Delhi District Court
State vs N.M. Krisnan on 24 December, 2024
CR No.70994/2016 State Vs. N.M. Krishnan
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
PRESIDED BY: SH. P. BHARGAV RAO
DLWT020001062000
FIR No. 109/2000
PS Punjabi Bagh
U/s 406/420/468/471/120B IPC
STATE VS. N.M. KRISHNAN
1) CR Case No. 70994/2016
2) Date of offence(s) November, 1995
3) Complainant Hardev Chadha S/o Sh. Munshi Ram
Chadha R/o 35A, Block F, Pkt. FG-1,
Vikaspuri, New Delhi.
4) Accused person(s) 1. N.M. Krishnan, Proprietor Senthil
Financier & Builders, 117 NTR Street,
Rangrajapuram, Chennai.
2. Arjun Shergil S/o Late Sh. K.K. Gill, R/o
GT-29, Sector - 117, Noida, U.P - 201304.
3. Anil Kumar Dhawan S/o Sh. C.P.
Dhawan R/o I-501, Ajnara Integrity, Raj
Nagar Extension, Ghaziabad, U.P. -
201017.
4. Sanjay Bhandari, V.K. Tours &
Transport, 118-A FF, Arjun Nagar,
Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi - 110029
R/o B-6/69, S.J. Enclave, New Delhi.
5) Offences 406/420/468/471/120B IPC
6) Plea of accused Pleaded not guilty
7) Final Order Acquitted
8) Date of institution 26.02.2002
Digitally
signed by P
9) Date of judgment 24.12.2024
BHARGAV
P RAO
BHARGAV Date:
RAO 2024.12.24
16:44:47
+0530
FIR No.109/2000 PS Punjabi Bagh Page No. 1 of 23
CR No.70994/2016 State Vs. N.M. Krishnan
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION:
1.
It is pertinent to mention at the outset that FIR was registered in the
present case on an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. vide order dated
05.02.2000. Cognizance of the offense was taken on 05.06.2002. The brief facts
of the complaint inter alia which are necessary for adjudication of the present
case are reproduced hereunder:
That somewhere in the month of November, 1995 two persons claiming
themselves to be the Financial Brokers had approached the petitioner company
in its office aforesaid at Punjabi Bagh. It was represented by them that they
could arrange the finance/money for the petitioner company and in
consideration thereof they would be charging their commission. It was further
represented by them that they would get the money from M/s Μ.Λ.Μ.
Annamalayar Trust, having its office at M.A.M. House, Royavaram, Pudukottai.
This trust was also represented by its Power of Attorney Holder M/s Senthil
Financer and Builders. Shri N.M. Krishanna was the Managing Trustee of this
Trust, who was the attorney holder of the said trust and was having its office at
Chennai-24. In brief the said persons were to arrange loan for the petitioner-
company of the extent of Rs.985 Crores from the said trust though the said M/s
Senthil Financers and Builders through Shri N.M.Krishnanan. On such
representations made by the said two persons, the petitioner had agreed to
accept the loan to the extent of the said amount from the said trust. In the next
meeting Shri N.M. Krishanan had also accompanied the said two persons to the
office of the petitioner. Detailed discussions were held in regard to the said
transaction in between the parties. The said Shri N.M. Krishanan had agreed to
lend money to the extent of Rs.985 Crores to the Petitioner Company on the
condition that the petitioner-company would create a mortgage of its hotel
Digitallyproperties in favour of the trust. The transaction was finalised in between the
signed by P
BHARGAV
P RAO
BHARGAV Date:
RAO 2024.12.24
16:44:52
+0530
parties in the aforesaid office of the Petitioner Company, at Punjabi Bagh.
FIR No.109/2000 PS Punjabi Bagh Page No. 2 of 23
CR No.70994/2016 State Vs. N.M. Krishnan
That Mr. N.M. Krishanan alongwith the said persons had agreed to
arrange the said loan and had offered their services to get the documents
prepared in that regard. They had required the Petitioner Company to part with a
sum of Rs.65 Lacs for arranging and procuring the requisite Stamp Papers and
adhesive stamps in order to get the Loan Agreement executed upon the same.
The stamp papers as represented by them were required for reducing into
writing the various terms and conditions of the loan agreement to he entered
into in between the parties.
That the petitioner-company relaying upon the said representations made
by the said persons had made the payment of Rs.65 lacs to them. This payment
of Rs.65 lacs was made by the petitioner company through various Bank Drafts,
details of which is annexed herewith, and marked as Annexure A. However,
these drafts were prepared in the name of Shri Pavan Sachdeva, the Chairman
and Managing Director of the petitioner company, who had simultaneously
endorsed the same in blank and handed over the same to the said persons in
order to facilitate them to procure the requisite stamp papers. This modus
operandi to make the payment by the petitioner company was also adopted on
asking of the said persons only. They had required the payment with blank
endorsement so that they could get the drafts encashed as per their own
convenience for obtaining the stamp papers. So that they could be endorsed to
the stamp vendors. The petitioner company had got the drafts prepared in the
name of its Chairman and Managing Director since the drafts could not have
been got prepared and obtained from the Bank in Blank. The drafts were to be
issued in favour of some person since all the said accused wanted the bearer
drafts. The petitioner company had got the drafts prepared in the name of
Chairman and Managing Director, who had in turn endorsed the same blank and
handed over the same to the said three persons. Digitally
signed by P
P BHARGAV
RAOThat the aforesaid persons had obtained some stamp papers and adhesive
BHARGAV Date:
RAO 2024.12.24
16:44:57
+0530
FIR No.109/2000 PS Punjabi Bagh Page No. 3 of 23
CR No.70994/2016 State Vs. N.M. Krishnan
stamps from Shri C. Thirumohan Stamp Vendor having its office at Stringer
Street, Madras-108 with the License No.109/B 41889 and S. Rajaram for the
value of Rs.60.75 Lacs. They had also got the loan Agreement reduced into
writing upon the said papers. The adhesive stamps were also affixed on the said
document. The said document was handover to the petitioner company for the
purposes of signing the same. The said documents containing adhesive stamps
have also been countersigned by Shri S. Rajaram, party No.4 hereinabove. It is
submitted that petitioner was required to pay a sum of Rs.65 lacs even though
the adhesive stamps and stamp papers for value of Rs.60.75 lacs were only
produced by them. The balance amount of Rs.4.25 lacs is still lying with them
and have also been mis-appropriated by them for their personal use and gains.
That the petitioner-company was never released the money of Rs.985
Crores as promised by the aforesaid persons, but, it has also transpired that the
adhesive stamps as well as the stamp papers upon which the said loan
Agreement was reduced into writing are also forged. When the said trust did not
release the money in favour of the petitioner company, the petitioner company
approached the Stamp Vendor for refund of the ainount spent for purchasing
and procuring the stamp papers and also the adhesive court stamps. At that time
the petitioner company was informed that the said adhesive stamps and stamos
papers were forged and fabricated documents. The petitioner company was not
paid any amount in refund from the authorities concerned.
That the facts became clear that all the aforesaid three persons had
conspired with each other and with a pre-planned conspiracy planned out the
scheme and in furtherance thereof had approached the petitioner company. In
preplanned manner all the accused aforesaid had approached the petitioner and
made false and dishonest representations of arranging loan for the petitioner
company. They falsely represented the petitioner company in order to induce Digitally
signed by P
BHARGAV
P RAOthe company to part away the sum of Rs.65 lacs. The complainant company was
BHARGAV Date:
RAO 2024.12.24
16:45:02
+0530
FIR No.109/2000 PS Punjabi Bagh Page No. 4 of 23
CR No.70994/2016 State Vs. N.M. Krishnan
misrepresented and cheated by them, and under the said inducement the
complainant company had paid a sum of Rs.65.lacs to them. It is evident that all
these accused persons had already procured the forged and fabricated stamp
papers and adhesive stamps and had cooked up the whole story in order to
extract money from the petitioner. They had used the said forged and fabricated
documents purported to be the stamp paper and adhesive court stamps in order
to play a fraud upon the petitioner company. They are not only guilty of forging
and fabricating the documents, but, they have also cheated the petitioner
company by a sum of Rs.65 lacs. The intentions of all the said persons have
throughout been to cheat the petitioner company and use the said forged and
fabricated documents. Relying upon the said statement the petitioner company
had agreed to take loan from the said trust and had parted away the sum of
Rs.65 lacs to the said persons. Later on, on enquiry it further came to know that
the said bank statement was also forged.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that on the above complaint this case was
registered by local police of PS Punjabi Bagh. Later on, the investigation was
transferred to EOW, Crime Branch and the case was investigated by SI C.L.
Bhardwaj. During investigation, the IO recorded the statement of Sh. Pawan
Sachdeva, MD of M.S. Shoes East Ltd. who stated that inadvertently his
attorney Sh. Hardev Chada could not mention the names of the two financial
brokers. The names of two financial brokers are Arjun Shergill and Anil
Dhawan who introduced N.M. Krishnan to him and induced him to make
payment of Rs. 65 lacs for purchase of Stamp papers/adhesive stamps. The IO
also recorded the statement of Sh. Hardev Chadha complainant who stated that
inadvertently he could not mention the name of two financial brokers in the
complaint. The name of two financial brokers are Arjun Shergill and Anil
Dhawan. The IO made efforts to trace Arjun Shergill and Anil Dhawan. P
Digitally
signed by P
BHARGAV
RAO
BHARGAV Date:
RAO
However, Sh. Pawan Sachdeva brought them to EOW and identified them. The
2024.12.24
16:45:08
+0530FIR No.109/2000 PS Punjabi Bagh Page No. 5 of 23
CR No.70994/2016 State Vs. N.M. KrishnanIO also seized alleged forged stamp papers and adhesive stamps from Sh.
Pawan Sachdeva. Later on the investigation was handed over to SI Pratap
Singh. During investigation the IO collected reply of State Bank of Indore,
Karol Bagh, New Delhi and they confirmed that M/s MS Shoes East Ltd. was
running current A/c No. CD-065. 16 drafts amounting to Rs. 65 lacs were issued
from the account of M/s M.S. Shoes East Ltd. and were in favour of Sh. Pawan
Sachdev. The drafts were payable at State Bank of Indore, Broadway Branch,
Chennai. The IO collected the reply from the State Bank of Indore, Broadway
Branch Chennai and they confirmed payment of Draft Nos. 880644 to 880646
for Rs. 1 Lacs each and Draft No. 880647 for Rs 2 Lacs were collected by State
Bank of Indore, Greater Kailash, New Delhi. The payment of Draft Nos 880632
to 880643 for Rs. 5 lacs each was collected by Indian Overseas Bank
Kodambakkam, Chennai. They also provided attested copies of the bank drafts.
The IO also collected the reply of Indian Overseas Bank Kodambakkam,
Chennai and they confirmed that twelve drafts numbers 880632 to 880643 of
Rs. 5 Lacs each were presented by them and collected the payment from State
Bank of Indore, Broadway Branch, Chennai. The payment of these drafts was
credited in the account No. CA 2114 of Senthil Financiers and Builders. The
proprietor of this firm is N.M. Krishnan. The IO also collected reply of State
Bank of Indore, Greater Kailash Branch and they confirmed that drafts
amounting to Rs. 5 lacs were sent in collection and credited Rs 4,98,630/- in the
account of M/s V.K. Tours & Transport. The proprietor of firm is Mr. Sanjay
Bhandari. M/s V.K Tours & Transport could not clarify from where they
received these four drafts. The IO examined Thiru E. Dharman District
Registrar, Chennai who confirmed that stamp vender C. Thirumohan is
registered with his office. He also provided the photocopy of sale register dt.
4.12.95 of stamp vender C. Thirumohan. There in no entry in the sale register Digitally
signed by P
BHARGAV
P RAO
BHARGAV
dt. 4.12.95 of C. Thirumohan stamp vendor of Sl. Nos mentioned on 15 stamp
Date:
RAO 2024.12.24
16:45:14
+0530
FIR No.109/2000 PS Punjabi Bagh Page No. 6 of 23
CR No.70994/2016 State Vs. N.M. Krishnan
papers of Rs. 5000/- each in question. The IO N.M. Krishnan, Arjun Sand Anil
Dhawan have committed offence u/s 420/406/ 467/468/471/120-B IPC. Pof Rs.
5 lacs against draft Nos. 880644 to 880646 for Rs on lac each and DD No.
880647 for Rs 2 lacs was credited in the account of V.K. Tours & Transport
whose proprietor is Sanjay Bhandari. He could not clarify from where he had
received drafts of Rs. 5 lacs in question. Despite of visits to his office by IO,
contact on phone, receipt of letter and Notice u/s 160 Cr.P.C., Sanjay Bhandari
did not join investigation and did not provide the details from where he
procured the four drafts of Rs. 5 Lacs in question. But it is fact that amount of
Rs. 5 Lacs against four drafts was credited on the account of V.K. Tour &
Transport whose proprietor is Sanjay Bhandari. Hence, he is beneficiary of the
said cheated amount. He has also been chargesheeted in Col No. 4 with the
other accused persons. As this Hon’ble Court has already taken cognizance on
the complaint of Sh. Hardev Chadha, Attorney of M.S. Shoes East Ltd. and
investigation of the case was going on simultaneously, the accused persons
shown in Col No. 4 of the chargesheet were not arrested. However sufficient
evidence to recommend prosecution for all the four accused persons has come
on record. Therefore, all of them namely N.M. Krishnan, Anil Kumar Dhawan,
Arjun Shergil and Sanjay Bhandari are recommended for trial as per law. They
may be called through notices and witnesses cited in the list enclosed be called
through summons also examined C. Thirumohan stamp vender who confirmed
that he has not sold the 15 stamp papers of of Rs. 5000/- each in question and
his signature and seal on the stamp papers is forged. The IO also made
investigation regarding 1170 adhesive stamps of Rs.5000/- each and examined
Thiru R. Venu, Asstt. Superintendent of Stamp, Chennai and the adhesive
stamps pasted on 39 pages bearing seal of Asst. Superintendent of stamps and
signature of S. Rajaram were shown to Sh. Thiru R. Venu Asstt. Superintendent Digitally
signed by P
BHARGAV
P RAO
BHARGAVof stamps who confirmed that on the stamps seal impression of General Stamp
Date:
RAO 2024.12.24
16:45:20
+0530
FIR No.109/2000 PS Punjabi Bagh Page No. 7 of 23
CR No.70994/2016 State Vs. N.M. Krishnan
Office dated 4.12.95 are forged since there was no office functioning at
Saidaipet Chennai- 15 on 4.12.95. He also confirmed that on 4.12.95 there was
no person in the name of Thiru Raja Ram working as Asst. Superintendent of
stamps and hence signatures are forged. They have not sold 1170 adhesive
stamps of Rs.5000/- each in question. There is stamp of district Registry Stamp
Depot Madras October 1995 on each stamp paper of Rs. 5000/-. The IO
examined Sh. Thriu S. Shivaraman Treasury Officer Distt. Treasury, Chennai
but he could not confirm the genuinity of the seal at this distance time. The
address of M/s M.AM. Annamalayar Trust has been shown at M.A.M. House
Royavaram, Pudikottai. The IO also made investigation at M.AM. House
Royavaram, Tamilnadu. Sh. M.A.M. Palaniappa Chettiar owner of MAM
House was examined who confirmed that there is/was no trust in the name of
Annamalayar Trust at present or in 1995 MAM House (given addresses) and he
does not know N.M. Krishnan. The IO also recorded statement of Rathaalrishan
S/o Sh. Kranppah who translated the statement of Sh. MAM Palaniappa
Chettiar from Tamil language to English. The IO made search of N.M. Krishnan
but he has vacated the office of Santil Financiers & Builders No. 117 N.TR.
Street, Rangarajapuram Chennai and his present whereabouts are not known.
The 15 stamp papers and 1170 adhesive stamps were sent to India Security
Press Nasik to verify whether these are forged or not. The report from India
Security Press Nasik Road have been received and they have confirmed all the
15 stamp papers of Rs. 5000/- each in question and all the 1170 Spl. Adhesive
stamps of Rs. 5000/- each are forged. From the investigation made so far it has
come on record that accused N.M. Krishnan, Arjun Shergil and Anil Dhawan
entered in deep rooted conspiracy and mislead the complainant that they will
provide a loan of Rs. 985 Crores from Annamalayar Trust. They also induced
Digitally
the complainant to make payment of Rs.65 lacs for purchase of stamp papers P
BHARGAV
signed by P
BHARGAV
RAO
Date:
RAO 2024.12.24
and adhesive stamps for writing agreement for providing loan. The complainant
16:45:33
+0530
FIR No.109/2000 PS Punjabi Bagh Page No. 8 of 23
CR No.70994/2016 State Vs. N.M. Krishnan
company made payment of Rs. 65 lacs to above accused persons through 16
bank drafts and Sh. Pawan Sachdeva Chairman cum Manager Director of M.S
Shoes East Ltd. made blank endorsement on the back side of the bank drafts.
The IO also examined Sh Pawan Sachdeva. The above accused persons
arranged forged stamp papers and adhesive stamps and typed loan agreement,
lease agreement on forged stamp papers and adhesive stamps and handed over
the same to the complainant company for signature. No loan amount was
released. Payment of Rs. 60 lacs was credited in the account of M/s Senthil
Financiers & Builders whose proprietor is N.M. Krishnan. There was no trust in
the name of Annamalayar Trust at the given address. The 15 stamp papers of
Rs. 5000/- each in question have not been sold by C. Thirumohan Stamp vendor
and his signature and seal on the stamp papers are forged. Asst. Superintendent
of stamps have confirmed that they have not sold 1170 adhesive stamps in
question on 4.12.95 and seal and signature on the adhesive stamps are forged.
The above 15 stamps papers and adhesive stamps were forwarded by the
accused persons to complainant after writing the agreement and lease agreement
on the same. The accused persons had no arrangement of providing a loan of
Rs. 985 Crores to complainant. Thus accused N.M. Krishnan, Arjun Shergil and
Anil Dhawan have committed offence u/s 420/406/467/468/471/120-B IPC.
Payment of Rs. 5 lacs against draft Nos. 880644 to 880646 for Rs one lac each
and DD No. 880647 for Rs 2 lacs was credited in the account of V.K. Tours &
Transport whose proprietor is Sanjay Bhandari. He could not clarify from where
he had received the demand drafts of Rs. 5 lacs in question. Despite of visits to
his office by IO, contact on telephone, receipt of letter and Notice u/s 160
Cr.P.C., Sanjay Bhandari did not join investigation and did not provide the
details from where he procured the four drafts of Rs. 5 Lacs in question. But it
Digitally
is fact that amount of Rs. 5 Lacs against four drafts was credited on the account P
BHARGAV
signed by P
BHARGAV
RAO
Date:
RAO 2024.12.24
of V.K. Tour & Transport whose proprietor is Sanjay Bhandari. Hence he is
16:45:39
+0530
FIR No.109/2000 PS Punjabi Bagh Page No. 9 of 23
CR No.70994/2016 State Vs. N.M. Krishnan
beneficiary of the said cheated amount. He has also been chargesheeted in Col
No. 4 with the other accused persons. As this Hon’ble Court has already taken
cognizance on the complaint of Sh. Hardev Chadha, Attorney of M.S. Shoes
East Ltd. and investigation of the case was going on simultaneously, the
accused persons shown in Col No. 4 of the chargesheet were not arrested.
However, sufficient evidence to recommend prosecution for all the four accused
persons has come on record.
3. Pursuant to direction of FIR, two witnesses i.e. Hardev Chadha, AR of
the complainant company and Dalip Kumar, Clerk-cum-cashier, State Bank of
Indore, Industrial Finance Branch were examined. In the meantime, chargesheet
was filed, thereafter, the witnesses were not cross-examined.
4. It is pertinent to mention that since both Hardev Chadha, AR of the
complainant company and Dalip Kumar, Clerk-cum-cashier, State Bank of
Indore, Industrial Finance Branch were not examined by Ld. Counsel for
accused, their testimonies cannot be read in the evidence.
5. Accused N.M. Krishnan was declared Proclaimed Offender vide order
dated 18.07.2005.
6. Charge-sheet for the offences punishable under Section
406/420/468/471/120B IPC was filed by the investigating officer against the
accused persons. Consequently, the said accused persons were summoned by
the Court. The compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C. was made and thereafter the
charge for the offence punishable under Section 406/420/468/471/120B IPC
was framed against the accused persons on 12.12.2013 to which the accused
persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
7. Vide order dated 10.02.2015, complainant Hardev Chadha was dropped
from list of witnesses.
Digitally
8. To substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined the following P
BHARGAV
signed by P
BHARGAV
RAO
Date:
RAO
2024.12.24witnesses in the case:
16:45:45
+0530FIR No.109/2000 PS Punjabi Bagh Page No. 10 of 23
CR No.70994/2016 State Vs. N.M. Krishnan
9. HC Vasudev deposed that he was entrusted with the process u/s 82
Cr.P.C. and his detailed report is Ex.CW1/A. He further deposed that the report
on the process u/s 83 Cr.P.C. is Ex.CW1/B.
10. Pawan Sachdeva deposed that he was Chairman cum Managing Director
of M/s Shoes East Ltd., registered office at 112A Ekta Enclave. He further
deposed that during investigation handed-over some document to IO which was
seized vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW1/A. He further deposed that he also handed-
over original Indian Non-Judicial stamp papers of Rs.5,000/- each having
district treasury stamp of October, 1995 bearing No. 1458 to 1472 dated
04.12.1995 having stamp and signature of C.Thirumohan stamp vendor stringer
street Madras 109/D41889 (total 5000 X 15) and stamp papers. He further
deposed that he handed-over forty documents each containing special adhesive
stamps of denominations 5000 X 30 on each page stamped by treasury Madras
totalling Rs.60.00 lakhs which are documents of simple mortgage having stamp
and signatures of S. Raja Ram (Stamp Vendor). The forty pages document are
Ex.PW1/C. He further deposed that two financial brokers namely Anil Dhawan
and Arjun Shergeil approached him at Punjabi Bagh office in November, 1995
and represented that they can arrange a loan of about Rs.1000 crores from a
trust MAM Annmalayar at Poddukatai through its attorney M/s. Senthil
Financers. He further deposed that those two brokers came along with NM
Krishnan to his office in Punjabi Bagh in December, 1995 and told loan would
be granted for which non-judicial stamp papers and adhesive stamps of
Rs.65.00 lakhs are required. He further deposed that accused had shown the
bank statement of the trust having balance amount of the sought loan and
demand draft of Rs.65.00 lakhs were issued in his name. He further deposed
that the demand drafts were endorsed on the request of those three accused and
non-judicial stamp papers and adhesive stamp papers were given to him after Digitally signed
by P BHARGAV
P RAO
typing the loan agreement. Thereafter, it is stated that when the loan was not BHARGAV Date:
RAO 2024.12.24
16:45:51
+0530
FIR No.109/2000 PS Punjabi Bagh Page No. 11 of 23
CR No.70994/2016 State Vs. N.M. Krishnan
released, Pawan Sachdeva approached to get the refund of the stamp papers and
adhesive stamps but came to know that it was forged. He further deposed that
the accused cheated them, forged the documents and the bank statement
showing them the loan amount which was sought for was also forged. He
further deposed that names of accused Anil Dhawan and Arjun Shergil were not
mentioned inadvertently in the complaint by complainant Hardev Chadha,
however, he had produced the accused persons before the IO but could not
produce accused N.M. Krishnan as he was untraceable. The witness was cross-
examined by Ld. Counsel for accused persons.
11. Abhishek Kumar Verma deposed that :
“I am a summoned witness and today I state that the concerned document
has already been destroyed as per the RBI guidelines being more than 10 years
old. The required letter dated 07.09.18 on the letterhead of state bank of India
under my signatures has also been filed by me regarding the same. The same be
taken on record. The letter is now Ex.A1.”
12. Manoj Kumar deposed that :
“I have brought the summoned record i.e. pertaining to statement of
account/ledger in respect of M/s M.S. Shoes East Ltd. having address at 5
NWA, Punjabi Bagh Extension, New Delhi bearing account no. 065 which was
changed later on to 01050060010 which is also further changed to 53049420674
from 27.09.1994 to 27.03.2007, certified copy of which is Ex. PW-3/A (running
Into 28 pages) bearing my signatures at point A. The last transaction in the said
account took place in the month of June, 1996”. The witness was cross-
examined by Ld. Counsel for accused persons.
13. PW Anil Kohli deposed that:
“Today. I have been summoned to produce the record with current
account number V-0012 and for the letter number GK/MISC/0058/2001-02, Digitally
signed by P
P BHARGAV
RAO
BHARGAVdated 26.05.2001. As per our record the above said documents are not available
Date:
RAO 2024.12.24
16:45:56
+0530
FIR No.109/2000 PS Punjabi Bagh Page No. 12 of 23
CR No.70994/2016 State Vs. N.M. Krishnan
at present as the above said record is 20 years old and is not found in the bank.
The details I have mentioned in the letter, which is Ex. PW-4/A (into two pages)
bearing my signatures at point A. However, the above said documents are
already on record and these are certified copies duly verified by the then
Manager. I have seen the signatures on the above said letter. These signatures
are appear to be of the Pramod Kumar Srivastava, the then Chief Manager of
the State bank of Indore, M-10, GK-II. Mr. P.K. Srivastava may be summoned
to identify his signatures”. The witness was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for
accused persons as “Nil – opportunity given”.
14. PW5 Retd. ASI Sunder Singh deposed that :
“On 18.02.2000, 1 was posted as Duty Officer at PS Punjabi Bagh. My
duty hours were from 4.00 pm to 12 mid night. At about 8 pm, one rukka was
brought before me through SHO concerned and I registered FIR on the basis of
the same which is Ex.PWS/A (OSR) bearing my Signature at point A. I handed
over the copy of FIR to SI Balihar Singh”. The witness was cross-examined by
accused persons as “Nil – opportunity given”.
15. PW Radha Krishnan Venu deposed that:
“In the year 2001, 1 was working as Assistant Superintendent of Stomps
at Chennai. My tenure in the department was from 01.07.1999 to 31.05.2001.
On 20.03.2001, Police officer Pratap Singh approached for report on the sale of
stamps. I had given information that no stamps was sold at that office on
04.12.1995, Police officer also confirmed the stamps not sold by this office and
no office was working as Assistant Superintendent of Stamps. There is also to
person in the name of Raja Ram who said to have signed on the stamp papers.
On the requisition of police officials, I had provided the information/ report
relating to the stamps by the letter dated 20.03.2001 which is Ex.PW6/A
bearing my signature at point A”. Ld. APP sought permission to cross-examine Digitally
signed by P
BHARGAV
P RAO
BHARGAV Date:
the witness as the witness is not deposing the complete facts. During the cross-
RAO 2024.12.24
16:46:03
+0530
FIR No.109/2000 PS Punjabi Bagh Page No. 13 of 23
CR No.70994/2016 State Vs. N.M. Krishnan
examination by Ld. APP, the witness denied the suggestion that witness had
seen 1170 special adhesive stamps of 5000 rupees on the police file and further
denied the suggestion that there are 39 pages and on each page 30 adhesive
stamps of Rs.5000 is affixed. The witness was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel
for accused persons as “Nil – opportunity given”.
16. PW ACP C. L. Bhardwaj deposed that:
“In May. 2000, I was posted as Sl at EOW Cell, Crime Branch, Delhi. In
June-July, I was entrusted with the investigation of the present case. During
investigation, I had demanded the documents from the complainant Mr Pawan
Sachdeva. After 3-4 months the complainant had produced some documents at
office of EOW, Qutub Institutional Area, Delhi. Thereafter, I had recorded the
statement of complainant Pawan Sachdeva which is already Ex.PW1/DB
bearing my signature at point A. I had also recorded the statement of Hardev
Chadha, Authorized Attorney of the complainant which is Ex.PW7/A bearing
my signature at point A. I do not remember the contents of statement u/s 161
Cr.P.C. which are on record. During the investigation I also seized some
relevant documents including the loan documents which were produced by the
complainant vide seizure memo already Ex.PWI/A now bearing my signature at
point B. Thereafter, investigation of the present case was transferred to SI
Pratap Singh”. The witness was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused
persons.
17. PW-8 Sh. M. R. Nachiappan, Chief Manager, Indian Overseas Hank,
Kodambakkam Branch, Chennai deposed that:
“I have been working as a Chief Manager in Indian Overseas Bank.
Kodambakkam Branch. Chennai since 03.06.2016. Today. I have come
alongwith photocopy of the letter of Indian Overseas Bank dated 09.03.2001.
photocopy of Clearing Credit Challan of Rs. 60 lakhs, photocopy of the details P
Digitally
signed by P
BHARGAV
RAO
BHARGAV Date:
RAO
of Clearing Credit Challan, photocopy of the Specimen signature of the N. M.
2024.12.24
16:46:09
+0530FIR No.109/2000 PS Punjabi Bagh Page No. 14 of 23
CR No.70994/2016 State Vs. N.M. KrishnanKrishnan, photocopy of the account opening form, photocopy of one document
signed by the complainant Pawan Sachdeva attested by Chief Manager,
Industrial Finance Branch. Karol Bagh, photocopy of the statement of account
w.e.f. March, 1994 to 09.12.1996 in the name of Senthil Financiers and Builders
and another statement of account w.c.f. 01.01.1997 to 18.03.2001 in the name
of Senthil Financiers and Builders. Original / photocopy of the abovesaid
documents are already in judicial record. Original letter of Indian Overseas
Bank dated 09.03.2001 is exhibit Ex.PW8/A, Photocopy of Clearing Credit
Challan of Rs.60 lakhs is Mark A. Photocopy of the details of Clearing Credit
Challan is Mark B. photocopy of the Specimen signature of the N. M. Krishnan
is Mark C, photocopy of the account opening form is Mark D (running into 5
pages), photocopy of one document signed by the complainant Pawan Sachdeva
attested by Chief Manager. Industrial Finance Branch. Karol Bagh Mark E.
Original statement of current account no.2114 w.e.f. March, 1994 to 09.12.1996
in the name Senthil Financiers and Builders which is Ex.PV8/8 (running into 7
pages) and another original statement of abovesaid account w.e.f. 01.01.1997 to
18.03.2001 in the name of Senthil Financiers and Builders which is Ex.PW8/C
(running into 2 pages)”. The witness was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for
accused persons.
18. PW9 Sh. Ravi Krishna Srivastava deposed that:
“In February, 2002. I was working as Works Manager, in India Security
Press, Nasik. We had received 15 Non Judicial Stamps in the denomination of
Rs.5.000/- and 39 sheets of Special Adhesive Stamps for their examination sent
by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Crime Branch Delhi. After
examination, I found that all the abovesaid documents were forged and I had
prepared the detailed report in this regard which is PW9/A bearing my signature
at point A”. The witness was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused P
Digitally
signed by P
BHARGAV
RAO
BHARGAV Date:
RAO
persons as “Nil – opportunity given”.
2024.12.24
16:46:15
+0530
FIR No.109/2000 PS Punjabi Bagh Page No. 15 of 23
CR No.70994/2016 State Vs. N.M. Krishnan
19. PW Anil Kohli, Cash Officer, State Bank of India, NRI Branch GK 11
deposed that:
“I have been deputed by the Branch Manager to appear on behalf of Sh.
P. K. Srivastava. I cannot identify the signature of Sh. P.K. Srivastava on
relevant documents. The address of P. K. Srivastava is also not available in the
branch as he had left the bank before 2-3 years ago”.
20. PW10 Sh Radhakrishnan deposed that:
“I can understand, read and write Tamil language only and Lam unable to
translate the Tamil language into English language. Though I am well versed
with Tamil language”. Ld APP for the State sought permission to cross-examine
the witness as the witness is resiling from his previous statement. Ld APP for
the State has cross-examined the witness as under:
“I am the Caretaker and Accountant of MM Palaniappa Chittiar R/o MM
House, Padumanai Line Street, Royavaram District Padukottia, Tamil Nadu. It
is wrong to suggest that on 23-03-2001 police official had recorded the
statement of MAM Palaniappa Chittiar in English and he had spoken in Tamil
language and I had correctly translated the same in English language. It is
wrong to suggest that MAM Palaniappa Chittiar had stated that there was no
trust at MAM House at present nor in the year 1995 in the name and style of
Annamalayar Trust. At this stage the witness is confronted from portion A to
A-1 of his previous statement Mark 10A wherein it is so recorded.” The witness
was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused persons as “Nil – opportunity
given”.
21. Upon completion of the prosecution evidence, the statement of accused
persons under section 313 read with Section 281 Cr.P.C. was recorded on
28.02.2022 and the evidence surfaced against them and documents exhibited
during the trial were put to them. The accused persons denied their correctness Digitally
signed by P
BHARGAV
P RAO
BHARGAV
Date:
and pleaded innocence. The accused persons opted not to lead defence evidence.
RAO 2024.12.24
16:46:23
+0530
FIR No.109/2000 PS Punjabi Bagh Page No. 16 of 23
CR No.70994/2016 State Vs. N.M. Krishnan
22. I have heard arguments on behalf of the State as well as arguments
advanced by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons and also carefully perused the
material record.
LEGAL PROVISIONS INVOLVED
23. Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 reads as:
“406. Punishment for criminal breach of trust.–
Whoever commits criminal breach of trust shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three
years, or with fine, or with both”.
24. Section 405 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 defines criminal breach of
trust:
“405. Criminal breach of trust.–
Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any
dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his
own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in
violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust
is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he
has made touching the discharge of such trust, or wilfully suffers any other
person so to do, commits “criminal breach of trust”.
25. Section 120B IPC provides for the offence of criminal conspiracy.
“Criminal conspiracy” is defined u/s 120 A IPC which reads as under:
“Definition of criminal conspiracy- When two or more persons agree to
do, or cause to be done,-
An illegal act, or
An act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is
designated a criminal conspiracy”
26. The essential ingredients to attract Section 120A are:
There should be two or more persons.
There should be an agreement between themselves.
The agreement must be to do or cause to be done: an illegal act, or a legal
act by illegal means.
27. Section 120A is a substantive offence. It is a settled proposition of law
Digitally
that in case of a conspiracy to commit an offence, the mere agreement is
signed by P
BHARGAV
P RAO
BHARGAV Date:
RAO 2024.12.24
16:46:30
+0530
FIR No.109/2000 PS Punjabi Bagh Page No. 17 of 23
CR No.70994/2016 State Vs. N.M. Krishnan
sufficient to impose liability without the requirement that some overt act in
furtherance of the conspiracy should have been committed.
28. Section 420 IPC provides for the offence of cheating and dishonestly
inducing delivery of property. Simple cheating is punishable u/s 417 IPC. But
where there is delivery or destruction of any property or alteration or destruction
of any valuable security resulting from the act of person deceiving, the same
falls under the ambit of section 420. It reads as under:
“420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.- Whoever
cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person de- ceived 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 sealed, 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”
29. The essential ingredients to attract Section 420 IPC are:
Cheating:
Dishonest inducement to deliver property or to make, alter or destroy any
valuable security or anything which is sealed or is capable of being
converted into a valuable security; and
Mens rea of the accused at the time of making the inducement.
30. It should also be noted that accused should have dishonest intention to
cheat right at the time of making the promise or representation. If he does not
have any such intention at the very outset and if he subsequently fails to fulfil
the said promise, then he cannot be convicted for the offence punishable u/s 420
IPC. Reference can be taken from the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the case of Hira Lal Hari Lal vs. CBI (2003) 5 SCC 257.
31. Section 468 of IPC reads as:
“468. Forgery for purpose of cheating.–
Whoever commits forgery, intending that the document or electronic Digitally
record forged shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished P
signed by P
BHARGAV RAO
BHARGAV Date:
with imprisonment of either de-scription for a term which may extend to RAO 2024.12.24
16:46:35
+0530FIR No.109/2000 PS Punjabi Bagh Page No. 18 of 23
CR No.70994/2016 State Vs. N.M. Krishnanseven years, and shall also be liable to fine”
32. A bare reading of this provision suggests that a person may be convicted
under this offence if the following essential ingredients get fulfilled:
i. Existence of a forged document.
ii. Forged document must used for the purpose of cheating.
33. Therefore, the primary ingredient which needs to be proved by the
prosecution in order to attract section 468 IPC is the existence of a forged
document. Forgery is defined in section 463 IPC as the making of a false
document or false electronic record with any of intentions mentioned therein.
Section 464 defines the making of false document or false electronic record.
Section 463 reads as under:
“Whoever makes any false documents or false electronic record or part of
a document or electronic record, with intent to cause damage or injury, to
the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause
any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied
contract, or with intent to comme fraud or that fraud may be committed,
commits forgery”.
34. Section 464 IPC reads as under:
“Making a false document A person is said to make a false document or
false electronic record-
First- Who dishonestly or fraudulently
Makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part of a document:
Makes or transmits any electronic record or part of any electronic record:
Affixes any electronic signature or any electronic record,
Makes any mark denoting the execution of a document or authenticity of
the electronic signature,
With the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or part
of document, electronic record or electronic signature was made, signed,
sealed, executed, transmitted or affixed by or by the authority of a person
by whom or by whose authority he knows or affixed by or by the authority
of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made,
signed, sealed, executed. or affixed; or
Secondly- Who, without lawful authority, dishonestly or fraudulently, by
cancellation or otherwise alters a document or an electronic record in any
material part thereof, after it has been made, executed pr affixed with
electronic signature either by himself or by any other person, whether such Digitally
signed by Pperson be living or dead at the time of such alteration; or P
BHARGAV
BHARGAV
RAO
Date:
Thirdly-Who dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, seal,
RAO 2024.12.24
16:46:41
+0530FIR No.109/2000 PS Punjabi Bagh Page No. 19 of 23
CR No.70994/2016 State Vs. N.M. Krishnanexecute or alter a document or an electronic record or affix his electronic
signature on any electronic record knowing that such person by reason of
unsoundness of mind or intoxication cannot, or that by reason of deception
practiced upon him, he does not know the contents of the document or
electronic record or the nature of the alteration.”
35. Therefore, a combined reading of the provisions enshrined in section 463
and 464 suggests that in addition to prove the making/existence of a false
document by the accused, the prosecution is also required to establish that the
said document or electronic record as the case may be, was forged to achieve
any of the intentions enumerated in Section 463 i.e. (i) to cause damage or
injury to the public, or to any person; or (ii) to support any claim or title; or (iii)
to cause any person to part with property; or (iv) to enter into any express or
implied contract; or (e) to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed.
Therefore, in order to convict an accused u/s 468 IPC. prosecution needs to
prove establish the making of a false document mentioned therein.
36. As discussed in the preceding paragraphs, the foremost ingredient which
needs to be established by the prosecution in order to prove the culpability of an
accused u/s 468 is the “existence of a forged document’ which must be made in
furtherance to the specified objectives mentioned therein. In other words, the
prosecution needs to establish the fact that the accused made a false document
with the intention interlia to commit fraud, cause injury/damage etc. Also, the
knowledge about the existence of forged document must be attributed to the
accused in order to get him convicted for an offence u/s 471 IPC.
37. Having discussed briefly the legal position involved in the present case, I
shall now be examining the testimonies of PWs and the defence taken by the
accused in the backdrop of the above discussed legal position.
ARGUMENTS:
38. Ld. Counsel for the accused argued that Pawan Sachdeva was not given
authority to appear before the court on behalf of the complainant. The said P
Digitally
signed by P
BHARGAV
RAO
BHARGAV Date:
RAO 2024.12.24
16:46:49
+0530
FIR No.109/2000 PS Punjabi Bagh Page No. 20 of 23
CR No.70994/2016 State Vs. N.M. Krishnan
contention is untenable as perusal of the record shows that vide order dated 07-
01-2001, an application was filed on behalf of Pawan Sachdeva with a request
to substitute himself in place of Hardev Sachdeva along with copy of resolution
of the complainant company and the said application was allowed by the then
Ld. Predecessor Court.
39. It is pertinent to mention that the primary accused N.M. Krishnan
remained absconded during the trial and was declared vide order dated
18.07.2005. The allegations against the accused Arjun Shergil and Anil Kumar
Dhawan is that they accompanied accused N.M. Krishnan and induced the
complainant to part with the sum of Rs.65.00 lakhs. The main allegations
against the accused Sanjay Bhandari, Proprietor of V.K. Tours and Transport
that he was the beneficiary of the forged amount and could not account for the
amount of Rs.5.00 lakh received in the account of V.K. Tours and Transport.
40. At the very outset in the present case, the prosecution has failed to prove
any of the charges against the accused persons. Firstly, the complainant Hardev
Chadha could not be cross-examined by the accused persons as he never
appeared during the trial and he was dropped from list of witnesses vide order
dated 10.02.2015. It is pertinent to mention that initially the complaint was filed
by Hardev Chadha against the accused N.M. Krishnan and other co-accused
namely C. Thirumohan and S. Rajaram. Subsequently, the FIR was registered
against the said accused persons. The names of the accused persons namely
Arjun Shergil, Anil Kumar Dhawan and Sanjay Bhandari were not even
mentioned in the complaint. It was deposed by PW1 Pawan Sachdeva in his
examination-in-chief that the names of accused Anil Dhawan and Arjun Shergil
were not mentioned inadvertently in the complaint by complainant Hardev
Chadha. The names of the aforesaid co-accused persons cropped up firstly by
PW1 Pawan Sachdeva and Hardev Chadha in their statements dated 16.10.2000. Digitally
signed by P
BHARGAV
P RAO
BHARGAV Date:
It is again pertinent to mention that the alleged incident is of the year 1995 and
RAO 2024.12.24
16:46:55
+0530FIR No.109/2000 PS Punjabi Bagh Page No. 21 of 23
CR No.70994/2016 State Vs. N.M. Krishnanthereafter, board of resolution was passed in the year 1999 wherein Hardev
Chadha was authorized by the company to file the complaint against N.M.
Krishnan. The said resolution also does not contain the names of the co-accused
persons herein.
41. Further, cross-examination of PW1 Pawan Sachdeva reveals major
contradictions. The said PW1 could not bring the minutes of the meetings w.r.t.
the requirement of loan of Rs.985.00 crores. On the one hand, PW1 deposed
that several meetings were done with the accused persons but could not bring on
record any minutes of the meetings mentioning the names of the accused
persons. It is very unlikely that no minutes of the meetings were prepared for
taking loan of such huge amount nor any of the accused persons herein were
mentioned in the minutes of the meeting. Pawan Sachdeva deposed that no
percentage of commission payable to Arjun Shergil and Anil Kumar Dhawan
was finalized. No written agreement was executed in this regard between the
complainant and the aforesaid accused persons. The discussions which had
taken between the parties were oral and not recorded in writing. Even the
company Secretary did not participate in the said meeting. No resolutions was
passed by the Board of Directors for taking loan of Rs.985.00 crores. No
advertisement was given by the complainant company in the newspaper or
through brokers. Even no resolution was passed by the company for issuance of
demand draft of Rs.65.00 lakhs. Further, it was deposed by PW1 that accused
Anil Kumar Dhawan handed-over him a visiting card. However, the said
visiting card was never handed-over to the IO ACP C.L. Bhardwaj. Perusal of
the cross-examination of the IO reveals that the complainant did not cooperate
with him and did not give any mobile number or address of any of the accused
persons though he asked for the same. Such major contradictions on the
testimony of PW1 casts serious doubts on the version of the prosecution. Digitally
signed by P
BHARGAV
P RAO
42. The prosecution has failed to establish a link between accused N.M.
BHARGAV
RAO Date:
2024.12.24
16:47:01
+0530FIR No.109/2000 PS Punjabi Bagh Page No. 22 of 23
CR No.70994/2016 State Vs. N.M. KrishnanKrishnan and co-accused Arjun Shergil and Anil Kumar Dhawan. The loan
agreement Ex.PW1/B and the mortgage deed Ex.PW1/C executed between the
complainant company and the N.A.M. Annamalayar Trust does not contain the
signatures of the co-accused persons which clearly establish that the accused
persons namely Arjun Shergil and Anil Kumar Dhawan were not associated
with the N.A.M. Annamalayer Trust or its power of attorney holder M/s Senthil
Financer and Builders.
43. Further, w.r.t. the accused Sanjay Bhandari, PW1 deposed that he never
met accused Sanjay Bhandari regarding this case. PW1 further deposed that he
had not handed-over the drafts in question to the accused Sanjay Bhandari and
was not aware if accused Sanjay Bhandari had received the amount. He
admitted the suggestion that the name of accused Sanjay Bhandari has not been
given in the complaint since he does not know the accused. He further deposed
that he does not have grievance with the accused Sanjay Bhandari in respect of
the present case.
44. Therefore, in the opinion of this court, the prosecution has failed to prove
the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt qua the offence
punishable u/s 406/420/468/471/120B IPC. Hence, accused Arjun Shergil, Anil
Kumar Dhawan and Sanjay Bhandari are given benefit of doubt and are
acquitted under Section 406/420/468/471/120B IPC.
Digitally signed
by P BHARGAV
Announced in open court P RAO
BHARGAV Date:
Today i.e. 24.12.2024 RAO 2024.12.24
16:47:07
+0530
(P. Bhargav Rao)
Judicial Magistrate First Class-05
District East/Karkardooma Courts
FIR No.109/2000 PS Punjabi Bagh Page No. 23 of 23