The High Court at the outset said it failed to understand why a show cause notice was issued to the Law Secretary when he was not a party to the proceedings.
” …with respect to learned Addl. Sessions Judge, I like to convey a message that judicial restraint is a virtue,” Justice Lodh added, stating that the petition for expunction of remarks “by no stretch of imagination” showed disrespect.
Dwelling on the Tripura High Court Rules and Section 309(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the single-judge stressed that unless and until an application indicating the names of prosecution witnesses is placed/filed, it cannot be said that witnesses were present or in attendance for examination.
In the instant case, the prosecutor concerned had filed an adjournment application that day only, so it cannot be said that the witness (civil judge) was in attendance, the Court said. In this light, the Additional Sessions Judge should have verified the matter, the Court stated.
“…these remarks are derogatory in nature concerning the professional conduct of an advocate…there is no need to make any remark or comment upon the conduct of learned counsels; making it an issue which was a non-issue, which is certainly not desirable for a Court conducting a trial relating to a case of serious nature…judicial decorum requires its dispassionate approach,” the order reads.
Observing that the proceedings so far affected the possibility of a fair trial in the matter, Justice Lodh stated “that the offending remarks should be recalled to avoid any future harm to the reputation of the learned counsels or their work as members of the Bar.“
Source: Barandbench
