The Bombay high court has restrained the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) of the Mumbai police from carrying out any investigation into a case of an alleged forgery and fabrication, after noticing that the commissioner of police transferred the case to the EOW purportedly at the behest of one of the accused, Dilip Chhajed.
Noting that the action of transferring case for reinvestigation to another unit on an application by the accused appeared to be illegal, a division bench of justices Abhay Oka and Amjad Sayed has also asked the commissioner of police to explain the action taken by him. The court has granted the commissioner time till November 30 to file the affidavit.
The bench said the commissioner could not have appointed another agency for reinvestigation at the instance of an accused and the police could not have applied for permission to carry out further investigation consequent to the commissioner’s order. “Prima face, we are of the view that the actions are illegal,” said the judges in this regard.
The bench was hearing a petition filed by Morarjee Textiles Limited challenging the action of the commissioner of transferring the case of forgery, registered with NM Marg police station on June 20, 2015 on the basis of complaint lodged by one of its officers, to the EOW and directing the agency to carry out reinvestigation.
We had strong objection to the fact that the EOW was ordered to carry out reinvestigation after investigation was completed and charge sheet was filed against Dilip Chhajed and his brother Adit, said advocate Pranav Badheka, who represented the Morarjee Textiles Limited. Besides, the other objection was to the fact that the action was taken at behest of the accused, he added.
According to Badheka, the case involved an agreement purportedly executed between Morarjee Textiles and the Chhajed brothers in 2006 and conferring certain rights upon them. But, when we obtained information under provisions of the Right to Information Act, it turned out that the stamp paper used for the document itself was printed in 2009 and the notary who purportedly notarised the agreement had also obtained license only in 2009, and clearly indicating that the document could not have been executed before 2009.
He said the information obtained under the RTI Act clearly indicated that the purported agreement was a product of forgery and fabrication, and therefore police complaint was lodged by the company against Chhajed brothers.