CHANDRA SHASHI versus ANIL KUMAR VERMA

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 465 · Decided: 14-11-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

CHANDRA SHASHI 
A 
v. 
ANIL KUMAR VERMA 
NOVEMBER 14, 1994 
[KULDIP SINGH AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.] 
B 
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971-Section 2 (c)-Criminal Contempt-
Filing of forged and fabricated document in Court with intention to 
defraud-Whether amounts to contempt of Court-Held, Yes-Offer of 
unconditional apology rejected on the ground that it cannot be used as a 
weapon of defence to get purged of the guilt-Sentence of two week's C 
imprisonment imposed 
Suo motu contempt action has been taken against respondent for 
his having filed a fabricated document to oppose the prayer of his wife 
seeking transfer of a matrimonial proceeding from Delhi to Unnao. 
The experience certificate purportedly from the Principal of a 
college was not accepted on the face of the affidavit of the Principal 
himself, according to whom, the certificate was a 'forged and 
fabricated document'. The contemner has not been successful, despite 
opportunity having been given to produce any supporting material. 
The question whether filing of the forged and fabricated document 
amounts to contempt. According to the respondent, this does not. An 
offer of unconditional apology was tendered by the respondent. It was 
stated that if he would be punished, his life would 'get shattered.' 
Disposing of the matter, this Court 
HELD: 1.1. If the publication be with intent to deceive the court or 
one made with an intention to defraud, the same would be contempt, as 
D 
E 
F 
it would interfere with .administration of justice. It would, in any case, 
tend to interfere with the same. This would definitely be so if a 
fabricated document is filed with the aforesaid mens rea. In the case at G 
hand the fabricated document was apparently to deceive the Court; the 
intention to defraud is writ large. (471-D) 
St. James Evening Post case, 1742-2 A'tk 469: Attorney General v. 
Times Newspaper, (1974) AC 273; In the matter of Moses Amado Taylor, 
(1912) AC 347, Relied on. 
- H 
465 
466 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1994] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A 
1.2. A perusal of the offer of unconditional apology tendered shows 
that this was done after the deponent formed an impression when the 
matter was argued in Court that this Court was of the view that he had 
committed wrong. The affidavit stated that if he would be punished, his 
life would 'get shattered', as after his divorce proceeding was 
completed recently he could secure a job and has started his 'life 
B 
afresh'. Thus the apology tendered is not a product of remorse or 
contrition, which it has to b~ to merit acceptance. Had the contemner 
shown real contriteness and regret from the act done, this Court would 
have perhaps accepted his apology; but it cannot be used as a weapon 
of defence to get purged of the guilt, which precisely the contemner has 
sought to do as he desires to avoid worldly suffering which would 
C 
follow if sentenced. This offer of unconditional apology is rejected. 
(471~E-F, 4?'2•A) 
MB. Sanghi v. High Court of Punjab and Haryana, [1991) 3 SCC 
600; Major General B.M Bhattacharya v. Russel Estate Corporation, 
[1993) 2 SCC 533 and K.A. Mohammed Ali v. C.N. Prasannan, JT (1994) 
D 
6 SC 584, relied on. 
1.3. A sentence of fine would not be conducive to the larger cause 
of maintenance of purity in tbe portals of Court in 2S much as if a 
fabricated document with oblique motive can be filed in the apex 
Court, a serious view of the same has to be taken to maintain a medium 
E 
of fairness in Courts below. This apart, the increasing tendency of 
taking recourse to objectionable means to get a favourable verdict in 
the Courts has to be viewed gravely to deter the large number of 
persons approaching Courts from doing so. Such a tendency is required 
to be curbed, which requires somewhat deterrent sentence. (472-C) 
F 
1.4. Sentence of two weeks imprisonment is awarded to the 
contemner. The Court would have indeed awarded a longer period of 
incarceration because oi the gravity of the contumacious fabrication of 
document to defeat the just cause of an advers:iry and thereby seriously 
affecting the purity of Courts' proceeding- but this Court has 
refrained from doing so as this is the first occasion in free India when 
G 
this Court (for that matter may be any Court of the Country) has felt 
called upon to send a person like the contemner behind iron bars in 
exercise of contempt jurisdiction. This Court has restricted the period · · 
of imprisonment to two weeks in the hope that the incarc

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.