PERSY GERALD PAPALI Vs. ABRAHAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under S. 561 -A Crl. P. C. , for expunging certain remarks made against the petitioner by the Additional First class Magistrate of Ernakulam. C. C. 18 of 1961 was a case filed by Sri E. V. Abraham, an advocate of Ernakulam against Sri K. Raveendran, Editor and Sri. K. Mukundan Menon, Printer and Publisher of a newspaper called 'jai Hind' for publishing a defamatory article against him in the issue dated 18 31960, thereby committing an offence punishable under S. 500 and 501, I. P. C.

(2.) THE facts that gave rise to the publication had been stated by the learned Magistrate and need not be reiterated here. THE publication was admitted by the accused and there can be no doubt that the allegations in the publication were per se defamatory. THE accused pleaded exceptions 1 & 9 of S. 499 I. P. C. and examined as many as 22 defence witnesses in his defence. THE petitioner was dw. 20 in the case. He gave evidence regarding the suit filed by him, the compromise attempted to be effected and his going to the hospital and finding that the defendant in his case had died long before the Vakalath in the case was produced by the complainant. THE learned Magistrate on a consideration of the evidence found that the onus which lay heavily on the accused to prove the truth of good faith had not been discharged and found the accused guilty. In the course of the judgment the learned Magistrate made certain remarks about dw. 20 in Para. 32 and it is those remarks which are now sought to be expunged from the judgment.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel who appeared for the complainant has argued that in order to maintain the independence of the judiciary, Magistrates and other Subordinate Courts should be accorded full freedom to express such views and make such observations in their judgments as they may think fit. As stated in a recent case in Abdul Khader v. State (1960 Cr. L. J. 66): "while this court must carefully guard against doing anything which might tend to restrict the free and independent expression of judicial opinion on the part of Magistrates and judges it should also ensure that high judicial standards are always maintained by Magistrates and judges and that no violation of judicial propriety is allowed to take place under any circumstances. And while the independence of the judiciary must be jealously protected we should with equal anxiety prevent abuse of its process by any court. A judge who goes out of his way and needlessly besmirches the character of a party or a witness will expose himself to the attack of being devoid of judicial temper and proper judicial balance in his approach and conduct The language employed by a Magistrate or a judge should be sober, restrained and dignified; it should not disclose bitterness, bias or undue harshness. Nor is there any place for flippancy in the proceedings or the record of a Court of law. The majesty of law can brook no levity. The personal views or personal impressions which a Magistrate or a judge may have about a party or a witness should never be allowed to project themselves in his judgment or the proceedings of the Court. All that may be said in the judgment about the character or credibility of a party or a witness must be well founded on the evidence in the case. None should be condemned unheard; no aspersion should be cast on the character of any person unless it is necessary to do so for the proper disposal of the matter before the Court and warranted by evidence, facts and circumstances of the case. These principles have been repeatedly pointed out in several decisions. " I am in respectful agreement with these observations.