M S AHLAWAT Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By an order made on January 17, 1996 Writ Petitions (Criminal) Nos. 356-57 of 1996 were disposed of by his Court. In the course of that order it was held that the petitioner, M. S. Ahlawat, has deliberately fabricated false records before this Court. He is, therefore, held punishable under Section 193, Indian Penal Code (IPC) and also for contempt of this Court under Article 129 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, he was convicted and sentenced under Section 193, IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of one year and under Article 129 of the Constitution of India to undergo rigorous imprisonment of a term of 6 months but both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Now it appears that the petitioner has undergone the sentence of imprisonment imposed by this Court under the said two provisions.

(2.) While hearing the Writ Petitions (Criminal) Nos. 356-57 of 1996, it was reported on November 5, 1993 to this Court through the Standing Counsel that his signature on the affidavit filed in this Court has been forged. This Court, after considering the two affidavits filed on November 2, 1993 and November 5, 1993 purported to have been made by the petitioner, directed a detailed inquiry to be made by the District Judge, Faridabad about the alleged forgery of the petitioner's signature. The District Judge made a report on January 29, 1994 holding that the petitioner was not responsible for the same. After considering the report of the District Judge this Court ordered investigation as to the purported forgery and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) was entrusted with the inquiry. On receipt of the report of the CBI this Court on April 17, 1995 issued notice to Head Constable Krishan Kumar, SI Ishwar Singh and ASI Randhir Singh as to why they should not be convicted for forgery of the signature of the petitioner on the affidavits dated November 2, 1993 and November 5, 1993 and also for contempt of this Court for filing false affidavits. On July 10, 1995 this Court issued a notice to the petitioner to show cause why he should not be considered for conviction for forgery and making false statements at different stages in this Court and for committing contempt of the Court. On January 17, 1996 after perusing the affidavits this Court convicted the petitioner as stated earlier. Review Petition against the same was also dismissed summarily on March 29, 1996. In this writ petition the petitioner while challenging his conviction under Section 193, IPC is not questioning the conviction under Article 129 of the Constitution of India for committing the contempt of this Court.

(3.) Shri Harish Salve, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, contended that in convicting the petitioner under Section 193, IPC this Court has completely stultified the procedure prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure thereby acting contrary to the mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Elaborating this submission he stated that Section 195, Cr.P.C. deals with the manner of taking cognizance of offences arising under Section 193, IPC and Section 340, Cr. P.C. regulates the procedure of making complaints thereto. A complaint ought to have been filed in a competent criminal Court for offences arising under Section 193, IPC as provided in Section 195, Cr.P.C. read with Section 340, Cr.P.C. and this Court itself could not have assumed jurisdiction of a criminal Court and convicted the petitioner without trial.