Chhattisgarh HC Expunges Trial Court's 'Adverse' Remark Made Against Probe Officer Sans Affording Her An Opportunity Of Hearing

The Chhattisgarh High Court recently expunged an 'adverse' remark made by the trial court against an investigating officer over a discrepancy in the probe without affording an opportunity of hearing to her, pursuant to which, a departmental enquiry was initiated against her.

The bench of Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey stressed a judge has a duty to not make unmerited and undeserving remarks, especially in case of witnesses or the parties who are not before him affecting their character and reputation unless it is absolutely necessary for just and proper decision of the case and that too after affording an opportunity of explaining or defending that witness/party.

While expunging the trial court's remarks and quashing the initiation of the departmental enquiry and the consequent proceedings against the officer, the Court relied upon the Apex Court's ruling in the case of The State U.P. v. Mohammad Naim AIR 1964 SC 703, wherein the Top Court had laid- down the following three-point test in considering the expunction of disparaging remarks made against persons or authorities whose conduct comes for consideration before the Court of law:-

(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 recognized that judicial pronouncements must be judicial in nature, and should not normally depart from sobriety, moderation and reserve.

The Case in brief

Essentially, the Court was dealing with the plea of one Purnima Lama, an Inspector with the State Police, who was involved in the investigation in a case for the offence under Section 124-A of I.P.C. and Section 3, 4 of the Police (Incitement to Disaffection) Act, 1922.

The trial of the case was conducted in the Court of Second Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur and ultimately in November 2018, the was acquitted of the aforesaid offences extending the benefit of the doubt, however, in its order, the trial Court made certain adverse remarks against the petitioner, pursuant to which, a departmental enquiry was initiated against her for defective investigation. Challenging the same, she moved to the High Court.

It was argued by her counsel that the trial Court was not justified in making adverse remarks against the petitioner holding that she was negligent while performing her duties and that too no opportunity of hearing was afforded before making adverse remarks against her.

Court's observations

Apart from the Apex Court's ruling in the case of Mohammad Naim (supra), the HC relied upon several other rulings of the Top court wherein almost similar principle was laid down that harsh or disparaging remarks are not to be made by the Courts against persons and authorities whose conduct comes into consideration before courts of law unless it is really necessary for the decision of the case.

In fact, the Court also referred to the case of State (NCT Of Delhi) V. Pankaj Chaudhary And Others (2019) 11 SCC 575, wherein the Top Court had held that in case of defective/illegal investigation, disparaging remarks/ direction to initiate prosecution should not be passed against the police officials without affording them the opportunity of hearing.

Against this backdrop, finding that in the instant case, the adverse remarks passed by the trial Court were absolutely contrary to the well-settled principles of law, the Court went ahead to expunge those remarks while adding a note of suggestion that the trial Court ought to have given a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before passing any adverse comments for discrepancies in the investigation.

Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed.

Case title - Purnima Lama vs. State Of Chhattisgarh and others

Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Chh) 1

Click Here To Read/Download order