Introduction
Date of the Judgment: 18th February 2008
Citation: Appeal (crl.) 330 of 2008
Judges: Altamas Kabir, J. and Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.
The Supreme Court addressed the extent to which documents could be examined in a case involving allegations of forgery within the Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust. The core issue revolved around whether a High Court order, initially allowing broad examination of trust documents, was correctly narrowed to focus solely on a specific resolution alleged to be forged. This judgment clarifies the scope of document examination permissible in such cases, balancing the need for thorough investigation with the constraints of ongoing criminal proceedings.
The bench comprised Justice Altamas Kabir and Justice Lokeshwar Singh Panta.
Case Background
The case originates from disputes within the Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust, established on July 5, 1978, by Kirtilal Manilal Mehta. The trust deed stipulated that, as far as possible, only members of the settlor’s family should be appointed as trustees.
Vijay Kirtilal Mehta, the elder brother of appellant Kishor Kirtilal Mehta, was appointed as a trustee on July 22, 1990, for a five-year term. The appellants contended that Vijay Kirtilal Mehta’s term expired in 2005, after a maximum of three terms, as per the trust deed.
On April 5, 2006, Mrs. Charu Kishor Mehta issued a notice for a trustee meeting to fill the vacancy caused by the alleged cessation of Vijay Kirtilal Mehta’s trusteeship. Mrs. Rekha Haresh Sheth, another trustee, sent a letter through her advocate, including minutes of a meeting purportedly held on July 22, 1995, indicating Vijay Kirtilal Mehta’s reappointment as a permanent trustee. The appellants denied signing these minutes, claiming they were fabricated.
Vijay Kirtilal Mehta, on April 8, 2006, asserted that he and his son, Niket Mehta, had been appointed as permanent trustees. A Change Report was filed with the Assistant Charity Commissioner on April 10, 2006, concerning the trusteeship changes.
Subsequently, Kishor Kirtilal Mehta filed a complaint with the Economic Offences Wing of the Bombay Police on May 3, 2006, alleging offences under Sections 120-B, 465, 467, 468, 471, 474, and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, due to alleged forgery and document fabrication.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| July 5, 1978 | Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust established by Kirtilal Manilal Mehta. |
| July 22, 1990 | Vijay Kirtilal Mehta appointed as a trustee for a five-year term. |
| July 22, 1995 | Disputed meeting where Vijay Kirtilal Mehta was allegedly re-appointed as a permanent trustee. |
| April 5, 2006 | Notice issued for a trustee meeting to address Vijay Kirtilal Mehta’s cessation of trusteeship. |
| April 8, 2006 | Vijay Kirtilal Mehta claimed he and his son were appointed as permanent trustees. |
| April 10, 2006 | Change Report filed with the Assistant Charity Commissioner regarding trusteeship changes. |
| May 3, 2006 | Kishor Kirtilal Mehta filed a complaint with the Economic Offences Wing of the Bombay Police. |
| May 13, 2006 | Kishor Kirtilal Mehta filed a complaint before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai. |
| May 18, 2006 | Application filed under Section 94 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for a search warrant. |
| May 22, 2006 | Magistrate directed the Gamdevi Police Station to investigate the allegations. |
| May 27, 2006 | First Information Report (FIR) registered by the Gamdevi Police Station. |
| May 30, 2006 | Suit No. 2444 of 2006 filed before the City Civil Court at Bombay. |
| June 15, 2006 | Magistrate refused the prayer for issuance of a search warrant. |
| June 19, 2006 | Smt. Rekha Sheth disclosed possession of original letters dated July 21, 1994. |
| July 24, 2006 | Notice issued to Kishor Kirtilal Mehta to produce documents. |
| August 23, 2006 | High Court appointed the Chief Examiner of Documents as Court Commissioner. |
| September 8, 2006 | High Court directed the handover of original documents to the Prothonotary. |
| November 7, 2006 | Letter from the Chief Examiner of Documents raised queries about disputed signatures. |
| January 10, 2007 | High Court clarified its order, limiting the scope of document examination. |
| February 18, 2008 | Supreme Court judgment clarifying the scope of document examination. |
Course of Proceedings
Initially, the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate directed an investigation based on the complaint filed by Kishor Kirtilal Mehta, leading to the registration of a First Information Report (FIR). Subsequently, an application for a search warrant was rejected by the Magistrate.
Vijay Kirtilal Mehta then filed a Criminal Writ Petition No. 1581 of 2006 before the High Court of Bombay, seeking to quash the Magistrate’s order and the FIR. The High Court directed the Lilavati Hospital Trust to permit police authorities to inspect and copy the disputed documents.
The appellants, who were not initially parties to the writ petition, intervened and moved an application. The High Court appointed the Chief Examiner of Documents, Government of Maharashtra, as a Court Commissioner to examine specific documents, including the Minutes Book of the Trust and original letters and resolutions.
Following a letter from the Chief Examiner seeking clarification on disputed signatures, the matter was placed before a different bench of the High Court. This bench modified the earlier order, leading to the Supreme Court appeal.
Legal Framework
The legal framework relevant to this case includes several sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which address offences related to forgery and fraud:
- Section 120-B, IPC: This section deals with criminal conspiracy, punishing those who are part of an agreement to commit an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means.
- Section 465, IPC: This section defines and punishes the act of forgery, prescribing imprisonment and fines for those who make false documents with the intent to cause damage or injury.
- Section 467, IPC: This section addresses the forgery of valuable security, wills, or authority to adopt, prescribing more severe penalties due to the significance of the documents involved.
- Section 468, IPC: This section deals with forgery for the purpose of cheating, penalizing those who forge documents with the intention of deceiving others.
- Section 471, IPC: This section covers using as genuine a forged document, punishing those who knowingly use a forged document as if it were authentic.
- Section 474, IPC: This section pertains to possessing forged documents intended to be used for unlawful purposes.
- Section 420, IPC: This section defines cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, penalizing those who deceive others into parting with their assets.
Additionally, Section 94 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) is relevant as it pertains to the issuance of search warrants for the seizure of documents.
Arguments
Arguments by the Appellants (Kishor Kirtilal Mehta & Ors):
- Dr. A.M. Singhvi, appearing for the appellants, argued that the High Court’s order dated 10.1.2007, curtailed the scope of the earlier order dated 23.8.2006.
- The initial order directed the Chief Examiner of Documents to examine the Minutes Book running into 150 pages, all three original letters dated 21.7.1995, and all three original extracts of the Resolution dated 22.7.1995.
- Dr. Singhvi contended that the High Court’s clarification, limiting the examination to the Resolution dated 22.7.1995, undermined the purpose of proving the fabrication of the Minutes Book.
- He highlighted instances in the Minutes Book where the expression ‘Mumbai’ was used in 1993, suggesting fabrication as ‘Bombay’ was the prevalent term then.
- Dr. Singhvi referred to a report by Justice Halbe, indicating misappropriation of Trust funds by the respondent No.1 and other Trustees, emphasizing the need for a thorough examination of all resolutions in the Minutes Book.
Arguments by the Respondents (Vijay Kirtilal Mehta & Ors):
- Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents, argued that since the criminal complaint was pending, the complainant could not dictate the manner of investigation.
- He submitted that the complaint originated after the appellant inspected the Minutes Book in Suit No.2444 of 2006, seeking a declaration that the Minutes of the meeting held on 21.7.95 and the Resolution adopted therein were forged.
- Mr. Kumar argued that the reference to the Minutes Book in the order of 23.8.2006 should be read with paragraph 7, which allowed parties to assist the Hand-writing Expert in identifying documents related to the Resolution dated 22.7.1995.
- He countered the appellant’s claim about the use of ‘Mumbai’ by stating that the expression was in use among the Gujarati community in Bombay long before its official recognition.
- Mr. Kumar referred to the testimony of Charu Kishore Mehta, who admitted that Vijay Kirtilal Mehta was the Managing Trustee and CEO of the Lilavati Hospital.
- He also referenced a chargesheet filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation against the appellant No.1, highlighting his alleged criminal antecedents.
Arguments by the State:
- Mr. P.B. Sawant, learned senior counsel, referred to the first complaint made by the appellant No.1, emphasizing that the scope of the enquiry was focused on the alleged fabrication of the Minutes of the meeting held on 22nd July, 1995.
- He submitted that the directions of the Court to disregard the letter sent by the appellant No.1 were appropriate, and no interference was called for with the High Court’s judgment.
Submissions Categorized by Main Arguments
| Main Argument | Appellant’s Submissions | Respondent’s Submissions | State’s Submissions |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of Document Examination | High Court’s clarification curtailed the scope of the initial order; entire Minutes Book should be examined. | Complainant cannot dictate the manner of investigation; examination should be limited to the Resolution dated 22.7.1995. | Enquiry focused on the alleged fabrication of the Minutes of the meeting held on 22nd July, 1995. |
| Evidence of Fabrication | Use of ‘Mumbai’ in 1993 minutes suggests fabrication; report by Justice Halbe indicates misappropriation of Trust funds. | ‘Mumbai’ was in use among the Gujarati community before its official recognition; Chairman’s signature at a later date does not indicate fabrication. | – |
| Testimony and Admissions | – | Charu Kishore Mehta admitted Vijay Kirtilal Mehta was the Managing Trustee and CEO of the Lilavati Hospital. | – |
| Criminal Antecedents | – | Chargesheet filed by the CBI against the appellant No.1. | – |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court addressed the following key issues:
- What is the scope of the order passed by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court on 23.8.2006 in Criminal Writ Petition No.1581 of 2006 filed by Vijay Kirtilal Mehta, in regard to the examination of the documents enumerated in paragraph 4 of the order in relation to the subsequent order of 10.1.2007 impugned in this appeal?
- Whether the scope and ambit of the directions contained in paragraphs 4 and 7 of the aforesaid order dated 23.8.2006 have in any way been circumscribed by the subsequent order dated 10.1.2007?
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Brief Reasons |
|---|---|---|
| Scope of the order passed by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court on 23.8.2006 in relation to the subsequent order of 10.1.2007 | The High Court’s order of 10.1.2007 was upheld. | The High Court was compelled to pass such order on account of the dispute raised about the authenticity of various signatures in the Minutes Book. |
| Whether the scope and ambit of the directions contained in paragraphs 4 and 7 of the order dated 23.8.2006 have been circumscribed by the subsequent order dated 10.1.2007 | The High Court did not restrict further examination of the Minutes Book, if required, but for the purpose of the complaint filed before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, the examination by the Handwriting Expert of the Minutes of the meeting held on 21st July, 1995, was sufficient. | The directions contained in the order passed by the Bombay High Court on 23rd August, 2006, was made on the basis of the complaint before the Magistrate and not on the basis of what had been discovered when the Minutes Book had been produced before the City Civil Court at Bombay in connection with Suit No.2444 of 2006 filed by the appellant No.1 herein. |
Authorities
| Authority | Court | How Considered | Legal Point |
|---|---|---|---|
| Section 120-B, IPC | Indian Penal Code | Considered | Criminal conspiracy |
| Section 465, IPC | Indian Penal Code | Considered | Forgery |
| Section 467, IPC | Indian Penal Code | Considered | Forgery of valuable security |
| Section 468, IPC | Indian Penal Code | Considered | Forgery for the purpose of cheating |
| Section 471, IPC | Indian Penal Code | Considered | Using as genuine a forged document |
| Section 474, IPC | Indian Penal Code | Considered | Possessing forged documents intended to be used for unlawful purposes |
| Section 420, IPC | Indian Penal Code | Considered | Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property |
| Section 94, CrPC | Code of Criminal Procedure | Considered | Issuance of search warrants for the seizure of documents |
Judgment
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Bombay High Court’s order of 10th January 2007. The Court clarified that the High Court’s directions were made in the present context and would not preclude further examination of the Minutes Book if necessary.
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Party | Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|---|
| Appellants | High Court’s clarification curtailed the scope of the initial order; entire Minutes Book should be examined. | The Court held that the High Court did not restrict further examination of the Minutes Book, if required, but for the purpose of the complaint filed before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, the examination by the Handwriting Expert of the Minutes of the meeting held on 21st July, 1995, was sufficient. |
| Respondents | Complainant cannot dictate the manner of investigation; examination should be limited to the Resolution dated 22.7.1995. | The Court agreed that the directions contained in the order passed by the Bombay High Court on 23rd August, 2006, was made on the basis of the complaint before the Magistrate and not on the basis of what had been discovered when the Minutes Book had been produced before the City Civil Court at Bombay in connection with Suit No.2444 of 2006 filed by the appellant No.1 herein. |
| State | The scope of the enquiry was focused on the alleged fabrication of the Minutes of the meeting held on 22nd July, 1995. | The Court acknowledged that the focus of the complaint was on the alleged fabrication of the Minutes of the meeting held on 22nd July, 1995. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
The Court considered the relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to determine the scope of the investigation and the powers of the Magistrate and the High Court.
- Sections 120-B, 465, 467, 468, 471, 474, and 420 of the IPC: These sections were considered in the context of the allegations of forgery and fraud made by the appellants.
- Section 94 of the CrPC: This section was considered in relation to the issuance of search warrants for the seizure of documents.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Court’s decision was influenced by the following factors:
- The initial complaint filed by the appellant No.1 focused on the alleged fabrication of the Minutes of the meeting held on 22nd July, 1995.
- The High Court’s awareness of the new materials discovered by the appellants after examining the Minutes Book.
- The fact that the directions contained in the order passed by the Bombay High Court on 23rd August, 2006, were made on the basis of the complaint before the Magistrate and not on the basis of what had been discovered when the Minutes Book had been produced before the City Civil Court at Bombay.
- The High Court’s view that the examination by the Handwriting Expert of the Minutes of the meeting held on 21st July, 1995, was sufficient for the purpose of the complaint filed before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate.
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Focus on Initial Complaint | 30% |
| High Court’s Awareness of New Materials | 25% |
| Basis of High Court’s Directions | 25% |
| Sufficiency of Examination by Handwriting Expert | 20% |
Fact:Law Ratio
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 60% |
| Law | 40% |
Logical Reasoning
Issue 1: Scope of the order passed by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court
↓
Step 1: Initial Complaint Focused on Fabrication of Minutes of Meeting held on 22nd July, 1995
↓
Step 2: High Court Aware of New Materials Discovered After Examining Minutes Book
↓
Step 3: High Court’s Directions Based on Complaint Before Magistrate
↓
Step 4: Examination by Handwriting Expert of Minutes of Meeting held on 21st July, 1995, Sufficient
↓
Conclusion: High Court’s order of 10th January 2007 upheld
Key Takeaways
- The scope of document examination in cases involving allegations of forgery is determined by the specific allegations made in the complaint.
- The High Court has the power to modify its orders based on the circumstances of the case.
- The Court may allow further examination of documents if necessary.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of the case is that the scope of document examination in cases involving allegations of forgery is determined by the specific allegations made in the complaint. The High Court has the power to modify its orders based on the circumstances of the case.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Bombay High Court’s order of 10th January 2007, clarifying that the scope of document examination is determined by the specific allegations made in the complaint and that the High Court has the power to modify its orders based on the circumstances of the case.