SUJIT KUMAR DHAR Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Oral)- Shri Sujit Kumar Dhar, Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kamrup, Gauhati has preferred this petition under the provision of section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to exercise inherent power for consideration of expunging the strictures/observations on the petitioner made by this court in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the Judgment dated 7-1-1991 in Criminal Revision No. 399 of 1990. Heard learned senior counsel Mr. D.N. Choudhury on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate cum-Public Prosecutor, Mr. K.P. Sarma. Perused the statements and grounds in the petition.

(2.) It is submitted by Mr. Choudhury that the Additional Sessions Judge acted on good faith being pursuaded to convince by submissions of the counsel of both sides of his having jurisdiction to pass the s in Misc. Case No. 199(K)/1990 of the Designated Court in the absence of the Sessions Judge and acted presumably with fair intention. In support of such submissions, Mr. Choudhury states that the order to release the amount had not been given effect to by the Additional Sessions Judge as soon as the Public Prosecutor mentioned about moving higher court against the order. This is borne out from the orders in the case. This fact was not brought to the notice of this court at the hearing of the Revision. Shri Sujit Kumar Dhar had served as Judicial Officer for more than 20 years with clean service records. It is accepted, as submitted that the Additional Sessions Judge acted in good faith.

(3.) The observation/stricture was not meant to obstruct prospect or injure service career of the Officer, but was recorded to alert him and for guidance to other Judicial Officers to act deli-gently in matters having no jurisdiction. In order to remove all apprehensions from the mind of the officer Shri Sujit Kumar Dhar, the observations/ strictures recorded in paragraphs 6 and 7 read as: