Court refuses to give directions to FSL for comparison of Signature alleged to be used in foreign bank account

New Delhi [India], October 5 (ANI): A Special Income Tax Court at Tis Hazari Delhi has refused to give a direction to Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) Rohini to furnish a comparison report of hand writing regarding a signature allegedly used by an accused to open a bank account in Singapore. The court said that the application is moved to fill the lacunae.

An application was filed on behalf of the complainant Income Tax Officer under section 91 Cr.P.C read with section 165, 45 & section 73 of Indian Evidence Act of direction to FSL Rohini to furnish a hand writing comparison report qua the signatures of accused on the account opening documents of M/s Hessview Trading PTE Ltd. with USB AG, Singapore branch with the admitted signature of accused.

Additional Chief judicial Magistrate (ACJM) Mayank Mittal dismissed the application moved by the Income tax department.

“The court is of considered opinion that the present application has been filed on behalf of complainant at the time of rebuttal to final arguments advanced on behalf of accused on the ground that accused has not answered and objected to most of the questions put to him at the recording of statement and has not led defence evidence, which for the reasons mentioned above, is not found reasonable by the court,” ACJM Mittal held in a order passed on October 1.

The court said that the Special public prosecutor (SPP) has not pointed out any reasons, due to which, the present application for examination of signatures of accused with the questioned signatures has not been

moved on behalf of complainant during the pre charge stage or during the recording of complainant’s evidence

The court also asked why such examination / comparison was not conducted during the stage of investigation, why it was not considered necessary on behalf of the complainant to move the present application even before starting final arguments and why the same has been moved on behalf of the complainant at the time of rebutting the final arguments advanced on behalf of the accused.

Accordingly, the application is dismissed, the court ordered.

The matter has been listed for advancing rebuttal arguments on behalf of the complainant on October 09, 2024.

The court pointed out, “The stage of moving the present application gives only one inferrence that the present application is being moved to fill the lacuna on behalf of complainant. The court can not allow one party, whosoever, is that party, to fill the lacuna and to take undue benefit to the prejudice of other party.”

The complaint, list of document or submissions advanced on behalf of complainant never provided for examination of signature of accused till the stage of rebuttal to the final argument advanced on behalf of accused has arisen. The same is nothing but filing up of lacuna by the complainant, the court held.

It was submitted by the SPP that present complaint has been filed on receiving of requisite information through FT & TR from competent authority of Singapore, from the analysis of which, it was noted that account was opened in USB AG Singapore in the name of M/s Hessview Trading PTE Ltd. It is submitted that, as per the information received, accused Sandeep Singhania has been named as an authorised representative and ‘the client’.

It was also submitted that, as per record received through FT & TR, the accused has been shown director in M/s Hessview Trading PTE Ltd. and has also been named as authorised signatories for the said bank account.

It was submitted that, as per a copy of bank records, titled “Corporation / trust” dated April 28, 2008, the accused has been named as an authorised representative and ‘the client’. Both these documents bear the signature of accused.

It was also submitted that the accused has denied his signatures on the KYC of the account opening document of M/s Hessview Trading PTE Ltd. with the UBS AG Singapore branch.

The special court is dealing with a case filed by the income tax department in 2016.

Counsel for the accused submitted that the accused has not denied his signature on the alleged documents only during recording of his statements, however, the same has been denied by the accused from very beginning of the stage of investigation.

It was also submitted that the statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C is recorded so as to enable the accused to explain any fact led in evidence against him and complainant does not have any say in the answers given by the accused.