Delhi Court Rejects Signature Comparison Request In Foreign Bank Account Case

Foreign Bank Account Case

A Special Income Tax Court at Tis Hazari, Delhi, has declined to direct the Forensic Science Laboratory in Rohini to provide a handwriting comparison report related to a signature allegedly used by an accused to open a bank account in Singapore.

The court determined that the application appeared aimed at addressing gaps in the prosecution’s case.

The application was submitted by the Income Tax Officer under various legal provisions, seeking a handwriting report to compare the accused’s signatures on the account opening documents for M/s Hessview Trading PTE Ltd. with admitted signatures.

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) Mayank Mittal dismissed the application, stating it was filed at a late stage, specifically during the rebuttal to final arguments from the defense.

“The court is of the considered opinion that the present application has been filed on behalf of the complainant at the time of rebuttal…which, for the reasons mentioned above, is not found reasonable by the court,” ACJM Mittal stated in the order issued on October 1.

The court noted that the Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) did not provide any justification for why the request for a signature examination was not made during the earlier stages of the proceedings, including the pre-charge phase or during the complainant’s evidence recording.

The court questioned the timing of the application, suggesting it was an attempt to fill a gap in the prosecution’s case.

In its ruling, the court emphasized, “The stage of moving the present application gives only one inference: that it is being moved to fill the lacuna on behalf of the complainant.” It underscored the principle that one party should not be allowed to exploit the judicial process to the detriment of another.

The matter is scheduled for further arguments on October 9, 2024. The court pointed out that the complaint and the list of documents did not include a request for a signature examination until this late stage, indicating a strategy to address deficiencies in the case.

The SPP argued that the complaint was filed based on information received from the competent authority in Singapore. This information suggested that the accused, Sandeep Singhania, was listed as an authorized representative for the bank account in question.

It was stated that bank records identified the accused as a director of M/s Hessview Trading PTE Ltd. and an authorized signatory for the related bank account.

Despite this, the accused has consistently denied his signatures on the Know Your Customer (KYC) documents. Counsel for the accused noted that although the accused did not specifically deny his signature during the recording of his statements, he had contested it from the outset of the investigation.

The case, filed by the Income Tax Department in 2016, raises significant issues surrounding the admissibility of evidence and the timing of applications in legal proceedings.

The court’s refusal to accept the late application underscores the importance of adhering to procedural timelines in the judicial process.