CBI court convicts private firm partner Kamlesh Gandhi in Dena Bank fraud case, acquits bank staff | Representational Image
Mumbai: In a 16-year-old case of cheating Dena Bank to the tune of Rs 4.22 crore, the special CBI court has held the partner of a private firm guilty. The CBI had also booked the bank manager and other bank staff of corruption charges, but the court acquitted them, giving them the benefit of doubt.
The case was registered against M/s L Natwarlal & Co and a partner in it, Kamlesh Gandhi, now 65 years old, for fraudulently obtaining export credit of Rs 10 crore, including packing credit of Rs 5 crore (amount in advance for packing of shipment) and foreign bill negotiation of Rs 5 crore, in August 2006.
As per the prosecution’s case, Gandhi had a 70-acre land parcel in Panvel as collateral security. He allegedly declared the value of the land as Rs 20 crores, but it was later found that he had never bought the property.
As per the CBI case, Gandhi, in collusion with chief manager of the bank, Raman Mohan (now 63 years old), certified that received export orders worth Rs 4.22 crore which were to be executed against a Letter of Credit submitted by him. Mohan allegedly requested for immediate release of the payment.
The CBI claimed that Gandhi had submitted forged documents and facilitated the release of pre-shipment credit. The packing credit availed by him was diverted elsewhere, according to the agency. Forty bills were submitted by him in the name of his firm, but one of them was not realised. The investigation further revealed that four other bills were forged and money was siphoned by Gandhi without exporting any commodity.
The CBI prosecutor Jitendra Sharma examined 12 witnesses and based his case on documentary evidence. However, the court held that there was no evidence of conspiracy for investment against Mohan and junior bank officer Ramchandra Jaiswal (now 63 years old).
The court said, “The incomplete scrutiny can either be due to negligence or a wilful default, of which there is no evidence. Moreover, there is no clarity about the definite role of the branch manager while processing the scrutiny memo.”
