Madras High Court Sentences Thiruvarur Sub-Registrar To 2 Months Imprisonment For Fabricating Court Documents In Connivance With Litigant
The Madras High Court has recently sentenced Sub-Registrar, Thiruvarur to two months of simple imprisonment for conniving with a private individual and fabricating documents which were produced in court for getting favorable orders. The court, however, suspended the execution of imprisonment for 30 days allowing the parties to file an appeal. Justice N Sathish Kumar observed that if...
The Madras High Court has recently sentenced Sub-Registrar, Thiruvarur to two months of simple imprisonment for conniving with a private individual and fabricating documents which were produced in court for getting favorable orders. The court, however, suspended the execution of imprisonment for 30 days allowing the parties to file an appeal.
Justice N Sathish Kumar observed that if the court shuts its eye to such actions, it would encourage unscrupulous officials to engage in such activities with private individuals and achieve their goals. The court thus emphasized that such fabrication of documents could not be condoned especially in registering officers where the entries have a bearing on the rights of the individuals.
“Thus, this Court is of the view that unless the contemnors are convicted under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, these types of fraud and fabrication cannot be curbed in a public office particularly in registering office where the entries are so important which decide the rights of the parties. Such entries will have bearing in deciding the constitutional rights of the parties particularly, the property rights,” the court observed.
The court made the orders on a suo motu contempt petition initiated by it after it was noted that the documents produced before the court in connection with a land matter were forged. In the main petitioner, a challenge was made to the order of the District Revenue Officer changing the revenue records in favor of D Sasikumar (the first contemnor). While hearing the writ petition, the court noticed that the document relied upon by Sasikumar was fabricated.
The court noted that Sasikumar had earlier filed a suit claiming rights over the immovable property based on an agreement for sale. However, later he had produced a sale deed claiming to be registered in the year 1974. On finding discrepancies, when the court directed the Sub Registrar S Balamurugan to produce certified copies, the sub-registrar supported the contention of Sasikumar and reported that the document was a sale deed.
However, later, when the court asked the Inspector of Registration to conduct an inquiry and file a report, the IG reported that the document was initially registered as a mortgage deed and later was tampered as a sale deed. He added that even during the digitization of records, the mortgage deed was scanned and uploaded to the digital portal.
Noting that the actions of Sasikumar and the Balamurugan amounted to contempt, the court directed them to appear before the court and show cause as to why contempt action should not be taken against them.
Balamurugan, in his affidavit, explained that he was placed as Sub Registrar (in charge) only in February 2023 and that he had merely signed the certified copy obtained by Sasikumar in 2014. He thus contended that he was not connected with the tampering in any way. Sasikumar, on the other hand, claimed that the documents had not been tampered with and that the sale deed was genuine.
The court was however not inclined to accept these submissions. The court noted that from the replies, it was clear that neither Sasikumar nor Balamurugan had shown any remorse in tampering with the evidence. The court added that though Balamurugan claimed to have assumed charge in 2023, the report of the District Registrar (Administration) would show that he had been working in the same office in 2018, 2019, 2021, 2022, 2023 and 2024.
Thus, being satisfied that the act amounts to contempt, the court ordered accordingly. The court also directed the Inspector General of Prosecution to lodge a criminal complaint for fabrication of documents against the concerned persons and also directed the investigation officer to find out the involvement of any other person in these cases.
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr.B.Manimaran for R1, Mr. A.Navaneetha Krishnan, Senior Counsel for Mr.Pandi Thennavan for R2
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 278
Case Title: High Court of Madras v D Sasikumar and Another
Case No: Suo Motu Cont.P.No.1905 of 2024