VERMA, J. - (1.) THE petitioner who is a Judicial Officer posted at Dholpur has come up in this criminal Misc. Petition for expunging certain remarks/observations made by Shri R. K. Chan, District and Sessions Judge, Dholpur in his order dated 17. 8. 1999 passed in criminal Misc. Application No. 736/98 titled as Gokul Singh vs. THE State of Rajasthan & Ors.
(2.) THE petitioner while dealing with the bail matter in FIR No. 113/98 of Police Station Rajakhera had remanded all the ten accused to judicial custody for a day on 27. 7. 1998 and after looking into the medical report of the injuries on the complainant had ordered all the accused persons to be released on bail. THE complainant Gokul Singh had filed the application u/s 439 (2) Cr. P. C. for cancellation of bail granted to the accused persons which was decided on 17. 8. 1999 i. e. about one year of granting of the bail and the bail granted by the Judicial Officer was cancelled. However, while cancelling the bail orders, the learned Sessions Judge, Dholpur had observed that the haste in granting the bail shown by the Judicial Magistrate shows that the Judicial Magistrate had tried to give benefit to the accused persons while granting the bail with malafide intention. THE petitioner is aggrieved with the following observations of the learned Sessions Judge. Fo}ku U;kf;d eftlvsv }kjk tekur ysus dh rrijrk ;gh iznf'kzr djrh gs fd Fo}ku U;kf;d eftlvsv us n`"krk ls vizkfkhzx. k eqyfteku dks ykhk igqapkus ds fy, mudh tekur yh gsa** In my opinion, in case the learned Sessions Judge was of the opinion that, in the circumstances the bail should not have been granted or bail granted needed to be cancelled, there was hardly any necessity to pass any such remarks against the Judicial Officer for which there was no basis. Counsel for the petitioner relies on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of K. P. Tiwari vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (1), wherein the granting of bail by the Sessions Judge was challenged in the High Court and while cancelling the bail the High Court had passed certain remarks against the Judicial Officer, First A. S. J. , who had granted the bail. It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that even though the High Court was justified in cancelling the bail granted, but the Judge of the High Court should not have allowed the latitude of ignoring judicial precaution and propriety. It was observed that the Judicial Officer mostly work under a changed atmosphere. Every error, however gross it may look, should not, therefore, be attributed to improper motive. The respect for the judiciary is not enhanced when Judges at the lower level are criticised intemperately and castigated publicly. It must be remembered that the officers against whom such strictures are passed stand condemned in the eyes of their subordinates and of the members of the public. The Judges must, therefore, exercise self-restraint. Yet in another case of Dr. Raghubir Saran vs. State of Bihar & another (2), it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that while exercising inherent powers, the High Court as a highest court exercising criminal jurisdiction in State, has inherent power to make any order for the purpose of securing the ends of justice and the power extends to expunction or ordering expunction of irrelevant remarks made against a person who is neither a party nor a witness to the proceeding, from a judgment or order of a subordinate court, although the matter has not been brought before it in regular appeal or revision.
(3.) AFTER going through the above judgment, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case where the remarks as above-said requires to be expunged. I, therefore, accept the petition and expunge the above-said remarks of the order of learned Sessions Judge passed on 17. 8. 1999 in Criminal Misc. Application No. 736/98. The misc. petition is allowed . ;