9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 956X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as to remain unpolluted so that purity of court's atmosphere may give vitality to all the organs of the State. Polluters of judicial firmament are, therefore, required to be well taken care of to maintain the sublimity of court's environment; so also to enable it to administer justice fairly and to the satisfaction of all concerned. 2. Anyone who takes recourse to fraud, deflects the course of judicial proceedings; or if anything is done with oblique motive, the same interferes with the administration of justice. Such persons are required to be properly dealt with, not only to punish them for the wrong done, but also to deter others from indulging in similar acts which shake the faith of people in the system of administration of justice. * * * 14. The legal position thus is that if the publication be with intent to deceive the court or one made with an intention to defraud, the same would be contempt, as it would interfere with administration of justice. It would, in any case, tend to interfere with the same. This would definitely be so if a fabricated documents is filed with the aforesaid mens rea. In the case at hand the fabricated document was apparently to dece ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elessly resort to falsehood and unethical means for achieving their goals. In order to meet the challenge posed by this new creed of litigants, the courts have, from time to time, evolved new rules and it is now well established that a litigant, who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or final." ( emphasis supplied ) 6. In Moti Lal Songara Vs. Prem Prakash @ Pappu and another (2013) 9 SCC 199, this Court, considering the issue regarding concealment of facts before the Court, observed that "court is not a laboratory where children come to play", and opined as under: "19. The second limb of the submission is whether in the obtaining factual matrix, the order passed by the High Court discharging the accused-respondent is justified in law. We have clearly stated that though the respondent was fully aware about the fact that charges had been framed against him by the learned trial Judge, yet he did not bring the same to the notice of the revisional court hearing the revision against the order taking cognizance. It is a clear case of suppression. It was within the special k ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xcept truth; read anything except truth; speak anything except truth and believe anything except truth. Someone rightly said that `Lies are very sweet, while truth is bitter, that's why most people prefer telling lies.' 8. In a recent matter, this Court again came across a litigant who had tried to overreach the Court by concealing material facts in Saumya Chaurasia v. Directorate of Enforcement 2023 INSC 1073. It was a case where the appellant before this Court had challenged the order passed by the High Court High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in Miscellaneous Crl. Case No.1258/2023 rejecting his bail application. He was accused of committing various crimes under the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. His bail application was rejected by the High Court on 23.06.2023. In the pleadings before this Court, it was mentioned that the High Court had committed gross error in not considering the chargesheet dated 08.06.2023 and the cognizance order dated 16.06.2023, which clearly suggested that there was error apparent on the fact of it. The fact which was available on record was that an order in the bail application was reserved by the High C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , which was granted on the same day. The aforesaid facts came to the notice of the High Court on 08.12.2021 when a report of the Registrar (Judicial) was received, who was directed to conduct the enquiry in the matter. However, on an apology tendered by the appellant therein and also considering the facts as stated that he belonged to Tea Tribe community and his brother, a cycle mechanic, who was also pursuing the case, did not appreciate the intricacy of the law. As a result of which, the mistake occurred. This Court, having regard to the unqualified apology tendered by the appellant therein, had set aside the order passed by the High Court to file FIR/complaint against the appellant therein. 10. May be in the facts of the aforesaid case, this Court had accepted unconditional apology tendered by the appellant therein and the given facts situation accepted his apology but it is established that there is a consistent effort by the litigants to misrepresent the Court wherever they can. 11. The prayer in the present appeal is for grant of bail pending trial. The appellant claimed that he is in custody since 03.02.2022 in connection with crime FIR No. 29 dated 03.02.2022, at P.S. Ork ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rsus State of Odisha' whereby the prayer for bail was rejected. Notice was issued by this Court on 22nd September, 2023. Today the learned counsel for the petitioner informs this Court that during the pendency of this petition, the High Court has granted bail to the petitioner on 11th October, 2023. He has placed before us a soft copy of the said order through his mobile, according to which BLAPL No. 10860 of 2023 was allowed apparently on the ground of parity extended to another co-accused. From reading of the said order, we find that it neither mentions that it was the second bail application filed by the petitioner before the High Court nor does it reflects any reference to the petition pending before this Court in which notice had already been issued in September, 2023. We seriously deprecate such practice by the litigant and the counsel. We accordingly, direct that original record of the said bail application, allowed by the High Court on 11th October, 2023, be called for forthwith. We further direct that this order be communicated to the Hon'ble Chief Justice as also the Registrar of the High Court of Orissa forthwith (today itself) and the aforementioned file ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led by the appellant was assigned to Judge 'A' We are consciously not mentioning the name of the Hon'ble Judge. During the pendency of the bail application filed by the appellant, the bail application filed by the co-accused Gangesh Kumar Thakur was listed before Judge 'B'9. 17.01.2023 The bail application filed by the co-accused Gangesh Kumar Thakur @ Gangesh Thakur was allowed by Judge 'B'; The order does not suggest that the State Counsel had pointed before the court that there is another bail application filed by the co-accused (the appellant) pending consideration before the court. 06.03.2023 The bail application filed by the appellant was rejected by Judge 'A'; the High Court had specifically recorded in the order that the coaccused Gangesh Kumar Thakur @ Gangesh Thakur had been released vide order dated 17.01.2023. 21.07.2023 Aggrieved against the order rejecting the bail application filed by the appellant, SLP was filed before this Court. 15.09.2023 During the pendency of the matter before this Court, second bail application filed by the appellant was rejected by the Sessions Judgecum- Special Judge, Malkangiri. The argument raised by the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rge regarding pendency of the present petition before this Court. 15.3 To similar effect is the affidavit filed by the Special Secretary, Home Department, Govt. of Odisha. 16. In compliance to the order dated 06.12.2023 passed by this Court, a report has been received from the High Court. The comments of Judge 'B', as requested, were annexed with the report and original file of second bail application of appellant was also received from the High Court. It is mentioned therein that at the time of hearing of the second bail application, the court was not apprised of the factum of pendency of the SLP before this Court, in which notice had already been issued on 22.09.2023. 16.1 A copy of Standing Order No.2 of 2023, in partial modification of earlier Standing Order No.1 of 2020 issued by the High Court on 21.05.2023, was annexed with the report. It was issued in pursuance to the observation made by this Court in Pradhani Jani v. The State of Odisha Criminal Appeal No.1503/2023 decided on 15.05.2023. The Standing Order was issued with reference to the listing of the bail applications under Sections 438 and 439 Cr.P.C. Para 2 of the Standing Order with reference to the bail applicati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oordinate Benches and pass orders afresh. The same shall be done within a period of one month from today. 6. The Registrar (Judicial) of the Registry of this Court is directed to forward a copy of this order to the Registrar General of the Orissa High Court, who is requested to take note of the aforesaid and consider passing appropriate order so that contrary orders in the same crime are avoided." 18. A perusal of the paper book in second bail application shows that there is a report annexed by the Registry in the matter. It mentioned about the earlier two bail applications filed in the FIR inquestion. The first bail application filed by the appellant was disposed of on 06.03.2023. Bail application filed by the co-accused Gangesh Kumar Thakur was disposed of on 17.01.2023. The next one was the second bail application filed by the appellant. Though Standing Order No.2 of 2023 directed the Registry to annex all the orders passed in the earlier bail applications by different accused in the same FIR, however, the order passed by the High Court in the case of the appellant, rejecting his earlier bail application, does not form part of the bail application before the High Court. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hear the matter. The system needs to be followed meticulously to avoid any discrepancies in the orders. In case it is mentioned on the top of the bail application or any other place which is clearly visible, that the application for bail is either first, second or third and so on, so that it is convenient for the court to appreciate the arguments in that light. If this fact is mentioned in the order, it will enable the next higher court to appreciate the arguments in that light. (3) The registry of the court should also annex a report generated from the system about decided or pending bail application(s) in the crime case in question. The same system needs to be followed even in the case of private complaints as all cases filed in the trial courts are assigned specific numbers (CNR No.), even if no FIR number is there. (4) It should be the duty of the Investigating Officer/any officer assisting the State Counsel in court to apprise him of the order(s), if any, passed by the court with reference to different bail applications or other proceedings in the same crime case. And the counsel appearing for the parties have to conduct themselves truly like officers of the Court. 21. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
