Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
VIKRAM NATH, RAJESH BINDAL, JJ.
Kusha Duruka – Appellant
Versus
The State of Odisha – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 303 of 2024, S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 12301 of 2023
Decided On : 19-01-2024
(A) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Section 12 – Contempt of court – Truth constituted an integral part of justice-delivery system in pre-Independence era, however, post-Independence period has seen drastic changes in our value system – Materialism has overshadowed old ethos and quest for personal gain has become so intense that those involved in litigation do not hesitate to take shelter of falsehood, misrepresentation and suppression of facts in court proceedings – In last 40 years, values have gone down and now a litigants can go to any extent to mislead Court – They have no respect for truth – A litigant who attempts to pollute stream of justice or who touches pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or final – Suppression of material facts from t court of law, is actually playing fraud with court – Maxim suppressio veri, expression falsi, i.e. suppression of truth is equivalent to expression of falsehood, gets attracted – Its nothing but degradation of moral values in society, may be because of our education system. (Para 7)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 439 – Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Section 20(b)(ii)(C) – Grant of bail pending trial – Exclusive and conscious possession and transportation of Ganja – It would be appropriate to mandatorily mention in application(s) filed for grant of bail, details and copies of order(s) passed in earlier bail application(s) filed by petitioner which have been already decided and details of any bail application(s) filed by petitioner, which is pending either in any court, below court in question or higher court, and if none is pending, clear statement to that effect has to be made – All bail applications filed by different accused in same FIR should be listed before same Judge except in cases where Judge has superannuated or has been transferred or otherwise incapacitated to hear the matter – System needs to be followed meticulously to avoid any discrepancies in orders – It should be duty of Investigating Officer/any officer assisting State Counsel in court to apprise him of order(s), if any, passed by court with reference to different bail applications or other proceedings in same crime case – Counsel appearing for parties have to conduct themselves truly like officers of Court – Appeal dismissed as infructuous, alongwith token cost of ?10,000/-. (Paras 20 and 23)
Facts of the case:
This is another case in which effort has been made to pollute stream of administration of justice.
Findings of Court:
Though considering conduct of petitioner, one of option available was to cancel his bail, however, we do not propose to take such an extreme step in case in hand. However, this can be option exercised by Court if the facts of the case so demand seeing the conduct of the parties.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
RAJESH BINDAL, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This is another case in which an effort has been made to pollute the stream of administration of justice.
3. About three decades ago, this Court in Chandra Shashi vs. Anil Kumar Verma, (1995) 1 SCC 421 was faced with a situation where an attempt was made to deceive the Court and interfere with the administration of justice. The litigant was held to be guilty of contempt of court. It was a case in which husband had filed fabricated document to oppose the prayer of his wife seeking transfer of matrimonial proceedings. Finding him guilty of contempt of court, he was sentenced to two weeks’ imprisonment by this Court. This Court observed as under:
2. Anyone who takes recourse to fraud, deflects the course of judicial proceedings; or if anything is done with oblique motive, the same interferes with the administration of justice. Such persons are required to be properly dealt with, not only to punish them for the wrong done, but also to deter others from indulging in similar acts which shake the faith of people in the system of administration of justice.
*** *** ***
14. The legal position thus is that if the publication be with intent to deceive the court or one made with an intention to defraud, the same would be contempt, as it would interfere with administration of justice. It would, in any case, tend to interfere with the same. This would definitely be so if a fabricated documents is filed with the aforesaid mens rea. In the case at hand the fabricated document was apparently to deceive the court; the intention to defraud is writ large. Anil Kumar is, therefore, guilty of contempt.”
4. In K.D. Sharma vs. Steel Authority of India Limited and Others, (2008) 12 SCC 481 it was observed by this Court:
(Emphasis supplied)
5. In Dalip Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (2010) 2 SCC 114 this Court noticed the progressive decline in the values of life and the conduct of the new creed of litigants, who are far away from truth. It was observed as under:
(1) Contempt of court – A litigant who attempts to pollute stream of justice or who touches pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or final.(2) Grant of b....
Suppression of material facts in bail applications undermines the integrity of judicial proceedings, warranting a review and possible recall of previously granted bail.
A litigant must approach the court with clean hands; suppression of material facts disqualifies them from receiving judicial relief.
The applicant, who concealed facts and filed a false affidavit, and made a mockery of the orders of the lower court by avoiding the process of summon, bailable warrant, non-bailable warrant, and the ....
(1) Bail – Accused or applicant seeking bail is under solemn obligation to make fair, complete and candid disclosure of all material facts having direct bearing on exercise of judicial discretion – A....
A party seeking relief from the court must disclose all material facts and cannot benefit from suppressing information; anticipatory bail is not maintainable if the applicant is already in custody.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
