1    

REPORTABLE   

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION       

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 684 OF 2006    

R. S. Sehrawat      … Appellant(s)    

:Versus:  

Rajeev Malhotra & Ors.    …. Respondent(s)       

J U D G M E N T  

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.  

1. The instant appeal under Section 19 (1) (b) of the  

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, assails the judgment and  

orders passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi  

at New Delhi in C.M. No.820 of 2001 in C.W.P. No.6734 of  

2000 dated 1st June, 2001 and in R.A. No.6600 of 2001 in  

C.W.P. No.6734 of 2000 dated 10th May, 2006 whereby the  

appellant has been found guilty of filing false affidavit and  

attempting to mislead the Court, thus committing contempt of

2    

court by his acts which were of such a nature that they tended  

to substantially interfere with the due course of justice. The  

appellant has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment  

for a period of 30 (Thirty) days and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/-  

(Twenty Five Thousand Only). Review petition against the said  

decision came to be dismissed on 10th May, 2006.   

 2. Briefly stated, the appellant was working as a Junior  

Engineer in Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD). The writ  

petitioner (respondent No.1 herein) had alleged that the  

appellant and other officials, including police officials had, by  

their act of commission and omission, first permitted the writ  

petitioner to carry on unauthorised construction on the  

property bearing Plot No.37-C measuring 834 square yards at  

Asoka Avenue, Sainik Farms, New Delhi and later on  

unilaterally demolished the said structure. This was the  

grievance made in Civil Writ Petition No.6734 of 2000 filed by  

respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 had prayed for taking  

action against the appellant and other officials including police  

officials involved in the alleged incident of demolition of the

3    

structure. The Division Bench of the High Court adverting to  

the direction issued in Public Interest Litigation bearing  

C.W.P. No.7441 of 1993 dated November 3, 1997 restraining  

unauthorised constructions in unauthorised colonies, issued  

notice on 6th December, 2000 in the present writ petition to  

the officers of the MCD and the police personnel who were  

posted during the time the construction was raised on the plot  

belonging to respondent No.1, to show cause as to why  

proceedings for contempt of court should not be initiated  

against them.  

 3. After receipt of notice, the appellant, as well as other  

officials, filed their respective affidavits. The appellant filed his  

detailed affidavit on 3rd January, 2001 inter alia pointing out  

the primary responsibility of the officials who were expected to  

comply with the directions issued on November 3, 1997 by the  

High Court. As regards his role in the capacity of Junior  

Engineer, the appellant asserted that he discharged the task  

assigned to him from time to time by his superior officers and  

submitted compliance reports to them in that behalf. He

4    

further asserted that he had undertaken 14 major demolition  

actions in Sainik Farms alone between 7th March, 2000 and  

27th September, 2000 and razed these constructions to the  

ground. It was asserted that the writ petitioner illegally  

constructed the building at the same location inspite of the  

demolition action taken on the earlier occasions. In support of  

the contention that he had resorted to the demolition of  

concerned structure, he placed reliance on the office  

submission made by him to his superiors as well as the  

photographs of the structures taken before and after the  

demolition drive. The stand taken by the appellant was  

contested by respondent No.1. To verify the factual position,  

the High Court vide order dated 12th January, 2001 appointed  

a Committee of advocates to inspect the site and submit a fact  

finding report. That report was submitted to the High Court by  

the Committee of advocates on 23rd January, 2001.   

 4. The High Court vide order dated 24th January, 2001 after  

recording its prima facie opinion issued show cause notice to  

the concerned officials including the appellant as to why they

5    

should not be convicted and punished for contempt of court.  

After the said order, the appellant filed a further affidavit  

dated 8th February, 2001 and reiterated the stand taken in the  

earlier affidavit as also explained the position of possibility of  

reconstruction on the same location after the demolition was  

done on 7th June, 2000 and 14th/15th September, 2000. The  

appellant also relied on contemporaneous evidence such as  

the report and photographs of the demolition. The High Court,  

however, was not impressed by the explanation offered by the  

appellant and proceeded to record finding of guilt against the  

appellant for filing false affidavit on January 3, 2001. The  

appellant preferred a review petition which was dismissed on  

10th May, 2006. As a result, the appellant has challenged both  

the orders by way of the present appeal.   

 5. The principal grievance of the appellant is that no proper  

charge was framed and conveyed to the appellant. The first  

show cause notice issued to the appellant in terms of order  

dated 6th December, 2000 was presumably for non-compliance  

of the direction given on November 3, 1997 in C.W.P. No.7441

6    

of 1993; whereas the second show cause notice issued to the  

appellant pursuant to order dated 24th January, 2001 was for  

filing an incorrect and misleading affidavit dated 3rd January,  

2001. The appellant had revealed the factual position in his  

affidavit dated 3rd January, 2001 and further affidavit dated  

8th February, 2001. The factual position stated in the said  

affidavits has not been analysed by the High Court at all,  

much less in its proper perspective. On the contrary, the High  

Court, proceeded to record a finding of guilt, being swayed  

away by the factual position recorded in the report submitted  

by the Committee of advocates, completely overlooking the  

plausible explanation offered by the appellant that the  

unauthorised structure in question was demolished on 7th  

June, 2000 and again on 14th/15th September, 2000. The  

contemporaneous record regarding the extent of demolition in  

the form of office submission, press reports and photographs  

was also brought to the notice of the High Court. However,  

that has been overlooked. The grievance of the appellant is  

that in the affidavit dated 8th February, 2001 a specific  

disclosure was made about the video recording done by news

7    

channels and liberty to play the video clippings was sought  

but the High Court did not deal with this request of the  

appellant at all. The time period between the demolition and  

the inspection by the Committee of advocates being quite  

substantial, the possibility of reconstruction of the structures  

in question could not be ruled out. However, the High Court  

has not dealt with this aspect.   

 6. The respondent No.1 and the Amicus Curiae espousing  

the cause of the respondent No.1, would, however, contend  

that there is no error in the approach or the conclusion  

recorded by the High Court.  

 7. We have heard Mr. Ashok Mathur advocate for the  

appellant, Mr. K. Radhakrishnan, learned senior counsel  

appearing as amicus curiae and Mr. Ashok Kumar Panda,  

learned senior counsel for the respondent.  

8. As noted earlier, action against the appellant and other  

officials was initiated by the High Court in terms of order

8    

dated 6th December, 2000. The relevant portion of the said  

order reads thus:   

 “............  In the instant petition, unauthorized construction was  carried out in Sainik Farm which happens to be an  

unauthorized colony. It is not disputed that the petitioner  started construction on Plot No.37C measuring 834 Sq. Yds.  

At Ashoka Avenue, Sainki Farm, New Delhi, in July 2000.  The building was allowed to come up and when it was  nearing completion the same was demolished on 30.10.2000.  

We fail to understand as to how the building activity could  be permitted/allowed from July 2000 till October 2000 when  

order of this court dated November 3, 1997 was in force. It  prima facie appears to us that the building in question could  not have come up unless the concerned officers of the MCD  

and the Police connived with the petitioner. The allegation of  the petitioner is that he paid bribes to various offices for  raising the construction. He has named those officers.  

  In the circumstances, we consider it appropriate to  

issue notices to the following officers of the MCD and the  Police, who were posted during the time the construction  was raised on the plot in question, to show cause why  

proceedings for contempt of court be not initiated against  them:  

 1. Mr. R.S. Sherawat (JE) MCD  2. Mr. U.S. Chowhan (JE) MCD  

3. Mr. S.R. Bhardwaj, A.E. South zone Building Department  MCD.  

4. Mr. Puran Singh Rawat, Baildar, MCD  

5. Mr. Rakesh Baildar, MCD  6. Mr. Man Mohan, S.I. Chowki Incharge, Sainik Farms  

7. Mr. V.K. Malhotra, Ex. Engineer MCD  8. Mr. Vir Singh, SHO.  

The aforesaid officers are present and they accept notice.  They are granted two weeks time to file affidavits in reply to  the show cause notice. Pleadings in the writ petition be  

completed before the next date.”  

9    

9. On a bare perusal of this order, it is evident that the High  

Court took suo motu action as it was prima facie convinced  

that unauthorised construction was carried out in Sainik  

Farms despite the direction contained in order dated  

November 3, 1997 in C.W.P. No.7441 of 1993. The order also  

records that the show cause notice was accepted by the  

officers present in Court. The appellant, like other officers,  

filed his affidavit revealing the relevant facts concerning him  

vide affidavit dated 3rd January, 2001. The appellant had  

explained the factual position as to the action of demolition of  

unauthorised structures in Sainik Farms during the relevant  

period as per the task assigned to him by his superior officers  

and reporting of that fact to his superiors by way of  

contemporaneous office submission. The correctness of the  

said contemporaneous office reports could not be and has not  

been questioned or doubted as such. The reply affidavit makes  

it amply clear that the Commissioner of the Corporation was  

personally supervising the demolition work of unauthorised  

constructions and, therefore, there was no reason to doubt the

10    

contemporaneous record in the form of office submissions and  

photographs reinforcing the fact of demolition. The report of  

the Committee of advocates, however, was based on the site  

visit made in January, 2001 after a gap of more than 6  

months from 7th June, 2000 and 3 months from 14th  

September, 2000 when the demolition was actually carried  

out. The factual position stated in the said report, therefore,  

may not be the actual position as obtained on the date of  

demolition i.e. 7th June, 2000 and 14th September, 2000. It is  

not unknown that such unauthorised structures could be and  

were reconstructed overnight after the demolition work is  

undertaken by the officials. That was done by unscrupulous  

persons clandestinely and without notice. The factual position  

stated in the reply affidavit filed by the appellant also reveals  

that continuous follow-up action was being taken in respect of  

unauthorised structures including those which were  

demolished. Furthermore, the appellant was transferred from  

the concerned ward w.e.f. 27th September, 2000 and any  

development or illegal activity unfolding after that date cannot

11    

be attributed to the appellant. All these aspects have not been  

considered by the High Court.   

 10. During the pendency of this appeal the appellant has  

also brought on record a fact that he had faced departmental  

action on the basis of same set of facts regarding his acts of  

commission and omission for the following three charges:   

 “Shri R.S. Sehrawat while functioning as JE (B) in Building  

Department, South Zone and remained incharge of the area  of Sainik Farm w.e.f. 07.03.2000 to 27.09.2000, committed  gross misconduct on the following counts:  

 1. He is connivance with the owner/builders allowed them to  

carry out and complete the unauthorized construction in  P.Nos 37-C, 49, H-541, Sainik Farms unabatedly and did not  take effective action to stop/demolish the same at its  

initial/ongoing stage.    

2. He also did not book the said unauthorized construction in  

Sainik Farm just to avoid demolition action u/s 343/344 of  the DMC Act.     

3. He also submitted wrong affidavit in the High Court  mentioning therein that unauthorized construction in  P.No.49 and H-541, Sainik Farms were demolished but the  

same were found still existing at site. Thus, he mislead the  Hon‟ble High Court.   

He, thereby contravened Rule 3 (I) (i) (ii) & (iii) of the CCS  (Conduct) Rules, 1964 as made applicable to the employees  

of the MCD.”  

12    

Notably, the appellant has been exonerated in the said enquiry  

by a detailed report analysing all the official records  

supporting the stand of the appellant.  

11. Be that as it may, the law relating to contempt  

proceedings has been restated in the case of Sahdeo Alias  

Sahdeo Singh Versus State of Uttar Pradesh and Others1  

in paragraph 27 as follows:   

 “27. In view of the above, the law can be summarised that  the High Court has a power to initiate the contempt  proceedings suo motu for ensuring the compliance with the  

orders passed by the Court. However, contempt proceedings  being quasi-criminal in nature, the same standard of proof is  required in the same manner as in other criminal cases. The  

alleged contemnor is entitled to the protection of all  safeguards/rights which are provided in the criminal  

jurisprudence, including the benefit of doubt. There must be  a clear-cut case of obstruction of administration of justice by  a party intentionally to bring the matter within the ambit of  

the said provision. The alleged contemnor is to be informed  as to what is the charge, he has to meet. Thus, specific  

charge has to be framed in precision. The alleged contemnor  may ask the Court to permit him to cross-examine the  witnesses i.e. the deponents of affidavits, who have deposed  

against him. In spite of the fact that contempt proceedings  are quasi-criminal in nature, provisions of the Code of  Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter called “CrPC”) and the  

Evidence Act are not attracted for the reason that  proceedings have to be concluded expeditiously. Thus, the  

trial has to be concluded as early as possible. The case  should not rest only on surmises and conjectures. There  must be clear and reliable evidence to substantiate the  

allegations against the alleged contemnor. The proceedings  

                                                           1 (2010) 3 SCC 705

13    

must be concluded giving strict adherence to the statutory  rules framed for the purpose.”  

We may usefully refer to two other decisions dealing with  

the issue under consideration. In Muthu Karuppan,  

Commissioner of Police, Chennai Vs. Parithi Ilamvazhuthi  

and Anr., 2 this Court observed thus:  

“15. Giving false evidence by filing false affidavit is an evil  

which must be effectively curbed with a strong hand.  Prosecution should be ordered when it is considered  expedient in the interest of justice to punish the delinquent,  

but there must be a prima facie case of  „deliberate falsehood‟  on a matter of substance and the court should be satisfied  

that there is a reasonable foundation for the charge.”    “17.  The contempt proceedings  being quasi-criminal in  

nature, burden and standard of proof is the same as  required in criminal cases. The charges have to be framed as  per the statutory rules framed for the purpose and proved  

beyond reasonable doubt keeping in mind that the alleged  contemnor is entitled to the benefit of doubt. Law does not  

permit imposing any punishment in contempt proceedings  on mere probabilities, equally, the court cannot punish the  alleged contemnor without any foundation merely on  

conjectures and surmises. As observed above, the contempt  proceeding being quasi-criminal in nature require strict  

adherence to the procedure prescribed under the rules  applicable in such proceedings.”    

                                                           2    (2011) 5 SCC 496

14    

In Mrityunjoy Das and Anr. Vs. Syed Hasibur Rahaman  

and Ors.,3 this Court observed thus:    

 “14. The other aspect of the matter ought also to be noticed  at this juncture, viz., the burden of standard of proof. The  

common English phrase „he who asserts must prove‟ has its  due application in the matter of proof of the allegations said  

to be constituting the act of contempt. As regards the  „standard of proof‟, be it noted that a proceeding under the  extraordinary jurisdiction of the court in terms of the  

provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act is quasi-criminal,  and as such, the standard of proof required is that of a  

criminal proceeding and the breach shall have to be  established beyond reasonable doubt....”  

12. In the present case, going by the material on record it is  

not possible to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that the  

appellant had contributed to the reconstruction of the  

unauthorised structure before or after 27th September, 2000.  

Furthermore, the appellant was not served with any charges  

muchless specific charge which he was expected to meet. Yet,  

the final conclusion in the impugned judgment is that the acts  

of the appellant tended to substantially interfere with the due  

course of justice and amounted to committing criminal  

                                                           3   (2001) 3 SCC 739

15    

contempt of court for having filed incorrect affidavit. The High  

Court made no attempt to verify or examine the  

contemporaneous record relied upon by the appellant in  

support of his plea that the factual position stated in the  

affidavit filed by him was borne out and reinforced from the  

said record. The affidavit so filed cannot be termed as  

incorrect or misleading by relying on the report of the  

advocates‟ committee, which was prepared after a gap of 6  

months from the date of first demolition (7th June, 2000) and 3  

months from the second demolition (14th September, 2000).   

 13. The finding recorded by the High Court that the property  

was not razed to the ground based on the report prepared in  

January, 2001, therefore, is not the correct approach and is  

manifestly wrong. The High Court ought to have tested the  

authenticity and veracity of the contemporaneous record in  

the form of office submissions, Misel Band register, office files,   

notices, photograph and press reports etc. relied upon by the  

appellant. It would be a different matter if the  

contemporaneous record did not support the stand taken by

16    

the appellant in the affidavits filed by him dated 3rd January,  

2001 and 8th February, 2001 respectively. As a matter of fact,  

the appellant has already faced departmental enquiry in which  

the matter in issue has been exhaustively dealt with and the  

plea taken by the appellant has been found to be correct.   

14. Be that as it may, the appellant has been found guilty in  

reference to the notice issued in terms of order dated 24th  

January, 2001, the relevant portion whereof reads thus:   

 “Learned counsel for the petitioner also pointed out in the  affidavit of Mr. R.S. Sehrawat, it is mentioned that property  

Nos.49 and H-541 were demolished on 7th June, 2000 and  14th September, 2000 respectively. Mr. Awasthy has shown  

photographs of these properties. From the photographs, it  appears that the properties are intact and were not  demolished, therefore we are prima facie of the opinion that  

even Mr. Sehrawat has taken liberties with truth. Issue  notices to Mr. U.S. Chauhan and Mr. R.S. Sehrawat, Junior  

Engineers, MCD, to show cause why they should not be  convicted and punished for contempt of Court. Let the  affidavits in response be filed by 6th February, 2001.”  

 15. In response to the second notice given to the appellant,  

he filed a further affidavit dated 8th February, 2001 to urge as  

under:  

17    

“3. That the deponent submits that the deponent had not  filed any false affidavit, nor did the deponent take liberties  

with truth while filing the affidavit on 3.1.2001 before this  Hon‟ble Court. I state that in the order dated 24.1.2001, qua  

the deponent it has been recorded that properties No.49 and  H-541, which were demolished by the deponent on 7.6.2000  and on 14.9.2000/15.9.2000 were not demolished as per the  

report of the committee appointed by this Hon‟ble Court and  the photographs of these properties.    

4. That the deponent submits that property No.49 was  demolished on 7.6.2000 and the photo copies of the  

photographs of the existing building before demolition and  after demolition have already been filed by the deponent  along with the deponent‟s affidavit filed on 3.1.2001. The  

deponent is filing photocopies of further photographs of the  demolished property. I further state that the press had prior  

information for the demolition to be carried out at Sainik  Farms on 7.6.2000 and the press photographers and  reporters were at Sainik Farms. The photograph of the  

demolished building at 49, Sainik Farm was taken by the  photographers of some news papers. The times of India,  edition dated 8.6.2000 showed the demolished structure.  

This is independent evidence which corroborates the stand of  the deponent. I further state that the video team of the  

Doordarshan video taped the demolition of 49 Sainik Farms  and the clippings were shown in the programme “Aaj Tak” on  7.6.2000 itself at 10 P.M. I crave indulgence of this Hon‟ble  

Court to summon the video film from the Doordarshan  Authorities prepared for the programme Aaj Tak telecasted  on 7.6.2000. I state that the owner of the property has  

reconstructed the same after its earlier demolition. I state  that as stated by me in the earlier affidavit filed by the  

deponent, I was no longer assigned the work of Junior  engineer for Sainik Farms after 27.9.2000 and the structure  has been re-erected, only thereafter. I state that during my  

tenure as Junior Engineer incharge of Sainik Farms only one  property was bearing No.49 Sainik Farms, which was  

demolished by me.    5. That as regards property No. H-541, Sainik Farms, I  

state that the committee report has not referred to the same.  However, 29.1.2001, I visited the site of the said property  and state that the said property has also been reconstructed  

after the earlier demolition carried out by me. I state that the  reconstructed property is still in the process of finishing and

18    

painting work is still going on in the property. I state that the  committee members should be requested by this Hon‟ble  

Court to immediately report whether the buildings are in the  process of being painted or has been recently completed and  

painted as the same would show and prove its  reconstruction. I have already filed the photographs showing  the demolished property by me along with my earlier  

affidavit.    6. That I state that as already stated by me in my  

affidavit filed before this Hon‟ble Court on 3.1.2001, the  Commissioner of the Corporation was weekly reviewing the  

activities at Sainik Farms and the Zonal Engineer and the  Executive Engineer of the Zone were also personally  supervising the demolition operations carried out by me. The  

reports of the said Zonal Engineer and Executive Engineers  should also be called.   

 7. That I state that I should be given an opportunity to  lead evidence of the press photographers, Doordarshan team  

which video taped the demolitions on 7.6.2000 as also the  evidence of the Zonal Engineer and Executive Engineer to  prove that I had carried out the demolitions and have not  

filed any affidavit nor have taken liberties with truth.”    

16.  This specific stand taken by the appellant has not been  

considered by the High Court at all. The appellant made this  

grievance in the review petition, but of no avail. In our opinion,  

it is not possible to hold that the demolition work undertaken  

on 7th June, 2000 and 14th September 2000 was not in  

conformity with the position reflected in the contemporaneous  

office submissions/record and photographs submitted by the  

appellant to his superior authority.  

19    

   17. As a matter of fact, the appellant ought to succeed on the  

singular ground that the High Court unjustly proceeded  

against him without framing formal charges or furnishing  

such charges to him; and moreso because filing of affidavit by  

the appellant was supported by contemporaneous official  

record, which cannot be termed as an attempt to obstruct the  

due course of administration of justice. Accordingly, this  

appeal ought to succeed.   

   18. In view of the above, the impugned judgment and orders  

passed by the Division Bench of High Court of Delhi at New  

Delhi in C.M. No.820 of 2001 in C.W.P. No.6734 of 2000 dated  

1st June, 2001 and in R.A. No.6600 of 2001 in C.W.P. No.6734  

of 2000 dated 10th May, 2006 are quashed and set aside and  

the show cause notices issued to the appellant pursuant to the  

order   of  the   Division Bench  of  the  High Court  dated  6th   

20    

December, 2000 and dated 24th January, 2001 are hereby  

dropped. Appeal is allowed in the aforementioned terms.                           

…………………………….CJI.                (Dipak Misra)   

…………………………..….J.                (A.M. Khanwilkar)  

New Delhi;  

September 05, 2018.