N KRISHNANKUTTY PILLAI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioners in these petitions are the Investigating Officers in S. C. No. 73 of 1998 on the file of the Sessions Court, Thrissur. The Sessions Case was tried by the Sessions Court concerned and due to absence of evidence, the trial Judge acquitted the accused in the above cases. The case against the accused was under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC and ST Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1889. It is alleged in the police charge that the de facto complainant who belongs to a community enumerated as SC was insulted by calling him by caste name and thereby the accused committed the offence. After thorough investigation the police filed charge. Even though the prosecution examined eight witnesses in the case, the prosecution failed to prove any case against the accused and the acquittal entered by the court below. By entering the acquittal, the learned trial Judge made certain remarks in the judgment in paragraphs 32, 34, 40 and 41 of the judgment dated 12-10-1999. Aggrieved by the above remarks, the petitioners approached this court by filing these petitions to expunge the remarks made against the petitioners. The counsel for the petitioners now submits that the remarks made by the trial Judge are not justifiable and that remarks were made without giving an opportunity to the petitioners to rebut the evidence. Hence remarks now made against the petitioners are against the Principles of Natural Justice. This court had considered the remarks made by the Trial Judge in detail. This court is of the view that the remarks may be warranted but the remarks ought to have been made after giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioners to rebut it or the remarks are not on the facts or on the evidence produced before the court. In this context, the attention of this court is invited to the decisions reported in Ajayababu v. State of Kerala,2002 3 KerLT 104). In the above judgment, this court had considered the legality of a remark made by a Presiding Officer against any of the witnesses or any other party concerned in the criminal case or any other proceedings. This court had further remarked that condemnation of a person without giving an opportunity of being heard is incomplete negation of principles of natural (. sic) judgment of the Apex Court reported in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Mohammad Nai, 1964 AIR(SC) 703) where the Apex Court held certain principles for confirming or giving effect to any sustainable remarks that could be made by the Presiding Officers as follows: