The High Court has inherent power to expunge adverse remarks from a judgment passed by a subordinate court, including adverse remarks made against a person who had no opportunity to explain or defend himself.

Kanhaiya Singh, J.

1. This is a reference by the Sessions Judge, Patna, under Sec. 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure recommending (1) expunction of certain adverse remarks made against Thakur Ramsagar Singh, Additional Deputy Superintendent, Patna Medical College Hospital, by Mr. B.N. Mishra, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna, in his judgment dated 15th January, 1960, in G.R. Case No. 218 of 1959, State V/s. Chandrika Prasad and (2) quashing the proceeding under Section 250 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The facts are these.

At about 3 a.m. on 3rd February, 1959, Amina Khatun (P.W. 3) saw Chandrika Prasad, who has also been described as Chandrika Singh, carrying certain surgical instruments and drugs from the Eye Department o£ the Patna Medical College Hospital and raised alarm. He was pursued by her and Kara Ram (P.W. 1), Durga Ram (P.W. 2), Kishori (P.W. 5) and Jagan Narain Singh (P.W. 6). They succeeded in overpowering and apprehending him. He was thus caught red-handed with three instruments and some drugs.

The aforesaid employees of the hospital produced him before Thakur Ramsagar Singh, Additional Deputy Superintendent, Patna Medical College Hospital, and reported to him how he was caught while stealthily carrying away the instruments and drugs. Chandrika Singh is alleged to have confessed his guilt before the Deputy Superintendent, who made a written report of the occurrence to the Sub Inspector of Police, mentioning therein the fact of confession. After investigation, the police charge-sheeted Chandrika Singh, and he was tried by Mr. B.N. Mishra, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, who by his order dated 15th January, 1960, acquitted him. In course of his judgment, he made the following remarks against the Deputy Superintendent: (1) "These facts alone render him unreliable and it is clear he is trying to suppress facts admitted by the prosecution ..... For the reasons discussed above he is not a reliable witness like his other subordinate corroborating witnesses."

(2) "His dealings in the case have not been straightforward and satisfactory. He has not shown any sense of responsibility ..... Some of the P.Ws. seem to have been examined at the instance of the Dy. Supdt. who appears to be unduly keen and interested in piloting the investigation".

The recommendation of the Sessions Judge is confined to the second remark only. In this Court a prayer was made that the first remark also should be expunged, as it impinges upon his character.

2. At the same time, the Magistrate also drew up a proceeding against Thakur Ramsagar Singh and issued summons to him to appear before him and show cause why he should not pay compensation to the accused. It is this order also which the Sessions Judge recommends to be quashed.

3. The learned Sessions Judge has pointed out, and Mr. Rasbehari Singh appearing in support of the reference has reiterated that those remarks are wholly uncalled for and unwarranted on the evidence. There is absolutely no foundation for the Magistrate to call him an unreliable witness. It will be observed that Thakur Ramsagar Singh is not an eye-witness to the occurrence. He simply reported to the police what had been stated before him by his subordinate officers.

The learned Magistrate calls him unreliable, because he omitted to verify the truth of the allegations made by his subordinates against Chandrika Singh and denied that he had injuries on his person, though other witnesses admitted the existence of injuries. None of these circumstances justifies the remark that he was unreliable. There was no legal obligation upon him to hold a preliminary enquiry before making a report to the police.

Prima facie, he had no reasons to disbelieve what his subordinates reported to him, especially when Chandrika Singh had been caught red-handed with the instruments and drugs and had also been produced before him. At the worst, it was a mere unintentional omission on his part. Omission is not falsity, and if a m