Anjali Sarma vs Council For The Indian School ...
1987 Latest Caselaw 379 Del

JUDGMENT

Y.K. Sabharwai, J.

(1) Anjali Sharma was a student of Xth class in Seventh Day Adventist High School, Hapur (hereinafter referred to as 'School'). The school is affiliated to Council for the Indian School Certificate Examination (hereinafter referred to as 'Council'). The council has various schools affiliated to it all over India. Anjali appeared in examinations (known as Icse, Examination) conducted by the Council in March, 1986. The results were declared in May, 1986. Anjali failed because in compulsory subject of English, she secured only 28 marks. She secured pass marks in all other subjects. Anjali claims that as she is a brilliant student and did her papers very well, she was surprised and shocked to learn that she has failed. On rechecking the Council confirmed that the result as already declared was correct.

(2) Anjali through her mother Mrs. Kamlesh Sharma filed C. W. 2293/86 in this court alleging serious malafides against the school authorities. It was also alleged in the petition that the school authorities have either tampered with her answer sheets or had altogether replaced them with some other answer sheets before sending them to Council for checking.

(3) By order of this court dated 29th October. 1986. the Council was directed to produce in court the answer books of all the subjects submitted by all the students of the school, who appeared in the India Certificate of Secondary Education (ICSE) Examination held in March 1986. The Council produced the answer books of the petitioner. About answer books of other candidates, the Council filed affidavit stating that, according to rules all answer books, except those for which application is made for rechecking are destroyed within two months of declaration of result and all other answer books were infact so destroyed The documents in support of this plea, were also filed.

(4) The answer books produced by Council and purporting to be those of Anjali, were shown to her. She denied that those were her answer books. She said that the handwriting on those answer books, was not hers. On another form placed on record by the Council, she denied that initials against the name 'Anjail Sharma' were hers. The court dictated some passages from the answer books to Anjali and asked her to write them down and also asked her to put her signatures and initials on sheets marked P-1 and P-2. The court asked Anjali whether she has any notes or other matters written by her and signed by her teachers. She said, she docs have such written matter, but at Hapur. The court directed her to produce the same and directed the Council also to obtain some authentic writing to Anjali from her school in Hapur.

(5) In pursuance to the aforesaid directions, some documents were produced by Anjali and some by Mrs. Daisy Singh, Principal of the School. The court then decided to record the statements of Anjali and the Principal. As Anjali was a minor, before recording her statement on oath, some questions were put to her to make sure that she understands the implications of the oath. She said that she understands what is meant by the Oath and would prefer to take the Oath in the name of God. She further said that she understands that if she takes the Oath, she has to tell the truth and if she does not tell the truth after taking the Oath, she could be punished. She said that she was prepared to take the Oath and affirm the facts contained in She petition and also answer any other questions which the court may wish to ask. After being satisfied that she does understand the meaning of the Oath and the implications of making, a statement on Oath, the Oath was administered and her statement was recorded.

(6) The statement of Anjali was recorded on 10th December ami 15th December 1986. The statement of Mrs. Daisy Singh, Principal of the School was also recorded on 10th December, 1986. The statements of Mrs. Kamlesh Sharma and Mrs. Gayen, a teacher of the school, were also recorded on 15th December, 1986. After recording the aforesaid statements, the court referred certain questions, including the question : whether the answer scripts marked 'A' and 'B' are written by Anjali or not, for the opinion of the handwriting expert of the Central Forensic Science Laboratory.

(7) The Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Central Bureau of Investigation, after examining the various documents sent to them, submitted their report dated 31st March 1987. As the report showed that the allegations made by the petitioner were false, the writ petition (CW 2293/86) was dismissed on 20th July, 1987.

(8) Since from the opinion of the handwriting expert it appeared that Anjali and her mother have told blatant lies in the petition and in their statements before the court, they were called upon to show cause why they should not be prosecuted. for the offence of perjury.

(9) We Lave heard learned counsel in answer. Anjali made the following statement in court on 10th December, 1987 :- "I have seen the answer books marked 'A' and 'B' and glanced through them. Neither of these answer books bears my handwriting at any place, nor do they bear my signatures or initials at any place. On the last date of hearing I wrote out at the defecation of the court what is written on the sheets Exs. P-1 and P-2. They bear my handwriting. These papers show my normal style of handwriting. I have seen the document marked Ex. P-3. The initials, against my name, under Column 3 have been written by me. However, the initials under Column 4 are not in my handwriting. The answer paper marked 'C' is not written by me."

(10) Again Ob 15th December she made the following statement :- "I have seenthe letter dated 31st May, 1986 which is marked Ex. R-5. The initials under the typewritten words 'Yours obediently' arc mine. However, the name 'Anjali Sharma' above the initials is not in my handwriting. The initials above the date 4th June, 1986 are not mine. The name 'Anjali Sharma' above these initials is also not in my hand. The Note and the entire writing following it on the left side lower portion of this letter is not in my hand"....... ..... ..... . , .... I have again looked at the name Anjali Sharma under the title of the words 'Yours obediently'. I am sure that the name Anjali Sharma is not written by me or by my mother."

(10) It seems clear to us that the underlined portion of the above statements is, prima facie, false.

(11) It also seems clear to us that Mrs. Kamlesh Sharma falsely slated in her statement that "the initials on Ex. R-5 under the words Yours Obediently' are not written by my daughter". She further falsely stated that "I have seen the answer scripts marked 'A' and 'B'. The handwriting in these answer scripts is not that of my daughter. The document marked R-1 is not in the handwriting of my daughter".

(12) It is not the case of any of the parties before us that the said Senior Scientific Officer (Documcnts)-cum-Assistant Chemical Examiner of Central Forensic Science Laboratory, who has given the report, is interested in giving a wrong report. It was, prima facie, clear to us that the disputed signatures, initials and handwriting were that of Anjali Sharma but to clear any possible doubt and with consent of the parties the documents were sent to Central Forensic Science Laboratory for their expert opinion, We now have the report of an independent person. It is, therefore, not necessary to permit the examination of the private handwriting expert at this stage. The parties would have simple opportunity to produce such evidence as they may be advised including the evidence of the private handwriting experts in proceedings before the criminal court.

(13) We have seriously pondered over the contention that a lenient view should be taken and prosecution for the offence of perjury should not be ordered because Anjali is a minor and a student. However, the facts show that Anjali did not act in a manner in which normally a child of her age would act. After the results were declared serious allegations were made against the Principal. Anjali also sat on dharna outside the school for couple of days. It also appears that she was actively assisted by some of the political parties and had their backing in conducting dharnas The confidence with which she gave statement in court made us to believe at one stage that she is telling the truth. The Principal and the teachers of the school were put to great jeopardy. We had earned Anjali, her mother, Principal of the school as also the teacher who appeared before us that the party against whom ultimately the report of the expert is, would have to face prosecution. Inspite the repeated warnings and the way false statements were given fully demonstrates that, prima facie Anjali is an outrageous liar. She has behaved worst than an adult. The false statements were not made only once but both daughter and the mother persisted in making false statement. We hasten to add that we are not laying down that if false statements are made once then there should be no prosecution. The law relating to minors will take due care to Anjali in case she is ultimately found guilty by the criminal court.

(14) There is also no substance in the contention that prosecution for offence of perjury should not be ordered against Mrs. Kamlesh Sharma because she is a lady. What is stated above is equally applicable to Mrs. Kamlesh Sharma as well. It is inconceivable that Mrs, Kamlesh Sharma made false statements inadvertently. It is high time that Mrs. Kamlesh Sharma should also realise that she is putting her daughter on the wrong path. Clearly false statements were not made inadvertently but were deliberately made to obtain favorable orders in the writ petition.

(15) It is common knowledge that perjury has increased tremendously in the courts in recent times and people have been encouraged in this course because of the reluctance of the courts to take action. In this case we see no reasons why we should not order Anjali Sharnia and Mrs. Kamlesh Sharma to be prosecuted, and, we think, that not only is it expedient, but, also, necessary in the interests of justice that such an order ought to be made.

(16) Accordingly, we order the Registrar of this Court to make a complaint in writing against Anjali Sharma, daughter of late Shri M. L. Sharma, resident of Bazar Bazaza, Hapur, U.P. and Ms. Kamlesh Sharma, widow of Shri M. L. Sharma, resident of Bazar Bazaza, Hapur, U.P. for having committed offences under Sections 191, 192 and 193 of the Indian Penal Code to the Magistrate having jurisdiction.

(17) Anjali Sharma and Mrs. Kamlesh Sharma will both furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5,000.00 each to the satisfaction of the Registrar of this Court today, conditioned that they will appear before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, on 8th September, 1987 and on such subsequent dates as as he may require, to take further orders. If any one of them, fails to furnish the personal bond, she or they, as the case may be, will be taken into custody, and forwarded to the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for being dealt with in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly.