The court emphasized that adverse remarks against individuals must adhere to principles of natural justice, requiring an opportunity to be heard before such comments are made.

ORDER :

J. C. DOSHI, J.

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned APP Mr.Maheta waives service of notice of Rule for the respondent – State.

2. By way of this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant has prayed to quash and set aside the judgment and award dated 18.08.2021 passed in Sessions Case No.20 of 2014 by learned 5^th Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot to the extent of issuance of adverse remarks and directions against the present petitioner for departmental proceedings and to expunge the remarks made against the petitioner in the said judgment.

3. Heard learned advocate Mr.Maharshi Patel for learned advocate Mr.Virat Popat for the petitioner – Mr.Mulubhai Rajsibhai Godhaniya and learned APP Mr.Manan Maheta for the respondent – State.

4. Seeking to expunge the adverse remarks made by learned Sessions Court in para 18 of the judgment delivered in Sessions Case No.20 of 2014 and some scathing order passed in operative part, learned advocate Mr.Patel having referred to the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of S.K.Viswambaran vs. E. Koyakunju – 1987 (2) SCC 109; State Rep . By Inspector of Police vs. N.M.T. Joy Immaculate – 2004 (5) SCC 729 and in case of State of Maharashtra and others vs. Tasneem Rizwan Siddiquee, being Criminal Appeal No.1124 of 2018 and also in case of State of West Bengal vs. Babu Chakraborty – 2004 (12) SCC 201, would submit that without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, learned Sessions Court cannot pass scathing and adverse remarks against the petitioner and direct the concerned department to initiate departmental inquiry and to report to the Court within sixty days, as it would be abuse of process of law. Mainly upon above submissions, learned advocate Mr.Patel submits to allow this petition.

5. Learned APP Mr.Maheta on the other hand in his utter fairness submitted that the petitioner has not been given any opportunity before he has been saddled with adverse remarks and in view of that, he submits to pass necessary orders.

6. I have heard learned advocates for both sides. What could be noticed that Sessions Case No.20 of 2014 had been tried against the accused of that case for the offence under Sections 307, 323, 324, 504, 143, 147, 148, 149 of IPC read with Sections 37(1) and 135 of G.P. Act and also read with Sections 27(2), 25(1)AA of the Arms Act. According to learned Sessions Court, the prosecution had failed to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt. Learned Sessions Judge found flaw with the investigation carried out by the I.O. However, while acquitting the accused in absence of compulsive evidence which establishes offence alleged against the accused, for no reason and without any evidence, learned Sessions Court came to conclusion that petitioner in hand-in-glow with hardcore criminal Bharatbhai Kungashiya lodged the complaint and created forged and fabricated evidence to involve the accused in the offence and pursuant to such finding, learned Sessions Judge without giving any opportunity to the petitioner, returned finding against the petitioner that he was hand-in-glow with Bharatbhai Kungashiya and Vasant Kungashiya for lodging forged complaint against accused to compel them to leave Popatpara area of Rajkot. Ultimately, while passing such scathing remarks, learned Sessions Judge forwarded the copy of the judgment to Director General of Police, Gandhinagar and directed him to initiate departmental inquiry against the petitioner for allegedly playing a controversial role in the investigation of the offence and also directed him to fix the departmental proceedings against the petitioner. According to this Court, learned Sessions Judge has exceeded its jurisdiction while passing such unwarranted remarks that too without observing the principle of natural justice.

7. The judgments upon which the learned advocate for the petitioner relied upon delivers a ratio that the principle of natural justice is required to be followed by the C