ABDUL AZIZ BEG Vs. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the Court under section 561-A Cr. P.C., with a view to secure the ends of justice, the petitioner seeks expunging of the remarks made against him by a Single Judge of this Court in bail application No. 99 of 1985 titled Chuni Lal and others v. State of J. & K. and others. Respondent No.2, Mr. Chuni Lal Raina, applied for bail under section 498 Cr. P.C. in case FIR No. 181 of 1985 registered at Police Station, Shergarhi, Srinagar which was granted on 10-5-1985 but while disposing of the application the Court made following observations against the petitioner, who at the relevant time, was serving as the District Education Officer, Anantnag: From the perusal of the case diaries it is revealed that the investigating agency has recorded statements of only a few witnesses from 17th April, 1985 to 7th May, 1985. Among the persons who have been interrogated, during this period is - District Education Officer, Anantnag. Mr. Abdul Aziz Beg from whose custody some documents have been seized and it is the case of the prosecution that he had appointed accused Chuni Lal as Superintendent of the examination centre without seeking confirmation of the Board. It is suggested that he is a co-conspirator but strangely enough that man is still at large. It seems that officers are being screened by the police or by some b6dy who is interested in hushing up the matter. It is observed by the investigating agency that people at the helm of affairs at the Board are obstructing the investigation and they are annoyed with the investigating agency. That by itself is an indication that the officers of the Board who are in- charge of administration of the Board are either trying to save their on skin or trying to save some one else. This said state of affairs is revealed by the case-diaries and it is a reflection on the working of the Crime Branch. I think they are not honestly conducting the investigation of the case or they are working under some influence.

(2.) The grievance of the petitioner, as projected by Mr. Hagroo, his learned counsel; is that-he was not a party in the said bail application, nor any notice had been issued to him during the pendency of the bail application before the aforesaid remarks which are stated to be highly prejudicial to the petitioners career, were made. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner has been condemned, unheard and that even otherwise the remarks made by the learned Single Judge, were uncalled for, unwarranted and not at all necessary for the disposal of the bail application.

(3.) Mr. B.A. Khan, the learned AddI. Adv. General appearing for the State, has not opposed the prayer for expunging the above remarks, and as a matter of fact, he also stated that the remarks had been made behind the back of the petitioner which was unjust. Mr. Hali, who appeared for Mr. G.M. Koul on behalf of the respondent No.2, Mr. Chuni Lal Raina, also did not oppose the prayer for expunging the remarks.