JUDGMENT D. P. Sinha, J. This is an application under section 561 A of the Criminal Procedure Code for expunging certain, remarks made in a judgment, against the petitioner, by Shri R. L. Bhagat, Munsif-Magistrate, First class, Gopalganj, in a case in which two persons, namely Jamuna Sah and Rampujan Dusadh were put on trial on a charge under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and were acquitted. The said two persons were put on trial in the following circumstances. 2. The petitioner, Shri Banwari Lal Shrivastava, was coming from Gorakhpur to Gopalganj on 16-8-66, where he was posted as a Munsif-Magistrate, First class. During the course of that journey at about 3 a. m. he got down from 218 down train at Thawe where he changed the train and boarded the 241 up train which goes to gopalganj. As soon as he entered the compartment no. 4798 he found that several bags of wheat had been loaded in it and some other bags were being loaded in 'the train. On his written request, the Guard of the train detained the train for unloading the bags which were un-booked. Accordingly 15 bags of wheat were unloaded from compartment no. 4798 and six bags from compartment no. 5187 in the presence of the• Guard; the Assistant Station Master and certain other persons. Three bags of wheat, which were about to be loaded in the train were abandoned near the brake van. Out of the 15 bags which were unloaded from compartment no. 4798, 6 bags weighing 4 quintals 46 kilograms were claimed by Jarnuna Sah and 9 bags weighing 5 quintals and 86 kilograms were claimed by Rampujan Dusadh, both of whom disclosed that they had brought the wheat from Padrauna, a place in the district of Deoria, in Uttar Pradesh, where they live. So far as the other bags were concerned, none came forward to claim them. The petitioner •then gave a written report (Ext. 2) to the G. R. P. at Thawe whereupon an Assistant Sub-Inspector arrived and seized the bags and took Jamuna and Rampujan Dusadh into his custody. They were without tickets and, as already stated, all the bags were un-booked. The Assistant Station Master charged them Rs.6. 60 each as fare and excess charge and Rs. 2) to the G. R. P. at Thawe whereupon an Assistant Sub-Inspector arrived and seized the bags and took Jamuna and Rampujan Dusadh into his custody. They were without tickets and, as already stated, all the bags were un-booked. The Assistant Station Master charged them Rs.6. 60 each as fare and excess charge and Rs. 29.20 from Jamuna Sah for the 6 bags of un-booked wheat claimed by him and 38.20 from Rampujan Dusadh on account of the 9 bags claimed by him, as freight. It further appears that since they failed to pay the said charges, the Assistant Station Master made over the charge-sheets to the Assistant Sub-Inspector of police. After investigation the police submitted charge sheet against them and thereupon they were put on trial on a charge under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act which said that being in illegal possession of the wheat they had contravened the provisions of the Food Grains Dealers Licensing Order, 1966, and that they had also violated the provisions of a Notification no. 12084 S. C. dated the 30th June, 1966, issued under section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, having carried, without obtaining a permit for the movement of the wheat from Uttar Pradesh to Bihar. 3. The learned Munsif-Magistrate, Sri R. L. Bhagat, who tried the said two persons on the said charge, acquitted them on a finding that the allegations against the accused persons did not constitute any offence. He further held that the evidence did not connect the accused as being the owners of the bags. He disbelieved the evidence of the petitioner, who figured as P. W. 1 in the case, and held that his evidence was not true and that he had acted as a partisan witness and as an irresponsible person. 4. Learned counsel appearing for. the petitioner contended that the trial magistrate had made highly unjustified, uncalled for, irrelevant and unwarranted observation against the petitioner while assessing his evidence and that the magistrate had dealt with the evidence of the petitioner with a highly prejudiced-mind as can be evident from a mere reading of the judgment. In support of his contention he cited the following observation against the petitioner in the judgment, which are also quoted in the petition: (a) Paragraph 10. "I am not impressed with this argument on behalf of the prosecution that what Mr. In support of his contention he cited the following observation against the petitioner in the judgment, which are also quoted in the petition: (a) Paragraph 10. "I am not impressed with this argument on behalf of the prosecution that what Mr. Srivastava now says is the truth, whole truth and nothing but truth and what he noted in his report are mere omissions. The argument would have been of some value if the witness was a lay-man or who was not well versed in court affairs. In the instant case, he himself is a Magistrate of 1st class, and, therefore, it is normally expected of him that he would record facts correctly and will not omit to mention relevant facts". (b) Paragraph 12 "P. W. 1 Mr. Srivastava has admitted that he did not take statements of the accused persons. Therefore, it could not be understood how the accused persons began to narrate that they are the owners; that they are bringing the articles from Padrauna and that they are taking it for the purpose of sale. Unless of course both the accused had lost their mental balance, it is absurd to believe that they would be making these statements to a complete stranger as Mr. Srivastava. It was not the case of Mr. Srivastava that he had picked up friendship with these alleged smugglers and in confidence, he gathered the above in-formations from the accused persons. We know that Mr. Srivastava had just entered that crowded third class compartment and, therefore, it does not stand to reason that in that short span of time, both the accused would rush to Mr. Srivastava to convey all what Mr. Srivastava now tells in court." (c) Paragraph 16. "I am conscious of this fact that the statement of Mr. B. L. Srivastava that the accused persons made the statements before him, as claimed by him should not be lightly brushed aside but I am also conscious of this fact that Mr. Srivastava has not taken a dispassionate view of the matter and has himself jumped in the frey. He has not taken a detached view of the incident, rather he has taken a partisan attitude as any other common litigant does. He had deposed about• facts, which, on careful scrutiny, appear to be non exist ant, and do not stand to common sense. He has not taken a detached view of the incident, rather he has taken a partisan attitude as any other common litigant does. He had deposed about• facts, which, on careful scrutiny, appear to be non exist ant, and do not stand to common sense. In this background, therefore, I do not think it prudent to come to a conclusion that what Mr. Srivastava says is the truth." (d) Paragraph 19-20 "So, it could not be explained as to what offence or an offence of such heinous nature was being committed, which impelled Mr. Srivastava, a responsible Government servant presumably aware of his powers and limitation, to order the detention of the train ?". "The question is, whether Mr. Srivastava was guided by a high sense of duty or it was done only to satisfy his itch to demonstrate and show off his powers, as a magistrate of the 1st class, when he could .not find a suitable accommodation for him in the early hours of 16. 8. 66, in the 3rd class compartment, already over-crowded at Thawe". "At any rate, if all magistrates of the State of Bihar take upon their heads to enforce their supposed sense of justice and law, as Mr. Srivastava had done in this case, entire civil life will come to a halt. I understand that Mr. Srivastava has not only been exercising the power of the, magistrate of the first class, but has also been vested with special powers under the E. C. Act. Surely, therefore, he must be aware of the relevant provisions of the E. C. Act. Hence, it was expected of him that before he took such a drastic action as detention of a passenger train, he would think thrice before ordering its detention. The action of Mr. Srivastava, called for this observation of mine for the simple reason that his indiscreet order caused loss to some, embarrassment to many and inconvenience to all the travelling public who were in that train on that date". (The magistrate has wrongly numbered paragraphs 20, 21 and 22 etc. as 18, 19, 20 and so on). (e) Paragraph 24, "I am satisfied that, both the present accused are unfortunate victims of circumstances and on absolute misconception of law and facts, they have been subjected to this avoidable harassment. (The magistrate has wrongly numbered paragraphs 20, 21 and 22 etc. as 18, 19, 20 and so on). (e) Paragraph 24, "I am satisfied that, both the present accused are unfortunate victims of circumstances and on absolute misconception of law and facts, they have been subjected to this avoidable harassment. The over-jealous action of the magistrate was responsible for subjecting the present accused to this protracted trial without any corresponding benefit to any one. The magistrate would have been well advised to, exercise restraint in exercising his powers as a magistrate which may have far reaching repercussion and shake the confidence of the people at large in the golden isolation and detachment of judicial officers". 5. It is well settled that this Court has inherent power to make any order for the purposes of securing the ends of justice and this power extends to expunction or ordering expunction of irrelevant observation or comments in a judgment or an order of a subordinate court and in appropriate cases it would be exercised for securing the-ends of justice. This power being extraordinary power will not, however be exercised except for removing a flagrant abuse by a subordinate court of, its power such as, by passing comments against a witness which are not relevant to the controversy and are unwarranted or likely to cause harm or prejudice to him. 6. The immutable principle in the administration of justice about which, there was never any controversy, is, that proper freedom and independence of Judges and Magistrates must be maintained and that they must be allowed to perform their functions freely and fearlessly and without undue interference by any body, even by the highest court At the same time, it is equally necessary that in expressing their opinions, Judges and magistrates must be guided by considerations of justice, fair play and restraint. In this behalf the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Mohammed Naim1 may be seen. In this behalf the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Mohammed Naim1 may be seen. 1t was pointed out that it had been judicially recognised that in the matter of making disparaging remarks against person 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. 7. In this case the comments made by the trial magistrate against the petitioner, are undoubtedly disparaging in nature and they tend to show that the petitioner is a person who has little or no regard for truth, and that he acted in an irresponsible manner in implicating the accused persons falsely. The question• for consideration is whether the remarks were justified or not and whether there was sufficient warrant, in the evidence adduced before the magistrate, for the comments and whether it was necessary for the decision of the case as an integral part thereof to make the comments on the conduct of the petitioner in the manner they have been made. 8. It has already been mentioned earlier that the acquittal had been based on the findings that the allegations made on behalf of the prosecution did not disclose the commission of any offence at all and further that the evidence of the petitioner (P. W. 1) that the un-booked bags had been claimed by the two accused persons and that they had stated that they had brought them from Padrauna was not true. In so far as the evidence of the petitioner (P. W. 1) in this behalf concerned, the learned magistrate has made the comments quoted in item (b) of paragraph 4 of this judgment. In so far as the evidence of the petitioner (P. W. 1) in this behalf concerned, the learned magistrate has made the comments quoted in item (b) of paragraph 4 of this judgment. The petitioner gave evidence that IS bags which were said to belong to the two accused persons had been unloaded in presence of the Assistant Station Master namely Hariram Singh (P. W. 2) and others and that Jamuna stated that six of the bags belonged to him-and Rampujan told him that the remaining 9 bag, belonged to him. The trial magistrate disbelieved this evidence of the petitioner mainly on the ground that this fact did not find place in the written report, (Ext. 2/1) which he had given to the Assistant Sub-inspector of police and in duplicate thereof (Ext. 2) which he had forwarded to the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Gopalganj. It appears that the magistrate failed to notice the fact that in those reports it had been mentioned that while 9 of the 15 bags belonged to Rampujan, son of Rajkumar, 6 belonged to Jamuna, both of Padrauna. It is true that the petitioner had not said therein expressly that it was, on account of the fact that the said two persons had claimed the bags, he was stating in his report that they belonged to them. The reports (Exts.2/1 and 2) of course did not mention that the accused persons had also told him that they had brought the wheat from Padrauna. It was, however, mentioned therein that Jamuna had stated that he had brought the wheat about three days ago and had kept the same in the hotel of one Sitaram of Thawe. On account of the said omissions in the reports the learned Magistrate had completely disbelieved the evidence of the petitioner that they had claimed the bags and that they had made statements to the effect that they had brought the same from Padrauna. In the first place, the mere omission as to details was hardly a ground for disbelieving the sworn testimony of the witness particularly when the report (Ext. 2/1) to the police) must have been, in the circumstances, written out in a hurry. In the first place, the mere omission as to details was hardly a ground for disbelieving the sworn testimony of the witness particularly when the report (Ext. 2/1) to the police) must have been, in the circumstances, written out in a hurry. In the second place, it may be mentioned that the petitioner was cross-examined on behalf of the accused and the omission on which the learned Magistrate relied so much were not put to the petitioner and still they were used by the magistrate not only to contradict his evidence but also to hold that his evidence was false and that of a partisan witness. It would appear that even the written statement, which had been filed on behalf of the accused persons, did not allege or contend that those statements had not been made by the accused persons; rather, the contention was that the statements having been made by the petitioner in the presence of a-constable, who was there, were inadmissible in evidence. The statements, though apparently incriminating, were not put to the accused, in their examination under section 312 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It would further appear that it was not disputed that the unloading had been made in presence of the Assistant Station Master (P. W. 2). He was, therefore, an important witness but the learned magistrate has made only, a casual and passing reference about him. About him he has simply stated that his evidence is that there was a constable present at the scene. It appears that the evidence of the Assistant Station Master, who was undoubtedly an important witness, which substantially corroborated the evidence of the petitioner in almost all the material particulars, has not at all been considered by the learned magistrate and it has been completely ignored by him. The evidence of the petitioner, which is corroborated by his reports, Exts. 2 and 2/1, that the unloading of the bags had been done in the presence of the Assistant Station Master (P. W. 2) has not been disbelieved by the magistrate and he has accepted the prosecution evidence that the Assistant Station Master (P. W. 2) was there with the petitioner at the relevant time (see paragraph 13 of the magistrate's judgment). 9. The evidence of the. 9. The evidence of the. Assistant Station, Master (P. W. 2) who was at the relevant time on duty clearly indicates that both the accused claimed the bags as belonging to them. The Assistant Station Master further stated that he had entered the entire incident in the station diary maintained by him-vide entry no. 3 dated 16.6.66 (relevant extract is Ext.3). The entry had been duly proved by him. In that entry he had clearly stated that two persons, namely, Ram pujan son of Rajkumar of Padrauna and Jamuna son of' Shyam Behari also of Padrauna had stated that they were coming from Padrauna without ticket and with un-booked luggages by 218 down train. Those statements in the station diary of the Thawe railway station of the same date on which the incident took place fully corroborate the evidence of the Assistant Station Master with regard to the statement made by the accused persons before the petitioner and him. It is indeed surprising that the trial magistrate had completely overlooked these important pieces of evidence which had considerable bearing on 'the question as to whether the accused persons had or had not made the alleged statements before the petitioner. The surprise can be resolved only by the fact, which appears quite plain on a mere reading of the judgment, that the trial magistrate's mind was heavily loaded with bias against the petitioner and he was in a haste to pour out his scathing comments and not to allow the torrent to be broken. I have tried in vain to find out any other reasonable ground for such important pieces of evidence having been, completely and deliberately ignored by the magistrate while making serious and disparaging comments against the conduct of the petitioner who was a colleague of the magistrate at the same station. 10. One Kapildeo (P. W. 6), who is a clerk of the Education Department posted at Deoria was travelling in the same compartment from which the 15 bags of wheat had been unloaded, also gave the following evidence. He boarded the train at Thawe for going to Gopalganj. When he entered the compartment he found it to be crowded and loaded with bags. Then one gentleman came' and started questioning as to who was the owner: of the bags. Thereupon one man said that it belonged to him and that his name was Jamuna. He boarded the train at Thawe for going to Gopalganj. When he entered the compartment he found it to be crowded and loaded with bags. Then one gentleman came' and started questioning as to who was the owner: of the bags. Thereupon one man said that it belonged to him and that his name was Jamuna. He further stated that 15 bags were unloaded out of which 9 had been c1aimcd by Rampujan and 6 by Jamuna. The cross-examination of this witness before charge was -declined and he was not called for cross-examination after the charge was framed. It is not clear from the record why the attendance of this material witness was not procured for the purpose of his cross-examination after charge. It is true that since the witness was not produced for cross-examination his evidence, in so' far as it implicated Rampujan and Jamuna, could not have been called in aid for holding them guilty. But, it is apparent that the statements in his examination in chief were quite material, at least, in so far as the comments of the magistrate regarding the petitioner's conduct was concerned. His evidence also should have deterred the magistrate from indulging in making comments damaging to the petitioner's conduct. 11. It is quite manifest that in spite of the existence of cogent pieces of evidence, which materially and substantially supported the evidence of the petitioner, the magistrate disbelieved and ridiculed the petitioner, by deliberately ignoring the said evidence in their entirety obviously for some extraneous reason. It is also obvious from what has been mentioned above that all the adverse comments against the magistrate's conduct had been made as a result of a bias in the magistrate's mind against him. . 12. The case ended in acquittal on a finding that no offence at all had been made out, even if the prosecution case was taken to be true. It is not necessary in this' case to examine the legal position with regard to the same, because it is not a revision against the order of acquittal. . 12. The case ended in acquittal on a finding that no offence at all had been made out, even if the prosecution case was taken to be true. It is not necessary in this' case to examine the legal position with regard to the same, because it is not a revision against the order of acquittal. It may only be mentioned that the accused persons were alleged to be travelling without tickets and with un-booked bags for which they had been charged certain amounts and when they failed to pay the same, the charge-sheets were handed over to the police for the needful and we have it on the evidence of the Officer-in-charge of the G. R. P. S., Siwan (P. W. 6), that another ca8e was pending at the time of his deposition against the accused persons for having carried the un booked goods. 13. As to the conduct of the petitioner in making a request to the Guard of the train and the Station authorities to detain the train (the train had been detained for less. than half an hour) for unloading the un-booked bags, it cannot be said, in the circumstances, to be an irresponsible conduct. 15 bags of wheat had been loaded in the compartment. Ordinarily, such goods have to be booked and carried hi goods train or, in the parcel van if it is a passenger train. As such, if a bona fide passenger finds, that the accommodation in the compartment is occupied by such goods to that extent, it would be quite legitimate on his part to request the Guard of the train and the station authorities to detain the train and take necessary action, particularly when the goods are un-booked and not authorised to be carried in the compartment of the passenger train. 14. From the above discussion it would be manifest that it is an exceptional case in which the offending remarks should be expunged for, the ends of justice and for preventing an abuse of the process of the court. It is also manifest that if the remarks are allowed to stand, they are likely to cause serious harm to the petitioner in his career as a judicial Officer. It is also manifest that if the remarks are allowed to stand, they are likely to cause serious harm to the petitioner in his career as a judicial Officer. It further appears that the unwarranted and unjustified remarks against the conduct of the petitioner, particularly the observation that the petitioner gave false evidence to implicate two innocent persons in a criminal case, is likely to shake the confidence of the litigant public in the petitioner's sense of impartiality and justice as the Presiding Officer of a court. In the circumstances, the application is allowed and the offending remarks mentioned in paragraph no. 4 of this judgment, in so far as they relate to the petitioner's conduct are hereby expunged. Application allowed.