Forged documents filed to mislead the court can amount to criminal contempt; a belated apology may not purge it.

Filing a forged or fabricated document before the Court with knowledge of its falsity and intent to deceive or defraud the judicial process constitutes criminal contempt because it interferes with and obstructs the administration of justice. The governing test is whether the act tends to impede the due course of judicial proceedings or pollute the stream of justice. A belated apology is effective only if it shows genuine remorse and contrition; an apology tendered merely to avoid consequences will not purge serious contempt. The SC rejected the apology and treated deterrent custodial punishment as appropriate in the circumstances.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether filing a forged and fabricated document before the Court with intent to deceive or defraud amounts to contempt of court under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971; (ii) whether the contemner's belated unconditional apology should be accepted and what sentence should follow.

Issue (i): Filing of a forged or fabricated document, when done with knowledge of its falsity and with an intention to deceive the Court or defraud the process, interferes with and tends to obstruct the administration of justice within the meaning of criminal contempt.

Analysis: The governing test under the Act is whether the impugned act interferes with, or tends to interfere with, the due course of judicial proceedings or obstructs the administration of justice. A deliberate falsehood or a fabricated document, filed with oblique motive, hampers the performance of judicial duty and pollutes the stream of justice. The principle is that deceit practised on the Court is not a mere irregularity when it is intended to mislead the judicial process.

Conclusion: Filing the fabricated document in the present case amounted to contempt of court, and guilt was established.

Issue (ii): Whether the apology was sufficient to purge the contempt and whether a fine or imprisonment was the appropriate punishment.

Analysis: An apology must reflect genuine remorse and contrition; an apology offered only to escape legal consequences is not a true apology. Where the contempt is serious and involves a deliberate attempt to deceive the Court, a nominal monetary penalty may not meet the ends of justice, and a deterrent sentence may be necessary to preserve the purity of judicial proceedings.

Conclusion: The apology was rejected and a custodial sentence of two weeks was imposed.

Final Conclusion: The proceeding resulted in a finding of contempt for filing a forged document with intent to deceive the Court, coupled with rejection of the apology and imposition of a short custodial sentence as a deterrent measure.

Ratio Decidendi: Deliberate filing of a forged or fabricated document with intent to deceive the Court or defraud the judicial process constitutes criminal contempt because it interferes with the administration of justice; a belated apology lacking genuine contrition does not by itself purge such contempt.

---