JUDGMENT 1. - This petition under section - 482 Cr. P.C. has been filed by the petitioner for expunging observations/ remarks made by this Court in the order dated July 4, 1989 in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 540/1989 and S.B. Cr. Misc. petition No. 314/1989. 2. The petitioner is a member of Rajasthan Judicial (sic Higher Judicial) Service and at the relevant time, he was posted as Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Deeg. In the above Court, sessions Case No. 37/84 State v. Hari Singh and others was pending for trial. It was the oldest sessions case in the said court, though it was at the fag end for disposal, in as much as, only final arguments were to take place. However, the arguments could riot take place and the case could not be decided on account of several adjournments sought on behalf of the accused-persons as they wanted to get one criminal case, arising out of the same incident, pending in the court of Addl. Munsiff and judicial Magistrate, Deeg, transferred to the court of Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Deeg.On January 4,1989, the Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Deeg rejected the application moved by the accused persons again seeking adjournment in the sessions case, and posted the case on January 18, 1989 for final arguments. Against this order, a revision petition was filed before this Court which was registered as S.B.Cr. Revision Petition No. 10/89 and the same was dismissed on January 22, 1989 with a direction to the court of Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, Deeg to decide the application filed by the petitioner in his court under-Section 323 Cr. P.C. within one month. By the same order, the Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Deeg was also directed not to decide the aforesaid sessions case No. 37/84 pending in his court for a period of one month, and in case, the alleged cross case stands committed to his court within the aforesaid period then to decide both the cases simultaneously. 3. Thereafter, the aforesaid application under section-323 Cr. P.C. was dismissed by the Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, Deeg vide order dated April 4, 1989. Against the said order, the accused-Ram Singh filed a petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. which was registered as S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 314/1989. 3. Thereafter, the aforesaid application under section-323 Cr. P.C. was dismissed by the Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, Deeg vide order dated April 4, 1989. Against the said order, the accused-Ram Singh filed a petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. which was registered as S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 314/1989. On April 20, 1989, this Court issued a show cause notice to the non-petitioners, but no stay order was granted.In the sessions case, pending in the court of Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Deeg an application seeking adjournment was again moved by the petitioner and other accused-persons so that they may obtain a stay order from this Court. The learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Deeg granted adjournment as requested. However, as no stay order was granted by this Court, another application was moved by the accused- persons to stay the proceedings in the sessions trial, but the same was rejected on May 23,1989 by the Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Deeg. Against this order, the accused-Hari Singh filed another petition under section-482 Cr. P.C. before this Court, which was registered as S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 549/1989. Both these petitions were decided by this Court on July 4, 1989 by a common order. While allowing the petitions, this Court had made the following observations : "Really, this is very unfortunate that such presiding officers are working in the lower courts who have no knowledge and experience of law, and who also do not want to learn something from the High Court, while it guides them to decide cases. This is nothing but unfortunate for the institution. I have no hesitation to remark that the Additional Sessions Judge, Deeg, who passed the impugned order dated 23rd May,1989 and the Judicial Magistrate, Deeg who passed the order dated 4th April, 1989, possess very poor knowledge of law and have no interest in learning from the experience of Judges of the Hon'ble High Court, and thinking themselves to be intelligent enough, they proceed to decide the case in such a manner which obliges litigants to come to this Court In this case, the learned presiding officers of the lower courts should have drawn inference from the judgment of this Court dated 18th February, 1987 that the cross-case was to be committed. The learned Additional Sessions Judge should have this much knowledge that after seeing that order of this Court, he should have called the cross case from the court of Judicial Magistrate, Deeg and proceeded with the cross-case, so that the sessions case of his court and that pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Deeg, could have been disposed of simultaneously." The petitioner-Sh.K.S. Chaudhary, the then Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Deeg, has filed this petition for expunging the aforesaid observations/remarks made by this court. This petition is supported by an affidavit.No reply has been filed on behalf of the State of Rajasthan. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor at length.From the perusal of the record, the following facts are revealed: (i) The sessions trial No. 37/84 was pending in the Court of Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Deeg under section-302 I.P.C. and other offences of Indian Penal Code. This was the oldest sessions case and only final arguments were to take place when the petitioner was posted as Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Deeg. (ii) The final arguments in the aforesaid sessions case could not take place for a long time at the request of the accused-persons, as they wanted to get criminal case No. 93/88 pending in the court of Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, Deeg under sections 323 and 147 Indian Penal Code, committed to the court of Addl. Distt. and Sessions Judge for simultaneous decision alongwith the sessions case; (iii) After granting several adjournments, the prayer for adjournment in the sessions case was turned-down by the court of Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Deeg on Jan. 4, 1989 and January 18, 1989 was fixed for final arguments; (iv) A Criminal Revision Petition No. 10/89 was filed by the accused- per- sons against the aforesaid order dated Jan. 4, 1989. The revision was dismissed on Jan. 22, 1989 by this court with a direction to Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, Deeg to decide the application under section- 323 Cr. P.C. filed on behalf of the complainant in that case,and the Addl. Distt. 4, 1989. The revision was dismissed on Jan. 22, 1989 by this court with a direction to Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, Deeg to decide the application under section- 323 Cr. P.C. filed on behalf of the complainant in that case,and the Addl. Distt. and Sessions Judge, Deeg was also directed not to decide the sessions case for a period of one month, and in case, the criminal case pending in the court of Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, Deeg stands transferred to his court then to decide both the cases simultaneously; (v) The Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate,Deeg dismissed the application under Section 323 Cr. P.C. rejecting the prayer to commit the aforesaid criminal case pending in his court vide his order dated April 4,1989. This order was challenged in Cr. Misc. Petition No. 314/1989. No stay order was granted by this court in the said petition, and (vi) The period given by this court in S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 10/1989 had already passed away since long, the Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Deeg rejected another application filed by the accused- persons in that case to stay the proceedings in the sessions case vide order dated May 23,1989. Against this order, another petition under section- 482 Criminal Procedure Code was filed by the accused-Hari Singh, which was registered as S.B. Cr. Mis. Petition No. 549/1989. 5. In the background of the aforesaid facts, the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the observations/remarks, as detailed-out above, made by this court while deciding the aforesaid two Cr. Misc. Petitions deserve to be expunged. The learned counsel argued that there was no fault on the part of the Addl. District and sessions Judge, Deeg as this Court, while deciding the- Cr. Revision No. 10/1989 on Jan. 22, 1989 had directed the said court not to decide the sessions case for a period of one month. The learned counsel submits that the court gave much time to the accused-persons what to say of one month only inspite of the fact that the period of one month had passed away. The learned counsel urged that the observations/remarks made by this court are highly prejudicial to the petitioner and the same are likely to cause serious reflection on his working, by which he may suffer irreparable loss in his service career. The learned counsel also submitted that there is no provision in Cr. The learned counsel urged that the observations/remarks made by this court are highly prejudicial to the petitioner and the same are likely to cause serious reflection on his working, by which he may suffer irreparable loss in his service career. The learned counsel also submitted that there is no provision in Cr. P. C. under which the Court of Addl. District and Sessions judge could have directed the Magistrate to commit the complaint case pending in his court. 6. It is no doubt true that the cross-cases arising out from the same incident should be disposed of simultaneously by one court as far as possible and practical.In the instant case, the sessions trial had begun as back in the year 1984. The accused persons were facing trial under section- 302 I.P.C and about five years had already passed when the petitioner took the charge as Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Deeg where the said case was pending. 7. On the other hand, the criminal complaint case was at the initial stage which was under section 323 and 147 I.P.C. It is further clear that the Addl. Distt. and Sessions Judge, Deeg gave sufficient opportunity and time to the accused-per- sons in sessions case to take appropriate steps to get the complaint case committed from the court of Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, Deeg. But neither the said complaint case was committed to his court nor any stay order was passed by any competent court staying the proceedings in the sessions case. The period of one month given by this court, while deciding the S.B. Cr. Revision Petition No. 10/89 had already passed since long. 8. In these circumstances, if the Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Deeg rejected the application of the accused-persons to stay the proceedings in sessions case vide his order dated May 23, 1989, it cannot be said that he acted arbitrarily or illegally. It appears that this Court was not informed of the order dated Jan. 22, 1989 passed in S.B. Cr. Revision Petition No. 10/1989 at the time when the two Cr. Misc. Petitions were decided in which the observations/ remarks have been made by this Court. In case, this fact had been brought to the notice of this court alongwith the fact that the court of Addl. 22, 1989 passed in S.B. Cr. Revision Petition No. 10/1989 at the time when the two Cr. Misc. Petitions were decided in which the observations/ remarks have been made by this Court. In case, this fact had been brought to the notice of this court alongwith the fact that the court of Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Deeg had shown sufficient indulgence in the matter and granted sufficient time and opportunity to the accused- persons to get the complaint case committed to his court, then perhaps the aforesaid observations/remarks would not have been made. It is also not disputed that the aforesaid observations/remarks have serious impact on the service career of the petitioner and it reflects on his working. It is also not disputed that prior to making the aforesaid observations, no explanation was sought from the petitioner and no notice was given to him.The learned Public Prosecutor could not show me any provision in Cr. P.C. under which the Addl. Distt. and Sessions Judge, Deeg could have directed the Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, Deeg to commit the complaint case to his court in the absence of any petition before him.Taking into consideration the entire background of the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that it is in the interest of justice that the observations/remarks, as detailed-out earlier in this order, made by this court in the order dated July 4,1989 be expunged in exercise of the powers Petition allowed. *******