Interim Order 1

Order Details: Copy of Evidence
Pdf Text: FIR 	No. 242/2002
PS : Sarojini Nagar (EOW)
State vs. Sanjay Hariom Aggarwal & Ors.
06.02.2019
PW1- 	Statement of Dr. 	Bharat 	Bhushan 	Suri 	S/o 	Sh.
H.C. Suri R/o R-5, Green Park Market, New Delhi.
ON SA
In the year 2001 and even 	till today, 	I was the
Director of M/s. 	PNR Securities Ltd. 	My company 	used 	to
deal 	in shares and securities and even till 	today we 	are
doing the same business. During the month of January and
March, 2002, we had purchased (on behalf of our clients)
government 	securities 	amounting 	to 	Rs. 	1,13,47,613.61
from 	Home 	Trade 	Ltd 	and 	made 	full 	payment 	through
cheques. These securities were to 	be delivered to 	us for
onward delivery to our clients. 	However, 	Home Trade Ltd
failed to give us the delivery of these securities. We were
continuously following with the Directors of Home Trade Ltd
namely Sanjay Aggarwal, Nand Kishore Trivedi, Ketan Seth
and other officials namely Subodh Bhandari and Arvind Rai.
However, they had not been able to deliver the securities to
us 	and thus misappropriated the funds given by us. 	After
this, 	Ifiled a complaint to DCP, EOW on behalf of company.
My complaint is Ex.PW1/A bearing my signatures at point A.
During investigation, 	I had also given all related
documents including contract notes issued by Home Trade
313
-- 1 of 10 --
Ltd to the I0.
-2
Further 	examination 	in 	chief 	is 	deferred 	as
assistance 	of 	I0 	is 	reguired 	as 	the 	seizure 	memo 	and
documents in original could not be traced in judicial file.
RO & AC (Pooja Tafwar)
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (South)
Saket Courts, New Delhi/06.02.2019
-- 2 of 10 --
FIR 	No. 242/2002
PS 	: Sarojini Nagar (EOW)
State vs. Sanjay Hariom Aggarwal & Ors.	Time 12.45 pm to 1.30 pm
03.08.2019
PW1- 	Dr. 	Bharat 	Bhushan 	Suri 	(recalled 	for 	further
examination in chief after 06.02.2019).
ON SA
(3
| 	had 	given 	the 	documents 	relating 	to
transactions 	to 	I0 	and 	it was 	seized 	by 	him 	vide 	seizure
memo 	Ex.PW1/B 	bearing 	my 	signatures 	at 	point 	A. The
documents given by me are Ex.PW1/C (colly, 2 pages), Mark
A (colly, 	pages 27) and 	MOU Ex.PW1/D. Rest of the details
are mentioned in my complaint Ex.PW1/A. 	Ican identify the
accused 	persons. 	The 	identity 	of accused 	persons 	is 	not
disputed by the Ld. Defence counsels.
XXXXX 	by 	Sh. Santosh 	Chauriha, 	Ld. 	Counsel for
accused 	Sanjay 	Hariom 	Aggarwal, 	Subodh 	Bhandari
and Nand Kishore Trivedi.
| am 	Ph.D 	in Economics. 	| am 	working 	in 	this
company since January, 1995. At present, 	lam the Director
of this company. 	This company was formed in March, 1994.
In the year 2001, the company was the member of Bombay
Stock 	Exchange, 	National Stock 	Exchange, 	Delhi Stock
Exchange, 	OTC 	Exchange 	and 	Depository 	Participants 	of
NSDL (National Security Depository Limited).
Q. 	Which licences your company possessed in the year
-- 3 of 10 --
2001 for 	dealing in government security?
-2
Ans. 	We were registered broker of BSE, NSE, DSE and OTCEI
and duly also registered with 	SEBI. We were also registered
with SEB0 as 	acategory-1 Merchant Banker.
respect to all above.
Ican 	produce 	SEBI registration 	certificate 	with
RO & AC
Further cross examination is deferred for want of
abovesaid documents.
(Ajay SinghSteigrsdat)
Chief 	Metropofftan 	Magistrate (South)
Saket 	CQurts, 	New Delhi/03.08.2019
-- 4 of 10 --
C. C. No. 266/PW/2023
PW- 01
Cross-examination 	of 	witness 	D. 	Bharat Bhushan 	Suri is resumed
through Video Conference on oath.
Cross-examination by Ld. Advocate M. B. B. Tiwari for accused no. 3:
Ido 	not remember whether I have deposed in this matter
carlier on 06.02.2019 and 03.08.2019. As witness is not in a position to
recollect his earlier evidence, as per submission made by both sides the
copy of his earlier deposition be supplied 	to the 	witness. As per V. C.
rules Ld. APP is requested to supply the verified copies of all documents
and that of charge-sheet to the accused so that no inconvenience would
be caused for recording his evidence. As per submission made by both
sides and as per convenience of witness further cross examination is
deferred till next date. Keep the matter on 18.07.2025.
Date :- 11.07.2025
(S. K. Fokmare)
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
19th Court, Esplanade, 	Mumbai
-- 5 of 10 --
..6. C. C. No. 266/PW/2023
PW- 01 (dt. 18.07.2025)
Cross-examination 	of 	witness 	Dr. 	Bharat Bhushan Suri 	is 	resumed
through Video Conference on oath.
Further Cross-examination by Ld. Advocate Mr. B. B. Tiwari for accused
no. 3:
Ihave received all the documents relating to this case from
the coordinator. It is true to say that, in this matter my evidence was
was recorded at Saket Court, Delhi. It was recorded on 06.02.2019 and
03.08.2019. It is true to say that, at Saket Court my cross-examination
was started.
It is true to say that, I was director of PNR Securities. I am
retired in the year 2018. PNR securities is a Private Limited 	Company.
This company deals with shares and Debt 	Instruments. 	During 	my
tenure-ship there were near about 2000 clients with my company.
The Home Trade Company Limited 	was 	not 	my 	regular
client. In due course of business Home Trade Limited 	might 	be 	m
client. There were transactions between the PNR Securities and 	Hom
Trade Limited in respect of purchase and sale of Government of India
Securities. 	PNR 	Securities 	used 	to 	purchase 	Government of 	India
security for and on behalf of clients.
The 	copy 	of Ex-PW-1 	i.e. 	complaint 	dated 	14.05.2002
lodged with Economic Offence Wing is available with me. It is true to
say that, while lodging complaint dated 	14.05.2002 I have not stated
the 	names of clients for whom 	Government 	of lndia Securities 	are
purchased. It is true to say that, in Para Fof complaint there is no
-- 6 of 10 --
..7..
whisper about the clients for whom the securities 	were purchased. It is
true to say that, alongwith complaint I have 	not attached any mandate
for showing the name of client on which behalf the securities were
purchased. It is true to say that, the dealing about purchase of GOI was
principal to principal basis.
It is true to say that, for purchase of GOI securities the PNR
Securities had transferred the amount to the account of Home Trade
Company Limited. It is true to say that, the amount for purchase of GOI
has not been transferred to any individuals accounts and it has been
transferred in the account of Home Trade Limnited.
The copy of PW-1 	Cis available with me. It is true to say
that, the authorisation letter was given to me for lodging of complaint
against Home Trade Company Limited.
The 	complaint 	dated 	14.05.2002 	was 	scribed 	by 	my
stenographer. Ihave signed the same after reading over its contents.
There was no specific agreement/written contract between
PNR Securities and Home Trade Limited in respect of purchase or sale
of GOI Securities. Prior to the transactions in question there were earlier
transactions between PNR securities 	and Home Trade Limited. 	Said
earlier transactions were duly honoured and cleared.
Cross-examination by accused no. 	4Nandkishor Trivedi (In Person):
Iam 	Phd. Economic. My graduation is in B. 	A. Economics
honours. It is true to say that, PNR securities Limited is not 	aPrivate
Limited Company and infact it is Public Limited one. I am not sure that,
-- 7 of 10 --
..8.. 	C. C. No. 266/PW/2023
PW. 01 (dt. 18.07.2025)
during the year 2000-02 PNR securities Limited was registered with
Reserve 	Bank of India for dealing with Government Securities. The
complaint dated 14.05.2002 was drafted by me. It is true to say that.
during complaint dated 	14.05.2002Ihave not stated the information
regarding 	all 	transactions 	taken 	place 	with 	Home 	Trade 	Limited.
Witness voluntaries 	that 	the 	information given by him 	was only in
respect of disputed transactions. During the year 2000-02 I was director
of PNR securities. 	In our company there were in all three 	directors.
There was no bifurcation of work among the directors of company. I
used to look after day to day work of the company. Two employees of
the company used to look after the work of GOI securities. At present I
am not able to tell the name of said employees. I was not interacting in
respect of the deal of GOI Securities with Home Trade Limited. There
were no day to day reporting about the 	GOI Securities transactions in
the 	board meeting.
It is true to say that, the Home Trade Company Limited has
issued 	all 	the 	contract 	notes 	for 	buying 	andselling 	Government
Securities as a member of Pune Stock Exchange. It is true to say tha.
during charge sheet 	no where the PNR securities has denied the terms
and conditions of the contract notes issued to them in dealing 	with
Government Securities. I do not know whether in contract note there
was an arbitration clause. 	I do not know whether our company 	has
initiated any 	dispute before the arbitration of Pune Stock Exchange
against 	Home Trade Company Limited. 	I have 	no details about the
transactions between PNR Securities and Home Trade Limited occurred
during June, 2000 to 28.02.2002 	for the purchase of 	GOI securities.
Your suggestion 	about 20 to 25 transactions 	might be correct. It is true
-- 8 of 10 --
..9.
to say that, on 	l8.01.2002 PNR securities had issued one deal note in
favour of Home 	Trade Limited. 	I do not 	know the contents of the said
ote.
It is true to say that, 	I never personally interact with Home
Trade Limited in respect of purchase of 	GOI Securities. 	It is not true to
say that, 	Ihave made false allegations against the accused.
Cross-examination by Ld. 	Advocate 	Ms. 	Poonamn 	Ankaleshwarya 	for
accused no. 	2 Ketan 	Seth:
It is true to say that, my complaint dated 14.05.2002 is in
respect 	of 	the 	transactions 	for 	the 	period 	from 	21.01.2002 	to
04.03.2002. It is true to say that, my grievance was only in respect of
aforesaid transactions between 21.01.2002 to 04.03.2002. At present I
do 	not 	recollect 	whether 	one 	Baljeet 	Vig 	was 	looking 	after 	the
transactions in disputes. Witness voluntaries that, she might be one of
the employee 	who were looking after the transactions. It is true to say
that, 	asIresigned in 2019 and therefore I am not concerned with any of
the transactions of the company taken place after 2019.
Before 	lodging 	the 	complaint 	it 	was 	verified 	that 	the
persons against whom the complaint is lodged are responsible for the
alleged 	act. 	Ideally 	the 	complaint 	is 	against 	the company 	but 	the
persons who are directors 	of the company can be held responsible.
Before lodging the complaint dated 14.05.2002 it was not
verified by me whether Mr. Ketan Seth was director of Home Irade
Limited. 	Winess voluntaries that 	Ifiled the complaint against company
only 	as 	such. 	I do 	not know 	whether 	at 	the 	time 	of 	lodging 	the
complaint dated 14.05.2002 Mr. Ketan Seth was not director of Home
-- 9 of 10 --
Hence no separate cross.
Trade Limited. 	Ido not knowwhether Mr. Ketan Seth has resigned his
post as director of Home Trade Limited on 21.06.2001. Now 	I have
gone through copy of documents Form no. 32. At present I cannot say
that 	Mr. 	Ketan Seth 	had 	resigned 	from his directorship from 	Home
Trade Company 	Limited on 28.02.2002. As the document on record i.e.
Form no. 32 is confronted to the witness same is marked as Ex- PW1/E.
It is not 	true to say that, during complaint dated 14.05.2002 	I have
wrongly implicated accused Mr. Ketan Seth.
Cross-examination by Ld, Advocate Mr. Deepak Mane for accused no. 1:
Cross-Examination conducted for other accused is Adopted.
Date :- 18.07.2025
..10. 	G. 	C. No. 266/PW/2023
PW- 01 (dt. 18.07.2025)
Authorisect 	Repre sentative
for 	witness
Date :- 18.07.2025
Deposed on V C. Before mne,
Evidence of PW no. 	1has been recorded through V C. It
was recorded in presence of Counsel for accused and the authorised
representative 	of 	witness 	i.e. 	in 	presence 	of 	APP 	Ms. 	Bageshri
Bhondave. The signed, transcript be sent to the witness for obtaining his
(`. K. Fokmare)
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
19th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai
signature on the same. The transcript be sent in non editable scanned
format to the official E-mail account of remote point. Ld. APP is directed
to do the needful as per V C. rules.
(S. K. Fokmare)
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
19thCourt, Esplanade, Mumbai
-- 10 of 10 --