Structured Summary of the Provided Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

This is an application for transfer of a criminal case arising from a complaint by Jiwan Lal under Section 323, Penal Code, against Bhajan Lal (his uncle), Neksa Earn (his mother), Mst. Har Piari and another Har Piari (his aunt). The complaint was presented before the Sub‑Divisional Magistrate of Atrauli and the matter was subsequently transferred to the Court of Khan Bahadur Sheikh Mohammad Yunnus, an Honorary Magistrate.

Evidence under Section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code was recorded on 4 December 1945 and summonses were issued returnable on 17 December 1945. On 17 December the case was taken up; although the summonses had not returned after due service, Bhajan Lal and Neksa Ram (as stated in the affidavit) were reportedly present in Court. They were directed to appear on 2 January 1946. An order dated 2 January 1946 recorded the case as taken up, the complainant present and the accused absent, and directed issuance of non‑bailable warrants for the accused's appearance on 2 January 1946.

On 22 January 1946 an application was presented on behalf of the two women accused for exemption from personal attendance under Section 205 CrPC. The affidavit alleges a sequence of dates and orders (including a grant of the S.205 prayer on 16 January 1946 and, despite that, alleged issuance of non‑bailable warrants against the two women on 5 February 1946). The applicants contend that two lawyers, Mr. Abdul Ghaffar Khan and Mr. Mohammad Muqim Ansari, engaged for the complainant on 2 January 1946, influenced the Magistrate and were responsible for orders adverse to the accused.

The learned Magistrate submitted a detailed explanation denying favoritism or improper conduct. He stated that the accused were not present on 17 December 1945 and asserted that non‑bailable warrants for the arrest of the women were not actually issued (and that any order in that direction was justified by the women's conduct, described as consistently flouting the Court).

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the accused have established a valid basis to impugn the integrity or fair‑mindedness of the learned Magistrate (i.e., whether the allegations of partiality or undue influence by the complainant's lawyers are substantiated).
2. Whether there exists a reasonable apprehension of bias such that the criminal case should be transferred from the learned Magistrate to another Magistrate.
3. Whether the learned Magistrate's treatment of applications under Section 205 CrPC (exemption from personal attendance) was such as to justify transfer in order to secure the appearance of justice.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicants' (Accused) Arguments

• The accused filed an affidavit alleging that two lawyers engaged by the complainant on 2 January 1946 (Mr. Abdul Ghaffar Khan and Mr. Mohammad Muqim Ansari) were influential friends of the learned Magistrate and that their influence accounted for orders adverse to the accused.
• The affidavit alleges inconsistent conduct by the Magistrate regarding summonses, the dates on which accused were present or absent, and the handling of applications under Section 205 CrPC, including an allegation that non‑bailable warrants were issued against the two women despite an order granting exemption dated 16 January 1946.
• On this factual basis the accused sought transfer, asserting a reasonable apprehension that they would not receive justice from the learned Magistrate.

Learned Magistrate's Explanation

• The Magistrate denied favoritism or being unduly influenced by the two named lawyers and denied that they were his favourites.
• He maintained that the accused were not present on 17 December 1945 and explained the steps he took; he also stated that the non‑bailable warrants alleged to have been issued against the two women were in fact not issued, and that any order in that direction was necessitated by their conduct in flouting the Court.
• He provided a long and careful explanation, asserting the propriety of his actions and denying that undue influence or improper motive governed his orders.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Raj Rajeshwari Debi v. Emperor, 17 CWN 12481	Emphasising the importance of giving effect to the rule of law contained in Section 205 CrPC (exemption from personal attendance for certain women).	The court noted this precedent to support the proposition that the principle in S.205 is salutary and its reluctance to be given full effect may generate reasonable apprehension in the minds of accused, contributing to a ground for transfer.
Mt. Tirbeni…Applicant; v. Mt. Bhagwati…Opposite Party, A.I.R. 1927 All 1492	Also cited for the importance of the S.205 CrPC principle (exemption of certain women from personal attendance in Court).	The court relied on this authority alongside Raj Rajeshwari Debi to underline that reluctance to give full effect to S.205 could reasonably create apprehension of unfair treatment.
Vassiliades v. Vassiliades, 1945 A.L.J. 343; A.I.R. 1945 P.C. 38 (40)	The principle that "justice should not merely be done but should appear to be done" and that judges' patience sometimes giving way can be regrettable and relevant to perceptions of fairness.	The court invoked this principle to justify transfer when a reasonable apprehension of bias or unfairness arises — stressing that the appearance of justice is a vital component of public policy and that perceived loss of judicial even‑handedness supports transfer to preserve confidence.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court undertook a twofold assessment: (a) whether the affidavit and accompanying allegations established actual misconduct or lack of integrity on the part of the learned Magistrate; and (b) whether, even in the absence of a proven lack of integrity, there existed a reasonable apprehension in the minds of the accused that they would not receive fair treatment.

On the first limb, the court examined the Magistrate's detailed explanation and found no sufficient material to impugn his integrity or to conclude he had acted from improper motive. The court expressly stated it was satisfied that the accused had not made out a case against the Magistrate's integrity or fair‑mindedness.

On the second limb, the court focused on perception and the effect of the Magistrate's conduct on the accused's confidence in receiving justice. The court observed that:

• Personal friendships between a Magistrate and members of the Bar (in a town) are not, by themselves, grounds for inferring partiality.
• However, the Magistrate's apparent reluctance to give full effect to the principle in Section 205 CrPC (exemption of certain women from personal attendance) could reasonably generate apprehension that the accused would not get a fair hearing. The court underlined that S.205 vests discretion in the Magistrate but the issue before the court was whether the Magistrate's attitude might create a genuine apprehension of unfairness.
• The court applied established authorities emphasising that justice must not only be done but also appear to be done; thus, even absent proven bias, the appearance of potential unfairness warranted remedial action to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice.

Balancing these considerations, the court concluded that, while there was no demonstrable lack of integrity, there existed a reasonable apprehension in the minds of the accused that they might not obtain justice before the learned Magistrate. On that basis, the court found transfer appropriate to remove the appearance of possible unfairness.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The court ordered that the criminal case be transferred from the Court of Khan Bahadur Sheikh Mohammad Yunnus to another Magistrate. The court directed the learned District Magistrate to effect the transfer.

Implications:

• The direct effect is that the pending criminal proceedings shall be removed from the file of the named Honorary Magistrate and placed before a different Magistrate for further prosecution and adjudication.
• The court expressly did not find or record proven lack of integrity on the part of the learned Magistrate; rather, the transfer was ordered to allay a reasonable apprehension of unfairness and to preserve the appearance of justice.
• The opinion does not purport to establish a new legal principle; it applies existing principles (including the salutary nature of S.205 CrPC and the maxim that justice must appear to be done) to the facts of this application and orders transfer as the appropriate remedial step in the circumstances.

Order entry: The opinion concludes with an instruction that the learned District Magistrate shall transfer the case to the file of some other Magistrate and with the administrative notation "Order accordingly."