Shri Sujit Kumar Dhar, Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kamrup, Gauhati has preferred this petition under the provision of section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to exercise inherent power for considera­tion of expunging the strictures/observations on the petitioner made by this Court in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the judgment dated 7.1.1991 in Criminal _Revision No.399 of 1990 [1991 (1) GLJ 176]. Heard learned senior counsel Mr. D.N.Choudhury on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate-cum-Public Prosecutor Mr. K.P.Sarma. Perused the statements and grounds in the petition.

2, It is submitted by Mr. Choudhury that the Additional Sessions Judge acted on good faith being persuaded to convince by submissions of the counsel of both sides of his having jurisdiction to pass the orders in Misc. Case No.199 (K)/1990 of the Designated Court in the absence of the Sessions Judge and acted presumably with fair intention. In support of such submissions, Mr. Choudhury states that the order to release the amount had not been given effect to by the Additional Sessions Judge as soon as the Public Prosecutor mentioned about moving higher Court against the order. This is borne out from the orders in the case. This fact was not brought to the notice of this Court at the hearing of the revision. Shri Sujit Kumar Dhar had served as Judicial Officer for more than 20 years with clean service records. It is accepted, as submitted that the Additional Sessions Judge acted in good faith.

3. The observation/stricture was not meant to obstruct prospect or injure career service of the Officer, but was recorded to alert him and for guidance to other Judicial Officers to act diligently in matters having no juris­diction. In order to remove all apprehensions from the mind of the Officer Shri Sujit Kumar Dhar, the observations/strictures recorded in paragraphs 6 and 7 read as :-

"6. It transpired that the Additional Sessions Judge Shri S.K. Dhar Jacks judicial conception which was not expected from such a senior officer. Being conscious of the fact that he had no jurisdiction being not a Designated Court, how could he pass an order releasing huge amount involved in the case under TADA (P) Act. Some motives than discharge of judicial function on good faith can not be ruled out from suspicion."

"7. But the orders impugned can not even be attributed as reas­onable because the Additional Sessions Judge was conscious that he had no jurisdiction being the wrong forum".

are now expunged from the judgment and order dated 7.1.1991 in Criminal Revision No.399 of 1990 by virtue of inherent power of this Court to serve the ends of justice. The directions given in para 11 of the said order for administrative action is also withdrawn.

4. This revision petition is allowed expunging the observations/strictures indicated above.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document