1986 Rashtrapati Bhawan Forgery Case: Delhi Court Acquits All Accused, Says Charges Based On Conjectures

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) Jyoti Maheshwari of the Rouse Avenue Courts cleared Mohan Lal Jatia, Ashok Jatia and Ashok Jain of charges including criminal conspiracy, fabrication of evidence and forgery, holding that the prosecution failed to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt.

Two other accused, Milap Chand Jagotra and Gurcharan Singh, both of whom were serving in the President’s Secretariat at the time of the alleged offence, had died during the pendency of the trial. Proceedings against them were abated.

In a detailed judgment, the court observed that the prosecution’s case was built more on suspicion than proof. “When the evidence is appreciated in its entirety, this Court finds that the prosecution’s case rests on conjectures and inferences, rather than legal proof… On the other hand, the accused persons have been able to cast a serious dent in the case of the prosecution,” the court noted.

The case traces its origins to 1986, when Mohan Lal Jatia, who had been detained under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act (COFEPOSA), challenged his detention before the courts. A key contention raised before the Supreme Court was that a representation had been submitted to the President of India but was never considered.

This claim triggered suspicion over whether such a representation had in fact been made and received. Allegations subsequently emerged that certain individuals had conspired to fabricate evidence by inserting false entries in official records of the President’s Secretariat to show that the representation had been duly submitted.

Acting on these concerns, the Supreme Court in 1994 directed the registration of a criminal case and entrusted the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

During the trial, the prosecution argued that a disputed entry in the Dak (mail) register of the President’s Secretariat had been inserted at a later stage to falsely reflect receipt of the representation. Witnesses pointed to irregularities in the register, and forensic reports were also relied upon to support the allegation of forgery.

However, the court found that the evidence fell short of the legal threshold required for conviction. It held that there was no conclusive material directly linking the surviving accused to the alleged acts of forgery or criminal conspiracy.

Significantly, the court also noted that the foundational allegation; that the representation was never delivered to the President, remained unproven. In the absence of proof on this aspect, the claim that the accused made false statements regarding its submission could not be sustained.

The court further remarked on the prolonged nature of the proceedings, observing that the extraordinary delay may have impacted the availability and quality of evidence. It noted that had the trial concluded earlier, additional material evidence might have emerged to assist in determining the truth.

“Be that as it may, upon a careful appreciation of the material on record, the prosecution has failed to establish the commission of alleged offences by the accused, beyond reasonable doubt,” the court concluded.