Back
2005 Supreme(All) 2598
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
VIKRAM NATH, A.K. YOG, JJ.
Subodh Kumar Bhatt - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and Others - Respondent
Criminal M.W.P. No. 7218 of 2004 and Criminal M. Application No. 5784 of 2005
Decided on : 17-06-2005
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for utmost judicial restraint in using strong language and imputation against lower judiciary, and the requirement to consider the facts and circumstances of the case when deciding to expunge adverse remarks.
Headnote:
Criminal Revision - Expunging of adverse remarks - Sections 323/506, I.P.C., Section 397(2), Cr. P.C. - The court discussed the provisions of Section 397(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code and its applicability to the summoning order dated 5.4.2004. The judgment also referenced key legal principles from previous cases regarding the awarding of strictures/adverse remarks against judicial officers and the need for utmost judicial restraint in using strong language and imputation against lower judiciary.
Fact of the Case:
The District and Sessions Judge filed an application to expunge adverse remarks made against him in a judgment. The adverse remarks were made in a judgment allowing a writ petition and passing strictures against the District and Sessions Judge.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the adverse remarks made against the District and Sessions Judge should be expunged considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the law on the point.
Issues: The issues involved the expunging of adverse remarks made against the District and Sessions Judge in a judgment allowing a writ petition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court decided to expunge the adverse remarks made against the District and Sessions Judge based on the facts and circumstances of the case and the applicable legal principles.
Final Decision: The court allowed the application and expunged the adverse remarks made against the District and Sessions Judge.
A.K. YOG, VIKRAM NATH, JJ.
1. Sri Subodh Kumar Bhatt, District and Sessions Judge Bagpat, has filed this application under Chapter XXII, Rule 1, Rules of Court read with Article 226, Constitution of India for expunging adverse remarks passed against him in the judgment and order dated 5.11.2004 passed by learned single Judge while finally allowing Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 7218 of 2004.
2. The facts giving rise to the afore-mentioned application are that the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghazipur passed an order dated 5.4.2004 in Case Crime No. 103 of 2004, under Sections 323/506, I.P.C. P.S. Kotwali, District Ghazipur, taking cognizance upon the police report. Accordingly the Chief Judicial Magistrate directed for registration of the case and for issuing summons requiring the accused persons to appear on 21.5.2004 in Court. On 21.5.2004 the accused were not present. The Chief Judicial Magistrate again directed for issuing summons to the accused fixing 21.6.2004. Again on 21.06.2004, the accused were not present and the Chief Judicial Magistrate directed for issuing summons to the accused fixing 31.7.2004. On 31.7.2004 again accused were not present and the Chief Judicial Magistrate directed for issuing summons to the, accused fixing 27.8.2004.
3. The accused persons Arvind Tewari and Sidhdhant Tewari filed Criminal Revision No. 332 of 2004, before District and Sessions Judge, Ghazipur for quashing aforesaid order dated 31.7.2004 and against taking cognizance. The prayer clause of said Criminal Revision also referred to *iz'uxr rych uksfVl* (i.e. order dated 31.7.2004) without reference to order dated 5.4.2004. Copy of Memorandum of said criminal revision is Annexure-5 to the affidavit filed in support of the application. The said revision was dismissed by the District and Sessions Judge, Ghazipur vide order dated 27.8.2004 holding that the order dated 31.7.2004 impugned in the revision did not fall in the category of case decided and being an interlocutory order the revision was not maintainable in view of Section 397(2), Cr. P.C.
4. The accused Arvind Tewari and Sidhdhant Tewari preferred Criminal Writ Petition No. 7218 of 2004 before this Court, which was allowed vide judgment dated 5.11.2004 holding that summoning order dated 5.4.2004 was revisable u/s 397, Cr. P.C. and accordingly the matter was remanded back to the District and Sessions Judge, Ghazipur to admit the revision and decide the same on merits. While allowing the writ petition this Court passed strictures/adverse remarks against the applicant Sri S.K. Bhatt, the then District and Sessions Judge, Ghazipur.
5. The adverse remarks made in the judgment dated 5.11.2004 are quoted hereunder:
It is really a very sorry state of affair that a Sessions Judge who is heading the district judiciary, is in utter ignorance of the basic principle of the law so elaborately pronounced by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Now the Judicial Officers in this State are provided with residential library and necessary grant is also placed at the disposal of the Sessions Judge to contribute a number of journals but probably the Sessions Judge has hardly any time to look into such journal to apprise themselves with such an established principle of law. If this is the standard of knowledge at this level, what guidance can be expected by the Sessions Judge to his subordinate officers and especially the officers who join the services afresh.
6. The applicant against whom the strictures/adverse remarks were made in the aforesaid judgment approached the Hon'ble Apex Court by way of SLP (Criminal) No. 96 of 2004 which was disposed of vide judgment dated 11.3.2005 directing the aggrieved officer (applicant) to apply before the High Court for expunging the remarks. The operative portion of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court dated 11.3.2005 is quoted hereunder:
Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we consider it appropriate to dispose of the SLP with the direction to the
