A Magistrate is entitled to keep the accused in the dock during the trial of a case and there must be material to show that the Magistrate acted without good faith in order to establish an offence under Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code.

1. This Rule is directed against an order dated April 2, 1979, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, 24-Pargaans, Alipore, dismissing the complaint of the petitioner under S. 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

2. The complaint was lodged against Sri Shiv Kumar Khanna Special Judicial Magistrate at Sealdah and was based on the following material allegations

3. The complainant who is an Advocate, figured as an accused in Case No. C. 1163 of 1975, filed by his sister which was being tried by the Court, presided over by the accused/opposite party. On April 27, 1978 when Mussammat Jouhara Khatun was being examined in the said Court as a defence witness the petitioner whispered to his advocate to put certain questions, At this the accused displayed great annoyance and asked the Court constable to put the petitioner in the cage, meant for accuted persons, inside the Court room. Pursuant to the said direction, be was immediately put inside the case and was not permitted to be taken out till the cross-examination of Mussammat Jouhara Khatun was over. By filing the complaint the petitioner prayed for process against the accused/opposite party under S. 342 of the Indian Penal Code along with the complaint the order of the State Government sanctioning the prosecution under S. 197(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed.

4. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. 24-Parganas Alipore, took cognizance upon the said complaint and transferred the same to the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, 24-Parganas under S. 192(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The transferee court examined the complainant and a witness produced by him and by the impugned order dismissed the complaint on the ground that the allegations made against the accused/opposite party did not constitute an offence in view of S. 77 of the Indian Penal Code there being no material to show that be acted without any good faith.

5. The petitioner, who appeared in person, submitted that the materials on record prima facie indicate that the accused maliciously put him in the cage meant for prisoner and thereby co-mitted an offence punishable under S. 342 of the Indian Penal Code and the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate erred in observing that there was nothing to show that the accused had any malice against the petition or. In support of his contention the petitioner drew my attention to paragraphs 6 and 8 of the petition of complaint wherein the material allegations have been incorporated. In paragraph 6 it has been stated that the accused was recording the evidence in the case brought by his sister incorrectly which prompted him to file an application for recall of the witness Mussammat Jouhara Khatun. The opposite party refused to entertain the laid application a on returned it saying that the petitioner should call her as a defence witness. The petitioner was compelled to call the self-same witness earlier examined by the prosecution as P.W. 2, as defence witness. In this background the petitioner submitted that the incident that took place on April 27, 1978, which has been detailed in paragraph as has to be considered. the petitioner contended that he was an Advocate of the Court and at the material time when be was put inside the case was on bail. According to the petitioner all these facts and circumstances, together with the manner in which the accused put him in the lock-up while the witness was being examined, leave no manner of doubt that the opposite party acted in bad faith and S. 77 of the Indian Penal Code has no manner of application

6. Mr. Dutt, the learned Advocate appearing for the opposite party submitted that while trying the care against the petitioner, the opposite party was entitled to keep the accused in the dock, more particularly because be felt that the proceedings of the Court was being disturbed and therefore no offence can be said to have been Committed by him under S. 342 of the Indian Penal C