1986 (4) TMI 357 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Expunction of derogatory remarks against a prosecution witness.
2. Evaluation of the prosecution's evidence and the application of legal presumptions.
3. Necessity and appropriateness of adverse remarks by the Appellate Judge.

Summary of Judgment:

1. Expunction of Derogatory Remarks:
The appeal was filed by a prosecution witness seeking expunction of derogatory remarks made against him by a High Court Judge while allowing Criminal Appeal No. 31 of 1982. The appellant, who was a Cabinet Minister at the time of the appeal, had resigned due to these remarks.

2. Evaluation of Prosecution's Evidence:
The case involved the arrest of the first respondent for accepting a bribe of Rs. 2,000, with marked currency notes recovered from his briefcase. The prosecution's case was based on the testimony of eleven witnesses, including the appellant (P.W.8). The Special Judge convicted the first respondent u/s 5(2) read with 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code. However, the High Court acquitted the first respondent, finding the prosecution's evidence insufficient and the respondent's explanation for the currency notes plausible.

3. Necessity and Appropriateness of Adverse Remarks:
The Supreme Court found that the Appellate Judge had unnecessarily magnified the appellant's role and failed to apply legal presumptions against the first respondent. The Judge's comments on the appellant's credibility were deemed uncalled for, as the appellant was not a material witness. The Appellate Judge also overlooked Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which provides immunity to witnesses from prosecution u/s 165A of the Indian Penal Code. The Supreme Court emphasized that judicial remarks should be made with sobriety, moderation, and restraint, especially when they affect the character and reputation of individuals.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, directing that the derogatory remarks against the appellant be expunged from the High Court's judgment. The Court reiterated the importance of judicial restraint and the necessity of making adverse remarks only when absolutely integral to the case's decision.