The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of three people for forging Madras High Court orders, calling it “one of the most dreaded acts of contempt” that hinders justice and involves deliberate forgery of court records.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has upheld the conviction of three individuals for fabricating orders of the Madras High Court, emphasizing that such actions constitute a severe form of contempt.
The ruling highlights the gravity with which the court views attempts to undermine the judicial process through forgery.
The appellants had been convicted by the High Court for contempt of court and sentenced to six months of simple imprisonment. They challenged the High Court’s judgment before the Supreme Court.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra affirmed the High Court’s decision, stating,
“Despite observation by the High Court, we are of the view that present is a case where it is established beyond all reasonable doubt that the present appellants/contemnors have either used or created fake High Court interim orders. It is not a case of mere probability of commission of offence rather it is a proved case of commission of offence. Creating fake orders of the Court is one of the most dreaded acts of contempt of court. It not only thwarts the administration of justice, but it has inbuilt intention by committing forgery of record. Therefore, the charge of contempt is fully proved against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubt.”
Senior Advocate Sonia Mathur represented the Appellant, while AOR Vikash Singh represented the Respondent.
Background
The case originated in the District Munsiff Court, Tiruchengode, where a decree was issued in favor of J.K.K. Rangammal Charitable Trust, ordering the contemnors to relinquish possession of property and pay outstanding rent.
The contemnors’ subsequent appeals were unsuccessful. During the execution of the decree, when a court official attempted to take possession of the property, the contemnors presented what appeared to be interim orders from the Madras High Court staying the decree’s execution.
Also Read: Delhi High Court Investigates ‘Fake Bail’ Order Involving Lawyer and Prisoner
Upon verification, these orders were found to be fraudulent, forged in the name of a High Court Judge. One of the contemnors, upon arrest, confessed to creating the fake orders with the assistance of another contemnor at a Digital Net Centre in Bhavani.
The High Court determined that all three appellants were responsible for the fabrication of the bogus High Court interim orders and sentenced them accordingly. The case against the first two contemnors was abated due to their deaths.
The Supreme Court bench highlighted that the High Court’s finding of guilt was based on a report from the CBCID (Crime Branch, Criminal Investigation Department) and affidavits submitted by the appellants in response to statutory notices.
The bench agreed that the High Court had proven the contempt charges against the appellants using compelling and reliable evidence, considering their statements in the affidavits.
The court also acknowledged the established sequence of events beginning in 2018, when the fake orders were presented during the attempted execution of the decree.
The Court emphasized the importance of maintaining the integrity of the judicial process.
It said,
“The sole object of the Court wielding its power to punish for contempt is always for maintaining the purity of administration of justice. Nothing is more incumbent upon the courts of justice than to preserve their proceedings from being misrepresented, nor is there anything more pernicious when the order of the court is forged and produced to gain undue advantage. A misleading or a wrong statement deliberately and wilfully made by a party to the proceedings to obtain a favourable order would undoubtedly tantamount to interference with the due course of judicial proceedings”,
The Bench further clarified the implications of using a forged court order, stating,
“When a person is found to have utilised an order of a court which he or she knows to be incorrect for conferring benefit on persons who are not entitled to the same, the very utilisation of the fabricated order by the person concerned would be sufficient to hold him/her guilty of contempt, irrespective of the fact whether he or she himself or herself is the author of fabrication. [See: In Re: Bineet Kumar Singh). Thus, C3, who is the beneficiary of the fake interim orders is rightly held guilty of contempt.”
The Supreme Court also addressed the issue of limitation, stating that the contempt action was initiated within the permissible timeframe. The court determined that the initiation date was September 5, 2018, when a Single Judge directed action in response to the writ petition, which was within one year of the presentation of the fake orders.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the appellants’ conviction for contempt but modified the sentence, reducing the simple imprisonment from six months to one month.
Case Title: SHANMUGAM @ LAKSHMINARAYANAN VERSUS HIGH COURT OF MADRAS