Financial and Systematic Fraud

Internal Assessment 3
Topic: ‘Case Analysis of:

Appellants……………. Central Bureau of Investigation

vs.
Respondent………………. Coodli Ravikumar and Ors.

Name: Adarsh Kumar

PRN: 13010123309
Year: V
Div.: D
1
 Index

1. Introduction..............................................................................................................................3

2. Case Name...............................................................................................................................4

3. Brief Facts and Issues..............................................................................................................4

4. Rule..........................................................................................................................................8

5. Analysis...................................................................................................................................8

6. Conclusion.............................................................................................................................10

7. Annexure 1 – List of Witnesses.............................................................................................12

8. Annexure 2 – Waste Book Credit/Debit Sale (SBI)..............................................................18

2
 1. Introduction

On July 10,1992 Deputy General Manager of the NHB Manoj Kumar Rakshit lodged a written
complaint with the Central Bureau of Investigation against Coodli Ravikumar, Suresh Babu,
Sitaraman (all officials of the NHB) and Harshad Mehta and others for causing an alleged loss of
Rs. 1214.30 crores to the NHB.
This complaint was filed after the Dy.GM conducted an investigation into the transactions along
with three other officers of the NHB. They discovered that Ravikumar who was the Assistant
General manager of NHB at the time along with Suresh Babu who was the Assistant manager
had issued cheques totalling several crores of rupees in favour of Grindlays Bank and State Bank
of India for “Ready Forward”(RFs) transactions but without obtaining concerned securities or
Bank Receipts (BRs) causing severe loss to NHB. RFs are basically a secured short term loan
from one bank to another.
Out of the total figure of Rs. 1214.30 crores, cheques worth 506.54 crores were issued in favour
of Grindlays Bank for 14 RF transactions. However, this transaction was deemed as a separate
conspiracy by the investigating officer, thereafter it was decided by the High Court and three
accused were convicted. In case of the remaining 707.76 crores, cheques were issued in favour of
SBI towards ten RF transactions. However, the present judgement is only regarding nine of these
transactions totalling Rs.700 crores.
The investigation into the case revealed that Ravikumar, Suresh Babu and Sitaramwho were all
officers of NHB, committed criminal breach of trust by misappropriating the funds of NHB, by
transferring these funds to the account of Harshad Mehta who acted as SBI’s broker. The transfer
was made by showing fake transactions of purchase of securities from SBI by forging documents
to substantiate the said transactions. Apart from Harshad, other accused were accomplices in the
matter.1

Nitish Kashyap, Live Law, November 29, 2016, http://www.livelaw.in/24-years-harshad-mehta-scam-bombay-hc-

convicts-6-acquits-three/
3
 2. Case Name

In The High Court Of Bombay

Appellants: Central Bureau of Investigation

vs.
Respondent: Coodli Ravikumar and Ors.

2017(1)BomCR(Cri)29, 2017(2)Crimes202(Bom.)

Judges/Coram:
Dr. Shalini Phansalkar Joshi, J.

3. Brief Facts and Issues

There were as many as twenty-one charges levelled against the accused for different transactions,
the following points, which cover those charges, arose for the determination of the court on the
basis which the Judgment was based. Highlighting the enormity of the scam the court pointed out
at the following issues which were to be deliberated upon:

Sr. Points
No.
1. Whether it is proved by the prosecution that between 1st October 1991 to 2nd April 1992,
or, thereabout, Accused No. 1 to Accused No. 10, or, any of them, have entered into criminal
conspiracy to commit criminal breach of trust by misappropriating the funds of the NHB to
the tune of Rs. 707,84,75,626=76 with an object to obtain pecuniary advantage to Accused
No. 4-HSM and Accused Nos. 9 and 10, without any public interest, by crediting those funds
to the account of Accused No. 4-HSM and to the account of Accused Nos. 9 and 10 with the
SBI and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 120B of I.P.C.?
2. Whether it is established by the prosecution that, in furtherance of the aforesaid criminal
conspiracy, Accused No. 1, Accused No. 2 and Accused No. 3, or, any of them, committed
criminal breach of trust by diverting the funds of the cheques issued in favour of SBI in
respect of purported purchase of securities, when there was no such transaction at all, by
dishonestly and fraudulently getting the amounts of those cheques credited to the account of

4
 Accused No. 4-HSM with the SBI and thereby committed an offence punishable under
Section 409 r/w. Section 120B of IPC?
3. Whether it is proved by the prosecution that Accused Nos. 1 and 2, or, any of them, being in
the employment of the NHB, and Accused No. 3, being in the employment of SBI, and as
such being the public servants and having been entrusted in such capacity with the funds of
the said Banks, dishonestly misappropriated, or, converted to their own use, or, allowed
Accused No. 4-HSM to misappropriate the amounts of nine cheques and thereby committed
offence punishable under Section 13(1)(2) r/w. Section 13(1)(c) of Prevention of Corruption
Act and Section 120B of IPC?
4. Whether it is established by the prosecution that Accused Nos. 1 and 2, or, any of them,
made or caused to be made false BRs purported to have been issued by the NHB,
dishonestly and fraudulently with intention of causing it to be believed that these BRs were
made by the authority of NHB, by which authority Accused Nos. 1 and 2 knew that they
were not made and thereby committed an offence of forgery of valuable security punishable
under Section 467 r/w. Section 120B of IPC?
5. Whether it is proved by the prosecution that, in furtherance of the aforesaid criminal
conspiracy, Accused Nos. 1 and 2 dishonestly and fraudulently used as genuine the aforesaid
BRs, which they knew or had reason to believe to be forged documents and thereby
committed an offence punishable under Section 471 r/w. Section 120B of IPC?
6. Whether it is proved by the prosecution that, in furtherance of the aforesaid criminal
conspiracy, Accused Nos. 1 and 2, or, any of them, being in the employment of the NHB
and while holding the positions as an Officer of the NHB, acting in that capacity willfully
and, with intent to defraud, falsified and caused to be falsified Deal Diary, BRs, Cost Memos
and relevant Vouchers in respect of the purported transactions of sale of securities, as
indicated by the aforesaid BRs with the respective Financial Institutions, and made the false
entries with regard to those transactions and committed the offence punishable under Section
477A r/w. Section 120B of IPC?
7. Whether it is proved by the prosecution that, in furtherance of the aforesaid criminal
conspiracy and in the course of same transaction, Accused Nos. 1 and 2, being in the
employment of NHB and being the public servants, dishonestly and fraudulently induced
counter-Banks and Financial Institutions to part with their funds by falsely representing that
the NHB had entered into securities transactions, for which forged Bank Receipts were
issued and thereby committed offence punishable under Section 420 r/w. Section 120B of
IPC?
8. Whether it is proved by the prosecution that, in furtherance of the aforesaid criminal
conspiracy, Accused Nos. 1 and 2, or, any of them, being in the employment of NHB, as

5
 such, being the public servants, dishonestly and fraudulently issued or caused to be issued
the cheques for respective amounts in favour of SBI in relation to the purported securities
transactions which NHB, purportedly, had with the respective Financial Institutions, which,
in fact, had never taken place with an intention to aid and abet Accused No. 4-HSM to
misappropriate the amounts of the cheques and Accused No. 3 actively assisted in the same
by abusing his position as public servant, without any public interest, and thereby committed
an offence of criminal misconduct punishable under Section 13(2) r/w. Section 13(1)(d) of
Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120B of IPC?
9. Whether prosecution proves that, during the above-said period, in furtherance of the
aforesaid criminal conspiracy, Accused Nos. 5, 6 and 7, acting dishonestly for and on behalf
of Accused No. 4-HSM, engaged themselves in the said conspiracy and dishonestly arranged
and accepted the credit of the various amounts in connivance with Accused No. 3, who, at
the relevant time, was Officer in the Security Division of SBI, where account of Accused
No. 4-HSM was operated, actively assisted them in doing so and thereby Accused Nos. 5, 6
and 7 acted, instigated and facilitated by Accused Nos. 1 and 2, as also aided and abated by
Accused No. 3 in committing the offence of criminal breach of trust and thereby committed
the offence punishable under Section 409 r/w. Section 109 r/w. Section 120B of IPC.
10. Whether prosecution further proves that, in furtherance of the aforesaid criminal conspiracy,
Accused No. 9, being the Partner of M/s. Extol Investments, and Accused No. 8, acting
dishonestly for and on behalf of Accused No. 9, dishonestly arranged and accepted the credit
of the amounts of Rs. 2,50,000/- and Rs. 13,00,000/- and Rs. 8,98,912/- and Accused Nos. 1
to 3 actively assisted, instigated and facilitated them and thereby committed the offence
punishable under Section 409 r/w. 109 r/w. 120B of IPC.
11. Whether prosecution proves that, in furtherance of aforesaid conspiracy, Accused Nos. 1 and
2, being the Officers of NHB, Accused No. 3, being the Officer of SBI, Accused Nos. 9 and
10, being the Partners of M/s. Extol Investments, dishonestly misappropriated, on or about
21st February 1992, a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- and, on 22nd February 1992, a sum of Rs.
13,00,000/-, being the proceeds of the cheques issued at the instance of Accused Nos. 1 and
2 for and on behalf of NHB drawn on the RBI and payable to the SBI, by causing the same
to be ultimately credited in the account of Accused No. 9, knowing or having reason to
believe that they did not have transactions with the NHB and also knowing that the said
amounts did not belong to them and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section
403 r/w. Section 120B of IPC?
12. Whether prosecution further proves that, in furtherance of aforesaid criminal conspiracy,
Accused Nos. 1 and 2, being the Officers of NHB, and Accused No. 3, being the Officer of
SBI, and Accused Nos. 9 and 10, being the Partners of M/s. Extol Investments, committed

6
 the offence of criminal misconduct by causing the above mentioned cheques to be credited
into the Personal Account of Accused No. 9 illegally and which was ultimately
misappropriated by them and thereby committed the offence punishable under Sections
13(1)(c), 13(1)(d) r/w. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act r/w. Sections 109 and 120B
of IPC.
13. Whether the prosecution further proves that, Accused No. 9, in furtherance of aforesaid
criminal conspiracy, dishonestly received the sum of Rs. 2,50,000/-, Rs. 13,00,000/- and Rs.
8,98,912/-, being the amounts purportedly payable to the SBI vide cheques drawn on the
RBI and ultimately credited to his own account No. 5660 with the SBI, knowing or having
reason to believe the same to be stolen property, being the property in respect of which the
criminal breach of trust had been committed and thereby committed an offence punishable
under Section 411 r/w. Section 120B of IPC.
14. Whether the prosecution further proves that, in furtherance of aforesaid criminal conspiracy,
Accused No. 8 made or caused to be made a false document, namely, a letter dated 1st
February 1992 addressed by NHB to SBI for causing the credit of Rs. 8,98,912/- into the
Savings Bank Account No. 5660 of Accused No. 10 with SBI, which letter was purported to
have been issued by NHB, which was dishonestly or fraudulently made with the intention of
causing it to be believed that the said letter was made and signed by the Assistant Manager/
Manager of the NHB, knowing that it was not so made and thereby committed an offence of
forgery of valuable security punishable under Section 467 r/w. Section 120B of IPC.
15. Whether the prosecution further proves that, in furtherance of aforesaid criminal conspiracy,
Accused No. 9 made or caused to be made false documents, namely, the letters dated 21st
February 1992 and 22nd February 1992, addressed by NHB to SBI, for causing the credit of
Rs. 2,50,000/- and Rs. 13,00,000/- given to his Savings Bank Account No. 5660 with SBI,
which letters were purported to have been issued by NHB and which were dishonestly or
fraudulently made with the intention of causing it to be believed that the said letters were
made and signed by the Assistant Manager/Manager of the NHB, knowing that they were
not so made and thereby committed an offence of forgery of valuable securities punishable
under Section 467 r/w. Section 120B of IPC.
16. Whether the prosecution further proves that, in furtherance of aforesaid criminal conspiracy,
Accused Nos. 8 and 9 dishonestly and fraudulently used as genuine the letter dated 1st
February 1992, which they knew or had reason to believe to be a forged document and
thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 471 r/w. Section 120B of IPC.

4. Rule

7
Relevant Section:

1. Indian Penal Code, 1860

- Section 120B; Section 403; Section 409; Section 420; Section 467; Section 471; Section
477; Section 109; Section 120A; Section 405; Section 411; Section 477A
2. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC)
- Section 294; Section 300; Section 313; Section 389(3); Section 424(1)(b); Section 482.
3. Indian Evidence Act, 1872
- Section 10, Section 34; Section 65B
4. National Housing Bank Act, 1987
- Section 14;
5. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
- Section 10, Section 128;
6. Prevention Of Corruption Act, 1988
- Section 13(1)(2), Section 13(1)(c), Section(1)(d), Section 13(1)(d)(iii), Section 13(1)(e),
Section 13(2), Section 13(d), Section 5(1)(d), Section 5(2)
7. Probation Of Offenders Act, 1958
- Section 4;
8. Special Court (trial Of Offences Relating To Transactions In Securities) Act, 1992
- Section 9(4)
5. Analysis
To prove the charge of criminal conspiracy, the learned Advocates had relied upon the landmark
decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Narain Poply v. Central Bureau of
Investigation,2 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court had, at length, dealt with the said charge, in the
backdrop of the similar allegations, in a case arising out of the decision of the Special Court in
the matter of Harshad Mehta and others.

The arguments are weighty as they are leading to the conclusion that to establish a charge of
conspiracy knowledge about indulgence in either an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means is
necessary.3 In some cases, intent of unlawful use being made of the goods or services in question
may be inferred from the knowledge itself. 4 This apart, the prosecution had also not established

Ram Narain Poply v. Central Bureau of Investigation, MANU/SC/0017/2003 : AIR 2003 SC 2748
3

State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa, MANU/SC/0451/1996 : (1996) 4 SCC 659

4

Yash Pal Mittal v. State of Punjab, MANU/SC/0169/1977 : (1977) 4 SCC 540

8
that a particular unlawful use was intended, so long as the goods or service in question could not
be put to any lawful use. Finally, when the ultimate offence consists of a chain of actions, it
would not be necessary for the prosecution to establish, to bring home the charge of conspiracy,
that each of the conspirators had the knowledge of what the collaborator would do, so long as it
is known that the collaborator would put the goods or service to an unlawful use.5

While dealing with the offence of criminal conspiracy in respect of the financial frauds, it has
been observed that the law making conspiracy a crime, is designed to curb immoderate power to
do mischief, which is gained by a combination of the means. 6 The encouragement and support
which co-conspirators give to one another rendering enterprises possible which, if left to
individual effort, would have been impossible, furnish the ground for visiting conspirators and
abettors with condign punishment. The conspiracy is held to be continued and renewed as to all
its members wherever and whenever any member of the conspiracy acts in furtherance of the
common design.7

In the context of Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act, in the instant case, the evidence on
record, discussed above, clearly goes to prove that without the active connivance and collusion
of Accused No. 1-Ravikumar and Accused No. 2-Suresh Babu at the NHB end and Accused No.
3-Sitaraman at the SBI office, the crores of funds from the Financial Institutions would not have
been diverted to the account of Accused No. 4-HSM. The evidence on record also goes to prove
that there was blatant violation of all the canons and rules and regulations of the Banking
Institutions and financial transactions.8 Without having securities or Bank Receipts in hand, the
cheques were issued and the sale proceeds of the same were then credited to the account of
Accused No. 4-HSM without there being such mandate by NHB to SBI, 9 which clearly goes to
prove that all these three officers, Accused No. 1-Ravikumar, Accused No. 2-Suresh Babu and
Accused No. 3-Sitaraman, have acted hand-in-gloves for the benefit of Accused No. 4-HSM.

It was due to only the encouragement and support which the co-conspirators, like, Accused No.
1-Ravikumar, Accused No. 2-Suresh Babu and Accused No. 3-Sitaraman gave to each other, that
5

Ajay Aggarwal v. Union of India, MANU/SC/0265/1993 : (1993) 3 SCC 609

6

State of Kerala v. P. Sugathan, MANU/SC/0601/2000 : (2000) 8 SCC 203

7

State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa, MANU/SC/0451/1996 : (1996) 4 SCC 659

8

R. Venkatkrishnan v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2009) 11 SC 737

9

Vinayak Narayan Deosthali v. Central Bureau of Investigation, MANU/SC/1128/2014 : (2015) 2 SCC 553
9
the siphoning of funds of the Banks was rendered possible, which, if left to individual effort of
Accused No. 1-Ravikumar, Accused No. 2-Suresh Babu and Accused No. 3-Sitaraman, would
have been impossible and, therefore, it furnishes the ground for proving the charge of criminal
conspiracy. Hence, in this case, I have no hesitation in holding the charge under Section 120B of
IPC proved against the Accused personnel.

In this decision, the Hon'ble Apex Court has further categorically held that, "when a person
misappropriates to his own use the property that does not belong to him, the misappropriation is
dishonest even though there was an intention to restore it at some future point of time" 10 In this
case, in the face of gross violation of the various rules, guidelines, when the funds have been
transferred, the mere fact that ultimately under the direction of RBI, the repayment of the said
funds was made, that too under protest, does not dilute, in any way, the nature of the offence.

6. Conclusion
It is true that, in this case, the offence has taken place, way back in the year 1992, and about
twenty-four years have lapsed since then, as this verdict is coming in the year 2016. It is also true
that during this period of twenty-four years, the accused persons had undergone both, the
physical and mental sufferings, not only of attending the Court regularly, which they are doing,
as can be seen from the record of this case also, but also because the sword of conviction and
sentence was always hanging on their heads. It is also true that the approach, which is adopted by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the appeal preferred by them, is of leniency, in the
sense that they are released on the punishment already undergone by them in some of the cases.11

However, at the same time, it is also true that the offence, which is committed by them;
especially, Accused No. 1-Ravikumar, Accused No. 2-Suresh Babu and Accused No. 3-
Sitaraman is of a grave and serious nature, it is of siphoning of crores of funds of the
Nationalized Bank, Financial Institutions to the account of some third person, who was not
entitled thereto, like Accused No. 4-HSM. The country has witnessed the repercussions of the
said offence in the sense that the economy of the country was totally shattered on account of this
scam. The Hon'ble Apex Court is also serious as regards the economic offences. The offences in
these cases were not of the conventional or traditional type. The ultimate objective was to use
public money in a carefully planned manner for personal use with no right to do it. 12 Funds of

10

R. Venkatakrishnan v. Central Bureau of Investigation, MANU/SC/1411/2009 : AIR 2010 SC 1812

11

The Barium Chemicals Ltd. and Anr. vs. The Company Law Board and Ors. MANU/SC/0037/1966
12

10
public bodies were utilized as if they were private funds. There was no legitimacy in the
transactions. Huge funds running into hundreds of crores of MUL a Government Company, were
diverted and all the concerned accused persons A1, A3 and A5 played dubious roles in these
illegitimate transactions. Their acts had serious repercussions on the economic system of the
country and the magnitude of financial impact involved in the present appeal is only tip of the
iceberg.

Therefore, while awarding the sentence, the Court has to do the balancing act and in such
situation, the principle of proportionality assumes significance. The sentence has to be
proportionate to the offence committed by the accused and at the same time the Court has to take
into account all the relevant factors, like, the delay in pronouncement of the verdict, the period
during which the accused has undergone this entire trial process, then the physical and financial
conditions of the accused and their liabilities, coupled with their age and the ailments, which
they may be suffering.13 If all these facts are kept in mind, it is needless to state that, though it is
first offence and the only conviction of Accused No. 9-Deepak, the benefit of the provisions of
the Probation of Offender's Act cannot be invoked for his offence; especially when his
conviction is for the offence punishable under Section 409 r/w. Sections 109 and 120B of IPC
and, therefore, that is out of question.

So far as remaining accused, like Accused No. 1-Ravikumar, Accused No. 2-Suresh Babu and
Accused No. 3-Sitaraman, are concerned, as they are charged for committing the offence of
misusing their position as public servants and, therefore, for the offence punishable under
Section 409 of IPC and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, it cannot be
accepted that undue lenient view should be taken, so as to release them on the punishment
already undergone.

7. Annexure 1 – List of Witnesses

Alamgir vs. State (NCT, Delhi) MANU/SC/0987/2002;

13

Alamgir vs. State (NCT, Delhi) MANU/SC/0987/2002;

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
 8. Annexure 2 – Waste Book Credit/Debit Sale (SBI)
TABLE: ONE OF THE MANY WASTE BOOK CREDIT/DEBIT SIDE SAMPLE (DT. 16.11.1991)

18