The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for evidence justifying disparaging remarks, adherence to principles of natural justice, and the need for judicial remarks to be sober and moderate.

( 1 ) THIS petition is by the Investigating Officer, C. W. 12 in C. C. No. 7602 of 1976 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Mysore under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code praying for expunging certain remarks made against him during the course of judgment dated 22-2-1979 passed by the said Magistrate in the said case.

( 2 ) THE few facts of the case are that the petitioner who was the Circle Inspector of Police, d-Division, Traffic Branch, Mysore City, filed a charge-sheet against one Abdul Rahaman alleging that on 4-7-1976 at about 2-30 p. m. he was driving a K. S. R. T. C. bus bearing No. MYM 6261 on Mysore-Bangalore road in a rash and negligent manner and ran over the cyclist by name Nissar Ahamed while proceeding on the road near the toll gate, as a result of which he sustained serious injuries and succumbed to the same thereafter. On the aforesaid allegations, a crime was registered in crime No. 64 of 1976 against the accused for offences punishable under sections 304 (A) and 279 I. P. C. and after completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed by the petitioner against the accused for the said offences in C. C. No. 7602 of 1976. The prosecution examined two witnesses in support of its case and it is seen from the order-sheet that the petitioner who was cited as C. W. 12, could not be examined. Thereafter, the learned magistrate closed the case of the prosecution and after assessing the evidence, acquitted the accused of the said charges. But, however, during the course of the judgment, the learned magistrate passed certain remarks against the Investigation Officer censuring about the conduct of the case. The petitioner aggrieved by those remarks approached this Court for expunging of the same on several grounds

2. The relevant observations of the Magistrate, which the petitioner wants to be expunged from the Judgment, are:

(i) In spite of issue of summons to the witnesses the Police have taken no interest in getting the said summons served on the said witnesses;

(ii) Absolutely no interest was taken by the concerned persons taken by the police in getting the witnesses being examined in this case.

(iii) Even the investigating officer has preferred to go on bundobust duty in connection with the visit of the Minister rather then appear before Court to give evidence in this case. Even sub-sequently, the Inspector of Police D-Division, Traffic Police has not eared to give evidence in this case. This attitude of the Police Officer namely, the higher Police Officer compel me to come to the conclusion that the said higher Police Officer in Mysore City are not at all interested in the trial of the criminal cases before Court. it is not the only case where such indifference has been shown by the Police in the conduct of the trial of the case before this Court. In almost every case which have come up before me for trial, I am constrained to hold that the Police have shown absolute indifference to the conduct of the trial of the said cases. This only discloses that the police Officers in Mysore City are not much interested in the conduct of the trial of the cases filed before the Court. The only impression I could gather from this type of indifference shown by the City Police is that the Police Officers lose their interest immediately after the charge-sheet was filed before the Court. What happened, thereafter is look out of the Court and the prosecutor. No help of any sort is extended by the Police having taken trial in the cases, filed before this Court. As such, I am constrained to hold that the prosecution by want of negligence on the part of the concerned Police has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused.

( 3 ) SRI B. V. Ueshpande, learned Counsel for the petitioner, contended that the remarks made against the petitioner, more fully detailed above, are not justified in as much as there was no material before the Magistrate to pass such remarks. Elaborating his contention, he s