ORDER S.K. Dubey, J. 1. The Petitioner is a member of the Bar at Hoshangabad, who is aggrieved of the generalised remarks passed in order sheet dated 28-2-1995, against the members of the Bar in Sessions Trial No. 228/93 by Shri P. K. Tiwari, III Additional Session Judge, Hoshangabad, has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for expunging the remarks. 2. Shri Imtiyaz Hussain, learned counsel submits that the generalised remarks against the members of the Bar of adopting and protracting the trial by delay-diling tactics are unwarranted, whereby the members of the Bar have been condemned without hearing. The general remarks against the members of the Bar has affected the reputation of the members of the bar in general. He submitted that while dealing a case a Judge should have restrain while condemning any person and passing of strictures should be avoided. 3. Having heard the counsel, I am of the opinion that sweeping and generalised remarks against the entire members of the bar in general in a criminal trial pending before the Learned Additional Sessions Judge were neither justified nor were necessary for the disposal of the case as it is well settled that sweeping remarks should not be made in judicial proceedings. 4. The Supreme Court in case of The State of Uttar Pradesh v. Mohammad Naim, AIR 1964 SC 703 , wherein in a criminal appeal remarks were passed by the High Court against the entire police force observed in para 10 thus : "If there is one principle of cardinal importance in the administration of justice, it is this; the proper freedom and independence of Judges and Magistrates must be maintained and they must be allowed to perform their functions freely and fearlessly and without undue interference by anybody, even by this Court. 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. 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 case 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 recognised that judicial pronouncements must be judicial in nature, and should not normally depart from sobriety, moderation and reserve." 5. While dealing a case, a Judge must have self restraint. There are ways and ways of expressing disapproval of any conduct, if in a case delay-diling tactics is adopted the court should take steps and pass orders in accordance with law. If a lawyer's conduct is unwarranted, he should be given an opportunity of hearing, as without hearing a person cannot be condemned and no strictures can be passed against any such person. See 1987 MPLJ (SC) 250 = AIR 1987 SC 251 , State of M.P. v. Nandlal 6. In view of the settled law, I am of the opinion that sweeping generalised remarks were unnecessary, unqualified and unwarranted, which were not at all necessary for the just decision of the case, which certainly condems the members of the bar in general. Hence, the remarks made in the order sheet dated 28-2-1995 in S. T. No. 228/93 pending in the court of Third Additional Sessions Judge shall stand expunged. 7. Accordingly, the petition is allowed.