RAM AVTAR SHUKLA versus ARVIND SHUKLA

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 707 · Decided: 23-11-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

RAM A VTAR SHUKLA 
v. 
ARVIND SHUKLA 
NOVEMBER 23, 1994 
[KULDIP SINGH AND K. RAMASWAMY, JJ.] 
Constitution of India-Article 129 I Contempt of Court Act, 1971 
Section 2 (c)-Contempt of Court-Act of interfering with judicial process 
A 
B 
by fabricating court's proceedings, impersonating himself to be petitioner 
and producing forged document to gain unfair advantage-Gratie and 
contumacious act and conduct-Mere statement of conditional apology or C 
even unconditional apology-Not to be accepted-Sentence of 3 months RI 
-Imposed. 
One 
Educational 
s~ciety constituted 
under the 
Soci~ties 
Registration Act, had been obtaining renewal from time to time. There D 
was a dispute as to who represented the society. The petitioner claimed 
that he was duly elected as a Manager of the Committee and he was 
entitled to make an application for renewal while the case of the 
respondent was that he was entitled to represent the society as a 
Manager. The respondent obtained order from the Assistant Registrar 
for his functioning as a Manager. The District Inspector of Schools E 
recognised the petitioner as a Manager of the Committee. The Assistant 
Registrar issued show cause notice to the respondent, on an application 
made by the petitioner, that the respondent had fraudulently fabricated 
the records and obtained the order. Subsequently an order was passed 
cancelling the certificate recognising the respondent as a Manger. On 
appeal, the order was confirmed. The writ petition filed against tfte F 
order was allowed by the High Court and the orders were quashed. 
The petitioner filed ~LP against the judgment of the High Court, 
and the operation of the judgment of the High Court was stayed. 
Subsequently, it was brought to the notice of this Court that the G 
petitioner was not allowed to function due to an order passed during 
summer vacation, cancelling the order of stay. This Court prima facie 
found that the cancelling order was a forged document for the reason 
that neither of the two Judges who were parties to the original order of 
stay, were the vacation judges. Therefore, the cancellation order of the 
stay by the same judges on June 9, 1992 did not arise. On enquiry, the H 
707 
708' 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1994] SUPP. 5 S.C.R 
A 
Registrar confirmed that the order of cancellation was a forged order 
and there was a conflict as to who had committed the forgery. 
It was finally established that the alleged interim order of this 
Court was forged and it was produced before the District Inspector of 
Schools by the respondent and that by producing the said order, the 
B 
respondent wanted to gain an advantage. In ·the facts and 
circumstances of this case, this Court initiated suo motu contempt 
proceedings against the respondent. 
ln1 the affidavit filed by the respondent he stated that the petitioner 
had fabricated the oder and had produced it before the Dist. Inspector 
C 
of Schools. 
Disposing of the matter, this Court 
HELD 1.1 The circumstances clearly point to the unerring 
conclusion that the respondent with the connivance of one of the staff in 
D 
the Registry, obtained the blank printed format and forged the order 
dated June 9. 1992. Later, he impersonated as petitioner and produced 
it in the office of the District Inspector of Schools. The petitioner 
having obtained the stay of the operation of the order of the High 
Court on May 11, 1992, cannot be expected to produce an order dated · 
June 9, 1992, cancelling the order dated May 11, 1992. In fact, the 
E 
language of the order shows that it is not the Court language. The 
respondent initially obtained an order from the Asstt. Registrar 
recognising him to be the Manager which was later cancelled on the 
finding that it was obtained by playing fraud and misrepresentation. 
The inevitable conclusion would be that it is the respondent that stands 
to gain and not the petitioner. This Court accordingly confirms its 
F 
prima facie conclusion that the respondent obviously forged the order of 
this court and produced it iu the office of the Dist. Inspector of Schools, 
impersonating to be the petitioner to have him reinstated as a Manager 
of the School. (713 E to G, 714 A) 
2.1 The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 deals with any acts or 
G 
conduct of the parties to the litigation or witness 'in any manner'. The 
acts or conduct may take different forms. The tendency on the part of 
the contemner.in his action or conduct to prevent the course of justice 

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