Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Senior Advocate with, Mr. Gurpreet Singh, Mr. Amir Khan, Mr. Shivam v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT & ANR

Judgment

1. At the outset, it is stated that by way of both the captioned petitions, the petitioners have sought for common reliefs and have made similar submissions before this Court. Therefore, for the purpose of adjudication, this Court has culled out the facts and submissions from Crl.M.C. 2526/2019 for convenience. FACTUAL MATRIX 1. The instant petition, CRL.M.C.2526/2019, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter “CrPC”) [now Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter “BNSS”) has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking supply and quashing of ECIR no. 07-DLZO-01/2018; quashing of RC no. – AC- 1/2014/A-0005/CBI/AC-I dated 1st August, 2014; quashing of final report dated 27th September, 2017 filed in CC No. 30/2017, arising out of RC no. – AC-1/2014/A-0005/CBI/AC-I as well as quashing of the order of cognizance dated 9th March, 2018 passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI-05, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi district, New Delhi. 2. It is pertinent to note that vide order dated 16th August, 2023, in CRL. M.C. 2526/2019, in view of the request made by the petitioner, the Directorate of Enforcement was deleted from the array of parties. It was further recorded that no relief was being pressed against the Directorate of Enforcement, and thus, this Court shall not be delving into prayer „a‟, „b‟ and „f‟ in CRL. M.C. 2526/2019. Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C.2526/2019 & one other connected matter Page 2 of 78 Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN KUMAR BABBAR Signing Date:01.04.2025 14:49:44

3. Petitioner no. 1 in CRL. M.C. 2526/2019, i.e., M/s Prakash Industries Ltd. (hereinafter “PIL”) is a company incorporated and is engaged in the business of coal mines, iron and steel, power and wind energy. Petitioner no. 2, i.e., Mr. Ved Prakash Agarwal is the Chairman and Managing Director (hereinafter “CMD”) of PIL. The petitioner, in CRL. M.C. 7396/2023, namely Mr. Vipul Agarwal, is a Chartered Accountant and has been working as a Financial Consultant in PIL since

2013. He has been associated with the company for a considerable period of time and was a Director (Finance and Accounts) prior to the year 2013. 4. PIL, vide letter dated 14th October, 2009, addressed to the State Bank of India, submitted Form 83 for the allotment of loan registration number of their Foreign Currency Convertible Bonds (hereinafter “FCCB”) amounting to USD 50 Million in light of the External Commercial Borrowing (hereinafter “ECB”)/FCCB guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India (hereinafter “RBI”). 5. In furtherance of the aforesaid letter, PIL submitted the details of the transaction pertaining to the issuance of FCCB, which were required to be forwarded to RBI. Subsequently, on 15th October 2009, RBI, in response to PIL‟s request, allotted Loan Registration Number 2009538 under the applicable, ECB/FCCB guidelines. It is stated that the entire process was handled by one Mr. Pawan Bansal, accused in the aforesaid FIR, who is also a Director in M/s Altis Finserve. 6. Thereafter on 6th March 2014, PIL applied to the Syndicate Bank for ECB of USD 45 million to buyback/refinancing of its outstanding FCCB. It is stated that a copy of Information of Memorandum of PIL was filed along with the said application. Since, the transaction was related to Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C.2526/2019 & one other connected matter Page 3 of 78 Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN KUMAR BABBAR Signing Date:01.04.2025 14:49:44 the time period between 2009–2010, Mr. Pawan Bansal was appointed to pursue the said loan application. 7. Accordingly, on 10th April 2014, CMD of Syndicate Bank was informed regarding the use of ECB of USD 45 Million and it was informed the said loan would be exclusively utilized for buyback/redemption of outstanding FCCB of PIL. Following the same on 23rd April 2014, information was sought by the authorized representative Syndicate Bank, London branch with regard to proposal for ECB term loan from PIL. The requisite details, as sought on 23rd April, 2014, were duly furnished by PIL on 25th April, 2014. 8. On 21st May, 2014, Syndicate Bank sent a communication to PIL and informed that the competent authorities have accorded an “in principal clearance”, for considering proposal for term loan of USD 20 Million on bilateral basis, subject to certain terms and conditions. Subsequently, on 23rd May, 2014, additional information was sought by the authorized representatives of Syndicate Bank, London branch with regard to proposal for ECB term loan from PIL, for which information was provided by PIL vide letter dated 26th May, 2014. Thereafter on 2nd June, 2014, as per the prescribed format, a processed note was forwarded to Syndicate Bank, by the officials of PIL, following which on 3rd June, 2014, the authorized representative of PIL, via email dated 3rd June, 2014, acknowledged the “in-principal clearance” for USD 20 Million ECB. 9. Following the aforesaid chain of events, on 6th June, 2014, as per clarifications sought by Syndicate Bank, for „in-principal clearance‟ of term loan of USD 20 million, PIL wrote a letter providing a detailed reply to all the queries raised by the bank. Thereafter, on 11th June, 2014, PIL, Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C.2526/2019 & one other connected matter Page 4 of 78 Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN KUMAR BABBAR Signing Date:01.04.2025 14:49:44 in furtherance of the loan application dated 6th March, 2014, and the pending loan from Syndicate Bank, PIL submitted additional documents

to Syndicate Bank, including „balance confirmation with existing lenders of PIL, net worth statements of the promoter directors etc.‟. 10. On 12th June, 2014, PIL further supplied the information regarding the „mining plan of Chota mines‟ to Syndicate Bank, for which the loan was sought. 11. Pursuant to the above, on 20th June, 2014, PIL, through its authorized representative, submitted a response to the queries raised by the bank in connection with their “in-principal letter”, to immediately arrange the balance amount of USD 25 Million as the bank only sanctioned USD 20 Million against the original loan request of USD 45 Million. In furtherance to the same, on 9th July, 2012 and 20th July, 2014, PIL further submitted their reply to the queries raised by the syndicate bank with regard to the sanctioned loan. In the meanwhile, on 12th July, 2014 and 16th July, 2014, Syndicate Bank, posed certain queries to PIL with regard to the approval of term loan. 12. In reply to the same, on 14th July, 2014, the Credit Approval Committee of Syndicate Bank, in its meeting dated 14th July, 2014, approved term loan of USD 20 Million as against the original request of USD 40 Million. The Credit Approval Committee of Syndicate Bank, London branch recommended the above mentioned proposed loan before the sanctioning authority on 15th July, 2014 and on 23rd July, 2014, Syndicate Bank, London Ranch, in connection with the loan application proposal confirmed the approval of ECB term loan of USD 20 Million Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C.2526/2019 & one other connected matter Page 5 of 78 Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN KUMAR BABBAR Signing Date:01.04.2025 14:49:44 granted to PIL on bilateral basis for the purpose of buyback/redemption of FCCB issued by the company subject to certain terms and conditions. 13. Consequently on 1st August 2014, criminal law was set into motion with the registration of the instant FIR, under Sections 9 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter “PC Act”) and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter “IPC”) against the petitioner and other co-accused persons. 14. After the registration of the FIR by the CBI, on 4th August, 2014, 5th August, 2014, 22nd August, 2014, 9th April, 2014 and 19th August, 2016, statements of Mr. Uday Shankar Majumdar was recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC. It is to be noted that Mr. Uday Shankar Majumdar worked as a General Manager, Treasury, and International Banking Department, Syndicate Bank. He stated that the department was responsible for assessing the proposals for loans which were received from foreign branches of Syndicate Bank. 15. It is stated by the petitioners that the case put up by the prosecution against the petitioners is based on the intercepted conversation dated 17th May, 2014, 22nd May, 2014, 9th June, 2014 and 15th July, 2014, which are not admissible under the law. Further, the said conversations were recorded prior to the registration of the instant FIR. 16. Thereafter, on 5th August, 2014, the statement of Mr. Ghanshyam Mudgal was recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC pursuant to which, on 27th September, 2017, the CBI filed its final report/chargesheet under Section 173 of the CrPC in the aforesaid FIR, under Sections 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the PC Act and Section 120B of the IPC Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C.2526/2019 & one other connected matter Page 6 of 78 Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN KUMAR BABBAR Signing Date:01.04.2025 14:49:44 against the petitioners and the other co-accused persons. The said chargesheet has been challenged by the petitioners before this court. 17. Pursuant to the filing of the chargesheet, on 9th March, 2018, learned Special Judge took cognizance of the aforesaid charge sheet and summoned the petitioners as well as the other co-accused persons to appear on 26th March, 2018 to face trial for the alleged offences as mentioned herein above. 18. Now the petitioners are aggrieved by the aforesaid summoning order and proceedings arising out of the same and has sought for quashing of the FIR, chargesheet as well as the summoning order. PLEADINGS BEFORE THIS COURT 19. The instant petition has been filed on the following grounds: involvement of “A. Because from the bare perusal of the Final Report dated 27.09.2017 and the documents filed along therewith, do not disclose commission of any offence, muchless offences under Section 9 of The Prevention of Corruption Act or Section. 120 B of the Indian Penal Code; B. Because, the prosecution has not placed on record a legal evidence or document on record which single substantiates, even prime-facie, Petitioners in commission of any offence; C. Because, there is no legal evidence to show the culpability of the Petitioners and to establish that there was any agreement between the Petitioners and one Mr. Pawan Bansal, who has been alleged to have obtained for the Public Servant an alleged gratification; D. Because, the prosecution of the Petitioners for an offence of Conspiracy under Section. 120 B of the Indian Penal Code is totally and completely without jurisdiction as there is not even a single averment in the charge sheet that there was any agreement between the Petitioners and the other accused namely Mr. Pawan Bansal to commit any illegal act Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C.2526/2019 & one other connected matter Page 7 of 78 Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN KUMAR BABBAR Signing Date:01.04.2025 14:49:44 and the whole case of the prosecution is based on conjuctures and inferences, which is impermissible in law. That, the prosecution of the Petitioners is in teeth of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Baldev Singh verses State of Punjab" reported in "(2009) 6 SCC 564" wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as Under…. ….. E. Because, there is no averment or an allegation in the charge sheet that there was prior meeting of mind between the accused and there are only assertions that the Petitioners were aware of the alleged conspiracy. It is submitted that not a single instance of any action of the Petitioners has been made in the charge sheet which action would constitute an offence. That the prosecution of the Petitioners is contrary to the dicta laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Central Bureau of Investigation verses K. Naravan Rao" reported in "(2012) 9 SCC 512" wherein it has been held as under: F. Because, there is no provision in the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, which authorizes officers of Respondent No.1 to register "Enforcement Case Information Report" and initiate penal proceedings on the basis of an action which has no basis in any statutory proceedings “B. BECAUSE THE PETITIONERS HAVE BEEN ARRAIGNED IN AS AN ACCUSED MERELY ON THE PRETEXT THAT HE WAS FAMILIAR WITH A CO- ACCUSED PERSONS. WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY ALLEGATION OF ANY OVERT ACT ON THE PART OF THE THE PETITIONERS IS BEING PROSECUTED ON THE BASIS OF PRESUMPTIONS AND SURMISES: PETITIONERS AND AS SUCH. B.1. A perusal of the entire Charge-sheet, statements of witnesses and the documents relied upon by the prosecution do not make out the requisite allegations Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C.2526/2019 & one other connected matter Page 8 of 78 Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN KUMAR BABBAR Signing Date:01.04.2025 14:49:44 fact, the allegation levelled against against the Petitioners for commission of the offences alleged. B.2. In Petitioner no 2 of being familiar with one of the co- accused (@ Para No. 17.6). The relevant portion of the Charge-sheet in this regard is as under……. B.3. M/s Prakash Industries Ltd had engaged the services of Sh. Pawan Bansai for pursuing its loan proposal with Syndicate Bank and with respect to the same, the Petitioner no 2 was being updated the status of the Application (@ Para No. 17.17 and 17.19). However, the same does not imply any conspiracy on the part of the Petitioner. B.4. It is submitted that from the above, it is clear that the Petitioner no 2 is victim of being familiar with a person, though there is no iota of evidence of the Petitioner no 2 being familiar of the conspiracy, much less, being part of the same. B.5. Merely knowing an accused would not lead to the assumption that the Petitioners were involved in the alleged offence, as it is trite that even knowledge of conspiracy is irrelevant. B.6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in K. R, Purshothaman Versus State of Kerala, 2005 (12) see 631 has held that…. B.7. Hence, it is submitted that the impugned Final Report and proceedings arising out of the same are liable to be quashed and set-aside. C. BECAUSE THE ENTIRE CASE IS BASED ON CDRS. WHICH IN NO MANNER CONNECT THE PETITIONERS WITH THE OFFENCE AND FURTHER. DESPITE THE FACT THAT CDRS ARE ONLY CORROBORATIVE WEAK PIECE OF EVIDENCE. NO independent CORROBORATE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS ARE ON RECORD: EVIDENCE TO Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C.2526/2019 & one other connected matter Page 9 of 78 Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN KUMAR BABBAR Signing Date:01.04.2025 14:49:44 the Petitioners, much C.1. To prove the Allegation there is no direct evidence against less, any other independent evidence. The only evidence on which the prosecution is relying is CDR's. It is submitted that the Transcripts of the CDR's are attached in and as D-59, D-84, D-85, D-86, D-87, and D-137. C.2. In Para No. 17.10 of the Charge-sheet, it has been alleged that various mobile/ landline numbers were put under surveillance by the Special Unit, CBI, New Delhi after obtaining the approval of competent authority, including that of the Petitioner. C.3. Thereafter, from Para No. 17.22 to 17.23 of the chargesheet dated 27.09.2017, there is only allegations viz. the said alleged conversations. However, in the entire CDRs, there is nothing to point out that the Petitioner no 2 was involved in the alleged offence or that the Petitioner had required Sh. Pawan Bansal to make payment of any illegal gratification to Accused - S. K. Jain. C.4. Even if the entire CDRs are taken to be true on the face value, the maximum that can be alleged against the Petitioner is that he was being updated about the status of the loan proposal of Petitioner No 1/ M/s Prakash Industries Ltd. However, the same is both in routine and normal, without there being anything unusual about the same. C.5. As such, the prosecution was required to produce some independent evidence against the Petitioners to corroborate the allegations levelled by the prosecution against the Petitioner, as the CDRs are a very weak piece of evidence, which can be used only for the purposes of corroboration. C.6. That in the absence of primary evidence, the CDRs cannot be used, being irrelevant and ought not to be relied upon, even at the stage of summoning. C.7. It is submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter titled as Mahabir Prasad Verma Vs. Dr. Surinder Kaur AIR 1982 SO 1043 has held that Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C.2526/2019 & one other connected matter Page 10 of 78 Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN KUMAR BABBAR Signing Date:01.04.2025 14:49:44 tape recorded conversations can only be relied upon as corroborated evidence of conversation deposed by any of the parties to the conversation and in the absence of evidence of any such conversation, the tape-recorded conversation is indeed no proper evidence and cannot be relied upon. E. BECAUSE THE ENTIRE CASE OF THE PROSECUTION IS UNSUSTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW. AS THERE ARE CONTRADITORY ALLEGATIONS IN THE MATTER. WHICH CLEARLY MAKE THE ALLEGATIONS IMPROBABLE: E.1. That the entire case of the prosecution is itself unsustainable in the eyes of law, as the allegations levelled themselves prosecution contradictory and do not, at all, point out towards the alleged offence. E.2. In this regard, it would be important to note that services of M/s Altuis Finserve Pvt. Ltd, the Company in which Sh. Pawan Bansal was a Director, were availed of by M/s Prakash Industries Ltd. And as such, any payment made to Sh. Pawan Bansal were in routine. E.3. The same is more so in view of the fact that Sh. Pawan Bansal is alleged to have been in touch with Accused - S. K. Jain for various clients of his and as such, mere factum of payment of alleged illegal gratification to Accused - S. K. Jain, even if assumed to be correct, does not automatically connect the same with M/s Prakash Industries Ltd. E.4. Hence, the prosecution was required to connect the very payment made by Petitioner No 1/ M/s Prakash Industries Ltd with Accused - S. K. Jain, which it has failed to do. E.5. Rather, the allegations levelled in the Charge- sheet are contradictory and improbable, as is clear from the following……” Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C.2526/2019 & one other connected matter Page 11 of 78 Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN KUMAR BABBAR Signing Date:01.04.2025 14:49:44

20. The CBI has opposed the present petition on the following contentions: That the averments made in para 1 of the petition are “I. admitted to the extent the same is matter of record. II. That the contents made in Para 2A & 2B are wrong and misleading whereas it submitted that the Ld. Trial Court has instituted the process against the Petitioners while observing all legal and codal formalities and the Ld. Trial Court has categorically mentioned in its order dated 09.03.2018 while taking cognizance against the accused petitioner that "this court has gone through the charge- sheet, statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 of Cr.PC and attached documents" and also mentioned that this court is satisfied that there is sufficient material on record to take cognizance of offence and thereby took cognizance against the accused persons including the accused petitioner under the relevant sections of law. The Ld. Special Judge has followed all the regulatory provisions as well as law laid down by this Hon'ble Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court at the time of taking cognizance and the impugned order was passed after due application of facts and circumstances of the case. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Vikas Thakur vs. State of NCT of Delhi CRL M.C.6619/2023 observed that "at the time of taking cognizance a magistrate is required to judicially apply the mind be satisfied on the basis of facts what are borne out from the statement of the complainant as made in the complaint or what are borne out from the report of the investigation officer or what are the surrounding facts and circumstances based on the prima facie documents and material in existences or what are the contents of the FIR. In effect it is the satisfaction of the Magistrate which plays a pre dominant role while taking cognizance coupled with fact that there are enough material to convince him or her for taking such cognizance". The impugned order was Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C.2526/2019 & one other connected matter Page 12 of 78 Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN KUMAR BABBAR Signing Date:01.04.2025 14:49:44 passed after due appreciation of facts and circumstances of the case and after due application of judicial mind. III. That the contents made in Para no. 2C, 2D and 2E are false, misleading and hence denied. It is submitted that when the facts stated by the prosecution prima-facie disclose the commission of cognizable offences and necessary ingredients to constitute the offence, the order of cognizance passed by the Ld. Trial Court cannot be quashed. The accused-petitioner has been charge-sheeted for his active criminal involvement in commission of instant offence. The Petitioner has been charge-sheeted on the basis of evidence on record which can be established in the Court of Law beyond reasonable doubt neither on the basis of presumption and surmises nor of familiarity with other accused persons. The accused petitioner played an active role in the chain of commission of instant offence and the Judicial process initiated against him is as per the provisions stipulated in the law and the sufficiency, reliability and admissibility of evidence is to be tested in course of trial and not at this stage. Recently Hon'ble Supreme Court in Captain Manjit Singh Virdi (Retd.) vs. Hussain Mohammed Shattaf & Ors. 2023 Live "truthfulness, sufficiency and acceptability of the material produced can be done only at the stage of trial". IV. That the averments made in Para no. 2F to 2L are false, misleading and hence denied. It is most humbly submitted that there are evidences on record to establish the active involvement and complicity of the accused petitioner as well as act of commission made by the accused petitioner in this conspiracy. The accused petitioner played a pivotal role for getting to Mis Prakash Industries. Limited and paying the kickbacks of Rs. 3.25 Crores to the accused public servant through illegal channel. There are evidence on record to substantiate the allegation against the accused petitioner. V. That the averments made in Para no. 2M to 2X are in repetition on behalf of the Accused Petitioner and already · (SC) 462 observed and held favorable approval Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C.2526/2019 & one other connected matter Page 13 of 78 Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN KUMAR BABBAR Signing Date:01.04.2025 14:49:44 been replied in Para 16 (II) & (III) and hence is not repeated. VI. The averments made in Para 3(1) & 3(II) are admitted to the extent the same is matter of record. However, it is denied that the accused petitioner has been falsely implicated. It is also submitted that the evidences against the petitioner shall be proved in course of trial of accused petitioner no. 2 being working with M/s PIL but it is humbly submitted that, it is submitted that the accused petitioners have been charge sheeted for his criminal deeds and not falsely implicated. VII. That, the averments made in Para 3 (III) to (XXIV) are the chronological developments of the different stages of applying the loan by M/s PIL from Syndicate Bank to buyback of Foreign Currency Convertible Bonds (FCCB) and requires no reply. However, it is submitted that there was no written authorization from M/s PIL to Syndicate Bank with respect to persuasion of its loan proposal by Pawan Bansal or his firm with the bank. VIII. That, the averments made in Para 3 (XXV), (XXVI) & (XXVII) are matter of record and hence requires no reply. It is submitted that apart from the dates provided by Accused/ Petitioner regarding recording of the statement of Sh. Uday Shankar Majumdar, his statement was also recorded on 20.08.2016 and the same is available on record. IX That the averments .made in Para 3 (XXVIII), (XXIX) & (XXX) are ambiguous as the Accused/Petitioner is discussing about two different aspects viz. the expert opinion, voice identification memo and letter of State Bank of India wherein Annexure P-24 is of SBI letter dated 16.10.2014. X. That the averments made in Para 3 (XXXI) to L are matter of record and is part of charge sheet, hence need no reply. XI. That the averments made in Para 3 (LI) & (LII) are related to the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 which are being looked after by the Enforcement Directorate and hence needs no reply. XII. Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C.2526/2019 & one other connected matter Page 14 of 78 Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN KUMAR BABBAR Signing Date:01.04.2025 14:49:44 That the averments made in Para 3 (LUI) to (LXIV) are matter of record and hence, need no reply. XIII. That the averments made in Para 4 A, B & C are false, misleading and hence denied. In this regard it is submitted that there are evidence to establish the complicity and involvement of the accused petitioner. The accused- petitioner played/acted as an important link in the chain commission of the offence by facilitating the transaction of bribe amount from one accused to another accused public servant. There are material on record in the form of oral and documentary evidence to invoke penal provisions of section 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and other offences against the accused public servants and the accused petitioner which shall be proved in course of trial. XIV. That the averments made in Para 4 D & E are admitted to the extent the same is reproduction of the statutory enactment and the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, it is submitted that there is evidence to establish that the accused petitioner was in criminal conspiracy and complicity with other co-accused persons to commit the alleged offence. XV. That the averments made in Para 4 F, G & Hare related to the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 which· are being looked after by the Enforcement Directorate and the accused petitioner has withdrawn the averments submitted by him which were related to the ECIR registered by Enforcement Directorate, hence, needs no reply. XVI. That the averments made in Para 4 (I) & (J) are false misleading and hence denied. It is humbly submitted that the Ld. Trial Court has fairly considered all material on record for taking cognizance into this matter. It is also relevant to mention here that the Ld. Trial Court has taken cognizance on the basis of prima-facie material on record and accused- petitioner has been charge-sheeted for his active criminal involvement in commission of alleged offence. XVII. That the averments made in Para 4 K (A.l) & (A.2) are admitted to the extent the same is matter of record. However, Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C.2526/2019 & one other connected matter Page 15 of 78 Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN KUMAR BABBAR Signing Date:01.04.2025 14:49:44 it is submitted that the transaction of bribe was initiated through M/s PIL and and Sh. Vipul Agarwal, Chartered Account, PIL facilitated the bribe to public servant by using the services of Sh. Pawan Bansal. There are evidence to establish the criminal involvement and complicity of accused petitioner in commission of the alleged offence. In addition to the intercepted conversation, there are evidences on record in the form of oral statement of witness to reveal the criminal involvement of accused petitioner for facilitating the transaction of bribe amount to the accused public servant. XVIII. That the averments made in Para 4 K (A.3) is matter of record, hence need no reply. XIX. That the averments made in Para 4 K (A.4), (A.5), (A.6), (A.7), (A.8), (A.9), (A.10), (A.11), (A.12), (A.13) & (A.14) are admitted to the extent the same refers the judicial decisions however it is submitted that from Para no. 17.17, 17.18 & 17.19 of the chargesheet relevant portion of the same is reproduced as under……” SUBMISSIONS (on behalf of the petitioner) 21. Mr. Vikas Pahwa, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that a bare perusal of the charge sheet dated 27th September, 2017, along with the documents filed there with, does not disclose commission of any offence, let alone offence under Section 9 of the PC Act or Section 120B of the IPC. 22. It is submitted that the prosecution has not placed on record a single piece of legal evidence or document to substantiate, even prima facie, the involvement of the petitioners in commission of any offence as alleged. Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C.2526/2019 & one other connected matter Page 16 of 78 Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN KUMAR BABBAR Signing Date:01.04.2025 14:49:44

23. It is submitted that there is no legal evidence to establish the culpability of the petitioners or to demonstrate the existence of any agreement between the petitioners and one Mr. Pawan Bansal, who is alleged to have obtained gratification for a public servant, i.e., Mr. SK Jain. 24. It is submitted that the prosecution of the petitioners for the offence of criminal conspiracy under Section 120B of the IPC is wholly without jurisdiction, as there is not even a single averment in the chargesheet alleging any agreement between the petitioners and the co-accused, namely, Mr. Pawan Bansal, to commit an illegal act. The entire case of prosecution is based on conjectures and inferences, which impermissible in law. 25. It is submitted that there is no averment or allegation in the charge sheet of any prior meeting of minds between the accused. The only assertion made is that the petitioners were allegedly aware of the purported conspiracy. However, not a single event or a specific allegation to the petitioners has been cited in the charge sheet as constituting an offence. It is submitted that the prosecution of the petitioners is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in CBI v. K. Naryaan Rao1 wherein it was held that the essential ingredients of the offence of criminal conspiracy include an agreement between two or more persons to do an illegal act, or to a legal act by illegal means. It was further held that even if certain acts are proved to have been committed, it must be clear that they were committed in pursuance of an agreement 1 (2012) 9 SCC 512 Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C.2526/2019 & one other connected matter Page 17 of 78 Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN KUMAR BABBAR Signing Date:01.04.2025 14:49:44 made between the accused persons, who were parties to the alleged conspiracy. 26. It is submitted that petitioner no. 2 cannot be made vicariously liable for a criminal offence merely by virtue of his designation as the CMD of petitioner no. 1, in the absence of specific allegations against him in the charge sheet. 27. It submitted that the allegations levelled by the prosecution in the charge sheet are to the effect that the accused, Mr. Pawan Bansal, paid illegal gratification to accused, namely Mr. Sudhir Kumar Jain @ Mr. SK Jain (CMD of Syndicate Bank) for allegedly favoring PIL. It is submitted that the charge sheet does not contain any allegations against the petitioners regarding the commission of any act which could be said to form part of the alleged offence. The only reference against the petitioner no. 2 is that he was apprised of the proposal of petitioner no. 1, i.e., PIL. It is submitted that the same was informed to the petitioner solely in his official capacity and there is nothing on record to attach any criminality to the same. 28. It is submitted that the petitioners have been arraigned as accused solely on the basis of their designation, which is evident from the perusal of paragraphs 16.5, 17.6 and 17.19 of the charge sheet. It is also submitted that even assuming, without admitting that the entire set of allegations levelled by the prosecution in the present matter are correct, they still do not disclose the commission of any offence committed by the petitioners as vicarious liability cannot be imposed on petitioner no. 2 for any alleged act of petitioner no. 1 company, in the absence of specific statutory provision. Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C.2526/2019 & one other connected matter Page 18 of 78 Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN KUMAR BABBAR Signing Date:01.04.2025 14:49:44

29. It is submitted that the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Sunil Bharti Mittal v. CBI2, held that there is no concept of vicarious liability in criminal law, until the statute specifically provides for the same. In the instant matter, petitioner no. 2 has been summoned solely on the basis of his designation as CMD of the accused company. It is also submitted that in Avnish Bajaj v. State3, a Coordinate Bench of this Court held that a Managing Director cannot be summoned merely on the basis of his post and designation. 30. It is submitted that a perusal of the entire charge sheet, including the statements of witnesses and documents relied upon by the prosecution does not disclose the essential ingredients necessary to establish commission of the offenses alleged against the petitioners for alleged against them. In fact, the only allegation levelled against petitioner no. 2 is that he was acquainted with the co-accused, Mr. Pawan Bansal. It is submitted that PIL had engaged the services of Mr. Pawan Bansal to pursue its loan proposal with Syndicate Bank, and with respect the same petitioner no. 2 was being updated about the status of the loan application of PIL in his official capacity. However, such updates do not imply any conspiracy on the part of the petitioner no. 2. 31. It is submitted that it is clear that the petitioner no. 2 is being targeted merely due to his familiarity with a person who is alleged to be a part of the conspiracy. There is no iota of evidence to suggest that petitioner no. 2 had knowledge of, the conspiracy, much less, being part of the same. Merely knowing an accused person does not lead to the 2 (2015) 4 SCC 109 3 2008 (3) JCC 1726 Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C.2526/2019 & one other connected matter Page 19 of 78 Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN KUMAR BABBAR Signing Date:01.04.2025 14:49:44 presumption that the petitioners were involved in the alleged offence, In this regard, reliance is placed on K.R. Purshothaman v. State of Kerala4, wherein the Hon‟ble Supreme Court held, that mere knowledge or even discussion of a plan would not per se constitute conspiracy. 32. It is submitted that there is no direct evidence against the petitioners, much less, any other independent evidence, to support the allegations against the petitioners. The only evidence relied upon by the prosecution is Call Data Records (hereinafter “CDRs”). The charge sheet contains allegations based solely on the purported conversations reflected in the CDRs. However, the CDRs do not indicate any involvement of petitioner no. 2 in the alleged offence nor do they reflect that he ever instructed Mr. Pawan Bansal to make any illegal gratification to the accused Mr. S.K Jain. 33. It is submitted that even if the CDRs are taken at face value, the most that can be inferred is that petitioner no. 2 was being updated about the status of the loan proposal of PIL. Such communication is routine and standard in the ordinary course of business and nothing unusual can be inferred from the same. In the absence of any independent corroborative evidence, the CDRs cannot be used as a piece of primary evidence against the petitioner. Without such corroboration, the CDRs are irrelevant and ought not to be relied upon, even at the stage of summoning. 34. It is submitted that the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the matter titled as Mahabir Prasad Verma Vs. Dr. Surinder Kaur5 held that tape