Delhi High Court
Court On Its Own Motion vs Radhey Sham Middha on 22 January, 2015
Author: R. K. Gauba
Bench: S. Ravindra Bhat, R.K.Gauba
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: January 07, 2015
Pronounced on: January 22, 2015
+ CONT. CAS. (CRL.) 08/2014 with
CRL.M.A.14550/2014, 15143-15144/2014
COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION ... Petitioner
versus
RADHEY SHAM MIDDHA ... Respondent
Through: Sh. Manmeet Arora, Sh. Rishabh Bansal and Sh. Apoorv Tripathi, Advocates with respondent in person.
Sh. Mohit Paul, Advocate.
Inspector Raman Lamba, SHO, Mehrauli.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA %
1. This matter was registered as a criminal contempt case pursuant to order dated 06.08.2014 passed by a Division Bench of this court headed by one of us (S. Ravindra Bhat, J.), in the course of hearing on C.M.No.8058/2014 in Writ Petition (Civil) No.1399/2010 National Forests Investors Regd. Versus Golden Forests India Ltd. whereby, inter alia, cognizance was taken of the criminal contempt found prima facie committed on the face of the proceedings by the respondent herein (hereinafter referred to as "the contemnor"), charge was framed in terms of Section 14(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and plea of the contemnor recorded CONT.CAS.(CRL.) No.08 of 2014 Page 1 thereupon.
2. It is necessary to set out the background facts at the outset.
3. The application registered as C.M.No.8058/2014 had been moved by the Committee for Golden Forests India Ltd.(hereinafter referred to as "Committee") in the aforementioned writ petition praying for confirmation of sale of land admeasuring 244 Kanals and 13 Marlas in Village Dangdehri, Tehsil & District Ambala (Haryana) for which purpose an advertisement had been inserted in several national newspapers by the Committee on 10.05.2014. Three bids were received in response to the said public notice, including one by M/s. Dera Sacha Sauda, Sirsa (Trust). The bid of M/s.
Dera Sacha Sauda for ₹18.5 crores was found to be the highest. This resulted in inter se bidding in the wake of which the highest bid of ₹18.5 crores given by M/s. Dera Sacha Sauda was declared successful and pursuant to the bidding conditions, that bidder deposited the requisite amount (20%) by 16.06.2014, the stipulated date. It is the result of the said bid process confirmation of which was sought from this court through the application which was under consideration at the relevant point of time.
4. The application for confirmation came up for hearing, for the first time, on 02.07.2014. On that date, Mr. Mohit Paul, Advocate, claiming to represent Golden Forest Investors Society, appeared to submit that one Mr. Manvir Singh had not been able to participate in the bid process but was willing to purchase the property in question for ₹21.5 crores. The Division Bench noted this submission in the order passed on 02.07.2014 and recorded the view that if the new bidder was genuine and serious, the matter concerning the sale of the property might have to be relegated to the Committee to facilitate fresh inter se bidding so as to include the new bidder CONT.CAS.(CRL.) No.08 of 2014 Page 2 and thus, directed Mr. Manvir Singh (to show his seriousness) to deposit ₹10.75 crores representing 50% of the amount offered within a week of the said date with the Registrar of the court who was, in turn, directed to deposit the said amount in an interest bearing account to be eventually disbursed pursuant to the final order to be passed in due course. Mr. Manvir Singh was also directed to submit an affidavit disclosing all his relevant particulars including place of residence, occupation etc. The case was directed to be listed on 11.07.2014.
5. Mr. Manvir Singh did not comply with the aforesaid directions regarding deposit of ₹10.75 crores and filing of the affidavit. The matter came up against this backdrop on 11.07.2014 when Golden Forest Investors Society was again represented by Mr. Mohit Paul, Advocate who sought further time and assured that the order would be complied with by Mr. Manvir Singh. In an endeavour to satisfy that the request was genuine, a copy of deposit confirmation renewal advice of H.D.F.C. Bank indicating fixed deposit to the tune of about ₹12 crores was shown to the court. However, the court noticed that Mr. Mohit Paul, Advocate had not filed any affidavit or document on behalf of Golden Forest Investors Society or of Mr. Manvir Singh expressing willingness to participate in the bid process and that the deposit confirmation renewal advice of H.D.F.C. Bank also purported to be standing in the name of one Mr. Harmohinder Singh, connection between him, on one hand, and Mr. Manvir Singh, on the other, not having been explained or established. In these circumstances, a final opportunity was given to Mr. Mohit Paul, Advocate to disclose the interest of Golden Forest Investors Society by filing an affidavit of its Secretary or some other office bearer in such regard as also for compliance with the CONT.CAS.(CRL.) No.08 of 2014 Page 3 earlier order dated 02.07.2014 in respect of the affidavit and deposit by Mr. Manvir Singh. In addition, Golden Forest Investors Society was also directed to deposit ₹5 Lacs towards cost in case Mr. Manvir Singh was to lose interest in the proceedings which were resultantly getting delayed. It may be added here that a pay order in the sum of ₹5 Lacs was tendered in the court in compliance of the order dated 11.07.2014.
6. Against this backdrop, on 23.07.2014, a Demand Draft purporting to have been issued by M/s. Axis Bank Limited, Rohini, Delhi (DL), Plot No. 5, Vikas Surya Plaza, Community Centre, D.C. Chowk, Sector-9, Rohini, Delhi-110085 of the value of ₹21.5 crores favouring Chairman, Committee of GFIL was tendered in the court by and on behalf of the contemnor claiming to be representing one "Harry Township Ltd.". It may be added here that the contemnor was represented by Mr. Anip Sachthey, Advocate, who was also appearing for M/s. Golden Forest Investors Society.
7. The proceedings recorded on 23.07.2014 need to be extracted in extenso as under:-
"Mr. Anip Sachthey, learned counsel on behalf of Mr. Radhey Shyam, S/o Shri Diwan Chand, R/o 3046, Sector-28D,Chandigarh and House No.9, Sector-19, Chandigarh, has tendered the demand draft no.882662, dated 22.07.2014, issued by the Axis Bank Limited, Plot No.5, Vikas Surya Plaza, Community Centre, D.C. Chowk, Sector-9, Rohini, New Delhi-110085, favouring the Chairman, Committee of Golden Forest India Limited for the sum of ₹21.50 Crores. It is submitted that the matter is sent back to the Committee for fresh process of bidding. The said Mr. Radhey Shyam represents one Harry Township Limited, which is interested in bidding on behalf of the said company in the said sum of ₹21.50 Crores. Mr. Sachthey, Advocate seeks a day's time to file an affidavit disclosing the particulars of the bidder such as the name of the company, company's PAN number, Resolution CONT.CAS.(CRL.) No.08 of 2014 Page 4 authorizing the purchase of the land as well as the particulars with respect to its Board of Directors, whether they are an income tax payee, etc. The affidavit shall be tendered tomorrow, i.e., 24.07.2014.
The said demand draft is hereby taken on record and shall be kept in the physical custody of the Registrar General, to be produced tomorrow.
Mr. Himanshu Kapoor, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. Nikhil Kant Syal, S/o Shri Rakesh Kant Syal. The particulars and relevant details of Mr. Nikhil Kant Syal shall be filed in the Court in the form of an affidavit within a week from today.
List on 24th July, 2014.
A copy of this order be given under the signatures of Courtmaster."
8. Pursuant to the afore-quoted directions in the order dated 23.07.2014, the contemnor filed an affidavit with which he submitted copies of PAN Card of M/s. Real Pro Assets Ltd. as well as his own Electoral Photo Identity Card issued by the Election Commission of India. He did not furnish in the said affidavit further details such as board resolution of M/s. Real Pro Assets Ltd. or Harry Township Limited or other particulars such as identity of the members of the Board of Directors, Income Tax Returns etc.
9. On 24.07.2014, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for M/s. Dera Sacha Sauda, the successful bidder confirmation of sale in whose respect was being pressed, alleged that the Pay Order (Demand Draft) purporting to have been issued by M/s. Axis Bank Limited for ₹21.5 crores, which had been submitted on record by the contemnor on 23.07.2014, was a forged document and submitted affidavit in support of the contentions. This led to CONT.CAS.(CRL.) No.08 of 2014 Page 5 directions being given by the Division Bench for inquiry.
10. The order dated 24.07.2014 reads as follows:-
"Further to the previous order of the Court dated 23.07.2014, Mr. Paul has placed on record the affidavit of Mr. Radhe Sham Midha, Managing Director of M/s Real Pro Assets. This time the affidavit records that Mr. Radhe Sham Midha is the Managing Director of M/s Real Pro Assets a different entity from the one mentioned by him yesterday. There is no further detail or particulars, contrary to what was required by the previous order.
Mr. Pattjoshi, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the successful bidder, on instructions, seeks liberty to place on record the affidavit of one Mr. Dhanwant Singh, son of Mr. Naranjan Singh, the authorised representative of Dera Sacha Sauda.
The affidavit levels serious allegations against the bid of Mr. Radhe Sham Midha to the extent of alleging that the pay order issued by Axis Bank Ltd. on 22.07.2014 particulars of which are recorded in yesterdays order is, in fact, a forgery. Mr. Pattjoshi has placed on record the pay orders issued by Axis Bank Ltd. of the same branch seeking to establish that the format is entirely different.
Having regard to the submissions and in order to ensure clarity, the Registrar General is hereby directed to immediately take steps to depute a responsible officer not below the rank of Joint Registrar, who shall make enquiries as to the genuineness of the pay order tendered by Mr. Radhe Sham Midha.
The report of the Registrar General - including the statements recorded by the concerned Manager and authorised signatories of the Axis Bank Ltd., Rohini Branch (the address of which is mentioned in the pay order dated 22.07.2014) shall be enclosed along with the report.
The Axis Bank Ltd., Rohini Branch is directed to render all CONT.CAS.(CRL.) No.08 of 2014 Page 6 cooperation in this regard.
Order dasti under the signatures of the Court Master - to be separately marked to the Registrar General.
The Registrar General shall ensure that the report is placed on record atleast one day prior to the next date of hearing.
Issue notice to Mr. Radhe Sham Midha. Mr. Paul accepts notice on his behalf.
Mr. Radhe Sham Midha is directed to remain present in court on the next date.
List on 06.08.2014.
C.M. Nos.15191/2013 and 7318/2014 List on 03.09.2014."
11. The inquiry was carried out by Mr. G.R. Grover, Joint Registrar of this court, who had been deputed for the purpose by the Registrar General pursuant to the order dated 24.07.2014. In the course of the inquiry, the Joint Registrar recorded the statements of Mr. Nitin Gupta, Assistant Vice- President and Branch Head of M/s. Axis Bank Limited, Mr. Saurabh Varshney, Deputy Manager of M/s. Axis Bank Limited and Mr. Mohit Paul, Advocate who had appeared before the court on the earlier dates claiming to represent M/s. Golden Forest Investors Society and had made submissions also for and on behalf of Mr. Manvir Singh.
12. The inquiry report confirmed that the Pay Order submitted on 23.07.2014 by the contemnor was a fake document which had never been issued by the concerned branch of M/s. Axis Bank Ltd.
CONT.CAS.(CRL.) No.08 of 2014 Page 7
13. In above context, the statement made by Mr. Nitin Gupta, Assistant Vice-President and Branch Head, Axis Bank before the inquiry officer on 01.08.2014 needs to be noted. The statement reads as under:-
"I have been working with Axis Bank since February, 2003 and in Rohini Branch w.e.f. 06th May, 2013.
I have seen the pay order bearing no. 882662 dated 22nd July, 2014 for Rs.21,50,00,000/- in favour of Chairman Committee OKI issued by Axis Bank Limited, Rohini Delhi (DL) Plot No-5 Vikas Surya Plaza, Community Centre DC Chowk, Sector-9, Rohini, New Delhi-110085. The said pay order has not been issued from our branch. These types of pay orders were in vogue prior to 01st April, 2012 when the validity of the pay orders was reduced from 6 months to 3 months. The said stationery was destroyed when the new stationery was issued. The MICR number mentioned at the pay order in question i.e. 110211038 belongs to our Rohini Branch. The Serial number of which this PO number i.e. 882662 belongs was never issued by our branch. The signatures appended of the authorized signatories carrying number 0865 and 01765 also do not belong to our branch. The signatures appended on both points do not belong to any of the four authorized signatories of our branch. There are four authorized signatories in our branch who are:
Name of the employee SS No.
1. Nitin Gupta AVP 3434
2. Sunaina Khanna, SM, 3121
3. Rahul Kapila, Mgr 8383
4. Saurabh Varshney, DM 12730
Their signatures are given on a separate sheet.
After seeing the pay order closely, I have observed the following points of differences:
(i) The pay order in question mentions its validity of six months whereas at present the pay orders carry the validity of three months. The said change came into existence after 01 st April, 2012.
CONT.CAS.(CRL.) No.08 of 2014 Page 8 (ii) The transaction code of two digits mentioned at the pay order in
the bottom of right corner is "29" whereas it should be "12". The transaction code "29" belongs to current account payable at par cheques and the transactions code "12" belongs to pay order.
(iii) The font which is used in the pay order in question is different from the one being used presently.
(iv) PO Serial number should be the same as the pay order number but in this case the PO Serial number is different which establishes that this pay order is fake.
(v) The pay order carries the account number which is to be typed which is not mentioned on the pay order in question.
The above points establish that pay order in question is a fake one and has not been issued by our branch. The stationery which has been used in this pay order was being used by our branch prior to 01st April, 2012 when the pay orders were valid for six months. We do not have the stationery belonging to the period prior to 01st April, 2012 so as to confirm whether the pay order in question is exactly the same used at that time or not."
14. It must be added here that the contemnor does not seek to join issue with the facts stated by the aforementioned official of the bank. It is, therefore, established beyond doubt that the pay order submitted on 23.07.2014 was a fabricated document.
15. On consideration of the material gathered during inquiry, the Division Bench by order dated 06.08.2014 was of the opinion that a criminal contempt on the face of the proceedings had been committed by the contemnor, the objective of which was to obstruct the course of justice by stalling the confirmation of the sale proceeding in which M/s. Dera Sacha Sauda had been declared successful bidder.
16. In the course of hearing on 06.08.2014, the Division Bench proceeded to frame a formal Article of Charge against the petitioner under Section CONT.CAS.(CRL.) No.08 of 2014 Page 9 14(1) of Contempt of Courts Act in the following terms:-
" The affidavit placed on record dated 24.07.2014 and the statement made pursuant to it, that you Shri Radhey Sham Midha, S/o Shri Diwan Chand Midha are willing to purchase or cause to be purchased, the land being 244 Kanals and 13 Marlas in Village Dangdehri, Tehsil & District, Ambala for ₹21.5 Crores and the deposit of ₹21.5 Crores by pay order No.882662 dated 22.07.2014 issued by M/s Axis Bank Limited, Rohini Delhi (DL), Plot No.5, Vikas Surya Plaza, Community Centre, DC Chowk, Sector-9, Rohini, New Delhi - 110085, which has been subsequently discovered to be a false and forged document has resulted in stalling the proceedings of the Court and is an obstruction to administration of justice.
You the aforesaid Shri Radhey Sham Midha, are hereby charged with criminal contempt on the face of the Court punishable in terms of Section 14(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act."
17. A copy of the afore-extracted Article of Charge was furnished to the contemnor and it was read over and explained to him in vernacular in the presence of Mr. Mohit Paul, Advocate by whom he was assisted. In answer to the Article of Charge, the contemnor pleaded guilty which was duly recorded.
18. Having pleaded guilty to the charge for the offence of criminal contempt, the contemnor sought opportunity to explain his conduct and address the court on the question of sentence. Thus, the Registry was directed to register criminal contempt proceedings and to list it for further proceedings on 27.08.2014. Pending further action on the criminal contempt case, the contemnor was directed to furnish surety in the sum of ₹10,000/- before the Registrar of this court on 08.08.2014.
19. While the hearing on the contempt action was adjourned as above, the CONT.CAS.(CRL.) No.08 of 2014 Page 10 Division Bench hearing the Writ Petition (Civil) No.1399/2010 also directed (by order dated 06.08.2014) the Registrar General to file a complaint under Section 340 Cr.P.C. as also lodge a First Information Report (FIR) for the various offences (forgery, forgery of negotiable instrument etc.) that had been prima facie committed. We are informed that a criminal complaint under Section 340 Cr.P.C. has since been filed and is pending before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi. Further, a First Information Report No.295/2014 was also registered by Police Station Tilak Marg, New Delhi on the complaint sent under the signatures of the Registrar General of this court and is pending investigation for offences punishable under Sections 467/468/471/120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
20. By the order dated 06.08.2014, the Division Bench had also directed Mr. Mohit Paul, Advocate to file an affidavit outlining the circumstances in which he was engaged in this matter and appeared on various dates of hearing culminating in the presentation of the pay order for ₹21.5 crores, which is the subject matter of the criminal contempt proceedings and in respect of which FIR has been directed to be lodged. Mr. Mohit Paul, Advocate filed an affidavit in compliance of said order.
21. The contemnor volunteered to submit an affidavit on 26.08.2014 seeking to explain his conduct for which opportunity had been given to him vide order dated 06.08.2014.
22. For the sake of clarity of factual matrix, it may be added that the application registered as C.M.No.8058/2014 was allowed by order dated 06.08.2014 confirming the offer of sale in favour of highest and successful bidder M/s. Dera Sacha Sauda (Trust) noting, inter alia, that the offers made on behalf of other potential buyers, including the contemnor herein, had CONT.CAS.(CRL.) No.08 of 2014 Page 11 earlier led to the adjournments.
23. When the contempt case was taken up on 27.08.2014, the counsel appearing for the contemnor submitted that the document purporting to be the Demand Draft for ₹21.5 crores, which had been submitted by him on 23.07.2014 but had been found to be a forged instrument, had been handed over to him by one Mr. Gurmeet Singh Wadalia, S/o Sh. Tirlok Singh, having office at 49, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi and residence at 17, Central Drive, DLF Farms, Chattarpur, New Delhi (Mobile No. 9811460001). The contemnor, in his affidavit dated 02.06.2014, had claimed that the pay order (Demand Draft) had been handed over by said Mr. Gurmeet Singh Wadalia to Mr. Mohit Paul, Advocate who had submitted the same in the court. Having regard to such submissions, the Division Bench directed notice to be issued to said Mr. Gurmeet Singh Wadalia returnable on 18.09.2014 calling upon him to show cause as to why criminal contempt proceedings be not initiated against him in the light of averments made in the affidavit dated 26.08.2014 sworn by the contemnor. In the said affidavit, the contemnor had also claimed that the fact that Mr. Gurmeet Singh Wadalia was present in the court at the time of hearing in the writ petition on 23.07.2014 could be verified by perusal of the CCTV recording as also the application for entry pass submitted in the General Branch. At the request of the contemnor, appropriate directions were issued in such regard to the Registry vide order dated 27.08.2014.
24. The notice to Mr. Gurmeet Singh Wadalia stood served and on his instructions even a counsel (Ms. Chetali Jain) appeared on 18.09.2014 though without having filed any Vakalatnama or written instructions. Since Mr. Gurmeet Singh Wadalia had not appeared in person, bailable warrants CONT.CAS.(CRL.) No.08 of 2014 Page 12 were issued which were reported to have been served by 26.09.2014, in spite of which the default in appearance continued and, thus, non-bailable warrants were issued for 29.09.2014.
25. The duress process was renewed for 29.10.2014 on which date it was reported by S.H.O., P.S. Mehrauli that Mr. Gurmeet Singh Wadalia had reportedly gone missing from Karan Prayag, District Chamoli, Uttrakhand in which context, F.I.R. No.41/2014 had been registered under Section 365 IPC in Police Station Karan Prayag and that as per the information received from the local police, a car and a dead body, stated to be of Mr. Gurmeet Singh Wadalia, had been recovered from river Alaknanda near Karan Prayag (Uttrakhand). The question as to whether Mr. Gurmeet Singh Wadalia had indeed died in the said car accident and/or drowning in the river is subject matter of investigation by the police pursuant to directions given by order dated 29.10.2014.
26. The counsel for the contemnor made submissions on the question of sentence against the above backdrop, the basic contention being that he had been taken for a ride by Mr. Gurmeet Singh Wadalia and that the submission of the forged Pay Order by him in the court on 23.07.2014 was an act unwittingly indulged in inasmuch as he did not have any reason to believe the instrument to be a forged one. The counsel argued on the strength of S. Abdul Karim v. M. K. Prakash AIR 1976 SC 859 that the standard of proof required to establish a charge of criminal contempt is same as in any other criminal proceedings. She submitted that the impugned act here does not merit being treated as contumacious conduct in the facts and circumstances explained by the contemnor in his affidavit dated 26.08.2014 delineating the role of Mr. Gurmeet Singh Wadalia, the person who (according to the CONT.CAS.(CRL.) No.08 of 2014 Page 13 contemnor) had arranged the bogus Pay Order to be manufactured, brought and tendered in the court. Her argument was that it cannot be said in these circumstances, unless the role of Mr. Gurmeet Singh Wadalia and those behind him was thoroughly probed, that the intention of the contemnor was to stall the proceedings in the court so as to obstruct the administration of justice. She also placed reliance on the view taken by Orissa High Court in Hotel Alankar (P) Ltd. Vs. S.P. Nanda 1992 CriLJ 1788.
27. The contemnor also submitted, through counsel, that the fact that he had tendered unconditional apology immediately upon the forgery of the pay order being discovered and further as he does not have any past criminal record, it is a fit case where instead of being subjected to substantive punishment, the grant of release after admonition, or on probation, under Probation of Offenders Act ought to be extended to him. In support, she referred to the cases reported as Debabrata v. State AIR 1969 SC 189 and in Re: Sh. Vinod Kumar Jain 2013 IX AD (Delhi) 368.
28. As noted earlier, the contemnor had been called upon by order dated 23.07.2014 to declare on oath his full particulars such as the name of the company he was representing, company‟s PAN number, resolution authorizing the purchase of land on behalf of the company as well as particulars with respect to the Board of Directors etc. An affidavit, thus, was sworn by the contemnor on 24.07.2014 and submitted at the time of hearing. Noticeably, in the said affidavit, the contemnor described himself as the Managing Director of Real Pro Assets Ltd. having its registered office at 3046, Sector-28-D, Chandigarh. Referring to the Pay Order for ₹21.50 crores that had been tendered by him on 23.07.2014., he declared in the affidavit that the amount of the said instrument had been drawn from a sister CONT.CAS.(CRL.) No.08 of 2014 Page 14 concern, namely, "Deepak Holdings". He further clarified that the affidavit was being submitted by him on behalf of Real Pro Assets Ltd., which wished to submit its bid. This was not in sync with the submissions orally made on 23.07.2014 when the court had been informed that the contemnor represented entity named Harry Township Ltd. which was interested in submitting the bid and, thus, claiming that the demand draft in question was an instrument arranged not by Real Pro Assets Ltd. but by Harry Township Ltd. The material on record also shows that the account mentioned in above context is not of Deepak Holdings but a personal account of one Mr. Deepak Bhardwaj.
29. When the allegations were made about the pay order being bogus document, in the course of the inquiry instituted by the court, the contemnor made a statement on 01.08.2014 before the inquiry officer wherein he came up, for the first time, with the version indicating involvement of Mr. Gurmeet Singh Wadalia. It needs to be noted that in the said statement dated 01.08.2014, the contemnor claimed that he had come in contact with Mr. Gurmeet Singh Wadalia in connection with his other business dealings, on being introduced by a mutual acquaintance (also a property dealer) and had known him for the last six months and had met him 5-6 times. He stated that Mr. Gurmeet Singh Wadalia had projected himself to be a man of means and he had planned to purchase the land in question with his assistance and since he himself did not have any ready money (₹10.75 crores as was required to be deposited), had requested Mr. Wadalia for requisite assistance who, in turn, had arranged the draft for the full amount (₹21.50 crores) and had brought it to the court and handed it directly to Mr. Mohit Paul, Advocate in the court room at the time of hearing on 23.07.2014. It CONT.CAS.(CRL.) No.08 of 2014 Page 15 appears that the amount of ₹10.75 crores referred to by the contemnor as the money required is the amount which Mr. Manvir Singh (on whose behalf Mr. Mohit Paul, Advocate had earlier made submissions) had been directed to deposit by order dated 02.07.2014.
30. The contemnor also claimed in the course of the aforementioned statement that the land was to be purchased by Mr. Gurmeet Singh Wadalia only, though the arrangement was such that he (contemnor) would get his share to the extent of 10%, the major portion (90%) falling as the share in the profit in the hands of Mr. Gurmeet Singh Wadalia.
31. It is clear from the above-said statement, as indeed the affidavit filed subsequently, as also the submissions made at the hearing, that there was no formal agreement entered into or executed at any stage with regard to such transaction between the contemnor and Mr. Gurmeet Singh Wadalia.
32. The contemnor claimed before the inquiry officer that he did not have any occasion or time nor any reasons to doubt so as to verify whether the pay order brought by Mr. Gurmeet Singh Wadalia through Mr. Mohit Paul, Advocate was "original" or not. He further stated that he did not have any doubt about Mr. Gurmeet Singh Wadalia since "it was he who had to make the payment and he got [my (contemnor‟s)] credentials verified". The contemnor also added that he had met Mr. Gurmeet Singh Wadalia late in the night on 24.07.2014 (after the allegations about forgery had been made) at his residence and questioned him about the bank draft but he had assured that the instrument was genuine.
33. In his statement before the inquiry officer on 01.08.2014, Mr. Mohit Paul, Advocate sought to confirm the version of the contemnor with regard to Mr. Gurmeet Singh Wadalia being the source of the bank draft. He also CONT.CAS.(CRL.) No.08 of 2014 Page 16 claimed that on the same date (24.07.2014), he had asked Mr. Gurmeet Singh Wadalia to provide the details of the bank account from which the pay order had been got issued and the requisite particulars were supplied by Mr. Gurmeet Singh Wadalia through SMS messages. As per his version, the allegations about the forgery were leveled later in the course of hearing.
34. Having pleaded guilty to the Article of Charge framed on 06.08.2014, the contemnor sought to explain his conduct by way of a detailed affidavit sworn on 26.08.2014. The basic thrust of the averments made in this affidavit is that the contemnor had been defrauded and cheated by Mr. Gurmeet Singh Wadalia through false representations/assurances causing the contemnor to make the statements to above effect before the court believing the same to be true. Noticeably, in the said affidavit, the contemnor does not dispute that the pay order submitted in the court on 23.07.2014 was a false and forged document. He only seeks to disown knowledge claiming he had no reason to believe that the document was not genuine. The contemnor claimed that having learnt about the bidding process from Mr. Shamsher Singh Sandhu, President of Golden Forest Investors Society on 14.07.2014, he had become interested in the transaction for and on behalf of Harry Township Ltd., a company owned and controlled by his family (three brothers) and had accordingly appeared in the court on 16.07.2014 and was directed by the court to deposit an amount of ₹10.75 crores by 23.07.2014 to show his bona fide. He refers in this context to the proceedings recorded on 16.07.2014 in Writ Petition (Civil) No.1399/2010.
35. The claim to the above effect is not factually correct as the contemnor had appeared before the court for the first time on 23.07.2014 only. The court had indeed called for a deposit of ₹10.75 crores by order dated CONT.CAS.(CRL.) No.08 of 2014 Page 17 02.07.2014 but this was in the context of the submissions made by Mr. Mohit Paul, Advocate representing the Golden Forest Investors Society referring to the interest shown by Mr. Manvir Singh (and not by the contemnor) in the bidding process.
36. Interestingly, in the said affidavit dated 26.08.2014 (Para 32), the contemnor also claimed that he had been in receipt of a proposal with regard to the lands in question from Alchemist Township India Ltd. in the letter dated 05.08.2014 (Annexure - „R‟ to the affidavit) which showed his bona fide. The said purported communication dated 05.08.2014 of Alchemist Township India Ltd. refers to letter dated 01.08.2014 of the contemnor himself to the said company proposing purchase of the lands in question for a tentative price of ₹21.50 crores and its further development in Township project. The said company responding to the proposal of the contemnor seems to have conveyed its interest in entering into a joint venture so as to share profit to the extent 50% each and subject to settlement of terms and conditions and execution of formal joint venture agreement. It is not explained by the contemnor in any manner as to what was the need to explore the involvement of other investors against the backdrop of proceedings which had been recorded on 23.07.2014 and 24.07.2014. Clearly, this material has been created for defence against the impending charge of contempt after the forgery had been exposed and inquiry had been instituted.
37. The contemnor submitted another affidavit on 15.09.2014, inter alia, submitting copy of the Memorandum and Article of Association of Real Pro Assets Ltd. and copy of the PAN card in its respect.
38. Mr. Mohit Paul, Advocate also submitted an affidavit sworn on CONT.CAS.(CRL.) No.08 of 2014 Page 18 26.08.2014 pursuant to directions in the order dated 06.08.2014. The said affidavit has been placed on record of C.M.No.8058/2014 in Writ Petition (Civil) No.1399/2010 and copy thereof has been taken on the record of the contempt case. After explaining at some length the manner in which reference to the interest shown first by Mr. Manvir Singh and later by Mr. Harmohinder Singh had come to be made (at the instance of Mr. Shamsher Singh, the President of Golden Forest Investors Society who had engaged him for purposes of C.M.No.17809/2012), Mr. Mohit Paul, Advocate averred in the said affidavit that the contemnor had been introduced to him by Mr. Shamsher Singh on 16.07.2014 in his office indicating that this person (contemnor) was willing to submit the bid for the property on behalf of M/s Harry Township Ltd. He would, however, confirm that the affidavit dated 24.07.2014 had been prepared by him as per instructions given by the contemnor himself.
39. There is material available on record to indicate that a person claiming to be named Mr. Gurmeet Singh Wadalia had indeed obtained a visitor pass for entry to gate No. 5 in the context of item No. 2 (the writ petition in question) on the recommendation made by Mr. Anip Sachthey, Advocate. It may be presumed that the person named Mr. Gurmeet Singh Wadalia, referred to both by the contemnor and Mr. Mohit Paul, Advocate, had indeed been present in the court at the time of hearing on the writ petition on 23.07.2014, the date the forged instrument was submitted. We do not have the benefit of the version of Mr. Anip Sachthey, Advocate in this context nor is it necessary in these proceedings against the contemnor to ascertain the same. Mr. Mohit Paul, Advocate attributes the involvement of Mr. Gurmeet Singh Wadalia to be at the instance of Mr. Shamsher Singh and the CONT.CAS.(CRL.) No.08 of 2014 Page 19 contemnor. It is unnecessary in these proceedings to probe the role of the advocates, or what extent they were privy to the understanding between the contemnor and such other persons as were behind him. Investigations are on, pursuant to the FIR lodged; it would be incorrect to assume anything on the basis of the materials available. For present purposes, it is evident that the pay order in question was submitted on record of the court for and on behalf of the contemnor and none other.
40. The contemnor submitted some material indicating Mr. Gurmeet Singh Wadalia to be a person of shady character and questionable antecedents. It is possible that he may be involved as a suspect or accused in a number of criminal cases or FIRs, reference to which has been made. What was the role actually played by Mr. Gurmeet Singh Wadalia vis-à-vis the preparation/procurement of forged pay order would again be a subject matter of the probe in the criminal complaint and FIR already registered under directions of this court. For the purposes of proceedings at hand, it is sufficient that the pay order was produced and tendered/submitted in court by the contemnor.
41. Though the contemnor claims to be engaged in the business of real estate, he has not shown any credible documents or materials worth the name indicating his financial worth. He claims acquaintance with Mr. Gurmeet Singh Wadalia only about six months prior to the events involved here. It is inconceivable that Mr. Gurmeet Singh Wadalia, or for that matter any such interested investor, would pass on such huge amount of money (₹21.50 crores) to a casual acquaintance just for the asking, that too without any formal documentation in the nature of some kind of receipt or agreement (of loan, joint venture etc.). It is again unconceivable that a CONT.CAS.(CRL.) No.08 of 2014 Page 20 person tendering such amount of money would keep his own interest hidden and allow the money to be tendered in the name of another, through a document purporting to be a banking instrument, in the course of court proceedings overseeing auction sale of a large chunk of real estate.
42. We are not persuaded to believe the exculpatory story presented by the contemnor in his explanatory affidavits. He admittedly has been in the business of property dealing and real estate development for too long to project himself to be so naaive as to have been taken for a ride by others. He submitted an affidavit on 24.07.2014 declaring the money used for arranging the pay order to have been sourced from the accounts of Deepak Holdings, a sister concern of M/s. Harry Township Ltd. in which his family has a stake. This affidavit submitted on 24.07.2014, proved to have been prepared by Mr. Mohit Paul, Advocate on instructions of the contemnor was false to the knowledge of the latter. This declaration on oath clearly demonstrates that the contemnor was sharing the objective of such other persons as were interested in stalling the court proceedings concerning the confirmation of auction sale in favour of M/s. Dera Sacha Sauda (Trust) pursuant to the efforts of the Committee for Golden Forest India Ltd.
43. In the facts and circumstances, it does appear that the contemnor was not alone in the efforts to obstruct the judicial proceedings in the manner indicated above. It seems vested interests were active. It is possible that the submissions made in the preceding proceedings referring to the requests of Mr. Manvir Singh and Mr. Harmohinder Singh as possible interested parties desirous of submitting bids higher than the party declared successful bidder were actuated by the objective of obstructing the confirmation of the auction sale by the court. In these circumstances, the contemnor possibly would be CONT.CAS.(CRL.) No.08 of 2014 Page 21 the front person or the face of such vested interest group. It would indeed be the task of the police investigating the FIR, and the court inquiring into the criminal complaint, to unearth the role and identity of such other persons who may have been behind the contemnor in this endeavour. Hopefully, such investigation/inquiry would also throw light on the truth respecting the reported claim that Mr. Gurmeet Singh Wadalia has suffered untimely death in a car accident or drowning in river.
44. In the forgoing facts and circumstances, we find that the contemnor had participated in the court proceedings with full knowledge of all the facts, including the crucial fact that the pay order submitted by and on his behalf on 23.07.2014 was a fabricated instrument. We, thus, reject the contentions raised to the contrary on his behalf.
45. The contemnor is charged with the offence of "criminal contempt". The expression is defined in Section 2 (c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 as under:-
"2 (c) "criminal contempt" means the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which -
(i) Scandalizes or tends to scandalize, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any court; or
(ii) Prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceedings; or
(iii) Interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner;" (emphasis supplied)
46. In the backdrop of facts and circumstances noted in the above narration, it is clear that the contemnor had voluntarily pleaded guilty to the CONT.CAS.(CRL.) No.08 of 2014 Page 22 Article of Charge framed and read out to him on 06.08.2014. The said plea of guilty is, thus, accepted and needs to be acted upon.
47. There is no escaping the conclusion that the fabricated pay order was submitted to put spanner in the works for the proceedings relating to confirmation of auction sale. But for such false and misleading submissions, the confirmation proceedings would have been concluded immediately. The acts of commission/omission indulged in by the contemnor resulted in obstruction of the administration of justice within the meaning of the expression "criminal contempt" referred to above. The contemnor is, thus, found guilty of criminal contempt of court which is punishable under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and is convicted accordingly.
48. It does appear that the convicted contemnor had tendered apology in the course of his statement before the inquiry officer on 01.08.2014 and then by way of affidavit dated 26.08.2014. The proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which is the penal clause attracted here, permits the contemnor to be spared a substantive punishment upon submission of apology "to the satisfaction of the court". The explanation to the said proviso gives some guidance on the subject stating that an apology is not to be rejected merely because it is qualified or conditional.
49. The explanation, however, insists that such an apology must be bona fide. In the facts and circumstances noted above, we find that the apology submitted by the contemnor is not bona fide and so not satisfactory. As observed earlier, he has not been alone in this sordid affair. The acts indulged by him constitute criminal contempt which clearly is the end CONT.CAS.(CRL.) No.08 of 2014 Page 23 product of a larger conspiracy, involving other players. The objective was to cause delay in the confirmation proceedings. The contemnor, and the others (if any) abetting him, attained the objective to an extent by submitting the forged instrument resulting in a digression. Submission of apology, when exposed and caught, if accepted, would render the contempt proceedings mere academic, thereby diluting the desired effect of deterrence. In the backdrop of the facts in which criminal contempt was committed, these acts of the convicted contemnor cannot be allowed to go unpunished.
50. For the foregoing reasons, we reject the prayer for release of the contemnor under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act. In our considered view, ends of justice demand that punishment in the form of one month‟s simple imprisonment be awarded. We order accordingly.
51. We hereby direct the Registrar General of this court to take necessary steps to have the convicted contemnor taken into custody and cause him to be sent to Central Jail, Tihar under appropriate warrant of commitment for undergoing the sentence awarded as above.
52. A copy of this judgment shall also be furnished to the convicted contemnor free of cost. He shall be informed by the Superintendent, Central Jail that he has the right to prefer an appeal against the conviction and order on sentence passed by us.
53. We hope and trust that the criminal court dealing with the criminal complaint and the police investigating the FIR registered in terms of directions in the order dated 06.08.2014 referred to above shall take such proceedings to the logical end as expeditiously as possible. Needless to add, the authorities dealing with such criminal case/FIR shall take such other CONT.CAS.(CRL.) No.08 of 2014 Page 24 proceedings uninfluenced by the observations made by us in this judgment as also in the proceedings earlier recorded in the Writ Petition (Civil) No.1399/2010 and shall bear in mind throughout the obligation to abide by the principles of natural justice.
54. We direct the criminal court and the investigating police dealing with the criminal case/FIR referred to above to submit a report of the result of action taken immediately upon conclusion of the inquiry/investigation. The report(s), as and when submitted pursuant to this direction, shall be placed before the court by the Registry for perusal. The court reserves its prerogative to take such further action under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against other persons, if found to have abetted the convicted contemnor herein, as may be deemed necessary and expedient.
55. This also disposes of the interim application in the contempt case.
R.K.GAUBA (JUDGE) S. RAVINDRA BHAT (JUDGE) JANUARY 22, 2015 ik CONT.CAS.(CRL.) No.08 of 2014 Page 25