Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.42 seconds)
Documents citing Amarnath Sawan Mal vs Joginder Singh And Ors. on 27 May, 1960

In The Matter Of Contempt Of Court ... vs K.S. Sethi on 7 December, 1971

R. 1961 Punjabis {Amarnath Sawan Mal v. Joginder Singh). (11). In the former case, Derbyshire. C. J. pointed out that "the right to punish by summary procedure contempts of Court by scandalising the Court still exists". In the latter case Tek Chand, J. was concerned with the making of a false affidavit by a Sub Inspector of Police by way of return to a petition for writ of habeas corpus under section 491 Criminal Procedure Code . In that context it was held that even "perjury or false swearing would constitute contempt of Court, if the alleged false statement had an obstructive effect made with the knowledge of falsity and the question was pertinent to the issue". None of these decisions are therefore, of any assistance to the contemner. On the other hand the relevant observations of the Supreme Court in , which, bear on the question whether the contemner could be allowed to let in evidence in a case like the present, have been referred to already.
Delhi High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Present vs . on 5 February, 2007

5. It has been urged by Shri Ram Jethmalani, Learned Senior Counsel that the applicant was declined bail mainly on the ground that the applicant could flee from justice as he was in possession of a second passport. He argues that anybody could have got that apprehension if a person is in possession of more than one passport, but since the factum of the communication dated 29.12.99 received from Interpol Singapore was found to be not genuine vide a reply dated 7.1.2000 received from Interpol Singapore by Interpol India and in turn received by the CBI and then second communication dated 12.1.2000 from Interpol Singapore to Interpol Delhi confirming that in fact there existed no entry or exit reflecting the visit of accused herein to Singapore, this fact should have been brought to the notice of learned Special Judge by the concerned CBI Officers at the time the remand application was moved particularly when the accused had submitted an affidavit which was duly treated as sworn affidavit by the learned Special Judge that in fact the information that applicant had visited Singapore from 10th to 14th February was not correct. It has been submitted that the CBI Officers kept a stoic silence till the second bail application dated 25.1.2000 came up for hearing before the Learned Special Judge. The Learned Senior Counsel has taken me through para 2 and para 5 of the second bail application and its reply filed by Dy. S.P. Ramnish of the CBI . It has been specifically stated by the applicant that the paramount consideration which weighed in the mind of the court for refusing bail earlier was that the applicant had visited Singapore from 10.2.99 to 14.2.99 on a duplicate passport, whereas in fact the applicant had not left India throughout the said period and had been provided with a personal security guard round the clock by Delhi Police. It has been urged that in reply to these paragraphs it was not specifically stated by the CBI that the communication received from Interpol Singapore that the applicant had entered Singapore on 10.2.99 till 14.2.99 was not correct. It has been urged that this silence for 15 days after 13.1.2000 would amount to misrepresentation by the CBI Officers and hence they are liable for committing contempt of court. The learned Senior Counsel has referred to Amar Nath Sawan Mal...vs...Joginder Singh and others, AIR 1961 Punjab 18, wherein it was held that making of a false affidavit by Sub Inspector of Police by way of reply to a Writ of Habeas Corpus to the effect that the alleged detenu is not in their custody resulting into dismissal of Writ Petition is an act committed by a police officer to obstruct and impede the administration of justice and is punishable as Contempt of Court. Reliance is placed on Narain Dass.vs.Govt. of M.P. and others, AIR 1974 SC 1252 , where it was held that if a wrong statement is deliberately and willfully made by a party to litigation with a view to obtain a favourable order it would prejudice or interfere with the due course of judicial proceedings and thus amounts to Contempt of Court.
Delhi District Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1