State Bank of India vs Raman Kumar and Others

V.K. Jain, J.—This is a suit for recovery of Rs. 84,37,759/-. The Defendant No. 1 Raman Kumar was an employee of the Plaintiff bank posted at its service branch. Defendant No. 2 Chaman Kumar and Defendant No. 7 Madan Kumar are his brothers, Defendant No. 5 Radhey Lal is his father and Defendant No. 6 Smt. Raj Rani is his mother. Defendant No. 3 Shri Vipin Bhardwaj is alleged to be an associate of Defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 8 Shri Dwarka Nath Bhardwaj is the father of Defendant No. 3 and Defendant No. 9 Shri Santosh Bhardwaj is the mother of Defendant No. 3. Defendant No. 4 Ashok Kumar is also alleged to be in connivance with the other Defendants.

The functions of the service branch of the Plaintiff bank which was established in the July 1983 are: (a) to receive instruments drawn on local branches of the Plaintiff bank in Delhi; and (b) to receive from local branches of the Plaintiff bank, the instruments which are to be collected from the drawee branches of other banks. Similar bank branches have been set up by other banks and at the relevant time, there was a system of centralized collection and payment of local cheques drawn on various banks in Delhi. The centralized system for clearance of cheques is controlled by Reserve Bank of India which maintains accounts of all the banks participating in the clearing house. The bank, in which the cheque is deposited for collection is called the collecting bank whereas the bank on which the cheque is drawn is called the drawee bank. In the clearing house, one box each has been kept for every member bank participating in the clearing house. The collecting banker puts all the cheques drawn upon the local branches of a particular bank into the box meant for that particular drawee bank. The representative of the service branch of that bank comes and collects those cheques from the banks. At the time of delivery of the cheques by the collecting bank to the drawee bank, the total amount of all the cheques delivered to the drawee bank is furnished to the Controller of Clearing House who gives credit of the total amount to the collecting bank and debits that amount to the drawee bank. A copy of the list containing amount of each cheque as well as the total sum representing all the cheques presented by the collecting bank is also given to the drawee bank along with the cheques which are attached to it. The service branch after collecting the cheques tallies them, balances their amounts and the total figure with the figures furnished by the concerned Plaintiff bank and thereafter sends those cheques to its own local branches for either debiting the accounts of the concerned drawers or for return of the cheques in case the funds in the account of the drawer are not sufficient to honour the cheques.

It is alleged that as per the prevalent banking practice, if the cheque presented by the collecting bank to the drawee bank in the clearing house is not returned to the collecting bank on the third day from the date of presentation, it is deemed to have been honoured by the drawee bank and the collecting bank gives confirmed credit to the payee''s account.

The service branch of the Plaintiff bank is stated to be functioning in two shifts, morning and evening. The employees in the evening shift are required to verify/tally the amounts of cheques and the amount/figures as furnished by the collecting bank by typing bank-wise list whereas the morning shift employees are required to branch-wise sort out all the cheques and prepare covered typed list for onward delivery of the cheques to the concerned branches of the Plaintiff bank. To ensure an efficient working of this job, the employees are divided in groups and each group in the evening shift is allotted specified bank whereas each group in the morning shift is allotted specified local branches of the Plaintiff bank. When the service branch of the Plaintiff bank was established, four groups were formed. It is alleged that Punjab & Sind Bank and UCO Bank were allotted to group 3 and the Defendant No. 1 who was transferred to service branch on 4th July, 1983 was allotted group 3 vide an office order dated 25th July, 1983.

The case of the Plaintiff bank is that sometime in August, 1983, the Defendants entered into a criminal conspiracy to cheat the Plaintiff bank and pursuant to that conspiracy, Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 opened accounts with different branches of the Plaintiff bank as well as with different branches of Punjab & Sind Bank and UCO Bank. One of the Defendants having account with the Plaintiff bank would issue a cheque in favour of another Defendant having account with another bank. The payee Defendant would deposit the cheque in his account with Punjab and Sind Bank and UCO Bank, as the case may be, and the cheque so deposited by him would be sent for collection to the service branch of the Plaintiff bank through clearing house. Since Defendant No. 1 was posted in the service branch, he would be knowing about the cheque which were then to be to be received by the service branch. He would sit in the group which had to receive that particular cheque from the collecting banker and while preparing typing list, he would remove and destroy that particular cheque so that it cannot be sent to the drawee branch of the Plaintiff bank for debiting to the drawer''s account or for return in case the funds in the account of the drawer are not sufficient. Non-return of the cheque within the specified period of three days from the date of its presentation to the collecting bank, amounts to honour of the cheque and the collecting bank would then give confirmed credit of the amount in the cheque to the account of the payee.

According to the Plaintiff bank, the Defendant No. 1/Raman Kumar opened a Saving Bank Account No. 3040 with the Gujranwala Town branch of Punjab & Sind Bank and also got Account No. 3918 opened in the name of his brother Chaman Kumar/Defendant No. 2 with the same branch. He also got Account No. 3917 opened in the name of Defendant No. 4/Ashok Kumar with the same branch. Defendant No. 2/Chaman Kumar also opened another account bearing No. 11861 in the name of Ashok Kumar with the Jehangirpuri branch of the Plaintiff bank.

Defendant No. 3/Vipin Bhardwaj is alleged to have opened an account with the Paharganj branch of the Plaintiff bank. He is alleged to have opened 10 other accounts in 10 different names between September, 1983 and February, 1984. The assumed names in which accounts are alleged to have been opened by Defendant No. 3 Vipin Bhardwaj are:

Vipin Kumar Chawla 116/2, Bajaj House, Nehru Place, New Delhi

Vipin Sharma S/o D.N. Sharma 57, Sarai Piplithala, Delhi-33

Vipin Mohan Sharma S/o S.K. Sharma Proprietor M/s Simplex Traders 118, Bajaj House, Nehru Place, New Delhi

Vipin Chandra S/o D.N. Bhardwaj Proprietor Swastik Enterprises G-18, Deepali Building, Nehru Place, New Delhi.

Bipin Kumar 57, Sarai Piplithala, Delhi-33

Bipin Kumar Sharma, 57, Sarai Piplithala, Delhi-33

Naveen Kumar 1073-A, Basai Darapur, Delhi

V. Kumar, Proprietor M/s Santosh Sales 126/3, Rampura, Delhi

V. Inder Pal, Proprietor M/s Vishal Plastic Enterprises 5014/1, Ballimaran, Chandni Chowk, Delhi

Santosh Kumar Sharma Proprietor, M/s Santo Sons A-24/1, Naraina Industrial Area, New Delhi

It is alleged that Defendant No. 2 Chaman Kumar, opened an account No. 11661 in the name of Ashok Kumar with Jehangirpuri branch of the Plaintiff bank and issued five cheques bearing Nos. 695337, 695322, 695324, 695325 and 695335, one for Rs. 65,000/-; three for Rs. 70,000/- each and one for Rs. 74,000/- in his correct name Chaman Kumar. Those cheques were deposited in the Gujaranwala branch of Punjab and Sind Bank through which the money was collected and misappropriated.

Defendant No. 3 Vipin Bhardwaj in his assumed name Naveen Kumar opened an account with Najafgarh branch of the Plaintiff bank and then issued a cheque bearing No. 402481 for the sum of Rs. 70,000/- in favour of Defendant No. 1 Raman Kumar. He also issued cheque No. 402485 for Rs. 74000/- in his assumed name Vipin Kumar Chawla; Cheque No. 402487 for Rs. 38,000/- in his assumed name Vipin Sharma; Cheque No. 402482 for Rs. 74,000/- in his assumed name Vipin Kumar; Cheque No. 402488 for Rs. 68,000/- in his assumed name Vipin Kumar; cheque No. 402489 for Rs. 65,000/- in his assumed name Vipin Kumar; and cheque No. 402490 for Rs. 65,000/- in his assumed name Bipan Kumar Sharma. All these cheques were deposited with Punjab & Sind Bank and UCO Bank and after collection of the amount from the Plaintiff-bank, it was fraudulently misappropriated.

It is also the case of the Plaintiff-bank that Defendant No. 3-Vipin Bhardwaj opened an account in his assumed name V. Kumar as proprietor of M/s Santosh Sales with Shakurbasti branch of the Plaintiff bank and thereafter issued cheque No. 778404 for Rs. 1,19,000/-; No. 778411 for Rs. 1,46,000/-; cheque No. 778442 for Rs. 1,91,000/-; and cheque No. 778401 for Rs. 3,80,000/- all in favour of M/s Simplex Traders, of which he himself was proprietor, in his other assumed name Vipen Mohan Sharma. All these cheques were deposited with Punjab & Sind Bank and later on credit was obtained. The Defendant No. 3 is also alleged to have been issued cheques No. 778403 for Rs. 92,954/-; cheque No. 778402 for Rs. 2,72,000/-; cheque No. 778405 for Rs. 1,81,000/-; and cheque No. 778406 for Rs. 2,72,000/ in favour of M/s Swastik Enterprises, of which he himself was the proprietor in his other assumed name Vipan Chander. The amounts of these cheques were also obtained and misappropriated by him.

The Defendant No. 3 Vipin Bhardwaj also opened a current account at Chandni Chowk branch of the Plaintiff bank in the name of M/s Vishal Plastic Enterprises as its proprietor in his assumed name V. Inder Pal and issued cheque No. 332505 for Rs. 83099/-; cheque No. 332503 for Rs. 2,90,000/-; cheque No. 332506 for Rs. 2, 72,000/-; and cheque No. 332510 for Rs. 2,54,000/- in favour of M/s Swastik Enterprises. These cheques were deposited with Punjab & Sind Bank, Defence Colony branch and the proceeds of the cheques were misappropriated by him. Similarly, cheques bearing No. 332507 for Rs. 2,72,000/-; cheque No. 332509 for Rs. 1,91,000/-; cheque No. 332502 for Rs. 2,81,000/-; and cheque No. 332508 for Rs. 2,72,000/- were also issued by Defendant No. 3 Vipin Bhardwaj in favour of M/s Simplex Traders, of which he himself was the proprietor, under the assumed name of Vipin Mohan Sharma. These cheques were deposited with the Naraina branch of Punjab & Sind Bank for collection and proceeds were misappropriated by him.

The Defendant No. 3 Vipin Bhardwaj also opened an account with Paharganj branch of the Plaintiff bank in the assumed name Vipan Bhardwaj and thereafter issued cheque bearing No. 86423 for Rs. 74,000/- in favour of Defendant No. 2 Chaman Kumar, which was deposited with Gujaranwala Town branch of Punjab & Sind Bank and after collection of the amount, it was misappropriated. He further issued cheque bearing No. 86425 for Rs. 46,000/- in his own favour in the assumed name Vipin Sharma and deposited the same with the Karol Bagh branch of Punjab and Sind Bank for collection and later on misappropriated the same. Further, cheques bearing No. 86422 for Rs. 65,000/-; No. 86424 for Rs. 38,000/-; and No. 86429 for Rs. 74,000/- were drawn by him in his own assumed name Vipin Kumar and were deposited for collection with New Subzi Mandi branch of UCO Bank and later on, the proceeds were misappropriated by him. Similarly, cheques bearing cheque Nos. 86425 for Rs. 65,000/-; and No. 86428 for Rs. 47,000/- were drawn in favour of his own assumed name Bipin Kumar Sharma and were deposited for collection with Kamla Nagar branch of UCO Bank and the proceeds were misappropriated by him.

The Defendant No. 3 Vipin Bhardwaj also opened a current account with Mayapuri branch of the Plaintiff bank in the name of M/s Santo Sons, as its proprietor in the assumed name Santosh Kumar Sharma and then issued cheques bearing No. 970857 for Rs. 2,81,675/-; No. 970853 for Rs. 2,90,000/-; No. 970852 for Rs. 1,64,000/-; and No. 970854 for Rs. 1,82,000/- in favour of M/s Swastik Enterprises of which he was proprietor. These cheques were deposited with the Defence Colony branch of Punjab and Sind Bank and the proceeds were misappropriated by him.

The Plaintiff bank has therefore claimed a sum of Rs. 58,16, 728/- from the Defendants as the principal amount and a sum of Rs. 26,21,031/- as interest @ 18% per annum calculated upto 31st August, 1986, thus amounting to a total claim of Rs. 84,37,759/-. The liability of the Defendants is alleged to be joint as well as several.

The Defendants were proceeded ex parte vide order dated 13th November, 1992. By that time, written statement had been filed only by Defendant No. 4 Ashok Kumar, who denied all the allegations against him and alleged that he had no relationship or connection with the other Defendants. He has also alleged that he had sold his property No K-722, Jahangir Puri, New Delhi to one Sunil Kumar and had received a sum of Rs. 35,000/- from him by way of a cheque which he had deposited in his Savings Bank account No. 3917.

The ex parte order against Defendant No. 6 Smt. Raj Rani was set aside vide order dated 6th August, 2002. However, no written statement was filed by her and this Court vide order dated 18th March, 2009, declined another opportunity to her for filing the written statement.

The Plaintiff-bank has filed affidavits of a number of bank officials. The first witness Shri S.K. Dhawan has stated in his affidavit that in the year 1984, he was working at Mayapuri Branch of State Bank of India. On 2nd March, 1984, the current account of M/s Santo Sons was opened with that branch by Shri Santosh K. Sharma as proprietor of M/s Santo Sons and he was introduced by another account holder Mr. Vinod Ahuja.

The next witness Mr. S.M. Harjai, who was working as an Officer in PBD Division at Najafgarh Road branch of the Plaintiff bank in the year 1981 has stated that on 6th September, 1983, one Mr. Naveen Kumar approached the bank for opening a Savings Bank account. He was introduced by one current account holder Mr. Ram Lakhan. Accordingly, Savings Bank Account No. 14322 was opened in the name of Naveen Kumar vide Account Opening Form, Exhibit PW 8/1. He has further stated that a sum of Rs. 151/- was deposited in cash in that account and no material transaction was undertaken in that account.

The witness Mr. D.N. Utreja was working as the Deputy Manager at SIB Division of Chandni Chowk branch of the Plaintiff bank from July, 1980 to July, 1988. He has stated that one Shri B. Inderpal claiming to be the sole proprietor of M/s Vishal Plastic Enterprises opened an account with the branch on 5th March, 1984. Shri B. Inderpal was introduced to the bank by M/s Kay Bee & Co. The account was opened with cash deposit of Rs. 500/- and cheque book containing 100 leaves bearing Nos. 332501-332600 was issued to the account holder.

The witness Shri S.C. Kathuria was working as an Officer at Paharganj Branch of the Plaintiff bank from the year 1981 to 1986. He has stated that one Shri Vipin Bhardwaj had opened a Savings Bank account with the aforesaid branch vide Account Opening Form, exhibit PW 11/3, and he was introduced by one Mr. V.K. Diwan, who was working in the Savings Bank Section of the branch.

The witness Shri V.K. Diwan, who was working as an officer at Paharganj Branch of Plaintiff-bank from April, 1980 to February 1985 has stated that Mr. Vipin Bhardwaj who opened an account with the Paharganj branch of the Plaintiff bank was introduced by one Shri Rajesh Bajaj and the cheque book containing 20 leaves bearing Nos. 086421 to 086440 was issued to the account holder.

The witness Mr. G.S. Mehta who was working as Sub-Manager at Guraranwala Town branch of the Punjab and Sind Bank from July, 1978 to October, 1982, has stated that on 21st July, 1981, Shri Raman Kumar S/o Shri Radhey Lal, R/o Z-7, Model Town, Delhi-110009 opened an account No. 3040 with the bank on introduction by the account holder of Account No. 64 vide Account Opening Form Exhibit PW 10/1. He has also proved Exhibit PW 10/3 which is the statement of account of the aforesaid bank account holder.

The witness, Mr. D.R. Manmohan Singh, who was working as Officer at Naraina Branch of Punjab and Sind Bank from February, 1979 to March, 1990, has stated that one Mr. Vipin Mohan Sharma, sole proprietor, M/s Simplex Traders had opened an account with the aforesaid branch of the bank on introduction by one Mr. Harcharan Singh, sole proprietor of M/s Singh Battery House vide account opening form, Exhibit PW 9/1. He has also proved Exhibit PW 9/3 which is the statement of account of the aforesaid account holder.

The witness Mr. Satinder Singh, who was working as Clerk cum Cashier at Asaf Ali Road branch of Punjab and Sind Bank from May, 1981 till 1990, has stated that he was known to Mr. Raman Kumar who introduced him to Defendant No. 3 Vipan Kumar Chawla and also requested him to introduce the account of Defendant No. 3. The account in the name of Defendant No. 3 was accordingly opened, vide Account Opening Form Ex.PW 6/1. He has also proved Exhibit PW6/3, which is copy of the register of bills/cheques sent for collection on 16th September, 1983 and which contains reference to a cheque deposited by Defendant No. 3 in the aforesaid account.

The witness, Shri Pratap Singh Verma, was working at Kamla Nagar branch of UCO Bank from 1st September, 1974 to 24th July, 1994. He has stated that on 14th September, 1983, Defendant No. 3 opened a Savings Bank Account No. 19001 in the name of Bipan Kumar Sharma and he was introduced by Shri Raj Kamal Srivastava who was holding another account with the said bank. He has further stated that Defendant No. 3 withdrew money from the said account by issuing cheque dated 13.10.1983 for Rs. 35,000/- which is Ex. PW 5/6, cheque dated 28.10.1983 for Rs. 20,000/- which is Ex. PW 5/7, cheque dated 9.11.1983 for Rs. 15,000/- which is Ex. PW 5/8, cheque dated 2.11.1983 for Rs. 40,000/- which is Ex. PW 5/9, cheque dated 9.12.1983 for Rs. 2,000/- which is Ex. PW 5/10, cheque dated 22.12.1983 for Rs. 30,000/- which is Ex. PW 5/11, cheque dated 28.12.1983 for Rs. 50,000/- which is Ex. PW 5/12, cheque dated 24.12.1983 for Rs. 15,000/- which is Ex. PW 5/13, cheque dated 30.12.1983 for Rs. 202.75 ps. which is Ex. PW 5/14 and cheque dated 30.12.1983 for Rs. 17,000/- which is Ex. PW 5/15. On 30.12.1983, at the request of Defendant No. 3, the Savings Bank Account No. 19001 was closed. The statement of Savings Bank Account No. 19001 is Exhibit PW 5/16.

Shri Ram Kumar Verma, the next witness of the Plaintiff-bank was working as Special Assistant at New Subzi Mandi Branch of UCO Bank from 1975 to 1994. He has stated that Defendant No. 3 Vipin Kumar who was residing at 57, Sarai Peepal Thala, Delhi was known to him and on the request of Defendant No. 3 and a colleague, he had introduced the Savings Bank Account No. 3573 with UCO Bank, New Subzi Mandi Branch of UCO Bank which was opened on 1st June, 1981 in the name of Vipin Kumar. He has further stated that a cheque book containing 20 leaves bearing Nos. 003981 to 003990 was issued to the account holder. Vide the pay-in-slips/cheque deposit slips which are Ex. PW 3/6, Ex. PW 3/7, Ex. PW 3/8, Ex. PW 3/9, the Defendant No. 3 deposited various cheques for collection, drawn on various branches of State Bank of India. He has further stated that he cleared for payments, cheques drawn by Defendant No. 3 on New Subzi Mandi Branch of UCO Bank and these cheques were cheque dated 5.9.1983 for Rs. 60,000/- which is Ex. PW 4/1, cheque dated 26.9.1983 for Rs. 35,000/- which is Ex. PW 4/2, cheque dated 14.9.1983 for Rs. 40,000/- which is Ex. PW 4/3, cheque dated 2.11.1983 for Rs. 60,000/- which is Ex. PW 4/4, cheque dated 17.12.1983 for Rs. 40,000/- which is Ex. PW 4/5, cheque dated 24.11.1983 for Rs. 7500/- which is Ex. PW 4/6, cheque dated 21.12.1983 for Rs. 20,000/- which is Ex. PW 4/7 and cheque dated 29.12.1983 for Rs. 29,606.88/- which is Ex. PW 4/8.

Shri Kuldip Singh is the next witness of the Plaintiff bank. He was working as Special Assistant at New Subzi Mandi Branch of UCO Bank from 1.9.1977 to 1994. He has stated that Savings Bank Account No. 3573 was opened by Shri Vipan Kumar with UCO Bank, New Subzi Mandi Branch on 1st June, 1981 vide exhibit PW 3/1 which is the account opening form and cheque book containing leaves bearing Nos. 003981 to 003990 was issued to him. According to this witness, the Defendant No. 3 deposited various cheques vide deposit slips Exhibit PW 3/3 to PW 3/9 with UCO Bank, New Subzi Mandi Branch and he withdrew money from time to time from the aforesaid bank account. He has proved statement of account Ex PW 3/13 in respect of the aforesaid account.

Shri M.S. Oberoi, next witness of Plaintiff, was working with Gujranwala Town branch of the Punjab & Sind Bank. He has stated that on 21st October, 1983, one Shri Ashok Kumar S/o Shri Roshan Lal, R/o B-1200, Jahangirpuri, Delhi-110033 opened a Savings Bank Account with Gujaranwala Town branch of the Punjab and Sind Bank. He was introduced by one Shri Raman Kumar, R/o Z-7, Model Town, Delhi. Shri Ashok Kumar deposited a cheque of Rs. 35,000/- in the aforesaid account vide deposit slip Exhibit PW 7/3. Another cheque of Rs. 5,000/- was deposited by him on 26th October, 1983. Exhibit PW 7/4 to PW 7/11 are the cheques drawn by Shri Ashok Kumar in the aforesaid account. These cheques were cleared by the witness in due course. Exhibit PW 7/12 is the statement of account of the aforesaid account. He has further stated that on 21st October, 1983, one Chaman Kumar also opened a Savings Bank Account with Gujaranwala Town Branch of the Punjab and Sind Bank vide Account Opening Form Exhibit PW 7/13. The deposit slips, Exhibit PW 7/15 to PW 7/25, were accepted by him along with the cheques mentioned. He further stated that at the time he joined Gujaranwala Town Branch in the year 1983, Shri Raman Kumar S/o Shri Radhey Lal R/o Z-7, Model Town, Delhi who also introduced the account of Shri Ashok Kumar and Shri Chaman Kumar, was maintaining a Savings Bank Account No. 3040 with that branch and a number of cheques drawn by Shri Raman Kumar were cleared by him in due course.

Shri D.D. Joshi, the next witness of the Plaintiff bank, was working as Manager, PBD Division at Najafgarh Road, New Delhi. He has stated that on 6th September, 1993, one person claiming to be Naveen Kumar approached the bank for opening a Savings Bank Account. He was introduced by another account holder Shri Ram Lakhan and Account No. 14322 was opened in his name.

The witness Shri D.N. Taneja, Deputy Manager with State Bank of India, Chandni Chowk branch, Delhi has stated that in March, 1984, one person claiming to be Santosh K. Sharma, sole proprietor of M/s Santo Sons approached the Mayapuri branch of the Plaintiff bank and opened a current account No. 1949 in the name of M/s Santo Sons. He has further stated that a cheque book containing 25 leaves bearing Nos. 970851 to 970875 was issued for the aforesaid Current Account. According to him, the cheques issued out of the aforesaid 25 cheques were presented to the Mayapuri branch of the Plaintiff bank for clearing.

The witness Mr. C.H. Batra, Assistant Manager with the State Bank of India, New Laxmi Nagar branch, Mathura (U.P) has stated that he was working with Jehangirpuri branch of the Plaintiff bank in the year 1983. He has further stated that on 23rd November, 1983, a person claiming to be Mr Ashok Kumar opened a Savings Bank Account bearing No. 11661 on being introduced by one customer of the Plaintiff bank having his Account No. 6171 with the same branch. According to him, a cheque book containing 20 leaves bearing Nos. 695321 to 695340 was issued in the aforesaid account. There was no transaction in the account except the entries for initial deposit of Rs. 100/- and subsequent credit entries for small amount towards the interest accrued on the balance amount. He has further stated the cheques issued in the Account No. 11661 were never presented for payment to the Jehangirpuri branch of the Plaintiff bank.

The next witness of the Plaintiff bank Shri Veer Singh, Manager with the Plaintiff bank, was working with service branch of the Plaintiff bank since June 2008. He has deposed about the working of the service branch of the Plaintiff bank as disclosed in the plaint and has stated that Defendant No. 1 Raman Kumar was transferred to the service branch of the Plaintiff bank on 4th July, 1983 and was allotted Group-3 (M-P). He has proved a large number of documents filed by the Plaintiff bank which are Exhibit P-1 to P-176.

The Plaintiff Baink has filed the affidavit of Shri B.M. Anand, Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, Centralized Cheques Processing Centre/Service Branch on 19th May, 2011. Mr. Anand has stated that Defendant No. 3, Vipin Bhardwaj had opened an account bearing Savings Bank Account No. 14322 with Nazafgarh Road Branch of the Plaintiff bank and was issued cheque book having cheque bearing Nos. 402481-402500. According to him, there is no transaction in this account except application of interest and, the balance in the account remained as Rs. 151/-. However, a perusal of the Account Opening Form Ex. P-125 and specimen signature sheet Ex. P-126 and P-127 would show that this account is opened in the name of Naveen Kumar. There is practically no evidence to prove that it was Defendant No. 3 who had opened this account and/or had signed as Vipin Kumar on Ex. P-125 to Ex. P-127. Hence, it is difficult to accept that this account was opened by Defendant No. 3 in the assumed name of Naveen Kumar.

This witness has further stated that Defendant No. 3 also opened an account with the Paharganj Branch of the Plaintiff bank vide Account Opening Form, Ex. P-129 and a cheque book containing 20 cheques bearing Nos. 086421-086440 was issued to him. He has further stated that there was no transaction recorded in this account except application of interest and none of the cheques issued out of this cheque book has been debited to this account.

A perusal of Ex. P-129 would show that though the address given by the account holder was 57, Adarsh Nagar, Delhi-110033 but the learned Counsel for the Plaintiff states that Sarai Peepalthala is a part of Adarsh Nagar and therefore, the address given in the account opening form is correct address of Defendant No. 3 Vipin Bhardwaj.

The witness has further stated that Defendant No. 3, V. Inder Pal, Proprietor, Vishal Plastics Enterprises had also opened current account bearing No. 3/47300 on 5th March, 1984 with Chandni Chowk branch of the Plaintiff bank and was issued cheque book containing 100 cheques bearing Nos. 332501-332600. According to him, there is no transaction in this account. However, a perusal of the account opening form Ex. P-132, signature sheet Ex. P-133 and the statement of account Ex. P-135 would show that this account was opened by someone who claimed to be V. Inder Pal, Proprietor Vishal Plastics Enterprises. There is no evidence on record to prove that it was Defendant No. 3 who had opened this account and had signed Account Opening Form Ex. P-132 and signature sheet Ex. P-133. Thus, the Plaintiff bank has not been able to prove that the said account was opened by Defendant No. 3. However, it has come in the deposition of this witness that there is no transaction in this account except application of interest and no cheque was however debited to this account.

This witness has further stated that Defendant No. 3, Santosh Kumar Sharma, Proprietor, M/s Santo Sons opened a current account bearing No. 1949 with Mayapuri branch of the State Bank of India. Probably, the witness wants to say that the Defendant No. 3 opened this account in the assumed name of Santosh Kumar Sharma. However, there is no evidence to prove that Defendant No. 3 had signed the Account Opening Form of this account, Ex. P-136 and/or specimen signature sheet, Ex. P-137. Thus, there is no evidence to prove that the aforesaid account in the name of Santosh Kumar Sharma was opened by Defendant No. 3. However, it has come in the deposition of this witness that there is no transaction in this account except application of interest and no cheque was however debited to this account.

This witness has also stated that the Defendant No. 3 V. Kumar, Proprietor, M/s Santosh Sales had opened a Current Account No. 543 with State Bank of India, Shakur Basti branch. The witness presumably wants to say that the Defendant No. 3 had opened this account in the assumed name of V. Kumar. However, there is no evidence to prove that the Account Opening Form, Ex. P-142 was signed by Defendant No. 3. Thus, there is no evidence to prove that this account was opened by Defendant No. 3. However, it has come in the deposition of this witness that there is no transaction in this account except the application of interest and no cheque was however, debited to this account.

This witness has further stated that Defendant No. 3 Ashok Kumar opened a Savings Bank Account No. 11661 with State Bank of India, Jehangirpuri branch. Again, he presumably wants to say that the Defendant No. 3 had opened this account under the assumed name of Ashok Kumar. However, there is no evidence to prove that the Account Opening Form Ex. P-144A is signed by and specimen signature on sheet Ex. P-144B are of Defendant No. 3. The Plaintiff bank has not been able to prove that the said account was opened by Defendant No. 3, Vipin Bhardwaj. However, it has come in the deposition of this witness that there is no transaction in this account except for application of interest and no cheque, out of the cheque book issued to him containing cheque Nos. 695321-695340, was however debited to this account.

He has further stated that the Defendant No. 1 on 21st July, 1981 opened a Savings Bank Account No. 3040 in his own name with Punjab and Sind Bank, Gujranwala Town, Delhi vide Account Opening Form, Ex. P-1 and specimen signature Ex. P-2. According to him, on 14th September, 1983, the Defendant No. 1 deposited in the aforesaid account, a cheque bearing No. 402481 for Rs. 70,000/- which was issued out of the cheque book issued by the State Bank of India, Najafgarh Road, in the account which was opened by Defendant No. 3 in the name of Naveen Kumar. The cheque was sent for collection by Punjab and Sind Bank as is evident from the clearing scroll of the Punjab and Sind Bank vide Ex. P-170. The cheque however, never reached to the branch and was not debited whereas, the Defendant No. 1 got the credit for the aforesaid amount as would be evident from the statement of account.

He has further stated that on 6th February, 1984, the Defendant No. 1 deposited with Punjab & Sind Bank, a cheque bearing No. 695337 for Rs. 65,000/- which was issued out of the cheque book issued by the State Bank of India, Jehangirpuri branch in the name of Ashok Kumar. The aforesaid cheque was sent for collection by Punjab and Sind Bank as is evident from the clearing scroll of the Punjab and Sind Bank, vide Ex. P-176. The cheque however never reached to the branch and was not debited whereas the Defendant No. 1 got the credit for the aforesaid amount as would be evident from the statement of account.

The witness has further stated that Defendant No. 2 on 21st October, 1983, opened a Savings Bank Account No. 3918 in his own name with Punjab & Sind Bank, Gujranwala Town Delhi, vide Account Opening Form Ex. P-18 and specimen signature, Ex. P-19. According to him, on 10th November, 1983, the Defendant No. 2 deposited in the aforesaid account, a cheque bearing No. 086423 for Rs. 74,000/- which was issued out of the cheque book issued by the State Bank of India, Paharganj branch in the account which was opened by Defendant No. 3 in the name of Vipin Bhardwaj. The cheque was sent for collection by Punjab and Sind Bank as is evident from the clearing scroll of the Punjab and Sind Bank vide Ex. P-171. The cheque, however, never reached to the branch and was not debited whereas the Defendant No. 2 got the credit for the aforesaid amount as would be evident from the statement of account.

The witness has further stated that Defendant No. 2 on 29th November, 1983 deposited with Punjab and Sind Bank, a cheque bearing No. 695322 for Rs. 70,000/- which was issued out of the cheque book issued by the State Bank of India, Jehangirpuri branch in the account which was opened by Defendant No. 3 in the name of Ashok Kumar. The cheque was sent for collection by Punjab and Sind Bank as is evident from the clearing scroll of the Punjab and Sind Bank, vide Ex. P-172. The cheque, however, never reached to the branch and was not debited whereas, the Defendant No. 2 got the credit for the aforesaid amount as would be evident from the statement of account.

He has further stated that Defendant No. 2 on 14th December, 1983 deposited with Punjab and Sind Bank, a cheque bearing No. 695324 for Rs. 70,000/- which was issued out of the cheque book issued by the State Bank of India, Jehangirpuri branch in the account which was opened by Defendant No. 3 in the name of Ashok Kumar. The cheque was sent for collection by Punjab and Sind Bank as is evident from the clearing scroll of the Punjab and Sind Bank, vide Ex. P-173. The cheque, however, never reached to the branch and was not debited whereas, the Defendant No. 2 got the credit for the aforesaid amount as would be evident from the statement of account.

According to the witness, on 20th December, 1983, the Defendant No. 2 deposited with Punjab and Sind Bank, a cheque bearing No. 695325 for Rs. 70,000/- which was issued out of the cheque book issued by the State Bank of India, Jehangirpuri branch in the account which was opened by Defendant No. 3 in the name of Ashok Kumar. The cheque was sent for collection by Punjab and Sind Bank as is evident from the clearing scroll of the Punjab and Sind Bank, vide Ex. P-174. The cheque, however, never reached to the branch and was not debited whereas, the Defendant No. 2 got the credit for the aforesaid amount as would be evident from the statement of account.

He further stated that a cheque bearing No. 695335 for Rs. 74,000/- was deposited in the aforesaid account by Defendant No. 2 on 6th February, 1984. This cheque was sent for collection by Punjab and Sind Bank as is evident from the clearing scroll of the Punjab and Sind Bank vide Ex. P-176. The cheque, however, never reached the branch and was not debited to the account, whereas the Defendant No. 2 got the credit for the aforesaid amount as would be evident from the statement of account.

This witness has further stated that on 13th September, 1983, the Defendant No. 3 opened a Savings Bank Account No. 2013 in his assumed name Vipin Kumar Chawla with Punjab and Sind Bank, Asaf Ali Road, vide Account Opening Form Ex. P-77 and specimen signature, Ex. P-78. According to him, one Satinder Singh who was working at Asaf Ali Road branch, Punjab and Sind Bank had introduced the account at the request of Defendant No. 1 who was known to him and he had also introduced Defendant No. 3 as Vipin Kumar Chawla to him. He has further stated that on 16th September, 1983, the Defendant No. 3 deposited the cheque bearing No. 402485 for Rs. 74,000/- with Punjab and Sind Bank which was issued out of the cheque book issued by the State Bank of India, Najafgarh Road branch in the account which was opened by Defendant No. 3 in the name of Naveen Kumar. The cheque was sent for collection by Punjab and Sind Bank as is evident from the clearing scroll of the Punjab and Sind Bank vide Ex. P-162. The cheque, however, never reached to the branch and was not debited whereas, the Defendant No. 3 got the credit for the aforesaid amount as would be evident from the statement of account. According to this witness, Defendant No. 3 on 26.08.1983 opened account No. 8423, Punjab and Sind Bank in the name of Vipin Sharma with initial deposit of Rs. 151. The name of the father of the account holder has been shown as D.N. Sharma (wrongly typed as B.N. Sharma in the affidavit) whereas the address has been shown as 57, Sarai Thala, which is the correct address.

Considering the fact that the first name of Defendant No. 3 as well as the first name of the account holder is Vipin and the first name of his father as well as the first name of father of the account holder is also the same and the address given in the Account Opening Form is the same which is also the address of Defendant No. 3 given in the plaint, I am inclined to accept the case of the Plaintiff that this account was opened by Defendant No. 3-Vipin Bhardwaj. This is more so when Defendant No. 3 has chosen not to come to the Court to controvert the case of the Plaintiff in this regard, by contesting the suit.

According to Shri B.M. Anand, AGM Defendant No-3 deposited 02 cheques; one bearing No. 086425 Rs. 46,000/-and the other bearing No. 402487 Rs. 38,000/- in its account with Punjab & Sind Bank. The first cheque was drawn on SBI, Paharganj in the account opened by Defendant No. 3 in his own name, whereas the other cheque was drawn on State Bank of India Najafgarh Road in the account opened in the name of Naveen Kumar. According to the witness neither of these cheques reached the branch and neither of them was debited to the account of the drawer whereas the Defendant No. 3 got credit for the amount of both the cheques.

It is also stated by this witness that Defendant No. 3 Vipin Bhardwaj opened the current Account No. 2475 with Punjab and Sind Bank, Naraina, New Delhi in his assumed name Vipin Mohan Sharma as proprietor of M/s Simplex traders. However, there is no evidence to prove that the aforesaid account was opened by Defendant No. 3-Vipin Bhardwaj. The similarity in the first name, in my view, is not sufficient to establish that Defendant No. 3 Vipin Bhardwaj and the holder of the Current Account No. 2475 were the same persons. It is important to note here that the name of the father of Defendant No. 3 is D.N. Bhardwaj whereas the name of father of the account holder is H.K. Sharma. As many as 08 cheques were deposited in the aforesaid Current Account No. 2475 opened in Punjab & Sind Bank, Naraina. The first cheque was for Rs. 2,72,000/- drawn on State Bank of India, Chandni Chowk in the account opened in the name of V. Inder Pal, proprietor of Vishal Plastics. The second cheque was for Rs. 1,19,000/- drawn on State Bank of India, Shakur Basti, Delhi in the account opened in the name of V. Kumar, proprietor of Santosh Sales. The third cheque was for Rs. 1,91,000/- drawn on State Bank of India, Chandni Chowk, Delhi in the account opened in the name of V. Inder Pal, proprietor of Vishal Plastics. The fourth cheque was for Rs. 1,46,000/- drawn on State Bank of India, Shakur Basti, Delhi in the account opened in the name of V. Kumar, proprietor of Santosh Sales. The fifth cheque was for Rs. 2,81,000/- drawn on State Bank of India, Chandni Chowk, Delhi in the account opened in the name of V. Inder Pal, proprietor of Vishal Plastics. The sixth cheque was for Rs. 2,72,000/- drawn on State Bank of India, Chandni Chowk, in the account opened in the name of V. Inder Pal, proprietor of Vishal Plastics. The seventh cheque was for Rs. 1,91,000/- drawn on State Bank of India, Shakur Basti in the account opened in the name of V. Kumar, proprietor of Santosh Sales. The eight cheque was for Rs. 3,80,000/- drawn on State Bank of India, Shakur Basti in the account opened in the name of V. Kumar, proprietor of Santosh Sales. None of these cheques reached the concerned branch of State Bank of India and the amount of none of them was debited to the account holder whereas the payee was given credit for the amount of all the eight cheques.

It is further stated that on 18.2.1984 Defendant No. 3 opened a Current Account No. 1289 with Punjab and Sind Bank, Defence Colony in the assumed name of Vipin Chandra, proprietor M/s Swastick Enterprises, giving his father''s name as B.N. Bhardwaj. However, in my view the Plaintiff bank has failed to establish that this account was opened by none other than Defendant No. 3-Vipin Bhardwaj. The address given in the account opening form is altogether different from the address of Defendant No. 3 given in the plaint. The introducer has not been examined to prove that it was Vipin Bhardwaj whom he had introduced for opening this account. No handwriting expert has been examined to prove that the handwriting on the Account Opening Form Exh. P-74 and the signatures on the specimen signature sheet Exh. P-75 tally with the admitted handwriting/signatures of Defendant No. 3.

As many as 12 cheques were deposited in the aforesaid Current Account No. 1289 opened in Punjab & Sind Bank, Defence Colony. The first cheque was for Rs. 83,099/- drawn on State Bank of India, Chandni Chowk in the account opened in the name of V. Inder Pal, proprietor of Vishal Plastics. The second cheque was for Rs. 2,81,675/- drawn on State Bank of India, Maya Puri in the account opened in the name of Santosh Kumar Sharma, proprietor of Santo Sons. The third cheque was for Rs. 92,954/- drawn on State Bank of India, Shakur Basti in the account opened in the name of V. Kumar, proprietor of Santosh Sales. The fourth cheque was for Rs. 2,90,000/- drawn on State Bank of India, Chandni Chowk in the account opened in the name of V. Inder Pal, proprietor of Vishal Plastics. The fifth cheque was for Rs. 2,72,000/- drawn on State Bank of India, Shakur Basti in the account opened in the name of V. Kumar, proprietor of Santosh Sales. The sixth cheque was for Rs. 2,90,000/- drawn on by State Bank of India, Maya Puri in the account opened in the name of Santosh Kumar Sharma, proprietor of Santo Sons. The seventh cheque was for Rs. 1,81,000/- drawn on State Bank of India, Shakur Basti in the account opened in the name of V. Kumar, proprietor of Santosh Sales. The eight cheque was for Rs. 2,72,000/- drawn on State Bank of India, Chandni Chowk in the account opened in the name of V. Inder Pal, proprietor of Vishal Plastics. The ninth cheque was for Rs. 2,72,000/- drawn on State Bank of India, Shakur Basti in the account opened in the name of V. Kumar, proprietor of Santosh Sales. The tenth cheque was for Rs. 1,64,000/- drawn on State Bank of India, Chandni Chowk in the account opened in the name of V. Inder Pal, proprietor of Vishal Plastics. The eleventh cheque was for Rs. 1,82,000/- drawn on State Bank of India, Chandni Chowk in the account opened in the name of V. Inder Pal, proprietor of Vishal Plastics. The twelfth cheque was for Rs. 2,54,000/- drawn on State Bank of India, Maya Puri in the account opened in the name of Santosh Kumar Sharma, proprietor of Santo Sons. None of these cheques reached the concerned branch of State Bank of India and the amount of none of them was debited to the account holder whereas the payee was given credit for the amount of all the eight cheques.

According to this witness on 29.12.1983, Defendant No. 3 opened a Savings Bank Account No. 3573 with UCO Bank, New Subzi Mandi, Delhi in his name as Vipin Kumar. The account holder has given the address of the account holder given in the account opening form as 57, Sarai Pipal Thala, Delhi which is also the address of the Defendant in the plaint. Sarai Pipal Thala is stated to be a part of Adarsh Nagar.

As many as 06 cheques were deposited in the aforesaid Savings Bank Account No. 3573 opened in UCO Bank, New Subzi Mandi. The first cheque was for Rs. 65,000/- drawn on State Bank of India, Pahar Ganj in the account opened in the name of Vipin Bhardwaj. The second cheque was for Rs. 74,000/- drawn on State Bank of India, Najafgarh in the account opened in the name of Naveen Kumar. The third cheque was for Rs. 38,000/- drawn on State Bank of India, Pahar Ganj in the account opened in the name of Vipin Bhardwaj. The fourth cheque was for Rs. 65,000/- drawn on State Bank of India, Najafgarh in the account opened in the name of Naveen Kumar. The fifth cheque was for Rs. 74,000/- drawn on State Bank of India, Pahar Ganj in the account opened in the name of Vipin Bhardwaj. The sixth cheque was for Rs. 65,000/- drawn on State Bank of India, Najafgarh Road in the account opened in the name of Naveen Kumar. None of these cheques reached the concerned branch of State Bank of India and the amount of none of them was debited to the account holder whereas the payee was given credit for the amount of all the eight cheques.

He has further stated that Defendant No. 3 also opened Account No. 19001 on 14.9.1983 in UCO Bank, Kamla Nagar, Delhi (Exh. P-109). The account holder has not given the name of his father while opening the account but he has given his address as 57, Sarai Pipal Thala, Adarsh Nagar, Delhi which is the correct address of Defendant No. 3 and which also shows that Sarai Pipal Thala is a part of Adarsh Nagar.

As many as 04 cheques were deposited in the aforesaid Bank Account No. 19001 opened in UCO Bank, Kamla Nagar. The first cheque was for Rs. 65,000/- drawn on State Bank of India, Paharganj in the account opened in the name of Vipin Bhardwaj. The second cheque was for Rs. 65,000/- drawn on State Bank of India, Najafgarh in the account opened in the name of Naveen Kumar. The third cheque was for Rs. 47,000/- drawn on State Bank of India, Pahar Ganj in the account opened in the name of Vipin Bhardwaj. None of these cheques reached the concerned branch of State Bank of India and the amount of none of them was debited to the account holder whereas the payee was given credit for the amount of all the eight cheques.

One cheque for Rs. 47,000/- is also stated to have been deposited in this account vide pay-in-slip Exh. P-113. A perusal of deposit slip would show that it was a cheque of State Bank of India though it was not known to which branch this cheque pertained. This is also the case of the Plaintiff that this cheque also did not reach the concerned branch and its amount was never debited into the account though the payee got the credit for the amount.

Liability of Defendant No. 1 - Raman Kumar

The evidence produced by the Plaintiff-Bank shows that Account No. 3040 was opened by Defendant No. 1 - Raman Kumar with Punjab & Sind Bank, Gujranwala with an initial deposit of Rs. 5/- vide account opening form Ex.P-1. The evidence further shows that he deposited cheque of Rs. 70,000/- drawn on State Bank of India, Najafgarh Road, in an account opened in the name of one Naveen Kumar. This cheque was sent by Punjab & Sind Bank to the clearing house for the purpose of collection. The cheque, however, did not reach State Bank of India, Najafgarh Road and its amount was never debited to the account of the drawer of the cheque. Since, the amount of this cheque has been debited to the account of State Bank of India, the bank, on account of non-receipt of cheque by it, for any reason whatsoever, has not been able to debit its amount to the account of the drawer, the bank is entitled in law to recover that amount from the person to whom it has been paid. In fact, even if the bank had received cheque, it would not have been able to debit the amount of the cheque to the account of the drawer for the simple reason that there was not enough balance in the account for this purpose. If the payee of the cheque is aggrieved on account of the State Bank of India realizing the amount of the cheque from him, he can avail the remedy open to him in law against the drawer of the cheque. But, he must necessarily pay this amount to the bank which, on account of non-receipt of the cheque and on account of there not being enough fund in the account of the drawer has not been able to debit this amount to the account of the drawer. I, therefore, hold that the Plaintiff-Bank is entitled to recover the aforesaid amount of Rs. 70,000/- from Defendant No. 1.

The evidence produced by the Plaintiff-Bank shows that in similar manner, a cheque of Rs. 65,000/- drawn on State Bank of India, Jahangir Puri was deposited in the aforesaid account on 06.02.1984. That cheque was issued by one person who claimed to be Ashok Kumar. The Plaintiff- Bank, therefore, is also entitled to recover Rs. 65,000/- being the amount of the aforesaid cheque from Defendant No. 1.

Liability of Defendant No. 2-

The evidence produced by the Plaintiff, as discussed in the preceding paragraphs, shows that Defendant No. 2 had opened Saving Bank Account No. 3918 with Punjab & Sind Bank, Gujranwala Town, on the introduction of Defendant No. 1. A cheque of Rs. 74000/- was deposited in the aforesaid account on 10.11.1983. The cheque was drawn on State Bank of India, Paharganj, an account opened by Defendant No. 3- Vipin Bhardwaj. This cheque also did not reach State Bank of India, Paharganj and the amount of this cheque was never debited to the account of the drawer of the cheque. The funds in the account were also not sufficient for debiting the amount of this cheque to the said account. For the reasons given earlier, while dealing with the liability of Defendant No. 1, I hold that the Plaintiff-Bank is entitled to recover the amount of this cheque from Defendant No. 2- Chaman Kumar. Since this cheque was issued from an account opened by Defendant No. 3- Vipin Bhardwaj, he would be knowing that there are no funds in his account for honouring of the aforesaid cheque by the bank.

The case of the Plaintiff is that this cheque was removed/stolen by Defendant No. 1 who was posted in the service branch of the Plaintiff bank and whose job was to sort out the cheques which were received from the other banks through clearing house and which were to be transmitted to the various branches of the Plaintiff bank. Be that as it may, it is difficult to dispute in the facts and circumstances of this case that Defendants No. 2 & 3 were acting in connivance in defrauding the Plaintiff Bank to the extent of the amount of this cheque. This is not a case of a cheque being dishonoured for wants of funds. Here the cheque was issued but did not reach the bank on which it was drawn and the amount was credited to the account of the payee. Therefore, not only Defendant No. 2 but Defendant No. 3 is also equally liable to pay the amount of this cheque to the Plaintiff- Bank.

The evidence produced by the Plaintiff shows that on 29.11.1983, a cheque of Rs. 70,000/- issued by Ashok Kumar, holder of an account with State Bank of India, Jahangir Puri was also deposited in the aforesaid account of Defendant No. 2- Shri Chaman Kumar with Punjab & Sind Bank. This cheque also did not reach the concerned Branch and neither its amount was debited to the account holder nor were the funds sufficient in his account for this purpose. Hence, the Bank is entitled to recover the amount by the aforesaid cheque from Defendant No. 2. In similar manner, one cheque of Rs. 70,000/- dated 14.12.1983 one cheque of Rs. 70,000/- on 20.12.1983 and one cheque of Rs. 74,000/- issued by Ashok Kumar who had opened an account with State Bank of India, Jahangir Puri were deposited in the aforesaid account of Defendant No. 2 with Punjab & Sind Bank. None of these three cheques reached the concerned branch and since the funds in the account were not sufficient, the amounts of the cheques have also not been debited to the account. The Plaintiff-Bank is, therefore, entitled to recover the amount of the aforesaid three cheques also from Defendant No. 2.

It has come in evidence that bank account No. 2013 was opened with Punjab & Sind Bank, Asaf Ali Road on 1309.1983 in the name of Vipin Kumar Chawla. It has come in the deposition of Mr. Satinder Singh who was working as Clerk-cum-Cashier in Asaf Ali Branch of this Bank that Defendant No. 1 - Raman Kumar had introduced him to Defendant No. 3 and had also requested him to introduce his account. Accordingly, this witness introduced Defendant No. 3 as Vipin Kumar Chawla for the purpose of opening the account with Punjab & Sind Bank, Asaf Ali Road. Since the Defendants have not come forward to contest the suit, I see no reason to disbelieve the unrebutted testimony of Mr. Satinder Singh in this behalf and hold that this account was opened by Vipin Kumar Bhardwaj under the name V.K. Chawla. The evidence produced by the Plaintiff - Bank shows that a cheque of Rs. 74,000/- drawn on SBI, Najafgarh Road, was deposited in this account. The cheque purported to have been issued by one Naveen Kumar. Though the case of the Plaintiff Bank that it was Defendant No. 3 who had opened the account with SBI Najafgarh Road as Naveen Kumar, no evidence has, however, been led to prove the case of the Plaintiff in this regard. This cheque never reached State Bank of India and its amount also could not be debited to the account holder since the balance in the account was not sufficient. Hence, the Plaintiff bank is entitled to recover the amount of this cheque from Defendant No. 3 - Vipin Kumar Bhardwaj. I have earlier while dealing with the deposition of Mr. B.M. Anand has accepted the case of the Plaintiff that in fact this account was opened by Defendant No. 3-Vipin Bhardwaj under the assumed name of Vipin Sharms. Two cheques one of Rs. 46,000/- and the other of Rs. 38,000/- have been deposited on 30.08.1983 and the second on 15.09.1983. The cheque of Rs. 46,000/- was drawn on SBI Pahar Ganj and was issued from the account opened by Defendant No. 3 - Vipin Bhardwaj whereas the cheque of Rs. 38,000/- was drawn on SBI Najafgarh Road and was issued from the account of Naveen Kumar. Since these cheques did not reach State Bank of India and the amount of these cheques could not be credited to the account of the drawer for want of sufficient funds, the Plaintiff bank is entitled to recover these amounts from Defendant No. 3- Vipin Bhardwaj.

This is also the case of the Plaintiff - bank that current account No. 2475 with Punjab & Sind Bank, Najafgarh Road was opened by Defendant No. 3 in the assumed name of Vipin Mohan Sharma. This case of the Plaintiff has not been accepted by me while dealing with the affidavit of Mr. B.M. Anand. Neither the introducer has been produced to prove that the account was actually opened by Defendant No. 3 Vipin Kumar Bhardwaj, nor has any handwriting expert been produced to opine that the signatures on the Account Opening Form and/or specimen signature sheet, are of Defendant No. 3. I, therefore, hold that the Plaintiff bank is not entitled to recovery of the amount deposited in this account from Defendant No. 3.

This is also the case of the Plaintiff bank that the current account No. 1289 with Punjab and Sind Bank, Defence Colony was opened by Defendant No. 3 under the assumed name Vipin Chandra as proprietor of Swastik Enterprises. This case of the Plaintiff bank has been rejected by me while dealing with the deposition of Shri B.M. Anand. Again, neither the introducer has been produced to prove that the account was actually opened by Defendant No. 3 Vipin Kumar Bhardwaj, nor has any handwriting expert been produced to opine that the signatures on the Account Opening Form and/or specimen signature sheet, are of Defendant No. 3. I, therefore, hold that the Plaintiff bank is not entitled to recover the amount of the cheques deposited in this account from Defendant No. 3.

It has also come in the evidence of Plaintiff bank that Defendant No. 3 had opened Saving Bank account No. 3573 with UCO Bank, New Subzi Mandi branch in the name of Vipin Kumar. The address given in the account is same as is the address of Defendant No. 3. It has come in the deposition of Mr. Ram Kumar Verma, Special Assistant with UCO Bank, Model Town branch that Defendant No. 3 who was residing at 57, Sarai Peepalthala, Delhi was known to him as Vipin Kumar as he used to visit his colleagues in the branch and he had introduced him for opening of Saving Bank account No. 3573 with UCO Bank, New Subzi Mandi branch in the name of Vipin Kumar. It thus stands proved that the aforesaid account was opened by Defendant No. 3 Vipin Kumar Bhardwaj under the incomplete name Vipin Kumar.

As many as six cheques, three for Rs. 65,000/-, each two for Rs. 75,000/- each and one for Rs. 38,000/- were deposited in this account. Out of them, three cheques were issued by Defendant No. 3 from his account with State Bank of India, Paharganj branch. Since none of these cheques reached the concerned branch and none of these cheques were debited to the account holder for want of sufficient funds. The Plaintiff bank is entitled to recover the amount of these six cheques from the Defendant No. 3. In fact, in all the accounts from which these cheques have been issued, the balance has always been very meager and did not even touch the four figures.

The Plaintiff bank has also been able to prove that the account No. 19001 with UCO Bank, Kamla Nagar was opened by Defendant No. 3 Vipin Kumar Bhardwaj giving his name Bipin Kumar Sharma in place of Vipin Kumar Bhardwaj. The address given in account opening form is same as is the address of Defendant No. 3 given in the plaint. Since Defendant No. 3 has not come forward to contest the suit, I see no reason to disbelieve the case of the Plaintiff bank in this regard particularly when, the address given in the Account Opening Form is exactly the same as is the actual address of Defendant No. 3. As many as four cheques have been deposited in this account out of which two are for Rs. 65,000/- each and the remaining two are for Rs. 47,000/- each. Out of these four cheques, two cheques - one for Rs. 65,000/- and the other for Rs. 47,000/- were issued from the account of Defendant No. 3 with State Bank of India, Paharganj branch. Since none of these cheques reached the concerned branch of the Plaintiff bank and the amount of none of them could be debited to the account of the drawer of cheque on account of funds in the account being wholly insufficient, the Plaintiff bank is entitled to recover the amount of these cheques from the Defendant No. 3.

For the reasons given in the preceding paragraphs, a decree in the following terms is hereby passed:

(i) a decree for recovery of Rs. 1,35,000/- with proportionate cost along with pendente lite and future interest @ 6% per annum in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant No. 1.

(ii) a decree for recovery of Rs. 2,84,000/- with proportionate cost along with pendente lite and future interest @ 6% per annum in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant No. 2.

(iii) a decree for recovery of Rs. 8,38,000/- with proportionate cost along with pendente lite and future interest @ 6% per annum in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant No. 3.

(iv) a decree for recovery of Rs. 74,000/- is also passed in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 as they are held jointly as well as severally liable for the aforesaid amount. (v) the suit against the other Defendants does not stand proved. There is no evidence of any of them having opened the account in which the cheques in question were deposited. The suit against them is, therefore, dismissed, without order as to costs.

The interim orders, to the extent they pertain to Defendants other than Defendant Nos. 1 to 3, stand vacated.

The counsel fee certificate furnished by the learned Counsel for the Plaintiff is taken on record.

Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.