K.S. Dhaulta vs State of Himachal Pradesh

Bhawani Singh, J.—The Petitioner, K.S. Dhaulta, Engineer Officer, through this petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, prays, through his counsel Shri A.K. Goel, for the expunction of the remarks recorded by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class (TJJ), Shimla, in his judgment in case No. 76/20 and 84/81 decided on 29-6-1986.

The facts, in brief, are that the Petitioner was posted as Assistant Engineer in Himachal Pradesh Public Works Department, Store Sub-Division, Dhalli, during the year 1976, 1977 and 1978. One Shri Jatinder Kumar Mohindroo was working as a Junior Engineer under the Petitioner. As Shri Jatinder Kumar Mohindroo was not discharging his duties properly, the Petitioner brought this fact to the notice of the Executive Engineer. The matter was deeply probed and consequentially a case u/s 409 of the Indian Penal Code in respect of the payment of Rs. 81.55 paise to Faquir Chand Krishan Chand and Company was initiated against the Junior Engineer by the State C.I.D., Shimla, but the Junior Engineer was ultimately acquitted by the trial court, While doing so, the trial Judge made certain strictures/remarfcs against the Petitioner in Para 7 of the judgment which are as under:

This shows that the amount of Rs. 81.55 paise was not misappropriated by the accused but was misappropriatedby p. W. 10 Shri K.S. Dhaulta, Assistant Engineer The Petitioner had appeared as a witness (P. W. 10) in the case. Shri A.K. Goel, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, has strenuously submitted that these remarks of the learned trial Judge are unfair, unnecessary and hurtful to there potation and status of his client. It is further asserted that there was no occasion or any evidence on the record to come to such a conclusion. My attention has been drawn, to Annexure-PA(EX. P. W. 2/A), a receipt indicating receipt of Rs. 81.55 paisa fad the Petitioner thereon by one Shri Kuldip Singh (name mentioned as Kuldip Chand, P. W. 2) after the same was verified by the Junior Engineer. The factor of receipt, of this amount from the Petitioner has also been admitted by Shri Kuldip Chand (P. W. 2) in his statement before the Court. On the basis of these submissions, Shri A.K. Goel submits that the remark maybe expunged to save the Petitioner from hyrax, ridicule and stigma.

The law relating to recording of observations/remarks by Courts has been elaborately discussed by me in my judgment in Cr. M.P.(M) No. 471 of 1986 (Himachal Road Transport Corporation v. State of Himachal Pradesh). Taking assistance from this judgment, I am of the opinion that the observations/ remarks of the teamed trial Judge are unnecessary and elimination thereof from the judgment do not in any way minimize the importance and compactness of the same; and existence of the same will seriously harm the Petitioner, as contended by Shri A.K. Goel.

In view of the discussion made above, I expunge these remarks from the judgment and it be taken as if they never formed part of the judgment of the trial court.