KESAVA PANICKER Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition for expunging certain remarks made against the petitioner in the order in Preliminary Enquiry Case No. 1 of 1125 on the file of the Stationary First Class Magistrate, Kuzhithura. The petitioner was examined as PW. 1 in that case. He is the Headmaster of the English High School , Munchira. The school was formerly under a private management. The prosecution case was that the accused, 8 in number, formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with the common object of taking forcible possession of the school from the then manager and that they took from the Headmaster by threat of violence the keys, records and money that were in his possession. The accused were discharged by the learned Magistrate by his order dated 25. 2. 1953. Certain remarks were made against the petitioner in that order which, according to him, are quite irrelevant and uncalled for and are not supported by anything in the evidence. The remarks are those contained in the following passages: " (1) It is surprising to see how high handed is the act of these two responsible and educated people. (The two people referred to are PW. 1, the headmaster and PW. 2, the manager) (page 8) (2) The conduct of PWs. 1 and 2 in this behalf appears to be very suspicious (page 8) (3) In the circumstances of this case the argument advanced by learned counsel appearing for the defence that PWs. 1 and 2 were working as a team against the school interests and for their own personal pecuniary benefits with a view to commit misappropriation of the school funds gains ground (page 10 ). (4) All these facts go to show that the hands of PW. 1 are not clean and that it is not at all advisable to act upon his words (page 11 ). "

(2.) NOTICE of the petition was given to the State and also to the accused. The petition was not opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor, but it was opposed by learned counsel who appeared for the accused.

(3.) THE jurisdiction of the High Court to expunge objectionable passages from the judgments of subordinate courts was recognised by the Bombay High Court in State v. Gulam Mahomed (1953 Bombay 152 ). A Full bench of that Court considered the question in State of Bombay v. Nil Kath (1954 Bombay 65 ). In that case an application was made by the State of Bombay to expunge certain remarks made by the Sessions Judge, North Satara, when dealing with a bail application. THE Full Bench held that under S. 561a, Code of Criminal Procedure the High Court has got jurisdiction to entertain the application although the application is not one contemplated by the Code. Chagla, C. J. observed thus: "therefore, in our opinion, as S. 561a was enacted to emphasize the fact that the High Court has the widest jurisdiction to pass orders to secure the ends of justice, S. 561a must give the power to this Court to entertain application which are not contemplated by Criminal Procedure Code. THErefore, if the High Court feels that ends of justice require that an order should be made in an application, although the applications is not contemplated by the Code, the High Court will entertain the application and make the necessary orders to secure the ends of justice. "