1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R S.B.CRIMINAL MISC.PETITION NO.262/2002 Executive Officer, Cantonment Board, Nasirabad, Ajmer Vs. The State of Rajasthan S.B.CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C. ***** DATE OF ORDER : 17th APRIL,2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.P.PATHAK Mr.Prakash Chandra Jain, for the petitioner Mr.N.R.Saran, Public Prosecutor BY THE COURT: By filing this Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has prayed that the remarks made against him in Cr.Case No.65/88(Katak Mandal Vs. Amar Singh) by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nasirabad being unwarranted and require to be expunged. Briefly stated the facts necessary for disposal of the present petition are that a complaint was filed by the Cantonment Board, Nasirabad, through its Executive Officer against Amar Singh respondent accused, who at the relevant time was S.H.O., Police Station, Nasirabad with the allegations that on 15.9.1987 at 9:30 P.M. There was an information regarding illegal butchery of buffaloes and in that regard help was sought from the S.H.O., who in turn sent two constables for the purpose. Buffaloes meat which was found in a truck which 2 was standing in front of Butchery House and the same was inspected by the veterinary doctor and as per his opinion, it was not fit for human consumption. The Executive Officer of the Cantonment Board under Section 251 and 215 of the Cantonment Board Act, 1924 passed orders but the S.H.O. Amar Singh showed unwarranted haste in the matter and the truck was allowed to be taken away. On filing the complaint, the matter was tried and the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nasirabad acquitted the accused Amar Singh S/o Shiv Singh of the charge for committing offences under sections 217, 188 & 166 I.P.C. read with Section 29 of the Police Act vide judgment and order dated 24.3.1999. The petitioner having felt aggrieved with the observations made by the trial court in its judgment has filed this petition with the prayer to expunge the observations to the effect that petitioner had not properly acted in the matter and was not a competent officer to deal with the situation. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor and carefully perused the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial court. The learned counsel has invited my attention to paras 22 & 23 of the impugned judgment and submitted that the observation in relation to negligence on part of the petitioner made by the trial court requires to be expunged. After taking into consideration entire facts and circumstances of the case and carefully examining the observations made by the trial court, I do not find that the trial court has expressed any thing which is not relevant in the facts 3 and circumstances of the case tried. The trial court has observed that the decision which was required to be taken at the relevant time was not taken and the matter was not properly dealt with in accordance with the rules and if that be so then the observation made in my humble opinion cannot be said to be unwarranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. I do not find any merit in this petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. In the result, the petition stands dismissed. (S.P.PATHAK) J. BKS/-