Tag: 夜上海论坛TBI

Expunging Remarks-While Hearing Appeal Sessions Judge Has No Jurisdiction To Judge The Judicial Officer Who Authored The Judgment: Allahabad High Court

first_imgNews UpdatesExpunging Remarks-While Hearing Appeal Sessions Judge Has No Jurisdiction To Judge The Judicial Officer Who Authored The Judgment: Allahabad High Court Anadi Tewari9 Jan 2021 7:05 AMShare This – x”District and Sessions Judge has administrative control over the judicial officers subordinate to him, but the administrative control cannot be equated to power of superintendence which is vested only with the High Courts”The Allahabad High Court recently in one of its orders has observed that ‘sobriety, moderation and reserve are the greatest qualities of a judicial officer and he/she should never be divorced from them.’ The Bench of Justice Alok Mathur was hearing an application filed by a Judicial Magistrate who has prayed before the Court to quash the remarks made against him by the Sessions…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?LoginThe Allahabad High Court recently in one of its orders has observed that ‘sobriety, moderation and reserve are the greatest qualities of a judicial officer and he/she should never be divorced from them.’ The Bench of Justice Alok Mathur was hearing an application filed by a Judicial Magistrate who has prayed before the Court to quash the remarks made against him by the Sessions Judge, Hardoi while setting aside his judgment in a Criminal Case No. 909/2019 [State v. Yamohan Singh]. The Sessions Judge, Hardoi while setting aside the trial Court’s judgment (the applicant authored) has made certain comments and observations, aggrieved of which the applicant has approached the High Court praying to quash such remarks.The High Court has held that It is relevant to consider (a) whether the party whose conduct is in question is before the Court or has an opportunity of explaining or defending himself, (b) whether there is evidence on record bearing on that conduct justifying the remark, (c) whether it is necessary for decision of the case, as an integral part thereof, to advert on that conduct. It has also been recognised that judicial pronouncements must be judicial in nature, and should not normally depart from some petty moderation and reserve. The High Court while examining the case has relied on certain observations made by the Supreme Court where the highest court has cautioned the High Courts to refrain from making observations extending to criticism of the subordinate judicial officer. The High Court has observed that: “The Sessions Judge while hearing the appeal had full powers and jurisdiction at his command to re-appreciate the evidence to disagree and come to a different conclusion that of the trial Court; but his jurisdiction fell short of commenting upon the shortcomings of the applicant while discharging the duties of trial Court dealing with the said case. It was not expected from him to demonstrate that the applicant while discharging his duties of a trial Judge had not written the judgment as expected from the judicial officer.The said comment starkly reflects upon the persona of the judicial officer, and while deciding the said appeal the Sessions Judge was expected to judge the case which were before him, and had no jurisdiction to judge the judicial officer who was the author of the judgment”.High Court has also held thathe District and Sessions Judge has administrative control over the judicial officers subordinate to him, but the administrative control cannot be equated to power of superintendence which is vested only with the High Courts The Court while allowing the application for the deletion of the remarks and observations made against the applicant in the judgment passed by the Sessions Judge, Hardoi has observed that: “In the present case the Sessions Judge has re-examined the entire evidence and came to a contrary finding and has therefore allowed the criminal appeal. There was absolutely no occasion or any need to make any comments upon the applicant and in case he felt strongly about the shortcomings of the applicant, then it was always open for him to inform his Administrative Judge or Hon’ble the Chief Justice”. The applicant was represented by Advocate Pradeep Kumar Sai assisted by Advocate Prakarsh Pandey, Advocate Devansh Mishra, Advocate Praveen Kumar Shukla and Advocate Priyansu Singh. Case Title – Alka Pandey v. State of U.P. & Others [Case: U/S 482/378/40 No. 2389 of 2020] Click Here To Download Order[Read Order]Subscribe to LiveLaw, enjoy Ad free version and other unlimited features, just INR 599 Click here to Subscribe. All payment options available.loading….Next Storylast_img read more