Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: missing documents in Vajubhai Patel And Anr. vs Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra ... on 5 April, 1990Matching Fragments
56. Charge No. 56 is to the effect that Vajubhai and Leelabehn have destroyed and/or secreted a large number of documents belonging to the trust e.g. attendance registers of the BG and the general body and counterfoils of donation receipts etc. This, it is alleged, has occasioned a loss to the trust. The circumstantial evidence is that the College was inexplicably closed from 5-4-1982 to 10-4-1982 a feat accomplished by Vajubhai and Leelabehn through their puppet Mrs. Asha Kalla, the in charge Principal the delay in the production of records the accused were directed to produce and the internal evidence of fabrication to be found in the documents produced. The inexplicability of the closure should have been got explained by examining Asha Kalla. The other circumstances are effectively answered by the argument that the accused would have acted more thoroughly instead of leaving tell-tale traces. Now of course it can also be argued that a certain artlessness was employed to lend veracity to the whole affair ! These and like conjectures can be argued endless. The better inference is that the missing documents did not exist or were lost, care not having been taken to preserve them because of their insignificance.
57. Mrs. Ankolvi gives a long list of documents she claims once existed and later disappeared. After the removal of her suspension, she resumed and discovered the loss. Significantly, she does not appear to have complained of the missing papers to the new management. With her pronounced hostility towards the accused, it would be necessary to seek corroboration. Mana Shikhadar claims to have witnessed tearing of papers and setting fire to the torn pieces by the College Peons on directions given by Vajubhai and Leelabehn. This, according to the witness, took place in March or April 1982. That witness should recall such happenings and yet make no complaint against the by now discharged Vajubhai and his wife seems improbable. The accused have given a long chart in their written arguments to explain their version of the so called missing documents. This chart is at least more definitive than the glib assertions of Mrs. Ankolvi and Ms. Shikadhar. This charge also fails.