Skip to main content

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


Popular posts from this blog

Nehru खानदान की सच्चाई , Basic Knowledge of Nehru Family!

  Truth Of Nehru Surname  मोतीलाल नेहरू की 5 पत्नियाँ थीं। (1) स्वरूप रानी (2) थुसु रहमान बाई (3) मंजुरी देवी (4) एक ईरानी महिला (5) एक कश्मीरी महिला नंबर 1- स्वरूप रानी और नंबर 3- मंजुरि देवी को लेकर कोई समस्या नहीं है। दूसरी पत्नी थुसू रहमान बाई के पहले पति मुबारक अली थे। मोतीलाल की नौकरी, मुबारक अली के पास थी। मुबारक की आकस्मिक मृत्यु के कारण मोतीलाल थुसु रहमान बाई से निकाह कर लिये और परोक्ष रूप से पूरी संपत्ति के मालिक बन गये। थुसु रहमान बाई को मुबारक अली से 2 बच्चे पहले से ही मौजूद थे- (1) शाहिद हुसैन (2) जवाहरलाल, मोतीलाल द्वारा इन दोनों बच्चों शाहिद हुसैन और जवाहरलाल को थुसु रहमान बाई से निकाह करने की वजह से अपना बेटा कह दिया गया। प्रासंगिक उल्लेख:- जवाहरलाल की माँ थुसू रहमान बाई थी, लेकिन उनके पिता मुबारक अली ही थे। तदनुसार थुसू रहमान बाई से निकाह करने की वजह से मोतीलाल, जवाहरलाल नेहरू के पालक पिता थे। मोतीलाल की चौथी पत्नी एक ईरानी महिला थी, जिसे मुहम्मद अली जिन्ना नामक एक बेटा था मोतीलाल की 5 नंबर वाली पत्नी एक कश्मीरी महिला थी, यह मोतीलाल नेहरु की नौकरानी थी। इसको शेख अब्दुल

Supreme Court VC Video Conferencing Link

  ALL DAYS THIS LINKS ARE WORKING....NO CHANGES Seen. PLZ DONT MISUSE IT Video conferencing link common for all days. S.NO. COURT NO. COURT LINKS 1. Court No. 1 2. Court No. 2 3. Court No. 3 4. Court No. 4 5. Court No. 5 6. Court No. 6 7. Court No. 7 8. Court No. 8 9. Court No. 9          9A Court no.10   10. Court No. 11 11. Court No. 12 12. Court No. 13 13. Court No. 14

Maharashtra Health Directory Mobile and Email address DHO, Civil Surgeon , Directors

  Contacts Ministers Back Minister Name Contact No. Mail ID   Prof.Dr.Tanajirao Sawant Hon. Minister Public Health and Family Welfare     (O)     (F) Minister of State Name Contact No. Shri.  Hon. State Minister, Public Health 22886025 (O) 22023992 (F) Officers Name Contact No. Mail ID Project Director, Maharashtra State Aids Control Society 24113097/5619/5791   (O) Shri Shivanand Taksale (I.A.S.) CEO, State Health Assurance Society 24999203/204/205 (O)   Mantralaya State Public Health Department,  Mantralaya, Mumbai Telephone - 22610018 Officers Name Department / Section Telephone No in the workshop Expanded Mobile No Email IDs Subject Shri.Sanjay Khandare (I.A.S) Principal Secretary-1. 22617388 22632166 22617999 (F)             204         PA 216  Anti 211      Shri. N.Nawin Sona Secretary-2 22719030 / 22719031   202 / 244 PA 250   Shri. Shivdas Dhule  (PA Shri. Mohite

Bhopal Police Officers Inspectors Mobile Number and E mail ID


यहां किराए पर बीवी मिलती है एक साल के लिए

  आज  दुनिया में शायद ही कोई क्षेत्र होगा जहां औरतों ने अपने हुनर से पहचान न बनाई हो। फिर भी भारत के कई जगहों में महिलाओं से जुड़ी कुप्रथाएं आज भी चली आ रहीं है। कुछ प्रथाएं तो ऐसी हैं, जिनके बारे में सुनकर हर कोई हैरत में पड़ जाए कि क्या सच में ऐसा होता है! आज हम आपको मध्यप्रदेश और गुजरात के कुछ गावों में मानी जाने वाली एक ऐसी प्रथा के बारे में बताने जा रहे हैं, जिसे सुनकर आप भी दंग रह जाएंगे। यहां किराए पर दी जाती है बीवी दरअसल, भारत के मध्यप्रदेश में एक ऐसी जगह है, जहां महिलाओं को किराए पर अपनी बीवी बनाने का रिवाज है।   जी हां, मध्यप्रदेश के शिवपुरी गांव में 'धड़ीचा प्रथा' काफी प्रचलित है।   इस प्रथा के मुताबिक अमीर आदमी इस गांव की लड़कियों को बतौर बीवी किराए पर ले सकते हैं लेकिन यह बंधन जिंदगीभर का नहीं होता।  यह सौदा महीने या साल के हिसाब से होता है। चाल-ढाल से लेकर खूबसूरती भी देखते हैं लोग यहां आने वाले लोग महिलाओं और लड़कियों की चाल-ढाल और खूबसूरती को भी देखकर सौदा करते हैं। इसके बाद एक साल के लिए उसकी शादी करा कर विदाई दी जाती है। अब प्रशासन के खौफ के कारण यह दबे-छुपे

CISCE ICSE ISC Board Is Unrecognized Board By Maharashtra , Delhi , HRD , MP Etc.No Approval From Any State....

  CISCE IS OPERATING FAKE BOARD WITHOUT ACT OF PARLIAMENT OR STATE OR BY ANY EXECUTIVE ORDER.  NOT APPROVED BY ANY STATE OR CENTRAL CHEATING PUBLIC SINCE LAST 60 YEARS! In India  Council for the Indian School Certificate Examinations (CISCE)is operating ICSE/ISC public examination without valid Approval/recognition . The ICSE and ISC is unrecognized Education board which is not established by any act or executive order. All the state boards and Central boards are established by act of state or executive orders . The certificate of ICSE and ISC have no legal value in absence of law. Since 1959 the CISCE is running education board without any legal backing. CISCE is one of the society registered at Delhi and have power to open school , library, etc but not education board.  CISCE has given declaration/ affidavits at various high courts that it is merely a society and no act or executive order is passed in favour of CISCE till date. Allahabad High Court Pavitra vs Union Of India And 2 Ors

Supreme Court Clerks Are Deciding Maintainability of Petition Not Judge

  CORRUPTION IN SUPREME COURT REGISTRY , NOT GIVING DIARY NUMBER AND REJECTING PETITION WITHOUT QUOTING APPROPRIATE SECTION OF SCR 2013. AS PER SC ORDER ONLY JUDGE CAN DECIDE MAINTAINABILITY OF PETITION Supreme Court of India P. Surendran vs State By Inspector Of Police on 29 March, 2019 10. Therefore, we hold that the High Court Registry could not have exercised such judicial power to answer the maintainability of the petition, when the same was in the realm of the Court. As the power of judicial function cannot be delegated to the Registry, we cannot sustain the order, rejecting the numbering/registration of the Petition, by the Madras High Court Registry. Accordingly, the Madras High Court Registry is directed to number the petition and place it before an appropriate bench. Dear Mr. MANUBHAI HARGOVANDAS PATEL  I am hereby directed to inform you that the document uploaded by you vide Ref. id No. 3754/2023 in view of prayers (a) and (b) the Writ

Rs 1.69 Cr Expense Done For VC at Bombay High Court But No VIDEO CONFERENCE Link For Public

 ONLY JUSTICE GS PATEL PUBLISHING VC LINK IN CAUSELIST जनता का पैसा बर्बाद हो रहा है. कोई नहीं चाहता की जनता का पैसा और समय बचे।  ADVOCATES CANNOT ATTEND MULTIPLE COURTS DUE TO NO VC OPTION,PARTY IN PERSONS ALSO SUFFERING  सेवा की जगह तानाशाही कर रहे है JUDGES , बिना गद्दी के राजा है , सुप्रीम कोर्ट से कुछ नहीं सीखना चाहते .... At Delhi High Court VC link s are available at Causlist, at SC it is sent by Email. At MP HC IT department provide it on request . RTI Information 1. VC Guidelines or any for Bombay High Court with copy  2. Online Mentioning Email ID  before Hon\'ble Courts guidelines copy. 3. Total Amount of Expense Done for VC facility  at High Court between Jan 2020 to Dec 2022 by State or any. THIS COST FOR VIDEO CONFERENCING IS INCLUDING ALL BENCHES OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT Public Information Officer Bombay High Court: Shri Pankaj A. Patki 2665857 2662488 Presiding Officer 8208405880(M) __ __________________

Limitation Act Applicable In Contempt Petition For Condonation Of Delay

  NINE YEARS DELAY CONDONE BY COURT AS RESPONDENT STILL DOING CONTEMPT . Cites 18 docs - [ View All ] Section 20 in the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 Article 215 in The Constitution Of India 1949 the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 The Special Courts Act, 1979 Pallav Sheth vs Custodian & Ors on 10 August, 2001 Citedby 0 docs S.G.L. Degree College vs Sri Aditya Nath Das, Ias And ... on 24 October, 2018 Smt. Kusumbai W/O Harinarayan ... vs M/S Shreeji Builders And ... on 14 November, 2019 Yogesh Vyas vs Rajesh Tiwari on 31 July, 2019 Sunil Kumar vs Girish Pillai on 31 July, 2019 Pramod Pathak vs Heera Lal Samriya & Others on 13 December, 2021 Madras High Court M.Santhi vs Mr.Pradeed Yadav on 11 April, 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 11.04.2018 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM CONTEMPT PETITION No.377 of 2018 M.Santhi ... Petitioner Vs. 1.Mr.Pradeed Yadav, I.A.S, Secretary to Government, School Education (HSE-1)

Supreme Court Rules are Really Approved By President Of India?