JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner has filed this petition for quashing adverse remarks passed by the learned Trial Court in its judgment dated 30th July 2001 in Criminal Case No.126/99 ( State v. Suresh Kumar). 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 24.4.992 complainant, Lal Chand, lodged F.I.R and alleged that he was going with his mother, suddenly Taxi No.RJ-23 P- 0544 hit his mother and ran away. Eye-witnesses caught driver of the taxi. Driver was driving taxi with rashness and negligence. On this report, case was registered under Sections 279, 337 Indian Penal Code, and during investigation, injured died so Section 304A Indian Penal Code was added and challan was filed under these sections. After conclusion of evidence, accused Suresh Kumar was acquitted and learned lower Court while passing judgment observed that on account of petitioner P.W 8 Mohd. Ishak's faulty investigation, accused had to face trial and actual culprit Mohan was benefited by the investigating officer so departmental proceedings may be initiated against the petitioner. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor and perused the record of the case. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that learned Trial Court has committed error in passing adverse remarks against the petitioner without affording an opportunity of being heard so adverse remarks may be quashed whereas learned Public Prosecutor submitted that on account of faulty investigation of the petitioner, learned Trial Court passed adverse remarks and petitioner has opportunity in disciplinary proceedings to present his case, hence, petition may be dismissed. 5. A perusal of record reveals that P.W.6 Lal Chand, complainant has stated in his statement that taxi driver who was caught and brought by other persons, disclosed his name to be Mohan Lal and accused present in Court was taxi driver. No doubt, name of accused has not been mentioned in F.I.R but P.W.6 Lal Chand has identified the accused to be taxi driver. P.W.7 Ramesh, who is owner of taxi, has admitted notice Ex.P- 10 given under Section 133 of the Motor Vehicles Act, in which he had replied that at the time of accident driver Suresh Kumar was driving his taxi. P.W.8 Mohd. Ishak has stated in his cross examination that two eye-witnesses stated that accused Suresh Kumar was driving taxi. He further stated that at the time of seizure of taxi accused was in taxi. P.W.8 Mohd. Ishak has stated in his cross examination that two eye-witnesses stated that accused Suresh Kumar was driving taxi. He further stated that at the time of seizure of taxi accused was in taxi. He had certainly admitted that some of the witnesses have disclosed name of taxi driver to ve Mohan in their police statements but some of the witnesses disclosed name of taxi driver being Suresh. In such circumstances he submitted file after completing investigation to the S.H.O. 6. Apparently, petitioner has not committed any error in concluding investigation and holding prima facie accused guilty of the offence. Investigating Officer is not responsible if accused is acquitted on account of witnesses turning hostile in the Court. 7. For the sake of arguments, even if it is taken that petitioner has committed any error in doing faulty investigation, even then adverse remarks could not have been passed against him without giving him opportunity of being heard. It was held in 2005(6)RDD 1963(Raj) Mool Chand Singh Rana v. State of Rajasthan that it is a cardinal principle of law that whenever any adverse remarks are passed against a5 person, whether he is a party to the proceedings or not, he must have been given an opportunity to put his side and to meet the same. The principle of natural justice requires that person against whom adverse remarks are being given, he must be heard. 8. It has also been held in case of Manish Dixit & others v. State of Rajasthan reported in (2001)1 SCC 596 that even those apart, this Court has repeatedly cautioned that before any castigating remarks are made by the Court against any person, particularly when such remarks could ensure serious consequences 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. Such an opportunity is the basic requirement, for, otherwise the offending remarks would be in violation of the principles of natural justice. 9. Thus, it becomes clear that without giving an opportunity of being heard, adverse remarks should not be passed by the Court against any person. 10. Such an opportunity is the basic requirement, for, otherwise the offending remarks would be in violation of the principles of natural justice. 9. Thus, it becomes clear that without giving an opportunity of being heard, adverse remarks should not be passed by the Court against any person. 10. In the aforesaid case (supra) Apex Court ordered expunction of all the disparaging remarks made against the petitioner by the trial Judge as well as High Court and direction to proceed against him departmentally was also deleted. 11. In the light of above discussions, this petition is accepted and adverse remarks passed by the trial Court in its judgment dated 30th July 2001 against the petitioner are expunged and directions to District Magistrate and I.G. Police to proceed against the petitioner are also deleted.Writ Petition Allowed. *******