Supreme Court expunges Trial Court remarks against Advocate, emphasizing fair treatment and judicial restraint.

The Supreme Court allowed the petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C., filed by an Advocate seeking to expunge remarks made by the Trial Court against him. The Court emphasized the importance of providing individuals with an opportunity to defend themselves before making disparaging remarks. It highlighted the need for judges to exercise their power with moderation and avoid uncalled-for strictures that could harm a person's reputation. As the remarks were deemed unjustified and unnecessary in the context of deciding on an adjournment application, the Court ordered them to be expunged, upholding principles of natural justice and fairness in judicial proceedings.

---

---

Issues:
Petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. to expunge remarks against the petitioner by Trial Court while rejecting adjournment application.

Analysis:
The petitioner, an Advocate, filed a petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. seeking to expunge remarks made by the Trial Court against him. The Trial Court, while rejecting the petitioner's adjournment application on the grounds of self-illness, passed certain remarks against the petitioner regarding his conduct. The Trial Court noted the absence of the petitioner from previous court appearances and the failure to file a memo of appearance. The petitioner contended that the remarks were made without providing him an opportunity to explain his conduct. The petitioner relied on the Supreme Court decision in The State of U.P. Vs. Mohammad Naim, emphasizing the importance of maintaining judicial independence and fairness in expressing opinions.

The Supreme Court's decision highlighted the need for judges to consider certain factors before making disparaging remarks, including providing the party an opportunity to defend themselves, the presence of evidence justifying the remarks, and the necessity of such remarks for the case's decision. The judgment stressed the responsibility of Presiding Officers to exercise their power with moderation and avoid being vindictive. It cautioned against uncalled-for strictures in judgments that could harm a person's reputation irreparably. The Court also cited cases where it emphasized the importance of giving individuals an opportunity to be heard before making castigating remarks that could impact their future career.

In the present case, the Court found that the petitioner-Advocate was not given a show-cause notice or an opportunity to be heard before the remarks were made. Given that the issue at hand was merely whether to grant an adjournment, the Court deemed the remarks unjustified, uncalled for, and ordered them to be expunged from the Trial Court's order. The judgment emphasized the principles of natural justice and fairness in judicial proceedings. The petition was allowed, and the remarks against the petitioner were expunged from the Trial Court's order.

---