K. FASIUDDIN Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. This is an application by seven persons, who are being prosecuted Under Section 307, I.P.C. in the Court of Mr. Wickenden, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jubbulpore, for transfer of the case from that Magistrate The application is fairly long, but in argument the learned counsel who appeared for the applicants put forward only three grounds in support of it. The first was that the Magistrate had persistently refused to grant bail to the applicants although ho was not justified in doing so; the second was that the Magistrate refused to grant copies of statements made by witnesses for the prosecution though the applicants had applied for such copies Under Section 162, Criminal P.C.; and the third ground was that the Magistrate of his own motion called further medical evidence in addition to that adduced by the prosecution. It is alleged that from these circumstances the applicants had a reasonable apprehension that the Magistrate was biased against them and that they would not get a fair and impartial hearing.

(2.) AS regards the first ground, there is, I think, absolutely no case. The only order by Mr. Wickenden as regards bail is contained in the order-sheet of 15th October 1928. In that it is stated that the Magistrate could not grant bail owing to the nature of the case and the Dasehra festival. It may be noted, however, that prior to that order bail had been refused by Thakur Chhattar Singh, Magistrate First Class, on 15th September, by Mr. Dewey, Magistrate First Class, on 29th September, by Mr. Woodward, Sessions Judge, on 22nd September and by Mr. Jawahir Lall, Additional Sessions Judge, on 1st October 1928. In view of these previous orders Mr. Wickenden cannot be held to have been wrong in refusing bail. It is true that bail was allowed by this Court on 31st October, but, as it had been previously refused not only by the two Magistrates to whom applications had been made, but also by the Sessions Judge and the Additional Sessions Judge, Mr. Wickenden was, in my opinion, right in refusing bail on 15th October 1928. At any rate, no possible bias can be inferred from his refusal.

(3.) IN the order dated 5th December the Magistrate has written: Copies of the case diary can only be granted for purpose of contradicting a witness. The X examination of the witnesses had been closed. Therefore no question of contardicting the witness in this Court arose. Therefore, no application for copies could lie to this Court at that stage.