Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 346 (MP)

Kalpana Maravi v. Ram Prasad

2015-03-25

SHANTANU KEMKAR

body2015
JUDGMENT : Shantanu Kemkar, J. 1. This criminal revision under Sections 397, 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the judgment dated 19/06/03 passed by Special Judge, Mandla in Special Criminal Case No. 13/02, whereby the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 have been acquitted of the charges punishable under Sections 294, 506-B of Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and also against the adverse remarks made against the applicants in paragraphs 6 & 15 of the impugned judgment. 2. Though the applicants have challenged the acquittal of the respondent Nos. 1 to 4, however during the course of hearing learned counsel for the applicants has pressed the revision only to the extent that learned Special Judge has made adverse remarks/observations against the applicants. 3. Briefly stated, on the basis of the complaint lodged by the applicants a case was registered against respondent Nos. 1 to 4 under the provisions of Indian Penal Code and Prevention of Atrocities Act as aforesaid. Learned Special Judge after recording the evidence held that the charges leveled against the respondents have not been proved and as such acquitted them. However, while acquitting the respondents the learned Special Judge in paragraph Nos. 6 & 15 of the judgment made following observations:-- 4. According to the learned counsel for the applicants while making the aforesaid adverse remarks against the applicants the trial Court has not given any notice or opportunity of hearing to the applicants and the adverse remarks have been passed against them unheard. He also stated that the remarks were uncalled for as they were not necessary for the adjudication of the case registered against respondents. He placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of 'K' a Judicial Officer, AIR 2001 SC 972 . 5. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the impugned judgment and the adverse remarks/observations made against the applicants, I find that the trial Court while making the aforesaid adverse remarks/observations has not provided any opportunity or sought for any explanation from the applicants to defend themselves. 5. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the impugned judgment and the adverse remarks/observations made against the applicants, I find that the trial Court while making the aforesaid adverse remarks/observations has not provided any opportunity or sought for any explanation from the applicants to defend themselves. The learned Special Judge has also not taken into consideration as to what was the actual relevant material on record leading to making and justifying the remarks and has also not dealt with the question as to whether it is necessary for the fair adjudication of the case to make such remarks. 6. The Supreme Court in the case of 'K'. a Judicial Officer (supra) has observed that though the power to make remarks or observations is there but on being questioned, the exercise of power must with-stand judicial scrutiny on the touchstone of following tests:- (a) whether the party whose conduct is in question is before the Court or has an opportunity of explaining or defending himself; (b) whether there is evidence on record bearing on that conduct justifying the remarks; and (c) whether it is necessary for the decision of the case, as an integral part thereof, to animadvert on that conduct. The overall test is that the criticism or observation must be judicial in nature and should not formally depart from sobriety, moderation and reserve. 7. It has now been well settled that the Courts are required to observe judicial restrain and discipline as are necessary to the orderly administration of justice as they are to the effectiveness of the army. The duty of restraint, this humility of function should be a constant theme of Judges. In the present case very strong and carping language has been used by the trial Court while criticizing the conduct of applicants, which in my considered view was not at all necessary for deciding the case. It is also clear that the applicants had not been provided opportunity to meet the adverse observations, which have been incorporated in the impugned judgment. 8. It is also clear that the applicants had not been provided opportunity to meet the adverse observations, which have been incorporated in the impugned judgment. 8. Moreover, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Lalita Kumari v. Government of U.P., 2014 (2) SCC 1 the directions in regard to the registration of the FIR contained in paragraph 15 as aforesaid are unsustainable as the Police Officer is required to act in the light of the directions contained in the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Lalita Kumari (supra) in case any complaint is lodged by the applicants. 9. In the circumstances in my considered view the observations made in paragraph Nos. 6 & 15 of the impugned judgment are liable to be and are hereby quashed and ordered to be expunged. 10. In the result the revision is partly allowed to the extent indicated above. C.c as per rules.