Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 457 (MP)

R. Rajan v. State of M. P.

2000-05-02

S.S.SARAF

body2000
ORDER I. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been directed against the judgment dated 14.1 0.1998 delivered by 1st Additional Sessions Judge. Shahdol in Sessions Trial No. 117/98. whereby strictures have been passed against the petitioner who was investigating officer. 2. The facts giving rise to this petition are these :- One Smt. Shivwati @ Shiva was prosecuted for an offence under Section 302 and 201 part-I of IPC. It was alleged that one Seema was playing infront of her house on the evening of 13.1.1997 and her parents were out of their residence. When her parents returned, they found Seema Missing. A search was made and when Seem a was not found, a report was lodged in Kotwali. Shahdol which was written in Roznamcha Sanha pertaining to the missing person. In the next morning the dead body of Seema was found and the matter was again reported to the concerned police. It was alleged that the deceased Seema died because of attack by some wild animal. The matter was then forwarded to the Medico legal Institute. Bhopal that the cause of death of the deceased was due to throttling. The FIR was then registered on 6.3.1998. After investigation the challan was filed. The learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdol alter completion of trial acquitted the accused by judgment dated 14.10.1998 delivered in Sessions Trial No. 117/98. While acquitting the accused the learned Judge passed a stricture against the Investigating Officer who is the petitioner before this Court to the effect that the conduct of the petitioner for not registering a criminal case for a month even after receiving the report of the Medico legal Institute becomes doubtful. On the basis of the above stricture passed against the petitioner a disciplinary action has been initiated against him. He has, therefore, filed this petition for expunction of the stricture passed against him. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for both the sides. I am of the view that this petition deserves to be allowed. It is manifest from the perusal of the record that the report of Medico Legal Institute was received in the office of the S.P. on 5.2.1998 which was sent to the petitioner who received it on 21.2.1998. The case was registered on 6.3.1998. On the basis of above facts. It is manifest from the perusal of the record that the report of Medico Legal Institute was received in the office of the S.P. on 5.2.1998 which was sent to the petitioner who received it on 21.2.1998. The case was registered on 6.3.1998. On the basis of above facts. it cannot be said that there was any deliberate and well-planned delay by the petitioner in registering the offence against the accused. It is also apparently manifest that the petitioner has not been given any opportunity of being heard before the stricture was passed against him. The principle of natural justice demands that the petitioner should have been given sufficient opportunity of being heard before the impugned stricture is passed against him. 4. The Supreme Court observed as under in State of U.P. v. Mohd. Naim. AIR 1965 SC 703 : "If there is one principle of cardinal importance in the administration of justice, it is this : the proper freedom and independence of Judges and Magistrates must be maintained and they must be allowed to perform their functions freely and fearlessly and without undue interference by anybody, even by this Court. At the same time it is equally necessary that in expressing their opinions Judges and Magistrates must be guided by considerations of justice, fair play and restraint. It is not infrequent that sweeping generalisations defeat the very purpose for which they are made. It has been judicially recognised that in the matter of making disparaging remarks against persons 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." 5. It is, thus, clear that if the learned Judge intended to make any remark against the petitioner, the latter should have been given an opportunity of being heard. It has also been recognised that judicial pronouncements must be judicial in nature, and should not normally depart from sobriety, moderation and reserve." 5. It is, thus, clear that if the learned Judge intended to make any remark against the petitioner, the latter should have been given an opportunity of being heard. The petitioner was the Investigating Officer and the remarks were made in the judgment behind the back of the petitioner without affording him an opportunity of being heard. Thus, such remarks are uncalled for unjust and are likely to adversely affect the career of the petitioner. 6. In view of above, the remarks having been made by the learned Judge behind the back of the petitioner without giving him an opportunity of being heard deserves to be expunged. The petition is, therefore, allowed. The stricture passed against the petitioner is expunged.