TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court allows appeal, expunges unjustified remarks against police, emphasizing judicial restraint and evidence-based pronouncements.</h1> <h3>STATE OF U.P. Versus MOHAMMAD NAIM</h3> The court found that the State of Uttar Pradesh had the locus standi to make an application under Section 561-A Cr. P. C. It held that the High Court had ... - Issues Involved:1. Locus standi of the State of Uttar Pradesh to make an application under Section 561-A Cr. P. C.2. High Court's inherent power to expunge remarks.3. Justification and necessity of the remarks made by the learned judge against the police force.Issue-wise Analysis:1. Locus Standi of the State of Uttar Pradesh:The first issue considered was whether the State of Uttar Pradesh had the locus standi to make an application under Section 561-A Cr. P. C. The judgment clarified that Section 561-A safeguards the inherent powers of the High Court to secure the ends of justice. It was argued that the State Government, as the executive body exercising control over the police department, had the right to invoke this jurisdiction. The court rejected the High Court's reasoning that the State Government could not be considered an aggrieved party and found that the State Government indeed had the locus standi to make the application. The court emphasized that the State Government, being a juristic person, could seek redress under Section 561-A, similar to its rights under other sections of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. High Court's Inherent Power to Expunge Remarks:The second issue addressed whether the High Court had the inherent power to expunge remarks made by itself or a lower court. The judgment acknowledged that while this jurisdiction is exceptional and should be exercised sparingly, it is within the High Court's power to expunge remarks to prevent abuse of the court's process or to secure the ends of justice. The court cited several precedents supporting this view and concluded that the High Court could indeed expunge remarks in exceptional cases.3. Justification and Necessity of the Remarks:The final issue was whether the remarks made by the learned judge against the police force were justified and necessary for the case's disposal. The court found that the sweeping generalizations made by the judge about the entire police force were not warranted by the facts of the case and were not necessary for deciding the matter at hand. The judgment highlighted that judicial pronouncements should be guided by considerations of justice, fair play, and restraint. The court criticized the judge's remarks as being too broad and unsupported by evidence, noting that such statements could undermine the police force's efficiency and bring the administration of law and order into disrepute. The court emphasized that while the conduct of the specific police officer in question deserved condemnation, it was inappropriate to generalize this condemnation to the entire police force.Conclusion:The court concluded that the State Government was justifiably aggrieved by the sweeping remarks and that the inherent jurisdiction of the court should have been exercised to expunge these remarks. The appeal was allowed, and the remarks in question were directed to be expunged from the order of the learned judge dated August 4, 1961. The judgment underscored the importance of maintaining judicial restraint and ensuring that remarks made in judgments are necessary, justified, and based on evidence.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
