Allowed

Uma Shankar Dubey v. State of Chhattisgarh and Anr.

Chhattisgarh HC3 Sept 2009CRMP/58/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh allowed the petitioner's petition to quash a stricture passed against him by a Special Judge under the SC/ST Act for lack of an opportunity of hearing. The court held that natural justice was violated as the remarks were unfair and affected the petitioner's career.

What did the court decide?

The stricture passed against the petitioner in para 29 of the judgment dated 24-4-2007 is expunged.

Uma Shankar Dubey Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Anr. — Caste Atrocities | Chhattisgarh HC (2009)

¶1

A.F.R.

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR

¶3

¶4

Qriminal^{MiscellaneousPetitionNo.58of2008}

¶5

PETITIONER : U ma Shankar D ubey, aged about 59 years, S/o S hri Shiv Prasad Dubey, Occutnpaio Sevirce, Working as Deptyu Superinennttde o f Police (Administratin)o, Pceoli Heauarters,dq Raipur, Ctthhaisgarh, R/ o F- 6, Ciiiv Lines, Mahamd,asun Chhattisgarh Versus RESPONDENTS : 1. Sttae of Chhattisgarh, Toughhr Disttric Mistrae,agt Distt. Mahasan,mud Ctisgarhhhat 2 . Stetuperinnden of Police, Mahasa,mund Dit.st Mahasamund, Chha t isgarh {Ptitneio undre Seconti 48 2 o f the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19 73}

¶6

Present:

¶7

Mr . D hiraj Wankedeh, Advocate on behalf o f Mr. Ranbi r Sin gh Marhas, cou nsel fo r the ptoeitiner. M r. Akhil Misrha, Dep uty Gvto. Advocate for the S tate/ rndsespoent.

¶8

' Single Bench: Honble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J ORAL ORDER (-9—2009)3

¶9

. Ts_petitionhi is for quashment of the sricturet passe d by th e Spec ial Ju dge appointed unerd the Sechduled Castes and Seduldche T ribes (Pvenretion of Atosrcitie) A ct, 19 89, Mahasamnud in Scipeal Sessiosn T rial N6o.11/200 vide t he jugmentd dtdae 24--2007,4 wrebyhe ledarne Spciael Judge has passed stricture agitans the petitioner in para 29 o f teh ju dgment impugned.

¶10

. I ha ve heard lredean couelns for t he. parties and pe rused the judgmen t ipugmned.

¶11

Learn ed counsel for the petitioner^suts bmi th at the petitioern was investigaingt officer and has investigated the crime, and witthou affording opportUnity of hearing, the alleged stricture has been pasSed

¶12

. by the Court below which is not sustainable under the law. Learned counsel vehemently argued that the petitioner^is Deputy Superintendent of Police Le. responsible officer, he has investigated the crime and the stricture passed by the trial Court against him without affordin g

¶13

\ opportunity of hearing is a disparaging remark and will affect his future.

¶14

\ _\

¶15

¶16

. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the Court below has passed stricture without providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶17

. While deciding the case, learned Special Judge has passed the following stricture against the petitioner: -

¶18

WW%WWH%W$TI§%$W a$ww$awamwahlaaw&a&man W§Wl§ma€igan§|aaiagihmajlaaa§ W%W§%Wa&w$gw$m%w WW—mwail’rwwgwamwaw wwwmwwmwmmta‘attm Wanmmlaaw WW (man wwaTWWWWW§W§rW w$wwwwmww,%%wam W§,$WWWWHV§§W%W$ mluaiwn3gwwméwnima§wmw WW$WWW§B€QhWW$W aaahnéaiaa:w%i%wwam§glaa$mw ah

¶19

. The petitioner was investigating officer and he has investigated the offence. Disparaging remark was not necessary for the disposal of the

¶20

case, even otherwise, if disparaging remark was required, the Special Judge was under obligation to afford opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before passing any stricture. The maxim audi alterum paltram is applicable to this case and nobody should be conmnedde unheard.

¶21

. While dealing with the question of passing disparaging remark/ stricture, the Apex Court in the matter of Prakash Singh Teji v. Northern India Goods Transport Co. Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.1 has held that the Court should not make adverse remark unless it is necessary for d ecision of the case and opportunity to explain or defend should be g^iven. Para 13 of the said judgment reads thus, “13. In the light of the above principles and in view of

¶22

the explanation as stated by the appellant for commenting the conduct of the plaintiff, we are satisfied that those observations and directions are not warranted. It is settled law that harsh or disparaging remarks are not to be made against persons and authorities whose conduct comes into consideration before Courts of law unless it is really necessary for the decision of the case as an integral part thereof. The direction of the High Court placing copy of their order on the personal/ service record of the appellant and a further direction for placing copy of the order before the Inspecting Judge of the officer for perusal that too

¶23

009 AIR SCW 3078

¶24

withoutaffect^his giving^carrier.him of^Basedan taking^{opportunityonthe} adverse^abovewould, decision^{directionundoubtedly,} about^there theis everyperformanceremarkspossibilitymade^ofthe against^appellant. the^We appellant^holdthat was^theadverse neither justified^{norcalledfor."}

¶25

8 . While dealing with the^same question^theApexCourt in the matter^of Manish Dixit and others v. State of Rajasthan 2 has held that opportunity of being heard in the matter in respect of the proposed Para 43 of the said remarks or strictures is basic requirement. j udgment^readsthus, “43. Even those apart, this Court has repeatedly cautioned that before any castigating remarks are made by the Court against any person, particularly when^{suchremarkscouldensueseriousconsequences} onhavethe^beenfuture given^{careeranofopportunitytheperson} of^concerned being heardremarks^heshould in theor matter in respect of the proposed strictures. Such an opportunity is the basic for, otherwise the offending remarks requirement, would^{beinviolationoftheprinciplesofnaturaljustice.} In this^{casesuchanopportunitywas} not given to PW 30 (Devendra^{KumarSharma),(StateofU.P.} v. : Mohd.1964 2 SCR³⁶³ : (AIR^1964SC703 Naim,Cri(1964)LJ 549), ChJage Ram v. Hans Raj Midha , (1) 1 SCC 181 : (AIR¹⁹⁷² SC 1140 : 1972 Cri LJ (1972)768),^{R.K.Lakshmananv.A.K.Srinivasan(1975)2SCC} : 1975^CriLJ1545); Niranjan 466 : (AIR^1975SC1741 2 SCC 569: (AIR PatnaikRegistrar1986^SC v.⁸¹⁹ General,Sashibhusan‘Kar,z 19862000^Cri LJ(5)^911); (1986)ScaleState504^ofKarnataka : (2000 AIR^v. SCW²⁷⁹⁴ : AIR^{2000SC2626).”} any disparaging remark or stricture^wa s . I n the present case, passing necessary. Admittedly, the Court below has not afforded not (opportunity The^rem arks passed^bythe of explanation^{tothepetitioner.} in na ture^and will effect^{thefuture'career} Special^{Judgearedisparaging} Consequently, to secure the ends of justice, the of the petitioner. by^the Special^Judge against p etition is allowed. The stricture passed t dated 24-4—2007 in Specia l the petitioner in para 29 of^the judgmen Sessions^{TrialNo.11/2006isherebyexpunged.} /^”/Msdfl 1‘ T.^P.Shanna1., 7. Judge/L

Uma Shankar Dubey v. State of Chhattisgarh and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uma Shankar Dubey v. State of Chhattisgarh and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jagmohan Vs the State of M.P.

Jaishri Ghasi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vitthal Bhai Patel Vs Pradeep Kumar Trivedi

Malik Ram Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Johara Bibi Vs G.L. Church

Atma Ram Vs State of Chhattisgarh