A peculiar feature of this appeal by special leave is that it is not an appeal against conviction or against acquittal but one preferred by a prosecution witness for expunction of several highly derogatory remarks made against him by a learned Judge of the High Court while allowing a Criminal Appeal at the High Court. P1, the appellant before us was examined as P.W. 8 in the trial of a case on the file of the Special Judge (Vigilance) against the first respondent. The trial ended in conviction against the first respondent and when the appeal filed by him came to be heard by the High Court the appellant had become a Cabinet Minister in the State. On account of the disparaging remarks made by the Appellate Judge the appellant tendered his resignation and demitted office for maintaining democratic traditions. It is in that backgroud this appeal has come to be preferred. Pursuant to a trap laid by the Vigilance Police on the complaint of the appellant's Manager, P2 (P.W.2) the first respondent was arrested on 26.4.79 for having accepted a bribe of Rs. 2,000 from P2. The marked currency notes M.Os. V to XXVI were recovered from the brief case M.O. II of the first respondent prior to the arrest. The prosecution case was that the first respondent had been extracting illegal gratification at the rate of Rs. 1,000 er month during the months of January, February and March, 1979 from P2 but all of a sudden he raised the demand to Rs. 2,000 per month in April 1979 and this led to P2 laying information (Exhibit I) before the Superintendent of Police (Vigilance). Acting on the report, a trap was laid on 26.4.79 and after P2 had handed over the marked currency notes the Vigilance party entered the office and recovered the currency notes from the brief case and arrested the first respondent. The first respondent denied having received any illegal gratification but offered no explanation for the presence of the currency notes in his brief case. Eleven witnesses including the appellant who figured as P.W.8 were examined by the prosecution and the first respondent examined three witnesses D.Ws. 1 to 3 to substantiate the defence set up by him, viz., that the sum of Rs. 2,000 had been paid by way of donation for conducting a drama and publishing a souvenir by the Mining Officers' Club and also towards donation for Children's Welfare Fund. The Special Judge accepted the prosecution case and held the first respondent guilty. The Special Judge awarded a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year for the conviction under the first charge but did not award any separate sentence for the second  conviction. Against the conviction and sentence the first respondent preferred Criminal Appeal No. 31 of 1982 to the High Court. A learned Judge of the High Court has allowed the appeal holding that the prosecution has not proved its case by acceptable evidence and besides, the first respondent's explanation for the possession of the currency notes appeared probable. While acquitting the first respondent the learned Judge has, however, made several adverse remarks about the conduct of the appellant and about the credibility of his testimony and it is with that part of the judgment we are now concerned with in this appeal.