9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (5) TMI 964X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation and alleging that the Association had not authorised the respondent to file any writ petition in the name of the Association. Ignoring the disputes stated to be existing amongst the members of the Advocates Association, we proceeded to consider the writ petition on the assumption that the petition was either filed on behalf of the Association or by the respondent on his own in his individual capacity as well, particularly when the prayer made was for the issuance of a writ of quo warranto. In the said petition, the respondent had raised the question of the alleged disputed age of the Hon ble Chief Justice of India. The writ petition was dismissed in limine observing : Now Mr. Karuppan made averments in the present writ petition that the petitioner submits that the dispute which has arisen as early as in 1991, undetermined by the President and the operation of Article 217 is still operative and within the jurisdiction of the President. He further averred that the the petitioner submits that the conduct of the President of India, ever since the controversy arose till date only proves that the dispute has never been determined by him or his predecessor . He further a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thout prejudice to the right to file a writ of quo-warranto against you and for a direction to deposit a sum of ₹ 3 crores for usurping to the office of Chief Justice of India even after attaining the age of superannuation. The said S.K, Siindaram also filed a criminal complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chennai against the CJ1. On a note put up by the Registrar Genera l regarding the said telegraphic communication, this Court vide order dated 7,11,2000 found that.prima facie the said S.K. Sundaram was guilty of contempt of court. A notice was issued to him in reply to which he filed his objections. He was represented by the respondent herein. During the pendency of the contempt proceedings this Count was informed that the President of India, in consultation with the Chief Justice of India, decided the question relating to the age of Dr. Justice A.S. Anand as early as on 16.5.1991 holding that the date of birth of Dr. Anand was 1.11.1936. the Court was further informed that for arriving at the conclusion of Dr. Justice Anand s age being 1.11.1936, the President had considered the following documents : (I) The certificate of matriculate examination dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inding of this Court, the respondent herein filed the present writ petition accompanied by his personal affidavit Wherein he stated : The petitioner submits that after the passing of the above said resolution, it came to its notice that on October 23, 2000 the Government of India had released a press note to the Press Information Bureau. Therein it had been stated that on 16.5.1991 the President had determined the age of the 1st respondent and that Sundaram s attempt to reopen the said issue in 1991 was rejected. Significantly this press report was not published in the dailies in Tamil Nadu. This renders the statement dubious and no credence could be attached to this communication. He further submitted ; The petitioner submits that the dispute which had arisen as early as in 1991, undetermined by the President and the operation of Article 217 is still operative and within the jurisdiction of the President. The respondent submitted before us that the averments made by him in his Writ petition were correct and that he was not guilty of perjury. Alternatively he submitted that he had no knowledge of the passing of the order by the President of India in 199 1, prior ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t seems that genuine witnesses were permitted to give their accounts, although they could not be compelled to appear. In early criminal cases, the jury seems always to have included some who, aware of the commission of a crime in their community brought the suspect before a judge. Those witnesses who did attend these early trials were perceived as part of the jury arid retired with them to deliberate, often to make their disclosures in secret. It was the verdict, not the testimony, that was perceived as either true or false; the only remedy for falsehood remotely akin to a perjury prosecution was a seldom-invoked procedure called the writ of attaint, created in 1202 and not abolished formally until 1825. Though attaint, the jury would be punished for a false verdict and the verdict itself overturned. Witness first testified under oath in criminal cases on behalf of the Crown in the sixteenth century. No witnesses for the defense were permitted until the mid-seventeenth century, since they would have been witnesses against the Crown, and not until 1702 were defense witnesses permitted to be sworn (I Anne, St. 2, c:9, s:3 (1 70 1) (England) (repealed)). By the late seventeen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xception to the general practice being followed by many of the litigants in the country, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, the record of proceedings in Suo Motu Contempt Petition (Criminal) No. 5 of 2000 and Writ Petition No, 77 of 2001, we are prima facie satisfied that the respondent herein, in his affidavit filed in support of the writ petition (for the purposes of being used in the judicial proceedings, i.e. writ petition), has wrongly made a statement that the age of Dr. Justice A.S. Anand has not been determined by the President of India in terms of Article 217 of the constitution. We are satisfied that such a statement supported by an affidavit of the respondent was known to whom to be false which he believed to be false and/or atleast did not believe to be true, It is not disputed that an affidavit is evidence within the meaning of Section 191 of the Indian Penal Code and a person swearing to a false affidavit is guilty of perjury punishable under Section 193 IPC. The respondent herein, being legally bound by an oath to state the truth in his affidavit accompanying the petition is prima facie held to have made a false statement which constitutes an o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
