Expunction of Remarks from the Judgment

2015 SCMR 1739 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Expunction of disparaging remarks made by the High Court against a counsel

Judges of the High Court made a number of disparaging remarks about a senior counsel who objected to the composition of the Bench

Supreme Court observed that such remarks undoubtedly caused reputational damage; that the temptation to adopt such a course must be avoided except in the rarest of rare cases, and even then the reasons for making such remarks must be carefully and clearly stated; that the disparaging remarks in the present case had been made by the High Court without a word of explanation as to what occasioned them

Supreme Court directed that disparaging remarks in question contained in impugned judgment of the High Court should be expunged

Appeal was partly allowed accordingly.

2013 PLD 472 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Adverse remarks by High Court in its judgment against member of subordinate judiciary accusing him for "misusing his judicial powers" etc.

Trial Judge (petitioner) convicted accused persons under S.396, P.P.C. and sentenced each of them to death

High Court acquitted accused persons of the charge taking strong exception to the judgment passed by Trial Judge mainly on the grounds that there was no direct evidence available on the record against the accused persons; that the attending circumstances of the case had not received any corroboration from any independent source; that the trial Judge had exclusively relied upon opinion of the investigating officers who had conducted the investigation in a dishonest manner, and that the heirs of the deceased had made statements in favour of the accused persons during the course of the trial

High Court observed in its judgment that the Trial Judge had "acted with extreme high handedness" and had misused his judicial powers; that the sentences passed by the Trial Judge were quite "harsh" which did not appeal to the mind of a person of ordinary prudence and, thus, he was either incapable to adjudicate sessions cases or his integrity was doubtful as a judicial officer

High Court issued a direction to the Registrar of the High Court to place its findings on the personal file of the Trial Judge so that the matter could be taken up on the administrative side

Validity

High Court was not justified in observing that no direct evidence was available on the record regarding involvement of the accused persons in the offence inasmuch as a prosecution witness had categorically stated before the Trial Court that one of the accused had fired a shot at the deceased and the said witness claimed to have witnessed the firing of the shot

Such evidence was definitely a direct piece of evidence at least against one of the accused persons

During the course of investigation many recoveries had allegedly been affected from the possession of the accused persons and for reasons recorded by the Trial Judge in his judgment, such recoveries had been believed by him and, thus, it could not have been observed by the High Court, that no corroboration was available on the record from any independent source

High Court however, could have agreed or disagreed with the Trial Judge vis-a-vis the evidentiary worth and value of such corroboration available on the record

Trial Judge had mentioned in his judgment that although he was of the considered view that opinion of an investigating officer regarding guilt or innocence of an accused person was inadmissible in evidence being irrelevant but he was constrained to rely upon such opinion on the basis of a judgment (precedent) rendered by the High Court

Despite his opinion being otherwise, Trial Judge had only extended deference to a judgment (precedent) of the High Court, which although being bad law, was still binding upon the Trial Judge by virtue of Art. 201 of the Constitution

Obedience and deference depicted by the Trial Judge could not be taken an exception to by the High Court, for recording harsh observations against his conduct and for commenting upon his integrity or capacity as a judicial officer

High Court also took exception to the fact that Trial Judge had not given importance to statements of some prosecution witnesses which were favourable to accused persons, but High Court ought to have appreciated that the offence under S.396, P.P.C. was not a compoundable offence and, thus, any compromise between the accused persons and the heirs of the deceased was of little consequence

Circumstances of the case showed that the High Court was not justified in making the observations against the Trial Judge and, therefore, the direction issued by it to the Registrar of High Court, regarding placing of said observations on the personal file of the Trial Judge so that disciplinary proceedings could be taken against him was uncalled for

Petition was converted into an appeal and allowed and consequently (adverse) observations and direction passed by the High Court were expunged from its judgment.

2009 SCMR 1087 SHARIAT APPELLATE JURISDICTION Judicial Precedent

Federal Shariat Court had not given any opportunity of hearing to the Magistrate before passing adverse remarks in its judgment against him, in relation to trial of a case by the Magistrate

Supreme Court, in circumstances, converted the petition for leave to appeal into appeal allowed the same and adverse remarks narrated in the prayer of the application, were expunged

Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.203-F.

2003 PLD 625 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

One of the Judges of Division Bench in the High Court had recorded certain adverse remarks against the Rent Controller to be placed in his service record with the direction to the Registrar of the High Court to bring the same to the notice of the Administration Committee of the High Court at the time of evaluating the annual performance of the officer

Validity

­Held, orders passed by the Rent Controller did not smack of any mala fides or abuse of power and the same were also affirmed by the Appellate Authority

Adverse remarks against the Rent Controller by the Judge of the High Court, in circumstances, were not called for and the same were ordered to be expunged by the Supreme Court.

2003 SCMR 1406 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Non-calling for the comments of the judicial officer against whom the adverse remarks were recorded and order for initiating action was passed against him by the High Court

Said judicial officer was not heard in person and he was condemned unheard

Appellate. or Revisional Court should be very careful in passing remarks in respect of the conduct of the officer specifically when he was not given opportunity of hearing

Not a single instance had been quoted by the High Court to show that the said judicial officer had taken cognizance of the offence against the accused with ulterior motive or had committed any illegality in the course of trial

Validity

Remarks passed against the judicial officer, in circumstances, were uncalled for and untenable in the eye of law and were ordered to be expunged by the Supreme Court.