IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.O.C.P. No. 1357 of 2008 Date of Decision : April 29, 2009 Darshan Ram alias Darshan Singh …..Petitioner Versus Dr. Neelima Shangla, Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. P.K Longia, Advocate Mr. S.K. Garg Narwana, Advocate T.P.S. MANN, J. This petition has been filed by Darshan Ram alias Darshan Singh-petitioner under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 with the allegations that the respondent violated the order passed by the High Court on February 26, 2008. According to the petitioner, he, alongwith others, was facing trial in FIR No.34 dated 18.3.2004 registered at Police Station Guhla under Sections 307/323/324/326/34 IPC. He never absented himself from the Court. However, he suddenly fell ill and was examined at Punjab Health Systems Corporation, Samana, where the doctor advised him five days bed-rest. On that account, the petitioner COCP No. 1357 of 2008 -2- could not appear before the trial Court, presided over by the respondent, on 19.2.2008. Counsel representing the petitioner before the trial Court moved an application for the grant of exemption to the petitioner wherein he stated all the facts but the trial Court, vide order dated 19.2.2008, declined the said application and issued non-bailable warrants against him. The aforementioned order was challenged by the petitioner by filing a petition in the High Court which came up for hearing on 26.2.2008 when notice of motion was issued for 12.5.2008 and the operation of the impugned order was stayed. However, it was observed that the petitioner may surrender before the trial Court and move an appropriate application for the grant of bail. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner moved an application on 4.4.2008 for surrender and bail before the trial Court but the trial Court disobeyed the orders of the High Court by taking the petitioner into custody and issuing notice of the bail application for 9.4.2008. After having been taken into custody by the trial Court, the petitioner filed a miscellaneous application in the High Court with a prayer that he be released from illegal custody forthwith. This application came up for hearing in the High Court on 9.4.2008 when notice of the application was issued for 12.5.2008 and it was also directed that the petitioner be released on bail to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaithal. Accordingly, the petitioner was released on bail. As the trial Court ordered for taking the petitioner into custody upon his appearance there on 4.4.2008 despite the fact that the operation of the order dated 19.2.2008 issuing COCP No. 1357 of 2008 -3- non-bailable warrants against the petitioner had been stayed by the High Court on 26.2.2008, the petitioner asserted that the respondent deliberately and willfully flouted and violated the order dated 26.2.2008 passed by the High Court and, therefore, became liable to be proceeded against under the Contempt of Courts Act. Upon notice, the respondent submitted statement of facts/reply wherein at the outset, she tendered unqualified apology for any act of omission and commission. It was also pleaded that the case against the petitioner and others was ripe for defence evidence and for arguments whereas since December, 2007, the accused, one by one started taking adjournments on one pretext or the other by absenting themselves from the Court. In view of the fact that the petitioner did not put in appearance on 19.2.2008, his bail bonds were forfeited and non- bailable warrants issued. Vide order dated 26.2.2008, the High Court had directed the petitioner to surrender in the trial Court and to move an appropriate application for bail but he did not surrender immediately and remained absent till 4.4.2008. On 4.4.2008, the petitioner surrendered in the Court at 4.15 P.M. and moved an application for bail. Accordingly, notice of the bail application was ordered to be given to the State through Public Prosecutor and in the meanwhile, the petitioner was ordered to be sent to judicial custody. Since there were no specific orders for furnishing the bail bonds directly and for their acceptance by the Court and on the other hand, the petitioner was directed to surrender and to move an appropriate application before the trial Court, therefore, COCP No. 1357 of 2008 -4- it was considered bonfidely to decide the bail application on merits. According to the respondent, the arrest of the petitioner had been stayed till the time he surrendered before her for moving application for seeking regular bail for which he was required to be in custody. The petitioner was finally granted the concession of bail on 16.4.2008. She, accordingly, prayed for dropping of the contempt proceedings and for acceptance of her unconditional/unqualified apology for any act of omission and commission. On September 16, 2008, when the matter was taken up for hearing after the filing of statement of facts by the respondent, learned counsel representing the respondent brought to the notice of the Court that the petitioner had placed on record an incorrect copy of the order dated 19.2.2008 as Annexure P1. He himself placed on record an attested Xerox copy of the order dated 19.2.2008 which the Court found to be different from the one which was available on the record as Annexure P1. In view of this discrepancy, the petitioner was directed to place on record the certified copy/true copy of the order wherefrom the typed copy Annexure P1 had been typed alongwith an affidavit stating therein as to what was the source of the copy of the order Annexure P1 filed with the petition. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner filed an affidavit dated 23.9.2008 wherein he tried to explain the circumstances whereunder the tampered copy of the Court order dated 19.2.2008 was filed alongwith the present contempt petition. However, it was admitted COCP No. 1357 of 2008 -5- that the typed copy placed on the record was not the true version of the original Court order. The certified copy of the order dated 19.2.2008 was placed on record. After perusing the certified copy and the typed copy placed on the record, the Court observed that the typed copy was not the true and correct version of the original Court order and a portion of the same had been omitted/deleted in the typed copy, which seemed to have persuaded this Court to pass an order for initiating contempt proceedings against the respondent, who was a judicial officer. Considering it to be a serious matter, which needed to be enquired into so as to fix the responsibility upon the person(s), who might be responsible for tampering with the copy of Court's order and using the tampered copy in judicial proceedings, a direction was issued vide order dated September 24, 2008 to the District and Sessions Judge-cum- Registrar (Vigilance), Punjab, High Court, to conduct an enquiry into the circumstances leading to filing of the tampered/altered typed copy of the order dated 19.2.2008. Consequently, the District and Sessions Judge-cum-Registrar (Vigilance), Punjab, Chandigarh submitted his report dated 17.12.2008 in a sealed cover. On the last date of hearing, the seal was opened and the report dated 17.12.2008 perused. On a request made by learned counsel for the petitioner, hearing was adjourned for today and the report was ordered to be sealed once again. COCP No. 1357 of 2008 -6- In his report dated 17.12.2008, District and Sessions Judge- cum-Registrar (Vigilance), Punjab has concluded that the typed photostat copy purporting to be an order dated 19.2.2008 was supplied by the office of Shri S.C. Sharma, Advocate to Shri Vinod Bhardwaj, Advocate. Though Shri S.C.Sharma, Advocate denied this fact but that should have been taken as just meant to draft the petition so as to save the time as arrest warrants of the petitioner had been issued but it was the sole responsibility of Shri Vinod Bhardwaj, Advocate to obtain authenticated/certified/photostat copy of certified copy of the order dated 19.2.2008 before verifying the copy of the order as true copy which was ultimately considered as authenticated document by Shri R.S. Longia, Advocate and attested by him as true copy as Annexure P1 in the contempt petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the trial of the case has since been concluded by the learned trial Court and the petitioner stands acquitted. Keeping in view the fact that vide order dated 26.2.2008, the High Court had stayed the operation of the order dated 19.2.2008 passed by the respondent issuing non-bailable warrants against the petitioner and that the petitioner was called upon to surrender before the trial Court and move an appropriate application for bail, it cannot be held that the respondent while entertaining the bail application of the petitioner after his surrender and while issuing notice upon the same for COCP No. 1357 of 2008 -7- 9.4.2008 and in the meantime, taking the petitioner into custody, deliberately or wilfully, flouted the orders passed by the High Court on 26.2.2008. There was no direction issued by the High Court on 26.2.2008 that upon his surrender the petitioner be released on bail by the respondent. The directions issued were that the petitioner may surrender before the trial Court and move an appropriate application for bail. Such an application was made after a period of forty days after the passing of the order dated 26.2.2008 which application was entertained by the respondent and notice of the same issued to the Public Prosecutor for 9.4.2008. In view of the above, the contempt proceedings are dropped. Further, it would be a futile exercise to take the report of District and Sessions Judge-cum-Registrar (Vigilance), Punjab any further on the question of taking appropriate action against the person responsible for filing of tampered/altered typed copy of the order dated 19.2.2008 before the Court. Therefore, no further action is required to be taken pursuant to the report dated 17.12.2008 submitted by District and Sessions Judge-cum-Registrar (Vigilance), Punjab. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of. ( T.P.S. MANN ) April 29, 2009 JUDGE satish COCP No. 1357 of 2008 -8-