forged record of Supreme Court - criminal conspiracy
The Complainant and Adv. xxx had filed a complaint on 19.03.2019 against Justice xxx & Justice xxxx for passing unlawful orders to serve their ulterior purposes and to help another accused Judge xxxx
In order to save accused Judges from charges, one conspiracy was hatched by co-conspirator Adv. xxxx of Bombay Bar Association & xxxx of Bombay Incorporated Law Society and in furtherance of the said conspiracy, they sent a Joint letter dated 23.03.2019 to the Chief Justice of India.Then Chief Justice of Indian xxxx found nothing actionable in the said letter dated 23.03.2019 by Bombay Bar Association & Bombay Incorporated Law Society and therefore the Chief Justice of India passed an order to close the said complaint.
But accused xxx & others hatched a criminal conspiracy with accused Judges xxxx and created a forged record of Supreme Court to the effect that the then Chief Justice of India had forwarded the said complaint to the Bench of Justice xxxx.
On the basis of the said forged record, the accused Judges xxx themselves took the cognizance of the contempt against complainant where the said Judges were accused.
When trial for contempt started, the Respondents produced all the evidences including records of the Chief Justice of India office and Supreme Court Registry.
These records were found to be destroyed/stolen by the accused Judges which is an offence under Section 409 of the IPC and accused Judges can be punished for life imprisonment. The Accused Judges pronounced the order of Conviction and sentence against Complainant on 27.04.2020.
The said conviction & sentence is challenged by the way of writ petition filed by xxx & Others. The said judgement of conviction is partly overruled by the larger bench of the Supreme Court in Re: xxxx case 14 August 2020. It is specifically observed by the larger bench that the rule laid down in P.N. Dudas case is binding on the Supreme Court and only Chief Justice can take the cognizance of Suo moto contempt on the letter sent by the parties. If the said rule is not followed, then conviction of contempt stands vitiated. Similar law is laid down in Bal Thackeray vs. Pimplekhute (2005) 1 SCC 254 & Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms vs. Union of India, (2018) 1 SCC 196.
The Supreme Court stayed said sentence and the petitions are tagged with the writ petition filed by Adv. xxxx W.P. (C) No. 1037 of 2020. Other writ petitions are Rashid Khan Pathan vs. Union of India bearing No. WP (C) No. 1377 of 2020, Adv. Vijay Kurle vs. Supreme Court of India through Secretary General & Others bearing No. WP (Cri) No. 243 of 2020 & Adv. Nilesh Ojha vs. Supreme Court of India through Secretary General & Others bearing No. WP (Cri) No. 244 of 2020.
In the meantime, two agents sent by Retd. Justice xxx, Justice xxxx approached Complainant at his residence and gave offers of Rs. 400 crores to settle the entire matter. There were another talks exposing the racket of Agents of corrupt Supreme Court Judges. All proofs are available with the Complainant.
The Complainant forthwith made complaint to the CBI and other authorities.
The Anti-Corruption Department of Maharashtra police on the directions given by the higher authorities started investigation.
The Complainant was summoned to produce the concerned proofs. The Complainant gave the proofs and the police recorded his statement.