JUDGMENT This application is directed by the applicant under S.482 Cr.P.C. for expunging adverse remarks passed against the applicant in order dated 11.3.97, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Badwah, District West Nemar, while disposing of the bail application of the accused Ganesh @ Vijay in connection with Crime No. 77/97 registered at P.S.·Badwah. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on the bail application filed by the accused persons in connection with Crime No. 77/97 registered at P.S. Badwah, case diary was produced by Constable Baliram, (B.No. 96) and Suryakant Mishra (B.No.476) of the concerned Police Station. On considering the bail application, filed by the accused, it was found that the case diary was incomplete. The first information report and the statement of the complainant and other relevant witnesses recorded under S. 161 Cr.P.C. were not available in the case diary. No responsible police officer from the concerned police station was present in Court to explain as to why incomplete case diary not containing important papers, was produced in the Court. The constables present, informed the Court that SHO Omprakash Trivedi has gone out alongwith the part of the case diary containing first information report and other documents. The Magistrate, in the circumstances, considered the bail application filed by the accused persons and granted bail to the said accused persons, In the aforesaid order, in last but one paragraph, the Magistrate passed structures in the following words against the applicant who was also Investigating Officer of the said Crime No. 77/79. vUos'kd vf/kdkjh ,oe~ Fkkuk izHkkjh Jh vkseizdk"k f}osnh dks lEiw.kZ dk;Zokgh vkSj vkpj.k izFke n`'V;k mijksDr ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa lafnX/k vkSj dÙkZO; ds izfr vkSj ykijokgh dk izrhd gSA vr% vknsf"kdk i= dh lR;kfir izfrfyfi;k¡ ekuuh; iqfyl egkfuns"kd] e/;izns"k "kklu Hkksiky ,ao vU; vf/kdkjhx.k dh vksj tkudkjh ,ao vko";d dk;Zokgh gsrq izsf'kr dh tkosaA Aggrieved by the said structures, the applicant has filed this petition for expunction of remarks made against the applicant in the impugned order. I have heard Shri Umesh Maheshwari and Shri V.S. Bule, PL appearing for the State/NA No. 1, None appeared for other NAS, who are accused/persons and impleaded only as formal party. I have heard Shri Umesh Maheshwari and Shri V.S. Bule, PL appearing for the State/NA No. 1, None appeared for other NAS, who are accused/persons and impleaded only as formal party. The only contention of the counsel for the applicant is that at the time of passing of alleged structures, the applicant was not present in Court and no opportunity of hearing was granted to the applicant before passing the said structures against him. The counsel for the applicant contended that the said remark may affect the reputation of applicant as Police Officer and future service career and in order to prevent abuse of process of the Court or securing ends of justice said remarks are required to be expunged from the impugned order in exercise of powers under S. 482 Cr.P.C. The counsel relied on the decision of the Apex Court in case of Dr. Dilip Kumar Deka & anr. v. State of Assam & anr.[ 1996 (7) Supreme 143 ]. As against, the Panal Lawyer appearing for the State contended that said remarks are justified and are passed by the Magistrate on his own assessment considering the facts stated in the impugned order. He also contended that an opportunity of hearing to the person concerned is not necessary when any adverse remarks are passed against him on the assessment of the Court itself in view of the facts available on record. Having heard counsel for the parties in view of facts stated in the impugned order, it cannot be said that said remarks passed against the applicant, are arbitrary and uncalled for. In my considered opinion, when certain structures are passed against the person concerned on the assessment of Court itself, considering the facts available on record, the presence of the concerned person or an opportunity of hearing to him, appears not necessary. In such cases the Court should only take into consideration that whether there is any evidence on record bearing on that conduct justifying the said remarks. The facts of Dr. Dilip Kumar Deka & Anr.'s case (Supra) are distinguishable in terms of the facts of the case on hand. In view of the foregoing discussions, I do not find any merit in this petition. Consequently, this petition being devoid of any merit and substance, is accordingly, dismissed with no orders as to costs.