Disparaging remarks against a witness require necessity, evidentiary support and judicial restraint; unwarranted criticism was expunged.

Adverse or disparaging remarks against a witness are permissible only when strictly necessary for the decision, supported by the record, and made with judicial restraint. A witness who was not material to the limited issue before the HC could not properly be criticised for character or conduct on conjecture. The appellate court's remarks were found unjustified because they exceeded what was needed to decide whether the recovered sum was bribe money or a donation. The remarks were therefore ordered to be expunged.

---

---

Issues: Whether the adverse and disparaging remarks made against a prosecution witness in the appellate judgment were justified and necessary for decision of the criminal appeal, and whether they should be expunged.

Analysis: The witness was not a material or crucial witness on the limited question before the High Court, namely whether the recovered sum was bribe money or donation. The High Court's criticism of his character and conduct proceeded on conjecture, overlooked the limited relevance of his evidence, and was inconsistent with the settled principle that disparaging remarks against a witness are permissible only when necessary for the decision and when supported by the record. Judicial pronouncements must also observe sobriety, moderation and restraint, especially when a person's reputation is affected.

Conclusion: The adverse remarks were neither justified nor called for, and they were ordered to be expunged.

Ratio Decidendi: Disparaging remarks against a witness or party may be made only when they are strictly necessary for the decision, are supported by evidence on record, and are expressed with judicial restraint.

---