G.S. MEENA Vs. STATE & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts leading the Petitioner to filing the present petition are that the Petitioner a Special Executive Magistrate had passed an order dated 31st January, 2010 in proceedings under Section 107/151 Cr.P.C. instituted on DD No. 44A dated 30th January, 2010 registered at P.S. Shakarpur. Vide order dated 31st January, 2010 on a Kalandra being presented revealing apprehension of breach of peace, after recording the statement of the Investigating Officer and in view of the fact that the Respondents therein could not produce any surety, they were sent to judicial custody till 2nd February, 2010. While deciding the revision petition the Learned Additional Sessions Judge not only set aside the impugned order, however made the following observations: "In my opinion the Learned SEM acted in flagrant violation of all laws and norms. The prejudice and biasness is apparent from the records which should not have been there while discharging the judicial function and this conduct has to be depreciated". Thus the Petitioner has filed the present petition seeking expunging the remarks passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge.

(2.) Initially, the revisionist before the Learned Additional Sessions Judge were made parties, however since the learned counsel for the Petitioner confined his prayer to the expunging of remarks only, they were deleted from the array of parties and thus this Court is not going into the legality of the impugned order passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge.

(3.) Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that he recorded the statement of the Investigating Officer and perused the evidence on record. He acted in accordance with law and thus observations of the Learned Additional Sessions Judge were unwarranted. Reliance is placed on In re K a Judicial Officer, 2001 2 JT 397, and Parkash Singh Teji Vs. Northern India Goods Transport Co. Pvt. Ltd. and Anr., 2009 6 JT 540.