V KANNAPIRAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has come forward with this petition invoking Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking relief of expunging the remarks made by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. III, Chennai, in his judgment in S. C. No. 614 of 1999 dated 18. 09. 2003. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an Investigating Officer in a case in Crime No. 2059 of 1998 under Sections 120 (b), 147, 148, 149, 364, 367, 201 (2) and 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner investigated this case from 21. 05. 1998 to 31. 12. 1999 and filed the charge sheet. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner, on receipt of the complaint and after registering the complaint in Crime No. 2059 of 1998, took up the investigation and sent the First Information Report to the concerned Court immediately on the next day morning. It is also submitted that after registering the case and after commencement of the investigation by the petitioner, the petitioner received a message that half burnt body was lying within the jurisdiction limits of Maraimalai Nagar Police Station and thereafter the petitioner took the parents of the victim to identify the deceased, who made a positive identification and in the meanwhile, the Inspector of Police, Maraimalai Nagar Police Station, registered a First Information Report in Crime No. 701 of 1998 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner effectively investigated into the matter and arrested the accused and also made arrangements for conducting identification parade. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Learned Trial Judge, namely, Learned Additional Sessions Judge No. III, Fast Track Court, Chennai, after full-fledged trial has acquitted all the accused, disbelieving the prosecution case and made certain adverse remarks in paragraph 56 of his judgment and also directed the Superior Officer of the petitioner to initiate Departmental Proceedings against the petitioner.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner was not at all given any opportunity to explain the remarks made by the Learned Judge. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was having an unblemished record of service and because of the remarks made against the petitioner, the Department issued a Show Cause Notice, dated 14. 09. 2004, calling for explanation from the petitioner in respect of the remarks made by the Learned Judge in the judgment dated 18. 09. 2003.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the remarks made by the Learned Trial Judge against the petitioner without affording any opportunity is liable to be expunged and there is absolutely no opportunity for the petitioner to explain the remarks made by the Learned Trial Judge.