Uma Shankar Dubey vs State of Chhattisgarh and Another

T.P. Sharma, J.—This petition is for quashment of the stricture passed by the Special Judge appointed under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Mahasamund in Special Sessions Trial No. 11/2006 vide the judgment dated 24-4-2007, whereby learned Special Judge has passed stricture against the petitioner in Para 29 of the judgment impugned.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the judgment impugned.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was Investigating Officer and has investigated the crime, and without affording opportunity of hearing, the alleged stricture has been passed by the Court below which is not sustainable under the law. Learned Counsel vehemently argued that the petitioner is Deputy Superintendent of Police, i.e., responsible officer, he has investigated the crime and the stricture passed by the Trial Court against him without affording opportunity of hearing is a disparaging remark and will affect his future.

On the other hand, learned State Counsel submits that the Court below has passed stricture without providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

While deciding the case, learned Special Judge has passed the following stricture against the petitioner:

QyLo:i ekeys esa ftl izdkj dh foospuk dh xbZ gS vkSj miiqfyl v/kh{kd Lrj ds vf/kdkjh ls ftl izdkj dh foospuk dh vis{kk dh tkrh gS] ,slk fcYdqy ugh gqvk gS A ;gka ;g Hkh dguk vuqfpr ugha gksxk fd ekeys esa [kqn miiqfyl v/kh{kd Jh ;w-,l- nqcs dk foospuk dk Lrj iz/kku&vkj{kd ls Hkh x;k xqtjk gqvk gS\\ D;ksafd mUgksaus jktuSfrd vk/kkj ij ftl izdkj ekeyk cukus dk iz;kl fd;k gS vkSj fgrc) lk{kh;ksa dks tksM+dj vuqlwfpr tkfr] vuqlwfpr tutkfr �vR;kpkj fuokj.k� vf/kfu;e dk vijk/k iathc) djk;k gS] mlls gh ehjkckbZ vkSj muds fgrc) lkf{k;ksa dk fgr vkSj LokFkZ Li"V gks tkrk gS] D;ksfd pquko ds le; LFky ij mu O;fDr;ksa] ftUgsa fd iqfyl us xokg cuk;k gS] ds vfrfjDr vU; O;fDr ekStwn u jgs gkas] ,slk ugh dgk tk ldrk ;gka rd fd izFke lwpuk fjiksZV izn''kZ ih&01 ds i`"B Hkkx ij ftu O;fDr;ksa ds uke dk mYys[k gS] mUgs Hkh xokg cukus dh dksf''k''k ugha dh xbZ gS A vr% Li"V gS fd leLr djk;Zokgh iqfyl ds }kjk ,drjQk dh xbZ gS] ftlesa fu"i{krk dh >yd fcYdqy utj ugha vkrh gSA

The petitioner was Investigating Officer and he has investigated the offence. Disparaging remark was not necessary for the disposal of the case, even otherwise, if disparaging remark was required, the Special Judge was under obligation to afford opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before passing any stricture. The maxim audi alterum partem is applicable to this case and nobody should be condemned unheard.

While dealing with the question of passing disparaging remark/ stricture, the Apex Court in the matter of Prakash Singh Teji v. Northern India Goods Transport Co. Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. 2009 AIR SCW 3078, has held that the Court should not make adverse remark unless it is necessary for decision of the case and opportunity to explain or defend should be given. Para 13 of the said judgment reads thus:

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 persona1/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 carrier. 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.

While dealing with the same question the Apex Court in the matter of Manish Dixit and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan AIR 2001 SC 93, has held that opportunity of being heard in the matter in respect of the proposed remarks or strictures is basic requirement. Para 43 of the said judgment reads thus:

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 this case, such an opportunity was not given to P.W. 30 (Devendra Kumar Sharma), [ The State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Mohammad Naim, (1) Cri.LJ 549, Jage Ram, Inspector of Police and Another Vs. Hans Raj Midha, , R.K. Lakshmanan Vs. A.K. Srinivasan and Another, , Niranjan Patnaik Vs. Sashibhusan Kar and Another, , State of Karnataka Vs. The Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka, ].

In the present case, passing any disparaging remark or stricture was not necessary. Admittedly, the Court below has not afforded opportunity of explanation to the petitioner. The remarks passed by the Special Judge are disparaging in nature and will effect the future career of the petitioner. Consequently, to secure the ends of justice, the petition is allowed. The stricture passed by the Special Judge against the petitioner in Para 29 of the judgment dated 24-4-2007 in Special Sessions Trial No. 11/2006 is hereby expunged.