http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10  

PETITIONER: S.K. VISWAMBARAN

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: E. KOYAKUNJU & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT03/03/1987

BENCH: REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J) BENCH: REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J) NATRAJAN, S. (J) RAY, B.C. (J) DUTT, M.M. (J)

CITATION:  1987 AIR 1436            1987 SCR  (2) 501  1987 SCC  (2) 109        JT 1987 (1)   680  1987 SCALE  (1)506

ACT:     Criminal  Procedure  Code,  1973--s.482--Sessions  Judge passed strictures against police officials concerning inves- tigation--High  Court approached for expunction  of  adverse remarks--Scope of Inquiry--Limited only to the bona fides of action  of  Petitioners before High  Court--Adverse  remarks made by High Court against another Police Officer conducting investigation  without  hearing him--Principles  of  natural justice--Opportunity  to  be given  before  adverse  remarks made--Tests  for making  adverse  remarks--What are--Whether followed  in the instant case-High  Court’s  order--Validity of.

HEADNOTE:     The  Sessions Judge while acquitting the accused of  the charge  under s.302 IPC entertained serious doubts about  PW 16 (Respondent No. 2.), the Inspector of Police, who  partly investigated the case, carrying out the cellophone tape test to  lift  any fibres of coir sticking to the  palms  of  the deceased  and  sending  the tapes to  the  Forensic  Science Laboratory and the bona fides of the exercise. On the  basis of  the suspicions features mentioned in his  judgment,  the Sessions  Judge  made severe adverse remarks against  PW  16 (Respondent  No.  2.) DW 2 (Respondent No.  3)  and  another policeman  and observed that the conduct of these  officials was  highly open to suspicion, that a  full-fledged  enquiry should he held against them and that "otherwise indiscipline and  the  tendency  to tamper with  official  documents  and create  false documents will set at naught the very  purpose of having a police establishment."     The  Inspector  PW 16 (Respondent No. 2)  and  the  Head Constable PW 2 (Respondent No. 3) filed petitions before the High  Court for expunging the adverse remarks  made  against them.  A Single Judge without making any examination of  the conduct of the petitioners before him and without  consider- ing  whether  the  features noticed by  the  Sessions  Judge warranted  the adverse remarks or not went at a tangent  and put  the appellant, a Deputy Suptd. of Police (PW  17),  who had also investigated the case from 26.11.80 to 5.11.81,  in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10  

the  dock  for having failed to place before the  Court  the scientific materials which PW 16 502 (Respondent No. 2) had obtained in the course of  investiga- tion  to find out whether the death of the deceased was  due to  suicide or homicide. The learned judge observed that  PW 16 (Respondent No. 2) and DW 2 (Respondent No. 3) had  acted in  a  blemishless  manner and the report  of  the  Forensic Science Laboratory had been obtained through bonafide inves- tigative process and it was the appellant who had schemingly kept  back the crucial recordS from the notice of the  Court in order to secure a conviction unjustly against the accused and as such the appellant should be raprimanded in no uncer- tain terms.     Stung  by  the remarks made against him without  even  a hearing, the appellant preferred the instant appeal to  seek expunction of the remarks. Allowing the Appeal,     HELD:  1. The adverse remarks against the  appellant  in the  order  of the High Court under appeal  will  stand  ex- punged. [512E]     2. When PW 16 and DW 2 moved the High Court for  expung- ing  the adverse remarks against them the scope of  the  en- quiry was confined to the bona fides of their action in  the investigation proceedings and whether the Sessions Judge was justified  in drawing adverse inference against them on  the basis of the suspicious features catalogued by him. The High Court  was not dealing with an appeal against the  acquittal of  the  accused and there was no need or occasion  for  the High  Court  to go into the conduct of  the  appellant.  The enquiry  was only touching upon the conduct of PW 16 and  DW 2. Furthermore the High Court had completely overlooked  the fact  that the appellant ceased to be in charge of the  case on  5.1.81.  Thereafter the investigation of  the  case  was taken  charge of by PW 18 and still later by PW 19  and  ac- cording to DW 2 the report from the Forensic Science Labora- tory was sent to the Crime Detachment only on 7.1.81 whereas the  appellant ceased to be in charge of the case on  5.1.81 itself. It, therefore, passes one’s comprehension as to  how the  appellant can be accused of having wilfully  suppressed materiai documents from the notice of the Court in order  to secure  a  conviction  unjustify against the  accused  in  a murder case. [510D-G]     3. The High Court has not applied its mind to the series of suspicious features noticed by the Sessions Judge to draw an  adverse inference against PW 16 and DW 2  in  conducting theso-called  cellophone tape test and sending the  tape  to the  Forensic Science Laboratory for its report.  The  Judge had taken it for granted that PW 16 had actually 503 carried  out  a cellophone tape test, that in  carrying  out such a test he was wedded to scientific methods of  investi- gation,  that he and DW 2 had acted fairly and  squarely  in trying  to find out the real cause of the death of  the  de- ceased and that it was the appellant who had an aversion  to the use of scientific methods in investigation of crimes and that  the appellant had purposely concealed materials  which were favourable to the accused in order to secure a  convic- tion  at  any cost. The Judge had failed to see  that  as  a matter of fact the accused was not kept in the dark  regard- ing  the cellophone tape test that was deemed to  have  been done  but on the other hand he had full information  of  the test  and its result, and it was on account of that  he  was able  to summon police officials to figure as  defence  wit- nesses  and  police records as defence  exhibits.  The  High

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10  

Court had thus completely misdirected itself in its  consid- eration  of  the petitions filed by respondents 2 and  3  to seek expunction of the adverse remarks made against them  by the Sessions Judge. [510G-H; 511A-C]     4. Even assuming that for expunging the remarks  against respondents  No.  2 and 3 the conduct of the  appellant  re- quired scrutiny and merited adverse comment, the  principles of  natural justice required the High Court to  have  issued notice to the appellant and heard him before passing adverse remarks  against him if it was considered necessary. By  its failure  the  High  Court has failed  to  render  elementary justice to the appellant. [511D-E]     5. 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 in  cases 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, moder- ation and reserve. [512A-C] State  of U.P.v. Mohd. Naim, [1964] 2 S.C.R. 363, 374  equal to  AIR 1964 S.C. 702; R.K. Lakshmanan v.  A.K.  Srinivasan, [1976]  1 SCR 204; AIR 1975 SC 1741 and Niranjan Patnaik  v. Sashibhushan Kar & Anr., [1986] 2 SCC 569, relied,upon.     6.  Judged in the light of the above tests it  is  clear that none of the tests is satisfied in this case. [512D] 504

JUDGMENT:     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 109 of 1987.     From the Judgment and Order dated 12.6.86 of the  Kerala High Court in Crl. M.C. No. 511/1982 and 212/1985. P.S. Poti, P.N. Puri and E.M.S. Anam for the Appellant. Baby Krishnan for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by     NATARAJAN,  J.  This  Appeal by Special Leave  is  by  a Gazetted  Police Officer to seek expunction of  certain  ad- verse remarks passed against him by the High Court of Kerala in an order passed with reference to two Criminal  Miscella- neous Petitions filed by Respondents 2 and 3 herein  without issuing any notice to him and without hearing him.     The  somewhat unusual circumstances in which the  appel- lant  has  been made the victim of strictures  by  the  High Court  may  now be looked into.  One  Chandrasekaran  Pillai residing  within the limits of Karunagapally Police  Station was  charged under Section 302 I.P.C. for  having  committed the murder of his wife Komalavalli by first beating her  and kicking her and then hanging her in order to make it  appear that it was a case of suicide. The accused’s son aged  about 12  years  and  a neighbour claimed to  have  witnessed  the beating as well as the accused dragging the deceased to  the western side of the house. A little later the son made  bold to  go  into the house and found his mother  having  with  a noose  round  her neck. He raised alarm and  the  neighbours including  his maternal uncle came to the house and cut  the rope and rendered first aid unsuccessfully because  Komalav- alli had already died.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10  

   A report was given at Karunagapally Police Station and a case of "suspicious death" was registered and  investigation was  done  by  Shri T.P. Rajagopalan,  Inspector  of  Police (Respondent  No. 2) who was examined as P.W. 16 in the  Ses- sions Trial against the accused. As the brother of  deceased Komalavalli was not satisfied with the manner of  investiga- tion  of  the local police he filed a  petition  before  the Deputy Inspector General Southern range. Under orders of the Deputy Inspector General the investigation was entrusted  to the Crime Detach- 505 ment  in which the appellant was serving as a Deputy  Supdt. of  Police.  The appellant took charge of the case  and  his investigation  revealed that Komalavalli’s death was due  to homicide and not suicide. The appellant was incharge of  the investigation  of  the case only from. 26.11. 1980  to  5.1. 1981  and thereafter the further investigation was  done  by another  police  officer  of the Crime  Detachment  who  was examined  as  P.W.  18 in the trial. The  charge  sheet  was eventually  filed  by yet another officer viz.  P.W.  19  an Inspector of Police.     The defence of the accused was that his wife Komalavalli had  committed suicide and that he had not murdered her.  In support of his defence the accused placed reliance upon  the first  Investigating  Officer viz. P.W. 16  carrying  out  a cellophone tape test on the palms of Komalavalli and sending the  cellophone tapes to the Forensic Science Laboratory  to find  out whether any fibres of coir rope were found in  the cellophone tape and if so whether the fibres had come out of the coir rope used for the hanging. The report of the Foren- sic  Science  Laboratory was that the cellophone  tape  con- tained  fibres of coir which were similar to the  coir  rope used  for  the hanging. It was,  therefore,  contended  that Komalavalli’s  death was due to suicide as otherwise  fibres from  the  coir rope used for hanging would  not  have  been found  in the palms of her hands. To prove the  despatch  of the cellophone tapes to the Forensic Science Laboratory  and the  receipt of the report from the said Laboratory and  its despatch to the Crime Detachment a Head Constable of Karuna- gapally Police Station by name E. Koyakunju (Respondent  No. 1) was examined as Defence Witness No. 2.     The Sessions Judge entertained serious doubts about P.W. 16 carrying out the cellophone tape test to lift any  fibres of coir sticking to the palms of Komalavalli and sending the tapes to the Forensic Science Laboratory and the bona  fides of the exercise. We shall set out later the numerous  suspi- cious  features noticed by the Sessions Judge regarding  the conduct  of P.W. 16 and DW 2 with reference to the  carrying out  of  the cellophone tape test and the  despatch  of  the tapes to the Forensic Science Laboratory and the entrustment of  the report to the Crime Detachment. For the  present  we will  continue  with the narrative so as to make  known  the circumstances which have led to the filing of this Appeal.     After  evaluating the prosecution evidence the  Sessions Judge held that the prosecution had failed to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and,  therefore, gave him the benefit 506 of  doubt and acquitted him of the charge under Section  302 I.P.C. It is significant to note that the acquittal was  not rendered in acceptance of the defence case that  Komalavalli had  committed  suicide but because the Court felt  that  it would  not be safe to act upon the evidence of P.W.  2,  the son  and P.W. 3, the neighbour and convict the  accused  for the offence of murder.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10  

   In  the course of his judgment the Sessions  Judge  made severe  comments against P.W. 16, the Inspector  of  Police, D.W.  2, Head Constable and another Policeman P.C. 2599  and observed as follows:               "Therefore in my view this is a fit case where               appropriate  action  has to be  taken  against               P.W. 16, D.W. 2 and P.C. 2599 who wrote Ext. D               14  for the reasons stated earlier.  Otherwise               indiscipline  and the tendency to tamper  with               official documents and create false  documents               will set at naught the very purpose of  having               a  police establishment. When one wing of  the               police  establishment  tries  to   investigate               properly  and  to book the culprit,  P.W.  16,               D.W. 2 and P.C. 2599 were trying to neutralise               all  the work that has been done by the  Crime               Detachment  and to help the accused to get  an               acquittal.  This is a serious situation  which               the  higher authorities in the police  depart-               ment  have to take serious notice of and  curb               the tendency even in the beginning."     Aggrieved  by  the  strictures passed  by  the  Sessions Judge, the Inspector (P.W. 16) and the Head Constable  (D.W. 2)  filed Criminal Misc. Petitions before the High Court  of Kerala for expunging the adverse remarks made against  them. A learned single judge of the High Court, without making any examination of the conduct of the petitioners before him and without  considering  whether the features  noticed  by  the Sessions Judge warranted the adverse remarks or not went  at a  tangent  and  put the appellant in the  dock  for  having failed  to place before the Court the  scientific  materials which P.W. 16 had obtained in the course of investigation to find  out whether Komalavalli’s death was due to suicide  or homicide.  The learned judge had taken it for  granted  that P.W.  16  and D.W. 2 had acted in a blemishless  manner  and that the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory had  been obtained through bona fide investigative process and it  was the  appellant  who  had schemingly kept  back  the  crucial records  from the notice of the Court in order to  secure  a conviction  unjustly  against the accused and  as  such  the appellant  should be raprimanded in no uncertain terms.  The relevant portions in the judgment where the appellant 507 who  was examined as P.W. 17 in the Sessions Trial has  been criticised are as under:-               "(para 6.) P.W. 17, Dy. S.P. who conducted the               investigation  kept the above facts  concealed               purposely. If the report sent by the Assistant               Director  of forensic Science  Laboratory  was               made available to the court it would have gone               a  long  way  to establish  innocence  of  the               accused. So to foist a false case of murder on               the account he did not send the report of  the               Assistant Director of Forensic Science Labora-               tory  to the Court. He pleaded complete  igno-               rance  of the above examination when  examined               before court.               (para  8.) The part played by P.W. 17  is  not               beyond  suspicion. He had purposely  concealed               materials  which  were favourable to  the  ac-               cused.  It would appear that this officer  was               averse to scientific methods being made use of               in  investigation of crimes. His  attempt  was               only  to see that the accused is convicted  in               this  case.  This  should not  have  been  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10  

             approach of a senior officer like P.W. 17, who               was  investigating a very serious  crime.  The               life  and liberty of innocent  persons  should               not  be placed at the mercy of such  unscrupu-               lous  officers.  It  will be  proper  for  the               higher officers in the department to look into               this  matter and take proper corrective  meas-               ures for future guidance."     Stung  by  the  remarks made against  him  without  even heating,  the  appellant has preferred this Appeal  to  seek expunction of the remarks.     Now let us have a look at the distressing and suspicious features  noticed  by the Sessions Judge in the  conduct  of P.W.  16 and D .W. 2 in the "cellophone tape  test"  carried out  by  them and in obtaining the report  of  the  Forensic Science  Laboratory and the despatch of the opinion  to  the Crime  Detachment. The relevant portions extracted from  the Judgment are as follows:-                   (i)  "The inquest Report prepared by  this               witness  (P.W. 16) does not show that  he  had               seized  any  cellophone tape or coir  or  that               they were sent to the Forensic Science Labora-               tory":               (ii) "There are no documents to show that  the               tape and coir               508               were  taken  into custody for the  purpose  of               sending them to the Forensic Science Laborato-               ry in the case diary":                  (iii) "Normally any material to be examined               by  the  Forensic Science Laboratory  will  be               sent  only through the court.  Admittedly  the               cellophone  tape  and the coir were  not  sent               through court. On the other hand it is  stated               that they were sent to the laboratory  through               a constable. But the case diary does not  show               that  any constable was sent to  the  Forensic               Science  Laboratory  for  handing  over  these               articles":                  (iv) "P.W. 16 did not prepare, any  mahazar               for seizure of any cellophone tape and inquest               report also does not state anything about  any               tape  said to have been affixed by him on  the               palm  or the dead body and taken for the  pur-               pose of examination at the laboratory";                   (v)  "D.W.   1 Assistant Director  of  the               Forensic   Science   Laboratory,   Trivandrum,               examined  by the defence to prove  his  report               Exhibit D. 10 regarding the presence of  small               bits  of coconut fibres beating similarity  to               the  coir rope that was also sent, had  stated               in cross examination that even if the tape was               affixed to the coir (instead of the palms) and               then sent, it will contain the fibres  similar               to the one found on the coir":                  (vi)  "The investigation was taken over  by               the  Crime  Detachment on 26.  11.  1980.  The               cellophone tapes and the coir pieces are  said               to have been sent by P.W. 16 to the laboratory               on 1.12.80 when he had ceased to be the Inves-               tigating Officer;"                  (vii) "Even if he had taken any  cellophone               tape and coir pieces at the time of inquest or               thereafter  and wanted them to be examined  by               the laboratory the proper course for him would

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10  

             have been to send them to the Dy. S.P. who was               investigating the case on 1.12. 1980;"                 (viii) D .W. 2 Head Constable, summoned  and               examined  by the defence to prove the  sending               of the cellophone tapes and coir to the  labo-               ratory and the report received from the  labo-               ratory  had stated "that there is no  document               in the               509               Policy  Station to prove that cellophone  tape               or  coir piece were sent  from  Karunagappally               Police Station to the Forensic Science Labora-               tory, Trivandrum."               (ix)  "He further stated that the  report  re-               ceived  from  the laboratory was sent  to  the               Crime Detachment on 7.1. 1981 but claimed that               there is nothing to show that it was  received               by any officer of the Crime Detachment Office.               The despatch register Ext. D13 only shows that               a  cover  was handed over to a  constable  for               delivery  to the Crime Detachment Office.  But               there  is no acknowledgement to show that  the               constable had actually handed over the same to               the office of the Crime Detachment at Quilon."               (x)  "D.W.  2 produced a notebook Ext.  D.  14               said to have been maintained by the  constable               to whom this cover was handed over for  deliv-               ery at the office of the Crime Detachment.  In               this  the  curious aspect is  that  the  entry               regarding  this handing over is written  in  a               sheet  of paper which is affixed in  the  note               book  as  an extra sheet  ......   This  entry               Ext. D. 14 has been purposely manufactured for               the  purpose of this case and I have no  doubt               that it has been done at the instance of  D.W.               2  the Head Constable and P.C. 2599 who  wrote               Ext. D. 14. Therefore the constable who  wrote               Ext.  D. 14 and DW 2 are  equally  responsible               for this fraud."               (xi) "The extent to which DW2 would go to help               the  accused is evident from the fact that  he               voluntarily producted Ext. D.17."               (xii)  "Ext.  D.17 is a letter sent  from  the               Forensic  Science  Laboratory to the  S.I.  on               15.11.1980."  This  letter  states  that   the               sealed packet said to contain the MOs involved               in  Crime 220 of 1980 of Karunagapally  Police               Station were being returned unopened for  want               of  forwarding note and certificate and  hence               the  sealed  packet may  be  resubmitted  with               proper forwarding note and certificate. At the               bottom  of  this letter in  vernacular  it  is               written "cellophone tape." Except this vernac-               ular writing there is nothing to show that the               MOs referred to in Ext. D. 17 were  cellophone               tape  and  coir piece  ......  As  the  packet               sent from the Karunagapally Police Station was               not opened, by the Forensic Science               510               Laboratory,  the writing in vernacular at  the               bottom  of  Ext.  D. 17 could  not  have  been               written by anybody from the laboratory. It  is               a  subsequent interpollation probably  at  the               instance of D.W. 2. This was also interferring               with official documents and tampering with  it

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10  

             by D.W. 2 or somebody from the Police  Station               at Karunagapally.     It was with reference to all these features the Sessions Judge  made his adverse remarks against P.W. 16, D.W. 2  and P.C.  2599  and observed that the conduct of  the  concerned official  was highly open to suspicion, that as such a  full fledged enquiry should be held against them and that "other- wise  indiscipline and the tendency to tamper with  official documents and create false documents will set at naught  the very purpose of having a police establishment."     Coming now to the merits of this Appeal when P.W. 16 and D.W.  2 moved the High Court for expunging the  adverse  re- marks against them the scope of the enquiry was confined  to the bonafides of their action in the investigation  proceed- ing and whether the Sessions Judge was justified in  drawing adverse  inferences against them on the basis of  suspicious features  catalogued by him. The High Court was not  dealing with  an  appeal against the acquittal of  the  accused  and there was no need or occasion for the High Court to go  into the  conduct of the appellant. The enquiry in  the  Criminal Misc.  Petitions was only touching upon the conduct of  P.W. 16 and D.W. 2 and not the conduct of the appellant. Further- more  one material fact which the High Court had  completely over-looked is that the appellant ceased to be in charge  of the  case on 5.1.1981. Thereafter the investigation  of  the case was taken charge of by P.W. 18 and still later by  P.W. 19.  Even according to D.W. 2 the report from  the  Forensic Science Laboratory was sent to the Crime Detachment only  on 7.1.1981 whereas the appellant ceased to be incharge of  the case  on 5.1. 1981 itself. It, therefore, passes one’s  com- prehension as to how the appellant can be accused of  having wilfully  suppressed material documents from the  notice  of the  court in order to secure a conviction unjustly  against the accused in a murder case. The High Court, it is surpris- ing to find has not applied its mind to the series of suspi- cious  features  noticed by the Sessions Judge  to  draw  an adverse  inference against P.W. 16 and D.W. 2 in  conducting the  so-called cellophone tape test and sending the tape  to the Forensic Science Laboratory for its report. The  learned judge  has  taken it for granted that P.W. 16  had  actually carried  out  a cellophone tape test, that in  carrying  out such a test he was wedded to scientific methods of  investi- gation and that he and DW 511 2  had acted fairly and squarely in trying to find  out  the real  cause  of  death of Komalavalli and that  it  was  the appellant  who  had  an aversion to the  use  of  scientific methods  in investigation of crimes and that  the  appellant had  purposely concealed materials which were favourable  to the accused in order to secure a conviction at any cost. The learned judge had failed to see that as a matter of fact the accused  was not kept in the dark regarding  the  cellophone tape test that was deemed to have been done but on the other hand he had full information of the test and its result, and it  was  on  account of that he was able  to  summon  police officials to figure as defence witnesses and police  records as  defence exhibits. We are, therefore, clearly of  opinion that the High Court had completely misdirected itself in its consideration of the petitions filed by respondents 2 and  3 to seek expunction of the adverse remarks made against  them by the Sessions Judge.     We  have also to point out a grievous  procedural  error committed  by the High Court. Even assuming  for  argument’s sake  that for expunging the remarks against  respondents  2 and  3  the conduct of the appellant required  scrutiny  and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10  

merited  adverse comment, the principles of natural  justice required the High Court to have issued notice to the  appel- lant  and heard him before passing adverse  remarks  against him if it was considered necessary. By its failure the  High Court has failed to render elementary justice to the  appel- lant.     Yet another serious infirmity contained in the  impugned order is that the High Court has failed to bear in mind  the well-settled  principles of law laid down by this  Court  in more  than  one case that should govern  the  Courts  before disparaging remarks are made against persons or  authorities whose conduct comes into consideration before Courts of  law in cases arising before them for decision. In State of  U.P. v. Mohd. Naim, [1964] 2 S.C.R. 363,374equal to AIR 1964 S.C. 702 it was held as follows:               "If there is one principle of cardinal  impor-               tance in the administration of justice, it  is               this:  the proper freedom and independence  of               Judges and Magistrates must be maintained  and               they  must be allowed to perform  their  func-               tions freely and fearlessly and without  undue               interference  by anybody, even by this  Court.               At the same time it is equally necessary  that               in expressing their opinions Judges and Magis-               trates  must  be guided by  considerations  of               justice,  fair play and restraint. It  is  not               infrequent   that   sweeping   generalisations               defeat the very purpose for which they are               512               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               in cases to be decided by them, it is relevant               to  consider (a) whether the party whose  con-               duct 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  pronounce-               ments  must be judicial in nature, and  should               not normally depart from sobriety,  moderation               and reserve". This  ratio  has been followed in R.K. Lakshmannan  v.  A.K. Srinivasan, [1976] 1 SCR 204: AIR 1975 SC 1741 and  Niranjan Patnaik  v.  Sashibhushan Kar & Anr., [1986] 2 SCC  569  (to which  one  of us was a party). Judged in the light  of  the above tests, it may be seen that none of the tests is satis- fied  in this case. It is indeed regrettable that  the  High Court  should have lightly passed adverse remarks of a  very serious  nature  affecting the  character  and  professional competence  and  integrity  of the  appellant  in  purported desire  to  render  justice to respondents 2 and  3  in  the petition  filed  by them for expunction of  adverse  remarks made against them.     The  appeal is, therefore, allowed and the  adverse  re- marks  against the appellant in the order of the High  Court which have been extracted above will stand expunged from the order under appeal. A.P.J.                                                Appeal allowed. 513

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 10