Madras High Court
K. Ambethkar vs State Rep.By on 19 October, 2022
Crl.OP.No.25326 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 19.10.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
Crl.O.P.No.25326 of 2022
K. Ambethkar ... Petitioner
Vs.
State rep.by
Inspector of Police
Chidambaram Taluk Police Station
(Crime No.279 of 2017) ... Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying
to pass an order expunging the remarks made against the petitioner in the
order/judgment dated 29.08.2022 in S.C.No.237 of 2018 on the file of II
Additional District Judge, Cuddalore.
For Petitioner : Mr.A. Prabhakaran
For Respondent : Mr.S.Santhosh
Government Advocate (Crl.side)
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to pass an order
expunging the remarks made against the petitioner in the judgment dated
29.08.2022 in S.C.No.237 of 2018 on the file of learned II Additional District
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP.No.25326 of 2022
Judge, Cuddalore.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that while disposing
the S.C.No.237 of 2018 the learned II Additional District Judge, Cuddalore
made unwarrant comments against the Investigation Officer and the same are
extracted as below:-
“20/ ,e;j tGf;fpy; cs;s vjphpfs; muRj; jug;gpy;
Twg;gLtJ nghd;W m/rh/1/d; brhj;Jf;fis
nrjg;gLj;jpdhh;fnsh> my;yJ ,y;iynah Mdhy;
,t;tHf;F tprhuiz mjpfhhpahd m/rh/9 Mfpa
rpjk;guk; jhYf;fh fhty; epiyaj;jpy; Ma;thsuhf
gzpapypUe;j fhty; Ma;thsh; mk;ngj;fhh; ,e;j
tHf;if nrjg;gLj;jpa[s;shh; vd;gJ bjspt[/
21/ tprhuiz mjpfhhp Fw;wtpay; tprhuiz Kiw
rl;lj;ija[k;. fhty; epiy Mizfisa[k;.
,e;jpa rhl;rpar; rl;lj;ija[k; fUj;jpy; bfhz;L
chpa rl;l';fspd;go tprhuiz nkw;bfhs;s ntz;Lk;
kw;Wk; mth; mt;thW tprhuiz nkw;bfhz;L ,Wjp
mwpf;if jhf;fy; bra;a ntz;Lbkd;gij czh;eJ
;
,t;tHf;F tprhuiz mjpfhhp m/rh/9 Mfpa fhty;
Ma;thsh; mk;ngj;fhh; bray;gl;lhuh vd;w rpe;jid
vGfpwJ/ ,t;thW rpe;jid vGtij jtph;ff
;
,aytpy;iy/
22/ ,e;j tHf;F tprhuiz mjpfhhp tHf;if
nrjg;gLj;jpapUg;gjhf Kd;ng Fwpg;gpl;nld;/ mth;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP.No.25326 of 2022
jhf;fy; bra;jpUf;fpd;w m/rh/M/8 ghh;it kfrh;
jahh; bra;ag; gl;lJ epUgpf;fg;gltpy;iy vd Kd;ng
Fwpg;gpl;Ls;nsd;/ me;j m/rh/M/8 ghh;it kfrh;
K:yk; m/rh/9/ tprhuiz mjpfhhp jhd; rk;gt
,lj;ij 08/11/2017 md;W khiy 18.30 kzpf;F
re;jpugpug[ (m/rh/6) fhh;j;jpnfad; (m/rh/5/) Mfpnahh;
Kd;dpiyapy; ghh;itapl;ljhff; TWfpwhh;/ me;j xU
gf;f thrf';fs; bfhz;l ghh;it kfrhpy; ve;j
,lj;jpYk; rk;gt ,lj;jpy; bghUl;fs;
nrjkile;jjhfnth. nrjkile;j bghUl;fs; rk;gt
,lj;jpypUe;jjhfnth v';Fk; Fwpg;gltpy;iy/ Mdhy;
mth; jhf;fy; bra;jpUf;fpd;w m/rh/M/10
ifg;gw;Wjy; kfrhpy; rk;gt ,lkhd FzrPyd;
tPl;oypUe;J rh/bgh/4 Kjy; rh/bgh/9 tiu
cs;stw;iw nkw;brhd;d ghh;it kfrh; rhl;rpfshd
m/rh/5 fhh;j;jpnfad;. m/rh/6 re;jpugpug[
Kd;dpiyapy; ifg;gw;wpajhf Twpa[s;shh;/ ifg;gw;wpa
,lk; vd;W Fwpg;gpLfpd;w nghJ rk;gtk; ele;j
,lj;jpy; vd Fwpg;gpLfpwhh;/ m/rh/M/8d; go rk;gt
,lj;jpy; 08/12/2017 md;W 18/30 kzpf;F
ghh;itapl;lth; m/rh/M/10d; go 19/45 kzpf;F
md;iwajpdnk m/rh/M10y; rk;gt ,lj;jpypUe;J
rh/bgh/4 Kjy; rh/bgh/9 tiu cs;sit
ifg;gw;wg;gl;ljhf Fwpg;gpl;Ls;s epiyapy; mjw;F
Kd;ghf jahh; bra;j m/rh/M/8 ghh;it kfrhpd; go
rk;gtk; ele;j ,lk; vd Fwpg;gpLfpd;w nghJ
enlrd; efh; fz;z';Fo?rpjk;guk; rhiyapy;
ek;gh;/9y; epfH;eJ
; s;sJ vd TWfpwhh;/ Mf rk;gtk;
ek;gh;/9 Mfpa FzrPydpd; kho bfhz;l tPl;oy;
ele;jpUf;fpd;w nghJ mJ bghJ ,lkhf ,y;yhj
epiyapy; vt;thW ,j/r/gphpt[/294?gp/d; mog;gilapy;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP.No.25326 of 2022
tHf;F gjpt[ bra;ag;gl;lJ vdw tpdht[k; vGfpwJ/
23/ ///////
24/ //////
25/ ,e;j tHf;fpy; tprhuiz mjpfhhp jhf;fy;
bra;j ,Wjp mwpf;ifapy; brhj;J kjpg;g[ vd
Fwpg;gpl;L nrjg;gLj;jpa brhj;J kjpg;g[ U:/1yl;rk;
,Uf;Fk; vd TWfpwhh;/ me;j xU yl;rk; U:gha;
nrj kjpg;ig vjd; mog;gilapy; vd;d fzf;fPlL
;
mog;gilapy; ve;j epg[zh; mspj;j mwpf;if kw;Wk;
rhd;wpd; mog;gilapy; ahh; mspj;j brhj;J Ma;tpd;
mog;gilapy; Fwpg;gpl;Ls;shh; vd;w nfs;tp vHfpwJ/
,e;j epahakhd Iaj;jpw;F muR jug;gpy; tpsf;fk;
,y;iy/
26/ ,t;tHf;fpy; cs;s Kjy; jfty; mwpf;ifahd
m/rh/M/5 gjpt[ bra;ag;gl;l cld; xU kzp
neuj;jpy; 08/12/2017 md;W khiy 18/30 kzpf;F
rk;gt ,lj;jpw;F brd;wjhff; TWk; m/rh/9
tprhuiz mjpfhhp Vd; m/rh/M/5 Kjy; jfty;
mwpf;ifia 3 Mg; gpgpoMf;l; mog;gilapy; gjpt[
bra;ag;gl;l epiyapy; mkh;t[ tHf;fhf cs;s
epiyapy; fhty; epiy Mizfspd;go Jhpjkhd
tifapy; Kjy; jfty; mwpf;ifia cldoahf
chpa Fw;wtpay; ePjpj;Jiw eLthplk; xg;gilf;fhky;
gfy; 1 ,ut[ g{h;j;jpahd epiyapy; mija[k; fle;J
mspj;jpUg;gJ vd;gJ muR jug;g[ tHf;fpw;F ghjpg;g[
Vw;gLj;jpf; Toaitba MFk;/ ,t;thW fhty;
epiy Mizfspd;go ,t;tHf;F tprhuiz mjpfhhp
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP.No.25326 of 2022
brayhw;w jtwpapUf;fpwhh;/
27/ Mf bkj;jj;jpy; ,e;j tHf;fpy;
1) m/rh/M/5 Mfpa Kjy; jfty; mwpf;if
mog;gilapyhd jfty; jhd; Kjy; jfty; my;y/
khwhf md;W kjpak; 2 my;yJ 2/30 kzpf;F
mrh/1d; tPl;ow;F nghyprhh; brd;w epiyapy; fhty;
epiyaj;jpy; bgwg;gl;l Kjy; jfty;
kiwf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ/
2) m/rh/M/5 Mfpa Kjy; jfty; mwpf;if
25/00 kzp neuj;jpw;Fk; nkyhd jhkjj;jpy;
Fw;wtpay; ePjpj;Jiw eLth; trk;
mspf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ/
3) ,t;tHf;fpy; nghyprhh;vLj;j g[ifg;gl';fs;
kiwf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ/
4) ,t;tHf;fpy; Rkhh; xU yl;rk; U:gha;
mstpw;F nrjk; Vw;gl;ljhff; TWk; tprhuiz
mjpfhhp nrj kjpg;g[ rhd;wpjiH jhf;fy;
bra;atpy;iy/ nrjk; Fwpj;J ve;j mwpf;ifa[k; ve;j
epg[zhplkpUe;Jk; bgwg;gltpy;iy/
5) m/rh/1 FzrPyd; jd;Dila FWf;F
tprhuizapy; nghyprhh; rk;gt ,lj;ij ghh;itapl;l
nghJ cile;j bghUl;fs; M';fh';nf fple;jd vd
Fwpg;gpl;Ls;s epiyapy; ghh;it kfrhpy; cile;j
bghUl;fs; rk;gt ,lj;jpy; fple;jJ gw;wp Vd;
Fwpg;g[ ,y;iy vd;w Iak; vHfpwJ/”
32. ,e;j tHf;fpy; g[yd; tprhuiz mjpfhhpahf ,Ue;J ,Wjp mwpf;if jhf;fy;
bra;j rpjk;guk; jhYf;ffh fhty; epiya mg;nghija Ma;thsh; mk;ngj;fhh;
vd;gth; jdJ flikia rhptu Mw;wtpy;iy vd;gija[k; mth; mtUf;nf bjhpe;j
fhuz';fSf;fhf kdr;rha;t[ld; jtwhd tpjj;jpy; bray;gl;oUg;gija[k; mwpe;J
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP.No.25326 of 2022
bfhs;s Kofpd;w epiyapy; mth; kPJ Jiw hPjpahd eltof;if vLg;gjw;F ,e;j
jPh;g;gi
[ uapd; efiy fhty;Jiw jiyth;. tpGg;g[uk; trk; mDg;gp itg;gnj rhpahd
Kothf ,Uf;Fbkd;W jPh;khdpf;fpnwd;/ mt;thW jPh;khdpj;J jPh;g;g[iuapd; efiy
mDg;gp itf;ft[k; cj;jutpLfpnwd;/
These comments are not warranted for disposing the case and further these
defirmative words observed will affect the petitioner's carrier and it is also
against the principles stated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this
Court. To support his case, he relied upon the judgement of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court reported in AIR 1964 AIR (SC) 703 in the case of The State
of Uttar Pradesh Vs Mohammad Naim and thus seeking to expunging the
remarks made by the learned Judicial Officer against the petitioner.
3. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) submitted that the
observations made by the learned Judge are unwarranted for disposing the
case.
4. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
5. On perusal of the records, it reveals that the petitioner is an
Investigation Officer in the case registered in Crime No.279 of 2017 at
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP.No.25326 of 2022
Chidambaram Taluk Police Station, against the accused persons namely
Kamaraj, Saminathan, [email protected], Thangapandian and Suresh for the
offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 448, 506(ii) IPC 3 of
PPD Act. After Investigation, final report has been filed and the case has been
taken on file initially in PRC No.11 of 2018 by the Judicial Magistrate No.II,
Chidambaram, thereafter it was committed to Sessions Court and assigned
SC.No.237 of 2018 and handed over to II Additional District Court,
Chidambaram. Further the prosecution examined nine witnesses and in the
end of the trial, the trial Court acquitted all the accused as the award against
the accused were not proved while disposing the case. The learned Judge in
its judgment at Paragraph Nos.20, 21 22, 25, 26, 27 & 32 made some
observations which does not warrant for disposing the case. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court had guided while disposing a case to avoid unwarrant
comments against the Investigation Officers as well as the Government
Officials. The Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 1964 AIR (SC) 703 in the
case of The State of Uttar Pradesh Vs Mohammad Naim has observed as
follows:-
9. The last question is, is the present case a case of an exceptional
nature in which the learned Judge should have exercised his inherent
jurisdiction under s.561-A Cr.P.C in respect of the observations
complained of by the State Government? If there is one principle of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP.No.25326 of 2022
cardinal importance in the administration of justice, it is this : the proper
freedom and independence of Judges and Magistrates must be maintained
and they msut be allowed to perform their functions freely and fearlessly
and without undue interference by any body, even by this Court. At the
same time it is equally necessary that in expressing their opinions Judges
and Magistrates must be guided by considerations of justice, fairplay and
restraint. It is not infrequent that sweeping generalisations defeat the very
purpose for which they are made. It has been judicially recognised that in
the matter of making disparaging remarks against persons or authorities
whose conduct comes into consideration before Courts of law in cases to
be decided by them, it is relevant to consider (a) whether the party whose
conduct is in question is before the Court or has an opportunity of
explaining or defending himself (b) whether there is evidence on record
bearing on that conduct justifying the remakrs; and (c) whether it is
necessary for the decision of the case, as an integral part thereof, to
animadvert on that conduct. It has also been recognised that judicial
pronouncements must be judicial in nature, and should not normally
depart from sobriety, moderation and reserve.
10. In the case before us the learned Judge chose to make
sweeping and general observations against the entire police force of the
State. The case before him related to only one police officer, Mohammad
Naim, about whose conduct the learned Judge was undoubtedly justified
in making adverse remarks. The learned Judge himself realised that the
remakrs which he had made were much too general and sweeping in
character, because in his later order he said that the remarks were meant
for the police force in Uttar Pradesh only and he further said he would
have expunged the remarks under the head (a) referred to earlier, if the
party aggrieved had come before him. We consider that the remarks
made by the learned Judge in respect of the entire police force of the
State were not justified on the facts of the case, nor were they necessary
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP.No.25326 of 2022
for the disposal of the case before him. The learned Judge conceded that
the general remarks he made were not based on any evidence in the
record; he said that he drew largely from his knowledge and experience
at the Bar and on the Bench. Learned counsel for the appellant has very
frankly stated before us that the learned Judge has had very great
experience in the matter of criminal cases, and was familiar with the
method of investigation adopted by the local police He has contended,
however, that it was not proper for the Judge to import his personal
knowledge into the matter. we do not think that in the present case we
need go into the question as to the extent to which a Judge or Magistrate
may draw upon his experience in assessing or weighing evidence or even
in judging the conduct of a person. We recognise the existence of
exceptional circumstances in a case where the Judge or Magistrate may
have to draw upon his experience to determine what is the usual or
normal conduct with regard to men and affairs. We say this with respect,
but it appears to us that in the present case even allowing for the great
experience which the learned Judge had in the matter of criminal trials,
his statement that "there was not a single lawless group in the whole
country whose record of crime came anywhere near the record of that
organised unit which is known as the Indian Police Force" was wholly
unwarranted and if we may say so, betrayed a lack of judicial approach
and restraint. The learned Judge referred to no material on which this
observation was based, nor did he say that his experience of criminal
trials gave him an occasion to compare the records of crime of various
lawless groups in the State vis-a-vis the Police Force. To characterise the
whole Police Force of the State as a lawless group is bad enough, to say
that its record of crime is the highest in the State is worse and coming as
it does from a Judge of the High Court, is sure to bring the whole
administration of law and order into disrepute. For a sweeping
generalisation of such a nature, there must be a sure foundation and the
necessity of the case must demand it. We can find neither in the present
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP.No.25326 of 2022
case. We think that the State Government was justifiably aggrieved by
such a sweeping remark. Similar in nature is the remark about the
stinking of "every fish in the police force barring, perhaps a few". The
word "perhaps" seems to indicate that even about the few, the learned
Judge had some doubt. We consider that these sweeping generalisations
defeat their own purpose. They were not necessary for the disposal of the
case agianst Mohammad Naim. It would have been enough for the
learned Judge to say that when a large number of police officers were
resorting to an objectionable method of investigation, it was unnecessary
to pick out one petty officer and prosecute him for doing what several
others had done with impugnity. It was wholly unnecessary for the
learned Judge to condemn the entire police force and say that their
record of crime was the highest in the country. Such a remark instead of
serving the purpose of reforming the police force, which is the object the
learned Judge says he had in mind, is likely to undermine the efficiency
of the entire police force. We think that in his zeal and solicitude for the
reform of the police force, the learned Judge allowed himself to make
these very unfortunate remarks which defeated the very purpose he had
in mind. Having said all this, we must add, lest we be misunderstood, that
the conduct of Mohammad Naim and officers like him deserves the
severest condemnation and the learned Judge rightly oberved that such
conduct required very serious notice by superior officers of the Police. It
is difficult to avoid the reflection that unless an example is made of such
officers by taking the most stringent action against them, no
improvement in police administration is possible".
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, thus categorically observed that the
Court, before passing any observations against the authorities should consider
the following points:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP.No.25326 of 2022
(a) whether the party whose conduct is in question is before the Court
or has an opportunity of explaining or defending himself
(b) whether there is evidence on record bearing on that conduct
justifying the remarks; and
(c) whether it is necessary for the decision of the case, as an integral
part thereof, to animadvert on that conduct. It has also been recognised that
judicial pronouncements must be judicial in nature, and should not normally
depart from sobriety, moderation and reserve.
Apart from this our High Court had also observed the same principles.
7. In this case, during the observation, the learned trial Judge in its
judgment does not meet the parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court reported in 1964 AIR (SC) 703 in the case of The State of Uttar
Pradesh Vs Mohammad Naim and there is no opportunity given to the
Investigation Officer/petitioner to defend his case before recording the
remarks against him and also the prosecution records did not reflect any
materials for any remarks and it does not require to arrive the decision of the
case. Therefore the remarks made by the learned II Additional District Judge,
Cuddalore in S.C.No.237 of 2018 is unwarranted for disposing the case.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP.No.25326 of 2022
8. With the above observations, the Criminal Original petition is
allowed and the remarks made by the learned II Additional District Judge,
Cuddalore in S.C.No.237 of 2018 at paragraph Nos.20, 21, 22, 25, 26, 27 and
32 as cited supra are hereby expunged.
19.10.2022
Speaking/Non speaking order
dpq
To
1.The Inspector of Police
Chidambaram Taluk Police Station
2. The learned II Additional District Judge,
Cuddalore.
3.The Public Prosecutor
High Court of Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP.No.25326 of 2022
V. SIVAGNANAM, J.
dpq
Crl.O.P.No.25326 of 2022
19.10.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
