Afzal & Anr vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 17 January, 1996
7. The complainant's learned Counsel relied on one of the recent decisions of the Supreme Court reported in Afzal and Another v State of
Haryana and Others, in support of his contention that if the respondent had accepted his fault and if he had tendered an unconditional apology in the first instance that the Court could have perhaps taken a lenient view, but he submitted that the entire defence taken up by the respondent is false and in this context he relied on the observations of the Supreme Court in this case wherein the Court came down in the strongest measure on a contemnor who had tried to justify and rejustify his indefensible position through false statements and false evidence. The complainant's learned Counsel submitted that where the press note from the respondent's own office conclusively establishes that the complainant had been arrested on 4-1-1995, that it was not open to the respondent to tender all sorts of false explanations and that therefore this is a case in which a charge must be framed and the respondent to be dealt with according to law.