Babu Ratnessari Pershad Narayan Sing and another vs Empress

Maclean, C.J.—I think that, in this case, the ends of justice required, and that it is advisable, that this case should be transferred to some Magistrate other than the Joint-Magistrate of Sewan, who has been holding the enquiry preliminary to commitment. I do not propose to go into the facts deposed to by the Petitioners in any detail, but, allowing the exaggerations in the story told by them, and taking that story with the comments upon it made by the Joint-Magistrate himself, I am not very favourably impressed with the manner in which the Petitioners have been treated. I cannot but feel that, to some extent, the zeal of the Executive Officer has outstripped the judicial impartiality of the Magistrate, and that he has displayed at least some bias adverse to the present applicants. The main facts of their story have not, practically, been disputed by the learned vakil who appeared for the Crown, and upon the facts, I think, an order for transfer should be made. It has, however, been urged before us that inasmuch as the enquiry before the Joint-Magistrate has virtually terminated, It is idle now to order a transfer. What happened was this. The rule was granted by this Court on the 10th May, and on that day a telegram was sent by the vakil in the case here to the muktear acting for the defence, to the effect that the rule had been granted. That rule directed further proceedings to be stayed, pending the hearing of the rule. The 11th May had been fixed by the Magistrate for the resumption of the case. On that day the muktear mentioned to the Magistrate that he had received the above telegram, and asked him not to proceed with the case. The Magistrate refused to look at the telegram, and went on with the case. He would appear to have been very anxious to get the evidence taken, for he virtually, on that day, compressed the sittings of two days into one. On the 12th May the hearing was again resumed, and on that day a formal petition was presented asking for an adjournment of the case on the ground of the rule having been granted, a further telegram from the counsel who had obtained the rule having been received by the muktear of the accused in the meantime, but the Magistrate went on steadily and refused to adjourn the case, or to act upon the telegrams. The facts are deposed to in the affidavit which has been handed up to us, and which must be filed. In acting as he did, in forcing on the case, as he obviously has, I think the Magistrate acted very injudiciously. He ought to have listened to the telegrams which, upon their face, bore the stamp of genuineness, and if he had any reason to doubt their authenticity, that doubt could readily have been satisfied by a telegram to the Registrar of his Court. It almost looks as if he wilfully shut his eyes, so as to avoid learning what this Court had done. This haste to press the enquiry on, coupled with his action in the earlier investigation of the case, does, at least, suggest that his mind is not free from some bias in the matter, and that he does not approach the case with that judicial impartiality which is so essential to the true administration of justice. I desire to state that it is of the most absolute importance, as regards the administration of justice in this province, that Magistrates should act with every loyalty towards the orders of the High Court, and if they are told that an order has been made by this Court staying proceedings, they ought then and there to hold their hands, unless they have good ground for believing that the information given to them is false. I have no desire to say more upon this part of the case, but I am certainly not inclined under these circumstances to adopt the view of the Crown, that, inasmuch as the enquiry has virtually terminated, no case for a transfer exists. On the contrary, I think the case should be transferred, and transferred to the Joint-Magistrate of the Sudder Station.

Banerjee, J.

I am entirely of the same opinion.