Judgment :- The petitioners in these petitions are the Investigating Officers in S.C.No.73 of 1998 on the file of the Sessions Court, Thrissur. The Sessions Case was tried by the Sessions Court concerned and due to absence of evidence, the trial Judge acquitted the accused in the above cases. The case against the accused was under Section 3(1)(x) of the Sc and ST Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1889. It is alleged in the police charge that the defacto complainant who belongs to a community enumerated as Sc was insulted by calling him by caste name and thereby the accused committed the offence. After through investigation the police filed charge. Even though the prosecution examined eight witnesses in the case, the prosecution failed to prove any case against the accused and the acquittal entered by the court below. By entering the acquittal entered by the court below. By entering the acquittal, the learned trial Judge, made certain remarks in the judgment in paragraphs 32, 34, 40 and 41 of the judgment dated 12.10.1999. Aggrieved by the above remarks, the petitioners approached this court by filing these petitions to expunge the remarks made against the petitioners. The counsel for the petitioners now submits that the remarks made by the trial Judge are not justifiable and that remarks were made without giving an opportunity to the petitioners to rebut the evidence. Hence remarks now made against the petitioners are against the Principles of Natural Justice. This court had considered the remarks made by the Trial Judge in detail. This court is of the view that the remarks may be warranted but that remarks ought to have been made after giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioners to rebut it or the remarks are not on the facts or on the evidence produced before the court. In this context, the attention of this court is invited to the decisions reported in Ajayababu v. State of Kerala (2002 (3) KLT Short Notes 104). In the above judgment, this court had considered the legality of a remark made by a Presiding Officer against any of the witnesses or any other party concerned in the criminal case or any other proceedings. This Court had further remarked that condemnation of a person without giving an opportunity of being heard is incomplete negation of principles of natural justice. This Court had further remarked that condemnation of a person without giving an opportunity of being heard is incomplete negation of principles of natural justice. Further, this court is supported by an earlier judgment of the Apex Court reported in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Mohammad Nai (AIR 1964 SC 703) where the Apex Court held certain principles for confirming or giving effect to any sustainable remarks that could be made by the Presiding Officers 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 that conduct”. In yet another decision reported in Testa Setalvad V. State of Gujarat and others (2004(1) SCC 88), the Apex Court reiterated all the principles governing making the remarks against any officer or person involved in a criminal proceedings or other proceedings and the Apex Court held that the practice of such remarks being made by the Presiding Officers should be deprecated without following the principles being laid down by the Apex Court. In paragraphs 7 and 9 of the above judgment, the Apex Court observed as follows. “7. We have heard Mr. Kapil Sibal, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants and Ms. Hemantika Wahi, learned counsel for the State of Gujarat. It is not in dispute and the records also reveal that the appellants were not parties in the case before the High Court. It is beyond comprehension as to how the learned Judges in the High Court could afford to overlook such a basic and vitally essential tenet of the “rule of law”, that no one should be condemned unheard, and risk themselves to be criticized for injudicious approach and/or render their decisions vulnerable for challenge on account of violating judicial norms and ethics. The observations quoted above do not prima facie appear to have any relevance to the subject-matter of the dispute before the High Court. The observations quoted above do not prima facie appear to have any relevance to the subject-matter of the dispute before the High Court. Time and again this Court has deprecated the practice of making observations in judgments, unless the persons in respect of whom comments and criticisms were being made were parties to the proceedings, and further were granted an opportunity of having their say in the matter, unmindful of the serious repercussions they may entail on such persons. Apart from that, when there is no relevance to the subject-matter of adjudication, it is certainly not desirable for the courts to make any comments or observations reflecting on the bona fides or credibility of any person or their actions. Judicial decorum requires dispassionate approach and the importance of issues involved for consideration is no justification to throw to the winds basic judicial norms on mere personal perceptions as saviours of the situation”. 9. Observations should not be made by courts against persons and authorities, unless they are essential or necessary for decision of the case. Rare should be the occasion and necessities alone should call for its resorts. Courts are temples of justice and such respect they also deserve because they do not identify themselves with the cause before them or those litigating for such causes. The parties before them and the counsel are considered to be devotees and pandits who perform the ritual respectively seeking protection of justice; parties directly and counsel on their behalf. There is no need or justification for any unwarranted besmirching of either the parties or their causes, as a matter of routine”. In the light of the guidelines issued by the Apex Court, this court is inclined to expunge with the remarks made by the Trial Judge against the petitioners and consequently these petitions are allowed. All the remarks made against the petitioners in paragraph 32, 34, 40 and 41 would stand expunged. The Crl.M.Cs. are allowed as above.