9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 1429X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tice 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 ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 Feeling aggrieved against the adverse remarks/observation made by learned Sessions Judge, Sakti and consequent notice issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Police), Sakti for initiating departmental action, the instant writ petition has been filed stating inter-alia that the petitioner has made investigation thoroughly and fairly to the said crime and in consequence thereof accused persons were brought to book for justice and thereafter, accused persons have also been convicted for the above stated offence. It was also averred that no opportunity of hearing was granted to him before making such adverse remarks/comments by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti and such adverse remarks were not at all necessary for just and proper disposal of the criminal trial and such undeserving remarks were made in breach of principles of natural justice. It was further pleaded that on the basis of adverse remarks, departmental action is proposed against the petitioner, therefore, impugned adverse remarks made in the j ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. 7. The short question that falls for consideration is with regard to inherent power and jurisdiction of this Court to expunge the adverse remarks made by a subordinate Court and considerations involved in expunging those remarks. In order to resolve the controversy, relevant judgments of the Supreme Court laying down the tests for expunction of adverse remarks may be profitably and usefully noticed herein below:-- 7.1 Way back in the year 1964, in the matter of The State U.P. v. Mohammad Naim AIR 1964 SC 703, the Supreme Court (Constitution Bench) has held that the High Court can in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction expunge remarks made by it or by a lower court if it be necessary to do so to prevent abuse of the process of the court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice and observed as under:-- 9. ...We think that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al 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 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. 7.3 Likewise, in the matter of Niranjan Patnaik v. Sashibhusan Kar and another (1986) 2 SCC 569, Their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that harsh or disparaging remarks are not to be made against persons and authorities whose conduct comes into consideration before courts of law unless it is really necessary for the decision of the case and followed the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Mohammad Naim(supra) and observed as under:-- 24. It is, therefore, settled law that harsh or disparaging remarks are not to be made against persons and authorities whose conduct comes into consideration before courts of law unless it is really necessary for the decision of the case, as an integral part thereof to animadvert on that cond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ert 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 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 and held as under:-- 43. Even those apart, this Court has repeatedly cautioned that before any castigating remarks are made by the Court against any person, particularly when such remarks could ensue serious consequences on the future career of the person concerned he should have been given an opportunity of being heard in the matter in respect of the proposed remarks or strictures. Such an opportunity is the basic requirement, for, otherwise the offending remarks would be in violation of the principles of natural justice. In this case such an opportunity was not given to PW 30 (Devendra Kumar Sharma). 7.7 In the matter of Prakash Singh Teji v. Northern India Goods Transport Co. Pvt. Ltd. another 2009 AIR SCW 3078, it has b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his 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 (supra), if it is really necessary to do so or prevent abuse of the process of the court or to secure the ends of the justice in exceptional cases, where those remarks would cause irreparable injury to the witness or party not before the court holding that retention of those undeserving remarks will cause harm to the person referred and the expunction will not affect the judgment rendered by the court. 9. After having briefly noticed the test(s) laid down for expunging the offending remarks and power and jurisdiction of this Court to expunge them, would bring me to the factual backdrop of the case. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
