Signature forgery case: Abhishek Banerjee gets interim protection from coercive action from Calcutta HC

TMC MP Abhishek Banerjee was granted interim protection from any coercive action in a signature forgery case over the party's choice of Leader of Opposition in the West Bengal assembly by the Calcutta High Court on Thursday.

Justice Kausik Chanda, while granting the interim protection for three weeks, directed Banerjee to appear before the CID at its headquarters, 'Bhabani Bhaban' in Kolkata by 6 pm on Thursday for questioning in the case.

The TMC general secretary complied with the order and reached 'Bhabani Bhaban' around 5.50 pm. He has been at the CID headquarters since.

Justice Chanda directed Banerjee to thereafter meet the probe agency, as and when required, with a 24-hour advance notice.

The matter will come up for hearing again after two weeks, Justice Chanda said.

Banerjee had moved the high court seeking protection from any coercive action by the state CID over its probe into the alleged forgery of party MLAs' signatures.

What is the signature forgery case?

The CID is investigating a complaint filed with the Assembly Secretariat by two rebel TMC MLAs alleging that their signatures were forged on the party's resolution appointing Ballygunge MLA Sobhandeb Chattopadhyay as the leader of the opposition.

The assembly secretariat filed an FIR with the Kolkata Police over the complaint by the two MLAs - Ritabrata Banerjee and Sandipan Saha. The probe was later transferred to the CID by the state's home secretary.

The Diamond Harbour MP was summoned by the CID thrice, but he did not appear before the investigation agency citing various reasons, the state's lawyer submitted before the court.

Additional advocate general Rajdeep Majumdar, opposing Banerjee's prayer for protection from coercive action by the investigation agency in the case, stated that the original document of the resolution, a photocopy of which was submitted to the Speaker, was with the TMC national general secretary.

He further submitted that at least five of the MLAs claimed the signatures on the document were not theirs.

The investigation cannot move forward unless the original resolution is recovered, and that is why custodial interrogation of Banerjee is necessary, Majumdar argued.

The court then said that an accused has the right not to produce a document that may incriminate him.

Representing Abhishek Banerjee in the court, lawyer Ayan Banerjee claimed that the purpose of the notice is not to question him but to obtain documents related to the resolution.

Stating that Banerjee is ready to cooperate with the investigation, his lawyer prayed that he be given protection from any coercive action, including arrest.

(With agency inputs)