SUBAL CHANDRA MALLICK Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts leading to the present revisional application may be summarized as follows:

(2.) The opposite party No.1 instituted Mise case No. 295 of 1980 presumably u/s 125 Cr. P.C. for maintenance for herself as well as for her two daughters against the petitioner. On 15/6/85 the petitioner filed an application before Shri S.K. Roy the learned Magistrate hearing the matter for directing the opposite part to produce the original of a letter said to have been sent to her by Mahadeb Sanbui, a maternal uncle of hers advising her to patch up her quarrels with her husband. The learned Magistrate di4 not pass any order on that application and adjourned the ease to 20/8/85. On 20/8/85 the learned Magistrate took up the case for hearing at 1.00 p.m. It was brought to his notice that the learned Advocate for the petitioner was engaged in a Sessions case. Inspite or that the learned Magistrate closed the case at 1.25 p.m. (annexure-B). The learned Advocate for the petitioner arrived at his court at 1.28 p m. but the learned Magistrate refused to hear anything and inspite of an application for recalling his order closing the case fixed 7/10/85 for arguments though there remained about seven more witnesses to be examined on his side (annexure-B). On 7/10/85 the petitioner filed another application requesting the learned Magistrate to pass his final order on his application filed on 20/8/85 (annexure-C). The learned Magistrate allowed his prayer subject to payment of Rs. 250/- as costs to the opposite party No.1.

(3.) The aforementioned circumstances led the petitioner to file an application u/s 408 Cr. P.C, before Shri S.N. Ganguly the learned district and Session Judge, Hooghly for transferring the case to the court of some other Judicial Magistrate for disposal. This application was registered as Cr1. Misc. case No. 945 of 1985. It appears further that against the aforementioned order passed by the learned Magistrate on 7/10/85 the petitioner also came up in revision before the learned Sessions Judge and it was registered as criminal motion No. 163 of 1985. The learned Judge-so it appears from his order in Cr1 Misc. case No, 945 of 1985-allowed the criminal revision finding the impugned order as unjust and legal. Inspite of that he concluded that the proceedings of the case and the orders dated 15/6/85. 20/8/85 and 7/10/85 did not show that the learned Magistrate had become biased towards the petitioner. Finding the apprehensions of the petitioner absolutely baseless, therefore, the learned Sessions Judge dismissed his application for transfer. Hence, this Revisional Application against his order.