‘Due Process Of Law Is Blinkered’: Orissa High Court Issues Contempt Notices For Forging Medical Certificate To Obtain Interim Bail
The Orissa High Court has recently issued contempt notices to two persons who were allegedly involved in procuring and producing a forged medical certificate before the High Court for grant of interim bail to an accused person.While expressing severe dismay over the conduct of the said persons, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo observed, “Due process of law is blinkered by...
The Orissa High Court has recently issued contempt notices to two persons who were allegedly involved in procuring and producing a forged medical certificate before the High Court for grant of interim bail to an accused person.
While expressing severe dismay over the conduct of the said persons, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo observed,
“Due process of law is blinkered by acts or conduct of the parties to the litigation or witnesses or generate tendency to impede or undermine the free flow of the unsullied stream of justice by blatantly resorting, with impunity, to fabricate Court proceedings to thwart fair adjudication of dispute and its resultant end.”
Factual Background
A person named Tapan Kumar Sahoo swore an affidavit stating that the petitioner’s wife is suffering from multiple ailments and is undergoing treatment at the SCB Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack. Basing on the said affidavit, interim bail was granted to the petitioner on 13.01.2023.
When the matter was listed on the next date of hearing, the counsel appearing for the State brought a letter to the notice of the Court which was sent by Dr. S.N. Routray, HoD of Department of Cardiology, SCB Hospital. In that letter, Dr. Routray had stated that the prescription and advice given in the OPD ticket, which were annexed to the bail application, are forged.
The Court, after taking cognizance of the letter, had directed the police to arrest Sahoo and produce him before the Court.
Court’s Observations
While appearing before the Court, Sahoo denied to have signed the affidavit and even questioned the genuineness of the signature. The Court noted that one Suresh Chandra Sundaray, an Advocate’s Clerk had identified the deponent Sahoo in the affidavit.
After going through the records, the Court was of the view that if a forged and fabricated document is filed in Court to get some relief, the same may amount to interference with the administration of justice and any interference in the course of justice is an affront to the majesty of law and therefore, the conduct is punishable as contempt of Court.
“Law is well settled that 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,” the Court added.
Further, Justice Sahoo took a very serious note of increasing tendencies among litigants to fabricate documents and use them in Courts to obtain favourable orders. While expressing disappointment over the prevailing situation, he said,
“It has become increasingly a tendency on the part of the parties either to produce fabricated evidence as a part of the pleadings or record or to fabricate the Court record itself for retarding or obstructing the course of justice or judicial proceedings to gain unfair advantage in the judicial process. This tendency to obstruct the due course of justice or tendency to undermine the dignity of the Court needs to be severely dealt with to deter the persons having similar proclivity to resort to such acts or conduct.”
Lastly, the Court said that in a given case even if mens rea is not clear or is obscure, still if the act or conduct tends to undermine the dignity of the Court or prejudices the party or hinders the due course of judicial proceedings or administration of justice, it would amount to contempt of the Court.
Resultantly, the Court issued notices both to deponent Sahoo and identifier Sundaray directing them to show cause as to why a proceeding under the Contempt of Court Act should not be initiated against them. Further, Sahoo was remanded to judicial custody till the next date of hearing, i.e. 28.02.2023.
Case Title: Srinath Rana v. State of Odisha
Case No.: BLAPL No. 9586 of 2021
Order Dated: 15th February 2023
Coram: S.K. Sahoo, J.
Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Haripada Mohanty, Advocate
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. Priyabrata Tripathy, Additional Standing Counsel