Bombay High Court case, 2016

In 2013, a photocopy of a document purporting to be a Last Will and Testament signed by Osho appeared in a court case in Europe about the trademarking of Osho's name there. Sw Prem Niren, a lawyer acting for Osho International Foundation (OIF) in Zürich, the trademark holder, introduced the purported will, claiming to have drafted it and witnessed Osho signing it in Oct 1989. Sw Prem Amrito also signed as a witness, while Sw Anand Jayesh signed his agreement to act as an executor of this will.

The alleged will did not end up playing a large part in the outcome of the EU TM case, and has not been brandished on other occasions, but it shocked sannyasins around the world, as such a document had never previously been heard of. The will may have gone away but the reaction did not.

This page concerns one chapter of the larger story of the alleged will, the Bombay High Court case wherein the petitioners sought to get the will investigated, with the aim eventually of bringing its alleged perpetrators to "Justice". A broader account of that larger story can be found at Osho's fake will.

Sw Prem Geet started the ball rolling by filing a "First Information Report" (FIR), a kind of citizen's complaint requiring the Pune police to investigate what appears to have been a crime. On Jun 20 2016, after more than two years of perceived inaction, he filed a "Writ Petition", WP/2150/2016 in Bombay High Court, to prod the police into action. In Aug 2016, the HC held its first session to hear his case. Full transcripts are not available but much detail can be gleaned from the HC website regarding the concerned parties, the lawyers, the judges, and their rulings or pronouncements for each session, of which there were 29.

the High Court's website

One has to jump through certain hoops to access the information on this site. There do not appear to be short-cuts, so it goes like this: Start at the Bombay HC's home page and mouseover "Case Status", then click on "Party Wise". Then in the various preset choice boxes, if not already there by default, choose "Bombay", "Criminal", "Petitioner" and "2016", and type "Yogesh Thakkar" in the text box, deal with the captcha and "Submit". This should take you to a list of cases involving many different Yogeshes and Thakkars. Click on this case, WP/2150/2016 -- the WP stands for Writ Petition, and Prem Geet's is #2150 of the year 2016 -- then at the bottom of the next page, click on "Listing Dates" to go to a page with links to reports on each session.

Clicking on "Application Cases", a different box at the bottom of the WP 2150 page, goes to a page which lists the three other parties in the case who have submitted writs requesting "Interveneur"/intervenor status, perhaps what is called "Friends of the Court" in some jurisdictions. Each party is represented by lawyers. The first intervenor has a personal interest, as he is one of Prem Geet's six accused. The third is a trustee of some of the trusts and foundations set up to run things in the Resort. The second is there to assist the Petitioner (Prem Geet), having already engaged the Italian graphologist mentioned on the fake will page plus an Italian forensic scientist expert in printing processes, who determined to their professional satisfaction that the signature on Osho's alleged Will was a fake.

1. APPW 383/16 - Mukesh Sarda

2. APPW 403/16 - Vaidehe Vadgama (Ma Yoga Videh) and ANR (stands for "another", here Sw Chidananda)

3. APPW 415/16 - Devendra Singh Dewal

Judges presided in pairs in this case, ie two per session. This kind of setup in High Courts in India is called a Division Bench. There was somewhat of a lack of continuity, in that there were fourteen judges all told coming and going through the 29 sessions. The two responsible for the final decision were Ranjit V More and Smt Bharati H Dangre. Judge More sat for 17 sessions, including the last three and the most by far of any of them, while Judge Dangre was there only for the last three. Judge More was the senior judge on the case, with more than a few of his co-benchers "Additional" or probationary judges, in part being mentored by him.

If one is interested, CV's for most of the judges in the Bombay HC system are available by mouseovering "Judges" near the top of the page and selecting "CJ and Sitting Judges". Failing that, one may also try "Former Judges", but some of this case's judges will not be found there, having only been "Additional", or probationary judges for a short time, usually two years. If venturing there, look in the last pages, 22, 21 and 20. The list is more or less chronological.

Lawyers were also attending in abundance and variety, with some well-known ones representing gov't agencies. The one perhaps of most interest to sannyasins was the senior counsel for Videh and Chidananda, Mahesh Jethmalani, son of the legendary Ram Jethmalani, a high-profile lawyer and politician who remained active well into his 90s and represented Osho a number of times, among other controversial clients.

Sessions ran from Aug 3 2016 to Oct 11 2018. Nothing much happened in many of them, with one party or another requesting the court to "stand over" for a week or a month or two, though reports have it that, despite the non-mention of any activity, much questioning and looking into the matter did happen, with the judges taking a keen interest in the case.

Proceedings

Everything the judges said that was deemed to be significant is presented on its own page, all their orders and opinions. Omitted are their administrative pronouncements and "stand over" rulings when no other directives were given that day. As it is, it is still a formidable pile of verbiage to wade through for the uninitiated.

On this page, we feature a select few of the 29 sessions, those deemed of greatest impact. They are not enough to appreciate all the currents and changes that happened in the course of this case, but should be enough to convey a feeling, a sense of how the System works. A summary of the salient features of the case in terms of "Justice" being served can be found below at Takeaway.

Some terminology may be very legalese-arcane or bureaucratese. Such terms will be underlined with their meaning or significance explained in the Glossary at page bottom, along with two of the lawyers.

Dates	Judges' Statements and Directives
Session 2 Aug 12 2016	Judges: Naik and Patil 1. Learned APP submits that on the basis of photostat copy of the Will in question, handwriting expert's report was called for, which is received. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that after 23 years a document surfaced in Spain, which is referred as original and last Will of Osho. In the petitioner's view, the said Will must be forged one. It seems that Investigating Agency is yet to ascertain as to whether any such document titled and referred as “Will of Osho” has been presented in the proceeding, pending in a court of law in Spain. In case such a document is there, then the Investigating Agency would take appropriate steps. 2. We have perused the Government Handwriting expert's report in respect of signature of Osho. After perusal, we have returned the report to the learned APP. The petitioner relies upon a private handwriting expert's report. 3. Without expressing any opinion on the said experts' reports, we find it appropriate to observe that Investigating Agency shall take necessary steps for making further investigation in respect of the allegations made by the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel further submits that complaint was made to Reserve Bank of India regarding transfer of huge amounts from the Osho Ashram to foreign entities in violation of law. The Assistant General Manager, RBI by communication dated 5/6/2015 informed the petitioner that his letter has been forwarded to Directorate of Enforcement (DoE), New Delhi for necessary action at their end. Learned counsel submits that thereafter the petitioner has not heard anything on that issue. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for leave to add Reserve Bank of India and Directorate of Enforcement, New Delhi, as party-respondents. 6. Leave is granted. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that within two weeks amendment will be carried out. In case the amendment is carried out, issue notice to the added respondents, returnable four weeks thereafter. 7. We direct the DCP (Crime), Pune to give appropriate instructions to the Investigating Officer and monitor the further investigation. A status report be placed before us on the next date of hearing. 8. Stand over for four weeks, at 3.00 p.m.
Session 20 No 28 2017	Judges: More and Phansalkar-Joshi Heard Mr. Havnur, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Shinde, learned APP for the State and Mr. Patil, learned counsel for the respondent No.6- Enforcement Directorate. We have also heard Mr. Kadam and Mr. Jethmalani, learned senior counsel and Mr. Mali, learned counsel appearing for the respective intervenors. 2. The petition is filed for transfer of investigation of the subject FIR to the CBI. The transfer is sought on the ground that the investigation involves international ramifications, there are conflicting versions regarding genuineness of the will of Osho, violation of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (for short “the FEMA”) and crores of Rupees are siphoned out of India illegally. 3.The transfer of the investigation is opposed on the ground that alleged illegal transfer of funds is on the basis of deed of assignment executed in the year 1978. It was contended that under the will in question, all residuary interest in the Osho's property was bequeathed to the trustees of Osho International Foundation. It is also contended that the original will was destroyed long back and therefore, no purpose would be served by transferring the investigation to CBI. 4. Mr. Kadam, learned senior counsel for the intervenor, pointed out that no exceptional case is made out for transfer of investigation to CBI. 5. Ms. Shinde, learned APP, pointed out the progress made in the investigation and submitted that a Letter of Rogatory (request for assistance from Spain in investigation in subject FIR) is written to the Under Secretary (Legal), Internal Security Division, Ministry of Home Affairs, Lok Nayak Bhavan, New Delhi on 31st August, 2016 and reminder is also given on 2nd March, 2017. She submitted that in response to these letters, some queries are raised by the Home Ministry which are answered by Koregaon Park Police Station, Pune, by submitting revised proposal on 2nd November, 2017. She has also placed on record a report dated 28th November, 2017 of the Police Inspector, Koregaon Park Police Station, Pune, to support her contention. 6. Mr. Patil, learned counsel for the respondent No.6, also placed on record the status of investigation by the Enforcement Directorate under the FEMA. 7. We have gone through the report of the police Inspector of Koregaon Park Police Station as well as the status report filed by the respondent No.6-Enforcement Directorate. At this stage, we are satisfied that the investigation is progressing on appropriate line and, therefore, we do not propose to pass any order regarding transfer of the same at this stage. 8. We direct the investigating officer of the subject crime to expedite the investigation and take further steps in pursuance of their proposal dated 2nd November, 2017. We also direct the Under Secretary (Legal), Internal Security Division, Ministry of Home Affairs, Lok Nayak Bhavan, New Delhi, to take appropriate decision at the earliest regarding fresh proposal submitted by Koregaon Park Police Station in the subject crime on 2nd November, 2017. 9. The writ petition is adjourned to 15th January, 2018, for further hearing. 10. The Koregaon Park Police Station, Pune, as well as the respondent No.6-Enforcement Directorate shall file fresh report regarding progress of the investigation in the subject crime. 11. The report submitted by the respondent No.6- Enforcement Directorate is returned back.
Session 25 Ju1 l2 2018	Judges: Savant and Dere (their second session) 1. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner Shri Sugandh Deshmukh as also the learned Senior Counsel Shri Mahesh Jethmalani draw our attention to the report dated 10/07/2018 of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Government of NCT of Delhi which is in respect of the signature of the testator Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh. The said report has been given after comparing the signature appearing on the document which is allegedly forged with the admitted signatures of Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh which are appearing in various documents which are referred to and which have been reflected in the table appearing in paragraph 3 of the report dated 11/07/2018 submitted by the Investigating Officer. 2. In so far as the report of the hand writing expert is concerned, it appears that such a report was obtained by the Koregaon Park Police Station whilst it was seized with the investigation in the year 2014. The hand writing expert from whom the opinion was obtained opined that it was not possible to give a definite opinion on the basis of a photocopy. The said fact has been referred to in the report dated 11/07/2018 which has been submitted by the Investigating Officer Mrs. Swati Desai today to us. We direct the learned counsel for the Petitioner Shri Sugandh Deshmukh to hand over a copy of the report dated 10/07/2018 of the FSL to the learned APP Mrs. Sangita Shinde who would hand over the same to the Investigating Officer Mrs.Swati Desai. The Investigating Officer may thereafter consider the said report and take an appropriate decision thereon which may include a decision to re­send the document in question i.e. the xerox copy of the Will which is allegedly forged to the agency where the documents are usually sent by the EOW and obtain its opinion at the earliest. We expect a report from the Investigating Officer on the next date as we are not satisfied with the manner in which the progress in investigation was reported to us vide the said report dated 11/07/2018 which was submitted to us today. Stand over to 01/08/2018.
Session 29 Oct 12 2018	Judges: More and Dangre (their third session) 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. The Petition is filed for seeking direction to Respondent to transfer investigation of FIR bearing CR No.149 of 2013, to CBI. It is to be noted that earlier investigation of this FIR was transferred to EOW. 2. Mrs. Shinde, the learned APP, on instructions of concerned Investigating Officer, who is present in Court, makes a statement that the investigation of the said FIR is complete and thereafter Investigation Officer has filed 'C' Summary Report before the concerned Magistrate. In support of her submission, she placed on record 'C' Summary Report dated 27th September, 2018. 3. Mr. Anturkar, the learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioner and Mr. Jethmalani, the learned Senior Advocate for one of the intervener, submit that the investigation of the said FIR was supervised by this Court by the interim orders passed time to time especially interim order dated 12th July, 2018, and that the said orders are not complied with by the Investigating Officer and mechanically 'C' Summary Report is filed. We do not find merit in this contention. The fact remains that though the Petitioner sought transfer of investigation of proceedings, this Court has not granted the prayers. The Court has heard the matter from time to time and passed interim orders giving some directions to the Investigating Officer. After perusal of the 'C' Summary Report, we find that the directions given by this Court by way of interim orders are complied with and thereafter the material on the record is analysed and the Investigating Officer has taken a decision to file 'C' Summary Report. 4. The Petitioner as well as the Intervener in this behalf are at liberty to approach the Magistrate if they are aggrieved by filing of Summary Report. They can avail of the alternative remedy available. We are, therefore, not inclined to entertain this Petition in exercise of Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition is dismissed, accordingly. No order as to costs. 5. In view of the dismissal of the Writ Petition, the Criminal Applications do not survive and are disposed of accordingly.

Takeaway

There are two major thematic areas to consider in trying to understand the outcome here, inasmuch as understanding is possible. In both of these areas, there are large gaps, with not enough information to see why the judges have decided as they did. So one wonders ....

transferring the investigation?

In the beginning, the investigation, such as it was, was run by the (very) local Koregaon Park police station. They were seen as dawdling, not going anywhere with it, hence the efforts by the Petitioner and supporting Intervenor to get it transferred to the CBI (best case scenario), or some other investigative branch of the Indian Central (federal) gov't.

The arguments for and against this proposed move are not clearly presented in the court record. We do not know in detail what all the parties proposed, nor do we know on what basis the judges decided as they did. The main session dealing with this was Session 20, in which judgment was pronounced by judges More and Phansalkar-Joshi, against transferring the investigation out of the hands of the Pune police.

The consolation prize was that it was transferred to another branch of the Pune police, the Economic Offenses Wing (EOW). But in the end, the EOW's reasons for declining to pursue the case are not clarified. There is only the bland facticity of the EOW's final "C" Summary Report, with the judges' acceptance of that report similarly unexplained.

the graphologists' reports

If the judges have dealt with the graphologists' reports adequately in this case, this has not been well communicated. By all appearances, they and the Pune police have failed in this regard. The professional, thorough reports outlined on the main fake will page do not only agree that the will is a forgery, they agree unreservedly. This is something they will stake their reputations on. The second report of the Italian graphologist is especially thorough, drilling down even with electron microscopy. They are not in the least troubled by the fact that they are examining photocopies.

The main objection to their conclusion was that they were all in private practice and were commissioned privately. So it was thought that they should at least be confirmed by an Indian government graphologist. But in the context of the private guys' certainty, it is insufficient for the first government graphologist so engaged to wave his or her graphological hand and assert -- whether as a bedrock principle of the profession or merely as a don't-wanna-go-there opinion is not known -- that one cannot form an opinion based on photocopies. Thus, the Pune police's reliance on this (non-)opinion is especially lame.

So the court ordered another opinion. We learn in Session 25 that that opinion, from the Forensic Science Laboratory, Government of NCT of Delhi, was submitted two days prior to that session. Thus, the EOW's investigation, which up to that point has relied only on the Koregaon Park station's no-opinion guy needs to reckon with this new report. Did that happen?

We never find out. We learn in the next session, the last with judges Savant and Dere, that all relevant reports, including that one presumably, are being considered by the Chief Examiner of Documents, Crime Branch, Pune, the Pune police's preferred graphological authority. Savant and Dere order the Chief Examiner to submit a report to the EOW's Investigating Officer "as expeditiously as possible".

In the next three, and final, sessions, conducted by judges More and Dangre, no further mention is made of the FSL report, nor of the Chief Examiner of Documents. Where Savant and Dere had complained that "We are not satisfied with the manner in which the investigation has progressed since our last order" in Session 24, and pushed for action "as expeditiously as possible" in Session 26, More and Dangre say only in Session 27 that the EOW's report "reveals that investigation into the subject crime is almost complete".

In that session and in Session 29, the final pronouncements, there is a noticeable lack of specificity and transparency. After a few brief generalities referring to the objections of the learned Senior Advocates for the Petitioner and his allies, there is only a foggy "We do not find merit in this contention", without any reason or analysis. Sifting through their words for clues yields nothing.

more questions

Other questions arise, such as ....
1. The Pune police DID question Jayesh, Amrito and Niren, the three men who claimed to have witnessed the signing of the alleged will, having been prodded by orders given in this case. (Niren's submission was via email the others in person.) In addition, they questioned the other three accused in Prem Geet's FIR, Yogendra, Mukesh and Pramod. What the six gentlemen said has not yet been ascertained by the wiki but a record is apparently** in the "C" Summary report.
2. And what precisely were the objections raised by the learned Senior Advocates that the judges brushed aside?
3. Your question here.

sequel(s)

There was not a long wait for an appeal of this decision. Prem Geet went to the Supreme Court of India, with Videh and Chidananda again participating independently as intervenors. The SC judges, also two, disposed of the "Special Leave Petition" quickly on Jan 18 2019, noting that the petitioners still had the option of starting at the bottom again in Pune Magistrate Court and, should they do that, the judges directed that "the Magistrate shall consider the objections to the ‘C’ Summary Report expeditiously and preferably within a period of six months from today".

This six-month limit was a condition requested by Mahesh Jethmalani. It is said to be an unusually short time for a Magistrate's Court case to come to completion, cases often taking years. It got them through their next stop, Pune Magistrate Court, well, "expeditiously", their case being dismissed in Jul 2019. The Magistrate in that case again found no problem with the Pune police's handling of the investigation.

At this point, Prem Geet's path diverged from that of Videh and Chidananda. He appealed the Magistrate's decision in the next higher court in the Pune District system (and apparently lost again), while Videh and Chidananda took their appeal back to Bombay High Court.

That appeal began to be heard in late 2019 and is in suspended animation due to the covid pandemic as of Oct 2021. Information about that case can be found at Bombay High Court case, 2019. It is nominally an appeal of the Pune Magistrate's decision but in the judges' orders and comments in the first session, we learn that "earlier orders of this Court in Writ Petition No.2150/2016 expected a report from the Chief Examiner of documents [but that the order in Session 29] accepting "C" summary and rejecting protest note does not make any reference to any such report". The judges note that there are "other grounds to advance" but the failure of "this Court", ie Bombay High Court in the 2016 case, to properly deal with the technical reports is the only explicitly spelled out ground for appeal in their first orders.

A potentially interesting aspect of this opinion is that one of the judges in that session, Smt Sadhana S Jadhav, was also a judge in the 2016 case, with Judge More in sessions 17-19.

One further sequel item to mention ... In late 2019, Videh and Chidananda also became "Interlocutors" in another case, OIF's application for an "OSHO" Trademark in India, asking for the TM to wait until BHC 2019 is settled. This case is also ongoing, as of Oct 2021.

Glossary

terms, names	meaning, significance, explanation, etc
learned	used more or less solely as an adjective, pronounced with two syllables, not the one-syllable verb. It is apparently an obligatory honorific used in addressing or referring to all and any lawyers, meaning knowledgeable, well-educated.
APP	Additional Public Prosecutor. Two players in this drama are referred to as APP. They are the lawyers employed by the State to represent their interests as the primary respondent. "Additional" is an adjective applied to those less senior, perhaps probationary, as with more than a few of the judges. References exist here also to just plain "Public Prosecutor", without "Additional". This is not an oversight or abbreviation, and such would be the more senior.
Reserve Bank of India	(RBI) India's central bank and financial regulatory body, under the jurisdiction of Ministry of Finance
Directorate of Enforcement	(also DoE and Enforcement Directorate) -- an arm of the Indian central gov't in Delhi, a "specialized financial investigation agency under the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, which enforces the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA) and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA)"
respondents	those "responding" to the petition, here the gov't entities required to "show up", abide by the judges' rulings and carry out their instructions
DCP	Deputy Commissioner of Police, the second-highest ranking police official in a jurisdiction
Mr / Shri Kadam	Ravi Kadam, a retired Advocate-General for the state of Maharashtra, a big gun appearing for Mukesh and Devendra
Mr Singh	Anil C. Singh, Additional Solicitor General, one of the most highly placed lawyers in the Central gov't bureaucracy, signifying a relatively high level of interest in the case there. (Does not appear in selected sessions above, only in the full proceedings)
CBI	The Central Bureau of Investigation, the "premier investigating agency of India"
vide	a Latin word meaning "see"; in the legal context usually used to direct attention to something previously noted, or perhaps in a text
"C" Summary Report	One of three types of report, A, B and C, that can be issued by police after an investigation. Each type can mean a variety of things, and as such, the meaning may be opaque to the hoi polloi. "C" Summary is variously said to be offered by police in cases where: a) the FIR is found to be based on a mistake of fact -- as opposed to a "B" Summary, where the original complaint has been malicious, knowingly false b) there are grounds for believing an offence has been committed but insufficient evidence to justify sending anyone for trial c) the offender is not known d) the offence is of a civil nature, not criminal e) the case is neither true nor false (ie, it depends on what the meaning of "is" is, Lord help us with that one!)
	more to come