Judgment K. Nath, J. 1. THIS petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by an Addl. Sessions Judge for expunging the following remarks, which shall appear hereinafter, recorded by me in my judgment in Crl. Misc. Case No. 2610 of 1982 decided on 8-2-1985:- "I am not satisfied, therefore, that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, while functioning under section 397 Cr. P.C. was competent in law to direct that petitioner Narendra Kumar Srivastava be impleaded as a co-accused." 2. IT appears that in consequence of the remarks the following remarks were communicated to him by the Addl. Registrar of this Court:- "The officer passed an order u/Sec.397 Cr. P.C. to prosecute and implead as co-accused a strauger without caring to examine the limits of his jurisdiction. Below standard." The facts of the case would appear from this Courts' judgment in said Crl. Misc. Case. They need not be repeated here. 3. A perusal of the contents of the present, petition would show that the main basis for the prayer under consideration is that the petitioner did not direct impleadment and prosecution of N.K. Srivastava before him, but only directed the trial court to do so, and the facts which he has set out in the petition were not placed before this Court because he was unrepresented. The basic facts in this regard are that the petitioner considered N.K. Srivastava to be the main accused in whose absence the trial of the other accused would be vitiated and that he bonafide believed that while acting under section 397 Cr. P.C. he could exercise the powers under Section 319 of the Code. 4. KUNWAR Rahgvendra Singh, Advocate, has appeared for the petitioner and has not been able to show that there was any error or impropriety in the observation of this Court that the Court was not satisfied that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge while functioning under Section 397 Cr. P.C. was competent in law to direct, N. K. Srivastava to be impleaded as a co-accused. His contention is that the remark as communicated to the officer by the Addl. Registrar is not the one as recorded in the judgment and that the remark is likely to affect the officer's career adversely. Sessions Judge while functioning under Section 397 Cr. P.C. was competent in law to direct, N. K. Srivastava to be impleaded as a co-accused. His contention is that the remark as communicated to the officer by the Addl. Registrar is not the one as recorded in the judgment and that the remark is likely to affect the officer's career adversely. He has not been able to show that the petitioner was required to be heard in the course of the revision before the above remark could be incorporated in the judgment ; in his own words, it is in expression of the error committed by the petitioner as the Presiding Officer of the court which decided the case. There is no question therefore of the petitioner's having been given any opportunity of being heard before an analysis of his judicial performance, which was found to be adverse, could be made (by this Court. The facts which are sought to be stated in the present petition, are not new at all ; they were already there at the time of hearing of the revision. It was noticed that according to the officer the trial of the other accused would be vitiated in the absence of N. K. Srivastava as co-accused. The view, perhaps, was not quite sound. The contention that the petitioner bonafide believed that while acting under section 397 Cr. P.C., he could exercise the powers under section 319 Cr. P.C. is not borne out by his decision, copy Annexure-1 to this petition. That decision does not contain any discussion whatsoever on the extent of the powers under Section 397 or .398 Cr. P.C. or of the scope of Section 319, including its applicability in revisional proceedings. As the decision stands, there was no application of mind on these points. 5. THE contention that the petitioner had not directed impleadment and prosecution of N.K. Srivastava before himself but had only directed the trial court to do so, is rather misconceived. Tie direction made by the petitioner was "Sri N. K. Srivastava, Naib Tahsildar, Gonda shall be impleaded as co-accused." Obviously, that was the final order of a superior court and left no discretion with the Magistrate under Section 319 Cr. P.C. THE error which he committed, was the direction to implead N. K. Srivastava as co-accused for the purposes of trial. 6. P.C. THE error which he committed, was the direction to implead N. K. Srivastava as co-accused for the purposes of trial. 6. IT is immaterial that the actual language used in the remarks incorporated in the judgment of this Court; was not reproduced verbatim in the letter of the Addl. Registrar communicating the remarks to him ; the substance of the two is the same. The question whether a judgment should or should not be rated as "Below standard" in the administrative field of the functions of this Court is outside the field of judicial review. It is open to the administrative wing of the Court to uphold or modify the rating perhaps to a great extent it is in the hands of the petitioner himself to improve his performance and give a better account of his capability as a Judge in future. I notice from the Civil List for the Judicial Department of Uttar Pradesh that the applicant Sri Brhma Singh was born on 2-7-41 and he has quite a few years before him to improve his performance. It goes without saying that the improvement in the performance of an officer is not likely to go unnoticed for the officer's benefit in future when the occasion arises. So far as the present petition is concerned, it has no substance and must fail. 7. AT the time of hearing of this petition I considered whether it could be proper for me to hear this case, and I invited Sri Raghvendra Kumar Singh to express his views in this matter. He said that the case need not be made over to another Judge and may be decided by me. It has also been the practice of this Court to place the matters regarding modification, clarification or review of an order passed by a Judge to be considered by that very Judge. Perhaps no Judge sitting single would be in a position to modify or revoke the observations made by another Judge sitting single ; the position on a Division Bench sitting in appeal is different. On a, consideration of all the matters, I have heard the case at length. 8. THE petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.