Bhimasankaram, J.- The petitioner complains against the following remarks in the Judgment of the District Judge in Sessions Case No. 51 of 1959 on the file of the Court of Session, Visakhapatnam Division, and prays that they may be expunged from the record: “It is surprising that in spite of the efforts of P.W. 38 to have the case further investigated, it should have been given the unceremonious burial by P.W. 39 and the Inspector of Police by his inaction. The Inspector of Police’s conduct needs comment. He had not made any record of any investigation or even the verification he had made. The learned Public Prosecutor filed a memo. with an endorsement of ‘no objection’ by the counsel for the accused for dispensing with the evidence of the Inspector of Police on the ground that he had not made any record except to supervise P.W. 39’s investigation. The District Superintendent of Police’s directions to him in Exhibit P-31 and later in the telegram also had no effect on him. He is by his apathy and indifference, responsible for the misconduct of the P.Ws. 37 and 39. I am inclined to think that he was in hand in glove with P.Ws. 39 and 37 as otherwise the instructions of the Superintendent of Police (P.W. 42) at least should have stirred him up to personally investigate into the case.” It is necessary to state the following facts in this connection. The petitioner has been a Circle Inspector of Police for the last 12 years and a member of the Police Service for about 25 years. At the material time, he was Circle Inspector, Palakonda, and the Police Station at Kothur among others was in his jurisdiction. On 29th January, 1959, a case of the death of a body by drowning was reported from the village of Ghanasara to the Kothur Police Station. It was registered as Crime No. 15 of 1959 and was investigated by a junior head-constable who figured later as P.W. 37 in the Sessions Case. After his investigation was over, he forwarded his case-diary on 8th February, 1959, to the petitioner who in order to verify whether the result of the investigation was correct called for the post-mortem certificate and received it on 17th February, 1959. After his investigation was over, he forwarded his case-diary on 8th February, 1959, to the petitioner who in order to verify whether the result of the investigation was correct called for the post-mortem certificate and received it on 17th February, 1959. As the post-mortem certificate also showed that the cause of death was accidental drowning he naturally took no further action in the matter. About a month later two more boys were reported missing in the same village and entries were made in the crime register of the Kothur police station with reference to their disappearance and they were registered, as crime Nos. 25 and 26 of 59. That was on the 26th February, 1959. Another junior head-constable who was P.W. 38 in the sessions case investigated these cases and from the affidavit of the petitioner, it would appear that he came to Palakonda and represented to the petitioner that the boys (whose bodies were soon afterwards discovered in neighbouring wells) were the victims of a foul-play. He also reported that he was not getting proper assistance in his investigation from the other head-constable in the station, P.W. 39, before the Sessions Court. The petitioner at once sent a memorandum through P.W. 38 to P.W. 39 directing him personally to investigate into the case further and send up his reports to him. Although the record shows that P.W. 39 received that memo. on the 1st of March, for some unexplained reasons, he delayed his visit to the village till the 6th and conducted his investigation on the 7th and the 8th. The case-diary submitted by him was received by the petitioner on the 19th of March. In the meanwhile at the instance of the petitioner himself, a special duty Sub-Inspector was directed to conduct further investigation. The petitioner took action subsequently against P.W. 39 for the delay in investigation and in submitting his case-diary. These are the facts relating to the investigation of these crimes so far as he petitioner is concerned. He was not examined in the case as a witness, because it is said he was at the time undergoing medical treatment for rabies and the counsel for the accused also raised no objection to his non-examination. These are the facts relating to the investigation of these crimes so far as he petitioner is concerned. He was not examined in the case as a witness, because it is said he was at the time undergoing medical treatment for rabies and the counsel for the accused also raised no objection to his non-examination. The petitioner says that on these facts the remarks made by the Sessions Judge are hardly justified and prays that as they are likely to damage his reputation and position in the service, they must be expunged from the record. It is hardly necessary to remark that observations made by a Court as regards the conduct and behaviour of persons who come before it as witnesses and parties are regarded with the highest respect by members of the public. It is only right that they should be so regarded. No Court therefore should do anything likely to detract from that respect. In making any such remarks, they should act with great care, sobriety and restraint. In the first place, a Court should be satisfied that there is sufficient material before it to justify an adverse inference against the individual concerned. Secondly, it must see whether the person had in the course of the proceedings an adequate opportunity to offer an explanation. Finally, the remarks made must be characterised by moderation and restraint, nonetheless so when they are directed against the conduct of a member of the public service as such. It must be remembered that, strictly speaking, the conduct of a public servant in his capacity as such a servant is a matter for his departmental superiors. The measure of the regard which the public have for judicial observations is a measure of the dignity and the sobriety with which remarks should be made by Courts as also of the caution to be exercised before making them. Observations based on suspicion reflecting on the character or conduct of any individual should hardly find place in a judicial pronouncement. It is true that sometimes cases occur where the Courts may have reason to believe, although they are not in a position to find, that there has been some dereliction of duty on the part of officers who appear before the Courts either as witnesses or as persons assisting the prosetion in a criminal case. It is true that sometimes cases occur where the Courts may have reason to believe, although they are not in a position to find, that there has been some dereliction of duty on the part of officers who appear before the Courts either as witnesses or as persons assisting the prosetion in a criminal case. In a case where the Court feels that there is reason to suspect the bona fides or the devotion to duty of an officer, it may suggest that his conduct requires examination by the appropriate authorities but should not itself jump to any conclusions based upon inadequate material. In the present case, we are satisfied that the remarks are hardly justified by the material available to the Court. As we have already stated, the Circle Inspector was not a witness before the Court; nor is there reason to suppose that the whole record relating to the course of the investigation was placed before the Court. The remarks made in these circumstances not only over-step the bounds of judicial caution but violate the very spirit of judicial process. Hence, we are clearly of the opinion that they should be removed from the record. There are precedents for the expunction of remarks in cases such as the present. Vide Dr. Rangachari v. State1, and B.S. Dewan v. State of A.P.2. We direct, therefore, that these remarks should be expunged as prayed for. The petition is allowed. (A copy of this order will be despatched to the Inspector-General of Police, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.) A.S.R. ----- Petition allowed & Remarks expunged.