Karnataka HC Sentences Man To 3 Months’ Jail For Forging Interim Order By Changing Its Date And Adding Non-Petitioners’ Names

In brief

The question

1. Whether altering the date of the Court’s interim order and adding names of persons who were not parties to the writ petitions amounted to criminal contempt

The court held

The Court held the contemnor guilty of criminal contempt and sentenced him to three months’ simple imprisonment.

It also directed

It directed the police authorities present in Court to take him into custody, directed the Registrar (Judicial) to issue a conviction warrant under Rule 16, and ordered that a free copy of the order be provided to the contemnor.

The contempt proceedings were closed.

01Facts

Twenty-six students filed writ petitions in which the Vacation Bench directed the respondent-colleges to receive their application forms, subject to the outcome of the petitions.

pp. 2–3

A complaint alleged that the interim order dated 28 September 2017 had been altered to appear dated 28 October 2017, and that names of persons who were not petitioners had been added to it.

pp. 2–3

Following investigation, a criminal case was filed, and the High Court initiated suo motu contempt proceedings.

pp. 3–5

The Court framed a charge alleging fabrication of the order amounting to criminal contempt.

pp. 3–5

Six witnesses were examined, and the contemnor’s statement was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

p. 5

The Court found the charge proved and proceeded to determine the sentence.

pp. 5–6

02Issues

i.1. Whether altering the date of the Court’s interim order and adding names of persons who were not parties to the writ petitions amounted to criminal contempt

pp. 4–6

ii.2. What sentence should be imposed after the charge of criminal contempt was found proved

p. 6

03Law Applied

Article 215 of the Constitution recognises the High Court as a court of record with power to punish for contempt.

p. 1

Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 defines criminal contempt to include acts that interfere, or tend to interfere, with the due course of judicial proceedings or the administration of justice;

pp. 4–5

Sections 11 and 12 provide for the High Court’s jurisdiction and punishment for contempt, respectively.

pp. 4–5

Section 15 was cited as the basis for initiating the proceedings, and Rule 16 of the High Court of Karnataka (Contempt of Court Proceedings) Rules, 1981 was invoked for issuing the conviction warrant.

pp. 1, 4–5, 6–7

No precedent was relied upon in the order.

Provisions in the judgment · 5 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 Section 15 Section 2 Section 11 Section 12

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 313

04Reasoning

The Court treated the alteration of the order’s date and the addition of names of non-parties as fabrication of a judicial order.

pp. 5–6

It noted that the contemnor had not denied the alleged acts and concluded that the charge of criminal contempt was proved.

pp. 5–6

The Court reasoned that forging the order interfered with the due course of judicial proceedings and polluted the stream of justice; it therefore imposed imprisonment.

p. 6