Deliberate filing of a false affidavit before the court constitutes contempt of court, regardless of its impact on the main petition. The seriousness of filing false affidavits was emphasized, and guidelines were issued to prevent such occurrences.

M. Karpagavinayagam, J.

1. V. Devan, formerly Inspector of Police, Needamangalam Police Station is facing suo motu contempt proceedings before this Court for having filed a false affidavit.

2. Relating to the detention of one Tamilarvan, a habeas corpus petition had been filed in H. C. P. No. 656 of 2003 for the production of the said Tamilarvan. V. Devan, the Inspector of Police, the contemner herein filed a counter affidavit dated 23. 6. 2003 stating that the said Tamilarvan was arrested on 26. 2. 2003 at 4. 30 p. m. in pursuance of the detention order dated 24. 2. 2003 issued by the District Collector and after service of the detention order, he was taken to the Police Jeep. However, the said Tamilarvan escaped from the custody of the Police at 5. 00 p. m. and a case was registered in Crime No. 37/2003 under Section 224, I. P. C.

3. On perusal of this counter affidavit, the Division Bench wondered as to how the detenu was allowed to be escaped even though the said Tamilarvan was standing in front of the Guru Hotel for half-an-hour. Unable to appreciate the statement of the Inspector of Police that immediately after service of the detention order, the detenu escaped when he was taken to the Police Jeep after allowing him to stand for half-an-hour in front of the Guru Hotel, Needamangalam, the Division Bench by the order dated 2. 7. 2003 directed the Superintendent of Police to cause an enquiry to be conducted into the alleged escape of the detenu in the broad day light.

4. In pursuance of the said order, the Superintendent of Police, Tiruvarur District conducted enquiry and filed an affidavit on 16. 7. 2003 stating that the said Tamilarvan was arrested by the Inspector of Police V. Devan and other Constables at 4. 30 p. m. on 26. 2. 2003 at Needamangalam and he was taken in the Jeep and left for Trichy. When the Jeep came near to the front entrance of the Central Prison at about 7. 30 p. m. , the said Tamilarvan made a request to attend call of nature and accordingly, the said Tamilarvan was allowed to go nearby to pass urine and at that point of time, the said Tamilarvan taking advantage of the darkness of night hours under the guise of passing urine, ran away from that place and escaped from the lawful custody.

5. In the light of the affidavit filed by the Superintendent of Police giving the details relating to the time and place of arrest and the place from where Tamilarvan escaped custody, which are contrary to the details given by V. Devan, the Inspector of Police, the contemner herein, he filed an additional counter affidavit in H. C. P. No. 656 of 2003 on 28. 7. 2003 admitting that his first statement contained in his counter affidavit dated 23. 6. 2003 to the effect that the arrested person Tamilarvan was escaped from the custody of the police at 5. 00 p. m. on 26. 2. 2003 in front of Guru Hotel, was false and the said accused was escaped only in front of the Central Prison, Trichy at 7. 30 p. m. and the said wrong statement made on 23. 6. 2003 was purely because of fear for his superior officers.

6. The Division Bench on perusal of the affidavit of the Superintendent of Police as well as the additional counter affidavit of the Inspector of Police who admitted that what he had stated in his earlier counter affidavit was false, felt that there is a prima facie case for contempt. Therefore, the said Bench initiated suo motu contempt proceedings and issued show cause notice by the order dated 4. 8. 2003.

7. Onreceipt of the notice, the contemner filed an affidavit dated 29. 8. 2003 before this Division Bench again admitting having made a false statement in his first affidavit on 23. 6. 2003 and submitting that the same was made without any bad intention and only out of fear for a stringent departmental action. Through his affidavit, he tendered his unconditional apology and requested this Court to discharge him from the contempt proceedings.

8. Again on 12. 7. 2004, he filed an additional affidavit in t