SAM CHRISTY DANIAL Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A Circle Inspector, who was PW13 in CC. 34/99 on the file of the Enquiry Commissioner, special Judge, Trissur, has come up with this petition under Sec. 482 seeking to expunge certain remarks against him contained in para 82 of Annexure-1 judgment.

(2.) THE petitioner was the then Sub Inspector of police and is the Sub Inspector of police mentioned in para 82 of Annexure-1 judgment. It is contended that this remark is very adverse one, so far as his career is concerned. It was made in Annexxure-1 judgment without giving him an opportunity. It is violative of the principles of natural justice. THE court ought not have made such remarks without calling for his explanation. THErefore it is violative of the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the decision reported in Manish Dixit and Others V. State of Rajastan (AIR 2001 (1) SC 93. THE Supreme Court had made it obligatory that any court making adverse remarks should give the party concerned an opportunity.

(3.) REMARKS to be made by a court may, as held in the decision reported in Jage Ram, Inspector of Police v. Hans Raj Midha (AIR 1972 sc 1140) come in three categories. They are; i. Whether the parties in whose conduct is in question is before the court or has any opportunity of explaining or defending himself. ii. Whether there is evidence on record bearing on that conduct justifying the remarks and iii. Whether it is necessary for the decision of the case as an integral part there of, to animadvert on that conduct.