LexDR. RAGHUBIR SHARAN versus THE STATE OF BIHAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1963 Brahm PerJuah v . . ~foobir Sin.t:h Ayyan.~ar J. 1963 A1arrh 14 336 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [l 964] VOL. never put forward before the learned Judges. As the point is one not of pure law but springs from the factual inadequacy of the property mortgaged to him to discharge his debt it is too late for the appellant to raise such a plea in this Court. The appeal fails and is dismissed. A ppe"/s dismi8sed, DR. RAGHUBIR SHARAN t•. THE STATE OF BIHAR (K. SrrnnA RAO, RAOHUBAR DAYAL and .J. R. M l'.Dl!OLKAR .J.J.) Criminol Trial·-Rtvision application to Hiyh Court for P.:tpunyiny renirzri.·-'j froni jud!1ment of Lou.Jtr Court-J::r.Jent of ' i1Uu·.rc11l }Jo!1,•1:r of !ligh (}ourt-./urisrliciion token to he exerci•ed- Co1fo of Criminal l'rocedure (Act 1· of l89S), .<. jl;JA. In a criminal case pending in the court of a Munsif '.\lagistratc, two accused persom moved a bail application on the ground of serious illness in jail. The Magistrate called upon the appellant, ,vho \\'as at that tin1e a Civil Assistant Surgeon and al~o Superintendent of the Sub-Jail, to submit a 1ncdical repvrl. On the report, the .\fagistrate released the accused persons on bail but made certain observations against the appellant as a doctor, which are sought to be expunged. Against the said order, the medical officer filed a revision petition in the 1 ligh Court \Vhich \Vas dismis,ed. On appeal by special !cave: the appellant's main contention \Vas that the High O>urt should have expunged the remarks which would affect the appellant's future official career. The question for decision in this coar1 \Vas whether in a case \vhere the judgment has become final, that is to say, when no appeal has been preferred against the judgment by an aggrieved party, the High Court can expunge any remarks found therein at the instance of a third party. Jlei<I, (per Mudholkar and Dayal J.J.), that every High Court as the I Jighest Court c~ercising criminal jurisdiction in a • 2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT R:liPORTS 337 state has inherent power to make any order for the purpose of •ccuring the ends of justice. This power extends to expunction or ordering cxpunction of irrelevant passa2_'c" from a j11dgment or order of a Subordinate Court and would be exercised hy it in appropriate cases for securing the ends of justice. Being an extraordinary power it \Vill, however, not be pressed in aid except for remedying a flagrant abuse by a subordinate court of its powers such as by passing comn1ent upon a rnatter not relevant to the controversy before it and which is un\varranted or is likely to harm or prejudice another. The remarks in the present case were not of such a character, so as to call for the exercise of the extr:iord inary ·power of the High C<.urt under s 561 A. The appeal, there- fore, n1ust fail. 1'he State of U. P. v . .J. N. Bagga, Crl. A. No. 122/1959 decided on Jan. I6, 1961, In the matter of Ii. Daly (1927) I. L. R. 9 Lahore 269, Panchanan Banerji v. Upendra Nath, (1926) I. L. R. 49 All. 254; Royers v. Shriniva8 Gopal Kewale, I. L. R. (1940) Born. 415, Emperor v. C. Dnnn, (1922) 44 All.401, Emperorv. Sidaramaya, (1917) 19 Born. L. R. 912 and State v. Nilkanth Shripail Bhave, I. L. R. (1954) Born. 148, referred to. Per Subba ·Rao J. In the present case the following principles emerge: (I) A judgment of a crhninal court is final; it can be set aside or modified only in the n1anner prescribed by law. (2) Every Judge, whatever may be his rank in the hierarchy, must have an unrestricted right to express his views in any matter before him without fear or favour. (3) There is a corelative and self imposed duty in a judge not to n1ake irrelevant remarks or observations without any foundation, specially in the case of witnesses or parties not before him, affect- ing their character or reputation. ( 4) An appellate court has jurisdiction to judicially correct such remarks, but it will do so only in exceptional cases where such remarks would caUsc irrevocable har1n to a witness or a party not before it. Emperor v. Nazir Ahmad, A.LR. 1945 P. C. 18, Jairan Da.s v. Emperor, (1945) 47 Born. I.. R. 634 (P. C.), Panchanan Ban'1·ji v. Upendranath Bhattacha.rji, ( 1926) I. L. R. 49 All. 254. In the matter of Daly, ( l 927) I. L. R. 9 Lahore 269, Rogers P. J, v. Shriniva' Gopal I. L. R. 1940 Born. 415, Bhutnath Khanwas v. Dasrathi Das, A. I. R. 1941 Pat. 544, In re Public Prosecutor, A. I. P.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.