ORDER : This Crl. M. C has been filed to expunge the remarks/strictures made against the petitioner in the judgment dated 03.08.2019 in S.C. No.580/2016 passed by the Assistant Sessions Court (Additional), Palakkad (for short, 'the trial court'). 2. The petitioner was working as the Station House Officer (SHO) at Walayar Police Station, Palakkad in the year 2015. A crime was registered by the Walayar Police Station, Palakkad on 02.04.2003 as Crime No.89/2003 against fifteen accused persons alleging offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324 and 308 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The investigation was taken up by the then SHO of Walayar Police Station, Palakkad, namely, Sri. N. K. Kumaran and he submitted the final report before the Judicial First-Class Magistrate Court-I, Palakkad. The final report was returned by the learned Magistrate on 21.07.2003 noting that the wound certificate of CW2 was not produced along with the final report. Later, in the year 2015, the final report was resubmitted before the Magistrate, and it was taken on file as C.P. No.43/2016. Thereafter, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Palakkad, numbered as S.C. No.580/2016 and was subsequently made over to the trial court. 3. The prosecution case in short is that on 01.04.2003 at about 11 pm, all the accused formed an unlawful assembly, committed rioting with dangerous weapons in front of the Primary Health Center, Kanjikode, restrained CWs 1 to 4, voluntarily caused hurt to them, the 1st accused stabbed CW1, the 2nd accused stabbed CW2, and the 6th accused stabbed CW3. 4. During the trial, PWs 1 to 7 were examined, and Exts.P1 to P9 were marked. The Investigating Officer, Sri. N. K. Kumaran was examined as PW7. After the trial, the court found accused Nos. 1, 2 and 5 to 9 guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323 and 324 read with Section 149 of the IPC and convicted them under the said counts. Annexure A1 is the judgment. 5. In paragraph No.11 and 26 of Annexure A1 judgment, the trial court made some disparaging remarks/strictures against the petitioner in respect of official acts purported to have been done by him while serving as the Station House Officer at Walayar Police Station, Palakkad and directed the Director General of Police to initiate disciplinary action against him. 5. In paragraph No.11 and 26 of Annexure A1 judgment, the trial court made some disparaging remarks/strictures against the petitioner in respect of official acts purported to have been done by him while serving as the Station House Officer at Walayar Police Station, Palakkad and directed the Director General of Police to initiate disciplinary action against him. It was observed that the resubmission of the charge sheet on 09.07.2015 was made by the petitioner without complying with the direction of the court to obtain the wound certificate, and the charge sheet was submitted by the petitioner in the name of the former SHO, Walayar Police Station, Sri. N. K. Kumaran by forging his signature. The trial court concluded that there was apparent forgery committed by the petitioner in signing the charge sheet in the name of Sri. N. K. Kumaran, who was not available as SHO, Walayar, during 2015 or 2014. The trial court forwarded Annexure A1 judgment to the Home Secretary and the Director General of Police for initiating necessary disciplinary action against the petitioner. 6. I have heard Sri. Nandagopal S. Kurup, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. E. C. Bineesh, the learned Public Prosecutor. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial court made adverse remarks against the petitioner in Annexure A1 judgment without putting him to notice and without affording him an opportunity of personal hearing. Reliance was placed on the decisions of the Supreme Court in State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) v. Pankaj Chaudhary and Others [2018 KHC 6866] and S. K. Viswambaran v. E. Koyakunju and Others [ AIR 1987 SC 1436 ] in support of his submission. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner was not the investigating officer, nor had he any role in the investigation of the case, and the remarks made by the trial court were absolutely not necessary for the just consideration of the case. The learned counsel also relied on Annexure A2, preliminary enquiry report submitted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Narcotic Cell, Palakkad, following the enquiry conducted regarding the flaws in the investigation pursuant to the communication given by the trial Court to the Director General of Police and Home Secretary vide the impugned judgment. 8. The learned counsel also relied on Annexure A2, preliminary enquiry report submitted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Narcotic Cell, Palakkad, following the enquiry conducted regarding the flaws in the investigation pursuant to the communication given by the trial Court to the Director General of Police and Home Secretary vide the impugned judgment. 8. A reading of Annexure A1 judgment would show that the petitioner was not put on notice, nor was he given an opportunity of personal hearing before making adverse remarks against him. The Supreme Court has cautioned in a number of cases that before castigating remarks are made against any person, particularly when such remarks can have serious consequences on the future of the person concerned, he should be given an opportunity to be heard in the matter with respect to the proposed remarks or strictures. Such an opportunity is the basic requirement in law, for otherwise, the offending remarks would be in violation of the principles of natural justice. In S. K. Viswambaran (supra), it was held that the principles of natural justice required that notice should be issued and an opportunity of hearing should be extended to a police officer before passing adverse remarks against him if it was considered necessary. In Pankaj Chaudhary (supra), it was held that in the case where the High Court has passed strictures against the police officials without affording an opportunity of hearing them, the disparaging remarks are liable to be set aside. As the remarks made in Ext.A1 judgment were made without hearing the petitioner, the same is liable to be set aside on that score alone. 9. It is seen from the records that before commencement of the trial, the court addressed a letter dated 27/07/2018 to the District Police Chief, Palakkad, pointing out certain illegalities and irregularities allegedly committed by the investigation agency with respect to the collection of evidence and submission of the final report and sought a response. It was based on the reply dated 12/12/2018 given by the District Police Chief, the impugned remarks/strictures were made in Ext. A1 judgment. However, the copy of the said reply was not furnished to the petitioner. Being an issue that has serious ramifications on the future service of the petitioner, the material relied on by the Court ought to have been given to him, and he ought to have been heard in person. 10. A1 judgment. However, the copy of the said reply was not furnished to the petitioner. Being an issue that has serious ramifications on the future service of the petitioner, the material relied on by the Court ought to have been given to him, and he ought to have been heard in person. 10. Pursuant to the communication given by the trial Court to the Director General of Police and Home Secretary vide the impugned judgment, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Narcotic Cell, Palakkad conducted a preliminary enquiry regarding the alleged illegalities and irregularities with respect to collection of evidence and submission of charge sheet and concluded that the final report was resubmitted prior to the petitioner taking charge as SHO on 31.07.2015 and he had no role at all in the allegations levelled against him. It was observed that the trial court’s finding against the petitioner was based on the false report filed in reply to the letter from the court, and the petitioner cannot be blamed for the remarks and lapses noticed by the court. Accordingly, the petitioner was found innocent. 11. For the reasons stated above, I am of the view that the remarks/strictures made against the petitioner in Annexure A1 judgment cannot be sustained. Hence, all the remarks/strictures made against the petitioner in paragraph Nos. 11 and 26 of Annexure A1 judgment are hereby expunged. The Crl. M. C. is allowed as above.