Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – ss.15(1) r/w 18(1) – In Execution Petition filed by the decree holder, contemnors produced interim orders passed by the High Court staying the decree – On verification it was found that the said orders were fraudulently created by committing forgery and impersonation in the name of the Judge of the High Court – High Court held the appellants responsible in preparation of the bogus High Court interim orders and held them guilty of contempt – Correctness:
Held: 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 – High Court initiated suo motu contempt on proved and admitted facts that Contemnor No.3 produced fake interim orders of the High Court and the same were prepared by Contemnor No.4 and 7 – On facts, it is established beyond all reasonable doubt that the 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 – Charge of contempt proved against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubt – Conviction confirmed, however, the sentence is modified from simple imprisonment for six months to simple imprisonment for one month – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.466, 468, 471. [Paras 8, 16, 17]
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – s.20 – Limitation for actions for contempt – Originating point for calculating the period of limitation, as interpreted in Pallav Sheth’s case – Appellant pleaded that the entire contempt proceeding was barred by limitation since it should have been initiated within one year from date of production of fake interim orders i.e. 18.04.2018 however, the notice was issued after four years in 2022: Held: Contempt action must be initiated either by filing of an application or by the Court issuing notice suo motu within a period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed – The writ petition for initiation of action against the appellants was filed by the Decree Holder on 20.08.2018 i.e. immediately after four months from 17.04.2018 when the fake orders were produced before the Court – On facts, it was on 05.09.2018 when the contempt proceedings were drawn by the High Court though actual notice was issued later on by the Division Bench in the year 2022 as the case bundle of writ petition was missing in the Registry of the High Court – However, it does not mean that the contempt was initiated in the year 2022 – As held in Pallav Sheth case, s.20 has to be construed in a manner which would avoid such an anomaly and concluded that the date of initiation of suo motu contempt action is regarded as the initiation by the Court for the purpose of s.20 – Therefore, initiation of contempt action shall be treated to have been taken on 05.09.2018 when Single Judge dealing with the writ petition so directed and this date being within one year from 17.04.2018 when the fake orders were presented before the Court, the present contempt action was not barred by limitation. [Paras 14, 15]
Contempt of Court – Exercise of power – Object: Held: 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. [Para 8]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
Headnote © LegalFirms.in. Section 52(1)(q)(iv) of the Copyright Act, 1957 allows a court's judgment to be reproduced unless the court has prohibited it.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.