GOVINDARAJ SHETTY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is by the Investigating Officer, C. W. 12 in C. C. No. 7602 of 1976 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Mysore under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code praying for expunging certain remarks made against him during the course of judgment dated 22-2-1979 passed by the said Magistrate in the said case.

(2.) The few facts of the case are that the petitioner who was the Circle Inspector of Police, D-Division, Traffic Branch, Mysore City, filed a charge-sheet against one Abdul Rahaman alleging that on 4-7-1976 at about 2-30 p. m. he was driving a K. S. R. T. C. bus bearing No. MYM 6261 on Mysore-Bangalore road in a rash and negligent manner and ran over the cyclist by name Nissar Ahamed while proceeding on the road near the toll gate, as a result of which he sustained serious injuries and succumbed to the same thereafter. On the aforesaid allegations, a crime was registered in crime No. 64 of 1976 against the accused for offences punishable under Sections 304(A) and 279 I.P.C. and after completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed by the petitioner against the accused for the said offences in C. C. No. 7602 of 1976. The prosecution examined two witnesses in support of its case and it is seen from the order-sheet that the petitioner who was cited as C. W. 12, could not be examined. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate closed the case of the prosecution and after assessing the evidence, acquitted the accused of the said charges. But, however, during the course of the judgment, the learned Magistrate passed certain remarks against the Investigation Officer censuring about the conduct of the case. The petitioner aggrieved by those remarks approached this Court for expunging of the same on several grounds

(3.) Sri B.V. Ueshpande, learned Counsel for the petitioner, contended that the remarks made against the petitioner, more fully detailed above, are not justified in as much as there was no material before the Magistrate to pass such remarks. Elaborating his contention, he submitted that there was no material before the Magistrate to conclude that the petitioner had deliberately avoided to be present in the Court to give evidence and that he was interested in the alleged bundobust duty in connection with the visit of the Minister. He stated that the order-sheet dated 22-11-1978 makes it abundantly clear that he was not aware that the case has been set down for recording his evidence and in fact, no summons was served on him directing him to be present on 22-11-1978 to give evidence. He also submitted that the note in the order-sheet indicates that summons to C. W. 12 (petitioner) was not served and the Court did not issue further summons to him to appear on any sub-sequent date of hearing and if that is so, the remarks of the learned Magistrate that he deliberately kept himself absent from the Court and on the other hand, he was interested in bundobust duty in connection with the visit of the Minister, was not justified. He also contended that if really the Court wanted to make remarks about his conduct in the discharge of duties as Investigating Officer, in all fairness, the Court ought to have issued him notice and thereafter, if satisfied, could have passed such remarks as the Court deemed fit in the circumstances of the ease. In the absence of following procedure of principles of natural justice, any remarks passed by the Court are not justified.