Veer Pal Singh vs Smt. Tilka Devi and Another

S.K. Phaujdar, J.—The petitioner has invoked powers u/s 482, Cr. P.C. for expunction of certain remarks in the judgment of the trial Court in Case No. 756 of 1983 recorded by Sri D. D. Upadhya, the then J. M. 1st Class, Nagina, district Bijnor.

The case was instituted upon an FIR lodged by the present applicant for offences under Sections 409 468 471 420 109 and 435, I.P.C. against several persons. The applicant had also deposed as a witness before the Court below. A reading of the judgment indicates (in paragraph 7) that the Court was of the view that there was no evidence against the accused persons about setting fire to the stock of wheat. In coming to this conclusion, rather at a subsequent paragraph of the judgment, the trial Court had recorded certain observations regarding the conduct of the witnesses including the present applicant. These remarks are to be found in paragraph 8 of the judgment. A perusal of the records indicate that while the Magistrate had every right to criticise the conduct of the witnesses, he had perhaps exceeded the freedom of judicial officers while making oblique comments against the witnesses. The comments may be quoted below :

YEH SARI KARYAWAHI GEHUN KRAYA-KENDA KE KARMACHARIGAN PULIS KE SAAZ SE KI GAYEE AUR SARKAR KO 700 BORE GEHUN KA NUQSAN PAHUNCHAYA GAYA.

and IS PRAKAR 700 BORE GEHUN IN KARMCHARIYON NE MILKAR GABAN KAR DIYA.

and YEH TINON KARMCHARI, DHIRENDRA SINGH, VEERPAL SINGH WA VIRENDRA PAL SINGH IS SARI GHATNA KE ZIMMEDAR HAI AUR INKI SHAH SE YEH GEHUN GAYAB KIYA GAYA HAI. AAG LAGANE KI FARZI GHATNA BANAYEE GAYEE KIYONKI GEHUN PAHLE HI GAYAB THA JAISA MAINE UOOPER SPASTH KIYA.

The direction of the Supreme Court concerning expunction of unjustified remarks in judgment are relevant as was observed in Niranjan Patnaik Vs. Sashibhusan Kar and Another, . The Supreme Court was of the view in this case that, "it is settled law that harsh and 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.

The trial Judge had not, during the discussion of the evidence, commented on the conduct of the witnesses. In paragraph 6 of his judgment he has recorded the finding of not guilty in favour of the accused persons. The remarks were made in the subsequent paragraphs and the remarks thereof were not necessary for the just decision of the case. It is a fit case, therefore, that the remarks, as quoted in Romanized form above, should be expunged.

The present application stands allowed and the comments as above are expunged as they are harsh, disparaging and unnecessary for the decision of the case.