Judgment 1. This is an application under Ss. 435, 439 and 561-A, Criminal P.C. made by one Dr. G. J. Kamat, who was an informant in a criminal case, which resulted in the conviction of the accused under S. 506 of the Penal Code. The petitioner has prayed that this Court do expunge certain remarks made by the trial Magistrate in the judgment, concerning the first informant, namely, the petitioner here, as they were unjustified, irrelevant and libellous and they were likely to reflect on his character. 2. The necessary facts, shortly stated, are these. The petitioner was the Works Manager of Messrs. Tata Robins Fraser Limited (hereinafter referred to as "the Company") at Jamshedpur. Sometime in April, 1965, one person went to the house of the petitioner and asked him to give him an employment in the Company on which he was told that he should submit an application addressed to the Company in its office. That person went to the bungalow of the petitioner several times but could not meet him. About a week prior to 30th of May, 1965, the petitioner received a telephone call from a person who introduced himself as a student of the Workers College and asked for an appointment with him (petitioner) at his residence. The petitioner asked that person to see him in his office, but he appeared to have been annoyed. On 26th of May, 1965 in the evening, it is said, while the petitioner wanted to go out to fulfil his engagement, he found that 10 or 12 persons had collected in front of his gate, and on the suggestion of his Darwan (P. W. 4), he avoided meeting those persons and drove away. Subsequently, the petitioner received a letter (Ext. 1) wherein threats had been held out to his life and to the safety of his children if he failed to give a job to the writer of the letter, who described himself as Rajesh Kumar Tiwary. On the 30th May, 1965, the petitioner lodged a written complaint (Ext. 8) at Bistupur police station, and a copy of the same was forwarded to the Superintendent of Police, Jamshedpur . The petitioner received, a few days later, various threats on telephone; and it appears that on 4th of June. On the 30th May, 1965, the petitioner lodged a written complaint (Ext. 8) at Bistupur police station, and a copy of the same was forwarded to the Superintendent of Police, Jamshedpur . The petitioner received, a few days later, various threats on telephone; and it appears that on 4th of June. 1965, the petitioner asked the caller to present himself for an interview at 2 p. m., and the latter agreed to it. At 4 p. m. on 4th of June, 1965, the caller, namely, the accused came to the office of the Company, when, by a prior arrangement with the Superintendent of Police, a plain clothed man was also present, who arrested him. It is not necessary to state the other facts, as, ultimately, the accused, who had described himself as Rajesh Kumar Tiwary, was arrested, as stated above, and his real name transpired to be Jogendra Singh of village Mango of the same police station in the district of Singhbhum. Investigation of the case was made by the Police, and he was put upon his trial before Mr. R. N. P. Dubey, Judicial Magistrate, Ist class, Jamshedpur, for offences punishable under Ss. 143 and 506 of the Penal Code, and he was found guilty under S. 506 of the Code and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-; in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for four months. He was acquitted of the charge under S. 143, of the Code. 3. Mr. Nageshwar Prasad, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has taken me through the entire judgment, and has contended that the learned Magistrate has recorded the findings that an anonymous letter had been addressed to the petitioner by the accused and that he was, on the materials on the record, clearly guilty of an offence under S. 506 of the Penal Code; nevertheless, the learned Magistrate has, in various paragraphs of his judgment, passed strong remarks against the petitioner. Learned counsel has further urged that the approach made by the learned Magistrate was wholly unjudicial and has shown me the various paragraphs, to be referred to hereafter, wherein the learned Magistrate has passed several strictures against this petitioner and has even suggested to his employer to consider whether some suitable action should be taken in the matter including removing him from service after proper departmental enquiry if found guilty. Mr. Mr. Nageshwar Prasad has rightly pointed out that the mind of the learned Magistrate was obviously loaded with bias in favour of the accused even though he found fit to convict him on evidence, which he obviously has done, in sympathy with the accused, as is clear from the various passages shown to me in the judgment. 4. The passages which learned counsel wants this Court to expunge from the learned Magistrates order are contained in paragraphs 23, 25, 27, 31, 35, 36 and 37 of the judgment, which read as follows :- Paragraph 23 : ".......I am afraid I have no other opinion than to remark that P. W. 1 failed to call the police as he must have been suffering from the pangs of a guilty conscience or at least a wavering conscience. This singal failure is apt to lend considerable support to the contention of the accused that he had paid Rs. 500.00 only towards illegal gratification to Dr. Kamat to induce him to secure an appointment to the accused." Paragraph 25 : ".......It therefore, does not stand to my reason that even while exercising the maximum amount of patience and forbearance, Dr. Kamat would have gone to the extent of assuring the accused for a job and thereby kept him balanced on the tenterhooks of suspense, had the accused given Dr. Kamat a threat to stab as P. W. 4 says or threatened Dr. Kamat with dire consequences as Dr. Kamat himself says........" Paragraph 27 : ".......These kaleidoscopic circumstances, to my mind were powerful enough to disturb the mental equilibrium of any normally sane person and more so of the accused who is only a matriculate, still quite young and has failed despite frantic efforts to fix himself up in some job in his life so far. No surprise out of sheer desperation, the accused addressed the letter under fake name of Rajesh Kumar Tiwary." Paragraph 31 : ".....Unfortunately for even such petty details, P. W. 1 cannot be relied upon. Therefore there can be no manner of doubt about one thing-there was something positively wrong with the conscience of P. W. 1 else, he would never have allowed things to drift and ultimately take that unfortunate shape which gave cause for this prosecution. The accused says he had given Rs. 500.00 only towards illegal gratification to P.W. 1. Therefore there can be no manner of doubt about one thing-there was something positively wrong with the conscience of P. W. 1 else, he would never have allowed things to drift and ultimately take that unfortunate shape which gave cause for this prosecution. The accused says he had given Rs. 500.00 only towards illegal gratification to P.W. 1. May be possible or may not be possible. But one thing is surely possible, if any person has been responsible for instant unfortunate occurrence, it is none else the P. W. 1 himself." " .... In spite of this uncompromising position, it is difficult for me to understand as to why P. W. 1 held out a ray of hope to the accused by asking him to apply instead of explaining the correct position in a sweet but firm tone......". Paragraph 35 : "A word of tough warning to P. W. 1 before I end. In a criminal case, an accused can take any plea to save his own neck. But if such a plea is supported by unrebutted testimony brought on record, such a plea becomes powerful enough so as to take a due toll of the prosecution contention. The circumstances unfolded in the instant case lend considerable support to the plea of the accused that he had paid Rs. 500.00 only towards illegal gratification to P. W. 1. The hydra-headed monster of corruption raising its ugly head in any walk of our national life has got to be vigorously crushed by all sane sections of our society, whatever may be the level which one may be occupying. I trust the irresponsible conduct of P W 1 will attract the attention of Messrs Tata Robins Fraser Limited which will take such suitable action in the matter as it deems proper. Such employees must be removed if, after proper departmental enquiry, they are found guilty." Para 36 : .....The entire evidence of D. W. 1 is designed to unfolding before me a grim tale of the manner in which P. W. 1 has bean realising illegal gratification from job hunters of Jamshedpur....." Paragraph 37: "P. W. 1 has not vouchsafed falsehood only with regard to one detail but to a number of time. I will cite only one instance and end. I will cite only one instance and end. For the first time that P. W. 1 met the accused, the talk between the two, according to P. W. 1 took place at the front gate of his bungalow, where an unnamed Sadhu and the Choukidar (P. W. 4) were present. P. W. 4 rebuts this statement in the following words : The accused had met Dr. Kamath within his bungalow. On the day, former had come to meet him for the first time for a job, (vide para 8 of P. W. 4s statement). What greater evidence is required to show that P. W. 1 is a lier ?" The observation of the learned Magistrate for instance, in paragraph 23 is wholly unjustified on the state of the record. It could not be said, as has been said by him, that the contention of the accused that he had paid Rs. 500.00 towards illegal gratification, appeared to find support from the failure of the petitioner to call the Police. Again, the observation in paragraph 35 is wholly misconceived as it is clearly outside the scope of a Magistrates duty to go beyond the issue of guilty or not guilty in a criminal case before him. Further, the observations in this paragraph cannot be said to be justified as the Magistrate should not have indulged in making suggestions to the petitioners employer which would amount to deprivation of his livelihood. 4A. It is urged by Mr. Prasad that the accused had set up a defence that, since the petitioner had accepted illegal gratification of Rs. 500.00 for offering him a job and had failed to do so, he had been implicated falsely in the case. It is further urged that this defence may or may not be true or even plausible. The observation of the learned Magistrate at one place of his judgment that "The accused says he had given Rs. 500.00 only towards illegal gratification to P. W. 1 may be possible or may not be possible" shows that there was no justification for the Magistrate to hold that it had been proved in the case that an illegal gratification of Rs. 500.00 had been paid to the petitioner. 500.00 only towards illegal gratification to P. W. 1 may be possible or may not be possible" shows that there was no justification for the Magistrate to hold that it had been proved in the case that an illegal gratification of Rs. 500.00 had been paid to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner endeavoured to take me through the evidence in the case to show that there was absolutely no material on the record to justify the defence of the accused, but I am not asked to consider any other material in this application except to expunge certain remarks in the judgment of the learned Magistrate. I have therefore, refrained from making any comments on the case. It is sufficient to mention that on a perusal of the judgment itself, I am satisfied that the learned Magistrate was not justified in passing these strictures against the petitioner. It is obvious that after the learned Magistrate had found the prosecution case substantially correct, he was exceeding the limits of his jurisdiction in passing the remarks complained of in the various paragraphs referred to above. The judgment of the learned Magistrate shows that he is very fond of homily and overflown language, and he therefore, does not appear to have considered the evidence either objectively or dispassionately. The evidence in a criminal case has to be examined in the light of broad probabilities and the Court has to endeavour to find out which way truth lies. It is manifest that the learned Magistrate had accepted the prosecution case to a large extent and convicted the accused person. The question is whether the Magistrate was justified, as he appears to have passed the various remarks in his judgment. 5. It is now too well settled as a result of a large number of decisions that a trial Court has a right to make certain observations if it finds that there is justification for doing so. But it is equally settled that if the Courts have to make adverse remarks against anyone which are likely to injure the reputation or prejudically affect the means of his livelihood or his career, the power should be exercised with great reserve and moderation. The need for such caution is still greater in a case of remarks against a person whose entire career is likely to be affected by such remarks. The need for such caution is still greater in a case of remarks against a person whose entire career is likely to be affected by such remarks. The remarks, where justifiable, should be well couched and in decorous terms. Further, no such remarks should be made unless they are based on material legally and properly brought on the record. They should not be based on no evidence or irrelevant or inadmissible evidence. The Supreme Court in a recent case in State of Uttar Pradesh V/s. Mohammad Naim, AIR 1964 SC 703 had occasion to consider the scope and inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under S. 561-A of the Criminal P.C., and in paragraph 10 has set out the approach, which is as follows :- "The last question is, is the present case a case of an exceptional nature in which the learned Judge should have exercised his inherent jurisdiction under S. 561-A, Criminal P.C., in respect of the observations complained of by the State Government. If there is one principle of cardinal importance in the administration of justice, it is this : the proper freedom and independence of Judges and Magistrates must be maintained and they must be allowed to perform their functions freely and fearlessly and without undue interference by anybody, even by this Court. At the same time it is equally necessary that in expressing their opinions Judges and Magistrates must be guided by considerations of justice, fairplay and restraint. It is not infrequent that sweeping generalisations defeat the very purpose for which they are made. It has been judicially recognised that in the matter of making disparaging remarks against persons or authorities whose conduct comes into consideration before Courts of law in cases to be decided by them, it is relevant to consider (a) whether the party whose conduct is in question is before the Court or has 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 animadvert on that conduct. It has also been recognised that judicial pronouncements must be judicial in nature, and should not normally depart from sobriety, moderation and reserve." 6. It has also been recognised that judicial pronouncements must be judicial in nature, and should not normally depart from sobriety, moderation and reserve." 6. Applying the principles laid down in the aforesaid case, I am satisfied that the learned Magistrate in this case has exceeded the limits of legitimate remarks which he was not entitled to do, as the inferences drawn by him could not have been so drawn, specially when the case for the prosecution had substantially succeeded and the defence set up had not been accepted. In my opinion, the remarks contained in the various paragraphs mentioned earlier were wholly unjustified and they reflect on the character of the petitioner and may, undoubtedly, affect his future. 7. For the reasons expressed above, I am clearly of opinion that this is one of those exceptional cases where inherent jurisdiction of this Court under S. 561-A of the Criminal P.C., should be exercised in the interest of justice. Accordingly, the remarks complained of in the various paragraphs referred to above should be expunged. 8. The application is accordingly allowed, and the remarks contained in paragraphs 23, 25, 27, 31, 35, 36 and 37 of the judgment of the learned Magistrate dated 26th March, 1966, shall stand expunged therefrom.