The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of adhering to principles of natural justice and providing an opportunity for the person concerned to be heard before making castigating remarks.

( 1 ) THIS petition under S. 482, Cr. P. C. has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, who is practising Advocate of Ashoknagar (Guna), for expunging the remarks given against him by the trial Court, while rejecting his application for adjournment, vide impugned order dated 29-5-2000.

( 2 ) THE impugned order dated 29-5-2000 was passed by the trial Court in a Criminal Misc. Case No. 64/95 (State of M. P. v. Sukka and others), in which an application was made by the present petitioner seeking adjournment on the ground of self-illness, which was rejected by the impugned order and certain remarks were also passed against the petitioner/advocate. The trial Court in the impugned order aforesaid also noted that the counsel has not been appearing from 9-3-1996 onwards and nor he has filed memo of appearance on the record. While rejecting the application, the following remarks were passed by the trial Court as under :-

( 3 ) SHRI Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was the counsel and he was appearing on behalf of the accused-persons, and he had filed the memo. It is submitted that on 29-5-2000 since the applicant himself was sick, he could not come to the Court and the application was filed by the accused-persons for adjourning the case. Shri Saxena stated that it was within the discretion of the Court to allow adjournment or refuse. The Court, however, proceeded further and has passed the remarks, quoted above, which relate to the conduct of the applicant alleged to be misconduct and further that copy of the order has been forwarded to the Bar Council for taking action against professional ethics. It is contended that the remarks have been passed on the back of the applicant, without providing him any opportunity.

( 4 ) THIS contention has force. A perusal of the record goes to show that no notice had been issued to the applicant nor he was given any opportunity to show cause against the alleged misconduct. The remarks which have been passed were on the adjournment application and not germane to the issue, i. e. grant of adjournment.

( 5 ) LEARNED counsel representing the applicant on this point placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court reported in AIR 1964 SC 703 : (1964 (1) Cri LJ 549) (The State of U. P. v. Mohammad Naim), especially para 10 which is relevant and quoted below:-". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . If there is one principle of cardinal importance in the administration of justice, it is this; the proper freedom and independence of Judges and Magistrates must be maintained and they must be allowed to perform their functions freely and fearlessly and without undue interference by anybody, even by this Court. At the same time, it is equally necessary that in expressing their opinions Judges and Magistrates must be guided by considerations of justice, fair play and restraint. "

( 6 ) THE Apex Court in the aforesaid case has further held that it has been judicially recognised that in the matter of making disparaging remarks against persons or authorities whose conduct comes into consideration before the Courts of law in cases to be decided by them, it is relevant to consider :-" (A) Whether the party whose conduct is in question before the Court has an opportunity of explaining or defending himself; (B) Whether there is evidence on record bearing on that conduct justifying the remarks; and (C) Whether it is necessary for the decision of the case, as an integral part thereof, to animadvert on that conduct. "

( 7 ) THE Presiding Officers of the Court to enjoy position and power but the same casts heavy responsibility and duty as well. The power has to be exercised with moderation and one should not be vindictive. The personal feelings should not be allowed to override the impersonal functions of a Judge. While making remarks, it has always to be kept in mind that uncalled for strictures in a judgment can well might tear a person's reputation into shreds and cause him