IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTRAGHAND, AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 11 of 2002 Nandan Singh Naganyal S/o Sri Dhan Singh Naganyal, Naib Tehsildar Jakhauli … Petitioner. Versus 1. State of Uttaranchal, 2. Sesssions Judge Chamoli, District Chamoli .. Respondents. Sri V.K. Bisht, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Virendra Kumar Advocate for the petitioner. Sri Nandan Arya, learned A.G.A. for the State. Dated: 19-2-2008 Honble B.C Kandpal, J. By way of this petition, the petitioner, who was Naib Tehsildar and the Investigating Officer in criminal case crime No 04 of 1995, U/Ss 306, 201, 149, 498-A/34 I.P.C., Patwari Chetra Bura, Tehsil and District Chamoli has challenged the judgment and order dated 24-10- 2001, contained in Annexure-1 to this petition, passed by respondent No.2, i.e. Sessions Judge Chamoli, in Sessions Trial No. 12/ 1998, State Vs. Pitinga Singh and 38 others. 2. Brief facts of the case giving rise to this petition are that a first information report was lodged by Gram Pradhan Bura of 20-7-1995 before Qanoongo Nandprayag regarding the deaths of three girls of his village and the case was registered as crime No. 04/ 1995, U/Ss 306, 498-A, 149 and 201/ 34 I.P.C. against Kheem Singh and others. The petitioner being Naib Tehsildar was appointed an Investigating Officer of the aforesaid case, who after completion of the investigation, submitted the charge sheet against 39 persons. 3. The Trial of the aforesaid criminal case was conducted by Sessions Judge, Chamoli and vide judgment and order dated 24-10-2001 the learned Sessions Judge Chamoli acquitted all the accused persons. The Sessions Judge Chamoli vide the aforesaid impugned judgment and order awarded a compensation of Rs. 500 /- each to all the accused persons. The learned Sessions Judge in the impugned judgment and order passed certain remarks against the Investigating Officer which amounted to strictures by observing that the investigating Officer without having any substance in the matter submitted the charge sheet against the accused persons deliberately in order to harass the accused persons. The learned Sessions Judge also observe in the impugned judgment that the charges against the accused persons were false and the proper investigation was not done by him before filing the charge sheet. The learned Sessions Judge also directed that it is open for the government to recover the amount of compensation to be awarded in favour of the accused persons from the salary of the petitioner. 4. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid remarks and the strictures passed against the investigating Officeer, the petitioner has approached this court by way of the petition U/S 482 of the Cr.P.C. 5. Heard Sri V.K. Bisht Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Virendra Kumar Advocate for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for respondent No.1 and perused the record. 6. It is true that the learned Sessions Judge was free to observe that the investigation was not conducted properly in the case while acquitting the accused persons, but at the same time when the Sessions Judge intended to pass any strictures or any adverse remarks against the petitioner, which cast a stigma on the career of the petitioner, then the Sessions Judge while passing those adverse remarks against the petitioner, should have taken into consideration that a notice to the investigating Officer / petitioner was essential to be served so that the petitioner might have an opportunity to place his case in his defence. The learned Sessions Judge only after giving an opportunity to the petitioner of being heard could have passed the strictures against him. The Hon'ble Apex Court in a case reported in A.I.R. 2004 Supreme court 4324, State of West Bengal and others Vs. Babu Chakraborty, has observed that- "In our view the High Court was not justified and correct in passing observations/strictures against appellants 2 and 3 without affording an opportunity of being heard, and it is in violation of catena of pronouncements of this Court that harsh or disparaging remarks are not to be made against the persons and authorities whose conduct comes into consideration before courts of law unless it is really necessary for the decision of the case. Likewise, the directions issued by the High Court to the trial Court to lodge a complaint to the Magistrate having jurisdiction for prosecuting appellants 2 and 3 for having committed an offence under S. 58 of the Act read with Ss. 166 and 167 of the Indian Penal Code is not warranted. The observations made by the High Court are liable to be expunged and accordingly, we expunge the same including the direction to lodge a complaint against appellants 2 and 3." 7- In the instant case it appears that the learned Sessions Judge without affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, has passed certain adverse remarks and strictures against him, which has definitely cast a stigma on the entire career of the petitioner. 8- For the reasons stated above, I set aside the adverse remarks and strictures passed by the learned Sessions Judge in the impugned judgment and order dated 24-10-2001, in S.T. No. 12/98, State Vs. Pitinga Sing and others U/Ss 306, 149, 201, 498-A/34 I.P.C. against the petitioner. The learned Sessions Judge is directed to afford an opportunity to the petitioner for placing his case in his defence before him and only after that the Sessions Judge would pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. 9- The learned Sessions Judge is also directed to decide the matter within a period of six months from the date of filing of certified copy of this judgment. 10- With the aforesaid observations the petition is finally disposed of. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) ISB