🖨️ Print / Download PDF

H.R. Manhar Vs State of M.P.

Case No: M.G.C. No. 8212 of 1999

Date of Decision: Feb. 24, 2005

Citation: (2005) CriLJ 4759 : (2005) 4 MPLJ 22 : (2006) 1 RCR(Criminal) 557

Hon'ble Judges: A.K. Shrivastava, J

Bench: Single Bench

Advocate: U.K. Sharma and U.P. Tripathi, for the Appellant; Aseem Dixit, Government Advocate, for the Respondent

Final Decision: Allowed

Translate: English | हिन्दी | தமிழ் | తెలుగు | ಕನ್ನಡ | मराठी

Judgement

@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER

A.K. Shrivastava, J.

U.K. Sharma, Senior Advocate with Shri U.K. Tripathi, Advocate for the applicants.

Shri Aseem Dixit. Govt. Advocate for the respondents.

With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, they are heard finally.

The contention of the learned senior counsel is that while delivering the judgment on 18-8-1999 the learned trial Judge passed certain adverse

remarks against the present applicants in para 16 of the judgment. It has been contended by the learned senior counsel that applicant No. 1 H. R.

Manhar is serving on the post of Sub-Divisional Officer (Police) and applicant No. 2 F. J. Tiggu is serving on the post of Sub-Inspector. Learned

senior counsel by placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of The State of West Bengal and Others Vs. Babu Chakraborty,

has submitted that strictures against the police officers who were discharging their official duties and if while doing so the officers violated certain

provisions, cannot be held to be a ground to pass strictures against the said police officers because no opportunity of hearing was afforded to

them. The Apex Court expunged the strictures passed in that case, by the High Court. The Apex Court also placed reliance on the earlier decision

passed in the case of Sajan Abraham Vs. State of Kerala, in that regard.

Since no opportunity was afforded to the present applicants, the strictures which are passed against them in para 16 of the judgment passed by the

trial Court on 18-8-199 in Sessions Trial No. 11/99 (State of M. P. v. Deepnarayan), are hereby expunged.

This petition is allowed.