IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DECEMBER 2008 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 5627 of 2003() ------------------------- SC.157/2000 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA .................... PETITIONER/PETITIONER. -------------------------- N.JANARDHANAN, CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VIGILANCE AND ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.L.G.SURESH BABU RESPONDENT: --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. MUHAMMED PUZHAKKARA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CRL.M.C.No.5627 OF 2003 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 17th day of December, 2008 O R D E R Petitioner, who was examined as PW11 in S.C.No.157/2000 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta, has preferred this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to expunge certain remarks made against him by the learned Judge in Paragraph-15 of Annexure- A judgment in the said case. 2. It is contended by the petitioner that the above observations/remarks “require to be expunged to prevent abuse of process of the court and to secure ends of justice”. He further contends that the above observations are totally unwarranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. Having carefully perused the observations contained in Paragraph-15, I am not satisfied that the prayer made by the petitioner is liable to be allowed. Those observations in my view were touching upon the evidence adduced by the prosecution in the case. The remarks made by the learned Judge were only with reference to the evidence tendered by the petitioner in the court while he was examined as PW11. More importantly, the learned Judge had not made any observations, which would cause any aspersion on the character of the petitioner as such, but those remarks were only regarding the procedure followed by the petitioner in the course of investigation. 2 Crl.M.C.No.5627/03 4. Having carefully perused the entire judgment particularly Paragraph-15, I do not find any reason to grant the prayer made by the petitioner. Therefore, the Crl.M.C is dismissed. (A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE) cl