Madhya Pradesh High Court
Gappu Lal Pal vs Director General Of Police on 9 March, 2018
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC-26039-2017
(GAPPU LAL PAL Vs DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE)
3
Jabalpur, Dated : 09-03-2018
Shri Dhananjay Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for
the petitioner.
Shri Pramod Choubey, learned GA for the
sh
respondent/State.
1. This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has e ad been filed to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court and to expunge the remarks in the letter dated Pr 04/01/2017 passed by JMFC, Chhindwara and to set aside a letter dated 04/01/2017 and the departmental enquiry hy initiated against the petitioner.
ad
2. The factual matrix of the case just necessary for M the disposal of this petition is that, the learned JMFC, Chhindwara in Criminal Case No.2996/10, pronounced of the judgment on 04/01/2017. In Para No.15, he observed rt that the Investigation Officer, Gappu Lal Pal in his cross- ou examination failed to disclose who was the driver at the relevant time. Learned the JMFC then observed that C because of this, he is not punishing the delinquent. A h ig letter written to Inspector General of Police to provide an H opportunity to the delinquent officer Gappu Lal Pal and take an appropriate action in accordance with law.
3. On behalf of the petitioner, it is stated that, pursuant to this judgment, letter dated 04/01/2017 was issued to the Inspector General of Police and as a result of this departmental action has been initiated against the petitioner. The petitioner claimed that he has not been heard before passing such remarks which is disparaging and adverse to the petitioner, without affording any opportunity of hearing, therefore, the adverse remarks be expunged.
4. On behalf of the respondent/State, the petition is opposed. It is contended that, the investigation officer has failed to take the necessary precautions and did not depose before the Court appropriately, hence the remarks which is not required to be expunged.
5. Perused the record.
6. The prosecution witnesses have all turned hostile.
sh In the statements under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., name of the accused is reflected. Subsequently, the document of e ad the vehicle which was being driven at the time of incidence was seized from the accused. The accused was Pr arrested and charge-sheet has been filed against the a accused. But the accused has not been identified by the hy prosecution witnesses in the Court room. Therefore, the ad learned trial Court passed the remarks.
M
7. In the case of The State of U.P. Vs. Mohammad Naim reported as AIR 1964 SC 703, the Apex Court of has held that, ÃÂWe think that the High Court of rt Bombay is correct and the High Court can in the exercise ou of its inherent jurisdiction expunge remarks made by it or by a lower Court if it be necessary to do so to prevent C abuse of the process of the Court or otherwise to secure h ig the ends of justice; the jurisdiction is however of an H exceptional nature and has to be exercised in exceptional cases onlyÃÂÃÂÃÂâÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂà ÂÃÂ.
8. Their Lordships have also laid down the test in considering the expunction of disparaging remarks made against persons or authorities whose conduct comes for consideration before the Court of law to be decided by them by summing up as under:-
(a) whether the party whose conduct is in question is before the Court of has an opportunity of explaining or defending himself.
(b) whether there is evidence on record bearing on that conduct justifying the remarks; and
(c) whether it is necessary for the decision of the case as an integral part thereof, to animadvert on that conduct. It has also been recognized that judicial pronouncement must be judicial in nature, and should not normally depart from sobriety, moderation and sh reserve.ÃÂ e ad
9. The Supreme Court in the case Dr. Raghubir Pr Saran Vs. State of Bihar reported as AIR 1964 SC 1, has held that, the High Court has inherent power to a expunge objectionable remarks in judgment and order of hy the subordinate Court against stranger, after it has ad become final and culled out the principles as under:-
M From the aforesaid discussion the following principles emerge:
of rt
1. A judgment of a criminal Court is final; it can be set ou aside or modified only in the manner prescribed by law.
C
2. Every Judge, whatever may be his rank in the h hierarchy, must have an unrestricted right to express ig his views in any manner before him without fear or H favour.
3. There is a correlative and self-imposed duty in a Judge not to make irrelevant remarks or observations without any foundation, especially in the case of witnesses or parties not before him, affecting their character or reputation
4. An appellate Court has jurisdiction judicially to correct such remarks, but it do so only in exceptional cases where such remarks would cause irrevocable harm to witness or a party not before it.
10. In the case of A.M. Mathur Vs. Pramod Kumar Gupta reported as (1990) 2 SCC 533, the Supreme Court has emphasized the need for judicial restraint and held that judicial restraint and held that judicial restraint and discipline are necessary to the orderly administration of justice and observed as under:-
Judicial restraint and discipline are necessary to the orderly administration of justice as they are to the sh effectiveness of the army. The duty of restraint, this humility of function should be constant theme of our e ad Judges. This quality in decision making is as much necessary for Judges to command respect as to protect Pr the independence of the judiciary. Judicial restraint in a this regard might better be called judicial respect, that is, hy respect by the judiciary. Respect to those who come ad before the Court as well to other co-ordinate branches of M the State, the executive and the legislature. There must be mutual respect. When these qualities fail or when of litigants and public believe that the Judge has failed to rt these qualities, it will be neither good for the Judge nor ou for the judicial process.
11. A conspectus of the judgment mentioned herein C above would show that though Judge has unrestricted h ig right to express his views in any matter before him but H there is corresponding duty in a Judge not to make unmerited and undeserving remarks specially in case of witnesses or the parties who are not before him affecting their character and reputation, unless it is absolutely necessary for just and proper decision of the case and that too after affording an opportunity of explaining or defending that witness or the party as the case may be. Judicial decisions must be judicial in nature and it must show judicial respect to the litigant/party, witnesses who come before the Court for their cause.
12. The petitioner as an investigation officer had investigated the offence in question and filed the charge- sheet against the accused persons. The accused persons were tried for the offences and eventually acquitted for the prosecution witnesses did not support the same. The learned Magistrate has given the finding and the adverse remarks that the petitioner had not conducted the enquiry fairly. Therefore, relying on this statement, the sh police had instituted a departmental enquiry against the petitioner.
e ad
13. The tests laid down in the case of Mohammad Naim (supra), if applied in the present case, would Pr appear that the petitioner did not have an opportunity to a reply the said circumstances wherein, opportunity could hy not be given to the petitioner to explain the ad circumstances by the learned JMFC. As it is not the case M of the State that petitioner was afforded an opportunity to explain those circumstances, therefore, the adverse of remarks were neither necessary nor justifiable. In the rt test mentioned above, the adverse remarks at Para 15 ou made by the learned JMFC is, therefore, uncalled for. As such retention of those remarks would cause legal C enquiry to the petitioner as he has been proposed to face h ig a departmental enquiry on one hand and on the other H hand, the remarks will affect his career.
14. Thus, as a fall out and consequences of the above discussions, this petition is allowed. The remarks made against the petitioner at Para 15 of the judgment impugned dated 04/01/2017 to the extent against the petitioner is, therefore, expunged.
(SUSHIL KUMAR PALO) JUDGE Digitally signed by Rashmi Ronald Victor Date: 2018.03.14 22:56:31 -07'00' RS sh e ad Pr a hy ad M of rt ou C h ig H