RASHWAL PAHAN Vs. NIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I.A. No. 2193 of 2014.

(2.) The reason for making the aforesaid observation is that when judgment under appeal was pronounced on 24th January, 2012 only two convicts, namely, Kunwar Pahan and Rashlal Pahan alias Munda were present and whereas representation on behalf of other six accused, namely, Hadi Munda, Sanika Pahan, Rudhi Pahan, Hathiram Pahan, Sukhram Pahan and Lussa Pahan was filed. Two of the accused, namely, Singhrai Pahan and Dasai Pahan were already absconding and that permanent warrants of arrest against them were also issued. The status of all the accused was well within the knowledge of trial Court. Besides that, judgment of conviction was pronounced by the trial court even against those accused who were declared absconder. This Court took a serious view of it and constrained to pass the aforesaid remarks against the trial judge.

(3.) Mr.Tandon, appearing for applicant (learned trial judge) seeking expunging of the aforesaid remarks relied upon two judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the cases of Awani Kumar Upadhyay v. The Hon ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and Ors., 2013 AIR(SC) 2189 and Braj Kishore Thakur v. Union of India and Ors., 1997 AIR(SC) 1157. In our considered view, judgments relied upon by Mr.Tandon would not put the case of the applicant on any advantageous position in the aforesaid backdrop of the facts.