Back
1960 Supreme(P&H) 109
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Tek Chand, J.
Amarnath Sawan Mal
Versus
Joginder Singh
Criminal Original No. 25 of 1959,
Decided On : MAY 27, 1960
Making a false affidavit in a cause like the present cannot, but obstruct and impede the administration of justice; and for that reason, it is punishable as contempt of Court falling under the generic name of abuse of legal process or proceeding.
Headnote:
CONTEMPT OF COURT - FALSE AFFIDAVIT - OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE - SENTENCE - [S. 3, CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1952]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner's son, Sukhdev Raj, was taken into custody by the police on 19th June 1959 and kept in illegal confinement till 25th June 1959. The petitioner filed a petition under S. 491 Cr. P. C., for the issue of directions in the nature of Habeas Corpus to the respondents, who were police officers. The respondents filed an affidavit in the High Court denying the allegations and stating that Sukhdev Raj was not in custody. The Sessions Judge, Amritsar, conducted an inquiry and found that Sukhdev Raj was in police custody throughout and that a false report had been made to the Magistrate by the respondents.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the respondent, Sub-Inspector Sunder Das, had made a false report to the Magistrate and a false denial in his affidavit in the High Court. The Court held that this was a contempt of Court and sentenced the respondent to two months simple imprisonment.
Issues: Whether the respondent, Sub-Inspector Sunder Das, had made a false report to the Magistrate and a false denial in his affidavit in the High Court.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the respondent's conduct amounted to contempt of Court because it obstructed the Court in the administration of justice. The Court stated that the respondent's false representations were calculated to embarrass and obstruct the Court in the administration of justice, and that he was successful in attaining that object. The Court also held that the respondent's act of making a false affidavit was an abuse of legal process or proceeding, and that it was punishable as contempt of Court.
Final Decision: The Court sentenced the respondent, Sub-Inspector Sunder Das, to two months simple imprisonment.
Tek Chand, J.
1. This is a petition under the Contempt of Courts Act praying that respondents-be suitably punished for having committed contempt of Court in the following circumstances. By my order dated 29-10-1959 I have discharged the rule against respondent No. 3 and at present there-is before me the case against the remaining two respondents -- the first being Shri Joginder Singh. Inspector, C. I. A., Staff, Amritsar, and the second Shri Sunder Lal alias Sunder Das, S. I., C. I. A-Staff, Amritsar.
2. The petitioner has four sons. Sukhdev Raj, who was 18 years of age at the time of this incident, is the youngest. The petitioners wife died on the night between 11th and 12th June 1959 and the customary obsequial rites had to le performed every day till 21st June 1959 which was fixed for the Kirya ceremony of the deceased. Sukhdev Raj was performing these rites every day. On 19th June 1959 according to the petitioner Sukhdev Raj was taken into custody at 4 p. m. by C. I. A. Staff, Amritsar. The petitioner on coming to know of this addressed the following telegram to the City Magistrate, Duty Magistrate, Deputy Commissioner and the Senior Superintendent of Police, Amritsar:
"Unfortunately I and my sons who are highly educated are against the evil of corruption from the last thirty five years. Corrupt officials in ordcr to wreak vengeance and to put undue pressure, harass and trouble us have been carrying on all sorts of nefarious activities.
My wife died a week ago and my son Sukhdev Raj who is a social worker of the Congress Party has to perform all the death ceremonies of his mother. Tomorrow is a Dusherra ceremony and day-after-tomorrow Kirya. Some inimical persons in order to disrepute and trouble us have maliciously joined hands. The City Staff Police took my son in custody at 4 p.m. We fear of harsh and illegal treatment. We pray that Sukhdev Raj be ordered to be medically examined or yourself should be kind enough to inspect the body of Sukhdevraj." On 21st June 1959 Shri Kewal Krishan, elder brother of Sukhdev Raj, who was employed as Secretary, Municipal Committee, Adampur, came to Amritsar in the morning and on learning of the arrest of Sukhdev Raj on 22nd June 1959 he presented an application to the Duty Magistrate (copy , of which is Ex. P-l) conveying his apprehension that he was going to be involved in a false case by the local police and requested that he be got produced in the Court and also got medically examined. The Duty Magistrate, Shri Sehgal, sent an order that Sukhdev Raj should be produced in his Court at 12 noon. Respondent Sunder Das submitted a report (Ex. P-6) to the effect that Sukhdev Raj is neither in custody in connection with any case nor is he with the police.
Now it is alleged that this was a false report made by respondent Sunder Das, S. I., and Sukhdev Raj was under wrongful and illegal confinement. On 22nd June 1959 the petitioner came to. Chandigarh and filed a petition under S. 491 Cr. P. C., for the issue of directions in the nature of Habeas Corpus to S. Joginder Singh Inspector ,and Shri Sunder Das, S. I., the two respondents. .The allegations were made that Sukhdev Raj had been beaten while in wrongful police custody. On 23rd June 1959 Redi, J., issued notice and directed that Sukhdev Raj be produced in his Court on 6th July 1959. The petitioner on returning to Amritsar sent a telegram on 24th June 1959 to the Superintendent of Police, Deputy Commissioner and City Magistrate, and Duty Magistrate, Amritsar to the following effect:
"My son Kewal Krishan. B. A.. LL.B., sent a written report under Ss. 342, 348, 330, I. P. C., against Joginder Singh Inspector and Sunder Lal Sub-Inspector Police C. I. A. Amritsar for the wrongful confinement etc., of Sukhdevraj. The report was sent to your address by post under an express delivery on 23-6-1959. The report relates to cognizable offences. The report is F. I. R. and it may kindly be recorded and the investigation may be started. The nu
