ORDER : Hariprasad, J. This is an application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, "Cr.P.C.") with following prayers: "For these and other grounds which may be urged at the time of hearing, it is most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to allow the criminal miscellaneous case, and order to expunge the remarks contained in Paragraphs 65, 69, 70 & 71, of the judgment passed by this Hon'ble Court in Criminal Appeal No.825/2012, dated 06.02.2017, and to declare that the said observations are not to be relied upon to the detriment of the judicial career of the petitioner, so as to secure the ends of justice." 2. Petitioner, while functioning as the Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc-II), Thalassery, tried and disposed of S.C.No.151 of 2003. He convicted and sentenced accused 1 to 4 for an offence, inter alia, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused preferred Crl.Appeal No.825 of 2012 before this Court. By judgment dated 06.02.2017 this Court disposed of the appeal by setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants. Petitioner's grievance is that in paragraphs 65, 69, 70 and 71 of the judgment passed by this Court, adverse remarks have been made against him and if the remarks were not expunged, they would reflect in his confidential report and hamper his career prospects. 3. We heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the petition and judgment passed by this Court in the appeal. 4. From paragraph 65 onwards, we have dealt with the legal impermissibility for considering the statements recorded by the investigating officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C., as a piece of substantive evidence. We have elaborately stated the principles embodied in Sections 161 and 162 Cr.P.C. and also the precedents on the point. We have extracted certain paragraphs from the judgment of the learned trial Judge (petitioner) to show that in fact he had relied on the statements of witnesses recorded by police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. for basing the conviction. We frowned upon that practice as it is prohibited by law. In the light of apprehension of the petitioner, revealed from the averments in the petition, we once again carefully read our judgment. We find nothing personally castigating the judicial officer. We frowned upon that practice as it is prohibited by law. In the light of apprehension of the petitioner, revealed from the averments in the petition, we once again carefully read our judgment. We find nothing personally castigating the judicial officer. We are aware of the principles of law stated in various decisions that a judicial officer shall not be condemned unheard, violating the principles of natural justice. The pronouncements by the Supreme Court in In re 'K' ( 2001 (1) KLT 707 ) and Awani Kumar Upadhyay v. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and others ( (2013) 12 SCC 392 ) and many other decisions have been pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel. The aspects mentioned therein are indubitable. We make it clear that no observation in the judgment was intended to affect the career advancement of the petitioner. What was intended is only to send a clear signal that a judicial officer engaged in criminal trial should correctly understand the scope of the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and for what purpose it should be used. We find no personal remarks made in the judgment against the petitioner. We clarify that none of the observations, which now the petitioner says that it may work against him, was intended to harm the officer, but they were made only to inform and educate the judicial officers engaged in criminal trials. Even in the operative portion of the judgment, it has been clearly mentioned that a copy of the judgment shall be forwarded to the petitioner for future guidance. Therefore, we dispose of this petition by clarifying that none of the observations in the above judgment of this Court shall stand in the way of career progression of the petitioner in any manner. All pending interlocutory applications will stand closed.