Jagdish Prasad Sen vs State of M.P.

D.K. Paliwal, J.—With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, matter is heard finally.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is posted as Constable in the G.R.P. (N.G.), Gwalior. On 3.12.2011 complainant Sunil Chaurasiya lodged a report that he was coming alongwith his wife by Bhind Gwalior passenger on 16.1.2011 from Soni Station to Gwalior. He kept his suitcase at the upper berth. Two boys came and sat there. The complainant got suspicious, hence, he opened his suitcase and found that jewelleries and cash of Rs. 2,800/- were stolen. The FIR at Crime No. 4/11 was registered and after due investigation, Challan was filed before the Special Railway Magistrate, Gwalior. Vide judgment dated 17.12.2011 the learned Magistrate has acquitted the accused, however, in para 18 of the judgment has observed as under:-

It is submitted that aforesaid observation has been made without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner is a public servant and he cooperated during the investigation. There was no occasion to make such observation against the petitioner. It is further submitted that above observations are prima facie liable to be expunged being against the principles of natural justice. Hence, it is prayed that aforesaid observation be expunged.

Learned Public Prosecutor for the respondents/State has supported the judgment dated 17/12/2011.

I have perused the judgment passed by the learned trial Court.

The Hon''ble Apex Court in the matter of Prakash Singh Teji Vs. Northern India Goods Transport Co. Pvt. Ltd. and another, 2009 AIR SCW 3078 in para 13 has held as under:-

In the light of the above principles and in view of the explanation as stated by the appellant for commenting the conduct of the plaintiff, we are satisfied that those observations and directions are not warranted. It is settled law that harsh or disparaging remarks are not to be made against persons and authorities whose conduct comes into consideration before Courts of law unless it is really necessary for the decision of the case as an integral part thereof. The direction of the High Court placing copy of their order on the personal/service record of the appellant and a further direction for placing copy of the order before the Inspecting Judge of the officer for perusal that too without giving him an opportunity would, undoubtedly, affect his career. Based on the above direction, there is every possibility of taking adverse decision about the performance of the appellant. We hold that the adverse remarks made against the appellant was neither justified nor called for.

The Hon. Apex Court in Manish Dixit and Others Vs. State of Rajasthan, has observed as under:-

Even those apart, this Court has repeatedly cautioned that before any castigating remarks are made by the Court against any person, particularly when such remarks could ensue serious consequences on the future career of the person concerned he should have been given an opportunity of being heard in the matter in respect of the proposed remarks or strictures. Such an opportunity is the basic requirement, for, otherwise the offending remarks would be in violation of the principles of natural justice.

In the instant case, the learned trial Court has not given any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and made the aforesaid remarks which is not in consonance with the principles of natural justice and as per the guideline laid down by the Hon''ble Apex Court. Hence, the petition deserves to be allowed. Consequently, the petition is allowed. The remarks made by the learned trial Court in para 18 of the judgment against the petitioner are directed to be expunged.