Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Online)(SC) 8051

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
MS. JUSTICE BELA M. TRIVEDI, MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, JJ
BHAGWAN SINGH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U.P. – Respondent
Diary No(s). 18885/2024

Advocates:
Mr. Siddhartha Dave, Sr. Adv., Mr. Anubhav, AOR, Ms. Jemtiben Ao, Adv., Mr. R P S Yadav, Adv., Mr. Karan Singh Yadav, Adv., Mr. Nikhil Majithia, Adv., Mr. Rishi Kumar Singh Gautam, AOR, Mr. K Parmeshwar, A.A.G., Ms. Sakshi Kakkar, AOR, Mr. Harsh Pratap Sahi, Adv., Mr. Sanchar Anand, Adv., Mr. Shiv Kumar, Adv., Mr. Apoorva Singhal, AOR, Mr. Aman Kumar Thakur, Adv.

The court emphasized the necessity of proper notarization procedures and the importance of personal presence in affidavit attestation.

Headnote:(A) Notary Act - Procedure for notarization - The Notary attested an affidavit without the personal presence of the petitioner, leading to questions about the validity of the notarization process. (Paras 3, 4)

(B) Affidavit requirements - The court directed the Notary to explain the circumstances under which the affidavit was attested in the absence of the petitioner. (Paras 4, 6)

(C) Representation in court - The court allowed the son-in-law and daughter of the petitioner to be impleaded as respondents in the proceedings. (Paras 10, 11)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, Bhagwan Singh, had affidavits notarized by Mr. A.N. Singh, who later admitted to a procedural error in attesting an affidavit without the petitioner's presence.

Findings of Court:
The court required the Notary to file an affidavit explaining the notarization process and the circumstances of the affidavit's attestation.

Issues: The main issues included the validity of the notarization process and the representation of the petitioner’s family in the proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of proper notarization procedures and the need for clarity in the representation of parties in legal proceedings.

Result: The matter is to be listed again on 3rd September 2024.

O R D E R

1. This matter was directed to be posted on 23.08.2024 vide the Court’s Order dated 09.08.2024, whereby, the Notary Mr. A.N. Singh, Ms. Rinki-daughter of petitioner-Bhagwan Singh and her husband, Mr. Sukh Pal were directed to remain present on the said date. However, due to paucity of time, the matter could not be heard on 23.08.2024, and was directed to be listed on 28.08.2024.

2. Accordingly, today, when the matter is taken up, the Notary Mr. A.N. Singh and Mr. Sukh Pal, son-in-law of the petitioner-Bhagwan Singh are present before the Court. It is stated by Mr. Sukh Pal that his wife-Ms. Rinki is down with fever and therefore, has not come to the Court.

3. The Notary Mr. A.N. Singh, states that he had committed a mistake by attesting an affidavit of the petitioner- Bhagwan Singh, who was not personally present before him, but his signatures were identified by Advocate, Mr. R.P.S. Yadav on 19.04.2024. According to him, thereafter, the petitioner-Bhagwan Singh had again personally come to him on 06.08.2024 for getting another affidavit attested.

4. Let the Notary, Mr. A.N. Singh file an affidavit explaining the procedure of notarizing any document, and also explaining as to why, and under what circumstances the affidavit of the petitioner-Bhagwan Singh, in the present case, was attested by him in his absence on 19.04.2024. The affidavit shall be filed on or before 02.09.2024.

5. Mr. Sukh Pal, son of Rishi Pal, is present in the Court.

He is the resident of Raisi Nagla, Post-Kadar Chowk, Budaun, Qadarchawk, Uttar Pradesh, as per the Aadhar Card of Mr. Sukh Pal, bearing No. 6790 1351 1082 submitted before us and has been identified by the Advocate, Mr. Karan Singh, who is practicing in the High Court of Allahabad. Mr. Sukh Pal states that he and his wife Rinki had met his father-in-law, i.e. petitioner-Bhagwan Singh, 3-4 years back at Budaun, Uttar Pradesh and at that time, petitioner-Bhagwan Singh had handed over a signed vakalatnama to his wife Ms. Rinki. According to him, he had handed over the said vakalatnama to the Advocate, Mr. Karan Singh, who was practicing in the High Court of Allahabad. On being asked by the Court, he states that he had never met his father-in-law petitioner-Bhagwan Singh before the said incident.

6. Since, Mr. Sukh Pal is making some inconsistent statements, he is directed to file an affidavit with regard to the whole incident explaining as to under what circumstances he had met his father-in-law, i.e. the petitioner herein, also stating the whole Chronology of dates and events when he met his father-in-law. The affidavit shall be filed on or before 02.09.2024.

7. On the next date of hearing, Ms. Rinki, the daughter of petitioner-Bhagwan Singh and wife of Mr. Sukh Pal shall remain present before this Court under any circumstances.

8. Mr. Nikhil Majithia, learned counsel appearing for petitioner-Bhagwan Singh and Mr. Sanchar Anand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.2 Ajay Katara, in the present proceedings, have drawn the attention of the Court to the Order passed by this Court on 10.06.2024 in SLP(Crl.) No.7893/2024 filed by the petitioner Vikas Yadav, arising out of the final judgment and order dated 21.05.2024 passed by the High Court of Delhi in CRLMA No. 15617/2024. According to them, the said Vikas Yadav was convicted in the famous Nitish Katara Case, where in, the respondent no.2-Ajay Katara was the only witness who had deposed against him and whose testimony was relied upon by the Courts below for convicting Vikas Yadav, and that was the reason, false case was sought to be made out against the respondent no.2-Ajay Katara in the present proceedings. They have also drawn the attention of the Court to the list of Advocates shown in the Order Sheet/ Record of Proceedings of SLP(Crl.) No.7893/2024 dated 10.06.2024 and submitted that out of 10 Advocates, 08 Advocates are also shown as the appearing Advocates in the Order Sheet/ Record of Proceedings dated 09.08.2024 in the present SL

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2024 Supreme(Online)(SC) 8051

SUPREME COURT OF INDIAMS. JUSTICE BELA M. TRIVEDI, MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, JJBHAGWAN SINGH – AppellantVersusSTATE OF U.P. – RespondentDiary No(s). 18885/2024

The court emphasized the necessity of proper notarization procedures and the importance of personal presence in affidavit attestation.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
MS. JUSTICE BELA M. TRIVEDI, MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, JJ
BHAGWAN SINGH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U.P. – Respondent
Diary No(s). 18885/2024