Rajasthan High Court
Anand Yadav S/O Shri Nawal Kishore ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 25 July, 2022
Bench: Birendra Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3063/2022
1. Anand Yadav S/o Shri Nawal Kishore Yadav, Aged About
48 Years, Resident Of 50, Patel Nagar, Ram Mandir Marg,
Hawa Sadak, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
2. Prakash Chand Sharma S/o Shri Madan Lal Sharma, Aged
About 59 Years, Resident Of Namrata Avas, 82 Feet Road,
Kota (Rajasthan).
----Petitioners
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kapil Gupta, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Chandragupt Chopra, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR
Order
25/07/2022
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioners were Investigating Officers of FIR No.
88/2019.
The FIR led to trial of the accused persons in Sessions Case
No. 293/2019. The trial resulted in acquittal of the accused
persons vide judgment dated 06/12/2021, a copy at annexure-2.
Learned trial Judge recorded some adverse remarks against
the petitioners at page 5 of the judgment which reads as follows:-
^^ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; 2019 Cr.L.R. (SC) 323 vadq'k
ek:fr f'kans cuke LVsV vkWQ egkjk"Vª esa izfrikfnr fl)kUr dh jks'kuh esa
;fn bl ekeys dks ns[kk tk;s] rks bl ekeys esa vuqla/kku vf/kdkjh ih-MCY;q-
4 izdk'kpan o vkuan ;kno Fkkukf/kdkjh iqfyl Fkkuk bVkok }kjk dkuwu ds
f[kykQ vuqla/kku djrs gq;s vuqla/kku dh 'kfDr;ksa dk nq:i;ksax fd;k x;k
(2 of 4) [CRLMP-3063/2022]
gS] ftldk foLr`r foospu iwoZ esa fd;k tk pqdk gSA blds vykok iqfyl
v/kh{kd ftyk dksVk }kjk fcuk ekb.M ,IykbZ djrs gq, pktZ'khV is'k djus
dk vkns'k fn;k x;k gS og vkns'k i=kkoyh ij vkbZ lk{; dks n`f"Vxr j[krs
gq;s fcYdqy Hkh fof/k vuqlkj gksuk izekf.kr ugha gSA pkykuh vkns'k tkjh
djuk ek=k vkSipkfjdrk ugha gS] cfYd dkuwuh izko/kkuksa ds vuqlkj gh iqfyl
v/kh{kd dks pkykuh vkns'k tkjh djuk pkfg;s] dsoy ek=k vius v/khuLFk
vuqla/kku vf/kdkjh ds vuqla/kku ij vka[k ehapdj fo'okl ugh djuk
pkfg;sA bl ekeys esa vfHk;qDr ds fo:) iqfyl }kjk tks pktZ'khV is'k dh
x;h gS] og pktyZ'khV fcuk ekbZUM ,IykbZ fd;s tcjnLrh is'k fd;k tkuk
c[kwch lkfcr gSA blfy, ekeys dh xaHkhjrk dks ns[krs gq, ;g vksn'k fn;k
tkrk gS fd bl vkns'k dh izfr iqfyl egkfuns'kd] t;iqj dks Hksth tkos rFkk
mUgsa ;g Hkh vkns'k fn;k tkrk gS fd bl fu.kZ; dk /;kuiwoZd v?;;u dj
bl ekeys ds rRdkyhu vuqla/kku vf/kdkjh Jh izdk'kpan ,lvkbZ]
rRdkyhu Fkkukf/kdkjh Jh vkuan ;kno ,oa rRdkyhu iqfyl v/kh{kd dksVk
xzkeh.k ds fo:) foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh vey esa ykosa rFkk dh x;h dk;Zokgh ls
Hkh bl U;k;ky; dks ,d ekg esa voxr djokosaA**
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the adverse
remarks and directions for disciplinary proceedings were recorded
without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Om Prakash
Chautala vs. Kanwar Bhan and Others decided on 31st January,
2014 in Civil Appeal No. 1785/2014 relevant observations are
being reproduced below:-
"11. In Dr. Dilip Kumar Deka and another v. State
of Assam and another [4], after referring to the
authorities in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Mohammad
Naim [5], Jage Ram v. Hans Raj Midha [6], R.K.
Lakshmanan v. A.K. Srinivasan [7] and Niranjan
Patnaik v. Sashibhusan Kar [8], this Court opined
thus:-
7. We are surprised to find that in spite of the above
catena of decisions of this Court, the learned Judge
did not, before making the remarks, give any
opportunity to the appellants, who were admittedly
not parties to the revision petition, to defend
themselves. It cannot be gainsaid that the nature of
remarks the learned Judge has made, has cast a
serious aspersion on the appellants affecting their
character and reputation and may, ultimately affect
(3 of 4) [CRLMP-3063/2022]
their career also. Condemnation of the appellants
without giving them an opportunity of being heard
was a complete negation of the fundamental
principle of natural justice.
12. At this juncture, it may be clearly stated that
singularly on the basis of the aforesaid principle the
disparaging remarks and directions, which are going
to be referred to hereinafter, deserve to be annulled
but we also think it seemly to advert to the facet
whether the remarks were really necessary to
render the decision by the learned single Judge and
the finding recorded by the Division Bench that the
observations are based on the material on record
and they do not cause any prejudice, are legally
sustainable. As far as finding of the Division Bench
is concerned that they are based on materials
brought on record is absolutely unjustified in view
of the following principles laid down in Mohammad
Naim (supra):-
It has been judicially recognized 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 remarks; and
(c) whether it is necessary for the decision of the
case, as an integral part thereof, to animadvert on
that conduct.
13. On a perusal of the order we find that two
aspects are clear, namely, (I) that the appellant was
not before the court, and (ii) by no stretch of logic
the observations and the directions were required to
decide the lis. We are disposed to think so as we
find that the learned single Judge has opined that
the order of suspension was unjustified and that is
why it was revoked. He has also ruled that there
has been arbitrary exercise of power which was
amenable to judicial review and, more so, when the
charges were dropped against the employee.
Commenting on the second charge-sheet dated
15.3.2004 the learned single Judge, referring to the
decisions in State of Andhra Pradesh v. N.
Radhakishan [9], State of Punjab and others v.
Chaman Lal Goyal [10], The State of Madhya
Pradesh v. Bani Singh and another [11] and P.V.
Mahadevan v. M.D.T.N. Housing Board [12], thought
it appropriate to quash the same on the ground of
delay. The conclusion could have been arrived at
without making series of comments on the
appellant, who, at the relevant time, was the Chief
Minister of the State."
(4 of 4) [CRLMP-3063/2022]
Considering the settled principle that opportunity of hearing
must be given to the persons aggrieved by disparaging remarks
before recording it and the court below has not given any
opportunity of hearing, hence, the aforesaid portion of the
impugned judgment stands hereby quashed and the same be not
treated as on the record of the petitioners nor the same shall be
considered against the petitioners in future.
The petition is accordingly allowed.
Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
(BIRENDRA KUMAR),J
ANIL SHARMA /61
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
