The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of maintaining the freedom and independence of Judges and Magistrates, and the need to consider the principles of misconduct under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961, in cases involving remarks against legal professionals.

ORDER :

1. This application is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘the Code’ for short) for holding and declaring that the observations made against the applicant herein in the impugned orders dated 3.10.2019 passed below Exh.447 and dated 24.10.2019 passed below Exh.449 in Special CBI Case No.15 of 2005, are absolutely unwarranted, bad, illegal and against the evidence on record and to expunge the same.

2. Rule returnable forthwith. Respective learned advocates waive service of rule for the respective parties.

3. The facts of the case are that the applicant has been appointed as Special Public Prosecutor on behalf of the CBI vide order dated 17.11.2018 and thereafter the applicant has proceeded with the matter allotted by conducting with best of his effort and skills. That, as per the prosecution case, a complaint is lodged by one Mr.D.V.Yardi, Manager (Vigilance), The New India Assurance Company Limited, having Head Office, Mumbai and, on the basis of the same, the case was registered before CBI, Gandhinagar Branch; in the said complaint, it was alleged that one Shri S.A.Parma, the then Senior Divisional Manager of NIACL, during the period of 1999-2001 entered into criminal conspiracy with private persons and surveyors for cheating the insurance company by abusing their official position; that because of the said criminal conspiracy, wrongful loss was caused to the insurance company to the tune of Rs.54 lakhs.

4. It is averred further that thereafter a detailed investigation has been carried out by the respondent no.2 and several accused were arrested in all the six cases and Special CBI cases were registered before the concerned Court; that out of the six cases, one case was disposed of against which criminal appeal is preferred, which was also disposed of against which revision application is preferred before this Court, which is pending; that the other remaining cases are yet pending before the Special CBI Court, Ahmedabad; that the said cases are at the stage of examination of witnesses on behalf of the applicant; that it was felt that the entire set of record would be available in the present case, but, after complete scrutiny it was found that all such necessary documents were only filed in the case which was already disposed of; that the applicant applied for the certified copies before the concerned registry for obtaining all such documents produced in the said case and file separately in the pending cases before recording the oral testimony of the investigating officer; therefore, the applicant has preferred an adjournment application dated 3.10.2019 before the learned trial Court, which was granted, however, the learned trial Court has made certain stinging derogatory remarks against the applicant who is Special Public Prosecutor appointed; thereafter, another adjournment application was preferred on 24.10.2019 which was rejected and certain unnecessary derogatory remarks and unwarranted observations against the applicant were made. Hence, this application is are filed for the prayers referred to herein above.

5. Heard learned advocates for the parties.

5.1 Learned advocate Mr.Raju for the applicant submitted that the present application is filed by the applicant who was rendering his service as Special Public Prosecutor for CBI against whom the learned trial Court has observed in the impugned orders that “this is very unfortunate that the learned Special PP is very careless towards the functioning of his duty in this serious fraud case. He is doing his job very casually.” He has submitted that these remarks are unnecessary and highly unwarranted and without giving of any giving opportunity of hearing or opportunity of giving any explanation regarding the same to the special PP and, therefore, they are required to be expunged or deleted from the impugned orders which are passed by the learned trial Court. He has drawn my attention towards the order passed in the matter, more particularly, t