JUDGMENT
Bucknill, J.
1. This is an application in criminal revisional jurisdiction. There were five applicants and they urge that the hearing of the charter against them be transferred from the file of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Dinapur to some other Magistrate.
2. The circumstances are very simple. There was trouble between certain persons represented by the accused persons and other persons who brought a complaint against the accused persons. The matter was brought before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on the complaint of the persons who were against the accused persons. Apparently, the com-plaint was received on the 23rd of February and the hearing of the case was fixed for the 23rd of the same month. It is stated that the notice of the hearing was not received by the accused persons until the 25th and that in consequence on the 26th they were not ready to proceed with their case. However, on that date certain witnesses for the prosecution were examined and a charge was framed. The Magistrate appears to have asked the defence whether they desired to cross-examine the witnesses, but the accused were at that time unable to do so, as they had not been able to get legal advice. On that day, however, the Magistrate passed a minute in his record sheet to the effect that Le was of the opinion that the witnesses for the prosecution were terrorized. As a matter of fact, some of them did put in a petition of withdrawal, because they said that they understood that the prosecutor could produce no eye witnesses to the event of which he complained.
3. The accused asked for a short adjournment in order that they might prepare their cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses, bat that the Magistrate refused. He thought that, as the first accused had been a Sub-Inspector of Police, he was apparently apeable at a moment’s notice of preparing his cross examination upon the subject. He thought also that the accused could without difficulty have sailed Pleaders from Dinapur in order to represent them. One of the accused was as a matter of fast absent. The Magistrate thought that the application for adjournment was really made with the object of defeating the ends of justice and, by that, I suppose, he means that he thought that if there was any farther adjournment, there might be more opportunity for the accused to complete the fear, in which he thought that they had put the complainants.
4. The Magistrate enlarged the accused on substantial bail; the first accused Bang Rahadur on bail of Rs. 1,500 and others on Rs. 300 each. The accused then moved the District Magistrate for an order to transfer the case, but the Additional Distrust Magistrate refused the application, apparently on the ground that the Sub-Divisional Officer had said in his explanation that he had promised that the accused should be allowed to re-call the witnesses for the prosecution for cross-examination. Now, it is said that the Sub Divisional Officer has acted with some bias against the accused. I do not know that I can say that in any way. On the other hand, I think he has cated with, what appears to be, some rabidity and it may be, whatever the circumstances of the case are, that the accused have not really had quite a full opportunity of putting forward a defense to the charge, which has been made against them.
5. In the petition which is put; forward by the accused, an attempt has been made to indicate that the affair is tinged with political complications. That should, in no way, affect the matter In this country, as in every other country within the British Empire, people ere entitled to their political views. Whatever they may be, provided that these political views are not expressed in such a manner that they create or tend to create a breach of the peace, no one is entitled to com plain of them. I, therefore, do not attach any great importance to this aspect of the matter. On the other hand, it is desirable that where any question arises, which rotates to an alleged apprehension on the part of persons who are accused of a crime to the effect that they feel, even although they may have no real justification for such feeling, that they are likely to be brought before some one who has already expressed some view (possibly of a premature character or even possibly justified by an immediate impression of their case) not altogether favourable to them, that they should feel themselves satisfied with their trial; and that it should be removed to a sphere where they will be satisfied that they had a trial and hearing entirely satisfactory to their own conscience.
6. For these reasons, therefore, I think that under all the circumstances it will be more satisfactory and certainly facilitate the position if this case is transferred to the file of the District Magistrate of Patna, who may either decide the case himself or transfer it to one of his subordinate Magistrates in Patna.
