Delhi High Court

VIPUL AGARWAL v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION & ANR

Court: Delhi High Court
Case number: CRL.M.C./7396/2023
Date of judgment: 28 March 2025
Petitioner / Appellant: VIPUL AGARWAL
Respondent: CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION & ANR
CNR: DLHC010405982023
Result: Disposed

The PDF is the copy from the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset (CC-BY-4.0). The dataset compresses files to save space, so it may differ from the court's own file. It is not a certified copy. The text below is extracted automatically and may contain errors, and the result label is read from the closing lines of the judgment, so it can occasionally be wrong. The PDF is the authoritative version.

CRL.M.C.2526/2019 & one other connected matter Page 1 of 78

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Pronounced on: 28 th March, 2025

+ CRL.M.C.2526/2019, CRL.M.As.10049/2019 & 10051/2019 M/S PRAKASH INDUSTRIES LTD & ANR .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Senior Advocate with, Mr. Gurpreet Singh, Mr.

Amir Khan, Mr. Shivam Tandon,

Ms. Namisha Samshi, Mr. Shivam

Tandon, Mr. Kunal Aggarwal and

Mr. Ali Kazi, Advocates.

versus

DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT & ANR ....Respondents Through: Mr. Ripudaman Bhardwaj, SPP with Mr.Kushagra Kumar and Mr.

Abhinav Bhardwaj and Mr. Vishal

Baliyan, Advocates for CBI.

+ CRL.M.C. 7396/2023 & CRL. M.A. 27609/2023 VIPUL AGARWAL .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Arshdeep Singh Khurana, Mr.

Peeyush Bhatia and Mr. Sulakshan

V. S., Advocates

versus

CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

& ANR. .....Respondents

Through: Mr. Ripudaman Bhardwaj, SPP

with Mr.Kushagra Kumar and Mr.

Abhinav Bhardwaj and Mr. Vishal

Baliyan, Advocates for CBI.

CORAM:

Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN

KUMAR BABBAR

Signing Date:01.04.2025

14:49:44

Signature Not Verified

CRL.M.C.2526/2019 & one other connected matter Page 2 of 78

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH

J U D G M E N T

CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J.

1. At the outset, it is stated that by way of both the capt ioned petitions, the petitioners have sought for common reliefs and h ave made similar submissions before this Court. Therefore, for the purpose o f adjudication, this Court has culled out the facts and submissi ons from Crl.M.C. 2526/2019 for convenience.

FACTUAL MATRIX

1. The instant petition, CRL.M.C.2526/2019, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter “CrPC”) [now Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter “BNSS”) has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking supply and quashing of ECIR no. 07-DLZO-01/2018; quashing of RC no. – AC- 1/2014/A-0005/CBI/AC-I dated 1st August, 2014; quashing of final report dated 27 th September, 2017 filed in CC No. 30/2017, arising out of RC no. – AC-1/2014/A-0005/CBI/AC-I as well as quashing of the ord er of cognizance dated 9 th March, 2018 passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI-05, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi district, New Delhi.

2. It is pertinent to note that vide order dated 16 th August, 2023, in CRL. M.C. 2526/2019, in view of the request made by the petitio ner, the Directorate of Enforcement was deleted from the array of parties. It was further recorded that no relief was being pressed against the Directorate of Enforcement, and thus, this Court shall not be delving into prayer „a‟, „b‟ and „f‟ in CRL. M.C. 2526/2019.

Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN

KUMAR BABBAR

Signing Date:01.04.2025

14:49:44

Signature Not Verified

CRL.M.C.2526/2019 & one other connected matter Page 3 of 78

3. Petitioner no. 1 in CRL. M.C. 2526/2019, i.e., M/s Prakash Industries Ltd. (hereinafter “PIL” ) is a company incorporated and is engaged in the business of coal mines, iron and steel, power and wind energy. Petitioner no. 2, i.e., Mr. Ved Prakash Agarwal is the Chairman and Managing Director (hereinafter “ CMD”) of PIL. The petitioner, in CRL. M.C. 7396/2023, namely Mr. Vipul Agarwal, is a Chartered Accountant and has been working as a Financial Consultant in PIL since 2013. He has been associated with the company for a considerabl e period of time and was a Director (Finance and Accounts) prior to the year 2013.

4. PIL, vide letter dated 14 th October, 2009, addressed to the State Bank of India, submitted Form 83 for the allotment of loan r egistration number of their Foreign Currency Convertible Bonds (hereinafter “FCCB”) amounting to USD 50 Million in light of the External Commercial Borrowing (hereinafter “ECB”)/FCCB guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India (hereinafter “RBI”).

5. In furtherance of the aforesaid letter, PIL submitted the details of the transaction pertaining to the issuance of FCCB, which were req uired to be forwarded to RBI. Subsequently, on 15 th October 2009, RBI, in response to PIL ‟s request , allotted Loan Registration Number 2009538 under the applicable, ECB/FCCB guidelines. It is stated that the e ntire process was handled by one Mr. Pawan Bansal, accused in the aforesaid FIR, who is also a Director in M/s Altis Finserve.

6. Thereafter on 6 th March 2014, PIL applied to the Syndicate Bank for ECB of USD 45 million to buyback/refinancing of its outstan ding FCCB. It is stated that a copy of Information of Memorandum of PIL was filed along with the said application. Since, the transaction was related to Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN KUMAR BABBAR Signing Date:01.04.2025 14:49:44 Signature Not Verified

CRL.M.C.2526/2019 & one other connected matter Page 4 of 78

the time period between 2009–2010, Mr. Pawan Bansal was appointed to pursue the said loan application.

7. Accordingly, on 10 th April 2014, CMD of Syndicate Bank was informed regarding the use of ECB of USD 45 Million and it was informed that the said loan would be exclusively utilized for buyback/redemption of outstanding FCCB of PIL. Following the same on 23rd April 2014, information was sought by the authorized repres entative Syndicate Bank, London branch with regard to proposal for ECB term loan from PIL. The requisite details, as sought on 23 rd April, 2014, were duly furnished by PIL on 25th April, 2014.

8. On 21 st May, 2014, Syndicate Bank sent a communication to PIL and informed that the competent authorities have accorded an “in principal clearance”, for considering proposal for term loan of USD 20 Million on bilateral basis, subject to certain terms and conditi ons.

Subsequently, on 23 rd May, 2014, additional information was sought by the authorized representatives of Syndicate Bank, London branch w ith regard to proposal for ECB term loan from PIL, for which information was provided by PIL vide letter dated 26 th May, 2014. Thereafter on 2 nd June, 2014, as per the prescribed format, a processed note was forwarded to Syndicate Bank, by the officials of PIL, following which o n 3 rd June, 2014, the authorized representative of PIL, via email dated 3rd June, 2014, acknowledged the “in-principal clearance” for USD 20 Million ECB.

9. Following the aforesaid chain of events, on 6 th June, 2014, as per clarifications sought by Syndicate B ank, for „in -principal clearance‟ of term loan of USD 20 million, PIL wrote a letter providing a detailed reply to all the queries raised by the bank. Thereafter, on 11 th June, 2014, PIL, Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN KUMAR BABBAR Signing Date:01.04.2025 14:49:44 Signature Not Verified

CRL.M.C.2526/2019 & one other connected matter Page 5 of 78

in furtherance of the loan application dated 6 th March, 2014, and the pending loan from Syndicate Bank, PIL submitted additional doc uments to Syndicate Bank, including „balance confirmation with existing lenders of PIL, net worth statements of the promoter directors etc.‟.

10. On 12th June, 2014, PIL further supplied the information regarding the „mining plan of Chota mines‟ to Syndicate Bank, for which the loan was sought.

11. Pursuant to the above, on 20 th June, 2014, PIL, through its authorized representative, submitted a response to the querie s raised by the bank in connection with their “in -principal letter ”, to immediately arrange the balance amount of USD 25 Million as the bank only sanctioned USD 20 Million against the original loan request of USD 45 Million. In furtherance to the same, on 9 th July, 2012 and 20 th July, 2014, PIL further submitted their reply to the queries raised by the s yndicate bank with regard to the sanctioned loan. In the meanwhile, o n 12 th July, 2014 and 16 th July, 2014, Syndicate Bank, posed certain queries to PIL with regard to the approval of term loan.

12. In reply to the same, on 14 th July, 2014, the Credit Approval Committee of Syndicate Bank, in its meeting dated 14 th July, 2014, approved term loan of USD 20 Million as against the original request of USD 40 Million. The Credit Approval Committee of Syndicate Bank , London branch recommended the above mentioned proposed loan before the sanctioning authority on 15 th July, 2014 and on 23 rd July, 2014, Syndicate Bank, London Ranch, in connection with the loan appl ication proposal confirmed the approval of ECB term loan of USD 20 Milli on Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN KUMAR BABBAR Signing Date:01.04.2025 14:49:44 Signature Not Verified

CRL.M.C.2526/2019 & one other connected matter Page 6 of 78

granted to PIL on bilateral basis for the purpose of buyback/redemp tion of FCCB issued by the company subject to certain terms and conditions.

13. Consequently on 1st August 2014, criminal law was set into motion with the registration of the instant FIR, under Sections 9 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinaft er “PC Act”) and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter “IPC”) against the petitioner and other co-accused persons.

14. After the registration of the FIR by the CBI, on 4 th August, 2014, 5th August, 2014, 22 nd August, 2014, 9 th April, 2014 and 19 th August, 2016, statements of Mr. Uday Shankar Majumdar was recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC. It is to be noted that Mr. Uday Shankar Majumdar worked as a General Manager, Treasury, and International Banking Department, Syndicate Bank. He stated that the department was responsible for assessing the proposals for loans which were rece ived from foreign branches of Syndicate Bank.

15. It is stated by the petitioners that the case put up by the prosecution against the petitioners is based on the intercepted conversat ion dated 17 th May, 2014, 22nd May, 2014, 9th June, 2014 and 15th July, 2014, which are not admissible under the law. Further, the said conversations were recorded prior to the registration of the instant FIR.

16. Thereafter, on 5 th August, 2014, the statement of Mr. Ghanshyam Mudgal was recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC pursuant to wh ich, on 27th September, 2017, the CBI filed its final report/chargesheet under Section 173 of the CrPC in the aforesaid FIR, under Sections 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the PC Act and Section 120B of the IPC Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN KUMAR BABBAR Signing Date:01.04.2025 14:49:44 Signature Not Verified

CRL.M.C.2526/2019 & one other connected matter Page 7 of 78

against the petitioners and the other co-accused persons. The s aid chargesheet has been challenged by the petitioners before this court.

17. Pursuant to the filing of the chargesheet, on 9 th March, 2018, learned Special Judge took cognizance of the aforesaid charge sheet an d summoned the petitioners as well as the other co-accused person s to appear on 26 th March, 2018 to face trial for the alleged offences as mentioned herein above.

18. Now the petitioners are aggrieved by the aforesaid summoning order and proceedings arising out of the same and has sought fo r quashing of the FIR, chargesheet as well as the summoning order.

PLEADINGS BEFORE THIS COURT

19. The instant petition has been filed on the following grounds:

“A. Because from the bare perusal of the Final Report dat ed 27.09.2017 and the documents filed along therewith, do not disclose commission of any offence, muchless offences under Section 9 of The Prevention of Corruption Act or Section.

120 B of the Indian Penal Code;

B. Because, the prosecution has not placed on record a single legal evidence or document on record which substantiates, even prime-facie, involvement of the Petitioners in commission of any offence;

C. Because, there is no legal evidence to show the culpability of the Petitioners and to establish that there was any agreement between the Petitioners and one Mr. Pawan Bansal, who has been alleged to have obtained for the Public Servant an alleged gratification;

D. Because, the prosecution of the Petitioners for an offenc e of Conspiracy under Section. 120 B of the Indian Penal Code is totally and completely without jurisdiction as ther e is not even a single averment in the charge sheet that ther e was any agreement between the Petitioners and the other accused namely Mr. Pawan Bansal to commit any illegal act Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN KUMAR BABBAR Signing Date:01.04.2025 14:49:44 Signature Not Verified

CRL.M.C.2526/2019 & one other connected matter Page 8 of 78

and the whole case of the prosecution is based on conjuctures and inferences, which is impermissible in law .

That, the prosecution of the Petitioners is in teeth of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Baldev Singh verses State of Punjab" reported in "(2009) 6 SCC 564" wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as Under….

…..

E. Because, there is no averment or an allegation in the charge sheet that there was prior meeting of mind between the accused and there are only assertions that the Petitioners were aware of the alleged conspiracy. It is submitted that not a single instance of any action of the Petitioners has be en made in the charge sheet which action would constitute an offence. That the prosecution of the Petitioners is contrary to the dicta laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Central Bureau of Investigation verses K. Naravan Rao" reported in "(2012) 9 SCC 512" wherein it has been held as under:

F. Because, there is no provision in the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, which authorizes officers of Respondent No.1 to register "Enforcement Case Information Report" and initiate penal proceedings on the basis of an action which has no basis in any statutory proceedings

“B. BECAUSE THE PETITIONERS HAVE BEEN

ARRAIGNED IN AS AN ACCUSED MERELY ON THE

PRETEXT THAT HE WAS FAMILIAR WITH A CO-

ACCUSED PERSONS. WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY

ALLEGATION OF ANY OVERT ACT ON THE PART OF THE PETITIONERS AND AS SUCH. THE PETITIONERS IS BEING PROSECUTED ON THE BASIS OF PRESUMPTIONS AND SURMISES:

B.1. A perusal of the entire Charge-sheet, statements of witnesses and the documents relied upon by the prosecution do not make out the requisite allegations Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN KUMAR BABBAR Signing Date:01.04.2025 14:49:44 Signature Not Verified

CRL.M.C.2526/2019 & one other connected matter Page 9 of 78

against the Petitioners for commission of the offences alleged.

B.2. In fact, the allegation levelled against the Petitioner no 2 of being familiar with one of the co- accused (@ Para No. 17.6). The relevant portion of the Charge-sheet in this regard is as under…….

B.3. M/s Prakash Industries Ltd had engaged the services of Sh. Pawan Bansai for pursuing its loan proposal with Syndicate Bank and with respect to the same, the Petitioner no 2 was being updated the status of the Application (@ Para No. 17.17 and 17.19).

However, the same does not imply any conspiracy on the part of the Petitioner.

B.4. It is submitted that from the above, it is clear that the Petitioner no 2 is victim of being familiar with a person, though there is no iota of evidence of the Petitioner no 2 being familiar of the conspiracy, much less, being part of the same.

B.5. Merely knowing an accused would not lead to the assumption that the Petitioners were involved in the alleged offence, as it is trite that even knowledge of conspiracy is irrelevant.

B.6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in K. R, Purshothaman Versus State of Kerala, 2005 (12) see 631 has held that….

B.7. Hence, it is submitted that the impugned Final Report and proceedings arising out of the same are liable to be quashed and set-aside.

C. BECAUSE THE ENTIRE CASE IS BASED ON CDRS.

WHICH IN NO MANNER CONNECT THE

PETITIONERS WITH THE OFFENCE AND FURTHER.

DESPITE THE FACT THAT CDRS ARE ONLY

CORROBORATIVE WEAK PIECE OF EVIDENCE. NO

independent EVIDENCE TO CORROBORATE

ALLEGATIONS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS ARE

ON RECORD:

Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN

KUMAR BABBAR

Signing Date:01.04.2025

14:49:44

Signature Not Verified

CRL.M.C.2526/2019 & one other connected matter Page 10 of 78

C.1. To prove the Allegation there is no direct evidence against the Petitioners, much less, any other independent evidence. The only evidence on which the prosecution is relying is CDR's. It is submitted that the Transcripts of the CDR's are attached in and as D-59, D-84, D-85, D-86, D-87, and D-137.

C.2. In Para No. 17.10 of the Charge-sheet, it has been alleged that various mobile/ landline numbers were put under surveillance by the Special Unit, CBI, New Delhi after obtaining the approval of competent authority, including that of the Petitioner.

C.3. Thereafter, from Para No. 17.22 to 17.23 of the chargesheet dated 27.09.2017, there is only allegations viz. the said alleged conversations. However, in the entire CDRs, there is nothing to point out that the Petitioner no 2 was involved in the alleged offence or that the Petitioner had required Sh. Pawan Bansal to make payment of any illegal gratification to Accused - S. K. Jain.

C.4. Even if the entire CDRs are taken to be true on the face value, the maximum that can be alleged against the Petitioner is that he was being updated about the status of the loan proposal of Petitioner No 1/ M/s Prakash Industries Ltd. However, the same is both in routine and normal, without there being anything unusual about the same.

C.5. As such, the prosecution was required to produce some independent evidence against the Petitioners to corroborate the allegations levelled by the prosecution against the Petitioner, as the CDRs are a very weak piece of evidence, which can be used only for the purposes of corroboration. C.6. That in the absence of primary evidence, the CDRs cannot be used, being irrelevant and ought not to be relied upon, even at the stage of summoning.

C.7. It is submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter titled as Mahabir Prasad Verma Vs.

Dr. Surinder Kaur AIR 1982 SO 1043 has held that Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN KUMAR BABBAR Signing Date:01.04.2025 14:49:44 Signature Not Verified

CRL.M.C.2526/2019 & one other connected matter Page 11 of 78

tape recorded conversations can only be relied upon as corroborated evidence of conversation deposed by any of the parties to the conversation and in the absence of evidence of any such conversation, the tape-recorded conversation is indeed no proper evidence and cannot be relied upon.

E. BECAUSE THE ENTIRE CASE OF THE

PROSECUTION IS UNSUSTAINABLE IN THE EYES

OF LAW. AS THERE ARE CONTRADITORY

ALLEGATIONS IN THE MATTER. WHICH CLEARLY

MAKE THE ALLEGATIONS IMPROBABLE:

E.1. That the entire case of the prosecution is itself unsustainable in the eyes of law, as the allegations levelled by the prosecution are themselves contradictory and do not, at all, point out towards the alleged offence.

E.2. In this regard, it would be important to note that services of M/s Altuis Finserve Pvt. Ltd, the Company in which Sh. Pawan Bansal was a Director, were availed of by M/s Prakash Industries Ltd. And as such, any payment made to Sh. Pawan Bansal were in routine.

E.3. The same is more so in view of the fact that Sh.

Pawan Bansal is alleged to have been in touch with Accused - S. K. Jain for various clients of his and as such, mere factum of payment of alleged illegal gratification to Accused - S. K. Jain, even if assumed to be correct, does not automatically connect the same with M/s Prakash Industries Ltd.

E.4. Hence, the prosecution was required to connect the very payment made by Petitioner No 1/ M/s Prakash Industries Ltd with Accused - S. K. Jain, which it has failed to do.

E.5. Rather, the allegations levelled in the Charge- sheet are contradictory and improbable, as is clear from the following……”

Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN

KUMAR BABBAR

Signing Date:01.04.2025

14:49:44

Signature Not Verified

CRL.M.C.2526/2019 & one other connected matter Page 12 of 78

20. The CBI has opposed the present petition on the following contentions:

“I. That the averments made in para 1 of the petition are admitted to the extent the same is matter of record.

II. That the contents made in Para 2A & 2B are wrong and misleading whereas it submitted that the Ld. Trial Co urt has instituted the process against the Petitioners whil e observing all legal and codal formalities and the Ld. Trial Court has categorically mentioned in its order dated 09.03.2018 while taking cognizance against the accused petitioner that "this court has gone through the charge- sheet, statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 of Cr.PC and attached documents" and also mentioned that this court is satisfied that there is sufficient mate rial on record to take cognizance of offence and thereby took cognizance against the accused persons including the accused petitioner under the relevant sections of law. The Ld. Special Judge has followed all the regulatory provision s as well as law laid down by this Hon'ble Court and Hon'bl e Supreme Court at the time of taking cognizance and the impugned order was passed after due application of fac ts and circumstances of the case. Hon'ble Delhi High Court i n Vikas Thakur vs. State of NCT of Delhi CRL M.C.6619/2023 observed that "at the time of taking cognizance a magistrate is required to judicially apply the mind be satisfied on the basis of facts what are borne out from the statement of the complainant as made in the complaint or what are borne out from the report of the investigation officer or what are the surrounding facts and circumstances based on the prima facie documents and material in existences or what are the contents of the FIR.

In effect it is the satisfaction of the Magistrate which plays a pre dominant role while taking cognizance coupled with fact that there are enough material to convince him or her for taking such cognizance". The impugned order was Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN KUMAR BABBAR Signing Date:01.04.2025 14:49:44 Signature Not Verified

CRL.M.C.2526/2019 & one other connected matter Page 13 of 78

passed after due appreciation of facts and circumstances of the case and after due application of judicial mind.

III. That the contents made in Para no. 2C, 2D and 2E are false, misleading and hence denied. It is submitted that when the facts stated by the prosecution prima-facie disclose t he commission of cognizable offences and necessary ingredients to constitute the offence, the order of cognizan ce passed by the Ld. Trial Court cannot be quashed. The accused-petitioner has been charge-sheeted for his activ e criminal involvement in commission of instant offence. The Petitioner has been charge-sheeted on the basis of evidence on record which can be established in the Court of Law beyond reasonable doubt neither on the basis of presumption and surmises nor of familiarity with other accused pers ons.

The accused petitioner played an active role in the chain of commission of instant offence and the Judicial process initiated against him is as per the provisions stipulated in the law and the sufficiency, reliability and admissibility of evidence is to be tested in course of trial and not at th is stage. Recently Hon'ble Supreme Court in Captain Manjit Singh Virdi (Retd.) vs. Hussain Mohammed Shattaf & Ors.

2023 Live law (SC) 462 observed and held that "truthfulness, sufficiency and acceptability of the material produced can be done only at the stage of trial".

IV. That the averments made in Para no. 2F to 2L are false, misleading and hence denied. It is most humbly submitted that there are evidences on record to establish the active involvement and complicity of the accused petitioner as well as act of commission made by the accused petitioner in t his conspiracy. The accused petitioner played a pivotal role for getting favorable approval for loan to Mis Prakash Industries. Limited and paying the kickbacks of Rs. 3.25 Crores to the accused public servant through illegal channel. There are evidence on record to substantiate the allegation against the accused petitioner.

V. That the averments made in Para no. 2M to 2X are in repetition on behalf of the Accused Petitioner and already · Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN KUMAR BABBAR Signing Date:01.04.2025 14:49:44 Signature Not Verified

CRL.M.C.2526/2019 & one other connected matter Page 14 of 78

been replied in Para 16 (II) & (III) and hence is not repeated.

VI. The averments made in Para 3(1) & 3(II) are admitted to the extent the same is matter of record. However, it is denied that the accused petitioner has been falsely implicated. I t is also submitted that the evidences against the petitioner shall be proved in course of trial of accused petitioner no. 2 be ing working with M/s PIL but it is humbly submitted that, it is submitted that the accused petitioners have been charge sheeted for his criminal deeds and not falsely implicated.

VII. That, the averments made in Para 3 (III) to (XXIV) are the chronological developments of the different stages of applying the loan by M/s PIL from Syndicate Bank to buyback of Foreign Currency Convertible Bonds (FCCB)

and requires no reply. However, it is submitted that there was no written authorization from M/s PIL to Syndicate Bank with respect to persuasion of its loan proposal by Pawan Bansal or his firm with the bank.

VIII. That, the averments made in Para 3 (XXV), (XXVI) & (XXVII) are matter of record and hence requires no reply. It is submitted that apart from the dates provided by Accuse d/ Petitioner regarding recording of the statement of Sh. Uday Shankar Majumdar, his statement was also recorded on 20.08.2016 and the same is available on record.

IX That the averments .made in Para 3 (XXVIII), (XXIX)

& (XXX) are ambiguous as the Accused/Petitioner is discussing about two different aspects viz. the expert opinion, voice identification memo and letter of State Ba nk of India wherein Annexure P-24 is of SBI letter dated 16.10.2014.

X. That the averments made in Para 3 (XXXI) to L are matter of record and is part of charge sheet, hence need no reply.

XI. That the averments made in Para 3 (LI) & (LII) are related to the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 which are being looked after by the Enforcement Directorate and hence needs no reply. XII.

Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN

KUMAR BABBAR

Signing Date:01.04.2025

14:49:44

Signature Not Verified

CRL.M.C.2526/2019 & one other connected matter Page 15 of 78

That the averments made in Para 3 (LUI) to (LXIV) are matter of record and hence, need no reply.

XIII. That the averments made in Para 4 A, B & C are false, misleading and hence denied. In this regard it is submitt ed that there are evidence to establish the complicity and involvement of the accused petitioner. The accused- petitioner played/acted as an important link in the chain commission of the offence by facilitating the transaction o f bribe amount from one accused to another accused public servant. There are material on record in the form of oral and documentary evidence to invoke penal provisions of section 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and other offen ces against the accused public servants and the accused petitioner which shall be proved in course of trial.

XIV. That the averments made in Para 4 D & E are admitted to the extent the same is reproduction of the statutory enactment and the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court.

However, it is submitted that there is evidence to establis h that the accused petitioner was in criminal conspiracy a nd complicity with other co-accused persons to commit the alleged offence.

XV. That the averments made in Para 4 F, G & Hare related to the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 which· are being looked after by the Enforcement Directorate and the accused petitioner has withdrawn the averments submitted by him which were related to the ECIR registered by Enforcement Directorate, hence, needs no reply.

XVI. That the averments made in Para 4 (I) & (J) are false misleading and hence denied. It is humbly submitted that the Ld. Trial Court has fairly considered all material on r ecord for taking cognizance into this matter. It is also releva nt to mention here that the Ld. Trial Court has taken cognizance on the basis of prima-facie material on record and accused - petitioner has been charge-sheeted for his active criminal involvement in commission of alleged offence.

XVII. That the averments made in Para 4 K (A.l) & (A.2) are admitted to the extent the same is matter of record. However, Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN KUMAR BABBAR Signing Date:01.04.2025 14:49:44 Signature Not Verified

CRL.M.C.2526/2019 & one other connected matter Page 16 of 78

it is submitted that the transaction of bribe was ini tiated through M/s PIL and and Sh. Vipul Agarwal, Chartered Account, PIL facilitated the bribe to public servant by using the services of Sh. Pawan Bansal. There are evidence to establish the criminal involvement and complicity of accused petitioner in commission of the alleged offence. In addit ion to the intercepted conversation, there are evidences on record in the form of oral statement of witness to reveal the criminal involvement of accused petitioner for facilitatin g the transaction of bribe amount to the accused public servant.

XVIII. That the averments made in Para 4 K (A.3) is matter of record, hence need no reply.

XIX. That the averments made in Para 4 K (A.4), (A.5), (A.6), (A.7), (A.8), (A.9), (A.10), (A.11), (A.12), (A.13) & (A.14) are admitted to the extent the same refers the judicial decisions however it is submitted that from Para no. 17.1 7, 17.18 & 17.19 of the chargesheet relevant portion of the same is reproduced as under……”

SUBMISSIONS

(on behalf of the petitioner)

21. Mr. Vikas Pahwa, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that a bare perusal of the charge sh eet dated 27th September, 2017, along with the documents filed there with, does not disclose commission of any offence, let alone offence under Secti on 9 of the PC Act or Section 120B of the IPC.

22. It is submitted that the prosecution has not placed on rec ord a single piece of legal evidence or document to substantiate, even prima facie, the involvement of the petitioners in commission of any offence as alleged.

Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN

KUMAR BABBAR

Signing Date:01.04.2025

14:49:44

Signature Not Verified

CRL.M.C.2526/2019 & one other connected matter Page 17 of 78

23. It is submitted that there is no legal evidence to establi sh the culpability of the petitioners or to demonstrate the existence o f any agreement between the petitioners and one Mr. Pawan Bansal, who is alleged to have obtained gratification for a public servant, i.e. , Mr. SK Jain.

24. It is submitted that the prosecution of the petitioners for the offence of criminal conspiracy under Section 120B of the IPC is wholly wit hout jurisdiction, as there is not even a single averment in the char gesheet alleging any agreement between the petitioners and the co-accused , namely, Mr. Pawan Bansal, to commit an illegal act. The entire case of prosecution is based on conjectures and inferences, which is impermissible in law.

25. It is submitted that there is no averment or allegation in t he charge sheet of any prior meeting of minds between the accused. The only assertion made is that the petitioners were allegedly aware of the purported conspiracy. However, not a single event or a specific allegation to the petitioners has been cited in the charge sheet as con stituting an offence. It is submitted that the prosecution of the petition ers is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in CBI v. K.

Naryaan Rao 1 wherein it was held that the essential ingredients of the offence of criminal conspiracy include an agreement between two or more persons to do an illegal act, or to a legal act by illegal means. It was further held that even if certain acts are proved to have been committed, it must be clear that they were committed in pursuance of an agreement

1 (2012) 9 SCC 512

Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN

KUMAR BABBAR

Signing Date:01.04.2025

14:49:44

Signature Not Verified

CRL.M.C.2526/2019 & one other connected matter Page 18 of 78

made between the accused persons, who were parties to the alleged conspiracy.

26. It is submitted that petitioner no. 2 cannot be made vicariously liable for a criminal offence merely by virtue of his designation as the CMD of petitioner no. 1, in the absence of specific allegations agai nst him in the charge sheet.

27. It submitted that the allegations levelled by the prosecutio n in the charge sheet are to the effect that the accused, Mr. Pawan Bansal, p aid illegal gratification to accused, namely Mr. Sudhir Kumar Jain @ Mr. SK Jain (CMD of Syndicate Bank) for allegedly favoring PIL. It is su bmitted that the charge sheet does not contain any allegations against the petitioners regarding the commission of any act which could be said to form part of the alleged offence. The only reference against the petitio ner no. 2 is that he was apprised of the proposal of petitione r no. 1, i.e., PIL.

It is submitted that the same was informed to the petitioner so lely in his official capacity and there is nothing on record to attach any criminality to the same.

28. It is submitted that the petitioners have been arraigned as accused solely on the basis of their designation, which is evide nt from the perusal of paragraphs 16.5, 17.6 and 17.19 of the charge sheet. It is al so submitted that even assuming, without admitting that th e entire set of allegations levelled by the prosecution in the present matt er are correct, they still do not disclose the commission of any offence committed by the petitioners as vicarious liability cannot be imposed on petitioner no. 2 for any alleged act of petitioner no. 1 company, in the absence of sp ecific statutory provision.

Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN

KUMAR BABBAR

Signing Date:01.04.2025

14:49:44

Signature Not Verified

CRL.M.C.2526/2019 & one other connected matter Page 19 of 78

29. It is submitted that the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Sunil Bharti Mittal v. CBI 2, held that there is no concept of vicarious liability in criminal law, until the statute specifically provides for the sa me. In the instant matter, petitioner no. 2 has been summoned solely on the basis of his designation as CMD of the accused company. It is also subm itted that in Avnish Bajaj v. State 3, a Coordinate Bench of this Court held that a Managing Director cannot be summoned merely on the basis of his post and designation.

30. It is submitted that a perusal of the entire charge sheet, incl uding the statements of witnesses and documents relied upon by the prosecution does not disclose the essential ingredients necessary to est ablish commission of the offenses alleged against the petitioners f or alleged against them. In fact, the only allegation levelled against pe titioner no. 2 is that he was acquainted with the co-accused, Mr. Pawan Bansal. It is submitted that PIL had engaged the services of Mr. Pawan Bansal to pursue its loan proposal with Syndicate Bank, and with respe ct the same petitioner no. 2 was being updated about the status of the loan application of PIL in his official capacity. However, such updates do not imply any conspiracy on the part of the petitioner no. 2.

31. It is submitted that it is clear that the petitioner no. 2 is being targeted merely due to his familiarity with a person who is alleged to be a part of the conspiracy. There is no iota of evidence to suggest that petitioner no. 2 had knowledge of, the conspiracy, much less, being part of the same. Merely knowing an accused person does not lead to th e

2 (2015) 4 SCC 109

3 2008 (3) JCC 1726

Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN

KUMAR BABBAR

Signing Date:01.04.2025

14:49:44

Signature Not Verified

CRL.M.C.2526/2019 & one other connected matter Page 20 of 78

presumption that the petitioners were involved in the alleged offence, In this regard, reliance is placed on K.R. Purshothaman v. State of Kerala 4, wherein the Hon‟ble Supreme Court held, that mere knowledge or even discussion of a plan would not per se constitute conspiracy.

32. It is submitted that there is no direct evidence against the petitioners, much less, any other independent evidence, to su pport the allegations against the petitioners. The only evidence relied u pon by the prosecution is Call Data R ecords (hereinafter “CDRs”). The charge sheet contains allegations based solely on the purported conversat ions reflected in the CDRs. However, the CDRs do not indicate any involvement of petitioner no. 2 in the alleged offence nor do they reflect that he ever instructed Mr. Pawan Bansal to make any illegal gratification to th e accused Mr. S.K Jain.

33. It is submitted that even if the CDRs are taken at face value, th e most that can be inferred is that petitioner no. 2 was being updated about the status of the loan proposal of PIL. Such communication is routine and standard in the ordinary course of business and nothing unu sual can be inferred from the same. In the absence of any independent corrobo rative evidence, the CDRs cannot be used as a piece of primary evidence against the petitioner. Without such corroboration, the CDRs are irrelevant and ought not to be relied upon, even at the stag e of summoning.

34. It is submitted that the Hon ‟ble Supreme Court in the matter titled as Mahabir Prasad Verma Vs. Dr. Surinder Kaur 5 held that tape

4 2005 (12) SCC 631

5 AIR 1982 SC 1043

Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN

KUMAR BABBAR

Signing Date:01.04.2025

14:49:44

Signature Not Verified

CRL.M.C.2526/2019 & one other connected matter Page 21 of 78

recorded conversations can only be relied upon as corroborated evidence of conversation deposed by one of the parties to the convers ation. In the absence of evidence of any such conversation, the tape-recorded conversation is not proper evidence and cannot be relied upon.

35. It is further submitted that it was essential for the prosecut ion to place on record some corroborative evidence connecting the petition ers with the alleged offence, however, from the perusal of the entire record, it is clear that there is no evidence whatsoever against the petit ioners, either documentary or oral, which points outs that the petitioners ha d participated in the commission of the alleged offence.

36. It is submitted that to the contrary, the CBI, during the co urse of investigation, interrogated LW-2, Mr. Ghanshyam Das Mudgal, who was specifically interrogated in order to implicate the petitioners in the alleged offence, however, the witness clearly stated that the petitioners ha d not directed payment of any bribe to accused – Mr. S.K. Jain. Hence, it is clear that there was no evidence on record to even prima facie justify the summoning of the petitioners to face a criminal trial.

37. Therefore, in view of the foregoing submissions, it is prayed that the instant petition may be allowed and the reliefs be granted as prayed for.

(on behalf of the respondent-CBI)

38. Per Contra, the learned SPP appearing on behalf of the respondent CBI vehemently opposed the instant petition submitting to the effect that the same is liable to be dismissed being devoid of any merit.

39. It is submitted that investigation revealed that PIL is engaged in the business of coal mining, iron and steel, power and wind ener gy sectors.

Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN

KUMAR BABBAR

Signing Date:01.04.2025

14:49:44

Signature Not Verified

CRL.M.C.2526/2019 & one other connected matter Page 22 of 78

PIL applied for the loan from Punjabi Bagh branch of Syndicate Ba nk.

However, the said loan proposal was rejected by the office of Depu ty General Manager, Regional Office - II, Bhagwan Das Road, New Delhi , and this rejection was also conveyed to the Corporate Office of the Syndicate Bank, Bangalore.

40. It is submitted that the investigation further revealed tha t Mr.

Pawan Bansal, who is Accused no. 2 in the charge sheet, is the D irector of M/s Altius Finserve Pvt. Ltd. The basic function of the s aid company is investment, including syndication of loan, ECB and Non-Co nvertible Debentures (NCDs), mergers and acquisitions, etc. Mr. Pawan Bansal, through the aforementioned company, was pursuing the ECB term l oan proposal of PIL with London branch of Syndicate Bank and the Bank of Maharashtra. Further, Mr. Pawan Bansal was claiming a huge amount from his clients in the name of consultancy services.

41. It is submitted that the investigation revealed Mr. Pawan Bansal was pursuing the loan proposal of PIL, even though there was n o written authorization/mandate from PIL for pursuing the ECB term loan propo sal from Syndicate Bank.

42. It is submitted that the investigation disclosed that pet itioner no. 2 was in regular touch with Mr. SK Jain, CMD of Syndicate Bank through Mr. Pawan Bansal and that they allegedly conspired to expedite the approval of proposal of ECB term loan of PIL. The said proposal wa s approved by Mr. S.K. Jain, even after certain queries.

43. It is submitted that Mr. Uday Shankar Majumdar, the-then General Manager, treasury and international banking division, Syndicate Bank, Mumbai, stated that due to pressure from Mr. S.K. Jain, he sent the Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN KUMAR BABBAR Signing Date:01.04.2025 14:49:44 Signature Not Verified

CRL.M.C.2526/2019 & one other connected matter Page 23 of 78

proposal of PIL to Syndicate ‟s Corporate Office without obtaining necessary clarifications on certain issues from the company and with out confirmation of the internal rating of the company.

44. It is submitted that the investigation revealed that Mr. Vip ul Agarwal also facilitated transaction of cash amounting to Rs. 3.25 crores approximately from PIL to Mr. Pawan Bansal through illegal channels, using the services of Mr. Ghanshyam Mudgal and Mr. Ashok Sharma, both employees of PIL., The said amount was received in Delhi by Mr.

Ajay Bansal, a relative of Mr. Pawan Bansal.

45. It is further submitted that the investigation revealed that Mr.

Pawan Bansal delivered gratification of Rs. 125 lakhs in cash to Mr. S.K.

Jain through Mr. Mukesh Jindal (A – 7). This amount of gratification was received by one Mr. Vineet Godha (A-3) on behalf of Mr. S.K. Jain through Purshottam Totlani (A-4) in Bhopal.

46. It is submitted that the investigation revealed that grat ification of Rs. 125 lakhs was facilitated by Mr. Naresh Chandni, an angadia of Bhopal on the directions of Mr. Tolani, from Mumbai to Bhopal in the month of July 2014 through Mr. Ashish Parekh, an angadia from Mumbai.

47. It is submitted that after considering the material on record and hearing arguments on behalf of the parties, and after due application of the legal mind, the learned Special Judge rightly concluded that a prima facie case is made out against accused persons, including the petit ioners herein. Consequently, the learned Special Judge, vide order dated 9 th March 2018, was pleased to take cognizance of the instant offence against the petitioners.

Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN

KUMAR BABBAR

Signing Date:01.04.2025

14:49:44

Signature Not Verified

CRL.M.C.2526/2019 & one other connected matter Page 24 of 78

48. It is submitted that the learned Special Judge, while taking cognizance against the petitioners, held that „this court has gone through the charge-sheet, statements of witnesses recorded under Secti on 161 of the CrPC and attached documents. ‟. It is submitted that the petitioners have been charge-sheeted for their active criminal involvement a nd commission of alleged offences, which can be established in t he court of law beyond reasonable doubt. The cognizance is not based merely o n presumption on the petitioner‟s association with other accused persons.

49. It is submitted that there is sufficient evidence to estab lish the involvement of the petitioners and the petitioner no. 2 as well a s Mr.

Vipul Agarwal, who played an active role in the chain of events leading to the commission of the offence by facilitating the transfer of the bribe amount from one accused to another accused public servant. The material on record, both oral and documentary, is adequate to invoke pena l provisions against the petitioners.

50. It is submitted that the transaction of bribe was initiated t hrough PIL and Mr. Vipul Agarwal facilitated the said bribe to public servant through Mr. Pawan Bansal. There is evidence on record to establish the criminal involvement and complicity of the petitioners in co mmission of the alleged offence. In addition to the intercepted communication, there is oral testimony of witnesses which reveals the criminal involv ement of petitioners in facilitating, the transaction of bribe amount to the accused public servant.

51. Therefore, in view of the foregoing submissions, it is prayed that the instant petition may be dismissed.

Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN

KUMAR BABBAR

Signing Date:01.04.2025

14:49:44

Signature Not Verified

CRL.M.C.2526/2019 & one other connected matter Page 25 of 78

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

52. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties at length and perused the material on record.

53. The petitioners fundamentally challenge the legality of the chargesheet, arguing that it fails to establish a prima facie case against them. Their primary contention revolves around the absence of substantive legal evidence demonstrating their involvement in the alleged criminal conspiracy. Specifically, the petitioners contend that the prosecution has not produced any credible evidence, other than the transcripts of conversations among the accused persons, to su bstantiate even a prima facie connection to the alleged offences under the PC Act and Section 120B of the IPC.

54. The present petition primarily focuses on the lack of concrete evidence to support the charge of a criminal conspiracy, emphasizing that the prosecution‟s case is built entirely on conjectures and inferences. The petitioners argue that there is no documented evidence of a prior meeting of minds between the accused, and no specific actions attribu table to them that would constitute an offense. Learned senior counsel has challenged the vicarious liability of the petitioner no. 2 (CMD of the petitioner no. 1 company), arguing that mere designation cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution, relying on various precedents of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court.

55. Petitioners have also challenged the evidentiary value of the CDRs, asserting that these cannot be used as standalone evidence wit hout independent corroboration. They argue that even if the CDRs are taken at Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN KUMAR BABBAR Signing Date:01.04.2025 14:49:44 Signature Not Verified

CRL.M.C.2526/2019 & one other connected matter Page 26 of 78

face value, they merely demonstrate routine communication about a l oan proposal and do not establish criminal intent.

56. The legal submission culminates in a comprehensive argument that the entire prosecution is fundamentally flawed, lacking any di rect or independent evidence, and therefore fails to meet the legal thresh old required for summoning the petitioners to face a criminal trial.

57. At this stage, this Court finds it prudent to peruse the char gesheet and the impugned order dated 9 th March, 2018. Relevant paras of the same are reproduced below:

“Allegation in brief:

16.1 That, Shri Pawan Bansal, one of the Directors of M/s Altius Finserv Pvt; Ltd. having his offices at (i) 124, 21 st floor, Freepress House, Nariman Point, Mumbai and (ii)

1205/1206, 12 th Floor, Hallmark, Business Plaza, Sant Dyaneshwar Marg, Near Guru Nanak Hospital, Bandra East, Mumbai- 51 and also at 501, S"' Floor, Barakhamb a Road, New Delhi had been acting as middleman between senior level functionaries of PSU banks and the private firms, who had submitted their loan proposals, through his firm on the pretext of providing various financial ser vices like credit solutions, debt capital market investment ban king etc.

16.2 That Shri Pawan Bansal regularly used to meet these bank officials to pursue the loan proposals prepared an d processed by his firm on behalf of his clients. Source informed that Pawan Bansal pursued the cases of his clie nts by exercising his personal influence over the bank officials and used corrupt and illegal means to influence them.

16.3 Sh. Pawan Bansal was in regular contact with Sh.

Sudhir Kumar Jain, GMD, Syndicate Bank and was acting as his middleman in the corporate loans related matt ers pending with Syndicate Bank. Further. It is also informe d that Sh. Pawan Bansal regularly obtains the official information from Sh. Sudhir Kumar Jain pertaining to the Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN KUMAR BABBAR Signing Date:01.04.2025 14:49:44 Signature Not Verified

CRL.M.C.2526/2019 & one other connected matter Page 27 of 78

present status of all such proposals and utilizes th e same for impressing upon the various private firms.

16.4 That Shri Vineet Godha and Shri Puneet Godha are close relatives of Shri Sudhir Kumar Jain. Shri Vineet Godha is a practicing advocate and Shri Puneet Godha i s in the business of real estate. The source has further informe d that Shri Vijay Pahuja @ Soni, a businessman, residing at 97, Sant Kanwar Ram Nagar Colony, Bersiya Road, Bhopal acts as an agent on behalf of Shri Sudhir Kumar Jain a nd Shri Vineet Godha for receiving the ill gotten money of Shri Sudhir Kumar Jain through illegal channels and delivering the same to Shri Vineet Godha. It has also been learnt th at another person Shri Purushottam Lai Totlani r/o 102, Ridge Road, Idgah Hills, Bhopal, who is in the business of Ho tels and farm houses, also acts as an agent for such tran sactions on behalf of Shri Vineet Godha, 16.5 The source also revealed that M/s. Prakash Industrie s (hereinafter referred as PIL) is in the business of Coal Mines, Iron & Steel, Power and Wind Energy Sectors also hired the services of M/s. Altius Finserve Pvt. Ltd. for sanction of External Commercial Borrowing (ECB) of 20 million US Dollars for buyback of Foreign Currency Convertible Bonds (FCCB). Shri Ved Prakash Aganwal, Chairman, M/s Prakash Industries and Shri Vipul Agarwa l, Director of M/s. Prakash Industries were in regular contac t with Shri Pawan Bansal in connection with the approval of their proposal at Syndicate Bank. Further, they had also conspired to approach Shri Sudhir Kumar Jain, CMD, Syndicate Bank, for expediting the approval of said proposal of M/s. Pra kash Industries. Accordingly, several rounds of personal meetings have taken place between Sh. Pawan Bansal and Shri Sudhir Kumar Jain, CMD, Syndicate bank in this regard. It is also alleged that, in furtherance of the above said conspiracy Shri Pawan Bansal contacted Shri Sudhir Kumar Jain, CMD, Syndicate bank on 14.07.2014 and requested for expediting the approval to the proposal of M/s. Prakash Industries mentioning that acceptance of proposal by him a t Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN KUMAR BABBAR Signing Date:01.04.2025 14:49:44 Signature Not Verified

CRL.M.C.2526/2019 & one other connected matter Page 28 of 78

this stage would benefit the company and thereafter the said proposal of M/s Prakash industries was approved on 15.07.2014 and conveyed by Shri Sudhir Kumar Jain to Shri Pawan Bansal. Source has also revealed that this proposal wa s approved by Shri Sudhir Kumar Jain, CMD, Syndicate Bank even when certain queries made by Shri U.S. Majumdar, General Manager, Syndicate Bank (Mumbai) in respect of the proposal submitted by M/s. Prakash Industries were st ill pending.

16.6 The source has also revealed that in order to get t he expeditious results M/s Prakash Industries had earlier agreed to pay huge sums of money to. Shri Pawan Bansal for availing his services. It was also agreed upon that Shri Pawan Bansal will take care of the payments of illegal money to Shri Sudhir Kumar Jain and the same was also conveyed to Shri Sudhir Kumar Jain during the several rounds of personal meetings between them. As per their understanding the major portion of the agreed upon amo unt has already been provided to Shri Pawan Bansal by M/s.

Prakash Industries through their employee Shri Ghanshyam.

Further, the illegal gratification meant for Shri Su dhir Kumar Jain has been delivered in recent past to Shri Soni/Purushottam for onward delivery to Shri Vineet Godha to be received by him on behalf of Shri Sudhir Kumar Jain.

17. Result of Investigation: Investigation has revealed that;

17.1 Shri Sudhir Kumar Jain (A-1) s/o Late PC Palliwal had joined Syndicate Bank. Corporate Office, Gandhi Nagar, Bangalore, on 08.07.2013, as Chairman and Managing Director. On 01.08.2014, a regular case RC AC 1 2014 A0004 was also registered against him and others in CBI, AC-I, New Delhi wherein he has been charge sheeted under the relevant provisions of IPC and IPC Act, 1988 and that case is pending under trial in the court of Hon'ble Spl Judge, CBI cases, Patiala House New Delhi.

17.2 Shri Pawan Bansai (A-2) s/o Shri Kundal Lai Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN KUMAR BABBAR Signing Date:01.04.2025 14:49:44 Signature Not Verified

CRL.M.C.2526/2019 & one other connected matter Page 29 of 78

Bansal is a Director in M/s Altuis Finserve Pvt. Ltd.

124, Free Press House. Nariman Point, Mumbai which is registered with Security and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) and all other statutory bodies as Merchant Banker and facilitates its clients in consultancy services and raising funds from financial institutions. The ba sic function of the company is investment including syndication of loan, ECBs, NCDs etc, merger and acquisition etc. The company was also operating its business from another office in Mumbai i.e. 1205-1206, Hallmark Business Plaza, Sant Dyaneshwar Marg, Bandra (E), Mumbai and a Delhi based office i.e. 501- 508, 5"" Floor, New Delhi House, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-01. Shri Bansal through his above noted company was pursuing ECB term loan proposal of M/s Prakash Industries Ltd (hereinafter mentioned as PIL) with London branch of Syndicate Bank and Bank of Maharashtra. He was providing consultancy services to various companies and claiming huge amount from his clients in the name of consultancy services.

17.3 Shri Vineet Godha (A-3) s/o Shri S C Godha is a lawyer practicing in the District Court at Bhopal and a resident of E-3/18, Arera Colony, Bhopal. His brother Puneet Godha and wife Sangeeta Godha are engaged in the business of real estate in Bhopal. His younger sister Mrs. Kamini Jain, is married with Sh. Sudhir Kumar Jain, the then CMD, Syndicate Bank (now terminated from service). Shri Godha is charge sheeted in another CBI cases RC AC 12014 A0004 registered against Shri Sudhir Kumar Jain and others.

17.4 Shri Vijay Pahuja @ Soni s/o Shri Fateh Chand Pahuja is a businessman in Bhopal and also the partner with Vineet Godha's family members in the business of real estate and familiar with Vineet Godha from last 20 years. He is also partner in various real estate projects with brother and wife of Shri Vineet Godha at Bhopal. He is also operating his business in Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN KUMAR BABBAR Signing Date:01.04.2025 14:49:44 Signature Not Verified

CRL.M.C.2526/2019 & one other connected matter Page 30 of 78

the name and style of M/s Akruti Dig! Sales, G-47, Vardhmaan City Plaza, Dawa Bazar, Bhopal. He is charge sheeted in another CBI case RC AC1 2014 A0004 registered against Sudhir Kumar Jain and others.

17.5 Shri Purshottam Lai Totlani (A-4) s/o Shri Gurmukhdas Totlani is a Bhopal based businessman in Bhopal and engaged in the business of real estate.

Hotel (in the name of Sri Palace), Sweet Shop (in the name of Raja Sweet House) in Bhopal and also managing a marriage garden in the name of Landmark Garden. He is also a business partner in the real estate business of Puneet Godha and Mrs. Sangeeta Godha w/o Shri Vineet Godha. He was facilitating the transaction of ill gotten money of Shri Sudhir Kumar Jain to Vineet Godha through illegal channels.

17.6 Shri Ved Prakash Aggarwal (A-5) s/o Shri Basudev Agarwal is a Delhi based businessman and Chairman & Managing Director of M/s PIL, having production Units at Raipur and Champa in Chhattisgarh. The registered office of the company is at Srivan, near IOC petrol pump, Bijwasan Road, New Delhi and company is engaged in the production of Steel, PVC pipes and Power Generation through Wind Mills. He is familiar with Pawan Bansal and he is resident of House No. 36 road no. 78 Punjabi Bagh (West), New Delhi.

17.7 Shri Vipul Agarwal (A-6) s/o Late MS Gupta is a Chartered Accountant and working as Financial Consultant in M/s Prakash Industries Ltd from 2013 and getting monthly remuneration in lieu of his services. He is associated with Shri Ved Prakash Aggarwal from long back and before 2013 he was Director (Finance and Accounts) in M/s PIL. He was pursuing the proposal of ECB term loan of USD 20 Mio of M/s PIL with Syndicate Bank through Pawan Bansal and the employees of his company.

17.8 Mukesh Jindal (A-7) s/o Sh. Dharam Chand Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN KUMAR BABBAR Signing Date:01.04.2025 14:49:44 Signature Not Verified

CRL.M.C.2526/2019 & one other connected matter Page 31 of 78

Jindal, a cousin of accused Pawan Bansal is residing in Mumbai and he is associated in the business activities of Pawan Bansal through M/s Altius Finser ve Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai. He was dealing with the accounts of M/s Altius Finserv Pvt. Ltd and actively involved with Pawan Bansal in accounting and managing his unaccounted money and payment of illegal gratification to Sudhir Kumar Jain, the then CMD, Syndicate Bank.

17.9 Pankaj Bansal s/o Shri s/o Sh. Govind Ram is a relative of Pawan Bansal as well as an employee of M/s Altius Finserve Pvt Ltd, a company managed by Pawan Bansal. He was deployed in Delhi based office of the company. He has dealt the loan proposals of M/s PIL with London branch of Syndicate Bank and Bank of Maharashtra, Raipur in the year 2013-14.

Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN

KUMAR BABBAR

Signing Date:01.04.2025

14:49:44

Signature Not Verified

CRL.M.C.2526/2019 & one other connected matter Page 32 of 78

17.11 M/s. PIL is engaged in the business of Coal Mines. Iron & Steel, Power and Wind Energy Sectors having its registered corporate office near IOCL Depot, Najafgarh- Bijwasan Road, Bijwasan, New Delhi- 110061. In the year 2013, M/s PIL applied for the loan Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN KUMAR BABBAR Signing Date:01.04.2025 14:49:44 Signature Not Verified

CRL.M.C.2526/2019 & one other connected matter Page 33 of 78

from Punjabi Bagh branch of Syndicate Bank and this loan proposal was pursued by Shri Nandi Vardhan Jain with Syndicate Bank, After obtaining NBG clearance the fornnal loan proposal of M/s PIL was rejected by the Office of the DGM, Region Office-II, Bhagwan Das Road, New Delhi and conveyed the same to the Corporate Office of the Syndicate bank at Bangalore.

17.12 In the month of October, 2009 and April, 2010, M/s PIL had issued Foreign Currency Convertible Bonds (FCCBs) in two tranches in the international market of value USD 50 and 60 Mio respectively. These FCCBs were valid for a period of 05 years and going to matured in the month of October, 2014 and April, 2010 respectively. From the first tranche, the bonds of value USD 32.9 Mio had already been converted into the equity shares of the company whereas the amount of USD 17.1 Mio was due for maturity and the total amount of FCCBs of second tranche i.e. USD 60 Mio was due for maturity In the Month of April, 2010.

17.13 In order to redeem/buyback of these FCCBs, M/s PIL vide its letter dated 06.03.2014 addressed to Chief Executive Officer, Syndicate Bank, London, M/s PIL had applied for the sanction of External Commercial Borrowings (ECB term loan) of USD 45 Mio, Hard copy of this ECB term loan proposal of M/s PIL of USD 45 Mio for buyback/redemption of FCCBs was submitted by M/s PIL to London branch of Syndicate bank, duly signed by Shri Vikram Agarwal of M/s PIL, Whereas, soft copy of this loan proposal was forwarded to London branch by the representatives of M/s Altius Finserv Pvt. Ltd.

17.14 This loan proposal was being pursued with Syndicate Bank by Pawan Bansal and the representatives of M/s Altius Finserv Pvt. Ltd, whereas there was no written authorization/mandate by M/s PIL for pursuance of ECB term loan proposal by M/s Altius Finserv Ltd with Syndicate Bank. Investigation has revealed that during processing of this loan proposal, Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN KUMAR BABBAR Signing Date:01.04.2025 14:49:44 Signature Not Verified

CRL.M.C.2526/2019 & one other connected matter Page 34 of 78

intimation copies of some of its communication (e- mails) addressed to M/s PIL were also sent by the bank to the representatives of M/s Altius Finserv Pvt. Ltd.

17.15 After processing by various committees at the branch level. T&IBD, Mumbai and Corporate level, the ECB term loan proposal of M/s PIL was forwarded by Shri US Majumdar, the then GM. T&IBD, Mumbai on 14.07.2014 to the Corporate Office, Bangalore for approval of Credit Approval Committee (Tier-I) who was competent authority for approving this loan proposal, 17.16 On 15.07.2014, Credit Approval Committee (Tier-I) of Syndicate Bank, headed by Shri Sudhir Kumar Jain, the then CMD sanctioned the ECB term loan of USD 20 Mio of M/s PIL, for the purpose of buyback/redemption of FCCBs. floated by M/s PIL in the international market, in the year 2009 and 2010, subject to the condition that prior to release of the loa n amount M/s PIL has to obtain the approval of RBI.

17.17 Shri Sudhir Kumar Jain, the then CMD, Syndicate Bank and Pawan Bansal were familiar to each other and Pawan Bansal was in regular touch with Shri Sudhir Kumar Jain over phone and regularly pursuing the ECB term loan proposal of M/s PIL with him. Even after the fact, that there was no written authorization from M/s PIL to Syndicate Bank with respect to pursuation of its loan proposal by Pawan Bansal or his firm with the bank, Sudhir Kumar Jain was discussing the development of this loan proposal of M/s PIL with Pawan Bansal and was sharing official information regarding this loan proposal and Pawan Bansal in order to create an impression on the party was sharing the same with Ved Prakash Agarwal and Vipul Agarwai of M/s PIL. Recorded conversation revealed that on the insistence of Shri Pawan Bansal, Sudhir Kumar Jain, talked 3-4 times with Shri US Majumdar, the then General Manager, Treasury and International Banking Division (T&IBD), Syndicate Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN KUMAR BABBAR Signing Date:01.04.2025 14:49:44 Signature Not Verified

CRL.M.C.2526/2019 & one other connected matter Page 35 of 78

Bank, Mumbai who was processing this ECB term loan proposal and asked him about the status of loan proposal of M/s PIL and to expedite the same. In his statement recorded u/s 164 Cr. PC Shri US Majumdar has stated that due to the pressure from Sudhir Kumar Jain he sent the proposal of M/s PIL to Corporate Office without getting the clarification on some issues from the company and without confirmation of the internal rating of the company.

17.18 Further, Vipul Agarwal, Consultant, M/s PIL was pursuing the ECB term loan proposal on behalf of M/s PIL with Syndicate Bank through Pawan Bansal. In this regard, he was in regular touch with Pawan Bansal over phone and getting updates of the status of the ECB term loan proposal from him which was pending with Syndicate Bank, London. On various occasions, Shri Vipul Agarwal also facilitated transaction of cash amount of Rs 3.25 crores approx from M/s PIL to Pawan Bansal, through illegal channel by using the services of Shri Ghanshyam Mudgal and Ashok Sharma both employees of M/s PIL and this amount was received by Shri Ajay Bansal a relative of Pawan Bansal in Delhi.

17.19 In connection with pursuing the ECB term loan proposal of M/s PIL with Syndicate Bank, Pawan Bansal was also in touch with Shri Ved Prakash Agarwal, CMD of M/s PIL over phone and time to time conveying the status of ECB term loan proposal, after obtaining the same from Shri Sudhir Kumar Jain.

Investigation reveals that Pawan Bansal was providing the information to Shri Vipul Agarwal and Ved Prakash Agarwal regarding ECB term loan proposal of M/s PIL right from giving in principle clearance by the bank to the sanction of ECB term loan proposal and conveyance thereof by the bank to M/s PIL.

17.20 On 16.07.2014, Sudhir Kumar Jain conveyed Pawan Bansal about sanction of ECB term loan proposal of M/s/ PIL who on the same day conveyed it Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN KUMAR BABBAR Signing Date:01.04.2025 14:49:44 Signature Not Verified

CRL.M.C.2526/2019 & one other connected matter Page 36 of 78

to Shri Ved Prakash Agarwal and Vipul Agarwal of M/s PIL.

17.21 In between 14.07.2014 to 16.07.2014, during pendency of the ECB term loan proposal of M/s PIL in the Corporate Office of the Syndicate Bank, Shri Pawan Bansal delivered gratification of Rs 125 lakhs in the form of cash to Shri Sudhir Kumar Jain, through Shri Mukesh Jindal (cousin of Pawan Bansal). This amount of gratification was received by Vineet Godha (brother- in-law of Sudhir Kumar Jain) on behalf of Sudhir Kumar Jain through Purshottam Totlani (facilitator o f transaction of gratification) in Bhopal.

Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN

KUMAR BABBAR

Signing Date:01.04.2025