Holding

The Supreme Court held that the officers who fabricated false affidavits and caused the forging of a senior officer's signature are guilty of offences under s.193 IPC and of criminal contempt, and sentenced them accordingly.

Summary

Two minor boys were illegally detained by police to coerce a criminal suspect. The Supreme Court ordered the police to file counter‑affidavits denying the detention, but the affidavits were later found to be false and the signature of Superintendent M.S. Ahlawat was forged by a head constable on instructions from senior officers. The Court held that filing false affidavits and directing forgery constitute giving false evidence under s.193 IPC and criminal contempt under s.2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act and Article 129 of the Constitution. Accordingly, Ahlawat, ASI Randhir Singh and Sub‑Inspector Ishwar Singh were convicted under s.193 IPC, with Ahlawat also sentenced for contempt of court; the head constable was exonerated. The sentences were ordered to be executed and the writ petitions were closed.

Issues considered

Whether filing false affidavits and forging signatures amounts to giving false evidence under s.193 IPC.
Whether such conduct constitutes criminal contempt of the Supreme Court under s.2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act and Article 129 of the Constitution.
Whether the police officers can be convicted and sentenced for the offences.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 129
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971s. 2(c)
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 191, s. 192, s. 193
Notaries Act, 1952s. 2(d), s. 8

Subjects

false affidavitforgerycriminal contemptSection 193 IPCArticle 129police misconductnotary dutyperjurywrongful confinementhabeas corpus

Judgment

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 prop- F
er(v identifying signatory.

Affidavit:

Affidavit-Attestation qf--Notary should attest affidavit qfter properly
identifying signatory. G
A police party put two minor boys in wrongful confinement in
order to coerce an accused involved in an offence of fraud and forgery
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
574 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] l S.C.R.
A 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
B
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 respond-
ent 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;
respondent no. 4 also sworn the affidavit dated 30.10.1993, and got the
E 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
F 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
G
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-
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
B
stationed l\t Rewari, had instructed Sub Inspector of Police 'S' and
1 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;
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
r 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 E

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
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 administra-
tion, with his connivance, caused two minor boys' wrongful detention.
He made an averment in the counter-affidavit dated October 30, 1993
that the boys were not in wrongful detention nor were they taken into G
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
576 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) l S.C.R
A 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
B
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
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
.D 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
E
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
F 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.
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, there-
fore, 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.
i
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 c
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.
D
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
E
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.
F
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition (Crl.) No.
356-57 of 1993.

(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.)

G
B.K. Mehta, U.R. Lalit, S.B. Sanyal, Mahinder Singh Dahiya (NP),
_ )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
578 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1996] 1 S.C.R.
A 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 misappropria-
tion. In connection therewith, a police team headed by lshaq Ahmad;
Inspector, CJ.A. G.R.P., Ambala had gone to Agra to apprehend Rahim
B 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,
c 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
D 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:
E
"..... 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.
F
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
G
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
of Haryana on 29th October, 1993. On receiving a copy of the said B
petition, we contacted the 3rd and 4th Respondents and filed
affidavits on their behalf. The affidavits filed on behalf of Re-
spondents 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 wrong-
E
ful 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 counter-
allegations by the officers and the role played by each of the respondents
would be ascertained. Therefore, this Court had directed the District Judge, F
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 impec-
cable. The trend and tenor of the statements made by various police
G
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 con-
cerned with the preparation of counter-affidavits and briefing the Standing
Counsel did not object to the filing of a forged affidavit, spoke volumes of 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
and they are matters of grave and serious concern. Therefore, we are of the
c 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.
D
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
stated by them in their statements. The junior officers had nothing to gain
F 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 counter-
affidavits 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
c
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 D
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.
E
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
F
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 counter-
affidavits 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. G

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!
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.

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
B
reached Delhi on October 31, 1993 and contacted Ms. Indu, "Two counter-
affidavits were drafted, vetted and typed. at the residence-cum-office of Ms.
t
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
c 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".

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
E
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.
F 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 counter-
H affidavit dated October 30, 1993.
)
AFZAL 1•. STATE [RAMASWAMY, J.] 583
Jn paragraph 19 of the report, CBI Officer has stated that "SI Ishwar A
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 counter-
affidavit 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
B
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
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 E
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 counter-
affidavit at 2.00 a.m. on l.11.1993 while he was in Rewari ........... Further,
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 docu-
G
ment 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".

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 counter-
affidavit 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
t
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
the affidavit. Ishwar Singh thereafter phoned Shri MS Ahlawat and asked
c 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
lshwar Singh and Randhir Singh and assured me not to worry about
G 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
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
B
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
1
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 c
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
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.
F
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
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
586 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] l S.C.R.
A 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 consist-
ing of lshaq Ahmad and others who put the boys in wrongful confinement
B
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 counter-
affidavit 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.
Malhotra wrote a letter first to Home Secretary and then to the DGP
F
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
G 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 A
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
B
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
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 D
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, E
1993 would, therefore, obviously be an after-thought to ditch his subordi-
nate 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
F
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
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~r-
D 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
commit himself by signing the counter-affidavit and had instructed Ishwar
E 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
F the tenor of the averments made therein. If Ahlawat really had not
instructed the junior officers to forge his signature on the counter-affidavit
and file an affidavit on his behalf, nothing prevented him to mention to her
that he had not signed any counter-affidavit and that he had not instructed
anyone to sign the same on his behalf; he would have asked her as to why
she had allowed filing such counter-affidavit without any instructions from
G him. He did not do that. The version of Randhir Singh and of Ahlawat in
the counter-affidavits dated October 30, 1993 was consistent, namely, minor
boys were not in \vrongful confinement. On the other hand, when the report
submitted by Shri Kalyan Rudra, the DGP was found against them, he
thought that he must salvage himself from the earlier stand to avoid charge
H of perjury and decided to file another counter-affidavit making his
AFZAL v. STATE [RAMASWAMY, J.] 589
subordinate office a scape-goal. A

In this background, we have to consider the averments made by HC
Krishan Kumar and AS! Randhir Singh that when Ishwar Singh asked
Krishan Kumar to sign the affidavit of Ahlawat on his behalf on the carbon
copy, he objected to sign and immediately Ishwar Singh contacted Ahlawat
B
who had ordered Krishan Kumar on the phone to sign the counter-affidavit.
, Th~re is nothing intrinsically improbable to disbelieve the version of .Krishan
• Kumar that he was asked by Ahlawat to forge his signature assuring him that
he would not be in trouble for forging his signature. In view of the admitted
facts that Ahlawat was in supervision of the investigation of the cases
registered against Rahim Khan, it would be obvious that minor boys brought c
by Ishaq Ahmad from Agra were kept in wrongful confinement with his
connivance and that he thought that by denying the avcnnents, the Court
would prepared to accept his version, used this authority as Superintendent
of Police and directed his subordinate Krishan Kurnar to forge his counter-
affidavil. When Ishwar Singh asked Krishan Kumar lo sign the counter- D
affidavit forging the signature of his senior officer, he might have thought
that it would not be proper to do so but when Ishwar Singh contacted,
obviously on phone and had informed Ahlawat of unwillingness of Krishun
Kumar to forge his signature on the carbon copy of the counter-affidavit,
obviously on his instructions, Krishan Ku1nar forged his signature and, as E
seen, that the same was filed in the Court on November 1, 1993. When things
, were not going on the line charted out by Ahlawat and the report of the DGP
was contrary to the stand taken by Ahlawat, he obviously thought over and
decided to file another counter-affidavit making Krishan Kumar a scape-goat.
Without his prior knowledge that Krishan Kumar had forged his signature,
F
how was it possible for him to conclude that Krishan Kumar had forged the
carbon copy of the counter-affidavit to be filed by him. It is not his case nor
of Ishwar Singh before this Court that Ishwar Singh informed Ahlawat of
forging his signature on the carbon copy of the counter-affidavit or that he
made an enquiry in which he came to know that Krishun Kumar had forged
his signature. Though krishan Kumar was a member of raiding party headed G
by Inspector Ishaq Ahmad, which had taken into custody two minor boys and
kept them in wrongful confinement, he being not a party to the writ
petitions, there was nothing for him to gain by forging the signature of
Ahlawat on the carbon copy of the counter-affidavit and filing the same in
the Court. Under these circumstances, our inescapable conclusion is that H
590 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1996] I S.C.R.
A Ahlawat had instructed Ishwar Singh and others to meet Ms. Malhotra, to
instruct her to draft the counter-affidavit on his behalf and Randhir Singh
denying the wrongful confinement of minor boys and when counter-
affidavits were drafted it was obviously only on the instructions given by
Ishwar Singh as the seniormost of the team, denying the wrongful confine-
B ment of the minor boys. The letters written by Ms. lndu and her profes-
sional conduct is transparently consistent with professional duty and she had
truthfully and promptly discharged it in defending the officers.

When Ms. Indu expressed her inconvenience to continue as Stand.ing
Counsel for the State and sought permission of the Court to withdraw from
C the case due to the stand of Ahlawal and orally stated that the averments
made in the affidavit of Ahlawat filed on November 5, 1993, were not
correct, we directed her to file an affidavit stating as to what actually had
transpired when she dealt with the cases. She has filed the affidavit to which
Ahlawat has also filed another counter-affidavit to it. In her affidavit she has
D narrated the facts that had transpired in this case. She has also produced
correspondence she had with the officials. Ahlawat even did not make any
avermcnt against Ms. Indu' s actions and conduct. Her affidavit is consistent
with the conclusion we have reached and it corroborates the stand taken by
Krishan Kumar and Randhir Singh.
E As regards the directions issued by Ahlawat to Krishan Kumar pursu-
ant lo a telephonic call made by Ishwar Singh to forge his signature his
counter-affidavit dated October 30, 1993 lo be filed in this Court on '
November I, 1993 tho CBI officer has also concluded in his report that
Ahlawal having had a duty to file the counter-affidavit and his not signing
F the affidavit prepared by Ms. Malhotra is highly unbecoming of a responsible
officer and Krishan Kumar had nothing to gain by forging his signature and
it appears lo have been done on instructions from Ahlawat. We approve of
his conclusion.

Shri Sanyal, learned senior counsel appearing for Krishan Kumar
G contended that in view of the affidavit of Ms. Indu and the circumstances of
the case the stand taken by Krishan Kumar is correct as he was threatened
not to disclose these facts during the enquiry conducted by the District
Judge, Faridabad al the pain of dismissal from service. Consequently, he did
not come out from the red at that stage but when, after enquiry, the CBI
H in its report found against him, he had necessarily to come out with the
AFZAL v. STATE [RAMASWAMY, J.] 591
truth. Consequently, he has truthfully stated in his affidavit whatever had A
transpired. His version and statement, ·~erefore, is more probable and
consistent and he had no intention to forge the signature of Ahlawat and to
fabricate the record for being filed in this Court since he had nothing to
gain from the proceedings before this Court. He was not a respondent. We
find that there is justification in his contention. Though, Krishan Kumar B
was a member of the investigation team which visited Agra headed by Ishaq
Ahmad who had played principal role in abducting the minor boys and kept
them in wrongful confinement to coerce Rahim Khan to surrender, he was
not made a respondent to the writ petitions. Being a member of the
investigation team and having been asked to attend the Crime meeting at
Ambala Cantonment convened by Ahlawat on telephone who directed him, c
Randhir Singh, lshwar Singh and two others to go over to Delhi and brief
Ms. Indu to have the counter-affidavits drafted, he had accompanied the
party and accordingly followed the instructions issued by Ahlawat. When
counter-affidavit of Ahlawat was drafted, as per the instructions, Ishwar
Singh had asked Krishan Kumar to forge the affidavit of Ahlawat and when D
he had refused to do so, Ishwar Singh had contacted Ahlawat who had
directed Krishan Kumar to sign the carbon copy of the counter-affidavit and
assured him that nothing would be done to him. In these circumstances,
Krishan Kumar came to forge signature of Ahlawat on the carbon copy of
the counter-affidavit, but not with an intention to forge the signature of
Ahlawat but in obedience to the command of Ahlawat. Thereafter SI Ishwar
E
Singh had taken custody of the carbon copy of the counter-affidavit and
instructed Paras Ram to hand it over to Mrs. Indu Malhotra for being filed
in the Court. We, therefore, hold that he had no intention to forge the
signature of Ahlawat on the carbon copy of the counter-affidavit dated
October 30, 1993 filed in this Court. F
The question then is : What is the role played by AS! Randhir Singh?
Shri Mehta, learned .counsel appearing for him contended that Randhir
Singh had no intention to fabricate the affidavit of Ahlawat nor had he filed
in the Court. Though Randhir Singh was a member of the raid party headed
by Ishaq Ahmad, which illegally took two minor boys into custody and G
wrongfully confined them, as regards forgery of signatures of Ahlawat by
Krishan Kumar, from the circumstances of the case, admittedly he being 4th
respondent to the writ petitions, he and Ahlawat obviously have taken a
consistent stand in their counter-affidavits dated October 30, 1993 tendered
on November I, 1993 that they had not taken the minor boys into custody H
592 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1996) I S.C.R.
A nor had they wrongfully confined them. That statement is now proved to be
false from two enquiries conducted by Shri Kalyan Rudra, DGP and the
District Judge, Faridabad. He was present along with SI Ishwar Singh at the
time Krishan Kumar ha~ forged signature of Ahlawat on the carbon copy
of the counter-affidavit of Ahlawat. Consequently, it must be held and that
it is difficult to accept his version that the minor boys were not taken into
B
custody and kept in wrongful confinement. He also abetted Krishan Kumar
to forge the signature of Ahlawat. He would stand to gain by it as. his
version gets corroborated from that of Ahlawat. He thus filed false counter-
affidavit dated October 30, 1993 in the judicial proceedings before this
Court. Thereby he is liable to conviction under Section 193, Indian Penal
C Code, 1860 (!PC) for intentionally giving false affidavit in the judicial
proceedings in this Court and abetting Krishan Kumar to forge the signature
of M.S. Ahlawat.

Ishwar Singh in his affidavit dated July 10, 1995 filed in this Court
on July 11, 1995 has stated that he neither forged the signature of Ahlawat
D -
'
in the counter-affidavit dated October 30, 1993 nor filed any counter-
affidavit before this Court as he had no motive for committing the act of
forgery. He denied to have any knowledge that the carbon copy of the
counter-affidavit of Ahlawat signed by Krishan Kumar was given to Ms.
lndu for being filed in this Court and he believed that it was not filed. He
E has come out with false version toeing the line of Ahlawat. He deliberately
omitted certain crucial facts relevant for the decision. He appears to have
thought that ditching his subordinates and being consistent with the stand
taken by Ahlawat would accelerate his promotional prospects and accord-
ingly he had fallen in line with Ahlawat which is now found to be false.
He admitted that he was asked by Ahlawat to go along with the party to
F instruct Ms. Indu to draft the counter-affidavits. He handed over the
counter-affidavit given by Ms. Indu to Kartar Singh, and asked him to
immediately proceed to Rewari whereat Ahlawat was camping, for his
signature on the counter-affidavit since the case was posted for hearing on
November I, 1993. He stated that he had met Ms. Indu on October 31, 1993
which on its face is false. The counter-affidavits of Randhir Singh and
G
Ahlawat bear the said date and were attested with that date. Ahlawat
received draft on October 31, 1993 at 2.00 a.m. He went to Ms. Indu to
instruct her to draft the counter-affidavit. He admitted that Krishan Kumar
forged the signature in his presence and in the presence of Randhir Singh.
He has further stated that he had no motive to abet the forgery committed
H by Krishan Kumar. It is contended by his learned counsel that since he was
AFZAL v. STATE [RAMASWAMY. J.] 593
not a member of the raid party who took the minor boys into illegal custody A
and put them in wrongfu] confinement, there is no reason for him to file
false evidence or to commit forgery of signature of Ahlawat. There is
nothing to show that he committed any offence nor is he liable for contempt
of this Court.

At the cost of repetition, we may reiterate that to the Crime meeting B
held on October 30, 1993 at Ambala Cantonment, convened by Ahlawat,
Jshwar Singh had admittedly attended. Ahlawat had instructed him to
proceed along with Randhir Singh, Krishan Kumar and two others to meet
Ms. Malhotra and have the counter-affidavits drafted. Admittedly, he
proceeded and met Ms. Malhotra. She drafted_ the counter-affidavits on C
October 30, 1993 and handed them over to the parties. He being senior-
most officer among the party, obviously he had taken the originals of the
counter-affidavits to be signed by Ahlawat and Randhir Singh and directed
Kartar Singh to proceed to Rewari and deliver the same to Ahlawat. It is
now an admitted fact that Krishan Kumar forged the signature of Ahlawat D
in the carbon copy in his presence. On what date it was forged is not the
material point. But it is the definite case that after the counter-affidavit was
handed over to them in the office of Ms. Indu, Ishwar Singh had sent the
original draft. When he asked Krishan Kumar to forge but he refused to
forge the signature of Ahlawat, he contacted Ahlawat who had directed
E
Krishan Kumar to sign the carbon copy of his counter-affidavit. On
command from Ahlawat, Krishan Kumar had forged it. From these facts, it
is clear that Ishwar Singh acted in concert with Ahlawat to fabricate
counter·affidavit with facts false to his knowledge that minors were not in
wrongful confinement or illegal custody and induced Krishan Kumar to
forge the signature of Ahlawat on the carbon copy of the counter-affidavit
F
to be filed on behalf of Ahlawat and after forgery, as admitted before the
CBI officer, he had taken custody of the forged carbon copy of the counter-
affidavit, sent them to Ms. Malhotra through Paras Ram for being filed in
the Court. He was present on November 1, 1993 in the Court premises
along with Ahlawat. Though he disclaimed knowledge of the forged G
document having been filed in the Court, in view of the evidence on record
that he appeared in the Court when the proceedings were going on, he had
seen through the filing of the same in the Court. When this Court was not
satisfied v,:ith the tenor of the averments made in the counter.affidavits filed
by Ahlawat and Randhir Singh •. he informed of the same with a disturbed H
594 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1996] I S.C.R.
A mind to Ahlawal. Thus· he is a party to the fabrication of false record and
abetted Krishan Kumar lo forge the signature of Ahlawat and after taking
custody of the carbon copy of the counter-affidavit with forged signature,
he had entrusted the same to Paras Ram for delivery in the office of Ms.
Jndu and the same was filed in this Court. He falsely denied the facts in this
B affidavit filed in this Court. Thus he not only actively participated in the
fabrication of the false counter-affidavit dated October. 30, 1993 with false
averments that minors were not in wrongful detention or illegal custody but
also entrusted the same for being filed in the judicial proceedings of this )
Court. He abened Krishan Kumar to forge the signature of M.S. Ahlawat.
Thus he committed an offence under Section 193, !PC.
c
The question then is : Whether Ahlawat has committed contempt of
the proceedings of this Court and has committed the offence under Section
193, !PC by making false statement and directing forgery of his signature
and filing of forged documents in this Court? Shri U.R. Lalit, his learned
D senior Counsel, strenuously contended that immediately on coming to know
that his signature was forged on the carbon copy of the counter-affidavit
purported to be dated October 30, 1993, he had informed the learned
counsel Ms. Indu on November 2, 1993. He also informed the same to the
D.G.P., Shri Kalyan Rudra on the same day. He also had brought to the
notice of this Court on the first available opportunity, namely, on November
E 5, 1993. He had also taken disciplinary action against Krishan Kumar and
Randhir Singh respectively for forging his signature and filing the affidavit
with false avennents in this Court. He had stated in his counter-affidavit
filed on November 5, 1993 the true facts. The allegation that he instructed
Krishan Kumar, when Ishwar Singh had contacted him on phone to forge
F his signature on the counter-affidavit, is a fabricated version to buttress the
stand of Randhir Singh and sought shelter behind the shadow of superior
officer. Since Ahlawat had already taken disciplinary proceedings against
Randhir Singh and Krishan Kumar, the version set up by Krishan Kumar
and Randhir Singh is to defend themselves in those proceedings. The
version that Jshwar Singh telephoned to Ahlawat on October 31, 1993
G
informing Ahlawat that Krishan Kumar refused to sign in the carbon copy
of the counter affidavit is ex facie false for the reason that the affidavit was
attested by the Notary on October 30, 1993 which tends corroboration from
the counter-affidavit dated October 30, 1993, filed by Randhir Singh. They
have an axe to grind against Ahlawat. Therefore, they have made false
H avcnnents to implicate Ahlawal. In the representation made by Krishan
AFZAL v. STATE [RAMASWAMY, J.] 595
Kumar to the Government to expunge the adverse remarks made by A
Ahlawat against him, this version has not been stated. The story of
authorising to file an affidavit dated October 30, 1993 is inconsistent with
the true state of facts. He was not a party to the raid al Agra at the house
of Rahim Khan and he would not have filed an affidavit with such a wrong
fact. When original counter-affidavit was received by M.S. Ahlawat at 2
B
a.m. on November 1, 1993 on going through the contents thereof, he found
them to be incorrect since he was not a member of the raid party to take
the minors into the illegal custody and for wrongful detention. Therefore,
• he would not have instructed to make such an averrnenl in his counter-
" affidavit. Therefore, he instructed Ms. Indu to file another counter-affidavit
with the correct averrnents which was not done. Consequently, he had C
engaged another counsel and got the counter-affidavit filed on November 5,
1995 with true facts. He contends that from these circumstances, it is clear
that Ahlawat has not made any false averrnenl nor instructed anybody to
forge his signature. He did not commit any contempt of the Court. He fairly
conceded that he has no argument on the contents of the affidavit filed by D
Ms. Indu in this Court. He says that Ahlawal may be of mistaken
impression in not correcting Ms. Indu, at the time, when she had dictated
in her leller addressed to D.G.P., Shri Kalyan Rudra that a counter-affidavit
on behalf of Randhir Singh and Ahlawat were already filed. But, in view
of the facts stated and the above circumstances, Ahlawat had not commilled
any offence nor is he liable for contempt proceedings nor has he pleaded E
with any false averrnent in the affidavits filed in this Court.

As to when, for the first time, Ahlawat had come to know that his
signature was forged in the affidavit dated October 30, 1993, has been kept
delightfully vague. He brought to the notice of this Court al the earliest F
opportunity, namely November 5, 1995, the date to which this Court had
posted the case for hearing of the factum of forgery of his signature.

We have given our anxious and careful consideration to his forceful
contention. On October 29, 1993, this Court had taken up the case upon
motion on Board and had issued notice to the respondents. Dasti Service in G
addition was ordered. Dasti service to the standing counsel was also ordered.
The case was directed to be posted on November 1, 1993. Ms. Indu on
. ' November 1, 1993 wrote a leller to the Home Secretary informing that minor
children by name Afzal and Habib were illegally detained at Ambala by the
3rd respondent, Ahlawat, and the 4th respondent Randhir Singh. 1wo separate H
596 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] 1 S.C.R.
A counter-affidavits stating that the children were not in their illegal custody
were filed by Randhir Singh and Ahlawat. On the basis of the Affidavit of
an advocate of U.P. (copy enclosed thereto), the Court was not inclined to
believe the statements made by Ahlawat and Randhir Singh. She enclosed
all the records since the Court had directed the Home Secretary to conduct
B an enquiry and to submit his report by November 5, 1993. She requested
him to be personally present in the Court on the date of posting. On
information that he was availing leave, a mention was made to the Court and
the Court by proceedings dated November 2, 1993 directed enquiry by D.G.P.
and to submit the report by November 5, 1993 at 2.00 p.m. She also wrote '>
on the same day a letter reiterating the entire earlier contents and enclosed
c the counter-affidavits filed on behalf of 3rd and 4th respondents. This letter
admittedly was dictated in the presence of M.S. Ahlawat and D.I.G., G.S.
Malhi. No denial on the part of Ahlawat, i.e., he did not authorise anybody
to file a counter-affidavit on his behalf, was made at that time. It is already
seen that on perusing the affidavits, the Court was not inclined to accept their
D stand and ordered an enquiry. On November 1, 1993, on which date the case
was posted these counter-affidavits were tendered and were later filed into
Court. It is clear from the record and affidavit of his driver that Ahlawat was
present in the Court premises on October 31, 1993. His driver made the
affidavit long before our issuing the notice produced before enquiry held by
E the District Judge, Faridabad that Ahlawat was present in the Court premises.
There is nothing to disbelieve the version of the driver which corroborates
the statc1ncnt of Krishan Kurnar and Randhir Singh. As a responsible officer,
he was to file a counter-affidavit with true and correct facts. Instead,· since
he knew that two minor boys were in illegal and wrongful confinement, he
F did not want to commit himself to that position and by signing the counter-
affidavit with false facts, he would be exposed to perjury etc. So, he disowned
responsibility and directed Krishan Kumar to forge his signature so as to use
the same in judicial proceedings. The CBI Officer also has commented upon
the conduct or Ahlawat. When Ahlawat was required to file an affidavit on
November I, 1993 being a respondent unless he had already got filed a
G counter-affidavit, the legitimate thing that could be done was to seek time
to file a counter affidavit as he \Vas not satisfied with the averments in the
draft counter-affidavit received at Rewari which was not according to his
stand. The least that can be said is that having allowed the counter-
affidavit filed on his behalf, he was watching the proceedings to know how
H the things were going on and whether they arc on the lines which he
) AFZAL" STATE [RAMASWAMY, J.] 597
had charted out. A

Admittedly, he deputed lshwar Singh and 4 Constables to proceed to
Delhi from Ambala to meet Ms. lndu and to give instructions to draft the
counter-affidavits. The counter-affidavit filed by Randhir Singh is consistent

.. with the one filed on behalf of Ahlawat dated October 30, 1993. It would
thus be clear that Ms. lndu, obviously prepared the counter-affidavits on the
basis of information furnished by Ishwar Singh which ·contain denial of
B

taking the minors into custody and wrongfully confining them at Ambala
etc. From these facts, we can unerringly draw the conclusion that as per his
instructions which receive corroboration from the stand of Randhir Singh
that the counter-affidavit dated October 30, 1993 was drafted with false c
averrnents that the minor boys were not taken into custody nor are they kept
m illegal detention.

The question then is: whether Ahlawat had given any instruction to
lshwar Singh to direct Krishan Kumar to forge his signature on the carbon D·
copy of the counter-affidavit and on refusal, whether he had directed Krishan
Kumar to forge the same. It stands to reason that he had given such direc-
tions. Admittedly lshwar Singh had taken the counter-affidavit of Ahlawat
drafted by Ms. Indu and sent the original through Kartar Singh to Rewari for
delivery to M.S. Ahlawat and Krishan Kumar forged the signature of Ahlawat E
on the carbon copy of the counter-affidavit in his presence. We have already
held that Krishan Kumar had nothing to gain in forging the signature of M.S.
Ahlawat. Unless lshwar Singh had prior instructions in this behalf from
Ahlawat, as responsible officer, he would have prevented Krishan Kumar to
forge the signature of Ahlawat or immediately would have contacted and put
Ahlawat on notice of it. That was not the case of either of Ishwar Singh or
F
Ahlawat. It stands to reason to accept the version stated by Krishan Kumar
and Randhir Singh that Ishwar Singh had asked Krishan Kumar to forge
signature of Ahlawat on the carbon copy of the counter-affidavit for being
filed in this Court on behalf of Ahlawat. When M.S. Ahlawat was duty-bound
to file the counter-affidavit in this Court before November 1, 1993, in the G
absence of any request for extension of time, it would be obvious that he had
decided to get the counter-affidavit, as instructed by him, drafted by lshwar
. ' Singh and to have the same filed in the Court. He did not want to commit
himself by signing the counter-affidavit to the false version, viz., that minor
boys were not taken into illegal custody and were not in wrongful confine- H
598 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] 1 S.C.R.
A ment. He had also used his office as a Superintendent of Police and directed
his subordinate Krishan Kumar to forge his signature. When the record was
admittedly in the custody of Ishwar Singh, obviously Ishwar Singh had asked
Krishan Kumar to sign it. Otherwise, how it would be possible for Krishan
Kumar to take it into his custody and to forge the signature of Ahlawat? It
B would, therefore, be likely that on the instructions by M.S. Ahlawat, Krishan
Kumar had forged it. In the absence of any explanation for not seeking
adjournment· to file his counter-affidavit on November I, 1993 and, as to
when, for the first time, he had come to know of the forgery committed by
Krishan Kumar, it stands to reason that Ishwar Singh must have informed him
that Krishan Kumar _had forged his signature and got his counter-affidavit
c filed in the Court and that he was satisfied that it would be sufficient to
buttress the stand he had taken. When the things were not going on the lines
charted out by him, due to the report of the D.G.P., after November 4, 1993,
he obviously must have thought that he must come out from the red and make
a statement before this Court by filing yet another counter-affidavit which
D was accordingly filed on November 5, 1995. He had stated in the second
counter-affidavit that on November 2, 1993, he informed Shri Kalyan Rudra, ;.

D.G.P, that he did not sign the counter-affidavit. It is ex .facie false since
neither in the report filed by Shri Kalyan Rudra nor in the affidavit sworn by
him and filed on November 5, 1995, we find such an averment having been
E made. It is an obvious falsehood. It would be clear that he abused his office
as a Superintendent of Police, directed his subordinate Head Constable Krishan
Kumar to forge his signature or at least abetted it and got the carbon copy of
the counter affidavit filed with forged signatures in the Court while he
retained the original draft with him. The reason is obvious that he did not
F want to commit himself to the false stand which he had taken in the earlier
affidavit, since he knew that the minors were illegally detained and were in
wrongful confinement Therefore, he filed the second counter-affidavit on
November 5, 1993 with false averments pretending of the forgery of his
signature.
G The question then is : whether the averments made in the counter-
affidavit dated November 5, 1993 are correct? In view of the above conclu-
sion, the obvious answer would be that since he knew that the report submit-
ted by Shri Kalyan Rudra, D.G.P. that the minor boys were wrongfully
detained and were in wrongful confinement, the averments made in the
H counter-affidavit dated October 30, 1993 were obviously false to escape
)
AFZAL v. STATE [RAMASWAMY, J.] 599
strictures to be passed against him or to avoid prosecution for perjury. He A
came with ' the version in the counter-affidavit making Krishan Kumar a
scape-goat. If he really had no knowledge of Krishan Kumar forging the
signaiure and he had not directed to file the carbon copy of the counter-
affidavit earlier, as found earlier, though he was available in the Court, one
would expect that he would have sought further time on November I, 1993 to B
file his counter-affidavit which was not done. Therefore, his counter-affidavit
dated November 5, 1993, to the effect that the averments made in counter-
affidavit dated October 30, 1993 were not in his knowledge, is also a false
affidavit. Here one more circumstance that could be taken note of is that, as
rightly remarked by CBI Officer, whether subordinate officer could be dare
enough to fabricate the counter-affidavit to be filed by Ahlawat and forge
c
signature of his superior officer, particularly, in judicial proceedings of this
Court and for what gain? It is highly unbecoming on the part of responsible
Superintendent of Police like Ahlawat to play hide and seek game in the
judicial proceedings and make use of his subordinates to fabricate false
affidavits and give instructions to forge his signature for use in the judicial D
proceedings. It is true that the affidavit dated October 30, 1993 was attested
by a Notary on October 30, 1993 and the telephonic conversation with
Ahlawat by Ishwar Singh made on October 31, 1993 was ex facie improb-
able. The CBI Officer has fairly commented upon the Notary Mr. Bhat of his
abdication of duty to have the signatory identified to be the deponent and in E
allowing the people to sign without proper verification of the identity. When
the counter-affidavit was prepared, admittedly, on October 30, 1993 and
when the respondent Ahlawat was not in Delhi, it stands to reason that having
sent draft through Kartar Singh to Ahlawat, who was camping at Rewari,
Ishwar Singh was in-charge of this duty. Obviously he had a contact with F
Ahlawat to know as to what is to be done on the counter-affidavit. It would
obviously be only on October 31, 1993, though exact time is not of material
consequence, but the fact remains that it must have been signed only after
Ahlawat perused the counter-affidavit he had ensured that it was drafted
according to his instruction and thereafter he had obviously instructed Ishwar
G
Singh to have his signature fabricated and forged by Krishan Kumar on the
carbon copy and Ahlawat deliberately kept back the original counter-affida-
vit. Carbon copy after forged signature was admittedly filed in the Court on
October 31, 1993 and Ahlawat was present in the lawn of this Court waiting
for the result of the case. It would thus be clear that it was attested only on
October 31, 1993 and the Notary had obliged them to give the date of his H
600 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1996] 1 S.C.R.
A attestation as October 30, 1993.

The disciplinary action taken against Krishan Kumar and Randhir
Singh by Ahlawat is only as a self serving step. The fact that he did not take
any disciplinary action against Ishwar Singh, who was admittedly present at
the time of forging the signature of M.S. Ahlawat itself is a positive proof
B that both Ahlawat and Ishwar Singh were in collaboration and used the
subordinate to forge the signature of Ahlawat. It would !hus be clear that
Ahlawat made further false statement in his second affidavit.

It is seen that the crucial evidence on record is the affidavit of Ms.
C Indu, the learned Standing Counsel for Haryana and her letters which bear
great relevance. They are part of the record and they fully support the stand
of Krishan Kumar as found by us earlier. She has no axe to grind against
Ahlawat and in fairness Shri Lalit has nothing to comment upon the stand
taken by Ms. Indu Malhotra and acted as a responsible and true professional
practitioner. The fact that M.S. Ahlawat did not even mildly suggest, let
D
alone violently protest to Ms. lndu Malhotra's filing a counter-affidavit on
his behalf is a positive fact that he knew that his counter-affidavit was, as a
fact, forged by Krishan Kumar. But he made a false averment in this affidavit
which is called "fifth counter-affidavit" that he had objected and informed
Ms. Indu Malhotra that he did object to her filing the counter-affidavit on
E November 2, 1993 and informed her that he had not sworn any counter-
affidavit nor was he aware of the averments and the allegations made in the
writ petition. These are obviously false averments which induced this Court
and also the District Judge to believe that he was not responsible for the
forgery of his signature and as to who had committed the forgery was not
F known to him. These statements are now proved to be false. Therefore, he
intentionally gave false affidavit evidence from stage to stage in these
judicial proceedings punishable under Section 193 !PC.

The question then is : Whether he committed contempt in the prooeed-
ings of this Court? Section 2(b) defines "Contempt of Court" to mean any
G civil or criminal contempt. "Criminal contempt" defined in Section 2(c)
means interference with the ad1ninistration of justice in any other n1anner. 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 judicial proceedings. It is seen that Ahlawat,
H respondent No. 3 to the main writ petition and in-charge of the criminal
AFZAL v. STATE [RAMASWAMY, J.] 601
administration, with his connivance caused two minor boys' wrongful deten· A
lion. He made an averment in the counter-affidavit dated October 30, 1993
that they were not in wrongful detention nor are they taken into custody
which was later found to be false. He first used fabricated counter-affidavit,
~·
forged by Krishan Kumar in the proceedings to obtain a favourable order.
But when he perceived adverse atmosphere to him, he fabricated further false B
evidence and sought to use an affidavit evidence to show that Krishan Kumar
had forged his signature without his knowledge and filed the fabricated
document. Thereby he further committed contempt of the judicial process. 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
c
statements. Thereby, he committed criminal contempt of judicial proceedings
of this Court.

From the above discussion and conclusions the question is : what
punishment is to be imposed on Randhir Singh (AS!), Ishwar Singh (SI) and D
M.S. Ahlawat (Superintendent of Police)? None of them made any candid
admission nor ten9ered 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 E
have the temerity to fabricate the records with false affidavit and place the
same before the highest Court of the land. Their depravity of the conduct is
writ large. M.S. Ahlawat is unworthy to hold any office of responsibility.
Therefore, Randhir Singh (AS!) and lshwar Singh (SI) shall be punishable
under Section 193 !PC and accordingly they are convicted and sentenced to
undergo <igorous imprisonment for a term of 3 months and 6 months
F
respectively. Ahlawat, the Superintendent of Police, is punishable under
Section 193 !PC. He also committed contempt of the proceedings of this
Court punishable under Article 129 of the Constitution. Accordingly, he is
convicted and sentenced under Section 193 !PC to undergo rigorous impris-
onment for a term of one year. He is convicted and sentenced to undergo G
(
rigorous imprisonment for a term of 6 months under Article 129 of the
Constitution. Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently. Krishan
Kumar, Head Constable is exonerated of the charge under Section 193 !PC
with warning to show exemplary conduct hereafter. His bail bonds are
discharged. H
,
602 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] I S.C.R.
A The Director General of Police, Haryana is directed to take the
convicts M.S. Ahlawat, Superintendent of Police, Jshwar Singh, Sub-Inspec-
tor and Randhir Singh, Assistant Sub-Inspector forthwith into custody and
have them consigned to Central Jail, Chandigarh to undergo the sentences
and submit a report of compliance to the Registry within one week from the
B date of the receipt of this order.

We place on record our apprecia)ion for prompt investigation con-
ducted and the report submitted, within the time given, by the CBI Officers.

Though this unfortunate episode has landed the police officers in
C conviction, we have no reason to believe that the real offenders in the
original crime would be tried and dealt with according to law and these
orders will not have any effect on the trial of those cases and must be dealt
with according to law.

The writ petitions stand closed.
D
R.P. Matters disposed of.