Businessman Mandeep Singh Channa has been charged in Kenya with a string of forgery and uttering false documents offences in a case that has opened a fresh legal battle over the ownership and directorship of Channa Investments Limited.
Channa appeared before a Kenyan court and denied the charges, which centre on documents allegedly used to facilitate the resignation of director Supinderpaul Singh Channa and the subsequent transfer of 4,000 ordinary shares in the company.
The prosecution alleges that the documents were submitted through Channa’s eCitizen account on the Business Registration Service (BRS) platform and used to effect changes to the company’s official records.
Channa was released on a cash bail of KSh300,000 as the case proceeds.
According to the charge sheet, Channa faces a count of making a false document contrary to Section 347(a), as read with Section 349 of the Penal Code.
The first alleged document is an affidavit dated October 19, 2022, which the prosecution claims was falsely made to appear as though it had been sworn by Supinderpaul Singh before Esther Asati, an advocate and Commissioner for Oaths.
Prosecutors allege that Channa, together with other persons who have not been charged in the case, knew that the affidavit was false.
He is further accused of uttering the alleged false affidavit on October 25, 2022, by submitting it through his eCitizen account on the BRS system.
The prosecution claims the document was presented to support the purported resignation of Supinderpaul Singh as a director of Channa Investments Limited.
The case then moves deeper into the company’s corporate records.
Channa is accused of making allegedly false minutes of a board meeting dated October 19, 2022, purportedly showing that a properly convened company meeting had taken place.
He allegedly submitted the minutes to the BRS through his eCitizen account on October 25, 2022, with the prosecution claiming they were used to support the purported resignation.
Another charge concerns a resignation letter dated October 19, 2022.
According to the prosecution, the letter was falsely made to appear as though it had been executed and signed by Supinderpaul Singh.
Channa allegedly submitted the letter to the BRS on October 25, 2022, despite allegedly knowing that it was false.
The alleged documentary trail later shifts to the company’s shareholding.
Prosecutors accuse Channa of making a false share transfer document dated July 3, 2023, purportedly transferring 4,000 ordinary shares from Supinderpaul Singh to himself.
The prosecution further alleges that Channa uttered the document on July 25, 2023, when it was submitted through his eCitizen account on the BRS platform.
He is also accused of submitting another allegedly false affidavit dated July 25, 2023, purportedly sworn by Supinderpaul Singh before Esther Asati.
According to the prosecution, the affidavit was used to support the transfer of the 4,000 shares.
The allegations come against the backdrop of an earlier corporate dispute involving the two men and Channa Investments Limited.
In a 2023 ruling in a High Court commercial dispute, Mandeep Singh Channa was listed as the applicant while Supinderpaul Singh Channa was the respondent, with Channa Investments Limited and Channa Construction Limited listed as affected parties.
That case concerned, among other matters, control of the companies, their financial affairs and a proposed sale of part of property associated with Channa Investments Limited. The court record also contained competing accounts concerning the company’s shareholding.
The earlier litigation provides important context to the latest criminal case, although the allegations in the present prosecution remain to be proved independently.
Kenyan law treats the making of a false document as a criminal offence in circumstances set out under Section 347 of the Penal Code. Section 349 provides the general punishment for forgery, while Section 353 deals with knowingly and fraudulently uttering a false document.
Kenyan courts have previously distinguished between making a false document and uttering one. In a 2022 High Court decision, the court explained that uttering involves knowingly using, dealing with, or attempting to cause another person to act upon a false document.
That distinction could become significant in Channa’s case because several of the allegations concern not only the purported creation of the documents but also their subsequent submission through the BRS system.
Channa has denied the allegations by pleading not guilty.
The prosecution will now be required to prove the charges to the criminal standard before a conviction can be entered.
For now, the alleged affidavits, board minutes, resignation letter and share transfer documents remain allegations contained in the charge sheet, and Channa is presumed innocent unless and until a court determines otherwise.
There's no story that cannot be told. We cover the stories that others don't want to be told, we bring you all the news you need. If you have tips, exposes or any story you need to be told bluntly and all queries write to us [email protected] also find us on Telegram
