- (1.) SRI A. C. Chatterjee, the petitioner' before us, has had been holding the office of the Public prosecutor -cum- Government Pleader for the District of Darjeeling continuously from the year 1947. As Public Prosecutor he appeared on behalf of the State of West Bengal in Criminal Appeal no. 12 of 1984 which was heard by the Sessions Judge, Darjeeling. After the argument of the learned Advocate for the appellants therein was over, Sri Chatterjee submitted that the order of conviction and sentence, against which the appeal was preferred, could not be supported. As the learned Judge felt that the appellants' argument was not convincing he asked sri Chatterjee to submit a written argument. In compliance thereof Sri Chatterjee submitted the following written argument cr. A. 12/84 "i have heard the arguments of the learned Lawyer for the appellants. I have also gone through the record. In my opinion, the judgment of the learned lower Court cannot be supported. "
(2.) NOTWITHSTANDING such concession made by the State, the learned Judge upheld the impugned order and dismissed the appeal by his judgment dated June 25, 1985. In that judgment he also made the following remarks against' Sri Chatterjee : (a) At the outset I cannot bat express my utter disapproval as to' the manner in which Sri A. C. Chatterjee, learned public. Prosecutor, Darjeeing has approached this appeal on behalf of the respondent State of West Bengal. (b) What I want to high-light is that if the learned Public prosecutor/government Pleader has to approach a case in such a cryptic manner and obviously without applying his mind there will be no meaning in contesting any suit or appeal by the State. (c) In order that the State is' duly represented in each all such cases (meaning thereby civil and criminal cases in which State off West Bengal is a party) and at the same time the presiding officers are not kept idle the learned Public Prosecutor/govt. Pleader has often necessarily to become cryptic and slipshod in his approach to a State case, often to the detriment of the cause of justice.
(3.) AGGRIEVED by the above quoted remarks Sri Chatterjee filed this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal procedure for their expunction. To expedite matters we directed, instead of issuing a Rule Nisi service of the copy of the application upon the learned Sessions Judge to enable him to offer his comments, if any, on the various averments made therein. Pursuant to the said direction copy was served and the learned District and Sessions Judge has offered his written comments, which have been kept on record.;