SAMYA SETT versus SHAMBU SARKAR AND ANR.

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 686 · Decided: 12-08-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
SAMYA SETT 
v. 
SHAMBU SARKAR AND ANR. 
AUGUST 12, 2005 
[R.C. LAHOTI CJ., C.K. THAKKER AND P.K. 
BALASUBRAMANY AN, JJ.] 
Strictures by High Court-Lower court judge recalling order of 
'granting' bail later in same day on being pointed out that charge sheet 
had been filed-Revision against recall of order allowed by High Court 
with direction to afford opportunity of hearing to accused-After considering 
arguments of defence counsel, lower court judge again rejecting the bail-
However, revision against same allowed by High Court with strictures 
against the lower court judge-Justification of strictures-Held: Lower court 
D judge had complied with direction of High Court-It cannot be said that 
he maintained his own order though held bad by the High Court or that 
he ignored the directions or had shown impolite/arrogant attitude or 
disrespected the order of the superior court or that his conduct would 
destroy judicial system--.Strictures passed by High Court found to be 
unnecessary for deciding the controversy before the Court and unjustified 
E 
Appellant was Additional District and Sessions Judge. He allowed 
bail application of an accused on the ground that no charge sheet had 
been submitted within the stipulated period. However, on the same day, 
at a later stage, when the public prosecutor appeared and drew his 
F attention to the fact that the charge sheet had already been submitted, 
he recalled his earlier order granting bail. Accused challenged this recall 
order by filing Criminal Revision before the High Court on the ground 
that the second order was passed in his absence and without giving him 
opportunity of hearing. High Court allowed the revision petition with 
a direction to appellant to afford opportunity of hearing to the accused 
G and to pass an appropriate order in 'accordance with law'. Appellant 
again heard the matter, considered arguments of defence counsel and 
rejected the bail application on the ground that within the requisite 
period, charge sheet had been submitted by the police. Against this 
order, once again the accused approached the High Court by filing 
H Criminal Revision which was allowed. However, while deciding tile 
686 
SAMY A SETT v. SHAM BU SARKAR 
681 
revision, High Court made certain remarks and passed strictures_ a~ainst A 
the appellant. Being aggrieved by those remarks and observ~tions, the 
appellant filed the present appeal. 
Question before the Court was whether High Court was justified 
in passing strictures against the appellant. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : I. The remarks made, strictures passed and directions 
issued by the High Court against the appellant were improper, uncalled 
B 
for and unwarranted. Apart from the fact that they were unnecessary C 
for deciding the controversy raised before the Court nor integral part 
of the judgment, in the facts and circumstances of the case, they were 
not justified. [698-A, B] 
State of U. P. v. Mohd Naim, [1964] 2 SCR 363; Alok Kumar Roy v. D 
Dr. S.N. Sarma & Another, [1968] l SCR 813; State of MP. v. Nandlal 
Jaiswal & Ors., [1986] 4 SCC 566; A.M Mathur v. Pramod Kumar Gupta, 
[1990] 2 SCC 533, In the matter of 'K' A Judicial Officer, [2001] 3 SCC 
54; In the matter of 'RV', A Judicial Officer, [2004] 7 SCC 729 and State 
of Bihar v. Nilamani Sahu & Another, [1999] 9 SCC 211, relied on. 
E 
Linahan, Re. (1943) 138 F Ilnd 650, referred to 
2. I. When the matter had come to the High Court earlier, it set 
aside the order passed by the appellant on November 21, 2003 and 
directed him to give an opportunity of hearing to the accused and to pass F 
an appropriate order 'in accordance with law'. That direction had 
already been complied with and carried out by the appellant. He afforded 
hearing to the accused and rejected the application after considering the 
arguments put forward by his advocate. Therefore, it cannot be said 
that the appellant had attempted to 'maintain his own order' though it 
was held to be bad by the High Court. It also cannot be said that the G 
appellant had 'completely ignored' the directions issued by the High 
Court. High Court is also not correct in observing that from the order 
dated December 15, 2003, passed by the appellant, it is clear that the 
appellant did not realise his mistake and had shown 'impolite and 
arrogant attitude'. Likewise, it cannot be said that the appellant had not H 
688 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2005] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A shown respect to the or

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