Remarks made by a Judicial Officer against a person or authority must be justified, called for, and necessary for the decision of the case. Uncalled for, undeserving, unjustified, or unnecessarily derogatory or disparaging remarks should be avoided by Judges and Magistrates.

S. K. MOHANTY, J.

( 1 ) DISPARAGING and derogatory remarks passed by Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Balasore, against the petitioner, an advocate of Balasore District Bar who appeared for accused Nos. 1 to 6 in a Complaint case are sought to be expunged in this revision preferred u/s. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

( 2 ) THE Complaint Case was posted to 25-8-1987 for trial. On this date P. W. 5 was examined before charge and cross-examined. Thereafter the petitioner-Advocate filed a memo stating therein the question put by him to P. W. 5 while under cross-examination and the answer given by the latter, and made a grievance that the same had not been recorded. Thereupon the learned S. D. J. M. directed the complainant to bring P. W. 5 on 31-8-1987 'to clarify the matter'. On 31 -8- 1987 petitioner was allowed to put the question to P. W. 5 and his answer has been recorded. The learned S. D. J. M. thereafter adjourned the case to 7-9-1987 for consideration of charge. The case thereafter underwent one more adjournment and ultimately on 14-9-1987 the learned S. D. J. H. heard argument from both sides in the matter of framing of charge and posted the case to 21-9-1987 for orders. On this date by a lengthy order, spread over four paras, he directed framing of charges against the accused persons. In the fifth and concluding para which is fairly long, while narrating the events that occurred on 25-8- 1987 and 31-8-1987, the learned S. D. J. M. went further and passed the following remarks against the petitioner Advocate in the order-sheet. The contents of the memo filed by the learned advocate for the accused Nos. 1 to 5 and the statement made by P. W. 5 dated 31-8-87 clearly established that the contents of the memo are false. There is no iota of truth in it. The conduct of the learned advocate, by filing such memo in the court (Judicial proceedings) amounts to contempt of court and cancellation of his licence as an advocate. But the advocate concerned is too junior to be dealt with in the matter seriously. I feel ends of justice will be properly served if he is cautioned to be careful in future in filing false memos in the judicial proceedings. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

( 3 ) AT this stage the question and answer contained in the memo may be extracted:q. You know the complainant and the accused persons since 1980 since when you have been residing in the house of Surendra Satpathy? ans. Yes I know. (Translated from Oriya to English) now the answer given by P. W. 6 to the aforesaid question on 31-8-1987 may be extracted. Ans.- I know the family of accused Bimbadhar Misra since 1980. 1 came to know the complainant in 1981. (Translated from Oriya to English)

( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the remarks were unjustified and uncalled for. In support of his argument, he placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sri Niranjan Patnaik v. Sri Sashibhusan Kar (1986) 61 Cut L. T 523: (1986 Cri LJ 911 ). The appeal before the Supreme Court was preferred by Shri Patnaik (who figured as P. W. 8 in a Vigilance Case against Shri Sashibhusan Kar), as in the impugned judgment of this Court B. K. Behora, J. had passed some derogatory and disparaging remarks against him, with the prayer for expunction of the same. In this case the remarks against Shri Patnaik who later became a Cabinet Minister in this state were to the effect that he was an accomplice to the commission of crime and on his own showing he had thrown moral scruples and sence of honesty, if he had any, to the winds and was liable for abetment of commission of the offence by Sashibhusan Kar. It was further remarked that Shri Patnaik had condemned himself as a habitual bribe-giver. These remarks were sought to be expunged in appeal to the Supreme Court.

( 5 ) THE apex court while directing expunction of the remarks observed as follows in relating to the judgment of B. K. Behera J. . . . . . . . . . there was no need whatever fo