STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR. versus M/S. SHIKHA TRADING CO.
[2023] 11 S.C.R. 643, Supreme Court of India, 2023
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Issues
[2023] 11 S.C.R. 643 : 2023 INSC 773
643
CASE DETAILS
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR.
v.
M/S. SHIKHA TRADING CO.
(Civil Appeal No. 2453 of 2011)
AUGUST 25, 2023
[ABHAY S. OKA AND SANJAY KAROL, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: Writ petition was ﬁ led by respondent against 
the illegal sealing of its shop by the oﬃ  cers of Department of Excise and 
Taxation. While disposing oﬀ  the petition, High Court whether justiﬁ ed 
in passing the impugned directions for registering criminal investigation 
against the Assistant Excise and Taxation, Commissioner, holding that he 
had ﬁ led an aﬃ  davit taking a false defence.
Practice and Procedure – Adverse remarks – Expunction of:
Held : Remarks adverse in nature, should not be passed in ordinary 
circumstances, or unless absolutely necessary for proper adjudication of 
the case at hand – Impugned directions were passed upon an incorrect and 
erroneous appreciation of the record – The record does not support the prime 
facie view taken in regard to ante-dating or interpolation of the despatch 
register – The register records multiple entries in diﬀ erent hand, script, and 
language – There is neither any cutting, overwriting nor any interpolation – 
A glance at the relevant page of the despatch register makes it clear that the 
entry at the said page starts from Sl No.2026 and ends at Sl No.2043 and 
the despatch of the communication in question to the respondent falls at Sl 
No. 2032 which is in the middle of the page – Therefore, the
question of any 
interpolation/tampering does not arise – The concerned Oﬃ  cer was not to be 
beneﬁ tted in any manner in ante-dating the communication dtd.21.10.2010, 
as the said date was still beyond the period of 10 days initially granted by 
the High Court to unseal the premises of the respondent, vide order dtd. 
27.09.2010 – Impugned directions totally misplaced, more so, when the
644
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 11 S.C.R.
endeavour of the Oﬃ  cer was to bring the oﬀ enders to book and save evasion 
of duty, mandatorily required to be paid by the assessee – Observation made 
and the directions issued by the High Court vide impugned order, expunged 
– Proceedings initiated pursuant thereto, if any, including the FIR stand 
closed with immediate eﬀ ect. [Paras 9, 10, 12, 13, 20 and 21]
Practice and Procedure – Adverse remarks – Tests laid down in 
State of UP v. Mohammad Naim (four-Judge Bench) – Non-fulﬁ lment of:
Held : Order of the High Court does not qualify the tests laid down by 
this Court in State of UP v. Mohammad Naim in regards to passing remarks 
against a person, whose conduct is being scrutinised – Neither was the 
oﬃ  cer made party to the dispute, nor was he given an opportunity to show 
cause, and further, nothing on record reﬂ ected the oﬃ  cer holding an animus 
against the respondent, before such adverse directions were passed against 
him – Remarks by a court should at all times be governed by the principles 
of justice, fair play and restraint – Words employed should reﬂ ect sobriety, 
moderation and reserve – Impugned directions issued by the High Court in 
registration of criminal investigation against an oﬃ  cer against the settled 
principles of law have a demoralizing eﬀ ect on the well-meaning oﬃ  cers 
of the State. [Paras 14, 16, 18.2 and 20]
Practice and Procedure – Adverse remarks – Power to expunge – 
Exercise of, by
the High Court and Supreme Court – Discussed.[Paras 
19.1-19.3.1]
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
State of UP v. Mohammad Naim AIR 1964 SC 703 : [1964] SCR 
363 – relied on.
R. K. Lakshmanan v. A. K. Srinivasan (1975) 2 SCC 466 : [1976] 1 SCR 
204; S. K. Viswambaran v. E. Koyakunju (1987) 2 SCC 109 : [1987] 2 SCR 
501; Samya Seet v. Shambhu Sarkar (2005) 6 SCC 767 : [2005] 2 Suppl. 
SCR 686; State of Madhya Pradesh v. Narmada Bachao Andolan (2011) 
12 SCC 689 : [2011] 11 SCR 678; K. G. Shanti v. United Indian Insurance 
Co. Ltd and Ors. (2021) 5 SCC 511; Niranjan Patnaik v. Sashibhusan Kar
(1986) 2 SCC 569 : [1986] 2 SCR 470; Abani Kanta Ray v. State of Orissa 
(1995) 4 Suppl. SCC 169 : [1995] 4 Suppl. SCR 333; A. M. Mathur v.
645
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR. v. 
M/S. SHIKHA TRADING CO.
Pramod Kumar Gupta (1990) 2 SCC 533 : [1990] 2 SCR 110; Shivajirao 
Nilangekar Patil v. Mahesh Madhav Gosavi (1987) 1 SCC 227 : [1987] 1 
SCR 458; Dr. Raghubir Saran v. State of Bihar AIR 1964 SC 1 : [1964] 
SCR 336; Panchanan Banerji v. Upendra Nath Bhattacharji AIR 1927 All 
193; Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2010) 6 SCC 1 : [2010] 4 SCR 
103 – referred to.
M/s Shikha Trading Co. v. The State of Punjab and Anr. CWP No. 
19909 of 2010 dated 08.12.2010 – referred to.
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED 
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2453 of 2011.
From the Judgment and Order dated 08.12.2010 of the High Court of 
Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No. 19909 of 2010.
With
Civil Appeal No. 2494 of 2011.
Appearances:
Aishwarya Bhati, ASG, Maninder Singh, Sr. Adv., Nikhil Jain, Rishi 
Sehgal, Keshavam Chaudhri, Ms. Arveen Sekhon, Ms. Hargun Sandhu, Ms. 
Nikita Gill, Ms. Divya Jain, Ms. Monica Dhingra, Ajay Sabharwal, Ajay 
Pal, Karan Sharma, Raktim Gogoi, Gautam Awasthi, Ayush Choudhary, 
Devanshu Yadav, Sameer Pandey, Sahil Sharma, Advs. for the appearing 
parties.
JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT
JUDGMENT
SANJAY KAROL, J.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.2453 OF 2011
1. The instant appeal has been ﬁ led by the State of Punjab against 
the judgment dated 08.12.2010 in CWP No. 19909 of 2010 by which 
the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh directed the Senior 
Superintendent
of Police, Ludhiana to have a criminal case registered and
646
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 11 S.C.R.
duly investigated against an oﬃ  cer of the State, i.e., the Assistant Excise 
and Taxation, Commissioner (AETC), Ludhiana – I. 
BACKGROUND
2. Shikha Trading Company1 preferred a Writ Petition against the 
illegal sealing of its shop by the oﬃ  cers of the Department of Excise and 
Taxation, Punjab on 13.09.2010. 
3. The said petition being CWP No. 19909/2010, stood disposed of with 
two material directions; one, that since during the pendency of the petition, 
the shop (premises) of STC were de-sealed, thereby rendering the petition 
infructuous; and two, that Rishi Pal Singh, an oﬃ  cer of the State posted as 
Assistant Excise Taxation Commissioner (AETC Ludhiana-I) had ﬁ led an 
aﬃ  davit taking a false defence. Hence proceedings, criminal in nature, be 
initiated against him with the registration of FIR, with subsequent submission 
of the Action Taken Report to the Court within a period of three months.
4. The present appeal is directed against the second part of the order 
which is extracted hereinunder :-
“Case of the petitioner is that team of the department visited the 
petitioner’s premises on 13.09.2010 and illegally sealed the same. It is 
not disputed that the said team had visited the premises but sealing has 
been denied. Proceedings at the time of visit have not been produced. 
There is no reason for the petitioner to falsely allege sealing which 
is also shown in the photograph. It is not the case of the AETC that
the petitioner has any animus against him. Thus, prima facie, it has 
to be held that sealing of the premises was by or at the instance of the 
department. It is further that the order an representation purporting to 
be dated 21.10.2010 was passed much later than the said date and has 
been antedated and the entry in the despatch register dated 21.10.2010 
has been forged. If order had been passed and conveyed on 21.10.2010, 
there would have been no occasion for the petitioner to move this Court. 
Ink used, use of English language only for one entry as against all other 
entries in vernacular and pattern of entries in the despatch register 
1 
Respondent herein; hereinafter referred to as ‘STC’
647
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR. v. 
M/S. SHIKHA TRADING CO. [SANJAY KAROL, J.]
create serious doubt about genuineness thereof. Men may tell lie but 
circumstances may not. Action of the AETC in taking an apparently 
false stand cannot be ignored. Since these actions of or at the instance of 
Mr. Rishi Pal Singh, AETC, Ludhiana I constitute cognizable oﬀ ences, 
we direct SSP Ludhiana to get a criminal case registered and have the 
investigation conducted in accordance with law within three months 
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Further action may 
also be taken as per ﬁ ndings of investigation. Compliance report with 
copy of report of investigation may be forwarded to this Court apart 
from report of investigation being submitted to the concerned Court. 
It is made clear that observations made herein are prima facie and will 
not aﬀ ect ﬁ nal conclusion in investigation or trial. 
THE PRESENT APPEAL
5. Here only, we may clarify that this Court has not dealt with or made 
any observation in regard to the alleged illegal actions of STC in the evasion 
of tax, an infraction of the provision of Punjab Value Added Tax Act 2005. 
6. Clarifying further, the learned counsel appearing for STC 
(respondent herein) has also not opposed the instant petition in relation to 
observations, subject matter of the present appeal. It is in this background; 
we are proceeding to adjudicate on the subject matter of the appeal. 
7. Learned senior counsel appearing for the
aggrieved party(s) has 
urged, amongst other grounds, that the impugned directions were passed 
without aﬀ ording an opportunity to the concerned oﬃ  cer to explain the 
relevant facts and circumstances; the impugned directions rely only on 
assertions made by the respondent without any evidence to substantiate the 
same; the entry in the despatch register, more particularly the language in 
which it is made, reﬂ ects the document which is to be conveyed i.e., if the 
original document is in English, the entry corresponding thereto shall also be 
in English; passing of such an order against an oﬃ  cer of the State who has 
launched a campaign against tax evaders, results in having a demoralizing 
eﬀ ect on honest oﬃ  cers. 
8. Before us, the respondent has nothing adverse to state against any 
functionary of the State of Punjab, much less the aggrieved oﬃ  cer. There 
is no opposition to the present appeal.
648
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 11 S.C.R.
9. Having perused the records as produced in Court, we are of the 
considered view that this matter needs to put a quietus to. The record, we are 
satisﬁ ed, does not support the prime facie view taken by the court below, in 
regard to ante-dating or interpolation of the despatch register. The register 
records multiple entries in diﬀ erent hand, script, and language. 
10. There is no basis for the High Court to arrive at such a conclusion. 
It is again a matter of record that for several reasons, various oﬃ  cials at the 
clerical level employed in the department are making entries in the despatch 
register, therefore, variation in ink and handwriting is bound to occur. A glance 
at the entries made in the register for the current as well as previous years 
would show that any communication, subject matter of which is in English, is 
usually recorded in English and whenever such a communication is in Punjabi 
language, the entries are accordingly recorded in Punjabi. Moreover, the entries 
have been made et seriatim and no anomaly, whatsoever, could be found with 
the same. There is neither any cutting, overwriting nor any interpolation, of 
any sort. A glance at the relevant page of the despatch register would further 
make it clear that the entry at the said page starts from Sl No.2026 and ends 
at Sl No. 2043 and the despatch of the communication in question to the 
respondent falls at Sl No. 2032 which is in the middle of the
page. Therefore, 
the question of any interpolation/tampering does not arise, even remotely so. 
11. In view thereof, the doubt as to the genuineness of the register does 
not stand on ﬁ rm ground and must be disregarded. It is also to be noted that 
the record in no way reﬂ ects the concerned oﬃ  cer to have any prior disposition 
or animus against the respondent. 
12. There is no gainsaying in stating that oﬃ  cer was not to be beneﬁ tted 
in any manner in ante-dating the communication dated 21.10.2010, as the said 
date was still beyond the period of 10 days initially granted by the High Court 
to unseal the premises of the respondent herein, vide order dated 27.09.2010 
of which fact, the High Court failed to take notice.
13. In our considered view, the conclusions arrived at, as re-produced 
(supra), are based on mere surmises and/or bald assertions, without any 
material attesting to the conclusions or regard for consequences. The directions 
were totally misplaced, more so, when the endeavour of the oﬃ  cer was to 
bring the oﬀ enders to book and save evasion of duty, mandatorily required 
to be paid by the assessee.
649
14. Further, we notice the directions of the High Court not to be in 
the light of settled principles of law, for the order does not qualify the tests 
laid down by this Court in State of UP v. Mohammad Naim2 (four-Judge 
Bench), in regards to passing remarks against a person, whose conduct is 
being scrutinised before them i.e., “whether the party whose conduct is in 
question is before the Court or has an opportunity of explaining or defending 
himself; whether there is evidence on record bearing on that conduct, 
justifying the remarks; whether it is necessary for the decision of the case, 
as an integral part thereof, to animadvert on that conduct.”
15. These principles stand reiterated and followed in various judgments 
such as R. K. Lakshmanan v. A.K. Srinivasan3 (three-Judge Bench); 
S.K. Viswambaran v. E. Koyakunju4 (two-Judge Bench); Samya Seet 
v. Shambhu Sarkar5 (three-Judge Bench); State of Madhya Pradesh 
v. Narmada Bachao Andolan6 (three-Judge Bench) and K. G. Shanti v. 
United Indian Insurance Co. Ltd and Ors7 (two-Judge Bench).
16. It is apparent from record that, neither was the oﬃ  cer made 
party to the dispute, nor was he given an opportunity to show cause, and 
further, nothing on record reﬂ ected the oﬃ  cer holding an animus against 
the respondent, before such adverse directions were passed against him.
17. By way of this appeal, we have been asked to exercise powers, 
inherent in this Court, to expunge remarks reproduced supra against the said
oﬃ  cer, from record. It would be appropriate to consider the various principles 
in respect of passing adverse remarks against an oﬃ  cer- be it judicial, civil 
(as in the present case) or police or army personnel, and expunction thereof. 
18. The three principles laid down in Naim (supra) deal with what is 
required of the court, prior to, ﬁ nding it ﬁ t to pass adverse remarks.
18.1 It has been reasserted time and again that remarks adverse in 
nature, should not be passed in ordinary circumstances, or unless absolutely 
2 
AIR 1964 SC 703
3 
(1975) 2 SCC 466
4 
(1987) 2 SCC 109
5 
(2005) 6 SCC 767
6 
(2011) 12 SCC 689
7 
(2021) 5 SCC 511
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR. v. 
M/S. SHIKHA TRADING CO. [SANJAY KAROL, J.]
650
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 11 S.C.R.
necessary which is further qualified by, being necessary for proper 
adjudication of the case at hand8.
18.2 Remarks by a court should at all times be governed by the 
principles of justice, fair play and restraint9. Words employed should reﬂ ect 
sobriety, moderation and reserve.10
18.3 It should not be lost sight of and per contra, always be remembered 
that such remarks, “due to the great power vested in our robes, have the 
ability to jeopardize and compromise independence of judges”; and may 
“deter oﬃ  cers and various personnel in carrying out their duty”. It further 
ﬂ ows therefrom that “adverse remarks, of serious nature, upon the character 
and/ or professional competence of a person should not be passed lightly”.11
19. Keeping the above principles in mind, the power to expunge 
remarks may be exercised by the High Court and this Court: –
19.1 With great caution and circumspection, since it is an undeﬁ ned 
power12;
19.2 Only to remedy a ﬂ agrant abuse of power which has been made 
by passing comments that are likely to cause harm or prejudice13;
19.3 In respect of High Courts exercising such power, it has been 
observed:
19.3.1 The High Court, as the Supreme Court of revision, must be 
deemed to have power to see that courts below do not unjustly and without 
any lawful excuse take away the character of a party or of a witness or of 
a counsel before it.14
8 
Niranjan Patnaik v. Sashibhusan Kar (1986) 2 SCC 569,
two-Judge Bench; Abani 
Kanta Ray v. State of Orissa (1995) Supp (4) SCC 169, two-Judge Bench; A.M. 
Mathur v. Pramod Kumar Gupta (1990) 2 SCC 533; two-Judge Bench
9 
Shivajirao Nilangekar Patil v. Mahesh Madhav Gosavi, (1987) 1 SCC 227; three-
Judge Bench 
10 K.G Shanti (supra)
11 E. Koyakunju (supra)
12 Dr. Raghubir Saran v. State of Bihar, AIR 1964 SC 1; two-Judge Bench
13 Dr. Raghubir Saran (supra)
14 Panchanan Banerji v. Upendra Nath Bhattacharji [AIR 1927 All 193, as referred to in 
Sashibhusan Kar (supra)
651
19.3.2 Though in the context of Judicial oﬃ  cers, this Court has 
observed that “The role of High Court is also of a friend, philosopher and 
guide of judiciary subordinate to it. The strength of power is not displayed 
solely in cracking a whip on errors, mistakes or failures; the power should 
be so wielded as to have propensity to prevent and to ensure exclusion of 
repetition if committed once innocently or unwittingly. “Pardon the error but 
not its repetition”. This principle would apply equally for all services. The 
power to control is not to be exercised solely by wielding a teacher’s cane.1516
20. The impugned directions issued by the High Court in registration 
of criminal investigation against an oﬃ  cer, unquestionably against the 
above-referred settled principles of law, having a demoralizing eﬀ ect on the 
well-meaning oﬃ  cers of the State. It is clear that the impugned directions 
were passed upon an incorrect and erroneous appreciation of the record. 
21. Consequent to the above discussion, we ﬁ nd it a ﬁ t case to, in 
accordance with the principles summarised hereinabove, expunge the 
observation made and the directions issued by the High Court extracted 
supra (para 5) vide impugned order dated 08.12.2010 in CWP No. 19909 
of 2010 titled as M/s Shikha Trading Co. v The State of Punjab and Anr. 
Further, proceedings initiated, if any, pursuant thereto, including the FIR 
shall stand closed with immediate eﬀ ect. 
22. The appeal of the State is
allowed and the connected appeal is 
disposed of in the aforesaid terms. 
23. Interlocutory applications if any, shall stand disposed of. 
24. No costs. 
Headnotes prepared by: 
Appeal of State allowed and 
Divya Pandey  
connected appeal disposed of.
15 Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2010 6 SCC 1; two-Judge Bench
16 ‘K’ A Judicial Oﬃ  cer (supra)
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR. v. 
M/S. SHIKHA TRADING CO. [SANJAY KAROL, J.]