Back
A. BADHARUDEEN
SHAJU JOSE, S/O. A. T. JOSEPH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM – Respondent
ORDER :
(A. BADHARUDEEN, J.)
In this Criminal Miscellaneous Case filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the relief sought for by the petitioner is to expunge the adverse remarks made against him by the Fast Track Special Judge, Changanassery, in paragraphs 10 and 11 of the order in Crl.M.P.No.78/2021 in S.C.No.122/2020 dated 10.09.2021.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor in detail. Perused the impugned order.
3. In this matter, originally crime was registered, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 447, 354-C and 324 of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC' for short) as well as Section 15 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (`POCSO Act' for short) by the accused. Thereafter, the accused filed an application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C seeking discharge contending that none of the offences would attract against him. The learned Special Judge addressed the contention raised by the accused and discharged the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 201 and 354 of IPC as well as Section 15 of the POCSO Act and allowed prosecution against him for the offences punishable under Sec
The High Court has inherent jurisdiction to expunge remarks made by itself or lower courts to secure justice, but this power is to be exercised in exceptional cases only.
Adverse judicial remarks against an Investigating Officer cannot be made without granting an opportunity for hearing, violating natural justice principles.
Remarks by higher courts against subordinate judicial officers must be necessary and justified to uphold judicial dignity and independence.
Adverse remarks – There is difference between criticising erroneous orders and criticising a Judicial Officer – First part is permissible – Second category of criticism should best be avoided – No co....
Adverse Remarks – For a person in uniformed service like Police, adverse entry relating to his/her integrity and conduct is to be adjudged by superior authorities who record and approve such entry.
The court emphasized the importance of preventing abuse of the legal process and securing the ends of justice.
Disparaging remarks against an Investigating Officer must meet a triple test of fairness, evidence, and necessity for the case's resolution.
Judicial review under Section 482 Cr.P.C. allows expunging adverse remarks if natural justice is violated and such remarks are not essential for the case.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
