'Justice Is Blind But Judges Are Not Sightless': Orissa HC Warns Lawyer For Submitting Fake Certificate To Show Juvenility Of Murder Convict
The Orissa High Court on Tuesday dropped the contempt proceedings against the brother-in-law of a murder convict for submitting forged school transfer certificate to take the plea of juvenility on his behalf, who is serving life sentence.
Giving serious warning to the lawyer for facilitating the same, the Division Bench of Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Chittaranjan Dash held that fraud played on the Court by the Advocate is a severe form of 'contemptuous attitude' and observed –
“Justice is often metaphorically termed to be blind, but the officers of Courts must not dare to betray the trust of the Bench deeming the Judges to be sightless. They may not forget that it is this very justice delivery system which provides the Judges with farsightedness and confers extraordinary powers on their shoulders to ensure that blind-eye of the lady of justice does not make the society believe that the entire justice delivery system is visionless.”
Background of the Case
The appellant Jata @ Sanatan Hessa was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life by the Additional Sessions Judge, Talcher on 04.12.2019 for commission of the offence of murder.
Being aggrieved by the said order, he filed appeal before the High Court. During the course of hearing, the counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant claimed that the appellant was a juvenile on the date of occurrence and in support of the same, he filed a school transfer certificate.
However, the State filed an objection to the same. It further stated that upon verification, it was found that the appellant had never attended the school from which the said certificate has claimed to have been issued.
It also filed statement of the headmaster of the concerned school who categorically stated that the appellant never studied in the school nor any such certificate has ever been issued in his favour.
Thus, the Court it came to the knowledge of the Court that a forged/fake school transfer certificate was prepared and submitted before it in order to claim leniency in favour of the appellant. Being enraged by the same, the Bench had ordered the Advocate's clerk to appear in person, who had signed the affidavit certifying the school certificate to be genuine.
The Advocate's clerk appeared and took the plea of ignorance. He stated that he did not have knowledge about the contents of the affidavit and he signed the same on the direction of the Advocate. Accordingly, the Court had asked the Advocate to submit affidavit indicating the source from where obtained the said school transfer certificate.
Subsequently, the Advocate filed an affidavit stating therein that he was handed over the said certificate by the brother-in-law of the appellant. Consequently, the police was directed to produce the brother-in-law of the appellant, namely Gania Gagarai, before the Court.
Upon appearing before the Court, Gagarai admitted to have given the certificate to the Advocate. However, he claimed that his mother-in-law (mother of the appellant) had asked him to hand over the certificate to the Advocate so as to take the plea of juvenility.
The Court then had ordered Gagarai to file an affidavit to that effect and in the meantime, he was kept in custody. On Tuesday, he filed the affidavit and also informed the Court that his mother passed away while he was in custody. Further, he tendered unconditional apology for submitting the forged certificate.
Taking a lenient view, the Court accepted his apology and dropped the contempt proceedings. It also ordered the SDJM, Cuttack to release him from custody forthwith.
Warning to Advocate & His Clerk
Before parting with the matter, the Court issued a severe warning to the Advocate for playing fraud on the Court. It observed that more often than not Advocates file forged medical or school certificates to get relief and Courts also tend to trust the Advocates as they are officers of the Court.
The Bench reminded the legal fraternity of the observation made by Justice Radha Charan Patnaik, a former Judge of the High Court (as well as of the Apex Court), in Bhabani Shankar Tripathy v. Secretary to the Government of Orissa, Home Department & Anr. (1991) who had compared the Court to a temple and Advocates to priests.
“It is most unfortunate when priests undermine the sanctity and purity of the temple; disregard the virtues which bind together the entire religion, which is the legal profession in our case. Just like sacrileges committed by the priests are severest of sins, violation of the principles governing this noble profession by the Advocates is desecration of not only the Constitution but also the very legal edifice of this country,” it held.
The Court also relied upon the observations made by the Apex Court in the cases of Bar Council of Maharashtra v. M.V. Dabholkar (1975) and J.S. Jadhav v. Mustafa Haji Mohamed Yusuf (1993), wherein the vital roles played by Advocates in the administration of justice were succinctly explained.
“Advocates are the officers of the Court. They are wheels of justice. Administration of justice mostly depends upon the fiduciary relationship shared by the Bar and the Bench. The trust which reposed on the legal professionals by the Court is of utmost good faith. Needless to say, let alone affidavits, the Courts do not think twice before presuming any document filed by an Advocate to be genuine,” it added.
It was further held that it is the responsibility of the Advocate and the Advocate's clerks to bring correct state of affairs before the Court and their attempt should not be to misguide the Court in any manner. If the Advocate or the Advocate's Clerk has no personal knowledge about a particular document which is produced by a party, then it is to be verified properly before bringing the same on record.
The Bench also reproduced the guidelines issued by a Single Bench in Thabir Sagar v. State of Odisha (2021) regarding filing of affidavits before the Court and therein Advocates' clerks were also discouraged from swearing affidavits. It lamented that despite of such order, the Advocate omitted in indicating the source of obtaining the certificate which ultimately led to this avoidable proceeding.
As the plea juvenility was based upon the forged certificate, the relief was denied and the interim application was dismissed.
Case Title: Jata @ Sanatan Hessa v. State of Odisha
Case No: CRLA No. 389 of 2020 (I.A. No.2788 of 2023)
Date of Order: September 24, 2024
Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. Nityananda Panda, Advocate
Counsel for the State: Mr. Priyabrata Tripathy, Addl. Standing Counsel
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ori) 80