LexTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH versus MOHAMMAD NAIM
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPOR ts 363 this is not a fit case for the exercise of the extraordi- nary power of the High Court under s. 561-A. For these reasons we dismiss the appeal. Appe,al dismissed. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. MOHAMMAD NAIM (S. K. DAS, A. K. SARKAR, K. N. WANCHOO and K. c. DAS GUPTA JJ.) High Court-Inherent power in criminal cases-Remarks in Judgment-Duty of Judge.-Expunging remarks-Power of High Court-State Government, if can apply-Cork of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Act V of 1898), •· 561-A. While disposing of a criminal appeal the High Court directed the issue of a notice to N, the investigating officer, to show cause why a •omplaint should not be instituted against him under s. 195, Indian Penal Code. N appeared and threw himself at the mercy of the Court and asked for forgiveneso. The High Court accepted the apology hesitatingly but made the following among other remarks against the police force. "(a) If I had felt that with my lone efforts I could have cleaned this augean stable, which is the police force, I would not have hesitated to wage this war single handed. (b) That there is not a single lawless group in the whole of the country whose record of crime comes any- where near the record of that organised unit which is known as the Indian Police Force. (c) Where every fish barring perhaps a few stinks, it is idle to pick out one or two and say that it stinks." The State applied to the High Court under s. 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure, for expuni:ing these remarks from the 1963 Dr. Raghubir Sharan v. Thi State of Bihar Mndholkar I. 1963 March 15 Jb63 Sldt1 of Utta Pr,dtJ!r v. Afohammad /(aim 364 SUPREME COURT REPORtS[l964) Vot. judgment, but the application was diaml,.ed on the grounds that the State was not an aggrieved party and had no lll'llu8 standi to make the application under s. j6J-A and that there were 110 good ;;1 ounds for expunging the remarks from the j?>dgment. On appeal by special leave from the order of the High Court. He/,d, allowing the appeal, that the State Government was an aggrieved party and was entitled to move the High Court under s. 561-A for the expunction of the remarks in question. The State Government is the authority which oxercise• the executive power of the State, and the police department is one of its departments through which its power a• respects law and order is exercised. The State Government can be ag~rieved by observations made against its <iepartment or officers. The State is a juristic person and is entitled to move an application under s. 561-A The Code itself contemplates the filing of appeals and applications by the State as a party. Section 561-A did not confer any new power upon the High Courts but merely preserved their existing inherent powers. The High Court can, in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, expunge remarks made by it or by a lower court if it be necessary to do so to prevent an abuse of the process of the Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The jurisdiction is of an exceptional nature and has to be exercised in exceptional cases only. Jairam Das v. Emperor, A. I. R. (1945) P C. 94 and Emperor v. Nazir Ahmad, A. I. R. (1945) P. C. 18, referred to. Emperor v. Ch. Mohd.Hassan, A. I. R. (1943) Lah. 298, State v. Chliotey Lal, 1955 A. L. J. 240, Lalli Kumar v. 8. 8. Bast, A. I. R. (1957) All. 398, 8. Lal Singh v. State, A. I. R. (1959)Punj. 211, Ramsagar Singh v. Chandrika Singh, A. I.R. (196!)Pat. 364 and In re Ramaswami, A. I. R. (1958) Mad. 305, approved. State v. Nilkanth Shripad Bhave, I. L. R. 1954 llom. 1'18, disapproved. It is a principle of cardinal importance in the admiuist1. , tion of justice that the power, freedom of judges and Magi!.• trates must be maintained and they must be allowed to perform their functions freely and fearlessly and without interference by any body, even. by th~ Sup;e~e Court. It is equa~ly necessary that in expressmg their opm1ons Judges and Magistrates must > 2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 365 be guided by considerations of justice, fair-play and rostraint. Judicial pronouncements must be judicial in nature, and should not normally depart from sobriety, moderation and reserve. The remarks in the judgment in respect of the entire police force of the State were not justified on the facts of the case, nor were they necessary for the disposal of the case and should have been
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.