Judgment :- A Circle Inspector, who was PW13 in CC. 34/99 on the file of the Enquiry Commissioner, special Judge, Trissur, has come up with this petition under Sec. 482 seeking to expunge certain remarks against him contained in para 82 of Annexure-1 judgment. 2. The petitioner was the then Sub Inspector of police and is the Sub Inspector of police mentioned in para 82 of Annexure-1 judgment. It is contended that this remark is very adverse one, so far as his career is concerned. It was made in Annexxure-1 judgment without giving him an opportunity. It is violative of the principles of natural justice. The court ought not have made such remarks without calling for his explanation. Therefore it is violative of the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the decision reported in Manish Dixit and Others V. State of Rajastan (AIR 2001(1) SC 93. The Supreme Court had made it obligatory that any court making adverse remarks should give the party concerned an opportunity. 3. The case cited with respect to the expunction of adverse remarks was in respect of the Tahsildar who had conducted the test identification. Certain documents said to be written by the officer was also referred to and accordingly the trial court, in that case, made a remark as follows. The statement of such a responsible officer like Tahsildar opposing the Ferd made by him shows either Ext.P20, 21 and 28 were written wrong of he has made wrong statement before the court. In any circumstances, this action is highly unexpectable from the responsible officer of such status. Therefore, I would like to bring to the notice of the state Government that in this regard appropriate action should be taken against him, so that any officer does not make such a false report or does not give false evidence in the court.” 4. It is with respect to a remark in that nature the Supreme Court held that; “Both the trial Court and the High Court should have avoided making such unsavory comments against a witness in such a manner as to entail serious implications on his career, merely because the answers which were extracted from him through cross questions contained contradictions or inconsistencies.” The Supreme Court cautioned that the said witness was cited by the prosecution and the Chief Examination was conducted by public prosecutor. Once the witness was cross examined the public prosecutor had an opportunity under law to put such questions, as were necessary for clarifications of matters brought in cross examination. In cross examination it was not disclosed why the public prosecutor did not put even a single question at the re-examination stage too, to explain the position. It was in the above circumstances, the Supreme Court took it as an unsavory comments and expunged it. It was taking into account that fact frame, the Supreme Court cautioned that; “before any castigating remarks are made by the Court against any person, particularly when such remarks could ensue serious consequence on the future career of the person concerned he should have been given an opportunity of being heard in the matter in respect of the proposed remarks or strictures.” 5. Remarks to be made by a court may, as held in the decision reported in Jage Ram, Inspector of Police v. Hans Raj Midha (AIR 1972 SC 1140) come in three categories. They are; i. Whether the parties in whose conduct is in question is before the court or has any 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 there of, to animadvert on that conduct. 6. Therefore it has to be considered whether the remarks contained in Annexure-1 as extracted above is justified in coming to the standard as mentioned above. 7. I could peruse the deposition of the petitioner as PW13 from the copy there of kept by the counsel. He had admitted that he had been the Sub Inspector during the period from 6.5.1993 to 25.4.1995 at Manimala and that he had received a complaint from the PW5 in the case. He has also conceded in his deposition that he did not take any action on the complaint. According to him the party being a person in service appropriate action as per the service rules could have been taken. He did not even go to the spot of occurrence, admittedly in his deposition. He did not take any investigation. He has also conceded in his deposition that he did not take any action on the complaint. According to him the party being a person in service appropriate action as per the service rules could have been taken. He did not even go to the spot of occurrence, admittedly in his deposition. He did not take any investigation. It is taking into account this admitted position of the petitioner as PW13, the Special Judge, made the remarks as extracted above because, it was the duty of any Sub Inspector, on receipt of the complaint made by PW5 in that case, to take follow up action. Inspite of that as rightly pointed by that court, he remained inactive under the guise that it was not the field where the action by the police was called for. The complaint really revealed, as noticed by the said court, commission of a cognizable offence. In such circumstances, a sub Inspector ought not have remained inactive. When a sub Inspector had thus remained inactive and he did not conduct enquiry as expected from a public servant to maintain law and order situation, it was incumbent on the court which noticed dereliction of duty to commend upon to appraise his superiors to take necessary action. That does not come within the ampit of unsavory comments or castigating remarks as noted by the Supreme Court in Manish Dixit’s case. On the other hand it is a situation coming up squarely within the second among the three situations dealt with in Jage Ram’s case namely “whether there is evidence on record bearing on that conduct justifying the remarks”. The evidence given by the petitioner himself as PW13 really justified such remark. 8. Therefore petition fails and is dismissed.