Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Madan Lal Sharma vs Punjab And Haryana High Court on 23 April, 2026
Author: Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha
Bench: Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1631 OF 2008
MADAN LAL SHARMA Appellant(s)
VERSUS
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT Respondent(s)
O R D E R
1. This criminal appeal under Section 19(1)(b) of the Contempt of
Courts Act, 1971, is against the judgment and order of the Division
Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Crl. OCP No. 10 of
1983 dated 24.09.2008.
2. The short facts relevant to the filing of the present Criminal
Appeal, against conviction under Section 12(1) of the Contempt of
Courts Act, 1971 and sentence of simple imprisonment of one month,
are that; in the proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition
Act, the Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, decided a batch of
references under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act on
04.01.1980. The landowners filed appeals before the High Court,
being Regular First Appeal Nos. 658, 659 and 660 of 1982 through
the appellant herein as their counsel on 16.12.1981.
3. In view of the fact that there was a delay in filing the first
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
appeal(s), applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act were
KAPIL TANDON
Date: 2026.04.27
17:10:46 IST
Reason:
filed in the aforesaid first appeals by advocate Mr. Ravinder Seth,
1
who had replaced the appellant as counsel for the landowners. When
the applications for condonation of delay were taken up by the
learned Single Judge of the High Court on 31.08.1982, it was found
that the dates on certified copies of the Judgments supplied by the
Additional District Judge had been tampered with. This was
apparently done to overcome the hurdle of limitation.
4. Learned Single Judge on the very same day ordered the District
Judge (Vigilance), Haryana to hold an inquiry to find out the dates
on which applications for certified copies were filed and the dates
when the copies were prepared and supplied. Learned Single Judge
also directed that in case the District Judge (Vigilance) comes to
the conclusion that there is tampering of the order, he should
proceed further and get a criminal case registered.
5. Even before the report of the District Judge (Vigilance) was
received, the learned Single Judge of the High Court, by his order
dated 28.01.1983, directed that steps should be taken for
prosecuting the accused. The learned single judge also issued
notice to the appellant to show cause as to why contempt
proceedings should not be initiated against the appellant, and
further directed that a copy of the report be sent to the State Bar
Council for necessary action.
6. The District Judge (Vigilance) submitted a report on
31.01.1983, concluding that there was, in fact, tampering of dates
in the certified copies.
7. In the meantime, suo motu Criminal Contempt Petition was
registered by the High Court. Based on the directions issued by the
2
learned Single Judge in his order dated 28.01.1983 and after
receipt of the report of the District Judge (Vigilance) dated
31.01.1983, a Division Bench which took up the contempt case on
13.05.1983 and ordered that since criminal proceedings that have
been instituted on the basis of the same facts, it would be proper
to await the outcome of the criminal proceedings and adjourned the
Contempt Petition sine die. On 23.08.1983, the contempt case was
taken up by the Division Bench, and it was again directed to be
listed for hearing after the decision in the Section 482 petition
filed by the contemnor/appellant for quashing the criminal
proceedings.
8. It is apparent from the record that the Division Bench of the
High Court had been adjourning the contempt proceedings from time
to time, as is evident from orders passed on 17.03.2006, 28.02.2008
and 11.09.2008, etc. Finally, the High Court took up the contempt
case and passed the order impugned before us by convicting and
sentencing the appellant.
9. This appeal came up for hearing on 07.11.2008, almost two
decades back, when the appeal was admitted and the judgment and
order of the High Court was stayed.
10. When the matter came up for final hearing on 18.02.2026,
noticing that criminal case is still pending consideration despite
this Court’s specific direction on 05.01.2001 for expeditious
disposal of the case, a report of the Registrar General of the High
Court of Punjab and Haryana explaining the delay in disposal was
called for. The Registrar General filed his report, the relevant
3
portion is as follows;
“REPORT REGARDING THE PENDENCY OF CRIMINAL CASE
TITLED “HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA VS.
MADAN LAL SHARMA” SINCE 1983 DESPITE DIRECTION
OF HON’BLE SUPREME COURT DATED 05.01.2001 TO
CONCLUDE TRIAL WITHIN SIX MONTHS.
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India vide order dated
18.02.2026, directed the undersigned to inquire
into the matter and to submit detailed report
regarding the long pendency of the criminal case
since 1983, registered against Madan Lal Sharma,
despite orders of Hon’ble Supreme Court and
Hon’ble High Court.
In compliance with the directions of Hon’ble
Supreme Court, details of case, registered
against Sh. Madan Lal Sharma, was sought vide
High Court’s letter dated 27.02.2026 (Annexure-
A) and in response thereto, the District and
Sessions Judge, vide letter dated 02.03.2026,
transmitted the report dated 02.03.2026
(Annexure-B), submitted by the concerned
Judicial Officer, wherein, it was stated that as
per the report of concerned Ahlmad, posted in
the Court of Sh. Rajnish K. Sharma, the then
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh, the
original file of case titled “High Court of
Punjab and Haryana vs. Madan Lal Sharma“,
pending in the Court of Sh. Rajnish K. Sharma,
was sent through proper channel to the
Registrar, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in
reference to letter No.769/Crl./SCA, dated
06.07.2013, of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High
Court (Annexure-C).
It was also stated in the report of Sh. Sachin
Yadav, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh,
that during his tenure, the said record was not
received back from Hon’ble Supreme Court or from
any other Court. It was also stated that case
file was sent to Hon’ble Supreme Court vide
letter No.CJM/Ahl-13/465, dated 10.07.2013
(Annexure-D). It was also stated that in absence
of original record, the explanation as to why
the case remained pending since 1983 cannot be
given. It was also stated that in absence of
original case file no judicial proceedings are
being carried out in this case.
4
Subsequent to the submission of report by the
District & Sessions Judge, Chandigarh and the
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh, record of
the proceedings, being carried out in the case,
was also requisitioned, perusal of which reveals
that the case remained pending for awaiting the
original case file upto 11.08.2017 and on that
date the case was adjourned to 04.10.2017.
Perusal of record of proceedings also reveals
that the docket was not put up from 11.08.2017
to 05.03.2026. This fact has also been mentioned
in the order dated 05.03.2026 itself (Annexure-
E). In the said order, separate explanation of
the concerned Ahlmad was called for 30.03.2026.
The record of proceedings also contains
explanation of the Ahlmad. As per explanation of
Naresh Kumar, Ahlmad, inadvertently, he could
not put up the docket file on 04.10.2017.
Perusal of record also reveals that the case
file was misplaced as per letter No.1462, dated
27.11.2012, of the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Chandigarh and the process of reconstruction of
the same was also carried out. Copy of index
prepared for reconstitution of case file is
annexed as (Annexure-F).
Further, in response to this High Court’s letter
dated 10.03.2026, it was informed by the
District & Session Judge, Chandigarh, vide email
dated 10.03.2026, that copy of order dated
05.01.2001, passed in SLP (Criminal) No.1192 of
2000 was received from the Assistant Registrar,
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, vide letter
No.2517, dated 08.01.2001, and that the same was
delivered to the then Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Chandigarh vide dispatch No.692, dated
23.01.2001, against proper receipt on the same
date.
In view of above, the original record of the
case was requisitioned by Hon’ble Supreme Court
subsequent to the date of passing of order by
Hon’ble Supreme Court, i.e. 05.01.2001, vide
which directions were issued for conclusion of
trial within six months. In view of above
circumstances, the undersigned is unable to
submit complete report regarding non-conclusion
of trial, at this stage.
sd/-
(Registrar General)”
5
11. We had indicated that the Division Bench of the High Court had
been adjourning the contempt proceedings for the reason that the
criminal case is still pending disposal. Having adjourned the
contempt proceedings sine die to await the decision of the Criminal
Court, the High Court, all of a sudden, found it compelling to
proceed further and disposed of the contempt case by the order
impugned herein.
12. We are of the opinion that the truth of the fact relating to
whether the appellant was involved in tampering and whether he
committed the crime for which he is being prosecuted is common for
the criminal case as well as the contempt case. There are no facts
independent of those relevant for the criminal case, which would
fall for consideration in the contempt case. Under these
circumstances, particularly having awaited the decision in the
criminal case, the High Court should not have proceeded further to
decide the contempt case. We can justifiably conceive of a
situation where the appellant could be acquitted in the criminal
case and in which case, the decision of conviction in the contempt
would clearly be incongruous. This will be difficult to explain.
In this view of the matter, we have no hesitation in setting aside
the conviction as well as the sentence of the appellant in the
contempt case. Ordered accordingly.
13. Learned counsel for the appellant and the respondents have
submitted that the criminal case has not proceeded further because
the original records have been summoned lying with this Court since
2013. The Registry will verify this fact and ensure that the record
6
is remitted back to the Trial Court immediately. There shall be adirection to the Trial Court to take up and dispose of the criminal
case as expeditiously as possible.
14. For the reasons stated above, Criminal Appeal No. 1631 of 2008
against the judgment and order dated 24.09.2008 passed by the
Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Crl. OCP
No. 10 of 1983 stands allowed.
…………………………………………………………………………J.
[PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA]…………………………………………………………………………J.
[ALOK ARADHE]NEW DELHI;
APRIL 23, 2026
7
ITEM NO.117 COURT NO.6 SECTION II-B
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Criminal Appeal No(s). 1631/2008
MADAN LAL SHARMA Appellant(s)
VERSUS
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT Respondent(s)
IA No. 78383/2024 – PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURESDate : 23-04-2026 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHEMr. Shreeyash Uday Lalit, Adv.(A.C.)
Ms. Ishita Khurana, Adv.
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Prasanna S., Adv.
Ms. Tarannum Cheema, Adv.
Mr. Akshay Nagarjuna, Adv.
Mr. Akash Singh, Adv.
Mr. Prasanna B., Adv.
Mr. Sanjay Jain, AOR
For Respondent(s) :Mr. Nikhil Nayyar, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Abhikalp Pratap Singh, AOR
Ms. Kashish Jain, Adv.
Ms. Siya Singh, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. The Criminal Appeal stands allowed in terms of the Signed
Order.
2. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(KAPIL TANDON) (NIDHI WASON)
COURT MASTER (SH) ASSTT. REGISTRAR(NSH)
(Signed Order is placed on the file)
8