Filing of false affidavit in court is criminal contempt.

The writ petitions W.P. Nos.4538 to 4542 of 1996 filed by Mrs.S. Srimathi, Mr.G. Jambunathan, Mrs.Srimathi, Mr.B.K. Moorthy and Mr.S.K. Rajagopalan respectively came up for admission on 14. 1996. The counsel on record did not appear on that date. But, however, on his behalf, adjournment was sought for. At request, the matters were adjourned to 14. 1996, on which date a request for adjournment was made stating that the petitioners had engaged some other counsel, viz., Dr.Krishnamurthy.

Hence once again the case was adjourned to 196. On 14. 1996 there was no representation either on behalf of the counsel on record or on behalf of the other counsel who is said to have been engaged by the petitioners. Hence the matters were posted in default list on 14. 1996.

2. The writ petitions have been filed challenging the jurisdiction of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madras to proceed with the cases filed against the petitioners by some of the respondents in the writ petitions. As the petitioners are all advocates, having some connection with the Legal Aid Cell, which had bene restrained from functioning by order dated 112. 1993 in W.P. No.17145 of 1993 which was later on disposed of by a Division Bench on 24. 1995, giving directions to the police authorities, I have my own doubt with regard to the genuineness of these proceedings. Hence on 14. 1996 when Dr.Krishnamurthy, the learned counsel appeared on behalf of the petitioners, I told him that if the petitioners appear before this Court and file an affidavit stating that they have no connection with the Legal Aid Cell any longer, then only the matter can be heard on merits. On the request of the counsel, the matter was adjourned to 14. 1996.

3. On 14. 1996 when the case was called, another advocate by name Mr.Ram Mohan represented on behalf of the counsel on record Mr.Damodaran and requested for an adjournment of 10 days on the ground that the said Mr.Damodaran was admitted in the hospital. I told him that the counsel on record never appeared before this Court and the petitioners had engaged Dr.Krishnamurthy to come to the Court and make representation. None appeared and the matters were adjourned to 24. 1996. On that date, Dr.Krishnamurthy appeared and represented that none of the petitioners are inclined to file any affidavit. Hence, I issued bailable warrants to the petitioners. Pursuant to the bailable warrants, Mr.Jai Sudarshan who was running the Legal Aid Cell was brought before this Court along with another petitioner Mrs.Srimathi. Mr.Jai Sudarshan admitted that the other four petitioners Mrs.Srimathi, Mr.Jambunathan, Mr.B.K. Moorthy and Mr.S.K. Rajagopalan had been working under him when the Legal Aid Cell was functioning. Hence I directed him to produce them before this Court. Only S.K. Rajagopalan and Mr.Jambunathan appeared. The rest of the two Mr.B.K. Moorthy and Mrs.Srimathi did not appear.

4. On enquiry Mr.Jai Sudarshan represented that both the above said petitioners Mr.B.K. Moorthy and Mrs.Srimathi had left the Legal Aid Cell on 10. 1993 and since then they had set up practice at Delhi.

5. As the statement of Mr.Jai Sudarshan that B.K. Moorthy and Mrs.Srimathi had left to Delhi in 1993 is patently false, I decided to probe the matter further, since the police had filed a report in the meanwhile stating that Mr.Jai Sudarshan is known as B.K. Moorthy, Jai Sudarshan, Seshadri and Mrs.Vasanthi is known as Mrs.Srimathi and Mrs.Srinithi. If the statement of M.Jai Sudarshan is corrected that Mr.B.K. Moorthy and Mrs.Srimathi had left for Delhi in 1993 and thereafter they did not come to Madras, it is not possible for them to swear to the affidavit filed in the writ petitions filed by them at Madras. In their respective affidavits sworn before this Court Mrs.Srimathi’s address is given as No.15, Rameshwaram Road, T.Nagar, Madras 17 and that of Mr.B.K. Moorthy is No.12,7th street, Madras-61.

6. On further probe, the report of the police dated 5