The High Court's power of enhancement, propriety of altering charges, and the inherent jurisdiction to delete objectionable remarks.

Kinkhede, A J C—The object of this revision application was threefold :

(a) to obtain an enhancement of the sentence :

(b) to alter the charge from Section 355, to 353, I.P.C. : and

(c) to expunge certain remarks from the judgment of the trying Magistrate against the complainant on the ground that they are objectionable.

2. As to the first object : it is conceded that on the authorities, the High Court would not ordinarily exercise its power of enhancement except on the motion of the local Government, so I need not discuss that point. As to object (b) : I fail to sea the propriety of it unless it be to enhance the sentence, which I decline to do at the instance of a private complainant. As to object (c) : a very long argument was addressed to me, with a view to show that the accused inserted some words in the endorsement in the visitors book underneath the remarks passed by the complainant as president imputing theft of registers to him. Suffice it to say that the Sessions Judge has rightly held that the whole of the endorsement was there, and the story told by the complainant, that he forgot to draw the attention of the Deputy Inspector, pointed to its existence long before the time, he now says it was inserted in it. The trying Magistrate had no specific need to indulge in those remarks and use the strong language unless it was intended to show that there were extenuating circumstances which showed that the sentence must be very light. The sentence imposed by him was one of imprisonment which offence, however, was altered to one offence only by the appellate Court. This shows that the case did not deserve any serious condemnation of the complainant in order to lessen the magnitude of the guilt of the accused. In the exercise of my jurisdiction under Section 551-A, Criminal P.C., I order that the following remarks do stand deleted from the trial Magistrate's judgment, para. 12.

3. Paragraph 12:

The several matters disclosed by the evidence on record do not become the complainant aa a President of the School Committee.... Several mischievous and misleading statements which he was not able to prove...he does not deserve that respect which a gentleman acting as President of a committee...can claim.

4. As I exercise the inherent jurisdiction vested in the High Court, I have not thought fit to issue any notice to the trying Magistrate or the District Magistrate to show cause why the objectionable remarks should not be deleted. I have done so suo motu, as it were, as the record has come up before me.