PONNUSWAMI IYER Vs. KGANAPATHI IYER, SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application of a somewhat unusual kind. I have been asked to commit to prison Mr. K. Ganapati Iyer, Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Mayavaram, for his wilful disobedience of the order of this Court dated the 10 April, 1923. In C.C. No. 50 of 1922 pending before the said Magistrate, an application was made by some of the accused for examination as a witness of the Pandarasannadhi of Thiruvaduthurai Mutt. That application was refused by the Magistrate by his order dated the 6 April, 1923. On the, same day the parties applied for a copy of the order and the stamp papers were called for on the 9 April. They were furnished immediately, and the parties were granted the copy at 7 p.m. on the 9th. On the, 10th, a revision case was filed in the High Court impeaching the correctness of the order of the 6th and on the application of the accused at about 2-15 p.m. on the same day, I made an order staying further proceedings in C.C. No. 50 of 1922 pending the disposal of the Criminal Revision Case.

(2.) The case before the Magistrate was taken up in the usual course on the 11 to which date it stood adjourned. A telegram had been sent by Mr. K.S. Jayarama Aiyar, Vakil for the accused, informing the Magistrate of the order made by this Court. This telegram, it is admitted, reached the Magistrate at about 9 a.m. on the nth. Finding that the Magistrate was not disposed to act on this telegram, a formal petition was filed supported by the affidavit of K. Sundaresa Iyer, who was instructing the Vakil for the accused and who was also present in Court when the stay order was made by the High Court. In that affidavit, are set out the facts relating to the application to this Court and the order made staying proceedings. A copy of the telegram and the receipt obtained from the telegraph office in token of the telegram having been despatched, were annexed as exhibits to the affidavit. The Magistrate declined to adjourn the case. It is stated inter alia in his order that the accused had sufficient opportunities to have moved the High Court in time so that the order of the High Court could have been formally communicated to the Magistrate. In this he was obviously wrong, because as I have shown the accused acted with great expedition and applied for stay at the earliest possible moment. When the accused found that the Magistrate insisted upon proceeding with the case, they put in another petition stating that their own vakil had been cited as a Court witness, that in view of the stay order they had not engaged another vakil to represent them at the trial and that in the circumstances an adjournment should be granted to enable them to obtain proper legal assistance. The Magistrate thereupon made an order dispensing with the evidence of the accused's Vakil and this is what the Magistrate says in his order: The Court after reading the evidence of the prosecution and defence witnesses considered that the evidence of N. Kuppuswami Aiyar will help in the decision of the case. It accordingly adjourned the case to the 8th.... After reading the evidence again I came to the conclusion that the examination of the Court witness may very well be dispensed with.... To avoid delay in the disposal I dispense with the examination of the Court witness now present.

(3.) The Magistrate then makes a note: "The Vakil, M. Kuppuswami Iyer, does not appear for argument. The case is adjourned for judgment at 3-20 p.m." The accused however were not in a mood to submit to this order of the Magistrate and so they again requested the Magistrate to send a telegram to the proper officer of the High Court at their expense and ascertain if as a matter of fact the High Court did make a stay order. The Magistrate refused to comply with the request. The accused next applied for an adjournment on the ground that they intended to move the High Court for a transfer of the case to the file of some other Magistrate. This application again met with a similar fate. Mr. Kuppuswami Iyer, Vakil, whose evidence was dispensed with, then put in a memo, of appearance on behalf of the accused noting in it that at 2 p.m. the Court made an order dispensing with his evidence and also noting that the memo, itself was put in at 2-30 p.m. The correctness of these statements in the memo, is not disputed. The Vakil then commenced to argue the case, but he was told by the Magistrate that the judgment would be delivered at 3-20 p. m. and thereupon the Vakil filed the following- statement dated nth April, 1923 at 2-50 p.m. "On my rising to argue the case the Court observes that the matter is ripe for delivery of judgment by 3-30 p.m. Under the circumstances I beg to submit that my argument would be of no use and as such I am unable to do any justice by making any farce of an argument at this juncture." The Vakil thus refused to further argue the case and the Magistrate forthwith read a judgment which had been previously written and which is said to consist of about 20 to 25 typed pages.