Adverse remarks against a person, particularly when such remarks could have serious consequences on their future career, cannot be made without giving them an opportunity to explain or show cause.

Headnote:
ADVERSE REMARKS - EXPUNGEMENT - NATURAL JUSTICE - [Court expunged adverse remarks made by the Sessions Judge against the Investigating Officer in a murder case, as the remarks were made without giving him an opportunity to explain or show cause, violating the principles of natural justice.]
Fact of the Case:

The Investigating Officer in a murder case filed a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to expunge certain adverse remarks made by the Sessions Judge against him in the judgment acquitting the accused. The remarks were made without giving the officer an opportunity to explain or show cause, violating the principles of natural justice.
Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the adverse remarks made by the Sessions Judge against the Investigating Officer were legally unwarranted and factually incorrect. The Court found that the Sessions Judge had made the observations without any notice having been issued and that the observations were contradictory to the evidence on record.
Issues: Whether the adverse remarks made by the Sessions Judge against the Investigating Officer were legally valid.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court relied on the principles of natural justice, which require that a person should be given an opportunity to explain or show cause before any adverse remarks are made against them. The Court also found that the adverse remarks were factually incorrect and contradictory to the evidence on record.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the petition and expunged all adverse observations against the Investigating Officer in the judgment of the Sessions Court.

O R D E R

The Investigating OfÏcer in a murder case has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, to expunge certain adverse remarks made by the learned Sessions Judge, against him, in the judgment acquitting the accused.

2. Petitioner was the Circle Inspector of Police of Vakathanam Police Station in the year 2015, when an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, was detected. The incident came to light based on a complaint filed by the wife of the deceased on 23.10.2015. Crime No. 1843 of 2015 of Karukachal Police Station was registered initially for a missing person under Section 57 of the Kerala Police Act, 2011. Based on the FIR, an investigation was commenced by the Sub Inspector of Police, Karukachal Police Station and thereafter, when the son of the deceased was apprehended, it was realized by the said OfÏcer that, a murder would have been committed. Therefore, at night, petitioner was intimated, whereupon he questioned the accused on the next morning. On the basis of the statement confessing to the guilt of the crime, two accused were arrested and after completion of investigation, the final report was filed. Since the case revealed an offence triable exclusively by the court of sessions it was committed to the Sessions Court, Kottayam as SC No. 97/2016. After trial, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused by Judgment dated 06.08.2019.

3. Petitioner being the investigating ofÏcer was examined as PW28 during the trial in the above mentioned sessions case. Certain observations were made by the learned Sessions Judge in paragraph 38 of the judgment in SC No. 97/2016 referring to the role of the petitioner. For the purpose of reference, paragraph 38 of the judgment in SC No. 97/2016 is extracted hereunder;

“ 38. Further, glaring latches in investigation is noted on the part of PW28. His testimony itself shows that he got information about the commission of offence u/s.302 IPC by accused No.1 on 25.11.2015 itself and also got information that accused No.1 was kept in Karukachal police station without arresting him. But he did not cared to proceed to the station. Instead, he instructed the police ofÏcials to keep accused No.1 in illegal custody in the police station till next morning. It is elementary for a police ofÏcer to record the statement of accused if he is intending to rely upon that statement u/s.27 of the Evidence Act. PW28, though would depose that accused Nos.1 and 2 gave confession statements to him, he has not cared to record those statements. Being the investigating ofÏcer, it was his duty to record the alleged confession statements made by accused Nos. 1 and 2. Failure on his part to do so had adversely affected the prosecution case. It is also noted that after taking over investigation he allowed PW27 to do investigation without any reason. Thus the latches in the investigation had seriously affected the prosecution case. This shall be brought to the notice of the District Police Chief, Kottayam, the superior authority of PW26, PW27 and PW28 for taking appropriate action in the matter.”

4. Petitioner is aggrieved by the observations made against him in the above extracted paragraph. It is pleaded that the comments against the petitioner are sweeping, made without any basis and has an adverse impact on his career. Petitioner also contends that the observations were made without even giving an opportunity of being heard and therefore those adverse remarks are liable to be expunged.

5. Heard Sri. Biju Balakrishnan, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Smt.M.K.Pushapalatha, the learned Public Prosecutor.

6. Advocate Biju Balakrishnan contended that, the observations are liable to be expunged for legal and factual reasons. It was submitted that, petitioner’s chances of promotion have been seriously prejudiced due to the observations in the judgment and therefore, unless the adverse remarks are expunged, petitioner will be put to great prejudice. The

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 12448

Adverse remarks against a person, particularly when such remarks could have serious consequences on their future career, cannot be made without giving them an opportunity to explain or show cause.

Login now and unlock premium legal research