The High Court has the power to expunge remarks from judgments of subordinate courts, but this power should be exercised with great care and caution.

BHAGWATI, J. :- In regard to cri. Appln. No.499 of 1952 which is an application for expunging certain remarks which were made by the learned Presidency Magistrate against Bssa Noor Mohomed, it will be apposite to refer to the principles which govern the applications for expunging such remarks as laid down in the authorities. The first case to which our attention was drawn by Mr. K.A. Sonrjee in this connection was In re Public Prosecutor, AIR 1944 Mad 320. It was a decision of Leach, C.J., and Lakshmana Rao, J. of the Madras High Court. In the case before the learned Judges of the Madras High Court, a sort of a homily was preached by the learned Sessions Judge to the Government in regard to the desirability of not enforcing too strictly certain punitive measures which were enacted by the Government. The Government had made an application for an order expunging these remarks from the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge. The learned Chief Justice in the course of the judgment observed (p.320) :

"... We have no doubt that in a proper case the Court has power to expunge a part of a judgment of a Court subordinate to it ; but it will only take such action when the words objected to are not relevant to the case and are of a scandalous or very improper nature."

He then quoted the observations of Sulaiman J. (as he then was) in Panchanan v. Upendranath, 49 All 254 at p.256 that (p.320)

"... he (Sulaiman J.) saw no reason why the inherent power of the Court should not comprise a power to order a deletion of passages which are either irrelevant or inadmissible and which adversely affect the character of persons before the Court."

He further quoted the observations of Din Mohammad J. in Petition by the Advocate General Punjab 20 Lah, 327 at p.329 that (p.320) :

"Courts are not expected to play to the gallery, nor to-invoke the press in a manner which is liable to be misunderstood and may land the administration in general in an awkward situation."

After quoting these observations, the learned Chief Justice observed that (p.320) :

"... It would have been far better if the learned Sessions Judge had confined himself to the case before him and had omitted the observations complained of, but it is a different matter to say that they are of such a nature that the Court should expunge them from the record. The-Court must carefully guard against doing anything which might tend to restrict the free expression of judicial opinion on a matter before the Court."

And therefore even though the Court considered that the homily should not have been indulged in and the Court did not agree with all the Sessions Judge had said, that was not a case which called, for expunction. It cannot be gainsaid that Magistrates and Judges are entitled to pass remarks in their judgments on the conduct of a party or of a witness to proceedings provided the remarks are justified by findings, and it was observed by Dalip Singh J. in Karamat Ullah v. Emperor, AIR 1940 Lah 42, that a Magistrate was not bound to confine himself merely to a finding that the accused was not proved guilty. Such a verdict often leaves the accused with a stain on his character in the public estimation though not in law and it was the duty of a Magistrate if he considered that the prosecution case was not only not proved but was deliberately false and concocted, to give such a finding in favour of the accused so that the accused should leave the Court without a stain on his character. Care should however, be taken to base the remarks and the comments which the learned Magistrate or the Judge makes in regard to the character or conduct of witnesses who appear to support the case on findings arrived at in that behalf, and the remarks and the comments should not be lightly made or be the result of any sentiment or prejudice on the part of the Magistrate or the Judge. Our attention was next drawn by Mr. K.A. Somjee to a decision of a Special Bench of the Lahore High Court reported in Hardless v. H