Judgment : 1. These criminal Original Petitions have been filed under Section 482 of Cr.PC. seeking an order to call for the records relating to C.C. Nos. 312 and 326 of 2003, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. V, Salem and expunge the offending portion of the judgment dated 37. 2006 in paragraph 11, finding guilty for cutting the schedule timber, without prior permission. 2. Mr. S. Shanmugavelayutham, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that it is an admitted fact that case was registered against the petitioner and others in C.C. Nos. 312 and 326 of 2003 for an offence under Section 7 read with 3(A) of the Tamil Nadu Hill Areas (Preservation of Trees) Act, 1955, for alleged cutting of Silver Oak trees (Schedule timber) without valid license. 3. After trial, by judgment dated 37. 2005, the petitioner herein was acquitted by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. V, Salem. However, it is seen that the learned Magistrate has stated at paragraph 11 of the judgment that the petitioner along with another person is guilty for cutting the schedule timber without prior permit or license. The learned senior counsel submitted that the aforesaid finding of the Court below is contrary to law, though the petitioner was acquitted, the Court below could have convicted and sentenced the petitioner according to law. While recording acquittal the Court below could not have given a totally self-contradictory finding that the petitioner is a punishable offender. In support of his contention, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied on the decision in State of Tamil Nadu v. M.M. Rajendran (1998) 9 SCC 268 wherein the Honble Supreme Court has held as follows: "Therefore, it cannot be held that the view taken by the High Court that there was no proper sanction in the instant case is without any basis. It, however, appears to us that if the sanction had not been accorded for which the criminal case could have been initiated against the respondent, there was no occasion either for the trial Court or for the appeal Court to consider the prosecution case on merits. Therefore, the High Court need not have made the finding on merits about the prosecution case. We make it clear that finding made by the Courts on the merits of the case will stand expunged and will not be taken into consideration in future." 4. Mr. Therefore, the High Court need not have made the finding on merits about the prosecution case. We make it clear that finding made by the Courts on the merits of the case will stand expunged and will not be taken into consideration in future." 4. Mr. R. Muniyappa Raj, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to get an order to expunge the portion of the finding of the Court below and in support of his contention he re-lied on the decision in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Mohammad Naim AIR 1964 SC 703 wherein the Supreme Court has held as follows: "The High Court can in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction expunge remarks made by it or by a lower Court if it be necessary to do so to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice; the jurisdiction is however of an exceptional nature and has to be exercised in exceptional cases only." 5. Learned Government Advocate has specifically drew the attention of this Court to page No. 707, para 10 of the judgment referred to which reads as under: "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." 6. In the instant case, the learned Judicial Magistrate has admittedly recorded acquittal, in such circumstances, there could be no ad-verse finding that the person (accused) so acquitted are punishable offenders of cutting trees without valid license. Had the finding is correct, the learned Magistrate could have convicted the accused. While recording acquittal, expressing a totally contradictory finding is nothing but non application of mind, Hence the offending portion of the judgment is liable to be expunged. 7. In the result, these Criminal Original petitions are allowed and the offending portion of the judgment dated 37. 2006 available in paragraph 11 against the petitioner is expunged. No order as to costs.