This is a revision directed against the order dated 21.1.98 passed by the learned Sessions Judge at Barpeta passed in Sessions Case No.20 of 1995. 2. The facts leading to the revision may be briefly stated as follows. The petitioner appeared before the Court of Sessions at Barpeta in response to summons issued in connection with the Sessions Case No.20 of 1995 as a witness on 21.1.98. The deposition of the petitioner was recorded by the learned Sessions Judge on the same day. The petitioner was examined by the Public Prosecutor and cross examined by the defence, the learned Sessions Judge himself put one question whether the petitioner liked to say anything more as to how and why the murder had taken place. The petitioner replied that he had nothing more to add. Hearing this reply the learned Sessions Judge recorded his remarks as follows presumbly under section 280 CrPC. "Court demeanour. It appears that the witness has suppressed the real story behind the murder. The conduct of the witness for not enquiring about the incident is also reprehensible. The witness is a teacher by profession, he knew both the parties very well from before, he remained at the place of occurrence for about two hours, visited the house of the deceased the very next day and also met several persons including some prime witnesses. Despite this fact the witness did not try to find out the reason for the murder. Hence, the performance of the witness was unsatisfactory and condemnable." 3. The learned Sessions Judge by the impugned order dated 21.1.98 directed as under: "Let a copy of deposition of the witness be forwarded to the Director of Public Instruction, Assam, Kahilipara, Guwahati and also to the Secretary, Education for recording the demeanour of the witness in his Confidential Report and also for taking appropriate administrative action." 4. Mr. JM Choudhury, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Sessions Judge without any jurisdiction made the impugned direction. 5. The demeanour of the witness is his bearing or outward behaviour while deposing before the Court. In the instant case, after examination-in-chief and cross-examination of the petitioner witness, learned Sessions Judge put to him one question whether he would like to say anything more as to how and why the murder had taken place. The petitioner witness replied that he had nothing more to add. In the instant case, after examination-in-chief and cross-examination of the petitioner witness, learned Sessions Judge put to him one question whether he would like to say anything more as to how and why the murder had taken place. The petitioner witness replied that he had nothing more to add. It is beyond my comprehension why and how this reply provoked the learned Sessions Judge to record the above remarks which were based not so much on the demeanour of the petitioner witness but on the substance of his, deposition and hence not permissible besides being absolutely uncalled for in the facts and circumstances of the case. Even in his deposition, which I have read and re-read, there is nothing to justify the remarks recorded by the learned Sessions Judge against him. Learned Sessions Judge remarked, inter alia,"... the conduct of the witness for not enquiring about the incident is also reprehensible ... the witness did not try to find out the reason for the murder. Hence the performance of the witness was unsatisfactory and condemnable...". But this witness (petitioner) was not the Investigating Police Officer whose performance could have been criticised had he not duly enquired about the incident and had he not tried to find out the reason for the murder. Even the conduct of the petitioner witness referred to in the learned Sessions Judge's above remarks was his conduct subsequent to the occurrence which cannot be said to be his demeanour 'whilst under examination' within the meaning of the section 280 CrPC. 6. The Court must be very careful before it makes remarks respecting demeanour which adversely affect the reputation of a witness, and if such a witness is a teacher (the present petitioner is a teacher), or Official, may ruin his service career. What is worse in the instant case. Learned Sessions Judge by the order dated 21.1.98 impugned in this revision directed that a copy of the deposition of the petitioner witness with the learned Judge's remarks respecting his demeanour be sent to the Director of Public Instruction, Assam and the Secondary Educatioin Department, Govt. of Assam for recording in his Confidential Report and also for taking appropriate administrate action against him. of Assam for recording in his Confidential Report and also for taking appropriate administrate action against him. When the remarks themselves are absolutely uncalled for and ill-founded, there is no question of recording such remarks in the Annual Confidential Report of the petitioner and taking any administrative action against him on the basis of such remarks. Hence the impugned order dated 21.1.98 so far as it relates to the above said direction is set aside as prayed for. 7. Let a copy of this judgment and order be sent to the Director of Public Instruction, Assam and the Education Secretary if copies of the deposition of the petitioner witness with the learned Judge's remarks have already been sent to them pursuant to the impugned order. 8. A copy of this judgment and order shall be sent to learned Sessions Judge Mr. BD Agarwal, who passed the impugned order, at his present place of posting. 9. The revision petition is disposed of as indicated above.