P (PLP)

"Seen the order of the learned District Magistrate: Accused Jagat Bepari may appear on 16th November 1948, on a bail of Rs. 300". As is not unusual in cases under section 406, Penal Code, the petitioners moved the Sessions judge to have the proceedings against them quashed. It appears that one of them, Jagat Behari was acting on behalf of the others. The learned Sessions judge on 11th December 1948, passed an order declining to make a reference to this Court and directing that the petitioner was to remain on bail as before as granted by the District Magistrate. In spite of this order, on 15th January 1949, when the accused again appeared before Mr. Muttalib, the Sub‑divisional Magistrate, he stepped up the bail from Rs. 300 to Rs. 5,000, and called upon the accused to find bail to that amount. At first the learned Magistrate showed cause in a written petition in which he argued with sophistic equivocation, unworthy of one in his position, that the words "on bail as before" did not mean "on the same amount of bail as before" and so be was justified in enhancing the bail from Rs. 300 to Rs. 5,

000. Sub sequently, better thoughts prevailed and the learned Magistrate admitted his error and tendered an unconditional apology. The next case is the case of Mr. R. A. Khan, Lawyer Magistrate of Gaibandha. The case in which he is concerned is G. R. Case No. 827 of 1948 pending in this Court. The accused in that case one Khichiruddin was before the S. D. O. Mr. Muttalib in custody on 12th December 1948. A bail petition was moved and the learned Sub‑divisional Magistrate directed that pending a further report from the investigating officer the accused could be released on bail of Rs.

100. On the next date, 15th December 1948 a charge-sheet was received against Khichiruddin under section 379, Penal Code, and Mr. Muttalib transferred the case to Mr. R. A. Khan, Lawyer Magistrate for disposal. When the case went before this Magistrate, he was obvi ously firmly of opinion that the accused should not be allowed bail, rejected a petition asking for him to be enlarged on bail and sent him to hajat. The Magistrate was clearly annoyed when the accused went to the Sessions judge and obtained from the Sessions judge an order releasing him on bail on certain conditions. The Magistrate's irritation is to be seen in his order of 6th June 1949, in which he comments on the fact that accused was a pick‑pocket having a previous conviction, and that though his Court did not grant bail to the accused, the learned Sessions judge had granted bail. The learned Magistrate would do well in his orders to avoid any criticism, either express or implied, of his, superior Court. This, however, is not the worst. The accused once more moved the learned Sessions judge and obtained from the Sessions judge, on 2nd July 1949, an order upsetting the order of the Magistrate cancelling bail. The order of the learned Sessions judge is in the following language: "I do not consider in the circumstances stated that the bail should be cancelled. The petitioner will continue on the same bail as before". This order is dated 2nd July 1949. Two days later when the case came up before Mr. R. A. Khan again, he recorded the "Seen the order of the learned Court of Session. The accused will continue on the same bail as before. The accused, therefore, may find a fresh bail bond of the same amount and nature as before‑in default to hajat to the date fixed". It only needs to be added that the fresh bail bond was at first rejected on the ground that the surety was unfit, and the Magistrate told the Court Sub‑Inspector to take necessary steps move the Sessions judge to have the bail cancelled. Mr. R. A. Khan submitted an explanation of his conduct. After matching the petitioner in his offensive irrelevancies, the Magistrate argues on his own behalf that the words "in the same bail as before" do not mean "on the same bail bond as before," and, therefore, he was entitled to demand, and if he thought fit to reject another bail bond. We can only describe this argument as a piece of pettifogging chicanery unworthy of any Magistrate. Mr. Khan had subsequently second and better thoughts and submitted an unqualified apology. In these circumstances we accept the apologies and discharge the rules with an expression of our grave disapproval of the conduct of the two Magistrates concerned. We trust that in future these Magistrates will loyally carry out the orders of their superior Court and not seek either to avoid or circumvent them. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the Chief Secretary to the Government of East Bengal with the observation that in our opinion it is undesirable that the two Magistrates concerned shall remain in the same district as the Sessions judge whose orders they have flouted. ' ISPAHANI J.‑

I agree. K. M. A. Rules discharged.