JUDGMENT

Agha Haidar, J. - This is an application for transfer. It came before me on 14th October 1927, and I issued notice on it. I further directed that copies of the application and the affidavit should be sent to the District Magistrate, Kangra at Dharmsala, Mr. Labhu Ram, and also to Mr. Kanwar Bhan and Mr. Disney, Magistrates, in the same district. These officers were directed to submit such explanation as they might think necessary. These explanations came up before me on 11th November 1927. On this date a very unusual document was filed before me by Chaudhuri Shuja-ud-Din, Bar-at-law, Dharmsala, counsel for the applicants. This is an affidavit in connexion with the application for transfer and the declarant, Chaudhri-Shuja-ud-Din, has been appearing apparently as counsel for the applicants. According to the well-recognized practice which prevails wherever members of the English Bar practise, the counsel should never file an affidavit in a case in which he is appearing professionally. The reason is obvious. To begin with, it hampers his freedom of action as an advocate. Besides, he gives up his dignified position of detachment as an advocate and lowers himself to the level of either a pairokar or a witness who has to support the case of a particular party by giving evidence on his behalf. Chaudhri Shuja-ud-Din has not exercised proper judgment as a counsel and he has been, in any case, ill-advised in adopting the course that he did. As to the affidavit itself: it has got no evidentiary value as such because it is not such an affidavit at all which a Court of justice can take into consideration. However, the so-called affidavit of Chaudhri Shuja-ud-Din was placed on the file by me on 11th November 1927. Mr. B.H. Bevan Petman asked for further adjournment with the view of filing an additional affidavit or statement.

2. The case came up before me on 25th November 1927, and it was argued by Mr. Shah Nawaz for the best part of the day. In fact his arguments alone took about three hours. The Crown was represented by the Assistant Legal Remembrancer, Mr. Ram Lal, and naturally he took some time in replying to Mr. Shah Nawaz's arguments. Mr. Ram Lal placed on the record a document which purports to be a letter addressed by Mr. Labhu Ram, District Magistrate, Kangra, to the Government Advocate. I understand that a copy of that letter had also been given to Mr. Shah Nawaz, counsel for the applicants. In any case no objection was taken to this document being placed on the record of the present case, and Mr. Shah Nawaz directed part of his arguments to this document. I regret to say that this document plainly and categorically contradicts the main allegations of Chaudhri Shuja-ud-Din's so-called affidavit. It is a very serious matter if either Chaudhri Shuja-ud-Din's statement is incorrect or the District Magistrate's explanation is erroneous. However, I am satisfied on the explanation submitted by the District Magistrate and Mr. Kanwar Bhan and Mr. Disney that the present application is without force. I do not think that the District Magistrate has conducted himself at any stage in such a way as to create an impression upon the mind of an accused person that the Magistrate was prejudiced against him and that he would not have a fair and impartial trial in his Court. It is true that there has been some bungling during the course of the trial of this case and proceedings have been inordinately protracted, but for this result, I find from an order of Mr. Labhu Ram, dated 15th September 1927, that the applicants are mainly responsible.

3. At the request of Mr. Shah Nawaz at the last hearing I ordered Mr. Abdul Rab, Additional District Magistrate, Kangra, to give his explanation also in case he thought fit to do so. He has done so. It appears from that explanation that there is some feeling among a certain section of the people in the district which on one occasion, at any rate, took the form of a demonstration which ended in a riot. But