i|H<?? f. :'''"- "• IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTIS6ARH AT BILASPUR W.P.fCr.) NO.'7EZ;3^> OF 2009 Petitioner , Ramjanam Kushwaha, S/o Laxman Prasad, aged 42 years, R/o Rajbahar, P.S. Jhalari, Distt. Surguja (Chhattisgarh) Versus Respondents ^* ^:^ i^.V-A"^*": ..-••-" .^'••"^ ^•"'^"^^•f: .rf*' y<°,-~ A®*- /l. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Department of Home Affairs, &.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur 2. Judicial Magistrate First class, Ramanujganj, Distt. Surguja (Chhattisgarh) WRIT PETITTON UNbER AKTLCLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA r/'.i II^AJ^.^./^C; T-UI- ni— •^MF-I HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPU Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Writ Petition (Cr.) No.7058 of 2009 Petitioner Respondents versus Ramjanam Kushwaha State of Chhattisgarh and another Present: Ms. Sharmila Singhai, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Deputy Government Advocate for the State/respondent No.1. WriLPetitLon under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India ORAL ORDER (Passed on 10th November, 2010) Heard on admission. 2. The petitioner was an accused in Criminal Case No.488/98 decided by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ramanujganj on 29- 12-2008 (Annexure P-1). The prosecution was for allegedly committing offences under Sections 409, 420,467,468,471,474 of the Indian Penal Code. At the end of trial, the learned Judicial Magistrate found that the prosecution has failed to bring home the charges beyond reasonable doubt and, thus, the petitioner has been acquitted, however, in paragraph 54 of the judgment of acquittal dated 29-12-2008 (Annexure P-1), the learned Judicial Magistrate Has made the following remarks: "54. 3n? <!i*^ui'i*i ^ ^-xF E(T7T- 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 474 1TT.?.1^. ^ WffElcT cf^ W?T rTSST ^ rTFTT ^TOT t '3^ STCT ^CTpT SPT^ .-Ep^fsT Tf ?TR dl4<!c|l^l sft? ''t? Ri<*+|c;l<;l'11 ?^RT 7TOT 'TOT t < ..;' %'Ss1" r.ii-* ^??s:'3.:~;'^' ^E ;•'?' u- sfk 5^ ^h Ri":tc;i\li'ii w? ^ d7RUT ft c?i?l<14Rl ^TCT TTOT t q?^ ^ WTd? ^ Ut ^HT TTsR ^t ^TT ^T rR? ^il^Ml-l^ Rjf")^!'; TC c^ f^ -OTqcRT y^\ ^g\ ^n-1" 3. The instant writ petition has been preferred seeking expunction of the above-quoted remarks in the impugned judgment. 4. Ms. Sharmila Singhai, learned counsel appearing for "the petitioner has placed reliance on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the matter of 'K' A Judicial Officer, (2001) 3 SCC 54 and in h/lanish Dixit and others vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2001 SC 93 and contended that such an observation was uncalled for and that the petitioner was not noticed by the Court before making the observation. 5. In the matter of 'K' A Judicial Officer (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in paragraph 11 ofthe reportthus: "11. A Subordinate Judge faced with disparaging and undeserving remarks made by a court of superior jurisdiction is not without any remedy. He may approach the High Court invoking its inherent jurisdiction seeking expunction of objectionable remarks which jurisdiction vests in the High Court by virtue of its being a couri: of record and possessing inherent powers as also the power of superintendence. The view is settled by the law laid down in Raghubir Saran (Dr) v. State of Bihar, AIR 1964 SC 1. However, if a similar relief is sought for against remarks or observations contained in judgment or order of the High Court the aggrieved judicial officer can, in exceptional cases, approach this Court also invoking its jurisdiction under Articles 136 and/or 142 of the Constitution. With the law laid down by this Court in Dr Ragftufa/rSaranand theSfafeofy.K V. Ato/iGe'Wafm.AIR 1964 SC 703 it is well-settled that the power to expunge remarks exists for redressing a kind of grievance for which the law does not provide any other remedy in express terms though it is an extraordinary power. Any passage from an order orjudgment may be expunged or directed to be expunged subject to satisfying the following tests: (i) that the passage complained of is wholly irrelevant and unjustifiable; (//) that its retention on the records will cause serious harm to the persons to whom it refers; (iii) that its expunction will not affect the reasons for the judgment or order." 6. In IVIanish Dixit and others vs. State of Rajasthan (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in paragraph 43 of the report thus: "43. Even those apart, this Court has repeatedly cautioned that before any castigating remarks are made by the Court against any person, particularly when such remarks could ensue serious consequences on the future career of the person concerned he should have been given an opportunity of being heard in the matter in respect of the proposed remarks or strictures. Such an opportunity is the basic requirement, for, otherwise the offending remarks would be in violation of the principles of natural justice. In this case such an opportunity was not given to PW 30 (Devendra Kumar Sharma). (State of U.P. v. Mohd. Naim, (1964) 2 SCR 363 : (AIR 1964 SC 703 : 1964 (1) Cri LJ 549), Ch. Jage Ram v. Hans Raj Midha, (1972) 1 SCC 181 : (AIR 1972 SC 1140 :1972 Cri LJ 768), R.KLakshmanan v. A.K.Srinivasan, (1975) 2 \ SCC 466 : (AIR 1975 SC 1741 : 1975 Cri LJ 1545); Niranjan Patnaik v. Sashibhusan Kar, (1986) 2 SCC 569 : \(AIR 1986 SC 819 : 1986 Cri LJ 911); State of Karnataka \ v. Registrar General, 2000 (5) Scale 504 : (2000 AIR SCW 2794 : AIR 2000 SC 2626)." 7. On a perusal of the impugned judgment, wherein the remarks have been made against the petitioner, it would appear that the learned Judicial Magistrate was of the opinion that the prosecution failed to produce evidence to prove the ingredients of the offences under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 474 of the Indian Penal Code. The conduct of the petitioner as a public servant was not a subject matter before the learned Judicial Magistrate. In the criminal case, the only issue to be tried was whether the prosecution has established by produdng evidence about the complicity of the petitioner in the offences under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 474 ofthe Indian Penal Code. His efficiency as a Bank employee or his conduct was neither an issue nor the petitioner was ever called upon to submit explanation about the same. Thus, relying on the above-mentioned judgmentsof the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of 'K' A Judicial Officer (supra) and in Manish Dixit and others vs. State of Rajasthan (supra), this Court is of the opinion that the observation made by the learned Judicial Magistrate in paragraph 54 of the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 29-12- 2008 (Annexure P-1) deserves to be and is hereby expunged. 8. The writ petition is allowed. ———— Sd//- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge ,]l,.l