A.F.R. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR Qriminal Miscellaneous Petition No.58 of 2008 PETITIONER : U Shankar ubey, aged about 59 years, S hri Shiv Prasad Dubey, Occutn rce, Working as Depty Superinennt f Police (Administratin) Pce Heauarters, Raipur, Ctt R/ Cii ines, Mahamd, Chhatt Versus 1. tae of Chhattisgarh, Tough tric Mistrae, Distt. Mahasan, Ctisgarh . uperinnden of Police, Mahasa, Dit. Mahasamund, Chht eio undr ti 48 f the Code of Criminal Procedure, 73} {Ptitn e Secon 2 o 19 RESPONDENTS : . hiraj h, dvocate on behalf f Mr. Ranbi Sin nsel fo the eitiner. M ha, Dep Gvt S rnds r. Akhil Misr uty o. Advocate for the tate/ espoent. ' ORAL ORDER 3 (-9—2009) Ts_petition is for quashment of the sricture passe by th Spec . hi t d e ial Ju appointed uner the chduled Castes and Seduld ribes retion of rcitie) ct, 89, Mahasamn Sci n rial o.11/200 t jugment ae 24--2007, wreby arne el Judge passed stricture agit the petitioner in par f te dgment impugned. . ve hear lred couel for he. parties and rused the judgmen mned. 3. Learn counsel the petitioner suts th the petitioer was investigaing officer and has investigated the crime, and witt affording opportUnity of hearing, the alleged stricture has been pasSed . by the Court below which is not sustainable under the law. Learned counsel vehemently argued that the petitioner is Deputy Superintendent of Police Le. responsible officer, he has investigated the crime and the stricture passed by the trial Court against him without affordin opportunity of hearing is a disparaging remark and will affect his future. g \\ _\ \ @ ma D /o S paio Sevi u tde o o, oli dq hhaisgarh, o F- 6, iv L asun isgarh St hr Dist agt mud hhat 2 Stet mund st atisgarh Present: Mr D Wankede A o r gh Marhas, cou r pto Single Bench: Honble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J dge d Se che T (Pven Atos A 19 ud in peal Sessios T N6 vide he d dtd 4 he led Spcia has ans a 29 o h ju I ha d ean ns t pe t ipug ed for bmi at n t hou \ . On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the Court below has passed stricture without providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. . While deciding the case, learned Special Judge has passed the following stricture against the petitioner: - WW%WWH%W$TI§%$W a$ww$awamwahlaaw&a&man W§Wl§ma€igan§|aaiagihmajlaaa§ W%W§%Wa&w$gw$m%w WW—mwail’rwwgwamwaw wwwmwwmwmmta‘attm Wanmmlaaw WW (man wwaTWWWWW§W§rW w$wwwwmww,%%wam W§,$WWWWHV§§W%W$ mluaiwn3gwwméwnima§wmw WW$WWW§B€QhWW$W aaahnéaiaa:w%i%wwam§glaa$mw ah . The petitioner was investigating officer and he has investigated the offence. Disparaging remark was not necessary for the disposal of the ase, even otherwise, if disparaging remark was required, the Special Judge was under obligation to afford opportunity of hearing to the m p de unheard. While dealing with the question of passing disparaging remark . / tricture, the Apex Court in the matter of Prakash Singh Teji v. Northern India Goods Transport Co. Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.1 has held that the Court should not make adverse remark unless it is necessary for ecision of the case and opportunity to explain or defend should be g iven. Para 13 of the said judgment reads thus, petitioner before passing any stricture. The maxim audi alteru altram is applicable to this case and nobody should be conmned “13. In the light of the above principles and in view of the explanation as stated by the appellant for commenting the conduct of the plaintiff, we are satisfied that those observations and directions are not warranted. It is settled law that harsh or disparaging remarks are not to be made against persons and authorities whose conduct comes into consideration before Courts of law unless it is really necessary for the decision of the case as an integral part thereof. The direction of the High Court placing copy of their order on the personal/ service record of the appellant and a further direction for placing copy of the order before the Inspecting Judge of the officer for perusal that too 009 AIR SCW 3078 c s d without giving him an opportunity would, undoubtedly, affect his carrier. Based on the above direction there is every possibility of taking adverse decision about the performance of the appellant. We hold that the adverse remarks made against the appellant was neither justified nor called for." h the same question the Apex Court in the matter of 2 has held that 8 . While dealing wit Manish Dixit and others v. State of Rajasthan y of being heard in the matter in respect of the proposed Para 43 of the said opportunit remarks or strictures is basic requirement. udgment reads thus, “43. Even those apart, this Court has repeatedly cautioned that before any castigating remarks are made by the Court against any person, particularly when such remarks could ensue serious consequences on the future career of the person concerned he should have been given an opportunity of being heard in the matter in respect of the proposed remarks or strictures. Such an opportunity is the basic requirement, for, otherwise the offending remarks would be in violation of the principles of natural justice. In this case such an opportunity was not given to PW 30 (Devendra Kumar Sharma), (State of U.P. v. Mohd. Naim, (1964) 2 SCR 363 : (AIR 1964 SC 703 : 196 (1) (1972) Cri 1 LJ SCC 549), 181 ChJage : (AIR 1972 Ram SC v. 1140 Hans : 1972 Raj Midha Cri LJ 768), R.K.Lakshmanan v. A.K. Srinivasan (1975) 2 SCC 466 : (AIR 1975 SC 1741 : 1975 Cri LJ 1545); Niranjan Patnaik v. Sashibhusan‘Kar, (1986) 2 SCC 569: (AIR 1986 SC 819 z 1986 Cri LJ 911); State of Karnataka v. Registrar General, 2000 (5) Scale 504 : (2000 AIR SCW 2794 : AIR 2000 SC 2626).” n the present case, passing any disparaging remark or stricture wa . I s Admittedly, the Court below has not afforde arks passed by the not necessary. (opportunity of explanation to the petitioner. The rem ture and will effect the future'career to secure the ends of justice, the by the Special Judge against t dated 24-4—2007 in Specia Special Judge are disparaging in na Consequently, p the petitioner in para 29 of the judgmen Sessions Trial No.11/2006 is hereby expunged. of the petitioner. etition is allowed. The stricture passed / ”/Msdfl T. P. Shanna 1., 1‘ Judge/L j 4 , d l 7.