Back
2019 Supreme(Mad) 1039
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
Petitioner
Versus
Respondent
W.P. No. 5542 of 2019
Decided On : 02-04-2019
Submission of unauthenticated documents leading to a miscarriage of justice can result in contempt proceedings.
Headnote:
Impersonation - Expert Opinion - IPC 465, 468, 471, 419, 420 r/w 120(b) - The court discussed the fraudulent submission of a bogus expert opinion by Mr. D.Moorthy, impersonating as a Professor from IIT Madras, leading to the dismissal of a writ petition. The court found the respondent Board responsible for submitting an unauthenticated document, resulting in a miscarriage of justice and initiated contempt proceedings against the Chairman/Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent Board submitted a fraudulent expert opinion, leading to the dismissal of a writ petition. The court found the submission to be unauthenticated, resulting in a miscarriage of justice and initiated contempt proceedings against the Chairman/Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the respondent Board responsible for submitting a bogus expert opinion, resulting in a miscarriage of justice and initiated contempt proceedings against the Chairman/Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board.
Issues: Fraudulent submission of expert opinion, miscarriage of justice, contempt proceedings
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the respondent Board's submission of a fraudulent expert opinion resulted in a miscarriage of justice and initiated contempt proceedings against the Chairman/Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board.
Final Decision: The court initiated contempt proceedings against the Chairman/Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, for submitting a fraudulent expert opinion, resulting in a miscarriage of justice.
1. This matter came up for hearing today [02.04.2019] under the caption ‘For Being Mentioned’ at the instance of the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner made a complaint that the expert opinion filed before this Court by the Additional Advocate General is a bogus one and on verification, the writ petitioner came to understand that no such Professor in the name of Dr.D.Moorthy is working nor was working in the Department of Mathematics in Indian Institute of Technology, Madras. Taking serious note of the complaint made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, after disposal of the writ petition, this Court directed the learned Additional Advocate General to verify and file an affidavit.
3. The learned Additional Advocate General made a submission on 01.04.2019 that the offence of impersonation was committed by one Mr.G.V.Kumar, who was a Psychologist and assisted the respondent Board to secure the expert opinion. This Court directed the Inspector General of Police, who was present on 01.04.2019 to file a detailed affidavit regarding the facts and circumstances. When the matter is listed today, the Inspector General of Police and Member Secretary, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Service Recruitment Board, Chennai filed an affidavit on behalf of the Chairman.
4. On a perusal of the affidavit filed by the respondent, it is stated that, Mr.D.Moorthy who offered the expert opinion was serving as a trained Graduate Teacher in Kendriya Vidyalaya and retired form service during the year 2013. One Mr.G.V.Kumar @ G.Vijayakumar a consultant, Pyschologist who was associated for preparing psychology questions for the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Service Recruitment Board had introduced one Mr.D.Moorthy to Tamil Nadu Uniformed Service Recruitment Board as Professor of Mathematics, Indian Institute of Technology, Madras, who had furnished the expert opinion to the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Service Recruitment Board purported to be and signed as Professor, IIT, Madras.
5. During the enquiry, it was revealed that both Mr.G.V.kumar and Mr.D.Moorthy had conspired to give a false identity of Mr.D.Moorthy who had posed as Professor of IIT, Madras, and disclosed his qualification as Ph.D. with the intention to cheat Tamil Nadu Uniformed Service Recruitment Board for monetary claim and publicity.
6. In this regard, the respondent Board registered a criminal case in CCB Cr.No.117 of 2019 under Section 465,468,471,419,420 r/w 120(b) IPC against both Mr.G.V.Kumar and Mr.D.Moorthy who had committed forgery with the intention to cheat the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Service Recruitment Board.
7. The affidavit further reads that, due to the association with Tamil Nadu Uniformed Service Recruitment Board in the past Mr.G.V.kumar designated as consultant psychologist was approached by the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Service Recruitment Board for question setting on psychology for the recruitment of Sub Inspector of Police (Finger Print 2018). His testimonials were also verified through websites. In paragraph No.22 of the counter affidavit, it is stated that, since the system of preparing question paper and seeking expert opinion is kept strictly confidential, the contention of Mr.D.Moorthy as Professor of Indian Institute of Technology, Madras was accepted without causing verification based on the testimony given by Mr.G.V.Kumar, Psychology test consultant, who had been associated with Tamil Nadu Uniformed Service Recruitment Board since 2011.
8. The Tamil Nadu Uniformed Service Recruitment Board has obtained expert opinion from Mr.D.Moorthy without verifying his correct designation in pursuance of keeping absolute confidentiality and as per the recommendation of Mr.G.V.Kumar who was associated with Tamil Nadu Uniformed Service Recruitment Board.
9. In paragraph No.24 of the affidavit, it is stated that with regard to the question in dispute, the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Service Recruitment Board addressed a letter to Registrar, IIT Madras
