The action sought to be sustained should be with reference to the contents of the impugned order/communication

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
   CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
   CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.102  OF 2021
   (Arising out of SLP (Criminal) No.4171 of 2020)
OPTO Circuit India Ltd.            Versus
Axis Bank & Ors.                                         
3 Judge bench , through the  J U D G M E N T of A.S. Bopanna, J., held that

Page 15 of 21

13. The action sought to be sustained should be with reference   to   the   contents   of   the   impugned order/communication and the same cannot be justified by improving the same through the contention raised in
the objection statement or affidavit filed before the Court.

This has been succinctly laid down by this Court in the case of  Mohinder Singh Gill & Another vs. The Chief Election  Commissioner,  New  Delhi  &  Ors.   (1978) 1 SCC 405) as follows;
8. The second equally relevant matter is that when a
statutory   functionary   makes   an   order   based   on
certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the
reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented
by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise.
Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the
time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get
validated by additional grounds later brought out. We
may here draw attention to the observations of Bose
J. in Gordhandas Bhanji:
  (1) Public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a
statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of
explanations subsequently given by the officer making
the order of what he meant, or of what was in his
mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made
by public authorities are meant to have public effect
and are intended to effect the actings and conduct of
those   to   whom   they   are   addressed   and   must   be
construed objectively with reference to the language
used in the order itself.
Orders are not like old wine becoming better as they
grow older:
In fact, in the instant case such contention of having
exercised power under Section 102 CrPC has not been
put   forth   even   in   the   counter   affidavit,   either   in   this
appeal or before the High Court and has only been the
attempted ingenuity of the learned Additional Solicitor
General.  Such contention, therefore, cannot be accepted.