# •• AFZAL AND ANR v. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS

- **Citation:** [1996] 1 S.C.R. 573
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1996-01-17
- **Bench:** K. Ramaswamy, G.B. Pattanaik
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/afzal-and-anr-v-state-of-haryana-and-ors-13877
- **Pages:** 30

## Headnote

B
Indian Penal Code, 1860 :
Ss.191, 192, 193--Giving false evidence and fabricating false
evidence--Police officials--Giving .false a.ffidavits in Court and inducing one
C
o.f their colleagues to .forge signature o.f another o.fficer on counter
qffidavit--Held liable to be punished under s. 193 and accordingly sentenced.
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 :
S.2(c}-Criminal contempt--Filing qf false affidavits in Court-Held
D
amounts to criminal contempt.
Constitution ~f India, 1950:
Article 129-Contempt of Court-Deputy Superintendent of
Police--Filing false affidavit in Court and instructing his junior to forge his
E
signature on affidavit to be .filed in Court -Held Police O.fficer Committed
contempt ~f Court-Sentenced according(y.
Notaries Act, 1952 :
Ss.2( d), 8--Notary-Functions of-Affidavit to be attested after propF
er(v identifying signatory.
Affidavit:
Affidavit-Attestation qf--Notary should attest affidavit qfter properly
identifying signatory.
A police party put two minor boys in wrongful confinement in
order to coerce an accused involved in an offence of fraud and forgery
G
of railway receipts. Jn the writ petitions filed for release of the minor
boys, two counter affidavits dated 30.10.1993 were filed in this Court on
1.11.1993 denying the fact of wrongful confinement of the minor boys by
H
573
A
B
574
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1996] l S.C.R.
the police. One of the affidavits was sworn by respondent no. 4, A.S.I. ·
incharge of the police station concerned and a member of the raid party,
and the other was purported to be sworn by respondent No. 3, the
Superintendent of Police, G.R.P. incharge of the investigation. The Court,
being not satisfied with the averments made in the counter affidavits,
directed an inquiry to be made by the Home Secretary and, in his
absence, by the Director General of Police. The Director General of
Police submitted the report which was contrary to the versions given in
the counter affidavits filed in the Court on 1.11.1993. When the case was
•
listed on 5.11.1993, respondent no. 3 filed another affidavit stating that
a Head Constable 'K' had forged his signature on the counter affidavit
C
dated 30.10.1993. This Court directed the District Judge Faridabad, and
later the C.B.I. to enquire into the forgery. The Report of the C.B.I.
indicated that respondent no. 3, who at the relevant time was stationed
at Rewari, instructed Sub-Inspector 'S' and others to meet the Standing
Counsel of State of Haryana in New Delhi and to get counter affidavits
D
of respondents no. 3 and 4 drafted; Sub-Inspector 'S' accordingly got the
counter affidavits drafted in accordance with the instructions of respondent no. 3; Head constable 'K' in the presence of Sub Inspector 'S'
forged the signature of respondent no. 3 on the carbon copy of the
affidavit dated 30.10.1993 which was filed in the Court on 1.11.1993;
E
F
G
respondent no. 4 also sworn the affidavit dated 30.10.1993, and got the
same filed in the Court on 1..11.1993; the fact of wrongful confinement ·
of the two minor boys was in the knowledge of respondent no. 3. This
Court issued notices to respondent no. 4 and the Head Constable 'K' as
also to the Sub-Inspector 'S' to show cause as to why they should not
be convicted for forgery of signature of respondent no. 3 on the counter
affidavit dated 30.10.93 and also for contempt of court for filing false
affidavits in this Court. Respondent no. 4 and Head Constable 'K' filed
their respective affidavits before this Court stating that the affidavits
dated 30.10.1993 were filed at the instance of respondent no. 3 aud on
his instructions Sub-Inspector 'S' asked Head Constable 'K' to forge
the signature of respondent no. 3 on the carbon copy of the counter
affidavit dated 30.10.1993 which was filed in the Court on 1.11.1993;
thereupon the Court issued notice to respondent no. 3 to show cause as
to why proceedings should not be initiated against him for forgery and
making false statement in this Court, as also contempt of t

## Text

_Characters 0–39,920 of 77,481. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39920 for what follows._

,,
••
AFZAL AND ANR.
A
v.
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
JANUARY 17, 1996
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]
B
Indian Penal Code, 1860 :
Ss.191, 192, 193--Giving false evidence and fabricating false
evidence--Police officials--Giving .false a.ffidavits in Court and inducing one
C
o.f their colleagues to .forge signature o.f another o.fficer on counter
qffidavit--Held liable to be punished under s. 193 and accordingly sentenced.
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 :
S.2(c}-Criminal contempt--Filing qf false affidavits in Court-Held
D
amounts to criminal contempt.
Constitution ~f India, 1950:
Article 129-Contempt of Court-Deputy Superintendent of
Police--Filing false affidavit in Court and instructing his junior to forge his
E
signature on affidavit to be .filed in Court -Held Police O.fficer Committed
contempt ~f Court-Sentenced according(y.
Notaries Act, 1952 :
Ss.2( d), 8--Notary-Functions of-Affidavit to be attested after propF
er(v identifying signatory.
Affidavit:
Affidavit-Attestation qf--Notary should attest affidavit qfter properly
identifying signatory.
A police party put two minor boys in wrongful confinement in
order to coerce an accused involved in an offence of fraud and forgery
G
of railway receipts. Jn the writ petitions filed for release of the minor
boys, two counter affidavits dated 30.10.1993 were filed in this Court on
1.11.1993 denying the fact of wrongful confinement of the minor boys by
H
573
A
B
574
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1996] l S.C.R.
the police. One of the affidavits was sworn by respondent no. 4, A.S.I. ·
incharge of the police station concerned and a member of the raid party,
and the other was purported to be sworn by respondent No. 3, the
Superintendent of Police, G.R.P. incharge of the investigation. The Court,
being not satisfied with the averments made in the counter affidavits,
directed an inquiry to be made by the Home Secretary and, in his
absence, by the Director General of Police. The Director General of
Police submitted the report which was contrary to the versions given in
the counter affidavits filed in the Court on 1.11.1993. When the case was
•
listed on 5.11.1993, respondent no. 3 filed another affidavit stating that
a Head Constable 'K' had forged his signature on the counter affidavit
C
dated 30.10.1993. This Court directed the District Judge Faridabad, and
later the C.B.I. to enquire into the forgery. The Report of the C.B.I.
indicated that respondent no. 3, who at the relevant time was stationed
at Rewari, instructed Sub-Inspector 'S' and others to meet the Standing
Counsel of State of Haryana in New Delhi and to get counter affidavits
D
of respondents no. 3 and 4 drafted; Sub-Inspector 'S' accordingly got the
counter affidavits drafted in accordance with the instructions of respondent no. 3; Head constable 'K' in the presence of Sub Inspector 'S'
forged the signature of respondent no. 3 on the carbon copy of the
affidavit dated 30.10.1993 which was filed in the Court on 1.11.1993;
E
F
G
respondent no. 4 also sworn the affidavit dated 30.10.1993, and got the
same filed in the Court on 1..11.1993; the fact of wrongful confinement ·
of the two minor boys was in the knowledge of respondent no. 3. This
Court issued notices to respondent no. 4 and the Head Constable 'K' as
also to the Sub-Inspector 'S' to show cause as to why they should not
be convicted for forgery of signature of respondent no. 3 on the counter
affidavit dated 30.10.93 and also for contempt of court for filing false
affidavits in this Court. Respondent no. 4 and Head Constable 'K' filed
their respective affidavits before this Court stating that the affidavits
dated 30.10.1993 were filed at the instance of respondent no. 3 aud on
his instructions Sub-Inspector 'S' asked Head Constable 'K' to forge
the signature of respondent no. 3 on the carbon copy of the counter
affidavit dated 30.10.1993 which was filed in the Court on 1.11.1993;
thereupon the Court issued notice to respondent no. 3 to show cause as
to why proceedings should not be initiated against him for forgery and
making false statement in this Court, as also contempt of this Court.
H
Respondent no. 3 and the Suh Inspector of Police 'S' filed affida-
'
•
1
"
r
I
AFZAL v. STATE
575
vits denying their roles in filing the forged affidavit dated 30.10.1993.
A
The Standing Counsel for the State of Haryana also filed an affidavit
narrating the events and her statement corroborated the stand taken by
Head Constable 'K' and respondent no. 4.
On the basis of the report of the CBI and the various affidavits
filed by the parties, the Court concluded that respondent no. 3 while
stationed l\t Rewari, had instructed Sub Inspector of Police 'S' and
o.thers to meet the standing counsel for the Government of Haryana to
instruct her to draft the counter affidavits on his behalf and on behalf of
respondent no. 4 denying the wrongful confinement of the minor boys;
B
the counter affidavits were accordingly drafted on the instructions given
C
by the Sub-Inspector of Police 'S' as the senior most of the team,
denying the wrongful confinement of the minor boys; on the instructions
of respondent no. 3, Sub Inspector 'S' asked Head Constable 'K' to
forge the signature of respondent no. 3 on the carbon copy of the
counter affidavit; Sub Inspector 'S' got the forged affidavit filed in this
D
Court; respondent no. 4 filed false counter affidavit dated 30.10.1993 in
the judicial proceedings before this Court and abetted Head Constable
'K' to forge the signature of respondent no. 3 on the counter affidavit;
respondent no. 3 again filed false affidavit in the Court on 5.11.1993.
Disposing of the matters, this Court
HELD : 1.1. A false or a misleading or a wrong statement
deliberately and wilfully made by a party to the proceedings to obtain
a favourable order would prejudice or interfere with the due course of
E
judicial proceedings, and would amount to "criminal contempt" as
F
defined in s.2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act.
1.2. Respondent No. 3, being in-charge of the criminal administration, with his connivance, caused two minor boys' wrongful detention.
He made an averment in the counter-affidavit dated October 30, 1993
G
that the boys were not in wrongful detention nor were they taken into
custody; the said averment was later found to be false. He first used
fabricated counter-affidavit, forged by Head Constable 'K' in the
proceedings to obtain a favourable order; but when he perceived
adverse atmosphere to him, he filed another false affidavit dated
5.11.1993 stating that the averments made in the counter affidavit dated
H
A
B
576
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1996) l S.C.R
30.10.1993 were not in his knowledge; he fabricated further false
evidence and sought to use an affidavit evidence to show that head
constahle 'K' had forged his signature without his knowledge and filed
the fabricated document. He has no regard for truth. From stage to
stage, he committed contempt of the Court by making false statements.
Being a responsible officer, he is required to make truthful statements
before the Court, but he made obviously false statements. He committed
an offence punishable under s.193, I.P.C. He also committed contempt
of this Court under Article 129 of the Constitution. He is unworthy to
hold any office of responsibility.
C
1.3. Respondent no. 4 had sworn a false affidavit on 30.10.1993
.D
E
F
and got the same filed on 1.11.1993 in the judicial proceedings before
this Court. His version that the minor boys were not taken into custody
and kept in wrongful confinement cannot be accepted. He also abetted
Head Constable 'K' to forge the signature of respondent no. 4. He
would stand to gain by it as his version would get corroborated from
that of respondent no. 3; he is liable to conviction under s.193 IPC for
intentionally giving false affidavits in the judicial proceedings in this
Court and abetting Head Constable 'K' to forge the signature of.
respondent no. 3.
1.4. Sub-Inspector of Police 'S' filed false affidavits before this
Court and acted in concert with respondent no. 3 to fabricate counter
affidavit with facts false to his knowledge that minor boys were not in
wrongful confinement or illegal custody; he abetted Head Constable 'K'
to forge the signature of respondent no. 3 on the carbon copy of the
counter affidavit; he had taken the custody of the forged carbon copy
of the affidavit and sent the same to the standing counsel for being filed
in the Court; he was present on November l, 1993 in the Court
premises along with respondent no. 3; though he disclaimed knowledge
of the forged documents having been filed in the court, in view of
evidence on record that he appeared in the Court when the proceedings
G
were going on, he had seen through the filing of the same in the Court.
Sub-Inspector 'S' thus committed an offence punishable under s.193
I.P.C.
1.5. Head Constable 'K' had no intention to forge the signature of
respondent no. 3 on the carbon copy of the counter affidavit dt. 30.10.1993
H
filed in this Court on 1.11.1993.
•
i
AFZAL 1•. STATE [RAMASWAMY, J.]
577
2.1. None of the respondents made any candid admission nor
A
tendered unqualified contrite apology. Police officers who are supposed
to be the so-called disciplined force, have deliberately fabricated false
records placed before this Court without any compunction. It is, therefore, of utmost importance to curb this tendency, particularly, when
they have the temerity to fabricate the records with false affidavit and
B
place the same before the highest Court of the land. Their depravity of
the conduct' is writ large.
2.2. Respondent no. 3 is convicted and sentenced under Section
193 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of one year. He
is also convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a
term of 6 months under Article 129 of the Constitution. Respondent no.
4 and Sub-Inspector 'S' are convicted and sentenced under Section 193
IPC, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of 3 months and 6
months respectively.
Afzal & Anr. v. State of Haryana & Ors., [1994] 1 SCC 425 and
Afzal & Anr. v. State ~f Haryana & Ors., JT (1994) 7 SC 167, cited.
3. From the evidence on record it is clear that the affidavit dated
October 30, 1993 purported to be sworn by respondent no. 3 was attested
by the Notary on October 31, 1993 and he obliged the police officials to
give the date of his attestation as October 30, 1993. The CBI Officer has
fairly commented upon the Notary on his abdication of duty to have the
signatory identified to be the deponent and in allowing the people to sign
without proper verification of their identity.
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
Writ Petition (Crl.) No.
356-57 of 1993.
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.)
B.K. Mehta, U.R. Lalit, S.B. Sanyal, Mahinder Singh Dahiya (NP),
c
D
E
F
G
_
)lo.
Prem Malhotra, R.K. Khanna, Rajan Mahapatra, Surya Kant, D.B. Vohra,
K.C. Bajaj, Sarvesh Bisaria,Ms. Nidhi Bisaria, S.K. Bisaria and Ms. Asha
Jain Madan for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
578
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[ 1996] 1 S.C.R.
RAMASWAMY, J. F!Rs were registered with Government Railway
Police, Faridabad by the Station House Officer, Ambala Cantonment,
Randhir Singh (AS!) against the prime accused, Rahim Khan for offences
of fraud and forgery of the railway receipts and cheating and misappropriation. In connection therewith, a police team headed by lshaq Ahmad;
Inspector, CJ.A. G.R.P., Ambala had gone to Agra to apprehend Rahim
Khan. When he alluded the investigation team, they took away two minor
boys, viz., Afzal son of Rahim Khan and Habib son of Ahmad and kept
them in wrongful confinement at different places. Consequently, above writ
petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution were filed in this Court for
habeas corpus of the minor boys. This Court issued rule nisi on October 29,
1993 and to Ms. Indu Malhotra, Standing Counsel for State of Haryana and
directed the matter to be listed on November 1, 1993. On November 1,
1993, this Court directed the Home Secretary, Government of Haryana to
personally examine the complaint of illegal detention of two minor boys
and to submit a report by November 5, 1993 and the matter was directed
to be posted on that day at 2.00 p.m. On November2, 1993, when Ms. Indu
had pointed out to the Court that the Home Secretary was on leave, this
Court had modified the order and directed the Director General of Police
(DGP) to make investigation and to submit the report on November 5, 1993.
In the meanti,me, on November 1, 1993, Ms. Malhotra wrote a letter to the
Home Secretary thus:
" ..... Two minor children namely Afzal and Habib have allegedly
been illegally detained at Ambala. Respondents No. 3 and 4 i.e. the
Superintendent of Police G.R.P. (G.l.A.), (Haryana) have filed two
separate affidavits stating that the children are not in illegal
custody.
However, an affidavit of an Advocate of U.P. has been filed in
support of the Hebeas Corpus petition in the Supreme Court stating
that inspector Ishaque Ahmad, G.R.P. (C.l.R.) Ambala Cant!. had
informed him that the minor children would be released only if
their father surrenders. He has stated that he saw the children in the
custody of lshaque Ahmad."
She enclosed in the said letter complete copy of the petition along
with the copy of the affidavits etc. She also informed that the case was
posted "for hearing on 5.11.93" and that the Court had directed him to
H
personally investigate into the case and file an affidavit before the Court.
AFZAL v. STATE [RAMASWAMY, J.]
579
She requested him to be present in Delhi with the above details by
A
November 5, 1993. On November 2, 1993, she wrote another letter to Shr:
Kalyan Rudra, DGP, Haryana wherein while reiterating the facts of earlier
letter, she stated thus :
"The Court had issued notice to the Standing Counsel for the State
B
of Haryana on 29th October, 1993. On receiving a copy of the said
petition, we contacted the 3rd and 4th Respondents and filed
affidavits on their behalf. The affidavits filed on behalf of Respondents No. 3 and 4 along with the copy of the Hebeas Corpus
petition are enclosed herewith for your ready reference. The Court,
However, was not satisfied with the facts stated by Respondent No.
C
3 and 4".
She further stated that the Court had directed him to personally
investigate into the matter and file an affidavit by November 4, 1993 and
that the case would be heard on November 5, 1993. She also requested him
to talk to her personally on the telephones and numbers thereof had been
D
given. This Court by order dated December 8, 1993 in Afzal & Am: v. State
~f Haryana & Ors., [1994] I SCC 425 noted that the first affidavit of M.S.
Ahlawat, Superintendent of Police was filed in this Court on November 2,
1993 and another affidavit was filed on November 5, 1993. The Court also
had noted that Inspector Jshaq Ahmad was primarily responsible for wrongful and illegal confinement of two minor boys. This Court opined that a
detailed enquiry was necessary to find out the truth and the tenor of the
averments made in two affidavits of Ahlawat and that the forgery of his
signature was made in the first one; veracity of allegations and counterallegations by the officers and the role played by each of the respondents
would be ascertained. Therefore, this Court had directed the District Judge,
Faridabad to make an enquiry and to submit the report within six weeks
from the date of the receipt of that order. The District Judge had given
opportunity to all the persons and he opined and concluded that "the
assertion of Jshwar Singh, S.I. did not appear to be veracious and impeccable. The trend and tenor of the statements made by various police
officers/officials during the course of the enquiry tended to suggest that they
tried to toe the line of one or the other group of two factions of the Railway
Police branding each other with charges and countercharges. The manner in
which Jshwar Singh the seniormost in the group of police officials concerned with the preparation of counter-affidavits and briefing the Standing
Counsel did not object to the filing of a forged affidavit, spoke volumes of
E
F
G
H
580
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1996] I S.C.R.
A
the tendentious nature of the stand taken by him". He also held that M.S.
Ahlawat was not responsible in the episode. On receipt of the report, by
order dated October 19, 1994 in Afzal & Anr. v. Slate nf Haryana & Ors.,
IT ( 1994) 7 SC 167 this Court opined that "the affidavit of Ahlawat dated ,
September 5, 1993, his evidence before the Dist. Judge and the report of the
B
latter do establish that the signature of Ahlawat is forged on the affidavit
dated September 30, 1993 and the question as to who had forged it needs
thorough investigation to take deterrent action. It cannot be lightly brushed
aside of the tendency to file false affidavits or fabricated documents or
forgery of the document and placing them as part of the record of the Court
c
D
and they are matters of grave and serious concern. Therefore, we are of the
view that a thorough investigation is necessary in this behalf'. Accordingly,
Director of Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) was entrusted with the
task of investigation, if necessary, with the assistance of hand-writing expert
and report was directed to be submitted as expeditiously as possible within
three months from the date of the receipt of this Court's order.
Shri V.K. Khanna, Scnio~ Scientific Officer, Grade-I examined the
documents and assisted the CBI in the enquiry conducted by Shri N.K.
Pathak, Inspector. He stated in the report submitted to this Court that Head
Constable, Krishan Kumar forged the signatures of Shri M.S. Ahlawat on
E
the carbon copy of the counter-affidavit dated 30th October, 1993 and that
"it was committed in the presence of S.I. Ishwar Singh and AS! Randhir
Singh" on October 30, 1993. It is also stated in that report that "It may be
added that they first visited the chamber-cum-residence of Ms. Indu in the
evening of 30th Oct., 1993, and not on the evening of 31st Oct., 1993, as
F
stated by them in their statements. The junior officers had nothing to gain
by forging the SP' s signature on the counter-affidavit. There is evidence to
~dicate that it was within the knowledge of Shri MS Ahlawat, SP, Railways
that 2 boys had been detained illegally. His conduct raises a strong
suspicion that the junior officers acted with his consent either implied or
express". During examination by Shri N.K. Pathak, Ms. Indu had stated that
G
after getting a copy of the impugned writ petition, she had instructed her
junior Smt. Dania Pradhan to brief Shri MS Ahlawat, SP about the said writ
petition and the five police officials named in paragraph I of the writ
petition. The five officials met her in the evening of October 30, 1993. On
their instruction, she had vetted the counter-affidavits to be filed on behalf
H
of MS Ahlawat impleaded as third respondent and AS!, Randhir Singh
)
/
AFZAL"· STATE [RAMASWAMY, J.]
581
impleaded as fourth respondent and handed them over to 'the aforesaid
A
police personnel. In the morning of November l, 1993, one of her personal
staff informed her that two counter affidavits affirmed on behalf of MS
Ahlawat and AS! Randhir Singh has been received for being filed in this
Court on the same day. Accordingly she tendered the aforesaid two counteraffidavits in the Court on November 1, 1993 but directed to be filed in the
B
Registry which were filed accordingly. This Court was not satisfied with the
averments made· in the counter affidavits of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and
had directed the DGP, Haryana to personally investigate into the matter and
to file a report. She further stated that on November 2, 1993 Shri G.S.
Malhi, DIG (Railways) Haryana contacted her in the Court chamber and she
told them that this Court was not satisfied with the counter-affidavits filed
by Ahlawat and Randhir Singh. She also wrote a letter to DGP, Haryana in
that behalf and handed over the same to Shri Malhi requesting him to fax
the letter i1nmediately since time was very short. The said letter was
dictated in the presence of MS Ahlawat. He did not tell her that he did not
sign the counter-affidavit in which the allegation of illegal detention of the
two boys had been denied. She also stated that MS Ahlawat did not even
faintly hint that he had not affirmed the counter-affidavit filed in this Court
and as such she filed extra copies of the aforesaid two counter-affidavits as
required under the rules in the Registry of this Court on November 4, 1994.
Randhir Singh, AS!, GRP, Faridabad, respondent No. 4 was also
examined by the CBI and he admitted that he had gone to Ambala on
>
October 30, 1993 to attend Crime meeting convened by MS Ahlawat who
later directed him to proceed to Delhi and contact Ms. lndu and have the
counter-affidavits of him and MS Ahlawat prepared. He stated that "Shri
Ahlawat had told him to deny the allegations regarding illegal detention of
two boys in the counter-affidavit". As such, he met Ms. Indu, got the counteraffidavits vetted. He, however, did not tell anything about the preparation of
counter-affidavit to be filed on behalf of MS Ahlawat and did not reveal the
names of the personnel who had accompanied him to Delhi on October 30,
1993.
Head Constable, Krishan Kumar during his examination admitted that
he attended the Crime meeting held at Ambala Cantonment on October 30,
1993 along with Randhir Singh. He also stated that in his presence AS!
c
D
E
F
G
Randhir Singh was directed by Ahlawat to deny allegations of illegal
H
582
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1996] l S.C.R.
A
detention of the two boys in the counter-affidavit to be filed in this Court.
B
c
Ishwar Singh, being the In-charge of CIA Staff, GRP, Ambala Canu.
had stated during his examination that he was called by Shri Ahlawat on
October 30, 1993 and instructed him to meet Ms. Indu to assist her in the
preparation of the counter-affidavit to be filed in this Court. He stated that he
reached Delhi on October 31, 1993 and contacted Ms. Indu, "Two counteraffidavits were drafted, vetted and typed. at the residence-cum-office of Ms.
Ind~. After the preparation of the above two counter-affidavits, he sent a
folder containing original counter-affidavit in the name Shri M.S. Ahlawat
through HC Kartar Singh to Rewari as Shri Ahlawat was camping at
Rewari". He admitted that in his presence and in the presence of Randhir
Singh and Constable Paras Ram, "HC Krishan Kumar forged the signatures
of Shri M.S. Ahlawat on the carbon copy of the counter-affidavit to be filed
in the Supreme Court on behalf of Shri Ahlawat" and that "forgery was
committed by HC Krishan Kumar on the instructions of AS! Randhir Singh.
D
HC Krishan Kumar had used his right hand while signing".
E
F
When MS Ahlawat was examined, he reiterated all what he had stated
in his second affidavit. He also stated that "he had directed SI Ishwar Singh
and AS! Randhir to brief Ms. lndu at her residence in Delhi on 31.10.93. On
the evening of 31st Oct., 1993, he had gone to Rewari for official work". It
is not necessary to reiterate his version since he has stated the same as in the
second affidavit. But he admitted that he reached Delhi on the evening of
November 1, 1993 and contacted Ms. Indu and requested her for a meeting.
She called him to her chamber next day morning. On the evening of
November 2, 1993, he, along with Shri G.S. Malhi, DIG, Railways met Ms.
Indu in her chamber and he sUtted to her that "he had not filed any counter
affidavit in the Supreme Court on 1.11.93". On smt. Malhotra's asking as to
who had signed the counter-affidavit on his behalf, he could not answer the
same as he knew nothing about it. Ms. Malhotra called him again on
4.11.93 and he had signed the Vakalatanama" and gave the "affidavit dated
G
November 5, 1993" and asked her to file next day. In that counter-affidavit
he had disowned the earlier counter-affidavit dated October 30, 1993
purported to have been signed by him. He further stated that she refused to
file the same in the Court as his signature in the vakalatanama and other
documents did not tally with the signature he had put in the counterH
affidavit dated October 30, 1993.
\
t
)
AFZAL 1•. STATE [RAMASWAMY, J.]
583
Jn paragraph 19 of the report, CBI Officer has stated that "SI Ishwar
Singh took the forged counter affidavit from HC Krishan Kumar and kept
it with him. Subsequently, he handed it over to HC Paras Ram with the
instructions to deliver it to Ms. Jndu, knowing fully well that the counteraffidavit was a forged one. HC Paras has confirmed that SI Ishwar Singh
handed him an envelop on !st Nov., 1993 and that he delivered the same
at the residence of Ms. Indu as instructed. His conduct becomes all the
more questionable as he was responsible for the delivery of the forged
affidavit at Ms. Malhotra's residence. SJ Ishwar Singh, AS! Randhir Singh,
HC Krishna Kumar, HC Kartar Singh, and HC Paras Ram have admitted
A
B
that they met Ms. Indu on October 31, 1993 at her residence and got the
counter affidavit vetted by her. This statement is inconsistent with the
C
statement of Ms. Malhotra that they visited her on October 30, 1993. The
police officers seem to have manipulated the Daily Diary entries to support
their contention. It appears that all of them had met Ms. Indu on 30th
October, 1993. She is an independent witness and is a Govt. Standing
Counsel and has no axe to grind in the malter. Further, she had, as per the
D
practice, noted down the names of the persons who visited her on the
reverse of the office copy of the writ petition and that document was handed
over by her to the CBI Investigating Officer". In paragraph 22 of the report,
he concluded that there are indications to show that detention of the two
boys in the GRP was within the knowledge of Ahlawat, though none of the
concerned police officer has stated that Ahlawat had instructed them to sign
on his behalf. 'There is no explanation by Shri Ahlawat not signing the
counter affidavit which was to be submitted in the Hon'ble Supreme Court
on l.ll.1993. Jn the statement he has stated that he received the counteraffidavit at 2.00 a.m. on l.11.1993 while he was in Rewari ........... Further,
E
he was aware that his counter-affidavit was necessary. Although Ms.
F
Malhotra had discussed the case with Ahlawat and Malhi, at no stage had
Ahlawat informed her that he had not signed the counter affidavit which
was submitted before the Court on November l, 1993. This was also
corroborated by G.S. Malhi's statement. It is also a moot point as to why
subordinate officers like SI Jshwar Singh, HC Krishan Kumar and ASI
Randhir Singh would take decision to forge their SP' s signature on document being submitted to the Court. As Ahlawat was not in Delhi, these
officers may have taken his instructions on telephone. There is, however, no
evidence as to what transpired".
G
On receipt of the report, notices were issued on April 17, 1995 to HC
H
584
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1996] l S.C.R.
A
Krishan Kumar and SI Ishwar Singh and AS! Randhir Singh as to why they
would not be convicted for forgery of signature of MS Ahlawat and counteraffidavit dated October 30, 1993 and also for the contempt of the Court for
filing false affidavit. Pursuant thereto, they appeared before the Court.
Randhir Singh had stated that: "On November l, 1993 I along with Krishan
B
Kumar reached Delhi and met Ishwar Singh who gave a carbon copy of the
affidavit of Shri M.S. Ahlawat to Krishan Kumar. The said affidavit was to
be filed in this Hon'ble Court in connection with the writ petition filed by
one Afzal". Ishwar singh asked Ksishan Kumar to sign the affidavit on behalf
of Ahlawat who was not able to reach Delhi. Krishan Kumar refused to sign
c
the affidavit. Ishwar Singh thereafter phoned Shri MS Ahlawat and asked
Krishan Kumar to talk to Shri MS Ahlawat. After talking to MS Ahlawat
on phone, Krishan Kumar took the carbon copy of the affidavit of Shri MS
Ahlawat and signed it and both of them went away. They met only on
November 1, 1993 in this Court.
D
HC Krishan Kumar has stated in his affidavit that Ishwar Singh, SI
directed him, in the presence of Randhir Singh, to sign the carbon copy of
the affidavit typed in the name of Ahlawat for official use. "When I refused
to sign the carbon copy Shri Ishwar Singh contacted Shri Ahlawat on phone
and Shri Ahlawat ordered me over telephone to sign the carbon copy of the
E
affidavit in his name on the plea that the said carbon copy is only for official
use while the original is to be filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In
these circumstances, ........ I had no alternative except to sign the carbon
copy of the said affidavit in the name of Ahlawat and handed it over to Shri
lshwar Singh Sub-Inspector, thereafter I got no information about the said
F
affidavit". He has also stated that on November 1, 1993 he along with other
police constables went to Haryana Bhavan, New Delhi at 12.45 p.m. Shri
Udey Singh Head Constable, Driver of the staff car of Sh. Ahlawat was in
Haryana Bhavan. All the team assembled at the rear side of Haryana
Bhavan. "Shri M.S. Ahlawat discussed about the pendmg writ petition with
G
lshwar Singh and Randhir Singh and assured me not to worry about
signature on the -carbon copy of his counter affidavit". He has further stated
that Shri Ahlawat remained in Delhi on November 1, 1993. He was in the
premises of this Court from 2.30 p.m. onwards when the hearing of the case
took place. To substantiate his version, he has also filed the affidavit of the
Driver of Ahlawat, which is marked as Annexure 2 before the District
H
Judge .. He had explained for his omission to state these facts of forgery
\
t
1
"
·,
AFZAL v. STATE [RAMASWAMY, J.]
585
before the District Judge, Faridabad in paragraph 13 stating that MS
A
Ahlawat threatened him that if he would disclose the truth before the
District Judge, he would make an enquiry and then would terminate his
service and dismiss him from service. Due to that threat he had kept mum.
After reading these averments in the affidavits, by order dated
September 10, 1995 this Court issued notice to MS Ahlawat to show cause
as to why he would not be considered for conv.iction fo~ forgery and making
false statements at different stages in this Court and also for contempt of
the proceedings of this Court. MS Ahlawat and Ishwar Singh, SI have filed
the affidavits. Ishwar Singh has denied all the allegations. He has, however,
admitted that he attended the Crime meeting on October 30, 1993 at Ambala
Cant!. along with Randhir Singh, Krishan Kumar etc. He has also admitted
that he was asked by Ahlawat to go to Delhi and brief Ms. Indu. According
B
c
to him, he reached Delhi on October 31, 1993 and proceeded to meet Ms.
Malhotra along with others. At about 6.30 p.m. Ms. Indu handed over the
cover to Randhir Singh containing two affidavits, one to be filed by him and
D
the other to be filed by Ms. Ahlawat. Randhir Singh handed over the original
draft to Kartar Singh and asked him to proceed to Rewari immediately and
contact MS Ahlawat for his signature as the case was listed the next day, i.e.,
November l, 1993. Kartar Singh left Delhi at 6.35 p.m. Thereafter, Randhir
Singh asked Krishan Kumar to append the signature of Ms. Ahlawat on the
E
carbon copy of the draft affidavit. Krishan Kumar then forged the signature
of MS Ahlawat on the said carbon copy. He has further stated that he
objected to the same but Randhir Singh and Krishan Kumar did not pay any
heed to it. He did not inform about this to any one thinking that MS Ahlawat
had already sent instructions to them.
MS Ahlawat in his affidavit filed on November 5, 1993 has denied his
role in the wrongful confinement of two minor boys. He has stated that he
received the counter-affidavit at 2.00 a.m. on November 1, 1993. He had
F
gone through the affidavit and found them to be not correct. On coming to
know of the forgery of signature he informed the same to Ms. Malhotra on
G
November 2, 1993. He also informed the Director General of Police on the
same day, about the forgery of his signature committed by Krishan Kumar.
On November 4, 1995 he brought these facts to the notice of this Court and
filed an affidavit. In the departmental enquiry conducted against Krishan
Kumar, he was found to have committed forgery of his signature and
H
A
B
586
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1996] l S.C.R.
accordingly disciplinary action was taken against him.
We have elaborately narrated the facts and the proceedings of this
Court from which it would emerge that initially Afzal and Habib, two minor
boys were taken into custody by Ambala Cantonment police party consisting of lshaq Ahmad and others who put the boys in wrongful confinement
to coerce the accused Rahim Khan to surrender. On filing writ petitions
~ndei Article 32, this Court had issued notice and directed inves.tigation at
highest level in the State. MS Ahlawat, the Superintendent of Police,
Railways, Ambala, in-charge of the investigation, and SHO Randhir Singh,
AS! were impleaded as respondent Nos. 3 and 4. They were required to
C
file counter-affidavits in this Court on November l, 1993. Ahlawat directed
SI Ishwar Singh, AS! Randhir Singh and HC Krishan Kumar and others to
go over" to Delhi and contact Ms. Malhotra and to instruct her to draft the
counter-affidavits. On the basis of instructions given to her, she had drafted
the counter-affidavits and handed them over to Ishwar Singh, he being the
D
senior-most among the police personnel. Randhir Singh signed it. The
original counter-affidavit was sent to Rewari where MS Ahlawat was
camping. Ahlawat along with Randhir Singh was required to file the
counter-affidavit by November 1, 1993. Ahlawat attended the Court on
November 1, 1993 and was in the Court premises from 2.30 p.m. onwards.
E
The carbon copy of the counter-affidavit on behalf of Ahlawat and counteraffidavit of Randhir Singh was tendered in the Court. They were filed in the
Registry. The Court was not satisfied with the averrnents made therein.
Therefore, an enquiry was directed to be made initially by the Home
Secretary, Haryana and in his absence by the DGP, Shri Kalyan Rudra. Ms.
F
G
Malhotra wrote a letter first to Home Secretary and then to the DGP
enclosing the copies of the counter-affidavits filed on behalf of Ahlawat and
Randhir Singh informing that the Court was not satisfied with the averments
made therein and an independent personal investigation was directed to be
made by DGP who was required to file an affidavit and report on or before
November 4, 1993 and writ petitions were directed to be posted for hearing
at 2.00 p.m. on November 5, 1993. On November 2, 1993, Ahlawat and
G.L. Malhi, DGP had met Ms. lndu and in their presence she had dictated
the letter to the DGP, Shri Kalyan Rudra stating that she had already filed
two counter-affidavits on behalf of Ahlawat and Randhir Singh. Though
Ahlawat was present when the letter was dictated, he did not point out that
H
he had not signed any counter-affidavit already filed in the Court on his
0
AFZAL v. STATE [RAMASWAMY, J.]
587
behalf. The copy thereof along other material was handed over to Shri
Malhi for onward transmission to the DGP. The letter was desired to be
faxed immediately to the DGP. When Ahlawat met Ishwar Singh after the
Court proceedings on November l, 1993 they had discussed the matter.
Ahlawat appears to have thought that things were not going on the lines he
had charted out and he thought he would be required to retract from his
stand in the counter-affidavit dated October 30, 1993 and to file another
affidavit with a different version. When he got prepared another affidavit
dated November 5, 1993 and asked Ms. Malhotra to file it along with
Vakalatnama she refused to do the same. She had already filed copies of the
counter affidavits dated October 30, 1993 in the Registry of the Court as per
A
B
the rules on November 4, 1993 as directed by this Court. On November 5,
C
1993 Ahlawat filed another affidavit in which he stated that HC Krishan
Kumar had forged his signature and has filed the counter-affidavit on his
behalf.
Admittedly, Krishan Kumar has not been made a respondent to the
writ petitions, though he was a member of the investigation team which had
gone to Agra to apprehend the accused Rahim Khan. In the enquiry
conducted by Shri Kalyan Rudra, DGP, Ahlawat did not come out with the
version that he had not signed the counter-affidavit prepared on October 30,
1993 and filed on November I, 1993 nor did he point out the forgery
committed by Krishan Kumar. His counter affidavit filed on November 5,
1993 would, therefore, obviously be an after-thought to ditch his subordinate and save his skin. When this Court directed the enquiry by the District
Judge, Faridabad to find out the truth or the counter-version in the matter,
all the persons including Ahlawat were examined. In the said enquiry, the
main thrust was the forgery and as to who had committed the forgery. But
it was not clear to the District Judge. Therefore, he castigated the conduct
of Ishwar Singh but exonerated Ahlawat. This Court as well as the District
Judge prima facie were impressed with the averments made by Ahlawat in
his second affidavit filed on November 5, 1993 and his version was acted
upon. This Court then directed the CBI to enquire into as to who actually
D
E
F
was responsible for the forgery which was registered as a crime on
G
November 11, 1994 and the task was entrusted to Shri N.K. Pathak,
• I.
Inspector.
In the enquiry conducted by Shri N.K. Pathak, Ms. Malhotra, as a
strict professional practitioner has stated the facts that had transpired in her
office and the action taken by her in defending the officers and the
H
588
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1996] I S.C.R.
A
affidavits filed by the officers etc. The CBI officer has concluded that HC
Krishan Kun1ar had nothing to gain by forging the signature of Ahlawat. It
was forged in the presence of Ishwar Singh who had kept the carbon copy
in his custody and directed Paras Ram to deliver the signed copies in the
office of Ms. Malhotra for being filed in the Court. Before Shri Pathak,
B
Ishwar Singh admitted that Krishan Kumar had forged the signature in his
presence and he had custody of the forged documents. Had he not had any
prior instructions from Ahlawat, as a responsible officer to whom the duty
of getting the counter-affidavit drafted on behalf of Ahlawat was entrusted,
he would not have permitted Krishan Kumar lo forge the signature and
should have proceeded to Rewari to have the counter-affidavit approved and
C
brought the same back and given to Ms. Indu to be filed in the Court.
Ahlawat being a respondent in the writ petition, he was bound to file the
counter-affidavit by November I, 1993 and had he not instructed his junior
officers to forge his signature and to file the counter-affidavit, he wof\ld
have instructed Ms. Malhotra to seek further time for filing the count~rD
affidavit. What is more, he himself was present in the Court premises on
November 1, 1993. These circumstances clearly would indicate that Ahlawat
had instructed Ishwar Singh to have the counter affidavit of him and
Randhir Singh drafted and that the two affidavits must be consistent. Since
he knew that two minors were in wrongful confinement, he did not want to
E
F
G
commit himself by signing the counter-affidavit and had instructed Ishwar
Singh to direct Krishan Kumar to forge his signature. When Ahlawat
attended the chambers of Ms. Indu on November 2, 1993 along with Shri
G.L. Malhi, D.I.G., a letter was dictated in their presence to D.G.P. to the
effect that counter affidavits on behalf of Ahlawat and Randhir Singh were
already filed on November 1, 1993 and that the Court was not satisfied with
the tenor of the averments made therein.