Dismissed

K.Vijayakumar v. State Rep.by

Madras HC5 Sept 2023CRL OP/17368/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order quashed a Criminal Original Petition filed by an Additional Public Prosecutor seeking to expunge adverse remarks made against him in a judgment of the sessions court. The High Court, relying on principles of natural justice, directed the lower court to expunge the remarks as they were passed without an opportunity of hearing and had no bearing on the final case conclusion. The petition

What did the court decide?

The adverse remarks made in Paragraph No.14 of the judgment of the sessions court are to be expunged. This petition is disposed of.

K.Vijayakumar Vs State Rep.by — Contempt of Court | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Criminal Original Petition No.17368 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 05.09.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

¶6

Criminal Original Petition No.17368 of 2023

K.Vijayakumar

...Petitioner

The State rep by its The Inspector of Police, Mangalampettai Police Station, Cuddalore District.

¶11

... Respondent

¶12

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to expunge the remarks/observations made in para No.14 page No. 16 & 17 in the judgment dated 11.10.2022 made in S.C.207 of 2019 on the file of the Additional District Sessions Court Cuddalore at Virudhachalam.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Guruprasad For Respondent : Mr.A.Damodaran Additional Public Prosecutor *****

¶14

1/8

¶15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶16

Criminal Original Petition No.17368 of 2023

¶17

O R D E R</u>

¶18

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed for expunging the remarks / observations made at Paragraph No.14 of the judgement passed by the III Additional District and Sessions Court, Cuddalore, Virudhachalam in SC No.207 of 2019 dated 11.10.2022.

¶19

Heard Mr.M.Guruprasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.A.Damodaran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondents.

¶20

The petitioner was appointed as the Additional Public Prosecutor before the III Additional District and Sessions Court, Cuddalore, Virudhachalam, through proceedings of the District Collector dated 15.05.2018. He conducted the trial on behalf of the prosecution in SC No.207 of 2019. This was the case where the accused persons were facing charges under Section 294(b), 323 and 302 of IPC.

¶21

The Trial Court while passing the judgement dated 11.10.2022,

¶22

2/8

¶23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶24

Criminal Original Petition No.17368 of 2023

¶25

made the following remarks against the petitioner :-

¶26

nkYk ; . ,e ; j tHf ; fpd ; tprhuizapd ; nghJ. epakdk ; bra ; ag ; gl ; oUe ; j Kd ; dhs ; fw ; wwpe ; j muR jug ; g [ tHfFiu"h ; ; nkw ; go kUj ; Jth ; fis TLjy ; rhl ; rpfshf tprhuiz bra ; a ahbjhU eltof ; ifa [ k ; nkw ; bfhs ; stpy ; iy/ ,J muR jug ; g [ tHfFiu"Uf ; ; F mtUila gzpapy ; ,Ue ; j bkj ; jdg ; nghf ; ifa [ k ; . myl ; rpaj ; ija [ k ; fhz ; gpf ; Fk ; tpjj ; jpy ; mikeJs ; ; sJ/

¶27

Aggrieved by the above remarks / observations made by the

¶28

Trial Court, the present Criminal Original petition has been filed seeking to expunge the said remarks.

¶29

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had performed his duty to the best of his ability. The petitioner had made a complaint to the Registrar General to the effect that there were totally 17 cases that were pending at the stage of trial and whereas, the learned Sessions Judge had disposed of only one case which is SC No.207 of 2019. On receipt of the complaint, the Registrar General also directed the petitioner to file an affidavit in this regard and accordingly, the petitioner

¶30

3/8

¶31

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶32

Criminal Original Petition No.17368 of 2023

¶33

also filed an affidavit. Therefore, according to the petitioner the Sessions Judge has kept this in mind and had made the adverse remarks against the petitioner in the judgement. It was contended that the judgement was pronounced in this case on 11.10.2022 and the petitioner had filed a copy application to obtain the certified copy on 17.10.2022 and the same was returned by the Sessions Court on 18.10.2022. Thereafter, a fresh copy application was once again filed on 19.10.2022 and the same was also returned. In the meantime, on 21.09.2022, another person was appointed as the Additional Public Prosecutor in the said court.

¶34

The main grievance that has been expressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the adverse remarks were made against the petitioner without affording him any opportunity and that such adverse remarks will cause prejudice to the petitioner in his career and it will also affect his reputation as a counsel. It is further contended that such adverse remarks made by the Court below is not required for the purpose of coming to a conclusion in this case and it does not have a bearing on the case for the

¶35

4/8

¶36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶37

Criminal Original Petition No.17368 of 2023

¶38

Court to reach a final conclusion.

¶39

This Court took into consideration the judgement of the Apex

¶40

Court in [Neeraj Garg Vs. Saritha Rani and others] reported in 2021 9 SCC 92, wherein it has been held that where such adverse remarks are made by the Judge against an Advocate, opportunity of hearing must be given to the advocate failing which it will go against principles of natural justice. This Court also had an occasion to deal with a similar issue and this Court after tracing the entire law on the issue enunciated the principle as to when there will be justification for making adverse remarks in a judgement and under what circumstances it must be expressed. Useful reference can be made to the judgement of this Court in [ K. Muthupandi Versus State Represented by Inspector of Police, Sooramangalam Police Station, Salem City] reported in 2020 1 MLJ Crl 53 .

¶41

In the instant case, the Court below at paragraph 14 of the judgement, had struck down the adverse inference made against the

¶42

5/8

¶43

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶44

Criminal Original Petition No.17368 of 2023

¶45

petitioner towards the end of the paragraph and whereas retained the adverse remarks at the beginning of the paragraph and such adverse remarks were made without affording an opportunity to the petitioner. In any case, the adverse remarks had nothing to do with the final conclusion that was arrived at by the Court below.

¶46

10. In the light of the above discussion, the adverse remarks made against the petitioner at Paragraph No.14 in SC No.207 of 2019 dated 11.10.2022 on the file of the III Additional District Sessions Court, Cuddalore, Virudhachalam, is hereby expunged. This Criminal Original petition disposed of in the above terms.

¶47

05.09.2023

¶48

Index : Yes/No Speaking order:Yes/No Neutral citation:Yes/No

¶49

¶50

6/8

¶51

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶52

Criminal Original Petition No.17368 of 2023

¶53