http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6

PETITIONER:

STATE OF KARNATAKA

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

THE REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 27/08/2000

BENCH:

R.P.Sethi, K.T.Thomas

JUDGMENT:

THOMAS, J. Delay condoned. Leave granted. A

Division Bench of Karnataka High Court went outside the

scope of the lis before it and made certain observations

which are not in tune with the perceptions of judicial

exercise. Why they did so in this case is beyond

comprehension. State of Karnataka, unable to abide by the

directions issued as per the order, has filed this appeal by

special leave. For disposal of this appeal we did not find

any necessity to issue notice to the sole respondent

(Registrar General of the High Court of Karnataka) as he

would have nothing to say about the impugned directions. So

we propose to dispose of the matter without bringing the

respondent to this Court.

How the above situation reached can be summarized

thus:

Seven persons were prosecuted in a sessions court for

various offences, the serious-most among which was the

offence under Section 307 of the IPC. After the trial the

Sessions Judge acquitted all the accused. The testimony of

the eye witnesses examined by the prosecution was not

believed by the Sessions Judge. At the same time he frowned

at the investigation, as is being done in many of the

judgments ending in acquittal. The delay in dispatching the

FIR to the magistrate was also highlighted in the judgment

of the Sessions Court.

The State of Karnataka filed a petition for leave to

appeal against the said order of acquittal. The Division

Bench of the High Court, while refusing leave, made a

departure from the precedents and issued an unusual

direction to the State Public Prosecutor like this: "We

direct the learned SPP to forward a copy of this order to

the Secretary to Government (Home) as also to the Honourable

Home Minister both of whom shall acknowledge the receipt of

the same and shall report back to this Court within a period

of two months as to what precisely is the reaction of the

Government to the observations of this High Court."

The Home Secretary and the Home Minister of the State

are now compelled to react openly to the observations made

in the judgment and to report to the High Court on such

reactions. It is necessary to extract the observations made

by M.F. Saldhana, J, who spoke for the Division Bench. The

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6

first facet of the observations is the following:

"This Court has had occasion to deal with a large

number of appeals filed against orders of acquittals. In

case after case, it is noticed that it is principally

because of poor investigation followed up by a total lack of

interest in the conduct of the prosecution that has resulted

in the accused being acquitted. Murders are committed with

impunity and the other set of cases of which we need to take

very serious note relating to atrocities against women where

even the reported number of cases has sharply increased. We

have come across a series of horrifying incidents where

young married women were harassed, tortured and set on fire,

another line of cases where girls and women have been

molested, sexually attacked and raped. String of acquittals

in all these cases which are as high as 96.4% only because

the requisite evidence and the evidence of the quality that

the court expects has not been forthcoming. The

investigating agencies namely the Police Department are

responsible to a very large extent for this deplorable state

of affairs."

Learned counsel for the State made a scathing

onslaught on those observations, particularly the

disparaging remarks made against the police department of

the State as a whole and contended that they are absolutely

unnecessary in the present case, apart from being

unsupported by any material whatsoever. He submitted that

there was no material available on record for the court to

reach such omnibus findings. Learned Judge went on to

observe further as follows:

"Time is of the essence as far as investigation of

criminal cases are concerned and consequently, it is equally

important that apart from the speed with which the Police

act, that the investigation has got to be done with a high

degree of efficiency and professionalism. All these factors

are lacking in the majority of investigations. There is

something seriously wrong and we put it down to the fact

that obviously on all sorts of political considerations, the

recruitment process has been diluted to point of induction

into the force of persons who should not have been there at

all. It goes without saying that when this happens, one can

never expect efficiency. The manner in which the

recruitments are done and more importantly the

considerations leave much to be desired and if the law and

order machinery on which crores of rupees of tax payers many

is being spent is at all to justify its existence, the

Government will have to take serious note of the

observations and rectify the state of affairs."

After making some more sweeping remarks on the present

system of criminal law administration the Bench said the

following also: "Similarly, the principal disease that has

infected the criminal justice system in the State is the

cheerful manner in which the Court is informed that the

vital witnesses are hostile who is responsible for this is

not difficult for the court to infer, the moment the

question is asked as to who is the beneficiary. The

investigating Agency also owes a duty to ensure that the

vital witnesses are present and that they produce the type

of evidence which is expected of them. This aspect of the

matter will require very serious attention if at all the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6

State is concerned about rectifying the present state of

affairs which is assuming disastrous proportion."

Learned counsel for the State was quite right in

contending that it was not the occasion for learned Judges

of the High Court for giving vent to their general apathy

towards the present system of administration of criminal

justice. The direction that the Home Minister and the Home

Secretary of the State shall report to the High Court

regarding their reaction towards the observations made in

the judgment is nothing but an exercise in redundancy, for,

their reaction cannot be different from the views expressed

by the Judges themselves. How could they be different, as

it is unexceptional that the system should improve. The

problems posed by the Judges have already engaged the

attention of the Law Commission. On more than one occasions

the Commission has submitted its report for consideration by

Parliament. But putting the blame largely on the police

force of the State for all the ills pointed out by the

learned Judges, without data or material or evidence in this

case, is not a course which can meet with our approval.

Learned Judges pointed to subjects which are

unfortunately not connected with this case. Those are- (1)

murders committed with impunity, (2) the increase in cases

involving atrocities against women, (3) harassment inflicted

on young married women including "bride burning", (4)

molestation and rape of girls and young women. We have

already extracted a gist of the facts of this case. None of

the fields to which learned Judges pointed their fingers

would cover the facts of this case. Hence learned Judges

dealt with subjects which are totally ungermane and far

beyond the scope of this case as though it was presentation

of a paper in a seminar. Why should the Home Minister and

the Home Secretary react to the observations which are

absolutely uncalled for on the facts of this case.

Judicial disposition is definitely different from a

paper presented for seminar discussion. Nor can it be

equated with a dissertation. Judicial decorum requires that

judgments and orders should confine to the facts and legal

points involved in the particular cases which Judges deal

with. May be, sometimes Judges would, perhaps wittingly or

even unwittingly, jut outside the contours of the

litigation, but even such overlappings should be within

bounds of propriety and sobriety. But there is no

justification for traversing so far beyond the convass as

was done by the High Court in this case or to cover areas

which are grossly extraneous to the subject matter of the

case. If the subordinate courts are also to be tempted and

encouraged to follow suit by travelling far outside the

scope of the lis the consequences would be far too many.

Demoralisation of departments would badly erode the already

impaired efficiency of our forces. It is time to remind

ourselves once again that judgment should confine to the

scope of the case.

In the State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Mohammad Naim {AIR

1964 SC 703 = 1964 (2) SCR 363} a four Judge Bench of this

Court heard the grievance of a State regarding certain

sweeping remarks made by a learned Judge of the High Court

who dealt with the case of a police officer. The judge of

the High Court had stated in his Judgment that "(a) If I had

felt that with my lone efforts I could have cleaned this

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6

augean stable, which is the police force, I would not have

hesitated to wage this war single handed. (b) That there is

not a single lawless group in the whole of the country whose

record of crime comes anywhere near the record of that

organised unit which is known as the Indian Police Force.

(c) Where every fish barring perhaps a few stinks, it is

idle to pick out one or two and say that it stinks."

S.K. Das, J. (as he then was) speaking for the four

Judge Bench expressed complete disapproval of those impugned

observations and reminded thus:

"It is not infrequent that sweeping generalisations

defeat the very purpose for which they are made. It has

been judicially recognised that in the matter of making

disparaging remarks against persons or authorities whose

conduct comes into consideration before a courts of law in

cases to be decided by them, 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 remarks; and (c) whether it is

necessary for the decision of the case, as an integral part

thereof, to animadvert on that conduct. It has also been

recognised that judicial pronouncements must be judicial in

nature, and should not normally depart from sobriety,

moderation and reserve."

During the 36 years which elapsed thereafter this

Court has reiterated those words on different occasions.

{R.K. Lakshmanan vs. A.K. Srinivasan & anr., 1976

(1) SCR 204 = AIR 1975 SC 1741, Niranjan Patnaik vs.

Sashibhushan Kar & anr., 1986(2) SCC 569 = AIR 1986 SC 819,

S.K. Viswambaran vs. E. Koyakunju & ors., 1987 (2) SCC

109 = AIR 1987 SC 1436}.

It would have been very appropriate if learned Judges

of the Division Bench who rendered the impugned order would

have reminded themselves of the above equation administered

by the apex court more than three decades ago.

For the aforesaid reasons we have to interfere with

the impugned order. We hereby set aside the directions

issued to the State Public Prosecutor as well as to the Home

Minister and Home Secretary of the State.

Appeal is disposed of accordingly.

.................................................................J

[ K.T. Thomas ]

................................................................J.

[ R.P.Sethi ]

New Delhi;

August 10, 2000.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 6

Regularised. Now the High Court is to dispose of the

appeal in accordance with law. As this is an old matter we

direct the Registrar of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh to

include the appeal in the hearing list, as expeditiously as

possible.

Parties are directed to appear before the High Court

on 4-9-2000 and no fresh notice need be issued for this

purpose.