Very Important Point
For an offence of fabricating false document and giving false evidence before Supreme Court, the Supreme Court itself cannot assume jurisdic­tion of criminal court and convict the accused; a complaint has to be filed in a Competent Court for offence under Section 193 IPC following procedure contemplated in Cr.P.C.

Judgment

Rajendra Babu, J.-By an order made on January 17, 1996 Writ Petitions (Criminal) Nos. 356-57 of 1996 were disposed of by this Court. In the course of that order it was held that the petitioner, M.S. Ahlawat, has deliberately fabricated false records before this Court. He is, therefore, held punishable under Section 193 Indian Penal Code (IPC) and also for contempt of this Court under Article 129 of the Constitu­tion of India. Accordingly, he was convicted and sentenced under Section 193 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of one year and under Article 129 of the Constitution of India to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of 6 months but both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Now it appears that the petitioner has undergone the sentence of imprisonment imposed by this Court under the said two provisions.

2. While hearing the Writ Petitions (Criminal) Nos. 356-57 of 1996, it was reported on November 5, 1993 to this Court through the Standing Counsel that his signature on the affidavit filed in this Court has been forged. This Court, after considering the two affidavits filed on November 2, 1993 and November 5, 1993 purported to have been made by the petitioner, directed a detailed inquiry to be made by the District Judge, Faridabad about the alleged forgery of the petitioner’s signa­ture. The District Judge made a report on January 29, 1994 holding that the petitioner was not responsible for the same. After consider­ing the report of the District Judge this Court ordered investigation as to the purported forgery and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) was entrusted with the inquiry. On receipt of the report of the CBI this Court on April 17, 1995 issued notice to Head Constable Krishan Kumar, SI Ishwar Singh and ASI Randhir Singh as to why they should not be convicted for forgery of the signatures of the petition­er on the affidavits dated November 2, 1993 and November 5, 1993 and also for contempt of this Court for filing false affidavits. On July 10, 1995 this Court issued a notice to the petitioner to show cause why he should not be considered for conviction for forgery and making false statements at different stages in this Court and for committing contempt of this Court. On January 17, 1996 after perusing the affida­vits this Court convicted the petitioner as stated earlier. Review Petition against the same was also dismissed summarily on March 29, 1996. In this writ petition the petitioner while challenging his conviction under Section 193 IPC is not questioning the conviction under Article 129 of the Constitution of India for committing the contempt of this Court.

3. Shri Harish Salve, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, contended that in convicting the petitioner under Section 193 IPC this Court has completely stultified the procedure prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure thereby acting contrary to the mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Elaborating this submission he stated that Section 195 Cr.P.C. deals with the manner of taking cognizance of offences arising under Section 193 IPC and Section 340 Cr.P.C. regulates the procedure of making complaints thereto. A complaint ought to have been filed in a competent criminal court for offences arising under Section 193 IPC as provided in Section 195 Cr.P.C. read with Section 340 Cr.P.C. and this Court itself could not have assumed jurisdiction of a criminal court and convicted the petitioner without trial.

4. On behalf of the petitioner Shri Harish Salve also contended that the gist of offence of perjury punishable under Section 193 IPC and the charge for contempt of this Court being identical, while detailed and elaborate inquiry at a trial in a criminal case is contemplated for the former but a summary inquiry for the latter. This Court ought to have directed a complaint being lodged in a competent criminal court and postponed the consideration of the case arising for contempt of this Court. How