HC Issues Contempt Notices For Forging Medical Certificate To get Interim Bail
Cuttack: Observing that forged medical certificates had been submitted for obtaining an interim bail for an accused person, the Orissa High Court has recently issued contempt notices to two persons allegedly involved in forging the medical certificates.
The bench comprising Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo expressed severe dismay over the conduct of the said persons and noted, "Due process of law is blinkered by acts or conduct of the parties to the litigation or witnesses or generate tendency to impede or undermine the free flow of the unsullied stream of justice by blatantly resorting, with impunity, to fabricate Court proceedings to thwart fair adjudication of dispute and its resultant end."
The matter concerned a person named Tapan Kumar Sahoo who swore an affidavit and stated that the wife of the petitioner was suffering from multiple ailments and was undergoing treatment at the SCB Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack. On the basis of the said affidavit, an interim bail had been granted to the petitioner on January 13, 2023.
When the matter was listed for further hearing on February 10, 2023, the counsel for the State produced a letter before the Court. In that letter, Dr. S. N. Routray, Prof. & HoD of Cardiology, S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack stated that the enclosed prescription and the advice given in the O.P.D ticket annexed to the interim bail application were completely forged. Accordingly, the Court directed the Officer-in-Charge of Kahira Police Station for arresting Tapan Kumar Sahoo and produce him before the Court.
However, appearing before the Court, Sahoo denied to have signed the concerned affidavit and he also questioned the genuineness of the signature.
It was noted by the bench that one Suresh Chandra Sundaray, Advocate’s Clerk had identified the deponent Tapan Kumar Sahoo in the affidavit. After perusing the records, the bench opined that if a forged and fabricated document is filed in Court for getting some relief, it amounts to interference with the administration of Justice.
"As per section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, 'criminal contempt' means, inter alia, the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representations, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner," noted the Court.
"Law is well settled that anyone who takes recourse to fraud deflects the course of judicial proceedings; or if anything is done with oblique motive, the same interferes with the administration of justice. Such persons are required to be properly dealt with, not only to punish them for the wrong done, but also to deter others from indulging in similar acts which shake the faith of people in the system of administration of justice," it further observed.
At this outset, the bench clarified, "If a forged and fabricated document is filed in Court to get some relief, the same may amount to interference with the administration of justice. The obstruction of justice is to interpose obstacles or impediments, or to hinder, impede or in any manner interrupt or prevent the administration of justice. The fabrication and production of false document can be held to be interference with the due course of justice."
"Any interference in the course of justice, any obstruction caused in the path of those seeking justice are an affront to the majesty of law and therefore, the conduct is punishable as contempt of Court. Law of contempt is only one of many ways in which the due process of law are prevented to be perverted, hindered or thwarted to further the cause of justice," it also noted.
Further referring to the increasing tendencies of fabricating documents by the litigants, the bench noted, "It has become increasingly a tendency on the part of the parties either to produce fabricated evidence as a part of the pleadings or record or to fabricate the Court record itself for retarding or obstructing the course of justice or judicial proceedings to gain unfair advantage in the judicial process. This tendency to obstruct the due course of justice or tendency to undermine the dignity of the Court needs to be severely dealt with to deter the persons having similar proclivity to resort to such acts or conduct. In an appropriate case, the mens rea may not be clear or may be obscure but if the act or conduct tends to undermine the dignity of the Court or prejudice the party or impedes or hinders the due course of judicial proceedings or administration of justice, it would amount to contempt of the Court."
Therefore, the bench issued the show cause notices to both Suresh Chandra Sundaray, Advocate’s Clerk and Tapan Kumar Sahoo for forging the medical certificate.
To read the order, click on the link below:
https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/orissa-high-court-order-202430.pdf
Also Read: Resubmit Report on Qualification of Fake Doctors by Feb 20: Orissa HC tells state
