Fake medical prescription case: Gurgaon court convicts former IREO CEO Ramesh Sanka of cheating, acquits him of forgery

The matter relates to an exemption application filed by Sanka in April 2023 in a pending real estate trial, which was subsequently found to be supported by questionable medical documentation.

The judgment, delivered by Dr Mohd Imtiyaj Khan, Judicial Magistrate First Class, came after a two-year trial out of an FIR at the Shivaji Nagar police station.

Sanka, who was facing prosecution in other financial cases linked to complaints from the IREO group, sought exemption from appearance on medical grounds with an outpatient (OPD) slip allegedly issued at the Rajiv Gandhi Super Speciality Hospital, Delhi.

The prosecution argued that the prescription was forged, Sanka had not physically visited the hospital, and that the details were neither fully recorded nor supported by test reports, with CCTV footage and WhatsApp records cited as evidence.

The court found that the medical certificate was prepared at the behest of Meenu Sharma, the hospital’s pharmacy in-charge, who claimed Sanka was a relative. Evidence showed the information presented for the prescription was false, but the actual document was issued and signed by the doctor, believing the statements to be true.

The court held that the accused Meenu Sharma, in active connivance with the accused Ramesh Sanka, deceived the prosecution witness Dr Ajit Jain, who was posted as an associate professor at the Rajiv Gandhi Super Speciality Hospital. Dr Jain was the doctor who issued the OPD prescription based on information provided by Meenu Sharma about a relative reportedly suffering from fever, cough, and chest pain.

Caused harm to doctor’s reputation, observes court

The court also found that the fake document was filed before it as well, thereby inducing the court to grant exemption from personal appearance. Such deception was intentional and caused harm not only to the court’s process but also to Dr Jain’s professional reputation, it held, adding that all elements of cheating were satisfied.

The original prescription was found to have been destroyed and not recovered during the investigation. In its findings, the court held that, although the ingredients of forgery were not proven, since the document was genuinely executed, albeit based on false information, the actions constituted cheating and criminal conspiracy.

Both Sanka and Sharma were convicted under sections 417 (cheating), 120B (criminal conspiracy), and 201 (destruction of evidence), but acquitted under the forgery sections (465, 468, 471 read with 120-B).

The defence’s arguments focused on the lack of jurisdiction, the authenticity of electronic evidence, medical protocols during Covid-19, and alleged ulterior motives by the complainant.

Sanka was sentenced to 10 months’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine, while Sharma, on bail, received a similar sentence with a one-month suspension of sentence for appeal. The order directed consecutive terms for all sentences, citing the need for deterrence, and dismissed requests for probation on grounds of abuse of judicial process and public justice.

The court also clarified that offences committed both in Delhi and Gurgaon fall under concurrent jurisdiction since the purported document was created in one city and used in another.

“The act of the convicts amounts to not only cheating but also a deliberate abuse of the judicial process. It undermines the sanctity of judicial proceedings and erodes public confidence in the integrity of the justice delivery system… Furthermore, original prescription has been destroyed by the convicts which further shows the gravity of the conduct, the objects sought to be achieved by them,” the court noted.

“It is a need of hour that such instances must be handled strictly so as to deter similar misuse of judicial process. The offences committed by the convicts are not only against a private person but are offences against public justice, intended to deceive the court itself. Such types of instances call for no leniency,” the court added.

Additional Public Prosecutor Manish Kumar appeared for the state. The complainant was represented by advocates Apoorv Yadav, Prateek Rathee, Gunjan Singla, and Prachi Bhardwaj.

Advocates Vishal Gupta and Amol Gupta represented Sanka. Advocate Vipin Gupta appeared for Sharma.