Vijay Pal vs State Of U.P.
2013 Latest Caselaw 7390 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 46
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1440 of 2013
 

 
Appellant :- Vijay Pal
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P.
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Nirvikar Gupta,Alok Ranjan Mishra,Dileep Kumar,Govind Saran Hajela,V.P. Srivastava
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate,Mayank Singh,R.D.Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Amar Saran,J.

Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.

An undated and typed letter containing scandalous allegations was received by one of us (Amar Saran, J) at his residence on 15.11.2013 purportedly signed by Sri M.P.Singh, Advocate alleging that a pairokar of the accused had approached the Judge along with a relative of the Judge and there has been some transaction with the Judge and the complainant suspected that an order favourable to the accused would be passed, hence the Court should recuse itself from this case.

As the false and intrinsically scandalous allegations in the letter were clearly aimed at coercing the Judge to recuse himself from the case and was a clear attempt to interfere with the due course of the judicial proceeding and was patently contemptuous in nature, this Court issued a notice to M.P. Singh, Advocate on 18.11.2013 seeking his reply by 11.12.2013 regarding whether he had actually written the said letter and why proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act be not initiated against him.

Sri M.P. Singh has filed his reply today, in which he has categorically denied writing, signing or sending the said letter to the Judge. His suggestion was that it was not the complainant's side, but the other side, who could have been interested in sending the letter, purportedly under his forged signature, for ensuring that the case was released from the instant bench, and has given some reasons in support of this claim.

We have examined the reply as well as other documents, papers and circumstances in this case.

For the following reasons we are the view that the said letter was not sent by M.P. Singh, but it appears to have been prepared by some other person, purportedly in his name, which prima facie appears to bear his forged signature.

1.A bench consisting of one of us (Hon'ble Amar Saran J) and Hon'ble Dinesh Gupta J had disposed of Crl. Writ Petition No. 16472 of 2012, Vinod Pal Singh Jadaun Vs. State of U.P, and a connected Division Bench Crl. Writ Petition No. 6340 of 2012, and Single Judge Crl. Misc. Application 33941 of 2012, under Section 482 Cr.P.C, and Crl. Misc. Transfer Application Nos. 403 of 2012 and 438 of 2012 by a common order dated 16.1.13 after they were nominated to the bench headed by Justice Amar Saran by the Hon'ble Chief Justice on 19.12.12. The subsisting stay of proceedings in Crl. Misc. Application No. 33491 of 2012 under section 482 Cr.P.C was also vacated by the same order dated 16.1.13. After the SLP against the order dated 16.1.13 was dismissed by the Apex Court on 15.2.13, the trial in S.T. No. 93 of 1991 which had been held up for 24 years since 1989 on account of one application or another, was finally decided on 6.3.2013 by the impugned judgement of the Additional Sessions Judge, Agra and the accused were sentenced inter alia to imprisonment for life under section 302/149 IPC.

2.In the said order dated 16.1.2013, it was also observed as follows: "This case reveals a sorry state of affairs. How by means of repeated applications on unsustainable grounds, in different jurisdictions and before the trial Court, or the High Court or the Supreme Court, by bench and forum hunting the accused can stall the disposal of a murder trial of an incident which takes place in 1989 for almost 24 years."

3.It was also pointed out in the counter-affidavit filed by M.P. Singh, that this case had been listed on several dates before two benches of which Justice Amar Saran, J was a member including the present Division Bench but it was the accused who avoided appearing before the Bench. It was, therefore, contended that the complainant had absolutely no interest in seeking removal of the case from the bench, or in writing the said letter.

4.The letter was also unsigned and undated. We also find that the envelop contained a slip, which looked like a slip from some courier, (but it was not delivered by any identifiable courier), rather the slip affixed to the envelop appeared to be a cutting of a slip from some mall. As the letter was purportedly written by M.P. Singh, and mentioned his address, there was no need for M.P. Singh, if he had indeed written the letter to have sent the said letter to the residence of the Judge, by making it appear to have been delivered by some fake courier, when it had not been delivered by any courier.

5.The circumstances in which the letter was delivered also suggests that the letter was a fabrication by an interested party who wanted the bench to divest itself of the case. Thus the record reveals that an order was passed by a bench of Hon'ble Ravindra Singh J and Hon'ble Anil Kumar Agarwal J on 11.11.2013 alleging that another letter dated 6.11.2013 (which is not however on the record of this case) sent in the name of M.P. Singh Advocate had been received by Justice Ravindra Singh whose contents were described as contemptuous, and in the circumstances the bench was releasing the case, and directing that the matter be put up before another bench after nomination from Hon'ble the Chief Justice. Thereafter there is an order of the Chief Justice dated 12.11.2013 nominating the case to the Bench presided over by one of us (Amar Saran J). It was impossible to conceive how and when in the next two days, the pairokar of the accused along with the Judge's relative could have visited the Judge's residence, and this drama would have been witnessed by M.P. Singh or some other person on behalf of the complainant, who would then have got the letter in M.P. Singh's name delivered at the actual residence of Justice Amar Saran by a fake courier in the evening of 15.11.2013, even though the envelop mentioned his Court number and not his residential address. Rather the letter appears to have been locally fabricated, with the object of coercing the Judge to recuse himself from the case.

Learned Counsel for the accused suggested that this Court look into the so-called contemptuous letter received by Justice Ravindra Singh to ascertain if action can also be taken with respect to the said letter. As the said letter is not on record, no contempt proceedings can be initiated for sending the said letter.

6.Significantly, we find that when this court after perusing the counter affidavit of M.P. Singh agreed to hear the bail prayers, an objection was raised by learned Counsel for the accused, that as this Court had expressed its views in Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 16472 of 2012 and connected matters against the accused persons, his clients (though not the counsel themselves) lacked confidence that the Court would decide the matter impartially, hence this Court should recuse itself from the case. We even reasoned with learned Counsel that no observations had been made on the merits of the case in the decided writ petition, but the observations had only been made in the Writ Petition regarding the conduct of the accused in unduly prolonging the trial by filing repeated applications under section 482 Cr.P.C., or 407 Cr.P.C. or writ petitions.

We must record our strong disapproval of these diabolical practices which are now being increasingly adopted by litigants who write letters or utilize other underhand and unfair means for getting benches changed or obtaining favourable orders at any cost, and who think nothing of making false, malicious, and derogatory allegations, against the Presiding officers of Courts by anonymous letters, or letters in their own names, and sometimes in the names of their opposing party in a bid to coerce the Courts to release the case, whilst at the same time creating an impression in the mind of the Court that it is the other party, which is the author of the baneful letter. Unfortunately such practices which were earlier confined to the subordinate Courts, are now being unabashedly adopted in the High Court and superior Courts as well, and the time has come that they be put down with an iron hand if we are to preserve the sanctity of our legal system and to maintain the confidence of the common man in our system of dispensing justice.

In our previous order dated 18.11.13 we had pointed out how such nefarious practices not only cause irreparable damage to the judges and the Judicial system, but also ultimately tarnish the image of counsel who appear in such cases and had observed as follows: "Regrettably the counsel engaged in such cases, even if they may not be party to the crime, do not come down heavily on their clients to desist from such grave malpractices and fail to realize that if the judiciary is permitted to be unfairly and dishonestly attacked and its prestige lowered, and such sharp practices are allowed to take place, the respect that such counsel enjoy in society would also automatically fall."

We are pained by the fact that in spite of the aforesaid cautionary words in the previous order, instead of chastising the writer of the letter, who has tried to browbeat the bench to releasing the case in this sinister manner, the Counsel rather tried to support the effort to somehow get the case released from the bench.

In view of the above we discharge the contempt notice against Sri M.P Singh, Advocate since we are of the opinion that the impugned letter does not appear to have been written or sent by him.

We however direct the Registrar General, Allahabad High Court to lodge a report at P.S. Civil Lines Allahabad for identifying and punishing the culprits responsible for forging the undated typed letter which is on record and has already been sealed by our order dated 18.11.2013 and which is purportedly in the name of M.P. Singh, and for sending it to the residence of Justice Amar Saran in an attempt to coerce Justice Amar Saran to recuse himself from the case or for the bench to release the case, and which letter amounts to an attempt to scandalize and denigrate the Court and to interfere with the due course of the judicial proceedings, whilst simultaneously attempting to make the complainant or M.P. Singh Advocate liable for this criminal act. The S.S.P. Allahabad is directed to take immediate steps for getting the FIR registered under the appropriate provisions and for getting the investigation effectively conducted by the newly constituted Crime Branch within two months, and for identifying, arresting and punishing the offenders. He shall report the outcome of the investigation before this Bench on the next listing, which shall take place immediately after two months.

Order Date :- 11.12.2013

sfa/