BEFORE THEJION'BLB HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Cr. M.P. No. ? 54 ^j^.^/^^^j '••^pt: 3^ Of2009 Applicants :1) &.H. 9^^y- •A . "^0: s^;'si <£> P.S.Maravi, S/o. Shri Balvant Singh Maravi, Caste Gond, aged about 54 years, the then Station House Officer, Balod Police Station, presently at Inspector, Police Department, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Ghanshyam Dube, S/o. Shri Davendra Prasad Dube, aged about 52 years, Head Constable, the then Police Station Balod, Presently at Traffic Department, Durg, New Police Line, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) Vs. Non-appUcant State of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate Durg Police Station Balod, District Durg (C.G.) s^ VM .g- ^- APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 48^2 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. i@-^;\.,.^'^'^ 111^^. > HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Cr. M.P.No. 139 of 2009 A^PLICANTS P. S. Maravi and another VERSUS NON APPLICANT State of Chhattisgarh Shri Pankaj Agrawal counsel forthe applicants. Shri Vaibhav Goverdhan PL for the State/non applicant. APPUCATION UNDER SECTION482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. ORDER (11.08.2010) ' Present petition has been fited for expunging the adverse remarks made against the applicants in paragraph -18 & 19 of the impugned judgment dated 27.11.2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Balod, DistrictDurg in CriminalAppeal No. 16of2008. : 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 08.08.2006 FIR (Ex.P-4) was registered by Ghanashyam Dubey (PW-4) - the Head Constable to the effect that on receiving a secret information, near Jhalmala triangle, onej motor cycle carrying three persons was stopped and on being asked on^ ofthem had disclosed his name Gopiram and from him Rs. 15,500, Satta- Patti, one dot pen and one motor cycle were seized. After investigation challan was filed by the police on 25.08.2006 against Gopiram and Nandumal Sindhi under section 4A of Public Gambling Act 1867. 3. So as to hold the accused/applicants guilty, prosecution has examined 03 witnesses in support of its case and thereafter vide; impugned judgment and order dated 14.01.2008 the learned Magistrate has convicted the accused Gopiram under section 4A of Public Gambling Act 1867 whereas acquitted accused Nandumal Sindhi of the said charge. IIBflt'l M -^:sy -2-- 4 . Against the order of learned Magistrate an appeal was preferred by accused Gopiram in Criminal Appeal No. 16 of 2008 which has beeq allowed and he has been also acquitted of the charge levelled against him. However while passing the judgment of acquittal of accused Gopiram learned appellate Court has made the following observations in paragraph Nos. 18 & 19 ofthe same. "18. W^Jf ^ll^i^ ^ 3Tc[cTt^=T ^ ^ W^: t f^ ^t. 3TI^. 4H^|cT| 3fk H. 3TR. ^i ^ ^T, ^TcT^T f^Tt^ ^sT ^?t t 3fk 3T^T '^1' ^rf^T ^fT IT^^ 7T^ ^, ~ ^ 'C^TPT ^^i4)^ ^riWr^ff ^r wFfrar TPTT t afk ^ wft cbi^cii^i ^t. OT^. 'c^ f^T^T ^T Ft^TF €tW^ ^TF 11 ^FT ^I^K ^ chl4c||^| f^TT ^Tm afk .3^^^ 'c^t ^TPTF Rc^d ^ ^f^T ^f t 3fk Wrt cbl4cl|^| ^^ ^l^lld^ ^ W^T ^rr=TT ^TT 3T^Tf^ ^f^RT ^7 t ^cf GTTlRrf^ ^l^ldl t | " "19. slldl^ ^ ^SW ^P-TT W^ f^TT^ ^A-4 STT^ ^T 8.8.06 ^ 13.10 ^ ^TT^T ^ 455 sHYT ~^ ^t TPft tl ^TiT 3ritaT^ff ^ ^T?f ^ ^Tl' iT^ €tTra^ f^TT §TT 3fk ^ ^ OTT^ ^ 3ft^ ^T^ 4 ^ ddl^Fl ^^ W^T ^ 446 ^T ^^ f^TT 7RTF ^TT ?N d^hld ^^^f ^RT f^Tt^ TT f^^TT ^ ^f^f ^^TT t f^ A 3TT^. TRT^Tt ^ft^ n.3TN. y-i^^i^i ^p^ Tn? 'cf w^ ~^ ^^ ^ 'c^rf^r ^ ^ft ^TcF)N ^t ^T^ ^^T ^T t ^-\[^\^ ^t ^ TTFTc?TT f^f^ Rr1<s|ch^ ^^1's|c£i f^rn" TTZ[T t 3f^ ^TC^ ^- 3TT£TN ^T^ ^ftt f^) ^. 3TR. y-l^^l^ ^ ^Tt^ ^l^cbd ^. ^ft.^jft. 05 ^/462 ^T ^P W^\ W^ ^. Tft-1 ^T^ ^TCTT TC^, ^ie^ ^TT ^ '^[T^ ^RPft t 3f^ ^TfT W^ ^T^f ^\ ^TT^ 4-lt^chd ^t ^.^Tt-2 ^HT^t 11 '^^ ^ft ^^ W^ ^tTIT t ^ cTPT ^l^l-l ^ f^ ^t ^ ^t '^FPT c??t -^ ^<ft iRTT^ t[ z^ ZFTRUT ^T STT f^ ^R ^e\l^l^chd ^jp<T ^^ cft 7Pft sft ^ft 3TcTTT ^ Tft^r ^l^chd T^cf ^R^T "TC^ ^ ^nh? ^- \j^} inpft ^jTKft | ^T -9~c?7R ^t ch|4c||^| t^\ 3Tf^ Pl'c<-i1^| 'cT ^^HT -c^ zf^ f 3fk ^ ^^?t ^ f^TTJft ^r ^T^ -^ft f |' 5. Contention of the counsel for the applicants is that the remarks| made by the appellate Court are totally uncalled for and were noi necessary for the adjudication of the matter. He submits that findings given by the appellate Court below in the paragraphs quoted above have been given behind the back of the applicants without giving them any opportunity of hearing and therefore the Same are not permissible under the law. hle further submits that the findings recorded by the appellate Court may adversely affect the careers of the applicants. 'f- ..^-N^^ ...£'»' -s- 6. State Counsel has assisted this Court. He, however, does not dispute the fact that the aforesaid findings were recorded by the appellate Couri: without g.iving any opportunity of hearing to the applicants. i 7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available oh record. 1 8. Law in respect of making adverse remarks against the policej officers or any other person involved in the investigation is very clear an( keeping in view the same no such adverse remarks can be made against the police officers behind their back. A bare reading of the abov^ remarks clearly goes to show that the same were totally uncalled for and even without making the same the appellate Court could have decided the appeal. Moreover, the remarks have been made by the appellate Court against the applicants without giving them any opportunity of hearing and in these circumstances the same cannot be allowed to stand.i 9. In view of above this Court is of consideredopinion that thes aforesaid remarks made by the appellate Court against the applicants an totally uncalled for and warrant expunction in this petition. Accordingly the petition is allowed and the remarks quoted above made by th^ appellate Court in paragraphs 18 & 19 ofits judgment dated 27.11.2008 are hereby expunged. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. ——— Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge ^