K.Sahai, J. - (1.)The petitioner has been convicted under Section 228 of the Penal Code, and has been sentenced to pay fine of R.s. 200.00 or, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month.
(2.)Mr. Ojha, a Judicial Magistrate at Jamui, was pronouncing judgment in a case just alter he sat in Court. Shri Tarni Prasad Mandal, an Advocate, appeared and started addressing the Magistrate on the subject of letter No. 672/7-3, dated 30/1/1959. sent by the District and Sessions Judge of Monghyr to Munsifs and Judicial Magistrates at Jamui, saying that certain persons were alleged to be touts and asking them to prevent those persons from doing pairvi in the premises of the Courts at Jamui. In the meantime, two lawyers pointed out the petitioner to the Magistrate, saying that he was one of the men named in the District and Sessions Judge's letter. What happened thereafter may be put in the words of the Magistrate himself:
"This gentleman (referring to the petitioner) was asked to quit the Court but he insisted on staying. He was warned that, if he would not quit the Court, action for its contempt would be taken. Even then he insisted on staying".

(3.)It is perfectly clear that the learned Magistrate was sitting in court and was doing judicial work at the time when the petitioner is alleged to have committed the offence. This has not been challenged; but the first point which Mr. Awadhesh Nandan Sahay has urged on behalf of the petitioner is that the Magistrate misunderstood the letter of the District and Sessions Judge. According to him, all that was required under that letter was to prevent persons named in it from doing pairvi and not to exclude them from being present in the court rooms altogether. He has submitted that the court room is a place where members of the public are entitled to have free access, and that the learned Magistrate passed an improper order when, he directed the petitioner to leave the Court. In my opinion, however, the learned Magistrate's action was perfectly justified. He could not possibly keep his eyes upon the petitioner all the time while he was in the room so as to stop him just when he was doing any pairvi. The best method of carrying out the instruction of the District and Sessions Judge was to exclude persons named in his letter from being present, in the Court room. He had power under Section 352 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to order, if he thought fit that a particular person shall not remain in the room. In view of the statement of two lawyers made before him, he was of opinion that the petitioner was one of those named in the letter. I am satisfied, therefore, that his order to the petitioner to leave the Court was quite proper.