G J KAMAT Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Sections 435, 439 and 561 -A, Criminal Procedure Code made by one Dr. G. J. Kamat, who was an informant in a criminal case, which resulted in the conviction of the accused under Section 506 of the Penal Code. The petitioner has prayed that this Court do expunge certain remarks made by the trial Magistrate in the judgment, concerning the first informant, namely, the petitioner here, as they were unjustified, irrelevant and libellous and they were likely to reflect on his character.

(2.) THE necessary facts, shortly stated, are these. The petitioner was the Works Manager of Messrs. Tata Robins Fraser Limited (hereinafter referred to as "the Company") at Jamshedpur. Sometime in April, 1965, one person went to the house of the petitioner and asked him to give him an employment in the Company on which he was told that he should submit an application addressed to the Company in its office. That person went to the bungalow of the petitioner several times but could not meet him. About a week prior to 30th of May, 1965, the petitioner received a telephone call from a person who introduced himself as a student of the Workers' College and asked for an appointment with him (petitioner) at his residence.

(3.) MR . Nageshwar Prasad, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has taken me through the entire judgment, and has contended that the learned Magistrate has recorded the findings that an anonymous letter had been addressed to the petitioner by the accused and that he was, on the materials on the record, clearly guilty of an offence under Section 506 of the Penal Code; nevertheless, the learned Magistrate has, in various paragraphs of his judgment, passed strong remarks against the petitioner. Learned counsel has further urged that the approach made by the learned Magistrate was wholly unjudicial and has shown me the various paragraphs, to be referred to hereafter, wherein the learned Magistrate has passed several strictures against this petitioner and has even suggested to his employer to consider whether some suitable action should be taken in the matter including removing him from service after proper departmental enquiry if found guilty. Mr. Nageshwar Prasad has rightly pointed out that the mind of the learned Magistrate was obviously loaded with bias in favour of the accused even though he found fit to convict him on evidence, which he obviously has done, in sympathy with the accused, as is clear from the various passages shown to me in the judgment.