CBI Court awards 5 years RI to Rice Mill Owner and Patwari in bank fraud case

STATE TIMES NEWS

JAMMU: Special Judge CBI Jammu Bala Joyti today awarded five years rigorous imprisonment to Gharu Ram Prop. M/s Jai Laxmi Rice Mills and Vinod Kumar, son of Govind Ram the then Patwari Halqa Chohala,Tehsil R.S.Pura, District Jammu in bank fraud case.
According to the CBI case, the accused Gharu Ram Prop. “M/s Jai Laxmi Rice Mill” village Kothe ‘Chohala’, Tehsil R.S.Pura, District Jammu approached for term loan of Rs.30 lakhs to PNB Bank Branch, Canal Road, Jammu and for working capital limit of Rs.60 lakhs to establish a “Rice Mill” and in order to procure these loan facilities, he offered primary securities hypothecation of entire stock of raw material, stock in process, entire plant, machinery and miscellaneous Fixed Assets including collateral security of land measuring 16 Kanals and 3 marlas and all these properties were mortgaged vide mortgage deed dated August 20, 007 in favour of the bank.
In fact, the synopsis of the prosecution case is that in October 2008 accused Gharu Ram after availing Term Loan of Rs 30 lakhs again approached ‘Punjab National Bank’ Branch Canal Road Jammu to got his CC limit enhanced from 60 lakhs – 1.25 crores for promotion of his business and mortgaged additional collateral securities in the form of land measuring 11 kanals 16 marlas vide mortgage deed dated 29.10.2009 by suppressing the facts from the Bank in order to fraudulently avail the loan.
Accused Gharu Ram hatched a criminal conspiracy with co-accused Vinod Kumar and submitted fake and forged revenue documents in connivance with him. Accused bank officers / officials namely Sanjay Kumar Jain, the then Chief Manager, Jatinder Kumar Sharma, the then Senior Manager and other bank officials those while abusing their official position being public servants accepted false and forged documents while sanctioning the above loan to M/s “Jai Laxmi Rice Mill”. Similarly, the revenue officials misused their official position by issuing false revenue documents while hatching criminal conspiracy in respect of land measuring 6 kanals 3 marlas under Survey No. 237, 4 kanals 4 marlas under Survey No. 209 Min and 3 kanals 16 marlas under Survey No. 316 Min (total land measuring 14 kanals & 3 marlas), which belongs to other farmers and later marked fake lien in favour of mortgagee bank. Allegedly, the accused borrower availed the said loan, used it for personal ends and did not liquidate the loan amount & consequently the loan turned NPA thereby caused immense loss to the Government exchequer, subsequently the case was registered and investigation commenced after seeking permission u/s 3 of J&K P.C. Act. According to prosecution, during investigation, it is established that as per loan application, the proprietor was supposed to bear Rs.20.72 lakhs while Rs.15 lakhs were to be raised by way of unsecured loans. Thus, the total cost of the project was Rs.65.72 lakhs as per the application form, out of which Rs.35.72 lakhs were to be invested by the proprietor. Investigation further revealed that ‘M/s V.K. Karyana Stores’ which was in the name of wife of accused Gharu Ram namely Nirmala Kumari who was having CC limit of Rs.3 lakhs from SBI Bank on February 22, 2007 turned NPA on May 11, 2010, besides she was also having CC limit of Rs.4 lakhs in UCO Bank which also turned NPA on March 18, 2011. Investigation further revealed that even accused Gharu Ram has also availed CC limit of Rs.5 lacs from Canara Bank Shalamar Road Branch Jammu on December 27, 2002 which turned NPA on April 01, 2007 and these facts except loan of M/s G.R. Traders with SBI were not disclosed by him to the bank in order to fraudulently avail the loan facility. This is further case of prosecution that on August 29, 2007 at the time of sanction of loan, the accused Gharu Ram was defaulter of “Canara Bank” Shalamar Road Branch “Jammu” and he did not disclose this fact to the bank in his application hence bank officers could not detect that his account being NPA in the Canara Bank. S.K. Jain, the then Chief Manager obtained the CIBIL report dated August 17, 2007 from internet before sanctioning of loan facility to accused Gharu Ram to ascertain whether he (loanee) had availed any credit facility from any bank/financial institution but CIBIL report stated “File not found on Gharu Ram” and, thus, investigation reveals that the bank officials made efforts to ascertain the previous credit history of accused Gharu Ram. It is further case of prosecution that loan documents were checked/ inspected by S.K. Jain and A.K. Koul who directed Gharu Ram to obtain the valuation report / search report from the Panel value and from Panel Advocate and even on inspection/visit by M.S Arora at village ‘Kothe Chohala’ on August 6, 2007, accused Gharu Ram shown him forged land records pertaining to his property. Prosecution further stated that the genuine property in the name of Gharu Ram (land measuring 2 kanals) were assessed at Rs.10 lakhs (realizable value of Rs. 8 lakhs) actually, a non-existent property consisting of 3 plots measuring 14 kanals 03 marlas was assessed at Rs.150.56 lakhs realizable value of Rs.122 lakhs by showing a fake property to M/s Mohan Singh Arora, value by accused Gharu Ram. Even search reports were fraudulently prepared by Ravinder Sharma Empanelled Advocate who deposited the requisite fees in the office of Sub Registrar R.S. Pura for conducting search regarding title of the property and vide his opinion dated November 8, 2007 on the basis of aforesaid deed, he falsely and fraudulently certified that the borrower had clear valid and marketable title over the properties and was competent to create mortgage besides he has certified having searched the records of 13 years and having detected non-encumbrance whereas in light of circular No. 5/LAW/2003 dated August 20, 2003 issued by Law Division, PNB reveals that the Empanelled Advocate has to establish the ownership of the property from the mutation in the revenue record, however said empanelled Advocate did not search the records and thus submitted false search report which resulted in failure to detect the forgery committed by accused Vinod Kumar, Patwari in connivance with accused Gharu Ram. According to prosecution, the revenue documents for the second property consisting of 6 kanals 3 marlas under khasra No. 237, 4 kanals 4 marlas under khasra No. 209 min, and 3 kanals 16 marlas under khasra No. 316 min total land measuring 14 kanals 3 marlas were forged / fabricated by accused Gharu Ram in connivance with accused No.2 . Vinod Kumar (Patwari). Even accused Gharu Ram have mislead S.K.Jain and Ashok Koul officers of the bank while showing the land on their visit belonging to other persons and those officers also failed to observe that one of the properties 14 kanals 3 marlas does not actually belong to the loanee “Gharu Ram”. Even accused Gharu Ram fraudulently got the forged endorsement made from accused Vinod Kumar Halqa Patwari ‘Chohala’ on the backside of the lien letter to the effect that the mortgaged properties have been marked lien in favour of the bank in the revenue records and rendered the bank without a collateral security. Thus, on the basis of the forged revenue documents prepared by accused Vinod Kumar and false search report submitted by borrower in the bank as genuine, bank was induced to sanction the huge amount of Rs.1.30 crores as loan and registered mortgage deed and even the mortgaged properties were either non-existent and also were not under the ownership of accused ‘Gharu Ram’ thereby both accused persons cheated the bank by using forged / fabricated documents, as genuine with an intent to induce the bank to sanction / disburse the credit facilities, besides causing immense loss to the Govt. Exchequer and, therefore, a chargesheet was presented against both the accused persons for commission of offences under sections 120-B r/w 420, 467, 468, 471 RPC and 5(2) r/w 5(1)(d) of J&K PC Act, Samvat 2006.
Special Judge CBI Bala Joyti after hearing both the sides observed that Court hopes that during this long period of more than 12 years, when they faced consequences of their proved misconduct, they may have, by now a sense of remorse for what they did. More so, they have a family to run, which in fact will consequently suffer if maximum punishment provided in the statute is awarded to them.
As such, taking into consideration, the cumulative effect of aggravating and mitigating circumstances and gravity of offences and overall facts, as discussed herein above, both the accused persons are, therefore, convicted and sentenced as Accused Gharu Ram, who is a principal conspirator and ultimate beneficiary, is convicted and sentenced as under U/s 120-B RPC He is convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 5 years along with fine of Rs.20,000/- and in default of payment of fine he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months. U/s 420-B RPC He is convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 4 years along with fine of Rs. Rs.20,000/- and in default of payment of fine he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months. U/s 467 RPC He is convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 5 years along with fine of Rs. Rs.20,000/- and in default of payment of fine he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months. U/s 468 RPC He is convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 4 years along with fine of Rs. Rs.20,000/- and in default of payment of fine he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months. U/s 471 RPC He is convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 4 years along with fine of Rs. Rs.20,000/- and in default of payment of fine he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months.
Accused Vinod Kumar Patwari, being a public servant, who has helped principal conspirator for recurring benefits, is convicted and sentenced as under U/s 120-B RPC, He is convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 5 years along with fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months. U/s 420-B RPC, He is convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 4 years along with fine of Rs. Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months. U/s 467 RPC, He is convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 5 years along with fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months. U/s 468 RPC, He is convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 4 years along with fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months, U/s 5(1)(d) r/w 5(2) of J&K P.C. Act, Samvat 2006, He is convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 5 years along with fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months.
Court further ordered that all the sentences shall run concurrently and the amount of fine be deposited within weeks time in the Court failing which they shall further undergo simple imprisonment as mentioned herein above. Accused persons be lodged in District Jail, Amphalla, Jammu to serve the sentence.
Earlier, Executive Engineer BB Mittal booked by CBI was convicted by the court of law. Both these cases were investigated by the then Inspector CBI Bhagwan Dass Dandia presently posted as Dy SP Crime Branch Jammu.