R. K. LAKSHMANAN versus A. K. SRINIVASAN & ANR.

Citation: [1976] 1 S.C.R. 204 · Decided: 01-08-1975 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

--'o-
'204 
R. K. LAKSHMANA"L 
V: 
A. K. SRINIVASA."" & AclRc 
August 1, 1975 
A 
[Y. V. CHANDRACHUD, P. N. BHAGWATI AND R. s. SARKARL\, JJ.] 
B 
Praczice Gild J:rucedure-Disparaging remarks against persons or authorities 
whose conduct comes for consideration before Courts of Law-Tests to be 
'·.C 
applied. 
The appellant was a District 11agistrate. In a case pending before him- an 
affidavit of on~ of the sureties was attested by the respondent who v1as a practis-
ing advocate. On the failure of the surety to appear in the Court on the due 
C 
date, notice_ \Vas llsued to him. The notice hav!ng been returned unsen·ed, the 
Magistrate issued a notice to the respondent, despite the fact that he was not the 
· duly constituted attorney of the surety, calling upon him to appear in the. ccurt 
in connection with this- case. The respondent thereupon moved the H!gh-Court· 
under s. 561A Cr. P.C. alleging that the notice was arbitrary and amounted to 
:an abuse of the prcce!s of the court because there was no provision in the Crimi-
nal Procedure Code empO\Vering the Magistrate to issue such a notice to· b!m, 
that he was in no \vay connected with the bail bond and that the notice was 
issued to humiliate him and the Bar since the latter had passed a resolution pro-
D 
testing against· the !mproper and discourteous behaviour of the Alagi:.trate. The 
respondent prayed that the appellant be directed to withdraw'the notice. 
· 
The High Court called for a report frOm the appellarit as to the circumstances 
in which he had th1Jught fit to issue notice as also the provision of law. After 
receiving the appeJJanl\ report the High Court quashed the notice holding· that 
the action of the ~lagistrate constituted grave misuse of his power and flagrant 
abuse of the r:rocess. of the Court. 
· 
The "appellant's- appliCation to the High Court for exp_unction.:of ce~tain re· 
marks made against him was rejected. · 
Di.'lmissing the appeal to this Court. 
lfELD : (1) The tests ·to be applied in considering expunction of dispan:.ging 
Temarks against persons or authorities whose conduct comes in for consideration 
'.before courts of hi.\V in cases to be decided by them are (£) Whether the party 
Vihose conduct is in question is before the Court or has an opportunity of ex-
plaining or defending himself; (ii) Whether there is evidence on record bearing 
,on that conduct just!iying the remarks and (iii)_ Whether it is neC'Cssary for the 
"decision of the case, as an integral part thereof, to animadvert on that conduct. 
It has aJso been recogn~d that judicial pronouncements must be judicial in 
:nature· and should not normally depart ·from sob~iety, moderation and reserve. 
· · 
· 
[209A·DJ 
State of U.l'. v. Muhammad Nafo, [1964] 2 S.C.R; 363 at 374, applied. 
Jn the p!_esent c~se in response to the Higli Court's notice the apoellant sub-
imitteJ a detailed report. Before the High Court he was represented by a senior 
Public Prosecutor. Jfe had thus adequate opportunity of explaining his conduct 
in defend!-ng ·the impttgned action. The appellant cannot complain that the re-
·marks were passed b~· the High Court without affording him due cpportunity to 
·explain and defend his action. [209E-F] 
E 
F • 
G 
(2) Though th~ nutice by itself was not a very offensive document. the alle-
gation of bad faith and that it was issued to hum.'.liate an advocate and the Bar 
H 
who had earlier pJssed a resolution complaining against the misbehaviour ._,f the 
appe11ant showed that the notice was _illegal •. arbitrary and tainted 
\Vith 
bad 
fatth. It \vas a preliminary step taken under cover of s. 476 Cr. P.C. for possible 
prosecution of the Advocate. [209G-210C] 
\ 
-
..-.. I 
A 
R.K. LAKSllMANAN v. A. K. SRINIVASAN (Sarkaria, J.} 
205. 
(3) (a) The notice issued to the surety which was returned by 
the 
police 
stated that the service could not be effected for want qf sufficient information and: 
more detailed patticulars regarding the surety while the appellant stated that "it 
was reported by the police that there was no such person as far as they could 
gather fron1 the detailed ~nquiries made and, therefore, notice could not be 
served." 
Evidently this misleading stand was taken bY the appellant to show 
that action under s. 476 Cr. P .C. against the Advocate would not be 
ground-
B 
Jess. [2JOE.HJ 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
( b) The remarks of the High Court were an integral part of the· reasoning: 
of the High Court. 
They v:ere not irrelevant or
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.