1995 Supreme(SC) 635

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dr. A.S. ANAND AND FAIZAN-UDDIN, JJ.*
Dhananjay Sharma, Petitioner
Versus
 State of Haryana and others, Respondents.
Writ Petn. (Criminal) No. 15 of 1994
Decided on 2-5-1995.
Counsel for the parties:
For the Petitioners: Mr. P.P. Malhotra, Mr. Gopal Subramanium, Mr. R.K. Jain, Mr. N. Natarajan, Mr. G. Ramaswamy, Sr. Advs., Mr. S.S. Gandhi, Mr. N.K. Sharma, Ms. Indu Malhotra, Ms. Nisha Bagchi, Mr. Anil K. Makhija, Mr. Mahinder Singh, Mr. Pankaj Kalra, Mr. N.M. Popli, Smt. Lalitha Kaushik, Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Mr. Shankar Divate, Me. R.K. Gupta, Mr. Prem Malhotra, Mr. K.K. Lahiri, Ms. M. Karanjawala, Mr. Nandini Gore, Mr. R. Karanjawala, Ms. Ruby Ahuja, Sr. Advs.
For the Respondents: Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Adv.

IMPORTANT POINT
The filing of false affidavits in judicial proceedings in any court of law amounts to criminal contempt of court.
STATE MUST BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR THE UNLAWFUL ACTS OF ITS OFFICERS AND IT MUST REPAIR THE DAMAGE DONE TO THE CITIZEN FOR VIOLATING THE INDEFEASIBLE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT OF PERSONAL LIBERTY WITHOUT ANy AUTHORITY OF LAW - QUESTION REGARDING ILLEGAL DETENTION—HABEAS CORPUS—RULE NISI ISSUED

Headnote:(i) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971- Section 2 (c) - Criminal Contempt - Habeas Corpus - Petition - Illegal detention in police custody - Sevearing of false affidavits by Senior Police Officials and denying that detenu had been whisked away and detained illegally in their custody - Reprehensible and condemnable conduct - Belated apologies offered by Superintendent of Police, Addl. Superintendent of Police and SHO, contemners - Addl. Superintendent of Police and SHO tutored taxi driver and forced him to make a false statement and file a false affidavit in Supreme Court - Apologies tendered not found to be genuine, bonafide or expression of true repentence, thereby, rejected - Interest of public justice demands deterrent sentence - A ward of S.I. for a period of two months for committing contempt of court by Superintendent of Police, Hissar - Addl. Superintendent Police and SHO awarded imprisonment of 3 months with fine of Rs.1500/- each.

       Held: Any conduct which has the tendency to interfere with the administration of justice or the due course of judicial 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 concerned party 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 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 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 perculates 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. (Para 33)

       Further Held: The actions of respondents 3 to 5 in filing false affidavits and denying that the detenu and Sushil Kumar had been whisked away and detained illegally in their custody between 15th January 1994 and 17th of January 1994 is not only reprehensible and condemnable but also requires to be dealt with rather sternly. The belated apologies offered by them, though still maintaining that the detenu and Sushil Kumar had not been detained by them, even in the face of the evidence recorded by the CBI, as commissioner of this Court, and its report are not apologies of a truly repentent person but made obviously with a view to escape punishment. Had respondents 3 to 5 been sincere in their apologies and had they realised their mistake, there was no reason why respondents 4 and 5 should have subsequently indulged in acts which have the effect of aggravating their contumacious conduct. During the pendency of the proceedings in this Court, as already observed, respondent No. 4 Sham Lal Goel and respondent No.5 Rajinder Singh, SHO tutored Sushil Kumar taxi driver and forced him to make a falsestatementandfi1e a false affidavit in this court and to falsely assert that he had never been way laid by the Haryana Police and that the story of detention as put forward by Shri Dhananjay Sharma and Shri S.C. Puri, Advocate, was false. Subsequently, not only before the CBI but also in this Court Sushil Kumar realised his mistake and gave the correct version of the occurrence and also disclosed as to how and why he had made the false statement. It is a matter not only of regret and concern but also cawses us great anguish to notice that the police officials, respondents 4 and 5, should have indulged in tutoring Sushil Kumar and forced him to give false evidence while proceedings were pending in this Court. They have aggravated their contumacious acts. Their action was deliberate and an attempt to over reach the due process of law without compunction. Their action is an affront to the Majesty of Law. Under the circumstances, the question of accepting their belated apology for which a very strong plea was made by their learned counsel, Mr. R.K. Jain, Mr. Natarajan and Mr. Lalit does not arise and we have no hesitation whatsoever in rejecting the belated apologies tendered, by respondents 3 to 5, which we do not find to be genuine, bona fide or expression of true repentence. (Para 34)

       Consequently Held: We, sentence respondent No.3 to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two months for committing contempt of court by filing false affidavits denying the allegations made in the writ petition and in the affidavit of Shri S.C. Puri. So far as respondents 4 and 5 are concerned, instead of showing any real contriteness and regret for their wrongful action of filing false affidavits in this Court they have compounded their offence by tutoring Shri Sushil Kumar to give false evidence in this Court and have tampered with the evidence during the pendency of proceedings in this Court, we, therefore, sentence each one of them to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months each and to pay a fine of Rs.1500/- each and in default to further undergo simple imprisonment for fifteen days each. (Paras 38 & 39)

       (ii) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971- Section 2 (c) - Criminal contempt - Habeas Corpus Petition - Case of illegal detention in police custody - Non-filing of affidavits to rule nisi by Commissioner and Secretary to Government of Haryana - Lapse occurred on account of a wrong understanding of order of Supreme Court - Respondent, Home Secretary appears to have followed a faulty system, prevailing in state of Haryana in such cases - Unqualified apologies tendered are genuine and an expression of real contriteness and repentence - Apology accepted - Rule issued discharged.

       Held: From a consideration of the material on the record, we find that respondent No.1 appears to have followed a faulty system, which was prevailing in the State of Haryana in cases involving detention of the citizens in the matter of filing of counter affidavits in petitions for Habeas Corpus and on a wrong understanding of the import of the order of this Court. We are, however, satisfied that the unqualified apology tendered by him is genuine and an expression of real contriteness and repentance. Therefore, while cautioning him to be careful in future, we accept his unqualified apology and the contempt proceedings initiated against him are allowed to rest here. The rule issued against him is discharged. We hope that such lapses shall not occur in the future, since the system, we have been assured, has now been revamped.

       So far as respondent No. 2 is concerned, he also failed to appreciate his obligations and did not file a counter affidavit although notice was issued to him also in the habeas corpus petition. While dealing with the case of respondent No.1, we have highlighted the obligations of the State and its functionaries when a rule nisi is issued by a court in a habeas corpus petition and those observations apply to him also and we need not repeat the same. Respondent No.2 has also filed two affidavits and in each one of them he has explained the steps taken by him after he was apprised of the pendency of the writ petition in this Court. He has corroborated the version given by Respondent No.1 in his affidavit. After giving the explanation, he has also tendered an unqualified apology. It appears to us that respondent No. 2 is also truly repentent for the lapses committed by him and the unqualified apology tendered by him is genuine and bona fide and not made with a view to escape punishment. We, therefore, accept his unqualified apology any discharge the rule against him though warning him to be careful and not to be casual in such like matters in future. (Paras 44 & 45)

       (iii) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Section 2 (c) - Criminal Contempt - Filing false statement with false affidavit in Supreme Court - However, correct facts disclosed to CBI and reiterated subsequently in Supreme Court, after tendering unconditional and unqualified apology - False statements made orally and through affidavit were not voluntary - He was acting under pressure of Police Officials Conviction maintained - Taking mitigating circumstances into consideration, contemner is awarded sentence of one days simple imprisonment and tine of Rs.1,000/-.

       Held: From the report of the CBI and the other material on the record, we are satisfied that the false statements made by him ill this court, both orally and through his affidavit, were not voluntary and that he was acting under pressure of respondents 4 and 5. It is, however, no defence for, him to say that he so acted on account of the fear of the police of Haryana and that he had been tutored by respondents 4 and 5 to make a false statement and file a false affidavit in this Court. He should have known better. Though, we are of the opinion that he is now repentant but he cannot be allowed to go scot free for the falsehood indulged into by him in this Court and for his attempt to poison the stream of justice. However, taking the mitigating circumstances also into consideration, we sentence him to one days simple imprisonment and to a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default to further undergo fifteen days simple imprisonment, for committing contempt of this Court. (Para 46)

       (iv) Illegal Detention.- Detenus illegally detained from 15.1.1995 to 17.1.1995 - State must be held responsible for unlawful acts of its officers - However, in the instant case, considering that detenus exaggerated incident and indulged in falsehood, they both have disentitled themselves from receiving any compensation. (Para 47)