AMAR PAL SINGH versus STATE OF U.P. AND ANR.

Citation: [2012] 5 S.C.R. 1154 · Decided: 17-05-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.S. CHAUHAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2012) 5 S.C.R. 1154 
AMAR PAL SINGH 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. AND ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 651 of 2009) 
MAY 17, 2012 
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.] 
Judiciary - Adverse remarks and direction against 
Subordinate Judicial officer in judgment of High Court -
C Expunction of - Application filed before appellant, the Chief 
Judicial Magistrate, Bulandshahar, u/s. 156(3) of CrPC for 
issuance of direction to the police to register FIR and make 
investigation into the alleged criminal offences - Appellant 
dismissed the application - In revision, High Court set aside 
o the impugned order and made adverse comments and 
observations against the appellant and also passed direction 
for appropriate action against him - Prayer for expunction of 
comments, observations and the direction passed against the 
appellant - Held: Derogatory remarks against a judicial officer 
E not only causes immense harm to him individually (as the 
expunction of the remarks later on may not completely 
resuscitate his reputation) but also affects the credibility of the 
institution and corrodes the sacrosanctity of its zealously 
cherished philosophy - A judge of a superior Court however 
F str:ongly he may feel about the unmerited and fallacious order 
passed by an officer, but is required to maintain sobriety, 
calmness, dispassionate reasoning and poised restraint - The 
concept of loco parentis has to take a foremost place in the 
mind to keep at bay any uncalled for, any unwarranted 
G remarks - In the case at hand, the observations, the comment 
and the eventual direction were wholly unwarranted and 
uncalled for - Appellant had felt that due to delay and other 
ancillary factors there was no justification to exercise power 
uls. 156(3) CrPC - High Court, as is manifest, had a different 
H 
1154 
AMAR PAL SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. AND ANR. 
1155 
perception of the whole scenario - Perceptions of fact and 
A 
application of law may be erroneous but that never warrants 
such kind of observations and directions - Regard being had 
to the aforesaid, the remarks and the direction against the 
appellant are expunged - If the said remarks have been 
entered into the annual confidential roll of the judicial officer 
B 
the same shall stand expunged. 
An application was filed before the appellant, the 
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bulandshahar, under Section 
156(3) of CrPC for issuance of direction to the police to 
C 
register FIR and make investigation into the alleged 
offences of murderous assault causing fire-arm injuries 
to one person. The appellant ascribed certain reasons 
and dismissed the application. Dissatisfied, the 
complainant preferred revision before the High Court 
which while setting aside the order of appellant-Chief D 
Judicial Magistrate made adverse comments and 
observations against the appellant and also passed 
direction for appropriate action against him. 
Prayer was made in the instant appeal to delete the · E 
aforesaid comments, observations and the ultimate 
direction passed by the High Court. It was submitted on 
behalf of the appellant that the observations and the 
consequential direction made by the High Court were 
totally unwarranted and indubitably affected the self-
F 
esteem and career of a member of the subordinate 
judiciary and therefore deserved to be expunged. 
The issue which therefore arose for consideration 
was whether the remarks and the directions made by the 
High Court were made in consonance with the principles 
G 
laid down by the various pronouncements of this Court 
and was in accord with judicial decorum and propriety. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
H 
1156 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012) 5 S.C.R. 
A 
HELD:1. The present appeal frescoes a picture and 
exposits 
a 
canvas 
how, 
despite 
numerous 
pronouncements of this Court, while dealing with the 
defensibility of an order passed by a Judge of 
subordinate court when it is under assail before the 
B superior Court in appeal or revision, the imperative 
necessity of use of temperate and sober language 
warranting total restraint regard being had to the fact that 
a judicial officer is undefended and further, more 
importantly, such unwarranted observations, instead of 
c enhancing the respect for the judiciary, creates a 
concavity in the hierarchical system and brings the 
judiciary downhill, has been totally ostracised. Further, 
the trend seems to be persistent like an incurable 
cancerous cell which explodes out at the slightes

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.