9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 1429X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I, 307/34, 323 and 323/34 and related offences and ultimately, the accused persons were charge-sheeted and thereafter tried for said offences before the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti being S.T. No. 21/2014. Learned Additional Sessions Judge delivered its judgment on 09.12.2014 and convicted three accused persons therein for the offence punishable under Section 307/34 of the IPC. Learned Additional Sessions Judge in his judgment has made certain remarks, which are said to be disparaging and undeserving against the petitioner holding that the petitioner has not made just, fair and proper investigation to the said offences and made an attempt to save the accused therein from clutches of the law and also came to categorical conclusion that enquiry and subsequent action against the petitioner is absolutely necessary. Thereafter the Sub Divisional Officer (Police), Sakti by its memo dated 16.09.2015, relying upon certain observations made by learned Additional Sessions Judge in its judgment, issued show-cause to the petitioner as to why appropriate action should not be taken pursuant to the observation made by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti against him. 1.3 Feelin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... just, fair and proper and no interference is required, as such, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed with cost(s). 4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, given thoughtful consideration to the submissions raised therein and also gone through the record with utmost circumspection. 5. In order to decide the dispute raised by the petitioner at the bar, it would be appropriate to notice the relevant paragraphs, which are said to be adverse and further said to have been adversely affected the petitioner in the judgment rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge. It states as under:- 6. A careful perusal of the afore-stated extracts of the judgment would show that learned Additional Sessions Judge in its judgment not only criticized the conduct of the petitioner for not making just and fair investigation by making sweeping remarks against him, but also recommended further action against him and upon enquiry and relying upon the said observation/finding, the Sub-Divisional Officer (Police) has issued show-cause notice to the petitioner for initiating departmental/disciplinary action which has given cause of action to the petitioner to file the instant writ p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , after it has become final and culled out the principles as under:-- 7-8. From the aforesaid discussion the following principles emerge: (1) A judgment of a criminal Court is final; it can be set aside or modified only in the manner prescribed by law. (2) Every Judge, whatever may be his rank in the hierarchy, must have an unrestricted right to express his views in any matter before him without fear or favour. (3) There is a correlative and self-imposed duty in a Judge not to make irrelevant remarks or observations without any foundation, especially in the case of witnesses or parties not before him, affecting their character or reputation. (4) An appellate Court has jurisdiction to judicially correct such remarks, but it will do so only in exceptional cases where such remarks would cause irrevocable harm to a witness or a party not before it. 29. When the question arises before the High Court in any specific case whether to resort to such undefined power it is essential for it to exercise great caution and circumspection. Thus when it is moved by an aggrieved party to expunge any passage from the order or judgment of a subordinate Court it must ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in these qualities, it will be neither good for the judge nor for the judicial process." Their Lordships have further concluded that intemperate comments should not be made by the Judges and observed as under:-- "14. The Judge's Bench is a seat of power. Not only do judges have power to make binding decision, their decisions legitimate the use of power by other officials. The judges have the absolute and unchallengeable control of the court domain. But they cannot misuse their authority by intemperate comments, undignified banter or scathing criticism of counsel, parties or witnesses. We concede that the court has the inherent power to act freely upon its own conviction on any matter coming before it for adjudication, but it is a general principle of the highest importance to the proper administration of justice that derogatory remarks ought not to be made against persons or authorities whose conduct comes into consideration unless it is absolutely necessary for the decision of the case to animadvert on their conduct." 7.6 In the matter of Manish Dixit and others v. State of Rajasthan AIR 2001 SC 93, it has been held by the Supreme Court that castigating remarks again ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . State of Uttar Pradesh and another (2012) 6 SCC 491, State of Gujarat and another v. Justice R.A. Mehta (Retired and others (2013) 3 SCC 1, Om Prakashs Chautala v. Kanwar Bhan and others (2014) 5 SCC 417 and State of Uttar Pradesh and others v. Anil Kumar Sharma and another (2015) 6 SCC 716. 8. A conspectus of the judgment mentioned hereinabove would show that though judge has unrestricted right to express his views in any matter before him but there is corresponding duty in a judge not to make unmerited and undeserving remarks specially in case of witnesses or the parties who are not before him affecting their character and reputation unless it is absolutely necessary for just and proper decision of the case and that too after affording an opportunity of explaining or defending that witness or the party as the case may be, judicial decisions must be judicial in nature and it must show judicial respect to the litigant/party, witnesses who come before the court for their cause. It is also well settled that this Court in exercise of inherent or extraordinary jurisdiction can expunge those remarks made by subordinate court following the three tests laid down in M ohammad Naim (supr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sts laid down in Mohammad Naim (supra), and such an offending remarks are in teeth of judgment of Supreme Court in matter of A.M. Mathur (supra) and as such retention of those remarks would cause legal harm and injury to the petitioner as he is proposed to be charge-sheeted, on one hand and on the other hand expunction of adverse remarks will not affect the validity or otherwise of the judgment rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge. As such the offending remarks made by learned Additional Sessions Judge in above-stated paragraphs in judgment being unmerited and undeserving deserves to be expunged in the ends of justice. 10. As a fall out and consequence of the above-stated discussion, the writ petition is allowed and adverse remarks made by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti, in S.T. No. 21/2014 (State of Chhattisgarh v. Gangaram Bareth and others) in paragraphs 32, 35 and 37 against the petitioner are hereby expunged and as a necessary corollary, show-cause notice dated 16.09.2015 (Annexure P/1) issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Police), Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa and subsequent proceedings (if any) against the petitioner are hereby quashed. 11. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
