Supreme Court of India
DY. GENERAL MANAGER, REDESIGNATED AS DEPUTY DIRECTOR, INTER STATE BUS TERMINAL ETC. versus SMT. SUDERSHAN KUMARI AND ORS. ETC. on 9 December 1996
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
A DY. GENERAL MANAGER, REDESIGNATED AS DEPUTY DIRECTOR, INTER STATE BUS TERMINAL ETC.
v.
SMT. SUDERSHAN KUMAR! AND ORS. ETC.
DECEMBER~, 1996
B
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.]
Indian Penal Code, 1860: Section 199.
c
Filing of false ce1tificate and false affidavits in Court-Punishment for-Appeal prefen·ed before Supreme Cowt by 1~spondent-False certificate and false affidavit filed before Supreme Cowt-Respondent convicted under Section 199-Rigorous imprisonment for six months and fine of rupees 1, 000 imposed.
D CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 7084-85 of 1996 ..
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.11.94 of the Delhi High Court in C.W. No. 2483 of 1994.
E
Pramod Dayal for the Appellants.
D. Goburdhan and V.B. Saharya for the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
F
F This Court by order dated April 2, 1996 had observed that leave and licence to run a sales counter granted on compassionate grounds and other liberties given to them were being abused by such persons and that the High Court was not right in giving liberty to the respondent No. 1 to withdraw the writ petition and to file another writ petition on the same cause of action. Civil Appeal No. 7084/96 was accordingly allowed and the G appeal filed by Sudershan Kumari was dismissed with costs. A direction was issued to the Notary to show cause as to why he should not be prosecuted and punished for attesting false affidavit of impersonation and why his licence should not be cancelled and why he should not be prosecuted for t,'1ving such false certificates. A notice was sent to him on H the basis of the name furnished by the respondent and also in the oath. It •.
rs now reported by the Registry that no such person is available in Tis "·A Hazari Court. Consequently by order dated October 23, 1996 Mr. Goburdhan learned counsel appearing for the respondent, was directed tC\ ., give the name of the Oath Commissioner lest proceedings should be initialed against the first respondent Sudershan Kumari who has filed the affidavit alleged to have been attested by the Oath Commissioner which is B found to be false. Accordingly time was given. It is stated by the learned counsel, Mr. Goburdhan, that in spite of the letter written by him, the respondent is not responding. Under these circumstances, we are left with no option but to convict the first respondent Mrs. Sudershan Kumari for producing false certificate and false affidavits. Accordingly, she is con-victed under Section 199 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous im-C prisonment for a period of six months and is directed to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000, in default to undergo a further sentence of six weeks. Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently. This order should be sent to the Sessions Judge, Delhi to enforce the sentence. It is accordingly ordered.
Appeal disposed of. D
T.N.A.