K.S. DHAULTA Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, K.S. Dhaulta, Engineer Officer, through this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, prays through his counsel Sh. A.K. Goel, for the expunction of the remarks recorded by Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class (III), Simla, in his judgment in case No. 76/20 and 84/81 decided on 29.6.1986.

(2.) THE facts, in brief are that the petitioner was posted as Assistant Engineer in Himachal Pradesh Public Works Department, Store Sub Division, Dhalli, during the year 1976, 1977 and 1978. One Sh. Jatinder Kumar Mohindroo was working as a Junior Engineer under the petitioner. As Sh. Jatinder Kumar Mohindroo was not discharging his duties properly, the petitioner brought this fact to the notice of the Executive Engineer. The matter was deeply probed and consequentially a case under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code in respect of the payment of Rs. 81.55 to M/s. Faquir Chand Krishan Chand and Co. was initiated against the Junior Engineer by the State CID, Simla, but the Junior Engineer was ultimately acquitted by the trial Court. While doing so, the trial Judge made certain strictures/remarks against the petitioner in para 7 of the judgment which are as under :-

(3.) THE law relating to recording of observations/remarks by Courts has been elaborately discussed by me in my judgment in Cr. MP (M) No. 471 of 1986 (Himachal Road Transport Corporation v. State of Himachal Pradesh). Taking assistance from this judgment, I am of the opinion that the observations/remarks of the learned trial Judge are necessary and elimination thereof from the judgment do not in any way minimise the importance and compactness of the same and existence of the same will seriously harm the petitioner, as contended by Sh. A.K. Goel.