V K BHUTIANI Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has been charged with the offence of committing conspiracy to cheat the New Bank of India with the help of forged documents punishable under Sections 120-B read with Section 467/468/471 IPC and for committing an offence punishable under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988, 1988. The order on charge dated 23.8.2003 of the Special Judge, Delhi is challenged in the revision petition.

(2.) The facts as per the charge-sheet are as under: The petitioner, V.K.Bhutiani, was a senior manager in the New Bank of India at the relevant time. Accused No.2, O.P.Rajwanshi, approached the bank for credit facility to the extent of Rs.50 lakhs in the name of his firm, M/s. Vikram Enterprises, in the Connaught Place Branch of New Bank of India where the petitioner - accused No.1 was posted. The accused No.2 represented that he got order for export of garment worth Rs.50 lakhs from a Hong Kong firm under a foreign letter of credit limit. On 25.11.1989, i.e., even before the submission of the loan application, the petitioner recommended sanction of the loan facility in the name of M/s.Vikram Enterprises and to have obtained the sanction from the Regional Manager on 25.11.1989 itself. The amount was utilised to the extent of Rs.17 lakhs within a few days thereafter. The amount was never repaid. The CBI came to know from its own sources that the petitioner connived with accused No.2, O.P.Rajwanshi, and the other accused in this case to defraud the bank of this amount and on such source information registered the FIR bearing No.RC 4A/91. For the purpose of withdrawing the amount from the bank the accused No.2 produced vouchers from two firms, namely, Multiple Traders (proprietorship concern of accused No.4) and M/s. Haji Gudar S.Abdul (proprietorship concern of accused No.3 Mohd. Yusuf (since deceased). The invoices of the accused No.3 were of Rs.20,10,000/- and of Rs.2,25,000/-. Another cash receipt dated 20.12.1989 purportedly signed by accused No.3 for Rs.4,35,000/- in token of having received the amount from the M/s.Vikram Enterprises against one of the two invoices was also submitted by accused No.2. Subsequently it was revealed during investigation that Mohd. Yusuf was not an exporter but only a small vegetable seller. The other invoice of Rs.2,30,000/- purportedly signed by one Ashwini on behalf of Multiple Traders and another receipt also signed by Ashwini for Rs.1 lakh was also produced by accused No.2. The investigation revealed that the documents purporting to be of Multiple Traders were actually signed by accused No.5 Praveen Aggarwal, who was husband of accused No.4. These documents were required to be kept on bank file to facilitated release of funds but actually there was no transaction as depicted by these documents. The petitioner is said to have released the funds without verifying the genuineness of these documents to the extent of Rs.17 lakhs between 26.12.1989 to 28.12.1989 by three bank drafts; one in favour of M/s.Multiple Traders and two in the name of the firm of accused No.3 by debiting the credit limit account of M/s.Vikram Enterprises. The CBI discovered with the help of opinion of handwriting export that A-2 himself signed as Mohd.Yusuf and that the signatures of Ashwini were done by Praveen Aggarwal. The statement of Ashwini also confirms this position.

(3.) In order to establish the charge of conspiracy the CBI depends upon the following circumstances: