J.S.Khehar, J. - (1.) During the course of adjudication of a criminal trial, the Special Judge, Moga, in his judgment dated 21.3.2003, inter alia passed strictures against the petitioner. The aforesaid strictures are contained in paragraph 11 of the judgment, which are being extracted hereunder :- "In the light of the above discussion, it is not out of place to mention here that vide order dated 20.3.2003, this Court directed the Drug Inspector who accompanied the police during such search (not readable) to come present to assist the court and the prosecution so that controversy may be ascertained to the fact that recovered articles are psychotropic substance falling within the ambit of NDPS Act or the drugs and the medicines recovered from the possession premises of the accused-applicants falls within the Drugs Act but the Drug Inspector who accompanied the police has not preferred to come to the court for the reasons best known to him but inference can be drawn that Drug Inspector intentionally has not come to the court either to assist the prosecution or to assist the court."
(2.) The petitioner has approached this Court through the instant writ petition seeking the expunction of the same by asserting that he was not in receipt of any notice at the hands of the Special Judge, Moga, in connection with the interim order passed by him on 20.3.2003, and as such, the strictures passed against him, were uncalled for. In this connection, the factual position has been narrated by the petitioner in paragraph 9 of the writ petition, which is being reproduced hereunder :- "That the petitioner neither received any notice nor any letter from the prosecution whereby informing the petitioner about the order dated 20.3.2003 passed by learned Special Judge respondent no.3 as to the submission of his report as per the order."
(3.) The averments made in paragraph 9 of the writ petition have not been contested at the hands of the respondents. It is, therefore, apparent that the factual position noticed in paragraph 9 of the writ petition, to the effect that the petitioner had no information of the order dated 20.3.2003, passed by the Special Judge, Moga , is not disputed at the hands of the respondents. Additionally, it is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner also filed C.M.No.19150 of 2003, in compliance with the directions issued by this Court on 01.08.2003, wherein he filed an affidavit, asserting that he was never asked by the prosecution to appear before the court so as to record his statement in respect of the analysis conducted by him. In view of the affidavit of the petitioner dated 25.8.2003, the factual position asserted in paragraph 9 of the writ petition must be deemed to have been crystalized of all intents and purposes, at least for the effective adjudication of the controversy raised through the instant writ petition.;