Judgment

VAIDIALINGAM, J.: The accused in this appeal, by special leave, challenges the common order dated December 16, 1968 passed by the Patna High Court dismissing Criminal Revision Nos. 345 and 346 of 1968 and the connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petition Nos. 248 and 249 of 1968. The Criminal Revisions and the Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions were all directed against the orders passed by the criminal courts directing that the appellant should stand his trial for offences under Ss. 167, 466 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter called the Penal Code).

2. The facts giving rise to the Criminal Revisions and the Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions may be stated : In 1963 the appellant was posted at Patna as Magistrate, Ist Class with special powers to try Bad Livelihood Cases (which are called B. L. Cases) under S. 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called the Code). In September, 1963, two B. L. Cases Nos. 4 and 5 of 1963 had been started against Kailash Gope and Ramprit Gope and others respectively. Those cases were transferred to the file of the appellant for disposal. At the time of the transfer of cases, the accused persons had already been enlarged on bail. But the appellant claims to have noticed some defects in the bail bonds furnished by those persons. He gave directions that the defects the bail bonds should be rectified. On the parties failing to rectify the defects, the appellant cancelled the bail bonds and remanded them to jail custody. The parties against whom the B. L. Cases had been started, filed two applications before the District Magistrate. Patna for transferring their cases from the file of the court of the appellant to the file of another Magistrate on the grant that they seriously apprehended that they will not get justice at his hands. After coming to know of the filing of the transfer applications, the appellant recorded two orders on the order sheets of cases Nos. 4 and 5 making very serious allegations against the District Magistrate before whom the transfer applications were pending to the effect that the latter was attempting to interfere with the course of justice in the proceedings connected with the cases Nos. 4 and 5. The appellant is alleged to have inserted these two orders in the order sheets of the two cases long after the last orders were passed in those cases to make it appear that the remarks against the District Magistrate had been made much earlier. The District Magistrate called for a report from the appellant and he sent the records of the proceedings to the District Magistrate with his report. In his report he had also stated that the matter is of great importance and the entire case and the order sheets should be kept intact for favour of any action that the High Court may consider fit and proper.

3. In view of the allegations made by the appellant against the District Magistrate mentioned in the order sheets, the latter transferred the transfer applications to the file of the Additional District Magistrate on November 11, 1963. The Additional District Magistrate after hearing the parties transferred both the cases from the file of the appellant to another Magistrate and sent a report to the District Magistrate for initiation of proceedings against the appellant for having committed forgery in the order sheets in both the B. L. Cases. The report of the District Magistrate was forwarded to the State Government, who accorded sanction for prosecuting the appellant. The Senior District Prosecutor, Patna filed on December 21, 1964 a complaint in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Patna Sadar against the appellant. In the complaint it was alleged that the appellant has committed offences under Ss. 167, 465, 466 and 471 of the Penal Code. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate after taking cognizance of the offences alleged to have been committed by the appellant, transferred the cases to the file of the Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna, initiating two commitment proceed