Order 10

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: CC No. 05/2024
CBI Vs. M/s Heyee Global Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. & ors.
CNR No.: DLCT11-000008-2024
13.05.2024
Present: Sh. A.K. Tanwar, Ld. Sr. PP for CBI along with IO.
That the instant case was registered by CBI on the
complaint of Sh. Subhash Jha, AGM and Branch Head, Sansad Marg
Branch with the allegations and material on record that Priya Ranjan
Kumar, the then Manager, PNB, Sansad Marg Branch, M/s Heyee
Global Enterprise Pvt. Ltd. Have conspired with each other and
others for cheating to the PNB by issuing or obtaining fake bank
guarantee to the tune of Rs.168.59 crores. It is further alleged that
aforesaid Priya Ranjan Kumar (since deceased) while posted as
Manager in PNB abused his official position, during the period 2020
to 2022, unauthorizedly prepared forged B. G. and also issued 34
bank guarantee fraudulently without following the due procedure of
the bank as the same were not recorded in banks Finacle system and
never issued from PNB, Sansad Marg Branch in favor of NHIDCL
in consideration of quid pro quo from the M/s Heyee Global
Enterprise Pvt. Ltd. (A-1) through its Director Sh. Elagbam
Ranananda (A-3). It is further alleged that in pursuance of conspiracy
said Priya Ranjan Kumar unauthorizedly accessed the FTP server of
PNB and downloaded the BGs received from the Unkrainian Bank,
modified/altered the same and took printouts on stolen
e-Stamps/valuable securities of the PNB and forwarded such forged
BG to NHIDCL/PWD-NH/other entities through co-accused i.e. A-1
to A-3. It is further alleged that in pursuance of conspiracy, said Priya
Ranjan Kumar opted undue gains in his account as well as in the
CC No. 05/2024
CBI Vs. M/s Heyee Global Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. & ors. Page No. 1 of 4
-- 1 of 4 --
account of his family members i.e. his wife Kumari Neeru (A-4) &
Saurabh Kumar (brother in law of late Priya Ranjan Kumar) (A-5)
from A-2 and A-3. Thus, there are allegations and material on record
that A-4 and A-5 in pursuance of the criminal conspiracy among the
accused persons have abated the offence of Sections 7, 8, 9 and 10 of
PC Act. There are further allegations and material on record that M/s
Barachiel Golden City Properties Ltd. (A-2) which is an associate
company of A-1 and A-3 transferred money of illegal gratification as
quid pro quo to Priya Ranjan Kumar and his family members for the
object of obtaining and issuing forged BG from the bank.
From careful perusal of entire allegation, as mentioned
in charge-sheet supported with evidences both documentary and oral,
certain areas are reflected on which there does not seem to be any
investigation or the investigation, so conducted by the IO, is not
conclusive or complete. These areas which remain unexplained are :
1. As per averments/allegations there are evidence alleging that
there is transfer of money to Priya Ranjan Kumar and A-4 and A-5
along with other accused persons, such details are not furnished. It is
stated in para Nos. 76 and 77 that request under Section 17 (A) PC
Act with regard to officials of PNB and Canara Bank have been
declined, however, NHIDCL is the beneficiary and the contract is
stated to have been allotted in the name of eight entities and 36 forged
bank guarantees which are stated to have been issued by officials of
PNB which has not been counter checked by officials of Canara Bank.
The role of all such entities have not been explained in detail or no
investigation seems to have been conducted on the role of all such
entities, whether they are involved in the conspiracy and substantive
offence as alleged or not.
2. Similarly, proceeding further with regard to above mentioned
CC No. 05/2024
CBI Vs. M/s Heyee Global Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. & ors. Page No. 2 of 4
-- 2 of 4 --
point, the role of NHIDCL officials, regarding their involvement in
the alleged fraud, if any, is also not explained during entire final
report. All the complaints which are filed by NHIDCL are stated to
have been merged with this FIR. Thus, a thorough investigation ought
to have been done with regard to NHIDCL.
3. The contract/tender has been awarded in the name of eight
different entities, in the present case. There has been further sub-
contract in the name of M/s A L Enterprises and M/s G.B.S
Enterprises as sub-contractor on back to back basis. If, conspiracy is
alleged to have been invoked, as one of the ingredients for committing
an offence under various Sections of Prevention of Corruption Act (as
amended in 2018), then the role of these local contractors M/s
A.L.Enterprises and M/s G.B.S Enterprises should also be checked
throughly, for which detailed investigation has to be conducted and it
should be a part of the investigation as a whole.
4. Luckson Sumi and Ghulami Ayee are local contractors, who
are alleged to have applied for tender through the big players/entities,
however, as per the allegations the work has not been completed and
some of the forged bank guarantees are stated to have been invoked as
well, Thus, role of local contractors cannot be beyond suspicion,
hence, detailed thorough investigation should be conducted and if so
conducted, then such averment should form part of the final report,
however, this aspect is lacking here. The role of various entities like
KPCL, Fortune Group, Multi-builders, MD Enterprises, C. Gopal
Reddy etc. needs to be explained, as mentioned at Page Nos. 12 and
13 of the charge-sheet, more particularly, in the light of allegations
of conspiracy.
5. The investigation, so conducted by the IO, should also throw
lights on the beneficiaries of bank guarantee and their role and
CC No. 05/2024
CBI Vs. M/s Heyee Global Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. & ors. Page No. 3 of 4
-- 3 of 4 --
involvement in the entire incident should also be thoroughly
investigated. The IO has also not thrown much light upon those bank
officials, whose login ID is alleged to have been used in creating
forged/manipulated bank guarantees.
Keeping in mind the above factors reflecting from the charge-
sheet itself, reply from IO is required. Such lapses, if not answered
properly, then seems to be detrimental to the case of prosecution, as a
whole. Let this fact be brought to the knowledge of concerned SP, CBI
and concerned Director. Issue notice to IO for furnishing his reply.
Copy of the order be sent to the concerned SP/CBI for necessary
intimation and compliance.
Be put up for further proceedings on 31.05.2024.
(PRASHANT KUMAR)
Special Judge (PC Act) (CBI)-07
Rouse Avenue Courts: New Delhi
13.05.2024
CC No. 05/2024
CBI Vs. M/s Heyee Global Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. & ors. Page No. 4 of 4
-- 4 of 4 --