Lalla Batham vs Principal Secretary, Ministry of Forests, Bhopal

Sujoy Paul, J.

This Court in Bhaurao Dagdu Paralkar Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, dealt with the effect of fraud. It was held as follows in the said judgment: (SCC pp. 613-14, paras 12-16)

12[14]. ... ''Fraud is proved when it is shown that a false representation has been made (i) knowingly, or (ii) without belief in its truth, or (iii) recklessly, careless whether it be true or false.''

* * *

13[15]. This aspect of the matter has been considered by this Court in Roshan Deen v. Preeti Lal (2002) 1 SCC 110 , Ram Preeti Yadav Vs. U.P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education and Others, , Ram Chandra Singh Vs. Savitri Devi and Others, and Ashok Leyland Ltd. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Another,

14[16]. Suppression of a material document would also amount to a fraud on the court. (See Gowrishankar and Another Vs. Joshi Amba Shankar Family Trust and Others, and S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by L.Rs. Vs. Jagannath (dead) by L.Rs. and others, .

15[17]. ''Fraud'' is a conduct either by letter or words, which induces the other person or authority to take a definite determinative stand as a response to the conduct of the former either by words or letter. Although negligence is not fraud but it can be evidence on fraud; as observed in Ram Preeti Yadav case6.

16[18]. In Lazarus Estates Ltd. v. Beasley (1956) 1 QB 702 Lord Denning observed at QB pp. 712 and 713 : (All ER p. 345-C) ''No judgment of a court, no order of a minister, can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud. Fraud unravels everything.''

In the same judgment Lord Parker, L.J. observed that fraud vitiates all transactions known to the law of however high a degree of solemnity. (p. 722)

[19]. These aspects were recently highlighted in The State of Andhra Pradesh and Another Vs. T. Suryachandra Rao,

Before us the sole ground urged is as to the non-observance of the principles of natural justice in not examining the complainant, Shri Virender Singh, and the witness, Jagdish Ram. The Tribunal as well as the High Court have brushed aside the greivance made by the appellant that the non-examination of those two persons has prejudiced his case. Examination of these two witnesses would have revealed as to whether the complaint made by Virender Singh was correct or not and to establish that he was the best person to speak to its veracity. So also, Jagdish Ram, who had accompanied the appellant to the hospital for medical examination, would have been an important witness to prove the state or the condition of the appellant. We do not think the Tribunal and the High Court were justified in thinking that non-examination of these two persons could not be material. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the High Court and the Tribunal erred in not attaching importance to this contention of the appellant.

23(i) After the conclusion of the inquiry, a report shall be prepared and it shall contain-

(a) the articles of charge and the statement of the imputations of misconducts or misbehaviour;

(b) the defence of the Government servant in respect of each articles of charge;

(c) an assessment of the evidence in respect of each article of charge; and

(d) the finding on each article of charge and the reasons therefor.