Uncalled for, Chilling: MP HC’s Comment on Judge’s Remarks Against Colleague
Parihar, a computer operator in the office of the Land Acquisition Officer, was accused of embezzling Rs 25 lakh in a land acquisition case by forging the district collector’s order.
Bhopal: The Madhya Pradesh high court has taken exception to the adverse remarks made by one of its judges against a trial court judge in a land embezzlement case, calling it ‘chilling’ and ‘uncalled for’.
The division bench of the high court comprising Justice Atul Shreedharan and Justice Pradeep Mittal directed the Registrar General of the high court to move the supreme court within ten days, challenging the order of Justice Rajesh Kumar Gupta seeking a probe against the additional sessions court judge, Shivpuri, in Madhya Pradesh in the case.
The bench was referring to the order passed by Justice Gupta on September 12 seeking disciplinary action against the trial court judge Vivek Sharma in a land embezzlement case.
The bench had taken suo motu cognizance of the matter.
Justice Gupta in his order had noted that judge Sharma may have dropped serious charges against the accused in the case Roop Singh Parihar to clear the path for him to secure bail.
Parihar, a computer operator in the office of the Land Acquisition Officer, was accused of embezzling Rs 25 lakh in a land acquisition case by forging the district collector’s order.
A sum of Rs 6.55 lakh was to be distributed among four persons in a land acquisition case but the computer operator allegedly transferred the money to eight persons, including him and his wife.
Justice Gupta had held that judge Sharma had ‘ulterior motives’ in discharging serious charges against Parihar which had tilted the case in favour of bail.
“The High Courts must desist from passing observations which have the propensity to besmirch the fair name of the Trial Court Judge, even before he is given an opportunity to defend his order”, the division bench remarked.
The bench termed the order by Justice Gupta as ‘chilling’.
The division bench called Justice Gupta’s remarks against the trial court judge as speculative, uncalled for and beyond his jurisdiction and observed that Justice Gupta was not hearing a revision plea against the trial court judge and yet made adverse remarks against him.
The bench noted that ‘When the High Court exceeds its discretion and jurisdiction in a given case, the same has to be deemed an error on part of the High Court rather than presuming the same to be an order in the exercise of its extraordinary or inherent jurisdiction.’