Delhi District Court
Supreme Court Of India vs Milap Chand Jagotra on 27 March, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. JYOTI MAHESHWARI,
ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE-05,
ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURT, NEW DELHI
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Vs. MILAP CHAND JAGOTRA &
ORS.
Case No. Ct Cases/36/2019 RC No.299/1
CNR No. DLCT12-000739-2019
Under Sections: 120B/193/199/218/466/471 IPC
Date of Institution : 23.08.1994
Date of Reserving : 27.02.2026
Date of Pronouncement : 27.03.2026
a) Serial number of the case : CBI/36/2019
b) Period of commission of : April 1986
offence
c) Name of the complainant : Supreme Court of India, through
its Registrar General.
d) Name, parentage and : 1. Milap Chand Jagotra, S/o Late
address of the accused Sh. Beli Ram, the-then Lower
persons Division Clerk, CR Section,
President's Secretariat, New
Delhi, R/o K-4, Sr. Citizens Home
Complex, P-4, Greater Noida
(UP) (Proceedings against him
have already been abated vide
order dated 22.08.2023).
2. Gurcharan Singh, S/o Sh.
Bishan Singh, the-then Senior
Hindi Translator, Personnel Cell,
President's House, New Delhi
(Proceedings against him have
already been abated vide order
Supreme Court of India Vs. Milap Chand Jagotra Page no. 1 of 82
Digitally signed
by JYOTI
MAHESHWARI
JYOTI
MAHESHWARI Date:
2026.03.27
16:45:31
+0530
dated 25.05.2022).
3. Mohan Lal Jatia, S/o Sh. Ram
Gopal Jatia, R/o 81, Jatia Sadan,
Worli Sea Face, Bombay.
4. Pushpa Devi Jatia, W/o Sh.
Mohan Lal Jatia, R/o 81, Jatia
Sadan, Worli Sea Face, Bombay
(The accused expired on
17.03.2019 and the proceedings
against her have already been
abated).
5. Ashok Jatia, S/o Sh. Ganesh
Narayan, R/o 81, Jatia Sadan,
Worli Sea Face, Bombay.
6. Ashok Jain, S/o Late Sh. B.R.
Jain, R/o 5291/93, Kolhapur
House, Kamla Nagar, Delhi.
e) Offence complained of : Section 120 r/w Sections
193/199/218/466/471 IPC.
f) Plea of the accused : Accused persons pleaded not
guilty and claim trial.
g) Final Order : ACQUITTAL
h) Date of Decision : 27.03.2026
Digitally signed
by JYOTI
MAHESHWARI
JYOTI
MAHESHWARI Date:
2026.03.27
16:46:02
+0530
Supreme Court of India Vs. Milap Chand Jagotra Page no. 2 of 82
INDEX OF THE JUDGMENT
S.No. Particulars Page No.
1. Index of abbreviations and references used 5
2. Case of the Prosecution 6
3. Charge 9
4. Prosecution Evidence 10
5. Statement of the accused persons u/S 313 28
CrPC
6. Final Arguments 29
I) Arguments raised by the prosecution 29
II) Arguments raised on behalf of accused 32
Mohan Lal Jatia (A-3)
III) Arguments raised on behalf of accused 34
Ashok Jatia (A-5)
IV) Arguments raised on behalf of accused 35
Ashok Jain (A-6)
7. Analysis and findings 36
A. Whether the procedure u/S 340 CrPC was 37
followed in the present case?
B. The question of delivery of alleged 41
representation dated 11.04.1986 in the
President's Secretariat.
Supreme Court of India Vs. Milap Chand Jagotra Page no. 3 of 82
Digitally
signed by
JYOTI
JYOTI MAHESHWARI
MAHESHWARI Date:
2026.03.27
16:46:19
+0530
(i) The controversy regarding stamps/ used on 43
the alleged representation.
(ii) The controversy regarding the alleged 48
representation being delivered in a sealed
envelope or open cover.
(iii) The requirement of being issued a visitor 54
pass.
(iv) Other contentions raised regarding the 55
alleged interpolated entry (Ex.PW-5/A).
C. The alleged commission of offences u/S 59
466/471 IPC.
D. The offence of criminal conspiracy u/S 68
120B, IPC.
E. Additional contentions raised on behalf of 70
the parties.
(i) The effect of death of A-1 and A-2 on the 70
present proceedings.
(ii) No whisper of the alleged representation in 71
SLP (Crl.) No. 1370/86, filed on behalf of
Late Ms. Pushpa Devi Jatia (A-4).
(iii) The effect of non-examination of material 73
witnesses.
8. Conclusion 78
Supreme Court of India Vs. Milap Chand Jagotra Page no. 4 of 82
Digitally
signed by
JYOTI
JYOTI MAHESHWARI
MAHESHWARI Date:
2026.03.27
16:46:26
+0530
9. Annexure 79
A. List of witnesses examined. 79
B. Standard chart of exhibited documents. 80
INDEX OF ABBREVIATIONS AND REFERENCES USED
S. No. Abbreviation Full Form
1. CR Central Registry
2. DS Deputy Secretary
3. PSP (KS) Private Secretary to the President (Sh.
Kulwant Singh)
4. COFEPOSA Conservation of Foreign Exchange and
Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act,
1974
5. WP Writ Petition
6. SLP Special Leave Petition
7. CMP Criminal Miscellaneous Petition
The word "Rashtrapati Bhawan" and "President's Secretariat" have
been used interchangeably.
Supreme Court of India Vs. Milap Chand Jagotra Page no. 5 of 82
JYOTI
MAHESHWARI
Digitally signed by
JYOTI MAHESHWARI
Date: 2026.03.27
16:46:35 +0530
JUDGMENT
1. The present case is the oldest case on the docket of this Court
and presents a unique factual matrix, where the complainant is the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. Vide this Judgment, the Court shall
determine whether the accused persons, namely, Mohan Lal Jatia,
Ashok Jatia and Ashok Jain are guilty of the offences punishable, u/S
120B r/w Sections 193/199/218/466/471 IPC, for which they are
charged in the present case.
CASE OF THE PROSECUTION
2. The genesis of the present case lies in the Order of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India, dated 20.07.1994, in Writ Petition (Crl.)
No.363/86 and Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.1370/86, directing the
Registrar General, Supreme Court of India to file a complaint before a
Court of competent jurisdiction, against the accused persons, namely,
Milap Chand Jagotra (A-1), Gurcharan Singh (A-2), Mohan Lal Jatia
(A-3), Pushpa Devi Jatia (A-4), Ashok Jatia (A-5) and Ashok Jain
(A-6).
3. The brief backdrop, leading to the institution of the present
complaint, is that the accused Mohan Lal Jatia (A-3) was detained
under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of
Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA), vide detention Order
dated 13.12.1985. The said Detention Order was challenged by his
Supreme Court of India Vs. Milap Chand Jagotra Page no. 6 of 82
Digitally
signed by
JYOTI
JYOTI MAHESHWARI
MAHESHWARI Date:
2026.03.27
16:46:43
+0530
wife, Late Ms. Pushpa Devi Jatia (A-4), before the Hon’ble Bombay
High Court vide Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 385/86. The said Writ Petition
was dismissed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court vide Order dated
02/03.05.1986.
4. Aggrieved by the said Order, Ms. Pushpa Devi Jatia (A-4) filed a
Special Leave Petition SLP (Crl.) No. 1370/86 before the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India on 06.05.1986. Additionally, a Writ Petition
(Crl.) No. 363/86 was also filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court on
11.07.1986, wherein, one of the grounds was that a written
representation dated 11.04.1986, was made to the President of India
and the same was received in the Secretariat of the President of India
on 15.04.1986. It was contended that despite the said representation
being filed and delivered, the same was not considered and no reply
was received by the detenu Mohan Lal Jatia (A-3).
5. The said SLP (Crl.) No. 1370/86 and WP (Crl.) No. 363/86 were
taken up together and came up for hearing before the Hon’ble Supreme
Court on 19.07.1986 and notice was issued to the Union of India. On
26.08.1986, the Dak Register from the office of Rashtrapati Bhawan,
was produced before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. During the
course of hearing, it was directed by the Hon’ble Court to file an
affidavit of the person, who had allegedly submitted the representation
in the Secretariat of Rashtrapati Bhawan. Consequently, on
29.08.1986, the accused Ashok Jain (A-6) filed an affidavit stating that
Supreme Court of India Vs. Milap Chand Jagotra Page no. 7 of 82
Digitally
signed by
JYOTI
JYOTI MAHESHWARI
MAHESHWARI Date:
2026.03.27
16:46:48
+0530
he had submitted the representation on 15.04.1986 in the President’s
Secretariat.
6. Sh. K.C. Singh, the-then Deputy Secretary to the President of
India also filed a reply affidavit dated 03.09.1986 before the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India, stating that the accused Ashok Jain (A-6) had
never delivered the written representation at Rashtrapati Bhawan. He
also further stated in the affidavit that “the Office of President of India
is enquiring into the circumstances, as to how the entry of said written
representation is made in the DAK Register meant for unopened
letters.”
7. Subsequently, on 12.09.1986, a Criminal Miscellaneous Petition
(CMP) No. 4164/86 was filed by Union of India before the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India, alleging that the accused persons, namely,
Mohan Lal Jatia (A-3), Pushpa Devi Jatia (A-4), Ashok Jatia (A-5) and
Ashok Jain (A-6), entered into a conspiracy with each other and
created/ tendered false evidence to secure the release of the detenu i.e.
Mohan Lal Jatia (A-3).
8. Vide Order dated 01.05.1987, in Crl. Misc Petition No. 4164/86,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court ordered the Director of CBI to investigate
into the matter, and in pursuance of the same, the-then SP, CBI
submitted his report before the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 31.01.1989.
The SP, CBI vide his report dated 31.01.1989, recommended for filing
a complaint against accused persons, namely, Mohan Lal Jatia, Smt.
Supreme Court of India Vs. Milap Chand Jagotra Page no. 8 of 82
Digitally signed
by JYOTI
MAHESHWARI
JYOTI
MAHESHWARI Date:
2026.03.27
16:46:55
+0530
Pushpadevi Jatia, Ashok Jatia, Ashok Jain (Private persons) and the
Government servants, namely, Gurcharan Singh and Milap Chand, for
commission of offences u/S 120-B r/w Sections 193, 199, 218, 466 and
471 IPC, as per provisions of Section 195 Cr.PC.
9. Consequently, vide Order dated 20.07.1994, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India directed the Registrar General to file a
complaint, in terms of Section 195 r/w Section 340, CrPC, before a
Court of competent jurisdiction against the aforementioned 6 accused
persons. Pursuant to the above directions, the said complaint was filed
on 19.08.1994 u/S 340 CrPC, before the-then Ld. CMM, New Delhi,
by the Registrar General, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
10. Vide Order dated 23.08.1994, the-then Ld. MM, in accordance
with the procedure laid down in Section 343 CrPC; took cognizance of
the offences u/S 120B/193/199/218/466/471 IPC as disclosed in the
complaint, and accordingly, all the accused persons were summoned.
CHARGE
11. Vide Order dated 28.06.2013, the aspect of charge was decided
and it was held that charges be framed against the accused persons,
namely, Milap Chand Jagotra (A-1), Gurcharan Singh (A-2), Mohan
Lal Jatia (A-3), Pushpa Devi Jatia (A-4), Ashok Jatia (A-5) and Ashok
Jain (A-6), u/S 120B r/w 193/199/218/466/471 IPC. Accordingly,
charges were framed against all the accused persons on 02.07.2013, to
Supreme Court of India Vs. Milap Chand Jagotra Page no. 9 of 82
JYOTI
MAHESHWARI
Digitally signed by
JYOTI MAHESHWARI
Date: 2026.03.27
16:47:01 +0530
which they pleaded non guilty and claimed trial. The matter was then
listed for prosecution evidence.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
12. The prosecution, in order to prove and substantiate its case, has
examined 10 witnesses. Since the present case hinges heavily on the
testimony of the prosecution witnesses, their testimonies are being
discussed in detail, in the following paragraphs:
(i) PW-1 Sarnjit Singh Bhamra: He joined the President’s
Secretariat in May, 1984 as an Lower Division Clerk (LDC) in the
Public-1 Section and thereafter, he was transferred to Central Registry.
The witness used to sit at the Dak Receipt Counter of CR section and
his duty was to receive dak from individuals, Government officials,
diplomats etc. and place the same before the Section Officer and then
diarising the same in the concerned registers maintained section-wise
etc.
ï‚· The witness testified that he would also give printed
acknowledgment to individuals, if they asked for the same. In the case
of Dak received from Government offices, a stamp was affixed as
acknowledgment on the peon book of the concerned offices.
Supreme Court of India Vs. Milap Chand Jagotra Page no. 10 of 82
Digitally
signed by
JYOTI
JYOTI MAHESHWARI
MAHESHWARI Date:
2026.03.27
16:47:07
+0530
ï‚· The witness categorically deposed that there was no provision to
give acknowledgment on carbon copy or hand-written or duplicate
copy of petition/letter of individuals.
ï‚· As regards the procedure of receiving dak, the witness testified
that at the time of receiving dak from any individuals or from
Government Officers, no diary number was given. He further deposed
that after diarising the Dak marked by Section Officer, the same used
to be sent to the concerned Section, through Peon/ Zamadar.
ï‚· The witness also identified Register no. 8 i.e. the Dak Register in
question and deposed that the Register was maintained in the CR
Section of Rashtrapati Bhawan, w.e.f. 01.01.1986 to 11.08.1986. The
witness also identified that entry no. 19 dated 15.04.1986, and entry
no. 20-A dated 16.04.1986 was in his handwriting, but the letter ‘A’ in
the said entry was not written by him and was inserted subsequently.
ï‚· During the course of his testimony, the witness also
categorically deposed that the entry in question i.e. Entry No. 20 dated
15.04.1986 was not there in the Register, when he made the above
entries i.e. Entry No. 19 as well as Entry No. 20A. Moreover, he also
testified that there was no procedure or practice to make any particular
entry by adding the letter ‘A’ or ‘B’ or any other letter in the said
register or in any other register maintained in CR Section, during the
relevant period. The witness deposed that upon inquiry, it was revealed
that the entry in question had been forged.
Supreme Court of India Vs. Milap Chand Jagotra Page no. 11 of 82
Digitally signed
by JYOTI
MAHESHWARI
JYOTI
MAHESHWARI Date:
2026.03.27
16:47:30
+0530
ï‚· The following documents were exhibited during the course of
his examination-in-chief:
S.No. Exhibit No. Description
1. Ex. PW-1/1 (D-10) Dak Register (Register No. 8)
Ex. PW-1/A Entry No. 19 dated 15.04.1986, in the Dak
Register.
2. Ex. PW-1/B Entry No. 20A dated 16.04.1986, in the Dak
Register.
ï‚· During the cross-examination of witness, he deposed that the
CBI had not sought any document or circular from him, regarding his
place of posting on 15.04.1986. He also deposed that during the course
of his official duties, he did not come across the Representation dated
11.04.1986, and thus was unable to respond as to whether the same
was received in a closed envelope or in an open condition.
ï‚· He also deposed that PSP (KS) in the disputed entry referred to
Private Secretary to President and KS referred to Sh. Kulwant Singh.
He also deposed that CR section used to remain open 24 hours a day
and Daks used to be received even after 5:30 pm, during the relevant
period.
ï‚· During his subsequent cross-examination dated 16.09.2013, he
testified that there was no practice to give diary number on the
acknowledgment, but he admitted that he was not aware of any
Supreme Court of India Vs. Milap Chand Jagotra Page no. 12 of 82
Digitally signed
by JYOTI
MAHESHWARI
JYOTI
MAHESHWARI Date:
2026.03.27
16:47:39
+0530
instructions/ rules/ circulars in this regard, issued by the competent
authority.
(ii) PW-2 Yogender Kumar: The said witness was working as an
LDC in the CR Section of the President’s Secretariat, President House,
New Delhi in the year 1986. His duties involved making entries of
outward letters in the register maintained in the CR section of the
President’s Secretariat and thereafter, dispatch them to the concerned
branch/ offices.
ï‚· The witness testified that besides him, Milap Chand Jagotra
LDC, S.C. Barau, M.S. Siddiqui, B.N. Sharma and Chotte Lal were
also posted in the CR Section and were also performing a similar job of
making entries in the relevant Registers.
ï‚· The witness testified that during the relevant time, Sh. I.D.
Jajoria (PW-5) was the Section Officer. The witness deposed that entry
no. 17 dated 13.04.1986 and entry no. 22 dated 18.04.1986, in the Dak
Register (Ex. PW1/1) was in his handwriting.
ï‚· The witness also identified the attendance register (D-15), which
was maintained in the CR Section in the year 1986 and the same was
exhibited as Ex.PW-2/A.
ï‚· The witness testified that on 15.04.1986, his duty hours were
from 6:00 pm to 10:00 am the next day and identified his initials at
Supreme Court of India Vs. Milap Chand Jagotra Page no. 13 of 82
Digitally
signed by
JYOTI
JYOTI MAHESHWARI
MAHESHWARI Date:
2026.03.27
16:47:49
+0530
point A in the said Register (Ex.PW-2/A). He also testified that the
accused Milap Chand Jagotra was also on duty from 7:00 pm to 10:00
am on 15.04.1986, as per the Register and identified the intials of
accused Milap Chand Jagotra at point C.ï‚· The witness corroborated the testimony of PW-1 and deposed
that the entries in the Dak Register (Ex.PW-1/1) were made in
ascending order and there was no practice of mentioning any entry as
A or B, suffixed with the number. He also deposed that when he was
performing night duty on 15.04.1986, the entry in question i.e. entry
no. 20 in the Dak Register was not there, but he could not answer, as to
who had made the entry in question. The witness also identified the
accused Milap Chand Jagotra in the Court.
ï‚· During his cross-examination, the witness deposed that there
was no circular or rule book, containing directions/ guidelines for
making entries in the Dak Register, as per his knowledge. He also
admitted that as per his knowledge, there was no office circular/ rule
book, wherein it was specifically prescribed not to use A or B suffix
before any number in the entries in the Dak Register.
ï‚· He also corroborated the testimony of PW-1 and deposed that
during 1986, CR section used to remain open for 24 hours. He also
testified that during the inquiry conducted, as regards the entry in
question; the representation of accused Mohan Lal Jatia (A-3) was not
traceable.
Supreme Court of India Vs. Milap Chand Jagotra Page no. 14 of 82
Digitally
signed by
JYOTI
JYOTI MAHESHWARI
MAHESHWARI Date:
2026.03.27
16:47:58
+0530
(iii) PW-3 Rajender Prasad: The witness was working as a Court
Assistant in the Supreme Court of India in the year 2015. Further, he
was authorised by Registrar (Judicial), Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India, to produce the official record of Supreme Court of India,
pertaining to the present case, before the Ld. Predecessor of this Court.
He tendered the following documents during his testimony:
S. No. Exhibit No. Description
1. Ex.PW-3/A WP (Crl.) No. 363/1986 filed in the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India on 11.07.1986.
2. Ex.PW-3/B Order dated 20.07.1994 passed by Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in WP (Crl.) No.
363/1986.
3. Ex.PW-3/C Affidavit filed on 09.09.1986 by Ashok Jain
(A-6) in WP (Crl.) No. 363/1986.
4. Ex.PW-3/D Affidavit filed on 29.08.1986 by Ashok Jain
(A-6) in SLP (Crl.) No. 1370/86 and WP (Crl.)
No. 363/1986.
5. Ex.PW-3/E Affidavit filed on 26.09.1986 by Ashok Jain
(A-6) in WP (Crl.) No. 363/1986.
6. Ex.PW-3/F (OSR) Affidavit filed on 03.09.1986 by K.C. Singh in
WP (Crl.) No. 363/1986.
7. Ex.PW-3/G (OSR) Affidavit filed on 12.09.1986 by S.K. Choudhary
in Crl. Misc. Petition No. 464/1986.
8. Ex.PW-3/H (OSR) Crl. Misc. Petition No. 464/1986 filed in WP
(Crl.) No. 363/1986.
9. Ex.PW-3/J Affidavit filed on 11.07.1986 by Ashok Jatia
(A-5) in WP (Crl.) No. 363/1986.
10. Ex.PW-3/K Affidavit filed on 06.05.1986 by Late Ms. Pushpa
Devi Jatia (A-4) in SLP (Crl.) No. 1370/86.
11. Ex.PW-3/L Affidavit filed on 26.09.1986 by Mohan Lal Jatia
(A-3) in WP (Crl.) No. 363/1986.
12. Ex.PW-3/M Representation dated 11.04.1986 addressed to
President of India by Mohan Lal Jatia (A-3) andSupreme Court of India Vs. Milap Chand Jagotra Page no. 15 of 82
Digitally
signed by
JYOTI
JYOTI MAHESHWARI
MAHESHWARI Date:
2026.03.27
16:48:05
+0530
bearing an acknowledgment of the CR Section.
13. Ex.PW-3/N Affidavit filed on 26.09.1986 by Ashok Jatia
(A-5) in WP (Crl.) No. 363/1986.
(iv) PW-4 K.C. Singh: Perhaps the most important witness in the
present case, the outcome of the present case is largely dependent on
the testimony of the present witness. Accordingly, his testimony shall
be discussed at length.
ï‚· The witness was posted as Deputy Secretary, President’s
Secretariat, New Delhi in the year 1986. The witness was also In
-charge of Administration at the relevant time, which included the
sections dealing with public petitions.
ï‚· He explained the procedure of delivery of petitions and deposed
that any petitioner who came to the Rashtrapati Bhawan was first
directed to the Reception, wherein he was given a visitor’s pass and
then sent to the Central Registry (CR) Section. At the CR section,
nearly 18 registers were maintained, and entries were made in these
registers in respect of the petitions received, depending on the nature
of petition and the form in which it came i.e open petitions or sealed
covers addressed to the President.
ï‚· He further deposed that in case of an open petition, if the
presenter desired an acknowledgment, then on a copy of the petition, a
stamp was put and the initials of the person in the Central Registry
Supreme Court of India Vs. Milap Chand Jagotra Page no. 16 of 82
Digitally
signed by
JYOTI
JYOTI MAHESHWARI
MAHESHWARI Date:
2026.03.27
16:48:13
+0530
(CR) affixed. If it was a sealed cover, then there was no question of
acknowledging the letter, which was in the envelope as it was passed
on unopened to either the personal office of the President or to his
office. Any acknowledgment on a copy would only be given, if an
open petition was received.
ï‚· He also testified that in the beginning of August, 1986, when a
reply was being sent to a query from the Ministry of Finance about the
whereabouts of the petition/ representation in question; the draft of the
Under-Secretary’s response was put up before him and sent after his
approval.
ï‚· He testified that before the reply was put up to him, the
concerned sections had already conducted an inquiry to trace the
representation/ petition. He and others had also inquired from other
sections, which were under a different Deputy Secretary and dealt with
Constitution matters, as they were apprehensive that by mistake, the
petition may have gone there. However, it was found that no such
petition (representation) was available anywhere.
ï‚· He identified the letter dated 04.08.1986 (D-12) addressed to Sh.
D.B. Bhatia, the-then Under-Secretary, President Secretariat from Sh.
S.K. Chaudhary and identified the signature of Sh. D.B. Bhatia on the
said letter. He deposed about the entire process, which was followed in
the President’s Secretariat, once the said letter was received by Sh.
D.B. Bhatia. The said letter was identified by him as Ex. PW-4/A.
Supreme Court of India Vs. Milap Chand Jagotra Page no. 17 of 82
Digitally
signed by
JYOTI
JYOTI MAHESHWARI
MAHESHWARI Date:
2026.03.27
16:48:26
+0530
ï‚· A notesheet regarding receipt/ non-receipt of the said
representation was initiated by the concerned section of the President’s
Secretariat on 04.08.1986. Thereafter, an inquiry was conducted to see
whether the representation was available in Public-1 (P-1) and Public-
II (P-II) sections or in the Office of the President.
ï‚· He also deposed that failing to find the letter, the file containing
the reply to S.K. Chaudhary, was put up before him for approval and
bore his initials on the reverse side of the notesheet. He also identified
the signatures of Sh. J.S Kapoor and PSP (KS) i.e. Sh. Kulwant Singh
on the notesheet. The notesheet was identified by him as Ex. PW-4/B.ï‚· The reply dated 04.08.1986, was sent on 05.08.1986, by Sh. D.B
Bhatia and the said reply was identified as Ex. PW-4/C by the witness.
He further testified that even after receiving the reply, Ministry of
Finance insisted that a letter had been delivered in the CR Section of
the President’s Secretariat. Pursuant to this, he then asked the
concerned Under-Secretary to bring the documents in his room and he
scanned through the Dak Register (Ex. PW-1/1). The witness
categorically testified that upon looking at the register, he found that
Entry No. 20 in the Dak register had been clearly inserted and the
actual Entry No. 20 (Ex.PW1/B) had been made 20-A and the ink of
both Entry No. 20 and letter A which had been subsequently inserted,
are different.
Supreme Court of India Vs. Milap Chand Jagotra Page no. 18 of 82
Digitally
signed by
JYOTI
JYOTI MAHESHWARI
MAHESHWARI Date:
2026.03.27
16:48:35
+0530
ï‚· The witness deposed that on 14.08.1986, a recorded a note
(D-14), recording the observation that Entry No. 20 seems to have
been inserted in the Register sometime after the 15 th April, 1986, as is
apparent from the running serial numbers given in the Register .
Further, the said note was put up before Sh. S Vardharajan, Secretary
to the President who recorded the noting that the case be entrusted to
Vigilance Officer for investigation. The witness identified the contents
of the note, his signatures as well as the signatures of Sh. S
Vardharajan and the note was identified as Ex. PW-4/D.ï‚· The witness testified that a notesheet dated 19.08.1986 was
initiated by Sh. D.B. Bhatia, wherein, it was informed that the Writ
Petition filed on behalf of accused Mohan Lal Jatia (A-3) was listed on
26.08.1986, before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble
Supreme Court had summoned the relevant Register maintained in the
CR Section, where the said representation of accused Mohan Lal Jatia
(A-3) was diarised as well as the one maintained in the Reception, in
respect of the visitors, who were allowed to go to the CR Section to
deliver their petitions. The said note was identified by the witness as
Ex. PW-4/E.ï‚· Moreover, a letter dated 21.08.1986, was received from the
Assistant Registrar of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in this regard
alongwith a certified copy of the Order dated 19.08.1986 (Ex.
PW-4/G). The said letter was identified as Ex. PW-4/F.
Supreme Court of India Vs. Milap Chand Jagotra Page no. 19 of 82
Digitally signed
by JYOTI
MAHESHWARI
JYOTI
MAHESHWARI Date:
2026.03.27
16:48:43
+0530
ï‚· The witness deposed that in pursuance of the said letter, he
furnished the Dak Register in question (Ex.PW-1/1) and stated that the
representation in question was not received in the Secretariat. The said
letter dated 25.08.1986 sent to Assistant Registrar of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court was identified as Ex.PW-4/H. Additionally, a note on
receipt of Dak was also sent which contained the specimen impression
of the two stamps of the CR Section, which were affixed, as a token of
acknowledgment. The said sheet containing the specimen impression
of stamps was identified as Ex.PW-4/I.ï‚· The witness deposed that he had also sent a letter dated
25.08.1986, to Sh. C.V Subba Rao, the-then Deputy Government
Advocate and the same was identified as Ex.PW-4/J. He further
testified that he received a reply dated 26.08.1986, from Sh. C.V Subba
Rao, wherein, it was informed that the Hon’ble Supreme Court had
directed the petitioner to file an affidavit by 28.08.1986, to the effect,
as to by whom and when the representation was delivered to the
President’s Secretariat. The said letter was identified as Ex.PW-4/K.
Additionally, another letter dated 29.08.1986, was issued by Sh. C.V
Subba Rao, wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had directed the
respondents (Union of India) to file a counter-affidavit and this letter
was identified as Ex.PW-4/L.ï‚· The witness deposed that pursuant to the above letter, he filed an
affidavit dated 03.09.1986 (Ex. PW-4/M), before the Hon’ble Supreme
Court, on behalf of the President’s Secretariat. The original affidavitSupreme Court of India Vs. Milap Chand Jagotra Page no. 20 of 82
Digitally signed
by JYOTI
MAHESHWARI
JYOTI
MAHESHWARI Date:
2026.03.27
16:48:53
+0530
filed by the witness was furnished as Ex. PW-3/F by PW-3, during the
course of his testimony. The said affidavit also contained the specimen
impression of the stamps in the Central Registry, which used to be
affixed on the acknowledgment. He also mentioned in the affidavit that
the representation of accused Mohan Lal Jatia (A-3) had not been
received at the Central Registry of the President’s Secretariat.
ï‚· The witness also deposed that vide letter dated 05.09.1986 (Ex.
PW-4/N), Sh. C.V Subba Rao informed the witness that the Hon’ble
Supreme Court had directed the accused Ashok Jain (A-6) to file a
detailed affidavit in support of his contentions and also granted time to
the respondents to file a reply.
ï‚· This was followed by a letter dated 10.09.1986 (Ex. PW-4/O),
issued by the witness to Sh. C.V Subba Rao. During the course of his
examination-in-chief, the witness further deposed that when he had
called the Under-Secretaries, Sh. Kulwant Singh (P.S to President) had
also come.
ï‚· The witness was subjected to a thorough cross-examination
spanning over multiple dates. During his cross-examination dated
16.11.2016, the witness was asked as to whether any formal vigilance
inquiry was initiated, to which he responded that a vigilance inquiry
was marked to Sh. Neelakanthan, but admitted that no vigilance
inquiry report was submitted, as per his knowledge. The witness also
testified that his affidavit was based on personal knowledge as well asSupreme Court of India Vs. Milap Chand Jagotra Page no. 21 of 82
Digitally
signed by
JYOTI
JYOTI MAHESHWARI
MAHESHWARI Date:
2026.03.27
16:49:04
+0530
the direct investigation conducted by him, which is reflected in the
notings in the file. However, the witness admitted that no formal
inquiry report was prepared by him.
ï‚· Upon being asked, as to whether the representation in question
was delivered in a sealed cover or not, the witness replied that he had
not seen the alleged representation, but it was deductively determined
that as per the procedure of Central Registry, acknowledgment on the
copy of the letter was only given, if an open petition was received.
ï‚· He further testified that the seals used in the Central Registry for
acknowledgment, were different from those on the said photocopy of
the alleged representation produced by accused Mohan Lal Jatia (A-3).
ï‚· During the course of his cross-examination, the witness admitted
that there was no separate provision for maintaining separate registers
for open and sealed letters, addressed to the Hon’ble President of India.
ï‚· For the ease of reference, the documents exhibited by the
witness are mentioned in the following list:
S.No. Exhibit No. Description
1. Ex. PW-4/A (D-12) Letter No. F.No. 702/SC/66/86-CUS/12 dated
04.08.1986.
2. Ex. PW-4/B Notesheet regarding reply sent to Sh. S.K Chaudhary,
Under Secretary, MoF.
3. Ex.PW-4/C Reply dated 04.08.1986 sent by Sh. D.B. Bhatia.
Supreme Court of India Vs. Milap Chand Jagotra Page no. 22 of 82
Digitally signed
by JYOTI
MAHESHWARI
JYOTI
MAHESHWARI Date:
2026.03.27
16:49:11
+0530
4. Ex.PW-4/D (D-14) Note sheet 14.08.1986.
5. Ex.PW-4/E (D-13) Note sheet dated 19.08.1986.
6. Ex.PW-4/F Letter dated 21.08.1986.
7. Ex.PW-4/G Certified copy of letter dated 21.08.1986.
8. Ex.PW-4/H Letter dated 25.08.1986.
9. Ex.PW-4/I The sheet with two specimen impression of stamps.
10. Ex.PW-4/J Letter issued to Mr. C.V. Subba Rao, Deputy Govt.
Advocate.
11. Ex.PW-4/K Letter dated 26.08.1986, addressed to Sh. K.C Singh.
12. Ex.PW-4/L Letter dated 29.08.1986, addressed to Sh. K.C Singh.
13. Ex.PW-4/M Office copy of affidavit filed by Sh. K.C Singh.
14. Ex.PW-4/N Letter dated 05.09.1986, addressed to Sh. K.C Singh.
15. Ex.PW-4/O Letter dated 10.09.1986, addressed to Sh. C.V Subba
Rao.
16. Mark 4/I Copy of the affidavit of Ashok Jain (A-6) dated
09.09.1986, received in the President’s Secretariat.
(v) PW-5 Ishwar Dass Jajoria: He was posted as a Section Officer in
the Central Registry of President’s Secretariat, President’s House, New
Delhi from 1984 to 1987.
ï‚· The witness deposed that the main function of Central Registry
was to receive and dispatch daks relating to President’s Secretariat and
approximately 17-18 registers were maintained for the purpose of Dak.
The witness did not remember the names of the persons, who were
posted in CR section at that time, but deposed that there was an
attendance register to this effect. He further identified his initials on
15.04.1986, in the attendance register.
Supreme Court of India Vs. Milap Chand Jagotra Page no. 23 of 82
Digitally signed
by JYOTI
MAHESHWARI
JYOTI
MAHESHWARI Date:
2026.03.27
16:49:20
+0530
ï‚· He also identified the entry regarding arrival and departure of
accused Late Milap Chand Jagotra (A-1) on 15.04.1986, as Mark B
and of Yogender Kumar at Mark A.ï‚· The witness testified that in the year 1986, Sh. D.B Bhatia, the-
then Under-Secretary had summoned him regarding the disputed entry
in the present case and enquired as to whether he could identify the
signature or writing of the person, who allegedly wrote the disputed
entry. The witness identified the signature of accused Late Gurcharan
Singh (A-2) on the disputed entry in the Dak Register (D-10) and the
entry in question was identified as Ex. PW-5/A.ï‚· The witness further testified that the accused Late Gurcharan
Singh (A-2) was called by Sh. D.B. Bhatia and Gurcharan Singh
admitted his signatures on the entry in question. However, the witness
expired during the pendency of his examination and thus, his testimony
remained incomplete.
(vi) PW-6 M S A Siddiqui: He was posted as Registrar General in
the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on 19.08.1994. The witness
deposed that he filed the complaint dated 19.08.1994 (Ex. PW-6/A)
and the same bore his signatures at point A. The witness deposed that
the above complaint was filed pursuant to the directions of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in WP (Crl.) No. 363/1986 and SLP (Crl.) No.
1370/1986.
Supreme Court of India Vs. Milap Chand Jagotra Page no. 24 of 82
Digitally signed
by JYOTI
MAHESHWARI
JYOTI
MAHESHWARI Date:
2026.03.27
16:49:29
+0530
(vii) PW-7 Vijay Pal: He was posted as Assistant in Personnel
Section of President’s Secretariat, at the relevant time and worked in
President’s Secretariat from 1969 to 2006. The witness deposed that as
an Assistant in Personnel Section, he used to attend the typing work
assigned by the Private Secretary.
ï‚· The witness deposed that the Personnel Section used to receive
the Dak addressed to the Hon’ble President by name and also dealt with
the personal matters of the Hon’ble President. He further testified that
all the communications etc. used to be received at Central Registry
(CR) Section of the President’s Secretariat and after entry of the same
in the register, the same were sent to the concerned Sections. The
Daks/ correspondences with the personal name of Hon’ble President
used to be sent to the Hon’ble President and the other
correspondences/communications were sent to the concerned sections.
ï‚· As regards the procedure of receiving Dak in the CR section, the
witness deposed that after giving the receipt to the concerned person,
the Dak was entered in the Dak Register and then sent to the concerned
Section and the official of the concerned Section used to sign in the
Dak register.
ï‚· As regards the procedure for delivery of letter, the witness
deposed that any person who comes to deliver a letter etc. in the
President Secretariat had to visit the Reception and after obtaining the
pass in his name, the same will be entered in the Register maintained at
Supreme Court of India Vs. Milap Chand Jagotra Page no. 25 of 82
Digitally signed
by JYOTI
MAHESHWARI
JYOTI
MAHESHWARI Date:
2026.03.27
16:49:41
+0530
the Reception. The Reception office used to send the person concerned
to the CR Section.
ï‚· The witness testified that Sh. Kulwant Singh was the Private
Secretary to the Hon’ble President of India from 1982 to 1987. The
witness also testified about his working hours as well as the working
hours of accused Late Gurcharan Singh (A-2).
ï‚· The witness deposed that the entry in question (Ex.PW-5/A)
bore the signatures of accused Gurcharan Singh (A-2) at point X and
the date 15/4 was also in the hand-writing of accused Gurcharan Singh
(A-2). The witness deposed that the accused Gurcharan Singh (A-2)
was working as Hindi Translator in the Personnel Section, alongwith
him. The witness also testified that he had never received, seen or dealt
with the alleged representation (Ex. PW-3/M) in any manner.
ï‚· During his cross-examination, the witness admitted that he never
worked at the CR Section of the President’s Secretariat and he had no
knowledge about the functioning of the CR Section. The witness
identified that the entry in question (Ex.PW-5/A) had been marked to
Sh. Kulwant Singh. The witness pleaded ignorance about any office
circular/ office order, which mentioned that alphabets such as a, b, c
could not be suffixed to an entry in the Dak register (Ex.PW-1/1).
(viii) PW-8 D. R. Handa: The witness retired as Principal Scientific
Officer and HOD, CFSL, New Delhi. The witness identified theSupreme Court of India Vs. Milap Chand Jagotra Page no. 26 of 82
Digitally
signed by
JYOTI
JYOTI MAHESHWARI
MAHESHWARI Date:
2026.03.27
16:49:49
+0530
signatures of Sh. T. R. Nehra on the report bearing No. CFSL
-87/D-2108 dated 26.06.1987, as he had worked with him and seen
him signing on many occasions, during the course of work. The CFSL
report dated 26.06.1987 was identified as Ex.PW-8/1. The witness also
identified the signature of the-then Director, CFSL Late Sh. V. N.
Sehgal on the forwarding letter dated 29.06.1987, which was identified
as Mark-8/A.
(ix) PW-9 Sh. Vijay Verma : The witness was working as Assistant
Director-cum-Scientist-C, CFSL, New Delhi and produced certain
documents, pursuant to the directions of the Court vide Order dated
03.05.2025. The documents alongwith the envelopes containing
negatives were identified as Mark-9/A (Colly), during the course of his
testimony. The testimony of the witness was limited to furnishing
negatives of the photographs of specimen handwritings, signatures and
admitted handwritings of accused persons. However, the witness
admitted during the course of his cross-examination that he has no
personal knowledge of the present case.
(x) PW-10 Sh. Rajeev Kumar Negi : The witness was working as
SSA in CFSL, New Delhi and was entrusted with the task of printing
the photographs from the negatives by the HOD, Photo Division on
17.10.2017. The following documents were tendered by the witness
during the course of his testimony :
Supreme Court of India Vs. Milap Chand Jagotra Page no. 27 of 82
Digitally signed
by JYOTI
MAHESHWARI
JYOTI
MAHESHWARI Date:
2026.03.27
16:49:57
+0530
S.No. Exhibit No. Description
1. Ex.PW-10/1 Photo proforma dated 17.10.2017 bearing signatures
of Sh. A.D. Tiwari.
2. Ex.PW-10/2 Photo proforma containing 99 and 281 negatives in
two different envelopes.
3. Ex.PW-10/3 Envelope containing 99 negatives.
4. Ex.PW-10/4 Envelope containing 285 negatives.
5. Ex.PW-10/5 (Colly) Printouts of the said negatives containing 342 pages.
ï‚· The witness admitted that the negatives were printed by him on
17.10.2017 i.e. 23 years after the institution of the present complaint.
However, the witness testified that he does not have personal
knowledge, as to where the negative images and camera rolls were
exactly preserved and as to when the images were taken. The witness
also testified that he did not have any personal knowledge of the
present case.
13. Subsequently, the prosecution evidence was closed on
21.07.2025 and the matter was listed for recording the statement of the
accused persons, u/S 313, CrPC.
STATEMENT OF THE ACCUSED PERSONS u/S 313 CrPC.
14. The statement of accused Ashok Jain (A-6) was recorded on
16.09.2025, wherein he stated that he has been falsely implicated in the
present case and he had actually delivered the alleged representation
dated 11.04.1996 (Ex.PW-3/M) in the President’s Secretariat and was
Supreme Court of India Vs. Milap Chand Jagotra Page no. 28 of 82
Digitally signed
by JYOTI
MAHESHWARI
JYOTI
MAHESHWARI Date:
2026.03.27
16:50:06
+0530
also given an acknowledgement on the copy. The written statements
u/S. 313, CrPC were furnished on behalf of accused Mohan Lal Jatia
(A-3) and accused Ashok Jatia (A-5), as they were unable to appear
before Court, on account of their medical condition and old age. Both
the accused (A-3 and A-5) categorically stated that they have been
falsely implicated, only because of their family connection and the
sensational nature of the matter. No document, witness, or expert
evidence showed their incriminating role in the present case and the
entire case of CBI was false and fabricated. The accused persons did
not wish to lead any evidence in their defence and thus, the matter was
fixed for final arguments.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
15. Detailed final arguments were advanced on behalf of both
prosecution and the accused and various judicial decisions were
furnished by both the parties in support of their contentions, which are
discussed below:
I) Arguments raised by the Prosecution.
16. Ld. PP for CBI has argued that charges against all the surviving
accused stand established through the documentary evidence as well as
the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses on record. The gist of his
contentions is listed below:
Supreme Court of India Vs. Milap Chand Jagotra Page no. 29 of 82
Digitally signed
by JYOTI
MAHESHWARI
JYOTI
MAHESHWARI Date:
2026.03.27
16:50:16
+0530
• The factum of accused Mohan Lal Jatia (A-3) having filed a
Representation before the President, was mentioned for the first time in
the WP (Crl.) No. 363/86 on 11.07.1986 and despite adequate
opportunity, this ground was not raised in the SLP (Crl.) No. 1370/86
filed in the Supreme Court on 06.05.1986. It is contended that had the
said Representation been actually delivered by the accused Ashok Jain
(A-6) on 15.04.1986, this plea would definitely have been raised before
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above SLP. On this basis, it is
contended that there is enough ground to show that the said
Representation being filed before the President, is an afterthought.
• It is argued that the correct procedure was followed u/S 340
CrPC and the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India being a Court of record,
was fully competent to file a complaint u/S 340 CrPC r/w 195 CrPC,
through the Ld. Registrar General. It is also contended that the
contention of a defective procedure adopted in filing the present
complaint cannot be raised at this belated juncture.
• It is submitted that the accused Ashok Jain (A-6) filed a false
affidavit before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, stating that no
visitor pass was actually issued to him. It is also contended that even if,
it is assumed that the affidavit dated 09.09.1986, filed by Ashok Jain
(A-6) (Ex.PW-3/C) is true and correct, the same suggests that the
Representation was actually delivered in a sealed envelope and thus,
there was no question of giving an acknowledgement on the letters
delivered in a sealed envelope. Thus, the alleged acknowledgementSupreme Court of India Vs. Milap Chand Jagotra Page no. 30 of 82
Digitally signed
by JYOTI
MAHESHWARI
JYOTI
MAHESHWARI Date:
2026.03.27
16:50:25
+0530
bearing stamps of the President’s House also shows that the same was
falsely given.
• It is also contended that the fact that no inquiry was conducted in
the Rashtrapati Bhawan or that the alleged inquiry was not concluded;
has no bearing on the outcome of the present case.
• The forgery in the Dak Register (Ex. PW-1/1) has been proved
through the CFSL report (Ex.PW-8/1), which is per se admissible u/S
293 CrPC and is also corroborated by the testimony of PW-8. It is also
contended that the negatives produced by PW-9 and PW-10 are
admissible in evidence, u/S 90 of Indian Evidence Act.
• It is contended that the IO of the present case expired during the
pendency of trial, but no prejudice has been caused to the defence, by
the non-examination of the IO. (Bahadur Naik Vs. State of Bihar, 2000
(9) SCC 153).
17. On the above ground, it is contended by Ld. PP for CBI that the
offences u/S 120-B r/w Sections 193/199/471 IPC, alleged against the
three accused (A-3, A-5 and A-6) have been proved beyond reasonable
doubt by the prosecution.
18. Per contra, Ld. Counsels for the accused persons have submitted
that the offences as alleged, are not made out in the present case and a
serious dent has been cast on the version of the prosecution, through
Supreme Court of India Vs. Milap Chand Jagotra Page no. 31 of 82
Digitally signed
by JYOTI
MAHESHWARI
JYOTI
MAHESHWARI Date:
2026.03.27
16:50:34
+0530
the inconsistent testimony of various prosecution witnesses and non-
examination of various material witnesses. The submissions raised by
Ld. Counsels for the accused are enlisted below.
II) Arguments raised on behalf of accused Mohan Lal Jatia (A-3):
• It is submitted that there is no valid institution of complaint case,
as Section 340 (3) Cr.PC, 1973 mandates that the complaint must be
signed by ‘the presiding officer of the Court.’ It is contended that the
complaint u/S 340 r/w Section 195 Cr.PC, should have been signed by
the judges of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and in the absence of the
same, the present complaint is rendered nullis juris.
• It is submitted that Section 218, IPC is not applicable in the
present case, as it is attracted only against the public servant and none
of the surviving accused are public servants, as per the admitted case of
the prosecution. It is further submitted that the ingredients for
applicability of Section 120B, Section 193 and Section 199 are missing
in the present case.
• It is alleged that the entire gamut of the present case depends
solely on, whether the written representation dated 11.04.1986 was
ever served/ delivered in the Office of President of India at Rashtrapati
Bhawan on 15.04.1986 or not, and due to the failure of the prosecution
to prove otherwise, none of the alleged offences are attracted against
the accused.
Supreme Court of India Vs. Milap Chand Jagotra Page no. 32 of 82
Digitally signed
by JYOTI
MAHESHWARI
JYOTI
MAHESHWARI Date:
2026.03.27
16:50:41
+0530
• It is argued that neither the affidavit of PW-4 KC Singh can be
looked into nor any reliance can be placed on the averments/
allegations made therein and thus, the entire case of the prosecution
collapses on this ground itself.
• It is further submitted that the charges u/S 466/471 IPC are not
attracted against the accused Mohan Lal Jatia (A-3), as neither any
forgery is attributed to him nor there is any allegation that he placed
reliance on a forged document(s), for the purpose of cheating.
• Ld. Counsel for the accused Mohan Lal Jatia (A-3) has placed
reliance on the following decisions, in support of his contentions:
ï‚· Sheila Sebastian Vs. R. Jawaharaj and Another, 2018 (7) SCC
581.
ï‚· Esher Singh Vs. State of A.P., 2004 (11) SCC 585.
ï‚· Ram Sharan Chaturvedi Vs. State of MP, 2022 (16) SCC 166.
ï‚· John Pandian Vs. State, 2010 (14) SCC 129.
ï‚· Mohammed Ibrahim Vs. State of Bihar, 2009 (8) SCC 751.
ï‚· Dilawar Balu Kurane Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2002 (2) SCC
135.
Supreme Court of India Vs. Milap Chand Jagotra Page no. 33 of 82
Digitally signed
by JYOTI
MAHESHWARI
JYOTI
MAHESHWARI Date:
2026.03.27
16:51:03
+0530
III) Arguments raised on behalf of accused Ashok Jatia (A-5):
• It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused Ashok Jatia (A-5)
that prosecution must prove essential ingredients of the offence, even if
the complaint is made u/S 340 CrPC, which the prosecution has
miserably failed to do so, in the present case.
• It is further submitted that no criminal proceedings can continue
against a dead person. Since the principal accused i.e. Milap Chand
Jagotra (A-1) and Gurcharan Singh (A-2) have passed away, the
abettor i.e. accused No. 5 cannot be foisted with any criminal liability.
• It is further submitted that since the testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses and the prosecution evidence is full of
contradictions and falsehoods, the benefit of the same must enure to
the accused.
• It is further submitted that even if the acts are done along during
the course of duty, sanction u/S 197 CrPC was mandatory, which was
not taken in the present case and thus, no case is made out even against
the present accused.
• It is further submitted that non-examination of the prosecution
witnesses i.e. Sh. T.N Kapoor, the IO of the present case and Sh. A.P.
Singh, SP, is a fatal lacuna in the case of the prosecution. Reliance in
this regard has been placed on the decisions of Habeeb Mohd. Vs.Supreme Court of India Vs. Milap Chand Jagotra Page no. 34 of 82
Digitally
signed by
JYOTI
JYOTI MAHESHWARI
MAHESHWARI Date:
2026.03.27
16:51:14
+0530
State of Hyderabad, (1953) 2 SCC 231; Munna Lal Vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh, (2023) 18 SCC 661; and Naveen Kumar Verma Vs. The
Govt. (NCT of Delhi), 252 (2018) DLT 585.
• It is further submitted that essential ingredients of forgery are
not made out against the accused and thus, the offences u/S 466/471
IPC are not attracted against the accused, in any manner, whatsoever.
IV) Arguments raised on behalf of accused Ashok Jain (A-6):
• It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for accused Ashok Jain (A-6) that
no motive and criminal conspiracy u/S 120B IPC, can be attributed to
the accused. It is further contended that there are glaring deficiencies in
the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and the benefit of the same
must accrue to the accused.
• There has been a deficient investigation on the part of CBI, as all
the Dak Registers maintained in the CR section of the President’s
House were not seized and there was no examination of Peons/
Zamadars, who used to handle the letters between various departments.
It is further submitted that Sh. Kulwant Singh, Private Secretary to the
President, whose endorsement was present on the Dak Register, was
also not examined as a witness.
• It is submitted that the documents and materials which form a
part of the CFSL report, have a broken chain of custody and noSupreme Court of India Vs. Milap Chand Jagotra Page no. 35 of 82
Digitally signed
by JYOTI
MAHESHWARI
JYOTI
MAHESHWARI Date:
2026.03.27
16:51:22
+0530
explanation has been adduced on behalf of the prosecution, to explain
this shortcoming.
• It is further submitted that the prosecution has failed to establish
its case beyond reasonable doubt and a bare perusal of the Dak
Register shows that both open and sealed cover
letters/representations/other documents were being accepted and
diarized in the Dak Register (Ex.PW-1/1) in question. On this basis, it
is submitted that no case is made out against the accused and all the
accused persons deserve to be acquitted.
19. This Court has given its thoughtful consideration to the rival
contentions of the parties and has perused the judicial decisions, relied
upon by both the prosecution as well as the accused.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
20. Before delving into the merits of the case, an objection was
raised on behalf of the accused that there was no valid institution of the
present complaint u/S 340 CrPC and the same goes to the root of the
matter. Therefore, this Court shall first deal with the procedure laid
down in Section 340 CrPC and whether the alleged lack of compliance
has caused any prejudice to the accused.
Supreme Court of India Vs. Milap Chand Jagotra Page no. 36 of 82
Digitally signed
by JYOTI
MAHESHWARI
JYOTI
MAHESHWARI Date:
2026.03.27
16:51:30
+0530
A. Whether the procedure u/S 340 CrPC was followed in the
present case?
21. Section 340 CrPC, prior to the amendment in 2006, read as
follows:
1. When upon an application made to it in this behalf or
otherwise any Court is of opinion that it is expedient in the
interest of justice that an inquiry should be made into any
offence referred to in clause (b) of Sub-Section (1) of section
195, which appears to have been committed in or in relation to a
proceeding in that Court or, as the case may be, in respect of a
document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in that
Court, such Court may, after such preliminary inquiry, if any, as
it thinks necessary;
(a) record a finding to that effect;
(b) make a complaint thereof in writing;
(c) send it to a Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction;
(d) take sufficient security for the appearance for the accused
before such Magistrate, or if the alleged offence is non-bailable
and the Court thinks it necessary so to do send the accused in
custody to such Magistrate; and
(e) bind over any person to appear and give evidence before such
Magistrate.
2. The power conferred on a Court by Sub-Section (1) in
respect of an offence may, in any case where that Court has
neither made a complaint under Sub-Section (1) in respect of that
offence nor rejected an application for the making of such
complaint, be exercised by the Court to which such former Court
is subordinate within the meaning of Sub-Section (4) of section
195.
3. A complaint made under this section shall be signed;
(a) where the Court making the complaint is a High Court, by
such officer of the Court as the Court may appoint;
(b) in any other case, by the presiding officer of the Court.
4. In this section, “Court” has the same meaning as in section
195.
Supreme Court of India Vs. Milap Chand Jagotra Page no. 37 of 82
Digitally
signed by
JYOTI
JYOTI MAHESHWARI
MAHESHWARI Date:
2026.03.27
16:51:39
+0530
22. Thus, a plain reading of Section 340(3) CrPC, prior to the
amendment, makes it clear that in case, a complaint under this
provision is made by any Court other than the High Court, such
complaint shall be signed by the presiding officer of the Court. Thus,
the statute in clear and unambiguous terms required that the complaint
must bear the signatures of the Presiding Officer of the Court
concerned.
23. During the course of prosecution evidence, the Registrar
General, who had filed the present complaint was cross-examined on
this aspect as PW-6, to which he categorically answered, “I was acting
under the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court…Since I was
directed to file the complaint, it was understood that all the formalities
including signing of the complaint, were to be completed by me. ”
Moreover, upon being specifically questioned, as to whether he
ignored the mandate of Section 340(3) CrPC, he replied ” I had no
option but to abide by the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.”
24. A reading of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated
20.07.1994 also throws light on the above aspect wherein it was held,
“We thus order the Registrar General of this Court to prepare a
complaint as expeditiously as possible in light of all concerned orders
in terms of Section 195 r/w Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure
Code and file it before a competent criminal court against the aforesaid
six persons. The Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is thus allowed on
these terms.”
Supreme Court of India Vs. Milap Chand Jagotra Page no. 38 of 82
Digitally
signed by
JYOTI
JYOTI MAHESHWARI
MAHESHWARI Date:
2026.03.27
16:51:46
+0530
25. The question before this Court is whether such deviation from
the prescribed form, renders the present complaint void ab initio or is
only a curable irregularity. Ld. PP for CBI has contended that mere
absence of signatures of the Judges of the Hon’ble Supreme Court,
cannot be construed as a non-compliance of Section 340(3) CrPC, as
the Supreme Court is a Court of record and the law propounded by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court is binding on all the Courts of the country. On
this basis, it is argued that the filing of the present complaint through
the Ld. Registrar General, is valid and this issue cannot be raised at this
stage and should have been raised before the Hon’ble Supreme Court
itself at the relevant time.
26. On the other hand, it is argued by Ld. Counsel for the accused
that when it is explicitly mandated by the statute to do a certain thing
in a certain way, it must only be done in that way. It is further
submitted that in criminal proceedings, the statute must be interpreted
strictly and there cannot be any deviation from the plain reading of the
Section. On this basis, it is argued that the present complaint is not a
valid complaint and resultantly, all the proceedings emanating from the
present complaint are non est or bad in law.
27. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that procedural
mandates are not to be construed in a manner which defeat substantive
justice, unless such procedural non-compliance occasions a failure of
justice and causes prejudice to the accused.
Supreme Court of India Vs. Milap Chand Jagotra Page no. 39 of 82
Digitally
signed by
JYOTI
JYOTI MAHESHWARI
MAHESHWARI Date:
2026.03.27
16:51:56
+0530
28. This Court is of the considered opinion that the requirement of
signatures as mandated in Section 340(3) CrPC (prior to 2006
amendment) was a procedural requirement, intended to authenticate the
complaint so filed. However, the substantive requirement u/S 340
CrPC is the formation of opinion by the Court and a decision that it is
expedient in the interests of justice to initiate prosecution under the
said provision.
29. The Order dated 20.07.1994 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
clearly records the determination by the Hon’ble Supreme Court to
initiate proceedings u/S 340 CrPC. Moreover, the complaint in
question filed by the Ld. Registrar General flows from and was only in
pursuance of the said Order. Thus, the Ld. Registrar General of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court was not acting independently on his own, but
as an officer executing the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Therefore, it can be safely said that the source of the complaint is still
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the present case and not the Ld.
Registrar General.
30. In such circumstances, though the complaint in question
(Ex.PW-6/A) does not bear the signatures of the Judge of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, the same does not, render the complaint as one not
made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. At the best, this defect can only
be categorised as a mere procedural irregularity and one which has not
caused any demonstrated prejudice to the accused. The contention of
Supreme Court of India Vs. Milap Chand Jagotra Page no. 40 of 82
Digitally signed
by JYOTI
MAHESHWARI
JYOTI
MAHESHWARI Date:
2026.03.27
16:52:04
+0530
the accused that the complaint is non est or void ab initio, is therefore,
not sustainable. In any event, this contention was already decided and
laid to rest, by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court vide Order dated
18.03.2004 in Criminal MC No. 2452/2000 titled as “Ashok Jatia Vs
State (CBI)” and thus, cannot be re-agitated at this stage.
31. After examining the above preliminary objection, the Court shall
now proceed to examine the grounds raised by Ld. Counsels for the
accused on merits.
32. The case of the prosecution hinges on the contention that the
alleged representation dated 11.04.1986 (Ex.PW-3/M) was never
delivered in the CR Section of the President’s Secretariat and an
interpolated entry dated 15.04.1986 with Entry No.20 (Ex.PW-5/A)
was inserted in the Dak register (Ex.PW-1/1). This contention is
vehemently countered by Ld. Counsels for the accused. Thus, the
entire adjudication in the present case revolves around the question, as
to whether the written representation dated 11.04.1986 was ever
delivered in the Office of Hon’ble President of India on 15.04.1986 or
not.
B. The question of delivery of alleged representation dated
11.04.1986 in the President’s Secretariat.
33. To prove the delivery of the aforesaid representation, Ld.
Counsels for the accused have argued the following :
Supreme Court of India Vs. Milap Chand Jagotra Page no. 41 of 82
Digitally signed
by JYOTI
MAHESHWARI
JYOTI
MAHESHWARI Date:
2026.03.27
16:52:15
+0530
a) The alleged representation (Ex.PW-3/M) bears a genuine stamp
of the President’s Secretariat and it is the same stamp, which was used
by the office of Rashtrapati Bhawan, for receipt of documents which
have been tendered during the course of trial in the present case.
b) The testimony of the witness PW-4 Sh. K.C. Singh to the effect
that the Dak Register (Ex.PW-1/1) was meant only for sealed covers,
cannot be relied upon, as there is enough evidence to the contrary in
this regard.
c) The report by DCP, Security dated 01.09.1986 (Ex.PW-4/D1),
clearly shows that there was no requirement of issuing the visitor pass
to the persons who came to Rashtrapati Bhawan and thus, the fact that
accused Ashok Jain (A-6) was not issued a visitor pass on 15.04.1986;
cannot be held against the accused.
d) There is inconsistent testimony of the witnesses on the
procedure, regarding delivery of Daks / communication/ letters to the
CR Section of the President’s Secretariat; which renders the case of the
prosecution extremely weak.
e) To the contrary, there are consistent affidavits of the accused
Ashok Jatia (A-5) dated 11.07.1986 (Ex.PW-3/J) and affidavits of
Ashok Jain (A-6) dated 29.08.1986 (Ex.PW-3/D), 09.09.1996
Supreme Court of India Vs. Milap Chand Jagotra Page no. 42 of 82
Digitally signed
by JYOTI
JYOTI MAHESHWARI
MAHESHWARI Date:
2026.03.27
16:52:24 +0530
(Ex.PW-3/C) and 26.09.1986 (Ex.PW-3/E), which prove the delivery
of the alleged representation (Ex.PW-3/M).
34. The Court shall now deal with the above contentions and decide
the question as to the (non)-/delivery of the alleged representation.
(i) The controversy regarding stamps/ seal used on the alleged
representation.
35. Ld. Counsels for the accused have submitted that the alleged
representation (Ex.PW-3/M) bore a genuine stamp of the CR Section
and thus, it is itself implied that the alleged representation was actually
delivered in the CR Section. It is further alleged that PW-4 K.C. Singh
filed a false affidavit dated 03.09.1986 (Ex.PW-3/F) wherein it was
stated that only two rubber stamps are affixed at the Office of
Rashtrapati Bhawan. The witness further stated in his affidavit that the
stamp on the alleged representation was not the same, as the one used
in the CR Section and on this basis, it is argued by Ld. Counsels that
the witness tried to mislead the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in this
regard.
36. Further, Ld. Counsels for the accused have also submitted that
the following documents also bear the same stamp, as was used in the
alleged representation dated 11.04.1986:
Supreme Court of India Vs. Milap Chand Jagotra Page no. 43 of 82
Digitally signed
by JYOTI
MAHESHWARI
JYOTI
MAHESHWARI Date:
2026.03.27
16:52:36
+0530
→ Ex.PW-4/F – Letter dated 21.08.1986 issued by Sh. R.C.Gandhi, the-then Assistant Registrar, Supreme Court of India to
the Secretary to the President of India.
→ Ex. PW-4/K – Letter dated 26.08.1986 addressed by Sh. C.V.Subba Rao to Sh. K.C. Singh.
→ Ex.PW-4/L – Letter dated 29.08.1986 addressed by Sh. A.
Subba Rao to Sh. K.C. Singh.
→ Ex.PW-4/N – Letter dated 05.09.1986 addressed by Sh. C.V.
Subba Rao to Sh. K.C. Singh.
37. A bare perusal of the above mentioned documents show that
these letters were addressed to certain officials posted in the
President’s Secretariat and to Sh. K.C. Singh and were not addressed to
the Hon’ble President himself. However, if one reads the affidavit filed
by Sh. K.C. Singh (Ex.PW-3/F) in this regard, the same is with regard
to petitions addressed to the President of India and which are delivered
in the CR Section of the President’s Secretariat. The relevant portion of
the affidavit of Sh. K.C. Singh in this regard is reproduced as follows:-
“At the Central Registry, if he desires an
acknowledgement, one of the two rubber stamps
reproduced below is affixed on his copy with the
initials of the official receiving the letter.”
38. Thus, it is evident that Sh. K.C. Singh is dealing only with the
petitions addressed to the President of India and not the petitions
addressed to any of the officials posted in the Rashtrapati Bhawan.
Moreover, it is a matter of reasonable prudence that being the highest
Supreme Court of India Vs. Milap Chand Jagotra Page no. 44 of 82
Digitally
signed by
JYOTI
JYOTI MAHESHWARI
MAHESHWARI Date:
2026.03.27
16:52:44
+0530
office of the country, the President’s Secretariat would be having a
huge number of stamps and each stamp would be used for a specific
purpose. The affidavit of the witness Sh. K.C. Singh and his testimony
as PW-4 is categorically clear that if any representation/
communication/ letter was addressed to the President of India, only the
two above-mentioned stamps would be used by the officials at the CR
Section for giving an acknowledgment.
39. Moreover, it is also clear that the alleged representation does not
bear the above two stamps and bears a different stamp. Although, this
stamp on the alleged representation (Ex.PW-3/M) is the one used in
CR Section of the Rashtrapati Bhawan, this is not the stamp which is
used for giving an acknowledgment on any letter or communication
addressed to the President of India.
40. Ld. Counsels for the accused have raised an objection that the
stamps were not sent to the CFSL or any other Lab for examination
and thus, the complete truth could not be unravelled in this regard.
Further, during cross-examination of the witness Sh. K.C. Singh as
PW-4, he was asked as to whether the alleged original seals were sent
for comparison by an expert, with the seal on the alleged representation
(Ex.PW-3/M) and the relevant portion of his cross-examination in this
regard, is extracted below:
“I do not remember whether the original
stamps/seals were given to CBI. They were not filed
before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. It isSupreme Court of India Vs. Milap Chand Jagotra Page no. 45 of 82
Digitally signed
by JYOTI
MAHESHWARI
JYOTI
MAHESHWARI Date:
2026.03.27
16:52:52
+0530
correct that I have not got the alleged original seals
compared with the seal on the acknowledgement of
the representation by an expert at any stage.
However the difference between them is so patent
that it did not require an expert to determine it before
submitting to the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India,
as time was of the essence, Supreme Court having
given limited time to file affidavit. No statement of
any of the employee of the Central Registry was
recorded during the investigation conducted by me
who denied the genuineness of the seal of the
acknowledgment of the representation of Mohan Lal
Jatia.”
41. The testimony of the witness K.C. Singh has withstood the test
of cross-examination, as regards the seal on the alleged representation.
It is evident and this Court concurs with the response given by the
witness that the difference between the seal used on the alleged
representation (Ex.PW-3/M) and those used for giving
acknowledgment on the letters addressed to the President of India is
patent, visible to the naked eye and does not require any expert to
determine the difference between the two.
42. Moreover, it has also been discussed above that the stamp used
on the alleged representation (Ex.PW-3/M) although genuine, was used
for acknowledgment on letters addressed to other officials of the
President’s Secretariat and not used for communications addressed to
the Hon’ble President of India. Since the alleged representation (Ex.
PW-3/M) is addressed to the Hon’ble President, the stamp used on the
same, does definitely raise a question as to how the said stamp came to
be affixed on this alleged representation dated 11.04.1986.
Supreme Court of India Vs. Milap Chand Jagotra Page no. 46 of 82
Digitally
signed by
JYOTI
JYOTI MAHESHWARI
MAHESHWARI Date:
2026.03.27
16:53:00
+0530
43. Ld. Counsels for the accused have raised another objection that
the document (Ex.PW-4/I) which also bears the two stamp impressions
used for giving acknowledgment on the letters/ communications,
addressed to the President of India, is an undated and unsigned
document without any reference number and without any details of the
author of the document. On this basis, it is contended that this
document cannot be read in evidence against the accused.
Undoubtedly, the objection raised by Ld. Counsels for the accused
holds merit, as the source of this document cannot be ascertained.
However, even de hors this document, the contention raised by Ld.
Counsels for the accused does not hold any ground. Even without this
document (Ex.PW-4/I) being considered, the difference between the
stamps used, is easily discernible by a person of ordinary prudence and
the same would not require the aid of an expert.
44. In light of the above discussion, it has been proved beyond
reasonable doubt that the stamp used in the alleged representation
(Ex.PW-3/M) was not the one, which was used for giving
acknowledgment on communications/ letters addressed to the President
of India. Thus, this contention raised on behalf of accused, is decided
in favour of the prosecution.
Supreme Court of India Vs. Milap Chand Jagotra Page no. 47 of 82
Digitally signed
by JYOTI
MAHESHWARI
JYOTI
MAHESHWARI Date:
2026.03.27
16:53:09
+0530
(ii) The controversy regarding the alleged representation being
delivered in a sealed envelope or open cover.
45. The witness K.C. Singh in his affidavit (Ex.PW-3/F)
categorically testified that the accused Ashok Jain (A-6) never
delivered the alleged representation and the office of the President’s
Secretariat is “enquiring into the circumstances, under which the entry
came to be inserted in the Dak Register, meant only for un-opened
letters addressed to the President by name.”
46. Thus, through this affidavit and during the course of his
examination-in-chief, the witness K.C Singh categorically testified that
the Dak Register in question (Ex.PW-1/1) was only meant for sealed
letters, addressed to the President of India by name. Further, during his
examination-in-chief, the witness deposed, “In case of an open petition
if the presenter desired an acknowledgement, then on a copy of the
petition, a stamp was put and the initials of the person in the Central
Registry affixed. If it was a sealed cover, then there was no question of
acknowledging the letter which was in the envelope, as it was passed
on unopened to either the personal office of the President or to any
office. Any acknowledgement on a copy would only be given, if an
open petition was received.”
47. Thus, the distinction between petitions received in a sealed cover
or in an open form was first brought to fore, through the affidavit of
K.C Singh and his testimony as PW-4. On this aspect, the witness was
Supreme Court of India Vs. Milap Chand Jagotra Page no. 48 of 82
Digitally signed
by JYOTI
MAHESHWARI
JYOTI
MAHESHWARI Date:
2026.03.27
16:53:17
+0530
subjected to a detailed cross-examination. During his cross-
examination dated 16.11.2016, on being asked as to whether the
alleged representation was received in a sealed cover or otherwise, the
witness deposed as under:
“I cannot say if the representation was in a sealed
cover or otherwise when it was initially given at the
office of the President’s Secretariat. Vol: However,
it was deductively determined that as per the
procedure of the Central Registry,
acknowledgement on the copy of the letter were
only given, if an open petition is received.”
48. Furthermore, on being questioned as to how the
acknowledgment was there on a photocopy of the representation, the
witness further answered that in his affidavit to the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India, he stated that the procedure of receipt of Dak in CR
section was defied, as “the Register in which the entry is purported to
have been made, was for dak for the President’s Personal Office and
sealed letters would not be opened by the Registry, when so addressed
to the President. Thus, there is no question of an acknowledgment on
the photocopy.” Moreover, the witness further deposed that, “it is
correct that for open representations received, acknowledgments were
given on a copy, but the same cannot be extended to Ex.PW-3/M as
the entry pertaining to it is in a Register, meant for closed/ sealed
letters.” Thus, the witness testified to the effect that as per the affidavit
of accused Ashok Jain (A-6), the representation was allegedly
delivered in a sealed envelope and therefore, there was no question of
acknowledgment on the representation, as sealed letters addressed to
Supreme Court of India Vs. Milap Chand Jagotra Page no. 49 of 82
Digitally signed
by JYOTI
MAHESHWARI
JYOTI
MAHESHWARI Date:
2026.03.27
16:53:26
+0530
the Hon’ble President by name, would not be opened by the CR
section.
49. During his further cross-examination, the witness also admitted
that there was no separate provision for maintaining a separate Register
for open and sealed letters, addressed to the Hon’ble President of India.
Thus, through his own admission, the witness admitted during the
course of his cross-examination that the same Register was being used
for receiving both open as well as sealed letters addressed to the
President of India. This admission by the witness is further bolstered, if
one has a bare look at the other entries made in the Dak Register in
question. At various entries dated 28.02.1986, 03.02.1986, 24.01.1986,
the words mentioned in the entries are “O/Cover” showing that these
letters were open cover letters and were not sealed letters. The entries
no. 22 and 29 dated 15.01.1986 and 20.01.1986 also show that open
cover letters were received.
50. Moreover, the other entries i.e. entry no. 11 dated 11.02.1986
and entry no. 19 dated 17.02.1986 show the receipt of Link Magazine
and not any letter/ petition addressed to the President of India.
Additionally, entry no. 18 dated 17.02.1986 in the said register shows
the receipt of 26 books, thereby, categorically showing that the register
was not meant only for receiving sealed letters addressed to the
President by name. A cursory examination of the Dak Register in
question (Ex.PW-1/1) shows that the same register was also being used
Supreme Court of India Vs. Milap Chand Jagotra Page no. 50 of 82
Digitally
signed by
JYOTI
JYOTI MAHESHWARI
MAHESHWARI Date:
2026.03.27
16:53:34
+0530
to diarize the incoming closed letters, open letters, and even other
items.
51. Thus, the testimony of the witness K.C Singh to the effect that
the Dak Register was only meant for receiving sealed letters addressed
to the Hon’ble President by name; has been put to naught, even
through a cursory examination of the various entries in the Register in
question. Ld. Counsels for the accused have been able to show that the
Dak Register in question was also used for the purpose of receiving
open letters as well as other items and the same is evident from a
perusal of the various entries in the Dak Register. As a result, it casts a
serious dent on the case of the prosecution that the alleged
representation dated 11.04.1986 (Ex.PW-3/M) could not have been
diarized in the Dak Register (Ex.PW-1/1).
52. A doubt has also been raised that the suffix ‘A’ has been added
next to entry no. 20 dated 16.04.1986, in order to create a false
impression, that entry no. 20 showing the receipt of alleged
representation dated 11.04.1986 was genuine and sequential in nature.
For this, the prosecution has relied on the testimony of PW-2 Yogender
Kumar, wherein he deposed that “the entries were made in the relevant
register, they were made in the ascending order and there is no practice
of mentioning any entry as A or B suffixed with any number.” Further,
the witness also denied the suggestion that making entries like 20A and
20B, by dealing clerks was not new in the CR Section, thereby,
Supreme Court of India Vs. Milap Chand Jagotra Page no. 51 of 82
Digitally
signed by
JYOTI
JYOTI MAHESHWARI
MAHESHWARI Date:
2026.03.27
16:53:50
+0530
deposing that it was unusual to put a suffix like A, B and C, after an
entry in the Register.
53. However, upon being questioned during his cross-examination,
the witness deposed that as per his knowledge, there was no circular or
rule-book containing directions/ guidelines for making entries in the
diary and dispatch register. The witness also admitted that there was no
specific prescription to not use A or B suffixes to any entry in the Dak
Register (Ex.PW-1/1).
54. If one looks at the entries in the Dak Register (Ex.PW-1/1), there
are various entries like entry no. 39/1 dated 01.03.1986, entry no. 40/2
dated 01.03.1986 and an undated entry numbered 41/3 and entries
numbered 42/4, 43/5, 44/6 and 45/7 all dated 04.03.1986. This goes on
to show that there was no fixed manner of diarising the entries in the
Dak Register (Ex.PW-1/1). Similarly, there are certain entries where
there has been a cutting i.e. entry no. 47 dated 25.01.1986 has been cut
and instead of the above, another entry dated 26.01.1986 with same
entry number has been inserted in register.
55. Additionally, the sequential numbering pattern has also not been
followed in an absolute way and there are certain aberrations. For
example, after entry No. 20 dated 14.03.1986, an Entry No. 15/3 has
been made on 15.03.1986 and thereafter, Entry No. 22 has been made
on 16.03.1986. These further suggest that there was no strict numerical
procedure being followed for diarizing the entries in the Dak Register
Supreme Court of India Vs. Milap Chand Jagotra Page no. 52 of 82
Digitally signed
by JYOTI
MAHESHWARI
JYOTI
MAHESHWARI Date:
2026.03.27
16:54:01
+0530
(Ex.PW-1/1) and the unusual nature of entry in question dated
15.04.1986 (Ex.PW-5/A) as alleged by the prosecution, cannot be a
determinative circumstance against the accused. Further, in any case of
manual entries in a register, it is usual that there could be some cutting,
editing in the entries and merely because of such cutting/ editing/
writing of suffix A, the same cannot operate against the accused.
56. Another doubt which has been raised with respect to the entry in
question (Ex.PW-5/A) is that it is marked to Sh. Kulwant Singh,
Private Secretary to the President [PSP (KS)], but in the ordinary
course of things, it should not have been so. Additionally, the witness
K.C Singh in his testimony as PW-4 has deposed “that the letters were
forwarded to PSP (KS) only, if they were sealed and coming from
High dignitaries like Governor etc. as the previous two entries show
but general petitions were directed to the concerned Deputy
Secretaries.” The testimony on this aspect of the witness has also been
challenged as there are various entries showing receipt of daks of
ordinary nature, still being addressed to PSP (KS).
57. Ld. PP for CBI has contended that no reliance can be placed by
the Court on the other entries which are mentioned above, because Ld.
Counsels for the accused did not put a question regarding any of these
entries to the witness and thus, the witness did not have any
opportunity to explain these entries, during the course of his testimony.
This submission, although appealing, at first blush, cannot be accepted
because once the Dak Register (Ex.PW-1/1) has been tendered in
Supreme Court of India Vs. Milap Chand Jagotra Page no. 53 of 82
Digitally signed
by JYOTI
MAHESHWARI
JYOTI
MAHESHWARI Date:
2026.03.27
16:54:09
+0530
evidence, the entirety of the document can be read by the Court and
thus, even those entries in the Dak Register, which have not been put to
the witness can be considered by the Court. This is because the entire
Register after being tendered in evidence becomes admissible and is a
testament to the fact that all the contents of the Register are true and
genuine. The mere omission to put the other entries to the witness,
cannot operate to the prejudice of the accused and a contention
regarding these entries, even though not put to the witness, can be
raised before the Court.
58. In light of the discussion above, it can be safely inferred that the
Dak Register (Ex.PW-1/1) was not a document, wherein there was
only one particular/ prescribed way of making the entries and the same
is also reflected from the various deviations in the entries made; as has
been highlighted above.
(iii) The requirement of being issued a visitor pass.
59. The next doubt in the case put forth by the prosecution is the
absence of any visitor pass issued to accused Ashok Jain (A-6), when
he came to deliver the Dak/ alleged representation (Ex.PW-3/M) on
15.04.1986. This is further strengthened by the document D-13 i.e. the
note of DCP (Security), Rashtrapati Bhawan dated 01.09.1986,
wherein, it has been specifically stipulated that no details regarding the
private visitors is recorded at the reception, since their number is
usually high. The said document was admitted by PW-4 during his
Supreme Court of India Vs. Milap Chand Jagotra Page no. 54 of 82
Digitally
signed by
JYOTI
JYOTI MAHESHWARI
MAHESHWARI Date:
2026.03.27
16:54:16
+0530
cross-examination and was exhibited as Ex. PW-4/D1. This is further
in line with the affidavit filed by accused Ashok Jain (A-6) on
09.09.1986, before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, wherein, he
testified that no visitor pass was issued to him and he was merely
directed to the room, where letters are received. The relevant portion of
the affidavit of the accused Ashok Jain (A-6) is reproduced below:
“A person at the reception directed a peon to show
to me the room where letters are received. There
was no reason or occasion for me to ask the name
of that person nor was I asked my name or issued
any pass. The peon indicated a room on the ground
floor along a corridor as being the Central Registry
where the letter was delivered.”
60. Thus, it is evident that ordinarily no pass was being issued to
private visitors, who were coming to deliver their petitions/ letters in
the Rashtrapati Bhawan at that point of time and thus, a further dent
has been cast on the story put forth by the prosecution.
(iv) Other contentions raised regarding the alleged interpolated entry
(Ex.PW-5/A).
61. It is contended on behalf of the accused that the notesheet
(Ex.PW-4/B) clearly shows that the alleged representation was
received in CR section vide entry no. 20 on 15.04.1986 and marked to
PSP (KS) and the same is evident, if one reads the noting dated
04.08.1986 in the hand-writing of Sh. I.D Jajoria (PW-5) and the said
entry is also not disputed by the prosecution.
Supreme Court of India Vs. Milap Chand Jagotra Page no. 55 of 82
Digitally signed
by JYOTI
MAHESHWARI
JYOTI
MAHESHWARI Date:
2026.03.27
16:54:22
+0530
62. However, the Court is tasked with the responsibility to consider
the document in its entirety and not place entire reliance on a portion of
the document, which suits a particular party (in this case, the accused).
A holistic reading of the entire document (Ex.PW-4/B) shows that after
the note dated 04.08.1986, by Late Sh. I.D Jajoria, the subsequent
notings clearly show that the said representation could not be traced in
any of the sections of the President’s Secretariat. The note also bears
the noting by Sh. K.C Singh, wherein he states that ” D.S(S) may
please see for approval, before the reply is sent to the Ministry.” On
this basis, a letter dated 04.08.1986 (Ex.PW-4/C), was sent by Sh. D.B
Bhatia, the-then Under-Secretary to Sh. S.K. Chaudhary, the-then
Under-Secretary, Ministry of Finance, that the alleged representation
(Ex.PW-3/M) was never received in the CR section of the President’s
Secretariat. This was followed by a note by Sh. K.C. Singh, the-then
Deputy Secretary in the President’s Secretariat, wherein, he stated that
“This entry seems to have been inserted in the Register sometime after
the 15th April, 1986, as is apparent from the running serial numbers
given in the Register.”
63. On the basis of this note, an enquiry was marked by Sh. S.
Vardharajan to DS(N) i.e. the-then Deputy Secretary Sh. S.
Neelakanthan, who was the Vigilance Officer at the relevant time.
Thus, it is evident that the noting by Sh. I.D Jajoria was followed by
subsequent notings in the notesheet (Ex.PW-4/B), clearly showing that
the representation in question was not traceable in the President’s
Supreme Court of India Vs. Milap Chand Jagotra Page no. 56 of 82
Digitally signed
by JYOTI
MAHESHWARI
JYOTI
MAHESHWARI Date:
2026.03.27
16:54:29
+0530
Secretariat and a conclusion was drawn that the Entry in question
(Ex.PW-5/1) was inserted/ interpolated.
64. Ld. Counsels for the accused have raised another contention that
as per the testimony of PW-4, a vigilance enquiry was ordered and a
Vigilance Officer was appointed. Moreover, vide letter dated
25.08.1986 (Ex.PW-4/H), addressed to the Assistant Registrar,
Hon’ble Supreme Court, it was specifically stated that the
circumstances under which the entry was made in the Dak Register
(Ex.PW-1/1) are being enquired into.
65. However, in the affidavit filed by Sh. K.C. Singh on 03.09.1986
(Ex.PW-3/F), the factum of vigilance enquiry being initiated, has not
been mentioned. It is contended by Ld. Counsel for accused that the
witness Sh. K.C. Singh, deliberately concealed the factum of vigilance
enquiry being ordered and appointment of a Vigilance Officer. It is
further submitted that had this fact been brought to the notice of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the Supreme Court would have
waited for the vigilance report, rather than indulging itself into the
jurisdiction u/S 340 CrPC.
66. It is a matter of record that the factum of vigilance enquiry being
ordered, was not brought to the notice of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
However, no response/ explanation was sought by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, regarding any pending enquiry/ vigilance enquiry on
the alleged interpolated entry. Had this been directed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India Vs. Milap Chand Jagotra Page no. 57 of 82
Digitally
signed by
JYOTI
JYOTI MAHESHWARI
MAHESHWARI Date:
2026.03.27
16:54:36
+0530
Supreme Court, the Ld. Counsels for the accused could have raised an
argument of deliberate concealment by Sh. K.C. Singh, but this is not
the situation in the present case. Moreover, in any event, the
proceedings u/S 340 CrPC operate in a different field and have no
relation with the vigilance enquiry. Thus, this contention of deliberate
concealment by Sh. K.C. Singh in his affidavit, is devoid of merit.
67. Thus, upon a holistic assessment of the arguments raised by the
prosecution as well as the defence regarding the delivery of alleged
representation, it can be concluded that the prosecution has failed to
show that the alleged representation dated 11.04.1986 (Ex.PW-3/M)
was not actually delivered at the CR Section of the President’s
Secretariat. While it has been proved that the stamp affixed on the
alleged representation was not the one, which should have been affixed
on the document in the usual course of work; the fact that the Dak
Register (Ex.PW-1/1) was being used for both sealed and unsealed
letters and other documents, indicates a plausibility of the alleged
representation being delivered by accused Ashok Jain (A-6). This
factor coupled with the lack of rigidity in issuance of a visitor’s pass in
the President’s Secretariat, point to a possibility that Sh. Ashok Jain
(A-6) had indeed visited the President’s Secretariat on 15.04.1986 and
delivered the alleged representation. The non-traceability of the alleged
representation (Ex.PW-3/M) is by itself, not a sufficient basis to
conclusively determine that the alleged representation was not
delivered in the President’s Secretariat.
Supreme Court of India Vs. Milap Chand Jagotra Page no. 58 of 82
Digitally signed
by JYOTI
MAHESHWARI
JYOTI
MAHESHWARI Date:
2026.03.27
16:54:42
+0530
68. Moreover, the alleged offences u/S 193 IPC and 199 IPC which
deal with punishment for false evidence and punishment for a false
statement made before a Court of Law, are not attracted qua any of the
accused. Since, the factum of alleged alleged representation not being
delivered has itself not been proved, the averment that the accused
persons falsely stated the same in their respective affidavits
(Ex.PW-3/C to Ex.PW-3/E and Ex.PW-3/J to Ex.PW-3/L) also cannot
be proved. Thus, the offences u/S 193 IPC and 199 IPC are not
attracted, qua any of the accused.
C. The alleged commission of offences u/S 466/ 471 IPC.
69. The Court shall now deal with the charges of commission of
forgery, as alleged against the accused. The story, as unfolded by the
prosecution, is that the alleged representation (Ex.PW-3/M) was not
delivered in the CR section of the President’s Secretariat on
15.04.1986 and the accused persons, namely, Late Milap Chand
Jagotra (A-1) and Late Gurcharan Singh (A-2), who were working in
the CR section at the relevant time, allegedly inserted the entry in
question (Ex.PW-5/A) dated 15.04.1986 with entry no. 20, in
connivance with accused persons (A-3, A-5 and A-6).
70. It is submitted by the Ld. PP for CBI that the alleged forgery in
the Dak register by accused Late Milap Chand Jagotra (A-1) and the
accused Late Gurcharan Singh (A-2), has been clearly proved by the
CFSL report dated 26.06.1987 (Ex.PW-8/1) and the said report is per
Supreme Court of India Vs. Milap Chand Jagotra Page no. 59 of 82
Digitally
signed by
JYOTI
JYOTI MAHESHWARI
MAHESHWARI Date:
2026.03.27
16:54:50
+0530
se admissible u/S 293 Cr.PC. Per contra, it is contended by Ld.
Counsels for the accused that both the accused (A-1 and A-2) expired
during the pendency of the trial and the proceeding qua both these
accused have been abated. On this basis, it is contended that there can
be no finding of forgery against the accused or any attribution of guilt
on the deceased accused.
71. It is a matter of record that the alleged interpolation in the Dak
Register (Ex. PW-1/1), has been attributed to only accused No. 1 and 2
and the proceedings against both these accused have been abated. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of U. Subhadramma and Ors. Vs
State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr., (2016) 7 SCC 797, has held as
follows:
” As far as the circumstances of this case are
concerned, we find that there has been a gross mis-
carriage of justice at several steps. In the first place,
the finding of the trial court that Ramachandraiah
was alone responsible for the offences is completely
vitiated as null and void since Ramachandraiah had
admittedly died on the date this finding was
rendered. It is too well settled that a prosecution
cannot continue against a dead person. A fortiori a
criminal court cannot continue proceedings against
a dead person and find him guilty. Such
proceedings and the findings are contrary to the
very foundation of criminal jurisprudence. In such a
case the accused does not exist and cannot be
convicted. (Emphasis supplied). Consequently, the
learned District Judge committed a gross error of
law in acting upon such a finding and treating
Ramachandraiah as guilty of such offences while
making the order of attachment and while
confirming the said order of attachment of
properties.”
Supreme Court of India Vs. Milap Chand Jagotra Page no. 60 of 82
Digitally
signed by
JYOTI
JYOTI MAHESHWARI
MAHESHWARI Date:
2026.03.27
16:54:59
+0530
72. Thus, it is evident that there can be no finding of guilt against an
accused, who has passed away, during the pendency of trial and thus,
no finding on the alleged forgery can be given by this Court. At the
same time, it is a matter of record that there are other surviving
accused who are facing the charges u/S 120-B IPC, r/w Sections 466/
471 IPC and on this basis, it is submitted by Ld. PP for CBI that a
determination regarding the commission of offences u/S. 466/471, IPC
is to be made.
73. Arguendo, even if it is assumed for the sake of arguments that
the role of the surviving accused has to be ascertained and a finding
needs to be given in this regard; the alleged commission of offences
u/S 466/471 IPC have also not been proved on merits. The same shall
be dealt with, below.
74. It is submitted by Ld. PP for CBI that the alleged interpolation in
the Dak Register i.e. the offence of commission of forgery u/S 466 IPC
has been proved through the CFSL report dated 26.06.1987
(Ex.PW-8/1) as well as the testimony of PW-8 D.R Handa, who was
the expert summoned from CFSL. It is submitted that the said report is
per se admissible u/S 293 CrPC.
75. It is pertinent to note that the testimony of the witness PW-8 D.R
Handa does not aid the case of the prosecution, as he only identified
the signatures of the deceased Sh. T.R Nehra, who had prepared the
CFSL report dated 26.06.1987. The said witness could not explain the
Supreme Court of India Vs. Milap Chand Jagotra Page no. 61 of 82
Digitally
signed by
JYOTI
JYOTI MAHESHWARI
MAHESHWARI Date:
2026.03.27
16:55:05
+0530
contents of the CFSL report (Ex.PW-8/1). Ld. PP for CBI has placed
strong reliance on Section 293 of CrPC, as per which the report from
CFSL, New Delhi is itself admissible, without any witness being
summoned, in this regard. However, admissibility of a document is
different from proof of the document and the mere fact that the said
report is admissible in nature, does not lead to the Report (Ex.PW-8/1)
being proved, in accordance with law. Further, Ld. Counsels for the
accused have raised an objection to the said report and have argued
that as per Section 293 (2) CrPC, the Court has ample power to
summon and examine any such Officer, as to the subject-matter of the
report. It is submitted that the testimony of witness was only limited to
identifying the signatures of the author of the document and there was
no examination, regarding the subject-matter or the contents of the
expert opinion (Ex.PW-8/1) and thus, no reliance can be placed on the
same.
76. Once, the prosecution has decided to summon a witness to
depose on the report/ expert opinion, it is the duty of the prosecution
and also the mandate of Section 293 (2) CrPC, to ensure that the
witness is competent to testify on the subject-matter of the report. It
was all the more incumbent on the prosecution to get a witness, who
was familiar with the contents of Ex.PW-8/1, once an objection was
raised on behalf of the defence, but the same was not done. The
witness in the present case has not been able to depose on the subject-
matter of the report, as he was never involved in preparation of the said
report (Ex.PW-8/1) in any manner, whatsoever. It may be true that due
Supreme Court of India Vs. Milap Chand Jagotra Page no. 62 of 82
Digitally
signed by
JYOTI
JYOTI MAHESHWARI
MAHESHWARI Date:
2026.03.27
16:55:12
+0530
to lapse of almost 38 years, the prosecution may not have been able to
secure the presence of a witness, who was involved in preparation of
the said CFSL report or was familiar with the subject matter of the
report, but the benefit of doubt in such cases, accrues to the accused.
77. Additionally, a strong doubt has been cast on the case of the
prosecution, as the original specimen hand-writings of the accused
persons, have been lost in the present case. The said specimen hand-
writings of the accused formed the basis of comparison by the CFSL
expert and the preparation of the CFSL report (Ex.PW-8/1). Ld. PP for
CBI has submitted that the printouts of the specimen hand-writing/
signatures of the accused persons, namely, Late Milap Chand Jagotra
(A-1) and Late Gurcharan Singh (A-2) were prepared from the
negatives preserved in CFSL, Delhi. However, no sufficient
explanation has been adduced by the prosecution, as to how the
original specimen hand-writing/ signature of the accused persons have
been lost and from whose custody, they were lost.
78. The witness, namely, Rajeev Kumar Negi (PW-10) was
examined and proved that he printed the photographs from the
negatives preserved in CFSL and was assigned the said task by the
HOD, Photo Division on 17.10.2017. However, during his cross-
examination, the witness admitted that he was never involved during
the investigation of the present case and was also not aware, as to who
took the pictures of the purported documents (negative images). His
role was limited to taking a printout of the negatives. Furthermore, the
Supreme Court of India Vs. Milap Chand Jagotra Page no. 63 of 82
Digitally signed
by JYOTI
MAHESHWARI
JYOTI
MAHESHWARI Date:
2026.03.27
16:55:20
+0530
witness PW-9 Vijay Verma produced a copy of the images and
printouts, whose originals were claimed to have been used for
preparing the CFSL report (Ex.PW-8/1) and was also not responsible
for taking the pictures of the purported documents i.e. the negatives in
question.
79. Both the witnesses testified that they were not aware of how and
where the original documents got lost and had no knowledge as to how
and where the negatives were preserved and processed. This Court is in
agreement with the submissions addressed on behalf of the accused
that mere print outs of negatives of the lost documents, without
proving as to how, when and where the photocopies/ negatives
surfaced and from whom; cannot be relied upon in evidence.
80. It is trite law that primary evidence is the best evidence and in
the absence of the same, secondary evidence can be led. However, in
order to lead secondary evidence, the prosecution must show that
atleast one of the conditions mentioned in Section 65 of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 has been proved. The prosecution was also
mandated to prove that the photocopy of the document was made,
during the existence of primary source, as well as the continuity/
preservation/ recovery of the photocopy in question, were all required
to be proved.
81. However, in the present case, there is complete failure on the
part of prosecution to prove and establish the existence of the alleged
Supreme Court of India Vs. Milap Chand Jagotra Page no. 64 of 82
Digitally
signed by
JYOTI
JYOTI MAHESHWARI
MAHESHWARI Date:
2026.03.27
16:55:26
+0530
photocopy of the documents, forming subject matter of the CFSL
report (Ex.PW-8/1). The documents and materials which formed the
basis of preparation of CFSL report have a broken chain of custody for
a long period and no explanation could be adduced by the prosecution,
regarding the same. In such circumstances, where the primary evidence
i.e. the original specimen hand-writing and signatures are missing and
the photocopy of the same is also missing, the basis of preparation of
the CFSL report is itself rendered doubtful and hence, no reliance can
be placed on the said CFSL report.
82. It is submitted by Ld. PP for CBI that even de hors the CFSL
report, the testimony of prosecution witnesses independently
establishes the signatures of Late accused Gurcharan Singh (A-2) on
the disputed entry (Ex.PW-5/A). It is submitted by Ld. PP for CBI that
PW-5 Late I.D Jajoria, during the course of his examination-in-chief
testified that Late Gurcharan Singh (A-2) admitted his signatures on
the entry in question. Moreover, PW-7 Vijay Pal during the course of
his testimony also identified the signature of Late Gurcharan Singh
(A-2) at point X on the entry in question and also testified that the date
15/4 was also written by Late Gurcharan Singh (A-2). Even if the said
testimonies of prosecution witnesses is taken at face value, the same is
insufficient to prove the offence of forgery in question.
83. To establish the offence of forgery, it must first be established
that the alleged representation was never received in the CR section
and despite that, an entry regarding the receipt of the alleged
Supreme Court of India Vs. Milap Chand Jagotra Page no. 65 of 82
Digitally
signed by
JYOTI
JYOTI MAHESHWARI
MAHESHWARI Date:
2026.03.27
16:55:33
+0530
representation has been made in the Dak Register (Ex. PW-1/1). Since,
the first part of the proposition sought to be proved by the prosecution,
has itself not been proved; consequently, the question of commission
of forgery itself falls to the ground, as it cannot be held that the entry in
question is a forged one.
84. In any event, it is not the case of prosecution today, that the
present accused (A-3, A-5 and A-6) were responsible for or made the
alleged interpolated entry (Ex.PW-5/A) in the Dak Register. It is no
more res integra that an offence of forgery is not attracted against a
person who has not created or signed the false document. ( Sheila
Sebastian Vs. R. Jawaharaj & Anr., 2018 (7) SCC 581). Thus, the
commission of offence u/S 466 IPC, is not attracted against the
accused.
85. The next offence sought to be proved is the use of the alleged
interpolated entry (Ex.PW-5/A) as genuine, by the accused persons,
despite knowing that the said entry was interpolated/ fabricated.
Section 471 IPC penalizes the fraudulent or dishonest use of any
forged document as genuine, despite knowing or having a reason to
believe that such document is forged. It is alleged by the prosecution
that the accused persons placed reliance on the alleged interpolated
entry (Ex.PW-5/A) and used this as a basis for filing WP (Crl.) No:
363/1986, before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, seeking release of
accused Mohan Lal Jatia.
Supreme Court of India Vs. Milap Chand Jagotra Page no. 66 of 82
Digitally
signed by
JYOTI
JYOTI MAHESHWARI
MAHESHWARI Date:
2026.03.27
16:55:42
+0530
86. However, for proving the commission of offence u/S 471 IPC, at
first the foundational fact of forgery or that the document is forged
needs to be proved [Vandana Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2025 INSC
1098]. Once, the prosecution has failed to prove the commission of
offence u/S 466 IPC, the offence u/S 471 IPC itself is not attracted qua
any of the accused.
87. Even assuming that the entry in question was interpolated, the
prosecution was required to establish a nexus between such
interpolation and accused persons. However, the evidence on record is
conspicuously silent on this aspect. It is admitted that the Dak Register
(Ex.PW-1/1) was maintained with the CR Section of the President’s
Secretariat and none of the accused persons had any access to to the
said Register or any control over it. In such circumstances, no
connecting evidence has been shown, as to whether the accused
persons had interacted with or influenced any official responsible for
maintaining the said Register (Ex.PW-1/1). In the absence of such
connecting evidence showing the role of accused in getting the alleged
entry inserted in the Dak Register (Ex.PW-1/1), the essential
ingredients of offences pertaining to forgery and use of forged
documents as genuine, remain unproved.
88. Thus, in light of the above discussion, it is evident that the
prosecution has failed to prove the commission of offences u/S 466/
471 IPC qua any of the accused, in the present case.
Supreme Court of India Vs. Milap Chand Jagotra Page no. 67 of 82
Digitally
signed by
JYOTI
JYOTI MAHESHWARI
MAHESHWARI Date:
2026.03.27
16:55:49
+0530
D. The offence of criminal conspiracy u/S 120B, IPC.
89. It is alleged that the accused persons conspired with each other,
in order to show that the alleged representation was delivered in the
CR section of the President’s Secretariat, when it was actually not so.
It is further alleged, that in pursuance of the said conspiracy, the
accused Ashok Jatia (A-5) handed over the letter/ alleged
representation to accused Ashok Jain (A-6) on 14.04.1986, who was
shown to have delivered the alleged representation in the President’s
Secretariat on 15.04.1986. Per contra, Ld. Counsels for the accused
have submitted that there is no iota of evidence on record to show the
existence of any sort of conspiracy, between the accused.
90. It is trite law that conspiracy is usually hatched in dark and there
is seldom, if ever, any direct evidence of conspiracy, which is
forthcoming. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Baburao
Bajirao Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra, (1971) 3 SCC 432 , has held that
conspiracy by its very nature, is conceived and hatched in secrecy;
otherwise the whole purpose would be frustrated. Accordingly, direct
independent evidence of criminal conspiracy is generally not available,
and its evidence is a matter of inference. This inference is normally
drawn, from the act of the parties, in pursuance of a common purpose
between the conspirators. It has also been held that in order to show the
element of criminal conspiracy; the circumstances before, during and
after the occurrence also have to be considered to decide the complicity
of accused (Ram Narayan Popli Vs CBI & Ors., AIR 2003 SC 2748).
Supreme Court of India Vs. Milap Chand Jagotra Page no. 68 of 82 Digitally signed by JYOTI JYOTI MAHESHWARI MAHESHWARI Date: 2026.03.27 16:55:56 +0530
91. Further, it was held in State (N.C.T of Delhi) Vs. Navjot Sandhu
& Ors., 2005 11 SCC 797, that a few bits here and a few bits there, on
which the prosecution relies cannot be held to be adequate, for
connecting the accused, with the offence of criminal conspiracy. It was
also held that the cumulative effect of proved circumstances, should be
considered in determining the guilt of accused, rather than adopting an
isolated approach to each of the circumstance.
92. Thus, the prosecution is bound to establish the meeting of minds,
to prove the existence of criminal conspiracy and the same can also be
inferred from surrounding circumstances. However, there is no
evidence on record to show the meeting of minds, as alleged by the
prosecution. This Court is in agreement with the submissions made on
behalf of A-6 that there is no evidence to show that accused Ashok Jain
(A-6), had any knowledge with regard to the intended filing of any
petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court or that the Written
Representation or its Xerox copy would be used in the said
proceedings. There is nothing on record to show that the accused
Ashok Jain (A-6) played any role in the litigation and other
proceedings regarding the release of accused Mohan Lal Jatia (A-3),
either prior to the delivery of the letter or pursuant to the same and had
only filed an affidavit, as per the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court.
Supreme Court of India Vs. Milap Chand Jagotra Page no. 69 of 82
Digitally signed
by JYOTI
MAHESHWARI
JYOTI
MAHESHWARI Date:
2026.03.27
16:56:03
+0530
93. Further, even as regards the other accused i.e. A-3 and A-5, there
is nothing on record to show that they had any contact with any official
of Rashtrapati Bhawan at any point of time or were connected in any
manner to the insertion of the alleged entry in question (Ex.PW-5/A) in
the Dak Register (Ex.PW-1/1). The prosecution has failed to establish
any prior agreement or coordinated action between the accused, in
order to facilitate the commission of the alleged offence and thus, the
allegations pertaining to criminal conspiracy, remain unsubstantiated.
94. It is trite law that mere suspicion, without any corroborative
material cannot be a substitute for proof and there must be something
on record to show that the accused persons entered into an agreement
to commit the alleged offence and carried out any action, in
furtherance of the same. Thus, in such circumstances, the offence of
criminal conspiracy is not attracted qua any of the accused.
E. Additional contentions raised on behalf of the parties.
95. This Court shall now deal with the other arguments raised by Ld.
PP for CBI as well as Ld. Counsels for the accused.
(i) The effect of death of A-1 and A-2 on the present proceedings.
96. The accused persons, namely, Late Milap Chand Jagotra (A-1)
and Late Gurcharan Singh (A-2) expired during the pendency of the
trial and the proceedings against these accused have already been
Supreme Court of India Vs. Milap Chand Jagotra Page no. 70 of 82
Digitally
signed by
JYOTI
JYOTI MAHESHWARI
MAHESHWARI Date:
2026.03.27
16:56:10
+0530
abated. Both these accused were working in CR Section of the
President’s Secretariat during the concerned period and were alleged to
have inserted the interpolated entry in question. The offence u/S 218
IPC for which the accused persons have also been charged, is not
attracted qua any of the present accused, as the same deals with a
public servant framing an incorrect record; but admittedly none of the
surviving accused are public servants in the present case. Moreover,
since, both the accused in the present case (A-1 and A-2) who were
public servants, have already passed away during the pendency of trial,
the question of commission of offence u/S 218, IPC does not arise.
97. Ld. Counsels for the accused have raised an additional
contention that both these accused were public servants at the time of
commission of alleged offence and u/S 197 Cr.PC, the prosecution
ought to have taken the requisite sanction to prosecute these two
accused, as the said act fell within the scope of their duties. However,
since the proceedings against both the accused have already been
abated, dealing with the contention will be a fool’s errand.
(ii) No whisper of the alleged representation in SLP (Crl.) No.
1370/86, filed on behalf of Late Ms. Pushpa Devi Jatia (A-4).
98. It is contended by Ld. PP for CBI that once the Hon’ble Bombay
High Court dismissed the Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 385/86 vide Order
dated 02/03.05.1986, the Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 1370/86
was filed by Late Ms. Pushpa Devi Jatia (A-4), before the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India Vs. Milap Chand Jagotra Page no. 71 of 82
Digitally signed
by JYOTI
MAHESHWARI
JYOTI
MAHESHWARI Date:
2026.03.27
16:56:17
+0530
Supreme Court, assailing the said Order. However, there was no
mention of any representation being filed before the Hon’ble President
in the said SLP. It is further submitted that it was only in the Writ
Petition (Crl.) No.363/86, filed on 11.07.1986 that this contention
regarding the representation being filed before the President and the
same not being considered; was first raised. On this basis, it is
contended by Ld. PP for CBI that the filing of the alleged
representation was an afterthought, in order to secure the release of
accused Mohan Lal Jatia (A-3) and the said incriminating circumstance
itself show’s the commission of alleged offences by the accused.
99. However, this contention raised by Ld. PP for CBI has been
satisfactorily answered on behalf of the accused. It is submitted by the
accused that SLP (Crl.) No. 1370/86, was filed on 06.05.1986 and WP
(Crl.) No. 363/86 was filed on 11.07.1986, and both were filed on
different grounds. It is submitted that the said SLP was challenging
only the detention order as well as the dismissal of Writ Petition before
the Hon’ble Bombay High Court. However, the grounds of filing the
WP (Crl.) No. 363/1986, were completely different. Moreover, both
the matters were taken up together for the first time on 18.07.1986 and
notice was issued in both, as there were summer vacations in Supreme
Court. Thus, the accused persons have been able to adduce a
reasonable explanation, as to why the grounds of the alleged
representation being filed, was not taken in the SLP (Crl.) No. 1370/86
dated 06.05.1986 and was raised only subsequently in the Writ Petition
(Crl.) No. 363/1986, filed on 11.07.1986.
Supreme Court of India Vs. Milap Chand Jagotra Page no. 72 of 82
Digitally signed
by JYOTI
MAHESHWARI
JYOTI
MAHESHWARI Date:
2026.03.27
16:56:23
+0530
(iii) The effect of non-examination of material witnesses.
100. The trial in the present case has lasted for more than 03 decades
and the incident in question which forms the genesis of the present
case, goes back to more than 39 years ago. One of the misfortunes of
this protracted trial has been the non-examination of material
witnesses, due to their expiry or their unavailability. It is pertinent to
note that many key witnesses in the present case, whose testimony
could have made a material difference to the present case and could
have aided in eliciting the truth, could not be examined. The IO of the
case Sh. T.N Kapoor (the-then Dy.SP), who conducted the
investigation could not be examined, as he had passed away. The other
crucial witness i.e. Sh. Kulwant Singh, Private Secretary to the
President, to whom the representation (Ex.PW-3/M) was marked
allegedly was also not examined. Moreover, the CFSL expert who
prepared the report in question, Sh. T.R Nehra, was also not examined.
101. Other witnesses pertaining to the case of the prosecution i.e. Sh.
D.B Bhatia, Sh. S. Neelakanthan, Deputy Secretary (Vigilance) to
whom the vigilance enquiry was entrusted, were also not examined. As
a result of the long period of trial, only 8 of the 22 prosecution
witnesses, whose names were mentioned in the original list of
witnesses, could actually be examined. To the contrary, Ld. PP for CBI
has submitted that non-examination of these witnesses has not affected
the case of the prosecution and the commission of alleged offences,
still stands proved. Ld. PP for CBI has also relied on the decision of
Supreme Court of India Vs. Milap Chand Jagotra Page no. 73 of 82
Digitally
signed by
JYOTI
JYOTI MAHESHWARI
MAHESHWARI Date:
2026.03.27
16:56:30
+0530
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bahadur Naik Vs. State of Bihar, 2000
(9) SCC 153, wherein it was held that the non-examination of the IO as
a witness is of no consequence, as it could not be shown what
prejudice was caused to the accused, due to such non-examination.
102. Undoubtedly, the crucial test with regard to non-examination of
the witness is whether the non-examination of a witness has caused any
prejudice to the accused (Munna Lal Vs. State of U.P, 2023 (18) SCC
661). In the present case, many aspects of the investigation i.e. the non-
examination of Peons/ Zamadars of the Central Registry, who were
handling the letters between various departments, non-filing of
affidavit by Sh. Kulwant Singh, the result of the vigilance inquiry
conducted by Sh. Neelakanthan were missing and could only be
explained by examination of the witnesses. Unfortunately, on account
of non-examination of these material witnesses, there still remain many
unexplained gaps in the case of the prosecution.
103. It is further argued by Ld. PP for CBI that the delay was owing
to the various miscellaneous applications and dilatory tactics adopted
by the accused. However, be that as it may, the prosecution is enjoined
with the responsibility of proving its case beyond reasonable doubt and
ensuring the examination of all material witnesses. The prosecution
indeed tried its best to ensure examination of available witnesses at the
earliest, but the same could not fructify. The laches on the part of the
accused, do not lessen the obligation of the prosecution to place the
best available evidence on record. As a consequence of the non-
Supreme Court of India Vs. Milap Chand Jagotra Page no. 74 of 82
Digitally signed
by JYOTI
MAHESHWARI
JYOTI
MAHESHWARI Date:
2026.03.27
16:56:35
+0530
examination of these material witnesses, the complete facts could not
come to light and significant gaps have lingered on, in the case put
forth by the prosecution. The benefit of the same, accrues to the
accused.
104. It has been strongly emphasized by the prosecution that the
present complaint u/S 340 Cr.PC was received from the Hon’ble
Supreme Court and concerns the interpolation of entries in the registers
maintained in the highest office of this country i.e. the President’s
Secretariat. Notwithstanding the fact that this case involves highest
offices of the country; even in cases of complaints received u/S 340
CrPC where a prima facie determination of wrong-doing has been
made, the prosecution is still bound to prove its case beyond
reasonable doubt. The legal position in this regard has been amply
clarified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
105. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Karunakaran Vs.
T.V. Eachara Warrier, (1978) 1 SCC 18, wherein, a complaint was
directed to be filed by the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala u/S 340 CrPC,
against the-then Home Minister of Kerala; had categorically held that
at the stage of inquiry held by the Court u/S 340(1) CrPC, the only
question is whether a prima facie case is made out, which if
unrebutted, may have a reasonable likelihood to establish the specified
offence and whether it is expedient in the interests of justice to take
such action. However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court further went on to
Supreme Court of India Vs. Milap Chand Jagotra Page no. 75 of 82
Digitally signed
by JYOTI
MAHESHWARI
JYOTI
MAHESHWARI Date:
2026.03.27
16:56:42
+0530
say that once such complaint is instituted, it will proceed like a full-
fledged trial and observed as follows:
24. “We should make it clear that when the trial
of the appellant commences under section 193
IPC the reasons given in the main judgment of
the High Court or those in the order passed
under section 340(1) Cr.P.C., should not weigh
with the criminal court in coming to its
independent conclusion whether the offence
under section 193 IPC has been fully
established (against the, appellant beyond
reasonable doubt. It will be for the prosecution
to establish all the ingredients of the offence
under section 193 IPC against the appellant
and the decision will be based only on the
evidence and the materials produced before the
criminal court during the trial and the
conclusion of the court will be independent of
opinions formed by the High Court in the
habeas corpus proceeding and also in the
enquiry under section 340(1) Cr.P.C.
25. An enquiry, when made, under section
340(1) Cr.P.C. is really in the nature of
affording a locus poenitentiae to a person and
if at that stage the court chooses to take action,
it does not mean that he will not have full and
adequate opportunity in due course of the
process of justice to establish his innocence.”
(emphasis supplied)
106. These directions were further reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in State of Goa Vs. Jose Maria Albert Vales @ Robert Vales,
(2018) 11 SCC 659. Thus, even in complaints received u/S 340 CrPC,
the prosecution must prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. It is
for the prosecution to travel the entire distance between ‘may be true’ to
‘must be true’ and the same must be proved by legal, reliable and
unimpeachable evidence. (Sarwan Singh Rattan Singh v. State of
Supreme Court of India Vs. Milap Chand Jagotra Page no. 76 of 82
Digitally
signed by
JYOTI
JYOTI MAHESHWARI
MAHESHWARI Date:
2026.03.27
16:56:49
+0530
Punjab, AIR 1957 SC 637). There are various lacunae and gaps in the
case of the prosecution, which accrue to the benefit of the accused in
the present case.
107. When the evidence is appreciated in its entirety, this Court finds
that the prosecution’s case rests on conjectures and inferences, rather
than legal proof. The non-examination of material witnesses, failure to
prove secondary evidence in accordance with law and inconsistencies
in the testimony of crucial prosecution witnesses, collectively give rise
to a serious and reasonable doubt. On the other hand; the accused
persons have been able to cast a serious dent in the case of the
prosecution.
108. This Court is also constrained to observe that, had the trial in the
present case not been so protracted, additional material evidence may
have surfaced, thereby placing the Court in a better position to
ascertain the truth. Be that as it may, upon a careful appreciation of the
material on record, the prosecution has failed to establish the
commission of alleged offences by the accused, beyond reasonable
doubt.
Supreme Court of India Vs. Milap Chand Jagotra Page no. 77 of 82
Digitally
signed by
JYOTI
JYOTI MAHESHWARI
MAHESHWARI Date:
2026.03.27
16:56:58
+0530
CONCLUSION
109. Considering the entire conspectus of facts and circumstances and
the evidence on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the
prosecution has failed to prove the commission of alleged offences by
the accused. As a result, the accused persons, namely, Mohan Lal Jatia
(A-3), Ashok Jatia (A-5) and Ashok Jain (A-6) stand acquitted of all
the offences, for which they are charged, in the present case.
110. Before parting, this Court would like to underscore its
appreciation for Ld. Counsels for the accused persons as well as Ld. PP
for CBI, for the superlative assistance rendered during the trial and
arguments of the present case. This Court also wishes to acknowledge
Ld. PP for CBI for his persistent efforts.
111. File be consigned to Record Room, after due compliance.
Digitally signed
by JYOTI
MAHESHWARI
JYOTI
MAHESHWARI Date:
2026.03.27
(Jyoti Maheshwari)
16:57:04
+0530Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate-05
Rouse Avenue Courts ComplexAnnounced in the open Court
on 27th March, 2026.
Supreme Court of India Vs. Milap Chand Jagotra Page no. 78 of 82
ANNEXUREAnnexure in compliance of the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Manojbhai Jethabhai Parmar (Rohit) v. State of Gujarat (2025
INSC 1433).
A. LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED:
Sr. No. of Name of the witness Brief description/Role of the witness
the witness
PW-1 Sh. Sarnjit Singh Bhamra The-then LDC in the CR Section of the
President’s Secretariat and identified the
entry No. 19 and 20A in Dak Register.
PW-2 Sh. Yogender Kumar The-then LDC in the CR Section of the
President’s Secretariat.
PW-3 Sh. Rajender Prasad Worked as a Court Assistant in the
Supreme Court of India in 2015 and
produced the original record pertaining
to the case.
PW-4 Sh. K.C. Singh The-then Deputy Secretary in
President’s Secretariat.
PW-5 Sh. Ishwar Dass Jajoria Section Officer in the CR Section of
President’s Secretariat in 1986.
PW-6 Sh. M S A Siddiqui Registrar General of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India and complainant
in the present case.
PW-7 Sh. Vijay Pal Assistant in Personnel Section of
President’s Secretariat.
PW-8 Sh. D. R. Handa Principal Scientific Officer and HOD
(Retired), CFSL, New Delhi and
identified the signature of Sh. T. R.
Nehra on the CFSL report.
PW-9 Sh. Vijay Verma Assistant Director-cum-Scientist-C, in
CFSL, New Delhi.
PW-10 Sh. Rajeev Kumar Negi Senior Scientific Assistant in CFSL,
New Delhi.
Supreme Court of India Vs. Milap Chand Jagotra Page no. 79 of 82
Digitally signed
by JYOTI
MAHESHWARI
JYOTI
MAHESHWARI Date:
2026.03.27
16:57:12
+0530
B. STANDARD CHART OF EXHIBITED DOCUMENTS:
Exhibit No. Description of Documents Witness who
proved or
attested the
documents
Ex. PW-1/1 (D-10) Dak Register (Register No. 8)
Ex. PW-1/A Entry No. 19 dated 15.04.1986, in the Dak
Register.
PW-1
Ex. PW-1/B Entry No. 20A dated 16.04.1986, in the Dak
Register.
Ex. PW-2/A (D-15) Attendance register maintained in the CR PW-2
Section in the year 1986.
Ex.PW-3/A WP (Crl.) No. 363/1986 filed in the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India on 11.07.1986.
Ex.PW-3/B Order dated 20.07.1994 passed by Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in WP (Crl.) No.
363/1986.
Ex.PW-3/C Affidavit filed on 09.09.1986 by Ashok Jain
(A-6) in WP (Crl.) No. 363/1986.
Ex.PW-3/D Affidavit filed on 29.08.1986 by Ashok Jain
(A-6) in SLP (Crl.) No. 1370/86 and WP
(Crl.) No. 363/1986. PW-3Ex.PW-3/E Affidavit filed on 26.09.1986 by Ashok Jain
(A-6) in WP (Crl.) No. 363/1986.
Ex.PW-3/F (OSR) Affidavit filed on 03.09.1986 by K.C. Singh
in WP (Crl.) No. 363/1986.
Ex.PW-3/G (OSR) Affidavit filed on 12.09.1986 by S.K.
Choudhary in Crl. Misc. Petition No.
464/1986.
Ex.PW-3/H (OSR) Crl. Misc. Petition No. 464/1986 filed in
WP (Crl.) No. 363/1986.
Ex.PW-3/J Affidavit filed on 11.07.1986 by Ashok Jatia
(A-5) in WP (Crl.) No. 363/1986.
Ex.PW-3/K Affidavit filed on 06.05.1986 by Late Ms.
Pushpa Devi Jatia (A-4) in SLP (Crl.) No.
1370/86.
Ex.PW-3/L Affidavit filed on 26.09.1986 by Mohan Lal
Supreme Court of India Vs. Milap Chand Jagotra Page no. 80 of 82
Digitally
signed by
JYOTI
JYOTI MAHESHWARI
MAHESHWARI Date:
2026.03.27
16:57:19
+0530
Jatia (A-3) in WP (Crl.) No. 363/1986.
Ex.PW-3/M Representation dated 11.04.1986 addressed
to President of India by Mohan Lal Jatia
(A-3) and bearing an acknowledgment of
the CR Section.
Ex.PW-3/N Affidavit filed on 26.09.1986 by Ashok Jatia
(A-5) in WP (Crl.) No. 363/1986.
Ex.PW-4/A (D-12) Letter No. F.No. 702/SC/66/86-CUS/12
dated 04.08.1986.
Ex. PW-4/B Notesheet regarding reply sent to Sh. S.K
Chaudhary, Under Secretary, MoF.
Ex.PW-4/C Reply dated 04.08.1986 sent by Sh. D.B.
Bhatia.
Ex.PW-4/D (D-14) Note sheet 14.08.1986.
Ex.PW-4/E (D-13) Note sheet dated 19.08.1986.
Ex.PW-4/F Letter dated 21.08.1986.
Ex.PW-4/G Certified copy of letter dated 21.08.1986.
Ex.PW-4/H Letter dated 25.08.1986.
PW-4
Ex.PW-4/I The sheet with two specimen impression of
stamps.
Ex.PW-4/J Letter issued to Mr. C.V. Subba Rao,
Deputy Govt. Advocate.
Ex.PW-4/K Letter dated 26.08.1986, addressed to Sh.
K.C Singh.
Ex.PW-4/L Letter dated 29.08.1986, addressed to Sh.
K.C Singh.
Ex.PW-4/M Office copy of affidavit filed by Sh. K.C
Singh.
Ex.PW-4/N Letter dated 05.09.1986, addressed to Sh.
K.C Singh.
Ex.PW-4/O Letter dated 10.09.1986, addressed to Sh.
C.V Subba Rao.
Mark 4/I Copy of the affidavit of Ashok Jain (A-6)
dated 09.09.1986, received in the
President's Secretariat.
Mark A & Mark B Arrival and departure details of Yogendra
Supreme Court of India Vs. Milap Chand Jagotra Page no. 81 of 82
Digitally signed
by JYOTI
MAHESHWARI
JYOTI
MAHESHWARI Date:
2026.03.27
16:57:25
+0530
Kumar and accused Late Milap Chand
Jagotra (A-1).
PW-5
Ex. PW-5/A Signature of accused Late Gurcharan Singh
(A-2) on the disputed entry in the Dak
Register (D-10).
Ex. PW-6/A Complaint dated 19.08.1994 filed by MSA
Siddiqui. PW-6
Ex.PW-8/1 (D-16) The CFSL report dated 26.06.1987.
Mark8/A Signature of Sh. V. N. Sehgal on the PW-8
forwarding letter dated 29.06.1987.
Ex.PW-10/1 Photo proforma dated 17.10.2017 bearing
signatures of Sh. A.D. Tiwari.
Ex.PW-10/2 Photo proforma containing 99 and 281
negatives in two different envelopes.
PW-10
Ex. PW-10/3 Envelope containing 99 negatives.
Ex. PW-10/4 Envelope containing 285 negatives.
Ex.PW-10/5 (Colly) Printouts of the said negatives containing
342 pages.
Supreme Court of India Vs. Milap Chand Jagotra Page no. 82 of 82
Digitally
signed by
JYOTI
JYOTI MAHESHWARI
MAHESHWARI Date:
2026.03.27
16:57:31
+0530