Dr. Raghubir Sharan v. Thi State of Bihar

He/,d, allowing the appeal, that the State Government was to move the High Court an aggrieved party and was entitled under s. 561-A for the expunction of the remarks in question. The State Government is the authority which oxercise• the executive power of the State, and the police department is one of its departments through which its power a• respects law exercised. The State Government can be and order ag~rieved by observations made against its <iepartment or officers. The State is a juristic person and is entitled to move an application under s. 561-A The Code itself contemplates the State as a the filing of appeals and applications by party. Section 561-A did not confer any new power upon the High Courts but merely preserved inherent powers. The High Court can, in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, expunge remarks made by it or by a lower court if it be necessary to do so to prevent an abuse of the process of the Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The jurisdiction is of an exceptional nature and has to be exercised in exceptional cases only. their existing Jairam Das v. Emperor, A. I. R. (1945) P C. 94 and Emperor v. Nazir Ahmad, A. I. R. (1945) P. C. 18, referred to. Emperor v. Ch. Mohd. Hassan, A. I. R. (1943) Lah. 298, State v. Chliotey Lal, 1955 A. L. J. 240, Lalli Kumar v. 8. 8. Bast, A. I. R. (1957) All. 398, 8. Lal Singh v. State, A. I. R. (1959)Punj. 211, Ramsagar Singh v. Chandrika Singh, A. I.R. (196!)Pat. 364 and In re Ramaswami, A. I. R. (1958) Mad. 305, approved. State v. Nilkanth Shripad Bhave, I. L. R. 1954 llom. 1'18, disapproved. It is a principle of cardinal importance in the admiuist1. , tion of justice that the power, freedom of judges and Magi!.• trates must be maintained and they must be allowed to perform their functions freely and fearlessly and without interference by It is equa~ly necessary any body, even. by th~ Sup;e~e Court. that in expressmg their opm1ons Judges and Magistrates must 2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 365 be guided by considerations of justice, fair-play and rostraint. Judicial pronouncements must be judicial in nature, and should not normally depart from sobriety, moderation and reserve. the judgment in respect of the entire police The remarks in force of the State were not the facts of the case, nor were they necessary for the disposal of the case and should have been expunged_. justified on 1163 State ef Uttar Pra4 sh v. Moh1mmaJ Naim CRIMINAL APPELLATID JuRISDTCTION : Criminal Appeal No. 81 of 1962. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated October 23, 1961 of the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) at Lucknow in Crimi nal Misc. Case No. 348/1961. C. B. Agarwala, G. C. Mathur, Shankar Sakai and O. P. Lal, for the appellant. J.P. Goyal, for the Hon'ble Chief Justice and his companion Judges of the Allahabad High Court (on notice).

#1963. March 15. The Judgment of the court was delivered by S. K. DAS J.-This is an appeal by special leave, and it presents some unusual features. The short facts are these. The Additional Sessions Judge of Hardoi in the State of Uttar Pradesh tried Zafar Ali Khan and three other persons on charges under ss. 452 and 307 read with s. 34, Indian Penal Code. The case against the aforesaid accused persons started first information report lodged at a police on a station called Shahabad, purporting to have been so lodged at about 3.30 A. !\I. by one Farasat Ali Khan on the night between the 7th and 8th November, 1958. The case was investigated by one Mohammad N aim who was then the Station Officer of Shahabad police station. The learned Additional Sessions Judge" convicted the accused persons though he found, > Das/, 1963 , .. Stolt of Uttar PrarleJh ,\lohammad Ndim Dor J. , 366 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964] VOL. on the evidence given in the case, that it wu more probable that the first information was lodged at the police station at about i or 8 A.M. rather than at 3.:~o A. )!. From the conviction and sentences passed the Additional Sessions Judge there was an appeal to the High Court at Allahabad (Lucknow Bench). This appeal was heard by Mulla J. He found that Mohammad :\"aim had dressed up a totally unbelievable case which destroyed the eviden tiary value of the statements of Farasat Ali and his wife, Ummati Begum, two of the principal witnesses for the prosecution. The Learned Judge allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentences of the four appellants before him. The learned Judge further observed in his judgment: "There is ample evidence to prove that the this case was not first information report in lodged at 3 .30 A. )I. This is also the finding of trial court. The time noted in the first infor· mation report is, therefore, a fictitious time and fabrication has been made in the public a I, therefore, direct the office to issue records. a notice to Sri .Mohammad Nairn as to why a complaint should not be instituted against him by this court under section 195 I. P. Code." for fabricating In pursuance of the direction given by the learned Judge, Mohammad ?\'aim was given a notice to show cause why a complaint for an offence under s. 195 Indian Penal Code should not be made against him information report in respect of the time at which it was said to lodged. Mohammad ?\aim appeared have been befc>re the learned Judge and threw himself at the mercy of the court and asked for forgiveness. The learned Judge dealt with the Matter in Cr. Mis. Case the apology of No. Si of I !l61. He accepted Mohammad Nairn, but said that he did so very In the course of his order accepting hesitatingly. the first - - - - 196' State of Uttar Pradesh v. Mohammad Nairn Das J. - - 2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 367 the apology of Mohammad Nairn he made certain observations. We may now quote those obser- vations :- following ''I issued the notice because I want to clean the public administration as for as possible but an individual's efforts cannot go very far. If I had felt that with my lone efforts I could have cleaned this augean stable, which is the police force, I would not have hesitated to wage this war single-handed. I am on the verge of retirement and taking such steps for two months or three months more would not make any difference to the constitution and the character of the police force ...... Somehow the police force in general, barriag few exceptions, seems to have come to the conclusion that crime cannot be investigated and security cannot be preserved by law and this can only be achieved by breaking or circumventing the law. At least indicate this is what If this belief is not is hardly any chance of improvement ........... . I say it with all sense of responsibility there is not a single whole of the country whose record of crime comes anywhere near the record of that organi sed unit which is known as the Indian Police Force. If the Police Force must be manned by officers like Mohmmad Nairn then it is better that we tear up our Constitution, forget all about democracy and the rights of citizens and change the meaning of law and other terms not only in our penal enactments but also in our dictionaries. of a hundred years they belive. rooted out of lawless group their minds, It is fer these reasons that I am accepting this apology and not filing any complaint • 368 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [19134] VOL. 1963 Statt nf {jltat Prodtsh v. MrJiammad JVaim DtU J. against Mohmmad Nairn. Where every fish barring perhaps a few stinks, it is idle to pick out one or two and say I, therefore, discharge the notice issued against Shri Mohmmad ~aim." that it stinks. The State of U ttar Pradesh felt aggrieved by some of the aforesaid observations and made an application under s. 561-A Code of Criminal Proce· dure for expunging them. The observations in res· pect of which the State of Uttar Pradesh felt aggri eved were grouped under heads (a), (b) and (c) in paragr.1ph 4 of the petition which we may now set out here : (a) "If I had felt that with my lone efforts I could have cleaned this augean stable, which is the police force, I would not have hesitated to wage this war single handed." (b) "That there is not a single lawless group in the whole of the country whose record of crime comes anywhere near the record of that organised unit which is known as the Indian Police Force." (c) "Where every fish barring perhaps a few stinks, it is idle to pick out one or two and say that it stinks." The main ground which the State of Uttar Pradesh urged in support of their petition was the entire police force, that "the observations over bring the same into contempt, lower its prestige in the eyes of .~anki!1d, have a tendency to int.er_fere with the adm1mstrat1on of the country and mJure the security of the State." The State further alleged that the observations made were not a necessary part of, and could well be separated from, the main .. - • -' ( 2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 369 order of the learned Judge on the notice issued to Mohrnmad Nairn and that there was no evidence in the record of any kind upon which those observations could be based. Mr . .Justice Mulla heard the application and came to the following main cor clusions :- 195J Stat1 of Uttar Fratle1h v. Mohammad /{aim -Dos/. (I) That the State of Uttar Pradesh was not an aggrieved party and had no locus standi to make an application under s. 561-A Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of the observations made. (2) The observations required only one clari fication namely, that they were made in respect of the police force of U ttar Pradesh and not of the whole country. (3) The observations made under (a) above would have been expunged, if the aggrieved party had approached the learned Judge. (4) As to the rest ·of the observations, there were no good grounds for expunging them because they were based upon the learned Judge's personal knowledge and experience and did not contain any over statements. He accordingly dismissed the application of the State. The State then moved the High Court for a certificate of fitness under Art. 134(1) (c) of the Constitution of India am!! being unsuccessful there, asked for special leave of this court under Art. I 36 of the Constitution. This court granted special leave on A oril 12, 1962. The present appeal has been preferred from the order of the learned Judge rejecting the application under s. 561-A Cr. P. C., in pursuance of the leave granted by this court. The first point which falls for consideration is whether the State of Uttar Pradesh had locus standi 1963 SloU of UttaT Pt..W~ •• MoMmnuul Noim Du/, • 370 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964] VOL. to make the application under s. 561-A Cr. P. C. We may first read tlie sect ion : "Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent power of the High Court to make such orders as may l>e necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Courl or otherwise to secure the ends of justice." It is now well settled that the section confers no new powers on the High Court. It merely safeguards all existing inherent powers possessed by a High Court necessary (among other purposes) to secure the ends of justice. The section provides that those powers which the court inherently possesses shall be preserved lest it be considered that the only powers possessed by the court arc those expressly conferred by the Code and that no inherent pnwers had sur vived the passing of the Code (see .fairam DrM v. Emperor {'), and Emperor v. Nazir Ahmad (')), We shall presently deal with the question whether the High Court has inherent. power to expunge the remarks made by it or by a lower court to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. A5suming that the High Court has such power, the question now before us is, inherent jurisdiction of the High Court? The learned Judge of the High Court gave two reasons for his finding that the State Government had no locu.~ standi to make an application under s. 5Gl-A Cr. P. C. The first reason he gave was that the State Government could not be said to have been aggrieved by the observatiom made by him. The second reason he gave was that the State represented the executive as well as the judiciary and therefore it would be anomalous if it made an application under s. 561-A Cr. P. C., for such an application would be by the State through its executive to expunge remarks made by it as the judiciary. (I} A.I.R. (t945) P.C. 94. the State Government (2) A.l.R. (1945) P.C. t8. invoke this /963 Sllllt 'If Uttar Prai"h y, MQh"'1Jm6' Naim Da1 J. 2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 371 . We do not think that any of these two grounds is tenable. Under Art. 154 of the Constitution the executive power of the State is vested in the Governor and shall be ~xercised by him either directly or through officers subordinate to him. The expression "State Government" has a meaning assigned to it under the General Clauses Act, 1897 (X of 1897). Briefly stated, it means the authority or person authorised at the relevant date to exercise executive government in the State, and afler the commence ment of the Constitution, it means the Governor of the State. It is not disputed that the police depart· ment is a department of the State Government through which the executive power of the State as respects law and order is exercised. If the State Government considers that the observations made by a court in respect of a department or officers through whom the State Government exercises its executive powers are such as require invoking the inherent power of the High Court under s. 561-A Cr.P. C., it is difficult to see why the State Government cannot be considered to be the party aggrieved by such observations. Furthermore, it is not disputed that the State is a juristic person. The Code of Criminal Procedure itself recognises in some of its provisions the rights of the State Government; such as, the right to give sanction and to move the court for necessary action etc. the State Government being the authority or p~rson authorised to exercise executive Govern ment at the relevant date. Some of these provisions are contained in ss. 144 (6), 190 (2), 190 (3), 196, 196-A, 197 etc. of the Code. One outstanding example is furnished by s. 417 of the Code which gives to the State Government a right of appeal to the High Court from an original or appellate order of acquittal passed by any court other than a High Court. It is also not disputed that the State Govern ment may invoke the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under s. 439 of the Code, though the t section is general in its terms and does not specifically 196J St.le of Uttar Pradem •• M"""'""" No;,,, Das/, 372 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964] VOL mention the State Government. Therefore, we fail to see why the State Government cannot make an application under s. 561-A. We see nothing anoma lous in the State Government moving .the court for redress when it feels aggrieved by remarks made against it, The State Government may make an application to the High Court under s. 561 ·A in the same way as it may direct the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal on its behalf to the High Court under s. 417 or may invoke through one of its officers the jurisdiction of the High Court under s. 439 of the \\/ e have, therefore, come to the conclusion Code. that the finding of the learned Judge that the State Government has no locus standi to make the appli cation under s. 561-A Cr. P.:c. is erroneous in law. Our attention was drawn to some cases where the State Government made such applications in a pend ing appeal. N<.' question was however raised therein whether the State Government had locu8 standi to make the applications; therefore, we have thought fit to decide the point on principle rather than on cases where such applications were made. The second point for consideration is this, has the High Court inherent power to expunge remarks made by itself or by a lower court to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice ? There was at one time some this question. The conflict of judicial opinion on position as to ca~e-law now seems to be that except for a somewhat restricted view taken by the Bombay High Court, the other High Courts have taken the view that though the jurisdiction is of an exceptional nature and is to be exercised in most exceptional cases only, it is undoubtedly open to the High Court to expunge remarks from a judgment in order to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of the process of the court [see Emperor v. Ch. Mohd. Hassan (1 ); Slate v. Chhotay Lal ('); Lalit Kumar v. S. S. Bose ('); S. Lal Singh v. State ('); (I) A.!.R. (1913) Lah. 298. (3) A.LR. (1957) All. !~8. 12; I ~55 A L.J. 24-0. (4' A.LR. (1959) Punj. 211. I <-- - - 2 s.c.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 373 1963 Sta11 oj l'ttar Prade~h v. Mohammad 1" aim Das J. Ramsagar Singh v. Chandrika Singh ('); and In re Ramaswami (') ]. The view taken in the Bombay High Court is that the High Court has no jurisdic tion to expunge passages from the judi; ment of an inferior court which has not been brought before it in regular appeal or revision; but an application under s. 561-A Cr. P. C. is maintainable and in a proper case the High Court has inherent jurisdiction, even though no appeal or revision is preferred to it, to correct judicially the observations made by pointing out that they were not justified, or were without foundation, or were wholly wrong or impro per [see State v. Nilkanth Shripad Bhave (')]. In S.ate of U. P. v. J. N. Bagga ('), this court made an order expunging certain remarks made against the State Government by a learned .Judge of the High Court of Allahabad. The order was made in an appeal brought to this court from the appellate judgment and order of the Allahabad High Court. In State of U. P. v. lbrar Hussain (5), this court ob served that it was not necessary to make certain remarks which the High Court made in its judgment. Here an appeal and order of the High Court. We think that the view taken in the High Courts other than the High Court of Bombay is correct and the High Court can in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction expunge remarks made by it or by a lower court if it be necessary to do so to prevent abuse of the process of the court or other wise to secure the ends of justice; the jurisdiction is however of an exceptional nature and has to be exercised In fairness to learned counsel for the appellants we may state here that he has submitted before us that the State Government will be satisfied if we either expunge the remarks or hold them to be wholly unwarranted on the facts of the case. He has submitted that the real purpose of the appeal is to remove the stigma which has been put on the police force of the entire the observation was made in exceptional cases only. judgment (I) A.I.R. rl961) Pat. 3G4. (3) I.L.R. 1954 Born. 148. (2) A.I.R. (1958) Mad, 305. (4) Judgment in Cr. A. 122/1959 of this court decided on January 16 1961. (5) Judgment of this court in Cr. As. 148/1957 and 4 of 1958 decided on April 28, 1959. 1963 Stall of Uttar Pr11itsh v. MoM:mrMd Naim Das/, • 374 SUPREME COURT REPORTS[l964) VOL. State by those remarks the truth of which it had no opportunity to challenge. inherent The last question is, is the present case a case of an exceptional nature in which the learned Judge should have exercised his jurisdiction under s. 561-A Cr. P. C. in respect of the observations complained of by the State Government ? If there importance in the ad· is one principle of cardinal ministration of justice, it is this : the prop~r freedom and independence of Judges and Magistrates must be maintained and they must be allowed to perform fearle1Sly and without their functions freely and undue interference by any body, even by this court. At the same time it is equally necessary that in expressing their opinions Judges and Magistrates must be guid"d by considerations of justice, fair play and restraint. It is not infrequent that sweepin.i;: generalisations defeat the very purpose for which they are made. It has been judicially recognised that in the matter of making disparaging remarks against persons or authorities whose conduct comes consideration before courts of law in cases to be decided by them, it is relevant to consider (a) whether the party whose conduct is in quesrion is before the court or has an opportunity of explaining or defending there is evidence on record himself ; (b) whether bearing on that conduct justifying the remarks ; and the decision of the (c) whether it is necessary for case, as an integral part thereof, to animadvert on It has also been recognised that judi that conduct. cial pronouncements must be judicial in nature, and should not normally depart from sobriety, moderation and reserve. In the case before us the learned Judge chose to make sweeping and general observations against the entire police force of the State. The case before him related to only one police officer, Mohammad Nairn, about whose conduct the learned Judge was • 2 s.c.R. SUPREME COURT R:f:PORTS 375 1969 Sto.te of Uttar Praduh v. }dohammod Naim Das J. undoubtedly juatified in making adverse remarks. The learned Judge himself realised that the remarks which he had made were much too general and sweeping in character, because in his later order he said that the remarks were meant for the police force in Uttar Pradesh only and he further said he would have expunged the remarks under the head (a) referred to earlier, if the party aggrieved had come before him. We consider that the remarks made by the learned. Judge in respect of the entire police force of the State were not justified on the facts of the case, nor were they necessary for the disposal of the case before him. The learned Judge conceded that the general remarks he made were not based on any evidence in the record; he said that he drew largely from his knowledge and experience at the the Bench. Learned counsel for the Bar and on appellant has very frankly stated before us that the learned Judge has had very great experience in the matter of criminal cases, and was familiar with the method of investigation adopted by the local police. He has contended, however, that it was not proper for the Judge to import his personal knowledge into the matter. We do not think that in the present case we need go into the question as to the extent to which a Judge or Magistrate may draw upon his experience in assessing or weighing evidence or even in """e recognise the judging the conduct of a person. in a case existence of exceptional circumstances where the Judge or Magistrate may have to draw upon his experience to determine what is the usual or normal conduct with regard to men and affairs. We say this with respect, but it appears to us that the great in the present case even allowing for experience which the in the matter of criminal trials, his statement that "there was not a single lawless group in the whole country whose record of crime came anywhere near the ' record of that organised unit which is known as the Indian Police Force" was wholly unwarranted and, learned Judge had - 1963 State nflJ1t4r Pradt.'h v. Afohammad ]\'aim DaJ J. • 376 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [IU64] VOL. is sure to bring if we may say so, betrayed a lack of judicial approach and restraint. The learned Judge referred to no material on which this observation was based, nor did he say that his experience of criminal trials gave him an occasion to compare the records of crime in the State t'i8-a-vis the of various lawless groups the whole Police Police Force. To characterise Force of the State as a lawless group is bad enough; to say that its record of crime is the highest in the State is worse and coming as it docs from a Judge of the High Court, the whole administration of law and order into disrepute. For a sweeping generalisation of such a nature, there the necessitv of the must be a sure foundation and case must demand it. We can find neither in the pre sent case. \Ve think that the State Government was justifiably aggrieved by such a sweeping rrmark. Similar in nature is the remark ab::iut the stinking of "every fish in the police force barring, perhaps, a few." The word "perhaps" seems to indicate that even about the few, the learned J udgc had some doubt. We consider that these sweeping generali sations defeat their own purpose. They were not for the disposal of the case against necessary It would have b1'en enough Mohammad Nairn. to say that when a large for the learned number of police officers were resorting to an objec tionable method of investigation, it was unnecessary to pick out one petty officer and prosecute him for doing what several others had done with impugnity, It was wholly unnecessary for the learned Judge to condemn the entire police force and say that their record of crime was the highest in the country. Such a remark instead of serving the purpose of reforming the object the learned the police force, which Judge says he had in mind, is likely to undermine the efficiency of the entire police force. We think that in his zeal and solicitude for the reform of the police force, the learned Judge allowed himself to make these very unfortunate remarks which defeated .Judge - 2 s.c.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 377 the very purpose he had in mind. Having said all this, we must add, lest we be misunderstood, that the conduct of Mohammad Nairn and officers like him deserves the severest condemnation, and the learned Judge rightly observed that such conduct required very serious notice by superior officers of the Police. is difficult to avoid the reflection that unless an example is made of such officers by taking the most stringent action against them, no improvement in police administration is possible. It 1903 Stal• of Ultt.r PradeJh v. Mohammad Naim l)as J, For the reasons given above, we have come to the conclusion, a conclusion which justice demands, the present case is one of those ·exceptional cases where the inherent jurisdiction of the court should have been exercised and the remarks earlier referred to as (a), (b) and (c) should have been expunged. We accordingly allow the appeal and direct . that the aforesaid remarks do stand expunged Judge dated August 4, 1961. the order of learned Appeal allowed.