PRADEEPAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is an Inspector of Police in Kerala Police. While working as Sub Inspector of Police, detecting an abkari offence he arrested the offender thereof and seized the contraband possessed by him in violation of the Abkari Act. Prosecution of that offender before the Sessions Court however led to his acquittal with the learned Additional Sessions Judge making some comments/remarks against the petitioner and another, both of them police officers involved in one way or other in the detection/investigation of the crime. Learned Additional Sessions Judge in the judgment pronounced in that case directed forwarding a copy of that judgment to the Director General of Police for taking appropriate action against the above two police officers. Feeling aggrieved and contending that the remarks/comments directed against him by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and the direction issued to communicate a copy to the Head of Police force for taking action against him are unwarranted, totally unjustified and such orders were passed without hearing him, he has filed the above petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for short, 'the Code' to expunge the remarks/ comments and vacate the aforesaid direction of the Sessions Judge. Annexure A1 is copy of the judgment in the Sessions Case in which ordering the acquittal of the accused the learned Sessions Judge had made comments/remarks against the petitioner and another, two police officers. Annexure A2 is a copy of the notice issued to the petitioner while the trial of that case was in progress to show cause why he should not be proceeded against under Section 53A of the Kerala Abkari Act for having not produced the residue of the property involved in the case before the court. Annexure A3 is a copy of the reply given by the petitioner to Annexure A2 notice stating that there was no negligence nor laches on his part in the nonproduction of the residue, which had been disposed of as per the then existing provisions of the statute. Learned Sessions Judge has not proceeded against the petitioner as contemplated under A2 notice after receipt of A3 reply; but, while disposing the Sessions Case ordering acquittal of the accused commented upon the nonproduction of the residue before court and how far it has affected the prosecution case fatally imputing culpable laches and negligence thereof on the part of the two police officers.

(2.) Going through Annexure Al judgment, it is seen, pursuant to information received over illicit transportation of liquor in an autorickshaw a police party headed by the petitioner intercepted that vehicle. Three passengers were in the autorickshaw driven by the first accused. One among the passengers alone could be apprehended and, others ran away. Search over the vehicle revealed a sack containing 11 bottles of XXX Rum each of 750 ml and 18 bottles of the same brand each of 375 ml. Samples were collected from such bottles preparing a mahazar. Crime registered over the detection of the abkari offence and seizure of the contraband after investigation led to indictment of four accused persons. In the trial of that case before the Sessions Judge, prosecution examined seven witnesses among whom the petitioner/detecting officer was examined as PW5. Another police officer, who took part in the investigation of the crime, was examined as PW4. The above two police officers were culpable for not producing the residue of the contraband seized before court, and its nonproduction was fatal to the prosecution case against the accused, was the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge, to make comments/remarks against petitioner and the other officer (PW4 and PW5) with direction for sending a copy of the judgment to the Director General of Police.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the remarks/comments made by the Sessions Judge and also the directions issued by him, which find expression in para 30, 31, 34 in the judgment, are quite unwarranted and, further more, the reasons stated by the Sessions Judge on the preceding paragraphs discussing the evidence are legally unsustainable as well. Learned Sessions Judge has not given any opportunity to the petitioner before making such comments/remarks in the judgment disparaging his conduct and also taking exception and finding fault with the discharge of his duties as a police officer. Placing reliance on "State of U.P v. Mohammad Naim, 1964 AIR(SC) 703 and "State of Maharashtra v. Public Concern for Governance Trust and Others, 2007 3 SCC 587, the learned counsel contended that the fundamental principles to be adhered to in making disparaging remarks against persons or authorities whose conduct is found objectionable have been given scant respect by the learned Sessions Judge. The relevant considerations applicable in making comments/remarks over the conduct of a party when it comes for consideration by the court adverted to by the apex court in the aforesaid decisions are relied by the counsel to contend that they were not taken notice by the learned Sessions Judge and the comments made against the petitioner by the learned Sessions Judge are inexcusable. Such comments stated in the judgment are liable to be expunged and the orders passed for sending a copy of the judgment to the Director General for taking action against the petitioner liable to be vacated, is the submission of the counsel.