Order 30

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: CC No. 5/2024
CBI Vs. M/s Heyee Global Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (HGEPL) & ors.
CNR No.: DLCT11-000008-2024
26.08.2025
Present: Sh. Neeraj Bhardwaj, Ld. Sr. PP for CBI and Sh.
Deepak Poria, Ld. PP for CBI.
IO/DSP Rakesh is present.
1. The present case was registered by CBI on
07.12.2022 on the complaint of Sh. Subhash Jha, AGM and
Branch Head, Sansad Marg Branch with the allegations that
Priya Ranjan Kumar (expired), the then Manager, PNB, Sansad
Marg Branch had conspired with M/s Heyee Global Enterprise
Pvt. Ltd. (A-1) and other unknown persons for cheating PNB.
During the course of investigation, it was found out that fake
bank guarantees to the tune of Rs. 208 crores had been created
by the accused Priya Ranjan Kumar while holding the position
of a manager in PNB . The above said bank guarantees were
issued for being deposited in favor of NHIDCL in consideration
of grant of tender for construction of different sections of roads
in remote areas in the State of Nagaland to 8 entities whose
details are mentioned in para no. 7 of the charge-sheet. It is the
case of CBI that accused Priya Ranjan Kumar (since deceased)
while being posted as a Manager in PNB abused his official
position during the period between the year 2020 to 2022 and
unauthorizedly prepared forged bank guarantees and issued 34
bank guarantees fraudulently without following the due
procedure of the bank. CBI has claimed that their investigation
CC No. 05/2024
CBI Vs. M/s Heyee Global Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Page No. 1 of 11
-- 1 of 11 --
has revealed that the bank guarantees so prepared by accused
Priya Ranjan Kumar were not entered into the banks Finacle
system. Investigation has also revealed that the bank guarantees
were forged documents as they had never been issued from
PNB, Sansad Marg Branch. It is the case of CBI that the
aforesaid 8 entities were awarded contracts on issuance of letter
of acceptance for the project for construction of road by
NHIDCL and it was one of the condition of the contract that the
security for performance of the same was to be given in the form
of the above said bank guarantees.
2. It is stated in the charge-sheet that accused Priya
Ranjan Kumar had received illegal gratification from M/s Heyee
Global Enterprise Pvt. Ltd. (A-1) through its Director Sh.
Elagbam Ranananda (A-3) and in pursuance of a criminal
conspiracy so hatched between them , the accused Priya Ranjan
Kumar unauthorizedly accessed the FTP server of PNB and
downloaded the BGs
which were received from a Ukrainian
Bank and thereafter, he modified/altered the same and took
printouts on stolen e-Stamps/valuable securities of PNB and
forged the BG for submitting to NHIDCL/PWD-NH/other
entities. It is also claimed in the charge sheet that investigation
had revealed that accused Priya Ranjan Kumar received
unaccounted for money in his account as well as in the 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-1 and A-3. Hence, it was averred that there was
ample evidence on record to show that A-4 and A-5 had abetted
CC No. 05/2024
CBI Vs. M/s Heyee Global Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Page No. 2 of 11
-- 2 of 11 --
the commission of offence Sections 7, 8, 9 and 10 of PC Act.
3. It is stated in paragraph no. 4 of the charge-sheet
that four similar complaints, all dated 27.04.2023 filed by
NHIDCL with EOW, Delhi Police against PNB and the
“
contractors” were received by CBI through proper channel as
the original complaint (connected) dt. 07.12.2022 of PNB was
already pending with them for investigation. It is stated in the
charge-sheet that the aforesaid four complaints received from
NHIDCL were merged with the investigation of this case which
was registered on the basis of the complaint received from PNB
dated 07.12.2022. It is stated in paragraph no. 4 of the charge-
sheet that findings of investigation of the present case covers the
allegations made in the 04 complaints filed by NHIDCL. It is
claimed by CBI that there investigation has revealed that these 8
entities / contractors had no knowledge of the fraud and had no
role to play in the forgery so committed.
4. On 13.05.2024, the Ld. Predecessor Special Judge
of this Court had passed a detailed order in which he had prima
facie observed that a thorough investigation was required on the
role of the 8 “entities” to whom the contract had been
allotted/granted by NHIDCL and the public servants, .i.e. banker
of NHIDCL ;Canara Bank in the entire incident. It was thereafter
reported in the compliance report filed by CBI in response to
observations made in order dt. 13.05.2024 (report dt. 31.05.2024)
that permission u/s. 17A of PC Act for detailed investigation into
the roles of other government officials of PNB and Canara Bank
in the matter of issuance and acceptance of forged bank
CC No. 05/2024
CBI Vs. M/s Heyee Global Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Page No. 3 of 11
-- 3 of 11 --
guarantees was declined by the competent authority of both the
banks .Nonetheless , CBI claimed that no active role of
involvement of any NHIDCL official surfaced in the matter of
issuance and acceptance of forged BGs’. It was further reported
by CBI that upon inquiry it was found out that that the officials
of NHIDCL, being non bankers were not aware about the
“SFMS” messages mode and manner of its usage for particular
service, code numbers and were unaware of the mechanism to
check its veracity. It was further reported by CBI that inquiry
revealed that the correct format for transmitting bank guarantee
was under the code “MT 760 SFMS” whereas the SFMS
messages generated by A-1 were sent under the code of “MT-799
SFMS” messages , which was a free text message and not the
correct message / code for the purpose of confirmation of
genuineness of BG and since the officials of NHIDCL were non
bankers , they were unaware of the same and thus , not in a
position to suspect forgery or detect the same in the process .
5. The Predecessor Court had observed in its order dt.
13.05.2024 regarding the role of the “
beneficiaries” of the bank
guarantee and possibility of their involvement in the entire
incident. The predecessor Court had also observed that
investigation conducted by the IO was silent on whether any
substantive offence had been committed by the said entities and
whether they had any role to play in the conspiracy to submit
forged BG’s with the government entity. Perusal of charge- sheet
and accompanying statement of witnesses reveals that in the
present case, there were instances of sub-contracting on “
back to
CC No. 05/2024
CBI Vs. M/s Heyee Global Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Page No. 4 of 11
-- 4 of 11 --
back” basis therefore court had also called for a detailed
investigation regarding the role of the
sub-contractors to
eliminate the possibility of their involvement in the conspiracy
committed to carry out offences under PC Act and other
substantive offences.
6. CBI had filed a compliance report in respect of
order dt. 13.05.2024 of the Special Judge (Predecessor of this
Court) on 31.05.2024. Thereafter, clarifications were sought
from the IO by this Court on the contents of the charge-sheet
regarding the observations made in the order dt. 13.05.2024 and
thereafter, a number of status reports / clarificatory reports have
since been filed by CBI. On all successive dates , IO of the case
reiterated that no tangible or electronic evidence was found
pointing out to involvement of the “8 entities” or
“subcontractors” in the forgery so committed.
7. On 20.3.2025, a status report was filed by CBI
wherein at paragraph No. 5 of the same, the following was stated
;-
“It is also clarified that the Contractors, namely M/s MD
Enterprises, M/s C. Gopal Reddy & Co. and M/s
Ksheerabad Constructions, had taken mobilisation
advance for an amount of Rs. 37,12,92,000/-, which has
been recovered through running bills and through the
amount payable to the Contractor for work done. It is
also clarified that in addition to the above, M/s C. Gopal
Reddy & Co. has taken secured advance against
Performance Bank Guarantees / Advance Performance
Bank Guarantees amounting to Rs. 15,80,000/- which
has been recovered through running bills and through
the amount payable to the Contractor for work done. It is
also clarified that as regards the recovery on amount of
Performance Bank Guarantees / Advance Performance
Bank Guarantees it is stated that as per the Contract
CC No. 05/2024
CBI Vs. M/s Heyee Global Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Page No. 5 of 11
-- 5 of 11 --
Clause 23.9 of the Contract Agreement, the securities
are to be encashed consequent to the termination of the
contract, however ini the instant cases due to the
submission of the Non- Genuine Bank Guarantee by the
Contractors, the encashment could not be done. It is also
clarified that therefore, in the termination payment it
shall be claimed along with the other recoverable like
Liquidity Damages, penalty on account of pending
NCRs etc. after adjusting the same against the amount
payable to the Contractor as per the provision of the
Contract Agreement. The amount of net recoveries will
be claimed form the Contractors by issuing a recovery
notice and if not paid, then through Arbitration as per the
provision of the Contract Agreement.”
8. In the context of the above cited excerpt from the
status report of CBI, the IO submitted that in view of the letter
dated 19.02.2025 received by SP CBI from Dy. General
Manager, Vig., NHIDCL, it was apparent that the mobilization /
secured advance taken by the contractors / 8 entities had been
recovered through running bills and also stood set off in lieu of
amount payable to the contractor for contractors ; M/S M D
Enterprises, M/S C Gopal Reddy and M/S Ksheerabad
Constructions. It was further stated that as per this report,
NHIDCL had submitted that the securities would be claimed
along with other recoverables like liquidity damages, penalty on
account of pending NCR etc after adjusting the amount payable
to the contractor as per provisions of the contract in the
termination payment. Thus, IO submitted that in view of this
fact, the government entity/ NHIDCL had not suffered any actual
financial losses and the only loss suffered was notional as the
payment made against the invoked fraudulent PG/BG had
already been adjusted against the work done by the contractors.
CC No. 05/2024
CBI Vs. M/s Heyee Global Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Page No. 6 of 11
-- 6 of 11 --
In response to Court query, it was admitted that no such
conclusive report had been given in the charge-sheet by CBI that
NHIDCL did not suffer any monetary loss due to the incident
and IO was basing his claim of “notional loss” on the basis of
status reports filed in the court after receipt of responses from
NHIDCL.
9. At this juncture , attention of the court is drawn to a
report dated 1.10.2024 of General Manager (T) of NHIDCL
submitted to Sh. Naveen Kumar Jain, Dy General Manager ,
Vig., NHIDCL (placed alongwith status report of CBI) wherein it
is stated as a response to query No 77 (viii) at page 5/5 that
NHIDCL had to suffer losses / implication and regular public
outcry for incomplete projects which eventually led to time and
cost over run for a project .It is also stated in reply to query No
77 at point (vii) that there was no intimation in regards to the
execution of 100 percent back to back basis sub contracting at
the time of bidding to officials of NHIDCL. It was also stated in
reply No (v-b )to query no 77 that no such proposal for approval
of sub contractor on back to back basis had been initiated by the
EPC Contractors neither any recommendation for sub
contractors were received from AE/PMU/RO. It was also
reported in reply (v -c) to query 77 that during execution of the
work no report has been received from AE/PMU/RO office
regarding execution of work on “back to back basis” and as
such ,NHIDCL was not aware of such incident as pointed out by
CBI in their findings for these projects.
10. In this regard , findings of inquiry conducted by the
CC No. 05/2024
CBI Vs. M/s Heyee Global Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Page No. 7 of 11
-- 7 of 11 --
IO and submitted to the court vide his report dated 08.07.2024
are relevant. In paragraph No. 21 of the said report , it is clearly
stated by CBI that pursuant to investigation , it was found out
that
Sh. Luckson Sumi used to contact business entities
interested in applying for government tenders and arrange
business for them from NHIDCL whereas
Sh. Ghunavi Ayee
used to arrange the required “BG”/ PG for giving security /
guarantees for obtaining mobilization advances from NHIDCL as
per the terms of the contract . Admittedly , no contract was ever
executed between NHIDCL and these 2 persons namely Sh.
Luckson Sumi or Sh. Ghunavi Ayee or their companies in this
case and as per report of IO , these 2 persons / their companies
were acting on behalf of the contractors/ “8 entities” to whom the
contracts had been awarded by NHIDCL . In the statement u/s
161 Cr.P.C recorded during investigation , some of the directors
of these companies / contractors/ 8 entities had stated to the IO
that they were aware that the contract awarded to them did not
allow sub contracting on back to back basis , yet it seems from
the investigation that such sub contracting did take place even
though NHIDCL has taken a stand that they were unaware of the
same. Under such circumstances , the investigation conducted
and the charge sheet so filed in this case fails to address the
grievance of NHIDCL (Complainant) that they had been cheated
in these contracts by these 8 entities/ contractors and other
related persons. Furthermore , the charge sheet as filed does not
explain the nature of transactions; financial / business that took
place between these 2 persons, i.e. Sh. Luckson Sumi and Sh.
CC No. 05/2024
CBI Vs. M/s Heyee Global Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Page No. 8 of 11
-- 8 of 11 --
Ghunavi Ayee with accused Elangbam Ranananda and his
company and fails to clarify whether the same were analyzed by
collecting any documentary or electronic piece of evidence to
examine and assess the modalities of the contract given to
accused Elangbam Ranananda for obtaining PG/ BG for
submission by the contractors/8 Entities before
NHIDCL .Admittedly,as per the statement u/s 161 Cr P C of Sh.
Luckson Sumi and Sh. Ghunavi Ayee, the PB/ BG so procured
by Accused Elangbam Ranananda was obtained without
submission of any collateral security with the bank/ financial
institutions .These persons had themselves stated to the IO
during investigation u/s. 161 Cr.P.C. that they were aware that
the PG/ BG were being arranged on payment of
One time
commission and in the absence of any collateral security . The
services of the financial entity
M/S Yeild four so engaged by
accused Elangbam Ranananda in order to obtain the PB/ BG
seems to have been investigated in part only as in the statements
of one of its directors recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C., it is discernible
that the performance guarantees so arranged on the application of
accused Elangbam had not been procured on the basis of any
collateral security. A bare claim had been made in the statement
u/s 161 Cr PC of Director Mohit Chadha that the associate
banks / financial institutions used to issue the bank guarantee on
the basis of the
credit sheet , balance sheet etc of the company so
involved , however court could not deduce from the charge sheet
neither was any conclusive finding given on this aspect thereby
revealing the details of the business account or entity/ company
CC No. 05/2024
CBI Vs. M/s Heyee Global Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Page No. 9 of 11
-- 9 of 11 --
whose balance sheets, bank accounts etc were used / submitted
with these financial institutions to arrange the BG for
submission with the contract. It is admitted on record that
subject matter performance guarantees were got issued by these
2 persons by using the services of accused Elangbam however a
perusal of the statements u/s 161 Cr.P.C suggests that the total
amount paid by these 2 persons for obtaining the performance
guarantee was Rs 25 Crores ( appx ) whereas as per the terms of
the contract, the 8 entities were required to submit performance
guarantees running into several hundred Crores of rupees
(consolidated). Therefore, CBI needs to explain the legality of
the business transactions that were carried out between these 2
persons and the financial institutions with accused Elangbam
before giving them a clean chit . One can make an endavour to
appreciate the argument of the IO that since he could not find out
any evidence/ link between activities of accused Elangbam and
these 2 persons / 8 entities in forging the documents, therefore IO
had no reason to suspect them of being guilty of offence of
forgery , however in terms of the observations made by the Ld.
Predecessor judge in his order regarding the “
beneficiaries” and
the observations made in this order today , CBI needs to explain
in detail how the action of the 8 entities in sub contracting the
tender work including procurement of bank guarantee and
thereafter, the actions of these 2 persons namely Luckson Sumi
and Ghunavi Ayee who admittedly hired the accused Elangbam
Ranananda to obtain PG/ BG needed for submission with the
contract was not designed to cheat the complainant. A speaking
CC No. 05/2024
CBI Vs. M/s Heyee Global Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Page No. 10 of 11
-- 10 of 11 --
report also needs to come from CBI as to how the ingredients of
offence of cheating were not attracted in this case as it was an
admitted case of CBI that the 2 persons namely Luckson Sumi
and Ghunavee Ayee were aware that the PG / BG so procured
were obtained on payment of one time commission only and
without the strength of a collateral security. Needless to state that
the purpose / requirement of submission of BG / PG along with
the tender / contract needs to be considered while examining the
role of “
beneficiaries” in order to deduce their intentions behind
their actions .In the opinion of this court , the charge sheet so
filed is non speaking on various counts , especially on the
offence as alleged in the 4 complaints filed by NHIDCL against
the contractors against whom allegations of cheating had been
raised therein. Thorough investigation needs to be carried out on
the complaint of NHIDCL (4 complaints) in the wake of their
allegations that financial losses have occurred to them on
account of submission of fake BG/PG as charge-sheet fails to
give finding on this aspect.
11. Hence, let a copy of this order be sent to concerned
SP, CBI with directions to file reply/report in terms of
observations made in this order on NDOH.
Put up for further proceedings on 15.10.2025.
(Chhavi Kapoor)
Special Judge (PC Act) (CBI)-07
Rouse Avenue Courts: New Delhi
26.08.2025
CC No. 05/2024
CBI Vs. M/s Heyee Global Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Page No. 11 of 11
-- 11 of 11 --