Virender Singh, C.J. - (1.) I.A. No. 2193 of 2014. The instant application has been filed by learned trial judge (since retired), who handed down judgment dated 24th January, 2012 whereby convicting all the ten accused, namely, (1) Hadi Munda (2) Rashwal Munda (3) Singhrai Pahan (4) Kunwar Pahan (5) Lussa Pahan (6) Sanika Pahan (7) Sukhram Pahan (8) Hathiram Pahan (9) Rudhi Pahan and (10) Dasai Pahan for the main charge of Ss. 302 and 201, IPC, for expunging adverse remarks passed by this Court while disposing of bail application of some of the appellants observing as under: "It appears that Sri Uday Narayan Mishra (the then 1st Additional Judicial Commissioner, Khunti) has no elementary knowledge of law" The reason for making the aforesaid observation is that when judgment under appeal was pronounced on 24th January, 2012 only two convicts, namely, Kunwar Pahan and Rashlal Pahan alias Munda were present and whereas representation on behalf of other six accused, namely, Hadi Munda, Sanika Pahan, Rudhi Pahan, Hathiram Pahan, Sukhram Pahan and Lussa Pahan was filed. Two of the accused, namely, Singhrai Pahan and Dasai Pahan were already absconding and that permanent warrants of arrest against them were also issued. The status of all the accused was well within the knowledge of trial Court. Besides that, judgment of conviction was pronounced by the trial court even against those accused who were declared absconder. This Court took a serious view of it and constrained to pass the aforesaid remarks against the trial judge.
(2.) Mr. Tandon, appearing for applicant (learned trial judge) seeking expunging of the aforesaid remarks relied upon two judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the cases of Awani Kumar Upadhyay v/s. The Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and Ors., reported in : (2013) 12 SCC 392 : (AIR 2013 SC 2189) and Braj Kishore Thakur v/s. Union of India and Ors., reported in : (1997) 4 SCC 65 : (AIR 1997 SC 1157). In our considered view, judgments relied upon by Mr. Tandon would not put the case of the applicant on any advantageous position in the aforesaid backdrop of the facts.
(3.) From perusal of the judgment and lower court records, it is evident that all the ten accused who have been charge -sheeted were facing trial after framing of the charge under Ss. 302/34 and 201, IPC. The names of all the ten accused find place at the title page of the judgment passed in S.T. No. 267 of 2002. Till recording of statement under Sec. 313, Cr.P.C., all the ten accused were present. When case was posted for argument, one of the accused namely Singhrai Pahan had started absconding. Processes were issued and finally he was declared absconder and permanent warrant of arrest was issued against him. Thereafter another accused namely Dasai Pahan did not appear and for that his bail was cancelled and after issuance of process, he too, was declared absconder. On the date of pronouncement of the judgment, out of the remaining eight accused persons, two of the accused, namely, Kunwar Pahan and Rashlal Pahan alias Munda were present, whereas rest six accused persons, namely, Hadi Munda, Sanika Pahan, Rudhi Pahan, Hathiram Pahan, Sukhram Pahan and Lussa Pahan were represented through their lawyer. Singhrai Pahan and Dasai Pahan had been absconding and permanent warrants of arrest were issued against them. The status of all the ten accused was well within the knowledge of the learned Sessions Judge and that is appearing from paragraph -19 of the judgment.;