[ARNAB GOSWAMI’S CASE]HOME MINISTER ANIL DESHMUKH IN TROUBLE.
GOSWAMI’S CASE]HOME MINISTER ANIL DESHMUKH IN TROUBLE.
he files reply affidavit with any false or misleading statement then he shall
be prosecuted for perjury as per sec 340 of Cr.P.C. for offences under section
191, 192, 193, 199, 200, 201, 218, 471, 474 etc. of IPC.
Mr. Anil Deshmukh supports his contemptuous act of taking stand against the
Supreme Court judgment then he will be guilty of aggravated contempt.
In Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India AIR 1986 SUPREME COURT 872, it is ruled as under;
In C. S. Rowjee v. A. P. State Road
Transport Corporation, (1964) 6 SCR 330 : (AIR 1964 SC 962) the Court in a
matter arising out of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 where certain allegations
against the Minister went uncontrovered, had occasion to administer a word of
caution. Where mala fides are alleged, it is necessary that the person against
whom such allegations are made should come forward with an answer refuting or denying
such allegations. For otherwise such allegations remain unrebutted and the
Court would in such a case be constrained to accept the allegations so
remaining unrebutted and unanswered on the test of probability. That precisely
is the position in the present case, in the absence of any counter-affidavit by
any of the respondents. One should have thought that the Minister for Works and
Housing should have sworn an affidavit accepting or denying the allegations
made by the petitioners. At our instance, M. K. Mukherjee, Secretary, Ministry
of Works and Housing has filed a supplementary affidavit. He avers that the
impugned notice dt. March 10, 1980 of re-entry upon forfeiture of lease issued
by the Engineer Officer, Land and Development Office was on the basis of press
reports i. e. reports of the press conference held by the Lt. Governor. Again,
there is no attempt on the part of the Union of India, Ministry of Works and
Housing to deny the allegations of mala fides on the part of the Government and
its functionaries in issuing the impugned orders
one contempt petition is filed by Human Rights Activist Mursalin Shaikh against
Minister Anil Deshmukh in Kangana Ranaut’s case for his statement/ instructions
to police to summon persons at police station against Supreme Court judgment
thereby violating the fundamental rights of Women which mandates that they
should not be summoned at the police station and their statement be recorded at
The provisions of 340 of Cr.P.C. are
so stringent that it spares no one.
In the year 2008 the Calcutta High Court Justice Nadira Pathariya directed initiation of criminal proceedings against Board of Control for Cricket in India.
action was ordered against President Sashank Manohar, former Board President
Sharad Pawar and four top officials for filing false affidavits in the Jagmohan
Dalmiya expulsion case.
Sharad Pawar challenged the said order before Supreme Court on the ground of ex
parte order without hearing him. The counsel for Sharad Pawar misled the
court and obtained the order directing high court to hear them before any action. Such judgment are
called as anticipatorily overruled and
per incuriam as it ignored the binding precedent of Full bench in Pritish vs. State (2002) 1 SCC 253.
issue recently discussed by the supreme Court in the judgment of The State Of Punjab vs. Jasbir Singh
2020 SCC OnLine SC where it is observed as under;
Pritish v. State of Maharashtra, (2002) 1 SCC 253, decided by a three-Judge
Bench of this Court, and of a two-Judge Bench in Amarsang Nathaji v. Hardik
Harshadbhai Patel, (2017) 1 SCC 113. Also drawing our attention to the another
judgment decided by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Sharad Pawar v.
Jagmohan Dalmiya, (2010) 15 SCC 290, she submitted that no dictum can be said
to be have been laid down in the said judgment as it was passed sub silentio…
decision of the three- Judge Bench in Sharad Pawar (supra) did not assign any
reason as to why it was departing from the opinion expressed by a Coordinate
Bench in Pritish (supra) regarding the necessity of a preliminary inquiry under
Section 340 of the CrPC, as also the observations made by a Constitution Bench
of this Court in Iqbal Singh Marwah (supra), we find it necessary that the
present matter be placed before a larger Bench for its consideration,
particularly to answer the following questions:
Whether Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 mandates a
preliminary inquiry and an opportunity of hearing to the would-be accused
before a complaint is made under Section 195 of the Code by a Court?
What is the scope and ambit of such preliminary inquiry?..”
Sundeep Bafna’s case (2014)16 SCC 623
it is ruled that the earlier judgment has to be followed AND the subsequent
judgment of the Supreme Court of lesser strength or co equal strength has to be
ignored. Therefore the judgment in Pritish vs State is binding and Sharad
Pawar’s case is overruled/per incuriam.
sec 340 of Cr. PC even the judges, Supreme Court staff were also prosecuted.
Gobind Mehta Vs State AIR 1971 SC 1708, K. Rama Reddy 1998(3) ALD 305, In
Kamlakar Bhavsar 2002 ALL Mr Cri 2640, the Police officer, Govt. Pleader,
Advocate for accused, Magistrate, sessions judges were prosecuted under sec 340
of Cr P C.
in the recent case of Sarvapalli
Radhakrishnan (2019) 14 SCC 761, the Full bench of Apex Court imposed a
fine of Rs. 5 Crores on the accused and also ordered criminal action against
In an another case the IPS Officer M.S.
Ahlawat who tried defrauding the Court by giving false affidavits was termed
for imprisonment for 1 and half year by the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court has sentenced an officer of the rank of IPS (public servant) in the case of Afzal vs. State 1996 SCC (7) 397, the observation of the case are as under;
the above discussion and conclusion 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.”