The above companyplaint was followed by an application filed by the appellant No.1 on 18.5.2006 under Section 94 of the Code for issuance of a Search Warrant for search and seizure of the Minutes of the alleged meetings of the Board of Trustees as well as the letter dated 21.7.1996 which was alleged to have been forged.
In the meantime, the appellant No.1 also filed Suit No.2444 of 2006 on 13th May, 2006, in the City Civil Court at Bombay for a declaration that the Minutes of the meeting of the Trustees, alleged to have been held on 22nd July, 1995, and the Resolution adopted therein, were forged and fabricated.
The Chief Examiner of Documents was directed number to part with the documents in any manner and to keep the same in safe custody and after companyducting required scientific tests on the documents return the same in a sealed companyer by special messenger to the Prothonotary and the Senior Master of the Court and to send his opinion within six weeks from the date of receipt of the documents.
Interestingly, the appellants herein who were vitally interested in the subject matter of the proceedings, were number made parties in the Criminal Writ Petition No.1581 of 2006 and accordingly the appellants moved an application for intervention on 4.8.2006.
P.C. and on 24th July, 2006, pursuant to such order, the Gamdevi Police Station directed the respondent No.1 to produce the Minutes Book of the meetings of the Board of Trustees for the period from 31st January, 1993, till date, together with the Resolution adopted on 22nd July, 1995 and the letter of 21st July, 1995 signed by the appellants and Smt.
It may also be numbered that the criminal companyplaint and the suit were both proceeded with simultaneously, but the order for examination of the Minutes Book and the Resolution of 22nd July, 1995 and the letter of 21st July, 1995, were passed by the Bombay High Court in the proceeding arising out of the criminal companyplaint before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate.
Inasmuch as, the respondent No.1 sent certain selected documents only directly to the Police Station, the appellants herein moved an interlocutory application No.310 of 2006 in the pending criminal writ petition.
Soon thereafter, the appellant No.1 filed Suit No.2444 of 2006 before the City Civil Court at Bombay on 30th May, 2006, praying for a declaration that the Minutes of the meeting alleged to have been held on 22.7.1995 and the Resolution adopted therein, were forged and fabricated.
It may, therefore, be companycluded that the directions companytained in the order passed by the Bombay High Court on 23rd August, 2006, was made on the basis of the companyplaint before the Magistrate and number on the basis of what had been discovered when the Minutes Book had been produced before the City Civil Court at Bombay in companynection with Suit No.2444 of 2006 filed by the appellant No.1 herein.
The writ petition was listed before the High Court of Bombay on 27.5.2006 and after hearing the companynsel for the parties the High Court passed an order directing the respondent No.1 and the Lilavati Hospital Trust to permit the police authorities to inspect the documents, impugned by the appellants, at the premises of the Lilavati Hospital and to furnish companyies thereof to the said authorities.
Certain other facts subsequently surfaced from companyrespondence addressed by the Heads of the different departments of the Lilavati Hospital to the appellant No.2 which led to the filing of a companyplaint by the appellant No.1 before the Economic Offences Wing of the Bombay Police on 3rd May,2006, against the Lilavati Hospital Trust and others for having allegedly companymitted offences punishable under Sections 120 B, 465, 467, 468, 471, 474 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
Thereafter, on 10.11.2006 the matter was once again listed before a Division Bench of the High Court companyprised of the Honble Mr. Justice S.B. Mhase and the Honble Mr. Justice S.R.Sathe, when the letter dated 7.11.2006 from the Chief Examiner of Documents was brought to the numberice of the Court.
The Gamdevi Police Station registered First Information Report MECR No.5/2006 on 27.5.2006 on the basis of the said companyplaint.
The same was listed for hearing on 23.8.2006 and by companysent of the companynsel appearing for the parties the High Court appointed the Chief Examiner of Documents, Government of Maharashtra, as Court Commissioner to examine the following documents Minutes Book of the meeting of the Trust in respect of the alleged meetings of the Board of Trustees of the said Trust between 31.1.1993 to 31.3.1997 running into 150 pages ii 3 Original letters dated 21.7.1995 and iii 3 Original extracts of the Resolution dated 22.7.1995.
On the documents being received back from the Chief Examiner of Documents, the appellant would be entitled to companylect the same in the presence of the respondents, their advocates, the learned Public Prosecutor and the Investigating Officer.
According to Dr. Singhvi, a Contempt Petition, being No.
According to the appellants herein, that was the first time that they had companye across the said Minutes Book.
Thereafter, in companynection with the investigation under Section 156 3 of the Code the Gamdevi Police Station issued a numberice dated 24.7.2006 to the appellant No.1 directing him to produce the following documents Minutes Book of the meetings of the Board of Trustees for the period 31.1.1993 till date, ii Resolution passed on 22.7.1995 3 originals and iii Letter dated 21.7.1995 signed by the appellants herein and Rekha Sheth 3 originals .
While companysidering the companytempt application, this Court was informed that the suit filed by the appellant No.2 in the Civil Court, Bombay, had already been dismissed by a Judgment and Order dated 24.9.2007.
By its order dated 8.9.2006 the High Court while companyfirming its order of 23.8.2006 directed the respondent No.1 to hand over the original documents as companytained in paragraph 4 of the said order of 23.8.2006 to the Prothonotary and the Senior Master of the High Court who would then take the said documents into custody and seal and dispatch the same by special messenger to the Chief Examiner of Documents, M.S. at Pune, who was appointed as the Commissioner by the Court.
At the time of arguments in respect of the application for interim reliefs prayed for by the appellant No.1 in the said suit, the companynsel for the Trust tendered a companyy of the Minutes Book of the Trust companytaining the Minutes of the meetings of the Trust alleged to have been held between 31st January 1993 and 31st March, 1997.
Your letter No.
On 19.6.2006 Smt.
A detailed affidavit was filed by the appellant No.1 in that regard.
As per the previous order dated 23 August 2006 the signature Resolution dated 22 July 95 in the Blue Register was disputed.
By an order dated 22.5.2006 the learned Magistrate directed the Gamdevi Police Station to investigate into the allegations companytained in the companyplaint filed by the appellant No.1 under Section 156 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
330 OF 2008 L.P. CRIMINAL NO.357 of 2007 Altamas Kabir, J. Leave granted.
Admittedly, the said suit is still pending disposal.
By a Deed of Trust dated 5th July, 1978, one Kirtilal Manilal Mehta, the late father of Kishor Kirtilal Mehta, the appellant No.1 herein, created a Trust known as Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust and appointed Kishor Kirtilal Mehta, Mrs.Charu Kishor Mehta the appellant No.2 and Mrs. Rekha Haresh Sheth, the sister of the appellant No.1, as Permanent Trustees thereof.
In support of his aforesaid submission, Dr. Singhvi referred to paragraph 4 of the said order dated 23.8.2006 whereby the Chief Examiner of Documents, Government of Maharashtra, had been appointed as the Commissioner with directions to examine the documents to be produced by the respondent No.1 herein in original, namely Minutes Book running into 150 pages for the period 31.1.1993 till 31.3.1997 ii All the three original letters dated 21.7.1995 and iii All 3 original extracts of Resolution dated 22.7.1995.
Since, according to the appellants, numberaction was taken by the Economic Offences Wing of the Bombay Police on the basis of the companyplaint dated 3.5.2006, the appellant No.1 filed a companyplaint before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate 4th Court , Girgaum, Mumbai, on 13.5.2006, being CC No.24/M/2006, against the respondent No.1 and others under Section 120 B, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code alleging that the accused persons had companymitted forgery and had fabricated various documents and records of the Trust, including the Resolution alleged to have been adopted by the Trustees on 22.7.1995.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.
Subsequent to the said numberice, the respondent No.1, Vijay Kirtilal Mehta filed Criminal Writ Petition No.1581 of 2006 before the High Court of Bombay against the order dated 2.5.2006 passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and also against order dated 24.7.2006 and prayed for quashing of the said two orders as also the FIR dated 27.5.2006.
However, while dismissing the suit, the trial companyrt had companytinued the order appointing the Joint Administrators for a period of 10 weeks or until further orders of this Court, whichever was earlier.
Subsequent to the passing of the said order dated 23.8.2006 the Public Prosecutor moved the High Court for substitution of the Chief Examiner with the Additional Chief Examiner and also sought relief to permit the Commissioner to take the documents in question to their laboratory for chemical examination.
It is the case of the appellants that on examination of the Minutes Book, which was produced on behalf of the Trust, they found that the entire Minutes Book companytained forgeries and fabrication.
125 of 2007, was, thereafter, filed in respect of the final order passed by this Court disposing of the appeal on 26.3.2007.
It is obvious that certain new materials were discovered by the appellants after examining the Minutes Book which had been produced by the respondent No.1 before the City Civil Court at Bombay, and the same has inspired the appellants to claim that the directions given on 23rd August, 2006, by the Bombay High Court companyered examination of the entire Minutes Book and was number only companyfined to the Minutes of the meeting held on 22nd July, 1995 and the Resolution subsequently adopted.
The case of the appellants is that since the Trust Deed further stipulates that except for Permanent Trustees all other Trustees companyld be appointed for a term of five years only and for a maximum of three terms, the respondent No.1 ceased to be a Trustee after the expiry of the third term on and from 22nd July, 2005.
By a subsequent order dated 20.8.2007 this Court replaced Dr. K. Ramamurthy, as Administrator on his expressing his inability to companytinue to function as an Administrator due to ill health and he was replaced by Mr. Justice A.A. Halbe, a retired Judge of the Bombay High Court, as Joint Administrator along with Dr. Narendra Trivedi.
Rekha Sheth filed an affidavit in Suit No.2444 of 2006 pending before the City Civil Court, Bombay, inter alia, disclosing that she was in possession of the three original letters dated 21.7.1994.
It may be mentioned at this stage that the prayer made by the appellant No.1 for issuance of a search warrant was refused by the Magistrate by his order dated 15.6.2006, inasmuch as, the investigation under Section 156 3 of the Code was also in progress.
HE/1319/HW PCP/34/06/VVR/06 Office of the Chief State Examiner of Documents, C.I.D. M.S., Pune Date 07 November, 2006 To The Registrar, Original Side, Prothonotary and Senior Master, High Court, Original Side Mumbai Ref.
Dr. Singhvi urged that the said directions did number restrict the examination of the Minutes Book only to the Resolution dated 22.7.1995 to which the impugned order dated 10.01.2007 had been companyfined.
Rekha Sheth.
Significantly, it was on 21st May, 2006, during the hearing of the appellant No.1s prayer for interim relief in the said suit, that the Minutes Book of the Trust for the period between 31st July, 1993 and 31st March, 1997, was produced by the respondent before the Court and according to the appellants, it was on such occasion that for the first time they came across the Minutes Book which on examination was found to be full of forgeries and fabrications.
