The Supreme Court recently confirmed the conviction of three persons for criminal contempt of court for presenting a fake stay order to evade the execution of a trial court decree [Shanmugam and ors vs Madras High Court]..In doing so, the Bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and PK Mishra also held that contempt action would lie not just against those who create forged court orders, but also against those who use such fake court orders to gain an undue benefit. The fact that such persons did not author the fake court order is no defence, the Court held. "When a person is found to have utilised an order of a court which he or she knows to be incorrect for conferring benefit on persons who are not entitled to the same, the very utilisation of the fabricated order by the person concerned would be sufficient to hold him/her guilty of contempt, irrespective of the fact whether he or she himself or herself is the author of fabrication," the May 2 ruling said. .The Bench emphasised that courts have to preserve their proceedings from being misrepresented and that there is nothing more pernicious than when a court order is forged and produced to gain undue advantage. Creating such fake orders is one of the most dreaded acts of contempt of court, the top court added. "Creating fake orders of the Court is one of the most dreaded acts of contempt of court. It not only thwarts the administration of justice, but it has inbuilt intention by committing forgery of record," the judgment said..The case before the Court was tied to a decree passed in 2004 by a civil court in Tamil Nadu in a rent dispute. The trial court had ruled in favour of a trust and ordered the recovery of rental arrears from some tenants. The appeals filed by the tenants were also dismissed. The trust then moved applications to execute the 2004 ruling. The tenants contested the execution proceedings by citing stay orders passed by the Madras High Court. However, it was eventually revealed that the stay orders were forged and that no such order had been passed by the Madras High Court. .Several people were accused of either creating or using the fake court orders. Contempt of court proceedings were initiated in 2018 against them by the High Court, although notice was issued in the matter only in 2022. as case files pertaining to this case could not be traced in the Court's registry for four years. Two alleged contemnors died during the course of legal proceedings. Eventually, three people were convicted by the High Court for criminal contempt of court and sentenced to six months of simple imprisonment. All three convicted contemnors filed appeals before the Supreme Court. .On May 2, the top court upheld their conviction for criminal contempt of court. Among other grounds, it dismissed the contemnors' argument that the contempt action was barred by limitation since the alleged act took place in 2018, while the High Court issued notice only in 2022. The Supreme Court ruled that the contempt action had been initiated in 2018 itself even though charges were only framed in 2022 due to case files going missing in the High Court's registry. "Case bundle of writ petition in the High Court was misplaced in the registry of the High Court so as to render the High Court powerless to punish for contempt even though it may be fully convinced of the blatant nature of the contempt and the same having been brought to the notice of the Court within one year from the date of commission of contempt ... initiation of contempt action shall be treated to have been taken on 05.09.2018 ... we are of the considered view that the present contempt action was not barred by limitation," the Court held. The Court, however, reduced the jail time awarded to the contemnors from six months to one month of simple imprisonment. .The appellants were represented by Senior Advocates Sonia Mathur, Nachiketa Joshi, S Nagamuthu and C Paramasivam and advocates Tadimalla Bhaskar Gowtham, Subhodh Patil, Aditya Sharma, Ajay Awasthi, Alabhya Dhamija, Richa Vishwakarma, Shriya Gilhotra, Stuti Wason, Purushottam Tiwari, Vairawan A, MP Parthiban, Priyaranjani Nagamuthu, Ankur Prakash, Priyanka Singh, Bilal Mansoor, Shreyas Kaushal, S Geyolin Selvam and Alagiri K.The Madras High Court (administrative side) was represented by Senior Advocate Gurukrishna Kumar and advocates Vikash Singh, V Balachandran and Siddharth Naidu..[Read Judgment]
