K DAKSHINAMOORTHY Vs. REGENCY CERAMIC LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Dakshinamoorthy, the petitioner in both these applications has filed these to call for the records relating to C.A. Nos. 51 of 1997 and 52 of 1997 on the file of the III Additional Sessions Judge, Pondicherry, and expunge the adverse remarks made therein against the petitioner.

(2.) The facts in brief are as follows: The petitioner was the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate at Yanam. The first respondent the complainant filed two complaints in S.T.R. Nos. 12 of 1995 and 124 of 1995 against the other respondents under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner after trial convicted the accused the respondents 2 and 3 in Cr1. O.P. No. 6209 of 1999 and the respondents 2 to 4 in Cr1. O.P. No. 6210 of 1999, by the judgments dated 9-10-1997 in both the complaints. Against the said judgments the accused persons filed appeals in C.A. Nos. 51 of 1997 and 52 of 1997 before the appellate Court. The III Additional Sessions Judge, Pondicherry allowed both the appeals and acquitted the accused. While so, the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Pondicherry passed certain adverse remarks against the petitioner. The relevant adverse remarks in the judgments are as follows: The way in which the lower Court rendered finding against the accused after committing the above lapses and sentenced them for the said charges would prove that it had given a holiday for judicial conscience and the disposal of the case should not be in the normal circumstances but otherwiseT According to the petitioner, this observation making adverse remarks against the petitioner is uncharitable and unfounded. Under those circumstances, these petitions have been Wed under Section 482 Cr. P.C. for expunging the said remarks,

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the learned III Additional Sessions Judge. Pondicherry could have refrained from passing such remarks, since they were uncalled for and not necessary for deciding the said appeals. The learned counsel to substantiate his plea would cite Raghubar Saran v. State of Bihar, State of Uttar Pradesh v. Mohd. Naim, S.K. Viswambaram v. E. Koyakuryu, Manish Dixit v. State of Rajasthan In the Matter of K Judicial Officer5. In Re Ramaswami6, Emperor v. Juman Sajan. S.N. Vyas v. State of Rajasthan. S. Lal Singh v. State. B.S. Dewan v. State of Andhra Pradesh and State v. Mustaq, Hussain.