Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 957 (AP)

IN RE…. P. Nagesh v. .

2008-11-07

B.PRAKASH RAO, G.V.SEETHAPATHY

body2008
JUDGMENT :- G.V. Seethapathy, J. This contempt case was suo motu registered as per the directions of this Court contained in the order dated 27.09.2006 in A.S.M.P. No. 1893 of 2005 AS (SR) No. 41417 of 2001. 2. The factual background that led to this suo motu contempt case can be briefly stated thus: An appeal is purported to have been filed under Section 96 CPC on behalf of the respondents 1 to 5 herein against the judgment and decree dated 23.10.2000 in OS No. 18 of 2000 on the file of the I Additional District Court, Ranga Reddy district. The said appeal purported to carry AS (SR) No. 41417 of 2001. The respondents 1 to 5 herein filed the said suit for specific performance of agreement dated 28.07.1987. The defendants remained ex-parte. The trial Court, while holding that the plaintiffs are not entitled for a decree for the relief of specific performance, however, decreed the suit for refund of Rs. 4,00,000/- with interest at 12% per annum and rejected the relief of specific performance. Aggrieved by the same, the respondents 1 to 5 herein filed an appeal before this Court, which was purported to carry AS (SR) No. 41417 of 2001. The appeal papers were returned on 25.6.2001. Subsequently, in the year 2004, appeal papers were represented along with three applications i.e., AS MP No. 16221 of 2004 for dispensing with filing of the certified copy of the judgment and decree, AS MP No. 16220 of 2004 for condonation of the delay of 1139 days in representing the appeal and AS MP No. 16219 of 2004 for condoning delay of 150 days in filing the appeal. 3. On 30.12.2004, a Division Bench of this Court ordered AS MP No. 16221 of 2004 dispensing with filing of the certified copy of the judgment and decree for the time being. AS MP No. 16220 of 2004 was also ordered, condoning the delay of 1139 days in representing AS (SR) No. 41417 of 2001, in AS MP No. 16219 of 2004 notice was ordered to the respondents. 4. After appearance of the respondents therein, they filed AS MP Nos.2352 and 2353 of 2005 for recall of the orders passed on 30.12.2004. In the affidavit filed in support of the applications in AS MP Nos. 4. After appearance of the respondents therein, they filed AS MP Nos.2352 and 2353 of 2005 for recall of the orders passed on 30.12.2004. In the affidavit filed in support of the applications in AS MP Nos. 2352 and 2353 of 2005, it was alleged that no appeal was filed by the appellants till 08.09.2004 and the appellants have surreptitiously made use of some other docket in CRP (SR) No. 41417 of 2001 which was in fact, filed against the judgment and decree in OP No. 359 of 2000 on the file of the District Court, Nellore by another counsel Sri M. Ravindranath Reddy and the appellants herein have tampered with the said docket or CRP (SR) No. 41417 of 2001 and made corrections with white fluid ink at various stages like, Place, District, Case Number, the Court Name, counsel Name etc. so as to make it appear as if it was AS (SR) No. 41417 of 2001 and no permission was taken for filing the appeal papers with deficit court fee and therefore, apart from there being no valid or proper presentation of the appeal, the appellants have played fraud on the Court by tampering and misusing the docket of some other case i.e., CRP (SR) No. 41417 of 2001 and making it to appear as if an appeal was filed with AS (SR) No. 41417 of 2001. This Court, having regard to the serious nature of the allegations made that warrants an enquiry and verification, directed the Registrar (Judicial) by order dated 28.11.2005 to conduct a comprehensive enquiry in to the matter. 5. The Registrar (Judicial) after due enquiry, submitted a report with the following conclusion: “…….. From the above narration, it is seen that CRP SR No. 41417 of 2001 was initially filed by Sri M. Ravindranath Reddy, Advocate, which was returned with certain objections on 25.06.2001 by the Scrutiny Officer. The Return Register also reflects that CRP SR No. 41417 of 2001 was returned and there is no AS SR No. 41417 of 2001 according to the official register. The case was represented again after compliance of the objections on 07.09.2004 and was allotted to Smt. C. Swarnalatha, Scrutiny Officer on 08.09.2004. From the statement of Smt. Swarnalatha, it appears that she was not diligent in noticing the over writings on the docket by applying white fluid. The case was represented again after compliance of the objections on 07.09.2004 and was allotted to Smt. C. Swarnalatha, Scrutiny Officer on 08.09.2004. From the statement of Smt. Swarnalatha, it appears that she was not diligent in noticing the over writings on the docket by applying white fluid. She simply stated that she was given delay condonation petition in representing ASSR for scrutiny on 08.09.2004. From the representation ledger from 15.06.2004, it is observed that there is no representation of ASSR No. 41417 of 2001 on 07.09.2004 or on 08.09.2004. This reflects that there is no entry in the Register of allotment of ASSR to Smt. C. Swarnalatha, Scrutiny Officer on 08.09.2004. From the above narration, it is clear that Smt. C.Swarnalatha, Scrutiny Officer and Sri M. Ravindranath Reddy, Advocate are responsible to state as to what has happened to CRP SR No. 41417 of 2001 filed against O.P.No. 359 of 2000 pertaining to Nellore district.” 6. As per the said report of the Registrar (Judicial), which was placed on record, the appeal has not been filed by the appellants against the judgment and decree in OS No. 18 of 2000 on the file of the I Additional District Court, Ranga Reddy district, carrying AS SR No. 41417 of 2001 and the said SR number pertained to CRP that was filed against the judgment and decree in OP No. 359 of 2000 on the file of the District Court, Nellore by different Advocate, Sri M. Ravindranath Reddy and it has nothing to do with the appeal sought to be filed by the respondents 1 to 5 herein. 7. In AS MP Nos. 2352 and 2353 of 2005, this Court on 27.09.2006 held that the whole affair on the part of the appellants is an attempt to make use of some other docket papers showing them as if it is an appeal filed, warranting appropriate action against the concerned persons. It was further observed that the appellants have played fraud by misusing some other record of a different SR number to give an impression as if the appeal is filed with that SR number so as to suit their convenience and for the purpose of saving limitation and such fraud played on the Court amounts to contempt of court by the appellants a well as all the persons involved on concerned. It was also held that there is no appeal in existence and accordingly, the order dated 30.12.2004 passed in AS MP Nos. 16220 and 16221 of 2004 were set aside and consequently, AS MP Nos. 2352 and 2353 of 2005 were allowed. In the said order, it was further directed to issue contempt notices to the appellants to explain as to why contempt proceedings shall not be initiated against them. This order remained unchallenged further, and then it has become final. 8. In pursuance of the above directions, suo motu contempt case was registered and notices were issued to the appellants who are respondents 1 to 5 herein. On 26.03.2007 after hearing the learned Advocate General and also Sri C. Prakash Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants, this Court directed issuance of notices to the learned counsel Sri M. Ravindranath Reddy, Sri B. Mahinder Reddy, Sri M. Subba Reddy, Sri P. Bhakthavatsal, Sri V.R. Avula and Advocate Clerks, Sri M.S., Narayana, Sri G. Poornachandra Rao and P. Venugopal Rao. The Registrar General was also directed to file a complaint before the concerned police for taking necessary action against the culprits. On 23.04.2007 an application in CA No. 255 of 2007 was filed by Sri M.S. Narayana (R.11) registered advocate clerk of Sri P. Bhaktavatsal, seeking pardon and withdrawal of the complaint in Cr. No. 61 of 2007 on the file of Charminar PS accepting unconditional apology tendered by him and for closure of further proceedings in the suo motu contempt case. The said application was dismissed on 23.04.2007. On 26.04.2007, the name of Sri M. Ravindranath Reddy, learned counsel was directed to be deleted after hearing the said learned counsel and also learned Advocate General. The Registrar (Judicial) was also directed to seize the entire record connected with the case and also concerned registers and keep them in sealed cover in his personal custody. It was further directed that the investigation shall go on by the Additional Director General of Police, in-charge of CBCID. However, there shall not be any arrest. 9. On 08.08.2007 it came to notice that one Mr. D. Narayana Rao, Advocate initially contacted and accompanied Mr. P. Bhakthavatsal, Advocate and notice was ordered to be issued to him. Notice was also directed to be issued to the Branch Manager, State Bank of Hyderabad, High Court Branch for production of the record including the challans, forms etc. 9. On 08.08.2007 it came to notice that one Mr. D. Narayana Rao, Advocate initially contacted and accompanied Mr. P. Bhakthavatsal, Advocate and notice was ordered to be issued to him. Notice was also directed to be issued to the Branch Manager, State Bank of Hyderabad, High Court Branch for production of the record including the challans, forms etc. regarding the amount paid towards court fee in the name of Sri V.R. Avula, Advocate pertaining to this case. Notices were served on the respondents and they entered appearance through learned counsel. 10. The respondents 1 to 5 are the appellants/plaintiffs, respondents 6 to 8 are the learned counsel, who are alleged to have dealt with the filing of the appeal papers at different stages. Respondent No. 9 is the clerk of Sri V.R. Avula, Advocate and 10th respondent is clerk of Sri P. Bhakthavatsal, Advocate. Respondent No. 11 is the Junior Assistant, 12th respondent is the Assistant Section Officer and 13th respondent is the Scrutiny Officer, who are said to have handled the appeal during the process of scrutiny. 11. The respondents, on whom notices were served, submitted their explanations by way of affidavits. Since some of the staff members were found involved, a report was called for from the Registrar (Judicial) regarding their role. Based on the report, the following staff members i.e., Smt. Rama Lakshmi Devi, Smt. G. Suvarnamala and Smt. C. Swarnalatha, were asked to submit their explanation by way of affidavits. After going through the entire material on record and hearing the learned Advocate General and the learned counsel for the respondents, this Court by order dated 26.08.2007 admitted the contempt case against the respondents and directed the office to issue notices to the following persons on the following charges: “You the appellants viz., 1) Sri P. Nagesh, 2) Sri P. Prathap Reddy, 3) Sri M. Narsing Rao, 4) Sri N. Srinivas and 5) Sri N. Narsing Rao in AS (SR) No. 41417 of 2007 along with your Counsel viz., Sri V.R. Avula, Sri D. Narayana Rao and Sri P. Bhakthavatsal and the Advocate Clerks, Sri G. Poornachandra Rao, Sri P. Venugopal Rao and Sri. M. S. Narayana, tampered with the Court record by using a returned CRP docket bearing SR No. 41417 for the purpose of filing an appeal in AS (SR) No. 41417 of 2001, which in fact, did not pertain to any such First Appeal filed by the appellants, but, it pertains to a different case in a Revision CRP (SR) No. 41417 of 2001 which has nothing to do with any appeal filed by the appellants and that there is a clear tampering by making corrections in regard to the District, case number, counsel’s name etc., by using white fluid, that the whole affair on the part of the appellants is an attempt to make use of some other docket papers showing them as if it is an appeal filed by themselves rather than filing an appeal by themselves originally, that the appellants have committed fraud by totally making misuse of some other record of a different SR number to give an impression that the present appeal is filed in that SR so as to suit their convenience and for the purpose of limitation where there exist no appeal. All these events would virtually amount to abuse of process of the court and serious act of fraud played on court and amounts to interference with administration of justice. All these events would virtually amount to abuse of process of the court and serious act of fraud played on court and amounts to interference with administration of justice. Insofar as the staff members are concerned, Smt. P.Rama Lakshmi Devi, who is concerned with return of the CRP (SR) and Smt. Suvarnamala and Smt. C. Swarnalatha, who are concerned with processing of AS (SR), prima –facie have committed contempt in collusion with the appellants and their counsel and as such, we admit the contempt case against them and issue notice on the following charge: You the staff members viz., 1) P.Ramalakshmi Devi, 2) Smt. G. Suvarnamala, 3) Smt. C. Swarnalatha acted in collusion with appellants in A.S. (SR) No. 41417 of 2001 along with their counsel namely Sri V.R. Avula, Sri D. Narayana Rao and Sri P. Bhakthavatsal and the Advocate Clerks, Sri G. Poornachandra Rao, Sri P. Venugopal Rao and Sri M.S. Narayana, in tampering with the court record by using a returned CRP docket bearing SR No. 41417 for the purpose of filing an appeal in AS (SR) No. 41417 of 2001 which has nothing to do with any appeal filed by the appellants and that there is a clear tampering by making corrections in regard to the District, Case Number, Counsel’s name etc., by using white fluid, that the whole affair on the part of the Appellants is an attempt to make use of some other docket papers showing them as if lit is an appeal filed by themselves rather than filing an Appeal by themselves Originally, that the Appellants have committed fraud by totally making misuse of some other record of a different SR Number to give an impression that the present Appeal is filed in that SR so as to suit their convenience and for the purpose of limitation where there exists no appeal. All these events would virtually amount to abuse of process of the Court and serious act of fraud played on Court and amounts to Interference with administration of justice.” 12. Based on the report of the Registrar (Judicial) and the statements recorded by the Joint Registrar during the course of enquiry, it was considered that the staff members namely, Ms. Malathi, Ms. G.Anitha, Smt. C. Chandrika, Sri Mohd. Based on the report of the Registrar (Judicial) and the statements recorded by the Joint Registrar during the course of enquiry, it was considered that the staff members namely, Ms. Malathi, Ms. G.Anitha, Smt. C. Chandrika, Sri Mohd. Ahmed Sharief and Sri K. Srinivasa Raju, who were concerned with the processing of the appeal papers cannot be said to have committed contempt in the strict sense, but however, they have not acted diligently in discharge of their duties. Hence, the Registrar General was directed to take appropriate disciplinary action against the said staff members after giving due opportunity to them in accordance with law. Further proceedings against the staff members namely Smt. V. Lakshmi, Sri Babu Rao and Smt. Lakshmi Devamma, who were concerned with the processing of the CRP (SR) were dropped, as there was no incriminating material as against them suggesting their involvement in the matter. 13. On 31.10.2007 the name of Sri G. Purchandra Rao, Advocate Clerk was directed to be deleting as he was in no way concerned with the case. The respondents 1 to 13 were served with notices in the contempt case and they entered appearance through counsel. All the respondents filed their replies by way of affidavits. On 26.12.2007 a joint memo was filed on behalf of the Advocate General and the learned counsel for the respondent to the effect That they do not propose to adduce any oral evidence and wish to mark all the documents as exhibits by consent, for which, the respondentscontemnors have no objection. Accordingly, all the documents were marked as Exs. A.1 to A.78. 14. On 20.02.2008 Sri C. Prakash Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 5, represented that the appellants have not approached any counsel and their signatures are not found on Vakalath and sought time for filing better Vakalath along with affidavit. Accordingly, all the documents were marked as Exs. A.1 to A.78. 14. On 20.02.2008 Sri C. Prakash Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 5, represented that the appellants have not approached any counsel and their signatures are not found on Vakalath and sought time for filing better Vakalath along with affidavit. On 12.03.2008 the respondents 1 to 5 filed notarized affidavits dated 11.03.2008 inter-alia stating that on 20.02.2008 as the copy of the Vakalath shown to them was not clearly legible, they expressed doubt about the genuineness of their signatures, but after closely perusing the copy of the Vakalath and after collecting the legible copy from the counsel, they are not disputing the genuineness of the signatures, but, however, stated that except signing the Vakalath once, they did not sign on any other papers while entrusting the appeal papers and they are neither aware nor responsible for the mistake committed in filing the appeal and they came to know of the fate of the appeal only after receiving notice in the present proceedings. Thereafter Sri. P. Bhaktavatsal (R.8) filed reply affidavit on 19.03.2008 disputing the averments relating to him made in the affidavits filed by the respondents 1 to 5. Sri. D. Narayana Rao, Advocate filed reply affidavit on 23.03.2008 affirming the truth of the averments made in the affidavits of respondents 1 to 5 insofar as they relate to him. 15. Arguments of Sri. Y. Chandrasekhar, Special Government Pleader, appearing on behalf of the learned Advocate General and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents were heard. Perused the entire material on record. 16. The respondent/contemnors can be divided into four categories viz., R-1 to R-5 are private parties i.e., appellants/plaintiffs, R-6 to R-8 are the practicing Advocates, R-9 and R-10 are the Advocate Clerks and R-11 to R-13 are the members of the staff of the High Court. The grave men of the charge pertaining to tampering with the official record of CRPSR.No. 41417 of 2001 and misusing the same for filing of the appeal with the same SR number so as to avoid explanation of delay and beating the limitation amounting to playing fraud and abuse of process of Court, is directed against respondents 1 to 10. The grave men of the charge pertaining to tampering with the official record of CRPSR.No. 41417 of 2001 and misusing the same for filing of the appeal with the same SR number so as to avoid explanation of delay and beating the limitation amounting to playing fraud and abuse of process of Court, is directed against respondents 1 to 10. Insofar as the staff members R-11 to R-13 are concerned, the charge is one of collusion with R-1 to R-10 and facilitating the above-mentioned fraud and abuse of process of Court. 17. Respondents 1 to 5 filed C.A. No. 1202 of 2006 on 10-11-2006 praying that the proceedings may be closed taking a lenient view and giving liberty to file fresh appeal. In support of the said application, the first respondent filed an affidavit in which it is stated that the affidavit is filed on his behalf and on behalf of the other appellants i.e., R2 to R-5 herein. In the said affidavit, he stated that they approached Sri. P. Bhaktavatsal/R-8 Advocate and entrusted the papers for filing appeal and they were not aware of the subsequent happenings as the learned counsel was apprising that everything was moving in the right direction. It is further stated in the said affidavit that they came to know of the fact that the appeal was not properly filed only when they received notices in these proceedings. In the said affidavit, respondents 1 – 5 tendered unconditional apology while stating that they have not committed any fraud and, in fact, they were cheated and fraud was played on them. On 11-03-2008, respondents 1 to 5 filed separate affidavits, Exs. A-71 to A-76, stating that one Sri. E. Raj kumar who was their friend and business partner and after the suit was disposed of, the said Sri Raj Kumar took them to Sri P. Bhaktavatsal, Advocate for filing the appeal and the papers were entrusted to the said counsel along with court fees and expenses. It is further stated that whenever they contacted the counsel, the were informed that the appeal was filed in time and they will be kept informed of the developments whenever the appeal is listed for hearing and so they were under a bona fide impression that the appeal was filed. It is further stated in the said affidavit that Sri. E. Raj Kumar died in May 2004. It is further stated in the said affidavit that Sri. E. Raj Kumar died in May 2004. Subsequently, in October, 2005, R-8 Sri. P. Bhaktavatsal informed them that services of a senior counsel are required and thereafter R-1 approached Sri. D. Narayana Rao, R-7 Advocate for the purpose of engaging a senior counsel and on his suggestion, he along with Sri. D. Narayana Rao, went to the office of Sri. P. Venugopal, who wanted them to get no objection from the previous counsel and Sri. P. Bhaktavatsal/R-8 the previous counsel stated no objection and accordingly Sri. P. Venugopal appeared on behalf of R1 to R-5. It is not disputed that Sri Venugopal, learned counsel appeared on behalf of R1 to R-5 in the interlocutory applications. In the affidavits dated 11-03-2008, R-1 to R-5 stated that except signing the vakalath and entrusting the papers they have not committed any act, amounting to abuse of process of the Court nor played any fraud and they were aware of the improper filing of the appeal and they have not derived any advantage or benefit and they never had any intention to do any act of commission or omission that mounted to contempt of court or abuse of process of Court and hence all further proceedings may be dropped against them. 18. Sri D. Narayana Rao/R-7 filed a reply affidavit on 23-03-2008 under Ex. A-78 where he confirmed what R-1 to R-5 has stated in their affidavits Exs. A-72 to A-76 insofar as he is concerned and reiterated what he had previously stated in his affidavit dated 20-12-2007 i.e., A-67 to the effect that in October 2005, R-1 approached him and sought the services or a senior advocate and Sri Narayana Rao took him to Sri P. Venugopal and introduced him, who later appeared in the case as instructed by Sri P. Bhaktavatsal, who was already on record. Thus, the role of R-7 Sri D. Narayana Rao, Advocate is limited to introducing Sri P.Venugopal, Senior Counsel, to R-1, for the purpose of engaging him in the case. R-7 Sri D. Narayana Rao does not appear to have handled the appeal papers at any time and he was not engaged by R-1 to R-5 to appear in the case and he did not appear also. R-7 Sri D. Narayana Rao does not appear to have handled the appeal papers at any time and he was not engaged by R-1 to R-5 to appear in the case and he did not appear also. It can, therefore, be safely concluded that R-7 Sri D. Narayana Rao, Advocate had absolutely no role whatsoever in the irregularities noticed in filing of the appeal. 19. Insofar as R-8, Sri P.Bhaktavatsal, is concerned, he filed an affidavit Ex.A-46 on 11-06-2007 wherein he stated that R-1 approached him for filing the appeal and he found the memorandum of grounds prepared by Sri V.R. Avula, Advocate, available in the bundle and he prepared a petition to dispense with filing of the certified copies of the judgment and decree and entrusted the same along with the Court fees amount and incidental expenditure of Rs. 85,000/-to Sri M.S. Narayana, Advocate Clerk, to file the appeal. He further stated that he has been enquiring with the said Sri. M.S. Narayana regarding the stage of the appeal and was informed that the appeal was filed and would be listed for final hearing in due course. In the said affidavit, he further stated that the appellants/ R-1 to R5 herein wanted to engage Sri. P. Venugopal. He gave the consent for the same. In the said affidavit Ex.A-46, R-8 further stated that he was not aware of the alleged tampering and he questioned his clerk Sri. M.S. Narayana and he was misled by him and accordingly he gave a statement before the Joint Registrar that he has received no objection from Sri. V.R. Avula/R-6 and court fee was paid by him and he represented that miscellaneous petitions were listed earlier and ultimately during the course of enquiry the said statement was found to be false and he was facing consequences without there being any fault on his part. He further stated in Ex.A-46 that as seen from the affidavit filed by Sri. M.S. Narayana, the whole mischief was played by him and, therefore, he offered conditional apology for not being careful in personally pursuing the matter with the said Sri. M.S. Narayana. He further prayed that the contempt proceedings against him may be closed accepting his unconditional apology, as he is a poor Advocate, having no other source of livelihood, except the profession. Subsequently, R-8 Sri. P. Bhaktavatsal filed another affidavit Ex. M.S. Narayana. He further prayed that the contempt proceedings against him may be closed accepting his unconditional apology, as he is a poor Advocate, having no other source of livelihood, except the profession. Subsequently, R-8 Sri. P. Bhaktavatsal filed another affidavit Ex. A-59 on 20-08-2007 wherein he stated that he does not want to rely upon the earlier affidavit Ex .A-46, as he filed the same in certain misleading and compelling circumstances and that he wants to stick to the version in the sworn statement made before the Joint Registrar. In the sworn statement Ex.A-35 dated 21-12-2005 recorded by the Joint Registrar in the course of enquiry that was conducted in pursuance of the direction given by the Court, R-8 Sri. P. Bhaktavatsal stated that he received no objection vakalath from Sri. V.R. Avula/A-6 through the parties concerned at the time of resubmission of the papers and he was not originally engaged by the appellants and he has not paid the Court fees while filing the appeal and ASMP.No.16220 of 2004 was filed for condonation of delay in representation with the affidavit of Sri. M.s. Narayana, Clerk and after the said petition was allowed, he was disengaged by the appellants and some other counsel was engaged. Thus, in Ex .A-35, R-8 further stated that he was no way concerned with the corrections or tampering of the docket, as he came into the picture only at the time of resubmission of the appeal papers and was not associated with the original filing of the papers and he has not even argued ASMP. No. 16220 of 2004 filed for condoning the delay and it was argued by Sri V.R. Avula, Advocate and after the said petition was allowed, he was disengaged and the parties have engaged a senior counsel. This version, which is the earliest one contained in Ex. A-35 is inconsistent with his second version in Ex.A-46 wherein he stated that he himself filed the appeal papers through his clerk Sri. M.S. Narayana along with a petition to dispense with filing of the certified copies of the judgment and decree and also gave the Court fee amount and incidental expenses in a sum of Rs. 85,000/-to the said Narayana and that it was Narayana who played the mischief and he was misled by the said Narayana. By filing the affidavit Ex. M.S. Narayana along with a petition to dispense with filing of the certified copies of the judgment and decree and also gave the Court fee amount and incidental expenses in a sum of Rs. 85,000/-to the said Narayana and that it was Narayana who played the mischief and he was misled by the said Narayana. By filing the affidavit Ex. A-59, R-8 sought to disown the second version contained in Ex. A46 and preferred to stick to the earliest version contained in Ex. A.35, he sworn statement made before the Joint Registrar. R-8 filed a further affidavit Ex. A-77 on 19-03-2008 in reply to the affidavits Exs. A-72 to 76 filed by R-1 to R-5 wherein he stated that Sri. M.S. Narayana, advocate Clerk came to him along with the parties with no objection vakalath of Sri V.R. Avula, Advocate and two petitions already prepared for representation of the appeal papers and he signed on the no objection vakalath of Sri V.R. Avula and the two petitions and except that he has not seen or found any other papers of the appeal. He further stated that when he verified the no objection vakalath of Sri V.R. Avula, his signature is not found and somebody might have signed without his knowledge and consent and his signatures are nowhere found in the appeal papers. He also denied that the amount for payment of court fees and expenses was entrusted to him by Sri Raj Kumar or by respondents 1 to 5 and stated that Sri M.S. Narayana, Clerk has admittedly not deposited the court fees amount received by him. He pleads that he was falsely implicated and he was made a scapegoat. The fact remains that he has indulged in giving prevaricate versions contradicting each other at different stages by way of affidavits referred to supra. 20. The question as to what of the different versions given by him at different stages is true cannot by determined in the present proceedings as the truth or otherwise thereof can be ascertained only by subjecting the deponent to cross-examination. As a practicing Advocate, he ought not to have indulged in prevarication and inconsistency by way of sworn statements and affidavits when he is expected to assist the Court in arriving at the truth. 21. Sri V.R. Avula/R6 in his sworn statement Ex. As a practicing Advocate, he ought not to have indulged in prevarication and inconsistency by way of sworn statements and affidavits when he is expected to assist the Court in arriving at the truth. 21. Sri V.R. Avula/R6 in his sworn statement Ex. A-36 made before the Joint Registrar on 02-01-2006 stated that he has not filed the appeal with his vakalath and, therefore, the question of his giving on objection on the vakalath of Sri P. Bhaktavatsal, does not arise. He further stated that he perused the vakalth filed by Sri P. Bhaktavatsal and the signature appearing thereon is not his. In the affidavit Ex. A-48 filed in July, 2007, R-8 Sri V.R. Avula stated that in the year 2001 someone on behalf of respondents 1 to 5 approached him for filing the appeal and he prepared the memorandum of grounds of appeal and when he expressed his inability of any assurance regarding the success in the appeal, the parties have taken away the papers. He further stated that he was surprised to notice during this enquiry that the court fees and lodgment schedule were prepared in his name and his name was also forged on the endorsement of no objection vakalath exhibited by R-8 Sri P. Bhaktavatsal. He further stated that he never paid any amount towards court fees and he only received fee for preparing the grounds of appeal and he did not file the appeal. He also stated that one Sri. P. Venugopal Rao/R-9 is his registered Clerk since 1987 and he has not filed any case through anyone else. He also denied that he submitted the ASSR No. 41417 of 2001 along with miscellaneous petitions, as he was not authorized by the appellants to file the appeal. He also denied to have deposited the amount of court fees of Rs. 72,966/- and Rs. 50/- towards lodgment schedule in SBH, High Court Branch on 8-9-2004 or filed any voucher in respect thereof. He further stated that as seen from the affidavits filed by other respondents the appellants entrusted the file along with court fees and expenses to Sri. P. Bhaktavatsal, who got it filed through Sri. 72,966/- and Rs. 50/- towards lodgment schedule in SBH, High Court Branch on 8-9-2004 or filed any voucher in respect thereof. He further stated that as seen from the affidavits filed by other respondents the appellants entrusted the file along with court fees and expenses to Sri. P. Bhaktavatsal, who got it filed through Sri. M.S. Narayana and the said Narayana resubmitted the appeal along with ASMPs and used the name of Sri V.R. Avula by paying the court fees without his knowledge and authority and it was the said Narayana who has taken return of the appeal on 16-09-2004 by signing his name in the returned ledger. R-6/Sri V.R. Avula filed a further affidavit Ex. A 68 on 19-12-2007. He expressed unconditional apology for not taking strict care and caution while accepting the request made to him for preparing the grounds of appeal and prayed that further proceedings against him may be dropped. 22. It can be seen from Ex. A-46, the second affidavit of Sri.P. Bhaktavatsal, that the conents thereof support the version of Sri. V.R. Avula/R-6 that he only prepared the memorandum of grounds and subsequently the papers were entrusted to Sri P. Bhaktavatsal/R-8 along with the court fees amount and incidental expenses in a sum of Rs. 85,000/- and the appeal was filed through Sri. M.S. Narayana, Clerk. In the said affidavit Ex.A-46 R-8/Sri P. Bhaktavatsal even stated that he was misled by Sri Narayana and accordingly he gave a statement before the Joint Registrar to the effect that he received no objection from Sri V.R. Avula and court fees was also paid by him and subsequently in the course of enquiry, his statement was found to be false. Thus, R-8 Sri P. Bhaktavasal in his affidavit Ex. A-46 admitted that having been misled by Sri M.S. Narayana he stated earlier that he received no objection from Sri V.R. Avula and court fee was paid by Sri V.R. Avula. The said version corroborates the stand of Sri V.R. Avula that he never signed any no objection endorsement and the same did not also arise as he was not given any vakalath by the parties. R-8/ Sri P. Bhaktavatsal, however, resiled from this version in Ex. A-46 in his second affidavit Ex. The said version corroborates the stand of Sri V.R. Avula that he never signed any no objection endorsement and the same did not also arise as he was not given any vakalath by the parties. R-8/ Sri P. Bhaktavatsal, however, resiled from this version in Ex. A-46 in his second affidavit Ex. A-59, for no stated reasons, Except mentioning that he had to file the said affidavit under certain misleading and compelling circumstances, which are inexplicable, he has no chosen to disclose the said reasons or circumstances under which such an affidavit under Ex. A46 was filed earlier. He wanted to stick to the earliest version contained in Ex.A-35 made before the Joint Registrar to the effect that the appeal papers were initially filed by Sri V.R. Avula and the parties approached him only at the time of resubmission along with a no objection vakalth given by Sri V.R. Avula. 23. R-9/Sri P. Venugopal Rao, clerk of R-6/Sri V.R. Avula in his sworn statement Ex. A41 made before the Joint Registrar stated that he has no connection with ASSR No. 41417 of 2001 and he has not filed the same. Subsequently, he filed an affidavit Ex. A49 wherein he reiterated the same and further stated that he has not deposited Rs. 72,966/- in SBH, on 8-9-2004 towards court fees and Rs. 50/- towards lodgment schedule and he has also not taken return of case bundle on 16-09-2004 and that their office has not connection with the aforesaid appeal. He filed further affidavit Ex. A-70 seeking an unconditional apology and praying that all further proceedings against him may be dropped. Ex. A-8 is the vakalath of Sri P. Bhaktavatsal /R-8 purporting to Contain endorsement of no objection of Sri. V.R. Avula/R-6. Sri. V.R. Avula has disputed the said signature on Ex. A-8 and stated that it does not belong to him. The genuineness or otherwise of the same cannot be established in the present proceedings. Ex.A-6 is the counter-foil of challan for deposit of Rs.72,966/- on 8-9-2004 and Ex .A-7 is the challan for payment of lodgment schedule in a sum of Rs.50/-. In Ex. A-6 the name of Sri. V.R. Avula is noted and in Ex.A-7 the name of both V.R. Avula and Sri. P. Bhaktavatsal are noted. In the light of the affidavits filed by Sri. V.R. Avula and his clerk Sri. In Ex. A-6 the name of Sri. V.R. Avula is noted and in Ex.A-7 the name of both V.R. Avula and Sri. P. Bhaktavatsal are noted. In the light of the affidavits filed by Sri. V.R. Avula and his clerk Sri. P. Venugopal and the second affidavit of Sri. P. Bhaktavatsal under Ex.A-46 wherein he stated that he got the appeal filed and the court fee was paid through his clerk Sri. M.S. Narayana, notwithstanding his subsequent disclaimer, no liability can be fastened on R-6/Sri V.R. Avula, simply because his name finds mention on the challans Exs. A-6 and A-7. Ex. A-5, the docket of memorandum of grounds shows the name of Sri. P. Bhaktavatsal, as the counsel for the appellants. The record does not disclose that Sri V.R. Avula has filed the appeal papers along with his vakalath. In the absence of any proof that it was Sri. V.R. Avula, Advocate who filed the appeal along with his vakalath, it cannot be said that either himself or his clerk Sri. P. Venugopal was in any way associated with the tampering of the docket of CRPSR No. 41417 of 2001 and making use of the same for filing the appeal. 24. Sri M.S. Narayana (R.10) who is the clerk of Sri. P. Bhaktavatsal, Advocate, gave a statement before the Joint Registrar under Ex. A. 39 dated 22.12.2005 stating that the application for condonation of delay of 1139 days in representing AS SR 41417 of 2001 vide CMP SR No. 56652 was filed by him on 29.12.2004 on the instructions of Sri P. Bhaktavatsal, Advocate and the affidavit in support of the application was signed by him. He however, stated that he does not know who filed AS SR at the first instance and he does not know what transpired after representing ASSR vide CMP SR No. 56652 of 2004. Subsequently, he filed application in CA No. 255 of 2007 under Ex. A.47 seeking mercy and offering unconditional apology and praying for recall of the directions given to the Registrar General on 26.03.2007 and also to withdraw the complaint in CR. No. 61 of 2007 of Charminar PS. In the affidavit field in support of the application, Sri M.S. Narayana has sated that the appeal papers were entrusted to him by Sri. A.47 seeking mercy and offering unconditional apology and praying for recall of the directions given to the Registrar General on 26.03.2007 and also to withdraw the complaint in CR. No. 61 of 2007 of Charminar PS. In the affidavit field in support of the application, Sri M.S. Narayana has sated that the appeal papers were entrusted to him by Sri. P. Bhaktvatsal along with entire record in OS No. 18 of 2000 and also memorandum of grounds of appeal and the petition to dispense with filing of certified copies of judgment and decree and also court fee amount and other incidental expenditure. He further stated that he could not file the appeal in time and utilized major part of the court fee amount Rs. 85,000/- to meet his family medical expenditure on account of ill-health of his wife and one of his three daughters and Sri P. Bhaktavatsal enquired him about the appeal and he informed him that the appeal was already filed. He further stated in the said affidavit that in 2004 the appellants approached Sri P. Bhaktavatsal, Advocate, who in turn directed them to him and as he was desperate at that time and to get out of the trouble, he searched in the return section and found a revision filed by Sri. M. Ravindranath Reddy was returned in 2001 and was not taken back for representation that he signed in the return register as clerk of Sri Ravindranath Reddy and took return Of the same, removed the docket sheet and made necessary corrections using white fluid and over typed the correct description and represented the same. He further stated that in the enquiry he did not place the truth before the Enquiry Officer and gave a different picture. He further revealed in his affidavit that none of the Advocates namely Sri. M. Ravindranath Reddy, Sri. V.R. Avula, Sri. P. Bhaktavatsal nor the Appellants, who paid the court fee and expenses, were to be blamed, that he was owning full responsibility for acts of dereliction of duty, meddling with the proceedings of the Court by unauthorized alteration of proceedings and offered to accept the punishment meted out to him and sought mercy of the Court in the matter of punishment. The said petition CA. No. 255 of 2007 was dismissed by this Court on 23.04.2007. Subsequently, Sri M.S. Narayana, filed affidavit Ex. The said petition CA. No. 255 of 2007 was dismissed by this Court on 23.04.2007. Subsequently, Sri M.S. Narayana, filed affidavit Ex. A. 47-A, wherein he reiterated the utilization of the major part of the court fee amount of Rs. 85,000/-and taking return of a revision petition filed by Sri M. Rabindranath Reddy and tampering the docket of the said CRP and making use of the same for filing the appeal. In the said affidavit, he further disclosed that having found in the bundle that the grounds of appeal were prepared by Sri V.R. Avula, he paid the court fee and also lodgment schedule in the name of Sri V.R. Avula and removed the name of Sri V R Avula by applying white fluid and replaced his name with that of Sri P. Bhaktavatsal and represented the appeal with the petition to condone the delay. He further stated that when the appeal was returned on 6.9.2004 for compliance of certain office objections. He represented the same along with vakalath of Sri P, Bhakatavatsal with no objection endorsement of Sri V.R. Avula by singing the signature of Sri V.R. Avula. His affidavit further reiterated that he has taken CRP SR No. 41417 of 2001 presented by Sri M. Ravindranath Reddy, retuned in the year 2001 without his knowledge and consent and removed his name by applying white fluid an inserted the name of Sri V.R. Avula and thereafter removed his name by again applying white fluid and inserted the name of Sri P. Bhaktavatsal without their knowledge and consent. Subsequently, he gave further affidavit Ex. A.71 tendering unconditional apology and praying for dropping of all further proceedings. 25. The affidavits filed by Sri M.S. Narayana clearly disclose that he played the entire fraud. Firstly, he has misappropriated the amount of Rs. 85,000/- given by the appellants i.e., Respondents 1 to 5 herein for payment of court fee and to met other expenses, for his personal use. He did not file any appeal in 2001. Sri P. Bhaktavatsal, Advocate entrusted the appeal papers to him. Firstly, he has misappropriated the amount of Rs. 85,000/- given by the appellants i.e., Respondents 1 to 5 herein for payment of court fee and to met other expenses, for his personal use. He did not file any appeal in 2001. Sri P. Bhaktavatsal, Advocate entrusted the appeal papers to him. He did not make good the amount, even subsequently also and kept silent for nearly three years and when the appellant started making enquired in the year 2004 about the appeal, he resorted to tampering of the docket sheet of CRP SR 41417 of 2001, which he has unauthorized taken return by signing as the clerk of Sri M. Ravindranath Reddy, Advocate and made alterations and corrections by making use of white fluid to make it appeal as though it was a docket sheet pertaining to appeal AS SR 41417 of 2001 filed in the year 2001 and represented in 2004 with a petition to condone the delay of 1139 days in representation. In the process he has indulged in impersonation, falsification of records, forgery and nothing the names of the counsel and strike out those names at will that suited his convenience and without the knowledge of the Concerned counsel. From the affidavits filed by Sri. M.S. Narayana, it is manifestly clear that he alone was responsible for all the illegalities and irregularities in the matter, which amounted to playing fraud and also interference with the administration of justice and abuse of the process of Court. The above affidavits of Sri. M.S. Narayana also go to show that neither Sri. V.R. Avula (R.6) nor Sri. P. Bhaktavatsal, Advocate (R.8) was aware of the illegalities committed by him in their names. 26. Sri. P. Bhaktavatsal, (R.8) Advocate filed affidavit Ex. A. 46, wherein he stated that he has gone through the affidavit filed by Sri. M.S. Narayana. He also stated that he entrusted amount of Rs. 85,000/-to Sri. M.s. Narayana, Clerk for filing the appeal. Having given such an affidavit under Ex. A. 46 stating that whole mischief was played by Sri M.S. Narayana, subsequently, he gave another affidavit and preferring to stand by the sworn statement given by him before the Joint Registrar under Ex. He also stated that he entrusted amount of Rs. 85,000/-to Sri. M.s. Narayana, Clerk for filing the appeal. Having given such an affidavit under Ex. A. 46 stating that whole mischief was played by Sri M.S. Narayana, subsequently, he gave another affidavit and preferring to stand by the sworn statement given by him before the Joint Registrar under Ex. A.35 wherein he stated that the appeal papers came to him only at the time of resubmission with no objection vakalath of Sri V.R. Avula and that he was not associated with original filing of the appeal. The volteface on the part of Sri. P. Bhaktavatsal (R.8) Advocate, apart from resulting in prevarication and self contradiction is also rather intriguing. In the subsequent affidavit Ex. A. 69 on 19.12.2007 Sri P. Bhaktavatsal (R.8) admitted that in the matter of filing, processing and prosecuting ASSR 41417 of 2001, gross abuse of process was committed, but claims that he came to know of the same subsequently in the month of December 2005 and finally offered sincere apologies to the Court for the failure on his part in not taking care and caution and not verifying the original file. It is unfortunate that the learned counsel have no control over the functioning of the Advocate Clerks. 27. Several affidavits filed by Sri. P. Bhaktavatsal (R.8) at different stages shifting his version from time to time gave an impression that there is something more than what meets the eye insofar as his role is concerned. However, in view of the clean confession made by Sri. M.S. Narayana, wherein a clean chit is given to Sri. P. Bhaktavatsal (R.8) as well and there being no material to show that Sri. P. Bhaktavatsal had colluded with Sri M.S. Narayana and played any part in the various illegalities and irregularities committed by Sri M.S. Narayana, it cannot be said that Sri. P. Bhaktavatsal (R.8) was also a co-perpetrator of the fraud played by Sri. M.S. Narayana. 28. P. Bhaktavatsal (R.8) as well and there being no material to show that Sri. P. Bhaktavatsal had colluded with Sri M.S. Narayana and played any part in the various illegalities and irregularities committed by Sri M.S. Narayana, it cannot be said that Sri. P. Bhaktavatsal (R.8) was also a co-perpetrator of the fraud played by Sri. M.S. Narayana. 28. In Mrithyunjoy Das & Another vs. Sayed Hasibur Rahaman & Others (2001) 3 SCC 739 , the apex Court held that ‘proceedings under Contempt of Courts Act are part of Court’s extraordinary jurisdiction and are quasi-criminal in nature, and as such, the standard of proof required is that of a criminal proceedings and so the contempt must be established beyond reasonable doubt.’ In the above decision, observations of Lord Denning in ‘Re. Bramblevale Ltd’s (1969) 3 All ER 1062 (CA) case were extracted thus: “A contempt of court is an offence of a criminal character. A man may be sent to prison for it must be satisfactorily proved. To use the time-honored phrase, it must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. It is not proved by showing that, when the man was asked about, he told lies. There must be some further evidence to incriminate him. Once some evidence is given, then his lies can be thrown into the scale against him. But there must be some other evidence…. Where there are two equally consistent possibilities open to the Court, it is not right to hold that the offence is proved beyond reasonable doubt.” 29. In the present case, there is no such evidence available on record as to incriminate Sri. P. Bhaktavatsal, Advocate and render him liable. Any amount of suspicion aroused over his role in the matter from the prevaricative and contradictory versions put forward by him from time to time cannot take the place of proof that too proof beyond reasonable doubt regarding his involvement. However, the very fact that Sri. P. Bhaktavatsal has chosen to place before the court different versions at different stages either by way of sworn statement or sworn affidavits contrary to one another is a conduct unbecoming on the part of a practicing Advocate, who is expected to assist the court by telling the truth. 30. Coming to the role of staff members. Respondents 11 to 13, Smt. P. Ramalakshmi Devi (R.11) gave affidavit Ex. 30. Coming to the role of staff members. Respondents 11 to 13, Smt. P. Ramalakshmi Devi (R.11) gave affidavit Ex. P.61 stating that she was allotted the work of entering the returned bundles in the Returned Register and CRP SR 41417 of 2001 was accordingly returned by making entry in Book No.8 Return Register on 26.06.2001 and also entered the same in the ledger. She further stated that some times if the Advocates or clerks are not interested in the matter, they would not take the returned bundle. Ex. A.5 docket of grounds of appeal shows that CRP SR 41417 of 2001 was returned on 25.6.2001. EX.A19 is the relevant entry in the allotment register of 2001 showing return of CRP SR 41417 of 2001. Ex. A5 also shows that the letters ‘CRP’ was altered as ‘AS’ by overwriting and the same was re-presented on 7.9.2004, as if, the appeal papers were resubmitted complying with the objections. Ex. A.20 is the relevant entry in the Return Register of 2001 showing return of CRP SR 41417 of 2001 bundle standing in the name of R. Ravindranath Reddy, which Sri. M.S. Narayana is stated to have taken return by signing as clerk of Sri Ravindranath Reddy. 31. Smt. Suvarnamala (R.12) gave affidavit under Ex. A.60 stating that she was in-charge of making entries in the SR allotment register from June 2004 to December 2004 in the appeal filing section and after making the entry in the allotment register, she allotted the appeal papers to Smt. C. Swarnalatha, Scrutiny Officer. She further stated that she has not entertained any doubt with regard to the corrections made under bona fide impression that the while fluid was used for a bona fide purpose. Ex. A21 is the entry in the allotment register relating to AS SR 41417 of 2001 dated 8.9.2004 together with AS MP SRS 47207, 47208 and 47210 of 2004. Ex. A.22 is the entry in the Distribution Register dated 15.09.2004 showing that AS SR 41417 of 2001 along with ASMP SRs 47208 and 47210 of 2004 were retuned and they were taken by Sri. M.S. Narayana, as if Advocate clerk of Sri. V.R. Avula. Ex. A.23 is the entry showing allotment of the papers for scrutiny to CSL (Smt. C. Swarnalatha). Ex.A.24 is the relevant entry from the personal register of Smt. C. Swarnalatha, Scrutiny Officer, showing that she scrutinized the papers. M.S. Narayana, as if Advocate clerk of Sri. V.R. Avula. Ex. A.23 is the entry showing allotment of the papers for scrutiny to CSL (Smt. C. Swarnalatha). Ex.A.24 is the relevant entry from the personal register of Smt. C. Swarnalatha, Scrutiny Officer, showing that she scrutinized the papers. 32. Smt. C. Swarnalatha, Scrutiny Officer gave a statement before the Joint Registrar under Ex. A.37 admitting that she was allotted with the papers of AS SR 41417 of 2001 along with petition to condone the delay in representation on 8.9.2004 and she passed CMP after calculating number of days of delay. She, however, does not remember as to whether there are over-writing at that time on the docket. Subsequently, she filed an affidavit Ex. A.55 stating that she has not done anything malignant while discharging her duties and in case needle of suspicion is pointed out towards her, she may be exonerated by accepting her unconditional apology. Subsequently, she filed another affidavit Ex. A.56-A denying that there was any collusion with any one in any manner and stating that the bundle was represented as ASSR and was allotted to her as such and therefore she had no occasion to suspect that it was a wrong bundle pertaining to CRP and the white fluid is used to conceal the original CRP SR number. She finally stated that she never suspected any foul play and her passing ASSR after scrutiny may be an honest error but not an act of contempt and she therefore offered unconditional apology and sought exoneration. 33. A perusal of main docket sheet would disclose that white fluid was applied to conceal the original entries pertaining to CRP and they were substituted with fresh entries pertaining to ASSR by changing the name of the Court, district, counsel, and other material particulars while retaining the SR 41417 of 2001 to make it appear as though the appeal was filed in 2001 with certain office objections and that they were subsequently re-submitted on 7.9.2004 along with the petition to condone the delay of 1139 days in representation of the appeal. 34. 34. When the docket was so glaringly defaced by applying white fluid not at one or two places, but at so many places so as to bring about a total change and alteration regarding the material particulars of the case appearing on the docket of CRPSR for converting the same into ASSR, neither Smt. Suvarnamala, Junior Assistant, who handled the file at the first instance and made entries in the SR allotment register and allotted the same for the purpose of scrutiny nor Smt. Swarnalatha, Scrutiny Officer, who had actually scrutinized the bundle before passing the same, have bothered to notice the alterations which are apparent on the face of the record and chose to ignore the same. The plea of Smt. Suvarnamala that she did not entertain any doubt as she was under the impression that white fluid was used for bona fide purpose and stand of Smt. Swarnalatha that as the case papers entrusted to her were stated to be ASSR papers, she treated them as such and, therefore, did not suspect the misuse of CRPSR docket, are untenable. The nature and extent of the defacement of the docket with white fluid and over writings and alterations made thereon are telltale so as to put anyone on caution. A person in-charge of scrutiny of the papers is not expected to pass the papers without properly checking and by turning a blind eye even to such glaring and manifest erasures and over writings appearing on the face of the record. 35. The papers filed into the Court are supported to be neat, clean and legible. If they are not confirming to the prescribed standard, the papers are required to be returned for filing neat, clean and legible copies. The failure of Smt. Suvarnamala and Smt. Swarnalatha to notice the misuse of CRPSR docket while filing the appeal papers on 7-9-2004 making it appear as though they were originally filed in 2001, but represented in 2004, prima facie amounts to negligence and dereliction of duty warranting necessary disciplinary action against them. The failure of Smt. Suvarnamala and Smt. Swarnalatha to notice the misuse of CRPSR docket while filing the appeal papers on 7-9-2004 making it appear as though they were originally filed in 2001, but represented in 2004, prima facie amounts to negligence and dereliction of duty warranting necessary disciplinary action against them. Similarly, failure of Smt. P. Ramalakshmi Devi who was in-charge of returning of the bundles to ensure that CRPSR No. 41417 of 2001 was returned to proper and concerned person, also prima facie amounts to negligence and dereliction of duty, inasmuch as if only had she been diligent while returning the said CRP bundle, it would not have gone into wrong hands for being misused. The lack of diligence and alertness on the part of the above three members of the staff does not, however, lead to any inference that there was any active collusion on their part with the perpetrators of fraud. There is no material on record to warrant any inference that the above three staff members were in any way associated with the tampering of the docket of the CRPSR for converting the same into ASSR or that they connived with the culprits. The above three staff members cannot, therefore, be held to have committed any act of commission or omission amounting to contempt of court, but nevertheless, necessary disciplinary action is required to be initiated against them. 36. What emerges from the above discussion is that the plaintiffs/appellants/respondents 1 to 5 herein, intending to file the appeal against the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 18 of 2000 on the file of the I-Additional District Court, Ranga Reddy, got the grounds of appeal prepared by Sri V.R. Avula, Advocate Sri. P. Bhaktavatsal along with necessary money for payment of Court fees and incidental expenses and Sri P. Bhaktavatsal engaged the services of Sri M.S. Narayana, a registered Clerk, for the purpose of filing the appeal and Sri M.S. Narayana misappropriated the amount of Rs. 85,000/-for his own personal expenses and did not file the appeal in the year 2001 and subsequently in 2004 when the heat turned on him and when the appellants 1 to 5 herein were enquiring about the stage of the appeal, Sri. 85,000/-for his own personal expenses and did not file the appeal in the year 2001 and subsequently in 2004 when the heat turned on him and when the appellants 1 to 5 herein were enquiring about the stage of the appeal, Sri. M. Narayana with a view to wriggle out of the situation and get over the bar of limitation, has searched for and laid his hands on an old returned bundle of CRPSR 41417 of 2001 filed by Sri. M. Ravindranath Reddy, Advocate, but not actually taken return of by him and lying in the office of the Registry, and Sri M.S. Narayana claiming to be the Clerk of Sri. M. Ravindranath Reddy, took return of the same from Smt. P. Rama Lakshmi Devi, the Clerk in-charge of returning the bundles and erased the material particulars of the CRPSR by applying white fluid and made alterations by way of over writings and by substituting the particulars of ASSR and filed the same on 7-9-2004, making it appear as though it was originally filed as ASSR 41417 of 2001 in the year 2001 itself and the objections taken by the office on 25-06-2001 were complied with and it was only a case of representation on 7-9-2004, and neither the allotment Clerk Smt. Suvarnamala nor the Scrutiny Officer Smt. Swarnalatha have noticed the above misuse of CRPSR docket. 37. The material on record does not indicate the involvement of respondents 1 to 5 herein, who are the appellants and on the other hand they appear to have become victims owing to the machinations of certain unscrupulous elements plaguing the system. It is unfortunate that seekers of justice who have come to Court to vindicate their rights have become victims of fraud for no fault of theirs. There is no sufficient material on record to establish the involvement of the learned counsel Sri. V.R. Avula or Sri. D. Narayana Rao in the fraud played on the Court. Though the conduct of Sri P.B. Bhaktavatsal, learned counsel, in projecting different versions and shifting his stand from time to time is unbecoming of a professional, there is however, no material to show that he was hand-in-glove with Sri. M.S. Narayana, the actual perpetrator of the fraud. There is also nothing on record to suggest the involvement of Sri. P. Venugopal Rao, Clerk of Sri V.R. Avula in any manner in the whole affair. M.S. Narayana, the actual perpetrator of the fraud. There is also nothing on record to suggest the involvement of Sri. P. Venugopal Rao, Clerk of Sri V.R. Avula in any manner in the whole affair. The staff members Smt. P. Ramalakshmi Devi, Smt. Suvarnamala and Smt. Swarnalatha, cannot also be held to have connived or colluded with Sri M.S. Narayana, though their conduct warrants disciplinary action for their negligence and dereliction of duty. 38. Sri. M.S. Narayana, the Advocate Clerk engaged by Sri. P. Bhaktavatsal for filing the appeal papers is solely and wholly liable for all the illegalities and irregularities committed by him in the matter of filing the appeal in 2004 by misusing an old CRP docket of 2001 to make it appear as though the appeal itself was filed in 2001 under SR. No. 41417 and that it was returned and subsequently represented in the year 2004 complying with the objections taken by the office though, in fact, he has not filed the appeal in the year 2001 when it was entrusted to him but filed the same only in the year 2004. The confessional statement of Sri. M.S. Narayana contained in his affidavit further discloses that he has not only misappropriated the amount of Rs. 85,000/- given by respondents 1 to 5 for the purpose of payment of court fees and meeting the incidental expenses, but also indulged in forgery, impersonation and falsification of record. The various acts of omission and commission on his part certainly amount to playing fraud on the Court and interference with the administration of justice and abuse of process of Court. In fact, he has taken the parties, the learned Counsel, the staff members of the Court for a ride by his machinations. The CRPSR 41417 of 2001 docket was the official record of the Court and the same was tampered with by Sri. M.S. Narayana, after surreptitiously obtaining return of the same. In fact, he has taken the parties, the learned Counsel, the staff members of the Court for a ride by his machinations. The CRPSR 41417 of 2001 docket was the official record of the Court and the same was tampered with by Sri. M.S. Narayana, after surreptitiously obtaining return of the same. Converting the said CRP docket into ASSR by resorting to over writings and alteration of material particulars and filing the same in the year 2004 an adopting the CRPSR 41417 of 2001 so as to make it appear as though it was originally filed in the year 2001 and was returned and represented in the year 2004 in order to get over the bar of limitation, certainly would amount to interference with due course of judicial proceeding and interference with the administration of justice. The said conduct on the part of Sri. M.S. Narayana certainly amounts to criminal contempt of this Court within the meaning of Section 2[c] of Contempt of Courts Act and hence the charge is held proved against him in terms of Section 12 read with Section 15 of the Act and he is found guilty thereof. In respect of the other respondents, it is held that the material on record does not establish the charges framed against them. 39. Before parting with the case, it is considered necessary to observe that the whole incident has exposed certain shortcomings and deficiencies in the administrative mechanism pertaining to filing and return of the papers requiring necessary remedial measures to be taken for plugging the loopholes. The way in which the whole system is taken for a ride by the machinations of a single individual, exposes the vulnerability of the system itself apart from the human failures on the part of those concerned operating the system. In that context, the following suggestions are considered relevant and appropriate. a. A foolproof method of ensuring that the papers are returned to a proper and authorized person either an Advocate or Advocate’s Clerk needs to be put in place. b. In the event of the returned bundles not being taken physical return by the parties/Advocates, within reasonable time, steps shall be taken to consign them to the Record room for eventual destruction as per the Rules. b. In the event of the returned bundles not being taken physical return by the parties/Advocates, within reasonable time, steps shall be taken to consign them to the Record room for eventual destruction as per the Rules. c. It is all the more desirable, if the papers once filed are not allowed to go out of the Registry by providing for compliance of objections on the spot making necessary arrangements for the same. d. It shall be ensured that when two cases, of different categories, carry the same SR number misuse of SR number of one category while filing the case of another category does not occur. e. Necessary checks and alerts may be built into the computerized programming so as to prevent/detect any such misuse of the SR numbers. f. The complaints over genuineness/authenticity of the signatures of the learned counsel, for the endorsements showing receipt of affidavits, documents and other papers served on them by the other side are not uncommon leading to situations where one party claims to have served papers etc. while the other party denies the same. In order to avoid such unpleasant situations a foolproof method, which admits verification of the genuineness/authenticity or otherwise of such signatures needs to be evolved. g. It is high time to consider the feasibility of insisting upon the notarization of the affidavits/sworn statements filed into Court so that complaints of impersonation or filing of papers into Court by unauthorized persons can be avoided, by amending the rules, if necessary. h. Necessary training may have to be imparted to the staff concerned in the matter of receiving papers, scrutiny of papers and return of papers filed, as some of the staff members have in their statements attributed their failure to lack of proper training. i. The learned counsel filing the papers into the Court shall be required to own the entire responsibility for the correctness and orderliness in the matter of filing without reference to the Advocate Clerks who do not appear to be accountable or answerable to any one. J. Necessary rules/regulations may have to be framed or formulated to regulate the activities of the Advocate Clerks making them liable for the consequences of the various acts of omission and commission on their part amounting to abuse of process of Court. 40. J. Necessary rules/regulations may have to be framed or formulated to regulate the activities of the Advocate Clerks making them liable for the consequences of the various acts of omission and commission on their part amounting to abuse of process of Court. 40. The Registrar General is directed to place the matter before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice for getting the above suggestions examined and for taking necessary action as deemed fit and proper, including monitoring of the implementation of the remedial measures that may be taken in the matter. 41. The criminal proceedings initiated on the complaint given by the Registrar General as per the directions of this Court and registered as FIR in Cr. No. 61 of 2007 on the file of the Charminar PS, shall go on, without in any way being influenced by any of the observations made herein above. 42. The respondents 1 to 5 herein, the appellants in the main case, who are found to have become victims of the fraud, are at liberty to file fresh appeal duly seeking condonation of the delay. 43. It is directed that necessary disciplinary action be initiated against Smt. Ramalakshmi Devi [Respondent No. 11), Smt. G. Survarnamala (Respondent No. 12) and Smt. C. Swarnalatha (Respondent No. 13), for negligence and dereliction of duty on their part. 44. In the result, Sri M.S. Narayana (Respondent No. 10) is found guilty of criminal contempt of this Court under Sections 12 read with 2[C] and 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 for the reasons stated above and other respondents are found not guilty of the charges framed against them. This Suo Motu Contempt Case having been set down dated 10-11-2008, as per the Orders of the Hon’ble Court dated 7-11-2008 and upon hearing the arguments of the above said Counsel. BPR, J & GVS, J. Date: 10.11.2008 Respondent No. 10 is present in response to the warrant issued and the learned counsel for R-10 is also present. Heard them on the quantum of punishment. BPR, J & GVS, J. Date: 10.11.2008 Respondent No. 10 is present in response to the warrant issued and the learned counsel for R-10 is also present. Heard them on the quantum of punishment. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and especially in view of the findings under Sections 10 read with 2 (C) and 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Rule 5(a) of the Contempt of Court Rules, 1980 and in view of the seriousness of the offence, it is not a case of mere disobedience of an order of Court and it is virtually committing fraud on the institution i.e., the High Court Administration which is quite serious in nature on the face of it. R-10 also pleaded for mercy. However, we are not inclined to show any indulgence. In the circumstances, we impose the punishment of simple imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs. 2,000/-(Rupees Two thousand only) against respondent No. 10-Sri M.S. Narayana. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Learned counsel for R-10 requested for suspension of the punishment. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any reason to suspend the punishment imposed on R-10. The Registrar Judicial shall take steps to execute the order.