1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Miscellaneous Application (C482) No. 712 of 2011 Gumani Singh Rana Prosecuting Officer, District Champawat at present posted as Prosecuting Officer District Pithoragarh, Uttarakhand …..…Petitioner Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand through District Magistrate, Champawat, Uttarakhand 2. District Magistrate, Champawat District Champawat 3. District and Sessions Judge Champawat Uttarakhand ……….Respondents Mr. R.S. Sammal, Advocate, present for the petitioner. Mrs. Mamta Bisht, A.G.A., present for the State. Hon'ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard. 2. By means of this petition moved under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.) the petitioner has sought expunction of adverse remarks made by District and Sessions Judge, in his order dated 06.04.2011, in Criminal Miscellaneous Case no. 0100004 of 2011 (04 of 2011) against the petitioner Gumani Singh 2 Rana who was Prosecuting Officer in District Champawat. 3. Brief facts of the case are that a criminal trial was pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Champawat, registered as criminal case no. 452 of 2009, relating to offence punishable under section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955, against one Ramesh Chandra. At the conclusion of the trial, the trial court acquitted accused Ramesh Chandra from the charge of offence punishable under section 3/7 of the aforesaid Act vide order dated 12.01.2011. It appears that the criminal appeal was filed before the Sessions Judge, Champawat alongwith application moved under section 5 of Limitation Act, on behalf of the State. The explanation for delay in filing the appeal was stated to be that the mother of Gumani Singh Rana (Prosecuting Officer) fell ill whereafter she died as such, it took time to the Prosecuting Officer (Gumani Singh Rana ) in obtaining certified copy of the order before filing the appeal. There was hardly 20 days delay in filing the appeal as per report of the office . While dismissing the application under 3 section 5 of the limitation Act, the Sessions Judge, Champawat, in his order dated 06.04.2011, has made following observation: “vfHk;kstu vf/kdkjh vius dk;Z ds izfr vR;ar ykijokg gS] o ltx ugha gSa] vU;Fkk mUgsa fof/k dk dkbZ Kku ugha gSA ;fn mijksDr rF; vfHk;kstu vf/kdkjh ds laKku esa gksrs] rks fulansg fu.kZ; ikfjr gksus ds 2&3 fnu ds vanj gh fu.kZ; dk voyksdu djus ds mijkar fu.kZ; dh lR; izfrfyfi izkIr djus gsrq vkosnu fd;k x;k gksrk vkSj fu.kZ; dh lR; izfrfyfi izkIr djus ds mijkar vihy nk;j djus gsrw izLrko ftyk eftLVª] pEikor] ds dk;kZy; dks le; ls Hkstk x;k gksrk**A 4. The above observations, and the facts and circumstances of the case against the petitioner Gumani Singh Rana, Prosecuting Officer, are totally uncalled for unnecessary and unjust, particularly when it has nowhere been found that his mother was not ill, and had not died in January/February 2011. 5. Therefore, the petition under section 482 Cr.P.C, is allowed, and the above quoted adverse remarks from the impugned order are hereby expunged. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Parul 14.10.2011