- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) One cardinal principle in the justice delivery system of this country is sobriety, moderation and reserve, read together. This being the settled principle since the decision of this Court in Mohd. Naim case (State of U. P. v. Mohd. Naim) and the said reasoning has been followed in Niranjan Patnaik case (Niranjan Patnaik v. Sashibhushan Kar) and again this Court reiterated the same in Joseph case (State of Gujarat v. K. V. Joseph) with the following observations: "11.In any event, we do feel however, to record that the language used is rather strong and as noticed above restraint and use of temperate language ought to be the basic criteria in the judicial approach. The violation of the principle of natural justice also has been contended by reason of the fact that no notice was sent in the matter for the purposes of any explanation neither any explanation obtained, The Court passes an order on the basis of the available materials and upon affording the reasonable opportunity of hearing and in the event there is any deprivation in regard thereto, affectation of the cause of justice would be the effect. "
(3.) Unfortunately, this special leave petition is directed against the strictures and remarks of personal nature made by the learned Single Judge of the Gujarat High Court in Crl. A. No. 942 of 2000. The remarks, to say the least, are rather unfortunate and aim solely at an advocate who has been practising at the Bar for the last 25 years. We do feel it expedient to refer to some of the remarks made in the impugned judgment. They read as follows: "I have underlined at several places of the memo of this appeal only with a view to highlight not only spelling and grammatical mistakes, but also poor use of English language. However, on merits learned AP Shri Mankad vehemently submitted that this Court has to consider whether the judgment and order passed by the learned Magistrate was in accordance with law or not, and this Court should not throw away matter because of the poor drafting. There is a lot of substance in what is submitted by Shri Mankad that the learned magistrate was wrong in acquitting the accused on the ground of limitation, therefore, no injustice should be done in the matter on account of poor drafting by the PP. Before parting, I must state that the appointment of Public prosecutors or Additional Public Prosecutors are to be made in the High court by the Central Government or the State Government after consultation with the High Court as per the provisions of Section 24 crpc. Mr Oza was appointed as a Public Prosecutor in February 2000. I have come back to this State only last month i. e. June 2001. If I was there at the time of his appointment as Public Prosecutor then I would have never agreed at the time of consultation process because of his poor knowledge of language and laws. ";