JUDGMENT 1. This was a Rule calling on the District Magistrate of Darbhanga to show cause why the order under sec. 107, Cr. P. C, should not be set aside on the ground mentioned in the petition. There was also a further order that the Magistrate should explain how it was that on receipt of our order of the 19th April staying further proceedings until this application was heard we were given to understand that proceedings continued and warrant was issued against the accused. Now with regard to the first part of the Rule the learned Counsel who appears in support of it states candidly that he does not wish the proceedings to be set aside, but that he wishes to stand on the grounds mentioned in his petition, and to support the prayer in that petition, and that prayer is simply this, that the proceedings pending in the Court of Mr. N. R. Misra, Deputy Magistrate of Darbhanga, should be transferred from the District of Darbhanga to the District of Patna. Now no cause has been shown to us why these proceedings should be transferred from the District of Darbhanga to the District of Patna. As a rule it would not be at all in accordance with our view of our duty to transfer any preventive proceeding from one District to another. It must be an extremely exceptional case that could justify the interference of this Court with the jurisdiction of the Magistrate of the District taking preventive action within his own boundaries and imposing such foreign and extraneous duty on the Magistrate of another District. It would always involve the employment of no less an authority than the District Magistrate himself, for it is impossible for a Subordinate Magistrate in a foreign District to take cognizance of proceedings of the District Magistrate in his District. This would cause the greatest inconvenience and dislocation of judicial work. 2. The only other point, therefore, we have to consider is whether this case should be transferred from the file of Mr. N. R. Misra. Now there is not a word in the petition or in any of the papers prior to the date on which we issued this Rule breathing a hint of anything against the impartiality of Mr. Misra. It is now sought to be argued that since we issued the Rule Mr. N. R. Misra. Now there is not a word in the petition or in any of the papers prior to the date on which we issued this Rule breathing a hint of anything against the impartiality of Mr. Misra. It is now sought to be argued that since we issued the Rule Mr. Misra has been guilty of conduct prejudicial to the Petitioner, inasmuch as the order staying the proceedings having been passed on the 19th April 1912, a telegram was sent by the Petitioner to his Muktear which was laid before the Court by his legal advisers, and Mr. Misra did not entirely stay his hands upon that telegram. He did not however go on with the proceeding which this Court has condemned as an injudicious proceeding though it is a perfectly legal one. The sending of a telegram does not in any way absolve the obligation of the party to appear before the Court on the date fixed. The impression appears to have got abroad that the processes and orders of the Mofussil Courts can be ignored if the parties chance to telegraph to their legal advisers either that an order has been passed by this Court or that they are ill. We must protest against the practice which has become common in this Court to file these petitions of transfer on the last day, when the parties are given a fortnight or three weeks to move. It is the absolute duty of parties to come to us as soon as possible and we shall be in future unable to stay proceedings ordinarily unless sufficient time is given to issue a Rule and obtain an explanation. 3. As regards Mr. Misra's conduct in issuing a warrant when he found that the Petitioner had disobeyed the order to appear and show cause, we may remark that sec. 107 follows the procedure laid down in summons cases, and the law is that if a man does not appear in a summons case warrant may issue. We can find therefore nothing prejudicial in Mr. Misra's conduct throughout this case, and we can have no doubt that the Petitioner will receive fair and most impartial justice at his hands. But there are insinuations in the petition which should never have been made, although they are not allegations on which a prosecution for perjury can be based. The addition of Mr. Misra's conduct throughout this case, and we can have no doubt that the Petitioner will receive fair and most impartial justice at his hands. But there are insinuations in the petition which should never have been made, although they are not allegations on which a prosecution for perjury can be based. The addition of Mr. Vernede's name to the statement of the Government pleader and the doctor made to the Petitioner are undoubtedly insinuations which contain a suggestion false and which are intended to prejudice this Court against Mr. Vernede. Whilst, therefore, we regret that Mr. Vernede should at this stage have suggested a prosecution for perjury we cannot give any effect to the prayers in a petition containing such insinuations. The Rule is discharged. Let the record be sent down at once and let the District authorities be asked to expedite the proceedings as much as possible.