- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Brahm Singh v. State Of U.P.
Factual and Procedural Background
This opinion concerns a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by an Additional Sessions Judge seeking expungement of certain critical remarks recorded by the Court in a prior judgment dated 8-2-1985 in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 2610 of 1982. The remarks questioned the legal competence of the petitioner, while functioning under Section 397 CrPC, to direct the impleadment of Narendra Kumar Srivastava as a co-accused. The petitioner contended that he had only directed the trial court to implead the accused and asserted a bona fide belief that powers under Section 319 CrPC could be exercised under Section 397 CrPC. The Court had earlier communicated adverse remarks regarding the petitioner's judicial performance, which led to this petition for expungement.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the learned Additional Sessions Judge, while functioning under Section 397 CrPC, was legally competent to direct the impleadment of Narendra Kumar Srivastava as a co-accused.
- Whether the critical remarks recorded by the Court regarding the petitioner's judicial competence and the communication of those remarks by the Additional Registrar should be expunged.
- Whether the petitioner was entitled to an opportunity of being heard before adverse remarks about his judicial performance were incorporated in the judgment.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner's Arguments
- The petitioner did not personally direct the impleadment and prosecution of Narendra Kumar Srivastava but only instructed the trial court to do so.
- The petitioner was unrepresented at the time and thus the facts supporting his position were not presented before the Court.
- The petitioner bona fide believed that while acting under Section 397 CrPC, he could exercise powers under Section 319 CrPC.
- The remarks communicated by the Additional Registrar were not verbatim as recorded in the judgment and were likely to adversely affect the petitioner’s career.
- The petitioner was not given an opportunity to be heard before the adverse remarks were made.
Court's Response to Arguments
- The petitioner failed to show any error or impropriety in the Court's observation regarding his lack of competence under Section 397 CrPC to direct impleadment as co-accused.
- The facts relied upon by the petitioner were already available at the time of hearing and were not new.
- The petitioner's decision did not contain any discussion on the scope and applicability of Sections 397, 398, or 319 CrPC, indicating no application of mind on these legal points.
- The direction to implead Narendra Kumar Srivastava was a final order of a superior court leaving no discretion to the Magistrate, thus constituting an error by the petitioner.
- The difference in language between the judgment and the communication by the Additional Registrar was immaterial as the substance remained the same.
- The administrative rating of the judgment as "Below standard" falls outside judicial review and is within the administrative wing's purview.
- The petitioner had adequate time to improve his judicial performance and the petition lacked substance.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court analyzed the petition by first considering the nature of the remarks made in the earlier judgment and the petitioner's contentions. It noted that the petitioner did not demonstrate any legal error in the Court's observation that he was not competent under Section 397 CrPC to direct impleadment of a co-accused. The Court emphasized that the petitioner’s belief that powers under Section 319 CrPC could be exercised under Section 397 CrPC was unsupported by any legal discussion or application of mind in his decision. The direction to implead was a final order, removing discretion from the Magistrate, thus constituting an error. The Court also held that the communication of the remarks by the Additional Registrar, though differing in exact wording, was substantively the same and did not warrant expungement. The administrative rating of the judgment as 'Below standard' was held to be outside judicial review and within the administrative domain. The Court further rejected the petitioner's claim that he was denied a hearing before adverse remarks were made, stating that the remarks were an expression of judicial error and performance assessment rather than a matter requiring a hearing. Overall, the petition was found to lack merit and was dismissed.
Holding and Implications
The petition is dismissed.
The Court's decision directly affects the petitioner by upholding the critical remarks made regarding his judicial competence and rejecting the request for their expungement. No new legal precedent was established, and the administrative assessment of judicial performance remains outside the scope of judicial review. The petitioner is encouraged to improve his judicial conduct in future proceedings.
K. NATH, J.
(1.) This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by an Addl. Sessions i'udge for expunging the following remarks, which shall appear hereinafter, recorded by me in my judgment in Crl. Misc. Case No. 2610 of 1982 decided on 8-2-1985 :-
" I am not satisfied, therefore, that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, while functioning under section 397 CrPC was competent in law to direct that petitioner Narendra Kumar Srivastava be impleaded as a co-accused."
(2.) It appears that in consequence of the remarks the following remarks were communicated to him by the Addl. Registrar of this Court :-
" The officer passed an order u/Sec.397 CrPC to prosecute and implead as co-accused a strauger without caring to examine the limits of his jurisdiction. Below standard."
(3.) The facts of the case would appear from this Courts' judgment in said Crl. Misc. Case. They need not be repeated here.
(4.) A perusal of the contents of the present, petition would show that the main basis for the prayer under consideration is that the petitioner did not direct impleadment and prosecution of N. K.Srivastava before him, but only directed the trial court to do so, and the facts which he has set out in the petition were not placed before this Court because he was unrepresented. The basic facts in this regard are that the petitioner considered N. K.Srivastava to be the main accused in whose absence the trial of the other accused would be vitiated and that he bonafide believed that while acting under section 397 CrPC he could exercise the powers under Section 319 of the Code.
(5.) Kunwar Rahgvendra Singh, Advocate, has appeared for the petitioner and has not been able to show that there was any error or impropriety in the observation of this Court that the Court was not satisfied that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge while functioning under Section 397 CrPC was competent in law to direct, N. K. Srivastava to be impleaded as a co-accused. His contention is that the remark as communicated to the officer by the Addl. Registrar is not the one as recorded in the judgment and that the remark is likely to affect the officer's career adversely. He has not been able to show that the petitioner was required to be heard in the course of the revision before the above remark could be incorporated in the judgment ; in his own words, it is in expression of the error committed by the petitioner as the Presiding Officer of the court which decided the case. There is no question therefore of the petitioner's having been given any opportunity of being heard before an analysis of his judicial performance, which was found to be adverse, could be made (by this Court.
(6.) The facts which are sought to be stated in the present petition, are not new at all ; they were already there at the time of hearing of the revision. It was noticed that according to the officer the trial of the other accused would be vitiated in the absence of N. K. Srivastava as co-accused. The view, perhaps, was not quite sound. The contention that the petitioner bonafide believed that while acting under section 397 CrPC, he could exercise the powers under section 319 CrPC is not borne out by his decision, copy Annexure-1 to this petition. That decision does not contain any discussion whatsoever on the extent of the powers under section 397 or .398 crpc or of the scope of Section 319, including its applicability in revisional proceedings. As the decision stands, there was no application of mind on these points.
(7.) The contention that the petitioner had not directed impleadment and prosecution of N. K. Srivastava before himself but had only directed the trial court to do so, is rather misconceived. Tie direction made by the petitioner was " Sri N. K. Srivastava, Naib Tahsildar, Gonda shall be impleaded as co-accused. " Obviously, that was the final order of a superior court and left no discretion with the Magistrate under Section 319 CrPC. The error which he committed, was the direction to implead N. K. Srivastava as co-accused for the purposes of trial.
(8.) It is immaterial that the actual language used in the remarks incorporated in the judgment of this Court; was not reproduced verbatim in the letter of the Addl. Registrar communicating the remarks to him ; the substance of the two is the same.
(9.) The question whether a judgment should or should not be rated as " Below standard " in the administrative field of the functions of this Court is outside the field of judicial review. It is open to the administrative wing of the Court to uphold or modify the rating perhaps to a great extent it is in the hands of the petitioner himself to improve his performance and give a better account of his capability as a Judge in future. I notice from the Civil List for the Judicial Department of Uttar Pradesh that the applicant Sri Brhma Singh was born on 2-7-41 and he has quite a few years before him to improve his performance. It goes without saying that the improvement in the performance of an officer is not likely to go unnoticed for the officer's benefit in future when the occasion arises. So far as the present petition is concerned, it has no substance and must fail.
(10.) At the time of hearing of this petition I considered whether it could be proper for me to hear this case, and I invited Sri Raghvendra Kumar Singh to express his views in this matter. He said that the case need not be made over to another Judge and may be decided by me. It has also been the practice of this Court to place the matters regarding modification, clarification or review of an order passed by a Judge to be considered by that very Judge. Perhaps no Judge sitting single would be in a position to modify or revoke the observations made by another Judge sitting single ; the position on a Division Bench sitting in appeal is different. On a, consideration of all the matters, I have heard the case at length.
(11.) The petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.
Alert