A trial court should not make derogatory remarks against an advocate without giving him a chance to explain his conduct, should not travel outside the record, and should not make unsubstantiated accusations against him.

( 1 ) THIS application by Mr. Lalit Kumar, a pleader of Bareilly, is under Section 561-A Cr. P. C. and seeks the expunction of certain derogatory remarks against him contained in the judgment dated the 13th March 1956 by Mr. S. S. Bose, Assistant Sessions Judge, in sessions trial No. 80 of 1955, State v. Dhani and Mool Chand, under Section 392 I. P. C. The application has been, sponsored by the Bar Association of Bareilly.

( 2 ) THE applicant is a panel pleader, i. e. , in the absence of regular State Counsel he appears for the state in certain criminal cases and receives a daily fee, which I understand is Rs. 24/- for a full days work arid Rs. 12/- for work upto 1 p. m. He was appearing on behalf of the State in the aforementioned sessions trial before Mr. Bose.

( 3 ) THE circumstances in which this appli-cation has arisen are not disputed, and indeed will be found in Mr. Boses own judgment. .

( 4 ) THE case was heard on the 27th and 28th February 1956 and, was adjourned for the following day. A police official named Mahen-dra Pal Singh had been summoned for the 28th but had failed to appear, apparently because he was then serving in another dislrict and his summons had not been returned after service. On the 29th after the examination of one prose-cution witness, the applicant sought adjournment of the trial on the ground that Mahen-dra Pal Singh had net turned up. Mr. Bose turned down the request on the ground that the trial had commenced on the 27th and that even if the applicant had moved the Court on the 28th the attendance of the witness could have been secured on the 29th through a special messenger. The applicant then presented another application praying that if the testimony of Mahendra Pal singh recorded by the Committing Magistrate could not be read in evidence under Section 33 of the Evidence Act the case be adjourned. Mr. Bose rejected that application, holding that as the witness could be procured without unreasonably delay Section 33 could not be invoked. Thereafter the applicant presented an application for staying the case as he wished to move the sessions Judge for transfer, stating that the rejection of the request for adjournment and for the application of Section 33 of Evidence Act had necessitated such a transfer. On this application mr. Boss required "the party interested" to execute a bond for Rs. 200/- under Section 528, criminal P. C. , but such a bond was not forthcoming, hence he proceeded with the trial and completed it towards the end of the working day. He however withheld delivery of judgment for a week. No transfer application was however made, and subsequently the District Government Counsel of Bareilly expressed regret to Mr. Bose for the incident and intimated that no application for transfer would be made. Mr. Bose delivered judgment on the 13th March acquitting the accused persons. In the penultimate paragraph of his judgment he gave an account of the adjournment matter and included a number of sentences to which the applicant takes exception. These were :

"before closing the matter it is necessary to refer to the unbecoming conduct of Sri Lalit. Kumar. . . . . "

"i cannot view with equanimity dilatory moves on the part of one who has a vested in-terest in delaying the pass, i. e. , on the part of one who gets remuneration on a per diem basis. " "transfer proceedings are meant for preventing miscarriage of justice but they are not meant for holding out empty threats to the Court. "

( 5 ) THESE observations are per se derogatory to the applicant. They charge him with unbecoming conduct, with seeking an adjournment solely for dishonestly securing an extra days fee, and with holding out empty threats to the trial Court. The applicant complains that they impute unworthy conduct to him and are calculated to injure him by lowering him in the estimation of his fellow-practitioners and the litigant public. It is further pointed out on his behalf that they were wholly unnecessary for deci