Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 424 (UTT)

ABDUL SAMI v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2018-08-16

LOK PAL SINGH

body2018
JUDGMENT Hon'ble Lok Pal Singh, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This petition was listed on 14.08.2018. On perusal of the writ petition, affidavit filed in support of thereof and the Vakalatnama, this Court was of the view that signatures of the deponent Abdul Sami put on writ petition and affidavit are entirely different that of the signature put on vakalatnama, therefore this Court has directed the petitioner no. 1 Abdul Sami to remain present before this Court today. Ms. Razia Sultan, Advocate/Oath Commissioner shall also remain present before this Court. 3. Pursuant to the order dated 14.08.2018, Ms. Razia Sultan, Advocate/Oath Commissioner along with register is present. Petitioner no. 1 Abdul Sami is also present in the Court, duly identified by Mr. Bilal Ahmad, Advocate. 4. Abdul Sami (petitioner no. 1) would submit that due to heart ailment, he could not come to this court to swear and verify the affidavit and he send his son for filing the writ petition and affidavit. However, no authorization has been filed on record in this regard. Since, Mr. Abdul Sami has admitted the fact that he has not signed the writ petition and affidavit, therefore this Court is of the opinion that the writ petition filed in the name and signature of petitioner no. 1 by his son is amount to fraud upon this Court. 5. The practice of filing the false affidavit, writ petition with forged signature is now become common. This Court, several times has apprised the Advocates to stop such practice and also shown its displeasure in filing such affidavits before the court of law. But, despite repetitive request made by this Court to the lawyers, there is no improvement in the working of some Advocates and they are continuing filing the false and fabricated affidavits on oath. 6. Mr. Bilal Ahmad, Advocate has admitted this fact that Abdul Sami was not present to swear and verify the affidavit before the Oath Commissioner. 7. Ms. Razia Sultan, Advocate/Oath Commissioner would fairly submits that on the insistence of Mr. Bilal Ahmad, Advocate she made entry of the affidavit of Abdul Sami in register as O.C. No. 32. She further admits that deponent was not before her and on compulsion of Mr. Bilal Ahmad she had verified the affidavit. 8. Ms. Razia Sultan is newly enrolled lawyer and she fairly admits that on the insistence of Mr. Bilal Ahmad, Advocate she made entry of the affidavit of Abdul Sami in register as O.C. No. 32. She further admits that deponent was not before her and on compulsion of Mr. Bilal Ahmad she had verified the affidavit. 8. Ms. Razia Sultan is newly enrolled lawyer and she fairly admits that on the insistence of Mr. Bilal Ahmad, Advocate she had verified the affidavit. It appears that on a bona fide belief she had verified the affidavit and was not aware about the repercussion of verifying the affidavit of petitioner no. 1. She would submit that this is her first mistake, therefore lenient view be taken against her and she may be pardon, considering it as her first mistake. Though, verifying of an affidavit by an Advocate/Oath Commissioner is serious matter, but considering that Ms. Razia Sultan has joined the profession sometime ago, her apology is being accepted with warning to her that she will not repeat such deliberate mistake in future. 9. Counsel for the petitioner would submit that due to his fault petitioners should not be punished and prayed that in such situation the petitioners be permitted to withdraw the writ petition. 10. Considering the statement of learned counsel for the petitioners, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 11. However, this Court accepted the apology of Mr. Bilal Ahmad, Advocate that he will not commit such mistake in future, and is restraining itself to take any stern action against him at this juncture. However, it is made clear that in case Mr. Bilal Ahmad, Advocate would repeat the same mistake, the same shall be considered as a deliberate and willful mistake to commit fraud upon the Court and stern action in accordance with law shall be taken against him. 12. The criminal writ petition is dismissed accordingly.