IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.P.RAY FRIDAY, THE 15TH JULY 2011 / 24TH ASHADHA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 640 of 2008() ------------------------ CC.76/2001 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MANJERI .................... PETITIONER: ------------- ABOOBACKER CHENGAT, DIRECTOR OF PROSECUTION (ADMINISTRATION) (RETIRED), PARAPPANANGADI, NEDUVA P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.K.DAMODARAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.ALAN PAPALI SRI.O.V.MANIPRASAD RESPONDENT: --------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI. B. VINOD, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15.07.2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRL.M.C. NO. 640/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE 1 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 20.04.2007 IN C..C NO. 76/2001 PASSED BY THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MANJERI. ANNEXURE 2 : TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C. NO. 76/2001 ON THE FILE OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MANJERI. ANNEXURE 3 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 24.08.2007 IN CRL.M.C. 1973/2007 OF HONOURABLE HIGH COURT. ANNEXURE 4 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 06.06.1997 IN CRL.A. NO. 80/1997 OF SESSIONS COURT, MANJERI. ANNEXURE 5 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.05.2002 IN CRL.A. NO. 157/1996 OF SESSIONS COURT, MANJERI. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rv B.P. RAY, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C. No.640 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 15th day of July, 2011. O R D E R Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 2. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner challenges the unpalatable remarks given by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Manjeri while disposing of C.C. No. 76 of 2001 filed under Section 468 and 420 r/w Section 34 IPC. Unpalatable remarks are quoted herein below: “25. During the preparation of the judgment I find a particular aspect in this case, the casual manner in which the case was dealt with by the Assistant Public Prosecutor in charge of this case who was the Senior most Assistant Public Prosecutor in the District (Deputy Director of Prosecution). Majority of the evidence adduced on the side of the prosecution appears to be on admitted or undiputed fact and on various aspects which are absolutely unnecessary in this case. Similarly, it is also noticed that the evidence was not adduced in tune with the prosecution case and done forgetting about the actual aspects that arise for adjudication. I am sure that the prosecution could have developed the case better if little more attention was given by the Senior Assistant Public Prosecutor. The learned Prosecutor could have established the appointment of PW2 as the skilled assistant and approval of the same by the University by summoning the relevant documents from the University. So, I feel that a copy of this judgment has to be forwarded to the Director General of Prosecution for action if any required.” Crl.M.C. No. 640/2008 -:2:- 3. On query, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State whether the concerned Law Officer was noticed before giving such a remark, the Public Prosecutor fairly submits that such unpalatable remark is unwarranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. In view of such statement, I direct that the remarks given in paragraph 25 of the judgment be expunged. This Crl.M.C is allowed as above. sd/- B.P. RAY, JUDGE. rv