# Kripa Shanker Sharma Contemner v. State of U.P. & others

- **Citation:** (2008) 3 ILRA 833
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2008-08-27
- **Case number:** Criminal Contempt Petition No. 7 of 2007
- **Bench:** V.K. Verma
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/kripa-shanker-sharma-contemner-v-state-of-u-p-others-41237
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Contempt of Court Act 1971-Section 15criminal contempt-filing false affidavit
dated 27.02.2007 to the effect that
minutes of regional committee meeting
are not maintained again in other
affidavit-made just contrary statementsheld-register maintained upto March
2006, contemner taken additional charge
on 08.02.2007-after getting search of
register in its office-at once produced
before
the
Court-if
any
dishonest
intention-contemnor would have never
produced before the Court-cannot be
held
guilty
for
the
charges-entitled
exoneration.

Held: Para 8

It is also to be noticed that this register
was only upto the March, 2006 while the
contemner took the charge on 8.2.2007
when the petitioner got a search made in
the office, the register was discovered,
and he duly produced the same before
the Court in the condition in which, it
was found, if there was any dishonest
intention on the part of the contemner,
he would have not laid the register
before the Court, at all.

## Text

3 All] Kripa Shanker Sharma V. State of U.P. and others
833
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.08.2008

BEFORE
THE HON,BLE B.A. ZAIDI, J.
THE HON'BLE V.K. VERMA, J.

Criminal Contempt Petition No. 7 of 2007

Kripa Shanker Sharma ...Contemner
Versus
State of U.P. & others ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Contemner:
Sri. Shashi Nandan
Sri. Sanjeev Kumar

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
Sri. A.J. Singh
A.G.A.

Contempt of Court Act 1971-Section 15criminal contempt-filing false affidavit
dated 27.02.2007 to the effect that
minutes of regional committee meeting
are not maintained again in other
affidavit-made just contrary statementsheld-register maintained upto March
2006, contemner taken additional charge
on 08.02.2007-after getting search of
register in its office-at once produced
before
the
Court-if
any
dishonest
intention-contemnor would have never
produced before the Court-cannot be
held
guilty
for
the
charges-entitled
exoneration.

Held: Para 8

It is also to be noticed that this register
was only upto the March, 2006 while the
contemner took the charge on 8.2.2007
when the petitioner got a search made in
the office, the register was discovered,
and he duly produced the same before
the Court in the condition in which, it
was found, if there was any dishonest
intention on the part of the contemner,
he would have not laid the register
before the Court, at all.

(Delivered by Hon'ble B.A. Zaidi, J.)

1. This is a reference made by the
Bench of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arun
Tandon in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.
5991 of 2007. The matter was referred to
the erstwhile contempt of Court Bench
and Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.S. Rakhra and
Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.C. Nigam, framed
the
following
charges
against
the
contemner:-

"Charge under section 15 read with 2C of
the Contempt of Court Act 1971.

You are hereby charged as follows:-
Firstly that in Writ Petition no.6991 of
2007 Committee of Management and
others Vs. State of U.P. And others you as
Regional Joint Director of Education
holding
charge
Moradabad
Region
Moradabad gave a false statement before
this Court on 27.02.2007 to the effect that
minutes of the Regional Level Committee
are not being recorded in any register
while in your affidavit filed before this
Court in the said writ petition on 19.03
2007 you specifically mentioned para 4
that the register in respect of meeting of
Regional Level Committee is available
and you have brought it to court and you
are in a position to place before the court.
This shows that your aforesaid statement
on oath was patently wrong and was
intended to mislead the court and it was
in the nature of substantial interference
with due course of justice which is an
offence punishable under section 12 read
with section 2C and section 15 of the
contempt of Court Act 1971.
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2008
834
Secondly that in the aforesaid writ
petition on 19.3.2007 you produced
before this Court a register of meeting of
Regional Level Committee constituted by
Government order dated 19. 12.2000 and
the said register was not maintained in
normal course of business and was
subsequently prepared for the purpose of
the said writ petition as was held by this
Court in its order dated 19.3.2007. This
again was an act on your part to mislead
the court which amounts to substantial
interference with due course of justice in
the said judicial proceeding and this you
have committed an offence punishable u/s
12 read with section 15 of the Contempt
of Court Act 1971.Tthis Court, therefore,
serves the above charge on you and you
are hereby given one month's time to file
an affidavit in your defence.
This matter be listed for hearing on
09.10.2007."

2. That petitioner's alibi is that he
was
given
additional
charge
of
Moradabad
as
Joint
Director
of
Education,
and
High
School
and
Intermediate examinations were in the
offing, because of which, there was huge
pressure of work and the petitioner was
not in a position, to verify all the details.
He was informed, that no register of the
Regional Committee is being maintained,
and that is what he unhesitatingly stated
before the Court in his Statement. If there
was any intention of misleading the Court
on the part of the contemner, he would
not have subsequently produced the
register of Regional Committee before the
Court, and would have allowed to remain
suppressed. This is the explanation of the
petitioner as regards the first charge.

3. Heard Sri Shashi Nandan, learned
Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Sanjeev
Kumar, counsel for the alleged contemner
and Sri A.J. Singh, Addl. Government
counsel for the State.

4. We are inclined to believe, that
the petitioner was unaware of the fact that
any register of the Regional Committee
was being maintained, and he relied on
the information given by the office that
there was no register and that is why he
made a statement before the Court to the
effect that there was no register. If the
intention of the contemner was to mislead
the Court, he would have not allowed the
production of the register at a subsequent
stage, and would have concealed and
suppressed the register. That indicates that
the contemner was himself mislead by the
office, and that is why he made a
statement to the effect that no register was
being maintained.

5. While we accept, that there was
no malafide or dishonest intention on the
part of the contemner to mislead the
Court, we would observe that there has
been laxity, in the supervision by the
contemner, and his supervision of the
office was not upto the mark.

6. As regards the first charge, we
are, therefore, of the view that since there
was no deliberate contempt on the part of
the contemner to mislead the Court, it
would
not
be
appropriate
in
the
circumstances to find him guilty on that
charge.

7. As regards the second charge of
the register of the Regional Committee
being fabricated, it is to be seen, that the
register is maintained by some clerk in the
office of the Joint Director and the Joint
Director is not supposed to maintain the
register. No notice has been issued to the
3 All] Shyam Singh Yadav V. State of U.P. and others
835
clerk, who was supposed to maintain the
register. His version has not been taken as
to why the register was not being
maintained, and is in loose scattered
sheets.

8. It is also to be noticed that this
register was only upto the March, 2006
while the contemner took the charge on
8.2.2007 when the petitioner got a search
made in the office, the register was
discovered, and he duly produced the
same before the Court in the condition in
which, it was found, if there was any
dishonest intention on the part of the
contemner, he would have not laid the
register before the Court, at all.

9. As stated above, in the
circumstances, the register was in such a
state, could have been disclosed by the
clerk, who was maintaining the register
and his explanation has not been obtained,
and it cannot, therefore, be said as to how
and why the register was in such a state
and why proceedings subsequent to
March,:2006 were not recorded, in the
register.

10. In view of the aforesaid
circumstances, it would not be fair to hold
the contemner guilty of the charges
levelled against him, and he deserves
exoneration.

11. Contempt is discharged.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.08.2008

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE V.M. SAHAI, J.
THE HON'BLE S.P. MEHROTRA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 34193 of 2008

Shyam Singh Yadav

...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Shashi Nandan
Sri V.K. Srivastava
Sri Kashif Zaidi
Sri A.K. Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri M.C. Chaturvedi
Sri R.N. Singh
Sri G.K. Gingh
Sri C.K. Parekh
Sri M.C. Dwivedi
Sri V.K. Singh
Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh
Advocate General,
S.C.

U.P. Govt. Servant Rules 1999-Rule 4
(1)-Suspension-on the basis of news
paper-without objective considerationNo serious charges which warrant major
punishment- order vitiated.

Held: Para 8 & 9

In the present case, we do not find that
the Competent Authority has made any
objective consideration of the material
on record, or has arrived at a conclusion
that the charges against the petitioner
are so serious as are likely to result in
imposition of major penalty against the
petitioner.

Unless the Competent Authority arrives
at
such
a
conclusion
on
objective