Madras High Court: In a Suo Motu Civil Contempt Proceedings initiated against the contemnors for fabricating documents which were produced in court for getting favorable orders, N. Sathish Kumar, J. while holding the Sub Registrar and the litigant guilty of contempt of court, sentenced them to undergo a sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of two months with a fine amount of Rs.2,000/- each.
Background:
A writ petition was originally filed by the petitioner challenging the order of the District Revenue Officer changing the revenue records in favour of the respondent 4 in the writ petition / contemnor 1. During the hearing, it was brought to the notice of the Court that the document relying upon by the respondent 4 is fabricated and produced only before the revenue authorities. By order dated 02-04-2024, the Court directed the Sub Registrar/ Contemnor 2 to produce the certified copy and the Inspector General of Registration to conduct an enquiry and file a report.
The Inspector General of Registration, after conducting an enquiry, filed a report holding that the document originally registered as a mortgage deed has been tampered with as a sale deed in the Book I maintained in the office.
In view of the above act, this Court by the Order dated 20-06-2024 in the above writ petition, initiated the contempt proceedings against respondent 4 and the Sub Registrar, calling upon them to show cause as to why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against them for producing false documents before the Court.
Analysis and Decision:
After taking note of the reply affidavit, the Court said that the contemnors have not shown remorse for production of false document.
The Court said that if there was a sale deed registered in 1974, there was no reason why contemnor 1 relied only on a sale agreement in 2018 to file a suit. This indicates that the document has been tampered later with the active connivance with the Sub Registrar.
The Court remarked that when the person is already having huge experience in the Sub Registrar Office, he has not even verified the document and issued the certified copy that too for production before the High Court.
Further, the Court noted that the digitisation was done in the year 2018. The digitisation records and the QR Code clearly show that the document registered in the year 1974 was only a mortgage deed, and only for the first time the fabricated document is produced in the year 2023.
The Court took note of the affidavit filed by Contemnor 2 that he has prepared the certified copy based on one already obtained in 2014. The Court said that the certified copy of the year 2014 produced before this Court has no details as to the signature, seal and endorsement. Therefore, the so-called certified copy of the year 2014 is also created with active connivance with Contemnor 2. This document also, prima facie, makes it clear that the document is only made for the purpose of defence in the contempt proceedings.
After perusing the copy of the document in which the fabrication taken place in the copy sheet, the Court said that the entry relating the document has been very conveniently written in hand after erasing the original entry and the previous document entered by the officials also placed before the Court. Normally the copy sheet entries will be made only by person in charge of particular job chronologically, whereas the very next entry has been conveniently fabricated. All these facts clearly shows that the document has been produced to deceive the Court to get a favorable order.
Thus, the Court directed the Inspector General of Registration to lodge a criminal complaint for fabrication of document against the persons concerned. The investigating officer was also directed to find out if any other person in office is involved in these types of fabrications of the document.
The Court viewed that when a false document is produced with the intention to defraud the Court, this act also falls within the ambit of Contempt.
The Court said that to deceive the Court and getting a favorable order with the active connivance with the Sub Registrar document has been produced, if the Court shuts its eye and accept their affidavit, the same will encourage unscrupulous officials who may engage such activities in connivance with the private parties to achieve their goals. Thus, the Court viewed that unless the contemnors are convicted under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, these types of fraud and fabrication cannot be curbed in public office particularly in registering office where the entries are so important which decide the rights of the parties.
The Court held the contemnors guilty for producing fabricated document having committed civil contempt, as defined under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 and hence, are liable to be punished under Section 12 of the Act.
On request of the contemnors to suspend the execution of punishment, the Court while exercising its powers under Section 19(3) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 has suspended the execution of the imprisonment alone imposed on the contemnors by this Order till the period of 30 days for filing appeal.
[High Court of Madras v D. Sasikumar, 2024 SCC OnLine Mad 3216, decided on 01-07-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Respondents: Advocate B. Manimaran, Senior Counsel A.Navaneetha Krishnan