Supreme Court upholds contempt convictions for fabrication of High Court orders, reduces sentence to one month

A two-judge bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Sudhanshu Dhulia heard appeals challenging the Madras High Court’s conviction and sentence of three contemnors for criminal contempt arising from the fabrication and production of bogus interim orders of the High Court. The appeals raised issues of limitation under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the standard of proof in criminal contempt, and the adequacy of procedural notice.

The Court affirmed the High Court’s finding of guilt against the three appellants Shanmugam @ Lakshminarayanan (Contemnor No.4), M. Muruganandam (Contemnor No.3) and S. Amal Raj (Contemnor No.7)  for creating and/or using forged interim orders dated 12.03.2018 and produced during execution of a 2004 decree on 17.04.2018. The Supreme Court found that the High Court had relied upon cogent material, including CBCID investigation reports, confessional statements, recorded telephonic conversations and FSL examination of seized material, and held that the offences were proved “beyond all reasonable doubt.” The Court, however, considered the sentence of six months’ simple imprisonment to be harsh and reduced it to one month, ordering surrender before the Registrar of the Madras High Court within 15 days. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “Thus, in view of the law laid down by this Court in paras 42 and 44 of ‘Pallav Sheth’ (supra), it is to be seen as to when the application was preferred by the respondent/Decree Holder. The present contempt proceeding has its root in WP No. 22410 of 2018 preferred by the Trust/Decree Holder. … It is this date i.e. 05.09.2018 when the learned Single Judge dealing with the writ petition so directed and this date being within one year from 17.04.2018 when the fake orders were presented before the Court Amin, we are of the considered view that the present contempt action was not barred by limitation.” The Court also noted that “the sole object of the Court wielding its power to punish for contempt is always for maintaining the purity of administration of justice” and that “the very utilisation of the fabricated order by the person concerned would be sufficient to hold him/her guilty of contempt.”

Background
The dispute arose from a 2004 decree in O.S. No. 212 of 2000 in favour of J.K.K. Rangammal Charitable Trust directing recovery of possession and rent. On 17.04.2018, when the Court Amin attempted execution, purported interim orders of the Madras High Court dated 12.03.2018 were produced to stall execution. The Decree Holder alleged that those orders were fabricated. A writ petition (W.P. No. 22410 of 2018) and complaints led to registration of FIR (Crime No. 8 of 2018) for offences under Sections 466, 468 and 471 IPC. Investigation by the District Crime Branch and later by CBCID produced statements, voice samples, seizure of digital material from a net centre at Bhavani and FSL analysis. Several accused were arrested; two original contemnors died and proceedings abated against them.

The Division Bench of the Madras High Court framed charges in December 2022 and, after trial of contempt proceedings, convicted Contemnor Nos. 3, 4 and 7 and sentenced them to six months’ simple imprisonment, while giving benefit of doubt to Contemnor No.6 and acquitting another contemnor. The appellants challenged limitation, contended lack of formally framed charges and urged the criminal standard of proof. The Supreme Court held that initiation of contempt was to be treated as having occurred on 05.09.2018 when the Single Judge directed the matter to the Division Bench, and so proceedings were not time-barred under Section 20 read with this Court’s precedents (notably Pallav Sheth). The Court agreed that the material established fabrication and/or use of fabricated orders beyond reasonable doubt, confirmed convictions, and modified the sentence to one month’s simple imprisonment. The Court directed surrender within 15 days and directed communication of the order to the Madras High Court Registrar (Judicial) for compliance.

Case Details:
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 5245 of 2024; Criminal Appeal No. 4219 of 2024; Criminal Appeal Diary No. 45480 of 2024
Case Title: Shanmugam @ Lakshminarayanan v. High Court of Madras; M. Muruganandam v. High Court of Madras; S. Amal Raj v. High Court of Madras
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Sonia Mathur, Senior Counsel; Mr. S. Nagamuthu, Senior Counsel
For the Respondent(s): Counsel for the High Court and Intervenor/Decree Holder (names not specified in the judgment)