[ad_1]
After a petitioner in a 2014 case claimed that he was a sitting judge of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana and also a practising advocate before the Supreme Court and various High Courts, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court directed the Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, Madurai, to register a case against him and conduct an investigation.
Justice B. Pugalendhi took note of the submissions made by the respondents in the case that the petitioner, Capt. Dr. V.R.C. Pandiyan, had intimidated them by sending representations to the Chief Secretary and other officials. It was said that the petitioner had sent them emails claiming that he was a HC judge.
When the court asked the petitioner about his conduct of projecting himself as a judge, he claimed that it was true. He was appointed as an Additional Judge of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, he said and showed a copy of a notification, dated September 19, 2021, on his mobile phone.
On the directions of the court, the HC Registry took a printout of the notification referred by the petitioner and prepared a certificate as required under Section 65 B of the Evidence Act, 1872.
The court observed that the notification created suspicion over its genuineness. Moreover, the petitioner himself had filed an additional typed set of papers, wherein an experience certificate, dated October 25, 2023, issued by the Madras High Court Advocates Association was enclosed, which said the petitioner was practising as an advocate in the SC and various HCs. The certificate further said he had 10 years of active practice in civil matters.
The court observed that on one hand, he claimed to be a practising advocate, but on the other, he claimed that he was a sitting HC judge. The notification, dated September 19, 2021, cited by the petitioner should be investigated, the court said, and directed the SP, CBI, to register a case and conduct the investigation after collecting the mobile phone of the petitioner and the certificate from the Registry.
The investigation officer should ascertain the genuineness of the alleged 2021 notification and proceed further in accordance with law, by taking appropriate action against those responsible for its fabrication. The investigating officer should also verify whether the petitioner had availed himself of any benefits out of it.
The court dismissed the petition filed in 2014 by the petitioner who had sought a direction to the authorities to execute a sale deed in his favour with respect to a shed at the Industrial Estate at Keela Nagachi near Uchipuli in Ramanathapuram district.
[ad_2]
Source link
