JUDGMENT : S. Acharya, J. - This revision is for expunging certain remarks and observations made by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Balasore in the judgment passed by him in G.R. Case No. 523/75. Trl. No. 288/78. 2. Opposite party no. 1 on being charge-sheeted by the police stood his trial under sections 457 and 380, Indian Penal Code on the allegation that he committed lurking house trespass into the house in possession of the informant and committed theft of furniture's and scientific instruments, belonging to the Subarnarekha Bridge construction Division, from that house. The petitioners were examined as prosecution witnesses in that case and the trial Court while acquitting opposite party no. 1 of the aforesaid charges made some observations and remarks against the petitioners in the judgment passed in that case. By this revision petition, the petitioners pray for expunging the said remarks and observations made against them. 3. Tribunals, empowered by law to adjudicate upon and decide any matter, while weighing and sifting the evidence on record in their judgments have to express their opinion regarding the veracity of the witnesses and/or the trustworthiness of their testimony, and so they should have the liberty and freedom to express in their own language their impression and opinion about the same, and their reasons for discarding the evidence of any witness or for preferring one set to another. They should be left free to write their judgments without any interference or fear from any quarter, and should not be fettered by undue limitations on their language to express their reaction to falsehood or any unworthy conduct of a witness detected from the evidence on record. If freedom of expression is not given to a Judge in the above matters he may not be able to give proper expression to his sifting and assessment of the evidence, and has conclusions may lose the weight and firmness required for the acceptance of the name. But concession of freedom of expression for the above purpose doss not mean that the Judge is free to make random, irrelevant, unnecessary and undeserving remarks and observations against witnesses or persons not parties in the case. But concession of freedom of expression for the above purpose doss not mean that the Judge is free to make random, irrelevant, unnecessary and undeserving remarks and observations against witnesses or persons not parties in the case. Judicial acts and pronouncements must be judicial in nature and should not normally depart from sobriety, moderation, reserve and restraint, and nothing need be done and stated which is not necessary or has no bearing, basis or justification for the just decision of the case. So when uncalled-for, undeserving, unjustified or unnecessary derogatory or disparaging remarks are made by any Court against any person, this Court in appropriate cases and to maintain the solemnity and dignity of judgments may, by application of its inherent jurisdiction, expunge such remarks or observations, of course if that does not in any way affect or ulter the merit or substance of the decision. In this connection, the decisions reported in Dr. Raghubir Saran v. State of Bihar and another AIR 1964 S.C. 1 , The State of Uttar Pradesh v. Mohammad Naian AIR 1964 S.C. 703 and S.K Ghosh v. The State and another AIR 1969 Orissa 228, disposed of on the 10th July, 1972 may be seen. The tests to be applied in such matters have been neatly summed up by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in :- "(i) Whether the party whose conduct is in question is before the Court or has an opportunity of explaining or defending himself ; (ii) Whether there is evidence on record bearing on that conduct justifying the remarks; and (iii) 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." 4. It has also been recognised that judicial pronouncements must be judicial in nature and should not normally depart from sobriety moderation and reserve." 4. Applying the above dicts and tests to the present case I find that the following observations in the judgment : in para 10 towards the end that - "P.ws 1, 2 and 3 xx xx xx xx "and promised to trup the accused in any manner possible" ; in the next sentence in the same paragraph that - "somehow or other managed the police to start a case against the accused" in para 11 towards the middle that - "xx xx xx manufacturing themselves for the purpose of this case." and in para 12 that - "it appears that p.ws 1, 2 and 3 have formed an unholy combination." are findings, observations or remarks for which there is no convincing foundation or evidence on record justifying the same. The observation in para 8 that : "The actions of p.ws 1 and 3 appear to be mala fide" is a presumption and/or inference of the Court not borne out on the evidence on record; nor the Court was justified in stating so in the judgment without proper basis for the said finding, involving harmful and damaging consequences. Moreover that observation was not necessary for the decision of the case. 5. It is also evident from a reading of the aforesaid judgment that the Court below, in making the above-mooted observations and remarks in its judgment did not observe judicial restraint, reserve and moderation, essentially required of a Court to maintain its dignity and grace. I am satisfied that the expunction of these unwarranted and disparaging remarks will not affect the reasons for the conclusions in the judgment or the merits and substance of the same. The learned counsel appearing for the State fairly conceded that the Court was judicially not justified to make the said observations and remarks in the said judgment. 6. On hearing the counsel appearing for both the parties and on careful consideration of the matter I Hereby direct that the above observations and remarks put within quotations in paragraph 4 of this judgment be expunged from the aforesaid judgment of the Court below. 7. The criminal revision is allowed only to the above extent. Final Result : Allowed