K. L. SHRIVASTAVA, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (for short the Codet) for expunction of strictures passed against the petitioner by the Judicial Magistrate Bhikangaon in the Judgment in Criminal Case No. 597/82. ( 2 ) CIRCUMSTANCES giving rise to this petition are these. On the report lodged by some persons (other than the applicant) concerned officers of the M. P. E. B. Bhikangaon lodged a report alleging commission of theft of cut-out. ( 3 ) THE eventual prosecution resulted in acquittal. ( 4 ) THE persons who had lodged the report were also examined at the trial but they did not support the prosecution case. ( 5 ) IN the circumstances aforesaid the learned Magistrate observed as under towards the end of his judgment: vfhko iko rksrkjke (vo iko 2) bu lhkh fyf[kr:i esa fjiksvz ij glrk{kj djds rf;ksa is budkj fd;k gs ,slh flfkfr esa bu Ikf {k;ksa ds vkpj. ko dr; ,oa O;ogkj dh ?kksj Hkrizuk dh tkrh gs buds dr;ksa is ,slk yxrk gs ;s Ik{kh fdih Hkh cqfu;knh Ik{; ds u gksrs gq,>wbh fjikszv djus ds vkfn gksdj iekt ds fy;s dyafdr gsa bu Ikf{k;ksa dh Ikekftr :i is Hkrizuk bi izdkj ds dr; ds Qylo:i fd;k tkuk gh muds izfr mfpr dk;zokgh gksuk esa i;kzir ilcrk gwwqa A ( 6 ) THE petitioner was examined as a witness to prove the spot map (Ex. P/4) and the seizure of the cut out (vide Ex. P/3 ). ( 7 ) THE contention of the petitioners learned counsel is that the petitioner was not a signatory to the report lodged with the concerned officer and he had not made any statement incriminating the accused persons. It is urged that he has truthfully given evidence and has proved the documents as Panch witness and thy remarks against him are wholly unwarranted. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on the decision in S. K. Viswambarans case1. ( 8 ) ON a perusal of the record I find that name of the petitioner has been inserted in the extract without verifying whether he was a signatory to the report lodged by his co-villagers? This is most undesirable. ( 9 ) AT this stage it is apposite to refer to the decision in State of U. P. v. Mohd. This is most undesirable. ( 9 ) AT this stage it is apposite to refer to the decision in State of U. P. v. Mohd. Naim2 wherein emphasizing the freedom of Judicial Officers engaged in the administration of justice without undue interference even from the Supreme Court, the following pertinent observation touching the subject have been made: 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. It is not infrequent that sweeping generalisations defeat the very purpose for which they are made. It has been judicially recognised that in the matter of making disparaging remarks, against persons 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. It has also been recognized that judicial pronouncements must be judicial in nature, and should not normally depart from sobriety, moderation and reserve. ( 10 ) IT must always be borne in mind that while passing strictures a judicial officer must be too sure of his grounds. The following observations in Paragraph 43 of the Supreme Court decision in State of M. P. v. Nandlal Jaiswal3 may also be usefully extracted: We may observe in conclusion that Judges should not use strong and carping language while criticising the conduct of parties or their witnesses. They must act with sobriety, moderation and restraint. They must have the humility to recognise that they are not infallible and any harsh and disparaging strictures passed by them against any party may be mistaken and unjustified and if so, they may do considerable harm and mischief and result in injustice. ( 11 ) IN the ultimate analysis, the application is allowed and the adverse remarks against the petitioner which have been extracted above will stand expunged from the impugned order. Application allowed. .