannot be done without prior permission from the competent authority. Undue favour was shown to M/s.KARAT-24 by accommodating them through local cheque purchase. Branch head (V.S.A.U.Bhaskar Rao-A1) has resorted to abuse of delegated authority.

74. PW9/Sudhakar is another officer who submitted audit report along with

PW5, he deposed during his audit he found no proper record of receipt of Bullion was maintained by the branch. A1 was the branch Manager of Union Bank of

India, Ramkote Branch at that time. The Bullion Trading was done with Karat 24, its Proprietor being A2. He observed that the Bullion was delivered to the customer without balance in the account of customer on some occasions. He has submitted his Audit Report under Ex.P32. He has observed in Ex.P32 that gold was delivered in advance and payment was received in installments after some weeks and months, which is in gross violation of guidelines and norms. On entry wise verification of register and account of M/s. Karat-24, he observed that the branch has delivered 100 Kgs of gold without receipt of cost of the gold. The delivery of gold without receiving of payments was made on several occasions, the details of which were referred by him in Annexure – II. He has also observed that the branch has not recovered the commission on sale of gold at the rate of 0.15 percent from the beneficiary i.e., M/s. Karat 24, amounting to

Rs.10,27,218/-. He did not find authorization details for the delivery of gold to the customer. He further observed that the branch was allowing unauthorized/unrecorded credit facility to M/s. Karat 24 without sanction of such

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 35 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010 facility by the competent authorities. He also observed that the branch has concealed the unauthorized and unrecorded credit facilities extended to M/s.

Karat-24 from higher authorities by not submitting the weekly returns, which the branch was supposed to submit to International Banking Division (IBD), Mumbai.

75.He has also observed in Ex.P32 that the branch was allowing purchase of local cheques against the norms of the Bank. Branch was not sending high value cheques in high value clearing but they were sent in local clearing, that too belatedly after two or three days. He also observed that on some occasions cheques were returned unpaid but in spite of that branch has allowed further purchase of cheques. When the cheques were returned they were not reversed by debiting to the Current Account of M/s. Karat 24. Branch was allowing

Temporary Over Draft (TOD) to adjust the cheque return amounts. Branch was allowing fresh cheque purchases to adjust the overdraft in the Current Account.

Cheques amounting to Rs.9.05 Crores were never presented in clearing. There was no monitoring of cheques presented in clearing to know whether they were cleared or dishonoured. Because of all these Bank has incurred loss of Rs.13.93

Crores as on 04-10-2008.

76. PW5 and PW9 are the persons who conducted the audit and submitted audit reports. The audit report submitted by PW5 was marked as Ex.P29, the audit report submitted by PW9 was marked as Ex.P32. The PW5 and PW9 both have made allegations against the accused and contended that the branch of

Ramkote has purchased local clean cheques by debiting to suspense account and amount was paid to the party. Those suspense accounts were credited by

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 36 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010 debiting to temporary overdraft account of M/s Karat-24. The said TOD account was adjusted by purchase again clean local cheques. Those purchased cheques were returned unpaid because of which the amount was shown was outstanding in TOD account of M/s.Karat-24. Further they made allegations that the cheques purchased to the tune of 900 lakhs were not at all presented in clearing. The entries in suspense account on cheque return was adjusted by granting temporary overdraft in currency account of M/s Karat-24, which cannot be done without prior permission from the proper authority.

77.It is to be noted that as per Ex.P29 report officers namely CH.Bhaskar Rao,

R.Uma Devi, P.Padmasini, B.Murali and K.Karunakar signed on vouchers for purchasing local cheques. The PW5 is making allegations against the branch, he has not fixing the liability on A1 by stating that at his instance only those transactions were done. Further his own report Ex.P29 shows that branch has purchased 4 local cheques aggregating to Rs.300 lakhs on 29.09.2008 with the permission of regional head when Rs.149.00 lakhs was already outstanding in suspense account local cheques pertaining to the same party. He himself suggested for the accountability of staff for violating the laid down norms.

78. Though PW5 alleged the branch has committed mistakes but he has not stated the liability of other staff members. Ex.P123/20 shows that

Mr.V. Murali manager working at Ramkote branch failed to monitor the transactions that have taken place in suspense account local cheques on day to day basis. Though the local cheques were purchased by debiting suspense account at the instance of chief manager, Mr. Murali did not ensure that the amount of cheques returned as debited to the current account of Ms. Karat-24,

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 37 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010 but allowed the same to be debited to suspense account local cheques and there by he had enabled the party to take delivery of gold from the branch on the strength of balances available in their account without effecting amount of cheques returned.

79. Further Ex.P123/20 contains that Mr. Murali had adjusted/partly adjusted the old entries outstanding in suspense account local cheques with the clearing credits received in respect of other instruments presented on behalf of M/s. Karat- 24 and also by way of transfer of funds from the CD Account of M/s Karat24 at a later date to nullify the old entries. Mr. Murali allowed the entries to be nullified in piece meal, where by true picture of the entries outstanding on any given date was concealed. Entries/returns in suspense account dated 14.05.2008 for Rs.40 lakhs, dated 15.05.2008 for Rs.300 lakhs and dated 16.05.2008 for Rs.300 lakhs were got adjusted by debiting parties account in a piece meal manner from 22.05.2008 to 30.06.2008 as on when the party deposited funds in his CD account. It clearly shows that Mr. Murali has misleaded the branch, he has concealed the outstanding and made false entries so there was no possibility for

A1 to know the outstanding amount. When Ex.P123 shows the involvement of said Murali but no investigation was done with regard to involvement of said

Murali. The Activities done by Murali, the A1 was blamed and he was made liable for all the activities.

80. Further the report shows the said Murali was joint custodian for bullion along with others and carried out the bullion operations, he failed to maintain the reports and failed to pass necessary controlling vouchers/contras as a stipulated in the bullion scheme. He has maintained Katcha Register for recording

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 38 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010 stock/delivery transactions. As per bullion scheme 110% of cash margins to be received from the customers and ear marked for onward remittance to IBD/ treasury branch before delivery of gold. Knowing that huge amount was due from the party, gold was delivered to Karat-24. Simply he stated at the instance of chief manager he did the same. It clearly shows unethical practice of said

Sudhakar. The investigating officer has not taken any steps against said Murali.

81. Further, PW5 stated the cheques are dishonoured though the cheques are dishonoured it can be represented for encashment but no such steps were taken, for which the A1 cannot be made liable.

82. Further, PW9 in his cross-examination admitted that regarding metal loan account of Sriram Jewelers Rs.7.50 crores was debited on 19.09.2008 and credited to current account of M/s.Sriram Jewelers instead of remitting to Foreign exchange department, Mumbai thereby creating Artificial advance and deposit of

Rs.7.50 crores. PW9 admitted one B. Srinivas Rao, Assistant Manager of Ramkote branch delivered 100 kgs of gold to M/s.Karat-24 though he submitted special audit report, he has not recorded the statements of staff members and he has not pointed out the staff accountability. As per Ex.P25 the branch has send weekly returns of gold to international banking division. PW9 has observed the reports were not sent to Regional Office. He stated some of the records relating to the transaction were not shown to him during the course of bullion audit. It clearly shows that without verifying the total records, the PW9 has submitted the audit report. Therefore, the reports of PW5 and PW9 are not full considered report, so it cannot be relied so as to make allegations against the accused.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 39 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010

The witness who has spoken about suspense account along with PW5

and PW9:

83.PW4/Chakravarthy Venkata Narasimha Bhagavan, Chief Manager, Union

Bank of India has spoken about the suspense account, but his chief examination was not concluded, before completion of his chief, he was reported to be died.

So, the prosecution has not examined him. Further, his evidence is not testified by way of cross-examination, therefore, the evidence of PW4 should be treated as eschewed.

84. PW6 is one of bank employee and Investigating officer, he deposed during the course of Investigation he found that Bhaskar Rao (A1), the then

Branch Manager, Union Bank of India, Ramkote Branch, Hyderabad was accommodating M/s.KARAT-24 by debiting Suspense Account Clearing Cheques on hand and crediting the proceeds to the Current Account of M/s.KARAT-24.

Subsequently these cheques were sent to respective Banks for collection but he has no authority to do so. The cheques were belatedly submitted to respective

Banks. Out of 200 cheques 144 cheques were honoured by the respective Banks while 47 cheques were returned unpaid and 9 cheques were not at all presented for clearance. Based on artificial balance in the Current Account of M/s.KARAT-24 he has delivered 100 Kgs of Gold to M/s.KARAT-24. Payment was not received by the Branch for delivery of said 100 Kgs of Gold. Ex.P30 is the Investigation

Report submitted by him to Central Vigilance Department.

85.M/s.KARAT-24 is engaged in Bullion Trading. There was financial loss to the

Bank to the tune of worth of 100 Kgs Gold. On account of return of cheques being unpaid Bank incurred loss of Rs.14.50 Crores. A1 has also allowed overdraft

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 40 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010 in the Current Account of M/s.KARAT-24 and other related account of M/s. Sree

Ram Jewellers, belonging to same party. Total crystallized loss to the bank was

Rs.14.50 Crores.

86. In the cross-examination of PW6 clearly admitted that one K. Srinivas Rao delivered 100 kgs of gold to M/s. Karat24. The entries in suspense account are made by staff of bank and not by A1. The presentation of cheques for clearance is done by supporting staff and not by A1. Though he stated he has recorded the statements of staff members but he has not enclosed their statements to his report Ex.P30. Ex.P30 shows there were several deficiencies in Regional Office in proposing of term loan proposal of Rs.750 lakhs of M/s. Sriram Jewelers. It shows that the Regional office has granted the loan, they have not followed the procedure in sanction of loan but for this loan aspect A1 was made liable.

Ex.P123 shows the involvement of one Mr. Murali in making entries of suspense account but Ex.P30 does not speaks about the staff involvement. Though they alleged about the purchase of 3 crores of local cheques by A1, but Ex.P30 shows on 30.09.2008 the head of account was showing an amount of Rs.4.53 crores as outstanding, which includes an amount of Rs.3.00 crores entry for which permission was accorded by the Regional head on 29.09.2008. Ex.P30 also pointing out the mistake of Regional Office, but the branch head was made liable for all activities. Further the PW6 has no written instructions for conduct of investigation, the written instructions are not filed before the court. Further, he admitted Branch Manager has power to provide overdraft facility to account holder provided he is satisfied with the business turnover of the said account holder. Branch Manager can extend overdraft facility to an account holder beyond

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 41 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010 his financial powers with the permission of Regional Office or AGM, or higher officials. Therefore they cannot contend that the Branch Manager has exceeded his limits.

87. Further, Ex.P30 shows that A2 was absconding but in the cross- examination, PW6 stated he do not know where A2 resides. Without verifying the address of A2 in Ex.P30, PW6 mentioned that A2 was absconding. The report under Ex.P30 shows without proper verification he has submitted the report.

88.PW45/K. Srinivasa Murthy, Sr. Manager, Union Bank of India, also stated that anything which cannot be accounted immediately for which the concerned suspense account can be used. It cannot be used for overdrafts and debiting loans. It cannot be used for local cheques and clearing cheques. Allowing contiguous overdraft of large sums by rotating over draft facility between corrected accounts of customers are not permitted. He has also explained the procedure for opening of current account. Further, he has stated as per Ex.P99 circular the procedure is prescribed for suspense account. As per Ex.P100, the practice of entertaining local cheques are stopped. In the cross-examination, he stated that Audit Department was monitoring and concurrent audit was monitoring the day to day operations. In case of suspicious transactions, they will alert the Bank Manager. Bullion market means the Branch Manager was permitted to deal with the gold biscuits. He does not know whether the suspense account transactions pertaining to this case was happened with the permission of the Regional Office. He admits that for a specific purposes, it can be done with the permission of the Regional Office. However, it should not be in huge volume of transactions. It is only for once or twice but not routine. The evidence of PW45

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 42 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010 shows that the transactions in suspense account is not strictly prohibited, with the permission of Regional Manager, the Branch Manager can deduct an amount from suspense account and he can deal with the transactions of suspense account.

89.Further, PW68/Investigating officer stated that in case of local cheque purchase transactions the bank will get commission. He admits in the transactions of local cheque purchases, every month the bank will send the report to the Regional Office.

90.As per his evidence, PW13/LW17 has not stated that the branch should not purchase the local cheques. He admits that Ex.P40 relates to suspense account entries - revision in the accounting treatment of certain transactions and procedure for reporting and control. As per Ex.P40/circular dated 01.12.2001 page no.3 in the column of suspense account- local cheques it mentioned that “Branches alow withdrawal against clearing cheques lodged in respect of which the fate is not known immediately, both for staff as well as customers. Since this practice is fraught and risk, it has been decided to dispense with this head with immediate effect. Branches should ensure that no entries in this account remain outstanding. Branches should not debit this head w.e.f. 01.01.2002. Should there be any request for any temporary accommodation against local cheques, the branch manager may take appropriate credit decision based on merits and in consonance with the laid down procedure of sanction/reporting etc.

91.As per this circular the discretion is given to the branch manager for purchase of local cheques. PW68 admits that the banks will follow the procedure of keeping double entry books. As per Ex.P40 authority for debiting for suspense

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 43 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010 account will be vested with the branch manager along with central office,

FGMO/ZO/RO. He admits that AO-1 was suspended from his service on 14.10.2008. Ex.P188 is the statement of suspense account local cheque purchased from 01.01.2008 to 03.06.2009. He admits as per this statement at

Page No.21 the local cheques continuously purchased upto 27.01.2009. PW68 states that there is no such provision in IPC constituting an offence in respect of return of local cheque purchase so also in the PC Act. Further, his evidence shows that as per Ex.P40 there is no such provision that in case of breach of any of the rules mentioned in the circular the officer will be prosecuted for the offences punishable under IPC or under PC Act. He admits that in case of any violations of rules mentioned in the circular the departmental enquiry will be conducted.

92. As per Ex.P40 “Central Account Department at CO and Planning and

Development Department at the controlling offices such as RO/ZO will be responsible for the followup of suspense account entries.

93.The evidence of PW68 shows that he did not conduct any independent investigation and he just collected the documents supplied by the bank officials and without going through those documents, he has filed charge sheet. Even as per Ex.P40, the power is vested with Chief Manager to deduct the amount from suspense account. Moreover, the Regional Office has to take supervision over the branch. In the instant case, it is proved that one of the accountant has made entries in the suspense account. He simply stated at the instance of A1 only, he did the same. Without any written order from the Chief Manager, he is not supposed to deduct the amount from suspense account, but accountant

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 44 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010

Sudhakar has made entries in suspense account and also in the account of Karat- 24, though there is a report under Ex.P123 against the accountant, the PW68 has no glance over the report simply, he implicated the A1 alone in the present case.

The procedure followed in sanction of loans by FGMO Office:

94.PW7 deposed in the present case one M/s.Sri Ram Jewellers (M/s.KARAT-

24) approached the Union Bank of India, Ramkote Branch for Gold Metal Loan of

Rs.8.50 Crores. At the relevant point of time A1 was the Chief Manager/Head of the Branch, Union Bank of India, Ramkote Branch, Hyderabad and he has recommended for sanction of Gold Metal Loan to the tune of Rs.8.50 Crores to

M/s.Sri Ram Jewellers (M/s.KARAT-24) and forwarded the same to the Regional

Office, Hyderabad. Ex.P31 is the attested true copy of Inter Office Letter dt.04.08.2009 of A1 along with enclosures, namely, Income-Tax Returns for the

Assessment Years 2006-07, 2007-08, Profit and Loss Account, Balance Sheet with

Annexures, Financial Statement for the Year Ending March, 2007, Proposal in the format, Credit Monitoring Assessment (CMA) Data, Credit Report of the party and partners/guarantors, 2 Valuation Reports and Rating Model of the Party. The said proposal along with enclosures was received in FGMO office from the Regional

Office, Hyderabad, which was dealt with by Srinivas (LW10) in FGMO office. Credit

Rating was done by Risk Officer by name S.R.Krishnan for rating and vetting.

Thereafter, it was placed before the Credit Approval Grid, consisting Pw7 as Chief

Manager, H.V.Rao, AGM and S.R.Krishnan, Risk Officer. Credit Approval Grid recommended for sanction of Gold Metal Loan for Rs.7.50 Crores in favour of

M/s.Sri Ram Jewellers (M/s.KARAT-24) on various terms and conditions mentioned in Credit Department Office Note bearing No.GMO/CR/650 dt.20.08.2008. The

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 45 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010 same was placed before the General Manager, FGMO, Bangalore by Reference

No.GMO/CR/08/650 dt.23.08.2008, which was approved by General Manager by name C.Abraham. It was communicated to the Regional Office, Hyderabad under

Ex.P11.

95.As per the terms of sanction by the Regional Office, Hyderabad and FGMO,

Bangalore disbursement of loan should be made only after completion of the documentation formalities, which will be reported by CPA Audit. However, in the present case, disbursement of loan was done by A1 as the Branch Head at that time without complying the sanctioned terms and conditions.

96.The PW7 admitted in cross-examination that there were no irregularities in forwarding the loan application to the Regional Office from the Branch and by the

Regional Office to FGMO, Bangalore. There were no irregularities also in sanctioning the loan by FGMO Office, Bangalore. He admits that the proposal was placed by Srinivas, Processing Officer before the 3 Grid Members of FGMO Office,

Bangalore on 23.08.2008, it was approved and recommended by the Grid

Members on 23.08.2008, it was placed before C.Abraham, General Manager,

FGMO on 23.08.2008 and it was approved and sanctioned by him on 23.08.2008.

He admits that the Approved Copy of the Note dt.23.08.2008 from FGMO Office,

Bangalore was sent to Regional Office, Hyderabad on 23.08.2008 through e-mail.

97.The evidence of PW7 shows by seeing the name of A1 on the papers, he is able to say that the signatures belong to A1, but he has no direct contact with him at any point of time. PW7 deposed he has done credit process audit in Ramkote

Branch in the year 2008 in respect of account of M/s.Sri Ram Jewellers on the direction of Regional Office, Union Bank of India. Ex.P17/B(PageNo.83

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 46 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010

L.D.No.35) is the attested copy of Credit Process Audit report submitted by him.

His observations in the said report is that 1) Equitable Mortgage of residential property Flat No.666 was not obtained. 2) Legal opinion on original title deed for property No.1 i.e. title deed No.928/2007 on which mortgage created was not obtained. 3) Cash margin as per sanction stipulation was not obtained. 4) Lien on

FDRs to be created. 5) Acknowledgment to the sanction stipulation not held on record. 6) Registration of EM of property i.e. Property No.1 with Registrar of

Assurances was not done as per sanction stipulation. 7) Branch to submit compliance report to be NRO/FGMO that the KYC norms applicable to gold metal loans as per IBD circular 5871 dated 30.01.08 are complied with. 8)Applicable processing charges to be collected. All the above said conditions are not complied in the case relating to Sri Ram Jewellers.

98.It is to be noted that PW7 alleged there are irregularities in disbursing loan amount. The sanction terms and conditions are not complied. The title documents of A3 was not verified and not sent for scrutiny. Contrary to it, in the cross examination he stated in the complaint in para no.8 it mentioned that “in view of the fact that the property papers were already processed and accepted by SBI, Gunrock branch, On the basis of the original title deeds produced and also in view of the certificate of marketable title issued by banks advocate and the valuation report issued by banks valuer, the property of Ac 0.38 gunta ascertained to 238 of Nizampet was accepted as security.” It means the grid committee itself satisfied with title documents and accepted as security as it was processed and accepted by SBI. Now they cannot blame A1.

99.The evidence of PW7 shows that there were no irregularities in forwarding

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 47 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010 application through FGMO, there was no irregularities in sanction of loan to M/s.

Sri Ram Jewellers but his contention is that there were irregularities in disbursement of loan. The branch has disbursed the loan amount without complying the sanction terms and conditions.

100. It is to be noticed that the perusal of documents shows that under what circumstances the loan was sanctioned to M/s. Sri Ram Jewellers. As per Ex.P17

Page No.27 shows that since metal gold for which loan was sanctioned, was not readily available, UBS Gold was delivered and this was appraised to IBD vide

GEN:164 dated 29.08.2008. The value of gold as on 25.08.2008 was around

Rs.11.5 Crores. The main reason for acceding to his request was reportedly that J

Sriramu/A2 promised to bring deposit of Rs.15 crores from MMTC and also of securing Rs.50 crores low cost deposits. Deposit of Rs.15 Crores was received from MMTC-Rs.10 crores on 13.09.2008 and Rs. 5 cores on 16.09.2008 both these deposits were paid on 10.10.2008. As on date there were no deposits of MMTC.

Besides SRJ agreed to replenish the gold as on when received under gold metal scheme and also to make the payment within 90 days along with applicable interest and commission vide their letter dated 23.08.2008. Meanwhile loan was released on 19.09.2008 as a general term loan and Rs.7.50 crores was credited to the CD account of Sri Ram Jewellers and this amount was held as lien to the gold delivered to M/s.Karat24. Balance in the account as on 11.10.2008 amounting to

Rs.7.45 crores was remitted to IBD on 11.102008. Gold metal term loan amount was not opened since it was learnt from IBD that the metal loan account was linked to the release of gold.

101. The document clearly shows that the gold was not readily available so

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 48 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010 the loan was sanctioned. Further the amount was not delivered to Sri Ram

Jewellers, the amount was kept as lien and on 11.10.2008 it was delivered to IBD.

The PW7 in the irregularities has stated that the lien was not taken but this document shows the loan amount itself not delivered and the amount it self kept as lien. Further the PW7 pointed out that legal opinion was not obtained on the title documents but FGMO itself accepted the title deeds as security on the ground that the same documents were already mortgaged to SBH, the legal opinion and valuation report was already obtained on the title deeds. When FGMO accepted the documents, there is no such discretionary power to the branch to again send the documents for legal opinion and also for valuation. Further it is observed that the loan was sanctioned as there was agreement with A2 that he will bring Rs.15 crores deposit from MMTC and also securing Rs.50 crores low cost deposits and it was observed that both these deposits were paid on 10.10.2008.

Further there was no delivery of gold, the branch and FGMO is well aware of non availability of gold. The Sri Ram Jewellers agreed to replenish the gold as on when received under gold metal scheme. When the gold is not delivered there is no question of payment of margin money.

102.Further Ex.P17/27 clearly shows that on 25.08.2008 300kgs of gold from

UBS consisting of 3000 bars of 100gms each was received for sale to Karat-24 at the special request of SRJ for meeting the immediate requirements and pending disbursement of loan 100 kgs of gold from this lot was delivered to M/s. Karat-24 i.e. 40kgs on 25.08.2008 against the proposed disbursement of loan of Sriram

Jewelers and also 40 grams on 26.08.2008 against the purposed disbursement of loan of Sriram Jewelers. Further on 28.08.2008 20 kgs of gold was delivered

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 49 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010 against the deposit of Rs2.17 crores of Sriram Jewelers, being margin on term loan which were subsequently closed and remitted to IBD on 11.10.2008. It clearly shows that 40 kgs, 40 kgs, 20 kgs was delivered on 25.08.2008, 26.08.2008, 28.08.2008. Further, it is clear that this was disbursed against the proposed loan and also against the deposits of 2.17 crores. In contrary to this document the prosecution got marked the document Ex.P109.

103.The perusal of this document shows that 25.08.2008 40 kgs of gold was delivered to Karat-24 and on 26.08.2008 35 kgs of gold was delivered and on 28.08.2008 20 kgs of gold was delivered. The amount is paid for 35 kgs of gold.

The entries are shown nil for 40 kgs of gold on 25.08.2008 and also 20 kgs of gold on 28.08.2008. Now in Ex.P17 they are mentioning the reasons for delivery as due to proposed disbursement of loan and also against the deposit of 2.17 crores of

Sriram Jewelers. The entries are against the entries made in ExP109. Further the document Ex.P109 shows 950 kgs of gold was delivered to Karat-24, out of it the amount is paid for 850 kgs. In the remarks column it mentioned that 100kgs gold indent was made for Sriram Jewelers and gold delivered to M/s. Karat-24 on the request of M/s. Sriram Jewelers without payment by Karat-24. The date of delivery and the person who signed on delivery challan and who are custodians of gold etc. are not mentioned, the reasons for delivery without payment is also not mentioned.

104.Subsequently on 11.10.2008, 14.10.2008 the payment of amount for 70 kgs and 30 kgs was shown. In the remarks column it mentioned the payment was made debiting loan account and crediting overdraft in the current account of M/s.

Sriram Jewelers as per the instructions of regional office, Hyderabad to pay to

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 50 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010 treasury, Mumbai. It means the loan amount was adjusted towards 100 kgs of gold. When the loan was sanctioned by FGMO towards 100 kgs of gold how can they contend that the branch has committed irregularity by not collecting 110% of gold amount. Everything is in the knowledge of regional office and FGMO.

105.The Regional office itself instructed to pay the amount to treasury.

Therefore, the amount was paid to treasury the receiving of amount is left. But the prosecution is mixing the both facts at one side they are contending the loan was obtained, in case of gold bullion loan, the gold should be delivered the loan should not be given. When FGMO sanction the loan though the proposal send by branch, when it is against the rules, how can FGMO, grid committee sanction the gold directly accepting the title documents furnished by the borrowers. Therefore, the branch cannot be blamed for sanction of loan.

106.At the same time the delivery of gold is also very doubtful, Ex.P108 shows one V.Srinivas, V.Murali, K.Sudhakar, N.Gururaj, K.Karunakar, G.Bhaskar Tharyar

Rao was also involved in the delivery of gold. The delivery challans bears the signatures of V.Srinivas, V.Murali, the A1. G.Karunakar, Bhaskar Tharyar Rao,

Gururaj, custodians of gold. They are the proper persons to speak about the delivery of goods.

107.The perusal of record shows that the Union Bank has appointed one

Mathew as Investigating Officer. He has submitted the report in which he made allegations against Murali, Karunakar, Bhaskar Thayar Rao and also Gururaj. The

Investigating officer have not impleaded them as accused in the present case.

108. The document Ex.P123 shows that G. Bhaskar Thayar Rao, Senior Manager has not maintained the registers/records as stipulated in the billion scheme

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 51 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010 except maintaining one rough register. He has delivered 55 kgs of gold on 28.08.2008 and 54 kgs of gold on 10.09.2008 and 11 kgs of gold on 12.09.2008 to

Karat-24 without written request from the party and there were no controlling vouchers. It is doubtful whether it was delivered to M/s Karat24 or not. He simply stated on the instructions of A1 he delivered the gold but he has not performed his duties.

109. Further, A.Karunakar, Senior Manager also not maintained the registers except one rough register maintained from 1.08.2008. He has delivered 280 kgs of gold for 11 times to M/s. Karat 24 without written request from party for delivery of gold. Contra voucher was also not there. Knowing fully well that huge amount was due from the party gold was delivered, simply he is taking the name of A1. A. Karunakar has done irregularities in delivery of gold.

110.V.Murali, was joint custodian, he failed to maintain records, without collecting margin amount he delivered the gold to M/s. Karat 24. Further K.

Sudhakar Rao was also not maintained the registers. 290 kgs of gold was delivered to M/s.Karat-24 without written request from the party controlling voucher were also not possible. There was inconsistent in the occupation property of A3, in the credit information when compared to the credit report signed by

Sudhakar Rao as Investigating officer. The outside liabilities of A2 and his wife were not ascertained from them in form of credit information and reported in the credit report. Said Sudhakar Rao failed to carry out due diligence. He has signed on the process note along with A1, he has not analyzed the financial of M/s. Karat

24. He failed to obtain provisional finance of Sriram Jewelers. The source and use of the capital was not verified nor commented in the process note. He has not

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 52 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010 verified the genuineness of documents. He is taking the name of A1 for all these irregularities.

111.Further, V.Srinivas, Assistant Manager failed to maintain the records under bullion scheme. Branch has received 200 kgs gold in the month of June 2008, the transactions of delivery of gold for 9 times were observed but Srinivas has not recorded the above transactions in any registers and not passed relevant controlling vouchers. While delivering the gold delivery letters addressed to M/s.

Karat-24 was signed by Srinivas independently without obtaining the signatures of

Chief Manager. It shows that the gold was delivered without knowledge of Chief

Manager. Further, the branch records shows blank acknowledgments signed by

M/s.Karat-24 were found there by the branch officials can use those acknowledgments at later date as on when party shows sufficient balance in his account. In order to suppress the correct date of delivery and to create record for delivery of gold based on transactions displayed in the system. These blank delivery challans with due acknowledgment of the party for used. It clearly indicates that fraud was played not only on Chief Manager but also on the party by obtaining blank acknowledgments. The gold was in shortage, taking advantage of said blank delivery challans, in order to protect their skin, the loan application was brought into existence and alleged 100 kgs of gold was delivered. The A1 and the A2 and A3 have become scape goats.

112.Further, said Srinivas at the time of handing over safe keys bullion safe to the Chief Manager on 30.07.2008 there was balance of 35 kgs of gold. V. Murali,

K.Sudhakar Rao who took charge of bullion on 31.07.2008, recorded in the stock register that there was only 20 kgs of gold in the safe. Srinivas Rao failed to hand

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 53 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010 over the stock of gold to his in cumbrance properly by making proper entries in registers but simply left the keys of the safe with the Chief Manager in a negligent manner. It shows that V. Srinivas has intentionally done the irregularities in respect of delivery of gold as well as not making entities in the suspense account.

The Investigating officer has not conducted any enquiry in this aspect and thrown the blame on A1.

113.Further, N. Gururaj was joint custodian for bullion along with Karunakar. He has not maintained the registers. He has received 300 kgs of gold which was kept in same. 40 kgs of gold was delivered to M/s.Karat-24 on 25.08.2008 and on 26.08.2008, 40 kgs of gold and on 27.08.2008 35kgs of gold was delivered to

Karat24 without obtaining value for the gold delivered from the party. He is taking the name of Chief Manager but the dispute is arising only in respect of 100 kgs of gold. Without any delivery challans and request from the party how can they say that this gold was delivered to Karat-24.

114.The prosecution has examined said N. Gururaj as PW47, he stated that as per Ex.P103, J. Sri Ramu has given letter requesting for gold metal loan for Rs.

8.50 crores. Ex.P102 is original Ramkote branch file which contains the signature of A1 i.e., deposit on memorandum of title deeds. Ex.P55 is duplicate fixed receipts for Rs. 1,09,00,000/- and Rs. 78,50,000/- and Rs. 30,00,000/- in the name of M/s. Sri Ram Jewellers. As per the documents, the FDRs are opened on 25.08.2008 and on 26.08.2008. The FDRs are prematurely withdrawn on 11.10.2008. The FDRs are signed by Alamelu S. Ranganna. Ex.P53 is statement of account of Sri Ram Jewellers along with certificate under Section 2A of Banker’s

Books Evidence Act. Ex.P54 shows that the name of Panel Advocate who dealt

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 54 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010 with this matter. Vetting report submitted by PK Arjun. He stated that there is four types of custodians, Branch cash safe, locker room, bullion/gold safe and currency chest safe. V. Srinivas Rao, K. Sudhakar Rao, K. Karunakar were working in

Advance Department. He does not know whether all the security documents are executed by the party. K. Sudhakar Rao has processed the proposal of gold metal loan of Sri Ram Jewellers and sent to Sr.Manager. The Branch Head has forwarded the proposal to Regional Office. The Chief Manager has requested Deputy General

Manager to give permission to release worth of Rs. 7.50 crores to M/s. Karat-24.

115.It is to be noted that the PW47 intended to say that the FDRs are prematurely withdrawn. In fact, the FDRs are not kept as lien, so the party has withdrawn the amount prematurely, so there is no fault on the side of party and on the side of the Bank Manager to give permission for withdrawal of FDRs.

Further, the PW47 was asked about the custodians, he has not stated he was one of the custodian for bullion gold safe. He is giving the particulars of other officers in the Bank. However, his evidence shows that the loan processing was done by

Mr. K. Sudhakar Rao. He kept before A1 and he forwarded the same to the

Regional Office. Though, PW47 stated that the Chief Manager has requested for release of gold, but as per record, there was recommendation for sanction of loan amount. The report Ex.P123 clearly shows that Mr. Sudhakar Rao has not verified the outside liabilities of A2 and his wife from them in form of credit information and reported in the credit report. Said Sudhakar Rao failed to carry out due diligence. He has signed on the process note along with A1, he has not analysed the financial of M/s. Karat 24. He failed to obtain provisional finance of Sriram

Jewelers. The source and use of the capital was not verified nor commented in the

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 55 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010 process note. He has not verified the genuineness of documents. He is taking the name of A1 for all these irregularities.

116.Thereafter, Ex.P104/original stock register of gold metal maintained at

Ramkote branch, from 01.08.2008 to 16.09.2008. Whenever the gold bars are received from Mumbai, the entries will be made in Ex.P104. The prosecution has not asked the role of Gururaj in maintaining the custody of gold bullion safe.

Further, there is a report against Gururaj, instead of adding him as accused, he was shown as witness. In the cross-examination, PW47 has stated that he never worked in Bullion Department, so he is not aware of gold transactions of Sri Ram

Jewellers. The prosecution contended that PW47 has stated that “ The amount debited to suspense account during April and May 2008 were fully recovered during the month of June-2008”, “ There was no debit to suspense account thereafter till 19.9.2008” ( Contradiction with 161 statement) . However, PW47 denied that he stated the same in his 161 statement. Further, he also denied that he stated before CBI that “ On 20.09.2008, the branch has purchased cheques of

Rs. 1.5 crores on its own which were returned. On 29.09.2008 the four following cheques were purchased with the permission of Regional Office, Hyderabad i.e.

Cheque No. 373137 for Rs. 70 Lakhs, Cheque No. 555494 for Rs. 80 Lakhs,

Cheque No. 225586 for Rs. 70 lakhs, Cheque No. 555493 for Rs. 80 Lakhs” ( Contradiction with 161 statement). It clearly shows that the evidence of PW47 is not reliable and trustworthy. He is giving evidence against the prosecution version.

117.The prosecution contended the delivery challans for Delivery of Gold were shown to PW47 which pertains to SriRam Jewellers and Karat24, but the witness

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 56 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010 denied it and also denied that he stated about purchase of local cheques, debiting to suspense account. There are so many contradictions in the evidence of PW47, further he stated that he do not know anything about gold metal loan of M/s. Sri

Ram Jewellers and delivery of gold to M/s.Karat-24.

118.PW50/Chacko Abraham, General Manager, Union Bank of India, Bangalore, the prosecution has marked several documents Ex.P105 to P130. Further, they have marked the documents which reveals that the local cheques purchased by

Union Bank of India and which were not cleared and the payments received by

M/s. Karat-24. Further, the circulars are also marked through this witness. Several vouchers are also marked through this witness. The prosecution intended to say that the local cheques are purchased and the amount is deducted from suspense account and the amount is credited to M/s.Karat-24. So, there are irregularities.

119.In the cross-examination, the defence has asked several questions with regard to sanction of gold metal loan. The evidence of PW50 is very crucial because he has explained what was done in the sanction of bullion loan to Karat-

24. The PW50 has stated that FGMO has received the proposal for sanction of gold metal loan, the application was submitted by Sri Ram Jewellers to the Ram

Koti Branch. On 20.08.2008, the loan application was received by the FGMO through email. One Mr. Srinivas, Officer-in-Charge of Advance Department has processed this loan in FGMO on 23.08.2008. On that day the process has completed. The internal investigation was done in the Bank, one investigator was appointed. As per the report under Ex.P123, it is clear that the Investigating

Officer has made several allegations against said Srinivas. The observations of

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 57 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010

Investigating Officer is that the credit report dated 04.08.2008 is that line of activity was gold ornaments, but in the process note, it is mentioned that Mr.

Srinivas is engaged in cold storage business and also has a power project near

Eluru in the name of Sanco. Inspite of his inconsistency, the nature of association of Mr. Srinivas with M/s. Sri Ram Jewellers, his contribution in the firm, his liabilities etc., were not called for. V. Srinivas was sleeping partner with five persons, stake in the business had offered mortgage of his properties valued at

Rs. 867.00 lakhs should have warranted calling for a thorough due deligence exercise on the credential of Mr. Srinivas. The Investigating Officer has given a finding that under column no. 26(b) in the process note comments on other

Banks, credit report on sister concerns, it was mentioned that “Not applicable”, but during investigation, it revealed that M/s. Karat-24 is availing working capital limits of Rs. 25 crores with Axis Bank, Secunderabad. Non-fund based limits of Rs.

1.50 crores with Andhra Bank, Ameerpet, in addition to Rs. 10.00 crore limit in the name of M/s. Keshav Jewellery Mart. This could be the reason why provisional financials of M/s. Karat-24 for March, 2008 were not submitted to the Bank.

Insisting on provisional financial statements and obtaining credit reports from the

Bankers of M/s. Karat-24, the anomaly in the account of M/s. Karat-24 have been noticed at the time of processing itself. It clearly shows that the process note was not properly prepared by said V. Srinivas.

120.Further, PW50 stated that the process was placed before Credit Grid consisting of 4 people namely Prabhu, Chief Manager, H.V. Rao, Assistant General

Manager, Mr. Krishnan, Risk Manager and one more person. All are part of credit department. This proposal was approved by Credit Grid Department. It clearly

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 58 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010 shows that the Committee consisting of the member i.e., complainant/PW1 herein has approved the loan. Thereafter, it was forwarded to PW50 on 23.08.2008 i.e., on the same day. After going through the proposal and the recommendations of the grid, PW50 has sanctioned the loan. His department has communicated this sanction through Regional Office.

121.As per the instructions in existing rules the party must have brought 110% of value of the gold before taking the delivery of gold. The branch should not have allowed parting with the gold without ensuring deposit of 110 % of value of the gold, this is the major irregularity committed by the branch pertaining to this two accounts, Sriram jewellers and Karat-24, they are supposed to intimate central office in the particular format in the daily transaction but they have failed to do so. Further statements were also not furnished to IBD ( International Banking

Division) on daily basis. They started purchasing local cheques against to the existing rules. Huge amount excesses to the over limit/without any limit to both the parties.

122.The process of gold release has been given a go by and instead account of the party was debited and the credit was given to account in excess. The purpose of this loan was defeated by the action of branch in releasing huge amount of cash instead of gold. Added to this the parties were not co operative and not coming forward to adjust the out standings. The accounts became NPA.

123.It is to be noted that the PW50 has stated that the loan amount of Rs. 7.50 lakhs was released to M/s. Karat-24. In fact, the amount was not credited to the account of M/s. Karat-24. As per record, the amount was deposited in the account of IBD which delivers the gold to the Bank. So, this amount was not utilized by

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 59 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010

M/s. Karat-24. The main purpose of sanction of this loan was the borrower by obtaining loan and by paying this amount to IBD, he has to collect the gold from the Union Bank of India which is dealing with the gold bullion business. It is proved that the loan was sanctioned, the amount was sent to IBD, when the question comes to delivery of gold, it is the duty of prosecution to prove this fact.

At one side, they contended that without payment of amount, 100 kgs of gold was delivered to M/s. Karat-24. For a moment we assume that the prosecution has rightly stated that the gold was delivered without receiving the amount, then what about the loan amount. The loan amount was already delivered to IBD, if IBD received this amount, then there is no question of receiving the gold without payment. It means, the payment was already given for 100 kgs of gold.

124.When we come to the delivery of gold, the prosecution is relying upon

Ex.P108, and contending that the gold was delivered to the Karat-24. They have specifically stated that on which date this 100 kgs of gold was delivered to M/s.

Karat-24.

125.PW50 stated that as per Ex.P108 one V Srinivas has delivered 100 kgs of gold on 04.04.2008 and it was debited in the account on 25.04.2008. The date of loan application was 23.08.2008. When 100 kgs of gold was delivered on 04.04.2008 and it was debited on 25.04.2008, there is no question of sanctioning loan for 100 kgs of gold on 23.08.2008. For a moment we assume that the gold was delivered in the month of April, 2008, the sanction of loan and delivery of amount to IBD is nothing but payment of amount to 100 kgs of gold. So, there is no question of releasing 100 kgs of gold without payment. It clearly shows that there are so many irregularities on the part of Bank, the staff members have

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 60 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010 committed the irregularities for which A1 alone was made liable. V. Srinivas has delivered 100 kgs of gold, but the case is not registered against him. A4/Sudhakar has filed discharge petition and he was discharged on the ground that he has not delivered the gold and one V. Srinivas has delivered the gold, if the same principle is applied to A1, A1 is also not liable for delivery of this gold. The report submitted against said V. Srinivas, clearly shows that even he has not obtained the signatures of Chief Manager on the vouchers and without his knowledge, he delivered the gold to the customers.

126.Further, said V. Srinivas has not maintained the record. When the branch has received 200 kgs of gold in June, 2008 and the transactions of delivery of gold i.e., 9 times in the month of June, 2008 are observed, but Mr.Srinivas has not recorded the above transactions in any Registers and not passed relevant controlling vouchers. While delivering the gold, delivery letters addressed to M/s.

Karat-24 were signed by Mr. Srinivas independently without obtaining the signatures of Chief Manager of Branch.

127.It observed from the Branch records that blank acknowledgments signed by M/s. Karat-24 were found thereby the Branch officials can use those acknowledgments at belated stage (after delivery) as and when party shows sufficient balance in his account in order to suppress the correct date of delivery and to create record for delivery of gold based on transactions displayed in the system, these blank delivery challans with due acknowledgment of the party were used. As per bullion scheme, 110% of cash margin to be received from the customer and ear marked onward remittance of IBD/Treasury branch before delivery of gold which Mr. Srinivas has failed to maintain the record.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 61 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010

128.Further PW50 was not able to say whether regional officer rejected the request of chief manager to purchase 2 cheques. He admitted he stated before

CBI that regional head permitted to purchase 4 cheques amounting to Rs. 3 crores. It shows purchase of local cheques are within the knowledge of Regional

Office. Further after receiving email from regional office he sanctioned the loan even process note was prepared by V Srinivas.

129.Further he admits at the time of the relevant transactions of this case he was working as General Manager, Union Bank of India. H. V. Rao was the Assistant

General Manager and P N Prabhu was Chief Manager. The Regional Manager,

Hyderabad was in-charge of Union bank of India, Ramkote branch, at the relevant time FGMO office was at Bangalore.

130.PW50 admits that every gold bullion transaction will be reported to custody branch situated. The defence alleged that the entire transactions communication comes from the Bombay routed to regional office of union Bank of India in-turn it goes to Ramkote branch. So all the transactions are informed to the IBD. Though, the PW50 denied it, but it is the duty of the Investigating officer to go to the place of Regional Office and IBD, Bombay and collect the documents whether the weekly reports, monthly reports are sent by Ramkote branch or not. The

Investigating officer had not visited any of the places simply he collected the documents under seizure memo and filed charge sheet against the accused.

Even, he has not verified those documents with originals. PW68/Investigating officer admitted that the Bank has issued certified copies and attested copies, he has not compared those documents with originals. It clearly shows that he has not

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 62 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010 collected relevant documents, he has taken only those documents which are given by the Branch, Regional Office, so it is doubtful whether there may be documents in support of the accused, due to non-collecting of documents, it caused prejudice to the accused.

131.PW50 is not aware of the particulars of purchase of gold by Karat-24 in the cross-examination, PW50 stated that Karat-24 might have dealt under gold bullion scheme and purchased approximately 900 Kgs of gold. Further, his evidence made it clear that there are two types of purchasing of gold by the customer under this scheme one scheme is called spot buying, it means payment of the amount on the spot and to purchase the gold on the spot and another scheme is consignment sales, under consignment sale, 180 days period will be given for payment of cost of the gold. In the instant case, without lapse of said 180 days, the complaint was lodged against A1 to A3. It shows the malafide intention on the part of Bank authorities.

132.Further, PW50 evidence shows that A1 alone is not responsible, the gold under this scheme will be under custody of two officers in any given branch. The officers are chief manager and senior manager, without the knowledge of one officer, another officer cannot deal with the gold under this scheme. The PW68 has not investigated about the role of another Senior Manager. Since beginning, the allegations made against the accused no.1 only. The evidence of PW50 shows that both officers are jointly liable, without knowledge of another officer, A1 cannot deal with the gold under this scheme. The charge sheet does not reveals whether PW68 has examined another officer and fixed the liability of Senior

Officer who is in charge along with A1 herein. Non-conduct of investigation with

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 63 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010 regard to another Senior Officer creates a doubt about the prosecution case.

133.The PW50 admitted that the delivery of gold and custody of gold, balance of gold, disbursement of gold will be entered in the system. He admits this system will be available in the custodian bank at Bombay and the transactions will be reflected in the system of Bombay bank. Whenever the gold is delivered they will be delivery challan for each transaction. That will be prepared by concerned bank staff and certified by second office of the branch. The investigating officer who examined him had not shown the delivery challans that took place. The evidence of PW50 shows that there will be entries in the system.

It is visible in the custodian bank at Bombay also. Simply, the prosecution contended that the weekly reports and monthly reports are not sent, but they have not collected any such reports from online system. If PW68 would have examined any of the officer at Bombay Bank, there may be possibility for them to know the fact that whether such reports are sent or not.

134.PW50 stated the delivery challans of this gold transactions were not shown to him during his examination under section 161 crpc. The PW50 is the proper witness to speak about the delivery challans. It was not confronted to PW50.

There was no opportunity to know of gold transaction by their office at

Hyderabad.

135.As regards the purchase of local cheques by the branch, PW50 also admitted that as per guidelines purchasing of the cheque by the bank manager is not illegal. The bank used to get commission of 1% or 2% on purchasing of cheques. When a business man is in need of finance and having a good business track the concern bank is permissible to purchase the cheque provided he is

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 64 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010 having valid cheque and this is not local cheque. It is proved that the purchase of cheques are within the knowledge of Regional Office only, further with the permission of the Regional office only, the cheques were purchased. Now the

Regional office has taken `U’ turn and making allegations against the branch.

136.PW50 stated that whenever the immovable property is offered as security for the loan, the title documents will be verified, the legal opinion will be obtained, the valuation report will be obtained and property will be physically verified by staff members of the bank then only the property will be accepted as a security and also for mortgage. He admits all the document which are marked through him as Ex.P105 to Ex.P129 are not prepared by him and he is not signatory to the documents. PW50 is not concerned with the documents, but the prosecution has marked documents through PW50. The defence contention is that mere marking of the documents is not sufficient. It is to be properly proved. The document must be marked through the witness who is author of the document and signatory to the document. The PW50 is no way concerned with the documents, but the documents are marked through PW50, so there is no evidentiary value to the said documents.

137.PW50 admits as per Ex.P109 from the date 17.03.2008 to 11.10.2008 there was purchase of 850 Kgs of gold by Karat-24. However, in the last column, they have mentioned 950 kgs of gold and stated that the remaining 100 kgs of gold was purchased by Karat-24. The letter of request, dispatched receipt etc., are not filed. Simply, they stated that inbetween the period 17.03.2008 to 11.10.2008, 950 kgs of gold was purchased. The specific dates of purchase of 100 kgs of gold

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 65 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010 was not mentioned. In the cross-examination of prosecution witnesses, when the defence is particularly asked about the purchase of this 100 kgs of gold and asked to say the specific dates on that the witnesses have stated the dates as in the month of April, 2008, there was purchase of gold. The document Ex.P108 shows that the amount is already paid for the purchase of said gold. Ex.P109 is not clear on which date this 100 kgs of gold was purchased. Even in the column of 54, they mentioned 950 kgs, but they are not mentioning the date of purchase.

138.Further, they mentioned 850 kgs of gold amount was remitted to Treasury through Authority cheques. They mentioned 100 kgs of gold indent was made for

Sri Ram Jewellers and gold delivered to M/s. Karat-24 without payment by Karat-

24. The cheques for Rs. 101,18,98,009/- was not filed before the Court. Further, they have shown in 54 column and 55 column as 70 kgs of gold and 30 kgs of gold, the dates are mentioned as 11.10.08, 14.10.08. The total amount remitted to Treasury through Authority cheques are shown as Rs. 9,63,87,650/- and Rs.

4,02,72,953/-. The date of remittance is mentioned as 11.10.2008 and 14.10.2008. However, against these columns, they mentioned that this payment was made debiting loan account and crediting overdraft in the current account of

Sri Ram Jewellers as per the instructions of Regional office, Hyderabad, to pay to

Treasury, Mumbai. It means, as per the instructions of Regional office, the amount was paid to Treasury, if it is so, where is the question of delivery of gold without payment of amount as alleged by the prosecution. Moreover, the remitted amount was specifically mentioned in the column of “total amount remitted to Treasury through Authority cheques”. Then again, adjusting amount from loan account does not arise. It made it clear that there was shortage of 100 kgs of gold,

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 66 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010 therefore, in order to cover that amount, taking the advantage of loan application filed by the accused no. 2 and 3, the Regional office and the branch started to contend that this 100 kgs of gold was already delivered. Ex.P109 is not supporting their version. Therefore, it is clear that there was no such delivery of 100 kgs of gold and there is no delivery of loan amount to A2 and A3. The Investigating officer has not investigated the matter properly.

139.Further, Ex.P123/28 shows that S. Rajeshwar Rao, Chief Manager working at Regional office has recommended for term loan proposal of Sriram Jewellers, he has not insisted on conducting due diligence exercise by the branch in respect of

Sriram Jewelers and its partners. He failed to verify the information given by the branch by obtaining statement of account of Karat-24. While submitting the credit report of A2, his means were shown as Rs.200 lakhs while the certificate given by

Chartered Accountants, A2 had contributed another Rs.242 lakhs towards his share of capital. Source of capital inducted by A2 was not ascertained and commented in the process note by S.Rajeshwar Rao. Further, A3 was sleeping partner, Mr. Rajeshwar Rao has not informed this fact he has failed to call for the provisional finance on the date of submission of proposal. He relied upon CA certified but failed to know the veracity of CA certificate. The Karat-24 is availing working capital limits of Rs.25 crores with Axis bank. Non fund based limited with

Andhra Bank, Sudhakar Rao has not verified it. Further, in the proposal he mentioned A2 has made a turn over of 1000 crores form Feb-2008 to till date and misleaded the sanctioning authority.

140.LSSR Murthy working at Regional office has also failed to verify the statement of account of M/s. Karat-24. He relied upon the certificate issued by CA.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 67 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010

He failed to know that veracity of CA Certificate. The financial of Karat24 was not properly verified. He is also mislead-ed the sanctioning authority.

141.Ex.P123 shows the irregularities done by other staff members but no single action was taken against the staff members who played very important role in delivering the gold to M/s Karat 24. The prosecution is blaming the A1 alone but

Ex.P123 report shows that the custodians of gold have misappropriated the gold, without any request the gold was delivered even the delivery challans also not obtained. Therefore, there is shortage of gold but the prosecution is blaming the accused herein. Therefore, the contention of PW7 is that there are irregularities in sanction of loan is not correct.

142.Further, the prosecution has examined PW8/Srinivas Medisetty who worked as Manager in Union Bank of India, he stated that he was the Credit officer in

FGMO, Bangalore at relevant time. When they received proposal for sanction of gold metal loan from the branch, credit approval grid has accorded approval and recommended for sanction of loan, the file was sent to one Abraham, General

Manager, FGMO. He approved and sanctioned loan. CPA report is to confirm the compliance of sanction terms and conditions of loan. The CPA has made some observations regarding non-compliance with regard to creation of mortgage, creation of collateral security, obtaining legal opinion on the properties before the loan is disbursed. It is not clear whether Ramkote branch has obtained permission for non-compliance or not before disbursing the loan. During his tenure, he came across the report of CPA. However, the CPA was not marked through this witness, so PW8 has not spoken about the CPA report. One MDS. Masood Khan is author of

CPA report. Therefore, the prosecution has examined PW11/Md.S.Masood Khan.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 68 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010

Ex.P17B is the attested copy of credit process audit report. As per his report, he pointed out that equitable mortgage of residential property was not obtained, the legal opinion was not obtained on the title deeds, cash margin as per sanction speculation was not obtained. Lien on FDRs to be created. Acknowledgment to the sanction speculation was not held on record. Registration of equitable mortgage of property was not done. The compliance report to the FGMO are complied with, applicable processing charges to be collected. It is to be noted that PW11 has pointed out the above irregularities on the point of Ramkote branch. However, in the cross-examination, he stated that he has referred in Ex.P17/B as instructed as

NRO, Hyderabad. It means, on the instructions of Nodal Regional Office, he pointed out said irregularities. He has not appended instructions of Nodal Regional

Office to his report. He has not submitted the documents along with his report in corroboration to the irregularities pointed out by him in the report. As already stated above, the Regional Office itself accepted the title deeds of A3 as security, deposit of title deeds, as it was already accepted by SBH. Further, there was compliance report submitted to the Regional office. On the instructions of

Regional office only, the loan was sanctioned. The Regional Office itself directed for sanction of loan, when on their instructions, the loan was sanctioned, subsequently they cannot blame the branch by stating that the conditions are not complied.

143.PW51/P. Devaki Nandan Sharma, the then Chief Manager, Union Bank of

India, stated that on the request of CBI, he has furnished the documents Ex.P2 to

P9 and Ex.P22. Further, he stated that as per Ex.P131, letter dated 01.07.2010, one L. Raja Reddy has given legal opinion and one P. Papa Rao was Panel valuer.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 69 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010

As per record, the amount was paid to said L. Raja Reddy. There is no record to show that the amount was paid to Panel valuer P. Papa Rao/A5. Further, as per

Ex.P132, he issued cheques towards dues to the Bank which were dishonoured, so the criminal cases were filed under Section 138 of NI Act. Further, Ex.P133 is the statement of account of A2. Ex.P59 is certified copy of details of system generated vouchers pertaining to the account of A2 in respect of five cheques.

Further, Ex.P134 is the statement of account of J. Uma Rani, wife of accused no.2.

144.The documents reflects that no amount was paid to the Panel valuer. The defence counsel for A5 has taken a plea that there was no document to show that

A5 was appointed as Panel Valuer. Further, as per Ex.P131, there was no payment of amount to the accused no. 5 and A5 has not admitted his signatures on valuation report. The valuation report was fabricated. The document Ex.P131 strengthens the version of A5 that there was no payment, so utilization of his services also doubtful.Further, PW51 has stated that as per statement under

Ex.P134, Rs. 7.5 crores metal loan was sanctioned to Sri Ram Jewellers, the amount of Rs. Rs. 4.02 crores worth gold was taken by Sri Ram Jewellers and the said amount was debited to Central Office, Mumbai. In page no.20 of account of

Sri Ram Jewellers, metal loan account shows the debit balance of Rs.

7,50,05,659/-. It is to be noted that the case of prosecution is that 100kgs of gold was delivered, as per Ex.P109, the metal gold loan amount is to be adjusted towards the purchase of this gold, but PW51 has stated only the gold worth of Rs.

4.02 crores was taken by Sri Ram Jewellers. The prosecution is silent for adjustment of Rs. 7.5 crores amount towards the metal gold when the party has taken only Rs. 4.02 crores of gold. It creates a doubt about the prosecution case.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 70 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010

145.Further, the PW51 has spoken about the purchase of cheques and credit of amount in the accounts of A2, Karat-24 etc. He stated that A1 has transferred the amount without any cheques on oral instructions, it is overdraft amount as per the statement. It is to be noted that the prosecution contended that the local cheques were purchased and it is deducted from suspense account and there was overdraft when there was permission from Regional office, so the contention of

PW51 is not correct. In the cross-examination of PW51, he stated that the day to day transactions will not be reflected in the Regional office and it will be reflected in Head office because this gold business was looking by Head office. The loan proposals of Ramkote branch will be routed through Regional Office and Head office is not concerned with it. As per Ex.P131, L. Raja Reddy has submitted legal opinion. The letter written by him to CBI are certified copies, after verifying the documents, he issued those documents. He admits that though he has spoken of return of two cheques which are dishonoured, in the cross-examination, he pleaded ignorance the case was ended in acquittal. The defence has filed Ex.D1 to D4 to prove that the case under Section 138 of NI Act was ended in acquittal.

Thereafter, in the cross-examination, he stated that Ex.P134 was not issued by him. He has not mentioned the date when he issued certified copy of Ex.P133.

There is no certificate under Section 2A of Banker’s Books Evidence Act to the document Ex.P134. It clearly shows that Ex.P134 is not admissible as per Indian

Evidence Act. The marking of document is not sufficient, it is to be properly proved, but it proved that Ex.P133 and Ex.P134 are not properly issued. Further,

PW51 stated purchase of local cheques are not part of business of branch. It is

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 71 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010 against the circulars and against the business of Bank, so the knowledge of PW51 with regard to the transactions of the Bank is doubtful.

146.PW14/V.Rama Sharma, Chief Manager, Union Bank of India, Regional Office,

Nampally stated that as per the circular under Ex.P40 vide Circular no. 6321,

dated 01.02.2001, it was issued by Head Office. The Bank’s are not supposed to

debit the amount from suspense account, the branches should submit to RO, a statement on quarterly basis furnishing the details of suspense account outstanding under various heads of account including clearing cheques on hand and clearing adjustment cheques. The power is vested with central office, Field

General Manager, Zonal Office, Regional Office and branches. The branches have to submit suspense account outstanding under various heads under Annexure-III balance sheet.

147.PW14 stated that referring Annexure-I, the statement submitted by

Ramkote branch, showing the details of local cheques, purchased at Ramkote branch, from 07.02.2008 to 29.09.2008, there are certain cheques which were unpaid, it means not realized. These unpaid cheques are debited to the current account of M/s. Karat-24 and reversed to the suspense accounts to make it NIL in suspense account. In Annexure-III, the details of cheques purchased by debiting suspense account LCP and credited to the account of M/s. Karat-24 presented in clearing and returned unpaid. The statement is containing 44 entries. The 44 cheques are returned cheques. The amount will be outstanding in the suspense account which is irregular, whenever the amount is deducted, the amount should be realized, but in the present case, the amount was not realized to nullify the suspense account, the Karat-24 account was debited and reversed to suspense

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 72 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010 account, thereby an overdrafting created in Karat-24 account which is irregular. In the Annexure-I and Annexure-III, the details of cheques returned and not realized on particular dates have been mentioned in summary way. In the Annexure-I, the particulars of cheques, dates and amounts are mentioned. The evidence of PW14 shows that the branch has maintained the register showing the purchase of local cheques, the cheques which are returned unpaid, unpaid cheques are debited from the account of Karat-24. It means, they maintained the register. The PW14 further admitted that branch has given a report in detail to the Regional Office, at the time only, they came to know of the irregularities. The branch has to submit monetary reports.

148.PW14 stated Ex.P124 is the file showing the process done in Ramkote branch in respect of Sri Ram Jewellers for an amount of Rs. 7.5 crores. PW14 admitted that there are monthly monetary report on the loan account of M/s. Sri

Ram Jewellers. Further, Ex.P943 are monthly monetary report for the month of

October, 2008. As per his evidence, there was outstanding amount of Rs. 1450.03 lakhs in Karat -24 account.

149.The PW14 has not pointed out that A1 alone was responsible for purchase of cheques and deducting the amount from suspense account and crediting the amount in the account of Karat-24. As per his evidence, the branch is responsible.

The branch means, the persons who are entrusted with the work of this suspense account. The document Ex.P123 clearly shows that Mr. V. Murali failed to monitor the transactions that have taken place in suspense account local cheques on day to day basis. He was Accountant of the branch. Though, the local cheques were purchased by debiting the suspense account, he did not ensure that the amount

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 73 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010 of cheques returned is debited to the current account of M/s. Karat-24, but allowed the same to be debited to suspense account local cheques, thereby he had enabled the party to take delivery of gold from the branch on the strength of balances available in their account, without effecting the amounts returned.

Further, the report shows that Mr. Murali had adjusted the old entries outstanding in suspense account, local cheques with clearing credits received in respect of other instruments presented and also by way of transfer of funds from the CB account of M/s. Karat-24, at a later date to nullify the old entries. Mr. Murali allowed the entries to be nullified to piece meal, whereby true picture of entries outstanding on any given date was concealed. Entries returns in suspense account dated 14.05.2008, dated 15.05.2008, 16.05.2008, were got adjusted by debiting parties account in a piece meal manner, from 22.05.2008 to 30.06.2008 as and when the party deposited funds in his CD account. He failed to pass necessary controlling vouchers as a stipulated in the bullion scheme. The report clearly shows that said Murali was well aware that huge amount was due from the party but he has delivered the gold. Mr. Murali and Sudhakar were custodians for some time and Murali and K. Karunakar were custodians for some time, V. Murali and GBT Rao were custodians, they delivered gold in the manner of unethical practicing of controlling entries in suspense account. The Investigating Officer has not investigated the role of above said persons simply he got it mentioned that at the instance of A1 only, it was done. Atleast, said persons were not examined

before the Court to depose that at the instance of A1 only, they did the same. It

means, by throwing the blame on A1, they protected the other staff members, therefore, the A1 cannot be made liable when this work is entrusted to the said

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 74 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010

Murali and Ex.P123 pointed out the mistake of said Murali.

150.Further, the main dispute is only with regard to the delivery of 100 kgs of gold, when a specific question is asked to PW14 with regard to the delivery of 100 kgs of gold, he stated that as per Ex.P943, in page no. 229 on 25.08.2008, 40 kgs of gold and on 26.08.2008, 40 kgs of gold, and on 20.08.2008 20 kgs of gold, in total 100 kgs of gold was delivered to M/s. Karat-24. He admits that 80 kgs of gold bullion was delivered against the proposed disbursement of loan of M/s. Sri Ram

Jewellers and with regard to 20 kgs of gold bullion against the deposits of Rs. 2.17 crores of Sri Ram Jewellers being margin of term loan which was subsequently closed and remitted to IBD on 11.10.2008. It indicates that the gold was delivered after collecting margin amount and there was deposits of Rs. 2.17 crores for delivery of gold. Further, PW14 stated that on 20.08.2008, 20 kgs of gold bullion was delivered against DRIC No. 334 of 2012, dated 25.08.2008 for Rs.

1,09,00,000/- and DRIC No. 334/15, dated 26.08.2008 for Rs. 78,50,000 and DRIC

No. 334/20 dated 28.08.2008 for Rs. 30,00,000/-, DRIC means, deposit re- investment certificates. PW14 admits that the account bearing no. 639-2648 pertaining to Sri Ram Jewellers Rs. 7,51,23,304 crores term loan was released as per Ex.P943. Further, the term loan was not handed over to Karat-24, but it was directly sent to the DRIC.

151. Now the prosecution contended that the loan was delivered to Karat-24.

As already stated above, there is a dispute with regard to delivery of 950 kgs of gold to the Sri Ram Jewellers. They stated that there was deficiency in 100 kgs of gold, the accounts are not tallying without any request letter from the customer and delivery challan, they contended that this 100 kgs of gold delivered to Karat-

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 75 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010

24. It is disputed by the defence.

Circumstantial witnesses :

152.The prosecution examined PW10/V. Satish Babu. He stated that he worked as Manager (marketing), Union Bank of India, Himayatnagar branch, Hyderabad from March, 2009 to September, 2010. During the said period, he was given 15 branches of Union Bank of India including Ramkote branch to take care of marketing activity of third party products i.e., Insurance, mutual funds, health insurance etc. When he met with accused no.1, he introduced A2. When he met with A2, on his request, A2 has taken three policies and the cheque was issued by

J. Rama Krishna Prasad from his account who is son of A2. Three polices were taken in the name of son of A2. He paid the policy amount. He issued cheque under Ex.P33. The relevancy of this witness with the present case is not explained by the prosecution, but it appears that to show that A1 has close intimacy with

A2, they might have examined PW10, but the defence counsel submits that the

Branch Managers are giving targets, they are asking to give the loans and do the cheque business and even policy business also. PW10 being a Manager of

Marketing met with A1, he might have introduced the accused no.2. It does not mean that there was conspiracy among them. In the cross-examination of PW68, he was also not stated that due to the conspiracy only, at the instance of A1, the

A2 has taken three policies. Therefore, the evidence of PW10 is not relevant to the facts of this case.

153.PW21/MVL Prasad. Panel Property valuer, the Plot No. 666, 6th floor, in

Apartment in Prederghast Road, Secunderabad was mortgaged to Ramkote branch, this property belongs to the wife of A2. PW21 stated that he visited the

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 76 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010 property and issued valuation certificate as per the procedure. PW31 is valuation report submitted by him. As per valuation, the market value is Rs. 43,50,000/-.It shows that when the wife of A2 has mortgaged her property along with the property of A3, the property of wife of A2 was valued by PW21 at the instance of

A1 and issued valuation certificate.

154.PW30/P. Rajendra Prasad, Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, has stated that the CBI officials collected the documents from their Head office. Ex.P71 is the original letter dated 23.12.2009 issued by Commercial Tax Officer, on VAT registration of M/s. Karat-24 with enclosures. Asper his evidence, Karat-24 has submitted the documents i.e., registration certificate of VAT under VAT Act, 2005, the address of Karat-24 is mentioned as Door No. 1-8-229/4, Akansha Apartment,

PG Road, Secunderabad. It will come into effect from 01.04.2003. The photo on the application belongs to J. Sree Ramu, Proprietor of M/s. Karat-24. The evidence of PW30 proves that Karat-24 is having VAT registration since 2003.

155.Further, PW31/Ranga Naga Lakshmi, Asst. Commercial Tax Officer at the relevant time, shows that under Ex.P72, the letter along with enclosures issued by

Ravindranath Reddy, Commercial Tax officer was issued to CBI. The Bank registration certificate of M/s. Sri Ram Jewellers was enclosed to Ex.P72. At the time of the advisory receipt, the staff found that there was no such business activity in the given address and it is a bogus registration made in the name of Sri

Ram Jewellers. Therefore, the registration was cancelled. As per the evidence of

PW31 in cross-examination shows that the VAT registration was cancelled in the year 2008. It means as on the date of obtaining loan, Sri Ram Jewellers was having VAT registration.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 77 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010

156.PW35/Rajeev Varma, Business man stated that he was having account in the Ramkote branch. He said at the instance of A1, on 30.06.2008 and also on 03.07.2008, he has issued two cheques for Rs. 52 lakhs and Rs. 50 lakhs. This amount was credited in the account of Karat-24. In fact he has no business dealings with Karat-24. The A1 himself taken steps and credited the amount in

Karat-24. The prosecution has not filed the cheques, the witness is not able to say the cheque numbers and the documents are not marked in the court. Therefore, the oral evidence of PW35 is not useful in the absence of documentary evidence.

157.PW61/G. Padma was a clerk in Ramkote branch. She has stated that the amount was debited from suspense account and credited to Karat-24. As per her evidence, when the account holder was not having balance in his account, he will bring another bank cheques, then they will deduct amount from suspense account and the amount will be credited into the account of the customer. As per the procedure the other cheques will be sent to concerned bank for clearance after clearance of cheque amount, the amount will be credited in the account of customer, there from to the suspense. Ex.P126 is debit voucher. As per this document, on 15.03.2008, the amount in the suspense account was debited and credited in Karat-24. There were four cheques for total amount of Rs.

3,01,00,000/-. The voucher was written by her. Further, Ex.P52 cheques were given by Karat-24, but when those cheques were sent to the banks for clearance, said cheques were dishonoured on the ground that “insufficient funds”. The PW61 stated that they are adopting procedure of deducting amount from suspense account and crediting the amount to the account holder. She stated that purchase of local cheques are not illegal. When the defence has asked whether the

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 78 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010 signature on Ex.P126 belongs to A1, PW61 was not able to identify the signature.

In contrary to her chief-examination, she stated that she cannot identify her signature on Ex.P126, but she is stating that on the instructions of A1 only, the amount was transferred. Further, cheque return register was marked through this witness, but it is a photostat copy, so the document was not proved, moreover, the sanctioning authority stated she recommended for departmental enquiry against PW61 also.

158.PW62/BS Phanindra stated that he has furnished the documents to CBI.

Ex.P148(Part of L.D.No.94 1A from Page No.2 to 43) is the details of account of

Karat-24 bearing cash credit account No.008010300017675 and the current account of Karat-24 008010200020624. The Sheet No.2 consisting of status of cheques deposited in the cash paid accounts of 068010300002042 and 068010300002486. Sheets 3 to 10 copy of account opening form bearing

No.008010200020624. Sheet 11 consisting of copy of PAN card of Mr.Sriramu

Jidige PAN No.AAYPJ9417E. Sheet NO.12 to 13 containing verification of account opening form which is internal to the bank. This account was opened in the year 28.01.2003 during which period Axis Bank Limited was called as UTI Bank Limited.

Sheet Nos.14 to 17 consisting of sanctioned letter dated 27.03.2008. which was issued to the proprietor Karat-24 for an amount of Rs.25 Crores.

159.Sheet Nos.18 to 43 consisting of statement of account bearing

No.008010300017675 from 01.09.2007 to 26.02.2010. This is related to Karat-24.

160. PW62 stated as per statement of account the status of cheques were given by her only while furnishing information to CBI as per statement of

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 79 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010 account/status of cheques the amounts were cleared in this account. There are two customers M/s.Uma Jewellers, Laxmi Sreenivas Jewellers. The cheques issued in favour of M/s.Karat-24 were cleared in favour of Union Bank of India. The amount was credited in the account of M/s.Karat-24. Further, she stated that on the basis of statement of account though the debit transaction of Rs.25 crores is available, she is unable to find Pay Order. On 29.03.2008 there was entry of debit of Rs.25 Crores from Cash Credit Account to the credit of Current Account of

M/s.Karat-24. There was debit transaction subsequently in the current account of

Karat-24 on 29.03.2008 to the tune of Rs.20,00,25,000 for issuance of a Pay Order which was requested by M/s.Karat-24 vide their cheque bearing No.199476.

161.In the cross-examination, PW62 stated that he never dealt with any of the transactions spoken by him in his chief-examination. He admits original pay order, instruments and other relevant documents are not available in the court file. As per as his evidence with regard to the accounts concerned, he has given evidence basing on photostat copies. Sri.Konda Uma Shankar Rao, the then Assistant Vice

President of Axis Bank and Sri.V.Gnaneshwar, Manager of Axis Bank were presently available and may be working in different organizations.

162. The alleged transactions were done as per the procedure of the bank and there is no such deviation. He admits the said limits have been sanctioned to the firms based on their business turnover and other financial analysis and on the strength of collateral security. There is a procedure for obtaining collateral security mortgaged to Axis Bank. The title deeds will be verified, the flow of title will be verified, the original documents of the property will be verified, the legal opinion will be obtained. In the present case the above procedure is followed

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 80 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010 while obtaining collateral security.

163.The accounts have been opened according to the procedure laid down. The account opening forms of M/s.Uma Jewellers, M/s.Karat-24 are opened as per procedure. There is Cash Credit Limit for M/s.Karat-24 is of Rs.25 Crores. During his examination under Sec.161 Cr.PC the CBI officials have not shown the original documents to him. The prosecution has examined this witness to show that the amount was credited into the account of Karat-24 and there was debit entries also. However, PW62 stated that whatever the transactions done in the account, it was done as per procedure and there is no deviation. Moreover, all the documents are not confronted to PW62, he never dealt with the transactions basing on photostat copies of documents, he has given evidence, so there is no legal validity to the evidence of PW62.

164.PW66/Ravi Puranam, Dy. Manager, Axis Bank stated that he handed over the documents to CBI, the prosecution got marked the documents Ex.P150 to

Ex.P155. Out of this documents, Ex.P155 belongs to Uma Jewellers, who is alleged to be the wife of A2. The relevancy of those documents are not explained by the prosecution. The PW66 stated that he has not submitted original documents to

Investigating officer, there was an endorsement of true and certified copy. One V.

Gnaneshwar has attested the documents.

The details of purchase of cheques by Ramkote branch:

165.PW16/Rohini Phanasalkar, Assistant Manager in UBI, Ramkote branch, stated about the debit vouchers and the cheques relating to Karat-24. As per her evidence, the voucher dated 22.02.2008 for Rs. 60 lakhs, as per this voucher the amount of Rs.60,00,000/- was credited in the account of M/s. Karat-24. The

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 81 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010 voucher dated 06.03.2008 for an amount of Rs.1,80,00,000/-, as per this voucher there are two cheques bearing No.867421 for Rs.90,00,000/-, another cheque bearing No.867422 for Rs.90,00,000/-, the total amount is of Rs.1,80,00,000/- as per this voucher the amount was credited in the account of M/s. Karat 24. The voucher dated 04.03.2008 for an amount of Rs.3 crores there are four cheques under this voucher the cheque Nos. are 867413 for Rs.90 Lakhs, another cheque no. 867500 for Rs.90 Lakhs and cheque No.553409 for Rs.90 Lakhs and cheque

No.553410 for Rs.30 Lakhs. In total Rs.3 crores. It was credited in the account of

M/s. Karat 24.

166.The suspense account voucher dated 01.03.2008, cheque no.869612 for an amount of Rs.50 Lakhs, cheque No.867407 for an amount of Rs.60 Lakhs, the total amount Rs.1 crore 10 Lakhs credited in the account of M/s. Karat 24. The suspense account debit voucher dated 28.02.2008 for an amount of

Rs.99,70,000/-, it was credited in the account of M/s. Karat 24. In the present case, the interest was imposed on local cheque purchase and return of it. The amount of interest is of Rs.1,855/- dated 21.02.2008.

167.The suspense account debit dated 21.02.2008 vide cheque No.214934 for an amount of Rs.50 Lakhs, against suspense account debit dated 15.03.2008 vide cheque No.869620 for an amount of Rs.90 Lakhs, cheque No.553426 for an amount of Rs. 81 Lakhs, cheque No.895957 for an amount of Rs.70 Lakhs, cheque

No.895956 for an amount of Rs.60 Lakhs, the total amount is of Rs.3 crores 1 lakh. Debit account No.20110933 J.Ramakrishna Raju, from his account, the amount was transferred (credited) to M/s.Karat-24. From the A/c.No.10195842

M/s. Karat 24 the amount of Rs.15 Lakhs was transferred to R.Prasad. Fromthe

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 82 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010

A/c.No.10195842 M/s. Karat 24, the amount of Rs.30 lakhs was debited and credited in the account of MMTC on 06.03.2008.

168.The suspense voucher dated 12.05.2008 as per this documents the amount of Rs.60 Lakhs from debit suspense account, credited to the account of

M/s.Karat 24. The handwriting on this suspense voucher belongs to her. Ex.P42 is suspense voucher. The debit voucher dated 13.05.2008 it bears her handwriting as per this documents the amount of Rs.1 crores 10 lakhs was credited to suspense account LCP from the account of M/s.Karat 24. Ex.P43 is debit voucher.

Ex.P44 is the computer generated ledger entry, her ID No.RP266537 is mentioned in the system. In Ex.P44 there are entries with regard to the document Ex.P43.

Ex.P45 to Ex.P49 are the computer generated ledger entries in which her ID number is mentioned.

169.Ex.P50 is the computer generated daily statements of suspense account showing the entries made in the system to debit the amount from the suspense account local cheques purchase from M/s. Karat 24. The debit voucher pertaining to suspense account have been reflected in Ex.P50. On the instructions of Chief

Manager, V.S.A.U Basker Rao the transactions were happened, he used to give permission for the transactions. The (Document No.78) Ex.P51is the Sanction

Register of Ramkote branch from 14.12.2007 to 21.02.2009. In the Sanction

Register, the cheque Number, amount of cheque, the account number and how much amount is excess over the limit and the date of sanction etc.,. She cannot identify the signatures on 08.09.2008. From Page Nos.86 to 92 there are two transactions pertaining to M/s. Karat-24. In Page No.88, the date 04/08, the account No.35842 belong to M/s. Karat 24 in which the amount is mentioned as

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 83 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010

Rs.37,52,1720/-. The Page No.86 the last transaction Account No.35842 is pertaining to M/s. Karat 24.

170.In (Document No.79) Ex.P52 is Page No.1 in Sl.No.6 the cheque return amount of Rs.50 Lakhs has been mentioned. Further on 26.02.2008 in Sl.No.4 also the cheque return of Rs.60 Lakhs has been mentioned. In page No.2 dated 29.02.2008 in Sl.No.1 the amount of Rs.11 Lakhs was return in Sl.Nos.10, 11, 12 the amount of Rs.1,50,000/-, Rs.1,50,000/-, Rs.1,50,000/- were returned. In Page

No.3 dated 07.03.2008 the amount of Rs. 90,000/-, Rs.90,000/-, Rs.3 crores, Rs.90

Lakhs was returned.. On 12.03.2008 in page No.4, from Sl.Nos.1 to 3 the amount of Rs.90 Lakhs, Rs.90 Lakhs, Rs.90 Lakhs were returned , on 30.03.2008 in Sl.No.3

Rs.90 Lakhs was returned , on 17.03.2008 Page No.5 Sl.No.6 the amount of Rs.60 lakhs, in Sl.No.7 the amount of Rs.80 Lakhs was returned , on 18.03.2008 Page

No.5, the amount of Rs.86 lakhs, Rs.80 lakhs, Rs.90 lakhs, Rs.75 lakhs was returned. On 19.03.2008 page No.6, Sl.No.7 to 10 the amount of Rs.81 lakhs,

Rs.90 lakhs, Rs.60 lakhs, Rs.70 lakhs was returned. In page No.7 in Sl.No.13

dated 02.04.2008 Rs.4 crores 50 lakhs was returned in page No.8 dated

11.04.2008 Sl.Nos.6 and 7 the amount of Rs.30 lakhs, Rs.60 lakhs were returned on 15.04.2008 Sl.No.6 and 7 Rs.30 lakhs and Rs.60 lakhs were returned. On 13.06.2008 page No.10 the amount of Rs.50 lakhs was returned and marked in green colour. On 18.06.2008 page No.11 the amount of Rs.50 lakhs and Rs.50 lakhs were returned and marked in green colour. In page No.12 dated 18.06.2008 the amount of Rs.50 lakhs was returned and marked in green colour. On 08.07.2008 page no.14 the amount of Rs.20 lakhs was returned and marked in green colour. In page No.15 on 23.07.2008 the amount of Rs.60 lakhs, Rs.50

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 84 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010 lakhs, Rs.80 lakhs, Rs.50 lakhs, Rs.50 lakhs, Rs.50 lakhs, Rs.60 lakhs, Rs.50 lakhs,

Rs.1 crore 20 lakhs, Rs.50 lakhs, Rs.20 lakhs, Rs.50 lakhs were returned and marked in green colour. On 25.07.2008 page No.16 the amount of Rs.20 lakhs was returned.

171.The PW16 has stated that the particulars of amount which were debited from suspense account and credited to M/s.Karat-24. She has stated that at the instance of A1 only, those transactions were done. PW16 stated that at the relevant time, there were three officers of scale-III, three officers of Scale-II, three officers of Scale-I, with the supporting clerical staff who have to assist the Head of the branch. Whenever the cheque was purchased, the Ramkote branch used to get commission for the discounting and interest for the delayed period of realization from concerned customer. They did not purchase cheques from other customers except M/s. Karat-24. She admitted that in the transactions covered by

M/s. Karat -24, no rules or suggestions of manuals are violated. She admits that

M/s. Karat-24 was dealing with whole sale bullion merchants. Apart from Union

Bank of India, Ramkote branch, Regional Office, Field General Manager, Bangalore involved and dealt with all these loan transactions sanctioned to Karat-24.

Granting of gold loan bullion merchants were dealt by Field General Manager,

Bangalore and Regional Office, Hyderabad. She admits without their knowledge even one gram of gold cannot be alienated. Further, purchasing of local cheques is not an offence and not against any banking rules.

172.The evidence of PW16 shows that it is the business of Bank to purchase local cheques because they will get commission on it. It is not expected by the

Manager that the purchased cheques may be dishonoured. In case of dishonour,

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 85 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010 there is a separate procedure for recovery of it. The defence counsel pointed out that in para no. 4 of charge sheet, the Investigating officer mentioned that there was an outstanding of Rs. 1228.04 lakhs in the Suspense A/c -Local Cheque

Purchase and Rs.771.96 lakhs in the Current A/c of M/s. Karat-24, Shop No.9, 1-8- 229/4, P.G. Road, Secunderabad as on 29.03.2008. J. Sree Ramu (A-2), Proprietor,

M/s Karat-24, Shop No.9, 1-8-229/4, P.G. Road. Secunderabad had availed Cash

Credit of Rs.2500 lakhs from M/s. Axis Bank Ltd., R.P. Road Branch, Hyderabad on 29.03.2008. He had brought Rs.2000 lakhs from M/s Axis Bank Ltd., R.P. Road

Branch, Hyderabad on 29.03.2008 and the same was utilized for adjusting Rs.

1228.04 lakhs outstanding in the Suspense A/c - Local Cheque Purchase and

Rs.771.96 lakhs for adjusting the outstanding liabilities held in the Current A/c of

M/s Karat-24, Shop No.9, 1-8-229/4, P.G. Road, Secunderabad as on 31.03.2008. It shows that Karat-24 has availed the loan from Axis Bank and cleared outstanding in the suspense account and also local cheque purchase and the outstanding balance in the current account of M/s. Karat -24. Therefore, it cannot be stated that by purchasing the cheques, there was loss to the Bank. The borrower has paid the total amount.

173.Further, it is to be noted that strictly speaking as per the procedure, the branch is not supposed to deduct the amount from suspense account. The suspense account is used only for unidentified amount, the amount will be kept in the suspense account till the account is identified. Once the account is identified, the amount will be credited to the said account. The evidence of PW16 shows that the amount was deducted from suspense account. In fact, the accountant and branch manager have to take care of it. Ex.P129 shows that the

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 86 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010 accountant/V.Murali has intentionally deducted the amount from suspense account, sometimes, though the amount is available, it was not deducted from the Karat-24 account and he kept the amount in suspense account so as to show that the amount is available in the Karat-24 and the facility should be given to

Karat-24 for purchase of more gold. The report shows that it is the mischievous act committed by the Accountant. The prosecution contended that it is one of the irregularity in deducting the amount from suspense account. They have filed the circular to show that the branch is not supposed to deduct the amount from suspense account.

174.In the cross-examination of Investigating officer/PW68, he admits that

Ex.P40 relates to suspense account entries - revision in the accounting treatment of certain transactions and procedure for reporting and control. He admits as per

Ex.P40/circular dated 01.12.2001 page no.3 in the column of suspense account- local cheques it mentioned that “Branches allow withdrawal against clearing cheques lodged in respect of which the fate is not known immediately, both for staff as well as customers. Since this practice is fraught and risk, it has been decided to dispense with this head with immediate effect. Branches should ensure that no entries in this account remain outstanding. Branches should not debit this head w.e.f. 01.01.2002. Should there be any request for any temporary accommodation against local cheques, the branch manager may take appropriate credit decision based on merits and in consonance with the laid down procedure of sanction/reporting etc.

175.As per this circular the discretion is given to the branch manager for purchase of local cheques. He admits the banks will follow the procedure of

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 87 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010 keeping double entry books. As per Ex.P40 authority for debiting for suspense account will be vested with the branch manager along with central office,

FGMO/ZO/RO. He admits AO-1 was suspended from his service on 14.10.2008.

Ex.P188 is the statement of suspense account local cheque purchased from 01.01.2008 to 03.06.2009. He admits as per this statement at Page No.21 the local cheques continuously purchased upto 27.01.2009. He denied the suggestion that none of the rules filed by him shows that in case of local cheque purchases, chief Manager of the branch is alone only responsible for purchase of local cheques and he will be prosecuted for the offences under IPC or PC Act if the local cheques purchased are returned for any reason. There is no such provision in IPC constituting an offence in respect of return of local cheque purchase so also in the

PC Act.

176. As per Ex.P40 there is no such provision that in case of breach of any of the rules mentioned in the circular the officer will be prosecuted for the offences punishable under IPC or under PC Act. He admits in case of any violations of rules mentioned in the circular, the departmental enquiry will be conducted.

177. As per Ex.P40 “Central Account Department at CO and Planning and

Development Department at the controlling offices such as RO/ZO will be responsible for the followup of suspense account entries. He denied the suggestion that A1 did not commit any offence as alleged by him and charged by him and he is innocent, he has done his duty diligently, honestly as per the existing procedures in the bank. The evidence of PW16 coupled with document

Ex.P40 and the evidence of PW68 made it clear that there was deduction of amount from suspense account, but the discretion was given to Branch Manager

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 88 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010 for purchase of local cheques. Further, the authority for debiting from suspense account will be vested with the Branch Manager along with Central Office,

FGMO/ZO/RO. Even after suspension of A1, the record shows that there was deduction of amount from the suspense account and also purchase of local cheques. Therefore, the A1 alone cannot be blamed for it.

178.The evidence of PW17/J. Venkata Ramana Murthy, Assistant Manager, UBI shows A1 V.S.A.U.Baskar Rao, was Chief Manager of Ramkote branch, Hyderabad.

had written a letter to Regional office for permission to purchase two cheques for each cheque Rs.74.50 lakhs in total Rs.1.49 crores. He entered one voucher i.e.,

Ex.P50/33 for credit of M/s.Karat–24, the A/c.No.347701010035842 for Rs.1.49

Crores on 20.09.2008. In the ledger there are entries showing the credit of

Rs.1.49 crores in the account of M/s. Karat – 24 pertaining to LCP (Local cheque purchase) vide Cheque Nos. 709644 of IOB and Cheque No.203350 of Allahabad

Bank. In page No.22 of ledger book there was entry about the credit of Rs.1.49 crores under Ex.P53 (D.No.33). It shows that the A1 has purchased those cheques with the permission of the Regional Office only, so he has not exceeded his limits.

179. Ex.P54 is the letter addressed by Chief Manager dated 05.12.2008 to the

Deputy General Manager, Regional office, Hyderabad requesting them to return the cheques so as to file cases under Section 138 NI Act in the court as the cheques were dishonored. The cheques were purchased and suspense account

LPC was debited for Rs.1.49 crores and Karat 24 account was credited on 20.09.2008. It is the decision of Chief manager to purchase the cheques. For

Ex.P50 debit voucher he made entry in the system. Though PW17 stated that it is the decision of the Chief Manager to purchase those cheques, but his evidence

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 89 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010 shows that it was purchased with the permission of Regional office only. So, it is not the decision of Chief Manager.

180.In the cross-examination, PW17 also admitted after addressing a letter to

Regional Office, the said two cheques were purchased. Cheque for Rs. 20,672/- was purchased on 01.10.2008 in favour of V. Lakshmi Shekar and Rs. 7000/- in favour of V. Murali. On the same day. V. Murali was their bank employee, he is not getting whether Lakshmi Sekhar was working in the same branch. It shows that the Bank employees also purchased the cheques, the Investigating officer has not made any independent enquiry with regard to the responsibility of other employees, simply they are fixing liability on A1.

181. The evidence of PW17 shows the purchase of cheques at the instance of

M/s. Karat-24. The defence has filed the document to show that when those cheques were dishonoured, the case under Section 138 NI Act was filed, however, the case was ended in acquittal. The finding of the Court that the cheques were not issued for discharge of legal debt. The Union Bank of India has filed said cases, when it is ended in acquittal, even they have not preferred an appeal also.

Therefore, purchase of those cheques are doubtful. The prosecution has failed to prove that at the instance of Karat-24 only, those cheques were purchased.

Further, in the cross-examination, it was elicited that one V. Lakshmi Sekhar and

V. Murali, the employees of Bank also purchased the local cheques. It clearly indicates that the employees are purchasing the cheques on their names in violation of Banking Rules and Regulation. Further, it is clear from the evidence of

PW17 that it is the business of the Bank to purchase the local cheques, because they will get commission of it. In case of dishonour, the Bank has to take steps for

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 90 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010 recovery of money. But, the Bank Manager cannot be made liable for it, because he cannot expect at the time of purchase that the cheques will be dishonoured.

182.Moreover PW18/D. Padma Reddy stated that A1 was Chief Manager and he was not having any powers to purchase local cheques. He has signed on the vouchers when it was sent by Chief Manager, debited the same in the suspense account and credited to parties account and used to make entries in the system.

As already stated above, as per Ex.P40, the discretionary power vested with the

Manager, to debit the amount from suspense account. Therefore, the evidence of

PW18 is not useful to connect the accused with the alleged offences.

183.PW19/D.N.Lalitha Mani, Scale – II officer Union Bank of India, Ramkote branch stated that the nature of his duties are checkers maker concept, one employee has to enter the vouchers in the system and another employee has to verify the vouchers. He was attending the work of entering the vouchers in the system, some times he used to verify the vouchers.

184.As per the statement of account of their branch in suspense account, the amount of Rs.60 lakhs was credited to the account of Karat 24 on 12.05.2008. On 13.05.2008 the amount of Rs.1.10 crores was transferred to Karat 24 account by debiting the same from suspense account. On 02.06.2008 the amount of Rs.38 lakhs, on 04.06.2008 Rs.18,50,000/- was transferred to Karat-24 account by debiting the same from suspense account. On 13.06.2008 the amount of Rs.50 lakhs was transferred to Karat 24 account by debiting the same from suspense account. On 17.06.2008 the amount of Rs.13 lakhs was transferred to Karat-24 account by debiting the same from suspense account.

185.On 25.06.2008 the amount of Rs.55 lakhs was transferred to Karat 24

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 91 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010 account by debiting the same from suspense account. The above amounts were transferred for the purpose of purchase of local cheques. On 30.06.2008 the amount of Rs.1.73 lakhs was transferred to Karat 24 account by debiting the same from suspense account. On 04.10.2008 the amount of Rs.3 crores was transferred to Karat 24 account by debiting the same from suspense account. The certificate under Section 2(A) of Banker’s Books Evidence Act was issued to the statement of account.

186.On 29.02.2008 there was cheque bearing No.406722 of SBI returned pertaining to Karat 24, account No.101-35842 for an amount of Rs.11 lakhs. On the same date the cheque bearing No.905391 for Rs.1,50,000/- of Vysya Bank, cheque bearing No.905392 for Rs.1,50,000/- of Vysya Bank were returned pertaining to Karat 24. the another cheque bearing No.905390 for Rs.1,50,000/- of

Vysya Bank was returned pertaining to Karat 24. The amount from suspense account will be credited basing on the cheques but in the instance case the cheques issued by Karat 24 was dishonoured.

187.On 12.03.2008 cheques pertaining to Karur Vysya Bank, one cheque

No.867431 for Rs.90 lakhs, cheque No.867432 for Rs.90 lakhs, cheque No.867430 for Rs.90 lakhs were dishonoured. The cheques belongs to the customers, it was deposited in the bank along with pay slips by stating they have to get amount from customers. The bank credited the amount to the account of customer by debiting the amount from suspense account basing on the cheques only.

188.On 13.03.2008 the cheque pertaining to Karur Vysya Bank vide cheque

No.867438 for Rs.90 lakhs, this cheque belongs to Karat 24, was dishonoured. The

Chief Manager authorizes them to verify the cheques and make entries in the

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 92 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010 system and also the verification of entries. In the cross-examination, PW19 stated that he has no personal knowledge about the entries, he never made any entries in Ledger book. Further, he stated that the statement of account was shown to him basing on that statement of account, he has given evidence, it means, PW19 is not author of those documents, even the document is not marked through

PW19, it is not proved whether the statement of account was issued in accordance with law, the certificate under Section 2(A) of Banker’s Books

Evidence Act was not issued, without such document, the oral evidence of PW19 is not reliable and trustworthy, so this Court cannot connect the accused basing on the evidence of PW19.

189.PW20/Smt. Alamelu S. Rangan, Assistant Manager, Union Bank of India,

Ramkote Branch, stated that she is aware of four transactions i.e., four cheques pertaining to Karat 24 for an amount of Rs.3 crores. Under these four cheques the amount of Rs.3 crores were debited from suspense account and credited to the account of Karat 24. Thereafter, the four cheques were presented for clearing in the respective bank but on 03.10.2008 the said cheques were returned (dishonoured) as per rule the party who handed over said cheques and in whose account the amount was credited by debiting the amount from the suspense account, the party has to pay the amount, if sufficient balance is in the account of a party, the bank will debit the amount from the account of a party and this amount will be credited to the suspense account.

190.In the instant case, the cheques were returned, Karat-24 was not having sufficient balance in the account, so the amount was not credited to the account of suspense account. As there was in sufficient funds in the account of Karat 24 so

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 93 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010 that the amount was debited from suspense account again and sent it to local branch or service branch. Ex.P55 (LD No.31) is the duplicate fixed deposit receipts for Rs.1,09,00,000/- Rs.78,50,000/- and Rs.30,00,000/- in the name of M/s. Sri

Ram Jewellers (Sheet No.1 to 3). All the three duplicate fixed deposits receipts bears his signature. The Document was written by him so, he put his signature on the document (Ex.P55).

191. On the instructions of Chief Manager or Accountant they used to do all the works whatever they entrusted to them. The maturity date of the above said fixed deposits are 12.11.2009, 13.11.2009 and 15.11.2009. The fixed deposits are pre- maturely withdrawn on 11.10.2008 the amount was withdrawn as per record the deposits were for a period of 440 days. In the cross-examination, PW20 stated that all the three duplicate fixed deposit receipts bears her signature. When the cheque was purchased, the commission will be collected from the party. She admits that when there is a deal in realization of cheque amount, the interest will be imposed on the party. She put her signature on Ex.P55 as per procedure laid down in the manual of instructions of Bank. Further, she stated that the local purchase of cheques is legal and as per Bank guidelines. Whatever she did, it was done as per Banking guidelines. She admits that fixed deposits and withdrawal of fixed deposit amounts, prematurely are not illegal as per wish of the customer, they can withdraw the amount.

192.Further, the entries in the Bank accounts purchase of local cheques etc., are under the control of banking staff. The PW20 was examined to show that the

FDR amount was prematurely withdrawn. Either in the charge sheet or in the evidence of PW20, nowhere it is stated that whether the withdrawal of said FDR

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 94 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010 amount prematurely is with an intention to commit fraud on the Bank or not.

Therefore, the evidence of PW20 is not relevant to the charges framed herein.

However, in the charge sheet the Investigating Officer has mentioned that there was outstanding of Rs. 1228.04 lakhs in the suspense account, local cheque purchase and Rs. 771.96 lakhs in the current account of M/s.Karat-24. A2 has availed cash credit of Rs. 2500 lakhs from Axis Bank and he brought Rs. 2000 lakhs from Axis Bank and the same was utilized for adjusting Rs. 1228.04 lakhs outstanding in the suspense account local cheque purchase and Rs. 771.96 lakhs for adjusting the outstanding liabilities held in the current account of M/s. Karat-

24. At one side, they are admitting clearance of amount in suspense account and current account of A2. At the same time, they are making allegations that in view of deduction of amount from suspense account, there was pecuniary loss to the

Bank. The prosecution has not given any clear picture even after adjustment of this amount. There was outstanding in the suspense account of Branch or not, so as to make the accused and other Bank employees liable.

193.PW23/B. Venkata Ramana stated that he was making entries of clearing cheques in the system maintained in the Bank to provide balance in the accounts.

Loan against cheque purchase (LCP) used to be entered in the system maintained in the Bank. Further the same will be entered in the register simultaneously. Loan against cheque purchase (LCP) pertains to M/s.Karat 24 was also entered by him in the system maintained in the Bank at the same time the entries were made in the register to take approval of Chief Manager. At the relevant time

A1/V.S.A.U.Bhaskar Rao was Chief Manager. The Chief Manager used to give authorization to the accountant for over drafting the LCPs in the account. After

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 95 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010 giving authorization the LCP amount will be credited in the account of customer.

If the cheques are returned again it leads to over draft. It will be reflected in the account of customer. Ex.P59 is Outward Cheques Inquiry (Page No.2 of LD.No.98), in which he made entries. The perusal of this document shows that the cheque nos.149998, 317332, 209327, 311937 were returned insufficient funds in the account. However, there is no report with regard to cheque number 269498 and cheque no. 149998.

194.In the cross-examination, PW23 stated that in Ex.P59, his RD number is not reflecting. If the screen shot has been taken on the system showing the entries made, on which his ID number will be reflected, but the same is missing in Ex.P59.

Apart from Karat-24, Sri Ram Jewellers, other customers can also take local cheque purchase it will be reflected in the system. The parties will approach the

Bank for purchase of cheques, when it is approved by the Chief Manager, then the cheques will be purchased and they will be sent for clearance. During his tenure, the other customers also purchased the cheques. The local cheque purchase is permissible under RBI guidelines. The local cheque purchase will be controlled, monitored and permitted by local office, AGM, DGM and Regional office.

195.The allegation of the prosecution is that at the instance of A1, the local cheques were purchased from Karat-24 and Sri Ram Jewellers. There was outstanding of Rs.1228.04 lakhs in the suspense account, local cheque purchase and Rs. 771.96 lakhs in the current account of M/s. Karat-24 as on 29.03.2008.

The prosecution contention is that A2 has availed cash credit of Rs. 2500 lakhs from Axis Bank and the same was utilized for adjusting 1228.04 lakhs outstanding in suspense account and Rs. 771.96 lakhs in the local cheque purchase

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 96 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010 outstanding liabilities. The purchase of local cheques are with an intention to defraud the Bank. It is to be noted that as per the own admission of the prosecution, the A2 had obtained loan from Axis Bank and he cleared the outstandings in the suspense account as well as local cheque purchase outstanding liabilities.

196.No doubt, the 200 cheques were purchased on various dates during the period from 07.02.2008 to 29.09.2008. The payments against 147 cheques for Rs.

7558.82 lakhs were realized subsequently. However, 44 cheques for Rs. 2766 lakhs were returned unpaid on various dates from 12.02.2008 to 31.10.2008. A1 had purchased 9 cheques for Rs. 600.05 lakhs and kept them in his custody without sending them for clearance. However, as on 27.03.2008 and on 31.03.2008, whatever the outstandings are there in the suspense account and outstanding liabilities of local cheque purchases were cleared by the accused. The prosecution has not given the exact picture of outstanding liabilities from 31.03.2008 to 29.09.2008. It is to be noted that purchase of local cheques is the business of the Bank even PW20 and PW22 also admitted it is not illegal and the cheques were purchased as per the procedure. Out of 200 cheques, the amount of 147 cheques were realized. 44 cheques were not realized and 9 cheques were not sent for clearance.

197.As per Ex.P123 report, it is the duty of the Accountant to send the cheques for clearance, but he has not taken any steps for sending the cheques to the concerned Bank for clearance. Ultimately, the A1 is made liable for all the acts of

Bank staff members. As the complaint was lodged by mentioning the name of A1, so the Investigating Officer tried to fix the liability of A1, even he has not

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 97 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010 investigated about the liability of other staff members. There are several reports which indicates that a serious instruction is given to fix the liability of other staff members. But, nothing was brought on record to show that either departmental enquiry or the criminal proceedings are initiated against the other staff members.

There is one of the charge against A1 is that purchase of local cheques and debit the amount from suspense account and crediting the amount in the Karat-24 account.

198.However, the investigation report shows that accountant has intentionally kept the amount in the suspense account and not debited in the account of Karat- 24, so as to show the artificial amount in the account of Karat-24. Nowhere it is mentioned that it was in the knowledge of A1 and at his instance only, the said activities were done. So, A1 alone cannot be made liable for such activities.

199. As per the evidence of PW68/Investigating Officer, he stated that there is no single scrap of evidence to prove that there was agreement in between A1 and

A2, so as to commit offences. He has not collected evidence to show the conspiracy between A1 and A3. Further, no DA case was registered against A1 herein. Even at the time of search also, they have not find any of the properties disproportionate to the assets of Bank Manager and he was having good track record before register of this case. He did not recover any property from A1 to show that he acquired the property in connection with the loan transactions in this case from any of the accused. He did not collect any evidence to show that

A1 has obtained any pecuniary advantage or intentionally brought enriched himself, during the period of his defence. He did not get any evidence to show that A1 has directly obtained any of benefit from the accused herein during the

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 98 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010 loan transactions. It clearly shows that A1 has no criminal intention to commit said irregularities. There was no understanding among accused persons, therefore, by showing the suspense account, the prosecution cannot connect the accused with the alleged offences.

The Accused No.2 and Accused No.3 have mortgaged the property which

is forged document :

200.The prosecution contended that A2 and A3 defrauded Union Bank of India by giving the security of the property which is not an existing. The accused persons have fabricated the documents thereby they committed the offences of cheating, forgery and fabrication of documents and using those documents as genuine, though knowing that those documents are fabricated documents.

201.The prosecution in order to prove this fact in issue examined several witnesses.

202.PW12/P. Lakshmi Prasanna has stated that Ex.P34 is the circular which speaks about the empanelment of Advocates. Further, instruction circular no.5572, dated 04.11.1997 was issued by Central Advances Department, Union

Bank of India, regarding the steps to be taken by the Field Functionaries of the

Bank with regard to the title deeds of the properties with a direction to ensure that the same are properly verified by the Advocates. Ex.P35 is Instruction

Circular no. 5572 with regard to equitable mortgage. Ex.P36 is Instruction Circular no.6118, dated 15.11.2000 with regard to equitable mortgage. Ex.P37 is Circular no.3 of 2007 issued by Legal Services Department regarding prevention of fraud.

Ex.P38 is Circular no.5 of 2007 issued by Legal Services Department. It is the duty of Panel Advocate to verify the original documents and to approach the Revenue

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 99 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010

Authorities and Registrars also to know the genuineness of title documents. He is not supposed to give opinion on the xerox copies of title deeds. As per internal circular no.982 of 2008, dated 10.12.2008, the names of one L. Raja

Reddy and Sri P.K.Arjun, Advocate was deleted from the list of Panel Advocates of

Union of India since the legal opinions rendered by them were defective. The contention of prosecution is that though said Raja Reddy and Arjun were not Panel

Advocates, but the report was obtained from them. However, the prosecution has not filed circular no.982 of 2008, dated 10.12.2008 to show that their names are deleted from the list of panel advocates. So, the contention of the prosecution holds not good.

203.In the cross-examination, PW12 stated that she do not remember whether she stated before CBI that Mr. L.Raja Reddy stated in column no.11 in the opinion that he had conducted search in the Sub-Registrar office and verified the authenticity of the document bearing No. 928 of 2007 and found the same to be correct and genuine. As per the documents, she has stated that the legal opinion was true and correct. The PW12 is giving evidence contrary to her Section 161

Cr.P.C. statement. As per her 161 statement, the legal opinions are true and correct, but in the Court, she is giving evidence that the opinion given by Raja

Reddy is not correct. Moreover the loan application was given on 30.7.2008, but on 10.12.2008 said Arjun and L.Raja Reddy were removed from Panel Advocates.

Said Arjun has given report before circular issued by bank. The prosecution has examined the Revenue Authorities and Registrar, who have stated before the

Court that the title document no. 928/2007 is genuine document, the pattadar pass book and title deed was issued in respect of the property. Therefore, the

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 100 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010 prosecution failed to prove that the legal opinion was defective.

204.The prosecution contention is that the branch officials have not followed the procedure while accepting the property of accused No.3 as Security for sanction of loan.

205.Further, the prosecution has examined PW22/I. Srinivas Reddy, Sub-

Registrar, where the sale deed 3304/1999 was registered. PW22 stated that he has issued certified copy of Ex.P56/Registered Sale deed vide document

No.3304/1999, Ex.P57 is the Certified copy of Registered Sale Deed vide document No.10109/2003. The evidence of PW22 shows that as per Ex.P56 there are six vendors namely B.Sanjeev Rao, B.Uma, B.Lavanya, B.Laxmi, B.Sandya. B.

Sai Shiva in favour of K.Raji Reddy. This document is pertaining to property

Sy.No.234 Ac.2.14 Gts Sy.No.238 Ac.1.10 Gts in total Ac.3.24 Gts at Nizampet

Village, Qutbullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The sale consideration amount mentioned as Rs.1,75,000/-. Ex.P57 is CC of Registered Sale Deed Vide

Doc.No.10109/2003, the parties to the documents are namely K.Raji

Reddi(Vendor), in favour of M/s.Rasi Developers represented by its partners Vikas

Kumar, P.V.S.N.Raju (Vendee). The Property is of Sy.No.234 Ac.2.14 Gts Sy.No.238

Ac.1.10 Gts in total Ac.3.24 Gts at Nizampet Village, Qubullapur Mandal, Ranga

Reddy District. The sale consideration amount mentioned as Rs.15,00,000/-.

206.The prosecution relied upon Exs.P56 and P57 and contended that one Raji

Reddy was the owner of land extent Ac.03.24 guntas in Sy.No.234 and Sy.No.238.

A3 has produced the documents stating that he is owner of 0.38gunta of land in

Sy.No.238. Said Raji Reddy sold the land extend Ac.01.10guntas in Sy.No.238 in favour of Raasi Developers. Therefore, A3 is not the owner of said property. The

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 101 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010 defence contention is that the original documents of Ex.P56 and P57 are not filed.

207.Further, PW25/D. Vasudeva Reddy, Sub-Registrar was examined, as per his evidence, he has issued Ex.P62 original letter along with Certified Copy of sale deed vide document No.928/2007 and also Encumbrance Certificate. EC shows one Ram Reddy was the owner and D. Srinivas/A3 was purchaser. The sale deed shows A. Raghu Babu was Registrar at the time. He stated that at the time of registration, the link documents are to be verified, patta passbook should be verified. The vendor, vendee and two witnesses should be present. The PW25 has spoken about the registered sale deed of Accused No.3. The prosecution contended it is a fake document and it was fabricated by A3 with the collusion of

A8.

208.In the cross-examination of PW25, he has stated after verifying the seller and purchaser, the document was executed. There is no possibility to get genuine and fake document for the same property. Ex.P60 sale deed was scanned by the

Registration Office. The evidence of PW25 shows that the sale deed which was mortgaged to the bank which was registered in the Registration Office, and this transaction was reflecting in Encumbrance Certificate. As per his evidence, after following the procedure, the document was executed.

209.PW26/K.Raghu Babu, stated that Ex.P62 registered sale deed vide document No.928 of 2007 for the land extent Ac.0.38 gunta in Sy.No.238 was executed in their registration office. The pattadar passbook and title deeds are enclosed to the sale deed. Further, basing on the link documents i.e., patta passbook and title deed, the document was executed. The vendor was identified by the two witnesses at the time of registration. Normally, the parties will show

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 102 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010 the original documents at the time fo registration. According to him, this document is a genuine document. Per contra, the prosecution contended it is a fabricated document but PW26 has stated after following the procedure, after verifying the link documents, this document was executed.

210.PW27/K. Srinivasulu, Tahasildar was examined. He stated he has furnished pahanies and 1B register in respect of land extent Ac.01.10 guntas in Sy.No.238.

As per record, the land stands on the name of K. Raji Reddy and others. One

Busangi Sanjeev Rao was pattedar, Raji Reddy and others were recorded as possessors. As per 1B register, the patta passbook was issued in favour of K. Raji

Reddy. The evidence of PW27 shows that K. Raji Reddy was owner of

Ac.01.10guntas in Sy.No.238.

211.PW28/P. Pratap Reddy, Deputy Tahasildar stated that Ex.P64 is the 1B register, as per this register K. Raji Reddy was pattedar of Sy.No.234 and 238.

Ex.P65 is the CC of pahanies for the years, 1971-72 to 2002-2003. Ex.P66 is the pahanies from 2003-04 to 2007-08. Ex.P68 is the Certified Copy of 1B register.

Ex.P69 is the CC of order No.A/3379/2007. As per the documents, K. Raji Reddy was pattadar of land extent Ac.01.10guntas in Sy.No.238.

212.PW28 was asked whether K.Rami Reddy was the pattedar of

Ac.01.10guntas at Nizampet village. The Deputy Collector stated as per 1B register of Nizampet village, no such P.P.B No.289709 and title deed No.Z286849 was issued in the name of K. Rami Reddy. The passbook No.289709 purported to be issued by their office in the name of K. Rami Reddy, as per record, there was no such passbook number. No such passbook and title deed was issued in the

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 103 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010 name of Rami Reddy. The prosecution relied upon the evidence of PW28 and contended that no such patta passbooks and title passbooks were issued in the name of K. Rami Reddy but the documents are fabricated and the register sale deed was brought into existence in the name of K. Rami Reddy and A3 got registered sale deed and deposited said sale deed with the bank.

213.PW29/S. Prabhudas, Village Revenue Officer also stated that he issued

Pahanies for the year, 2004-05 to 2007-08. The document shows the land stands on the name of K. Raji Reddy. Later, PW32/K. Raja Reddy stated that he is the owner and possessor of land extent Ac.03.24gunta in Sy.No.234 and 238. He purchased the land under Ex.P56. Further, he sold the land under Ex.P57 in favour of Rasi Developers. After purchase of land by Rasi Developers, they converted the land from Agriculture to Non-Agriculture. They obtained layout. They have constructed duplex houses in their purchased land. The evidence of PW32 shows he is the owner of property and he sold the property to Rasi Developers.

214.PW33/P.Venkata Narayana, stated there are 3 partners in Rasi Developers, namely PVSN Raju, Vikas Kumar and Mukesh Kumar. He has given statement on behalf of PVSN Raju before CBI. The CBI officials conducted panchanama on 23.12.2009 at Sy.No.234 and 238 at Nizampet Village under Ex.P60. Ex.P56 is the document No.3304/1997. This document is pertaining to survey No.234 extent 2.14 guntas and Survey No.238 extent to 1.10 guntas in total 3.24 guntas situated at Nizampet village, Qutbullapur mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The boundaries are mentioned as North Vendees land, South Nala, East Kunta, West land of Rukka Reddy, This land was sold by B. Sanjeev Rao in favour of Sri. K Raji

Reddy/PW32 on 6.04.1997 for an amount of Rs.1,75,000/-.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 104 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010

215.Thereafter, PW32 K Raji Reddy sold this land in favour of Raasi Developers under the registered sale deed vide document No.10109/2003. The boundaries are mentioned as North Neighbor land, South Nala, East survey No,238, West

Survey No.235. The sale consideration amount mentioned as Rs. 15,00000/-.

216.The evidence of PW33 shows the boundaries mentioned in the registered sale deed vide document No.3304 of 1997 is different from the sale deed document No.10109/2003. As per document No.3304/1997, north vendees land, south nala, east kunta, west land of Rukka Reddy, but under the sale deed

No.10109/2003, the north neighbours land is mentioned, south nala, east

Sy.No.238 is mentioned and west Sy.No.235 is mentioned. The defence contention is that as per document No.3304/1997 on eastern side kunta was there but in the subsequent document Sy.No.238 is mentioned. When the total extent purchased by Raji Reddy was sold, there is no question of existence of Sy.No.238. It indicates that there is not only the extent of Ac.01.10guntas, there is remaining extent of land in Sy.No.238. So, the contention of prosecution that there is no land except the land of Raji Reddy and Rasi Developers is not acceptable one. Further, the defence contended boundaries of A3 is entirely different from the boundaries mentioned in the sale deed of Rasi Developers. As per the boundaries of A3, north neighbours land, south road, east Sy.No.239, west part of Sy.No.238 was mentioned. The boundaries are not tallying. Therefore, defence contended it is doubtful that the so called land of Rasi Developers and the land of A3 are one and the same or not.

217.Further, PW34/PVSN Raju, one of the partner of Rasi Developers, stated they have purchased Ac.03.14guntas of land in Sy.No.234, 235 and 238. the

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 105 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010 defence contended that PW33 stated Rasi Developers purchased land in

Sy.No.234 and Sy.No.238 but PW34 stated they purchased the land in Sy.No.235 also, but the total extent is only Ac.03.14guntas only, so It is creating a doubt on the prosecution case.

218.PW39/B. Jaya Babu, Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Circle Vigilance

Department stated that Ex.P75 was confronted to him during his examination, he stated that the panel valuer has given some valuation of properties. The property was inspected by the Branch Chief Manager and certified the valuation given by the panel valuer is correct and reasonable. The legal opinion given by 3 different advocates, namely Srinivas Prasad, Sri Rama Murthy and P.S. Shastry. They have followed the procedure by giving opinion.

219.PW39 stated the property belongs to Srinivas/A3. He mortgaged the property in favour of P.Jayanthi, W/o. P.Manoj Kumar. Later on V.Srinivas availed another loan for the same property on his name. In Ex.P75 the photograph of borrower was there on the loan application form against the mortgage of immovable property.

220.The Income Tax Returns for the assessment year 2006-07 of V.Srinivas also enclosed to the loan application under Ex.P75. The Income Tax Returns for the assessment year 2005-06 of V.Srinivas also enclosed to the loan application under

Ex.P75. The property offered as security is open plot of land. It should be demarcated and properly fenced with restricted access. A name board displaying the ownership of property to be installed in the property. The panel advocates have verified the title deeds. The borrower has submitted the revenue documents, later the loan was sanctioned. After clearance of mortgage the loan documents

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 106 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010 returned to V. Srinivas/A3. Even the boundaries in page No.72 of this document shows the panel advocate Roopkumar Reddy stated that on north neighbours land, south road, east Sy.No.239, west Sy.No.238 part. It means on western side, there is remaining land of Sy.No.238. Further, it is mentioned that this site is located near to a gated residential colony and Vignan School is adjacent to the property. The legal scrutiny report, page No.81 also shows the same. Further, the

MRO, Qutbullapur vide letter No.A3026/2006 dated 02.11.2006 issued non- agriculture certificate in favour of K. Rami Reddy. The Advocate A. Srinivas Prasad has mentioned the same, the prosecution has not examined him though they have filed his legal opinion certificate.

221.The evidence of PW39 shows after getting the legal opinion only the property was mortgage with SBH. Further, the Chief Manager has visited the place. Further, the panel valuer also visited such property. When the valuation certificate was obtained from the valuer and legal opinion from panel advocate, it is easy for the bank to sanction loan for subsequent loan. The evidence of PW39 shows that after following the procedure only the property was mortgaged with the bank.

222.PW49/Krishna Paruchuri probationary officer at Syndicate Bank at the relevant time, stated that himself and one Madhava Rao/LW59 went to Sy.No.238,

Nizampet village, Qutbullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District to conduct panchanama proceedings in Sy.No.238. They found duplex houses in Sy.No.238.

Said duplex houses were constructed by Rasi Developers. In the cross- examination, he stated that the revenue officials have not identified the Sy.No, physical boundaries by point wise, stone marking. They have prepared rough

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 107 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010 notes. It is to be noted that the property should be identified by the revenue officials, so as to know the survey numbers. But PW49 has stated the property was not identified by the revenue officials, so it is doubtful whether they visited

Sy.No.238 or not. As already stated above, when the boundaries are compared, even as per the documents of Raji Reddy and Rasi Developers, their own boundaries are not tallying. As per the sale deed of Rasi Developers, there is remaining extent of Sy.No.238 on west side of the property. Therefore, it is doubtful whether they visited the Sy.No.238 or not. The identification of the property is very crucial. Therefore, the evidence of PW49 is doubtful.

223.PW55/Deeresh Talakshi Shah stated that A3 is his friend, he introduced A3 to accused No.2. They informed the documents of A3 is in SBI Bank and mortgaged with the bank. A2 intended to get the loan and for that purpose, he was in need of property documents for the purpose of security. A3 intimated there was loan in the SBI bank, so that the accused No.2 paid the loan amount to SBI

Bank, later they entered into agreement. A2 has paid Rs.1,00,68,280/- for mortgaging his property. Thereafter, the property was mortgaged with the bank.

The evidence of PW55 shows that there was no prior acquaintance in between A2 and A3 and only for the mortgage of property, they entered into agreement. His evidence also proves earlier, the property was mortgaged with SBI Bank after payment of loan amount to SBI bank, the documents are released and again mortgaged with Union Bank of India. The PW55 in the cross-examination stated

A2 is not aware of genuineness of document and value of the property. As the title deed was already pledged with SBI, so A2 believed A3 and he paid loan amount, later the property was mortgaged with Union Bank of India.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 108 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010

224.The evidence of PW67 shows that Ex.P125(L.D.No.38) is original letter

dated 23.10.2008 issued by him to UBI, Ramkoti Branch with search report and

other papers on the property Khatha No.362, Sy.No.238 to the extent Ac.0.38 Gts standing in the name of V.Srinivas as per Bank records. He has verified the documents relating to this property in the MRO office, Nizampet Village,

Qudbullapur Mandal and also Sub-Registrar Offices at Medchal and Qudbullapur.

225. As per 1B register the extent of land is of Ac.1.10 Gts in Sy.No.238. One

K.Raji Reddy was the pattadhar of said land. The name of Sanjeev Rao was also mentioned as Pattedhar as per 1B register the name of K.Raji Reddy was mentioned as pattedhar. Out of Ac.1.10 Gts only Ac.0.01 Gts was not under cultivation. The land extent Ac.1.09 Gts was under cultivation.

226.He has submitted search report along with covering letter under Ex.P125.

In the search report, he mentioned the documents (4 in number) deposited by

V.Srinivas. He also mentioned about his visit to the Thasildhar Office Qudbullapur

Mandal and also verifying the 1B record pertaining to Khatha No.362. The khatha number was given in the pattadar passbook of K.Rami Reddy vendor of V.Srinivas.

His search also reveals that Khatha No.362 stands in the name of Gummala

Padma Rao and it pertains to Sy.Number 322 and verified the entire 1B record,

Nizampet Village to find out khatha number and ownership particulars of

Sy.Number 238. On verification, he found that the total extent of Sy.No.238 is

Ac.1.10 Gts, one Bosangi sanjeeva Rao was the pattedhar of land measuring

Ac.1.10 Gts in Sy.No.238 and same was assigned Khatha No.250 that the above land in Sy.No.238 stands in the khatha of K.Raji Reddy and pattadhar Passbook

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 109 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010

No.374981 has been given to his i.e. K.Raji Reddy by the Thasildhar Office assigning khatha number 439. He also verified pahanis pertaining to Sy.No.238 in the Thasildhar office and as per his verification the pattedhar of Sy.No.238 measuring Ac.1.10 Gts was on the name of B.Sanjeeva Rao as per Phahanis for the years 1959-60, 1977-78, 1980-81, 1990-91 and 1997-98, the name of K.Raji

Reddy is shown in the possessory column from the year 1977-78 to 1980-81. In the Phahanis for the year 1990-91 to 1997-98 the name of P.Laxmamma W/o Raji

Reddy is mentioned in the possessory column. The phahanis from 2000 onwards were with the VRO, Bheemeshwar Rao. He verified the records of this office and found that K.Raji Reddy was the pattedhar of Sy.No.238.

227. As per enquiry it is very clear that the total extent of Sy.No.238 is Ac.1.10

Gts and K.Raji Reddy was its pattedhar and khatha number for Sy.No.238 was 439 and not 362. When he compared the documents produced by the bank relating to

V.Srinivas along with sale deed he found that the documents are fabricated and forged as per his opinion. The same was confirmed by the revenue officials to whom he met in the Thasildhar office. They also confirmed the seals affixed on the phahanis, Pattedhar Passbook, title deed are not genuine. He also obtained

Encumbrance Certificate, in which it reflected there are 124 entries touching

Sy.Nos.234, 235, 238 and 273. and it also reflected the sale deed dated 11.01.2007 vide Doc.No.928/2007 executed by one K.Rami Reddy in favour of

V.Srinivas. As per EC’s the land in above Sy. Numbers including Sy.No.238 have been plotted out and sold away by M/s.Raasi Developers and others.

228. On questioning of Investigating officer about the actual owner of the property he stated K.Raji Reddy is the actual owner of the property. Ex.P132 bears

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 110 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010 his signature. The evidence of PW67 shows that as per Revenue record, K. Raji

Reddy was owner of the property, the patta pass books and title deeds issued to

A3 was fake and fabricated.

229.The above discussion shows that the prosecution contended that K. Rami

Reddy was not owner of the property. But, A6 has impersonated as K. Rami Reddy, in fact his name was Vittal Reddy, but he executed the registered sale deed as

Rami Reddy. As per Revenue record, no property standing on the name of K. Rami

Reddy. The registered sale deed in the name of A3 was fabricated and it is mortgaged with SBH and obtained loan. Thereafter, A2 has paid the loan amount in the SBH and the same documents are mortgaged with Union Bank of India. The evidence of PW55 shows that A3 is his friend. There is no acquaintance between

A2 and A3, he has introduced A3 to A2, at his instance, A3 accepted to mortgage his property with Union Bank of India on behalf of A2, however, by the time, the loan amount was not cleared in SBH, so A2 has paid Rs. 42 lakhs in the SBH and cleared the loan and he obtained title deeds from SBH, later on, the documents were mortgaged with Union Bank of India. The A2 is also not denying this fact, he is also admitting earlier the documents are mortgaged with SBH. When the matter comes to forgery of documents, the accused no.3 died during the pendency of this case. So, the case is abated against A3.

230.According to A2, he is not aware of forgery of documents. Even A1 is also not aware of forgery of documents. As the documents are already mortgaged with

SBH, SBH has already granted loan on the same documents. Further, they have obtained legal opinion on the documents and there was spot verification by the

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 111 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010 panel valuer, basing on the reports of panel valuer and panel advocate, the SBH has accepted the property documents of A3. A1 being the Chief Manager of Union

Bank of India at the instance of Regional office, accepted to take such title documents as a security. In the document Ex.P109, it is clearly mentioned that on the instructions of Regional Office only,the documents were taken as security.

Further, it revealed that as SBH has already mortgaged the property and they have taken all steps before obtaining mortgage document. The Union Bank of

India was under the impression that the documents are genuine documents.

However, they sent the said documents to one K. Raji Reddy, Advocate and Arjun,

Advocate who has given report stating that there is clear title over the documents. The documents are genuine documents and there was flow of title to accused no.3.

231.Further, the panel valuer has also given report stating that the property is in existing, therefore, the accused no. 1 has accepted those documents. The prosecution has filed the Pahanies and 1B register which indicates that the extent of the land in survey no.238 is only to the extent of 1 acre 10 gunta. K. Raji

Reddy, was pattedar and possessor for total extent of 1 acre 10 gunta. He has executed registered sale deed in favour of Raasi Developers. Therefore, Raasi

Developers have become the owners of the property. There is no land left for executing sale deed in favour of accused no.3. Moreover, said K. Rami Reddy @

Vittal Reddy was not owner of such property. He falsely executed sale deed in favour of accused no.3.

232.The prosecution has examined the Revenue officials who have stated that

K. Raji Reddy was pattedar. Unfortunately, the prosecution has examined the

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 112 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010

Registrar in whose Registrar’s Office, the sale deed in favour of accused no.3 was executed. The Registrar has stated that the document in favour of A3 was genuine document. After verifying the title of K. Rami Reddy, the document was executed. However, the prosecution has not examined the Sub-Registrar, who actually executed the document, so as to know the facts, basing on what documents and what are the facts which satisfied him before executing the

Register Sale deed in favour of A3.

233.PW26 has stated after following the procedure, after verifying the link documents, this document was executed in favour of accused no.3. Even

PW25/Vasudev Reddy, Sub-Registrar also stated the sale deed of A3 was reflecting in Encumbrance Certificate also. PW28 was asked whether K.Rami Reddy was the pattedar of Ac.01.10guntas at Nizampet village. The Deputy Collector stated as per 1B register of Nizampet village, no such P.P.B No.289709 and title deed

No.Z286849 was issued in the name of K. Rami Reddy. The passbook No.289709 purported to be issued by their office in the name of K. Rami Reddy, as per record, there was no such passbook number. No such passbook and title deed was issued in the name of Rami Reddy. The evidence of PW28 shows that the pass book and title deed was not issued on the name of K. Rami Reddy. However, the Sub-

Registrar has stated after verifying the pass book and title deed of Rami Reddy, the sale deed was executed in favour of A3. The Revenue Record plays very important role while deciding the extent of land. The pahanies and 1B register clearly shows that there is only Ac.01.10 gunta of land only. If K. Raji Reddy or

Rami Reddy claims the land in survey no.238, the extent will be Ac.01.10 gunta only and they have to claim the land out of Ac.01.10 gunta only.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 113 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010

234.In the instant case, as per sale deeds, K. Raji Reddy and Raasi Developers have purchased Ac.01.10 gunta of land in survey no.238. There is no pahanies or 1B Register to show that K. Rami Reddy was owner of the property. So, it is established that K. Raji Reddy was owner of the property and he executed sale deed in favour of Raasi Developers, so there is no land for K. Rami Reddy to execute sale deed in favour of A3. So, it is clear that the sale deed in favour of A3 is not genuine document.

235.As already stated above, A3 died, the case is abated against A3. Therefore, there is no case against A3 herein. When the matter comes to accused no.2, the court has to look into the fact whether A2 was having knowledge that the document of A3 was fabricated or not. The evidence of PW55 made it clear that there was no prior acquaintance in between A2 and A3. PW55 himself introduced accused no.3 to A2 as A2 informed him that he is in the lead of the property for mortgaging with the Bank. So, PW55 has introduced A3. As per version of PW55,

A3 represented that he is owner of the property. His property was already mortgaged with SBH and he is ready to give his property as security to A2. The A2 believed the version of A3, even he paid the loan amount of A3 in the SBH Bank.

A2 has intention to deceive Union Bank of India, he would not pay the loan amount in SBH Bank. The payment of amount in SBH Bank shows that the A2 has not obtained the document on free of cost. He spent the amount of RS. 45 lakhs for getting that document and he mortgaged the same property with Union Bank of India.

236.Further, the representations of A1 and Regional office also indicates that as

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 114 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010 the property was already mortgaged with SBH Bank, so the Union Bank of India and Regional office was also under the impression that the documents are genuine documents. If SBH officials would have verified the property and there would not valuation report and legal opinion, the Union Bank of India would have suspected that document. However, they have also obtained legal opinion on the documents from one Raji Reddy and Arjun Advocates.

237.PW12 stated that they are no more panel advocates and as per the circular they are removed from the post of panel advocates, but said circular is not filed to prove of it. Whatever it may be, the facts shows that even Sub-Registrar, himself confused and stated before the court the document of A3 is genuine document, they have verified patta pass book and title deed of K.Rami Reddy and executed the sale deed in favour of A3 indicates that there was every possibility for Union

Bank of India to believe that the document was genuine document. The main problem arose as earlier the same property was mortgaged with SBH believing it

Union Bank of India accepted the property as security. As on the date of execution of sale deed of A3, A1 and A2 were not having any acquaintance with A3 and they have not participated in the execution of sale deed. Therefore, it cannot be said that A1 and A2 are having knowledge of forgery of documents and use of forged documents in the Bank for obtaining the loan. If A3 is alive, he may be liable for forgery of documents. Therefore, A1 and A2 cannot be prosecuted for fabrication of documents.

238.Further, PW68/Investigating Officer admitted that SBI has also granted the loan for the same property i.e. Sy.No.238 extent Ac.0-38 Gts situated at Nizampet

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 115 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010

Villege, Qutbullapur Mandal. The said loan was closed by SBI and afterwards the said property was submitted to Union Bank of India by closing the account in SBI.

PW36/LW45 is the Chief Manager, State Bank of India. He has stated before PW68 that the branch Manager, SBI/Shiva Kumar in his letter dated 25.04.2007 addressed to RACPC, Hyderabad he has mentioned about the verification done by him in the Sub-Registrar Office, Medchal and SBH, Medchal in respect of the authenticity on the title deed bearing No.928/2007 dated 11.01.2007 and standing in the name of Sri.V.Srinivas. He admits PW36 has stated the valuation of open plot in Sy.No.238 situated at Nizampet Village extent of Ac.0.38 Gts was done by D.Roop Kumar Reddy and valued the property as per Rs.6.43 Crores.

Further he stated valuer Sri Roop Kumar Reddy has enclosed market value certificate issued by Sub-Registrar Office, Medchal on 24.01.2007 for

Rs.1,37,94,000/-, plan showing the land in Sy.No.238 belonging to Sri.V.Srinivas and issued by Executive officer GP, Nizampet, Qudbullapur Mandal. PW36 has also stated legal scrutiny report dated 25.01.2007 in respect of above said immovable property in Sy.No.238 was issued by A.Srinivas Prasad, Advocate. He has certified that mortgager V.Srinivas has acquired clear, valid and absolute marketable title in respect of said property. PW36 also stated that in the search report dated 25.01.2007 along with enclosures, Sri.A.Srinivas Prasad, Advocate has certified the title deed in the name of Sri.V.Srinivas in respect of immovable property in

Sy.No.238 situated at Nizampet village is genuine. The transaction covering the title deed is perfect in all respects and suffer no legal impediment. Particulars of title deed are in conformity with the records of Sub-Registrar of Medchal. PW36 also stated that in the search report dated 08.03.2007 issued by Sri.P.S.Sastry,

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 116 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010

Advocate in respect of immovable property in Sy.No.38 is genuine. The transaction covering the title deed is perfect in all respects and suffer no legal impediment. Particulars of title deed are in conformity with the records of Sub-

Registrar of Medchal.

239.PW68 further stated that in the title verification and opinion dated 28.03.2007 Sri Rama Murthy, Advocate and legal advisor has certified that the above said immovable property in Sy.No.238 is in the name of V.Srinivas has acquired clear, valid and absolute marketable title in respect of the above said property. PW36 further stated in the search report dated 28.03.2007 along with enclosures, Sri Rama Murthy, Advocate has certified the title deed in the name of

Sri.V.Srinivas in respect of immovable property in Sy.No.238 is genuine. The transaction covering the title deed is perfect in all respects and suffer no legal impediment. Particulars of title deed are in conformity with the records of Sub-

Registrar of Medchal. PW68 stated that the above said facts about SBI loan come to the knowledge of CBI during the investigation of this case and SBI was requested to take action against the concerned officials, panel advocates and panel valuers. He did not mention the same either in his charge sheet or in his chief-examination.

240.PW68 admitted that PW39/LW46 stated in his 161 statement that in his legal opinion dated 10.03.2007 Sri.A.Srinivas Prasad, Advocate has clearly mentioned that the immovable property situated in Sy.No.238 at Nizampet village is not an agricultural land and hence, bank can enforce its rights under SARFAESI

Act and there is no legal hurdle. PW39 stated the branch manager Sri.Shiva

Kumar in his letter dated 25.04.2007 addressed to RACPC, Hyderabad he has

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 117 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010 mentioned about the verification done by him in the Sub-Registrar Office, Medchal and SBH, Medchal in respect of the authenticity on the title deed bearing

No.928/2007 dated 11.01.2007 and standing in the name of Sri.V.Srinivas/A3.

241.The evidence of PW39 also shows that on perusal of record he observed that legal scrutiny report and search report dated 25.01.2007 submitted by

A.Srinivas Prasad, search report dated 08.03.2007 submitted by PS.Sastry, title verification opinion and search report dated 28.03.2007 submitted by Sri Rama

Murthy, SBI Panel Advocate. The said reports are in conformity with the instructions of the bank as per circular letter number LAW/67 dated 16.06.2006 issued by the bank. It clearly indicates that before mortgaging the property with

SBI, the SBI has sent all the documents to Panel advocate and panel valuer and after obtaining their opinion on the title of documents, the documents were mortgaged with SBI. The Ramkote branch also accepted the title documents of A3 as security only on the basis that the loan was already sanctioned by SBI basing on the title documents of A3 herein. Though, PW68 stated that the panel advocate and panel valuer of SBI and the Manager of SBI have not verified and issued false report and he advised for taking action against them. But, this Court is of the view that the Regional office and Ramkote branch has proceeded to accept said property as security only on the bonafide intention that the SBI has already sanctioned the loan on the said property. The Investigating officer has not collected any such evidence to show that the A1 was having malafide intention. In the absence of any evidence, this Court cannot connect A1 with the alleged offences. If said documents are fabricated or forged documents, A3 alone is responsible for forgery and fabrication of documents. The A1 has acted with a

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 118 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010 bonafide intention, so if the documents are subsequently proved to be forged for which the A1 cannot be made liable for forgery.

242.PW68 has not taken any photographs of the property relating to Sy.No.238 situated at Nizampet village and not filed along with panchanama. PW68 admitted no photographs have been taken by the CBI at Sy.No.238 situated at Nizampet village. The photographs annexed to the valuation report under Ex.P61 are photostat copies and not original photographs and it does not indicate where such photographs have been taken. Therefore, basing on photographs, the accused cannot be connected, there should be some proper documents before the Court.

Further, PW68 admitted one P.K.Arjun Advocate has vetted the documents after sanction of loans. According his report all hypothecated properties are valid and having clear title. PW68 admits that in the legal opinion said PK Arjun got it mentioned that on perusal of documents it is revealed the loan security documents are properly and validly executed by the borrowers and guarantors in favor of bank for the loan facilities availed by them. These documents are enforceable and binding on the borrowers and guarantors an the loan security documents are in order. Therefore, the contention of prosecution is not tenable.

There is no such malafide intention on the part of A1 and A2 in using the documents as security in loan. Moreover, the remaining accused are also not liable except accused no.3.

M/s. Sri Ram Jewellers are not running business in the declared place :

243.The prosecution alleged that Sri Ram Jewellers are not having any shop and not running the business in the premises declared by them. The Branch Manager has not verified the business place of Sri Ram Jewellers and sanctioned the loans.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 119 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010

In order to prove of this fact, the prosecution has examined the panch witnesses in whose presence,the panchanama was conducted at the declared place of M/s.

Sri Ram Jewellers.

244.PW57/Raganna stated that the CBI officials taken him and also SBI official and Union Bank Official to MG Road, Parklane, Secunderabad. There was one floor storied building. They enquired about Sri Ram jewellers. There was no board of Sri

Ram jewellers. On enquiry, they came to know that there was no jewellery shop in the said premises. There was one another Jewellery shop in the ground floor. On enquiry, they informed there is no jewellery shop in the said premises. They visited H.No.1-6-36/37, 4thfloor Uma Millennium Complex, Parklane,

Secunderabad. So, the observation report was prepared under Ex.P141.

245.PW58/Y. Koteshwar Rao, is another panch witness, he has also stated he visited said premises and found there was no Sri Rama Jewellers in the premises.

The prosecution contention is that though there is no premises with Sri Ram

Jewellers but they have given wrong address and obtained loan from the bank.

The evidence of PW57 and PW58 showed there was no jewellery shop in the premises mentioned in the loan documents.

246.PW60/K.A.A. Salam, he has also stated on search warrant they conducted search in the premises of Sri Ram Jewellery. They came to know that no such jewellery shop was running in the said premises. PW60 is the Inspector at the relevant time. Though, he stated they met with one Ashwin Kumar at the premises who was owner of said premises but his statement was not recorded.

The prosecution is relying upon the evidence of panch witnesses only. The defence contention is that no such panchanama was conducted at the place.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 120 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010

There is no evidence to show that they visited the place of business of Sri Ram

Jewellers. The neighbours and inmates of such building are very crucial to decide this fact in issue. The statements of neighbours and the inmates were not recorded. Though, they mentioned some residential address, but there is no such material is produced to show that whether they went to such premises or not.

Moreover, as per the procedure, the panchanama was to be conducted in the presence of local witnesses. The Investigating officer has not collected local panch witnesses. The so called panch witnesses are Bank employees, the CBI is having jurisdiction over the employees to register the cases before they used to give the evidence in support of the prosecution. The main purpose of conduct of panchanama is to prove the real facts at the field, so that Law prescribes that the local panch witnesses are to be summoned. The Investigating Officer has not followed such procedure, so the very conduct of panchanama is doubtful.

247.PW63/R. Madhava Rao stated that the CBI officials conducted panchanama on 23.12.2009 at Sl.No.238, Nizampet Village, Qutbullapur Mandal. The sale deed document No.928/2007, document No.10109/2003 was perused by them. The revenue officials came to spot and identified the property. They found the houses are constructed in Sy.No.238. The panchanama was drafted in SY.No.238.

248.PW64/Vikas Kumar partner of Rasi Developers also stated that they have purchased the land in Sy.No.238 from one Raji Reddy. They have obtained permission from the Government to convert the land from Agriculture to Non-

Agriculture. They do not have any vacant land in the above said survey numbers.

The allegations against A6:

249.The allegations against A6 is that A6 is conspired with other accused and

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 121 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010 he impersonated as K. Rami Reddy in common intention with A3, A6 has signed and put his thumb impression while executing the sale deed and he received the amount of Rs. 5000/- as consideration from A3 for impersonating K. Rami Reddy and executed the sale deed, thereby he has committed an offence under Section 419 of IPC. Further, the forged document is used for obtaining loan, therefore, he is liable under Section 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC.

250.The prosecution has examined only two witnesses i.e., PW69 and 70.

PW69/Koti Reddy stated that he has acquaintance with A3, they established Cool

Well High Tech Cold Storage. However, this business was closed due to some misunderstandings. In the year, 2007 A3 intended to purchase the property and asked him and PW70/Manoj Kumar to come to Registration Office. So, they went to Registration Office. He introduced one Rami Reddy. The registration was done by Rami Reddy in Sy.No.238, extent 0.38 gunta. Ex.P123/A is attested copy of sale deed. They have identified the photograph of vendor as Rami Reddy. Later, they came to know through CBI officials that he is not Rami Reddy, his name is Vittal

Reddy. However, the accused No.6 is absent, so there is no identification of A6.

Further, PW70 also stated they came to know that said Rami Reddy was not Rami

Reddy his name was Vittal Reddy. The counsel for A6 contended that PW69 and

PW70 are not witnesses to the document of Rami Reddy and V. Srinivas. They themselves admitted due to misunderstandings they stopped their business, so there is no question of summoning them by A3 to the Registration Office does not arise. Moreover, the photostat copies are confronted to the witnesses, so it is not possible to identify the photographs in the photostat copies of documents. They are brought up witnesses.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 122 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010

251.Admittedly, there are witnesses to the document but the prosecution has not summoned the witnesses to the document but they called PW69 and 70 who are having rivalry with A3 in the business transaction. The so called identification

PW69 and PW70 is not admissible. Their presence is very doubtful at the time of registration. Moreover, they have no prior acquaintance with A6. On the date of alleged registration, they have seen the accused No.6, there was no Test

Identification Parade, for the first time, identifying the accused in the court hall is very weak piece of evidence. The prosecution failed to prove that A6 only impersonated as Rami Reddy. Further, the signatures of A6 was not obtained and not sent to FSL, so as to prove his thumb impressions/signatures on the registered sale deed. Further, in the Registrar office, the thumb impression register will be maintained. It is very crucial document to prove the forgery. The prosecution has not collected said document and not sent to FSL for comparison of thumb impressions of A6. So, the prosecution failed to prove that A6 only impersonated as Rami Reddy.

252.PW71/J. Srinivasulu stated that Ex.P156 is pattadar passbook of Vittal

Reddy vide Patta No.248 but this passbook was issued by G. Singaracharyulu, the then Tahasildar of Marriguda, Nalgonda District in the year, 1995. The title passbook bears signatures of Mandal Revenue Officer as a counter signature, the

RDO put his signature. The evidence of PW71 shows that it was issued by the concerned MRO and RDO. When the prosecution contended those passbooks are fabricated but PW71 has stated it was issued by the concerned revenue officials.

The prosecution relied upon the evidence of PW28 and contended that no such patta pass book and title pass book was issued in the name of Rami Reddy. But,

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 123 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010 the evidence of PW71 shows that it was issued by the concerned MRO and RDO.

Moreover, the concerned MRO and RDO were not examined by the prosecution, so it is fatal to the prosecution case.

The credentials of M/s. Sri Ram Jewellers and Karat-24 :

253.The prosecution in order to prove the credentials of Sri Ram Jewellers and

Karat-24, they have examined the Bank Managers, relating to different Banks.

254.PW37/Y.Venkat Rao, the then Bank Manager, Lakshmi Vilas Bank, as per his evidence, he has furnished the documents to CBI. Ex.P76 ( L.D. No. 89) is the letter No. LVB/461/GEN/18/2009-10, dated 2.11.2009 addressed by him to

Inspector of CBI, along with documents (24 sheets including covering letter) which bears his signature. He enclosed the documents to this letter, the documents are attested by their Assistant Manager, L Madhavi. VAT registration certificate No.

28910171563, dated 23.03.2005 issued by CTO, VAT registering Authority,

Begumpet Circular, Begumpet Division in favour of M/s Karat-24 represented by its proprietor by name J.Sri Ramu. J.Sri Ramu opened current account number 4613512666 (Old Number 7006) on 17.09.2006 by submitting VAT registration certificate. The above said current account open on 17.09.2006 by Sri. J Janaki

Raman, the then Branch Manager. The specimen cord shows the signature and photograph of Sri. J Sri Ramu, Proprietor of M/s Karat-24. The Customer

Information Form. Form-60 does not contains the PAN No. of J. Sri Ramu. Form-60 was given by J. Sri Ramu as he does not have PAN and General Index Register

Number. The statement of account number 0461351000002666 from the period 01.09.2007 to 28.10.2009 standing in the name of Karat-24 shows that the closing balance as on 30.09.2009 is 1020.89. This statement of account shows J.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 124 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010

Sri Ramu was having regular High Value Transaction with MMTC upto 08.12.2008.

255.As per their record the address of Karat-24 is shop no. 9, 1-8-229/4,

Akanksha Apartment, PG Road, Secunderabad. In the record the PAN number of J.

Sri Ramu is available and his PAN No. is AAYPJ9417E. At the time of account opening he might have not given PAN number. Subsequently he might have furnished so the PAN is written in hand writing in Form-60.

256.The prosecution has examined PW37 to prove that he has obtained loan from this Bank and paid the amount at Union Bank of India. He is having various debts in the Bank. He is due of amount to said Bank also. However, PW37 has not spoken about any of the borrowings by A2 from their Bank. As per his evidence, the accused is maintaining high value transactions with MMTC upto 08.12.2008.

He never became NPA in the said Bank.

257.Thereafter, the prosecution examined PW38/Vemula Srinivas Shetty,

Manager in Lakshmi Vilas Bank Limited. He has furnished the document Ex.P77.

He has stated that the accused no.2 has opened current a/c.no.0677351000002682 on 12.06.2006 at their Bank and furnished the Bank

PAN no. AA/PJ9417BE and his VAT registration no. 28910171563, dated 23.03.2005 issued by Commercial Tax Officer, Begumpet. The statement of account was furnished for the period from 01.09.2007 to 29.10.2009. The evidence of PW38 shows that the accused no. 2 is having VAT registration for doing gold bullion business.

258.PW40/Paresh Kumar Mahana, Bank Manager, HDFC, Secunderabad, stated that he has furnished the documents under Ex.P79. The Karat-24 is having a/c no.

00422320005181. They are submitted VAT regn certificate under Ex.P80. The

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 125 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010 statement of account is under Ex.P81. As per the closing balance the said account is having debit of Rs.12,85,059.38 ps and closing balance amount Rs. 212.68.

Further, as per Ex.P82, the account opening form of Karat-24, it bears the signature of A2 and it is having pan card of A2. The registration certificate issued under Shops and commercial Establishment Act standing on the name of

M/s.Karat-24. Ex.P83 is statement of account of Karat-24 issued by HDFC Bank.

The opening balance is Rs. 1800 and as per the statement it appears this account is in operative account. Ex.P81 reflects there is reflection of high value transactions. However, those exhibits are not supported by Section 2A of Banker’s

Books Evidence Act. PW40 admitted the accounts were opened as per Bank procedure. All the Bank transactions will be verified by the Bank staff members.

The evidence of PW40 shows that Karat-24 is having account in HDFC and there is high value transactions in the said account.

259.PW41/N. Rama Rao, the then Sub-Manager, Andhra Bank stated that he has furnished Ex.P84 to P90. Ex.P86 is the statement of current account of M/s.

Karat-24. As per statement, the balance amount is Rs. 1400/-. Ex.P88 the statement of account for the period from 20.12.2007 to 09.12.2010. The balance amount is shown as Rs. 8453/-. As per Ex.P89, current opening form on the name of Jayalakshmi Jewellers represented by JVVD Prakash as Managing Director and

MVV Satyanarayana as Director. Ex.P90 is the statement of account showing the balance of Rs.9496/-. The Jewellery companies which are having connections with the Karat-24, the Investigating Officer has filed their account opening forms and statements. However, the evidence of PW41 shows that there are high value transactions appearing in the account of M/s. Karat-24. In the cross-examination,

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 126 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010

PW41 stated the account holders deal with gold bullion market.

260.Further, the transactions reflects the business dealings with Lakshmi

Jewellers, Ratna Raju Jewellers and other Jewellery forms. It is to be noted that the prosecution contention is that the Karat-24 and Sri Ram Jewellers are not having any high value transactions, but the A1 has delivered the gold to said Karat-24 and Sri Ram Jewellers without collecting money and by purchasing local cheques.

The evidence of Bank officials shows that there are high value transactions of Sri

Ram Jewellers and Karat-24.

261.PW52/K.V. Shekar, the then Manager, Karur Vysya Bank Limited stated that

Ex.P136 is account opening form and account statement of M/s. Karat – 24 and

Keshav Jewellery Mart. The account was opened on 02.07.2005. It was operated by A2. Karat-24 is dealing with the bullion and gold business. As per his evidence, the outstanding credit balance in the above said account is Rs.3,893.16 ps on 07.11.2009. This amount belongs to account holder. The account was having cheque discount facility upto Rs. 20 lakhs. As on 07.11.2009, outstanding debit balance was Rs. 8,42,668.17 ps. In the cross-examination, he stated that account was maintained as per RBI guidelines.

262.PW53/U. Pradeep Kumar, the then partner of M/s. Sri Krishna Jewellers stated that Karat-24 used to sell the gold to M/s. Sri Krishna Jewellery Mart. He has furnished ledger copy of Karat -24, IT returns pertaining to Sri Krishna

Jewellers. Ex.P137 is the letter issued by him while furnishing ledger copy of

Karat-24. The prosecution has examined PW53 in order to prove that whether

Karat-24 is doing gold business or not. PW53 evidence shows that Karat-24 is doing gold business.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 127 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010

263.PW54/Maddula Jaya veera Durga Prakash, the then Managing Director of

M/s. Tanmayee Private Limited stated that A2 was owner of Karat-24. They used to purchase gold from Karat-24. At the time of purchase, they used to issue blank cheques to Karat -24. After fixing the rate, they used to inform Karat-24 to present the cheques, then they will present the cheques in the banks, after clearing the cheques, they will give the gold. He issued cheques to Karat-24, but he do not remember the cheque numbers. The Karat-24 has presented four cheques issued by him for an amount of Rs. 3 crores. Other cheques there may be payments by way of RTGS with Karat-24. Ex.P138 is account ledger of Tanmayee Jewellers and balance sheet pertaining to the financial year 2008-09. They have no account dispute with Karat-24. They might have purchased 30-40 kgs of gold from Karat- 24.

264.PW54 stated that without their knowledge, Karat-24 has presented the blank cheques, it was dishonoured and case under Section 138 NI Act was filed.

The case was ended in acquittal. In the cross-examination, PW54 stated that he has not personally enquired in the Bank about the presentation of cheques by

Karat-24 as an internal arrangements. There was no written instructions to present the cheques with their permission. The counsel for A2 contended that the case is ended in acquittal, in which A2 was also one of the accused along with

PW54. Ex.D1 shows that the court has given finding that cheques were not issued in discharge of legally enforceable debt. Therefore, the case was ended in acquittal. The prosecution contention is that the cheques were submitted by A2 herein, but the defence contention is that the cheques were fabricated. The judgment in the case of NI Act proves that it was not issued by the party. So, A2

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 128 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010 cannot be connected with those cheques. In the further cross-examination, the

PW54 admitted that the firm of A2 is also holding the business from the last 15 years. A2 was one of the biggest supplier of gold biscuits. Approximately, 500 kgs of gold turnover whenever he purchases the gold, he used to pay the cost of the gold. He used to pay the amount to accused no.2. He admitted that the case is filed against him under Section 138 of NI Act. Similarly, the case is filed against

A2. The PW54 stated that his purchase is genuine in respect of gold biscuits and the purchase of gold by A2 is genuine from the Bank. The supply of gold in the entire market by A2 is also genuine. The evidence of PW54 shows that he purchased the gold from A2 and issued the cheques. However, the transaction is not proved. So, the case is ended in acquittal.

265.PW42/M. Bhaskar, Manager in SBI, Commercial Bank, Hyderabad stated that Ex.P92 is account opening form of Tanmayee Jewellers. Ex.P93 is statement of Cash Credit for the period from 01.10.2007 to 31.03.2009. As per statement, the credit limit given in the said account is Rs. 20 crores. As on 31.03.2009, the closing balance is Rs. 22,57,90,970.40 ps. Ex.P94 is account opening form of Sri

Sai Swarna Mandir Jewellers Private Limited represented by Sri NKD Prasad and

MJVVD Prakash. Ex.P95 is account statement of Sri Sai Swarna Mandir Jewels

Private Limited. Cheque no. 691202 and 691203 for Rs. 30 lakhs and Rs. 35 lakhs are cleared in their Bank. Those cheques were dishonoured due to insufficient funds. Those cheques were given to Union Bank of India, so that prosecution examined PW42, the PW42 stated that at the relevant time, there was no amount, so the cheques were dishonoured. As per the closing balance on 31.03.2009, there was amount of Rs. 22, 57,90,000,970/- the cheques were issued on

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 129 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010 12.02.2008, the PW42 stated that due to insufficient funds, the cheques were not cleared. It appears that at the time of presentation of cheques, there was no amount, if the cheques would have been resubmitted, the amount would have been credited to the account of Union Bank of India. It cannot be stated that Sai

Swarna Mandir is not having capacity to pay the amount, but in order to deceive

Union Bank of India, the cheques of Sai Swarna Mandir was purchased by Union

Bank of India.

The allegations against the Panel valuer /A5:

266.The allegation of prosecution is that A5 conspired with the remaining accused and issued false valuation certificate in respect of land extent 0.38 gunta in survey no.238 intending that it shall be used for the purpose of cheating.

Further, A5 is aware that A3 and A6 has fabricated the document i.e, sale deed, it will be used in the Bank for the purpose of security, knowing that fact, A5 has issued false valuation certificate, thereby he committed the offences under

Section 420,468,471 of IPC etc.

267.The prosecution in order to substantiate the case against A5/Papa Rao, it examined the witnesses PW24, PW36, PW39, PW48, PW50, PW51, PW69 and

PW68 who had spoken about the accused no. 5 herein. The evidence of PW24/T.

Shyam Sundar Reddy, the Panel Valuer of Syndicate Bank from 2001 shows that he used to give the report in respect of land and buildings as a valuer. The Bank

Manager asked him to attend before CBI for conducting panchanama. The panchanama was conducted on 23.12.2009 in survey no. 238 at Nizampet village,

Quthbullapur Mandal. This is the Ex.P60 is panchanama. Ex.P661 is the original valuation report submitted by him. As per his valuation report, the report is

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 130 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010 relating to the land extent Ac.0-38 guntas in survey no. 238, Nizampet village,

Quthbullapur Mandal. The Fair market value of Ac.0.38 guntas as on 01.01.2007 is of Rs.7.5 corres as on 21.07.2008, the fair market value is of Rs. 6 crores. Fair market value of Ac.0.38 guntas of land is of Rs. 4,96,58,400/- as on 23.12.2009.

Due to Telangana agitation, the rates of the land came down. When they visited the land, the land was identified by Revenue officials and they found the constructed villas in the above said area. Its name is Green Avenues. In fact Green

Avenues is an existing in the area of Ac.8 approximately. The above said Ac.0.38 guntas is part of it. Moreover, at the time of the panchanama, the Bank officers have provided the sale deeds vide Doc.No.928/2007, another Doc.No.10109/2003 in which the land extent is Ac.0.38 guntas is covered in Doc.No.928/2007. The

Revenue officials identified Ac.0.38 guntas of land. He enquired with local

Engineers and local people and he has given market value. He also verified the

Government record also for ascertaining fair market value. As on the date of the panchanama, as per his report, the market value was Rs. 18,000/- per sq.yard, after deducting 40 percent towards road, open areas. The prosecution contention that the value of the property is not exceeding more than Rs. 168 lakhs. In view of the valuation certificate issued by A5, the Bank was mis-leaded and it has sanctioned the loan to the accused nos. 2 and 4. Therefore, the accused no. 5 has committed the above said offences.

268.Admittedly, PW24 is an independent panel valuer of a Nationalized Bank, categorically admitted in the cross-examination that identification of property is done by revenue officials and not by valuers. He further admitted that it is impossible for any valuer to independently identify open land on his own,

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 131 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010 particularly in the absence of revenue demarcation. He has further stated that valuation reports are prepared only after the property is identified by the Bank

Manager and the owner of the property. He further admitted that whenever the property is identified by the Bank Manager and the owner, the valuer merely inspects the said identified property and submits the valuation report, and that valuation is never based on independent identification by the valuer himself. It clearly shows that the identification of the property is admittedly outside the control of valuer. He has no personal knowledge to identify the property. The prosecution has not produced any of the evidence to show that who has shown the said property to the valuer. Moreover, the witness himself stated due to

Telangana agitation, the value of lands are decreased and there are ups and downs. Therefore, if there is any variation in the valuation report, admittedly, when there is a gap of one or three years in issue of valuation certificate by A5 and PW24, this Court feels that it does not make any difference and no malafide intention can be attributed to A5.

269.Further, the Investigating officer has not sent the said document to FSL for comparison of signature of A5, as A5 is denying his signature on the valuation report. Therefore, there is no evidence to show that A5 has issued valuation certificate. Further, the defence contended that there is no requisition copy before this court to show that Union Bank of India has issued requisition to A5 and asked

A5 to issue valuation certificate in respect of Ac.0.38 guntas of land in survey no.

238, Nizampet village. In absence of any other documents, A5 cannot be connected with the said offences.

270.At first, the prosecution has to establish the meeting of minds on

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 132 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010 agreement among other accused with A5, so as to connect A5 with the other accused under Section 120B of IPC. Further, he relied upon the evidence of PW24 in which he stated that the Revenue officials identified the particular property, so he is stating that it was the property. In case of A5, there is no evidence to show that who actually identified the subject property. The Bank Manager or Revenue officials have to identify the property. No material produced before the Court to show that somebody has shown the property to A5. If A5 has issued valuation certificate in respect of the any property, then the presumption is that whatever the property shown by Revenue officials or Bank officers, the A5 has valued the said property. In the absence of any such record, it cannot be said that A5 has visited the property in survey no.238 only and he has issued valuation certificate in respect of Ac.0.38 guntas in survey no.238.

271.Further, PW36 is another witness who has spoken about the valuation certificate. PW36 is the Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Personal Banking branch, Gunrock branch, Secunderabad. As per his evidence, the documents relating to Ac.0.38 guntas in survey no.238 was mortgaged to State Bank of India.

After payment of the total amount, the total documents were released to A3. The same property was mortgaged with Union Bank of India by A2 and A3 and they have obtained loan from Union Bank of India. In the cross-examination of PW36, he admitted that the property in survey no. 238 standing on the name of A3, it was mortgaged with the Bank and the two loans for an amount of Rs.4,30,000/- and Rs. 39 lakhs were sanctioned. Further, he admitted that loan of Rs.

4,30,000/-, the search report dated 25.01.2007 was obtained from A. Srinivasa

Prasad, Advocate and for the term loan of Rs. 39 lakhs, the search report dated

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 133 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010 08.03.2007 issued by P.S.Sastry, Advocate was obtained and title verification and opinion dated 28.03.2007 was obtained from Ramurthy Rajanala, Panel Advocate and Legal Adviser.

272.The evidence of PW36 shows that the same property was mortgaged with

State Bank of India and at that time, search report was prepared by the Advocate and the title verification and opinion was also obtained by the State Bank of India.

As per search reports and legal advise, there was clear title to A3 in respect of above said property. Further, the loan amounts to Rs. 4,30,000/- and Rs. 39 lakhs were paid on 25.08.2008 and later title deeds were returned to A3.

273.The evidence made it clear that earlier the same property was mortgaged with State Bank of India. However, the PW36 has stated that four officers of

Banking cadre dealt with the Bank from the processing of loan till the sanction of loan. They have verified all the search reports, the value of the documents and facts of original documents and Panel Advocate opinion and the opinion with regard to genuineness of title deeds of the property was also taken. Thereafter, only the loan was sanctioned. When the loan was sanctioned at State Bank of

India, it was vacant land and for the same property, the opinion was given by

Panel Advocate as well as Panel valuer.

274.The contention of the defence is that at the relevant time also, the property was vacant, when A5 alleged to have given that valuation report, he was shown vacant land only. Therefore, the valuation report is given in respect of vacant land. PW36 has admitted in Ex.P75, sheet nos. 70 to 79 there is a report of Roop Kumar Reddy, Panel Valuer after inspection of subject property and issued valuation report in respect of the property. A perusal of Ex.P75 also shows that the

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 134 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010 property is a vacant land. Therefore, it is creating a doubt whether A5 was shown the subject property or not. Further, PW39 has stated that Ex.P75 was issued to him by CBI and he stated that Panel Valuer has given some valuation of properties. The property was inspected by Branch Chief Manager and certified the valuation given by the Panel valuer is correct and reasonable. The legal opinion given by three different advocates were shown to him. The Panel Advocates namely Srinivas Prasad, P.S. Sastry, Advocate, Sreerama Murthy Rajanala have followed the procedure while giving their opinion.

275.PW36 marked Ex.P75, wherein sheets 70 to 79 comprise a valuation report

dated 03.02.2007 prepared by one Roop Kumar Reddy after inspection of the very

same property bearing Survey No.238, Nizampet Village. He further admitted that the then Chief Manager, Sri Shiva Kumar, had personally inspected the said property and was satisfied with the fair and reasonable value of the property as reflected in the valuation report. This admission establishes that even prior to the alleged valuation report of Accused No.5 dated 21.07.2008, the said property had already been inspected, valued, and accepted by another nationalized bank on similar parameters, thereby completely negating the prosecution theory of falsity, or fabrication in the valuation alleged to have been submitted by Accused No.5.

276.The evidence of PW39 also shows that earlier also, the valuation report is obtained in respect of same property in which they have given observation that it is vacant land. Now the prosecution contends there are structures in the property, it is not vacant land. Further, the valuation is also not correct as stated by A5. At first, there is no proper material to show that A5 was shown this property only.

There may be possibility of showing another property by the officials because

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 135 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010 there are serious allegations against the officials for which A5 cannot be connected. Further, PW48 has also stated that Ex.P102 is the document pertaining to Sri Ram Jewellers. He is aware of irregularities committed by MVL

Prasad by the time, the account is marked as NPA. Ex.P101 is circular for appointment of valuers. The defence contention is that as per Ex.P101, the circular was issued to know the qualifications of Panel valuers. As per PW48, one

P. Papa Rao/A5 and MVL Prasad were appointed as Panel valuers by their Head office. Said persons were appointed prior to his assuming charge as a Chief

Manager. Thedocument L.D.No.29 is containing the set of security documents of

Sri Ram Jewellers and it contains the copies of valuation reports. This valuation was done by Arjun Consultants. The name of valuer is P.Papa Rao/A5. This valuation report is in respect of property offered as collateral security to the proposal loan. The loan is gold security loan. This valuation report is certified by the then Chief Manager of the branch by name VSAU Bhasker Rao/A1. The evidence of PW48 shows that the valuation was done by one P. Papa Rao/A5, Arjun

Consultants. A1 has certified the said document i.e., valuation report.

277.However, in the cross-examination, the PW48 stated that he do not remember whether he has stated anything about the circulars. When the prosecution got marked the circulars through PW48, he has to speak about the said circulars. However, his evidence shows that while availing loans, when the property is offered as security, the property particulars will be sent to Panel

Advocate and after getting his opinion with regard to the genuineness of documents and title pertaining to the property offered as collateral security, the loan will be sanctioned. In the instant case, one P. Papa Rao/A5 is approved valuer

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 136 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010 of Arjun Consultants.

278.In his cross-examination, PW39 has made categorical admissions which directly support the defence of Accused No.5. He admitted that identification of the property offered as collateral security is the responsibility of the branch manager or chief manager, and that the panel valuer does not independently identify the property. He further stated that the valuer, along with the Branch

Manager, visits the site, and that the property is identified only by the Branch

Manager.

279. Though PW39 stated that as per the circulars, the panel valuer is required to physically verify the property, he clearly admitted that such physical verification is by the Branch Manager or Chief Manager, which admission is in complete consonance with the deposition of other prosecution witnesses. He further admitted that the valuation report submitted by the panel valuer is thereafter certified by the Branch Manager as being reasonable and correct.

280.This evidence completely demolishes the prosecution allegation that

Accused No.5 had misidentified the property or falsely described its nature. On the contrary, PW39's evidence clearly establishes that identification of the property is outside the purview of the valuer and that the valuation process is controlled and supervised by the bank officials themselves, it negatives the version of the prosecution. Further, the defence contention is that A5 is not panel valuer when the requisition is not given to A5 for valuing the property, then the prosecution by relying upon the valuation certificate alleged to be issued by A5, they cannot connect the accused with the alleged offence.

281.Admittedly, there is no requisition to show that A5 was entrusted with the

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 137 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010 work of issue of valuation certificate, when the defence strongly denied the role of

A5, it is the duty of prosecution to prove that A5 was appointed as panel valuer for issue of valuation certificate.

282.Further, PW48 has stated that the Bank has to give requisition in writing to panel Advocate for getting legal opinion on the documents offered as collateral security. After receiving the report from Panel Advocate, the professional fee shall be paid to the Panel Advocate through the Banking transaction. There will be Bank record to show the payment of professional fee to the advocate. Some procedure will be followed in case of panel valuer also. For the purpose of getting valuation report, the Bank has to give requisition in writing to the Panel valuer to submit valuation report over the property. The payment will be made by the Bank, some times the client/applicant will pay. In the instant case, the requisition is not filed and the Bank transaction or any payment is not filed to show that the amount was paid to accused no.5 for giving valuation report. PW12 stated that as per record, no amount was paid to the Panel valuer. Therefore, it is creating a doubt over the prosecution case. However, it is to be noted that Ex.P102 is marked subject to objection that the witness is not the author of the said document and he did not officially receive the document. There is no reference whatsoever of this document in the 161 statement. The PW48 has stated about the irregularities, but such irregularities are missing in the 161 statement of the witness. It is nothing but, improvement and material omission. The witness never spoken about the document in his 161 statement. Further, PW48 admitted that he has not spoken about the documents sheet no.65 to 70 of LD No.29. So, the statement of PW48 for the first time in the court hall is not admissible. PW48 admitted the written

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 138 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010 requisition is necessary. But, no such requisition is not filed before the court.

Therefore, the evidence of PW48 is not relevant to the present case.

283.PW50/Chaco Abraham, General Manager, Union Bank of India, stated that the branch staff accompanied with panel valuer to the premises for the purpose of valuation. This categorical deposition reinforces the consistent prosecution admissions that identification of the property offered as security is undertaken by the bank officials and not independently by the valuer. Further, PW51 stated that

L.Raja Reddy, Panel Advocate submitted legal opinion. Ex.P131 was marked. The said document also makes a reference to payment of service charges to A5 towards submission of valuation report. PW51 admitted the records do not indicate that any such payment of service charges was infact made by Bank to

A5. So, there is no documentary evidence to prove the payment of charges to A5.

It proves that there was no requisition to A5 and no payment of charges for issue of valuation report.

284.Further, PW68/Investigating Officer also stated that the false valuation report was submitted in respect of survey no. 238, Nizampet village, Quthbullapur

Mandal. In the said valuation report, he has mentioned the said property as vacant land. He has not submitted the photographs of the same property. The false verification report was submitted by A5 resulting in sanction of gold metal loan of Rs. 7.5 crores. During investigation, it was found that the property belongs to M/s. Raasi Developers. They constructed houses in the said property, but A5 has issued valuation report stating that it is vacant land. In fact the houses are constructed, so there is no vacant land. In the cross-examination, PW68 stated that there is endorsement of Bank on valuation report alleged to have been

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 139 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010 issued by A5. Further, he admitted that he has not collected specimen signatures of A5. It is his duty to ascertain whether the signature belongs to A5 or not on alleged report. He denied the suggestion that A5 has not issued said valuation report and the Bank has not paid the amount to A5 for submitting his report.

285.PW68 is Investigating Officer. He has stated that the valuation report is submitted by A5 only. However, he admits that there is no seal of the Bank on the valuation report. If it is issued by A5 to the Bank relating to the loan transaction of

A2 and A3, if it is considered by the Bank, there should be stamp of the Bank to show that they have seen this document before sanction of the loan. They have not filed any register to show that they have received this report and they have considered this report, but no such documents are filed before this court.

286.In the cross-examination, PW68 stated that when the panchanama was conducted, he has taken the assistance of Revenue officials for identifying the property. PW25 has not taken the assistance of Revenue officials for submitting his report. He admits that the borrower and the Bank Manager will identify the property and they will show the property to the valuer, on identification, the valuation will be done by the valuer. No witness has spoken about the valuation report submitted by A5 is a false report. Further, there is no documentary evidence showing that it is a fake valuation report submitted by A5.

287.The defence relied upon the evidence of PW68 and contended that the duty of the panel valuer to value the property which was shown by the Bank officials. In so called valuation report, there is no endorsement of any of the officials to show that who had identified the property. Further, the documents are not produced to show that they have given requisition to A5 for following the

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 140 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010 procedure. Further no names of Revenue officials or Bank Managers are cited, who were present at the time of valuing the property and visited the property by A5.

General rule is that the Bank Manager has to accompany with A5.

288.The counsel for A1 is very silent with regard to this valuation certificate and have never taken plea that A1 has shown the property or he has not shown the property. Even he is no way concerned with the valuation certificate. Without endorsement, without seal of the Bank on valuation report, all of sudden, the valuation report brought into existence and contended that A5 has issued it, but

A5 has denied the issue of such certificate. Therefore, it is very doubtful whether

A5 has issued this certificate or not. Moreover, his signatures are not sent to FSL for comparison.

289.Further, in the light of the above discussion, this Court is of the view that the alleged valuation report has not been proved in accordance with Law. The prosecution has failed to prove the original valuation report, and failed to prove its authorship, execution, submission, or receipt by the bank. The alleged copies forming part of Ex.P102 (D-29) are inadmissible, not proved through a competent witness.

290.The admissions of PW48 and PW68 categorically establish that no requisition was issued by the Bank to Accused No.5, no payment of professional fees was made, and no endorsement exists to show receipt of any valuation report by the bank. In the absence of these material, the A5 cannot be connected to the alleged offences.

291.The prosecution has failed to establish that Accused No.5 authored or signed any valuation report. The Investigating Officer (PW-68) has admitted that

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 141 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010 specimen signatures of Accused No.5 were never collected, despite admitting that it was his duty to do so. Consequently, no comparison, verification, or attribution of signature is possible. So, the prosecution has failed to prove the fabrication of the documents.

292.Admittedly, no witness, Bank official, Borrower, or third party, has deposed that Accused No.5 submitted any valuation report, much less a false one. It disproves the case against A5.

293.The allegations against Accused No.5 is only basing on the evidence of

Investigating Officer, and stand completely unsupported by any substantive oral or documentary evidence from any other prosecution witness. The evidence of

Investigating officer cannot take the place of legal proof and it is not substantial evidence and there is no corroboration to his evidence.

294.The evidence of PW24, PW39, PW50, and PW68 is uniform and unambiguous in establishing that identification of the property offered as collateral is the responsibility of the Bank Officials and the borrower, and that a valuer does not independently identify the property. These witnesses have categorically admitted that the Branch Manager or Chief Manager identifies the property, and that the valuer merely inspects and values the property so identified.

295.Further, the evidence of PW36 and PW68 establishes that another

Nationalized Bank (State Bank of India) had accepted the very same property as collateral and had relied upon an earlier valuation report (Ex.P75) prepared by another valuer, Sri Roop Kumar Reddy, which was inspected and certified by a

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 142 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010

Chief Manager of SBI as fair and reasonable.

296.This consistent line of evidence completely demolishes the prosecution allegation that Accused No.5 falsely identified or misdescribed the property. Once identification is admitted to be a bank-controlled function, no criminality can be fastened upon the valuer for alleged misidentification or description of the property.

297.The prosecution has failed to establish any agreement, meeting of minds, or concerted action between Accused No.5 and the other accused. Not a single witness has spoken about any conspiracy involving Accused No.5. There is no circumstantial evidence, no conduct evidence, and no corroborative material to suggest collusion or connivance.

298.Further, there is no evidence of proof of payment, illegal gratification, or even legitimate professional fees to Accused No.5. In the absence of any pecuniary benefit, the allegation of conspiracy or intentional wrongdoing becomes purely speculative and legally unsustainable. Further, the charges are framed against this accused for forgery of documents along with other accused. But, there is no single scrap of paper to establish that A5 was having knowledge of forgery of documents and fabrication of documents. Further, there is no evidence to show that he is involved in the fabrication of documents and to be used in the

Bank for the purpose of loan, therefore, section 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC are not applicable against A5.

The evidence of Expert PW59/P. Venugopal Rao

299. The evidence of PW59/P. Venugopal Rao shows that the documents in this

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 143 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010 case were forwarded by the Superintendent of Police, CBI, BS & FC, Bangalore to our office vide a letter dated 21.05.2010, for examination and opinion, through a special messenger.

300. The documents were received in their office on 25.05.2010, and later on allotted to him for his examination and opinion. The documents which were received and examined by him were as follows:

Questioned documents marked Q1 to Q164, Q164A, Q165 to Q209, Q209A,

Q209B and Q210 to Q224.

Specimen documents marked S18 to S70, S70/1 and S71 to S178.

301.The details of the questioned documents were given in Annexure I of the

CBI forwarding letter dated 21.05.2010. Annexure II gives the description of the specimen documents. Annexure III is the questionnaire.

302.He has examined the said documents in the laboratory of GEQD,

Hyderabad, utilizing various scientific aids that included lenses of various magnifications. He has applied the basic principle which is “like – with – like comparison”.

303.On his examination of the documents, he has arrived at the opinion bearing no. CH-106/2010 which is in one page. This opinion was signed by him as well as by Sri.C.Rajesh, the then Assistant Government Examiner of Questioned

Documents. They both independently examined the documents of this case.

Sri.C.Rajesh agreed with his opinion. His detailed reasons for arriving at the opinion which are in 4 pages were also enclosed with the opinion. Each of the 4 pages of the reasons bears his signature.

304.His opinion in this case is as follows:

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 144 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010 “1. the person who wrote the blue enclosed writings and signatures stamped and marked S72 to S101 also wrote the red enclosed writings and signatures similarly stamped and marked Q62, Q64, Q66, Q68, Q70, Q74, Q77, Q80,

Q83,Q86, Q88, Q90, Q92, Q94, Q96, Q98, Q100, Q102, Q104, Q106, Q108, Q110,

Q112, Q114, Q116, Q118, Q120, Q122, Q124, Q126, Q128, Q130, Q132, Q134,

Q136, Q138, Q140, Q142, Q145, Q147, Q163, Q164, Q164A, Q165, Q166, Q209,

Q209A, Q209B, Q210 to Q213, Q215 and Q217 to Q224.

2. The person who wrote the blue enclosed writings and signatures stamped and marked S102 to S136 also wrote the red enclosed signatures similarly stamped and marked Q58 to Q61, Q63, Q65, Q67, Q69, Q71 to Q73, Q75, Q78,

Q81, Q84, Q87, Q89, Q91, Q93, Q95, Q97, Q99, Q101, Q103, Q105, Q107, Q109,

Q111, Q113, Q115, Q117, Q119, Q121, Q123, Q125, Q127, Q129, Q131, Q133,

Q135, Q137, Q139, Q141, Q143, Q144, Q146, Q148 to Q150, Q167 to Q183,

Q185, Q187, Q189, Q191, Q193, Q195, Q197, Q199 to Q201, Q203, Q205 and

Q207.

3. The person who wrote the blue enclosed writings and signatures stamped and marked S137 to S178 also wrote the red enclosed signatures similarly stamped and marked Q184, Q186, Q188, Q190, Q192, Q194, Q196, Q198, Q200,

Q202, Q204, Q206 and Q208.

4. It has not been possible to express any opinion on rest of the items on the basis of material at hand.” 5.Q1 to Q17 are in Ex.P102 (the signature on memorandum of deposit of title deeds) Q18 to Q57 are in Ex.P103 (certified copy of letter issued by J. Sree Ramu for gold metal loan), Q58 to Q73 are in Ex.P54 (letter addressed by Chief Manager

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 145 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010 through DGM for return of cheques), Q74 to Q164, Q164A, Q165 and Q166 are in

Ex.P102(signature on memorandum of deposit of title deeds) and Q209, Q209A,

Q209B and Q210 to Q224 are in Ex.P75 (the letter addressed by S. Ramesh Vittal to the Inspector of Police, CBI under which he furnished the original loan documents) , Q167 to Q208 in LD No.67 (page nos. 1 to 29). Ex.P142 is the signatures marked as Q167 to Q208 in LD No.67. Ex.P98 is specimen writings and signatures of Srinivas Veli marked as S72 to S101. Ex.P97 are specimen writings and signatures of Sri. Jidge Sri Ramu marked as S102 to S136. Ex.P96 are the specimen writings and signatures of Vadali Sitharamanjaneya Udaya Bhaskara

Rao marked as S137 to S178. S18 to S70, S70/1 and S71 are the specimen writings and signatures of Sri. Annapureddy Ramireddy in L.D.No. 882 (1) and it is marked as Ex.P143. As per the instructions of CBI, the signatures of accused were compared with the documents. The Expert has given opinion that the signatures are tallying. The accused no.3 is died. The signatures of A1 and A2 are loan documents and the mortgage documents. Ex.P144 is his opinion/reasons along with covering letter and a page of case abstract.

305.In the cross-examination, PW59 admitted that there are no admitted documents supplied to him by the investigation agency for examination. The prosecution has examined the witnesses PW43 and PW44 to prove that specimen signatures are obtained in the presence of independent witnesses PW43 and

PW44.

306.The evidence of PW43/Dasari Narsaiah shows that the CBI officials have obtained specimen signatures and handwritings of three persons, Bhaskar Rao/A1,

Sree Ramu/A2, Srinivas/A3 in his presence and presence of one Nagabhushan.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 146 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010

They also put their signatures as witnesses. Ex.P96 to P98 are the specimen signatures of A2 and A3. In the cross-examination, PW43 stated that he did not state before CBI that A3 refused to give certain hand writings stating that the signatures appearing on the said documents do not belongs to him. This contradiction is marked as Ex.D1. Further, PW44/Naga Bhushan Rao is another witness at the time of taking thumb impressions of A1 to A3. His evidence also shows that specimen hand writings, signatures and thumb impressions of A1 to

A3 are obtained. The evidence of PW43 and PW44 proves that the CBI has obtained specimens in the presence of said witnesses.

307.No doubt, the signatures of A1 and A3 are obtained in the presence of witnesses, the prosecution is able to prove that the signatures are obtained in the presence of witnesses and expert evidence shows that the signatures are tallying on the questioned documents. In fact, the accused persons have not disputed the documents. Therefore, the evidence of expert is relevant to the fact that the questioned signatures of A1 to A3 are belongs to them.

Sanction order :

308.PW56/D.K.Jain who worked as General Manager, Union Bank of India,

Central office, Mumbai stated that he has given two sanction orders against two bank employees ie.., A1 and A4. As per his evidence, after going through the record and after applying mind, he came to conclusion that it is a fit case for prosecution by competent court of law. Accordingly, he issued sanction order under Ex.P139 and Ex.P140. A4 is already discharged by this Court. The A1 counsel has cross-examined the witness PW56 in lengthy. In the cross- examination, PW56 stated that in the covering he got it mentioned that “We have

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 147 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010 to further inform that major penalty proceedings have already been initiated against Sri V.Murali, K.Karunakar, V.Srinivas, Bhaskar Tayar Rao, N.Gururaj and

K. Sudhakar Rao as regards K.C.Charmanna, Regional Head, Hyderabad, matter has been referred to central vigilance commission for first stage advice. As regards CH.Bhaskar Rao, R.Uma Devi, R.Padmasini of Ramkote branch, we are initiating appropriate action as advised by you”.

309.In the covering letter he also mentioned in the last paragraph “ as regards Sri. S Rajeshwar Rao, chief manager and LSSR Murthy, senior manager of

Regional office Hyderabad, we have already imposed minor penalty of reduction in basic pay by 2 stages in time scale of pay for a period of one year without cumulative effect vide order no. CO:IRD:4274/2010, dated 09.08.2010 and

CO:IRD:4168/2010 dated 03.08.2010 issued to them respectively.

310. He admits he has mentioned in Ex.P140 that in paragraph 8 that K.

Sudhakar Rao was the joint custodian of bullion metal (gold) with Shri V. Murali,

Managar, Union Bank of India, Ramkote Branch, Hyderabad from 01.08.2008 to 16.08.2008 and with Shri K.Karunakar, Senior Manager, union Bank of India,

Ramkote Branch, Hyderabad from 09.09.2008 to 10.09.2008. they had disbursed bullion metal (gold) to M/s Karat-24 without maintaining documents/registers related to stock, sale payment etc. In violation of the instructions given by international Banking Division, Union Bank of India, Cental Office, Union Bank

Bhavan, Nariman point. Mumbai”

311.The above evidence made it clear that PW56 being the Head of the

Department having control over the branch observed that the other staff members of Ramkote branch, the staff members at Regional office also,

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 148 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010 committed major irregularities and instructed for departmental action against them. The PW68 has not considered this one. This Court also under the impression that the A1 is made liable for the acts of other staff members. There is no independent investigation to fix the liability of A1. There is no vicarious liability in the criminal cases, so as to fix the liability on A1. The PW56 would have independently applied its mind while sanctioning the prosecution orders against

A1 about the independent activities of other staff members. PW56 also passed sanction order in routine manner.

The evidence of Investigating officers :

312.PW65/R. Hitendra who worked as SP, Bank Fraud and Security Cell, CBI,

Bangalore deposed that on 18.03.2009, he has received the complaint from PW1 against the accused and he registered the case and issued FIR under Ex.P149. In cross-examination, PW65 stated that the preliminary enquiry is not mandatory in the cases registered under Prevention of Corruption Act. He did not obtain any documents along with complaint from the Assistant General Manager/PW1. PW1 stated there are several investigation reports, but he has not enclosed those reports to Ex.P1. Even at the time of his examination, the Investigation officers have not collected the reports from PW1. PW65 stated that he has not conducted any investigation he cannot vouch the correctness of contents of complaint mentioned in Para Nos.1 to 24. After receipt of complaint he handed over the investigation to Sri.Badenkal/LW72 for further investigation as per law. It means without verification of the contents of complaint and the true facts relating to the complaint, he entrusted the investigation to PW68. The PW68 has spoken about the contents of complaint. In fact, PW65 has not investigated the matter, simply

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 149 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010 he received the complaint and forwarded to PW68 for further investigation.

Therefore, PW65 evidence is relevant to the aspect that the case is registered on the complaint of PW1.

313.The evidence of PW68 shows that on the complaint of PW1, the case was registered and he has investigated the matter. He has recorded the statements of witnesses. Further, he has collected all the documents under seizure memo. The

PW68 has investigated the matter and he has filed the charge sheet. The prosecution got marked the documents Ex.P157 to Ex.P963. There are several documents marked through this witness. The defence has taken plea that mere marking of the document is not sufficient. It is to be proved. As per Indian

Evidence Act, the document is said to be proved, when it is marked through the author of the document. In the instant case, the PW68 is not author of those documents. Even he is not custodian of those documents. But,the prosecution got marked all the documents through PW68.

314.As rightly stated by the defence, the documents have no evidentiary value because PW68 is not author of those documents. Even he is not custodian of documents. He is not aware of the contents of documents, he claims that he has collected the documents during the investigation. He might have collected the documents during investigation, but when the court has to rely upon the document, at first the court look into the fact who is author of the document. If he is not author, whether he dealt with the document during business transactions etc. There are so many cheques and vouchers marked through PW68. PW68 is

Investigating Officer. He is no way concerned with the cheques and vouchers.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 150 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010

Though, the several Bank employees are examined, but prosecution has not marked those documents through the Bank officials. Therefore, there is no evidentiary value to the documents marked through PW68.

315.In the cross-examination of PW68, the defence has asked several questions to PW68 regarding collection of documents by PW68. PW68 has stated that he has collected the documents under seizure memo and the place of seizure of documents mentioned as office of SP, BS&FC, CBI, Bangalore. He has not issued any summons or notices for production of those documents. It shows that whatever the documents submitted by said office of SP, he has collected the same. Further, he stated that even the documents relating to Ramkote branch was collected at Bangalore. It means,PW68 has not visited Ramkote branch, he collected the documents which are furnished at BS&FC, CBI,Bangalore. As a

Investigating Officer, he has to visit the branch and to collect the relevant documents, he is not supposed to collect the documents which are furnished by the Bank. He should know the relevancy of the documents and he has to collect, it shows the negligence on the part of investigating officer. Though, the facts are different, the law laid down by the Courts, time and again is that to admit a document in evidence, the court has to apply its mind and decide the admissibility of document in evidence judicially, mere marking for convenience of reference itself, would not amount to admitting the document by applying judicial mind and it is not a judicial determination as to the admissibility of document in evidence.

316.Further, Ex.P963 is the plain register upon which it is mentioned as

Register of Gold Import. At page No.3 below the writing the person who wrote the

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 151 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010 contents of the page, official designation and office seal is not there, except a seal of Union Bank of India. PW68 admits it is not the printed register of Union Bank of

India. He cannot say who wrote the contents in Page No.3 of Ex.P963. On the bottom of the signature, at Page No.4 (in Ink) the rubber stamp of Union Bank of

India is there. Somebody put the signature. PW68 cannot say the name of the person who signed on it. PW68 admits on Page No.4 (in Ink) there is no signatures of any of the person, in the printed Page No.6 the signatures, one Rubber stamp of Union Bank of India is there. He cannot say to whom the signature belongs.

Further, Printed Page No.70 and 71 of register, except some signatures there is no bank stamp or any seal on the above pages. Printed Page No.72 bank stamp mentioning as For Union Bank of India, Ramkote Branch is affixed, but he cannot say who signed. PW68 did not go to Ramkote Branch and he did not seize

Ex.P963. No witness has spoken about this document. How can this court rely upon this document to connect the accused with the alleged offence.

317.Further, Ex.P183 is the photostat copy, on this document, the Union Bank of India put a rubber stamp of the bank and mentioned as certified. The seal contains initial of some person. The name of the person who initialed on the document is not mentioned. Further, it is not mentioned that it is a true copy of register and it also does not mention also, it was compared with the original and it does not mention the name of the person who has initial on the pages of Ex.P183.

Therefore, this court cannot rely upon the document Ex.P183.

318.As per Ex.P15 the customers who has offered gold metal loan should first be approved by an authority above the branch i.e., Regional Office.PW68 admits in the present case, he has not charge sheeted any of the officers of Regional

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 152 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010

Office and Field General Managers Office in connection with the sanction of gold metal loan, though they are aware that in the gold bullion scheme, the amount cannot be released, the gold should be released.

319.PW68 stated that if the officials of bank violated the banking rules and regulations and if any fraud is committed by the bank officials/borrowers the same is reported to Police Authorities/CBI for taking criminal action, for causing loss to the bank. In case the fraud is committed by borrower, the borrower only liable but not the bank official if the bank official are involved in the said fraud he is also liable along with borrower. It is to be noted that for every act of Manager, cannot be connected with criminal misconduct. In case of any violation or breach of rules or regulations, the person has done the same without any criminal intent, he is liable for departmental enquiry, for every breach, he cannot be prosecuted under criminal law.

320.The prosecution alleged that there was conspiracy among the accused, but the PW68 admitted that there is no such evidence collected by him during his investigation to show that A1 was in agreement with the other accused persons to commit fraud and cause loss to the bank. He admits during his investigation, he did not find anything to show that the A1 was having the assets disproportionate to his income during the relevant period. He did not get any evidence to show that the A1 has directly obtained any benefit from any of the accused herein during the loan transaction.

321.He admits he did not recover any property from A1 to show that he acquired the said property as a quid-pro-quo in connection with the loan transactions in this case from any of the accused. He did not collect any evidence

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 153 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010 to show that the A1 has obtained any pecuniary advantage or intentionally brought enriched himself during the period of his office. Therefore, the criminal prosecution cannot lie against the accused no.1.

322.PW68 stated that as per evidence of PW50, A1 has accepted documents related to the fake property submitted by A3. However he has not specifically stated A1 was having knowledge that those documents are forged documents. A1 had verified the said property and submitted his due diligence certificate with regard to the said property. Due diligence is the certificate given by the branch manager after pre-inspection with regards to authenticity and confirmation of the collateral security available in a place before processing the gold loan application form and forwarding the same to RO for sanction of the same. So, it cannot be stated that in collusion with other accused, the forged documents were accepted by A1.

323.PW68 admitted that as per due diligence report Ex.P17 page No.1, the A1 has given the particulars of the witness with whom he made enquiry and he has mentioned the phone numbers of said persons. The names of witnesses are mentioned as Pranay, Uma Shankar and Veerabramha Chary. PW68 has not examined with said persons. He did not get contact with those persons with the cell numbers mentioned therein. It clearly shows that the Investigating officer has not done fair investigation as the complaint is against A1, so he fixed the liability on A1 without proper enquiry. He would have examined those persons to know the intention of A1. But, he did not take any steps to examine the crucial witnesses.

324.Further, he never tried to contact the said Pranay and two others and he could not get contact with those persons with the cell numbers. He did not

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 154 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010 mention the same in the part-I diary also. He did not mention this fact in the

Charge Sheet also. It clearly shows that without conduct of proper enquiry, with regard to due diligence certificate,he implicated the accused in the present case.

325.Further, PW68 did not personally inspected the Sub-Registrar Office with regard to the alleged forged documents subject matter herein. If he would have visited the Sub-Registrar office and examined the witnesses to the document, the true facts will come into picture. PW68 without visiting the Registrar’s office,basing on documents, come to conclusion that A6 has impersonated Rami

Reddy. It creates a doubt about the prosecution case.

326.PW68 admits that as per Ex.P175(Page No.80) Sri Ram Jewelers have requested to release 100 Kgs of gold through their sister concern M/s.Karat 24. It is also mentioned that “we further under take to make the payment of the entire sum excluding cash margin with interest and commission for the gold receive by us through M/s.Karat-24 within 90 days of release or striking the price which ever is earlier. We hereby authorize you to remit the loan of Rs.7.5 Crores to the

Treasury department whenever it is released by you towards the part payment against the gold taken by us through M/s.Karat-24.”

327.As per Ex.P21/1 there was a request from Ramkote Branch to DGM, IBD for permission to release the gold worth Rs.7.5 Crores to M/s.Karat-24 against the metal loan sanctioned to M/s.Sri Ram Jewelers. PW68 stated that IBD section has declined to have receive the above said letters purported to have been issued by

Ramkote Branch. PW68 admits that he did not go to IBD section, Central Office

Mumbai of Union Bank of India. He did not verify any of the records in that section. PW8 stated that he received the records from IBD through the witness.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 155 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010

He cannot say whether he has received to total records from IBD. It shows PW68 has not fully investigated the matter. Basing on records, he is proceeding. As per the above said documents, there was a special request from Sri Ram Jewellers, in case of release of gold, it should be adjusted towards part payment.

328.It is the duty of the Investigating officer to make enquiry whether the amount was adjusted or not. Whether the said gold was released or not. Without proper investigation with two different controversial statements, the prosecution is coming forward to connect the accused with the alleged offences. As already discussed above, from the facts of the case, it is doubtful whether 100 kgs of gold was delivered to A2 and A3 or not. As per Ex.P109, the actual date of delivery of gold is doubtful. They are mentioning round figure 950 kgs and stated they received the amount for 850 kgs and the Sri Ram Jewellers has to pay the amount for remaining 100 kgs. There is no document to show the delivery of 100 kgs of gold. The record shows that without proper record, without any delivery challans and request from the customer, the Bank staff has delivered the gold several times, even without knowledge of Chief Manager, without obtaining his signatures and when they found there was shortage of 100 kgs of gold, they are contending that the accused have taken said gold. Without any proper record, Sri Ram

Jewellers or Karat-24 cannot be connected with the alleged offences.

329.In the light of the above discussion, in the evidence of PW68, this Court is of the view that the PW68 has not conducted any independent enquiry, he simply collected the documents from the SP office, Bangalore, and basing on the complaint and the oral statements of witnesses connected the accused with the alleged offence. The role of A1 is not properly enquired by PW68. As per Ex.P41,

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 156 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010 there are number of staff members in the Bank, each one is entrusted with separate duties, as per Ex.P123, the report it is clear that the Bank employees are involved in exchange of gold without offering letter even the signatures of Chief

Manager was also not obtained, even at the time of handing over the charge, there was shortage of gold, but no action was taken against the employees, finally the liability is fixed on A1. Further, there is one Senior Officer who is equally responsible along with A1, he was also not made liable, even his role was also not investigated by PW68. In the sanction of loan, there is no role of PW68. Further, there is no evidence to show that the gold was delivered to Karat-24. As the loan documents are submitted by Karat-24, basing on which the loan was sanctioned and credited to IBD and contended that Karat-24 has taken loan and the accused persons are liable. The investigation of PW68 is very defective, so his evidence is not reliable and trustworthy.

330.PW72/Basvaraj is Inspector of Police. He stated that he has further investigated the matter. He sought permission from the court for further investigation. At the time of registration of case, the name of A6 was mentioned as K. Vittal Reddy, with the permission of the court, they have mentioned his name as Rami Reddy. He was suspected offender at the time of issue of FIR. PW72 recorded the statements of PW69 and PW70 and came to conclusion that A6 has impersonated as Rami Reddy. Therefore, he has filed supplementary charge sheet. In the cross-examination, PW72 admitted that the thumb impressions of one person will not match with the thumb impressions of another person. Though, he is knowing this fact, he did not collect the original sale deed and not obtained thumb impressions of A6 and he did not sent to FSL for comparison. The

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 157 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010 identification of A6 by PW69 and PW70 is very weak piece of evidence. They have no prior acquaintance with A6. The identification parade was not conducted. The so called identification for the first time in the court hall is not reliable. Hence, A6 is entitled for benefit of doubt.

331.In the light of the above discussion, this Court is of the view that the prosecution failed to prove that there was conspiracy among the accused persons. PW68 himself admitted that he has not collected any evidence to show that the agreement among the accused persons. Further, the prosecution is able to prove that the title deed of accused no. 3 is a forged document. But, A3 is died, the case is abated against him.

332.Further, there is no evidence to show that A6 has impersonated as Rami

Reddy. Further there is no evidence to show that the remaining accused are having knowledge that the sale deed of A3 is a forged document. There are sufficient reasons for A1 and Regional office to believe that the Registered sale deed is a genuine document as the document was previously mortgaged with the

SBI and the loan was obtained from the said Bank. The A1 and A2 are under bonafide belief that it is a genuine document.

333.Further, there is no proper evidence to show that A5 has issued false valuation certificate. Further, the prosecution failed to prove that the loan amount was misappropriated by A2 and caused pecuniary loss to the Bank. As per their evidence, it was credited to IBD, but not to the account of accused no.2. Further, the delivery of 100 kgs of gold to the accused no.2 is also doubtful. There is no proper maintenance of gold bullion in Ramkote branch, the staff members are involved in committing the irregularities and delivery of gold without vouchers

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 158 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010 and without payment. Further, Murali, the staff member is involved in making wrong entries and not entering into the Karat-24 account, keeping the amount in suspense account and deducting the amount in the suspense account only for which the A1 alone cannot be made liable.

334.The Investigating officer has not enquired about the role of other staff members, there is another senior officer who is equally responsible along with the

A1 herein, but his role was not investigated. It appears when there is shortage of 100 kgs of gold, taking advantage of the documents of Karat-24 in their possession, they alleged that 100 kgs of gold was delivered to Karat-24. The specified dates of delivery of gold was not mentioned. Ex.P109 reflects the total 950 kgs of gold mentioned without mentioning the release of 100 kgs of gold on specific date. The in charge of gold bullion is responsible for it. The staff member was not examined and not added as an accused who actually delivered the said gold. A4 was discharged on the ground that one V. Srinivas has delivered the gold and A4 is not responsible. The prosecution has not objected for it and not preferred any appeal on the order of the discharge application. The same principle is applicable to A1 also.

335.From the record, it is clear that the proper record is not maintained. Katcha register was maintained. There are no entries of delivery of gold and recovery of amount. Even the inspection report indicates the irregularities committed by each staff member in the gold bullion business. If Investigating officer would have investigated about the role of each staff member, there is every possibility to know the actual offender, but basing on the contents of complaint, he moved around A1 and fixed the liability on A1 only without investigating against the other

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 159 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010 staff members.

336.Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act reads as under: “13. Criminal misconduct by a public servant Page 11(1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct,- xxxx

(d) If he,-

(i) by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or

(ii) by abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or

(iii) while holding office as a public servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest; or”

337.The prosecution has sought to cover the case of the appellant under sub- clause (ii) and not under sub-clause (i) and sub-clause (iii). Insofar as sub-clause

(ii) is concerned, it stipulates that a public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct if he, by abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage.

Thus, the ingredients which will be required to be proved are:

(1) The public servant has abused his position.

(2) By abusing that position, he has obtained for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage.

338.It was not even the case set up by the prosecution that appellant had taken that money from some person and had obtained any Criminal Appeal No.

131 of 2007 pecuniary advantage thereby. It was the obligation of the

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 160 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010 prosecution to satisfy the aforesaid mandatory ingredients which could implicate the appellant under the provisions of Section 13(1)(d)(ii).

339.The attempt of the prosecution was to bring the case within the fold of clause (ii) alleging that he misused his official position in issuing the certificate utterly fails as it is not even alleged in the chargesheet and not even iota of evidence is led as to what kind of pecuniary advantage was obtained by the appellant in issuing the said letter.

340.In C. Chenga Reddy & Ors. v. State of A.P., (1996) 10 SCC 193,

This Court held that even when codal violations were established and it was also proved that there were irregularities committed by allotting/ awarding the work in violation of circulars, that by itself was not sufficient to prove that a criminal case was made out. The Court went on to hold:

“On a careful consideration of the material on the record, we are of the opinion that though the prosecution has established that the appellants have committed not only codal violations but also irregularities by ignoring various circulars and departmental orders issued from time to time in the matter of allotment of work of jungle clearance on nomination basis and have committed departmental lapse yet, none of the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are of any conclusive nature and all the circumstances put together do not lead to the irresistible conclusion that the said circumstances are compatible only Criminal Appeal No. 131 of 2007 with the hypothesis of the guilt of the appellants and wholly incompatible with their innocence.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 161 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010

341.In Abdulla Mohd. Pagarkar v. State (Union Territory of Goa, Daman and Diu), (1980) 3 SCC 110, under somewhat similar circumstances this Court opined that mere disregard of relevant provisions of the Financial Code as well as ordinary norms of procedural behaviour of government officials and contractors, without conclusively establishing, beyond a reasonable doubt, the guilt of the officials and contractors concerned, may give rise to a strong suspicion but that cannot be held to establish the guilt of the accused. The established circumstances in this case also do not establish criminality of the appellants beyond the realm of suspicion and, in our opinion, the approach of the trial court and the High Court to the requirements of proof in relation to a criminal charge was not proper.…”

342.Further, the A2 has not received 100 kgs of gold, taking advantage of documents, the loan was sanctioned and he was implicated in this case. All the employees including Regional office also involved in the sanction of loan and delivery of gold. But the Investigating officer has not investigated about their role.

The prosecution has come with two contradictory allegations which are proved to be not correct, so, the accused persons are entitled to benefit of doubt.

343.In the result, A1 is found not guilty for the offence under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention Corruption Act, 1988 and he is acquitted for the said offence under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 162 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010

A1, A2, A5 and A6 are found not guilty for the offences under Sections 120-

B, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC and they are acquitted for the said offences under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C.

A6 is also found not guilty for the offence under Section 419 of IPC and he is acquitted for the said offence under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C.

A1, A2, A5 and A6 shall execute fresh personal bond for Rs.10,000/- each as required under Section 437-A of Code of Criminal Procedure.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer of this Court, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court on this the 27th day of February, 2026.

Sd/-

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined on behalf of prosecution:

PW1Hiriadka Viswanath Rao(Retired), the then Assistant General Manager, Union Bank of India, Field General Manager’s Office (FGMO), J.C.Road, Bangalore. PW2Anil Mehrotra(Retired), the then Chief Manager, Union Bank of India (International Banking Division), Central Office, Mumbai. PW3Selvaraj Amalraj(Retired), the then Chief Manager, Union Bank of India. PW4Chakravarthy Venkata Narasimha Bhagwan(Retired), the then Chief Manager, Union Bank of India. PW5Kode Ramaiah(Retired), the then Senior Manager (Audit), Union Bank of India, Regional Audit Office, Nampally, Hyderabad. PW6Gaddam Jaya Jeevan, the then Senior Manager(Vigilance), Regional Vigilance Cell, Union Bank of India, Hyderabad.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 163 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010

PW7P.Narsimha Prabhu (Retired), the then Assistant General Manager, Union Bank of India, Regional Office, Nampally, Hyderabad. PW8Srinivas Medishetty, the then Manager, Union Bank of India, Khairatabad branch, Hyderabad.

PW9 J. Sudhakar(Retired), the then Senior Manager(Audit), Union Bank of India, Zonal Audit Office, Nampally, Hyderabad. PW10V. Satish Babu, the then Manager(Marketing), Union Bank of India, Himayatnagar branch, Hyderabad. PW11Md.S.Masood Khan, the then Senior Manager (Credit), Union Bank of India, Khairatabad branch, Hyderabad. PW12P. Lakshmi Prasanna, the then Manager(Law), Regional Office, Union Bank of India, Latha Complex, Hyderabad. PW13Hemant Kumar B.V.M(Retired), the then Senior Manager, Union Bank of India, Regional Office, Hyderabad. PW14V.Rama Sharma(Retired), the then Chief Manager, Union Bank of India, Regional Office, Nampally, Hyderabad. PW15Lalitha Annapurna(Retired), the then Senior Manager, Human Resource Management Department, Hyderabad. PW16Rohini Phanasalkar(Retired), the then Assistant Manager, Union Bank of India, Ramkote branch, Hyderabad. PW17J.Venkataramana Murthy(Retired), the then Assistant Manager, Union Bank of India, Ramkote branch, Hyderabad. PW18V.Padma Reddy, the then Clerk-cum-Cashier, Union Bank of India, Banjara hills branch, Hyderabad. PW19D.N.P.Lalithamani(Retired), the then Manager(Scale-II officer), Union Bank of India, Ramkoti branch, Hyderabad. PW20Alamelu S.Rangan, the then Assistant Manager, Union Bank of India, Ramkoti branch, Hyderabad. PW21M.V.L.Prasad, the then Panel Property Valuer, Union Bank of India. PW22I.Srinivas Reddy(Retired), the then Joint Sub-Registrar, Moosapeta, Ranga Reddy District. PW23B.Venkata Ramana(Retired),the then Assistant Manager, Union Bank of India, Ramkote branch, Hyderabad. PW24T. Shyam Sunder Reddy, the then Panel Valuer, Syndicate Bank, Banjara hills branch, Hyderabad. PW25D.Vasudeva Reddy(Retired), the then Sub-Registrar, SRO, Medchal, Ranga Reddy District. PW26K.Raghu Babu(Retired), the then Sub-Registrar, Medchal. PW27K.Srinivasulu, the then Junior Assistant, Tahsildar Office, Qutbullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 164 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010

PW28P.Pratap Reddy(Retired), the then Deputy Tahsildar, Qutbullapur Manadal, Ranga Reddy District. PW29S.Prabhu Das, the then Village Revenue Office, Nizampet Village, Qutbullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. PW30P. Rajendra Prasad, the then Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Begumpet Circle, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. PW31Ranga Naga Laxmi, the then Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, General Bazar, 6th floor, Mayur Kushal Complex, Abids, Hyderabad. PW32K. Raja Reddy, Real Estate business. PW33P. Venkata Narayana, the then Supervisor, M/s. Raasi Developers. PW34P.V.S.N. Raju, one of the Managing Partner of M/s. Raasi Developers. PW35Rajiv Varma, Managing Director, Mahashakti Enterprises Private Limited, Devibagh, Hanuman Tekdi, Hyderabad. PW36S.Ramesh Vittal(Retired), the then Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Personal Banking branch, Gunrock branch, Secunderabad.

PW37Y. Venkat Rao(Retired), the then Branch Manager, Lakshmi Vilas Bank Limited, Malkajgiri, Hyderabad. PW38Vemula Srinivasa Setty, the then Manager, Lakshmi Vilas Bank Limited, Secunderabad. PW39B.Jaya Babu(Retired), the then Chief Manager (Vigilance), State Bank of India, Circle Vigilance Department, Local Head Office, Bank Street, Hyderabad. PW40Paresh Kumar Mahana, the then Manager(Branch Operations), HDFC Bank, Secunderabad. PW41N.Rama Rao(Retired), the then Sub-Manager, Andhra Bank, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. PW42M.Bhaskar(Retired), the then Manager, (A&A), SBI, Commercial branch, Bank Street, Koti, Hyderabad. PW43Dasari Narsaiah(Retired), the then Manager, Syndicate Bank,MJ Road, Nampally, Hyderabad. PW44Nagabushan Rao Appara Raju(Retired), the then Assistant Manager, Syndicate Bank, Nampally branch, Hyderabad. PW45Kote Srinivasa Murthy, the then Senior Manager(Vigilance), Union Bank of India, Regional Vigilance Cell, Hyderabad. PW46Gopalan Raman(Retired), the then Manager Foreign Exchange Department, Union Bank of India, Industrial Financial branch, Kasturba Road, Bangalore. PW47N.Guru Raj(Retired), Assistant Manager, Currency Chest,

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 165 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010

Union Bank of India, Ramkote branch, Hyderabad. PW48P.S.Deeskhithulu(Retired), the then Senior Manager(Credit), Union Bank of India, Regional Office, Nampally, Hyderabad. PW49Krishna Paruchuri, the then Probationary Officer, Regional Office (City), Syndicate Bank, Hyderabad. PW50Sh Chacko Abraham(Retired), the then General Manager, Union Bank of India, FGMO Office, No.23, Archana Complex, Bangalore. PW51Podury Devakinandan Sharma(Retired), the then Chief Manager, Union Bank of India, Ramkote branch, Hyderabad. PW52K.V.Sekar(Retired), the then Manager, the Karur Vysya Bank Ltd., Rashtrapati Road, Secunderabad. PW53Uppala Pradeep Kumar, the then Partner, M/s. Sri Krishna Jewellery Mart, Siddiamber Bazar, Hyderabad. PW54Maddula Jayaveera Venkata Durga Prakash, the then Managing Director, M/s. Tanmai Jewels Private Limited, Ameerpet, Hyderabad.

PW55Dhiresh Talakshi Shah, the then Consultant in Real Estate business. PW56Dhananjay Kumar Jain. K. Jain(Retired), the then General Manager (P&HR), Union Bank of India, Nariman Point, Mumbai. PW57Raganna(Retired), the then Senior Manager, Marketing Cell, Canara Bank, Circle Office, Hyderabad. PW58Yaramala Koteswara Rao, the then Manager, State Bank of India, Circle , Vigilance Department, Local Head Office, Koti, Hyderabad. PW59P.Venugopala Rao(Retired), the then Assistant Government Examiner of Questioned documents, O/o. Govt. Examiner of Questioned documents, Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India, CFI’s Complex, Ramanthpur, Hyderabad. PW60K.A.A.Salam, the then Inspector, CBI, ACB, Hyderabad. PW61G.Padma, the then Customer Service Associate, Union Bank of India, Ramkote branch, Hyderabad. PW62B.S.Phaneendra(Retired), the then Assistant Vice President, Axis Bank Limited, Credit Management Centre, Modi Square, Secunderabad. PW63R.Madhava Rao(Retired), the then Customs Relations Officer, Regional Office (City), Syndicate Bank, Hyderabad. PW64Vikas Kumar, the then Managing Partner, M/s. Raasi Developers, Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad. PW65R.Hithendra, the then Superintendent of Police, CBI, Ganganagar, Bangalore.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 166 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010

PW66Ravi Puranam, the then Deputy Manager, Axis Bank Ltd., R.P.Road, Secunderabad. PW67K.Kishore Kumar Reddy, Advocate, the then Panel Advocate for all branches in Union Bank of India, Hyderabad. PW68Ravindra Badenkal(Retired), the then Inspector of Police, CBI, BSFC, Bangalore. PW69Koti Reddy, the then Proprietor of M/s. Helapuri Spinning Mills, Vijaya Ray, Pedavegi Mandal, West Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh. PW70Manoj Kumar, one of the partners in Cold storage at Rajapur of Mahabub Nagar District. PW71J.Srinivasulu, MRO, Marriguda, Nalgonda District. PW72Basavaraj, the then Inspector of Police, CBI.

Exhibits Marked on behalf of prosecution:

Report vide Ref. No. GMO:672, dated 17-3-2009 issued by Ex.P1 Hiriadka Viswanath Rao to the SP, CBI, BS & FC, Bangalore against V.S.A.U. Bhaskar Rao (A1), Chief Manager, Union Bank of India, Ram Kote Branch, Hyderabad, J. Sri Ram (A2), V. Srinivas (A3) and M/s. Sri Ram Jewellers etc. Seizure memo, dated 4-6-2010 under which Hiriadka Ex.P2 Viswanath Rao have furnished the document named in the memo to the Inspector of Police R. Badenkal -LW.72 CBI, Bangalore. Seizure memo, dated 12-6-2010 under which Hiriadka Ex.P3 Viswanath Rao have furnished the 4 documents named in the memo to the Inspector of Police - R. Badenkal - LW.72 CBI, Bangalore. Seizure memo, dated 4-5-2010 under which Hiriadka Ex.P4 Viswanath Rao have furnished the (3) letters named in the memo to the Inspector of Police R. Badenkal/LW.72 CBI, Bangalore. Seizure memo, dated 23-9-2009 under which Hiriadka Ex.P5 Viswanath Rao have furnished the (50) documents named in the memo to the Inspector of Police R. Badenkal L.W.72 CBI, Bangalore. Seizure memo, dated 23-9-2009 under which Hiriadka Ex.P6 Viswanath Rao have furnished the 16 documents + 2 letters named in the memo to the Inspector of Police R.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 167 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010

Badenkal - LW.72 CBI, Bangalore. Letter vide Ref. No. GMO:CR: 1086:09, dated 17-9-2009 Ex.P7 addressed by Hiriadka Viswanath Rao to R. Badenkal- LW.72, CBI, Bangalore furnishing 32 documents named in the letter in pursuance of the requisition of the CBI, Bangalore. Letter vide Ref. No.GMO:CR:1015:09, dated 2-9-2009 Ex.P8 addressed by Hiriadka Viswanath Rao to R. Badenkal- LW.72, СВІ, Bangalore furnishing 13 documents named in the letter in pursuance of the requisition of the CBI, Bangalore in R.C.No.3(E)/2009. Letter vide Ref. No. GMO:CR:1084:09, dated 14-9-2009 Ex.P9 addressed by Hiriadka Viswanath Rao to R. Badenkal- LW.72, СВІ, Bangalore furnishing 3 documents named in the letter in pursuance of the requisition of the CBI, Bangalore in R.C.No.3(E)/2009. Letter vide Ref. No. FGMO:BNG:659, dated 3-5-2010 Ex.P10 addressed by Hiriadka Viswanath Rao to R. Badenkal-LW.72, СВІ, Bangalore furnishing the service record of V.S.A.U. Bhaskar Rao (A1) & K. Sudhakar Rao, Manager (A4), detailed and enclosed to the letter in pursuance of the requisition of the CBI, Bangalore in R.C.No.3(E)/2009. Letter vide Ref. No. GMO:CR:651/08, dated 23-8-2008 Ex.P11 signed and issued by the Chief Manager, UBI, Credit Department, FGMO, Bangalore along with original sanction note, dated:23-8-2008 of FGMO, Bangalore and other related attested copies of papers in respect of sanction of gold metal loan of Rs.7.50 Crores to M/s. Sri Ram Jewellers, Secunderabad, signed by the Manager, Chief Manager - P.N. Prabhu-L.W.9, Hiriadka Viswanath Rao and approved by General Manager - C. Abraham. Certified true copy of Circular Letter No.LSD:JV:2460:08, Ex.P12

dated 29-2-2008 signed and issued by the Dy. General

Manager (Law), Union Bank of India, Legal Services Division, Credit Recovery and Legal Services Department, Mumbai in respect of fraud in loan accounts negligence on the part of chartered accountants / panel advocates. Certified true copy of Circular Letter No.CRL:SD:MSR:661, Ex.P13

dated 17-7-2008 signed and issued by the Dy. General

Manager (Law) and Chief Law Officer, Union Bank of India Central Office, Mumbai in respect of fraud in housing loan account Letter No.RO:HRMD:2578, dated:7-6-2010 signed and Ex.P14 issued by the Dy. General Manager, Union Bank of India,

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 168 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010

Regional Office, Hyderabad furnishing the tenure of officers worked at Ram Kote Branch and Regional Office and who are connected to the loans in question as sought for by the CBI Police Certified copy of IBD Circular No.5871, dated:30-1-2008 Ex.P15 signed and issued by Dy. General Manager, Union Bank of India, Central Office, Mumbai in respect of Union Bullion Scheme further guidelines. Certified true copy of Office Note No.GMO:P&D:28263, Ex.P16

dated 11-7-2005 of Union Bank of India, General Managers

Office, Chennai in respect of approval of empanelment of M/s. Arjun Consultants (A5) as the panel of valuer.

Original file submitted by the Chief Manager, Regional Ex.P17 Office, Hyderbaad, to the CBI, Hyderabad. (D.No.35) Ex.P17-A Letter No. IBD:AM:2528, dated 19.11.2008 issued by S. Rajendran, General Manager, International Banking Division (IBD), Central Office, Mumbai addressed to the Dy. General Manager, NRO, Hyderabad seeking clarifications on certain serious irregularities pointed out by the Audit Department who visited Ramkote branch, Hyderabad and copy marked to General Manager, FGMO, Bangalore. (page No.277 in D.No.35). Certified copy of Union Bullion- internal control manual Ex.P18 guidelines. Report dated 15-11-2008 given to the General Manager, Ex.P19 International Banking Division, Central office, Mumbai, pertaining to Union Bank of India, Ramkote branch, Hyderabad. Safe-in and Safe-out register, entries are made in page nos. Ex.P20 120 to 125, every branch who are dealing with Bullion Business have to maintain Safe-in and Safe-out registers. Letter dated 29-08-2008 addressed by A1, V.S.A.U. Bhaskar Ex.P21 Rao to Dy. General Manager, IBD, Central Office, Mumbai. Receipt memo dated 03-09-2009 where Selvaraj Amalraj Ex.P22 have handed over Union Billion Internal Control Guidelines and Circulars issued by International banking division, Mumbai up to 2008 to 2009 to Inspector of Police, CBI/BS & FC, Bangalore. Guidelines Ex.P23

Letter dt.01.10.2008 captioned as sale of gold which is Ex.P24 written by PW3 to the Chief Manager, Union Bank of India,

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 169 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010

Ramkote branch, Hyderabad relating to the customer by name Karat-24 Attested copy of the statement of Union Bank of India from Ex.P25 Ramkote branch, Hyderabad to the Dy.General Manager, IDB, Central Office Mumbai, dated 12.8.2008, statement of gold/silver/platinum imported during July, 2008 and sold during July, 2008 (11 sheets). Attested copy of the vouchers of Union Bank of India, Ex.P26 Ramkote branch, Hyderabad. Deposit voucher dated 20.9.2008 to the account of 35842 Ex.P27 to the credit of Karat 24 for Rs.74,50,000/- for the cheque bearing No.709644 drawn on Indian Overseas Bank, Raj Bhavan, Hyderabad and for Rs.74,50,000/- for cheque bearing No.203350 drawn on Allahabad Bank, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad. Deposit voucher dated 29.9.2008 to the account of 35842 Ex.P28 to the credit of Karat 24 for Rs.70,00,000/- for the cheque bearing No.373137 drawn on State Bank of India, Rs.80,00,000/- for cheque bearing No.555494 drawn on Andhra Bank, Ameerpet branch, Hyderabad, for Rs.70,00,000/- for the cheque bearing No.225586 drawn on SBI and Rs.80,00,000/- for the cheque bearing No.555493 drawn on Andhra Bank. Special Report along with enclosures submitted by Kode Ex.P29 Ramaiah and J.Sudhakar, Senior Manager (Audit) (Document No.82 in the list of documents of charge-sheet) Ex.P30 (18 sheets) is the investigation report submitted by PW6 to Central Vigilance Department. Attested true copy of Inter Office Letter dated 04.08.2009 of Ex.P31 A1 along with enclosures, namely, Income-Tax Returns for the Assessment Years 2006-07, 2007-08, Profit and Loss Account, Balance Sheet with Annexures, Financial Statement for the Year Ending March, 2007, Proposal in the format, Credit Monitoring Assessment (CMA) Data, Credit Report of the party and partners/guarantors, 2 Valuation Reports and Rating Model of the Party.(69 sheets) Audit Report dated 04-10-2008 submitted by J. Ex.P32 Sudhakar/PW9 to Audit Head. (4 sheets) Original Cheque No.291921 dated 31.03.2008 for Ex.P33 Rs.14,99,997/- drawn on Union Bank of India, Ramkote Branch in favour of HDFC-SLIC issued from Account No.347702010010933 maintained in the name of J.Ramakrishna Prasad.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 170 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010

Circular Letter No.ELD:3014 dated 06.08.1991 of Union Ex.P34 Bank of India regarding empanelment of Advocates (5 Sheets) Instruction Circular No.5572 dated 04.11.1997 issued by Ex.P35 Union Bank of India on the subject “Equitable Mortgage”. Instruction Circular No.6118 dated 15.11.2000 issued by Ex.P36 Union Bank of India on the subject “Equitable Mortgage” with a direction to follow the same (3 Sheets). Circular No.3/2007 dated 17.02.2007 issued by Legal Ex.P37 Services Department Union Bank of India regarding prevention of fraud(8 Sheets). Circular No.5/2007 dated 20.03.2007 issued by Legal Ex.P38 Services Department, Union Bank of India (2 Sheets). Road map was given for centralization of Back Office Ex.P39 Activities vide instruction Circular No.7745 dated 22.08.2007 issued by Central Office, Union Bank of India, Mumbai, Circular No.6321 dated 01.12.2001 was issued by Central Ex.P40 Accounts Department, Central Office, Union Bank of India, Mumbai regarding suspense account entries, revision in the accounting treatment of certain transactions and procedure for reporting and controlling. letter No.RO.HRMD 2465 dated 27.03.2010, shows the Ex.P41 details of officials working in Ramkote Branch, Union Bank of India at Hyderabad during the year 2008. The suspense voucher dated 12.05.2008 as per this Ex.P42 documents the amount of Rs.60 Lakhs from debit suspense account, credited to the account of M/s.Karat 24. Debit voucher dated 13.05.2008, as per this documents the Ex.P43 amount of Rs.1 crores 10 lakhs was credited to suspense account LCP from the account of M/s.Karat 24. Computer generated ledger entry, Rohini Phanasalkar ID Ex.P44 No.RP266537 is mentioned in the system. Computer generated ledger entries in which Rohini Ex.P45 Phanasalkar ID number is mention. Computer generated ledger entries in which Rohini Ex.P46 Phanasalkar ID number is mention. Computer generated ledger entries in which Rohini Ex.P47 Phanasalkar ID number is mention. Computer generated ledger entries in which Rohini Ex.P48 Phanasalkar ID number is mention.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 171 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010

Computer generated ledger entries in which Rohini Ex.P49 Phanasalkar ID number is mention. Computer generated daily statements of suspense account Ex.P50 showing the entries made in the system to debit the amount from the suspense account local cheques purchase from M/s. Karat 24. Sanction Register of Ramkoti branch from 14.12.2007 to Ex.P51 21.02.2009. Page No.1 in Sl.No.6 the cheque return amount of Rs.50 Ex.P52 Lakhs has been mentioned. Ledger there are entries showing the credit of Rs.1.49 Ex.P53 crores in the account of M/s. Karat – 24 pertaining to LCP (Local cheque purchase) vide Cheque Nos. 709644 of IOB and Cheque No.203350 of Alahabad Bank. In page No.22 of ledger book there was entry about the credit of Rs.1.49 crores Letter addressed by Chief Manager dated 05.12.2008 to the Ex.P54 Deputy General Manager, Regional office, Hyderabad requesting them to return the cheques so as to file cases under Section 138 NI Act in the court as the cheques were dishonored. Duplicate fixed deposit receipts for Rs.1,09,00,000/- Ex.P55 Rs.78,50,000/- and Rs.30,00,000/- in the name of M/s. Srirama Jewellers (Sheet No.1 to 3). Certified Copy of Registered Sale Deed vide Ex.P56 Doc.No.3304/1999. This document was registered in the District Register Office, Ranga Reddy. Certified Copy of Registered Sale Deed Vide Ex.P57 Doc.No.10109/2003 Covering letter addressed by I.Srinivas Reddy to CBI while Ex.P58 furnishing certified copies. The documents were registered during the period of the then Sub-Registrar. The first document was executed when Janaiah was Sub-Registrar and second document was executed when Narasa Reddy Sub-Registrar. Certified copies of details of system generated vouchers pertaining to current account No. 347701010036163 of J sri ram in respect of 5 cheques amounting to Rs. 47.50 lakhs, which were sent for local clearing on 16.9.2008 along with the certificate issued under section 2A of bankers books evidence act. Certified copies of details of system generated vouchers Ex.P59 pertaining to current account No. 347701010036163 of J sri ram in respect of 5 cheques amounting to Rs. 47.50 lakhs,

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 172 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010 which were sent for local clearing on 16.9.2008 along with the certificate issued under section 2A of bankers books evidence act. Panchanama dated 23.12.2009 it bears T. Shyam Sunder Ex.P60 Reddy signatures. The panchanama was conducted in respect of survey No.238 Nizampet village, Qutbullapur mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Original valuation report, dt.23.12.2009 (7 Pages) in Ex.P61 respect of property situated in Sy. No.238, Nizampet village, Qutbullapur Mandal, the extent is of Ac.0-38 Gts. Original Letter dated 04.11.2009 issued by D.Vasudeva Ex.P62 Reddy along with EC and CC of Sale Deed dated 11.01.2007 (Sheet No.1 to 8). As per Encumbrance Certificate dated 03.11.2009 one Ram Reddy was the owner and V.Srinivas was the purchaser. Reply letter of certified copy of document No.928/2007 will Ex.P63 be available in Sub-Registrar Office, Suraram and Medchal Office. As regards certified copies of Pattadar Passbook No.362 along with Pahanies in respect of Sy.No.238 extent Ac.038 Gts situated at Nizampet Village. Extract of 1B Register in respect of Sy.Nos.234 and 238. As Ex.P64 per this document K.Raji Reddy S/o Sita Ram Reddy was Pattedar. Certified copies of pahanies for the years 1971-72, 1972-73, Ex.P65 1973-74, 1974-75, 1975-76, 1976-77, 1977-78, 1978-79, 1979-80, 1980-81, 1981-82, 1982-83, 1983-84, 1984-85, 1985-86, 1986-87, 1987-88, 1988-89, 1989-90, 1990-91, 1991-92, 1992-93, 1993-94, 1994-95-, 1995-96, 1996-97, 1997-98, 1998-99, 1999-2000, 2000-2001, 2001-2002 and 2002-2003. Pahanies for the years 2003-04, 2004-05,2005-06, 2006-07 Ex.P66 and 2007-08. Letter addressed by CBI to P.Pratap Reddy for furnishing Ex.P67 documents Certified copy of 1B Register in respect of Khata No.362. Ex.P68

Certified copy of order No.A/3379/2000 dated 30.05.2000. Ex.P69 This order was passed by the then MRO by name P.Chinnaiah. Letter addressed by Deputy Collector to the Inspector of Ex.P70 Police. As per this document the CBI asked that Pattadar Passbook bearing No.289709 purported to be issued by their(P.Pratap Reddy/PW28) office in the name of K.Rami

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 173 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010

Reddy. Original letter dated 23.12.2009 issued by Commercial Tax Ex.P71 Officer, Begumpet circle, Hyderabad on VAT registration of M/s.Karat 24 with enclosures. Original letter dated 5.12.2009 along with enclosures issued Ex.P72 by Ravindranath Reddy, Commercial Tax Officer, General Bazar circle, Hyderabad on cancellation of VAT registration of M/s. Sriram jewelers( sheets 1 to 3). Original letter which bears P.V.S.N. Raju signature and his Ex.P73 partner on behalf of M/s.Raasi Developers on the letter head of M/s.Raasi Developers to Inspector of CBI dated 12.01.2010. Letter dated 16.11.2009 issued by S.Ramesh Vittal along Ex.P74 with statement of accounts of mortgaged loan, car loan and personal loan of Accused No.3. Letter addressed by S.Ramesh Vittal to the Inspector of Ex.P75 Police, CBI under which he furnished the original loan documents in respect of Loan Account No.30167829490 of Sri. Srinivasa Veli. Letter No. LVB/461/GEN/18/2009-10, dated 2.11.2009 Ex.P76 addressed by Y Venkat Rao to Inspector of CBI, along with documents (24 sheets including covering letter). Letter No. LDB/677/Gen/29/2009-2010 dated 2.11.2009 Ex.P77 issued by Vemula Srinivasa Setty to furnish the documents relating to Karat-24 Account and it bears his signature. Covering Letter which bears the signature of Assistant Ex.P78 General Manager, P.Laxmi Narayana, B.Jaya Babu/PW39 handed over the documents along with this covering letter and also the certified copies of SBI circulars on obtaining of legal opinion from em-paneled Advocates and valuation report from panel valuers. Letter dated 27.10.2009 issued by C.Pawan Kumar to CBI to Ex.P79 handover the documents such as Account opening form 00422320005181 and Sole proprietorship on the name Karat-24. Account 00422320005181 submitted along with VAT Ex.P80 registration certificate on the name of Karat-24. PAN card of J.Sriramu. One cheque also enclosed along with this account. Statement of account 00422320005181. closing balance in Ex.P81 the said account is of Rs.12,85,059.38 Ps. As on 20.10.2008 the closing balance in the said account is of Rs.212.68 Ps.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 174 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010

The account opening form dated 26.06.2002 of Centurion Ex.P82 Bank of Punjab vide account No.102002000003932 standing in the name of M/s.Karat-24. This account opening form is signed by proprietor J.Sriramu. ThestatementofCurrentaccountbearing Ex.P83 No.12282020002805 standing on the name of M/s Karat-24. The said current account number was issued by HDFC Bank after merger of Centurion Bank of Punjab with HDFC in placeofearliercurrentaccountbearing No.102002000003932 covering the period from 01.09.2007 to 18.10.2009. The opening balance on 25.01.2009 is of Rs.1800.89 Ps as per Ex.P83. Letter dated 13.01.2010. It bears N.Rama Rao/PW41 Ex.P84 signature. The Current Account opening form standing on the name of Ex.P85 Karat-24. Statement current account No.022204100101704 standing Ex.P86 in the name of M/s.Karat-24 proprietor J.Sriramu for the period from 03.09.2007 to 30.12.2009. Current account opening form of Tanmai Jewelers Private Ex.P87 Limited represented by MTVVD. Prakash as Managing Director, M.Joshna Lakshmi, Director. Statement of account bearing current account Ex.P88 No.022204100102123 stands on the name of Tanmai Jewelers Private Limited, covering the period from 20.12.2007 to 09.01.2010. As per this statement the balance amount available is Rs.8453/-. Current Opening form stands on the name of Jayalakshmi Ex.P89 Jewelers represented by M.J.V.V.D.Prakash as Managing Director and M.N.V.Satyanarayana as Director along with the enclosures of address proof, Board of Resolution, Memorandum of Association, Certificate of Incorporation. Statement of account of M/s.Jayalakshmi Jewelers Private Ex.P90 Limited for the period 20.12.2007 to 06.01.2010 along with the Annexure. As per this statement the closing balance is Rs.9,496 and odd. Letter dated 27.02.2010 issued on behalf of Assistant Ex.P91 General Manager and Chief Operating Officer, SBI, Commercial Bank, Koti, Hyderabad along with enclosures. Account opening form of current account No.30031071234. Ex.P92 It was opened on 09.01.2006 in the name of M/s.Tanmayee Jewels Private Limited represented by MJVVD. Prakash Managing Director. The said firm having address as Flat

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 175 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010

No.1-206, Divya Shakthi Complex, Ameerpet, Hyderabad – 500016. Account statement of Cash Credit account No.30040703310 Ex.P93 for the period from 01.10.2007 to 31.03.2009. As per the statement the credit limit given in the said account is Rs.20 Crores. As on 31.03.2009 the closing balance is of Rs.22,57,90,970.40 Ps. The cheque number 214910 dated 14.02.2008 for an amount of Rs.35 Lakhs, Cheque No.214916 dated 14.02.2008 for an amount of Rs.35 Lakhs, Cheque No.214928 dated 16.02.2008 for an amount of Rs.35 Lakhs, Cheque No.214929 dated 16.02.2008 for an amount of Rs.40 Lakhs, Cheque No.214931 dated 19.02.2008 for an amount of Rs.40 Lakhs, Cheque No.214954 dated 21.04.2008 for an amount of Rs.40 Lakhs. The above cheques were cleared in our bank. Current account opening form of Sri Sai Swarna Mandir Ex.P94 Jewels Private Limited vide account No.30314783436 dated 22.01.2008 represented by CH,NKD Prasad and MJVVD Prakash. The address mentioned in the account form is 6-3- 790/8, Flat No.1, Bathina Apartments, Ameerpet, Hyderabad – 500016. The closing balance of said account as on 15.04.2008 is Rs.84,100/-. Account statement of Sri Sai Swarna Mandhir Jewels Private Ex.P95 Limited vide account No.30314783436 for the period from 01.10.2007 to 31.03.2009. Cheque No.691202 dated 12.02.2008 for an amount of Rs.30 Lakhs, Cheque No.691203 dated 12.02.2008 for an amount of Rs.35 Lakhs. Specimen signatures, handwritings and thumb impressions, Ex.P96 initials, alphabets, the numbers written by V.S.A.U Bhaskar Rao/A1 (marked as S-137 to S-178) of V.S.A.U Bhaskar Rao/A1. Specimen signatures, alphabets in big and small letters, the Ex.P97 numbers, initials, thumb impressions of Sri Ramu/A2 (marked as S-102 to S-136). Specimen signatures, alphabets in big and small letters, the Ex.P98 numbers, specimen writing of V.Srinivas/A3 (marked as S-72 to S-101). Instruction Circular No.7093 dated 31.01.2005. Ex.P99

Instruction Circular No.7535 dated 20.11.2006 Ex.P100

Circular for appointment of valuers. P. Papa Rao and MVL Ex.P101 Prasad were appointed as Panel Valuers by Head Office. Documents pertaining to Sri Ram Jewellers. Original Ex.P102

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 176 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010

Ramkote Branch file. Chief Manager(V.S.A.U. Bhaskar Rao/A1) signed on the document i.e. Memorandum of deposit of Title deeds. Certified copy of letter dated 30.07.2008 issued by J Ex.P103 Sriramu partner of M/s. Sriram Jewellers requesting for gold metal loan of Rs. 8.50 crores. Original stock register of Gold maintained at Ramkote Ex.P104 Branch from 1.08.2008 to 16.09.2008. Annexure-I-Chart showing details of cheques (purchased to Ex.P105 the debit of suspense account) sent in clearing and reversal to suspense account. This document is pertaining to Karat-

24. Sheet No.21 is pertaining to the particulars of IDs of officers in which the above transactions were carried out. Annexure-II-Chart showing details of cheques (purchased to Ex.P106 the debit of suspense account) presented in clearing and paid. This document is pertaining to Karat-24. Annexure-III-Chart showing details of cheques purchased by Ex.P107 debiting suspense account LCP and credited to the account of M/s.Karat-24 presented in clearing and returned unpaid Annexure-IV-Chart showing details of cheques of M/s Karat- Ex.P108 24 purchased by debiting suspense account LCP, not presented in clearing but credited to the account Annexure-V-Chart showing details of gold received, Ex.P109 delivered and remittances made to treasury, CO Mumbai from 17.03.2008 to 14.10.2008 Annexure-VI-Chart showing details of delivery of gold to Ex.P110 Karat-24 and payments received Account ledger report from 1.02.2008 to 31.10.2008 it is Ex.P111 showing the customs duties paid on various dates on various quantity of gold pertaining to Karat-24. Sheet No.1 is Annexure-A, Sheet No.2 is Annexure-B, Sheet No.3 is Annexure-C, Sheet No.4 is Annexure-D. Annexure C and D are reflecting incidental expenses, miscellaneous expenses. The transactions mentioned in the documents are pertaining to Karat-24. Certified copy of instruction circular No. 7693 dated Ex.P112 06.06.2007 on credit monitoring policy. Certified copy of extract from book of instructions volume-I- Ex.P113 operations – issued by Union Bank of India about use of suspense account. Certified copy of master circular on compliance of KYC Ex.P114 norms and anti money laundering measures issued by UBI

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 177 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010 and personal banking and operation division, central office, Union bank of India. Certified copy of master circular on opening of accounts Ex.P115 issued by UBI and personal banking and operation division, central office, Union bank of India. Certified copy of instruction circular No. 7495 dated Ex.P116 26.09.2006 on delegation of loaning powers. Certified copy of instruction circular No. 7495 dated Ex.P117 26.09.2006 on delegation of loaning powers Certified copy of circular letter No. 1278 dated 4.7.2008 on Ex.P118 allowing of excess over limit/temporary over draft issued by large corporate vertical, central office based on long form audit report as on 31.03.2008. certified copy of instruction circular No. 7658 dated Ex.P119 9.5.2007 on credit process audit. Certified copy of instruction circular No. 7780 dated Ex.P120 1.10.2007 on credit appraisal procedure. Certified copy of instruction circular No. 8063 dated Ex.P121 31.07.2008 on loan policy of UBI for financial year 2008- 2009. Certified copy of vetting report dated 29.09.2008 issued by Ex.P122 Sri. P K Arjun., Advocate, pertaining to Sriram Jewellers. One file maintained in office of FGMO, Bangalore containing Ex.P123 correspondence made in the matter of J Sriram, proprietor of Karat-24 pertaining to Ramkote branch-Gold Bullion. Attested copy of sale deed Ex.P123/ A

One file of showing processing done at Ramkoti branch in Ex.P124 the recommendation of loan of Rs. 7.50 crores to M/s Sriram Jewellers. Further the branch office requested regional office to permit them to purchase local cheques. As per record the sanction was not granted by the regional office. Original letter dated 23.10.2008 issued by Sri. Kishore Ex.P125 kumar reddy, advocate to chief manager, UBI Ramkoti branch with search report and other papers on Nizampet village property. Page No. 4 to 62 is pertaining to the land at Nizampet. Certified copy of debit vouchers of suspense account LCP Ex.P126 and credit vouchers showing cheque purchase and credits to the current account of M/s Karat-24. Certified copies of system generated suspense Account Ex.P127

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 178 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010 -LCP debit vouchers only at Ramkote branch.

1. Ex.P44 to Ex.P50 are confronted to the witness. Certified printouts of system generated computer printouts Ex.P128 showing the details of local cheques purchased at Ramkote branch by debiting suspense account which was deposited by M/s Karat-24 on different dates. The particulars are annexed to seizure memo. Certified copy of entry wise breakup of each item of Ex.P129 suspense account at Ramkote branch as on 31.03.2008. This document was handed over by our bank official to CBI. Letter addressed by regional office to the chief manager Ex.P130 Ramkoti branch on special report on M/s.Karat-24 and M/s.Sriram Jewellers. Sheet No. 10 to 21 Letter dated 1.07.2010, issued by Podury Devakinandan Ex.P131 Sarma as per this document I submitted that the payment services charges made to Sri. L. Raja Reddy, Panel advocate towards submission to legal opinion report dated 14.07.2008 in respect of immovable property Sy. No. 238 Nizampet Village, Qutbullapur Mandal in the matter of bullion metal (Gold) Loan sanctioned to M/s Sri Ram Jewellers and payment/service charges made to P. Papa Rao, Panel valuer towards submission of valuation report. Certified copy of letter dated 30.06.2010 issued by Sri. Ex.P132 Kishore Kumar Reddy, advocate flat No. 201, Shanti Nilayam, Street No.5. Himayatnagar, Hyderabad. As per this document the advocate informed that he filed cases under section 138 of NI act before 20th Additional Chief Metropolitan, Hyderabad. Certified copy of statement of accounts issued by Podury Ex.P133 Devakinandan Sarma along with section 2A of Bankers books evidence act in respect of current account No. 347701010036163 of J. Sriramu for the period from 9.08.2008 to 29.09.2008. Certified copy of statement of current account of Ex.P134 347701010036164 of J Uma Rani from 08.08.2008 to 26.03.2009, Statement of account number pertains to 347701010036163 pertains to J. Sriramu for the period 08.08.2008 to 29.09.2008 with a debit balance of Rs. 86,95,038.00/-, Statement of account pertains to Sriram jewellers account no. 347701010036159 for the period 1.08.2008 to 14.10.2008 with a debit balance of Rs. 4,02,72,953.00. credit voucher as per this document the amount of Rs. Ex.P135 10,000/- has been deposited towards the new account

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 179 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010 opening in the name of Sriram jewellers on 2.08.2008. original letter No.KVB/GEN/124/09-10 dated 20.10.2009 Ex.P136 issued by Chief Manager R.Ganeshan, Karur Vysya Bank, Secunderabad along with copies account opening form and account statement of M/s.Karat 24 and Keshav Jewellary Mart. letter dated 06.05.2010 signed and issued by U Pradeep Ex.P137 Kumar being partner of M/s Sri Krishna Jewellery Mart enclosed documents ledger copy of Karat 24 for the year 2008-09 which is available with them, IT returns for the year 2008-09 pertaining to their M/s Sri Krishna Jewellery Mart, Balance sheet 2008-09 pertaining to M/s Sri Krishna Jewellery Mart. Account ledger and covering letter pertaining to Tanmai Ex.P138 jewels private limited and also the balance sheet pertaining to the financial year 2008-2009. Sanction order against A1/ VSAU Bhaskar Rao dated Ex.P139 14.10.2010 along with covering letter Sanction order against A4/ K Sudhakar dated 14.10.2010. Ex.P140

Observation Mahazar dated 21.04.2009. Ex.P141

Signatures marked as Q167 to Q208 in LD No.67. Ex.P142

S18 to S70, S70/1 and S71 are the specimen writings and Ex.P143 signatures of Sri. Annapureddy Ramireddy in L.D.No. 882 (1) P.Venugopala Rao/PW59 opinion/reasons along with Ex.P144 covering letter and a page of case abstract. Office copy of CBI letter to the Govt. Examiner of Ex.P145 Questioned Documents along with list of questioned documents and specimen documents. Copy of Memorandum of Understanding. Ex.P146

Original covering letter dated 24.02.2010 issued by Ex.P147 Santosh Kumar Bajpai, Vice President, Axis Bank to CBI. Details of account of Karat-24 bearing cash credit account Ex.P148 No.008010300017675 and the current account of Karat-24 008010200020624. FIR issued by R.Hithendra in R.C.No.RC-03(E)/2009 along Ex.P149 with the forwarding letter to Hon’ble Special Judge for CBI Cases along with FIR and complaint. original letter of Axis Bank, Secunderabad Branch dated Ex.P150

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 180 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010 13.01.2010 to Inspector of Police along with attested true copy of current account opening form of Chanda Anjalah Parameshwar (12 Sheets). Attestedcopyofstatementofaccount Ex.P151 No.068010200000480 in the name of M/s.Chanda Anjaiah Parameshwar(HUF) for the period from 01.09.2007 and 31.10.2009 Attested copy of current account opening form of Laxmi Ex.P152 Srinivasa Jewellers (7 Sheets). Attestedcopyofstatementofaccount Ex.P153 No.068010200020651 in the name of Laxmi Srinivasa Jewellers for the period between 01.09.2007 and 31.10.2009. (1 Sheet). Attested copy of current account opening form of Uma Ex.P154 jewellers (11 sheets). Attested copy of account No.068010200020642 in the Ex.P155 name of Uma Jewellers for the period between 01.09.2007 and 30.10.2009. copy of pattadhar passbook of Vittal Reddy vide Patta Ex.P156 No.248. This patta passbook was issued by Sri. G.Singara Charylu the then Thalsildhar of Marriguda, Nalgonda District. It was issued in the year 1995. Certified copy of Account Opening Form of Current Account Ex.P157 No. 347701010036104 of Shri S. Channa Reddy Ramkote branch.( Sheet Nos. 1-9). This document was Seized from CVN bhaghavan chief manager UBI HYD on 2.02.2010. One File of showing processing done at Ramkote branch in Ex.P158 the recommendation of loan of Rs. 7.5 crores to M/s Sri Ram Jewellers. This document was Seized from CVN bhaghavan chief manager UBI HYD on 07.07.2009. Original Letter dated 29.10.2009 issued by Sub-Registrar, Ex.P159 Marredpally on Akanksha Apartment property.(Sheet Nos. 1-

8) This letter was received from sub registrar, maredpalli in Oct 2009. Original Title Deed Register maintained at Ramkote Branch Ex.P160 for the period from 16.09.03 to 29.09.2009. ( Relevant Sheet Nos. 39 & 40). This document was Seized from CVN bhaghavan chief manager UBI HYD 0n 23.10.2009. Certified copy of letter dated 10.12.2008 issued by DGM RO Ex.P161 Hyderabad on de-empanelment of Shri L. Raja Reddy, Shri P.K. Arjun, advocates and Shri P. papa Rao, valuer .( Sheet No.1). This document was Seized from K.S Murthy senior manager vigilance on 12.11.2009

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 181 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010

Original Valuation Report dt. 23.12.2009 given by Sh. T. Ex.P162 Shyam Sunder Reddy on Nizampet Village Property. (Sheet Nos 1-28). This document was received from T.Shyam sunder reddy sysplan associates HyD on 29.12.2009 Original letter dt. 03.12.2009 issued by Sub-Registrar, Ex.P163 Medchal alongwith true copies of Pattadar`s Pass book and Title Passbook of Nizampet Village Property. (Sheet Nos 1-7). This document was received from Sub register medchal in December 2009. Original letter dt.11.11.2009 issued by Sub-Registrar, Ex.P164 Secunderabad alongwith enclosures pertaining to property at Akansha Apartments.(Sheet Nos 1-28). This document was received from Sub register Secunderabad on in November 2009. Original letter dt.19.01.2010 issued by the Director, Andhra Ex.P165 Pradesh State Archives and Research Institute alongwith enclosures.(Sheet Nos 1-11). This document was received from director Rcures research Hyderabad in 01.02.2009. One Original file of State |Bank of India Gunrock Branch, Ex.P166 Vikrampuri, Secunderabad. (Sheet Nos 1-106). This document was received from sri Ramesh S. vital chief manager SBI sec-bad on in januavary 2010. One bunch of papers containing documents and records Ex.P167 maintained at IBD UBI Central Office Mumbai in respect of bullion business in the accounts of M/s Karat 24 and M/s Sri Ram Jewellers from 01-01-2008 to 15-12-09(Sheet Nos 1- 34). This document was received from Anil mehrotra chief manager union bank of India UPI Bombay on 16.12.2009 Letter dated 23.12.2009 issued by Chief Manager, Ramkote Ex.P168 Branch along with certified copies of Authority Cheques from 28.03.2008 to 22.08.2008 (Sheet Nos 1-38). This document with enclosed was received from chief manager UBI Hyderabad on 24.12.2009 Letter dated 29.012.2009 issued by Chief Manager, Ex.P169 Ramkote Branch along with certified copies of Authority Cheques from 28.03.2008 to 14.10.2008. (Sheet Nos 1-19). This document was received from chief manager UBI Hyderabad on in January 2009 Original Debit and Credit vouchers dt.11.10.08 of Ramkote Ex.P170 Branch pertaining to the accounts of M/s. Karat-24 and M/s. Sri Ram Jewellers.(Sheet Nos 1 to 38 41 to 75). (L.D.No.65 Page No.39 and 40 are already marked as Ex.P21 through PW2). This document was seized from CBI CVN Bhagavan, chief manger UBI Hyderabad on 26.02.2010.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 182 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010

Certified copy of position of gold at Ramkote Branch from Ex.P171 31.03.08 to 31.10.08.(Sheet Nos 1-20). This document was seized from K.S Murthi senior manager UBI Hyderabad on 12.11.2009. Original Register of Stock and Despatch of Gold maintained Ex.P172 at Ramkote Branch from 21.11.03 onwards. (Sheet Nos 1- 46).( Relevant Page Nos. 1-12). This document was seized from CVN bhaghavan chief manager UBI Hyderabad. On 02.02.2010. Original Sale Register of Gold (Consignment wise) Ex.P173 maintained at Ramkote Branch from 27.11.20034.(Sheet Nos 1-47)}.( Relevant Page Nos. 2-4). This document was seized from CVN bhaghavan chief manager UBI Hyderabad. On 02.02.2010. Original Postage register maintained at Ramkote branch. Ex.P174 (Sheet Nos 1-148). ( Relevant Page Nos. 1-123). This document was seized from CVN bhaghavan chief manager UBI Hyderabad. On 02.02.2010 Certified copies Application filed U/s 19 of the Recovery of Ex.P175 Debts due to banks and Financial Institutions Act,1993. (Sheet Nos 1-130). This document was seizes from CVN bhaghavan chief manager UBI Hyderabad. On 07.07.2009. Certified copy of Inspection Report dt.07.06.08 issued by Ex.P176 Regional Audit Office, Hyderabad on Union Bullion Scheme at Ramkote Branch. (Sheet Nos 1-3). This document was seizes from CVN bhaghavan chief manager UBI Hyderabad. On 02.02.2010. Certified copy of Inspection Report dt.01.09.08 issued by Ex.P177 Regional Audit Office, Hyderabad on Union Bullion Scheme at Ramkote Branch. (Sheet Nos 1-2). This document was seizes from CVN bhaghavan chief manager UBI Hyderabad. On 02.02.2010. Original letter No. ADV:CVI:702 dated 08.03.10 issued by Ex.P178 Chief Manager, Ramkote Branch to CBI alongwith enclosures. (Sheet Nos 1-347). This document was received from chief manager UBI Hyderabad in march 2010. Annexure I - Chart showing details of cheques (purchased to Ex.P179 the debit of Suspense Account) sent in clearing and reversal to suspense account-LCP.(Sheet Nos 1-23). This document was seizes from PDN Sharma chief manager Hyderabad on 05.07.2010. Letter No. MISC/2010/BVSN dated 13.01.2010 issued by B.V. Ex.P180 Satyanarayana Branch Manager, Canara Bank, M.G.Road,,

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 183 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010

Secunderabad . (Sheet Nos 1-34;1-125 and 1-47). This document was received B.V Satyanarayana manager Canara bank in January 2010. Certified copies of details of system generated vouchers Ex.P181 pertaining to current a/c. No.347701010036163 of Shri. J. sree Ramu in respect of 05 cheques amounting to Rs.47.50 lakhs, which were sent for local clearing on 16.09.2008. ( Sheet Nos No. 1, 3 to7). This document was seized from PDN Sharma chief manager UBI Hyderabad. On 05.07.2010. Certified statement of account of Suspense Account- Local Ex.P182 Cheque Purchase from 02.02.2008 to 27.01.2009 maintained at Ramkote Branch. (Sheet Nos 1-17). This Document was seized from CVN Bhaghavan chief manger UBI Hyderabad on 23.10.2009. Certified copies of cheque Return Register of Ramkote Ex.P183 Branch for the period from 25.02.2008 to 30.07.2008.(Sheet Nos No.1-17). This document was seized from Chief manager UBI Hyderabad on 05.07.2010. Certified copies Statement of Accounts issued by Union Ex.P184 Bank of India, U/s.2A of Bankers Book of Evidence Act, 1891 in respect of Current A/c. No. 347701010036164 standing in the name of Smt.J.Uma Rani.(Sheet Nos.1-2). This document was seized from PDN Sharma chief manager UBI Hyderabad on 05.07.2010. Certified copies Statement of Accounts issued by Union Ex.P185 Bank of India, U/s.2A of Bankers Book of Evidence Act, 1891 in respect of Current A/c. No.347701010035842 standing in the name of M/s. Karat-24 (Sheet Nos.1-21). This document was seized from PDN Sharma chief manager UBI Hyderabad on 05.07.2010. Certified copies Statement of Accounts issued by Union Ex.P186 Bank of India, U/s.2A of Bankers Book of Evidence Act, 1891 in respect of Current A/c. No. 347701010036159 standing in the name of M/s. Sri Ram Jewellers.( Sheet Nos.1-2). This document was seized from PDN Sharma chief manager UBI Hyderabad on 05.07.2010. Certified copies Statement of Accounts issued by Union Ex.P187 Bank of India, U/s.2A of Bankers Book of Evidence Act, 1891 in respect of Term Loan A/c. No. 347706390002648 standing in the name of M/s. Sri Ram Jewellers.( Sheet Nos.1-2). This document was seized from PDN Sharma chief manager UBI Hyderabad on 05.07.2010. Certified copies Statement of Accounts issued by Union Ex.P188 Bank of India, U/s.2A of Bankers Book of Evidence Act, 1891

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 184 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010 in respect of Statement of Suspense A/c-LCP No. 347708250070000 of Ramkote Branch held at Ramkote Branch, Hyderabad.( Sheet Nos.1-21). This document was seized from PDN Sharma chief manager UBI Hyderabad on 05.07.2010. Debit Voucher dt 07.02.2008 for Rs. 16,00,000/- towards Ex.P189 cheque no.551083 on PNB RP Road .(Sheet nos. 6-91). This document seized from CVN Bhaghawan chief manger UBI Hyderabad on 23.10.2009. Debit Voucher dt 07.02.2008 for Rs.15,00,000/- towards chq Ex.P190 no.90031 on UTI Secunderabad. Debit Voucher dt 09.02.2008 for Rs. 59,00,000/- towards Ex.P191 chq no 553403 for Rs.39 lacs and 553406 for Rs.20.00 lacs. Debit Voucher dated 12.02.2008 for Rs.65.00 Lacs towards Ex.P192 chq no 691202 and 691203 for Rs.30.00 and Rs.35.00 Lacs respectively on 581 Commercial Branch. Credit Voucher dated 08.02.2008 for Rs.3.00 Lacs towards Ex.P193 chq no.214902 Credit Voucher dated 12.02.2008 for Rs.59.00 Lacs. Ex.P194

Debit Voucher dated 14.02.2008 for Rs.70.00 Lacs towards Ex.P195 chq no 214910 and 214916 for Rs.35.00 Lacs each on SBI Commercial Branch. Debit Voucher dated 16.02.2008 for Rs.75.00 Lacs towards Ex.P196 chq no 214928 for Rs.35.00 Lacs 214929 for Rs.40.00 Lacs both on SBI Commercial Br. Debit Voucher dated 19.02.2008 for Rs.83.00 Lacs (Chq No. Ex.P197 214931 for Rs.40.00 Lacs on SBI Commercial Br. Chq No. 869607 for Rs.40.00 Lacs on AB Ameerpet Chq No. 90032 for Rs.3.00 Lacs on Axis Bank Secunderabad)-Sheet 01. Debit Voucher dated 21.02.2008 for Rs.50.00 Lacs towards Ex.P198 Chq No.214934 on SBI. Debit Voucher dated 22.02.2008 for Rs.47.00 Lacs towards Ex.P199 Chq No.696737 on UCO Bank Abids. Credit Voucher dated 20.02.2008 for Rs.47.00 Lacs. Ex.P200

Debit Voucher dated 22.02.2008 for Rs.60.00 Lacs towards Ex.P201 chq No.869606 on AB Ameerpet. Credit Voucher dated 22.02.2008 for Rs.60.00 Lacs. Ex.P202

Debit Voucher dated 25.02.2008 for Rs.51.00 Lacs towards Ex.P203 Chq No.869609 on AB Hyderabad.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 185 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010

Debit voucher dated 28.02.2008 for Rs.60.00 Lacs towards Ex.P204 Chq No.869614 on AB Ameerpet. Debit Voucher dated 28.02.2008 for Rs.99.70 Lacs. Ex.P205

Debit Voucher dated 28.02.2008 for Rs.4.00 Lacs towards Ex.P206 Chq No. 231808 on Corporation Bank Hyderabad. Debit Voucher dated 01.03.2008 for Rs.110.00 Lacs (Chq Ex.P207 No. 869612 Rs.50.00 Lacs Andhra Bank Ameerpet. Chq No. 867407 Rs.60.00 Lacs KVB) - Sheet 01. Debit Voucher dated 03.03.2008 for Rs.28.00 Lacs towards Ex.P208 Chq.No.867411 on KVB Hyderabad. Debit Voucher dated 03.03.2008 for Rs.10.00 Lacs towards Ex.P209 Chq.No. 23343. Credit Voucher dated 01.03.2008 for Rs. 110.00 Lacs Ex.P210 towards (Chq.No. 869612 for Rs. 50 lacs on Andhra Bank Armeerpet Chq. No. 867407 for Rs. 60 lacs on KVB) -Sheet 01. Credit Voucher dated 03.03.2008 for Rs.28.00 Lacs Towards Ex.P211 Chq.No. 867411 on KVB Hyderabad. Debit voucher dated 04.03.2008 for Rs.9.00 Lacs towards Ex.P212 Chg.No. 489899 Canara Bank RP. Debit Voucher dated 04.03.2008 for Rs.300.00 Lacs Ex.P213 (Chq.No. 553410 for Rs.30.00 Lacs on AB Ameerpet, Chq. No.553409 for Rs.90.00 Lacs on AB Ameerpet, Chq.No.867413 for Rs.90.00 Lakhs on KVB, Chq.No.867500 fir Rs.90.00 Lacs on KVB) -Sheet 01 Debit Voucher dated 05.03.2008 for Rs.1,72,90,100/- Ex.P214 Chq.No.9574 for Rs.8,90,100/- on SBI, Basheer bagh. Chq.No.867417 for Rs.80.00 Lacs on KVB. Chq.No.867499 for Rs.84.00 Lacs on KVB – Sheet 01. Credit Voucher dated 04.03.2008 for Rs.300.00 Lacs Ex.P215 (Chq.No.553410 for Rs. 30.00 Lacs on AB Ameerpet Chq.No.553409 for Rs. 90.00 Lacs on AB Ameerpet Chq.No. 867413 for Rs.90.00 Lacs on KVB Chq.No. 867500 for Rs.90.00 Lacs on KVB)-Sheet 01 Debit Voucher dated 06.03.2008 for Rs.180.00 Lacs towards Ex.P216 Chq No. 867421 and 867422 for Rs.90.00 Lacs each on KVB Hyderabad. Debit Voucher dated 08.03.2008 for Rs.90.00 Lacs. Ex.P217 Chq.No.867432 on KVB Hyd., Debit Voucher dated 10.03.2008 for Rs.300.00 Lacs Ex.P218 (Chq.No.867439 for Rs.90.00 Lacs on KVB Chq.No.2945 for

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 186 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010

Rs.20.00 Lacs on Axis Bank Chq No. 867437 for Rs.100.00 Lacs on KVB Chq.No. 867498 for Rs.90.00 Lacs on KVB) -Sheet 01. Credit Voucher dated 05.03.2008 for Rs.1,72,90,100/- Ex.P219 (Chq.No. 9574 for Rs.8,90,100/- on SBI Basheer Bagh Chq.No. 867417 for Rs.80.00 lacs on KVB Chq No. 867499 for Rs.84.00 Lacs on KVB) -Sheet 01 Credit Voucher dated 10.03.2008 for Rs.300.00 Lacs Ex.P220 (Chq.No.867439 for Rs.90.00 Lacs on KVB Chq.No.2945 for Rs.20.00 Lacs on Axis Bank Chq.No. 867437 for Rs.100.00 Lacs on KVB Chq.No. 867498 for Rs.90.00 Lacs on KVB) -Sheet 01 Debit Voucher dated 11.03.2008 for Rs.300.00Lacs Ex.P221

Debit Voucher dated 12.03.2008 for 300.00 Lacs Ex.P222 (Chq.No.2940 for Rs.18.00 Lacs Axis Bank Secunderabad Chq No. 90030 for Rs.30.00 Lacs Axis Bank Secunderabad Chq.No.869598 for Rs.71.00 Lacs AB Ameerpet Chq No. 867449 for Rs.86.00 Lacs, KVB Chq.No.867447 for Rs.95.00 Lacs, KVB) -Sheet 01 Debit Voucher dated 13.03.2008 for Rs.200.00 Lacs (Chq Ex.P223 No. 895952 for Rs.80.00 Lacs on KVB Chq No. 895953 for Rs.80.00 Lacs on KVB Chq No. 90045 for Rs.20.00 Lacs Axis Bank Secunderabad Chq No.2941 for Rs.20.00 Lacs Axis Bank) -Sheet 01 Debit Voucher dated 17.03.2008 for Rs.3,00,05,000/-(Chq Ex.P224 No. 553427 for Rs.90.00 Lacs Chq No. 895958 for Rs.97.00 Lacs on KVB Chq No. 214956 for Rs19,95,000/-on SBI - Sheet 01 Chq No.869619 for Rs.93,10,000/- on Andhra Bank)- Sheet 01. Debit Voucher dated 19.03.2008 for Rs.270.00 Lakcs (Chq Ex.P225 No. 207858 for Rs.30.00 Lacs on KVB, Chq No.50709 for Rs.30.00 Lacs on KVB, Chq No.553509 for Rs90.00 lacs on Andhra bank, Cheque No.553510 for Rs.12.00 lacs on Andhra Bank)- Sheet 01. Debit Voucher dated 08.04.2008 for Rs.1,80,02,100/-(Chq Ex.P226 No. 553533 for Rs.60.00 Lacs on AB, Ameerpet Chq No. 553532 for Rs.60.00 Lacs on AB, Ameerpet Chq No. 895991 for Rs. 47.00 lacs on Andhra Bank Chq No.9627 for Rs.13,02,100/-on IDBI Bank, Basheerbagh) - Sheet 01 Debit Voucher dated 10.04.2008 for Rs.185.00 lacs (Chq No. Ex.P227 207867 for Rs.20.00 Lacs on Centurion Bank, Hyderabad Chq No. 895999 for Rs.40.00 Lacs on KVB,Sec'bad Chq No. 553537 for Rs.35.00 lacs on Andhara Bank, Ameerpet Chq

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 187 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010

No.553538 for Rs.30.00 lacs on Andhara Bank, Ameerpet Ch.no.553539 for Rs.60.00 lacs on Andhra Bank, Ameerpet - Sheet 01 Credit voucher dt. 10.04.2008 for Rs.185.00 lacs- Proceeds Ex.P228 of cheque Nos: (Chq no.207867 for Rs.20 lacs on Centurion Bank Ch. No.895999 for Rs.40 lacs on KVB, Sec'bad Ch.No 553537 for Rs.35 lacs on AB, Ameerpet Ch.No.553538 for Rs.30.00 lacs on AB, Ameerpet Ch.No.553539 for Rs.60 lacs on AB, Ameerpet) - Sheet 01 Debit Voucher dated 12.04.2008 for Rs.240.00 lacs (Chq No. Ex.P229 553543 for Rs.90.00 lacs on Andhara Bank, Ameerpet Chq No. 207869 for Rs.30.00 Lacs on Centurion Bank, Punjagutta Chq No. 892956 for Rs.60.00 Lacs on KVB,Sec'bad Chq.No.892955 for Rs.60.00 lacs on KVB,Secbad) - Sheet 01 Credit voucher dt. 12.04.2008 for Rs.240.00 lacs- Proceeds Ex.P230 of cheque Nos: (Chq No. 553543 for Rs.90.00 lacs on Andhra Bank, Ameerpet Chq No. 207869 for Rs.30.00 Lacs on Centurion Bank, Punjagutta Chq No. 892956 for Rs.60.00 Lacs on KVB, Sec'bad Chq.No.892955 for Rs.60.00 lacs on KVB,Secbad) - Sheet 01 Debit Voucher dated 15.04.2008 for Rs.200.00 lacs (Chq No. Ex.P231 972769 for Rs.30.00 Lacs on HDFC, SD Road Chq No. 207870 for Rs.30.00 Lacs on Centurion Bank, Punjagutta Chq.No.892959 for Rs.70.00 lacs on KVB,Secbad Chq No. 553549 for Rs.70.00 lacs on Andhra Bank, Ameerpet) - Sheet 01 Debit voucher dt. 16.04.2008 for Rs. 190.00 lacs Ex.P232

Debit Voucher dated 21.04.2008 for Rs.200.00 lacs (Chq No. Ex.P233 501936 for Rs.80.00 Lacs on Andhra Bank, Ameerpet Chq No. 972783 for Rs.20.00 Lacs on HDFC Chq. No.212954 for Rs.40.00 lacs on KVB, Secunderabad Chq No. 892971 for Rs60.00 lacs on KVB, Secunderabad-) - Sheet 01 Debit Voucher dated 22.04.2008 for Rs.200.00 lacs (Chq No. Ex.P234 893974 for Rs31.00 lacs on KVB, Sec'bad Chq.No.207873 for Rs.30.00 lacs on Centurion Bank, Hyd) Chq.No.214953 for Rs.39.00 lacs on SBI, Commercial, Hyd. Chq No. 501937 for Rs.70.00 Lacs on Andhra Bank, Ameerpet Chq No. 972785 for Rs.30.00 Lacs on HDFC - Sheet 01 Credit Voucher dated 21.04.2008 for Rs.200.00 lacs: Ex.P235 Proceeds of (Chq No. 501936 for Rs.80.00 Lacs on Andhra Bank, Ameerpet Chq No. 972783 for Rs.20.00 Lacs on HDFC Chq.No.212954 for Rs.40.00 lacs on KVB, Sec’bad Chq No.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 188 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010 892971 for Rs.60.00 lacs on KVB,Sec'bad) - Sheet 01 Debit Voucher dated 24.04.2008 for Rs.200.00 lacs (Chq No. Ex.P236 972791 for Rs.30.00 Lacs on HDFC Chq.No.214952 for Rs.40.00 lacs on SBI, Commercial Chq No. 892976 for Rs.40.00 lacs on KVB, Sec'bad Chq.No.207874 for Rs.30.00 lacs on Centurion Bank, Hyd (Cheque details not mentioned) for Rs.60.00 lacs) - Sheet 01 Chq.No.214953 for Rs.39.00 lacs on SBI, Commercial Credit Ex.P237 voucher dated 22.04.2008 for Rs.200.00 lacs: Proceeds of: (Chq No. 501937 for Rs.70.00 Lacs on Andhra Bank, Ameerpet Chq No. 972785 for Rs.30.00 Lacs on HDFC Chq No. 893974 for Rs.31.00 lacs on KVB, Sec'bad Chq.No.207873 for Rs.30.00 lacs on Centurion Bank, Hyd) - Sheet 01. Debit Voucher dated 24.04.2008 for Rs.201.00 lacs Ex.P238 (Chq.No.207875 for Rs.40.00 lacs on Centurion Bank, Hyd Chq.No.501942 for Rs.81.00 lacs on Andhra Bank, Ameerpet Chq No. 972793 for Rs.30.00 Lacs on HDFC Chq No. 892986 for Rs.50.00 lacs on KVB, Secbad) Sheet 01 Credit Voucher dated Nil for Rs.200.00 lacs - Proceeds of Ex.P239 Cheque Nos. (Chq.No.214952 for Rs.40.00 lacs on SBI, Commercial Chq No. 892976 for Rs.40.00 lacs on KVB, Sec'bad Chq No. 972791 for Rs.30.00 Lacs on HDFC Chq.No.207874 for Rs.30.00 lacs on Centurion Bank, Hyd Chq.No.501939 for Rs.60.00 lacs on AB, Ameeerpet) - Sheet 01 Debit Voucher dated 25.04.2008 for Rs.200.00 lacs Ex.P240 (Chq.No.207876 for Rs.30.00 lacs on Centurion Bank, Hyd Chq.No.501944 for Rs.60.00 lacs on Andhra Bank, Ameerpet Cho No. 892984 for Rs.40.00 lacs on KVB, Sec'bad Chq No. 972795 for Rs.30.00 Lacs on HDFC Chq.No.214986 for Rs.40.00 lacs on SBI) -Sheet 01. Credit Voucher dated 24.04.2008 for Rs.201.00 lacs- Ex.P241 Proceeds of cheque No. Chq.No.501942 for Rs.81.00 lacs on Andhra Bank, Ameerpet (Chq.No.207875 for Rs.40.00 lacs on Centurion Bank, Hyd Chq No. 972793 for Rs.30.00 Lacs on HDFC Chq No. 892986 for Rs.50.00 lacs on KVB, Sec'bad) - Sheet 01 Credit voucher dt.25.04.2008 for Rs.200.00 lacs. Ex.P242

Debit Voucher dated 28.04.2008 for Rs.200.00 lacs (Chq No. Ex.P243 972801 on HDFC, Sec'bad Chq.No.501946 on Andhra Bank, Ameerpet Chq No. 892993 on KVB, Sec’bad Chq No.214982 on SBI, Commercial) -Sheet 01

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 189 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010

Debit voucher dt.28.04.2008 for Rs.20 lacs- Ch.No.343462 Ex.P244 on Syndicate Bank, Ranigunj and Ch.no.489795 on Canara Bank, RP Road. Credit voucher dt.28.04.2008- Reversal of the above entry Ex.P245 fate 20 lakhs Credit voucher dt.28.04.2008 for Rs.200.00 lacs. Ex.P246

Debit Voucher dated 29.04.2008 for Rs.200.00 lacs (Chq No. Ex.P247 972804 for Rs.40.00 Lacs on HDFC Chq.No.501948 for Rs.72.00 lacs on Andhra Bank, Ameerpet Chq No. 892996 for Rs.50.00 lacs on KVB, Sec'bad Chq.No.214983 for Rs.38.00 lacs on S81) Sheet 01 Debit Voucher dated 30.04.2008 for Rs.44.00 lacs (Chq No. Ex.P248 343501 for Rs.10.00 Lacs on Syn.Bk, Ranigunj Chq. No.489953 for Rs.20.00 lacs on Canara Bank, RP Road Chq No. 878205 for Rs.14.00 lacs on LVB, Ranigunj)-Sheet 01 Debit Voucher dated 30.04.2008 for Rs.200.00 lacs (Chq No. Ex.P249 892999 for Rs.60.00 lacs on KVB, Sec'bad Chq.No.501949 for Rs.90.00 lacs on Andhra Bank, Ameerpet Chq. No.214984 for Rs.50.00 lacs on SBI) -Sheet 01 Credit voucher dated 30.04.2008 for Rs.200.00 lacs- Ex.P250 Proceeds of: (Chq No. 892999 for Rs.60.00 lacs on KVB, Sec'bad Chq. No.501949 for Rs.90.00 lacs on Andhra Bank, Ameerpet Chq.No.214984 for Rs.50.00 lacs on SBI) -Sheet 01. Credit voucher dated 02.05.2008 for Rs.200.00 lacs- Ex.P251 Proceeds of: (Chq.No.893000 for Rs.60.00 lacs on KVB, Sec'bad Chq No. 214985 for Rs.40.00 lacs on SBI, Commercial Chq. No.614101 for Rs.80.00 lacs on AB, Ameerpet Chq. No.972810 for Rs.20.00 lacs on HDFC.) -Sheet 01. Debit voucher dt.03.05.2008 for Rs.100 lacs (Ch.No.614103 Ex.P252 for Rs.80 lacs on AB, Ameerpet Ch.No.207877 for Rs.20 lacs on Centurion Bank, Hyd.) - Sheet 01 Credit voucher dated 05.05.2008 for Rs.44.00 lacs. Ex.P253

Credit voucher dated 07.05.2008 for Rs.220.00 lacs- Ex.P254 Proceeds of: (Chq No. 215164 for Rs.50.00 Lacs on KVB, RP Road Chq.No.214995 for Rs.50.00 lacs on SBI Commercial Cho No. 614110 for Rs.60.00 lacs on AB, Ameerpet Chq.No.614111 for Rs.60.00 lacs AB, Ameerpet) -Sheet 01 Debit voucher dated 07.05.2008 for Rs.220.00 lacs (Chq No. Ex.P255 215164 for Rs.50.00 Lacs on KVB, RP Road. Chq.No.214995 for Rs.50.00 lacs on SBI Commercial Chq No. 614110 for

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 190 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010

Rs.60.00 lacs on AB, Ameerpet Chq.No.614111 for Rs.60.00 lacs AB, Ameerpet) -Sheet 01. Debit voucher dated 07.05.2008 for Rs.220.00 lacs (Chq No. Ex.P256 215163 for Rs.50.00 Lacs on KVB, RP Road Chq.No.214996 for Rs.50.00 lacs on SBI Commercial Chq No. 614108 for Rs.60.00 lacs on AB, Ameerpet Chq.No.614109 for Rs.60.00 lacs on AB, Ameerpet) - Sheet 01. Debit voucher dated 08.05.2008 for Rs.120.00 lacs (Chq No. Ex.P257 614112 for Rs.60.00 lacs on AB, Ameerpet Chq.No.614113 for Rs.60.00 lacs on AB, Ameerpet) - Sheet 01 Debit voucher dated 07.05.2008 for Rs.220.00 lacs (Chq No. Ex.P258 972821 for Rs.20.00 Lacs on HDFC, Secbad Chq.No.(not clear) for Rs.30.00 lacs on Centurion Bank Chq No. 215171 for Rs.50.00 lacs on KVB Chq.No.614114 for Rs.60.00 lacs on AB, Ameerpet Chq.No.614115 for Rs.60.00 lacs on AB, Ameerpet) - Sheet 01 Debit voucher dated 09.05.2008 for Rs.200.00 lacs- Wrong Ex.P259 debit to Suspense Account.

Clearing cheques on hand on 18.04.2008 reversed Credit Ex.P260 voucher dated for Rs.120.00 lacs-Proceeds of (Chq No. 614112 for Rs.60.00 lacs on AB, Ameerpet Chq.No.614113 for Rs.60.00 lacs on AB, Ameerpet) - Sheet 01 Credit voucher dated 07.05.2008 for Rs.220.00 lacs- Ex.P261 Proceeds of (Chq No.215163 for Rs.50.00 Lacs on KVB,Sec'bad Chq.No.214996 for Rs.50.00 lacs on SBI, Commercial Bank Chq No. 214108 for Rs.60.00 lacs on AB, Ameerpet Chq.No.614109 for Rs.60.00 lacs on AB, Ameerpet)- Sheet 01 Debit voucher dt. 10.05.2008 for Rs.44 lacs (Ch.No.489953 Ex.P262 for Rs.10 lacs returned Ch.No.343501 for Rs.20 lacs returned Ch.878205 for Rs.14 lacs returned.) - Sheet 01 Debit voucher dt. 10.05.2008 for Rs.220.00lacs Ex.P263 (Ch.No.614117 for Rs.60 lacs on AB, Ameerpet Ch.No.614116 for Rs.60 lacs on AB, Ameerpet Ch.No.215173 for Rs.100 lacs on KVB, Sec'bad) - Sheet 01 Credit voucher dt.12.05.2008 for Rs.60 lacs. Ex.P264

Debit voucher dated 12.05.2008 for Rs.300.00 lacs (Chq No. Ex.P265 235010 for Rs.40.00 Lacs on SBI, Commercial Bank Chq.No.215175 for Rs.120.00lacs on KVB, Sec'bad Chq.No.614120 for Rs.60.00 lacs on AB, Ameerpet Chq.No.614121 for Rs.80.00 lacs on AB, Ameerpet) - Sheet 01

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 191 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010

Credit Voucher dated 13.05.2008 for Rs.110.00 Lacs. Ex.P266

Debit Voucher dated 13.05.2008 for Rs.220.00 Lacs towards Ex.P267 (Chq.No. 215177 for Rs.120.00 Lacs of KVB Chq.No. 614122 for Rs.50.00 Lacs of AB Ameerpet Chq No. 235011 for Rs.50.00 Lacs of SBI Commercial Branch) - Sheet 01 Credit Voucher dated 13.05.2008 for Rs.220.00 Lacs Ex.P268 (Chq.No. 215177 for Rs. 120.00 Lacs on KVB Chq.No. 614122 for Rs.50.00 Lacs on AB Ameerpet Chq. No. 235011 for Rs.50.00 Lacs on SBI Commercial branch) - Sheet 01. Credit Voucher dated 12.05.2008 for Rs.300.00 Lacs Ex.P269 Chq.No. 215175 for Rs.120.00 Lacs on KVB (Chq. No. 235010 for Rs.40.00 Lacs on SBI Commercial Branch Chq No. 614120 for Rs.60.00 Lacs on AB Ameerpet Chq.No. 614121 for Rs.80.00 Lacs on AB Ameerpet) -Sheet 01. Credit Voucher dated 14.05.2008 for Rs.300.00 Lacs Ex.P270 (Chq.No. 235015 for Rs. 40.00 Lacs on SBI Commercial Branch Chq.No. 215179 for Rs.120.00 Lacs on KVB Chq.No. 614125 for Rs. 50.00 Lacs on AB Ameerpet Chq.No. 614124 for Rs. 90.00 Lacs on AB Ameerpet) - Sheet 01 Debit Voucher dated 15.05.2008 for Rs.300.00Lacs (Chq.No. Ex.P271 215183 for Rs.120.00 Lacs on KVB Chq.No. 235016 for Rs. 40.00 Lacs on SBI Commercial Branch Chq.No. 614127 for Rs. 50.00 Lacs on AB Ameerpet Chq.No. 614126 for Rs. 90.00 Lacs on AB Ameerpet) -Sheet 01 Credit Voucher dated 15.05.2008 for Rs. 300.00 Lacs (Chq. Ex.P272 No. 215183 for Rs.120.00 Lacs on KVB Chq. No. 235016 for Rs. 40.00 Lacs on SBI Commercial Branch Chq.No. 614127 for Rs. 50.00 Lacs on Andhra Bank Ameerpet Chq. No. 614126 for Rs. 90.00 Lacs on AB Ameerpet.) - Sheet 01. Debit Voucher dated 16.05.2008 for Rs. 300.00 Lacs Ex.P273 (Chq.No. 621707 for Rs. 50.00 on Andhra Bank Ameerpet Chq. No. 215184 for Rs. 120.00 on KVB Chq.No. 614129 for Rs. 50.00 on Andhra Bank Ameerpet Chq.No 614128 for Rs. 80.00 on Andhra Bank Ameerpet.) - Sheet 01 Debit Voucher dated 29.09.2008 for Rs. 300.00 Lacs (Chq. Ex.P274 No. 373137 for Rs. 70.00 on SBI Commercial Branch Chq. No. 555494 for Rs. 80.00 on Andhra Bank Chq. No. 225586 for Rs. 70.00 on SBI Commercial Branch Chq. No. 555493 for Rs. 80.00 on AB.) - Sheet 01 Credit voucher dt.26.09.2007 for Rs.18,90,000/- (1 page) Ex.P275 (MR No. 517/09/35-704). Cash remittance voucher dt.26.09.2007 for Rs.16,20,000/- Ex.P276

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 192 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010

Cheque No.034001 dt.26.09.2007 for Rs.35,00,000/- Ex.P277 favouring MMTTC Ltd (01 page) Cheque No.34005 dt.01.12.2007 for Rs.26,25,000/- Ex.P278 favouring MMTC Ltd (1 page) Cheque No.34008 dt.04.12.2007 for Rs.30,00,000/- Ex.P279 favouring MMTC Ltd (1 page) Cheque No.34007 dt.05.12.2007 for Rs.24,00,000/- Ex.P280 favouring MMTC Ltd (1 page) Cash remittance voucher dt.06.12.2007 for Rs.32,00,000/- Ex.P281

Cheque No.34006 dt.06.12.2007 for Rs.57,00,000/- Ex.P282 favouring MMTC Ltd (1 page) Cheque No.34009 dt.08.12.2007 for Rs.25,00,000/- Ex.P283 favouring MMTC Ltd (1 page) Cash remittance voucher dt.31.12.2007 for Rs.61,00,000/- Ex.P284

Cheque No.34013 dt.31.12.2007 for Rs.11,00,000/- Ex.P285 favouring MMTC Ltd (1 page) cheque No.34012 dt.31.12.2007 for Rs.50,00,000/- Ex.P286 favouring MMTC Ltd (1 page) Cheque No.34017 dt.07.01.2008 for Rs.50,00,000/- Ex.P287 favouring Keshav Jewellery Mart(1 page) Cash remittance voucher dt.07.01.2008 for Rs.50,00,000/- Ex.P288

Cash remittance voucher dt.08.01.2008 for Rs.50,00,000/- Ex.P289

Cheque No.34018 dt.08.01.2008 for Rs.50,00,000/- Ex.P290 favouring Keshav Jewellery Mart(1 page) Cash remittance voucher dt.09.01.2008 for Rs.50,00,000/- Ex.P291

Cheque No.34020 dt.09.01.2008 for Rs.50,00,000/- Ex.P292 favouring Keshav Jewellery Mart(1 page) Cash remittance voucher dt.10.01.2008 for Rs.50,00,000/- Ex.P293

Cheque No.34021 dt.10.01.2008 for Rs.50,00,000/- Ex.P294 favouring Keshav Jewellery Mart(1 page) Cash remittance voucher dt.11.01.2008 for Rs.2,00,000/- Ex.P295

Cash remittance voucher dt.11.01.2008 for Rs.48,00,000/- Ex.P296

Cheque No.34019 dt.09.01.2008 for Rs.50,00,000/- Ex.P297 favouring Keshav Jewellery Mart(1 page)

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 193 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010

Cash remittance voucher dt.11.01.2008 for Rs.51,00,000/- Ex.P298

Cheque No.34023 dt.11.01.2008 for Rs.51,00,000/- Ex.P299 favouring MMTC Ltd (1 page) Cash remittance voucher dt.12.01.2008 for Rs.34,50,000/- Ex.P300

Cash remittance voucher dt.12.01.2008 for Rhodink Ex.P301 Rs.15,50,000/- Cheque No.34022 dt.11.01.2008 for Rs.50,00,000/- Ex.P302 favouring Keshav Jewellery Mart(1 page) Cashremittancevoucherdt.16.01.2008for Ex.P303 Rs.1,10,00,000/- Cheque No.34024 dt. 16.01.2008 for Rs.78,00,000/- Ex.P304 favouring MMTC Ltd (1 page) Cheque No.34025 dt.16.01.2008 for Rs.32,00,000/- Ex.P305 favouring MMTC Ltd (1 page) Cash remittance voucher dt.23.01.2008 for Rs.50,00,000/- Ex.P306

Cheque No.34027 dt. 23.01.2008 for Rs.50,00,000/- Ex.P307 favouring Keshav Jewellery Mart(1 page) Cash remittance voucher dt.24.01.2008 for Rs.22,68,000/- Ex.P308

Cash remittance voucher dt.24.01.2008 for Rs.67,50,000/- Ex.P309

Cheque No.34028 dt.24.01.2008 for Rs.50,00,000/- Ex.P310 favouring Keshav Jewellery Mart (1 page) Cheque No.34029 dt.24.01.2008 for Rs.40,00,000/- Ex.P311 favouring Keshav Jewellery Mart (1 page) Cash remittance voucher dt.30.01.2008 for Rs.31,00,000/-(1 Ex.P312 page) Cash remittance voucher dt.30.01.2008 for Rs.50,000/-(1 Ex.P313 page) Cheque No.34039 dt.30.01.2008 for Rs.20,00,000/- Ex.P314 favouring Keshav Jewellery Mart(1 page) Cash remittance voucher dt.30.01.2008 for Rs.43,00,000/-(1 Ex.P315 page) Cash remittance voucher dt.30.01.2008 for Rs.20,00,000/-(1 Ex.P316 page) Cheque No.34040 dt.30.01.2008 for Rs.20,00,000/- Ex.P317 favouring Keshav Jewellery Mart(1 page) Cheque No.34038 dt.30.01.2008 for Rs.50,00,000/- Ex.P318

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 194 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010 favouring Keshav Jewellery Mart (1 page) Cash remittance voucher dt.30.01.2008 for Rs.1,50,000/-(1 Ex.P319 page) Cash remittance voucher dt.30.01.2008 for Rs. 10,00,000/- Ex.P320 (1 page) Cheque No.34037 dt.29.01.2008 for Rs.9,00,000/- favouring Ex.P321 MMTC Ltd (1 page) Cheque No.34041 dt.30.01.2008 for Rs.7,00,000/- favouring Ex.P322 MMTC Ltd (1 page) Cash remittance voucher dt.31.01.2008 for Rs.99,00,000/-(1 Ex.P323 page) Cash remittance voucher dt.31.01.2008 for Rs.11,00,000/-(1 Ex.P324 page) Cash remittance voucher dt.31.01.2008 for Rs.94,00,000/-(1 Ex.P325 page) Cash remittance voucher dt.31.01.2008 for Rs.75,00,000/-(1 Ex.P326 page) Cheque No.34042 dt.31.01.2008 for Rs.50,00,000/- Ex.P327 favouring Keshav Jewellery Mart(1 page) Cheque No.34044 dt.31.01.2008 for Rs.1,69,00,000/- Ex.P328 favouring MMTC Ltd (1 page) Cheque No.34043 dt.31.01.2008 for Rs.60,00,000/- Ex.P329 favouring MMTC Ltd (1 page) Cash remittance voucher dt.01.02.2008 for Rs.7,50,000/-(1 Ex.P330 page) Cash remittance voucher dt.01.02.2008 for Rs1,00,00,000/- Ex.P331 (1 page) Cash remittance voucher dt. 01.02.2008 for Rs2,00,000/-(1 Ex.P332 page) Cash remittance voucher dt. 01.02.2008 for Rs.39,00,000/- Ex.P333 (1 page) Cash remittance voucher dt.01.02.2008 for Rs.43,50,000/-(1 Ex.P334 page) Cheque No. 34045 dt.01.02.2008 for Rs.50,00,000/- Ex.P335 favouring Keshav Jewellery Mart(1 page) Cheque No. 34046 dt.01.02.2008 for Rs.40,00,000/- Ex.P336 favouring Keshav Jewellery Mart (1 page) Cheque No.34049 dt.31.01.2008 for Rs.1,02,00,000/- Ex.P337 favouring Keshav Jewellery Mart(1 page)

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 195 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010

Cash remittance voucher dt.02.02.2008 for Rs.49,500/-(1 Ex.P338 page)] Cash remittance voucher dt.02.02.2008 for Rs.2,18,00,000/- Ex.P339

Cheque No.34047 dt.01.02.2008 for Rs.50,00,000/- Ex.P340 favouring Keshav Jewellery Mart (1 page) Cheque No.34048 dt.01.02.2008 for Rs.40,00,000/- Ex.P341 favouring Keshav Jewelleryn Mart(1 page) Cash remittance voucher dt.02.02.2007 for Rs.8,10,000/-(1 Ex.P342 page) Cash remittance voucher dt.02.02.2008 for Rs.13,00,000/-(1 Ex.P343 page) Cheque No.34050 dt.02.02.2008 for Rs.1,47,00,000/- Ex.P344 favouring MMTC Ltd (1 page) Cash remittance voucher dt.05.02.2008 for Rs.50,000/-(1 Ex.P345 page) Cash remittance voucher dt.05.02.2008 for Rs.81,00,000/- Ex.P346

Cheque No.34057 dt.05.02.2008 for Rs.60,00,000/- Ex.P347 favouring Keshav Jewellery Mart(1 page) Cash remittance voucher dt. 05.02.2008 for Rs.11,00,000/- Ex.P348 (1 page) Cash remittance voucher dt.05.02.2008 for Rs.20,00,000/-(1 Ex.P349 page) Cheque No.34056 dt.05.02.2008 for Rs.50,00,000/- Ex.P350 favouring Keshav Jewellery Mart(1 page) Cash remittance voucher dt. 05.02.2008 for Rs.19,00,000/- Ex.P351 (1 page) Cash remittance voucher dt. 05.02.2008 for Rs.1,00,000/-(1 Ex.P352 page) Cheque No.34055 dt.04.02.2008 for Rs.22,90,000/- Ex.P353 favouring MMTC Ltd (1 page) Cash remittance voucher dt.06.02.2008 for Rs.1,57,00,000/- Ex.P354 (1 page) Cheque No.34060 dt.06.02.2008 for Rs.20,00,000/- Ex.P355 favouring Keshav Jewellery Mart(1 page) Cheque No.34059 dt.06.02.2008 for Rs.70,00,000/- Ex.P356 favouring Keshav JewelleryMart (1 page) Cheque No.34053 dt.04.02.2008 for Rs.11,90,000/- Ex.P357 favouring Chanda Anjaih

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 196 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010

Cheque No.34062 dt.06.02.2008 for Rs.55,00,000/- Ex.P358 favouring MMTC Ltd (1 page) Cash remittance voucher dt.07.02.2008 for Rs.91,00,000/-(1 Ex.P359 page) Cheque No.34064 dt.07.02.2008 for Rs.40,00,000/- Ex.P360 favouring Keshav Jewellery Mart(1 page) Cheque No.34063 dt.07.02.2008 for Rs.50,00,000/- Ex.P361 favouring Keshav Jewellery Mart(1 page) Cash remittance voucher dt.07.02.2008 for Rs.4,00,000/-(1 Ex.P362 page) Cash remittance voucher dt.07.02.2008 for Rs.27,00,000/-(1 Ex.P363 page) Cash remittance voucher dt. 07.02.2008 for Rs.16,00,000/- Ex.P364 (1 page) Cash remittance voucher dt.07.02.2008 for Rs. 16,00,000/- Ex.P365 (1 page) Cash remittance voucher dt.07.02.2008 for Rs.15,00,000/-(1 Ex.P366 page) Cash remittance voucher dt.07.02.2008 for Rs.11,00,000/-(1 Ex.P367 page) Cheque No.34065 dt. 07.02.2008 for Rs.90,00,000/- Ex.P368 favouring Keshav Jewellery Mart(1 page) Debit voucher dt.07.02.2008 for Rs.6000/- towards charges Ex.P369 on 2 cheques 90031 & 551083 (1 page) Cash remittance voucher dt.08.02.2008 for Rs.50,000/-(1 Ex.P370 page) Cash remittance voucher dt.08.02.2008 for Rs.45,00,000/-(1 Ex.P371 page) Cash remittance voucher dt.08.02.2008 for Rs.4,00,000/-(1 Ex.P372 page) Cash remittance voucher dt.08.02.2008 for Rs.51,00,000/-(1 Ex.P373 page) Cheque No.34061 dt.06.02.2008 for Rs.26,21,000/- Ex.P374 favouring Chanda Anjaiah Parameswar (1 page) Cash remittance voucher dt.08.02.2008 for Rs.6,00,000/-(1 Ex.P375 page) Cheque No.34068 dt.08.02.2008 for Rs.30,00,000/- Ex.P376 favouring Keshav Jewellery Mart(1 page) Cheque No.34066 dt.08.02.2008 for Rs.50,00,000/- Ex.P377

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 197 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010 favouring Keshav Jewellery Mart(1 page) Cash remittance voucher dt.08.02.2008 for Rs.19,00,000/-(1 Ex.P378 page) Cash remittance voucher dt.08.02.2008 for Rs.8,00,000/-(1 Ex.P379 page) Cash remittance voucher dt.08.02.2008 for Rs.44,00,000/-(1 Ex.P380 page) Cash remittance voucher dt.08.02.2008 for Rs.14,00,000/-(1 Ex.P381 page) Debit voucher dt.08.02.2008 for Rs.1500/- towards LCP Ex.P382 charges (1 page) Cash remittance voucher dt.08.02.2008 for Rs.3,00,000/-(1 Ex.P383 page) Cash remittance voucher dt.08.02.2008 for Rs.2,70,000/-(1 Ex.P384 page) Cheque No.34067 dt.08.02.2008 for Rs.90,00,000/- Ex.P385 favouring Keshav Jewellery Mart(1 page) Cash remittance voucher dt.09.02.2008 for Rs.9,50,000/-(1 Ex.P386 page) Cash remittance voucher dt.09.02.2008 for Rs.20,00,000/- Ex.P387 (1 page) Credit voucher dt 09.02.2008 for Rs.59 lacs. (1 page) Ex.P388

Debit voucher dt.09.02.2008 for Rs.8000/- towards Interest Ex.P389 on LCP. (1 page) Cash remittance voucher dt.09.02.2008 for Rs.91,00,000/-(1 Ex.P390 page) Cheque No.34069 dt.08.02.2008 for Rs.90,00,000/- Ex.P391 favouring Keshav Jewel Mart(1 page) Cheque No.34070 dt.08.02.2008 for Rs.90,00,000/-Mart(1 Ex.P392 page) favouring Keshav Jewellery Mart(1 page) Cash remittance voucher dt.11.02.2008 for Rs. Ex.P393 1,25,00,000/-(1 page) Cheque No.34072 dt.11.02.2008 for Rs.50,00,000/- Ex.P394 favouring Keshav Jewellery Mart(page) Cheque No.34073 dt.11.02.2008 for Rs.50,00,000/- Ex.P395 favouring Keshav Jewellery Mart(1 page) Cash remittance voucher dt.11.02.2008 for Rs.60,000/-(1 Ex.P396 page)

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 198 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010

Cash remittance voucher dt.11.02.2008 for Rs.1,35,00,000/- Ex.P397 (1 page) Cheque No.34074 dt.11.02.2008 for Rs.50,00,000/- Ex.P398 favouring Keshav Jewellery Mart(1 page) Cheque No.34075 dt.11.02.2008 for Rs.40,00,000/- Ex.P399 favouring Keshav Jewellery Mart(1 page) Cheque No.34058 dt.11.02.2008 for Rs.71,00,000/- Ex.P400 favouring MMTC Ltd (1 page) Credit voucher (LCP) dt.12.02.2008 for Rs. 65 lacs-Two Ex.P401 cheques 691202 for Rs30 lacs and 691203 for Rs 35 lacs, both drawn onSBI, Hyderabad (1 page) Debit voucher dt.12.02.2008 for Rs.9620/- towards charges Ex.P402 on LCP. (1 page) Cash remittance voucher dt.12.02.2008 for Rs.24,00,000/-(1 Ex.P403 page) Cheque No.34071 dt.09.02.2008 for Rs.23,83,000/- Ex.P404 favouring Chanda Anjaih Parameswar(1 page) Cheque No.34077 dt.12.02.2008 for Rs.50,00,000/- Ex.P405 favouring Keshav Jewellery Mart(1 page) Cheque No.34078 dt.12.02.2008 for Rs.30,00,000/- Ex.P406 favouring Keshav Jewellery Mart(1 page) Cash remittance voucher dt. 12.02.2008 for Rs.23,00,000/- Ex.P407 (1 page) Cash remittance voucher dt.12.02.2008 for Rs.5,45,000/-(1 Ex.P408 page) Debit voucher dt.12.02.2008 for Rs.59,00,160/- return of Ex.P409 cheques for Rs.59 lacs and charges 160/-(1 page) Cash remittance voucher dt.12.02.2008 for Rs.54,00,000/-(1 Ex.P410 page) Cash remittance voucher dt.12.02.2008 for Rs.59,00,000/-(1 Ex.P411 page) Cheque No.34076 dt.12.02.2008 for Rs.90,00,000/- Ex.P412 favouring Keshav Jewellery Mart(1 page) Cash remittance voucher dt. 13.02.2008 for Rs.4,00,000/-(1 Ex.P413 page) Cash remittance voucher dt.13.02.2008 for Rs.55,00,000/-(1 Ex.P414 page) Cash remittance voucher dt.12.02.2008 for Rs.1,00,000/-(1 Ex.P415 page)

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 199 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010

Cash remittance voucher dt.12.02.2008 for Rs.58,00,000/-(1 Ex.P416 page) Cash remittance voucher dt.12.02.2008 for Rs.96,00,000/-(1 Ex.P417 page) Cheque No.34080 dt.13.02.2008 for Rs.90,00,000/- Ex.P418 favouring Keshav Jewellery Mart(1 page) Cheque No.3408 dt.13.02.2008 for Rs.50,00,000/- favouring Ex.P419 Keshav Jewellery Mart (1 Page) Cheque No.34082 dt. 13.02.2008 for Rs.70,00,000/- Ex.P420 favouring Keshav Jewellery Mart(1 page) Cheque No.34083dt. 13.02.2008 for Rs.4,00,000/- favouring Ex.P421 MMTC Ltd (1 page) Debit voucher dt.14.02.2008 for Rs.17,740/- towards Ex.P422 interest on LCP(1 page) Credit voucher dt. 14.02.2008 for Rs. 70 lacs Two cheques Ex.P423 214910 & 214916 for Rs.35 lacs each drawn on SBI, Hyderabad Cashremittancevoucherdt.14.02.2008for Ex.P424 Rs.1,11,00,000/-(1 page) Cheque No.34084 dt.03.02.2008 for Rs.90,00,000/- Ex.P425 favouring Keshav Jewellery Mart(1 page) Cheque No.34085 dt.14.02.2008 for Rs.90,00,000/- Ex.P426 favouring Keshav Jewellery Mart(1 page) Credit voucher dt.15.02.2008 for Rs.17,76,000/- Ch No. Ex.P427 116474 on UBI, Begumpet(1 page) Cash remittance voucher dt.15.02.2008 for Rs.79,00,000/-(1 Ex.P428 page) Cash remittance voucher dt.15.02.2008 for Rs.1,05,00,000/- Ex.P429 (1 page) Cheque No.34086 dt.14.02.2008 for Rs.59,00,000/- Ex.P430 favouring Chanda Anjaih Parameswar (1 page) Cheque No.34088 dt.15.02.2008 for Rs.50,00,000/- Ex.P431 favouring Keshav Jewellery Mart(1 page) Cheque No.34087 dt.15.02.2008 for Rs.90,00,000/- Ex.P432 favouring Keshav Jewellery Mart(1 page) Credit voucher (LCP) dt.16.02.2008 for Rs. 75 lacs-Two Ex.P433 cheques 214928 & 214929 for Rs.35 lacs & Rs.40 lacs drawn on SBI, Hyderabad(1 page) Debit voucher dt. 16.02.2008 for Rs.14,890/- towards Ex.P434 interest on LCP(1 page)

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 200 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010

Cash remittance voucher dt.16.02.2008 for Rs.1,00,000/-(1 Ex.P435 page) Cash remittance voucher dt.15.02.2008 for Rs.92,00,000/-(1 Ex.P436 page) Cash remittance voucher dt.16.02.2008 for Rs.42,00,000/-(1 Ex.P437 page) Cheque No.34089 dt.15.02.2008 for Rs.90,00,000/- Ex.P438 favouring Keshav Jewellery Mart(1 page) Cheque No.34090 dt.15.02.2008 for Rs.90,00,000/- Ex.P439 favouring Keshav Jewellery Mart(1 page) Cheque No.34091dt. 16.02.2008 for Rs.33,00,000/- Ex.P440 favouring MMTC Ltd (1 page) Cashremittancevoucherdt.18.02.2008for Ex.P441 Rs.1,00,00,000/-(1 page) Cheque No.34093dt. 18.02.2008 for Rs.50,00,000/- Ex.P442 favouring Keshav Jewellery Mart(1 page) ChequeNo.34094dt.17.02.2008forRs.50,00,000/- Ex.P443 favouring Keshav Jewellery Mart(1 page) Cash remittance voucher dt. 18.02.2008 for Rs.69,50,000/- Ex.P444 (1 page) Cash remittance voucher dt. 18.02.2008 for Rs.11,00,000/- Ex.P445 (1 page) Cash remittance voucher dt. 18.02.2008 for Rs.19,00,000/- Ex.P446 (1 page) Cheque No.34092 dt.18.02.2008 for Rs.90,00,000/- Ex.P447 favouring Keshav Jewellery Mart (1 page) Cheque No.34095 dt. 18.02.2008 for Rs.10,00,000/- Ex.P448 favouring MMTC Ltd (1 page) Credit voucher (LCP)dt. 19.02.2008 for Rs.83 lacs - Cheque Ex.P449 214931 for Rs 40 lacs on SBI, Hyderabadm Ch.No.869607 for Rs.40 lacs on Andhra Bank, Ameerpet and CH.No.090032 for Rs.3 lacs on UBI, RP Road, Secunderabad Debit voucher dt.19.02.2008 for Rs.12,336/- towards Ex.P450 interest on LCP(1 page) Cash remittance voucher dt. 19.02.2008 for Rs.97,00,000/- Ex.P451 (1 page) Cheque No.34096 dt.19.02.2008 for Rs.90,00,000/- Ex.P452 favouring Keshav Jewellery Mart(1 page) Cheque No.34097 dt.19.02.2008 for Rs.90,00,000/- Ex.P453 favouring Keshav Jewellery Mart(1 page)

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 201 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010

Cash remittance voucher dt.20.02.2008 for Rs.1,00,000/-(1 Ex.P454 page) Cash remittance voucher dt.20.02.2008 for Rs.1,79,00,000/- Ex.P455 (1 page) Cheque No.34099 dt.20.02.2008 for Rs.50,00,000/- Ex.P456 favouring Keshav Jewellery Mart(1 page) Cheque No.34098 dt.20.02.2008 for Rs.90,00,000/- Ex.P457 favouring Keshav Jewellery Mart (1 page) Cheque No.34100 dt.20.02.2008 for Rs.40,00,000/- Ex.P458 favouring Keshav Jewellery Mart(1 page) Cash remittance voucher dt.20.02.2008 for Rs.41,00,000/- Ex.P459 (1 page) Cheque No.47351 dt.20.02.2008 for Rs.41,00,000/- Ex.P460 favouring MMTC (1 page) Cash remittance voucher dt.21.02.2008 for Rs.47,00,000/-(1 Ex.P461 page) Debit voucher dt.20.02.2008 for Rs.7,150/- towards interest Ex.P462 on LCP(1 page) Credit voucher dt.21.02.2008 for Rs.50 lacs- Ch.No.214934 Ex.P463 on SBI, Commercial Bank, Hyderabad. (1 page) Debit voucher dt.21.02.2008 for Rs.7,610/- towards interest Ex.P464 on LCP(1 page) Cash remittance voucher dt.21.02.2008 for Rs.12,00,000/-(1 Ex.P465 page) Cheque No.47353 dt.21.02.2008 for Rs.90,00,000/- Ex.P466 favouring Keshav Jewellery Mart(1 page) Debit voucher dt.21.02.2008 for Rs.1,855/- towards interest Ex.P467 on LCP Credit voucher for Rs.12,20,000(1 page), Ch.No. 792923 for Ex.P468 Rs.8,54,000/- on DCB, Hyderabad, Ch.No.22265 for Rs.1,20,000/-on ICICI, Himayatnagar Ch. No.796589 for Rs.2,46,000/- on DCB, Hyderabad Cash remittance voucher dt.21.02.2008 for Rs.2,00,000/-(1 Ex.P469 page) Cash remittance voucher dt. 21.02.2008 for Rs.80,000/-(1 Ex.P470 page) Cash remittance voucher dt.21.02.2008 for Rs.1,67,00,000/- Ex.P471 (1 page) Cheque No.47354 dt.21.02.2008 for Rs.90,00,000/- Ex.P472 favouring Keshav Jewellery Mart(1 page).

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 202 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010

Cheque No.47352 dt.21.02.2008 for Rs.40,00,000/- Ex.P473 favouring Keshav Jewellery Mart(1 page) Cheque No.47355 dt. 21.02.2008 for Rs. 70,50,000/- Ex.P474 favouring MMTC (1 page) Cash remittance voucher dt. 21.02.2008 for Rs.55,00,000/- Ex.P475 (1 page) Cheque No.47360 dt. 21.02.2008 for Rs.55,00,000/- Ex.P476 favouring MMTC(1 page) Debit voucher dt.22.02.2008 for Rs.2,750/- towards interest Ex.P477 on LCP(1 page) Debit voucher dt.22.02.2008 for Rs.20720/- towards Ex.P478 charges on ch.86906(1 page) Credit voucher dt.22.02.2008 for Rs.60 lacs (LCP) Cheque Ex.P479 869606 drawn on Andhra Bank, Ameerpet(1 page) Cash remittance voucher dt.22.02.2008 for Rs.1,00,000/-(1 Ex.P480 page) Cash remittance voucher dt.22.02.2008 for Rs.2,66,00,000/- Ex.P481 (1 page) Cheque No.47356 dt.22.02.2008 for Rs.90,00,000/- Ex.P482 favouring Keshav Jewellery Mart (1 page) ChequeNo.47357dt.22.02.2008forRs.50,00,000/- Ex.P483 favouring Keshav Jewellery Mart(1 page) ChequeNo.47358dt.22.02.2008forRs.60,00,000/- Ex.P484 favouring Keshav Jewellery Mart(1 page) ChequeNo.47359dt.22.02.2008forRs.30,00,000/- Ex.P485 favouring Keshav Jewellery Mart(1 page) Cheque No.47364 dt. 22.02.2008 for Rs.97,00,000/- Ex.P486 favouring MMTC(1 page) Cashremittancevoucherdt.23.02.2008for Ex.P487 Rs.1,72,00,000/-. ChequeNo.47362dt.22.02.2008forRs.90,00,000/- Ex.P488 favouring Keshav Jewellery Mart(1 page) ChequeNo.47363dt.22.02.2008forRs.90,00,000/- Ex.P489 favouring Keshav Jewellery Mart(1 page) Credit voucher dt.23.02.2008 for Rs.47 lacs- Ch.No.696737 Ex.P490 on UCO Bank, Abids(1 page) Debit voucher dt.22.02.2008 for Rs.14000/-- commission on Ex.P491 LCP(1 page) Cheque No.47365 dt. 23.02.2008 for Rs.47,00,000/- Ex.P492

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 203 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010 favouring MMTC(1 page) Debit voucher dt.25.02.2008 for Rs.50,00,080/- Cheque Ex.P493 returned +charges (1 page) Credit voucher dt.25.02.2008 for Rs.51 lacs- LCP Cheque Ex.P494 No.869609 drawn on Andhra Bank, Ameerpet. Debit voucher dt.25.02.2008 for Rs.10,060/- Interest on LCP Ex.P495

Debit voucher dt 25.02.2008 for Rs.60,00,080/-cheque Ex.P496 869606 return including charges Rs.80/- (1 page) Cash remittance voucher dt. 26.02.2008 for Rs.60,00,000/- Ex.P497 (1 page). Credit voucher dt. 28.02.2008 for Rs.4 lacs - LCP Ex.P498 Ch.No.231808 on Corp. Bank, Hyderguda. Credit voucher dt. 28.02.2008 for Rs.60 lacs - LCP Ex.P499 Ch.No.869614 on Andhra Bank, Ameerpet Debit voucher dt. 28.02.2008 for Rs.12,840/- Interest on Ex.P500 LCP for 2 days Credit voucher dt.28.02.2008 for Rs.12,40,000/- Ex.P501 Ch.No.351613 for Rs.1 lac on HDFC, Himayatnagar Ch.No. 796692 for Rs.5,20,000/- on DCB Hyderabad Credit voucher dt. 28.02.2008 for Rs.11 lacs- Ch.No.406722 Ex.P502 on SBI, Secunderabad Creditvoucherdt.27.02.2008forRs.5,50,000/- Ex.P503 Ch.No.696742 on UCO Bank, Abids, Hyderabad Credit voucher dt. 28.02.2008 for Rs.2,00,000/-- Ex.P504 Ch.No.933979 and 926693 for Rs.1 lac each on ICICI Bank, Khairatabad Cheque No.47368 dt.27.02.2008 for Rs.90,00,000/- Ex.P505 favouring Keshav Jewellery Mart(1 page) Credit voucher dt. 28.02.2008 for Rs.99,70,000/-LCP Ex.P506 Ch.No.446331 for Rs.12,00,000/- on SBI, Secunderbad Ch.No.144755 for Rs.8,70,000/- on Mahajan Bank, Secunderabad Ch.No.2934 for Rs.19,00,000/- on UTI Bank, Secunderabad, Ch.No.867401 and 867402 for Rs.30 lacs each on KVB, RP Road, Secunderabad Debit voucher dt.28.02.2008 for Rs.15000/- towards Ex.P507 charges for 3 days. Cheque No.47369 dt.27.02.2008 for Rs.90,00,000/- Ex.P508 favouring Keshav Jewellery Mart(1 page) Debit voucher dt. 29.02.2008 for Rs.1,50,080/- ch.905391 Ex.P509 retumed + charges Rs.80/-

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 204 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010

Debit voucher dt.29.02.2008 for Rs.1,50,080/- ch.on Vijaya Ex.P510 Bank returned + charges Rs.80/- Debit voucher dt. 29.02.2008 for Rs.1,50,080/- ch. returned Ex.P511 + charges Rs.80/- Cash remittance voucher dt.29.02.2008 for Rs.1,20,00,000/- Ex.P512

Credit voucher dt.29.02.2008 for Rs.67,50,000/-LCP, Ex.P513 Ch.No.905390,82 and 91 for Rs.1,50,000/- each on Vijaya Bank, Hardikarbagh, Hyd Ch.No.867404 for Rs.60,00,000/- on KVB, RP Road, Ch.No.887941 for Rs.3,00,000/- on DCB, Hyderabad Ch.No.47370 dt.28.02.2008 for Rs.2 Crores favouring MBS Ex.P514 Impex Pvt.Ltd. Debit voucher dt.29.02.2008 for Rs.11,00,080/- ch.406722 Ex.P515 on SBI returned+ charges of Rs.80/- Cash remittance voucher dt. 29.02.2008 for Rs. 12,00,000/- Ex.P516

Credit voucher dt.01.03.2008 for Rs.1,10,00,000/- LCP Ex.P517 Ch.No.869612 for Rs.50 lacs on Andhra Bank, Ameerpet Ch.No.867404 for Rs.60 lacs on KVB, RP Road. Ex.P518

Cash remittance voucher dt.01.03.2008 for Rs.20,000/- Ex.P519

Cheque No.47373 dt.01.03.2008 for Rs.1,10,00,000/- Ex.P520 favouring MMTC(1 page) Cash remittance voucher dt.03.03.2008 for Rs.1,52,00,000/- Ex.P521

Cheque No.47374 dt.03.03.2008 for Rs.90,00,000/- Ex.P522 favouring Keshav Jewellery Mart(1 page) ChequeNo.47375dt.03.03.2008forRs.50,00,000/- Ex.P523 favouring Keshav Jewellery Mart(1 page) Debit voucher dt.03.03.2008 for Rs.4150/- ch.return Ex.P524 charges Credit voucher dt.03.03.2008 for Rs.28 lacs- Ch.No.867411 Ex.P525 on KVB RP Road Cheque No.47376 dt.03.03.2008 for Rs.40,00,000/- Ex.P526 favouring Keshav Jewellery Mart(1 page) Credit voucher dt.04.03.2008 for Rs.3Crores LCP, Ex.P527 Ch.No.767413 and 867500 for Rs.90 lacs each on KVB, RP Raod Ch.No.553409 and 553410 for Rs.90 lacs and Rs.30lacs respectively on Andhra Bank, Ameerpet. Debit voucher dt.04.03.2008 for Rs.59200/- charges on 4 Ex.P528

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 205 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010 cheques Cheque No.47381 Dt.04.03.2008 for Rs.2,99,12,360/- fvg. Ex.P529 Yourselves Credit voucher dt.05.03.2008 for Rs.1,28,80,000/- Ex.P530 Ch.No.86310 on KVB, Osmangunj Cheque No.47384 dt.05.03.2008 for Rs.90,00,000/- Ex.P531 favouring Keshav Jewellery Mart(1 page) Debit voucher dt.05.03.2008 for Rs.51162/- Charges on 3 Ex.P532 cheques Credit voucher dt.05.03.2008 for Rs.1,72,90,100/- LCP Ex.P533 Ch.No.95744 for Rs.8,90,100/- on IDBI, Basheerbagh Ch.No.867417 for Rs.80 lacs on KVB, RP Road Ch.No.867499 for Rs.80 lacs on KVB, RP Road Cheque No.47383 dt.05.03.2008 for Rs.1,30,00,000/- Ex.P534 favouring Keshav Jewellery Mart(1 page) Cheque No.47385 dt.05.03.2008 for Rs.80,00,000/- Ex.P535 favouring Keshav Jewellery Mart(1 page) Credit voucher dt.06.03.2008 for Rs.1,80,00,000/- LCP Ex.P536 Cheques No.867421 and 867422 for Rs.90 lacs each on KVB, Secunderabad Debit voucher dt.06.03.2008 for Rs.53260/- Interest on LCP Ex.P537

Cheque No.47386 dt.06.03.2008 for Rs.90,00,000/- Ex.P538 favouring Keshav Jewellery Mart(1 page) Cheque No.47388 dt.06.03.2008 for Rs.30,00,000/- Ex.P539 favouring Keshav Jewellery Mart(1 page) Cheque No.47387 dt.06.03.2008 for Rs.30,00,000/- Ex.P540 favouring Keshav Jewellery Mart(1 page) Cheque No.47389 dt.06.03.2008 for Rs.30,00,000/- Ex.P541 favouring MMTC(1 page) Debit voucher dt.07.03.2008 for Rs.1,03,600/-Interest on Ex.P542 LCP Debit Voucher dt.10.03.2008 for Rs.59,200/- LCP Charges Ex.P543

Cash remittance voucher dt. 10.03.2008 for Rs.1,00,000/- Ex.P544

Credit voucher dt. 10.03.2008 for Rs.1,90,00,000/-LCP Ex.P545 Ch.No.867437 and 867438 for Rs.1 Crore and Rs.90 lacs respectively on KVB, RP Road Credit voucher dt. 10.03.2008 for Rs.1,10,00,000/-LCP 481 Ex.P546 Ch.No.867439 for Rs.90 lacs on KVB, RP Road Ch.No.2945

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 206 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010 for Rs.20 lacs on Axis Bank, RP Road Cheque No.47395 dt.10.03.2008 for Rs.2,98,00,000/- Ex.P547 favouring MMTC(1 page) Cash remittance voucher dt. 10.03.2008 for Ex.P548 Rs.1,14,00,000/- Cheque No.47392 dt.08.03.2008 for Rs.6,00,000/- favouring Ex.P549 N.Venkatesh (1 page) Cheque No.47394 dt. 10.03.2008 for Rs.80,00,000/- Ex.P550 favouring Keshav Jewellery Mart (1 page) Cash remittance voucher dt. 10.03.2008 for Rs.50,000/- Ex.P551

Cashremittancevoucherdt.10.03.2008for Ex.P552 Rs.1,23,00,000/-. Cheque No.47393 dt.10.03.2008 for Rs.1 Crore favouring Ex.P553 Keshav Jewellery Mart(1 page) Cheque No.47396 dt.10.03.2008 for Rs.52,00,000/- Ex.P554 favouring MMTC(1 page) Cash remittance voucher undated for Rs.12,000/- Ex.P555

Credit voucher dt.11.03.2008 for Rs.3,00,00,000/-LCP Ex.P556 Ch.No.867444 for Rs.1 Crore on KVB, RP Road Ch.No.867445 for Rs.80 lacs on KVB, RP Road Ch.No.867446 for Rs.90 lacs on KVB, RP Road Ch.No.90041 for Rs.30 lacs on Axis Bank, RP Road Cheque No.47399 dt.11.03.2008 for Rs.2,99,00,000/- Ex.P557 favouring MMTC(1 page) Cash remittance voucher dt.11.03.2008 for Rs.50 lacs Ex.P558

Cash remittance voucher dt. 11.03.2008 for Rs.1 Crore Ex.P559

Cash remittance voucher dt.11.03.2008 for Rs.20 lacs Ex.P560

Cheque No.47397 dt.11.03.2008 for Rs.1 Crore favouring Ex.P561 Keshav Jewellery Mart (1 page) Cheque No.47398 dt.11.03.2008 for Rs.70 lacs favouring Ex.P562 Keshav Jewellery Mart (1 page) Credit voucher dt. 12.03.2008 for Rs.3,00,00,000/-LCP Ex.P563 Ch.No.867449 for Rs.86 lacs on KVB, RP Road Ch.No.867447 for Rs.95 lacs on KVB, RP Road Ch.No.90030 for Rs.30 lacs on Axis Bank, RP Road Ch.No.2940 for Rs.18 lacs on Axis Bank, RP Road Ch.No.869598 for Rs.71 lacs on Andhra Bank, Ameerpet

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 207 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010

Debit voucher dt.12.03.2008 for Rs.1,03,566/-LCP Charges Ex.P564

Debit voucher dt.11.03.2008 for Rs.88,768/- LCP Charges Ex.P565

Cheque No.47400dt.12.03.2008 for Rs.2,98,00,000/- Ex.P566 favouring MMTC(1 page) Debit voucher dt.12.03.2008 for Rs.2,70,00,000/- Ex.P567 Ch.867430 to 32 returned (earch for Rs.90 lacs) Debit voucher dt.13.03.2008 for Rs.1,03,570/-LCP Charges Ex.P568

Credit voucher dt. 13.03.2008 for Rs.3,00,00,000/-LCP Ex.P569 Ch.No.867448 for Rs.1 crore on KVB, RP Road Ch.No.867423 for Rs.90 lacs on KVB, RP Road Ch.No.867496 for Rs.80 lacs on KVB, RP Road Ch.No.2907 for Rs.30 lacs on UTI, RP Road Credit voucher dt.13.03.2008 for Rs.2,00,00,000/-LCP, Ex.P570 Ch.No.895952 for Rs.80 lacs on KVB, RP Road Ch.No.895953 for Rs.80 lacs on KVB, RP Road Ch.No.90045 for Rs.20 lacs on Axis Bank, RP Road Ch.No.2941 for Rs.20 lacs on Axis Bank, RP Road Debit voucher dt.13.03.2008 for Rs.69,060/- LCP Charges Ex.P571

Cheque No.953301 dt. 13.03.2008 for Rs.2,30,00,000/- Ex.P572 fvg.Y/s for RTGS Credit voucher dt.12.03.2008 for Rs.5 lacs, Ch.No.18727 on Ex.P573 IDBI Bank, Hyderabad Cash remittance voucher dt.14.03.2008 for Rs.30 lacs Ex.P574

Credit voucher dt.13.03.2008 for Rs.12,85,000/- Ex.P575 Ch.No.351614 for Rs 4 lacs on HDFC Bank Ch. No.798655 for Rs.3,71,000/- on DCB Ch.No.796435 for Rs.4,14,000/-on DCB Ch.No.394133 for Rs 1 lac on ICICCI Bank Cash remittance voucher dt.14.03.2008 for Rs.10 lacs Ex.P576

Cash remittance voucher dt. 14.03.2008 for Rs.30 lacs Ex.P577

Debit voucher dt.13.03.2008 for Rs.90,00,080/- ch 867438 Ex.P578 returned for Rs.90 lacs and charges Rs.80/- Cash remittance voucher dt. 15.03.2008 for Rs.1 lac Ex.P579

Credit voucher dt.15.03.2008 for Rs.3,01,00,000/-LCP Ex.P580 Ch.No.895956 for Rs.60 lacs on KVB, RP Road Ch.No.895957 for Rs.70 lacs on KVB, RP Road Ch.No.669620 for Rs.90 lacs on Andhra Bank, Ameerpet, Ch.No.553426 for Rs.81 lacs on Andhra Bank, Ameerpet

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 208 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010

Cheque No.953302 dt. 15.03.2008 for Rs.3,00,00,000/- Ex.P581 favouring MMTC(1 page) Debit voucher for Rs.74,220/- LCP Charges Ex.P582

Credit voucher dt. 17.03.2008 for Rs.3,00,05,000/- LCP, Ex.P583 Ch.No.895958 for Rs.97 lacs on KVB, RP Road, Hyderabad, Ch.No.214956 for Rs. 19,95,000/- on SBI, Commercial Branch, Ch. No.869619 for Rs.93,10,000/-on Andhra Bank, Ameerpet, Ch.No.553427 for Rs.80 lacs on Andhra Bank. Ameerpet Debit voucher dt.17.03.2008 for Rs.3,00,00,080-4 cheques Ex.P584 returned and charges Cash remittance voucher dt.17.03.2008 for Rs.1 lac Ex.P585

Debit voucher dt.17.03.2008 for Rs.74,000/- Interest on LCP Ex.P586

Cheque No.953305 dt. 17.03.2008 for Rs.26,00,000/- Ex.P587 favouring MMTC(1 page) Cheque No.953304 dt.17.03.2008 for Rs.2,60,00,000/- Ex.P588 favouring MMTC(1 page) Credit voucher dt. 17.03.2008 for Rs.60 lacs Ch.No.553598 Ex.P589 on Andhra Bank, Ameerpet Credit voucher dt.17.03.2008 for Rs.44 lacs Ch.No.553599 Ex.P590 for Rs.14 lacs on Andhra Bank, Ameerpet Ch.No.207856 for Rs.30 lacs on Centurion Bank, Punjagutta Credit voucher dt.17.03.2008 for Rs.1,81,00,000/- Ex.P591 Ch.No.467679 for Rs.10 lacs on PNB, Bank Street, Hyd Ch.No.933987 for Rs.1 lac on ICICI Bank, Khairatabad Ch.No.553591 for Rs.90,00,000/-on Andhra Bank, Ameerpet Ch.No.553597 for Rs.80 lacs on Andhra Bank, Ameerpet Debit voucher dt.17.03.2008 for Rs.1,40,00,160/- Ch.returns Ex.P592 from Andhra Bank, Ameerpet for Rs.1,40,00,000 and charges Credit voucher dt. 19.03.2008 for Rs.2,70,00,000/- Ex.P593 Ch.No.207858 for Rs.30 lacs on Centurion Bank, Punjagutta Ch.No.050709 for Rs.30 lacs on HDFC, Secunderabad Ch.No.553509 for Rs.90,00,000/-on Andhra Bank, AmeerpetCh.No.553510 for Rs.1,20,00,000/- on Andhra Bank, Ameerpet Debit voucher dt.19.03.2008 for Rs.13,500/- Interest on LCP Ex.P594

Cheque No.953307 dt.19.03.2008 for Rs.2,70,00,000/- Ex.P595 favouring MMTC(1 page)

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 209 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010

Cheque No.953308 dt.19.03.2008 for Rs.26,00,000/- Ex.P596 favouring MMTC(1 page) Cash remittance voucher dt.25.03.2008 for Rs.1,85,00,000/- Ex.P597

Cheque No.953309 dt.25.03.2008 for Rs.60,00,000/- Ex.P598 favouring Karat 24(1 page) Cash remittance voucher dt.25.03.2008 for Rs.1,10,000/- Ex.P599

Cash remittance voucher dt.25.03.2008 for Rs.1,61.00.000/- Ex.P600

Cash remittance voucher dt.25.03.2008 for Rs.2,49,00,000/- Ex.P601

Cash remittance voucher dt.26.03.2008 for Rs.86,00,000/- Ex.P602

Cash remittance voucher dt.25.03.2008 for Rs.35,00,000/- Ex.P603

Cash remittance voucher dt.26.03.2008 for Rs.2,87,00,000/- Ex.P604

Cashremittancevoucherdt.26.03.2008for Ex.P605 Rs.1,12,00,000/- Creditvoucherdt.26.03.2008forRs,8,96,600/- Ex.P606 Ch.No.938385 for Rs.1,22,800 on Dena Bank, Secunderabad Ch.No.228761 for Rs.5,28,800 on PNB, Hyderabad Ch.No.286769 for Rs.2,45,000 on Vijaya Bank, Charminar Credit voucher dt.26.03.2008 for Rs,55,00,000/- Ex.P607 Ch.No.207861 for Rs.30 lacs on Centurion Bank, Punjagutta Ch.No. 174071 for Rs.25 lacs on Allahabad Bank, Hyderabad Cash remittance voucher dt. 26.03.2008 for Rs.59,00,000/- Ex.P608

Cash remittance voucher dt.27.03.2008 for Rs.7,00,000/- Ex.P609

Cash remittance voucher dt.27.03.2008 for Rs.32,00,000/- Ex.P610

Credit voucher dt. 26.03.2008 for Rs.4 lacs Ch.No.432342 Ex.P611 on Vijaya Bank, Hyd Debit voucher dt.28.03.2008 for Rs.15,45,000/- Customs Ex.P612 duty on 150 Kg gold Debit voucher dt.28.03.2008 for Rs.1,21,75,704-sale Ex.P613 proceeds of 10 kgs of gold Debit voucher dt.31.03.2008 for Rs.4,83,05,651-sale Ex.P614 proceeds of 40 kgs of gold Debit voucher dt.31.03.2008 for Rs.6,04,055-sales tax on Ex.P615 50 kgs of gold Debit voucher dt.31.03.2008 for Rs.42,500- cost of Ex.P616

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 210 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010 remittance Credit voucher dt31.03.2008 for Rs.7,71,95,000/- PO from Ex.P617 Axis Bank Ltd Credit voucher dt.31.03.2008 for Rs.12,40,000/- Ch No.9609 Ex.P618 on IDBI Bank, Basheerbagh Cheque No.953320 dt.31.03.2008 for Rs.15,00,000/- Ex.P619 favouring JRK Prasad (1 page) Cheque No.953314 dt.29.03.2008 for Rs.5 Crores favouring Ex.P620 Laxmi Srinivasa Jewellers(1 page) Cheque No.953316 dt. 29.03.2008 for Rs.2 Crores favouring Ex.P621 Uma Jewellers (1 page) Cheque No.953315 dt.29.03.2008 for Rs.3 Crores favouring Ex.P622 Uma Jewellers (1 page) Cash remittance voucher dt. 02.04.2008 for Rs.50,00,000/- Ex.P623

Debit voucher dt.02.04.2008 for Rs.4,50,00,080/- Ch.return Ex.P624 151903 and charges Creditvoucherdt.03.04.2008forRs.6,03,500/- Ex.P625 Ch.No.116485 on UBI, Ramkote Branch Cash remittance voucher dt.03.04.2008 for Rs.25,00,000/-. Ex.P626

Cash remittance voucher dt.03.04.2008 for Rs.1,24,00,000/- Ex.P627

Credit voucher dt. 03.04.2008 for ING, Vysya Bank Ex.P628 Rs.4,83,400/-, Ch.No.432503 for Rs.1,30,000 on Ch. No.798679 for Rs.3,53,400 on DCB Credit voucher dt.03.04.2008 for Rs.33,20,600/- Ex.P629 Ch.No.009617 for Rs.13,20,600 on IDBI, Basheerbagh, Ch. NO. 53525 for Rs.20 lacs on Andhra Bank, Ameerpet Cheque Mo.953321 dt.08.04.2008 for Rs.1,80,00,000/- Ex.P630 favouring MMTC(1 page) Credit voucher dt.08.04.2008 for Rs. 1,80,02,100/-LCP Ex.P631 Ch.No. 895991 for Rs.47 lacs on KVB, RP Road, Ch.No.9627 for Rs.13,02,100/- IDBI Bank, Basheerabad, Ch.No.553532 and 33 for Rs.60 lacs each on Andhra Bank, Ameerpet Debit voucher dt.08.04.2008 for Rs.8,890/- Charges on LCP Ex.P632

Cash remittance voucher dt.09.04.2008 for Rs.15,00,000/- Ex.P633

Credit voucher dt. 10.04.2008 for Rs.1,85,00,000/-LCP, Ex.P634 Ch.No.895999 for Rs.40 lacs on KVB, RP Road, Ch.No.553537 for Rs.35 lacs on Andhra Bank, Ameerpet,

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 211 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010

Ch.No.553538 for Rs.30 lacs on Andhra Bank, Ameerpet, Ch. No.553539 for Rs.60 lacs on Andhra Bank, Ameerpet, Ch.No.207867 for Rs.20 lacs on Centurion Bank, Punjagutta Debit voucher dt.10.04.2008 for Rs.27,380/- Charges on Ex.P635 LCP. Cheque No.9533212dt. 10.04.2008 for Rs.1,99,50,000/- Ex.P636 favouring MMTC(1 page) Cash remittance voucher dt.11.04.2008 for Rs.54,00,000/- Ex.P637

Cash remittance voucher dt.11.04.2008 for Rs.51,00,000/- Ex.P638

Cheque No.953323 dt.11.04.2008 for Rs.12,00,000/- Ex.P639 favouring MMTC(1 page) Cheque No.953313 dt.11.04.2008 for Rs.3,00,000/- Ex.P640 favouring MMTC(1 page) Cash remittance voucher dt.12.04.2008 for Rs.30,000/- Ex.P641

Credit voucher dt.12.04.2008 for Rs.2,40,00,000/-LCP, Ex.P642 Ch.No.897956 for Rs.60 lacs on KVB, RP Road, Ch.No.897955 for Rs.60 lacs on KVB, RP Road, Ch.No.553542 for Rs.90 lacs on Andhra Bank, Ameerpet, Ch.No.207869 for Rs.30 lacs on Centurion Bank, Punjagutta Debit voucher dt. 12.04.2008 for Rs.47,380/- Charges on Ex.P643 LCP. Cheque No.953324 dt. 12.04.2008 for Rs.2,40,00,000/- Ex.P644 favouring MMTC(1 page) Creditvoucherdt.16.04.2008for Ex.P645 Rs.2,00,00,000/-,Ch.No.892959 for Rs.70 lacs on KVB, RP Road, Ch.No.972762 for Rs.30 lacs on HDFC, Paradise, Ch.No.553549 for Rs.70 lacs on Andhra Bank, Ameerpet, Ch.No.207870 for Rs.30 lacs on Centurion Bank, Punjagutta. Cash remittance voucher dt.15.04.2008 for Rs.1,81,00,000/- Ex.P646

Cheque No.953326dt.15.04.2008 for Rs. 14,00,000/- Ex.P647 favouring MMTC(1 page). Cheque No.953327 dt.15.04.2008 for Rs.2,87,00,000/- Ex.P648 favouring MMTC(1 page). Cheque No.953325 dt. 15.04.2008 for Rs.60,00,000/- Ex.P649 favouring MMTC(1 page). Debit voucher dt.16.04.2008 for Rs. 19,730/- Charges on Ex.P650 LCP. Debit voucher dt. 16.04.2008 for Rs.6,335/- Cash counting Ex.P651

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 212 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010 charges. Credit voucher dt. 16.04.2008 for Rs.1,90,00,000/-, Ch. Ex.P652 No.892962 for Rs.70 lacs on KVB, RP Road, Ch.No.972766 for Rs.20 lacs on HDFC, Paradise, Ch.No.553550 for Rs.70 lacs on Andhra Bank, Ameerpet, Ch. No.207871 for Rs.30 lacs on Centurion Bank, Punjagutta, Cheque No.953328 dt. 16.04.2008 for Rs.1,89,00,000/- Ex.P653 favouring MMTC(1 page). Debit voucher dt.16.04.2008 for Rs.18,750/- Interest on LCP. Ex.P654

Cash remittance voucher dt.16.04.2008 for Rs.1,38,00,000/- Ex.P655

Cheque No.953330 dt. 16.04.2008 for Rs. 1,33,00,000/- Ex.P656 favouring MMTC(1 page). Cheque No.953329 dt. 16.04.2008 for Rs.5,00,000/- Ex.P657 favouring MMTC(1 page) Debit voucher dt. 12.04.2008 for Rs.11,150/- Interest on Ex.P658 LCP. Cash remittance voucher dt. 18.04.2008 for Rs. 16,00,000/- Ex.P659

Credit voucher dt.18.04.2008 for Rs.2,00,00,000/- LCP, Ex.P660 Ch.No.892965 for Rs.70 lacs on KVB, RP Road Ch.No.972773 for Rs.30 lacs on HDFC, Paradise Ch.No.501930 for Rs.70 lacs on Andhra Bank, Ameerpet Ch.No.207872 for Rs.30 lacs on Centurion Bank, Punjagutta Debit voucher dt.18.04.2008 for Rs.17,534/- Interest on LCP Ex.P661

Cheque No.953332 dt. 18.04.2008 for Rs.2,11,00,000/- Ex.P662 favouring MMTC(1 page) Cash remittance voucher dt.18.04.2008 for Rs.56,00,000/- Ex.P663

Cheque No.953334 dt.18.04.2008 for Rs.60,50,000/- Ex.P664 favouring MMTC(1 page) Debit voucher dt. 21.04.2008 for Rs.17,810/- Interest on Ex.P665 LCP Credit Rs.2,00,00,000/-,Ch.No.890971 for Rs.60 voucher Ex.P666 dt.21.04.2008 for lacs on KVB, RP Road Ch.No.972783 for Rs.20 lacs on HDFC. Paradise Ch. No.501936 for Rs.80 lacs on Andhra Bank, Ameerpet Ch.No.214954 for Rs.40 lacs on SBI, Hyderabad. Cash remittance voucher dt.21.04.2008 for Rs.3,74,00,000/- Ex.P667

Cash remittance voucher dt. 21.04.2008 for Rs.60,00,000/- Ex.P668

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 213 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010

Cheque No.953335 dt.21.04.2008 for Rs.2,00,00,000/- Ex.P669 favouring MMTC(1 page) Cheque No.953333 dt.21.04.2008 for Rs.4,34,00,000/- Ex.P670 favouring MMTC(1 page) Cash remittance voucher dt.21.04.2008 for Rs.3,88,00,000/- Ex.P671 cheque No 953338 dt. 21.04.2008 for Rs.3,81,50,000/- Ex.P672 favouring MMTC(1 page) Cheque No. 53337 dt.21.04.2008 for Rs.6,50,000/- Ex.P673 favouring MMTC(1 page) Debit voucher dt.22.04.2008 for Rs.17,720/- Charges on LCP Ex.P674

Credit voucher dt.22.04.2008 for Rs.2,00,00,000/- LCP, Ch. Ex.P675 No.892974 for Rs.31 lacs on KVB, RP Road, Ch.No.972785 for Rs.30 lacs on HDFC, Paradise, Ch. No.501937 for Rs.70 lacs on Andhra Bank, Ameerpet, Ch.No.214953 for Rs.39 lacs on SBI, Hyderabad, Ch.No.207873 for Rs.30 lacs on Centurion Bank, Punjagutta Cashremittancevoucherdt.25.04.2008for Ex.P676 Rs.2,13,50,000/-. Cheque No.953339 dt.22.04.2008 for Rs.2,04,00,000/- Ex.P677 favouring MMTC(1 page) Cheque No.953340 dt.22.04.2008 for Rs.2,06,00,000/- Ex.P678 favouring MMTC(1 page) Cash remittance voucher dt.22.04.2008 for Rs.67,00,000/- Ex.P679

Cash remittance voucher dt.22.04.2008 for Rs.1,11,00,000/- Ex.P680

Creditvoucherdt.22.04.2008forRs.4,83,700/- Ex.P681 ch.No.227423 on UBI, Chikkadpally Cheque No.953341 dt.22.04.2008 for Rs.64,50,000/- Ex.P682 favouring MMTC(1 page) Cheque No.953342 dt.22.04.2008 for Rs.1,21,50,000/- Ex.P683 favouring MMTC(1 page) Credit voucher dt.22.04.2008 for Rs.12,05,000/- Ex.P684 ch.No.227423 on UBI, Begumpet Cash remittance voucher dt.22.04.2008 for Rs.60,00,000/- Ex.P685

Cheque No.953343 dt.22.04.2008 for Rs.72,00,000/- Ex.P686 favouring MMTC(1 page) Debit voucher dt.23.04.2008 for Rs.18,100/- Charges on LCP Ex.P687

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 214 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010

Credit voucher dt.23.04.2008 for Rs.2,00,00,000/-LCP, Ex.P688 Ch.No.892976 for Rs.40 lacs on KVB, RP Road, Ch.No.972791 for Rs.30 lacs on HDFC, Paradise, Ch.No.501939 for Rs.60 lacs on Andhra Bank, Ameerpet, Ch.No.214952 for Rs.40 lacs on SBI, Hyderabad, Ch. No.207874 for Rs.30 lacs on Centurion Bank, Punjagutta Cashremittancevoucherdt.23.04.2008for Ex.P689 Rs.1,76,00,000/- Cheque No.953344 dt. 23.04.2008 for Rs.3,72,00,000/- Ex.P690 favouring MMTC(1 page) Credit voucher dt.23.04.2008 for Rs.53,94,000/- Ex.P691 ch.No.227417 & 24 on UBI, Chikkadpally for Rs.21,90,000 and Rs.32,04,000 respectively Cash remittance voucher dt.23.04.2008 for Rs.2,02,00,000/- Ex.P692

Cheque No.953345 dt.23.04.2008 for Rs.2,02,00,000/- Ex.P693 favouring MMTC(1 page) Cheque No.953347 dt.23.04.2008 for Rs.45,00,000/- Ex.P694 favouring MMTC(1 page) Cash remittance voucher dt.23.04.2008 for Rs.50,000/- Ex.P695

Cash remittance voucher dt. 23.04.2008 for Rs.80,00,000/- Ex.P696

Cheque No.953346 dt. 23.04.2008 for Rs.93,50,000/- Ex.P697 favouring MMTC(1 page) Debit voucher dt.24.04.2008 for Rs. 18,200/- Interest on Ex.P698 LCP Credit voucher dt.24.04.2008 for Rs.2,36,00,000/- Ex.P699 LCP,Ch.No.892980 for Rs.50 lacs on KVB, RP Road, Ch.No.972793 for Rs.30 lacs on HDFC, Paradise, Ch.No.501942 for Rs.81 lacs on Andhra Bank, Ameerpet, Ch.No.207875 for Rs.40 lacs on Centurion Bank, Punjagutta. Cash remittance voucher dt.24.04.2008 for Rs.2,01,00,000/- Ex.P700

Cheque No.953349 dt.24.04.2008 for Rs.4,36,00,000/- Ex.P701 favouring MMTC(1 page) Cash remittance voucher dt. 24.04.2008 for Rs. Ex.P702 1,73,00,000/- Cheque No.953350 dt. 24.04.2008 for Rs.1,73,00,000/- Ex.P703 favouring MMTC(1 page) Cash remittance voucher dt.24.04.2008 for Rs.40,00,000/- Ex.P704

Cheque No.953351 dt. 25.04.2008 for Rs.40,00,000/- Ex.P705

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 215 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010 favouring MMTC(1 page)

Credit voucher dt.25.04.2008 for Rs.2,00,00,000/-LCP Ex.P706 Ch.No.892984 for Rs.40 lacs on KVB, RP Road Ch.No.972795 for Rs.30 lacs on HDFC, Paradise Ch.No.501944 for Rs.60 lacs on Andhra Bank, Ameerpet Ch.No.214986 for Rs.40 lacs on SBI, Hyderabad, Ch.No.207876 for Rs.30 lacs on Centurion Bank, Punjagutta Debit voucher dt. 25.04.2008 for Rs.27,200/- Interest on Ex.P707 LCP Cash remittance voucher dt.25.04.2008 for Rs.1,27,00,000/- Ex.P708

Cheque No.953352 dt.25.04.2008 for Rs.3,27,00,000/- Ex.P709 favouring MMTC(1 page) Cash remittance voucher dt.25.04.2008 for Rs.10,00,000/- Ex.P710

Ch. No.953348 dt.24.04.2008 for Rs.10 lacs favouring Ex.P711 Mr.B.Srinath Reddy Debit voucher dt.25.04.2008 for Rs.11,90,886/-1% sales tax Ex.P712 on gold Debit voucher dt. 25.04.2008 for Rs. 11,66,36,825 towards Ex.P713 sale of 100 kgs gold Cash remittance voucher dt.28.04.2008 for Rs.1,60,00,000/- Ex.P714

Cheque No.953353dt.25.04.2008 for Rs.1,60,00,000/- Ex.P715 favouring MMTC(1 page) Cash remittance voucher dt.25.04.2008 for Rs.42,00,000/- Ex.P716

Cheque No.953354 dt.25.04.2008 for Rs.42,00,000/- Ex.P717 favouring MMTC(1 page) Cash remittance voucher dt.26.04.2008 for Rs.1,45,000/- Ex.P718

Cash remittance voucher dt.26.04.2008 for Rs.1,98,00,000/- Ex.P719

Cheque No.953355 dt. 26.04.2008 for Rs.1,99,50,000/- Ex.P720 favouring MMTC(1 page) Cash remittance voucher dt.28.04.2008 for Rs.3,19,00,000 Ex.P721

Cashremittancevoucherdt.28.04.2008for Ex.P722 Rs.1,79,00,000/- Credit voucher dt. 28.04.2008 for Rs.2,00,00,000/- LCP, Ex.P723 Ch.No.892993 for Rs.40 lacs on KVB, RP Road, Ch.No.972801 for Rs.40 lakhs on HDFC, Paradise, Ch.No.501946 for Rs.79 lacs on Andhra Bank, Ameerpet,

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 216 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010

Ch. No.214982 for Rs.41 lacs on SBI, Hyderabad Cheque No.953356 dt.28.04.2008 for Rs.6,70,00,000/- Ex.P724 favouring MMTC(1 page) Debit voucher dt.28.04.2008 for Rs.26,713/- interest on LCP Ex.P725

Cash remittance voucher dt.28.04.2008 for Rs.78,00,000/- Ex.P726

Cheque No.953357 dt.28.04.2008 for Rs.1,14,00,000/- Ex.P727 favouring MMTC(1 page) Credit voucher dt.29.04.2008 for Rs.2,00,00,000/- LCP Ex.P728 Ch.No.892996 for Rs.50 lacs on KVB, RP Road Ch.No.972804 for Rs.40 lacs on HDFC, Paradise Ch. No.501948 for Rs.72 lacs on Andhra Bank, Ameerpet, Ch.No.214983 for Rs.38 lacs on SBI, Hyderabad Debit voucher dt.29.04.2008 for Rs.17,560/- interest on LCP Ex.P729

Cheque No.953358 dt.29.04.2008 for Rs.2,00,00,000/- Ex.P730 favouring MMTC(1 page) Cash remittance voucher dt.29.04.2008 for Rs.1,39,50,000/- Ex.P731

Cheque No.953359 dt.29.04.2008 for Rs.3,27,00,000/- Ex.P732 favouring MMTC(1 page) Rs.1,39,50,000/- favouring MMTC(1 page) Cash remittance voucher dt.30.04.2008 for Rs.2,52,00,000/- Ex.P733

Cheque No.953360 dt.30.04.2008 for Rs.2,52,00,000/- Ex.P734 favouring MMTC(1 page) Debit voucher dt.30.04.2008 for Rs.26,310/- interest on LCP Ex.P735

Credit voucher dt.30.04.2008 for Rs.2,00,00,000/-LCP, Ex.P736 Ch.No.892999 for Rs.60 lacs on KVB, RP Road, Ch.No.501949 for Rs.90 lacs on Andhra Bank, Ameerpet, Ch.No.214989 for Rs.58 lacs on SBI, Hyderabad Cheque No.953361 dt.30.04.2008 for Rs.2,00,00,000/- Ex.P737 favouring MMTC(1 page) Cash remittance voucher dt.30.04.2008 for Rs.47,00,000/- Ex.P738

Cheque No.953362 dt.30.04.2008 for Rs.47,00,000/- Ex.P739 favouring MMTC(1 page) Credit voucher dt. 2.05.2008 for Rs.2,00,00,000/- LCP Ex.P740 Ch.No.893000 for Rs.60 lacs on KVB, RP Road Ch.No.972810 for Rs.20 lacs on HDFC, Paradise Ch.No.614101 for Rs.80 lacs on Andhra Bank, Ameerpet Ch.No.214985 for Rs.40 lacs on SBI, Hyderabad

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 217 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010

Debit voucher dt.02.05.2008 for Rs.35,075/- charges on LCP Ex.P741

Cheque No.953363 dt.02.05.2008 for Rs.1,99,80,000/- Ex.P742 favouring MMTC(1 page) Cash remittance voucher dated 02-05-2008 for Ex.P743 Rs.11,00,000/- Cheque no.953364 dated 02-05-2008 for Rs. 1,05,90,000/- Ex.P744 fvg. MMTC Ltd. Credit voucher dated 03-05-2008 for Rs.1,00,00,000/- LCP, Ex.P745 Cheque no.614103 for Rs.80,00,000/-drawn on Andhra Bank, Ameerpet Branch. Cheque no.207877 for Rs.2000000/-drawn on Centurion Bank, Panjagutta Branch Debit voucher dated 03-05-2008 for Rs.17,540/- towards Ex.P746 LCP charges Cheque no.953365dated 02-05-2008 for Rs.99,50,000/- fvg. Ex.P747 MMTC Ltd. Cash remittance voucher dated 03-05-2008 for Ex.P748 Rs.94,50,000/- Cheque no.953366dated 03-05-2008 for Rs.94,00,000/- fvg. Ex.P749 MMTC Ltd. Credit voucher dated 05-05-2008 for Rs.2,00,00,000/- LCP, Ex.P750 Cheque no.614107 for Rs.8000000/-drawn on Andhra Bank, Ameerpet Branch. Cheque no.972814 for Rs.20,00,000/- drawn on HDFC Bank, Paradise Branch Cheque no.215158 for Rs.60,00,000/- drawn on Karur Vysya Bank, RP Road Branch Cheque no.214997 for Rs.40,00,000/- drawn on SBI, Hyderabad Branch Debit voucher dated 05-05-2008 for Rs.17,550/- towards Ex.P751 charges on 4 chos. Cheque no.953367dated 05-05-2008 for Rs.2,00,00,000/- Ex.P752 fvg. MMTC Ltd. Cheque no.953368dated 05-05-2008 for Rs.38,50,000/- fvg. Ex.P753 MMTC Ltd. Cash remittance voucher dated 06-05-2008 for Ex.P754 Rs.1250000/- Cheque no.953369dated 06-05-2008 for Rs.12,50,000/- fvg. Ex.P755 MMTC Ltd. Cash remittance voucher dated 07-05-2008 for Rs.50,000/- Ex.P756

Debit voucher dated 07-05-2008 for Rs.19300/- towards Ex.P757 charges on 4 chqs.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 218 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010

Credit voucher dated 07-05-2008 for Rs.2,20,00,000/-LCP Ex.P758 Cheque no.614108 for Rs.60,00,000/- drawn on Andhra Bank, Ameerpet Branch Cheque no.614109 for Rs.60,00,000/- drawn on Andhra Bank, Ameerpet Branch. Cheque no.215163 for Rs.50,00,000/- drawn on Karur Vysya Bank, RP Road Branch Cheque no.214996 for Rs.50,00,000/- drawn on SBI, Hyderabad Branch Credit voucher dated 07-05-2008 for Rs.22000000/- LCP, Ex.P759 Cheque no.614110 for Rs.60,00,000/- drawn on Andhra Bank, Ameerpet Branch Cheque no.614111 for Rs.60,00,000/- drawn on Andhra Bank, Ameerpet Branch. Cheque no.215164 for Rs.50,00,000/- drawn on Karur Vysya Bank, RP Road Branch Cheque no.214995for Rs.50,00,000/- drawn on SBI, Hyderabad Branch Cheque no.953370dated 07-05-2008 for Rs.4,40,00,000/- Ex.P760 fvg. MMTC Ltd. Debit voucher dated 07-05-2008 for Rs.28,930/- towards Ex.P761 charges on 4 chqs. Credit voucher dated 08-05-2008 for Rs.1,20,00,000/- LCP, Ex.P762 Cheque no.614412 for Rs.60,00,000/- drawn on Andhra Bank, Ameerpet Branch. Cheque no.614413 for Rs.60,00,000/-drawn on Andhra Bank, Ameerpet Branch. Debit voucher dated 08-05-2008 for Rs.15800/- towards int. Ex.P763 on LCP Cheque no.953371dated 08-05-2008 for Rs.1,20,00,000/- Ex.P764 fvg. MMTC Ltd. Cash remittance voucher dated 09-05-2008 for Rs. 50,000/- Ex.P765

Credit voucher dated 09-05-2008 for Rs.2,20,00,000/- LCP, Ex.P766 Cheque no.614114 for Rs.60,00,000/-drawn on Andhra Bank, Ameerpet Branch Cheque no.614115 for Rs.60,00,000/-drawn on Andhra Bank, Ameerpet Branch. Cheque no.215171 for Rs.50,00,000/-drawn on Karur Vysya Bank, RP Road Branch Cheque no.207880 for Rs.30,00,000/- drawn on Centurion Bank, Panjagutta Branch Cheque no.972821 for Rs.20,00,000/-drawn on HDFC Bank, Paradise Branch Cheque no.953374 dated 09-05-2008 for Rs.2,20,00,000/- Ex.P767 fvg. MMTC Ltd. Debit voucher dated 09-05-2008 for Rs.38,575/- towards int. Ex.P768 on LCP Cash remittance voucher dated 10-05-2008 for Rs. 50,000/- Ex.P769

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 219 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010

Debit voucher dated 10-05-2008 for Rs.24,630/- towards Ex.P770 chgs. on LCP Cash remittance voucher dated 10-05-2008 for Rs. Ex.P771 2,20,00,000/- Cheque no.953375dated 10-05-2008 for Rs.2,20,00,000/- Ex.P772 fvg. MMTC Ltd. Credit voucher dated 12-05-2008 for Rs.3,00,00,000/- LCP, Ex.P773 Cheque no.6141120 for Rs.60,00,000/- drawn on Andhra Bank, Ameerpet Branch Cheque no.6141121 for Rs.80,00,000/-drawn on Andhra Bank, Ameerpet Branch. Cheque no.215175 for Rs.1,20,00,000/- drawn on Karur Vysya Bank, RP Road Branch, Cheque no.235010 for Rs.40,00,000/- drawn on SBI, Hyderabad Branch Cheque no.953376dated 12-05-2008 for Rs.3,00,00,000/- Ex.P774 fvg. MMTC Ltd. Debit voucher dated 12-05-2008 for Rs.39,452/- towards Ex.P775 chgs. on LCP Cash remittance voucher dated 12-05-2008 for Rs. Ex.P776 56,00,000/- Cash remittance voucher dated 12-05-2008 for Rs. 50,000/- Ex.P777

Cheque no.953377dated 12-05-2008 for Rs.4250000/- fvg. Ex.P778 MMTC Ltd. Cash remittance youcher dated 12-05-2008 for Rs. Ex.P779 19,00,000/-. Cash remittance voucher dated 12-05-2008 for Rs. 50,000/- Ex.P780

Debit voucher dated 12-05-2008 for Rs.6,00,000/- towards Ex.P781 LCP Cash remittance voucher dated 13-05-2008 for Rs. Ex.P782 94,00,000/- Debit voucher dated 13-05-2008 for Rs.28,931/- towards Ex.P783 charges on 3 chas. Debit voucher dated 13-05-2008 for Rs.1,10,00,000/- Ex.P784 towards LCP Credit voucher dated 13-05-2008 for Rs.22000000/- LCP, Ex.P785 Cheque no.614122 for Rs.50,00,000/- drawn on Andhra Bank, Ameerpet Branch Cheque no.215177 for Rs.1,20,00,000/-drawn on Karur Vysya Bank, RPRoad Branch, Cheque no.235011 for Rs.50,00,000/- drawn on SBI, Hyderabad Branch

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 220 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010

Cash remittance voucher dated 13-05-2008 for Rs. 85,000/- Ex.P786

Cheque no.953379dated 13-05-2008 for Rs.1,20,00,000/- Ex.P787 fvg. Yourselves RTGS Cheque no.953378dated 13-05-2008 for Rs.70,00,000/- fvg. Ex.P788 Yourselves RTGS Cheque no.953380dated 13-05-2008 for Rs.37,50,000/- fvg. Ex.P789 MMTC Ltd. Cash remittance voucher dated 14-05-2008 for Rs. Ex.P790 50,00,000/- Credit voucher dated 14-05-2008 for Rs.3,00,00,000/- LCP, Ex.P791 Cheque no.614124 for Rs.90,00,000/-drawn on Andhra Bank, Ameerpet Branch Cheque no.614125 for Rs.50,00,000/- drawn on Andhra Bank, Ameerpet Branch. Cheque no.215179 for Rs.1,20,00,000/- drawn on Karur Vysya Bank, RPRoad Branch Cheque no.235015 for Rs.40,00,000/-drawn on SBI, Hyderabad Branch Cheque no.953381 dated 14-05-2008 for Rs.3,50,00,000/- Ex.P792 fvg. MMTC Ltd. Credit voucher dated 15-05-2008 for Rs.3,00,00,000/- LCP Ex.P793 Cheque no.614126 for Rs.90,00,000/- drawn on Andhra Bank, Ameerpet Branch Cheque no.614127 for Rs.50,00,000/- drawn on Andhra Bank, Ameerpet Branch. Cheque no.215183 for Rs.1,20,00,000/- drawn on Karur Vysya Bank, RPRoad Branch Cheque no.235016 for Rs.40,00,000/- drawn on SBI, Hyderabad Branch Debit voucher dated 15-05-2008 for Rs.39,452/- towards Ex.P794 charges on 4 chqs. Cheque no.953372 dated 15-05-2008 for Rs.2,99,50,000/- Ex.P795 fvg. MMTC Ltd. Credit voucher dated 16-05-2008 for Rs.3,00,00,000/- LCP Ex.P796 Cheque no.614129 for Rs.50,00,000/- drawn on Andhra Bank, Ameerpet Branch Cheque no.614128 for Rs.80,00,000/- drawn on Andhra Bank, Ameerpet Branch. Cheque no.215184 for Rs.1,20,00,000/- drawn on Karur Vysya Bank, RPRoad Branch Cheque no.621707 for Rs.50,00,000/-drawn on Andhra Bank, Ameerpet Branch Debit voucher dated 16-05-2008 for Rs.65,757/- towards Ex.P797 charges on 4 chqs. Cheque no.953373 dated 16-05-2008 for Rs.2,60,00,000/- Ex.P798 fvg. MMTC Ltd. Cash Cheque no.953382 dated 16-05-2008 for Ex.P799

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 221 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010

Rs.29,70,000/- fvg. Self Debit voucher dated 22-05-2008 for Rs.1,20,00,000/- Ex.P800 towards Trf. To Susp. a/c Lcp Cash remittance voucher dated 02-06-2008 for Rs. Ex.P801 20,00,000/- Debit voucher dated 02-06-2008 for Rs.38,00,000/- towards Ex.P802 Trf. To Susp. a/c Lcp Cash remittance voucher dated 04-06-2008 for Rs. Ex.P803 18,50,000/- Cash Remittance voucher dated 17-06-2008 for Ex.P804 Rs.13,00,000/- Debit Voucher dated 20-06-2008 for Rs. 222/- premium on Ex.P805 Gold150 kg Standard bar remittance voucher dated 20-06-2008 for Rs. 1250000/- Ex.P806

Cash remittance voucher dated 23-06-2008 for Rs. Ex.P807 6000000/- Cash remittance voucher dated 24-06-2008 for Rs. Ex.P808 1500000/- Cash remittance voucher dated 25-06-2008 for Rs. Ex.P809 4000000/- Credit voucher dated 30-06-2008 for Rs.1,74,00,000/-LCP Ex.P810 Cheque no.621780 for Rs.50,00,000/-drawn on Andhra Bank,AmeerpetBranchChequeno.225553for Rs.50,00,000/-drawn on SBI, Hyderabad Branch Cheque no.555455 for Rs.74,00,000/-drawn on Andhra Bank, Ameerpet Branch Cheque no.953383 dated 01-07-2008 for Rs.52,00,000/- Ex.P811 fvg. Maha Shanti Enterprises Debit voucher dated 03-07-2008 for Rs.1,74,00,000/- Ex.P812 towards Trf. To Lop Credit voucher dated Nil for Rs.50,00,000/- being trf from Ex.P813 504-40046 Cash remittance voucher dated 17-07-2008 for Rs. Ex.P814 1,35,00,000/- Cash remittance voucher dated 17-07-2008 for Rs. 35,000/- Ex.P815

Cash remittance voucher dated 17-07-2008 for Rs. Ex.P816 1,27,00,000/- Cash remittance voucher dated 18-07-2008 for Rs. Ex.P817 1,30,000/-

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 222 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010

Cash remittance voucher dated 18-07-2008 for Rs. Ex.P818 12,00,000/- Cash remittance voucher dated 17-07-2008 for Rs. Ex.P819 38,00,000/- Cash remittance voucher/dated 17-07-2008 for Rs. Ex.P820 17,50,000/- Cash remittance voucher dated 18-07-2008 for Rs. Ex.P821 2,70,000/- Cash remittance voucher dated 18-07-2008 for Rs. Ex.P822 40,00,000/- Cash remittance voucher dated 18-07-2008 for Rs. Ex.P823 26,80,000/- Cash remittance voucher dated 18-07-2008 for Rs. Ex.P824 3,00,000/- Cash remittance voucher dated 21-07-2008 for Rs. 50,000/- Ex.P825

Cash remittance voucher dated 21-07-2008 for Rs. Ex.P826 1,20,00,000/- Cash remittance voucher dated 21-07-2008 for Rs. 60,000/- Ex.P827

Cash remittance voucher dated 21-07-2008 for Rs. Ex.P828 36,00,000/- Cash remittance voucher dated 21-07-2008 for Rs. Ex.P829 3,80,000/- Debit voucher dated 21-07-2008 for Rs.6,58,30,601/- Ex.P830 towards 50 kg of gold sold Cash remittance voucher dated 22-07-2008 for Rs. Ex.P831 19,00,000/- Cheque no.953385 dated 21-07-2008 for Rs.50,00,000/- Ex.P832 fvg. Maha Shanti Enterprises Cash remittance voucher dated 22-07-2008 for Rs. Ex.P833 73,00,000/- Cash remittance voucher dated 22-07-2008 for Rs. 50,000/- Ex.P834

Cash remittance voucher dated 22-07-2008 for Rs. Ex.P835 72,00,000/- Cash remittance voucher dated 23-08-2008 for Rs. Ex.P836 86,00,000/- Cash remittance voucher dated 23-08-2008 for Rs. 25,000/- Ex.P837

Cash remittance voucher dated 23-07-2008 for Rs. Ex.P838

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 223 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010 13,00,000/-

Cash remittance voucher dated 23-07-2008 for Rs. Ex.P839 7,00,000/- Cash remittance voucher dated 24-07-2008 for Rs. Ex.P840 2,13,00,000/- Cash remittance voucher dated 24-07-2008 for Rs. Ex.P841 46,00,000/- Cash remittance voucher dated 24-07-2008 for Rs. Ex.P842 6,58,000/- Debit voucher dated 22-07-2008 for Rs.12,55,706/- towards Ex.P843 1% sales tax, Custom duty and Cash counting chgs. Cash remittance voucher dated 24-07- 2008 for Rs. Ex.P844 43,00,000/- Debit voucher dated 24-07-2008 for Rs.3,94,29,288/- Ex.P845 towards 30 kg of gold. Cash remittance voucher dated 25-07-2008 for Rs. 50,000/- Ex.P846

Cash remittance voucher dated 25-07-2008 for Rs. Ex.P847 2,20,00,000/- Cash remittance voucher dated 25-07-2008 for Rs. Ex.P848 13,00,000/- Debit voucher dated 25-07-2009 for Rs.17,175/- towards Ex.P849 comm..on 50 kg of gold Debit voucher dated 25-07-2008 for Rs.7,33,559/- towards Ex.P850 sales Tax, custom duty and commission on 30 kg gold Cash remittance voucher dated 25-07-2008 for Rs. Ex.P851 2,64,47,157/- Cash remittance voucher dated 25-07-2008 for Rs. Ex.P852 53,00,000/- Cash remittance voucher dated 25-07-2008 for Rs. Ex.P853 46,00,000/- Cash remittance voucher dated 25-07-2008 for Rs.68,000/- Ex.P854

Cash remittance voucher dated 25-07-2008 for Rs. Ex.P855 1,29,00,000/- Cash remittance voucher dated 25-07-2008 for Rs. Ex.P856 39,00,000/- Cash remittance voucher dated 26-07-2008 for Rs. Ex.P857 1,42,00,000/-

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 224 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010

Debit Voucher dated 29-07-2008/for Rs. 97,00,000/- Ex.P858

Debit voucher dated 29-07-2008 for Rs. 4,45,48,531/- Ex.P859

Cash remittance voucher dated 30-07-2008 for Rs. Ex.P860 2,18,00,000/- Cash remittance voucher dated 31-07-2008 for Rs. 80,000/- Ex.P861

Cash remittance voucher dated 31-07-2008 for Rs. Ex.P862 5,00,000/- Cash remittance voucher dated 31-07-2008 for Rs. Ex.P863 1,30,00,000/- Debit voucher dated 04-08-2008 for Rs.3,75,21,720/- Ex.P864 towards cost of 20 kg and 10 kg of gold Cash remittance voucher dated 05-08-2008 for Rs. Ex.P865 1,00,000/- Cash remittance voucher dated 05-08-2008 for Rs. Ex.P866 11,00,000/- Cash remittance voucher dated 05-08-2008 for Rs. Ex.P867 49,00,000/- Cheque no.953390 dated 06-08-2008 for Rs.4,60,00,000/- Ex.P868 fvg. MMTC Ltd. Cash remittance voucher dated 09-08-2008 for Rs. Ex.P869 1,35,00,000/- Debit voucher dated 09-08-2008 for Rs.15,44,239/- towards Ex.P870 sales Tax, custom duty and commission on 65 kg gold Cheque no.966902 dated 07-08-2008 for Rs.20,00,000/-fvg. Ex.P871 KARAT24 Cash remittance voucher dated 09-08-2008 for Rs. Ex.P872 27,00,000/- Debit voucher dated 09-08-2008 for Rs.13,00,000/- towards Ex.P873 interest on Icp Debit voucher dated 09-08-2009 for Rs.8,33,196/- towards Ex.P874 customs duty, 1% VAT and comm... on gold Cheque no.953391 dated 09-08-2008 for Rs.5,00,00,000/- Ex.P875 fvg. MMTC Ltd. Cash remittance voucher dated 12-08-2008 for Rs. Ex.P876 19,4,00,000/- Cash remittance voucher dated 13-08-2008 for Rs. Ex.P877 2,77,00,000/-

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 225 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010

Cash remittance voucher dated 13-08-2008 for Rs. Ex.P878 12,00,000/- Cash remittance voucher dated 13-08-2008 for Rs. Ex.P879 46,00,000/- Cash remittance voucher dated 13-08-2008 for Rs. Ex.P880 1,15,00,000/- Cash remittance voucher dated 13-08-2008 for Rs. Ex.P881 2,10,00,000/- Cash remittance voucher dated 14-08-2008 for Rs. Ex.P882 2,80,00,000/- Cash remittance voucher dated 14-08-2008 for Rs. Ex.P883 46,00,000/- Cash remittance voucher dated 14-08-2008 for Rs. Ex.P884 10,00,000/- Cash remittance voucher dated 14-08-2008 for Rs. Ex.P885 1,67,00,000/- Cash remittance voucher dated 16-08-2008 for Rs. Ex.P886 3,37,00,000/- Cash remittance voucher dated 18-08-2008 for Rs. Ex.P887 68,00,000/- Debit voucher dated 18-08-2008 for Rs.24,28,87,005/- Ex.P888 towards cost of 210 kgs of gold Cash remittance voucher dated 18-08-2008 for Rs. Ex.P889 75,00,000/- Credit voucher dated 18-08-2008 for Rs.50,00,000/-being Ex.P890 transfer from 101-36163 Credit voucher dated 19-08-2008 for Rs. Rs. 5,00,000/- Ex.P891

Cash remittance voucher dated 19-08-2008 for Rs. Ex.P892 5,00,000/- Cash remittance voucher dated 19-08-2008 for Rs. Ex.P893 1,15,00,000/- Cash remittance voucher dated 26-08-2008 for Rs. Ex.P894 1,00,000/- Debit voucher dated 23-08-2008 for Rs.67,61,268/-. Ex.P895

Cash remittance voucher dated 26-08-2008 for Rs. Ex.P896 71,00,000/- Cheque no.953395 dated 26-08-2008 for Rs.7,85,00,000/- Ex.P897 fvg. Sri Ram Jewellers

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 226 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010

Cash remittance voucher dated 28-08-2008 for Rs. 50,000/- Ex.P898

Cash remittance voucher dated 28-08-2008 for Rs. Ex.P899 1,20,00,000/- Debit voucher dated 29-08-2008 for Rs.5,81,29,782/- Ex.P900 towards cost of 40 kg and 10 kg of gold Cheque no.953396 dated 29-08-2008 for Rs.5,81,875/- fvg. Ex.P901 INFRES methodex Ltd. Debit voucher dated 09-09-2008 for Rs.1171158/-towards Ex.P902 VAT on 50 kg & 50 kg gold Cash remittance voucher dated 09-09-2008 for Rs. Ex.P903 58,50,000/- Cheque no.953397 dated 09-09-2008 for Rs.80,00,000/- Ex.P904 fvg. MMTC Ltd. Cash remittance voucher dated 09-09-2008 for Rs. Ex.P905 80,00,000/- Cash remittance voucher dated 10-09-2008 for Rs. Ex.P906 1,45,00,000/- Cash remittance voucher dated 10-09-2008 for Rs. Ex.P907 8,50,000/- Cash remittance voucher dated 10.09.2008 for Rs. Ex.P908 32,00,000/- Cash remittance voucher dated 10-09-2008 for Rs. Ex.P909 1,17,00,000/- Cash remittance voucher dated 11-09-2008 for Rs. Ex.P910 1,35,00,000/- Cheque no.953398 dated 11-09-2008 for Rs.1,80,00,000/- Ex.P911 fvg. MMTC Ltd. Cheque no.953399 dated 12-09-2008 for Rs.3,52,00,000/- Ex.P912 fvg. MMTC Ltd. voucher dated 12-09-2008 for Rs.80,00,000/- transferred to Ex.P913 MMTC. Cash remittance voucher dated 12-09-2008 for Rs. Ex.P914 3,52,00,000/- Cash remittance voucher dated 12-09-2008 for Rs. Ex.P915 4,73,00,000/- Cash remittance voucher dated 12-09-2008 for Rs. Ex.P916 35,00,000/- Cheque no.953400 dated 12-09-2008 for Rs.5,08,00,000/- Ex.P917 fvg. MMTC Ltd

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 227 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010

Debit voucher dated 13-09-2009 for Rs.11,79,83,091/- Ex.P918 towards cost of 100 kg gold Cash remittance voucher dated 15-09-2008 for Ex.P919 Rs.2,86,00,000/- Cheque no.966903 dated 15-09-2008 for Rs.2,86,00,000/- Ex.P920 fvg. MMTC Ltd. Cheque no.966908 dated 20-09-2008 for Rs.50,00,000/- Ex.P921 fvg. Sree Nidhi Enterprises Cheque no.966907 dated 20-09-2008 for Rs.99,00,000/- Ex.P922 fvg. MMTC Ltd. Debit voucher dated 20-09-2008 for Rs.32,201/- towards Ex.P923 proc charges & Int on Icp. Debit voucher dated 29-09-2008 for Rs.59,178/- towards Ex.P924 interest on Icp Debit voucher dated 04-10-2008 for Rs.3,00,00,000/- Ex.P925 towards transfer to Icp Debit voucher dated 14-10-2008 for Rs.34,16,969/- towards Ex.P926 interest on 100 kg gold delivered 25-08-2008 to 14- 10- 2008 Credit voucher dated 06-10-2008 for Rs.50,00,000/-by Ex.P927 cheque no.7 no.7629 on Union Bank of India, Ramkote Branch. Debit voucher dated 06-10-2008 for Rs.4,23,984/- towards Ex.P928 com. On 300 kg gold. Cheque no.953311 dated 06-10-2008 for Rs.50,00,000/- Ex.P929 fvg. S.Chennareddy 501/46085 Debit voucher dated 14-10-2008 for Rs. 50,010/- towards Ex.P930 cost of stamps. Credit voucher dated 30-12-2008 for Rs.2,50,000/- by LVB Ex.P931 DD 102275 dated 08/12 Credit voucher dated 30-12-2008 for Rs.9,00,000/- by LVB Ex.P932 DD 102268 dated 08/12 Credit voucher dated 30-12-2008 for Rs.9,00,000/- by LVB Ex.P933 DD 102267 dated 08/12 Credit voucher dated 30-12-2008 for Rs.9,00,000/- by LVB Ex.P934 DD 102269 dated 08/12 Credit voucher dated 30-12-2008 for Rs.9,00,000/- by LVB Ex.P935 DD 102270 dated 08/12 Credit voucher dated 30-12-2008 for Rs.9,00,000/- by LVB Ex.P936 DD 102271 dated 08/12

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 228 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010

Credit voucher dated 30-12-2008 for Rs.9,00,000/- by LVB Ex.P937 DD 102272 dated 08/12 Credit voucher dated 30-12-2008 for Rs.9,00,000/- by LVB Ex.P938 DD 102273 dated 08/12 Credit voucher dated 30-12-2008 for Rs.9,00,000/- by LVB Ex.P939 DD 102274 dated 08/12 Debit voucher dated 31-01-2009 for Rs.22,665/- towards Ex.P940 SARFAESIA publication in Indian Express/Jyothi on 31-01- 2009 Credit voucher dt.03.05.08 for Rs.1,00,00,000/- Ex.P941

Credit voucher dt.05.05.08 for Rs.2,00,00,000/- Ex.P942

Monthly monitoring report for the month of Oct,2008 Ex.P943 submitted by Ramkote Branch. (Part of L.D.No.37, page No.225-233) Seizure Memo dated 05.07.2010 showing seizure of 10 Ex.P944 documents by R.Badenkal /Inspector/CBIBS&FC Bangalore from PDN Sharma Chief Manager, UBI,Ramkote Branch, Hyderabad.(LD.No.2) Letter No. 101/2010 dated 03.07.2010 signed and issued Ex.P945 by Chief Manager, UBI, Ramkote Branch, Hyderabad addressed to Inspector of Police, CBI, BS&FC, Bangalore. (Part of LD.No.2) Seizure Memo dated 24.02.2010 showing seizure of 06 Ex.P946 documents by R.Badenkal /Inspector/CBIBS&FC Bangalore. from Abdul Salam, Sr. Manager, UBI, FGMO, Bangalore. (Part of LD.No.2) Seizure Memo dated 15.03.2010 showing seizure of 04 Ex.P947 documents by R.Badenkal /Inspector/CBIBS&FC Bangalore. from Abdul Salam, Sr. Manager, UBI, FGMO, Bangalore. (Part of LD.No.2) Seizure Memo dated 26.02.2010 showing seizure of 48 Ex.P948 documents by R.Badenkal /Inspector/CBIBS&FC Bangalore from C.V.N. Bhagawan, Chief Manager, UBI,Ramkote Branch, Hyderabad. (Part of LD.No.2) Seizure Memo dated 26.02.2010 showing seizure of 48 Ex.P949 documents by R.Badenkal /Inspector/CBIBS&FC Bangalore from C.V.N. Bhagawan, Chief Manager, UBI,Ramkote Branch, Hyderabad. (Part of LD.No.2) Letter dated 10.02.2010 signed and issued by Chief Manager, UBI,Ramkote Branch, Hyderabad along with Ex.P950 enclosures addressed to R.Badenkal /Inspector,CBI,BS&FC

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 229 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010

Bangalore. (Part of LD.No.2) Letter dated 13.01.2010 signed and issued by Shri C.V.N. Ex.P951 Bhagavan, Chief Manager, UBI, Ramkote Branch, HyderabadaddressedtoShriR.Badenkal /Inspector,CBI,BS&FC Bangalore. (Part of LD.No.2) Seizure Memo dated 02.02.2010 showing seizure of 13 Ex.P952 documents by Shri R.Badenkal /Inspector,CBI, BS&FC Bangalore from Shri C.V.N. Bhagawan, Chief Manager, UBI, Ramkote Branch, Hyderabad. Part of LD.No.2) (Part of LD.No.2) is Letter No. VIG:CBILBS&FC:BLR:2009 Ex.P953

dated 15.12.2009 signed and issued by Shri Anil Malhotra,

Chief Manager, UBI, Central Office, Mumbai addressed to Inspector of Police, CBI, BS&FC, Bangalore Letter No. RVC:09 dated 12.11.2009 along with certified Ex.P954 copies of enclosures signed and issued by Mr. K.S.Murthy, Sr. Manager (Vigilance), Regional Vigilance Cell, UBI, Hyderabad addressed to Shri R.Badenkal, Inspector,CBI, BS&FC, Bangalore. (Part of LD.No.2) Seizure Memo dated 12.11.2009 showing seizure of 22 Ex.P955 documents by Shri R.Badenkal /Inspector/CBIBS&FC Bangalore from Shri K S Murthy, Sr. Manager (Vigilance), UBI, Hyderabad. (Part of LD.No.2) Letter dated 23.10.2009 signed and issued by Shri Ex.P956 C.V.N.Bhagavan,Chief Manager, UBI, Ramkote Branch, Hyderabad addressed to Inspector of Police, CBI, BS&FC, Bangalore.(Part of LD.No.2) Seizure Memo dated 23.10.2009 showing seizure of 94 Ex.P957 documents by Shri R.Badenkal /Inspector,CBI, BS&FC Bangalore from Shri C.V.N.Bhagawan, Chief Manager, Ramkote Branch, Hyderabad. (Part of LD.No.2) Letter dated 07.07.2009 signed and issued by Shri PDN Ex.P958 Sharma, Chief Manager, UBI, RO, Nampally, Hyderabad addressed to Inspector of Police, CBI, BS&FC, Bangalore. (Part of LD.No.2) Seizure Memo dated 07.07.2009 showing seizure of 34 Ex.P959 documents by Shri R.Badenkal /Inspector/CBIBS&FC Bangalore from Shri PDN Sharma Chief Manager, UBI, Ramkote Branch, Hyderabad.(Part of LD.No.2) Letter dated 07.07.2009 signed and issued by Shri CVN Ex.P960 Bhagawan, Chief Manager, UBI, Ramkote Branch, Hyderabad addressed to Inspector of Police, CBI, BS&FC, Bangalore.(Part of LD.No.2)

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.

Court of I Addl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyd. 230 of 242 Judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010

Seizure Memo dated 07.07.2009 showing seizure of 704 Ex.P961 documents by Shri R.Badenkal, Inspector,/CBI, BS&FC Bangalore from Shri C.V.N.Bhagawan, Chief Manager, Ramkote Branch, Hyderabad.(Part of LD.No.2) Seizure Memo dated 07.07.2019 showing seizure of 02 Ex.P962 documents by Shri R.Badenkal, Inspector, CBI, BS&FC Bangalore from Shri P.D.N.Sharma, Chief Manager, RO, UBI, Hyderabad.(Part of LD.No.2) (LD.No.70) is Original Register of Import of Gold and Ledger Ex.P963 maintained at Ramkote Branch from 21.11.03 to 25.03.2008 (Sheet Nos 1-45).( Relevant Page Nos.1-5 & 36- 37 is written with ink pen).

Exhibits Marked on behalf of defence :

Ex.D1 Marked portion in the 161 statement of PW43. Ex.D2 Marked portion in the 161 statement of PW48. Ex.D3Certified copy of complaint in C.C.No.289 of 2009 along with the documents filed in the said complaint and also the Judgment passed in the said case. Ex.D4 Certified copy of complaint in C.C.No.288 of 2009 along with documents and depositions in the said case and also the Judgment passed in the said case. Ex.D5 Copy Application filed in C.C.No.285 of 2009. Ex.D6 Copy Application filed in C.C.No.286 of 2009. Ex.D7 Copy Application filed in C.C.No.287 of 2009.

Sd/-

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad.

FAC I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyd.