N.C.Talukdar, J. - (1.) This revisional application is against an order dated the 17th January, 1966 passed by Sri H. G. Roy, the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Malda, in case No. 128 C of 1966 summoning the accused petitioner Sahasrangshu Kanti Acharyya under Section 228 of the Indian Penal Code and in drawing up proceedings against him thereunder.
(2.) The facts of the case are short and ample. On a complaint filed by one Amitava Chattopadhya, the petitioner and the co-accused, one Jnanendra Mohan Misra, were summoned by Sri A. K. Mitra, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Malda in case No. 2325C of 1965--the former under Section 323 Indian Penal Code and the latter under Section 325 Indian Penal Code. The petitioner and the co-accused, thereafter, appeared before Sri H. G. Roy, the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Malda and were released on bail on the 4th December 1965. On the 17th January 1966, which was the next date fixed, the petitioner as well as the co-accused appeared before Sri H. G. Roy, who was pleased to transfer the case to the file of Sri J. C. Kundu, Magistrate, second class, for favour of disposal. On the same date the learned transferee Magistrate. Sri Kundu, received the case by transfer and passed the following order: "Case received by transfer. Accused Jnanendra Mohan Misra and Sahasrangshu Acharyya present, may find fresh bail of Rs. 1000/- each I. D. to hajat". After the case was transferred to the file of Sri Kundu and the accused-petitioner had left the court of the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, he passed the impugned order on the same date, namely, the 17th January 1966. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate found therein that while he was transferring the abovementioned cast from his file to the file of Sri Kundu, the learned transferee Magistrate, and that was a stage in the judicial proceeding, the accused petitioner was found by him to keep on wearing a pair of black glasses and that he did not go to the dock and sat without the permission of the court thereby intentionally offering insult to the said court. He took cognizance of the case and summoned the accused under Section 228 Indian Penal Code. The accused appeared being called by his lawyer and he was asked to show cause why he should not be prosecuted under Section 228 Indian Penal Code and the 25th January 1966 was fixed for appearance of the accused.
(3.) Against this order the accused-petitioner has come up to this court and obtained the present Rule.;