JUDGMENT Kamlesh Shanna, J. (Oral): The petitioner is working in the Forest. Department of the State of Himachal Pradesh. He was posted as Block Officer; Panjal Block Bharwain Range in Una Forest Division form 1979 to 31.8.19X2. In the year 1980 under the instructions and orders of the Divisional Forest Officer, the petitioner sized 285 tins of resin from one Ram Nath. Forest Contractor and handed them over in Sapurdari to one Sawaya Ram resident of village Abheypur and handed over the original documents of seizure and Sapurdari to the Divisional. Forest Officer. Un .. Later on, vide Permit No. 135-R/81-82 dated 7.4.1981, 135 tins out of 285 tines of resin were permitted to be sold and the sale proceeds were handed over to the Range Officer. Bhanvain. The balance 150 tins of resin remained in the Sapurdari of said Sawaya Ram. The petitioner was transferred from Panjal Block on 31.8.1982 and he handed over the charge one Shankar Dass, Block Officer. 2. Thereafter on 30.5.1985, 111 tins of resin without any mark were recovered from the house of one Gulab Mohammad, for which he had no permit or permission. He was charged and tried for the offence under Section 411 I.P.C. read with Section 14 of the H.P. Resin and Resin Product ( Regulation and Trade) Act, but acquitted accepting his defence that the recovered resin tins belonged to Ram Nath, Forest Contractor, which were seized and handed over in Sapurdari to Sawaya Ram, who had kept them in the house of Gutam Mohammad after taking it on rent. 3. While delivering his judgment dated 30.1.1989 in the said criminal case, the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Amb, District Una made following remarks against the petitioner in para No.9 of his judgment :- "9................................. The record on file shows that there is a collusion between the then Block Officer Sh. Braham Prakash and Sh. Ram Nath a forest contractor. The resin tins actually belonged to the forest contractor Sh. Ram Nath and were handed over in sapurdari to Sh. Sawaya Ram by the Block Officer, Panjal who had the knowledge that these 111 tines of resin were without any mark and as such the possession of these tins by any one was illegal..................... It is evident on record that the real culprits have not been brought to book by the prosecution. As per the record, the real culprits were Sh. It is evident on record that the real culprits have not been brought to book by the prosecution. As per the record, the real culprits were Sh. Ram Nath forest contractor and Sh. Braham Parkash the then Block Officer, Panjal alongwith two forest guards namely Sh. Thakur Dass and Paras Ram. These forest officials have actually helped the forest contractor Sh. Ram Nath in smuggling out HI tins, of resin which were without any mark. The then Block Officer, Panjal knew at the time of handing over these tins to Sh. Sawaya Ram on sapurdari that out of total tins of resin 111 tins of resin were -t without any mark. But instead of registering a case against the culprits or taking any action as a responsible officer of the for st department to bring the culprits to book, he has in fact concealed the offence and helped him in smuggling cut 22 quintals of resin worth Rs. 18260/-. As such the conduct of this official is highly condemnable and calls for stringent action. The failure to perform lawful duty on the part of Sh. Braham Parkash, the then Block Officer, Panjal has led the accused, otherwise innocent, to suffer the agony of criminal trial for over three years." 4. Now the petitioner in this petition has prayed for expunction of these remarks on the ground that these were unfair, unnecessary and uncalled for, as his conduct as Block Officer, Panjal Block in respect of seizure and sapurdari of tins of resin belonging to Ram Nath, Forest Contractor in the year 1980 was not the subject matter of the trial of accused Gulam Mohammad in the criminal case. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that neither the petitioner was witness in the said criminal case nor in any manner connected with it and he was not given any opportunity to explain what has been presumed against him by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate while,, making the impugned remarks. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General has not seriously opposed the prayer of the petitioner. 5. We find substance in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner in view of the settled legal position relating to recording of adverse remarks by the Courts. In the State o/Uttar Pradesh v. Mohammad Nairn, AIR 1964 SC 703, Justice S.K. Das,. 5. We find substance in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner in view of the settled legal position relating to recording of adverse remarks by the Courts. In the State o/Uttar Pradesh v. Mohammad Nairn, AIR 1964 SC 703, Justice S.K. Das,. J, speaking for the court, has observed in para 10 of the judgment:- "..............in the matter of making disparaging remarks against person 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 recognised that judicial pronouncements must be judicial in nature and should not normally depart from sobriety, moderation and reserve." 6. In another judgment of Supreme Court in Niranjan Patnaik v. Sashibhusan Kar and another, AIR 1986 SC 819, the learned Judges have observed in para 23 :- "It is, therefore, settled law that harsh or disparaging remarks are not to be made against persons and authorities whose conduct comes into consideration before Courts of law unless it is really necessary for the decision of the case, as an integral part thereof to animadvert on that conduct. We hold that the adverse remarks made against the appellant were neither justified nor called for." And in para 24:- "..........Even assuming that a serious evaluation of the evidence of the appellant was really called for in the appeal the remarks of the learned Appellate Judge should be in conformity with the settled practice of Courts of observe sobriety., moderation and reserve. We need only remind that the higher the forum and the greater the greater the need for restraint and the more mellowed the reproach should be." 7. In another judgment of the Supreme Court in AM. Mathur v. Pramod Kumar Gupta, AIR 1990 SC 1737, the learned Judged have observed in para 13 :- "Judicial restraint and discipline are as necessary to the orderly administration of justice as they are to the effectiveness of the army. In another judgment of the Supreme Court in AM. Mathur v. Pramod Kumar Gupta, AIR 1990 SC 1737, the learned Judged have observed in para 13 :- "Judicial restraint and discipline are as necessary to the orderly administration of justice as they are to the effectiveness of the army. The duty of restraint, this humility of function should be a constant theme of our judges. This quality in decision making is as much necessary for judges to command respect as to protect the independence of the judiciary. Judicial restraint in this regard might better be called judicial respect; that is, respect by the judiciary. Respect to those who come before the Court as well to other. Co-ordinate branches of the State, the Executive and Legislature. There must be mutual respect. When these qualities fail or when litigants and public believe that the judge has failed in these qualities, it will be neither good for the judge nor for the judicial process." (Also see judgments of this Court in M/s Dr. MX. Ahuja and others v. The State of Himachal Pradesh, 1975 Cr.L.J. 330 and Himachal Pradesh Transport corporation Simla through Shri Y.D.Sanadhya additional general Manager (A & LI.) v. Slate of Himachal Pradesh through Sacrdary (Home), 1989 (l)Sim.L.C. 362. 8. Applying the principles laid down in the aforesaid judgments to the facts and circumstances of the present case, we arc of the opinion that the impugned remarks recorded by the Sub Divisional Judicial magistrate in his judgment dated 30.1.1989 are unfair, unnecessary, uncalled for and in violation of the principles , of natural justice. The petitioner was neither witness in the criminal case nor was his conduct as Block Officer, Panjal in respect of seizure and sapurdari of tins of resin belonging to Ram Nath, Forest Contractor in dispute before the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate. Once he had acquitted accused Gulam Mohammad by accepting his defence that 111 tins of resin were kept in his house by Saway a Ram. Sapurdar by taking it on rent, there was no occasion to make the impugned remarks of collusion between the petitioner and R m Nath, Forest Contractor and the alleged smuggling of 111 tins of resin by Ram Nath, Forest Contractor. Sapurdar by taking it on rent, there was no occasion to make the impugned remarks of collusion between the petitioner and R m Nath, Forest Contractor and the alleged smuggling of 111 tins of resin by Ram Nath, Forest Contractor. After the scrutiny of the record we do not find any basis for the impugned remarks without giving opportunity to the petitioner that he was responsible for not putting any mark on 111 tins or resin at the time of giving them in Sapurdari to Sawaya Ram, in view of die fact that the Sapurdari was given in the year 1980, whereas, these tins were recovered in the criminal case on 30.5.1985. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that there is no material on record to justify these remarks and these deserve to be expunged. Order accordingly. 9. The petition is allowed and the adverse remarks in para 9 of judgment dated 30.1.1989 of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Amb. District Una, as reproduced hereinabove, are expunged There is no order as to costs.