Delhi court acquits all accused in decades-old President's Secretariat forgery case

New Delhi, April 18 A Delhi court on Saturday acquitted all surviving accused in a decades-old case arising out of alleged fabrication of records in the President's Secretariat, saying that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a forged representation was created or that any criminal conspiracy existed.

In a detailed judgment, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Jyoti Maheshwari of the Rouse Avenue Court acquitted Mohan Lal Jatia, Ashok Jatia and Ashok Jain of charges under Sections 120B, 193, 199, 218, 466 and 471 of the IPC, bringing to a close a case that originated from directions issued by the Supreme Court in 1994.

The apex court had directed its Registrar General to file a complaint under Section 340 CrPC, leading to the initiation of criminal proceedings against six accused persons, including public officials and private individuals.

Describing the matter as "the oldest case on the docket of this Court," the judge noted that the prosecution story stemmed from allegations that the accused had conspired to fabricate evidence regarding a representation purportedly submitted to the President of India in April 1986 to secure relief for a COFEPOSA detenu.

"The entire adjudication in the present case revolves around the question, as to whether the written representation dated April 11, 1986, was ever delivered in the Office of President of India on April 15, 1986, or not," the Supreme Court order said.

After an extensive analysis of documentary evidence, witness testimonies and procedural history spanning nearly four decades, the court found that the prosecution failed to establish the foundational facts necessary to sustain the charges.

While the prosecution relied heavily on alleged discrepancies in the Dak Register and expert opinion suggesting insertion of an entry, the court held that such material, in the absence of conclusive linkage to the accused, could not meet the threshold of proof required in criminal law.

Key prosecution witnesses, including officials from the President's Secretariat, testified about procedural aspects of receiving correspondence, with some asserting that the disputed entry in the Dak register appeared to have been inserted subsequently.

In its decision, the court found contradictions in witness testimonies and deficiencies in the investigation, including the non-examination of material witnesses and the absence of conclusive proof linking the accused to the alleged forgery or conspiracy.

The judgment also took note of the prolonged delay in trial, the death of several accused during the pendency of proceedings, and the limited evidentiary value of certain materials produced decades after the institution of the case.

Significantly, the court said that suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute proof in criminal trials and reiterated that the prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The court also examined procedural objections raised by the defence, including the validity of the complaint filed under Section 340 CrPC pursuant to the Supreme Court's directions.

It held that although the complaint did not bear the signature of a presiding judge, the defect was "at best a procedural irregularity" and did not vitiate the proceedings, as the complaint emanated from the Supreme Court's order.

Concluding that the prosecution failed to discharge its burden, the court acquitted all surviving accused persons, saying that no case was made out under the charged provisions.

The judgment marks the end of a long-drawn legal battle that began with proceedings before the Supreme Court in the mid-1980s and culminated in criminal prosecution three decades later.

Disclaimer: This post has been auto-published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text and has not been reviewed by an editor