SWARNALATA BHUYAN Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Court as an institution has to live with utmost co-operation of the Bar. It is like a bird with two wings. With one wing a bird cannot fly. Only with the Judges or the lawyers alone the Court cannot function. The Bench has to appreciate the Bar and the Bar must be proud of the Bench. If the trust among the two breaks, there will be an end to this institution.

(2.) Unfortunately here is a story which is something else. This case is an illustration how there is breach of trust by the Bar. At the time of admission of O.J.C. No. 5523/98, it came to the notice of the Court that the certified copy of the impugned order dated 15-7-91 had been interpolated so far as the date when the copy was actually handed over to the applicant. Going through the said certified copy this Court found that the date on which the copy was ready for delivery was 26-3-93 and the same had been interpolated ex facie as 26-3-97 and the date of making over the copy to the applicant was similarly interpolated from 26-3-1993 to 26-3-97. This Court therefore directed the Addl. District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar from whose office the certified copy had been issued to hold an enquiry and submit his report as to the date on which the copy was ready for delivery and on which date the same was handed over to the applicant. The A.D.M. was directed to cause a proper enquiry to find out whether there was any fraud or forgery while issuing the certified copy. The certified copy was kept in safe custody of the Registrar (J) in sealed cover.

(3.) Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the A.D.M., Bhubaneswar caused a comprehensive enquiry and has filed his report stating that the certified in question was a forged one with the date of its delivery being interpolated. While the matter again came up before this Court, by order dated 1-7-98 this Court dismissed the writ petition summarily and referred the matter to the Court of the S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar for the petitioner to face criminal trial and she was directed to appear before the said Court on 27th July, 1998. It was also directed that the learned S.D.J.M. would take notice of the complaint of this Court and proceed as per the procedure envisaged under the Code of Criminal Procedure.