Back
Professor Cleared: Calcutta HC Tosses Forgery Case on ' '
In a significant ruling, the has quashed criminal proceedings against Swapan Kumar Ghosh, a respected professor at the University of Calcutta's Department of Jute and Fibre Technology. Justice Tirthankar Ghosh held that the investigation materials raised only "suspicion" rather than the " " needed to drag an accused through trial, preventing what he called an .
The decision, delivered on , in Swapan Kumar Ghosh vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr. (C.R.R. 497 of 2021), underscores judicial caution against routine prosecutions lacking solid evidence.
From Research Funds to Police Station: The Spark of Suspicion
The case stemmed from a -funded R&D project on jute-based innovations like geo-membranes, nonwovens for insulation, and agro-textiles for soil conservation. Prof. Asis Mukhopadhyay, the department head, filed a complaint with on , alleging forged signatures on vouchers (Nos. 48, 55, 56, and 59) linked to one Debashis Shome. These were purportedly used to withdraw funds fraudulently via bearer cheques from UCO Bank, Ballygunge branch.
Police investigated, seizing vouchers, cheques, bank statements, and a note from Prof. Ghosh. They filed a charge-sheet in (26 witnesses) and a supplementary one in (3 more witnesses). Key evidence included cheques encashed in Shome's name totaling small amounts like Rs. 20,205 and Rs. 22,110, plus 32 vouchers from the department.
The petitioner, a high-profile academic chairing 's jute committee and involved in government projects, challenged the proceedings via criminal revision, arguing the evidence didn't implicate him.
Prosecution's Threadbare Case vs. Professor's Clean Defense
The state and complainant relied on seized documents, handwriting expert reports, and witness statements to allege impersonation and cheating. Witnesses like Samir Biswas and Noni Gopal Das, departmental staff, admitted encashing cheques on Shome's instructions and handing cash directly to him—not the professor. A bank official corroborated this.
Prof. Ghosh's side highlighted the experts' repeated inability to link disputed signatures to him. They argued the materials were self-contradictory, pointing instead to Shome, and invoked precedents barring trials on flimsy grounds.
Handwriting Hurdles and Witness U-Turns: Where Evidence Fell Short
Three handwriting expert opinions, spanning 2020 to 2023, were pivotal—but damning for the prosecution. The experts consistently opined it was
"not possible to fix up authorship"
of disputed writings (cheques, notes, vouchers) from Prof. Ghosh's specimens, noting his samples were "slow, conscious, and distorted" unlike the "free and normal" disputed ones.
One report even matched certain deposit slips to
Debashis Shome's
specimens, explicitly stating:
"The writer who wrote the specimen writings marked as S/5 to S/8 also wrote the disputed writings."
Witnesses reinforced this, attributing withdrawals squarely to Shome.
Justice Ghosh noted some cheques were untraceable due to water damage, further weakening the case. Drawing from
P. Vijayan vs. State of Kerala
(2010) 2 SCC 398, he stressed courts must distinguish
"suspicion only, as distinguished from
."
Echoes of Precedent: No Room for 'Post-Office' Judges
The bench leaned on Supreme Court rulings like M.E. Shivalingamurthy vs. CBI (2020) 2 SCC 768 (discharge if ), Pepsi Foods Ltd. vs. Judicial Magistrate (1998) 5 SCC 749 (no mechanical criminal proceedings), Dilawar Balu Kurane vs. State of Maharashtra (2002) 2 SCC 135 (scrutinize evidence pre-trial), and recent Tuhin Kumar Biswas vs. State of West Bengal (2025 SCC OnLine SC 2604).
Quoting
P. Vijayan
:
"If two views are possible... the trial Judge will be empowered to discharge the accused... [He] is not a mere post office to frame the charge at the behest of the prosecution."
The court warned against clogging dockets with weak cases, diverting resources from serious matters.
Key Observations -
On evidence quality
:
"The handwriting expert’s opinion and the statements of the witnesses... do not inspire confidence. As the prosecution witnesses themselves have stated that they have handed over the money to Debashis Shome."
-
Judicial filter
:
"Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. The Court has to scrutinise the evidence brought on record."
-
Abuse threshold
:
"Further continuance of proceedings... would result in
."
-
From Tuhin Kumar
:
"The tendency of filing chargesheets... where no strong suspicion is made out clogs the judicial system."
Gavel Falls: Proceedings Quashed, Precedent Set
"All further proceedings of
Case No. 145/18 dated
is hereby quashed."
This ends the saga for Prof. Ghosh, sparing him trial rigors. It signals to investigators and lower courts: probe deeply before charge-sheeting, as magistrates aren't rubber stamps. For academics and professionals, it's relief against hasty probes in institutional disputes; for the system, a push toward efficient justice, echoing media reports on the ruling's focus on expert mismatches and Shome links.
The order, available on the court's site, may guide future quashings under revisional powers, prioritizing "reasonable prospect of conviction."
