JUDGMENT 1. The proceedings in respect of which the two rules now before us have been issued on applications made (1) by Thakur Pershad Singh and Tirbeni Singh and (2) by Dost Mahammad, and an application has been made by Chamroo Sahoo, are somewhat remarkable. There is a bazar called the Girwana Sonepurma in Mouzah Sonepurma in the District of Palamow. Of this the Government is said to be a 2 annas proprietor in respect apparently of some khas mehal, Thakur Singh, Petitioner, and his brother have a 2 annas share, Tirbeni Singh, Petitioner, has a 2 annas 17 gundas share and Amar Dayal Singh whose estate has been taken over by Government under the Chota Nagpur Encumbered Estates Act, and other co-sharers have the remaining share. The Collector of Palamow as representing the Court of Wards has an interest therefore in certain shares in the bazar. The bazar has been leased to the Petitioner, Chamroo Sahoo, for one year from the 30th September 1905 to the 1st October 1906 on a rental of Rs. 20,000 and apparently a lease setting out the rates at which he was entitled to realise tolls was given to him. 2. On the 3rd December 1905 the Deputy Commissioner of Palamow acting in his capacity of District Magistrate seems to have had Chamroo Sahoo before him and to have taken his lease from him and to have taken down a statement made by him. 3. On the 13th December the same officer appears to have examined Dhanuk Dhari Sahoo and to have taken from him what purported to be a copy of the lease for the current year granted to Chamroo Sahoo and to have also examined Siw Sankar Lall and taken from him what purported to be a copy of the lease granted for the last year. 4. The Petitioner, Dost Mahammad, appears to have been the lessee of the bazar for the last year. 5. The Deputy Commissioner then passed an order that the case should be put up before him on the 18th December with the office copy of the lease granted to Chamroo Sahoo. 6. On the 19th December he has recorded the following order : It appears that no copy has been kept in this office. 5. The Deputy Commissioner then passed an order that the case should be put up before him on the 18th December with the office copy of the lease granted to Chamroo Sahoo. 6. On the 19th December he has recorded the following order : It appears that no copy has been kept in this office. In spite of this, from information received it would appear that there are ample prima facie grounds for believing that an offence under secs. 465 and 468, I.P.C., have been committed by Chamroo Sahoo and that he has been abetted therein by Thakur Singh, Tirbeni Singh and Dost Mahammad, the other actual shareholders in the Girwana bazar. I hereby order that a warrant on a bail of Rs. 1,000 each issue against each of the abovenamed men for their production on the 6th January and that meantime the Sub Inspector file a list of witnesses for the Crown. A search warrant for the production of the bazar chowkidar's book should also be issued. 7. Apparently on the 6th January the Petitioners appeared and their counsel asked the Deputy Commissioner to inquire into the case personally. The Deputy Commissioner refused to do this stating in his order that as the case was now under trial it was impossible for him to do it. 8. Apparently the case against Chamroo Sahoo was that he had made two additions in his lease, adding the Hindi figure 1/4 after 3 seers in the case of the tolls leviable for ghee and grain in two places in the lease. 9. Counsel for the Petitioners is said to have requested the Deputy Commissioner to give them copies of the information on which he had acted in issuing the warrants against them. This however was refused. 10. The Petitioners then applied to this Court and two rules were issued to the Deputy Commissioner to show cause why the proceedings instituted against the Petitioners under secs. 465 and 468 read with sec. 109, I.P.C., should not be quashed on the ground that on the proceedings there appear to be no sufficient reasons to justify such a prosecution, or in the alternative why the case should not be transferred for trial to some other competent Court on the ground that the Deputy Commissioner bad failed to comply with the provisions of sec. 195, Cr. 195, Cr. P.C. The latter section has been incorrectly entered in the written order. The order as passed was sec. 190, sub-sec. 1 (c), Cr. P.C. 11. The error is however immaterial as the Deputy Commissioner has partly dealt with the question so far as that section is concerned. He has explained that the section nowhere lays down that the Magistrate is bound to disclose the sources of his information before the trial begins " the reason doubtless being that the District Magistrate held a position that warranted the presumption that his action was well-judged and warranted." 12. We are unable to agree with the Magistrate that the section relieves him from at least recording the information on which he has acted, though it may not compel him to disclose the sources of that information : and we regret to observe that the tone of his explanation is wanting in respect both to this Court and to himself. 13. It has been laid down by this Court In the matter of Surendra Nath Roy 5. L.R. 274 (1870).and In the mutter of Mohesh Chunder Banerjee 13 W.R.Cr.R. 1 (1870) that the jurisdiction to arrest in cases in which a Magistrate acts on information, such as the Deputy Commissioner appears to have acted on in this case requires for its foundation knowledge of the fact of an offence having been committed, and the Magistrate is bound to disclose the information private or otherwise on which he acts and issues warrants for the arrest of the accused. 14. We are unable to hold that the Deputy Commissioner was justified in law in refusing that information to the Petitioners. 15. There appears, however, to us to be a more serious defect in the proceedings than this to which we have referred. 16. In this case the Deputy Commissioner as Collector and as such representing the Court of Wards which is part proprietor in the bazar and in that capacity being a party to the lease granted to Chamroo Sahoo, was directly interested in the prosecution. There is nothing on the record to show that the information, whatever it may have been, which he received was not lodged to him as Collector, and if that were so, it was not open to him as Magistrate to act on that information and to proceed to issue warrants against the Petitioners. There is nothing on the record to show that the information, whatever it may have been, which he received was not lodged to him as Collector, and if that were so, it was not open to him as Magistrate to act on that information and to proceed to issue warrants against the Petitioners. Practically by such action he is making himself a Judge in his own case, for the case seems to be that he with the other co-proprietors granted a lease on certain terms to Chamroo Sahoo and that Chamroo has tampered with that lease. 17. On that ground alone we are of opinion that the present proceedings are bad in law. 18. Further it seems that the Petitioners, Thakur Pershad and Tirbeni Singh, are joint proprietors in the bazar and joined with the Collector and others in granting the lease. Stronger evidence than that on the record before us was required before a criminal prosecution against them under sec. 465 or 468, I.P.C., read with sec 109,1. P.C., could be instituted. As regards the Petitioner, Dost Mahammad, the last year's lease, there is absolutely no evidence on the record to justify the proceedings against him. 19. Under the above circumstances we are of opinion that the two rules must be made absolute and that the proceedings as instituted by the Deputy Commissioner must be quashed, so far as they affect the Petitioners in those rules and the applicant, Chamroo Sahoo. If the Deputy Commissioner as representing the Court of Wards desires to proceed with a prosecution against any of these persons he should follow the ordinary procedure and should have a proper complaint lodged stating the information and grounds upon which it is desired to proceed and this may be filed on his behalf either by the Government pleader or by some officer subordinate to him as Collector and we are of opinion that having regard to the position which the Deputy Commissioner holds with reference to the lessee Chamroo and the interest which as representative of the Court of Wards he has in the prosecution, the case should be entertained and tried by some other Magistrate.