EMPEROR Vs. CDUNN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have before us Criminal Reference No. 747 of 1921 from the Sessions Judge of Benares, and Criminal Revisions Nos. 16 and 17 of 1922. The same point arises in all: "Has the High Court authority to expunge from the judgments of lower courts remarks reflecting unfavourably upon the credibility or the character of witnesses in cases in which the effective orders of the courts are not before the High Court either in appeal or on revision?" In the reference, the station-master of Benares Cantonment took exception to remarks reflecting upon himself made by a Magistrate at Benares in a judgment in a criminal case. In that case the accused persons were acquitted. The station-master appeared as a witness for the defence The Magistrate, while finding that the evidence did not justify a conviction, disbelieved the station-master in certain particulars. We have it that the learned Sessions Judge believed the station-master to be telling the truth--a circumstance which goes far to remove the sting of the remarks made by the Magistrate.

(2.) In the two applications in revision, a business man and a vakil gave evidence for the prosecution in a case under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code in the Gorakhpur district. The Magistrate found that no charge under Section 409 could lie on the facts, and dismissed the case acquitting the accused persons. He commented severely upon the two applicants, holding that they had been disingenuous and acted with malice while giving their evidence. We are informed that the District Magistrate did not agree with the magistrate who tried the case upon these points and that he desired to appeal against the acquittal. The authorities, however, refused to appeal.

(3.) These applications have been made with the intention of removing the remarks from the record to which the applicants object.