1996 Supreme(SC) 123

1996(1) Supreme 397
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy & G. B. Pattanaik, JJ.
Afzal and another -Petitioner
versus
State of Haryana & Ors. -Respondents
Writ Petition (Crl.)
No. 356-57 of 1993
Decided on 17-1-1996

IMPORTANT POINT
The Police Officers are guilty of offence of giving false evidence in writ proceedings of Supreme Court and the senior most is also guilty of criminal contempt of judicial proceedings of Supreme Court.

Headnote:(i) Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 193-Offence of false evidence by Police Officers-Constitution of India-Article 32-Complaint of illegal detention of two minor boys by Inspector Ishaque Ahmad to be released only if their father surrenders in investigation-Affidavit of M.S. Ahlawat S.P. filed-Signature found forged-C.B.I. entrusted investigation-Report that Head Constable Krishan Kumar forged signature of Ahlawat on his affidavit in collusion with two viz. Ishwar Singh S.I. and Randhir Singh A.S.I.-Show cause notices-Forgerer complained about threats of termination from service by Mr. Ahlawat-Notice issued to Mr. Ahlawat also-Whether these four police officers have committed any offence? (Yes, except one).

       Held [Krishan Kumar Head Constable] had no intention to forge the signature of Ahlawat on the carbon copy of the counter-affidavit dated October 30, 1993 filed in this Court. (Para 21)

       Held further [Ishwar Singh S.I.] was present along with SI Ishwar Singh at the time Krishan Kumar had forged signature of Ahlawat on the carbon copy of the counter-affidavit of Ahlawat. Consequently, it must be held and that it is difficult to accept his version that the minor boys were not taken into custody and kept in wrongful confinement. He also abetted Krishan Kumar to forge the signature of Ahlawat. He would stand to gain by itis as his version gets corroborated from that of Ahlawat. He thus filed false counter-affidavit dated October 30, 1993 in the judicial proceedings before this Court.Thereby he is liable to conviction under Section 193, Indian Penal Code, 1860 [IPC] for intentionally giving false affidavit in the judicial proceedings in this Court and abetting Krishan Kumar to forge the signature of M.S. Ahlawat. (Para 22)

       Held thereafter [Randhir Singh A.S.I.] is a party to the fabrication of false record and abetted Krishan Kumar to forge the signatureof Ahlawat and after taking custody of the carbon copy of the counter-affidavit with forged signature, he had entrusted the same to Paras Ram for delivery in the office of Ms. Indu and the same was filed in this Court. He falsely denied the facts in his affidavit filed in this Court. Thus he not only actively participated in the fabrication of the false counter-affidavit dated October 30, 1993 with false averments that minor were not in wrongful detention or illegal custody but also entrusted the same for being filed in the judicial proceedings of this Court. He abetted Krishan Kumar to forge the signature of M.S Ahlawat, Thus he committed an offence under Section 193, I.P.C. (Para 24)

       Held finally [M.S. Ahlawat] abused his office as a Superintendent of Police, directed his subordinate head Constable Krishan Kumar to forge his signature or at least abetted it and got the carbon copy of the counter affidavit filed with forged signature in the Court while he retained the original draft with him. The reason is obvious that he did not want to commit himself to the false stand which he had taken in the earlier affidavit, since he knew that the minor were illegally detained and were in wrongful confinement. Therefore, he filed the second counter-affidavit on November 5, 1993 with false averments pretendings of the forgery of his signature. (Para 29)

       He intentionally gave false affidavit evidence from stage to stage in these judicial proceedings punishable under Section 193 I.P.C. (Para 32)

       (ii) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971-Section 2(b) & (c)-Whether M.S. Ahlawat S.P. has committed contempt in the proceedings of Supreme Court? (Yes)

       Held : From stage to stage, he committed contempt of the Court by making false statements. Being a responsible officer, he is required to make truthful statements before the Court, but he made obviously false statements. Thereby, he committed criminal contempt of judicial proceedings of this Court. (Para 33)

       (iii) Punishment for offence of giving false evidence by police officers and contempt of Supreme Court proceedings-[Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 193-Contempt of Courts Act, 1971-Section 2(b)].

       Held : From the above discussion and conclusion the question is: what punishment is to be imposed on Randhir Singh (ASI), Ishwar Singh (SI) and M.S. Ahlawat (Superintendent of Police)? None of them made any candid admission nor tendered unqualified contrite apology. Police Officers, who are supposed to be the so-called disciplined force, have deliberately fabricated false records placed before this Court without any compunction. It is therefore, of utmost importance to curb this tendency, particularly, when they have the temerity to fabricate the records with false affidavit and place the same before the highest Court of the land. Their depravity of the conduct is writ large. M.S. Ahlawat is unworthy to hold any office of responsibility. Therefore, Randhir Singh (ASI) and Ishwar Singh (SI) shall be punishable under Section 193 IPC and accordingly they are convicted and sentenced to undergo rigourous imprisonment for a term of 3 months and 6 months respectively. Ahlawat, the Superintendent of Police, is punishable under Section 193 IPC. He also committed contempt of the proceedings of this Court punishable under Article 129 of the Constitution. Accordingly, he is convicted and sentenced under Section IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of one year. He is convicted and sentenced to undergo rigourous imprisonment for a term of 6 months under Article 129 of the Constitution. Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently. Krishan Kumar, Head Constable is exonerated of the charge under Section 193 IPC with warning to show exemplry conduct hereafter. His bail bonds are discharged. (Para 34)

       The Director General of Police, Haryana is directed to take the convicts M.S. Ahlawat, Superintendent of Police, Ishwar Singh, Sub-Inspector and Randhir Singh, Assistant Sub-Inspector forthwith into custody and have them consigned to Central Jail, Chandigarh to undergo the sentences and submit a report of compliance to the Registry within one week from the date of the receipt of this order. (Para 35)

       Held also though this unfortunate episode has landed the police officers in conviction, we have no reason to believe that the real offenders in the original crime would be tried and dealt with according to law and these orders will not have any effect on the trial of those cases and must be dealt with according to law. (Para 37)