Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1233 (PAT)

Pramod Kumar Jha v. State Of Bihar

2003-12-01

RAVI S.DHAVAN, SHASHANK KR.SINGH

body2003
Judgment 1. By the time the proceedings in C.W.J.C. No. 1383 of 2001 : Pramod Kumar Jha vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. were drawing to a close, the very factor on which the proceedings closed becomes very relevant. The Secretary appeared at the Bar, acknowledged that false statement had been made at the Bar of the Court; accepted the case of the petitioner to state that he regrets over the matter; that is he is personally looking into the claims of the petitioner; that he is considering whether a suitable action be taken against the officers responsible for filing affidavits with incorrect facts in Court. The Secretarys last submission before the learned Judge was that in so far as the claims of the petitioner were concerned he will be able to pass final orders within two weeks of the order. 2. The Secretary had the option to reject the claims of the petitioner as this was indicated by the Court itself but ultimately when the Secretary did act on the claims of the petitioner they turned out to be correct. In the circumstances, the other aspects which the Secretary had pointed out are matters which just cannot be permitted to be forgotten. 3. If ultimately, the petitioner had claims and they had been acknowledged in the first instance and payments had been made straightaway then there was nothing further left for the Court. That would have been the end of the matter. 4. The petitioner now needs justice from the Court and he is entitled to. The issue is not only of the petitioner. If the Secretary had not appeared the petitioner would have been branded as a veritableliar. Some of the State Officials had pleaded to that effect. But, so far as the petitioner is concerned, it is contended for him it is a matter of honour. In so far as the Court is concerned, it is a matter of purity of justice. Crime has no place in Courts of law whether it is a Munsifs Court or High Court. Because, if the Courts go down unraveling only falsehood in case after case, then, the public justice system in Bihar has collapsed with forged bail applications, forged Letters Patent Appeal, incorrect statements on behalf of the respondents or the petitioners bringing causes. Purity of justice is defiled day in day out. 5. Because, if the Courts go down unraveling only falsehood in case after case, then, the public justice system in Bihar has collapsed with forged bail applications, forged Letters Patent Appeal, incorrect statements on behalf of the respondents or the petitioners bringing causes. Purity of justice is defiled day in day out. 5. State counsel has done the best that he could do, knowing fully well that he had two options; to present the case so that the State may come out clean or accept the reality that the record is not so clean. He made four submissions as below : (a) State Counsel be permitted to say in humility and that he says so in the name of God that a mistake has been committed in the affidavits; (b) the Secretary acknowledged these mistakes when he made his statement on 11.2.2003 when the writ petition was pending; (c) the payment has now been made and (d) the Court may pardon if any mistake had been made. 6. Let the name of God be not taken in vain by those who take oaths in his name. Else, the solemn affirmation is enough. 7. Falsehoods have been rendered in this case. The matter itself was petty as there was no issue, except it was engineered to look like one. Ultimately, the Secretary acknowledged that the claims were right. Then, this should have been a graceful defence of the State. In that case, the record would have been consigned. 8. Today the Courts time has been wasted in going through several affidavits, in trying to unravel the contradictions. These are no mistakes. It is falsehood. 9. For a party to intimate the Court that there has been a crime against public justice, is a right which is fundamental to a citizen who has brought a cause for adjudication to a court. A crime against public justice affects his liberty. It is a crime under Chapter IX of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Courts of law are not the play ground of erring litigants, state litigants not excluded, intending to settle scores. It is very sad that the Court has to record all this. A crime against public justice affects his liberty. It is a crime under Chapter IX of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Courts of law are not the play ground of erring litigants, state litigants not excluded, intending to settle scores. It is very sad that the Court has to record all this. But the Court is afraid that the generality of the situation has come down to this that half the time of the Court is being wasted in first trying to discover how much is truth and how much is falsehood. The High Court is a superior Court of Record and is the Court for interpretation of issues on purity of justice. There was no occasion for a Secretary to the government to appear before the Court, where the writ petition was pending and acknowledge as he modestly did so that wrongs have taken place and he will be taking action against those who erred. Between modesty of the Secretary and humility of counsel what has been precipitated on record is falsehood bordering on perjury. The very process of the Court has been abused with impunity. 10. Thus, let notice issue to the persons who had sworn affidavits on 19.2.2001, 22.3.2001, 9.7.2002, 15.1.2003, 11.2.2003, 25.1,2003 and 11.2.2003 namely, (1) Madan Pratap Singh son of late U.P.N. Singh the then Engineer-in- Chief, Road Construction Department, (2) Ajay Kumar Sinha son of Beni Madho Prasad, the then Under Secretary, Road Construction Department, (3) Chandra Shekhar Choudhary son of late Ganauri Chaudhary, the then Deputy Secretary, Road Construction Department, (4) Baidya Nath Ram son of late Munga Lal Ram, present Engineer-in-Chief, Road Construction Department and (5) Laxmi Narayan Paswan son of Ram Kishun Paswan. 11. As State counsel owes a duty first to public justice, his establishment and the Department of Justice will ensure service to those to whom summons are addressed. Those to whom summons are addressed may offer their explanation to the Court why the Court ought not to take out proceedings against them under Chapter XI of the Indian Penal Code, if necessary, in conformity with Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 12. Notice will indicate a date. 13. Put up on 6 January, 2004 in the supplementary list. 14. A copy of this order be sent to the Chief Secretary, Bihar, the Chief Minister, Bihar and the Governor of Bihar.