# JAGE RAM, INSPECTOR OF POLICE & ANR v. HANS AAJ MIDHA November 18. 1971 - **Citation:** [1972] 2 S.C.R. 409 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 1972 - **Case number:** Criminal Criginal No. 50-M of 1968 - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/jage-ram-inspector-of-police-anr-v-hans-aaj-midha-november-18-1971-5664 - **Pages:** 14 ## Headnote A B c. D E F G H JAGE RAM, INSPECTOR OF POLICE & ANR. v. HANS AAJ MIDHA November 18. 1971 409 fP. JAGANMOHAN REDDY AND D. G. PALEKAR, JJ.] Judgment Expunging of remarks against authorities whose conduct conies into cons1deralion before courts-Principles to be foJ/oll'edIiabeas Corpus-Duty of Court. ' The High Court in its order disposing of a habeas corpus petition stated that the detenu had been taken into custody on the 5th of May, J 968, that his arrest "had surreptitiously been" sworn to have taken place on the 10th of May, 1968, and that he was subjected to torture resulting in injuries. The appellants filed appeal in this Court to expunge these statements. Dismissing the appeal, HELD: In State of U.P. v. Mohammad Naim, [1964] 2 S.C.R. 363, this court has observed that the matters which have ro be kept in view in considering whether the remarks made in judgments against authorities \\'hose conduct comes into consideration before the courts of law in cases to be decided by them are disparaging are : (a) whether the party whose conduct is in question is before the Court or bas any opportunity of ex· plaining or defending himself; (b) whether there is e\idence 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. [420 DJ On the facts of the case and the eviden~ on record, none of the remarks to which exception has been taken could be described as unwarranted, unnecessary or irrelevant or can he characterised as generalisation or of a sweeping nature. The appellants had opportunity of filing their affidavits to give their own version, which, they have done in great detail, showing that they knew what the allegations against them wrre. If they wanted to produce any other person in support of their stand that the accused was only. arwstcd on the 10th and not on the 5th or that the injuries found on the accused were old and were not fresh, they could hove clone so. In a habeas corpus petition where allegations are made that a citizen of this country is in illegal custody, it is the duty of the Cou)"l to safeguard the freedom of the citizen which has been guaranteed to him bv the Constitution and to immediately take such action as would ensure that no person, however high or low, acts in contravention of the law or in a high handed arbitrary or illegal manner. While no doubt it i~ the duty of the Court to safeguard against any encroachment on the life and liberty of individuals, at the same time, it has to be recognised that the authoritiea who have the. responsibility to discharge their functions vested in them u~der th7 l~w of the country should not be impeded or interfered with without 1ustific:itiory. In fur:therance of this duty the High Court passed the orders which m the circumstances of the case was fully justified ~19m · · 410 SUPREME COURT REPORTS CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION no. 35 of 1969. (1972] 2 S.C.R. Criminal Appeal Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated May 20, 1968 of the Punjab and Haryana High <::ourt in Criminal Criginal No. 50-M of 1968. R. N. Sachthey, for the appellant. The respondent did not appear. ## Text A B c. D E F G H JAGE RAM, INSPECTOR OF POLICE & ANR. v. HANS AAJ MIDHA November 18. 1971 409 fP. JAGANMOHAN REDDY AND D. G. PALEKAR, JJ.] Judgment Expunging of remarks against authorities whose conduct conies into cons1deralion before courts-Principles to be foJ/oll'edIiabeas Corpus-Duty of Court. ' The High Court in its order disposing of a habeas corpus petition stated that the detenu had been taken into custody on the 5th of May, J 968, that his arrest "had surreptitiously been" sworn to have taken place on the 10th of May, 1968, and that he was subjected to torture resulting in injuries. The appellants filed appeal in this Court to expunge these statements. Dismissing the appeal, HELD: In State of U.P. v. Mohammad Naim, [1964] 2 S.C.R. 363, this court has observed that the matters which have ro be kept in view in considering whether the remarks made in judgments against authorities \\'hose conduct comes into consideration before the courts of law in cases to be decided by them are disparaging are : (a) whether the party whose conduct is in question is before the Court or bas any opportunity of ex· plaining or defending himself; (b) whether there is e\idence 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. [420 DJ On the facts of the case and the eviden~ on record, none of the remarks to which exception has been taken could be described as unwarranted, unnecessary or irrelevant or can he characterised as generalisation or of a sweeping nature. The appellants had opportunity of filing their affidavits to give their own version, which, they have done in great detail, showing that they knew what the allegations against them wrre. If they wanted to produce any other person in support of their stand that the accused was only. arwstcd on the 10th and not on the 5th or that the injuries found on the accused were old and were not fresh, they could hove clone so. In a habeas corpus petition where allegations are made that a citizen of this country is in illegal custody, it is the duty of the Cou)"l to safeguard the freedom of the citizen which has been guaranteed to him bv the Constitution and to immediately take such action as would ensure that no person, however high or low, acts in contravention of the law or in a high handed arbitrary or illegal manner. While no doubt it i~ the duty of the Court to safeguard against any encroachment on the life and liberty of individuals, at the same time, it has to be recognised that the authoritiea who have the. responsibility to discharge their functions vested in them u~der th7 l~w of the country should not be impeded or interfered with without 1ustific:itiory. In fur:therance of this duty the High Court passed the orders which m the circumstances of the case was fully justified ~19m · · 410 SUPREME COURT REPORTS CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION no. 35 of 1969. (1972] 2 S.C.R. Criminal Appeal Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated May 20, 1968 of the Punjab and Haryana High <::ourt in Criminal Criginal No. 50-M of 1968. R. N. Sachthey, for the appellant. The respondent did not appear. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by P. Jag:u1mohan Reddy, J •. This appeal is for expunging certain remarks made against Appellants in the order of the Punjab & Haryana High Court on a Habeas Corpus Petition filed by one Hans /Raj Midha for the production of his son Prem Prakash Midha who is said to have been d~ained illegally by the Central Investigation Agency (CJ.A.) Staff Kamal. In an investigation of an offence of theft committed on 1-4-68 of a Cash Box contaihing Rs. 10667187 from the Head Post Office, Kamal where the said Prem Prakash Midha was working as a Clerk Incharge in the Savings Bank Section. It appears from the Habeas Corpus Petition presented to the High Court on 10-5-68 that after !;'rem Prakash who was working in the Bank, had gone out to meet his wife and came back he found the cash box missing. Immediately he reported the loss to the Assistant Post Master. It also appears from the affidavit filed on the return made by the appellant Jage Ram that a report of the theft of Rs. I 0667 /S7 belonging to the Postal Department was given on the same day over the telephone, an F.l.R. was issued under Sec, -380 IPC by the Police Station, City, Kamal. After the City Police had investigated the offence the investigation was handed · ..over to the CIA Karna! under the orders of Superintendent of Police, Kamal on 24-4-68. The Petitioner's father alleged in bis Habeas Corpus petition that his son Prem Parkash was interrogated in his house before the case was entrusted to the CIA but nothing incriminating was discovered; that on 5-5-68 at about 5 p.m. he was taken away by ASI Dyal Chand and a foot constable as Prem Parkash was wanted by Shri J age Ram, Inspector CIA; that Shri Ravinder Mehta the brother-in-law of the accused went to the CIA Staff office at Model Town and found him in their cust<>;\;ariiined before the remand was taken but .they did not care and •H took him on their cycle to·the re&\den~ ol the ~strate at 11.35 p.m. · The Court Readers and other .followed them alld found them talking with the Duty Magistrate in the gate of his A B c D F G H JAGE RAM v. HANS RAJ (Jaganmohan Reddy, J.) 413 residence. The Court Reader brought the order of the Hon'ble High Court to the notice of the Magistrate and also gave him a copy of the orders as desired by him. Upon this the learned Magistrate ordered the remand of the detenu to the judicial custody upto 13th May 1968 and also directed the Appellant to get him medically examined by the Chief Medical Officer, Karna!. Respondent No. 2 took the detenu to Civil hospital and wanted to get the detenu examined from the Doctor on night duty b11t on their reaching the hospital and showing the orders of the High Court the Doctor declined to examine and asked the Police and themselves to take the c!etenu to the residence of ilie C.M.O. The C.M.O. was awakened during the night at l'.35 a.m. and was shown the orders of the High Court and after going through the same he made an endorsement that he would himself examine the detenu in the morning after looking at the injuries and ordered that the de(Mu be admitted in the hospital in the night. At 8.45 a.m. on 11-5-68 the C.M.0. himself examined the detenu in their presence and handed over two copies of Medical legal report which were enclosed with the report of the Court Reiider. On 13th May 1968 the detenu was produced . before R. P. Khosla, J. alongwith tl\e returns filed by Jage Ram, Inspector and Dayal Chand, ASL According to Dayal Chand's affidavit he was associated with the investigations along with Jage Ram Inspector from 4.5.68 to 9-5-68. On enquiry made from the Post office it was revealed that Prem Prakash accused had not marked his attendance in the Post Office and he had sent the report that the accused wa~ out of station and on 8-5-68 the deponent himself went to the house of 'the accusW but could not find him there. It was on 10-5-68 when he sent constable Bhagwan Dass,No. 788 to the house of the accused he came back and reported that the accused had met him and promised to come and join the investiga:tion; accordingly at about 11 .. 30 a.m. the accused came. At that time Partap Singh, Inspector Weights arid Measures and one Jaswant Rai were present. The Respondent interrogated the accused from 11.30 to 12.25 noon and thereafter arrested him at 12.30 noon. At the time of arrest the person of the ascused was searched and a memo relating to the search was prepared which was attested \>y Shri Pfli;tap Sing~ . and. J~s~~nt Rai. Another Memo wii~ prepared givmg the VJSible m1unes Oil the person or the a~cused. The deponent then wrote down the case diary for 10.5.68.from 2 p.m. to 6 p.m. incorporating the entire investigation for the day up to that time. As there was a paucity of copstables in the ClA a5 they were mostly on i:lection duty the only constable who was available at the time of the arrest of Prem Prakash accused was the Moharir coilst:ible Kashmiri Lal. The deponent left Preni Prakash accused in the custody of Kashmiri Lal and at about 6.15 p.111. went in search of his immediate officer Jage Ram1 414. SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1972] 2 S.C.R. Inspector whom he contacted at about 7.30 p.m. and got the remand papers relating to the accused forwarded by him. Then he went in search of H. P. Tiku, Prosecuting Inspector whom he could contact only at 9. p.m. when the remand papers were shown to him and got them forwarded by him also. Thereafter with these remand papers and the case diary in the basket of the cycle the deponent came to the office of the C.I.A. staff with the inten· tion of taking Prem Prakash to the lllaqa Magistrate for remand. It may be useful to give his version thereafter in his own words : "But hardly had he entered the compound of the office when "a gentleman who informed the deponent that he had come from the High Court asked the deponent to bring Inspector Jage Ram to him. The deponent told that gentleman that the Inspector was on election duty and that the deponent would search him out and bring him. The deponent thereupon went in : search of the Inspector on a cycle. The deponent did not hear any call of the reader from behind may be because of the suffering of hard of hearing. The Inspector was found in P.W.D. Rest House at about 10 p.m. and informed him that some gentleman from the High Court natl come and wanted to see him. Inspector Jage Ram thereupon left for the office of the C.1.A. Staff. That from the P.W.D. Rest House after informing Inspector Jage Ram of the arrival of the gentleman from the High Court the deponent went to find out whether the duty Magistrate was at his residence. Finding the duty Magistrate at his residence, the deponent came back to the office of CJ.A. Staff wliere he came to know that the gentleman who had come from the High Court was the Reader of Hon'ble Mr. Justice 'Jindra Lal and had come with an order of the Hon'ble Judge in the Habeas Corpus Petition of Prem Prakash accused. The order was served upon the deponent and deponent signed it in token of service at 10.35 p.m. After that the deponent showed the case diaries and the remand papers to the Reader, who signed both of them but without mentioning the time. Before the duty Ma.e:istrate the reader again signed the case diaries and mentioned a time underneath the signatures." The return of Inspector Jage Ram gives some facts which he came to know as a result of his investigation of the char~ against the accused which is not relevant for the purposes of this appeal. It however, appears that even according to him the accused could A B c D E F G H A 8 JAGE RAM v. HANS RAJ (Jaganmohan Reddy, J.) 415 not be traced till 10.5.68 when on that day, because he was busy in election arrangements he had directed ASI Dayal Chand to carry on the investigation on that day and make all possible efforts to join the accused Prem Prakash Midha with the investigation. He was informed at abouf 7.30 p.m. by ASI Dayal Chand that the accused had been arrested at 12.30 noon and was also shown the reasons of arrest written in the case diary. and got the remand papers forwarded from him. At about 10 p.m. Dayal Chand again contacted and info.nned . the deponent at the P.W.D. Rest House that a gentleman from the· High Court whom Shri S. M. Mehta who is the brother-in-law of the accused seemed to have brought as 'Safarshi' wanted to see the deponent. He C · furth.:r mentioned that previously also on 2-5-68 Ravinder Mehta accompanied by one other person had come to the deponent with two letters from Shri Gurdian Singh Nurpuri who was a Magistrate at Gidarabha when the deponent was posted there as Inspector in 1965 I 66 and tried to influence the deponent in favour of the accused. He enclosed the copies of these two D E F G H letters. Thereafter the deponent proceeds to say as follows : "On receiving this information from ASI Dial Chand the deponent proceeded to the office of the C.I.A. Staff Kamal. There Shri Sadhu Ram Reader to the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jindra Lal introduced himself ·to the deponent and served upon him the orders of the Hon'ble Judge at about 10.30 P.M. The deponent thereupon informed the P..eader that the accused was arrested at about 12.30 noon on the same day by ASI Dial Chand. His remand· could not . be taken so far due to preoccupation with election work but AST Dial Chand had already got the application for remand endorsed from the deponent at about 7.30 P.M. and the accused was shortly going to be produced before a Magistrate for purposes of obtaining remand. After about 5 minutes ASI Dial Chand also reached the C.I.A. Office and showed the case diaries and remand papers to the Reader, who signed both of them. At that time the Reader had not given any time underneath. his si~~ture. Later on when the remand papers and. case dia~es were produced. before the Magistrate Shn N. K. Jam the Reader agam put his signature on the case diary and mentioned the time as 11.15 p.m. underneath." In short both these officers deny the allegations made in the Habeas Corpus petition of the father of the accused. From the affidavits the case of the appellants was that they had not arrested the accused on 5-5-68 as alleged nor had they 416 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1972] 2 S.C.R. kept him in their custody without obtaining a lawful order of remand· for their custody, but had arrested him only on 10-5-68 at about 12.30 p.m. In so far as the order for remand to their custody from a Judicial Magistrate is concerned it is clear from their statement that It was got only after the High Court's orders for the production of the accused were served on them, though no doubt they say that because they were busy, the papers could only be prepared artd the Public Prosecutor's endorsement forwarding them could only be obtained by about 9 p.m. on that day. Secondly they do not deny that there were no injuries on the accused, but it is only contended that they were old injuries which were noted down. Thirdly there is a divergence in the statements of Dayal Chand and Jage Ram that while Dayal Chand says as SOO!l as he was asked by some gentleman from the High Court to call Jage Ram he wen1 away and that he did not hear anything further due to his being hard of hearing even though he was called• back by that gentleman. While Jage Ram says that Dayal Chand .had told him that a gentleman from the High Court whom Shri Mehta, who is the brother-in-Jaw of the accused seems to have brought as 'Safarshi' wan~~d to see the deponen•t. If as Dayal Chand says he did not hear even his being called back how did he in the first instance know he was called back and' secondly since there was no talk between him and the gentleman from the High Court how he could have informed Respondent I 1hat Shri Mehta, the brother-in-law of the accused· seems to' have brought him for Safarash. These are not explained. There is nothing in Dayal Chand's affidavit that he had said that Mehta who came was the brother-in-law or that he had brought the gentleman from the High Court for 'Safarash'. Even according to Respondent l's statement what Respondenf'2 told him was one S. M. Mehta had come while the brother-in-law is Ravinder Melita. It is however contended by Shri Sachthey, the learned Advocate for 1the two Appellants that previously certain 'Safarashi' letters had been brought by Shri S. M. Mehta an employee of the High Court and Ravinder Mehta who is the brother-in-law of the accused from one Gurdial Singh Nurpuri the Judicial Magistrate of Gidarabha and so he thought that Mehta had brought the gentleman from the High Court for 'Safarash'. This explanation in our view is naive but however that does not explain how Dayal Chand came to know of this when he did not have time to have a talk with any of the persons who had accompanied the Court officer, which fact is also evident from the report of the Court Officer who said that as soon as he asked to see J age Ram the pel'Son on the cycle namely Dayal Chand got on his cycle and went away in spite of the fact that immediately thereafter he recalled him back but he did not return. If as Dayal Chand says that' the person who told him that he was from the High Court A c D E F G H A B c D E JAGE RAM v. HANS RAJ (Jaganmohan Reddy,J.) 417 is true that person would not have failed to disclose tho purpose of his visit namely that he had got orders from the High Ceurt. It will be difficult to believe that a Police Officer will merely rush to call Jage Ram without further enquiry if he was merely informed that he had come from the High Court and assume that the purpose of his visit was only Safarash. No police officer would be inclined to be in such a great hurry to rush to call his superior if he merely believed that a gentleman from the High Court was there only for the purpose of 'Safarash' and not on an officiat duty. If it was however the former and if he was so inclined to send for the officer without ascertaining the purpose for which that gentleman came he would have sent a constable instead of himself rushing to bring Inspector J age Ram. The haste with which he left the scene even without paying any attention when he was called back indicates that he must have known the purpose why the person from the High Court had come. While we are on this topic we may pause to refer to a matter which is being sought to be utilised as a justification for the inference that the gentleman from the High Court had also come for 'Safarashi' work. . This has reference to the letters written by Gurdial Singh Nurpuri Judicial Magistrate, Gidarabha which were enclosed with the return filed by Jage Ram. Though they may look inocuous if given by any friend of the Inspector in as much as they merely ask him to help Prem Parkash Midha the accused who is said to have been the complainant in a theft case to trace the real culprit, but coming as they do from a Judicial Magistrate to a police officer in a state where we are informed by Mr. Sachthey on instructions there is _a separation -of judiciary from executive are not proper and ar~ likely to be understood as interference irf the discharge of duties by the police officers. It would appear !tom the second letter that the Judicial Magistrate had' shown special interest because he seems to have personally come to· llfarnal from Gidarabha for the purpose of talking to the Appel" !ant Jage Ram but as he found him away he gave that fotter. 1ri any case whether these letters at the time when he received them were treated by the addressee as interfering with his duties or' not they undermine the confidence in the judiciary by giving rise & to t_he comment that such judicial officers may equally be susceptible to influence in the discharge of their duties by parties who are likely .to appear before . them. It is in the best interest of Judicial officers not to indulge in such practices. This matter ma~ also be brought to the notice of the High Court fot silch action as it may think necessary to take. w , Now coming . ~ack to ~e !lattation of '\\'.hat happened when' h~ was- produced m Court 1t 1s apparent from the order ot Khosla, J\ who afte11 setting out the JSUi.'\')Orf of the report of. his- ~· 6upta and after perusing the affidavit file'& by the' two 418 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1972] 2 S.C.R. Appellant Police Officers says that the detenu wanted to make a A .. statement and was accordingly examined. This is what the learned Judge has stated : "Readinl( of the st3!tement made by the detenu together with the allegations projected i11 the instant petition supported by the averments in the accompanying affidavits and the report submitted by Shri Gupta point' unmi_stakenly to the contention of the learned cpunsel that detenu had been taken into custody by the Kamal local police on 5th of May 1968, passed on to the CJ.A. staff for investigation and interrogation and was maltreated by the respondents. His arre>t had surreptitiously been sworn to have taken place on 10th of May 1968. The affidavits sworn by the Respondents of course denied all accusations had it was maintained that the detenu was called in, on 10th of May 1968 and duly arrested. He had on his person two old injuries that were noted. The allegations that some third degree methods had been employed to illicit confession or information were equally emphatically traversed. Upon hearing counsel at some length an(! examining the material placed on the . record with due care I have no hesitation in finding that the detenu had been taken into cus1tody on some date before the 10th of May and tortured by the Respondents. The examination carried out by the Chief Medical Officer, Kamal Hospital cin the morning of 11th May showed •that the detenu had on his person injuries more than two. The detenu was in Court and I found him suffering grievously from the after effects cumulatively of those injurie~. His version of torture administered by the Respondents at diverse occasions stood materially corroborated. I also find that though the confinement of the detenu was illegal till 10th of May 1968, he is at present in proper judicial custody. He must thus be remitted to the same . custody; He is accordingly directed to be .taken back to the Hospital Kamal and to await further order of th:i learned Magistrate. The Report submitted by Shri Gupta, Officer of this Court discloses in no uncertain terms that Respondent B c D E F G No. 2 at least showed scant respect for the orders of H this Court and when asked to show the papers relating to the case adopted evasive attitude and also by sneaking away subsequently completed police papers A B c D E F G H ' .JAGE RAM v. HANS RA.J (Jaganmohan Reddy,!.) 419 spuriously. I cannot but abhor such conduct and disapprove of the mentality. Otherwise too, I have no doubt whatever that the affidavits sworn by the Respondents in this Court did not represent the true state of affairs calculated falsehood had been imported in material particulars. For these and other illegalities committed by the Respondents, the detenu is left to his remedies at law". After making these observations the learned Judge rejected the petition for interim bail as he had no occasion to examine the merits of accusations laid against him as also because a theft of large sums of money was involved. He however left it open to the Magistrate to consider the. question of bail as and when suitably moved by the accused in that behalf. The learned Advocate Shri Sachthey has strenuously contended that these remarks are unjustified and besides impeding the investigatory process which the Police as a matter of their duty have to undertake, it effects the career of the Police officers concerned. He also contends that it is not true that the accused was arrested on the 5th May 68 or an any date prior to 10th and the remarks that they were in illegal custody and were brutally ill treated were also unjustified in that they had been arrived at without any opportunity being given lo 'the Appellant officers or without holding any enquiry thereon. We are unable to appreciate these contentions. In a Habeas Corpus Petition where allegations are made that a citizen of this country is in illegal custody it is the duty of the Court. to safeguard the freedom of the citizen which has been guaranteed to him by our Constitution and to immediately take such action as would ensure that no person however high or low acts in contravention o~ the law or in a high-handed, arbitrary or illegal manner. While no doubt it is the duty of the Court to safeguard against any encroachments on the life and liberty of individuals, at the same time we recognise that the authorities who have the responsibility to discharge their functions vested in them under the law of the country should :mt be impeded or interfered wi1h, without justification. In furtherance of this duty the High Court passed the orders which in the cirr.umstances of the case was fully justified. There was some comment on the learned Judge directing his reader to contact the petitioner to trace out the accused and also on the oral instructions as appeared ·from the report to have been given by the learned Judge to take the assistance of Narinder Singh an Assistant in the Criminal Branch because he had been going on such raids previously as indicating that the High Court was directing such raids previously. We are not in a position to say whether 420 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1972]'2 S.C.R. this comment is justified because all the information necessary is not available to us, as such we do not wish to draw any inference on this aspect of the case. If the procedure was objected to in the High Court as it has been done before us it would have itself ascertained what was the basis for the reader's statement that Narinder Singh was being sent previously on such raids. We do not personally think that such raids are conducted but if in any particular ca§e where there is urgency there is every justification for the procedure followed by the High Court to be adopted. In any case ordinarily, Courts are not powerless as they can have recourse to the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code which provides for directions being given to the Magistrates to deal with such matters by conducting an enquiry and making a report to the Court. On the question whether the several remarks of the learned Judge are justified or not we may refer in rthis connection to the observations of S. K. Das, J. in State of U.P. v. Mohammad Nairn(') as to the matters which have to be kept in view in considering whether the remarks made in. judgments against authorities whose conduct comes into consideration before Courts of law in cases to be decicled by them are disparaging. These are : (a) whether the party whose conduct is in question is before the Court or has any 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. What we must now see is, keeping in mind the above criteria whether the remarks made by Khosla, J. are unjustified. The first of these which are assailed concerns the validity of the finding that the accused was arrested earlier than the 10th of May '68 and that he was tortured. We have persued the sotatemerrt of the arrested person given before the learned Judge and it appears therefrom that none other than the Advocate General of the State had cross-examined him in respect of the allegations made by him against the appellant Police officers. The detenu stated that on 5-5-68 ASI Dayal Chand accompanied by· a foot constable in plain clothes came to his house at about 5 p.m. and took him to the CIA staff situated in Model Town Kamal. The said Dayal Chand Respondent 2 was present in Court. He further says that J age Ram was not present in the CIA office when he reached there at about 9 ·p.m. that he was questioned about the missing cash box and on his showing ignorance was kept under guard 0) [1964] (2) S.C.R. 363, 374. B c D E F G II A B c D E F G I H JAGE RAM v. HANS RAJ (Jaganmohan Reddy, J.) 42r who was changing every 3 hours. His h!llldB were raised out anif legs stretched out. The ~ond Respondent remained with hiln' till about 12 mid night. At about 6 a.m. he was taken to anothc:r room and was made to stan