1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO. 436/1999 Pradeep Kumar Vyas vs. District & Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur & Anr. Date of Order: 20/11/2008 Presents HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAGHUVENDRA S. RATHORE Mr. Anant Bhandari, for the petitioner(s). Mr. B.K. Sharma, PP for State. This criminal misc. petition has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer that the adverse remarks made by the learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur in his order dated 19.09.1997 be expunged. 2. Broadly stated the facts of the case are that a representation was made by Kajod Mal son of Nathu Lal Meena to Tehsildar Amer and the same was sent to the Police which came to be registered as F.I.R. No 245/97 at Police Station Amer for the offences under Sections 420, 468 & 471 I.P.C. The primary allegation made by the informant in the report was that his 'pucca house' situated at village Kukas in Tehsil Amer and one Smt. Amarjeet Kaur daughter of Hakam Singh filed an affidavit before the Tehsildar Amer and deposed about the said house as her property. On the basis of the said affidavit, she procured a solvency certificate and it is alleged in the report that the said act was to grab the house owned by Kajod Mal. 2 3. After lodging of the report, the investigation commenced and it was routed through many authorities of the police department. During the investigation the case file was also placed before the petitioner and appropriate directions in respect of investigation were given by him. 4. Thereafter, Smt. Amarjeet Kaur filed an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. before the court of Sessions, Jaipur District, Jaipur. The said bail was granted to the accused-person by the learned Sessions court vide is order dated 19.11.1997. In paras 5, 6 & 7 of the order the learned Sessions Judge has passed remarks adverse to the petitioner. It is to expunge the said remarks that the petitioner has filed the present petition before this court. 5. It is also to be noted that the complainant Kajod Mal Meena had also challenged the said order passed by the learned Sessions Judge on 19.11.1997 by way of filing of criminal misc. revision petition (69/98) because of the various observations made by the learned Sessions Judge in the said order. The criminal misc. petition filed by Kajod Mal came to be decided by the High Court on 28.01.1998 wherein it was held that the various observations made in the order dated 19.11.1997 would not adversely effect the rights of the contesting parties in different criminal and civil litigations. 6. The primary submission made by the learned counsel 3 for the petitioner is that the adverse remarks against the petitioner has been made by the learned Sessions Judge while deciding an anticipatory bail on 19.11.1997, though the same were neither warranted nor justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. Further, he has submitted that the learned Sessions Judge, has committed gross illegality in passing the said adverse remarks without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner which was in violation of the principles of natural justice. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance in support of his submission, on the cases of Radhey Mohan Srivastava versus The State of Rajasthan 1982 RLW 651; State of M.P. & Ors. versus Nandlal Jaiswal & Ors. (1986) 4 SCC 566; U.P. State Sugar Corpn. Ltd. Versus U.P. State Sugar Corpn Karamchari Assn. & Ors. (1995) 4 SCC 276 and the case of State of Karnataka versus Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka (2000) 7 SCC 333. The learned Public Prosecutor had not much to submit in the matter because so far as violation of principles of natural justice is concerned, it cannot be disputed. 7. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the rival parties. A close look to the facts and circumstances of the case goes to show that the investigation in the matter had gone through many hands and it was also placed before the Higher authorities. It was during the course of investigation that the petitioner had issued directions in respect of the investigation, to the Investigation Officer. The 4 learned court below has passed the impugned remarks against the petitioner in an anticipatory bail application, which in my considered view did not have much relevance so as to make the same in the order of granting anticipatory bail to the accused- person. However, the fact remains that the learned Sessions Judge has grossly erred not giving any opportunity of hearing whatsoever to the petitioner, before making such adverse remarks against the petitioner in paras 5, 6 & 7 of the order dated 19.11.1997. 8. It is a settled principles of law, since long, that adverse remarks should be made by the courts only when there are justified reasons and extremely necessary to do so. In the normal course the court should restrain himself from passing adverse remarks against any party/authority/officer. Ever since, the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. Versus Mohammad Naim A.I.R. 1964 SC 703 and till date, the aforesaid principles of law are being reiterated consistently and the same still holds good. This court in the case of Radhey Mohan Srivastava (supra) observed thus:- “It stands well recognized that in matters of making disparaging remarks against person or authorities whose action or conduct comes into consideration before Court of law in cases to be decided by it, it is relevant to consider (a) whether the part whose conduct is before the Court, had an opportunity of explaining or defending himself (b) whether there is evidence on record bearing on that conduct justifying the remarks and (c) whether it is necessary for the decision of the case, as an integral part thereof, to administer justice. It is also be kept in view that judicial pronouncements 5 must be judicial in nature and should not normally depart from sobriety, moderation and reserve. In the case before me the learned Judge has made certain observations against the learned Magistrate, who decided the cases as the trial Court. There cannot be any doubt that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has no jurisdiction in censuring the conduct of the petitioner (Magistrate) when he was neither party to the proceedings, nor he had an opportunity to explain his conduct. Merely because the learned Additional Sessions Judge disagreed with the findings arrived at by the learned Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, the revisional Court ought not to have written any such remarks which cannot be said to be parliamentary. Disagreement with the finding of the subordinate court should be based more on law and reasons rather than on personal denunciation of the presiding officer of the inferior court. A revisional court is competent to find faults with the findings arrived at by the lower court, but there is no authority vested in it, nor there is any justification for its denuncing the presiding officer of the subordinate court as a person.” 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held in the case of State of Karnataka (supra) in paras 9 & 11 observed as under:- “9. Learned counsel for the State was quite right in contending that it was not the occasion for learned Judges of the High Court for giving vent to their general apathy towards the present system of administration of criminal justice. The direction that the Home Minister and the Home Secretary of the State shall report to the High Court regarding their reaction towards the observations made in the judgment is nothing but an exercise in redundancy, for their reaction cannot be different from the views expressed by the Judges themselves. How could they be different, as it is unexceptional that the system should improve! The problems posed by the Judges have already engaged the attention of the Law Commission. On more than one occasion the Commission has submitted its report for consideration by Parliament. But putting the blame largely on 6 the police force of the State for all the ills pointed out by the learned Judges, without data or material or evidence in this case, is not a course which can meet with our approval.” 11. Judicial disposition is definitely different from a paper presented for seminar discussion. Nor can it be equated with a dissertation. Judicial decorum requires that judgments and orders should confine to the facts and legal points involved in the particular cases which Judges deal with. Maybe, sometimes Judges would, perhaps wittingly or even unwittingly, jut outside the contours of the litigation, but even such overlappings should be within the bounds of propriety and sobriety. But there is no justification for traversing so far beyond the canvass as was done by the High Court in this case or to cover areas which are grossly extraneous to the subject-matter of the case. If the subordinate courts are also to be tempted and encouraged to follow suit by travelling far outside the scope of the lis, the consequences would be far too many. Demoralisation of departments would badly erode the already impaired efficiency of our forces. It is time to remind ourselves once again that judgment should confine to the scope of the case.” 10. It would be also relevant to note the observation of the Apex Court in the case of State of M.P. & Ors. (supra) which reads thus:- “43. We may observe in conclusion that judges should not use strong and carping language while criticising the conduct of parties or their witnesses. They must act with sobriety, moderation and restraint. They must have the humility to recognise that they are not infallible and any harsh and disparaging strictures passed by them against any party may be mistaken and unjustified and if so, they may do considerable harm and mischief and result in injustice. Here, in the present case, the observations made and strictures passed by B.M. Lal, J. were totally unjustified and unwarranted and they ought not to have been made.” 7 11. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the settled principles of law, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned adverse remarks were unwarranted and unjustified. Moreover, the said remarks have been made without following the principles of natural justice. Above all, this court while deciding the petition filed by the complainant Kajodmal Meena on 28.01.1998 had also held that the various observations made in the order of 19.11.1997 would not adversely effected rights of the parties. 12. Consequently, this criminal misc. petition deserves to be allowed and it is hereby allowed. It is ordered that the adverse remarks made by the learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur made in paras 5, 6 & 7 of its order dated 19.11.1997, while deciding bail application No. 692/97, stands expunged. Further, it shall be deemed to have been expunged from the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur dated 19.11.1997, from the date of the passing of the order. (RAGHUVENDRA S. RATHORE),J. RameshJr.P.A. S-5. 8