RAM AVTAR SHUKLA versus ARVIND SHUKLA

RAM AVTAR SHUKLA versus ARVIND SHUKLA

The respondent fabricated and produced a forged court order, impersonated the petitioner, and attempted to gain an unfair advantage in the judicial process, thereby committing contempt of court under Article 129 of the Constitution and Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Apology in such grave and contumacious acts cannot be accepted; conviction and sentence are warranted.

Parties
Petitioner: Ram Autar Shukla; Respondent: Arvind Shukla; Respondent: R.B. Misra
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
23 November 1994
Procedural Posture
Suo Motu Contempt Case / Final Judgment
Outcome
Respondent convicted for contempt of court; sentenced to 3 months rigorous imprisonment.
Legal Topics
Interference With Administration of Justice, Fabrication of Court Documents, Apology in Contempt Proceedings, Mens Rea in Contempt
Constitutional Law Contempt of Court Interference With Administration of Justice Fabrication of Court Documents Apology in Contempt Proceedings Mens Rea in Contempt

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ram Autar Shukla

Petitioner

Arvind Shukla

Respondent

R.B. Misra

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Suo Motu Contempt Case / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether fabrication and production of forged court order, impersonation, and interference with judicial process amounts to contempt of court under Article 129 and Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
  2. 2 Whether apology (conditional/unconditional) should be accepted in serious cases of contempt involving forgery

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent fabricated and produced a forged court order, impersonated the petitioner, and attempted to gain an unfair advantage in the judicial process, thereby committing contempt of court under Article 129 of the Constitution and Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Apology in such grave and contumacious acts cannot be accepted; conviction and sentence are warranted.

Court Disposition

Respondent convicted for contempt of court; sentenced to 3 months rigorous imprisonment.

Orders

  • Superintendent of Police, Kanpur Dehat directed to arrest respondent and consign him to Central Jail, Kanpur to undergo sentence of three months.