STATE OF ORISSA Vs. JOHN BHOTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition by the State of Orissa under Section 561 -A, Criminal Procedure Code for expunging certain derogatory observations made against a Superintendent of Police and a Deputy Superintendent of Police in the judgment delivered by the Special Judge Koraput in T. R. Case No. 1 of 1969. The said Superintendent of Police had accorded the necessary sanction for the prosecution of the accused, and the Deputy Superintendent of Police investigated into the case at one stage and also figured as P. W. 12 in that case.

(2.) THE complaint of remarks are in the following extract from paragraph 2 of the judgment of the Court below, as stated in this miscellaneous petition.

(3.) JUDGES while writing out judgments have to discuss, appreciate and weigh the evidence on record in the proper perspective, and in doing so they have to express their opinion on the veracity, conduct and character of a witness as borne out on the materials on record. It is of cardinal importance that judicial officers of all classes must be allowed to perform their judicial functions freely, fearlessly and without undue interference by anybody howsoever high in the administration of justice. They should be given proper freedom to express their mind on matters requiring their decision and on things intimately and intrinsically connected with the same. They should be able to freely express their inherent reaction to falsehood and/ or any suspicious and undesirable conduct of a witness. If unnecessary fetters are placed on their language and expression, it may be difficult for them to properly assess and weigh the evidence on record and give a proper account of the same, in their judgments and to express their reasonings for discarding the evidence of some witness or preferring one set to another. However, each man has his own language to express things, and unnecessary fetters should not be placed on his own way to express his reaction or opinion about matters before him. But remarks and observations which are absolutely not called for or not justified on the evidence on record or on the facts of the case, nor are necessary for decision or disposal of the case and are sweeping generalisations must always be avoided for "judicial pronouncements must be judicial in nature and should not normally depart from sobriety moderation and reserve." (AIR 1964 SC 703) : ( (1964) 1 Cri LJ 549).