SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2017 Supreme(SC) 746

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
RANJAN GOGOI, L. NAGESWARA RAO, NAVIN SINHA, JJ.
RADHE SHYAM MIDDHA – APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF DELHI – RESPONDENT(S)
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.(S) D. 4120 OF 2015
Decided On : 14-08-2017

IMPORTANT POINT
Deliberately stalling proceedings of the Court and filing forged bank draft is an offence of contempt of court.

Headnote:Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Section 2(c) and 12 – Appellant stalling confirmation of sale in favour of genuine bidder – Finally appellant submitting forged bank draft before High court – High Court rightly holding appellant guilty of contempt – Conviction and sentence needs no interference. (Para 12)

       Finding of the Court:

       Conviction and sentence needs no interference.

       Result: Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT

RANJAN GOGOI, J.

1. This appeal under Section 19(1)(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter for short the ‘Act’) is directed against the order of the Delhi High Court dated 22.01.2015 holding the appellant guilty of commission of criminal contempt within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Act. The High Court has sentenced the appellant to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month.

2. A recapitulation of the core circumstances in which the impugned order of the High Court has been passed may be made at the outset.

3. In a Writ Petition i.e. W.P.(C) No. 1399 of 2010 “National Forests Investors Regd. Versus Golden Forests India Ltd.” pending before the High Court, a miscellaneous application i.e. C.M. No. 8058 of 2014 was filed for confirmation of sale of land measuring 244 canals and 13 marlas in villages Dangdehri, Tehsil & District Ambala, Haryana in which regard an advertisement dated 10.05.2014 had been issued in several national newspapers. Pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement one M/s. Dera Sacha Sauda (Trust), Sirsa had submitted the highest bid of Rs. 18.5 crores. The aforesaid bid was duly accepted and, as required, the trust had deposited 20 per cent of the bid amount.

4. When the application for confirmation of sale had come up before the High Court on 02.07.2014, one Mohit Paul, Advocate claiming to represent one Golden Forest Investors Society submitted before the Court that one Manvir Singh was willing to purchase the property for Rs. 21.15 crores. Keeping in mind the public interest involved, the High Court in order to test the bona fide of the said offer, by order dated 02.07.2014, directed that the bidder should deposit 50 per cent of the amount offered within a week of the order dated 02.07.2014. No such deposit was made. However, on the next date of hearing i.e. 11.07.2014 a deposit confirmation advice of H.D.F.C. Bank to the extent of Rs. 12 crores standing in the name of one Harmohinder Singh was placed before the Court without, however, showing any connection between the offerer Manvir Singh and the person in whose name the deposits were made i.e. Harmohinder Singh. In these circumstances one final opportunity was granted by the High Court. Pursuant thereto a demand draft on behalf of the appellant representing one “Harry Township Ltd.” was furnished before the High Court. The said bank draft was issued by the Axis Bank Limited, Rohini, New Delhi. On 24.07.2014, the successful bidder levelled an allegation against the appellant that the aforesaid bank draft was forged. Being prima facie satisfied, by order dated 24.07.2014, the High Court ordered an inquiry into the matter.

5. Pursuant to the said order, a Joint Registrar of the High Court made an inquiry and on conclusion thereof submitted a report to the effect that the bank draft tendered before the Court, indeed, was forged. In the course of inquiry proceedings the appellant was also examined. In the course of such examination the appellant had submitted that the bank draft tendered by him in Court was given to him by one Gurmeet Singh Wadhalia who, however, could not be located. Subsequently, it transpired that the said person had died in a road accident on 12.10.2014 somewhere in Chamoli District of Uttrakhand.

6. It is in these circumstances that the High Court had drawn up an article of charge with regard to commission of contempt by the appellant. The said charge was primarily based on the fact that the forged bank draft was placed before the Court by the appellant in order to stall the confirmation of sale in favour of the genuine bidder.

7. In the proceedings before the High Court the appellant did not contest the authenticity of the bank draft and admitted that the same was forged. His principal defence appears to be that the demand draft in question was handed over to him by Gurmeet Singh Wadhalia and that he had no knowledge that the instrument was forged.

8. The High Court on a very elaborate consideration of the ma








Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top