D. P. SENGUPTA, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for expunging some remarks made by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate. Alipore, South 24 Parganas in his order dated 3. 9. 2001 passed in C. G. R Case No. 3569 of 1999 arising out of Alipore P. S. Case No. 232 dated 19. 11. 99. under sections 120b/467/468/471/472 of the Indian Penal Code. ( 2 ) ON completion of investigation in the aforesaid case the investigating Officer forwarded the case diary to the present petitioner, who is the Chief Public Prosecutor, Alipore, for his opinion. The investigating officer of the case was however of the view that a prima facie case was made out against the accused persons. The present petitioner being the Chief P. P. after going through the case diary and accompanying documents, opined that the materials collected by the investigating agency are not sufficient for submitting chargesheet. After obtaining such opinion from the petitioner, the investigating officer of the case submitted a final report. ( 3 ) ON submission of such final report notice was served upon the defacto complainant, who appeared before the learned Magistrate and filed a "naraji Petition". Said "naraji Petition" was taken up for consideration by the learned Magistrate on 3. 9. 2001, when the learned Magistrate directed the Commissioner of Police, Calcutta for causing re-investigation of the case by any superior competent officer other than the investigation officer of the aforesaid case. But while passing the aforesaid order the learned Magistrate made some remarks in the name of the Chief P. P. (the present petitioner ). The petitioner has come up before this Court for expunging such remarks. ( 4 ) MR. Sekhar Bose, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that such remarks have been made by the learned Magistrate in his order dated 3. 9. 2001 in absence of the petitioner and without giving him any opportunity of hearing. Mr. Bose points out such particular portions in the order dated 3. 9. 2001 containing such remarks which are as follows: (A)"that the learned Chief P. P. Alipore, Lawrence Gomes has surprisingly dissuaded the I. O. from submitting the chargesheet on various curious grounds which are logically incorrect and immature propositions". Mr. Bose points out such particular portions in the order dated 3. 9. 2001 containing such remarks which are as follows: (A)"that the learned Chief P. P. Alipore, Lawrence Gomes has surprisingly dissuaded the I. O. from submitting the chargesheet on various curious grounds which are logically incorrect and immature propositions". (B)"i strongly disagree, learned Chief P. P. has trivialise the entire issue despite having the knowledge that two Public Interest Litigation cases were filed before the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court on this Matter". (C)"but surprisingly learned Chief P. P. has taken the cudgel to save the skin of the accused in the form of passing such opinion contrary to the opinion of the I. O. himself". (D)"but unfortunately the case has ended in the form of a final report and that too on a baseless opinion of learned Chief P. P. who has totally failed to appreciate the gravity of offence. " ( 5 ) IT is submitted by Mr. Bose, learned Advocate of the petitioner that the submission of chargesheet or final report is totally under the domain of the investigating agency and a Public Prosecutor has no role in this matter. The petitioner, after going through the case diary and accompanying papers, gave his opinion that materials were not sufficient to submit a chargesheet. But such opinion of the P. P is not at all a binding upon the investigating agency. The learned Magistrate is always at liberty to accept or not to accept such report submitted by the police without being influenced in any way by such opinion given by the P. P. Any opinion given by the Public Prosecutor does not call for any remark against the P. P. without even giving him any opportunity of hearing. ( 6 ) IN support of his contention Mr. Bose relies on a judgment of the Hon'ble apex Court reported in AIR 1964 SC 703 (State of U. P. v. Mohammad Naim ). The tests to be applied in considering the expunction of disparaging remarks against persons or authorities whose conduct comes in for consideration before a Court of law, were neatly summed up by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case. The tests to be applied in considering the expunction of disparaging remarks against persons or authorities whose conduct comes in for consideration before a Court of law, were neatly summed up by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case. The tests to be applied, as it was held by the Hon'ble Court are as follows:-" (I) Whether the party whose conduct is in question is before the Court or has an opportunity of explaining or defending himself; (II) Whether there is evidence on record bearing on that conduct justifying the remarks; and (III) 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 prononcements must be judicial in nature, and should not normally depart from sobriety, moderation and reserve. " ( 7 ) MR. Bose further submits that the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was also followed in other judgments of the Hon'ble Court, namely AIR 1986 SC 819 (Niranjan Patnaik v. Sashibhusan Kar), AIR 1994 SC 1031 (K. P. Tiwari v. State of M. P ), AIR 1975 SC 1741 (R. K. Lakshmanan v. K. Srinivasan) and AIR 1972 SC 1140 (Jage Ram v. Hans Raj Midha ). ( 8 ) MR. Sudipta Moitra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the retention of the remarks on the record will cause serious harm to the person to whom it refers and its expunction will not affect the impugned order in any way. ( 9 ) I have heard the learned Advocates of the respective parties. I have also gone through the judgments referred to above. I find sufficient merit in the submission made by the learned Advocate of the petitioner. It is 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 necessary for the decision of the case. In the present case the petitioner being the Chief Public Prosecutor gave his opinion in a case, as sought for by the investigating officer of the case, that the materials are not sufficient for submission of chargesheet in the case. In the present case the petitioner being the Chief Public Prosecutor gave his opinion in a case, as sought for by the investigating officer of the case, that the materials are not sufficient for submission of chargesheet in the case. Having obtained such opinion the I. O. submitted final report, which was not accepted by the learned Magistrate, who directed re-investigation of the case on the basis of a "naraji Petition" filed by the defacto-complainant. The opinion given by the Public Prosecutor in any case is not a binding upon the investigating officer of the case. The submission of chargesheet or final report is entirely under the domain of the investigating agency. In my considered view the opinion given by the petitioner being the Chief Public Prosecutor does not call for any remark against the petitioner as referred to above. The impugned order also suffers for serious illegality as the same was passed by the learned Magistrate without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. No opportunity was given to the petitioner to explain the circumstances in which the opinion was given in that particular case. In my view such remarks as referred to above are unnecessary and unwarranted and the same should be expunged from the order dated 3. 9. 2001 passed by the learned S. D. J. M. , Alipore in C. G. R. case No. 3569 of 1999. ( 10 ) THE present application is accordingly allowed. The above quoted remarks in the order dated 3. 9. 2001 is hereby expunged. Application allowed