1963 (3) TMI 87 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure to expunge remarks from a judgment.
2. Finality of judgments and the inherent powers of the High Court.
3. Conditions under which the High Court may exercise its inherent powers to expunge remarks.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure to expunge remarks from a judgment:

The primary issue in this case was whether the High Court has the jurisdiction under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure to expunge remarks made in its judgment or order by a court against a person who is neither a party nor a witness to the proceeding. The appellant, a medical officer, sought to expunge remarks made by the Munsif-Magistrate, which he felt were unjustified and would affect his future official career. The High Court dismissed the revision petition, leading to this appeal.

2. Finality of judgments and the inherent powers of the High Court:

The judgment discusses the finality of judgments and the inherent powers of the High Court. It was argued that the High Court had no jurisdiction to expunge remarks from a judgment that had become final. The judgment clarifies that Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure preserves the inherent power of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.

3. Conditions under which the High Court may exercise its inherent powers to expunge remarks:

The judgment outlines the conditions under which the High Court may exercise its inherent powers to expunge remarks. The power to expunge remarks is an extraordinary power that exists for redressing grievances for which the statute provides no remedy in express terms. The High Court must be fully satisfied that the passage complained of is wholly irrelevant and unjustifiable, that its retention on the records will cause serious harm to the person to whom it refers, and that its expunction will not affect the reasons for the judgment or order.

Detailed Analysis:

Jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 561-A:

The judgment elaborates on the scope of Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which preserves the inherent power of the High Court. The section reads: "Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent power of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice."

The judgment references various case laws to illustrate differing views on whether the High Court has the power to expunge remarks from a judgment that has become final. It cites the Judicial Committee's view that Section 561-A gives no new powers but only preserves those which the Court already inherently possesses.

Finality of Judgments and Inherent Powers:

The judgment emphasizes that a judgment of a criminal court is final and can only be set aside or modified in the manner prescribed by law. However, it also recognizes that every judge must have the unrestricted right to express his views without fear or favor. The judgment reconciles the doctrine of finality of a judgment with the necessity to give relief in appropriate cases to a person who is not a party to a proceeding if uncharitable, unmerited, and irrelevant remarks are made against him without any foundation.

The judgment states: "The other decisions taking the contrary view infringe the fundamental principle of jurisprudence that a judgment made by a Court, however inferior it may be in the hierarchy, is final and it can only be modified in the manner prescribed by the law governing such procedure."

Conditions for Exercising Inherent Powers:

The judgment outlines specific principles for the exercise of inherent powers to expunge remarks:
1. A judgment of a criminal court is final and can be set aside or modified only in the manner prescribed by law.
2. Every judge must have an unrestricted right to express his views without fear or favor.
3. There is a correlative and self-imposed duty in a judge not to make irrelevant remarks or observations without any foundation.
4. An appellate court has jurisdiction to judicially correct such remarks in exceptional cases where they would cause irrevocable harm to a witness or a party not before it.

Applying these principles to the instant case, the judgment concludes that the remarks made by the Munsif-Magistrate were not wholly unjustified. The High Court had exercised its discretion in refusing to expunge the remarks, and there was no ground for the Supreme Court to interfere with the High Court's decision in its extraordinary jurisdiction.

Conclusion:

The appeal was dismissed, with the judgment concluding that the High Court has inherent power to expunge remarks from a judgment, but this power should be exercised with great caution and only in exceptional cases where the remarks are wholly irrelevant, unjustifiable, and likely to cause serious harm. The judgment reinforces the importance of maintaining the independence of the judiciary while ensuring that judicial officers do not make unfounded and harmful remarks.