ORDER : P.K. Lohra, J. 1. Petitioner, a police Constable, has preferred this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. craving for expunging the strictures passed against him by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.2, Jodhpur Metropolitan in its judgment dated 5th of November 2015 rendered in Sessions Case No. 08/2013. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, while passing the judgment has castigated the petitioner, who has appeared as a witness in the case, and issued following directions: ^^vr% lkekU; QkStnkjh fu;e 66 ds rgr bl fu.kZ; dh izfr egkfuns'kd iqfyl] jktLFkku t;iqj dks izsf"kr dh tkos o mUgsa funsZf'kr fd;k tk, fd mDr iqfyl vf/kdkjh ds fo:) vuq'kklukRed dk;Zokgh dj U;k;ky; dks lwfpr djsA U;k;ky; ds fof'k"B yksd vfHk;kstd dks Hkh funsZf'kr djrk gS fd og ih0M0 11 /khjkjke ds fo:) feF;k lk{; x<+us ds ckjs esa ifjokn rS;kj dj lacaf/kr U;k;ky; esa is'k djsaA** 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that issue involved in the present petition is squarely covered by a decision rendered by this Court today in case of Sumit Kumar v. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 254 of 2014) and therefore the aforementioned directions issued by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge be quashed and set aside. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor has not opposed the prayer in general but submits that against the aforesaid judgment of learned Addl. Sessions Judge a criminal leave to appeal filed by the State is pending, therefore, if any indulgence is granted to the petitioner then the same may not adversely affect the cause of the State in the said appeal. 4. In the judgment passed by this Court in Sumit Kumar (supra), entire law on the point has been discussed threadbare and while relying on some authoritative pronouncements of the Supreme Court, it is propounded that in judicial verdicts the Courts should confine to the facts and legal points involved in a particular case and not to pass any adverse order or disparaging remarks against an individual without following principles of natural justice. The practise of the Court for exercising any redundancy in the judgment is also discussed by the Court and relying on the decision of Supreme Court this practise has been disapproved. 5. Therefore, following the verdict in Sumit Kumar (supra), the instant petition is also allowed and the above quoted directions contained in the judgment dated 5th of November, 2015 passed by Addl. 5. Therefore, following the verdict in Sumit Kumar (supra), the instant petition is also allowed and the above quoted directions contained in the judgment dated 5th of November, 2015 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Jodhpur Metropolitan, against the petitioner, are hereby quashed.