A Magistrate should maintain impartiality and avoid showing irritation or annoyance towards a petitioner, as this could create a reasonable apprehension of bias and unfair trial, necessitating the transfer of the case to another Magistrate.

Kamla Sahai, J.

1. In this case, the petitioner prays for transfer of a criminal case pending against him in the Court of Mr. R. Upadhya a Magistrate with first class powers at Patna,

2. The petitioner has made various allegations in his application. Firstly, it has been stated that the Magistrate was a Supply Officer at Gopalganj, and the petitioners father Bhola Nath Choudhary, was the President of the Railway Mazdoor Federation, North-Eastern Railwaymens Union and All India Consumers Association. It has further been stated that the petitioners father protested with Mr. Upadhya, the learned Magistrate, on several occasions on account of irregularity, etc. In his explanation, the learned Magistrate has stated that he was Supply Officer at Gopalganj in 1945-46, but he asserts that he had never heard the name of Bholanath Choudhary until he became a bailor for his son, the petitioner in this case. Along with a supplementary affidavit, some papers have been filed to show that some resolutions were passed at some meetings against the Supply Officer at Gopalganj. In my opinion, these papers do not show that there are really any troubles between the petitioners father and Mr. Upadhya. I accept Mr. Upadhyas statement of fact, and my conclusion is that the petitioners allegation is incorrect.

3. The petitioner has made another allegation to the effect that the Editor of the "Searchlight" is on inimical terms with his father, and one of the representatives of the paper is a friend of Mr. Upadhya. Mr. Upadhya has denied that any correspondent of the "Searchlight" at Patna is his friend. I accept his denial, and hold that the petitioners allegation in this respect also is incorrect.

4. The petitioner has made various allegations as to what the learned Magistrate did against his interests in the course of the trial. I do not find that any of these allegations is borne out by the record of the case. In fact, it appears to me that most of the allegations are wildly made in order to support a prayer for transfer. It was intimated to the learned Magistrate on behalf of the petitioner on 18-9-1959 that a petition for transfer under Sec. 526 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would be moved. A transfer petition was also shown to him; but it was immediately withdrawn. That shows that the petitioner had no real grievance until that date, and he had also no reasonable apprehension that he would not receive fair trial at the hands of the learned Magistrate. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate heard arguments on several dates. 6-10-1959, was fixed for judgment. On that date, the petitioner was absent and his co-accused, Sultan Jafer was present. A petition was filed on that date before Mr. Upadhya on behalf of the petitioner that he was ill, and had been advised rest in bed for the day. On this ground, prayer was made for postponement of the delivery of judgment. There was no medical certificate with the petition, and, therefore, the Magistrate rightly decided to reject the petition for time. He has recorded an order on the 6th October that the petitioners father promised to produce him at 2 p.m. but, instead of producing the petitioner, he (the petitioners father) filed an application for postponement of the case, in view of the petitioners desire to file an application under Sec. 526 for transfer.

An alleged prescription was attached to the petition; but it appeared to be an outdoor ticket of a hospital without any seal or date. Hence, the Magistrate did not rely upon it. He further held that that was not the stage when the case could be postponed on intimation of the desire to file an application for transfer. He, therefore, rejected the petition for time. He also issued non-bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioner along with processes under Sections 87 and 88. He further directed the bailors to be called upon, to show cause why the bail bonds should not be cancelled and the amounts forfeited to the State. He fixed the next day fo