Imp. Rulings - Evidentiary Value of Forensic Audit Reports.

 Imp. Rulings - Evidentiary Value of Forensic Audit Reports.

Index;

1. HC Delhi (2024.02.29) in Ratul Puri Vs. Punjab National Bank [(2024) ibclaw.in 188 HC, W.P.(C) NO.9491 of 2023 & CM APPL.36246/2023] 

2. HC Calcutta (2023.09.05) Prashant Bothra And Another vs Bureau Of Immigrations [WPA No. 25668 of 2022]

3. HC Madras (23.02.2021) in M.Suresh Khatri & Anr. Vs. Directorate of Enforcement Rep. by the Deputy Director GOI. [CRL.O.P. Nos. 20127 & 25688 of 2018]

4. SCI (2019.08.27) in Chennadi Jalapathi Reddy Vs,. Baddam Pratapa Reddy (Dead)Thr Lrs. & Anr. [Civil Appeal Nos.7818-­7819 Of 2009}

--------------------------------------------------------------------

1). HC Delhi (2024.02.29) in Ratul Puri Vs. Punjab National Bank [(2024) ibclaw.in 188 HC, W.P.(C) NO.9491 of 2023 & CM APPL.36246/2023] held that;

• # 110. The nature of the Forensic Audit Report in respect of a company is discussed by the Calcutta High Court in Prashant Bothra & Anr. v. Bureau of Immigration & Ors.1 It was held that a Forensic Audit Report, at best, is a piece of evidence in liquidation proceedings, and is in no manner a conclusive proof of any illegality committed under a law. The Forensic Audit Report is merely an opinion of the author, which is based on several disclaimers and it cannot be a conclusive proof of its observations. The relevant observations are reproduced as under:-

-  “21. The very premise of the request was a forensic audit report allegedly authored by a particular concern. The said report, at best, is a piece of evidence in the liquidation proceeding and is in no manner conclusive proof of evidence of any illegality committed by any entity. In fact, it is common experience that each and every such forensic audit report contains several disclaimers, restricting the operation of the same to the proceeding in which they are filed, as well as confined to the impression of the authors thereof on the basis of the documents which are available to them.

-   22. Under no stretch of imagination can such a report be conclusive proof of the allegations against the petitioners.”

------------------------------------------------------------

2). HC Calcutta (2023.09.05) Prashant Bothra And Another vs Bureau Of Immigrations [WPA No. 25668 of 2022] held that;

• # 21. The very premise of the request was a forensic audit report allegedly authored by a particular concern. The said report, at best, is a piece of evidence in the liquidation proceeding and is in no manner conclusive proof of evidence of any illegality committed by any entity. In fact, it is common experience that each and every such forensic audit report contains several disclaimers, restricting the operation of the same to the proceeding in which they are filed, as well as confined to the impression of the authors thereof on the basis of the documents which are available to them.

-----------------------------------------------

3). HC Madras (23.02.2021) in M.Suresh Khatri & Anr. Vs. Directorate of Enforcement Rep. by the Deputy Director GOI. [CRL.O.P.Nos.20127 & 25688 of 2018] held that;

• # 26. Finally, Mr.A.Ramesh assailed the prosecution by submitting that the entire prosecution is founded upon a forensic audit report, but, the report itself says that, it cannot be used for any judicial purpose. This Court is unable to persuade itself to agree with the above submission because, the forensic audit report had triggered the investigation and no report can ever form the only basis for convicting a person of an offence. The prosecution has to prove the offence, by adducing evidence and this opportunity has to be given to the prosecution in this case too. In the result, the prosecution of MJPL (A3) and Suresh Khatri (A4) cannot be said to be unfounded and accordingly, these Criminal Original Petitions are dismissed. Connected Crl.M.Ps are closed.

-------------------------------------------------------------

4). SCI (2019.08.27) in Chennadi Jalapathi Reddy Vs,. Baddam Pratapa Reddy (Dead)Thr Lrs. & Anr. [CIVIL APPEAL NOS.7818-­7819 OF 2009} held that;

• # 10. In our considered opinion, the decisions in Murari Lal (supra) and Alamgir (supra) strengthen the proposition that it is the duty of the Court to approach opinion evidence cautiously while determining its reliability and that the Court may seek independent corroboration of such evidence as a general rule of prudence. . . . . . 

-----------------------------------------