Case Note & Summary
The case arose from a criminal proceeding pending before the Munsif-Magistrate First Class, Jahanabad, where two accused persons filed a bail application on grounds of serious illness. The appellant, a medical practitioner acting as Deputy Superintendent, Jahanabad Sub-Divisional Hospital and Superintendent, Sub Jail, Jahanabad, was directed by the Magistrate to examine the accused and submit a medical report. The appellant reported that both accused were suffering from hookworm infections and were anaemic. On 19 October 1959, the Magistrate granted bail but made adverse observations against the appellant, stating that no actual examination report was attached to the petition, the body of the petition appeared to have been written by someone else and merely signed by the Superintendent, and that it was an extreme case of carelessness on the part of the doctor. The Magistrate directed that a copy of the petition and order sheet be forwarded to the Civil Surgeon, Gaya, for information. The appellant, apprehending harm to his official career, first attempted through administrative channels to get the remarks expunged, without success. He then filed Criminal Revision No. 460 of 1960 before the Patna High Court under Sections 435 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, seeking expunction. The High Court dismissed the revision, leading to the present appeal by special leave before the Supreme Court. The appellant contended that the remarks were unjustified and groundless and would affect his future official career, and that the High Court should have expunged them. The State, besides justifying the remarks, contended that the High Court had no jurisdiction to expunge remarks from a judgment which had become final. The Supreme Court examined the scope of inherent power under Section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and considered conflicting High Court decisions. It held that every High Court, as the highest court exercising criminal jurisdiction in a state, has inherent power to make any order for securing the ends of justice, including expunction of irrelevant passages from a judgment or order of a subordinate court. However, this power is extraordinary and should be exercised only in exceptional cases where the subordinate court has flagrantly abused its powers by passing unwarranted comments not relevant to the controversy and likely to harm or prejudice another. The court also emphasized that a judgment of a criminal court is final and can be set aside or modified only in the manner prescribed by law; every judge has an unrestricted right to express views but a correlative duty not to make irrelevant remarks without foundation; an appellate court can judicially correct such remarks only in exceptional cases where they would cause irrevocable harm to a witness or party not before it. Applying these principles, the Supreme Court found that the Magistrate's observations were neither irrelevant nor without foundation, as the doctor had failed to attach the actual examination report despite being called upon to do so. The court further observed that a judicial officer does not surrender his judgment in medical matters to the ipsi dixit of the doctor. Consequently, the case was not an exceptional one warranting interference under Section 561A or under Article 136 of the Constitution. The appeal was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Inherent Powers of High Court - Section 561A Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 - High Court has inherent power to expunge irrelevant passages from judgment or order of subordinate court for securing ends of justice, but power is extraordinary and may be exercised only in exceptional cases where subordinate court flagrantly abused its powers by passing unwarranted remarks on matters not relevant and likely to harm or prejudice another - The appellant doctor sought expunction of remarks made by Munsif-Magistrate while granting bail; the High Court dismissed revision; Supreme Court held remarks not of such character as to call for exercise of extraordinary power, hence appeal dismissed (Paras 1-5). B) Criminal Procedure - Finality of Criminal Judgments - No specific provision in Criminal Procedure Code allows appellate court to modify final order by deleting observations; Section 561A preserves inherent power but does not override finality - Expunging remarks derogates from finality; conflicting High Court views considered; Full Bench in State v. Nilkanth Shripad held inherent power exists even without appeal/revision to judicially correct observations - Supreme Court agreed with Bombay view reconciling finality and relief to third party where uncharitable, unmerited, irrelevant remarks made without foundation (Paras 3-6). C) Judicial Ethics - Judicial Freedom and Duty - Every judge has unrestricted right to express views in any matter before him without fear or favour, but correlative self-imposed duty not to make irrelevant remarks or observations without foundation affecting character or reputation of witnesses or parties not before him - Appellate court has jurisdiction to judicially correct such remarks only in exceptional cases where remarks would cause irrevocable harm - In present case Magistrate's observation that doctor was careless for not attaching actual examination report was neither irrelevant nor without foundation, so no exceptional case (Paras 7-9). D) Constitutional Law - Special Leave to Appeal under Article 136 - Constitution of India, Article 136 - Supreme Court may interfere only in exceptional cases under Article 136; present case not such exceptional case as remarks were not unwarranted or groundless, hence no interference - Appeal dismissed (Paras 8-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether in a case where the judgment has become final, the High Court can expunge any remarks found therein at the instance of a third party under Section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and whether the remarks made by the Magistrate against the appellant doctor warranted expunction.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the High Court has inherent power to expunge irrelevant remarks but only in exceptional cases of flagrant abuse; the Magistrate's remarks were neither irrelevant nor without foundation, and the case did not warrant interference under Article 136.
Law Points
- High Court has inherent power under Section 561A of Code of Criminal Procedure
- 1898 to expunge irrelevant passages from judgment or order of subordinate court for securing ends of justice
- power is extraordinary and exercised only in exceptional cases of flagrant abuse or unwarranted remarks causing prejudice
- judgment of criminal court is final and can be modified only in manner prescribed by law
- every judge has unrestricted right to express views but correlative self-imposed duty not to make irrelevant remarks without foundation
- appellate court can judicially correct remarks only in exceptional cases where remarks would cause irrevocable harm
- judicial officer does not surrender his judgment in medical matters to ipsi dixit of doctor
