Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 220 (MP)

State of M. P. v. Sonu Parashar

2014-02-18

SUJOY PAUL

body2014
ORDER 1. This contempt petition is arising out of the order dated 26.4.2013 passed in Writ Petition No.653/2013. The said writ petition was filed by Sonu Parashar by contending that his candidature for the post of Senior Secondary Recruit (SSR) in Indian Navy is wrongly rejected. 2. It was canvassed that the height of Sonu Parashar on the basis of Annexure P-4 dated 24.1.2013 (in the writ petition) is 157.5 cm., which is much more than the cut off height, i.e., 156 cm. This certificate is issued by Dr. J.P. Sonkar, a Government Doctor. This Court while hearing the writ petition found that the certificate is unusual and unique in nature. It was mentioned in the certificate that “after four months course of exercise and medicine, his height is 157.5 cm.” Thus, by order dated 25.2.2013 the Government Advocate was directed to seek instructions on the said medical certificate. In turn, Dr. Sonkar filed his affidavit dated 5.3.2013 and stated that Sonu Parashar came to him and submitted that he want to join the Navy, therefore, he is required a medical certificate. He admitted that due to mistake it has been mentioned that after four months exercise and medicine height is 157.5 cm. It is also mentioned that it was not based on any ill-intention of giving undue advantage to Sonu Parashar. Unconditional apology is also prayed for with further submission that in future he will not follow this kind of procedure and will not issue such kind of certificate. Dissatisfied with this stand of Dr. Sonkar, wherein he only admitted that certificate was incorrect to the extent it is mentioned that “after four months course of exercise and medicine, his height is 157.5 cm.”, this Court directed the Government to constitute a Medical Board to measure the height of Sonu Parashar. It is apt to mention here that in the first affidavit dated 5.3.2013, Dr. Sonkar has not admitted that height of the petitioner was wrongly measured. In obedience of the Court order, the Medical Board measured the height of Sonu Parashar and found his height as 156 cm.. After receiving this medical report, this Court directed Dr. Sonkar to file his affidavit and explain his conduct. In turn, he filed his affidavit dated 9.4.2013. It is mentioned in this affidavit that Dr. Sonkar being Senior Medical Officer instructed the subordinate staff to measure height of Sonu Parashar. After receiving this medical report, this Court directed Dr. Sonkar to file his affidavit and explain his conduct. In turn, he filed his affidavit dated 9.4.2013. It is mentioned in this affidavit that Dr. Sonkar being Senior Medical Officer instructed the subordinate staff to measure height of Sonu Parashar. The height was measured by subordinate staff through inch-tape. Dr. Sonkar recorded the height, which was told to him by the subordinate staff. In para 5 of the affidavit, it is mentioned that the mistake has been committed due to oversight in watching the centimeters on the inch-tape. However, it is defended by saying that it is bona fide. Unconditional apology is again prayed for. 3. If the second affidavit is examined in juxtaposition to first affidavit, it will be clear that in the first affidavit Dr. Sonkar has not made any effort to honestly admit that height was wrongly recorded. The first affidavit only shows his admission regarding giving four months course of exercise and medicine. However, in the second affidavit it is admitted that the height was wrongly recorded by the subordinate staff. This Court was not satisfied with the explanation and accordingly, by detailed order dated 26.4.2013 in the said writ petition directed the Registry to initiate contempt proceedings against Sonu Parashar and Dr. J.P. Sonkar. This order was challenged by Dr. Sonkar by filing Writ Appeal No.197/2013. The Division Bench on 1.5.2013 dismissed the said writ appeal and opined that prima facie it appears to be a serious matter and appellant has made himself liable for contempt of Court. This finding is given by the Division Bench after considering the scope and ambit of section 2(c) of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Section 2(c) defines “Criminal Contempt”. 4. In the writ petition, an affidavit is filed by Dr. Sonkar on 16.4.2013. In this affidavit again he stated that the certificate containing height of Sonu Parashar was issued on the basis of measurement recorded by subordinate staff and he without verifying the same issued the certificate. For this, he prayed for an unconditional apology. In another affidavit filed in writ petition, dated 16.4.2013, Sonu Parashar from paras 1 to 5 justified the action and stated that there is no collusion between him and the doctor. It is further mentioned that he has not made any attempt to mislead the Court. For this, he prayed for an unconditional apology. In another affidavit filed in writ petition, dated 16.4.2013, Sonu Parashar from paras 1 to 5 justified the action and stated that there is no collusion between him and the doctor. It is further mentioned that he has not made any attempt to mislead the Court. He approached the Court with clean hands and with bona fide intention. In para 7 of the affidavit, he stated that he extends his unconditional apology ‘for any of the cause done by him, which has resulted into inconvenience to this Court’. Dr. Sonkar in his affidavit dated 9.4.2013 reiterated his earlier stand and stated that the mistake has been committed due to oversight in watching the centimeters on the inch-tape. However, it is submitted that for the inconvenience caused to this Court he is praying for unconditional apology. In the affidavit dated 9.4.2013 filed in the writ petition, Dr. Sonkar had admitted in para 5 that the mistake of measurement has been committed due to oversight in watching of centimeters on the inch-tape. After making this admission, an affidavit dated 17.6.2013 is filed by the said doctor in the contempt petition. Reliance is placed on some research paper related to “Diurnal Variation of Stature in Three Adults and One Child”. On the basis of this research paper it is stated that if height of the candidate is being measured in morning time, it may vary from the measurement taken in the later point of time. Thus, after admitting the fault in earlier affidavit again an attempt is made to justify the action. Lastly, an affidavit dated 22.10.2013 is filed in the contempt petition. In this last affidavit, it is mentioned by the said doctor that he is praying for an unconditional apology with folded hands for the wrong committed by him and he also realises his mistake. In this affidavit it is mentioned that he does not want to explain how the mistake occurred. 5. The aforesaid chain of events make it crystal clear that at the initial stage Dr. Sonkar made an effort to justify the height of the petitioner. In the first affidavit, he has not chosen to state anything about the height which was wrongly measured. 5. The aforesaid chain of events make it crystal clear that at the initial stage Dr. Sonkar made an effort to justify the height of the petitioner. In the first affidavit, he has not chosen to state anything about the height which was wrongly measured. When height was found to be wrongly measured by the Medical Board, he improved his stand and stated that the height was wrongly measured by his subordinate. However, despite the order dated 26.4.2013 passed in Writ Petition No.653/2013, Dr. Sonkar did not furnish the names of those subordinates who had undertaken the aforesaid exercise of measuring of Sonu Parashar’s height. 6. The basic question is whether the “unconditional apology” prayed for by Sonu Parashar and Dr. Sonkar should be accepted ? 7. Shri K.N. Gupta and Shri V.K. Bharadwaj, learned senior counsel relied on (1995)1 SCC 150 (Tarun Bharat Sangh, Alwar v. Union of India and others), (2010)15 SCC 164 (S. Sharat Kumar and another v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others), and 2011 AIR SCW 5761 (Sanjoy Narayan, Editor-in-Chief, Hindustan and others v. Hon. High Court of Allahabad through R.G.). On the strength of these judgments, it is contended that the unconditional apology be accepted. Shri D.K.Katare, learned counsel informed that despite repeated information by way of telephone and letters, the original petitioner Sonu Parashar is not contacting him. 8. This is settled in law that in order to constitute contempt it is not necessary that there should in fact be an actual interference with the course of administration of justice but it is enough if the offending act is likely or if it tends in any way to interfere with the proper administration of law. The summary jurisdiction exercised by superior Courts in punishing contempt of their authority exists for the purpose of preventing interference with the course of justice and for maintaining the authority of law as is administered in the Court and thereby affording protection to public interest in the purity of the administration of justice. This view is taken by Five Judges Bench of Supreme Court in case of Hira Lal Dixit v. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in AIR 1954 SC 743 . 9. This view is taken by Five Judges Bench of Supreme Court in case of Hira Lal Dixit v. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in AIR 1954 SC 743 . 9. Section 2(c) of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 defines “Criminal Contempt” as under : “2(c) “criminal contempt” means the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which -- (i) scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any Court; or (ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceeding; or (iii) interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner.” 10. Any attempt to actually interfere or attempt to interfere in due course of judicial proceeding amounts to criminal contempt. In absence of a manufactured medical certificate containing wrong height of Sonu Parashar, there was no reason or basis for filing the writ petition. Putting it differently, the whole writ petition is based on the basis of a medical certificate issued by Dr. J.P. Sonkar. A bare reading of the finding of this certificate makes it clear that it was a calculated attempt to mislead this Court and obtain a relief which was legally not due to Sonu Parashar. The misrepresentation could have resulted in his entry in an arm force of the nation. In my considered opinion, the conduct amounts to a criminal contempt on the part of Sonu Parashar and Dr. J.P. Sonkar. I am unable to accept the explanation of the contemners that it was an innocuous act on their part. In my view, any person can measure his height himself, it can be measured with the help of friend, family member, tailor or by anybody. This is not the case of Sonu Parashar that he went to the doctor for the purpose of checking the blood-pressure, sugar level etc. nor he went to the doctor to get opinion about his eye-sight or colour blindness. It is a simple case of measurement of somebody’s height. This is not the case of Sonu Parashar that he went to the doctor for the purpose of checking the blood-pressure, sugar level etc. nor he went to the doctor to get opinion about his eye-sight or colour blindness. It is a simple case of measurement of somebody’s height. In that case, there was no occasion for Dr.Sonkar to give opinion that “after four months exercise and medicine his height is 157.5 cm.” Thus, by no stretch ofimagination, it can be said that it is an innocuous and bona fide certificate. It was a calculated attempt to show the height of Sonu Parashar as 157.5 cm., which is found to be factually incorrect. Thus, bona fides of the contemners are not established. 11. This is settled in law that apology is not a weapon of defence to purge the guilt of the contemner. The apology must be sought at the earliest opportunity. The apology shown at a belated stage to escape punishment of the Court is not acceptable. The affidavit should be a product of remorse or contrition. In absence thereto, the apology needs to be rejected. This view is taken by the Supreme Court in (2003)5 SCC 376 (M.C.Mehta v. Union of India). The apex Court in (1995)1 SCC 421 (Chandra Shashi v. Anil Kumar Verma), opined that from the facts it is clear that the contemner had filed a forged and fabricated document in the court to resist the prayer of his wife to get the matrimonial proceeding transferred on the ground of her poverty. It was done with an oblique motive. It was further opined that the contempt jurisdiction has been conferred on superior Courts not only to preserve the majesty of law by taking appropriate action against one howsoever high he may be, if he violates the Court’s order, but also to keep the stream of justice clear and pure so that purity of Court’s atmosphere may give vitality to all the organs of the State and the parties who approach the Courts to receive justice do not have to wade through dirty and polluted water before entering their temples. It is further opined as under : “To enable the Courts to ward off unjustified interference in their working, those who indulge in immoral acts like perjury, prevarication and motivated falsehoods have to be appropriately dealt with, without which it would not be possible for any Court to administer justice in the true sense and to the satisfaction of those who approach it in the hope that truth would ultimately prevail. 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. The word “interfere”, means in the context of the subject, any action which checks or hampers the functioning or hinders or tends to prevent the performance of duty. Obstruction of justice is to interpose obstacles or impediments, or to hinder, impede or in any manner interrupt or prevent the administration of justice. If recourse to falsehood is taken with oblique motive, the same would definitely hinder, hamper or impede even flow of justice and would prevent the Courts from performing their legal duties as they are supposed to do.” While dealing with the question of apology tendered by the contemner, the apex Court opined as under : “In this case the apology tendered by the respondent- contemner was not a product of remorse or contrition and therefore, does not merit acceptance. An apology merely to protect against rigours of law is no apology. Apology cannot be used as a weapon of defence to get purged of the guilt, which precisely the contemner has sought to do as he desires to avoid worldly suffering which would follow if sentenced. A sentence of fine would not be conducive to the larger cause of maintenance of purity in the portals of Court inasmuch as if a fabricated document with oblique motive can be filed in the apex Court, a serious view for the same has to be taken to maintain a modicum of fairness in Courts below. This apart, the increasing tendency of taking recourse to objectionable means to get a favourable verdict in the Courts has to be viewed gravely to deter the large number of persons approaching Courts from doing so. Such a tendency is required to be curbed, which requires somewhat deterrent sentence.” 12. This apart, the increasing tendency of taking recourse to objectionable means to get a favourable verdict in the Courts has to be viewed gravely to deter the large number of persons approaching Courts from doing so. Such a tendency is required to be curbed, which requires somewhat deterrent sentence.” 12. In Ram Autar Shukla v. Arvind Shukla, reported in 1995 Supp (2) SCC 130, the apex Court opined as under : “The Contempt of Courts Act deals with any acts or conduct of the parties to the litigation or witnesses “in any manner”. The tendency on the part of the contemner in his action or conduct to prevent the course of justice is the relevant fact. Any interference in the course of justice, any obstruction caused in the path of those seeking justice are an affront to the majesty of law and, therefore, the conduct is punishable as contempt of Court. Law of contempt is only one of the many ways in which the due process of law is prevented from being perverted, hindered or thwarted to further the cause of justice. Due course of justice means not only any particular proceeding but a broad stream of administration of justice. Therefore, the words “due course of justice” used in section 2(c) or section 13 of the Act are of wide import and are not limited to any particular judicial proceeding. Due process of law is blinkered by acts or conduct of the parties to the litigation or witnesses which generate tendency to impede or undermine the free flow of the unsullied stream of justice by blatantly resorting, with impunity, to fabricate Court proceedings to thwart fair adjudication of dispute and its resultant end. If the act complained of substantially interferes with or tends to interfere with the broad stream of administration of justice it would be punishable under the Act. If the act complained of undermines the prestige of the Court or causes hindrance in the discharge of due course of justice, it is sufficient that the conduct complained of constitutes contempt of court and liable to be dealt with in accordance with the Act. If the act complained of undermines the prestige of the Court or causes hindrance in the discharge of due course of justice, it is sufficient that the conduct complained of constitutes contempt of court and liable to be dealt with in accordance with the Act. The tendency on the part of the parties either to produce fabricated evidence as a part of the pleadings or record or to fabricate the Court record itself for retarding or obstructing the course of justice or judicial proceedings to gain unfair advantage in the judicial process or to obstruct the due course of justice or to undermine the dignity of the Court needs to be severely dealt with to deter the persons having similar proclivity to resort to such acts or conduct. To do an act with the intention of preventing the course of justice is not itself enough but the acts must have also that tendency and the acts must have been done with an intent to prevent the course of justice. However, in an appropriate case, the mens rea may not be clear or may be obscure but if the act or conduct tends to undermine the dignity of the Court or prejudice the party or impedes or hinders the due course of judicial proceedings or administration of justice, it would amount to contempt of the Court.” 13. In (2004)9 SCC 670 (U.P. Residents Employees Co-operative House Building Society and others v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority and another), the apex Court opined that a false affidavit filedin the court with a view to mislead the Court amounts to contempt of Court. Suo motu cognizance can be taken for such contempt. 14. As analyzed above, the issuance and use of certificate, by no stretch of imagination, can be said to be an innocuous or bona fide act on the part of contemners. It is a calculated attempt to manufacture evidence with a view to obtain relief which was otherwise not due. The judgments cited by learned senior counsel in Tarun Bharat Sangh (supra), is of no assistance to them. In the said case, the doctor misbehaved with a Senior Advocate of Supreme Court. He on the first opportunity tendered unconditional apology. That was only a case of offensive behaviour of the doctor in the Court premises. The judgments cited by learned senior counsel in Tarun Bharat Sangh (supra), is of no assistance to them. In the said case, the doctor misbehaved with a Senior Advocate of Supreme Court. He on the first opportunity tendered unconditional apology. That was only a case of offensive behaviour of the doctor in the Court premises. The gravity of the present case is much higher because the contemners have made a calculated attempt to manufacture the evidence which was used with a view to mislead the court and obtain an undeserving relief. Similarly, the judgment of S. Sharat Kumar (supra), is also not applicable in the facts of this case. That was a case of publication of news item. In the said case also on the first available opportunity an unconditional apology was prayed for. Similarly, in Sanjoy Narayan (supra), the news item was published on which contempt proceedings were initiated. In the first opportunity, the unconditional apology was prayed for. Remorse was conveyed to the apex Court for such publication and, therefore, no punishment was imposed. 15. In the present case, no remorse or actual regret is shown by either of the contemners. They continuously made all efforts to justify their action. In absence of the element of real remorse and regret on the part of the contemners, unconditional apology cannot be accepted. Such apology cannot be treated as “unconditional apology”. On the one hand, the contemners made efforts to justify their act and on the other hand prayed for unconditional apology for the alleged inconvenience caused to this Court. With great pain, I would like to record that it is not a matter of mere “inconvenience” caused to the Court but the menace of cancerous growth of fabricated and manufactured documents. Unscrupulous litigants are trying to approach the Court with a pair of dirty hands. They do not feel shy to manufacture fake and fabricated documents, suppress material facts and also file petitions pregnant with half truth or file frivolous petitions to somehow obtain an order from the Court which can help them in their unethical designs. A serious view needs to be taken on this kind of attempt. 16. Resultantly, this Court is unable to accept the “unconditional apology” tendered by the contemners. Accordingly, the contemners are held to be guilty of criminal contempt of this Court. A serious view needs to be taken on this kind of attempt. 16. Resultantly, this Court is unable to accept the “unconditional apology” tendered by the contemners. Accordingly, the contemners are held to be guilty of criminal contempt of this Court. I deem it proper to punish the contemners for their act of criminal contempt. Each of them shall pay Rs.2,000/- as fine for the aforesaid act of criminal contempt. I deem it proper to give severe warning to them not to indulge in similar activity in future. 17. With aforesaid, this matter stands disposed of.