Ex-official of Balwa firm confesses to forgery | delhi | Hindustan Times
Today in New Delhi, India
Sep 26, 2017-Tuesday
-°C
New Delhi
  • Humidity
    -
  • Wind
    -

Ex-official of Balwa firm confesses to forgery

Former company secretary of Swan Telecom, Deodatta Pandit, has admitted that he forged documents in October 2007 to show that shares from a Reliance ADAG firm, Giraffe Consultancy, were transferred to Shahid Balwa-owned DB Realty in February 2007.

delhi Updated: Apr 13, 2011 01:24 IST
Bhadra Sinha

Former company secretary of Swan Telecom, Deodatta Pandit, has admitted that he forged documents in October 2007 to show that shares from a Reliance ADAG firm, Giraffe Consultancy, were transferred to Shahid Balwa-owned DB Realty in February 2007.

Pandit said in a statement recorded under section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code on March 23, 2011 in Delhi that he prepared false minutes of the Giraffe board meeting that was supposed to have been held on February 25, 2007.

He admitted that although the meeting never took place, he prepared the minutes on the basis of the share transfer applications provided by Asif Balwa, another director of Swan Telecom.

Pandit said he then gave the draft to Shahid Balwa and “after getting it signed, he returned it to me which I filed."

Pandit also said that before Swan was transferred to DB Realty, its records and details related to shareholdings were maintained in digital form.

But after the share transfer, he converted it into pen-and-paper format, attaching the forged documents to the file. Pandit’s statement supports CBI allegations that Balwa and Swam Telecom director Vinod Goenka forged documents, including minutes of a board meeting of Giraffe, to show the shares were transferred in February 2007.

Swan Telecom was not eligible when it applied for the 2G spectrum licence in March 2007 as the majority stakeholder then continued to be Giraffe, an associate company of Reliance ADAG, which was already a mobile telephony company.

Balwa’s counsel, Vijay Aggarwal, however, said: “If he (Pandit) claims he has done it on the instructions of someone, he is equally responsible for the crime as an abettor. Such statements have no meaning in the eyes of the law.”