JUDGMENT : R.J. Bahadur, J. 1. This appeal under Section 417(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is against an ORDER :of acquittal passed by a Munsif Magistrate, 1st class, of Monghyr. The three respondents were tried on charges under Sections 295A and 500 of the Indian Penal Code and acquitted. 2. The facts of the prosecution case are that on the 7th and 8th of February, 1964 the complainant Ram Bahadur Singh (P.W. 1), who is an Anand Margi, read some news item published in a Hindi News Paper named "Daily Navarashtra" and learnt that his Adhyaksha Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar had been arrested. He enquired about the correctness of the news and found out that the news was baseless. The complainant thus felt humiliated and went through mental agony. Me, therefore, filed a complaint before the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Shri B.M. Rustogi, who took cognizance of the case and transferred the case to the. Munsif Magistrate for trial. 3. The defence of the respondents; was that they had published the aforesaid news but claimed that the publication was not made with any intent to defame anybody. Their further plea was that a police case under Sections 342 and 65 of the Indian Penal Code had been lodged against Sarkar 'Anand Murti', who was arrested and was enlarged on bail by the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Monghyr. The news, therefore, was correct. Their further, defence was that Shri Rastogi, who was the Second Officer and was working as Subdivisional Magistrate on the day in question, being himself 'Anand Margi' was in conspiracy with the complainant and got a complaint filed, and Shri Rastogi took cognizance of the case, only to harass the accused persons. 4. On a review of the evidence in the case, the learned Munsif Magistrate acquitted all the accused persons of the charge under Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code. He also acquitted them of the charge under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code and held that if Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar had been defamed, it was he who should have filed the complaint, and, in absence of such a complaint, the cognizance was hit by the provisions of Section 198 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 5. He also acquitted them of the charge under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code and held that if Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar had been defamed, it was he who should have filed the complaint, and, in absence of such a complaint, the cognizance was hit by the provisions of Section 198 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 5. Learned Counsel appearing in suport of the appeal has submitted that he would not question the acquittal of these respondents, as the JUDGMENT : of the learned Munsif Magistrate, shows that he has dealt with the evidence very carefully, and did not think it fit to accept the evidence of any one of those witnesses. But learned Counsel submitted that there are two grounds, which require consideration by this Court, and to that extent, he would like to make his submissions. He has drawn my attention to paragraph 10 of the JUDGMENT : of the learned Munsif Magistrate, which may be reproduced here: I further find that the complainant brought this vexatious case against these accused persons simply to feed his personal grudge, in collusion of the Anand Margis, especially Sri B.M. Rastogi, Second Officer, who is said to be an Anand Margi one. As accused Dinesh Prasad Singh and Ashok Kumar have not pressed for compensation. I hereby ORDER :Under Section 250, Cr.P.C. the complainant to appear and show cause by 19-3-66 as to why he should not pay compensation to Ram Swarup Sharma an accused in this case. There are two contentions raised by learned Counsel-firstly, that the learned Munsif-Magistrate was in error and has exceeded the limits of his jurisdiction in making certain irrelevant remarks against Shri Rastogi, Who had taken cognizance of the case, which were based absolutely on no evidence, and secondly, the ORDER :of compensation made by the learned Munsif Magistrate is wholly illegal and should be set aside. 6. In view of learned Counsel's attitude, so far as this appeal is concerned, I find it unnecessary to examine the evidence of the witnesses. It may, however, be mentioned that four witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution including the complainant, namely, Ram Bahadur Singh (P.W. 1). 6. In view of learned Counsel's attitude, so far as this appeal is concerned, I find it unnecessary to examine the evidence of the witnesses. It may, however, be mentioned that four witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution including the complainant, namely, Ram Bahadur Singh (P.W. 1). The learned Munsif Magistrate, in coming to his conclusion, has also observed that all the witnesses were Anand Margis and their evidence did not disclose that the complainant had really been defamed in this case; as such, the prosecution had miserably failed to bring home the charge under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. 7. I shall, therefore, only examine the contentions raised before me by learned Counsel appearing for the appellant. There can be no doubt that the High Court has got inherent jurisdiction to expunge objectionable remarks in a JUDGMENT : or an ORDER :of a subordinate court against a third person even after it has become final. This position is not questioned by Mr. Nagendra Prasad Singh appearing on behalf of the respondents. It appears that there was absolutely no evidence before the learned Munsif Magistrate who has made the observations against the judicial integrity of Shri Rastogi in paragraph 10 of his JUDGMENT :. In my opinion, they are wholly irrelevant. Shri Rastogi is neither a witness in the case nor can he be said to be a party to it, simply because he has taken cognizance of the case. The only, material which has been shown to me by counsel for the parties, is contained in paragraph 3 of the written statement. It is stated therein: That it is supported from the fact that the complainant himself is a Addl. Commandant of B.M.P. a responsible police officer having knowledge of law and Mr. B.M. Rastogy the officer taking cognizance in this case in the capacity of S.D.M. who was a senior officer. Both of them belong to Ananda Marga. They were aware that neither person aggrieved presented this complt nor there was any sanction. Still cognizance was taken and case was referred for trial. This is not evidence and is only a statement made on behalf of the accused persons in their written statement. Undoubtedly, these remarks of the learned Munsif Magistrate against Shri Rastogi are unjustifiable and are bound to be harmful to him. Still cognizance was taken and case was referred for trial. This is not evidence and is only a statement made on behalf of the accused persons in their written statement. Undoubtedly, these remarks of the learned Munsif Magistrate against Shri Rastogi are unjustifiable and are bound to be harmful to him. It is not in dispute that Judges or Magistrates have full freedom to express their conclusions in respect of the evidence given by the witnesses before them without any favour or fear and so judicial power to express their appreciation about oral evidence is very wide. But the very width of the said power must inevitably impose some healthy restraint upon its exercise. There can be no doubt, that a Judge or a Magistrate should not adopt unduly strong, intemperate or harsh language while expressing himself. The use of intemperate language may, in some cases, tend to show lack of experience or absence of judicial poise and balance see, for instance, Ishwari Prasad Misra v. Mohammad Isa [1963]3SCR722 . I am satisfied that this is an appropriate case in which the irrelevant remarks of the trial court against Shri Rastogi may be expunged. I may also observe that it was wholly unnecessary for the Munsif Magistrate to have made the remarks; and it amounts to flagrant abuse of his powers. As I have said already, the remarks are bound to harm and prejudice Shri Rastogi. There is absolutely no material to cast any reflection upon the judicial discretion exercised by him as the Sub-divisional Magistrate in taking cognizance of the case. Accordingly, the remarks in paragraph 10 of the JUDGMENT : of the trial court against Shri B.M. Rastogi will stand expunged. 8. So far as the second point is concerned, learned Counsel for the appellant has urged that there is no finding that the charge brought by the prosecution was a false one and, therefore, frivolous or vexatious. Learned Counsel for the respondents has very frankly conceded that there is no such finding. The finding of the learned Munsif Magistrate, in substance, is that the complainant failed to prove his allegations. It is, therefore, quite clear that this finding does not mean that the allegations levelled by the complainant were necessarily false. Learned Counsel for the respondents has very frankly conceded that there is no such finding. The finding of the learned Munsif Magistrate, in substance, is that the complainant failed to prove his allegations. It is, therefore, quite clear that this finding does not mean that the allegations levelled by the complainant were necessarily false. In my JUDGMENT :, the submission made on behalf of the appellant must be accepted as correct that the Magistrate has to be satisfied that the accusation against the accused persons was not only false but was also either frivolous or vexatious. In this view of the matter, I have no hesitation in holding that the ORDER :passed by the learned Munsif Magistrate awarding compensation under Section 250 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, cannot be sustained on the facts and in the circumstances of this case. 9. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed, and the remarks made by the learned Munsif Magistrate against Shri B.M. Rastogi, as contained in paragraph 10 of his JUDGMENT :, are expunged. Further the ORDER :awarding compensation under Section 250 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is set aside. Appeal Dismissed.