IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.P.RAY FRIDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JULY 2011/31ST ASHADAH 1933 Crl.MC.No. 131 of 2008 (B) -------------------------- CC.65/2004 of ENQ.COMMR. & SPL.JUDGE,TRIVANDRUM DATD 28-2-2007. PETITIONER(S)/PW7 INVESTIGATING OFFICER: --------------------------------------- P.C.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, DY.S.P.(ADMINISTRATION), KOLLAM. FORMERLY DY.S.P. VACB, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADVS.SRI.ALAN PAPALI SRI.P.M.RAFIQ COMPLAINANT(S)/COMPLAINANT: --------------------------- 1. STATE (CRIME NO.12/2001 OF VACB, ALAPPUZHA, DY.S.P., VACB) REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. DIRECTOR, VACB, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.R.VENUGOPAL. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22-07-2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.MC.No. 131 of 2008 (B) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES :- ANNEXURE A : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN C.C.NO.65/2004 OF THE COURT OF THE ENQUIRY COMMISSIONERS AND SPECIAL JUDGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 28-2-2007. ANNEXURE B : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR, VACB, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, DATED 26-7-2007. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES : NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE amk B.P. Ray, J. ==================================== Crl.M.C.No.131/2008 ==================================== Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2011. ORDER 1. Petitioner, who is the investigating officer in this case and who was examined as P.W.7 has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to expunge the remarks made against him in Paragraphs 15, 21 and 26 of the judgment dated 28.2.2007 in C.C.65/2004 by the Court of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram. The prosecution case is that the accused, while working as a police constable attached to the Office of the Circle Inspector, Kayamkulam demanded Rs.10,000/- as illegal gratification from one Aneesh (P.W.1) for not registering a cheating case against P.W.1 and on 11.11.2001 at about 7.30 P.M. he demanded Rs.4,000/- to be paid on or before the evening of 12.11.2001 and the balance amount to be paid after a month. In pursuance to such a demand, the accused accepted a sum of Rs.2,000/- from P.W.1 at about 9 p.m. on 12.11.2001 from the courtyard of Ebenezer Hospital, Kayamkulam -:2:- as gratification and thereby committed the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The said accused was put to trial in C.C.65/2004 before the Court of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram for the aforesaid offences. In order to prove the prosecution case, prosecution examined 7 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 7 and marked Exts.P1 to P19 and material objects M.Os.1 to 6. The defence did not examine any witness but marked Exts.D1 to D32. After considering the evidence on record, the trial court found the accused not guilty and was acquitted of the charges levelled against him. While acquitting the accused, the trial court has made some unsavoury criticism against the petitioner who was the investigating officer in the above said case, particularly in paragraphs 15, 21 and 26 of the impugned judgment. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying on a decision in the matter of 'K' a Judicial Officer (2001 (1) K.L.T. 707 (SC) submitted that the remarks made by the court against the petitioner are uncalled for and the learned trial court should have given the petitioner an opportunity -:3:- of being heard before making such remarks and further submits that affording an opportunity is the basic requirement, otherwise the said remarks will be in violation of the principles of natural justice. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on a decisionin State of West Bengal v. Mfr.Mohammed Omar and others reported in (A.I.R. 2000 S.C. 2988) wherein the Court held as follows: “Effort should be made by Courts to see that criminal justice is salvaged despite such defects in investigation. Courts should bear in mind the time constraints of the police officers in the present system, the ill-equipped machinery they have to cope with, and the traditional apathy of respectable persons to come forward for giving evidence in criminal cases which are realities the police force have to confront with while conducting investigation in almost every case. Before an investigating officer is imputed with castigating remarks the courts should not overlook the fact that usually such an officer is not heard in respect of such remarks made against them. In our view, the court need make such deprecatory remarks only when it is absolutely necessary in a particular case, and that too by keeping in mind the broad realities indicated above.” 2. In another decision in Manish Dixit v. State of Rajasthan reported in (A.I.R. 2001 S.C. 93) in paragraph 44 the Apex Court observed as follows: “It is apposite in this context to extract the following observations made by this Court in Dr.Dilip Kumar -:4:- Deka v. State of Assam (1996) 6 SCC 234: (1996) A.I.R. SCW 4046 at p.4048): We are surprised to find that in spite of the above catena of decisions of this Court, the learned Judge did not, before making the remarks, give any opportunity to the appellants, who were admittedly not parties to the revision petition to defend themselves. It cannot be gainsaid that the nature of remarks the learned Judge has made, has cast a serious aspersion on the appellants affecting their character and reputation and may, ultimately affect their career also. Condemnation of the appellants without giving them an opportunity of being heard was complete negation of the fundamental principles of natural justice.” 3. Following the aforesaid dictum of the Apex Court, I allow this petition under Section 482 and direct that all the remarks made by the trial court against the petitioner be expunged. B.P. Ray, Judge. sl.