JUDGMENT Parmeshwar Dayal, J. - This is a petition for expunging the remarks made against the petitioner Dr. Sharad Chandra Misra in the judgment dated March 7, 1981, passed' by Sri Surendra Kumar Srivastava, VIIIth Judicial Magistrate, Unnao. 2. The facts leading to the remarks are that the petitioner Dr. S.C. Misra was posted as a Medical Officer, Public Health Centre, Bighapur, in district Unnao on September 23, 1980. Three persons namely, Ved Vikram Srivastava, Chandrika Brahman and Bidhi Lal, approached him with a patient who had some boil. They asked him to perform the surgical operation of that boil at that very time to which the petitioner expressed his inability and asked them to bring him in the morning. The three persons went away after giving threat. The petitioner lodged F.I.R. on the same day i.e. September 23, 1980 at 9.15 p.m. Thereafter, a case of murder of Munshi Nepal had started in which case Babu Lal, brother of Bidhi Lal, was being, prosecuted. It is alleged that some prosecution witnesses of the murder case of Munshi Nepal were murdered. Babu Lal, brother of Bidhi Lal, continued to be an accused in that case. The petitioner felt unsafe as threats had been given to him by Bidhi Lal and others, and his department also conducted an enquiry against him. A Case Crime No. 135 of 1980 was registered on the basis of Ids F.I.R. and, after investigation, charge-sheet was submitted. The prosecution witness in that case were Abdul Salam P.W.2, Shiv Kumar P.W.3 and Umesh Kumar Misra P.W.4 who were claimed to have witnessed the occurrence. During trial, all these three witnesses were declared hostile. The petitioner was meanwhile transferred as Medical Officer, Patara, district Kanpur. 3. Sri S.K. Srivastava, Judicial Magistrate VIII, Unnao tried the case and he passed the following remarks : [Remarks in Hindi omitted - Ed.] 4. It is evident from the record that, according to tire Investigating Officer, the aforesaid three witnesses had supported the prosecution case under Section 161, Cr. P.C. and they did not support the prosecution case during trial and were treated hostile. So, their veracity itself cannot be said to be above board. It has not been the prosecution case that the patient was brought to the petitioner in tin; morning or at about noon. P.C. and they did not support the prosecution case during trial and were treated hostile. So, their veracity itself cannot be said to be above board. It has not been the prosecution case that the patient was brought to the petitioner in tin; morning or at about noon. Simply because one witness, namely, Shiv Kumar P.W. 3, stated that one patient of boil was sitting there at about 1.30 p.m., did not mean that there has been any fault or negligence on the part of the petitioner. The trial Court should have approached this case with a judicious angle. The remarks made against the petitioner are wholly uncalled for. 5. As such, this petition is allowed and the aforesaid remarks are expunged from the judgment and order dated March 7, 1981, passed by Sri Surendra Kumar Srivastava, Judicial Magistrate VIII, Unnao.