2 hrs ago
Mumbai Court Rejects Secondary Evidence in Forgery Case
A court in Mumbai is hearing a case about documents that prosecutors say were forged.
The case involves trustees of a charitable trust.
Prosecutors alleged that forged papers helped move Rs 12 crore into the trust’s bank account.
The Enforcement Directorate also brought a money-laundering case.
When the court was preparing to begin the trial, it found that the original papers were missing.
A handwriting expert’s report was still on the court record, but the papers attached to it were not.
Prosecutors asked to use other evidence instead of the missing originals.
The court refused because the prosecution had not explained who had handled or kept the documents, or clearly identified which documents it wanted to prove.
A Mumbai special Prevention of Money Laundering Act court rejected the prosecution’s request to use secondary evidence.
The request followed the discovery that original documents cited in a handwriting expert’s report were missing from the court record.
The forgery case was registered in 2005–06 against trustees of the Sarva Dharma Manav Charitable Trust.
Prosecutors alleged forged documents were used to transfer Rs 12 crore into the trust’s account at State Bank of India’s Wagle Estate branch.
The Enforcement Directorate also filed a money-laundering case, and both cases were transferred to the special court.
- Who
- Trustees of the Sarva Dharma Manav Charitable Trust are accused; the prosecution sought to use secondary evidence.
- What
- A Mumbai court rejected the prosecution’s request to rely on secondary evidence after original case documents were found missing.
- Where
- The special PMLA court at the Mumbai Sessions Court; the original case was registered at a police station in Thane.
- When
- The report is dated October 10, 2026; the underlying case was registered in 2005–06.
- Why
- The court said the application did not explain who had custody of the missing documents or specify which documents the prosecution intended to prove.
Prosecution
Court
Use of secondary evidence
Prosecution
The prosecution asked to rely on secondary evidence because the original documents were missing from the record.
Court
The court rejected the request, citing the application’s failure to explain who had custody of the documents and which documents the prosecution intended to prove.
Key facts
- Case registered
- 2005–06
- Alleged amount
- Rs 12 crore
- Trust
- Sarva Dharma Manav Charitable Trust
- Bank branch cited
- State Bank of India, Wagle Estate branch
- Missing material
- Original documents referenced in a handwriting expert’s report
- Court decision
- Prosecution’s request to rely on secondary evidence was rejected
- Related case
- The Enforcement Directorate filed a money-laundering case
Quotes
Mumbai special PMLA court
The court hearing the forgery and money-laundering case.
“There is nothing mentioned in the application, as who was in custody of the said documents, who has received the documents alongwith Handwriting Expert Report, and who thereafter took it into the custody after it was received from the Forensic Department alongwith the opinion of the Handwriting Expert. There is nothing on record alongwith the present application to know which documents the prosecution is intending to prove.”
freepressjournal.in
Sources
Related news
Bombay High Court Questions Charges Against Nawab Malik
Mumbai Police Book Five in Alleged Mulund Land Record Fraud
Delhi Police Arrest Suspect in ₹21 Crore Forgery Cases
Bombay High Court Warns Mallya Over ED Affidavit
ED Says Mallya Debt Recovery Does Not End Charges
Indore Police Book Two Men In Separate Alleged Fraud Cases
No. 18 Batter’s Kohli-Like Style Goes Viral in Kanga League
Mumbai Police Detain Hundreds Ahead of Proposed Protest
NCLT Mumbai Suspends Court VI, Redistributes Pending Cases
Keshub Mahindra Remembered for Lasting Contributions to Indian Industry
