THE SECRETARY, HAILAKANDI BAR ASSOCIATION versus STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 573 · Decided: 09-05-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. AHMADI, S.C. SEN · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

, 
THE SECRETARY, HAILAKANDI BAR ASSOCIATION 
A 
v. 
STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. 
MAY 9, 1996 
[A.M. AHMADI, C.J. AND SUHAS C. SEN, J.] 
B 
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 : Section 12. 
Judicial proceedings or administration of justice-Due course of-inter-
ference with-Death of undertria/ prisoner-False and fabricated report and C 
affidavit-Filed by contemner to mislead court-His explanation found unac-
ceptable-Inspite of ample opportunity contemner failed to bring true facts to 
notice of court-Contemner deliberately tried to cover up excesses committed 
by Police by narrating untrue facts and giving false particulars-Held : Jn the 
circumstances of the case, the belated apology by contemner not accept-
ablC-Contenmer sentenced to 3 months' simple imp1isonment-Constitution D 
of India, 1950, Art. 129. 
The petitioner-Bar Association forwarded to this Court a copy of its 
resolution condemning the brutal assault leading to the death of an 
undertrial prisoner. The copy of the resolution was treated as a Writ E 
Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. The allegation 
against the Superintendent of Police, the respondent-contemner, was that 
he suppressed true facts from the Court and gave a false report to mislead 
the Court as to what was the real cause of the death of the undertrial 
prisoner. It was pleaded by the respondent-contemner that he had no 
personal knowledge of the sequence of events from apprehension to the F 
death of the undertrial prisoner. He had returned from leave and had 
resumed duty only after the death of the prisoner. 
Disposing of the petition, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. The explanation that the Superintendent of Police had G 
returned from leave and bad resumed duty only after the death of the 
undertrial prisoner on the face of it cannot be accepted. As a responsible 
police officer it was his duty to make proper investigation aud give a report 
to this Court. Assuming within the time frame of 48 hours ~e could not 
prepare a report properly, he should have stated that in his report. He H 
573 
574 
SUPREME cm;rn RFPORTS [1996J SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A could have even prayed for longer time for furnishing a report. But the 
allegation against him is that he deliberately gave a false report. In the 
aflidavit filed by him he had ample opportunity to make good the lapses 
made in the report and bring the true facts to the notice of the Court which 
he did not do. As a responsible police oflicer it was his duty to bring to 
B 
the notice of the Court the police brutality that had taken place and the 
false documentation that was prepared by the various police personnel to 
supress the truth and to give a misleading picture. The glaring inconsis-
tencies in the aflidavit tiled by him have been pointed out in the report of 
the CBI. The contemner had committed gross contempt of Court by trying 
to mislead the Court as to the cause of death of the undertrial prisoner. 
C He has also tried to cover up the excesses committed by the police which 
brought about the death of the undertrial prisoner by narrating untrue 
facts and giving false particulars. [574-B-G] 
1.2. The report of the coctemner from the very begining has tried to 
mislead the Court as to the cause of death of the undertrial prisoner and 
D the alleged events that led to his apprehension by the police. The emphasis 
that he \\'as a veteran dacoit \Vas also obviously with a view to create 
prejudice. Far from trying to help the Court to do justice in this case, his 
report has tried to mislead the Court and prevent the Court from finding 
out the truth about the allegations made by the Petitioner-Bar Association. 
E 
[586-B-CJ 
F 
13. The contemner deliberately forwarded an inaccurate report with 
a view to misleading this Court and thereby interfered with the due course 
of justice by attempting to obstruct this Court from reaching a correct 
conclusion. He is, therefore, guilty of contempt under Article 129 of the 
Constitution read with Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. He 
has tendered his apology only after his report was found out to be mis-
leading and his aflidavit was found to be false. Having regard to the gravity 
of the case the contemner is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of 
three months. [586-C-D] 
G 
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Suo Motzt Contempt. 
IN 
Writ Petition (Cr!.) No. 209 of 1993. 
H 
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.) 
SECY. HAILAKANDI BAR ASSN. 1•. STATE[SEN,J.]
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.