JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard. 2. Respondent Birendra Kumar has filed three writ petitions and in each of the three writ petitions, he had taken three different stands as regards drawl of a loan from a particular financial institution which appear indicated in the order of reference dated 26.3.2012, initiating the contempt proceedings. His lordship finding the contradictory statement, which appeared to His Lordship false, was of the view that it was to scandalize or minimize the authority of the Court. We are not indefinite in holding the opinion that if false statements are made on oath in support of any contention so as to seeking any particular relief from a Court then it is definitely going to scandalize the Court as the very statement could be misleading the judge to a wrong decision. A judge is supposed to pass correct orders and judgments and if he is misled on account of any wrong and incorrect statement of facts then he is bound to be misled and to fall in error and thus the whole Court on the account of foully of a particular deponent may face disrepute of passing wrong orders or an order inconsistent to the consistent views of the Court on similar issues. This could be the reason that one should hold that making false or incorrect conflicting statement on oath may scandalize the Court. 3. But some of the realities which have been stated by the respondent, require to be considered in the context of our social realities. Most of the percentage of our population is illiterate, and if some percentage is literate the literacy is confined to the vernacular aspect of the term. English may be the language of the Court, but that is not the language always of the deponent and one of the realities of practice in all course is that possibly the deponent might not have been present when the draft was made or it was finalized and presented for registering the affidavit before the Oaths Commissioner. 4. English may be the language of the Court, but that is not the language always of the deponent and one of the realities of practice in all course is that possibly the deponent might not have been present when the draft was made or it was finalized and presented for registering the affidavit before the Oaths Commissioner. 4. We may not be meant to castigate it, but the system runs on some of the realities which may not be 100 percent as per rules and expected procedures and if the deponent, i.e., present respondent has stated in his written statement that being an illiterate fellow he was not acquainted with any nuances of the language English, then we may not be finding fault with him by recording that he was creating a false defence in a contempt proceeding. We accept, to some extent, that he might not be well versed in English. But the counsel has noted down in one of the paragraphs that the contents of affidavit were readover by him and explained to the deponent also. 5. The man is present before us in the Court room, and we have looked at his face and we find that he might not be aware of as to what we are doing presently in the present proceeding and what we are dictating presently which could be deciding his fate in respect of the present proceedings. This could probably be summing up the incidental facts, past and present which could be relevant for the present purposes. 6. But then one of the Hon’ble Judges of the Court while sitting as such, has made a reference and has recorded a finding that the statements were false made on affidavit and those were meant to mislead the Hon’ble Judge in granting a relief which in light of the earlier statements of deponent could not have been granted. That finding does not appear out of the context. We are informed that the respondent has remained in custody, after being taken therein by the Hon’ble Judge, for seven days. Even if we accept all facts on their face value as pure act of contempt, the nature of the same may not have permitted us to inflict a greater confinement upon the respondent. 7. We, as such, sentence the respondent after finding him guilty of the act of contempt to the period he has already served. Even if we accept all facts on their face value as pure act of contempt, the nature of the same may not have permitted us to inflict a greater confinement upon the respondent. 7. We, as such, sentence the respondent after finding him guilty of the act of contempt to the period he has already served. 8. This proceeding stands disposed of in the above terms. ——————