New Delhi, April 1 A Delhi court on Wednesday convicted Congress MLA Rajendra Bharti from Madhya Pradesh and a former bank employee in a cheating case involving the forging of bank records to receive illegal interest payments from 1998 to 2011.
Special Judge Vinay Singh convicted Bharti and former cashier Raghuvir Sharan Prajapati for the offenses of criminal conspiracy, cheating, forgery of a valuable security, forgery for cheating, and using a forged document as genuine.
Public prosecutor Manish Rawat appeared for the state.
The case, originating in Madhya Pradesh's Datiya, was transferred to Delhi by the Supreme Court in October last year, in light of the claim that efforts were made to intimidate defense witnesses.
The top court, which had stayed further proceedings in the case before a court in Gwalior, had said that it was the state's duty to ensure a fair trial was conducted.
In its 95-page judgment, the Delhi court rejected the defense plea that the accused as "public servants" cannot be prosecuted for discharging official functions without government sanction, saying that cheating and forgery are "a dereliction of duty rather than the performance of a duty”.
It stated that "accused Bharti and accused Raghuvir Sharan Prajapati, along with Savitri Devi (deceased) and possibly other unknown persons, entered into a criminal conspiracy, and the object of this conspiracy was to cheat the complainant bank (Zila Sahkari Krishi Aur Grahmin Vikas Bank) by continuing to draw interest at a much higher rate beyond 2011, which was the initial fixed deposit (FD) duration of three years."
Proceedings against Bharti's mother, Savitri, were abated after she died in 2019.
It stated that in furtherance of this conspiracy, the bank documents, which are valuable securities, were forged, and the forgery was part of the aim to cheat the bank.
The court also observed, "The argument by Bharti that he is politically targeted or that the prosecution is politically motivated is all speculation. He has failed to prove any such political motives or false implications."
"Instead, it is a case of forgery of bank documents and cheating the bank from 1998 to 2011, which is long before the alleged political rivalry claimed by Bharti," it said.
According to the prosecution, Savitri, Bharti’s late mother, deposited Rs 10 lakhs in the Zila Sahkari Krishi Aur Grahmin Vikas Bank at Datiya on August 24, 1998, and the deposit was made in the name of a family-run trust for a fixed deposit (FD) of three years at an interest rate of 13.5 per cent per annum.
It alleged that the accused entered into a conspiracy to extend the high-interest payments beyond the stipulated period by physically tampering with bank records.
Using correction fluid and overwriting, the three-year term was extended by 10 and 15 years, allowing the trust to continue withdrawing annual interest payments till 2011, long after market interest rates had plummeted, claimed the prosecution.
It alleged that the trust, where Bharti was a trustee, illegally withdrew around Rs 18.5 lakhs as interest.
In its order, the court said that Bharti, who served as the Chairman of the bank during the period of the fraud, used his position to pressure employees and facilitate the unauthorized payments to his family trust.
Noting that Prajapati, then a cashier, was found to have physically carried out the forgeries, the court said that his initials were found next to the tampered sections of the records where correction fluid was applied.
The court rejected the defense plea that the accused were "public servants" immune from prosecution without government sanction.
It said, “Committing an offence punishable under law can never be considered part of a public servant’s official duties. Superior courts have consistently held that acts such as cheating, forgery, fabrication of records, and criminal conspiracy are not part of a public servant’s official duties.”
“Since forgery involves creating false documents and cheating involves deception, these acts are regarded as a dereliction of duty rather than the performance of a duty.”
The court will commence hearing the arguments on the quantum of the sentence on Thursday.