HARBANS SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HARBANS Singh has filed this petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. praying therein that the strictures passed against him by Sub -Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Muktsar in his judgment dated 24.11.1984 in case F.I.R. No. 173 dated 18.6.1983 under Section 381 I.P.C. (State Versus Mathra Parshad), be expunged.

(2.) MATHRA Parshad was challaned on a complaint filed by the petitioner with the police under section 381 I.P.C. Mathra Parshad was tried for the aforesaid offence by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Muktsar. Harbans Singh petitioner appeared as a witness against Mathra Parshad in the said case. The learned Magistrate while acquitting Mathra Parshad accused, made the following observations : - "To me it appears that the stock was short and in order to save his own skin Harbans Singh, J.E. made a false report to the police and the accused was made a scape -goat and was falsely involved."

(3.) ADMITTEDLY , the petitioner was not given any hearing on the point by the learned Magistrate before passing the strictures. Mr. R.S. Palta, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on 1980 Cr. L.J. 879 (Govindaraj Shetty v. State of Karnataka) : - "Any remarks passed by the Court against a person whether he is a party to the proceedings or not should bypassed only after giving the said party an opportunity to meet the same. The principles of natural justice demand that a party should be heard before any remarks are made against him. This is much more so, in case, where disparaging remarks are made by the Court, that too against a responsible officer like an Investigating Officer. The Court should be fully satisfied that such remarks are called for and on the other hand that the conduct of the Investigating Officer was such that the Court was compelled to make such remarks in the interest of justice. Therefore, the Court has to be slow before passing any remarks and has to arm itself with all the available materials and with sufficient background including one of hearing the party against whom the Court wants to pass remarks. The Court would not be justified in passing remarks at random behind the back of the person which would prejudice him. This appears to be cardinal principle that has to be followed by Court of law."