Daijiworld Media Network - New Delhi

New Delhi, Apr 18: A Delhi court has cleared all surviving accused in a decades-old case involving alleged fabrication of official records in the President’s Secretariat, ruling that the prosecution failed to establish its claims beyond reasonable doubt.

Delivering a detailed verdict, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Jyoti Maheshwari of Rouse Avenue Court acquitted Mohan Lal Jatia, Ashok Jatia, and Ashok Jain of multiple charges under the IPC, effectively closing a case that traces its origins to directions issued by the Supreme Court in 1994.

The proceedings began after the apex court instructed its Registrar General to file a complaint under Section 340 of the CrPC. This led to criminal charges against six individuals, including both public officials and private persons, over allegations of conspiracy and forgery.

At the heart of the case was a disputed representation dated April 11, 1986, which was allegedly submitted to the President of India on April 15 that year in connection with a COFEPOSA detainee. The court noted that the central question was whether this document had ever been officially delivered.

After reviewing decades’ worth of evidence, including documents, witness accounts, and procedural records, the court found that the prosecution could not establish key facts required to support its case. While discrepancies in the Dak Register and expert opinions hinted at possible tampering, the court held that such evidence did not conclusively link the accused to any wrongdoing.

Testimonies from officials of the President’s Secretariat pointed to irregularities in record-keeping, but contradictions among witnesses and gaps in the investigation weakened the prosecution’s case. The court also highlighted the failure to examine crucial witnesses and the lack of direct proof of forgery or conspiracy.

The judgment further acknowledged the extraordinary delay in the trial, noting that several accused had died during the long pendency of the case and that some evidence surfaced decades after the alleged events, limiting its reliability.

Reaffirming a fundamental principle of criminal law, the court emphasized that suspicion alone cannot replace proof, and that guilt must be established beyond reasonable doubt.

Addressing procedural concerns, the court observed that although the complaint filed under Section 340 CrPC did not carry a presiding judge’s signature, it remained valid as it was based on a Supreme Court directive, calling the lapse a minor procedural irregularity.

With the prosecution unable to meet the required legal standard, the court acquitted all remaining accused, bringing to a close a prolonged legal saga that began in the mid-1980s and extended over nearly four decades.