Honble MEENA, J. – The petitioner happens to be a Judicial Officer of the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service. While acting as a Judge, Special Court, he decided Sessions Case No. 48/1993 State vs. Akbar and Others and passed an order of conviction and sentence on 23.3.94 sentencing inter alia a person named as Nanhey Khan U/s. 368 IPC. (2). Section 368 iPC deals with wrongful concealment or confinement of a person who has been kidnapped or abducted with a conscious knowledge about such kidnapping or abduction. It is provided in the said Section 368 IPC that such an accused shall be punished in the manner as if he had kidnapped or abducted such person with the same intention or knowledge, or for the same purpose as thatwith or for which he conceals or detains such person in confinement. (3). A Division Bench of this Court while going through the evidence in the case, came to a clear cut finding that there was no ingredient for the offence u/s. 368 IPC established against the said accused Nanhey Khan. Learned Judges remarked inter alia – ``We were shocked to find that the learned Trial Judge procee-ded to hold guilty the accused appellant on the basis of the aforesaid circumstance for offences u/s. 368 IPC. It betrays absolute ignorance on the part about the ingredients which were required to be established and circumstances which would have gone to prove requisite knowledge. The judgment betrays a lack of knowledge of the part of the learned Judge. A copy of the judgment may be sent to him so thathe stands advised for future. It has been submitted before us that a copy of the judgment was also directed to be sent to the Registrar of the Rajasthan High Court for keeping it on the ACR Dossier of the learned Trial Judge. (4). It has been submitted by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that such observations of the Division Bench ought to be expunged. It was further submittedby him with reference to V. Sujatha vs. State of Kerala and Ors. (1), that disparaging remarks should not be made by Court against the Judge of subordinate court or against any person or authority. The Judges should employ temperate language in their judgment without referring to the members of the judicial family. It was further submittedby him with reference to V. Sujatha vs. State of Kerala and Ors. (1), that disparaging remarks should not be made by Court against the Judge of subordinate court or against any person or authority. The Judges should employ temperate language in their judgment without referring to the members of the judicial family. The career of a Judge may be spoiled by such adverse remarks as made by higher court in thisparticular perspective. (5). We do not think that the Division Bench really expressed any intemperate language or used such language which could do damage to the career of the learned Judge concerned. It was done entirely in advisory capacity. Even though a direction was made that the observation of the Division Bench should be incorpo-rated in the ACR Dossier of the Judge concerned, it was not to be taken to be an adverse entry for damaging his service career since as is clear enough from the judgment itself, it was by way of an advisory remark to him so that he could improve his judgments in future. We do not think that this is such a case where the adverse remarks need to be expugned but we would make it clear that these remarksshould not stand in the progress of the career of the Judge concerned, if he is otherwise considered fit for the purpose. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.