Patna High Court
The High Court Ofjudicature At Patna vs Rafiqul Islam on 14 July, 2025
Author: Partha Sarthy
Bench: Partha Sarthy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.699 of 2025
In
CRIMINAL REVISION No.71 of 2025
======================================================
The High Court of Judicature at Patna through the Registrar General, Patna
High Court.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. Rafiqul Islam, Son of Abdul Hakim, Resident of Mohiuddinpur, Patharbasti,
P.S. and District- Kishanganj, Pin- 855107, at Present Ward No.- 13,
Ghoramora, Chakla, Kishanganj, District- Kishanganj, Pin - 855107.
2. Ful Begum @ Phulwaa, Wife of Rafiqul Islam, Resident of Mohiuddinpur,
Patharbasti, P.S. and District- Kishanganj, Pin Code- 855107, at Present
Ward No.-13, Ghoramora, Chakla, Kishanganj, District - Kishanganj, Pin -
855107.
3. Dinesh Ram, Son of Shri Parmeshwar Ram, Resident of Motibagh, Ward
No.- 07, P.S. and District-Kishanganj, Pin Code- 855107.
4. The State of Bihar.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Piyush Lall, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Vikas Kumar, AC to AG
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date : 14-07-2025
Re. I.A. No. 2 of 2025 in L.P.A. No. 699 of
2025 :
Leave granted.
2. I.A. No. 2 of 2025 stands allowed.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.699 of 2025 dt.14-07-2025
2/9
Re. L.P.A. No. 699 of 2025 :
3. We have heard Mr. Piyush Lall, the learned
Advocate for the appellant/the High Court of Judicature at
Patna and Mr. Vikas Kumar, the learned Advocate for the
State.
4. This is an appeal by the High Court against
the observations and directions of a learned Single Judge
vide his order dated 24.06.2025 passed in Cr. Revision
No. 71 of 2025, holding that the learned Special Judge,
SC/ST Act, Kishanganj does not know the basic tenets of
criminal law and, therefore, he does not have any right to
discharge his duties as an Additional Sessions Judge,
Kishanganj. The learned Single Judge has also observed
that he is of the view that the Sessions power of the
concerned Officer be taken away forthwith. The further
direction in the order is that the Registrar General should
pass necessary orders immediately on the basis of such
observations made by the learned Single Judge and the
concerned Judge be placed only in the civil side to dispose
Patna High Court L.P.A No.699 of 2025 dt.14-07-2025
3/9
off civil cases and appeals.
5. To clarify further, the learned Single Judge
has held that the Officer should be kept under watch of
the Patna High Court in its administrative side about his
judicial work for the next six months.
6. A harsh but an absolutely unmerited and
undeserved comment on a Judicial Officer.
7. Since the learned Single Judge has chosen
to direct the Registrar General to strip the Judicial Officer
concerned of his criminal judicial powers, hence an appeal
has been filed taking into consideration that such
directions assume the trappings of an order passed under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, is
appealable.
8. We wholly agree with the submission
advanced by Mr. Piyush Lall, the learned Advocate for the
appellant/High Court.
9. This Court had only recently noted in L.P.A.
No. 263 of 2025 (Balendra Shukla vs. The State of Bihar
Patna High Court L.P.A No.699 of 2025 dt.14-07-2025
4/9
and Ors.) dated 08.07.2025 as follows:
“32. Way back in the year 1964, in
the case of Dr. Raghubir Sharan vs. The
State of Bihar, AIR (1964) SC 1, an issue
arose as to whether the inherent power of an
Appellate Court to expunge remarks made
therein could be invoked ordinarily as such
expunction might derogate from the finality of
the judgment. In that case, a judgment could be
emasculated of its force.
33. No doubt, the issue there
concerned adverse remarks against a Judicial
Officer, but then the principles decided in that
case would apply in all cases were adverse
remarks are complained of.
34. A Judge exercising powers under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India must be
free to express his mind in the exposition of the
case before him. Such expressions of a Judge in
a case would depend on various factors, eg., his
inherent reaction to the facts of the case or his,
may be, felicity of expression.
35. Judicial function, we reckon,
cannot be discharged effectively, if a Judge were
to conform to any particular expression which
has to have the approval of the higher/Appellate
Court, but in the event of a complaint against
Patna High Court L.P.A No.699 of 2025 dt.14-07-2025
5/9any unmerited and undeserved comment, the
same is required to be addressed by the
Appellate Court. In that case, the Appellate
Court may consider expunction of the remarks
but not without citing that the observations
made are not justified or are wholly wrong or
improper, factually or otherwise. Impertinent,
en-passant remarks, which in a way castigates
or stigmatizes, must be eschewed as part of
self-imposed duty of a Judge.
36. And, whenever such power of the
Appellate Court is invoked under the
circumstances, the Appellate Court must be fully
satisfied that the remarks are irrelevant and
unjustified. [Also refer to the State Of Uttar
Pradesh vs Mohammad Naim, AIR 1964 SC 703;
Niranjan Patnaik vs Sashibhusan Kar & Anr.
1986 (2) SCC 569; in the matter of ‘K’ A Judicial
Officer vs in the matter of ‘K’ A Judicial Officer,
2001 (3) SCC 54 and Om Prakash Chautala vs
Kanwar Bhan & Ors; 2014 (5) SCC 417]”
10. In the case at hand, some of the accused
persons were granted bail in Kishanganj SC/ST P.S. Case
No. 05 of 2019 registered for the offence punishable
under Sections 420/406/409/341/323/504/506/34 of
Patna High Court L.P.A No.699 of 2025 dt.14-07-2025
6/9
the IPC; Section 138 of the N.I. Act, 1881 and Section
3(1)(e)(R)(s) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989 on certain conditions.
11. The accused persons/the petitioners
before the learned Single Judge were directed to deposit
the amount in question within a stipulated time. An
amount of Rs. 90,000/- was deposited by the accused
persons/the petitioners vide a cheque, which was never
honoured.
12. As such, the bail order was cancelled;
against which, a revision was filed by the accused persons
before the learned Single Judge.
13. The learned Single Judge dismissed the
revision petition holding that any order passed by the
Special Judge under the SC/ST Act was appealable under
Section 14(A) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989 and thus no revision was maintainable.
14. So far so good.
15. However, for this, an Officer was
Patna High Court L.P.A No.699 of 2025 dt.14-07-2025
7/9
castigated who was not the author of such an order of
cancellation of bail of the accused persons. Without
verifying these facts, caustic observations were made by
the learned Single Judge against a Judicial Officer by his
name and designation.
16. We find this to be absolutely unmerited,
undeserved and not worth being retained in the order.
17. That apart, we find that this power is to be
exercised in the administrative capacity by the Chief
Justice and not a Judge acting in the revisional
jurisdiction.
18. The Supreme Court in Om Prakash
Chautala Vs. Kanwar Bhan and Ors. : (2014) 5 SCC
417, after taking reference of the judgments delivered in
the past, has held that such findings are worth avoiding in
the judgments and while penning down the same, there
should be a control over the language. A Judge is not to
be guided by any kind of notion. The decision-making
process expects a Judge or an adjudicator to apply
Patna High Court L.P.A No.699 of 2025 dt.14-07-2025
8/9
restraint, ostracise perceptual subjectivity and make
one’s emotions subservient to one’s reasoning and think
dispassionately.
19. For the afore-noted reasons, we allow this
appeal to the extent of expunging all adverse remarks
against the Judicial Officer, who did not have any
opportunity to place his case before the learned Court as
well as the direction to the Registrar General for stripping
the Judge of his judicial powers.
20. We further clarify that such observations
against the Judicial Officer concerned shall not ever
percolate in his ACR or would be used for any purpose in
any proceeding whatsoever.
21. It is made clear that we have not
questioned the correctness of the decision rendered by
the learned Single Judge in dismissing the revision
petition on technical grounds, but have only expressed
our dissatisfaction over the en-passant, unnecessary and
adverse remarks against a Judicial Officer without
Patna High Court L.P.A No.699 of 2025 dt.14-07-2025
9/9
affording him any opportunity.
22. The appeal stands allowed to the extent
indicated above.
23. Interlocutory application(s), if any, also
stands disposed off.
(Ashutosh Kumar, ACJ)
(Partha Sarthy, J)
Sauravkrsinha/
Praveen-II-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 14.07.2025 Transmission Date NA
[ad_1]
Source link