Afzal
& Anr Vs. State of Haryana & Ors [1996] INSC 87 (17 January 1996)
Ramaswamy,
K.Ramaswamy, K.G.B. Pattanaik (J) Ramaswamy, J.
CITATION:
1996 SCC (7) 397 JT 1996 (1) 328 1996 SCALE (1)340
ACT:
HEAD NOTE:
FIRs
were registered with Government Railway Police, Faridabad by the Station House Officer, Ambala Cantonment, Randhir
Singh [ASI] against the prime accused, Rahim Khan for offences of fraud and
forgery of the railway receipts and cheating and misappropriation. In
connection therewith, a police team headed by Ishaq Ahmed, Inspector, C.I.A. G.R.P.,
Ambala had gone to Agra to apprehend Rahim Khan.
When
he alluded the investigation team, they took away two minor boys, viz., Afzal
son of Rahim Khan and Habib son of Ahmad and kept them in wrongful confinement
at different places. Consequently, above writ petitions under Article 32 of the
Constitution were filed in this Court for habeas corpus of the minor boys. This
Court issued rule nisi on October 29, 1993
and to Ms. Indu Malhotra, Standing Counsel for State of Haryana and directed the matter to be
listed on November 1,
1993. On November 1, 1993, this Court directed the Home
Secretary, Government of Haryana to personally examine the complaint of illegal
detention of two minor boys and to submit a report by November 5, 1993 and the matter was directed to be
posted on that day at 2.00
p.m. On November 2, 1993, when Ms. Indu had pointed out to
the Court that the Home Secretary was on leave, this Court had modified the
order and directed the Director General of Police [DGP] to make investigation
and to submit the report on November 5, 1993.
In the meantime, on November
1, 1993, Ms. Malhotra
wrote a letter to the Home Secretary thus:
"...Two
minor children namely Afzal and Habib have allegedly been illegally detained at
Ambala. Respondents No.3 and 4 i.e. the Superintendent of Police G.R.P.
[C.I.A], [Haryana] have filed two separate affidavits stating that the children
are not in illegal custody.
However,
an affidavit of an Advocate of U.P. has been filed in support of the Hebeas
Corpus petition in the Supreme Court stating that Inspector Ishaque Ahmad,
G.R.P. [C.I.R] Ambala Cantt. had informed him that the minor children would be
released only if their father surrenders. He has stated that he saw the
children in stated that he saw the children in the custody of Ishaque
Ahmad." She enclosed in the said letter complete copy of the petition
along with the copy of the affidavits etc. She also informed that the case was
posted "for hearing on 5.11.93" and that the Court had directed him
to personally investigate into the case and file an affidavit before the Court.
She requested him to be present in Delhi with the above details by November 5, 1993. On November 2, 1993, she wrote another letter to Shri Kalyan Rudra, DGP, Haryana
wherein while reiterating the facts of earlier letter, she stated thus:
"The
Court had issued notice to the Standing Counsel for the State of Haryana on 29th October, 1993. On receiving a copy of the said petition, we contacted the
3rd and 4th Respondents and filed affidavits on their behalf.
The
affidavits filed on behalf of Respondents No.3 and 4 along with the copy of the
Hebeas Corpus petition are enclosed herewith for your ready reference. The
Court, however, was not satisfied with the facts stated by Respondent No.3 and
4".
She
further stated that the Court had directed him to personally investigate into
the matter and file an affidavit by November 4, 1993 and that the case would be heard on
November 5, 1993. She also requested him to talk to
her personally on the telephones and numbers thereof had been given. This Court
by order dated December
8, 1993 in Afzal &
Anr. v. State of Haryana & Ors. [(1994) 1 SCC 425] noted
that the first affidavit of M.S. Ahlawat, Superintendent of Police was filed in
this Court on November 2, 1993 and another affidavit was filed on November 5,
1993. The Court also had noted that Inspector Ishaq Ahmed was primarily
responsible for wrongful and illegal confinement of two minor boys. This Court
opined that a detailed enquiry was necessary to find out the truth and the
tenor of the averments made in two affidavits of Ahlawat and that the forgery
of his signature was made in the first one; veracity of allegations and
counter-allegations by the officers and the role played by each of the
respondents would be ascertained. Therefore, this Court had directed the
District Judge, Faridabad to make an enquiry and to submit
the report within six weeks from the date of the receipt of that order.
The
District Judge had given opportunity to all the persons and he opined and
concluded that "the assertion of Ishwar Singh, S.I. did not appear to be
veracious and impeccable.
The
trend and tenor of the statements made by various police officers/officials
during the course of the enquiry tended to suggest that they tried to toe the
line of one or the other ground of two factions of the Railway Police branding
each other with charges and counter-charges. The manner in which Ishwar Singh,
the senior-most in the group of police officials concerned with the preparation
of counter- affidavits and briefing the Standing Counsel did not object to the
filling of a forged affidavit, spoke volumes of the tendentious nature of the
stand taken by him". He also held that M.S. Ahlawat was not responsible in
the episode. On receipt of the report, by order dated October 19, 1994 in Afzal & Anr. v. State of Haryana & Ors. [JT 1994 (7) SC 167]
this Court opined that "the affidavit of Ahlawat dated September 5, 1993,
his evidence before the Dist Judge and the report of the latter do establish
that the signature of Ahlawat is forged on the affidavit dated September 30,
1993 and the question as' who had forged it needs thorough investigation to
take deterrent action. It cannot be lightly brushed aside of the tendency to
file false affidavits or fabricated documents or forgery of the document and
placing them as part of the record of the Court and they are matters of grave
and serious concern. Therefore, we are of the view that a thorough
investigation is necessary in this behalf".
Accordingly,
Director of Central Bureau of Investigation [CBI] was entrusted with the task
of investigation, if necessary, with the assistance of hand-writing expert and
report was directed to be submitted as expeditiously as possible within three
months from the date of the receipt of this Court's order.
Shri
V.K. Khanna, Senior Scientific Officer, Grade-I examined the documents and
assisted the CBI in the enquiry conducted by Shri N.K. Pathak, Inspector. He
stated in the report submitted to this Court that Head Constable, Krishan Kumar
forged the signatures of Shri M.S. Ahlawat on the carbon copy of the
counter-affidavit dated 30th October, 1993 and that "it was committed in
the presence of S.I. Ishwar Singh and ASI Randhir Singh" on October 30,
1993. It is also stated in that report that "It may be added that they
first visited the chamber-cum-residence of Ms. Indu in the evening of 30th Oct., 1993 and not on the evening of 31st Oct., 1993 as stated by them in their
statements. The junior officers had nothing to gain by forging the Sp's
signature on the counter-affidavit. There is evidence to indicate that it was
within the knowledge of Shri MS Ahlawat, SP, Railways that 2 boys had been
detained illegally. His conduct raised a strong suspicion that the junior
officers acted with his consent either implied or express". During
examination by Shri N.K. Pathak, Ms. Indu had stated that after getting a copy
of the impugned writ petition, she had instructed her junior, Smt. Dania Pradhan
to brief Shri MS Ahlawat, SP about the said writ petition and the five police
officials named in paragraph 1 of the writ petition. The five officials met her
in the evening of October
30, 1993. On their
instruction, she had vetted the counter-affidavits to be filed on behalf of MS Ahlawat
impleaded as third respondent and ASI, Randhir Singh impleaded as fourth
respondent and handed them over to the aforesaid police personnel. In the
morning of November 1,
1993, one of her
personal staff informed her that two counter-affidavits affirmed on behalf of
MS Ahlawat and ASI Randhir Singh had been received for being filed in this
Court on the same day. Accordingly she tendered the aforesaid two
counter-affidavits in the Court on November 1, 1993 but directed to be filed in the
Registry which were filed accordingly. This Court was not satisfied with the
averments made in the counter-affidavits of respondent Nos.3 and 4 and had
directed the DGP, Haryana to personally investigate into the matter and to file
a report. She further stated that on November 2, 1993 Shri G.S. Malhi, DIG
[Railways] Haryana contacted her in the Court chamber and she told them that
this Court was not satisfied with the counter-affidavits filed by Ahlawat and Randhir
Singh. She also wrote a letter to DGP, Haryana in that behalf and handed over
the same to Shri Malhi requesting him to fax the letter immediately since time
was very short. The said letter was dictated in the presence of MS Ahlawat. He
did not tell her that he did not sign the counter-affidavit in which the
allegation of illegal detention of the two boys had been denied. She also
stated that MS Ahlawat did not even faintly hint that he had not affirmed the
counter- affidavit filed in this Court and as such she filed extra copies of
the aforesaid two counter-affidavits as required under the rules in the
Registry of this Court on November 4, 1994.
Randhir
Singh, ASI, GRP, Faridabad, respondent No.4 was also examined by the CBI and he
admitted that he had gone to Ambala on October 30, 1993 to attend Crime meeting
convened by MS Ahlawat who later directed him to proceed to Delhi and contact
Ms. Indu and have the counter-affidavits of him and MS Ahlawat prepared. He
stated that "Shri Ahlawat had told him to deny the allegations regarding
illegal detention of two boys in the counter-affidavits vetted. He, however,
did not tell anything about the preparation of counter-affidavit to be filed on
behalf of MS Ahlawat and did not reveal the nemes of the personnel who had
accompanied him to Delhi on October 30, 1993.
Head
Constable, Krishan Kumar during his examination admitted that he attended the
Crime meeting held at Ambala Cantonment on October 30, 1993 along with Randhir Singh. He also
stated that in his presence ASI Randhir Singh was directed by Ahlawat to deny
allegations of illegal detention of the two boys in the counter-affidavit to be
filed in this Court.
Ishwar
Singh, being the In-charge of CIA Staff, GRP, Ambala Cantt. had stated during
his examination that he was called by Shri Ahlawat on October 30, 1993 and instructed him to meet MS. Indu
to assist her in the preparation of the counter-affidavit to be filed in this
Court. He stated that he reached Delhi on October 31,
1993 and contacted MS.
Indu.
"Two
counter-affidavits were drafted, vetted and typed at the residence-cum-office
of MS. Indu. After the preparation of the above two counter-affidavit in the
name Shri M.S. Ahlawat through HC Kartar Singh to Rewari as Shri Ahlawat was
camping at Rewari". He admitted that in his presence and in the presence
of Randhir Singh and Constable Paras Ram, "HC Krishan Kumar forged the
signatures of Shri M.S. Ahlawat on the carbon copy of the counter-affidavit to
be filed in the Supreme Court on behalf of Shri Ahlawat" and that
"forgery was committed by HC Krishan Kumar on the instructions of ASI Randhir
Singh. HC Krishan Kumar had used his right hand while signing".
When
MS Ahlawat was examined, he reiterated all what he had stated in his second
affidavit. He also stated that "he had directed SI Ishwar Singh and ASI Randhir
to brief MS. Indu at her residence in Delhi on 31.10.93. On the evening of 31st Oct., 1993, he had gone to Rewari for official
work". It is not necessary to reiterate his version since he has stated
the same as in the second affidavit. But he admitted that he reached Delhi on the evening of November 1, 1993 and contacted Ms, Indu and
requested her for a meeting.
She
called him to her chamber next day morning. On the evening of November 2, 1993, he, along with Shri G.S. Malhi,
DIG, railways met MS. Indu in her chamber and he stated to her that "he
had not filed any counter-affidavit in the Supreme Court on 1.11.93". On Smt.
Malhotra's asking as to who had signed the counter-affidavit on his behalf, he
could not answer the same as he knew nothing about it. MS. Malhotra called him
again on 4.11.93 and he had signed the Vakalatnama" and gave the
"affidavit dated November
5, 1993" and
asked her to file next day. In that counter-affidavit he had disowned the
earlier counter-affidavit dated October 30, 1993 purported to have been signed by him. He further stated
that she refused to file the same in the Court as his signature in the vakalatnama
and other documents did not tally with the signature he had put in the
counter-affidavit dated October
30, 1993.
In paragraph
19 of the report, CBI Officer has stated that "SI Ishwar Singh took the
forged counter-affidavit from HC Krishan Kumar and kept it with him.
Subsequently, he handed it over to HC Paras Ram with the instructions to
deliver it to MS. Indu, knowing fully well that the counter- affidavit was a
forged one. HC Paras Ram has confirmed that SI Ishwar Singh handed him an
envelop on Ist Nov., 1993 and that he delivered the same at the residence of
Ms. Indu as instructed. His conduct becomes all the more questionable as he was
responsible for the delivery of the forged affidavit at Ms. Malhotra's
residence. SI Ishwar Singh, ASI Randhir Singh, HC Krishan Kumar, HC Kartar
Singh, and HC Paras Ram have admitted that they met Ms. Indu on October 31, 1993 at her residence and got the
counter-affidavits vetted by her.
This
statement is inconsistent with the statement of Ms. Malhotra that they visited
her on October 30, 1993. The police officers seem to have
manipulated the Daily Diary entries to support their contention. It appears
that all of them had met Ms. Indu on 30th October, 1993. She is an independent witness and
is a Govt. Standing Counsel and has no axe to grind in the matter. Further, she
had, as per the practice, noted down the names of the persons who visited her
on the reverse of the office copy of the writ petition and that document was
handed over by her to the CBI Investing Officer". In paragraph 22 of the
report, he concluded that there are indications to show that detention of the
two boys in the Grp was within the knowledge of Ahlawat, though none of the
concerned police officer has stated that Ahlawat had instructed them to sign on
his behalf. "There is no explanation by Shri Ahlawat not signing the
counter affidavit which was to be submitted in the Hon'ble Supreme Court on
1.11.1993. In the statement he has stated that he received the
counter-affidavit at 2.00
a.m.
on
1.11.1993 while he was in Rewari.... Further, he was aware that his
counter-affidavit was necessary. Although Ms. Malhotra had discussed the case
with Ahlawat and Malhi, at no stage had Ahlawat informed her that he had not
signed the counter affidavit which was submitted before the Court on November
1. 1993. This was also corroborated by G.S. Malhi's statement. It is also a
moot point as to why subordinate officers like SI Ishwar Singh, HC Krishan
Kumar and ASI Randhir Singh would take decision to forge their SP's signature
on document being submitted to the Court. As Ahlawat was not in Delhi, these officers may have taken his
instructions on telephone. There is, however, no evidence as to what
transpired".
On
receipt of the report, notices were issued on April 17, 1995 to HC Krishan Kumar and SI Ishwar Singh and ASI Randhir
Singh as to why they would not be convicted for forgery of signature of MS Ahlawat
and counter-affidavit dated October 30, 1993
and also for the contempt of the Court for filing false affidavit. Pursuant
thereto, they appeared before the Court. Randhir Singh has stated that:
"On
November 1, 1993 I along with Krishan Kumar reached Delhi and met Ishwar Singh who gave a
carbon copy of the affidavit of Shri M.S. Ahlawat to Krishan Kumar. The said
affidavit was to be filed in this Hon'ble Court in connection with the writ petition filed by one Afzal".
Ishwar
Singh asked Krishan Kumar to sign the affidavit on behalf of Ahlawat who was
not able to reach Delhi. Krishan Kumar refused to sign the
affidavit. Ishwar Singh thereafter phoned Shri MS Ahlawat and asked Krishan
Kumar to talk to Shri MS Ahlawat. After talking to MS Ahlawat on phone.
Krishan
Kumar took the cabon copy of the affidavit of Shri MS Ahlawat and signed it and
both of them went away. They met only on November 1, 1993 in this Court.
HC Krishan
Kumar has stated in his affidavit that Ishwar Singh, SI directed him, in the
presence of Randhir Singh, to sign the carbon copy of the affidavit typed in
the named of Ahlawat for official use. "When I refused to sign the carbon
copy Shri Ishwar Singh contacted Shri Ahlawat on phone and Shri Ahlawat ordered
me over telephone to sign the carbon copy of the affidavit in his name on the
plea that the said carbon copy is only for official use while the original is
to be filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In these circumstances. .... I
had no alternative except to sign the carbon copy of the said affidavit in the
name of Ahlawat and handed it over to Shri Ishwar Singh Sub- Inspector,
thereafter I got no information about the said affidavit". He has also
stated that on November 1, 1993 he along with other police constables went to Haryana
Bhavan, New Delhi at 12.45 p.m. Shri Uday Singh Head Constable, Driver of the
staff car of Sh. Ahlawat was in Haryana Bhavan. All the team assembled at the
rear side of Haryana Bhavan. "Shri M.S. Ahlawat discussed about the
pending writ petition with Ishwar Singh and Randhir Singh and assured me not to
worry about signature on the carbon copy of his counter-affidavit". He has
further stated that Shri Ahlawat remained in Delhi on November
1, 1993. He was in the
premises of this Court from 2.30 p.m. onwards
when the hearing of the case took place. To substantiate his version, he has
also filed the affidavit of the Driver of Ahlawat, which is marked as Annexure
2 before the District Judge. He had explained for his omission to state these
facts of forgery before the District Judge, Faridabad in paragraph 13 stating
that MS Ahlawat threatened him that i f he would disclose the truth before the
District Judge, he would make an enquiry and then would terminate his service
and dismiss him from service. Due to that threat he had kept mum.
After
reading these averments in the affidavits, by order dated September 10, 1995
this Court issued notice to MS Ahlawat to show cause as to why he would not be
considered for conviction for forgery and making false statements at different
stages in this Court and also for contempt of the proceedings of this Court. MS
Ahlawat and Ishwar Singh, SI have filed the affidavits. Ishwar Singh has denied
all the allegations. He has, however, admitted that he attended the Crime
meeting on October 30,
1993 at Ambala Cantt. along
with Randhir Singh, Krishan Kumar etc. He has also admitted that he was asked
by Ahlawat to go to Delhi and brief MS. Indu. According to
him, he reached Delhi on October 31, 1993 and proceeded to meet MS. Malhotra along w with others. At
about 6.30 p.m. Ms. Indu handed over the cover to Randhir
Singh containing Two affidavits, one to be filed by him and the other to be
filed by MS Ahlawat.
Randhir
Singh handed over the original draft to Kartar Singh and asked him to proceed
to Rewari immediately and contact MS Ahlawat for his signature as the case was
listed the next day, i.e., November 1, 1993.
Kartar Singh left Delhi at 6.35 p.m. Thereafter, Randhir Singh asked Krishan Kumar to append the
signature of MS Ahlawat on the carbon copy of the draft affidavit. Krishan
Kumar then forged the signature of MS Ahlawat on the said carbon copy. He has
further stated that he objected to the same but Randhir Singh and Krishan Kumar
did not pay any heed to it. He did not inform about this to any one thinking
that MS Ahlawat had already sent instructions to them.
MS Ahlawat
in his affidavit filed on November 5, 1993
has denied his role in the wrongful confinement of two minor boys. He has
stated that he received the counter-affidavit at 2.00 a.m. on November
1, 1993. He had gone
through the affidavit and found them to be not correct. On coming to know of
the forgery of signature he informed the same to Ms.
Malhotra
on November 2, 1993. He also informed the Director
General of Police on the same day, about the forgery of his signature committed
by Krishan Kumar. On November
4, 1995 he brought
these facts to the notice of this Court and filed an affidavit. In the
departmental enquiry conducted against Krishan Kumar, he was found to have
committed forgery of his signature and accordingly disciplinary action was
taken against him.
We
have elaborately narrated the facts and the proceedings of this Court from
which it would emerge that initially Afzal and Habib, two minor boys were taken
into custody by Ambala Cantonment police party consisting of Ishaq Ahmad and
others who put the boys in wrongful confinement to coerce the accused Rahim
Khan to surrender.
On
filling writ petitions under Article 32, this Court had issued notice and
directed investigation at highest level in the State. MS Ahlawat, the
Superintendent of Police, Railways, Ambala, in-charge of the investigation, and
SHO Randhir Singh, ASI were impleaded as respondent Nos. 3 and 4. They were
required to file counter-affidavits in this Court on November 1, 1993. Ahlawat directed SI Ishwar Singh,
ASI Randhir Singh and HC Krishan Kumar and others to go over to Delhi and contact Ms. Malhotra and to
instruct her to draft the counter-affidavits. On the basis of instructions
given to her, she had drafted the counter-affidavits and handed them over to Ishwar
Singh, he being the senior-most among the police personnel. Randhir Singh
signed it. The original counter-affidavit was sent to Rewari where MS Ahlawat
was camping. Ahlawat along with Randhir Singh was required to file the
counter-affidavit by November
1, 1993.
Ahlawat
attended the Court on November
1, 1993 and was in the
Court premises from 2.30
p.m. onwards. The
carbon copy of the counter-affidavit on behalf of Ahlawat and counter- affidavit
of Randhir Singh was tendered in the Court. They were filed in the Registry.
The Court was not satisfied with the averments made therein. Therefore, an
enquiry was directed to be made initially by the Home Secretary, Haryana and in
his absence by the DGP, Shri Krishan Rudra. Ms. Malhotra wrote a letter first
to Home Secretary and then to the DGP enclosing the copies of the
counter-affidavits filed on behalf of Ahlawat and Randhir Singh informing that
the Court was not satisfied with the averments made therein and an independent
personal investigation was directed to be made by DGP who was required to file
an affidavit and report on or before November 4, 1993 and writ petitions were
directed to be posted for hearing at 2.00 p.m. on November 5, 1993. On November
2, 1993, Ahlawat and G.L. Malhi, DGP had met MS, Indu and in their presence she
had dictated the letter to the DGP, Shri Kalyan Rudra stating that she had
already filed two counter-affidavits on behalf of Ahlawat and Randhir Singh.
Though Ahlawat was present when the letter was dictated, he did not point out
that he had not signed any counter-affidavit already filed in the Court on his
behalf. The copy thereof along other material was handed over to Shri Malhi for
onward transmission to the DGP. The letter was desired to be faxed immediately
to the DGP. When Ahlawat met Ishwar Singh after the Court proceedings on
November 1, 1 9 93 they had discussed the matter. Ahlawat appears to have
thought that things were not going on the lines he had charted out and he
thought he would be required to retract from his stand in the counter-affidavit
dated October 30, 1993 and to file another affidavit with a different version.
When he got prepared another affidavit dated November 5, 1993 and asked Ms. Malhotra
to file it along with Vakalatnama she refused to do the same. She had already
filed copies of the counter-affidavits dated October 30, 1993 in the Registry
of the Court as per the rules on November 4, 1993 as directed by this Court. On
November 5, 1993 Ahlawat filed another affidavit in
which he stated that HC Krishan Kumar had forged his signature and has filed
the counter-affidavit on his behalf.
Admittedly,
Krishan Kumar has not been made a respondent to the writ petitions, though he
was a member of the investigation team which had gone to Agra to apprehend the accused rahim Khan. In the enquiry
conducted by Shri Kalyan Rudra, DGP, Ahlawat did not come out with the version
that he had not signed the counter-affidavit prepared on October 30, 1993 and filed on November 1, 1993 nor did he point out the forgery
committed by Krishan Kumar. His counter-affidavit filed on November 5, 1993 would, therefore, obviously be an
after-thought to ditch his subordinate and save his skin. When this Court
directed the enquiry by the District Judge, Faridabad to find out the truth or the counter-version in the matter, all the
persons including Ahlawat were examined. In the said enquiry, the main thrust
was the forgery and as to who had committed the forgery. But it was not clear
to the District Judge.
Therefore,
he castigated the conduct of Ishwar Singh but exonerated Ahlawat. This Court as
well as the District Judge prime facie were impressed with the averments made
by Ahlawat in his second affidavit filed on November 5, 1993 and his version was acted upon.
This Court then directed the CBI to enquire into as to who actually was
responsible for the forgery which was registered as a crime on November 11,
1994 and the task was entrusted to Shri N.K. Pathak, Inspector.
In the
enquiry conducted by Shri N.K. Pathak, Ms. Malhotra, as a strict professional
practitioner has stated the facts that had transpired in her office and the
action taken by her in defending the officers and the affidavits filed by the
officers etc. The CBI officer has concluded that HC Krishan Kumar had nothing
to gain by forging the signature of Ahlawat. It was forged in the presence of Ishwar
Singh who had kept the carbon copy in his custody and directed Paras Ram to
deliver the signed copies in the office of Ms. Malhotra for being filed in the
Court. Before Shri Pathak, Ishwar Singh admitted that Krishan Kumar had forged
the signature in his presence and he had custody of the forged documents. Had
he not had any prior instructions from Ahlawat, as a responsible officer to
whom the duty of getting the counter-affidavit drafted on behalf of Ahlawat was
entrusted, he would not have permitted Krishan Kumar to forge the signature and
should have proceeded to Rewari to have the counter-affidavit approved and
brought the same back and given to Ms. Indu to be filed in the Court. Ahlawat
being a respondent in the writ petition, he was bound to file the
counter-affidavit by November 1, 1993 and had he not instructed his junior
officers to forge his signature and to file the counter-affidavit, he would
have instructed Ms. Malhotra to seek further time for filing the counter-
affidavit. What is more, he himself was present in the Court premises on
November 1, 1993. These circumstances clearly would indicate that Ahlawat had
instructed Ishwar Singh to have the counter-affidavit of him and Randhir Singh
drafted and that the two affidavits must be consistent. Since he knew that two
minors were in wrongful confinement, he did not want to commit himself by
signing the counter-affidavit and had instructed Ishwar Singh to direct Krishna
Kumar to forge his signature. When Ahlawat attended the chambers of Ms. Indu on
November 2, 1993 along with Shri G.L. Malhi, DIG, a letter was dictated in
their presence to D.G.P. to the effect that counter-affidavits on behalf of Ahlawat
and Randhir Singh were already filed on November 1, 1993 and that the Court was
not satisfied with the tenor of the averments made therein. If Ahlawat really
had not instructed the junior officers to forge his signature on the counter-
affidavit and file an affidavit on his behalf, nothing prevented him to mention
to her that he had not signed any counter-affidavit and that he had not
instructed anyone to sign the same on his behalf; he would have asked her as to
why she had allowed filing such counter-affidavit without any instructions from
him. He did not do that. The version of Randhir Singh and of Ahlawat in the
counter-affidavits dated October 30, 1993 was consistent, namely, minor boys
were not in wrongful confinement. On the other hand, when the report submitted
by Shri Kalyan Rudra, the DGP was found against them, he thought that he must
salvage himself from the earlier stand to avoid charge of perjury and decided
to file another counter-affidavit making his subordinate officer a scape-goat.
In
this background, we have to consider the averments made by HC Krishan Kumar and
ASI Randhir Singh that when Ishwar Singh asked Krishan Kumar to sign the
affidavit of Ahlawat on his behalf on the carbon copy, he objected to sign and
immediately Ishwar Singh contacted Ahlawat who had ordered Krishan Kumar on the
phone to sign the counter- affidavit. There is nothing intrinsically improbable
to disbelieve the version of Krishan Kumar that he was asked by Ahlawat to
forge his signature assuring him that he would not be in trouble for forging
his signature. In view of the admitted facts that Ahlawat was in supervision of
the investigation of the cases registered against Rahim Khan, it would be
obvious that minor boys brought by Ishaq Ahmad from Agra were kept in wrongful
confinement with his connivance and that he thought that by denying the
averments, the Court would be prepared to accept his version, used this
authority as Superintendent of Police and directed hid subordinate Krishan
Kumar to forge his counter-affidavit. When Ishwar Singh asked Krishan Kumar to
sign the counter-affidavit forging the signature of his senior officer, he
might have thought that it would not be proper to do so but when Ishwar Singh
contacted, obviously on phone and had informed Ahlawat of unwillingness of Krishan
Kumar to forge his signature on the carbon copy of the counter-affidavit,
obviously on his instruction, Krishna Kumar forged his signature and, as seen,
that the same was filed in the Court on November 1, 1993. When things were not
going on the line charted out by Ahlawat and the report of the DGP was contrary
to the stand taken by Ahlawat, he obviously thought over and decided to file
another counter-affidavit making Krishan Kumar a scape- goat. Without his prior
knowledge that Krishan Kumar had forged his signature, how was it possible for
him to conclude that Krishan Kumar had forged the carbon copy of the
counter-affidavit to be filed by him. It is not his case nor of Ishwar Singh
before this Court that Ishwar Singh informed Ahlawat of forging his signature
on the carbon copy of the counter-affidavit or that he made an enquiry in which
he came to know that Krishan Kumar had forged his signature.
Though
Krishan Kumar was a member of raiding party headed by Inspector Ishaq Ahmad,
which had taken into custody two minor boys and kept them in wrongful
confinement, he being not a party to the writ petitions, there was nothing for
him to gain by forging the signature of Ahlawat on the carbon copy of the
counter-affidavit and filing the same in the Court. Under these circumstances,
our inescapable conclusion is that Ahlawat had instructed Ishwar Singh and
others to meet Ms. Malhotra, to instruct her to draft the counter- affidavit on
his behalf and randhir Singh denying the wrongful confinement of minor boys and
when counter- affidavits were drafted it was obviously only on the instructions
given by Ishwar Singh as the seniormost of the team, denying the wrongful
confinement of the minor boys.
The
letters written by Ms. Indu and her professional conduct is transparently
consistent with professional duty and she had truthfully and promptly
discharged it in defending the officers.
When
Ms. Indu expressed her inconvenience to continue as Standing Counsel for the
State and sought permission of the Court to withdraw from the case due to the
stand of Ahlawat and orally stated that the averments made in the affidavit of Ahlawat
filed on November 5, 1993, were not correct, we directed her to file an
affidavit to which Ahlawat has also filed another counter-affidavit to it. In
her affidavit she has narrated the facts that had transpired in this case. She
has also produced correspondence she had with the officials. Ahlawat even did
not make any averment against Ms. Indu's actions and conduct. Her affidavit is
consistent with the conclusion we have reached and it corroborates the stand
taken by Krishan Kumar and Randhir Singh.
As
regards the directions issued by Ahlawat to Krishan Kumar pursuant to a
telephonic call made by Ishwar Singh to forge his signature his
counter-affidavit dated October 30, 1993 to be filed in this Court on November
1, 1993, the CBI officer has also concluded in his report that Ahlawat having
had a duty to file the counter-affidavit and his not signing the affidavit
prepared by Ms. Malhotra is highly unbecoming of a responsible officer and Krishan
Kumar had nothing to gain by forging his signature and it appears to have been
done on instructions from Ahlawat. We approve of his conclusion.
Shri Sanyal,
learned senior counsel appearing for Krishan Kumar contended that in view of
the affidavit of Ms. Indu and the circumstances of the case the stand taken by Krishan
Kumar is correct as he was threatened not to disclose these facts during the
enquiry conducted by the District Judge, Faridabad at the pain of dismissal from service. Consequently, he did not come
out from the red at that stage but when, after enquiry, the Cbi in its report
found against him, he had necessarily to come out with the truth. Consequently,
he has truthfully stated in his affidavit whatever had transpired. His version
and statement, therefore, is more probable and consistent and he had no
intention to forge the signature of Ahlawat and to fabricate the record for
being filed in this Court since he had nothing to gain from the proceedings
before this Court.
He was
not a respondent. We find that there is justification in his contention.
Though, Krishna Kumar was a member of the investigation team which visited Agra
headed by Ishaq Ahmad who had played principal role in abducting the minor boys
and kept them in wrongful confinement to coerce Rahim Khan to surrender, he was
not made a respondent to the writ petitions. Being a member of the
investigation team and having ben asked to attend the Crime meeting at Ambala
Cantonment convened by Ahlawat on telephone who directed him, Randhir Singh, Ishwar
Singh and two others to go over to Delhi and brief Ms. Indu to have the
counter-affidavits drafted, he had accompanied the party and accordingly
followed the instructions issued by Ahlawat. When counter- affidavit on Ahlawat
was drafted, as per the instructions, Ishwar Singh had asked Krishan Kumar to
forge the affidavit of Ahlawat and when he had refused to do so, Ishwar Singh
had contacted Ahlawat who had directed Krishan Kumar to sign the carbon copy of
the counter-affidavit and assured him that nothing would be done to him. In
these circumstances, Krishan Kumar came to forge signature of Ahlawat on the
carbon copy of the counter-affidavit, but not with an intention to forge the
signature of Ahlawat but in obedience to the command of Ahlawat. Thereafter SI Ishwar
Singh had taken custody of the carbon copy of the counter-affidavit and
instructed Paras Ram to hand it over to Mrs. Indu Malhotra for being filed in
the Court. We, therefore, hold that he had no intention to forge the signature
of Ahlawat on the carbon copy of the counter-affidavit dated October 30, 1993
filed in this Court.
The
question then is: What is the role played by ASI Randhir Singh? Shri Mehta,
learned counsel appearing for him contended that Randhir SIngh had no intention
to fabricate the affidavit of Ahlawat nor had he filed in the Court.
Though
Randhir Singh was a member of the raid party headed by Ishaq Ahmad, which
illegally took two minor boys into custody and wrongfully confined them, as
regards forgery of signatures of Ahlawat by Krishan Kumar, from the
circumstances of the case, admittedly he being 4th respondent to the writpetitions,
he and Ahlawat obviously have taken a consistent stand in their
counter-affidavits dated October 30, 1993 tendered on November 1, 1993that they
had not taken the minor boys into custody nor had they wrongfully confined
them. That statement is now proved to be false from two enquiries conducted by Shri
Kalyan Rudra, DGP and the District Judge, Faridabad. He was present along with
SI Ishwar Singh at the time Krishan Kumar had forged signature of Ahlawat on
the carbon copy of the counter- affidavit of Ahlawat. Consequently, it must be
held and that it is difficult to accept his version that the minor boys were
not taken into custody and kept in wrongful confinement. He also abetted Krishan
Kumar to forge the signature of Ahlawat. He would stand to gain by it as his
version gets corroborated from that of Ahlawat. He thus filed false
counter-affidavit dated October 30, 1993 in the judicial proceedings before
this court. Thereby he is liable to conviction under Section 193, Indian Penal
Code, 1860 pIPC] for intentionally giving false affidavit in the judicial
proceedings in this Court and abetting Krishan Kumar to forge the signature of
M.S. Ahlawat.
Ishwar
Singh in his affidavit dated July 10, 1995 filed in this Court on July 11, 1995
has stated that he neither forged the signature of Ahlawat in the
counter-affidavit dated October 30, 1993 nor filed any counter-affidavit before
this Court as he had no motive for committing the act of forgery. He denied to
have any knowledge that the carbon copy of the counter-affidavit of Ahlawat
signed by Krishan Kumar was given to Ms. Indu for being filed in this Court and
he believed that it was not filed. He has come out with false version toeing
the line of Ahlawat. He deliberately omitted certain crucial facts relevant for
the decision. He appears to have thought that ditching his subordinates and
being consistent with the stand taken by Ahlawat would accelerate his
promotional prospects and accordingly he had fallen in line with Ahlawat which
is now found to be false.
He
admitted that he was asked by Ahlawat to go along with the party to instruct
Ms. Indu to draft the counter- affidavits. He handed over the counter-affidavit
given by Ms. Indu to Kartar Singh, and asked him to immediately proceed to Rewari
whereat Ahlawat was camping, for his signature on the counter-affidavit since
the case was posted for hearing on November 1, 1993. He stated that he had met Ms. Indu
on October 31, 1993 which on its face is false. The
counter-affidavits of Randhir Singh and Ahlawat bear the said date and were
attested with that date. Ahlawat received draft on October 31, 1993 at 2.00
a.m. He went to Ms. Indu
to instruct her to draft the counter-affidavit. He admitted that Krishan Kumar
forged the signature in his presence and in the presence of Randhir Singh. He
has further stated that he had no motive to abet the forgery committed by Krishan
Kumar. It is contended by his learned counsel that since he was not a member of
the raid party who took the minor boys into illegal custody and put them in
wrongful confinement, there is no reason for him to file false evidence or to
commit forgery of signature of Ahlawat. There is nothing to show that he
committed any offence not is he liable for contempt of this Court.
At the
cost of repetition, we may reiterate that to the Crime meeting held on October 30, 1993 at Ambala Cantonment, convened by Ahlawat,
Ishwar Singh had admittedly attended.
Ahlawat
had instructed him to proceed along with Randhir Singh, Krishan Kumar and two
others to meet Ms. Malhotra and have the counter-affidavits drafted.
Admittedly, he proceeded and met Ms. Malhotra. She drafted the counter-
affidavits on October
30, 1993 and handed
them over to the parties. He being senior-most officer among the party,
obviously he had taken the originals of the counter- affidavits to be signed by
Ahlawat and Randhir Singh and directed Kartar Singh to proceed to Rewari and
deliver the same to Ahlawat. It is now an admitted fact that Krishan Kumar
forged the signature of Ahlawat in the carbon copy in his presence. On what
date it was forged is not the material point. But it is the definite case that
after the counter- affidavit was handed over to them in the office of Ms. Indu,
Ishwar Singh had sent the original draft. When he asked Krishan Kumar to forge
but he refused to forge the signature of Ahlawat, he contacted Ahlawat who had
directed Krishan Kumar to sign the carbon copy of his counter-affidavit. On
command from Ahlawat, Krishan Kumar had forged it. From these facts, it is
clear that Ishwar Singh acted in concert with Ahlawat to fabricate
counter-affidavit with facts false to his knowledge that minors were not in
wrongful confinement or illegal custody and induced Krishan Kumar to forge the
signature of Ahlawat on the carbon copy of the counter-affidavit to be filed on
behalf of Ahlawat and after forgery, as admitted before the CBI officer, he had
taken custody of the forged carbon copy of the counter-affidavit, sent them to
Ms. Malhotra through Paras Ram for being filed in the Court. He was present on November 1, 1993 in the Court premises along with Ahlawat.
Though he disclaimed knowledge of the forged document having been filed in the
Court, in view of the evidence on record that he appeared in the Court when the
proceedings were going on, he had seen through the filing of the same in the
Court. When this Court was not satisfied with the tenor of the averments made
in the counter-affidavits filed by Ahlawat and Randhir Singh, he informed of
the same with a disturbed mind to Ahlawat.
Thus
he is a party to the fabrication of false record and abetted Krishan Kumar to
forge the signature of Ahlawat and after taking custody of the carbon copy of
the counter- affidavit with forged signature, he had entrusted the same to Paras
Ram for delivery in the office of Ms. Indu and the same was filed in this
Court. He falsely denied the facts in his affidavit filed in this Court. Thus
he not only actively participated in the fabrication of the false counter-
affidavit dated October 30, 19 93 with false averments that minors were not in
wrongful detention or illegal custody but also entrusted the same for being
filed in the judicial proceedings of this Court. He abetted Krishan Kumar to
forge the signature of M.s. Ahlawat. Thus he committed an offence under Section
193, IPC.
The
question then is: Whether Ahlawat has committed contempt of the proceedings of
this Court and has committed the offence under Section 193, IPC by making false
statement and directing forgery of his signature and filing of forged documents
in this Court? Shri U.R. Lalit, his learned senior Counsel, strenuously
contended that immediately on coming to know that his signature was forged on
the carbon copy of the counter-affidavit purported to be dated October 30,
1993, he had informed the learned counsel Ms. Indu on November 2, 1993. He also
informed the same to the D.G.P., Shri Kalyan Rudra on the same day. He also had
brought to the notice of this Court on the first available opportunity, namely,
on November 5, 1993. He had also taken disciplinary action against Krishan
Kumar and Randhir Singh respectively for forging his signature and filing the
affidavit with false averments in this Court. He had stated in his counter-
affidavit filed on November 5, 1993 the true facts. The allegation that he
instructed Krishan Kumar, when Ishwar Singh had contacted him on phone to forge
his signature on the counter-affidavit, is a fabricated version to buttress the
stand of Randhir Singh and sought shelter behind the shadow of superior
officer. Since Ahlawat had already taken disciplinary proceedings against Randhir
Singh and Krishan Kumar, the version set up by Krishan Kumar and Randhri Singh
is to defend themselves in those proceedings. The version that Ishwar Singh
telephoned to Ahlawat on October 31, 1993 informing Ahlawat that Krishan Kumar
refused to sign in the carbon copy of the counter-affidavit was attested by the
Notary on October 30, 1993 which tends corroboration from the counter-affidavit
dated October 30, 1993, filed by Randhir Singh. They have an axe to grind
against Ahlawat.
Therefore,
they have made false averments to implicate Ahlawat. In the representation made
by Krishan Kumar to the Government to expunge the adverse remarks made by Ahlawat
against him, this version has not been stated. The story of authorising to file
an affidavit dated October 30, 1993 is inconsistent with the true state of
facts. He was not a party to the raid at Agra at the house of Rahim Khan and he
would not have filed an affidavit with such a wrong fact.
When
original counter-affidavit was received by M.S. Ahlawat at 2 a.m. on November
1, 1993 on going through the contents thereof, he found them to be incorrect
since he was not a member of the raid party to take the minors into the illegal
custody and for wrongful detention. Therefore, he would not have instructed to
make such an averment in his counter- affidavit. therefore, he instructed Ms. Indu
to file another counter-affidavit with the correct averments which was not
done. Consequently, he had engaged another counsel and got the
counter-affidavit filed on November 5, 1995 with true facts. He contends that
from these circumstances, it is clear that Ahlawat has not made any false
averment nor instructed anybody to forge his signature. He did not commit any
contempt of the Court. He fairly conceded that he has no argument on the
contents of the affidavit filed by Ms. Indu in this Court. He says that Ahlawat
may be of mistaken impression in not correcting Ms. Indu, at the time, when she
had dictated in her letter addressed to D.G.P., Shri Kalyan Rudra that a counter-affidavit
on behalf of Randhir Singh and Ahlawat were already filed. But, in view of the
facts stated and the above circumstances, Ahlawat had not committed any offence
nor is he liable for contempt proceedings nor has he pleaded with any false
averment in the affidavits filed in this Court.
As to
when, for the first time, Ahlawat had come to know that his signature was
forged in the affidavit dated October 30, 1993,
has been kept delightfully vague. He brought to the notice of this Court at the
earliest opportunity, namely, November 5, 1995,
the date to which this Court had posted the case for hearing of the factum of
forgery of his signature.
We
have given our anxious and careful consideration to his forceful contention. On
October 29, 1993, this Court had taken up the case
upon motion on Board and had issued notice to the respondents. Dasti Service in
addition was ordered.
Dasti
service to the standing counsel was also ordered. The case was directed to be
posted on November 1,
1993. Ms. Indu on
November 1, 1993 wrote a letter to the Home Secretary informing that minor
children by name Afzal and Habib were illegally detained at Ambala by the 3rd
respondent, Ahlawat, and the the respondent Randhir Singh. Two separate
counter- affidavits stating that the children were not in their illegal custody
were filed by Randhir Singh and Ahlawat. On the basis of the affidavit of an
advocate of U.P. (copy enclosed thereto), the Court was not inclined to believe
the statements made by Ahlawat and randhir Singh. She enclosed all the records
since the Court had directed the Home Secretary to conduct an enquiry and to
submit his report by November 5, 1993. She requested him to be personally
present in the Court on the date of posting. On information that he was
availing leave, a mention was made to the Court and the Court by proceedings
dated November 2, 1993 directed enquiry by D.G.P. and to submit the report by
November 5, 1993 at 2.00 p.m. She also wrote on the same day a letter
reiterating the entire earlier contents and enclosed the counter-affidavits
filed on behalf of 3Rd and 4th respondents. This letter admittedly was dictated
in the presence of M.S. Ahlawat and D.I.G., G.S. Malhi. No denial on the part
of Ahlawat, i.e., he did not authorise anybody to file a counter-affidavit on
his behalf, was made at that time. It is already seen that on perusing the
affidavits, the Court was not inclined to accept their stand and ordered an
enquiry. On November 1, 1993, on which date the case was posted these
counter-affidavits were tendered and were later filed into Court. It is clear
from the record and affidavit of his driver that Ahlawat was present in the
Court premises on October 31, 1993. His driver made the affidavit long before
our issuing the notice produced before enquiry held by the District Judge, Faridabad
that Ahlawat was present in the Court premises. There is nothing to disbelieve
the version of the driver which corroborates the statement of Krishan Kumar and
Randhir Singh. As a responsible officer, he was to file a counter-affidavit
with true and correct facts. Instead, since he knew that two minor boys were in
illegal and wrongful confinement, he did not want to commit himself to that
position and by signing the counter- affidavit with false facts, he would be exposed
to perjury etc. So, he disowned responsibility and directed Krishan Kumar to
forge his signature so as to use the same in judicial proceedings, The CBI
Officer also has commented upon the conduct of Ahlawat. When Ahlawat was
required to file an affidavit on November 1, 1993, being a respondent unless he
had already got filed a counter-affidavit, the legitimate thing that could be
done was to seek time to file a counter-affidavit as he was not satisfied with
the averments in the draft counter-affidavit received at Rewari which was not
according to his stand. The least that can be said is that having allowed the
counter-affidavit filed on his behalf, he was watching the proceedings to know
how the things were going on and whether they are on the lines which he had
charted out.
Admittedly,
he deputed Ishwar Singh and 4 Constables to proceed to Delhi from Ambala to
meet Ms. Indu and to give instructions to draft the counter-affidavits. The
counter- affidavit filed by Randhir Singh is consistent with the one filed on
behalf of Ahlawat dated October 30, 1993. It would thus be clear that Ms. Indu,
obviously prepared the counter- affidavits on the basis of information
furnished by Ishwar Singh which contain denial of taking the minors into
custody and wrongfully confining them at Ambala etc. From these facts, we can
unerringly draw the conclusion that as per his instructions which receive
corroboration from the stand of Randhir Singh that the counter-affidavit dated
October 30, 1993 was drafted with false averments that the minor boys were not
taken into custody nor are they kept in illegal detention.
The
question then is: whether Ahlawat had given and instruction to Ishwar Singh to
direct Krishan Kumar to forge his signature on the carbon copy of the
counter-affidavit and on refusal, whether he had directed Krishan Kumar to
forge the same. It stands to reason that he had given such directions.
Admittedly Ishwar Singh had taken the counter- affidavit of Ahlawat drafted by
Ms. Indu and sent the original through Kartar Singh to Rewari for delivery to
M.S. Ahlawat and Krishan Kumar forged the signature of Ahlawat on the carbon
copy of the counter-affidavit in is presence. We have already held that Krishan
Kumar had nothing to gain in forging the signature of M.S. Ahlawat. Unless Ishwar
Singh had prior instructions in this behalf from Ahlawat, as responsible
officer, he would have prevented Krishan Kumar to forge the signature of Ahlawat
or immediately would have contacted and put Ahlawat on notice of it. That was
not the case of either of Ishwar Singh or Ahlawat. It stands to reason to
accept the version stated by Krishan Kumar and Randhir Singh that Ishwar SIngh
had asked Krishan Kumar to forge signature of Ahlawat on the carbon copy of the
counter-affidavit for being filed in this Court on behalf of Ahlawat. When M.S.
Ahlawat was duty-bound to file the counter-affidavit in this Court before November 1, 1993, in the absence of any request for
extension of time, it would be obvious that he had decided to get the
counter-affidavit, as instructed by him, drafted by Ishwar Singh and to have
the same filed in the Court. He did not want to commit himself by signing the
counter-affidavit to the false version, viz., that minor boys were not taken
into illegal custody and were not in wrongful confinement. He had also used his
office as a Superintendent of Police and directed his subordinate Krishan Kumar
to forge his signature. When the record was admittedly in the custody of Ishwar
Singh, obviously Ishwar Singh had asked Krishan Kumar to sign it.
Otherwise,
how it would be possible for Krishan Kumar to take it into his custody and to
forge the signature of Ahlawat? It would, therefore, be likely that on the
instructions by M.S. Ahlawat, Krishan Kumar had forged it.
In the
absence of any explanation for not seeking adjournment to file his
counter-affidavit on November 1, 1993 and, as to when, for the first time, he
had come to know of the forgery committed by Krishan Kumar, it stands to reason
that Ishwar Sigh must have informed him that Krishan Kumar had forged his
signature and got his counter-affidavit filed in the Court and that he was
satisfied that it would be sufficient to buttress the stand he had taken. When
the things were not going on the lines charted out by him, due to the report of
the D.G.P., after November
4, 1993, he obviously
must have thought that he must come out from the red and make a statement
before this Court by filing yet another counter affidavit which was accordingly
filed on November 5,
1995. He had stated in
the second counter- affidavit that on November 2, 1993, he informed Shri Kalyan Rudra,
D.G.P. that he did not sign the counter-affidavit. It is ex facie false since
neither in the report filed by Shri Kalyan Rudra nor in the affidavit sworn by
him and filed on November
5, 1995, we find such
an averment having been made.
It is
an obvious falsehood. It would be clear that he abused his office as a
Superintendent of Police, directed his subordinate Head Constable Krishan Kumar
to forge his signature or at least abetted it and got the carbon copy of the
counter affidavit filed with forged signatures in the Court while he retained
the original draft with him. The reason is obvious that he did not want want to
commit himself to the false stand which he had taken in the earlier affidavit,
since he knew that the minors were illegally detained and were in wrongful
confinement. Therefore, he filed the second counter-affidavit on November 5, 1993 with false averments pretending of
the forgery of his signature.
The
question then is: whether the averments made in the counter-affidavit dated November 5, 1993 are correct? In view of the above
conclusion, the obvious answer would be that since he knew that the report
submitted by Shri Kalyan Rudra, D.G.P. that the minor boys were wrongfully
detained and were in wrongful confinement, the averments made in the
counter-affidavit dated October 30, 1993 were obviously false to escape
strictures to be passed against him or to avoid prosecution for perjury. He
came with the version in the counter-affidavit making Krishan Kumar a scape-goat.
If he really had no knowledge of Krishan Kumar forging the signature and he had
not directed to file the carbon copy of the counter-affidavit earlier, as found
earlier, though he was available in the Court, one would expect that he would
have sought further time on November 1, 1993
to file his counter-affidavit which was not done. Therefore, his
counter-affidavit dated November
5, 1993, to the effect
that the averments made in counter-affidavit dated October 30, 1993 w ere not in his knowledge, is also a false affidavit.
Here
one more circumstance that could be taken note of is that, as rightly remarked
by CBI Officer, whether subordinate officer could be dare enough to fabricate
the counter-affidavit to be filed by Ahlawat and forge signature of his
superior officer, particularly, in judicial proceedings of this Court and for
what gain? It is highly unbecoming on the part of responsible Superintendent of
Police like Ahlawat to play hide and seek game in the judicial proceedings and
make use of his subordinates to fabricate false affidavits and give
instructions to forge his signature for use in the judicial proceedings. It is
true that the affidavit dated October 30, 1993 was attested by a Notary on October
30, 1993 and the telephonic conversation with Ahlawat by Ishwar Singh made on
October 31, 1993 was ex facie improbable. The CBI Officer has fairly commented
upon the Notary Mr. Bhat of his abdication of duty to have the signatory
identified to be the deponent and in allowing the people to sign without proper
verification of the identity. When the counter-affidavit was prepared,
admittedly, on October
30, 1993 and when the
respondent Ahlawat was not in Delhi, it
stands to reason that having sent draft through Kartar Singh to Ahlawat, who
was camping at Rewari, Ishwar Singh was in-charge of this duty.
Obviously
he had a contact with Ahlawat to know as to what is to be done on the
counter-affidavit. It would obviously be only on October 31, 1993, though exact
time is not of material consequence, but the fact remains that it must have
been signed only after Ahlawat perused the counter-affidavit he had ensured
that it was drafted according to his instruction and thereafter he had
obviously instructed Ishwar Singh to have his signature fabricated and forged
by Krishan Kumar on the carbon copy and Ahlawat deliberately kept back the
original counter-affidavit. Carbon copy after forged signature was admittedly
filed in the Court on October 31, 1993 and Ahlawat was present in the lawn of
this Court waiting for the result of the case. It would thus be clear that it
was attested only on October 31, 1993 and the Notary had obliged them to give
the date of his attestation as October 30, 1993.
The
disciplinary action taken against Krishan Kumar and Randhir Singh by Ahlawat is
only as a self-serving step. The fact that he did not take any disciplinary
action against Ishwar Singh, who was admittedly present at the time of forging
the signature of M.S. Ahlawat itself is a positive proof that both Ahlawat and Ishwar
Singh were in collaboration and used the subordinate to forge the signature of Ahlawat.
It would thus be clear that Ahlawat made further false statement in his second
affidavit.
It is
seen that the crucial evidence on record is the affidavit of Ms. Indu, the
learned Standing Counsel for Haryana and her letters which bear great
relevance. They are part of the record and they fully support the stand of Krishan
Kumar as found by us earlier. She has no axe to grind against Ahlawat and in
fairness Shri Lalit has nothing to comment upon the stand taken by Ms. Indu Malhotra
and acted as a responsible and true professional practitioner.
The
fact that M.S. Ahlawat did not even mildly suggest, let alone violently protest
to Ms. Indu Malhotra's filing a counter-affidavit on his behalf is a positive
fact that he knew that his counter-affidavit was, as a fact, forged by Krishan
Kumar. But he made a false averment in this affidavit which is called
"fifth counter-affidavit" that he had objected and informed Ms. Indu Malhotra
that he did object to her filing the counter-affidavit on November 2, 1993 and
informed her that he had not sworn any counter- affidavit nor was he aware of
the averments and the allegations made in the writ petition. These are
obviously false averments which induced this Court and also the District Judge
to believe that he was not responsible for the forgery of his signature and as
to who had committed the forgery was not known to him. These statements are now
proved to be false. Therefore, he intentionally gave false affidavit evidence
from stage to stag in these judicial proceedings punishable under Section 193
IPC.
The
question then is: whether he committed contempt in the proceedings of this
Court? Section 2(b) defines "Contempt of Court" to mean any civil or
criminal contempt.
"Criminal
contempt" defined in Section 2(c) means interference with the
administration of justice in any other manner. A false or a misleading or a
wrong statement deliberately and willfully made by a party to the proceedings
to obtain a favorable order would prejudice or interfere with the due course of
judicial proceedings. It is seen that Ahlawat, respondent No.3 to the main writ
petition and in-charge of the criminal administration, with his connivance
caused two minor boys' wrongful detention. He made an averment in the
counter-affidavit dated October 30, 1993 that they were not in wrongful
detention nor are they taken into custody which was later found to be false. He
first used fabricated counter-affidavit, forged by Krishan Kumar in the
proceedings to obtain a favorable order. But when he perceived adverse
atmosphere to him, he fabricated further false evidence and sought to use an
affidavit evidence to show that Krishan Kumar had forged his signature without
his knowledge and filed the fabricated document.
Thereby
he further committed contempt of the judicial process. He has no regard for
truth. From stage to stage, he committed contempt of the Court by making false
statements.
Being
a responsible officer, he is required to make truthful statements before the
Court, but he made obviously false statements. Thereby, he committed criminal
contempt of judicial proceedings of this Court.
From
the above discussion and conclusions the question is: what punishment is to be
imposed on Randhir Singh (ASI), Ishwar Singh (SI) and M.S. Ahlawat
(Superintendent of Police)? None of them made any candid admission nor tendered
unqualified contrite apology. Police Officers, who are supposed to be the
so-called disciplined force, have deliberately fabricated false records placed
before this Court without any compunction. It is, therefore, of utmost
importance to curb this tendency, particularly, when they have the temerity to
fabricate the records with false affidavit and place the same before the
highest Court of the land. Their depravity of the conduct is writ large. M.S. Ahlawat
is unworthy to hold any office of responsibility.
Therefore,
Randhir Singh (ASI) and Ishwar Singh (SI) shall be punishable under Section 193
IPC and accordingly they are convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous
improvement for a term of 3 months and 6 months respectively. Ahlawat, the
Superintendent of Police, is punishable under Section 193 IPC. He also
committed contempt of the proceedings of this Court punishable under Article
129 of the Constitution.
Accordingly,
he is convicted and sentenced under Section 193 IPC to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a term of one year.
He is
convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of 6 months
under Article 129 of the Constitution. Both the sentences are directed to run
concurrently. Krishna Kumar, Head Constable is exonerated of the charge under
Section 193 IPC with warning to show exemplary conduct hereafter. His bail
bonds are discharged.
The
Director General of Police, Haryana is directed to take the convicts M.S. Ahlawat,
Superintendent of Police, Ishwar Singh, Sub-Inspector and Randhir Singh,
Assistant Sub-Inspector forthwith into custody and have them consigned to
Central jail, Chandigarh to undergo the sentences and submit a report of
compliance to the Registry within one week from the date of the receipt of this
order.
We
place on record our appreciation for prompt investigation conducted and the
report submitted, within the time given, by the CBI officers.
Though
this unfortunate episode has landed the police officers in conviction, we have
no reason to believe that the real offenders in the original crime would be
tried and dealt with according to law and these orders will not have any effect
on the trial of those cases and must be dealt with according to law.
The
writ petitions stand closed.
Back
Pages: 1 2