- (1.) The instant revision has been preferred by Sri Kamlesh Kumar Singh, the then SubDivisional Magistrate, Deoband, Saharanpur, only for quashing/setting aside/expunging the following adverse observations/remarks/ strictures made against the revisionist, as and where, in the body of judgment and order dated 13.05.2010 passed by Sri Rajan Chaudhary, Additional Sessions Judge, Deoband, Saharanpur in Criminal Revision No. 122 of 2010 (Munna Vs. State of U.P. and another) under Section 133 Cr.P.C., P.S. Nagal, District Saharanpur and not on the merits of the matter/case, whereby the learned Addl. Sessions Judge while allowing the aforementioned criminal revision and remanding the matter for decision by another Court of SubDivisional Magistrate passed certain observations/ remarks/strictures against the revisionist: JUDGEMENT_115_LAWS(ALL)4_2016.jpg Heard Sri Brijesh Sahai, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA for the State as well as perused the record.
(2.) In his submission, the learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that while passing the judgement in question, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has made uncalled for remarks in the impugned judgment against the revisionist/the then SDM in a very mechanical and cursory manner against the principles of natural justice. He has further submitted that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has completely ignored the facts and provisions of law involved in the case and without considering the material facts and legal aspect of the case, passed the impugned order in which uncalled for observations/remarks/strictures were passed against the revisionist/the then SDM concerned, whereas the revisionist himself made the spot inspection in the matter on 04.03.2010, as such summoning the spot inspection report prior to passing of the order dated 11.03.2010 was absolutely irrelevant.
(3.) He also contended that the impugned observations/remarks/ strictures passed against the revisionist/the then SDM concerned had no bearing or impact on the merits of the impugned judgment and were not at all necessary to do so as part of reasoning for arriving at a conclusion necessary for deciding the main controversy. Further, while passing such remarks the learned Session Judge has ignored the guidelines time to time passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in its catena of decisions. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has submitted that the remarks/ observations/strictures made in the body of the impugned judgment were absolutely necessary for the decision of the case. I have considered the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties and have delved into the legal position in the matter.;