New Delhi: A Delhi court last month cleared Congress leader Jagdish Tytler and businessman Abhishek Verma of all charges in a 15-year-old case of cheating and forgery.
In a 131-page judgment, made public last week, a Rouse Avenue Court judge said the prosecution had failed to prove its allegations beyond reasonable doubt. According to the charges, a fabricated letter in the name of Ajay Maken, who was serving as a Union Minister of State (Home Affairs) at the time, had been used to request relaxation of visa rules for the officials of a Chinese telecom company.
In the ruling, special judge Kaveri Baweja said, “In the light of the evidence, both oral and documentary, brought on record in the course of trial, the arguments advanced by the Prosecution and the Defence and the above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the Prosecution has failed to prove the allegations made in the chargesheet against both the Accused persons.”
ThePrint explains the charges, the evolution of the case, and what the court said in its judgment.
Also Read: Chennai court convicts BJP’s H Raja in two defamation cases for remarks on Periyar, Kanimozhi
Forgery & other charges
The case arose from an FIR lodged in August 2012 by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), based on a complaint by Maken, the Union Minister of State (Independent Charge), Youth Affairs and Sports at the time, that alleged a forged letter on his letterhead was addressed to then Prime Minister Manmohan Singh seeking easing of business visa norms in 2009.
In his complaint, Maken referred to an unsigned letter in his name, published in The Indian Express on 15 July 2012 with the headline ‘Among Verma Papers: An unsigned Maken letter to PM’.
Tytler and Verma, along with officials of ZTE Telecom, among others, were accused of offences under Section 469 (forgery for purpose of harming reputation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), read with Section 8 (bribing of a public servant) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the now struck-off Section 66A (b)(c) (sending false and misleading messages through a communication service) of the Information & Technology Act, 2000.
Visa troubles
According to the chargesheet filed after investigation, the case follows from an August 2009 notification issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs (foreigner division) with certain guidelines for extending visas to foreign nationals.
Along these guidelines, the office of the Deputy Commissioner of Police HQ-cum-Foreigner Registration Officer, Gurgaon, Haryana, issued a letter, on behalf of the MHA, to ZTE Telecom saying that all foreigners on business visas engaged in executing the Chinese company’s project or contracts should leave on expiry of their visas or by 31 October 2009, whichever was earlier.
At this, then-CEO of the company Huang Da-Bin approached DK Ghosh, the then-chief managing director, for help, saying that these directions were adversely affecting them with around 350 employees facing visa troubles. Ghosh, in turn, reached out in October 2009 to businessman Abhishek Verma, who asked him to meet Tytler. The prosecution alleged that Tytler had assured Ghosh of his full cooperation.
Subsequently, Verma, the prosecution alleged, asked company officials to pay Rs 50 lakh to have the visa problems solved through his contacts in the government.
However, a fake letterhead was created in the name of Maken and sent to the then Prime Minister, the prosecution said, adding that the accused demanded a bribe from ZTE Telecom for sorting their visa problems out.
‘Did not stand proved’
The court acquitted Tytler and Verma in the case on 12 November. In its order, the court said that since the person who allegedly forged the letter could not be traced and the means of preparing the forged letter (that is, through the computer on which it was typed, was also not recovered), therefore, the alleged offence under Section 471 (using as genuine a forged document) of the IPC did not stand proved.
“Thus, the best evidence which could have been produced by the Prosecution in this regard, i.e. the letter allegedly handed over by A-1 to PW-13, did not see the light of the day during the entire length of trial. Moreover, there is no explanation as to why no efforts were even made by the IO (Investigating Officer) to seize the said letter,” the court said.
The court also pointed out that since the 2009 notification was recalled later that year, there was no basis for suggesting that a meeting took place between the accused and company officials on 3 November 2009.
“The arguments of learned Sr. PP for CBI that despite the recalling of the said notification, the Accused were still attempting to cheat the officials of ZTE, cannot be accepted in the light of the overall circumstances and the evidence appreciated in its entirety which fails to establish taking place of the meeting,” it said.
Furthermore, it said, Gan Yong, an employee of ZTE Telecom, to whom the monetary demand was allegedly made, did not appear as a witness. The court also added that the allegation that Verma had asked for a bribe from the officials was also nothing less than “hearsay evidence”.
Relying on the 1997 Jibrial Diwan vs State of Maharashtra case, the court said that the Supreme Court had held that delivery of forged letters where there was neither any wrongful gain to anyone nor any wrongful loss could not be termed to have been done dishonestly or to defraud, since “his action resulted in no disadvantage to any one”.
In the 1997 case, the apex court had also ruled that the basic ingredients of the act done “dishonestly” or “fraudulently” for Sections 421 and 465 (punishment for forgery) were missing.
‘Failed to prove the case’
Dismissing the allegations under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the Delhi court said, “There is not a shred of evidence on record to establish even any attempt to obtain any gratification for himself or for any other person.”
Concluding with the cardinal principle of criminal law—the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt—the court said that the prosecution had “miserably failed to prove” the case.
Finally, the Rouse Avenue Court cited the top court’s 2013 ruling in Sujit Biswas vs. State of Assam, to say, “Suspicion, however, grave it may be, cannot take the place of proof, and there is a large difference between something that ‘may be’ proved, and something that ‘will be proved’.”
(Edited by Sanya Mathur)