Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.
Balaram Chari Dubey – Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lucknow – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the case and the investigation. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. arguments regarding the negligence and lack of hearing. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. court's observations on judicial conduct and remarks. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 4. clarification on 'wilful negligence' and legal standards. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 5. conclusion to allow application and set aside remarks. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32) |
JUDGMENT :
Prakash Singh, J.
1. Heard Sri Mahendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Nirmal Kumar Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. The instant application under section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed assailing the impugned direction issued by the learned Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Barabanki in Judgment and Order dated 27-10-2015 passed in Sessions Trial No. 9472 of 2014, arising out of Case Crime No. 143 of 2014, under sections 376/323/504/506 of the I.P.C., section 3(2) (V) of the S.C./S.T. Act and section 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station-Jaidpur, District-Barabanki., whereby the learned trial court has directed the State-authorities to take action against the applicant under section 4
Adverse remarks against public servants must be justified by evidence and made only after affording an opportunity to explain their conduct; mere negligence does not equate to wilful negligence under....
Adverse judicial remarks against an Investigating Officer cannot be made without granting an opportunity for hearing, violating natural justice principles.
The court emphasized the importance of preventing abuse of the legal process and securing the ends of justice.
Disparaging remarks against an Investigating Officer must meet a triple test of fairness, evidence, and necessity for the case's resolution.
The High Court has inherent jurisdiction to expunge remarks made by itself or lower courts to secure justice, but this power is to be exercised in exceptional cases only.
Judicial remarks that carry civil consequences must not be made without an opportunity for the affected party to be heard, adhering to principles of natural justice.
The judgment established the principle of judicial restraint and the separation of powers, emphasizing that the judiciary should not overstep its jurisdiction by directing disciplinary action against....
The court emphasized that adverse remarks against individuals must adhere to principles of natural justice, requiring an opportunity to be heard before such comments are made.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
