Cr. MP(M) No. 388 of 2010 in Cr. Appeal No.417 of 1996 15.7.2010 Present: Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Deputy Advocate General for the appellant. Mr. Vinay Thakur, Advocate for the respondent alongwith the respondent. While disposing of the Criminal Appeal No.417 of 1996, this Court had come to the conclusion that the respondent Shri Ramesh Sharma had either committed an offence under Section 191 of the Indian Penal code or an offence punishable under Section 192 of the Indian Penal Code. The relevant observations made in this behalf read as follows:- “Before parting with the case we are constrained to make some adverse observations about the manner in which Sh. Ramesh Sharma (PW-1) has conducted himself in the present case. PW-1 Sh. Ramesh Sharma was the President of Gram Panchayat, Bani (Fagu) and also a practising Advocate at Theog. According to the prosecution the recovery took place in his presence and he had signed a number of documents at the time of search and recovery. Consent memo Ext. PW1/A whereby the accused consented to be searched before the police party admittedly bears the signature of this witness. Memo Ext. PW 1/B regarding the search of the police officials also bears the signature of this witness. Seizure memo Ext. PW1/C whereby 1 k.g. and 900 grams Charas was recovered also bears the signature of this witness. Cr. MP(M) No. 388 of 2010 in Cr. Appeal No.417 of 1996 In Court this witness stated that he had signed the papers without understanding its contents in good faith. According to him consent memo Ext. PW1/A was not prepared in his presence but he was asked to sign the same by the police in the Police Post. According to him no consent of the accused was taken in his presence. He further stated that he did not read the contents of Ext. PW 1/A. According to this witness no personal search was given by the police personnel before the search of the accused. He however admitted his signatures on Ext. PW 1/B according to which the police personnel gave their search in presence of the accused and this witness. This witness denied that after search of the accused, charas was recovered and taken into possession vide memo Ext. PW 1/C. According to him the charas was already kept by the police on the table and only two samples for chemical analysis were drawn in his presence. He also stated that he signed the papers at the instance of the police. We are dealing here with a person who is a lawyer and a Pradhan of a Gram Panchayat. He is not an illiterate unlettered person. Such person commands respect in the society and it is not expected of a person of the stature of this witness to sign documents without reading them and without realizing the implication of his acts. The documents which this witness signed could have led to the conviction of an innocent person. If what the witness is saying in Court is correct then an innocent person could have been sent behind bars for more than ten years. The callous attitude of this witness is apparent from the fact that he became part of a conspiracy to create forged evidence against the accused. Either the statement of this witness in Court is false in which event he would prima facie be liable of having committed an offence punishable under Section 191 of the Indian Penal Code or he is a party to fabricating false evidence in which event he would be also prima facie liable of having committed an offence punishable under Section 192 of the Indian Penal Code. The statement of the witness made on oath in Court cannot co-exist with the documents signed by him. Both cannot be correct. One of them is obviously false. A person holding the post of a Pradhan and also being an Advocate is not expected to sign any document without verifying the contents thereof. The signing of such document without verifying facts can lead to total mis-carriage of justice and conviction of an innocent person. This is an offence against the administration of justice. Giving or fabricating false evidence with an intention to procure conviction is an offence falling under Chapter – 11 of the Indian Penal Code. Making a false statement in Court is also an offence. We are prima facie of the opinion that PW-1 Sh. Ramesh Sharma S/o Sh. Kewal Ram R/o village Padola (Fagu), P.S. Theog, Tehsil Shimla, H.P. is liable to be tried for committing an offence either of fabricating false documents or of committing perjury. However, before initiating any action against him, we deem it fit that notice be issued to the said witness to show cause why action be not initiated against him as detailed hereinabove. The Registry is directed to register the said notice as a separate petition. Copy of this judgment be sent alongwith the notice and the respondent be directed to file his reply positively before the next date. List the matter before this Bench on 17.5.2010.” Consequent to the notice being issued the respondent Shri Ramesh Sharma appeared before us on a number of occasions. He filed reply tendering his unconditional apology and prayed that a compassionate view be taken in the matter. He has shown remorse in the matter. This Court had suggested to him that he may also remorse by depositing a reasonable amount for some good cause. The respondent is present in person and he has produced before us a receipt dated 13.7.2010 vide which he has deposited a sum of Rs.25,101/- in the school for Deaf and Dumb children at Dhalli, Shimla. Keeping in view the fact that the respondent has tendered unconditional apology and has given an undertaking that he shall never again indulge in such an activity coupled with the fact that he has deposited a handsome amount for a charitable purpose, we are of the view that respondent Cr. MP(M) No. 388 of 2010 in Cr. Appeal No.417 of 1996 Ramesh Kumar is actually remorseful for what he had done. Therefore, we feel that the matter can be closed by accepting his apology and no criminal action need to be initiated against him. With these observations the notice issued to the respondent is discharged. ( Deepak Gupta ) Judge. 15th July, 2010 (Sanjay Karol ) ™ Judge.