Delhi Court Convicts Man For Forging Letter In Yogi Adityanath's Name To PM Narendra Modi To Get BJP Ticket

A Delhi court has convicted a man for forging an official letter purportedly issued by Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath to Prime Minister Narendra Modi for allotting a BJP ticket to him in the 2019 Uttar Pradesh Assembly elections.

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Jyoti Maheshwari of Rouse Avenue Courts observed that misuse of public functionaries' names in fabricated official acts “strikes at the very foundation of public trust.”

“The misuse of the names of public functionaries is often dismissed as trivial, yet when it assumes the form of a forged official act, it strikes at the very foundation of public trust,” the judge said.

The Court convicted accused Shivaji Yadav for the offences punishable under Sections 465 (forgery) and 471 (fraudulent or dishonest use of a forged document or electronic record as genuine) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The case originated from a letter dated June 10, 2019, allegedly written by Yogi Adityanath to Prime Minister Narendra Modi recommending a BJP ticket for the accused from the Lucknow Cantt constituency.

However, the Prime Minister's Office flagged the letter as suspicious, triggering a CBI probe. Investigation revealed that the letter was forged and was not issued from the Chief Minister's Office.

Convicting the accused, the judge held that the letter was forged by him and was dispatched by as a genuine document to the PMO, despite knowing that it was forged and false.

The Court said that the circumstances were proved beyond reasonable doubt, and pointed towards the guilt of the accused who failed to offer any plausible explanation regarding the incriminating circumstances against him.

“The investigation carried out by CBI is complete on the above aspects and on the basis of the investigation carried out and the evidence on record, the guilt of the accused Shivaji Yadav has been proved beyond reasonable doubt,” the Court said.

It added that the case revealed a deliberate attempt to lend authenticity to a fabricated communication by invoking the name and office of a constitutional functionary and that such acts have the potential to disturb the sanctity attached to official processes and communications.

“The law must, therefore, take its course, where the evidence on record clearly establishes the making and use of a false document with intent to deceive,” the judge concluded.