Kolkata, 03 June (H.S.) : The CID investigation into the alleged forgery of signatures on a Trinamool Congress (TMC) legislative party resolution has widened, with investigators now examining discrepancies related not only to the signatures of MLAs but also to the dates mentioned in the document submitted to the West Bengal Assembly.

The controversy centres on a resolution nominating Sobhandeb Chattopadhyay as Leader of the Opposition, Nayana Bandyopadhyay and Asima Patra as deputy leaders, and Firhad Hakim as chief whip of the TMC legislative party. While the party meeting was held at Kalighat on May 19, the resolution submitted to the Assembly reportedly bears the date of May 6, raising fresh questions about the authenticity of the document.

According to sources, the resolution book contains the names, addresses and signatures of 70 MLAs. However, investigators have found variations in the entries, with some names written in capital letters, others in small letters, and some legislators using abbreviated signatures. Several MLAs have already informed the CID that they did not sign the resolution book on May 6, prompting investigators to examine who may have filled in the names, addresses and signatures and under whose instructions.

As part of the probe, the CID is seeking to record the statement of TMC national general secretary Abhishek Banerjee on June 8. Investigators are interested in questioning him because the disputed communication submitted to the Assembly was reportedly sent on his official letterhead.

Meanwhile, the CID’s Special Investigation Team (SIT) approached the Bankshall Court on Tuesday seeking permission to collect handwriting samples from MLAs Baharul Islam, Subhasish Das and Aroop Roy as part of the forensic examination.

The investigation was initiated following complaints by expelled TMC MLAs Ritabrata Banerjee and Sandipan Saha, who alleged that signatures collected in an attendance register were later converted into a formal resolution. Ritabrata Banerjee claimed that some legislators whose names appeared on the document were not even present on the date in question and suggested that mobile tower location data could establish the facts.

Investigators have also identified a possible anomaly involving Sobhandeb Chattopadhyay’s signature. Sources said the date written beneath his signature is May 5, even though the disputed resolution is linked to a meeting allegedly held on May 6. The discrepancy is expected to form part of the ongoing inquiry.

CID officials have already collected relevant documents from several legislators and sent them for forensic examination. Investigators are awaiting the forensic report while simultaneously recording statements from those linked to the case.

According to CID sources, the Assembly Secretariat had sought a copy of the meeting minutes or resolution from the TMC after receiving the party's communication. In response, a resolution bearing the signatures of 70 MLAs was submitted. Investigators are now examining whether the document was prepared and authenticated in accordance with established procedures.

Hindusthan Samachar / Satya Prakash Singh