Criminal O.C.P.No.42 of 1998 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal O.C.P.No.42 of 1998 Date of decision: 28.3.2008 Court of its own motion -----Petitioner Vs. Dhani Ram and others -----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.D.ANAND Present: Mr. KDS Hooda, Advocate as Amicus Curiae. Mr. SS Pattar, Sr. DAG, Haryana for the State. JUDGMENT: 1. Dhani Ram, respondent-contemner was accused in FIR No.525 dated 13.11.1995 under sections 379/411/420/468/471 IPC, Police Station City Rohtak. He was in custody in the said case. His bail application was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak vide order dated 11.6.1996. The respondent No.1 then filed Criminal Miscellaneous No.12740 M of 1996 in this Court seeking bail. Notice in the said application was issued for 14.8.1996. On 14.8.1996, case was adjourned to 9.9.1996 with certain directions. 2. Learned counsel for the respondent filed an application being Criminal Misc.No.15869 of 1996 in Criminal Criminal O.C.P.No.42 of 1998 2 Misc.No.12740 M of 1996 dated 2.9.1996 stating that a fake order of this court dated 14.8.1996 was received at Rohtak court showing that the respondent had been granted bail. The order carried the name of the learned counsel for the respondent but no such order having been passed, counsel for the respondent may be allowed to withdraw from the case. 3. On 9.9.1996, this Court issued a notice to the accused to show cause why proceedings under Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 be not initiated. 4. On 23.9.1996, the accused was produced in this Court and he stated that he had come to know about the order of this Court being received in the Rohtak court and he had learnt that the order was forged. Learned counsel for the State pointed out that on similar allegation, FIR No.212 dated 16.5.1992 had been earlier lodged against the accused by CJM Rohtak. His son and wife were also involved in that case. The court directed the accused to file a reply. Notice was also ordered to be issued to Vikas, son of the accused. S/Shri Suresh Babbar and Gugan Singh, Advocates at Rohtak were also directed to be summoned. 5. On 21.2.1997, this Court directed DSP Rohtak to conduct an enquiry into the matter of forging of bail order dated Criminal O.C.P.No.42 of 1998 3 14.8.1996 purporting to have been passed by this Court. In pursuance of the said order, FIR No.612 of 1997 was registered and after investigation, the challan was filed. On 10.4.1997, DSP Rohtak submitted enquiry report and concluded that the fake forwarding letter as well as bail order dated 14.8.1996 was forged by Dhani Ram and got printed out through computer of Pankaj Arora and got posted through his son Vikas through Railway Station Police Post Rohtak. He also indicted Mr. SC Babbar, Advocate. Regarding earlier forgery or bail order, it was mentioned that Dhani Ram, Jumne Devi, Minno, R.S.Hooda, Advocate,Ram Chander and Inder Singh were facing trial.The accused was convicted in the earlier case in which bail application was filed i.e. FIR No.525 of 1995 on 21.1.1998. These facts were noticed in order dated 17.9.1998 and while bail application was disposed of, the registry was directed to prepare a separate file regarding contempt notice. Accordingly, Criminal Original Contempt Petition No.42 of 1998 had been registered titled Court on its own Motion v. Dhani Ram and Master Vikas. 6. Reference may also be made to order of this Court dated 4.3.2003 noticing that on the issue of forgery of order of this Court, the accused has been convicted vide judgment dated Criminal O.C.P.No.42 of 1998 4 3.3.2000 by the CJM, Rohtak and has been sentenced to undergo RI for five years and to pay fine of Rs.5000/- under section 420 IPC. He has also been sentenced to undergo RI for seven years under section 467 IPC besides fine of Rs.5000/-. He was also sentenced to undergo RI for five years and to pay fine of Rs.5000/- under section 471 IPC and also directed to pay fine of Rs.5000/- under sections 468/120-B IPC. The court also noticed the stand of the contemner Dhani Ram in his reply dated 18.11.1998 that since FIR No.612 had already been registered on the issue of forgery of order of this Court, contempt proceedings were barred under Article 20 of the Constitution. This contention was rejected and it was held that conviction for forgery did not preclude contempt proceedings. Charge was framed against Dhani Ram under section 2(c) (ii) and (iii) read with Section 11 as punishable under section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India. Dhani Ram pleaded not guilty. The case was adjourned to 26.3.2003. 7/ On 21.10.2005, it was noted that the contemner had already been in custody for one and a half years in the contempt matter also. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and Criminal O.C.P.No.42 of 1998 5 perused the record. Mr. K.D.S Hooda, Advocate had been appointed as Amicus Curiae in the matter. 9. The record shows that on 3.3.2000, accused Dhani Ram and accused Pankaj were held guilty under sections 420/467/468/471/120-B IPC for forging and using the order of this Court. Co-accused Daya Nand, Rajpal, Hari Om, Krishan Kumar and SC Babbar were acquitted. Dhani Ram and Pankaj were then sentenced vide order dated 6.3.2000 as already noticed. 10. We also find from the record affidavit filed by Kartar Singh Deputy SP City Rohtak rebutting the affidavit of the contemner dated 26.9.2000 and seeking conviction of the contemner under the 1971 Act and his punishment. In the affidavit of the contemner dated 15.1.2004, there is simple denial of forgery and of commission of contempt. In the affidavit of the Superintendent District Jail, Bhiwani, it has been mentioned that the accused has not remained in custody in contempt proceedings as he was never remanded to custody in the said proceedings. He had, however, been in custody in the criminal case for forgery of the order of this Court. Affidavits have also been filed to the same effect by the Superintendent District Jail, Rohtak, Superintendent Central Jail, Ambala, Superintendent District Jail, Gurgaon, Criminal O.C.P.No.42 of 1998 6 Superintendent District Jail, Sonepat and Superintendent District Jail, Jind. 11. From above facts and material on record, forgery of order of this Court by Dhani Ram accused with the help of his son Vikas stands established. Forging and using such an order constitutes serious contempt. Inspite of repeated opportunities, the charge framed against the contemner has not been rebutted by any relevant material. 12. In view of above, we hold that the charge against the respondents stands established. Since they have already been in custody in criminal case on the charge of forging of order of this Court and they have already been convicted and sentenced by the trial court, we do not consider it necessary to impose any further sentence. 13. The contempt proceedings will stand disposed of accordingly. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge March 28, 2008 (S.D.Anand) 'gs' Judge Criminal O.C.P.No.42 of 1998 7