Full Judgment
Kanta Bhatnager, J.
1. In this petition Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure petitioner has prayed for expunging the remarks made against him by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banswara in Criminal Case No. 228 of 1981 on September 12, 1983.
2. Petitioner in his capacity as Food Inspector, took sample of milk from one Shanker Teli resident of Surajpole, Banswara on October 12, 1981 and suspecting it to be adulterated proceeded with under the Food Adulteration Act. The sample was found to be adulterated by the Chemical Examiner and Shanker Teli was tried for the charge Under Section 7/16 of the Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act'). During the course of trial it was found that the bottle containing the sample was not properly sealed and it was possible for any one to remove the seal and change the sample and place the seal in the same manner Ram Swaroop, the Food Inspector, who had sealed the samples in that case, in his cross-examination was confronted with the position of the seal. The Court came to the conclusion that the Food Inspector has not properly discharged his duties and in case he is vested with the powers of taking the sample, it would be futile because he was not following the proper procedure of affixing the seals on the bottles of the samples. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate vide judgment dated September 12,1983 acquitted the accused Shanker of the charge Under Section 7/16 of the Act and observed that the petitioner Food Inspector was negligent in as much as he has not sealed the samples in accordance with Rule 16 of the Food Adulteration Rule [the Rules' hereinafter] and observed that the Food Inspector has not worked properly in the serious offence of the Food Adulteration and in case such a person is vested with the powers to take samples it would be useless because he was working in contravention of the Rules and has given false statement. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate ordered that the copy of the judgment maybe sent to the C.M. and H.O., Banswara.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had not given any false statement rather he has admitted his mistake that the sample was not properly sealed. According to the learned Counsel it was a bonafide mistake and does not bring the case within the ambit of intentionally committing any mistake so as to give any benefit to the accused.
4. The perusal of the statement in that trial shows that he has not taken care to seal the sample in accordance with Rule 16 of the Rules. He has admitted his mistake in cross-examination. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has referred the certain authorities which I would just discuss. To substantiate its case that Court should be modest in passing disparaging remarks against the officials for certain acts in discharge of their duties because many a times officials do not have opportunity to explain their point of view.
5. In the case of Vie State of Uttar Pradesh v. Mohd. Naim : [1964]2SCR363 the Government felt aggrieved by the adverse remarks passed against the police force of the Stale of U.P. The inherent jurisdiction of the Court Under Section 561A of 1898 Code of Criminal Procedure was invoked. The Hon'ble the Supreme Court interfered in the order and observed as under:
It is principle of cardinal importance in the administration of justice, that the proper freedom and independence of Judges and Magistrates must be maintained and they must be allowed to perform their functions freely and fearlessly and without undue interference by any body, even by the Supreme 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. It is not infrequent that sweeping generalisation defeat the very purpose for which they are made. It has been judicially recognised that in the matter of making disparaging remarks against persons or authorities whose conduct comes into consideration before courts of law incases to be decided by them, it is relevant to consider (a) whether the party whose conduct is in question is before the Court or has an opportunity of explaining or defending himself; (b) whether there is evidence on record bearing on that conduct justifying the remarks; and (c) whether it is necessary for the decision of the case, as an integral part thereof, to animadvert on that conduct. It has also been recognised that judicial pronouncements must be judicial in nature and should not normally depart from sobriety, moderation and reserve.
6. These observations were made in view of the High Court making general observations against the entire Police Force of the State though the case related to only one Police Officer and further because the remarks were neither justified on the facts of the case nor were they necessary for the disposal of the case before the Court.
7. In the case of Dr. S.N. Vyas v. State of Rajasthan R.L.W. 1966,215 the remarks , were against the medical witnesses and it was observed that medical witnesses may not be able to express definite opinion on the cause of death and as such the Court will not impute motive lightly.
8. In the case of Joinder Singh v. The State, R.L.W. 1968, 35 the remarks were made against the petitioner behind his back and he had no opportunity till then to explain his conduct before the learned Judge.
9. In the case of Niranjan Patnail v. Sashibushan Kar and Anr. A.I.R. 1968 S.C. 819 the remarks by the High Court were considered to be unjustified for the reason that; the remarks were passed while deciding appeal against conviction. It was held that for deciding appeals critical evaluation of evidence of witness was not necessary.
10. In the case of S.K. Viswambaran v. S. Koyakunju and Ors. (5) their Lordships laid down the following guidelines:
In the matter of making disparaging remarks against person or authorities I whether conduct comes into consideration before court of law in cases to be I decided by them, it is relevant to consider (a) whether the party whose conduct is in question is before the Court or has an opportunity of explaining or defending himself; (b) whether there is evidence on record bearing on that conduct justifying the remarks; and (c) whether it is necessary for the decision of the case, as an integral part thereof, to animadvert on that conduct. It has also been recognised that judicial pronouncements must be judicial in naturt and should not normally depart from sobriety, moderation and reserve.
11. Keeping in view the principles enunciated in the various authorities referred to above, when I turn to the case on hand I find that they are of no help to the petitioner in the case because it is a case in which the proceedings were before the petitioner. In his cross-examination he had opportunity to explain the infirmity regarding the compliance of the provision of Rule 16 of the Rules. He has admitted the way in which he has sealed the samples, that he had not pasted the wrapper with gum and it was only enwrapped. He also has admitted that his initial appointment was as Sanitary Inspector and after 1975 he had not taken any training of Food Inspector. The details about the condition of the seal and the outer cover opened in the Court have also been noted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. In such circumstances, the remarks of the Court that if powers of Food Inspector are vested in such persons, it would be useless for the purpose cannot be said to be a light observations made. The Food Inspector has admitted his mistake and therefore, the part of the stricture 'Jhute Bayan Deta Hai' was uncalled for.
12. In view of this discussion, the remarks against the petitioner not being fit for being vested with the powers of the Food Inspector are justified but the remarks 'Jhute Bayan Deta Hai' are expunged. The order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate for sending the copy of the judgment to the C.M. and H.O., Banswara is maintained because in the light of the statement and the judgment, the C.M. and H.O. may proceed against the petitioner if he so desires.
13. The petition stands disposed off accordingly.