Munnilal Dhody vs State of M.P. and Others

Sujoy Paul, J.—Since these petitions involve similar question of facts and law, on the joint request of the parties, matters are analogously heard and decided by this common order.

Facts are taken from W.P. No. 1365/2011.

The petitioner, a police officer, is aggrieved by the judgment passed in Special Case No. 49/2007 by Special Court Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe under Atrocities Act, Datia. In the said judgment, the Special Court in paragraphs 85 and 86 made certain observations and gave findings against the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had no opportunity to explain his conduct before the said Court. Shri Katare relied on S.K. Viswambaran Vs. E. Koyakunju and Others, , In the Matter of: K, a Judicial Officer, , 2008 (3) M.P.W.N. SN 30 (reported in toto) (Randhir Singh Rahul (Dr.) Vs. State of M.P.) and the judgment passed by this Court in W.P. No. 89/2002 (Ram Babu Sharma Vs. State of M.P. & Others) decided on 5.9.2006. It is contended that the following tests are to be satisfied by the Court before making any observation against the police official. The tests are as under:-

(a) whether the party whose conduct is in question is before the Court or has an opportunity of explaining or defending himself; (b) whether there is evidence on record bearing on that conduct justifying the remarks; and � whether it is necessary for the decision of the case, as an integral part thereof to animadvert on that conduct. The overall test is that the criticism or observation must be judicial in nature and should not formally depart from sobriety, moderation and reserve.

Mrs. Patankar, learned G.A. submits that no interference is warranted by this Court. If police official has not performed his duty in accordance with law, it is open to the competent Court to gave finding in this regard.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

In the present case, the aforesaid factual backdrop makes it clear that the petitioner was not a party in the case in which findings are given against him. He was also not afforded any opportunity by the said Court before making remarks. Thus, the test laid down by the Supreme Court in "K" a Judicial Officer is not satisfied in the present case. By applying the same test, this Court in W.P. No. 89/02 Ram Babu Sharma (supra) expunged the remarks made against the petitioner. I am in agreement with the said view taken by this Court. Thus, the petitioner is entitled to get benefit on the basis of the said judgment.

Resultantly, the adverse remarks made in the impugned judgments against the petitioners are expunged. Petitions are allowed to the extent indicated above.