ORDER

Sinha, J. - This is an application for transfer of a criminal case. On a complaint made by one Jiwan Lal, a case under S. 323, Penal Code, was started against Bhajan Lal, his uncle, Neksa Ram, his mother, Mst. Har Piari and his aunt, also named Har Piari. The charge against them was that, while the two ladies held him by force, the two male accused beat him. The complaint was moved before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Atrauli and the case was transferred, thereafter, to the Court of Khan Bahadur Sheikh Mohammad Yunnus, an Honorary Magistrate. Evidence under S. 202, Criminal P.C. was recorded on 4th December 1945, and summonses were issued returnable on 17th December 1945. The case was taken up on the latter date, but, although the summonses had not returned after due service, Bhajan Lal and Neksa Ram, according to the affidavit of the former, were present in Court. They were directed to appear on 2nd January 1946. The order passed on this date is in these terms :

Case taken up. The complainant present. The accused absent :

Ordered, Let non-bailable warrants issue for the accused for their appearance on 2nd January 1946. ...

2. On 22nd January 1946, an application was presented on behalf of the two ladies for their exemption under S. 205, Criminal P.C. On that date, the affidavit continues, Bhajan Lal and Neksa Ram were present, although the warrants remained unserved and an application was again made on behalf of the ladies for their exemption from personal attendance in Court. On this date this application was rejected by the learned Magistrate and 14th January was the next date fixed. A prayer under S. 205 was renewed on that day and was granted by the learned Magistrate, on 16th January 1946. Curiously enough, Bhajan Lal proceeds to say, on 5th February 1946, non-bailable warrants were again issued against the two ladies, although there was in existence an order of 16th January 1946, by which the prayer had been granted. These are, in brief, the allegations in support of the application for transfer and the real reason which has been assigned is that two lawyers, Mr. Abdul Ghaffar Khan and Mr. Mohammad Muqim Ansari, were engaged on behalf of the complainant on 2nd January 1946, and it was due to their influence that the Magistrate passed the order adverse to the accused. The learned Magistrate has submitted a long and careful explanation. He has naturally denied the charge that the two lawyers were his favourites and were responsible for the order passed either on that date or on subsequent dates. He has definitely said in his explanation that the accused were not present on 17th December 1945, and he has also made it clear that the non-bailable warrants for the arrest of the ladies were actually not issued and, although an order to that effect was passed, it was necessary because they had consistently flouted the Court.

3. I have carefully considered the allegations the affidavit and also the explanation. I am satisfied that the accused have not made out any case against the integrity and fairmindedness of the learned Magistrate concerned. It may be that the two lawyers engaged by the complainant on 2nd January were friends of the learned Magistrate; in & big town like Aligarh it is not surprising if a particular official, especially an Honorary Magistrate who belongs to the town is a friend of a particular member of the Bar but that cannot, by any means, justify an inference against the integrity of the Magistrate or of the lawyers concerned. I also do not believe that the Magistrate was even guilty of excess of zeal, let alone an act of indiscretion in the orders which he passed. But on a consideration of all the facts, I have come to the conclusion that there may be a reasonable apprehension in the minds of the accused that they shall not have justice at his hands. In order to [arrive at a conclusion, whether an apprehension is reasonable or unreasonable, it is not possible to weigh the thing in golden scales inasmu