IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
I.A. NO. 122625 OF 2017
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 10342 OF 2016
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 10342 OF 2016
IN THE MATTER
OF
SEEMA SAPRA …Appellant/Petitioner
Versus
COURT ON ITS
OWN MOTION … Respondent
I N D E X
______________________________________________________
Sl. No. PARTICULARS PAGES
________________________________________________________
1. Application with prayer to summon the Delhi High 1-14
Court records of Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012,
CONT. CASE(CRL) 2/2014, CONT. CASE(CRL)
3/2012, and O.M.P.647/2012 with affidavit
FILED BY:
SEEMA SAPRA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER-IN-PERSON
DRAWN ON:
17.11.2017
FILED ON:
17.11.2017
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF
INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE
JURISDICTION
I.A. NO. OF 2017
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 10342 OF 2016
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 10342 OF 2016
IN THE MATTER OF
SEEMA SAPRA …Appellant/Petitioner
Versus
COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION … Respondent
To
Hon'ble The
Chief Justice of India and His Companion Judges of the Supreme Court of India.,
the application of the Appellant/ Petitioner most respectfully showeth :-
1.
This a
contempt appeal (statutory first appeal) under Section 19(1)(b) of the Contempt
of Courts Act.
2.
It is
respectfully submitted that this appeal is an appeal both on facts and on law.
3.
The Appellant
relies upon the judgment of this Hon’ble Court in Vinod Kumar vs Gangadhar
(2015) 1 SCC 391 where the court stated the following with respect to the duties
of the first appellate court.
|
11) The powers of the first appellate court while deciding the
first appeal under Section 96 read with Order 41 Rule 31 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 are indeed well defined by various judicial pronouncements of
this Court and are, therefore, no more res integra.
12) As far back in 1969, the learned Judge V.R. Krishna Iyer, J
(as His Lordship then was the judge of Kerala High Court) while deciding the
first appeal under Section 96 of the CPC in Kurian Chacko vs. Varkey Ouseph,
AIR 1969 Kerala 316, reminded the first appellate court of its duty as to how
the first appeal under Section 96 should be decided. In his distinctive style
of writing and subtle power of expression, the learned judge held as under:
1. The plaintiff, unsuccessful in two Courts, has come up here
aggrieved by the dismissal of his suit which was one for declaration of title
and recovery of possession. The defendant disputed the plaintiff's title to
the property as also his possession and claimed both in himself. The learned
Munsif, who tried the suit, recorded findings against the plaintiff both on
title and possession. But,
in appeal, the learned Subordinate Judge disposed of the whole
matter glibly and briefly, in a few sentences.
2. An appellate court is the final Court of fact ordinarily and
therefore a litigant is entitled to a full and fair and independent
consideration of the evidence at the appellate stage. Anything less than this
is unjust to him and I have no doubt that in the present case the learned
Subordinate Judge has fallen far short of what is expected of him as an
appellate Court. Although there is furious contest between the counsel for
the appellant and for the respondent, they appear to agree with me in this observation..
(Emphasis supplied)
13) This Court in number of cases while affirming and then
reiterating the aforesaid principle has laid down the scope and powers of the
first appellate court under Section 96 ibid.
14) We consider it apposite to refer to some of the decisions
15) In Santosh Hazari vs. Purushottam Tiwari (Deceased) by L.Rs.
(2001) 3 SCC 179, this Court held (at pages 188-189) as under: ...the
appellate court has jurisdiction to reverse or affirm the findings of the
trial court. First appeal is a valuable right of the parties and unless
restricted by law, the whole case is therein open for rehearing both on
questions of fact and law. The judgment of the appellate court must,
therefore, reflect its conscious application of mind and record findings
supported by
reasons, on all the issues arising along with the contentions
put forth, and pressed by the parties for
decision of the appellate courtwhile reversing a finding of fact
the appellate court must come into close quarters with the reasoning assigned
by the trial court and then assign its own reasons for arriving at a
different finding. This would satisfy the court hearing a further appeal that
the first
appellate court had discharged the duty expected of it
16) The above view has been followed by a three-Judge Bench
decision of this Court in Madhukar & Ors. v. Sangram & Ors.,(2001) 4
SCC 756, wherein it was reiterated that sitting as a court of first appeal,
it is the duty of the High Court to deal with all the issues and the evidence
led by the parties before recording its findings.
17) In H.K.N. Swami v. Irshad Basith,(2005) 10 SCC 243, this
Court (at p. 244) stated as under: (SCC para 3) 3. The first appeal has to be
decided on facts as well as on law. In
the first appeal parties have the right to be heard both on
questions of law as also on facts and the first appellate court is required
to address itself to all issues and decide the case by giving reasons.
Unfortunately, the High Court, in the present case has not recorded any
finding either on facts or on law. Sitting as the first appellate court it
was the duty of the High Court to deal with all the issues
and the evidence led by the parties before recording the finding
regarding title.
18) Again in Jagannath v. Arulappa & Anr., (2005) 12 SCC
303, while considering the scope of Section 96 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908, this Court (at pp. 303-04) observed as follows: (SCC para 2)
2. A court of first appeal can reappreciate the entire evidence and come to a
different conclusion...
19) Again in B.V Nagesh & Anr. vs. H.V. Sreenivasa Murthy,
(2010) 13 SCC 530, this court taking note of all the earlier judgments of
this court reiterated the aforementioned principle with these words: 3. How
the regular first appeal is to be disposed of by the appellate court/High
Court has been considered by this Court in various decisions. Order 41 CPC
deals with appeals from original decrees. Among the various rules, Rule 31
mandates that the judgment of the appellate court shall
state:
(a) the points for determination;
(b) the decision thereon;
(c) the reasons for the decision; and
(d) where the decree appealed from is reversed or varied, the
relief to which the appellant is entitled.
4. The appellate court has jurisdiction to reverse or affirm the
findings of the trial court. The first appeal is a valuable right of the
parties and unless restricted by law, the whole case is therein open for
rehearing both on questions of fact and law. The judgment of the appellate
court must, therefore, reflect its conscious application of mind and record
findings supported by reasons, on all the issues
arising along with the contentions put forth, and pressed by the
parties for decision of the appellate court. Sitting as a court of first
appeal, it was the duty of the High Court to deal with all the issues and the
evidence led by the parties before recording its findings. The first appeal
is a valuable right and the parties have a right to be heard both on
questions of law and on facts and the judgment in
the first appeal must address itself to all the issues of law
and fact and decide it by giving reasons in support of the findings. (Vide
Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari, (2001) 3 SCC 179 at p. 188, para 15 and
Madhukar v. Sangram, (2001) 4 SCC 756 at p. 758, para 5.)
5. In view of the above salutary principles, on going through
the impugned judgment, we feel that the High Court has failed to discharge
the obligation placed on it as a first appellate court. In our view, the
judgment under appeal is cryptic and none of the relevant aspects have even
been noticed. The appeal has been decided in an unsatisfactory manner. Our
careful perusal of the judgment in the regular first appeal shows that it
falls short of considerations which are expected from the court of first
appeal. Accordingly, without going into the merits of the claim of both
parties, we set aside the impugned judgment and decree of the High Court and
remand the regular first appeal to the High Court for its fresh disposal in
accordance with law.
20) The aforementioned cases were relied upon by this court
while reiterating the same principle in State Bank of India & Anr. vs.
Emmsons International Ltd. & Anr., (2011) 12 SCC 174.
21) Applying the aforesaid principle to the facts of the case,
we find that the High Court while deciding the first appeal failed to keep
the principle in consideration and rendered the impugned decision. Indeed, it
is clear by mere reading of para 4 of the impugned order quoted below: After
hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the evidence, I do
not find any justification to throw over board findings recorded by the trial
court. After due appreciation of evidence, I do not find any merit and
substance in this appeal. Same stands dismissed with costs. Counsel fee
Rs.1000/-, if certified. Ordered accordingly.
22) In our considered opinion, the High Court did not deal with
any of the submissions urged by the appellant and/or respondent nor it took
note of the grounds taken by the appellant in grounds of appeal nor made any
attempt to appreciate the evidence adduced by the parties in the light of the
settled legal principles and decided case law applicable to the issues
arising in the case with a view to
find out as to whether judgment of the trial court can be
sustained or not and if so, how, and if not, why?
23) Being the first appellate court, it was the duty of the High
Court to have decided the first appeal keeping in view the scope and powers
conferred on it under Section 96 read with Order 41 Rule 31 ibid mentioned
above. It was unfortunately not done, thereby, resulting in causing prejudice
to the appellant whose valuable right to prosecute in the first appeal on
facts and law was adversely affected which, in turn, deprived him of a
hearing in the appeal in accordance with law.
24) It is for this reason, we are unable to uphold the impugned
judgment of the High Court.
|
4.
It is
submitted that there are crucial factual inaccuracies in the impugned trial
court judgment along with several legal infirmities. In addition, the impugned
judgment completely omits to appreciate, record or to even note multiple facts
that were extremely relevant to the hearing of the contempt case before the
Delhi High Court and which are also relevant to the hearing of this appeal. The
appellant places reliance upon the memo of appeal.
5.
The
appellant-lawyer is a witness-whistleblower in a corruption case involving a
powerful American corporation, General Electric Company relating to two
multi-billion Dollar Railway Ministry tenders. The Appellant has been targeted,
been repeatedly drugged, and has been both acutely and chronically poisoned
over a period of the last seven years. Multiple attempts have been made to murder
her, permanently incapacitate her or to eliminate her by other means. The
appellant’s life is in grave danger and she continues to be targeted 24/7 and
to be poisoned with highly toxic chemicals including nerve agents.
6.
While the
appellant has unconditionally and unqualifiedly apologized for the statement
that she made before the Delhi High Court on 6/5/2014 which led to the contempt
notice in Contemp Case (Crl) 2/2014 being issued to her, she respectfully
submits that an even bigger issue arises before this Hon’ble Court in the
present appeal. This bigger issue is the fact that the whistle-blower
corruption complaints of the appellant-lawyer have been covered up, and the
appellant-whistleblower, a woman lawyer has been targeted, drugged, poisoned
and destroyed with impunity for the last seven years. She continued to be
targeted and hounded, she continues to be poisoned and attempts to drug her
continue. She continues to be defamed. She is being harassed and targeted on
the street & in public spaces. The appellant’s life remains in grave and
immediate danger. The bigger issue is also that the cover up of the appellant’s
whistleblower complaints of corruption, fraud and forgery by General Electric
Company has been enabled by fraud committed on the Delhi High Court where
affidavits have been filed for General Electric Company and its subsidiaries
without valid authorization documents and where lawyers have appeared for
General Electric Company without valid vakalatnamas. This amounts to unlawful
impersonation to obstruct the course of justice and involves perjury and
forgery. Even CVC documents and Railway Ministry and RITES documents have been
forged/ fabricated and filed with Railway Ministry affidavits before the Delhi
High Court to cover up corruption by General Electric Company.
7.
The entire
genesis of Contempt Case (Crl) 2/2014 (appealed from herein) and of Contempt
Case (Crl) 3/2012 still pending before the Delhi High Court) is the right to
life whistle-blower writ petition filed by the appellant before the Delhi High
Court (Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012, in the matter of Seema Sapra versus
General Electric Company & Others). There is another matter that is
relevant to the present appeal. This is OMP 647/2012 which was allegedly filed
on behalf of GE India Industrial Private Limited (a 100% subsidiary of General
Electric Company) in the Delhi High Court and which was intended to obstruct
the hearing of Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012.
8.
It is
respectfully submitted that the court records of these four proceedings before
the Delhi High Court, i.e., Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012; OMP 647/2012;
Contempt Case (Crl) 3/2012; and Contempt Case (Crl) 2 of 2014 are necessary to
establish the true and material facts relevant to the hearing of this appeal. These
court records establish material facts that the impugned judgment has failed to
consider, appreciate and correctly record or that the impugned judgment has
entirely omitted to consider.
9.
The appellant
had moved an application in this matter seeking directions to dispense with
office objections (IA 94822/2017). In that application, the appellant had
prayed that the electronic court records of these four Delhi High Court cases
be summoned. The application was listed before the Hon’ble Judge of this Court in
an in-chamber hearing for administrative orders. The Hon’ble Court on that
application was of the view that the “electronic” records will not allow the
appellant to assist the Hon’ble Court as there were no computers for the
Hon’ble Judges. The Hon’ble Judge stated that he would leave this prayer for
the consideration of the appropriate Bench that would hear this matter. Order dated 9.10.2017 also recorded that
“Appellant-in-person states that she will produce Annexures before the Court at
the time of hearing. She is permitted to do so.”
10.
The present
application is therefore being filed seeking directions for summoning the both
the paper and electronic records of the Delhi High Court in the following four
cases, Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012, CONT. CASE(CRL) 2/2014, CONT.
CASE(CRL) 3/2012, and O.M.P.647/2012. These court records including the trial
court record are essential for the appellant to make her submissions on both
the factual and legal issues that arise in the present appeal and for this Hon’ble
Court to hear the present appeal.
PRAYER
It is,
therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be
pleased to allow this Application and :-
(i)
To summon the
paper and electronic records of the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition Civil No.
1280/2012, CONT. CASE(CRL) 2/2014, CONT. CASE(CRL) 3/2012, and O.M.P.647/2012;
(ii)
To pass such
other orders and further orders as may be deemed necessary on the facts and in
the circumstances of the case.
FOR WHICH ACT
OF KINDNESS, THE APPELLANT/ PETITIONER SHALL AS IN DUTY BOUND, EVER PRAY.
FILED BY:
SEEMA SAPRA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER-IN-PERSON
DRAWN ON:
17/11.2017
FILED ON:
17/11/2017
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
I.A. NO. OF
2017
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 10342 OF 2016
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 10342 OF 2016
IN THE MATTER
OF
SEE*MA SAPRA …Appellant/Petitioner
Versus
COURT ON ITS
OWN MOTION … Respondent
AFFIDAVIT
I, Seema
Sapra, aged 46 years, D/o Late A. R. Sapra, presently homeless in New Delhi, do
hereby solemnly state and affirm as under:
1. That I am
the Appellant/ Petitioner and am familiar with the facts and circumstances of
the case and am competent and authorized to swear this Affidavit.
2. That I have
drafted, read and understood the accompanying Application to summon the Delhi
High Court records in Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012, CONT. CASE(CRL)
2/2014, CONT. CASE(CRL) 3/2012, and O.M.P.647/2012 with affidavit and I state
that the contents of the application are based on my personal knowledge and on
other sources which I believe to be true and correct.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:
I, the
above-named Deponent, do hereby verify that the contents of the above Affidavit
are true and correct to my knowledge, no part of it is false and nothing
material has been concealed there from.
Verified at
New Delhi on this 17th day of November 2017.
DEPONENT
No comments:
Post a Comment