AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R.C. Mishra, J.—In the light of the order dated 16.12.2009 passed by the Apex Court in SLP (Cri) Nos. 10165-10166/2009, the office was directed vide order dated 27.4.2010, passed on the administrative side, to register this M.Cr.C. for cancellation of temporary bail granted to Shamsher Bahadur Singh by virtue of order dated 29.3.2010 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 2492/2010. The obvious reason was that the facility was obtained by suppressing the fact that aforesaid petitions moved against the order dated 24.4,2009 and order dated 8.10.2009 passed by this Court respectively in M.Cr.C. No. 666/2009 and 10084/2009 rejecting the applications for grant of regular bail on merits as well as on medical grounds, had already been dismissed by the Apex Court on 16.12.2009.
However, the direction could not be complied with by the Registry till 15.6.2010 and in the meanwhile, the term of temporary bail expired on 18.5.2010. It is relevant to note that even after dismissal of the SL Ps, Shamsher Bahadur was able to obtain temporary bail on medical grounds for the periods from 19.1.2010 to 25.3.2010 and again from 29.3.2010 to 17.5.2010. Particulars of the corresponding bail applications and the orders may be tabulated as under -
Date of presentation of bail application
Registered as M.Cr.C. No.
Decided on
Result
19.12.2009
13211/2009
19.1.2010
The applicant ShamsherBahadur was released on temporary bail on medical grounds
18.2.2010
1710/2010
22.2.2010
Period of temporary bail was extended upto 25.3.2010.
15.3.2010
2492/2010
29.3.2010
Applicant was again released on temporary bail till 17.5.2010
Each one of these applications contained a declaration that no bail application was decided by the Supreme Court. However, supporting affidavits were submitted in respect of the last two applications only by noticee Bhanu Pratap Singh, the son of applicant Shamsher Bahadur Singh.
In such a situation, notice was issued to Bhanu Pratap Singh, to show cause as to why he should not be prosecuted for submitting false affidavits before this Court in M.Cr.C. No. 1710/2010 as well as in M.Cr.C. No. 2492/ 2010.
In reply, the noticee has not disputed the authorship of the affidavits in question. However, he has come forward with an explanation that the affidavits were submitted under a bonaflde belief that no SLP was filed on behalf of his father Shamsher Singh before the Supreme Court. According to him, he did engage Shri Deepak Kumar Singh, an Advocate practicing in the Supreme Court, for the purpose through Shri Suresh Kumar Sharma, Advocate, who happens to be a resident of Rewa, but, in view of the deteriorating physical condition of his father, he had asked Shri Suresh Sharma to communicate his instructions to Shri Deepak Kumar Singh forbearing him not to prefer any SLP. He has further asserted that Shri Deepak Kumar Singh had only made him to sign on two blank papers and thus, he had not sworn any affidavit before any Notary or Oath Commissioner at Delhi.
However, the explanation is far from being satisfactory as it was expected from the noticee to verify the state of affairs with regard to filing of the SL Ps before swearing in affidavit on more man one occasion. As such, the noticee is apparently guilty of swearing false affidavits in judicial proceedings.
Now the question that arises for consideration is as to what should be the course of action to be adopted ?
As rightly pointed by learned Counsel, only two options are available to the Court. The first one is to direct the Registrar of this Court to conduct a summary enquiry contemplated u/s 340(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to ascertain as to whether a complaint should be filed against the noticee in respect of the offence punishable Section 193 of the IPC ( M.S. Ahlawat Vs. State of Haryana and Another, referred to). The second course is to deal the matter under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short ''the Act'') as filing of false affidavit in Court constitutes criminal contempt as defined u/s 2(c) of the Act ( Dhananjay Sharma Vs. State of Haryana and Others, relied on).
As indicated already, noticee was required to show cause as to why he should not be prosecuted for furnishing false affidavits and prosecution means process by way of indictment or information, and is not necessarily confined to prosecution for an offence (See Daulat Ram Bidhan Das Vs. Corporation of Calcutta, . In this view of the matter, there is no legal hurdle in dealing the case under the Act.
As concluded already, the explanation tendered by the noticee is not reasonably acceptable. Swearing of false affidavit not only obstructs but also perverts course of justice. Since the false statement in the affidavits was made deliberately and consciously, it certainly amounted to Contempt of Court. This apart, his omission to inform this Court about dismissal of the SL Ps at any point of time during hearing of the bail applications, which were otherwise not entertainable, also renders him liable to penalty.
Taking into consideration all the relevant aspects, as highlighted by the Apex Court in Murray and Co. Vs. Ashok Kr. Newatia and Another, including that the noticee has been able to secure release of his father on the ground of serious illness for a period of more than 3/4 months despite rejection of his Special Leave Petitions by the Supreme Court, an amount of Rs. 2,000/- is imposed as fine u/s 12(1) of the Act in respect of each affidavit containing the false assertion and in the light of decision in Sunkara Lakshminarasamma and Another Vs. Sagi Subba Raju and Others etc., , Rs. 16,000/- is imposed as exemplary costs in view of the fact that the false statement on oath has, in effect, resulted in violation of judicial discipline and propriety by this Court ( Bimla Devi (Smt) Vs. State of Bihar and Others, referred to).
Consequently, noticee Bhanu Pratap Singh is held guilty of Contempt of this Court and is directed to pay a total sum of Rs. 20,000/-. The amount shall be deposited with the Registry of this Court within a period of 2 months from today and if the amount is not paid, the noticee shall suffer imprisonment for 3 months.