TMI Blog1996 (9) TMI 643X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 95. In connection with that case Smt. Geeta Kalita and her husband Shri Bhagya Kalita were arrested on August 2, 1995; and on their production before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guwahati on the following day, (August 3, 1995) they were remanded to the police custody for seven days on the prayer of the Investigating Officer, While in police custody Smt. Kalita complained of severe abdominal pain in the night of August 8,1995 and, therefore the police took her to MMCH. There she was first treated by Dr. K.S. Dowerah and, under his advice, was admitted in the hospital as an indoor patient. On the following day the appellant No. 1 examined her and diagnosed that she was suffering from peptic ulcer and appendicitis. The appellant No. 1 then advised the Deputy Superintendent of the hospital to transfer her to the Guwahati Medical College Hospital ('GMCH' for short) as the facility for ultra sonography was not available in their hospital. Accordingly, the Deputy Superintendent wrote a letter to the Officer incharge of Latasil Police Station on August 9, 1995 requesting him to make security arrangements for shifting her to GMCH, However, she was not removed to GMCH and, hence, c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce her before the court by 1.30 p.m. on 29.8.1995 positively. By flouting the orders to the Court both the I/O and Dr. A.C. Bora, Superintendent, GMC Hospital have demeaned the authority of the Court without any justifiable reasons. Therefore, in order to preserve the supremacy of the rule of law, it may be necessary to take appropriate penal action against these two important and responsible functionaries. Therefore, Dr. A.C. Bora, Superintendent, G.M.C. Hospital Guwahati and the I/O are hereby directed to show cause why they should not be proceeded with for non-compliance and clear avoidance to comply Court's order. 5. Aggrieved by the above order so far as it sought to direct her release from the hospital, Smt. Kalita moved a revision petition before a learned Judge of the High Court. The learned Judge entertained that petition and passed an interim order on August 29, 1995 constituting a medical Board comprising four eminent doctors for examining Smt. Kalita and directing the I.O. not to produce Smt. Kalita before the Chief Judicial Magistrate in terms of his order, till the Board submitted its report. Following the direction of the learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The tests to the applied while dealing with the question of expunction of disparaging remarks against a person or authorities whose conduct comes in for consideration before a Court of law in cases to be decided by it were succinctly laid down by this Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Mohd. Nairn [1964]2SCR363 . Those tests are: (i) Whether the party whose conduct is in question is before the court or has an opportunity of explaining or defending himself; (ii) Whether there is evidence on record bearing on that conduct justifying the remarks; and (iii) Whether it is necessary for the decision of the case, as an integral part thereof, to animadvert on that conduct. The above tests have been quoted with approval and applied by this Court in its subsequent judgments in Jage Ram, Inspector of Police and Anr. v. Hanse Raj Midha 1972CriLJ768 , R.K. Lakshmanan v. A.K. Srinivasan [1976]1SCR204 and Niranjan Patnaik v. Sashibhusan Kar A Anr. 1986CriLJ911 . 7. We are surprised to find that in spite of the above catena of decisions of this Court, the learned Judge did not, before making the remarks, give any o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... If the learned Judge's reasoning to make the impugned remarks is taken to its logical conclusion, it would mean that whenever a superior Court sets aside a finding of a lower Court, which is patently wrong, the former gets a charter to make vituperative remarks against the latter simply because it had recorded such a finding. Before drawing any conclusion that an inferior body or Court has recorded a wrong finding with an ulterior motive or for an oblique purpose the superior body or Court, as the case may be, must demonstrate that there are materials - other than the patently wrong finding - which impels it to so conclude. Else, the conclusion would be presumptuous and justice and fairplay would be causalities . 11. Now that we have found, applying the first two tests of Mohd. Nairn's case (supra) that the impugned remarks cannot be justified, the question whether it satisfies that third test also need not be gone into. However, we will be failing in our duty if we do not advert to the phraseology the learned Judge has used while condemning the conduct of the appellants. In Mohd, Nairn's case (supra) this Court while laying down the three tests (quoted e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
