R.S. Sikarwar vs State of M.P.

Sujoy Paul, J.—This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution is directed against the order dated 11.7.2013 passed in Sessions Case No. 81/12 decided by First Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind.

The grievance of the petitioner is that he is Assistant Sub Inspector in Police Department. During his posting at Kotwali Bhind, Crime No. 413/11 u/s 379 IPC was registered against respondents. A criminal case was registered based on said crime number which was numbered as Sessions Case No. 81/12. The Sessions Judge delivered his judgment on 11.7.2013 and gave certain findings against the petitioner in para No. 7. The relevant portion is read out by Shri D.S. Raghuvanshi, Advocate, which is as under:-

The singular contention advanced by Shri Raghuvanshi is that the petitioner was not a party in the Sessions Case No. 81/12. The Court has not provided him any opportunity before making the aforesaid adverse remark against the petitioner. Thus, this remark needs to be expunged. He relied on the judgment of this Court rendered in W.P. No. 89/2002 (Rambabu Sharma Vs. State of M.P. & Others)

Prayer is opposed by Mrs. Pachori, Dy. Govt. Advocate.

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

In the opinion of this Court, the point involved in this matter is no more res-integra. The Apex Court in (2001) 3 SCC 54 (In the matter of ''K'' A Judicial Officer) opined as under:-

"Before making remarks/observations against an officer, the following tests need to be satisfied:-

(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 (c) 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.

On the basis of aforesaid Supreme Court judgment, the Single Bench of this Court opined as under in W.P. No. 4938/12 (Sanjeev Dubey Vs. State of M.P. & Others):-

A bare perusal of the judgments cited by the petitioners makes it clear that the test laid down in "K" a Judicial Officer''s case needs to be satisfied. In the present case, admittedly, the petitioner was not a party in the criminal litigation, nor he was heard before recording remarks against him. This Court for the said reason, in Ram Babu Sharma (supra) expunged the remarks made by the Judicial Officer against the employee. I am in agreement with the view taken by this Court.

Resultantly, the impugned remarks against the petitioners made by the Courts shall be treated as expunged.

Considering the aforesaid, since it is not in dispute that the aforesaid remark is made against the petitioner without hearing him, I deem it proper to expunge the said remark by directing the respondents not to take any coercive action on the basis of aforesaid remark. The said remark shall be treated as expunged to the extent it relates to the petitioner.

Petition is allowed. No cost.