JAGDISHCHANDRA HARGOVINDDAS YAGNIK Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Considering the entire matter it seems that the said remarks are without any basis. It cannot be said that the petitioner had intentionally suppressed the correct facts and had not informed junior advocate who was appointed as Court Commissioner. There is no evidence on record to show that the petitioner was in any way interested in suppressing the correct facts. The said remarks are also not necessary for deciding the said matter. The learned. Magistrate has drawn the said sweeping inference without there being any suggestion even by the defence advocate in the cross-examination of the witness. There is no evidence on record to show that the Court Commissioner was acting at the behest of the petitioner. In my yiew, therefore, the abovesaid remarks require to be expunged by exercising the inherent jurisdiction of this Court.