W.P. (Cr) No. 398 v. State of Chhattisgarh

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

28.06.2023 1) The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners for expunction of adverse remarks made by Special Judge, Balrampur, Place Ramanujganj, Chhatttisgarh dated

06.02.2020 in para No. 43 of the judgment rendered in Special Criminal (Electricity) Case No. 8 of 2018 with -2- following relief(s):- "10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records relating to this case. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the petition and quash the adverse remarks passed against the petitioner at para 43 of the judgment, in the interest of justice.

10.3. That any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper together with cost of the petition.” 2) The facts of the case are that Prakash Kumar Tiwari, an electricity contractor, was prosecuted for offenses under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (for short, ‘the Act, 2003’). He has been sentenced to three years of rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 304 of the IPC and three months of rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 135 of the Act, 2003. Additionally, he has been fined Rs. 500/- for each offence, and in case of default in payment, he will have to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for seven days. 3) On 20th December 2014 at around 8 a.m., the deceased namely Gangasagar was repairing an electric supply cable on an electric pole under the instruction of Prakash Kumar Tiwari. Unfortunately, Gangasagar died due to electrocution during the process. The deceased was working as a lineman under Prakash Kumar Tiwari, who allegedly failed to provide safety tools and equipment to ensure the deceased's safety. As a result, Shankar Nageshiya, the complainant, lodged a report with the Morgue, and subsequently, an FIR (First Information Report) was -3- registered against Prakash Kumar Tiwari for the mentioned offenses on the same day. The police investigated the matter and after completion of investigation filed charge- sheet against the accused/Praksh Kumar Tiwari, the learned trial Court framed charge for commission of offence u/s. 304 of the IPC and 135 of the Act, 2003 and examined 17 witnesses and delivered judgment on 06.02.2020. 4) In paragraph 43 of its judgment, the learned trial court observed that Lukman Khan, Assistant Engineer, Surjeet Kumar, Junior Engineer, and Budhram S/o Ramdu Ram, R/o Turna are also responsible for the death of the deceased. However, the police did not take any action against them. The court directed that a copy of its judgment be sent to the Superintendent of Police, Balrampur, and the Inspector General of Police, Government of Chhattisgarh, Raipur, for necessary action to be taken against these individuals. 5) The adverse remarks rendered by the learned Special Judge in its judgment para-43 is reproduced hereinbelow: "43. सम्पूर्ण साक्ष्य का अवलोकन पर दर्शित हुआ(cid:6) साक्ष्य का अवलोकन पर दर्शित हुआ का अवलोकन पर दर्शित हुआ पर दर्शित हुआ दर्शि(cid:19)त हुआ हुआ है कि जांच पर अनुशंसित था कि कि जांच पर अनुशंसित था किक जांच पर अनुशंसित था कि पर दर्शित हुआ अन पर दर्शित हुआु(cid:19)ंसिसत हुआ था कि जांच पर अनुशंसित था किक, लुकमान पर दर्शित हुआ खान पर दर्शित हुआ सहाय का अवलोकन पर दर्शित हुआक य का अवलोकन पर दर्शित हुआंत्री, सुर दर्शित हुआजीत हुआ कु मार दर्शित हुआ ककि जांच पर अनुशंसित था किन पर दर्शित हुआष्ठ अभियंता एवं अभि%य का अवलोकन पर दर्शित हुआंत हुआा एवं बंधुर दर्शित हुआाम आत्मज र दर्शित हुआमदु र दर्शित हुआाम, कि जांच पर अनुशंसित था किन पर दर्शित हुआवासी ग्राम त हुआुर दर्शित हुआन पर दर्शित हुआा उक्त लिलए दोष कार्यवाही के लिए दोषी हैं लेकिन पुलिसी हैं लेकिन पुलिस ले लिए दोषी हैं लेकिन पुलिसकि जांच पर अनुशंसित था किकन पर दर्शित हुआ पुलिलस सदोष कार्यवाही के लिए दोषी हैं लेकिन पुलिस काय का अवलोकन पर दर्शित हुआ(cid:6)वाही के लिए दोषी हैं लेकिन पुलिस कि जांच पर अनुशंसित था किव%ाग के अन्वेषण अधिकारी के द्वारा उक्त लुकमान के लिए दोषी हैं लेकिन पुलिस अन्वे लिए दोषी हैं लेकिन पुलिसष कार्यवाही के लिए दोषी हैं लेकिन पुलिसर्ण साक्ष्य का अवलोकन पर दर्शित हुआ अधिधकार दर्शित हुआी के लिए दोषी हैं लेकिन पुलिस द्वार दर्शित हुआा उक्त लुकमान पर दर्शित हुआ खान पर दर्शित हुआ सहाय का अवलोकन पर दर्शित हुआक य का अवलोकन पर दर्शित हुआंत्री, सुर दर्शित हुआजीत हुआ कु मार दर्शित हुआ ककि जांच पर अनुशंसित था किन पर दर्शित हुआष्ठ अभियंता एवं अभि%य का अवलोकन पर दर्शित हुआंत हुआा एवं बंधुर दर्शित हुआाम आत्मज र दर्शित हुआमदु र दर्शित हुआाम, कि जांच पर अनुशंसित था किन पर दर्शित हुआवासी ग्राम त हुआुर दर्शित हुआन पर दर्शित हुआा कि जांच पर अनुशंसित था किवरूद्ध किसी प्रकार का अन्वेषण कार्यवाही नहीं कि जांच पर अनुशंसित था किकसी प्रकार दर्शित हुआ का अन्वे लिए दोषी हैं लेकिन पुलिसष कार्यवाही के लिए दोषी हैं लेकिन पुलिसर्ण साक्ष्य का अवलोकन पर दर्शित हुआ काय का अवलोकन पर दर्शित हुआ(cid:6)वाही न पर दर्शित हुआहीं के लिए दोषी हैं लेकिन पुलिस कि जांच पर अनुशंसित था किकय का अवलोकन पर दर्शित हुआा ग के अन्वेषण अधिकारी के द्वारा उक्त लुकमानय का अवलोकन पर दर्शित हुआा है कि जांच पर अनुशंसित था कि, इससे लिए दोषी हैं लेकिन पुलिस प्रत हुआीत हुआ होत हुआा है कि जांच पर अनुशंसित था कि कि जांच पर अनुशंसित था किक अन्वे लिए दोषी हैं लेकिन पुलिसष कार्यवाही के लिए दोषी हैं लेकिन पुलिसर्ण साक्ष्य का अवलोकन पर दर्शित हुआ अधिधकार दर्शित हुआीग के अन्वेषण अधिकारी के द्वारा उक्त लुकमानर्ण साक्ष्य का अवलोकन पर दर्शित हुआ द्वार दर्शित हुआा लुकमान पर दर्शित हुआ खान पर दर्शित हुआ सहाय का अवलोकन पर दर्शित हुआक य का अवलोकन पर दर्शित हुआंत्री, सुर दर्शित हुआजीत हुआ कु मार दर्शित हुआ ककि जांच पर अनुशंसित था किन पर दर्शित हुआष्ठ अभियंता एवं अभि%य का अवलोकन पर दर्शित हुआंत हुआा एवं बंधुर दर्शित हुआाम आत्मज र दर्शित हुआमदु र दर्शित हुआाम, कि जांच पर अनुशंसित था किन पर दर्शित हुआवासी ग्राम त हुआुर दर्शित हुआन पर दर्शित हुआा के लिए दोषी हैं लेकिन पुलिस बच पर अनुशंसित था किाव में कार्य काय का अवलोकन पर दर्शित हुआ(cid:6) कर दर्शित हुआन पर दर्शित हुआे लिए दोषी हैं लेकिन पुलिस का प्रय का अवलोकन पर दर्शित हुआास कि जांच पर अनुशंसित था किकय का अवलोकन पर दर्शित हुआा ग के अन्वेषण अधिकारी के द्वारा उक्त लुकमानय का अवलोकन पर दर्शित हुआा है कि जांच पर अनुशंसित था कि। अतः निर्णय की प्रति अत हुआः निर्णय की प्रति कि जांच पर अनुशंसित था किन पर दर्शित हुआर्ण साक्ष्य का अवलोकन पर दर्शित हुआ(cid:6)य का अवलोकन पर दर्शित हुआ की प्रति प्रधित हुआ मय का अवलोकन पर दर्शित हुआ ज्ञापन पर दर्शित हुआ पुलिलस अधीक्षक बलर दर्शित हुआामपुर दर्शित हुआ एवं पुलिलस -4- महाकि जांच पर अनुशंसित था किन पर दर्शित हुआदे लिए दोषी हैं लेकिन पुलिस(cid:19)क, छ.ग के अन्वेषण अधिकारी के द्वारा उक्त लुकमान. (cid:19)ासन पर दर्शित हुआ, र दर्शित हुआाय का अवलोकन पर दर्शित हुआपुर दर्शित हुआ, छ.ग के अन्वेषण अधिकारी के द्वारा उक्त लुकमान. को आवश्य का अवलोकन पर दर्शित हुआक काय का अवलोकन पर दर्शित हुआ(cid:6)वाही हे लिए दोषी हैं लेकिन पुलिसत हुआु प्रे लिए दोषी हैं लेकिन पुलिसकि जांच पर अनुशंसित था किष कार्यवाही के लिए दोषी हैं लेकिन पुलिसत हुआ कि जांच पर अनुशंसित था किकय का अवलोकन पर दर्शित हुआा जावे लिए दोषी हैं लेकिन पुलिस। अतः निर्णय की प्रति" 6) A careful perusal of the aforesaid extracts of the judgment would show that learned Special Judge in its judgment not only criticized the conduct of the petitioners but also criticized the officers of the Police Department who investigated the matter, and recommended for necessary action to be taken against them, which has given cause of action to the petitioners to file the instant writ petition claiming expunction of the adverse remarks on the ground that no notice or opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioners. 7) Way back in the year 1964, in the matter of The State U.P. v. Mohammad Naim1, the Supreme Court (Constitution Bench) has held that the High Court can in 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 otherwise to secure the ends of justice and observed as under:- "9. ..............We think that 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 otherwise to secure the ends of justice; the jurisdiction is however of an exceptional nature and has to be exercised only.............." in exceptional Their Lordships have also laid- down the test in considering the expunction of disparaging remarks made against persons or authorities whose conduct comes for 1 AIR 1964 SC 703 -5- consideration before the Court of law to be decided by them by summing up as under:- "(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. It has also been recognized that judicial pronouncements must be judicial in nature, and should not normally depart from sobriety, moderation and reserve." 8) Similarly, in the matter of Dr. Raghubir Saran v. State of Bihar and another2, the Supreme Court has held that the High Court has inherent power to expunge objectionable remarks in judgment and order of the subordinate court against stranger, after it has become final and culled out the principles as under:- "7-8. From the aforesaid discussion the following principles emerge: (1) A judgment of a criminal Court is final; it can be set aside or modified only in the manner prescribed by law. (2) Every Judge, whatever may be his rank in the hierarchy, must have an unrestricted right to 2 . AIR 1964 SC 1 express his views in any matter before him without fear or favour. (3) There is a correlative and self-imposed duty in a Judge not to make irrelevant remarks or observations without any foundation, especially in the case of witnesses or parties not before him, affecting their character or reputation. (4) An appellate 2 AIR 1964 SC 1 -6- Court has jurisdiction to judicially correct such remarks, but it will do so only in exceptional cases where such remarks would cause irrevocable harm to a witness or a party not before it.

29. When the question arises before the High Court in any specific case whether to resort to such undefined power it is essential for it to exercise great caution and circumspection. Thus when it is moved by an aggrieved party to expunge any passage from the order or judgment of a subordinate Court it must be fully satisfied that the passage complained of is wholly irrelevant and unjustifiable, that its retention on the records will cause serious harm to the person to whom it refers and that its expunction will not affect the reasons for the judgment or order." 9) Likewise, in the matter of Niranjan Patnaik v. Sashibhusan Kar and another3 , Their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that harsh or disparaging remarks are not to be made against persons and authorities whose conduct comes into consideration before courts of law unless it is really necessary for the decision of the case and followed the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Mohammad Naim (supra) and observed as under:- "24. It is, therefore, settled law that harsh or disparaging remarks are not to be made against persons and authorities whose conduct comes into consideration before courts of law unless it is really necessary for the decision of the case, as an integral part thereof to animadvert on that conduct. We hold that the adverse remarks made against the appellant were neither justified nor called for." 10) Similar is the proposition laid down in the matter of R. K. Lakshmanan v. A. K. Srinivasan and another4, in which the 3 4 (1986) 2 SCC 569 (1975)2 SCC 566 -7- Supreme Court has followed the tests laid down for expunction of adverse remarks in Mohammad Naim (supra). 11) In the matter of A. M. Mathur v. Pramod Kumar Gupta and others5, Their Lordships of the Supreme Court have emphasized the need for judicial restraint and held that judicial restraint and discipline are necessary to the orderly administration of justice and observed as under:- "13. Judicial restraint and discipline are as 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 constant theme of our judges. This quality in decision making is as much necessary for judges to command respect as to protect the independence of the judiciary. Judicial restraint in this regard might better be called judicial respect, that is, respect by the judiciary. Respect to those who come before the court as well to other co- ordinate branches of the State, the executive and the legislature. There must be mutual respect. When these qualities fail or when litigants and public believe that the judge has failed in these qualities, it will be neither good for the judge nor for the judicial process." Their Lordships have further concluded that intemperate comments should not be made by the Judges and observed as under:- "14. The Judge's Bench is a seat of power. Not only do judges have power to make binding decision, their decisions legitimate the use of power by other officials. The judges have the absolute and unchallengeable control of the court domain. But they cannot misuse their authority by intemperate comments, undignified banter or scathing criticism of counsel, parties or witnesses. We concede that the court has the inherent power to act freely upon its own conviction on any matter 5 (1990) 2 SCC 533 -8- coming before it for adjudication, but it is a general principle of the highest importance to the proper administration of justice that derogatory remarks ought not to be made against persons or authorities whose conduct comes into consideration unless it is absolutely necessary for the decision of the case to animadvert on their conduct." 12) In the matter of Manish Dixit and others v. State of Rajasthan6, it has been held by the Supreme Court that castigating remarks against any person should not be made and the Court is required to give opportunity of being heard in the matter in respect of the proposed remarks or strictures and the same is basic requirement, otherwise offending remarks would be in violation of the principles of natural justice and held as under:- "43. Even those apart, this Court has repeatedly cautioned before any castigating remarks are made by the Court against any person, particularly when such remarks could ensue serious consequences on the future career of the person concerned he should have been given an opportunity of being heard in the matter in respect of the proposed remarks or strictures. Such an opportunity is the basic requirement, for, otherwise the offending remarks would be in violation of the principles of natural justice. In this case such an opportunity was not given to PW 30 (Devendra Kumar Sharma)." 13) A conspectus of the judgments mentioned hereinabove would show that though judge has unrestricted right to express his views in any matter before him but there is corresponding duty in a judge not to make unmerited and undeserving remarks specially in case of witnesses or the parties who are not before him affecting their character and reputation unless it is absolutely necessary for just and 6 AIR 2001 SC 93 -9- proper decision of the case and that too after affording an opportunity of explaining or defending that witness or the party as the case may be, judicial decisions must be judicial in nature and it must show judicial respect to the litigant/party, witnesses who come before the court for their cause. It is also well settled that this Court in exercise of inherent or extraordinary jurisdiction can expunge those remarks made by subordinate court following the three tests laid down in Mohammad Naim (supra), if it is really necessary to do so or prevent abuse of the process of the court or to secure the ends of the justice in exceptional cases, where those remarks would cause irreparable injury to the witness or party not before the court holding that retention of those undeserving remarks will cause harm to the person referred and the expunction will not affect the judgment rendered by the court. 14) After having briefly noticed the test(s) laid down for expunging the offending remarks and power and jurisdiction of this Court to expunge them, would bring us to the factual backdrop of the case. 15) If the tests laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the matter of Mohammad Naim (supra) is applied to the facts of the present case, it would appear that the petitioners did not have an opportunity to explain the said adverse circumstances noticed by the learned Special Judge, as it is not the case of respondents/State that petitioners were afforded an opportunity to explain those circumstances. Likewise, such an adverse remarks were neither necessary nor justifiable for the just decision of the case as the accused person therein stood convicted for the offences charged. Thus, the offending remarks made by -10- learned Special Judge in his judgment are in breach of the tests laid down in Mohammad Naim (supra), and such an offending remarks are in teeth of judgment of Supreme Court in matter of A. M. Mathur (supra) and as such retention of those remarks would cause legal harm and injury to the petitioners, on one hand and on the other hand expunction of adverse remarks will not affect the validity or otherwise of the judgment rendered by learned Special Judge. Accordingly, the offending remarks made by learned Special Judge in above-stated paragraphs in judgment being unmerited and undeserving deserves to be expunged in the ends of justice. 16) As a fall out and consequence of the above-stated discussion, the writ petition is allowed and adverse remarks made by the learned Special Judge (Electricity Act), Balrampur, Place Ramanujganj, in Special Criminal (Electricity) Case No. 08/2018 (State of Chhattisgarh v. Prakash Kumar Tiwari) in paragraphs 43 against the petitioner is hereby expunged. 17) The writ petition is allowed to the extent mentioned hereinabove, but without imposition of cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Nadim