Asimaddi and others vs Govinda Baidya

Ghose, J.—This is an application for the transfer of a rioting case now pending trial in the Sessions Court at Faridpur, and the rule that was granted by us was upon two grounds, first, that by reason of the interest which a leading Pleader at Faridpur had in the result of the case and the influence possessed by him, the petitioners would be unable to obtain proper legal assistance, and second, that by reason of the strong opinion expressed by the Sessions Judge in the counter-rioting case, the petitioners would be prejudiced if the case were tried by the same officer. As regards the first ground, we think it has been answered by the explanation submitted by the Magistrate. We should be very sorry indeed to believe that the professional etiquette is so very low at Faridpur that an accused person cannot obtain the services of any competent Pleader, because a leading Pleader there is interested in the result of the case.

As regards the other ground, we were at one time disposed to think that the procedure adopted by the Sessions Judge in the two cases of rioting was faulty in this respect that he should have suspended judgment in the counter-case until he had heard this case, and that the petitioners were entitled, in view of the opinion expressed by him in the other case, to have their case tried by another Sessions Judge; but having considered the case of Queen v. Chundra Bhuya I. L. R. 20 Cal. 537, Bachoo Mulla v. Sia Ram I. L. R. 14 Cal. 385, Hossein Bux v. The Empress I. L. R. 6 Cal. 96, and some other cases bearing upon the matter, it would seem that the procedure followed by the Sessions Judge is the right one. At the same time we may express the hope that, in dealing with the case now pending trial, that officer will not, as far as possible, allow his mind to be influenced by the impression formed by him upon the matters which were raised in issue between the parties in the other case; for he will have to deal with the merits of this case upon the evidence which may now be adduced, quite independently of the evidence which was produced before him in the counter-case.

Mr. Roy drew our attention to the case of Chakowri Lal v. Moti Kurmi 13 C. L. R. 275, where a transfer was ordered by this Court in one of two counter-cases of rising. It will, however, be found upon an examination of that case that this Court was of opinion that the procedure adopted by the Magistrate in dealing with the two cases in parallel lines was irregular; and this circumstance coupled with the fact that the Magistrate had expressed a strong opinion in the other case, led them to make the transfer. In the present case, however, we are unable to say having regard to the cases already referred to, that the procedure followed by the Sessions Judge was irregular; indeed, we think he could not help expressing the opinion that he did express upon the merits of the case that was then before him. If we were to adopt the view that has been laid before us by Mr. Roy, the result would be that whenever an officer has dealt with one of two counter-cases of rioting, he would be disqualified from trying the case.

The Rule will, therefore, be discharged.