TMI Blog1996 (1) TMI 434X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rnment 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 Ishaqu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he 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 forg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he 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 Regis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 Ah ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 ti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ases 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 poss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly 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 co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 Rah ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... afted 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 ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ure 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 Superi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
