* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved on: 24.03.2026 Judgment pronounced on: 02.04.2026 + CRL.A. 715/2003 CHAMPAT RAI JAIN .....Appellant Through: Mr. Rakesh Khana, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rajiv K. Garg and Mr. Ashish Garg and Ms.

Arushi Jindal, Advocates.

versus C.B.I. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Atul Guleria, SPP with Mr.

Aryan Rakesh, Advocate for CBI.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA

JUDGMENT

CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.

1. In this appeal filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (the Cr.PC), accused no. 2 (A2) in C.C. No. 73/99 on the file of the Special Judge, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi, assails the judgment dated 25.09.2003 and order on sentence dated 08.10.2003 as per which he has been convicted and sentenced for the offences punishable under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (the IPC) read with Section 13(1)(d) read with Section

13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (the PC Act).

2. The prosecution case is that the first accused (A1), during the period from December 1989 to May 1990, while posted as Senior Manager, UCO Bank, Sadar Bazar Branch, entered into a criminal conspiracy with A2/ the appellant herein, proprietor of M/s Jayvee Sales Corporation, and in furtherance thereof abused his official position by deliberately not debiting certain cheques issued by A2 from the account of the said Firm, despite the account reflecting a debit balance. It is alleged that A1 retained the said cheques in his personal custody and facilitated the clearance of the amounts and issuance of demand drafts in favour of M/s Bindal Agro Chem Ltd., thereby causing wrongful loss of approximately ₹16 lakhs to the bank and corresponding wrongful gain to A2. Hence, as per the charge sheet/final report dated 18.02.1993, the accused persons were alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 120B and 420 IPC and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act.

3. Sanction for prosecution was accorded by the competent authority under Section 19(1)(c) of the PC Act to prosecute A1, being a public servant. Charge against A2 was that he conspired with A1 to cause wrongful gain to himself and corresponding wrongful loss to the bank.

4. Crime No. RC 46(A)/92-DLI, i.e., Exbt. PW19/A FIR, was registered on the basis of source information received by the respondent/CBI. After completion of investigation by PW19, a charge-sheet/final report dated 18.02.1993 was filed against the appellant/A2 as well as A1 alleging the commission of the offences punishable under aforementioned Sections.

5. On appearance of A1 and A2 before the trial court, copies of the prosecution documents were supplied to them in compliance with Section 207 Cr.PC Thereafter, upon hearing both sides, the trial Court, vide order dated 26.11.1994, held that no offence under Section 420 IPC was made out and accordingly the said charge was dropped. Subsequently, vide order dated 14.07.1997, the trial court framed a Charge against A1 for the offence punishable under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, and against both A1 and A2 for the offence punishable under Section 120B IPC read with the aforesaid substantive offence, which was read over and explained to the accused persons, to which they pleaded not guilty.

6. On behalf of the prosecution, PWs. 1 to 21 were examined and Exbts. PW1/A, PW2/C, PW2/D, PW3/A-P, PW3/DA-DK, PW3/F1-F42, PW4/A-B, PW6/A, PW7/DA-DE, Mark D1, PW9/DA, PW10/A-X, PW12/A-J, PW18/A, PW19/A-D, PW20/A-E, Exp-1 and Exp-3 were marked in support of the case.

7. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused persons were questioned under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.PC regarding the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of the prosecution. Both the accused persons denied all those circumstances and maintained their innocence.

8. On behalf of A1 and A2, DW1 was examined and Exbts. DW1/A and DW1/B were marked.

9. On consideration of the ora