‘Prima Facie Forgery, No Equity For Practising Fraud Before Court’: Calcutta High Court Proposes Perjury Action Against School Headmaster

The Calcutta High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by the headmaster of Bora Junior High School (“school”) and directed for a criminal investigation and trial against him, upon perusing expert evidence which prima facie indicated that signatures in one of the main documents relied upon by him, were forged.

Court also directed initiation of perjury proceedings in case the petitioner was found to be guilty of forging the aforesaid signature.

In dismissing the petition, and refusing to exercise equitable jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner due to the alleged fraud perpetrated by him, a single-bench of Justice Aniruddha Roy held:

Once the expert has opined that the alleged signature appearing on the document was not the signature of Uday Das, [it] would definitely create a doubt in the mind of the Court that fraud might have been perpetrated and practiced upon this Court. The moment a cloud is created in the mind of the Writ Court as to the authenticity and existence of a document, which is the sole basis of the writ petition and that too with the allegation of fraud against the petitioner practiced on Court, no equity shall be exercised in favour of the petitioner. It is settled that he who seeks equity must apply before the Court of equity with clean hands. The Court of equity cannot and should not indulge the applicant who, prima facie, applies with unclean hands.

For the foregoing discussions and reasons the CID is directed to lodge the necessary FIR and go on investigation…the criminal case shall arrive its logical conclusion as expeditiously as possible before the Jurisdictional Criminal Court. After completion of the criminal trial, if the result goes against the petitioner then the jurisdictional criminal court who shall conclude the trial shall refer the matter before the jurisdictional magistrate to take cognizance against the petitioner for perjury.

These observations came in a writ petition preferred by petitioner against private respondents, who were engaged in the management of the school, alleging mismanagement, misappropriation of funds, etc.

It was argued by the petitioner that the respondents had not allowed him to attend school, and that upon earlier directions of a co-ordinate bench, the petitioner had applied before the District Inspector of Schools (DI), due to whose directions he had been reinstated as headmaster.

Petitioner submitted that due to the continuing mismanagement, he had once again complained to the DI as well as secretary of the school, complaining of various administrative and logistical difficulties being created by the school management in the discharge of his duties.

In earlier proceedings, petitioner’s counsel had placed heavy reliance on a document signed by one Uday Das, who was Secretary of the school’s managing committee to show that the petitioner had not be allowed to join the school in his capacity as headmaster, thereby infringing his right of employment.

In reply, however, the respondents had submitted that the signature on the document being relied on by the petitioners was not of Uday Das, and the same had been forged, thereby “practicing fraud upon the Court as also upon the school authority on oath.”

In taking these submissions into account the Court had directed the Crime Investigation Department, West Bengal (“CID”) to submit a report in the matter.

At the present hearing, the Court perused the report filed by the CID, which had prima facie concluded that the signature on copies of the document had indeed been forged, and were not in original.

It was argued by the petitioners, that the CID’s observations involved disputed facts and were on the basis on an incomplete enquiry, which could not form the basis of the Court’s opinion in exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Counsel for petitioners argued that no clear case of fraud had been made out, and that in any case, fraud could not be alleged against the petitioner, who was not the maker of the document, which had been prepared by Uday Das.

Petitioners submitted that fraud would have to be proved through the existence of a false representation. Since the impugned document had been prepared by the Managing committee, and not the petitioner, he could not be termed to be a party to the alleged fraud, the petitioners argued.

The respondents, on the other hand argued that the document in question had been manufactured at the instance of the writ petitioner, who could not be entitled to any relief arising out of it.

Respondents submitted that a specific case of fraud had been argued, and that “fraud vitiates everything” due to which the writ petition would need to be dismissed.

In perusing the report of the CID and the submissions advanced by both parties, the Court was of the view that a prima facie case of fraud perpetrated by the petitioner had been made out by the CID’s experts, based on copies of the document, since the petitioner had failed to produce the original document even after repeated requests of the investigation agency.

Court held that while expert evidence could not be taken to be conclusive, the need for a criminal investigation and trial on the same had been made out. The Bench opined:

An expert opinion is always open for scrutiny and cannot be used as a conclusive evidence until the opinion is proved to be a testimony founded on a conclusive proof. It is equally settled that when a dispute as regards the authenticity of a document as to the signature or handwriting appearing thereon is questioned, the Court not being an expert on the subject is free to take assistance from the expert and the Court may form its prima facie view on the basis of such experts opinion, as in the facts of this case.

On a careful scrutiny of the said report filed by CID, it appeared to this Court, despite requests the petitioner failed to produce the original document in the writ petition. The expert upon examination of the copy of the said document and upon examination of Uday Das came to a finding that the document was not signed by Uday Das. Relying upon the said document the petitioner has built up its case in the writ petition. The original document should be and supposed to be in the custody of the petitioner and in absence of the original being produced by the petitioner the Adverse Presumption goes against the petitioner. Once the question of forgery arose in the mind of this Court, as in the facts of this case, this Court, as of the view that, it is a fit case where a properly constituted criminal trial is required to be instituted in accordance with law.

Case: Subhas Chandra Patra Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Coram: Justice Aniruddha Roy

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 234

Click Here To Read/Download Order