JUDGMENT 1. In this case it appears that one Birendra Nath Das Gupta, the Petitioner before us, was examined as a witness in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Narail on the prosecution of one Rasiklali Das-Gupta and others on charges relating to the death of the Petitioner's father Parbati Nath Das-Gupta. The accused in that case were committed to take their trial before the Court of the Sessions Judge. While the case was still pending in the Court of Session the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Narail directed the prosecution of the Petitioner under sec 193, I. P. C., with reference to a certain statement made by him in the course of his deposition. These statements refer to the first information which he had lodged before the Police in the case and in them he alleged that the Sub-Inspector who took his first information recorded it incorrectly. He there upon moved this Court and obtained the present Rule calling upon the District Magistrate of Jessore to show cause why the order directing his prosecution should not be set aside. We granted the Rule mainly on the ground that the case in which he had deposed was still pending in the Sessions Court. No one appears to show cause, but the District Magistrate has submitted an explanation in which he says that the point at issue, namely, whether the substance of the information has been correctly recorded by the Sub-Inspector is comparatively so little connected with the charge of causing death now before the Court of Session that it is unnecessary to await the result of the trial. We are unable to take this view. It is clear that the question whether the first information in the case has been correctly recorded is necessarily one of great importance at the trial and in any case the impropriety of taking proceedings against a witness while the case is still pending cannot be too strongly insisted upon. For these reasons we make the Rule absolute and set aside the order directing the prosecution of the Petitioner. If he repeated the statements alleged to be false before the Sessions Judge it will be for the Sessions Judge to consider whether or no his prosecution is advisable. 2. For these reasons we make the Rule absolute and set aside the order directing the prosecution of the Petitioner. If he repeated the statements alleged to be false before the Sessions Judge it will be for the Sessions Judge to consider whether or no his prosecution is advisable. 2. In conclusion we have further to observe with regret that in his explanation in dealing with the 6th ground set out in the Petitioner's application the District Magistrate has used language of unnecessary and unbecoming violence, and that his aspersions on the legal advisers of the Petitioner, obviously made on no material, are highly improper. We trust that we shall have no occasion to repeat this censure.