IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.7333 OF 2005. APPLICATION NO.7333 OF 2005. APPLICATION NO.7333 OF 2005. Shri Jaising Mohansing Rathod. ..Applicant. versus Kirtikumar Gajanand Patel & Ors. ..Respondents. .... Mr. Shirish Gupte, Senior Counsel, i/b. Balkrishna Joshi, for the Applicant. Mr. A.P. Mundargi, i/b. S.V. Marwadi, for Respondent Nos. 1 to 5. Mr. D.A. Nalawade, for Respondent Nos. 7 and 8. Mr. D.P. Adsule, APP, for Respondent-State. .... CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.S. OKA, J. : A.S. OKA, J. : A.S. OKA, J. DATE DATE DATE : 30TH JULY,2008. : 30TH JULY,2008. : 30TH JULY,2008. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant. The prayer in this application invoking section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is for quashing and setting aside the alleged adverse, inappropriate and unjustified remarks against the applicant in the impugned judgment and order dated 18th February 2005 passed by the learned Sessions Judge at Dadara and Nagar Haveli. By the said judgement and order, the accused were acquitted of various offences alleged against them. 2. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant has taken me through various findings recorded by the learned Sessions Judge. He pointed - 2 - out that the applicant was not at all associated with the investigation right from the inception and he has subsequently replaced the investigating officer. He submitted that on the basis of the observations made by the learned Sessions Judge, departmental proceedings are sought to be initiated against the petitioner. He invited my attention to clause (7) of the operative part of the judgement and order dated 18th February 2005. 3. I have carefully considered the submissions. I have also perused the relevant paragraphs of the judgement and order which are referred to by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant. The observations made by the learned Judge cannot be construed as any strictures passed by any learned Judge against the petitioner. The learned Judge while considering the question whether the guilt of the accused is established, has commented upon the investigation in general. The learned Judge has not recorded any adverse remarks or adverse findings personally against the applicant. In the paragraphs of the judgment referred to by the learned Counsel, the learned Judge has recorded reasons for not holding the accused guilty. - 3 - 4. If any disciplinary proceedings are initiated against the applicant, it is obvious that the proceedings will be decided on its own merits by the disciplinary authority considering the material brought on record before the said authority. 5. Subject to what is observed above, no case is made out for expunging any observations made in the judgment. The application is rejected. [ A.S.OKA, J.] A.S.OKA, J.] A.S.OKA, J.]