CHANDER KUER Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for the transfer of a case pending on the file of a second class Magistrate of Chapra. It was a case under Secs.147 and 354, etc., I.P.C., and was originally on the file of another Magistrate. "When four prosecution witnesses were left to be cross-examined, that Magistrate was transferred and the case was accordingly sent to the file of the Magistrate from whom the accused now seek a transfer.

(2.) On 24 July 1940, the Magistrate examined one defence witness, Baijnath Singh. Some defence witnesses were absent, and the service returns of the summonses issued to them showed that the summonses had been handed over to Baijnath, thanks to the carelessness of the peon. The Magistrate ordered fresh summonses to issue and also ordered: Issue notice to Baijnath Singh to show cause why he accepted the summons of the witness and why he failed to make them over when he had accepted them. Cause to be shown by 6 August.

(3.) It is not very easy to follow what the Magistrate meant by "issuing notice" to Baijnath Singh in this connexion. In his explanation to the District Magistrate, the learned Magistrate admitted that he had heard Baijnath Singh on the 6 but the order sheet of the case does not show anything of the kind. On 7 August, the accused put in a petition before the Magistrate asking for time to move the High Court for a transfer, and in this application they began by saying that after his deposition Baijnath Singh had been threatened with harassment by the Magistrate. It is not necessary to reproduce the terms in which the threat is said to have been uttered, but it is quite clear that the Magistrate did say something of the kind, though in the order sheet of 7 August he only admitted that he had no doubt told the witness that he would be "prosecuted for his negligence and for spoiling the Court's time."