Adverse remarks against a non-party cannot stand when they are unnecessary to decide the case; expunged by the Supreme Court.

Adverse observations against a person who was neither impleaded in the proceedings nor shown as an accused in the FIR cannot be sustained if they were unnecessary to decide the matter. The Supreme Court held that remarks made by the High Court against the buyer, in a writ petition challenging confiscation under the Karnataka Excise Act, were unwarranted because the buyer was not before the Court and had no opportunity to respond. Those observations were therefore expunged, while the underlying confiscation dispute remained untouched.

---

---

Issues: Whether the observations made by the High Court against the buyer, who was not a party before it and was not shown as an accused in the FIR, were liable to be expunged.

Analysis: The impugned order had dismissed the writ petition challenging confiscation of spirit under Section 43A of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965, but contained remarks describing the buyer as involved in the matter and denying it relief-related consequences. Since the buyer was not impleaded before the High Court and was not an accused in the FIR, the observations touching its conduct were made without its being before the Court. Such remarks were not necessary for deciding the transporters' petition and could not be sustained against a person who was not a party to the proceedings.

Conclusion: The observations made against the buyer were expunged, and the appeal was allowed to that extent.

Final Conclusion: The judgment confers relief only by removing the unwarranted remarks against the non-party buyer while leaving the merits of the confiscation dispute untouched.

Ratio Decidendi: Adverse observations against a person who is neither impleaded in the proceedings nor shown as an accused cannot be sustained and may be expunged when unnecessary to the decision of the case.

---