http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 1  

PETITIONER: DY. GENERAL MANAGER,REDESIGNATED AS DEPUTY DIRECTOR,INTER ST

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SMT. SUDERSHAN KUMARI & ORS. ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       09/12/1996

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      This Court  by order  dated April  2, 1996 had observed that leave  and licence  to run  a sales  counter granted on compassionate grounds and other liberties given to them were being abused by such persons and that the High Court was not right in  giving liberty  to the respondent No.1 to withdraw the writ  petition and  to file another writ petition on the same  cause   of  action.   Civil  Appeal   No.7084/96   was accordingly allowed and the appeal filed by Sudershan Kumari was dismissed  with costs.  A direction  was issued  to  the Notary to  show cause as to why the should not be prosecuted and punished  for attesting false affidavit of impersonation and why  his licence  should not  be cancelled  and  why  he should not be prosecuted for giving such false certificates. A notice  was sent to him on the basis of the name furnished by the  respondent and  also in the oath. It is now reported by the  Registry that  no such  person is  available in  Tis Hazari Courts.  Consequently by order dated October 23, 1996 Mr. Goburdhan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, was directed  to give the name of the Oath Commissioner lest proceedings should be initiated against the first respondent Sudershan Kumari who has filed the affidavit alleged to have been attested  by the Oath Commissioner which is found to be false. Accordingly  time was  given. It  is  stated  by  the learned counsel, Mr.  Goburdhan, that in spite of the letter written by  him, the  respondent is  not  responding.  Under these circumstances,  we are  left with  no  option  but  to convict the  first  respondent  Mrs.  Sudershan  Kumari  for producing   false    certificate   and   false   affidavits. Accordingly, she  is convicted  under Section 199 I.P.C. and sentenced to  undergo rigorous  imprisonment for a period of six months  and is  directed to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo a further sentence of six weeks. Both the sentences are  directed  to  run  concurrently.  This  order should be  sent to  the Sessions Judge, Delhi to enforce the sentence. It is accordingly ordered.