P L D 1960 Dacca 981 (PLP)

ISPAHANI, C. J.‑There are two petitions before us. In Mis cellaneous Case No. 79 of 1959, the accused‑petitioners pray that G. R. Case No. 55 of 1959, pending in the Court of Mr. B. Rahman, Magistrate, 1st class, Jhenidah, may be transferred to the file of any other Magistrate at Sadar sub‑division or any other sub‑division for disposal for reasons stated in the application. In Miscellaneous Case No. 80 of 1959, a similar prayer has been made with respect to G. R. Case No. 55 (1) of 1959 which arose out of the previous case.

2. The original case was one under sections 147, 379, 411, 440, 380 and 454 of the Pakistan Penal Code.

3. Mr. Abdur Rasheed appearing on behalf of the petitioners has referred to the order‑sheets of the cases and has advanced arguments to show that Mr. B. Rahman, the Magistrate, was biased against the accused‑petitioners and there is an apprehension in the minds of the petitioners that they would not receive a fair trial in his Court. He has cited‑ many instances to support his argument and it will be enough to refer to the following : On 18‑4‑59, one of the accused Jagabandhu was absent without taking any steps. The Magistrate not only cancelled his bail bond but the bonds of the other accused also who were on bail. He also passed an order to draw up proceedings under section 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against them asking them to show cause against the realisation of the entire amount of bail from them. On the same day, later on, the learned Magistrate passed an order that accused Ishaque Molla to give a P. R. of Rs. 100 to produce accused Jagabandhu on 24‑4‑

59. In Fakir Muhammad and others v. Emperor (32 Cr. L J 344), it was observed that a Court of justice is not justified in exercising any pressure upon an accused person A before it with the object of coercing him to produce persons who are fugitives from justice. On 30‑4,59, the case was split up into another case. On 13‑5‑59, accused Ishaque Molla was absent on account of illness and a medical certificate was filed on his behalf and time was granted to him till the following day and the accused persons were made to pay Rs. 45‑8‑0 on account of T. A. of the P. Ws. It was argued that one day's time was not sufficient because this accused had to come from his village to Jhenidalt and it would take more than one day to cover the distance. There is no note in the order‑sheet to show that the medical certificate submitted on Ishaque's behalf was not accepted by the Magistrate. On 14‑5‑5), which was the next date, hajira of 14 P. Ws. was filed and all the accused except Ishaque Molla were present. Ishaque Molla was allowed to be represented under section 540‑A of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the lawyer was examined under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on behalf of Ishaque Molla These are the `specific instances referred to by Mr. Rasheed to show that the learned Magistrate is biased against his clients and fair justice cannot be expected in his Court. The learned Advocate for the opposite‑party has submitted that the instances cited are not sufficient for the transferring of the case to some other Court. We, however, hold a different opinion. In these circumstances, the Rules issued are made absolute and both the cases are transferred from the Court of Mr. B. Rahman, Magistrate, 1st class, Jhenidah, to the Court of another Magistrate to be nominated by the District Magistrate. SATTAR, J.‑I agree with my lord the Chief Justice. K. B. A. Rules made absolute