TMI Blog1999 (10) TMI 719X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Nos. 356-57 of 1996 were disposed of by this court. In the course of that order it was held that the petitioner, M.S. Ahlawat, has deliberately fabricated false records before this Court. He is, therefore, held punishable under Section 193 Indian Penal Code (IPC) and also for contempt of this Court under Article 129 of the Constitution of India, Accordingly, he was convicted and sentenced under Section 193 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of one year and under Article 129 of the Constitution of India to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of 6 months but both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Now it appears that the petitioner has undergone the sentence of imprisonment imposed by this Court under the said two provisions, While hearing the Writ Petitions (Criminal) Nos, 356-57 of 1996, it was reported on November 5, 1993 to this Court through the Standing Counsel that his signature on the affidavit filed in this Court has been forged. This Court, after considering the two affidavits filed on November 2, 1993 and November 5, 1993 purported to have been made by the petitioner, directed a detailed inquiry to be made by the District Judge, Farid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cal, while detailed and elaborate inquiry at a trial in a criminal case is contemplated for the former but a summary inquiry for the later. This Court ought to have directed a complaint being lodged in a competent criminal court and postponed the consideration of the case arising for contempt of this Court. However, this line of argument is not pursued with since the petitioner is confining his case only to challenging conviction under Section 193 IPC. Chapter XI of IPC deals with false evidence and offences against public justice' and Section 193 occurring therein provides for punishment for giving or fabricating false evidence in a judicial proceeding. Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) provides that where an act amounts to an offence of contempt of the lawful authority of public servants or to an offence against public justice such as giving false evidence under Section 193 IPC, etc. or to an offence relating to documents actually used in a court, private prosecutions are barred absolutely and only the court in relation to which the offence was committed may initiate proceedings. Provisions of Section 195 Cr.P.C. are mandatory and no court has jurisdi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... However, the powers conferred on the Court by Article 142 being curative in nature cannot be construed as powers which authorise the Court to ignore the substantive rights of a litigant while dealing with a cause pending before it. This power cannot be used to supplant substantive law applicable to the case or cause under consideration of the Court. Article 142, even with the width of its amplitude, cannot be used to build a new edifice where none existed earlier, by ignoring express statutory provisions dealing with a subject and thereby to achieve something indirectly which cannot be achieved directly. The very nature of the power must lead the Court to set limits for itself within which to exercise those powers and ordinarily it cannot disregard a statutory provision governing a subject except perhaps to balance the equities between the conflicting claims of the litigating parties by ironing out the creases in a cause or matter before it. Indeed the Supreme Court is not a court of restricted jurisdiction of only dispute-settling. The Supreme Court has always been a law-maker and its role travels beyond merely dispute-settling. It is a problem-solver in the nebulous ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e a complaint before the appropriate court and set the criminal law in motion against the tenant, the appellant in this case namely Mohan Singh . This Court has always adopted this procedure whenever it is noticed that proceedings before it have been tampered with by production of forged or false documents or any statement has been found to be false. We have not been able to appreciate as to why this procedure was given a go-bye in the present case. May be the provisions of Sections 195 and 340 Cr.P.C. were not brought to the notice of the learned Division Bench. In the light of the enunciation of law made by this Court in the Supreme Court Bar Association case (supra), this Court could not have assumed jurisdiction by issue of a notice proposing conviction for forgery and making false statements at different stages in the court punishable under Section 193 IPC without following the procedure prescribed under Sections 195 and 340 Cr.P.C. Primarily this Court does not exercise any original criminal jurisdiction in relation to offences arising under Section 193 IPC and secondly the seriousness of the charge arising under Section 193 IPC requires an elaborate inquiry and trial i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
