IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.P.RAY WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD AUGUST 2011 / 12TH SRAVANA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 3944 of 2005() -------------------- SC.229/2004 OF ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT (FAST TRACK COURT NO.1) (ADHOC), MAJERI .................. PETITIONER : -------------------- V.SHAHUL HAMEED, CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PEERU VEEDU (A.V.M), PETTAH, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADVS. SRI.K.RAVEENDRAN SRI.ANIL KUMAR M.SIVARAMAN RESPONDENT : ----------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. B. JAYASURYA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Mn B.P. RAY, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C. No. 3944 of 2005 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 3rd day of August, 2011. O R D E R Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 2. The petitioner was the investigating Officer in Crime No. 643 of 2002 of Manjeri Police Station corresponding to C.P. No. 26 of 2004. While acquitting the accused persons by judgment dated 04.07.2005 in S.C. No. 229 of 2004, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-I, (Ad Hoc), Manjeri made certain remarks against him which is quoted below: “I have no words to express the dereliction of duty committed by the investigating officer. Being a high ranking officer, he should aware that due to his foul play, the lives of the citizens would be endangers sincerely believe that this officer is not fit for conducting any investigation in a serious crime.” 3. The learned Public Prosecutor states that no notice was given to the petitioner before giving such a remark. The petitioner has retired in the mean time. It is settled law that if any remarks is to be given against any police officer who is investigating the case, the court should have noticed the officer Crl.M.C. No. 3944/2005 -:2:- against whom proposed remarks to be made. In view of the authoritative pronouncement in Manish Dixit & others v. State of Rajasthan - AIR 2001 SC 93, it is incumbent on the part of the learned trial court to give notice. Admittedly, no notice was issued. Therefore, I have no hesitation to expunge the remarks quoted above from the aforesaid judgment. This Crl.M.C is allowed as above. sd/- B.P. RAY, JUDGE. rv