S.K. VISWAMBARAN versus E. KOYAKUNJU & ORS.

Citation: [1987] 2 S.C.R. 501 · Decided: 03-03-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.C. RAY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

S.K. VISWAMBARAN 
v. 
E. KOYAKUNJU & ORS. 
MARCH 3, 1987 
[B.C. RAY & S. NATARAJAN, JJ.] 
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973--,s. 482-Sessions Judge passed 
~ 
strictures against police officials concerning investigation-High Court 
\ 
approached for expunction of adverse remarks-Scope of Inquiry-
A 
B 
Limited only to the bona fides of action of Petitioners before High 
-
f"- Court-Adverse remarks made by High Court against another Police 
C 
Officer conducting investigation without hearing him-Principles of 
natural justice--Opportunity to be given before adverse remarks 
, 
' -
-{ 
made--Tests for making adverse remarks-What are-Whether 
followed in the instant case--High Court's order-Validity of. 
' The Sessions Judge while acquittiug the accused of. the charge 
uuder s.302 IPC entertained serious doubts about PW 16 (Respoudent 
No. 2.), the Inspector of Potice, who partly iuvestigated the case, carry· 
D 
E 
iug out the cellopbone tape test to lift any fibres of coir sticking to the 
plams of the deceased and sendiug the tapes to the Forensic Science 
Laboratory and the bona f"ules of the exercise. On the basis of the 
suspicions features mentioned iu his judgment, the Sessions Judge made 
severe adverse remarks against PW 16 (Respondent No. 2.) DW 2 
(Respondent No. 3) and another policeman and observed that the con-
.duct of these officials was highly opeu to suspicion, that a full-fledged 
enquiry shouid be held agaiust them and that "otherwise indiscipline 
and the tendency to tamper with official documents and create false 
F 
documents will set at nangbt the very purpose of haviug a police 
+-
establishment." 
The Inspector PW 16 (Respondent No. 2) and the Head Constable 
PW 2 (Respondent No. 3) f"lled petitions before the High Court for 
expunging the adverse remarks made agaiust them. A Siugle Judge 
G 
without making any eiraminatlon of the conduct of the petitioners be-
fore him and without considering whether the features noticed by the 
Sessions Judge warranted the adverse remarks or not went at a tangent 
and put the appellant, a Deputy Snptd. of Police (PW 17), who bad also 
iuvestigated the case from 26.11.80 to 5.11.81, iu the dock for having 
failed to place before the Court the scientific materials which PW 16 
H 
501 
502 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1987] 2 S.C.R. 
(Respondent No. 2) had obtained in the course of investigation to find 
A out whether the death of the deceased was due to suicide or homicide. 
The learned judge observed that PW 16 (Respondent No. 2) and DW 2 
(Respondent No. 3) bad acted in a blemishless manner and the report of 
the Forensic Science Laboratory had been obtained through bouafide 
investigative process and it was the appellant who had scbemingly kept 
B 
back the crucial records from the notice of the Court in order to secure 
a conviction unjustly against the accused and as such the appellant 
should be raprimauded in no uncertain terms. 
c 
Stung ht the remarks made against him without even a hearing, _ . , 
the appellant preferred the instant appeal to seek expunction of the ""I' 
remarks. 
' Anowing the Appeal, 
). 
HELD: 1. The adverse remarks against the appellant in the 
order of the High Court nnder appeal will stand expunged. [512E] 
D 
2. When PW 16 and DW 2 moved the High Court for expunging 
the adverse remarks against them the scope of the enquiry was commed 
to the bona fides or their action in the investigation proceedings and 
whether the Sessions Judge was justified in drawing adverse inference 
1-
against them on the basis of the suspicious features catalogued by him. 
E The High Court was not dealing with au appeal against the acquittal of 
the accused and there was no need or occasion for the High Court to go 
into the conduct of the ·appellant. The enqniry was only touching upon 
the conduct of PW 16 and DW 2. Furthermore the High Court had 
-
' 
~ 
completely overlooked the fact that the appellant ceased to be in charge -
or the case on 5.1.81. Thereafter the investigation or the case was taken 
~ 
F charge of by PW 18 and still later by PW 19 and according to DW 2 the -+ 
report from the Forensic Science Laboratory was sent to the Crime 
Detachment only on 7.1.81 whereas the appellant ceased to be in charge 
!I
orthe case on 5.1.81 itself. It, therefore, passes one's comprehension as 
to bow the appellant can be accused of having wilfully suppressed mate-
J
rial documents from the notice or the Court in order lo secure a convic-
I
G lion unjustify 

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