http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6  

PETITIONER: STATE OF KARNATAKA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       27/08/2000

BENCH: R.P.Sethi, K.T.Thomas

JUDGMENT:

     THOMAS,  J.   Delay  condoned.    Leave  granted.    A Division  Bench  of  Karnataka High Court went  outside  the scope  of  the lis before it and made  certain  observations which  are  not  in tune with the  perceptions  of  judicial exercise.    Why  they  did  so  in  this  case  is   beyond comprehension.   State of Karnataka, unable to abide by  the directions issued as per the order, has filed this appeal by special  leave.  For disposal of this appeal we did not find any  necessity  to  issue  notice  to  the  sole  respondent (Registrar  General  of the High Court of Karnataka)  as  he would have nothing to say about the impugned directions.  So we  propose  to dispose of the matter without  bringing  the respondent to this Court.

     How  the  above  situation reached can  be  summarized thus:

     Seven  persons were prosecuted in a sessions court for various  offences,  the  serious-most among  which  was  the offence  under Section 307 of the IPC.  After the trial  the Sessions  Judge acquitted all the accused.  The testimony of the  eye  witnesses  examined  by the  prosecution  was  not believed by the Sessions Judge.  At the same time he frowned at  the  investigation,  as  is being done in  many  of  the judgments ending in acquittal.  The delay in dispatching the FIR  to the magistrate was also highlighted in the  judgment of the Sessions Court.

     The  State of Karnataka filed a petition for leave  to appeal  against  the said order of acquittal.  The  Division Bench  of  the  High  Court, while refusing  leave,  made  a departure   from  the  precedents   and  issued  an  unusual direction  to  the State Public Prosecutor like  this:   "We direct  the  learned SPP to forward a copy of this order  to the Secretary to Government (Home) as also to the Honourable Home  Minister both of whom shall acknowledge the receipt of the same and shall report back to this Court within a period of  two  months as to what precisely is the reaction of  the Government to the observations of this High Court."

     The  Home Secretary and the Home Minister of the State are  now compelled to react openly to the observations  made in  the  judgment  and to report to the High Court  on  such reactions.  It is necessary to extract the observations made by M.F.  Saldhana, J, who spoke for the Division Bench.  The

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6  

first facet of the observations is the following:

     "This  Court  has  had occasion to deal with  a  large number  of  appeals filed against orders of acquittals.   In case  after  case,  it  is noticed that  it  is  principally because of poor investigation followed up by a total lack of interest in the conduct of the prosecution that has resulted in  the accused being acquitted.  Murders are committed with impunity and the other set of cases of which we need to take very serious note relating to atrocities against women where even the reported number of cases has sharply increased.  We have  come  across  a series of horrifying  incidents  where young married women were harassed, tortured and set on fire, another  line  of  cases  where girls and  women  have  been molested, sexually attacked and raped.  String of acquittals in  all these cases which are as high as 96.4% only  because the  requisite evidence and the evidence of the quality that the   court   expects  has   not  been   forthcoming.    The investigating  agencies  namely  the Police  Department  are responsible to a very large extent for this deplorable state of affairs."

     Learned   counsel  for  the   State  made  a  scathing onslaught   on   those    observations,   particularly   the disparaging  remarks  made against the police department  of the  State as a whole and contended that they are absolutely unnecessary   in   the  present   case,  apart  from   being unsupported  by any material whatsoever.  He submitted  that there  was no material available on record for the court  to reach  such  omnibus  findings.  Learned Judge  went  on  to observe further as follows:

     "Time  is  of the essence as far as  investigation  of criminal cases are concerned and consequently, it is equally important  that  apart from the speed with which the  Police act,  that the investigation has got to be done with a  high degree of efficiency and professionalism.  All these factors are  lacking  in the majority of investigations.   There  is something  seriously  wrong and we put it down to  the  fact that obviously on all sorts of political considerations, the recruitment  process has been diluted to point of  induction into  the force of persons who should not have been there at all.  It goes without saying that when this happens, one can never   expect   efficiency.   The   manner  in  which   the recruitments   are   done    and    more   importantly   the considerations  leave much to be desired and if the law  and order machinery on which crores of rupees of tax payers many is  being  spent  is at all to justify  its  existence,  the Government   will  have  to  take   serious  note   of   the observations and rectify the state of affairs."

     After making some more sweeping remarks on the present system  of  criminal law administration the Bench  said  the following  also:  "Similarly, the principal disease that has infected  the  criminal justice system in the State  is  the cheerful  manner  in  which the Court is informed  that  the vital  witnesses are hostile who is responsible for this  is not  difficult  for  the  court to  infer,  the  moment  the question  is  asked  as  to who  is  the  beneficiary.   The investigating  Agency  also owes a duty to ensure  that  the vital  witnesses are present and that they produce the  type of  evidence which is expected of them.  This aspect of  the matter  will  require very serious attention if at  all  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6  

State  is  concerned about rectifying the present  state  of affairs which is assuming disastrous proportion."

     Learned  counsel  for  the State was  quite  right  in contending  that it was not the occasion for learned  Judges of  the  High Court for giving vent to their general  apathy towards  the  present system of administration  of  criminal justice.   The direction that the Home Minister and the Home Secretary  of  the  State  shall report to  the  High  Court regarding  their  reaction towards the observations made  in the  judgment is nothing but an exercise in redundancy, for, their  reaction cannot be different from the views expressed by  the Judges themselves.  How could they be different,  as it  is  unexceptional that the system should  improve.   The problems  posed  by  the  Judges have  already  engaged  the attention of the Law Commission.  On more than one occasions the Commission has submitted its report for consideration by Parliament.   But  putting the blame largely on  the  police force  of  the  State for all the ills pointed  out  by  the learned Judges, without data or material or evidence in this case, is not a course which can meet with our approval.

     Learned   Judges  pointed  to   subjects   which   are unfortunately  not connected with this case.  Those are- (1) murders  committed with impunity, (2) the increase in  cases involving atrocities against women, (3) harassment inflicted on  young  married  women  including  "bride  burning",  (4) molestation  and  rape  of girls and young women.   We  have already extracted a gist of the facts of this case.  None of the  fields  to which learned Judges pointed  their  fingers would  cover  the facts of this case.  Hence learned  Judges dealt  with  subjects  which are totally ungermane  and  far beyond  the scope of this case as though it was presentation of  a paper in a seminar.  Why should the Home Minister  and the  Home  Secretary  react to the  observations  which  are absolutely uncalled for on the facts of this case.

     Judicial  disposition  is definitely different from  a paper  presented  for  seminar discussion.  Nor  can  it  be equated with a dissertation.  Judicial decorum requires that judgments  and orders should confine to the facts and  legal points  involved  in the particular cases which Judges  deal with.   May be, sometimes Judges would, perhaps wittingly or even   unwittingly,   jut  outside   the  contours  of   the litigation,  but  even  such overlappings should  be  within bounds  of  propriety  and  sobriety.    But  there  is   no justification  for  traversing so far beyond the convass  as was  done  by the High Court in this case or to cover  areas which  are  grossly extraneous to the subject matter of  the case.   If the subordinate courts are also to be tempted and encouraged  to  follow  suit by travelling far  outside  the scope  of  the lis the consequences would be far  too  many. Demoralisation  of departments would badly erode the already impaired  efficiency  of our forces.  It is time  to  remind ourselves  once  again that judgment should confine  to  the scope of the case.

     In  the State of Uttar Pradesh vs.  Mohammad Naim {AIR 1964  SC 703 = 1964 (2) SCR 363} a four Judge Bench of  this Court  heard  the  grievance of a  State  regarding  certain sweeping  remarks made by a learned Judge of the High  Court who  dealt with the case of a police officer.  The judge  of the High Court had stated in his Judgment that "(a) If I had felt  that  with my lone efforts I could have  cleaned  this

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6  

augean  stable, which is the police force, I would not  have hesitated to wage this war single handed.  (b) That there is not a single lawless group in the whole of the country whose record  of  crime  comes anywhere near the  record  of  that organised  unit  which is known as the Indian Police  Force. (c)  Where  every fish barring perhaps a few stinks,  it  is idle to pick out one or two and say that it stinks."

     S.K.   Das, J.  (as he then was) speaking for the four Judge Bench expressed complete disapproval of those impugned observations and reminded thus:

     "It  is  not infrequent that sweeping  generalisations 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 a 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, moderation and reserve."

     During  the  36  years which elapsed  thereafter  this Court has reiterated those words on different occasions.

     {R.K.   Lakshmanan vs.  A.K.  Srinivasan & anr.,  1976 (1)  SCR  204  =  AIR 1975 SC  1741,  Niranjan  Patnaik  vs. Sashibhushan  Kar & anr., 1986(2) SCC 569 = AIR 1986 SC 819, S.K.   Viswambaran  vs.  E.  Koyakunju & ors., 1987 (2)  SCC 109 = AIR 1987 SC 1436}.

     It  would have been very appropriate if learned Judges of  the Division Bench who rendered the impugned order would have  reminded themselves of the above equation administered by the apex court more than three decades ago.

     For  the  aforesaid reasons we have to interfere  with the  impugned  order.   We hereby set aside  the  directions issued to the State Public Prosecutor as well as to the Home Minister and Home Secretary of the State.

     Appeal is disposed of accordingly.

     .................................................................J [ K.T.  Thomas ]

     ................................................................J. [ R.P.Sethi ]

     New Delhi;

     August 10, 2000.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6

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

     Regularised.   Now the High Court is to dispose of the appeal  in accordance with law.  As this is an old matter we direct  the Registrar of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh to include  the appeal in the hearing list, as expeditiously as possible.

     Parties  are directed to appear before the High  Court on  4-9-2000  and  no fresh notice need be issued  for  this purpose.