Hon’ble Alok Kumar Mukherjee, J.—The instant revision has been preferred by Sri Kamlesh Kumar Singh, the then Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Deoband, Saharanpur, only for quashing/setting aside/expunging the following adverse observations/remarks/strictures made against the revisionist, as and where, in the body of judgment and order dated 13.5.2010 passed by Sri Rajan Chaudhary, Additional Sessions Judge, Deoband, Saharanpur in Criminal Revision No. 122 of 2010 (Munna v. State of U.P. and another) under Section 133 Cr.P.C., P.S. Nagal, District Saharanpur and not on the merits of the matter/case, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge while allowing the aforementioned criminal revision and remanding the matter for decision by another Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate passed certain observations/remarks/strictures against the revisionist :

^^,slk izrhr gksrk gS fd fo}ku mi&ftyk eSftLVszV nsocUn dks fof/kd izfdz;k dk Kku ugha gSA^^

2. Heard Sri Brijesh Sahai, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA for the State as well as perused the record.

3. In his submission, the learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that while passing the judgement in question, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has made uncalled for remarks in the impugned judgment against the revisionist/the then SDM in a very mechanical and cursory manner against the principles of natural justice. He has further submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has completely ignored the facts and provisions of law involved in the case and without considering the material facts and legal aspect of the case, passed the impugned order in which uncalled for observations/remarks/strictures were passed against the revisionist/the then SDM concerned, whereas the revisionist himself made the spot inspection in the matter on 4.3.2010, as such summoning the spot inspection report prior to passing of the order dated 11.3.2010 was absolutely irrelevant.

4. He also contended that the impugned observations/remarks/strictures passed against the revisionist/the then SDM concerned had no bearing or impact on the merits of the impugned judgment and were not at all necessary to do so as part of reasoning for arriving at a conclusion necessary for deciding the main controversy. Further, while passing such remarks the learned Session Judge has ignored the guidelines time to time passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in its catena of decisions.

5. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has submitted that the remarks/observations/strictures made in the body of the impugned judgment were absolutely necessary for the decision of the case.

6. I have considered the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties and have delved into the legal position in the matter.

7. The Supreme Court has time and again observed that though the Courts have the power to make adverse comments against a judicial officer, the need and propriety to make such an observation should always be considered and that the Courts must observe sobriety, moderation and reserve. The Supreme Court has also observed that the Courts should remember that criticism and observations touching a subordinate judicial officer incorporated in judicial pronouncements have their own infirmities for not only is the judicial officer condemned unheard but the harm caused by such criticism or observations is also incapable of being undone. The Supreme Court has also pointed out that expunging of the observations by a judicial officer by filing an appeal or a petition reduces him to the status of a litigant which is not a very happy situation from the point of view of the functioning of the judicial system. Law on this point is elaborately discussed in the case of ‘K’ a Judicial Officer, (2001) 3 SCC 54. The observations made by the Supreme Court in the said matter needs to be reproduced and are as follows:

“6. Several cases are coming to our notice wherein observations are being made against the members of su