( 1 ) THESE two Revision Applications arise out of a peculiar application made by the complainant and a still more peculiar order made by the learned Magistrate on such application. The accused was charged for the offence of defamation in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class Nadiad. It is not necessary to set out the facts leading upto the filing of the complaint against the accused; but it is sufficient to state that the complaint was filed against the accused on the ground that at a meeting which was held by the Commissioner, the accused used a word derogatory of the complainant. The case was fixed for hearing on 16 November 1960 and on that date the evidence of the complainant commenced. After the examination-in-chief of the complainant was concluded the advocate of the accused who is the petitioner before me in Revision Application No. 256 of 1961 started the cross-examination of the complainant. In the course on the cross-examination the advocate of the accused asked certain questions to the complainant. The questions and the answers given by the complainant were as follows:-QUESTION:- Did you make an application to the Collector for disqualifying the accused Jashbhai Motibhai Desai? answer:-I did not make an application to the Collector to disqualify the accused Jashbhai. Question:-You preferred an appeal to the State Government for disqualifying the accused Jashbhai ? Answer:-I did not prefer an appeal to the State Government for disqualifying Jashbhai.

( 2 ) THE advocate of the accused then asked the following question:-QUESTION:-YOU received a reply dated 10-9-1959 from the State Government that the accused herein has not incurred disqualification ?" It appears that the question was asked by the advocate of the accused after referring to his brief. At this stage before the complainant could answer the question the advocate of the complainant stood up and asked the learned Magistrate to immediately take possession of the letter of the State Government referred to in the question from the brief of the advocate of the accused on the ground that it was rather strange that the said letter which should be either in the Municipal records or with the complainant was in the brief of the advocate of the accused. The learned Magistrate asked the advocate of the complainant to make a regular application The advocate of the complainant thereupon made an application Exhibit 8 praying that the learned Magistrate should take possession of the said letter from the brief of the advocate of the accused. It was stated in the application that the advocate of the accused had put the question to the complainant by referring to the said letter in his brief and that since the said letter should ordinarily be either with the Municipality or with the complainant it was a matter of importance as to how the said letter came into the hands of the advocate of the accused. The advocate of the accused in his reply to the application stated that the facts mentioned in the application were absolutely false and that the papers in his brief contained merely instructions between himself and his client and were therefore privileged communications which the Court was not entitled to call upon him to produce and hand over to the Court. The advocate of the accused also pointed out in his reply that he had not shown any letter to the complainant in the course of cross-examination and that he had merely asked the question by mentioning the date of the said letter which according to the accused was received by the complainant from the State Government. A grievance was also made by the advocate of the accused that the advocate of the complainant had stood up and made the application even before the complainant could answer the question put to him by the advocate of the accused. It appears that arguments thereafter took place on the application and at some stage of the arguments the learned Magistrate asked the advocate of the complai