１ crappa-759-10 jdk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 759 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 934 OF 2008 Ganesh @ Premnath Dattu Deore ..Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent .... Ms. N.V.Pradhan Adv. for applicant Mr. H.J.Dedhia APP for State Mr. S.V.Kotwal Adv. for Mr. Vishwas Tulsiram Shinde .... CORAM : SMT.RANJANA DESAI AND SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, JJ. DATE : JULY 23, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT : [PER SMT.RANJANA DESAI,J.]: 1 On 22.7.2010 we issued contempt notice to Contemnor Vishwas Tulsiram Shinde asking him to show cause why action under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (the said Act) should not be taken ２ crappa-759-10 against him and why he should not be punished in accordance with law. The contemnor is the brother in law of applicant Ganesh @ Premnath Dattu Deore. The applicant is a life convict and he is lodged in Nasik Central Prison, Nasik. The present application is filed for temporary bail on the ground that the applicant ’s younger sister is to get married. 2 This Court had directed learned A.P.P. to make enquiry. Enquiry made by learned A.P.P. revealed that the applicant ’s sister Rohini was married long back i.e. on 26.5.2003 and the wedding cards annexed to the application were fabricated to persuade this Court to grant bail to the applicant. This was revealed when statements of Rohini sister of the applicant and her father in law came to be recorded. When we asked Mr. Pradhan as to how such an application came to be filed, he told us that the instructions to file this application were given by contemnor Vishwas Tulsiram Shinde. Mr. Pradhan fairly told us that he would not justify such conduct. Since we were of the opinion that contemnor Vishwas Tulsiram Shinde had committed criminal contempt, we issued contempt notice to him. When we issued contempt notice, contemnor was present in the Court. He admitted that the invitation cards were fabricated cards only to snatch bail order from this Court. Contempt notice was accepted by the contemnor in the Court. We must ３ crappa-759-10 note that he tendered an unconditional oral apology and prayed for leniency on the first day. 3 We appointed Mr. Sarang Kotwal, learned counsel to appear for the contemnor as Mr. Pradhan expressed that he wanted to withdraw from the matter. Accordingly, Mr. Kotwal appeared for the contemnor. We requested Mr. Pradhan to assist us to which he readily agreed. 4 Mr. Pradhan has drawn our attention to the relevant judgments of the Supreme Court to which we shall shortly turn. It is necessary to first refer to Section 2(c)(iii) of the said Act. It reads thus: “2. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,-- (c) “criminal contempt ” means the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representations, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which- (iii) interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any manner; ” 5 In Chandra Shashi Vs. Anil Kumar Verma 1995(1) S.C.C. ４ crappa-759-10 421, a suo motu contempt action was initiated against the respondent for having filed a fabricated document to oppose the prayer of wife seeking transfer of matrimonial proceedings from Delhi to Unnao. The Supreme Court was posed with a question whether filing a forged document with intention to defraud amounts to contempt of Court as this expression has been defined in Section 2 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (the said Act). The Supreme court considered the nature of contempt jurisdiction as under: “Contempt jurisdiction has been conferred on superior courts not only to preserve the majesty of law by taking appropriate action against one howsoever high he may be, if he violates court ’s order, but also to keep the stream of justice clear and pure (which was highlighted more than two and half centuries ago by Lord Hardwicke, L.C. in St. James ’s Evening Post case) so that the parties who approach the courts to receive justice do not have to wade through dirty and polluted water before entering their temples. The purpose of contempt jurisdiction was summarized as below by Lord Morris in Attorney General Vs. Times Newspapers Ltd. : ５ crappa-759-10 “In an ordered community courts are established for the pacific settlement of disputes and for the maintenance of law and order. In the general interests of the community it is imperative that the authority of the courts should not be imperiled and that recourse to them should not be subject to unjustifiable interference. When such unjustifiable interference is suppressed it is not because those charged with the responsibilities of administering justice are concerned for their own dignity: it is because the very structure of ordered life is at risk if the recognized courts of the land are so flouted that their authority wanes and is supplanted. ” 6 The Supreme Court then referred to the definition of criminal contempt as given in Section 2(c) of the said Act, according to which an action would amount to criminal contempt if the same interferes or tends to interfere or obstructs or tends to obstruct the administration of justice. The Supreme Court clarified that the word `interfere ’ means in the context of the subject, any action which checks or hampers the functioning or hinders or tends to prevent the performance of the duty. The Supreme Court emphasized that if recourse to falsehood is taken with oblique motive, the same would definitely hinder, hamper or impede ６ crappa-759-10 even flow of justice and would prevent the courts from performing their legal duties as they are supposed to do. 7 The Supreme Court observed that the legal position is that if the publication intends to deceive the Court or one made with an intention to defraud, the same would be contempt, as it would interfere with administration of justice. It would, in any case, tend to interfere with the same. This would definitely be so if a fabricated document is filed with the aforesaid mens rea. In the facts before it, the Supreme Court came to a conclusion that fabricated document was apparently to deceive the Court and hence, the respondent was guilty of contempt. 8 We may also refer to yet another judgment of the Supreme Court in Dhananjay Sharma Vs. State of Haryana & others; 1995 (3) S.C.C. 757, wherein the respondents had filed false affidavits and tampered with the evidence during the pendency of the proceedings. The Supreme Court while confirming its earlier view in Chandra Shashi Vs. Anil Kumar Verma, held as under: “Thus, any conduct which has the tendency to interfere with the administration of justice or the due course of judicial ７ crappa-759-10 proceedings amounts to the commission of criminal contempt. The swearing of false affidavits in judicial proceedings not only has the tendency of causing obstruction in the due course of judicial proceedings but has also the tendency to impede, obstruct and interfere with the administration of justice. The filing of false affidavits in judicial proceedings in any court of law exposes the intention of the party concerned in perverting the course of justice. The due process of law cannot be permitted to be slighted nor the majesty of law be made a mockery of by such acts or conduct on the part of the parties to the litigation or even while appearing as witnesses. Anyone who makes an attempt to impede or undermine or obstruct the free flow of the unsoiled stream of justice by resorting to the filing of false evidence, commits criminal contempt of the court and renders himself liable to be dealt with in accordance with the Act. Filing of false affidavits or making false statement on oath in courts aims at striking a blow at the rule of law and no court can ignore such conduct which has the tendency to shake public confidence in the judicial institutions because the very structure of an ordered life is put at stake. It would be a great public disaster if the ８ crappa-759-10 fountain of justice is allowed to be poisoned by anyone resorting to filing of false affidavits or giving of false statements and fabricating false evidence in a court of law. The stream of justice has to be kept clear and pure and anyone soiling its purity must be dealt with sternly so that the message percolates loud and clear that no one can be permitted to undermine the dignity of the court and interfere with the due course of judicial proceedings or the administration of justice. ” 9 Similar view has been taken by the Supreme Court in Rita Markandey Vs. Surjit Singh Arora; 1996(6) S.C.C. 14. In that case, the respondent had filed false affidavits and had made deliberate attempt to impede the administration of justice. The Supreme Court held that the respondent was guilty of criminal contempt of Court. 10 In the light of above judgments, we have no hesitation in recording that that the contemnor is guilty of criminal contempt falling within the ambit of Section 2(c)(iii) of the Act. 11 We notice that several applications for bail and other reliefs ９ crappa-759-10 are being filed in this Court. We come across various certificates and invitation cards annexed to the applications. Such applications are generally sent through jail. Many a time, there is no affirmation made on the application. Quite often, we dispense with the affirmation. The Court on many occasions tends to rely on averments made in the applications. In fact, even in the present case, we were about to pass the bail order but to be on safe side, we asked learned A.P.P. to make enquiry and in the enquiry made by learned APP, the fraud came to light. The Registry needs to examine the aspect of affirmation of applications which come through jail and take precautionary steps. The Courts also need to be cautious while dealing with such applications. 12 Mr. Kotwal, learned counsel for the contemnor has tendered affidavit dated 22.7.2010 filed by the contemnor. In this affidavit, the contemnor has tendered an unconditional apology to this Court. He has prayed that a lenient view may be taken because the contemnor has no criminal antecedents, he has aged parents, wife and three children and his family is dependent on him. The contemnor is present in Court and he has personally tendered unconditional apology to this Court. We were inclined to take a very strict view of the contemnor ’s conduct and sentence him to an appropriate term of imprisonment and fine. The １０ crappa-759-10 contemnor could also have been prosecuted. But learned counsel Mr. Kotwal has requested us not to do so because of the rustic background and financial condition of the contemnor. Mr. Kotwal submitted that the contemnor is repentant. He has accepted the guilt at the outset. He has promised to be very careful in future and therefore, lenient view may be taken. 13 Considering the contemnor ’s rustic background, his financial condition, the fact that he has no criminal antecedents, the fact that on the first day he admitted the guilt and tendered unconditional apology and that he has filed an affidavit tendering unconditional apology, we feel that a lenient view needs to be taken. We feel that the contemnor is remorseful. He has prayed for mercy and has promised to be of good conduct in future. The object of contempt proceedings is to protect the dignity and authority of the court, but the dignity, authority and majesty of the court is enhanced if leniency is shown to a truly repentant person who promises to lead an honest life in future. 14 Since the basis of bail application has given way, bail application will have to be rejected. １１ crappa-759-10 15 We thank learned counsel Mr. Nitin Pradhan and Mr. S.V. Kotwal for the assistance rendered by them to us. 16 In the view that we have taken, we dispose of the contempt notice and the criminal application for bail by passing the following operative order: ORDER 1) Contemnor Vishwas Tulsiram Shinde residing at and post Saraswatiwadi, Post. Malwadi, Taluka Deola, District Nasik, is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment till rising of the Court for criminal contempt of this Court under Section 2(c)(iii) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. He is also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two days. 2) Contempt Notice is disposed of in above terms. 3) Criminal Application No. 759 of 2010 is rejected. [SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.] [ SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]