vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7224 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.7224 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.7224 OF 2008 Prabodh Mehta ... Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents Mr.Janak Dwarkadas with Prateek Seksaria, D.K. Sinha, Jay Kansara for Petitioner Ms.P.S. Cardozo, AGP, for Respondent Nos.1,2 and 3 Mr.Akil Sibal with Ms.R.C. Nichani, Raj Patel a/w Ms.Neelam Asrani, Hetal Thakore for Respondent No.4 CORAM: SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J MHATRE, J MHATRE, J. DATED: OCTOBER 22, 2008 OCTOBER 22, 2008 OCTOBER 22, 2008 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . The petition challenges the order passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner dated 8.10.2008. By this order, the Joint Charity Commissioner has framed a charge against the petitioner u/s 41D of the Bombay Public Trusts Act. 2. The contention of the Respondent No.4 is that the petitioner is not entitled to continue as a trustee of the Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical trust in view of the fact that the petitioner has been convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude. An application was therefore, filed by Respondent No.4 u/s 41D(1)(f) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act for suspension, removal or dismissal of the petitioner as a trustee. The charge : 2 : has been framed on the basis of a certified copy of the judgment of a Belgian Court which had convicted the petitioner for fraud, forgery and money laundering. The translated version of the judgment which was in Flemish has also been produced before the Joint Charity Commissioner. Relying on these two documents, the Joint Charity Commissioner has framed the charge against the petitioner. 3. Mr.Dwarkadas, appearing for the petitioner, submits that the Joint Charity Commissioner could not have presumed that the judgment which was produced by the respondent was genuine as it was not certified in accordance with section 86 of the Indian Evidence Act. He submits that a presumption can be raised with respect to the genuineness and accuracy of foreign judicial records only on certain conditions being fulfilled. These conditions are stipulated in section 86 and unless the document purported to be the judgment of a foreign Court bears all the certifications necessary, a Court cannot presume that the document is genuine. He further submits that the translation which was produced also does not indicate that the translation was in fact a true depiction of what was decided by the Belgian Court. There is only a certification of the signature of the translator by the Indian Embassy but not of the contents of the translation. He therefore, submits that no : 3 : charge could have been framed against the petitioners on the basis of these documents. 4. The learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.4 submits that the petitioner has not denied the fact that he was convicted by a Court in Belgium for fraud, forgery and money laundering as contended by Respondent No.4 in her application filed under section 41D of the Bombay Public Trusts Act. He points out that although a written statement has been filed by the petitioner there is no denial of this fact. He submits that the Joint Charity Commissioner after considering the material on record, including the fact that there was a certified copy of the judgment of the Belgian Court as well as a translation of the judgment, has found it fit to frame a charge against the petitioner. He submits, and in my view rightly, that once there is no denial of the conviction and the material which is available on record indicates prima facie that the petitioner has been convicted a charge can be framed on this basis. The learned counsel submits that this is nothing but one more attempt by the petitioner to scuttle the hearing of the application before the Joint Charity Commissioner which in fact was to be disposed of by 28.10.2008. 5. Section 86 of the Indian Evidence Act provides that a presumption can be raised regarding the accuracy : 4 : of a foreign judicial record if certain conditions are fulfilled. Assuming the certification of the foreign judgement is not as stipulated u/s 86, a presumption regarding its genuineness cannot be raised. However, that does not mean a party relying on the judgment cannot prove that document. While framing a charge the Joint Charity Commissioner must have material before him from which he can form an opinion, prima facie, that the trustee against whom the application u/s 41D has been filed has been convicted for an offence involving moral turpitude. 6. In my view, once the certified copy of a public document has been produced alongwith a translated copy duly certified and the Joint Charity Commissioner has found it fit to rely on the same in order to frame a charge, the procedure adopted by the Joint Charity Commissioner cannot be faulted. It may be possible to contend at the trial that the presumption regarding the genuineness of these documents cannot be raised u/s 86. The documents would then have to be proved in the manner provided under the Indian Evidence Act. However this would not mean that a charge cannot be framed on the basis of those documents. 7. Petition is therefore rejected.