Recently, a Mumbai sessions court has declined anticipatory bail to Senior Advocate and notary Ramji Gupta, accused of facilitating the preparation of forged trust documents, observing that his long-standing practice demanded a higher standard of probity.
Additional Sessions Judge N.G. Shukla, while pronouncing the order last week, held that the material placed on record raised serious doubts about the veracity of the notarization in question. The detailed order noted that the trust’s chairman, whose purported signature appeared on the disputed “conducting agreement”, was hospitalised with a fracture from July 8, 2020, until his demise on August 16, 2020. The court considered it “highly improbable” that the chairman could have personally appeared at Gupta’s office on July 11, 2020, to execute and register the document.
Gupta has been booked by the Economic Offences Wing of the Mumbai Police under provisions relating to cheating, forgery, and criminal breach of trust. The prosecution contends that the agreement was notarized under Gupta’s seal despite being executed through impersonation, and that he actively abetted the co-accused in fabricating the instrument.
The Additional Public Prosecutor, Chaitrali Panshikar, drew the court’s attention to alleged overwriting in Gupta’s notary register, indicating that the entry for the agreement may have been interpolated after registration of the FIR. This, the prosecution submitted, warranted custodial interrogation to ascertain when the entry was made and to identify the individual who had signed as the chairman.
In his defence, Gupta argued that his involvement was limited to the act of notarization, that he had produced his notary register and licence for inspection, and that the case was documentary in nature, negating the need for custodial questioning.
While rejecting these submissions, the court emphasised that a notary with over three decades of experience is expected to exercise heightened diligence in certifying documents. The judge concluded that custodial interrogation was necessary to clarify the circumstances surrounding the notarization and the authenticity of the disputed entry.
Picture Source :
