This petition is filed by the petitioner under S. 482, Cr.P.C. to expunge the remarks dated 21-12-1988 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Shimoga, in S.C. No. 14 of 1986 and directing the higher-ups of the petitioner to hold an enquiry into the alleged lapses on the part of the petitioner as Investigating Officer.

2. In have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader fully and perused the records of the case.

3. In the State of Uttar Pradesh v. Mohammad Naim, 1964 (2) SCR 363 [LQ/SC/1963/66] : (1964 (1) Cri LJ 549) it has been held as follows (at page 553) :

"If there is one principles of cardinal importance in the administration of justice, it is this : the proper freedom and independence of Judges and Magistrates must be maintained and they must be allowed to perform their functions freely and fearlessly and without undue interference by any body, even by the Court. At the same time it is equally necessary that in expressing their opinions Judges and Magistrate must be guided by considerations of justice, fairplay and restraint. It is not infrequent that sweeping generalisations defeat the very purpose for which they are made. It has been judicially recognised that in the matter of making disparging remarks against persons or authorities whose conduct comes into consideration before courts of law in cases to be decided by them, it is relevant to consider (a) whether the party whose conduct is in question is before the court or has an opportunity of explaining or defending himself; (b) whether there is evidence on record bearing on that conduct justifying the remarks; and (c) whether it is necessary for the decision of the case, as an integral part thereof, to animadvert on that conduct. It has also been recognised that judicial pronouncements must be judicial in nature, and should not normally depart from sobriety, moderation and reserve".

4. In Panchanan v. Upendra Nath, AIR 1927 All 193 [LQ/AllHC/1926/197] : (1926 (27) Cri LJ 1407) it is observed as follows :-

"High Court has inherent power to order a deletion of passages, which are either irrelevant or inadmissible and which adversely affect the character of persons before the Court. The High Court, as the Supreme Court of revision, must be deemed to have power to see that Courts below do not unjustly and without any lawful excuse take away the character of a party or of a witness or of a counsel before it. Such jurisdiction, however, can only be exercised when there is no foundation whatsoever for the remark objected to and not where it is a matter of inference from evidence."

5. In Naranjan Patnaik v. Sashibusan Kar, (1986) 3 Crimes 57 : (1986 Cri LJ 911) the Supreme Court has held as follows :-

"It is, therefore, settled law that harsh or disparging remarks are not to be made against persons and authorities whose conduct comes into consideration before courts of law unless it is really necessary for the decision of the case, as an integral part thereof to animadvert on that conduct. We hold that the adverse remarks made against the appellant were neither justified nor called for".

6. In Mudkappa v. State of Karnataka, ILR 1985 Kant 3275 this Court has held as follows :

"Petitioner-complainant sought expunction of passage in judgment on grounds it was wholly irrelevant and unjustifiable and that the retention of the passage containing adverse remarks on record will cause serious harm to complainant a police constable."

7. The Additional Sessions Judge while convicting the accused in Sessions Case No. 14 of 1986 has made certain remarks about the honesty and integrity of the petitioner in para 26 of his judgment. In fact, the Additional Sessions Judge acted on the evidence and convicted the accused in that case. He had made the remarks which were not necessary for the disposal of that case and without the petitioner having been any opportunity to meet those serious allegations against him. To allow those remarks on record will cause serious prejudice to the petitioner who is a police officer.

8. Hence, I make the following order :-

The petition is allowed. The remarks made by the Additional Sessions Judge against the petitioner in para 26 of his judgment in S.C. No. 14 of 1986 are hereby expunged.

Petition allowed.