JUDGMENT Bhawani Singh, J.—The petitioner, K. S. Dhaulta, Engineer Officer, through this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, prays, through his counsel Shri A. K, Goel, for the expunction of the remarks recorded by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class (III), Simla, in his judgment in case No. 76/20 and 84/81 decided on 29-6-1986. 2. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner was posted as Assistant Engineer in Himachal Pradesh Public Works Department, Store Sub-Division, Dhalli, during the year 1976, 1.977 and 1978. One Shri Jatinder Kumar Mohindroo was working as a Junior Engineer under the petitioner. As Shri Jatinder Kumar Mohindroo was not discharging his duties properly, the petitioner brought this fact to the notice of the Executive Engineer. The matter was deeply probed and consequentially a case under section 409 of the Indian Penal Code in respect of the payment of Rs. 81 55 paise to M/s. Faquir Chand Krishan Chand and Co. was initiated against the Junior Engineer by the State C.I.D., Simla, but the Junior Engineer was ultimately acquitted by the trial court. While doing so, the trial Judge made certain strictures/remarks against the petitioner in para 7 of the judgment which are as under: “……………..This shows that the amount of Rs. 81.55 paise was not misappropriated by the accused but was misappropriated by PW 10 Shri K. S. Dhaulta, Assistant Engineer………….” 3. The Petitioner had appeared as a witness (PW 10) m the case Shri A. K. Goel, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has strenuously submitted that these remarks of the learned trial Judge are unfair, unnecessary and hurtful to the reputation and status of his client It is further asserted that there was no occasion nor any evidence on the record to come to such a conclusion. My attention has been drawn to Annexure-PA (Ex. PW 2/A), a receipt indicating receipt of Rs. My attention has been drawn to Annexure-PA (Ex. PW 2/A), a receipt indicating receipt of Rs. 81.55 paise from the petitioner thereon by one Shri Kuldip Singh (name mentioned It Kuldip Chand, PW 2) after the same was verified by the Junior Engineer The factum of receipt of this amount from the petitioner has also been admitted by Shri Kuldip Chand (PW 2) in his statement before the Court On the basis of these submissions, Shri A. K. Goel submits that the remark may be expunged to save the petitioner from injury, ridicule and stigaia. 4. The law relating to recording of observations/remarks by Courts has been elaborately discussed by me in my judgment in Cr MP No. 471 of 1986 (Himachal Road Transport Corporation v. State of Himachal Pradesh). Taking assistance from this judgment, I am of the opinion that the observations/remarks of the learned trial Judge are unnecessary and elimination thereof from the judgment do not in any way minimised importance and compactness of the same; and existence of the same wm seriously harm the petitioner, as contended by Shri A. K. Goel. 5. In view of the discussion made above, I expunge these remarks from the judgment and it be taken as if they never formed part of the judgment of the trial court. Order accordingly.