S R RAMARAJ Vs. SPECIAL COURT BOMBAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed under Section 10(1) of the Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). A suit had been filed by the Standard Chartered Bank (SCB) against Canbank Mutual Fund (CMF) for refund of a sum of Rs. 72.25 crores claiming the same to be due under three SGL transfer forms in Government of India security transactions purported to have been undertaken between SCB and CMF in August/September 1991. In the course of the written statement CMF took the stand that the transactions were squared off on the basis of documents made available to the appellant before affirming the written statement and tendering evidence.

(2.) The Special Court held that taking up a false defence as pleaded in the written statement and repeating the same in the evidence-in-chief, amounts to contempt of Court and convicted the appellant to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two weeks and pay fine of Rs. 2 thousand. The learned Judge in the course of the order held that perjury is contempt and there is a growing tendency amongst parties not to honour their commitments and pay up their dues and liabilities and file any sort of defence irrespective of whether it is true or not, that, therefore, it is for Courts to actively curb such tendencies. The Special Court prima facie felt that the defendant and deponent of written statement were aware that the defence was false at the time when written statements were filed and knowing it to be false took the same and sought to persist with it at the trial. Two show cause notices were issued - one under Sections 182, 183, 191, 192, 193, 199, 200 and 209 of the Indian Penal Code and another for contempt of Court-, however, no action was taken pursuant to the notice issued for offences under the Indian Penal Code and these proceedings stood dropped.

(3.) At the very outset, on behalf of the appellant an unconditional apology was tendered. It was stated that in spite of fact that the appellant had a good answer to the show cause notice the apology was being tendered. However, the Special Court rejected the apology tendered by the appellant by observing that there is an increasing tendency to first commit the perjury or contempt and, when caught out, tender an unconditional apology and such an apology is not an expression of genuine remorse. In the course of the order, the learned Judge noticed as follows :-