RAM NIWAS SHARMA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal revision petition is against the order dated 10.11.1997 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar releasing the petitioner on probation after finding him guilty for an offence under Section 181 Indian Penal Code (I.P.C. for short) in appeal against the order dated 20.3.1997 of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar.

(2.) THE petitioner was convicted under Sections 181 IPC on the allegation that he deposed a false affidavit dated 14.6.1995 which was submitted by Balbir Singh, President of the Hissar Unit of the Judicial Employees Association before the District and Sessions Judge, Hisar in its administrative capacity. In the said affidavit, the petitioner deposed that in Civil Writ petition No. 8729 of 1995 filed by some of the employees of the District Courts, Hisar, this Court while issuing notice of motion on 12.6.1995, had stayed further promotion in respect of the employees. In fact, this Court had ordered : "Promotion, if any, will be subject to the decision of this Civil writ petition".

(3.) THE petitioner has contended that there was no mens rea on his part to commit any offence and that he being a lawyer from the District Courts, deposed the affidavit as he understood the order passed by this Court on 12.6.1995 when he was present in the High Court. He misinterpreted the order and took it to be a stay of promotion till the decision of the writ petition. He has also submitted that for this very lapse suo motu proceedings were initiated by the State Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana. The Bar Council of India ultimately vide order dated 15.10.2000 held that he had not committed a professional misconduct as envisaged under Section 35 of the Advocates Act but he was definitely responsible for negligence on his part. For that purpose he had been reprimanded and warned to be careful in future while making statement before the Court or any authority and the complaint was dismissed. Copy of the order dated 15.10.2000 has been submitted by the petitioner which is taken is record. It is further contended that the District and Session Judge, being the complainant in the case, had pre-judged his guilt while filing the complaint along with an application under Section 195(1)(b)(i) Cr.P.C. alleging offence under Section 193 IPC. In fact, the affidavit deposed did not relate to judicial proceedings. In these circumstances it is contended that the impugned order is liable to be set aside.