[ARNAB GOSWAMI’S CASE]HOME MINISTER ANIL DESHMUKH IN TROUBLE.

 

 [ARNAB GOSWAMI’S CASE]HOME MINISTER ANIL DESHMUKH IN TROUBLE.

 

 

The new Interim Application filed by Mr. Arnab Goswami making allegations against Home Minister Anil Deshmukh is as good as a move in Chess where there iss win-win situation for one side and loss to the opposite. The situation is that the IA filed by Mr Goswami making allegations of malafides has to be replied by Minister Anil Deshmukh by filing reply affidavit. If Mr. Anil Deshmukh doesn’t file reply personally and asks subordinate officer to file reply then the as per law declared by the Supreme Court the allegations against Anil Desmukh are treated to be true and proved. [Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd.  v. Union of India AIR 1986 SUPREME COURT 872]

If 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.

If 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

Already 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 their residence.

 

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.

The 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.

 Justice Nadira Pathariya passed the order eight months after Dalmiya, a former BCCI president, moved a case of perjury against Sharad Pawar and Board officials and prayed for criminal proceedings against them for contempt of lawful authority of public servants for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence.

Mr. 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.

This 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;

“In 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…

…the 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:

(i) 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?

(ii) What is the scope and ambit of such preliminary inquiry?..”

 

In 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.

In sec 340 of Cr. PC even the judges, Supreme Court staff were also prosecuted.

In 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.

Also, 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 the culprits.

 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.

 Also, the then Maharashtra Minister, Mr. Swaroop Singh Naik and Chief Secretary Ashok Khot were also sent to jail for imprisonment for 1 month for contempt of Court 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;

“From 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.”

  Such actions whereby the offenders violate the law and overlook the guidelines laid down by the Judiciary in various precedents not only undermines the respect of the Supreme Court, the constitutional authority but is also likely to subvert the Rule of Law and create uncertainty and confusion in the administration of law. Such conducts are therefore comprehended by the principles underlying the law of Contempt as ruled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Badrakanta Mishra (1973) 1 SCC 446. Herein the present case, not only the MHADA Officials but also the other accused including the members of the society who supported the unlawful acts of main accused, by relying and endorsing the act of the said contemptuous order and false affidavit are also guilty of contempt of this Hon’ble Apex Court.