The High Court has inherent powers to expunge objectionable remarks from a judgment when they are not justified from the evidence on record, even if no appeal or revision has been filed.

Order. - This is a petition under S. 439 read with S. 561A, Criminal P. C., for expunging certain remarks made against the character of the petitioner by Sri P. N. Sarkar, Magistrate, 1st Class, Berhampur in his judgment in G. R. No. 10 of 1947.

2. The petitioner is a resident of village Pitala P. S. Aska in Ganjam district. He is also a member of the Orissa Legislative Assembly and belongs to the Congress Party. On 8-12-46 one Chori Santra of village Raisinghpur which is very close to village Pitala lodged a station diary entry at Aska Police Station at about 10 A. M. to the effect that one Sibarama Patnaik, the Karanam of village, had been assaulted and wrongfully confined by several persons of Pita a village led by Harihar Panda. The police did not take any immediate action thinking that it was a non-cognisable offence. Sub-sequently, however, a petition was sent to the Superintendent of Police on the basis of which the S. I. of Aska instituted a regular F. I. R. on 26-1-47 and after due investigation submitted charge-sheet against Harihar Panda. Biswanath Panda and six other persons who were all tried for offences under Ss. 147, 342/149 and 355, Penal Code in the Court of Sri P. N. Sarkar Magistrate, 1st Class, Berhampur. In that case the petitioner figured as one of the eye-witnesses (p. W. 5). Chori Santra (P. W. 1) and Sibaram Patnaik (P. W. 2) also deposed in support of the prosecution case. The substance of the allegations made against the accused persons in that case was that the said Sibaram Patnaik (P. W. 2) wrote a love-letter to a female inmate of the house of accused Harihar Panda which, however, fell into the hands of the accused persons. Thereupon, they were so much enraged against Sibaram Patnaik that they collected in a mob and wanted to kill him. He hid himself in the village Pathaghar for some time but subsequently on the assurance given by the petitioner he came out. The accused persons thereupon tied his hands, put an earthen pot on his head and led him in a procession in a humiliating way throughout the village. In the end. however, the petitioner succeeded in persuading Harihar Panda and his men to release Sibaram Patnaik. 3. The learned Magistrate while acquitting the accused persons observed that the prosecution case appeared to be an exaggerated and inflated account of some alteration or misunderstanding between Sibaram Patnaik (P. W. 2) and the accuseds party. His further observed:

"P. W. 2 having done a wrong and indecent Act which brought general denunciation from the public must have taken the help of the enemies of the accused in saving his face some how." He pointed out that all the eye-witnesses were interested persons inimically disposed towards the accused persons and held that the charges were not brought home against them. While discussing the evidence of P. W. 5 (the petitioners) who claimed to be an eye-witness to the occurrence, the learned Magistrate made the following comments:

"Besides the aforesaid facts this witness has made a number of admissions which go to show that the witness has evinced extraordinary interest in the case from its inception and during trial. He has often misused his position as a public man in trying to influence the police and officers in getting a verdict against the accused persons."

The passage underlined (here italicised) has been taken exception to and I have been asked to expunge those remarks on the ground that they were not justified from the evidence on record. The learned Magistrate was called upon to show cause why these remarks should not be expunged and he has submitted an explanation pointing out extracts from the evidence from which he thought that those remarks were justified.

4. The first question for consideration is whether the High Court has power under S. 561a, Criminal P. C., to expunge these remarks when no appeal or revision has been filed in the High Court against the order of acquittal passed by the trying Magistrate. In P. J. Rogers v.