JUDGMENT
A. Pasayat, J.
1. Petitioner has filed this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, ‘the Code’) for expunging certain remarks made by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Second Class, Panposh at Rourkela in his judgment in GR Case No.930 of 1989 (TR No. 111 of 1991) disposed of on 7-2-1992. Petitioner was the informant in the sid GR Case and three persons faced trial One of the accused persons, namely, Padma Charan Samal filed a counter case which was registered as GR Case No. 931 of 1989 in which the peititioner and his wife were arrayed as accused persons. After completion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted against them and case was taken up by the learned Judicial Magistrate Second Class (in short, ‘JMSC’) for trial. Order of acquittal was passed under Section 235(1) of the Code pending disposal of the counter case. The following observations were made, which according to the petitioner, are irrelevant and should be expunged.
“It reveals that they are of quarrelsome in nature and they used to quarrel with others. This case also is an outcome of their quarrelsome nature.”
( Para 11 of the judgment–concluding lines)
“Here, PW 4 and PW 5 instituted a case in order to screen their guilt.”
(Para, 14 of the judgment–concluding lines)
“Here, the statement of PW 5 is nothing but an exaggeration piece of evidence and suffers from concoction and embellishment of fact.”
(Para 9 of the judgment–concluding lines)
2. Observation should not be made by Courts against persons and authorities, unless they are necessary for the decision of the case. Courts are temples of justice. The parties before it, the counsel are devotees who come to it to seek blessings of justice; parties directly, and counsel on their behalf. Presiding Officer of the Court is the head priest of the temple of justice. “Curia, Court is a place where justice is Judicially administered, and is derived a cura quie in cout is public is cures gerehant.” Object of Courtis to decide the rights of the parties and not to punish them for mistakes they make in the conduct of their odses. Courts essentially exist for deciding matters in controversy. Principal function of a Court is not to enforce discipline; it may incidentally be called upon to deal with that aspect.
3. Courts are not expected to play to the gallery and to make uncalled for observations touching upon professional competence, conduct of a counsel, person or authority. Harsh or disparaging remarks are not to be made, unless they are required to be made for decision of the case.
4. Jurisdiction to expunge remarks is of an extraordinary character and has to be exercised with care and caution. Objectionable remarks can be expunged under Section 482 of the Code. High Court would generally expunge the remarks, if they are likely to do harm to the persons concerned, and (a) are based on no evidence or on irrelevant or inadmissible evidence, (b) even if based on evidence, they are wholly irrelevant to any point in issue and are not necessary either to the conclusions or for the submissions to be made, before Court concerned, or (c) where such remarks are based on some prior act, conduct or statement of a person, which has not been brought to his notice, to enable him to furnish an explanation.
5. In weighing evidence, in arriving at conclusions on question of fact and in reviewing the conduct and/or the veracity of witnesses, counsel and parties, the trial Court is entitled to make remarks which may reflect adversely on the character and conduct of the witnesses, counsel and parties to the case. In such cases the High Court would be slow to interfere unless the conclusions are patently absurd or perverse. However, as such adverse remarks are likely to injure the reputation or prejudicially affect the general and/or professional credibility, career of the person, the power should be exercised with great reserve and moderation. Such remarks, even where justified should be couched in restrained and decorous terms. No such remarks should be made unless, (a) they are based on material legally and properly brought on record, and (b) where adverse inference is sought to be drawn from some alleged prior act, conduct or statement, an opportunity is afforded to person concerned to furnish an explanation, by bringing such act. conduct or statement to his notice. Remarks against a party witness and counsel can be expunged if they unjustly and without any lawful excuse take away the character or the person concerned. Judicial pronouncements must be judicial in nature, and should not normally depart from sobriety, moderation and reserve, when a counsel be concerned, remaraks which would affect his professional standing, competence or conduct should not be made unless compelling reasons exist to do so. If the Court feels that conduct of a counsel is unethical, it can bring the matter to the notice of the Bar Council, so that discipline can be enforced. Any disparaging or harsh comment or remark about a counsel may have the effect of degrading him in the esteem of litigant public, his colleagues and even of public at large.
6. The Court would not expunge passages when to do so would mutilate the judgment or touch its fabric. The objectionable passage should be separable and irrelevant. If they are inseparable or if they are calculated to affect the conclusions of the Court, the proper procedure is to issue notice to the parties and to deal with the case as a whole. Where expunging the remarks would mutilate the judgment or they are not separable and irrelevant, it is sufficient to express the opinion that the remarks should not have been passed. If the offensive remarks are not at all necessary in the case and circumstances of the case, nor are they essential for the decision of the case, such remarks should be deleted and there will be no effect of crippling tie judgment or changing its contents or effect. Recording of such remarks, without affording an opportunity of explaining and defending, is against the cannons of justice and fair-play.
7. Judged in the aforesaid settled portion in law, it has to be seen how far the impugned observations made are obnoxious. Certainly tie observations made in paragraph 11 as narrated relate to alleged prior conduct or habit of the witness. It had no relevanca so far as the dispute was concerned. It was not in any way highlighted in evidenca to afford the witness opportunity to furnish explanation. Accordingly same is deleted.
So far as other two portions are concerned, from the observations it cannot be said to be totally unconnected with the subject-matter of adjudication by the learned JMSC. It related to acceptability of evidence and the motive for institution of a case. Therefore, they cannot be said to be irrelevant observations, and totally foreign to the scope of adjudication, particularly when they related to acceptability of evidence. Prayer to expunge them is refused.
The application is accordingly disposed of,
