Leave granted.
Heard.
The appellant preferred this appeal against an order passed by the High Court. The
appellant was formerly a judicial officer in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The appellant dealt
with a criminal case as Assistant Sessions Judge, Gurazala, Guntur District and the appellant
convicted an accused for the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC. The accused
thereafter preferred an appeal before the High Court and the learned Single Judge, while
disposing of the appeal preferred by the accused, made certain observations against the
appellant herein. It was held by the learned Single Judge that the appellant herein, while
disposing of the criminal case, relied on an inquest report as substantive evidence thereby
committed a mistake and observed that the appellant did not know the fundamentals of
criminal law and also directed that these remarks be communicated to the said officer.
Aggrieved by the same, the appellant preferred this appeal. The appellant
points out that he had not relied on the inquest report as a substantive evidence but relied on
P.Ws.1 and 2, who happen to be the inquest witnesses when the inquest report was done by
the police officer. It appears that the contention raised by the appellant is correct. The
learned Single Judge was not fully justified in passing the said remarks against the appellant
in paragraph 17 of the impugned judgment. The adverse remarks expressed by the learned
Single Judge against the appellant may be treated as expunged from the impugned judgment.
The appeal is allowed accordingly.