Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1803 (ALL)

KRIPA SHANKER SHARMA v. STATE OF U P

2008-08-27

BARKAT ALI ZAIDI, V.K.VERMA

body2008
BARKAT ALI ZAIDI, J. This is a ref erence made by the Bench of Honble Mr. Justice Arun Tandon in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5991 of 2007. The matter was referred to the erstwhile contempt of Court Bench and Honble Mr. Justice K. S. Rakhra and Honble Mr. Justice S. C. Nigam, framed the following charges against the Contemner: "charge under section 15 read with section 2-C of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. You are hereby charged as follows: - Firstly that in Writ Petition No. 6991 of 2007 Committee of Management and others v. State of U. P. and others you as Regional Joint Director of Edu cation holding charge Moradabad Region Moradabad gave a false statement before this Court on 27. 2. 2007 to the effect that minutes of the Regional Level Committee are not being recorded in any regis ter while in your affidavit filed be fore this Court, in the said writ petition on 19. 3. 2007 you specifi cally mentioned para 4 that the register in respect of meeting of Regional Level Committee is avail able and you have brought it to Court and you are in a position to place before the Court. This shows that your aforesaid statement on oath was patently wrong and was intended to mislead the Court and it was in the nature of substantial interference with due course of jus tice which is an offence punishable under section 12 read with section 2-C and section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Secondly that in the aforesaid writ pe tition on 19. 3. 2007 you produced before this Court a register of meeting of Regional Level Com mittee constituted by Government order dated 19. 12. 2000 and the said register was not maintained in normal course of business and was subsequently prepared for the purpose of the said writ petition as was held by this Court in its order dated 19. 3. 2007. This again was an act on your part to mislead the Court which amounts to substantial interference with due course of justice in the said judicial proceed ing and this you have committed an offence punishable under sec tion 12 read with section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 3. 2007. This again was an act on your part to mislead the Court which amounts to substantial interference with due course of justice in the said judicial proceed ing and this you have committed an offence punishable under sec tion 12 read with section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. This Court therefore, serves the above charge on you and you are hereby given one months time to file an affidavit in your defence. This matter be listed for hearing on 9. 10. 2007. " 2. That petitioners alibi is that he was given additional charge of Moradabad as Joint Director of Education and High School and Intermediate examinations were in the offing, because of which, there was huge pressure of work and the peti tioner was not in a position, to verify all the details. He was informed, that no register of the Regional Committee is being main tained; and that is what he unhesitatingly stated before the Court in his Statement. If there was any intention of misleading the Court on the part of the contemner, he would not have subsequently produced the register of Regional Committee before the Court and would have allowed to remain suppressed. This is the explanation of the petitioner as regards the first charge. 3. Heard Sri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Sanjeev Kumar, Counsel for the alleged contemner and Sri A. J. Singh, Addl. Government Counsel for the State. 4. We are inclined to believe, that the petitioner was unaware of the fact that any register of the Regional Committee was being maintained and he relied on the in formation given by the office that there was no register and that is why he made a statement before the Court to the effect that there was no register. If the intention of the contemner was to mislead the Court he would have not allowed the production of the register at a subsequent stage and would have concealed and suppressed the register. That indicates that the contemner was himself mislead by the office and that is why he made a statement to the effect that no register was being maintained. 5. That indicates that the contemner was himself mislead by the office and that is why he made a statement to the effect that no register was being maintained. 5. While we accept, that there was no malafide or dishonest intention on the part of the contemner to mislead the Court, we would observe that there has been lax ity, in the supervision by the contemner and his supervision of the office was not up to to the mark. 6. As regards the first charge, we are, therefore, of the view that since there was no deliberate contempt on the part of the contemner to mislead the Court, it would not be appropriate in the circum stances to find him guilty on that charge. 7. As regards the second charge of the register of the Regional Committee be ing fabricated, it is to be seen, that the reg ister is maintained by some clerk in the of fice of the Joint Director and the Joint Di rector is not supposed to maintain the reg ister. No notice has been issued to the clerk, who was supposed to maintain the register. His version has not been taken as to why the register was not being maintained and is in loose scattered sheets. 8. It is also to be noticed that this register was only up to the March, 2006 while the contemner took the charge on 8. 2. 2007 when the petitioner got a search made in the office, the register was discov ered and he duly produced the same be fore the Court in the condition in which, it was found, if there was any dishonest in tention on the part of the contemner, he would have not laid the register before the Court, at all. 9. As stated above, in the circum stances, the register was in such a state, could have been disclosed by the clerk, who was maintaining the register and his explanation has not been obtained and it cannot, therefore, be said as to how and why the register was in such a state and why proceedings subsequent to March, 2006 were not recorded, in the register. 10. In view of the aforesaid circum stances, it would not be fair to hold the contemner guilty of the charges levelled against him and he deserves exoneration. 11. Contempt is discharged. Contempt Dismissed. .