A.K.Yog, Vikram Nath - (1.) -Sri Subodh Kumar Bhatt, District and Sessions Judge Bagpat, has filed this application under Chapter XXII, Rule 1, Rules of Court read with Article 226, Constitution of India for expunging adverse remarks passed against him in the judgment and order dated 5.11.2004 passed by learned single Judge while finally allowing Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 7218 of 2004.
(2.) THE facts giving rise to the afore-mentioned application are that the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghazipur passed an order dated 5.4.2004 in Case Crime No. 103 of 2004, under Sections 323/506, I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali, District Ghazipur, taking cognizance upon the police report. Accordingly the Chief Judicial Magistrate directed for registration of the case and for issuing summons requiring the accused persons to appear on 21.5.2004 in Court. On 21.5.2004 the accused were not present. THE Chief Judicial Magistrate again directed for issuing summons to the accused fixing 21.6.2004. Again on 21.06.2004, the accused were not present and the Chief Judicial Magistrate directed for issuing summons to the accused fixing 31.7.2004. On 31.7.2004 again accused were not present and the Chief Judicial Magistrate directed for issuing summons to the, accused fixing 27.8.2004. The accused persons Arvind Tewari and Sidhdhant Tewari filed Criminal Revision No. 332 of 2004, before District and Sessions Judge, Ghazipur for quashing aforesaid order dated 31.7.2004 and against taking cognizance. The prayer clause of said Criminal Revision also referred to ""?...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMMITED]...(i.e., order dated 31.7.2004) without reference to order dated 5.4.2004. Copy of Memorandum of said criminal revision is Annexure-5 to the affidavit filed in support of the application. The said revision was dismissed by the District and Sessions Judge, Ghazipur vide order dated 27.8.2004 holding that the order dated 31.7.2004 impugned in the revision did not fall in the category of case decided and being an interlocutory order the revision was not maintainable in view of Section 397 (2), Cr. P.C. The accused Arvind Tewari and Sidhdhant Tewari preferred Criminal Writ Petition No. 7218 of 2004 before this Court, which was allowed vide judgment dated 5.11.2004 holding that summoning order dated 5.4.2004 was revisable under Section 397, Cr. P.C. and accordingly the matter was remanded back to the District and Sessions Judge, Ghazipur to admit the revision and decide the same on merits. While allowing the writ petition this Court passed strictures/adverse remarks against the applicant Sri S. K. Bhatt, the then District and Sessions Judge, Ghazipur.
(3.) THE adverse remarks made in the judgment dated 5.11.2004 are quoted hereunder : "It is really a very sorry state of affair that a Sessions Judge who is heading the district judiciary, is in utter ignorance of the basic principle of the law so elaborately pronounced by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Now the Judicial Officers in this State are provided with residential library and necessary grant is also placed at the disposal of the Sessions Judge to contribute a number of journals but probably the Sessions Judge has hardly any time to look into such journal to apprise themselves with such an established principle of law. If this is the standard of knowledge at this level, what guidance can be expected by the Sessions Judge to his subordinate officers and especially the officers who join the services afresh." The applicant against whom the strictures/adverse remarks were made in the aforesaid judgment approached the Hon'ble Apex Court by way of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 96 of 2004 which was disposed of vide judgment dated 11.3.2005 directing the aggrieved officer (applicant) to apply before the High Court for expunging the remarks. The operative portion of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court dated 11.3.2005 is quoted hereunder : "Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we consider it appropriate to dispose of the Special Leave Petition with the direction to the petitioner to move an application before the High Court for expunging the remarks by which he feels aggrieved. If such an application is filed, the High Court will decide the same in accordance with law, without being influenced in any manner by any observation made in the present order." ;