Amar Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P.
|
Head Note
Criminal Laws - Duty of a Judge
A superior Court how to employ the language in judgment so that a message to the officer concerned is conveyed. It has been clearly spelt out that there has to be a process of reasoning while unsettling the judgment and such reasoning are to be reasonably stated with clarity and result orientation - A distinction has been lucidly stated between a message and a rebuke - A Judge is required to maintain decorum and sanctity which are inherent in judicial discipline and restraint - A judge functioning at any level has dignity in the eyes of public and credibility of the entire system is dependent on use of dignified language and sustained restraint, moderation and sobriety. It is not to be forgotten that independence of judiciary has an insegregable and inseparable link with its credibility. Unwarranted comments on the judicial officer creates a dent in the said credibility and consequently leads to some kind of erosion and affects the conception of rule of law - The sanctity of decision making process should not be confused with sitting on a pulpit and delivering sermons which defy decorum because it is obligatory on the part of the superior Courts to take recourse to correctional measures - A reformative method can be taken recourse to on the administrative side - It is condign to state it should be paramount in the mind of a Judge of superior Court that a Judicial officer projects the face of the judicial system and the independence of judiciary at the ground reality level and derogatory remarks against a judicial officer would cause immense harm to him individually (as the expunction of the remarks later on may not completely resuscitate his reputation) but also affects the credibility of the institution and corrodes the sacrosanctity of its zealously cherished philosophy - A judge of a superior Court however strongly he may feel about the unmerited and fallacious order passed by an officer, but is required to maintain sobriety, calmness, dispassionate reasoning and poised restraint - The concept of loco parentis has to take a foremost place in the mind to keep at bay any uncalled for any unwarranted remarks.
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 156 (3)
Chief Judicial Magistrate ascribed certain reasons and dismissed the same - High Court found that it was a fit case where the learned Magistrate should have directed the registration of FIR and investigation into the alleged offences - While recording such a conclusion, the learned Judge has made certain observations against CJM - Held, the observations, the comment and the eventual direction were wholly unwarranted and uncalled for. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate had felt that the due to delay and other ancillary factors there was no justification to exercise the power under Section 156 (3) of the Code. The learned Single Judge, as is manifest, had a different perception of the whole scenario. Perceptions of fact and application of law may be erroneous but that never warrants such kind of observations and directions. If the said remarks have been entered into the annual confidential roll of the judicial officer the same shall stand expunged. That apart a copy of the order be sent to the Registrar General of the High Court of Allahabad to be placed on the personal file of the concerned judicial officer - Allowing the Appeal.
Topic(s)-Duty of a Judge
Important Decision(s)- A Judge is required to maintain decorum and sanctity which are inherent in judicial discipline and restraint.