JUDGMENT

Jai Lal, J. - Notice was issued in this case on the ground that it was alleged by the petitioners, which allegation was supported by an affidavit of the counsel, who appeared for them before the lower appellate Court, that counsel was not allowed to argue the appellants' case by the Additional District Magistrate. An explanation has been submitted by the Additional District Magistrate from which it appears that proper opportunity was given by the lower appellate Court to the counsel. There may be a difference of opinion as to the sufficiency of the opportunity given between the counsel and the Court, but having regard to the explanation of the Additional District Magistrate, I must hold that there is no substance in the complaint. The lower appellate Court has discussed the evidence produced in support of the prosecution case and agreeing with the trial Court has held the guilt of the petitioners proved. I am unable to arrive at a different conclusion in these proceedings.

2. The petition for revision is, therefore, dismissed The petitioners were released on bail pending the disposal of the petition. They must surrender to their bail and serve out the remaining sentence awarded to them.

3. Though I have accepted as correct the version of the Additional District Magistrate as to what happened in this case, I desire to point out to him that, as appears from his explanation, he holds an opinion about the respective positions of the Bench and the Bar which, to say the least of it, is peculiar; he relies in support of his view upon an extract from some extra-judicial remarks made by a learned Judge of another High Court without regard to the context or the occasion on which it was made. He apparently entertains exaggerated notions as to the alleged tendency of a class of legal practitioners to waste the time of the Courts. The learned Additional District Magistrate must bear in mind that, so long as he is not guilty of unnecessary repetition or of irrelevant arguments a counsel is entitled to present his client's case as he thinks best and it no ground for a Judge to decline to hear him or to cut short his argument merely because he is expected by the superior Courts to turn out a certain amount of work within a fixed time.