1975 (8) TMI 142 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the notice issued to the Advocate.
2. Allegations of misuse of power and abuse of process by the District Magistrate.
3. Request for expunction of adverse remarks made by the High Court against the District Magistrate.

Summary:

1. Legality of the notice issued to the Advocate:
The appellant, a District Magistrate, issued a notice to an Advocate, Mr. Srinivasan, requiring his appearance in court. The Advocate filed a petition u/s 561-A of the Criminal Procedure Code, arguing that the notice was arbitrary and an abuse of process since there was no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code empowering the Magistrate to issue such a notice to an Advocate not connected with the proceedings. The High Court quashed the notice, holding that the action of the District Magistrate constituted a grave misuse of his power and a flagrant abuse of the process of the court.

2. Allegations of misuse of power and abuse of process by the District Magistrate:
The High Court found that the notice issued by the District Magistrate was not in good faith and was intended to humiliate the Advocate and the Bar, who had earlier passed a resolution against the Magistrate's behavior. The High Court observed that the appellant's report to the High Court was grossly inaccurate and misleading, and the action taken against the Advocate was highly arbitrary and devoid of legal sanction.

3. Request for expunction of adverse remarks made by the High Court against the District Magistrate:
The appellant sought the expunction of certain adverse remarks made by the High Court. The Supreme Court applied the tests from State of U.P. v. Muhammad Nain, considering whether the appellant had an opportunity to explain his conduct, whether there was evidence on record justifying the remarks, and whether the remarks were necessary for the decision of the case. The Supreme Court found that the appellant had adequate opportunity to explain his conduct, there was ample material justifying the adverse comments, and the remarks were integral to the High Court's reasoning. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, stating that no case for interference was made out.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, dismissing the appeal and maintaining the adverse remarks against the District Magistrate, with no order as to costs.