JUDGMENT Monoj Kumar Mukherjee, J : Sri A.C. Chatterjee, the petitioner before us, has had been holding the office of the Public prosecutor cum Government Pleader for the District of Darjeeling continuously from the year 1947 As Public Prosecutor he appeared on behalf of the State of West Bengal in Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 1984 which was heard by the Sessions Judge, Darjeeling. After the argument of the learned Advocate for the appellants therein was over, Sri Chatterjee submitted that the order of conviction and sentence, against which the appeal was preferred could not be supported, As the learned Judge felt that the appellant’s argument was not convincing he asked Sri Chatterjee to submit a written argument. In compliance there of Sri Chatterjee submitted the following written argument : “ Cr A 12/84 I have heard the arguments of the learned Lawyer for the appellants. I have also gone through the record. In my opinion, the judgement of the learned lower court cannot be supported.” 2. Notwithstanding such concession made by the State, the learned Judge upheld the impugned order and dismissed the appeal by his judgment dated June 25, 1985. In that judgment he also made the following remarks against Sri Chatterjee : (a) At the outset I cannot but express my utter disapproval as to the manner in which Sri A.C. Chatterjee, learned Public Prosecutor, Darjeeling has approached this appeal on behalf of the respondent State of West Bengal. (b) What I want to high light is that if the learned Public Prosecution/Government Pleader has to approach a case in such a cryptic manner and obviously without Appling his mind there will be no meaning in contesting any suit or appeal by the State (c) In order that the State is duly represented in each all such case (meaning thereby civil and criminal casts in which State of West Bengal is a party) and at the sametime the presiding officers are not kept idle the learned Public Prosecutor/Govt. Pleader has often necessarily to become cryptic and slipshed in his approach to a State case, often to the detriment of the cause of justice. 3. Aggrieved by the above quoted remarks Sri Chatterjee filed this application under S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for their expunction. Pleader has often necessarily to become cryptic and slipshed in his approach to a State case, often to the detriment of the cause of justice. 3. Aggrieved by the above quoted remarks Sri Chatterjee filed this application under S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for their expunction. To Expedite matters we directed, instead of issuing a Rule nisi, service of the copy of the application upon the learned Sessions Judge to enable him to offer his comments, it any, on the various averments made therein. Pursuant to the said direction copy was served and the learned District & Sessions Judge has offered his written comments, which been kept on record. 4. As members of an independent judiciary, every judicial officer has a right to frankly and fearlessly give expression to his own opinion in the judgment which he delivers. With such a right conferred, a corresponding duty is cast upon the judicial officer not to deflect himself from the even course of justice by making uncharitable, unmerited and uncalled for remarks against person or authorities whose conduct comes into consideration before him. To put it differently, in making such remarks, the Court should be circumspect, perspicacious and discreet and therefore before making any disparaging remark it is relevant for the court to consider (a) whether the party whose conduct 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 (State of Uttar Pradesh v. Md. Naim, reported in AIR 1964 SC 703 ). If it is found that in making the remarks the Court has not kept in mind the above relevant considerations and that the remarks would affect the reputation or character of the person concerned, this Court can, in exercise of its inherent powers, expunge those remarks. We now proceed to consider the facts of the instant case in the light of the above principles. 5. It appears from the impugned judgment and the written comments of the learned Judge that in absence of any panel of State Lawyers to assist him, Sri Chatterjee has to appear in all criminal and civil matters in which State is a party. 5. It appears from the impugned judgment and the written comments of the learned Judge that in absence of any panel of State Lawyers to assist him, Sri Chatterjee has to appear in all criminal and civil matters in which State is a party. Besides Sri Chatterjee has to attend the Court of the Sessions Judge every day for considerable time when bail matter are heard Due to his engagement in one Court, the works in other Courts suffer and sometimes the learned District & Sessions Judge has to sit idle awaiting Sri Chatterjee’s arrival. It is in that context of the above facts the learned Judge felt that Sri Chatterjee was overworked and he was him on behalf of the State, more particularly because he was 77 year’s old. 6. If the learned Judge felt that the interest of the State was not being looked after properly nothing prevented him form writing to the Government, in his administrative capacity to engage panel lawyers to conduct cases on behalf of the Government but he was not justified in giving vent to his such feelings in the impugned judgment. It is unfortunate that in his anxiety to highlight the difficulty being faced by the Courts for absence of the Law. Yet, he went to the extent of remaking that Sri Chatterjee was not applying his mind to the cases entrusted to him and that such non-application of mind was writ large in the concession he made in the appeal. 7. A responsible and conscientious Public Prosecutor is expected to be fair and impartial and not to act as persecutor. If therefore Sri Chatterjee, on consideration of the record found that the case of the prosecution was unsustainable it was his duty to point out the same. By performing such a duty Sri Chatterjee exhibited the best traditions of the Bar and for that matter of the office of the Public Prosecutor. It is of course true that in a given case such conxsession made by the Public Prosecutor may not be acceptable to the Court but then such non-acceptance should not have provoke the Court to remark without anything more that the concession was the result of non-application of mind to the facts of the case. It is of course true that in a given case such conxsession made by the Public Prosecutor may not be acceptable to the Court but then such non-acceptance should not have provoke the Court to remark without anything more that the concession was the result of non-application of mind to the facts of the case. From the written comments submitted by the learned Judge we find that in making the impugned remarks in the judgment the learned Judge was to some extend influenced any the stand taken by Sri Chatterjee in some other cases earlier disposed of by him. This approach of the learned Judge can not be supported as Sri Chatterjee was not given any opportunity of offering any explanation regarding his past comportment. 8. For the foregoing discussions, we must hold that the remarks quoted above were irrelevant, unnecessary and uncalled for, for proper disposal of the case, on the contrary the remarks are likely to militate seriously against Sri Chatterjee’s standing at the Bar. 9. We therefore allow this application and direct that the remarks earlier quoted do stand expunged form the judgment. 10. Before parting with his record we would like to point out that we have not appreciated the laconic written argument submitted by Sri Chatterjee at the hearing of the appeal. As a lawyer appearing for one of the parties in the litigation. Sri Chatterjee had a duty to assist the Court, more particularly when such assistance was sought for. In the fitness of things therefore Sri Chatterjee should have, in his written argument, spelt out the reasons which promoted him to opine that the prosecution case was not sustainable. Incidentally we may mention that in the application, presented before us, Sri Chatterjee has enumerated those reasons. Sankar Bhattacharyya, J : I agree Application allowed.