CJM Lakshdeep झूठे केस बनाने मे Perjury मे फंस गए

 

CJM ने दुश्मनी निभाते हुए आरोपी को झूठे सबूत मे फंसा दिया और दोषी बना डाला। खुद सीजेएम CRPC 340 PERJURY में फंस  गए। PERJURY में पहली बार जज फंस गए। 

बहुत से जज मजिस्ट्रेट सबूत छुपा कर आरोपी को बचा लेते है यह आदेश उनके लिए सबक वरना perjury के लिए तैयार रहे!

The Kerala High Court in a matter regarding a serious allegation of forgery against the former Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amini Island (Lakshadweep) held that the Magistrate, Judges, and other presiding officers are not above law and they have to face consequences in case they commit dereliction of duty.

The Court regarded it as a serious case in which some of the accused in a criminal case pending in a Court filed a complaint before the administrative side of the High Court against the conduct of the Chief Judicial Magistrate who was also acting as the Sub Judge in the trial of their civil case.

A Single Bench of Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan in this matter stated –

"From the above discussions, I am of the prima facie opinion that the additional 3rd respondent forged the evidence of PW7 and he is liable to be proceeded as per Sec.340 of the Cr.P.C. I am of the opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice that an enquiry should be made into the offence referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Sec.195 Cr.P.C because the additional 3rd respondent appears to have been committed the offence. Prima facie, I am of the opinion that a preliminary enquiry is to be conducted. Whether the Bench Clerk and the LD Clerk (Bench Assistant) are involved in aiding the additional 3rd respondent is to be decided based on their statement before this Court in the preliminary enquiry. If Exts.R4(d) and R4(e) is correct, they are also liable to be proceeded in accordance with law. Therefore, notice is to be issued to the Bench Clerk and LD Clerk (Bench Assistant) also under Sec. 340 Cr.P.C. for conducting preliminary enquiry. Moreover, I am of the considered opinion that disciplinary proceedings is to be initiated against the additional 3rd respondent. Prima facie, I am of the opinion that the additional 3rd respondent committed serious misconduct and dereliction of duty. The disciplinary authority of the additional 3rd respondent is the Administrator, Union Territory of Lakshadweep."

The Bench further ordered that the disciplinary authority should place the CJM under suspension pending enquiry and whether a person is to be placed under suspension pending enquiry is to be decided by the Disciplinary Authority but in extraordinary situations, extraordinary orders are necessary to protect the interest of justice.

The Court further held, "...this is a fit case in which this Court has to direct the Administrator Union Territory of Lakshadweep, to place the 3 rd respondent under suspension pending enquiry. It is true that now the additional 3rd respondent is working as Secretary, District Legal Service Authority. But even then, since he is in the service, there are chances to influence the witness and even intrude into the documents by the additional 3rd respondent. Therefore, I am directing the Administrator to place the 3rd respondent under suspension pending enquiry. Such a direction is necessary to protect the faith of the public in the system. Even if a person is occupying the post of Magistrate or Judge, the law of the land is applicable to all. If there is any dereliction of duty, the constitutional courts should step in to strengthen the trust of the people in the judiciary. The Magistrate, Judges and other presiding officers are not above the law and if they commit any dereliction of duty, they have to face the consequences. This should be a lesson to all."

Advocate Lal K. Joseph appeared for the petitioners while Advocate Sajith Kumar V. appeared on behalf of the respondents.

Facts of the Case –

In this case, the Chief Judicial Magistrate was alleged to have forged the evidence of an Investigating officer and convicted the accused in their absence, and issued a warrant. The CJM sentenced the accused person to undergo a sentence of 4½ years under different sections of the Indian Penal Code and directed them to serve the sentence separately with a malafide intention to put the accused behind bars. The petitioners are the accused and a case is charge-sheeted against them under the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 188, 186, and 353 r/w Section 149 of the IPC. It is alleged by them that a contractor who was engaged in plucking coconut from the Government land requested the Deputy Collector/ Sub Divisional Magistrate, Agatti for seeking police assistance for plucking coconut on the southern side of Panchayath stage in Agatti Island. The SDM issued an order to supervise the aforesaid work with police assistance. It is further alleged that during the supervision, a mob of around 40 persons led by the accused formed an unlawful assembly with an intention of rioting, obstructing the Amin, Surveyor, the contractor and the coconut climbers.

Hence, a case was registered against the accused which was investigated and a final report was submitted before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court. The CJM took cognizance of the offence and enlarged the accused on bail. Even though the witnesses were not present, the CJM issued a warrant to the petitioners. The former CJM has personal enmity towards the accused in this case because some of the accused are the plaintiffs in a civil suit and they have filed a complaint against the prejudiced view of the CJM before the Registrar of the Kerala High Court. Therefore, the petitioners approached the High Court.

The High Court in the above context noted, "If the allegation against the Chief Judicial Magistrate is true, it is unfortunate and unheard of. The immense faith of the citizens of this country in the Indian Judiciary itself is the backbone of our judicial system. So, the judicial officers should be above board. But of course, there may be criticism against judicial officers and that is only because of the immense faith of the people in this system. Fair criticisms will undoubtedly improve the system. The judicial officers however, need not respond to those criticisms, but they should concentrate on their commitment to the system and prove their integrity and fair play while decision making. The pen of a judicial officer is powerful, but it should be used with great caution, of course without fear and favour."

The petitioners prayed for the following before the Court:

1. to pass an order transferring the case;

2. to call for entire records in the case pending before the former CJM;

3. to direct former CJM to grant certified copy of the order within specific time frame; and

4. to pass an order dispensing with the filing of the translation of the vernacular documents.

The Court further observed, "I am aware of the settled legal position that, we are bound to accept the statements of the Judges as far as the court proceedings are concerned. It is also true that the statement of Judges need not be contradicted by the statement or affidavit or any other evidence. If a Judge or a Magistrate state in their proceedings that something was done, said or admitted before them, that has to be the last word on that subject. It is also well settled that the statements of facts as to what transpired at the hearing, recorded in the judgment of the court, are conclusive of the facts so stated and no one can contradict such statements by affidavit or other evidence. But if there is personal allegation of prejudice or malafides alleged against a judicial officer and if it is found that there is some substance in such allegation, the above general presumption may not be applicable."

The Court at last issued the following directions:

"1. the Administrator of U.T. of Lakshadweep shall conduct a detailed enquiry about CJM's actions and take appropriate steps;

2. the petitioners are allowed to raise all their contentions raised in their petitions before the appellate court by filing an appeal against their conviction and sentence;

3. notice be issued to the former CJM for conducting a preliminary enquiry;

4. Advocate Dheerendrakrishnan K.K. is appointed as Amicus curie to assist the court during the preliminary enquiry; and

5. the Registry shall forward a copy of judgment to Administrator of U.T. Lakshadweep."

Accordingly, the Court disposed of the original petitions.

Cause Title - Mohammed Nazer M.P. & Ors. v. Union Territory of Lakshadweep & Ors.

Click here to read/download the Judgment 

https://www.verdictum.in/pdf_upload/2101000060820224watermark-1450617.pdf