Orissa High Court
Chandramani Kanhar vs State Of Odisha ... Opp. Party on 21 December, 2020
BLAPL No.4576 of 2020
1
I.A. No.982 of 2020
Chandramani Kanhar ... Petitioner
-Versus-
State of Odisha ... Opp. party
07. 21.12.2020 The matter is taken up through Video
Conferencing.
The learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned counsel for the State are present.
This is an application for interim bail filed by the
petitioner on the ground that his wife is suffering from
multiple types of diseases and the doctor advised her to
take complete rest due to COVID-19 pandemic. A
medical prescription and medical fitness certificate were
annexed to the interim application. During course of
argument, it was found that those were the medical
documents of one patient namely Santosini Kanhar, who
is aged about twenty five years and she is a female and
it was submitted that Santosini Kanhar is the wife of the
petitioner.
Since the learned counsel for the State raised
doubt about the authenticity of the medical documents
annexed to the interim application, as per order dated
09.12.2020, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Cuttack
was directed to depute a responsible Senior Police Officer
in the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police to enquire
into the matter by examining the doctor concerned, the
O.P.D. register etc. and furnish a report to this Court
2
regarding the authenticity of such documents through
the learned counsel for the State in a sealed cover.
The learned counsel for the State received the
report in a sealed cover and when the matter was taken
up on 16.12.2020, with the permission of the Court, he
opened the same and placed the report in which it is
mentioned as follows:
"...In obedience to the order cited above, this is
to submit that, I conducted enquiry in the
Department of Medicine, S.C.B. Medical College,
Cuttack on 11.12.2020 to ascertain the
authenticity of medical documents viz. Ticket
for Outdoor patient vide OPD Card
No.132/Medicine/30902, Registration No.OP-
000-201009-4693219 Dt.09.10.2020 in favour
of Santosini Kanhar prescribed by the Associate
Professor, Department of Medicine, S.C.B.
Medical College, Cuttack and Medical Fitness
Certificate issued by Dr. S.K. Bhol, Associate
Professor, Department of Medicine, S.C.B.
Medical College, Cuttack in favour of said
Santosini Kanhar advising complete bed rest
from 09.10.2020 to 08.06.2021. During
enquiry, it is ascertained that, there is no
doctor in any rank working in the Department
of Medicine, S.C.B. Medical College, Cuttack as
"Dr. S.K. Bhol". Besides, the initial found on the
aforesaid Outdoor Ticket with designation seal
3
as Asst. Prof., Department of Medicine is found
to have been forged by someone after obtaining
Outdoor Ticket from Ticket counter in the name
of Santosini Kanhar. Apart from that, seal of
the Associate Professor, Department of
Medicine, S.C.B. Medical College & Hospital,
Cuttack available on the suspected medical
documents does not tally with the department
seal of S.C.B. Medical College & Hospital,
Cuttack. Reply received from the Professor &
HOD of Medicine, SCB Medical College &
Hospital, Cuttack vide No.2837 Dt.14.12.2020
in this connection is enclosed herewith for kind
reference. From the above facts as ascertained
during enquiry, it is concluded that, the medical
documents enclosed with interim application
have been forged and fabricated."
The enquiry report received by the learned counsel
for the State was directed to be taken on record. This
Court then as per the order dated 16.12.2020 held as
follows:-
"....it is apparent from the report furnished that
forged medical certificates stated to have been
issued by the Associate Professor, Department
of Medicine, S.C.B. Medical College and
Hospital, Cuttack have been annexed to the
interim application to get interim bail for the
petitioner in a case which involves seizure of
4
commercial quantity of ganja. In this interim
application, one Gumesh Mallik, aged about
sixty years, son of late Pisu Mallik, At-
Sunakhadu, P.S.- Phiringia, Dist.- Kandhamal
has sworn the affidavit and he has mentioned
that he is a relative of the petitioner.
Immediate steps shall be taken to arrest the
deponent Gumesh Mallik and to produce him
before the learned trial Court i.e. learned
Sessions Judge -cum- Special Judge, Phulbani
in C.T. Case No.29 of 2020 arising out of
Phulbani Town P.S. Case No.83 of 2020 on
21.12.2020 at 11.00 a.m. positively by the
Inspector in-charge of Phulbani Town police
station. The learned trial Court shall make
necessary arrangement so that the said
deponent will appear in the proceeding on the
date and time as stipulated through Video
Conferencing. List this matter on 21.12.2020.
The file be placed before the Registrar (Judicial)
of this Court who shall communicate the order
to the learned trial Court immediately."
It appears that the aforesaid order dated
16.12.2020 was communicated by the learned Registrar
(Judicial) of this Court to the learned trial Court and in
pursuance of such order, Gumesh Mallik, aged about
sixty years, son of late Pisu Mallik, At- Sunakhadu, P.S.-
Phiringia, Dist.- Kandhamal who has sworn the affidavit
5
in the interim application was arrested and produced
before the learned trial Court by the Inspector in-charge
of Phulbani Town police station today. The deponent
Gumesh Mallik stated that he has been appraised about
the reason of his arrest in connection with this
proceeding.
As per section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act,
1971, 'criminal contempt' means, inter alia, the
publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by
signs, or by visible representations, or otherwise) of any
matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which
interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends
to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other
manner.
Law is well settled that anyone who takes recourse
to fraud deflects the course of judicial proceedings; or if
anything is done with oblique motive, the same
interferes with the administration of justice. Such
persons are required to be properly dealt with, not only
to punish them for the wrong done, but also to deter
others from indulging in similar acts which shake the
faith of people in the system of administration of justice.
If a forged and fabricated document is filed in Court to
get some relief, the same may amount to interference
with the administration of justice. The obstruction of
justice is to interpose obstacles or impediments, or to
hinder, impede or in any manner interrupt or prevent the
administration of justice. The fabrication and production
of false document can be held to be interference with the
6
due course of justice. Any interference in the course of
justice, any obstruction caused in the path of those
seeking justice are an affront to the majesty of law and
therefore, the conduct is punishable as contempt of
Court. Law of contempt is only one of many ways in
which the due process of law are prevented to be
perverted, hindered or thwarted to further the cause of
justice. Due course of justice means not only any
particular proceeding but broad stream of administration
of justice. Therefore, due course of justice used in
section 2(c) or section 13 of the Contempt of Courts Act,
1971 are of wide import and are not limited to any
particular judicial proceeding. Due process of law is
blinkered by acts or conduct of the parties to the
litigation or witnesses or generate tendency to impede or
undermine the free flow of the unsullied stream of justice
by blatantly resorting, with impunity, to fabricate Court
proceedings to thwart fair adjudication of dispute and its
resultant end. If the act complained of substantially
interferes with or tends to interfere with the broad steam
of administration of justice, it would be punishable under
the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. If the act complained
of undermines the prestige of the Court or causes
hindrance in the discharge of due course of justice or
tends to obstruct the course of justice or interferes with
due course of justice, it is sufficient that the conduct
complained of constitutes contempt of Court and liable to
be dealt with in accordance with the Contempt of Courts
Act, 1971. It has become increasingly a tendency on the
7
part of the parties either to produce fabricated evidence
as a part of the pleadings or record or to fabricate the
Court record itself for retarding or obstructing the course
of justice or judicial proceedings to gain unfair advantage
in the judicial process. This tendency to obstruct the due
course of justice or tendency to undermine the dignity of
the Court needs to be severely dealt with to deter the
persons having similar proclivity to resort to such acts or
conduct. In an appropriate case, the mens rea may not
be clear or may be obscure but if the act or conduct
tends to undermine the dignity of the Court or prejudice
the party or impedes or hinders the due course of judicial
proceedings or administration of justice, it would amount
to contempt of the Court. (Ref: Chandra Shashi -Vrs.-
Anil Kumar Verma reported in (1995)1 S.C.C. 421,
Ram Autar Shukla -Vrs.- Arvind Shukla reported in
1995 Supp(2) S.C.C. 130).
In view of the enquiry report furnished by the
Deputy Commissioner of Police, Cuttack as per order
dated 09.12.2020, prima facie it appears that the
deponent Gumesh Mallik has committed contempt of
Court. Let the deponent file show cause as to why
necessary action shall not be taken against him for
committing criminal contempt of Court under the
provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. A true
copy of application in I.A. No.982 of 2020 along with the
annexed documents, order dated 09.12.2020 of this
Court, report of D.C.P., Cuttack, order dated 16.12.2020
of this Court and today's order be handed over to the
8
deponent by the learned trial Court for the purpose of
preparing and filing the show cause. The file be placed
before the learned Registrar (Judicial) to send the
aforesaid documents immediately to the learned trial
Court to do the needful. The deponent Gumesh Mallik
shall be provided opportunity to meet an advocate of his
choice by video conferencing to prepare the show cause
and file the same by 04.01.2021. The deponent Gumesh
Mallik shall be detained in judicial custody until further
orders.
In view of section 18 of the Contempt of Courts
Act, 1971, the matter be placed before the Hon'ble Chief
Justice for passing necessary order.
.............................
RKM
S.K. Sahoo, J.
