Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 1
PETITIONER:
DY. GENERAL MANAGER,REDESIGNATED AS DEPUTY DIRECTOR,INTER ST
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
SMT. SUDERSHAN KUMARI & ORS. ETC.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09/12/1996
BENCH:
K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
This Court by order dated April 2, 1996 had observed
that leave and licence to run a sales counter granted on
compassionate grounds and other liberties given to them were
being abused by such persons and that the High Court was not
right in giving liberty to the respondent No.1 to withdraw
the writ petition and to file another writ petition on the
same cause of action. Civil Appeal No.7084/96 was
accordingly allowed and the appeal filed by Sudershan Kumari
was dismissed with costs. A direction was issued to the
Notary to show cause as to why the should not be prosecuted
and punished for attesting false affidavit of impersonation
and why his licence should not be cancelled and why he
should not be prosecuted for giving such false certificates.
A notice was sent to him on the basis of the name furnished
by the respondent and also in the oath. It is now reported
by the Registry that no such person is available in Tis
Hazari Courts. Consequently by order dated October 23, 1996
Mr. Goburdhan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent,
was directed to give the name of the Oath Commissioner lest
proceedings should be initiated against the first respondent
Sudershan Kumari who has filed the affidavit alleged to have
been attested by the Oath Commissioner which is found to be
false. Accordingly time was given. It is stated by the
learned counsel, Mr. Goburdhan, that in spite of the letter
written by him, the respondent is not responding. Under
these circumstances, we are left with no option but to
convict the first respondent Mrs. Sudershan Kumari for
producing false certificate and false affidavits.
Accordingly, she is convicted under Section 199 I.P.C. and
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of
six months and is directed to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in
default to undergo a further sentence of six weeks. Both the
sentences are directed to run concurrently. This order
should be sent to the Sessions Judge, Delhi to enforce the
sentence. It is accordingly ordered.