ORDER 1. Heard. 2. Perused the record. 3. This petition has been filed under section 482 of CrPC, invoking the inherent powers of this Court for expunging the remark passed against the applicant by Session Judge, Vidisha in Sessions trial No. 84 of 2007. 4. Briefly stated, facts of the case in which impugned remark which is sought to be expunged was passed, are that in the aforesaid sessions case pending in the Session Court Vidisha accused was acquitted on the ground that only .eye witness i.e. minor son of deceased has not supported prosecution case. In that case, present petitioner was examined as prosecution witness No.8 who investigated into the matter. At the time of passing judgment, Sessions Court passed stricture against Investigating Officer that Investigating officer had not properly investigated the case and whether, he is capable of investigating criminal case properly should be inquired into and a copy of the judgment should be forwarded to Director General of Police, Bhopal for taking appropriate action against him. 5. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that this disparaging remark passed by the trial Court in against the principles of natural justice as no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner before passing said remark. Petitioner has conducted investigation fairly and impartially and during investigation, no complaint was made against him with regard to the investigation. On the basis of this Sub-Divisional Officer (Police) started departmental inquiry against him and a show cause notice has also been issued against him. Therefore, prayed that stricture passed in para 12 of the judgment should be expunged. In citation R. Rajan v. State of M.P. [ 2000 (2) JLJ 135 ], a Bench of this Court has held that uncalled for adverse remarks against Investigating Officer should not be passed without providing him opportunity of hearing which are likely to adversely affect his career. In case of Tessta Setalvad v. State of Gujrat, AIR 2004 SC 1979 Hon. Apex Court has held that adverse comments against persons who were not before Court without granting them opportunity of having their say, when observations were not necessary for decision of the case are most uncalled for. 6. So far as observation of trial Court that Investigating officer has not conducted investigation properly is concerned, it cannot be said that these observations were not necessary for decision of the case. 6. So far as observation of trial Court that Investigating officer has not conducted investigation properly is concerned, it cannot be said that these observations were not necessary for decision of the case. But considering the fact that no opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner, it is directed that this petition is disposed of with a direction that stricture passed in para 12 of the impugned judgment should not be used against him in the departmental inquiry.