C.S. Mehta vs State of Uttarakhand and Another

Dharam Veer, J.—By means of this petition, moved u/s 482 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.), the petitioner/applicant has prayed to delete the remarks made against the petitioner by Sessions Judge, Pauri Garhwal in order dated 11.9.2006.

Heard Sri L.P. Naithani, Senior Advocate with Sri B.S. Negi, learned Counsel for the applicant and Sri Amit Bhatt, Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the present application has been filed only for the limited purpose of expunging certain remarks/strictures made by learned Sessions Judge, Pauri Garhwal against the petitioner, without giving any opportunity of hearing to him, which is against the principle of natural justice. He further argued that the remark of learned Sessions Judge would create a serious consequence on the future career of the petitioner.

From a perusal of the impugned order dated 11.9.2006 passed by Sessions Judge, Pauri Garhwal in Bail Application No. 77 of 2006, it transpires that while disposing the bail application of accused Virendra Singh Rawat, learned Sessions Judge, Pauri Garhwal, without given any opportunity to the petitioner, made certain castigating remarks against the petitioner and Finance officer, which reads as under:

This entire scenario is enough to speak in volumes with documentary evidence collected by Investigation Officer that active conniving cooperation of the Registrar and Financial Officer of the University giving a long rope to Sri Rawat for committing these gross financial irregularities was not for nothing but for some consideration on several counts best known to the duo. That''s why the Investigation Officer in his letter dated 18.8.2006 to the Vice Chancellor of the University has requested for administrative action against these two big officers i.e. Financial Officer Sri Soban Singh Nagnyal and Registrar Sri Chandra Singh Mehtra. Perhaps it is for the reason that without the green signal of higher authorities, he felt himself helpless to take these officers under the clutches of long hand of the law.

It is a settled law that no strictures can be passed without giving any opportunity of hearing. In the instant case, learned Sessions Judge has not given any reasoning on the basis of which he came to the above conclusion. Further, neither any notice was issued to the petitioner nor any opportunity of hearing was given to him.

For the reasons recorded above, I am of the view that the strictures/remarks made by learned Sessions Judge, Pauri Garhwal against the petitioner, behind his back is totally uncalled for and is not warranted. I, therefore, have no hesitation to order expunction of the remarks made in above-quoted paragraph of the impugned order. Above-quoted paragraph is expunged from the order dated 11.9.2006 passed in Bail Application No. 77 of 2006. The C482 application is allowed to the above extent only. Interim order dated 22.9.2006 stands vacated.