Wkvew § @Mw _HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Criminal Misc. Petifion No.345 of 2007 PETITIONER: Pranesh Dubey, S/o Late Shri J.P. Dubey, aged about 50 years, Occupation Service, working on the post of Police inspector at Poiice Station Sankra, Distt. Mahasamund (C.G.) Versus ‘RESPOjNDENT: State of Chhattisgarh, through District Magistrate, Mahasamund, Distt. Mahasamund (C.G.) {Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973} ' Presentt Mr. Sunii Sahu, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Rajendra Tripathi, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent. Single Bench: Hon’ble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J ORAL ORDER (25—9—2009) 1. This petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.‘ is for quashment of the stricture passed by the 15‘ Additional Sessions Judge, Mahasamund in ,. Sessions Trial No.30/2006 vide judgment dated 22.5.2007 whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge has passed stricture in paras 13 & 14 of the said judgment against the petitioner herein who was investigating Officer of the case. . Quashment of the stricture is prayed on the ground that without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and even without examination of the petitioner as witness by the 15" 'Additionai Sessions Judge, Mahasamund, learned Additional Sessions Judge has passed disparaging remarks/stricture against the petitioner which will effect his I career and passing of such stricture'was not warranted for the disposal of the case. 2 @ 3. i have heard Iearned counsel for the parties, perused the judgment - impugned especially relating to the stricture and record of the trial Court. 4. Brief case of the prosecution is that the petitioner herein was posted as Station Officer at Police Station Basna and has investigated the offence against two persons namely, Premial Naik & Smt. Surendri Bai, finally charge sheet for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the l.P.C. ' was filed and the same was tried by the lS‘ Additional Sessions Judge, ~ Mahasamund. During the course of trial, summon was issued to the i petitioner, but finally he was not examined by the trial Court. Para 11 of the judgment impugned reveals that even after sufficient attempts for examination of the petitioner, the prosecution was not able to examine «the petitioner. Finally, accused of the case were acquitted by the judgment impugned and while passing the judgment, learned Additional 7 ' Sessions Judge has passed final stricture in paras '13 & 14 of the I f judgment which reads as follows: - 1. wWaW—gwam,mam$§ma€lah wit s, at an? em mm ‘s‘r , ~ wwamewmmwmmaéiml ,:, afehtrwanarmmgazamagcalamwwm ‘ I; Whatsvnhaqmgmwwaagamaawamw ‘ mswagmweememgemawma q r ammuodro—5amaqamms esraaé’r ‘ _ , me estaremwe , l, , twwtamgewrwawwmwme j l ~ ' i memegemmawmaww > Wewegam.weveamaww€a ‘ L whwa§fgqwmahammwslww$ wammgs.w%w.amaww,m$ WW$WWWWW,W%® .r \ 1A1R 1964 SC 703 XAIR 2001 SC 93 WWW W$Wmwziiw$gmmww aw§amWwm§I 5. W%W,W%mg&$m§$3§ma%maw WWWWHWWWWWW, WW$WEWI procedure was available to the Additional Sessions Judge for compeHing Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that coercive L _ the attendance of the petitioner who was investigating officer of the case, and‘was not posted at the time of trial at Police Station Basna, instead of i compelling the attendance of the petitioner learned Additional Sessions I Judge, who was duty bound to examine the investigating officer, has ’ clOsed the case 0t the prosecution and has passed stricture which is fully irrelevant and not warranted for the disposal of the case. Before passing any stricture, no opportunity of hearing or explanation has been given to L' the petitioner and without affording opportunity of hearing, learned AdditionalSessions Judge has passed disparaging remarks/stricture which will be fatal for the career of the petitioner. Learned counsel V' placed reliance in the matter of The State of Uttar Pradesh v. Mohammad Naim1 in which it has been held by the Apex Court that Government is competent to file petition for expunging adverse remarks _ ”passed against any police officer. Learned counsel further placed reliance in the matter of Manish Dixit and others v. State of made by Court against any person — Such remarks ensuing serious consequences on future career of person concerned — Court is required to give opportunity of being heard in the matter in respect of the proposed remarks or strictures and the same is basic requirement, _ otherwise offending remarks would be in violation of the principles of J e thaws VA .Rajasthanz in which the Apex Court has held that castigating remarks, natural justice. Learned counsei also placed reliance in the matter of Kishan Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab3 in which 'the Apex Court has held that in case of any untrue statement of the witness the Court can disbelieve that part, but Court should not make disparaging remarks. Learned counsel further placed reliance in the matter of Prakash Singh , Teji v. Northern lndia Goods Transport Co. Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.4 in which ’it has been held by the Apex Court that adverse remarks should not be made unless it is necessary for decision of case and opportunity to give his reasons should be afforded to‘the concerned officer. a, 6.‘ Learned State counsel frankly admits that the Court below has not afforded opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before passing the stricture. 7. RecOrd of the Court below and the judgment impugned reveal that no. opportunity of explaining the situation has been given to the petitioner. Normally. the Court is required to decide the case on its own merits and should avoid passing any adverse or disparaging remarks except on the L'compelling circumstances necessary for dispensing the justice. The remarks passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge in paras 13 & 14 of the impugned judgment clearly reveal that these are the disparaging A remarks and will definitely effect the career of the petitioner. While dealing with passing of disparaging remarks by the Courts, the Apex a Court in the matter of Manish Dixit (supra) has held that opportunity of " l ‘ _ ‘ explanation is a basic requirement. Para 43 of the said judgment reads V j 3 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 32007 AIR sow 6642 _ '4 2009 AIR scw 3078 s F; ' r serious consequences on the d should have ing heard in th matter r strictures. Such for‘ otherwise emarks could ensue fture career of the person concerne been given a opportunity of be repect of the proposed remarks 0 opprtunity is the baic requirement, the offening, rarks ould be in violation of he d em w t in this case such an to PW 3O (Devendra Kuma justice. portunity was not gin r Mohd. Naim, (1964) 2 SCR (1) Cri LJ 549), Ch.Jage )1 SC 181 :(AIR 1972 .K.Lakshmanan v. AK. (AIR 1975 SC 1741 : tnaik . Sashiban 819 : 186 Cri V r General, 2000 (5) : AI 20 SC inciples of natural harma, (tate o U.. . 363 : (I 964 SC 703 1964 am v. Hans Raj Midha, (1972 1140 : 1972 Cri.LJ 768), R rinivasan 1975) 2 SOC 66 : 7 Cr LJ 145); Niranian Pa Kar, (1 986) 2 SCC 569'. (AIR 1986 S 911); State of Kamataka . Registra (2000 A SCW 2794 cale 504 : 626).” e sam question the Apex Court has hel in the h ing with th verse Cot should not make ad ase and pprtity to h reads ' expla r d b ts, w of of rakash (supra) that r unless itis necesary for decision of the c . Para 13 f the said judgm in o efend should e glve S 2 . Wile deal CaS remaks 1. ln the light of the aove rinciple in vie “3 b ps and n as ed y the appelt fo ff, we are satisfied h exlanatio g the cnduc of the plainti that te observations and dir omenin ections re not arranted. lt s settled aw that harsh or disparaging mde against persons nd auho s ssar t e trities whose co nto consideration f law unless it i really necey for he f the case a an integral part threof. The W r a n e nd i l a a emarks re ot to b uct comes i efore Courts o ecision o direction of the Hig Cot placin copy of their order n e personal/service record of the appllant a a further direction for placing copy o te orer before the for perusal that too h officer inspecting Judge of t he r u n in s an o s e C v hus Q 9 LJ R 00 pr op ve S) S f P v AR 1 : R SC S ( 4 195 i 5 IR v d e e ur ooun t e P th s n o e hu stat b lan r te p ot cmt hos a b d s o h ur g th e nd f h d e @ without giving him an opportunity would, undoubtedly, affect his carrier. Based on the above direction there is every possibiiity of taking adverse decision about the performance of the appellant. We hold that the adverse remarks made against the appellant was neither justified-nor called for.” ' 9. The remarks passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge are not warranted for the disposal of the case. ln the present case, the petitioner was investigating Officer and the Court below has not examined the ‘ investigating Officer before closingpf the case. lf the prosecution failed to examine the lnvestigating Officer, admittedly the petitioner herein who was the Investigating Officer was material witness for just decision of the case and the Additional Sessions Judge was empowered to summon the petitioner for impartial decision and to do complete justicein the case, but learned Additional Sessions Judge has not summoned the petitioner. Learned Additional Sessions Judge has not afforded any opportunity of - hearing/explanation to the petitioner before passing any stricture/ disparaging remarks. The remarks passed by the Additional Sessions Judge are serious in nature and will effect the career of the petitioner who is a Government servant. H '10.For the foregoing reasons, the disparaging remarks/stricture passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge are wholly unwarranted and uncalled for, the same are not sustainable under the law. Consequently, to secure the ends of justice, the stricture/disparaging remarks are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the petition is'allowed and the adverse remarks/stricture passed by the 15‘ Additional Sessions Judge, Mah‘asamund in Sessions Trial No.30/2006 in paras 13 & 14 of‘the judgment dated 22.5.2007 are hereby expunged./, /\ _ \r Sdl’ T.?.S“3‘i“‘a jm‘ge.