STATE Vs. MOHAMMAD NAIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application Under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the State praying that certain observations made by me in. State v. Mohammad Naim, Criminal Misc. Case. No. 87 of .1961 be expunged

(2.) Mohammad Naim was a police officer who had fabricated the first information report in Criminal Appeal No 8 of 1961 and a notice was issued to him by me as to why a complaint should not be instituted against him Under Section 195, I. P. Code. Mohammad Nairn pleaded guilty and I reluctantly accepted his apology and discharged the notice issued to him. In this order I had rand certain observations With a view to draw the after Son of the State to the conditions that exist so that an attempt should be made to purity 'the administration. The State instead of giving consideration to the observations which I made Seems to have come to the conclusion that these observations do not present a true picture and so It has come forward with this application.

(3.) The first question that arises is whether the iudiciary is entitled to draw the attention of the executive regarding matters which affect the administration or justice or not, The Assistant Government Advocate, wh0 appeared on behalf of the State, did not challenge this right. In an earlier case in which this Court had made similar observations and drawn the attention, of the executive to the attitude of the police force and expressed an apprehension that the public services were likely to be demoralized a similar application Under Section 561tA, Cri P. C. was presented by the State. In that case, In re State of U. P. A.I.R. 1959 All 60 the Advocate General appeared on behalt of the State and he also conceded that the .Courts of law can make observations touching public administration. I am, therefore, satisfied that a Court of law is entitled to make observations regarding public administration. As a matter of fact I am of the opinion that a Judge would fail is his duty if he door not draw the attention of the executive to the fact that criminal cases which are placed before the Courts are in a large measure traps and frame-ups and they are supported by fabricated evidence and by extorting confession through third degree methods and by disregarding the prohibitions contained in the Constitution of India to safeguard the rights of the citizens. It is unfortunate that the executive instead of giving due consideration to the observations of a Court of law prefers to doubt their accuracy and goes to the length of filing such an application.