JUDGMENT 1. - These three instant miscellaneous petitions have been preferred by the petitioners against the order dated 12.10.2012 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (F.T.) Ditngarpur in Sessions Case No. 57/2010 whereby whilst deciding the Sessions Case No. 57/2010 the learned trial Court has passed some strictures and has issued a direction/recommendation for taking disciplinary action against the petitioners. 2. The learned trial Judge has made following 7 observations against S.H.O. Gulab Singh, 14 observations against the petitioner Dr. B.P. Verma and 13 observations against the I.O. Sobaran Singh in the order impugned: "Gulab Singh, PW-11 S.H.O. P.S. Sadar Dungarpur Following facts and circumstances unveil his connivance. with the complainant of this case and unveil his character as a member of the criminal conspiracy hatched amongst himself the Investigating Officer PW-9 Sobaran Singh, the Medical Jurist, Dungarpur PW-7 Dr. B.P. Verma and the complainant of this case PW-1 Mohd. Hanif. 1. The S.H.O. P.S. Sadar, PW-11 Gulab Singh visited the General Hospital Dungarpur in preplanned manner, as no roznamcha report showing the receipt of information regarding assault on complainant and his consequential admission in the hospital has been filed on the file of this case. 2. He deliberately without any basis stated in the application Ex.P-10 submitted to Medical Jurist PW-7 Dr. B.P. Verma for preparing of the injury report of complainant, stated the false fact that complainant is admitted in the Orthopaedics ward of the hospital, as no such treatment record showing the admission of complainant in that ward was procured and placed on the file of the case either by him or even by the Investigating Officer PW-9 Sobaran Singh. 3. He himself sought for the treatment record from the Medical Jurist M.B. Hospital, Udaipur through application dated 21.7.2010 but later on abandoned his own demand for no good reason or reason best known to him alone and to my mind solely being influenced by the extraneous consideration made available by the complainant. 4. He decided to add the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 325 of the I.P.C., without perusing the treatment record of either hospital and also without availability of the CT scan films and X-ray report. 5. 4. He decided to add the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 325 of the I.P.C., without perusing the treatment record of either hospital and also without availability of the CT scan films and X-ray report. 5. He without taking holistic view of the investigation conducted by PW-9 Sobaran Singh, straightway made the request of cancellation of bail granted to the accused- vide letter No. 2672 dated 30.7.2010 and also raised objection against the grant of bail to the accused vide letter No. 2670 dated 30.7.2010 and also moved an application before the Sessions Court, Dungarpur as mentioned in letter No. 2670 dated 30.7.2010 for no good reason or reasons best known to him alone and to my mind solely being influenced by the extraneous consideration made available by the complainant. 6. He while acting as the S.H.O. of the Police Station, deliberately ignored the material infirmities left by the Investigating Officer PW-9 Sobaran Singh as discussed in the foregoing part of this judgment, whereas he. was bound to take note of it being the S.H.O. of the police station and as such responsible for all the affairs of the police station as envisaged under Section 173 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. 7. He without taking reasonable notice of the inherent and implicit improbability of the story narrated in the written report Ex.P-1 decided to draw and forward the charge sheet for offences of the serious nature which has resulted into severe harassment, and curtailment of the life and liberty of the accused guaranteed under Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Dr. B.P. Verma, PW-7 Medical Jurist Following facts and circumstances unveil his connivance with the complainant of this case and unveil his character as a member of the criminal conspiracy hatched amongst himself, the S.H.O. PW-11 Gulab Singh, the Investigating Officer PW-9 Sobaran Singh and the complainant of this case PW-1 Mohd. Hanif: 1. He did not confirm by going through the treatment record of the General Hospital Dungarpur that whether the complainant is admitted in the hospital or not. 2. He while preparing the injury report did not peruse the treatment record to know the clinical observations of the treating doctor, without which no opinion could have been formed by any doctor simply working as a Medical Jurist, without an expertise in the field of any specialised branch. 3. 2. He while preparing the injury report did not peruse the treatment record to know the clinical observations of the treating doctor, without which no opinion could have been formed by any doctor simply working as a Medical Jurist, without an expertise in the field of any specialised branch. 3. He himself mentioned the fact on the injury report itself to the effect that the patient is referred to the High Center, whereas a patient is invariably referred to other center by the treating doctor alone and it is non of the business of the Medical Jurist to refer the patient to any other or higher center, thereby causing unwarranted interference in the independent working of the treating doctor, the independence of whom is the most significant factor for the effective and proper treatment of the patient. 4. He did not insist for X-rays to be done in the Dungarpur hospital before alleged reference to the higher center. 5. He directly received the CT scan report Ex.P-11, requisition for X-ray Ex.P-12 and X-ray films Ex.P-13 to Ex.P-17 from the complainant PW-1 Mohd. Hanif. 6. He did not inquire about the presence of complainant from 15.7.2011 to 18.7.2011. 7. He did not insist for production of treatment record of any of the hospitals before giving his opinion regarding nature of the injuries. 8. He did not examine the complainant at the time of giving his opinion, so as to know his current health condition. 9. He did not take notice of the crucial fact, that complainant having sustained injuries of such a serious nature, which were according to himself in the nature of three fractures on both forearms as well as on left leg and also one of them on the parietal region was even dangerous to life, could not have come himself to him with the CT scan report and X-ray requisition and X-ray films all alone just after three days duration since he allegedly sustained that injuries. 10. He while relying on the CT scan report Ex.P-11, X-ray requisition Ex.P-12 and X-ray films Ex.P-13 to Ex.P-17, did not call for and peruse the CT scan films and X-ray report, before giving his opinion regarding nature of the injuries allegedly caused to the complainant. 11. 10. He while relying on the CT scan report Ex.P-11, X-ray requisition Ex.P-12 and X-ray films Ex.P-13 to Ex.P-17, did not call for and peruse the CT scan films and X-ray report, before giving his opinion regarding nature of the injuries allegedly caused to the complainant. 11. He relied upon the forged CT scan report Ex.P-11 without seeking for the production of CT scan films, upon which the CT scan report Ex.P-11 was based. 12. He relied upon the forged X-ray requisition Ex.P-12 without taking note of the fact that there was significant difference regarding age and identification mark of the complainant in the injury report Ex.P-2 and requisition for X-ray Ex.P-12. 13. He relied upon the forged X-ray films Ex.P-13 to Ex.P-17 without considering the fact that on these films there was no mention of the name of the hospital or the diagnosis centre at which these were supposed to be carried out. 14. He did not consider the important aspect that there was no injury report prepared in any hospital at Udaipur, nor any opinion was given by any of the said hospital regarding nature of the injuries allegedly caused to the complainant. Sobaran Singh, PW-9, Investigating Officer Following facts and circumstances unveil his connivance with the complainant of this case and unveil his character as a member of the criminal conspiracy hatched amongst himself, the S.II.O. PW-11 Gulab Singh, the Medical Jurist, Dungarpur PW-7 Dr. B.P. Verma and the complainant of this case PW-1 Mohd. Hanif: 1. He did not verify the fact that whether complainant was admitted to and referred from the General Hospital Dungarpur or not by collecting the registration card and other relevant treatment record pertaining to the complainant. 2. He did not visit any of the hospitals as Udaipur to verify the fact that whether complainant was admitted and treated there or not. 3. Pie did not collect the treatment papers from any of the hospitals at Udaipur to verify the fact of treatment anywhere at Udaipur. 4. He did not examine any of the treating doctors of any of the hospital either at Dungarpur or at Udaipur. 5. He did not object to the receiving of the CT scan report Ex.P-11 and X-ray requisition Ex.P-12 as well as the X-ray plates Ex.P-13 to Ex.P-17 by the Medical Jurist PW-7 Dr. B.P. Verma directly from the complainant. 6. He did not examine any of the treating doctors of any of the hospital either at Dungarpur or at Udaipur. 5. He did not object to the receiving of the CT scan report Ex.P-11 and X-ray requisition Ex.P-12 as well as the X-ray plates Ex.P-13 to Ex.P-17 by the Medical Jurist PW-7 Dr. B.P. Verma directly from the complainant. 6. He did not insist and call for the complainant for production of the X-ray report pertaining to the requisition for X-ray Ex.P-12 and X-ray films Ex.P-13 to Ex.P-17 and also for CT scan films pertaining to the CT scan report Ex.P-11. 7. He did not examine the complainant afresh after receiving aforesaid documents despite knowing it fully well that just after 3 days of sustaining injuries of great magnitude the complainant himself has provide these documents to PW-7 Dr. B.P. Verma and despite the glaring feature that no one can generally come up from the sufferings of serious injuries of such a nature and become able to walk all around on his own. 8. He did not examine the Medical Jurist of M.B. Hospital, Udaipur who allegedly prepared and signed the X-ray requisition Ex.P-12. 9. He did not examine the radiologist of M.B. Hospital, Udaipur, who allegedly took the X-ray films Ex.P-13 to Ex.P-17. 10. He did not examine Dr. Sunil Miglani, who had been show to have conducted CT scan of complainant and prepared arid signed the CT scan report Ex.P-11. 11. He did not mention on Ex.P-11,12 and Ex.P-13 to Ex.P-17 the fact that from whom he received those documents apparently with a view to hide it from the Court that he received the same directly from PW-7 Dr. B.P. Verma. 12. He did believe the story narrated in the written report Ex.P-1, which was ex facie improbable, insofar as it was not possible at all that the complainant could have been allowed to run away up to the distance of 2-2.5 km along the road without use of any vehicle by the accused, who were chasing him on the motorcycle. 13. He recorded the false statements of other witnesses on his own to make out a case in conformity to the case narrated in written report Ex.P-1, without taking holistic view of the matter in its entirety." 3. 13. He recorded the false statements of other witnesses on his own to make out a case in conformity to the case narrated in written report Ex.P-1, without taking holistic view of the matter in its entirety." 3. He has held that Gulab Singh conspired with the complainant of the case and hatched conspiracy with the Investigating Officer PW-9 Sobaran Singh, PW-7 Dr. B.P. Verma and PW-1 Mohd. Hanif to give undue benefit to the complainant. 4. The learned Judge after making the aforesaid observations against the officers concerned has given the following finding: "Thus in view of the above discussion it has been exposed that the aforesaid three Government servants holding responsible posts of great trust have miserably failed to discharge their officer functions fairly, impartially and dispassionately and as such have failed to maintain the absolute integrity and devotion to duties, thereby rendering themselves vulnerable and liable for the rigorous treatment under the criminal law and stern disciplinary action under the appropriate provisions of the disciplinary rules as applicable to the case of this nature. So far as criminal liability of these public servants and the complainant of this case is concerned the discussed made herein above prima facie discloses the commission of the offences of hatching criminal conspiracy, fabrication of evidence, attempt to cheat this Court in getting the decision in favour of complainant and against the accused, false reporting in official capacity, malicious confinement of the accused, forgery of the documents, use of forged document as genuine one and disobedience to carry out the direction of law punishable under Sections 120-B, 197,198, 420/511,465, 467, 468, 471, 219, 220,166 of I.P.C. and also discloses the commission of the offences of misuse and abuse of the official position to favour the complainant and disfavour the accused in utter disregard to the provisions of law in lieu of extraneous considerations, punishable under Sections 7, 8, 12 and 13(1)(d) of the' Prevention of Corruption Act, 1961, thus it becomes bounden duty of this Court to bring this fact to the notice of the Director General of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Rajasthan, Jaipur by sending a true copy of this judgment with the recommendation to the register the criminal case under above sections against the aforesaid three public servants as well as against complainant of this case and to submit the final report after thorough investigation before the competent Court as envisaged under Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973." 5. While making the said observations, the learned trial Judge has directed initiation of an enquiry under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. against the officers. The learned trial Judge has also held that the three officers do not deserve to be retained in public service and thus has recommended initiation of disciplinary action against the officers. Likewise, it has also been directed that a copy of the judgment be sent to the Chief Secretary, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur and Director General of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Rajasthan, Dist. Superintendent of Police, Dungarpur and to the District Collector, Dungarpur with the recommendation for taking, a decision for disallowing the three petitioners from being assigned with duties which require the officers concerned to deal with the public at large in their official capacity in the day to day affairs. 6. The petitioner have now approached this Court against the said observations made and directions issued by the learned trial Judge. 7. 6. The petitioner have now approached this Court against the said observations made and directions issued by the learned trial Judge. 7. The common grievance of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the directions which have been issued with castigating remarks against the petitioners are having serious consequences on the future career of person concerned, and therefore, such remarks and strictures made in the absence of providing them with an opportunity of being heard cannot be justified. Learned counsel for the petitioners in support of their contentions have relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Manish Dixit v. State of Rajasthan reported in (2001) 1 SCC 596 and Niranjan Patnaik v. Sashibhusan Kar & Anr. reported in (1986) 2 SCC 569 . Learned counsel thus prayed that the remarks made and directions issued by the learned trial Judge against the petitioners deserves to be expunged. 8. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners. He contends that the petitioners prima facie have been found to be acting in the dereliction of their official duty, and therefore/the learned trial Judge was very much empowered to direct taking of disciplinary action against them. He further submitted that before such direction could be issued, the formation of an opinion justifying such action was essential, and therefore, the learned trial Judge justifiably formed the requisite opinion and expressed it in his judgment while issuing the necessary direction. He further contended that the enquiry under Section 340 Cr.P.C., has been directed to be initiated against the petitioners. He submitted that the petitioners can participate in the said enquiry and therein the objections which have been raised in this petition by the respective petitioners can be suitably dealt with and countered and the proceedings can be dropped if the petitioners are able to explain the same. The learned Public Prosecutor thus prayed that the petitions deserve to be dismissed. 9. Heard and perused the judgment impugned. In my opinion, the controversy involved in the case is squarely covered by the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Manish Dixit v. State of Rajasthan (supra). The learned Public Prosecutor thus prayed that the petitions deserve to be dismissed. 9. Heard and perused the judgment impugned. In my opinion, the controversy involved in the case is squarely covered by the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Manish Dixit v. State of Rajasthan (supra). The Hon'ble Court in that case held that any castigating remarks made against the witnesses, affecting their career and reputation without giving them opportunity of being heard are in complete negation of principles of natural justice. The Apex Court in the above decision observed as below: "But the trial Court came down very harshly against the said witness and made the following castigating observations against him in the judgment: "The statement of such a responsible officer like Tehsildar opposing the Ferd made by him shows either Ex.P-20, 21 and 28 were written wrong or 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." 38. When PW-30 noticed the disparaging remarks made against him he moved the. High Court under Section 482 of the Code to have those remarks expunged. But the Division Bench of the High Court, after dealing with the evidence given by the witness pointed out that even after refreshing his memory the witness did not reconcile with the inconsistencies in his statement with the contents of the documents prepared by him. The Division Bench thereupon made the following observations: "It is needless to mention that the role of persons who conducted test identification parade is very important. He is expected to take all necessary precautions while conducting test parade. He is also required to depose correctly before the Court of law and not to deliberately make vague, confusing, inconsistent and contradictory statements against the contents of the documents prepared and order passed by him. The observations made by the learned trial Judge do not amount to abuse of process of law. We therefore, do not find any valid and sufficient reason to expunge the impugned observation/remarks made by the trial Court against him. Hence this Cr. Misc. The observations made by the learned trial Judge do not amount to abuse of process of law. We therefore, do not find any valid and sufficient reason to expunge the impugned observation/remarks made by the trial Court against him. Hence this Cr. Misc. Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. deserve to be dismissed." 39. In our opinion, both the trial Court and the High Court should have avoided making such unsavoury 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. It should have been remembered that PW-30 (Devendra Kumar Sharma) was cited by the prosecution and the chief examination was conducted by a Public Prosecutor. Once the witness was cross-examined the Public Prosecutor had an opportunity under law to put such questions as were necessary for explanation of matters referred to in cross-examination. It is understandable to us why the Public Prosecutor did not put a single question at re-examination stage, at least for the purpose of giving him opportunity to explain such incongruities which fell from his mouth during cross-examination. 40. If the trial Court felt that some of the answers given by that witness during cross-examination were so inconsistent or contradictory and that such answers per se required judicial castigation the Court also had a duty to invoke its powers envisaged in Section 165 of the Evidence Act. The width of the powers of the Court to put questions is almost plenary and no party can possibly raise an objection thereto. This can be discerned from the language employed in the first limb of the section. It reads thus: "The Judge may, in order to discover or to obtain proper proof of relevant facts, ask any question he pleases, in any form, at any time, of any witness, or of the parties, about any fact relevant or irrelevant; and may order the production of any document or thing; and neither the parties nor their agents shall be entitled to make any objection to any such question or order, nor, without the leave of the Court, to cross-examine any witness upon any answer given in reply to any such question." 41. This Court has indicated the very wide dimension of the powers of the Court under Section 165 of the Evidence Act in State of Rajasthan v. Ani, (1997) 6 SCC 162 : (1997) AIR SCW 973 : AIR 1997 SC 1023 : 1997 Cri.L.J. 1529 . We extract the following observations which would amplify the position (Para 11 of AIR, Cri.L.J.): "The said section was framed by lavishly studding it with the word any which could only have been inspired by the legislative intent to confer unbridled power on the trial Court to use the power whenever he deems it necessary to elicit truth. Even if any such question crosses into irrelevancy the same would not transgress beyond the contours of powers of the Court. This is clear from the words relevant or irrelevant in Section 165. Neither of the parties has any right to raise objection to any such question." 42. In the present case when the Public Prosecutor failed to utilise the opportunity afforded by law to ask PW-30 (Devendra Kumar Sharma) such questions as are necessary for explanation of the matters referred to in cross-examination, and when the trial Judge also failed to invoke the plenary powers to put such questions as he should have put regarding the answers given in cross-examination it was unfair, and We may say uncharitable to a witness to shower him with judicial reprobations in the judgment. Such disparaging remarks and the direction to initiate departmental action against him could have very serious impact on his official career. 43. 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 ensue 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. In this case such an opportunity was not given to PW-30 (Devendra Kumar Sharma). [State of U.P. v. Mohd. Naim, (1964) 2 SCR 363 : AIR 1964 SC 703 : 1964 (1) Cri.L.J. 549 ; Ch. Such an opportunity is the basic requirement, for, otherwise the offending remarks would be in violation of the principles of natural justice. In this case such an opportunity was not given to PW-30 (Devendra Kumar Sharma). [State of U.P. v. Mohd. Naim, (1964) 2 SCR 363 : AIR 1964 SC 703 : 1964 (1) Cri.L.J. 549 ; Ch. Jage Ram v. Hans Raj Midha, (1972) 1 SCC 181 : AIR 1972 SC 1140 : 1972 Cri.L.J. 768 ; R.K. Lakshmanan v. A.K. Srinivasan, (1975) 2 SCC 466 : AIR 1975 SC 1741 : 1975 Cri.L.J. 1545 ; Niranjan Patnaik v. Sashibhusan Kar, (1986) 2 SCC 569 : AIR 1986 SC 819 : 1986 Cri.L.J. 911 ; State of Karnataka v. Registrar General, 2000 (5) Scale 504 : 2000 AIR SCW 2794 : AIR 2000 SC 26261 . 44. It is apposite in this context to extract the following observations made by this Court in Dr. Dilip Kumar Deka v. State of Assam, (1996) 6 SCC 234 : 1996 AIR SCW 4046 at p. 4048 : "We are surprised to find that in spite of the above catena of decisions of this Court, the learned Judge did not, before making the remarks, give any opportunity to the appellants, who were admittedly not parties to the revision petition to defend themselves. It cannot be gainsaid that the nature of remarks the learned Judge has made, has cast a serious aspersion on the appellants affecting their character and reputation and may, ultimately affect their career also. Condemnation of the appellants without giving them an opportunity of being heard was complete negation of the fundamental principle of natural justice." 45. We therefore unhesitatingly allow the appeal filed by PW-30 (Devendra Kumar Shanna) and order expunction of all the disparaging remarks made against him by the trial Judge as well the High Court in the judgments impugned before us. The direction to proceed against him departmentally would also stand deleted." 10. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in foregoing paras of Manish Dixit's case, it is apparent that the remarks which have been made by the learned trial Court against the respective petitioners without providing them with any opportunity of hearing or without giving an opportunity of explaining themselves are in a gross violation of the principles of natural justice. Therefore, ex facie the observations made and the directions issued by the trial Judge in this judgment against the petitioners amount to a total violation of the principles of natural justice and cannot be said to be but gross abuse of the process of the Court.Accordingly the miscellaneous petitions are allowed and the observations made and the directions issued by the learned trial Judge in the judgment impugned for taking disciplinary action against the respective petitioners are hereby quashed.Petition allowed. *******