2016 (3) TMI 1429 - HC - Indian Laws

Seeking expunction of certain offending/objectionable remarks in the judgment - inherent power and jurisdiction of this Court to expunge the adverse remarks made by a subordinate Court and considerations involved in expunging those remarks - HELD THAT - A careful perusal of the 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 petition claiming expunction of above-stated adverse remarks and seeking quashment of impugned notice proposing to take action against the petitioner. In the matter of MANISH DIXIT AND ORS. VERSUS STATE OF RAJASTHAN 2000 (10) TMI 970 - SUPREME COURT , it has been held by the Supreme Court that castigating remarks against any person should not be made and the Court is required to give opportunity of being heard in the matter in respect of the proposed remarks or strictures and the same is basic requirement, otherwise offending remarks would be in violation of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner as a investigating officer has investigated the offence in question and charge-sheeted the accused persons and they were tried for the charge-sheeted offences and eventually they were convicted by the judgment rendered by learned Sessions Judge. Certain discrepancies have been pointed out by learned Sessions Judge in the investigation while delivering the judgment and reached to the conclusion that the petitioner tried to save the accused persons and further held that the counter case to S.T. No. 21/2014 was also investigated by the petitioner, whereas, it ought to have been investigated by other police officer and on that basis learned Additional Sessions Judge made offending and adverse remarks against the petitioner and also recorded that the inquiry be conducted against the petitioner and thereafter further action be taken against him. In the present case, the offending remarks made by learned Additional Sessions Judge in judgment being unmerited and undeserving deserves to be expunged in the ends of justice - adverse remarks made by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti, against the petitioner are hereby expunged - petition allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Expunction of adverse remarks made by the Second Additional Sessions Judge.
2. Validity of the show-cause notice issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Police) based on those remarks.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Expunction of Adverse Remarks:

The petitioner sought the expunction of certain disparaging remarks made by the Second Additional Sessions Judge in the judgment dated 09.12.2014. These remarks criticized the petitioner for not conducting a just, fair, and proper investigation and suggested that the petitioner attempted to protect the accused. The petitioner argued that these remarks were made without affording him an opportunity to explain or defend himself, thus violating principles of natural justice. The petitioner contended that these remarks were unnecessary for the decision of the case and caused serious prejudice to his reputation and career.

The court referenced several Supreme Court judgments to establish the principles for expunging adverse remarks. Key judgments included *The State U.P. v. Mohammad Naim* (AIR 1964 SC 703), which stated that the High Court can expunge remarks to prevent abuse of the court's process or to secure the ends of justice, but only in exceptional cases. The Supreme Court laid down three tests for expunction: whether the party had an opportunity to explain, whether there was evidence justifying the remarks, and whether the remarks were necessary for the decision of the case.

The court also cited *Dr. Raghubir Saran v. State of Bihar* (AIR 1964 SC 1), which emphasized the duty of judges not to make irrelevant remarks, and *Niranjan Patnaik v. Sashibhusan Kar* (1986) 2 SCC 569, which held that harsh or disparaging remarks should not be made unless necessary for the case's decision.

Applying these principles, the court found that the petitioner was not given an opportunity to explain the adverse circumstances noted by the Additional Sessions Judge. The remarks were neither necessary nor justifiable for the case's decision, as the accused were convicted for the charged offenses. Therefore, the remarks breached the tests laid down in *Mohammad Naim* and were in violation of the principles established in *A.M. Mathur v. Pramod Kumar Gupta* (1990) 2 SCC 533. Consequently, the court decided that the offending remarks deserved to be expunged.

2. Validity of the Show-Cause Notice:

The show-cause notice issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Police) on 16.09.2015, which relied on the adverse remarks, was also challenged. The petitioner argued that this notice, which proposed departmental action, was based on the unjust and undeserving remarks made by the Additional Sessions Judge.

Given that the adverse remarks were expunged, the basis for the show-cause notice was invalidated. The court held that the show-cause notice and any subsequent proceedings against the petitioner were to be quashed as a necessary corollary to the expunction of the remarks.

Conclusion:

The writ petition was allowed, and the adverse remarks made by the Second Additional Sessions Judge in paragraphs 32, 35, and 37 of the judgment in Sessions Trial No. 21/2014 were expunged. Consequently, the show-cause notice dated 16.09.2015 and any subsequent proceedings against the petitioner were quashed. The petition was allowed without imposing any costs.