Appeal
Appellants are contemnors convicted by Hon’ble High Court
2. The three appellants before us namely, Shanmugam @ Lakshminarayanan in Criminal Appeal No. 5245 of 2024 (Contemnor No. 4 before the High Court), M. Muruganandam in Criminal Appeal No. 4219 of 2024 (Contemnor No. 3 before the High Court) and S. Amal Raj in Criminal Appeal arising out of Criminal Appeal Diary No. 45480 of 2024 (Contemnor No. 7 before the High Court) stand convicted by the High Court for committing contempt of Court and have been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. The appellants have called in question the legality and validity of the judgment and order of the High Court in the present appeals.
Facts in gist
The factual matrix involves a decree by the District Munsiff Court, Tiruchengode, in favor of J.K.K. Rangammal Charitable Trust for possession and rent recovery. The judgment debtors (Contemnor Nos. 1 to 3) produced forged interim orders of the High Court of Madras to stay the decree during execution in 2018. The decree holder discovered the orders were fake, filed complaints, and a police investigation ensued. The investigation revealed that the fake orders were prepared and circulated by the appellants and others with the help of a Digital Net Centre. Several contemnors were arrested, and the High Court initiated contempt proceedings against them for fabricating and using forged court orders to obstruct justice. [paras. 3 to 3.11]
Analysis
Committing contempt has been duly proved by the Hon’ble High Court
6. The High Court has recorded the finding of guilt against the appellants/contemnors on the basis of the report filed by CBCID and the affidavits filed by the appellants in response to the statutory notice issued against them. The report of the CBCID was in turn founded on the statement of witnesses as well as telephonic conversations held between C3 and C4 as also between C6 and C4. It has also come on record that C4 has forwarded the format for the preparation of fake stay order copies received from the advocate Thangapandian through P. Meiyappan’s email. Thereafter, C4 prepared the fake stay order copies and handed over the same to the accused, Thangamani, Sundaram and Angamuthu through P. Meiyappan. C4 further stated in his confession statement to the CBCID that Contemnor No. 7/S. Amal Raj is the person who floated the idea of preparing the forged High Court stay orders. The properties were seized from the Digital Net Centre, Bhavani where the fake stay orders were prepared and the same were sent to the FSL. The High Court has extracted the report of the FSL in para 30 of the impugned order. Moreover, C3 in his affidavit has alleged that C4 was the person who guided them throughout in the litigation and it was he (C4) who handed over fake orders through P. Meiyappan. Paragraph Nos. 12, 13, 15 & 16 of his affidavit have been reproduced by the High Court which clearly supports the finding recorded by the High Court. Thus, the case against the appellants/C3, C4 & C7 for committing contempt has been found proved by the High Court on the basis of cogent and reliable material available on record and the same is recorded after considering their stand taken in the affidavit.
Present case is clearly established as to who produced fake interim order of Hon’ble High Court
7. Having deeply scrutinised the material, we are satisfied that the finding recorded by the High Court does not suffer from any illegality or perversity. The present is not a case where it is not known as to who produced the fake interim orders of the High Court or who prepared the same. The chain of events emerging from 18.04.2018 onwards, when the fake orders were presented at the time when the bailiff tried to effect delivery of possession, have been found established. As a matter of fact, C3 admits that he submitted the fake orders before the Court Amin. From the conversation recorded between C3 and C4 as produced before the CBCID and as mentioned in the affidavits, clearly accuses that it was C4 who was responsible for handing over the orders through P Meiyappan. It was C7 who floated the idea of preparing the forged orders. Thus, all three appellants/contemnors have rightly been convicted.
A deliberate and wilful misleading or wrong statement produced to the court undoubtedly interfering due course of judicial proceedings
8. 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. When a person is 15 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.
Judiciary is the guardian of the rule of law
9. In re: “Vinay Chandra Mishra” , this Court has held that the Judiciary is the guardian of the rule of law and the duty to protect the same is apart from the function of adjudicating the disputes between the parties and it is for this purpose that the courts are entrusted with the extraordinary power of punishing those who indulge in acts whether inside or outside the courts, which tend to undermine their authority and bring them in disrepute and disrespect by scandalising them and obstructing them from discharging their duties without fear or favour.
Argument that appellants were not given proper opportunity to defend was rejected
10. It has been argued by learned senior counsel for the appellants that they were not given proper opportunity to defend, inasmuch as, the charges were not framed against them in a formal manner nor explained to them. This argument deserves to be rejected at the outset in view of the settled proposition in “Vinay Chandra Mishra” (supra) in the following words:
“para. 26”
Limitation to initiate contempt proceedings within one year either by filing an application or by the Court issuing notice suo motu
11. Much emphasis was laid by the appellants taking shelter under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to raise the plea of limitation. It was submitted that the contempt proceedings should have been initiated within one year from the date of production of the fake interim orders i.e. 18.04.2018. However, the notice was issued after four years in the year 2022 and as such entire proceeding is barred by limitation. Reliance is placed on “Pallav Sheth vs. Custodian & Ors.”
14. While the appellants have referred to para 44 of “Pallav Sheth”(supra), the respondent has relied upon paragraph nos. 30, 41 & 42. Upon reading of the entire judgment in the matter of “Pallav Sheth” (supra), it is clearly depicted that the 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 originating point for calculating the period of limitation has been interpreted in para 42 of Pallav Sheth which is reproduced again at the cost of repetition.
“42………………..On the other hand, if the filing of an application before the subordinate court or the High Court, making of a reference by a subordinate court on its own motion or the filing of an application before an Advocate-General for permission to initiate contempt proceedings is regarded as initiation by the court for the purposes of Section 20, then such an interpretation would not impinge on or stultify the power of the High Court to punish for contempt which power, dehors the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is enshrined in Article 215 of the Constitution. Such an interpretation of Section 20 would harmonise that section with the powers of the courts to punish for contempt which is recognised by the Constitution.”
Thus, in view of the law laid down by this Court in paras 42 and 44 of “Pallav Sheth” (supra), it is to be seen as to when the application was preferred by the respondent/Decree Holder for initiation of action against the appellants. The present contempt proceeding has its root in WP No. 22410 of 2018 preferred by the Trust/Decree Holder. This writ petition was preferred on 20.08.2018 i.e. immediately after four months from 17.04.2018 when the fake orders were produced before the Court Amin. In this writ petition, prayer was made to initiate action against the respondents for committing act of forgery and fraudulent creation of bogus orders in the name of the High Court. When the matter was posted before the learned Single Judge it was informed by the Registry that the matter was placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice on the administrative side and the Hon’ble Chief Justice has directed police investigation in this case. Accordingly, the Deputy Registrar, High Court of Madras gave a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Namakkal Division for investigation and eventually Crime No. 8 of 2018 was registered in District Crime Branch, Namakkal Division on 04.09.2018. When the matter was placed before the learned Single Judge on 05.09.2018, the Court was of the prima facie opinion that despite registration of FIR further action needs to be taken for initiation of contempt proceedings under the Act, 1971, as there is prima facie material to show that criminal contempt has been committed. The jurisdiction to proceed for criminal contempt being with the Division Bench, the learned Single Judge of the High Court directed the Registry to place the matter before the Division Bench dealing with the criminal contempt matters, after obtaining necessary orders from Hon’ble the Chief Justice, for the Division Bench to proceed with the matter in terms of Section 15(1) read with Section 18(1) of the Act, 1971. Thus, it is this date i.e. 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. Significantly, it requires special reference that for about 4 years the case bundle of WP No. 22410 of 2018 was missing in the Registry of the High Court. On repeated information/request by the Decree Holder the bundle was traced, and the contempt case was registered in 2022. However, it does not mean that the contempt was initiated in the year 2022.
Conclusion
Sentence modified from six months to one month
17. For the foregoing, we have no hesitation in affirming the finding of guilt of commission of contempt by the appellants, as recorded by the High Court. The appeals are, accordingly, dismissed.
However, insofar as imposition of sentence of simple imprisonment for six months is concerned, the same appears to be harsh, therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that ends of justice would be served if the appellants are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.
Accordingly, we confirm the conviction and modify the sentence from simple imprisonment for six months to simple imprisonment for one month. It is ordered accordingly.
The appellants shall surrender before the Registrar of the High Court of Madras within 15 days from today to undergo the sentence. Registrar (Judicial) of this Court is directed to communicate this order to the concerned High Court for compliance.
Judgments cited
In Re: Bineet Kumar Singh, (2001) 5 SCC 501
Vinay Chandra Mishra, (1995) 2 SCC 584
Pallav Sheth vs. Custodian & Ors, (2001) 7 SCC 549
Pritam Pal vs. High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur, through Registrar, (1993) Supp (1) SCC 529
Khushi Ram vs. Sheo Vati & Anr, (1953) 1 SCC 726
Sukhdev Singh Sodhi v. Chief Justice and Judges of the PEPSU High Court, (1953) 2 SCC 571
Kartick Chandra Das (referenced for limitation principles)
Om Prakash Jaiswal (discussed regarding Section 20 interpretation)
Acts and Sections involved
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971:
– Section 2(c)(iii) (definition of contempt)
– Section 12 (punishment for contempt)
– Section 15(1) (procedure for contempt proceedings)
– Section 18(1) (powers of the court in contempt proceedings)
– Section 20 (limitation for initiating contempt proceedings)
Indian Penal Code, 1860:
– Sections 466 (forgery)
– Section 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating)
– Section 471 (using as genuine a forged document)
Evidence Act, 1872:
– Section 65-B(4) (admissibility of electronic records)
Party
Shanmugam @ Lakshminarayanan and Others vs. High Court of Madras- Criminal Appeal Nos. 5245 of 2024 – 2025 INSC 619 – May 2, 2025 – Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia
