2001 (2) TMI 1047

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Trial Court in a Criminal Misc. Case No. 64/95 (State of M.P. Vs. Sukka and others), in which an application was made by the present petitioner seeking adjournment on the ground of self-illness, which was rejected by the impugned order and certain remarks were also passed against the petitioner/Advocate. The Trial Court in the impugned order aforesaid also noted that the counsel has not been appearing from 9-3-96 onwards and nor he has filed memo of appearance on the record. While rejecting the application, the following remarks were passed by the Trial Court as under:-- Shri Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was the counsel and he was appearing on behalf of the accused-persons, and he had filed the me....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....out undue interference by anybody, even by this Court. At the same time, it is equally necessary that in expressing their opinions Judges and Magistrates must be guided by considerations of justice, fair play and restraint." The Apex Court in the aforesaid case has further held that it has been judicially recognised that in the matter of making disparaging remarks against persons or authorities whose conduct comes into consideration before the Courts of law in cases to be decided by them, it is relevant to consider :-- "(a) Whether the party whose conduct is in question before the Court has an opportunity of explaining or defending himself; (b) Whether there is evidence on record bearing on that conduct justifying the r....