- (1.) IN both these cases complaints were filed by the police under sec. 182 I. P. C. against Matadeen and under Sec. 182 and 211 I. P. C. against Balbir in the Court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Kishangarh Bas, District Alwar. The learned Magistrate discharged accused Matadeen vide his order dated August 5, 1981 and discharged accused Balbir vide his order dated October 30, 1981 and cancelled the bail bonds given by them,
(2.) BEING aggrieved of the above noted orders, the State Government filed revision petitions challenging the validity of the impugned orders, which came up for decision before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kishangarh Bas on March 2, 1982 Learned Additional Sessions Judge allowed the revision petitions set aside the orders dated 5-8-1981 and 30-10-81 and remanded the cases to the lower Court for a fresh decision according to law. While deciding the revision petitions, the learned Additional Sessions Judge also made following observations against Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Kishangarh Bas, Radhey Mohan Srivastava:- Varnacular Text The law regarding expunging of remarks by this Court while exercising inherent powers stands well settled in The State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Mohammad Nairn (1 ). Their Lordships have observed as under : " The position as to case-law now seems to be that except for a somewhat restricted view taken by the Bombay High Court, the other High Courts have taken the view that though the jurisdiction is of an exceptional nature and is to be exercised in most exceptional cases only it is undoubtedly open to the High Court to expunge remarks from a judgement in order to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of the process of the Court. " The question which arises before me is whether the present case is a case of exceptional nature in which this Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 402 Cr. P. C. in respect of the observations complained of by the petitioner. If there is one principle of cardinal importance in the administration of justice, is that the proper freedom and independence of Judge and Magistrates must be maintained and they must be allowed to perform their function freely and fearlessly and without under interference by anybody. At the same time it is equally necessary that in expressing their opinion, Judges and Magistrates must be guided by consideration of Justice, fair play and restraint. It is not infrequent that sweeping generalisations defeat the very purpose for which they are made. It stands well recognised that in matters of making disparaging remarks against person or authorities whose action or conduct comes into consideration before Court of law in cases to be decided by it, it is relevant to consider (a) whether the party whose conduct is before the Court had an opportunity of explaining or defending himself (b) whether there is evidence on record bearing on that conduct justifying the remarks and (c) whether it is necessary for the decision of the case, as an integral part thereof, to administer justice. It is also be kept in view that judicial pronouncements must be judicial in nature and should not normally depart from sobriety, moderation and reserve. In the case before me the learned Judge has made certain observations against the learned Magistrate, who decided the cases as the trial Court. There cannot be any doubt that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has no jurisdiction in censuring the conduct of the petitioner (Magistrate) when he was neither party to the proceedings, nor he had an opportunity to explain his conduct. Merely because the learned Additional Sessions Judge disagreed with the findings arrived at by the learned Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, the revisional Court ought not to have written any such remarks which cannot be said to be parliamentary. Disagreement with the finding of the subordinate court should be based more on law and reasons rather than on personal denunciation of the presiding officer of the inferior court. A revisional court is competent to find faults with the findings arrived at by the lower court, but there is no authority vested in it, nor there is any justification for its denouncing the presiding officer of the subordinate court as a person.
(3.) FOR the reasons given above I have come to the conclusion that the present case is one which falls in the category of exceptional cases and inherent jurisdiction of the Court 1 am of opinion that the remarks mentioned in Hindi between A to B and C to D should be expunged. I accordingly allow both the petitions and direct that the aforesaid remarks stand expunged and shall be deemed to have been expunged from the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kishangarh Bas dated March 2, 1982 i. e. from the date he passed the order. A copy of this order is ordered to be sent to Registrar, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur, who shall place it on record in the personal file of the concerned officer. The second copy of the same is ordered to be send to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Kishangarh Bas for placing it on the record of the concerned file. A note is also ordered to be appended on the original judgment to the effect that the remarks mentioned therein between the words A and B and C and D have been ordered to be expunged by the order of this Court dated August 20, 1982. .;