AFZAL AND ANR. versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] 1 S.C.R. 573 · Decided: 17-01-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

,, 
•• 
AFZAL AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. 
JANUARY 17, 1996 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
B 
Indian Penal Code, 1860 : 
Ss.191, 192, 193--Giving false evidence and fabricating false 
evidence--Police officials--Giving .false a.ffidavits in Court and inducing one 
C 
o.f their colleagues to .forge signature o.f another o.fficer on counter 
qffidavit--Held liable to be punished under s. 193 and accordingly sentenced. 
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 : 
S.2(c}-Criminal contempt--Filing qf false affidavits in Court-Held 
D 
amounts to criminal contempt. 
Constitution ~f India, 1950: 
Article 129-Contempt of Court-Deputy Superintendent of 
Police--Filing false affidavit in Court and instructing his junior to forge his 
E 
signature on affidavit to be .filed in Court -Held Police O.fficer Committed 
contempt ~f Court-Sentenced according(y. 
Notaries Act, 1952 : 
Ss.2( d), 8--Notary-Functions of-Affidavit to be attested after prop-
F 
er(v identifying signatory. 
Affidavit: 
Affidavit-Attestation qf--Notary should attest affidavit qfter properly 
identifying signatory. 
A police party put two minor boys in wrongful confinement in 
order to coerce an accused involved in an offence of fraud and forgery 
G 
of railway receipts. Jn the writ petitions filed for release of the minor 
boys, two counter affidavits dated 30.10.1993 were filed in this Court on 
1.11.1993 denying the fact of wrongful confinement of the minor boys by 
H 
573 
A 
B 
574 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1996] l S.C.R. 
the police. One of the affidavits was sworn by respondent no. 4, A.S.I. · 
incharge of the police station concerned and a member of the raid party, 
and the other was purported to be sworn by respondent No. 3, the 
Superintendent of Police, G.R.P. incharge of the investigation. The Court, 
being not satisfied with the averments made in the counter affidavits, 
directed an inquiry to be made by the Home Secretary and, in his 
absence, by the Director General of Police. The Director General of 
Police submitted the report which was contrary to the versions given in 
the counter affidavits filed in the Court on 1.11.1993. When the case was 
• 
listed on 5.11.1993, respondent no. 3 filed another affidavit stating that 
a Head Constable 'K' had forged his signature on the counter affidavit 
C 
dated 30.10.1993. This Court directed the District Judge Faridabad, and 
later the C.B.I. to enquire into the forgery. The Report of the C.B.I. 
indicated that respondent no. 3, who at the relevant time was stationed 
at Rewari, instructed Sub-Inspector 'S' and others to meet the Standing 
Counsel of State of Haryana in New Delhi and to get counter affidavits 
D 
of respondents no. 3 and 4 drafted; Sub-Inspector 'S' accordingly got the 
counter affidavits drafted in accordance with the instructions of respond-
ent no. 3; Head constable 'K' in the presence of Sub Inspector 'S' 
forged the signature of respondent no. 3 on the carbon copy of the 
affidavit dated 30.10.1993 which was filed in the Court on 1.11.1993; 
E 
F 
G 
respondent no. 4 also sworn the affidavit dated 30.10.1993, and got the 
same filed in the Court on 1..11.1993; the fact of wrongful confinement · 
of the two minor boys was in the knowledge of respondent no. 3. This 
Court issued notices to respondent no. 4 and the Head Constable 'K' as 
also to the Sub-Inspector 'S' to show cause as to why they should not 
be convicted for forgery of signature of respondent no. 3 on the counter 
affidavit dated 30.10.93 and also for contempt of court for filing false 
affidavits in this Court. Respondent no. 4 and Head Constable 'K' filed 
their respective affidavits before this Court stating that the affidavits 
dated 30.10.1993 were filed at the instance of respondent no. 3 aud on 
his instructions Sub-Inspector 'S' asked Head Constable 'K' to forge 
the signature of respondent no. 3 on the carbon copy of the counter 
affidavit dated 30.10.1993 which was filed in the Court on 1.11.1993; 
thereupon the Court issued notice to respondent no. 3 to show cause as 
to why proceedings should not be initiated against him for forgery and 
making false statement in this Court, as also contempt of this Court. 
H 
Respondent no. 3 and the Suh Inspector of Police 'S' filed affida-
' 
• 
1 
" 
r 
I 
AFZAL v. STATE 
575 
vits denying their roles in filing the forged affidavit dated 30.10.1993. 
A 
The Standing Counsel for the State of Haryana also filed an affidavit 
narrating the events and her state
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.