JUDGMENT : TUDBALL, J. This is an application for transfer of a Criminal case pending in a Magistrate's Court in the district of Jaunpur, to some other court in another district, for trial. The case in question is based on a complaint made by the opposite party, Munshi Gulab Singh, Prosecuting Inspector of the Jaunpur district, who has charged the applicant with the offence of defamation. This case arose out of another case against Debi Din and others which was sent up for trial in the course of which an application was made to the District Magistrate for transfer of the case from the court of the Deputy Magistrate in which it was pending. A long affidavit has been filed, but the contest has raged chiefly round paragraph 18 thereof. The other reasons for transfer entered in this affidavit have in my opinion no force whatever and have been fully explained by the Magistrate. The main ground of the application is that, on the 21st of April, 1911, when the case against the accused was called on, the complainant, the Prosecuting Inspector of the district, was seated on a chair on the dais next of the Deputy Magistrate and continued to keep this seat after the case was called on and the accused were placed in the dock. This allegation of fact has been clearly and distinctly denied by the Magistrate, by the Prosecuting Inspector, the Reader of the court, the Head Constable of the court and certain other persons, who have filed affidavits in the case. The original affidavit filed on behalf of the applicants has been supported by affidavits filed by one Abdul Rahman, the editor of a vernacular newspaper and by a pleader, Tafazzul Husain, practising in the civil courts at Jaunpur. I can see no reason for accepting the affidavits on behalf of the applicants in the face of a clear denial by the Magistrate and those persons who have filed affidavits on behalf of the other side. Mr. Tafazzul Husain in his affidavit has not explained why he was in the Criminal Court on this occasion, he being a pleader who practises in the civil courts and not in the Magisterial courts. The original affidavit was one by a clerk of the Mukhtar, who is deeply interested in the case. Mr. Tafazzul Husain in his affidavit has not explained why he was in the Criminal Court on this occasion, he being a pleader who practises in the civil courts and not in the Magisterial courts. The original affidavit was one by a clerk of the Mukhtar, who is deeply interested in the case. I can therefore find no reason whatsoever to believe that the applicants will not have a fair and impartial trial in the court of Munshi Ram Ratan Lal, where the case is pending. In the course of the argument on behalf of the applicants it was stated at the bar that it is a common practice in the Magisterial courts for a Prosecuting Inspector to occupy a seat on the dais at the Magistrate's desk when prosecuting cases sent up by the police for trial. This was urged in order to show the probability of the truth of the allegation in paragraph 18 of the affidavit filed by Said-ud-din. If this is correct, in my opinion, the sooner this practice ceases the better. Every Magistrate should be jealous of the good reputation of his court; and rightly or wrongly the fact that the prosecutor is seated on the dais with the Magistrate is almost certain to raise in the mind of the accused a doubt as to the impartiality of the court that is trying him. 2. There is a proper place in every court for those persons who prosecute and defend cases. The proper place for the Prosecuting Inspector is below the dais of the court where the pleader for the defence stands on an equality with him. I trust the practice is not as common as stated. In the present case I am satisfied that the complainant, Munshi Gulab Singh, did not occupy this position. I would point out that directly the case was called on, an application for adjournment was made at once to enable the accused to file the present application. This application is rejected.