1. Appeal against High Court directions to register a criminal case against a state officer for allegedly filing a false affidavit and forging official records. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2023 Supreme(SC) 810
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ABHAY S. OKA, SANJAY KAROL, JJ.
State Of Punjab And Anr. – Appellants
Versus
M/s Shikha Trading Co. - Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 2453 Of 2011 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 35386 of 2010) with Civil Appeal No. 2494 Of 2011
Decided On : 25-08-2023
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
Judicial Restraint – Remarks adverse in nature, should not be passed in ordinary circumstances, or unless absolutely necessary which is further qualified by, being necessary for proper adjudication of case at hand – Remarks by a court should at all times be governed by principles of justice, fair play and restraint.
Judicial Restraint – Remarks adverse in nature, should not be passed in ordinary circumstances, or unless absolutely necessary which is further qualified by, being necessary for proper adjudication of case at hand – Remarks by a court should at all times be governed by principles of justice, fair play and restraint.
Subject
Civil Law - Expungement of Adverse Remarks
Act Referred
Headnote
Judicial Decorum – Judicial Restraint – Remarks adverse in nature, should not be passed in ordinary circumstances, or unless absolutely necessary which is further qualified by, being necessary for proper adjudication of case at hand – Remarks by a court should at all times be governed by principles of justice, fair play and restraint – Words employed should reflect sobriety, moderation and reserve – Adverse remarks of serious nature, upon character and/ or professional competence of a person should not be passed lightly – High Court, as 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 character of a party or of a witness or of a Counsel before it – Role of High Court is also of a friend, philosopher and guide of judiciary subordinate to it – Strength of power is not displayed solely in cracking a whip on errors, mistakes or failures – Power should be so wielded as to have propensity to prevent and to ensure exclusion of repetition if committed once innocently or unwittingly – Impugned directions issued by High Court in registration of criminal investigation against an officer, are having demoralizing effect on well-meaning officers of State – Impugned directions were passed upon an incorrect and erroneous appreciation of record – Impugned observation made and directions issued by
High Court to be expunged. (Paras 18.1, 18.2, 18.3, 19.3.1, 19.3.2, 20 and 21)
Facts of the case:
Instant appeal has been filed by the State of Punjab against the judgment dated 08.12.2010 in CWP No. 19909 of 2010 by which High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh directed Senior Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana to have a criminal case registered and duly investigated against an officer of the State, i.e., the Assistant Excise and Taxation, Commissioner (AETC), Ludhiana – I.
Findings of Court:
“Pardon the error but not its repetition”. This principle would apply equally for all services. Power to control is not to be exercised solely by wielding a teacher's cane.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Maninder Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Nikhil Jain, AOR Mr. Rishi Sehgal, Adv. Mr. Keshavam Chaudhri, Adv. Ms. Arveen Sekhon, Adv. Ms. Hargun Sandhu, Adv. Ms. Nikita Gill, Adv. Ms. Divya Jain, Adv. Ms. Monica Dhingra, Adv. Mr. Ajay Sabharwal, Adv. Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, Sr. Adv. Mr. Karan Sharma, AOR Mr. Ajay Pal, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Gautam Awasthi, AOR Mr. Karan Sharma, AOR
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Maninder Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Nikhil Jain, AOR Mr. Rishi Sehgal, Adv. Mr. Keshavam Chaudhri, Adv. Ms. Arveen Sekhon, Adv. Ms. Hargun Sandhu, Adv. Ms. Nikita Gill, Adv. Ms. Divya Jain, Adv. Ms. Monica Dhingra, Adv. Mr. Ajay Sabharwal, Adv. Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, Sr. Adv. Mr. Karan Sharma, AOR Mr. Ajay Pal, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Gautam Awasthi, AOR Mr. Karan Sharma, AOR
Table of Contents
2. Directions were passed without affording the officer an opportunity to explain, relied on unsubstantiated assertions, and would demoralize honest officers. (Para 7 )
3. The record does not support findings of forgery in the despatch register, and the High Court failed to follow settled principles for passing adverse remarks. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 16 , 20 )
4. Adverse remarks against a person's conduct require that the party be given an opportunity to explain, evidence must justify the remarks, and such remarks must be necessary for adjudication. (Para 14 , 15 , 18 )
5. High Court's adverse observations and directions expunged, and all subsequent criminal proceedings, including the FIR, closed. (Para 21 , 22 )
6. When can a court pass adverse remarks against a person's conduct?
A court may pass adverse remarks if the party has an opportunity to explain or defend themselves, there is evidence on record justifying the remarks, and such remarks are an integral part of the case's decision. (Para 14 )
JUDGMENT :
(Sanjay Karol, J.)
Civil Appeal No.2453 Of 2011
1. The instant appeal has been filed 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 duly investigated against an officer of the State, i.e., the Assistant Excise and Taxation, Commissioner (AETC), Ludhiana – I.
BACKGROUND
2. Shikha Trading Company 1[Respondent herein; hereinafter referred to as ‘STC’] preferred a Writ Petition against the illegal sealing of its shop by the officers 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 officer of the State posted as Assistant Excise Taxation Commissioner (AETC Ludhiana-I) had filed an affidavit 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 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 offences, 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 findings 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 affect final 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 affording an opportunity to the concerned
