APPLN.3243-10 - 1 - VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 3243 OF 2010 Mrs. Sangita Ravi Bhojane ...Applicant Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents *** Mr. S. B. Shetye i/b Shreekant V. Gavand , for the Applicant. Mr. P. A. Pol, APP for the Respondent-State. Mrs. V. K. Khatau & N. A. Shaikh, for Respondent No.2. *** CORAM: V. M. KANADE J. DATE : AUGUST 24, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and respondent No.2. The applicant has filed this application for expunging the remarks made by the learned Magistrate in a judgment and order dated 28th January, 2010. 2. The applicant was examined as a witness in the case instituted by the Municipal Corporation. Her reply to one of the questions put in the cross-examination was recorded. According to the APPLN.3243-10 - 2 - learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant, the reply was wrongly recorded. He invited my attention to the answer which was recorded by the learned Magistrate which reads as under- “I have prepared the list of those cases which are related with Data Processing Unit for withdrawal but the new commissioner doesn’t understand it. In Roman ward she uttered “R;kauk letrp ukgh”. The learned counsel further submitted that in fact the correct answer was as under- “For that proposal for withdrawal will have to be made in respect of all the cases pertaining to data processing and the orders of the courts and Incharge Assistant Commissioner, will have to be made aware of the same, who is new. “( R;kpk izLrko ;kph Jh;qr iznhi iokl izHkkjh lgk;;d vk;qDr gs uohu vlY;keqGs R;kaP;k’kh ppkZ d#u letokos ykxsy)”. 3. The learned counsel further submitted that while deciding the criminal case, the learned Judge has made an observation that the answers given by the witness amounts to insubordination of her superior i.e. the Municipal Commissioner. He submitted that thereafter the APPLN.3243-10 - 3 - learned Magistrate proceeded to give a direction to the Municipal Corporation to hold a departmental inquiry and take a suitable action against her and submit its report before the Court within a span of three months. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that in the first place her answer was wrongly recorded by the learned Magistrate. Secondly, he submitted that such a direction could not have been given by the learned Magistrate while deciding the case on the basis of the evidence given by the witness. In my view, there is much substance in the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant. Without going into the question as to whether the answer given by the witness was correctly recorded or not, the learned Magistrate should not have given a direction to the Municipal Corporation to hold a departmental inquiry and to take a suitable action against the applicant for insubordination. It would be relevant to note that the observations made by the learned Magistrate reads as under- “On this point answer given by P.W. No.1 Mrs. Bhojane itself shows disrespect and insubordination of her superior i.e. Municipal Commissioner. Under this circumstance, court cannot act as a spectator. So there is a necessity to refer this APPLN.3243-10 - 4 - issue before the Municipal Commissioner with direction to see as to whether any departmental enquiry can be initiated against Mrs. S. R. Bhojane. If yes, in confidential manner before the court, within a span of three months, from the date of receipt of judgment.” 5. In my view, the said observation made by the learned Judge and further direction given by him is beyond the scope of his authority and as such the said observation, therefore, will have to be expunged from the record. 6. The application is therefore, allowed. The aforesaid observation made by the learned Magistrate is quashed and set aside. The direction given by the learned Magistrate to the Municipal Corporation to initiate the departmental inquiry and to take a suitable action, is also set aside. The writ petition is accordingly allowed in terms of prayer clause (b) and (c). . The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. [ V. M. KANADE J.]