IMPORTANT POINT
Harsh or disparaging remarks are not to be made against persons and authorities whose conduct comes into consideration before courts of low unless it is really necessary for the decision of the case, as an integral part thereof to animadvert on that conduct.

JUDGMENT

S. Natarajan, J. - 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 of Orissa while allowing Criminal Appeal No. 31 of 1982 on the file of the High Court of Orissa. Shri Nirimjan Patnaik, the appellant before us was examined as P.W. 8 in the trial of T.R. Case No. 6 of 1980 on the file of the Special Judge (Vigilance), Sambalpur 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 of Orissa. 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 background this appeal has come to be preferred.

2. Pursuant to a trap laid by the Vigilance Police on the complaint of the appellants Manager, Gopinath Mohanty (P.W. 2) the first respondent was arrested on 26.4.79 for having accepted a bribe of Rs. 2,000/- from Gopinath Mohanty. 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/- per month during the months of January, February and March, 1979 from Gopi Nath Mohanty but all of a sudden he raised the demand to Rs. 2,000/- per month in April, 1979 and this led to, Gopi Nath Mohanty laying information (Exhibit I) before the Superintendent of Police (Vigilance). Acting on the report, a trap was laid on 26-4-79 and after Gopi Nath Mohanty had handed over the mal ked 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.

3. 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 Childrens Welfare Fund. The Special Judge accepted the prosecution case and held the first respondent guilty under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the Code). 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 conviction under Section 161 of the Code.

4. Against the conviction and sentence the first respondent preferred Criminal Appeal No. 31 of 1982 to the High Court of Orissa. 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 respondents 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.

5. Mr. F.S. Nariman learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellants limited role in the case has been unnecessarily and unjustly magnified by the Appellate Judge and furthermore the legal presumptions against the first respondent have been failed to be applied and these errors h