BHAGAT INDAR NARAIN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a rule directed against the Additional District Magistrate of Ferozepore to show cause why this case should not be transferred from his Court to a Court of competent jurisdiction in another District.

(2.) The petitioner was a Naib Tahsildar, (Grow More Food) at Zira and it is alleged that an offence of corruption under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and Section 161, Penal Code, was committed by the petitioner on 27-4- 1951. A raiding party consisting of the Additional Superintendent of Police Mr. Tir-lochan Singh, Resident Magistrate Zira Mr. Udham Singh, Tahsildar Mr. Sant Singh and Sub-Inspector Iqbal Singh of Zira, and some other private persons are alleged to have found one Bhagwan Singh passing a currency note of Rs. 100/- to the petitioner at Makhu. On 28-4-1951 the petitioner was arrested and he was suspended on 2-5-1951 as from 28-4-1951. On the 2nd May the Commissioner of Jullundur Division passed an order by which he allowed the petitioner to draw half his monthly salary as subsistence allowance along with the usual deaniess allowances in full which was later on to be reduced to threeeighths of his monthly pay. By an order dated 14-5-1951 the Collector Mr. N. K. Mukherjee, ordered that the petitioner should remain at Zira proper and he added in this order the following words : "The Resident Magistrate Zira should keep an eye on him". On 10-7-1951 the case was put in the Court of the District Magistrate who sent it for disposal to the Additional District Magistrate on 12-7-1951. There was one hearing of the case in the Magistrate's Court at which the petitioner was not present but he appeared on 4-8-1951 and the case was then postponed to 13-8-1951 when Charan Singh, a witness, was examined. On that date Mr. Shadi Lal Palta who was appearing for the petitioner was busy in the Sessions Court and the petitioner asked the Magistrate to take the case up at a later time which the Magistrate refused. The Magistrate has in his explanation stated that no such request was made to him, but the petitioner has in his affidavit stated otherwise. This by itself would not have been a matter but for the fact that in his explanation the Additional District Magistrate has stated as follows in para. 3 :

(3.) The case was then adjourned to 27-8-1951, On that date the petitioner made a request to the Court that his counsel was ill and was unable to be present in Court. This request of the petitioner was supported by a medical certificate showing that Mr. Shadi Lal Palta was unwell on that day. The Magistrate instead of postponing the case, as he should have in this case, only gave two hours to the petitioner to engage another counsel. In a case of the type which was in his Court where the whole of the future career of the petitioner was at stake it was in my opinion, not right for the Magistrate to take such a view of the matter as this. Under the Constitution jn Article 22 (1) an accused person has the right to be defended by a counsel of his choice and the petitioner had engaged Mr. Shadi Lal Palta who is one of the leaders of the Ferozepore Criminal Bar. But the learned Magistrate did not think it proper to take any notice of the certificate which had been sent by Mr. Palta on the request which had been made by the accused. The reason given by the Magistrate that if he had allowed this petition the State would have incurred a good deal of unnecessary expense in so far as their witnesses were present, loses sight of the constitutional rights of a citizen. In all civilized countries wherever English system of jurisprudence prevails Courts have always tried to give every kind of facility to an accused to defend himself. Merely because there were certain witnesses for the prosecution present does not seem to me to be a sufficient reason why the case should not have been postponed and the prayer of the petitioner granted if that was necessary in the interest of justice as I think that in this case it was.